^, 
 
 ^^'^> 
 
 .o.X^^^.% 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^ 
 '% 
 
 // 
 
 ^sss^ 'fs ^ /^ 
 
 /- 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 %' 
 
 1.0 !f i- IIM 
 
 I.I 
 
 lii IF 
 
 1^ 
 
 12.0 
 
 6" 
 
 1.8 
 
 11.25 1 1.4 i 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 m 
 
 / 
 
 
 7 
 
 //, 
 
 HiotDgraphic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. US80 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
,.^' 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^<p 
 
 ^ M^. 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 r\^^ 
 
 \ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 j I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que b'eue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 r~7i Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 11 se peut q. ^ csrtaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restau a'Jon apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque ce .:;■ 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas dt6 filnides. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la methods normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Q' 
 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restcsd and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 rages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 ^^ages ddcolordes, tachet6es ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 r~~U Showthrough/ 
 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du matdriel suppl^mentaire 
 
 Only edition avetilable/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 r~^ Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I I Only edition avetilable/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 fitmdes d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 Tl 
 tc 
 
 Tl 
 
 P< 
 oi 
 fil 
 
 O 
 
 b( 
 
 t^ 
 
 si 
 ol 
 fil 
 si 
 
 oi 
 
 Tl 
 si 
 
 Tl 
 w 
 
 M 
 di 
 ei 
 bi 
 
 "! 
 re 
 m 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 U{ 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 n 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Yoric University 
 Law Library 
 
 L'exempiaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Yoric University 
 Law Library 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de Texemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ► signif ie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
3. ^3f 
 
 T] 
 
 %\lt ^1 
 
 ®lte Su 
 
 45-46 QUERN'S BE: 
 1-19 ONTARIO RF 
 8-17 SUPREME C( 
 
 A TABLE OF 
 
 ComiJUctl 
 
 JAM 
 
 ONE 
 
 <;ONTAINING A ] 
 C 
 
3.H.^f A DIGEST ^^ 
 
 THE REPORTED GA^l;.^ ig, 
 
 ■ .- 1 
 
 rLni; ■-•■'^- 
 
 iH 
 
 
 ;' 
 
 
 UETEKMINED IN 
 
 %]u ^ttpti'ior (!Jaui'ts af #tt4atio 
 
 AND 
 
 ®lte gupvemc and OFxeljqucr €mxU oi (IDanada, v 
 
 CONTAINED IN VOLUMES 
 
 45-46 QUERN'S BEXCH. 31-32 COMMON PLEAS. 27-29 CHANCERY. 
 
 1-19 ONTARIO REl'ORTS. 5-17 APPEAL REPORTS. 8-13 PRACTICE REPORTS. 
 
 8-17 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. HODGINS' ELECTION CASES. 1 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 WITH 
 A TABLE OF CASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, OR SPECIALLY CONSIDERED. 
 
 cromiJiktl toil mitK of the %m ^mtUj tft dipper (Sanatla, 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES F. SMITH, Esq., 
 
 F. J. JOSEPH, Esq., 
 
 AND 
 
 ONE OF HER majesty's COUNSEL, OF OSOOODE HALL, BAKRISTEE-AT-LAW. 
 
 TOOEIHER WITH 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 V 
 
 ■- M 
 
 tlONTAININCl A DRIEST OF CASES REPORTED IX VOLS. 1 TO 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S 
 CASES ON THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 18C7, 
 
 ]!Y 
 
 JOHN R. CART WRIGHT, Esq, 
 
 ONE OK IIEK MA.JE.STV'S COUNSEL. 
 
 TORONTO : 
 ROWSKLL fi HUTCHISON. 
 
 1892. 
 
BOWSELL AND HUTCHISON, PKINTKIW, TORONTO. 
 
 / 
 
 Entered according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, by The Law Society of Upper Canada, 
 in the ofttce of the Minister of Agriculture. ^ 
 
 T ,^3 
 
 J/^N13^''^'^ 
 
 This vol 
 reports, and 
 ( /anada and 
 -any relation 
 Jige.st. 
 
 The arra 
 •as possible, b 
 Cross referen( 
 that they ha 
 referred to a 
 iieading. 
 
 In the ap 
 contained in i 
 North Ameri( 
 
 
 6'--^ 
 
 The comj 
 •Q. C, and Tl 
 Titles "Plead 
 iBarrister, for 
 To Mr. Dymo 
 Titles "Waivi 
 "Table of Gas 
 
 OSGOODE HALI 
 
 Aprd, 1892. 
 
/ 
 
 ' i 
 
 if 
 
 'I 
 
 I . n V 
 
 REFACE. 
 
 This volume contains the cases published in the Law Society's 
 reports, and such of the reported cases in the Supreme Court of 
 ( /anada and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as have 
 •any relation to the law of Ontario, subsequent to Robinson & Joseph's 
 
 Jigest. 
 
 The arrangement of the former Digest has been followed as closely 
 as possible, being the one with which the professioi: are most familiar. 
 Cross i-eferences to cases have been made where it has been considered 
 that they have any beai'ing on the subject treated of. Each case 
 referred to as a cross reference will be found under its appropriate 
 Jieading. 
 
 In the appendix will be found a complete digest of all the decisions 
 contained in the first four volumes of Cartwright's Cases on the British 
 North America Act. 
 
 The compilers desire to express their thanks to A. H. Marsh, Esq., 
 Q. C, and Thoinas Langton, Esq., Q. C, for their supervision of the 
 Titles "Pleading" and "Practice," and to Allan M. Dymond, Esq., 
 Barrister, for many valuable suggestions in the preparation of the work. 
 To Mr. Dymond they are further indebted for the arrangement of the 
 Titles "Waiver," "Words and Terms," the "Table of Cases," and the 
 " Table of Cases Affirmed, Reversed or Specially Considered." 
 
 OSGOODE HALL, 
 
 April, 1892. 
 
 J. F. S. 
 F. J. J. 
 
 ■ I i 
 
 \^^. 
 
'\>^'>,^ 
 
 A.) 
 
 OF TIIF. 
 
 SUPRKMI^] AND EXCHEQUER COURTS OF CANADA 
 
 AND 0" THE 
 
 SUPERIOR COURTS OF ONTARIO 
 
 DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS DIGEST, 
 
 ! ^1 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICE. ' > 
 
 Hon. Sir William Johnstone Ritchie, Knt. Appointed 11th of January, 1879: 
 
 JUDGES. 
 Hon. Samuel Henry Strong Appointed 8th of October, 1875. 
 
 Hon. T^l^sphore Fournier 
 
 Hon. William Alexander Henry .... 
 
 Hon Henri Elzear Taschereau 
 
 Hon. John Wellington Gwynne .... 
 Hon. Christopher Salmon Patterson. 
 
 8th of October, 1875. 
 
 8th of October, 1875.. 
 
 7th of October, 1878. 
 14th of January, 1879. 
 27th of October, 1888. 
 
 Mvttim €mm of Ontario mA ik ^wpmt (jJoutt ot %nA\aimK 
 
 Court of Appeal for Ontario. 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICES (a). 
 
 Hon. Thomas Moss Appointed 30th of Novemuc., 1877. 
 
 Hon. John Godfrey Spragge « 2nd of Mav 1881. 
 
 Hon. John Hawkins Haoarty «' 6th of May, 1884. 
 
 (o) The Chief Justice of Appeal is styled " Chief Justice of Ontario. »-R. S. 0. (1887) c. 44, .\ & 
 
JUDGES. 
 
 Hon. George William Burton Appointed SOtli of May, 1874. 
 
 Hon. Ch^istop/ier Salmon i'atterson.. " GthofJune, 1874. 
 
 Hon. JosEPii Curran Morrison " 30th of November, 1877. 
 
 Hon. Feathekston Osleb " 17th of November, 1883. 
 
 If ON. James M \clennan " 27th of October, 1888. 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench, and Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICES AND PEESIDENTS. 
 
 Hon. John Hawkins Hagarty Appointed 13th of Novembei-, 1878. 
 
 Hon. Sib Aoam Wilson, Knt " 6th of May, 1884. 
 
 Hon. John Douglas Armour " 15tli of November, 1887. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 Hon. John Touglas Armour Appointed 30tii of November, 1877. 
 
 Hon. Sib Matthew Crooks Cameron, Knt. " 15th of November, 1878. 
 
 Hon. John O'Connor " 11th of September, 1884. 
 
 Hon. William Glenholme Falconbridge " 21st of November, 1887. 
 
 Hon. William Purvis Rochfobt Street " 30th of November, 1887. 
 
 Court of Common Picas, and Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice. 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICES AND PRESIDENTS. 
 
 Hon. Sib Adam Wilson, Knt. (a) .... Appointed 1 3th of November, 1878. 
 Hon. Sib Matthew Cbooks Camebon, Knt. " 13th of May, 1884. 
 
 Hon. Sib Thomas Galt, Knt " 7th of November, 1887. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 Hon. Sir Thomas Galt, Knt Appointed 7th of June, 1869. 
 
 Hon. Featherston Osleb " 5th of March, 1879. 
 
 Hon. John Edward Kose " 4th of December, 1883. 
 
 Hon. Hugh MacMahon " 30th of November, 1887. 
 
 (a) The Hon. Sir Adam Wilson, Knt., was first appointed a Puisne Judge of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench 11th of May, 1863. The date of this appointment is omitted in B. & J. Digest. 
 
 I 
 
Court of Chancery, and Chancery Division of the High Court at Justice. 
 
 CHANCELLORS AND PRESIDENTS. 
 
 Hon, John Godpuey Spraohe Appointed 27th of December, 18C9. 
 
 Hon. John Alexandke Boyd " 3rd of May, 1881. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 Hon. Samuel Hume Blake Appointed 2nd of December, 1872. 
 
 Hon. William Pboudpoot " 30th of May, 1874. 
 
 Hon. Thomas Feuguson " 24th of May, 1881. 
 
 Hon. Thomas Robertson " llth of February, 1887. 
 
 Hon. llicHAHD Martin Meredith " 1st of October, 1890. 
 
 ■ I ►-■• ; i ^ ■ I i . , •,'/ til' I '" : : 1 ^ i 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 Kenneth McKenzie, Esq., Q.C Appointed 12th of July, 1877. 
 
 John Botd, Esq., Q.C " 28th of March, 1883. 
 
 .) osEPH Easton McDougall, Esq., Q.C . . " 1 7th of September, 1885. 
 
 OK , ,■,■■. 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. 
 
 Robert Gladstone Dalton, Esq., Q.C. . . Appointed Clerk of the Crown and Plea. 
 
 .of the Court of Queen's Bench, 21st of 
 February, 1870 j appointed Master in 
 ™ \„ Chambers, 23rd of August, 1881. 
 
 Thomas Wardlaw Taylor, Esq., Q.C. .. Appointed Master in Ordinary, 16th of 
 
 December, 1872. 
 RICHARD Porter Stephens, Esq Appointed Referee in Chp rubers Ist April, 
 
 Thomas Hodgins, Esq, Q.C Appointed Master in Ordinar;^ of the Su- 
 preme Court of Judicature for Ontario, 
 
 , ~ 10th of January, 1883. 
 
 JOHN Winchester, Esq Appointed Registrar of the Queen's Bench 
 
 Division 28th October, 1882, and 
 Official Referee of the High Court 
 22nd of March, 1884. 
 
iHl ./V ''< 
 
 THE DOMINION OF CANADA. 
 
 Hon. James McDonald, Q.C Appointed 17tli of October, 1878. 
 
 Hon. Sir Alexandek Campbell, K.C.M.G., 
 
 ^■^ " 20tli of May, 18H1. 
 
 Hon. Sir John David Sparrow Thompson, 
 
 K.C.M.G., Q.C u 35^,, September, 1885. 
 
 ^ttartt^ij-^^unal 
 
 FOR 
 
 THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. 
 
 *. 'ifi 
 
 Hon. Oliver Mowat, Q.C Appointed 31st of October, 1872. 
 
:',;■>,„.■,■■■ ■■ * ' 
 
 OF TIIK 
 
 SLPIIKMK AND KXCHKQUKR COURTS OF CANADA 
 
 :, -r'' ' ' ■ ■ -I, > 1 
 
 AND OK TIIK 
 
 SUPKiaon COURTS of ONTARIO. 
 « «»» « 
 
 RKGLSTRAII. 
 RoHKHT C'asskls, d. C ii))i)oint(Hl Stli of October, 1875. 
 
 REPORTER. 
 Geohoe Duval Appointed 20th of January, 1876. 
 
 ASSISTANT REPORTERS. 
 
 Chahles H. Masters Appointed (temporarily), 17th Sei)tembor, 
 
 1885, (permanently) 1st October, 1880. 
 Archibald Sanijw ith Ca.mi-bell Appointed 3rd March, 1886. 
 
 c^upcvioi* doMvtsi of (Dntttda. 
 
 EDITORS. 
 
 Chuistopheii RoBixsoy, Q.C Aj)pointed .30th of May, 1872. 
 
 James Fkederick S.mitii, Q.C " 30th of June, 1885. 
 
 REPORTERS. 
 
 Court of Appeal for Ontario. 
 
 James Stewart Tuppeu, Q.C Appointed 27th of November, 1876. 
 
 Alexander Grant << lui, ^f Feh.uary, 1882. 
 
 Richard Scougall Cassels '• 7tl, of December, 1888. 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench, and Queen's Bench Diuision of the High Court of Justice. 
 
 Salter J. VanKoughxet, Q.C Appointed 25th of June, 1878. 
 
 Edward Betley Bhowx » ^i, ^f September, 1888. 
 
Cou. ; of Common Pleas, and Common Pleas Diuision of the High Couri of Justice. 
 Gkohoe Fhedkuick Harmax Appointed 7tli of December, 1872. 
 
 Court of Chancery, and Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. 
 
 AhKXANi>KK Gkant Appointed 19tl. of Juno, 1845. 
 
 TuoMAs Pkiu-ivai. Galt « 17th of Februaiy, 1882. 
 
 Augustus J I KNKY FuASKit Lkfuoy « 20th of May, 1882. 
 
 Geohob Anthony Boomkh .< 8th of December, 1883. 
 
 Practice Reports. 
 
 William Egerton Perdue Appointed 1st of Marcli, 187!). 
 
 Thomas Taylou Holph « 1st of March, 1879. 
 
 si - 
 
 if 
 
 h 
 
ZMIMI 
 
 10 
 
 ,«vtaAi) 10 d^u-ivi. aiiT 
 
 ^y:^^ 
 
 .K\ .:}'• 'V, -JfJ't.VlO. 1 !»' 
 
 ^■■,f\^ 
 
 ,U-'^ .A- 
 
 •i: i>rt! 
 
 iJiiu vV-vrt'i !.; M'SiV-*- :j-W '■■:■->■■'■ 
 
 i-,U .■!.. 
 
 >' ' -r.i.J. f ' I iK'*' -'''I' 
 
 ( (v'v . (•!'■'! ^/ ': 1 
 
 'i i> h^K 
 

 INDEX 
 
 OF 
 
 THE NAMES OF CASES. 
 
 *,* The ^figures refer to the columns of the Digest ; crosn references are denoted 
 
 by a dash in front of the figures. The casm are indexed 
 
 wider the names of both plaintiff and defendant. 
 
 OOLUMN. 
 
 A. B. and C. D., Attorneys, In re . . 1955 
 
 Abell, Corneill, v 192 
 
 , Draggon, v. , Re Draggon . . . . 726 
 
 , Ellis V. 325, 658, 1622, 2097.— 1402, 2095 
 
 McLaren 
 Morrison 
 Parr 
 
 1G6, 
 
 1623 
 
 1259, 1830, 
 
 1989 
 
 • • > * 
 
 1308 
 
 .. 1992, 
 
 1994 
 
 • • • • 
 
 1032 
 
 > ■ • 1 
 
 652 
 
 108, 891, 
 
 2232 
 
 J4, 445. 
 
 -435 
 
 1906, 2045.- 
 
 -1399 
 
 . . 1623, 
 
 2055 
 
 .. 1015, 
 
 1916 
 
 Abbott, Macdonald v. 
 Abbot, Regina, v. 
 Abercrombie, Tyson, v. 
 Abraham v. Abraham 
 Abrahams v. The Queen 
 Adair v. Wade 
 Adam, Taylor, v. 
 Adams v. Blackwall 
 
 and Township of East Whitby 673, 2118, 
 
 2132 
 
 , Regina, v 217, 1009, 155!) 
 
 V. City of Toronto 2136 
 
 V. Watson Manufacturing Co. 
 
 (Limited) 799, 1605, 2241.— 100, 824 {his.) 
 
 , Yost V 2189, 2195 
 
 Adamson V. Adamson 85,408, 412, 581, 591, 
 592, 678, 1087, 1179, 1188, 2033, 
 2047, 2059.-582, 585, 593, 1086, 
 1183, 1185, 1188, 1206, 2082, 2083 
 
 V. Bell — West Toronto Liection 
 
 (2)(0nt.) 1486 
 
 V. Yeager . . 1689.-657, 1689, 2023 
 
 Addison, Regina V. .. .. .. 1116,1673 
 
 Adjiila, Township of, v. MoElroy, 1332, 1333, 
 
 1704 (bis.)— 1417, 1706 
 
 JUtna Life Ins. Co. , Attorney-CJcneral v. . . 975 
 
 V. Brod" 650, 1003.— 6i>2 
 
 Wilson V. 281, 1006, 1674.— 281 
 
 Agar V. Stokes 1149.-1146 
 
 Agerman, Wills V 897,1271.-1.305 
 
 Agnow V. Pluukett 386.-1935 
 
 V. Ross 119, 1954 
 
 Agricultui'al Fire Ins. Co. of Watertown, 
 New York, claim of — Clarke v. Union 
 
 Fire Ins. Co 1006.-972,973 
 
 Agricultural Ins. (^o. , Peck v. 657, 936, 950. —947 
 
 , Sears v. 936, 943, 945, 
 
 977, 1257, 1.387 
 
 , Stillraan v. . . 939, 951 
 
 Agricultural Investment Co. v. Federal 
 
 Bank . . . . 602, 755, 763.— 2086 
 
 Agricultural Savings and Loan Association 
 
 V. Federal Bank, 1.36, 602 (his.), 649, 1690 
 Aitcheson v. Mann. 303, 365, 1558, 1589, 2238 
 
 Aitken V. Wilson, 1643,1661 
 
 Aitkins, Mealey, v. . . . . , . 2226 
 
 Albemarle and Eastnor, In re. . . 45, 1380 
 
 OOL0MN. 
 
 Albemarle, Township of, and United Town- 
 ships of Eastnor, Lindsay, and St. 
 Edmunds, .. 1379.— 1325, 1385 
 
 Albert Cheese Co. v. Leeming, 275, 1686.— 1685 
 Albert Mining Co., Spurr v. 1856.— 1562 
 
 Albrecht v. Burkholder . , . . . . 508 
 
 Aldborough, Township of, Re Montague and, 51, 
 
 384 
 Alexander v. Diamond . . . . . . 624 
 
 Grayv 1025 
 
 V. Township of Howard, 1360, 1599, 
 
 2115.— 1346, 1358, 1379 
 
 Regina v. 1042,1045,1103.-1049 
 
 v. School Trustees of Gloucester, 
 
 384, 385, 387 
 
 V. Vye 662. 666 
 
 V. Wavell 105. 799 
 
 Alford, Kingv 1169 
 
 A Wma Election (Dom.) — Burk v. Dawson, 1513, 
 
 1514, 2242 
 Alison, McDonough v. 1676, 2039.— 2041 
 
 Allan, In re 1228, 1586 
 
 Allan, G. W., In re . . 63, 69, 2011.— 1130 
 
 and the 'fownship of Amabel, In re. , 68 
 
 , Cameron v., 
 
 V. Lyon, 
 
 V. Mathers, 
 
 V. Merchants' 
 
 , Re, Pocock V. 
 
 v. McTavish 
 
 AUbright, Regina 
 
 ^illenby, Nichol v. 
 
 543, 553, 2240 
 
 347 
 
 1671,2042 
 
 Marine Ins. Co. 991, 968 
 Allan .. 729, 1710 
 
 649, 801, 1087.— 794 
 v., 311, 1056, 1058 (bis.) 
 2236.-307 
 . , 1305, 1532, 1657 
 Alienbyand Weif, Solicitors, Re, 1955.-376,734 
 Allison, Foster v., .. .. 613,1664 
 
 Allison, Solicitors, Re . . 1947.-1956 
 
 Alliston, Lawson v. . . 1390, 1391, 2144 
 
 Almonv. Lewin .. 2197.-2209 
 
 Alpha Oil Co., Re, 285 
 
 . v. Donnt.-y . . 293, 1841 
 
 Amabel, Township -if, In re Allan and, 68 
 
 Ambrose v. Frasor. 877. 1143, 1153, 191.3. -423, 
 
 871, 876, 1141, 1144, 1612 
 
 Regina v. 1047, 1048, 1049.— 26, 1046, 
 
 1113 
 Ameliasburg, Township of, Re Peck and 1337, 
 
 1345, 2149.-2140 
 Amer v. Rogers . . . . 508, 1596, 2025 
 
 American Press Association, Central Press 
 
 Association, v. . . . . . . . 638 
 
 Amsden v. Kyle . . . . . . . . 566 
 
 Anoastur, Township of, v. Durrand, 2134. — 2126 
 
 , Smith V. 325, 376, 1624, 
 
 1627 
 
Zil 
 Anc-Arm] 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Anchor Iiis. Co., Pha-nix Ins. Co. v. . . 980, 
 
 9!)1, l<t.S2.— 989, 990 
 
 Anchor Marine Ins. Co. v. Corbett 984.— 9.3l>, 
 
 97."), 9/8 
 
 V. Keith 987.— 980 {bis.) 
 
 V. Fhn'iiix Ins. Co. 983 
 
 anil Barber, Re 1018.-1014, 102^', lOiiti 
 
 Anderson, Harry, v. . . . . l.^*''^. ' 'f-'J* 
 
 V. Bell . . 12(il, 2180, 2'20.'-..-2169 
 
 V. Canadian Tacitic R. W. Co. 
 
 055, 1792, 1793, 1802.-1790 
 
 V. Fish 18"- 
 
 .Fishery 2193,2228 
 
 V. Class 101, 108, 22.32 
 
 V. Hanna 1305.-590 
 
 V. Jellett, 747.— 1305 
 
 , Jellett V. .. 09!. 1081.-703 
 
 , Lawrence V. 103, 1087, 1830.-590,799 
 
 . Re Lonjf I'oint Co. v. 22, 548, 831, 
 
 * 1710 
 
 , Neweombe v. 198, 1176, 2230.-9.30 
 
 , Race V 49 
 
 _.-, Regina ox rel. , McDonald v. 398, 1329 
 
 V. iSaugeen Mutual Fire Ina. Co. of 
 
 Mount Forest . 943, 978.-907,971 
 
 V. Stevenson. 1144, 1149.— 423, 1139 
 
 1144, 1148, 1280 
 V. Striker — Prince Edward Elec- 
 
 Arm-Attl 
 
 Armstrong, Re 
 
 V. Auger 
 
 _ — , c;hamberlain v. 
 
 COLUMJf. 
 
 .. 1374 
 
 .— 1880 
 1005, 1007, 1311 
 
 , Crooks- West Toronto Elec- 
 tion, (1) (Ont.) 1440, 1450, 1458, 
 1463, 1472, 1474, 1510, 1518, 1520. 
 1457, 1463, 1472 
 
 V. Farr . , 
 
 V. Forster 
 
 tion (Ont.) .. 
 ■ V. Worters 
 
 Andrew v. Stuart 
 Andrews, lie 
 
 V. Bank of Toronto 
 
 , Bland V 
 
 V. City of London 
 
 , Reyina v. . . 
 
 , . 1505, 1515 
 
 . . 227 
 
 .. 795, 1400 
 
 20, 908 
 
 114,124 
 
 54-. , r»43 
 
 307, 372, 2234 
 
 431, 452.-448 
 
 Anglo-American Oisings Co. (Limited) v. 
 
 Itowlin 3.54, ,358 
 
 Anglo-Canadian Mortgage Co. v. Cotter, 10, 5L0, 
 
 578 
 Anglo-Canadian Music Publishers' Associa- 
 tion ( Limited) v. Suckling, . . . . 349 
 
 V. Winnifrith Bros. 348, 375 
 
 Anglo-French S. S. Company, Guildford v. 1238 
 
 1400, l'>28 
 Angus V. Calgary School Trustees, 70, 19!)5 
 
 Annand, Tupper v. . . 324.-1541, 20(10, 2001 
 Annual Conference of New Brunswick, 
 
 etc., Ray V. .. 2195,2223.-2224 
 
 Anthcsv. I>cwar— InreStuebing733, 1948,1949 
 Anthony, Maclean v. .. 310, 1020, 1910 
 
 , Rew V. . . 386, 906, 1644.— 909 
 
 • , Slater V 319, 1020, HlHi 
 
 Apjohn, Walton v. 11, 023, 1502, 1072 
 
 Appieman V. Appleman, .. 1528,1011,22.30 
 Arbuckle, McCarthy v., 30, 478, 578, 582, 897, 
 1027, 1075.-37, 45, 1075 
 Archbold v. Building and Loan Association 
 
 1307.-1285 
 
 Archer v. Severn. .392, 713, 715, 710, 717, 720, 
 
 732,1209, 1250, 1.320, lOlS, 1992,2199, 2217, 
 
 2229.-718, 1955 
 
 Ardagh, Sissons v, —North Simcoe Election 
 
 (Uut.) 1475,1512 
 
 V. City of Toronto . . , . <>250 
 
 Arkcll, Blue v. -East Elgin Election 
 
 (•>oui-) 1481, 1.J20 
 
 V. (Jeiger 374, io24 
 
 V. Roach .. .. .. 2185.- .533 
 
 Armour, Howell v. .. 1112, 1120.— 1123 
 
 , Re— Moore v. Armour . . , . 7-J8 
 
 '— , Woodv 347,2195.-2180 
 
 , Hay.s V. 
 
 , McKindsey V. 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Sutton V. 
 
 227, 1895 
 117, 1701.— 1700 
 . . 1503, 2240 
 . . 88, 92, 40.S 
 .. 1124, 1009 
 .. 103(6i.s.) 
 
 iind the Township of Toronto, Re 
 
 603, 1335, 1.337, 1343 
 
 Arnold V. Cummer 1199 
 
 , Kill)ourn v. 1320, 1940, 2070.-769 
 
 Arnoldi v. O'Uonohoe . . . . 19.52.-1947 
 
 Arnott, Re— Chattertou V. Chatterton .. 1531 
 Arpin V. Cuinaiie . . . . . . 1592 
 
 —-- V. The IJueen . . . 20, 2003 
 
 Arscott V. Lilley, . . 29, 849, 850, 1117 (his.) 
 
 1120, 1124, 1571, 1719.-1720, 1909 
 
 Regina v. 847, 1053, 1720, 1909.— 
 
 850 {bis), 1719 
 Arthur, Hilliard v., 1083, 1056.- 1054, 1673 
 
 Township of. In re Langdon and 
 
 the Arthur Junction R. W. 
 
 Co. and 1336, 1806 
 
 Arthur Junction R. W. Co., In re Langdon 
 
 and, . . 20O 
 
 , In re Langdon and , 
 
 and Township of Arthur . . 1330, 1800 
 
 Artkin, Re Green and, 
 Artley v. Curry 
 Ashbaugh, I.,;iidlaw v. 
 Ashdown, Dedrick v. 
 Ashenhurst, Nixon v. 
 Ashtield, Sanderson v. 
 Ashley v. Bienton . . 
 V. Brown 
 
 1298. -1205, 1302 
 .. 2011 
 579,20.39.-1008 
 180, 195, 333, 094 
 . . 505 
 . . 304 
 . . 026 
 . 791 
 Asphodel, Township of. In re Birdsall and 2131 
 
 Atherton, McKay v, 688 
 
 Atkins V. Ptolemy 1.331, 1571, 2240. — 10 
 
 Atkinson, Bain v. . . . . . . . . 1262 
 
 , Baker v. 527, 817.— 107, 1140, 1152, 
 
 1910 
 
 V. (iraml Trunk R. W. Co. . . 1778 
 
 .Reginav 014,1031.-611 
 
 Atlantic Mutu.al Life Ins. Co. , Wattsv. 995.-967 
 Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Co. v. 
 
 Dominion Telegraph Co. . . I (i.32. — 1 035 
 
 Attorney, in re, 1075,1939 
 
 Attorney-General v. A'Ana Ins. Co. . . 079 
 
 V. (iooderham 021, 695 
 
 V. International Bridge 
 
 Co. 93, 1010 (/«'.•(), 1011, 
 
 1031.— 920, 923, 915, 141.5, 
 
 V .1 ' 1634, 1974 
 
 V. The Midland R. W. 
 
 Co. 302, 118.3, 1616, 102*2, 
 1755.-1188, 1615, 1020, 
 '■:'■ ,:■ 1747 
 ex rel. Hobbs v. Ni- 
 agara Falls, Wesley 
 Park and Clifton 
 Tramway Co. 212,1988, 
 1990, 2231,22.39.-915, 5)23 
 
 of British Colund)ia v. 
 
 Attorney-General of 
 Canada 314,1255,2241.— 
 468, 1744 
 
 .^OS.' 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 zUi 
 
 Att-Bae] 
 
 I J COLUMK. 
 
 V. 
 
 W. -1()35 
 
 Tr), 193!) 
 . . ()7» 
 
 021, 695 
 (Ige 
 
 •lis), 1011, 
 )1S, 14l<}, 
 034, 1974 
 
 \V. 
 il6, Ui'ia, 
 
 '), l(!20, 
 1747 
 Ni- 
 slcy 
 ton 
 
 12, 19S8, 
 -915, {)23 
 
 V. 
 
 of 
 
 •2241.— 
 KS, 1744 
 
 Attorney General of Canada, Attorney- 
 General of British 
 I-; ml Columbia v, 3i4, 1255, 
 
 2241.— 468, 1744 
 . of Canada, Attorney- 
 General of Ontario v. 
 
 690.— 586 
 
 ,— of Canada, Clarkson v. 
 
 I 1 110,295,418,1165,1844.— 
 
 108, 459, 740 
 
 of Canada v. Flint . . 306 
 
 . of Canada, Fonseca v., 
 
 95, 462, 468. 900, 1093, 1259, 
 2236 
 of Canada, ex rel. Bar- 
 rett V. International 
 Bridge Co. . . . . 410 
 
 of Nova Scotia v. Axford 
 
 1735, 2082.— 223, 473 
 
 ex rel. Dickie v. Axford 94 
 
 of Ontario v. Attorney- 
 General of Canada 69(1. — 586 
 
 of Ontario v. Mercer ,307, 313, 
 
 . 586, 2237 
 
 V. O'Reillv 93, 415, 
 
 586 
 
 of Quebec, Colonial 
 
 Building and 
 . ' Investment 
 
 Assn. V. 274, 275, 
 309 
 
 . V. Reed .303, 1978 
 
 Attrill, Huntington v., 31, 1093, 1095, 1571 
 
 V. Piatt 487, 573, 669, 1254, 2101.— 1884, 
 
 2100, 2109 
 Auger, Armstrong v. . . . . . — 1880 
 
 Augustine V. Schrier . 2164,2203,2213 
 
 Ault, Morgan v. .. ,. .. .. 1125 
 
 Austin V. Davis . . 404, 478, 1060.-414 
 
 , Grass v. .. .. 192, 456 {bin.) 
 
 , Page v ..32, 255, 259, 6()1.— 34. 250, 261 
 
 , Regina v. . . . . . . . , 1056 
 
 Austin Muiing Co. (Limited) v. Gcmmell 
 
 263.-265 
 
 Avey, McLeod v 1285, 2097 
 
 Avison. Longway, q. t. V. .. .. 1113, 1119 
 
 , Attorney-General of Nova Scotia v. 
 
 1735, 2082.— 223, 473 
 Axford, Attorney-General of Nova Scotia 
 
 ex rel. Dickie v. . . . . . . 94 
 
 Ayers v. Town of Windsor . . . . 2136 
 
 Aylesworth v. White — East Hastings 
 
 Election (Dom.) 1443 
 
 Aylmer, Town of, Williamson v. . . 383 {bis. ) 
 Ayotte v. Boucher . . 132, 774, 1962, 1996 
 
 Babcock, Smith v. . . 
 Baby, Imperial Loan Co. v. 
 Bachelor, Rcgiua v. 
 Backhouse v. Bright, Re . . 
 Backer, McCrao v. 1880. 
 
 Backus v. Smith 
 
 . . 620, 627 
 
 858, 1654.-856 
 
 .. 1033,2232 
 
 . . 552 
 
 -1883, 1887, 1894 
 
 1153, 1159, 1193 
 
 Bacon, Peoples' Loan and Deposit Co. v. 1883. — 
 
 1885 {bk} 
 Badenach, Slater v, . . . . , 796 
 
 V. Slater 104 
 
 ■ , Snarr, v . . 23, 1007. 2133.— 1914 
 
 Badgerow v. Grand Trank R. W. Co. 638, 1248, 
 
 1784 
 Badgley v. Dickson . . 52, 209, 1389 
 Baechler, Smith v 346 
 
 Bai-Ban] 
 
 coLuxir. 
 
 Bail, Regina V. 
 Bailey v. Jellett 
 
 436 
 
 34, 134, 363, 1961, 2064.— 
 137, 756, 1562, 2077, 2078 
 
 , Livernoisv. .33,381,382.-368, 374,382 
 
 Baillie v. Dickson 156, 161, 606.— 1407 
 
 Bain v. City of Montreal,. . 84, 1261.-66 
 
 , Cholette v. — Soulanges Election, 
 
 298, 1494.-434, 1443. 1478 
 
 v. Malcolm 7S<), 789 
 
 , Stephenson v. 209, 748, 1899.-327, 337 
 
 Baine, Bank of Hamilton v. 4, 1056, 1657,2241.— 
 
 4, 37, 1656, 1663 
 
 (2) . . :{, 1673 
 
 , Hessin v. . . . . . . 878 
 
 Baines' Case, In re Central Bank of Canada, 
 249, 2.-.6, 286, 295.— 203, 257, 287, 601 
 
 Baird, Ellis V 321,1999 
 
 , Macdonell v. . . 42, 1082.-36, 37, 52 
 
 Baker V. Atkinson 527, 817, 1262.-107, 1146, 
 
 1152, 1916 
 
 V. Fisher . . . . 782, 1839, 1869 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. . . 1401, 1412 
 
 V. Jackson . . . . 97, 636, 1654 
 
 V. Mills 2034, 2188 
 
 , Re, Re McDonald 1953 
 
 V. Morgan — Russell Election (2) (Ont. ) 
 
 1442 1446 1519 
 
 McKay v . . 358, 886,' 1596.-357 
 
 , Ogilvio v.— Russell Election (1) (Ont.) 
 
 1456, 1487.— 1515 
 
 594, 1128, 1260, 2163, 
 
 2235, 2236.-1205 
 
 ., 1174,1607 
 
 841 
 
 581, 1085, 1086, 1659 
 383, 1550.— 386 
 
 Baldwin v. Kingstone 
 ■ Townsley v. 
 
 Balfour, .lames v. 
 Ball V. Cathcart 
 
 V. Crompton Corset Co. 
 
 V. Rector and Churchwardens of the 
 
 Church of the Ascension . . 2204, 2229 
 Ballagh v. Royal Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 946.-980 
 
 Ballard v. Stover 2187 
 
 Balzer v. Township of Gosfield South . . 2130 
 Bamfield v. Town of Niagara Brails . . 2111 
 
 Bank of British North America, Canadian 
 
 Bank of Com 
 merce v. 1603. — 
 1^ 1620 
 
 V. Eddy, 626, 2044. 
 
 —627 
 
 v. Western As- 
 
 .384, 410, 984, 991, 1409.— 
 1400, 1417 
 
 Bank of Hamilton v. Baine 4, 1656, 1657, 2241. 
 
 —4, .37, 1656, 1663 
 
 (2) .. 3, 1673 
 
 v. Blakeslee 1546, 1646 
 
 V. Durrell, . . 707, 1019 
 
 v. Harvey, 1066.-167, 1080 
 
 , Harvey v. 176.-155, 165 
 
 v. Isaacs, 167, 657, 677, 
 
 1402.— 644, 683, 1405 
 
 surance Co. 
 
 V. John T. Noye Manu- 
 facturing Co. . . 143 
 
 V.Stark 2042 
 
 V. Tamblyn, 186, 2059.-811 
 
 Bank of Liverpool, In re . . . 284 
 
 Bank of Lonc^on v. Guarantee Co. of North 
 
 America . . 1566, 1649 
 Bank of Minnesota v. Page .359, 403, 534, 1073, 
 
 1651 
 Bank of Montreal v. Bower , . . — 2187 
 
 V. Davis 802 
 
 , Eastman, v. . . 109 
 
Ban-Bar] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 Bar-Bea] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Bank of Montreal v. Foulds 
 V. Gilchrist 
 
 OOLlTMtr.. 
 
 .. 1676 
 
 396, ll-)7.-lli53 
 
 Haffner 1170(W«), IMS.— 
 
 10, 1093 
 
 , Manitoba Mortgage Co. 
 
 V. 1.S7, 224, lo43.-602, 
 1541 
 
 , Nelles V. . . 123.-140 
 
 ., Rose-Belford Printing 
 
 Co. V. . . 136, 2240 
 
 , Ryau V. 138, 164, 177, .")98, 
 
 763, 1126, 12(i2.— 7r)6 
 
 . V. Stewart 602, 1833, 2062.— 
 
 1188, 206.-) 
 
 V. Sweeny . . 2004, 2082 
 
 V. Thomas 14, 167, 320, 2024. 
 
 —324 
 Bank of Nova Scotia v. La Roclie, 3.")4, 358, 
 
 1073, 1071.-360 
 
 , Mott V 284 
 
 . Rcgina V. 132, 146, 290 
 
 459, 2092.-601 
 
 , Smith V. 146, 255, 1614 
 
 Bank of Ottawa v. McLaughlin, 156, 538, 551, 
 
 5.53 
 
 V. McMorrow . . 156, 673 
 
 Bank of Prince Edward Island, Ings v. 176, 
 
 284, 287.— 1615, 1982 
 
 Bank of Rochester v. Stonehouse . . . . 820 
 
 Bank of Toronto, Andrews v. ... 114,424 
 
 V. Beaver and Toronto 
 
 Mutual Ins. Co. 979, 2237 
 
 • V. Cobourg, Peterborough 
 
 and Marmora R. W. Co. 265, 
 480, (iOO, 22;W.-1800 
 
 V. Hall 84, 693, 704. - 106, .585 ' 
 
 V. Irwin 495, 800, 1282, 20% 
 
 V. Lanibe , . . . 303 
 
 — V. Le Cure, etc. , de la 
 
 Paroisse de la Nati- 
 • '^ ■ ' vite, de la Sainte 
 
 Vierge .. .. 1995 
 
 V. Perkins .. .. 139 
 
 568,629.-567,22.34 
 ..181.— 184, 197, 811 
 Bann V. Brockville .. .. 1052,1129 
 
 Bannermau v. McDougall, South Renfrew 
 
 Election (Dom.) .. 1517, l.')20.— 1510 
 Banque Jacques Cartier, Giraldi v. 133. — 756, 
 
 2000, 2078 
 Banque Nationale, Grant v.j 139, 2020.— 1165, 
 
 1290 
 
 Barbeau, Labelle v, 1990 
 
 Barbeau v. St. Catharines and Niagara Central 
 
 R. W. Co. 1744 
 
 Re St. Catharines and Niagara 
 
 Central R. W. Co. and . . . . 1745 
 
 Barber, Re Anderson and 1018.— 1014, 1022, 
 
 1020 
 
 V. Barber . . 1897, 2092.-1883, 1885 
 
 , Bussell v.— Halton Election, (Ont.) 26, 
 
 1443, 1459, 1467, 1478, 2243.— 1459, 
 1478, 1482, 1525 
 
 V. Clark —1286 
 
 Hurst V 639 
 
 V. Macpherson, 177,188.-811 
 
 V. McKay . . 076, 612, 1830, 2160 
 
 V.Morton ., .. 170.— 1706 
 
 V. Russell 1072 
 
 Barber & Ellis Co., Maclean v. . . 639, 641 
 Barber's Case — Re Standard Fire Ins. Co. 245 
 
 Barbour, Oldfield V 1173,1598.-10 
 
 Barclay V. Zavitz 2211, 222» 
 
 Barfoot, Stevens v 754 
 
 Barfoot, Turner & Burns Foundry and 
 General Manufacturing Co. (Limited) 
 
 V 183,893, 1250.— 19? 
 
 Barker, Carter v 1651 
 
 Barker V. Furze 2231,2040 
 
 V. Leeson 178, 196, 398, 1020.— 188, 197, 
 
 198, 401, 1014, 1020, 1022, 2041 
 
 V. Westover 880, 202i> 
 
 Barlow, Fairbanks v. 1637 
 
 Barnard v. Molson . . . . . 93, 1569 
 
 Barnes v. Exchange Bank of Canada . , 1705 
 
 , Exchange Bank of Canada v. 12, 199, 
 
 355,606, 674, 1009, 1573, 1632, 1702. 
 1703, 1706, 1709.— 360, 1699, 1701 
 
 V. Hopkins, Re Hopkins . . . , 559' 
 
 . Kyle, v 3 
 
 lt*90 
 
 684, 1962, 2235, 2242 
 
 441.-448 
 
 769 
 
 505.— 506 
 
 v. — DuflFerin Election 
 1505, 1508 {bis), 1515.-1497 
 
 119, 19& 
 
 , ex rel. Attorney-General of Cana- 
 da v. International Bridge Co 
 Barrie, Town of, Sullivan v. 
 Barric Gas Co. v. Sullivan . . 
 
 Barnes, Regina v. 
 Barnet, Gowans, v. 
 Regina, v. 
 
 Barr v. Doan 
 
 , 'liorst, V. 
 
 , Sleightholm 
 
 (Ont.) 
 Barrett, Re, 
 
 Barron, Clarke v. . , 
 Barry v. Anderson . . 
 Barsalon v. Darling . . 
 Barss, Merchants' Marine Ins. Co, 
 
 Bartlett v. 
 
 Banks v. Bellamy . 
 V. Robinson 
 
 416 
 
 1209, 2110 
 
 472, 2248 
 
 402, 1412 
 
 1298, 1265 
 
 .. 2028 
 
 980, 988, 
 
 1689 
 
 Jull 672, 1297, 1301 
 
 V.Thompson . 1154,223.3 
 
 Barton, Hyde v. .381, 560.— 1129, 1319, 1320, 
 
 1899 ibis) 
 Barton, Township of. In re Carpenter and 1.335, 
 
 2129 
 
 V. City of Hamilton 
 
 1,375, 2242.— 1353, 1361, 1375 
 Barwick and Lot t' ree on the north side 
 o' King street in the City of Toronto. 
 
 2070, 2237 
 
 Bassett, Regina v 1368, 1720, 2234 
 
 Bate V. Canadian Pjicific R. W. Co. 1781, 
 
 1792—1790 
 
 Bateman, Hagarty v. 
 Kennedy v. 
 
 592, 770, 1194. 
 . . 1676, 1842 
 White 
 
 766 
 
 -1185 
 
 -1839 
 
 711 
 
 2054 
 
 2119 
 
 Bates V. Mackey 
 
 Batt, Re,— Wrigh.t v, 
 
 Baxter, St. Denis v. 
 
 Beadle, Kastner v. . 
 
 Beam v. Merner 652, 1556.— 1558, 1559, 1093 
 
 Reamer, Phipps v 374, 1024 
 
 Beamish v. Kaulbach . . . . 1 994 
 
 Bean, Spahr v 508, 1596, 2235 
 
 Beard v. Credit Valley R. W. Co. . 364, 579, 
 
 1801.— .368 
 , North of Scotland Canadian Mort- 
 gage Co. v 1311 
 
 Regina, v 1033, 1049 
 
 Bearman, Martin v 195, 225 
 
 Beasley v. City of Hamilton 1394, 1608.— 2144 
 
 Beattio, Gould V 611.— 418 
 
 ,Sherrittv 1400,1678 
 
 Beatty, Re 120 
 
 v. Currie— Welland Election (Ont. ) 
 
 1446, 1480, 1510 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 X7 
 
 COLUMN^ 
 
 Bea-Bel] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Beiitty, V. Haldan 
 
 ■, Heiulrie v. 
 
 _ V. N colon . 
 
 665, 1935, 1949, 1958 
 
 928, 1669 
 
 17, 240, 784, 1126.— 11, 
 788, 1599 
 
 V. North-West Transportation Co. 267. — 
 
 •2081 
 
 , North-West Transportation Co. v. 267 
 
 V. O'Connor . . 714, 735, 1302, 1316.— 
 
 376, 723, 737, 1277, 1317, l."19 
 
 , Wilson v.— In re Donovan ir)6S, 1938, 
 
 1957. -734, 736, 738, 1939, 1940, 1954 
 
 Beaty v. Bryce, 374, 1024 
 
 and City of Toronto, Re, 388, 1383.— 
 
 42, 1365 
 
 V. Cromwell 1094 
 
 Gzowski, V 1313.— 1296, 1311 
 
 V. .Samuel .. 106,195.-121,131 
 
 V. .Sliaw . . . . 716, 900.-2071 
 
 Bcaudet v. The North Shore R. W. Co. 1705.— 
 
 45 
 Beaumont V. Cramp .. .. 187 
 
 Beaulieu, Regina v. . . 48, 1765, 2004 
 
 Benusoleil v. Normand . . . . 125. — 782 
 Beaver v. Boardman . , . . . . 1669 
 
 Beaver and Toronto Mutual Ins. Co. , Bank 
 
 of Toronto v 979, 2237 
 
 Bcavis V. Maguire .. .. .. 801. — 815 
 
 Becher v. Hoare 84, 223, 12.35, 222-2.-2226 
 
 Beck, Thurlow v 1652, 1656, 2048 
 
 Becket, Mackelcan v. . . . . . . 1644 
 
 Beckett and the City of Toronto, In re, 1364 
 
 1503 
 
 v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. . . 1066, 
 
 1391, 1.396, 1777.— 1396 
 
 Grand Trunk R. W. Co. v. 1007, 
 
 1777 
 
 V. .Johnston, 77, 81, 1416, 1886. -63 
 
 Bedford v. Phelps— \Vcst.Simcoe Election, 
 
 (Ont.) 1447, {hU.) 1454, 1459, 14'J1, 1494, 
 
 1507.— 1472, 1508, 1510 
 
 Beemer v. Oliver . . 112, 601, 696, S71.— 799 
 
 , Regina v. 1031, 1115.— 852 (to), S54, 8.")9 
 
 - V. Village of (Jrinisby 615, 2127—2134 
 
 , White v. . . 399, 1655, I606, 1659 
 
 Beer V. .Stroud 2099 
 
 Begg V. Township of Southwold 1343, l.'i.)2. 
 
 Bel-Ber] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Beigle, Buckley v. . . 
 
 Beilstein v. Beilstein 
 
 Belaud v. L'Union St. Thomas . . 
 
 Belfry, White Sewing Machine Co v. 
 
 1.3.TO.— 1358 
 
 1137, 11K2 
 
 . . 562 
 
 153. 
 
 .369.— 
 .368, 539 
 Bell, Adamson v. — West Toronto Election (2), 
 
 (Ont.) 
 
 , Anderson v. 
 
 and Black, Re . . 
 
 , Budsworth v. . . 
 
 , Crathern v. 
 
 , Dalby V. 
 
 -, Dominion Bank v. 
 
 1486 
 
 1261, 2180, 2205.-2169 
 
 . . 483 
 
 .. .360, 1571 
 
 844,845.-8 
 
 . . 353, 1679 
 
 149 
 
 -, Doyle V. 307, 1501, 2240 {bis).—3U 
 
 -V. Frasor 1564,1696.-361 
 
 -, Fraserv 1564, 1615 
 
 -, Hamilton Provident and Loan So- 
 
 ciety V. . . 
 
 V. Irish 
 
 V. Landon 
 
 V. Lee . . 
 
 V. Mackliu 
 
 V. McDougall . . 
 
 , Merchants' Bank v. 
 
 , Meyer v. 
 
 .. 2085 
 
 .. 5.30 (bis.) 
 
 359, 365, 384 
 
 . . 21.56, 2214 
 
 . . 776 
 
 .. 116 
 161, 875.— 590 
 
 .. 1994 
 
 Bell 
 
 Bell V. Riddell .. .. 171,296,875 
 
 V. Ross 120, 583 
 
 , Rudd, V 1243,1244.-1245 
 
 , Township of StaflFord, v. 669, 378, 
 
 1388,2011.-1391 
 
 , Traviss, v. . . 639, 765, 784, 1213 
 
 Wadsworth v. 1917 
 
 Telephone Co., In re, 94, 216, 1557 
 
 V. Belleville Electric 
 
 LightCo. 445, 921, 2013.-574 
 
 , and the Telephone 
 
 Manufacturing Co .and 
 ,1; the Minister of Agri- 
 culture, In re .. 306, 1557, 
 1715 
 of Canada, Electric Des- 
 patch Co. of Toronto 
 V. 335, 201.3.-424, 840, 923 
 568,1629,2234.-507 
 
 318.-2151 
 
 Levis Election 
 (l)om.) .. .. 1459, 1471, H75 
 
 Bellechasse Election (Dom.)— Larue v. 
 
 Doslauriers . . 1500, 1523, 1525.-1407 
 Bellemare, Dansereau v. . . . . . 1552 
 
 Belleville, City of, Gordon v. 1391, 2146.— 2144 
 Belleville Electric Light Co., Bell Tele- 
 phone Co. V. . . 445, 921, 2013.— 574 
 Belle vUle and Nortlx Hastings R. W. Co., 
 
 Davidspn v 394, 1086.— 1528 
 
 Bench, Gough v. 33,i303, 857, 1622, 1964, 1969, 
 
 1972.-766, 1969 
 
 Bender, Re 895, 2229.— 2075 
 
 V. [Carrier . . . . . . 15, 339 
 
 Benedict, Scott v 1896, 2017 
 
 Benedict, Turley v. . . . . 587.-576 
 
 Beninger v. Thrasher 54, 131 {bis), 1906.-1905 
 
 Bellamy, Banks v. 
 Belleau, Regina v. . . 
 V. Dussault - 
 
 Benjamin, Monk v. 
 Bennett, Blagden v. 
 
 , Collard V. 
 
 — — , Grand Trunk R. 
 
 -, Johnson v. 
 -, Odell V. . . 
 -, Pursey v. 
 -, Regina v.. 
 
 v. White 
 
 Bent, Regina v. 
 Bentley, Swainson v. 
 Berger, Munn v. 
 Bergin v. Macdonald- 
 
 391, 1308.-1305 
 503, 510 
 
 814 
 
 W. Co. 1775 {bis) 
 
 1776.-1391, 1399 
 
 698, 1067, 1296 
 
 .. 517, 1672.-1612 
 
 . . 1215, 1609 
 
 315, 452, 611, 10,34, 1035, 
 
 1036, 1040, 1044, 1097, 1100, 1418, 
 
 2092.— 1044, 1113 
 
 373, 390, 1912.— 1611 
 
 439 
 
 2210 
 
 1854 
 
 Cornwall Election 
 (Dom.) 1425, 1447, 1449, 
 1452, 1463, 1'169, 1519.-1457 
 
 Cornwall Election (2) 
 
 (Dom.) 1462, 1498, 1499 
 
 , Maclennan v. — Cornwall Election 
 
 (3) (Dom.) . .. 620,1452,1469, 1505, 
 1517, 1.321.-1479 
 
 , O'Callaghan V 1937 
 
 , Robinson v. . . . . . 5.-697.705 
 
 Berkeley's Trusts, Re, 2068 
 
 Berlinguet v. The Queen, . . . . liiZO, 2250 
 Bernard v. Coutellier, 1219.— 1398, 1403, 1405 
 
 , Reaina v 1114,2092.-1104 
 
 Berrie v. Woods 1142.-1144 
 
 Kerriman, Regina v. . . . . 1416, 1990 
 
 Beri'v, Regina v. . . , . . . . . 349 
 
 ~ v. Zeiss 877, 878 
 
 Berthier Election (Dom.)— Genereux v. Cuth- 
 bert, 27, 1447, 1476, 1525, 2003.- 1524 
 

 :i 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 2164.— 21fi5, 2178 
 12, 1246, 1247, 1396 
 
 X71 
 
 Ber-Bla] 
 
 Bertram, Ha Hon v. . . 
 
 , Mason V. . . 
 
 Bertram and Co. v. Massey Maiiufaoturiiig 
 
 Co. .380, 1865, 2236.-363, 364, 1861, 1870 
 
 Besse, Black v 1402.-643 
 
 Besserer, Cowan v. . . 564, 2210, 2214 
 
 Bethune v. Colfiiihoiin— Stormont Election (1) 
 
 (Ont.), 1425, 1426, 1432, 14.33, 14.35, {bis.) 
 
 1445, 1510, 1516 
 
 Betts V. Crand Trunk R. W. Co. . . 619 
 
 V. Smitii 327, 655 
 
 Bew, Lookwood v. . . . . 622.-622 
 
 BiMc, Hackett V 1021,1941,1944 
 
 Bickford, Cameron v. 27, 674, 683, 1539.— 8 
 V. Canada Southern R. \V. Co. 47.— 
 
 860, 1162, 1816 
 
 V. Chatliam 423, 1810, 1811, 2232.— 
 
 340, 13.36, 1345, 1752 
 
 V. Town of Chatham, 332, 421, 1.377, 
 
 1817, 1981.-1978 
 
 Bi'Mouctte V. North Shore R. W. Co. 1747, 
 
 1750, 1766, 2101.-45 
 
 Biggar v. Biggar, 19, 1531 
 
 , Ii; re— Biggar v. Stinson, . , 566, 2163, 
 
 2191.-2194 
 
 , Cibsnn v. — East Northumberland 
 
 Eleetion (Dom.) .. 1450,1510,1520 
 
 V. Way, 17, 1308 
 
 l'>igk'y, Crosson v. . . . . , . . 1990 
 
 Billings, Little v 2171.-2186 
 
 , Regina ex rel. Chauncey v, 1331 j 
 
 Billingtou v. Provincial Ins. Co. of Canada 
 
 935, 957 
 
 Bingliam V. McKenzie 1,")93, 2238! 
 
 Bingiiani and Warner Re, 1976, 2045.— 1974, 
 
 2049 
 Bingham and Wrigglesworth, Re, 591,2088. — 
 
 493 
 Binkley, Huniilton and Flamboroug Road 
 
 Co. V 2050 
 
 Birth;dl, Regina v 854.— 852, 1851 
 
 Birdsall und the Township of Asphodel, 
 
 Jn re 2131 
 
 Birkett v. McOuire, 1544.— 1546, 15G2, 1699 
 Birney, CnlverwoII v. . . 634, 1690.— 643 
 
 Hunter v 1086, 2035 
 
 Martens v 1067, 1075 
 
 Bishop, McGregor V. . .. 171.— 159 
 
 TABLE OF GASES. 
 
 Bla-Bob] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Blaekwall, Adams v. 
 Bladgen v. Bennett, 
 Blain v. Blain 
 
 V. Peaker 
 
 Blair, Woodman v. 
 Blake, Boulton v. 
 
 Bissell, Regina v. 
 Bissett V. Strachan 
 Bixtl, Lalmtt v. 
 Blaiise, Blakeley v. 
 Black, Re Bell and 
 
 V. liesse 
 
 Calvert v. 
 
 30, 178, 685, 
 
 444, 447, 450, 885 
 . . .386.— .366 
 816, 827 
 687.-685 
 . 483 
 643, 1402 
 560, 2090 
 
 Carling Brewing and Malting Co. v. 108, 
 
 vn- 2080 
 
 , 1*^1118 V 2125 
 
 V. (Ontario Wheel Co. 676, 1248, 1249 
 V. Plumb— Niagara Election(Dom.) 1457, 
 1461, 1520.-1457, 1467 
 V. Strickland 168.— 138, 159, 173 
 
 V. Toronto Upholstering Co. 654, 22.31 
 
 Black 
 
 Wheeler v. 
 Diamond S. 
 Trainor v. 
 Blackley v. Dooley 
 V. Kenney 
 
 574.-2110 
 S. Co. of Montreal, 
 
 1925 
 
 . 345.-1599, 2056 
 173, 645, 1281, 1703.-823 
 
 i.^ei 
 
 ,. 411,82.3,1280.-606. 
 
 «, , , , ^v. ^**'^*''^' ^' *^7' ^<^' 1*29, 209.3.-7 
 Blacklock, Cooper v. 165, 877, 1685.— 1687 
 
 V. Kenny 
 
 . . 1015.— 1916 
 503, 610 
 
 1668 
 
 104 2238 
 
 '.'. 620, 627, 6.35,"863 
 
 631, 1137, 1146.-627, 1148, 
 
 1706 
 
 V. Building and Loan Association . . 2084 
 
 V. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. . . 1778 
 
 V. Kirkpatrick, . . 1239, 1G60.-.3.32 
 
 , Macdonellv 1161,2241 
 
 , Toronto Brewing and Malting Co. v. 
 
 261, 263, 278, 756, 920, 028.— 261, 265, 
 
 268 
 Blakeley v. Blanse, 30, 178, 685, 086, 687.-685 
 
 Blakely, Re Woltz V 546.-552 
 
 Blakeslee, Bank of Hamilton v. . 1546, 1646 
 Blanchard, Public School Trustees of sec. 
 
 8 in the Township of, Mclntyre v. 
 
 In re Minister of Education 12,30, 1730 
 Bland v. Andrews 542, 543 
 
 V. Eaton 11.33 
 
 — — V. Rivers . . . . . . . . 553 
 
 Blaney V. McGrath 368,1540 
 
 Blatchford, Clendenan V. .. 747.-1141,2120 
 Bleakley V. Corporation of Prescott .. 2146 
 
 Bleeker and Henderson, In re . , . — 1956 
 
 Blean v. Blean 912 
 
 Blenheim, Township of, Copeland v. , . 366 
 , Village of, Copeland v. 1402, 2143.— 
 
 1.391, 2144 
 Bliss V. Boeckh, 1,389.-1391, 1392, 2121, 2)44, 
 
 2147 
 
 Blizzard, Piatt v 1971 
 
 Block, Stimson v 343, 345 
 
 Bloomtield v. Brooke, . . 281, 719 
 
 Blue V. Arkell— East Elgin Election (Dom.) 
 
 1481, 1520 
 
 , Kinnear v . . 1068 
 
 Board of Audit of the County of ?^lgin. In 
 ro Stanton and 
 96, 374, 405, 1230.— 
 455, 1385 
 
 of York, In re 
 
 Fenton and, 96, 405, 455, 1230.— 1385 
 
 Board of Education of Carleton Place, 
 
 Moffatt V. .. 1725 
 
 of Napanee and 
 
 Town of Napanee, 
 
 Re, 853, 1226, 1725 
 
 of Village of 
 
 Morrisburgli and 
 
 -.>.r.j-,i, the Township of 
 
 Winchester, Re, 
 1731, 1732, 1733. — 
 1725 
 
 of Windsor, Dunn 
 
 V. 1230, 1729 
 
 Board of License Commissioners of the 
 
 County of DufFerin, Leeson v. 12, 1016 
 Board of Public School Trustees for Union 
 
 . ■ • School Section 9 - 
 of Township of 
 Lobo, Wallace 
 V. 380, 1726, 17.35 
 — ' of Sec. 6 Town- 
 ship of Brant, Re McCallum and, . 17.30 
 
 Boardman, Beaver v. i(j(j9 
 
 ~ V. Scott— North Grey Election 
 
 .(Ont.) 1448, 1451, 1484, 1488.— 1499 
 
 Bobior and Ontario Investment Associa- 
 
 *'"n . . 1885, 1891, 1893, 2089 
 
 tf 1 1 
 
 Boe-B 
 
 Bfflckli 
 Bogart 
 
 Bogle, 
 Boivim 
 Boldric 
 Bolt an 
 
 Bolton, 
 Bond 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xvli 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 1015.— 1916 
 
 503, 610 
 
 .. 1668 
 
 104, 22.S8 
 
 27, 635, 863 
 
 -627, 1148, 
 
 1706 
 
 ion .. 2084 
 
 .. 1778 
 
 lfi60.-.3.32 
 
 1161, 2241 
 
 Co.v. 
 
 -261, 265, 
 
 26H 
 
 i, 687.-685 
 
 546.-552 
 
 1546, 1646 
 
 f sec, 
 
 re V. 
 
 1230, 1730 
 
 542, 543 
 
 ., 11.33 
 
 . . 653 
 
 368, 1540 
 
 -1141, 2120 
 
 .. 2146 
 
 .—1956 
 
 . . 912 
 
 . . 366 
 
 M)2,2143.— 
 
 1.391, 2144 
 
 2121, 2144, 
 
 2147 
 
 .. 1971 
 
 343, 345 
 
 281, 719 
 
 Dom.) 
 
 1481, 1520 
 
 .. 1068 
 
 , In 
 
 I and 
 
 1230.— 
 455, 1385 
 
 re 
 
 J30.— 1.385 
 lace, 
 
 . 1725 
 and 
 nee, 
 
 226, 1725 
 of 
 and 
 J of 
 Re, 
 
 17-33. — 
 1725 
 unn 
 
 2.30, 1729 
 the 
 
 12, 1016 
 lion 
 in 9 
 of 
 ace 
 
 26, 1735 
 vn- 
 
 17.30 
 1669 
 ion 
 8.— 1499 
 -^ia- 
 93,2089 
 
 Boe-BoT] 
 
 COLTTMK. 
 
 
 Bow-Bre] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Breckh, Bliss v. 1389.— 1391, 1.392, 2121, 2144, 
 
 2147 
 
 BoL'art, Clark v. 1296, 1829, 1888, 1889.-42.3, 
 
 12.35 
 
 V. Township of Seymour 12,36, 1334, 
 
 1373.-1.379 
 
 Bogle, Robinson v 375, 925, 2039 
 
 Boiviue, Potts v 2165 
 
 Boldrick v. Ryan, . . 183, 189, 194, 1259 
 
 Bolt and Iron Co., Re 292,293 
 
 _ Hovenden's Case 
 
 245, 266, 292—253 
 
 Livingston's Case, 
 
 227, 266, 267, 1912.-291, 1238, 2069 
 
 Bolton, Gr.aham V 2207.-2201,2213 
 
 , Murcarv 1529,1715 
 
 Bomlv, Conmee, 1063, H04, 1120, 1121, 1122 
 
 112,3, 1589, 1615, 17.36, 2238.— 12, 111.3, 
 
 1116, 1401, 1615 
 
 _ -, Crusov 58.3, 1311 
 
 Bonisteel v. Hay lor, . . 331 
 
 Book V. Book, 710 
 
 Boomer, Union Loan and Savings Co. v. 
 
 16.5.5, 1659.— 16,-)9 
 Booth, Clemow v. 381, 1250, 1279, 1888.-1320 
 
 V. Mclntyre, 314, 470, 472, 1741, 1746, 
 
 1758.-1816 
 
 V. Prittie .3.30, 1236 
 
 , Ratte V. 467, 1183, 1250, 1595, 2104, 22.38. 
 
 —489, 2099, 2100, 2109, 2110 
 
 V. Ratte 118.3, 2105 
 
 , Regina ex rel. Brine v. 1054, 1.330, 1979.— 
 
 1326 (hi.H) 
 Bootli's Estate, In re , . . . 519, 2240 
 
 Trusts, In re . . 912, 2190, 2234 
 
 Borden. Town V 2164,2182 
 
 Borthwick and the City of Ottawa, Re . 1370 
 
 V. Young 1250, 1862 
 
 Bosanquet, In re Hodgson and Township 
 
 oi 1.381,2114 
 
 Bostivick, M'^O; Mioupe v. . . . . 106—104 
 Boiwp]; --nv .. .. 1647.— 1663 
 
 - . ;! ^ 1342 
 
 , .. "Brland .. 29, .?36, 1621, 1626.— 
 
 411 
 Botiiwe.l tiou Case, In re, . . . . .320 
 
 (Doni.) — Hawkins v. 
 
 Smith, 1441, 1442.— 1446, 
 1500 
 
 Petition (Dom.) .. 1509 
 
 Boucher, In re, 848, 1114, 1638, 1985.-1991 
 
 , Ayotte v. . . 132, 774, 19<J2, 1966 
 
 , Cochrane v. 197, 2.34, 8.55-858, 1710 
 
 , Regina v. 442, 1110. 2237.-1 1 1 3, 1 638 
 
 Boughner, Walker v. 1236, 1421, 1975, 2159 
 Bougiiton v. Citizens' Ins. Co. . . 617, 642 
 Boultl)ee v. Burke 1208 
 
 , Donovan v 2038 
 
 , Gorham v. — North York Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) 1450, 1458, 1483, 1486 
 1517,2236.-1521 
 Boultbee's Case — In re Speight Manufac- 
 
 turingCo 249 
 
 Boulton V. Blake 631, 1137, 1146.— 627, 1148, 
 
 1706 
 
 V.Rowland 1318.-1300 
 
 Bourne, Hvman v .. .. 198,1603.-823 
 Boustead, Morgan Envelope Co. v. . . 1871 
 
 Boustead v. Shaw .. .. 81.3.-125,813 
 
 Boustead and Warwick, In re, 1887.— 1967, 
 
 1974, 2089 
 Bovine, Potts v 1250 
 
 Bowen v. Canada Southern R. W. Co. . 1750.— 
 
 1768, 1816 
 
 , Totten v. 806,882.-187 
 
 .. 2187 
 
 706.— 831 
 
 .120 
 
 . . 1595.— 1606 
 
 Bower, Bank of Montreal v. 
 Bowerman v. Phillips, 
 Bo.ves, Insolvents, In re 
 Bowman, Head v. 
 
 Brackenridge, Campion v. 95, 
 Bradford, (Trcenshields v. . . 
 
 Thatcher v. 498, 589, 1135.-1150 
 Bown, Wallbridge v. — West Hastings Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) 1604 
 
 Boyd v. Glass, 805 
 
 v. .Johnston 689, 1281 
 
 v. McNutt 20 
 
 , Moore v o27.— 635 
 
 -v. Nasmith, 1.37,1562 
 
 — - V. Ph(pnix Mutual Life Ins. Co. 1002(6w.) 
 
 , Regina V 1109,1.3.50,2242 
 
 V. Sullivan 18,57 
 
 Boyer V. Gaffield .. .. 826,827,1194 
 Boyes, Goodman v. . . . . 1208 
 
 Re, In re Voters' List for the City 
 
 of St. Thomas 400, 8.53, 1416, 1431 
 Bojlan and the City of Toronto, Re 1053.-1843 
 Boyle, Cosgrave v. . . , . . . . . 162 
 
 , Hughes v 41.3,2235 
 
 , Robinson v. . . . . . . 349 
 
 , Vogt V 394 
 
 Boynton, Kaiser v. 353, 1163, 1818, 1836,2205 
 Boys' Home of the City of Hamilton v. 
 
 Lewis 711, 718, 2161, 2180.-2191 
 
 1629.— 1302, 1900 
 
 .. 1194.— 1201 
 
 Regina V. 1030 
 
 Taylor V 1647.-1672 
 
 . Bradley 891, 1958 
 
 Clarke 627. -1841 
 
 V. Mcintosh .617.-505, 516, 619, 1398, 
 
 1402 
 
 Bradshaw, Watson V 837.-682 
 
 Rradstreet, Priesiman v. . , . . . . 1239 
 
 Bradt v. Bradt 634 
 
 Brady, Lewis v 72, 73, 1983 
 
 , Regina v. . . 1041, 1043, 1044, 1048, 
 
 1106.— 1046 
 
 V. Sadler, 466, 439, 648, 652, 2108, 22.33, 
 
 2243.— 2100 
 
 V. Stewart 222.-257, 259 
 
 , Worman, V .374.-397 
 
 Braithwaite, Kennedy V 27.-1526 
 
 Brake, Lancey v. . . . . . . 660 
 
 Brand, Erickson v 1214, 1216 
 
 Brannen v. .Tarvis, . . . . 1589, 1624, 1918 
 
 Brant, Board of Public School Trustees of 
 
 Section (5 Township of. Re McCallumv. 1730 
 
 Brantford, City of. Re Croome and 210, 1051, 
 
 1052, 1334, 1338.-1051, 
 
 1053, 1843 
 
 , In re Mackenzie and 1373. — 
 
 1351 
 
 , V. Ontario Investment 
 
 60.-70 
 
 Bradley v 
 
 V. 
 
 Co 
 
 Branton, Stuart v. 
 Brassert v. McEwen 
 
 , . 353, 2242 
 
 858, 1668, 1853, 1871.— 
 
 100, 1869 
 
 Brayley v. Ellis . . ' . . 131, 807 
 
 Breakie, Saunders v. 587, 2020, 2097, 2165 
 
 Breard, Thurston v 1840 
 
 Brecken, Jenkins v.— Queen's County 
 
 Election (Dom.) .. 1440 (M. l**!. 1**6. 
 
 1512 
 Breithaupt- -McLean V. .. ■^..'. .. 1872 
 Brennen v. Brennen . . ' '"",';' 788, 886 
 
zviU 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Bre-Bro] 
 
 COLUMN. Bro-Bru] 
 
 II 
 
 Hrenton, Ashley v. 626 
 
 Brice V. Munro . . . . 13, 261, 1618 
 Bridges v. Ontario Rolling Mills Co, . . 1249 
 V. Real Estate Loan and Debenture 
 
 Co 
 
 Hrierly, Regina v. . . 
 Briggs V. Lee.. 
 
 V. Semmens . . 
 
 Brigham v. McKenzio 
 Bright, Re BackhouHC v. 
 
 V. McMurray 
 
 49.5, 1290, 1832 
 318, 4.33.-671 
 1166.— 1174 
 
 2124 
 
 400, 1590, 1656, 16.')9 
 552 
 590, 1189, 1278.-4*93 
 
 Brine v. Booth, Regina ex rel.— 1054, \S2li[bu.) 
 
 1330, 1979 
 BriHcbois V. The Queen .. .. 449.-448 
 British America Assurance Co., Canadian 
 
 Bank of 
 
 Commerce 
 
 V. 
 
 , Clarry v. 
 
 , Cockburn 
 V. 937, 
 1006.- 
 
 , Gerow v. 
 
 , Hughes V 
 382.- 
 
 973 
 975 
 
 960, 
 -034, 
 
 935 
 !t89, 
 2234 
 
 51, 
 1673 
 
 British Canadian Loan and Investment Co. 
 
 V. Britnell 113 (6i,s), 685, 
 2242 
 
 V. Ray 1298, 1.302.-1265 
 
 V. Williams 1272.-1277, 
 
 1281 
 British Canadian Lumbering and Timber 
 
 Co. V. Grant . . . 295, 757, 1092 
 
 British Columbia Towing and Transporta- 
 tion Co., Sewellv. 1389, 1920, 1930, 2008.— 
 1599, 1931, 2002 
 Britnell, British Canadian Loan and In- 
 vestment Co. V. . . 113 {bis,) 685, 2242 
 Briton Medic.il and General Life Associa- 
 tion (Limited), Re 293, 294, 310, 1006, 
 1680, 223.3,-267, 282, 611, 295 
 
 Britten, Imperial Bank V 1071 
 
 Broatch, Broderiek V. ,. 1220,2040,-2044 
 
 Hamilton v 1220 
 
 Brock and the City of Toronto, In re 1374, 1984, 
 
 2025.— 1.361 
 
 Brockton, Robins v. 1376 
 
 Brockville, Bann V, ., 1052,1129 
 
 Brockville Election (Ont.)— Flint v, Fitz- 
 
 simmons 1426, 1431, 1432, 14,35, 14,36, 1458, 
 
 1468, 1486, 1499, 1518, 2236 (his), 2242 
 
 Brockville, Town of, McConkey v, ,, 2112 
 
 -, Town of, Molsons Bank v. 1.3,34, 
 
 1695.— 1379 
 
 , Township of Eliza- 
 
 bethtownv. 861,918, 
 1.369, 1373 
 
 , United Counties of 
 
 Leeds .and Grenville 
 
 V. , , , . 835, 1050 
 
 Bro<ldy, Coyne v 1206,-2060 
 
 , Lyttle V 83 
 
 , Paisley v, 781, 1094, 1310,-831, 1093, 
 
 1277 
 Broder, Cook v.— Dundas Election (Ont.) 300, 
 1460, 1466, 1481, 148.3.-1481 
 Broderiek V. Broatch ., 1220,2040,-2044 
 Brodie, iEnta Life Ins, Co, v. 650, 1003,-662 
 , Goderich v, I677 
 
 V, Northern R, W. Co. 1794—749, 1796 
 
 Brodrecht v, Fiok , 
 , Romann v. 
 
 0OLT7HK. 
 
 .. 1609 
 .. 1609 
 618.— 505 
 
 Bromley v, Graham 
 
 Bronson and Canada Atlantic R, W. Co. 
 
 Re 353, 1767, 1963, 2231, 22.34, 22.35 
 
 and City of Ottawa, In re, 1770, 1816— 
 
 1.366 
 
 Brooke, Bloomfield V 281,719 
 
 v. Brown 114.3,2074 
 
 , Eberts v 418, 541 
 
 v, McLean , , 206, 1696,-20.32, 2035 
 
 Brooker, Merchants' Bank v. 398, 819,-401 
 
 20*1 
 Brookfleld and the Trustees of Publio 
 .School Section 12 of the Township 
 
 of Brooke, In re 
 Brooks V. Conley 
 
 , Herring v, , . 
 
 , Mol)erly v. . 
 
 Brown, Ashley v, 
 
 , Brooke v, 
 
 V, Brown 
 
 v, Cousineaux, 
 
 v. Uavy 
 
 Elliott V, 
 
 1232, 12.3.3 
 
 208, 1078,-15 
 
 . . 1652. 2044 
 
 644, 770.— 208<> 
 
 .,791 
 
 ,, 1143,2074 
 
 , , 1532,-1.533 
 
 .. 160O 
 
 , , 8.38.-838 
 
 793, 872 
 
 , Farwell v, — South Ontario Election 
 
 {0.t,).32, 1447, 1449, 1487, 1488, 1489, 
 1524, 2238, 2241.— 1456, 1510 
 
 , Gardner v , , , . 561 
 
 , Great Western R, W. Co. of 
 
 Canada v. . , . , , , 1774 
 
 , Griffith V 1197.-118.3,1199 
 
 v. Grove 112,479,82.3, 1416, 1918,-17 
 
 V, Rowland , , 165, 266, 583, 653, 2092 
 
 , Hyne v 190(> 
 
 , Irwiu v, , . 1611, 1613,-1612, 1614 
 
 v, Johnston . , , , , . . . 226 
 
 , Lewis V . 793 
 
 , McArthur v. 605, 2012.— 200, 489, 1257 
 
 V. McLean .. 1258,1273,1390,1988 
 
 , McLean v 1 867 
 
 v. MoUae .. 1007,1.397,1921.-1,396 
 
 , Miller v, 409, 1200, 1294, 1824, 1829, 
 
 22.35.— 1191 
 
 v. Nelson .338, .367, 693, 1010, 1078 
 
 1653, I960.— 3.30, 336, .341, 364 
 
 v. Pears, 632, 769, 1886.— 1894, 1967 
 
 v. Porter 365, 2042 
 
 , Regina v. 1034, 1040, 1045, 1098, 1982,— 
 
 1032, 1033, 1047, 1048 
 
 , Sayles v 484, 1274 
 
 , Sinden v 1 1 18, 1 122,-1 122 
 
 V, Sweet 232 805, 1413, 1961,-197 
 
 , Thorburn, v, 635 
 
 , Town of Welland v. 72, 666, 2053.— 
 
 1701 
 
 , Willettv 54 
 
 , AVilson V. 159, 402, 405, 1542, 1961.— 
 
 34, 177 
 
 V. Wood 2047 
 
 V. County of York, 1624, 1625.— 1626 
 
 Brown (G. & J,) Manufacturing Co., 
 
 Bank Traders' of Canada v. . . 860 
 
 Browne V. Pinsoneault 1149 
 
 , Regina v, 7, 646, 741 (bis), 742,-7 
 
 Brownlee, Devanney v 173 
 
 Bruce, McKay V . .. 1193 
 
 , McLean v, 626, 635, 771, 1634, 2066, 
 
 2082,-633,643, 823, 16.32, 1819, 2062 
 Bruce, County of, v, McLay , 508, 1379,1821,- 
 
 12 508 1827 
 Brumwell, Bulmer V, ,. 652,1144,-2023 
 
 Bru-Bi 
 
 Brunda 
 Bninell 
 
 Brunet, 
 la. 
 
 liruyea ' 
 Bryan v 
 Bryce, ' 
 Bryce, 
 Bryson ■ 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 zix 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Bru-Bur] 
 
 COLUMN. Bur-Oam] 
 
 o., 
 .. 860 
 ,. 1149 
 742.-7 
 .. 173 
 .. 1193 
 )4, 2066, 
 19,2062 
 ,1821.— 
 08, 1827 
 .—2023 
 
 CO" UMN. 
 
 Bmndage v. Howard 248, 1082.— 7, 1978 
 
 Bninell v. Canadian Pacific R. VV. Co. 
 
 1247, 1784 
 Brtinet, L'Association Pharmacentique do 
 
 la Province de Quebec v 1586' 
 
 -, Pilon V. 473, 892, 1268,2003, 2009.-652 
 
 Brunker, Little V 1307, : 381.— 26 
 
 ~, Northcote v 1060 
 
 Brussels, Village of. In re Ronald and, . . 69 
 
 , Village of, v. Ronald 199, 475, 702, 
 
 1320, 1348, 1572.— 3.S!) 
 liruyea V. Rose .. 466,1183,2034.-2032 
 
 Bryan v. Mitchell 580, 2044 
 
 Bryce, Beaty v 374, 1024 
 
 Bryce, McMurrich & Co. v. Salt . . 903, 1072 
 Brysou v. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co, 765, 
 
 872, 17.")2.— 1762 
 Bucliner v. Currie — Welland Election (2) 
 
 (Ont) . . 1443, 1457, 1460, 140.3, 1477, 
 1480, 1491, 1497, 1521 
 
 Bucke V. Murray 1650 
 
 Buckley V. Beigle 1137,1152 
 
 Buckner, Moore v. . . 51, 375, 1672.— 52, 60(i 
 
 Budworth V. Bell .360,1571 
 
 Bugg, Crawford v. 1139, 1140. -11.33, 1144 (his), 
 
 209S 
 Building & Loan Association, Archbold v. 
 
 1.307. -1285 
 
 , Blake v. . 2084 
 
 V. Carswtll 1308 
 
 , McDonell V. 371 
 
 5:4 
 
 V. Palmer . ,817. — 
 
 823 
 
 Buist V. McCombe . . 532 
 
 Bull V. North British Canadian Investment 
 
 Co. 408, 855, 942, 956, 967, 1592, 1594.— 
 
 9l>7 
 
 , ''Brieuv 1025 
 
 Bullivant, an Insolvent, In re . . 129 
 
 , Macdonaldv. 1272.— 1277 
 
 , .St. John V 192, 1922 
 
 Bulmer V. Bruniwell .. 652. 1144.— 2023 
 
 Bunbury v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co. 1649, 1822, 
 
 2044, 2232.— 2041, 2042 
 
 Bunting v, Laidlaw . . . . . . . . 1803 
 
 , Regina v. .306, 415, 434, 446, 4,55, 852, 
 
 1422, 2009.-417, 434 {bix), 852, 859 
 Burdett, a solicitor. Re, . . . . . . 1951 
 
 Burford, Township of. Trustees of School 
 Section No. 24 of the Township of 
 Burford V. .. 649, 1724, 1728,22.32 
 
 Burgess v. Conway . . . . 412, 1881. -1992 
 
 , Gardner v. . . 1319, 1819, 1821.— 1312 
 
 , Gunn V. 22, 182, 185, 692, 69.3, 2014 
 
 , Kirk V 699 
 
 Burk V. Dawson — Algoma Election (Dom). 
 
 1513, 1514, 2242 
 
 Burke, Boultbee v 1208 
 
 , Girvin v 155, 1556, 1648 
 
 V. Girvin . . . . 1648, 2093, 2235 
 
 , Hay V. 163, 2242 
 
 , Ontario Bank v. 161, 615, 1070, 1071 
 
 v. Pittman 1601 
 
 V. Taylor 751.-676 
 
 Burkett, Trericev, 692, 1016, 1(J8.— 19.32 
 
 Burkholder, Albrecht v. . . . . . . 508 
 
 Burkitt V. Tozer 2163 
 
 Burland V. Moffatt Ill 
 
 Burlington, Waldie v 320, 929 
 
 , Village of. In re Waldie v. 404,1824, 
 
 2126 
 
 Burn V. Burn, 682, 1422, 1539, 1598.— 713, 721. 
 724, 728, 767, 2069, 2079 
 
 V. GifFord .. ..1921,2079.-2069 
 
 Burnet V. Hope, .. .. 12.37, 1546.— 1241 
 Burnett, Christie v. 653, {bin.) 1853, 1857.-.326 
 
 V. Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 
 
 943, 976.-9.33 
 Burnham, Calvert V. .. 1635,1892.-1978 
 
 V. Garvey, . . .19, 381, 1176, 1193 
 
 v. Kerr — West Northumberland 
 
 Election (Ont.).. 1615, 1520.— 1517 
 Burns, Cassels v 1922, 2003 
 
 Comntjeau v.— Gloucester Election 
 
 (Dom.) 
 
 , Dancy v. 
 
 , Greenizen v. 
 
 — — — v. Mackay 
 
 v. Young 
 
 Burritt v. Burritt . 
 
 V. Murdock . 
 
 Burrows v. Leavens . 
 Burt, (ihvss V. 
 Burwcll, Fawoett v. . 
 
 , Rowland v. , 
 
 Hury, Forsytli v. 
 
 1523 
 
 1932 
 
 395, 1615, 1855.- 1622 
 
 793 
 
 .339, 475, 903.— 850, 1 130 
 
 .. 719,2190.-2071 
 
 . . 1007.— 1068 
 
 770 
 
 199, 836.-883, 2060 
 
 896, 1007 
 
 . . 1315, 1660 
 .. 698.-6(16 
 
 2056 
 
 723 
 
 Busljy, Winchester v. 
 Bush, Re, . . .... 
 
 and the Commissioners of Niagara 
 
 Falls Park, Re. . 461, 2237.-574 
 
 V. Fry 745, 1861, 2225.— 1637, 1687, 1689 
 
 , Link v. 368, 1079 
 
 v. McCormack .378 
 
 , Regina v 315.— 1638 
 
 lUishell v. Moss, Re, .. .. 547. — 537 
 
 liussell v. Barber — Halton Election (Ont. ) 26, 
 
 1443, 1459, 1467, 1478, 1482, 1525, 
 
 224.3. — 1459, 1478 
 
 , Elliott v 676, 837.-682 
 
 Butl.aiid V. Gillespie . . . . 1980, 2223 
 Butler V. Rosenfeldt . . . . .53, 56 
 V. .Stau<lard Fire Ins. Co 1683 
 
 Butterfield, (irip Printing and Publishing 
 
 Co. of Toronto v. . . 602, 1550 
 
 V. Wells, . . 120, 1944, 2082 
 
 lUitterworth v. Shannon, . . . . . . 1693- 
 
 Button, Hillock v. 868, 2090.— 766, 813 
 
 Byers V. McMillan, 661.— 1165 
 
 , Royal Ins. Co. v. 786, 908.— 976, 1006 
 
 V. Woodburn -Re Eaton . . . . 1681 
 
 Byrne and Township of Rochester, In re 1358 
 
 Cadwell, Shaw v. . . . . . . . . 1544 
 
 Cain V. Jcnkin . . . . 486, 1192, 1195 
 
 Calder, Powell v 806, 816, 905, 1547 
 
 Caldwell v. McLaren 2105 
 
 , McLaren v. 31, 412, 927, 928.-33, 
 
 362, 1568, 2099 
 
 , V. Stadacona Fire and Life Ins. 
 
 Co. 475, 939, 965, 968, 1596, 2010.— 
 
 973, 1006 
 Calgary School Trustees, Angus v. 70, 1995 
 
 Callaghan, Re 1738 
 
 Calvert v. Black 560, 2090 
 
 /. Burnham . . 1635, 1892.— 1978 
 
 Calvin, Leslie v. . . 725, 1559.-724. 1559 
 
 Cambridge, Township of, Canada Atlantic 
 
 R. VV. Co. V. . . 1335, 1807, 1808, 1811 
 Camden, Corporation of, Preston v. 14, 2115. — 
 
 1393, 1384 
 Cameron, Re . . . . . . . . 913- 
 
 V. Allen . . . . 543, 553, 2240 
 
 I 
 
zx 
 
 Oam] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 I'OLUMN. I Oam-Oan] 
 
 COLCMM. 
 
 Cameron v. IJickfDrfl 
 
 V. (.'aineron 
 
 V. C.uni)l.tll '•■^••■> 
 
 V. (^niiiulii Firo and Marino Ins. 
 
 V.Carter .. .. 775, IHSH. 18<»4 
 
 V. CliKUM . . . . 1258, 150.3 
 
 V. CuRack .. ■• •• 818 
 
 , DavidHon v Wi«. 109.3 
 
 , Farroll v 8B8, 208-2 
 
 V. (!il)son, 197, 456, 467, 127.3.-1285 
 
 , ( ! hiHs V 702, 1 082. - 1 0ti6 
 
 , (ioriiig V. 578, 580 (/-m), 1007, 1040 
 
 , Hewitt v.— Card well Klection 
 
 (l)oin 1437.-1425 
 
 -__, InfaiitB, Kc 1508 
 
 -_ _ V. Leioiix . . 908, 163,3.-734 
 
 V. Macleiinnn, Xortii Victoria 
 
 KLclioii (Uom.) 4.33, r,-,r,, 142;-), 
 • Ui Ki^ 1427(i'</i), 1440(M, 1444, 1445(/»i'.'<), 
 14.-)2, 1458, 1464, 1465, 1475, 147P, 
 ;:•->." l.-)0.), 1508, 1520, 1521, 2234,-1469, 
 1474, 1479, 1480, 1482, 1521 
 V. McDougall— North Middlesex Elec- 
 tion (Out.) . 1461, 1480 (6m), 1484 
 
 2238 
 
 , Miles V 1128,1309 
 
 , Mitciiell V 852 
 
 , Mitchell V. — West Huron Elec- 
 tion (Dom.) 1447, 1504, 1517.-1.509 
 
 V. Terriii 809 
 
 V. Phillips 7.38 
 
 Phillips V. (No. 2) .. 738 (W") 
 
 , Provincial Ins, Co. v. 19, 238, 250, 
 
 252, 258, 665, 1008.— 250, 257, 332 
 
 , Regina v. . . . . . . . , 1045 
 
 , Reiinick v. — East Toronto Klec- 
 tion (Ont.) 1457, 1458, 1460, 1472, 
 1481, 1482, 1500, 1518, 22.37.-1473 
 , Ritchie v. — South Huron Elec- 
 tion (Dom.) . . . . 1491, 1520 
 
 V. Rutiierford, 1069 
 
 V. Tate, 1687.— 1685 
 
 , Thomas v. 528 
 
 v. Walker 873, 1180, 2238.-590, 867, 
 
 1191 
 
 v. AVellington Grey and Bruce 
 
 K. W. Co. 1631, 1752.— 6,")2 1968, 
 
 1971, 1978 
 
 Cameron, Solicitors, Ke, .. 1948—1956 
 
 Campan v. Lucas 1840 
 
 Campbell, Cameron v 1205 
 
 V. Campbell 732, 820, 1631, 1681.-824 
 
 1628 
 
 Re Chatham Harvester Co. v. 687.-685 
 
 , Citizens' Insurance Co. v. . . 511 
 
 • , Cole V 1020, 1398.-1410 
 
 V. Cole , . . . 878, 1075.-1407 
 
 , Collins v.— East Durham Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) . . 1428, 2240.— 1444 
 
 , Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 
 Society V. .. 457,1080.-1.320 
 
 V. James 1607, 1619 
 
 , Labatt v. . . . . , . . . 2221 
 
 V. Martin 321, 1669 
 
 . , McDougall V 1295.-376 
 
 , McGeev. .. 127,16.32.-115 
 
 v. McKerricher 1236, 1421, 1874, 1877, 
 
 ,. , 2158, 2244.-1975 
 
 , Merchants Bank v 1917 
 
 , O'Byrne v. 14, 478, 1.392, 2116.— 
 
 1390, 2115 
 
 27, 674, 68.3, l.'i.3».-8 ' Campl)ell,0'Rourke v 
 641, 1896. -77H, IS(I4 ..-.-.- 
 
 149 910 
 
 Paradisv 2102,2233 
 
 V. Prince, 33, 402, 404, 1405, 141«.— 
 
 1405 
 
 , Regina v 886, 105«.— 880 
 
 V. Rol)in8.m, 1280, 1317, 1698.-1277 
 
 v. Victoria Mutual Fire Ir.g. Co. 963 
 
 , Wilson V 1282 
 
 Campion v. Brackcnridgo, 95, 1629.— 1.302, 1900 
 
 , Culvcrwell v. . . 1690.-1692, 1914 
 
 Canada Atlantic R. W. Co., Re Bronson 
 
 i , and ;W3, 1767 
 
 1963, 2231, 2234, 
 
 2235 
 
 V. Township 
 
 of Cambridge. 
 ' 1.335,1807,1808, 
 
 1811 
 
 , Moxley v. 
 
 640.-642,677,079 
 v. Moxley, 
 
 616, 629, 667, 
 22.39.— 1788 
 
 V. City of 
 
 Ottawa, . 1128, 
 
 1808, 1809. — 
 
 1334, 1335, 1336, 
 
 13.39 
 
 Shoebrinkv. 1780, 
 
 21.'>1 
 Canada Central R. W. Co., Dunlop, v. 912, 1747, 
 
 —1762 
 
 , In re Horton 
 
 and Admas- 
 
 ton and 852, 1763 
 
 , Jones v. .382, 481, 
 
 556,1744,2240.— 
 1806, 1814, 1816 
 
 V. McLaren 641, 667, 
 
 677, 1025, 1080, 1391, 
 ■ 1785, 1786, 2052. — 
 
 25, 679 
 
 , McTjiiren v. 2051 
 
 •. Murray 277, 1713. 
 
 —267, 276, 324 
 
 , Murray v. . . 31, 
 
 1400. -25, 644, 
 1125, 1410 
 
 , Township of 
 
 Pembroke V. 003, 
 1342, 1416, 1770 
 
 , Thompson, v 1759, 
 
 1801 
 
 Cana<la Company, Kyle v 859, 1994 
 
 Canada Cotton Co. v. Parmalee 89, 92, 2243.— 91 
 Canada Farmers' Ins. Co., Lawson v. . . 374 
 
 ,Murchisonv. 1625,2021 
 
 Canada Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Low- 
 son, 415, 691, 702, 958, 978, 979, 1658 
 Canada Fire and Marine Ins. Co. , Cameron 
 
 V, 934, 964 
 
 .ReColeand, 
 
 — Close's 
 Case, 246.-257 
 
 , Fire Ins. 
 
 Assn. (Lim- 
 ited) v. 972, 
 973.-967, 1006 
 
 , Gillv. 938,961 
 
 , Peoria Sugar 
 
 Refining Co. 
 
 V. 947, 970.— 972 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xzi 
 
 Oan] 
 
 COLUMN. Oan] 
 
 Canadft Firo and Marino Ins. Co. , Thomp- 
 son v. 2«tt, 788. — 
 257, 1120 
 
 V, Western 
 
 Asb'co. (Jo »90 
 
 Canada Fire and Mutual Ins. Co., Onmiuin 
 
 .Securities Co. v 94O.-1006 
 
 Canada Guarantee Co., Woodruff v. 1007, 2053 
 Canada Landed Credit Co. v. Tliouipson. . 1411, 
 
 2080 
 Canada Life Assce. Co., Re Chambliss and, 737 
 
 . , City of Kingston v. 01, 
 
 2236 (hin), 2240 
 
 , Grant v 129/ 
 
 , Russell V. 644, 998, 
 
 1620.— 1006 
 Canada Loan and Banking Co., Legarie v. 541 
 Canada Mutual Aid Association, Hartnell v. 628 
 Canada Mutual Kuilding Society v. Teeter 1298 
 Canada Permanent Loan anil Savings Co., 
 
 , , . Diseher v. 561, 860, 
 
 1175, 1300, 
 
 , Foley V. 
 V. Foley 
 V. McKay 
 V. Taylor 
 
 Canada Publishing Co. , Gage v. 
 V. Gage 
 
 1165, 
 
 1296 
 
 905, 1209 
 
 .. 577 
 
 1197, 1831 
 
 .. 466 
 
 . . 412 
 
 2027. -349 
 
 Cauaila Shipping Co. V, Hudon Cotton Co. 
 
 V 1694, 1864, 2014, 2243 
 
 Canada Southern R. W. Co., Bickford v. 47. — 
 
 860, 1162, 1816 
 
 , Bowenv. 1750(M. 
 
 1768, 1816 
 
 Clouse V. . . 919, 
 
 1800. —917, 1752, 
 1762 
 
 V. Clouse . . 1753 
 
 , Cunningham v. 
 
 33, 415, 2009 
 
 COLUMK. 
 
 • V. Erwin. 
 
 1752 
 
 1762 
 
 , International 
 
 Bridge Co. v. 148, 
 
 299, 413, 1680, 
 
 1712, 2049, 2235. 
 
 -16G1 
 
 V. International 
 
 Bridge Co. 1011, 
 
 1680.— 148, 2151 
 
 V. Jackson 1785. — 
 
 1244, 1249, 1780 
 
 , NorvaU v. 33, 49, 
 
 305, 415, 1764, 
 
 1974, 2009.— 51, 
 
 1762 
 
 , Norvell v. . . 376, 
 
 1765, 2092.— 1744, 
 
 1816 
 
 V. Phelps 300, 1389, 
 
 1787 
 
 , Quillinan v. 1227, 
 
 1606, 1749, 2238.— 
 
 2137 
 
 , Rowlands v. 2006, 
 
 2007, 2237.— 2002 
 
 , Ryan V. 1654, 1783. 
 
 —1412, 1654, 1658, 
 
 2051 
 
 , Schliehauf v. 
 
 1751, 1800 
 
 Canada Temporanco Act, Re, 
 Canada Transit Co. , Friendly v. 
 
 . . 1030, 1228 
 1 859, 1926.— 
 22'. 1869, 1928 
 Canadian Bank of Connnercu v. lUnk of 
 
 Britiiih '.'.orth 
 Amei'iru, 1603. — 
 1020 
 
 , British America 
 
 Assce. Co. . , 973 
 
 V. Crouch, 86, 915, 
 
 1960 
 
 , Federal Bank 
 
 of Canada v. 1017 
 
 V. Forbes 1166, 1314 
 
 V. (Jreun 160. — 165 
 
 V. Jenkins 1 15, 133. — 
 
 103, 27f), 1836 
 
 , Kerr v. 795.— 106 
 
 795 
 
 V. Marks, 1.140.-1415 
 
 V. Middloton 92, 
 
 1023 
 
 ■ V. Northwood. 174, 
 
 176.-235 
 
 V. Tasker 1025.— 
 
 1022 
 
 V. Woodcock 876, 
 
 1069.-881 
 
 V. Woodward. 
 
 169.— 140, 2.35 
 Canadian I^and antl Emigration Co. v. 
 
 Municipality of Dysart 69, 788, 918, 1081, 
 
 1568.-31,926, 1093 
 
 Canadian Locomotive Co. v. Copeland 1929, 
 
 2234.— 1928. 1930 
 
 Canadian Mutual Aid Association, IJodds v. 1002 
 
 Canadian Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Duff v. 226, 277, 
 
 416, 977, 979.-934, 1633, 1957 
 
 Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. , Anderson v. 655, 
 
 1792, 1793, 1802.— 
 1790 
 
 Bate V. 1781, 1792.— 
 
 1790 
 
 , Blake v. 
 
 , Brunell v. 
 
 Casey V. 1778. 
 
 1778 
 1247, 
 
 1784 
 1780. 
 
 , Conmeev. 31, .37, 
 
 39, 40, 1647, 1671. 
 
 2046, 2093.— 15, 
 
 30, 48, 408, 676 
 
 V. Conmec 618, 2046. 
 
 —408, 677 
 
 , Conway v. . . 1772, 
 
 2239, 2241, 2242 
 
 . Curry v. . . 1783 
 
 , Davis V. 1772,2239 
 
 , Elliott V. 637.-6.35 
 
 , Flannigan V. . . 1789 
 
 , Fowle V. . . 6.30 
 
 V. Grant 1078, 1961. 
 
 — 1914 
 
 , Hutchinson v. 1774 
 
 , Le May v. 1250, 
 
 1615, 1782, 2240 
 V. Little Semi- 
 nary of StTlierese 
 1758, 1763, 1767, 
 ..JMnP^ 1994.— 1995 
 
 V. Major, . . 1816 
 
 V. Manion 577, 1593 
 
xzU 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Oan-Oar] column. 
 
 Canada PutiHo K. W. Co., Ontario and 
 
 Saiilt iSte. M. 
 R. VV. Co. V. 17(iO, 
 1817, 1080, 11)81, 
 t>23.3.— 1745 
 
 , (;wcn (Sound 
 
 ,Stciiin»liii> {'o. 
 V. . . 3.10, 1790 
 
 --.--- , liichardaon v. 170"), 
 
 1706 
 1.305 
 1591 
 1090 
 46 
 
 V. Robingon . 
 
 , Ross V. 
 
 . , .Shaw V. 
 
 ; .Shepherd v. 
 
 „, , Vickers Ex- 
 
 press Co. V. 740, 
 1707, 1700 
 
 , Wardrope v. 88, 
 
 665, ()67 
 
 , Weir V. . . 1778 
 
 V. Westcni U. 
 
 Teli'gra|)h Co. 277, 
 
 282, 101.3,1800,201.3. 
 
 --.331 
 
 , Worden v. 346, 
 
 1798.-1796 
 Canadian Securities Co. v. Prentice 175, 1610.— 
 
 1.59 
 18S0 
 
 Canavun v. Meek 
 
 , Pierce v, 
 
 Canii V. Knott 
 
 Caniiitl', Forsyth v. 
 
 Vermilyea v. 
 
 1087, 1280, imi.—m> 
 
 4()5, 696, 2237 
 
 12.37 
 
 1555 
 
 Cannon V. Toronto Corn Exchange, 271, 
 
 1413.— 41, 52 
 
 Re— Gates v. Cannon 222, 732. — 166, 
 
 728 
 
 (2) 168, 222, 732, 
 
 1209 
 Cantillon, Regina V. ..1059.— 1056 
 
 Cape ISrcton, County of, Crewe-Read v. 
 
 1254.-17 
 
 CapoU, Elliott V 19, 80, 92 
 
 V. Elliott 1083 
 
 Capstock, Thornton v. . . . . ..511 
 
 Card V. Coc.ley . . . . 157, .165, 2235 
 
 CardiiF, Township of, Harding v. 583, 1343, 
 1.344, 1363, 1754,2126.-49,52, 1336 (his), 
 
 1384 
 Cardinal, School Trustees of, Raymond v. 1720 
 Cardo, Kegina v. . . . . . . . . 444 
 
 Cardwell Election (Dom.)— Hewitt v. 
 
 Cameron 1437.— 1425 
 
 (Ont.)— O'Callaghan v. 
 
 Flesher 1451 
 
 Caroy v. City of Toronto 482, 1884, 2118.-2132 
 
 V. (loas . . . , . . 2027, 2028 
 
 Carlaw, Howe V. ., .. .. ..2213 
 
 Carling, McAlpine v. . . 1628, 1076, 1.S.34 
 
 Carling Brewing aud Malting Co. v. Black 1 OS, 
 
 2080 
 
 Carlisle, Dunsford v 033 
 
 — — - V Tait . . . . 182, isS, 195 
 
 Carlton, County of, Regina v. 1418, 2100, 21.38, 
 
 22.38.-472 
 Cirlton Election (Ont.)— Lyon v. Monk. 1515 
 Carlton Place, Board of Education of, 
 
 AlofFatt V. . , . . ]^25 
 
 Carman, Wills v. 378, 475,' 515, 516, 517 (6k ), 
 
 . ^ , ^ .1398, 1404.-501, 1407, 1623 
 
 Carmichael V. Ferris .. .. 533 is')9 
 
 V.Sharp. .. ;; .'.'l530 
 
 Oar-Oaw] 
 
 C'OLDMN. 
 
 Carrick, Hunter v. 
 Carrier, Bender v. 
 Lauder v. 
 
 Carnegie v. Cox . , . . . . . . 631 
 
 , DickHon v 2101.— 2100 
 
 V. Federal Bank of Canada 146, 201, 
 
 202, 474, 6.30, 803, 1664.-8, 1663 
 Caron, O'Brien v.— Quebec County Elec- 
 tion 1514,1524 
 
 Carpenter an<l the Township of liarton, 
 
 Inro 133.5,2129 
 
 ,OImstead v.— South Went worth 
 
 Election (Ont.) 1427, 14.39, 1444.— 1510 
 
 Carr V. Fire Assurance Association, 301, 1286, 
 
 2232 
 362, 1540 
 .3.30.-15 
 508. — 1620 
 Carroll v. Fitzgerald, , . 870, 885, 1206 
 
 , FnrloHK V 749, 2062 
 
 , In re lown of Ingersoll and 21,34. — 1384 
 
 , Maya v. . . . 2164, 2169, 2242 
 
 , Noill V 1172 
 
 V. Village of Parkdale . . 1810, 2126 
 
 V. Penhiathy Injector Co. 513. —611 
 
 V. Williams 1132.— 1966, 1970, 1971 
 
 . Wills V 4.-4,1655 
 
 Carscalli'u, Ross v 859, 1084 
 
 Carson, Martlcy v 2005 
 
 Carson V. Vcitch, .. 73,1125,1146.-63 
 
 (,'arswell, Building and Loan Assn. v. . . 1308 
 
 Carter v. Barker . . . . 1651 
 
 , Cameron v. . . 775, 1888, le!94 
 
 , Friendly v. . , . . 1643, 2041 
 
 V. (irasett 1177, 1275, 20,54.-20, 1404, 
 
 1405, 1409, 1833, 1884, 2053 
 26, 200, 486, 597, 648, 
 
 Grasctt v. 
 
 V. Hatch 
 
 — — — , Holmes V. . 
 
 , Mackenzie v. 
 
 , Muir V. 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Cartwright v. Hii'da 
 
 683,929, 2(J07.— 1901 
 .. 1388, 1625, 1693 
 676, 1002, 1996 
 
 1673 
 
 670, 1092, 1906 
 
 1100 
 
 5.3, 55 (/>:.-..), 855.-557 
 
 Carty v. City of L<nuloii, .385, 388, 036, 1987, 
 2142. -383, ()35, 0.37 
 Carvill V. Schofield .. .. 1925.-1922,2023 
 Cascaden v. Muiirnc;, — \Vcbt ICIgin i'^loc- 
 
 tion(Ont.) .. .. 1445, 1510, 1526 
 
 Casci, Maughan V 1193,212.3.-494 
 
 Casey v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. 1778, 
 
 1780. -1775 
 
 V. Ferris— East Northumberland 
 
 Election (Ont.) 1448, 1479,2235 
 
 V. Garbourie, Re Gabourie. ,30, 721.— 
 
 29, 717, 718, 725, 1666, 2071, 2079 
 
 Casmea, Hyde v, 
 Casner, Re 
 
 V. Haight 
 
 Casschnan v. Cas.5ehnan 
 
 50.3, 2178. 
 
 I(i2(i, 2043 
 
 2170, 2208 
 
 874, 1.304 
 
 426, 595 
 
 1922, 2003 
 
 87 
 
 8t, 1137 
 
 Casscls V. Burns 
 
 Cassidy, Jackson v. 
 
 Castle, Heydeu v. 
 
 Caston's C;uje— Clarke v. Union Fire Ins. 
 
 Co. 244, 276, 290, 292, 293, .383, 
 
 . 1686, 1944, 1951, 1952, 1958, 
 
 1902.-264,291 
 
 , Re Standard Fire Ins. Co. . 245 
 
 Caswell V. Muri ay .. .3,57, .300.— 15 
 
 Cathcart, Ball V. .. f^n, 1085, 1086, 1659 
 Cathedral of the Holy '^vh ity v. Western 
 
 Ontario Pacific R. \V. Co 1756 
 
 Caton, Regina v. . . 1107, 1.308, 2237, 2242 
 (,'aughill V. Clarke 15j, 649, 1618, 1984.- 1622 
 (.'awthra, Crowther v 533 
 
TABLE or OASES. 
 
 zziU 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Oaw-Oha] 
 
 (Jawtliiiv, Miilook V. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 10(tO 
 
 Crtwtliropo, Hnro V. .. .. lfll.% '.'OHO 
 
 CayUiy'H CiiHis-Ro Central Bank 200, 1913. -21)1 
 Coiitriil IJiiiik of Caiuula, Ho . 285, 2H(( 
 
 liaincH ('use, 240, 2M, 
 
 28«, 20-).-20.'J, 2f)7, 
 
 287, (iOI (ftii.) 
 
 , Cftyley's Case . . 2iH), 
 
 1013.-291 
 
 , J. I), llenilur- 
 
 Non's ('auo, . . 287 
 , Morton and 
 Block's Clniins, 
 
 135, 1387.— 1.") 
 , Naamith'u Case 
 
 25tf, 205.— 203 
 , Wells and Mao- 
 Mnrchy's Case, 
 
 135, 7S7 
 , Yorko's Case, 2S8, 
 1070,2233 
 and Hogg, In re 
 
 250, 0<MI 
 V. Osborne, 
 
 Central Ontario R, W, 
 
 Central Press ARS')ciation 
 
 I'russ Association 
 Central Vermont R. W. Co, 
 
 Co., Cooper v. 
 — , Jenkins V. 
 
 1255, 
 — . Moore v, 
 
 106, 511, 
 
 11)12 
 
 . . 1500 
 
 853, 020, 
 
 1755, 1757 
 
 1703.- 
 
 1700 
 
 . American 
 
 . 038 
 S. Johns V. 
 
 20, 08 
 V. Town of St. 
 310, 200, 018.— 315 
 
 Johns .... 
 Centre Wellington Klcution (Uom.) — Iron 
 
 side V. Orton 1402.- 
 
 Cliabot's Case— Clarke V. Union Fire Ins, 
 
 -1400 
 
 Co. 
 
 1005, 
 
 022.— 070 
 .. 2170 
 1.103, 2001 
 1007, 1311 
 1011, 1010 
 1188 
 
 (;h;id))ourne v. Chailboiirno 
 (,'hagnon v. Norniand 
 Clianiborlain v. Armstrong 
 
 — ■ V. Ciianil)erlain 
 
 V. Clark 
 
 , Re Clarke and, 803, 1275, 13S0, 
 
 1828, 1804 
 
 , Fiaken v. . . . . , . 025 
 
 , l,.awles8 V. 301, 572, 85.3, 807,014 
 
 , Lemay V .501,1400 
 
 ■ V. Tnrner . . . . 71, 7.3. — 74 
 
 and tiio Uinted Counties of 
 
 Stormout, Dundaa and Glengarry, He. 107.5, 
 
 1731 
 
 Chambcrlon v. Clark 
 Chanibcrlin, Cronn v. 
 , In re Dean 
 
 Oha-Oit] COLUMN. 
 
 Chapman, Roglna v. 1098, 1.348.-1109 
 
 V. Smith l(l.1<), 2238 
 
 V. Tufts 157, 22.37 
 
 and Water Commissioners of the 
 
 7.38, 801, 1105 
 . . 005, 1302 
 401, 1227.-370, 
 1233 
 
 , Klockv. .. 871,877.-1208 
 
 V. Sovaia .. 1.30.3.— 1710 
 
 Chambers, Trotter v. . . . . . . 870 
 
 Chambliss and Canada Life Assce. Co., Re 737 
 Cliampion, MacKenzie V. .. .. .. 1601 
 
 Chandler, Re, .. ..2177.-2178,2180 
 
 Cha])lin v. Public School Board of the 
 
 Town of Woodstock 023, 1231, 1500, 1724, 
 
 17.30.— 010, 1723, 17.30 
 
 Chapman, Gardiner v. .. 2101.-1850,2000 
 
 V. Larin 1870 
 
 V. City of London, Re, . . 281, 1 100, 
 
 1118, 1716, 1378 
 V. Rand 1030 
 
 City of Lond(m, Re, 1100, 1118, 1.378, 1716 
 Chaput V. Robert 11, 1547, 1571, 1509, 22.32.— 
 
 1018 
 Chard V. Rao .. 722,72.3,1204.-710 
 
 Charland, Regina V. 47,1706 
 
 Charles, Re,— Fulton v. Whatmough, 2184.— 
 
 2177 
 Charlevoix Kleetlon (Dom.)— Cimon v. Per- 
 
 rault 1457 
 
 Charlton v. Watson 83 (hU), 1598, 1893 
 
 Chartoris V. Chartoris .. 2058.--2191 
 
 Chatham, Bickford v. .3.32, 421, 423, 1,377, 1810, 
 
 1811, 1817, 1081, 22.32.-.340, 1.330, 
 
 1345, 1752, 1078 
 
 , Township of. Township of Dover 
 
 V 1.350.— 1.3,52, 1.3.53, 1384 
 
 Chatham Harvester Co. v. Campbell, Re 
 
 687.-685 
 Chatterton v. (Jhatterton— Ro Arnott . . 1.531 
 
 v. (Irothers .. 1572,2247.-1018 
 
 Chauneoy v. Billings, Regina ex rel. 1.331 
 
 Chausse, Stephens V. .. 1155,1242,1.307 
 
 CMiayttr, Regina v. .. 1100, 1367, 22.37 
 
 Chesley, Regina v. . . 109, 483, 1008.-483 
 
 Chevalier v. (^uvillier . . . . . . 1994 
 
 C;iiovriur v. The Queoii 494, 1532, 1585. —1209 
 
 Choync, Morrow V 1219,1606 
 
 Cliiek V. Toronto Electric Light Co. . , 372 
 Chiiig V. JetFury . . . . . . . 159 
 
 Chisholm's Case- Re Standard Fire Ins. 
 
 Co. 246 
 
 Chisholm, Hurst v.— Peel Election (Out.) 1517, 
 1521. -1303, 1505, 1526 (hin) 
 McCann v 1153, 1158 
 
 ■ and tlie Town of Oakville, In re, 
 1715, 1820, 201 
 
 400, 
 2151 
 2216 
 1026 
 298, 
 1478 
 
 Ciiishome, .Smith v. 
 
 Chittick, Croi^diton v. 117, 20.5.3.— 1411, 
 
 Cholotto V. Bain— Soulangos Election 
 
 1404.— 434, 1443, 
 (^ho(iucttc v. Laberge— Montmagny Elec- 
 tion (Dom.) 1508 
 
 Christie V. Burnett 0,")3 (hi.i) 1853, 1857.— .326 
 
 , He — Cliristie v. Christie . . . . 1665 
 
 V. Conwav . 374, 1022, 1025, 1655.— 1659 
 
 , In re (iaibraith and . . . . 129 
 
 , Johnston v., . . 203.3.— 676, 1077 
 
 v. Stock— North Wentwortb Elec- 
 tion (Out.) .. 1449,1480,1408.-1498 
 ChrLstoplier v. Noxon, 253, 250, 208, 385, 659, 
 1505.- 250, 252, 257, 200, 263, 268, 281, 
 
 366, 606 
 77.-63,66,82 
 
 1971 
 
 1952 
 
 4,32.-001 
 
 Charlevoix Election 
 
 1457 
 
 .Boughton V. 617, 642 
 
 v. Campbell . . 511 
 
 v. Cluxton 1608, 1705, 
 
 , Dart V. . . 1645, 1672 
 
 , Greet v. . . 225, 423 
 
 934, 942, 955, 957, 963.— 
 
 1265 
 
 •, City of London v. 1009, 
 
 1561, 1707, 1710.— 1708 
 
 , Moore v. . . 951, 960 
 
 Church v. Fenton, 
 
 v. Fuller 
 
 , Pattullo V. 
 
 Chute, Hegina v. 
 Cimon v. Perrault 
 
 ( Dom. ) . . 
 Citizens' Fire Ins. Co 
 
^^^sr 
 
 zxiv 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Oit-Ola] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Citizens' Ins. Co. and. Henderson, Itc, . . 45 
 
 Citizens' Ins. Co. of Canada v. Parsons, 32, .S02, 
 
 309, 310,318, 4i2, 336, 943, 1260, 2240, 2241, 
 
 2242.— 315, 362, 943, 1568, 1712, 1!)!)2 
 
 City Light and Heating Co. of London v. 
 
 Maclic, 278, 1632, 1634. -1631, 1(1.35 
 
 City of London, Assce, Co., Mitchell v. 976, 
 
 985.— 340 
 
 , Powell V. .. 2043 
 
 City of London Fire Ins. Co., Cousinoau v. 34, 
 
 353, 382, 390, 413, 
 
 859, 971, 1258, 1959, 
 
 .... 1963, 2084.— 25, 856, 
 
 968, 1006, 1569 
 
 , Mitchell V. 209, 788, 
 
 949, 2232.-951, 
 1599 
 
 * V. Smith. 950, 971.— 
 
 967, 1006 
 
 , Smith V. 947 (i/v.) 
 
 965, C71, 975.-934 
 
 Claflin, Levine v 762, 877 
 
 Clancy v. Conway, Rcgiua e.x rel., 1320, 1331, 
 
 1979.-1054, 1056 
 
 V. Mcintosh, Reginaexrel, 1325, 1331.— 
 
 1328 
 
 V. St. Jean, Reglna ex rel., 1328 {hit) 
 
 1331 
 
 732 
 
 2051 
 
 .384, 1668 
 
 1286 
 
 1296, 1329, 1888, 1889. -423, 
 1235 
 
 , Chand)Lrlain V. .. .. lljiS 
 
 , Chamberlen, v. . . 738, 861, 1165 
 
 V. Clark . . 1531, 2179.-734, 2162 
 
 V. Crcighton .. .. .362.-388 
 
 V. Eckroyd 1262.-1129 
 
 V. Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 
 Society 820 
 
 V. Hiirxey . . . 1298.— 1265, 1302 
 
 and the Township of Howard, In i-e 
 
 1342, 1357, 1300.-1339, 1343, 1358 
 
 , Irving V 357 I 
 
 V. Macdonell 1187 
 
 , Kegina v. 646, 1031, 1718. — 10.39, 1098 1 
 
 ,. Collins V 804. — 195, 197 I 
 
 V. Scottisli Imperial Ins. Co. . . 980 j 
 
 V. St. Catiiarincs, .. 356,927.-919 
 
 Clapp, Dodge v. 
 Clapp, Flake v. 
 Claris, Waller v. 
 Clark, Barber v. 
 V. Bogart, 
 
 Cla-Ole] COLUMN. 
 
 Clarke Kama Timber Transport Co. (Lim- 
 ited) . . 356, 2107.-1398, 1409 
 
 , Regina v. . . 1057, 1059, 1100, 2092.— 
 
 1037, 1039, 1058 
 
 , Shoolbred v. . . 284, 304.— 293 
 
 — Re Union Firo Ins. 
 
 Co 286 
 
 , Smitli, V 631 
 
 V. Town of Palmerston, 84, 1125, 1229 
 
 and the Union Fire Ins. Co., Re, 
 
 284, 286, 
 293,304 
 
 V. Union Fire Ins. Co. . 281, 291, 299, 
 
 302, 309, 934, 971, 
 2241 
 
 Claim of tlie 
 
 Agricultural 
 Fire Ins. Co. 
 of Water- 
 town, New 
 York. 1006.-972, 
 973 
 
 , — Caston's Case 
 
 244,276,290,292, 
 293, 383, 1686, 
 1944, 1951, 1952, 
 1958, 1962.-264, 
 291 
 
 Chabot's Case 
 
 622.-679 
 
 Re Export 
 
 Lumber Co. 760 
 
 McPhee's 
 
 Claim, 591,1005, 
 1835.— 973 
 
 , Re — Shool- 
 bred 's Case . . 285 
 
 , In re— Virtue v. Hayes . . 2000.— 1174 
 
 V. White 2018, 2236 
 
 Clarkaou V. Attorney-General of Canada 110, 
 295, 418, 1165, 1844.— 108, 459, 740 
 V. Fire Ins. Association . . 627 
 
 -, Martindale v. 
 
 -, O'Brien v. 
 
 - V. Ontario Bunk 
 
 Ryan v. 
 
 ^^■att v. 
 Clarke, Re 
 
 v. Bnrron 
 
 V. Kogart 
 
 , Bradley v. 
 
 , Caughill V. 
 
 1220, 194 
 
 1955! 
 
 402, 1412! 
 
 12.35' 
 
 627.-1841 
 
 155, 649, 1618, 1984.— I(i22 
 
 - and Chiinilicrlain, Re, 498, 893, 1275, 
 
 ^ . , 1380, 1828, 1894 
 
 - V. Creighton . . . . 13, 875, 1651, 20.38 
 
 - V. Danaiigh . . . . 2184.-2208, 2224 
 -V. Fafiell 1014,1915 
 
 - V. l<rceh()ld Loan and Savings Co. 1280 
 -, Irving V ^-^^ 
 
 - V. Josilin . . . . , 4()}j 
 
 - V. Langky, 1G64, 1894,' i972, 2092.- 
 
 16(;3 
 
 543, 852.-542, 909 
 ..1607. -1 622 
 383,387,669, 1211 
 ,,,.,. -• • 1566, 1962 
 
 -,UntarioCo-operative Stone Cutters' 
 
 Association v. 275, 347, 2237, 2242 
 
 Clarksou v. Ryan 
 
 v. Severs . 
 
 v. Snider, 
 
 V. Sterling, 
 
 V. Macdonald 
 V. McKwing 
 
 , M(.'G;innon v. 
 
 , Mulkins v. , . 
 
 558, 1320, 1981 
 
 . . 104 
 
 112, 113, 303, 790. 
 
 1982, 2232, 2240 
 
 108, 392 
 
 . . 308, 1997 
 
 . . 108, 2233.-304 
 
 . . 203, 1412 
 
 790, 792, 1982, 2233, 2237 
 
 {tri), 2242 
 
 Toronto Stock Exchange, 110, 269 
 
 V. White, 119, 1622.— 131, 1606 
 
 — — . ^Vyld V 1C6.— 845 
 
 C'lairidgf, In re Dnnkwater V. . ..551 
 
 Clarry v. l?iitish America Assurance Co. 975 
 
 — — -Lcggattv 170,1864.-1862 
 
 Claude, \\ eir v. . . . . . . _ , 2109 
 
 Claxton V. shiblcy, 78, 81, 605, 1260, 2235.-83 
 
 Clayton V. McConnell 2251.— 341 
 
 rieator, Re 2164, 2172 
 
 Cleaver v. North of Scotland Canadian 
 
 Moit(.nge Co. 1965.-276, 457, 612, 1970 
 Clej.'g V. c;iand Trunk 11. W. Co. 1781.— 1745 
 Clement, .lames v. . . 209, SiM, 1193, 2048 
 
 , Woddwanl v. . . . . , , 1,551 
 
 Cleniowv. Booth .381, 1250, 1279, 1888.-1.320 
 Clench v. Consolidated Bank of Canada 133, 
 
 2077 
 Ckndtnan V. Blatchford .. 747,2120.-1141 
 .V. Uriyjt 1074 
 
■l3 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 XXV 
 
 -679 
 760 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 >. (Lim- 
 —1398, 1409 
 1100, 2092.— 
 7, 10.S9, 1058 
 54, 304.— 293 
 ire Ins. 
 
 . . 286 
 . . 631 
 4, 1125, 1229 
 'o., lie, 
 
 284, 286, 
 293,304 
 81, 291, 299, 
 !09, 934, 971, 
 2241 
 of the 
 lultural 
 [ns. Co. 
 VVater- 
 , New 
 . 1006.-972, 
 973 
 n's Case 
 276,290,292, 
 .383, 1686, 
 , 1951, 1952, 
 , 1962.-264, 
 291 
 t'a Case 
 622.- 
 xport 
 iberCo. 
 *hee 's 
 1, 591,1005, 
 18.35.-973 
 Shool- 
 Case . . 285 
 2000.-1174 
 2018, 22.36 
 aiiada 110, 
 108, 459, 740 
 . . 627 
 1320, 1981 
 .. 104 
 13, .303, 790, 
 22.32, 2240 
 108, 392 
 308, 1907 
 2233.-304 
 20.3, 1412 
 2, 2233, 2237 
 (tri), 2242 
 110, 2()9 
 131, 1606 
 1C6.-845 
 551 
 ce Co. 975 
 1864.-1862 
 2109 
 lO, 2235.-83 
 2251.— .341 
 2164, 2172 
 nadian 
 7, 612, 1970 
 1781.-1745 
 , 1193,2048 
 l.'JSl 
 
 ooiAMN. I Ool-Con] 
 
 COI.rMN. 
 
 ;c, 
 
 1888. 
 ada 
 
 2120. 
 
 -1320 
 1.3.3, 
 2077 
 
 -1141 
 1074 
 
 467, 208.3, 2098 ! Collier, Regiiia V 10.36,1047 
 
 .. ll(i4|Collingwood, Towiiof, McAithur v. 1.384, 21 12 
 . . 538 I Collins v. Caiupbell — Kast Diuliain Kko- 
 .. 502, lO.Vi' tioii(Oiit.) .. 1428,2210.-1414 
 
 Cle-Col] 
 
 Cleiiiliiming v. Turner 
 Clennaii, Ro{,'ina v. . . 
 Cliiiiio, Forfar v. 
 
 , Murphy v. . . 
 
 . — , lt()l)orts V. 
 
 Cline, .liilmsoii v. 
 
 , Miliary.- ReMillar 
 
 , Re NoUle V. . . 
 
 ; Shorwo'd V. 
 
 Close, Cn'so v. . . 
 
 - — ^ V. Kxoliaii>,'(: Rank .. 404, 8.j(i, 1022 Collins Bay Rafting and Forwardin;^ Co., 
 
 Cl<).so's Case— lie Col(^ and the Canada Fire Hall v 182. — I H4, 1165 
 
 and Marino Ins. Co. .. .. 246. — 257 t-'olliton and Landergan, Re ..2173. — 21 7S 
 
 Clou.se V. Canada Soiitlioi-n R. \V. Co. .. 910, C'ollver v. .Swuyzie .. .. 7;!7, 1682 
 
 1 800. -017, 1752, 1762 Colonial Building and Investment Assouia- 
 
 . , Canada Southern 1!. W. Co. v. .. 1753 lion v. Attorney-CJeueral of (^Mieliec . 
 
 Clow V. Clow 2007, 2173 274, 275, 30!> 
 
 CliKMs. Cameron V. .. .. .. 1258, •.■t03 [ Cohjuhoini, lietliune v. — Stormont Klce- 
 
 . . 502, 1052 
 . . 803 
 
 .. 1050.— 1045 
 . . 536 
 . . 399 
 
 ..131.3.-1311 
 
 404, 8,J6, 1022 
 
 - V. HickoU 1072 
 
 -, Call V. 383, 388, 380, 1054, 10.')6.-- 
 
 02, .301, 10,37 
 -, Regina v. 1037, 1044, 1102, 2022, 2002. 
 
 -10.35 
 -, Wright V 2165 
 
 Clutr, Hegina v. 
 
 Chile and Williams, Ke, 
 
 220 
 l!l.-)0, 2634 
 
 tion (Out.) 1425, M2(i, 14.32, 14S3, n;{.") i/«'.s), 
 
 1445, 1,-)I0, l.)l(i 
 
 Cluxton, Citizen.s' Insurance Co. v. . Ki'.IH, 1705 i Colter v. Olenn — Haldiinand Fleetion 
 
 Coates V. Coates 3.30, 1878, 1073.— 337, 10(i(i, (Dom.) 14.")«, U72 
 
 1070 I — — - V. Mcl'herson . . 633, 783, 1220 
 
 Coats V.Kelly .. 818, 1981. — 1 13, 811 Odthart, Re .. .. 570, ill 1.-1213 
 
 Cohourg, I'eterl)orou_']i and ^larinnia 1!. jColton,Ro — Fisher v. Colton 7-6,737, 1710, 
 
 W. Co., Rank of Torojito v. 2(i5, 4Sii, (>()0, - .738 
 
 223S. — 1806 jColvin V. MeKay .-)(»5.- -514 
 
 Cohourg ami Peterborough R. \V. Co. | Conuncau v. Burns — Gloueester Kleoliou 
 
 Dumblev. .. 1 12.'), 1070, 17.")0.-- 1400 I (Dom.) 1.V23 
 
 Cohourg, Town of, v. Victoiia Univer.sity. 20011 
 Cochrane v. ISouelu-r, 197, 2:!4, 8.'>5. S58, 1710 
 
 V. Hamilton I'rovidLiit Loan So- 
 
 eicty, lOSO 
 
 V. Morrison, . . 309, 63!), iiiJI 
 
 -, Nelson, V, . . . . , 1507 
 
 Commercial National Rank of Chicago v. 
 
 Corcoran. .. 141, 282, 761. — I8(i 
 
 Commercial Union Ass. Co., Logan, v. 0(16. — 068 
 
 — , McLaren, v. 
 
 060.— 000 
 
 — , Summers, v. 03."). — 
 
 1688 
 
 Cochrane Manufacturing Co. v. Lamoii, 
 
 55, 00, Kiol, lost. 1673 I Commis-aiies D'Kcoles pour la Municipal- 
 
 Cockhurn V. liritisli Amciica .-\ssue. Co. 0.'i7. — | iti5 du \'ill:ige de St. (Jabriel v. Lcs 
 
 034, 03."), 060, IO0(i j Soeurs de hi Congregation de IS'otre 
 
 , Dunkin V. 4()5.— 4(16, 1117, 472 | Dame de Montreal .. .. .. 67 
 
 V. Muskoka Milland Lunilicr Co. 346, I Commissioners of the Cobouig Town Triif,t, 
 
 460 i MeSh.rry v. .. 2,33, 238, l(iJ7.— 281 
 
 Coe, I'everill w . . . . 76. (i."i, 7*^. 82 ■ Connnissioners of the Niagara Falls Park, 
 
 Coliee, Mitchell V 5-JO ; ite Bush and .. .. 4(il, 22.37. —574 
 
 , Robins V. .. .. .. .. 1841 , In re Maekh in 
 
 Collin V. North Amirican Land Co. 113(1, 1201 
 
 Cog.swcU, O'P.rien V. .. 80, 1 17."). - 'i3, 82 
 
 Colbert V. Hitks 1217,1626 
 
 Colborne V. Town of Nia'/ara Falls 13.")0. — i34.3, 
 
 1.372 
 
 Colchester North, lie Coleuutt im<] Town- 
 ship of 1.346, 1851, 1084 
 
 Colclicsli r.South, In re McCormick and the 
 
 Township of, . . . . . . 1 725 
 
 Cole V. Cainiihell 1020, I.3il8. — 1410 
 
 , Campbell V ,S78, 107."). — 1407 
 
 and tlii^ Canada Kire and Marine Ins. 
 
 Co., lie, --Close's Case, 
 
 246. 
 
 and 2:f, 4(iO, 762, 
 2208.— 2100 
 Coini)agnie du Villas du Cap Gibraltar v. 
 
 Hughes . 205 
 
 Coinptou V. Mercantile Ins. Co. . . 03(i, !l.')2 
 Comstock V. Harris 610, 6,3S, 641, ](i7l, 102O.— 
 
 20, 1022 
 Confederation Life Association v. Milh r. 
 
 It), 1671. — 1618 
 
 , Miller V. 
 
 I(i. 100(1, 1400, 
 
 1(171, 2(r)0. — 
 
 1300, 1404, 1648 
 
 V. ()T)>.niieU 
 
 518, IJiiS, 006, 
 1401.— 4S3, .")8(i 
 
 V.Hall, . 1174.-705,1171 
 
 Coknian Brothers, C. P. Reid & Co. v. 
 
 151,-). -1546 
 
 V. Hill, . . . . 1265. 23, 4"1 I Conger v. Crand Trunk R. W. Co. 1801, 22.3;!, 
 
 , Regina ex rel. <ir;int v. .308, 403, i 2234. — 1774 
 
 13.30.- 1227, 1228 , Wellbanks v. 377, 470, 517, 1066, 1067, 
 
 ColenuttamlTownshipofColchesterNorth, i 2231, 2242 
 
 He 1.346, 1S.-,I, 10S4Conley, Brooks v 208,1078.-15 
 
 Collatton, Darling v. .. .. 1015, 1 128 ! Conince, Bond v. 10113,1104,1120,1121,1122, 
 CoUaid V. Bennett, 814 ! 1 12.3, 1580, 1615, 1736, 223,S. — I'.', 1 113, 
 
 (-'ollard and Duckworth, Re 2216.- 2178 I 
 
 Collet te v. Lasnicr l,-..52. — 1.")59 i 
 
 CoUiar v. MeCallum— Monck i'lhction 
 
 (Unt.^ 1425, 1468, 1406, l.-)08, 1510.— 1518 
 
 1116, 1401, 1615 
 
 V. Canadian Pacilic R. \V. Co. .31, .•17, .30 
 
 40, 1647, 1671, 2046, 2003.-15, 48. 
 
 50, 4(8, 676 
 
«• lt_ 
 
 xxvi 
 €on-Oop] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 OOLCMN. 
 
 Contnee, Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. v. 018, 
 
 2046.— 408, 077 
 V. North American Railway Con- 
 tracting Co., .380,391 
 
 Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Hart- 
 ,,.: ... ford V.Moore 1400, 1412, 171.% 
 
 2002.-1411 
 
 , Moore V. 1412.-25, 1411,1028,2007 
 
 Connecticut iiml Passumpsic Rivers R. \V. 
 
 Co. V. Mnrri-s 69.% 1985.— 200 
 
 Connell v. Hickoulc, 180, 809, 1018.— 18.3, 184, 
 
 194, 886, 1022 
 
 Connolly V. O'Reilly 411 
 
 , Provincial Ins. Co. of Canada v. 983. — 
 
 473 
 Connor V. Middagh . . . 2031,2129,2147 
 
 , Morrow V. . . 1378, 1.598, 2048, 2080 
 
 Conroii, Village of Weaton v. 1333, 1705. —72 
 Consolidated Bank of Can.ada, Clench v. 133, 
 
 2077 
 
 , Martin qui tarn v. 360, 
 
 1571 
 
 , Prentice v. 140,2,34, 
 
 2071.-1.300 
 Conway, Burgess v. .. 412,1881.-1992 
 
 V. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. 1772, 
 
 2239 224 I 2242 
 
 , Christie v. .374, 1022, 1025,' 10.")5— 1059 
 
 , Regina ex rel. Clancy v. 1326, 1331, 
 
 1979.— 1054, 1056 
 Cook V. Broder, — Dundas Election (Ont.) 
 
 300, 1400, 1406, 1481, 148.3.-1481 
 
 v. Credit Valley R. W. Co. . . 700, 928 
 
 V. Edwards 114.3.-1141 
 
 ■ , Edwards v. — Nortli Simcoe Election 
 
 (Dom.) 221, 1505, 1,509, 1510, 1517, 
 1.520.-1427, 1499 
 
 V. Grant .. 680, 081, 1205, 1401, 1408 
 
 -— , (Junther v., In re Maitland . . . . .320 
 
 , InrcJarvisv 119,1180.-2074 
 
 V. Lcniieux 580, 1076 
 
 , Livingston v. . 6.50 
 
 V. Nohlu 2170, 2212.-2180,2194, 2209 
 
 V.Patterson .. .. 26,683,1600 
 
 , R()ljin.son v. . . Ill, 597, 753.-184, 192 
 
 , Suinniers v. . . .. ., ^^''t, 2010 
 
 , Taylor v 61.3,1546 
 
 Cooke and the Village of Norwich, Re 
 
 1338, 1344.— 1349 
 
 Cooke and Priffil, Re 2183 
 
 Cooley, Card v 157, 505, 2235 
 
 , Ryiin V 2185,221.3.-2186 
 
 Cooper V. Blaeklo. k. . 165, 877, 1685.— 1087 
 
 V. Centra'. Ontario R. W. Co. . . 1590 
 
 V. Dixon 101,093.-790 
 
 V. Hamilton, .. 1180, 1184.— 1199 
 
 V. Kirkpatrick, .. .. ..131 
 
 , McCarthy v. 307, 1093, 1870.-1904 
 
 , Mc(i)uaid v. . . . . . . r,;^^ 
 
 -, .Saylor v. 1595, 2119, 2121, 2122, 2240. 
 
 — 1605 
 
 1 Canadian Locomotive Co. v. 1929 
 
 ,, , , , 22.34.- 192,^ 19.30 
 
 t/opeland, Locomotive Engine Co. v. 1054.— 
 
 1044, im 
 
 V. Township of Rlenheim, . . ,3(i() 
 
 v. Village of Blenheim, 1402, 2143. 
 
 Copland, t leury T. .. .. .. jygQ 
 
 Copp, Regina v oqc)^ o{^^ j^jg 
 
 OOP-COU] COLUMN. 
 
 Copp's Case— Fuches v. Hamilton Printing 
 
 and Publishing Co 247.-253 
 
 Corbet v. Johnson . . . . . . . . 2247 
 
 Corbett, Anchor Marine Ins. Co. v. 984.-936, 
 
 975, 978 
 
 , Gricrson v. . . . . . . 98 
 
 V. Harper 2017 
 
 , Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. 987 
 
 , Simpson v. . 727.-586, 1205, 2083 
 
 Corbey, Cruicksliauk v, . . . . , . 38 
 Corby v.(!ray .. .. 601,1890.-616 
 
 , Williams V. 472, 620, 762, 1682, 1858.— 
 
 622, 1685 
 Corcoran, Commercial Nation.al Bank of 
 
 Chicago V. .. 141,282,761.-186 
 
 v. liobb 511 
 
 Core V. Ontario Loan and Debenture Co. 1833. — 
 
 1280 
 C!orIiani v. Kingston . . . . 1280, 1562 
 
 Corkindalc, Ntald V 399.— 1716 
 
 Corneill v. Abell 192 
 
 Cornell, Hamilton Provident and Loan So- 
 ciety V. . . . . . . . . 725, 785 
 
 Cornish, Re, .. .. .. .. . 1167 
 
 , In re Murphy and, 1103, 1714, 1908 
 
 Cornouk, (irant v. .. .. 804,81)5.-1203 
 
 Cornwall Eioctiim (Dom.) — 15urgin v. Mac- 
 
 doiiald 1 125, 1447, 1449, 
 
 1452, 1462, 1403, 1409, 
 
 1498, 1499, 1519.-1457 
 
 ( Dom. ) — Maclonnan v. 
 
 Bcrgin (i2(J, 1452, 1469, 
 1505. 1517, 1521.— 1479 
 
 (Ont.) — Snetzinger v. 
 
 Mclntyro 1515 
 
 Corse, Harrington v. . . . . 1320, 2216 
 
 Cosgrave v. Hoylo . . . . . . . . 162 
 
 , Starrs, v. . . . . . . . . 845 
 
 Cosgrave Brewing and Malting Co. v. 
 
 Starrs 845.-844 
 
 Costello v. Hunter . . 683, 864.-1203 
 
 Cote v. (ioulet— Megantic Election (Dom.) 646, 
 
 1407, 1510.-1472, 1500 
 
 V. Morgan .. .. 1378,1714. 25 
 
 V. Stadacona Ins. Co. . . 243. — 601 
 
 Cottei-, Anglo-Canadian Mortgage Co. v, 16, 520, 
 
 S78 
 Cottingliam v. Cottinghani 95, 006, 1414, 1570, 
 1884, 2009.— 489, 1896 
 
 Cottf)n V. Mitchell 
 Cougidin, (iiay v. . . 
 
 V. Hollingsworth, 
 
 Coulson, fJoddard v. 
 v. Spiers, 
 
 1202, 15.39 
 12.54, 1830.— 23 
 . . 363 
 ..1108 
 .. 1014 
 . . 872 
 19, 22, .56 {hU) 
 
 Copp, Clark & Co.'s Case,— Re Standard 
 Fire Ins. Co. 
 
 245 
 
 Coulter and Smith, Re, 
 
 Coulton, Robertson v. 
 
 County .Judge of Lanark, In re Simpson 
 
 'i"d, U->i}, 14,30 
 
 Counsell, Exchange Bank of Canada v. . . 289 
 CoursoUes v. Fookes, 1320, 1988.-111, 705, 
 
 826, 827, 1273 
 
 Court V. Uollaud, 13, 106, 118, 615, 1269, 1278, 
 
 1282, 1288, 1314, 1603,22.38.— 
 
 1622 
 
 , Ex parte Doran 071, 1314 
 
 • , Ex parte Holland and 
 
 Walsh 647,667.-611, 
 
 645, 1316 
 
 V.Scott .. .. 1088,1640.-1093 
 
 V. Walsh 131, 1128, 1188, 1189, 1672 
 
 Court Pride of the Dominidn, Essery v. 
 
 150,270.-11,41,52,272 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 zzvii 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 7'25, 785 
 
 V. 
 
 845.-844 
 
 864.— 1-J03 
 
 mi.) 046, 
 
 1472, 150(> 
 
 1714. 25 
 
 243.— 601 
 
 V. 16, 520, 
 
 578 
 
 1414, 1570, 
 
 489, 1896 
 
 202, 1539 
 
 1830.— 23 
 
 . . 3(i3 
 
 .. 11(18 
 
 .. 1014 
 
 . . 872 
 
 2, 56 (his) 
 
 psoii 
 
 1429, 1430 
 . .. 289 
 -111, 705, 
 827, 1273 
 269, 1278, 
 3,2238.— 
 1622 
 671, 1314 
 itiul 
 J67.— 611, 
 645, 1316 
 40. — 1093 
 1189, 1672 
 
 y V. 
 11,52,272 
 
 'Oou-Orel column. 
 
 Court of Revision of the Town of Graven- 
 
 hurat, In re Matter and, 70, 416, 1227, 1431 
 
 Cousineau v. City of London Fire Ins. Co. M, 
 
 333, 382, 390, 413, 859, 971, 1258, 1959, 
 
 1963, 2084.-25, 856, 968, 1006, 1569 
 
 Coiisineaux, Brown v 1600 
 
 Ooutellier, Bernard V. 1219.— 1398, 1403,1405 
 Coiitts, Regina v. 1106, 13G7, 2233, 2236 (Ais) 
 Cowim V. IJesserer . . . . 564, 2210, 2214 
 
 ., Dominion Bank V. 792.-811,2237,2242 
 
 170, 235 
 . . 500.-517 
 
 3.")5 
 
 54 
 
 .. 1840,2010 
 783, 1155.— 1154, 11.56 
 
 631 
 
 644 
 
 . V. Doolittle . 
 
 V, Lanilell . 
 
 ■, Kohurtaon v. 
 
 ■, Vettor V. . 
 
 . — , Wallace v. . 
 
 Cowling V. Uiokson 
 Cox, Carnegie v. 
 
 , Gunn V. 
 
 . V. Hamilton Sewer Pipe Co. 12, 1246(6m) 
 
 1246 
 
 , Madden v 164. 266, 1802 
 
 , Mara v. . . . . 202, 473. —1407 
 
 , Rogina v 440, 455, 847, 852 
 
 , Scott V. — West Peterborough Uleo- 
 
 tion (Ont.) .. 1458, 1460, 1478, 1492, 
 1515, 2235.-1521 
 
 , Sutherland v 203, 47.3.-1414 
 
 Cox's Case — In re Zoological and Acclima- 
 tization Society of Ontario, . . . . 250 
 
 Coyne V. Broddy, 1206.— 20()0 
 
 V. Lee. 181, 404, 1021, 1594.-401, 1019 
 
 2041 
 Crabbo, Hogg v. . . 384, 2042, 2231.-306 
 
 ., Parsons qui'tam V. .. 740.-1119 
 
 Cr.iib, Tidey v. '. . 182, 190, 806.— 188, 189 
 
 Craig, Re 1973, 2088 
 
 Craig, Crane V 911 
 
 V. Dillon 1572 
 
 , Hoover V .398,1839.-1903 
 
 , Mallon V. 779, 1535, 1536, 1540-788 
 
 , McLennan v. — Glengarry Election 
 
 (Ont.) .. 1464, 1480, 1482, 1518.— 1481 
 
 , Ogden V. . 1015 
 
 Craigen, No.-th American Life Assce. Co. v. 993, 
 
 2233 
 Cramp, Beaumont V. .. .. .. 187 
 
 Crane V. Craig .. .. .. .,911 
 
 Ciiithernv. Hell . 844,845.-8 
 
 Crawford v. Bugg 1139, 1140.-1133, 1144(6(,s), 
 
 2098 
 
 Ore-Can] 
 
 Creightou, Clarke v. 
 
 , Duifus V. . 
 , Regina v. . 
 
 , Scott v. . 
 
 Crerar, Scott v. 
 
 and Muir, Re 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 13, 875, 1651, 2038 
 703, 606 
 
 442 
 
 . 579, 1606.— 1622 
 
 . 515, 1410.— 508 
 
 .. 1299, 1951 
 
 537 
 
 -17 
 
 - v. Crawford 
 
 - V. Sunoy, Re 
 -, Shaw V. , , 
 
 - V. Upper . , 
 -, Wilgress v. 
 
 Creary, Re Mead v. ... 
 
 Credit Valley R. W. Co., Beard v. 
 
 .. 1212 
 
 .. 537.-2083 
 
 .. 20.38 
 
 .. 1391 
 
 10S2, 1308.-1320 
 
 1600 {bis) 
 
 542 (Am) 
 
 .364, 579, 
 
 1801.-306 
 
 700.-928 
 
 308 
 
 Cook V. 
 
 Creelman, Kearney v. 
 Creiglitoti V. Cliittick 
 , Clark V. . . 
 
 Doubledce v. 
 
 Grand Trunk 
 
 R.W.Co. V. 1418, 
 
 1746.-1817, 2035 
 
 Lee V. 429, .599.— 
 
 910, 1815, 1822 
 
 City of St. 
 
 Thomas v. 477, 
 
 1812, 1976. — 1814 
 
 . . 300, 1292 
 
 . . 117.— 1411, 1020 
 
 . . 302,2053.-388 
 
 Creswick, McCracken v. 
 Crewe-Read V. County of Cape Breton. 1254.' 
 Croft and the Town of Peteroorough, In re 1051, 
 
 2235 
 
 Crombie, Macdonald V 691,830 
 
 Crompton Corset Co., Ball v. 383, 1550.— 386 
 Cromwell, Beaty v. . . . . . . . . 1094 
 
 Orone v. CJrone, 1007, 1207.— 23, 528, 1203, 1205 
 Cronn v. Chamberlin, . . . . ' 095, 1302 
 
 Crony n, Kew and Betts, Attorneys, Rb, 1299, 
 
 1951 
 Crookall, Ruber v. 473, 513.-508, 510, 1398, 
 
 1403 
 Crooks, Armstrong v. — West Toronto Elec- 
 tion (1) (Ont.) 1446, 1450, 1458, 1463, 
 1472, 1474, 1510, 1518, 1526.-1457, 
 
 1403, 1472 
 
 . v. Stroud 087.— 088 
 
 Crookshanks, Massey V. — Re Jackson, .. 732, 
 
 907. -904, 906 
 
 Croome and the City of Brantford, Re, 210, 1051, 
 
 1052, 1053, 1334, 1338.— 1843 
 
 Croquet, Merchants' Bank of Canada v. . . 1710 
 
 Croskery, Re, 561, 1300 
 
 Cross V. Currie .. .. .. 171. — 165 
 
 Cross, Dixon v. 1153, 1414, 2122, 2123.-2121 
 
 V. McCrauey — Haltor; Election 
 
 (Uom.) 1452, 1458, 1461, 1462, 1474, 1511, 
 2234, 2243. -1456, 1464 
 
 , Ross V. 1244 
 
 , Windsor Hotel Co. of Montreal v. 495, 
 
 2097.— lOOS, 1885, 1914 
 Crossfieldv. Gould .. 337,1970.-1883,2019 
 Crosson v. Bigley . . . , . . . . 1990 
 
 Crothers, Chatterton V. ., 1572,2247.-1618 
 Crouch, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. 86, 
 
 915, 1960 
 
 Crow, AVilliams V 403,1842,2053 
 
 Crowe V. Steeper 210, 532, 746, 1342, 1346.— 
 
 1305 
 Crowter, Re—Crowter v. Hinman 720. — 718, 
 
 2079 
 Crowther v. Cawthra . . . . . . 533 
 
 Cruickshank v. Corbey . . . . . . 38 
 
 , Lucas V. .. .. .. 358 
 
 Cruso v. Bond 583, 1311 
 
 _._ V. Close .. .. 1313.-1311 
 
 Cryslur, McKay v. . . . . . . 75, 80 
 
 -v. Township of Sarnia .. ,2114 
 
 Cuerrier v. White .389 
 
 Culbard, Grant v 930.. 22;t2 
 
 Culbert, Harper v. 165, 221, 1081, 1299, 1707, 
 
 2091.-8 
 
 Culhane V. Stuart 112,2078 
 
 Culverwoll V. Birney .. 6,34,1690.-643 
 
 . V. Campton .. 1690.-1092,1914 
 
 Cumberland v. Kcarna GO, 428.-428, 1139 
 
 Cummer, Arnold V. .. .. .. .. 1199 
 
 Gumming v. Landed Banking and Loan 
 
 Co. , ., 2065.-2071, 2078 
 
 V. Law .36 
 
 Cummings, Re 17.37, 17.38 
 
 , McKay v. 298, 1215.— II, 12, 
 
 1015 
 Cunningham v. Canada Southern R. W. 
 
 Co. . . „ 33, 415, 2009 
 
xxvili 
 OunDar] 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Cuniiini'lmiii v. Hagar— I'reHontt Eloction 
 
 (Oiit.) 1444, U.I.S, I45!l. I4S5, 1490, 1495, 
 
 1.5-2.-), •.>•.>:«. -27, 1443, 1472, 1500 
 
 Cunau, O'Keufc v. 839, 1414, I54(i, 1547, 22;(4. 
 
 —606, 925, 1541 
 Clinic, iioatty v.— Wellaml Election (1) 
 
 (Out.) .. .. 1440,1480,1510 
 
 , Itucliiier v.— Wellaiul Election (2) 
 
 , , (Out.) 144S, 1457, I4(i0, 14(i;{, 1477, 
 
 14S0, 1491, 1497.— 1521 
 
 , Ciosrt V 171.— 105 
 
 Curry, J!c, . . . 44 
 
 1^, Aitlcyv -'Oil 
 
 V. ( anailiaii Pacific R. U'. Co. 1783 
 
 Ke,— Curry v. Curry, 724, 1500, 1082.— 
 
 710 
 
 — Wiight V. Curry 724, 1500, 1082.— 
 
 710 
 Cu.sack, CanuToii V. .. .. _ ._. 818 
 
 Cnsliiiij,' V. liijiuy .. •• 1713,1858 
 
 Cutiiljcrt, (Iciicn'u.v v.- I'.crtliicr Election 
 
 (1)0111.) 27, 1447, 1470, 1525, 2003.— 
 
 l.-)24 
 
 ,Rcginav. 210, 1114, 1.345.— 11091, .343 
 
 Cuthhertsoii, llyniau V. .. 10,190,198,807 
 
 Cutler V. .Mi)i>c 304 
 
 Cuvillier, Clicvalior v 1994 
 
 Cyr, Uegiiia V. .. 1105,1112,1719.-1113 
 
 Daby v. (Iclil, 
 
 Dafdc, Xi-lsdii V. 
 
 l)a''ainiui, lie Hiiliertsou and 
 
 534,545,553,040,098.— 
 097, 702 
 
 Da 
 
 elt, I! 
 
 .. 1973, 
 
 . . 2088 
 212, 1922, lliOO 
 
 Dainty v. \'i(lal 
 Dalby v. ]5eil 
 Dale V. ]lall . . 
 
 , Jones v., 
 
 Daley, Rolieitson v. 
 Dallas, tNteven.son v. 
 Dalryniple, In re ll.\ 
 Dalton, Ue Sinuiioiis and. 
 
 .Mil 
 
 Daly, Kegina 
 
 ri>liy V. 
 
 .Sce.tt V. 
 
 ;j;!7.-ii5i, 18S3 
 
 .. .353, 1079 
 
 . . 039 
 
 12.-)0, 1970, 1974 
 
 .. 590, 1195 
 
 . . (i34, 1073 
 
 . . 535 
 
 418, 1231, 1414, 
 
 1429, 2022, 2234.-300, 2023 
 
 . . 749 
 
 .. 1028, 1721 
 
 392, 1 !).")!) 
 
 Dar-Dem] column. 
 
 Danai-gh, Clarke v. . . 2I84.-2208, 2224 
 
 Dart V Citiz'us' Ins. Co I(i4.5, 1072 
 
 Dartmouth v. The (^uccn 1227, 1229 (/,/s), 1720, 
 
 1727.-]22(i, 1236 
 
 Darvill, Dundas v 1020 
 
 ___ — (;ilil)ons V. .. .. .. .. 823 
 
 , (iivinsv. .. 2087.-219.5,2213,2225 
 
 Davey, MeKen/ie V . .. 404 
 
 Davidson v. ]!elloville and North Hastings 
 
 R. W. Co. .. .394, lOSO, 1528 
 
 V. ( 'ameron . . . . 308, 1093 
 
 , l)<iniinion Bank v. 144.-100, 187 
 
 , Lord V. , . 1930.-1922, 1928, 1929 
 
 V. Maguirc. .. 812.— 125 (/»i.s) 
 
 , McDonald v 28, 2008 
 
 V. Oliver . . . . 219i.— 728 
 
 -, Oliver V 2207 
 
 _ V. I'apps 118,1540 
 
 . , (jtucddy Rivor Driving Room 
 
 Co. V 309, 31(i.— 210(1 
 
 , Rigina V. 1099 
 
 .Ueuinaex rcl. jMitclioll V. 1328.-13.30 
 
 , ,Swai,slaiKl V. 158, 1388, 1113, 2239.— 
 
 155 
 
 , N'ictoria Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. ,554, 
 
 (iOO, 1700 
 Davies v. iMui.ston . . . . 653, 842, 2239 
 
 ., Ilarnerv 329, 12.3.5, 1.399 
 
 V. Hul.liard .. .. 2041. -2040 
 
 , Lew V 700, 1020, 22,34 
 
 V. City of Toronto 919, 1I2S, 1,3.39.— 
 
 920, )l)52, 1.340 
 Davies Brcwiiii; and Malting t,'o. v. Smith 705 
 Davi.s, Re .T .. ..1413,2227.-1.305 
 
 Austin V. 
 
 Rank of .Mimtreal v. 
 
 404, 478, 1(100.- 414 
 802 
 
 V. Canadian 
 
 V. Dennison, 
 
 V. Hewitt, 
 
 V. Kerr, . . 
 
 I'acillc R. W. C 
 
 ;39 
 
 1) 
 
 Lum 
 V. M 
 V. AV: 
 
 ui'iay, 
 
 :ivy, ISrown v. 
 
 ,50S, 1902 
 
 .. S.33.--801, 17.39 
 
 905, 90S 
 
 1147, 2072.-57!, 9!(i, 2(J09 
 33, 412, 1028, 18.54 
 
 1590 
 
 8, 1,S2. -024 
 
 . . 838. —838 
 
 l)a«siin, ]}urk v. — Algoma Election (Di)ni.) 1513, 
 
 Dalzii 
 Dame 
 Danal 
 
 M 
 
 ulury 
 
 v. Slater 
 
 iier v. 
 
 I.iltl 
 
 Dancey v. Uui i 
 , MeK< 
 
 I ter^ 
 
 82. — 05, 83 
 
 — 18.S7 
 
 . . 397 
 
 313, 1983 
 
 V 
 
 rascr 
 
 — V. .Motlatt 
 
 .500, 2103 (///.v), 2213, 2227 
 
 590 
 
 705, S(i8, 1.570, 1900.-871 
 
 1914 
 
 Danford v. ll:inford 
 
 Da 
 
 Mil 
 
 29, 393, 1927.-400, (177 i D 
 .. 794, 1419 1) 
 
 1932 v. Towi! of Mault Ste. Mario, 1 732, 17.33 
 
 ay V 
 
 D,-i 
 Hi 
 
 Daniels v. (liaml Trunk R. W. Ci 
 
 2109.— 21951 Diiyer V. Rnliert.son . 
 
 i-rlin, Ii 
 
 . . 1772 , Dciin v. Cli 
 
 260, 1.390 ! . , Onlii 
 
 Danjou V. MaKjuis 25,314, (;89, 1231, 2234, 
 
 401,1227 
 
 V. iSdXon 
 
 1 Cotton Mills Co. V. 
 
 . . 824 
 . . 2202 
 .. 10.58 
 i70, 12.33 
 31. 048, 
 
 Dan.?ercau v. I'cllemare, 
 ■ — •- , Letourneux v. 
 
 1240, 12.50. 1249 
 2230. - 1995 I De Rkuiuierc, Synod v. 233, 1 124, 128S, l-KMI. 
 
 Darl.y v. City of Toronto 375, 1339. — 134(i 
 
 14I-, 
 118 DeccM- v. Wallace— South Norfolk E 
 
 -859, 1400 
 
 Darling, Riirs.dou v. 
 
 1ion(|)om.) 14,52, 1453, 1479, 1511.1-477 
 
 — V. C.illiitton, 
 
 - V. Diuling, (122 (///.v), (J23, 642, 2092.' (122 i IXfoe, 1 
 
 2028 , Dcdriek v. AsIkIc 
 1015, 1128 I Deendng, (ioultling v. 
 
 180, 19." 
 
 cm 
 
 |)ondi 
 
 iiioii Loan am 
 
 eietv v. . . 
 V. Midlan.i I!. W. C. 
 V. I'rico, 
 • V. iSniith, 
 Wieh 
 
 1 Savings S( 
 
 Me( 
 
 .302, 495 I )egecr, I'oli- 
 
 rei;<)r v. 
 
 814. 
 
 17-14 Deh.n.y v. MacLellu 
 
 179, cSlO, 2231.- 18.S 
 
 014, 1180, 1185, 2229.— 1183 
 
 1154 
 
 1597 
 
 ■).30, 11; 
 
 .344, iMiO. 
 
 .5, .544.-705 
 
 !5 Dclano'.s Ciise'— .Stevens v. London Steel 
 
 582.-357 
 
 er V. 
 
 Work.s C 
 
 Darlington, (Jroom v. 
 
 3.S0, 42.3.-.32il Delanlv, R 
 
 DeMarsh, Seymour v. 
 
 .. 248.-241 
 
 .. 912 
 
 578, 1311, 1589- 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xziz 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 DemDin] 
 
 conTM.v. I Dir-Dom] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 
 H23 
 
 2213 
 
 2225 
 
 , , 
 
 404 
 
 stings 
 
 
 1()S(J 
 
 1.528 
 
 SUS, 
 
 1093 
 
 k-lOO, 187 
 
 1!)-'S 
 
 1929 
 
 !.— 1"J 
 
 ■) (/«•.■() 
 
 28 
 
 2008 
 
 21!) 1. 
 
 —728 
 
 
 2207 
 
 118 
 
 ir.4G 
 
 IJodlll 
 
 
 ;u(i,- 
 
 -210(i 
 
 
 1099 
 
 328.- 
 
 -13.30 
 
 13, 22 
 
 39. — 
 
 
 ir.,-) 
 
 Jo. V. 
 
 r)54, 
 
 
 170(i 
 
 , S-12, 
 
 2239 
 
 123.-., 
 
 1399 
 
 (Ui.- 
 
 -2040 
 
 102(1, 
 
 22.34 
 
 .S, 13 
 
 ,39.— 
 
 l().y.', 
 
 l,34(i 
 
 >iiiith 
 
 70,-. 
 
 227. 
 
 -i:{0,-. 
 
 KIGO. 
 
 -414 
 
 
 802 
 
 1772 
 
 2239 
 
 .-.OS, 
 
 1902 
 
 -hOl, 
 
 1739 
 
 !)0.- 
 
 , !H)S 
 
 ilKl, 
 
 2009 
 
 Ili2,s, 
 
 18.-.4 
 
 
 l,-.90 
 
 1S2.- 
 
 -024 
 
 S3S. 
 
 -838 
 
 win ) 
 
 1.-.13, 
 
 l.-.lf, 
 
 2242 
 
 .-1.., 
 
 .-.90 
 
 !l(iO.- 
 
 -871 
 
 
 1914 
 
 1732, 
 
 1733 
 
 
 824 
 
 
 2202 
 
 
 I(m8 
 
 37(i, 
 
 12.33 
 
 :ji, 
 
 048, 
 
 ,-,l), 
 
 1249 
 
 !.SS, 
 
 1409. 
 
 s.-,<.(. 
 
 1400 
 
 ;U'.'- 
 
 
 11.1 
 
 -477 
 
 .■;;!.•! 
 
 , 094 
 
 !31. 
 
 -188 
 
 111.— 
 
 1183 
 
 " "l ". 
 
 1 1.-.4 
 
 ih2. 
 
 -3.-.7 
 
 ^■^^ 
 
 
 18.- 
 
 -241 
 
 
 912 
 
 !11, 
 
 1589 
 
 Demcrs v. Diiliaime . . 
 Dcmoiest v. Grand Junction 
 
 1.5, .341 
 
 U. W. Co. 
 
 1014, 1707 
 
 V. Midland i\. W. Co. 321,701, 1231, 
 
 1232, 123o, 1506, 1014, 1759, 2014.— 
 1232, 1817 (M 
 
 Denham v. Gooch 358, 038 
 
 -, Toronto Hospital Trnstees v. 11.38 
 
 DeuJHon, VanKoughnet v. . . 421, 422, 485, 618, 
 609, 917, 1380, 1986, 2151, 22.32.-482, 1882 
 
 Dcuiiian, .Joluiston v 2202 
 
 Denmark, McConughy v. 635, 1161, 1180.— 2034 
 Denne and Town of Peterboroiirh, In re, 
 
 1342, 1302 
 
 Dennis, Downey V 92.5,2081.-2074 
 
 , Re, Downey v. Dennis 1530 (''is) 2189 
 
 Dennison, Davis V 568,1902 
 
 Depotty, I'eckh.im v. . . . , 1237. — 1236 
 
 Derby and the Local Board of Health of 
 
 .South Tlant.agcnet, Re, 1231,1,373, 1717 
 
 Derinzy V. City of Ottawa 2113 
 
 Dcslauriors, Larue v. — Bellechasse Election 
 
 (Dom.) .. .. 1500,1523,152.5.-1407 
 
 De Sousa, In re, 149 
 
 Dessert, Guilbault v. — Joliettc Election 
 
 (Dom.) 
 Devanney v. Hrowulee 
 
 V. Dorr 
 
 D'Evelyn, Flanders v. 
 Devoreux v. Kearns 
 Devcrill V. Coe 
 Devitt, lie, 
 
 Devlin, Graham v. . . 
 , Mail Printing Co 
 
 V. Queen Ins. Co. 
 
 Dcwar, Authe.s v. — In 
 Mallory 
 
 Dewe V. Waterl.ury 
 Dewsoii, Tyrwhitt. v 
 Dey, Mutton v. 
 Diamond, Alexander v. 
 Dick, .Stewart v. 
 Dickinson, Henderson v 
 
 Election ( Dom. ) . . 
 Dickey, Imperial Bank v 
 
 V. McCaul . . 
 
 W'oodwortli 
 
 1512, 1514, 1520 
 . . 173 
 42, 71 
 20, 909 
 .. 1530 
 76, 65, 82, 78 
 . . 1568, 1655 
 686, 6S8 
 324, 584, 1547.— 
 1097 
 944,909.-909 
 re Stuebing, 733, 1918, 
 1949 
 .. 1208.-755 
 499, 071, 141(i. -514 
 2163, 2171.-2169, 
 
 —In 
 
 852, 
 
 2177 
 
 2020 
 
 624 
 
 2202 
 
 1510 
 
 re Russell 
 1503, 1.507, 
 54, 57, 68.5, (i89 
 . . 345 
 , __ _ ..97, 484, 663 
 
 Dickie, Attorney-General of Nova Scotia 
 
 ex rel. , v. Axford . . . . 94 
 
 Dickson, Badgley v. 
 
 — — , Baillio V. 
 
 Dickson v. Carnegie 
 
 , Cowling V. 
 
 Dickson v. Dickson 
 
 — v . Hunter . . 
 
 , Infants, Re, 
 
 V. Kearney 
 
 — — — - V. McMurray 
 V. Aloutcith 
 
 .52, 209, 1389 
 
 156, 161, 606.-1407 
 
 2101.— 2109 
 
 783, 1155.-1144, 11,50 
 
 2174.— 2170 
 
 752, 924 
 
 910,911 
 
 .. 615,2118.-2147 
 
 261,521 
 
 710,854, 8.57, 1228,2230. 
 
 —853 
 
 .. .337,1882.-2023 
 
 1273, 1274.-1829 
 
 845, 1068, 1083, 
 
 1672 
 
 .. 1572 
 
 ., 1144,11.55 
 
 . . 8.33 
 
 'fownship of Raleigh 603, 1359, 1378. 
 
 -1.3.58 
 Dingman and Hall, Re, . . 1654, 1667, 1885 
 
 Dilke 
 
 -, (Jldfield V. 
 Douglas 
 
 Dillahaiigh, Mulson's Bank v. 
 
 Dillon, Craig v. 
 , McEwen v. . . 
 
 ..^?.?. 
 
 ;nia v. 
 
 Direct {./'able Co. v. Dominion Telegraph Co. 
 
 38, 39, 43, 759, 1011, 1030, 1632, 2239.— 16 
 Direct United States Cal.le Co. (Limited) 
 
 V. Dominion Telegraph Co. of Canada, .38, 
 ,39, 43, 416, 762, 1635 
 Disclu'i- V. Canada Permanent Ixian and 
 
 Savings Co. 561, 860, 1175, 1300.— 1290, 
 
 1165 
 Disher v. Disher . . . . 4, 400 
 
 Dixon, Cooper v 101, 693.-799 
 
 v. Cross 115.3, 1414, 2122, 212.3.— 2121 
 
 , Dufresne v. . . . . . . 697 
 
 V. Richelieu Navigation Company 212, 
 
 — , Truax v. 
 1172, 1175, 
 
 1922,2231,2240.-1793 
 .373, 374, 763, 10S2, 1168 {bk), 
 1561. 191.3, 1980.-368, 541, 
 1172 
 
 Doan, Barr v. . . 769 
 
 , V. Michigan Central R. W. Co. 1,394, 1616, 
 
 2238.— 1.391 
 
 Dobbin V. Dobbin 559 
 
 Dobell, Magog Textile and Print Co. v. . , 248 
 
 v. Ontario Bank 1.32, 276, 667, 843, 2016.— 
 
 842 
 
 Dobie v. Lemon 1085.— 1080 
 
 v. Temporalities lioard . . 11, ,309, 317 
 
 Dobson V. .Marshall . .. 1670.— 1644 
 
 V. Sootheran 1152, 2092.-1152, 1155 
 
 Dockstader V. Phipps .. .. 579. — .582 
 
 Doddridge, Dominion Bank V. .. 1067,1668 
 Dodds V. CanadianMntual Aid Association 1002 
 
 832, 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Dodge v. Clapp 
 Doer v. R.and 
 Doig, Hathaway v. 
 
 2238 
 732 
 
 .354, .358, .361, 1671 
 28, 93, 350, 360, 885, 924, 
 1031.— 9 L5, 926, 928 
 65.3.— 1685 
 
 Dolan, Kitchen V. 
 
 Dollery, Toronto Street Railway Company 
 
 Dolson, Re 
 
 Healey v. 
 
 Dominion Bank 
 
 10, 209, 1986.— 2147 {Mi) 
 .. 1748.— 1747 
 174,234.-173 
 Bell 149, 634 
 
 Cowan 792, 2237, 2242.-811 
 Davidson 144.— 100, 187 
 
 Doddridge . . 1067, 1668 
 Heffernan .. 371.— 708 
 Oliver 140, 145, 173, 2238.— 
 138 
 Dominion of Canada Land and Colonization 
 
 Co. (Limited), Hall y 471 
 
 Dominion, etc. Co. v. Stinson .. .365, 624 
 Dominion Fire and Marine Ins. Co., Howes 
 
 V. . . . . 659, 961.-943, 972, 976 
 Dominion Iron and Metal Co., Towers v. 15, 1861 
 Dominion Loan and Savings Society v. Dar- 
 ling 362, 495 
 
 Dominion Savings and Investment Society, 
 
 Finn v. 1695. —916 
 Kilroy 639, 880, 
 
 1021, 1608, 2231, 2240 {Im), 2241 
 Dominion Telegraph Co., Atlantic and Paci- 
 fic Telegraph Co. 
 
 V. 1632.— 1635 
 
 , Direct Cable Co. v. 
 
 38,39, 43, 759, 1011, 
 1630, 1632, 2239.— 16 
 
 of Canada, Direct 
 
 United States Cable 
 Co. (Limited) v. 38, 39, 
 43, 416, 762, 1635 
 
 V. Silver 507, 1400.— 508, 
 
 516 (bis), 1398, 1402 
 
XXX 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Dom-Dry] column. 
 
 Dominion Type Founding Co. v. Nagle 1917 
 Donald V. Donald . . 2210. -2179 
 
 Doneyan v. Short 56, 8().3 
 
 Doner, Huffman v 1068.— 1072, 1077 
 
 Doney, Harkins v 51(5, 613 
 
 Donnellv, Alpha Oil Co. v. . . . 293, 1841 
 
 1 V. Donnelly 879, 925, 929.-927 
 
 V. Hall . . . . 193, 703, 2239 
 
 , Nolan V. . . 102, 193, 1547.-102, 104 
 
 Donohoe, Wutcr.s v 766 
 
 , United States Express Co. v. 452, 
 
 680.-379, 1404, 1405, 1407 
 Donohue, Fenwick v. . . 1077, 2038.-1068 
 
 Donovan v. Boultbee 2038 
 
 V. Herbert 122, 1181, 1198, 2033.- 
 
 111. 1191 
 
 V. Hogan . . 64, 76, 83, 1982, 2241.- 
 
 63, 78, 82 
 
 , Re -Wilson v. Beatty 1568, 1938, 
 
 1957.— 734, 736, 738, 1939, 1940, 1954 
 Dooley, Blaokley v. . . . 345.-1599, 2056 
 
 Doolittle, Cowan v 170. -2,35 
 
 Doran, Ex parte— Court v. Holland 671, 1314 
 
 , Jenksv 118,762.-165 
 
 Dorland, Jones v 232 
 
 V. Jones . . . . 232.-1736, 1933 
 
 V. McCuaig — Prince Edward Elec- 
 tion (2) (Ont.) 1425 
 
 Dorr, Devanney v . . 42, 71 
 
 Doubledee -. Credit Valley R. W. Co. . . 368 
 Dougherty v. McClay, Regina ex rel. . . 1330 
 Douglas, Dilke V 127.3,1274.-1829 
 
 V. Fox . . . . 1399, 2035, 2147 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. . 1772 
 
 V. Hutchison 696, 871.- .')67, SSI 
 
 DouU V. Mcllreith 1(162, 2004 
 
 , Western Assurance Co. v. . . 936, 958 
 
 Doutre, Regina v. .. 148, 758, 1,578.-385 
 
 Dover, Township of. Township of Chatham | 
 
 V 1356.-1.352,135.3,1384 
 
 Dovey V. Irwin .. ., ..611 
 
 Dowling, Harvey v.— South Renfrew Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) 1438, 1522(M — 1476, 1499 
 
 , Macklin v. 1887.— 284, 1981, 2083 
 
 , Regina V. 219, 1116, 1233, 1638.-210 
 
 Downey v, Dennis . . 925, 2081.-2074 
 
 Dennis, Re Deniiis 
 Pa-- "1 
 
 Downie v 
 Dowser, i 
 Dowsl.o ' . 
 Doyle V. ■' 
 
 V. E-'idf 
 
 , Mykel v. 
 
 iO , V. 
 
 ■Is '«Ci 
 
 15.30 (M. 2189 
 
 .. 1283 
 
 . . 444 
 
 ,. 1293 
 
 ..1109.— 1102 
 
 2240 (6w).— 314 
 
 . 16.53 
 
 1193, 2124 
 
 V. Owen Sound Priuimg Co. 510, 517 
 
 , Regina v. 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045, 1046. - 
 
 ,^ 1032 
 
 Draggon, Re— Abell v. Draggon 
 
 Re— Draggon v. Draggon 
 
 189. 
 
 726 
 7-'6 
 1917 
 2183 
 551 
 -183 
 1840 
 
 Drake, Hay v. 
 Driffil, Re Cooke and 
 Drinkwater v. Clarridge, In re 
 Driscull V. Green 
 
 DriscoU, Hoorigan v. 
 
 , Millville Mutual, Marine and Fire 
 
 ins. Co. V. 623, 988.-622, 967 
 
 Unimmond, Jenkins v. 2168 
 
 Drury, Lottv. .. ;; Soe.Lisgg 
 
 , Reid v.— East Simooe Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1439, 1455, 1478, 1496, 1500, 
 Ti ., J^^?' 1526.-1439 (bis), 1472, 1491 
 Uryden v. Woods 2201 
 
 Dnb-Dun] oolumk. 
 
 Dubuc V. Kidston 893 
 
 Duciienault, O'Donnellv. 401, 1593, 1618, 1841, 
 
 1842.-1618 
 Duck V. City of Toronto . . 2141.-1392, 2113 
 Duckett, Seine V. .. 824, 1616, 1957. -823 
 Duckworth, Re Oollard and ., 2216.-2178 
 
 Ducondu V. Dupuy, . 420,2016,2097 
 
 Duff V. Canadian Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 226, 
 277, 416, 977, 979.-934, 1033, 1957 
 
 , County of Essex v 1661, 1709 
 
 Dufferin, Board of License Commissionera 
 
 for County of, Leeson v 1061 
 
 Dufferin Election (Ont.)— Sleightholm v. 
 
 Barr, . . 1505, 1508 {t>U), 1515.— 1497 
 Duffus V. Creighton .. .. 703.— fi06 
 
 Dufresne v. Dixon . . . . 697 
 
 — V. Dufresne . . 787, 885, 1300 
 
 Dugas, Magnan v. — Montcalm Election 
 
 (Dom.) .. 27,1467,1525,200.3.-1524 
 Duggan V. Duggan .._ .. ..2185 
 
 Duggan V. London and Canadian Loan and 
 
 Agency Co. . .256, 2065, 2236-204, 476 
 Dnhaime, Demers v. . . . . 15, ,341 
 
 Dumble v. Ccbourg and Peterborough R. 
 
 W. Co. .. 1125, 1679, 17.59.— 1400 
 
 V. Dumble 2164, 2194.— 2162, 2177, 
 
 2185 
 
 V. Larush 1201,1636 
 
 V. Mcintosh, — In re Music Hall 
 
 Block .. 132, 558(6i.<), 1275 
 
 , Schaffer v. 343, 8.36.— 1839, 2032 
 
 Dumbrill, Re 110, 871, 1212, 1958.-1212 
 
 Dumoulin, Langtry v. 221, 231 (ftiv), 317, 389, 
 
 407, 648, ()49, (i(J9. -391 
 
 V. Ltmgtry 231,199.3.-2.31 
 
 Wiman & Co., Todd v. 501, 502, 514. - 
 
 514, 1622 
 .. 1705,1710 
 644,771,1602 
 
 467 
 
 805, 827, 1568.— 197 
 
 Wilson V 1329 
 
 .. 1164,1193,2121 
 2121.-2125 
 
 2171. 2185 
 
 101(5, 102i.— 1020, 1022 
 Duncombe, Galbraith v. 755, 1699.— 908, 909, 
 
 2078 
 
 Dundaa v. Darvill, 1026 
 
 Dundas Election (Ont.)— Cook v. Brodie . . 300, 
 
 1460, 1466, 1^81, 1483.— 1481 
 
 Dundas, Town of, v. Gilmour 1599, 1(500.-1085 
 
 Dundas, Town of , Gray v. 2112.— 2105, 2109 
 
 Dunham, Re 1200,1737.-1738 
 
 , Standard Bank v.. 584,1543 
 
 Dunkin v. Cockburn. . . . 465. — 466, 472 
 
 Dunlap V. Dunlap 493.-2084 
 
 Dunlop V. Canada Central R. W. Co. 912, 1747. 
 ^ , —'"62 
 
 V. Dunlop . . 493, 49C, 767.-2084 
 
 Dunn V. Board of Education of Win(i8or. . 1230, 
 
 1729 
 
 , Grant v 1 172. —1 169 
 
 , Jordan v. . . . . , , . , 2208 
 
 , Kingsleyv .' 627, Wl 
 
 , Regmav 1583.-2020 
 
 'S?*»^ 183, 192, I. 547 
 
 , Western Canada Loan and Savings 
 
 n ^?-\.T V ■• 577,907,1312 
 Dunnard v. McLeod . . 29 
 
 Dunning, Regina v. 218, 451,1102,' 1111, 2152.— 
 
 1113, 1909 
 
 Dun, 
 
 Dunbar, .Jones v. 
 
 V. Meek 
 
 Duncan v. Cockburn, 
 
 , King V. 
 
 , Regina ex rel. 
 
 V. Rogers 
 
 , Rogers v. 
 
 , Scott V. 
 
 V. Tees, 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xxxi 
 
 DunEas] columk. 
 
 Dunnville, Village of, Silsby v. . . 276, 1376 
 
 Diinsford v. Carlisle 633 
 
 . I!e— Dunaford v. Dunsford , . (524 
 
 Duuwich, Township of, Stalker v. . . 11, lOWf, 
 1334, 1417, 2115, 2239.— 1379. 1559 
 Dupiiv, Gushing V. .. .. 1713,1858 
 
 ._ _1, Diicondu V. . . 426, 2016, 2097 
 
 Duquette, Regina v. 520, 838, 901, 1051, 
 
 ' 1055, 2015.-1062 
 
 Durnin v. McLean 3(i9 
 
 Duriiion, Regina v. . . 1028, 1037.-1035, 1984 
 Durnuid, Township of Aiu uter v. 2134. — 2126 
 DuiTull, Bank of Hamilto- /. . . 707, 1019 
 
 Dussault, Belleau v. — Levis Election 
 
 (Doni.) 1459, 1471. 1475 
 
 Dwi.'htand Macklam, In re 322, 619 {hk), 649 
 
 1_, McKonzie V. .. 772,1130.-1882 
 
 Dwyre v. Lewis, Regina ex rel.. . . . 398 
 
 Dvinent v. Northern and North Western 
 
 H.W.Co., 370,661,1604,1798 
 
 V. Thompson . . 1862.-1865, 1870 
 
 , Thomson V. 1862 
 
 Dysart. Municipality of, Canadian Land 
 
 and Emigration Co. v. 69, 788. 918, 1081, 
 1568.— 31, 926, 1093 
 
 Eacrett v. Kent 
 Earls V. Mc Alpine 
 Earls, Morrison v. 
 
 Thompson 
 
 .. 11.3,529.-107,110,1146 
 
 2224. — 2227 
 
 172, 773, 1540, 1609.-241, 
 1547 
 .. 1862.— 186.5, 1870 
 East Durham Election (Ont.) — Collins v. 
 
 Campbell . . . . 1428, 2240. - 1444 
 
 East Elgin Election (Dom.)— Merritt v. 
 
 Wilson .. 1476 
 
 (Dom. ) Blue v. Arkell , 
 
 1481, 1520 
 East Flanil)oroui,'li, Township of, In re 
 
 Hamilton ami Milton Road Co. v. . . 2148 
 East Hastings Election (Dom.)— Ayles- 
 
 wrtrtli V. White 1443 
 
 East Middlesex Election (Out.)— Rhodcr 
 
 V. McKenzie, 1471, 1485, 1495,22.38.— 
 
 1481, 1499, 1500, 1517 
 East Northumberlivnd Election (Dom.) — 
 
 Gibson v. Big- 
 gar, 14.50, 1510, 1520 
 
 (Ont. )— Casey v. 
 
 Ferris, 1448, 1479, 
 2235 
 
 (Ont.) Richmond 
 
 V. Willoufihby, 14.56 
 1496.-1494 
 East Peterborough Election (Ont.)— Strat- 
 
 ton V. O'Sullivan 1446, M51, 1483, 1489 
 East Simcoe Election (Ont.) — Rcid v. 
 
 Drury, 1439, 1455, 1478, 1496, 1500, 1522, 
 1526.-14.S9 {his) 1472, 1491 
 East Toronto Election (Ont.) — Rennick v. 
 
 Cameron, 14.57, 1468, 1460, 1472, 1481, 
 
 1500, 1518, 22.37.— 147.3, 1482 
 East Toronto, Village of, v. Township of 
 
 York 1.324 
 
 East Whitby, Township of, Adams and, . 673, 
 
 2118, 2132 
 East Williams Mutual Fire Inf». CJo., Mc- 
 
 Intyre v., , . 960, 969. 1980.— 968, 1006 
 
 Easthope, In re Robertson and Township of, 2238 
 Eastman v. Bank of Montreal, . . . . 109 
 Eastnor, In re Albemarle .and, . . 45, 1380 
 Eastnor, Lindsay and St. Edmunds, United 
 
 Eas-Eme] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Townships of, In re Townships of 
 Alljemailo and, .. 1,379.-1.32.5, 
 
 Eastwood, McQuay v. .. 1252, 125,3.- 
 
 Eaton, Bland v. 
 
 , Re — Byers v. Woodliurn, 
 
 1.385 
 1407 
 11.33 
 1681 
 
 , Tuckctt V. 
 
 Eberts v. Brooke, Re, 
 
 514, 691, 1224, 1400 
 418, ,541. -.540 
 Elcclesiastifiucs <le St. Sulpice de Jloutreal 
 
 V. Citv of Montreal . . , . 6S, 84 
 
 Eckroyd, Clark V 1262—1129 
 
 Eddy, Band of British North Americ;', v. , (526, 
 
 2044.-627 
 
 Edgar V. Ma'4ee 166 
 
 V. Northern R. W. Co. 1782.-1,391 
 
 , Regina v. 452, 1036, 1039 [hU], 1040, 
 
 104.5.— 1032 
 Kdmonils v. Hamilton Provident and Li)an 
 
 Society , . 498, 531, 584, 1284, 1287, 1302. 
 
 1316, 1562 
 
 Edwards, Cook v 1 143. — 1 1 4 1 
 
 V. Cook — North Simcoe Election 221, 
 
 1427, 1505, 1509, 1516, 1517, 
 1,520.— 1499 
 
 V. Edwards . . . . 355, 1023 
 
 , Kean v. . , 48, 2014, 2022, 2055 
 
 V.Morrison .. 802.-1204,1296 
 
 V. Pearson . . . . 2204.-2199 
 
 -, Town of Peterborough v. 10, 1209, 
 
 1333, 1388, 2238.— 1394, 1624 
 
 Egleaon, National Insurance Co v., 241, 251, 
 
 361,2021, 22.39.-606 
 
 Egleston ai d Taylor, Re 41.-42, .50 
 
 ElderslL.'i'wvnship of , v. Village of Paisley, 1324 
 Electric Duspatch Co. of Toronto v. Bull 
 
 Telephoue Co. of Canada 335, 2013.-424, 
 
 840, 923 
 Eli, Regius v. . . 408, 10.34, 10.37, 1049, 1098.— 
 
 104» 
 Eliz.a1)ethtO(7i.', Township of, v. Town of 
 
 Brock viUe 861,918,1360,1,373 
 
 Elli<it V. Citpell . . . . 19, 86, 92, 1083 
 
 Elliott V. Brown 793, 872 
 
 . V. Bussell .. 676,8.37.-682 
 
 V. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 637.— 
 
 •, Flanagan v. 
 
 V. Gardner . . 
 , Herchmer v, 
 
 V. McCuaig . . 
 , McDonald v.. 1205, 1282 
 
 6.35 
 63,72.-77 
 
 .. 1678 
 781.-1290 
 
 55, 853 
 
 op; 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 v. Stanley 
 
 , Re Walsh v. 
 
 Elliott & Son V. Norris, Re, 
 
 Ellis V. Abell, 325, 658, 1622, 2097 
 
 V. Baird . . 
 
 V. Black 
 
 418, 
 
 1191 
 
 1041, 1044, 1045, 1111.— 
 
 1044, 1048, 1103, 1113, 1116 
 
 334,419,839.-424 
 
 . . .541 
 
 536, 553 
 
 1402, 2095 
 
 321, 1999 
 
 .. 2125 
 
 , Br.iyleyv 1.31,807 
 
 V. Eraser — South Grenville Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1426, 1434, 143,5. 1445, 2080 
 
 V, Midland R. W. Co. .32, 275, 3.36, 
 
 1237 (bis), 1928.— .34, .326, 12.36 
 
 , Power v. . , . . . . 643 
 
 Ellwood, Logg V 1667 
 
 Elora, Village of, Scottish American In- 
 vestment Co. V. 835, 1009, 1210, 1348, 1984. 
 
 - 1.379 
 Emard, Keays v. .. 651, 775.-494, 1883 
 
 Embury v. West , 189 
 
 Emerson v. Gearin 363 
 
 ^ 
 
zxzii 
 
 Eme-Eyr] toi.i.MN. 
 
 Kiiifivou V. Niai'iua Niivi«ntion Co. 212, 1241, 
 
 IfiOG, lH3(i, 1022. -170:i, 20:t(i 
 
 Kmk'l), !!.! McUod v. 540, CAS, 875, S81.-8S1 
 
 1-, McLoo.l V. (2) .. .. 37H, 1710 
 
 EinmeiiH V. .\Iiil(lloinii<.s •>•<*< 
 
 Kimmlt V. Quiiiii .. .. 1142.— li:W, 1144 
 Kiiipov V. Korr— Stoniiont Klection (2) 
 
 (Out.) '499 
 
 EnKli.h.l!o 872, 1!I14 
 
 , Miirlin v. <>l><) 
 
 V. MulhoUiuul. In re, . . . . 5;«i 
 
 English 1111(1 .Scottis'h Investment Co., Fer- 
 guson V. 1317, 
 1!IS2 
 
 . V. Cray 1.SI3 
 
 Enrick v. 'I'luvusliipof Yavniimth . . . . 21.50 
 
 Erl) V. Creiit Western I!. \V. Co. of Caniul.i 
 
 1(10(), 1800 
 
 Kri.IisoM V. I'.rivnd 1214, 1210 
 
 Erieiiiiil lliinin K. W. Co., Re irooper lunl. 170M 
 Ivie anil XiiiLMra U. W. Co. v. Rosseau 1802.— 
 
 1708 
 Errington, Re Ohnstead v. .")47, .")48, 1008.— 
 
 :t82, .■)3() 
 Erwin, Canada Southern R. W. Co. v. 17">2.— 
 
 1702 
 Esscry v. Court Pride of the Dominion l.')0, 270. 
 
 11 41, 52, 272 
 
 V. Crimd Trunk R. W. Co., ' 1700, 'l!t.S5 
 
 , Luney v lOd'O 
 
 , I'earson v. . . . . . 087, 881 
 
 Essex, County of v. Duff .. .. 1001, 170!) 
 
 V. Wright 1048, 1 GO 1, 1709 
 
 Esson, Wood V 2099.-2I05, 21 10 
 
 Etohieoke, Township of. Mead v. IGOI, 1810, 
 
 2140 
 Eupiiemia, In re McAlpiue and the Town- 
 
 shii) of 1125,1.344,1724,223.-) 
 
 Eureka Woollen Mills Co. v. Moss 27, 2002 
 
 Evans, Martin v . . 105, 1075 
 
 V. Skelton 1141 
 
 V. Sutton, In re 551, 2092.— .530, 5.53 
 
 , Temperance Colonization Society v. 2047 
 
 V. Watt .. .. ..1904.— 190G 
 
 Everett, London and Canadian Loan and 
 
 Agency Co. v 907, 1309 
 
 Ewart v. Stuart . , . . . . . . 797 
 
 Ewing, Williamson V. 327, 1636.-424,840, 1080 
 Exchange Bank of Canada v. Barnes 12, 199, 355, 
 
 600, 074, 1009, 
 
 1573, 1702, 1703, 
 
 1700. 1709. -300, 
 
 1632, 1G99, 1701 
 
 , Barnes v. . . 1705 
 
 , Close v. 404, 856, 
 
 1022 
 
 v. Counsel! . . 289 
 
 V. Oilman 1093, 1649. 
 
 2008-32 
 
 V. Newell . . 1956 
 
 v. Springer 13, 199, 
 
 600, 674, 1009, 
 1573, 1632, 1702, 
 1703,1700,1709.— 
 1080, 1677, 1099, 
 1701 
 
 , Springer V. .. 1705 
 
 ■ V. Stinson 220, 288, 
 
 289, 1402, 1009. 1870.-1805 
 Export Lumhei' Co. Re— Clarke v. Union 
 
 Fire Ins. Co 7(50 
 
 Eyre, Re Ferris and, .. .. ,', 49 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Fai-Fen] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Fair, Smith v. 13, 178, 808, 1615, 2029, 2030, 
 
 2240, 2242 
 Fairbairn, Thompson v. . . 712, 718, 730, 731 
 Fairbanks v. Barlow . . . . ^ . . 1037 
 
 Fairfield, Temperance Colonization Co. v. 241, 
 
 _ 777, 1876 
 Falkiner v. Grand Junction R. W. Co. 1802, 
 1947.-204, 209,275 
 Farewell, Van Mere v. . . 078, 1252, 1407 
 Farifcv V. (irand Junction R. W. Co. 1814. — 
 *" •^ 1753 
 
 Farlingerv. McDonald, 182,190.-179 
 
 -and Village of Morrislmrg, Re, 
 
 1.S35, 1337.-1349, 1983 
 Farmer v. Hamilton Tribune Printing and 
 
 Publishing Co. , 500. -500, 501 , 508 
 
 V. Livingstone, . . 4(i3, 405, 407, 580 
 
 Farouhar v. Itobertsoii, .379, 517, 204it, 2055, 
 
 22.30. -1398, 1408, 1410 
 
 Farquharson, Hall v. 05, 08, 78.-03^70, 82 
 
 Farr, Armstrong V. .. .. .. 227,1895 
 
 Farran v. Hunter . . . . . . . 2047 
 
 Farrell v. Cameron 808, 2082 
 
 , Clarke v 1014, 1915 
 
 Freehold Loan and Savings So- 
 ciety v 204, 234 
 
 , King V . . . . 535 
 
 Farrow v. Tobin . . 555, 1089.— 1026 
 
 Farwell v. Brown— South Ontario Election 
 
 (Out.) 32, 1447, 1449, 1487, 1488, 
 1489, 1524, 2238, 2241.— 1450, 1510 
 
 , Regina v. . . . . . . 319 
 
 Faught, Smith v 1320, 2224 
 
 Faulds V. Harper . 775, 1125, 1190, 1191.— 
 1183, 1180, 1188, 1194, 130.5, 1005, 10.33 
 Fauipiier, Paget v. — Muskoka and Parry 
 
 Sound Election (Out.) 073, 1435, 1447, 
 
 1454, 1470, 1475, 1485, 1498.— 1481 
 Fauteux, Montreal Loan and Mortgage Co. 
 
 v 698 
 
 Fawcett v. Burwell 896, 1007 
 
 V. Winters 1007.— 1222 
 
 Fearman, Regina v . . 440, 902 
 
 Fcatherstone v. Van Allen 329, 407, 1409, 1060 
 Federal Bank of Canada, Agricultural In- 
 vestment Co. v. 602, 735, 
 763.--2086 
 , Agricultural Sav- 
 ings and Loan Asso- 
 ciation V. 130, (502, 649, 
 1696 
 
 V. Canadian Bank 
 
 of Commerce . . 1017 
 
 , Carnegie v. 145, 201, 
 
 202, 474, 630. 893, 
 1664.-8, 1063 
 
 v. Harrison 1610, 1709 
 
 ■ v. Hope .. 1074.— 177 
 
 , Hutton v. 1,34, 1008, 
 
 1702.-235, 1978 
 
 V. Northwood .. 1542 
 
 Fee V. Mcllhargey .. 552.-548,552 
 
 , Regina v. " 177,39.3,450,614,64.3,856, 
 
 1041, 1115.— 676, 1049 
 Fehtz v. Howland, Regina ex rcl, 1,326, 1.328, 
 
 1321), 2021.-1.331 
 
 , In re Henry 
 
 O'Brien .. .. .320, 1!).38, 1999.— 2004 
 Feneloii Falls v. Victoria R. W. Co., 94, 920, 
 1.378, 1415, 1709.— 2035 
 Fenelon Falls Union School Section, Keith v. 
 
 1 700. -1729 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xxxlii 
 
 COLCMN. 
 
 ren-Fit] 
 
 COLUMN'. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Fenton and the Boanl of Audit of tlio 
 
 County of York, lu re, 90, 405, 4r>5, 
 1230. — 1,S85 
 
 , Church V 77.— 03, G(), S2 
 
 . V. County of Simcoe, Re, . . (i()3, 1125, 
 
 1323, 1343 {his), 1344, 1.345 
 Feinvick v. Donohue, . . 1077, 203S. -1008 
 
 1''ergU8on, In re, !)09 
 
 . V. EngliHh and Scottish Invest- 
 ment Co 1317, 19S2 
 
 V. Ferguson, 374, 821, 1180, 2058.— 
 
 1200 
 7!), 80, 485, 005 
 
 823 
 
 803, 823 
 
 .. 403.— 401 
 
 1242, 2032.— 2032, 2030 
 
 1151.— 1141 
 
 1309, 1401, 1905 
 
 V. Winsor487, 490, 497, 602, 724, 1828 
 
 Ferris, Cannichael V 583,1890 
 
 , Ciisev V. — East Northumbcrlauil 
 
 Election (Out.) .. 1448, 1479, 2235 
 
 ■ V. Freeman, 
 
 ■ V. Keimey . . 
 
 ■ V. Kenny . . 
 
 • V. McMartin 
 V. Roblin . . 
 V. Troop . . 
 V. Veitcli . . 
 
 Fit-For] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 and Eyre, Re 
 V. Ferris 
 
 49 
 
 593,888, 891, 1002.— 
 809, 1590,2000 
 
 1040 
 
 1009 
 
 19.-)3 
 
 261, 1910.— 253, 8.S0, 1081, 
 1012 
 
 1672 
 
 1941 
 
 .. }2rM 
 
 .. 442, 1118 
 
 071.-1401,2109 
 
 1130, 1201.— 1137 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Kick, Hrodrecht v. . 
 I'iuld, FletcJier v. 
 )'"icld V. ( lalloway : 
 
 , Hughes V. 
 
 •, McDonald v. . 
 
 i'"i('l(jing V. Mott 
 
 {•'ifc, Regina v. 
 
 I'Mliatniult, Hardy v. 
 
 {•'inch V. (Jilray 
 
 Finn V. Dominion Savings and Investment 
 
 Society 109.').— 910 
 
 Fire As?-.., Mice Association, Carr v. 301, 1280 
 File Insurance Association, Clarksnn v. . . 027 
 
 V. Canada Fire 
 
 and Marine Ins. Co. 972, 973.-907, 100(5 
 Fish, Anderson V. .. .. .. .. 1872 
 
 , Ryan v. 568, 569 {hix), 570, 1083, 1254, 
 
 1019.— 5(!9, 570 
 Fi-sher V. Anderson .. .. .219.3,2228 
 
 -, Raker V 782,18.39,1809 
 
 V. Colton, Re Cotton, 720, 737, 1710.— 
 
 738 
 
 , Georgian Bay Transportation Co. 
 
 V 1920.— 916 
 
 V. (Iraham, .. .. .. .. .S03 
 
 , Hynes v. . . 921, 927, 1026, 2015 
 
 McCord and Jenkins' 
 
 Case 929 
 
 , Jones V 2109.— 21 10 
 
 , North V. .. 359,1093,1203.-3.39 
 
 390 
 
 625 
 
 1901 
 
 141.3.-1802 
 
 120 
 
 . . 084 
 
 , Stark V. 
 
 Fisken v. Chamberlain 
 
 V. Ince 
 
 , McLaren v. 
 
 V. O'Neill . . 
 
 , Troutman v. 
 
 Fitch V. McKae, In 
 Enlargement, . . 
 
 , Ross V. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Re 
 
 , Carroll v. 
 
 , Ci'and Trunk 
 
 C.".nada v. 
 Fitzgerald v. Wilson 
 
 re Welland Canal 
 
 460, 584, 1153, 21.52 
 
 1935 
 
 1950 
 
 870, 885 
 R. W. Co. of 
 
 .. 6.59,1797 
 75, 76, 1979 
 
 Fitzrandolpli v. Mutual Relief Society of 
 
 Nova Scotia . . . . . . . 1001 
 
 Fitzsimmons, Flint v. — Brockvillo Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1426, 1431, 14.32, 14.35, 
 
 14.36, 1458, 1408, 1486, 1499, 
 
 1518, 2236 (/»m), 2242 
 
 , Union Fire Ins. Co. v. 251, 2.")3, 
 
 277, 933, 1820, 1985, 2021 
 
 Flake v. Clajip 2051 
 
 Flanagan V. Elliott 63,72.-77 
 
 Flanders v. D'Evelyn . . . . 20, 909 
 
 Flannigan v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. 1789 
 Flatt, Hamilton and Flamborough Road 
 
 Co. V 241,1667,2148 
 
 v. Waddell 14, .32, 858, 1963.-261, 279 
 
 Fleming, Re 712,1605 
 
 V. Hall 1917 
 
 — V. McDougall 1296, 1899, 2171. — 1899 
 
 V. McNabb .. .. 62,1692 
 
 , Smith V 51,1148 
 
 Flcsher, O'Callaghan v.— Cardwell Elec- 
 
 tion (Ont.) 
 Fletcher, Re, 
 
 v. Field . . 
 
 V. Noble . . 
 
 and Noble, Re, 
 
 • , Rice V. 
 
 V. Rodden 
 
 Fleury v. Copland 
 
 -, Re — Fleury v. Fleury 
 
 .. 1451 
 .. 19.39.-1939 
 .. 1953 
 172,359.-170 
 . . 542 
 . . .54 
 .. 1189 
 .. 1855 
 . 733 
 . 306 
 
 Flint, Attorney -Cencral of Canada v. 
 
 V. Fitzsimmons — Brookville Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1420, 1431, 1432, 1435, 1430, 
 14.58, 1408, 1480, 1499, 1518,22.39 (6;<(),2242 
 
 , Regina v 1718 
 
 Flint .t Jellett, In re, 1270, 1942.— .376, 577 
 
 1317, 19.")5 
 Flory, Regina V. 1112, 1351, 1.366, 19.32,2012.— 
 
 1109, 1339 
 
 Fogg V. Fogg 891, 1591 
 
 Foley, Canada Permanent Loan and Sav 
 
 V. 
 
 ings Co. 
 V. Lee 
 V. Moran, Re, 
 
 577, 905, 1269 
 
 .. 1651 
 
 551, 1084 
 
 1.391.— 1391 
 
 Canada, 
 
 FoUett V. Toronto Street R. Co. 
 Fonseca v. Attorney-General of 
 
 95, 462, 468, 900, 1093, 1259, 2236 
 Fookes, Coursollesv. 827, 1320, 1988.— HI, 705, 
 
 826, 1273 
 
 Foot v. Foot 2176 
 
 Foott v. McGeorge . . 595, 899, 2063.— 895 
 
 \. Rice -':95, 899, 2063.-895, 2075 
 
 Foran v. Mclntyre 472, 1741, 2032.- 314, 1747, 
 
 1816 
 Forbes, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. 1166, 
 
 1314 
 1677 
 201 
 738 
 5.38 
 2250 
 891 
 131, 863 
 . . 18.59.-1867 
 497, 1150, 1278 
 117, 1701, 1706 
 . . 598.-606 
 .. 1237 
 .. 1334 
 . . 180 
 
 1166, 2058. 
 
 , Pherrill v 
 
 , Smith v. 
 
 Ford V. Landed Banking and Loan Co, 
 Forfar v. Climie 
 Forhan v. Lalonde . . 
 Forrester v. Forrester 
 
 V. Thrasher 
 
 Forristal v. McDonald 
 Forse v. iSovereen 
 Forster, Armstrong v. 
 Forsyth v. Bury 
 
 V. CanniET . . 
 
 V. City of Toronto 
 
 , McAllister v. 
 
 Fort Erie Ferry R. W. Co., Village of Fort 
 
 Eriev 2049 
 
ZXZiT 
 
 ForPre] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Fortier. llo«ina V 212, 19-22. 1090 
 
 Fcrtyii, Hallv ''•■| 
 
 Forward V. City of Toronto .. „ ,•■ f'*" 
 
 Foster V. Allison ... ■ O'S, •<><>■» 
 
 , (ioodyeiir Itubber Co. v. , . 1«03, '201(2 
 
 V. Moore ISIO 
 
 195, 637, 1(!(U, 1«19 
 
 . 1978.-057, 11 tl') 
 
 .. 004, 172-' 
 
 6«S.-(iS(i, )>89 
 
 378.-.%4, ;174 
 
 391, S2(i. — Ill 
 
 1070 
 
 ISlCi 
 
 . . 650. —077 
 W. Co. . . 030 
 
 V. Monlen 
 
 V. Russiell 
 
 V. .•• tokf.s 
 
 • V. Van Worinor 
 
 V. V'iej,'cl 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Fouciiiur V. .St. Louis 
 
 Foiild.s, Hank of -Montreal v 
 
 l'"ournier, Legcr v. 
 
 Fowlds, Tiauey v. . . _ 
 
 Fowle V. {'anadian Pacific K 
 
 Fowlie, Winfiuld v. 1021, 1254, 1260.-494, 755 
 
 Fox, Dougli.8 V 1399,2035,2147 
 
 V. Nipissing R. VV. Co. . . 1815, 1820 
 
 , Phillips V 1901 
 
 and the south-half of Lot No. 1 in the 
 
 Tenth Concession of IJownie • • . -^1" 
 
 V. .Synungton . . . . . . 540, 5)3 
 
 Fradenlmrgh V. Haskins .. .. 794.— 820 
 
 Fram v. Fram '530 
 
 Frampton, Wylie V. .. .. 873. -.">90 
 
 Francis V. Francis 1074, 1504 
 
 Frank V. Township of Harwich .. ..2118 
 
 , Rudd V. , . 581, 616.-57(i, 1208 
 
 Franklin, Re, 555 
 
 Fraaer, l!e, 1947.-1945 
 
 _ , Ambrose v. 877, 1143, 1153, 191.S.-423, 
 
 871,870, 1141, 1144, 1612 
 
 , Bell V. 1564 {hM, 1015, 1090.- 301 
 
 , Dawson v. 500, 2163 {his), 2213, 2227 
 
 , Ellis v.— South Grenville Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1426, 1434, 1435, 1445, 20S0 
 
 V. Gore District Mutual Fire Ins. 
 
 Co 935. 1688.— 9.S6 
 
 V. Gunn . . 567, 570, 1294, 1900 
 
 V. Johnston 1618, 1976, 1977.-1971, 2049 
 
 22(K) 
 
 . . 386, 1074, 1646 
 .. 779.-788 
 
 855 
 
 .... 1295.-1280 
 Pizer V. , , , . . . 1054 
 
 , Porritt V. . . . 57, 99, 1216. -.363 
 
 V. Pouliot 491 
 
 :,Vindenv 815.-676,837 
 
 Frawley, Regina v. 220, 311, 315, 1057, 2236.— 
 
 307, 1058 
 FrtSohette v, Goulet — Megantic Election 
 
 (Dom.) .. .. 673, 1509, 1517.-1506 
 Fredericton, Mayor, etc., of, v. The Queen 310, 
 
 2241 
 Free, McMuUen v. 457, 476, 1130, 1276.— 1597 
 Freed v. Orr 408, 409, 415, 695, 739, 784, 1954 
 Freehold Loan and Savings Society. , Clarke 
 
 V. .. 1280 
 V. Farrell 204, 
 
 FreOar] 
 
 Frev, Mutual Ins. C'j. of tho County of 
 
 Wellington V 9.34,970,978 
 
 Friodrich v. Friedrich 1941 
 
 Friendly v, (.'anada Transit Co. 227, 18.">9, 
 
 1926.— 1869, 1928 
 
 V. Carter 1643, 204! 
 
 V. Needier 547 
 
 Frith V. Ryan 62S 
 
 Fnt/inger Re, Hargan and, .. .. 21 (i3 
 
 Frontenac, County of, License Commis- 
 sioners for Frontenac v. 312, 1028, 105(», 
 19S4.— 315, lu,)l 
 
 Frost V. llincs 1279.— 577 
 
 Fry, Husli v. 745, 1861,22.35.-16.37, 1687, 1689 
 Frye v. MiUigun 787, 860, 2004.— 1861 
 
 Fryer V. Shields 131,12,38 
 
 Fuches V. Hamilton Tribune Co. 286, 293.— 
 
 107, 1140 
 
 V. ffaniilton Tribune Printing and 
 
 Publishing Co.— Copp's Case, 247.-253 
 
 Fuller, Church V 1971 
 
 Fuller V. McLean 1681, 2084 
 
 Fuller's Case-He Niagara Falls Park, 460, 2151 
 Fulton V. Vipond . . .380, 22.36.-376 
 
 — — V. Whatmough, Re Charles, 2184.— 2177 
 F iltou Bros. V. Upper Canada Furniture 
 
 Co 324 
 
 Funston, Davies v 653, 842, 22.39 
 
 and Township of Tilbury East, 
 
 In re, 8.58. 859, 1344, 1345, 1357.— 1.344 
 
 Fnrlong v. Carroll 749, 20.V2 
 
 V. Reid, 675, 1405, 10G8.— 192, 811, 1404 
 
 Furze, Barker v 2040, 2231 
 
 G- 
 
 V. R- 
 
 , Jones V. 
 
 — , Lucas V. 
 
 — V. McLean . . 
 — , McTiernun v. 
 
 — V. Nagle 
 
 886 
 
 Gabourie, Re, Casey v. Gabourie, 30, 721.— 
 29, 717, 718, 725, 1666, 2071, 2079 
 
 Gaffield, Boyer V 826,827,1104 
 
 Gage V. Canada Publishing Co. . . 412. —.349' 
 
 , Canada Publishing Co. v 2027 
 
 , .Stewart v. 113, 677, 1091, 1203.— 11.3, 
 
 12.3, 1204 
 Gagnier, He Inglehartand, .. .. 204 
 
 Gagnon V. Prince .. .. 672, 1713^ 
 
 Gainsborough, Township of, Lampman v. 1396 
 Gair, Township of Oxford v. . . 1698.-1702 
 Gairdner v. Gsiirdner . . . 2182 
 
 Galarneau v. Guilbault 200, 748, 2081.— 2035, 
 
 2151 
 Galbraith and Christie, In re, . . . . 129 
 
 V. Buncombe 755, 1699.-908, 909, 2078 
 
 V. Township of Harwich 1360, 1599, 2115 
 
 V.Irving .. .. 1148, 1945.— 1.599 
 
 Re White V. . .Wl, 1228.-540, 1227 
 
 234 
 
 . 1072, 1656.— 1655 
 
 . . 1081, 1707 
 
 . 79, 80, 485, 665 
 
 769, 8.38, 2156.-8.38 
 
 790 
 
 V. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co. 
 
 1765.-44 
 
 , Regina V 834,1105 
 
 French, Regina V 1102.— 1117 
 
 Fretts, McGuin v. 11, 226, 1605, 1820.— 1599 
 
 Freel v, Macdonald, . 
 
 , Victoria Mutual v. 
 
 Freeman, Ferguson v. 
 
 V. Freeman 
 
 , Kennedy, v. 
 
 Galerno and the Township of Rochester, 
 
 In re 855. 1353, 2231 
 
 Gall & Co. v. Collins 383, 388, 389, 1954, 1956.— 
 
 92, 391, 1937 
 Gallagher v. Glass . . . . . . . . 104 
 
 V. Taylor 26, 986 
 
 , Trust and Loan Co. v. 1274.— 1290, 
 
 1294, 1830 
 
 Gallon, Jones v 620, 627 {bix), 863 
 
 Galloway, Field v. 261, 1910. -253, 830, 1081, 
 
 1612 
 
 Gait, Town of. In re Peck and, 380, 481, 603, 
 
 1340, 1343, 1345, 1:828 
 
 Gananoque, Village of, v. Stunden 779, 1628 
 
 1698.— 1333r 1709 
 
 Gannon v. Gibb Sft 
 
 Garbutt v. Hewson, Re Woodhall, 376,. 735 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 XXX7 
 
 Oar-Oib] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 .. •2101.-1850, '20m) 
 
 mn 
 
 1319, 1819, I8->1. —1.312 
 
 1678 
 
 111, 1.S2, (too 
 
 .. 111.— 113 
 
 348, 703 
 
 348, 703, 1972 
 
 103, 798, 2237, 2240 
 
 . 85, 99, 185.-227 
 
 .Monaghan v. Horn, 
 
 1234, 1.194 
 
 V. Omnium Securities Co. . . . , 530 
 
 V. Thompson 172, 774, 786.-784, 1407 
 
 Garner v. Hayes 2'.'4fl 
 
 . V. Tmio . . 101.3.-1612, 1014, 2039 
 
 Garrett v. Koberts 32, 33, 300, 906, 914, l.-)01, 
 
 1571. -1.521 
 Garrison, 'iVestern Canada Loan Co. v. 
 
 606, 1197 
 
 G.-jnliner v. Chapman 
 Oarilntr v. Brown . . 
 
 V. Hurjjcss . . 
 
 _ , Klliottv. . 
 
 _ V. Kliupfor . . 
 
 ., KId'pfery. .. 
 
 Garliuul V. (icmmill . . 
 
 _ , (iennnill v. . . 
 
 _ , McLean v. . . 
 
 , McMaster v. 
 
 _ . In re 'Die. 
 
 Garson v. (iarson 
 Garvoy, Burn ham v. 
 GaiiRlian v. Sliarpo . . 
 Gaiijot, Wallbridge v. 
 Gault V. Shepard 
 
 .. 1421, 1965 
 19, ,381, 1176.-1193 
 . . 720, 1030.— 724 
 . . 365, 1137.— 11. lO 
 1150 
 
 aiboio] 
 
 OOLUHK^ 
 
 Gauthier v. Normandeau — L'i\88umption 
 
 Election (Dom.) .. 1514,1524 
 
 V. Waterloo Mutual Ins. Co. . . 957 
 
 Gauthreaux's Bail, Re, . . . . 1822 (his) 
 Gearin, Emerson v. , . . . , . . 363 
 
 Geddes, Wilkins V 1567,2003 
 
 Gedge, McPherson V. . 1173.— 1172 
 
 Gehl, Daby v 534, 545, 553, 046, 098.- 
 
 097, 702 
 
 Geiger, Arkell v .374, 1024 
 
 Gemmell, Austin Mining Co. (Limited) v. 
 
 203.-205 
 
 , Hilliard V 1140,1154 
 
 Gemmill, Garland v 348, 703 
 
 V. Garland . . 348, 703, 1979 
 
 Genereux v. Cuthbert — Berthier Election 
 
 (Dom.) 27, 1447, 1476, 1525, 200.3.— 1524 
 George T. Smith Co. v. Greey . , 030.— 619 
 Georgian Bay Transportation Co. v. Fisher 1920. 
 
 —916 
 German, North of Scotland Mortgage Co. v, 
 
 1271.— 1277 
 Gerow v. British America Assurance Co. 989, 
 
 2234 
 
 , Providence- Washington Ins. Co. v. 981, 
 
 985, 2008.— 1404, 2053 
 
 V. Royal Canadian Ins. Co. . . 989 
 
 Gesuer, Stewart v. . . . . . . , . 2219 
 
 Ghent v. McColl 86, 684 
 
 Gibb, Gannon v. . . . . , . , 36 
 
 Gibbon v. Michael's Bay Lumber Co. 
 
 (Limited) . . 1929, 2023, 22.34 
 
 Gibbons v. Darvill 823 
 
 V. McDonald 791 
 
 V. Wilson . . 811, 1696, 2235.— 192 
 
 Gibbs V. Wheler — North Ontario Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1446, 1450, 1462, 1466, 1473, 1474, 
 1479, 1482, 1487.— 1456, 1467, 1524, 1526 
 , Wheeler v. — North Ontario Elec- 
 tion (Dom.) 2007 
 
 Gibson, Re 199, 1213, 1962 
 
 V. Biggar. — East Northumberland 
 
 Election (Dom.) 1450, 1510, 1520 
 
 , Cameron v. 197, 466, 457, 1273.— 1285 
 
 , V. McDonald 306, 1907, 1909.— 400 
 
 V. Midland R. W. Co. 149, 1395, 1771.— 
 
 1785 
 
 Gibson, Murray v. 
 Regina v. 
 
 066, 1708.-1701, 1705 
 4.34,447.-440 
 (iiffard, Wriimsell v. 195, 190, 522. — 195 
 
 Gitlord, Burn V. .. 1921,2079.-2009 
 
 Gilbert v. Oilman 20Q1 
 
 (iilbert, Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 
 Society v. 
 
 , Hovey V. 
 
 , JonaH V. 
 
 , McDonald v. 
 
 , Patterson v. 
 
 — — - V. Stiles 
 Gilchrist, Re, 
 
 096, 750, 785.- 
 
 1893 
 
 (}i5 
 
 . 1.307. --13.39 
 
 29, 1538, 1997 
 
 1005 
 
 20, 55, CO ihiH), 078 
 
 907, 1738 
 
 , Bank of Montreal v. 390, ll.")7.— 1153 
 
 and Island, Re, 1298, 2082.-1205, 1.302 
 
 V. Wiley 90 
 
 Gildersleeve V. NIcDongall 15,758 
 
 (iiies V. Morrow 507, 508. ."iOO, 014, 1005 
 
 Gilkiaon, Hunter v. 8.50, 901, 1120, 20.30.— 1116 
 (Jill V. Canada Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 
 
 938, 961 
 
 V. (Jilmour . . . . 869.— 2060, 2205 
 
 Gillam V. Gillam . ... 564, 12.50 
 
 (4illeuce, Henry v 2209 
 
 Uillen V. Roman Catholic Episcopal Cor- 
 poration of the Diocese of Kingston 1209, 
 
 1942 
 Gillespie, Rutland V. .. .. 1980,2223 
 
 , Merchants' Bank of Halifax v. 
 
 283. —282, 304 
 Gillies, McArthur V. .. 2100.-489,2100 
 
 Gillies V. McConocbie 2220.— 2195, 2217 
 
 Oilman, Exchange Bank of Canada v. 1093, 1049, 
 
 2008.-32 
 
 —, Gilbert V 2001 
 
 (Jilmor, Wilson v. . . . . 491.-589, 1135 
 
 (iilmore V. Township of Orford .. .. 1643 
 
 Gilmour, Oillv 869.-2060,2205 
 
 , Macfarlane V. . 1245,20.30.-1244 
 
 , Magee v. . . 1135.-11.33, 1146, 1150, 
 
 1153, 1155, 1158 
 
 , Regina ex rel. Lee v. . . . 1326 
 
 , Town of Dundas v. 1599, 1600.— 1085 
 
 and White, Re 1298,2067.-1265, 1302 
 
 Gilray, Finch v. . . 1136, 1201.-1137 
 V. McMillan 650 
 
 Oiraldiv. La Banque Jacques Cartier, 133. — 756, 
 
 2060, 2078 
 Girvin v. Burke 155, 1648, 1556, 2093, 2235 
 
 , Burko V 1648 
 
 Givins v. Uarvill 2087.-2195, 221.3, 2225 
 
 Glasgow and London Ins. Co., Re St. 
 
 Philip's Church, Weston, and . . 975 
 
 (irlass, Anderson v, 
 
 , Boyd V. 
 
 v. Burt 
 
 v. Cameron 
 
 , Gallagher v, 
 
 V. Glass 
 
 V. Grant 
 
 Pardee v. 
 
 101, 2232. 
 
 108 
 
 805 
 
 199, 8.36.-883, 2060 
 
 .. 702,1082.-1066 
 
 104 
 
 571,579 
 
 824, 1092, 1612, 1620.— 1618 
 343.— 12, 692, 1016 
 Glen, McKay v.— South Ontario Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1462, 1465, 1466, 1490.— 1504 
 Glengarry Election (Ont.) — McLennan v. 
 
 Craig 1464, 1480, 
 1482, 1513.— 1481 
 — Purcell V. Ken- 
 nedy 1513.— 1524 
 Glenn, Colter v. — Haldimand Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1456,1472 
 
 Glennie, Struthers v 822, 1194 
 
 Globe Printing Co., Maitland v, . . 512, 628 
 
xxxvi 
 
 Olo-Oou] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES 
 I'or.vMN. I Oou-Ora] 
 
 COLUMN, 
 
 (il.ili.' I'liiitiiin I'll., Tato V. 
 (;l(ilncMtcr KIrcditll (Hoiii.) 
 
 lIlll'IIH 
 
 < Jloiirc'slii 
 <i()il(liril V 
 (iiiili'i irii \ 
 (lodfiry V. 
 
 'riiiviMHy V. 
 < 'ihiIhoii 
 , lli'odio 
 11,11 rinoil 
 
 ('(iniiiii'iiM V. 
 
 i,vj;( 
 
 •-'I'jd, '-'i.MM.-i^.'J-'. '.M:t."> 
 
 I HIS 
 
 I(i77 
 
 ,S84 
 
 (iixlHoii, LiwiH V 1 1 ,'.;i, L'OilS 
 
 and tlif Citv i>f Tonintd, In re, 
 
 KM), 444, l.'tSf), 141(1, 171(1. Km 
 
 (1,.(V. Itr "S(i. IIHH 
 
 (;.,l,„, s,„ttv L'l(i:i, •-'•-"t.T •.'I7it 
 
 (ioldii' V. .((.IniH 7l,74,-_'i.':i.' 
 
 , Smid. V. ir.48, 1.>I!», 1.m7, i.V.!t. ip.' 
 
 (Idliling V. Miickii' '711 
 
 (li)lilni:ui, Sli'TWiiod V, ., .. •• Kil't 
 
 (Idldsniitli, Citv of London V -144 
 
 (Jold.sinitli V. U'iilloii .. . 1j)57, ir)«!» 
 
 (loner V. Loitih I''>!ll 
 
 (loorli. Diiilmm V .'WS, (ins 
 
 (Jo,,,!, K.!j,'imiv <)0'->, •-•■iHd 
 
 (ioo,lall, Mdclwll V 2'.'4 
 
 ^ V. Smith .. . . IS.-).-), ^OiW. - l«(i2 
 
 (Jooilfidlow, Hu 'i'mdcru' IJiink v. (loml- 
 
 fallott- I4r),7.-)(l 
 
 (Juodoi'liiun, Attonicy-Oeiieial v. . . (i'il, (i()9 
 V, Toidnto iinil Ni|)isiii;,' It. 
 
 w.co. IS!.'), isi'o. \:i>i,mn 
 
 V. Traders' liiiiik ..1201. iri(i4 
 
 (iooilerhnniit Worts (l.iiiiitoil), Mooiivs v. I'.'oO, 
 
 l.sdl, L'OiJl, •_'0!I7. ISd.'i, •JOil.-| 
 
 (ioodiii;;, an Insolvent, in re .. .. I'i!) 
 
 (Joodiniin V. lioyes .. .. .. .. I'JOS 
 
 V. The (^leen 447. - V.]r>, 4r.4, 1 1 l.'l 
 
 — , licfiina V. 447. -4:1,"), Ht), 4.-)4. 847 
 
 (ioodricli, Tilsoiiliurg Agricultural anil 
 
 .Mannfactnrinjj Co. V. .. 1214. (!•.'.-) 
 
 Cooilyear Kuhber Co. v. Foster . . lS(;;t, 2()!l-_' 
 (loose V. (Jrand Trunk i! \V. Co. IIOS, L'd.")! 
 <Jor(lon V. City of liilleville l;l!)l, 214(i.-'JI44 
 
 V. Conlon i:il4, KKi.'), 207."). — 12.S.'),21S8 
 
 Huglison V. . , . . 1070 
 
 V. O'llrien, lie .. .. 540. .-);l!) 
 
 V. I'liillips (iSl 
 
 Kegina, V. .. 10.)4, 1100, IdSS 
 
 (lore, Thonipsr>n V. .. .. .. 812 
 
 (lore District Mutual Fire Ins. ('o., 
 
 Fra/.er v. . . <m, 1(188. !).1(J 
 
 Oorhaiii v. lloulthec North ^'ork Flection 
 
 (Ont.), 14.50, 1458, 14S:i, 1486, 1517, 22:i(). 
 
 l.-)21 
 Goring v. Cameron . . .'578, 580, {bin) I (,07, ]d4() 
 
 V. London Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 94, .S20, 
 
 SIO, 028, 934, 945, 95.-), 980, 14i;{ 
 . . 884 
 
 .. nm 
 
 .. 700 
 
 505, .^(i 
 
 1229, 21i:i 
 
 i;i45 (hu) 
 
 Shelley v. 
 
 (■orniley, Mitchell V. 
 
 Ooralinc, Trust and Loan Co. v. . . 
 
 Gorst V. Barr 
 
 Gosfiold, Township of, White v. . . 
 
 , Ke Swcetman and 
 
 Goslield .South, Township of, Balzer v. 2130 
 
 — , In re Ontario 
 
 Natural Gas Co. .ind . . 925, 21 45. — 1 41 7 
 
 (Joss, Carey v. 
 •Gough V. Bench 
 
 2027, 2028 
 
 36.3, 857, 1 022, 1904, 1969, 
 
 1972.— 33, 766, 1969 
 
 \9'A 
 
 432.— 440 
 
 22.30 
 
 Gouin, Landreville v. , 209, 1.388, 2145.— 2147 
 <loulai8, Kegina v. 10.37, 1044, 1102,2022.-10.35 
 •Gould V. Beattie 511. 418 
 
 - V. Park 
 -, Regina v, 
 -, Stuart V. 
 
 (iould, CroHHtield V. . . 337, 1970. -lNS:i, 2019 
 . Ti',liiiv('n V. Niirlh Ontario jllic- 
 lion ((Int.) 1459, 1471, 147-', 1470, 1481, 
 1484, 1490, 1492, \'m. 1447, l4.-.d. 1481, 
 
 I4S2, 1497 
 
 , VarHV 110, :r)tt 
 
 Gouhling V. Deeming 179, 810, 2231.-188 
 
 Uouiet, Coti! v.— Megantic Flection (Dom.) 
 
 ()4«, 1467, I5l(i. 1472, 1500 
 
 Frechette v. .. Megantic Flection 
 
 (Dom.) .. (173, 1.W9, 1517. 1506 
 (Jowan V. I'aton .. .. 2085 
 
 ( iowanlock, Hall v. 512, (1.33, 043. 50.-), (127, (1.38 
 
 V. .Mans 424, 1151. 2d»S, 2241 
 
 Gowansv. Harnet .. (181, I '.td2, 22.35, 2242 
 
 Itcid V. 
 
 (jower V. Lussc 
 (J race, .1 ones V. 1122, 1123 
 Graecy, Re .McCalluni v 
 anil Toronto 
 
 Ileal 
 
 (irahani, ]{u 
 
 V. jlolton 
 
 , Itrondey 
 
 V. Devlin 
 
 70(1, 102(1, 22.38 
 
 . . 2052, 20.-)5 
 
 12, 111(1, Ills, 1124 
 
 .. .1.38. !-)3« 
 
 Fstato Co., Kc 
 
 714,2074. 
 . . 2207. 2201, 
 .. (118. 
 . . (180. 
 
 873 
 2190 
 2213 
 
 505 
 
 088 
 
 -,» Fisher v 8«3 
 
 — , Heint/.uuHi V 14(10 
 
 -V.Lang .. .52(1.— 107, 1140, 1152 
 — , London and Ciinadian Loan and 
 
 Agency Co. v. 273. 7(12, 1837, UH)7. 
 - 132(1, 1891, 1972 
 V. London Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 959 
 
 — V. iMcKimni . . 501. 
 
 — , Meiiilelssohn Piano C". v. 
 
 . (183, 
 192;!. 
 
 — ■ , Merchants' Bank 
 
 Idli 
 
 V. O'C'allaghan 
 
 V. Ontario Mntu.-vl Ins. Co. 
 
 959 (/)(■-,). 
 
 V. Koss, 
 
 , Simonton v. 
 
 V. Spettigue 
 
 V. Stephens 
 
 V. Tonilinson Re, 
 
 V. Williams 
 
 , Wilson V. 
 
 Grahanie v. Patterson — West 
 
 tion (Ont.) 
 Grainger, Regina v. 
 
 51(1. I.39S 
 
 1.538.- 
 
 (119, 1818 
 
 I(i85, 1920, 
 
 1921, 1928 
 
 .. 1840 
 
 935, 9.-)4, 
 
 947, 9(19, I0(»(i 
 
 42.5, 1320 
 
 . 1282 
 
 396, 532 
 
 .. 196(1. 1971 
 
 539, 542 
 
 . 1169.-1171 
 
 89(1, 217.5.— 1748 
 
 York KIcc- 
 
 .. 14:18, 1518.-14.37 
 
 10.j9(/>m), 1114, 1228, 
 
 Grand Junction R. W. Co. 
 
 205.3.-1227 
 V. County of 
 Peterl)orough, 
 Re 1128, 1227,1670, 
 1744, 1807. 414, 
 174.5, 1814, 1817 
 
 — , Deniorcst v. 
 
 1614, 1767 
 
 ^ Falkiner v. 1802, 
 
 1047.-264,269,275 
 
 , Fargey v. 1814.— 
 
 1753 
 
 V. Midland R. 
 
 W. Co. 238, 484, 
 
 762, 1257, 1754.— 
 
 1630 
 
 — , ,Shanly v. 1207.— 
 
 1236 
 Grand Junction and Midland Railways of 
 
 Canada v. Corporation of Peterborough 808. 
 
 Grand River Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. 
 
 Co., Phillips V. . . 751, 952.-967, 1006 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xxzvli 
 
 Ora] 
 
 CDi.rMN. 
 
 Ora] 
 
 Cor.fMN. 
 
 (Jriiiiil Tiiiiik H. \V. Co. of C'nnaiia, Atkiii- (liaiid Tiiiiik R. \V. Co. v. Uosonlioiyi'r 177!) 
 
 , Budgut'ow V. 
 
 1778 
 
 124H, 17H4 
 Dakci' V. 1401, l4l-.> 
 V. Uokctt 1007, 1777 
 
 Uu< kctt V. 
 
 KMKI 
 
 i:t!Ml, 1777.-i:«ltl 
 
 Drmu'tt V. I77"i(''i^) 
 
 i77<i.-i;»oi, i:«)!> 
 
 Ik'tlH V. 
 
 (;i 
 
 »-•«« 
 
 Ollgf 
 
 til!) 
 17SI. — 1745 
 
 IV. isoi, 'J-i:).-!, 
 
 !:J4.-1774 
 
 V. Oi'ctlit Valluy 
 
 l(. W. (Jo,, 1418, 
 
 174(1.- -18 17, '-'o:i,-. 
 
 , DaiiiclH V. 
 
 , l)()U),'lllS V. 
 
 , KMscry V. 
 
 uw.- 
 
 177-' 
 
 1772 
 
 -1700 
 
 V. rit/x'ciald (i.-|!), I7!»7 
 
 (lOOMO V. 
 
 140H, --'u.-.l 
 
 In ro (iiiy v. r>H(i, .">40, 
 
 107 
 
 
 )Hcl|li('lf,'rl' V. 
 
 •.'o:.l 
 
 I70O, jMO.'l 
 Sil.lial.l V. 47S, i;{!l',». 
 
 'riiiiii 
 
 141; 
 
 lit,' v. 
 
 1781 
 I7!l« 
 
 •-'o:i8 
 
 V. 'I'Dioiito, (li'i^y 
 and Hnico li. 
 
 W. (■: 
 
 'I'l'i 
 
 iiuiyr 
 
 ViiuO)iirg V. 
 
 IS04, I! 175 
 ,'. ., I :»!»!», 
 1781 
 1701 
 
 - V. V (IgO 
 
 -, Vogcl V 
 
 1 171)7 
 
 !.'1». 
 
 17!)0 
 
 ;!()■_>, I74'2, 
 
 2288 
 
 (Jraiigo V. Mol.ciin 111 .. .. ., 1870 
 
 (Jraiiitu ( liiriiiij,' iuid SUatiii,;,' Co,, Siiai r v. .108, 
 
 lir>s 
 
 • Irani, In lo . . 
 
 Hu 
 
 larvi'y v. 
 -, Ilundi'id V. 
 
 •-'70, l.".!l.').- 
 
 I7!t(l 
 
 1W)4, 
 
 I!I7."., 2241 
 
 , Hillynr.l V. 47;i, Ml.i, 
 
 177;{ 
 
 — -, Hind V. 178.'). — 1780 
 
 , V. Ji'iinings 1007, 
 
 I.SOO. — l.'illO 
 
 , JunningM v. 710, I.V28, 
 
 17!I0. -1785 
 
 , J(^sslll) ^'- ■'-•'' '""'2, 
 
 18(11.— 11 DO, UV.W, 
 1 708 
 
 , Jones V. l.SOO, 1770 
 
 , Knight V. . . (WO 
 
 _ , Lciich V. (No. 2) .'12, 
 
 (ISO, 858 
 __ _ , Luitch V. 020. - ()2(l, 
 
 u;f5 {his) 
 
 , Mayer V. .. I7!)."{ 
 
 — , McLaiR'liliii V. 1771, 
 
 1784.— 1785 
 , M.j.Miili.u,! V. .. 177.'{ 
 
 V. McMillan 
 
 10!t2, 
 
 141:1, 1018, 1795, 18:{.-), 
 
 2025 
 
 — , MoMillau 
 
 -, Miller V. 
 
 -1400 {h!s) 
 1815, 2115 
 
 IJdswell V. . . 
 Iti'itisli Canadian Lnmix 
 liiiilicr ( 1). V. 
 
 704, 010, 12i.T 
 
 1017, ioo;i 
 
 05 
 
 da I. if.. Ah 
 
 U 
 and 
 757, 
 
 100-2 
 1207 
 
 V. K iiiaila l.lti' .Vss, Ijo, 
 
 , Canadian I'.ieitie K. W. Co. v. . . 1078, 
 
 1001. 1014 
 
 , Clendi'inian v. . . . . . . lo74 
 
 V. Coleman, Rcgina ex rel, ;i08, 40.% 
 
 I. Til). I •-'27, 1228 
 
 , Cook V. (iSO, 08!, 1205, 1401, 1108 
 
 — - — V. Cninoc.'k ,. ,. 804, 8(i.5. 12o:j 
 V. Ciilhaid !W0, 22.'t2 
 
 Dun 
 
 1 100 
 
 — , (ilasiv. .S24, 1002, 1012,1020. 1018 
 
 — V. Crant ."WO, 5'_'8, 727, I.5:t2, 1010, 1017, 
 
 1018. 1,5;10, 10.54 
 
 — V. La 15aniiuo Nalionale UIO, 2020. 1 105, 
 
 12im 
 
 — V. McAliiiiu! .. 8.55, 1078, 1010 
 
 V. .Mel'alluiii ■ .Monek I'^leulimi 
 
 (Doin.) ., 1440 (/'(■-.), 144:{. 1444 
 
 — V. :Middleton 2041 
 
 V. O'Haie 1179 
 
 V. J'eople'.s Li'i'i and Uepdsit (,'i). 
 
 12S4. 1009 
 - -, Itegiiiav. 4,52, 1102, 1112. i;iO(i. 1109- 
 , Van Xoniian V. 01, 40:i, 410, S17, 
 
 010. 
 
 400 
 
 (Iraaett v. (!arter, 20, 200, 4S0, 507, OS.'?, 048, 
 
 020, 2007. 1 00 1 
 
 C-'arter v. 
 
 in 
 
 1-. 
 
 20.54. 
 
 .'0, 1404, 
 
 Moukhouse v. 1781. 
 
 (Jras.s V. Austin 
 (iravelle, Ke^iiiia v. 
 
 1405, 1400, 18:);(, I8S4, 20.5:{ 
 102, 4,"iO (his) 
 
 nil, i:',7i 1100, i:500 
 
 I Morton ' 
 
 M'lrpliy V. 
 V. Ontario and 
 (^uel)ec I!. W. Co. 
 110, 1058.— H)50, 1072 
 
 1744 I Graveiihurst, Jn re Miirter, and llic! Court 
 
 1742, 1822, 
 
 20H 
 
 . 177:5 
 
 Ow.ston V. 
 
 ::), I2r)<i, 
 
 ot Jluvisiouoi tiiu Town of 70, 
 1227, 14:U 
 I Villaj^u of, V. Township of Mu.s- 
 
 kokii 
 
 l:s24, 1G:!5 
 
 III re Township of Muskoka 
 
 Ma 
 
 l()2!l, 1747, 1748 
 22;i2 
 
 -10:(2, 1702 
 
 Peart v. 
 
 1777 
 
 (Jr.iy V. Alexander 
 
 — , Piatt V. ;1S7, S01,411, 
 427, 428. 1275, 1507, 
 lOO.S, l!)12.'-.'iOO, 428, 
 .574, 1054, 1820, 2100 
 
 — , Pratt V. 1708.- 500, 
 1817 
 
 Corl 
 
 V. C 
 
 '}■ V. 
 
 ifhli 
 
 50,858, i;{81.--1325 
 
 . 1155 
 
 . . 1025 
 
 (iOI, 18110. -010 
 
 1-J54, I8.m -2:5 
 
 V. Town of Dunda.s 
 
 1 12. 
 
 »10,5, 2100 
 
 Kngli."li iS: iSt-ottisli Invostnient Co. v. i:{i:{ 
 
 h 
 
 dl 
 
 He h 
 
 18'J 
 
 080 
 
 -, Maclennau v. 501, (i4V, 1254, 1004, 1005, 
 
 1000, 18:J0.— 2;{, 127:5, 1204, 12!)0. l.SOO, 
 
 i:iio, 107:) (M, l!)89 
 
 r 
 
zzzviii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Ora-Oue] 
 
 Gniyiloii 1111(1 Hanimill, He, 
 Grtiit Western Advertising Co, 
 
 Re, 
 Great Western Ins. Co, 
 Great Western 1{. \V. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 -4>28 
 Hainer, 
 36(), 401, l'-'27 
 V. Jordan 98.S, •2'240 
 Co. of Canada v. 
 
 Hrown . .. 1774 
 , Krl) V. KiOIJ, 18O0 
 
 V. Lutz, 575, 1197, 17">3 
 , Oliver v. . . KHKi 
 
 2150 
 
 1298.— 12(i5, 1302 
 KiO.— 1()5 
 189.— 183 
 
 Grcavi. , Kcgina v. . . 
 (ireeu and .Artkin, Re, 
 
 . , Canailian Hank of Commerce v 
 
 , l)ri«coll V 
 
 v. Hiuiiilton Prov-lent Loan|Co. 204, 12!I9 
 
 , Holnian v 310, 851 
 
 V. 'r,.wnsliii.of Orford 1361,2246.-1379 
 
 — V. Ponton 1825 
 
 .Regina v. 219,849, 1061, 1116.-219, II93 
 
 , Waiinauiaker V '2\.',2 (his) 
 
 V. Watson 423, 1554, 2097, 2243.-424 
 
 Greene V. Harris .. .. .. .. 1079 
 
 V. Wrigiit 1075 
 
 Greenfield, St. Vincent v. 601, 675, <.)20, 2127, 
 
 2147.— 2i;?0 
 (Jreeiiizen V. Rurns .. 395, 16 15, 185,").— 1622 
 (Jreensliiel.ls V. Rnidford .. .. 1194,1201 
 
 Greenwood, Star Kidney Pad Co, v. 170, 618, 
 785, 2052, 2055. -172, 782 
 Greet v. Citizens Ins. Co. . . 225, 423, 934, 942, 
 955, 957,963.-1265 
 
 v. Mercantile Ins. Co. . . . . !.'63 
 
 V. Royal Ins. Co. . . 225, 942, 955, 957, 
 
 96.3.— 1265 
 Greey, George T. Smith Company v. ()36. — 619 
 
 V. Siddall, 408, 1589, 1,")92, l,")94.— 34 
 
 , ."^niith V. . . 621, 624, 6.34.— 1558 {hU) 
 
 , Wi'stern ]?ank of Canada v. 1277. — 
 
 006, 2034 
 
 Greig, Jack v. 800 
 
 Grey, McClenaahan V 228.— 2224 j 
 
 Grierson v. Coiljett 98 | 
 
 Grieve v. Mclsons Rank 132, 1405.— 1.37, 1403 ' 
 Griffin v. Kingston and Pembroke R. ^V. 
 
 Co 348, 1816 I 
 
 V. McKenzie .. .. 187.— 198' 
 
 V. Patterson 591, 60:.. S74.— 593, 871, ' 
 
 880, 884 j 
 Griffith V. Rrown, ., ..1197.-1183,1199^ 
 
 V. (Jriffith 2186 ' 
 
 , Hall V. 1165, 1941.-177, 19.19, 1961 i 
 
 Walmsley v. 35.5, 776, 1611, 1692, 
 
 Oue-Hal] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 (Juelph .function R. W. Co., Re McQuil- 
 lan and 216, 853, 850, 1768.— 39 
 
 Guelph Lumber Co., Inglis v. . . 384, .387 
 
 , Long V. 273.— 2,50, 269, 257 
 
 , Petrie v. 240, 384, 387, 390, 
 
 605,785(/<(s), 1678.— .341,411 
 
 Stewart v. . . 384, 387 
 
 1068, 1643 
 
 (luess V. Perry 
 (Juestv. Guest 
 
 V. Hunter 
 
 Guilbault v. Dessert - 
 
 (I)oi.i.) .. 
 
 , Galarneau v. 
 
 r).56, 887 
 840, 1 167, 2244, 2249 
 ■ Jolietto Election 
 
 1512, 1514. 1526 
 
 200, 748,2001.-2035, 
 
 2151 
 
 Guildford V. Anglo-French S. S. Co. 1238, 1400 
 
 1928 
 Guillet, Henderson v.— West Northumber- 
 land Election (Uom.) 1471, 1477.-1456, 1464 
 
 1482, 1491 
 Guin.ine, Arpin v. . . . . . , . . 1592 
 
 , Price V. . . 397, 853, 11.54, 22.33 
 
 Gunn V Hnrgees , . 22, 182, 692, 693, 2014 
 
 V. CJo.v, 644 
 
 — , Fnaserv. .. 567,570,1294,1900 
 
 , Rice V. 069, 673, 679, 761, 762, 832, 
 
 1692.— 203 
 
 V. Trust and Loan Co. 16.30.-1628, 1617 
 
 Gunther V. Cook, In re Maitland, . . .. ,320 
 Gut'iric, Vermilyea v. . . . . 1559, 1652 
 
 Guy V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., In re 536, 
 
 549, 1672 
 
 Gye, Thomson v 622, 626 
 
 Gzowski V. Beaty .. 1313.-1296,1311 
 
 Hackett v. Rible .. . . 1021, 1941, 1944 
 
 V. Perry. — Prince County (P.E.I.) 
 
 Election (Uom.) 1437 
 
 Haddow, Kennedy V. .. .. 1171,1174 
 
 Haflner, Rank of Montreal v. 1170, 1598 (hi.i.)~ 
 
 10, 1003 
 
 , Joseph V 116,146,1602 
 
 Hagar, Cunningham v. — Prescott Election 
 
 (Ont.) 27, 1444, 14.53, 1459, 1485, 
 
 1490, 1495, 2238.-1443, 1472, 1500 
 
 V. l{(.".ithier — Prescott Election 
 
 (Hom.) 1428, 1444 
 
 , Re, Woltr V. Ogilvy , . . . 1213 
 
 Haggart, Webster v. . . 37, 46, 48.-37 
 
 Hagarty v. Rateman . . . . . , 766 
 
 , Hagel V. Dalrymple, In re 5.35 
 
 1969, 2005 (/«-.s).-361, 1694, 1964 ' Hagerman, Regina v 4.38, 452 
 
 Gnfhths y. Pen-y 126 , Hague, Re, Traders' Rank v. Murr.ay 34, ,560, 
 
 , Town of Portland V. 214.3.-1.391, 1399J 7.25, 733, 1091.— 1949 
 
 ,, . , ,,.„ . ,, 1407, 2144 Haight, Casner V ' .! 874,1.304 
 
 Grimsby, Village of, Reemerv. 6I0, 2127.-2134 Haines, McNeill v. 373,498, 2019,2020, 2242.— 
 
 ' " """ 345, 397 
 
 V. Somers 
 
 ronto V. Rutterfield, 
 Groosbeck, Hamilton v. 
 Groom v. Darlington 
 Grough, Stuart v. 88, 93, 227, 699, 1820.-1018, ! 
 
 1«1"^ 
 
 (rrove, Hiown V. 112, 479, 82.3, 1416, 1918. — 17 
 Guarantee Co. of North America, Rank of 
 
 ''<""•"" V 1566.1649 
 
 Haisley 
 
 78, 79, 81 {his), 84, 900.- 
 
 GrinncU v. The Queen . . . . 1844, 1980 
 Grip Printing and Publishing Co. of To- 
 
 602, 1,".0 7(j^ 78 
 
 1248,-1249 Haldan, Beatty v. , . 665, 1935, 1949, 19.58 
 727 I Haldimand, County of, In reTownsliii)8 of 
 "" Moulton and Canb<n-ou.s,'ii and, 44.5,903, 
 
 Guardlioiisc, Stdbbart v. 2133, 2170,-2173', 2180 
 Guardian F,re and Life Aisurance Co. of' " 
 
 London, Hobbs v. 
 Guay V. the Queen ,. .. " " 1762^ 
 
 Guelph liarrelCo., Huggins v. 
 Guelph C. Co. V. Whitehead 
 
 951 
 
 1753 
 
 1230, 1232, 213,5.— 1226, 1227 
 Haldimand Election (Doni.) - Colter v. 
 
 Glenn, 14,56, 1472 
 , Walsh V. Mon- 
 tague, 1441, 1445, 
 1446, 1447, 1456, 
 1492, 1.508, 1514 
 22.35.-1526 
 
 26 
 
 114, 120.-106, 796 
 
 Hal-: 
 
 Halifa 
 Halifa 
 
 Halifa: 
 Hall, 
 
 Halliwel 
 l)i()< 
 Halpin, 
 Halter, ' 
 
 Haltoii 
 
 Halsted, 
 Hamiltoi 
 
 Hamilto 
 
 Stin 
 
 Hamilto 
 
 1,")28, 1074 I Hale v. Kennedy, . 
 618, 1558 : Haley, McKitrick v. . 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xxziz 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 McQuil- 
 50, 1768.— 39 
 . . 384, 387 
 •250, 269, 257 
 W4, 387, 390, 
 178.-341,411 
 
 384, 387 
 . 10<)8, 1643 
 
 556, 887 
 17, 2244, 2249 
 "'lection 
 
 2. 1514, 1526 
 2001.— 2035, 
 
 2151 
 
 0. 1238, 1400 
 
 1928 
 
 lumber- 
 
 .—1456, 1464 
 
 1482, 1491 
 
 .. 1592 
 
 3, 1154, 22.33 
 92, 693, 2014 
 
 . . (i44 
 
 0, 1294, 1900 
 
 1)1, 762, 832, 
 
 1692.- -203 
 
 —1628, 1617 
 
 . . 320 
 
 1559, 1652 
 
 In re 536, 
 
 549, 1672 
 
 622, 626 
 
 —1296, 1311 
 
 I, 1941, 1944 
 I'. E.I.) 
 
 .. 1437 
 1171, 1174 
 
 ims {bis.)— 
 
 10, 1003 
 , 146, 1602 
 
 tioii 
 1459, 1485, 
 1472, 1500 
 ction 
 
 1428, 1444 
 .. 1213 
 46, 48.-37 
 .. 766 
 . . 535 
 438, 452 
 34, 560, 
 091.— 1(M9 
 874, 1.304 
 20, 2242.— 
 345, 307 
 84, 900.— 
 76, 78 
 1949, 19.58 
 ps of 
 445, 903, 
 1226, 1227 
 r V. 
 
 14,56, 1472 
 B^lon- 
 141, 1445, 
 47, 1456, 
 ■)()8, 1514 
 .35. — 1526 
 26 
 -100, 796 
 
 Hal-Ham] 
 
 Halifax Bunking Co. v. Matthew 
 Halifax, City of, v. Kenny 
 — , Oakes v. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 .. 811 
 . . 1932 
 44, 46 
 2002 
 
 Ham-Har] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 V. Pilz . . 
 
 V. Piittie 
 
 , Regiiia v. 
 
 , Roberts v. 
 
 , llobinson v. 
 
 , 'I'aylor v. 
 
 Halleran v. Moon 
 
 Halifax Street R. W. Co. v. .Toyce 
 Hall, in re, 25, 436, 741, 846, 848, 8.')8, 361, 
 911,1087.-8,25,408,4.34 
 
 Bank of Toronto v. 84, 693. 704.- -106, 585 
 
 iColev 1174.-70.5, 1171 
 
 . V. Collins' Bay Rafting an.l Forv.anl- 
 
 ingCo 182.-184,1165 
 
 , Dalev. 6.39 
 
 ., Re Dingnian and, . . 1654, 1667 
 
 . V. Dominion of Canada Land and Colo- 
 nization Co. (Limited) . . . . 471 
 
 , Donnelly v 193, 703, 2239 
 
 V. Farqulmrson 65, 68, 78.-63, 76, 82 
 
 . , Fleming V 1917 
 
 V. Fortye 102 
 
 V. Ccwiinlock 512, 63.3, 643.— ,505, 627, 63S 
 
 V. (irillitli 1165, 1941.— 177, I9-)9, 1961 
 
 _ — , Heiiilerson v. . . . . . . . 1674 
 
 Mayor of the City of Montreal v. 478, 517, 
 
 1225—27. 1204 
 
 , McDougallv 1895,-1974 
 
 371, 1174 
 
 1.55.— 227 
 
 10.35, 1102, 1103, 1251.-1104, 
 
 1113 
 
 .. 10, 724, 913, 1974, 1975 
 
 2158—331, 911, 1971 
 
 28, 1289, 1.399, 1410, 20.35 
 
 926, 1636 
 
 330, 682, 1975, 2158.— 
 326, 1966, 1975 
 Halliwell V. Incorporated Synod of tlie 
 
 Diocese of Ontario . .. 229,22.36 
 
 Halpin, Rogina v 1028, 1041 
 
 Halter, Molsou'a Bank v. 790, 803, 2239.— 791, 
 
 824 
 Halton Election (Doni.)— Cross v. Mc- 
 
 Craney 1452, 14,56, 1458, 
 
 1461, 1462, 1474, 1511, 
 
 2234, 2243.-1464 
 
 (Ont.)— 15n,s8ellv. Barber 2(i, 
 
 1443, 1459, 1467, 147S, 1482, 
 
 1525, 2-243.-^14.59, 1478 
 
 Halsted, Locking V. .. 1894, HU.5.— 1.302 
 
 Hamilton, Re, .. ..2164,2177.-2173 
 
 V. Broatch 1220 
 
 , Cooper V 1180, 1184.-1199 
 
 V. (iroesbeok . .. 1248,1249 
 
 V. Harrison 79, 181, 182, 190, 456, 2233 
 
 , Hudson Hay Co. v 1068 
 
 V. Massie . . . . 53, 215, 298.-445 
 
 4.54, 1711,2036 
 
 -, McKenzie v. — I'rescott Election 
 
 (Ont.) ,. 665, 1499, 1, 50.5, 22.39 
 
 V. I'iper, liegina ex rel. , .. 1325 
 
 V. 'riiomp.son — Lennox Eh^ction 
 
 (Ont.) 1523, 1.527 
 
 ■ V. Tweed . . . . . . . . 1 666 
 
 , (^ity of, Beasley v. 1394, 1608.-2144 
 
 ■ , Township of Burton v. 
 
 1375, 2242.-13.53. 1361, 1.375 
 Hamilton Election (Ont.) -Patterson v. 
 
 Stinson 1487, 1493, 22,39.-14.36, 1497, 150S 
 Hamilton and Flamborough Road Co. v. 
 
 Riiddev 21,50 
 
 V. Klatt241,214S 
 
 — , Knott V. 2149 
 
 V. 'l'o«nsend24 1 , 
 
 892, 913, 2148 
 
 Hamilton Iron Forging Co. , Madden v. . . 1247 
 Hamilton and Milton Road Co. v. Town- 
 ship of East Flamboro' . . . . 2148 
 Hamilton and Milton Road Co. v. Rasp- 
 berry 925, 2151 
 
 Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co. , Wyld v. 283 
 Hamilton and North- Western R. \V. Co., 
 
 Township of Nottawasaga V. 6(i2, 1813, 
 
 2235.-1093 
 Hamilton Powder Co., Matthews v. . . 1245 
 Hamilton Provident Loan and Investment 
 
 Co. V. Smith .. ..1277.-1320,1606 
 
 Hamilton Provident and Loan Society v. 
 
 Bell .. 2085 
 
 V. Campbell . . 457, 
 
 1080.— 1320 
 
 , Clark V. . . 820 
 
 , Cochrane v. . . 1086 
 
 - — V.Cornell 725,785 
 
 , Edmonds v. 498,531, 
 
 584, 1284, 1287, 1302, 
 1316, 1562 
 
 V. Gilbert 696, 7ij6, 
 
 785.-1893 
 
 , Oreenv. 204,1299 
 
 V. McKini 2040.-2040 
 
 , Malcolmson v. 1407 
 
 , Meyers v. 2178. — 
 
 2225 (/«■») 
 
 , Morton v. 370, 1318. 
 
 —1316 
 Hamilton, School Trustees of the Town- 
 ship of, V. Neil 613, 1632, 1686, 1729, 1733 
 Hamilton Sewer Pipe Co. , Cox v. 12, 1246 (bix). — 
 
 1245 
 Hamilton Street Railway Co , McLean v. 
 
 511, 1.394, 16U 
 Hamilton Road Co. v. Flatt . . . 1667 
 
 Hamilton Tribune Printing and Publishing 
 
 Co., Farmer v. .506. — 
 .500, .501,508 
 
 , Fuches V. — Copp's 
 
 < ',ise . . 247, 286, 293.-107, 25,3, 1 146 
 
 Handin, Miller v. .. 112,1190.-598,1183 
 Hamniill, lie ( iraydon and, . , 428 
 
 -^— v. Haminill .. .. 2163,2167 
 
 Hammond, Jackson v. .. 1170,1312.-1312 
 Hancock, Long v. . . . . . . , , 809 
 
 , Merchants Bank of Canada v. 265. — 
 
 269 
 Hi.nd in Hand Ins. Co., Hughes v. 51, 974. — 
 
 1672 
 
 Hands v. Law Society of Upper Cahctda 149, 
 
 1160, 1161, 1983, 22.35, 2237, 2241.-272, 
 
 611, 1940 
 v. Upper Canada Furniture Co. 634, 678 
 
 Hanna, Anderson v. 
 Ilannon, McLean v. 
 Hannum, McLennan v. 
 Hanns v. .lolinston . . 
 Hanrahan v. llunrahan 
 Harding, Re, 
 
 1305—590 
 . 1403, 20.56 
 11.5.3, 1268, 1278 
 554 (his), 2021.— 12 
 .. 909.-1013 
 . 912, 1980 
 v. Township of CanliflF 583, 1.344, 134.3, 
 1363, 1754, 2126.-49, 521, 1.336, 
 1384 (bin) 
 
 Hardy 
 
 — and Wren, Re, 
 V. Filiatrault 
 V. Pickard 
 
 671 
 
 Hare v. Cawtlirope . , 
 llargan and Fiitzinger, Re, 
 Haigraft v. Kecgan 
 Hargreaves v. .Sinclair 
 
 42 
 
 1401.-2109 
 
 .381 
 
 . . 161.3, 20.39 
 
 .. 216.3 
 
 149, 2226, 2233 
 
 . . 603 
 
Har-Hat] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 ' COLUMN-, j Hat-Hep] 
 516, fil.S ' Hathaway v. Doiy 
 
 COLUMX. 
 
 H.irkins v. Omuy 
 
 Harinan, Miilholiand V. 570, 664.-.')!)S, ll^.S, 
 
 ll.")S Hatton V. BLitraiii 
 Harndeii. P.e -Harmlon V. Haradou ,. (i.'^S Hawkins v. iMalially 
 
 Harper, C'oiliett v 2017 
 
 i_ V. Culliuit 105,221, 1081, 1299, 1707, 
 
 28, 9.3, 35(5, ,300, 885, 924, 
 
 1631.-915 92!), 928 
 
 21(54, 2168. -21 (!."), •_'178 
 
 4(57, 6(59 2100.-2105 
 
 V. Smith — Botliwcll Election 
 
 (Dciiii.) 1441, 1442.-1446, 1500 
 
 V. havio.s 
 
 2091.— S , Waghorii V 1668 
 
 329, 1235, 1399 Hay v. Bui'kc 1G3, 2242 
 
 , Fauiiis V. 775, 1125, 1 190, 1 191, 163.3.- v. Drake 1917 
 
 118.3, IISO, 1188, 1194, 130."), 1005 ' , Haywood, v 319, 1836 
 
 KikI.I v. . . 506, 2203.— .")(i7, 222(5 ' v. .Johnston 1072 
 
 Harrin'gtoji V. Corse .. .. 1.320,2210 v. McArtlmr 577,1316 
 
 . , Lovelace V. 769,770,915,1887,1 v. Patcr.soii .57 
 
 2023.— 1277 j Hayes V. Armstronj,' 2240 
 
 123, 1320, 2233.-126 ' , (Jarner v 2246 
 
 17.W.— 2092 ' V. Hayes KiSI {Ins), 1682, 2079. 2009 
 
 10, 619, 6.38, (i41, 1671 , 1 , Viitue v. -In re Clarke, . . 200(1. 1 174 
 
 1920.- 19J2 Hay man V. Heward 911,1422 
 
 2202 ! Hav.s V. Arnistron'.,' 1.^03 
 
 1079 I Hiiywood V. Hay," 319, l.SliO 
 
 ., Smith V. 
 
 Harris, Re, 
 
 , Conistiiek V. 
 
 -, l>ay V. 
 -, (iriMMie V. 
 
 - V. .Mnon^ 
 
 - V. Mm lie 
 -, Rontioy V. 
 
 (154 I Hazlitt, Joseph ilall .ManufactiU'ing Co. v. 1859. 
 118,-), 1!95| — 7.V) 
 
 . . 506 I Head v. Bowman 1595.- l()0(i 
 
 V. \\'aterloo Mutual Fire ins. (^o. 965 Headon, Millicuu v. .. .. .. 780 
 
 , Wigle V l(i()7 Healey V. Dolsoii .. .. 174,234.-173 
 
 " " ■"■ Heanuin V. Sc.de ,. .. .. .. 828 
 
 Heaton V. MeKellar .. .. 1(507.-824 
 
 Heatli, Itigina v l(rJ9 
 
 ... . 2124 
 
 Harris Mauufaeturinj,' Co., Piper v. 
 
 Harrison, Fedeial Bank v. . . 1610, 1709 
 
 , (liidfn-yv. 8<4 
 
 , Hamilton v. 19, 181, 182, 190, 4.Mi. ' Heliert, Pnisouncault v 
 
 22.33 I Hed.lkstdne V. Heddle.stone .. .. 2225 
 
 , Hopper V. 521, 16.3,3, 1(5(5,3, 1680.— Hedge, MeMdIan V. 2120 
 
 729, 1,198 ! Hediick, /uinvtein V .2226 
 
 V. .Joseph . 1885, 1898, HM)0 (Wx) I Hedstrom V. Toronto Car Whe(d Co. .. 1863 
 
 .^ V. Pinknoy . . . . 456, 113(5 ; H.tH rnian v. Taylor 589, 2073. 20.S2, 2190 
 
 V. Speneer 2164, 21(59, 222."). —2186 HeflVrnan, Hominion Bank v. .. 371.-708 
 
 Harron v. Vemen 523 | , Kegina v. 604, 1043, 1 102, 1982. 1042, 
 
 Har.ston, In re (Jntario Bank V. .. 541.-5.38! 1049 
 
 Hart, Hegina V. 220, 4r)5, 4,5(5, 1409. — 1 102 ! , Walsh v 1739, 1!)95 
 
 , Troop V. .. 20.")!!. -100, 119, 1105 Heintzman v. (haliani 1406 
 
 , Yarwooil V (is;}, Sl)5 Heise, Hewitt V, .. . .,1(500.-1018 
 
 Hartley, llcgina V. ,. . .. .. 10*7 ! Hciiderson, lie C'itizens" In.snranco Co. and, 45 
 
 Harti'jUv. Canada Mutual Aid AsKoei.ition, 62S v. Diikcnson In re Kussell 
 
 Hartney V. North British Fire Ins. Co., 612. t Fdeetion (Dom.) 8.V2, 1503, l,-)07, 1510 
 
 967, 971). 907 I , Re Doyle v Ki.Vi 
 
 Harty, O'.SuUivan v. 7.30, 73i;. 1819, 2nii5 } v. Cuillet West Northundier- 
 
 H.irvey V. liank of Hamilton, 17ti, 1065. -I.V), ; land Idection (Dom.) 1471, 1477, 
 
 165, KiT, ioso 14S2.--14.")6, "64, 1491 
 
 , Clark V 129S. -12il5, 1,302 v. Hall 1674 
 
 V. Howling -South RenfTcw Hlee- , Kellar v. 1916 
 
 tion(Unt.) 14.38, l,-)22(/,;.s).-147(), v. K.I'ey .. I.IK), 2060. -1415 
 
 MI)!) , Oshornev. 154(>, 154(1. 1543 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R.W. Co., 279, l.-)95. , lUgina v 1107,13.18 
 
 1796: V. S|ieneer ,. 1900,2(188 
 
 V, Havv.y .. .. 831,11114. 261 ; v. Townshii) of Stisted .. 67 
 
 V. McNaughton 817 i Henderson's C,-.s.', Ite Central Bank, .. 287 
 
 V. lSloX.il .. . 707, 1311. -1305! Hen.lrieksv. Hendrieks .. .. 7.34, Kl.u 
 
 123; Hendiic \. Il.atty 928,1(1119 
 
 and I own of Pavkdale, In re 136,-), 1.384, v. (iraml Trunk It. \V. of Cana.la 1804, 
 
 '■■ •''•"■^•dl .^(iS.— 570| I!);-, •>•>[] 
 
 Pietou liank V lS(iS ! v. Nichm '■)(,• o 
 
 --—:'^\;,"^ '"",'" '■ „ • • , "W. -O-"'-- 1!>I2 : Henel,ery v. Turner . . G45, 107(i. -10!.3 
 
 Harwieh, lownship of. I'rankv. . . 21 IS ; Henev, Wellhanks v. . 811 -SIS 
 
 • — -- — .tiiillJi-aithv. 1,360, 1599, i Hunnessy, MeCivady V. '.. ['. . .' .Til 
 
 TT 1 • 1' , , , 2115 I Henney V. , Scott, In're, .. .. . .■),",() 
 
 Haskins, Iradenlmrgh V. .. 794.- ,826 1 Henrv v. (lilleere o-m 
 
 Hastmgs, County of, V. Ponton .302,604,1826 1 — , IliKotson v 298 sij" 13-47 1,S3'V •>"!') 
 
 Hateh, Carter V 1,388,1025,1693 ' '' ' '•).»'n""'ii 
 
 Hately V. Merelmnts' Dcspateh Co . . 2S. -JH, , Walton v. .5'8 fl-'5 927 1 fv! Kill 
 
 .305, .3.-)5, .361, 407, 857. 14(IS, : |'(,|4 \,.y^' ,,,,,".j -.j,' 
 
 1-413, 1603, 1798. 319, 179(1 Henwood, .Maedonald v. 1218, \iit>. ' T'llt' ■,.398 
 
 Hately, Mer.hanls' Despateh Tran.sporta- 
 
 tioii Co. V. .. .. ,, i(j2,"i 
 
 2o;i(i 
 
 i 
 
 4 — 
 
 \ Herson 
 
 J Hessin 
 
 <j Hevey, 
 
 I ^'' 
 
 J Hewan 
 
 J Hewis, 
 
 I Hewish 
 
 1 Hewisoi 
 
 ^ Heyden 
 I Heywoo 
 
 Hephurii V. Township of Orford .376, 1618,2116 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 XK 
 
 Hep-Hil] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Heplmrn v. Park . 
 Herbert, Donovan v. 
 
 190, 793.— 811 
 
 122, 1181, 1198, 2033.— 
 
 HI, 1191 
 
 Heruhmer V. Elliott 781.-1290 
 
 Heron, La Vassaire v. . . 523. — 528, 530 
 
 Herr Piano Co., In re, 1165 1414, 2064.— 2078 
 
 Herring v. Brooks 1652, 2044 
 
 and Napanee, Tamworth and Que- 
 bec R. W. Co. . . 48, 1762. 
 V. Wilson 5.30, 
 
 1764 
 1261 
 1020 
 
 878 
 
 Hersoii, Merchants' Bank v, 
 
 Hessin v. I'aine 
 
 Hevey, Toronto Brewing and Malting Co. 
 
 V 781,1710 
 
 Heward, Haynian V. .. .. 911.— 1422 
 
 -v. 6'Donohoe —1184, 1185,1195 
 
 Hewis, Jcffery v 62, 80. -O.". 
 
 Hewish, Ite 571,1530.-561,562 
 
 Hewisou V. Townsliip of Pembroke 1341, 2126, 
 
 2132 
 Hewitt V. Cameron — Cardwell Election 
 
 V. 
 
 (Dom.) 
 ■, Davis V. 
 ■ V. Heise 
 ., Senn v. 
 
 Hewson, (i:irl)utt v., Re Woodliall, 
 
 V. Macdonald 
 
 Heyden v. Castle 
 Hey wood, Re 
 
 V. iSivewright 
 
 Hibbitt V. Schillrotb, Re 
 
 Hickey v. Stover 8,58, 1187, 1401,2162- 
 
 909, 
 Hickok, ColliiiR ". 
 , Connell \. 
 
 Hicks, Colbert v. 
 , Kitching v. 
 
 V. Williams 
 
 .. 14.37.— 1425 
 
 833.— 861, 1739 
 
 . . 1600.— 1018 
 
 . . 626, 1676 
 
 376, 7.35 
 
 857, 1836 
 
 84, 1137 
 
 908.— 911 
 
 . . 726 
 
 . . 5,50 
 
 677, 
 
 1195 
 
 1072 
 
 180, 869, lOie.— 184, 183, 
 
 191, 8S6, 1022 
 
 1217, 1626 
 
 180, 184, 3.33, 41 », KiO.S.- 
 192, 198 
 
 1195 
 
 .. 10.33, 1047.-1029 
 510, 1400.-516, 1398 
 
 Higgins, Regina v. . , 
 
 . V. Walkcm 
 
 High .School B<iard of High School District 
 Xo. 4 <if the U. V. of Stormont, Uun- 
 dus anil (Jlcngairy and Township of 
 Windiest, r, In re, 22, 1229, 1232, 1250, 
 
 Hildcibrooni v. McDonald . . 
 
 Hill, In re, . . 
 
 , Coleman v. 
 
 V. Hill .. 
 
 V. Lightbounu 
 
 12.57 
 639 
 
 130 
 
 126.5.-23, 421 
 
 716, 7.36. 2229(W.v).-S9(i 
 
 128, 1082, 1088, 1128.— 
 
 131 
 
 V. Macaulay , . . . . .62 
 
 V. .Meiciiants' and Manufacturers' Ins. 
 
 Co 977, 1821.— 1633 
 
 V. Midd.igh 2031,2129 
 
 V. Noilhcrn I'acilic Junction R. W. 
 
 Co 859, 1667 
 
 , Trinity College v. 1008, 1310 (/n's) -131 1, 
 
 1285, 1319 
 , Trust and Loan Co v. .. .580, 107() 
 
 1083, 1656.-16.54, 1673 
 .. 1146, 1154 
 .. 119.3,2109,2125 
 
 1921 
 
 868, 2090.-766,813 
 772, 11.56 
 
 Him-Hoo] 
 
 COLUMS. 
 
 Hilliard v. Arthur 
 
 v. (ItnnniU 
 
 , Stotiiard V. 
 
 V. Tliurston. 
 
 Hillock V. Button 
 V. Suttim 
 
 Hillyard v. (Irand Trunk R. W. Co. 473, 1415 
 
 1773 
 
 and tiie Hoyal lua. Co., Ro 51, 385 
 
 V. .Swan .. .. 1082.-694,702 
 
 Hilton, King v . . . 719 
 
 f 
 
 Rime and Ledley, Re, . . . . 702.— 705 
 Hinds, Cartwright V. 53,55 (bin), 8.5.5. — 557 
 
 V. Hinds, Re Hinds . . 1212, 1.568 
 
 Hines, Frost v 1279, 577 
 
 Hinman, Crowter v. — Re Crowter 720. — 718, 
 
 2079 
 Hinton v. St. Lawrence and Ottiiwa R. 
 
 W. Co. .. .. 1770, 1775, 2052 
 
 Hislop V. Township of Mc(4illivray 859, 1075, 
 
 1230, 12.32, 1994, 21.30.— 21.35, 21.36 
 
 Hoare, Becher, v. 84, 223, 1235, 2222.-2226 
 
 Hobbs V. Guardian Fire and Life Assurance 
 
 Co. of London, . . . . 951 
 
 V. Niagara Falls, Wesley Park and 
 
 Clifton Tramway Co.— Attorney- 
 General ex rol. , 1988, 1990, 2231, 
 2239.-915, 923 
 
 V. Northern Assurance Co. . . 951 
 
 , Ontario Loan and Debenture Co. v. 525 
 
 Hobl)s Hardware Co. v. Kitchen 1 79, 1 .547. — 1 83 
 
 llobson, Pegg v 1272.— 1277, 1287 
 
 V. Moi'in — Welland Election (Out. ) 
 
 1455, 1496, 1497, 1521, 2239, 2241 
 
 , Young V. .. .. .. .. .366 
 
 Hockin, Mclntyre V. .. .. 1240,1241 
 
 Hodge V. Tlio Queen . . . . . . 2241 
 
 , Reginav. 154, 311 (bis), 315,2012,22.36. 
 
 —307, 1058, 1105 
 Hodgins V. Johnson .. .. .. ..187 
 
 V. Ontario Loau and Debenture 
 
 Co 20,5, 1306 
 
 , Reginav. . 10.35, 1098.-315, 1116 
 
 Hodgson and the Township of Bosanquet, 
 
 In re 1381, 2114 
 
 Hoener v. Morner . . . 683, S41 
 
 Hogan, Donovan v. 61, 63, 76, 78, 83, 1982, 
 
 2241.— 82 
 Hogg, In re Central Bank and . . 250, 906 
 
 V. Crabbe . . 384, 2042, 2234.-366 
 
 V. Maguire . . . . 6H2, 2161.-2156 
 
 Holden V. liobertson — West Hastings Elec- 
 tion (2) (Ont.) 1459, 1490. — 1497 
 
 V. Sndth . . . . . . 1065 
 
 , Wilberforce Educational Institute 
 
 V 94, 278, 2067 
 
 Holderness v. Lang 754, 1141, 2092, 2U07.--1 1.52 
 
 Holland, Court v. 13, 106, 118, 615, 1269, 1278, 
 
 1282, 1288, 1314, 166.?, 1910, 
 
 22.38. — I(i22 
 
 , Ex [larte Holland .md 
 
 Walsh 6(i7, 647. -(i4.5, 1316 
 
 — , Ex parte Doian 671, 1314 
 
 — , Mitchell V. 235, 1206.— r.96, 1205 
 
 , liobcrtsim V. . . . ^18 
 
 V. Wallace, In re.. .. 54.3 
 
 and Walsh, Ex p,\rte— Court v. 
 
 Holland . 647, 667. -(ill, 645, 1316 
 Hollingsworth, Coughlin v. . ., 3(j3 
 
 — v. Hollingsworth 355, .309.— 3(iO 
 
 Hollister, Regiiui v. 
 Holman v. (ireen 
 
 , Thompson v. 
 
 Holmes V. Carter, 
 
 v. Murray 
 
 , Stretton v. . . 
 
 Holtby v. Wilkinson 
 Hohvay v. Holway, . 
 llonsberger. Re — Uousberger 
 
 718, 7.3.5.-2079 
 Honsingerv. Love, .342, 1081, 1253, 1541.— 1541 
 Hood V. Martin, .. .. .. ,. 1071 
 
 , Mclntyre V. .. . .. 325.— 1968 
 
 . 1107 
 
 1116.- 
 
 1.371 
 
 * • 
 
 3 It 
 
 , 851 
 
 784, 131 
 
 2, 1320, 
 
 1()92 
 
 67 
 
 6, 1092, 
 
 1996 
 2223 
 
 t • « 
 
 1390.- 
 
 -1253 
 
 .. 2164 
 
 2I7:J.- 
 
 2185 
 891 
 
 •ger V. 
 
 Kratz, 
 
 712, 
 
zUi 
 
 Hoo-How] 
 
 Hood V. Sangster 
 Hoodless, Regina v. 
 Honker v. Morrison 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 1200. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 .. 1997 
 
 .. 1822 
 
 -1191, 1199 (M 
 
 Hooper and the Erie and Huron R. W. 
 
 Co., Re 
 Hoorigan v. DriscoU 
 Hoover V. Craig 
 HojKj, ]5urnet v. 
 
 , Fciieial Bank v. 
 
 , Johnson v. 
 
 , Norman v. 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Hopkins Ke, Barnes v. Hopkins . . 
 V. Hopkins 885, 113.S 
 
 1763 
 
 .. 1840 
 
 .. .398.-1903 
 
 1237, 1540.— 1241 
 
 .. 1074.— 177 
 
 790,791,810 
 
 . . 476, 1842 
 
 . . 435 
 
 . . 659 
 
 1179,1529, 
 
 1837, 2218 
 
 -508, 1590 
 
 How-Hun] 
 
 Howell, Wilcocks v. 
 Dominion 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 503, 517, 1089. 
 
 Howes V. 
 
 Co. 
 Howey v 
 Howland 
 
 Howey, 
 Brown v. 
 
 , L,?e V 
 
 V. Oliver—South Oxford Election 
 
 I- ! (Ont.) 642, 649, 1.506, 1507, 151(i, 
 
 1521, 1934.-1491 
 
 V. Smith . . 36(i, 1655, 2042 
 
 Hopper V. Harrison . . 521, 1633, 1663, 1680.— 
 
 729,1598 
 Horn, Monaghan v. —In re The Garland 1234, 
 
 1394 
 Home, Mecliiani v. . . . . . . . 1046 
 
 514, 516, 
 
 1398 
 Fire and Marine Ins. 
 . . 659, 961.— 972, 943, 976 
 
 888 
 
 . 165, 266, 583, 653, 2092 
 
 , Regina ex rel. Felitu v. 1326, 1328 
 
 1329, 1938, 2021.— 1331 
 
 , Regina ex rol. Felitz v. — In re 
 
 Henry O'Brien, 320, 1938, 1999.- 
 
 2004 
 Hubbard, Davics V. .. ..2041.— 2040 
 
 , In ro Sato v. 87, 91, 92, 403, 1714 
 
 1999.-91, 2001 
 
 473, 513.— 508, 510, 1398, 
 
 1403 
 
 093,916,926.-908 
 
 46, 2004 
 
 Huber v. Crookall 
 Young V. 
 
 Huliert, Regina v. 
 
 Sini[)Son v. 
 
 727, 7.34.-376 
 Horner v. Kerr . . 165, 870, 874.-168 
 
 , In re Treleven and, 208 1 , 2087. —485, 
 
 588, 1971, 2066 
 Hornibrook, Re, . . . . . . 912 
 
 Hortou and Adniaston and Canada Central 
 
 R. \V. Co., lure, .. 852, 1763 
 
 V. Provincial Provident Institution 
 
 153.— 1006 
 
 , Vandewaters v. 353, 1318, 376.-376, 
 
 537 
 Hoskin v. Toronto General Trusts Co. 347, 1977 
 Hospital Trast and City of Toronto, Re, 13(i5 
 Houston, Re— Houston v. Houston, 1283, 1313 
 
 v. McLaren . . . . 1 144.— 1 141 
 
 Hovenden's Case— Re Bolt and Iron Co. 245, 
 
 265, 292.— 2,')3 
 
 Hovey v. Gilbert 625 
 
 , Uegina v 742, 758.-439 
 
 , Whiting V. 102, 104, 178, 186, 194, 265, 
 
 408, 102.3, 2237.— 104, 186, 194, 799 
 Howard, Brundage v. 248, 1082.— 7, 1978 
 
 • V. Laucasliire Ins. Co. . . , 9.39 
 
 , McKay v. 419, 52.3, 1260, 1206.-531 
 
 , Queen Victoria Niagara Fails 
 
 Park Commissioners V. 1,528, 1.529 
 
 , Regina v. 311, 1056, 1241, 1.349 
 
 v. City of St. Thomas 1393, 2013. - 
 
 2147 
 
 Howard, Township of, Alexander v. 1360, 1599, 
 
 2115.— 1346, 1358, 1.379 
 
 • , In re Clarke and, 1342, 
 
 1360, 1357.— 13.39, 1343, 
 1358 
 
 , Ko McCormick and, 1344, 
 
 2239.— 1.345, 1361 
 
 , Quaintance v. 1230, 2245.— 
 
 1378 
 xlowarth v. Sin^>er Manufacturing Co. . . 264 
 
 v. Kilgour ,')02 
 
 Howev. Carlaw 2213 
 
 , Lewinv 1713,1993,2008 
 
 , Parker v . . gif 
 
 Howell v. Armour ., .. 1120.-11,112.3 
 
 , Hyman V 82,5.'— Ill 
 
 — — v. Listowel Rink and Park Co. 631 {tri), 
 
 754, 2014 
 
 V. Township of Yarmouth 21.30.- 
 
 Hudon (V.) Cotton Co. v. Canada .Sliipping 
 
 Co 1694, 1864, 2014, 224.1 
 
 Hudson's Bay Co. v. Hamilton . . . . logjj 
 HuHman V. Donor .. .. 1068.-1072,1077 
 
 V. Walterhoiise .. 930. lO.'iO, HJi; 
 
 .. 1.528, 1674 
 
 721,909 
 
 413, 22;r, 
 
 51, 382.- 
 
 1073 
 Cap 
 
 .. 203 
 
 7 
 
 Huggins V. (iuelj)li Barrel Co. 
 
 V. Law 
 
 Huglit'S V. Boyle 
 
 V. Britisli American Ins. Co. 
 
 du Villas du 
 
 Huj 
 
 , Compagnie 
 Gibraltai' 
 V. Field 
 
 V. H.and in Hand Ins. Co. .Ol, 074. jy'j 
 
 V. Hughes .. 729,737,1207.-1188 
 V. London Assurance Co. 51, 382, 974,— 
 
 ITO 
 
 , McDiarmid v. 273, 274, 313, 461, .570 
 
 .598, 1164, 1182, 18.37.-1185, 1199, 1320 
 
 V. Moore . . 054, 1857. -330, 1978 
 
 -N'iil'i*^^'' V m 
 
 Plumb v.— Nittg.ara Flection (Dom.) 1504 
 
 V. Rfcs, 620, S&3, 911, 1012, 1090. 1422 
 
 1614, 1618, 1622, 1661, 16(i4,1673, 198,j' 
 
 2068, 2079,2233.-761, 869, 891, l(i(i;i,' 
 
 208;) 
 
 Co. V. 1017,22.33.-1020 
 
 226,1276,1408 
 
 . J 823, 187fl 
 
 1070 
 
 V. 32, 663, 1182, 1533.- 
 
 34, 570, 1093, 2(18!) 
 
 1.59. -(il(i 
 
 — , Standard Ins. 
 — , Ward V. 
 — , Woltlu V. 
 hson V. (iordon 
 , V^an Velaor 
 
 Humphrey, lieid v. . . 
 
 Hungerford, Township of, v. Lattimer, 31 
 
 Hunt, Marsli v. 
 Hunter v. liirney 
 
 v. Carrick 
 
 , CiistcUo V. 
 
 , Dickson v. 
 
 , Farrun v. 
 
 v. (iilkison 
 
 , Guest V. 
 
 V. Lauder 
 
 (Ont.) 
 
 ;iii, 
 
 2i(() 
 
 (i.)i 
 
 losi), 2(i;r. 
 
 302, ir(4',l 
 
 .. 683, 864.- 120;i 
 
 7.52, !l.'4 
 
 2:!i; 
 
 850, 901, 1120,20.36.-111,: 
 840, 1167, 2244, 2.'l!i 
 -South (iroy Election 
 14.50, 1457, 1460, 1475, 1482, 
 
 'I 
 
 1485, 1500, 1518, 1.526. -1 457 
 , Macfie V. 644, 645, 1019, 22.35 (/>i.s), 2243. 
 
 —192 
 
 Malcolm V 674,2106.-2110 
 
 I'ctrio V. . . 840, 1167, 2244, 2219 
 
 Heginav 1102 
 
 Ross V. 208,18,34.-1830,2034 
 Silvcrtborn v 2O8J 
 
 Hon- 
 
 Hunt( 
 HuntL 
 
 Hunts' 
 Hurd 1 
 Hurl, 1 
 Huron 
 
 Hurst \ 
 
 Hussey. 
 Huston, 
 Hutchir 
 
 Hutton \ 
 
 Huyck V. 
 Hyde v. J 
 
 Ibbotson 
 
 Idington i 
 Her V. He 
 Imperial 
 
 Imperial 
 
 ImjKirial 
 Imperial 
 
 Imperial ll 
 Ince, FiskI 
 
 , Wcsl 
 
 Incorporatf 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xUU 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 '4 
 
 Bnn-Inc] 
 
 Hunter v. Vanatone .^.1 402, 545, 1088 
 
 V. Wilcockson 1074 
 
 HuntinKton v. AttriU 31, 1093, 1095, 1571 
 
 Z__, Snowden V. 391, 1658,2084.-1659, 
 
 1666 
 Huntsville, Village of, Simpson v. 1379, 2146 
 Huril V. (Jriuid Trunk R. W. Co. 1785.— 1780 
 Hurl, Wood V. 819,1.531,1979.-695 
 
 Huron College, Marsh v. 269, 270, .S53, 416, 
 
 604, 1413, 22.S6 
 
 Hurat V. Baiber 639 
 
 V. Chisholm— Peel Election (Out.) 1517, 
 
 1524.— 1398, 1505, 1526 (6m) 
 
 Hussoy, f>'lielly v 624 
 
 Huston, Lean v 1552 
 
 Hutchinson v. Canadian Pacific R. \V. Co. 1774 
 
 ., Douglas V. . .696, 871.-567, 881 
 
 ., Re Macfiev. 543, 548, 1237, 1.3.14, 
 
 1717, 2235 
 
 , Murray V. .. 1870,2093.-683 
 
 ^ — , Sarnia Agricultural Iniplcineut 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. 235, 279. — 
 
 1650 
 
 - — , Wallace v. . . . . . . 875 
 
 -, Re Western Fair Association v. 548 
 
 Federal Bank 134, 1008, 1702.-2.35, 
 
 1978 
 
 424, 19,-)8 
 
 724.-721 
 
 381,560.-1129, 1319, 1320, 
 1899 (bii) 
 
 Hutton V. 
 
 — . — V. Wanzer 
 Huyok V. Proctor 
 Hyde v. Barton 
 
 V. Casmea 
 
 Hj'uian V. Bourne 
 
 V. Cuthbertson 
 
 V. Howell 
 
 , .Jennings v. . . 
 
 Hyiie V. Brown 
 Hyncs v. Fisher 
 
 McCord and Jenkins' Case 
 V.Smith 1170. 
 
 . . 1626, 2043 
 
 198, 1603.-823 
 
 . 10, 190, 198, 807 
 
 .. 82,5.-111 
 
 .. 808.— 115 
 
 1906 
 
 921, 927, 1026, 2015 
 
 929 
 
 1172 
 
 Ibbotaon v. Henry 298, 532, 1347, 1839, 2239, 
 
 2241. 11 
 Idingtnn and M ickle, Re, . . 1 9.")0, 1 95 1 . - 1 935 
 
 Her V. Her 1236 
 
 Imperial Bank of Canada v. Britton . . 1071 
 
 V. Dickey 54, 57, 685, 
 
 6S9 
 
 V. Metcalfe 208, .TO I, 
 
 61.3, 1270, 1275, 
 1972, 2084.— 493, 
 649, 1683, 1885, 
 1894, H)67, 2060 
 , Thorold Manu- 
 facturing (^o. 
 
 V. 
 
 , In re Turner v. 
 
 Imperial Hotel Co, Linton v. 527. 
 
 13.7 
 
 545, 
 
 553 
 
 107, «)29, 
 
 1146 
 
 858, 1054.-856 
 
 Im|)crial Loan Co. v. Baby 
 
 Imperial Loan and Investment Co. of Can 
 
 ada, Kelly v. .362, 
 1302,150(i.--1310,ll62 
 
 V. O'lSuUivan 
 
 Imperial Ins. Co., Wyman v. 9.39, 
 
 Ince, Fisken v. 
 
 , Western Canada, etc. v. 
 
 lacurporated Synod of the Diocese of 
 Huron, Wright v. 
 
 12!I3 
 1006 
 11K)1 
 1821 
 
 210, 
 
 228, 208, 269, 2082 
 
 Inc-Jac] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Incorporated iSynod of Ontario, Halliwell 
 
 v. . .. 220,2236 
 
 Toronto v. Lewis 229 
 
 Ingalls v. McLaurin 1304, 1092.— 1287, 1302 
 Ingersoll, Re— Gray v. IngeraoU . . 1827, 1980 
 
 , Town of, and Carroll, lu re, 2134. — 
 
 1384 
 Inglehart and Gagnier, Re . . 204 
 
 Inglis V. Guelph Lumber Co. . . 384, 387 
 
 , Thomas v 753.— 860, 1861 
 
 lugolsby. Re . . . . . . 567 
 
 Ingrain v. Ingram 890, 1958 
 
 V. Taylor 456, 870 
 
 Ings V. Bank of Prince Edward Island . 176, 284, 
 287, 1911.— 1615, 1982 
 International Bridge Co. , Attorney-(iene- 
 
 ralv. 9.3, 1010 (Ws), 
 1011,1631.-416, 
 915, 920, i>23, 
 1415, 1634, 1974 
 V. Canada South- 
 ern R. VV. Co. 148 
 . .. {bis), 149,299,41.3, 
 1011, 1680 (his), 
 . ., 1661, 1712, 2049, 
 2235.-2151 
 International Wrecking and Transporta- 
 tion Co. V. Lol)b 34 
 
 V. Murphy 278, 19.32. 
 
 —10, 1599, 1928 
 Ion, Regina ex rel. Kelly v. . . . . 1325 
 
 Ireland v. Pitcher 370, 390, 1 123 (bin) , 1 589. — 
 
 .368, 1124 
 Ireton, Peterborough Real Estate Invest- 
 ment Co. V. 1088, 1313 
 
 Irish, Bell v 530 (hi.i) 
 
 Iron Clay Brick Manufacturing Co., Re— 
 
 Turner's Case 104, 268, 284, 2076.— 2060 
 Ironside v. Orton — Centre Wellington Elec- 
 
 tion( Dom.), .. .. 1462.-1499 
 
 Irvine, a Solicitor, Re, . . . . 86, 1962 
 
 Irving v. Clark 3,57, 358 
 
 , Oalbrailh v. .. 1148, 194,->. — 1599 
 
 , SoiflFertv 279, l.W.- 1545 
 
 Irwin, Bank of Toronto v. 495, 800, 12S2, 2090 
 
 V.Brown .. 1611,1613.-1612,1614 
 
 , l)ov(!y V. .. .. .. ..611 
 
 , Porte V 1S97 
 
 — — — V. Sperry . . . . . . . . 2045 
 
 , Wilson V 1084 
 
 • V. Young 768, 784 
 
 Isatics, Bank of Hamilton v. 167, 6.57, 677, 
 
 1402.-644, 683, 14(»5 
 fsbestor v. The Queen, .. 1.578. — 332 
 
 Isbistf :r v. Sullivan, . . 533, 853, 1014, 1023 
 
 Island, lie(tilchristand, 1298,2082.-126.5, 1.302 
 lorael v. Loith .. .. —117", 1833 
 
 Ivey v. Knox . . , . . . , . 817 
 
 .Jack v. Greig . 800 
 
 v. J.ack 234, 756, 1.320.-177, 127.3, 1989 
 
 ■Jackos, Laidlaw v. .. ,. .. 563. — .567 
 
 Jackson, Baker v 97, 636, 1654 
 
 , (;ana<la Soutiiem R. W. Co. v., 178,5. 
 
 —1244, 1249, 1780 
 
 v. Cassidy . . . . . . 87 
 
 V.Hammond .. 1170,1312.-1312 
 
 , Ue — Masscy v. Crookshanka .. 732, 
 
 907.— 904, 906 
 
 , Mcf ;iary v 1 142. — 1 1 44 
 
 , Moore V 875, 87fi 
 
 n 
 
▼li* 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Jac-JoU 
 
 Jackson v. Suott, P.e Lewis 
 
 . V. Staley . . 
 
 , Ward V 
 
 Wright V. 
 
 Jacobs V. Tiio Queen 
 , Tolfcr V. 
 
 COLUMN'. 
 
 .. 2048,2229 
 
 512, 675 
 
 .. 2039 
 
 .. 493,2119 
 
 Jacob, Lon(lon°Mutual Firo Ins. Co. v. 1946 — 
 
 1961 
 
 . . 446.-452 
 
 .. 2121 
 
 James, Re 172,1213 
 
 V. Balfour S41 
 
 , Campbell V 1607, 1(;19 
 
 V. Clement 209, 854, 1193, -'O'S 
 
 V. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co. 1760, 
 
 1761, 1762, 2242 
 
 , Scammell v 1092.-2004 
 
 Jamieson v. Prince Albert Colonization Co. 165 1 . 
 
 -1654 
 
 , Rcginav. .. 832, 1116, 22.SS 
 
 — , Reynolds V 866 
 
 _ — , .Sniitliv 330, 865, 866, 9U7 
 
 Jarnian v. Meredith, London Election 
 
 (Out.), 1448, 1463,1468, 1480, 1487, 1464 
 Jarrard, In re, 
 Jarvis, Branneii v. . . 
 
 V. Cook, In re, 
 
 Jeffcry, Ciiinj; v 
 
 V. Hewis 
 
 V. .'^cott 
 
 Jellett V. Anderson 
 Anderson v. 
 
 437, 741, 762 
 1589, 16-24.-1918 
 119, 1180.— 2074 
 . . 159 
 62, 80.— 65 
 .. 217:5,2191 
 691, 168L— 703 
 747.— 1;)65, 156^ 
 
 Joh-Kay] ^ " ^ ^ ,_.^ couimn. 
 
 Jolinson, In re— In re Voters List of the 
 
 Village of L'Original 14.30 
 
 Jolinston, Beckett v. 77, 81, 1416, 1886.-63 
 
 , Boyd V 689, 1281 
 
 . , Brown v. . . . . • • 226 
 
 V. Christie . . 2033.-676, 1077 
 
 V. Dennian 2202 
 
 , Fraser v. 1618, 1976, 1977. - 1971, 2049 
 
 , Hanns v. . . 554 (bix), 2021.-12 
 
 Hay V 1072 
 
 V. Johnston 1238, 1309, 1564, 1961.— 
 
 1941 
 
 I . V. Kenyon . . 372.-368 
 
 - . Kra'mer . . . . 1186 
 
 ,Un ey V. .. 1153, 1417,2097 
 
 , MclJ jnald V. . . 778.— 1403, 1409 
 
 ' , McFarren v 325 
 
 - V. '1 >\> -'lip of Nelson 2126, 2140 
 
 :. {) 
 
 V. 1'' :d . 
 
 , Seale v. . . 
 
 V. Shortrced 
 
 V. 'I'lierricn, Re, 
 
 . , Yemen v. 
 
 Joliette Election (Dom.) 
 
 Uailey v. .34, 134, 341, 363, 1961, 2064.— 
 
 137, 756, 2077, 2078 
 
 In re Flint and, . . 376.-577 
 
 Kicliardsoii v. 369, 1589.-368, 397 
 
 .' V. .lenking . . 788, 831.-15.33 
 
 Jen kin 
 JenUin 
 Jenkins v. Iheckcn- Queen's County Elec 
 
 lion (Dom.) 144 (W.s).- 1441, 1446, 1512 
 
 , Canadian Bank of Conmierco v. 1 \5, 
 
 13.3.-103,276, 1836 
 
 • V. Central Ontario R. W. Co. . , 853, 
 
 920, 1255, 1753,1757 
 
 V. Drumniond ,, .. ..2108 
 
 V. Miller, In re, . . . . . . 541 
 
 • , Morrow v 2194 
 
 Jinks V. Doran .. 118, 702.- I(i5 
 
 Jennings v. Crand Trunk R. W. Co. 710, 1528, 
 
 1790.— 1785 
 
 , Crand Trunk R. W. Co. v. 1007, 1395, 
 
 1 3!)6 
 
 V. Hyman .. .. 808.-115 
 
 . V. Moss 105 
 
 Jei'hson, Re McDonagh v. . . 692, 703.— 693 
 
 Jcssiip V. (iiand Trunk 1!. W. Co. 423, 1752, 
 
 180K— 1199, WM, 1768 
 
 John V. The Queen 431.-444 
 
 John T. Noje Manufacturing Co., Bank of 
 
 Hamilton v . . . . 143 
 
 Johns. (Joldie, v 71, 74, 2235 
 
 V. .Stewart, Regina ex rel. 616, 1,327 {tri), 
 
 1331.-1467, 1473 
 Johi'.Kon V. Bennett 
 
 V. Cline 
 
 , t.'orbot V. 
 
 , Hndgins v. 
 
 — — V. Hope, 
 
 578, 1181.-567 
 
 . . 1294, 1831 
 
 .. 1182 
 
 .. 2018 
 
 543, 544.-548 
 
 85, 1569, 1961 
 
 Ouilbault V. 
 
 Dessert 1512, 1514, 1526 
 
 Jonas V. Gilbert 1367.-1339 
 
 Jones V. Canaila Central R. W. Co. 302, 481, 
 5.56, 1744, 2240.-180(i, 1814, 1816 
 
 V. Dale 
 V. Dawson 
 Dorland v. 
 V. Duid)ar 
 V. Fisher 
 V. Eraser 
 V. (iallon 
 V. Grace 
 
 1250, 
 
 1122, 1123. 
 
 V. (irand Trunk R. W. 
 V. Jones 
 V. Kinney 
 
 V. McGrath 
 
 -(2 
 
 — V. Kramer . . 
 — , Me-Gillivtay v. 
 
 — V. M( ody 
 
 , Rrgiiia v. 
 
 698, 1067, 129(i 
 
 803 
 
 2247 
 
 187 
 
 790,791,810 
 ..2188.-2177 
 -Re Layeock, 95, 1898 
 
 91 
 
 103;-) 
 
 V. Clips— West Middlesex Election, 1521 
 - and the Toronto Grey aud ]?ruceR. 
 
 W. Co., In re, 1803 
 
 1970, 1974 
 
 . . 590 
 
 232.-1736, 1933 
 
 .. 1705,1710 
 
 ..2109.-2110 
 
 .. 2200 
 
 620, 627 ('«■«), 863 
 
 -12, 1116, Ills, 
 
 1124 
 
 Co. 1390, 1779 
 
 .. 2197 
 
 126, 1253, 1920, 
 
 22.36.-119, 1922 
 
 883, 1411.-2091 
 
 484, 883 
 
 V. Town of Port Arthur 1.342, 1373, 2235 
 
 V. The Queen 1576, 15772025.-332, 1573, 
 
 1584 
 
 , .Shorey v 113, 296, .572, 781 
 
 , Trust and Loan Co. v. 577, 1674 (bU). — 
 
 581 
 
 V. Tuck .. 27,200.3,2008 
 
 , Wetherell v. 624 
 
 , Re Wetherell aud, .. .. 314 
 
 Jordan v. Dunn 2208 
 
 , Great Western Ins. Co. v. 983, 2240 
 
 Jdselin, Clarke V. .. .. .. .. 498 
 
 Joseph V. Haffner .. .. IKi, 1-16, 1602 
 
 , Harrison v. 1885, 1898, 1900 (his) 
 
 Joseph Hall Manufacturing Co., Re, 290, 292. 
 
 1962 
 
 V. Hazlitt 1859. 
 
 —755 
 Joyce, Halifax Street R. W. Co. v. . . 2002 
 
 .lull, Bartlett V 672,1297,1.301 
 
 Junkin, Cain V 486.-1192,1195 
 
 Kaisor v. Boynton ."^SS, 1163, 1818. 18.36, 2205 
 Kane, Mc(ke v. 575, 580, 601, 697, 788, 1877 
 
 , Mitchell 1565, 1569 
 
 Kastncr V. Beadle 2119 
 
 Kavilbaeh, Beamish v. . . . . . . 1994 
 
 Kay, Moore V. 1132 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xlv 
 
 Kea-Ker] ciolcmn. 
 
 Kean v. Edwards . 48, 2014, 2022, 2055 
 
 , Kearney V 347,460,715,892 
 
 North British Mercantile Ins. Co. v. 1707 
 
 Traders' Bank v. 
 , VViufield V. 
 
 Kearney v. Creehnan 
 
 , Dickson v. 
 
 _ V. Kean . . 
 
 Kearns, Cumberland v. 
 
 . — , Devereiix v. 
 
 Keays v. Eniard 
 Keefe v. Ward 
 
 625 
 
 1222, 1399.— 1218, 1398, 
 
 1405 
 
 .. 300,1292 
 
 .. 615,2118.-2147 
 
 460, 715, 892.-347 
 
 66,428.-428, 1139 
 
 15,S0 
 
 651, 775.-494, 1883 
 .... 637,1655 
 keefor, Merchants' Bank of Canada V. .. 2181 
 Kcefsr V. McKay 1529, 1893, 1900, 2080, 2181, 
 
 , , McKay v. . . 
 
 . V. Merrill 
 
 . V. Roaf 77, S3, 
 
 Keegan, Hargraft v. 
 Keenan, McDerinott v. 
 Keiller, Medregor v. 
 
 2182.— 2186 
 . . 670, 1532 
 
 752 
 
 1875.— 95, 1615, 1882 
 
 149, 2226, 2233 
 
 .. 1284, 2214.— 12fi() 
 
 667, 1192.— 2011 
 
 Keith, Anchor Marine Ins. Co. v. 987. — 980 
 
 V. Fenelon Falls Union School Section 1700. 
 
 —1729 
 
 , McCuaigv.— ThePicton 26,2003.-1233 
 
 , Smith v.— ThePicton .. .. 305 
 
 , Ro Tr.iynor and, 2170 
 
 Keleher v. McOibbon 1080 
 
 Kellar v. Henderson . . . . . . 1916 
 
 Kelly, CoatH v. . . 818, 1981.-113, 81 1 
 V. Imperial Loan Co. 362, 1302—1162, 1310, 
 
 1566 
 
 V. lo-.i, Ifcgina ex rel., . . . . 1.325 
 
 , Robertson V 341,1212 
 
 V.Wolff .. .. 576,1158.-582 
 
 Kelly's Case— Re Standard Fire Ins. Co. , 
 
 246.— 2S1 
 
 Kelsey V. Rogers 1858.— 184 
 
 Kemp, Macaulay v. 2228 
 
 Kempt V. Macauley, 16, 1081.-342, 392, 1319, 
 
 1890 
 Kendriok, Meyers v. . . . . 684, 085 
 
 Kennedy v. Bateraan 592, 770, 1194.— 11 So 
 
 ■ V. Braithwaite 
 
 ■ V. Freeman 
 
 ■ V. Haddow 
 •, Hale V. . . 
 ■, O'Connor v. 
 
 V. Oldham 
 
 ■ V. Pigott . . 
 V. Pingle 
 
 , Purcell V.- 
 
 1.526 
 
 790 
 1667 
 
 1171, 1174. 
 
 26 
 
 616, 675, 867 
 
 1966 
 
 2246 
 
 711, 734, 2227.-736 
 -Glengarry Election 
 
 (Dom ) 1513, 1524 
 
 , Reginav. 1038, 1040 (M, 1014, 1117, 
 
 —1036, 1048, 1103 
 
 , Sheppard v 1210, 1643 
 
 V. City of Toronto 493, 22.39, 2241.— 
 
 314, 466, 482, 2060 
 
 Kenny, Blackley v. 173, 411, 645, 823, 1280, 
 
 1281, 170.3.-606, 803, 1561 
 
 , Ferguson v. . . . 803, 823 
 
 , City of Halifax v 1932 
 
 V. Mackenzie . . . . 208, 423 
 
 Kent, Corporation of, Steinhoff v. 2 1 43. —2 1 40 
 
 , Eacrett v. . . 113, 529.-107, 110, 1146 
 
 V.Kent 1187.— 909 
 
 Kenyon, Johnson V 372.-368 
 
 Keown, Smith V 1180,1184.-1405 
 
 Keroack, Mackinnon v, . . 818, 1999.— 177 
 Kerr, Bumham v. — West Northumber- 
 land Election (Dom. ) 1515, 1620.— 1617 
 
 Ker-Kir] 
 
 Kerr v. Canadian Bank of Commerce 
 
 COI.UM.N. 
 
 -, Davis V. 
 -, Enipuy V. 
 (Ont), 
 -, Horner v. 
 -, Re, Kerr v. Kerr 
 -, Milloy V. 
 -, Mills V. 
 -, Re Murray and, 
 -, Orpen v. 
 
 795.— 
 106, 795 
 
 905, 903 
 
 Stormont Election (2) 
 
 , Akers & Bull, Re, 
 
 Kersteman v. McLellan, 
 Ketchum, Watson v. . . 
 Keyes v. Kirkpatrick, 
 Kidder v. Smart Manufacturing Co., 1125, 1552, 
 
 1553 
 
 ..165,870,874.-168 
 
 713 
 
 .. 142.-126 
 
 796.— 106, 652 
 
 95, 1885 
 
 630, 631, 1964.-641 
 
 1499 
 
 671, 1936.— 1945 
 
 . . 54 {hU), 556 
 
 898, 1083, 1085.-581 
 
 112.-111 
 
 Kidston, Dubuc v. . , 
 Kiely, Re, 
 
 ■ V. Smyth 
 
 Kilbourn v. Arnold . . 
 Kilgour, Howarth v. 
 Killey, Henderson v. 
 Killins V. Killins 
 
 893 
 
 . . 1342, 1369 
 
 254,604.-261,2083 
 
 1320, 1946, 2076.-769 
 
 502 
 
 . . 1540, 2060.— 1415 
 734 
 
 Kilroy, Dominion Savings and Invest- 
 ment Co. V. 639, 880, 1021, 1668, 2231,2240 
 
 (W.s.)2241 
 
 Kincaid v. Kincaid 
 
 , Pickup V. 
 
 V. Read 
 
 King V. Alford 
 
 V. Duncan 
 
 V. Farrell 
 
 V. Hilton 
 
 V. Moyer 
 
 , Rcgina v, 
 
 699 
 
 2045 
 
 876 
 
 1169 
 
 805, 827, 1568.-197 
 
 535 
 
 719 
 
 1594.— 1935 
 
 53,298, 432, 1118.— 1113 
 
 King and Albion, Townships of. Maw v. 2144. — 
 
 —1391, 2142 
 
 King.sland, Re 1312.— 1300 
 
 Kingsley v. Dunn 627, 1071 
 
 Kingston, Corham v. . . . . 1286, 1562 
 
 Kingston, (.-ity of, v. Canada Life Ass. Co. 61 
 
 22.36 (6ti) 2240 
 
 , Pho?nix Ins. Co. of London v. 59 (6m), 
 
 281 {bis) 
 
 , Corporation of, Stevenson v. 391, 1946 
 
 Kingston Election (Dom.) — Stewart v. Mac- 
 
 .lonald 1458, 1470, 1480, 1492, 1498, 
 
 1518.— 1467, 1472, 
 Kingston and Montreal Forwarding Co, 
 
 .Murtonv. 213,1798,1924.-473 
 
 Kingston and Pembroke R. W. Co., 
 
 Griffin v. .348. 1816 
 
 V. Murphy 1? 50, 1758. 
 
 —1745 
 
 594, 1128, 1260, 2163, 
 
 2235, 22.36.-1205 
 
 .. 691,1074.-705 
 
 26,186.-795 
 
 186 
 
 1068 
 
 126, 1253, 1920, 2236.-119, 
 
 1922 
 
 375, 537.-548 
 
 O. F. 279, 1697 
 
 2036 
 
 ..699 
 
 .. 1282 
 
 —1171 
 
 1239, 1660. -332 
 
 . . 131 
 
 Kingstone, Baldwin v. 
 
 Kinloch v. Morton 
 
 , Scribner v. 
 
 V. Scribner .. 
 
 Kiniiear v. Blue 
 Kinney, Jones v. 
 
 Kinsey v. Roche 
 
 Kinver v. Phcenix Lodge I. 0, 
 
 Kirk V. Burgess 
 
 , Trust and Ix)an Co. 
 
 Kirkland, McNamara v. 
 Kirkpatrick, Blake v. 
 , Cooper V. 
 
ZlTi 
 
 TAblii: OF OASES. 
 
 aon 
 
 Kitchen v. Dolun 
 
 — — — , Hobbs Hardware Co. v. 
 
 KlrLail coLrjiN. 
 
 Kirkpatrick, Keyes V 112.— Ill 
 
 — , l{c— Kirkpatrick v. Steven- 
 59*2, 668, 717, 730, 1008, 1202 (few).— 8, 
 
 120() 
 
 . 653.-168.5 
 
 179, 1547.— 
 
 183 
 
 Kitchiiia v. Hiiks . . 180, 184,333,419,160.3. - 
 
 192, 198 
 
 Kittridge, McKeiizie v 260 
 
 Klein v. Union Fire Ins. Co. 935, 941, 1610— 
 939, 955, 960, 967, 1.391 
 
 -— , Wicnhold v 077 
 
 Klenip, Regina v. . . 1034, 1035, 1048, 1040, 
 
 1064, 1098 
 Klinck V. Ontario Industrial Loan and 
 
 Investmont Co. (Limited) . . 525, 526 
 Klock V. Chambeilin .. 877-871,1268 
 
 Kla'pfer v. Gardner. . Ill {bis), 132, (iOO. -113 
 
 -, VVarnock v 792, 8(8, 2237 
 
 Knappv. Knapp .. .. 889, 8CO.-891 
 
 ii, Tiltv. 1900 
 
 Kneohtel's Case,— Re Saugeen Mutual Fire 
 
 Ins. Co., 978 
 
 Knight V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., . . 6,30 
 
 , McCorkiU V 869 
 
 V. Medora, Re, . . 530, 542.— 2136 
 
 V. United Townships of Medora 
 
 and Wood, In re, . . 216, 2103.-552 
 
 Knott, Cann v 465, 696, 2237 
 
 V. Hamilton and 1" laraborough Road 
 
 Co 2149 
 
 Knowlton v. Knowlton 360, 890 
 
 Knox, Ivey v. 817 
 
 V. Porter, 365, 2042 
 
 , Lucas V 882 
 
 Konkle, Re 872 
 
 Krwmer, Johnson v. . . 1186, 2188.-2177 
 
 Kratz, Honsberger V. — Re Honsberger, 712, 718, 
 
 7.35.-2079 
 Kreuteziger, McCIure v. . . . 1863.-1870 
 Kronsbein, Roan v. 588.-676. 1133, 1144, 1185, 
 
 18.33 
 Kyle, Amaden v. . . 566 
 
 V. Barnes 3 
 
 V. Canada Company, . . . . 859, 1994 
 
 , Wilson V 1288 
 
 La Banqiie Jacques Cartier.Giraldi v. 1.33.— 756, 
 
 2060, 2078 
 La Banque Nationale Grant v. 139, 1296, 2020. 
 
 —1165 
 
 Labatt v. Bixel 816, 827 
 
 V. Campbell 2221 
 
 Labellev. Baroeau 1996 
 
 , City of Montreal v. . . 1395, 2142 
 
 Laberge, Choquette v.— Montgmagny Elec- 
 tion (Dom.) 1508 
 
 Lackie, Regina v. . . 440, 450, 1101, 1116 
 
 Lafferty, Martin V 1644 
 
 Lfcfleur, Lapointe V 490.— 592 
 
 Lftidlaw V. Ashbaugh ,. 579,20.39.-1608 
 
 , Bunting V 1803 
 
 V. Jackes 503.— 567 
 
 Laidlaw Manufaoturbg Co. v. Miller, . . 1659 
 LBidman, Switzer v. 515, 1615.— 506, 511 
 
 Laing v. Ontario Loan and Savings Co. 456, 
 
 623,529.-528 
 ~- V. Slingerland . . 66, 97, 98, 2337 
 L^ird V. Paton . . 1533, 1885, 1886, 1893 
 , Sheard v. . . 767, 2015, 2233, 2242 
 
 Lak-Lar. column, 
 
 Uke, O'SuUivan v. 34, 414, 1404, 2002, 2009, 
 2080. 1.399, 1407,1410, 1606, 1993 
 Lake Superior Native Copper Co., Plnm- 
 
 merv 282, 107'2 
 
 Lake Superior Native Coppei' Co. (Limit- 
 
 ited), In re, Re Plummer 2tM, 294.-282 
 Lakefield Lumber Co., Shairp v. 464, 22.35, 2237 
 
 Lakin V. Nuttall 
 Lally V. Longhurst . . 
 Lalonde, Fornan v. . . 
 
 V. Lalonde . . 
 
 Lalor V. Lalor 
 
 Lamb V. Young 
 
 Lambe, Bank of Toronto v. 
 
 . Molson V. . . 
 
 2247 
 1308.— 1606 
 1166, 20.58.-2250 
 . . 889.— 891 
 .. 1629 
 .791 
 . . 303 
 312, 1713.— 1051 
 Lambier v. Lambier 729, 1.532, 1647.— 1657 
 
 V. School Trustees of Section No. 
 
 3, South Cayuga 1729 
 
 Lamon, Cochrane Manufacturing Co. v. 55, 99, 
 
 1654, 1673, 1984 
 Lamont, Ontario Bank v. 104, 1 1 1 , 796 
 
 Lampman v. Township of Gainsborough 1396 
 
 Lancashire Ins. Co. , Howard v 9.39 
 
 _ — ., White V 9.34 
 
 Lancey v. Brake . . . . 6()0' 
 
 V. Johnston . . 11.53, 1417, 2097 
 
 Land Expropriated at Fenelon Falls, Re 
 
 Trent Valley Canal and, 2101 , 2243. — 210O 
 Landed Banking and Loan Co., Cumniing 
 
 V. 206.5,-2071 
 
 Landed Banking and Loan Co. , Ford v. 738 
 
 Landell, Cowan v. . . 500.-517 
 
 Laudergan, Re CoUiton and . . 217.3. — 2178 
 
 Landon, Bell v .3.59, 3(i5, 384 
 
 Landreville v. Gouin 209, 1388, 2145.— 2147 
 Landi'y v. City of Ottawa 858, 859, 1345 
 
 Lane, McDonald v. 1839—297 
 
 Lang, Graham v. . . 526.-107, 1146, 11.52 
 
 , Holderness v. 754, 1141, 2092,2097.— 1152 
 
 , Town of Me.iford v 1704.— 1333 
 
 Langdon and the Arthur Junction R. W. 
 Co., In re 
 
 — and the Arthur Junction R. W. 
 
 Co. and the Townshipof Arthur, 
 In re, 1336, 
 
 v. Robertson, 149, 177, 214, 3.30, 
 
 615, 1669, 1799. 1859, 1924.-.30, 227, 761, 
 
 762, 1925 
 
 ..' ^ ".. 432, 1098 
 
 1664, 1972, 2092.— 1663 
 
 . . .306.-1713 
 
 Montmorency Elec- 
 
 852, 1504, 1.507, 1513 
 
 470, 2241.-466 
 
 38, 2249.-41 
 
 231, 1993.-231 
 
 200 
 
 1806 
 ,410, 
 
 Langford, Regina v. 
 Langley, Clar'ke v. 
 Langlois, Valin v. 
 
 , Valin V.- 
 
 tion (Dom.) 
 Langniaid v. Mickle 
 Langman and Martin, In re 
 Langtry, Dumoulin v. 
 
 v. Dumoulin 
 
 221, 231 (tri), 317, .389, 
 648,649, 669.— .391,407 
 Lausdell, Masuret v. . . 374, 1024 
 
 La Paroisse de Ste. Anne du Bout de 
 
 L'Isle, Reburn v. 2000 
 
 Lapierre, L'Union St. Joseph de Mon- 
 treal V 32, 150, 141.3, 2240.-272 
 
 Laplante and the Town of Peterborough, 
 
 In re, .. 596,21,32.— 1.384 
 
 v. Seamen 1276, 1530, 1898.-1899, 1900 
 
 , Stephens v. 54fi 
 
 Lajwinte v. Lafleur 490, 592 
 
 Larin, Chapman v. . 1870 
 
 Lario v. Walker 491,1629 
 
 La Roche, Bank of Nova Scotia v. 354,' 358, 
 
 1073, 1671. -.36a 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 xItU 
 
 Lar-Lee] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 -272 
 
 La Roche v. O'Hagan 
 Laroccjue, Robertson v. 
 
 658, 1920, 2096.-6.52, 
 1922, 2095 
 .. 880.-1984 
 Larue v Doslauriers — Bellechasse Klection 
 
 (Doni.), •■ 1500, 1523, 1525.— 14()7 
 
 , Rattray v. . . . . 2067.— 909 
 
 LariiBh, DumWo V 1201,16.30 
 
 Lash V. Mfriden Britannia Co. ,12, 1239 
 
 Lasnier, Collette V. .. 1552.-1559 
 
 L' Association Pharmaceutique do la Pro- 
 vince de Qiieoeo v. Brunet .. ., 1586 
 L' Assmnption Election (Dom.) — Gauthier 
 
 V. Nonn.andeau . . . . . . 1514, 1524 
 
 Latta V. Lowry 2186 
 
 Latour v. Smith 386, 388.-.370 
 
 Lattiiner, Township of Hungerford v. 30, 296 
 Lauder V. Carrier .. .. 568.— 1620 
 
 , Hunter v. —South Grey Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1450, 1457, 1460, 1475, 1482, 
 1485, 1500, 1518, 1526.— 1457 
 
 , Toronto Belt Line R. VV. Co. v. 1745, 
 
 1758 
 Laurie, Robertson v. — Slielburne Election 
 
 (Dom.) .. .. 1507, 1509, 200.S.-1.'')24 
 [.aVassai re V. Heron .. 523.-528,530 
 
 Lavery, McMahon v. 2047 
 
 V. Wolfe 640.— 638 
 
 Laviu V. Lavin . . 767, 784, 882.-330, 571 
 
 , Regina V. .. .. .. ..1117 
 
 Uw, Huggins V 721, 909 
 
 Law V. Town of Niagara Falls . . 2111 
 
 Law Society of Upper Canada, Hands v. 149, 
 
 1160, 1161, 1983, 
 
 , , 22.3,-), 22,37, 2241. 
 
 ... ' ■" - I . —272, 611, 1940 
 
 , MacDougall 
 
 V. 1935 
 
 Lawless v. Chamberlain, 301, 572, 853, 867, 914 
 
 V. R.aflford 1841 
 
 V. Sullivan 61.— 61 
 
 Lawlor V. Lawlor .. 590, 1275 
 
 Lawrasdu, Tnist and Loan Co. v. . . 178, 524 
 Lawrence v. Anderson, 103, 1268, 1687, 1836.— 
 
 .596, 799, 1916 
 
 V. Village of Lucknow 276, 1376, 2248 
 
 r«aws V. Laws, Re Lewis, . . 409 
 
 , Ke-Laws v. Laws, .. 681, 882.— 1206 
 
 Lawson v. AUiston . . . . 1390, 2144.— 1391 
 
 v. Canada Farmers' Ins. Co. . . 374 
 
 v. Powers— Re Murray Canal, 590, 86(), 
 
 904, 1181, 2154.— 21.54 
 Lix ton V. Rosenberg 1154,2092 
 
 Laycock, Re— McGillivray v. .Johnson 95, 1898 
 Lea r.iid the Ontario and Quebec R. W. 
 
 Co., Re. . . . . . . 1764 
 
 Leach v. Grand Trunk R. \V. Co. (No. 2) 32, 
 
 630, 858 
 
 Leader v. Northern R. W. ("o 1794 
 
 Leader Lane Arbitration, Re City of To- 
 ronto 1383 
 
 Leadlay v. McRoberts . . . . 1855.— 1863 
 Leak, Re Moorehouse and, 1172, 1173, 1656, 2046 
 Leamipg v. Woon . . . 87 
 
 Lep.. . Huston . . . . . . . . 1552 
 
 Leai;;, NVhalls v 873, 905 
 
 Leavens, Burrows v. . . 770 
 
 Le Beau, Poitras v. 1218 
 
 Le Cure de la Paroisse de la Nativit6 de la 
 
 Sainte Vierge, Bank of Toronto v. . . 1995 
 Ledley, Re Hime and, . . 702.— 705 
 
 Ledyard, Wiley v. 177, 234, 1009, 1203, 1314 
 Lee, In re, 439, 452, 646, 682, 741. 743, 914 
 
 Lee-Lev] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Leo, Bell v. 21.56, 2214 
 
 , Briggsv 1166.— 1174 
 
 , Coyne v. 181, 404, 1021, 1594.— 401, 1019, 
 
 2041 
 
 v. Credit Valley R. W. Co., 429, 599,- 
 
 916, 1815, 1822 
 
 , Foley V 1051 
 
 v. Gilmour, Regina ex rel., . . . . 1326 
 
 V. Hopkins —508, 1.596 
 
 V. McMahon .. .. 776,1128.-788 
 
 — , Meriden Silver Co. v. . . 828, 82» 
 
 v. Public School Board of the City 
 
 of Toronto 1723 
 
 , Regina v. 31.5, 1031, 1638.-1638, 1716 
 
 V. Victoria R. W. Co. . . . . 1815 
 
 Leech v. Williamson .. 1016.-1020 
 
 Leeds and Grenville, United Counties of, 
 
 V. Town of Brockville . 8.35, 105a 
 
 Leeming, Albert Cheese Co. v. 275, 1686.— 1685 
 
 Leeson, Barker v. 178, 196, .398, 1020.— 188, 
 
 197, 198, 401, 1014, 1020, 1022, 2041 
 
 V. Board of License Commissioners 
 
 of the County of Dufferin 12, 1061, 1231 
 
 • V. Lemon 204,'t 
 
 Lefebvre, Monette v. 1996 
 
 Lefninvois, Russell v. . . 26, 2156, 2217 
 
 Legacy V. Pitcher 1123,1589 
 
 Legarie v. Canada Loan and Banking Co. v. 541 
 ~" , . 1864.-170, 1862 
 
 554, 22.37 
 Legcr V. Fournier . . . . . . . . 1.30.5 
 
 Leighton v. Medley . . 1139, 2092.-11,52 
 
 Leitch, Gonee v. . . . . 1591 
 
 v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. 629. —626, 
 
 635 {hk) 
 
 V. McLellan . . . . 562, 591.-569 
 
 , Mennie v. . . 476, 1008.— .3.36, 425 
 
 Lei th, Israel V —1177,1833 
 
 Le May v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. 1250, 
 
 1615, 1782, 2240 
 
 Leggatt V. Clarry 
 Leiues v. Ward, Re, 
 
 Lenuvy v. Chamberlain 
 
 V. McRae 
 
 Leniienx, Cook v, . . 
 
 Lemon, Dobie v. 
 
 , Leeson v. 
 
 Lennox v. Westney 
 Lennox Election (Ont.) 
 
 .501, 1409 
 
 45, .50.— 49 
 
 580, 1076 
 
 1085.-1080 
 
 2043 
 
 . . 1133.-1135, 1153 
 — Hamilton v, 
 Thompson 1523, 1527 
 
 , Miles V. Roe 1453, 1473, 
 
 1490 
 Lenoir v. Ritchie 147, 299, 317, 200.3.-1683 
 Leonard v. Leonard . . . . . . 890 
 
 Leroux, Cameron V. .. 908,1,5.33.-7.34 
 
 Les ('ommissaires D'Ecoles pour la Muni- 
 
 cipalite due Village de St. Gabriel v. ''*'"*'•' f 
 T^es Soeurs de la Congregation de 
 Notre Dame de Montreal 67 
 
 Les Ecclesiastiques de St. Sulpice de Mon- 
 
 trdal V. City of Montreal 68, 84, 2001, 2242 
 Les Soeurs de la Congregation de Notre 
 
 Dame de Montreal, I^es Commissaires ? 
 D'Ecoles pour la Municipalite du Vil- 
 lage de St. Gabriel v 67 
 
 Leslie v. Calvin . . 725, 1569.-724, 1559 
 Letoumeux v. Dausereau . . . . 118 
 
 Lett, St. Lawrence and Ottawa R.W. Co. v. 1395 
 
 V. St. Lawrence and Ottawa R. W. Co. 885, 
 
 1770, 1775, 20.52.-1780 
 
 Levi V. Reed 27, 478 
 
 Levine v. Claflin 762, 877, 1996 
 
 Levis Election (Dom. )—Belleau v. Dussault 14,59, 
 
 1471, 147& 
 
 .V0» 
 
 V li^ ■ 
 
zlTiii 
 LevLio] 
 
 Levitt, Qnoboc Warohouoe Co. v 
 Levoy v. Midliind R. W. Co. 
 Levy V. l);ivies 
 V. WiUon 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 COLUMN. I Lip-Lon] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 180!) 
 
 Luwin, Almon v. . . 
 
 V. Howo 
 
 , James I). , Ex parte, 
 
 700, 1026, 22.34 
 
 .. 1100 
 
 ..2107.-2'-'09 
 
 1713, 19!»3, -JOOS 
 
 60, S4, 602, 19H.->. 
 
 -2092 
 
 Lipsett V. Perdue 375, 903, 907, 1 1 36. -.182, 907 
 Limiiilators of the Maritime Bank v. The 
 ' QuHcn. 132, 
 
 140,290,459, 
 932 
 V. Troop. 287 
 
 Lewis. Boys' Homo of the City of Hamilton 
 
 v'. .. 711,718,2161,2180.-2191 
 
 V. Brady . . 72, 73, 1983 
 
 V, Brown . . • • 793 
 
 , Davis V. 1147, 2072.-574, 910, 2069 
 
 V. (lodsoi. 1153,2098 
 
 , Imorporatcd .Synod of the Diocese 
 
 of Toronto V 229 
 
 , Re. Jackson v. Scott . . 2048, 2229 
 
 V. 01(1, Re 5.52, 20.51 
 
 ., lieginaexrel.O'Dwyerv. 398 (6m). 1329 
 
 V. Talbot .Street Gravel Uoiid Co. 29, 31, 
 
 1(505 {hi») 
 
 and Thome, Re, 695, 2073 
 
 , Re, Laws v. Laws . . . . 409 
 
 LevH, SievewriKht v. 410, 711. 728, 729 (/<m), 
 1603, 1(!G5.— 30, 871, 1035, lOOG, 2085 
 
 , Webster V. .. 728, 8C4, 2180.-1631 
 
 , Wright v. 409, 1289, 1875.-1305, 2065 
 
 License Commissioners of the County of 
 Duflferin, Board of, 
 Uesonv. 12,1061,1231 
 
 for Frontenac v. 
 
 County of Frontenac 312, 1028, 1050, 1984. 
 
 -315 
 Life Assurance Association, Carr v. . . 2232 
 Ligi/ett, Treacey v. . . . . . . . . 813 
 
 Lightbound V. Hill 128, 1082, 1088, 1128.— 131 
 
 v. Warnock . . 840.— 1699 
 
 Lilley, Arscott v. 29, 849, 850, 1117 (W»), 1120, 
 1124, 1571, 1719.— 1720, 1909 
 
 Lillis, Schrader v 328, 1573.-330 
 
 Lincoln, In re Arbitration between City of 
 
 St. Catharines and County of. 834, 1380.— 
 
 1325 
 Lincoln Election (1) (Ont.)— Rykert v. 
 
 Neelon 1446, 1464, 1465, 1488 
 
 (2) (Ont.)— Pawling v. 
 
 Rykert 1416, 1426, 1427, 1435, 1436, 1444, 
 1445, 1458, 1477, 1489, 1497, 1511, 1519, 
 1526.-616, 1507 
 Lincoln and Ni.igara Election (Dom.) — 
 
 Pattison v. Rykert . . 21, 1524, 1527 
 Lincoln Paper Mills Co. v. St. C. & N. C. 
 
 R. W 1761 
 
 Lindner, Prettie v 1670, 1935 
 
 Lindop, Wells v. 504, 1403.-514, 1398, 1405 
 
 , Wells v. (2) 504 
 
 Lindsay, Munsie v. 593, 683, 899, 1007, 1008, 
 
 1163, 2097, 2198. 2020, 2212, 2218, 
 
 2226.-1146, 2202, 2205, 2218 
 
 , Watson V. . . 466, 1189, 1269.— 467 
 
 Lindsay, Li re Workman and Town of 374, 1374. 
 
 —1345, 1373 
 Lindsay Paper Mill Co., McDougall v. 274, 1314, 
 
 1662 
 
 Lindsey, Ontario Industrial Loan and Investment 
 
 Co. V. 1598, 1697, 1825, 1961, 2025.-12. 
 
 517, 1827, 1828. 1893 
 
 Link V. Bush 368, 1079 
 
 Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co. 627.— 107, o-'9, 
 
 1146 
 
 , Nicholson v. 1591 
 
 Lionais v. Molson'sBank 31, 050, 717,2008.— 177 
 
 Listowel Rink and Park Co., Howell v. 531 {Iri) 
 
 754, 2014 
 Listowel, Town of, Livingstone v. 70, 2024 
 
 , .Scott V. . . 70, 2024 
 
 632, 886,2014.-516 
 
 ..2171.-2186 
 
 1307, KiSl.- 26 
 
 .397 
 
 1067.-1666 
 551.-5.50, 1129 
 
 Litle, Millette v. 
 Little V. Billings 
 
 V. Bru nicer 
 
 , Danaher v. , 
 
 , Uaytnond v. 
 
 , Re .Soules v. 
 
 Little Seminary of .Ste. Tlierese, (Canadian 
 
 Pacific R. W. Co. v. 1758, 1763, 1767, 
 
 1994. — 1995 
 Livoniois V. Bailey 33, 381, 382.-368, 374, .382 
 Livingston v. Cook . . — 650 
 , Torrance v. — 1601 
 
 Trout .509, 1077, 1617.-508, 511, 
 
 616 
 
 V. Wood 85, 225, 424, 662, 1267, 
 
 1562, 16.30, 2236.— .375, 649, 1307, 
 
 1679 
 Livingstone, Farmer v. 463, 465, 467, 580 
 
 , Symmers v 1867 
 
 V. Temperance Colonization 
 
 Society 257 
 
 V. Town of Listowel . . 70, 2024 
 
 , Torrance v. 176, 1610.-159, 1620 
 
 Livingstone's Case, Re Bolt and Iron Co., 
 
 227, 266, 267, 1912.-291, 1238, 2069 
 
 Lloyd, Pardee v 48, 1128 
 
 , Regina v . . 448. — 444 
 
 V. Tichborne-Re Wilson, 727, 906 
 
 V. Wallace 87, 2082 
 
 V. Ward 1609, 2022 
 
 Lobb, International Wrecking, etc., Co. v. 34, 
 
 19.32.— 1928 
 Lobo, Board of Public School Trustees for 
 
 Union School Section No. 9 of the 
 
 Township of, Wallace v. . . 1726, 1736 
 Local Board of Health of South Plan- 
 
 tagenet. Re Darby and, 1231, 1373, 1717 
 
 Lock V.Todd 1618.— 1678 
 
 Lockie v. Tennant, . . . . 1600 
 
 Locking v. Halsted . . . . 1894, 1945.— 1302 
 
 Lock wood V. Bew 622.-622 
 
 Locomotive Engine Co. v. Copeland 1654. — 
 
 1644, 1658 
 Logan V. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 966. — 966 
 , Regina V 833,1112 
 
 V. EUwood 1667 
 
 London Assurance Co., Hughes v. 51, 382, 974. 
 
 — 1673 
 London Banking and Loan Co. Cumming 
 
 V. 2065.— 2071, 2078 
 
 London and Canadian Loan and Agency 
 
 Co., Duggan V. 256, 2065, 
 2236.-204, 476 
 
 V. Everett 907, 1309 
 
 v. Graham 273, 762, 
 
 1837, 1967.— 1.320. 1894, 
 1972 
 
 V. Merritt . . 700 
 
 V. Morphy 701, 1021, 
 
 1540, 2042.— 693, 
 
 1547, 2041 
 
 V. Pulford 751, 1633 
 
 London Life 
 
 London Loa 
 London Mas 
 tion, Ml 
 London Muti 
 
 London Mut 
 
 London Spei 
 
 Pearce'a 
 
 London Stej 
 
 Del.ano's 
 
 Long v. Guel] 
 
 v. Hanc 
 
 Long Point C< 
 
 Longeway q. 
 Longhi V. Sat 
 Longliurst, L 
 Loiigley, Clar 
 Longueuil Na 
 
 treal 
 Loos, Rogers 
 Lord v. Davii 
 L'Orignal, In 
 
 lage of, I 
 Lot 3 on the ! 
 
 the City 
 
 and 
 Lot No. 6 on 
 
 of York, 
 
 Lott v. Dnirj 
 Loughead v. .^ 
 Love, Honsinj 
 
 liovelace v. I 
 
 Low, Cumniir 
 Lowden v. Mi 
 Lowry, Latta 
 Lowson V. Ca 
 
 Co. 
 Lowthian, Ro 
 Lucas, Campa 
 Lucas v. Crui( 
 
 • V. Fr.ii 
 
 V. Kno 
 
 g 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 tilt 
 
 Lon-Luc] ooLDMN. 
 
 London and Canadian Loiin and Agency 
 
 (Jo. V. Thompson 1(}77 
 
 V. Wallace 2075.-2188 
 
 , Warin v. 2103.— 2099, 
 
 2110 
 Tendon, City of, Andrews v. 367, 372, 2234 
 
 _____ , Carty v. 385, 388, 63B, 1987, 
 
 2142.— 383, 63.5, 637 
 
 . V. Citizens' Ins. Co., 1009, 1561, 
 
 1707, 1710.— 1708 
 
 . V. Goldsmith .. ..2144 
 
 .. , London Mutual Ins. Co. v. 69. 
 
 —61 {bin) 
 
 , Re Chapman and, 281, 1100, 
 
 1118, 1.378, 1716 
 
 , Rogiiia V. 408, 4r)4. —1410 
 
 London Klection (Dom.)— Pritchard v. Walker, 
 
 1465.— 1499 
 
 . (Ont.) — Jarman v. Meredith, 
 
 1448, 1463, 1408, 1480, 1487.— 1414 
 London Life Assurance Co. v. Wright 275, 
 483, 933, 943 {his), 992, 1006, 1623 
 London Loan Co. v. Smyth 649, 1282, 2088 
 London Masonic Mutual Benefit Associa- 
 tion, McElheran v 1017. — 1026 
 
 London Mutual Ins. Co. v. City of London. 
 
 61 (bis), 69 
 London Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Goring v. 
 
 94, 310, 319, 628, 934, 
 945,953,980, 1413 
 
 , Graham v. . . 959 
 
 . V.Jacob 1946.— 1961 
 
 London Speaker Printing Co., In re,— 
 
 Pearce's Case 249, 2240 
 
 London Steel Works Co., Stevens v.— 
 
 Delano's Case 248.— 241 
 
 Long v. Guelph Lumber Co., 273. -250, 257, 269 
 
 V. Hancock 809 
 
 Long Point Co. v. Anderson, Re, 22, 548, 831, 
 
 1716 
 Longeway q. t. v. Avison .. 1113, 1119 
 
 Longhi V. Sanson .. 1152.-1144,1150,11.54 
 Longhurst, Lally v. 1308.-1606 
 
 Longley, Clarke v 1894 
 
 Louguctiil Navigation Co. v. City of Mon- 
 treal . . 317, 747.-303, 315, 1.365 
 Loos, Rogers v. . . . . . . 361, 1565 
 
 Lordv. Davidson 19.30.— 1922, 1928, 1929 
 
 L'Orignal, In re Voters' List of the Vil- 
 lage of, In re Johnson . . . . 14.30 
 
 Lot 3 on the North side of King Street, in 
 the City of Toronto, In re Barwick 
 
 and 2070,2237 
 
 Lot No. 6 on Plan No. 580 in the County 
 of York, Re Morton and, 75, 79, 1416, 1890, 
 
 2088 
 
 Lottv. Drury 506.-1.398 
 
 Loughead v. .Stubbs 570, 1634, 1970, 1971 
 
 Love, Honsingor v. . . 342, 1081, 12.53, 1541.— 
 
 1541 
 liovelace v. Harrington 769, 770, 915, 1887, 
 
 2023.- 1277 
 
 Low, Cumniing v 36 
 
 Lowden v. Martin . . 175, 1070, 1562 
 
 Lowry, Latta v 2186 
 
 Lowson v. Canada Farmers' Mutual Ins. 
 
 Co. 415, 691, 702, 958, 978, 979, 1658 
 
 Lowthian, Rogers v. . . 464, 2192-— 2177 
 
 Lucas, Campan v 1840 
 
 Lucas v. Cruickshank 358 
 
 v. Fraser 386,1074,1646 
 
 . V. Knox 882 
 
 Luc-Mac] 
 
 UOLCMN. 
 
 Lucas, Merchants' Bank v. 31, 176, 414, 699, 763 
 
 , Roberts, v 1651 
 
 V. Ross 1071 
 
 Superior Loan and .Savings Co. v, 
 
 341, 497.— 1316 
 
 , Turner v 828 
 
 Lucknow, Village of, Lawrence v. 276, 1376,2248 
 Lumsden v. Davis . . 33, 412, 1628, 18,54 
 
 V. Scott 13, 820 
 
 Luney v. Essery . , . . . . . . 1666 
 
 L'Union St. Joseph de Montreal v. La- 
 
 pierre 32, 150, 1413, 2240 
 
 L'Union St. Thomas, Beland v 1.53 
 
 Lunney, Seaton v. . . 493, 2058, 2076, 2084 
 Lupton V. Rankin . , . . . . 2124 
 
 Lusse, Gower v. , , , . , . 2052, 2055 
 
 Lutz, Great Western K. W. Co. v. 575, 1 197, 
 
 1753 
 Lydenv. McGee 279, 1214, 1218, 1223.— 1223, 
 
 1398 
 Lyman, Union Fire Ins. Co. v. 242, 253, 933, 
 
 1608, 1614, 1985 
 Lynch, Regina v. 217, 1100, 1111, 1113, 1117, 
 
 16.38, 1721, 1982 
 
 V. Seymour .. ., .. ,. 12,56 
 
 , Seymour v. . . . . — 11.33 
 
 Lyon, Allen v. 347 
 
 v. Monk— Carleton Election (Ont.) 1515 
 
 V. McKay 640.-642 
 
 , Small V. 381,1.565 
 
 Lyons, Re, . . . . . . . . . . .369 
 
 Lyttle V. Broddy 83 
 
 Mabee, Regina v. 
 Macara v. Snow 
 Maoaulay, Hill v. . 
 
 V. Kemp . 
 
 Macauley, Kempt v. 
 
 10.38 
 
 1611.-1613 
 
 62 
 
 2228 
 
 15, 1081.— 342, 392, 1319 
 1890 
 Macdonald V. Abbott .. .. 1992,1994 
 
 , Bergin V. — Corn wall Election (Dom. ) 
 
 1425, 1447, 1449, 1454, 1462, 1463, 
 1469, 1498, 1499, 1519.— 1457 
 
 V. Bullivant .. 1272.— 1277 
 
 , Clarke v. .. 543,8.52.-542 
 
 v. Crombie . . 691, 8.30 
 
 , Freel v. . 1072, 1656.-1655 
 
 v. Kenwood 1218, 1622.-1219, 1398, 
 
 2036 
 
 , Hewson v 857, 1836 
 
 , Mason v. . . 122, 762.— 1143 
 
 V. MoCall 822, 825.-111, 198, 799, 
 
 -, McCall v. 
 - v. McDonald 
 -v. McLennan 
 
 1165, 1597 
 
 . 822.-811 
 
 25, 418, 1283 
 
 2211.— 2199 
 
 -V. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. 617, 
 
 627 
 
 - and the Noxon Brothers Manu- 
 
 facturing Co. (Limited) and 
 
 R. S. 0. 1877, c. 183, 286, 2233 
 
 - V. Piper . . 1956.— 1957 
 
 -, Russell V 641.-635 
 
 -, Shields v. . . 859, 1659, 1661 
 -, City of St. John v. . . 747, 1392, 
 
 1393.-1365, 1391 
 -, Stewart v, — Kingston Elec- 
 tion (Dom.) 1458, 1470, 1480, 
 1492, 1498, 1518.— 1467, 1472 
 
 - V. Worthington 495, 683, 759, 2050. 
 
 —644, 106a 
 
Mae] 
 
 MiM!(lon«lrl, Worthington v, 
 Nlrtcdoiitll V. Hiiinl 
 V. Hliiko 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 — , f 'lurk V. . . 
 
 — V. McCiillis. . 
 
 — V. Rol)iiwoii 
 
 OOi.UMN. 
 
 .. I.W 
 
 42, 10H'2.-:i(!, 37,r.'J 
 
 .. I Mil, 2-241 
 
 .. 1I87.-!KI1I 
 
 .. 1531 
 
 . . rm 
 
 (i4;{. 140-J 
 Upper 
 
 , iit;i.-i 
 
 1245.-1244 
 
 .. UiM) 
 
 o;t<i, 22:ti 
 
 . . 4H2 
 
 McAMcO] 
 
 flOLUM N-, 
 
 of 
 
 MocdonnoU, Mivlionty v. . . 
 Maodougall v. Law .Society 
 
 Canada 
 Macfarlaiu) V. (iilniniir 
 
 . , Mnekay v. 
 
 , Potcrkiii V. 
 
 MacFarliUK! v. Tim Qiiuon . . 
 
 MacHf, City Light and llcatiii« Co. of 
 
 I.0M.I0MV. 'JTS, I0.T2, 1634.-HWI, UV.i'y 
 
 . V. Hunter i)44, .')4'), 1019, 22;i.') (Wv), •224:i. 
 
 1!»'J 
 ___ V. Hutchison ■• I'i.'C, '-'2:i.-. 
 
 , In re, 548, 54,3, 1 :m, 1 7 1 7 
 
 V. I'DarHon . . . • •'• ~-<0S 
 
 MaoG regor v. I >of oc . . 5.S0, 1 1 5.'^. 1 1 54 
 
 V. McDonnld 28. .SI, (il8, (iS.'l, 038, | 
 
 642, 78:t. -((S!» 
 Alacguiro, Davidnon v. I2i) 
 
 Maclmr, Uosh v. 244, 250, 253, 28(1, (1(13, 22:i7, \ 
 
 223ft. "" " 
 
 MoAllan, KuKina v. .', .. 219, 1 114 
 
 McAlliNter v. ForMyth 180 
 
 McAlpino V. CarliML' .. 1028, 1«7(>, IN.'M 
 
 -i.- , KarlH V 2224. 2227 
 
 V. Township of Kupheniia, In rti, I12.'i, 
 
 i:m, 223.5.— 1724 
 
 , (Irant v. 85.5, 1078, ll)ll» 
 
 , Martin v. 82H 
 
 MoArthur v. Hrown 005. 2012.-200. 489, 12.-.7 
 
 V. Town of (Jollingwood 21 12. - 1384 
 
 V. (iilliis . . . . 2100. -t89, 2I(K» 
 
 , Hav V 577, 1316 
 
 , MuDoiiahl V ..102 
 
 V. Northern and I'auifiu.luiiction 
 
 It. W. <'o, 172. 1743, 1747, 1802, 
 2()20, 223:«, 22.34.— 1751 
 
 I'ritUe 1082 
 
 riic 1)WM\ 472, 1 12«.— 4(;2, 4(i8, 1970 
 
 Township of .Southwidd .. 414 
 
 85(i, 859, 892, 1062, 
 
 1 11.5.-1049 
 
 7.")0, 9.30, 1701,2240.-10, 
 
 12 
 
 -- V. 
 — V. 
 — V. 
 
 McAulay, Heginu v. 
 Verratt v. 
 
 Ml! 
 
 Mackay, Hnrns v 
 
 Mftokay v. Maofarlano 
 
 Mackelcim V. licket 
 
 Mackenzie V. ('.irlcr 
 
 and City of Hrantfurd, In re, 
 
 V. Champion 
 
 -, Kenny v. 
 
 , Proctor V. 
 
 , Rogina v. 
 
 Mackey, Bates v. 
 
 ■ V. Sherman 
 
 Mackie, Goldini; v. . . 
 Mackinnon v. Keroack 
 Macklani, In re Uwight and. 
 
 2.")3 
 
 7!)3 
 
 1650 
 
 1644 
 
 1673 
 
 1373. 
 
 —1351 
 
 .. .. 1691 
 
 208, 423 
 
 57, 97 
 
 220, 1061, 111.3.-1116 
 
 .. 1676, 1842.— 18.39 
 
 2106 
 
 1711 
 
 818. 1999.-177 
 
 .322, 619 ihin), 
 
 640 
 
 V. Macklem 
 
 Macklin, Bell v. 
 
 V. Uaniel . 
 
 — — V. Dowling 
 
 Maclean v. Anthony 
 
 Macklem and Commissionera of the Niagara 
 
 Falls Park, In re 23, 400, 762, 2208. 
 
 -2199 
 763, 2208.- 
 
 776 
 
 2169.-2195 
 
 1887.— 284, 1891,2083 
 
 319,1020,1916 
 
 V. Barber & Ellis Co. . . 639, 641 
 
 , Reginav. .334, 1422, 1580.— .327, 1711 
 
 MucLellan, Delaney V .582.— .357 
 
 Maclennan v. Bergin— Cornwall Election 
 
 (.3) (Dom.), 620, 1452, 1469, 1.505, 
 1517, 1521.— 1479 
 
 , Cnmeron v. — North Victoria 
 
 Election (Dom.). 555, 1425, 1427 
 
 ^•.>' (M, 1440 {bin), 1444, 1445 {bin), 
 
 - 1452, 14.58, 1464, 1465, 1474, 1475, 
 
 1479, 1505, 1508, 1520, 1521, 22.34. 
 
 -^33, 1469, 1479, 1480, 1482 
 
 V. Cray 561, 647, 1254, 1664, 1665, 
 
 1660, 1830.— 23, 1273, 1294, 1296, 
 1300, 1316, 1673, 1989 
 776 
 
 MacMahon, Lee v. . . 
 
 , Whitelyv. 
 
 MacNabb, Re. 
 Macnaniara, a Solicitor Re, 
 
 ■ V. McLay 
 Macpherson, Barber v. 
 
 41.— 42 
 
 713, 2088, 2187 
 
 .. 1940 
 
 . . 1826, 1827 
 
 177, 188.— 811 
 
 V. Ti8dale89, 1911, 19,58.-544, 1567 
 
 r.in V. MrHcilU 
 
 ilie, Hhii;kl(!y ' 
 — — --, Norton V. 
 .Mc(,'atrray, O'driidy v 
 McCall V. Maudonald, 
 
 V. Theal 
 
 ^___. V. Wolff 
 McCalluni and 
 
 613 
 
 I, 1.37, 163, 1129,209.3.-7 
 
 .. 401.-1410 
 
 83, 467, 898, 2231.— (iS 
 
 822, 82.5.— Ill, 19S, 
 
 1.597, 799, 811, 1165 
 
 2026, 2027 
 
 193 
 
 Board of Public .School 
 Trustees of .Section 6 Town- 
 ship of Brant Re 17.30 
 
 , CoUiar v. — Monck BUcction 
 
 (Ont.), 1425, 1468, 1496, 1.508, 
 
 1519.— 1518 
 
 V. (Jracey, Re, . . .5.38.— .536 
 
 , (Jrant v. — Monck Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1440(/«A.), 1443, 1444 
 
 V. McCalluni, .384, 387, .390, 1077. - 
 
 389, 390, 1068 
 
 , McCansland v. , . . . 752 
 
 , Murray v 879.— 871 
 
 V. Odette —25 
 
 , In re the " M. C. 
 
 Upper" 1931.— 1391 
 McCann V. Chishohn .. 1153,11.58 
 
 V. Prcneveau 504,511,64.5. 1219.— 514 
 
 McCardle v. Moore 735, 737.-376, 718 
 
 McCarter v. Mc(,'artor . . . . 719 
 
 McCarthy v. Arbuckle . . 36, 478, 578, 582, 
 
 897, 1627, I675.-37, 45, 1675 
 
 V. Cooper 367, 1693, 1876.-1964 
 
 , Reginav... 220, 1104, 111.3, 1116 
 
 McCaskill v. McCaskill 422.-1144, 1146, 1974 
 V. Paxton, North Ontario Elec- 
 tion (Ont. ) 27, 1448, 1460, 1469, 
 1478, 1484, 1524, 1571, 1979.-1482' 
 
 V. Rf.dd 530 
 
 McCaugheyaud 'Walsh, Solicitora, Re, 1.544, 19.39 
 MoCaul, Die ley v. . . . . . . . . ,345 
 
 McCauley and City of Toronto, Re, 584, 840, 
 
 1.365 
 
 McCauslpjid V. McCallum 752 
 
 MoCaw V. Ponton 1658 
 
 McClary v. Jackson . . . . 1142.-1144 
 
 McClay, Regina ex rel. Dougherty v. . . 1330 
 — — , Regina ex rel. Whyte v. 1.329.— 1.330' 
 
 MoCleary v. Morrow 1676 
 
 — , Palmby v. . . 61.3, 1906.— 1906 
 
 McClenaghan v. (Jrey . . . , 228.-2224 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 HI 
 
 COHTMN. 
 
 .. ntrM.--ior>A 
 
 «4I), IH74,l(Mt<t 
 
 .. iN(i:j.-i87» 
 
 H(i, (iH4 
 . It)3», ItilM) 
 
 . n.'K 
 
 .. MHO.— 'icm 
 
 or), I Mil 
 
 . . -21 1'J 
 
 •-"J.")!.- an 
 
 rm, ioi;< 
 
 177, 'i'M, II2H 
 
 . . 35(1 
 
 401, I07r), l.-)4'.» 
 
 . . vWl'(». -'-'I!)."), ■_'•_' 1 7 
 
 .. :»37, I'lUi 
 
 rhW,— H(J7 
 
 Caso- HynoH v. 
 
 (Wl> 
 
 8(i!» 
 
 .•»7H 
 
 I7'-'.'. 
 
 1301 
 
 -.37 
 
 l<H«t 
 
 McO-McDI 
 
 MdCliM', MolicltorH, In ro 
 MrCliing V. McC'i-uokoii 
 isicCliiic V. Kr.!utc/,iKer 
 
 ^',1U. MtOoll V. McColl 
 
 , Postlll.VHtCT «i(!Ill)l'al V. 
 
 McCoiuIkj, Hiiixt V 
 
 McCoiLitfliy ^- ■''''"""^'■k . 
 
 . , Doniiiark v. 
 
 HfcCdiikey v. 'I'owii of llruckvillu 
 McOomioll. Clikyton v. 
 
 . . ._ V. McConnt'U 
 
 . , Kyan v. 
 
 V. VVftkcsford 
 
 V. VVilkiiis 
 
 McConnchii!, (iilliim v. 
 MoCool, MuCnuK^y v. 
 MoCoid, WailMWi.rth v. 
 MoCdi'd ami ,leiik!n 
 FiHiior 
 
 McCnrkill V. Kniuli 
 
 McCdimack, HukIi 
 
 McCorinick and tlio TowiiHliip of CoIcIk'h- 
 
 ler South, 111 I'o 
 and the Townsliip of Howard, 
 
 Fits 1344, •223!». — i:Mr., 
 
 McC'rnckcM V. (h-uswiuk 
 
 , McChuife'v. .. «41l, 1S74, 
 
 Mt€rauv. Backer .. .. 1880.— 1887, I «94 
 , Steinlioir V. 64» 
 
 V. White .. 124, nmi, tioor. 
 
 McCraney, Crosa v. — Halton Kloctinn 
 
 (l)om.) I4.V2. I4r.8, M(il, I4(i'_', 
 1474, ir.11,2'234,2'243.— I4r.«, I4(i4 
 
 V. McUool . . 337, ir>4« 
 
 V. MoLfod . . .88 
 
 McCready v. Hunnosay . . 3.")4 
 
 McCreary, Shaw v. . .22, 880, 202->. ~ 1 35M), I3i>2 
 McC'uaii,', Holland v. — Prince Kdwurd 
 
 Kleotion(2)(0nt.) .. .. \42ri 
 
 , P:iliot V 55, 853 
 
 V. Keith— The Picton 1233, 2(M)3.— 2e 
 
 , McLaren v 1(J25, 2<)43 
 
 McC'ulloiigli, Siiephordson V. .. ll!>2 
 
 V. Sykes, .. 691, 1204, 1902 
 
 , Taylor v 18, 2036 
 
 MoDermid V. McUormid .. .. 539. -MKM) 
 
 McDcrmott V. Keenan .. 1284,2214.-1266 
 
 McDiarmid v. MuDiarmid 1898 
 
 V. Hughes, 273 274, 313, 461, 576, 
 
 .598, 1164, 1182, 1837. — 11«5, I UH), 
 
 1.120 
 McDonagh v. Jephson, Re, 692, 708.— 693 
 
 McDonald v. Anderson, Ueginaex rel. .398, 1329 
 
 , Re, Re Baker 1953 
 
 V. Davidson 27, 2068 
 
 V. Elliott 1205, 128.3.— 2.5, 418, 1191 
 
 , Fa.-lincer V. 182,190.-179 
 
 V. FieUl . 1672,1841,1941 
 
 , Forristal v. . . 1859.- 1867 
 
 , Gibbons V. 791 
 
 Gibson v. . .306, 1907, 1909.— 400 
 
 V. Gilbert . . 29, 1538, 1997 
 
 , Hilderbroom v. 639 
 
 V. .lohnston .. 778.-1403,1409 
 
 V. Lane 1839.— 297 
 
 , Macdonald v. 25, 418, 1283 
 
 , MacGregor v. 28, 31, 618, 633, 6.38, 
 
 642, 783.-639 
 
 V. Mc Arthur 162 
 
 V. MoCall 822, 825.— Ill, 198, 799, 1 165 
 
 , McCall V. ... 822.— 81 1 
 
 McD-McO] 
 
 COI.UMKi.' 
 
 MoDoimldv. MoDoiittKl 710, 1 i JO, 2060. —725, 
 
 2077 
 
 ^ V. M<l>oiiKall (i«», '2160, 22.30.-649 
 
 V. Mt'Kiiinoii ,. .. 1025 
 
 V. Mcl'hevHoii 1871 
 
 V. McRae .567 
 
 V. Murray, ;«), 646, 648, Ollti «7H, 
 
 1407, 1409, 1880, 20i5O. (i22,(i(i3, 
 1402, 140.">, 1887, 1894, 1895 
 
 V. Oliviir .331. 2244 
 
 , line V. . . .571, 791, 792, 822, 20.52, 
 
 2233, 22.37 -804 
 
 , Itammiyv. 1898 
 
 , TicKina V. 453, KMW. -442 (//<«), 2121 
 
 -, RobortHV 1168 
 
 , Sutherland V .3.54 
 
 , WatHon V 620 
 
 , Wilson V. 621 
 
 — , Woodward v. 40 
 
 ■ V. Worlhiiiuton . . . . 1.567 
 
 ; .loliii, RoTiustHof Will of, 2219' 
 
 McDonald, McDonald & Marsh, Re, 1299, KtT.l 
 MeDonull V. Huildiiigand Loan AHsoeiatioii '<71, 
 
 .524 
 
 , Napaiiee Tuiiiworth and (^uebee 
 
 R. W. Co. V 1651 
 
 McDonough v. AIImoii . . 1676, 20.39.-2041 
 
 MeDougaid V, 'rhoniHon . . . . 10.52 
 
 McDougall, In re, 123 
 
 .Ru, 167,473 
 
 , Haimerman v.— .South Renfrew 
 
 Kle.tion(Doiii.) 1517, 1520. -1516 
 
 , iJellv 116 
 
 , Cameron v. — North Middlenex 
 
 Klection(Ont.) 1461, UHO(hi»), 1484, 
 
 2238 
 
 V. Campbell .. 129.5. -.376 
 
 , Kleniing v. 1296, 1899, 2171.-1899 
 
 , (lihlerHlecve V 1.5,7.58 
 
 V. Hall .. 189.5.-1974 
 
 — V. Lindsay Paper Mill Co. 274, 1314, 
 
 1662 
 
 , McDonald v. 664, 2160, 2230.— 649 
 
 , McKay v. — South Renfrew Klee- 
 
 tion(l)om.) .. 1519.-14.38 
 
 McDougall TriiHts, Re, .. 91.3,1.569.-717 
 .McDowall V. Phippeu . . 4.56, 128.5.— 1279 
 
 McDufly, Mitchell v. .528, 2035.-530, 1 144 
 
 McElheran v. l^ondon Masonic Mutual 
 
 Renelit Association . . 1017.— 1026 
 
 McKlligott, Regina v. . . 431, 894, 1110 
 
 McElroy, Township of Adjala v. 13.32, 13.33, 
 
 1704 (/n«). — 1447, 1706 
 
 McEwan v. McLeod46, 1079, 1927.— 10«)6, 1922 
 
 V. Milne 674, 768 
 
 McEwen, Rrassert v. 8.58, 1668, 18.53, 1871.— 
 
 100, 1869 
 
 V. Dillon 11.5.5.— 1 144 
 
 McEwing, Clarke v 1607.— 1622 
 
 McFarland v. McFurland 632, 782, 785, 1596 
 
 MeFarlane v. Gilinour 20.30 
 
 , Parish of St. Cesaire v. 481, 1810.— 
 
 1.338, 1.349 
 
 , Peterkinv. 414, 1166, 1268,1621, 
 
 16.34, 1680, 1831.-1305, 1H82, 1830 
 
 V. The Queen 450, 1.580, 1581 
 
 , Regina v. 21.3, 332, 461, 1241, 1.392, 
 
 ■,r 1696,2026 
 McFarren V. Johnstoa ..'■';. .. 326 
 
 McFee, Mowat V. .. .. 300,750 
 
 -, Regina v. 
 
 McGannon v. Clarke 
 
 383, 387, 669, 1211 
 
ill 
 
 TABLE OP OASES 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 2177,2195, 
 222(5 
 
 McO-McI] 
 
 McCJariy v. Thompson 564, 2209, 
 
 McGarvey v. Town of Stratliroy 370, 700, 919, 
 
 McGauley, Regina v. 30, 901, 2232 (6i«).-10Gl , 
 
 McGee v. Campbell . . • • 127, 1632.-1 15 
 
 V. Kane 575, 580, 601, 697, 788, 1877 
 
 , Lytlen v. . . 279, 1214, 1218, 1223.- 
 
 ' •' 1223, 1398 
 
 V. Wicle— South Essex Election 
 
 (Oiit.) 1488,1519 
 
 McOeorge, Foottv. . . 595, 899, 2063.-895 
 
 McGihbou, Keleher v 1080 
 
 , McKellarv 186 
 
 V. Northern R. W. Co. . . 1788 
 
 MeGill V. Walton 1221 
 
 McGillis, Macdonell V 1531 
 
 , Tobin V 372, 1565 
 
 McGiliivray v. Johnson — Re Laycock, 95, 
 
 1898 
 
 McGiliivray, Township of, Hislop v. 859, 1075, 
 
 1230, 1232, 1994,2130.-2130,2135 
 
 McGinnis, Mcllhargey v 579 
 
 McGlaughlin, McKenzie v. 650, 1164.— 574 
 
 McGloughlin, Schwob v. 365, 1594.-1622 
 
 McGowan, Mocre v.— West W^ellington 
 
 Election (Ont.) 
 McGrath, Blaney v. 
 
 , Jones V. . . 
 
 , Jones V. (2) 
 
 McGreevy v. The Queen 
 McGregor v. Bishop 
 V. Keiller . . 
 
 1483, 1519 
 
 . . .368, 1540 
 
 883, 1411.-2091 
 
 484, 883 
 
 .. 1585,1995 
 
 171.-159 
 
 667, 1192,2011 
 
 V. McGregor, 590, 897, 899, 1146, 
 
 1196.-1194 
 
 V. McNeil . . 2016.-18.39 [hit) 
 
 V. Norton, Re. .. .. 548,550 
 
 McGugan v. School Board of South wolil. 
 
 Section No. 7 1726 
 
 McOuin V. Fretts, 11, 226, 1605, 1820.-1599 
 McGuire, Birkett v. . . 1544.— 1546, 1562, 1699 
 
 125 
 
 . 305, 554.— 1716 
 
 210, 489, 2232, 2242 
 
 .5.3,454,1104 
 
 552.— 548, 5,-)2 
 
 579 
 
 1619 
 
 . . 1662, 2004 
 
 2040 
 
 617.-50,5, 516, 619, 
 1398, 1402 
 , Dumble v.— In re Music Hall 
 
 Block .. ..1.32, 558 (ftM), 1275 
 
 , McPhail V. 2163, 2176.-2173, 2180 
 
 , Mooiiey V. .. .. 1192.-200 
 
 V. Moynihan . . —1876, 1966 
 
 , Regina ex rel Clancy v. 1,325, 1331. - 
 
 1.328 
 
 .. 2172,2226.-2178 
 
 1270, 1683, 1886, 1891.— 
 
 1887, 2089 
 
 314,470,472,1741,1746, 
 
 1758. -1816 
 
 -, Davidson v. 
 
 , In re Wilson v. 
 
 MoHenry, Stevenson v. 
 McHolme, Regini v. 
 Mcllhargey, Fee v. . . 
 
 v. McGinnis 
 
 V. St. Denis 
 
 Mcllreith, Doull v. . . 
 Mcllroy v. Mcllroy . . 
 Mcintosh, Bradley v. 
 
 , Riddell V. 
 
 V. Rogers 
 
 Mclntyre, Booth v. 
 
 V. East Williams Mutual Fire 
 
 Ins. Co. 960, 969, 1980.-968, 1006 
 , Foran v. 472, 1741, 2032.-314, 1747, 
 
 „ , . 1816 
 V. Hockm . . . 1240, 1241 
 
 V. Hood 325, 1968 
 
 V. National Ins. Co. 974.— 971, 1006 
 
 MCI-MCK] COLUMK. 
 
 Mclntyre v. Public School Trustees of 
 Section 8 in the Township of 
 Blanchard, In re Minister of 
 Education and 12.30, 1730 
 
 Rodden v.— South Victoria Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) 27,1476.-1511 
 
 , Snetzinger v. — Cornwall Election 
 
 (Ont.) 
 ■ v. Thompson 
 
 McKay v. Atherton 
 
 v. Baker, 
 
 , Barber v. 
 
 v. Bruce 
 
 1515 
 . . 650, 1289 
 
 358, 886, 1596.— 357 
 576, 612, 1830, 2160 
 
 1193 
 
 , Canada Permanent L. and S. Co. v. 1 197, 
 
 1831 
 , Colvlnv 505.— 514 
 
 v. Cryslei 75, 80 
 
 V. Cummings 298, 121.-).— 11, 1615 
 
 V. Glen— South Ontario Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1462, 1465, 1466, 1490.- 
 
 1501 
 
 V. Howard 419, 523, 1260, 1260.-531 
 
 V. Keefer . . . . 670, 1.529, 1532 
 
 , Keefer v. 1893, 1900, 2080, 2181 2182.- 
 
 2186 
 
 , Lyouv 640.-642 
 
 v. Magee 373, 825 
 
 v. McDougall — South Renfrew 
 
 Election (2) (Dom.) .. 14.33,1519 
 
 V. McKay . . 428, 494, 495, 682, 724, 
 
 766, 1.53.3,22.39.-426, 737 
 
 , Merchants' Bank of Canada v. 140, 763, 
 
 788, 1704.— 844, 1706 
 
 V. Palmer, Re, . . . . 548, .5,50 
 
 , Riddellv .359 
 
 , Story V 172,759,1013 
 
 , Re Trustees of the East Presby- 
 terian Church and, . . . . 19, 2243 
 
 McKee, Pyattv 1157.-567,582 
 
 McKeen and the Township of South 
 
 Gower, Re, 
 McKellar, Heaton v. 
 
 v. McGibbon 
 
 , Patterson v. 
 
 McKennav. McNamee 
 McKenzie, Brigham v. 
 
 ■ v. Dancey . . 
 
 • v. Davey . . 
 
 ■ V. Dwight . . 
 , Griffin v. . . 
 
 • V. Hamilton- 
 
 (Ont.) .. 
 
 ■ V. Kittridge 
 
 )1, .385.— .383 
 
 .. 1607.-824 
 
 186 
 
 '.'. '.'. 692, 703 
 
 329, .333, 336, 2245 
 
 400, 1.590, 1593, 16.56, 
 
 1659, 22.38 
 
 29, .393, 1927.-400, 677 
 
 4^ 
 
 .. 772.-1130,1882 
 187.-198 
 -Prescott Election 
 665, 1499, 2239.— lofti 
 
 260 
 
 V. McGlaughlin .. 6,50, 1164.— 574 
 
 , Rhoder v. — East Middlesex 
 
 Election (Ont.) 1471, 1485, 1495, 
 2238.— 1481, 1499, 1.500, 1517 
 
 , Shaw V 1216 
 
 McKeown, Rees v 198, 402 
 
 McKercher, Sanderson V. .. 2061. — 1165 
 
 V. Sanderson 2061 
 
 McKerral, Ryan v. . . 170, 174 
 
 McKerrieher, Campbell v. 1236, 1421, 1874, 
 
 1877, 2158, 2244.— 1975 
 
 McKeraie v. McLean 1904 
 
 McKillop, Nordheimer v 620 
 
 McKim, Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 
 Society v. . . 2040.— 2O40 
 
 .Stuart V. .. 91.— 90 
 
 jMcKimm, Graham v. . . 501.— 516, 1.398 
 
 McKindsey v. Armstrong . . .. 88, 92, 403 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 
 I 
 
 McK-McL] *^oi'"»"^- 
 
 McKiiinon, McDonald v 1625 
 
 Z-. , McLellun v. 217, 1105, U 11, 1114, 
 
 1119, 1373, 1907, 2035.-1051), 1109, 1113, 
 
 1110, 13G(i, 1901) 
 
 McKitriok V. Haley 114, 120.-106, 796 
 
 McKiiiglit V. City of Toronto .. 1371,1372 
 
 McLachlin, St. Croix v 55, 1669 
 
 V. Usboine 892, 1982, 2006.-2067, 
 
 2214 
 
 McLaren, Abell V 166,1623 
 
 , Caldwell v 2105 
 
 V. Caldwell . 31, 33, 412, 927, 928.— 
 
 362, 1568, 2099 
 
 . V. Canada Central E. W. Co. 1025, 
 
 1080, 1391, 1785, 2051, 2052.— 679 
 
 , Canada Central R. W. Co. v. 
 
 641,667,677, 1786.— 25 
 
 . V. Commercial Union Asa. ('". 969. — 
 
 969 
 
 V. Fisken.. .. 263,141.3.-1802 
 
 , Houston V 1144.-1141 
 
 V. Marks . . . 857, 1600, 1657 
 
 V. McCuaia .. .. 1625,2043 
 
 . , ^'ational Fue Ins. Co. v. 972, 1090.— 
 
 1006 
 
 , Scribner V. .. , 186. —795 
 
 . V.Stephens .. 4i:i, 1671, 1712 
 
 McLauchlin v. Grand Trunk R. ^V. Co. 
 
 1771 1784.-1785 
 McLaughlin, Bank of Ottawa v. 156, 538, .551, 
 
 553 
 
 V. Moore . . 620, 027, 863 
 
 V. Scluut'er . . . . — U95 
 
 McLaurin, llduthier V. .. 12:3.— 13!)8 
 
 , Ingalls V. 1304, 1692.— lL'87, 
 
 13S2 
 McLay v. County of Bruce 508, 1.379, 1827.— 
 
 12, 508, IS27 
 
 McL-McN] 
 
 COLDHN^ 
 
 McLcunau v. Craig— Glengarry Election <' 
 (Ont.) 1464, 1480, 1482, 1518.— 
 
 1481 
 
 — , Grange v. 
 
 V. Haiinum 
 
 V. McLean . . 
 
 , Macdunald v. 
 
 , Woodruff V. 
 
 McLeod V. Avey 
 , Uunnard v. 
 
 1879 
 
 .. 1153, 1268, 1278 
 
 1274 
 
 .. 221.-2199 
 
 788, 831, 1072, 1095.— 
 
 1093 
 
 . 1285, 2097 
 
 29 
 
 V. Eniigli (2), Re, .378, 540, 548, 875, 
 
 881, 1716.— 881 
 
 -, McCruney v. . . . . 88 
 
 -, McEwan v. 46, 1079, 1927.— 10()6, 
 
 1922 
 
 - V. New Brunswick Railway Co. 25, 
 
 2019 
 -, Rcgina v. 401, 1392, 1582, 1696, 1790, 
 
 2025 
 
 - V. SexsmitU 
 -, Webber v. 
 
 McLuhan, Newconibe v. 
 McMuhon V. Luvery 
 
 , Lee V. 
 
 , Mandia v. 
 
 , Kcgina v. 
 
 , Ivoblin V. 
 
 V. .Spencer 
 
 , Tucker v. 
 
 , Wiiituly V. 
 
 . , Macuaniara v. 
 
 McLean v. Bieithaupt 
 
 . , Brooke, v. 
 
 . , Brown V. 
 
 . V. Brown 
 
 V. Hi uoe 62( 
 
 .. 1826, 18:: ( 
 
 1872 
 
 206, 1596.— 2032, 2035 
 1258, 1273, lo90, 1988 
 
 lS(i7 
 
 -_ , 6.35, 771, 2060, 2084.— 
 
 6.33, 823, 643, :6;-;2, 1034, 1819, 2()(i2 
 
 . , Durnin v ;}(iy 
 
 , Fraser V. . .. .. 779.-788 
 
 , Fuller V 1681,2(184 
 
 V. (Jailand . . 103, 798, 2237, 2240 
 
 V. Hamilton Street Railway Co. 511, 
 
 1394, Kill 
 
 V. Hannon 1403, 20."iG 
 
 — , McKersie V. l!Mt4 
 
 , McLennan V. .. .. .. I'_'74 
 
 ■ — anil the Township of Ops, Re, . . I. '127 
 
 V. I'inkerton 
 -, Sea v., 
 
 - V. Shields 
 
 - V. Smith 
 
 2073.- 
 
 V. Thonip.son 
 and Walker, 
 
 Re, 
 
 18.3, 2023.- I bS 
 
 9.'), 714, 1SS4, 1974 
 
 1094. — 10tS3, lOlW 
 
 S81, 1(82, 11 2S 
 
 1.353, 1354.— 70 
 
 . . 2038, 2'J35 
 
 1882, 2242. — 1885, 
 
 1887, 1894 
 
 421, 1305.-1281 
 
 M, 'mC, 
 
 - 562, 59L-5(,y 
 
 V. McKihnon 217, 1105, 111 I, 1114, 
 
 1119, 1373, 1907, i.035.- 10.59, 1109, 
 
 i; IS, 1110, 1909, 1.366 
 
 V. MeLollan 5 4 
 
 Smith V. .. 518.-871,2061 
 V. Winston 3;J8 
 
 , Wilkius V. . . 
 
 McLcllan, Ker.itenuui v 
 — , Leiteh v 
 
 .. 1077 
 1222, 2052.-2055 
 1084, 1607.- -1656 
 
 2047 
 
 .. 1128.— 788 
 
 476 
 
 443,450,479.-572,669 
 
 1208 
 
 .. 1204, 1902 
 
 682 
 
 48 
 
 , In re Widmeyer v. 537, 544, 875, 881, 
 
 541.-871 
 
 McMartin, Ferguson V. .. .. 403.— 401 
 
 McMaster V. Garland .. 85, 99, 185.— 227 
 
 V. Mason .. 0.32, I.")!).-).— 579, 1606 
 
 , Robertson v. . . 360. — 357, 360 
 
 , Wvhl V 27,928 
 
 McMeekin, Molsons Bank v. — Ex parte 
 
 ^•lum 54.').— 693 
 
 , WieUens v. . . 606, l(il)9, 1701 
 
 McMichael V. WilKio .. .. 87 i, 1688 
 
 V. (irand Trunk K. W. Co. . . 1773 
 
 McMillan, Re, .. ;{40, 1421, 1835. -324 
 
 , Byers V. .. .. .. 661. — 1165 
 
 , (jdroy V. . . . . . . . . 650 
 
 , (Jrand Tiunk R. W. Co. of Can- 
 ada V. . . 1092, 1618, 1795, 18.35, 
 2025.-1413 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. —1400 
 
 — V. Hedge 2120 
 
 ,M inkier V 628 
 
 , l'att'.rs..n v.— Le McMillan, .. 1531 
 
 , Be- I'atttison V. MeMdlan .. 1531 
 
 , Siiuth-WcMt liiioni Co. V. I(i28, 2007 
 
 , Walker v. 1 19, 207, 644, 2049. - .341 
 
 V. Wansliiirough . . 630 
 
 McMorrow, Bank of Ottawa V. .. 15(), 673 
 McMuUen V. Free, 457, 476, 1130, 1276. — 1597 
 
 107, 843 
 
 .. 1208, 1943 
 
 .. .■)56.— 867 
 
 6.57, 1399, 1(187, 
 
 20U6.— 2095 
 
 .. 1189, Ii'78.--4!13 
 
 261,521 
 
 596, 1882.- :!-J(i, 1829 
 
 83,801.-799 
 
 02. 1692 
 
 . . 55, 57, 1653, 1917 
 
 — 1171 
 
 329, 333, 336, 2245 
 
 — , ^',•^rlin v. 
 - V. I'olley 
 
 Wadnworth 
 AVillianis, 
 
 McMurray, Bright v. 
 
 , iJickbon V. 
 
 , >ievitt V. 
 
 McNab V. I'ter 
 , Mc^abb, Fkndng v. 
 
 V. Opj.enheimer 
 
 McNaniara v. Kirklaiid 
 j McNanice, McKt.nna v. 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 McN-Mag] « COLUMN. 
 
 McNaughtoii, Harvey V 817 
 
 McNeeley V. McWilliams 661 
 
 McNeil, McGngor v. . . 2016.— 1839 (bix) 
 
 McNeil V. Rooino— West Middlesex Elec- 
 tion (Uom.) .. .. 1475, 1527 
 
 , Harvey V. .. 707,1311.-1305 
 
 McNeill V. Haines, . . 373, 498, 2019, ;i020, 
 
 2i.'42. -345, .397 
 McNicoI, Regiiia v. 45), 1101, 1106, l.S(J8.— 
 
 643, 1102 
 McNutt, Merchants' Bank of Halifax v. 163 
 
 , Uoyd V 20 
 
 McPhail V. Mcintosh, 2103, 2176.-2173, 2180 
 
 McPheo V. McPhee 165,1543 
 
 McPhee's Claim— Clarke v. Union Fire 
 
 Ins. Co. . . 
 
 McPlierson, Colter v. 
 
 . V. (tcdge 
 
 , McDonald v. 
 
 V. McPherson 
 
 V. Shannon 
 
 V. Wilson 
 
 , Wood V. 
 
 McQuaid v. Cooper . . 
 
 ilcQuay v. Eastwood 
 
 McQueen v. Phicnix Mutual Fire Ins. Co, 
 
 591, 100.5, 1835.-973 
 633, 783, 1220 
 1173.-1172 
 
 1871 
 
 . . 705.-908 
 
 .. 800.— 90 
 
 404,657,788.-1622 
 
 .. 1408, 1594,2050 
 
 533 
 
 .. 12,52, 125.3.-1407 
 935, 
 
 956 
 
 V. The Queen, 1231, 1,584, 18,50, 2231.— 
 
 222,461, 118,3, 1584 
 McQuillan and The Guelph .Junction K. W. 
 
 Co., Re . . . . 216, 853, 856, 1768.— .39 
 McRae, Brown V. .. 1007,1397,1921.-1,396 
 
 , Htch V. — In re Welland Canal 
 
 Enlargement, 460, 584, 1153, 2152 
 
 , Len)ay v. .. .. 45,50.-49 
 
 , xMarsliall v. . . . . 1240, 2233 
 
 and tlio Ontario and Quebec H. W. 
 
 Co., lie, .. 39!, 1766, 1767, 2231 
 
 , McDonald v. . . . . . ,567 
 
 V. Smith— North '^'^ictoria Election 
 
 (Out.) 1401, 1468 ((s), 1474, 148.3,1488, 
 1510, 1526.— 1480, 1511, 1,512 
 
 , Steinhoff v. 178, ,3.35, 656, 1818, 2018, 
 
 2023.-662 
 
 McRoherts, Leadlay v 18.5,5.-1863 
 
 McRoberts V. Steinoff .. .. 79,3.-811 
 
 MciSherry v. The Commissioners of the 
 
 Cdbourg Town Trust 2,33, 238, 1627.-281 
 McSorley v. Mayor, etc. of the City of St. 
 
 ,]ohn . . 74, 1241, 1250, 1378, 1697, 2036 
 
 McTaggart v. Toothe 
 McTavish, Allan v. . . 
 McTicrnan v. Frazer 
 MoVean v. Tiffin 
 McVeigh, Waterhousc v. 
 
 McWilliams, McNeeley v. 
 Mc Willie, North Shore R. 
 
 1646.-1210 
 649, 801, 1087.— 794 
 
 8,55 
 
 .. 1171, 1598.-1,597 
 
 54, 55,400, 1655.— 
 
 1658 
 
 661 
 
 W. Co. V. 1789, 
 
 2234.— 1802 
 
 Madden v. Cox . , 164, 266, 
 V. Hamilton Iron Forging Co. . . 
 
 Magee, Edgar v. 
 V. Cilmour 
 
 11,35.-11.33, 1146, 
 11.53, 11.5.5, 
 . . 520, 
 . . 373 
 
 -- .. 892,2066.-2067, 
 
 Magnan v. Dugas, Montcalr.i l';iectif)n 
 (Dom.) .. 27,1467,1,525,200,3.- 
 
 Magog Textile and Print Co. v. Price . . 
 
 -, Martin v. 
 -, McKay v. 
 • V. Usliorne 
 
 1802 
 1247 
 
 166 
 
 11.50, 
 
 11,58 
 
 1892 
 
 825 
 2214 
 
 1,524 
 
 248 
 
 Mag-Mar] • column. 
 
 Magog Textile and Piint Co. v. Dobell . . 24« 
 
 Magrath, Taylor v. . . 1258, 1846, 2077, 2079.- 
 
 1562, 1938, 2069, 2079, 2O80 
 
 Maguire, Beavis V. .. .. . 801.— 815 
 
 , Davidson v 812 
 
 , Hoggv 682,2161.-2156 
 
 Magurn v. Magurn, 556, 757, 829, 887, 1090, 
 
 1958.— 891 
 
 467, 669, 2106.— 2105 
 
 400, 1625, 1675. -404, 
 
 1592, 1594 
 
 Mahouey v. Macdonell . . . . 643, 1402 
 Mail Printing Co. v. Devlin, 324, 584.-1547, 
 
 1697 
 Maitland v. Glo'ie Printing Co. . . 512, 628 
 
 , In re, Gunther v. Cook . . . . 320 
 
 Major, Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. v. . . 1816 
 Makius v. Robinson 
 
 MahaflFy, Hawkins v. 
 Mahon v. Nicholls . 
 
 Malcolm, Bain v. 
 
 V. Hunter 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 , With row V. 
 
 Malcolmson v. Hamilton 
 Loan Society 
 
 Mallon V. Craig 
 Mallory, Dalziel v. 
 
 , Dewar v. 
 
 Malloy, Murray v. 
 Malone v. Malone 
 , Ross V. 
 
 S) 
 
 1167, 2092 
 739, 789 
 .. 674,2106.-2110 
 
 1099 
 
 1258, 1553, 22,32 
 Provident and 
 
 1407 
 
 ■ and Wade, Solicitors Re, 19,52.-1947 
 
 779, 1535, 1536, 1540.-788 
 
 82.— 6J, 83 
 
 . . 1268.-755 
 
 2222 
 
 376, 569, 570, 1599 
 
 . . 694 
 
 Malott V. Township of Mersea . . 919, 2114 
 Malsburg, Sanders V. 822, 1982, 2088,2091.- 
 
 672, 871 
 Maltby, Nelles V. .. 102,103,105.-104 
 
 , Nixon V. . . . . . . . . 1 150 
 
 Mandia v. McMahon 476 
 
 Manhard k Co., Tennant & Co. v. . . 092 
 
 Manion, Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. v. 577, 1593 
 Manitoba Mortgage Co. v. Bank of Mon- 
 treal 1,37,224,1543.-602,1541 
 Mann, Aitcheson, v. 303, 365, 1.558, 1589, 22.38 
 Manning, Nasmith v. . . 243, 251.-1686 
 
 .Rogers v. .. .. 620.-635 
 
 Mans, Gowanlock v. 424, 1154, 224'., 2048 
 
 Manson *'. Manson .. .. 1897.-188,3,1885 
 Manufacturers' Insurance Co., Bunbury v. 
 
 1649, 1S22, 2044, 2232.-2041, 2C42 
 
 Mara, Re 664, 1275, 1287 
 
 V. Cox . . . . 202, 473.— 1407 
 
 , Metropolitan Loan and Saving? 
 
 Co. V 685. -881 
 
 Marcheterre, Ontario and Quebec R. W. 
 
 Co. V 1997, 2000.-1995 
 
 Mariposa, Township of. In re Oakwood 
 
 High Soiiool Board and, 1733, 22,38.-1725 
 Maritime Bank v. Stewart 116, 301, 757, 916 
 
 Markle v. IJoss 1316, 1666 
 
 Marks, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. 
 
 1540.-1415 
 
 , McLaren v 857, 1600, 1657 
 
 V. Town of Windsor . . . . 2051 
 
 Marquis, Daujou v. 25, 314, 089, 1231, 2234, 
 
 2236.— 1!»95 
 Marrin v. Graver ., .. .. ..1155 
 
 Marsli v. Hunt 651 
 
 v. Huron College 209, 270, .353, 416, 
 
 604, 1413, 22,38 
 
 Marshall, Dobson v 1670.-1644 
 
 ■ V. McRae 1240, 22,33 
 
 v. Municipality of Shelburne . . 199, 
 
 483, 675, 1710.-663 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 !▼ 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 ell .. 248 
 
 )77, 2079— js 
 
 , 2079, 2O80 
 
 801.-815 
 
 .. 812 
 
 2161.— 215« 
 
 , 887, 1090, 
 
 1958.-891 
 
 2100.— 2105 
 
 1075. -404, 
 
 1592, \m 
 
 64:i, 1402 
 
 584.— 1547, 
 
 1697 
 
 512, 628 
 
 . . 320 
 
 V. .. 1816 
 
 1167, 2092 
 
 739, 789 
 
 2106.— 2110 
 
 .. 1099 
 
 I, 1553, 2232 
 
 it and 
 
 .. 1407 
 
 19.V2— 1947 
 
 , 1540.— 788 
 
 82.— 6E, 83 
 
 1268.— 755 
 
 2222 
 
 i9, 570, 1599 
 
 . . 694 
 
 919, 2111 
 
 088, 2091.- 
 
 672, 871 
 
 i, 105.— 104 
 
 .. 1150 
 
 .. 47(1 
 
 . . 692 
 
 V. 577, 1593 
 
 Moii- 
 
 602, 1541 
 , 1589, 22.38 
 251.-1686 
 620.-635 
 , 2241, 2048 
 -1883, 1885 
 ury V. 
 -2041, 2C42 
 1275, 1287 
 473.— 1407 
 iviiigp 
 685. -881 
 VV. 
 2000.— ! 095 
 
 HWOOll 
 
 2238.-1725 
 
 1)1,757,916 
 
 1316, 1666 
 
 ■CO V. 
 
 540.-1415 
 
 1000, 1657 
 
 .. 20.)1 
 
 1231, 22:14, 
 
 2236.— 199.5 
 
 .. 1155 
 
 .. 651 
 
 353, 416, 
 
 1413, 22.36 
 
 1670.-1644 
 
 1240, 22.33 
 
 |ne .. 199, 
 
 1710.-663 
 
 Mar Mea] column. 
 
 Marshall. I'ayne v 8.S6 
 
 , Regina v 1368, 2231 
 
 Martens v. Biriiey 1067, 1075 
 
 Mdrter and Court of Revision of the Town 
 
 of Graveuhurst, In re, 70, 416, 1227.-1431 
 Marthinsoii V. Patterson .. .. — 761,808 
 
 Martin v. Bearnian 195, 225 
 
 , Campbell V .321,1669 
 
 , qui tarn v. Consolidated Bank 360, 1571 
 
 and English, In re, , . . . 129.— 60b 
 
 V. iCvaus 105, 1075 
 
 . , Hood V. 
 
 — V. Laflferty . . 
 
 , In re Langman and, 
 
 — ■ Lowden v. 
 
 38. 
 175, 
 
 1071 
 
 1644 
 
 2249 
 
 1070, 1562 
 
 V. Magee 520, 1892 
 
 V. McAlpine 828 
 
 V. McMidlen .. .. 843.— 107 
 
 - V. MiU-b . . \\r,3, 1.30.3, 1,306, 2092 
 
 , Morris V. .. 192,571.-179,811 
 
 , Ktgiiia V 1108.— 1.372 
 
 Martindale v. Clarkson . . 5.58, 1320, 1981 
 Murtley v, ('arson . . . . . . . . 2O0."> 
 
 Marx, Runiolir v. 234, 380, 695, 1296, 1017. - 
 
 1622 
 
 Mason V. Bertram 
 
 V. Macdonald 
 
 v. Mason 
 
 , Mc Master v. 
 
 Mea-Mer] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Masse 
 
 Massey v. Crookshanka- 
 
 12, 1246, 1247, 1396 
 
 122,762.-1143 
 
 519,2216 
 
 632, 1595. -.579, 1606 
 
 V. Mouth Norfolk R. \V. Co. 1751, 1757 
 
 , Ro Whitaker and, 1226, 1231, 1378 
 
 V. Masse 1652, 2044 
 
 -Re Jackson, 732, 907. 
 —904, 906, 
 Massey Manufaoturing Co., Re 259, 260, 1231 
 
 . -, Bertram & Co. v. 380, 
 
 1865. 2236.-363, 
 
 .364, 1861, 1870 
 
 Massie, Hamilton v. 53, 215, 298, 445.-454, 
 
 1711, 2036 
 
 V. Toronto Printing Co. 89, 500, 516, 
 
 1146.— 1.320, 1.398, 1400 
 Masson. Ockley v. 613, 1685, 18.J3.— 326, 666 
 
 , Sylvester v. . . . . 1551 
 
 Masters v. Threlkeld 424 
 
 Masiiret v. I.ansdull . . 374, 1024 
 
 iM.ithers, Allen V 1671,2042 
 
 Mallieson, Regina V. .. 8.32,1099.-1.373 
 
 Matthew, Halifax Banking Co. V. .. 811 
 
 Matthews v. Hamilton Powder Co. . . 1245 
 
 Maughan V. Casci .. .. 119.3. 2122.— 494 
 Maw V. Town.shij)s of King and Albion 2144. — 
 
 1391 , 2142 
 Maxwell, Parker v. . . 469. —472 
 
 V. Searfe 708, 2022, 2235, 2243 
 
 May V. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co. 
 
 1243, 1783, 1801, 2233, 2234, 2241 
 
 V. Reid 452, 4.56, 646, 1528 
 
 V. Security Loan and Savings Co. . . 183, 
 
 188, 192, 2236 
 
 V. Standar.l Fire Ins. Co. 692, 943, 944. — 
 
 947, 956 
 Maybee, Reid V. 1103, 1217.— 1222, 1398,2036 
 Mayer V. (irand Trunk R. \V. Co. .. 1793 
 
 Maya v. Carroll . . 2164, 2169, 2242 
 
 "M. C. Upper," The, In re— McCallum 
 
 v. Odette 1931. 1.391 
 
 Mead v. Creary, Re, 542 [his) 
 
 v. Township of Etobicoke 1601, 1816 
 
 2140 
 
 Meaile v. O'Keofo —925, 1093 
 
 Meadows, Norris v. . . . . . . . . 1890 
 
 Meaford, Council of, People's Milling Co. 
 
 and 1339, 1362 
 
 , Town of, V. Lang 1704.— 1333 
 
 Meagher, Power v. . . . . . . . . 2069 
 
 Mealey v. Aitkina . . . . 2226 
 
 Mearna v. Town of Petrolia917, 1327,2021.-928, 
 
 13.32 
 Meohiam v. Home . . . . — 1046 
 
 Medley, l-eightonv. .. 1139,2092.-1152 
 
 Medora, Re Knight v. . . 536, 542, 21.36 
 
 Medora and Wood, United Townghijja of. 
 
 In re Knight V. 216,2135.-552 
 
 Meek, Cana van V. .. ., ., 1889 
 
 Meek, Dunbar v. . . 644, 771, 1602 
 
 V. Scobell 640, 547 
 
 Megantic Election (Dom. )— Cot6 v. Goulet 646, 
 
 1467, 1516.— 1472, 
 1506 
 
 Frechette v. 
 
 Uoulet, 673, 1509, 
 1517.-1506 
 
 Meir v. Wilson 737, 2010 
 
 Melbourne v. City of Toronto, .388, 2237.-1546 
 Mt5lina Trepauier, In re, 218, 454, 846, 849, 
 
 850.— 1991, 2002 
 
 Mellish, Moore v 2201.— 2196 
 
 Melville, In re 492, 1823, 2157, 2237, 2240, 
 
 2241.-2168, 2233 {bis) 
 
 Menary, Regina v. 1057, 1058.— 1056, 1059 (bii) 
 
 Mendelssohn Piano Co. v. Graham 1538. — 649, 
 
 1818 
 Mennie v. Leitoh . . 476, 1008.— 336, 425 
 Menzies v. Ogilvie .. .. 90,1320.-8,429 
 
 Mercantile Ins. Co., Compton v. 936, 952 
 
 , Greet v. .. ..963 
 
 Mercer, AttorneyGeueral of Ontario v. 307, 
 
 313, 586, 2237 
 Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Bell 161, 875. — 
 
 590 
 
 V. Brooker 398, 819.— 401, 2041 
 
 V.Campbell .. .. 1917 
 
 V. Croquet .. .. 1710 
 
 V. Graham 683, 1685, 1921, 1922, 
 
 1923.— 1928 
 
 V. Hancock .. 265.— 
 
 269 
 
 V. Herson, . . . . . . 1020 
 
 -v. Keefer 2181 
 
 V. Lucas 31, 176, 414, 599, 763 
 
 V. McKay . . 140, 763, 
 
 788, 1704.-844, 1706 
 
 , Moffatt V. 774.-596,782, 788, 
 
 845 
 
 V. Monteith 17, 300, 600, 709, 
 
 720,730,736,738,788, 
 1089.-904,906, 1901 
 
 , Re Monteith, .33, 
 
 144, 452,680, 731, 
 735, 1659, 1944, 
 2231,2234,2243.— 
 327, 735 
 , Ex paite. Stan- 
 dard Life Assce. Co. 972, 
 10(H, 1563, 1662, 2242.-717 
 
 , Pawsonv. 617,641, 1652,2044, 
 
 2048 
 
 V. Pieraon 637, 638, 1676, 2038. 
 
 —619, 641 
 
 , Radford v. . . 1088, 2097 
 
 V. Robinson 169, 1627, 22;i5 
 
 —V.Smith .. 142,303.-26 
 
 , Smith V, . . 304, 2240.-297 
 
Mer-Mid] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Merchants' Bank v. Sparkcs 234, 1316, HIO.— 
 
 376 
 
 . , Steinhoffv. .. 160,1388 
 
 , V. Thompson 779, 1535, 153«, 
 
 1540-788, 1545 
 
 V. Van Allen, In re, 549,551.— 
 
 1673 
 Merchants' Bank of Hiilifax v. Gillespie 283. - 
 
 282, 304 
 
 V. McNutt . . 163 
 
 Merchants Despatch and Transportation 
 
 Co. , Hately 
 
 .•, I ■ ■ • Vi V. 28,214,305, 
 
 . >,. • 355,361,407,857, 
 
 , / . 1408, 1413, 160.3, 
 
 1798.-319,1796, 
 
 1925 
 
 , Monteith v. 
 
 214, 1258, 1397, 1688, 1928 
 Merchants' and Manufacturers' Ins. Co., 
 
 Hill V 977, 1821.-1633 
 
 Merchants' Marine Ins. Co., Allen v. 991.— 968 
 
 V. Barss 980, 988, 
 
 1689 
 
 , O'Connor v. 989, 
 
 2240.— 983 
 
 V. Rumsey 982.— 980 
 
 , Troop V. . . 988 
 
 Mcriden 15ritannia Co., Lash v. .32, 1239 
 
 Meriden Silver Plating Co., v. Lee 828, 829 
 -, Scgsworth V. 193, 
 
 Meredith, Jarman v. 
 (Ont.) 
 
 196, 362, 805, 1025, 2092 
 — London Election 
 1448, 1463, 1468, 1480, 
 1487.— 1464 
 
 V. Williams . . 886, 887.-331 
 
 Morner, Beam v. 652, 1556.-1093, 1558, 15,59 
 
 , H„.„er V 683, 841 
 
 Mero, lioljcrtson v. . . . . . . . . 1644 
 
 Merrill, Keefer v . . . . 752 
 
 Merritt, Linidon and Canadian Loan and 
 
 Agency Co. v. . . . . . . 700 
 
 V. Niles 800 
 
 V. Wilson — I'^ast Elgin Election 
 
 (Horn.) 1176 
 
 Mersea, Township of, Mallott v. . . 91 !t, 21 14 
 Mersea, Township of, He Township of 
 
 Romnoy v 1342, l.'i.VJ 
 
 Metcalfe, Re,. . <K)1, 903, 102!), lO.'fO, 201.") 
 
 , Inipciiiil Bunk of Canada v. 208, ")91, 
 
 613, 1270, 127.-1, 1972, 2084.-403,649, 
 l(kS3, 1885, 18514, 1967, 20(i() 
 
 Methmlist Church, Smith v 2223 
 
 Metropolitan Building Society, Real Estate 
 
 Investment Co. v. 2ii4, 772, 1258, 1290, 
 
 1201, 1414, 1961.— 277, 424, 484 
 Metropolitan Loan and Savings Co. v. Mura 
 
 (iS.J.— 881 
 
 Meyer V. Bill 1904 
 
 , Reginav. 44,-). 4.-)0, 88.5, 1101, 2241.-27 
 
 Meyers V. Hamilton I'rovident and Loan 
 
 Co 2178.-2225 (Ws) 
 
 V. Kendrick 684, 685 
 
 Michael's Bay Lumber Co. (Limited) (iib- 
 
 bon V. 
 Michigan Central R. W. 
 
 Mickle, Re Idington v. 
 
 , Lnngmaiil v. 
 
 Middagh, ('onnor v. 
 — — , lldl V. . . 
 Middleniiss, Emmeus v. 
 
 n»29, 2023, 22.34 
 Co., Doan V. 1394, 
 1616, 22.38.— 13!," 
 
 1935 
 
 .. 470, 2241.- 4t)5 
 
 .. 2031,2129,2147 
 
 .. 2031,21.39 
 
 638 
 
 Mid-Mil] COLUMN. 
 
 Middlesex, County of, Township of North 
 
 Dorchester and, 2139, 
 2232 
 
 , V. Smallman 1701, 1827 
 
 Middleton, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. 92, 
 
 1023 
 
 , Grant v 2041 
 
 Midland R. W. Co., Attorney -General v. 362, 
 
 1183, 1616, 1622, 1755.- 
 
 1188, 1615, 1620, 1747 
 
 , Darling v. . . . . 1744 
 
 , Demorestv. 321,701,1231, 
 
 1232, 1233, 1566, 1614, 
 1759,2014.-12.32,1817 
 
 , Ellis V. 32, 275, 3.36, 
 
 1237 (bin), 1928.— 34, 
 326, 1236 
 
 ; Gibson v. 149, 1395, 1771.- 
 
 1785 
 
 , Grand Junction R.W. 
 
 Co. V. 2.38, 484, 762, 
 1257, 1754.-1630 
 
 , Levoy v. . . 1775 
 
 V. Ontario Rolling 
 
 Mills Co. 1868.-1870 
 Town of I'eterbor- 
 
 . . 1615, 1972, 
 
 1977, 22.38 
 
 . . 628 
 
 81, 8.3. 1179, 
 
 181.5.— 7ft 
 
 1748, 2230.- 
 
 1180, 1185, 1762 
 
 .. 1128,1.309 
 
 1.303, 1.306,2092 
 
 374, 1501, 1651 
 
 ough V. 
 
 Ramsay v. 
 Smith V. 
 
 Voung 
 
 1133, 
 
 Miles V. Cameron 
 , Martin v. 
 
 V. Roe . . 
 
 , Lennox Election (Ont.) 1453, 1473, 
 
 1490 
 
 Mill V. Mill 906.-2098 
 
 Millar v. Cline. .Re Millar . . 19.59. — 1945 
 
 , rainier v 1692 
 
 Miller v. Brown 409, 12(J0, 1294, 1824, 1829, 
 
 223.5.-1191 
 
 V. Confederation Life Association 16, 
 
 1000, 1400, 1671, 2050.— 1399, 1404, 
 
 1648 
 
 , Confederation Life Association v. 
 
 16, 1671.— 1648 
 
 v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. 1815, 21 15 
 
 V. Handin 112,1190.-598,1183 
 
 V. Harvey 123 
 
 , In re .Jenkins v. . . 541 
 
 , Laidlaw Manufacturing Co. v. . . 16.5!) 
 
 V. Reid .. .. 1244. — 1.391 
 
 , Spears v 587, 2234 
 
 V. S[iencer . . . . . . . . 2085 
 
 , Starratt v. — Muakoka Election 
 
 (Out.) 
 
 v. Stephenson 
 
 V. White 
 
 Millette v. Litle 
 
 V. Sabourin . 
 
 Millican v. Headon . 
 Milligan, Frye v. 
 V. Mils 
 
 Millions, Snuth v. 
 .Milhiy v. Kerr 
 
 and the 
 
 Mills, Baker v. 
 v. Kerr 
 
 V. Mills 
 
 1460, 147!).- 14.59, 1478 
 
 ., 2052.-1869, 2002 
 
 .. 6(i8.— 1547 
 
 63J, 88(i. -51(i 
 
 420, 1420 
 
 7S0 
 
 787, 860, 2()!I4.- 1861 
 
 1592, 15!)4, 16.56. — 16.59 
 
 486, 487, 1SS4 
 
 142.-12(i 
 
 rownship of Onondaga, He, 5.32, 
 901, 134.3, 1344, 1.347.- 1.306 
 
 2034, 2188 
 
 796. — 106, 6.52 
 621 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Ivii 
 
 MU-Mon] ooLiMN. 
 
 Millville Mutual Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Drisc.ll 623, !)S8. -(i'2->, !lii7 
 
 Milne, McKwan v. . . (»74, 7()8 
 
 Minister of Agriculture, lu re Bell Tele- 
 phone Co. and theTolephoiio M;inufae- 
 turing Ui). anil, . .. 306, looT. — 1715 
 
 Minister of EJuoation and Melntyre v. 
 I'uWie iSoiiool Trustees of .Section 8 in 
 tlie ToMiiahip of Blancliard, In re, l"230, 
 
 1730 
 
 Minkler v. .McMillan 628 
 
 Minter, Swift v 911, 1312 
 
 Mwcner v. Township of Wainfleet, Re, 13")1 
 Mississippi and IJoiniuion Steanisiiip Co. 
 
 (Limitedi, Perkins v. 164,5, l!t23. — I79S, 
 
 HI24 
 
 Mitchell, Bryan v o8(), 2044 
 
 V. Cameron . . . . 852 
 
 , West Huron Election 
 
 (Doni.), 1417, l.")U4, I5I7. -I.')01) 
 
 _ V. City of London Fire Ins. Co. 
 
 (Limited) 209, 788, 949, 9(m, 970, 
 98"), 2232.— .340, 951, 1599 
 
 . V. Coflfee 529 
 
 , Cotton V 1202,1539 
 
 V. Davidson, IJegina e.\ rel., 1328. — 
 
 1.330 
 
 224 
 
 15.39 
 
 2.35, 1201). -.-)!H), 120,-) 
 
 . . 15i;."). — 1509 
 
 528, 20.35.— 530, 1144 
 
 723 
 
 .. 611. -516 
 .. (i86.— ()S8 
 
 — V. (loodall 
 
 — V. Goiinley 
 
 — V. Holland. 
 — , Kane v. . 
 
 — V. McDuffy 
 
 — V. Mitchell 
 — , Moore v. 
 
 , Ontario Bank v. 
 
 -, Scott V. 
 
 - V. iStrathy 
 
 - V. iSykes 
 
 - V. X'anihisen, 
 
 Walnisley v. 
 
 3, 4, 19,22.33 
 
 1086, 1679.— (183, lU8(i, 
 
 1320 
 
 95, 745 
 
 .377 
 
 377, I90(i, 20.V) 
 Moherly v. Brooks' . . . . 044, 770. -2086 
 
 Moff.itt V. Board of I'^ducation of Carletou 
 
 Place 1725 
 
 , Hurland v Ill 
 
 , Dawson v. 705, 8u8, 1570, I960.— 871, 
 
 1914 
 
 V. Merchants' Bank of Canada 774.— 
 
 59(i, 782, 78S, 84;") 
 
 V. Reliance Mutual Lile Assurance 
 
 Co. 936, 094 
 
 V. Scratch . . 60, 4(;5, 4(i8, 520, 2()l(t 
 
 , a Solicitor, Re, , . . . 19.")0 
 
 Moir, SovertiL;n Fire Ins. Co. v. . . 902 
 
 Molsiin, IJainard V 93, I5ii9 
 
 — — V. LhujIjo .. . 312,1715.-10.-11 
 
 Molsons liank v. Town of Brockville 1331, 1(;95. 
 
 -1.379 
 
 V. Dillahaugh 845, 1068, 1083, 
 
 1672 
 
 — — , (Jrieve v. 1.32, 140."). - 1.37, 1403 
 
 V. Halt.r790, 803, 22.39. - 791, 824 
 
 , Liiinai.s v. 21 , 0,")0, 717, 2008.-177 
 
 — V. Mc.Meekin, Kx parte 
 
 Sloan .. 515.— 693 
 
 , Thoni|.aon V. 14.").-.32(), ITiOO 
 
 ■ V. Tuiley 780.- 177, 84.-), I7i 6 
 
 Monaghan v. Horn.. In ro The (iarL.nd 1231, 
 
 1.394 
 Monck Election (Oi\t.)— Colliarv. McCalhini 
 
 1425, 1468, N9(i, loOS 
 1519. -1518 
 h 
 
 Mon-Moo] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Monck Election (Doni.)—(irant v. MoCal- 
 
 luni 1440 (W.s), 1443, 1444 
 
 Monette V. Lefebvre 19!M) 
 
 .Monk V. Benjamin .. .. 391, 1.308. — 1.30."> 
 
 , Lyon V. — Carleton Election (Ont. ). 151.5 
 
 Monkhouse v. Grand Trunk K. W. (,'o. 
 
 1781.-1744 
 i jntague and the Township of Aldhor- 
 
 ough, Re, 51, .384 
 
 , Walsh V. — Haldimand Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1441.1445,1440,1447, 
 
 1456, 1492, l."iOS, 1514, 223.").— 1526 
 Montcalm Election (l)oni.)— Magnan v. 
 
 Dugas 27, 1467, 152.), 2003.- 1. ■)24 
 
 Monteith, Diekson v. 710, 854, 857, 1228, 22.30. 
 
 —85.3 
 
 , Merchants' Bank V. 17, 300, (iOO, 
 
 . 709, 720. 7.30, 7.36, 
 
 738, 788. 1089 -- 
 904, IMtli, 1901 
 
 — — Ex j);irte 
 
 Standard Life 
 Insurance (^o. 972, 
 1004, lotiS, 1662, 
 2242.-717 
 
 , lie, Merchants' Bank v. Monteith 
 
 33, 144, 452, 680,731, 7.35, 10.")», 
 1944, 2231, 22.34, 2243.-327, 735 
 V. Merchants' Des|)atch and Trans- 
 portation Co. 214, 12.-)8, 1397, 1928. 
 
 1688 
 
 , Ilogina V. 1029, 1033, 1985, 2015.— 
 
 1029 
 
 V. W.a]8h . . 376, 721, l!)10.-7.32 
 
 Montgomery, Parr v. 097, 1276, 1287, 129().— 
 804, 1300, 1305, 2083 
 Montmagny Election (Uoin. ) — Chuquctte v. 
 
 Laberge . . . . . . . . 1508 
 
 Montmorency I'^lectiun (Dom.) — Valiii v. 
 
 Langh>is.. 852, 1504, l.W, 1513 
 
 Montreal, City of. Bain v. . . 84, 1201.— 06 
 
 , Eccli'.siasti(iucs lie .St. .Sid- 
 
 pioc de ^loutreal v. 08, 84, 
 2242 
 
 V. Hall 478, 517, 1225.-27, 1204 
 
 V. Lahelle . . . . 139,"), 2142 
 
 , Longiieuil Navigation 
 
 Co. v.. 317, 747.-303, 315, 
 1305 
 
 , Wylie V (i? 
 
 Montreal City and Distiiet Savings Bank v. 
 
 County ot Perth 479, 162(1. -;i,3-',l.-)i;3, 1023 
 Montreal Loan acid Mortgage Co. v. Fanteux 698 
 i Montreal, Ottawa and Western 11. W. Co., 
 
 I County of Ottawa v 425,1810 
 
 Montreal Street R. W. Co. v. Ritchie 279, 921, 
 
 1225 
 Moody, .Johnson v. . . . . . . 91 
 
 Miioers V. (iooderliain &: Worts (Liniiteil). 12r>0, 
 
 1864, 2094, 2097. — 1863, 209.") 
 
 Moon, Halleran v. 330, 082, 1975, 2I.kS. -32(), 
 
 1906, 1975 
 Mooney V. Mcintosh .. .. 1192.-200 
 
 V. .Smith 77.-82 
 
 Moore, Re, . . — , . . . , 1274 
 v. Arnu)Hr, Re Armour, .. .. 728 
 
 V. lliiyd 627.— ().35 
 
 V. Buckner .. 37.5,1672,51.-52,006 
 
 V. Central Ont. 1!. W. Co. 176.3.-1766 
 
 V. Citi/.i iia' Fire Ins. tJo. . . 9.M, 960 
 
 V. ConneotiiiU Mutual l.ifelns. Co. 
 
 of Haitford 2.-), 1412.— 1028, 2007 
 
Moo-Mor] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 ooLUMN. I Mor-Mur] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 , Foster V. 
 , Hairia v. 
 , Hughes V. . 
 
 V. Jaukidon 
 
 V. Kay 
 
 V. Mellish 
 
 V. .Mitfliell . 
 
 V. Mimro 
 , McC-'anlle v. 
 
 V. Mc( Jowaii . . West 
 Eltftion (Out.) .. 
 
 Moore, Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. 
 t , of Hartford v. 1 4()6 (6m), 1 7 1 3, 2002. - 
 
 >! 1411 
 
 1210 
 
 . . O.J4 
 
 m, 18.')7.-.33tt, 1978 
 
 87'>, 870 
 
 .. 1132 
 
 .. 2201.— 2190 
 
 .. .Jll.- i">IO 
 
 .")(i9, 890 
 
 735, 737.-370, 718 
 
 Wellington 
 
 .. 1483,1510 
 
 , .McLaugiilin v. . . 020, 027, 803 
 
 V. Ontario Investment Association 280, 
 
 787 
 
 V. V\'allaco, Re 6, 544 
 
 Moorclioiise v. Hostwick . . . . 104, 100 
 
 . and Leak, lie, 1 172, 1173, 16.->G, 204(! 
 
 Moran, Re i'oley v. . . . . 551, 1084 
 
 , Tayicrv 985 
 
 Monlen, l-oster v. . . 195, 637, 1604, 1819 
 
 , Re Young v 381,5.37 
 
 Morgan v. Ault 1025 
 
 . . JJakcr v.— Russell Election (2) 
 
 (Out.) .. .. 1442,1440,1519 
 
 . , Cot.iv 1714.-25,1.378 
 
 ■ , V. Morgan . . . . 570 
 
 Morgan Knvclope Co. v. lioustea'l . . 1871 
 
 Morice an.l Risi.ri.lger, Re, .. .ISO.— 591 
 
 Morin,Hol)soii v — Welland Election (Ont.) 
 
 1455, 1400, 1497, 1521, 22.39, 224! 
 
 • V. Tlie Queen . . 448 
 
 Morpliy, London and Canadian Loan and 
 
 Agency Co. v. 093, 701, 1021, 1540, 2042.- 
 
 1547, 2041 
 
 -, Re. Morphy v. Niven 731, 1820. - 
 
 728 
 
 V. Xiven, Re Morphy, 731, 1820.— 728 
 
 V.Wilson 819.— 1630 
 
 Morris, Connecticut and Passumpsic Riv- 
 ers R. W. Co. V. . . 693, 1985.-260 
 
 , V. Martin . . . .192, 571.-179, 811 
 
 , 'J'ondinson v 2093, 2095 
 
 Morrisbr.i'gli, Re Board of Education of tlie 
 Village of, and the Township of Win- 
 chester .. .. 1731,1732,1733.-1725 
 
 , Village of Ro Farlinger and 
 
 I0.35, 1.337.— 1349, 1983 
 
 Morton V. Grand Trunk B. W. Co. 1742, 1822, 
 
 2041 
 V. Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 
 Society .. .. 370, 1318. -13l(i 
 
 , Kinlouhv. 691,1074.-705 
 
 and Lot No. on Plan No. 580 in 
 
 the County of York, Re, 75, 79, 
 1410, 1890, 2088 
 
 V. Nihan .. .. 682.-125,076 
 
 and the (Uty of St. Thomas, In re, 482, 
 
 1340, 1828, 2118 
 Moser V. Snarr . . 703 [bin) 1400. -671 
 
 Moses V. Moses .. .. .. 539. — 374 
 
 .Mosgrove, Slater V. 1208 
 
 Moss, Re Bushell V 547.-53? 
 
 , Eureka Woollen Mills Co. v. 27, 2002 
 
 , .Jennings v. . . . . . . . . 105 
 
 Mott V. Rank of Nova Scotia . . . . 284 
 
 , Kielding v. . . . . . . . . 12,"i6 
 
 , Stuart V. . . . . 1255, 1537 
 
 Moulton, Trout V ..155 
 
 Moulton and Canborough, In re Townships 
 
 of, and County of Haldiniaiid 445, !K).1, 
 1230, 1232,2135.-1220, 1227 
 
 Mowatv. McFeo 3(t;), 7.">0 
 
 Moxley V. C.mada Atlantic R. W. Co. 040.— 
 
 Canada Atlantic R. W. 
 
 Moyer, King v. 
 Moynihan, Xlelntosh v 
 iludie, Harris v. 
 Muir V. ('alter 
 
 , Portcous V. 
 
 Muirhoadv. Shirreff, .478, 845, 1060, 1918, 1941 
 Mulholland, In re English v. . . . 530 
 
 042, (i77, 07!» 
 Co. V. 010, 02'J, 
 607, 1788, 2:;39 
 .. 1954.-1935 
 .—1876, 1906 
 . 1185, 11<J5 
 676, 1092, 19<Mi 
 173, 660 
 
 Harnian 
 
 — , Pearson v. 
 
 Mulkius v. Clarke 
 MuUett, Uutwater v. 
 Mulligan, I'rootorv. 
 MuUiii V. I'aso 
 Mulock V. Cawtlira . 
 , I'aterson V. — 
 
 570,004.-598, 1153, 
 11.58 
 79,489,494, 2241.- 
 1185, 1193 
 
 Morrit^on, Abell v. . . 
 
 , Cochrane v. 
 
 v. I'.arls 
 
 Edwards v. 
 Hooker v. . 
 v. Morrison, 
 Swi'etman v. 
 V. Taylor . . 
 ay v. . . 
 
 1200. 
 
 Wr 
 
 Morrow v. Clieyne 
 
 v. Connor 
 
 , (I lies v. 
 
 ■ v. Jenkins . . 
 
 , Mo( 'leary v. 
 
 Morse, Re, 21, .")91, 645, 871, 1737 
 
 . (2) 
 
 , Cutler v. 
 
 Morton, Rarber 
 
 and IJIock's Claims— R 
 Rank, 
 
 12.)9, 18,30, 1989 
 .399, 639, '021 
 172,773, 1540—241,! 
 :547, 1009 
 802.-1294, 12961 
 -1191, 1199 (^/V) I 
 . . 2166, 2218, 2233 I 
 
 1023 
 
 1073, 1652, 1917, 1918 
 209, 924, 11.59' 
 .. 1219, 1000 i 
 1.378, 1598, 2I)4H, 2080 
 ")67, 568, 589, 014, 1005 
 
 2194 
 
 .. 1670 
 1738. -.JOl, 
 
 .")02, 010: 
 
 .. 1738 
 
 . . 301 
 
 . —170, 170() 
 
 ("entral I 
 
 135, 1387.-155 
 
 tiou (Do?n.) 
 Mundell V. Tinkis 
 Munn V. Rerger 
 Munro, Hrice v. 
 
 , Wiv-ksteed v. 
 
 Munroe, Cascadden v. 
 
 tion (Out.) 
 Munsie, In re. 
 
 .. 1500, 1898, 1962 
 
 . . 384, 2042 
 
 1881.— .341, 1896, 1974 
 
 892, 1023 
 
 1.569 
 
 Re North York Elec- 
 
 .. .380, 1504.— 1.509 
 495, 773, 1267.-823 
 
 1851 
 
 13,261,1618 
 
 1003 
 
 —West Elgin Elec- 
 
 .. 1510, 1.52ii. — 1445 
 
 720, 728, 7.W, l(i.53, 1655, 
 
 I6i)2, 2218, 22.30. -Iii61, 10.13, 1004, 1673 
 
 V. Lindsay 593, 0.s3, 899, 1007, 1003, 
 
 1163, 2J20, 2097, 2198, 2212, 2218, 2220.- 
 
 1146, 1202, 22;).5, 2218 
 
 Murcar V. Bolton .. .. 1529,1715 
 
 Murchison v. Canada Farmers' Ins. Co. 102.5, 
 
 2021 
 
 — V. Murchison . . . . . . 1 187 
 
 Murdoch, In re, . . . . . . . . 909 
 
 , Burritt v. . . . . 1067. -1068 
 
 Murphy v. Cliniie .502, 1052 
 
 and Cornish, In re,, . 110.3, 1714, 1908 
 
 V. l>alton 749 
 
 V. (irand Trunk R. W. Co. . . 1773 
 
 , International Wrecking Co. v. 278. —10 
 
 1599 
 
 , Kingston and Pembroke R. W. 
 
 Co. V 1756, 1758.-1745 
 
 Muskoka Mil 
 
Man 
 
 118. -131(J 
 074.— 705 
 iUiii 
 
 75, 79, 
 
 I8<.)1), 2088 
 
 -12-), (i76 
 
 i re, 482, 
 
 1828,2118 
 
 1400. -071 
 
 539.— ;{74 
 
 .. 1208 
 
 547.-537 
 
 27, 20U2 
 
 . . 105 
 
 . . 284 
 
 . 12.^.6 
 
 1255, 1537 
 
 . . 15,-) 
 
 ships 
 
 445, <m, 
 
 1220, 1227 
 
 3(i;), 7.">() 
 
 ). f>40. - 
 
 2, 077, <i7it 
 
 , tilO, 02!), 
 
 1788, 2'J:W 
 
 !)54. -193.") 
 
 -1870, 1906 
 
 1185, 1195 
 
 1092, 1996 
 
 173, 060 
 
 1918, 1941 
 
 . . 536 
 
 598, 1153, 
 
 1158 
 
 94, 2241.- 
 
 1185, 1195 
 
 1898, 1962 
 
 384, 2042 
 
 1890, 1974 
 
 892, 1023 
 
 .. 1569 
 
 Eleo- 
 
 504. -im 
 207.— 823 
 .. 1854 
 201, 1618 
 
 Iti.Vl, 1055, 
 lii(i4, 1673 
 1007, 1008, 
 8, 2220.- 
 22)5, 2218 
 1529, 1715 
 
 |t;(.. i(i25, 
 
 2021 
 .. 1187 
 .. 909 
 007. -1068 
 r.02, 1052 
 1714, 1908 
 .. 749 
 .. 1773 
 . 278.-10 
 1599 
 . W. 
 1758.— 1745 
 
 ]iCur-Nap] 
 
 Murnhv v. City of Ottawa 341, 1243, 1379. -1244 
 
 1-, Patterson V 1065,1652 
 
 , Kegina v 8.33, 1985 
 
 Keul V. 1020 
 
 Murray, Re 907, 1737 
 
 , liucke V 1650 
 
 V. Civiuvda Central R. W. Co. 31, 1400. 
 
 —2,-}, 044, 1125, 1410 
 
 , Ciinada t-Vntral K. W. Co. v. 277, 1713. 
 
 —207, 276, 324 
 
 , Caswell V 357, 360.-15 
 
 . Davis V 1590 
 
 V. (JiUsou 060,1708.-177,1705 
 
 . , Holmes V 2223 
 
 V. Mutoliiiisou . . 1870, 209;i. -683 
 
 and Kerr, Ke, . . . . 95, 1885 
 
 V. .Malloy 2222 
 
 -- V. Mcl'allum .. .. 879.-871 
 
 , McDonald V. 30, 040, 648, 006, 678, 
 
 1407, 1409, 1880, 20.W.— 022, 663, 
 1402, 1405, 1887, 1894, 1895 
 
 , I'urdhani v.— Re Murray, 835.-082,838 
 
 . l{ol)l) V .395, 390, 1004 
 
 , Simpson V. .. .. .. .. 1052 
 
 , Traders' Bank v. , Ke Hague, 34, 500, 
 
 72,'), 738, 1091. 1949 
 
 , Walker v 068, 2220 
 
 V. Warner . . . . . . 631 
 
 , Warner v 113, 837, 883 
 
 . , White V. — North Renfrew Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1403, 1520 
 
 Murray Canal, Re— Lawson v. Powers . 590, 
 860, 904, 1181, 2154.-21.54 
 Murton v. Kingston and Montreal For- 
 warding Co. .. 213,1924.-47.3,1798 
 Music Hall Block, In re — Dumble v. Mc- 
 intosh 132, 558 (/)j.-<), 1275 
 
 Muskdka Election (Ont.) — Starratt v. 
 
 Miller .. 1459,1460.-1478,1479 
 
 MuskokaMill Co. v. The Queen 461, 12.50, 
 
 1.580, 1585, 1696, 202.5, 2106 
 Muskoka Mill an<l LumberCo. ,Cockburn v. 
 
 34(), 469 
 Muskoka and Parry Sound Election (l)nt. ) — 
 
 Paget V. Fauiiuier 673, 1435, 1447, 1454, 
 1470, 1475, 1485, 1498.— 1481 
 Muskoka, Township of, .and Village of ( Iru- 
 
 veidmrst. In re, .50, 853, 1324, 1381, 16.3,5. - 
 
 1325 
 Mnttlelmry v. Stevens . . . . . . 1284 
 
 Mutton V. Dey 2020 
 
 Mutual Ins. Co. of the County of Welling- 
 ton V. Frey . . . . 934 970, 978 
 Mutual Relief Society of Nova Scotia v. 
 
 Webster 1000, 2240 
 , Fitzrau- 
 
 TABL£ OF OASES. 
 
 COLUMN. I Nas-Nia] 
 
 m^ 
 
 COLUMN-. 
 
 Nasinith, Boyd V 137,1562. 
 
 V. Manning .. 243.-251,1686 
 
 and the City of Toronto, In re, 1347 
 
 Nasmith'sCase — In re Central Bank of Can- 
 ada, 295, 256.— 203 
 
 National Ins. Co. v. Egleson 241, 251, 361, 2021, 
 
 22.39.-606 
 
 , Mclntyre v. 974.— 971, 1006 
 
 National Fire Ins. Co. v. McLaren 972, 1090.— 
 
 1006 
 Neald V. Corkindale ..399.-1716 
 
 Needham v. Needhani 97, 888, 1564, 1822, 22(52 
 Needier, Friendly v. . . . . . . .547 
 
 Neelon, Beatty v. 17, 240, 784, 1126.— 11, 788, 
 
 1599 
 
 , Heudrie v. 2020 
 
 , Rykert v. — Lincoln Election (1) 
 
 (Unt.) 1446,1464 1405. 1488 
 
 Neil V.Park 1615.-1,5.39 
 
 , School Trnstees of the Township of 
 
 Hamilton v. 61,3, 1632, 1686, 1729, 17.33 
 
 Neill V. Carroll 1172 
 
 , Dickev v., ReNeill 1821. 
 
 V. Travellers' Insurance Co., 27, 33, 406, 
 
 1005, 1.391.-25 
 
 V. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. 995, 1,562.— 
 
 936 
 Neilson, Snowball v. . . . . . 830 
 
 Nelles V. Bank of Montreal . . 12.3. —140 
 
 M.'ltby .. 102,103,105.-104 
 
 Ontario Investment Association 280. — 
 241, 250, 281, .341 
 
 v. White . . 62, 79, 80, 485, 575, 2232 
 
 , White V. . . 1 158.-79, 80, 82, 2098 
 
 Nellis, Niagara Grape Co. v. 1647, 1648.-1672 
 
 ■ V. 
 
 ■ V. 
 
 — V. Second Mutual Building Society 
 
 of Ottawa 
 Nelson, Brown v. 
 
 258 
 
 <l()lph V. . . 
 Myers, Porteous v. 
 Mykel v. Doyle 
 
 .. 1001 
 
 . , 705 
 
 119.3,2124 
 
 Nagle, Dominion Type Founding Co. v. . . 1917 
 
 Nivgli;, Fr.iser v 129,5.-1280 
 
 v. Timmins .. .. 1223,1224.-1624 
 
 Napaiiee, Tamworth and Quebec I{. W. 
 
 (^'o.. Herring and, .. 48,1702 
 
 ■ V. McDonoll . . 1651 
 
 , Re Shibley and, 
 
 17,58, 1704 
 Napanee, Town of, Iteard of Education of 
 ^,Nupaneev. .. .. 85,3,1220,1725 
 Ntpier v. Hughes , 361 
 
 .3.38, 367, 693, 1016, 1078, 165,3, 
 I960.— 330, .336, 341, 364 
 
 V. Cochrane 1597 
 
 V. Uafoo 197,3,2252 
 
 , Regina v. . . . . . . 450, 518 
 
 V. Tlioriier 1069 
 
 V. Wigle 13, 1697, 1869, 1921.— 1922 
 
 Nelson, a Solicitor, Re. . . . . 385, .391 
 
 Nelson, Townsliip of, Johnston v. 2126, 2140 
 Nevitt V. Mc.Murray 596, 1882.— .326, 1829 
 
 Newberry, Payne V. .. .. 3.54. — 1073 
 
 (2) . . . . 1073.— 1673 
 
 New Brunswick Railway Co., McT>eod v. 25,2019 
 
 V. Van wart 1780 
 
 V. Robinson 1787 
 
 Newcombe v. Anderson 198, 1170,2236.-930 
 
 V. MuLuhan . 1084.-1007,16.56 
 
 Newell, Exchange Bank v. , . 1956 
 
 Newhouse, Oliver v. 1 162.-100, 186, 297, 860, 
 
 893 
 Newton, Regina v. . . . . . . 1719 
 
 New York Lite Ins. t"o., Regina v. 992.-1002 
 New York Piano Co. v. Stevenson 1902, 2039 
 Niagara Election (Dom.) — Black v. Plumb 
 
 14.57, 1461, 1520.— 14.57, 1467 
 
 Plumb V. Hughes 1504 
 
 Niagara Falls Park, Re— Fullers Case 460, 2151 
 Niagara Falls, Town of, Banificld v. . . 211 1 
 
 — , Colborne v. 13,50.— 
 
 1.343, 1.372 
 
 , Livw V 2511 
 
 Niagara Falls. Wesley Park, and Clifton 
 Tramway Co. . .\ttorney-()eneral exrel. 
 Hobbs V. 212, 915, !»23, 1988, IIKW, 2231, 
 
 22:ti) 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Nia-Norl 
 
 Kil.tJMN. 
 
 Ninuarii (irupu Co. v. Xellis 1(147, IMS. -1072 
 
 — — , Wtii- V IS29 
 
 Niagara Navigation Co., Kmernoii v. 212, 1241, 
 
 16%, IS;«i, l!)22.-179.%203ti 
 
 Nicbol V. Allenby .. 1305, 1. '5.32, 10.57 
 
 , I'unlom V. 1262, I709.-177, 2.35, 1273, 
 
 1414, 154:i, 1!W!» 
 — — , Yount' V. 12IS, 122;t, MIO.T -1220, 1398 
 Nicliolls, Mulioii V. 4(K», |{)25, IG75.— 404, 1.592, 
 
 1594 
 Nicholson v. Linton . . ' .'.'- . . 1.591 
 
 V. PhrjL'nix Iiis. Co 947 
 
 V. Shannon .. .. 800.-90 
 
 Nickle and the Town of Wulkortou, In re, 1597, 
 
 2108. -21 15 
 
 Nihan. Morton V 125,682.-670 
 
 V. .'<t. Ciithurincs and Js'iagara 
 
 Central li. \V. Co. .. 1745. 17.57.-1763 
 
 Nilfs, Mcrrittv 800 
 
 Nipiatiing 11. W. Co., Fox v. -181.5, 1820 
 
 , Ooodfrhani v. 1820. - 1815 
 
 Niven, Morpliy v. -Re Moiphy. 1.^20.-728 
 Nixon, Re, 710, 22^«.— 520 
 
 V. Aaiien'iiirst .565 
 
 V. Ma)ti)y 11.50 
 
 Noble V. Clin ', Ku, 536 
 
 Nor] COLUMN. 
 
 North ttntiirio Election (Ont.), McCaskill 
 
 V. Pax ton 27, 1448, 
 
 1460, 1469, 1478, 14S4, 
 
 1.524, 1571, 1979.— 14S2 
 
 (Ont.) — 'I'releaven 
 
 V. (iould 14.59, 1471. 1472, 1476, 1481, 
 1484, 1490, 14!>2, 1.5(Ki. 1447, 14.56, 1481, 
 
 1482, 1497 
 North Oxford Kleotion (Doni.), Ki-, . . 1511, 
 
 I5I2.-1501> 
 North Renfrew Kleotion (Dom.)- -White v. 
 
 Murray, 1463, 1520 
 North of Soolland Canadian Mortgage Co., 
 
 Lire, .59, 28l,;i02 
 V. IJeard .. 1311 
 
 Cook V. 
 
 , Fletciier v. 
 
 , lie Fleteiicr and, 
 
 V. City of Toronto 
 
 Nolan V. Donnelly . . 
 
 Nordheinier v. MeKillop 
 Norman v. Hope 
 Normand, IJeausoleil v. 
 -, (Jlijigiioii V. 
 
 2170, 2212. 2186, 2194, 22(19 
 
 172, .3.59.— 170 
 
 .542 
 
 2111— 13',IS 
 
 102, 193, 1.547.— 1C2, 
 
 104 
 
 620 
 
 476, 1842 
 1 25. -782 
 1.503, 2(IU1 
 
 Normandiau, Oauthier v. — L"Assoni|ition 
 
 Election (Dom.) .. 1.524,1574 
 
 Norris, Re Klliott & ,Son v. . . ,536, .553 
 
 ■ V. Meadows 1890 
 
 , St. Catharines K. \V. Co. v. . . 1750 
 
 North V. Fisher .3.59, 1093, 1203.- .3.59 
 
 North Aniirioan Land Co., Coffin v. 1201, 1 i,36 
 North Anitriean Life Assce. Co. v. Craigen 993, 
 
 2233 
 North American Railway Contracting Co. , 
 
 Conmcc V 986, 391 
 
 North British Canadian Investment Co., 
 
 Bull V. 408, 855, 942, 956, 967, 1592,1594.— 
 
 967 
 North British Fire Ins. Co., Haitniy v. 012, 
 
 „ . „ . 9'i". 970.-967 
 
 North BritLsh Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Kean 1707 
 North Doreluster, Township of, Townsliip 
 
 of ^\•est 
 Nissouri v. 13.53. 
 -1.352 1375 
 -^— — ^ ^,^,l Coun- 
 ty of Middlesex .. .. 21.39,22.32 
 North Kastliopc, In re Roljertson 'an'd' 
 
 Townslii|,of, 1341), 1.3.5-J, 1,3.57.-1343, 1.354 
 North Cirey l:lectif)n iUnt.)-]i(,ardnian v. 
 
 Scott 1448,1451,1484,1488.-1499 
 
 North Middlesex KlectidU ((Int.), Cameron 
 
 V. Mcliougall. 14(!l, NSO, (///.s), 1484. 22.38 
 North Ontario Flection (Dim.)— (Jihhs v. 
 
 Whehr, I44(i, 1450, 
 
 I4U2. 1166,1473, 1474, 
 
 1479, 1482, 1487.— 
 
 Uai, 1467 
 
 — - ■ (Doni.)-VVhehr \. 
 
 V. Oiblm, .. .. 2007-1524,1520 
 
 ■ -, Cleaver v. 276, 1965. 
 
 -457, 612, 1970 
 — \. Uernian 1271. 
 
 1277 
 — v. Udell, .. 671, 
 
 1271. -1277 
 North Shore It. W. Co., Beaudet v. I7<i5.— 45 
 
 , Bigaouette v. 1747, 
 
 17.50, 176(i, 2101.— 45 
 
 — V. McWillie 1789, 
 
 22.34.-1802 
 
 — V. Pion 1749, 1768, 210.5 
 
 -, Pion V 2101 
 
 North Siuieoc Flection (I)(nn.) — Edwards 
 
 V. Cock 221, 1427.1.50.5, 
 
 1.509,1.520,1516, 1517.- 
 
 1499 
 
 (Ont.) — Sissons v. 
 
 Ardagh 1475, 1512 
 
 North Victonii Election (1) (l>oni.) -Came- 
 ron V. Macloiinan 
 433. .555, 1425, 1427, 
 1445, 1458. H(i4, 1405, 
 , , 147.5, 1479, 1.505,1,508, 
 
 ' 1520, 1.521, 2234. - 
 
 1469, 1474, 1479, 1480, 
 1,521 
 
 — (2) (Dom.)- (\'ime- 
 
 ron V. .Maclen- 
 nan 1427, 1 440 ('.(•4), 
 1444, 1 415, 11,52.- 
 1482, 1.520 
 
 ((Int.), lie 2243 
 
 ((»nt.)-Mcl;;io V. 
 
 Smith 1451, I4()8 (A/.s). 1474, 14,S3, 1488, 
 1510, l,5-J.5. 1480, 1511, 1512 
 North Wentworth Election (t)nt.)- Chris- 
 tie v. Stock .. 1419, 1-189, 1498.— 1498 
 North-West Tiansportation Co. v. Brutty. •J67 
 
 ' ' 2(J81 
 Noith York Election (Dom.) — Oliver v. 
 
 Strange . . . . 1509 
 
 — — (Dom.), Itc— rateison 
 
 V. Muloek 380, 1.504, 
 (Out.)— (.'01 ham V. 
 
 Bonlthee 1450, 1458, 148.3, I486, 1517, 
 
 2226-15^1 
 Northcotc, Re ,. .. 2206— '2170, 2225 
 
 V. Brunker UKiO 
 
 Northern Assurance Co.. Hohhs v. 951 
 
 Northern R. W. Co. of Canada, Tomlinsdii v. 
 
 .364, ,36,5, l(,22 -1601 
 
 — . Brodie v. 1794.— 749, 1796 
 
 , Edgar V. 1782.- 1.391 
 
 , I e.ider v 17!)4 
 
 , McCil.bon v. . . 1788 
 
 Norwich Uni 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 lil 
 
 Nor-0'Byl colttmn. 
 
 Northern R. W. Co. of Canada, Sanson v. 926, 
 
 H28. ifiO 
 
 ______ , Watson V 1 7 "w 
 
 , Ro Watson v. —1817 
 
 Wells V. .^74, 1760,2133. 
 —613, lias, 1751, 212.5 
 
 , Wilton V 1776 
 
 Northern and North- Western K. W. ( .'o. , 
 
 Dymentv. .. 370, 661.-1 6()4, 1798 
 
 Northern and Pacific Junction R. W. Co. , 
 
 Hillv. 859, 1667 
 
 ■ , McArthurv. 
 
 472, 1743, 1802, 2020, 2233, 2234.— 
 1747, 1751 
 Northwood, Canadian Hank of Commerce v. 
 
 174, 176.-235 
 
 V. Township of Raleigh . . 21 14 
 
 , Federal Bank v 1542 
 
 Norton V. McCibe 401.-1410 
 
 . , Ue McGregor v 548, 5.50 
 
 Norvall V. Canada Southern R. W. Co. 33, 49, 
 
 f30.5, 41.5, 1764, 1974,2009.-51, 1762, 
 
 Norvell v. Canada Southern R. W. Co. 376, 
 
 176.5, 2092.-1744, 1816 
 
 Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co., Macdonald 
 
 V 617,827 
 
 Nott V. Nott 44 
 
 Nnttawasaga, Townsliipof, v. Hamilton & 
 North V'ostern 
 R. W. Co. 662, 1093, 
 1813,22.35 
 
 ., -^-^ , Public School 
 
 Trustees of Section No. 9 Nottawasaga 
 
 V 540, .5.52, 1091, 1727.-540 
 
 Norwich, Village of, Re Cooke and, . . 1338, 
 
 1344. — 1349 
 
 Noxon, Christopher v. 2.52, 2.59, 268, 385, 659, 
 
 159.5.— 250, 252,257, 260, 263, 268, 281, 
 
 .366, 606 
 
 , Daniels V 260, i;«K) 
 
 Noxon Brothers M.inufacturing Co. (Lim- 
 itoil). Re Macdonald and, and R. S. O. 
 
 1887, c. 183, 286,22.33 
 
 Nunn, Regina v. . . 202, 1 108, 1372.-1 102 
 Nuttall, Lakin v. 2247 
 
 Oakes v. City of Halifax , . 44. 46 ' 
 
 Oakland, Township of v. Proper 233, 1332,17.33 '• 
 Oakville, Town of. In re Chisnolm and, 400, 
 1715, 1829, 2011, 2151: 
 Oakwood High School Board and the Town- ' 
 
 ship of Mariposa, In re, 1733, 22.38.— 1725 
 Catcs V. Cannon— Re Cannon 222, 732. -166,728 
 
 (2) 108, 222, 7.32 
 
 1209.— 166, 728 
 
 V. Supreme Court of the Independent 
 
 Order of Foresters 151, 1621 
 
 O'Brien, Re, 615, 709, 762, 1228.— 616, 761, 
 
 762, 1227, 1716 
 
 V. Bull 1025 
 
 V. Caron — Quebec County Election, 1514, 
 
 1.524 
 
 OOa-Oli] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 O'Callaghan ' . Bergin . . . . . . 1937 
 
 \. '''Icsher — Cardwell Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1451 
 
 , Craham v. , . . . . . 1840 
 
 , Russell V 1840 
 
 — , St. Louis V. 1210, 1606, 1644, 
 
 1655.— 1606 
 Ocean Mutual Marine Ins. Co., Spinney v. 
 
 981 (6m) 
 
 Ocklcy V. .Masson 613, 1685, 1853.-326,666 
 
 O'Connor, Ueatty v. 714, 735, 1316, 1382.— 
 
 ■ .376, 723, 737, 1277, 1317, 1319 
 
 V. Kennedy . . 616, 675, 867 
 
 V. Merchants' Marine Ins. Co. 989, 
 
 2240.— 983 
 
 Odell V. City of Ottawa 628 
 
 .... V. Bennett . . . . 517, 1612, 1672 
 
 Odette, McCallum v —26 
 
 In re the "M. C. 
 
 Upper" 1931.— 1391 
 
 (J'Doherty v. Ontario Bank 815.-8.37, 871 
 
 O'Donnell, Confederation Life Association 
 
 of Canada v. 518, 668, 995, 996, 
 1401.— 483, 586 
 
 V. Duchenault 401, 1593, 1618, 
 
 1841, 1842.— 1618 
 V. O'Donnell, 
 
 O'Donohoe, Re, 
 
 ■, Arnoldi v. 
 
 , Heward v. 
 
 ■ V. Robinson 
 
 V. Stammers 
 
 , Stammers v. 
 
 2023, 2040 
 
 1008, 1948, 1954, 1956 
 
 . 19,52.-1947, 1954 
 
 —1184, 1185, 1195 
 
 703, 1990.— 31 
 
 1875 
 
 95, 326, 1681, 1890, 
 1970.-1885, 1969, 1971, 1972 
 
 V. Whitty 28, 30, 671, 1297, 1937, 
 
 2236.— 1265, 1299 
 
 , a Solicitor, Re, ..390 
 
 O'Dwyer v. Lewis, Regina ex rel. 398, 1329 
 
 O'Gara, Union Fire Insurance Co. v. 242, 231, 
 
 252, 274, 2021 
 Ogdcn V. Craig . . . , . . , . 1015 
 
 Ogilvie V. Baker —Russell Election (1) 
 
 (Ont.) .. .. 1487.— 1456, 1515 
 
 , Menzies V 90,1320.-8,429 
 
 Ogilvy, Wolffv.— Re Hagar 1213 
 
 O'Orady v. McCaflfray 83, 467, 898, 2231.— 66 
 O'Hagan, La Roche v. 658, 1920, 2096.— 652, 
 
 1922, 2095 
 
 OHare, Grant V 1179 
 
 O' Heron, Re, 150 
 
 O'Kecfe v. Curran 839, 1414, 1546, 1547, 2234.— 
 
 606, 92.5, 1541 
 
 Mead v. 
 
 Old, i ' Lewis v. 
 
 V. Old . . 
 
 Oldfield V. Barbour 
 
 V. Dickson . 
 
 Oldham, Kennedy v. 
 Oliver, Beemer v. 
 
 , Davidson v. . 
 
 V. Davidson . 
 
 925, 1093 
 
 552, 2051 
 
 839 
 
 1173, 1598.-10 
 
 . . 337, 1882.-2023 
 
 . . 1876, 1966 
 
 112,601,696,871.-799 
 
 728, 2194 
 
 2207 
 
 104! 
 
 .. 80,1175.-63,82: 
 .. 540.-3.39 
 835 ' 
 461, uie, 1.575.— .332! 
 -, Henry, In re, Regina ex rel. Felitz 
 V. Howland . . .320, 1999.— 2004 
 
 O'Byme v, Campbell 14, 478, 2116.— 1390, 1.392, i 
 
 2215 
 
 - v. Clarkson . , 
 
 - v. Cogswell . 
 -, Re Gordon v. 
 
 - v. O'Brien 
 
 ■ v. The Queen 
 
 , Dominion Bank v. 140, 145, 173, 
 
 oboQ |3g 
 
 V. Great Western R. W. Co. . . 1696 
 
 , Hopkins v. — South Oxford Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) 642, 649, 1506, 1507, 1516, 
 1621, 1934.— 1491 
 
 , Johnston v. 678,1181.-567 
 
 , McDonald v. . . 331.-2244 
 
 V. Newhouae 1162.— 100, 186, 297, 860, 
 
 893 
 , Slater v. . . ., „ 793, 806 
 
Izii 
 
 Oli-Ont] COLFMN. 
 
 Oliver V. Strange—North York Election 
 
 (Dom.) ^'^ 
 
 , Vernon v .->(», .'I'-'O, 1992 
 
 Olmatead v. Curpenter- Soutli Wtntwortli 
 
 Election (Ont.) 1427, 1439, 1444.— 
 
 1.510 
 
 V. Eningtou, He, I6()8,r)47, .US.— 382. 
 
 ")3B 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 Ont-O'Su] 
 
 cotnurn. 
 
 Ontario and Quebec R. \V. Co. , Bryson v. 
 
 765,872, I7.'53.-I7fl2 
 , Freeman v. 
 
 l7tt4.-44 
 
 .Grand Trunk 
 
 R. W. Co. 
 V. .30, 1658.-. 
 le.W, 1672 
 
 , .Tames v. 17(iO, 
 
 1761, 1762, 2242 
 
 , In re, Leii 
 
 and, .1764 
 
 , Re Mclliio 
 
 ond, 391, 1766, 
 1767, 2231 
 
 , May V. . . I24S 
 
 1783, 1801,22.13, 
 2234, 2241 
 
 terre 1997, 2000. 
 —1995 
 
 , Re Ontario 
 
 TannersSup- 
 , plies Co. and 
 
 '•' •' - ■■ ■ '' ' I7r.8, 2022 
 
 V. Fhilbriok 
 
 176B.— 1.567 
 
 , Re I'hilbrick 
 
 and, . . 1762 
 
 and Taylor, 
 
 In re, 1759, 1760. 1762.— 1.567, 1751, 1766 
 Ontario Rolling Mills Co., Bridges v. . . 1249 
 
 , Midland It. VV. 
 
 Co. V. 18()8. — 1870 
 
 m:.1 .. 
 
 O'Meara v. City of Ottawa, Hi-, i;i7l.-1343 
 Omnium Securities Co. v. Canada I'ire 
 
 Mutual Ins. Co. 940.— 
 lOOfJ 
 
 , (inrland v. . . 5.S6 
 
 V. Richardson 325, 612, 
 
 1908,224.3.-336 
 
 O'Neill, Fiskcn v 120 
 
 V. Owen 21.59, 2228. 22.36, («.m).-4.57, 
 
 2UiI, 2229 
 Oni.ndBga, In re Milloy and the Town- 
 ship of, 901, 1.343, 1.344, I:M7. -.">32, 13(M) 
 Ontario Bank v. Burke 101, 615, 1070, 1071 
 
 , Clarkson v. 112, 113, .303, 790, 
 
 1982, 22.32, 2240 
 
 , Dobell V. 1.32, 270, 667, 843 
 
 2016.-842 
 
 V. Harston, In re, .. .541.-538 
 
 V. Lament .. 104, 1 1 1, 79(1 1 
 
 V.Mitchell .. .. 686.-688 
 
 , O'Doherty v. 815.— 8.37, 871 
 
 V. Revell , . 1020, 1.566 
 
 , Saderquist v. 136, 1127.— 602, 
 
 1.390 
 
 V. Trowem 685 
 
 Ontario Canning Co., Waddell v. 281, 922.— 
 
 265 Ontario and .Sault Ste. Marie R. VV. Vo. v. 
 Ontario Coal Co., Western Ass. Co. v. 9!Kt. i Canadian P.icitie R. V\'. Co. 1817, 1980, 
 
 I932.-9S!! 1981,2233.-1745, 1769 
 
 Ontario Co-operative .Stone Cutters' As- Ontario Tanners' Supplies Co. and Ontario 
 
 sociation v. Clarke 275, .347. 2237, 2242 j and Quiiec H. W. Co., Re, . . 1758, 2022 
 
 Ontario Cotton Mills Co., Dean v. 31, ()48, i Ontario Wheel Co., Black v., 676, 1248, 1249 
 
 1246, 1250.— 124!»jOppenheimcr, McNabb v. .. 55, .57, 16.53, 1917 
 Ontario Glass Co. v. .Swartz 541 Ops, Re McLean and Township of, 1.327, 13.5,3, 
 
 Ontario Industrial Loan and Investment 
 
 Co. (Limited), Klinck v. 525, 52fi 
 
 v. Lindsey 1.598, 
 
 1697, 1825, 1961,202.5.— 
 12, 517, 1827, 1828, 1893 
 Ontario Investment Association, Re Bobierand 
 
 188.5, 1891, 1893, 
 2089 
 
 , Moore v. 
 
 280, 787 
 
 — , Nelles v. 
 
 280.-241,2.50,281, .341 
 Ontario Investment Co., City of Brautford 
 
 ^ ▼ 60.-70 
 
 Ontario Lflan and Debenture Co., Core v. 1280, 
 
 18.33 
 
 — v. Hobbs .525 
 
 , Hodgins v. 
 
 ^ . ^ 205, 1.306 
 
 Ontario Loan and Savings Co., Laing v. 
 
 .523, .529, 4.56.— ,528 
 • and Powers, Re 
 
 /v.. . w ,, 217.5.-2216 
 
 Ontario Mutual Ins. Co. , Graham v. 935, 954. — 
 
 n«* • »i . , r, ^ **7, 969, 1006 
 
 Untano Natural Gas Co. v. Smart 925, 1417 
 
 2145, 2238.— 1.342 
 
 — — — r. Township of Gos- 
 
 field South, In re, 925 
 1417,2145 
 
 .3.54.-70 
 Orangoville, Town of, VVallace v. 603, 917 
 
 0' Regan v. Peters .313, 1983 
 
 O'Reilly, Attoniey-General of Ontario v. 93, 
 
 415, 586 
 
 — , Connolly v. . . . . . . 411 
 
 Orford v. Orford 2081,2082 
 
 , Township of, Gilmour v 1643 
 
 , Green V. 1.361,2246.-1379 
 
 , Hepburn v. 376 (hh), 1618, 
 
 2116 
 
 Organ, Regina v 1720 
 
 O'Rourke v. Campbell . . . . 149, 910 
 
 , Regina v. 313, 417, 448, 449.-454 
 
 Orpeu v. Kerr . . 630, 631, 1964.— 641 
 
 Orr, Freed v. 408, 409, 416, 695, 7.39, 784 
 
 , Snider V. 889, 1607, 1615, 1619, 1669, 19S3. 
 
 -376 
 Orton, Ironside v.— Centre Wellington 
 
 Election (Dom.) 1462.-1499 
 
 Osborne, Central Bank of Canada v. 166, 511, 
 
 1612 
 
 v. Henderson 1540, 1546, 1916, 2060.- 
 
 1543 
 Osier V. Toronto, Grey and Bruce R. W. r, r,i 
 
 Co., In re 1802 
 
 Ostrom V. Township of Sidney, Re, 1,341, 2128. 
 
 — 1336 
 O'Sullivan, Imperial Loan and Investment 
 
 Co. V. 1293 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Iziii 
 
 OSu-Par] 
 
 O'Siillivan v. Harty 
 
 ,. OOLl'MN. 
 
 . . 736, 200-) 
 
 V Lake 34, 114, Uat, 2002, 2001), 
 
 2080. -1390, 1407, 1410, 16011, l!Ht2 
 
 V. Phelim 222.') 
 
 , Strattnii v.— Kast PeterlmrouKli 
 
 Klection (Ont.) 1440, 1451 
 
 Ottiiwtt AffHcultural Ina. Co. v. Slieridiiii 
 
 938. — 9.">.-i 
 Ottiiwn, City of. Re Borthwick and, . 1370 
 — , Ro Hronaon and, 1770, 1816. — 
 
 1.336 
 — , Canada .\tlantic R. W. 
 
 Co. V. 1128, 13.3r>, 13.3«, 1808, 
 
 1809.-1.3.34, 13.3.->, I3.3(!, 1.3.3!l 
 
 1.330 
 
 -, Derinzy v. . . 2113 
 
 , Murphy V. .. .341,124,3. 
 
 1370.-1244 
 
 ___ , Re O'Meaia v. 1371. -1.343 
 
 , Odollv 628 
 
 Ottawa, County of, Landry v. 858, 85i), 1345 
 
 , V. Montreal, Ottawa 
 
 an<l Western R. W. Co. . . 425, 1810 
 Outwater v. Mullett . . . . .384, 2042 
 
 Owen, O'Neill v. 2159, 2228, 22.36 {hh). -4.57, 
 
 2161, 222!» 
 Owen Sound Steamship Co. v. Canadian 
 
 Pacific R. W. Co 33(», 171MI 
 
 Owen Sound Printing Co., Doyle v. 510.— 517 
 
 , Town of, Robinson V. . . 22.50 
 
 Owens V. Taylor 1554. - 15.V2 
 
 Owston V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. 12,-)0, 1629, 
 
 22,32.-72,3, 16,32, 1747, 1748, 17(i2 
 
 Oxford, Township of, v. Gair 1 608. - 1 702 
 
 Pacquette, Re, 111, .321, .399, 1416. — 1715 
 
 Page V, Au.stin ,32, 2,55, 2.59, 601.— ;«, 250, 261 
 
 , Bank of Minnosotft Co. v. .350, 403, .5.34, 
 
 107.3, 1651 
 
 V. Proctor .. .. 660,1866.-473 
 
 , .Sun fjit'e Assurance Co. v. 907. —.327, 1407 
 
 Paget V. Fauciuior- Muskoka ami Parry 
 
 Sound Kloction (Ont.) 673, 14.35. 1447, 
 
 1454, 1470, 1475, 1485, 1498. — 1481 
 
 PaisU'V V. Hroddy 781, 1094, 1310.-831, 1093, 
 
 1277 
 
 V. Wills .. .. . .. l!Mi7 
 
 Paisley, Village of. Township of Elderslic 
 
 and 1324 
 
 Palin V. Reid 99, 930 
 
 Palml>y V. McCleary .. 613,1906.-1906 
 
 Ptthner, Building and Loan Aege'vation v. 817. — 
 
 823 
 
 , Re McKay v 548.— .5,50 
 
 V. Millar 1692 
 
 , Pierce v. .35, 1608, 1673.- 8.")8, lfi.57 
 
 , Regina v. . . 10.55 
 
 V. .Solnies .. 509, 885.— .506 
 
 Par-Pay] 
 
 (OHMS. 
 
 V. Wallhridge 
 
 11,37, 12.57. -11.50 
 
 Palmerston, Town of, Clarke v. 84, 1 125, 1229 
 Papps, Davidson V. 118, 1546 
 
 Paradis v. Campbell . . . . 2162, 2233 
 
 , Iteginav 48,1765,2004 
 
 Pardee v. Glass . . 34.3.-12, 692, 1016 
 
 V. Lloyd 48, 1128 
 
 Paris Manufacturing Co. V. Walls .. 1015 
 
 Parish of St. Cesaire v. McFarlane 481 
 
 Park, Gough v 1954 
 
 Park, Hepburn V 190,79.3.-811 
 
 , Neilv 1615. -15,39 
 
 Parkdale.Town of, In re Harvey and, 1365, 1384 
 
 Parkdalo, Corporation of , v. West 
 , West V. 477, 1.377, 2133. 
 
 1757.-1745 
 
 1771, 1810. 
 
 21.37 
 
 , Village of, Carroll V. 2126 18|(t 
 
 Parker, In re, 741, 743, 744, 22.32 
 
 V. Howe 80 
 
 V.Maxwell 469.-472 
 
 V. Parker 680 
 
 , White V. 17, 34, 478, 1250, 1410. 20O8. 
 
 202.5. 1393, 1903 
 Parker & Co., Ito Young v. 
 I'arki'M V. St. George. . 
 I'arkiiurht v. Roy 
 Pai'ka, I'urdy v. 
 
 Parnialcu, ('anada Cotton Co, 
 Parnell, Downey v. . . 
 
 Parr, Re 
 
 , Abell V 
 
 V. Montgomery 697, 
 
 .549. 1.546 -.540 
 {>.;, MI7.-- 184 
 :.57, 2218. 2225 
 .. 1318.-376 
 8»,}»2,2243. -91 
 ,. 1283 
 716, 909, 1.566 
 . . 1,308 
 1276, 1287, 1206. - 
 
 804, 1.301), 1305, 2083 
 
 Parry, Rosobatch v. . . ,375, 720, 1681 
 
 Parson.s, Citizens Ins. Co. of Canada V. ,32, 309, 
 
 310, 318, .382, 412, 9,3(), 943. 1200, 
 
 2240, 2241 , 2242. —31 5, 302, 94:<. 1 5(58, 
 
 1712. 1992 
 , Queen Ins. Co. v. .302, 300. 310, 318, 
 
 936, 943, 941 
 Standard Fire Ins. 
 
 2240, 
 Co. 
 
 2241.- 
 
 Parsons cjui tarn v. Crabbe 
 Partlo V. Todd 
 Pasco, Mullin v. 
 Paterson, Hay v. 
 
 — V. Mulock— lie North York Klec- 
 
 tion (l)(un.) .. .. .380,1,504.-1.509 
 
 943 
 
 . . 958 
 740, 1119 
 2028, 2029 
 W)2, 1023 
 57 
 
 Paton. Gowan v. 
 
 , Laird v. 
 
 Patterson, Cook v. 
 V. (iilbert 
 
 1833, 1885. 1880, 
 26, 68:1, 
 
 Grahanie v.— West 
 
 tion (Ont.) 
 Gritfin V. 591,695,874. 
 
 2085 
 189.3 
 1060 
 .. I(i65 
 York Klec- 
 14.38, I5I.S, 14:C 
 
 , Marthinson v. 
 v. McKclhir 
 
 v. McMillan, Re McMillan 
 v. Murphy 
 
 .593, 871, 
 
 880, 884 
 
 -761, 808 
 
 692. - 703 
 
 .. 1531 
 
 1065, 16,52 
 
 , Peterborough Ileal Estate, etc., 
 
 Co. V 2176.-2173. 2225 
 
 , Robertson V 1976. 1974 
 
 — V. Stinsou— Hamilton Klection 
 
 (Out.) 1487, 1493,22.39.-14.30, 1497, 
 
 1,508 
 
 , Sutherland V. 154,844.- 842, .843 
 
 ; V. Thompson, . . .528, .529 
 
 Pattison v. J{ykert— Lincoln and Niagara 
 
 Election (Dom.).. 21, 1. 524, 1.527 
 
 Pftttullo V. Church 19.V2 
 
 Pawling v.Rykert — Lincoln Election (Out.) 1416, 
 
 (2) (Ont.) 1420, 1427, 
 
 , ., 14.3.5, 1430, 144.5, 
 
 " * 14.58, 1477, 1489, 
 
 1511, 1519. 1.526. 
 
 — 1444,1497,1,507 
 
 — •— , Shcuck's vote . . 016 
 
 Pawson V. Merchants' Bank, 617, 641, 16.52, 
 
 2044, 2048 
 Paxtou, McCaskill v. — North Ont.Trio 
 
 Election (Ont.) 27, 1448, 1460, 14«)», 
 1478, 1484, 1324, 1.571, 1979.- 1482 
 
 V. Smith 16;!, 1209 
 
 Payne v. Marshall 836 
 
 V.Newberry 3.54, 107i 
 
IXtT 
 
 Pay-Per] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 ini.i MN. Per-Plc] 
 
 OOI.r.MN. 
 
 I'lvynt) V. New iKMiy (-') 
 I'eik, ShioldHV. I21t, :m, 1077, HW'i, !!«•«, 
 
 KIIH 
 
 I'c ik.T, llluin V 1<»». '-"-'W 
 
 I'ean'i.'M ('iiho In ru Loinlmi Spoiik<!i- 
 
 IVinlM.K'Co -.Mil, •-••-' (0 
 
 J'liuiH. UrnwM V. (i;f-', 70!t, 188(1.- I Wt4, I1H17 
 
 I'.MlNill, lliuvrv V .^(IS.- ."(» 
 
 J'uttinnii, IvlwiticlH V •■t2(n. -tilltll 
 
 -— — V. Khhci'v . . ''^7, 881 
 
 ~ — , Mii(li<! V (),— 70S 
 
 V. :,lniii..llaii(l 71t, 48JI, 4114, '.»'i4I.— 1 18.'), 
 
 ID).") 
 I!»S. -IIS.'J 
 .. 177; 
 
 l()7;t, Itl7;i IVitli, County of, Ilogina v. i:»34, 'il'Jd, '2\'.\\. 
 
 -, Shcni II V. 
 
 Peiirt V. 'iiiinil 'IViiiik H. W. *'«■ 
 
 I'ock V, Ai;ii.iiltiir.il Iiih. C". •i'>7, IKtli. 9."«0. - '.W7 
 
 iVrk iiii'l till' 'rdwiisliiit (if Anii'luMliiirK. 
 
 I!,., .. i;i;t7. i;ii.-., •.'I4i». 'JUO 
 
 JVi:k .111.1 tli< Tuwil nf (ink. Ill 10, ."tSO, 4SI 
 
 (i();i, i:u(i, i.'m;i, i:m.'>, is-'s 
 
 V. I'rrk «S!» 
 
 V. I'liMiiix .Mutual Ills. ('.. !M;| 
 
 I'etorborouuh, County of, Ko (Iriiiul Juno- 
 
 * tion H. W. Co. V. 1 128. 
 
 1227, l(i70, 1744, 1807, 
 181W. 414,1814, 1817, 174,'. 
 
 , County i>f V'iutorlik, 
 
 V. 'Jl'Jfi, ■JIM!!, 22:J4, 'iJ.C, 
 IVtoi horougli, Town of, In iu('i'oftim<l Kl.'il.'.'-JXt 
 , 111 11! Dunnu iiiul, l.'tl'.', 
 
 urn 
 
 , V. ImIwui.Ih 10, 12011, i:t;t;i, 
 
 i:w8, L'jiw. i:i!u, Ki'.M 
 
 , III 10 Liipliiiitc iiiid, 
 
 .-.iXi, •_' 1. •('_'. — i:t84 
 
 V. Mi.llaii.l K. W. 
 
 Co. .. Kll.'i, 11172, 
 11)77, 22:W 
 returl)c)i')iii!li Kuiil KHtiiti! Invi'stnii'iit Co. 
 
 V. Ircton I0.«8, i:il;i 
 
 V. I'atturaon 217(1. - 
 
 217:<, 222.') 
 
 — I',.w.llv 411 8.-.U, I2S4, I.V.,-., 1.-)(;7,2212. I'ctoikin v. .M.'Kurliino 414,1121., Il(.(i, 12 S, 
 
 :ti 1021, Km, ic.so, 18:{1,22:»I. -i:«).-., 
 
 1082, i8:to 
 
 -, KoHo V 12(18, I8:i2 
 
 :ii:<, \m:i 
 
 M.i, 1983 
 
 V. Powill 
 
 1'(!okli:iiii V. l>i'i)otty 
 IVck V. ShifliU 
 Peel V. \'n-\ . . 
 V. Wliito 
 
 .. I!)(i4 
 I2:»7. -12;t(l 
 
 121), .•to;t 
 
 .. 2010 
 I0()8, l(>4(i 
 
 I'cel Klocti.in ((Jut. )-- Hurst v. (.'Iiialioliii, iril7, 
 l.V.M. l.".2(i (/)m), I.S'IS, 1 -.().'. 
 
 Peer. -McN.il) V 8;i, .S()l.-7!m 
 
 Pt'Kg V. HoUhoii .. ,. 1272.-1277,1287 
 
 P.Hn V. lioawell i:i42 
 
 Piilti-ii, Rn 17.17. -17:i!t 
 
 I'riiilirokc. Towiisliipof, v. Caii.uljiCcntfal 
 
 R. w. Co. (i(t:i, i;m2, 
 
 141.-., 1770 
 
 Peters, Daiiaher v. 
 
 , O'Rfgan V. 
 
 , Soveroii'n Fin Inn. Co. of (.'anuda 
 
 V 11(7, 9.'.6 
 
 V. Stonesg . . ()».■), 819, 18.-.1. -1979 
 
 Potcrsville, .Smith v. 917, IHil), 14i;i. -13.TO 
 
 Poulierlliy Injector ('o., Carroll v, olH.— (11 1 
 Peoples' JiOaii ami Deposit Co. v. l.aeon 188.S. — 
 
 188.-. (//w) 
 
 • , Grant v. 
 
 1284. 1009 
 Peoples' Milling Co. and Council of Mea- 
 
 ford I.*?(i2.-1.1.'i9 
 
 Peoria Sugar UcHning Co. v. Canada Firo 
 
 and Marine Ins. Co. . . 947, 970.— 972 
 I'ercy, Stewart v.. Re Percy i"i.59 
 
 Perdue, l.iiw.tt v. .S7"), IKm, 907, 1 mi- ;182,907 
 
 , Siiniia Agricultural linplcincnt 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. 4ir), 1.591, I'm, 165.1 
 
 -856, lCr>7 
 Perkins, Uank of Toronto v. . . 1,'19 
 
 V. Mississippi and Dominion 
 
 i .Steainsliip Co. (Limited) 1045, 1923.— 1798, 
 
 1924 
 Perrault, Cimon v.— Cliarlevoix Election 
 
 (Uom.) 1547 
 
 , Reeves v. . . . . 518, 892 
 
 Periiii, (.'aiiieron v. 809 
 
 , Htyiiia V. . 22, ■5.').'), 1110, 1914 
 
 Perry. (Iiiliiths v I2(i 
 
 -, (luess V. 
 
 IVtrie V. (luelph Lumber C!o. 240, 384, 387, 390, 
 «()5, 785 (M. -341, 411, 1678 
 
 V. Hunter 840, 1 167, 2233. 2244, 2249 
 
 Petiolia, Town of, Mearna V. 917, 1.327.— 928, 
 
 1.3.32 
 I'ettigrew v. Thomas . . . . 795, 2051 
 
 , Howison V. ..1.341. I'lielan, OSullivan v. 222i) 
 
 il26, 2132 Phelps, lledfonl v.— West Simcoo Election 
 
 (Out.) .. .. l.W. — LWH, 1510 
 
 , Canada Southern R. W. Co. v. .300, 
 
 1.389, 1787 
 
 V. ,St. Catharines and Niagara 
 
 Central R. W. Co. . . 90, 1806, 2242 
 
 I'lierrill V. Forbes 1677 
 
 Philbrick and Ontario and Quebec R. VV. 
 
 Co., Re 1702,1760.-1567 
 
 Phillips, Bowcrman V 706.— 831 
 
 , Cameron v. . . . . 7;W 
 
 V. Fox 1901 
 
 , fiordon v 631 
 
 , V. Grand River Farmers' Mutual 
 
 Fire Ins. Co. . . 751, 9.V2. -967, 1006 
 
 Phippen, McDowall V. .. 4.56,1285.-1279 
 Phipps, In re, 437, 453, 741, 743, 7(i2, 1 100 
 
 V. Reamer 374, 1024 
 
 , Dockstader V 579.— .582 
 
 Phfflnix Ins. Co. v. Anchor Ins. Co. 980, 983, 
 991,1932.-989,990 
 
 , Nicholson v. . . 947 
 
 , Trudev 855,1643 
 
 Phoenix Ins. Co. of London v. City of 
 
 KiiiL'Mton .59, 281 
 
 . . 1068, 1643 i Phumix Lodge I. O. O. F., Kinver v. 279, 1697, 
 
 .Hickuttv.- PriiiceCounty(I'.K.I.) i 2036 
 
 Klection (Uom.) 1437 I'lianix Mutual Ins. Co., Pock v. .. 961 
 
 V. Perry 1317 Phu.-nix .Mutual Fire Ins. Co., McQueen v. 935, 
 
 . Standly v. 233, 2100.-2147, 2151, 2152 i <(.56 
 
 Pertli. County of, .Montreal City and Dis- ! Phipnix Mutual Life Ins. Co., Boyoe v. 1002 {Inn) 
 
 tnct .Savings IJank V. 479,l(i2fi, 1623.— Pickard, Hardy v 381 
 
 332, 1563 I'ickup v. Kincaid 2045 
 
Plc-Porl 
 
 I'iotoii The- M.:t"uai« v. Koitli I'iJW, '200;j.'2(»- 
 
 . J_ Htnitli V. Keith . . :V)r> 
 
 Pictoii liiink V. Hurvoy 1««S 
 
 I'ioroc V. Cui.avai. 10H7, I'JSCt, I:JI7 CAM 
 
 V I'almur ;W, 1008, I(i7;j. -S'lS, 1057 
 
 , Rouimi V 4M;J 
 
 PiorBon, Mciclmiits' Bivnk v. (i37, d.'JS, (i4l, 
 
 i«7(i, i.'o:w.-(ni) 
 
 riL'<on V. Rccordcr'ii Court iinil (Uty of 
 '' Montrottl .. 314. -;{():», I :J71 
 
 .-, Sheridan V, .. I'Jr.'J, iiOM 
 
 I'iL'iitt, KeniKMly v '2'2M\ 
 
 \;tm V. Itniiiet 47;», 81)2, I'i'.S, U0()3, '2(»0». (I.V2 
 
 I'il/,, Mali V .'«7I, 1174 
 
 J'iiiulc, Keiiiioiiy V. 711, 7.'M, •_''_"27. 7.'«i 
 
 I'inketton, McL.Mil. v. . . I8:j, 'iO'Ja. - 1 88 
 
 riiikmy, KiiiriMiiii V, 4'i(l, ll.Sfl 
 
 i'iiiBonuiiiilt, lirownu V Il41t 
 
 V. llulicrt 2124 
 
 I'ion, North Sliort) lUilw^y v. 1740, 17(18,2105 
 
 - - V. Nortli Shoro K. W. Co 2101 
 
 Pino, liiL'ina v. :U 1 , 1 105, i;{7r>, 2J.'t(l. :107, 
 
 iii:j i:i:in 
 
 J'iper V. Kiirris Maiuifacturing Co. 572 
 
 _, Ma.!.loiml.l V l!)5r,. -liW 
 
 V. Sini]isoii .. 11.54 
 
 , , {{('J,'''"' '^''' '"•'1 Hamilton v. . . . . I.'J25 
 
 I'iiio V. Wyl.l .. .. 171, 01.'. 1402 
 
 Pitcher, lreinii.lv. .. ;J70, ;(!«», I I'i.'M^-') 
 
 Ifl8!).-;((.S, 1124 
 
 , Legacy V 112,1,1581) 
 
 PittriuM, Hiirl<e v lOOl 
 
 I'izi'r V. I'Vuser . . 1054 
 
 I'latt, Attrill v. 487, 57;i, I25>, 2101. -000, 
 
 1884,2100, 2I0!» 
 
 V. Kli//.ur<l I»7I 
 
 -— - V. Craiiil Trunk R. W. Co... ;i87, .'Wl, 
 
 411, 427, 428, 1275, 1.507, 1!»0:), 1012.- 
 
 :i!IO, 428, .571 "154. 1820, 1008,2100 
 
 , Swoetv. .. M04, 2175. 2173 
 
 2178, 2210 
 Plowg, In I. I.'vi-T^d, .'147, I I'M. 1228. 1!)08.-- 
 
 1227, 1908 
 Pluinli . -Niagara Kl> nlDoni.) 
 
 1457, 1401, , M. -14.57, 1407 
 
 \. ii{iieg— Ni kgaraKleutionlDoin.) 1504 
 
 V. .SI. iiihoff . 4S7, 000, 201 1, 2012 
 
 Plummer V. Lake " iperior Native (;o|ii)er 
 
 Co 282, 1072 
 
 , Re, In re Like Superior Native 
 
 Copper (^o. (Limited) 291,294. 
 
 TAB/.E OF OABES. 
 
 i^oi.iiMN. I Por-Prl] 
 
 IXT 
 
 (!OI,IIMN. 
 
 Phinkett, Agncw v. 
 
 Portcouii V. Mycm 705 
 
 — V. Reynar.. .. 2082,- lll,114» 
 
 Porter, IJrown v .•105, 2042 
 
 , Knox V .'105, 204'.' 
 
 , Handfordv. 112, 1010, 2070, 2(180. -rt, 
 
 10.5(1 
 Portland, Town of, v. Crillithn 2143.-1:101, 
 
 1.300, 1407, 2144 
 Po»tnia«tor Ocnoral v. McColl . . 10.30, IflftO 
 
 P.ittH V. Hoivino 1250, 2105 
 
 Ponliot, Fraser v. . . . . 491 
 
 I'oulin V. Cor|M)ration of Quul)ee 311, 1056 
 
 Powell V. Cahler . . . .800, 810, 905, 1.547 
 
 V. City of London Assurance Co. 2013. 
 
 243 
 
 V. Pock 411, 850, 1284, 1555, |5«7, 2242. 
 
 31 
 
 , Peek V 1004 
 
 V. Quebec Insurance Co. 2043 (his) 
 
 Power V. Kliis 043 
 
 V. Meagher . . . . . . 2009 
 
 Powers, LawHon v.— Re Murray ('anal .590, 800, 
 904, 1181, 2154.-2I.54 
 
 , Ontario Loan and Savings Co. v. 
 
 2175. -2210 
 Pratt v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. 17(J8.— 5!m, 
 
 1817 
 
 V. City of Stratford . . . . 2137 
 
 Preeper v. The (^ueuu . . 449, 4.W, (170 
 
 I'reneveau, McCann v. 504, 51 1, 514, 045, 
 
 I210.-5H 
 Prentice, Canadian Soouritie.'s Co. v. 175, 1010. 
 
 — 159 
 
 V. Consolidated Rank 140,234,2071. 
 
 1.300 
 Prcscott, Orporation of, Ble.aklcy v. . . 2140 
 Prescott Election (Dom.)— Ilagar v. Rou- 
 
 thier .. .. 1428, 1444 
 
 (Ont.), In re, . . 1.507.— 1521 
 
 (Oat. ) — Cunniiigliain v. 
 
 Ilagar 27, 1444, 14.53,1459, 
 
 1485, 1490, 1405, 1.525,22.38. 
 
 —1 143, 1472, 1.500 
 
 (Ont.) — MoKeu/.io v. 
 
 Hamilton . . 0()5, 1490, 1505, 22.39 
 
 Preston V. Corporation ot Camden 14, 2115.-- 
 
 1384, 1303 
 Prevost, Turner v. . . 838, 1878.-1975, 2150 
 
 Price, Darling V 814.-12;') 
 
 V. (Juinane .. 397,8.5.3,11.54,2233 
 
 — , Magog Textile and Print Co. v. . . 248 
 
 380. -19.35 I Pricstinan v. Bradstreet 
 
 1239 
 
 Piynipton, 'l.iwnship of, In re Smith and Priour, \Varn.)ck v. 1213, 1311, 1320, 2231.— 
 
 tlie 1382,2114 1212,1310 
 
 Pocock V. Allan, Re Allan, . . 720, 1710 I Prince, Campbell v. .33, 402, 404, 1405, 1416. 
 
 12IS 
 
 1208, 
 
 Pnitras v. LeBeau 
 Polley, .MeMullen v 
 Poison V. Di.'geei' 
 
 Pomoriiy, RoMs V 1178,1188,1001 
 
 Poiitiac, (,'ouiity of, v. Ross . . 67(i, 1814 
 
 Ponton, (Jreou V. .. .. .. 1825 
 
 , County of Hastings v. ;(02, (504 , 1826 
 
 , -McCaw V 10i>S 
 
 and Swanston, Re, (i04, 1802, 2080 
 
 Porritt V. Eraser .57,09,1210.-363 
 
 -, (iugnon V. 
 
 1405 
 072, 1713 
 
 Port Artliur, Town of, .lones v. 1342, 1373, 2235 
 Port Dover and l.«ke Huron R. \V. Co., 
 
 Smith v. 698, 1815 
 
 Port Rowan and I.jiko Shore R. W. C^o. v. 
 
 Soutli Norfolk R. W. Co 358 
 
 Porte V. Irwin 1807 
 
 Porteous v. Muir 173,000 
 
 .344, LSOO. — 755, 1. i," Prince .\lbertColoniaition Co. .Jauiiosou v. 
 
 1057.— 16.54 
 Prince County (P. 1'^. I.) Election (Horn.) — 
 
 Ilackctt V. Perry 14.37 
 
 Prince Edward Election (Ont.)— Anderson 
 
 V. Striker 1505, 1515 
 . (2) (Ont. ) -Dor- 
 land V. McCuaig 1423 
 
 Pritchard v. Pritchard 322, 580, 15(i0, 1607, 
 
 1939— .580, 19.38 
 
 V. Standard Life Assurance (^o. 721, 
 
 759.-282 
 
 V. Walker — London Klection 
 
 (Dom.) .1465.-1499 
 Prittie, Booth v 3.30, 1238 
 
Ixvi 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Pri-Que] 
 
 roLrMN. 
 
 ; • ";." 155.-227 
 
 . . 1670, 19:!5 
 
 .. 1082 
 
 .. 20()i» 
 
 .. 724.- -721 
 
 .■>7, i>7 
 
 1881. -341, 1896, 1974 
 
 660, 1866.-^73 
 
 . . lfii:i, 2039 
 
 __ ., 1613,2039 
 
 Proper, Townaliip of Oakland v. 233, 1332 
 
 I'rittie, Hall v. 
 
 V. Lindner 
 
 , SlcArthur v. 
 
 , TrustH Re, . 
 
 Proctor, Hnyck v. 
 
 V. Miickei.zie 
 
 V. Mulligan . 
 
 , Page V. 
 
 — , Schnnider v. 
 
 Weller v 
 
 Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. (Wl>ett 987 
 
 V. (Jerow 981, 
 
 085, 2008.-1404, 2053 
 Provincial Ins. Co. of Canada, Billington v. 
 
 935, 957 
 
 V. Cameron, 
 
 19,2.38,250,252, 
 ■'-' •■*••• 258, 66.5, 1008. 
 
 -2.')0, 257, 3.32 
 
 V. Connollv 
 
 983.-473 
 , Western As- 
 surance ('o. 
 •"• •" V. 472,602,935 
 
 V. Worts 250, 
 
 252.— 251 
 Provincial Provident Institution, Horton v. 
 
 153.— 1000 
 
 . , Swift V. 150, 
 
 1004 
 Prycfi and the Citv of Toronto, Ro. . 21.34 
 
 Ptolemy, Atkins v. 1331, 1.571, 2240.-10 
 
 Public School Board of the City of Toronto, 
 
 U-ev 1723 
 
 Public Scliool Board of the Town of Wood- 
 stock, Chaplin v. 92.3, 1231, 1.599 1724, 17.39. 
 -919, 1723, 17.39 
 Public School Board of the Township of 
 
 Tuckcrsniith, Re 1725 
 
 Public School Trustees of Section 8 in tiie 
 Township of Blanehard, In re Minister 
 of Education and Mclntyre v. 12.30, 1730 
 Public Scliool Trustees of Section 9 Not- 
 tawasaga v. Township of Nottawa- 
 saga . . 552, 1091, 1.540, 1727 —540 
 Pugh, Robertson V. .. 981,992,1710.-985 
 Pulford, London and Canadian Loan, etc. 
 
 Co. V 751,1633 
 
 Pullman Car Co., Steam V 1790 
 
 Purcell V. Kennedy— Glengarry Election 
 
 coLrmit. 
 
 (Dom.) 
 Pnrdhamv. Murray- 
 Purdom v. Nicliol . 
 
 Purdy V. Parks 
 Pursley V. Bennett 
 Purves V. Slater 
 
 , Slater v. 
 
 Purvis, Young v. 
 
 Pyatt V. McKee 
 
 151.3, 1524 
 
 -Re Murray 8.35. -682, 838 
 
 1262.— 177, 2.35. 1273, 
 
 1414, 1.543, 1708, 1989 
 
 1318.-370 
 
 1215, 1609 
 
 8-, 1645, 22.32 
 
 1591, 
 
 717,906, 2162, 2202.— 738, 
 
 2213 
 
 .. 1157.-567.582 
 
 Qnaintance v. Township of Howard, 1230, 1.378, 
 
 2245 
 
 Quay V. Quay 389, 390 
 
 Quebec Bank v. Radford 1069 
 
 Quebec Central R. W. Co., City of Que- 
 bec V. . . 480, 663, 1805 (W»), 1980. — 1982 
 Quebec, City of, v. Quebec Centml R. W. 
 
 Co. .. 480, 663, 1805 (6m), 1980.— 1982 
 
 Que-Qai] 
 
 Ouebec, City of, Quebec Street R. W.Co. v. 
 
 ^ 1414, 1986 
 
 Corporation of, Ponlin v. .311, 105,5 
 
 "ounty Election— O'Brien v. Caron 1514, 
 
 1524 
 
 Quebec County 
 
 Quebec Ins. Co., Powell v. . 2043 (6m) 
 
 Quebec Street R. W. Co. v. City of Que- 
 
 l)cc 1414, 1986 
 
 Quebec Warehouse Co. V. Levis .. ..1809 
 Oueddy River Driving Boom Co. v. David- 
 son .309,316.-2106 
 
 Queen, The, Abrahams v. 94, 445.-4.35 
 
 , Arpin v 26, 2003 
 
 , Berlinguet v 1579.— 22.50 
 
 -, Brisebois v 449.-448 
 
 i'. Chesley 1698 
 
 , Chevrier v. 494, 1582, 1.58.5.- 
 
 1209 
 
 , Town of Dartmouth v. 1227, 1229, 
 
 1726.-1226, 1232, 1727 
 
 _ , Downie v. . . . . 444 
 
 , Mayor, etc. of Fredericton v. 310, 
 
 2241 
 
 — , (Joodman v. 447.-4.3.5, 454, 1113 
 
 , Orinnell V 1844, 19S0 
 
 , Ouay V. . . . . 1762.-17.53 
 
 Ho('ae V. 311, 2241.— 307, 1058 
 
 , Isbester v 1.578.-.332 
 
 , .lacobs V 446.-4.52 
 
 , .Tohn V. . . 431. -441 
 
 , Jones V. 1576, K577, 2095.— .3.32, 
 
 1573, 1584 
 
 , lii(iuidators of Maritime Bank 
 
 V. . . 132, 146. 290, 459, 9.32 
 
 , McArthurv. 472, 1126.-462, 468, 
 
 1970 
 
 , McFarlane v. 43/ (6m). —1.580, 
 
 1.581 
 
 , McCreevy v 1.585, 1995 
 
 , McQue.n v. 1231, 1.584, 18.')0. 
 
 2231.— 222, 401, 118.3, 1.584 
 
 , Morin v. . . . . . . 448 
 
 . Muskoka .Mill Co. v. 461, 12.50, 
 
 1580, 1696, 2025, 2106.-1.585 
 
 , O'Brien v. 461, 1416, 1.575.— S.'W 
 
 , Preeper v. . . 449, 453, 670 
 
 , Riel V 4.54, 1713 
 
 , Russell V 311,2240 
 
 , St. Catharines Milling and 
 
 Lunil jr Co. V 902 
 
 — , Thoal V. . . 442. —446, 453 
 
 , Tylee, v. 1209, 1847.-401, 1129, 
 
 1584 
 
 — , Vezina v. .. 1761 (^Ma.)— 175S 
 
 , Windsci- and Annapolis R. 
 
 W. «,'o. V. 475, 1580, 1584, 2025 
 
 , Wood V. . . 680, li)/», KMSa 
 
 Queen City ReKning Co. of Toronto 
 
 (Limited), In re 247, 290, 518, 1064, 165'). - 
 
 1663 
 Queen Ins. Co., Devlin v. 944, 909.-969 
 
 V. Parsons .. .309,310,318,382, 
 
 930, 943, 947, 2240, 2241.-943 
 
 , Parsons v. . . . . 947 
 
 Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park Com- 
 missioners V. Howard . . 152? 1.529 
 Queen's County Election (Dom.) — Jenkins 
 
 V, Brecken 1440 {hk) 1441, 1446, 1512 
 
 Quillinan v. Canada Southern R. W. Co. 1227, 
 
 1606, 1749, 22.38.— 2137 
 
 Quimby, Re— Quimby v. Quimby, 365, 2197.- 
 
 .533 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 IzvU 
 
 COLFMN. 
 
 .Co. V. 
 1414, lose 
 .111, inrw 
 
 Caron 1514, 
 
 204.S {hU] 
 
 f Que- 
 
 1414, 1986 
 
 .. 1809 
 
 Uavid- 
 
 , 316.-2106 
 
 4,445.-4.^5 
 
 26, 2()()3 
 
 1579.— 2'2.i0 
 
 449.-448 
 
 .. 1()98 
 
 582, 158,').- 
 
 120Q 
 
 1227, 12-J9, 
 
 i, 1232, 1727 
 
 .. 444 
 
 3ton V. 310, 
 
 2241 
 
 1.1, 4.14, 11 LS 
 
 1844, 1!»,S0 
 
 1702.— 17.53 
 
 —307, 10.58 
 
 i.'.78.-:«2 
 
 446.-4.52 
 
 431.— 444 
 
 2095.— 3:!2, 
 
 1.573, 1.584 
 
 9 Bank 
 
 !90, 459, !Ki2 
 
 I.— 462, 4(i8, 
 
 1970 
 
 (W«).— 1.580, 
 
 1,5M| 
 
 1585, 19(1.5 
 
 1584, 18;h), 
 
 118.3, 1.5S4 
 
 .. 44S 
 
 461, 12.5(1, 
 
 2106.— 1.58:> 
 
 1.575.-.W 
 
 49, 4.53, 670 
 
 4.54, 171.3 
 
 311,2240 
 
 g and 
 
 902 
 
 2.-446,4.53 
 401,1129, 
 1684 
 ;i7Ha.)- 17.53 
 lis R. 
 1.584, 202,5 
 1.)/)), nm 
 oronto 
 064, 1650. - 
 1663 
 4, 909.-969 
 10, 318, 382, 
 •2241.-943 
 .. 947 
 Com- 
 152« 1.529 
 enkins 
 
 1446, 1,512 
 
 L Co. 1227, 
 
 22.38.— 2137 
 
 565, 2197.- 
 
 .533 
 
 Qnl-Rec] COLUMN. 
 
 Ouinliin v. Union Fire Ins. Co. 28,20. 414, 935, 
 
 949, 1079, 1.580. — 1006, 106(i 
 
 Quinn, Kinmett v 1 142.— 1 133, 1 144 
 
 K- , (r V- 886 
 
 Riico V. An<lerson 49 
 
 ({uilforrt, Uwlessv 1841 
 
 Radford V. Merchants' Bank 145, 1088, 2097 
 
 , Quebec Bank v. . . . . 1060 
 
 . , Strange v. 418, 1012, 1312.-853, 1.300 
 
 Rae. Chard v. . . 722, 723, 1 204 - 7 1 
 
 V. McDonald 571, 791, 792, 822, 20.52. 
 
 2233, 22.37.-804 
 
 , Sommerville v. 484, 826 
 
 — V. Trim, 384, 396, 466, 482, 015, 1363, 
 
 2117, 2126.-472, 2117 
 Rainer, Re Great Western Advertising 
 
 Co. V 366, 401, 1227 
 
 Rainy Lake Lumber Co., Re, 291, 202, 357, 
 
 8.56 (/(/.s) 
 
 , In re, .Stewart, Liijui- 
 
 dator, V. Union 
 Bank of Lower 
 Canada, 140, 145, 170, 
 108. 286. — 184, 187 
 Rttleigli, Township of, Dillon v. 603, 1350, 
 
 1.378.^13.58 
 
 , Northwood V. .. 2114 
 
 , Smith V. 94, 017, 1.3.58, 
 
 2082.— 1384 
 Rama Timber Transport Co. (Limited) 
 Clarke V. 356,2107.-1308, 
 
 Bee-Reg] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Ramsay v. McDonald 
 
 V. Midland R. W. 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Co. 
 
 1400 
 
 1808 
 628 
 
 10.35, 10.37, 1048, 1101, 
 2002. 10.33, 1909 
 
 White V 58(», 1607 
 
 .. 10.30 
 
 .3r)4, .358, .361, 1671 
 
 .. 121;' 
 
 .. 2124 
 
 87, 173, 1077, 1998 
 
 . . 1218. 16.38 
 
 162.— 170, 871 
 
 Rand, Chapman v. . . 
 
 , Doer V. 
 
 Randall, Re . . 
 
 Runkin, Lupton v. . . 
 
 Ranldn, Hoblee v. 
 
 Ransom. Richardson v. 
 
 Rantoi), Southam v. 
 
 Raspberry, Hamilton and Milton Road Co. 
 
 V. 925,2151 
 
 Ratt.' V. Booth 467, 11811, 12,50. 1505,2104, 
 '2238.-489, 2099, 2100, 2109, 2110 
 
 , Booth V 210.5. -1183 
 
 Rattray v. Larue 2(H{7.— ;K)9 
 
 Ray V. Annual Conference of New Bruns- 
 wick, etc., ..219,5,222.3.-2224 
 
 Ray, British Canadian Loan and Invest- 
 ment Co. v 1208,1.302.-1265 
 
 Raymond V. Little 1067,1666 
 
 V. .School Trustees of Cardinal 
 
 1239, 1729 
 
 Raynerd, He, 17.38 
 
 Read, Kincaid v 876 
 
 , Regina v —1103 
 
 Reai Kstate Investment Co. v. Metropol- 
 itan Building Society 264, 772, 1258, 1290 
 1291, 141.3, 1961.-277, 424, 484 
 
 Real Estate Loan and Debenture Co., 
 
 Bridges V. .. 49.5, 1290, 18:i2 
 
 Real Kstate Loan Co. of ('anada (Limited) 
 
 r. Yo, xvilleand Vaughan Road ('o. 821 
 
 Reburn v. La Paroisse de 8t« Anne dii Bout 
 
 do L'Isle 2000 
 
 lUoorder'g Court and the City of Montreal, 
 
 Pigeon V 314. -:103, 1.371 
 
 Rector and C'hurchwardens of the Church 
 
 of the Ascension, Ball v. . . 2204, 2229 
 Reddan, He, . . . . 5;)7 
 
 R. lick V. Saugeen Mutual Ins. Co. 949, 055, 
 
 967.-947 
 
 V. Skelton . .. 41,44,1.541.-48 
 
 Reed, Attorney-General for Quebec v. 303, 1978 
 
 , Leviv. 478,1996.-27 
 
 , Regiiiu V. . . 1107, 1.342, 1.370, 1909, 
 
 224.3.-1103 
 
 Rees, Hughes v. 620, 883, 91 1, 1012, 1090, 1422, 
 
 1614, 1618, 1622, 1661, 1664, 167.3, 198.5, 
 
 2068, 2079, 22.3.3.— 761, 869, 891, 1663, 
 
 2083 
 
 — V. McKeown 198, 402 
 
 , Re— Urquhartv. Toronto Trusts Co. 355, 
 
 735 
 
 Reeve v. Thompson 
 Reeves v. Perrault 
 
 , Regina v. 
 
 Regan v. Water.s 
 
 Regina v. Abbott 
 
 V. Adams 
 
 V. 
 
 V. 
 
 V. 
 
 Addison 
 Alexander 
 
 .. 1134.— 1146, 1153 
 
 518, 892 
 
 211, 1164, 1637 
 
 414,670,2010.-1403 
 
 1032 
 
 217, 1000, 1.5,50 
 
 .. 1116, 1673 
 
 10<2, 104,5, 1103.-1049 
 
 AUbright311, 1056, 10,58 (bis), 2236- 
 
 307 
 1047, 1048, 1049.— 26, 
 1046, 1113 
 431, 452.-44S 
 .. 1124,1660 
 847, 1653, 1720, 1900.— 8.50 
 (his), 1710 
 Atkinson 614, 1031.— 611 
 Austin . . 1056 
 
 Bachelor 1033, 2232 
 
 V. Ambrose 
 
 V. Andrews 
 V. Armstrong 
 V. Arscott 
 
 Bail 
 Bank of 
 
 4.36 
 
 Nova Scotia 132, 146, 2!H», 
 450, 2092.— 601 
 
 V. Harnes 1900 
 
 V. Barnett 441.— 448 
 
 — V. Bau.sett . . . . 1308, 1720, 22.34 
 
 V. Beard 103.3.-1049 
 
 V. Beaulieu . . 48, 1765, 2004 
 
 V. Beemer 1031, 1115.-852 (his) «i54, 
 
 850 
 
 V. Belleau 31.8. -2151 
 
 V. Bennett 315, 452, 611, 1034, 1035, 
 
 1036, 1040, 1044, 1097. 1100, 1418, 
 2092. — 1044 (/)/-.), 1113 
 
 Bent 439 
 
 Bernard . . .1114, 2092. - 1 104 
 
 Berriman 1416, 1990 
 
 Berry . . M9 
 
 Birchall .. .. 854.-852,1851 
 Bissell . . 444. 447, 4.50, 885 
 
 Boucher 442, 1110, 22.37. -1113, 16.38 
 Boyd 1109, 1.350, 2242 
 
 V. Bradford 1030 
 
 V. Brady 1041, 1043, 1044, 1048, 1105.— 
 
 1046 
 V. Bricrly .. .. 31S, 4.^3.— 671 
 
 V. Brown 10.34, 1040, 1045, 1098, 1982.— 
 10.32, 10.33, 1047, 1048 
 V. Browne . . 7, 646, 741 (Inx), 742.-7 
 V. Bunting . . .306, 415, 417, 4.34, 446, 
 455, 852, 1422, 2009.— 4.34, 852, 8,59 
 
 V. Bush 315. —1638 
 
 V. Cameron . . . . . . 1045 
 
 V.Campbell.. .. 886,1056.-880 
 
 V. Contillon 10.59.— 1056 
 
 V. Card . . , , 444 
 
Ixviil 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Beg] 
 
 Kegina v. Carlton, County of '22, I41S, 2100, Rejjina v. (Jreeii 
 
 2138, 2238.-472: 
 
 ■ V. Carter 
 
 • V. Caton 
 
 ■ V. Chapman 
 
 • V. Cliarland 
 
 ■ V. (^hayter 
 
 • V. Chesley 
 
 • V. Chute 
 . V. Clark 
 
 ■ V. Clarke 
 
 • V. Clennan 
 V. Cluflf 
 
 V. Collier 
 
 • V. Collins 
 
 • V. Copp 
 V. Coiitts 
 V. Cox 
 
 • V. Creighton 
 
 - V. Cyr 
 
 ■ V. D.ijjgett 
 V. Divly . . 
 
 ■ V. Davidson 
 V. Dillon 
 
 ■ V. Dodds 
 
 ■ V. Doutre 
 
 1100 
 
 1107,2237,2242. -1368 
 
 ., 1098, 1348.— 1109 
 
 47,1766 
 
 .. 1106. 1367,2237 
 
 199, 483.-483 
 
 432.-901 
 
 646, 1031, 1718.— 10.39, 1098 
 
 .. 1057, 1059, 1100,2092.— 
 
 1037, 1039, 1058 
 
 1104 
 
 220 
 
 . . 1036, 1047 
 
 10.37, 1044, 1102, 2022, 
 
 2092.-1035 
 
 209, 210, 1350 
 
 1106, 1367, 22.36 [hix) 
 
 440, 455, 847, 852 
 
 442 
 
 V. Cuthbert 210, 1II4, 1145, 1.366 (M — 
 
 1109, 1.343 
 
 1105, 1112, 1719.— 1113 
 
 212,1922,1990 
 
 1028, 1721 
 
 1099 
 
 8.33 
 
 . . 832, 2238 
 148, 758, l.-)78.— .385 
 
 ■ V. Dowling 219, 1116, 123.3, 1638.-210 
 
 • V. Dowsley .. .. 1109. -1102 
 - V. Dovle 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045, 1046.— 
 
 10.32 
 
 ■ V. Dunn 158.3, 2020 
 
 • V. Dunning 218, 451, 1102, 1111, 21.52.— 
 
 111.3, 1909 
 
 • V. Duquette 520, 838, 901, 1051, 1055, 
 
 2015.-1062 
 
 V. Duruion . . 1028, 10.37.-103."), 1984 
 V. Edgar 452, 1036, 10.39 {bU), 1040, 
 
 1045.— 1032 
 V. Kli 408, 1034, 10.37, 1049 (6m), 1098.— 
 
 1103 
 
 V. KUiott 1041, 1044, 1045, 1111.— 
 
 1044, 1048, 111,3, 1116 
 
 V. Farwell 319 
 
 V. Fearman . . 440, {K)2 
 
 V. Fee 177, 393, 450, 614, 643, 856, 1041, 
 
 1115.— 676, 1049 
 
 V. Ferris 1046 
 
 V. Fife 442, 1118 
 
 V. Flint 1718 
 
 V. Flory 1112, 1351, 1366, 1932, 2012.— 
 
 1109, 1.3.39 
 212,1922,1990 
 220, 311, 31,5, 10.57, 
 2236.-307, 1058 
 8.34, 1105 
 1102.— 1117 
 4.34, 447.-446 
 . . 902, 22.36 
 447.-435, 446, 4.54, 847 
 10.54, 1100, 16.38 
 442.-446 
 1037, 1044, 1 102, 2022. - 
 10.35 
 1059(6iV<),1114, 1228, 
 2053.— 1227 
 
 V. Crant 4.52, 1102.-1 109, 1 1 12, 1.366 
 
 V. (Jravelle 1111, 1371.-1109, 1366 
 
 V. f! reaves .. 21.50 
 
 V Hal pin 
 • V. Hart 
 
 ■ V, 
 
 ' V, 
 
 ■ V, 
 
 Hartley 
 
 Heath 
 
 Heffernan 
 
 V. Henderson 
 V. Higgins 
 V. Hodge 
 
 V. Hodgins 
 
 V. Hollister 
 
 V. Hoodless 
 
 V. Hope 
 
 — V. Hovey 
 
 V. Howard 
 
 — — V. Hubert 
 
 V. Hunter 
 
 V. Janiieson 
 
 V. Johnson 
 
 — V. Fortier 
 
 — V. Frawley 
 
 — V. Freeman 
 
 — V. French 
 
 — V. Gibson 
 
 — V. Good 
 
 — V. Goodman 
 
 — V. Gordon 
 
 — V. Gough 
 -- V. Goulais 
 
 — V. (jrainger 
 
 COLUMN. 1 Reg] COL0MK, 
 
 219,849,1061,1116.-219, 
 
 1103 
 
 V. Hagernian 438, 4.52 
 
 V. Hall 1035, 1102, 1103, 1251.-1104, 
 
 1113 
 
 1028, 1041 
 
 220,455, 456, 1409.-1102 
 
 1047 
 
 1029 
 
 . 604, 1043,1102, 1982.- 
 
 1042, 1049 
 
 .. 1107, 1.368 
 
 . . 1033, 1047.— 1029 
 
 154,311,31.5, 1105, 2012, 
 
 2236.— 315 
 
 .. 1035, 1098.-1116 
 
 .. 1107, 1116.— 1.371 
 
 1822 
 
 4.35 
 
 742, 758.-4,39 
 
 311, 1056, 1241, 1349 
 
 46, 2004 
 
 1102 
 
 8.32,1116,22.38 
 10.35 
 
 — V. Kennedy 1038, 1040 (bis), 1044, 1117.- 
 
 1036, 1048, 1103 
 
 — V. King . . 53, 298, 432, 1 1 1 8. - 1 1 1 3 
 
 — V. Klenip 1034, 1035, 1048, 10^9, 1064, 
 
 1098 
 
 — V. Lackie . . 440, 450, 1 101 , 1116 
 
 — V. Laiigford 432, 1098 
 
 — V. Lavin ..1117 
 
 — V. Lee 315, 1031, 1638.-1638,1716 
 
 — V. Lloyd 448.-444 
 
 — V. Logan 833, 1112 
 
 — V. London, City of .. 408,454.-1410 
 
 — V. Lynch 217, 1100, 1111, 1113, 1117, 
 16.38, 1982.-1721 
 
 — V. Mabce 10.38 
 
 — V. .MauLcan 334, 1422, 1.580, 1711.— 327 
 
 — V. MacKcnzie 220, 1061, 111.3.— 1116 
 
 — V. McAllan 219, 1114 
 
 — V. McAuley 8i->9, 892, 1062, 111.5.-856. 
 
 1049 
 
 — V. McCarthy 220, 1 1 04, 1 1 1 3. - 1 1 1 6 
 
 — V. McDoiuvld 453, I099.-442 (^i«), 2121 
 
 — V. McKlligott .. 431,894,1110 
 
 — V. McFarlane 213, .3.32, 461, 1241, 
 
 1392, 1606, 2025 
 
 — V. Mcl'^ee 4.38 
 
 — V. McGauley 30, 901, 1061, 2232 (6m)— 
 
 1909 
 
 — V. Mc Holme . . .53, 454, 1 104 
 
 — V. McLeod 461, 1392, 1,582, 1696, 1790, 
 
 2025 
 
 — V. McMahon 443, 4.50.— 479, .572, 669 
 
 — V. McNicol . . 451, 1101, 1106, 1368.- 
 
 643, 1 102 
 
 — V. Malcolm 1099 
 
 — V. Marshall 1368, 2231 
 
 — V.Martin .. 1108.— 1372 
 
 — V. Matheson . . . . 832, 1099.— 1373 
 
 — V. Menary 10.57, 1068.— 1056, 10.59 (6m) 
 
 — V. Meyer 445, 450, 885, 1101, 2241. 27 
 
 — V. Montcith 1029, 1033, 1986, 2015.— 
 
 1029 
 
 — V. Murphy 8.33, 198B 
 
 — V. Nelson 450, 618 
 
 — V. Newton 1719 
 
 — V. Nunn .. 220, 1108, 1372.-1102 
 
 — V. Organ 1720 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Iziz 
 
 Beg] 
 
 Regina 
 
 coLusiN. Beg-Rlc] 
 
 O'Rourke 313, 417, 448 (bU), 449.— 
 
 454 
 
 Palmer 1055 
 
 Puradis . . . 48. 17()5, 2004 
 
 Porriii .. 22, 55."), 1110. 1!)I4 
 
 Perth, County of, 1334, 2126, 2131.— 
 
 2130 
 Pierce . . . . . . . . 433 
 
 Pipe 311, 1105, 1375, 223(;.— 307, 
 
 111.3, 133!) 
 . Ramsay 10.35, 10.37,1048,1101,2092.— 
 
 1033, 1909 
 
 .Read —1103 
 
 . Reed 1107, 1370, 1.342, 1909, 2243 
 
 . Itecves .. 211, 1164.— 1637 
 
 . Ronioii 1719 
 
 , l!ichardson27, 217, 315, 4.32, 447, 4,50, 
 
 1 101, 1 104, 1 1 16, 1230, 1409, 16.3S (hix), 
 
 167.3, 1718, 22.3.3.— 1116, 1227 
 
 , Riley 1098.— 163S 
 
 . Rohertsor. 308, .309, 1102, 1164, 
 
 2105.-314, 750, 1117, 1162 
 . RodwLli . . . . 1055, I0."i8 [his) 
 
 , Roe 1(1,32, 10.30, 1100, 1104, 2092 
 
 , Romp . . . . 450 
 
 . Rowliii .. 1112.— 1718 
 
 . Rmieliy .. .. 8.")4, II 15-8.52 
 
 Rym, .. .375,10.38,1117.-1049 
 
 , Rymal 435 
 
 Siaidors.m, 220, 349, 40(5, 4.52 644, 
 1046, 1047, 104S, 1117 (/"■<) 
 
 .Scott 217 
 
 .Selby 439, 4.".2 
 
 Sliavekar 90.3, 1029 (Aw), 2234. -1062 
 
 .Sriiitli, 219,341,604, 101 i, 1099, 1104, 
 
 1110,1.369, 1,549, 1721, 223S.-341, 
 
 1113, 1117, I. ISO, 1904, 2244 
 
 Spain 1110 
 
 Siarliam . . 217, .363, 450, 1111, 12.52 
 Sproulo 151, 1034, 10.37, 1042, 1100. - 
 
 1(»;{5, 1102 
 St. (^itharines Milling and 1, um- 
 ber Co 313 
 
 St. Deni.s 440, 44(;, 846, 894. - 444, 
 
 416, IS22 
 
 Starrs . . 22,50. — 3.32, 462, 15S0 
 
 Stewart 3, 4, 401, 1117, 1251, l(i2S, 
 
 1676, lh22. -16 IS 
 
 Swahvell .. 220,1108,1.369,2211 
 
 'IV tit 1251 
 
 'I'l igiin/io . . 453 - 4.32 
 
 Tuilur .. .. 1045, 1047.-1047 
 
 Veiral . . 1109, 137", 1,")47 
 
 Walker 1041, 1043, 104S, 1049, 1718. 
 - 1117, HIS, 1124 
 Wallace 1(),39, 1044, I04S, 1104 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 V. Walidi 1041, 1044, 1046, 1017.- 
 
 1047, 
 
 104S 
 
 V. Wiiricu , . . . ..1719 
 
 V. Wasliingt.m 217, 1110, 1908, 1979 — 
 
 1109 
 V. Wasou 210, 307, 1116, 1233 
 
 V. Wat-soii 1718,22.39 
 
 V. Wi lister .. 1.349.-1312,1.351 
 
 V. Weliliiii 219, 1114 
 
 V. Waiiiigton, County of. 66, 132, 2232 
 
 (hi".). 2240.— .304 
 
 V. Wiiicganicr .. 298, 451. — 3.")0 
 
 V. Wri;jl.t 1112, 12.-)2 
 
 V. Ycmiig -140, 1030, 1051, 1057 ('»■■<), 
 
 10.".8, U).",9, 1061, 1104, 110.5. 16.38, 
 
 2242.-1049, 105S 
 
 Regina ex rel. Brine v. Booth 1054, 1320 (6m), 
 
 1326, 1979 
 
 Chauncey v. Billings . . 1.331 
 
 Clancey V. Conway 1.326, 1331, 
 
 1979. — 1054, 10.56 
 
 V. Mcintosh . . 1.325, 
 
 1.331.— 1328 
 V. St.Mean 1328 (uis), 
 
 Dougherty v. McClay 
 Dwyre v. Lewis 
 Felitz V. Rowland 1326 
 
 1.329, 2021. 
 -, In re Henry 
 
 1331 
 
 13.30 
 
 398 
 
 1328, 
 
 -1331 
 
 Reid 
 
 O'Brien .320, 1999.-1938, 2004 
 
 Grant v. Coleman . . 398, 403, 
 
 13.30.— 1227, 1228 
 
 Hamilton v. Piper . . 1325 
 
 .Johns V.Stewart 616, 1327, 132S. 
 
 1.331.— 1467, 1473 
 Kelly V. Ion . . 1325 
 
 — - Lee V. Gilmour .. 1326 
 
 . Mitohell V. Davidson 1328.— 1330 
 
 McDonald V. Anderson .398, 1329 
 
 — O'Dwyer v. Lewis 398, 1329 
 
 .Stewart V. Standish 604,1723 
 
 Taverner v. Willson . . 1325 
 
 Wil.son V. Duncan . . 1329 
 
 Whyto V. McClay 1.329.-1.330 
 
 Drurv — luvstSimcoe Election (Out.) 
 
 1439, 1455, 1478, 149i), 1500, 1522, 
 1520. -14.39 {his) 1472, 1491 
 675, 1405, 1668.— 192, 811, 
 1404 
 706, 1026, 2238 
 1.59,763.-616 
 
 1294, 1831 
 
 ..452, 45(i, 646, 1528 
 
 -, Furlong v. 
 
 - v. Oowans 
 
 - v. Humjilirey 
 -, .lohnstun v. 
 -, May V. . . 
 
 - V. Maybee 
 -, Miller V. 
 
 - V. Murphy 
 -, Palin V. 
 
 - V. Reid 
 
 - V. .Smith, . 
 
 11(.\ 1217.-1222, 1398.20.36 
 
 1244. 1391 
 
 1020 
 
 99, 930 
 
 5112, .587.— .")61 
 6.55, 1544, l8.-).3.— 2019 
 
 , Thames Navigation Co. (Limited) »'. 
 
 277.-266, 340, 1801 
 
 V. WiLson 1282 
 
 Reid ((.'. P.) and Co. v. Coleman Bros. 1.545. - 
 
 1.546 
 Reilly, Tbornley v. . . 
 Reinhart v. ,'>-hutt .. 1171 
 Relianio Mutual Life Assurance Ci>, 
 fatt v 
 
 Reuinn, Regiiia v. 
 Rcnnick v. Cameron- K 
 tion (Unt.) 1457, 
 l.">00, 
 Rennie, Stihvell v 
 
 . . 1060 
 •16(16 (/n',-) 
 Mof- 
 9.36, 994 
 .. 1719 
 
 ast 'roionio I'.li'c- 
 
 I45S, I46l», 1472, 
 
 1518, 22.37.-1473, 
 
 517, 
 
 1481, 
 1482 
 
 1407 
 274, 
 
 Rent (iuarautce Co. , Walmslcy v. 2(!ii 
 
 279. -261!, 281 
 
 RevcU, Ontario Bank v 1020, 1.566 
 
 Revision of tlie \ otcrs' List for the Citv of 
 
 St. Thomas. In re -Rel?.. yes 853, 1416, 14;!1 
 Row v. Anthony .. .3S(1, 9(16. I(i44.— 9(9 
 lieynar, Porteous v. 2082 111,1149 
 
 Reyntjids v. Jamil son .. 866 
 
 V. Ilo.xluiigh SCO, 13^9, 2091 
 
 Rlioder V. McKenzii,'-- Kast Middkhe.x Khc- 
 
 tion (Out.) 1471, 148.5, 1495, 22:iS 1481, 
 
 1499, l.">O0, 1517 
 Rice V. Fletcher .. .. 51 
 , Foott V. . . 595, 899, 2063. - 895, 2075 
 
Izz 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Bic-Bob] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Rice V. Giiim 669, 673, 679, 761, 762, 8:12, 1692, 
 
 —203 
 
 Richard v. Stillwell , «41 
 
 Richardson v. Canadian Pacilic K. W. Co. 1795, 
 
 1796 
 
 V. Jenkin 369, l.)89.-36S, 397 
 
 , Oniniiun SecuriticH Co. v. ;i'2!i, 612. 
 
 1968, 2243-3311 
 
 - — ■ — V. Hansom 1218, 1()38 
 
 . , Kegina v. 27, 217, 31"), 432, 447, 
 
 4.")0, 1101, 1104, 1116, 1230, 1409, 
 1638 (M. 1673, 1718, 2233.— 1 1 16, 
 
 1227 
 
 V. Richardson . . 97, 99, 888, 1386, 
 
 l;)li3 
 
 ■ and the City of Turonto, Re, 1365 
 
 , Vauglianv. 2006,2008,2232.-2002 
 
 Richelieu Navii'atiou Co., Dixon v. 212, 1922, 
 
 2231, 2240.— 1793 
 Richmond v. Willoughby- East Nortlium- 
 
 berlandKluction {(»nt.) 1456, 14)H>. — 1494 
 
 Ricker v. Kicker 9.5, 381. 906, 911, 1312, 1898, 
 
 1900, 2076.— 1287, 1897 
 
 Riddel, Small V. 132, 138, 165, 173, 342, 1541.— 
 
 1()5, 1708 
 
 Riddell, Bell V 171. 296, S75 
 
 V. Mcintosh .. 2172,2226.-2178 
 
 V. McKay 
 
 Ridgetown, Town of, Young v. 
 Kiel V. The Queen . . 
 Kiley, Regina v. 
 Ringrose v. Ringrose 
 
 Jlipley V. Hipley 
 
 Hisbridger, lie Morice and, 
 Ritchie v. Cameron— South Huron 
 tion (Dom.) 
 
 , Lenoir v. 147, 299, 317, : 
 
 , Montreal Street R. W. Co. ' 
 
 , Snowball v. 
 River Stave Co. v. Sill 
 Rivers, Uland v. 
 Roach, Arkell v. 
 Roaf, Keefer v. 
 
 77, 83, 1875. 
 
 35» 
 
 . . 929 
 
 454, 1713 
 
 1098—1638 
 
 . . 8!X) 
 
 563, 1128 
 
 580.- 591 
 
 Elec- 
 
 1491, 1520 
 
 2003. -1683 
 
 V. 279,921, 
 
 1225 
 
 . . 338, 201 1 
 
 761, 808.-li)2 
 
 -5.-):i 
 
 5:13,2185 
 
 9.-), 161."), 1882 
 
 Bob-Bog] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Roan V. Kronsbeiu 588.-676, 11.33, 1144, I IN."., 
 
 1833 
 
 511 
 
 ;i95, .396, 1604 
 Workman V 409, 1198,2240.-1144,1185, 
 
 1199 
 
 II, 1.547, 1571, 1599, 22.32. 
 
 — 1618 
 
 502, 10.52 
 
 :i2, :i.3, :ioo, ooo, 9i4, i5oi, 
 
 1.571.— 1.521 
 
 10, 724, 91.3, 1974, 197.5,2158. 
 
 -.331,911, 1971 
 
 Robb, Corcoran v. 
 V. Murray 
 
 Robert, C/haput v, 
 
 Roberts v. Cliniio 
 , (iarrett v. 
 
 V. Hall 
 
 V. Lucas 
 
 V. McDonald. . 
 
 ■ V. Vaughan . . 
 
 , Wilson v. 
 
 Robertson v. t 'oulton 
 
 V. tJow.in . . 
 
 and Daganeau 
 
 V. Daley . . 
 
 , I layer V. .. 
 
 , Farcjuliar v. 
 
 , Holden V. 
 tion (2) 
 V. Holland 
 V. Kelly . 
 
 1651 
 .. 1168 
 .. I,5S 
 .371,517 
 19,22, .56(/>(.s) 
 . . 355 
 .. 2088 
 
 506, 1195 
 
 16.58 
 
 V. 379, 517, 2049, 2055.- 
 1308, 1408, 1410,22.36 
 West Hastings Klec- 
 (Ont.). 14.59, 14!K). -1497 
 
 818 
 
 341,1212 
 
 Robertson, Langdon v. 149, 177, 214, :i.30, 410, 
 
 615, 1669, 1799, 1859, 1924.— 30, 
 
 227,761,762 (hu), 192.5 
 
 V. Laroc(iue . . 880, 1984 
 
 V. Laurie — Shelburne Election 
 
 ( Dom. ) 1 .507, 1 509, 2003. - 1 .524 
 
 V. McMaster . . :160. -357, :160 
 
 V. Mero 1644 
 
 ■ and Township of North Kast- 
 
 hope, Re i:i46, i:i52, 13.57, 22.38.- 
 i:i43, 1:1(50 
 
 V. Patterson . . 1976.-1974 
 
 V. Rugh . . 981, 992, 1716.— 98j 
 
 , Regina v. :108, .309, 1102, 1164,210.5. 
 
 —314, 7r)0, 1117, 1162 
 
 V. Wigle— The St. Magnus 1234, 
 
 1931, 2005 
 
 , Young V. 1598, 1617, 1971 (hh) 
 
 Robins V. Brockton i:i76 
 
 V. Coflee 1841 
 
 V.Clark .. 804.-19.5,197 
 
 V. Victoria Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 9.34, 
 
 964, 12.58.— 980 
 
 -, Wanty v. 
 
 Robinson, Banks v. . . 
 
 V. Ilergin . . 
 
 V. Bogle . . 
 
 , Campbell v. 
 
 1172 
 
 181. — 184, 197, 811 
 
 5.-697, 705 
 
 :175, 925,2030.-349 
 
 1280, 1317, 1698.- 
 
 1277 
 
 , Canadian Pacihc R. \V. Co. v. 1395 
 V. Cook 111, .597, 7.53.-184, 192 
 
 V. Mall 28, 1289, 1399, 1410.-2035 
 
 , Makins V 1167,2092 
 
 , Merchants' Bank v. 169, 1627, 22:i,5 
 
 , Macdonell v .500 
 
 , New Brunswick R. W. Co. v. 1787 
 , O'Donohoe v. . . 703, 1990.-31 
 V. Town of Owen Sound . . 22.50 
 
 V. Robinson .. . . 1(>70, 19.35 
 
 , Thompson v. 411, 1388, 1544, 19.38, 
 
 1962, 2241 
 , Trice v. . . 710, 10.59, 1980. —723 
 , Waterloo Mutual Ins. Co. v. 01 1, 782, 
 1402, 1710. — 1709 
 87, 173, 1077, 1998 
 1242, 20.32.— 20:i2, 20:i« 
 
 1208 
 
 866, 890 
 
 I5:i2 
 
 .375, .537.— .548 
 
 Roblce V. l!aid<in 
 Robliii, Ferguson v. 
 
 V. McMahon 
 
 V. Roblin 
 
 Robsiin V. Rob8(m 
 Roche, Kinscy v. 
 
 Rochester, Township of. In re Byrne and, 1.3.58 
 
 In re Calerno and, 8.5.5, 
 
 1.3.53, 
 
 , Walker v.— Ro Walker 
 
 Riidl>urn v. Swinuey 1.302, 
 
 Hodd, McCaskill v. 
 Hodden, Fletcher v. 
 V. Mclntyre- 
 
 2231 
 19,5:i 
 
 1688 
 
 .5:«) 
 
 1189 
 
 South Victoria Elec- 
 tion (Ont.) ' .. .. 27, 1476.— 1511 
 
 Rodwell, Regina v 105.5, 10.58 (Ws) 
 
 liody v. H.iily -|(M 
 
 Rue, Miles V. .. :174, 1.501, 1651 
 
 , Miles v.— Lennox Election (Ont) 14.53, 
 
 1473, 14!H> 
 
 , Regina v. 10.32, 10.36, 1100, 1104, 2092 
 
 Roger, McLay & Co., Wilson v. 1.546, 1.598. - 
 
 1.546 
 
 Rogers, Amer V 508,1.596,2025 
 
 , Duncan v 1164,119.3,2121 
 
 — V.Duncan 2121. -2125 
 
 , Ktlsey V 18.58,-184 
 
 V. Loos .361,1.56.5 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 mi 
 
 Eo«-Bow] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 I«8S 
 118!) 
 
 •ii'ii 
 'Ji-jr. 
 
 -1S4 
 
 1 ■"»().'> 
 
 Rogers V. Lowthian 
 
 , . V. Manning 
 
 . , Mcintosh V. 
 
 .. 464,2192.-2177 
 
 .. C20.— 6.S,-} 
 
 1270, 1886, 1891.— 1685, 
 
 1887, 2089 
 
 . Ke, Rogers v. Rogers 1.5.12, 1663.— 
 
 1664 
 
 V. Ullman .. 12.37, 169-).— 8,782 
 
 V.Wilson .. .. 1076, 1292.— 611 
 
 Roman Catholiu I'^piscopal Corporation of 
 
 tlie Diocese of Kingston, (Jillen v. 1269, 
 
 1942 
 Roman Catholic Separate Schools, In re, 417, 
 606, 1727, 1728.-70 
 Romanes and Smith, Re, . . 2174.-2183, 2191 
 Romann v. IJrodrecht . . — 1609 
 
 Roninov, Township of, v. Township of 
 
 MJr.s((,i. He, i:U2, l.S.Vi 
 
 Rnnip, Regina v 4r)0 
 
 Roniilil and the Village of Rrussels, In re, 69 
 . . Village of Ihussuis v. 199, 47."), 762. 
 
 i:i20, i:u8, i.-)72. ;«9 
 
 Roome, McNeil v. —West Middlesex Klee- 
 
 tion (Doni.) 147->, 1-VJ7 
 
 Roi.my, .Schneder v. Xi, 407, 722, 829. — 109:{ 
 Rose, Briiyea v. . . 466, 20.34. — 1 1 S.S, 20.32 
 
 V. Peterkin 1268, 18.32 
 
 V. Township of West Wnwanosli 919. - 
 
 21.3.-. 
 Rosehatcii v. Tarry . . 37.1, 726, 1681 
 Rose-Belford Printing Co. v. Bank of Mon- 
 treal 136,2240 
 
 Rosenberg, Laxton V. .. lir)4, 2092 
 
 Roseiiberger, (irand Trunk R. W. Co. v. 1779 
 
 Row-Byk] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 V, (irand Trunk R. W. Co. 
 
 Rosenfeldt, Hutler v. 
 
 — , Sweetzer v. 
 Rosenheim v. .Silliinan 
 Rosenstadt v. Itosenstadt . . 
 Ross, Re, 639, 680, 713, 1007 
 
 20.-.1 
 
 .■)3, Mi 
 
 ■)3, 56 
 
 . . <i30 
 
 . . 888 
 
 120.->, 1210, 
 
 16(i.3.— 7.32 
 
 119, UW 
 
 120, r.83 
 
 . . 1.V)1 
 
 8.-)9, 
 
 , Aguew, V. 
 
 , Bell V 
 
 V. Canadian Pacific it. W. Co. 
 
 V. Carscallen 8.-)9, 1084 
 
 V. Cross . . . 1 244 
 V. Dunn 183, 192, 1.U7 
 V. Kitch 10.3.-I 
 
 , Graliam v 42,5, 1.320 
 
 V. (irand Trunk R. W. Co. 1760, 189.5 
 
 V. Hunter .. 208,18.34.-1830,2034 
 
 •, Johnson V. — West Middlesex Elec- 
 tion 
 
 1.521 
 
 1071 
 
 244, 2.50, 2.53, 286, 663, 2237, 
 22.39.-2.53 
 
 694 
 
 1316,1666 
 
 .. 1178, 1 188.-- 1901 
 
 676, 1814 
 
 i508, 1251. -;,08 
 Middlesex Elec- 
 
 , Lucas V. 
 
 V. Maehar 
 
 V. Malone 
 
 , Markle v. 
 
 V. Ponieroy 
 
 , County of Pontiac v 
 
 , Skirving v. 
 
 , Walker v.-West 
 
 tion (Out.) . . 
 
 V. Williamson . . 
 
 Rounds, Stewart V. 1075, 1410, 16S7.- 
 Rousscau, Erie and Niagara R. W. Co. v. 
 
 1802.- 
 Koutliier, Flagar v. — Prcscott Election 
 
 (l)om.) 1428. -1444 
 
 V. McLaurin .. ..122.3.-1398 
 
 Routloy V. Harris .506 
 
 Rowland, Br)ulton V 1318.-1.300 
 
 V. Burwell .. .. 131.5,1660 
 
 1513 
 
 665 
 
 1694 
 
 -1708 
 
 Rowloiida V. Canada Southern R. W. Co. 2006, 
 
 2007, 2237.— 2002 
 Rowlin, Anglo-American Casings Co. 
 
 (Limited), v .3,54, .358 
 
 , Regina V 1112.-1718 
 
 IJoxburgh, Reynolds V. .. 860,1389,2094 
 
 Roy, Parkhurst V 757,2218.-2225 
 
 , Williams V 712,2222 
 
 Koyal Canadian Ins. Co., Gerow v. . . 989 
 
 Royal Ins. Co. v. Byers 786, 968.-976, 1006 
 
 , (Jreet v. 225, 942, 955, 957, 
 
 963.— 1265 
 
 , Re Hilly.ard and, 51, 385 
 
 Royal Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Ballagh v. 946.— 
 
 980 
 Rudd V.Bell ..124.3,1244.-1245 
 
 V. Frank . . . . 58 1 , 61 6. —576, 1 268 
 
 V. Harper . . 566, 2203. -.567, 2226 
 
 Rumohr v. Marx 2.34, 380, 695, 1296, 1617.— 
 
 1622 
 Kumsey, Merchants' Mariuclns. Co. v. 982. — 
 
 98l» 
 Runchy, Regina v. .. 8.54, 1115.— 
 
 8.52 
 Rushbrook and Starr, In re, . . 40 
 
 llussell. Re 130.-124,815 
 
 , Barber V 1072 
 
 V. (^mada Life Assurance Co. 644, 998, 
 
 1620.-1006 
 . 1978—6.57, 1165 
 26, 2156, 2217 
 641.-0.15 
 
 1840 
 
 .. 311,2240 
 916, 1828, 1829 
 Hcndei-son v. 
 852, 1.503, 1.507, 
 1510 
 
 (1) (Ont.) — Ogilvie V. 
 
 Baker 1487.-14.56, 1515 
 (2) (Ont.)— Baker V. Mor- 
 gan . . 1442, 1446, 1519 
 Ruthorfoi'd, Cameron v. . . 1061 
 
 V. Sing .. .. 1973. -1971 
 
 Ryan, Re, 1.569, 19.3.5, I'HJ I 
 
 V. Bank of Montreal 1.38, 164, 177, 598, 
 
 763, 1126, 1262.-756 
 
 183, 189, 194, 12.59 
 
 W. Co. 16.54, 1783. 
 
 —1412, 1654, 1658, 
 
 2051 
 
 108, 306, 392 
 
 1997 
 
 2185, 2213 -2186 
 .568, 569 (bix), 570, 1083, 12.54, 
 1619. -.569, .570 
 
 , Frith V. 628 
 
 V. McConnell .. .. 177,2.3.5,1128, 
 
 V. McKerral 170,174 
 
 , Regina v. .. ,375, 10.38, 1117.-1049 
 
 V.Ryan .. .. 26,1184.-1195 
 
 — — V. Simonton, Re, 646 
 
 V. Sing 1688, 1967.— .326, .3.36, 1964 
 
 Ryerand Plows, In re, .347, 1228, 1908.— 1104, 
 
 1908 
 Rykert v. Neelon — Lincoln Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1416, 1464, 1465, 1488 
 
 , Pattison V. — Lincoln and Niagara 
 
 Election (I)om.) .. 21,1.524,1527 
 
 , Pawling V. -Lincoln Election (2) 
 
 . (Out.) 1511, 1519, 1.526.— 616, 1416, 
 
 1.507 
 
 , Foster V. 
 
 V. IjCtrancois 
 
 V. Macdonald 
 
 V. 0"Callaghan 
 
 V. The (i)ueen 
 
 — V. Russell 
 
 Russell Election (Dom.) — 
 Oickenson 
 
 , Boldrick V. 
 V. Canada .Southern R. 
 
 V. Clarkson 
 , Clarkson v. 
 V. Cooley, 
 V. Fish, 
 
IzzU 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Byk-Sch] 
 
 liykcrt, St. John v. 
 , Wilson V. 
 
 COLUMN. Sch-Sel] 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Ryniul, Ui'gina v. 
 
 107, 1009, 1283, |-)6I.— 
 
 120!) 
 
 .. 1208, ir)(t2 
 
 4:{5 
 
 Siibonrin, Millette v. 
 iSiwlcrquist v. Ontiii-io Bank 
 
 420, 1420 
 
 136, 1127. -(502, 
 
 l.'iOO 
 
 Sudler, Braily v. 406, 489, 648, 652, 2108, 2233, 
 
 2243.-2100 
 Saint John, City of, v. Macdonald 747, 1302, 
 
 1393.-13!»1 
 
 Salt, Bryco v 903, 1072 
 
 Samuel, Heaty v. .. 106, 19.5.-I21, 131 
 
 Sanders v. Malsburg 672, 882, 1982, 2088, 2091. 
 
 —871 
 Sanderson v. Aslifield . . . . . . 364 
 
 V. McKerchur 2061.-116") 
 
 , MoKercher v 2061 
 
 , itogina V. . . 220, 340, 406, 4-)2, 
 
 044, 1040, 1047, 1048, 1117 (hii) 
 Sandford V. I'ortur 112, 1949, 2079, 2080. -8, 
 
 19.59 
 Sands V. Standard Ins. Co . 943, 944, 946, 955 
 Sandwich Kast, Ke Wliito and tlio Town- 
 ship of 1352,1353,1354.-1.361 
 
 Sangster, Hood V. .. .. .. H(97 
 
 Sanson, Lonylii v. 1144, 1 1.V2. — 1 150, ll.-)4 
 
 V. Northern R. W. (!o. 92(!, 1128.-9_'0 
 
 Saniia Agricultural Iinplenieiit Manu- 
 facturing Co. V. 
 Hutchinson . . 235, 
 279. — 1 6.50 
 
 V. Perdue 415, 8.50, 
 
 1591, 1593, 16.5.S.— 10.57 
 >Sami.% Town of, In re Township of Sarnia 
 
 and 1381.- 1.325 
 
 , Township of, Crvsler v. I . . ..2114 
 
 Sato V. Hubbard, In re ' . . 87, 91, 92, 403. 
 
 1714.-91 
 Saugeon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. , Ke - | 
 
 Knechtel's Case . . . . 978 
 
 . Reddick v. 
 
 949, 95.5, 9(i7. -947 ' 
 Saugeen Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Mount | 
 
 Forest, AtKlerson v. ..943,978. -907,971 
 Siiidt Stc. Marie. Town of, Dawson v. 1732. — : 
 
 1733! 
 
 School Trustees of Olouocster, Alexander v. 384, 
 
 3S85, 87 
 
 School TruRicos of the Township of Hamil- 
 ton V. Neil 013, 1032, 1686, 1729, 1733 
 
 School Trustees of Section No. 3 South 
 Cayuga, Lanibiere v 
 
 Schrailer v. i.illis 
 
 Schragg v. Scliragg . . 
 
 Schrier, Augustine v. 
 
 Schr(cder v. Rooney 
 
 Sehultz V. Wood 
 Schwob V. McGloughlin 
 Scobell, Meek v. 
 Scoble. Sinnott v. 
 Scott, In re, . , 
 
 V. Benedict 
 
 , liimnhnan v 
 
 (Ont.) 
 
 , Court V. 
 
 V. Cox — West 
 
 tion (Ont. ) . 
 
 ..1729 
 
 328, 157.S.-330 
 
 1950 
 
 '. 2164, 2203, 2213 
 
 33, 407, 829.-722, 
 
 1093 
 
 619, 1993, 2042 
 
 , 365, 1594.— 1022 
 
 540, .547 
 
 404.-472 
 
 90!) 
 
 1896,2017 
 
 — North Grey Klection 
 
 1448, 1451, 1484, 1488. -1499 
 
 .. 1088, U>M. -1093 
 
 I'eturborougii Klec- 
 
 14.58, 1460, 1478, 1492, 
 
 151.5, 22.35.-1,521 
 
 .. .579, 1006.— 1622 
 
 .. 515, 1410.— .508 
 
 , 392, 19,59 
 
 2171.-2185 
 
 . . 2103, 2203, 2170 
 
 .5.50 
 
 V. Croiglilon . . 
 
 ■ V. CJrerar 
 
 V. Daly 
 
 V. Duncan 
 
 V. (iohn 
 
 , In re llenny v. 
 
 , Jackson v., Ro Lewis 2048.— 2229 
 
 , Jeflry v 2173, 2191 
 
 - — . V. Town of Listowel . . . . 7», 2024 
 , hunisden V 1.3, 820 
 
 V.Mitchell .. .. .3,4,19,2233 
 
 , R^'giiia V. . . 217 
 
 V. Scott 2159 
 
 , Stuart 78, 79. —81 
 
 V. Tilsonlnng 918, 1 303. — 1 .339, 1.343 
 
 — — , In re City of Toronto and, . . . . 1.379 
 V. Vobuig 1285, 2097 
 
 V. Wye 1069, 1981 
 
 Scottish American Investment Co. v. Vil- 
 lage of I'.lora 835, 
 ' 1009, 1210, 1,348, 
 
 1984 -1379 
 
 • V. Tennant 1295 
 
 Scottish Imperial Ins. Co., Clark v. . . 980 
 
 Scougall V. Staplclon 679, 1219, 1220, 2052.- 
 
 677, 1404 
 
 Saunders v. Bri;akie 
 Sawyer v. Short 
 
 -, Weavttr v. . 
 
 587, 2020, 2097, 2165 I 
 .. 1613, 2i'.39| 
 .378, 404, "_,).5.5.-361 
 Sayles V. Ihown .. 484, 1274' 
 
 iSaylor, Boni.stuul V. .. .. .. 3.'il 
 
 V. Cocpur 1.595, 21 19, 2121, 2122, 2240 
 
 Seamen, I>iiplante v. 1276, 1.530, 1898.-1899,1 
 
 191)0 i 
 Scammell V. James . . .. 1992.— 2004! 
 
 .Scane V. Duckett .. 824,1616,19,57.-823' 
 Scanlan, Western .\s.surancc Co. v. . . 988 j 
 
 Scarfe, Maxwell v. . . 708, 2022, 2235, 2213 | 
 .Scha-fer, McLaughlin v. .. .. 3951 
 
 SuhallVr v. Dmnbl.^ . . .343, 836.— 1839, 2032 ; 
 
 Schilbroth, Re Hibbitt v .5.50 ' 
 
 Nchliehaut' v. Canada Soithern U. W. Co. 1751 
 
 1800 
 Schneider V. Proctor .. .. 1613,20.39 
 
 .Scholiel.l,Carviil V. .. 1926. — 1!»22, 2023 
 
 School Board of .Southwold. section No. 7, 
 
 McCiu'ian v 1726 
 
 School Trustees of Cardinal, Itaym(md v. | 
 
 1239, 1729 
 
 Scratch, Mollatt v. . . 
 Serd)ner v. Kinloch . . 
 
 , Kinliich V. 
 
 V. .McLaion 
 
 Sc'i V. .McLean 
 Seabrook v. Youufj 
 
 66, 46.5, 408, 520, 2010 
 20, ISO.— 795 
 .. 186.— 795 
 .. 180.-795 
 2073—95, 714, 1884, 1974 
 . 397, 401, 108.5, 1.588.- 
 582, 59S 
 Seaforth, Town of. Van Kgunrnd v. 919,2110, 
 
 2111. -1.361, 21W 
 
 Scale, Hcam.m v 82;1 
 
 V. Johnston 1182 
 
 Scars V. Agricultural Ins. Co. 9.30, 943, 945, 
 
 977, 12,57, I.3S7 
 Soatoii V. Lunney . . 493, 2058, 2070, 2081 
 iSecond Mutual UuildingSociety of Ottawa, 
 
 Nedis V. 2,58 
 
 Security L(ian and .Savings Co., May v. 183, 
 
 188, 192, 22.36 
 Segsworth V. .Meridun Silver Plating Co. 193, 
 196, .362, 805, 1025, 20!)2 
 S'illVrt V. Irving .. .. 279,1,537.-1545 
 .Selby, In re, .. .. 1.508, 22.32. -lOVi 
 , R.gina v 439, 4,52 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 IzKiil 
 
 Siiiitli. Utili, 
 
 147.S, •-'•241) 
 
 .. --'I '-'4 
 
 . 337. -'-'OSS 
 
 6'2(>, KiTO 
 
 15!)1 
 
 Sel-Shi] 
 
 Silkiik Klection ( Dotn. )— Yonng v 
 
 Seiiiimiii", Uriggs v 
 
 Semy, H'' Crawford v. 
 
 Semi V. Hewitt 
 
 ServDS V. Servos 
 
 Severn, Archer v. :«»2, 713, 715, 71tt. 717, 7'20, 
 
 lli'i, 120!), l-ioO, 13'2(), HilS, l9!fi,-2IS)i), 
 •-'•217, '->'2-2!t.-718. I!).V) 
 
 , Watson V. . . 3!)4, 080, •20.V2, 223!) 
 
 Severs, C'liirksoii V. .. .. 108. — .•<04 
 
 Sewell V. Uritisli (!ohiinl)ia Towing and 
 
 Tninspditation Co. 138!), 1. ")!»!!, !!)-20, 
 1930, •2008.— 1931, -2002 
 
 , Toronto (ieneral Tiiisls Co. V. .. 7(»1, 
 
 10O4, •2'J;J8 
 .Sexsmitli, .Mcl-eod V. 
 
 , StevenHoii v. 
 
 Seymour V. I )e Marsli .. 578, 
 
 , I.yneli v. . . 
 
 V. Lynch 
 
 -, Townsliip of, Hogart v 
 
 roi.rMN. Sbi-Ske] 
 
 com M.N, 
 
 (iO' 
 131 1, 
 
 107 
 703 
 
 \m) 
 
 .. 1 -'.")(! 
 
 . ii:<3 
 1 •.'.•)(!, i;t:i4, 
 
 1373. 1379 
 
 Shairp v. Lakcfield Liunber (!o. 404, 2235, ^2237 
 Sliaiiagim V. Slianagan 7()5, 1 l.l.'l. — 707, 1140 
 Slianly v. (iraud Junction R. W. Co. 1207.- 
 
 \-2:ni 
 
 Shannon, IJutterworth V l(i!)3 
 
 — , Morhersonv 800. —!tO 
 
 _ , Niciiolaon v 800. - 90 
 
 Sharp, CarniitliacI V. I."i39 
 
 . v. tSproule, Hi! .Sproule . . 2^205 
 
 . ; WhuatUy V. .■>7, 903, 1074, 1075, liHKi. - 
 
 1711, 2151 
 
 7-20, l(i30.— 7^24 
 
 , !)03, 1029 (/<;.s). 2-2;u. -10(i2 
 
 913, I7:{it, 2101 
 
 Sharpe, (Saughan v. 
 Shavclear, Regina v 
 Shaver, Re, . . 
 Shaw, lUaty v. 
 
 , IJoustead v. 
 
 V. Ca.hvell 
 
 V. Canadian 
 
 V. Crawford 
 
 v. .McCroary. 
 
 V. McKiii/.ie 
 
 , Steers v. 
 
 V. St. I.onia 
 
 Shcird V. l.aird 
 
 Pacific I!. W. Co. 
 
 22, 880, 2025. 
 
 119-2, 21.V2. 
 
 7 Mi, 900. 2071 
 
 8l:{. 12,-., H13 
 
 .. 1.544 
 
 i:i!M), 
 
 11 S3, 
 1077, 
 
 1 9! 19 
 •203S 
 1392 
 121(i 
 1195 
 I! MLS 
 
 707, 2015, •.'•2:{3, 2-242 
 
 Siiflhnrne Kluction (Dotn.)- -Rolicrtson v. 
 
 Lmrie .. I.')07, 1.">0!I. •2003. 1.V24 
 
 .Shcllmrno, Municipality of, Mai'shall v. I!t9. 
 
 483, 07.5. 003, 1710 
 
 Shelley V. (ioring .. .. . S84 
 
 Shelly V. Hus.s.y 0-24 
 
 Shepard, (iault v 1150 
 
 Shepherd v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. 40 
 
 Stark V. 
 
 .'170, 1'2.-)S, 1889 
 
 .. 1192 
 
 1210, 
 
 Shcplierdson v. McCulIongli 
 
 Sheppard V. Kennedy .. 
 
 Slieriiian, Ottawa Agricultural In.s. Co. v 
 
 9:(s 
 
 V. Pigeon . . 1-2.VJ 
 
 Sherman, In re, 
 
 , Mackey v. 
 
 Shcrren v. Pearson . . 
 Sherritt v. lieattic 
 Sherwood v. Cline . . 
 V. (iolduian 
 
 1043 
 
 -!),-).■) 
 2053 
 . . 438 
 .. 2100 
 119,8.-1183 
 14(K», 107H 
 . . .-{O!! 
 .. 1043 
 Shihley, Claxton v. 78, 81, ()05, VIM, '-"-'.T). S3 
 
 and the Napanec, Taniwortli ami 
 
 Quebec R. W. Co., Re, . . 17.58. 
 
 Shields, Fryer V 131, 1-J38 
 
 V. MacDouald .. 859, 105!), 1001 
 
 J 
 
 Shields, McLoan v 1094.-108;i, 109» 
 
 V. Peak 129, 303, 1077. 1020, l!«)8.-1018 
 
 , Peek V P29, 303 
 
 -, Union Fire Ins. Co. v. 277, 933, 18'20 
 
 , Woodward V. .. 100-2. — 10'22 
 
 Sliipinan, .Simmons V. .. 1182 
 
 Shirrutr, iMuirhead v. 478, 845, 1000, 1918, 1941 
 iShoeljrink v. Canada .Atlantic R. W. Co. 
 
 178!).— 2151 
 ShooU.red v. Clarke . . 284, .304.-293 
 
 — V. Clarke— Re Union Fire Ins. 
 
 Co 280 
 
 j V. Union Fire Ins. Co. 285, 408, 2 04 
 
 , Union Fire Ins. Co. v. -242, -251, -252, 
 
 ! . •'^'^ 
 
 Shoolhred's Ca.se— Re Clarke v. Union Fire 
 
 Ins. Co. . . . . . . 2S.5 
 
 Siiorey v. .Jones . . 113, 2!Mi, 572, 7.-^1 
 
 Short, l)oni>ganv. .. .. .">(>, S(i3 
 
 -, Sawyer V 1013, '2039 
 
 Shortreed, Johnston V -2018 
 
 ^hrigley V. Tayhir 1502 
 
 Shutt, Reiidiart V 1171. — 1000 (Am) 
 
 Sil)l)uld V. (irand Trunk R. W. Co. 478, i;«)9, 
 
 1781 
 
 'Siddall, (;reey V. 408, 1.589, l.-)9'2, l.-)94.— 34 
 
 Sidney, Township of, RcOstrom v. 1341, 21-28. — 
 
 I 1335 
 
 I , Townsliip of Tlinrlow 
 
 I V 1354, 1380 
 
 Sicriclis V. Woodcock . . . . 1009 
 
 Sicvcwright V. Leys410,711, 7-2\ 7'29, 1003.— 30, 
 I 871, 1035, 100.5, 1000,2085 
 
 I .Silcox, Toronto and Hamilton Navigation 
 
 Co. V 1004, 2049 
 
 1 Sill, River .Stave Co. v. . . 701, 808. - 192 
 Sdlinian, lIosenlRim v. . . . . . . 030 
 
 Sills, .Millijian v. l,5!)-2, 1594, 1050 —10.59 
 
 Silshy V. Village of Dunnvillc .. -270, V,m 
 .Silver, Dominiiin Telegraph Co. v. 507, 1401). — 
 ."iOS, 5IO(6iV<), 1398, 1402 
 Silverthorn v. Hunter . . , . 20S5 
 
 Simcoe, County of, lie Fenton v. 003, 11*25, 
 
 1.322, i;{43 (/-I-), \:ui, i;u5 
 
 Simnions and Dal ..n, In re, 418, l'2."!l, 1414, 
 1429, -2022, -2-2:14. - ;luO, •20'23 
 
 v. Shipni.in .. .. I18'2 
 
 Siinona, Widdilield v. .. .. 708 
 
 Simonttm v. (irahain .. .. 1*282 
 
 -, Re Ryan v o46 
 
 Simpson v. Coibett 7-27. "-""^O, 1-20.5,2083 
 
 • and County Judge of Lanark, 
 
 In IV H-J9, 1430 
 
 V. Village of Huntsville 1379, 2140 
 
 V. Hornc . . . . 727, 734.— 370 
 
 v. .Murray I0,")2 
 
 , Piper v. .. .. .. .. 1154 
 
 ■ , Walton V. 780 
 
 Sinclair, Hargreaves v. . . . . 503 
 
 Sin.tcn v. IJrown .. 1118,112*2.-1122 
 
 Sing, Rutherford v 1!I7;1. — 1971 
 
 , Ityan v. . . 1088, 1!K)7. -3J0, 330, 1904 
 
 Singer v. C. W Williams Manufacturing 
 
 Co 620 
 
 Singer .Manufacturing Co., Ilowarth v. '204 
 .•^innott V. Scipl)l<! . . . . 404. — 472 
 
 Sissons V. /Vnlagh-Morth Simcoe Klection 
 
 (Out) .. 1175, 1512 
 
 Sisters of Charity of Ottawa, Taylor v. 1058 
 Sivew right v. lleywooil . . . . 72tt 
 
 V. Sivewright .. 034.— 043 
 
 Skeltuu, Kvans V. .. .. .. .. 1141 
 
 1-1 
 
Ixziv 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 COLUMN, 
 
 41, 44, 1541. -4S 
 2l4v'). -i:t!l'i,2l47 
 
 Ske-Smi] 
 
 Skulton, Ueilick v. . . 
 
 V. 'riioiii|i»iiii 1388, 
 
 Kkinii.r, a Soli.Mtor, Re, l!»4«J, lOr.l, lil.-.4, •-IW 
 .SkiiviiiK V. H.iH.s .. .. .'>08 (/<M), 1--'.')1 
 
 .SlaU'i- V. Antlmny .. .. 3I», KIJO, l!>l(i 
 
 V. Kiiilfiiiicli .. .. 7!t(». -KM 
 
 . , Dame V. .. .. •■ •• '887 
 
 — . V. Miisurove .. .. .• '-"^ 
 
 V. (diver 7!):J, 80(1 
 
 , I'mveHV. .. 84, 104-), iriiM, -i-i;!'.' 
 
 Sleiglitliolni V. IWr — DnU'eriii Kleetion 
 
 (Out.) 1 .-•()->, 1 -.08 (/>('<), I. ■>1.'>. 14117 
 
 Slinyei land, Laing v. . . •">«■ !>7, IKS, •_>2:i7 
 
 Sloan, I'.K parte, Mdlsims IJaiik v. .Me- 
 
 Meekin "M.-i - <>!i;i 
 
 Small V. Hiddel l.'W, i;i8. Km, 17.S, 'M'2. 1.-.4I. 
 
 - Km, 1708 
 
 V. Lyon ■■{SI, I.-»(m 
 
 Sniallinau. County of .MiddlcHcx v. 1701, 1827 
 ainallwooil, Wansley v., . . 10, .'KiO, :18'_', 85,-), 
 
 857. -;i7o 
 
 Smart, Kiddor v 
 
 . , (Jiitario Natural fiaa Co. v, 
 
 •214,5, 
 
 V. Sorenson . . 
 
 , .Sonnson v. . . 
 
 l,-).-)2, 
 !t25, 
 
 22:J8. - 
 .->.-)!», 
 
 i55:i 
 
 417, 
 
 i:U2 
 
 108!) 
 108!) 
 
 Smart, Infants, Re, 34, (i21, 02.-), 847,848, 
 Hl!l ('(M), !»10, 2000, 2024, 2()it;{.-22, 
 847, 1073 
 .Smart MainifactnringCo., IJroekvillo (Lim- 
 ited), Kidder v. .. ll2.->, l,-),-)2, 1.553 
 
 Smith, Re, 21!)4.-2177 
 
 V. Ancaster Township 225, 375, I02t, 
 
 1(127 
 
 V. llalH'.iek 020, 027 
 
 , Haekus V 11.53, 11.-)!), 1 1!)3 
 
 V. IJank of Nova .Scotia 146, 255, 1014 
 
 V. Ha'chlcr 
 
 , Retts V 
 
 , ('ii.i])man v. . . 
 
 . V. t'liishome . . 
 
 V. City of London Ins. Co. 
 
 .34(5 
 
 327, 0,55 
 
 1050, 2238 
 
 .. 2215 
 
 047, it71, 
 
 !)7o. — 0.34 
 
 C'ity of London Fire Ins. Co. v. !(.-)(), 
 971.-067, 1000 
 
 V. Clarke 631 
 
 Re Coidter and, . . . . 872 
 
 Darling V 5, .544.— 705 
 
 Fair 
 
 Faught 
 Fleming 
 I'orhes 
 (ireey 
 Oiildio 
 (lodall V. 
 H.'iniilton 
 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 
 , (! 
 
 13, 178, 808, 1615, 2029, 20.30, 
 
 2240, 2242 
 
 .. 1.320,2221 
 
 51, 1148 
 
 2(1) 
 
 .. 621. 624, 6.34, 15.->8 (/,/,) 
 1548, 1549, 1557, 1550. 1.-.52 
 .. 18.5,5, 2002, 1862 
 Provident Loan and 
 InvtstniontCo. V. 1277.-1.320, 1006 
 
 — V. Hirrington 123, 1.320, 22.33—126 
 — , Hawkins v. — Rothwell Pjleetimi 
 
 (Demi.) .. 1441,1442.-1440,1.500 
 
 — , llolden V . . , l(l65 
 
 —, Hopkins v .306, 16.-).-), 2042 
 
 — , Synod of Huron v. . . . , 22!) 
 
 — , Hynes V 1170.— 1172 
 
 — V. Jamieson . . .3.30, 865, 866, !)07 
 
 — V. Keith— The Pietou . . . , 305 
 
 — V. Kcown . .. 1180,1184.-1405 
 
 — , Latourv .38(i, .3,S8. -376 
 
 —, McLean V .Wl, KJ82, 1 128 
 
 -- V. McLellau .. 518.-871,2069 
 
 Smi-Sou] ooLUMM. 
 
 Smith, McRiie v.— North Viotorin Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1401, 1408 (Wi), 1474, 148.1, 
 1488, 1510, 1526. -1480, 1511, 1512 
 
 , Merchants' Rank of Canada v, 142, .30.3, 
 
 .304.-26, 2U7 
 V. Merchants' Rank of Canada . . 2240 
 
 V. .MetliodlHl Church .. ..2223 
 
 V. .MidlamlR. VV. Co. 81, 83, 1179, 181.1. 
 
 -76 
 
 V. Millions .. 486,487^—1884 
 
 , Mooney V. .. . .. 77.-82 
 
 , I'axton V 166,1209 
 
 V. I'etersville 917, 1329. 1413. -1330 
 
 and tlie Township of I'lympton, 
 
 lore 1.382,2114 
 
 V. I'oit Dover and I-ake Huron R. 
 
 \V. Co 008. 181,5 
 
 v. To.vmhip of Raleigh 94, 917, I3,J8, 
 
 2082. — 1.384 
 
 — , Regina v. 219, 341, 604. 1040, 10!)9, 
 
 1104. 1110, 1.369, 1.549, 1721, 22;i8.- 
 341, 111.3, 1117, 1580, 1<)04, 2244 
 
 . Reidv. (m5, 1544, 1.-5.3. 201!) 
 
 . In re Romanea and 2174.— 2185, 21!)1 
 
 v. Smith .-).3, 410..-)!)7, 2177, 2I7.S. - 
 
 4l2,,-)03, 12!I5. I.3I0. 2l,i4, 2177 
 
 , Snarr v. , . I l!l, 184, 106, 2ll.-)5 
 
 , Straugiiau V. .. .. lOOj 
 
 and the City of Turonto, lie, 388, 1384.— 
 
 42, 1.3(1.') 
 — — v. William.son . . .582, 7.36. 2080 
 
 , Yonng v.- Selkirk Klectinn (Doin.) 
 
 1466, 1473, 2240 
 
 Smith, an Infant. In re 149,010 
 
 Smith ((ieorgeT. ) Company v. tJriey 0,36,- 619 
 Smith's TrH.st.s, Re, . . .. 805, l,-)0!). -1!)14 
 
 (No. 2) . . 2080. - 2071 
 
 Smyth, Kielv v. 254, 604. 201, 208;i 
 
 . LomloM Loan (,'o. v. 049, 1282, 2118S 
 
 . Vanderiip v 1685, 2149 
 
 Snarr V. Ridenacli .. 23,1007,2198,-1014 
 
 v. (iranite Curling and Skating Co. 
 
 36S, 11,)8 
 
 ■ , Mcisis V. 763 (/((.s), 14(10.-671 
 
 V.Smith 119, 184, l!Mi, 2055 
 
 Suet/inger v. Melntyre — Cornwall F'.lec- 
 
 tion (Out,) 1515 
 
 ,Clarksonv 203,1412 
 
 _ V. Orr . . 88!), 1607, 1015, 161!t, 
 
 1609, l!)5.3.-37<) 
 
 V, Snider 889, 1607, KMM), 101.-), Kill), 
 
 1669, l!),".3,— 37ti 
 .Snow, Maeara v, ., ,. Kill, 1613 
 
 Snowball v, Ritchie ., ,, .338,2011 
 
 V. Neilson 8,30 
 
 Snowden V. Huntington .301, 16,58,2084.— 
 
 16.5!), 1666 
 Soeurs de la Congregation de Notre Dame 
 de Montreal, (Joniniis.Haire.s D'l'lcoles 
 pour la Munici|)alite du Village de 
 St. (ialiriel v. . . 
 
 Solicitor, in re, 
 Solicitors, Re, 
 Solnics, I'.ilmer v. 
 .Somers, Haisley v. 
 
 67 
 
 1940 
 
 19.55. -1951 
 
 509, 885. -506 
 
 78, 79, 81 (bis), 84, IKK).- 
 
 76, 78 
 
 Sommerville v. Rao . . , . , , , . 826 
 
 Sootheran, Dol.son v. 11.52, 2092.— 1152, ll.iS 
 Sorcnson, Smart v. . . . . 55!), 108!) 
 
 Soul.mgcs Election (Dom.) — Cholotte v. 
 
 Rain .. 298, 1494.-434, 144.3, 1478 
 
 Soulca v. Little, Ke, .. 551,1129.-550 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Izxv 
 
 Sou-SpeJ 
 
 COLUMN. I Spe-StM] 
 
 South Civyuga, .School 'rriistouM of Suction 
 
 No. H of, I-ftinbiere V 172!) 
 
 Sdutli Kssex Election (Out.), Mc(ice v. 
 
 Wigle 1488, 1519 
 
 South (iiiwer. Township of, Ro McKcen 
 
 an<l 51,385.-383 
 
 South (ircnville Klcctioii (Ont. ) KUis v. 
 
 Fraaer, .. 1 4-iH, 1434, 1435, 1445, 2080 
 
 South (Ircy Klection {<»nt. ) Kuntcr v. Lau- 
 der. 1450, l4.-)7, 14(iO, 1475, 1482, 1485, 
 1500,1518, !.;:>'!. — 14.57 
 
 ■Snutli Half of Lot One in tlic Tenth Conces- 
 sion of Downie, Ro Fox iintl . . . . 2217 
 
 South Huron Flection (Doni.), Ritchii) v. 
 
 CaUHTon .. .. 1401, 1520 
 
 .South Norfolk Election (Doin.), l)ecow v. 
 
 Wallace .. l4.-)2, 14.53, 147». 1511.-1477 
 
 South Norfolk H. \V. Co., Mason v. . . 1751 
 
 . , Fort Rowan and 
 
 Lake Shore R. VV. Co. v. 
 
 Spencor, MuMahon v, 
 
 , Miller V. 
 
 Sperry, Irwin v. 
 Spettigue, Cruham v. 
 iSpiera, Young v. 
 •, Coulson V. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 1204, 1902 
 .. 2085 
 .. 2045 
 390, 532 
 .. 109 
 .. 1014 
 
 358 
 1731 
 
 •South and North (IrinisUy, Re Wolverton 
 
 and Townships of, 
 South Ontario Election (l)oni.) — .McKay v. 
 
 Clen I4t)2, 14().">, I4()(J, 
 1401. -1504 
 
 (Ont.)— Farwell v. 
 
 Hrown ;{2, 1447, 1440, 
 1487, 1488, 1480, 1524, 
 2238,2241. -14.-)(i, 1510 
 South O.xford Election (Ont. )— Hopkins v. 
 
 Oliver 042, 049, 1500, 1507, 1510, 1521, 
 
 19.34 -1491 
 South Flantngenet, Re Darby and l.,(jcal 
 
 Hoard of Health of , 1231,1.373,1717 
 
 South Renfrew Election (Dom.) — H.iniier- 
 mu,n V. McDougall 
 
 1517, 1.520.— 1510 
 
 (2) ( Dom.)— McKay 
 
 V. McDougall, 14.38, 
 1519 
 
 (Ont.)— Harvey v. 
 
 Dowliiig 1438, 1522 (/<8'-.). — 1470, 1499 
 
 .South Victoria Election (Ont. ) — Hodden v. 
 
 Mclntyre .. 27, 1470. -1511 
 
 South Wentworth Election (Out.) — Olrn- 
 
 stead V. Carpenter, 1427, 1439, 1444. — 1510 
 South West I'.ooui Co. V. McMillan Ki-.'S, 2(Mt7 
 .Southam v. Ranton 102.- 170, .S7 1 
 
 Souther, Wallace v. 15.5, 158, 168, 175, VAMt, 
 
 2234 
 Southwold, Township of, McArthnr v. 414 
 
 , Begg V. 134:t, 1359. - 
 
 1.3,12, 1.3.58 
 .Srmthwold, .Section No. 7, School Hoard 
 
 of, Mc(Jugan V. ., .. 1720 
 
 .Sov.iis, Chamberlain V. .. 1303. — 1710 
 
 .Sovereen, Forse v. .. . 497, ll.">(), 1278 
 
 Sovereign Fire Ins. Co, of Canada v. Moir 197, 
 
 950 
 
 V. Peters !M)2 
 
 Sowden v. .St.-vndard Fire Ins. Co. 935, 945, 948 
 Si)arhain, Rcgina v. 217, 30.3, 4.")0, 1 1 11, 12.V2 
 Spahr v. Hean .. 508,1590,22.35 
 
 Spain, Regina v. . . ..1110 
 
 Sparkes, Merchants' Bank v. 234, 1310, 1710.— 
 
 370 
 
 Spears v. Miller ,587, 2234 
 
 V. Walker . . 330.— 339, 2245 
 
 Spci"ht Manufacturing l"o., In re — Boult- 
 
 bee's ('a.so 249 
 
 Spencer, Harrison v. 2104,2109, 222.").— 2180 
 , Henderson v I'M), 2088 
 
 iSpinney v. Ocean Mutual Marine Ina. Co. 
 
 981 UiiH) 
 
 .Sprutt V. Wilson .. 718,2071.-7:17,2079 
 
 Springer, Exchange Bank v. 12, 199, 000, 074, 
 
 1009, 1573, 10.32, 1702, 1703, 1700, 1709.— 
 
 1080, 1077, 1099, 1701, 1705 
 
 , Stoeser V. 18.38, 1867. — 1807, 20.>0 
 
 Sproule, In ro, 314, 415, 418, 440, 840, 847, 848, 
 849, 8.50, 1053. 22.30. —300, 1991 
 
 , lleginav. 451, 1034, 1037, 1042, 1100.— 
 
 103.5, 1102 
 
 , Re, Sharp v. Sproule . . 2205 
 
 V. Stratford 200, !»24 
 
 Spurr V. Alljcrt Mining Co. 1.502,18.50 
 
 S(iuicr, Re, . . . .300, .305, 394, «!»4.— 416 
 
 Srigley V. Taylor .. 1437,2231.-1502 
 
 St. Catharines, (Mty of, and County of Lin- 
 coln, In re Arbitration between, 1380. — 
 
 834, 1325 
 St. Catharines, City of, Clark v. 3.56, 927.— 919 
 
 , Welsh V. ..2113 
 
 iSt. Catharines and Niagara Central R. W. 
 
 Co., Barbeau 
 V. . . 1744, 1745 
 
 , Lincoln Paper 
 
 Mills to. V. 1701 
 
 , Nihau V. . . 174.5, 
 
 1757.— :763 
 
 V. Norris . 1750 
 
 — — , Phelps V. 90, 1800, 
 
 2242 
 St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Tlie yiieeu . . !K)2 
 
 , Rcgina V. 313 
 
 St. Cesaire, Parish of, v. McFarlane 481, 
 
 1 810. — 1.3.38, 1.349 
 St. Croix V. McLachlin . . .55, 1009 
 
 .St. Denis V. Baxter 20.")4 
 
 — , Mcllhargey v. . . . . 1019 
 
 Itegiiui V. 440, 446, 846, 894.-444, 
 
 440, 1822 
 St. (ieorge, I'arkes V. .. 191,197.-184 
 
 St. .lean, Reginu ex rel. Clancy v. 1328 {Inn) 
 
 1331 
 ><t. .lohn V. Bullivant .. 192,1922 
 
 , City of V. Macdonald . . —1.305 
 
 , Mayor, etc. of, Mc- 
 
 Sorley v. 74, 1241, 12.50, 1.378, 1097. 
 
 2036 
 
 V. Rykert 107, 1009, 1283, 1.561.— 
 
 1209 
 St. .lohns. Town of, v. Central Vermont 
 
 R. W. Co. 08.-29 
 
 , Central Vermont R. 
 
 VV. Co. V. 200,316,918.-315 
 
 ,St. Lawrence and Ottawa R. W. Co. , Hin- 
 
 ton V. . . 20.52 
 
 V.Lett ,. 1.395 
 
 .Lett V. 88.3, 1770, 
 
 1775,20.52.-1780 
 St. Louis, Fouchier v. . . .391, 826.— Ill 
 
 — V. O'Callaghan 1210, 1000, 1044, 
 
 16.5.5.— 1()0(» 
 
 , .Shaw V 1998.-1077 
 
 ,St. Magnus, The— Robertson v. Wigle 1234. 
 
 1931 
 
 li 
 
IZZTi 
 
 StP-Sta] 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 coi.rMN. iSta-Ste] 
 
 •'OLUMN. 
 
 St. I'hilip'M Cliuicli, VViHton, ami fJlasgow Starrs, Rtginii v. 
 
 uiid l-diHloii liiH. Co., Kf, . . 1)7.5, •_>•.».•«) , Union Hunk v 
 
 St. ThoiMa-s, City of, v. Credit Vnlliy liuil- I .Stiiynor, In ri 
 
 402, -1>.->0. Xi'>, \m 
 
 m 
 
 «8 
 
 wiiy Co. 177, 181'i, ll»7». - .Studinun, \ cninng v. . 750.-12 
 
 1814 .Sttarn V. I'"llin:in C'urC'o. .. 1700 
 
 ■ , Howard V. 1.S03, 'JOI.^. Steele v. (irund Trunk R. \V. Co. 111.1, 1706 
 
 •JI47 I V. York -2142 
 
 , III re M.irton and 4S-.', l.S4(). Steeper, Crowe v. 'ilO, 532, 74(1, l.'IW, i:i4(i. 
 
 Ks'.'s, 'JUS \:m 
 
 . _ , In re Revision of the St.ers v. Shaw . . I l!l'>, -Jl.Vi. 1 IS.'l, 1 1!),-| 
 
 V'ott iV J.ist for, for 1SS6, Kc Alex- Stciidioll' v. CoriHinition of Kent. '-'U.T •_'! 10 
 
 und.rr.oye.s .. sr..% 14l(j. — U.'Jl .Steinliotr v. Mi K.ie, 17S, .•l.T), (WO. ISIS. '.'OlN, 
 
 St. Vincent, "Township of, v. (Jreenlitld (i(»l. -'<)'-';i lil'.l, (iiy 
 
 (i7.">, !»--'0, 'JI27, ■-'147.— '-M;»0 , MrKol.crts v 7!».'». Mil 
 
 Stadacona Kire and Lifo Ins. Co., Culd- v. Merchants' Bank MS, KiO, i;tS8 
 
 will V. 47.">. !».W, !•<)■■>, 1H)8, 1 .Vlti. 'JOIO. !)7:i. , I'linnl) v. . . W7, !>00, -JOl 1 , 2012 
 
 lOOtr Stephens V. Chausse 1 I.m, 1242, i;t!(7 
 
 Stn.laeona In.s. Co., CotO V. . 24:1. (IOC — ^, (irali.ini v. . llMUi. -1!»71 
 
 Stnllord, Town.ship of, V. Hell (i(i!), I;17S. l.S.SS, ! v. Laplante .-.48 
 
 l.!!tl, 2(»1 1 ' -— -, .McLaren v. . . 41:1, 1((71, 1712 
 
 Staley, Jnek.son V .'.12, 17') Stephenson v. Ilain 200, 748, 1M1HI.-327, .'i.!? 
 
 Stalker V. Towndiipof Diinwich II, 10(i(i, l.i;i4. ! v. Dallas (i;i4, 1073 
 
 1417, 2II.">, 22:t!». I;i7!» l.'i.">!»i , .Miller v. . . 20.'>2.~ ISCil. 2002 
 
 , Wilnio'. V IS74.-<,ri Sterling, Clarkson V. 7!H), 7!I2, 1!>S2, 22.'t;t, 
 
 Stammers, (CI loiiohoe V. .. !1.'>. .•12(i. I87."> , 22:17 (.'i), 2242 
 
 V. O'Donohoc KiSl. IMK), I!t70. -I Stevens V. Harfont 7.-)4 
 
 I88.'>, liUiit, l!)7l, 1072' v. London Steel Works Co. 
 
 ■Standard liank V. Piinlmni . ."kS4, I.")I.'1, Delano's Ca.so .. 248. — 241 
 
 - — — V.Wills .. 1072, 1().".S| , Miitllehiiry V 1284 
 
 Standard Fire Ins. (.'o., l'e—1'arlier's Cu.se 24."); , Re -"^tevcns v. .Stevens .. .. 2201 
 
 —^ Caston's Case 24.5 1 Stevens, 'I'unu'r & IJiirn.s l'"i)nndry and 
 
 Cliisliriini's ' (iincral Mannfaetui'ing Co. (Limited) 
 
 Case . 2;0 v. Harfoot I8.'{, S!t:{, I2.">0.- I!i2 
 
 ■ Co|)p, Clai k it i Stevenson, .'Vndersoii V. 1144,1140. I2.'l, 1 l.'l'), 
 
 Co. 'sCa.se 24.") i 1141, II4S, I2,V) 
 Kelly's Case i v. Corporation of Kingstnii .'tOI, lil'il 
 
 24(5, 281 
 Turner's Case 214 
 
 , Bntltr V I(is;i 
 
 V. Hn^lies .. 10l7,22;{;i. 
 
 -1020 
 
 , May V. (i!l2, 04;i. 044.— 
 
 047, 0.-.,) 
 
 ■ ■ , Parsons v. . . O.'iS 
 
 ..Sands v. 9t:i,n44.04(i,fl,->5 
 
 — — , Sowden v. O.'t"), 04.">, 048 
 
 , Williy V. . , 4O0. Oi'.'l 
 
 Standard Life Asisnrance Co., ['riteliard v. 721, 
 
 750. -282 
 . Kx parte— Mer- 
 chants' Bank v. Moiiteith 072, l(i04, l.'tfi."?, 
 Ui()2, 2242. -717 
 Standish, Hegina ex rel. Stewart v. (104, 172.'1 
 Standly V. IViry 2;t.1, 2100. 2147, 'M.ll, 21.-.2 
 Stanley. Klliott v. . . IVM, 410, S;t'J.-424 
 Stanton and the Hoard of Audit of the 
 
 County of Elgin, In re, 90, .•J74, 405, 12.S0. — 
 
 4,55. 1385 
 St.ipletun,.Seougall v. 070, 1210, 1220, 20.52. - 
 
 077, H04 
 btar Kidney I'ad Co. v. Crcenwoid 170, (ilS 
 785, 20.52, 20.55.-172, 782 
 Stark, Bank of Hnniiltou v. . . . . 2042 
 
 V. Fisher . . . . 300 
 
 V. Shepherd .. .. ;i7.5, 12.58, KS80 
 
 - — , Whitney v |(J7;{, 2010.-2040 
 
 Starr, In re Rushhrook and, . , . . 49 
 
 Starnitt v. M iilar .Muskoka Kleelion (Oiit. ) 
 
 14(i0, 1470. — 14.59, 1478 
 Starrs v. Cosjjrave . . . . . . §4/5 
 
 , C'osgiuve Brewing and Malting 
 
 <-'"v 845.-844 
 
 , Kilkpatrick v.. He Kir kpitrick. I2S2 
 
 (i>U), rm, (i()8, 717, 7.'10. lOOS. - 
 
 8, 1200 
 
 V. .McHenry 210, 4S0, 22;{2, 2242 
 
 , New York" I'iano Co. V. .. 2(i;i9 
 
 V. Sexsniith 000, 7(i:t 
 
 V.Stevenson .. ;t70, 1.'!().5. 2102 
 
 V. Trnynor . . 7.5, 07.5. 00 
 
 Stewart, Andrew v. .. 14(0 
 
 , Hank of .Montreal v. . . 002, IS.Tt, 
 
 2002.-1188, 2(105 
 
 , Brady v. . . 222. 257, 259 
 
 , V. Dick 2202 
 
 V. (Jago ll.'l, 077, 1091, \20:i. 204 
 
 12.1, ii;ii, 
 
 V. (icsnor . . , . . . 2219 
 
 V. Cuelph Lumlier Co. , , .1.84, .187 
 
 v.Maedonald -Kingston Flection 
 
 (I)om.) 1458, 1470, I4S0, 1492, 1498, 
 1518 1407, 1472 
 
 , Maritime Hank v. 110, .101, 7.57, 016 
 
 — V. I'erey, Re Hi rey, . . 559 
 
 , Regina V. 3, 4, 401, 1117, 1251, 1028, 
 
 1070, 182-'.- 1018 
 
 , Itegina ex rel. .Johns v. 010, 1.127, 
 
 I. •128, 1.111.- 1407, 147.1 
 
 V. Rounds 1075, 1410. - l(i87, 1094 
 
 V. Standish, Rej^ina ex rel., 004, 172.1 
 
 V. Sullivan .. 1070,2041 
 
 v. Sutton 1090, 1574, 1014— S.11 
 
 , Udy V. 10, 020, 12.5.1, 1401. 1005. - 
 
 1390, 1905 
 Stewart, Liipiidator, v. Union Bank of 
 Lower Canada, In re Rainy Luko 
 Lumber Co. 140, 179, 108,280.-145 184, 
 
 187 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Ixzvlt 
 
 Sti-Stu] 
 
 .StilcM, (Jilltert V. .. •• 
 
 StillMiftii V. AgruMiltural Iiih. Co. 
 Stillwoll V. Rcnnii- 
 
 , Kic-liiii'<l V. 
 
 StimsoM V. I{li»;k . . . . 
 
 Stinwii, Mi««nr v., In re Higgar, 
 
 COI.rMN. 
 
 •20, art, r>6, «78 
 . . r>i7, 140- 
 
 . . 841 
 
 :m3, :uri 
 rm, 21(13, 
 
 21 91. -'21 »4 
 
 m, (124 
 
 , Dominion, etc., Co, v. 
 
 , Kxchiingo Hunk v. 226, 288, 281>, I4()2, 
 
 1(««), 1870. -I8({.'i 
 
 . . l>attui'Hon V. — Hamilton Election 
 
 (Out.) 1487, 140.% 2239.-14.S0, 1407, 
 
 1508 
 
 V. Stinson 2(Hi8 
 
 .Stistcd, TownMhip of, Hendcrgon v. 67 
 
 .Stoik, Clirintie v.— North Wrntwortli Kleo- 
 Stol)l).irt V. r;iiai(lhou8c 216.S, 2170.-2173, 2180 
 Hon (Out.) .. 1449,1489,1498.-1498 
 
 .Stodilart. Swain V 1022,102.3.-1014 
 
 V. WilBon 810 
 
 Std'ser V. Si.iingcr . . 18:{8, 1807.- 1807, 20.-.6 
 .StOL'ilale iiiul Wilson, In re, ."(.SO.— .'i38 
 
 Stokes, Agar v . . . 1149 
 
 , Foster V 004, 1722 
 
 Stonelioiise, l$ank of RoehcHtcr v. , . 820 
 
 StoncMH, Peters v. . , 09"), 8 1 9, 1 8.'-. I - 1 979 
 Storey, 'I'houiaH v. . . 037, lOOS 
 
 Stonnont Kleetion (Ont.) — Botliune v. 
 
 Coli|uhouM 142.'), 
 
 1420, 1432, 14.33, 
 
 143.5 (hii), 144,1, 
 
 l.^-O. -l.-MO 
 
 (2)— Kmpey v. 
 
 Kerr 1499 
 
 Storinonl, Dumlivs and (llengarry, lie. 
 Chamberlain and 
 United CoiiiitioH 
 of, .. 107"), 1731 
 , Re High School 
 
 Stu-Swl] 
 
 tlOLD.MN. 
 
 Hoard No. 4 of the United (bounties of, 
 and Township of Winchester 1229, 1-2.3', 
 
 |2.")0, I2.")7 
 Story V. McKay .. .. 172, 7-">9, 1013 
 
 Stotiiart V. Hilliard . . . . 1 19.3, 2109, 212.") 
 
 .Stover, llaliaid v 2187 
 
 , Hickey v. 858, 1187, 1401, 2102. 077, 
 
 }K)9, 119.") 
 Strachan, liissett v. . . 38(». — 3()'0 
 
 Strange, Oliver v. , .North York Election 
 
 (Horn.) 1.509 
 
 V. Kadford 418, 1012, 1312.-85.3, 1.300 
 
 V. Toronto Telegraph Co 1020 
 
 Stratford, Sproule v. 200, !t24 
 
 Stratford, City of. Pratt v. . . 2137 
 
 Stratford, Town of, v. Wilson 298, 1,370, 1410. 
 
 1037 
 Strathroy, Town of , McGarvey v. .370, 700, 919, 
 
 927, 2141.-929 
 .Strathy, Mitchell v. 1086, 1679.— 083, 1080, 1.320 
 Stratton v. O'Sulli van— East Peterborough 
 
 Election (Ont. ) . . 1 446, 1 451 , 1 483, 1 480 
 Strauglian v. Smith . . \W'i 
 
 Strettou V. Holmes .. 1.390.— 12.")3 
 
 V. City of Toronto . . 1242 
 
 Strickland, Black v. 168.-138, 1.50, 173 
 Striker, Anderson — Prince Edward Elec- 
 tion iOnt.) 1505, 1515 
 
 Stroud, Beer v 2099 
 
 , Crooks V 687.-688 
 
 Struthers v. Olennie 822, 1194 
 
 Stuart, Andrew v. . . . . 795 
 V. Branton . . .3.53, 2242 
 
 .Stuart. Cuilmne V 112, 'iO'S 
 
 , Ewartv 797 
 
 V. (i rough 88, ft3, 227, 609, 1820. 22.30. - 
 
 1018, 18ig 
 
 V. .\KKira 91. !I0 
 
 V. Mott 12.55, 1,5.37 
 
 — -.JSeottv 78.79.-81 
 
 V. Treinain 810, 2243 
 
 Stul)!)s, Loiigiiead v. 570, 1634, 1970, 1971 
 
 Stuebiiig. In re, Anthcs v. Dewar 7.33, 1948, 
 
 1949 
 Stunden, Village of (ianano<|ue v. 770, 1698. - 
 
 1.333, 1628, 1709 
 Sturuis, He, Wcbling v. Van Every 2218.— 662 
 tSuckling, Anglo (Canadian Music Pubhsh- 
 
 ers' AHSiiciation (Limited) v. . . M\i 
 
 Sullivan, liurrie (las Co. v. . . 472, 2248 
 
 V. Town of Barrie . 1209, 2110 
 
 , Hoyd V 1857 
 
 V. Ilarty .. 730,1819 
 
 , I8l)i8tcr V. .533, 853, 1014. 1023 
 
 , I^awless V. 01. 61 
 
 , Stewart V. . . 1670, 2041 
 
 Suite V. City of Three Hivers 31 1, 1051 
 
 Sumnierfehlt v. Worts, In ro, 172, 224, 547, 
 
 833.-1.37 
 Summers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 935. — 
 
 1088 
 
 V. t'ook 024,2016 
 
 — V. .Summers 2161.-2105 
 
 .Snnimerville v. Rae 484 
 
 Sun Life Ass. Co. v. Page . . 997.— .327, 1407 
 
 , Venner v. 1(X)1, 1000, 2t 09.— 
 
 415 
 Sun Mutual Life Ins. Co., Wrigiit v. .326, 483. - 
 
 1003 
 Superior Lo.an and Savings Co. v. Lucas 311, 
 
 497. - 1316 
 Supreme Court of the Independent Order 
 
 of Foresters, 
 Gates V. . . 151 
 
 , Wells V. 152.— 
 
 1000, 1021 
 .Sutherland, Boswell v. 29, 3.36, 1621. .411, 1026 
 
 V. Cox .. .. 20.3,473—1414 
 
 V. McDonald 3.54 
 
 V. Patterson 1.54, 844, S42, 843 
 
 .Sutton V. Armstrong 
 
 , In re Evans v. 
 
 , Hillock V. . . 
 
 , iStewivrt V. 
 
 103 
 
 .551, 2002.— 530, .553 
 
 772,1156 
 
 1090, 1.574, 1014.— 831 
 
 .. 1022, 102.3.— 1014 
 
 2210 
 
 Swain v. Stoddart, . 
 Swainson v. Bentley 
 Swaisland v. Davidson 1.58, 1388, 141.3, 22.30. - 
 
 1.55 
 Swalwell, Regina v. .. 220, 1108, 1.309, 2241 
 
 Swan, Hillyard v 1082.— 694, 702 
 
 Swanston, Re Ponton and, . . 664, 1S92, 2089 
 Swartz, Ontario (JIass Co. v. . . .541 
 
 Swayzie, Collver v. . . . . 737, 1682 
 
 Sweeney v. Sweeney :«5, 1085, 1420, 2054 
 
 Sweeny, Bank of \fontreal v. 20(>4, 2082 
 
 Sweet, Brown v. 232, 805, 1413, 1961.— 197 
 
 v. Piatt 2164, 2175.-2173, 2178, 2216 
 
 Sweetman and the Township of Goslield, 
 
 Re 1.345 (M 
 
 V. Morrison . . . . . • 102.3 
 
 Sweetzer v. Rosenfeldt . . . . 53, 56 
 
 .Swift v. M inter 911, 1312 
 
 v. Provincial Provident Institution 150, 
 
 1004 
 Swinney, l{o<lburn v 1.362, 1688 
 
 
Izzviii 
 SwiThe] 
 
 Hwit/er V. Uiidmau !>\' 
 
 Hyki'N, M<;('ulliiii«li v. 
 
 , Mitilitll V 
 
 Hylvl^■tl(■^ V. MiixHoM . 
 Syiiiiii({t<iii, Ki'X V. . . 
 8yiiinitT8 V. liiviiiu'Htono 
 Syiioil V. Du lilii'i .11 Tu 'J.'W, 
 
 Hyiirxl of Jl Ill-oil V. Smith 
 
 TABLE OF OASES 
 
 , |6l.\-fi(W, fill 
 
 01)1. 1-204. IlKCJ 
 
 !».■>, 74."> 
 
 .. IMI 
 
 .. 54B, ">■).'« 
 
 1 1 '24, IL'SH, 14(M>, 
 
 I4l7._8r.)). I4(K» 
 
 •2*21) 
 
 Tait, CiirliHli) V 
 
 Tulliot Struut (Iravcl lloacl d 
 
 1 8-2, 188, la". 
 Lew in V. '21I, 
 ;tl, 1(M1."> (/*('<) 
 THinlilyii, Itiuik of lluiiiilton v. IH(i, ^tW!).— 
 
 TuHker, t'uimiliiiu Bank of Coiniiieici! v. 102."). 
 
 I0l"2 
 
 Tato, Canicmii V 1(187.— ItiH.'. 
 
 V. (JIoIh- I'lintiiij' Co. . '>1'2, •>•-•.". 
 
 Tavi'iiicr V. Willaoii, Regiiui i!X rel., \'>V-'> 
 
 Tuyl.ir, In ro, II8"> 
 
 __- V. Aclain l(i'2M, •205.-. 
 
 V. Hnulfonl . . 1647.-1071' 
 
 , Hurkr V 7.">l.-07ti 
 
 • , Caim<liv Pi'i-inaueiit Loan and (Sav- 
 ings Co. V. 
 
 — V. Cook 
 
 — — V. Cooper 
 
 , Itu Kylu-ston and, . . 
 
 , Oalliighur V 
 
 V. H.ill 
 
 , Helifiiiian v. 589, 
 
 , IngniiJi V. 
 
 V. Magnith P2.-)8, 1!M«, '207 
 
 ■2073. 
 
 40U 
 
 013, 1540 
 
 -1605 
 
 41.— 42, m 
 
 '2(1, 980 
 
 92(1, I Olio 
 
 -2082, 21 !M) 
 
 45(1, 870 
 
 .'((70. i.'xy, 
 
 1938, 20(i:i, 2079. 2080 
 
 V. McCulloiigli 18, 2(t:i0 
 
 V. MoiMii . . 985 
 
 , iMoni.son V. .. 1073, lO.'c', 1917, 1918 
 
 and the Ontario and (^ui'liuc 1!. \\ . 
 
 Co., He, 1702. -I. '.07 
 
 , Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co. 
 
 and. In re, .. 1759 (M. 1700. 1751 
 
 , Owens V 1.554. — 15,52 
 
 , Shrigley v 1502 
 
 , V. .Si»t(!is of Charity of Ottawa . . 1(558 
 
 , Siigleyv 1437,2231. 1.502 
 
 , VVliitelawv 842.-842 
 
 Toes, Duncan V. .. 1010,1021. 1020,1022 
 Teeter, Canada Termaneut Buildiiiu So- 
 
 The-Tll] 
 
 Therrien, Ho .loluiHton v. 
 
 Thin, Ke, 
 
 ThoinnM, Bank of Montreal v. 14, 167 
 
 V. Canien.ii 
 
 V. InjjliM 
 
 , I'ottlgrew V 
 
 V. Storey 
 
 \Vo(.dlini 
 
 Thompson, Bartlett 
 
 '2163, 
 
 OniPMK. 
 
 543, .544. -54« 
 
 908, l(H)7 
 
 , .•120, '20'24. 
 
 - m 
 
 ■ ■ fi'iS 
 
 -860, 1801 
 
 795, '2(»fil 
 
 037, Mm 
 
 2H«t. 2lSfl 
 
 1 1.5-1, 2'2:\» 
 
 753. 
 
 V. Canada Central U. W. Co. 
 
 V. Canada Fire and Marine Inn. 
 
 Co. .. _ , . 
 , Canada Lauded Credit Co. v. 
 
 Dynieiit 
 
 17.59. 
 1801 
 
 '200, 788. '2.57, II '29 
 1411 
 '2086 
 
 V. Dymeiit 180'2 
 
 V. Fairbairii 712, 718, 7.'«>, 731 
 
 , Oarland v. I7'i, 774, 786. -784, 1407 
 
 V. (ioro _ . . 812 
 
 , Ilaiiiiltoii V, — Lennox Klec- 
 
 tii.n((>nt.) .. . . 15'23. 1527 
 
 V. Ilolinan 784, 1;JI'2, i:^20, lOie 
 , London and Canadian Loan 
 
 and Ageney C'o. v. . . 1677 
 
 , Mdiarry v. 564, •2^20«. -2177, '^m 
 
 , Mcliilvre V (i.5(», l'J8» 
 
 , McLean v '20;t8, 22;<5 
 
 , Mercliants' Bank V. 779, 1535,15;J6, 
 
 1.540. 788, 1,545 
 
 V. Molsc.iiH Bank 14.5.— .•{20, I5i(» 
 
 •, I'atterHon v. .528, ,5'2» 
 
 ., Reeve v. .. ll.'U. 1140, 11.53 
 
 ■ V. Itobinsoii 411, i:J88, 1.544. MKJS, 
 
 VMi-2, •-'211 
 , Skelton v. 1 388, 2 1 4r). - 1 li'M, -l 1 47 
 • V. Tlionipson . . 889, I1'28 
 
 ■ V. Torrance . . 2155, 2219 
 , Vietoiia Mutual Fire Iiih. 
 
 t;o. V. . . '204, -207, 978, 979 
 
 - V. Victoria Mutual Fire Iiih. Co. 
 
 970, 1631, 1802, 1803. 209, 276 
 
 186^2. -1805, 1870 
 
 6'2-2, 0'2B 
 
 1'298 
 I '25 1 
 
 eiety v 
 
 Tefft, Regina v 
 
 Telephone Manufacturing Co., In re the 
 Bell Ttlephone Co. and, and the 
 Minister of Agriculture 306, 1557.- 
 
 Telfcr V. .lacobs '2121 
 
 Temperance Colonization Co. v. Evans . . '2047 
 Temperance Colonization Co. v. Fairlield '241, 
 
 777, 1870 
 
 I Thomson, Dyinent v. 
 
 — V. (Jye 
 
 ' , McUougald V. 
 
 Tliorburn v. Brown . . 
 \ Thorne Re Lewis and, 
 
 [ , V. Williams . 
 
 I Thorner, Nelson v. . . 
 ! Thornley v. Keilly 
 
 484, 
 
 695, 
 575. 
 
 1715 
 
 Thornton v. Capslock 
 Thorold Manufacturing 
 
 Bank 
 Thraslier, Bellinger v. 
 Forrester v. 
 
 I(Uj2 
 
 «;» 
 
 •2073 
 
 -579 
 
 I0(>9 
 
 1000 
 
 511 
 
 Co. 
 
 , Livingstone v. 257 
 
 Temple v. Toronto Stock Exchange i;i2, 272, 
 
 •2'237.— '209 
 Temporalities Board, Uobie v. II, 309, 317 
 
 Tennunt, Lockie v. . . . . 1600 
 
 V. Manhard 692 
 
 , .Scottish American Invcatmcnt 
 
 Co. V 1-295 
 
 Thames Navigation Co. (Limited) v. Reid 
 
 277. -'266, :M0, 1861 
 Thatcher V. Bowman 498, 589, 11.3.5.-11.50 
 
 Theal, McCall v 20'26, 2027 
 
 V. The (iueen . . . . 442.-446, 453 
 
 v. Imperial 
 
 i;»7 
 
 54, 131, 1906. -1905 
 
 , 131, 81)3 
 
 Three Rivers, City of, Suite v. . . 31 1, 1051 
 
 Threlkeld, Masters v 4-24 
 
 Thurlow V. Beck . . . . I65'2, '2048.- 
 — , Township of, v. Township of 
 
 Sidney 1.354, 
 
 Thurston v. Breard . . 
 
 , Hilliard v. 
 
 Tichborne, Lloyd v. — Ro Wilson, . . 727, !KI6 
 Tidey v. Craib . . 182, 190, 806. .188, 189 
 
 Tiffin, Me Vean V 1171,1598.-1.597 
 
 Tilbury East, In re Funston and Township 
 
 of, . . 8.58, 8.59, 1345, 1357.— i:i44 
 
 Till V. Till . 577, 8.59, 885, 1963.— 856, 2083 
 Tilsonburg, Corporation of, Scott V. 918, 1343, 
 
 1.3.39, 1.36.3 
 Agricultural Manufacturing 
 
 Co. v. Goodrich . . 244, ()'25 
 
 -l(>5() 
 
 i:)80 
 
 1840 
 1921 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 kcxix 
 
 ill. 
 
 -548 
 
 MH 
 
 11107 
 
 L'tl, 
 
 '-'0-_'4. 
 
 
 - M'-M 
 
 
 r.28 
 
 m> 
 
 Isrii 
 
 i(t,-. 
 
 •.'(151 
 
 KIT 
 
 l)i((8 
 
 Mt. 
 
 •-'ISB 
 
 W 
 
 '.'2:tt 
 
 1). 
 
 I7r.i(, 
 
 
 INOI 
 
 IIH. 
 
 
 i.u, 
 
 im 
 
 V. 
 
 1411 
 
 
 •-'()«(} 
 
 
 IWi 
 
 7;«> 
 
 ■ 7;{i 
 
 7S.| 
 
 1407 
 
 
 .S|'.» 
 
 CC!- 
 
 
 -'."<, 
 
 I.V27 
 
 2(», 
 
 KiiCi 
 
 )aii 
 
 
 
 1077 
 
 "• 
 
 '-"Ji'e 
 
 i:.(), 
 
 I289 
 
 IJ-ja, IL'-.M, l(fJ4 
 H)-., "'A, I'i(l7. -«'.';< 
 
 Til-Tor] 
 
 Tiltv. Kniipp.. 
 Tiinniins, NiiMl«i v. . . 
 
 . V. Wrinlil 
 
 Tinkin, Miimloll v. 
 
 Tiiiniii" V. <li:iinl 'I'niiik H. \V. Oo. . . 'Jd.'W 
 
 Tin.liili' Miiri.hcrBoii V. Sl», ll>l I, HWN. — .'(44, I.*)(I7 
 
 'I'itiii, a Solicitfir, Hti, IIUO 
 
 Tol.in, Kairnu v 5fl.l, lOWt. HC'fl 
 
 _ _ V. M.CJilliH .•17'.', I.10.-I 
 
 Tol.v, Wl.iliM'V V HIO.-J-.'j;!!'"") 
 
 'V(M V Klin. Wiiimn & (!<), flOl , .'lOS, .'il 4, - l(l-J2 
 .._, |,,Hkv I«'2S.-I(I1S 
 
 __, I'mtli. \. • •-'<>•-'■'<. -'"-'!» 
 
 Tonmlin, WhiK- V. (l.-.;{, 18.-.4, 1S7(1, IIMIO. (IH!» 
 
 Tdiiiliiwin, lit! <iialmin V .VI! », .">»•_' 
 
 V. MorriH '-'IMCl, •.'(»!•."> 
 
 - V. Northern It. W. Co. of 
 
 Canada .. .•104, :m, \&>-2. KiOl 
 
 TLonicy X. Tiatuy 1000, I lOH, 'iiJO-i. -•J-.'O.-., '.'-.'•.M 
 Toiitiic, Mc'I'a^'Kart v. 1(>4(;. I'JIO 
 
 Tciiiiiitii Car Wlieul (Jo., HeilHtroni v. . , IS(»:l 
 
 Tonmto, ( 'ity of, Adams v "21. •lO 
 
 , Ard;ij,'li V. . . 2"_'."iO 
 
 , lie lleaty and, .388, 138:1.- 4'2, 
 
 1. •?(),-., i:w;i 
 
 , In re Beckett and, i;tt}4, I.'".!!.'! 
 
 , Uc Uoylan and, . .MO.').'l. I84:i 
 
 — ,Inro(!o(lKonand,4(K>,444, i;iH.-), 
 
 . In ro Brook and, i:i74, 1!»S4, 
 
 'iO'.'.->.— n(il 
 
 . _, (Vucy V. 482, 1884, 'JIIS.- 
 
 '_'i:W 
 
 . , Darlty V. ;17">, i:W!». V.iUi 
 
 , Daviesv. iUi), 1 1-J8, \XM !)2<;, 
 
 lO.Vi, i:!Ki 
 
 , Duck V. . . 2141. — i;i<l-J, 21 i;t 
 
 , ForMytli V. .. - i:i;U 
 
 , Forward v 
 
 conMN. |Tor-Tra] 
 
 t'OLirMN. 
 
 . I !KX) I Toronto (i ravel Roud and roiicrelt' Co. 
 
 County of York V. :i:i2, ((12. 077. »MI--', 
 
 1088, 21 -i.'!, 2147 
 Toronto, (Jroy & Bruce \i. W. Co., (Irand 
 
 Trunk II. 
 W. Co. of 
 Canada v. 1804, 
 ' '" ' 1075 
 
 , In rclolin- 
 
 son and.. I80.'t 
 , In re Os- 
 ier v. ., 1802 
 Toronto anil Hamilton Navigation Co. v. 
 
 .Silcox 1(104.2040 
 
 Toronto Harbour ConitniiitiionerH, Kc, .'<l(i, 2007, 
 
 2008. 207.'> 
 Toronto llospital Trusti'Ch v. Dt'idiam .. 1 1.'IS 
 Toronto Inc;indc8ccnt KUctrIc Lij^lit Co.. 
 
 K(i NN'ilsoii and, .V.'O 
 
 Toronto and NiplHsing R. W. Co., (Jooder- 
 
 ham V 181,-). -17r.7 
 
 Toronto I'rinting Co , MaHsic v. 80, .WO, olO, 
 
 1140, i;{20, 14(H). ims 
 
 Toronto Real KBtntoCo., lie (iraccy and, 87.'l 
 
 Toronto .Stock Kxchungc, (Miirknon v, 110, 2(!!) 
 
 , Temple V. i;{2, 272, 
 
 22;i7.— 200 
 V. Dollcry 1(». 200, 
 
 108(1. 2147 (/"^) 
 , Kollett V. i:<oi. -i;ioi 
 
 Toronto Street R. VV. Co., City of Toronto 
 
 V fr27, 1087 
 
 Toronto Tclegra|)h {/"o., .Strange V. .. UL'O 
 
 Toronto, Town.sliip of. Re Armstrong and, (iOH, 
 
 i:j:ir>, i;n7, i;u:i 
 
 Toi'outo Trusts Co. Urquhart v., Ite Rccs, .•15,'), 
 
 7:r. 
 
 .. 2140 Toronto Upholstering Co., Hlaik V. (i.")4. 22:11 
 1410, 1710. I.TU JTorraiiuc V. Livingstone, 170 101(1. l.")0, KiOl, 
 
 , Re Hospital Tru.st and. l;i(l.'. 1020 
 
 , Kennedy V. 40;<, 2'2:?0, 22 n. I , Thompson v 21.V», 2210 
 
 :{14, 4S2. 2000 I V. Torr:incc :{8li 
 
 , Re - Leader Lane Arhitr.'i- ' Totten, l!e, .. 1!».">4 
 
 tion :18, KWil V. Ro«<'u 800,882. 187 
 
 , lie McCaulcy and, ."184, l.^lO.'i - - v. Trmi.\ 00, 77 
 
 , McKniglitv. .. 1:{7I, i:i72|Town V. Borden 2104,2182 
 
 1 Mclhoiirno V. :{.S8, 22;{7. — I. "»40 Towers v. Doniiniim Iron and Metal Co. 1."), 
 
 , Re Naamith and, .. i:U7 I 1801 
 
 , NoM(! v. . . 1,108, 21 1 1 j Townsend, Hamilton and Fliunlioronj;!! 
 
 , Re IVyee and . . 2i;U ! iloii'l Co. v. 241, S!I2. Ol:i, 2148 
 
 _-, I'uhlic School iJoard of, | v. Waddell 14, :12, .S.-.8, 10(i:{. 270 
 
 Lee v 172;? |To\vnslcy V. Bahlwin 1174.1007 
 
 .. Re Ricliardson and, .. L'tO.'i To/t;r. Burkitt v. .. 21(i:{ 
 
 , In re IScott and, .. 1:170 'I'raeey v. I'owlds 0.")(i. 077 
 
 , Re Smith and, ;<88, l.'<84 (hi.t). \ , Toonicy v. 1000, 1 10:1, 220-J. 220."), 2224 
 
 42, l:{(i.") 1 Traders' lianU of (^nnada v. <!. & .1. Brown 
 
 — , .Strttton V. . 12421 Mannfaeturing Co. 8(50 
 
 V. Toronto St. R. \V. Co. 027, I , Cooderham v. 1201. - 
 
 I0S7 i \riM 
 
 Toronto Belt Line R. W. Co. v. Lauder 174,"), | — v. (loodfallow -Re 
 
 17081 (Joodfallow, 14.5, 7.")0 
 
 Toronto Rrcwing and Malting Co. v. v. Kean 02.'» 
 
 Blake .. 201. 2li:„ I — v. Murray, Re 
 
 278, 7i')0, 0'20. 928. - i Hague, :U. ."lOO, 72."), 
 
 2()1, 20"), 208 , 7.13, 1001, 1040 
 
 V. Hevey 781, 1710jTrainor v. Black Diamond S, S. Co. , of 
 
 Toronto Corn Kxehange, Cannon V. 271, 1413 - ; Montreal .. 102.'> 
 
 41, 02 Travellers' Ins. Co., Neill v. 27, :«, 400, 100,"), 
 Toronto Klectric Light Co., Chick V. .. :172 i 1.101. 2.5 
 
 Toronto Cencral Trusts Co., Hoskin v. 347, 1977 Traversy v. Gloucester 2120, 2138. 2-2:V2. — 2i:« 
 
 — ■ V. Sewell 701, 1004, | Travis v. Bell . . 0.10, 70."), 784, 1213 
 
 22:W 1 V. Travis 838.-838 (hi.s\ 
 
 ■i 
 
 I,; 1. 1 
 
Izxx 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Tra-Tuf] 
 
 COM .MN. I Tun-TJni] 
 
 OaU!MN. 
 
 Tray nor, StcviMison v. . .7"), (j7r).-0(i 
 
 Traynor iiml Keith, Re, •• -1"J* 
 
 Troacey V. Lijjgett .. ..813 
 
 Truleaveii v. (iduld— North Oiitiirio Kle(;- 
 
 tion(Ont.) . 14'.!), 1471, 1472, 1470, 
 
 1481, 14S4, into, 14!»2, ir.(Mi.- 1447, 
 
 Ufid, 14S1, 14S-J 
 
 Trclc\ fii un.l Horner, In ru, 48,"), •_>0,S7. -r.S9, 
 
 1971, '-'0(i() 
 
 Trcmnin, Stuart V SKi, '-'•24.3 | 
 
 Trcniiiyiic' v. (iraml Trunk R W. Co. . . I SOU, i 
 
 17S1 i 
 Troinbliiy v. Valentin I7.'t4 
 
 Trenoiitii. Wanldl v I!'"'" 
 
 Trent Valley Canal, H '"He Water St." 
 
 anil " The R.ia.l to the Wliiirf " <I4, 17:{(i, 
 •2117. -4(!1, 47-2, l(i(»4 
 Trent Valley Canal and l^iiuls e.xj.roiirl- 
 
 nriatedat Fenelon FalU, He, 4SS, -2101, 
 
 •2-2»:t. '21(l(t 
 Trepanicr, Melina, In re, '218, 454. S4(J, 840, | 
 
 8,".0. lOOl, •2(m 
 Trori> • V. IJnrkett .. (iO-2, lOKi. 1708. 10.'t2 | 
 Triee v. iK,". Mi.>ion . . 710, 10,V.», l!)8((. 72:$ 
 Triyan/ie, l!ej,'ina v. 4."i.S. - 4I!'2 
 
 Trim, Kae v. 384, mi, 40G, 482, Ol."., l.SliS, 21 17, \ 
 
 212(i. 472, 2117 
 Trinity College v. Hill 1(K)8, KIIO (/,/<). 128."., 
 
 i:fll, 1319 
 Troop, Ferguson V. .. .. ll.M. -1141 
 
 — — V. Hart . . 20.-.G - 100, 1 19, I Ki.". 
 
 , Liiinidators of the Maritime Hank 
 
 V 287 
 
 V. .Meroh.ints' Marine Ins. Co. . 088 \ 
 
 Trotter v. ( "hamhers . . 870 
 
 Trout, Livingston v. cm, 1077, lf!17. -MS, 
 
 .-.11, .-.Hi 
 
 V. Monlton . . ..!.-).-. 
 
 Trontman v. Fisken 084 
 
 Trowein, Ontario IJank v. (i8.-| 
 
 Truax V. Dixon .'{7.3, 374, 7(!.3, 1082, ll(!8(/;;.s) 
 
 1 1 72, 1 1 7.-), 1 50 1 , 191 3, 1 980. 308, 
 
 .-.41, 1172 
 
 ■ , Totten V. . . 00, 77 
 
 Trude V. Plnenix Ins. Co S.'.o, 1043 
 
 Trust and Loan Co. v. (iallaghcr. 1274. 1290, 
 
 1294, 18.30 
 
 V. florslino 700 
 
 , Ounn V. 1617, 10.30. — 1028 
 
 V. Hill . . .-.80, 1076 
 
 V. Jones 577, 1074 ('<('«).— 
 
 .J81 
 
 V. Kirk . . . . 1282 
 
 V. [..awrason 178,524, 
 
 1208.-1910 
 
 ■ , Wallbridge v. . ,'157 
 
 , Wells V. . . 1315.— 1319 
 
 Trustees of the East Presbyterian Church 
 
 and McKay, He, 19,2243 
 
 Trustees of Public School Secti' .i No. 12 
 ol' the Township of IJrooke, In re 
 MnioUliild and, .. .. 12.12, 12,33 
 
 Trnsters of School Section No. 24 of the 
 Tiiwiiship (if Burford v. Township of 
 Ihirfi.rd .. 040, 1721, 1728. •.^2.32 
 
 Tuck, .Tones v 2003, 2008 -27 
 
 Tucker V. McMahon (is2 
 
 , Hegina v 1045, 1047 —1047 
 
 Tnckersmitli, He Public School Hoard of 
 
 the TiivMiship of, .. ]'-2r> 
 
 Tuekett V. Katim .'.44, 6JH, 1224. 1400 
 Tufts. Chapmm V 157, •_'_';i7 
 
 Tune, ' larnor v. 
 Tapper v. Annand 
 Turley v. Henedict . . 
 
 , Molsons Rank v, 
 
 Turner, Chand.erlain v. 
 
 . — , C'endinning v. 
 
 , Henebery v 
 
 101.3. -1612, 1614, 2039 
 
 324.— 1.541, 2060, 20fil 
 
 .. 587.-578 
 
 780, 1700.-177,845 
 
 .. 71,7.3.-74 
 
 . . 467, 2083, 2098.- 
 
 . . 645, 1076.-1093 
 
 V. Imperial Bank of ('anadu. In re, .545, 
 
 553 
 
 V. Lucas 828 
 
 V. Prevost . . 8.38, 1878.-197.5, 21,59 
 
 Tui'ncr's Case, He Iron (/lay Brick Manu- 
 facturing Co., 208, 284, 304, 
 2076.- -20(50 
 
 — , He Standard Fire Ins. Co., 244 
 
 Tweed, Hamilton V. .. .. 16(16 
 
 Tyke V. The(iueen 1209, 1847.— 461, 1129, 1.584 
 Tyrwhittv. Dewson 2163, 2171. --2109, 2177 
 Ty.son V. Abercrombie . . (i.'iS 
 
 Udell, North of Scotland Mortgage Co. v. 671, 
 
 1271.-1277 
 Udy V. Stewart 16, 620, 1253, 1401, 1 !»05. — 1 .390, 
 
 l<K)5 
 Ullman, Rogers V. 12.37, 109.-). -8. 782 
 
 Union Bank of Halifax, Whitman v. 799, 1992 
 Union Bank of Lower Canada, In re Rainy 
 Lake Lumber ('o., 
 Stewart, Liquida- 
 tor, v. 140, 179, l."»8, 
 280.— 145, 184, 187 
 
 V. Starrs .. (),35 
 
 Union Fire Ins. Co., Re, 283, 284, 285, 291 {l,!i>) 
 408, 411, 22.36.— 411 
 
 , Re, Clarke and, 284, 286, 
 
 293, 304 
 
 , Clarke v. 281, 291, 299, 
 
 .302, .309,971, 
 2241.— 9.34 
 
 Claim of the 
 
 Afijricultural 
 Firelns. Co. 
 of Water- 
 town, New 
 York 1006.— 972, 
 973 
 
 Gaston's Case 244, 
 
 276, 290, 292, 293. 
 
 383, 1686, 1944, 
 
 1951, 1952, 19.-)8, 
 
 1962.-264, 291 
 
 Chabot's (.'iise 
 
 622.-679 
 
 Re Export 
 
 Lumber Co. 760 
 
 McPhee's Claim 
 
 691, 1005, 18.35. 
 -973 
 
 Shool bred's 
 
 Case . . —285 
 
 ■ V. Fitzsiramons, 251, 25.3, 
 
 277,9.33, 1820, 198.5, 202! 
 
 , Klein V. 935, 941, 1610. 
 
 939, 9,- 900, 967, 1.301 
 
 V. Lyma . 242, 253, 933, 
 
 1008, lOlv, 1985 
 
 V. O'Oara 242, 251, 2.52, 
 
 274, 2021 
 
 V. Quinl,an28, 29, 414,935, 
 
 949, 1079, 1589.-1000 {his) 
 
 V. Shields 277, 9.33, 1820 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Izzzi 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 Uni-Vet] 
 
 Union Fire Ins. Co. v. ShooHtred 242, 2.'>1, 252, 
 
 274,2(121 
 
 . , Shoolbrcd v. 28.5, 408, 2004 
 
 , , Re, Shoolbrod v. 
 
 Clarke .286 
 
 Union Loan and Savings Co. v. Boomer IG-W, 
 
 1659.-1659 
 Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Burnett v. 94.S, 
 
 976.-933 
 Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., Neill v. 995, 1562.-^ 
 
 WAi 
 li'nion Ranch Co. of Canada (Limited), In 
 
 re 284 
 
 Union St. iJosejilide Montreal v. Lapierrc. 150. — 
 
 272 
 Union St. Thomas, Belar.d v. . . 153.— 272 
 United States Express Co. v. Donolioe 452, 
 680.— 379, 1404, 1405, 1470 
 Upper, Oawfonl v. . . . . 1391 
 
 UpperCanadii Furniture Co., Fulton Bros. 
 
 V. .. 324 
 
 , Hands v. 634, 678 
 
 Usljorne, McLachlin v. 892, 1982, 2066. -2067, 
 
 2214 
 . , Mugee V. 892, 2066.-2067, 2214 
 
 Aalcntin, Tremblay v 1 734 
 
 Valin V. Langlnis 306.— 1713 
 
 - V. L;inglois^Montniorency Klectioii 
 
 (Uoni.) .. 852,1504,1,507,1513 
 Van Alien, Keatherstono v. 329, 407, 1409, KitiO 
 
 . _, In re Merchants' Hank v. 549, 551 
 
 Vnndcrlip v. Smyth . . 2149. -1685 
 
 Vaiulervoort v. S'oukcr . . 1215 
 
 Vanduwaters v. ITorton .353, 376, 1318. -376, 
 
 .537 
 
 Vanduaen, Mitchell v ,377 
 
 , Weaver V. .. 897,1271-1.305 
 
 Van Kgmond v. Town of Seafortli 919, 20.32, 
 
 2110, 2111. -I3(il, 2109 
 
 Van Kvery, Webling v. — Re Sturgis (iO'J, 2218 
 
 Van Konghnet V. Dcnison 421, 422, 4S.», 648, 
 
 f«)9, 917, 1.3S6, 1986, 2151, 2-'.32. — 482, 1882 
 Van Mere v. Farewell . , (i7S, 12.52, 1407 
 Van Norman v. (;rant 91, 403, 4!(), 916.-406 
 
 , (irant v 817 
 
 Viinsickle V. Van.sickle .. .. 2166 
 
 Van Staden V. Van Ktaden . . 1025,1026 
 
 Vanatoiie, Hunter v. . . 402, .545. 1088 
 
 Van Velsor v. Huglisou .•!2, 6(i3, I IS2, 1 5.33, 
 2089. 34, 57(i, 1093 
 Vaiiwart, New Hrun.swick R. W. Co. v. 1780 
 Van Warmer, Koater v. .. 688.-686,680 
 Vanlcm v. X'ardon 17, 612, 884, 16S9, 1941 
 
 1976.-884, 1689, 1974 
 
 Var>i V. (i.mhl 119, .3.56 
 
 Vauf,'haii v. Ricliaidson 200(), 2008, 2232.-2002 
 
 — , Itnberts v. 1.58 
 
 , Weldoii v. . 10, .3,34.-7, 1921 
 
 Veitch, Caraon v. . . 73, 1125, 1145. -63 
 
 , Ferguson v 1.399,1401,1905 
 
 Venner v. Sun Life Ins. Co. 1001, KifMi, 2009. - 
 
 1415 
 
 Vez-Wall 
 
 Venning v. Steadman 
 Vennilyea v. CannifT 
 
 v. (iutiiric 
 
 Vernon v. Oliver 
 Verral, iSegiiia v. 
 Verratt v. NIc.Aulay 
 
 Vetter v. Cowan 
 k 
 
 750. 12 
 
 . 1.555 
 
 . . 15.59, 1652 
 
 50, .320, 1992 
 
 1109. 1.375, 1547 
 
 7.50, 9.30, 1701,2240. - 
 
 10, 12 
 
 ,54 
 
 Vt'zina v. New York Life Ins. Co. 
 V. The Queen 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 992.— 1002 
 1761. -17.53 
 
 V. Hudon Cotton Co. v. Canada Shipping 
 
 Co I(i94, 1864, 2014, 2243 
 
 Vickers Express Co. v. Canadian Pacific 
 
 K. W. Co 740, 1797, 1799 
 
 Victoria, County of, v. County of Peter- 
 borough . . . . 2126, 21.39, 22.34, 2235 
 Victoria Mutual V. Freel .. .. 1081,1707 
 Victoria Mutual Fire Ins. Co. , Campbell v. 903 
 
 — — V. Davidson ,554, 
 
 666, 1706 
 
 , Robins V. 934, 
 
 964, 1258. 980 
 
 ■ • v, Thompson 264, 
 
 267, 979. - 
 269, 276 
 
 Thonison v. 976, 
 
 1631 
 
 V Vhonison 978 
 
 Victoria R. W. Co., Fcnelon Falls v. 94, 920, 
 1,378, 1415, 1769, 2035 
 
 , Lee V. . . . . 1815 
 
 — — - , In re Thomson and, 1802, 
 
 1803 
 Victoria University, Town of Cobourg v. 2090 
 
 Vidal, Dainty V .337.-1151,1883 
 
 Viegel, Foster v .378.- .364, 374 
 
 Villeneuve V. Wait .. ..1071 
 
 Vinden v. Fraser 81,5.-676,837 
 
 Vin'berg v. Grand Trunk R. W. C«. . . 1701 
 
 Vipon.l, Fulton v 380, 22.36.-376 
 
 Virtue v. Mayes— In re Clarke, . . 2000.— 1 174 
 Vogel v. (Jrand Trunk R. VV. Co. 302, 1741, 
 
 22.38 
 
 — , Crand Trunk R. VV, Co. v. 1797. -1790. 
 
 2239 
 
 \'ogt V. Boyle 39 > 
 
 Vokes, Re Wallis and, . . ..11 69. -117^ 
 
 Vosburg, Seott v 1285, 20i)7 
 
 Voters' List for the City of St. Thomas, 
 
 In re— Re Boyes 400 
 
 Voters' List of tiie Village of L'Original, 
 
 In re — In re .lohnson .. 1430 
 
 Vye, .\lexaniler v. . . — 662, 666 
 
 Waddell, Flatt v. 14, .32, 8.58, 1963. -261, 279 
 — — v. Onttvrio Canning Co. 281, 921 . 
 
 1963.— 265 
 
 Townsenil v. 
 
 Wade, Adair v. 
 Wadswortii v. Bell . . 
 
 V. McC^ord 
 
 , .Me Mullen v. 
 
 1906, 2045. 
 
 14, .32, 858, 196.3. - 
 
 279 
 
 1.399 
 
 1917 
 
 .556.-867 
 
 556.-867 
 
 Waghorn v. llawkihs . . . . 166S 
 
 Wainlleet, Township of, Re Misener v. . . 1.351 
 
 , Wilson v. . . 2127. — 1227, 12.30 
 
 Wait, Villeneuve v. 1071 
 
 Wakeford, MeConnellv 3.56 
 
 Waldie V. Hurlington 320, 404, 929, 1824, 2126 
 Walk.ni, Higgins v. 510, 1400.-516, 1.398 
 Walker, Re — lOfi 
 
 v. Rouglnicr 12.36, 1421, 1975, 21.59 
 
 , Cameron v. 873, 1180, 22.38. -.590, 867, 
 
 1191 
 
 , Lario V 491,1629 
 
 -, Re McLean v. 1882, 2242.-1885, 1887, 
 
 1894 
 V. McMillan 149, 207, 644, 2049. -341 
 
 v. Murray 668, 2220 
 
 i ?;■ 
 
Izzzii 
 Wal-Wanl 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 Wan Web] 
 
 ooirMir. 
 
 OOLnjIN- 
 
 Walker. Pritcliarcl v. —London Election 
 
 (l)om.) 14(ir..-14!1!) 
 
 , Keuinav. 1041, 1043, 1048, 1(>4!>, 17IS. 
 
 " -1)17,1118,1124 
 
 V. Rog»— West Midillesex Kleuiion 
 
 Wanzer, Hutton v 424, 19:^^ 
 
 VVanzcr L.iiiii) Co. v. Woods .">7, 22.S4 — I(i4,'; 
 Ward V. Huglies 22G, 1276, UOS 
 
 V. Jinksou 20.39 
 
 , Kti'fo V 0.S7, UiX, 
 
 (Out ) .... 1 ')13 , Re r.i!ibes v 'M, •J'.'S" 
 
 ,_ Sprarav. . 336, 2245. -330 —, M"yd v 100!), 2022 
 
 'v Walker KS!» I -, Wiltsey v .538, 547. -.-).■» 
 
 Ke_WaIkerv. Rochester lO.Ji, l!>.-:r Wardell v. Tn-no' Mi in.-.9 
 
 Walker, an FnBolvent, Re, . . 1 20. - 1 .'i4(i I Wardrope v. Canadian Pacific R. W. C<|. H8, 
 
 VValkertou, To«nof In re Nickle and iri97, I (i05, (i67 
 
 2I0S. — 2115 Warin v. London and Canadian Loan 
 Wallace, Bank ..f London v. .. ' 823 ' and Ayency Co. . . 2103.- 2090, 2110 
 
 Warner, llingliaiii v. 
 V. Munav 
 
 1970, 2.I4.">. 1074, 2049 
 
 .. 113, 031, 837, 8S3 
 
 Warnock v. Klupfer . . 7!h>, 81H, -2237 
 
 ^, Li';litlinunil V 840.-1099 
 
 V. I'riciir 121.3, 1311, 1320, 2231. 1212, 
 
 i:iio 
 
 Warren, Hi'L'iiia V. .. .. 1719 
 
 V. Cowan 1840.2040 
 
 , Decow V. .South Norfolk Election 
 
 (Doni.) 1511 
 
 , In re Holland v 543 
 
 V. Ilutcldson. . 875 
 
 , l.loy.l V 87, 2082 
 
 , London and Canadian Loan and 
 
 Agency Co. v. 2075.— 2I8S Warwick, Kc I'.oustcad and, 1SS7. — 1967, 1974, 
 
 . Re .M(ior<> V 0, .■)4-t 2(),S9 
 
 V. Town of Orangeville .. 003.917 Washin!,'ton, Ro, 19,v; 
 
 V. Hoard of I'ulilic School TriLstees — , Regina v. 217, I MO. 1908. 1979.- 
 
 for Union School Section No. 9 1109 
 
 of the Township of LoImi .380.1720, Wason, Itegina v. .. 210, .•!(I7. 1 1 Hi. I2;i:t 
 
 17.'>5 Water Coniniissioner.s of the City of Lon 
 10.39, 1044, 1048, 1104 .Ion, Mc Chapman and, 1 10<>, 'l 1 18, 1378, 17i(i 
 
 "Wiitrr Street" and " Tiie Roid to the 
 
 Wharf," Ke. Ke Trent Valley Canal 94, 
 
 17.30, 2117. Oil, 472 
 
 Waterliury, Dewe V. 499, (i71 , 141(i .".U 
 
 '• ^'aterhousc v. McVeigh 54, .■)."), 4(M), Hi.")5, IO.")S 
 
 9,-.7 
 
 , Regnia v. 
 
 V. S<mtlier l.Vi. I,->S. lOS, 17.'), 1.38(i, 22.34 
 
 V. W.dl.ice 1319. -1819 
 
 V. Whidey 37 
 
 Wallhridtie v. I'.oni u -West Hastings Klcc- 
 
 tion (Ont.) . . I.'>04 
 
 - V. (ianjot 305, 1 137. — II. ")0 , Waterloo iMntual Ins. Co. (ianthicr v. 
 
 , Talnur v. . . 1137, 12.57. -1 150 
 
 V. Trust and Loan Co. . . .3.57 
 
 Waller v. Claris 384, l(i()8 
 
 Wallis and V^okes, Re, 
 
 Walls, Paris M^iniifacturini,' Co. v. 
 
 Walmsley v. Crillith 355, 770, Hill. 1092,1909, , llegiin v. . . 
 
 2005 (/);.s).-30l, HiOI. 19lU Watson v. I'.r.idNhaw 
 
 1109.-1172, 
 
 1015! Waters v. Donnelly 
 
 V. .MitduU .377. 1900. 20.">,') 
 
 -V. Uent (iiiaranteeCo. 200,274.279.- 
 
 200. 2S1 
 Walsh, Court v. 131, 1128, 118S. 1189.1072 
 
 Charlton v 
 
 - V. |)owser 
 -, (ireen v. 
 
 - V. Ketchuui . 
 
 - V. Lindsay 
 
 - V. .MeDomdd 
 
 - V. Xorthern R. W. Co. 
 -, Regina v. 
 
 , Harris v. . . %'} 
 
 V. Rohinson (ill, 
 
 782, 1402, 1710- 
 
 1709 
 
 7(!6 
 
 4'!, 070, 1403, 2010 
 
 837.-082 
 
 83, 1.598, l.S!« 
 
 129.i 
 
 423, 1554, 2097, 2243. 424 
 
 898. 1083, 1()S.5. Ml 
 
 4»»«i. 1189, 1209.-407 
 
 .. 620 
 
 17.55, 1817 
 
 1 7 IS, '22:)il 
 
 V, Severn 
 — V. We.sllake .. 
 and Woods, Re, 
 
 394, «S0, 2052, 22;i',l 
 
 2t>29 
 
 2224 
 
 V. Elliott, l!e 
 
 V. Hell'ernan . 1739, 1995 - 
 
 — , Ex j);irte Holland . iid, Couit v. 
 
 Holland .. 047, 007. Oil, 045 - 
 
 . V. Montague-HaldiniaiHl Election - 
 
 (Uoni.) 1441, 1445, 1440, 1447, 14.50. - 
 1492,1.508,1514.22.3.5.-1.52)) 
 
 . Monteith V. 370. 721. 1910. -7.32 Watson Manufacturing Co. (Limited), A 
 
 , Regina v. 1041, 1044, 104ti, 1047. 1047 ams \. . . 799, 1005, 2211. HMt, S24 
 
 1048 Watt V. Clark 1220.1911 
 
 Walterhousc, Huffman V. 9.30,10.50,1170 , Evans v. ,. 1904. llKNi 
 
 Walton V. .Apjohii .. 11.(523,1.502,1072 Watts v. Atlantic Mutual Life Inn. Co. 99.5. 
 
 , (joldsnnth V. 1.557. L5K9 007 
 
 -— V. Henry .528, 925,927, 11.53, Hill. 1914. WaveU, Alexamlcr v 10.5. ;y9 
 
 22.34, 2243.- 531 Way, Riggar v 17, 1308 
 
 , Mc(ii!l V 1221 , Wright V 16.33,108.1 
 
 V. .Snnp.son 780 ! Weatherhead v. Weatherhead 907, 1531. — Itil4, 
 
 V. Wideman L-)9(i i l(i77 
 
 V. AVo,.Hlstock Gas Co. 1 199.— 1 183, \ Weaver v. Sawyer . . 378, 404, 20.55. -;i64 
 
 1 1!)!) V. Vandiisen . . 897, 1271 . - 1305 
 
 V. County of York 413, 74(i. 1410, 2140. ! Wuhber v. McLeod . .. 1222, 2052. -20'm 
 
 -2225 Wehling v. Van lOvery, Re Sturgis, ()62, 2218 
 
 2132 {!>!.■<] Webster v. Haggart . . 37, 40, 48. -;i" 
 
 Wannaniaker v. Green 
 Wansborough, McMillan v. 
 ^^'anslcy v. Sinallwood 
 
 Wanty v. Robins 
 
 (i30 
 
 10, 360, 382, 855, 
 
 857.-376 
 
 ., .. 1172 
 
 V. Leys 728,884,2180. IC'II 
 
 , Mutual Relief .Society of Nova 
 
 Sootia V. . . , . 1000, 2240 
 , Regina v 1349. -1342, 13.51 
 
TABLE OF OASES 
 
 Ixxziii 
 
 Weh-Wes] coi,i;mn. 
 
 Wehlar, Hegina v 210, HI* 
 
 Wcinlu 1(1 V. Klein «77 
 
 VVeir, lire .. •• 646, 744, 8.-,7, -.-i:?'-' (ft/.) 
 
 ^v (\viiinlian Pacific R. \V. f'o. .. I77H 
 
 . V. Cliiade -MOtt 
 
 V. Ni!vj;anv«!rai)e Co I.S'iit 
 
 Weldoii V. \'aiigliii" ■ • • 10, :{;ft.— 7, 1921 
 
 Wellaiid Ca.nl Knlart'cmeiit . lo -Fitch 
 
 V. McKtt ,lil), -,84, ll-,3, 2152 
 
 Welland F'.<;ction (1) lUnl.)— Hoatty v. 
 
 Cunie 1140, 1480 
 
 . (2)(0nt.)— Uiichiii'i- V. ( 'ur- 
 
 lie 1448, 14.")7. 1100, H77, 
 1480, 1491. 1497 lUW. 1.V21 
 
 . (0nt.)--Hol.8oii w M- I 
 
 1455, 1496, 1497, I.Md, I.V21 
 
 22:{9, 2241 
 
 Welland, Town of, v. Brown 72 ('li.i) (iliO, 205:{. 
 
 1701 
 Wellliaiiks V. Conger 479. !Ol"i. 10(i7. 22;i4, 
 
 2242 
 
 V. Coiigor (2) . . ;{77, 517 
 
 . V. Heney 811. SIS 
 
 VVcUcr, Ro, 222.-) 
 
 . V. I'loutor Itil:{, 20:i!t 
 
 Weiliiigtoii. County of, l!i'j,'itia v. li(i, i:i2, :«)4, 
 
 22;?2 (/(is) 2240 
 Wellington, (irey and Knu'c 1!. W. Co., 
 
 Cameron V. 16:il, 1752.- ti.->2, IOCS, 1971, 
 
 1978 
 Wells, Buttcrfield v. . . 120, 1944, 2082 
 
 . V. Cairott 5. — 5 
 
 V. Lindop .->04, 1403. .■)H, i:i9S, 1405 
 
 V. Lindop (2) .504 
 
 V. Northern R. W. ( 'o. 574. 1700. 2i:i;{. 
 
 Ol.S. met. 1751. 2125 
 
 V. Snpreme Court of tlic liidi'iten 
 
 dent Order of Foresters .. l.-)2. 1000 
 
 V. Trust & Loan Co, of Canada 1315 — 
 
 i;tl9 
 Wells and MacMurchy'a Case, l!e Central 
 
 Kank of ("Canada, 135,787 
 
 Welsh V. City of St. < 'athnrines ..2113 
 
 Wesley v. Wills— West Hastir.gs Election 
 
 (1) (Out.) .. 1.500, 2239. -14.-.9, 1494 
 
 \\est, Fnilniry v 189 
 
 , Corporation o'' I'arkdalc v. 1757.— 1745 
 
 V. Piukdale 577,1377.2120,21.33. 1771, 
 
 KSKi, 2137, 2l.-)7 
 West Klgin Election (Ont.) -Caseaden v. 
 
 Munroe . 1445, 1510, l.VJO 
 
 West Hastings Election (Ont. ) Wallbridge 
 
 V. Hown . . 1.504 
 
 (1) (Ont.) Weslev 
 
 \. Wills 150(1, 2239. 
 —14.59, 1494 
 
 (2) (Ont.) -Holden 
 
 V. Robertson 14.59, 
 14SK). 1497 
 West Huron Election ^Dom. ) — Mitchell v. 
 
 C.nienm 1447, 1.504. 1517.-1509 
 
 West MiddloHe:. >.,lcction (l)oin.)- .Vi^Nril 
 
 V. Roonie 1475, 1527 
 
 (Dom.) Walker v. 
 
 Ross 1513 
 
 (Ont.) Johnson \-. 
 
 Ross . , 1,521 
 
 West NisKOuri, Township of, v. Township 
 
 of North Dorchester 1.353. 1352, 1375 
 
 West Northumlicrl.md Election (f)oni.) 
 
 Henderson v. (Juillct 1471.- -1436, i404, 
 
 1477, 1482, 1491 
 
 WesWhi] 
 
 COLUMN'. 
 
 West Northumberland Election (Ont.) — 
 
 Rnrnham v. Kerr . . . . 1515, 1520 
 
 West Ontario Pacific R. W. Co., Cathed- 
 ral of the Holy Trinity v. . . 1756 
 West Peterborough Election (Ont. ) — Scott 
 
 V. Cox 1458, 1400, 1478, 14})2, 1515, 22.35.— 
 
 1521 
 West Sinicoe Election (Ont.)— Bedford v. 
 
 Phelps 1447 {his), 14.54, 1459, 1491, 1494, 
 1507.— 1472, 1508, 1510 
 West Toronto Election (1) (Ont.), Arm- 
 strong v. Crooks 1446, 
 14.50, 1458, 1463, 
 1472, 1474, 1516, 1518, 
 I.i26. — 1457, 1403, 1472 
 — (2) (Ont.), Adam- 
 son V. Bell. 1486 
 West Wawanosji, Township of. Rose v. 919, 
 
 2135 
 West Wellington Election (Ont.), Mooie 
 
 V. .Mc(iowan 1483, 1519 
 
 VN'est York Election (Ont.), (irahanie v. 
 
 Patters(ni . I43S, 151S— .1437 
 
 Western Assurance Co., Bank of British 
 
 North America v. 384, 410 
 984,991,1409.-1400,1417 
 
 , Canada Fire and 
 
 .Marine Ins. Co. v. . . 990 
 
 — — V. Doull 9.36, 95S 
 
 V. Ontario Coal Co. 990, 
 
 19.32.-989 
 
 — V. Provincial Ins. ( 'o. 472, 
 
 002, 935 
 
 ^ V. Scanlan . , . . 988 
 
 Western Bank of Canada v. Greey 1277.— 6(Hi, 
 
 2034 
 Western Canada, etc., v. Inc^ . . 1821 
 
 Western (\inada Loan and Savings Co. v. 
 
 Dun I .577, 907, 1.312 
 
 V. Garrison 600,1197 
 
 Western Counties R. W. Co. ■. Windsor 
 
 and Annapolis I!. W. Co 1743 
 
 Western Fair Association v, Hutchinson, 
 
 Re, .548 
 
 Western Union Telegraph Co., Canadian 
 
 Pacitic It. W. ( 'o. V. . , 277, 282, 1013, 
 
 1800, 2013. .331 
 
 Westgatc V. Westgate 788, 907 
 
 Wcstlake, Watson v 2029 
 
 Wcstney, Lenno.x V. .. 11.33. 1 1.35, 11.53 
 
 Weston, Village of, v. Conron 13.33, 1705.-72 
 \V est over, Barker V. .. 880,2025 
 
 Wctherell v. .lones 314, 624 
 
 Whalev, Wallace v. 37 
 
 Whalls V. Learn 873, 905 
 
 VVhatniough, Fulton v. — Re Charles 2184. — 
 
 2177 
 Wheatlev v. Sharp 57, 903, 1674, 1075, 1906.- 
 
 1711,2151 
 Wheeler V, Black . . 574. 2110 
 
 V. (iilibs, North Ontario Election 
 
 (Ddui ) 2007 
 
 Wheeler it Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. 
 
 Wils'.n ,. 2.57.-2.50,201,1129 
 
 Wilder, (iibbs v.— North Ontiuio Election 
 
 (Dom.) 1440, 14.50. 1462, i4(i0, 1473, 1474, 
 
 1479. I4S2, 1487. 14.50, 1407, 1524, 1.520 
 
 Whiniseli v. (iitl'ard . . 195, 19t), ,522.-195 
 
 Whitaker and Ma.s(m, Re. 1220, 1231, 1378 
 
 White, Aylesworth v. -East Hastings 
 
 Election (Dom.) 144.t 
 
 V, Btciuer . 399, 16.55, 16.56, 1659 
 
 miJd 
 
Ixxziv 
 
 WhiWil] 
 
 TABLE OF CASES 
 
 <ou;mn. iWil] 
 
 COI,l!MII, 
 
 Wiiitc, IJunnctt v. . . 
 White, Cl.vike V. 
 
 , Cliirkft.-" V. . , 
 
 , Cueri'icr v. . . 
 
 V. (iiill)r(iilh, Ke, 
 
 , Re Gilimmr and, 
 
 373, 300, l«ll. lOI'i 
 
 .. -iois, L'-.'.W 
 
 119, 1«22. — 131, KitMl 
 
 . . 3S0 
 
 551, l'2*28.-540, l'_>-27 
 
 1298, 20()7. -12()5, 
 
 1.S02 
 
 V. Tdwiisliip of Oosficld . . 1220, 21 13 
 
 V. l/nncasliirc Ins. Co. 034 
 
 , McCVaov 124,1001,2005 
 
 , Miller V (i6S. I.W 
 
 V. Miirray—North Renfrew Kloi:- 
 
 tioii (Dom.) . . I4(!;{, 1520 
 
 , Ncllus V. . . 02, 70, 80, 4«5, 575, 22;t2 
 
 V. Xelles . . 1 15S.-70, 80, 82, 2008 
 
 V. I'lKket 17, 34, 478, 12.->(l, l.m'i, 1410. 
 
 2008, 2025. -1!KI:J 
 
 , IVel s 1008, 1040 
 
 V. Kunisay .")80, 1007 
 
 und tlie Township of Siuidwich K:i.st, 
 
 In re. . . . IS.Vi, 1353, 1,354.-1.301 
 
 V. 'rmnalin (i.VJ, 1854, 1870, 1000.— 080 
 
 , Wright v.— Re IJatt 711 
 
 White .Sewinii Machine Co. v. IJelfry 'JO;).— .3(i8, 
 
 5:!0 
 Whitehead, (Juelph C. Co. v. . . 018, 1558 
 
 V. Whitehead .. .. 88.3,2001 
 
 Whitflawv. Taylor 842.-842 
 
 Whitcly V. MacMalioti . . 41, 48.-42 
 
 WhitinL', Ilovey v. 102 {hix), 104, 178, 194, 205, 
 
 408, 102.3. — 180, 709 
 
 V. Hovcy 102, 104, 178, 180, 104, 20.'., 
 
 1023, 2237.— 104 
 Union Bank of Halifax 700, 1002 
 •Surk . . . 1673, 2040. -2040 
 
 .Toby 810, 2243 (W.-I) 
 
 Donohoe v. 28, 30, 671, 1297, 1937, 
 2236.— 1265, 1299 
 .McClay, Regina ex rel.,. . 1.329. -1.330 
 
 W 
 
 litin; 
 iiiiiii' 
 
 n V. 
 
 , V. 
 
 Whyf,. 
 
 Wid y. V. D.irling 
 Wiikins V. McMeekin 
 WiuKSon, Davis v. . . 
 Wicksteud v. .\1 i.nro 
 Widdifield v. Simons 
 Wideman, Walton v. 
 Widmeyer V. McMahon, la re. 
 
 330, 423. -.329 
 
 1701. -00(i, 1099 
 
 8, 182, 624 
 
 .. 1003 
 
 . . 768 
 
 .. 1.500 
 
 .".44. 
 
 -871 
 
 1607 
 
 .5.37, 511 
 875, 8.S1.- 
 Wigle V. Harris 
 
 , Mdice v.— South Essex Election 
 
 (Ont.) 1488, 1510 
 
 , Nels^m V 1,3, 1697, 1869, 1921.— 1922 
 
 , Robertson v. — The St. Magnus . . 1234, 
 
 1031,2(H)5i 
 Wilberforce Educational Institute v. Hol- 
 
 den 94, 278, 2067 
 
 Wilby V. Standard Ins. Co. . . 95:5, 409 
 
 Wikocks V. Howell .503, 517, 1089.-514. 516, 
 
 1398 
 
 WillianiH, iJritish and Canadian Loan and 
 I Investment Co. v. 1272. -1277, 
 
 I 1281 
 
 I , Carroll v. 1132.— 1966, 1970, 1971 
 
 , Re Cbite v 22.31 
 
 V. Corbev 472,620,702, 1682. -0'22. 
 
 1685 
 
 , Corby v 1868 
 
 V. Crow 403, 1842, 205J 
 
 , Crahani V. 1109.-1171 
 
 . , Hicks V 1195 
 
 , McMullen v. 657, 1399, 1087, 2096. - 
 
 2095 
 
 , Meredith V. 886,887-3.11 
 
 V. l!oy 712,2222 
 
 ' , Thorne V. .. 484, .575.- , '579 
 
 I Williams (C. W.) Manufacturing Co., 
 
 1 Singer v. 620 
 
 i Williamson v. Town of Aylmcr . . 38;{ 
 
 V. Ewing .327, 1036.-424, 840, I'iSO 
 
 , Leec: V 1010. -lOa) 
 
 I , Ross V. . . . . 66.' 
 
 ! , Smith V. . . .582, 7.36, 2080 
 
 Williamson v. Williamson . . . . 2160 
 
 I Willoiighby, Richmond v. .East Northum- 
 
 berlaiill Election (Ont ) 1456, 1496.— 1494 
 : Will.s V. Agerman . . . . 897, 1271.- 13a5 
 
 '■ V. Carman .378, 475, 515, 516, 517, 1398, 
 
 I 1404. -.501, 1407, 1623 
 
 V.Carroll 4,16.55.-4 
 
 I Wills, I'ar.sley v 1967 
 
 I , Standard Hank v 1072, 1658 
 
 , Wesley v. — West Hastings Election 
 
 i (l)((>iit.), .. 1.500, 2239. — 14.59, 1494 
 
 Will.son. Keginae.x rel. Taverner v. .. 1325 
 
 , in re, Township of York .ind . . 45 
 
 V. York . . 12.37, 1.3.32.-43, 1241 
 
 t Wilmot V. Stalker 95, 1874 
 
 i Wilson V. .Etna Lif^ Ins. Co. . . 281, 1006, 
 
 1674.— 281 
 
 ! , Aitken V 1043, 1661 
 
 V. Hi^atty, In re Donovan i.568, 19.38, 
 
 ; 1957.-7.34, 7.36, 738, 1939, 1940, 19.>» 
 
 V. Brown 159,402,405, 1.542. 1061. 
 
 I .34, 177 
 
 I V. Campbell 1282 
 
 I V. Duncan, Regiua ex rel., . . . . 1.329 
 
 Wilcockson, Hunter v. 
 Wiley, (Jilchrist v. , . 
 V. Ledyard . . 
 
 Wilgress v. Crawford 
 
 Wilkes V. Wilkes . . 
 Wilkie, McMiohael v. 
 Wilkins v. Geddes . . 
 
 , McConnell v. 
 
 V. Mcl.«an 
 
 Wilkinson v. Harvey 
 
 , Hohby v. 
 
 Willett V. Brown . . 
 
 1074 
 
 90 
 
 177, 2,34, 1009, 1203, 
 
 I3I4 
 
 .. 1082, 1.308. 1320, 
 
 1006 {his) 
 
 2206 
 
 871, 1688 
 . . 1567, 2003 
 401, 107.5, 1.542 
 .. 421,1,30.5.-1281 
 . . 694, 2032.— 1942 
 .. 2164,217.3.-2185 
 .54 
 
 -, Fitzgerald v 
 -, iiibbons V. 
 
 - V. (lilmcr 
 
 - V. (Jraham 
 -, Herring v. 
 
 - V. Irwin 
 
 - V. Kyle 
 -, Lewiu V 
 
 -, Re, Lloyd V. Tichborne 
 -, Meir V. 
 
 75, 76, 1979 
 
 811, 1696,22.3.5.-102 
 
 491.— .589, li:i5 
 
 . . 89«, 217.5.— 1748 
 
 530, 1261 
 
 1084 
 
 1288 
 
 1190 
 
 727, 906 
 7.37, 2010 
 
 Merritt v. — East Elgin Electio' 
 
 (Dom.) 476 
 
 , Morphyv 819, 1630 
 
 v. McDonald 621 
 
 v. McGuire, Jure, . . 305, 554. — 1710 
 
 — , McPhcrson v. 404, 637, 788.-1622 
 
 . l!eid V 1282 
 
 V. Roberts 371, 517 
 
 V. Roger, McLay & Co. 1546, 1598. - 
 
 1546 
 
 , Rogers V 1076,1292.-611 
 
 V. Rykert 1208, 1562 
 
 — , Spratt V. . . 718, 2071.— 737, 2079 
 
 , Stoddart V. 810 
 
 — , 111 re Stogdale and, . . 539.— 533 
 
 Windsor Hoti 
 Wiuil.Hor, Tov 
 
 ^: v t. ^ u ^ ^ ' M i mum t v 
 
TABLE OF GASES. 
 
 Ixxxv 
 
 WilWoo] ««'-^''^"'- 
 
 Wilson, T. vvn (.f Stnitford v. 298, 1376, 1416. 
 
 Ui.'l" 
 
 V. Wainfleet •.>I-27.-l-2*27, ISHO 
 
 _. Wheeler ami Wilson Mamifactui- 
 
 ' ingCo. V. ■257. -'.VJ, •-'«!, 112!) 
 
 V. WilHcn 565 
 
 V. WooiN ^ . . 510 
 
 Wilson ami Toronto hicanileacelit Electriu 
 
 Light Co., Ro, . .. .. —520 
 
 Wilton V. Nortiiern K. \V. Co 1776 
 
 Wiltsie V. Ward 538, 547.— .55;i 
 
 Winclunter v Husby , 2056 
 
 Wineliester, Township of, Ke Hoard of 
 Kiliication of the Villiigo of Morris- 
 Imrghand, .. 1731, 17.S2, I7.S3. -1725 
 
 VViiieliester, Township of, Ro High School 
 r.oiiril No. 4 of the U. C. of Storniont, 
 |)unda.saml()lcngarry and 22, 122!», 1232, 
 
 l2.-)0, 1257 
 Wind.soi' and :\iniai)olis R. W. Co. v. Thu 
 
 Queen 475. 15S0, 
 l.-)84, J025 
 , Western Coun- 
 ties K. W. Co. V 1743 
 
 Windsor, Uoard of Kducation of, Uunn v. 12.30, 
 
 172!) 
 Windsor Hotel Co. v. Cross 495, 2097. -1 008, 
 
 1885, 1!)I4 
 Wiiiilsor, Town of, Ayersv. .. 2i:!(i 
 
 , Marks V 2051 
 
 VVineg.iiner, Regina v. . . 2!i8, 451. - 3."»0 
 Winlield v. I'owlie 1021. I2,')l, I2(i(i.-4!I4, 7.V) 
 
 V. Kein 1222, i;i!»!». — 1218, I.398, 1405 
 
 Winnifiilh Urotiiers, Angli-Canadian Mu- 
 
 sii; l'ii'.)lisliers' Association v. 348, .375 
 
 Winnipeg, City <if, v. Wri^iil . . . . 2008 
 
 Winsor, I'erguso. v. 487, 4!)(i, 497, 6()2, 724, I82S 
 
 2206.-2170,2225 
 
 . . .338 
 
 .. 1607.-1222 
 
 1258, l.V)3, 22.32 
 
 . . 6 10. - 038 
 
 576, 11,58.-582 
 
 . . 1!)3 
 
 .. 1213 
 
 .. 182.3, 1S79 
 
 46.-552 
 
 Winstaidey, He 
 Winston, NIcLellan v. 
 Winters, l''aw eett v. 
 Withrow V. Malcolm 
 Wolfe, Lavery v. 
 WolU, lelly V. 
 
 , McCall V. 
 
 V. Ogilvv, l!u Hagar, 
 
 Woilie V. Hughes .. 
 Woltz V. I'.likelv, Re, 
 Wolvei'tou .iiid Towii>hip3 of South an<l 
 
 Noilli ( Irinisliy, Ro, .. 1731 
 
 Wood V. .Armour .. .347. 2I!).5. - 2180 
 
 , Brow n V. . . . . . . 2047 
 
 V. Ms.-on . , 2099 - 2105, 2110 
 
 V. Hurl 819, l.Vil, 197!)- 095 
 
 , Livinuston v. 85, 225, 424, 002, 1207, 
 
 1502, 10;iti, 1079, 22.36. 375, 0)9. 
 
 Woo Yorl 
 
 OOLUMW. 
 
 Woods, Re Watson and, 
 
 , Wilson V. . . 
 
 Woodstock (Jus Co., Ni'alton v. 
 
 V. Mcl'hersou 
 V. Tlie Quccii 
 
 I40S, 
 6MI, 
 (il!), 
 
 130V 
 ,■.94, 2ti.">(l 
 .")79, 1.585 
 1993, 2042 
 
 1081 
 
 , Sehult/. V. 
 
 Woodliurn, liycis v.. He I'laton, .. 
 
 Woodcock, Canadian Hank of (,'oninierce v. >S70, 
 
 1069.— 88 
 
 , Sierichs v. 
 
 Woodhall. Re, (liirl.utt v 
 
 Wooilliiil V. 'I lionias. . 
 
 Wiiodniiin V. lilair . . 
 
 Woodruff V. Canada (iuarantee Co. 1007. 2( 5.3 
 
 V. McLennan 788, 831, 1072, 109.5. 
 
 10!I3 
 
 Uoed.s. Ilerrie v 1142.- I 144 
 
 --, l)i>.lt'n V 2201 
 
 , Wiinzer Lamp Co. v. 557, 2234. — 1045 
 
 1009 
 
 Hewson 370, 7.35 
 .. 2103, 2199. 21 rO 
 020, 027. 035, 803 
 
 . 2224 
 . . 510 
 1199.— 118.3, 
 1199 
 Woodstock, Public School Hoard of the 
 
 Town of, ( 3iaplin v. 5)23, 1.599, 1724, 17.39.— 
 
 919, 1723, 17.39 
 Woodward, Canadian Bank of Conunerco 
 
 V 169.-140,2.35 
 
 — V. Clement . . . . . . 1551 
 
 —V. McDonald 40 
 
 V. Shields . . . . 1602. -1622 
 
 Wood worth V. Dickie . . 97, 4S4.— (U)3 
 
 Woon, Learning v . . 87 
 
 Wordcn v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. 346, 
 
 1798.- 1 7!M) 
 Workman V. Robb 409, 1198,2240.-1144, 1185, 
 
 1199 
 
 and the Town of Lindsay, In re 
 
 374, 1374.— L>4.5, 1.373 
 
 Wornian V. Hrady .374.-397 
 
 Wortors, Andei'son v. . . 227 
 
 Worthington, Macdonalil v. 495, .583, 759, 
 
 l,Mi7, 20.50.-644, 1065 
 
 V. Mac<lonald . . 1.5.37 
 
 Worts, In re Sumnierfcldt v. 172,224,547,83.3, 
 
 -137 
 
 , Provincial Ins. Co. v. 2.50. 2.V2.— 251 
 
 — V. W or ts . . . . 2070, 2237, 2241 
 
 W vy V. Moiri.son . . 209, 924, 1159 
 
 Wren, He llar<ling and. 42 
 
 Wrigglesworth, Re Hingham and, 591,2088.-493 
 
 Wright V. Collins 2165 
 
 V. Curry, Re Cuiry, 724, 1566, 168J'.— 
 
 716 
 
 , County of Essex v. 1648, 1661. — 1709 
 
 , (lire lie V. . . . 1075 
 
 V. Incorporated Synod of tlu' Dio- 
 
 cese of Hur<m 210, 228, 26S, 269, 
 
 2082 
 
 V. .laekson 4!)3, 2119 
 
 V. Leys 40!t, I2S1), 1875. — 1. 'Km, 200.5 
 
 , Loudon Life Assurance Co v. 275, 483, 
 
 933, 943, 992, 
 
 \. London Life A.s.surunce Co. 1023.-- 
 
 1006 
 
 - — , Regina V 1112, 1;?.)2 
 
 V. Sun Mutual Life Ins. Vo. 326, 4,",.^.— 
 
 100.3 
 
 — , Timmins v. . . 615 
 
 V. Way 1683.-16.33 
 
 V. White -He P.att, .. 711 
 
 , City of Winnipeg v. . . 2008 
 
 V. \\riglit.. 1613,1070 
 
 , Young V. . . 921, 1.531, 1028, 1819 
 
 Wye, Scolt V. ., 1(09, 1981 
 
 Wyld V. Claikson 106. — 845 
 
 V. Ilaiiiill(in Mutual Insurance Co. 283 
 
 V. Mc.Master 27, 928 
 
 , PiiKv. .. 174,612.-1402 
 
 Wylie V. Fianipton 873. — .55)0 
 
 , D.me Mary, v. City of Montieal 67 
 
 Wyni n V. Imperial Ins. Co. .. 939.— 1006 
 
 Yarmouth, Townsliip of, I'nrick v. . . 2150 
 
 — , Ihd.crtv. 21.30. 21.36 
 
 Yarv\<iod V. Hart .. 0.S3, SO.^ 
 
 Ye;.g, r, Adaiiison V. 1689.-657, 16,s9, 2023 
 
 Yemen, llarion v. . . . . .523 
 
 V. .lolinston . . 8.5, 1569, lOlil 
 
 York, Steele v. 
 
 '2142' 
 
Ixzxvi 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 Yor-You] 
 
 York, (bounty of, Brown v. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 1624, 162.').- 
 1620 
 
 V. Toronto (> ravel Hoiul 
 
 iuid (y'oncrote Co. .332, 
 
 612, 677.-662, 1988, 
 
 202(i, 2147 
 
 , Walton V. 41.1, 746, 1410. 
 
 2140.-211". 
 
 York, Township of. Village of K.iat To- 
 ronto V. . . 1324 
 
 — . , anil Willson, In re, 4.5 
 
 , Willson V. l-.'.'i7, 1332.-- 
 
 43, 1241 
 Yorke's Case— !n Re Central Bank of 
 
 Canada ..288,1912,1979,22.33 
 
 Yorkville and Vanfjhan Road (Jo., Rjal 
 K.s'.„(te Loan Company of Can- 
 ada Limited) v. 821 
 
 Yostv. Adanib 2189,219.5 
 
 Yonker, Vandervoort v '21.) 
 
 Young, Re .590,2084.-493 
 
 I, Borthwickv 12,50,1862 
 
 , iinnis V. . . :{.39, 47.5, 903. -SoO, 1 I3(t 
 
 V. Hobson 366 
 
 V. Huber, .. 693, 916, 926.-908 
 
 , Irwin V. 768, 784 
 
 , Lunib V 791 
 
 You-Zum] 
 
 COLUMK. 
 
 Young V. Midland R. W. Co. 1748, 2230. -1180 
 
 118.5, 1762 
 
 V. Mordun, Re .381, .5.37 
 
 V. Nicliol 1218, 1223, 1903.-1220, 
 
 1398 
 
 ■ V. Parker, Re, .1 .54<i, .549. —.54$ 
 
 V. Purvis 717, 906, 2162, 2202.-7.18 
 
 2213 
 
 , Regina v. 440, 10.30, 10.51, 10.57, 10.58 
 
 1059, 1061, 1104, 110,5, 16.38, 2242.-I 
 
 1049, 1058 
 
 V. Town of Ridgetown • . OiS 
 
 V. Robertson 1.598, 1(!17, 1971 (ft;,,) 
 
 , Seabrook v. 397, 401, 108.5, 1588.— -)H2, 
 
 598 
 
 V. Smith — Selkirk Election (Dom.) 
 
 1466, 147.3,2210 
 
 V. Spiers 109 
 
 V. Wright .. 924,1.531,1028,1819 
 
 Zavitz, Handay V 2211,2229 
 
 Zeiss, Merry v. . . . ._ . . _ 877, 878 
 
 Zoological and Aeelimatizition Society of 
 
 Ontario, Re, . . 2241 
 
 — In re — Cox's Case 2.50 
 
 Zumstein v. Hedrick . . . . . . 2220 
 

 CASES 
 
 AI'l'lliMED, REVEIlSlil), (IR Sl'KUIAl.t.Y OOXSIDERKl). 
 
 OOUIMN. 
 
 _ ,. Sexton 1 Dowl. 180 foUowetl. 
 
 .See Scott ,: Daly, 12 1». R. (110- {Wi, 1!).J9 
 Abouloir c. ()i)pi;iiiiciiiior, 10 Q. B. 1). '2!)7, 
 
 (lisi'UHsuil. Sec Wodili-ulT r. MuLeii- 
 
 „aii, UA. K. 242 1095 
 
 Aliiiitli '■• N'lilli l''.a«t<,Tii U. W. ( 'o , II ii. 
 
 R. I>. 7!>, 410, coiiliiicliteil on. See 
 
 Vnmi!,' r. Nieliol, (). H. .'U" TJIS 
 
 Abrey r. Xi'wniaii, l(i Heav. 4;il, followcil. 
 
 "See Wood r. Ariiioiir, l-J (). H. 14(i.. •_'l!l.-. 
 Acre r. Livingstone, •_'() <.>. I!. 'iS-i, not fr)l- 
 
 lowed. See Pearson r. Miillioiland, 
 
 17 O. R. .-)02 404 
 
 Adunis ''. City of Toronto, I'JO. R. •J4;i, 
 
 disi-iiHst'd. See Privtt r. CityofStrat- 
 
 14 0. R. "JliO 2i:?7 
 
 and the Kensington Vestiy, In re, 
 
 •J" t'liy. I>. ."104, s))('eially re'ferr'd to 
 
 and loUiiwed. See Rank of .Montreal 
 
 ,: Itrown, 17 <>. R. .")4S •_»I87 
 
 Adams i'. l.ooniis, iM Cliy. -42, eon.sidered. 
 
 .■"ice Wylie c. Kianil)ton, 17 O. It. ol"). S73 
 I. Wat.son Maniifaetnring Co. 
 
 (l.iniiteil), l."i (). R. 218, atlirnied. 
 
 See S. (.'. Hi A. R. 2 1005 
 
 .Vlaiii.soii c. Adanisiin, 25 ("liy. 550, rt'- 
 
 ft rnil to. .See Duinlih' i\ Larnsli,27 
 
 (Miy. 1S7 1201. Iti.'fli 
 
 28 Chy. 221, allirnied. 
 
 See S. C. 7 A. R. 502 1 1 88 
 
 Agricultural Savings and Loan Assoeia- 
 
 tiou r. I'Vderal li.ink, 45 (,). 15. 214 ; 
 
 allinned. >ee S. ( '. (i A. U. 102. RIO, 002 
 Aitclusou r. Maun, 1'. R. 25;l, atlirnied. 
 
 See S. C, !l I'. I!. 47:1 I.")5S 
 
 Albennarle, TovvMHiiip of, ami United 
 Counties of Kastnor, Lindsay and .St. 
 KdnnuKls, 45 l,t, 15. WA, <listin- 
 guislied. Sue Village ot i'last 'roroiito 
 /■. Township of York, 10 O. R. oOli. I;l24 
 
 Allan /■. MeTavish, 28 Chv. 5.30, reversed. 
 
 Hue S. C, 8 A. R. 440 801, 1087 
 
 . 2 A. R. 278, followed. 
 
 See Maudonuld c. AluDonahl, II O. 
 
 K. ls7 I2s;i 
 
 I'MJIuwed. See MeCidlouyh ('. S\ kes, 
 
 II 1'. K .■i:{7. 1204, 1002 
 
 Coninitiited on. Soe Mi.'.Mahon r. 
 Spenrii, l:i A. R. 4:10 1204, \:<iy2 
 
 I'. I'latt, LS App. (as. 780, referred 
 
 to. See .Monetle ''. Lefebvio, 10 .S. 
 
 V. U. .S87 loot) 
 
 Allgoo'l i: Miirylicnt and D.ulington R. 
 \V. Co., .'{.'1 ('h. I J. 571, distinguished. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 .Sec Lincoln Paper Mills Co, i>. St. 
 Catharines and Niagara Central R. 
 W. Co., 10 O. R. 100 1761 
 
 Allison, Re, 12 P, U, 6, approved and fol- 
 lowed. See Re Cameron, Solicitors, 
 i:i I'. R. 17:1 1948 
 
 Ames V. Itirkenhead Dock Co., 20 Heav. 
 S.'12, followeil. .See .Stuart v. lirough, 
 15 A. R. 29!) 93, «99 
 
 Ambrose c. Kraser, 12 (). li. 459, aflirnicd. 
 
 See .S. C, 14 (). R. .551 . . . .877, 1143, 1913 
 
 Anchor Marine Ins. Co. it. Phcenix Ins. Co. 
 .•HI ( '. I'. 570, adirmed. iSeeS. 0., « 
 A. R. 507 983 
 
 Anderson 1; Rell, 29 Chy. 452, utiirmcd. 
 
 See S. ( '. 8 A. R. 531 2180 
 
 1: (^anadiaii I'aeitie R. VV. (^o., 
 
 170. R. 747, "llirmed .See S. C, 
 
 17 A.R. 4S0 1793 
 
 170. R. 747, 
 
 followed. See ("arty i\ City of Lon- 
 don, 18 0. R. 122 1087, 2142 
 
 r. I'i.sh, 100. R. 476, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 1 7 A. R. 28 1872 
 
 Andrewa, Re, II P. R. 100, distinguished. 
 
 .See Re Parr, 1 1 P. I!. 401 009, 1566 
 
 r. Marris, 7 i'owl. P. C. 712, fol- 
 lowed. See Delaney c. MaeLellun, 
 13 P. R. 03 582 
 
 .XngloAmcrieau Casings Co. (Limited) v. 
 Rowlin, 10 P. li. 3'.tl, overruled uud 
 superseded. .See Payne v. Newberry, 
 13 P. R. .S54 1073 
 
 Arehbtdd r. Ruilding and Loan Associa- 
 tion, 15 A. R. 237, reversed. ,See S. 
 C, UJA. R, 1 1307 
 
 .Vreher v. .Severn, 12 O. R. 015, allirnied. 
 
 Sec S. C. 14 A. R. 723 715, 2217 
 
 Arehiliald -'. Ruslicy, 7 P. R. 304, followe.l. 
 
 See Friendly r. Needier, 10 P. R. 207 547 
 
 Arseott r. Lilley, II O. R. 153, altirmed 
 
 in part. .See S, C, 14 A. R. 207 850 
 
 1 1 O. R. 285, reversed 
 
 in part. .Sec S. C, 14 A. R. 283. 1124 
 
 .\slnlt *'. Coiporation of .Soiitlianipton, 10 
 Chy. I). 143, referred to. See Chap- 
 lin r. Puiilic School Hoard of the 
 Town of Woodstock, 100. R. 728.. 923 
 
 Attorney-Ceiieial r. Kiiierson, 10 Q. B. D. 
 101, fullowed. .See Moxley v. Can- 
 ada Atlantic R. W. Co., 11 P. R. 39 040 
 
 r. hitern.itional Bridge 
 
 Co., 28 Chy. 05, reversed. See S. 
 
 C, A. R. 537 93, 1010 
 
Ixxxriii 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC 
 
 Att-Ban] coM'MN. 
 
 AttorneyOcneral r. Mercer, 5 S. C. R. MX, 
 referriMl to. Sco Simiison i'. ( /'orliutt, 
 5 O. K. :{77 T'i7 
 
 of Hritiah foliimliiii r. 
 
 Attornoylli'iiorttl of ('aiiailii, 14 S. ('. 
 R. 5J4'>, ruver8i(l. .Sou S. C, 14 App. 
 
 CaH.,'.'l)-i .SI4 
 
 of Ontnrio r. Morccr, 8 
 
 App. Ciig. 7*>7, followi'il. Sue .St. 
 Catliariii08 .Millini{ uml l.uinliur Co. 
 
 V. The Qui CM, 14 Ap|). Ciih. 4<i 
 
 — of Ontario i: O'ltcilly, 
 
 iw: 
 
 'iCChy. I'JC, udirmed. Sto S. U., <> 
 
 A. U. 570 93, 586 
 
 Attonicy-(!»'iicr,il ex rel. Hohlis r. Niu- 
 j^ura FulLs, W'caloy I'ark and Clifton 
 Tramway Co., I!)0. K. ti'_'4, allirnioil. 
 
 Sec S. C., 18 A. 1!. 4,-);i l!tS8 
 
 AugtT 1'. Ontario, Sinicoi; and Huron K. 
 W. Co., C. I'. l(i.">, coii.sidi'rod. 
 Sen Hiird r. (Jrand 'I'rnnk ]{. W. 
 
 Co., 15 A. It. .^8 1785 
 
 Autotlircptic Slcani iJoilcr Co., Uo, 21 Q. 
 |{. I). 1SL», rif,.rrtMl to. Sec Smith c. 
 
 Fleming, IJ P. I!. 520 1 148 
 
 littcku.s I'. Smith, 44 Q. 15. 428, reverHtd. 
 
 Sou S. C. 5 A. R. ;{41 115!) 
 
 Itadcniicli r. Slater, 8 A. R. 402. allirnu-d. 
 Set: S. < '. Bull hoiii., SLitir i: I5ade- 
 
 naeh, 10 S. C. 1!. 2% 790 
 
 IJain r. City "f .Montrod, 2 l)ori()n'.s Q. ]i. 
 
 22 1 , ;iiii r mo. 1. See S. ( '. 8 S. I '. R. 252. 1 20 1 
 
 v. McKay, 5 P. I*. 471, nvir ruled. 
 
 See Taylor r. Adam. 8 P. R. 0(i. . 102:!, 2055 
 liaird r. liaird, 2ii Chy .'{07, explained and 
 fidloweil. Sio'l'owii V. IJorden, 1 (). 
 
 R. .•127 2182 
 
 IJakcr r. Atkinsnn, II (). K. 7.'{5, rcver.-icrl 
 
 in part. .See S. V, , 14 A. It. 40!l ,527, 12(i2 
 Contiilered. .See l.inlon r. Jinpiii.d 
 
 Hotel Co, I() A. K. 40!) 
 
 IS Mills, 11 O. II. 2.V'1, f..ll(.\v..(l. 
 
 See W'e.steiii Hank of Caiia<la r. 
 
 Crcey, P.' (). K. 08 1277 
 
 ,.. S.dtll.vt, -U (,». I!. :{S0, referre.l 
 
 to. See He ( )str()Mi and the TowM.iliip 
 
 of Si<liiey, 15 A. R. .■(7- 2128 
 
 Baldwin r. King>tonc, 10 (). I!. 3U, 
 affirmed in part. See S. C. 18 A. R. 
 
 63 1I2,S, 2I0;{ 
 
 Reversed in part. See S. ('., IS A 
 
 R. 03 5!I4 
 
 Ball V. Cronipton Corset Cr)., !) (). R. 228 ; 
 12 A. R 7.'18, atlirmed. .See ,S. C., |.s 
 
 H. C. Pv. 40!) i,v,0 
 
 Ballajih r. lioyal Mutual Pire Ins. Co., 44 i). 
 
 R 70, reversed. See S. C. 5 .A. K. 87 <)4(; 
 
 354 
 
 i:.7 
 
 704 
 
 Ban-Bea] oolumk. 
 
 Uiink of Minnesota r. Vngf, 14 A. R. .'151, 
 followed. .See >St(-]>lii!nHon i: Dallax 
 13 P. R. 450 I07J 
 
 ISnnk of Ifaniilton /•. Ilurvey. 9 O. R. ^mr\ 
 allirm('(l. See S. C. hiiIi noni. Ifarvey 
 r. {tank of Handlton, 10 S. C. R. 714 17| 
 
 Rank of Montre.il i<. Uowcr, 17 O. R. 548, 
 
 adirmod. See S. C, 18 0. R. 220.. 2187 
 
 r. natlncr, 3 O. R. 183, 
 
 reversed. See S. C, 10 A. R. 592. . 1170 ^a 
 
 , 10 A. R. 592, (liKtin- Kl 
 
 gni.shed. .See Cole c. Hall, 13 P. R. '^' 
 
 100 1174 
 
 ■ I'. Sweeny, 12 S. C. 1{. 001, 
 
 atlirmed. See S. C., 12 App (las. 017 2082 
 
 Bank of Nova Scotia i: Im Roehe, !» P. I!. 
 .")();{, over-ruled. See Anglo Anieriean 
 Casings Co. (Limited) r, liowlin, 10 
 i'. R. 3:»1 
 
 Bank of Ottawa r. McMorrow, 4M. R. ;U5, 
 commented on. .See Card r. (,'ooley, 
 O. R. 22!) 
 
 Bank of Toronto r. Mall, O. R. 044, re- 
 
 ver.sed. See S. V., (). R. ti;)3 
 
 !5ank of Upper (^inada i: Murphy, 7 i). li. 
 328. distiiignised. .See Daliy /'. Oehl, 
 
 18 0. R. l:(2 696 
 
 Baiher i: .Morton. 45 Q. B. .'iSO, reversed. 
 
 See .S. ( !. , 7 A. R. 114 170 
 
 B.iilinu' ". Bishopp, 2!) Beav. 417, followed. 
 
 See (;anieriin c. Cusaek, 18 (). R. 520 818 
 Barnes r. B.dl.imy, 44 i). P.. .'{(Kt, lollowed. 
 
 .See Monlton /'. liiake, 12 O. IJ. 5;j2., 1146 
 Barker c, l.e( son, I O. R. 114, dissented 
 from, per Hnrtmi, .1. A. See P.irkes 
 
 r. St. Oeing,', 10 A. 1!. 4!t(i 19| 
 
 Barrett, au In.solvent, l{e, 5 A. 1!. 2O0, 
 followeil. .See Snarr r. Smith, 45 Q, 
 
 B. 15() 119,2055 
 
 ■,■2' Bartlett /•. Pi.kersjill. I Co.x lo, 4 Kaat. 
 577 M., c|Uestninei|. .Sci. Kilchtn r. 
 
 Dolaii, !)(). K. 4;i2 (ij3 
 
 Pi.irton, Tiiwiiship of r. City r)t' ll.iniilton, 
 18 (). l;. 1!)!), atlirme.l. See S. C., 
 
 17 A. i;.:i40 1375 
 
 Bate r. Canadian Paeilie II. W. (.'o., 14 O. 
 R. (i25 ; |r> A. R. ;188, reversed. .See 
 
 S. C, 18. S. C. R. (1J)7 1792 
 
 Bates, He, 40 (,>. B. 2vl, followed. See 
 
 Hegni.i v. Washington, 40 t,). B. 221. 217 
 Ileal r. Smith, L. R. 4 C. P. 145, lollowed. 
 Siif West KLdn Mleetiou (Ont. )— 
 Caaeaden v. .Mnnioe, H. K. C. 223 . . 1510 
 Be.ilty V. Neelon, !) O R. 385, reversed. 
 
 See S. (J , 1 2 A. R. 50 240 
 
 . 5 A. IS. 87, approved. 
 
 See Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of the 
 County of Wellington )'. Frey, 5 S 
 t;-R-S-! !)78 
 
 Bank of British North America c. I'MiIy, !) 
 P. R,408, iollowed. .See Pawson ' r. 
 Merehautb' IJanU, 11 P. R. -■> oo^^j 
 
 , !» P. R. 
 
 408, not followed. See .Masse r 
 Masse, 10 P. R. 574 
 
 2044 
 
 , 12 A. R. 50, alliniied. 
 
 .See.S. C. 13S. C. R. 1 \\% 
 
 ''• North-West Transport, ition Co., 
 
 II A H. 20."), a.lirineil in part .and re- 
 verse! in pait. See S. C. suhiioni.. 
 North West Transportation Co. r. 
 Reutty, 12 A pp. C IS. 58!) 267 
 
 Beaty r. Bryc-, P. R. .■(20, not followed. 
 
 .See Cliiistie )•. Cimw.iy, !) P. R .-)2!) lO'i.") 
 
 K.\|danie.| .See Arkell r. (k-iL'er, 
 
 9 P. R. .52.! ... 1024 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, SEVERSED, ETC. 
 
 Ixxxiz 
 
 Bea-Bin] column. 
 
 Boatv V. Slmw, 13 (». R. 21, aihrmud. Suo 
 
 8. v., 14 A. K. UOO 710, !tO(l 
 
 Beaufort i'. AKlilniniliaiii, 13 C. B. N. 8. 
 
 .)1)8, followed. Sue C'lirty c. City of 
 
 Loiuloii, l;{ I'. U. 'J85 ;}H8 
 
 , ;J2 L. J. N. S.C. F. 
 
 «J7; 7 L T. N. S. 710; 11 \V. 11. 2(57 ; 
 
 !) .iiir. ,S'-'->, followed. Sen IJarly c. 
 
 City of London, l.'J I'. H. 'JS.-. (>;tO 
 
 Beckett r. (ir:iiid 'I'runk li. \V. Co., 8 (). 
 
 K. tiOl, .illiiMiiMl. See S. C, 13 A. li. 
 
 174; ItiS. C. I!. 173 i:t!»i>, 1777 
 
 BeddiiU e. .M^iitland, 17 Cliy. I'. 17), fol- 
 lowed, ."^le Kniernon i: (ieiirin, I'J I'. 
 1!. ;W!» 303 
 
 Beenier r. Oliver, 3 (>. K. .■)'J3, reversed in 
 
 imrt. .See S. C. 10 A. 1!. ().")tl 0(11 
 
 r. \'ill,ij,'e of (Jiirn-sl.v, H » >. 11. !KS, 
 
 iilliiined. See S.C, 13 A. R. •.'•J."i (!!"., 12127 
 
 Ifell I'. Friisei-, 12 A. li. 1, iilliiineil. See 
 iS. C. Mi\> uoni. l''iiiwei- i: Hell, 13 S. 
 C. I!. r>4ti 1504 
 
 r. Lee, 28 Cliy. LW, reversed. See 
 
 .S. C., 8 A. K. IS.-. 2214 
 
 c. ItiddelL 2 O. J{. •_'.■», allirnied. See 
 
 S. C. 10 A. i;. 544 J71, 290 
 
 BellTelejilioiieC'o. and Ministerof Agrieul- 
 ture, He, 7 O. li. liO.'', followed, ^ee 
 In re IJeli Teleplioiie Co., !» (). It. 33!) ir).-)7 
 
 Belmont r. Aynard, 4 C. 1'. 1). ."l.VJ, dis- 
 eiissed. .See Canadian IJank of ('oni- 
 nieree c. Middleton, 12 1'. R. 121 . . . 1023 
 
 Beninger /'. 'I'lira.slier, il I'. 1!. 2(H> ; allirni- 
 ed. See S. C, 1 (). R. ;il3 lOOO 
 
 Bennet c. Trejieiit, 24 C. 1'. .■lO.'i, relenvd 
 
 to. .See KUis r. Abell, 10 A. K. •J2(i. (!r>8 
 
 Bertr.nm I'. .Miissey -Manufaetuiing Co., 1.') 
 (). H. ')10, allirnied. .^ee .S, C. 13 V. 
 K. 184 380 
 
 Bcswiek i\ liaiipy, !) Kx. 3l."f, followed hut 
 not ajipidved of. .See C.inieron i: 
 Allen, 10 v. U. 1!I2 -y'ui 
 
 Bctts i: <;ian<l Trunk R. W. Co., 12 1'. R. 
 
 80, allirnied. .See S. C., ///., 034. . . 019 
 
 i: Sndtli, I.-) (.1. U. 413, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 10 A. K. 421 327, (iu.T 
 
 Biekforil/'. Cliathnni, 10 (). 1{. 2,-)7; 14A. R. 
 321 ; atlinned. .See S. C., 10 S. CMl. 
 2:a LSIO, 1081 
 
 , 14 A. R. 32 ; allirnie.l. 
 
 See S. C. 10 S. C. R. 2.3,-. 1330 
 
 , 14 A. R. 32: 10 S. C. 
 
 K. 23."), eonsidered. .See 'rownship of 
 Nottiiwasiiga i\ Haniilt<in and .\oitli- 
 Western R, W. Co., 10 A. R. 02 1813 
 
 r. Ci.uid .innetion R. \V. Co., I .S. 
 
 C. R. at p. 72.'), referred to. .See Itow- 
 land r. iJurwell, IJ 1'. R. 007 ..131o, 1000 
 
 Bitield's dse, ap|ilied. See Stolibart v. 
 
 (liiardliouse, 7 U. R. 239 2170 
 
 Billiujjton V. I'rovineial Ins. Co. of Canada, 
 24 Chy. •.'!)'.», reversed. See S. C. 2 
 
 A. R. 1.>S, 3 S. C. R. 182 957 
 
 Biiiglmni •: Wurner, 10 I'. It. 021, eoni- 
 meuted on. See Kraser c. Johnston, 
 
 121'. R. 113 1018, 1977 
 
 I 
 
 Bir-Bor] uulumn. 
 
 Birls r. lietty, Madd. 90, diBtingtiislied. 
 .See Redalxmrie— ''asuy >'. (iaOourie, 
 12 V. R. 252 30 
 
 liirkett v. Mu(Uiire,31 C. 1'. 430, reversed. 
 
 SeoS. C.,7A. R. 5i 1544 
 
 HisHctt f. .foneu, 3*2 Ch. I). 635, followed. 
 
 See Hull'nutn c. Doner, 12 l>. R. 402, IOCS 
 
 lUaek V. fountain, 23 Chy. 174, followed. 
 
 .See Sniurt v. Sorenson, UO. R. 040. . 35J) 
 r. Wesley, 8 U. C. L. J. 277, fol- 
 
 2ia 
 
 1703 
 
 lowed. See In re Kidglit v. United 
 Townships of Medora and Wood, 11 
 
 O. R. 138 
 
 HIaekley r. Kenney, 1!)(). It. 109, atlinned. 
 .SeoS. C, 18 A. R. 135 
 
 10 A. R. 522, followed 
 
 See RIaekley r. Kenney, 19 (). R. 
 
 109 12S1, 170» 
 
 Hlake r. Kirk|iatriek, 27 Chy. (>0, re- 
 versed. See S. C, A. It. 212 1239 
 
 lileakley r. Coiporation of I're.seolt, 7 O. 
 
 R. 201, reveised. Sue 12 A. R. 037. 214ft 
 
 Ijoale c. Diekson, 13 C. P. 337, overruled. 
 See .MeLareri v. Caldwell, A. R. 450, 
 Overruled. See Caldwell v. MeLaren, 
 
 9 App. Cas. 392 
 
 Remarked upon. See Maekey v. 
 Sherman, 8 O. R. 28 
 
 Board r. Board, L. R. 9 Q. B. 48, distin- 
 guished. .SeeSnntli i'. Smith, 5 O. R. 
 090 
 
 Board cf Kdueation of the Village of Morris- 
 burg, and Township of VViiiehester, 
 45 ii B. 400, reversed. iSee S. C, 
 8 A. R. 109. 
 
 Bobbett r. South- Kastern 11. W. Co., 9 Q. 
 
 B. 1). 424. api^roved. See Krie and 
 Niagara R. \V. Co. i\ Rousseau, 17 
 A. K. 483 
 
 Boieo r. O'Loano, 3 .\. R. 07, followed. 
 See Me.M.iiioii r. .Speueer, 13 A. R. 
 430 1204, 1902 
 
 commented on and followed. .See 
 
 McCullough i: Sykes, 11 P. R. 337. . 1204, 
 
 1902 
 15olekow r. Foster, 7 I'. H. 388, distin- 
 guished. See (ieorge T. Sndlh Co. I/', 
 (ireey, II P. R. 345 638 
 
 Bolt and Iron Co., Re -Living.stone's 
 Case, 14 (X R. 211, allirnied. See S. 
 
 C, 10 A. It. 397 227, 1912 
 
 Bond /'. Comuee, 15 O. R. 716, atiirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 10 A. R. 398. . 1003, 1 120, 1121, 
 
 1122, lRi3. 
 
 V. Treahy, 37 ii- B. 300, distin- 
 
 guisheil. iSee I'etrie v. Hunter; 
 (iuest r. Hunter, 2 O. R. '^33 
 
 Booth i: Aleoek, L. li. 8 Ch. 003, disthi- 
 guished. See Carter i\ Grasett, 14 A. 
 11. 685 1177 
 
 V. Coulton, 2 Giff. 5.0 followed. See 
 
 Suarr (-•. BadenueU, 10 O. li. 131.... 2198 
 
 Borthwiek r. Young, 12 A. R. 071, <lis- 
 tingnished. See .\looeis v. (jooder- 
 ham & Worts (Limited), 14 O. R. 
 451 2094 
 
 33 
 2105 
 2100 
 
 597 
 1732 
 
 1802 
 
 840 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETO. 
 
 BoB-Bro] COLUMN. 
 
 BoHWcU r. .Suthciianil, 'M ('. I'. I.'H, ro- 
 
 VCIK...1. S,.(,.S. ( •., S A. H. '2X\..'2H, XW,, Ki'il 
 BouUon i: Hniitli, 17 <^ H. 4(KI; IS (^ If. 
 
 ■l'»S, r(feii<iil to. Sv.u |{()liliii;k i'. 
 
 Ujaii, 17 .V. K. l-'.^S 189 
 
 Boustc.iil anil Waiw iuk, 111', 12 (). fl. nt p. 
 
 41>l, rt-'fciifil til. S»!u Mcliitdsli ('. 
 
 K.igcfs, I'j I'. K.;{.s!) iMni 
 
 llfiwuH (. .""iliatiil, 'i .\\>\i. CnH. 4.V>, li)lli)Weil. 
 
 Sif \M.iiv.\ r. Hniwii, l.j O. H. :ii;t. 1807 
 Brady ■. SaiiUr, V.i O. |{. (I'Ci. reveisp.l. 
 
 'Sob .S. C. 10 (). K. 4« 4«!t, '-'Ids 
 
 V. , Ki (). It. 4!t, alfiiiiuiil. 
 
 Sit. .K. ("., 17. \. It. .Km 489 
 
 Hiadl iiry, Kx iiaite, 14 ('. 15. IS, fnllowpil. 
 
 iSc'o l*'o8tur i: Van Woniier, I "J I'. K. 
 
 .•)97 «8« 
 
 Brant c. Wati'iloo, l!H,>. H. 4.">0, apiiroveil. 
 
 ■>vi\ Ciiiiiity of Victiiria I'. ( 'ounty of 
 
 IVtrrlioroilgli, I.') A. K. 017 '-'I.W 
 
 Braylcy '•• Kllis, I (). \l. 119, aflirmoil. 
 
 Hue S. ('., 9 A. K. mr, LSI, 807 
 
 Breeze v. .Mi.Ilaml R. W. Co.. 2 Chy. 'J'-Ti, 
 folloMod. Siit^ King I'. Alford, !l (). R. 
 04:i 1109 
 
 Brise r. Bannister, L R. 3 Q. H. I), M), 
 (liHtiiigiii.ilioil. See Smith c. Anea.s- 
 ter 'I'liwnsliip, 4.5 Q. I!. Sti 2l'.'>, 1024 
 
 ". Miinrii. 7 <X R. 4Xt, reverscil. Sen 
 
 S. C"., 12 A. R. Aiui i:{, 201 
 
 Bridges r. I.oni,'"':in, 24 l!ea\. '27, eifed and 
 followed. Sec London am! Conadian 
 Ixjan iiiid Agency Co. /•. (ir.ihnni, 12 
 r:R. Or)7 1907 
 
 Bristol and Kxeter R. W. Co. r, Ctdlins 7 
 H. L. Ca.s. I!U, f.dlowed. .See(lraml 
 Vnitik R. \V. Co. I'. McMillan, 10 S. 
 C. R. r>r.i 179'. 
 
 Brock, Township of, r, Tiinmto and Nipi.s- 
 King It. \V. Co. :M i). I!. 372, follow- 
 ed. See Heard r. Credit Valley ]'.. 
 \V. Co., !)(). R. 010 ISOl 
 
 IJroddy i: Stuart, 7 C. L. T. 0, followed. 
 
 |_ See Clarkson p. Onti\rio Bank, 13 (). 
 
 R. 000 ; !.■) A. R. KiO 1 1;!, .303, 19S2 
 
 Brown c. Great Western R. W. Co., 40 Q. 
 15. 333, 2 A. It. 04, attirnied. See S. 
 
 C. 3 S. C. K. loit 
 
 «. Howland, 9 O. R. 4S, allirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 1.") A. R. 750... 
 V. McLean, 18 (). R. 533, siieeially 
 
 1774 
 105 
 
 eon.sidercd. See Aliell 4'. Morrison, 
 
 19 O. R. 009 I'_V,9, 1830, 19S!» 
 
 v. O'Dwyer, 35 Q. M .354, followed. 
 
 See McKay r. McKay, 31 C. P. I . .420, 494 
 
 Browne i: I'.rockville and Ottawa R. W. 
 
 Co., 20 y. I!. 202, referred to and fo 
 lowed. See May r. Ontario and 
 
 Quebec R. W. Co., 10 O. R. 70 
 
 l'hilli]>s, Anibl. 410, followed. 
 
 ISOl 
 7(l!» 
 
 See Ro O'Brien, 3 0. R, 320. 
 
 — r. Pinsoneault, 3 S. C. R. 103, dis- 
 tinguished. See Mitchell y. Holland, 
 
 10 S. C. R. 087 1200 
 
 Overruled. See I'orteous r. Reynar, 
 
 13 App. Cas. 120 1 149, 2082 
 
 I Bro-Oam] culvmn. 
 [ Biownlee r. Campbell, 5 App. Cm. 925, 
 distingnised. .Sec (Cameron i\ Culiic- 
 ron, no. 501 IH96 
 
 Bruce, County of, r. MeLay, 3 (>. R. 23, 
 
 allirmed. See S. C. II A. H. 477 . . 182? 
 
 BruMHels, Village of V. Itonald, 4 O. R. 1, 
 
 allirmed. See S. C, II A. R. 0(i5. . 1348 
 
 Hull ''. North British Cunadian Invesl- 
 nient Co., 14 O. It. .3-_".>, ullirnicd. 
 See S. C. 15 A. It. 421 94'2, 9.')0, 9«7 
 
 Burland c Moll'att, II ,S. C. R. 70, distin- 
 gnished. See Mitchell i', Holland, 10 
 
 S. C. R. 087 1206 
 
 Overruled. See I'orteoHs /•. Reynar, 
 
 13 App. Cas. 120 2082 
 
 Bnrnliani r. Ramsey, 32 </. B. 49, distin- 
 guished. .See Lapointe ('. Lalleur, 40 
 ^). It. 10 490 
 
 Burns r. .Maikay, 10 O. R. 107, followed. 
 
 .See Mcltolierts /•. .Steinnll, 11 (). R. 
 
 309 793 
 
 Burritt i: .Marlhonmgli, 29 (,>. B. 119, ap- 
 
 ))roved. See lleemer v. Village of 
 
 (irimshy, SO. R. 98 (il.",, 2127 
 
 liurrows r. Walls, 5 |)e (t. .M. &(i. '.'33, 
 distinguiKlu'd. See Re Ciowter - 
 Crowter c. Hinnian, 10 O. R. I."i!», . 720 
 
 Bursill >: Tanner, 13 (.). I!. I). 091, foL 
 lowed. See Caimron r. Itntherford, 
 10 r. R. ()2() 1009 
 
 Cain ?'. •luidiiii, O. It. ,532, allirmed. See 
 
 .S. ('., 13 A. It. 525 480 
 
 Caldwell i: McLaren, 8 S. ('. R. 4.35, re- 
 versed. See S. C. 9 App. Cus. .392. . 2105 
 
 , 9 App. Cas. .39'2, 
 
 folliiwed. ,Sce MacKey /•. .^hernian, 
 SO. |{. -JS 2106 
 
 Callow i; Lawrence, 3 M. i^ S, 9,'i, fidlowed. 
 Sie I'.laek r. .Strickland, 3 O. R. 
 217 168 
 
 Calvert r. (Indfrey, lieuv. 97, considereil 
 and distinguished. See Blean v. 
 Bleaii, 10 O. It. 093 912 
 
 Cameron v. liickfoid, 1 1 A. R. 52, re- 
 versed hy the I'rivy Council. Not 
 reported 27, 0/4, 083, 1,539 
 
 i\ Canii)l)ell, 27 (Miy. .307, 
 
 atKrnied. Sec S. C. 7 A. It. .301 1'205 
 
 '■. Cusack, 18 O. R. 520, re- 
 versed. .See S. C, 17 A. It. 489 . . . 818 
 
 — • ''. Wait, 3 A. I!. 175, explained. 
 
 •See lieenier i\ Village of (irinisby, 
 
 8 O, R. 98 015 
 
 Explained. See Reemer c. Village of 
 (trimsby, 13 A. R. 225 2127 
 
 r. Wellington, (irey and Bruce 
 
 K. W. Co., :;7 Chy. 95, reversed. 
 See S. C. 28 Chy. .327 17.52 
 
 Campbell r. Davidson, 19 Q. B. 2'22, fol- 
 lowed. See Seabrook r. Voung, 14 
 A. R. 97 397 
 
 i: Oreat Western R. W. Co., 15 
 
 I.}. I!. 498, observed upon and dis- 
 tinguished. See Hurd c. (irand Trunk 
 R. W. Co. 15 A. R. 58 1785 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETO. 
 
 «l 
 
 Cam-Car] column. 
 
 C.in.pl'«ll ''■ M<'l>ougall. 2fl Thy. '2m, rc- 
 
 vi'iHcd. Set! s. ('., r. A. i{. rm; « 
 
 S. C. H. •'•<»••! '206 
 
 V. KohiiiHon. 27 (Miy. 634, fol- 
 
 Idwi'il S(ii! ('liainl)tTlaiii r. Sovaifi, 
 
 i!H (;iiy. 404 1303 
 
 Ciiiiailii Atlantic I?. W. ('o. r. Moxloy. 14 
 
 A K. .■111!', atlirmud. Hon S. ('., 15 H. 
 
 (!.R. 145 616 
 
 , 15 
 
 S (' K. 14''i iliHiiiMsiMl, Sue l^oitoli 
 (•'(iruiidTnink K. \V. Co., 13 I'. U. 
 
 ;«.!» 
 
 V. Ottawa 8 (). 
 
 ]{, \h:\. 'JOI, allirmod. Scu S. ('. l!2 
 
 A. IMJ.VI 
 
 -, 14 A. 
 
 11. '.':«), alliniu'-l. See S. C. 12 S. V. 
 
 K. :n>r, 
 
 - , 12 A. 
 
 H. 2:W; 12 S. C. K. 377, follnwiHl. 
 
 Si'i- Ciiimda Atlalilio It. W. Co. r. 
 
 'ro\viislii|i of Camliiidgc, 14 A. I!. 
 
 21H»; 15. S. C. R. 21!) 
 
 , 8 O. 
 
 02!) 
 
 1808 
 
 1800 
 
 1335 
 
 8!) 
 02 
 
 !>90 
 101 1 
 
 II. 201, 12 A. K. 234, followed. .Sw 
 Ciiiiadiaii Atlantic K. \V. Co. c.Towii- 
 Hl.il) of Caiid.iidgu, 1 1 O. li. im 1808 
 
 - I', 'I'owiiHliij) 
 
 of Camliiidgu, II (). H. 3!)2, ruvtrsed. 
 Sfo S. C, 14 A. K. 2!)i) ; 15 S. C. H. 
 •Jl!) 1335, 1811 
 
 Canada Central H. W. Cr). r. Murray, 7 A. 
 H. (Ufl, atiirniiMl. Sue S. C, 8 S. C. 
 K. 313 277 
 
 Caiiaila Cotton Co. v. I'arinalce, 131'. K. 
 2(i, ruvtTMud in part. See S. ('., 13 
 
 1'. H. 308 
 
 Allirnied in part. Sue S. C. , 13 V. K. 
 308 
 
 Canada Kiru and Marino Imh. Co. r. West,- 
 cm Assurance Co, 2G C'liy. 2(i4, 
 atlirnied. See S. C, 5 A. K. 244.. 
 
 Canada Southern I!. \V. Co. i\ Interna- 
 tional Bridge (>)., 28 Cliy. 114, af- 
 finued. See S. C., 7 A. U. 220; 8 
 App. Cas. 723 
 
 Canada 'reniperance Act, Re, !) (). H. 154, 
 
 adirnied. See S. C, 12 A. K. 077.. 1030, 
 
 1228 
 
 Canadian Hank of Commerce i'. Middleton, 
 12 I'. It. 121, disapproved. See Swain 
 r. Stoildirt, 12 1'. K. 490 
 
 <!anadian Landand KniigrationCo. r. Muni- 
 cipality of Dysait, 9 O. it. 495, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 12 A. R. 80 
 
 Canadian Locomotive (Jo. c. (.'opeland, 14 
 O. R. 170, reversed. See S. C, 10 
 A. R. 322 1929 
 
 Cannon r. Toronto Corn ICxchange, 27 Chy. 
 23, aliirmed. See S. (1, 5 A. R. 
 208 271 
 
 Carey v. City of Toronto, 7 O. R. 194, 
 reversed. See S. C, 11 A. I!. 410; 
 14 S. C. R. 172 1884 
 
 Carlisle v. Tait. 32 C. 1'. 43, reversed. See 
 
 S. C, 7 A. R. 10 182 
 
 Oar-Ohi] mvoms. 
 
 CarriekfergUH Cane, 1 O'M. k H. 264, fol- 
 loweiT. .See Ka»t KIgin Kloetion 
 (l>om.)— IHcu r. Arkell, H. E. C. 
 7tt» 152() 
 
 Carson v. Veitcli, 9 O, R.706, considered. 
 
 Sec (ioliliu r. .lohns, 16 A. R. 129. . , 71 
 
 Carter r. (Irasett, 11 O. It. 331, reversed. 
 
 SceS. ('., 14 A. It. (185 1177 
 
 Carthew, Re, 27 Cl>. D. 485, considered 
 ami followed. See Re Allison. 12 P. 
 R. 1947 
 
 Casoy r. llanton, 22 ( liy. 225, followed. 
 
 Soo (iough c. licncli, 9 I'. It. 431 .... 107-2 
 
 Caughill i: Clarke, 3 O. R. 272, com- 
 mcnted on. Sec (!ard v. Vouley, 6 
 O. R. 229 1S7 
 
 Central Rank of Canada f. Osltorne, 12 1'. 
 R. 100, followed. See Odell v. Ren- 
 uett, 13 I'. R. 10 1612 
 
 , III re — Raiiius' 
 
 (!a8o, l() (). R. 237, afKrmed. See 
 
 S. C, 10 A. R. 237 249, 256 
 
 , In ro— Nasmith's 
 
 Case, 10 (). R. 293, affirmed. Sue 8. 
 
 C, 10 A, R. 2.37 2.56 
 
 Central Vermont It. VV. ('o. v. Town of St. 
 .loliiis, 14 S. C. R. 288, affirmed. 
 Sec S. « '. 14 App. Cas. .590 918 
 
 Centre Wellington Case, 44 Q. R 1S2, re- 
 ferred to and tlistinguished. .See Re 
 Simmons and Dalton, 12 O. R. .505. . 1429 
 
 Cliamberlaiii r. Turner, 31 C. I'. 400, con- 
 sidered. See (ioldie v, Johns, 16 A. 
 R. 129 71 
 
 followed. See 
 
 Carson /-. Veiteh, 9 O. R. 708 1145 
 
 ChamblisR, Re, 12 P. R. 049, distinguished. 
 
 See Meir v. Wilson, 13 P. R. 33 7.37, 2010 
 
 Chapman r. Itaiid, 11 S. C. R. 312, fol- 
 lowed. See Re (^anada Temperance 
 Act, 12 A. R. 077 1228 
 
 Chaput ('. Rolieit, 14 A. R, .354, specially 
 referred to. See lleaton v. MoKellar, 
 13 1'. R. 81 1607 
 
 Charles, Re, 4 Chy. Chanib. R. 19, eom- 
 mcntcil upon. See .Mcintosh i\ Rogers 
 
 12 P. R. .389 1891 
 
 Fulton i: Whatmough, I O. 
 
 Wi. 
 
 1023 
 
 69 
 
 R. 302, reversed. See S. C, 10 A. 
 
 R. 281 2184 
 
 Charteris, Re, 25 Chy. 370, commented ou. 
 .See Charteris r. Charteris, 10 O. R. 
 738 2058 
 
 Chatillon r. Canadian Mutual Fire Ins. 
 Co., 27 C. P. 450, followed. See 
 (irahani c. Ontario Mutual Ins. Co., 
 14 0. R. 358 954 
 
 Chevalier c. Cnvillicr, 4 S. C. R. 005, fol- 
 lowed. See Siiiclds v. Peak, 8 S. C. 
 R. 579 1998 
 
 Chisholm c. Morse, 11 C. P. 589, distin- 
 guished. Sec Soreiison n. Smart, 5 
 O. R. 078 1089 
 
 and the Town of Oakville, In re 
 
 9 O. R. 274, reversed. Sec S. (!.. 12 
 
 A. R. 225 .... 400 '715, 1829 
 
 If 
 
■,% 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGST (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 I!: 1;° III 2.0 
 
 12.2 
 
 1 1.8 
 
 U IIII1I.6 
 
 V] 
 
 7 
 
 ^ :^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 ^%' 
 
 O/^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STMCT 
 
 WEBSTIR.N.Y. 14SS0 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 Jim, <<^. •'V 
 
 

xdt 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC. 
 
 Ohn-Olo] OOLOMN. 
 
 Church V. Fenton, 28 C. P. 384, doubted. 
 
 See Deverill v. Coe, 11 O. R. 222.. . . 76 
 
 Approved of. See Donovan i: Hogan, 
 
 15 A. R.432 83 
 
 4 A. «. 15!) ; 5 S. C. 
 
 R. 2:<9, referred to and followed. 
 See Totken i: Tniax, 16 O. R. 
 490 66 
 
 Citizens' Ins. Co. c. Parsons, 7 App. Cas. 
 96, ooniinente<l on. !See Goring v. 
 London Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 11 O. 
 
 R. 82 310,945 
 
 Approved and distinyuished. See 
 Dobie V. Temporalities Board, 7 App. 
 Cas. 136 317 
 
 Clark, Re, 9 P. R. 339, distinguished. See 
 Millar v. Cline— In re Millar, 12 P. 
 .',.155 1959 
 
 CI- . .. •■ Township of Howard, In re, 14 
 i:. 598, affirmed. See S. C, 16 
 ... f!. 72 1357 
 
 V. Molyneiix, 3 Q. 15. D. 23.5, referred 
 
 to and followed. See Todd v. Uun, 
 VViman & Co., 15 A. R. 85 501 
 
 Clarke r. Buchanan, 25 Chy. 559, consid- 
 ered. See Re Morton and Lot No. G 
 on Plan No. 580 in the County of 
 York 75 
 
 V. St. Catliarines, 10 P. R. 205, dis- 
 
 tinfjuishcd. Sec Clarke c. Rama 
 Timber Transport Co. (Limited), 10 
 P. R. 384 356 
 
 ■ and The Union Fire Jns. Co., 10 O. 
 
 R. 489 ; 14 U. R. 618 ; 16 A. H. Kil ; 
 affirmed. See S. C. sub nom. Sliool- 
 bred r. Clarke, 17 S. C. R. 265. 286, 304 
 
 V. Union Fire Ins. Co., He-Sliool- 
 
 bred's Case, 10 U. R. 489, affirmed. 
 See S. C. sub nom. Union Fire Ins. 
 Co., 13 A. R.268 284 
 
 . Re E.\port 
 
 Lumber Co., 10 P. R. 313, aflirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 6 O. 1!. 223 760 
 
 r. AVhite 28 C. P. 293 : atlirmcd. 
 
 See S. C, 3 S. C. R 309 2018 
 
 Clarkson r. Attorney-iicncral of Canada, 
 15 O. R. 032, affirmed. See S. C. 16 
 
 A. R.202 110, 1844 
 
 r. Ontaiio liank, 13 0. R. 066 ; 
 
 affirmed in part. See S. C, 15 A. R. 
 
 166 1982 
 
 Claxton r. Shibley, 10 0. R. 295, dissented 
 from. Sec Donovan c. Hogan, 15 A. 
 R. 432 83 
 
 Clayton v. McConiiell, U 0. R, 608, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 15 A. R. 560 2251 
 
 Clcgg V. (irand Trunk R. W. Co., 10 O. R. 
 at p. 713, foUowcd. See IJarbeau i: 
 St. Catharines and Niagara Central 
 
 B. W. Co., 15 O. R. 586 1744 
 
 Clouae V. Canada Southern R. W. Co., 11 
 A. R. 287, reversed. See S. C, 13 
 S. C. R. 139 1753 
 
 , 4 O. R. 28, varied. 
 
 Sees. C, 11 A. R. 287 1753 
 
 , 4 O. R. 28 ; 11 A. 
 
 R. 287, 13 S. C. R. 139, distinguished. 
 
 ClO-Cor] COLUMN. 
 
 See Wells v. Northern R. W. Co., 14 
 
 594 1760, 2133 
 
 Clowes r. Hilliard, L. I!. 4 Chy. D. 413, 
 followed. See McClenaghan c. (irey, 
 4 0. R. 329 228 
 
 Cobbett (.'. Warner, L. U. 2 Q. B. 108, fol- 
 lowed. See (jrand Junction R. W. 
 Co. ('. County of Peterborough, 10 
 P. R. 107 1670 
 
 Cobourg Town TVust, Re, 22 Chy. 377, 
 followed. See Re Toronto Harbour 
 (.Commissioners, 28 Chy. 195 2067 
 
 Cochrane /•. Hamilton, Provident and Loan 
 Society, 15 U. U. 128, loUowed. See 
 Ball I). Cathcart, 16 O. 1!. 525 . . .581, 1086 
 
 Cochrane Manufacturing (?o. (;. Lamon, 11 
 P. R. 251, followed. See Waterhouse 
 r. McVeigh, 12 P. R. 676,.. 54, 400, 1655 
 
 Cole V. Hall, 12 P. 1!. 584, atlirmcd. See 
 
 S. C, 13 P. R. 100 1174 
 
 Collins, Re, 8 P. R. 543, hehl inapplic- 
 able. Sec Ke .Allan — I'ncock r. Al- 
 lan, 9 P. R. 277 729, 1710 
 
 V. Locke, 6 App. Cn.;. 674, distin- 
 guished. See Schrader r. Lillis, 10 
 O. R. 358 32S 
 
 Columbine r. Peuhall, 1 Sui. k C. 228, re- 
 ferred to and followed. See Tlionip- 
 son r. (4ore, 12 U. R. 651 812 
 
 Commercial Jkink r. Cook, 9 Chy. 524, re- 
 ferred to and followed. See Thomp- 
 son r. ( iorc, 12 O. R. 651 812 
 
 Concha i: Concha, 11 Ap)). Cas. .541, con- 
 sidered and followed. See Township 
 of >iottawasaga i: Hamilton and 
 North Western R. \V. Co., hi A. R. 25 1813 
 
 Confederation Life Association v. O'Don- 
 
 nell, approved of. See S. C. , 13 S. 
 
 C. It. 218; 16 S. C. R. 717 996 
 
 Conniee i: Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 11 
 
 P. R. 149, reversed. See S. C. 12 A. 
 
 R. 744 2046 
 
 , K; 
 
 O. R. at pp. 641,642, referred to. 
 
 SeeMarklec. Ro.-^.s, 13 P. I!. 1.35.. 1666 
 
 Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co- of Hart- 
 ford ('. Moore, 6 S. C. I!. 6.34, affirmed. 
 See S. C. 6, App. Cas. (i44 2002 
 
 Consumers' (!as Co., r. Kissock, 5 Q. P.. 
 542, followed. Sec Davies c. Hubbard 
 10 P. R. 148 2041 
 
 Conway 7'. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 7 
 O. K. 673, affirmed. See S. C. 12 A. 
 R. 70S 1772 
 
 Cooper?;. Emery, 1 Phil.. 390, distingnisheil. 
 See Bobier and Ontario Investment 
 As.sociation, 16 O. R. 259, 1891 .... 2089 
 
 V. Phibbs, I.. R. 2 H. L. 148, fol- 
 lowed. See Baldwin t>. Kingstone, , , ■ 
 
 18 A. R. 03 1128 
 
 Corham r. Kingston, 17 O. R. 432, appro- 
 ved and followed. See Edmonds r. 
 Hamilton Provident and Loan Society, 
 
 19 0. R. 677 584, 1287 
 
 Cornish r. Abington, 4 H. & N. 548, dis- ,. 
 
 cussed. See Cosimau /'. City of 
 London Fiie Ins. Co., 15 O. R. 329. . 971 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC. 
 
 xcUi 
 
 Oor-Oro] column. 
 
 Cornish, Re, C 0. R. 259, followed. See 
 Re Moorhouae and Leak, 1.3 0. R. 
 290 1172, 1656 
 
 Cory >: Yarmouth, etc., R. W. Co., 3 Ha. 
 593, followed. See Hamilton and 
 Milton Road Co. v. Raspberry, 13 
 0. R. 466 925,2151 
 
 Cosgrave v. Boyle, 45 Q. B. 32, affirmed. 
 SeeS. C, 5 A. I!. 458, reversed. See 
 S. C, 6 S. C. R. 165 162 
 
 , 6 S. C. R. 165, consi- 
 dered and applied. See Hay v. Burke, 
 16 A. R. 463 163 
 
 Cosgrave Brewing and Malting Co. v. 
 Starrs, 5 O. R. 189 : affirmed. See S. 
 C, 11 A. R. 156 ; 12 S. C. R. 561. 845 
 
 Costello V. Hunter, 12 0. R. 333, distin- 
 guished. See Grant r. Cornock, 16 0. 
 R. 406 864 
 
 Cottingham r. Cottingham, 5 O. R. 704, 
 
 reversed. See S. C. U A. R. 624 . . 1884 
 
 Coulson V. Speirs, 9 P. R. 491, followed. 
 
 See Swain r. Stoddart, 12 P. R. 490. 1022 
 
 Court v. Walsh, 1 0. R. 167, affirmed. See 
 
 S.C, 9 A. R. 294 131, 1189 
 
 Cowan ('. OCounor, 20 Q. B. D. 640, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Noble v. Cline, 18 O. 
 
 Cowan's Estate, Re, 18 Ch. D.fi.38, followed. 
 
 See Learning v. Woon, 7 A.R. 33 . . 536 
 
 R. 42 87 
 
 Dissented from. See Stuart y. G rough, 
 
 13 A. R. 299 88 
 
 Referred to as superseded. See Stuart 
 
 V. Grough, 15 A. R. 299 699 
 
 Cowell v. Gatcombe, 27 Beav. 568, distin- 
 guished. See Re Crowter — Crowter 
 V. Hinman, 10 O. R. 159 720 
 
 Cowling I'. Dickson, 45 Q. B. 94, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 5 A. R. 549 783, 1155 
 
 Coyne i'. Broddy, 13 O. R. 173, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 15 A. R. 159 1206 
 
 )'. Lee. 14 A. R. 503, followed. See 
 
 Goulding v. Deeming, 15 O. K. 201. 810 
 
 Crathern v. Bell, 45 Q. B. 365, affirmed. 
 
 See S. n., 8 A. R. 537 845 
 
 Credit V.Mley R. \V. Co. r. Great Wes 
 tern R. *V. Co., 4 A. R. 532, distin- 
 guished. See Herring and Napanee 
 Tamworth and Quebec R. W. Co., 5 
 0. R. 349 1762 
 
 Crick V. Hewlett, 27 Ch. D. 355, distin- 
 guished See McDougald v. Thomson, 
 13 P. R. 256 1652 
 
 Croft and the Town of Peterborough, In 
 
 re, affirmed. See S. C, 17 A. R. 31. 1051 
 
 Crofts 1). Beale. 11 C. B. 172, followed. 
 
 See Ryan v. McKerral, 15 0. R. 460. 1' J 
 
 Crooks «. Stroutl, 12 P. R. 131, discussed, 
 cue B'oster v. Van Wormer, 12 P. R. 
 
 597 688 
 
 Distinguished. See McKay c. Ather- 
 ton, 12 P. R. 464 688 
 
 Croskery, Re, 16 O. R. 207, 209, referred 
 
 I. ™o to. See Re Hewish, 17 O. R. 454 . . 571 
 
 , 16 O. R. 207, followed. See 
 
 Gardner i\ Brown, 19 O. R. 202. . . . 661 
 
 Cro-Dav] coldmn. 
 
 Cross I'. Currie, 43 Q. B. 599, affirmed. 
 
 SeeS. C.,5 A. R. 31 171 
 
 Crowter, Re, — Crowter v. Hinmar., 10 O. 
 R. 159, -.listinguished. See Archer 
 V. Severn, 13 O. R. 316 720 
 
 Cruickshank r. Corbev, 30 C. P. 466, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 5 A. R. 415 ... . 38 
 
 CruBo V. Bond, 9 P. R. Ill, reversed. See 
 
 S. C, 1 O. R. 384 583, 1311 
 
 Culver i: Swayze, 26 Chy. 395, followed. 
 See Campbell v. Campbell, 29 Chy. 
 252 820, 1631 
 
 Culverwell r. Birney, 11 O. R. 625, re- 
 versed in part. SeeS. C, 14 A. R. 
 266 1690 
 
 Cumberland v. Kearns, 18 O. R. 151, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 17 A. R. 281. . 428 
 
 V. Ridout, 3 P. R. 14, fol- 
 lowed. See Andrews r. City of 
 London, 12 P. R. 44 372 
 
 Cumming v. Landed Banking and Loan 
 Co. 19 0. R. 426, affirmed. See S. C. 
 20 0. It. 382 2065 
 
 Cunningham c. Dunn, 8 C. P. D. 443, ap- 
 plied and followed. See MuKenna 
 V. McNamee, 14 A. R. 339 329 
 
 Currie c. Misa, L. R. 10 Ex. 153, 1 App. 
 Cas. 554, distinguished. See Ryan 
 t'. McKerral, 15 O. R. 460 170 
 
 Cushman v. Reid, 20 C. P. 147, distin- 
 guished. See Re Graham v. Tomlin- 
 son, 12 P. R. 367 539 
 
 Cutler j;. Morse, 12 P. R. 594, referred to. 
 
 See Bennett o. White, 13 P. R. 149. 1611 
 
 Followed. See Sanderson v. Ashfield 
 
 13 P. R. 230 364 
 
 Cuvillier i: Aylwin, 2 Knapps P. C. C. 72, 
 reviewed. See Cashing v. Dupuy, 5 
 App. Cas. 400 1713 
 
 Dainea v. Hartley, 3 Ex. 200, followed. 
 
 See Huber r. Crookall, 10 0. R. 475. 473, 
 
 513 
 
 Damer i: Bnsby, 5 P. R. 389, followed. 
 
 See Gilbert r. Stilea, 13 P. R. 121 . 56 
 
 Dare Valley R. W. Co., Re, L. R. 6 Eq. 
 429, distinguished. See Lemay v. 
 McRae, 16 A R 348 60 
 
 Darling v. Midland R. W. Co., 11 P. R. 
 
 32, followed. See Barbeau v. St. 
 
 Catharines and Niagara Central R. 
 
 W. Co., 15 O. R. 586 1744 
 
 Daveyl w. London and South Western R. 
 
 W. Co., 11 Q. B. D. 215. commented 
 
 on. See Peart r. Grand Trunk R. W. 
 
 Co., 10 A. R. 191 1777 
 
 Davidson v. Mag'iire, 27 Chy. 483, affirmed. 
 
 SeeS. C, 7 A. R. 98 812 
 
 Davis V. McKinnon, 31 Q. B. 564. com- 
 mented upon. Sec Finch v. Gilray, 
 16 A. R. 484 1136, 1201 
 
 V. Murray, 9 P. R. 222, followed. 
 
 See Walton c. Wideman, 10 P. R. 
 
 228 laoo 
 
 V. Shenstone, 11 App. Cas. 187, re- 
 ferred to. See Wills i'. Carman, 17 
 0. R. 22.3 616 
 
 I 
 I 
 
zciT 
 
 OASES AFFIBMED, REVEBSED, ETC. 
 
 li I 
 
 ■ I i 
 : 
 
 1 ' 
 
 DeC(-Doe] column. 
 
 De Gear v. Smith, 11 Chy. 570, followed. 
 
 See Foster r. Russell, 12 O. R. 136. . 1978 
 
 Delaney v. MacLellan, 13 P. R. 03, dis- 
 tinguished. See Wallbridge v. Trust 
 and Loan Co., 13 P. R. 67 357 
 
 Denison, Kx parte, 3 Vea. 552, followed. 
 See Carnogio v. Federal Bank of Can- 
 ada, 5 O. R. 418 20i 
 
 ?'. Denison, 17 Chy. 303, doubtefl. 
 
 See Williams v. Roy, 9 O. R. 534 . . 712 
 
 Denny v. The Montreal Telegraph Co., 3 
 A. R. 628, dissented from. See Aus- 
 tin V. Davis, 7 A. R. 478 404, 478 
 
 Devanney v. Brounlee, 8 A. R. 355, dis- 
 tinguished. See Hualey r. Dolson, 8 
 O. R. 691 174 
 
 Deverill c. Coe, 110. 11. 222, dissented 
 from. See Dono\ u. i\ Hogan, 15 A. 
 R. 4.32 83 
 
 De Visme v. }M Visme, 1 Mac. & G. 352, 
 observed upon and not followed. See 
 In re Dingman and Hall's Contract, 
 17 A. P.. .398 1885 
 
 Dewar v. Mallory, 26 Chy. 618, varied. 
 
 See S. C, 27 Chy. 303 1268 
 
 Dickson v. Kearney, 20 N. S. Hep. 95, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 14 S. C. R. 743. . 615 
 
 Diggles, In re, Gregory v. Edmoudson, 37 
 Chy. D. 253, specially referred to and 
 followed. See Bank of Montreal i\ 
 Bower, 17 0. R. 548 2187 
 
 Dilke r. Douglas, 26 C'liy. 99, reversed. 
 
 Sees. C, 5 A. R. 63 1273 
 
 Dillon V. Township of Raleigh, 13 A. R. 
 63, affirmed. See S. C, 14 S. C. R. 
 739 11, 603, 1.378 
 
 Diun V. Blake, L. R. 10 C. P. 388, fol- 
 lowed. See Leniay v. McUae, 16 A. 
 R. 348 50 
 
 Direct Cable Co. v. Dominion Telegraph 
 Co., 28 Chy. 648, affirmed. See S. 
 C, 8 A. R. 416 4.3, 1011 
 
 Dixon V. Snarr, 6 P. E. .336, followed. See 
 
 In re Jenkins v. Miller, 10 P. R. 95 541 
 
 Dean «. Michigan Central R. W. Co., 18 
 O. R. 482, affirmed in {xirt. See S. 
 
 C, 17 A. R. 481 1616 
 
 Reversed in part, gee S. C, 17 A. 
 
 R. 481 1394 
 
 Dobell V. Ontario Bank, 3 O. R. 299, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 9 A. R. 484 . . . . 843 
 
 Doed. Corbyn v. Bramston, 3 Ad. & L. 63, 
 followed. See Hicks %'. Williams, 15 
 O. R. 228 1195 
 
 Des Barres v. White, 1 Kerr N. B. 
 
 595, aproved. See Slierreu r. Pear- 
 son, 14 S. C. R. 581 1198 
 
 Hennessey i: Meyers, 2 O. S. 424, 
 
 observed upon. See Nevitt v. Mo- 
 Murray, 14 A. R. 126 596, 1882 
 
 IrN'ine v. Webster, 2 Q. B. 234, ob- 
 served upon. See Nevitt v. Mc- 
 Murray, 14 A. R. 126 696, 1882 
 
 Johnson v. Baytup, 3 A. & E. 188, 
 
 followed. See Nelles v. VVhite, 29 
 i Chj . 238 575 
 
 Doe-Dub] COLUMN. 
 
 Doe d. Jones v. Davies, 4 B. & Ad. 55, fol- 
 lowed. See Stobbart v. Guardhouse, 
 7 0. R. 239 2170 
 
 Doer V. Rand, 10 P. R. 165, superseded. 
 See Payne ?'. Newl)erry, 13 P. R. 
 .354 .354, 1073 
 
 Dolphin V. Layton, L. R., 4 C. P. D. 130, 
 remarked upon. See Bland r. An- 
 drews, 45 Q. B. 431 543 
 
 Dominion Bank r. Davidson, 12 A. R. 90, 
 referred to. See Connell r. Hickouk, 
 15 A. R. 518 180 
 
 , referred to. See 
 
 Cameron v. Perrin, 14 A. R. 565 809 
 
 -— — V. Heffernan, 11 P. R. 504, 
 
 distinguished. .See McK.iy >'. Magee, 
 
 13 P. R. 106 '. . . . 146, 373, 825 
 
 V. Oliver. 17 O. R. 402, fol- 
 lowed. See Blackley r. Kenney, 19 
 O. R. 169 1281, 1703 
 
 Dominion Loan Society r. Darling, 27 Chy. 
 68, affirmed. See S. C, 5 A. R. 
 576 495 
 
 , -, A. R. 
 
 577, referred to. See Ferguson v. 
 Winsor, 10 0. R. 13 496 
 
 Dominion Savings and Investment Society 
 i: Kilroy, 14 O. R. 468, affirmed. 
 See S. C, 15 A. R. 487 880 
 
 Donly ('. Holmwood, 4 A. R. 555, distin- 
 guisherl. See Whiting (•. Hovey, 13 
 A. R. 7 102 
 
 Donnelly r. Donnelly, 9 0. R. 673, fol- 
 lowed. See Till r. Till, 15 0. R. 
 133 577, 885 
 
 Donovan c. Herbert, 9 0. R. 89, attirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 12 A. R. 298 122 
 
 Dorland v. Jones, 7 O. R. 17, affirmed. 
 See S. C, 12 A. R. 543, and S. C. sub 
 nom. Jones v. Dorland, 14 S. C. R. 
 39 232^ 
 
 Douglas r. Hutchison, 6 O. R. 581, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 12 A. R. 110.... 871 
 
 DouU V. Mcllreith, 19 N. S. Rep. 341, re- 
 versed. See S. C. 14 S. C. R. 739 . . 2004 
 
 Dover, Township of, r. Township of Chat- 
 ham, 5 O; R. .325, affirmed. See 8. 
 C, 11 A. R. 248, reversed ; 12 S. C. 
 R. 321 1356 
 
 12 S. C. R. 
 
 321, commented on. See Township 
 of West Nissouri v. Township of 
 North Dorchester, 14 0. R. 294 1353 
 
 Doyle V. Bell, 32 C. P. 632, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 11 A. R. 326 307 
 
 Drake v. Wigle, 22 C. P. 405, followed. 
 See Saunders v. Brcakie, 5 O. R. 603. 
 
 587. 2020 
 
 Drummond v. Guickard, cited in Green v. 
 Adams, 2 Chy. Chamb. 124, over- 
 ruled. See Cruso v. Bond, 1 O. R. 
 384 58.3, 1311 
 
 Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford R. W. Co. 
 V. Slattery, 3 App. Cas. 1155, com- 
 mented on. See Peart r. Grand 
 Trunk R. W. Co., 10 A. R. 191 .... 1777 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC 
 
 xc 
 
 Duf-Edel COLUMN. 
 
 Duff I'- Canrtdian Mutual Fire Ins. Co. , 9 
 P. R. 292, reversed. See S. C, 2 O. 
 R. TiOO 979 
 
 r. Canadian Mutual Ins. Co.,27Chy. 
 
 391, affirmed. See S. C. , 6 A. R. 238. 977 
 
 Duggan r. London & Canadian Loan and 
 Agency Co., 19 O. R. 272, reversed. 
 See S. C. 18 A. R. 303 206.-) 
 
 Dunible i: Dumble, 29 Chy. 274, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 8 A. R. 476 2194 
 
 Dumble r. Laru.ili, 25 Chv. 552, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 27 Chy. 187 1201 
 
 Du Moulin r. Langtry, 13 S. C. R. 258, 
 leave to appeal to Privy Council re- 
 fused. See 57 L. T. N. S. 317 1993 
 
 Duncan v. Rogers, 15 O. R. 699, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 16 A. R. 3 2121 
 
 ____ , 16 A. R. 3, reversed in 
 
 part and affirmed in part. See 8. C, 
 18S. C. R. 710 2121 
 
 Dundas r. Hamilton and Milton Road Co., 
 19 Chy. 455, followed. See McOar- 
 vey )•. Town of Strathroy, 6 O. R. 
 138 700, 927 
 
 Dungannon Case, 3 O'M. & H. 101, re- 
 ferred to and followed. See Prescott 
 Election (Ont.)— Cunningham v. Ha- 
 gar, 1 K. r 88 1459 
 
 Dunlap c. Dunhip, 6 0. R. 141, reversed 
 in part. See S. C.,8ul) nom. Dunlop 
 r. Dunlop, 10 A. R. 670 403, 496, 767 
 
 Dynient v. Thompson, 9 O. R. ■')66; 12 A. 
 R. 659, affirmed. See S. C, 13 S. C, 
 303 1862 
 
 Dynes i: Rales, 25 Chy. 593, followed. 
 See Weir w. Niagara fJrape Co., 11 
 0. R. 700 1829 
 
 Earl Beanchamp r. Winn, L. R. 6 H. L. 
 223, followed. See Baldwin v. King- 
 stone, 18 A. R. 63 1128 
 
 Earls r. Mc Alpine, 27 Chy. 161, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 6 A. R. 1'45 2224 
 
 , 27 Chy. 161. ': A. R. 
 
 145, followed. See Re W eller, 16 
 
 0. R. 318 2225 
 
 East Simcoe Case, 1 E. C. 291, followed. 
 See Hamilton Election (Out.)— Pat- 
 terson i\ Stinson, 1 E. C. 499 1493 
 
 East and West India Dock Co. v. Kirk, 12 
 App. Cas. 738, considered. See 
 Lemay r. McRac, Ki A. R. 348 .... 50 
 
 Eastern Counties, ctc.,R. W. Co. r. Mar- 
 riage, 9 H. L. Cas. 32, followed. See 
 Wood V. Hurl, 28 Chy. 146 ... . 819, 1979 
 
 Eastman r. Bank of Montreal, followed. 
 
 See Young i\ Spiers, 16 0. R. 672 . . 109 
 
 Eberts v. Brooke, Re, 10 P. R. 257, revers- 
 ed. See S. C, 11 P. R. 296 541 
 
 Eccles r. Lowry, 23 Chy. 167, commented 
 on. See Re Hague— Traders' Bank 
 
 r. Murray, 13 O. R. 727 725, 1091 
 
 Considered. See Stuart v. Gage. 13 
 
 0. R. 458 677, 1091, 1203 
 
 Eden v. Wilson, 4 H. L. Cas. 257, distin- 
 guished. See In re Cleator, 10 O. R. 
 326 2172 
 
 Edg-Ear] column. 
 
 Edgar v. Northern R. W. Co., 4 O. 
 R. 201, affirmed. See 8. C. 1 1 A. R. 
 4.-)2 1782 
 
 Edinburgh Life Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 32 
 Q. B. 253, followed. See Hall r. Far- 
 quharson, 15 A. R. 457 7S 
 
 Edmonds c. Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 Society, 19 O. R. 677, affirmed in 
 part. See S. C, 18 A. R. 347 1283, 1287, 
 
 1302 
 Reversed in part. See S. C, 18 A. 
 R. 347 584 
 
 Eldon and Ferguson, 6 U. C. L. J. 297, 
 followed. See Re Harvey and Park- 
 dale, 10 O. R. 372 1384 
 
 Eldorado Union Store Co. , 6 Russ. &Geld. 
 514, followed. See Clarke and Union 
 Fire Tus. Co. (2), 14 O. R. 618 . . .284, 304 
 
 IHectric Despatch Co. of Toronto r. Bell 
 Telephone Co. of Canada, 17 O. R. 
 495, affirmed lb, 501, 17 A. R. 
 292 335 
 
 Elgin Election Case, 4 A. R. 412, referred 
 to. See West Huron Election ( Dom.) 
 —Mitchell V. Cameron, 1 O. R. 433 1517 
 
 Ellerby i: Walton, 2 P. R. 147, followed. 
 
 See Scott v. Mitchell, 8 P. R. 518. . 3 
 
 Elliott i'. Brown, 2 O. R. 352, reversed. 
 
 Sees. C. 11 A. R. 228 872 
 
 Ellis V. Emanuel, 1 Ex. D. 157, followed. 
 
 See Marti" ••. McMullcn, 19 0. R. 230 107, 
 
 843 
 
 r. McHe>. , L. R. 6C. P. 228, speci- 
 ally referretl to. See Maritime Bank 
 i\ Stewart, 13 P. R. 202 116, 301 
 
 Elton r. Shepjiard, I Bro. C. C. 532, fol- 
 lowed. See Morrow f. .Jenkins, 6 
 O. R. 693 2194 
 
 Emma Silver Mining Co., L. IJ. 10 Chy. 
 194, followeil. See Russell r. Mac- 
 douald, 12 P. R. 458 641 
 
 Emmett r. Quinn, 27 Chy. 420, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 7 A. R. .30(j 1142 
 
 Empire Gold Mining Co. v. Jones, 19 C. P. 
 245, followed. See Piatt i-. Grand 
 Trunk R. W. Co. of Canada, 12 O. 
 R. 1 19 427 
 
 Empress Engineering Co., In re, 16 Ch. D. 
 125, speciallv considered. See Hen- 
 derson r. Killey. 17 A. R. 456 206O 
 
 Erb V. Great Western R. W. Co., 42 Q. B. 
 90; 3 A. R. 448, affirmed. See S. 
 C.,5S. C. R. 179 1696,1800 
 
 Erwin r. Canada Southern R. W. Co. , 1 1 
 A. R. 306, reversed. See S. C. 13 
 S. C. R. 162 1752 
 
 Essex and Rocliester, Re, 42 Q. B. 523, 
 distinguished. See In re Roliertson 
 and Township of North Kasthope, 15 
 O. R. 423 1.3E7 
 
 Commented on. See Township of 
 Dover r. Township of Chatham, 1 1 
 A. R. 248 1356 
 
 Eureka Wollen Mills Co. r. Moss, 11 S. C. 
 R. 91, referred to. See O'SuUivan v. 
 Lake, 16 S. C. R. 636 2002 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 
 S 
 
 II 
 
xovi 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC. 
 
 Ezc-For] COLUMN. 
 
 Exchange Hank of Canailar. Newell, 19 C. 
 L. J. 253, (listingui«he(l. See MoCal- 
 lum V. McCalluin, 11 P. R. 179 ... . 390 
 
 V. Springer, 7 O. 
 
 R. 309, nffiime<l. See S. C, 13 A. R. 
 390; 14 S. C. R. 716 170.3, 1705 
 
 Farmer v. Hamilton Tribune Co., 3 0. R. 
 5.3S, diatinguishcd. See Macdonell 
 V. Robinson, 12 A. R. 270 500 
 
 Faiilds V. Harper, 9 A. R. 537, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 1 1 S. C. R. 6.39 1191 
 
 Fawcettc. Great Western R. W. Co.. 1 
 Moo. P. C. N. S. 101, followed. See 
 Ball c. Canadian Pacific IJ. W. Co., 
 U O. R C25 1792 
 
 Feather r. Tlie Queen, 6 B. & S. 293, ap- 
 proved. See Windsor and Annapo- 
 lis R. W. Co. r. The Queen, 11 App. 
 Cas. 607 1580 
 
 Fellows >'. Ottawa Gas. Co., 19 C. P. 174, 
 commented on. See Montreal City 
 and District Savings Bank v. County 
 of Perth, .32 C. P. 18 1626 
 
 Fenelon Falls i: Victoria R. W. Co., 29 
 Chy. 4, approved of. See St. Vincent 
 V. Greenfield, 15 A. R. 567 920 
 
 Ferguson v, Winsor, 10 0. R. 13, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 11 O. R. 88 497 
 
 Finch V. Gilray, 16 0. R. 393, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 16 A. R. 484 11.36, 1201 
 
 , 16 A. R. 484, followed. 
 
 See Coffin v. North American Land 
 Co., 21 O. R. 80 1136, 1201 
 
 Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 4 
 A. R. 601, considered. See Dixon i'. 
 Richelieu Navigation Co., 15 A. R. 
 647 213 
 
 V. McKinlay, 21 C. L. J. 299, re- 
 ferred to. See Regina v. Klemp, 10 
 0. R. 143 1049 
 
 Fleming, Re, 11 P. R. 272, reversed. See 
 
 S. C, 11 P. R. 426 712 
 
 — ^— V. Livingstone, 6 P. R. 63, fol- 
 lowed. See In re Jenkins v. Miller, 
 10 P. R. 95 641 
 
 Fletcher i-. Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 282, L. 
 «. 3 H. L. 330, applied. See Shaw 
 V. McCreary, 19 O. R. 39 880 
 
 • L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 
 
 followed. See Furlong v. Carroll, 7 
 
 A. R. 145 749 
 
 Fleury v. Pringle, 26 Chy. 67, followed. 
 
 See Smart v. Sorenson, 9 O. R. 640. . 559 
 
 Flight i\ Thomas, 11 A. & E. 688; 8 CL 
 & F. 231, considered and followed. 
 See Burnham v. Garvey, 27 Chy. 
 80 1176, 1193 
 
 Foott ('. Rice, 4 0. R. 94, affirmed. See 
 
 Foott V. McGeorge, 12 A. R. 351 ... . 595, 
 
 899, 2063 
 
 Forfar i\ Climie, 10 P. R. 90, specially re- 
 ferred to. See Re Graham v. Tom- 
 
 linson, 12 P. R. 367 539 
 
 Approved. See McDermid v. Mc- 
 Dermid, 15 A. P.. 287 539 
 
 Forrest r. Laycock, 18 Chy. 622, followed. 
 
 .See McKay c. McGee. 13 P. R. 106 373, 825 
 
 For-Gam] coLnuN. 
 
 Forrester v. Campbell, 17 Chy. 379, ex- 
 plained. See Peterkin v. McFarlane, 
 
 9 A. R. 429 1831 
 
 Forrester v. Thrasher, 9 P. R. 283, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 2 O. R. 38. . . . 131 
 
 Forster v. Patterson, 17 Chy. D. 132, not 
 followed. See Faulda v. Harper, 9 
 A. R. 537 1190 
 
 Fox V. Symington, 9 O. R. 767, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 13 A. R. 296 54o 
 
 Eraser v. Thompson, 1 Gif. 49, distinguish- 
 ed. See Thompson". Gore, 12 O. R. 
 651 812 
 
 Fredericton, City of, v. The Queen, 3 S. C. 
 R. 505, commented upon. See Regina 
 V. Howard, 45 Q. B. .346 311 
 
 Freeman, Re, 1 Chy. Chamb. R. 102, con- 
 sidered .and explained. See Re Alli- 
 son, 12 P. R. 6 1947 
 
 t rey v. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of the County 
 of Wellington, 4 A. R. 293, reversed. 
 See S. C, 5 S. C. B. 82 970 
 
 Friedrich v. Friedrich, 10 P. R. .308 ; af- 
 firmed with a variation. See S. C. 
 
 10 P. R. 546 1941 
 
 Friendly v. Canada Transit Co., 10 0. R. 
 
 756, followed. See Langdon v. Robert- 
 son, 130. R. 497 . . 1924 
 
 Friendly v. Needier, 10 P. R. 267, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 10 P. R. 427 547 
 
 Frietsch v. Winkler, 3 Chy. Chamb. 100, 
 followed. See Bull v. North British 
 Canadian Investment Co. (Limited) 
 10 P. R 624 1594 
 
 Frontenac, County of, v. City of Kingston, 
 30 Q. B. 584. distinguished. See 
 Township of Elderslie v. Village of 
 Paisley, 8 O. R. 270 1324 
 
 Frye v. Milligan, 10 O. R. 509, followed. 
 See Tomlinson v. Morris, 12 O. R. 
 311 2095 
 
 Fryer v. Shields, 45 Q. B. 188, reversed. 
 
 SeeS. C, 6A. R. 57 131, 12.38 
 
 Fulton Bros. v. Upper Canada Furniture 
 Co., 32 C. P. 422, reversed. See S. 
 C. 9 A. R. 211 324 
 
 Gaget). Canada Publishing Co., 4 O. R. 
 
 68 ; 11 A. R. 402 ; affirmed. See S. 
 
 C, 11 S. C. R. 306 2027 
 
 Gagnon v. Prince, 7 S. C. R. 386, leave to 
 
 appeal to P. C. refused. See S. C, 
 
 8 App. Cas. 103 672 
 
 Gairdner v. Gairdner, 1 O. R. 191, followed. 
 See Re Cooke and Driffil, 8 O. R. 530 
 
 Galemo, Re, 46 Q. B. .379, followed. See 
 
 MoTieman v. Frazer, 9 P. R. 246 865 
 
 Gallagher v. Bathie, 2 U. C. L. J. N. S. 73, 
 followed. See In re Knight v. United 
 Townships of Medora and Wood, II 
 O. R. 138 216 
 
 Galloway v. Corporation of London, L. R. 
 4 Eq. 90, discussed. See Stevenson 
 n. City of Kingston, 31 C. P. .333.. 1946 
 
 Gamble v. Gummerson, 9 Chy. 199, ap- 
 proved of. See Cameron v. Carter, 
 
 9 0. R. 426 1888 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC 
 
 xoTii 
 
 •Oar-Ora] , column. 
 
 Oarnett v. Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 944, fol- 
 lowed. See Wellbanks v. Conger (2), 
 
 12 P. II. 447 377 
 
 Considered and followed. See Wilson 
 
 V. Roberts, 11 P. R. 412 371, 517 
 
 Gardner v. Barber, 18 Jiir. 508, considered 
 and commented on. See Cook v. 
 Noble, 12 O. R. 81 2212 
 
 Gaston v. Wald, 1!) Q. B. 58(5, doubted. 
 
 See Furlong v. Carroll, 7 A. R. 145. 749 
 
 Gauthier v. Waterloo Mutual Ins. Co. , 44 
 Q. B. 490, attirmed. See S. C, 6 A. 
 R. 231 967 
 
 Geauyeau i'. Oreat Western R. W. Co., 3 
 A. R. 412, considered. See Town- 
 ship of Nottawasaga t>. Hamilton and 
 North Western R. W. Co., 16 A. R.52 1813 
 
 Georgian Bay Transportation Co. v. Fisher, 
 27 Chy. 346, reversed. See S. C, 5 
 A. R. 383 1920 
 
 Gibbons v. McDonald, 19 O. R. 290, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 18 A. R. 159. . 791 
 
 V. Spalding, 11 M. & W. 173, re- 
 ferred to. See Gilbert v. Stiles, 13 
 P. R. 121 56 
 
 V. Wilsor. 170. R. 290; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 17 A. R. 1 811 
 
 Gibletti'. Hobson, Myl. and K. 517, fol- 
 lowed. See M»a'ray v. Malloy, 10 O. 
 R. 46 2222 
 
 Gilbert v. Doyle, 24 C. P. 60, not followed. 
 
 See Price v. Guinane, 16 0. R. 264. 397, 
 
 1154 
 
 Gilchrist and Island, 11 0. R. 537, distin- 
 guished and dissented from. See 
 Clark r. Harvey, 16 O. R. 150 1298 
 
 Gildersleeve r. McDougall, 31 C. P. 164, 
 
 reversed. See S. C, 6 A. R. 553. . . 758 
 
 Gillam v. Taylor, L. R. 16 Eq. 584, fol- 
 lowed. See Labatt v. Campbell, 7 
 0. R. 250 2221 
 
 Glass V. Cameron, 9 O. R. 712, distin- 
 guished. See Bowerman v. Phillips, 
 15 A. R. 679 706 
 
 V. Freckleton, 10 Chy. 470, followed. 
 
 See Lally v. Longhurst, 12 P. R. 510. 1308 
 
 Goddard r. Coulson, 10 A. R. 1, followed. 
 
 See Tmax v. Dixon, 17 0. R. 366 .. . 1168 
 
 Godson and the City of Toronto, In re, 16 
 0. R. 275, reversed. See S. C, 16 
 A. R. 452 400, 1385, 1716 
 
 Goldsmith v. City of London, 11 0. R. 
 
 26, reversed. SeeS.C, 16S. C. R. 231 2144 
 
 Gordon v. Gordon, 110. R. 611, upheld in 
 
 part. See S. C, 12 O. R. 593 1666 
 
 Gough V. McBride, 10 C. P. 166, specially 
 referred to. .See McDonald v. Mc- 
 Dougall, 16 O. R. 401 664, 2160, 2250 
 
 Graham v. Lang, 10 O. R. 248, not fol- 
 lowed. See Baker v. Atkinson, |I1 
 0. R. 735 527 
 
 V. Tomlinson, 12 P. R. 367, re- 
 ferred to. See McDermid v. McDer 
 mid, 15 A. R. 287 539 
 
 Referred to. See Mobbb v. Mobbb, 13 
 
 P. R. 12 539 
 
 m 
 
 Ora-Oue] column. 
 
 Grahfvm v. Williams, 8 O. R. 478, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 9 0. R. 458 1169 
 
 Grand Junction R. W. Co. r. County of 
 Peterborough, 45 Q. H. 3.')2, reversed. 
 HeeS. C, 6 A. R. 339; 8 S. C. R. 
 76 1807 
 
 , 8 S. C. R. 76, fol- 
 lowed. See In re Canada Atlantic R. 
 W. Co. V. Township of Cambridge, 
 
 3 O. R. 291 1807 
 
 Grand Junction and Midland R. W. Co.'s 
 
 V. Corporation of Peterborough, 13 
 A. R. 420 ; affirmed. See S. C, 13 
 App. Case, 136 1808 
 
 Grant v. Cornock, 16 <). R. 406, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 16 A. R. 532 864 
 
 1\ People's Loan and Deposit Co., 
 
 17 A. R. 85, affirme.l. See S. C, 18 
 
 S. C. R. 262 1284 
 
 Gray v. Ball, 23 Chy. .390, approved and 
 followed. See Core v. Ontario Loan 
 and Debenture Co., 9 O. R. 236. . . . 1833 
 
 V. Town of Dundas, 110. R. 317 ; 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 13 A. R. 588.. 2112 
 
 Great Western R. W. Co. v. McEwan, 28 
 Q. B. 528, .30 Q. B. 559, followed. See 
 Stoeserw. Springer, 7 A. R. 497 1838 
 
 Green v. Duckett, 11 Q. B. D. 275, fol- 
 lowed. See McKay v. Howard, 6 
 O. R. 135 1260 
 
 r. Township of Orford, 15 0. R. 506, 
 
 reversed. See S. C, 16 A. R. 4. . . . 1361 
 
 V. Watson, 2 0. R. 627, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 10 A. R. 113 423, 1664 
 
 Greene );. Harris, 25 N. B. Rep. 451, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 16 S. C. R. 714. . 1079 
 
 Greenwood v. Verdon, 1 K. & J. 74, dis- 
 tinguished. See In re Cleaton, 10 0. 
 R. 326 2172 
 
 Greet v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 27 Chy. 121, 
 
 reversed. See S. C, 5 A. R. 596. . 963 
 
 V. Mercantile Ins. Co., 27 Chy. 121, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 5 A. R. 596. . . 963 
 
 Gregory v. Williams, 3 Mer. 582, specially 
 considered. See Henderson v. Kel- 
 ley, 17 A. R. 456 2060 
 
 Grierson r. Cheshire Lines Committee, L. 
 R. 19 Eq. 83, referred to. See Re 
 Hooper and Erie and Huron R. W. 
 Co., 12 P. R. 408 1763 
 
 Griffith «. Brown, 26 Chy. 503, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 5 A. R. .303 1197 
 
 -21 C. P. 12, considered. 
 
 See Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co., 19 
 
 A. R. 409 527 
 
 Grip Printing and Publishing Co. of Toron- 
 to V. Butterfield, 11 A. R. 145, re- ■ 
 versed. See S. C, 11 S. C. R. 
 291 1550 
 
 Guelph V. The Canada Company. 4 Chy. 
 656, commented v.pon. See Fenelon 
 Falls 0. Victoria R. W. Co., 29 Chy. 
 
 4 94,920, 1769 
 
 Guest v. Hunter ; Petr e v. Hunter, 2 0. 
 R. 2.33 ; affirmed. See S. C, 10 A. 
 
 B. 127 1167 
 
 ^Kr 
 
 S 
 S 
 
 g 
 
 
 m 
 
 9 
 K 
 
 8 
 
 
zeviU 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED, BEVEBSEP, ETC. 
 
 Onn-Har] column. 
 
 (Junn V. Doble, 16 Chy. 655, followed. See 
 
 Re Morse, 8 P. R. 475 «45, 1738 
 
 Distingiiislied. See Johnston v. 
 Johnston, 9 P. R. 2.59 1309 
 
 (Jutierrez, Re, 11 Chy. 1). 298, specially re- 
 ferred to. Sec Rice v. Fletcher, 13 
 P. R. 46 54 
 
 Haacke v. Adamson, 14 C. P. 201, follow- 
 ed. See Bond v. Conmee, 15 O. R. 
 716 1120 
 
 Haisley r. Somers, 13 O. R. 600, con- 
 sidered. See Hall r. Farquharson, 
 
 15 A. R4.57 78 
 
 Hall, Ex parte, 19 Cliy. D. 580, followed. 
 
 See Meriden Silver Co. v. Lee, 2 O. 
 
 R. 451 829 
 
 , In re, 32 C. P. 498 ; affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 8 A. R. 31 ; see also S. C. Ih. 
 
 135 25 
 
 In re, 9 P. R. 373, 3 0. R. 331 ; 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 8 A. R. 31 . . . . 436 
 
 r. Caldwell, 8 U. C. L. J. 93, fol- 
 lowed. See Faulds r. Harper, 9 A. 
 R. 537 1100 
 
 r. Conder, 2 C. B. N. S., commented 
 
 on. See Vermilyea i'. Canniff, 12 0. 
 
 R. 164 1555 
 
 r. Farquhar.son, 12 O. E. 598, affirm- 
 ed. See S. C, 15 A. R. 457 65 
 
 , 13 U. R. 600, parti- 
 ally affirmed. See S. C, 15 A. R. 457 78 
 
 v. Hall, 2 E. & A. 569, considered. 
 
 See Hall r. Farquharson, 15 A. R. 
 
 457 78 
 
 V. Laver, 1 Ha. 571, followed. See 
 
 Re Monteith — Merchants' Bank r. 
 Monteith, 12 P. R. 288 1944 
 
 Hall-Dare's Contract, Re, 21 Chy. D. 41, 
 considered. See Re Hewish, 17 O. 
 R. 454 571 
 
 Hamilton v. (Jroesbeck, 19 O. R. 76, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 18 A. R. 4.37. . . . 1248 
 
 Hamilton Provident and Loan Society v. 
 Campbell, 5 O. R. 371, affirmed. See 
 S. C, 12 A. R. 250 454 
 
 Hamniill v. Hammill, 6 O. R. 681, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 9 0. R. 530 2167 
 
 Hands v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 
 
 16 O. R. 625, reversed. See S. C, 
 
 17 0. R. 300 ; but restored. See S. 
 
 C, 17 A. R. 41 1160 
 
 Harcourt, In re, 32 Sol. J. 92, followed. 
 See Re Washington, a solicitor, 12 P. 
 R. 386 1956 
 
 Hardwick v. Brown, L. R. 8 C. P. 406, 
 followed. See Chaplin v. Public 
 School Board of the 'Town of Wood- 
 stock, 16 O. R. 728 923, 1724 
 
 Harding, Re, 13 P. R. 112, followed. See 
 
 ReDelanty, 1" " « 143 912 
 
 Harper v. Charles worth, 4 B. & C. 574, re- 
 ferred to and specially considered. 
 See Bruyea v. Rose, 19 O. R. 433. . . 2034 
 
 Harris, Re, 24 Chy. 459, explained and 
 followed. See Peel v. Peel, 11 P. R. 
 195 2010 
 
 Har-Hew] colcmk. 
 
 Harris 1: Mudie, 30 C. P. 484, affirmed. 
 
 Sees. C, 7 A. R. 414 1185, 1195 
 
 , 7 A. R. 414, distinguished. 
 
 See McCJregor 1: Keiller, 9 O. R. 
 
 677 1192 
 
 Harrison 1: Pinkney, 44 Q. B. 509, uf- 
 
 fiimed. S. C. , 6 A. R. 225 1 i:i6 
 
 Hart V. Ruttan, 23 C. P. 613, not followed. 
 
 See Scott V. Mitchell, 8 P. R. 518. . . 3 
 Hart r. Swaine, 7Ch. D. 42, distinguished. 
 
 See Cameron v. Cameron, 14 0. R. 
 
 561 1896 
 
 Hartshorn v. Early, 19C. P. 136, followed. 
 
 See Lipsett r. Perdue, 1 8 O. R. 575 . . 375, 905 
 
 Harvey /■. Farnie, 5 P. D. 153 ; 6 P. D. 
 
 35 ; 8 App. Cas. 43, followed. See 
 
 Magurn v. Magurn, 11 A. R. 178 887 
 
 V. (Jran.l 'Irunk R. W. Co. 9 P. R. 
 
 80, affirmed. See S. C, 7 A. R. 
 
 715 1595 
 
 and Town of Parkdale, 16 O. R. 
 
 372, affirmed. See S. C, 16 A. R. 
 
 468 1365 
 
 Harwich Case, 3 O'M. & H. 69, distin- 
 guished. See West Siincoe Election 
 (Ont.)— Bedford v. Phelps, 1 E. C. 
 
 128 1459 
 
 Hastings Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Shannon, 
 2 S. C. R. 394, followed. See Gra- 
 ham ('. Ontario v. Mutua'. Ins. Co. , 
 
 14 0. R. .358 954 
 
 Hately v. Merchants' Despatch Transpor- 
 tation Co., 4 O. R. 623, affirmed in 
 part. See S. C, 12 A. R. 201 214 
 
 V. Merchants' Despatch Co., IIP. 
 
 R. 9, reversed in part. See S. C, 
 
 12 A. R. 640 .361, 407 
 
 Hathaway 1: Doig, 28 Chy. 461, reversed. 
 
 S. C, 6 A. R. 264 924 
 
 Hawkins ?'. Gathercole, 1 Drew. 12, fol- 
 lowed. See Stuart «>. Grough, 15 A. 
 R. 299 93,699 
 
 Hayne *•. Maltby, 3 T. R. 438, distin- 
 guished. See Vermilyea v. Canniff, 12 
 O. R. 164 1555 
 
 Hedstrom r. Toronto Car Co. , 31 C. P. 475, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C. , 8 A. R. 627 ... . 1863 
 
 Helm V. Port' Hope, 22 Chy. 273, distin- 
 i»uished. See Davies v. City of 
 Toronto, 15 0. R. 3.3 919, 1339 
 
 Henderson v. Killey, 14 O. R. 137, 17 A. 
 R. 456, reversed. See S. C. sub- 
 nom. — Osborne r. Henderson, 18 S. 
 C. R. 698 1540, 2060 
 
 Henderson r. Spencer, 8 P. R. 402, 
 not followed. See Robertson and 
 Daganeau, 9 P. R. 288 2088 
 
 Hendrie v. Neelon, 3 O. R. 603, affirmed. 
 
 See S. 0., 12 A. R. 41 2020 
 
 Hepburn v. Park, 6 O. R. 472, followed. 
 See Hyman v. Cuthbertson, 10 0. R. 
 443 190, 443, 807 
 
 Hewison v. Pembroke, 6 O. R. 170, distin- 
 
 fuished. See Re, Colenutt and 
 'ownship of Colchester North, 13 
 P. R. 253 1346, 1851, 1984 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, BEVERSED, ETC. 
 
 xoiz 
 
 Eic-Hor] coiATMN. 
 
 Hickey v. Stover, 11 0. R. 10(), not fol- 
 lowed. See Kent v. Kent, 'JO U. R. 
 
 145 1187 
 
 Followed. See Clurk i: Macdonell, 20 
 
 0. R. r)64 1187 
 
 Distinguisliecl. See Wright i\ Col- 
 lings, 1(J O. R. 182 2165 
 
 Hicks )•. Newport, etc., R. W. (Jo., 4 B. 
 & 8. 40.S n., iipjiroved. See Grand 
 Trunk R. VV. (X i: Jennings, 13 
 App. Cas. 800 1396 
 
 Hill, Re, L. R. 2 P. & D. 89, distinguished. 
 
 See Re O'Brien, 3 O. R. 326 709 
 
 Hilliard c. Arthur, 10 P. R. 281 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 10 P. R. 42« 1656 
 
 Distinguished. See Ross v. Ca-s- 
 callen, 11 P. R. 104 1084 
 
 Hinton i: Heather, 14 M. & \V. 131, fol- 
 lowed. See Routhier r. McLaurin, 
 
 18 0. R. 112 1223 
 
 Hislop r. McGillivray, 15 A. R. 687, fol- 
 lowed. See Hubert w. Township of 
 Yarmouth, 18 O. R. 458 2130 
 
 , 12 O. R, 749 ; 15 
 
 A. R. 087, affirmed. See S. C, 17 
 
 S. C. R. 479 21,30 
 
 Hobbs c. Northern Assurance t'o. , and 
 tiuardian Fire and Life Assce. Co. of 
 London, 7 0. R 634 : 8 0. R. 343 ; 
 11 A. R. 741, reversed. See S. C, 12 
 S. C. R. 631 951 
 
 f. Scott, 23 Q. B. 619, (liscussed. 
 
 See Foster v. Vr.i Wormer, 12 P. R. 
 
 597 688 
 
 Hobson V. Bass, L. R. 6 Ch. 792, distin- 
 guished. See Martin r. McMnllen, 
 
 19 0. R. 230 107, 843 
 
 V. Sherwood, 4 Beav. 184, followed. 
 
 See Uevereux !». Kearns, 1 1 P. R. 
 
 452 1530 
 
 Hodge !'. The Queen, 9 App. Cas. 117, fol- 
 lowed. See Suite v. City of Three 
 Rivers, 11 S. C. R. 25 311 
 
 Hodgkinson v. Fernie, 3 C. B. N. .S. 189, 
 followed. See Lemay v. McRae, 16 
 A. R. 348 50 
 
 Hodsoll 1'. Taylor, L. R. 9 Q. B. 79, fol- 
 lowed. See Ferguson v. Veitch, 45 
 Q. B. 160 1905 
 
 Hogg V. Crabbe, 12 P. R. 14, dissented 
 from. See Outwater r. MuUett, 13 
 P. R. 509 384 
 
 Holland (•. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C P. 328, 
 approved of. See McCausland v. 
 McCalhim, 3 O. R. 305 752 
 
 Holmes v. Reeve, 5 P. R. 58, followed. 
 See In re Knight r. United Townships 
 of Medora and Wood, 11 0. R. 138. 216 
 
 Hooey f. Gilbert, 12 P. R. 114, distin- 
 guished. See Maclean v. Barber & 
 Ellis Co., 13 P. R. 500 641 
 
 Hopkinson v. Rolt, 9 H. L. C. 514, consid- 
 ered and applied. See Blackley v. 
 Kenny, 16 A. R. 522 823, 1280 
 
 Hornby v. Close, L. R. 2 Q. B. 153, diatin- 
 raished. See Schrader v. LiUis, 10 
 0. R. 358 328 
 
 Hor-Imp] ('OLu.MN. 
 
 Horsley r. Cox, L. R. 4 Chy. 92, followed. 
 See Gilchrist c. Wiley, 28 Chy. 
 425 90 
 
 Horton i: Provincial Provident Institu- 
 tion, IB O. R. 382, affirmed. See S. 
 C, 17 0. R. 361 153 
 
 Howell V. Dominion of Canada Oils Refi 
 nery Co., .S7 Q. B. 484, specially re- 
 ferred to. See Maritime Bank r. 
 Stewart, 13 P. R. 262 116, 301 
 
 Howeren c. Bradburn, 22 Chy. 96, com- 
 mented on. See Macdonald r. Mc- 
 Donald, 11 O. R. 187 1283 
 
 Howes v. Dominion Fire and Marine Ins. 
 Co., 2 O. R. 89, r;versed. SeeS. C, 
 8 A. R. 644 961 
 
 Hiiggins v. Law, 11 O. R. 565, reversed. 
 
 See S. C., 14 A. R. 383 721 
 
 Hughes r. Hand in Hand Ins. Co., 7 0. R. 
 465, affirmed. See S. C, 7 O. R. 
 015 974 
 
 V. Rees, 10 P. R. 301, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 9 O. R. 198 1090 
 
 Hugill r. Merrifield, 12 C. P. 264, over- 
 ruled. See Austin r. Davis, 7 A. R. 
 478 106C 
 
 Hunt I'. McArthur, 24 Q. B. 254, super- 
 seded. See Reginii v. Riley, 12 P. 
 R. 98 1098 
 
 Hunter v. Carrick, 28 Chy. 489, reversed. 
 See S. C, 10 A. R. 449 ; 11 S. C. R. 
 300 1549 
 
 ('. Griffiths, In re, 7 P. R. 86, not 
 
 followed. See Regina r. McGauley, 
 
 12 P. R. 259 901, 1061 
 
 Hurst, Re, 31 Q. B. 116, commented upon. 
 .See Re Beatty, an Insolvent, 6 A. R. 
 40 120 
 
 Hutcliinson r. Collier, 27 C. P. 249, ap- 
 proved of. See Donovan r. Hogan, 
 
 15 A. R. 432 83 
 
 Doubted. See Deverill r. Coe, 1 1 O. 
 
 R. 222 76 
 
 Followed. See Lyttle r. Broddy, 100. 
 
 R. 550 83 
 
 Hutley r. Hutley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 112, con- 
 sidered. See Re Cannon — Oates v. 
 Cannon, 13 O. R. 70 222 
 
 Huxley v. West Loudon Extension R. W. 
 Co., 14 App. Cas. 26, specially re- 
 ferred to. See Fulton v. Vipond, 13 
 
 P. R. 485 380 
 
 Specially referred to. See Bertram 
 V. Massey Manufacturing Co., 13 P. 
 R. 184 380 
 
 Hyde v. Beardsley, 18 Q. B. D. 244, fol- 
 lowed. See Andrews v. City of Lon- 
 don, 12 P. R. 44 372 
 
 Hynes v. Smith, 8 P. R. 73, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 27 Chy. 150 1170 
 
 , 27 Chy. 150, referred to. 
 
 See McVean r. Tiffin, 13 A. R. 1 . . 1171 
 
 , followed. 
 
 See Re Wallis & Vokea, 18 0. R. 8. . 1169 
 
 Imperial L. & I. Co. v. O'SuUivan, 8 P. R. 
 162, followed. See Watson v. Dow- 
 ser, 28 Chy. 478 1293 
 
 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETO. 
 
 Ing-Jen] iohtmn. 
 
 liigliH I'. Heaty, 2 A. R. 4r»3, followed. See 
 Ro HdiiHlierger- Hoiisborgor r. Krntz, 
 lOO. R. Ml 718 
 
 Ingram v. Taylor, 4(5 Q. B. 62, iiffirined. 
 
 See S. C, 7 A. R. 216 870 
 
 IngB V. Bank of Prince Edward Island, 11 
 S. C. R., followed. See Coats v. 
 Kelly, 15 A. K. 81 818, 1981 
 
 , 11 S. O. R. 
 
 265, followed. See In re Central 
 Bank of Canada — Yorko's Case, 15 
 O. R. 625 1912 
 
 Irving V. Morrison, 27 C. V. 242, approved. 
 Sec Badgley v. Dickson, 13 A. R. 
 494 52, 1389 
 
 Irwin r. Bank of Montreal, 38 Q. B. 376, 
 followed. See Book v. Book, 15 0. 
 R. 119 710 
 
 Ivey I!. Knox, 8 O. R. 635, 648, not fol- 
 lowed. See Burns v. Mackav, 10 0. 
 R. 167 ' 793 
 
 Jack V. Jack, 10 O. R. 1 ; affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 12 A. R. 476 234, 756 
 
 Jackson r. Bowman, 14 Chy. 156, remark- 
 ed upon, distinguished and approved. 
 See Davidson v. Maguire, 7 A. R. 
 
 98 812 
 
 applied. See Collard o. Bennett, 28 
 Chy. 556 814 
 
 r. Hammond, 8 P. R. 157, re- 
 ferred to. See Cole c. Hall, 13 P. 
 R. 100 1174 
 
 Jacob V. Lawrence, L. R. (Ir. ) C. A. 582, 
 cited and relied on. See Wells t: 
 Llndop, (2) 14 0. R. 275 504 
 
 Jacques r. Millar, 6 CI;. D. 153, comment- 
 ed upon. See Maivin c. Graver, 8 
 0. R. 39 1155 
 
 James v. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co., 
 12 O. R. 624, affirmed. See S. C. , 15 
 A. R. 1 1761 
 
 ,120. R. at 
 
 p. 630, followe;'. See Pryce and the 
 City of Toronto, 16 0. R. 726 .... 2134 
 
 Jamieson v. Lang, 7 P. R. 404, approved of. 
 See Sheppard v. Kennedy, 10 P. R. 
 242 1210 
 
 V. Harker, 18 Q. B. 599, distin- 
 guished. See Farquhar i: Robert- 
 son, 13 P. R. 156 379 
 
 Jarrard, In re, 4 O. R. 265 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 20 C. L. J. 145 437 
 
 Jar vis v. Cook, Re, 29 Chy. 303, considered 
 and commented on. See Donovan i\ 
 Herbert, 9 0. 11. 89 122 
 
 V. Grsat Weste-n R. W. Co., 8 C. P. 
 
 280, follo'ved. See Stivenson v. City 
 
 of Kingston, 31 C. P. 333 1946 
 
 V. Jones, 4 P. R 341, referred *-). See, 
 
 Re, Chatham Harvester Co. v. Camp- 
 bell, 12 P. R. 666 687 
 
 Jellett V. Anderson, 27 Chy. 411, 7 A. R. 
 
 341, reversed. See S. C., 9 S. C. R. 1, 747 
 
 -Jenninga o. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 15 
 A. R. 477; affirmed. See S. C, 13 
 App. Cas. 800 1396, 1790 
 
 Jes-Kee] column. 
 
 JesBup >•. Orand Trunk R. W. Co., 28 Chy. 
 583, reversed. See S. C. 7 A. R. 
 128 1752 
 
 Jessup r. (Jrand Trunk R. \V. Co., 7 A. R. 
 123, considered. See Township of 
 Nottawasaga v. Hamilton and North 
 Western 1!. W. Co., 16 A. R. 52. . . . 1813 
 
 Johniion c. Hope, 17 A. R. 10 ailhered to. 
 
 See Ashley r. Brown, 17 A. R. 500. . 791 
 
 followed. See Gibbons v. 
 
 McDonald, 19 O. R. 2JK) ; 18 A. R. 
 
 159 791 
 
 Followed. Sec Lamb m. Young, 19 
 
 O. 11. 104 791 
 
 Johnson and Toronto Grey and Bruce R. 
 W. Co., 8 P. R. 635, followed. See 
 Hendrie c. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 
 
 2 O. R. 441 1804 
 
 Johnston i: Shortreed, 12 0. R. 633, fol- 
 
 lowed. Sec Steinhoff v. McRae, 13 
 
 O. R. 546 656, 1818, 2018, 202,3 
 
 Joint Stock Discount Co. i". Brown, L. R. 
 
 3 Eq. 139, followed. See Re Bar- 
 wick and lot three on the north side 
 of King Street in the City of Toronto, 
 
 5 O. R. 710 2070 
 
 Jones, Re -Eyre y. Cox, 46 L. J. N. S. Ch. 
 316, followed. See St. Louis v. O'Cal- 
 laghan, 13 P. R. 322 1644 
 
 V. Festiniog R. W. Co., L. R. 3 Q. 
 
 B. 733, followed. See Furlong v. 
 Carroll, 7 A. R. 145 749 
 
 V. (Jallon, 9 P. R. 296, superseded 
 
 by McLaughlin v. Moore, 10 P. R. 
 326 620, 863 
 
 Jones r. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 16 A. 
 R. 37, affirmed. See S. C. 18, S. C. 
 R. 696 1779 
 
 Jones c. Just, L. R. 3 Q. B. 197, cited and 
 followed. See Mooers v. Gooderham 
 and WortB (Limited), 14 O. K. 451 . . 2094 
 
 r. Monte Video Gas Co., 5 Q. B. D. 
 
 556, followed. See Lyon v. McKay, 
 
 10 P. R. 557 640 
 
 Followed. See Moxley v. Canada 
 Atlantic R. W. Co., 11 P. R. 39. . . . 640 
 
 Jones V. Stanstcad H. W. Co., L. R. 4 P. 
 
 C. 98, distinguished. See Corpora- 
 tion of Parkdale v. West, 12 App. 
 Cas. 602 1757 
 
 Jordan v. Dunn, 13 O. R. 267, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 15, A. R. 744 2208 
 
 Joseph Hall Manufacturing Co v. Hazlitt, 
 8 O. K. 465, affirmed. See S. C. 11 
 A. R. 749 1859 
 
 Joyce V. Hart, 1 S. C. R. .S21, referred to 
 as over-ruled. See Monette v. Lefe- 
 
 bore, 16 S. C. R. 387 1996 
 
 Reviewed and approved. See Levi 
 
 V. Reed, 6 C. R. 482 1996 
 
 JuBon V. Gardiner, 11 Chy. 23, distin- 
 guished. See Cole ». Hall, 13 P. R. 
 100 1174 
 
 Keefer v. Merril, 6 A. R. 121, approved 
 of. See McCausland v. McCfallnm, 
 3 0. R. 305 752 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETO. 
 
 Kee-Kln] comimn. 
 
 Keefir r. McKay 29 Chy. 102, !) A. 1{. 
 
 Il7i I'ovoisfd. See S. C. Hub noin. , 
 
 iNIorcliiints' Hank r. Kcefer 13 8. (.'. 
 
 K. r.l.-) 2181 
 
 Kchoe r. Urowii, 13 C. P. 549, observed 
 
 upon. .Sue Diiby v. Cehl, 18 0. R. 
 
 134 532, 553 
 
 Keith r. Keith, 25 C'liy. 1 10, consiflereil. 
 
 Sue Riiigro.se r. HiiigroHe, 10 P. U. 
 
 2!M» 890 
 
 Keleher r. Me<iil)))(>n, 10 P. R. 89, ex- 
 
 phiineil. Nee McLaren v. Canada 
 
 Central H. \V. Co., 10 P. R. 328 . . . 1080 
 Kelly I'. Iini)crial [.imn and Investment Co. 
 
 of Caiiiid.i, II .A. R. 520, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 11 S. C. R. 510 1302 
 
 Kelly. Ottawa Street R. W. Co., 3 A. 
 
 R. 010, referred to and followed. See 
 
 May ('. Ontario and Quebec R. \V, 
 
 Co., 10 0. R. 70 1801 
 
 Kendall ('. Hamilton, 4 App. (^as. at p. 
 51.'! et secj. followed. See Toi'onto and 
 Hamilton Navigation Co. ('. Sileox, 
 12 P. R. 022 1004 
 
 Kennedy r. Brown, 13 C. B. N. S. 677, 
 eommenti'd upon. See Regina r. 
 Doutre, 9 App. Cas. 745 148 
 
 KcoHijh r. Price, 27 C. P. 309, remarked 
 upon. See IJriscoU r. (Jreen, 8 A. 
 
 R.300 189 
 
 Comnientod on. See Barber r. Mac- 
 pher.son, 13 A. R. 350 188 
 
 Kerr I'. Styles, 20 Chy. 309, followed. See 
 
 Johnson r. Bennett, 9 P. R. 337 098, 
 
 1007, 1290 
 
 Kidderminister, Mayor, etc., of, r. Hard- 
 wick. L. K. Ex. 18, cited. See 
 Laurence v. Village of Luckuow, 13 
 O. R. 421 2248 
 
 Kicly, Re, 13 O. R. at p. 457, followed. 
 
 See Reyina v. Webster, 10 t). K. 187. 1.349 
 
 Kilbourn «'. Arnold, 27 Chy. 429, reversed. 
 
 See S. (;. 6, A. R. 158 1946 
 
 Kincaid r. Kincaid, 12 P. R. 462, distin- 
 guished. See Trust and Loan {,'o. r. 
 
 Uorsline, 12 P. R. 054 700 
 
 Distinguished. See Re Hrooktield 
 and tiie Trustees of Public School 
 Section No. 12 of the Township of 
 Brooke, 12 P. R. 485 1232 
 
 Kiug V. Davenport, 4 Q. B. D. 402, distin- 
 guislicd. See Bank of Minnesota c. 
 Page, 14 A. R. 347 359, 1651 
 
 — — V. Duncan, 9 P. R. 01, followed. See 
 Canadian Land and Emigration Co. v. 
 Municipality of Dysart, 11 P. R. 51 1508 
 
 King's County Election (Dom.)— Dickie v. 
 VVcodsworth, 8 S. C. R. 192, follow- 
 ed. SeeCloucfstLr Election (Dom.) — 
 Commeauj;. Burns, 8 S. C. R. 204.. 1523 
 
 Kingston, City of /'. Canada Life Assce. 
 Co., 18 O. 1!. 18, reversed. See S. 
 C, 19 0. R. 453 61 
 
 Kinsey r. Roche, 8 1*. R. 515, approved. 
 See McDerniid i\ McDermid, 15 A. 
 
 R.287 539 
 
 Over-ruleil. See, Re, (ilraham v. 
 Tomliuson, 12 1'. R. 307 539 
 
 Kin-Lan] ooi.itmn. 
 
 Kinsman r. Rouse, 17 Chy. D. 104, not fol- 
 lowed. See Pau'dU I'. Harper, 9 A. 
 R. 537 . '. 1 190 
 
 Kirkstall Brewing Co. v. Furnesa R. \V. 
 Co., L. I!. 9 Q. B. 408, followed. See 
 Anderson r. Canadian Pacific R. \V. 
 Co. , 17 O. U, 747 055, 1792 
 
 Kissoek i: Jarvis, 9 it!. P. 150, approved 
 and followed. See Beaumont r. 
 Cramp, 45 y. B. 355 187 
 
 Kitching i: Hicks, 6 O. R. 739, followed. 
 
 See Robins(ui r. Cook, O. R. 590. 753 
 
 Kitson i: Julicn, 4 E. & B. 854, followed. 
 Wickens r. MoMockin, 15 O. R. 
 408 1701 
 
 Klein r. Union Fire Ins. Co., 3 O. I!. 234, 
 di.stiuguished. See Roddick i: Sau- 
 geen Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 15 A. R. 
 
 303 955 
 
 Followed. See Bull r. North British 
 Canadian Investment C'o. , 15 A. R, 
 421 942 
 
 Klu'pferc. (tardner, lOO. R. 415, reversed. 
 See S. C, 14 A. R.OO, and S. C, sub. 
 noni. Carcbicr r. Kla-pfer, 15 8. C. R. 
 390 Ill 
 
 Knapp v. Noyes, Ainb. 602, considereil 
 aud commented on. See Cook v. 
 Noble, 12 O. R. 81 2212 
 
 Knight r. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 13 P. R. 
 388, distinguished. See Leach v. 
 Grand Trunk R. W. Co. (2) 13 P. R. 
 
 467 630 
 
 Followed. See Fowle r. Canadian 
 Pacific, R. W. Co. . 1 3 P. R. 40 630 
 
 r. Mcdora, Re, 11 O. R. 138, re- 
 versed in part. See .S. C, 14 A. R. 
 112 542 
 
 — 14 A. R. 112, fol- 
 
 lowed. See Re Graham r. Tondin- 
 son, 12 P. R. 307 542 
 
 Knowlden r. The Queen, 5 B. & S. .5,32, 
 followed. Regina r. Burnett, 17 0. 
 R. 049 441 
 
 Konklo, Re, 14 0. R. 183, considered. See 
 
 VVylie r. Frampton, 17 O. R. 515.. 873 
 
 Labatt i: Bixell, 28 Chy. 593, followed. 
 
 See Heaman c. Scale, 29 Chy. 278 . , 828 
 
 Lamb i\ Bank of Toronto, 12 App. Cas. 
 575, distinguiahed. See Pigeon v. 
 Recoi'der's Couit and the City of 
 Montreal, 17 S. V. I!. 495 314 
 
 Lanark and Drnmmond Plank Road Co. v. 
 Bothwell, 2 U. C. L. J., O. S. 229, 
 not followed. See Hudson Bay Co. 
 r. Hamilton, l.J P. R. 401 1008 
 
 Lancey v. Merchants' Bank, 10 O.R. 109?i, 
 followed. See Burns r. MuKay, 10 
 O. R. 167 793 
 
 Lane, Re, 9 P. R. 25 1 , followed. See Re 
 
 Delanty, 13 P. R. 143 912 
 
 Lang V. Kerr, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 529, fol- 
 lowed. See Wood v. Hurl, 28 Chy. 
 146 819, 1979 
 
 Langdon (•. Robertson, 12 P. R. 139, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Gabouric — Casey v. 
 Gabourie, 12 P. ]i. 252 30 
 
 3 
 
 r 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 * 
 
 4 
 
 1 ,. 
 
 ,i?. 
 
m 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETO. 
 
 i! 
 
 Lan-Lem] column. 
 
 Laiigtiy i: Dumoulin, 7 O. H. 490, uf 
 tiiintd. McuS. C, 7 (). K. (U4, ami 
 H. <'., (tulnidiii. DuiiKiiilin i\ Liuijjtry, 
 
 la s. c. K. '_':w -J-'H 
 
 Laiilaiitu ('. I'(;t<;il)«ioiigh, 5 O. K. (l.'{4, 
 apurovod. Sue Re UHtrom and the 
 Townsliii. of Sidney, 15 A. R. 37'2 . '.'128 
 
 LawloHH r. SHllivaii. 3 S. ('. R. 117, rc- 
 
 veiHuil. (Sui) S. C.,<i App, Ua». 373.. 61 
 
 (I App. Cm. 373, spe- 
 cially rofcn-ed to. Sue City of Kinga- 
 ton r. Canada Life Asauranco Co., 
 19 O. R. 4,J3 61 
 
 Lttwlor /•. Lawlor, (i A. R. 312, levorsed. 
 
 See .S. C, 10 .S. C. R. 194 1275 
 
 10 S. C. R. 194, distin- 
 
 guislied. See Carter ''. (Jrasett, 14 
 
 A. R. 685 1177 
 
 Lawrence r. Faux, 2 F. & F., 435, distin- 
 gntslied. See Gault r. .Shepard, 14 
 
 A. R. 203 1150 
 
 Lavin i.\ Lavin, 27 Chy. 567, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 7 A. R. 197 767 
 
 , 7 A. R. 197, 
 
 followed. See Irwin i: Young, 28 
 
 Chy. 511 768,784 
 
 Lawaon c. Laidlaw, 3 A. R. 77, followed. 
 
 See Sievewright i: Leys, 28 Cliy. 498 728 
 Lazarus v. Corporation of Toronto, 19 Q. 
 
 B. 9, commented on and diatinguiah- 
 ed. See Landreville c. Gouin, 6 O. 
 
 R. 455 1388,2145 
 
 Lea, Re, 21 C. L. J. 154, followed. See 
 
 Re Philbricli and Ontario and Quebec 
 
 R. VV. Co. , 1 1 P. R. 373 1762 
 
 L«ach i\ (Jrand Trunk R. W. Co., 13 P. 
 
 R. 388, reversed. See S. C. 13 P. R. 
 
 467 32,858 
 
 Followed. See Fowle r. Canadian 
 
 Pacific R. \y. Co. (2), 13 P. R. 467 . . 6.30 
 Learning i\ Woon, 7 A. R. 42, dissented 
 
 from. Sec Stuart r. Grough, 15 A. 
 
 R. 299 88, 699 
 
 Lee V. Abdy, 17 Q. B. D. 309, followed. 
 
 See Toronto General Trusts Co. r. 
 
 Sewell, 17 O. R. 442 761, 1004 
 
 V. MacMahon, 2 O. R. 654, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 1 1 A. R. 555 776 
 
 Lefroy i*. Burnside, 4 L. R. (Ireland) 556, 
 referred to. See Wills v. Carman, 17 
 O. R. 223 515 
 
 Legacy v. Pitcher, 10 O. R. 620, followed. 
 
 See Bond i: Conmee, 15 0. R. 716. 1123, 
 
 1589 
 
 Leicester r. Grazebrook, 40 L. T. N. S. 
 883, approved and followed. See Re 
 Citizens' Ina. Co. and Henderson, 13 
 P. II. 70 45 
 
 Leitch V. Grand Trunk U. W. Co., 12 P. R. 
 541, reversed and affirmetl in part. 
 See S. C. 12 P. R. 671 629 
 
 Lemay r. McRae, 16 O. H. .307, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 16 A. R. 348 50 
 
 Lemon v. Lemon, 6 P. R. is4 discussed. 
 See Foster v. VanWornier, 12 P. R. 
 597 688 
 
 Let-Lon] column. 
 
 Lcthieallieur /•. Tracv, 3 Atk. 7fKJ, fol- 
 lowed. See Stobljort /'. GuardhoUHu, 
 
 7 0. R. 2;»9 2170 
 
 Lett r. ('onini'-rcial Hank, 24 Q. li. <V)2, 
 
 distingui 4110(1. See Ingram r, Taylor, 
 46Q. B. .52, 870 
 
 w. St. Lawrence ami Ottawa R. VV. 
 
 Co. 1 O. R. 545, reversed. See S. C. 
 
 11 A. It. 1 : II S. C. R. 422 1396 
 
 Letton r. (Joodden, L. R. 2 Kq. 130, fol- 
 lowed. >See Hamilton and Milton 
 Rood Co. /'. liaspberry, 13 (). H. 
 466 925, 2151 
 
 Levi r. Reed, 6 S. C. R. 482, overruled. 
 iSee Monette r. Lefebvre, 16 S. C. R. 
 387 
 
 Lewin r, Wilson, 9 .S. C. R. 6.37, reversed. 
 
 See .S. C. , II App. Cas. 639 1190 
 
 Lewia r. Great Western H. W. Co., 3 Q. 
 
 B. I). 195, considered. See Dixon c. 
 Richelieu Navigation t!o., 15 A. R. 
 
 647 21.3 
 
 Lewis i: Hoare, 44 C. L. T. N. S. CO, fol- 
 lowed. See I'etrie i: Hunter, Gnuat 
 V. Hunter, 2 O. R. 2.33 2249 
 
 License Commiaaioncrs of North Riding, 
 of the County of Norfolk c. Norfolk, 
 14 O. R. 749, concurred in. See 
 License C^'ommiasionera for Frontenac 
 V. Frontenac, 14 O. R. 741 312, 1051 
 
 Prince P]dward 
 
 V. Prince Kdward, 26 Chy. 452, con- 
 curred in. See License Commis:iioner8 
 for Frontenac v, Frontenac, 14 O. R. 
 741 312, 1061 
 
 Lincoln Election Case, H. E. C. 391, dis- 
 approved of. See North Wentworth 
 Election (Ont.)— Christie r. Stock, 
 
 H. E. V. 343 1489 
 
 Commented on. See West Sinjcoe 
 Election (Ont.)— Bedford r. Phelps, 
 1 E. C. 128 1459 
 
 Lindley v. Laccy, 17 C. B. N. S. 578, com- 
 mented on. See Betts v. Smith, 15 
 O. R. 413 .327, 655 
 
 Linfoot c. Duncombe, 21 C. P. 484, re- 
 marked upon. .See Harvey v. Pear- 
 sail, 31 C. P. 2.39 568 
 
 Lionais v. Molson'a Bank, 10 S. C. R. 527, 
 followed. See Exchange Bank of 
 Canada i\ Gilman, 17 S. C. R. 108. .32,2008 
 
 Livernois v. Bailey, 12 P. R. 535 ; affirm- 
 ed. See S. C, 13 P. R. 62 33, 381 
 
 L'Islet Election— Duval /'. Casgrain, 19 L. 
 
 C. Jur. l(i, followed. See Megantiu 
 Election ( Dom. ) — Frecliette v. Goulet, 
 
 8 S. C. R. 169 1509 
 
 London and Canadian L. & A. Co. v. 
 Morphy, 14 A. R. .577, followed. See 
 Honsii>ger «'. Love, 16 O. R. 170. 
 ...1081, 1253, 1541 
 
 London and Canadian Loan Co. v. Wallace, 
 8 O. R. .539, distinguished. See Gor- 
 don V. Gordon, 11 O. R. 611 2075 
 
 London Mutual Ins. Co. v. City of Lon- 
 don, 11 O. R. 592 ; albnned. See 
 S. C, 15 A. R. 629 69 
 
 Lon-Mac] 
 
 Londonderry 
 forrod t 
 Klectioi 
 llagar, 
 
 Longcway i: 
 sideretl 
 (', ("ami 
 Folio wt 
 12 A. H 
 
 Long i>. Hant 
 137, re 
 R. 532 
 
 Long Point ( 
 R. 487, 
 401,... 
 
 Lord LiflTord i 
 Diatingi 
 ri; 'in, 9 
 
 Louiit r. ( 'am 
 R. 433, 
 Canada 
 (). R. (il 
 
 Lovcll ''. (lilii 
 upon. 
 R. 3(i3 
 
 Lowson /•. (' 
 Ins. Co. 
 .S. C, 6 
 
 Lumsden n. I 
 Sec S. C 
 
 Lyon ('. Fish 
 Cas. 662 
 R. W. t 
 
 Lyttle I'. Broi 
 from. ( 
 R. 432 
 
 Lytton V. (!r 
 &.T 
 St. I'l 
 Co. 1 
 
 Maberly v. 
 See 1): 
 
 Macara v. 
 ap])lic 
 bairn, 
 
 Macdonald 
 guishe 
 
 •MU 
 
 G 
 
 15 
 
 A. B 
 
 - V. ( 
 
 107 
 
 - 1). 
 593 
 
 R. £ 
 
 R. 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 C. 
 
 lowed. 
 R. 3.52 
 
 tinguis 
 re Mill 
 
 varied. 
 
 MaoDougall 
 KK), re 
 MacDi 
 Can:uli 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVEBSED, ETC. 
 
 ciU 
 
 .UMN. 
 
 .2170 
 870 
 1395 
 
 IISO 
 
 Lon-Mac] co> umn. 
 
 Londonilurry Case, 1 O'M. & H. '27H, re- 
 foiTcd to mill followed. Soo I'rugoott 
 Kleotion ( Ont. ) — Cuniiiii>;liam r. 
 llagar, I K. t!. 88 1459 
 
 Longcwuy c Mitcholl, 17 Cliy. 19<), con- 
 gidvt'ud and followed. Huo Caiiiii))ull 
 
 r. Ciiinplifll, 21> (;iiv. 'J.V2 8'_>0, I(i31 
 
 Followed. Sec Maudniiald v. McCuU, 
 
 12 A. H. .")!»3 822 
 
 Long 1'. }Iancock, 7 O. R. I. '54 ; 12 A. H. 
 
 137, leveraud. See S. C, 12 S, ('. 
 
 R. .)32 80!) 
 
 Long Point Co. r. Anderson, In re, H) O. 
 
 R. 487, reversed. S. C, 18 A. R. 
 
 401 1716 
 
 Lord LifTord v. I'owys-Keck, 30 Heav. 300, 
 
 Diatinguished, See Morrison o. Mor- 
 
 ri Ml, it O. R. 223 2166 
 
 Louiiti'. (^anaili i'iirniors' Ins. Co., 8 V. 
 R. 4;i3, ovuiTult'd. Seo l.owsun r. 
 Canaila Farmers' Mutual Ins. Co., 8 
 O. R. (il3 ()!)1, 079 
 
 Lovcll r. 011)801), P. R. 132, commentod 
 ujioii. (Sue Meyers ('. Kendriuk,9P. 
 R. 3(i3 (iH4 
 
 Low.son i: Canada Fanners' Mutual Fire 
 Ins. Co., 28 Cliy. 52."), reversed, .^ee 
 S. C, « A. R. 512 (191, 97S, 979 
 
 Lumsden r. IJavies, 40 Q. H. 1, altirnied. 
 
 Sue S. C. 11 A. R. 585 1854 
 
 Lyon e. Fishmongers' Company, 1 A pp. 
 Cas. 662, followed. Sue North Slioro 
 R. W. Co. ('. Pion, 14 App. Cas. 012, 1749, 
 
 2195 
 
 Lyttle V. Rroddy, 10 (). R. 5,">(), dissented 
 from. See Donovan r. Hogan, 15 A. 
 R. 432 83 
 
 Lytton V. (Jreat Western R. \V. Co., 2 K. 
 & J. 394, distingaished. S''e City of 
 St. Thomas r. Credit Vali • R. W. 
 Co. 12 A. R. 273 1976 
 
 Mabcrly i>, Turton, 14 Ves. 499, followed. 
 
 See Donald v. Donald, 7 O. R. (>{)9 . . 2210 
 
 Macara i'. (twynne, 3 Chy. 310, held, in- 
 applicable. Seo Thompson i'. Fair- 
 bairn, 10 P. R. 533 730 
 
 Macdonald r. Hoico, 12 Chy. 48, distin- 
 guished. See Howernum i\ Phillips, 
 15A. R. 679 706 
 
 1'. Crombie, 2 O. R. 243; 10 A. 
 
 R. 0'\ affirmed. Seo S. C, 11 S. C. 
 
 R. 107 830 
 
 V. McCall, 9 (). R. 185; 12 A. 
 
 R. 593; altirnied. See S. C, 13 S, 
 
 Mac-McD] COLUMN. 
 
 Macflo v. Hutchinson, In re, 12 P. R. 41, 
 
 nttirmeil. Sue S. (!., 12 P. R. H57 . 848 
 
 i\ Pearson, 8 0. R. 745, hel.l not 
 
 binding. Sue Standard Ins. Co. r, 
 Hughes, 1 1 P. R. 220 1017 
 
 Mackudie c. Watt, decided iii appeal, 28th 
 Nov., IH8I, followed. Sue lleainun 
 r. Scale, 29 (Jliy. 278 828 
 
 Maclennan r. Cray, 10 O. R. .321, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 16 A. R. 224, 
 reversed. Sue S. (;., sub noni. (!ray 
 r. Cou^ ; ill, 18 S. C. R. 553 . . . .561, 18.30 
 
 McAndrcw i' Parker, 7 Chy. 701, dia- 
 cussed. >ice Whiting v. Hovoy, 12 
 A. R. 119 1023 
 
 McAr'l nr !•. N' I'thern an'l i'acifii Junc- 
 •' lU R. W. Co., 15 ). R. 733, affirm- 
 ed. See S. C, 1 ; A. R. 86 1743 
 
 , 17 A. R. 
 
 86, n fei ii il to. See AnderKi a r. 
 Canadian Pacific l!. W. Co., 17 A. R. 
 180 1793 
 
 M(;t;all c. Wolfl, 13S, C. R. 1.30, anproved, 
 di.siiiigul»lied iiud fo'l'iweil. .See 
 Hovey i\ Whiting, 14 .S. C, H. 515. . 194 
 
 Me'Jalluni r. (Jiand Trunk R, W. Co., 31 
 Q. 11. .V27 referred to and fol.owed. 
 See May r. Ontario and Quebec R. 
 W. Co. , 10 (>. R. 70 1801 
 
 ('. MeCalhim, UP. R. 170, dis- 
 tinguished. Sue Gall u. Collins, 12 
 P. R4I3 .389 
 
 i: Provincial Ins. Co., 6 P. R. 
 
 101, followed. See Davies v. Hub- 
 bar.l, 10 P. R. 148 2041 
 
 McCartur r. McCarter, 7 O. R. 243, dis- 
 tinguished. See Re C'rowter — Crow- 
 ter i: Hinnian, 10 O. R. 1.59 720 
 
 McCarthy i\ Arbuckle, 31 C. P. 227, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 31 C. P. 405. .897, 1675 
 
 i: Cooper, 8 O. R. 316 ; alKrmed. 
 
 See S. C, 12 A. R. 284 1693, 1876 
 
 McCanl r. Theal, 28 Chy. 48, followed. 
 
 See Partlo i\ Todd, 12 O. R. 171 ... . 2028 
 
 McClung I). McCracken, 2 O. R. 609, af- 
 
 Hrined. See S. C, 3 0. R. 596, 1874, 1966 
 
 McConkey i: Town of Rrockville, il O. R. 
 322, followed. .See Welsh h. City of 
 St. Catharines, 13 0. K. 369 2113 
 
 C. R. 247. 
 
 822 
 
 -, 12 A. R. 59.3. fol- 
 
 lowed. See Rae r. McDonald, 13 O, 
 
 R. 352 822 
 
 V. Piper, 10 P. R. 586, distin- 
 
 tinguished. See Millar c. Cline — In 
 
 re Millar, 12 P. R. 155 1959 
 
 V. Worthington, 7 A. 1!. 531, 
 
 varied. See S. C, 9 S. C. R. 327 . . 1537 
 
 MaoDougall, Re, 13 O. R. 204; 15 A. R. 
 KK), reversed. See S. C, sub noni. 
 MacDougall i'. Law Society of Upper 
 Cauida, 18 S. C. R. 203 19.35 
 
 337 
 
 89 
 
 McCraney r. McCool, 19 0. R. 470 ; 
 allinned. See S. C, 18 A. R. 217. . 
 
 V. McLeod, 10 P. R. 539, ex- 
 plained and followed. See Parker v. 
 Howe, 12 P. R. 351 
 
 McCracken c. Creawick, 8 P. R. 501, fol- 
 lowed. Sou In re Widmeyer o. Mc- 
 
 Mahon, 32 C. P. 187 537 
 
 Referred to and distinguished. See 
 Re Young i: Morden, 10 P. R. 
 276 537 
 
 McCrea c. Whyte, 7 A. R. 103 ; atlirined. 
 SeeS. C, aubnom. McCraev. Whyte, 
 9S. C. R. 22 124 
 
 McDerniid v. :McDerniid, 15 A. R 287. 
 followed. See Moses i: Moses, 13 
 P. R. 12 539 
 
civ 
 
 OASES AITIBMED, BEVEBSED, ETC. 
 
 MCD-Mcl] <■»• COLUMN. 
 
 McDonald?'. Field, fl P. R. 229, revefscd. 
 
 See S. ('., 12 R R. 213 1G72, 1942 
 
 u. Foiristal, 20 Cliy. 300, af- 
 
 rmeil. See S. C, » S. C. R. 12 ... 
 V. McKinnon, '20 Cliy. 12, com- 
 
 menteil on. See Parker v. Pivrker, 32 
 
 C. P. 113 
 
 r. Murray, 2 O. R. 573, reversed. 
 
 Sees. C. 11 A. R. 101 
 
 followed, 
 
 680 
 
 1880 
 
 per Cameron, ('. J. Sec McCrae v. 
 IJacker, 9 0. R. 1 1880 
 
 r. Stuekey, 31 Q. B. 577, fol- 
 
 lowetl. See Bond v. Conmee, 15 0. 
 R.71(; 1120 
 
 r. Wright, 14 Chy. 284, distin 
 
 !l 
 
 guished. See Cole r. Hall, 13 P. K. 
 
 100 1174 
 
 McDonald, McDonald & Mar.sh, He, 8 P. 
 15. 88, approved. See Re Cronyn, 
 Kew & Betts, 8 P R. 372 1299 
 
 McDou^jiiU (I. Lindsay ^ aper Mill Co. , 10 
 P. R. 247, referred to. Sec Rowland 
 V. Burwell, 12 P. R. G07 1315, 1660 
 
 McDougald r. Thomson, 13 P. H. 256, fol- 
 lowed. See Simpson v. Murray, 13 
 P. R. 418 1652 
 
 McEwan v. MoLeod, 46 Q. B. 2.35, affirm- 
 ed. See S. C, 9 A. R. 239 46, 1927 
 
 , 9 A. R. 2.39, followed. 
 
 See Shepherd v. Canadian Piicitie R. 
 
 W. Co., 11 P. R. 517 46 
 
 McGarvey v. Town of Stratliroy, 10 A. R. 
 636, discussed. See Pratt v. City of 
 Stratford, 14 U. R. 260 2137 
 
 McGee v. Campbell, 28 Chy. .308, reversed. 
 
 SeeS. C.,2 0. R. 130 127 
 
 McGibbon r. Northern B. \V. Co., 11 O. 
 R. 307, reversed. See S. C, 14 A. 
 K. 91 1788 
 
 McGowan i: Middleton, 11 Q. B. D. 404, 
 followed. Sec Emerson v. Geaiin, 
 12 P. R. .39!) .363 
 
 McGregor r. (Jaulin, 4 Q. B. 378, consid- 
 ered and ilistingui-^heil. See Taylor 
 V. Magrath, 10 O. I!. 609 'J079 
 
 V. McNeil, 32 C. P. 5,38, followed. 
 
 See Jvjiuiston D. Sliortreed, 12 O. R. 
 
 633 2018 
 
 ('. Norton, l!e, 13 P. I!. 28, re- 
 versed. See S. C. 13 1'. R. 223 .... 550 
 
 V. Stuart, 5 P. R. 56, referred 
 
 to. See lie Chatham Harvester Co. 
 
 r. Camphell, 12 1". R. 606 687 
 
 McGuin IK Fretts, 13 <). R. (i99, followed. 
 See Stuart c. (iroiigh, 14 O. 11. 2,")5 
 
 227, 1820 
 
 McHardy r. Ellice, 1 A. It. ((28, followed. 
 See Township of North Dorchester i'. 
 County of Middlesex, 16 O. R. 658, 2139 
 
 Mclnnes v. Macklin, 6 U. (;. L. J. O. S. re- 
 ferred to. See (iilbert v. Stiles, 13 
 P. R. 121 
 
 Mclntee v. McCulloch, 2 E. & A. 390 re- 
 ferred to and followed. See 'J'odd v. 
 Dun, Wiman & Co. 15 A. R. 85 ... . 
 
 56 
 
 501 
 
 McI-McM] coLCMir. 
 
 Mcintosh V. Rogers, 12 P. R. 389, fol- 
 lowed. See Bobitr and Ontario In- 
 vestment Association, 16 U. R. 259 
 
 1891, 2089 
 
 McKay v. Crysler, 3 S. C. R. 436, dis- 
 cussed. See .Jclfery P. Hewis, 9 O. 
 
 R. 364 80 
 
 Distinguisiied. See Nelles v. White, 
 
 29 Chy. 338 62 
 
 V. Grinley, 30 Q. B. 54, dissented 
 
 from. See Caughill t'. Clarke, 3 O. 
 
 m 
 
 R. 269 
 
 — V. Magee 
 
 13 P. R. 106, affirmed. 
 See S. Cr, 13 P. R. 146 
 
 McKenna v. Smith, 10 Chy. 40, followed. 
 
 See Hcaman c. Scale, 29 Chy. 278.. 
 McKenzie v. Dwight, 2 0. R. 366, affirmed. 
 
 Sc'jS. C. U A. R. 381 
 
 V. Kittridge, 27 C. P. 65; 24 
 
 V. 1, affirmed. See S. C. 4 S. C. 
 
 1S6 
 
 373 
 
 828 
 
 772 
 
 c;. 
 
 R. 368 260- 
 
 McLachlin r. Blackburn, 7 P. R. 287, dis- 
 sented from See Meyers v. Ken- 
 drick, 9 P. R. 363 684 
 
 McLaren c. Canada Central H. W. Co., 
 32 C. P. 324, affirmed. See S. C, 8 
 A. R. 564 1786 
 
 r. Caldwell, 29 Chy. 438, dis- 
 sented from. See MeGarvey v. 
 Town of Strathroy, 6 O. R. 138 .700, 927 
 
 LcLean v. Brown, 15 O. H. 313, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 16 A. R. 106 1867 
 
 I". Clydesdale Banking Co., 3 App. 
 
 Cas. 95, distinguished. See Ryan v. 
 McKerral, 16 O. R. 460 
 
 V. Garland, 32 C. P. 524, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 10 A. R. 405, reversed. 
 Sees. C, 13 S. C. R. 306 
 
 V. Hamilton Street R. W. Co., 11 
 
 P. R. 193, tolluwed. See Udell r-. 
 Bennett, 13 P. R. 10 
 
 McLeod i'. Truax, o O. S. 405, specially 
 observed upon. See O'Nedl v. Owen, 
 17 0. R. 525 
 
 McMahon i\ Barnes Order Hook No. 9 fol. 
 730 (not reported), followed. See 
 Church i: Fetter, 3 O. 11. 417 
 
 V. La very, 12 1'. R 62, dis- 
 tinguished. .See Farrun r. Hunter, 
 12 P R. .324 
 
 McMartin r. McUougall, 15 Q. B. 399, 
 conunented on. See Boldrick v. 
 Ryan, 17 A. B. 253 
 
 McMaster i'. (Jarland, 31 C. I'. 320, af- 
 lirmcd. See S. C, 8 A. R. 1 
 
 8 A. R. 1, ex- 
 
 plained. See Brown r. Jotmston, 12 
 A. R. 190 
 
 McMichael r. Wilkie, 19 O. R. 739, re- 
 versed. See .s. C, ISA. R. 4u2.. 
 
 MnMulleii i: Williams, 5 A. R. 518, re- 
 ferred to. See Ellis ('. Abell, 10 A. 
 R. 226 
 
 170 
 
 798 
 
 1612 
 
 2228 
 
 1971 
 
 2047 
 
 189 
 
 185 
 
 226 
 
 1688 
 
 658 
 
 McM-Mas] 
 
 McMurray i 
 Chamb 
 Trader! 
 
 McNabb V. 
 followe 
 son, 12 
 
 McNuughtoii 
 tinguis! 
 15 U. E 
 
 McNeely v. 
 
 conimei 
 
 15 0. B 
 
 Followe 
 
 O. R. 4 
 
 Commei 
 
 15 0. R 
 
 McQueen c. 1 
 
 29 C. P 
 
 A. R. 2 
 
 4 S. C. 
 
 McVean (.'. ' 
 
 See Rei 
 
 Followe 
 
 18 0. R. 
 
 Madden v. ( .' 
 
 See S. ( 
 
 Maddison v. i 
 
 lowed. J 
 
 6 0. R. 
 
 Magee v. Gilr 
 
 See S. C 
 
 Maguire v. S 
 
 gu ished. 
 
 S. C. RJ 
 
 Magurn v. Mi 
 
 See S. 
 Manzoni v. 
 cussed. 
 A. R. 
 Maritime 
 
 affirniet 
 Marsack v. 
 to. Set 
 520... 
 Marshall <\ i 
 ed on 
 niers v. 
 J'. M 
 
 Ba 
 
 PoUi 
 
 •y. 
 
 firmed in part. 
 299 
 
 12 O. R. 
 
 See S. ( '. 
 
 702, ttf- 
 13 O. R. 
 
 1943 
 
 See S. 
 Martin v M(i 
 SeeS. 
 
 Martin v. Mc 
 See S. C, 
 
 Mason v. At 
 19, foir 
 Mutual 
 
 Masse v. Mas 
 Sees. 
 Not toll 
 
 HP. R 
 
 Massey Mam 
 444, afl 
 446. 
 
 Masuret v. Li 
 upon ai 
 Beamer 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, BEVERSED, ETC. 
 
 '% 
 
 McM-Mas] COLUMN. 
 
 McMiirray v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 3 
 Chnmb. R. 130, referrecl to. See 
 Trailers' Hank v. Kean, 13 P. R. (50. . G25 
 
 McNabb I'. Oppenheimer, IIP. R. 214, 
 followed. Seo Re Doyle r. Hender- 
 son, 12 P. R. 38 1053 
 
 McNaughton v. Wigg, 35 Q. B. 11, dis- 
 tinguished. See Heyden r. Castle, 
 15 U. R. 257 1137 
 
 McNeely r. Mo Williams, 13 A. R. 524, 
 commented on. See IJetts r. Smith, 
 
 15 0. R. 578 655 
 
 Followed. Seo Beam v. Merner, 14 
 
 O. R. 412 6.'}2, 1556 
 
 Commented on. See Betts r. Smith, 
 
 15 0. R. 413 32; 
 
 McQueen v. Phoenix Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 
 29 C. P. 511, reversed. See S. C, 4 
 A. R. 289, but restored. See S. C. 
 4 S. C. R. (ifiO 956 
 
 McVean v. Tiffin, 13 A. R. 1, followe<l. 
 
 See Reinhart v. Shutt, 15 O. R. 325. 1171 
 
 Followed. See Re Wallis and Yokes, 
 
 18 0. R. 8 1169 
 
 Madden t\ ( 'ox, 44 Q. B. 542, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 5 A. R. 473 164 
 
 Maddiaon v. Alderson, 8 App. Cas. 467, fol- 
 lowed. See Campbell v. McKerriclier, 
 6 0. R. 86 1877 
 
 Macee v. Gilmour, 17 O. R. 620 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 17 A. R. 27 1135 
 
 Maguire v. Scott, 7 L. C. R. 451, distin- 
 guished. See Shaw v. Cadwell, 17 
 S. C. R. 357 1544 
 
 Magurn v. Magurn, 3 O. R. 570 ; affirmed. 
 
 Sees. C, II A. R. 178 887 
 
 Manzoni v. Douglas, 6 Q. B. D. 145, dis- 
 cussed. See Crawford i». Upper, l(j 
 A. R. 440 1391 
 
 Maritime Bank v. Stewart, 13 P. R. 262, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 13 P. R. 491 . . 116 
 
 Marsack v. Webber, 6 H. & N. 1, referred 
 to. See Smith c. Fleming, 12 P. R. 
 520 1148 
 
 Marshall a. Green, 1 C. P. I). 35, comment- 
 ed on and distinguished. See Sum- 
 mers V. Cook, 28 Chy. 179 2016 
 
 V. McRae, 16 O. R. 495; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 17 A. R. 1.39 1240 
 
 Martin r McAlpine, 30. R. 499, reversed. 
 
 Sees. C, 8 A. R. 675 828 
 
 Martin r. McMullen, 190.R. 230, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 20 O. R. 260 107, 843 
 
 Mason r. Agricultural Ins. Co., 18 C. P. 
 19, followed. See Reddick v. Saugcen 
 Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 14 O. ^. 506. . 967 
 
 Masse r. Masse, 10 P. R. 574, rev ,rsed. 
 
 See S. C. 11 P. R. 81 2044 
 
 Not followed. See Herring v. Brooks, 
 
 11 P. R. 16 2044 
 
 Massey Manufacturing Co., Re, 110. R. 
 444, affirmed, see S. C, 13 A. R. 
 446 259 
 
 Masuret v. Lansdell, 8 P. R. 57, remarked 
 upon and modified. See Phipps v. 
 
 Beamer, 8 P. R. 181 1024 
 
 u 
 
 Mat-Met] column. 
 
 Matheson r. Kelly, 24 C. P. 598, distin- 
 guished. See Howell »'. Listowell 
 Rink and Park Co., 13 O. R. 476. 531, 2014 
 
 Matson v. Swift, 5 Jur. 645, followed. See 
 Re Houston — Houston i\ Houston, 2 
 
 0. R. 84 128» 
 
 Matthews v. Hamilton Powder Co., 12 O. 
 
 R. 58, reversed. See S. C, 14 A. R. 
 
 260 1245 
 
 Maude v. Lowley, L. R. 9 C. P. 165, fol- 
 lowed. Sae West Simcoe Election 
 (Out.)— Bedford c. Phelps, 1 E. C. 
 128 1507 
 
 May V. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 3 C. P. 51, 
 
 reversed. See S. C, 5 A. R. 605 . 944 
 
 Mead v. Creary, Re, 8 P. R. 374, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 32 C. P. 1 542 
 
 , 8 P. R. 374, 32 C. P. 
 
 1, affirmed. See Knight r. Medora, 
 
 14 A. R. 112 542 
 
 ,32C. P. 1, followed. 
 
 See Re Graham v. 'i'omlinson, 12 P. 
 
 R. 367 542 
 
 V. O'Keefe, 16 O. R. 87 ; 15 A. R. 103, 
 
 reversed. Set S. C. sub nom. O'Keefe 
 
 V. Curran, 17 S C. R. 696 839, 1546 
 
 Mearns v. Petrolia, 28 Chy. 98, referred to. 
 See Chaplin v. Public School Board of 
 the Town of Woodstock, 16 O. R. 728 928 
 
 Meir v. Wilson, 13 P. R. 33, approved of 
 and followed. See Ford v. Landed 
 Banking and Loan Co., 13 P. R. 210. 738 
 
 Mercer, Ex parte, 17 Q. B. D. 290, dis- 
 tinguished. See Cameron V. Cusack, 
 18 O. R. 520 818 
 
 Merch. te' Bank of Canada v. Clarke, 18 
 Chy. 594, approved. See Morton v. 
 Nihan, 5 A. R. 20 125 
 
 V. Lucas, 13 O. 
 
 R. .")?0, reversed. See S. C, 15 A. 
 
 R. .".73 599 
 
 Distiiiguislied. See Saderquist v. On- 
 tario Bank, 14 0. R. 686 136, 1127 
 
 V. McKay, 12 
 
 O. R. 498, affirmed. See S. C, 15 S. 
 
 C. R. 672 1704 
 
 V. MofTatt, 5 0. 
 
 R. 122, affirmed. See S. C, 11 S. C. 
 
 R. 46 774 
 
 V. Smith, 8 A. 
 
 R. 15, reversed. See S. C, 8 S. C. 
 
 R. 512 142 
 
 Merchants' Bank of Halifax v. Cillespie, 
 distinguished. Sue Clarke and Union 
 Fire Ins. Co. (2), 14 0. R. 618. . .284, 304 
 
 Meriden Silver Co. v. Lee, 2 0. R. 451, 
 followed. See Macdonald v. McCall, 
 
 9 O. R. 185 822 
 
 Followed. See Kitching v. Hicks, 6 
 
 O. R. 739 184 
 
 Commented on. See Hepburn v. 
 Park, 6 0. R. 472 190 
 
 Metropolitan L. & S. Co. v. Mara, 8 P. R, 
 355, distinguished. See McKay v. 
 
 Atherton, 12 P. R. 464 688 
 
 Distinguished. See Re McLeod v. 
 Emigh, 12 P. R. 450 646, 881 
 
 
 
 Q 
 IB 
 
 n 
 
 c 
 
 E 
 
 » s 
 
€Vi 
 
 OASES AFFIBMED, SEVERSED, ETC. 
 
 
 Mey-Moi] column. 
 
 Meyers v. Kendrick, 9 P. R. at p. 366, 
 followed. See Blakeley v, Blaaae, 12 
 P. R. 565 687 
 
 . 9 P. R. 363, con- 
 firmed. See Troutman v. Fisken, 13 
 P. R. 153 684 
 
 Middlesex, County of, v. Sniallman, 19 0. 
 B. .349 ; affiimed. See S. C, 20 O. 
 R. 487 1827 
 
 Midland R. VV. Co. o. Ontario Rolling 
 Mills Co., 2 O. R. 1 ; affirmed. See 
 S. C, 10 A. R. 677 1868 
 
 — , 10 A. R. 677, follow- 
 ed. See Clayton v. McConiiell, 15 A. 
 R.608 2251 
 
 Millar V. Cliue, 12 P. R. 155, distinguished. 
 
 See Re Washington, 12 P. R. 386 . . 1956 
 
 Miller v. Confederation Life Assurance Co., 
 11 O. R. 120, aflirmed. See S. C. 
 ; ■ 14 A. R. 218 ; 14 S. C. R. .330 1000 
 
 - — V. Hamlin, 2 0. B. 103, distin- 
 guished. See Beemer v. Oliver, 
 10 A. R. 656 601 
 
 ('. Stephenson, 27 N. B. Rep. 42 ; 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 16 S. C. R. 722 2052 
 
 Milloy V. Kerr, 43 Q. B. 78, 3 A. R. 35 ; 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 8 S. C. R. 474. 142 
 Mills V. Kerr, 3 C. P. 68 ; affirmed. See 
 
 S. C.,7 A. R. 769 796 
 
 V. Scott, 5 Q. B. 360, discussed. See 
 
 Smith V. Greey, 11 P. R. 1G9 1558 
 
 Jlinshullf. Gates, 2 H. &N. 793, remarked 
 upon. See Kmmett r. Quinn, 7 A. 
 R. 306 1142 
 
 Mitchell V. City of London Assce. Co., 12 
 O. R. 706, affirmed. See S. C, 15 
 A. R. 262 976, 985 
 
 V. Goodall, 44 Q. B. 398, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 5 A. R. 164 224 
 
 Distinguished. See Smith v. Ancaster 
 Township, 45 Q. B. 86 225, 1624 
 
 , 5 A. R. 164, explained. 
 
 See Brown v. Johnston, 12 A. R. 190. 226 
 
 V. Mitchell, Mont. L. R. 3 Q. B. 
 
 191, affirmed. See S. C. 16 S. 0. R. 
 --'-722 723 
 
 V. Vandusen, 14 A. R. 517, ap- 
 proved and followed. See Wills v. 
 
 ■■ ■ Carman, 14 A. R. 656 378 
 
 Couaiderod and followed. See McDer- 
 mid r. McUermid, 15 A. R. 287 539 
 
 Moffatt V. Board of Education of Carleton 
 >'-' Place, 20 Chy. 590, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C. 5 A. K. 197 172 
 
 V. March, 3 Chy. 163, referred to. 
 
 See Cole v. Hall, 13 P. R. 100 1174 
 
 V. Prentice, 6 P. R. 33, followed. 
 
 See Bank of B. N. A. v. Eddy, 9 P 
 
 R. 296 626 
 
 V. Scratch, 6 O. R. 564, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 8 O. R. 147 66 
 
 , 8 O. R. 147, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 12 A. R. 157 66, 468 
 
 Moir, Ex parte, 21 Ch. D. 61, followed. 
 See Foster u. VanWormer, 12 P. R. 
 „, .,,597 688 
 
 Mol-Mun] coLUHN. 
 
 Molson's Bank v. Halter, 16 A. R. 323, 
 Affiimed. See S. C. 18 S. C. R. 
 88 803 
 
 Monaghun, Township of, v. Dobbin, 2 C. 
 L. T. 260. over-ruled. See McMillan 
 r. Wanshborough, 10 P. R. 377 .... 630 
 
 Monck Election Case, H. E. C. 725, com- 
 mented on and approved of. See 
 Queen's County Election (Dom.) — 
 Jenkins i\ Brecken, 7 S. C. II. 247.. 1441 
 
 , H. E. C. 154 ; 32 
 
 Q. H. 147, distinguished. See West 
 Sinicoe Election (Ont.) — Bedford v. 
 Phelps, 1 E. C. 128 1507 
 
 Monteith v. Merchants' Despatch Trans- 
 portation Co., 1 O. R. 47, affirmed. 
 See S. C, 9 A. R. 282 214, 1928 
 
 Montieal L. & M. Co. v. Fanteux, 3 S. C. 
 R. 411, 423, followed. See Exchange 
 Bank c. Gilman, 17 S. C. R. 108.... 2008 
 
 Moore, In re — McAlpine v. Moore, 21 
 Ciiy. D. 778, distinguished. See 
 Re Bush, 19 O. R. 1 723 
 
 i: (Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. 
 
 of Hartford, 41 Q. B. 107; 3 A. R. 
 •.'30, reversed. See S. C, 6 S. C. R. 
 634; 6 App. Cas. 644 1406, 1412 
 
 V. Harris, 1 App. Cas. 318, referred 
 
 to. See Hately i: Merchants' Des- 
 p.atch Transportation Co., 12 A. R. 
 201 214 
 
 r. Hynes, 22 Q. B. D. 107, distin- 
 guished. See Cumberland v. Kearns, 
 18 O. R. 151 428 
 
 »». .Jackson, 16 A. R. 431, followed. 
 
 See Canadian Bank of Commerce v. 
 Woodcock, 13 P. R. 242 876, 1069 
 
 Moorehouse r. Bostwick, 5 O. R. 104, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 11 A. R. 76 106 
 
 Moran f. Palmer, 13 C. P. 538, not follow- 
 ed. See Jones v. Grace, 17 O. R. 
 681 1123 
 
 Morphy v. Wilson, 27 Chy. 1, followed. 
 See Canipbcll v. Campbell, 29 Chy. 
 252 820, 1631 
 
 Morrison v. Moat, 9 Ha. 241, followed. 
 
 See Lean v. Huston, 8 O. R. 521 1552 
 
 V. Morrison, 9 O. R , 223 ; affirmed. 
 
 S. C, 10 0. R. 303 : 2166 
 
 Morton v. Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 Society, 10 P. R. 636, affirmed. See 
 S. C, HP. R. 82 370 
 
 Moseley, etc., Coke Co., — Re Barrett's 
 Case, 4 D. G. J. & S. 756, followed. 
 See In re The Central Bank of Cana- 
 da— Yorke's Case, 15 O. R. 625 288, 1912 
 
 Moxley v. Canada Atlantic R. W. Co., 10 
 P. R. 553, reversed. See S. C, 11 
 P. R. 39 640 
 
 , U 
 
 A. R. 309 ; affirmed. See S. C, 15 
 
 S. C. R. 145 1788 
 
 Muirhead tt. Shirriff, 25 N. B. Rep. 196 ; 
 
 affirmed. See 8. C, 14 S. C. R. 735 1918 
 
 Mundell v. Tinkis, 6 O. R. 625, foUowe'i 
 
 See Johnson v. Cline, 16 O. R. 129. . 803 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC. 
 
 cvtt 
 
 Unn-Nel] 'column. 
 
 Munro v. Butt, 8 E. & B. 738, distinguished. 
 See Lawrence v. Village of Lucknow, 
 13 O. R. 421 2248 
 
 Munsterr. Railton, 10 Q. B. D. 475; II 
 Q. B. D. 435 ; 10 App. Cas. 680 re- 
 ferred. See Young v. Parker & Co. , 
 12 P. R. (i46 549 
 
 Murdocli, Re, 9 P. R. 132. explained and 
 followed. See Re Smart Infants, 1 1 
 
 P. R. 482 .849, 910 
 
 Followed. See Re Smart Infants, 12 
 
 P. R. 2 847 
 
 Murpliy r. Halpin, Ir. R. 8 C. L. 127, dis- 
 tinguished. See Macdonell ('. Robin- 
 son, 12 A. R. 270 500 
 
 ('. Kingston and Pembroke R. \V. 
 
 Co., 11 O. R. 382, 582; affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 17 S. C. R. 582 1756 
 
 i: Murphy, 25 Chy. 81, followed. 
 
 See Ripley i\ Ripley, 28 Chy. 610 . . 563 
 
 r. City of Ottawa, 13 O. R. 334, 
 
 distinguished. See Ferguson v. 
 lioblin, 17 O. R. 167 1242, 2032 
 
 ,: Phillips, 35 L. T. N. S. 477, 
 
 distinguished. See Black v. Ontario 
 Wheel Co. , 19 0. R. 578 1248 
 
 Murray c. Dawson, 17 C. P. 588, followed. 
 .See Hepburn v. Township of Orford, 
 19 0. R. 585 2116 
 
 i: McCallum, 8 A. R. 277, dis- 
 tinguished. See Campbell i: Cole, 7 
 
 0. R. 127 878, 1075 
 
 Muskoka and Gravenhurst, Re, 6 O. R. at 
 p. 467, approved of. See Re Harvey 
 and Parkdale, 16 O. R. 372 1384 
 
 Mutual Relief Society of Nova Scotia v. 
 Webster, 20 N. S. Rep. 347, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 16S. C. R. 718.. 1000 
 
 Naah and McCraken, 33 Q. B. 181, fol- 
 lowed. See Regina v. Webster, 16 
 0. R. 187 1349 
 
 V. Worcester Improvement Commis- 
 sioners, followed, 1 Jur. N. S. 973. 
 See Hoskin i>. Toronto General Trusts 
 Co., 12 0. R. 480 347, 1977 
 
 Ifusmith V. Maiming, 5 A. K. 126 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 5 S. C. R. 417 243 
 
 5 S. C. R. 417, dis- 
 tinguished. See Re Standard Fire 
 Ins. Co. — Kelly's Case, 7 O. R. 
 204 246 
 
 National Insurance Co. v. Egleson, 29 Chy. 
 406, followed. See Re Standard 
 Fire Ins. Co.— Barber's Case, 7 O. R. 
 448 245 
 
 Neill t'. Carroll, 28 Chy. 30 ; affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 28 Chy. 3.39 1172 
 
 — -v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 31 C. P. 394; 
 7 A. R. 570 ; affirmed. See S. C, 
 12 S. C. R. 55 1005 
 
 - (I. Union Mutual, 45 Q. B. 593 ; af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 7 A. R. 171 995 
 
 Nelles V. Bank of Montreal, 28 Chy. 449 ; 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 7 A. R. 743 123 
 
 V. White, 29 Chy. 338 ; affirmed. 
 
 See 8. C, sub nom., White v. Nolles, 
 US. C. R.587 575, 1158 
 
 Nel-Nar] columit. 
 
 Nelson v. Couch, 15 C. B. N. S. 108, speci- ■■"" 
 ally referred to. Sec Davidson v. 
 Belleville and North Hastings R. W. 
 Co., 5 A. R. 315 1086 
 
 Newbury i-. Stephens, 16 Q. B. 65, fol- 
 lowed. See Lewis v. Br"dy, 17 O. K. 
 377 73 
 
 Newcombe v. Do Roos, 2 E. & E. 271, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Noble v. Cline, 18 
 O. 11.33 536 
 
 Now Westminster Brewing Co. v. Hannah, 
 24 W. R. 899, followed. See Mc- 
 Clenaghau v. Grey, 4 O. R. 329. .. . 228 
 
 Niagara Grape Co. v. Nellis, 13 P. R. 179, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 13 P. R. 258 . . 1648 
 
 Nickle ('. Douglas, 37 Q. B., 63, followed. ' ' ' 
 See City of Brantford v. Ontario In- 
 vestment Co., 15 A. R. 605 60 
 
 Noad V. Noad, 6 P. R. 48, followed. Sec 
 
 Walton i;. Wideman, 10 P. R. 228. . 1590 
 
 Nolan V. Donnelly, 4 O. R. 440, com- 
 mented on. See Hovey v. Whiting, 
 14 S. C. R. 515 194 
 
 Norman v. Hope, 13 0. R. 556, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 14 0. K. 287 1842 
 
 Norringtouw. Wright, 115 U. S. Rep. 188, 
 specially referred to. See McLean v. 
 Brown, 15 O. R. 313 1867 
 
 Norris i'. Meadows, 28 Chy. 334, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 7 A. R. 237 l""^ 
 
 North Grey Election (Out.) — Boardman v. 
 Scott, H. E. C. 343, reversed. See 
 S. C, H. E. C, 362 1488 
 
 North Ontario Election Case, H. E. C. at 
 
 pp. 317,323, followed. SeeWelland '^ 
 
 Election (Ont. )— Hobson v. Morin, 1 
 
 E. C.,383 1456 
 
 North of Scotland Mortgage Co. v. German, 
 31 C. P. 349, commented on. t^ee 
 British and Canadian Loan and In- 
 vestment Co. t>. Williams, 15 O. R. 
 366 1272 
 
 r. Udell, 46 
 
 Q. B. 511, commented on. See Bri- . . 
 tish and Canadian Loan and Invest- 
 ment Co. V. Williams, 15 O. R. 366. . 1272 
 
 North Shore Railway I'. Pion, 14 App. Cas., 
 followed. See Bigaouette v. North 
 Shore R. W. Co., 17 S. C. R. 363. . . . 1750 
 
 North Victoria Election —Cameron v. Mac- 
 lennan, H. E. C. 584, followed. See 
 Cardwell Election ( Dom. )— Hewitt v. 
 Cameron, H. E. C. 644 1437 
 
 North York Election — Patterson v, Mo- 
 loch, 32 C. P. 458, over-ruled. See 
 West Huron Election — Mitchell v. 
 Cameron, 8 S. 0. R. 126 1504 
 
 Northern Assam Tea Co., Ij. R. 5 Chy. 
 App. 644, rule as to costs suggested 
 in this case followed. See Re Alpha 
 Oil Co., 12 P. R. 298 286 
 
 North wood u. Keating, 18 Chy. 643, refer- 
 red to. See Blackley v. Kenney, 19 
 O. R. 169 1703 
 
 Nurse v. Durnford, 13 Chy. D. 764, fol- 
 lowed. See Mackay c. Macfurlane, 
 12 P. R. 149 1650 
 
 e 
 n 
 e 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
 . 9B 
 
 M 
 
 iw 
 
 •S 
 
 r 
 > 
 
 ID 
 
CTiii 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED. BEVEESED, ETC. 
 
 1733 
 
 320 
 
 Oak-Ont] column, 
 
 Oakwood High School Board and the 
 Township of Mariposa, lie, reversed. 
 See S. C. 16 A. R. 87 
 
 O'Brien, In re — Regina ex rel Felitz v. 
 Howlaud, 11 U. R. 033; 14 A. R. 
 184, reversed. See S. C, 16 S. C. 
 R. 197 
 
 V. Clarkson, 2 0. R. 525, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 10 A. R. 603 104 
 
 O'Byrue v. Campbell, 15 O. R. 339, dis- 
 tinguished. See Hepburn v. Town- 
 ship of Orford, 19 O. R. 585 2116 
 
 O'Donuell v. Confederation Life Associa- 
 tion, 21 N. S. Rep. 169, affirmed. 
 SeeS. C. 16 S. C. R. 717 
 
 O'Donohoe r. Stammers, 8 A. R. 161, af- 
 firmed. See S. C. 11 S. C. R. 
 ,; 358 
 
 996 
 
 326 
 
 t». \Vhitty,20. R. 424, affirmed. 
 
 See 20 C. L. J. 146 1937 
 
 r. Wilson, 42 (i. B. 329, com- 
 
 188 
 
 882 
 
 mented on. See Barber v. Macpher- 
 son, ISA. R. 356 
 
 Ogden V. McArthur, 36 Q. B. 346, distin- 
 guished. See Sanders r. Malsburg, 1 
 U. R. 718 
 
 O'Heron, Re, 11 P. R. 422, over-ruled. See 
 Swift i: Provincial Provident Insti- 
 tution, 17 A. R. 66 150, 1004 
 
 Oliphant r. Leslie, 24 Q. B. 398, followed. 
 See Bond v. Conmee, 15 0. R. 
 716 1122 
 
 Oliver v. Davidson, 5 A. R. 595, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 11 S. C. R. 166 2207 
 
 V. Newhouse, 32 C. P. 90, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 8 A. R. 122 1162 
 
 O'Meara r. City of Ottawa, 1 1 0. R. 603 ; 
 15 A. R. 75, ulKriued. See S. C. 14 
 S. C. R. 742 1371 
 
 Omnium Securities Co. r. Canada Fire and 
 Marine Ins. Co., I O. R. 494, observed 
 upon. See Bull c. North British 
 Canadian Investmcut Co., 15 A. 1!. 
 421 
 
 I'. Richardson, 7 O. 
 
 R. 182, affirmed. See S. C. lb. 185. 325, 
 
 1968 
 
 Ontario Bank v. Kirby, 16 C. P. 35, not 
 followed. See Molson's Bank v. Mc- 
 Meekin, Ex parte Sloan 545 
 
 c. Wilcox, 43 Q. B. 460, dis- 
 tinguished. See Kinloch v. Scribner, 
 
 14S.G.R.77 186 
 
 Commented on. See Barber v. Mac- 
 pherson, 13 A. R. 356 188 
 
 Ontario Industrial Loan and Investment 
 Co. V. Lindsay, 4 0. R. 473, reversed 
 in part. See S. C, 3 0. R. 66 
 
 Ontario Loan and Debenture Co. v. Hobbs, 
 
 15 O. R. 440, reversed. See S. C. 
 
 16 A. R. 225 
 
 942 
 
 1825 
 
 525 
 
 Ontario Natural Gas Co. and Township of 
 Oosfield South, 190. R. 591; affirmed. 
 See S. C, 18 A. R. 628 2145 
 
 591 ; affirmed. 
 628 
 
 - I'. Smart, 19 O. R. 
 See S. C, 18 A. R. 
 
 2145 
 
 Ont-Par] column. 
 
 Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co. and Taylor, 
 Re, 6 O. R. at p. 348, followed. See 
 Re Pryce and the City of Toronto, 
 
 16 0. R. 726 2134 
 
 Followed. See James v. Ontario and 
 Quebec R. W. Co., 12 O. R. 624. ... 1760 
 
 V. Philbrick, 5 O. R. 
 
 674 ; affirmed. Sue S. C, 12 S. C. 
 
 R. 288 1766 
 
 Orr V. Orr, 21 Chy. 397, commented upon. 
 
 See Parker v. Parker, 32 C. P. 113. . 680 
 
 Osborne v. Henderson, 18 S. C. R. 699, 
 cited and relied on. See Canadian 
 Bank of Commerce c. Marks, 19 0. 
 R. 450 1540 
 
 V. Preston and Berlin R. W. Co., 
 
 9 C. P. 241, commented on. See 
 Montreal City and District Savings 
 Bank r. County of Perth, 32 C. 
 P. 18 479, 1626 
 
 Osier, Re, 24 Chv. 529, explained and fol- 
 lowed. See Peel v. Peel, 11 P. R. 195 2010 
 
 V. Toronto Grey and Bruce R. W. 
 
 Co., 8 P. R. 506, followed. See 
 Hendrie (•. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 
 2 0. R. 441 1804 
 
 Ostrom and the Township of Sidney, 15 
 0. R. 43, reversed in part. See S. C, 
 15 A. R. 372 2128 
 
 O'SulUvan v. Harty, 10 A. R. 76, af- 
 
 firmed. See S. C, 11 S. C. R. 322. 736 
 
 , 13 S. C. R. 431, distin- 
 guished. See Walmsley i:. Griffith, 
 13 S. C. R. 434 2005 
 
 Followed. See Martely v. Carson, 13 
 
 S. C. R. 439 2005 
 
 V. Lake, 15 O. R. 544, reversed 
 
 in part. See S. C, 15 A. R. 711 1404 
 
 Ottawa Co. v. Liverpool Ins. Co., 28 Q. B. 
 522, approved. See Gill o. Canada 
 Fire antl Marine Ins. Co., 1 O. R. 341 961 
 
 Owen Sound Steamship Co. v. Canadian 
 Pacific R. \V. Co., 17 O. R. 691 ; 
 affirmed. See S. C, 17 A. R. 482. . 1799 
 
 Page V. Austin, 30 C. P. 108, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 7 A. R. 1 ; 10 S. C. R. 1.S2. 259 
 
 Paine i'. Jones. L. R. 18 Eq. 320, distin- 
 guished. See Smith v. Smith, 5 O. R. 
 690 597 
 
 Paisley v. Wills, 19 O. R. 803 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 18 A. R 210 1967 
 
 Palmateer v. Webb, 7 C. L. T. Occ. N. 244, 
 distinguished. See Shaw v. Craw- 
 ford, 13 P. R. 219 2038 
 
 Paradis v. Campbell, 6 O. 1{. 632, distin- 
 guished. See Lattav. Lowry, 11 O. 
 K. 517 2186 
 
 Parkdale, Corporation of, v. West, 12 8. 
 C. It. 250 ; affirmed. See S. C. , 12 
 App. Cos. 602 1V57 
 
 , 12 App. Cas. 602, 
 
 followed. See North Sliore R. W. 
 Co. r. Pion, 14 A. Cas. 612 1768 
 
 Parke i*. Day, 24 C. P. 619, commented 
 upon. See Forrester v. 'i'hraslier, 2 
 O. R. 38 131 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, BfiVEBSED, ETC. 
 
 a, 
 
 , 
 
 2128 
 
 t- 
 
 736 
 
 1- 
 
 
 '. 
 
 2005 
 
 13 
 
 2005 
 
 ill 
 
 1404 
 
 B. 
 ia 
 11 
 
 961 
 
 ill 
 1; 
 
 1799 
 
 d. 
 2. 
 
 259 
 
 n- 
 
 597 
 
 d. 
 
 1967 
 
 14, 
 
 
 w- 
 
 2038 
 
 n- 
 0. 
 
 2186 
 
 8. 
 12 
 
 1V57 
 
 )2, 
 
 W. 
 
 1768 
 
 ted 
 
 1 
 
 Par-Per] column. 
 
 Parker r. Great Western R. W. Co. , 9 C. 
 B 706. See Delanev v. McLellan, 13 
 P. R. 63 .' 582 
 
 V. Wells, 18 Chy. D. 477, consi- 
 dered and followed. See MacGregor 
 ('. McDonald, 11 P. R. 386 633 
 
 Parkes v. St. George, 2 O. R. 342, reversed. 
 
 SeeS. C, 10 A. R. 496 191 
 
 Followed. See Kitching r. Hicks, 6 
 
 0. B. 7.39 184 
 
 . 10 A. R. 49<i, Tollowed. 
 
 See Hyman v. Cutlibertson, 10 O. R. 
 
 443 10, 198 
 
 Followed. See Whiting ". Hovey, 
 
 13 A. R. 7 186 
 
 Distinguished. See McKellar i: Mc- 
 Gibbon, 12 A. R. 221 186 
 
 Parkhurst w. Roy, 27 Chy. 361 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 7 A. R. 614 2218 
 
 Parsons r. Citizens' Ins. Co., 7 App. Cas. 
 96, followed. See Devlin v. Queen 
 Ins. Co., 46 Q. B. 611 944 
 
 V. Queen Ins. Co.. 2 0. R. 45, 
 
 followed. See Smith v. City of Lon- 
 don Ins. Co., 11 O. R. 38 947 
 
 V. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 43 Q. 
 
 B. 603, reversed. See S. C. , 4 A. R. 
 326, but restored. Sec S. C., 5 S. C. 
 R. 233 958 
 
 43 Q. B. 
 
 603 ; 4 A. R. 326 ; 5 S. O. R. 2.3.3, 
 followed. See Moore v. Citizens' Fire 
 Ins. Co., 14 A. R. 582 960 
 
 5 S. C. R. 
 
 233, followed. See I^wson v. Canada 
 Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. , 6 A. 
 R. .512 958 
 
 Partlo V. Todd, 12 O. R. 171 ; affirmed. 
 See S. C, 14 A. R. 444 ; 17 S. C. R. 
 
 196 2028 
 
 Followed. See Watson y. Westlake, 
 
 12 0. R. 449 2029 
 
 Paterson v. Maughan, 39 Q. R. 371, ap- 
 proved of and followed. See Hall v. 
 Collins' Bay Rafting and Forwarding 
 Co., 12 A. R. 65 182 
 
 Patterson v. Smith, 42 Q. B. 1, remarked 
 upon. See Pyatt v. McKee, 3 O. R, 
 151 1157 
 
 Pawsott V. Merchants' Bank of Canada, 1 1 
 P. R. 72, followed. See Herring v. 
 Brooks, 11 P. R. 15 2044 
 
 Peck and Ameliasburg, 12 P. R. 664, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Colenutt and Town- 
 ship of Colchester North, 13 P. R. 
 253 1851, 1984 
 
 Peek V. Shields, 31 C. P. 112 ; 6 A. R. 639 ; 
 affirmed. See S. C, sub nom., 
 Shields V. Peak, 8 S. C. R. 579 129 
 
 Pennyman v. McGregor, 18 C. P. 132, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Weller, 16 0. R. 
 318 2225 
 
 Perth, Re, 39 Q. B. 34, followed. See Re 
 Board of Education of the Village of 
 Morrisburg and the Townshio of 
 Winchester, 8 A. R. 169 1733 
 
 Pet-Pre] columk. 
 
 Peterborough Real Estate Co. r. Patterson, 
 13 O. R. 142 ; affirmed with a varia- 
 tion. See S. C, 15 A. R. 751 2176 
 
 Peterkin c McFarlane, 9 A. R. 429 ; 
 affirmed. See S. C, sub nom.. Rose 
 V. Peterkin, 13 S. C. R. 677 1832 
 
 Petrie v. Guelph Lumber Co., 2 0. R. 218, 
 11 A. R. 3.36 ; affirmed. See S. C, 
 
 11 S. C. R. 450 240, 605 
 
 V. Hunter ; Guest v. Hunter, 2 0. 
 
 R. 2.33 ; affirmed. Sec S. C, 10 A. 
 
 R. 127 840, 1167 
 
 Pfeiffer v. Midland R. W. Co., 18 Q. B. D. 
 243, followed. See Furlong v. Reid, 
 
 12 P. R. 201 1405, 1668 
 
 Phelps V. St. Catharines and Niagara Cen- 
 tral R. W. Co., 18 0. R. 581, revers- 
 ed. See S. C, 19 0. R. 501 ... 90, 1806 
 
 Phillips v. Homfray, 24 Chy. D. 439, dis- 
 cussed and followed. See Leslie v. 
 Calvin, 9 0. R. 207 725, 1569 
 
 Phipps, Re, 1 0. R. 586, affirmed. See S. 
 
 C, 8 A. R. 77 437,743 
 
 Pierce v. Canavan, 28 Chy. 3.56, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 7 A. I{. 187 1280 
 
 Piercy v. Young, 14 Chy. D. 200, com- 
 mented on. See Woodward v. Mc- 
 Donald, 13 O. R. 671 40 
 
 Pine V. Municipal Council of Ontario, 9 C 
 
 P. 304, remarked upon. See Silsby ■"•' ■ 
 V. Village of Dunnville, 8 A. R. 524. 1376 
 
 Pion V. North Shore R. W. Co , 14 S. C. 
 R. 677 ; affirmed. See S. C, 14 App. 
 Cas. 612 1749 
 
 Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2, specially 
 referred to. See Stevens v. London 
 Steel Works Co. — Delano's Case, 15 
 0. R. 75 248 
 
 Plumb V. Steinhoff, 2 O. R. 614, reversed. 
 See S. C, 11 A. R. 788 ; 14 S. C. R. 
 7.39 ... 487, 2012 
 
 Point Edward, Village of, and Township 
 of Sarnia, 44 Q. B. 461, distinguish- 
 ed. See Re Township of Sarnia and 
 Town of Sarnia, 1 0. R. 411 1381 
 
 Porter v. Flintoflf, 6 C. P. 335, distinguish- 
 ed. See Dedrick i). Ashdown, 15 S. 
 C. R., 227 186, 333 
 
 Potts V. Boivine, 16 O. R. 152, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 16 A. R. 191 2166 
 
 Potts ('. Lee,sk, 36 Q. B. 476, not followed. 
 See Honsinger v. Love, Itt O. R. 
 170 1081, 1253, 1541 
 
 Powell V. Peck, 26 Chy. 325 ; 8 A. R. 498, 
 
 reversed in part, and affirmed in ■'.■,y,4ii 
 part. See iS. C. sub nom. Peck v. 
 Powell, 11 S. C. R. 494 1565 
 
 , 15 A. R. 138, followed. 
 
 See Grant v. People's Loan and De- 
 posit Co., 17 A. R. 85 1284 
 
 , 12 0. R. 492, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 16 A. R. 138 1294, 1667 
 
 Preacott Election — Alexander v. Hagar, 1 
 E. C. 88, followed. See Muskoka 
 and Parry Sound Election (Cnt.) — 
 Paget V. Fauquier, 1 E. C. 197 678 
 
 O 
 SB 
 
 tta 
 
 i 
 
 ■5 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
ez 
 
 OASES AFFIBMED. BEVEBSED, ETC. 
 
 Pri-'l«jd] COLUMN. 
 
 Pr.ce V. Cataraqui Bridge Co., 35 Q. B. 
 314, considered. See Steinhotf i: 
 Corporation of Kent, 14 A. R. 12.. 2143 
 
 Price V. (Juinane, 1« O. R. 204, followed. 
 See Bartlett v. Thompson, 16 0. R. 
 716 1154 
 
 Provincial Ins. Co. r. Woits, .'Jl C. P. 253, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C. 9 A. R. 56 .... 250 
 
 /•. Cameron, Executrix, 
 
 31 C. 1'. 543, affirmed. See S. C. 
 sub nom. Provincial Ina. Co. i'. 
 Worts, 9 A. R. 56 19 
 
 Purdom !'. Nichol, 16 0. K. 699, reversed 
 in part. See S. C. 15 A. R. 244 ; 15 
 S.C.R.(ilO 1262,1709 
 
 Purser v. Bradburne, 7 P. R. 18, distin- 
 guished. See Re Crawford i>. Seney, 
 17 0. R. 74 537 
 
 Piatt V. Attrill, 10 S. C. R. 425, followed. 
 See I'latt v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. 
 of Canada, 12 0. R. 1 19 427 
 
 Quay V. Quay, 11 P. R. 2,")S, followed. 
 See Siiowden t: Huntington, 12 P. 
 ,,,, R.248 391 
 
 * Approved. Seelrelandc. Pitcher, 11 
 
 P. R. 403 390 
 
 Queen City Refining Co., In re, 10 0. R. 
 264, explained. See In re The Lon- 
 don Speaker Printing Co.— Pearce's 
 Case, 16 A. R. .508 249 
 
 Queen Ins. Co. v. Parsons, 7 Ajjp. Cas. 
 96, commented upon. See (ioring r. 
 London Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 11 O. 
 '■'^"1 R. 82 310 
 
 Queen's County Klection (Dom.) -Jenkins 
 V. Brecken, 7 S. C. 1!. 247, followed. 
 See Botliwell Klection (I)om.)— Haw- 
 kins V. Smith, 8 S. C. R. 676 1442 
 
 Quimby, Re— Quimby v. Quiml)y, 5 O. R. 
 7.38, followed. See Amsden v. Kyle, 
 9 0. R. 439 566 
 
 Quinlan v. Gordon, 20 Chy. App. 1, fol- 
 lowed. See Hutton v. Federal Bank, 
 ' 9 P. R. 568 1008 
 
 V. Union Fire Ins. Co., 31 C. P. 
 
 618, reversed. See 8. C, 8 A. R. 
 
 376 949 
 
 Quinton v. Frith, Ir. R. 2 Eq. 415, not fol- 
 lowed. SeeInreTaylor,28Chy. 640 1185 
 
 Bae V. McDonald, 13 O. R. 352, discussed. 
 See Warnock r. Kloepfer, 14 0. R. 
 
 288 791 
 
 Railway Steel and Plant Co., Ex parte — 
 • In re Taylor, 8 Chy. U. 183, followed. 
 '•'""' See In re Lake Superior Native Cop- 
 per Co. (Limited)— Re Plummcr, 90. 
 
 R. 277 294 
 
 Ramsden v. Lupton, L. R. 9 Q. B. 17, dis- 
 tinguished. See Boldrick i: Ryan, 
 
 17 A. R.253 189 
 
 Batt^ V. Booth, 10 0. R. 351, reversed, 
 i See S. C. 11, O. R. 491 2104 
 
 , 11 0. R. 491, affirmed. See 
 
 8. C. 14, A. R. 419, 15 App. Cas, 188. 2105 
 
 Beddick v. Saugcen Mutual Fire Ins. Co. , 
 14 0. R. 506, affirmed. See S. C, 15 
 A, R. 363 956 
 
 Bed-Beg] coluuk. 
 
 Redmond v. Redmond, 27 Q. B. 220, fol- 
 lowed. See Her v. Her, 9 0. R. 551. 1236 
 
 Reeder v. Bloom, 3 Bing. 9, followed. 
 
 See Scott v. Daly, 12 P. R. 610 .392, 1959 
 
 Regina ex rel. Brine i'. Booth, 9 P. R. 452, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 3 O. R. 144.. . 132^ 
 
 Grant ?\ Coleman, 8 P. R. 497, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 46 Q. B. 175, 
 
 7 A. R. 619 1330 
 
 Linton v. Jackson, 2 Chamb. 
 
 R. 18, dissented from. See Regina 
 ex rel. Clancy v. Mcintosh, 46 Q. B. 
 98 1331 
 
 McMillan v. De Lisle, 8 U. 
 
 C. L. J. N. S., followed. See Re- 
 gina ex rel. Briue v. Booth 1330 
 
 O'Dwyer v. Lewis, 8 P. R. 
 
 437, affirmed. See S. C, 32 C. P. 
 104 im 
 
 Stowar i<. Standish, 6 O. It. 
 
 403, referred i . See Chaplin t\ 
 Public School Board of the town of 
 Woodstock, 16 O. R. 728 923 
 
 White V. Roach, 18 Q. B. 226, 
 
 distinguished. See Regina ex rel. 
 Clancy r. St. Jean, 46 Q. B. 77 . . . . 1328 
 
 V. Arscott, 9 O. R. 451, dissented 
 
 from. See Arscott c. Lilley, 110. 
 
 R. 153 1719 
 
 V. Bank of Nova Scotia, US. C. R. 
 
 1, followed. See Liquidators of tlie 
 Maritime Bank r. The Queen, 1 7 JS. 
 C. R. (i.-)7 459 
 
 V. Brady, 12 O. R. 358, followed. 
 
 See Regina r. Lynch, 12 O. R. 372. . 1111 
 
 Followed. See Uegiua i: Higgins, 
 
 18 O. R. 148 1047 
 
 ('. Beckwith, 8 C. P. 277, followed. 
 
 See Regina c. Andrews, 12 O. R. 184. 452 
 
 V. Bedingtield, 14 Cox, 341, fol- 
 lowed. See B«gi!.», '. ^'.^i.iujion, 18 
 0. R. 502 m 
 
 V. Bennett, i 0. "■, , followed. 
 
 See Regiiiii v. Lw i'; ' T>. 353. .315, 163* 
 
 I'. Browne, 31 C. SJ, reversed 
 
 in part. See 8. C, .. R. 386 742 
 
 Affirmed in part. See S. C, 6 A. \\. 
 386 7,741 
 
 V. Boucher, 8 P. R. 20, affirmed, S. 
 
 C. 4. A. R. 191 ; Cassels' Dig. 180. 442 
 
 V. Butterwick, 2 M. &. Rob. 196, 
 
 followed. See Regina c. McFee, LS 
 0. R. 8 438 
 
 (.'. Cameron, 15 0. It. 1 15, not fol- 
 lowed. See Regina v. Smith, 16 0. 
 R. 454 1046 
 
 V. College of Physicians and Sur- 
 geons of Ontario, 44 Q. B. 564, speci- 
 ally referred to. See Maritime Bank 
 V. Stewart, 13 P. R. 262 116, 301 
 
 V. Eli, 13 A. R. 526, referred to. 
 
 See Regina v. City of Loudon, 15 A. 
 R. 414 408 
 
 V. Fellows, 19 Q. B. 48, followed. 
 
 See Faniuhar v. Robertson, 13 P. R. 
 156 379 
 
OASES AFFIBMED, BEVERSED, ETC. 
 
 exi 
 
 £eg] COLUMN. 
 
 Regina v. Fennell, 7 Q. B. D. 147, followed. 
 
 See Regiiia v. Romp, 17 O. R. 567 . . 450 
 
 . r. Frawley, 4R Q. B, 153, followed. 
 
 See Rogina ». Allbright, 9 P. R. 25. 1058 
 
 /•. French, l.S O. R. 80, distinguished 
 
 and not followed. See Regina ?». Hef- 
 
 fenian, 1.3 0. R. 61(5 1102,1982 
 
 Folio well. See Regina v. Hunter, 13 
 
 O. R. 82 n 1102 
 
 Distinguished. See Regina v. Hall, 
 
 12 P. R. 142 1103 
 
 V. Goddard, 15 Cox 7, followed. 
 
 See Regina v. McMuhon, 18 O. R. 502 443 
 
 i: Good, 17 O. R. 725, followed. 
 
 See Regina v. Ferris, 18 O. R. 476. . 1046 
 
 . V. Griffin, 14 Cox C. C 308, fol- 
 
 lowed. See Regina c. Brierly, 14 
 
 0. R. 525 4.33 
 
 v. Hall, 8 O. R. 407, distinguished. 
 
 See Regina v. Stewart, 17 O. R. 4. . . 1251 
 
 12 P. R. 142, followed. See 
 
 Regina v. Alexander, 17 O. R. 458. . 1103 
 
 r. Halpin, 12 0. R. 330, Not fol- 
 
 lowed. See Regina v. Fee, 13 O. R. 
 
 590 450, 1041 
 
 V. Harper, 7 Q. B. T). 78, followed. 
 
 See Regina v. McFee, 13 O, R. 8 . . 438 
 
 I'. Hodge, 46 Q. B. 141, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. , 7 A. R. 246 ; 9 App. Cas. 
 
 117 15» 
 
 ('. Ingham, 5 B. & S. at p. 360, 
 
 specially referred to. See Regina r. 
 Sanderson, 15 0. R. 106 . . . .219, 349, 452 
 
 i: Judge of the Brompton County 
 
 Court, 18 Q. B. D. 213, followed. See 
 
 Re McLeod v. Einigh, 12 P. R. . .4.W 546 
 
 i: Kennedy, 10 O. R. .396, not fol- 
 lowed. See S. C, 17 <). R. 1.59. . . 1040 
 
 r. Klcnip, 10 O. R. 143, followed. 
 
 See Regina ,: Eli, 10 O. R. 727 ... . 10.34 
 
 1: LaliUert^, 1 S. 0. R. 117, referred 
 
 to. See Regina v. City of IaxuIou, 
 ISA. R. 414 408 
 
 i: Leveccjue, .30 Q, B. 509, distin- 
 
 guislied. .See Regina /•. Remon, 16 
 
 (). R. 560 1719 
 
 Distini^uished. See Regina c. 
 Wehlan, 45 Q. B. .396 219, 1114 
 
 ('.Malcolm, 2 0. R. 511, distin- 
 
 guislied. See Regina v. McDonald, 
 
 12 0. R. .381 1099 
 
 i: Mayor of Hereford. 2 Salk. 701 
 
 referred to. See I'haplin v. Public 
 School Board of the Town of Wood- 
 stock, 16 O. R. 728 923, 1724 
 
 r. Mopsey, 1 1 Cox, 143, followed. 
 
 See Regina v. McFeo, 13 0. R. 8 . . . 438 
 
 r. Ramsay, 11 0. R. 210, not fol- 
 lowed. See Regina r. Dunnon, 14 0. 
 
 R. 072 1037 
 
 Followed. See Regina r. Johnson, 
 
 13 0. R. 1 1035 
 
 Distinguished. See Regina v. .Sproule, 
 
 14 0. R. 375 1037 
 
 r. Riley, 12 P. R. 98, followed. 
 
 See Regina ?•. Clark, 15 O. R. 49. . . . 1031 
 
 Reg-Rex] oolohn. 
 
 Regina ». Roddy, 41 Q. B. 291, followed. 
 
 See Regina v. Sparhain, 8 O. R. 570. 450 
 
 r. Row. 14 C. P. .307. superseded. 
 
 See Regina w. Riley, 12 P. It 98.... 1098 
 
 v. Rowton, 10 Cox C. C. 25, fol- 
 lowed. .See Regina v. Treganzie, 15 
 O. R. 294 453 
 
 V. Ryan, 10 O. R. 2.54, overruled. 
 
 See Regina r. Mabee, 17 O. R. 194. . 1038 
 
 r. Shavelear, 11 O. R. 727, quali- 
 fied. See Regina i'. Monteith, 1," O. 
 R. 290 1029 
 
 , 7 P. I!. 429, followed. See 
 
 Nicholf. AUenby, 17 0. R. 275. ,15.32, 1657 
 
 V. Smitli, 2 M. & S. 583, refei'red to. 
 
 See Chaplin i: Public School Roard 
 of the Town of Woodstock, 16 0. R. 
 728 922 
 
 v. Sparham, 8 O. R. 570, approved 
 
 of. See Regina v. Logan, 16 0. R. 
 
 335 8.33, 1122 
 
 c. Sproule, 14 O. R. 375, not fol- 
 lowed. See Regina v. Brown, KJ 0. 
 
 R. 41 1034 
 
 r. St. Catharines Milling and Lum- 
 ber Co, 10 O. R. 196 ; 13 A. R. 148 ; 
 
 13 S. C. R. 577. affirmed. See S. C. 
 
 14 App. Cas. 46 902 
 
 r. Stubbs, 7 Cox C. C. 48, fol- 
 lowed. .See Regina v. Andrews, 12 
 
 0. R. 184... 452 
 
 r. Tucker, 16 O. R. 127, followed. 
 
 See Regina r. Ferris, 18 O. R. 476. . 1046 
 
 r. Wallace, 4 O. R. 127, com- 
 mented on. iSee Regina i\ Elliott, 12 
 
 O. R. 524 nil 
 
 Followed, .'^ee Regina c. Sanderson, 
 
 12 O. R. 178 1048 
 
 V. Walsii, 2 O. R. 206, commented 
 
 on. See Regina '•. Elliott, 12 0. R. 
 
 524 1045, 1111 
 
 V. Wellington, 17 O. R. 615, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 17 A. R. 421. .66, 304 
 
 V. Williams, 10 Mod. 63, followed. 
 
 See Regina r. Warren, 16 O. R. 590. 1719 
 
 , 19 Q. B. 397, followed. 
 
 See Attorney-(ieneral r. Midland R. 
 
 W. Co., 3 0. R. 513 1183, 1755 
 
 42 Q. B. 462, followed. 
 
 See Regina t-. Howard, 45 Q. B. 346. 1056 
 
 r. Wright, 14 O. R. 668, followed. 
 
 See Rogina i\ Rowlin, 19 O. R. 199. 1112 
 
 V. Young, 13 O. R. 198, not fol- 
 lowed. See Regina i\ Roe, 16 O. R. 1. 1032 
 Followed. .See Regina (\ Bradford, 
 
 13 0. R. 735 1030 
 
 Reid r. Murphy, 12 P. R. 246, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 12 P. R. 3.38 .^ 1020 
 
 )■. Reid, 29 Chy. .372, commented up- 
 on. See Dobbin v. Dobbin, 110. K. '* 
 5.34 559 
 
 Rex V. Danger. Dears. & B. C. C. 307, fol- 
 lowed. See Regina i'. Rymal, 17 O. 
 R. 227 435 
 
 i\ Dixon. 10 Mod. 63, followed. See 
 
 Regina r. Warren, 16 O. R. 690. . . . 171» 
 
 n 
 
 M 
 
 C 
 
 n 
 
 Ml 
 
 s 
 
czii 
 
 OASES AFFIRMED, BEVEBBED, Eia > 
 
 Rex-Roc] coi-"*"*- 
 
 Rex r. Smith, 2 M. & S. 583, referred to. 
 See Chaplin m. Public School Board of 
 I the Town of Woodstock, 16 0. R. 
 ' 728 922,1724 
 
 Reyncll r. Sprye, 1 D. M. & 0. 671, con- 
 sidered. See Re Cannon— Gates v. 
 Cannon, 13 O. R. 70 222 
 
 Reynolds v. Barneds Banking Co., Cassels' 
 Dig. 92, followed. See British Cana- 
 dian Lumbering and Timber Co. v. 
 Grant, 12 P. R. 301 757 
 
 r. Howell, L. R. 8 Q. B. .398, fol- 
 lowed. See Mackay r. Macfarlane, 
 12 P. R. 149 1650 
 
 Rhodes /'. Moxhiiy, 10 W. R. 10.3. followed, 
 'iee Kiistm.in r. Faiik of Montreal, 
 lOO. R. 70 109 
 
 Richards r. Chamberlain. 25 Pliy. 402, re- 
 ferred to. See McVean r. Tiffin, 13 
 A.R 1 1171 
 
 Ricliardaon i'. Canada West Farmers' Ins. 
 Co. 17 C. P. 341, commented on. 
 See United States Kypress Co. v, 
 Donohoe, 14 O. R. 333 680 
 
 Bicker r. Ricker, 27 Chy. 576, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 7 A. R. 2S2 2076 
 
 Ricket's Case, L. P. 2 H. L. 175, distin- 
 guished. See Re McCauley and City 
 
 of Toronto, 18 0. R. 416 840, 
 
 584, 1365 
 
 Rincrnse v. Ringrose, 10 P. R. 299, affirm- 
 ed. See S. C, 10 P. R. 596 890 
 
 Riordan v. Wilcox, 4 Times L. R. 475, re- 
 ferred to. See Wills o. Carman, 17 
 0. R. 223 515 
 
 Rist V. Faux, 4 B. & S. 409, specially re- 
 ferred to. See Straughan v. Smith, 
 19 0. R. 558 1905 
 
 Roberts v. McDonald, 15 O. R. 80, over- 
 ruled. See Truax v. Dixon, 17 O. R. 
 366 1168 
 
 Robertson, Re — Robertson v. Robertson, 
 24 Chy. 442; 25 Chy. 276, 486, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Hague— Traders' 
 Bank v. Murray, 14 O. R. 660 560 
 
 V. Daganeau, 19 C. L. J. 19, 
 
 followed. See Walton w. Wideman, 
 
 10 P. R. 228 1590 
 
 V. Thomas, 8 O. R. 20, over- 
 ruled. See Whiting v. Hovey, ISA. 
 R. 7. See also S. C. sub nom Hovey 
 V. Whiting, 14 S. C. R. 515 104, 178 
 
 and Township of North East- 
 hope, 15 O. R. 423, reversed. See S. 
 C, 16 A. R. 214 1352 
 
 Robins I'. Brockton, 7 0. R. 481, referred 
 to. See Tjawrence v. Village of Luck- 
 now, 13 ( ». R. 421 1376, 2248 
 
 )'. Victoria Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 
 
 31 C. P. 562, affirmed. See S. C. 6 
 
 A. R. 427 964 
 
 Robson i: Arbuthnot, 3 P. R. 313, dis- 
 tinguished. See McDonongh v. Ali- 
 son, 9 P. R. 4 1676, 2039 
 
 Roche V. Jordan, 20 Chy. 573, followed. 
 
 See McLean w. Bruce, 29 Chy. 607 . . 771, 
 t'W 1634,2066 
 
 Rod-San] column. 
 
 Rodbard v. Cooke, 26 W. R. 656, distin- 
 guished. See Re Crowter— Crowter 
 V. Hinman, 10 O. R. 159 720 
 
 Rody V. Rody, 1 C. L. T. 146, over-ruled. 
 See Devereux v. Kearns, 11 P. R. 
 146 1530 
 
 Rogers v. Ingham, 3 Chy. D. 351, followed. 
 
 See Baldwin V. Kingstone, 18 A. R. 63 1128 
 
 Followed See Baldwin i: Kingstone, 
 
 16 O. R. 341 594, 1260 
 
 V. Ullman, 21 Chy. 139. See Neil 
 
 V. Park, 10 P. R. 476 1615 
 
 Rosenberg<ir r. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. 8 
 A. ' . 482, affirmed. See S. C. 9. S. 
 C. R. 311 1780 
 
 Roshcr, Re— Rosher r. Kosher, 26 Cli. D. 
 801, not followed. See Re Weiler, 
 16 O. K. 318 2225 
 
 Ross Estate, Re, 8 P. R. 86, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 5 A. R. 82 639 
 
 V. Simpson, 23 Chy. 553, distinguish- 
 ed. See Kumolir v. Marx, 3 O. R. 
 167 234,695 
 
 Runnacles )'. Mesquita, 1 Q. B. I). 418, 
 followed. See Dobie v. Lemon, 12 
 P. R. 64 1085 
 
 Russell V. Canada Life Assurance Co., 32 
 C. P. 256, affirmed. See S. C, 8 A. 
 R. 716 998, 1620 
 
 V. The Queen, 7 Apo. Gas. 829, ex- 
 plained and approvea. See Hodge 
 
 V. Regina, 9 App. Cas. 117 311 
 
 e. Russell, 14 Ch. D. 471, distin- 
 
 guished, See Marshall v. McRae, 17 
 
 A. R. 139 1240 
 
 Ryan v. Bmk of Montre.al, 12 O. R. 39, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 14 A. R. 533-164, 598 
 
 1126, 1262 
 
 V. Clarkson, 16 A. R. 311, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 17 S. C. R. 251 108, 392 
 
 V. Cooley, 14 O. R. 13, affirmed and 
 
 varied. See S. C, 15 A. R. 379. . . . 2185 
 
 V. Devereux, 16 Q. B. 100, consid- 
 ered. See In re Munsie, 10 P. R. 93. 730, 
 
 2118 
 
 V. Ryan, 29 C. P. 449, reversed. See 
 
 S. C, 4 A. R. 563; reversed. See 
 
 S. C, 5 S. C. R. 387 1184 
 
 Saderquist v. Ontario Bank, 140. R. 586, 
 affirmed. See S. C, 15 A. R. 609.. 
 
 136, 1127 
 
 Samo V. Gore District Mutual Ins. Co, 1 
 A. R. 545, followed. See Klein v. 
 Union Fire Ins. Co, 3 O. R. 234 . . . . 941 
 
 Sanderson v. Aston, L. R. 8 Ex. 73, fol- 
 lowed. See Wickens v. McMeekin, 
 15 O. R. 408 1701 
 
 y. McKercher, 13 A. R. 661, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 15 S. C. R, 
 296 2061 
 
 Sands v. Standard Ins. Co., 2« Chy. 115; 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 27 Chy. 167. .. . 946 
 
 26 Chy. 131; 
 
 27 Chy. 167, approved. See Bull v. 
 North British Canadian Investment 
 Co.,15A. R. 421 956 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC 
 
 czUi 
 
 Sau-Shel column. 
 
 Saunders v. Breakie, S O. R. 603, com- 
 mented on. See Lewis r. GocUon, 15 
 0. R. 252 1153, 2098 
 
 Saxton V. Dmlge, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 84, dis- 
 tinguished. See Vermilyea v. Can- 
 niC 12 0. R. 164 1535 
 
 Savles V. Brown, 28 Chy. 10, applied. See 
 
 Sommerville v. Rae, 28 Chy. 618. .. . 484 
 
 Savior V. Cooper, 2 O. R. 398, afSrmed. 
 
 See S. C, 8 A. R. 707 2119 
 
 Scanlan v. McDonough, 10 C. P. 104, spe- 
 cifically referred to. See Re Allenby 
 and Weir, 13 P. R. 403 1955 
 
 V. McLaren, 2 O. R. 265 ; affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, sub nom. Kinloch v. Scrib- 
 ner, 14 S. C. R. 77 186 
 
 Soliibsby v. Westenholz, L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, 
 followed. See McLean v. Sliiulds, 9 
 
 0. R. 699 1094 
 
 followed. See Beaty v. Cromwell, 9 
 
 P. R. 547 1094 
 
 SchrcEder v. Harnott, 28 L. T. N. S. 702, 
 followed. See Connell v. Hickock, 
 15 A. R. 518 180, 1018 
 
 Scott V. Benedict, 5 O. R. 1, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 14 S. C. R. 735 1896, 2017 
 
 V. Burnham, 3 Chy. Chamb. 402, 
 
 followed. See Wriglit v. Way, 8 P. 
 
 R. 328 1683 
 
 r. Crerar, 11 O. R. 541, reversed. See 
 
 S. C, 14 A. R. 152 515 
 
 Scribner v. Kinloch, 12 A. R. 367 ; affirm- 
 ed. See S. C. , sub nom. Kinloch v. 
 
 Scribner, 14S. C. R. 77 186 
 
 followed. See Whiting y. Hovey, 13 
 
 A. R. 7 186 
 
 Scripture «. Gordon, 7 P. K. 164, not fol- 
 lowed. See Housinger v. Love, 16 
 0. R. 170 1081, 1253, 1541 
 
 Sedden v. Tutop, 6 T. R. 607, distinguish- 
 ed. See vSorenson v. Smart, 5 0. R. 
 678 1089 
 
 Selkirk Election (Dom.)— Young v. Smith, 
 4 S. C. I!. 494, followed. See Levis 
 Election (Dom.) — Belleau r. Dusaault, 
 US. C. R.133 1475 
 
 Severn!). The Queen, 12 S. C. R. 70, distin- 
 guished. See Pigeon v. Recorder's 
 Court and the City of Montreal, 17 
 S. C. R. 495 314 
 
 Seymour v. Lynch, 7 O. R. 471, affirmed. 
 See S. C, 14 A. 1!. 738; 15 S. C. R. 
 341 1256 
 
 Shaver, Re, 6 O. R. 312, distinguished. 
 
 See Wright ». Ceilings, 16 O. R. 182 2165 
 
 V. Hart, 31 Q. B. 603, followed. 
 
 See Re Morse, 8 P. R. 475 591 
 
 Shaw u. Cunningham, 12 Chy. 101, distin- 
 guished. See Cole v. Hall, 13 P. R. 
 100 1174 
 
 — V. St. Louis, 8 S. C. R. 387, distin- 
 guished. Sep Ontario and Quebec 
 R. W. Co. V. Marclieterre, 17 S. C. R. 
 141 
 
 V. Laird, 15 O. R. 533, reversed. 
 Sees. C, 15 A. R, 3.39 
 
 2000 
 
 She-Sml] colcmh i 
 
 Shelley »>. (Coring, 8 P. R. 3(5; referred to. 
 fx Godfrey v. Harrison, 8 P. R. 
 '.'72 884 
 
 Shepherdson v. McCullough, 46 l^. F. 673, 
 approved. See Harris i), Mudie, 7 
 A. R. 414 1185 
 
 Sherwood v. Hamilton, 38 Q. B. 410, con- 
 sidered. See Steinhoff v. Corpora- 
 tion of Kent, 14 A. R. 12 2143 
 
 Short 0. Ruttan, 12 Q. B. 79, dissented 
 from. See Kitching v. Hicks, 6 0. 
 R. 739 184 
 
 Shroder v. Myers, 34 W. R. 261, followed 
 and distinguished. See Ross v. Can- 
 adian Pacific R. W. Co., 12 P. R. 
 220 1591 
 
 Sickell's Case, L. R. 3 Chy. 119, distin- 
 
 fiiished. See Cole and The Canada 
 ire and Marine Ins. Co., Close's 
 
 Case, 8 O. R. 92 240 
 
 Sievewright )-. Leys, 9 P. R. 200, followed. 
 
 See Langdon »;. Robertson, 12 P. R. 
 
 139 410 
 
 Silsby V. Village of Dunnville, 8 A. R. 524, , ^ 
 
 distinguiaed. See Robins v. Brock- ■''' 
 
 ton, 7 O. R. 481 1376 
 
 3j Q^ p_ 301 
 
 affirmed. See S. C, 8 A. R." 524. . .' 1376 
 Silverthorn v. Hunter, 26 Chy. 390, af- 
 firmed. See S. C, 5 A. R. 157 .... 2085 
 — , 5 A. R. 157, dis- 
 tinguished. See Hamilton Provident 
 and Loan Society v. Boll, 29 Chy. 
 203 2085 
 
 Simpson v. Corbett, 5 O. R. 377, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 10 A. R. 32 727 
 
 ' qui tam v. Pond, 2 Curtis 502, 
 
 referred to and approved. See Re- 
 
 gina c. Smith, 16 0. R. 454 1046 
 
 Sinclair v. McDougall, 29 Q. B. 388, speci- 
 ally referred to. See Glarkson v. 
 Severs, 17 O. K. 592 108 
 
 V. Robson, 16 Q. B. 211, remarked 
 
 upon. See Edgar v. Magee, 1 O. R. 
 
 287 166 
 
 Sinden v. Brown, 17 O. B. 706, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 17 A. R. 173 1118 
 
 Slator V. Brady, 14 Ir. C. L. R. 61, 342, 
 followed. See Lipsett v. Perdue, 18 
 O. R. 575 376, 905 
 
 Smale v. Burr, L. R. 8 C. P. 64, distin- 
 guished. See Boldrick v. Ryan, 17 
 A. R. 253 189 
 
 Small V. Riddel, 31 C. P. 37.3, not follow- 
 ed. See Honsinger v. Love, 16 O. R. 
 170 1081, 1253, 1541 
 
 Smart Infants, Re, 12 P. R. 435, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C. 12 P. R. 635 910 
 
 r. Sorenson, 9 O. R. 640 considered. 
 
 See ReCroskery, 16 O. R. 207. .561, 1300 
 
 Smith V. City of London Fire Ins. Co., 11 
 O. R. 33, 14 A. R. 328, affirmed. 
 See S. C, 15 S. C. R. 69 950, 971 
 
 V. Dobbin, 3 Ex. D. 338, followed. 
 
 See Hudson Bay Co. v. Hamilton, IS 
 
 P. R. 461 1068 
 
 O 
 
 n 
 
 V. 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 s 
 
 m 
 n 
 
 5. 
 
eziT 
 
 OASES AFFIRBIED, REVERSED, ETC 
 
 Sml-Sta] COLUMN. 
 
 Si'iith V. DroHser, L. R. I Eq. 651, 35 
 Beav. 378, referred to. See Hughes 
 V. Rees, 9 O. R. 198 2068 
 
 Smith i: Fftught, 45 Q. B. 484, fol- 
 lowed. See Re Weller, 16 0. R. 318 2225 
 
 V. Fleming, 12 P. R. 520, affirmed. 
 
 HeeS. ("., 12 P. R. 657 1H8 
 
 r. Ooldie, 7 A. R. 628, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 9S. C.R. 46 1549 
 
 9 S. C. R. 46, followed. See 
 
 In re Bell Telephone Co., 9 0. R. 
 
 339. 
 
 1557 
 
 V. Keal, 9 Q. B. D. 340, distinguished. 
 
 See Wilkinson r. Harvey, 15 0. R. 
 
 348 694, 2032 
 
 t>. McLellan, 11 0. R. 191, affirmed. 
 
 See S. C, sub nom. Smith r. Chis- 
 home, 15 A. R. 738 2215 
 
 V. Methodist Church, 16 0. R. 199, 
 
 followed. See Butland r. (Jillespie, 
 
 16 0. R. 480 2223 
 
 i>. Midland, 4 0. R. 491, dissented 
 
 from. See Donovan c. Hogan, 15 A. 
 
 R, 432 S3 
 
 /'. Millions, 15 0. R. 453, reversed 
 
 in part. See S. C, IG A. R. 140. .. . 487 
 1: Neale, 2 C. B. N. S. 67, eouiment- 
 
 ed on. Sec Vermilyea r. Canuifl, 12 
 
 O. R. 164 1555 
 
 r. Petersville, 28 Chy. 599, referred 
 
 to. See Chuplin i: Public Scliool 
 
 Board of the Town of Woodstock, 16 
 
 0. R. 728 923 
 
 V. Poole, 12 Sim. 17, followed. See 
 
 Roblini'. McMahou, 18 0. R. 219.. 1208 
 V. Port Dover and Lake Huron R. W. 
 
 Co., 8 O. R. 2.%, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 12A. R. 288 698 
 
 . V. Rooney, 12 Q. B. 661, commented 
 
 on. See Norton c. McCabe, 12 P. 
 
 R. 506 401 
 
 Snowball v. Ritcliie, 26 N. R. R p. 258, 
 
 revers3d. See S. C, 14 S. C. R. 741 338 
 South Renfrew Election (Ont. ) — Harvey r. 
 
 Dowliiig, 1 E. C. 70, affirmed. See 
 
 S. C, 1 E. C. 359 1522 
 
 Sowden v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 44 Q. B. 
 
 95 ; affirmed. See 8. C, 5 A. R. 290 948 
 Sparrow v. Oxfor.l, etc., R. W. Co., 2 D. 
 
 M. and G. 94, followed. See Cathe- 
 , ;.,■, dral of the Holy Trinity i\ West 
 
 Ontario Pacilic R. W. Co., 14 O. R. 
 
 246 1756 
 
 Squier, Re, 46 Q. B. 474, considered and 
 followed. See In re Godson and the 
 City of Toronto, 16 O. R, 275. . .400, 1385 
 Considered. See Re Godson and 
 theCity of Toronto, 16 A. R. 452. 1385, 1716 
 
 StafTord, Township of, v. Bell, 31 C. P. 77, 
 
 reversed. See S. C. 6, A. R. 273. . . 2011 
 
 Stammers v. O'Donohoe, 28 Chy. 207 ; 8 
 A. R. 161, affirmed. See S. C. 11, 
 3. C.R. 358 1875 
 
 Standard Bank v. WUls, 10 P. R. 159, not 
 followed. See Huffman r. Doner, 
 12 P. R. 492 
 
 Sta-SUp] OOLUMN. 
 
 standard Fire Ins. Co., Re — Barber's Case, 
 7 O. R. 448, reversed. See S. C, 12 
 A. R. 486 245 
 
 — Copp, Clark & 
 
 Co.'s Case, 7 O. R. 448, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 12 A. R. 486 245 
 
 -Caston's Case, 7 
 
 O. R. 448 ; affirmed. See S. C. 12 
 
 A. R. 486, 12 S. C. R. 044 245 
 
 Kelly's Case, 7 
 
 O. R. 204, reversed. See S. 0., 12 
 
 A. R. 486 246 
 
 .Staniorc. Kvans, W.N. Uecr. 26th in 1885, 
 p. 210, considered. See Re Doyle v. 
 Henderson, 12 P. R. 38 1653 
 
 Stanton r. C'unada Atlantic R. W. Co., 
 Cassels' Dig. 249, reviewed. See^Mc- 
 Kinnon r. Keroack, 15 S. C. R. 111. 1999 
 
 Stark V. Fisher, 1 1 P. R. 235, referred to. 
 
 See Quay /•. Quay, 11 P. R. 258 390 
 
 — approved. 
 
 See Ireland i: Pitcher, 1 1 P. R. 403. 390 
 
 Stebl)iiig i: Metropolitan Board of Works, 
 L. R. (i (|J. I{. 37, approved. See In 
 re Harvey and Town of Parkdale, 16 
 O. R. 372 
 
 Stephen i: Commissioner of Police of 
 Thurso, 3 Court of Session Cas. 4th 
 Series, 535, distinguished. See Mur- 
 piiy r. City of Ottawa, 13 0. R. 334. 
 
 Stephenson /•. Bain, 8 P. R. 166, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 8 P. R. 258 748, 1899 
 
 Stevens >\ Barfoot, 9 O. R. 692, reversed 
 
 in part. See S. C, 13 A. R. 366 .. 764 
 
 Stewart /•. Rounds, 7 A. R. 575, referred 
 to. See McConnell v. Wilkins, 13 A. 
 
 R. 438 401, 1075 
 
 r. Sullivan, 1 1 P. R. 529, followed. 
 
 1365 
 
 1243 
 
 1068 
 
 See Wriglit r. Wright, 12 P. R. 42. , 1670 
 Stillwell !•. Reunie, 7 O. R. 355, reversed. 
 
 S. C, II A. R. 724 1407 
 
 Stinson r. Pennock, 14 Chy. 604, followed. 
 
 SeeCarr r. Fire Ass. Co., 14 0. R. 487 1286 
 
 Sloddart v. Wilson, 16 0. R. 17, disap- 
 proved. See Johnson v. Hope, 17 A. 
 
 R. 10 790,810 
 
 Questioned. See Gibbons t<. Wilson, 
 
 17 A. R. 1 811 
 
 Stone i: Hyde, 9 Q. B. D. 76, followed. 
 See Cox r. Hamilton Sewer Pipe Co. , 
 
 14 0. R. 300 12, 1246 
 
 Stovel c. Coles, 3 Chy. Chamb. R. 130, re- 
 ferred to. See Traders' Bank v. 
 Kean, 13 P. R. 60 625 
 
 Stuart V. Gough, 15 O. R. 66, reversed. 
 See S. C. sub nom. Stuart v. Grough, 
 
 15 A. R. 299 699 
 
 V. Grough, 15 A. R. 299, consid- 
 ered. See Canada Cottou Co. j'. 
 Parmalee, 13 P. R. 308 89 
 
 Summers v. Sumn ers, 5 0. R. 110, distin- 
 tinguished. oee Wright v. CoUings, 
 
 16 O. K. 182 2165 
 
 Superior Loan and Savings Co. v. Lucas, 
 44 Q. B. 106, reversed. See S. C. 15 
 A. R. 748 49T 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, ETC 
 
 CXT 
 
 8nt-Tha] column. 
 
 Suthoilaml v. Cox, O. R. 505, iiffirnied. 
 
 See S. (^ 15 A. R. 541 203 
 
 Suttan, Re, 1 1 Q. B. D. 377, tUHtinguished. 
 8ee Hchiagg v. Schrugg, 11 1'. R. 
 218 11>J.'> 
 
 Suttou J'. Joliiiatone, 1 T. R. 403, diBtin- 
 gtiished. See Routhier i: McLauriii, 
 18 0. R. 112 I'i23 
 
 V. Sutton, 22 C^hy. D. 511, not fol- 
 lowed. See Maudonald v. McDonald, 
 110. R. 187 25, 41S 
 
 Swansea, Muyor, etc., of, i: Thomas, 10 
 Q. B. D. 10, followed. See Boulton 
 r. Blake 1140 
 
 Sweeny v. Bank of Montreal, 12 App. 
 C'as. 017, followed. See Mnii- r. 
 Carter— Holmes e. Carter, KiS. C. R. 
 473 670 
 
 Swinbanks, Ex parte, 11 Chy. U. 525, ap- 
 plied. See Herchmor r, Elliott, 14 
 0. R. 714 781 
 
 Symes r. Hughes, L. II. 9 Kij. 497, com- 
 mented on. See Mundell r. Tinkit), 
 6 O. R. 625 1207 
 
 Synod i: De Blaquiere, 27 Cliy. 536, atiirm- 
 
 ed. See S. C. 27 Chy., p. 550, ii. . . 233 
 
 , 10 r. R. 11, fol- 
 lowed. See Bank of British North 
 America v. Western Assurance Co., 
 
 11 P. R. 434 410 
 
 St. Aubyn i-. Smart, L. R. 3, Cliy. 046, 
 
 distinguished. See Re MuCaughey 
 and Walsh, 3 O. R. 425 1939 
 
 St. Denis v. Baxter, 13 O. R. 41, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. 15, A. R. 387 2054 
 
 St. John V. Rykert, 10 S. C. R. 278, fol- 
 lowed. See Grant v. People's I^an 
 and Deposit Co., 17 A. R. 85 1284 
 
 St. Johns, Corporation of, c. Central Ver- 
 mont R. W. Co., 14 S. C. R. 288, 
 affirmed. See S. C, 14 App. Cas. 
 590 68 
 
 St. Michael's College u. Merrick, followed. 
 
 See Gilchrist v. Wiley, 28 Chy. 425 . . 90 
 St. Thomas, City of, i: Credit Valley R. 
 
 W. Co., 7 O. R. 332, afhrmed. See 
 
 S. C. 12, A. R. 273 1976 
 
 St. Vincent r. Greenfield, 12 O. R. 297, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C. 15, A. R. 507. . 2127 
 Taylor v. ^^ hittemore, 10 Q. B. 440, ap- 
 
 S roved. See Kitching v. Hicks, 6 
 . R. 739 184 
 
 Temperance Colonization Co. v. Fairfield, 
 affirmed, 16 O. R. 544. See S. C, 
 
 17 A. R. 205 777 
 
 ?'. Evans, 
 
 12 P. R. 48, followed. See McMahon 
 
 V. Lavery, 12 P. R. 62 2047 
 
 Distinguished. See Farran i\ Hun- 
 ter, 12 P. R. 324 2047 
 
 Tench v. Great Western R. W. Co., 33 Q. 
 B. r distinguished. See Carroll e. 
 Penuerthy Injector Co., 16 A. R. 446 513 
 
 Thames Navigation Co. (Limited) v. Reid, 
 9 O. R. 754, reversed. See S. C, 13 
 A. R. 303 277 
 
 Tho-Tril COLUMN. 
 
 Thomas r. Brown, 1 Q. B, D. 714, dis- 
 cussed. Suij Cousincau c. City of 
 London Fire Ins. Co., 15 0. R. .329 . 971 
 
 I'. Hall, (i P. R. 172, uonimented 
 
 upon. Set' Forrester i: Thrasher, 2 
 
 O. R. 38 131 
 
 /•. Quartermaine, 18 Q. H. D. 685, 
 
 followed. See Dean i'. Ontario Cot- 
 ton Mills Co., 14 O. R. 1 19 1246. 
 
 r. The Queen, L. R. 10 Q. B. 31, 
 
 approved. See Windsor and Anna- 
 polis R. W. Co. I'. The (^ueen, 11 
 App. Cas. 607 1580 
 
 Thompson c. Canada Fiie and Marine Ins. 
 Co., 6 O. R. 291, reversed. See S. 
 COO. R. 284 266 
 
 1'. Montgomery, 41 Chy. 1). 
 
 35, distinguislietl. See Robinson v. 
 Bogle. 18 O. I!. .3S7 2030 
 
 ■ ■ i: Robi.son, 15 O. R. 062, af- 
 firmed in piirt and reversed in part. 
 Sees. C. 16 A. R. 175 1938 
 
 — r. Ross, 5 H. & N. 16, distin- 
 
 guisiic<1. See Straughan c. Smith, 19 
 
 O. R. 558 1905 
 
 r. Torrance, 28 Chy. 253, af- 
 firmed. See S. C. 9 A. R. 1 2155 
 
 Thomson i: South Eastern R. W. Co. 9 Q. 
 B. D. 320, followed. See Miller c. 
 Confederation Life Association, IIP. 
 R. 241 16, 1671 
 
 Thorne v. Torrance, 18 C. P., at p. 35, dis- 
 sented from. See McLean r. Gar- 
 land, 10 A. R. 405 797 
 
 Thornton i: Capstock, 9 P. R. 535, ap- 
 proveil. See viould r. Beaitie, 11 P. 
 R. 329 511 
 
 Thurlow r. Sidney, 1 O. R. 249, comment- 
 ed on. See Township of Dover )'. 
 Township of Chatham, 11 A. R. 248. 1356 
 
 Thurtell v. Beaumont, 1 Bing. 339, com- 
 mented on. See United States Ex- 
 press (^o. ('. Donohoe, 14 0. R. 333. . 680 
 
 Tiffany t*. (Marke, 6 Chy. 474, remarked 
 upon. See Re Murray — Purdham r. 
 Murray, 9 A. R. 369 .' 835 
 
 Todd I'. Dun, Winmn & Co., 12 O. R. 791, 
 
 reversed. See S. C. , 15 A. R. 85.. 501 
 
 Tomlinson i: Land and Finance Corpora- 
 tion, 14 Q. B. D. 539, discussed. See 
 Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Mid- 
 dleton, 12 P. R. 121 1023 
 
 Toms r. WMiitby, 37 Q. B. 104, consid- 
 ered. See Steinhoff v. Corporation 
 of Kent, 14 A. R. 12 2143 
 
 Totteu V. Watson, 17 Chy. 235, followed. 
 See Re Houston — Houston v. Hous- 
 ton, 2 O. R.84 1283 
 
 Township of Monaghan v. Dobbin, 2 C. L. 
 T. 260, over-ruled. See McMillan r. 
 Wansborough, 10 P. R. 377 630 
 
 Travis r. Travis, 8 0. R. 516, aflSrmed. 
 
 See S. C, 12 A. R. 438 838 
 
 Trice n. Robinson, 16 0. R. 433, distin- 
 guished. See Chard v. Rae, 18 0. 
 R. 37) 722 
 
 Q 
 10 
 
 m 
 
 a: 
 
 ■■4 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 g 
 
MCVl 
 
 OASES AFFIBMED, REVEB8ED, ETC 
 
 Trl-Vic] i OOMJMM. 
 
 TrigiTHon <•. Pofti-d <if Police of Cohoiirg, 
 II (>. S. 4(»r». f.illowetl. Suo Hiiideii r. 
 Hiown, 17 A. K. 17.S 1118 
 
 Trinity ('ollegn r, Hill, 2 O. H. 348, rt- 
 
 veried. Hee H. C, 10 A. R. 91t 1310 
 
 TruoiKloll .'. ("ooiv, 18 fJhy .'532, fallowed. 
 Soo Wfir and Ningarn (Irapo Co,, 11 
 O. I!. 700 1820 
 
 Trust and Loan Co. r, Lnwrivgnn, 45 Q. R. 
 171!, r«vtr8i)d. Heo S. C, A. R, 
 28«, 10 S. C. R. 07» fl24 
 
 28(1; ntfirniod, Hee S. C, 10 ii ('." 
 
 R. 670 178 
 
 6 A. R. 
 
 . 2S6 ; 10 S. (;. R. 070, diHtiiiguiHhud. 
 See Ontario I^oan and Debenture Co. 
 r. Hol.bg, 10 A. R. 223 526 
 
 Turley ('. IJunudiot, 31 C. P. 417, reversed. 
 
 Sees. C.,7 A. R. 300 587 
 
 Turnbull r. Fornian, 15 Q. \i. D. 234, fol- 
 lowed. See Scott t-. Wye, 11 P. R. 
 93 1069 
 
 Turner r. Stnitli, 20 ('hy. 198, considered 
 and followed. See Campbell »'. ('amp- 
 bell, 20 (!hy. 252 .820, 1631 
 
 Tylee c. Deal, 19 Cliy. 601, followed. See 
 lUldwin r. Kingstoue, HI O. R. 
 
 341 594 
 
 Approved. Sue Haldwin i\ Kingstonc, 
 
 18 A R. 63 2163 
 
 Union Fire Ins. Co., Re, 13 A. R. 2(18, re- 
 versed. Soo S. C, sub noni. Sliool- 
 bred r. Union l''ire Ins. Co., 14 S. C. 
 R. 024 285 
 
 Valin I'. Langlois, 3 S. C. R. 1, followed. 
 See Ro Simmons and Dalton, 12 O. 
 R. 505 418, 1429 
 
 . 3S. C. R, 1; 5 App. 
 
 Cas. 115; discussed and followed. 
 See (;;iark8on v. Ryan, 17 S. C. R. 
 251 306 
 
 Van Kgmond v. Corporation of Seafortli, 6 
 0. K. 599, distinguished. See Gray 
 
 V. Town of Dundas, 11 O. K. 317 2112 
 
 Distinguished. Sec Pratt r. City of 
 Stratford, 14 0. R. 260 2137 
 
 Van Koughuet r. Denison, 1 O. R. 349, 
 
 affirmed. SeeS. C, 11 A. R. 699 421, 
 
 669 
 
 Van Norman i\ Beaupre, 5 Chy. 699, fol- 
 lowed. See Ix)ughead u. Stubbs, 27 
 Chy. 387 570, 1970 
 
 V. Grant, 27 Chy. 498, fol- 
 lowed. See Wood v. Hurl, 28 Chy. 
 146 819, 1979 
 
 Vansickle v. Vansickle, 1 0. R. 107, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 9 A. IX. .352. . . . 2166 
 
 Van Velsor c. Hughson, 45 Q. B. 2.52, af- 
 
 timied. See S. C, 9 A. R. .390 ... . 1182 
 
 VIckers Express Co. v. Canadian Pacific R. 
 W. Co., 9 0. R. 251, affirmed. See 
 S. C, 13 A. R. 210 •.;97,1799 
 
 Victoria, County of, v. County 'i! Voter- 
 borough, 15 0. U. 466, ..versed. 
 See S. C, 15 A. R. 617 .... 0139 
 
 VIc-War] oowTMH. 
 
 Victoria Mutual Kiro Iuh. Co. of Canada »'. 
 Thonmnn, 32 C P. 4)M1, atlirmed In 
 part and reversed in part. .See H. V., 
 II A. R. 620 978 
 
 Vogel V. Grand Trunk R. W. (!o., '2 O. R. 
 197, 10 A. R. 162, affirmed. Sou S. 
 11 H, C. R, 012 1797 
 
 , 2 0. R. 
 
 197; 10 A. R. 102, 11 S. C. R. 612, 
 commented on. Sou Hatu v. Cana- 
 dian Pacific R, W. Co., 14 O, R. 
 625 1792 
 
 , ll.S.C. R. 
 
 612, held inapplicable. See lirand 
 Trunk R. W. (.lo. v. McMillan, l(i S, 
 ('. R. .'»43 1795 
 
 Vogt I'. Uoyle, 8 P. R. 249, distinguished. 
 See Re Walsh l^ Klliott, 11 P. It, 
 520 641 
 
 Voyer r. Richer, 13 L. C. Jur. 21.3. 15 L. ■ !. 
 .Jur. 122, I-. R. 5 P. C. 4(11, Hpecii.lly 
 referred to. See Ro Central IJa'.ik — 
 Morton and Block's ('laims, 17 0. R. 
 574 1.35 
 
 Wttdsworth H. Mct^ord, 12 S. C. R 46.'], 
 affirmed. .Sec McMullon v. Wads- 
 worth, 14 App. Cas. (131 556 
 
 Waldie and the Village of ISurlington, 7 O. 
 R, 192, alRruiod. See S. C. , 13 A. R. 
 104 2126 
 
 Walker v. McMillan, 6 S. C. R. 241, f.d- 
 lowed. See Spears v. Walker, 1 1 S. 
 C. R. 113 .3.36,2245 
 
 Wallace n. (Jreat Western R. W. Co., 3 A. 
 R. 44, distinguished. See Township 
 of Nottawasaga i: Hamilton anil 
 Northwestern R. W. Co., 16 A, R. 
 
 52 1813 
 
 Distinguished. See City of .St. 
 Thomas r. Credit Valley R. W. Co., 
 7 O. R. :m ; 12 A. R. 273 1976 
 
 f. Souther, 20 N. S. Rep. 509, 
 
 affirmed. See S. C. 16 .S. V. R. 
 
 717 175 
 
 Wallbridge 1: tiaujot, 14 A. R. 460, affirm- 
 ed. .See S. (J. sub nom. Palmer v. 
 Wallbridge, 15 .S. C. R. 650. ... 1 1.37, 1267 
 Wallis V. Andrews, 16 Chy. 637, followed. 
 
 .See MeRwan v. Milne, 5 0. R. 100. . 674 
 
 768 
 Walton V. County of York, .30 C. P. 217, 
 
 reversed. .See S. C, 6 A. R. 181 ... . 2140 
 
 Wannamaker v. Green, 10 O. R. 547, ap- 
 proved. .See Re Ostrom and the 
 Township of Sidney, 15 A. R. 372. 2128 
 
 Wanty i\ Robins, 15 0. R. 474, referred 
 to. See Ro Wallis and Vokes, 18 0. 
 R. 8 1169 
 
 Ward V. The N.itional Bank of New Zea- 
 land, 8 App. Cas. 755, followed. See 
 City of London v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 
 13 0. R. 713 1707 
 
 V. Pilley, 5 Q. B. D. 427, followed. 
 
 See .Shields i\ Macdonald, 14 A. R. 
 
 118 859, 1669 
 
 V. Smith, 11 Price 19, not followed.. 
 
 See Marrin v. Graver, 8 O. R. 39 1155 
 
 
 Ww-Wes] 
 
 Ward I'. Stalli 
 lowed. 
 R. .'imi 
 
 Watii. ". LoiK 
 Age 'icy ( 
 ,S, (,. 12 
 
 distingiii 
 
 10 (). R. 
 Warnock /•. K 
 
 ed. Hint 
 Wttterlno Mu 
 
 son, 4 O. 
 
 brook r. 
 Watson )'. Ill' 
 
 served 11 1 
 
 12 A. U. 
 
 »'. Giirr 
 
 Sec And 
 P. R. 44 . 
 
 ('. Li IK I 
 
 Sec S. ( '. 
 
 Watson and V 
 tinguiscd 
 17 (). R. 
 
 Webb c. McAi 
 followed. 
 P. R. 3(l(i 
 
 I'. Stentd 
 
 erod. !• 
 I'aniialee 
 Folloucil 
 15 A. R. 
 
 Webster v. Lt 
 See 8. C, 
 
 Wells v. Lindo 
 .See S. C. 
 
 V. Maxwi 
 
 SeeNevit 
 
 Werdernian 
 citri, 
 
 1 
 
 gished. S 
 O. R. 32 
 
 West V. Parkdi 
 reverseil. 
 but afiirn 
 250; 12/ 
 
 West Huron 
 eron, I O, 
 C, 8 .S. ( 
 
 West Noithuii 
 Hendcrso 
 versed 
 
 West Simcoe ( 
 and folio 
 berland 
 t'. Willou 
 
 Western Assur 
 190. R. 
 0. R. 292 
 
 Co., 20 ( 
 C, 5 A. ] 
 
 Western CaiiM 
 Uunu, y : 
 C.,y6. 58 
 
OASES AFFIRMED, BEVERSED, ETO. 
 
 oxtU 
 
 
 WW-Wesl OOMFMN. 
 
 Waril I'. SullibruMH, L. U. H Kx. 170, ful- 
 IdwoiI. .Sho Hrown r. roiim, I'i P. 
 R. aiMl 180(1 
 
 Watiu .". Loniloii mill (Juiiailiun Loan ami 
 AyiMiiiv ('(>.,"<). U.TOO.ttHirnu'il. Moo 
 M. (.. 12 A, K. .-m ; 14 S. (.'. K. '2;JI -ilOS 
 
 , 7 (). U. 7»MJ, 
 
 iliHtiii^iii«hi'<l. Suu Huttc r. Hootli, 
 lOO. U. 3'.1 1183 
 
 Wuiiiouk /'. KliM|)fiir, 14 0. It. 288, alHrm- 
 
 td. Soo 8. ( :. \r> A. K. .'m 71>2, 818 
 
 WatfrliK) Miitiiiil Kire Ins. Co. r. Kohiii- 
 HDii, 4 I). It. '21).'), unproved. .See Smi- 
 l.iook r. Yoiiii^. 14 A. R. 97. . . .401, 1588 
 
 Watson ('. lli'ail»liaw, A. R. (iSU, ob- 
 Burviiil ii|)(in. S(!e Travis v. Travis, 
 l'.» A. H. 4:{8 8S8 
 
 . I', (iiirri'tt, :< I'. K. 74, followed. 
 
 Sl'i! Andrew « r. (Jity of Loiiduii, 12 
 
 1'. H. 44 *. 372 
 
 ('. [iinilHay, 27 Chy. '-'53, alHrmod. 
 
 Seu S. ( ".. (i A. H. (iO!» 1 189, 12«!) 
 
 WatHon uiiil Woods, Ho, 14 (). I{. 48, iUh- 
 tinguiHcd. Sou O'Sidlivan 41. Phulaii, 
 17 (). K. 730 2225 
 
 Wobl) I'. MtArtliur, 4 tHiy. Cliandj. K. 63, 
 I'ollowud. .Suu Uawaoii v. MofVatt, lU 
 1'. R. 3(MI 1960 
 
 /'. Stuiiton, 11 (.). |{. n. 518, coiisid- 
 
 urud. Suu Canada Cotton Co. v. 
 
 I'aniialeo, 13 l". R. 308 89 
 
 KoilowtMl. See Htuart v. Grough, 
 
 15 A. R. 299 88, 699 
 
 Webster v. Leyn, 10 P. R. 86, aftir^ned. 
 
 SueS. C, 15 O. R. 599 884 
 
 Wells r. Lindop (2), 14(). R. 275, ttttirmed. 
 
 See S. C, 1.") A. R. 695 504, 1403 
 
 V. Maxwell, 32 Ueav. 552, followed. 
 
 See Novitt v. MeMurruy, 14 A . R. 22«. 1882 
 Werdernian i: Socii^tu (Jenerule d'Eleetri- 
 eitti, I,. R. 19 Chy. D. 24(), distin- 
 gislied. See MuClenagliau?'. Urey, 14 
 
 C). R. 329 228 
 
 West V. Parkdale, 7 (). R. 270 ; 8 O. R. 59, 
 reverHed. See S. C, 12 A. R. 393, 
 but atlirnied. See S. C., 12 S. C. R. 
 250; 12 App. Cas. 602. . . . 1377, 1757, 2126 
 West Huron Elurtion— Mitcbell v. Cam- 
 eron, I O. R. 43.3, reversed. See S. 
 C.,8 S. C. R. 126 1504 
 
 West Noitimtnberlnnd Election (Uom.) — 
 Hcndi:raoM v. (xuillet, 1 E. C. 32, re- 
 versed. See S. C, 10 S. C. R. 635. . 1477 
 
 West Simooe Case, 1 E. C. 153, referred to 
 and foilowod. Sec East Northum- 
 berland Election (Ont.)— Richmond 
 V. Willoughby, 1 E. C. 434 1496 
 
 West,(!rn Assurance Co. v. Ontario Coal Co., 
 19 (). R. 462, atiirmed. See S. C, 20 
 0. R. 295 990 
 
 17. Provincial Ins, 
 
 C(>.,26 ("by. 661, affirmed. See S. 
 
 C, 5 A. R. 190 935 
 
 Western Canada Loan and Savings Co. v. 
 Dunn, 9 P. R. 490, reversed. See S. 
 C, 76. 587 577, 907 1312 
 
 Wei-Wil] ciiLlTMK. 
 
 Western Fair Association r. liutcbinson. 
 Re. 12 P. R. 40. atiirmed. See S. C, 
 12 P. R. 41 348 
 
 WcHtinghcmsu t. Midland R. W. Co., 48 
 L. T. Rep. N. S. 4(i2, lollowud. See 
 lietts )'. (irand Trunk R. W. (,'o., 12 
 I'. R. 86 6l» 
 
 WuBtniiimter Case (1 O'M. ft H. 89), fol- 
 lowed. Scu Wulland Election (Out.) 
 -ReiiiLy i>. Currie, 11. E. C. 47 .... 1440 
 
 Wheeler i: La .Marchant, 17 Chy. I>. 67R, 
 followed, lietts i'. (jrand Trunk R. 
 W. Co., 12 P. R. 86 Oig 
 
 Whistler r. JIancoek, 3Q. H. I). 83, distin- 
 guished. See liank of Minnesota i). 
 Pug", 14 A. K. 347 339, 1651 
 
 White »'. HoaMley, 2 Chy. •!60, referred to. 
 
 Sec Cole I). Uall, 13 P. R. 100 1174 
 
 V. Helfry, 10 P. R. 64, commented 
 
 on. See Andrews v, ('ity of London, 
 
 12 P. R. 44 367 
 
 r. Hri)<gH, 15 Sim. 17, S. C. in Ap- 
 
 ]>eal2Pliil. 583, distinguished. See 
 
 (How /'. i;iow , 4 O. R. 355 2173 
 
 Township of (iosliehl, 2 0, R. 
 
 287, ailirmed; .See S. C, 10 A. R. 
 555 
 
 Whiteside i». Miller, 14 Chy. 393, com- 
 mented on und followed. See Or- 
 ford I'. Oifcu-d, 6 O. R. 6 
 
 Whiting /'. llovey, 9 O. R. 314, reversed. 
 
 See S. C. , 13 A. R. 7 
 
 13 A. R. 7; affirmed. 
 
 1229^ 
 
 2082 
 
 180 
 
 Sou S. C. , sub nom. llovoy v. Whit- 
 ing, 14 S. C. R. 515 102, 265, 1023 
 
 12 A. R. 119, referred 
 
 1003 
 
 1460 
 
 1896 
 
 to. Sec Connell v. Hickoch, 15 A. 
 
 R. 518 180 
 
 Wickateed r. Munro, 10 O. R. 283 ; af- 
 lirmed. See S. C, 13 A. R. 486 
 
 Widmeyer v. McMabon, 32 C. P. 187, re- 
 ferred to and diitinguished. See Re 
 Young V. Morden, lo P. R. 276 537 
 
 Wigan Case, 1 O. M. & H. 192, Language 
 of Martin, R, adopted. See I'^ust 
 Toronto Election (Out.) — Ronnick v. 
 Cameron, H. E. C. 70.. . 
 
 Wilde ('. Gibsim, 1 H. L. Cas. 605, dia- 
 tinguished. See Cumurou v. Came- 
 ron, 14 U. R. 561.. 
 
 Wiley V. Ledyard, 10 P. R. 182, referred 
 to. See Rowland v. Burwell, 12 P. 
 R. 607 1315, 1660 
 
 Wilkins v. Jodrell, 13 Chy. V f.«4, con- 
 sidered and commented on. See Cook 
 V. Noble, 12 O. R. 81 2212 
 
 V. McLean, 10 O. R. 68, reversed. 
 
 See S. C, 13 A. R. 407 421 
 
 Reversed. See S. C, 13 A. R. 467, 
 but restored. See S. C, 14 S. C. R. 
 22 1305 
 
 Willesford v. Watson, L. R. 14 Eq. 572, 
 followed. See Woodward v. Mc- 
 Donald, 13 O. R. U7I 40 
 
 Williams, Re, 7 P. R. 275, approved of. 
 
 See Regina v. lirowue, 31 C. 1'. 484. 741 
 
 O 
 
 n 
 
 r. 
 
 < 
 
 is 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
cxviU 
 
 OASES AFFIBMED, REVERSED, ETO. 
 
 Wil-WOO] COLUMN. 
 
 Willmnis v. Burgess, 10 A. & E. 499, con- 
 BulercMl ami foUoweil. See Lumsden 
 ('. Davies, 11 A. K. 585 1854 
 
 r. Corbey, 5 A. R. 626, reversed. 
 
 Sec S. C. 7 S. C. R. 470 1858 
 
 ,-. Crosling, 3 C. B. 956, follow- 
 ed. .See .Swaiii c. Stoddard, 12 P. 
 R. 490 1023 
 
 ,.. Crow, 10 A. R. nOl, leferred 
 
 to. See McC Uinell r. Wilkins, 13 
 
 A. R. 438 401 
 
 Wilson r. Boatty— In re Donovan, 29 Ohy. 
 
 280, reversed. .See S. C. 9 A. R. 149. 1957 
 
 r. Roberts, 11 1'. R. 412, followed. 
 
 See Willbanks v. Conger (2), 12 P. R. 
 
 4)7 377,517 
 
 r. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 29 C. P. 
 
 308, followed. See May c. Standard 
 Fire Ins. Co., 5 A. R. (i05 944 
 
 ,.. Woods, it 0. R. 687, disappro- 
 ved of. See Moore i'. Mitehell. 1 1 0. 
 R. 21 511 
 
 V. Xantho, 12 App. Cas. 503, con- 
 sidered. See Dixon )'. Richelieu 
 Navigation (Jo., 15 A. R. 647 213 
 
 Wiltsie r. Ward, 8 A. R. 549, specially 
 referred to. See Re Graham v. Tom- 
 
 linaon, 12 P. R. 367 539 
 
 Approved. See McDermid i: Mc- 
 Dermid, 15 A. R. 287 539 
 
 Winatanley, Re, 6 R. 315, followed. 
 
 See He Northcote, IS (>. R. 107 .... 2206 
 
 Followed. See Re Weller, 16 0. R. 
 
 318 2225 
 
 Withers ?'. Reynolds, 2 B. & Ad. 882, con- 
 sidered and distinguished. Sec Boyd 
 V. Sullivan, 15 0. K. 492 1857 
 
 Wood V. Dunn, L. R. 2 Q. B. 72, consid- 
 ered. See Stuart v. Grough, 15 A. 
 R. 299 93 
 
 V. Hurl, 28 Chy. 146, not followed 
 
 WOO-ZOO] COLUMK. 
 
 Woodman r. Blair, 8 P. R. 179, supersed- 
 ed by McLaughlin v. Moore, 10 P. 
 R. 326 620,863 
 
 Workman r. Robb, 28 Chy. 243, affirmed. 
 Sees. C. 7A. R. 389 
 
 Wright V. Incorporated Synod of the Dio- 
 cese of Huron, 29 Chy. 348, reversed. 
 See S. C. 9 A. R. 411 ; 11 S. C. R. 
 95 
 
 V. London Life Ins. Co., 29 C. P. 
 
 221; 5 A. R. 218, affirmed. See S. 
 
 C. 5 S. C. R. 466 483 
 
 V. Sun Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2l» C. 
 
 P, 221, affirmed. See S. C, 518 ; 5 
 
 1198 
 
 228 
 
 S. C. R. 460. 
 
 983 
 
 See Peters v. Stoness, 13 P. R. 235 
 
 695, 
 1851 
 
 './ood y. Silcock, 50 L. T. N. S. 251, dis- 
 tinguished. See Robertson ?'. Patter- 
 son, 10 0. R. 267 1976 
 
 Woodbury v. Marshall, 19 Q. B. 597, not 
 followed. See Price v. Guinane, 16 
 0. R. 264 397 
 
 Wyld V. Clarkson, 12 O. R. 589, explained. 
 Sec Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co., 16 
 A. R. 409 527 
 
 Wyman v. Imperial Ins. Co., 20 N. S. Rep. 
 487, reversed. See S. C, 16 S. C. 
 R. 715 939 
 
 Xenos I'. Wickham, L. R. 2H. L. 296, dis- 
 tinguished. See Western Assunince 
 Co. (•. Provincial Ins. (jO., 5 A. R. 
 190 935 
 
 Yeomans v. County of Wellington, 4 A. R. 
 301, followed. See Pratt v. City of 
 Stratford, 14 O. R. 260 2137 
 
 Yokham v. Hall, 15 Chy. 335, followed. 
 See Hall v. Furquharson, 15 A. R. 
 
 457 78 
 
 Considered and distinguished. See 
 Claxton V. Shibley, 10 O. R. 295 ... . 81 
 
 York, County of, v. Toronto Gravel Road 
 and Concrete Co., 3 0. R. 684, af- 
 firmed. See S. C. 11 A. li. 765; 12 
 S. C. R. 517 332 
 
 Young V. Christie, 7 Chy. 312, followed. 
 
 See Labatt v. Bixell, 28 Chy. .593 . 827 
 followed. See Heaman v. Scale. 29 
 Chy. 278 828 
 
 y. Corporation of Leamington, 8 
 
 App. Cas. 577, distinguished. See 
 Robins v. Brockton, 7 0. R. 481 1376 
 
 Zoological and Acclimatization Society of 
 Ontario, In re— Cox's Case, 17 0. R. 
 331, reversed. See S. C, 16 A. R. 
 543 260 
 
 .^ M 
 
 f.iu- ■('.'" 
 
 ■fVil 
 
 V" 
 
 A.J. Act.. 
 App. Cas . . 
 
 A. R 
 
 C. C. L. 0. 
 C. 0. P. . . , 
 C. P. D. . . 
 C. L. J . . . . 
 
 O.L. T 
 
 0. s. c 
 
 Chy 
 
 €liy. D 
 
 Con. Rule . 
 Con. Stat. N, 
 
 Don) 
 
 E. C 
 
 G. 
 
 H. E. C. . . , 
 
 Imp 
 
 L. R. 0. . 
 
 Man 
 
 M. L. R. . 
 
 Ont 
 
 0. J. Act. 
 
 O.R 
 
 0. s 
 
 RE. I... 
 
 P.Q 
 
 P. R 
 
 Q. B. D . . 
 
 Que 
 
 R. C 
 
 R. S. N. S. 
 R. S.C.... 
 R. S. 0. . . 
 
 S. C 
 
 S. C. R. . . 
 U. C. L J. 
 U. C. L. J. J 
 
Ota aaasavaK .aarMaiiiA aaaAo 
 
 ItlTX 
 
 ■^ii 
 
 /it ■'■j 
 
 -f. > .-■•' 
 1 1 - ' 
 
 
 A J Act 
 
 
 Ann Cas 
 
 
 A. R 
 
 
 C. C. L. 
 
 
 CO. P 
 
 
 CRD 
 
 
 C. L. J 
 
 
 0. L. T 
 
 . . . 
 
 €. S. C 
 
 
 Chv 
 
 
 <:hv. D 
 
 
 €on. Rule .... 
 
 
 Con. Stat. N. B. 
 
 
 Dom 
 
 
 E, C 
 
 
 G. 
 
 
 H. E. C 
 
 
 Imp 
 
 
 L. R. 
 
 
 Man 
 
 
 M. L. R 
 
 
 Ont 
 
 
 0. J. Act 
 
 
 0. R 
 
 
 0. s 
 
 
 RE. I 
 
 
 R Q 
 
 
 R R 
 
 
 Q. B. D 
 
 
 Que 
 
 
 R. 
 
 
 R. S. N. S 
 
 
 RS.C 
 
 
 RS. 
 
 
 S. C 
 
 
 S. C. R 
 
 
 U. C. L J 
 
 
 U. C. L. J. N. S 
 
 
 
 fooS-ooW [ortW-fiV.' 
 
 ... ■(: ;i ., a , ; .. 
 
 !i I? 'I > r. ;.s n ^. t ■ - . 
 
 .'■ ■ I i 1..M . ■'' 1 ■ .i •.• . ' ' ' , 
 "I I >! 
 
 f,,.iT. 
 
 ; ■■.i\ 
 
 Administration of Justice Act. 
 
 Appeal Cases, House of Lords and Privy Council. 
 
 Appeal Reports (Ontario). 
 
 Civil Code of Lower Canada. -i . 
 
 Code of Civil Procedure, Lowei Canada. 
 
 Common Pleas Division. 
 
 Canada Law Journal. 
 
 Canada Law Times. ' i ' ' ' 
 
 Consolidated Statutes of Canada. 
 
 Grant's Reports. i-' '•' 
 
 Clmncery Division. • ' ' " 
 
 Consolidated Rules of Practice. , . 
 
 Consolidated Statutes of New Brunswick. 
 
 Dominion of Canada. 
 
 » 1 1 111 '" I' 1 ' 1 1/, 
 
 Election Cases. .. •: 
 
 General Orders of the Court of Chancery. 
 
 Hodgins' Election Cases. , , ;,, ,. ^, „j, 
 
 Imperial Statutes. 
 
 ^ ver Canada Reports. ' , ' 
 
 Manitoba. 
 
 Montreal Law Reports. 
 
 Ontario. 
 
 Ontario Judicature Act. 
 
 Ontario Reports. ' ' ' 
 
 Old Series Queen's Bench Reports. 
 
 Prince Edward Island. 
 
 Province of Quebec. 
 
 Practice Reports. , 
 
 Queen's Bench Division. 
 
 Province of Quebec. 
 
 Rules of Court. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Canada. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Ontario. 
 
 Same Case. ««•--- 
 
 Supreme Court Reports. 
 
 Up[)er Canada Law Journal. 
 
 Upi)er Canada Law Journal New Series. 
 
 I 
 
 TO 
 
 -"11,: 
 
 .fi. 
 
 i...,irf r, . ■ 
 
 
1' -f. •'! J H « I 
 
 y'l^/'s (I'fiMin'Ufji ^nrr 
 
 s> • 
 
 
 45,46 QUEEN'S B 
 
 31,82 COHHOin 
 
 3-17 SUPREME < 
 
 .«lii^^^fi;!yPit4/i 
 
 AB 
 
 I. Of Actio 
 
 II. Of AprE. 
 
 in. Of Distr 
 
 IV. OfExck* 
 
 V. Of Exkci 
 
 VI. Of Roads 
 
 VII. Of Ship- 
 
 VIII. Waivkr 
 
 On the 2fitli ol 
 cheques for the xv. 
 iif P. being (Innvi 
 tliechuqneof M. 1 
 iu Toronto. It 
 oheque shoiiKl iiol 
 •luly, and it was a 
 that a .similar res 
 cheque, 'i'iie pri 
 inent and clused 1 
 •-Tth of June, lia' 
 iiauilsat the ore 
 .verved .i writ on ) 
 iliia hahince. the 
 lucluded. His ch 
 |«yiuent, nor was 
 Thechftqueof P. \ 
 time after tiie sus] 
 •ind after some \\v 
 M to ilie paymeuf 
 ineraoninduni dra- 
 form: " Please ta 
 l«8t against F. an 
 include tiie amoni 
 mt upon the unde 
 •« paid me out of ( 
 meiit. You are t( 
 ''" tiie matter." 
 action, and eiitert 
 'Movcred :— Held 
 not neuessarily in 
 tWm upon tlie cii 
 iiewandaubstitut* 
 
DIGEST 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REPORTED CASES 
 
 45,46 QUEEN '3 B3NCH. 
 31, 82 COMMOM PI.B4S. 
 3-17 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
 
 CONTAINED IN 
 
 37-29 OHANOERT. 
 5-17 APPEAL REPORTS. 
 1 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 1-19 ONTARIO REPORTS. 
 8-13 PRACTICE REPORTS. 
 HODOIMS' ELECTION OASES. 
 
 ABANDONMENT. 
 
 I. Of Action— ."fee Costs. 
 
 I[. Of Appeal— iS'ee Appeal. 
 II[. Of Di.stkkss -See Distress, 
 IV. Of Excitss— See Division Courts. 
 
 V. Of E.vecution- See Execution. 
 
 VI. Of RoADS-See Way. 
 
 VII. Of Ship — .Sfee Insurance. 
 VIII. Waiver —See Waiver. 
 
 On tlie 26tli of .Juiie, P. and M. exchanged 
 cheques for the acooiinnodation of P.,theche(jue 
 iif 1*. buing ilrawii oil a bank in Hamilton, and 
 tliech«|ueof M. heing drawn on private hankers 
 in Toronto. It was agreed that the former 
 oheqiie should not lie presented before the 1st of 
 ■luly, and it was allegeil by P. , but denied by M., 
 that a similar restriution applied to the latter 
 iiheque. The private bankers suspended pay- 
 ment and closed their doors about noon on the 
 ■-"Ttli of June, having a large balance in their 
 iiaiidsat the credit of iM.. wlio, on that day, 
 .-■ervcil a writ on them in an action to recover 
 this lialance, the amount of the cheque being 
 lucludeil. His cheque was never presented for 
 l»ymeiit, nor was any notice of dishonour given. 
 Theciiniiueof P. was presented and paid. Some 
 time after tlie suspension of the private bankers, 
 •ind after some negotiations between P. and M. 
 M to ihe payment of M.'selieque, P. signed a 
 memoiniulum drawn up by M. in the following 
 form: " Please take judgment when you think 
 liest ttgiiiust F. and L (the private l)ankers), to 
 include the amount of your cheque for .?,57o to 
 me upon the understanding that the same is to 
 ^ paid nie out of the first proceeds of such judg- 
 ment. You are to exercise your best discretion 
 '» the matter." M. then went on with his 
 action, and entered judgment, but nothing was 
 lecovcred ;— Held, that this memorandum did 
 not necessarily import an abandonment of P. 's 
 iliiim upon the cheque, and the acceptance of a 
 new and substituted mode of obtaining payment, 
 
 and did not operate as an accord and satisfaction. 
 Blackiey v. McCabe, 16 A. R. 296. 
 
 ABATEMENT. 
 
 I. Of Action — See Action. 
 
 II. Pleas in — See Pleading. 
 
 III. Of Purchase Money on Sale of Land 
 — See Sale of Land by Order of thl 
 Court— Specific Performance. 
 
 ABORTION. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 ABSCONDING DEBTOR. 
 
 I. Attachment. 
 
 1. When hmtable, 2. 
 
 2. Apjjlicatioii for, 3. 
 .3. Special Sail, 4. 
 
 4. Powers of Local Master, 4. 
 
 5. Setting Aside, 4. 
 II. Judgment, 4. 
 
 III. Execution, 5. 
 
 IV. Costs, 6. 
 
 V. Service on — See Practice. 
 
 1. Attachment. 
 
 1. When Issuable. 
 
 Goods were sold to the defendant by the plain- 
 tiffs upon a five months' credit, and he refused 
 to accept a bill of exchange at five months for 
 their price. The plaintiffs, before the expira- 
 tion of the five months, issued a writ of attach- 
 ment against the defendant under the Absconding 
 Debtors' Act, R.S.O. (1877) c. 68, on an affidavit 
 
ABSCONDINO DEBTOR. 
 
 that defendant was indebted to them for goods 
 sold and delivered :— Held, that to bring a ease 
 within the statute, there must be a debt due and 
 payable at the time of tiie issuing of the writ, 
 and tliat in this case there was no such debt as 
 sworn to. 'I'he uttachnieiit was tlierefore set 
 aside. Scmble, that in proceedings of this 
 kind tlie existence of the debt itself may be 
 enquired into. Kyle v. Barnes, 10 P. U. 20, — 
 Dalton, Maxte.r—(Jsi,iaQvoi\. 
 
 Held, that the forfeiture of a recognizance to 
 appear was a debt sufficient to support the ap- 
 plication for an attachment under the Abscond- 
 ing Debtors' Act, and that such writ may be 
 granted at the suit of tiie Crown, where the de- 
 fendant aljsconds to avoid being arrested for a 
 feh)ny. Itojvia v. Stewart, 8 P. 1!. 297.— Osier. 
 
 • ' 2. Application for. 
 
 In an action at the suit of the Crown, an order 
 was made for a writ of attachment against de- 
 fendant as an absconding debtor : — Held, that 
 the affidavit of debt which in this case was made 
 by the Crown attorney was sufficient. Reijina 
 V. Steirnrl, 8 P. R. 297.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the amount for which special bail 
 is to be put in need not be mentioned in the order 
 for the writ. lb. 
 
 The affidavit upon which the order for a writ 
 of attachment against an absconding debtor was 
 issued were not styled in any court, altiiough 
 sworn before a connnissioiierfor taking affidavits 
 in tlie Q. B., who appended to his signature the 
 words " A Com. in \i. R.,"etc. : — Held, that the 
 affidavits were sufficient. EUerby r. Walton, 
 2 P. R. 147, followed : Hart i-. Ruttan, 23 C. P. 
 613, not followed. Scott v. Mitchell, 8 P. R 
 618. — Armour. 
 
 An application was made to a county judge 
 for an order to issue a writ of attachment under 
 the Absconding debtors' Act ; the judge did not 
 finally determine against the application, but 
 gave leave to renew it upon a further affidavit : — 
 Held, that there was no reason why the appli- 
 cation should not afterwards be made to another 
 judge, liniik oj Hamilton v. Baine, (2) 12 P. 
 R. 439.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Semble, that where a judge refuses to grant 
 an attachment or an order to hold to bail, 
 successive applications may be made to succes- 
 sive judges upon the same material, and an 
 order granted by any one of them will be as valid 
 as if it had been made by the first one ; but in 
 the case of a subsequent application upon the 
 same or different material the ju(lge should 
 always be informed of every previous applica- 
 tion ; this, however, more as of a matter of pro- 
 priety than of legal riglit, and an omission to do 
 so would not be a ground for setting aside the 
 order if the material warranted the granting of 
 it. III. 
 
 JTeld, t'lat the same particularity in stating 
 the cause of action is not required when a judge 
 has to make an order for a writ of attachment 
 or to hold to bail, as was required in an afiida 
 vit to hoM to bail wlien no order of a judge was 
 required, nor as when personal liberty is involv- 
 ed, lb. 
 
 3. Special Bail. 
 
 In an action at the suit of the Crown, an order 
 was made for a writ of attachment against defen- 
 dant as an ai)scondini' del)tor. Service of the 
 writ was accepted by his attorney, «ho entered 
 an appearance to the writ : — Held, tliat this van 
 a useless proceeding, and that the defendant 
 siiouid have put in special bail. Jtei/iiia v. Stiw. 
 art, a P. I!. 297.— Osier. 
 
 See Bank of Hamiltit 
 infra. 
 
 v. Baine, 12 P. R. 418, 
 
 4, I'oireri oJ Local MoKler. 
 
 Local masters have no greater powers in mat- 
 ters coming before theui in chambers under the 
 jurisdiction given them by the 0. J. Act (44 
 Vict. c. i))an(T48 Vict. c. 13, s. 21 (O.), than those 
 conferred upon the master in chambers, and 
 from these powers the power of referring causes 
 under the Common Law Pioceduro Act is ex- 
 cepted. A local master has, therefore, no power 
 to make an order to proceed against an abscond- 
 ing ilebtor, upon default after service of the writ 
 of attachment, where such order contains a clause 
 directing a reference under s. 197 of theC. L. P. 
 Act (1877). It is intended by ss. 8 and 9 of the 
 Absconding Debtors'Act, I!. 8. 0. ( 1877), c. 68 that 
 only one order shall be made under which the 
 plaintifi' may proceed to judgment, and, there- 
 fore, where an order of reference is necessary the 
 order to proceed must be made by a judge who 
 has jurisdiction to refer causes. Bank of' Ilam- 
 ittoH V. Baine, 12 P. It. 418.— Street. 
 
 5. Settinij Axiile. 
 
 On an application to set aside the writ :— 
 Held, that any defect in the materials on which 
 it was grantee!, might be supplied by the affida- 
 vits used on such application. Jtci/ina v. Slew- 
 art, 8 P. R. 297.— 0,sier. 
 
 Held, that defendant was precluded from mov- 
 ing to sot aside the proceeding by having ac- 
 cepted service of the writ, with knowledge of 
 certain alleged irregularities, and having de- 
 layed moving until after the time for pleading 
 had expired. Il>. 
 
 If a creditor has reasonable grounds for infer- 
 ring his debtor's intention to defrauil his credi- 
 tors, a writ of attacliment will not be set aside. 
 Scott V. Mitdu'll, 8 P. R. 518. —Armour. 
 
 The Judge of a County Court who orders the 
 issue of a writ of attachment out of the High 
 Court under s. 2 of the Absconding Debtors' 
 Act, R. 8. O. (1887), c. (iO, has no jurisdiction 
 to entertain an application to set aside .such 
 writ. Disher v. l)ish.r, 12 P. R. 518.— C. PD. 
 
 See With v. Carroll, 10 P. R. 142, infra. 
 
 II. Judgment. 
 
 After judgment has been entered against an 
 absconding debtor pursuant to tlie finding of a 
 County Court judge on a reference under R S. 
 0. (1877) c. ()8, B. 9, the ina.ster in chambers hM 
 no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment at the 
 instance of another creditor who wishes to be 
 let in to defend. Wills v. Carroll, 10 P. E. 
 142. —Chy. D. 
 
 The n 
 
 against t 
 hands do 
 land is : 
 Berijin, 1 
 
 The sh 
 
 the land i 
 
 sided, am 
 
 .•i»y one ii 
 
 instructio 
 
 lie told ti 
 
 land woui 
 
 seizure :— 
 
 that writs 
 
 hands subi 
 
 were ontit 
 
 On the 5 
 of attachn 
 tiffs were i 
 the goods o 
 and under 
 .Snbsequeni 
 tachment v 
 against tlic 
 and tile goo 
 up l)y hini 
 of the Abs 
 Division Ci 
 Court attacl 
 ments were 
 tors ; execu 
 Superior ai 
 the Division 
 certified nie 
 court, by vi 
 tioued in it 
 ing in the p 
 who had obt 
 tion. Peiiii 
 the sale of t j 
 and the gooil 
 sale paid intj 
 butioii of tl 
 claimed pay! 
 tiiallothercl 
 of issuing thi 
 ''liarges paidT 
 l)u paid tirstl 
 and (iharges \ 
 recovering, [ 
 that any feel 
 l>ivision C(u| 
 inent on the! 
 Piirty and iJ 
 slieriffshoulJ 
 also the cost) 
 sail, and the L 
 after paymeil 
 •'« distributl 
 Durlin.j v. ,vf 
 
 On the 
 seized ccrtai I 
 writs of exel 
 tachment nij 
 was issued ,. 
 under wliidil 
 I'wty, credil 
 •-nd Uctob M-J 
 placed in liis'l 
 slierill' sol, 
 
ABSOONDINQ DEBTOR. 
 
 III. Execution. 
 
 Tl\e mere fact that a writ of attachment 
 acaiust an absconding debtor is in the sherifif's 
 hands does not bind the debtor's land, and the 
 lami is not bound until seizure. RobimoH v. 
 Bertjvi, 10 P. R. 127.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 The sheriff's bailifif went to and entered upon 
 the land of the debtor, on which his family re- 
 sided, and Kiuling there no goods, did not leave 
 ••my one in possession ; he said that he had no 
 instructions beyond the warrant to seize the land; 
 he told the debtor's wife at the time that the 
 land would be sold, but he did no other act of 
 seizure :— Held, tiiat there was no seizure, and 
 tliat writs of fi. fa. lands placed in the siierilf's 
 liauds subseiiuent to the writ of attaclimcnt, 
 were entitled to priority, lb. 
 
 On the 25th of January, 1884 -leven warrants 
 of attacinneiit at the instance or diflferent plain- 
 tiffs were issued out of a Division Court against 
 the goods of the defendant, an absconding debtor, 
 and under them the bailiff seized certain goods. 
 JSubsequently and on the same day a writ of at- 
 tachment was issued by the plaintiff in this suit 
 .iijainst the defendant as an absconding debtoi', 
 iiiid tlie goods seized by the bailiff were delivere<l 
 up by hiin to the sheriff pursuant to section IG 
 of the Absconding Debtors' Act. Five other 
 Division Court attachments and one County 
 Court attaciiment were afterwards issued. Judg- 
 ments were recoverd by all tiie attaching credi- 
 tors ; executions were issued in the suits in the 
 Superior and County Courts ; and tlie clerk of 
 the Division Court furnished the sheriff with a 
 certified nuMnonindum of the judgments in that 
 court, by virtue of whii^h eacii creditor men- 
 tioned in it was entitled for tlie purpose of shar- 
 ing in tlie jiroceeds to bo treated as a plaintiff 
 wholiad ol)taiiied judgment and sued outexecu- 
 tion. Pending this suit an order was made for 
 the sale of the goods attaclied under tiio writ, 
 and tlie goods were soM, and uo proceeds of the 
 sale paid into court. Upon a motion for distri- 
 l)ution of the moneys in court the plaintiffs 
 claimed payment of tlieir costs of suit in priority 
 til all other idainis. It was ordered that the costs 
 of issuing the plaintiff's writ, and the fees and 
 i:liarges paid to tlie sheriff for executing it should 
 he p.iid tirst out of the fund, because these costs 
 and charges were necessarily incurred in seizing, 
 recovering, an<l preserving the property, and 
 that any fees wiiicli had been incuried in the 
 Division Ccmrt in issuing tlie warrants of attacli- 
 iiieut on the S.'ith .lanuary, and .seizing the pro- 
 perty and iiolding it till it was delivered to the 
 slieriti' siiould also be paid out of the fund, and 
 also the costs of the order directing the sheriff to 
 sijll, uiid the costs of this application, and that 
 after payment of these charges the fund should 
 lie distiibuted ratably among the creditors. 
 
 DaHinj v. Umilh, 10 P. K. StiO.— Osier. 
 
 On the 27th of September, 1884, the sheriff 
 seized certain gooils of the defendant under two 
 writs of execution. On the .SOtli, a writ of at- 
 tiiclimeiit under the Absconding Del)tors' Act, 
 was i.ssued and placed in the sheriff's hands 
 under wliioli lie seiz.ul all the defendant's |)ro- 
 perty, credits, and effects. On the 1st and 
 •-'nd Octiib'r, two more writsof attaeliment were 
 placed in his hands. On the IStli October, the 
 alieiitl' sold under the executions and realized 
 
 enough to satiafy them ; the moneys remaining 
 in his hands pending these proceedings. On 
 the 20th of October, the sheriff received a certifi- 
 cate under the Creditors' Relief Act, 1880, and 
 another certificate on the 24th. On the 26th he 
 sold the balance of the defendant's property, 
 seized by him. After this various certificates 
 and executions were received by him. On the 
 14th of October, he had made the entry in his 
 book under the Creditors' Relief Act. None of 
 the attaching creditors had placed executions in 
 the sheriff 's hands :— Held, that as the proceed- 
 ings under the Absconding Debtors' Act had 
 been commenced prior to the sale of the goods, 
 and therefore prior to the sheriff being required 
 to act under the Creditors' Relief Act, the latter 
 did not supersede the former, so that the moneys 
 realized were subject to such former Act, and 
 must be distril)uted thereunder : that the pro- 
 ceedings under the latter Act were not well 
 taken; and that the creditors who had certifi- 
 cates, to come within the former Act, must 
 obtain judgment and execution in the ordinary 
 mode. Macfie v. Pearson, 8 0. R. 745. — Rose. 
 
 Where money comes into the hands of a Divi- 
 sion Court clerk under a garnishee summons, 
 and he is made aware of a writ of attachment 
 under the Absconding Debtors' Act, R. S. O. 
 (1887), c. 66, he must pay the money to the 
 sheriff and not to the primary creditor, under 
 the provisions of s. 1(5 of tiiat Act. Re. Moore 
 v. Wallaw, 1.3 P. R. 201.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Where after the service upon the garnishees of 
 a Division Court garnishee summons a County 
 Court writ of attachment was placed in the 
 hands of the sheriff', and the garnishees paid the 
 amount owing by them to the primary debtor, 
 to the sheriff, but the judge in the Division 
 Court ordered the sheriff to pay the money to 
 the Division Court clerk, and the clerk to pay it 
 out to the primary creditors in the Division 
 ("Jourt :— Held, that the judge was right in ruling 
 that the money should have been paid by the 
 garnishees to tlio Division Court clerk under s. 
 189of the Division Courts' Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 
 .■)! , and tiierefoie his order upon the sheriff to pay 
 it to the clerk could not be interfered with ; but 
 the order to pay out to the primary creditors 
 was contrary to s. 16 of the Absconding Debtors' 
 Act, R. S. 0. (1887), c. 66 ; and prohibition to 
 restrain the clerk from so paying out the monty 
 w.as directed. Ih. 
 
 IV. Costs. 
 
 Held, that the object of section 20 of R. S. 
 O. (1877) c. 68, is to save harmless the bona 
 tide attaching creditor, whose writ has had the 
 effect of saving and protecting the de'utor's pro- 
 perty for the execution creditor. In this case 
 there was a fund, nut exigible under the execu- 
 tion, to wliich the attaching creditors alone were 
 entitled, and several attachments, of which the 
 [ilaiiitifTs was third in time, ami the whole pro- 
 perty had been seized and S(dd or retained under 
 the first writ. The plaintiff, without disclosing 
 tiiese facts, obtained an order under s. 20 of the 
 Act that all costs of his attachment should be 
 paid out of the ilebtor's assets before the execu- 
 tion, and under it taxed his wlndo costs of suit. 
 The order was set aside, for had the facts been 
 disclosed it should not have been made, and in 
 
 O 
 % 
 
 n 
 
 V. 
 
 M 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 
 
ACTION. 
 
 & 
 
 -s=? 
 
 .y* 
 
 any event only the costs of sning out and exe- 
 cntinK the attachment were taxable. Tlie ap- 
 
 {>licatiou to set aside such order was hehl not to 
 « an appeal. Hwjhps v. Fitld, 9 P. 1'. 127. — 
 Osier. 
 
 ABSENT DEFENDANTS. 
 
 8u Absconoinu Debtor— Intoxicatixc Li- 
 
 QDORS— PkAC'TICE. 
 
 Ill «'j^«l ;. '• jit 1 
 
 i}U') -ft IIWW)'..' 
 
 !• lUii lit! ' (> X"' 'I' 
 
 ABSTRACT OF TITLE. 
 
 8u QuiSTiNu TiTLEa— Reoistrv Laws— S.\le 
 OF Land. 
 
 toWf n^l" 1-.^ :..,!.,.) .I,i,.(l (111, 
 
 ':!\!l''"' ACCEPTANCE. 
 
 L Of Bills — See Bills of Exchanhe and 
 Promlssoky Notes. 
 
 IL Of STotK-5'ec CoMPANV. "'"" ,»^':f.«» 
 
 IIL Of Office— iV Minicipal Corpora- 
 tions. 
 
 IV. Of Service— .Sfe Pkactice. 
 
 V. OfGoods— &e SaleofGood.s. i .. , 
 
 icj-iXS ^uW ; 
 
 ■>i(i Jnili IV'V v. 
 
 ACCESSORY. 
 
 Hf.'C 
 
 III, I. 
 
 iSec Ckiminal Law— KvidekCe. 
 
 An accessory before tlie fact is liable to extra- 
 dition, but an accessory after the fact is not. 
 Reijhia v. Browne, 6 A. R. 386 ; 31 C. P. 484. 
 
 ACCIDENT. 
 
 I. From Neolioence— 6>e Neoliobnce. 
 IL Insurance Against— iSee Insurance. 
 
 ACCOMPLICE. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Evidence. 
 
 See Rcijina v. Jiruwiie, A. R. 386 ; tl 0. P. 
 484, auirni. 
 
 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 
 
 Sec MoRTo age- Payment — Will. 
 
 See lUiK-Meii v. MeCahe, 16 A. R. 295, p. 2 ; 
 Cralhem v. /irJ/, 45 y. H. 47:{ ; 46 Q. B. 365 ; 
 8 A. H. 537. pp. 844, 845 ; iVMon v. \'ai(ijluiii, 
 5 «. C. K. 35, p. 334 ; bnindaije v. J/owaid, 13 
 A. R 337, p. 248. 
 
 ACCOUNT. 
 
 I. Actions for Account, 8. 
 11. Alteration, 8. 
 
 III. Referring Matters of Account— A'k 
 
 Arbitration and Award— Practice. 
 
 IV. Mortgage .Suits — See Mortgage. 
 
 V. PARTNER.SIIIP Accounts — See Partnkh- 
 
 SHU". 
 
 VI. Limitation of Actions for- See Limi- 
 tation OF Actions. 
 
 VII. '^F Trustees— See Tru.sts and Trus- 
 tees. 
 
 Ill' I 
 
 1. Actions for Account. '' 
 
 Seinble, where one creditor, having obtaineiT 
 property from his debtor in fraud of other credi- 
 tors, has realized the property, and received tliu 
 proceeds in a shape that cannot bo earmarked, 
 another creditor who has thereby bcendefraudeci, 
 cannot make the preferred creditor account lor 
 the said proceeds, and has no other remedy than 
 that prescribed by 13 Eliz. c. 5, s. 2. JJuvi't v. 
 Wichon, 1 0. R. 369.— Boyd. 
 
 ISee Jioijem v. Ulhiian, 27 Chy. 137, p. 169."> : 
 Meiizii-^ V. Oiji/vic, 27 Chy. 456, p. 90 ; Harpn- 
 V. Cvlbert, 5 O. R. 152, p. 1081 ; Carneyit x. 
 Federal Bank of Canada, 8 O. R. 75, p. 201 ; /.'< 
 KirkpaJrkk—Kirkpatrick v. titeremoii, 10 P. K. 
 4, p. 7.S0 ; Camtroii v. likkford, 11 A. R. 52, p. 
 1539; Saudfurd v. Porter, 16 A. R. 565, p. 
 112. 
 
 '"' II. Alteration. 
 
 U,> I 
 
 Criminal liability. See In re Hall, 9 P. K.^ 
 373; 8 A. R. 31, p. 436. . .._ , 
 
 -^ 
 
 ACCRETION. '^ 
 
 See Water and Water-Courses. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TITLE- 
 
 See Limitation of Actions. 
 
 ACQUIESCENCE. 
 
 See Estoppel. 
 
 ,(/./ 
 
 ACT OF PARLIAMENT. 
 
 See Constitutional Law — Statutes. 
 
 ACTION. ' > 
 
 I. By and Against whom Maintainabli:. 
 1. Particidur Pernoim. 
 (a) Pemons Aijjrieved, 9. 
 
'9 
 
 AOTXOIV. 
 
 (b) Annij/iifi: of Choneiii Action— See 
 
 CiruitE TX ArrioN. 
 
 (c) Other PeraoiM—See The Several 
 
 Titles. 
 
 2. Oinir Cam*, lOl 
 
 rr »T A 11 ■«W>f .11! 
 
 II. Notice OF Action-, 11. ,j, ; 
 
 III. For WHAT Maintainable. .( )\ 
 
 \. Generally, 12. 
 
 2. /« Other CaneH—See The Several 
 Titles. , 
 
 IV. Place OF Accrual, o /-.iK r 
 : ■ ! 1. Generally, 15. 
 
 2. DivUion Court Canex — .%? Division 
 
 Courts. 
 
 V. Joinder of Causk of Action — See 
 Pleading. 
 
 VI. Parties -.S'ee Pleading. 
 
 VII. MuLTiPLiciTV OF Actions— Sw Mort- 
 oa<;e. 
 
 ■VIII. CiRcriTY OF Action, 15. 
 
 IX. CoNsoLiDAiisG — See Practice. 
 
 X. Sri.iTriNo Causes of Action — i9e(- 
 DivisiON Courts. 
 
 XI. Cross Actions, 15. , ' 
 
 XII. Dl.SCLAlMER, 16. t . , 
 
 XIII. Abatement op. 
 
 1. By Death of Parties, \6. ., , 
 
 2. Other Canes, 17. 
 
 XIV. Discontinuance and Withdrawal— 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 XV. Compromising and Settling. 
 
 \. iiy Parties, 17. 
 
 2. Sy Solicitor— See Solicitor. 
 
 XVI. Suspension of Actions in Cases of 
 Felony, 17. 
 
 XVII. Restraining— Sew Injunction. 
 
 XVIII. Dlsmissing. 
 
 1. For non-compliance with Order for 
 Discovery for Interrogatories— See 
 Evidence. 
 
 2. Other Cases— See PaAOTiOK. 
 
 XIX. Trial OF-See Trial. 
 
 XX. Limitation ov—See Limitation of Ac- 
 tions. 
 
 XXI. Releasing— i^ee Release. 
 
 XXII. Reviving — See Scire Facias and 
 
 Revivor. 
 
 XXIII. Particular Actions— See The Seve- 
 
 ral Titles. 
 
 XXIV. Juhisdiction of Courts — See The 
 
 Several Title.s. 
 
 I. Byaud Against whom Maintainable. 
 1. Particular Persoru. 
 (a) Persons Aggrieved. 
 Right of shareholders to use name of company 
 in actions against other shareholders. See //)• 
 
 ti-niational Wrecl-ini/ Co. v. Muriihy, 1 2 P. R. 
 423, p. 278. 
 
 In actions for ntechanius' liens. See Bank of 
 Montreal v. HajTuer, 3 0. R. 18.S ; 10 A. R. 592, p. 
 1170; OldlieUl v. Barbour, 12 P. R. 554, p. 117». 
 
 See Verralt v. McAulay, 6 O. R. .313. p. 1701 ; 
 Atkins V. Plolemy. 5 O. R. Stid, p. 1331. 
 
 1^. Other Cases, 
 
 <.m)iit 
 
 The coiitnict in this case having been made 
 between appellant and respondents only, and 
 beiiit; a contract of agency apart from any <juch- 
 tion of ownership, the action was properly bruiight 
 by appellant in uis own name : Tascherean iind 
 (rwynne, .IJ., diss. Wcldon v. Vanghaii, 5 S. 
 C. R. .35. 
 
 Qua?re, wliether the clerk of a municipality is 
 only liable to a cnuviction under sec. ISO of tlio 
 Assessment Act, R. 8. 0. (1877), c. 180, at the suit 
 or upon complaint of the Crown, or to a civil 
 action by the plaintiffs as well. Totvn of Peter- 
 borom/h v. Edwards, 31 C. P. 231.— Gait. 
 
 Held, (attiriniug Ferguson. J.), that inasmuch 
 as, if the p-i rents of the plaintiff had brought a 
 suit upon the agreement in this case and re- 
 covered, they would be trustees of the proceeds 
 for her, the plaintiff might maintain the suit in 
 her own name. Roheiis v. Hall, 1 O. R. 388.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Held, following Parkes v. St. (jeorge, 10 A. 
 R. 400, that the plaintiffs not being execution 
 creditors, could not maintain an action to set 
 aside a chattel mortgage on the ground that the 
 debt was incorrectly stated therein. Hyman v. 
 Cuthbertson, 10 O. R. 443.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant Jefferys, owner of a frame tene- 
 ment in Toronto, agreed with his co-defendant 
 DoUery for the removal thereof to another part 
 of the city, such removal to be made at D. 's own 
 risk and without damage to that or any other 
 property. Both defendants contemplated and 
 nitcndcd that the house was to be drawn and 
 moved along Sherboume street for some distance. 
 Under a by-law of the city, all persons were pro- 
 hibited under a penalty from moving any build- 
 ing into, along, or across any street without the 
 written permission of the board of works. In 
 this case no auch permission was obtained, and 
 in the course of hauling the building along the 
 line of the track of the plaintiffs one of the sills 
 was upset, thus preventing its further removal 
 for two days, during which time the plaintiffs 
 sustained loss by the non-receipt of fares and 
 dfimage to their property :— Held, (Burton, J. 
 A., dissenting), that Jefferys as well as DoUery, 
 was liable for the loss so occasioned. Per Osier, 
 J. A., as the plaintiffs had, by their charter, the 
 superior right of user and occupation of the 
 street, a duty was cast upon J. to see that prt.- 
 per precautions were taken to prevent injury 
 arising from obstructing the railway by means 
 of the building of which he was procuring the 
 removal, and which could not from its size be 
 removed along the street without obstructing 
 the traffic. Toronto Street Railway Company t. 
 DoUery, 12 A. R. 679. 
 
 Where a person suing on behalf of himself and 
 others ia disentitled to sue on his own behaUi he 
 
 S 
 
 » 
 
 e 
 
 8! 
 M 
 
 ■a' 
 
 f. 
 
u 
 
 ACTION. 
 
 12 
 
 cannot do go on bolialf of the othera interested. 
 Dillon V. TownMp of llaleigh, 13 A. R. 53; 14 
 S. C. R. 739. 
 
 A receiver hiis no ri^ht to sne in his own 
 name for a debt due to the per.soiior corporation 
 whoso a8s>;ts lie lias i)eeii appointed to receive ; 
 nor can that right he confurriil on liini hy order. 
 Hut wliere l)y an ex parte order ma<lo in tlie 
 action in whidi tlio plaintiff was appointed re- 
 ceiver, he was anthori/x-d to bring actions in his 
 own name for the collection of debts duo to a 
 certain (i range, and brought this action pursu- 
 ant thereto. Held, that an amendment should 
 be made adding the (iraiige as uo-iiliunUlIs 
 without security being given for their costs, tliey 
 lK!ing insolvent. If there were no jiersoii m 
 whose name the action could be brought, there 
 wouM perhaps be jurisdiction to direct it to be 
 brought in the name of the receiver. McGiiin v. 
 FrelU, 130. R. ()!H».-Chy. D. 
 
 A pathmasleris "an othceror person fulfilling 
 a public duty " within the meaning of 1!. S. O. 
 ( 1877), c. 73, s. 1 , and for anything done by him 
 in the performance of such public duty, he is 
 entitled to the protection of the statute ; but 
 whore, professing to act as a public olHcer, he 
 seeks to promote his private interest by some act, 
 ho disentitles himself to the protection of the 
 statute and may be proceeded against for such 
 act as if he were a private individual. Slallrr 
 V. Toinmhip of Duuickh, 15 O. R. .•i42.— (,». 15. D. 
 
 Where a pathmaster of a township in the 
 course of his employment so acted as to disen- 
 title himself to the protection of the statute, and 
 thereby caused damage to the phiintill':— Held, 
 that the township corporation as well as the 
 jNithmaster was liable ; and even if not originally 
 so, the corporation made itself liable by sanction- 
 ing what was done, and refusing to amend it 
 after notice. Ih. 
 
 (^ui tarn action for penalties for not registering 
 partnership. See Cluti>iit v. llobtrt, 14 A. R. 354. 
 
 In a suit for a declaration of the invalidity of 
 the Quebec Act and relief ;— Held, that the jilain- 
 tiff, us a contributor to the fund all'ected by S'i 
 Vict. c. 06, was entitled to sue, and that Ids suit 
 was not barred by reason of the Quebec Act hav- 
 ing been passed in conformity «ith the ies(d'.ition 
 of a synod of the church to which he belonged. 
 Dobie V. Temporalities Board, 7 App. (\is. 13(5. 
 
 See Emery v. Court Pride of the Dominion, 2 
 y). li. 596, p. 150: Bmlty v. A'eelou, 9 O. R. 385, 
 p. 17 ; 12 A. R. 50 ; 13 S. C. R. 1, p. 240. 
 
 II. XoTlCK ()!■• .\CT10N. 
 
 A returning officer is not entitled to notice in 
 an action for penalties under the Ontario VApo- 
 tion Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 10. Wullon v. Ap- 
 John, 5 0. R. 65.— Q. 15, I). 
 
 To a chief constable in an action for malicious 
 arrest. See MrKai/ v. Cmnmiuijn, (i O. R. 400, 
 p. 298. 
 
 'I'o constable in an action of replevin for im- 
 pounding cattle. See Ihboltsoii v. Ilvnry, 8 0. 
 R. 62,5. p. 532. 
 
 In action against constable and a justice of the 
 peace for having and concealing a colt. See 
 Jlouiell V. Armom; 7 0, R. 363, p. 1120. 
 
 See HnmiMv. John- 
 See also Pardee v. 
 
 To Division Court Bailiff. 
 Kton, 3 0. R. 100, p. 554. 
 (,7rt*s 11 0. R. 275, p. 343. 
 
 To registrar of deeds, in an action to recovei 
 fees. See Corporation of the County of Brucr v. 
 MrLnti, 11 A. R. 477, p. 18'27. 
 
 To registrar of deeds for wrongfully register- 
 ing documents. See Ontario hidnxtrtal Loan 
 and Jnrentmtnt Co. v. Lindncy, 3 O. It. (iO. 
 
 As to raising objection to want of notice of 
 action by plea. See Verratt v. MrAnlay, 5 (>. 
 R. 313; MiKay v. Cummin<ix, O. R. 400. 
 
 To inspector of fisheries, under 31 Vict. c. 60. 
 See Vennin;/ v. Stcadman, 9 S. C. R. 206. 
 
 To justices of the peace. See Howell v. Ar- 
 7nonr^ 7 0. R. 363, p. 1 120 ; Bond v. Conmee, 15 
 0. R. 710 ; 10 A. R. 398, p. 1 122 ; Jones v. Orao, 
 17 O. R. 681, p. 1123; tiinden v. Brown, 17 A. 
 R. 173, p. 1122. 
 
 Per Proudfoot, J., a notice of action under 
 the Workmen's Compensation for Injuries' Act 
 does not require to be signed, or to be on behalf 
 of any one. Mason v. Bertram, IS O. R. 1. 
 
 A notice of action is necessary in an action for 
 danuiges against a board of license commission- 
 ers acting under R. S. O. (1887), c. 194. Leeson 
 V. Board of License Commissioners of the Cuunly 
 i,J DuJIirin, 19 0. H. 67.— Cliy. D. 
 
 Solicitors for the plaintiff before action wrote 
 as follows to the defendant :— " We have been 
 consulted by Mr. J. Cox concerning injuries 
 sustained by him while in your employ by which 
 ho lost his left hand. We have received instruc- 
 tions to commence an action against you for 
 damages unless the matter is satisfactorily set- 
 tled without delay. If you intend contesting 
 this suit, kindly let us have the address of your 
 solicitors who will accept service of process on 
 your behalf :" — Held, reversing the decision of 
 Cameron, C. J. C. P. D., that this was sufti- 
 cient notice of action to satisfy the rcquirenienls 
 of 49 Vict. c. 28, ss. 7 and 10 (Ont.), Stone c. 
 Hyde, 9 Q. B. D., 76 followed. Co.e v. Hamil- 
 ton Sewer Pipe Co., 14 O. R. 300. -Chy. D. 
 
 III. FoK WHAT Maintainahi.e. 
 
 I. General ly. 
 
 One M. , and the defendants as his sureties, 
 executed a bond conditioned for the good Ijc- 
 havi(mr of M., a clerk of the plaintiffs at Mon- 
 treal. The bond was executed at Hamilton by 
 the defendants who were resident there. M.,. 
 made default at Montreal and absconded. I'rd 
 ceedings were taken against the sureties without 
 joining M. Per Spragge, C, though the In-each 
 occurred in Montreal, and there was no cause cif 
 I action till default, yet there was a potential 
 I cciuity in the defendants, coeval with the execu- 
 tion of the bond, which became a right of suit on. 
 tlie default of M. : and there was also an implied 
 contract on the part of M., upon execution of the 
 bond, to repay to his sureties any money that 
 they might have to pay by reason of his default. 
 Exchange Bank \. Springer ; Same Plaintifi's \. 
 Barnes, 29 Chy. 270. 
 
 A creditor's assignee, not himself a creditor, 
 cannot sustain an action to set aside a fraudulent 
 
 renson of not iii 
 
13 
 
 ACTION. 
 
 W 
 
 conveyance or transfer made by the debtor, prior 
 to the nssignmeiit under wbich ho claims to be 
 such assignee. Liaiixden v. .Vco<^ 4 0. 1{. 323.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 If a person borrow money from nn innocent 
 lender and employs it in preferring a creditor, 
 tlie lender is not debarred from suing for rei)ay- 
 ment. Court v. JIo//aiiil, 4 O. it. (iSS.— I'rouli- 
 foot. 
 
 Wiicro one brouglit action against the rcgis- 
 tfii. 1 owners of a certain vessel for the value of 
 goods supplied before tliey became sucii owiiei's, 
 not on the order of tiie tlefendants, but on the 
 order of one ii.C, between wiiom and tjic de- 
 fendants no relation of agency was proved : — 
 Held, tliat the plaintiff could not recover :— 
 Held, also, that it was open to the defendants to 
 shew that their real interest was that of mortga- 
 gees, though ostensibly registered owners. The 
 fact that the vessel got the beiielit of the sup- 
 plies and necessaries did not make the reiristered 
 ownerliable. X,-/son v. Whjti', 8 O. U. 82. -fioyd. 
 
 In an action under 40 Vict. c. 43, s. 47 (!.>.), 
 brought in Ontario against a shareholder there 
 resident, of a company whose head oflice was 
 in another province, where judgment liiid been 
 obtained by the plaintiff against the com|)any, 
 and execution thereon had been returned unsatis- 
 fied :— Held, reversing the judgment of Rose, .J. 
 (7 0. It. 435), that the cause of action against the 
 shareholder was complete without tlic return un- 
 satisfied of an execution against tin; company in 
 Ontario. Brice v. }fituro, 12 A. It. 4.")3. 
 
 The fact that a plaintiff has brought an action 
 for infringement before registering his trade- 
 mark, which action has therefore proved abor- 
 tive does not prevent him bringing another ac- 
 tion after registering. Smith v. Fair, 14 O. K. 
 729.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The plaintiff sued for dam.iges for false testi- 
 mony alleging that he liiid failed in a prior action 
 by reason of such testimony given therein by the 
 present defendant : — Held, that the action would 
 not lie ; aud the plaintilf being in default by 
 reason of not having given notice of trial, the 
 action was dismissed. Vlurki- v. Creii/hloii, 13 
 P. R. 113.— Daltori, J/((.>7('/-.~-(ialt. 
 
 After the time fixed by an award under the 
 Ditches and Water-courses' Act, 1883, for the 
 completion of certain drainigo work by neigh- 
 bouring landowners, the pluintitf, who M-as one 
 of the parties interested in the award, in writing 
 required the defendant, as township engineer, 
 to inspect the work with the object of having 
 it completed according to tlie award, but as 
 the plaintiff alleged the defendant neglected to 
 inspect the work or cause it to be completed 
 .iccordin:; to the award, and thereby the provi- 
 sions of the award were not carried out, and the 
 plaintiff in conseciucncc suffered damage by rea- 
 son of water remaining on his land, etc.: — Held, 
 that the provision of section 1 3 of the Act, as 
 to the uispection of the engineer is imperative, 
 iindan action would lie for breach of his duty ; 
 hut even if the evidence had shewn aueh a breach 
 the damages claimed were not the proximate, 
 necessary, (U- natural result tlierer)f. The other 
 iirovisions of section 13 are merely permissive, 
 and no action wouhl lie for tlndr non-perfor- 
 mance ; nor, were it otherwise, could it be held 
 that the damages claimed were the proximate, 
 
 result of such non-performance. Those who by 
 the terms of the award, ought to have done the 
 work, were the persons proximately responsible 
 fur the <lamages. O'Jiyriic v. Cam/ihe/!, 1.5 0. R. 
 .3.3!). -y. H. J). 
 
 The defendants enlarged a drain running 
 through the plaintiff's land ; the earth taken 
 from which thov deposited (m either side and 
 left it there. The plaintiif sued for damages to 
 his land, etc., by reason of such depositing of tho 
 earth. It was admitted that the work was done 
 under a by-law passed under section .576 of the 
 Municipal Act (1883), and it was not suggested 
 that tiio by-law was defective in any way. The 
 jury found that the defendants were not guilty 
 of any negligence, but that tho plaintiff had 
 suffered damage in consequence of the execution 
 of the work : — Held (reversing the decision of 
 Rose, .1.), that upon these findings judgment 
 should have been entered for the defendants ; 
 that a cause of action could not accrue from the 
 doing of a lawful act, unless in a negligent man- 
 ner; and that the plaintiff's remedy, ifany, was 
 by arbitration to obtain compensation under the 
 Municipal Act of 188.3, a. 01. Prentoii v. Cor- 
 parat ion of Camden, 14 A. 11. 85, 
 
 On the maturity of a bill of excdiango the 
 drawers thereof, thinking the .acceptor would be 
 unable to meet it telegraphed him, that if unable 
 to pay it to draw on them for the amount. The 
 acceptor took the telegram to the manager of the 
 pl.aintiffs' b.ank, who on the faith of it discounted 
 a sight bill drawn by tho acceptor on the drawers 
 with the proceeds of which he retired his accept- 
 ance which was held by another bank. The 
 drawers refused to accept the bill so re-drawn : — 
 Held, that tlie telegram having been sent for the 
 purpose of inducing persons to advance money 
 on it, and to take the bill so drawn in pursuance 
 of it, a privity was created between the plain- 
 tiffs and the defendants, senders of the telegram, 
 entitling the former to maintain an .action against 
 the latter for the money so advanced : — Held, 
 also, that no time being mentioned in tho tele- 
 gram an authority to draw at sight would lio 
 implied. Bank of Montreal v. Thnma^, UiO. It 
 503-C. P. D. 
 
 Actions brought in the name of a road com- 
 pany against the present plaintiff's were dismissed 
 with costs, on the groujid that the company had 
 never been incorporated according to law. Tho 
 present actions were brought against f(mr of the 
 corporators of the conn)any, three of them com- 
 posing the tirni of solicitors who h.ad conducted 
 the former actions on behalf of the supposed 
 company, .and all four having expressly author- 
 ized the bringing of the former actions, seeking 
 to recover the costs of such former .actions, exe- 
 cution therefor against the company having been 
 I'eturned iiiil/a bona : — Held, that, in the absence 
 of malice .and want of reasonable and probable 
 cause in bringing the former actions, the present 
 actions were not maintain.able against the defen- 
 dants as corporators or as solicitors bringing 
 actions on behalf of plaintiffs who had no legal 
 existence. Flatly. ]Vn(hUII — 'J'ownnendv. Wad 
 d<ll, 18 0. li, 539,— Q. B, D. 
 
 N. 1). respondent, owner of a cheese factory, 
 made an agreement with farmers by which the 
 latter .agreed to give the milk of their cows to no 
 other cheese factory than that of N. D. N. I). 
 subsetpieutly sold to<T. I), (the appellant) the 
 
 Q 
 M 
 
 n 
 
 9: 
 
 > 
 
 
15 
 
 AOnON. 
 
 Vv. 
 
 16 
 
 factory an<l houm la xiinple garantie de gesjaiti fJ I 
 promeimeH, whatever riuhts he may have uiuk'r 1 
 nia agreement with the farmers, for the bulk i 
 sum of 87,000. G. D. aasigiied to B. the factory 
 and the siime rights, hut exuhiiling warranty, ' 
 nans graiuilie. ancuiit, for $7,500. A uompany i 
 was aubauquently fornieil to whom B. assigned 
 the factory and the rights, and one of the farm- > 
 ers to the original agreement having sold mili< 
 to another cTieese factory, the company sued 
 him, but the action was dismissed, on the ground 
 that N. D. could not validly assign peraimiil 
 rights lie had agiiinst the farmers. Tlieruupou ' 
 G. D. brought an action against N. 1). to recover ' 
 the price paid for rights which N. D. iiad no 
 right to assign. At the trial it was proved 
 that although the price mentioned in thtt <leod 
 and paid was a bulk sum for the factory and 
 the rights, the parties at the time valued tlie i 
 rights under the agreement with the farmers at ' 
 $5,000. G. U. also admitted that the action was 
 taken for tiie benefit of the present owners of 
 the factory : — Held, affirming tiie judgment of 
 the court below. Strong and l''ournier .)J., dis- 
 senting, that, inasmuch as the a]>pellant, by the i 
 sale he ha<l made to B. , had received full benefit < 
 of all that he had bought from respondent, and j 
 had no interest in the suit, he could not claim | 
 to be reimbursed a portion of the price paid, i 
 Per Taschereau, J., if any action lay, it could 
 only have been to set the sale aside, the parties 
 being restored to the uteUiM quo ante if it were 
 maintained. Demerit v. Duhaime, 16 S. C. R. .366. 
 
 See Bniots v. Conlei/, 8 0. R. 549, p. 1078 ; 
 Caxweil v. Mnn-ayy 9 P. R, 192, p. .157 ; Gonmee 
 V. Caiwdi<i>i Pacific R. W. Go., 11 P. R. 149; 12 
 A. R. 744, p. 2046 ; Bender v. Carrier, 15 S. C. 
 R. 19, p. ;«9. 
 
 IV. Pl.ACK OF ACCRDAI,. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 As to pl.ice where cause of action arose on 
 breach of contract. See Gildernleeve v. McDou- 
 unit, .SI C. P. 164 ; 6 A. R. 553, p. 758. 
 
 VIII. Circuity of Action. 
 
 M. being seized in fee of land mortgaged to 
 the plaintilT, and then sold to D. expressly sub- 
 ject to the mortgage. D. sold to one Maybe in 
 the same manner, and Maybe sold to defendant, 
 who had notice of the title, covenanting against 
 incumbrances. The plaintiff proceeded against 
 M. and the defendant, and obtained judgment 
 for sale on non-payment and costs, whereupon 
 defendant paid the plaintiff's claim for debt, 
 interest and costs, and took an assignment of the 
 judgment and mortgage :— Held, that the defen- 
 dant had no right under such judgment to levy 
 from M. any portion of the costs so paid, for if 
 he were allowed to do so, M., by the effect of 
 the conveyance, would have a remedy over for 
 them against the land, defendant's property, and 
 could then force defendant to pay them back. 
 Kempt V. Macaukij, 9 P. R. 582.— Dalton, Maa- 
 ter. — Proud foot. 
 
 .^ .... XI. Cross Actions. 
 
 For compensation for defect in quality of goods 
 sold. See Towem v. Dominion Iron and Metal 
 Co., 11 A. R. 315, p. 1861. ,. . ,v 
 
 On the 4th February, 1885, the Confeileration 
 Life Association commenced an action in tiiu 
 Cliaucery l>i vision to sut aside a policy of insnr- 
 aiiuu. On the 1.1th May, 188.'>, Miller rt al. 
 brouglit a., action to recover the anuMiiit of tli« 
 policy, and on the 23rd May moved to slay 
 nrocecdings in the former action : — H«'ld, fof. 
 lowing the rule laid down in Thomsoi) r. Soiitli 
 Kast.nii R. W. Co., 9Q. B. 1). 320, that there 
 is no hard and fist rule in caMcs of crnHH 
 actions, that the one commenced list hIiouIiI 
 l)e stayed. The court should take the circum- 
 stances into considcr.ition, and exercise its ilis- 
 cretion as to what is the fairest moijif of scttlinj; 
 the dispute, iind give the conduct of iho litigi 
 ti'in to the party upim whom the siilistantiul 
 burden of proof rests. On appeal l!ose, .1., 
 ileelined to make any order. Snbsecjuently, on 
 the 27tli June, 188."), the defendants in the Hist 
 action moved for a stay of proceedin,2s in it, 
 and the Master made an order accordingly. On 
 12th appeal on Octol)er, Boyrl, C., declined to 
 interfere at jirescnt, as the action of Miller c. 
 Confederation Life h,ad been tried and a verdie', 
 given for the plaintiffs, but reserved leave t > 
 renew the motion if the verdict slionid be si t 
 aside, and varied the order of the Master bv 
 consolidating the two actions. Miller v. Cmi- 
 feileration Life Aswriation — C'ov/eile ration Li/i'. 
 AHMociii/ion v. Miller, 11 P. R. 241. 
 
 See Direct CaJltle Co. (Limited) v. Dominion 
 Tehijraph Co. 28 Chy. 648, p. 1630. 
 
 XII. DiSCIiAIMEH. 
 
 An application by defendants in an action of 
 ejectment to have their names struck out .m thi; 
 gi'ound that they were not in possession at i.r 
 subseqi ent to the issue of the writ, and disclaim 
 any interest in the land is regularly made befoi <; 
 appearance, although the application would \w 
 entertained after appearance where the justice < f 
 the case required it. But where two defendants 
 applied after appearance to have their nanu.s 
 struck out, and the court, from the facts, enter- 
 tained a doubt as to the good faith of these de- 
 fendants, the application was dismissed, with 
 costs. Anglo-Canadian MortqaiiK Co. v. Colli r, 
 8 P. R. 111.— Dalton, Q. C. ' 
 
 Costs after defendant disclaims any interest 
 in the result of a suit. See Wandey' \. Snudl- 
 wood, 11 A, R. 439, p. 366. 
 
 XIII. Abatemrnt of. 
 
 1. By Death of Parties. 
 
 Semble, that under O. J. Act, Rule 383 (Con. 
 Rule 620), an action of seduction abates by tlie 
 death of the plaintiff. Udy v. Stewart, 10 O. 
 R. 591. 
 
 The plaintiffs, formerly owners of a line of 
 steamers, brought this action against the defen- 
 dants, who were formerly owners of another lino 
 of steamers, alleging that by certain misrepre- 
 sentations on the part of the defendants as to 
 certain contracts alleged by them to be held in 
 connection with their line, they, the plaintiffs, 
 were induced to enter into an agreement with 
 the defendants for the amalg.imation of the two 
 
17 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 18 
 
 lines ftiid the formution, in connection with the 
 liefundants, of a joint stock uonipnny to own nnd 
 run tho Hnme, and seeking dnmngeo in reRpectof 
 8ucli inigrepreHentationn. < hiu of the defundanta 
 dieii after igsne joined :- -Held, tlie action could 
 lie proceeded with against the surviving defen- 
 dants. Mtaltii V. Nerlmi, 9 (>. R. 38-).— Wilson. 
 See.V. 6'., 12 A. K. TO; U S. C. J{. 1. 
 
 P. brought an action against a conductor of 
 the I. C. R. for injuries received in attempting 
 to board a train, and alleged to be caused by 
 the negligence of the conductor in not bringing 
 tliu train to a standstill. Un the trial 1*. was 
 nonsuited, and on motion to the full court the 
 nonsuit was set aside and a new trial ordered. 
 Between the verdict and the judgment ordering 
 a, new trial P. died and a suggestion of his death 
 was unteied on the record. On appeal to the 
 Supreme Clourt of Canada from the order of tho 
 full court : — Held, that under Lord Cunipbell's 
 Act, or the equivalent statute in New Bruns- 
 wick ((!. S. N. B. c. 8(>) an entirely new cause 
 of action arose on the death of P. and the origi- 
 nal action was entirely gone and could not be 
 revived. Whitt v. Parker, ICS. C. R. «99. 
 
 ,Sce Bromi v. Grorp, 18 O. R. 311, p. 1918. 
 
 2. Other Caxen. 
 
 This suit became abated between the date of 
 tiie report and the term fixed by it for payment, 
 by subsequent encumbrancers. On an applica- 
 tion for a final order for foreclosure it was re- 
 fused, and a new day was appointed allowing the 
 encumbrancers an additional time for payment, 
 emial to the time the suit remained abated. Big- 
 jj«r V. Way, 8 P. R. 158. — Blake. 
 
 Hee Crewe- /if ad v. County of Cape Breton, 14 
 S. C. R. 8, p. 1254. 
 
 XV. Co.MI>RUMI8INO AND SETTLING. 
 
 1. By Parties. 
 
 A married woman can compromise an action 
 brought in her own name against her husband. 
 See Vardon v. Vurdon, 6 0. R. 719, p. 884. 
 
 Where certain creditors and the administrator 
 were parties to an order in chambers compromia- 
 ing an action respecting certain assets of the 
 estate:- -Held, that they were bound by such 
 compromise, and could not impeach in this ad- 
 ministration proceeding the validity of securities 
 which had been in question in the action com- 
 promised. AffrchaiUn' Bank v. Monleith, 10 P. 
 R. 467.— Hodgins, Mauler in Ordinary. 
 
 XVI. SuspENSioK OT Actions in Ca8ks op 
 Fklony. 
 
 To an action for assault and battery defendant 
 pleaded that before action brought the plaintifif 
 laid an information before a magistrate, charging 
 defendant with feloniously, etc., wounding the 
 plaintiff with intent to do him grievous bodily 
 harm, thereby charging the defendant with 
 felony : that defendant was brought before the 
 magistrate, and oommitte<l for trial, which had 
 not yet taken plao« : thftt the subject of both the 
 
 civil and criminal prosecution waa the same, and 
 that plaintifTfl civil right of action was suapondiMl 
 until the criminal charse waa disposed of : — Held, 
 on demurrer, plea good, and an order waa accord- 
 ingly made staying the civil action in the mean- 
 time. Taylor v. AfrCnUoMjh, 8 0. R. 309.- 
 Roae. 
 
 ADDING PARTIES. > " 'J <> 
 
 See Injunction— Plkadinh. .(,«>i: 
 
 It 
 
 ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 I. Of Estatks— .S'e»! ExKCitroE.s and Ad- 
 ministrators. 
 
 II. Of Insuhasck Company's Dkposit — See 
 In.>ukance. 
 
 It. 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR. 
 
 See ExECCTORS and Administrators. 
 
 ADMISSIONS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 is' •:! •' " 
 
 I ADOPTION. - I »»: ^f 
 
 
 t?( 
 
 See Infant. 
 
 ;, 
 
 ( 
 
 ADULTERY. 
 
 Alimony in Case of— .^ee Husband and Wife. 
 
 i V I V. 
 
 ADVANCEMENT. .^ , 
 
 See Infant. i3.j'>;lii 
 
 ADVERSE POSSESSION. 
 
 iS'ee Ejectment — Limitation of Actions. 
 
 ' 1; 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 I. Publication of Municipal By-Laws— 
 See Municipal Corporations. 
 
 II, 
 
 Sale of Land, 
 
 1, 
 
 2, 
 
 Umler Execution — See Execution. 
 Under Quieting Titles Act — See Quikt- 
 iNG Titles. 
 
 3. By Order of the Court— See Sale ok 
 
 Land by Order of the Court. 
 
 4. Compennation. for MisrepresentatHf» — 
 
 iSee Sale op Land. ■ -■ ••^- ■- » - 
 
 C3' 
 
 -4 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 9 
 
 
19 
 
 ALIMONY. 
 
 a» 
 
 The fact that an intontnto whoHO eHtnto is bviiig 
 partitionuil, ImR huun dvad for forty-Hvu yuiiM 
 <loeB not warrant a niUHter in iliMpunainK with 
 thi) UKual ailvurtiauMiont for oroditoiH. nii/ijar 
 V. /iiminr, H V. R. 4HH. — Hhiko. 
 
 Ndtiuu for a call on Htnck uiidor 12 Vict, u, 
 ir>7, H. 27) iiiililiHhcd in a nuwM|m|)cr in one diH- 
 triut iH Hiidicii.'nt to rundur tliu Hhui'tihoMuiN n^- 
 Nidin;< in tliat diatrict liuldu to pay thu call, 
 notwithatandinu that thu notice may not havu 
 Ixson publittlii'd in otliur diHtricta wlicru Htock in 
 held. Prorhicial Ivk. Co. v. C'aiin roii J'J.nfii- 
 hi.,; ai C. 1'. 5l»3.-(\ p. I).; !) A. K. f>(i. 
 
 TrimtocH inRcllinKHoniu cimrch property under 
 K. S. (). (IHS7), c. 2;J7, 8. 13. adv«rti»cd on tlio 
 Hanio day of the week for four suucosHivc weeks 
 in a daily paper :— Hold, not a Hutfieient coin- 
 iiliance with the jiroviBion of the Htatute direct- 
 ing publication in a " weekly pnper," to make a 
 proper mile nf tlie landfl, and that the piircliaser 
 had good ^'round for refusing to accept the title 
 oflTcred. lie, Tfitnttin of the Kiml 1'reiihytcrUt.n 
 Church ami Mc.Kny, 10 O. K. 30.— FeiguKon. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT. 
 
 In Particui.ak Cases — .See TiiK Skvkral 
 Tiri.RS. 
 
 Where affidavits used on a motion were badly 
 written, scarcely leuible and dillicult to decipher, 
 the court refused the plaintiti'all cosIh cunnecteil 
 with their prejiaration, althou>;h the co.sts of 
 the suit were given him. liiirnhiim v. (lai-ivi/, 
 27 Chy. HO.— Spragge. 
 
 The afiidavitof bonafides in a chattel mortgage 
 )iui'porte<l to lie sworn before " T. ^^. R," with- 
 out any addition. The aflidavit of execution 
 waH sworn befmc! tlio same commissioner, his 
 name being foJlMWijil by the words, "A (,'om- 
 missiomr in 15. 11., etc." : -Ih^ld, no objecti(m 
 to the alliilavit of lioiia lides. /fmiii/ton v. liar- 
 riMou, -to (). H. 127. -<,). I'.. 1). 
 
 The atlidavits upon wliic^li the order for a writ 
 of attacliinent against .in al)sconding debtor was 
 issued, were not styled in any court, althougli 
 sworn before a commissioner for taking afhiiavits 
 in the Q. H.. wiio app('n<led to his signature the 
 words, " A Com. in H. R., etc."- Held, that the 
 aflidavits weresutiicieMt : Klleiby »:. Walton, 2 
 I*. K. 147, followed ; Mart r. jiuttau, 23 C. I'. 
 013, not followed. Sru// v. Mlkhe/I, »> I'. K. 
 .">I8. — .Armour. 
 
 Where the alHdavit for an order to arrest, was 
 intituled in the High Court of .Ftistice but not in 
 the proper iJivision :— Held, that the objection 
 was clearly amendable. IMierlson v. Coidtoii, 
 I'. H. 10. -Osier. 
 
 An aflidavit cntitleil in the Q. II, and sworn 
 before the .Judiciturc Act (Nime into force, might 
 under 8ec:tioii 1 1, sub-sections 2 and 3, be made 
 the founilation of an order in the Q. |{. Division. 
 Jilliol v. Cipo.li, !» I'. R. 3.-). Dalton, Maxler.— 
 O.sler. 
 
 In the plaintiiT's aflidavit on a motion to sign 
 final judgment under Rule 80, (). J. Act (Con. 
 
 Rule 730), the word " defence " had been itruck 
 out, and the word " anpearancu " interliiXKl, 
 without being initialed hy thu uommiasioner li«, 
 fore whom the affidavit was aworn :— Held, 
 under Rule 40H (). .1. Act (Con. Rule Oil), tiiut 
 thu aflidavit could not be reail. JUtyil v. McXiill- 
 WW R. 40.3. -Dalton, Mustt): 
 
 The copy of affiilavit marked as an exhibit to 
 the affidavit of the Toronto agent wns not tiled 
 as an exhibit, and waa HubMe<|uently producod 
 to the court as an original aflidavit, a new jiirnt 
 having been added : — Held,)ier K.ileonbriilge,.!,, 
 that tiie exhibit, <!veii though it waa not actually 
 in the hands of the officer of tlie Court, waa part 
 of the record of the case, an<l ahould not have 
 been so dealt with, (iilherf v. Slikn. 13 I'. R. 
 121. 
 
 AGENT. 
 
 .SV'PKINnPAl- A.NI) AilKNl 
 
 AGREEMENT. 
 
 I. ( i i;n kka i.i.v — .S'-e Co.ntiiact. 
 II. To Lka.sk— .Ve^' Lan'di.oki) anu 'I'knant. 
 III. As TO (.'osTs— .9ce Soi.lCiToit, 
 
 AIR 
 
 ,Sce Oni'i- v. Ilmsrll, \\ A. IJ. 08">, p. 1177. 
 
 ALIECT. 
 
 I. Akiskst oK--.SV(' AiiUKsr. 
 
 II. lO.VTIiAlilTION OK— .SV( E.\TllM)ITInN, 
 
 III. SkciiIUTV fok Costs liv— .S'lr Cosrs. 
 
 IV. Rifiirr TO \'oTK -Si'C I'AtlUAMKNI'ARV 
 
 Ki.ECTIONS. 
 
 V. Ski!VI(!e OS— .SV^ I'kacik^k. 
 
 VI. N.\TrKAI,r/.ATI(tN OK -Sec I'Alil.lAMKS- 
 TAKV KlKOTIONS. . 
 
 ravinent of money to foreign guardian. See 
 Flamkrs v. D'En/i/ii, 4 (). R. 704, p. 90!l. 
 
 Foreign trustee for infants. See Ife Aiiilrcir*, 
 If P. R. I!M», p. OOS. 
 
 The mortg.agee of a British ship is not an 
 owner within the meaning of Imperial Statute, 
 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, and there is no jn'ovisinii 
 in that statute to prevent an alien being a mort- 
 gagee. Cdimtock V. Harrin, 13 O. R. 407.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 ALIMONY. 
 
 iS'ce Husband and Wife. 
 
21 
 
 ANNUITY. 
 
 22 
 
 ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 Set I'akliamkntakv I'lr.KiTioNH, 
 
 ALLOTMENT OF SHARES. 
 
 .SVc ('((MI'ANV. 
 
 ALLUVION. 
 
 See Watku ani> VVatkr-Couhskh. 
 
 ALTERATION. 
 
 I. Ok A('(;()1int.s— .SVp AfcursT. 
 II. Ok IJii.i.H ASK NdTKM— .Vcc Bills ok Iv\- 
 
 CirANdK ANn I'KOMISSOIIV NoTK.S. 
 
 III. ()K Uv.KUH-SiP. Dkki.. 
 
 IV. Ok iNaunKi) I'kkmisks. - .SV* Insiihamik, 
 
 Alteration of tiled copy of ok'ctioii petition i 
 by clerks of Toronto agent of piitilionur's noli- 
 citor. Service of copy corresponding' with iillur- I 
 ed petition on rcHpondcnt. .Sec fAiieohi iiml\ 
 Niaycm J'Jli.ction, (l)om.)—l'nltis„ii v. lliikf.it, 
 I K. C. 4-.'8. 
 
 AMALGAMATION 
 
 iSVf CoMTANY— IUii.ways am> Haii.wav ('(iM- 
 
 I'A N I KS. 
 
 AMENDMENT. 
 
 I. Ok DkCKEK — .SVf Pl.KADINCJ. 
 
 IT. Ok Ji'D(iMK.>rs -.S>« Judhmknt. 
 
 III. Ok Kxkcution.s— ,SVr Kxk( irios. 
 
 IV. Ok I'lkai)IN(js— .SVf f'l.r.ADiNd. 
 
 V. Ok Inkokmation.s — iVc iNioxicATiNii 
 Liguoiis. 
 
 VI. Ok CoSVIlTKlNS — .SVf iNTOXICATINti 
 
 LiyuoRH-.TrsTicKs of tiik Pkack. 
 
 Skssions. 
 
 VII. Ok I'iKX'KKKINCiS IN (.'ONTKOVKKTED 
 
 Klkctioss— .SVk Pakmamentary Klec- 
 
 TIONS. 
 
 Wliere pending the investigiition of the title 
 under the Quieting TitltH' Act, the petitioner 
 liid out llie hind in village lots luid i-egisteied ft 
 plan :— Held, that the petition nawt he amended 
 111 Mcordiiiicu with the plan. /.V Morxe, 8 P. R. 
 475,-Blake. 
 
 There having been a iniHMomer in the names 
 (if the applicants for a mandamus — Per Armour, 
 iind Cameron, J,J., such niiKiiomer not having 
 lieen objected to on the argument below might 
 be amended. Per Hagarty, CI., in such a case 
 
 no amcndnient Hhonld be granted aM a matter uf 
 diHcretion, /n re //i';,'' School Hoiird oj Hiffh 
 Srhiiol D'lutriii So. .f, n/'/hf U. ('. o)' Slormnut, 
 Diiliiliix, mill (}fti>i/nr)-i/, niiil the Afiiiiiri/inl I'lir- 
 liorntioii uf Ihi' 'J'tiii'inhi/) of Winchmlrr, 45 I). H. 
 4<l(), 
 
 W here a bridge was wrongly deHcribed in an 
 indict iiu-nt a!( being in two townNliijm : -Held, 
 that thongh thiH could have been amended at the 
 trial it coidil not bi- aini'iided on a motion to net 
 iiNide the vurtlict or for ii new trial. Urqiim v. 
 amnilij of CnrMoii, \ (). K. 'ill.- q. W. U. 
 
 Where theatlldavit for an ordi^r for arrest wnt* 
 intitnliMl in the High Court of JuHtii:e, Init not 
 ill the )>roper division ; Helil, thiit the objec- 
 tion was cli'arly amendable, /{nher/noii v. ('mil 
 lull, II I'. K. Ml'.- Osier. 
 
 The c.ipiaH issued afteraction was in the form 
 rdiiiierly iiseil for the commencement of an 
 lu'tion : - Held, amendable. //'. 
 
 .See lie Smuii In fault, i'2 P. II. «3.'), p. 84S. 
 
 ANOIENT DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Si'P KvibKNTE. 
 
 ANIMALS. 
 1. DiHTiiAJNi.Nd Damauk Fkasan i" — ,SVp 
 
 I tl.sTKK.SS. 
 
 II. Mv-LaWS RKllAKDINIi — .?« Ml'MCIl'AI. 
 
 CoHI'OltATIONS. 
 
 III. ISMIKYTO— .S>r KaII.WASS AM) KaII.WAV 
 CoMTANIKS. 
 
 Klfecl of Bills of Sale Act, U. S. O. (1877) c. 
 Il!t, where animal conveyed by one of two 
 ownerH. .See li'iiiiii v. ISiinjcsn, .5 (). R. (|8r», p. 
 18.'). 
 
 Damages recoverable for loss of sheep killeil 
 by dogs. Sms ilciiiiin v. Perriii, lOO. R. 44(), 
 p. ").")."). 
 
 Liability of wife of owner of an animal ferie 
 natnni' for (lamaucs caused by its escape from 
 premises forming ])art of her separate estate. 
 See Slidir v. MrVnary, lit (>. K. ;{!», p. 880. 
 
 The defendant killed upon his own land, 
 which adjoined that of the plaintiffs and was 
 unfenced, a deer, one of the jn'ogeny of certain 
 deer imported by the jiliiiititrs and defendant, 
 and allowed to run at large upon the land : — 
 I leld, that the deer was fcric natune and having 
 been shot by the defendant on his own land, 
 belonged to him : -Held, also, that neither the 
 Act incorporating the plaintitl's '29-30 Vict. c. 
 I'22, norR. S. O. (I8S7), c. 221, s. 10, vested 
 the absolute ]>ro|)erty in the deer in the plain- 
 titl's. Jli' Lomi I'oiiil Co. V. Anderson, I!) O. R. 
 487.— <^ B. i). 
 
 ANNUITY. 
 
 See Wn.r,. 
 
23 
 
 A]>]^SAL. 
 
 On the 18th Ootober, 18fl«, the owner of real 
 estate granted an annnity thereout of f40, with 
 power of distress in case of tlefuiilt. Only one 
 year's annuity was paid, and in Octolier, 1877, 
 the grantor, by writing, acknowledged the 
 amount then due. On a bill filed by the an- 
 nuitant claiming ten years' arrears, with interest 
 thereon : — Hel(f, that the power of distress was 
 not such ft penalty as took the case out of the 
 general rule that interest will not be allowed on 
 artears of annuity ; and that notwithstanding 
 tlie written ndniissiou l)y tlie grantor of the 
 amount tlue under tiie deed, theatitiuitant could 
 recover only six yeers' arrears without interest, 
 as iigaiiist a puisne incumbrancer who had duly 
 registered iiis coi. icnice. Vroiif v. Crone, 'll 
 Chy. 42."..— Proudfoot. 
 
 Interest on, as against assignee in insolvency. 
 .See Shmt v. Badenach, 10 O. R. LSI, p. 2198. 
 
 T. C. .S. devised his estate of Clark Hill, with 
 tlie islands, lands and (grounds appertaining, to 
 his nephew M. — M.'s grandmother, by her will, 
 directed her executors to pay him $2,000 a year 
 so long as he should remain the owner and actual 
 occupant of Clark Hill, " to enable him the 
 better to keep up, decorate, and beautify the 
 jiroperty known as Clark Hill, and the islands 
 connected therewith : " — Held, that the expro- 
 |)riation, under an Act of the Legislature, of 
 part of tiie Clark Hill estate, did not in any 
 way ailect M.'s right to tiiis annuity ; and there- 
 fore in awarding compensation to M. for the 
 lands expropriated, the arbitrators properly ex- 
 cluded the cousi<leration of any contemplated 
 loss by M. of this annuity, hi re MacMem and 
 the Conimii'iioiierfi of the Xiayara Fuiit Park, 
 14 A. R. 20. 
 
 A failu'-e by M. to reside and occupy, would 
 be in the nature of a forfeiture for breach of a 
 condition subsequent, and his right to the an- 
 nuity would continue absolute until something 
 <iccurred to divest the estate which must be by 
 his own act or detault ; the vis major of a bind- 
 ing statute could not work a forfeiture. Upon 
 the evidence the court refused to interfere with 
 the amount of compensation awarded. //'. 
 
 See Coleman v. Hill, 10 O. R. 172. p. 1265; 
 Mackniiaii v. Gray, Hi 0. R. 321 ; 16 A. R. 224 ; 
 .V. C, "lib Horn. Oray v. Coiifih/iii, 18 S. C. ")53, 
 p. 1254. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 I. In Evidence —.S'fe ICvirKNiE— Exami- 
 nation OF Jddo.ment Debtor. 
 
 II. In Pi.RADiNo— .9^6 Pleadino. 
 
 ANTE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT. 
 
 See Frai'dulent Conveyances— Hi-sband and 
 Wife. 
 
 APOLOaT. 
 
 See DUFAMATION. 
 
 ...M'.> ...- APPEAL.'- ">'^''^ ■'' 
 I. Oengrai,i,v, 25. \ xca'A If 
 
 II. Time FOR An-EA lino. "• •'' 
 
 1. Generally, Hii. 
 
 2. To Court of Appeal— See Coi-rt m 
 
 A I'I'KAL. 
 
 X To Supreme. Court — See Scpremk 
 CorRT ok Canada. 
 
 III. .Stavini; Proceeuinos Pending Ai'PEAi 
 
 30. 
 
 IV. Admission of Further Evidence, 31, 
 V. RioiiT TO take Ckocnds of Appeal 
 
 NOT TAKEN IN THE ColRT BeLOW, 3f2. 
 
 VI. Costs of Appeal. | 
 
 1. Generally, 32. 
 
 2. Jiiiwt ami Se-:urily—See Court iic 
 ,. ,, t,. Appeal— Privy Coitncil— Si i-rkjic 
 
 CoiRT OF Canada. 
 
 VIL Abandonment OR Waiver, 34. 
 
 VIII. PA^MENT OF Money out of CoBur 
 Pkndino Appeal — See Costs— Pay 
 ment. 
 
 IX. Praciice of Appellate Courts k A(- 
 ■iioNS for J>ama(ies— .S'ee Damacjes. 
 
 X. In Particular Proceedinos. 
 
 1. A/ipli<at,!o)i for Xeir Trial— Seclitv 
 
 Trial. 
 
 2. AnxetMmeiiln — See Assessment akd 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 3. Attachments — See Attachment of 
 
 Debts. 
 
 4. A irarils — See Arbitkation AKI) 
 
 Award. 
 
 ."). llalteaxCurpni—See Habeas Corpcs. 
 
 6. Injunctions— See Injunction. 
 
 7. Interpleader — See Interpleader. 
 
 8. MawlamHs— See Mandamus. 
 
 9. Controverted Elections— See Parua 
 
 MENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 10. Petition of Right — See Petition nt \ 
 
 Right. 
 
 11. Taxation— See Costs— Solicitor, 
 
 12. Windinij-up oj Comj)anien—See Com- 
 
 pany. 
 
 XI. From or To Partkiular Courts. 
 
 1. To Priry Council — See Privy Cocn 
 
 CIL. 
 
 2. To Supreme Court — See Supkmi! | 
 
 Court of Canada. 
 
 3. To Court oj Appeal—See Court or | 
 
 Appbal. 
 
 4. ToDinnioiial Court — .?ecHiGHCociii | 
 
 of Justice. 
 .5. From County Courts — .S'ee CoBIITT j 
 Court. 
 
 6. From District Court— See DiSTWCr | 
 
 Court. 
 
 7. From Divisimi Ciurta — See DiviSlW | 
 
 Court. 
 
 8. 
 
 From 
 
 
 gate 
 
 0. 
 
 From 
 
 
 TICE. 
 
 10. 
 
 From I 
 
 
 Coui 
 
 11. 
 
 From 
 
 12. 
 
 From 
 
 \3. 
 
 From 
 
 14. 
 
 From 
 
 
 Seei 
 
 If). 
 
 From 
 
 XII. In Crim 
 
 
 Law. 
 
APPEAL. 
 
 8, From SurrogfUe Cowl— See Subro- 
 
 OATK CODKT. 
 
 9. From Judije in Chambers — See Prac- 
 
 tice. 
 
 10. FromS'mijleJxidijein Com t— See High 
 
 COCRT (IF JOSTICK. 
 
 11. From Mat' (TH — -Vee Praci'ick. 
 
 12. From Local Judge— See Practice. 
 hS. From Referees— See PRAcriCE. 
 
 14. From Clerk of the Crown and Pleas — 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 15. From Convictions — '5ee Sessions. 
 
 XII. In Criminal Matters— .See Criminal 
 Law. 
 
 I. GeneiUlly. 
 
 •) 1 / 
 
 Quitre, can the Dominion Parliament give an 
 appeal in a case in which the Legislature of a 
 I'roviiice has expressly denied it. Danjou v. 
 Mrquih 3 «• C. R. 251. 
 
 Wlien a decision of the Court of Appeal in 
 Bnglauil is at variance with one of the Court of 
 Appeal in this Province, the latter should be fol- 
 lowed here, as the former court is not the court 
 (if ultimate appeal for the province : Sutton c. 
 Sutton, 22 Cliy. L>. 511, not followed. Mac- 
 Omald V. McDomild, 11 O. R. 187— Proudfoot. 
 See J/(.'/)o«fl/(< V. Elliott, 12 O. R. 98, p. 1-J05. 
 
 The court ljeinge(iually divided, the judgment 
 ut the court l)elow was not altered. MvLeod v. 
 Ntw liniimcick Hailiray Co., 5 S. C. R. 281. 
 Seealbo, J/oore v. t'o/(H(c</r«< Mutual Lije Akku- 
 mnce Cu. uf Hartford, (i .S. C. R, (i;i4 ; CotA v. 
 itorijaii, 7 li. C. R. 1 ; McCiUlum v. Odette, lb. 
 Sli; .Miinwj v. Canada Central R. W. Co., 7 A. 
 H. (541) ; Canada Centrid R. )('. Cu. v. McLaren, 
 8 A. R. o()4 ; Cowdiieau ■". City of London Fire 
 Im. Co., !."> O. R. 32!) ; In re Hall, 8 A. R. 13.'. .• 
 N'M V. TraiKlli-rs' Jn^. Co., 7 A. I{. 570. 
 
 The prisoner was remanded for extradition by 
 the Chauccry Division of the High Court of .Jus- 
 tice, wliioli on aj^peal to this court M'asatlirnicd, 
 the coiut being tMju.dly divided (8 A. R. 'M). A 
 aecoiul writ 'it liabeas corpus was thereupon ob- 
 taiucd, and the prisoner brought before the Coui- 
 moiil'luusDiviaiou, « hen hewasagain remanded, 
 wliereiipini lie again appealed to this court, whicli 
 appeal was disuiisscd witli costs, as under such 
 iirouinstiiut a a second appeal could not be entel'- 
 taiueil. J'er Hagarty, V. .1. (Sjirngge (.'. J. O. 
 toucuriiiin). The prisoner having already appeal- 
 Ill tu tl , oouit from the judgment of the Chan- 
 cery Di,i.sion, he must abide by the legal result 
 of auch appeal, viz., the dismissal of it an<l con- 
 sciuentiillu-nianee of the decision aj'pealcd from, 
 iiud he ciiuKl not again ask the intvirference of 
 this court on the same state of facts. In re 
 Hall, H A. R. 135. See S. C. 32 C. P. 498. 
 
 Per riuitou and I'attei-son, J.l. A. The grounds 
 fcr the technical rule of practice of tiie House 
 iif Lords (in an eijual division have no existence 
 ill other appellate tribunals, although in the par- 
 ticular civMu, the appellate court is the court of 
 last reeort. lb. 
 
 The clfi.'i't (if an eipial division in this court, us 
 inacoui'tof lirst instance, is simply that the rule 
 ur motion drops or the appeal is dismissed, and 
 
 the judgment b^^Iow remains undisturbed, but is 
 not considered as a binding authority. Il>. 
 
 The Act 29-30 Vict. c. 45, apparently substi- 
 tuted the right of appeal in habetis corpus cases 
 for successive apjtlications from court to court. 
 lb. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A. By theclTect of the Judi- 
 cature Act, a decision of any one division is a 
 decision of the High Court, this matter had there- 
 fore been already disposed of on the former ap- 
 peal. Jb. 
 
 It is the duty of an Appellate Court to review 
 the conclusion arrived at oy courts whose judg- 
 ments are appealed from upon a (ptestion of fact 
 when such judgments do not turn upon the cre- 
 dibility of any of the witnesses, but upon the 
 proper inference to be drawn from all the evi- 
 dence in the case. Rnxsell v. Lei'rancois 8 S". 
 C. R. 335. See Rei/ina v. Ambrose, 10 O. R. 
 251, p. 1(M9. 
 
 When a judgment appealed from is wholly 
 founded upon questions of fact, the Supreme 
 Court of Canada will not reverse it unless con- 
 vinced beyond all reasonable doubt that such 
 judgment is clearly erroneous. Arjiin v. VVie 
 Queen, 14 S. C. R. 730. 
 
 The rule generally followed by the court is 
 not to review the tiiiding of the judge of tiist 
 instance, where his decision depends upon a bal- 
 ance of testimony ; still, if the court in baii(,' 
 
 j upon an application to it has reversed that tiinl- 
 ing, this court must be satisfied upon appeal, 
 
 ; that the court in banc was wrong before it will 
 interfere with that judgment. Hnle v. Kennedy, 
 S A. R. 1.57. 
 
 Per Gwj-nne, ^. It is a point fairly open to 
 eiuiuiry in a ('ourt of Appeal whether or not, as 
 in this case, the inferences drawn from the evi- 
 dence by the judge who tried the case without a 
 jury, were the rcasimable and proper inferencos 
 to bo drawn from the facts. O'allaijher v. Tay- 
 lor, 5 S. C. K. IMiH. 
 
 Per (iwyiine, J. A Court of Appeal should 
 not reverse the tiiiding upuu matters of fact of 
 the judgi' who tri(.'il the <.';r seaud had thcopivir- 
 tunity (if observing the demeanour of the wit- 
 nesses, unless the evidenoo be of sneli a character 
 as to coiiV(.'y to the mind of the judges sitting 
 on the ap|iellate tiibunal the inesistable convic- 
 tion that the liiidinns are erroneous. l{i/<in v. 
 t'yin, .") S. (!. It. 40,"). Sue also Lli/te V, Bvnnb r, 
 28 Chy. nil ; /'/(. I'idon-McCuaii v. Keilh, \ 
 S. ('. I!. (US; Ml ri-hiintx' Jiau/c of Ciuiada v. 
 Smith, S S. C. 1!. 512. 
 
 Iteniarks upon reversing the findings of a judge 
 or jury uiioii a (iiicstion of fact or of mixed law 
 and fact. Srrilim r v. Kintoeh, 12 A . R. .307. 
 
 Where there is a direct conflict of testimony, 
 the linding of tli>. judge at the trial must bo 
 regarded as decisive, ai<d should not he reversed 
 in appeal by a court which has not had the 
 ailvantagt' of scuiiig the witnesses and oliscrviiig 
 their dciueaiiour while uiulcr examination. (i'/(t- 
 .srtl V. Caiter, 10 S. C. R. 10."> ; Cook v. I'atter- 
 ■lon, 10 A. K. 045; tliilton Election (Ont.) — 
 lUi.-^xell V. liarher, 1 H. K. C. 283. 
 
 The judge who tried the case, in which 
 the evidence was contiicting and irreconcilable, 
 
 ea 
 
 n 
 
 a: 
 
 Ma 
 
 
 n 
 
m 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 88 
 
 •29 
 
 rested his eoiiclusicm in fiivour of tlie defuiidaiit , VVliat is ])roper compcusation to be allowed to 
 on the tlocuiueiitiiry eviilence and the piohiibiii- | a trustee for liis management of a trust estate ia 
 ties arising in the case. 'I'liis court, while not a matter of opinion, and even if, in granting the 
 tliU'ering Inrni tiie judge as to the credibility of | allowance, the court below may have erred on 
 the parties or their witnesses, having come to a the side of lil)erality, that alone is not sutiicient 
 different conclusion on the whole eviilence allow- i ground for reversing i,he judgment. Where the 
 <ul the appeal and reversed the decision of the i master had allowed ^Vlo, which the court, on 
 court below. Caiiieniii v. likkfonl, 1 1 A. E. 52. ] appeal, increased to .1250, the Court of Appeal 
 Rever.sed by the Privy Council. Is'ot reported, refused to interfere. McDonald v. Davidson, 
 
 , , (J A. R. 3-20. 
 The judgment of the court below m an elec- i _, , . „ . • , , 
 
 tion case will not be reversed unless clearly 1 ll»e plamtiff being in possession of land as 
 wrong. Bc.rlhivr Eln-tioii {Dom.)-aeiim'iix v. \ tenant of H., was evicted by the defendant, who 
 Cuthhe.rt, 1» S. C. Jl. 102; M„iilctttm E/ection I'^^'umed imdw iu\ ovardue mortgage. A nonsuit 
 (Dom.)-MwiiMn. v. J)uiin.-^, lb., 93; 7V(«fo« j was entered at the trial, on the ground that the 
 Ehction (Oiii.)—0uimiii<ihum v. Haijar, 1 E. C. defendant was at law entitled to possession, cvi 
 
 88. 
 
 In an action of damaf;e3, if tlic aiiKiunl award- 
 ed in the court of first instance is n.)t such as to 
 sliock the sense of justice a.id to make it appar- 
 ent that there was error or partiality on the part 
 of the judge (the exercise ol' a discretion on his 
 part being in the iiatuic ol' the case rc(juirod) an 
 appellate court will not interfere with the dis- 
 cretion such judge has exercised in determining 
 the amount of damages. Leri v. Jleed, ti S. C. 
 R. 482. 
 
 Per (iwyniie, .1. .\ Court of A])peal should 
 not interfere with damages awarded by a judg- 
 ment under consideration in appeal unless they 
 appear to have been calculated ui)on a wi'ong 
 jirinciple or arrived at without regard to con- 
 .siilerations which ought to govern a triljuiial in 
 awarding damages. It is not suliicient if the 
 ju<lges in appeal sitting as judges in the first 
 instance migiit have given as some of tiie judges, 
 in the court below in this case were disposed to 
 give, larger ilamages. Mayor of City of Montreal 
 V. JIall, I2S. C. K. 74. 
 
 .Semble, where an ajjpeal is made from the 
 exercise of discretion by a judge, the court siioulil 
 not review sucli discretion. NetU v. 'J'rarellcrx' 
 Ills. Co., 9 A. li. .■)1 ; Rkjuicl v. liiiliardxon, 8 
 O. H. 0.")l ; i-ioiUh Victoria Ell ftioi, (0/(/. )—/,'(»/- 
 dill v. Mel lit y II-, 1 K. C. 182 ; Kuiiitdy v, 
 lirailhiriiili'. III. lO.'). But see Jlii/iiia v. Mei/er. 
 1 1 P. K. 477, p. 445. 
 
 Per Ritchie, J. — A CJourt of Appeal oug) *■ not 
 to differ from a court below on matters ol <li. jre- 
 tion, unless it is made ab.solutely clear tiiat such 
 discretion has been v roiigly exercised, Jmi' s v. 
 Tuck, 11 S. O. It. Iit7. 
 
 deuce of eiiuitable right to possession in tho 
 plaintifl' having been refused. The Court of 
 Queen's Bench in its discretion granted a new 
 trial. On appeal to the Court of Appeal :— Held, 
 that the court could not interfere. Jlobiiison v. 
 Hall, 6 A. R. 534. 
 
 As to interfering with discretion of judge on 
 an application for an interlocutory injunction. 
 See Hathaway v. Doiij, 6 A. R. 264, p. 924. 
 
 Where the question involved affected mattera 
 arising in the exercise of statutory powers, and 
 was (It general interest, leave was given to ap- 
 peal although a sum less than .$200 was at stake. 
 O'Doiiolwa V. Whitty, 2 O. R. 424.— Chy. D. 
 See also S. (.'., 9 P. R. 3G1. 
 
 A party who has been ordered by the court to 
 attend for further examination after a refusal to 
 answer questions, is in contempt if he does not 
 so attend, but that is not a ijar to his appealing 
 from the order. ProceciUz'gs under the order 
 will not be stayed pending the appeal. Mm- 
 (Ire'jor v. McDonald, 11 P. R. 518.— Dalton, 
 il/nsVec. — Armour. 
 
 It appeared that the Despatch Company, de- 
 fendants lierein, had given notice of appeal to 
 the Court of Appeal from the decision of Osier, 
 .]., before the other defendants appealed to tliis 
 court. Per Armour, J. — Where tlierc is a gen- 
 eral judgment against several defendants. Rule 
 510 (See Con. Rule 79S) does not permit them to 
 sever and appeal to ditlerent courts, l)ut they 
 were all l)ound to appeal to the tribunal to 
 which the defendant taking the fi>'st step had 
 appealed, and on this grouiu" 
 bo dismissed. Haldi/ v. Merc 
 4 (). R. 723. 
 
 *'i'. appeal should 
 (.«' Despatch Co., 
 
 The court will not hear an appeal wluie the \Vliere upon the argument . ' an appeal tlie 
 court below, in tiie exerc'iseof ilsdiscrclion, lias I icspondcnt omitted to point i iit in what resiiect 
 ordered a new trial on the ground that tlie ver- \ H"^ replications of the plaintilf were demurrable, 
 diet is against the weight of evidence. Eureka 
 Wuotkn MdLiCo. v. J/osv, II S. ('. K. 91. 
 
 An interim injunction will not be giaiite<l in 
 aid of a plainlill, to jncserve the subject matter 
 of his actidii in statu (pio long enough to enable 
 him to oljtain che decision of an aiiiicllate court 
 on points already decided in otiui- cases, against 
 his contention, in courts of first iiistaneo. I\'yld 
 V. McManter, 4 0. H. 717. — l''erguson. 
 
 In penal statutes questions of doubt are to be 
 construed favourably to the accused, ami where 
 the court of firstinstaiice in a quasi ciimiiial trial 
 has acquitted the respoiiilcnt tlie appellate court 
 will not reverse the Hiidiiig. Surlh Ontario Elec- 
 Ion {Out.)—Mrta'ikillv. J'a.cton, H. E, C. 304. 
 
 tile cc)urt refused to wade through tlie mass of 
 1 pleading which had been filed in the court below, 
 1 to find it out for themselves; and being of opi- 
 nion, in the absence of aigumeiit, that the plead- 
 ing was good, alliriiicd the judgriieiitof the court 
 , below upon such pleadings. IJniidaa v. Union 
 ; Fire Ins. Co., 8 A. H. 37t>. 
 
 1 The jinlgineiit in the court below (32 C. P. 131) 
 I overruled a diiiiurrer on the assumption that a 
 I Jilea had been amended according to leave given, 
 ] but the appeal book did notsluw- theaineiidinent 
 ' to have been made, file defence as set out in the 
 printed case was held bad on demurrer, and the 
 appeal by the plaintiff was allowed with costs; 
 j t^aiiieron, .1., dissenting, who thought that under 
 I the circuinstanceii the plea sliuuhl be treated as 
 
 amended purs 
 court below, 
 below which 
 light as it w; 
 J{o.-<irill V. Su 
 
 Interest ^yl 
 res])oiident in 
 Union /''ire h 
 
 \\. s. o. (iss 
 
 Where the 
 below on an 
 lants chose tc 
 1 he judge f<m 
 be dismissed 
 -317. 
 
 Held, that 
 iqjpeal from 
 •iular, on tin 
 by both ilefe 
 <,iie. Per ()> 
 in the object 
 way of subs 
 appeal for irr 
 K. 283. 
 
 Although f 
 hear an apiie 
 Vdlved, yet 
 trilling anion 
 be encour.age 
 R. 7<)0. 
 
 Where ape 
 J he ground t 
 particular ipi 
 aiice, he cam 
 say that no s 
 I hat the case 
 which the co 
 ingly the ap| 
 ■ hided from ( 
 the assessmei 
 tlie laiiil occi 
 .s'. John^ V. L 
 < 'as. 590. 
 
 See /.''■ O, 
 R. 252, p. 3( 
 
 II 
 
 Where a i 
 ness, neglect 
 by (i. O. (i4'. 
 fused to exti 
 appeal, Spri 
 iiard V. Mel 
 
 The sidicii 
 had given i1 
 iuailverteniM 
 the defi'iidai 
 Uiuler the ci 
 the other de 
 their appea 
 Itoad, Co., I 
 
 Having re 
 limit the pi 
 brought, til 
 KIS R. S. C 
 "appeal coi 
 un action is 
 
■29 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 amciuletl pursuant to the leave granted by the 
 court below, and that the judgment of the court 
 below which was in tlie opinion of this court 
 right as it was given, slionld not be reversed. 
 Jiosinll V. Suthertaml, 8 A. 11. 233. 
 
 Interest when judgment is given in appeal for 
 veslioiident in a personal action. ,See Qu'nilnu v. 
 Union Fire /ns. Co., 8 A. R. 376, p. 1079. See 
 It. S. O. (1887), c. 44, s. 88. 
 
 Wlicre the cise was disposed of in the cinirt 
 !;el<>w on :in iinniaterial issue ; ami as the iippel- 
 liiiits ciio^e to rest their cisc upon a jioint which 
 lliu judge found against thtin, the appeal should 
 hi' dismissed. McKtnzic v. Doimy, VI A. 11. 
 ,-117. 
 
 Held, that the phiintifl' could not object to the 
 .ippeal from tlie ( ommon Pleas Uivisioii as irre 
 yular, on the ground that, having been begun 
 liV both defendants, it Wiis continued by only 
 oiie. IVr Osier, .1. A. — If there was anything 
 ill the objection, it should have been taken by 
 way of substantive motion to strike out the 
 appo.-d for irreguhirity. Arxrutt v. J/ilk;/, 14 A. 
 ]{. 1283. 
 
 .Mthough the Supreme Court cannot refuse to 
 hear an a])peal in a case where only !?'2'2 is in- 
 vdlvod, yet the briiigini; of apjieals for xiich 
 trilling amounts is ol)jecti<>iuible, and should nut 
 he encouraged. Mchoiiald v. flithirt, Hi S. C. 
 H. 7O0. 
 
 Where special leave to appeal is granted on 
 llie ground that the appellant desiics to raise a 
 particular (juestion of grc.it and general import- 
 ance, he cannot be permitted at the healing to 
 say tiiat no such question arisrs, and to argue 
 that the case turns u|ion a cjuestion of fact lui 
 which the court below was in error. Accord- 
 ingly the ap|iell;int town eoi-poration was pre- 
 i^luded from contending th.it, as matter of f;ict, 
 the assessment in (lueslion had been confined to 
 the land occupii'd by tlie road. Cof/ioiiiliDii iij 
 S. Joliii'i V. Ci.iilrol Vtriii'iiil 11. 11'. Co., 14 .\pp. 
 < las. o!»0. 
 
 See AV (iahoitrii; — Cdsf i/ v 
 J{. •.'.-)•_>, p, 30. 
 
 Ciihoin 
 
 12 1' 
 
 II. TiMK KOK Al'l'ICALING. 
 
 1. Ciiiirnlhj. 
 
 Where a solicitor's clerk, through forgctful- 
 nuss, luglcctcd to set down an aiijieal as ri'ijuiicd 
 hyti. O. (14-i (Con. l!ule Sli)), the Kcfcr.e u- 
 tused to extend the lime for appealing, and on 
 appeal, Spraiige, C, upheld his ruling. Ditn- 
 mud V. MrUoil, 8 I'. It. .•143. 
 
 The siilicitor for the defendants (exee))t L.) 
 had given due notice of appeal, but tln'ough 
 inadvertence set down tiie appeal on ImIkiIi' of 
 (111! defiMidants tiie gravel load iMunpaiiy only, 
 lluiler tlie ciiciimsteiiccs slated in the judgiiu lit, 
 the other difiiidants were allowed to scl down 
 tlicir appeal. /.iiri.i v. Titlho/ S/rat (irorel 
 HoadCo., 10 1». |{. I.-).— Osier. 
 
 Having regard to tlic analogy of statutes which 
 limit the period within which action shall lie 
 lirciuglit, the words "a|)|ieal brought," in section 
 1118 H. S. C. c. 43 (The Indian Act) would mean 
 "appeal coMinicnced." for under those statutes 
 an action is held to be "brought" when it is com- 
 
 menced. The meaning of appealing is giving 
 notice to your adversary of your intention to 
 appeal by serving him with a notice of appeal. 
 Hfiilitiav. Mcdauky, 12 P. R. 259. — Armour, 
 
 Two of the defendants (legatees) in an admin- 
 istration suit appealed from the report of a mas- 
 ter and thereby succeeded in charging the plain- 
 tiff and executor, with their shares of a sum of 
 .S4,000, which thoexecntor had lost to the estate. 
 The other defendants did not appeal, and as to 
 them the report liecame absolute on the 24th 
 March, 1887. Three of these defeiulants in Sep- 
 tember, 1887, after the success of their co-defen- 
 dants' appeal was established, moved for leave 
 to appeal and to extend the time, their ex'' .ae 
 for the delay being that they had supposed the 
 apiieal of their co-defendants would enure to 
 their benefit :— Held, that justice required that 
 the time for a])|)eal should be extended, and 
 these defendants let in to appeal, upon their 
 placing the executor in as good a position as he 
 would liave oceiqiied if they had appealed witliin 
 the time allowed ; notwithstanding that the 
 .'?4,000 was lo.st to the estate by an innocent mis- 
 take of the executor, that he had acted as he did 
 by reason of the instructions given him by the 
 testator, and his acting and taking advice accord- 
 ing to the instructions had led directly to the 
 mistake. Langdon r. Hobertson, 12 P. R. 139, 
 followed hills I'. Betty, Madd. 90, diatin- 
 guisheil. /(V (liili(iiirk~VaHey v. Oaliourie, 12 
 P. I!. '2o'2. — Kerguson. 
 
 A transferee of a judgment debtor was allowed 
 to a])peal fi"!'! tiie order for his examination 
 under 4!l Vict. c. Hi, s. 12 (Out. i, after the time 
 f<u' appealing had expired, liis delay being satis- 
 factorily explained. lUnkilci/ v. /itaane, 12 P. 
 It. ."iIm — MacMahon. 
 
 See Slf.r<irrhihf v. Li'i/s, \) P. R. 200, p. 1665; 
 Liiiii/doii V. Ilohivtsou, 12 P. H. 139, p. 410. 
 
 Ill SlWINi; PcoiKKDINliS PkNIMNC Al'l'KAI,. 
 
 A stay iif iMoceeiliiigs will not be granted 
 liinding :iii appeal unless security is given for the 
 (•lists (if appeal as well as for those in the court 
 below. Apiilications for a stay should not be 
 iii.ide ex parte. (Iraiid Trunk It. W. Co. v. 
 Oiiliirh, and (JikIkc Ji. W. Co., 9 I'. R. 420.— 
 Prouilfoot. 
 
 Hills of eiists aniounting to $250. 10 were on a 
 taxatiiui reiliiced to .SI87. 10. The plaintiff con- 
 teiiiled that lie was not HmIiIc to pay as much iis 
 ••5187.10, if any sum, and applied to the Master 
 111 Cluuiibers for an order to stay an execution 
 for .'i<IS7. 10 lieiiding an iippeal to the Court of 
 Appeal, under section 33 O. .1. Act. This order 
 was refused, and on appeal Hoyd, C, held th.it 
 what was " in controver.sy (in appeal," wasa sum 
 less than .'>200, and therefore that tlie order of 
 the Master was right. 0' Di^nolme v. Wliitly, 9 
 P. 1!. :«)1. 
 
 The plaintiff' was jierinitted to proceed with a 
 new trial pending an ajipeal, wiiere he sliewed 
 that he had already been iiici nviMiiciiced by de- 
 lay, tliiit further delay would prejudice him 
 linaueially, and that by it be might lose im|ior- 
 tint oral evidence. MiDniiald v. .l/i/noy, 9 P. 
 1!. 404. — Wineliester, l<rijidror.~\h\gs\\ty. 
 
 m 
 
 > 
 
 N 
 
31 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 32 
 
 ■' I 
 
 Tlie 27tli section of the Court of Appeal Act, 
 R. S. O. (1877), o. 38, .loes not apply to proceed- 
 ings by injunction, u lietiier the writ has been 
 issued before or after decree in the cause. Mc- 
 Laren V. CalilweJI, 2!) Cliy. 438. —Ferguson. 
 
 A party who has been ordered by the court to 
 attend for furtlier examination after a refusal to 
 answer (lucstions, is in contempt if he does not 
 M) attend, l)iit tliat is not a bar to his appealing 
 from the order. Proceedings under the order 
 will not be sinyed pending the appeal. Mac- 
 Oreijorv. McDonald, 11 P. li. (518.— Dalton, 
 Master. — Armour. 
 
 The trial of the action was stavci^ pending an 
 appeal to the Su))reine Court of Canada from the 
 judgment of tiie ( 'ourt iif Appef.l upon a question 
 arih'ing in tiie action as to tlie method of trial of 
 the issufis in tliis and a en ss-action. Conniee 
 V. i'nnndinn Parifir R. II'. Co., II P. 1!. SfiO.- 
 Dilton, Mn.'^lir—'iia.h. 
 
 Staying execution penc'.ing appi-al. See Leirii 
 V. Talhul .S7. (t'rarel Dm A Co., 10 P. K. 15, p. 
 l(iG'). 
 
 An action on a foreign judgment was stayed 
 pending an appoiil in the foreign state from the 
 judgment sued on, although no stay of execution 
 ujxm the original judgnu iit was imposed by tlie 
 foreign court, 'rtrms r.s to diligence in prose- 
 cuting the appeal and j reservation of the defen- 
 dant's ijropt'rty in Ontario in statu (juo were 
 annexed to the older, llituliiiijdonw Atlrill, 12 
 
 P. R. m.-c. p. D. 
 
 ,See Poirell v. Ped; S P. R. 8."), p. 411 ; Cuii- 
 adinn Land <ind EiHiijmlioii ( o. v. MnuiclpaUtij 
 of Dyxarl, 9 O. I!. 4itri ; Duiiolioe v. Roliinson, 
 10 A. R. 622, p. 1991. 
 
 IV. Admission ok fikther Evidkxce. 
 
 Remarks on the reception of further cviilcnoc 
 by appellate courts. Shrchmts' limik v. Luciis, 
 12 p.. R. .520. -C. of a. 
 
 A cause hail been carried down to trial in 187!) 
 when it was postponed at the instance of defen- 
 dants, anil a trial look place in ISSO, when a 
 verdict was reiuleieii in favour of the phiintilFs, 
 which the C'Miirt of (,)iuen's Uencli retuscd to set 
 asi<le. The del'eiiilants, thereuimn appealed to 
 this court, and when tlie a))iieal eaiiie on to lie 
 heard (in 1HS2) an applicatinii was inade Sy the 
 defendants to be allowed to adibue evidence al- 
 ledgcd to have been leeently ilisi;overed, teiiilint( 
 to relieve the defeiiilints fnnii liability, which 
 evidence it appeared eoiisi.stcd mainly of entries 
 in the books of the defeinlants. The court being 
 of opinion that ])r(iper diligence liad not been 
 nseil by the deieiulants, as in such c.-i.se they 
 must have diseoverfd the evidence at a much 
 earlier date, refused the application with costs. 
 Murray v. Canada Central li. ]V. Co. , 7 A. I!. ()4(). 
 
 The court on the aruument allowed the plain- 
 tiff, on terms, to give in evidence the proclama- 
 tion bringing into force the Ontario Factory 
 Act. /hail v. Ontario Cotton Mill-i Co., 14 O. 
 
 R. ii!>.— (i. n. 1). 
 
 Held, that a document which has not been 
 proved nor produced at the trial cannot be relied 
 on or made part of the ease in ai>peal. Lionia-H 
 V. Molnon's Bunk, 10 S. C. K. 527 ; followed in 
 
 Exfhanqe Buuk of Canada v. Gilman, 17 S. ('. 
 R. 108. 
 
 New evidence was allowed to be used upon 
 appeal under Con. Rule 585, and the decision 
 of Ferguson, J. (13 P. R. .388), was reversed 
 thereupon. The discovery of the new evidence 
 after a sitting of the Divisional Court had passed 
 was received as an excuse for delay. Leach v. 
 Grand Trunk Jf. IF. Co. (No. 2), 13 P. R.467.- 
 Ohy. D. 
 
 V. Ri(iiiT TO TAKE Grounds of Appeai, 
 
 TAKEN IN TIIE ColTRT ReLOW. 
 
 XI ir 
 
 The appeal being allowed in this case on a 
 ground not taken in the court below or assigned 
 as a reason of ap])eal, the court refused the ap 
 pellant his costs in appeal. Pw/e v. Aiislin. ' 
 A. R. I ; El/U V Mill land Ji. IF. Co., 1 A. I!. 
 4()4 ; Garrett v. liobn-tx, 10 A. R. «50. 
 
 The plaintiffs had succeeded in respect of the 
 title made under the judgment in partition, ami 
 not for the estate of the grantor in the memorial ; 
 and the ellect of that judgment seemed not to 
 have been pressed in tlic court below, and was 
 not urged before this court until the second arj;ii- 
 ment. Under the circumstances the appeal was 
 dismissed witiiout costs. Van Vtlxtir v. Ihnih'n //. 
 9 A. R. 390. 
 
 On the a])peal the defendants urged ainonj;st 
 other grouiiils, one not taken in the rule nisi in- 
 raised by the pleadings, namely that the evi- 
 dence disclosed good cause for dismissal. When 
 otl'eied the opportunity at the trial to anu>nd ami 
 raise such defence, counsel fur the defendants 
 declined to do so : — Held, that the defence could 
 not be raised on appeal. Laxh v. Mtridtn 
 Britannia Co., 8 A. It. 080. 
 
 The petitioner was not allowed to urge be- 
 fore the court a charge of corrupt practices 
 against the res|)ondent |)ersonally, which had not 
 been specilied in the particulars, or adjudicated 
 upon at the trial of the ])etition. South Ontario 
 Eiirlinii {Out.) — Fanrill v. liroini, II. K. ('. 
 420 : Sub now. Farcirtll v. Broirn, 12 L. J. N. 
 S. 2 Hi. 
 
 It was contended by the plaintiffs before the 
 Divisional ("'ourt that the defendants were inein- 
 beis of a lie facto coijioratioii in which they held 
 shares that were not fully paid uji, and that re- 
 covery could be h:id against them to the extent 
 of the amounts remaining unpaid upon their 
 shares, but no such ease was made upon the 
 pleadings or at the tiial. The court treated this 
 contention as not having been raised, and re- 
 served leave to the plaintiffs to raise it in fresh 
 .•ictioiis, as they might be advised. I'lall v. 
 n'lidilill—Toinisinil v. Waddell, IS O. U. 5.S9.— 
 <,>. ]5. I).; // i'ninn St. Joxeph de Montreal v. 
 Lnjinrre, 4 S. ('. R. 104. 
 
 VI. Costs ok Ati'eal. 
 
 I. GineraUij. 
 
 Recovery back of money paid into court in- 
 cluding costs as security for appeal— Interest. 
 iSce Citizinx' /nx. Co. v. Pnrxonx, .32 C. P. 492. 
 
 An application for further security for costs of 
 appeal on the ground of the insolvency of one or 
 
 33 
 
 more of the 
 appealed fn 
 Burton. 
 
 Where tl 
 of discretio 
 Campbell v. 
 
 The appe 
 costs as the 
 fioale V. Die! 
 followed by 
 by this court 
 
 An appea 
 which ordei 
 plaintiff (31 
 divided wai 
 Travellers Ii 
 
 The plaint 
 C. P. D. (12 
 5th March, 1 
 the appeal 
 court being 
 Bailey, 13 P. 
 
 Appeal di 
 members of 
 diS'crcnt rea 
 wrong, but ( 
 should be ni 
 Jiooniy, 11 A 
 
 On appeal 
 ments of the 
 plaintiffs res| 
 of appeal : ai 
 Supreme Con 
 gave leave 1 
 amend their i 
 and upon sncl 
 that the awa 
 tiled should 
 about costs. 
 Court orderci 
 parties, with 
 plaintiffs hav 
 Chancery, ma 
 Appeal of th 
 the Court of 
 on for the cos 
 the plaintiffs 
 the appeal to 
 cntions wen 
 Southern H. 
 Southern li. } 
 Chy. D. 
 
33 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 34 
 
 more of the sureties should be made to the court 
 appealed from. Lumsden v. Davis, 10 P. li. 10. — 
 Burton. 
 
 Where the judgment was varied on a matter 
 of discretion no costs of appeal were given. 
 Campbell v. Prince, 5 A. R. 330. 
 
 The appeal in this case was allowed without 
 costs as the bill had been filed on the authority of 
 IJoale V. Dickson, 13 C. P. 337, which was properly 
 followed by the court below but was overruled 
 by this court. McLaren v. Caldwell, 6 A. H. 456. 
 
 An appeal from the Court of Common Pleas 
 which ordered a nonsuit after verdict for the 
 pL-viiitiff (31 C. P. 394) the court being equally 
 divided was dismissed with costs. Ncill v. 
 Travellers Jns. Co., 7 A. R. 570. 
 
 The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the 
 C. P. U. (12 P. K. 535) as to costs, and on the 
 5th March, 1889, judgment w.as given dismissing 
 the appeal without costs, the Judges of this 
 court being divided in opinion. Liverno'ts v. 
 BaMj, 13 P. 11. 62.— 0. of A. 
 
 Appeal dismissed without costs where the 
 members of the court wore all of opinion for 
 different reasons, that the order behiw was 
 wrong, but did not agree as to tlui extent it 
 should be modified or reversed. Schroeiier v. 
 lioomy, 11 A. 15. 673. 
 
 On appeal to the Court of Appeal the judg- 
 ments of the Court of Chancery in favour of the 
 plaintiffs respectively, were affirmed with costs 
 of appeal : and the defendants appealed to the 
 Supreme Court. In the first case that court 
 gave leave to the defendants (appellants) to 
 amend their answer, saying nothing as to costs, 
 and upon such amendment being made, declared 
 that the award upon which the bill had been 
 tiled should bo null and void, but said nothing 
 about costs. In the second case the Stipreme 
 Court ordered a new trial to be had between the 
 parties, without costs to either party. The 
 plaintiffs having obtained orders of the Court of 
 Cliancery, making the certificates of the Court of 
 Appeal of the judgments in appeal orders of 
 the Court of Chancery, issued executions there- 
 on for the costs awarded in appeal :— Held, that 
 the plaintiffs were not entitled to the costs of 
 the appeal to the Court of Ajjpeal, and the exe- 
 entions were set aside. Norvall v. Canada 
 Southern R. W. Co. ; Cviminifham v. Canada 
 Soulherti ]i. W. Co., 9 P. R. 339.— Proudfoot.— 
 Chy. U. 
 
 Held, thai inasmuch as the plaintifT succeeded 
 in the only branch of the case argued before the 
 DiviH'cri.'.l Court she should get her costs of tliat 
 appeal, but as to the rest of the suit, to save the 
 f^xpense and trouble of apportionment, no costs 
 kfiould be given or received. (Jouijh v. lieiish, 6 
 0. It. 099.— Chy. D. 
 
 Where an appellant omitted to take an objec 
 t'.r.i, in the court below, the Court of Appeal, on 
 »llowing an appeal on that ground, refused him 
 his costs of appeal. Garrett v. Roberli, 10 A. R. 
 650. 
 
 Costs of appeal are not carried by the words 
 "coats of suit as between solicitor and client," 
 hut re<|uire to be specially mentioned in the order 
 for taxation, lie Monleith — Merchants Rank v. 
 itoiiteilh, 11 P. R. 361, — Boyd. 
 
 3 
 
 The appeal of one of the defendants, a bank, 
 was allowed and the bill against them dismissed 
 but as they set up a claim in their original an- 
 swer, which was urged on appeal and could not 
 be maintained they were held not entitled to 
 their costs of defence or of the appeal. Bailey 
 V. Jellelt, 9 A. R. 187. 
 
 A certain sum of money had been paid into 
 court as security for the defendants' appeal to 
 the Court of Appeal, which was afterwards 
 abandoned ; and by an order made on the con- 
 sent of both parties it was ])rovided that the 
 plaintiff's costs should be paid out of this money 
 after taxation: — Held, (Armour, C. J., diss.), 
 that this money was a lund in court within the 
 meaning of Con. Rule 1207, and there should be a 
 revision by one of the taxing officers at Toronto 
 of the taxation of costs by the local Registrar. 
 Per Armour, C.J. — The object of Con. Rule 1207 
 was for the protection of a fund in court where 
 the parties to the taxation of costs payable 
 thereout were none of them sufficiently interest- 
 ed in the fund in Court to protect it. Coiisiiieaic 
 V. City oj London Fire Ins. Co., 13 P. 1!. 36. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the bank, the respondents to this 
 appeal, being the parties having the carriage of 
 the proceedings in the Master's otticc and sup- 
 porting tlie judgment of the Master for the gen- 
 eral benefit of the creditors, of whom they were 
 one, should be reimbursed the costs of tlie appel- 
 lant out of the estate, but not so as to jirejudice 
 the rights of the appellant. Re Ilinjue - Trailers' 
 Ranh v. Mumuj, 14 0. R. 6C0. — Verguson. 
 
 Where an appeal was quashed for want of 
 jurisdiction the costs imposed were oidy costs of 
 a motion to quash. O'-Sidliran v. Lah, 16 S. 
 C. R. 636. 
 
 Where the action abated by death of the 
 plaintiQ' so that there was no cause before the 
 court appealed to the ivppeal was (juashed with- 
 out costs. White V. Parker, 16 !S. C. R. 699. 
 
 See ]Vilson v. Bromi, 6 A. R. 411 ; Paije v. 
 Austin, 7 A. R. 1 ; Ellis v. Midland R. W.'Co., 
 7 A. R. 464 ; Van Velsor v. Hin/hson, 9 A. R. 
 390: C'reei/v. Siddall, 12 P. R. .'557. 
 
 VII. Abandonmekt and Waivku. 
 
 The Divisional Court varied an order of a 
 Judge ordering a father to take proceedings by 
 petition instead of by habeas corpus for the cus- 
 tody of his children by making the halieas cor- 
 pus to run concurrently with the petition : — 
 Held, that the father had M'aived his right to 
 appeal from the order directing the filing uf the 
 petition bv having cnmidied with such order. 
 Re Smart' Infants, 12 P. R. 035 ; H. C, lb. 312, 
 435.— C. of A. 
 
 If a party .appeals from a judgment in his. 
 favour claiming relief inconsistent with that 
 granted by the judgment appealed from, and, 
 pending the appeal, proceeds upcr. the judgment 
 and obtains the relief granted thereby, he will 
 be deemed to have abandoned his appe.il, which 
 will be (plashed at the instance of the respondent 
 on a motion for that purpose. International 
 Wreckinij Co. v. Lobb, 12 P. R. 207.— C. of A. 
 
 By an order of Boyd, C, (12 P. R. 275) a 
 motion by the defendant to set aside a jndgni' nt 
 
 ca 
 n 
 
 I* 
 s 
 
 N 
 
ABBITRATION AND AWABD. 
 
 36 
 
 for irregularity was refused, but the defendant 
 was let iu to defend ui)i)n paying into court or 
 securing §7fK) nddition a mouth. The defendant 
 jnoved for and ol)taincd an order extending the 
 time for paying the money, and then appealed 
 from part of the order refusing to set aside the 
 judgment for irregularity : — Held, that the 
 defendant had wai^'ed his right of appeal from 
 the order by ol)taining an enlargement of the 
 time for complying with it. Pkrce v. Palmer, 
 12 P. R. 30 .— Chy. I). 
 
 / .'EAL BOOKS. 
 
 See CfiiiKV OF Ai'pkal. 
 
 A.V¥nAKk¥.CA. 
 I. To Wkit of Summox,s— iSVe Practice. 
 II. In EjEcniENT — See E.ieotment, 
 III. JuDcJMKNT IX Default of — .?f'« Fraud- 
 
 UI.KNT Jl'IHJMEST — JUDliMENT. 
 
 APPOBTIONMENT. 
 
 Of Rent —.See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 APPBOPBIATION OF PAYMENT. 
 
 See Payment. 
 
 AEBITBATION AND AWABD. 
 
 I. Submission and Reference. 
 
 1. What may he lief erred, .36. 
 
 2. Scope of lieference — See II. 4, (a). 
 
 3. lie/creiices under O. L. P. Act, 36. 
 
 4. Malinij Suhmimon a Rule of Court, 
 
 Ti. 
 
 5. To Master in Ordinary, Local Maxter 
 
 or Referee— See Practice. 
 
 II. ARIilTRATOR. 
 
 1. Restraining Arbitrator from Proceed- 
 
 inij, 39. 
 
 2. Dinqualijicalion of, 39. 
 
 3. Procetdinijs before. 
 
 (a) Examination of Witnesses, 39. 
 
 4. Powers and Diitii.f of. 
 
 (a) /)( Particular Cases, 40. 
 
 (b) Dirtctinij Time and Marnier of 
 
 Payment, 41. 
 
 (c) C'o»<.s, 42. 
 
 III. U.MrmE0R Third Arbitrator, 42. 
 
 IV. Award. 
 
 1. Time of Making, 43. 
 
 2. Execution of, 44. 
 
 3. Publication of, 44. 
 
 4. Certainty, 45. 
 
 5. Reference Dad; 45. 
 
 V. Appeal from Award, 45. 
 
 VI. Setting Aside and .Staying Pbockbd- 
 iNus ON Award. 
 
 1. Time fur moving, 48. 
 
 2. For Reception or Rejection oj Evidence, 
 
 48. 
 
 3. Misconduct of ArbitrcUors, 49. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 50. 
 VII. Enforcing Award, 50. 
 
 VIII. Costs, 51. 
 IX. In Particular Cases. 
 
 1. Questions arising between Members of 
 
 IncorporcUed Societies, 52. 
 
 2. Under Insurance Policies — See Insur- 
 
 ance. 
 
 3. Under the Municipal Act — See Muni- 
 
 cipal Corporations. 
 
 4. Under Railway Act— See Railways 
 
 AND Railway Companies. 
 
 I. Submission and Reference. 
 
 1. What may be Referred. 
 
 Right to refer an indictment .and all matters 
 in difference between plaintifTs and defendants 
 in respect of a public road, etc. See Toienship 
 of Hungerford v. Lattimer, J3 A. R. 315. 
 
 See Macdonell v. Baini, 13 P. R. 331. 
 
 3. References under C. L. P. Act. 
 
 Qua;re, whether a reference by consent by rule 
 of court or judge's order is within section 205 of 
 the C. L. P. Act. McCarthy v. Arbuckle, 31 
 C. P. 405. 
 
 Held, on an application to refer to arbitration 
 an action on the common counts, that whore a 
 material (juestion of fact was in dispute, the cise 
 was not a proper one in which to make an order 
 for compulsory reference. Oannon v. Gibb, 8 P. 
 R. 115.— Ualton, Q.C. 
 
 An action for an account and delivery up of a 
 trust estate was referred at the trial to tlie mas- 
 ter at Picton, by an order drawn up on reading 
 the pleadings and hearing counsel ; the master 
 to have all the powers of a judge as to certifying 
 and amending pleadings, etc., and to enquire and 
 report as to tlie plaintiti's right to bring au ac- 
 tion, the defendant to have tlie right to claim all 
 such allowances for his care, etc., .is in the mas- 
 ter's opinion he should shew himself entitled to: 
 costs to be iu the master's discretion, and the 
 whole report to be rcsviewed or appealed from, 
 according to the statute in that behalf: — Held, 
 a reference under section 189 of the C. L. P. Act 
 (not under sections 47 or 48 of the Judicature 
 Act), and that an appeal from the finding of the 
 master was therefore regularly set down under 
 the provisions of that Act to be heard before a 
 single .Judge in court. Cumming v. Low, 2 0. 
 R. 499.— Osier. 
 
37 
 
 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 
 
 At the trial tlie following order of reference 
 was made : " Upon hearing tlie solicituraon both 
 sides, and by their consent, I order that all 
 matters in dilference between the parties in this 
 oaiisc be referred to the eertiKcato of the local 
 master of this court at Orangeville, with all the 
 j)o\vers as to certifying' and amending of a Judge 
 of tlie High Court of .7 ustiee, and that the costs 
 of the suit and of the reference be in the discre- 
 tion of the said local master :" — Held that tlie 
 master was to act as an arbitrator under the 
 ('. L. !'. Act, not us an oHicerof the court under 
 sections 47, 48 of the O. J. Act, and that defen- 
 dant might sign judgment on his report. Wal- 
 htce V. IVhalei/, !) 1'. K. 248. -IJalton, Masler. 
 
 Actions involving the investigation of long 
 accounts will not be referred as a matter of 
 course. There is nothing to prevent parties 
 iigreeing to a consent reference of all matters in 
 dispute in an action, even tiiough involving in- 
 vestigation of long accounts. )Vehsler v. Iluij- 
 iiaii, !) O. H. 27.-0. P. U. 
 
 r.y an order made at nisi prius on the 4th No- 
 vemlier, 188C, upon the application ui' the defen- 
 dniits and without the consent of the plaintiflfs, 
 tlie actions and all matters in (piestion thereiti 
 were referred to the award of thi; persons named, 
 who were given all the powers therein of a Judge 
 of the High Court of Justice sitting for the trial 
 of an action. By clause 2 of the order the re- 
 ferees were directed to make and publish their 
 award in writing on or before the 3rd .January, 
 ISH7, or such other day as they should appoint. 
 Dy clause (i it was provided that there sliould 
 lie the right of appeal in the same way as if the 
 order was made under section 189 of the C. L. 
 1'. Act ; and l)y clause 8, that the reference 
 should be considered as made in pursuance of 
 section 48 of the Judicature Act, 1881 ; and also, 
 ill so far as the same was applicable, as under 
 the provisions of section 189 of the C. L. I'. 
 Act: "Held, that the reference was a compul- 
 siiry one, so far as the plaintiffs were concerned, 
 and that it was not a reference under 9 & 10 
 Will. HI. c. I"), but under section 48 of the 
 Ju'lieature Act and section 189 of the C. L. I'. 
 .Act. Coiimee. v. Canadian Paci/ic J{. IT. Co., 
 10 (I. It. (CKt.— Rose. 
 
 >ica McCiirt/iy V. ArI,tidle,iU C. V. 405; HV/> 
 .v(cc V. Jlaijijart, 9 0. 11. 27, p. 46 ; Jiani- of 
 JIamilton v. IJahii; 12 P. K. 418 ; Macdondl v. 
 I'xnnl, VA ]'. R. 3;H p. 42. 
 
 4. MakbKj Snhminsion a Rule of Court. 
 
 liy an agreement made between L. , a builder, 
 and the building committee of a religious body , 
 all previous contracts and agreements were ter- 
 iniiiated aiul surrendered, and L. was to forego all 
 riglit to compensation except under the agree- 
 ment. One K. was to inspect and value the 
 Work already done on the building, and if not 
 aeciirdiiig to plans and specilications, L. was to 
 rectify tlie same at his own exi)eu8e. E. was to 
 vahie the building in its present condition, and 
 liis award was to be final, and to bo the sole 
 amount due to L. to date; he was also to inspect 
 and value the building material on the ground, 
 which was to be ))aid for at the original cost : — 
 Held, that the eilect of the agreement was, that 
 a price to be lixctl by V., was to be paid for L.'s 
 wuiks, that !•;. was not an arbitrator ; and that 
 
 the agreement could not be uiado a rule of court 
 as a submission to arbitration. In re Luwjnian 
 and Martin, 40 (). B. 509. — Osier. 
 
 When a submission to arbitration provides for 
 making the submission a rule of any particular 
 court, no suit or proceeding can be lia<l in any 
 other court to set aside the award, whether such 
 submission has or has not been made a rule of 
 tlie court named in it. Direct Valile Co. v. Do- 
 minion Teleijraph Co., 28 Chy. 048. — Hlake. 
 
 The agreement for submission contained a 
 clause that it should be made a rule of the court 
 oi Queen's Bench in Kngland, and all proceed- 
 ings thereunder should bo governed as in (Jreat 
 Britain by the provision., of the Knglish C. L. P. 
 Act; — Held, that this formed no objection to the 
 jurisdiction of our Court of Chancery. .S'. C. 
 xid). nom. Direct United fitatea Cable Co. {Limit 
 ed) V. Dominion Tetegrajih Co. of Canada, 8 A. 
 R. 4!6. 
 
 The plaintiff and defendant agreed in writing 
 to submit certain matter.^ in dispute to an arbi- 
 trator, to be selected by a person named in the 
 submission, who .subseiiucutly appointed the 
 arbitrator verbally :— Held, per I'atterson and 
 Morrison, J J. A., ailivniing the judgment of 
 Osier, J., (30 C. P. 400), that the .'act that the 
 arbitrator wa.s verbally appointed 'lid not pre- 
 vent the submission from being made a rule of 
 court. Per Burton, J. A., and Armour, J., that 
 the appointment not being in writing, it was a 
 parol submission and could not be made a rule 
 of court. (.'rnicL\ilianl: v. Corheij, 5 A. R. 415. 
 
 In the case of an arbitration under the Muni- 
 cipal Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 184, a municipal 
 by-law and appointments in writing by the par- 
 ties of the arbitrators constitute such a submis- 
 sion to arbitration by consent as n5ay be made a 
 rule of court under section 13 of R. S. O. (1887) 
 c. 53. R. S. O. (1887) c. 184, s. 404, provides 
 that every award made thereunder shall be sub- 
 ject to the jurisdiction of the High Court as if 
 made on a submission by a bond containing an 
 agreement for making the submission a rule or 
 order of such court : — Held, upon the language 
 of this section, that the submission should be 
 made a rule of court before the award is moved 
 upon. Re City of Toronto Leader Lane Arbitra- 
 tion, 13 P. R. lOO.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that any party to the submission has 
 prima facie a right to have it made a rule of 
 court ; and according to the practice existing 
 when the Consolidated Rules came into force, 
 no person other than tlie applicant was entitled 
 to be heard upon a motion for such an order ; 
 and therefore by Con. Rule 520 there is no neces- 
 sity for serving notice of motion, and au order 
 can be made ex parte, lb. 
 
 Such an order is merely a necessary form in 
 order to give the court jurisdiction over the 
 award ; it binds no one and concedes nothing ; 
 the granting of it is compulsory on the court 
 upon the production of the jiroper affidavits ; 
 and the court can ciujuire into and adjudicate 
 upon all matters of substance when the award 
 itself is sought to be attacked or enforced. 
 Therefore, it was inimateiial that upon an ex 
 jiarte application for such an order it was not 
 disclosed that there were certain matters in con- 
 troversy between the parties as to enlargements 
 of the time for making the award, lb. 
 
 a; 
 
 (4 
 
 «) 
 
 •S 
 
 5 
 
39 
 
 AEBITBATION AND AWARD. 
 
 40 
 
 II. AltBITKATOK. 
 
 I. Ittntru'mivij Arhitrutors from, Prvciediiiy. 
 
 Before a subinission li.is l)ecn Jimilc ii rule of 
 court, a court of ecjuity Ims jurisdiction to restrain 
 an arbitrator improperly appointed from entering 
 upon tliu duties of such arbitration. JJirect 
 C'alilr Co. V. Dominion Tth-jjrajih Co., 28 Chy. 
 648.— lUake. 
 
 In a suit in the Court of C'lumcury to set aside 
 the nomination by tlie defendants of an arbitrator 
 on behalf of the plaintifls lor irregularity in such 
 iiominati'm :— Held, tliat the arliitrators being 
 necessary parties and tlie defendants resident in 
 this country, the arbitrators, though resident out 
 of the jurisdiction, were properly made defen- 
 dants to the bill. lb. 
 
 The object of a cross bill ordinarily was to 
 obtain discovery on the pnrt of the pliiintiflf in 
 th<^ cro.ss cause to be used in the originiil cause ; 
 or iu order to obtain full relief in respect of the 
 sul)ject matter of litigation in the original cause. 
 Therefore, where a liill was tiled to restrain 
 arbitrators on the ground of irregularity in their 
 appointment, from acting in respect of matters 
 in dispute between the i)laintill and defendant 
 conii)anies and the defendants by their answer 
 asked that if the court entertained the case it 
 should afford them relief in respect of the mat- 
 ters in dispute between the companies : — Held, 
 that this was not the proper ofiice of a cross Ijill, 
 and therefore could not be set up as a subject of 
 cross relief by the answer, lb. 
 
 The defendants set up by way of defence 
 and as a ground of dennirrer to the plaintitis' bill 
 to restrain proceedings by the alleged arbitrators, 
 the pendency of another action in J\'cw York for 
 tiie same purpose ; but — Held, tliat this could 
 only form a ground for api)lication to stay pro- 
 ceedings, or to compel the plaintiffs to elect be- 
 tween the two tribunals ; and, ,Send)le, that under 
 the circumstances set out in the report of the 
 case, it could not be taken advantage of in any 
 way. S. C. xiib. num. Direct United Utatex Cable 
 Co. (Limitt(l) V. Dominion Tilajnipli Co, of 
 Canada, 8 A. R. 410. 
 
 objection or mere ac<nncscenco. In re Bunk- 
 brook and Starr, 46 (). R. 73. — Camei'on. 
 
 2. Diifqunlijication of. 
 
 The finding and certificate were set aside, be- 
 cause, pending the reference and before the find- 
 ing, one of the arbitrators had received an ofler 
 of the solicitorship of the defendants' company, 
 and had after the finding accepted it, and was 
 thus dis(puilified from acting. Coumi-r v. Cana- 
 dian Pacific Jluihrtnj Co., Ki 0. U. 039.— Rose. 
 
 See Jie McQuillan and The Giielph Junction R. 
 W. Co., 12 1'. R. 2!)4. 
 
 3. Proceeding.i Before. 
 
 (a) Examination of Wttne-ise.1. 
 Held, that under R. S. 0. (1877) e. 50, s. 224, 
 the witnesses on an arbitration must be examined 
 upon oath, unless there is a positive agreement 
 or consent to the contrary. Such consent or 
 agreement may be shewn dehors the submission, 
 and in this case, upon the affidavits filed, it was 
 held to be sufficiently made out ; but, 8em»)le, 
 that it cannot be inferred from the absence of 
 
 4i Powers and Dut'tex of. 
 
 (a) In Particular Canes, 
 
 By a consent judgment in an action between 
 mendjcrs of a certain pool association for the sale 
 of lubricating oil, it was provided that "all 
 matters which may hereafter come into dispute 
 between the association or board of directors 
 thereof, or any member or members * * rela- 
 tive to the said agreement" (sc. theoiiginal agree- 
 ment of association), "or any alleged breach or 
 non-observance thereof, or of any of the rules 
 or regulations made, or to be made, by the said 
 board tliercunder, and all matters of complaint 
 by any member or members against any other 
 mcnilier or members in respect of the premises," 
 should be referred to arbitration as therein 
 specified. Acting under the agreement, the 
 board had fixed a sum of three cents per gallon 
 to be paid to the association by the parties 
 thereto, on the sale of any lubricating oil. A 
 dispute now arose on tlie motion of one of tlie 
 members as to whether the three cents per gal- 
 lon were payable on sales made l)y one nicndier 
 of the as.sociation to anothiir, and whether the 
 rate was payable upon the proportion of di.stilled 
 petroleum \ised in making axle grease : — Hel<l, 
 that these matters were properly witiiin the 
 scope of the arbitrator under the above clau.se 
 in the judgment, though they amounted to a 
 dispute upon the construction of the agreement, 
 and the rules made under it, and it was no ob- 
 jection that in the course of the reference it 
 might be necessary to procure an injunction, 
 which an arbitrator could not grant :—Send>lc, 
 if it should be established to his satisfaction that 
 the parties ought to be relieved from certain 
 things covered by the agreement, the arbitrator 
 might so relieve them : — Held, also, that tlio 
 mere fact of an action to reform the agreement 
 having been br(night, and being pending did not 
 paralyze the power of the arbitrator. Willest'ord 
 r. Watson, L. R. 14 Kq. 572, followed, IMercy r. 
 Young, 14 Chy. I). 200, commented on. ]\'ood- 
 vard V. McDonald, 13 O. R. 071. — Proudfoot. 
 
 By clause 2 of the order of reference, the re- 
 ferees were directed to make and publi.sh their 
 award in writing on or before the .Srd .January, 
 1887, or such other ilay as they should apjioint. 
 Duiing the reference it was agreed between 
 the parties that the arbitrators should proceed 
 I to the ground and ascertain by their own exanii- 
 ] nation the quantities of material moved (as to 
 j which the (lispute was), and certify their find- 
 ings, and all other questions "in the actions and 
 reference were to remain open ; and pursuant 
 to this agreement the arbitrators proceeded to- 
 the ground, and ascertained certain facts, and 
 on 23rd August, 1887, reported " we do hereby 
 find and certify that the plaintiffs moved the 
 respective quantities hereinafter mentioned," 
 etc. -.—Held, that t"-' finding and certificate was 
 not the award whii .. 'ause 2 of the order of re- 
 ference directed the referees to publish ; nor was 
 it an award within the meaning of section 20!) 
 of the C. L. P. Act ; but was merely a finding of 
 facts pending the reference, to enable the arbi- 
 trators to make their award. Conwee v. Cana- 
 dian Pacific Ii. W. Co., 16 O. R. 639.— Rose. 
 
41 
 
 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 
 
 42 
 
 Holt] in tliis case tbat apart from the (jucstion 
 <if wiiivur, the partiea were not bound to make 
 any motion as to the finding until tlio making of 
 tiic award ; and therefore tlie objection tliat a 
 motion against the finding was too hite, failed. 
 Jl>. 
 
 Hehl, upon the evidence, that there was no 
 waiver of the oljjections to the finding ; and 
 that altliougli the finding was not an award, the 
 motion made against it by tiie plaintiff's was a 
 convenient and pro))er one. lb. 
 
 See III re Laiiijmaii and Marlin, 4G (j, I>. 560, 
 p. ;{S ; CdiiiMii \. Turuido Corn Kccliainje, 5 A. 
 fi. •_'6S ; h'sxcri/ v. Court Priik of Ike JJoniiniou, 
 '2 O, l\. 5!)(). 
 
 (b) /Hrectiwj Time and Manner of Pdymeiit. 
 
 Wliere the reference was only for the purpose 
 of asoevtaiiiing and awarding the damages sus- 
 tained l)y the plaintiff by a lire negligently set 
 iiy tiie clefeiidaut, and tlio defendant agreed to 
 pay the amount awarded ; and it was provided 
 tiiat the costs of the arbitrators and award, etc., 
 should be paid ))y the party entitled tliereto, in 
 wiiose favour the award should l)c nuvde : — Held, 
 that the arbitrators had no powar to give a 
 month for payment of the sum awarded, or to 
 direct that the defendant should pay the costs, 
 liut that these directions were severable from the 
 rest of the award, and might be rejected. In 
 such a case tlie proper c(mrse is to discharge 
 generally a rule to set aside the award, not to 
 make it absolute in part. Jfc Ejlextou and Tay- 
 lor, -iai).. B. 479.— Osier. 
 
 \ submission to arliitration recited that a con- 
 troversy existed between A. \V., .1. \V. and M. 
 ill relation to the amounts due and paid on a 
 certain mortgage nuide by M. to a loaning com- 
 pany, and as to the proportion of said mortgage 
 paid l)y the said parties to the company, and 
 submitted this controver.sy to the arbitrators ; 
 and the parties covenanted with each other to 
 observe the award. 1'he arbitrators awarded 
 that M. had paid the company the amount he 
 agreed with A. W. to pay on the mortgage, and 
 ha<l overpaid his proportion ))y $027, in which 
 sum A. W. was indebted to him ; and that A. 
 \V. slumld pay that sum to him on or before tiie 
 Istof .June, 1882 ; and should also pay the costs 
 of the reference, viz., .'J35. ^Nothing was said 
 about. I. W. :— Held, by Osier, J. (I) That the 
 arbitrators had not exceeded tlieir powers in 
 tlireeting payment by A. W. , (2) That the award 
 was not bad for omitting to mention J. W., this 
 being equivalent to an award that there was 
 notlimg due by liini :— Held, that the finding 
 as to costs was unauthorized, but was severable 
 from tlie rest of the award. Whitely v. Mac- 
 Mahoii, 32 C. P. 4r)3. 
 
 Arbitrators upon a reference to settle disputes 
 between parties, found the balance due from the 
 firm to one of the partners, and declared iu the 
 award that this balance was a lien upon the assets 
 to be paid out of them specifically :— Held, that 
 they had the power to give this direction, and 
 the partner in question had power to sell to 
 satisfy the lien out of the specific property ap- 
 plicable of which he was joint owner. Hedich 
 V. Skdfon, 18 0. R. 100— Boyd. 
 
 (c) CokIs. 
 
 By an order of reference the arbitrator was 
 empowered to certify and amend pleadings and 
 proceedings, ami otiierwise as a judge at nisi 
 prius, and costs of the reference, arbitration, and 
 award were to abide the result of the award : — 
 Held, that the arbitrator had no power to make 
 any disposition of the costs, as tiiey were pro- 
 vided for l)y the reference. Ihranney v. Dorr, 
 4 O. R. 201).— Wilson. 
 
 When the submission or order of reference is 
 silent as to costs, arl>itrators have no power to 
 adjudicate upon them, but each party must bear 
 his own costs and half those of the award. A 
 direction as to the costs in such a case : — Held, 
 severable from the rest of the award. He Hard- 
 in;/ and Wren, 4 O. R. (iO."!. — Rose. 
 
 In an action on a bill of costs the parties con- 
 sented that judgment should be entered for a 
 ' certain sum " subject to the award " of a named 
 person. When the action came on for trial this 
 consent was filed, and the trial Judge indorsed 
 the record : " 1 order that judgment be entered 
 ; for the plaintiff for the sum of, etc., subject to 
 ! tlie consent filed herein." Nothing was said 
 ' about costs, and tliey were not provided for in 
 I any way. The arbitrator or referee made his 
 ; report or award finding that the amount of the 
 judgment sliould lie reduced to a named sum, 
 ! and adding " I ilo award to the plaintiff the costs 
 ; of this action, including the costs of the reference 
 j and award." .ludgnieiit was entered in accord- 
 I ance with this award. Con. llule 550 provides 
 I that "The court will not refer to arbitration :" — 
 j Held, that this lliilc does not prevent any ar- 
 I rangemeiit for the settlement of an action enter- 
 ed into and acted upon by litigants from being 
 sanctioned and enforced Ijy the court ; and there- 
 fore there was power to make a reference by 
 consent in this way ; but it was a reference to 
 arljitration and not a reference under the Judi- 
 cature Act, and the referee Lad no power to deal 
 I with the costs. The award of costs was stricken 
 out of the judgment, and an application after- 
 , wards made to tlie trial Judge to amend the in- 
 i dorsement on the record so as to provide for the 
 ' costs was refused, although the omission to pro- 
 vide for costs was not intentional. Macdonell v. 
 Baud, 13 P. R. 331.— Dalton, Matter.— U&o- 
 Mahoii. 
 
 See He Eiilexton and Tai/lor, 45 Q. B. 479, 
 p. 41 ; W/uteli/ V. Mar.Ma'hon, 32 (J. P. 453, 
 
 . p. 41 ; lie Beatij and the Clti/ oj Toronto, 13 P. 
 
 ■ K. 3U! ; He Smith and the City oJ Toronto, 13 P, 
 R. 479. 
 
 111. Umpire or Third Arbitrator. 
 
 To an action for wrongful dismissal, and on the 
 
 common counts, defendants pleaded an award, 
 
 by which all matters iu dispute between the 
 
 I parties had been settled. The submission was 
 
 to 8. and N., and such third person as "the said 
 
 I arbitrators" should appoint, "so that the said 
 
 \ arbitrators or umpire make his or their award 
 
 * * by, etc., or such further day as "the 
 
 arbitrators, or any two of them," might enlarge 
 
 • to. Before entering upon their duties, S. and 
 
 N. appointed E. as third arbitrator, and the 
 
 I award was executed by S. and E. only, but pro- 
 
 I fessed, in the body of it, to be the award of the 
 
 ■5 
 C9 
 
 n 
 
 91 
 
 
 OS 
 M 
 > 
 
 m 
 
43 
 
 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 
 
 44 
 
 three :— Held, that K. w.is a thiril arbitrntoi', 
 not avi uniinrc ; that thi; word "uini>iro," in the 
 auhniisaion, must lie ri'jeetod as siirphisugo ; and 
 the award was invalid, not having heen made hy 
 all three arriitrators. Willtoii v. YurL; 40 (j. 15. 
 281). -Q. B. I). 
 
 One of the stipulations in a contract between 
 the jilaintitV and defendant companies was, tliat 
 if any dispute arose lietween tliein it should he 
 referred to arbitration, eacli of the jiarties to 
 name an arbitrator, and tlie two witliin ten days 
 after the appointment ot the one last named, 
 Hliould appoint an umpire ; but if either party 
 should neglect or refuse to appoint an arbitrator 
 for the space of ten days after being requested 
 so to do, or should appoint an arbitrator who 
 should refu.ie or neglect to act as such, then the 
 arbitrator of the party making such rccjuest, 
 sh(udd apjioint an arbitrator on behalf of the 
 other l)arty. A notice by the defemlant com- 
 pany recpiiring the plaintill' company to appoint 
 an arbitrator was didy served on the lOtli of 
 .hine, on the .ngent of the iihiintiff company in 
 New York, and on the 19th the plaintiff com- 
 pany, by cablegram from F.ondon, named one 
 C. M. !>., of New York as their arbitrator. On 
 the 2Sth of the same month S., the arbitrator 
 of the defendant comjjany, wrote to O. M. J), 
 requiring him to join in the naming of an umpire, 
 but he answered that he was about to leave the 
 city, and would return on tlie .SOth ; that having 
 been only advised by cable of his appointment 
 and tliat his commission would be nniiled to 
 him, he could not until ito arrival, intelligently 
 take any action. On the .SOth C, AI. D. returned 
 to liis v,l!ice, and then wrote to ,S, expressing his 
 readiness to act, and at the same time confirmed 
 a nomination made by his partners, iluring his 
 absence, of an umpire : — Held, attirming the 
 decree of the court below, ('28Cliy. 648), (1) that 
 the facts did not estaljlish any refusal or neglect 
 on the part of C. M. I), to act as arbitrator, such 
 as would justify S. in miming an arbitrator in 
 his stead : (2) that the naming by the arbitrators 
 of an umpire was not such an act as required 
 C. M. D. to take part in within ten days from 
 his appointment, or in default that his appoint- 
 ment should be vacated, and S, have the right 
 to name a substitute. (3) (28 Chy. 648) that the 
 naming, by the arbitrators, of an umpire was a 
 judicial act which could not legally be performed 
 by the partners of one of the arbitrators, and 
 his subsequent confiinuition thereof was in- 
 effectual. Direct United StattJi Cable Co. (Limit- 
 ed) V. Dominion. 'lelcyraph Co. of CiniiKla, 8 A. 
 R. 416 ; S. C. , sub mm. Direct Cable Co. v. 
 Dmninion Telegraph Co., 28 Chy. 648. 
 
 endorsed on the rule of reference, extended the 
 time for making the award till the 8th .Septem- 
 ber. On the 7th .September the arbitrators nuidc 
 their awar<l in favour ot tho plaintiff for the sum 
 of .?j,0(tl .42, in full settlement of all matters in 
 dillerence in the cause : — Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the Supremo Court of Nova .Scotia, 
 that wlieio the parties, through their respc'ctivo 
 attornciys in the action, consent to extend the 
 time for making an award under a rule of refer- 
 ence, such consent does not operate as a new 
 submission, but is an enlargement of the time 
 under the rule and a continuation to the extend- 
 ed period of the authority of the arbitrators, and 
 therefore an award nuide within the extended 
 period is an award nuidc niiiler the ruh? r>f ri;- 
 ference, and is valid an<l Innding on the parties. 
 'J'hat the fact of one of the parties being a numi- 
 
 i cipal corporation makes no ditference. Oaktt \. 
 
 j Cittj of lliilifttx, 4 S. C. I!. 640. 
 
 Two persons submitted certain matters in dis- 
 pute between them to the award of a barrister 
 of character and standing. The submission pro- 
 vided that the death of either party .shouhl not 
 
 j o))erate as a revocation of the power audauthority 
 of the arbitrator ; there was no provision for an 
 
 ; appeal from his award. The arbitrator aUowcd 
 the time for making his .award to run out before 
 
 \ entering on the reference. One of the parties 
 had died since the snbmi.ssion, and the survivor 
 now applied to the court to enlarge the time. 
 It appeared th.at the .Statute of Limitations had 
 so run since the submission as to bar portion.s of 
 the applieant'.s claim : — Held, reversing the de- 
 cision of Rose, J., that the facts of the death 
 and the absence of the right of appeal would not 
 warrant the court in refusing to enlarge the 
 time, and that under the circumstances no in- 
 
 I justice would be done by enlarging it. lie Cuirij, 
 12 V. R. 437. -Q. B. D. 
 
 IV. Aw.\Kn. 
 
 1. Time of Makinij. 
 
 In an action on contract, the matters In differ- 
 ence were, by rule of court by and with the 
 consent of the parties, submitted to arbitration. 
 By the rule of reference the award was directed 
 to be made on or before the 1st May, 1877, or 
 such further or ulterior day as the arbitrators 
 might endorse from time to time on the order. 
 The time for making the .award was extended by 
 the arbitrators till the 1st of September, 1877. 
 On the 31st August, 1877, the attorneys for 
 plaintiff and defendants, by consent in writing, 
 
 2. Execution of. 
 
 i Three arbitrators on the close of the evidence 
 \ agreed on their finding, and a minute thereof 
 ! was made in writing by one of them but not 
 signed, and it was understood that nothing fur- 
 ; ther was to be done but have a formal award 
 drawn up and executed. Next day the award 
 was drawn up and executed by two of the arbi- 
 trators in the presence of each other, but in the 
 absence of the third arbitrator, who two days 
 afterwards executed it \\\ the presence of one of 
 the other arbitrators. In an action on such 
 award :— Held, affirming the judgment of Hag- 
 I arty, 0. J. , tliat the award should have been 
 I executed by the three arbitrators together, and 
 that it was invalid. Noli v. Nott, 5 0. II. 283.— 
 , C. P. D. 
 
 See Freeman v. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co., 
 I 6 0. R. 413. 
 
 3. PidMcation of. 
 
 I Held, that an award is published (for the pur- 
 pose of regulating the time for an application to 
 set it aside) when the parties have notice that it 
 may be had on payment of charges. It is not 
 needful that there sVould be notice of the con- 
 tents of the award nefore it can be said to be 
 published. Redid- v. Skelton, 18 O. R. 100.- 
 Boyd. 
 
45 
 
 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 
 
 46 
 
 4. Certaiiifi/, 
 
 See Beaudet v. Nuith .SVioir A'. )!'. Cn., ir» 
 H 0. I!. 44 ; Riiiaouette v. Xurlh Slioir It. W. 
 Co., 17 S. C. H. 303. j 
 
 5. Bf/erence Hack. | 
 
 The arbitrators having iiiiule two previous 
 awanUs, which had both l)fcu referred back to 
 them, and great expense incurred, tho court 
 refused to refer the matter back to tlieni, but 
 ordered that it be remitted to tlii! Judge of the ^ 
 County Court, unless counsel could agree u])on 
 such facts ns would enable the court to deal with 
 the matters in dispute. In re Allwmarlt ami 
 EaHtiior, 46 Q. B. 183.— Armour. , 
 
 Held, in this case that no case was nuide out i 
 for remitting the action to the arbitrator on the 
 ground of tlie discovery of fresh evidence, it not ' 
 being shewn tiiat the evidence could not have , 
 been obtained by reasonable diligence ; nor on 
 the ground of tiie al)sence of a material witness, ' 
 of wliose evidence tlio defendants were awaie 
 during tlie progress of the reference, and neglect- 
 ed to ask for a commission or postponement. 
 Lcmat/ V. McHae, 16 0. R. 3(>7. — Armour. 
 
 An application to remit a case back to arbi- 
 trators for reconsideration need not be made 
 within tlie time linutcd for moving to set aside 
 an award, but it must be nia<lc witliiii a reason- 
 able time, and delay must be satisfactorily ac- 
 counted for. L(!icester 7'. (irazc))ro(d<, 40 L. T. 
 N. S. 883, approved and followed. /iV Citizeiui 
 Inmrance Co. and Uaidcrnoii, 13 P. l'>. 70. — 
 C. of A. 
 
 In this case a reference of the claims upon 
 certain insurance policies was made by submis- 
 sion to two arbitrators, who disagreed, and in 
 pursuance of the submission chose an umpire, 
 who made his award on the 2r)th July, 1887. On 
 the 29th May, 1888, the insurers moved for a 
 reference back on the ground that they had then 
 recently discovered evidence that a (luantity of 
 goods saved from the tire were not credited by 
 the assured on their proofs of loss and were 
 fraudulently concealed : — Held, tiiat there should 
 be a reference back to the arbitrators to consider 
 the new evidence and determine its bearing on 
 the questions originally submitted to them. Tho 
 reference back should be general and not linutcd 
 to an inquiry as to what goods were not destroy- 
 ed by tire. lb. 
 
 See McCarthj v. Arhml-h, 31 C. P. 405. 
 
 V. Appeal from Award. 
 
 Where a voluntary submission to arbitration 
 contained a provision that the agreement might 
 he made a rule of court, and that tlio court 
 might be moved to set aside or refer liack the 
 award : — Held, that this conferred no right of 
 appeal under R. ,S. O. (1877) c. 50, s. 191, which, 
 under section 205, could only be conferred by 
 the terms of the submission. In re Totniship oj 
 York and Willson, 8 P. R. 313.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that in Nova Scotia, where the rule nisi 
 to set aside an award specifics certain grounds 
 of objection, and no new grounds are added by 
 way of amendment in the court below, no other 
 
 ground of objection to the award can be raised 
 on appeal. Oakm v. Citi/ of Halifax, 4 S. C. It. 
 640. 
 
 Tlio order of reference made by tiie presiding 
 Judge at the assizes was : " Upon the consent 
 of tlie parties, 1 do order and direct tiiat tlie 
 matters in dispute lietween tlie plaintitr ami de- 
 fendant upon the issues joined in this action be 
 referred," etc. It was urged that the acti(Ui be- 
 ing one which involved the iuvestigatimi of long 
 accounts, the reference must be deemed to have 
 ))cen made coinpulsorily, and the cons(^iit to have 
 1 been merely to the arbitrator named. It ap- 
 peared that, as a matter of fact, the learned 
 •hitlge exercised no discretion, but, on the par- 
 ties announcing their consent, he made the order : 
 and at the time suggested the insertion of a 
 clause auth<>rizin!; an appeal, if such were de- 
 sired, but it was not re(|uired : — Held, that the 
 reference was a ccmscnt reference, and there was 
 no appeal. Wilishr v. JIaii(iar/,0 O. It. 27. — 
 C. P. I). 
 
 Held, aftirming tho judgment of the Queen's 
 I5eiicli (46 Q. B. 235), that an appeal will lie 
 from an award made iiursuant to a consent re- 
 ference at nisi prius under section 205 C. L. P. 
 Act. McEinin v. McLeod, 9 A. R. 239. 
 
 In the case of a ioluntary nisi prius submis- 
 sion to arbitration in which a right of appeal is 
 reserved by consent, tlu procedure is governed 
 by R. S. O. (1877)c. 50, .>s. 191, l!t2and 193, and 
 the time for appealing I'rv.m the award runs from 
 the (late of filing. McEwan c. Mcl.eod, 9 A. R. 
 239, followed. Sfu'iihiril v. Canadian Pa.rijic II. 
 IV. Co , 11 P. R. 517.— Hoyd. 
 
 I On a reference being made to the oflficial arbi- 
 trators of certain claims made by one H. against 
 ] the government for damages arising out of the 
 I enlargement of the Lachine Canal to land situ- 
 I ated on said canal, the arbitrators awarded H. 
 I .S9,2I6 in full and final settlement of all claims. 
 I t)n an appeal taken to the I^xchequer Court by 
 I H. (Taschereau, J., presiding) this amount was 
 ! increased to .?I5,990, including $5,600 for dani- 
 1 ages caused to the land fn n 1877 to 18S4 by 
 leakage from the canal dince its enlargement, 
 and the Judge reserved the right to H. to claim 
 for future damages from that date. On appeal 
 to tho Supreme Court of Canada it was : — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the Exchequer Court 
 and confirming the award of the arbitrators, that 
 it must be taken that the arbitrators dealt with 
 every item of H.'s claim submitted to them and 
 included in their award all past, present and 
 future damages, and that the evidence did not 
 justify any increase of the amount awarded. 
 Owynne, J. was of opinion that under 42 Vict. c. 
 8, s. ,38 the Supreme Court had power (although 
 the crown did not appeal to the Excheipicr 
 Court) to review the award of the arbitrators, 
 and that in this case ?1,000 would be an ample 
 compensation for any injury that the claimant's 
 land can be said to have sustained, which upon 
 the evidence can be attrilmted to the work of 
 the enlargement of the canal. Bei/iiia v. Huberty 
 14 S. C. R. 737. 
 
 
 mi 
 
 ••4 
 
 ss 
 
 R., the contractor for building the E. & H. 
 Railway, and practically the owner thereof, 
 negotiated with the solicitor of the C. S. R. for 
 the sale to the latter of the E. & H. Railway 
 when built. While the negotiations were pend- 
 
 ^' 
 
47 
 
 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 
 
 48 
 
 I 
 
 in;,' II. wi'iit til Cilifdrnia, mill tin- ai;(nt.i wlio 
 liMikiil iiftiT till) iill'iiirH I.I' till- K. fi II. I!:iilw:iy 
 ill liis iiliHi'iici' iipplii'il to tilt' iiiiiiiiifji'r of tiu' ('. 
 S. It. fur Moiiir rolling; Hto.'li to iissiKf. in itH con- 
 Htriictioii. 'I'lii' ni.iniij,'iT of tlir ('. S. It. W!i» 
 willing to Hii|i|ily tin- roliiii;,' Ntork on ixcriitioii 
 of tliti itgiciMnin't fur siilii of tlni road wliiiJi wan 
 «'oiiinniniratr ' to 15., wlio wrote a littrr to tlit^ 
 m.^ina^rr in wnicli llic fi)liowiii>.' |>;i.><.s,i),'cocciimMl! 
 " If lioiii liny caii.ii' oiir plan i<f liandin;; over tlio 
 mail to yoiir (•onipiny hIioiiM nci'iMHarily fail, 
 yon may iipially ilcpciid on liiiiiu p dd full ratuM 
 for till' UMi' of niHiin! and iiars and any otlirr an- 
 Hislanci' or advant.i;,'!' yon ni.iy liavi' jjivcn .Mr. 
 I''aripiii!r (tin' a;;cnt)." 'i'lu' nr^iotiatiiiiiH for thf 
 pnriMiiiHii of li'.s railway liy tiic ('. S. It. having; 
 lallcli tiiroii^di, an ai;tion was l)rnii;,dil liy tliu 
 latter niiiipany .ijiaiiiHt U. and tlic Iv it II. Kail- 
 way for tlic liiii' of tlio rolliiit; .loi k wliiili was 
 rcMisti'd liv It., on two ),'i"'inil.i, onr tliat tlir 
 nilliiiK stork was supjilicd in pnisnanci! of tlu^ 
 iicKoti.ilicMiH for tlic salr ol lii.s road to tin- plain 
 titis wliiili hail filiin tiironKii l>y no fault .d I!, 
 and tlir other. Ili.it if tliu plaintiil's li.id .uiy li^lit 
 of action it uas only a^rainst tliu M. >t II. Kail- 
 way ami not againnt liiiii. liy coiLscnt of tlio 
 partiiiH till' matter w.im lel'erred to the arliitra- 
 tion of a t'oMiity Court .linlge, with a pro\ ision 
 ill the sid)ini«nion tliat tiu! pioceeiliiigHNlioiild lie 
 llip same ;is on it referuncu liy order ol the eonrt, 
 und tiiat there slioiild lie a riglit of appe.d from 
 the aw.ird as under K. S. (). (JSTT) <^ 'lO, s. I«!». 
 The arhitrator gave an award in favor of tlio 
 plaintitl'.-i ; the (^neeu's lieneh Divisional Court 
 held that thuru was no appeal from the award 
 <in the merits, and as it was regular on its faoo 
 refiiSLMl to disturli it ; the ('ourt of Appeal held 
 that there win an appeal on the merits liut up- 
 held the award. The defenilauts then appealed 
 to the Suprenij ('nurt of Canada ; —Held, atlirin- 
 ing the judgment of the Court of Appeal that thu 
 nrliitrator w.is jiistilied in awanling the annnint 
 liu did to the plaintiil's, and th.it IS. as well an 
 tho compiiiy wiH lialile tlvjrefor. lih'hforil v. 
 Camilla ti iHiliirii It. W. Co., It S. C. H."T-W. 
 
 In a matter of ex(n'0|iriati<in of land for thu I 
 Intereolcinial railw.iy, the awaid of the arliitra- 1 
 tora was iiiereased liy the Judge of the Kxehc- 
 quer V.mwt from ?4,ir»."i tii ?ll),S24.'2ri, aftjr ad- j 
 ditiiiinl witnesses li.ul liueii examined liy the ! 
 .ludge. Oil an appivil to thu Suprumu Court it ! 
 was : — H dd, atlirming the judgment of tho Ex- ' 
 chequer (!()urt, that as thu judgment appealed 
 from was sup))orteil liy cvidenee, and there was 
 no matter of priiieiidu on whieli such jndginent 
 was f.iirly open to blainr), nor any oversight of 
 material ciiusider.ition, the judgment should lie \ 
 affirmed. (Iwynne, .1., dissenting. Hci/iii'i v. 
 ChtiHmid, Ki.S. C. It. 721. " i 
 
 On an appcril to the Supreinii Court from a 
 judgnv.'ut of the Kxoheipier Court increasing tho j 
 amount awarded liy the olfioial arbitrators to tho ; 
 claimuit for expropriation of land for the Inter- 
 colonial railway : — Held, reversing tlie judgment j 
 of the F^xchequer Court and restoring tho award | 
 of the official arbitrators, that to warrant an in- j 
 terforeuoe with an award of value necessarily ] 
 lar^oly speculative an appellate court must be ! 
 Siitistied beyond all reasonable doubt that some 
 wrong principle has been acted on or something 
 overlooked wliic'n ought to have been considered 
 by the official'arbitrators, and upon the evidence 
 
 in this case tliiM court rufii^oil to iiit' ' •• with 
 
 the amount of eiiinpenHation awan thu 
 
 ollieial arbitratorH. l/iiiiiiii v. /'ii/vt '•■'jiiia 
 
 V. U'^iiilkii, 1(1 ,S. C. K. 7 HI. 
 
 .See next Subhead. 
 
 VI. .Skitimi .Ahiiik. ANit Stavinu 1'iuiiki;!ii.n«;h 
 
 (IN. 
 
 1. Tiiiii' for Miii'iwi, 
 
 On the 2iid DeeiMiiber, IS7M, tlio submisHinn 
 being within the !» .t Kt Will. 111., the plaimiir 
 niiived to set asiile an award made on the l.'ltli 
 of August previously, aeeoiiiitiiig for his del.iy 
 on the griiiind th.it the defendant had, on thu 
 ■Itli .September, before the end of the next term, 
 served a iiotii.'e on him of his intention to appe.d, 
 It was not, however, sworn that lie refrained 
 from moving owing to this notieu : Held, re- 
 versing the deei.-,ioi; of I'liiiidfuot, V. ('., that 
 the evidriiee did not shew tiiat the delay was 
 indiieed liy the defendant, but that "en if it 
 hail, il would liave been noexoilHe f' delay. 
 
 /'.(/■(/.^ v. A/.///-/. .-I A. H. 1. 
 
 An aw lid niiiHt be moved ag.iin.-... in the 
 
 term fuDowiiig its |iulili<'ation, or within thu 
 )ieriod which siicli term formeily occupied. And 
 when the term has been abolished, wlnu'C an 
 award was pnliiisbed on tin! llUh .\ugiist, IHSS, 
 notice of appeal dated 7tli September, ISHS, but 
 not served till lOth September, ISSS, was : - 
 Held, too lati!. Kiitii V. KUii'iwiU, 1'2 \\ K. (125. 
 — Armour. 
 
 .See Coiimi'P v. Caiiiula l^arific It. W. Co., KKJ. 
 R. (itlit, p. 41 ; ItxIii-k-wSheltoH, 180. H. 100, p. 44. 
 
 'J. /''oc Iteci'iiliiiii or ItejeH'tun of Kiuil-nce. 
 
 Held, that thu award in this case was bad and 
 must be set aside, as it appeared that the arbi- 
 trators had received the evidence of one of thu 
 parties in the absence of thu others, and after the 
 arbitration was supposed to be closed. Whitcly 
 V. McMahon, :I2 C. 1*. 453.— Osier. 
 
 After the evidence hail been closed the con- 
 struction committee of tho railway company 
 wrote a letter addressed to H., agreeing to cer- 
 tain thing.s whei'eby the damage to his property 
 would be lessened. This was delivered to the 
 arbitrator for the company before tho award was 
 m.adu and by him to the umpire, but was not 
 communicated to H. until after tho award, 
 which contained recitals of tho benefits proposed 
 by this letter, and .assussed tho compensation at 
 tiio sum originally oH'ered by the eoinpany. The 
 award was not signed by H.'s arbitrator, who 
 swore that the letter ali'uutod the award, and re- 
 duced the sum awarded, while the other two 
 arbitrators swore it had no effect upon their 
 finding :— Held, that the award was bail. Re- 
 marks as to the caution to bo observed by arbi- 
 tr.'itors in such c.tsos in considering or acting 
 upon such agreements made ponding the .arbitra- 
 tion. Ifirriiiii iiHil Napaiieii, Tamworth ami 
 Qiichec R. ir. Cu., 5 O. R. 349. 
 
 Tho improper reception or rejection of evidence 
 by an arbitrator, without any corrurt intent, 
 does not amount to legal misconduct upon which 
 an award will be set aside. Wi'hster v. llajijarl, 
 9 0. K. 27. -C. P. U. 
 
49 
 
 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 
 
 50 
 
 'I'ht' cviilfiioc rt'rrivi'il coiiHiHtnl in Htiiti'iiiciitH 
 ,1,^,1,. Iiy till' |il:iiiitill' iiiitt' liti'tii iiKit.'iiri ill hiiIi- 
 Htiuici' ioiiliiiimtiiiy i>f Ihm I'viilciict' lir'fi)r«' tlio 
 iiiliitr.itor ! ami tln' irjiM'tioii rnnMistcd in tlu' iir- 
 hitliitdl'H icfllMal ti) I'ccrivc |rutsiit tlir |h liiilitV « 
 ,,j;,ll,illiltiiill witlllMit till! Vvlldlci llfill^J ITl'l i\ 111. 
 
 It iliil I'"' .kpl"'"'" '''"' *'"' i"'''i'''"t'il' waH ill- 
 tjiu'iii'i'il liy tlic cviili'iH'ti iilijii'tccl til anil 'id 
 lli.iii' «" r('i|ili'Ht til III' ulliiwril to I I'CdiiMiili I' 'iiN 
 awanl : - ll''l'li I'lat wiiilii llii' rv iilriicc ipIiJccIciI 
 to WiiH not Mtiiotly ailiiiiMHiliii', llu' awaid coiilil 
 iKit 1"' iiiti'tfeii'il with im Niicli K">"ii<l. anil i^dpu- 
 oiiillN .n siii.v II. S. (). (1S77) i: ."•(), M. 'JMll, wiii'ii 
 it iliil nut u|)|iuai' to liavi' ni'i'iisiniiiMl any mis 
 iiiiiiago nil tin: incritH, //(. 
 
 Ill till' I'oiidiKtt of ai'MtraliiinM tln^ nilr Ih in- 
 llcxilil'' 111 it tlie arliitrators iiiiint lir Hcrii|iiiliiiis|y 
 i;iiiiiili!il ajjaiiiHt any posHilili! oliai>{i' nf unfair 
 ilcaliiiK tiiwanlH citli'T party ; tlirrifdiii wlirri! 
 oiii' <if tilt' partit's to a icfi'ii'iii'i', who hail Ixu'ii 
 <\ iiiiiiu'cl aw a witni'ss, alti'i' tlii! (niili'iirt.' hail 
 lii'iii oliiM'il ami till! matter av^iiiMl, ncnt liy mail 
 liis alliilavit i'X|ilainiiiK Hoiiir portion of his i^vi- 
 ilnai', to till! arhitratiir, luit which waH not ni 
 ri'ceivi'il l>y him until aftur hi! hud written out 
 tlifi view in accorilanoi' with which he hiiIiho- 
 i|iii'iitly made hin award ; the court allirnied the 
 jinlgiiu'iit of the court lielow setlin;^ anide the 
 iiwaril. Ildi'i V. Andi'VHtin, 14 A. It. '2IH. 
 
 Upiiii a niiitiiiu to net aside an award on tlir* 
 yrouiid that the arliitrators iniprojicrly received 
 utiitt'iiu'iits from onc! of the parties in the ab- 
 sence of the other : - Held, that it is not ih'coh- 
 Kiiry ill Hiicli a ease to iminite any intcntimi.il 
 impropriety of coiiduet to tin; arliitrators, nor to 
 shew that their deciHion has li.'eii in any way 
 iiilliienci'd by what has oi;ciirred ; it is only ne- 
 ceiJHary to shew that their minds may possilily 
 liavu lii'cn inlliieiiced against the applicant by 
 the ciiiiiinuiiications that have taken ]>lauu. Jle 
 FnrU and Kifri; IS (>. 1{. 3!).').- Streot. 
 
 Where it apjicared that after the close of tlio 
 evidence and while tlio arbitrators were consid- 
 criiii; it, koiiiu e\]ilanatioiis in regard to an ac- 
 c'linit were given to tliciii by one party to the 
 uriiitration in the absence of the other on a cer- 
 tain evening, and that when the arbitrators and 
 the parties all met the next niorning, one of the 
 arliitratiirs said that they had had an explana- 
 tion about thu account, and wanted to know 
 what the other party had to say about it ; — 
 Held, that tlio award was bad, and must be set 
 iiside. III. 
 
 See Luna!/ v. Mrltm; Ki (). H. .'107 ; 10 \. R. 
 348, p. 50. 
 
 3. Mixcondnct of Arlnlratom. 
 
 Held, adirming the decree of Proudfoot, V.C, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to spocifiu perfor- 
 mance of an award giving him damages for his 
 litnda taken by the defendants : that the sum 
 awarded was not so excessive as to show any 
 fraudulent or improper conduct on the part of 
 the arbitrators ; and, (luiere, whether if shown it 
 would be a defence in such a proceedings. Nur- 
 mil V. Caimla Southern It. W. Co., 5 A. It. 13. 
 
 See Hardhui v. The Tomishiii of Cnvdii}', 29 
 Chy.308. I > .1' 
 
 See Previous iSnbhead. 
 
 I. Other CnnfM. 
 
 Till' award in this ease having Im o directed 
 to be made within a year by an order of the 
 ('haiiiery Division where the parlies were liti- 
 gating ( iiiiceiiiing it : llrlil, that the moti'iii to 
 s«!t it .iside or reler luck mIiomIiI have Ihtii made 
 ill that divisicin, /ii re 'I'luriflii/i nj' Mii.skiikddiid. 
 Villiiiii >ij' (Iniri iihuril, (i (). 11. .'(.")■_'.- Caiiieron. 
 
 ■j'ho bill in this easo was tiled to rcitify an 
 ii vvanl made und(!i' a siibinission to arbitration' 
 bi!t;Ween the parties, mi the ground that the arbi- 
 tralors coniidered matters not iiii'linleil in tlio 
 siibiiiisHioii, and li.id divided the siiiiis received 
 liy the defeiiilant froiii the plaiiitills, becanso 
 defendant's brother aii>l partner was a party to 
 such receipt, although the jiartiiership adairs 
 of the defendant and iiis brotiiers were excluded 
 from the siiliiniHsion. 'I'lie bill prayed that the 
 award might be amended and the defendant do- 
 I'l'ced to pay ' 'm' ainoiint due the plaiiitills on the 
 award liiin . 'itilicd, ami that, in other respects, 
 the awani li'Milil stand and be biiKiing on tho 
 ii.uties ; llieio was also a prayer for general ro- 
 lief : Meld, aHii'iniiig the judgment ot the court 
 below, that (,'i grant tlu! decree! prayed for would 
 be to Ml ikt! i. new award which the court had no 
 jiii i-dii'timi to ilo, but;- Held, also, reversing 
 the decision of the court below, that iiiuler tho 
 prayer for geni;ral relief the plaiiitills wero on- 
 iitled to liavi! the award set aside, I'c.rnou V. 
 Oliivr, II S. C, H. lofi. 
 
 Held, afliiniing the judgment of Armour, C. 
 •T., (Hi <). It. •'tl)7K that where the action and all 
 matters of aceiiiiiit and counter claim therein, 
 and all matters in diircienee between the parties 
 were by consent referred to the ai liitiation and 
 liiial end and determination of a named person 
 and no provision was made for an appeal, his 
 award, valid on its face, could not be attacked 
 because of iillcged inipri>|)er reception of ovidenco 
 by liiiii, or because of alleged errors in tho jirin- 
 i!iple of eom|iiitation upon which he proceeded; 
 the evidenei' having been received with refercnco 
 to matters in difriiiencc between the parties anil 
 within the jurisdiction of tlie arbitrator, and the 
 principle of computation being disclosed in a 
 ilraft award, not delivereil with, nor forming any 
 part of the formal award, and in coiiveraations, 
 after the making of the award, butweoii the 
 .'irbitiator and one of thu solicitors for the at- 
 tacking party, the arbitrator himself not admit- 
 ting that ho had made any mistake, and not 
 assisting the party ■join]ilaintiiig of the award to 
 apply to the court to set it right. Dinii r. 
 Ulake, L. II. 10<:. I*. 388; Hodgkinson c. Fernie, 
 IW. IJ. N. S. I8!t, fidlowed ; lie Dare Valley R. 
 W. Co., L. It. « Kii. 42!), distinguished ; Kist 
 and West India Dock Co. r. Kirk, 12 App. Cas. 
 738, considered. Lemaij v. McMui-, 10 A. R. 348. 
 
 ,Sec llv Etili'nton ami Taylor, 45 Q. Ii. 479, p. 
 41 ; Cotimi'p. v. Canadian Pacific K. W. Co., 16 
 O. U. «39, p. 41. 
 
 VII. Enfokcino Award. 
 
 In answer to ii bill to enforce an award, the 
 defendant by answer submitted to tho court a 
 number of matters as objections to the award, 
 and that a reference back to the arbitrator, with 
 certain instructions, or a reference to the master 
 as to the mutters in dispute should be directed. 
 
 e 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 i 
 
51 
 
 ABBEST. 
 
 At the hearing on l>ill and answer, the defen- 
 dant ohjecttd (I) to the jurisdiction of the court, 
 the Ruhniissinn providing that the submission 
 and award .should be made a lulc of the Queen's 
 Bench or Common I'leas ; (2) that the filing of 
 the bill was premature, the time for moving 
 against the award not having expired :— Held, 
 that a proceeding to enforce an award by sum- 
 mary application, nuist be taken after tlie time 
 for moving against it has elapsed. Moow v. 
 Buckner, 'JS Cliy. (iOO.— Spragge. 
 
 QuaTc, whether a proceeding for that purpose 
 l)y action at law or suit in equity, can be taken 
 before that time. lb, 
 
 Held, that the objection to the jurisdiction 
 would liave prevailed if properly taken, as the 
 parties to the submission had agreed upon their 
 forum ; but the defendant having submitted to 
 the jurisdiction by his answer, and himself asked 
 the intervention of the court, coidd not now be 
 heard to object, lb. 
 
 It not appearing that there was any good rea- 
 son for filing a bill instead of proceeding in the 
 usual way, tlie court (Spragge, C.,) refused to the 
 plaintiff any costs other than such as he would 
 have been entitled to had he proceeded to enforce 
 the award under the statute. //). 
 
 See Norvall \. Cunada Southern It. W. Co., "> 
 A. R. 13, p. 49. 
 
 See Moore, v. liuchter, 2S Chy. 600, p. 51 ; 
 /fariliwj V. Towimhip of Cnrdifl", 29 (.'\\\ 308' 
 Mucdonell v. Jiainl, 13 1'. R. 331, p. 42. 
 
 IX. In Particular Gabrm. 
 
 1. Qiied'ioM arhimj between Members of Incor- 
 porated Societies, 
 
 See Cannon v. Toronto Corn Ejcrhanne, 5 \, 
 R. 268 ; hJxsery v. Court Pride of the Dominion 
 
 2 0. R. rmi. 
 
 ABBITBATOB. 
 
 See Ariiitration and Award. 
 
 VIII. CO.ST.'<. I 
 
 Costs of arbitration and award where proceed- i 
 ings stayed in an action on a policy pending arbi- 
 tration as to amount of loss. See llmjlies v. 
 Briti.sh Amerieun Iiik. Co., mid Hiiijltrs v. Ijoh- 
 don AsKuranci' Co., 7 O. R. 405; Ilwjhes v. 
 Hand in Hand Ins. Co., lb. 615. 
 
 Costs of reference to fi.K amount of rent on 
 renewal of lease. See Smith v. Fleming, 12 P. 
 R. 520. 
 
 In tiixing the costs of an arbitration upon the 
 County Court scale no larger fee for attendance 
 of counsel bef(n'e the arbitrators than $25 can 
 be allowed even though the attendance is for 
 several days. lie Muntai/ue and the Township 
 oj Aldborou'jh, 12 P. R. 141.— Wilson. 
 
 Item. 153 of tariff A, Consolidated Ptules of 
 Practice, should be read as part of item 164 ; 
 and the taxing officers at Toronto have authority 
 to consider the (picstion of increased counsel 
 fees in the case of an arbitration where there is 
 no cause in court and a reference to a local officer 
 to tax costs has been made under R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 53, s. 24. He McKeen and Township of South 
 Cover, 12 P. R. 553. -Boyd. 
 
 Upon an appeal from the taxation of costs of 
 an arbitration, which the plaintiffs were ordered 
 to pay :— Held, that items in respect of the loss 
 of time in travelling and tr.- elling expenses of 
 an arbitrator were propeny disallowed. He 
 Hillyard and the Hoy id Ins. Co., 12 P. R. 28i') — 
 Gait. 
 
 Held, that the amount to be allowed per diem 
 to arbitrators aiul counsel was a matter pecu- 
 liarly within the province of the taxing officer, 
 and his decision should not be interfered with. 
 lb. 
 
 ABOHITECT. 
 
 Although an architect, employed by the owner, 
 for reward to superintend the construction of a 
 house may, as between the latter and the con- 
 tractor by the terms of their own agreement be 
 in the position of an arbitrator and his deciaion 
 as between them uninq)cachable except for fraud 
 or dishonesty, yet .is between himself and his 
 employer he is answerable for either negligence 
 or unskilfuluess in the performance of his diitv 
 as architect. Irving c. Morrison, 27 (.'. P. 24i 
 approved. Badijlnj v. Dickson, 13 A. It, 494, 
 
 ABMY. 
 
 See Militia. 
 
 ABBEST. 
 
 I. MaNNKROF AURKIST, 53. 
 
 II. As.SAULTI.Mi ClINSTABLK IN MaKI.NoAp,- 
 UK.ST, 53. 
 
 III. In WHAT Ca.ses Arrkst can UK .MAiit 
 
 1. 0/ Foreigners, 53. 
 
 2. Of Married Women — .S'ee Hu.sihnd | 
 
 ANr) W'iKB. 
 
 IV. Writs ok Capia."! and Ordkr for Ar j 
 
 rest. 
 
 1. IssHi of, 54. 
 
 2. Application for Discharge or to ftlj 
 
 Aside Arrest, 
 ' ' (a) Power of Court or Judge, 55. 
 
 (b) Defects in Affidavit, 55. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 56. 
 
 (d) On Habeas Corpus— See HABi!ii| 
 
 Corpus. 
 
 3. Costs, 57. 
 
 V. Ml.'iCKLLANEOUS CASK.S, 57. 
 
 VI. On Attachmknt — See Ah.scondis«| 
 Debtor -Contkmpt of Court, 
 
 VII. Warrant for Arrest— iS«e J usticio'| 
 
 THE PkACE. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Wab 
 
 
 OF 
 
 IX. 
 
 On Is 
 
 X. 
 
 Wrii 
 
 XI. 
 
 Rail 
 
 XII. 
 
 Mali 
 
 
 RES 
 
 
 CEt 
 
 II, As.SAULTr? 
 
 III. In wu> 
 
53 
 
 ABBEST. 
 
 54 
 
 VIII. Warrant OK Commiimknt— See Justice 
 OF TiiK Peace. 
 
 IX. On Ne Exeat— 5ec Ne Exeat. 
 
 X. Writ of Arrest — (S'ce Writ of Arre«t. 
 
 XI. Bail— See Bail— Criminal Law. 
 
 XII. Malicious Arrest— .9ee Malicious Ar- 
 rest, Prosecution, and Other Pro- 
 ceedinus. 
 
 I, Manner of Arrest. 
 
 Liability of coiistable to trespass for unneces- 
 sary iiandcuffing. See BamiUun v. iVas^ie, 18 
 0. R. 085. 
 
 II, AsSAULTI!.! C'oNSTAltLE IN MaKINK ArREST. 
 
 ludictmcnl ."or assaulting a const.'vble acting 
 under a warrant of cuinniitment. See lieijina v. 
 Khuj, IS O. 11. 5()0. 
 
 III. In what Cases Arrest can he Made. 
 
 1. Of Foreiijw.rs. 
 
 Helil, on the evidence set out in tlie report, 
 that the defendant could properly be tieiitcd ns 
 a resident of this province. Vurlirriijht v. fliiidi, 
 .■)(). R. 384.— C. P. D. 
 
 The general rule that it is against the (wlicy 
 of our law to permit a foreigner to follow an- 
 other into Ontario, and arrest him fur a debt 
 contracted abroad, is limited to cases in which 
 the debtor is here on temporary business, and is 
 about to return to his own country, linlter v. 
 RosenJ'ddt; Swxtzer v. Jtoneii/eUU,^ P. K. 175.— 
 Osier. 
 
 Where the debtor has absconded from his 
 own country to Ontario, and docs not intend 
 returning, or intsnds to go to some other country, 
 the creditor n ay follow and arrest him here 
 upon a CO. re. lb. 
 
 A defendant having contracted a debt in the 
 United States of America, his ordinary place of 
 abode, and in the act of returning there after a 
 visit to his parents in this country, cannot be 
 arrested on a charge of leaving Ontario with in- 
 tent to defraud his creditors. Smilh v. Smil/i, 
 9 ¥.11. 511.— Uagaity. 
 
 The prisoner was arrested in Toronto, upon 
 information contained in a telegram from Eng- 
 land, charging him with having committed a 
 felonv in that country, and stating that a war- 
 rant had been issued there for his arrest : — Held, 
 that a person cannot, under the Imperial Act (i 
 & 7 Vict, c. 34, legally be arrested or detained 
 here for an offence committed out of Canada, un- 
 less upon a warrant issued where the otfence was 
 committed, and endorsed by a Judge of a superior 
 court in this country. Such warrant must dis- 
 close a felony according to the law of this coun- 
 try; and Semble,that the expression "felony, 
 to wit, larceny," is insufficient. The prisoner 
 waa therefore disohavged. Begina v. McHolme, 
 8P.R. 452. -Cameron. 
 
 It is of no consequence where the domicile of 
 » person may be, or to what country he is bound 
 
 j by allegiance as a subject or citizen, if he comes 
 I to this province, and reside here, and contract 
 debts, and is about to (piit the country (that is 
 in fact to change his residence to a foreign coun- 
 try, even though that country be his place of do- 
 micile) with the intent to defraud his creditors, 
 he is subject to arrest jis it prev.iils in this pro- 
 vince. kersternittHV. ifcLdlan, 10 P. R. 122. — 
 Wilson. 
 
 Hehl, that a defendant cannot rely on a chan<{u 
 of residence to a foreign country so as to av(jid 
 the law of arrest, to which he was subject in this 
 province at the time he incurred the debt upon 
 which the action is brought, when that change 
 of residence has been eUected by a fraudulent 
 Hight to avoid arrest. Ih. 
 
 The plaintiff claimed .'J20,0f)() damages from 
 the defendant, the cause of action being criminal 
 conversation with the plaintiff's wife. T'he de- 
 fendant lived in the United States, but was here 
 for a temporary purpose when the plaintiff had 
 him arrested under an order to hold to bail. 
 The plaintiff' in his affidavit sworn on the .SOth 
 .January, on which the order w.as f;ranted, stated 
 that the defendant had arrived in Toronto that 
 morning, and that he intended to leave for his 
 own country that night, with intent to defraud 
 the phiintiff of the damages he iiail sustained. 
 Upon a motion for the defendant's discharge : — 
 Held, that in leaving Ontario he was not doing 
 so witli intent to defraud tlie plaintiff, and was 
 therefore entitled to be discharged. Ex p. 
 Gutierrez, 11 Cliy. I). 208, specially referred to. 
 A'iVe V. Fk/chei; V.i P. K. 4«.-MiicMahon. 
 
 I IV. Writs of Capias and Order for Arre.st. 
 
 1. /suite of. 
 
 ! Notwithstanding the Judicature Act, section 
 90 and Rule .'>, a writ of capias m.iy still be issu- 
 ed under R. S. O. ( 1877) c. 67, and the C. L. P. Act 
 before an action has been commenced by a writ 
 of suninion.s. Velter v. Cowan, 40 Q. B. 435. — 
 Camenm. 
 
 Held, that where a ca. sa. had been issued 
 upon the judgment within the year it w.ns not 
 necessary to return and tile the same within the 
 year. Ihnunjtv v. Thrasher, 1 O. R. 313. — Q. 
 B. I). 
 
 When serving a defendant with an order to 
 examine him as a judgment debtor it is not 
 necessary'to exhibit the orisinal order unless 
 demanded in order to entitle the plaintiff' to 
 move for a ca. sa. against him under R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 50, s. 305. Imperial Bank v. Dieke;/, 
 8 P. R. 24«.— Gait. 
 
 j The Judge of a County Court has no power, 
 ' either as such Judge or as local Judge of the 
 High Court, to order the issue of a ca. sa. in an 
 action in the High Court. Cochrane Manufac- 
 turing Co. ('. Lanion, IIP. R. 3.")1, followed. 
 Walerhoui^ev. McVevjIi, 12 P. R. 076.— Armour. 
 
 I Where defendant was arrested on a ca. re., 
 I and it was doubtful whether the debt was 
 I actually due or not, the court refused to dis- 
 j charge the defendant, although the judge who 
 j granted the order for the writ would not have 
 j done so, if all tho facts had been before him. 
 Willett V. Brown, 8 P. R. 408.— Hagarty. 
 
 
 o 
 n 
 
 CB 
 
 . » 
 
 M 
 
 s 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
u 
 
 ABBEST. 
 
 56 
 
 57 
 
 In this case an order for a ca. sa. was cranted 
 npon two affidavits ; one that of the Toronto 
 iigeut for the phiintifl's solicitors exliibiting a 
 copy of an affidavit made l)y one of such solici- 
 tors, stating that he believed it to be a true 
 copy, and tliat tlie original was stated to have 
 been enclosed in a letter received by him that 
 day, but was not so enclosed, but not stating 
 that such an affidavit ever existed :— Held, that 
 this could not be treated as forming any evi- 
 derce upon which an order for arrest could be 
 founded. aUhert v. Stiki, 13 V. R. 121. 
 
 Consoli<lated Itule 544 provides, tliat all orders 
 made by a Judge of the High Court in Chambers 
 shall be signed by the clerk in Chambers ;— 
 Held, that an order for the arrest of the defen- 
 dant signed by the Judge who made it, and not 
 by the clerk, was not properly issued :— Held, 
 also, upon tiie evidence, that the defendant was 
 not about to quit Ontario with intent to defraud ; 
 and, upon both grounds, the defendant should 
 be disciiarged from custody. -SV. Croix v. Mc- 
 Lachliii, 13 P. K. 438.— Ferguson. 
 
 2. Application for JJisc/iarge or to Set Anide 
 A rre.it. 
 
 (a) Power of Court or JmUjc. 
 
 Held, that a Divisional Court may review the 
 action of a .Judge in sotting aside a writ of ca. sa. 
 and tlie arrest thereunder, and also his action in 
 nuiking the order to arrest. Carlwriyht v. 
 Jlimh, 3 O. R. 384.— C. P. D. 
 
 A Divisional Court has power under Con. Rule 
 10">I to set aside or vary an order for arrest made 
 by a County Court Juclge in a County Court ac- 
 tion. Elliot V. MrCiiaui, 13 P. R. 416.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 A local Judge of the High Court has no power 
 to order the discharge of a defendant held in 
 custody under a ca. sa. issued out of the High 
 Court of Justice. Cochrane Maniifucturiwj Co. 
 V. Lamoii, 11 P. R. 351.— Gait. 
 
 A .ludge in chambers has no power to rescind 
 his own order for a writ of ca. sa. or to discharge 
 the defendant from custcv.ly after the order has 
 beei' acted upon. McXahb v. Oppenheimer, 1 1 
 P. R. 214.— Rose. 
 
 A Judge of the High Court sitting in single 
 
 court has power to set aside an order for the 
 
 issue of a ca. sa. issued by the local Judge of the 
 
 High Court. Waterhoiisc v. McVeiijh, 12 P. A. 
 
 . 070.— Armour. 
 
 (b) DeftctK ill Affidavit. 
 
 Held, tiiat a statement in the affidavit on 
 which the order to arrest was founded, that the 
 defendant had made " an assignment of all his 
 properly," without adding f((r the general beneKt 
 of all his creditors, was of itself objectionable, 
 08 leading to the belief that the .issignment was 
 fraudulent, but apart from this there was suffi- 
 cient stated to justify the issue of the order. 
 Cartwright v. nind.% 3 (). R. 384.— C. P. D. 
 
 The affidavit stated only that defeiulant was in- 
 -debted in $116.00 on two promissory notes over- 
 due ; but defendant who had left tlie country, did 
 not deny that he was indebted, and the particu- 
 
 lars were stated in the special endorsement of 
 the writ of summons served on him. An affida- 
 vit stating the particulars sufficiently was allow- 
 ed to be filed in support of the order. Uobtrt- 
 son v. Coullon, 9 P. R. 16.— Osier. 
 
 On an application to set aside the order for an 
 arrest and the writ, etc., but not to be discharged 
 out of custod}', objections that the affidavit (lis- 
 closes no sufficient cause of action, or shews that 
 the defendant is about to leave the province are 
 not open. lb. 
 
 Where the affidavit for the order was entitled 
 in the High Court of Justice, but not in the 
 proper division : — Held, that the objection wag 
 clearly amendable. lb. 
 
 The use in the affidavit upon which an order 
 for the issue of ca. re. was granted of the words 
 "intent to defeat," instead of "intent to de- 
 fraud," the latter being the words prescribed by 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. «7, 8. 5:— Held, not fatid to 
 the arrest. LaiiKj v. Slimjerland, 12 P. R. 36(i.— 
 Armour. 
 
 The affidavit used stated that the deponent 
 was credibly informed ami believed certain facts, 
 not stating the name of his informant nor the 
 grounds ot his belief : — Held, that this statement 
 did not comply with Con. Rule 609, and was 
 insufficient .is proof of the facts stated, upon an 
 application for such an order. Gibbons v, 
 Spalding, 11 M. & W. 173; Mclnnes v. Macklin, 
 6 U. C. L. J. O. 8. 14, referred to. Oilherl v. 
 Stiles, 13 P. R. 121.— Q. R. D. See S. C, 
 p. 55. 
 
 (o) Other Canes, 
 
 The capias issued after action was in the form 
 formerly used for the commencement of an 
 action: — Held, amendable. Robertson v. Coid- 
 ton, 9 P.R. 16.— Osier. 
 
 On an application to set aside an arrest the 
 J udge should not encjuire into the j)articular form 
 of the action, if satisfied that a cause of action 
 exists. Jiiitler v. liosenfiddt ; Sn-eelzer v. Hosen- 
 feldt, 8 P. R. 175. -Osier. 
 
 In an action for breach of promise of marriage 
 the defendant was arrested under a ca. re., the 
 order for which was granted upon an affidavit 
 which did not swear to any amount of damage. 
 Upon tt motion to discharge the defendant from 
 the custody of his bail, he denied the promise of 
 marriage, ami the plaintiflf filed no affidavit cor- 
 i-oborating her own. The intent of the defen- 
 dant to leave the country rested on alleged ad- 
 missions made by the defendant to the plaintiff, 
 which he denied, and he also brought forward a 
 strong fact against his likelihood to abscond from 
 the province : — Held, that, under these circum- 
 st.inccs, the defendant should be discharged, 
 and the bail bond delivered up to be cancelled. 
 Doneijan v. Short, 12 P. R. 589.— Boyd. 
 
 Upon an application to set aside an order for 
 a ca. sa. upon the ground that it ia based upon 
 insufficient material, as distinguished from a 
 motion to discharge the defendant from uustodv 
 upon the merits, no new material can be usecL 
 Dainer r. Busby, 5 P. R, at p. 389, followed. 
 Cilberl V. .Stiles, 13 P. R. 121.— Q. B. D.j 
 
 Where a jud 
 for his examini 
 costs of an aj 
 the motion wai 
 cient excuse 1 
 Jiank V. Dickei 
 
 Defendant w 
 debt alleged 1 
 plaintifl' recove 
 the plaintiff fa; 
 facts stilted in 
 no reasonable j 
 be H.^vble, and i 
 as to the othe 
 had reasonabU 
 was entitled t( 
 the plaintiff u 
 I'orrilt V. Fra 
 
 A sheriff up 
 under a ca. sa. 
 as against the 
 age on the anc 
 V, Oppenheimt' 
 
 V. 
 
 In an action 
 arrested under 
 having been ei 
 issued and he ^ 
 custoily (if the 
 (laut was not i 
 cution, but on 
 and tliat he w 
 payment of a 
 gent Debtors 1 
 ley V. Sharp, i 
 
 A defendant 
 ca. ."a. is a de 
 within the m 
 Hay V. Paters 
 
 Held, (revel 
 Judge,) that 
 maintained on 
 returnable imi; 
 of ; for such pi 
 should be retii 
 C. J. 0., disst 
 A. R. 486. 
 
 I. Actio 
 II. Crimi 
 
 I. Of D,' 
 II. FouT 
 
 III. For I 
 
 IV. QiAi. 
 
 I'AI 
 KA'l 
 
 V. Qt'Ai. 
 
67 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 58 
 
 3. Costs. 
 
 Where a judgment debtor disobeyed an order 
 for his examination he was directed to pay the 
 costs of an application for a ca. sa., altliough 
 the motion was dismissed upon his giving suffi- 
 cient excuse for his disobedience. Imperial 
 Bank v. Dickey, 8 P. R. 24G.-Galt. 
 
 Defendant was arrested and lield to bail for a 
 debt allege<l by plaintiff to be §704, but tlie 
 plaintiff recovered only ?489. As to $80 which 
 the plaintiff failed to recover, it wu'. held, on the 
 facts stilted in the report of the cise, tliat he had 
 no reasonable grouncl for believing defendant to 
 be liable, and he abandoned it at the trial, but 
 as to the other portion, for which he failed, he 
 had reasonable ground :— Held, that defendant 
 was entitled to tax his costs of defence against 
 the plaintiff under W. S. 0. (1877) c. 50, s. 343. 
 Porritt V. Frater, 8 P. 11. 4;J0.— Osier. 
 
 A sheriff upon ar'-csting a judgment debtor 
 under a ca. sa. thereby becomes at once entitled 
 as against the execution creditor to full pound- 
 asre on the amount of the execution. McXah 
 y, Opi,enheimtr, 11 P. R. 348.— Gait. 
 
 V. Miscellaneous Cases. 
 
 In an action for seduction the defendant was 
 arrestetl under a writ of ca. re., and judgment 
 having been entered against liim a ca. sa. was 
 issued and he was surrendered l)y bis bail to the 
 custody (if the sheriff : — Held, that the defen- 
 dant was not in custody as a debtor or on exe- 
 cution, but on mesne process as a wrong doer, 
 and that he was not entitled to an order for 
 payment of a weekly allowance under tiie Indi- 
 gent Debtors Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 69. Wheat- 
 hy V. Sharp, 8 P. H. 189.— Cameron. 
 
 A defendant arrested and imprisoned under a 
 ca. sa. is a debtor in close custody in execution 
 within the meaning of R. S. O. (1877) c. (>9. 
 Htiyv. Patemon, 11 P. R. 114.— Rose. 
 
 Held, (revensing the judgment of the county 
 Judge,) that proceedings to lix bail cannot be 
 maintained on a writ of ca. sa. which is made 
 returnable immediately after tiie execution there- 
 of ; for such purpose it is necessary that tiie writ 
 should be returnable on a day certain. ( Hagarty , 
 C. J. 0., dissenting.) Proctor v. Mackenzie, 11 
 A, R. 48(). 
 
 ASSAULT. 
 
 I. Action for— /See Trespass. 
 II. Criminal Assault— .S'ce Criminal Law, 
 
 ASSESSMENT. 
 
 I. Ok Dam.^oks— .S'rp Damaues. 
 II. For Taxes— &C Assessment and Taxes 
 
 III. For Insurance— iSVc Insurance. 
 
 IV. Qualification as Memi-.er ok Munici- 
 
 I'AL Council— .SVb Municipal Corpo- 
 rations. 
 
 V. Qualification of Votriw— See Paim.ia- 
 
 MENT. 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 I. Assessment. 
 
 1. Of Personally. 
 
 (a) Corporations, 58. 
 
 (b) 0/ Income, 61. 
 
 2. Of Ships— See Hmv. 
 
 3. Of Lands. 
 
 (a) Generally, 61. 
 
 (b) yon Resident Lands, 63. 
 
 (c) Crown and Indian Lands, 65. 
 
 (d) For Local Improrements, 66. 
 
 (e) For Drainaije — See Municipal 
 
 Corporations. 
 4 Exemptions, 66. 
 
 5. Statute Labour, 68. 
 
 6. Appeal to Court of Revision and' 
 
 County Judije, 68. 
 
 7. Schools — See Public Schools. 
 
 II. Taxes. 
 
 1. WIkii Due, 70. 
 
 2. Colterlion of. 
 
 (a) Collectors ami thir Sureties, 72. 
 
 (b) Warrant fur., 72. 
 
 (c) Distress and Sale, 73. 
 
 III. .Sale ok Land for Taxes. 
 
 1. Proof of Taxes in A r rear, 75. 
 
 2. Duties of Municipal Officers as to 
 
 Arrears if Taxes, 76. 
 
 3. Warrant to Sell, 76. 
 
 4. Conduct of Sale, 77. 
 
 5. Certijicate of Sale, 78. 
 
 6. Jieden)ption if Lands Sold, 79. 
 
 7. l)i Ills for, 79. 
 
 8. Olijirtions Cured hy Statute, 80. 
 
 9. Time fur Impenchin-j, 82. * 
 
 10. Lien of Tax Purchaser, 83. 
 
 11. Other Cases, S'i. 
 
 IV. Miscellaneous Cases, 84. 
 
 V. I'OWKUS OF DOMINKJS PARLIAMENT AND 
 
 I'kovincial Lkiiislatures- »S>e Con- 
 .sTiTuiioNAL Law. 
 
 Covenant for Taxes — See Landlord 
 
 AND 'J'EN.VNT. 
 
 Taxes hktween Landlord and Tenant 
 — .See Landi.ohd and Tenant. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VI L 
 
 VIII 
 
 l.K 
 
 KxEMPTioNs OF Manufactories — See 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 
 Taxes hetween Vendor and Pur- 
 chaser — Sre Sale of Land— Sale of 
 Land hy Order of the Court. 
 
 X. School Rates— .9ee Public Schools. 
 
 I. Assessment. 
 
 1. Of Personalty. 
 
 (a) Corporations. 
 
 The plaintiffs were a company incorporated 
 under the Imperial Companies' Acts of 1862 and 
 1867, for tiic purpose of lending money on real 
 
 t 
 
69 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 estate or on public securities, etc., the registered 
 oHice of whicii wus iu the city of Ahcnleeu, 
 Scotland, but having an agency, and the only 
 ngenoy, of the company at Toronto, Ontario. 
 All the income or profits of the company arising 
 from the husiness in Ontario, after deducting 
 expenses of management, were remitted l)y the 
 general managers at Toronto to Aberdeen, where 
 all dividends were deolared, and paid to tlie 
 shareholders, who were assessed for income tax 
 under the laws of Great Britain. By 43 Vic. 
 c. '27, s. 1, (().), the personal property of an 
 incorporated company (other than those men- 
 tioneil in sub-s. 2, namely, banks or companies 
 investing all or the greater part of their means 
 in works recjuiring tlie investment of the whole 
 or principal part of their means in real estate, 
 and which are exempt) sluiU be assessed against 
 the company in the same manner as an unincor- 
 porated company, or partnership, which, under 
 section 30 of K. S. O. (1877) c 180, is assessable 
 against the firm at the usual place of business, and 
 not against the individual partners ; and by sec- 
 tion 3 of 43 Vict. c. 21, all personal property in 
 the province, the owner of which is iu)t resilient 
 therein, shall be assessable like that of residents, 
 whetlier in the possession or control or in the 
 hands of an agent or trustee or not, and shall be 
 assessable in the municipality in which such pro- 
 perty shall happen to be, but by sub-section 3 
 this section Wits not to apply to dividends or 
 other choses in action owneil and standing in the 
 name of a person not residing in the province. 
 The corporation of the city of Toronto under the 
 said section 3, assessed the plaintiffs for.S100,OaO 
 of personal property, being the interest of moneys 
 invested in Ontario, and paid or payable to the 
 agents at Toronto, or at the credit of the com- 
 pany at a bank, or being moneys lying at tlie 
 creclit of the company in a bank for investment : 
 —Held, that section 3 of 43 Vict. c. 27, (O.), 
 was not ultra vires the legislature, and that the 
 assessment came witliiu its provisions : that this 
 was not one of the companies mentioned in sub- 
 section 2 of section 1 of the Act, nor was the per- 
 Bonxl property, dividends or other choses in 
 action under sub-s. 3 of that section. In re 
 iiorth of Scotland Canadian MorUjaijc Co., 31 
 
 c. P. r)i52.— c. p. D. 
 
 The plaintiff company was a foreign corpora- 
 tion, with its head office in England, but carry- 
 ing on insurance business in Canada, witli an 
 agency office at Kinijston, Ontario, and the head 
 office for Canada at Montreal: — Hehl, that in- 
 surance premiums received at Kingston by the 
 agent of the company there, for insurance busi- 
 ness transacted through him as such agent, 
 were, under 43 Vict. e. 27, (O.), assessable at 
 Kingston as taxable income or personal pro- 
 perty against the company and its said agent, 
 although the agent paid taxes on his own in- 
 come, which was partly derived from commis- 
 sions on the premiums receiveil, and the fact that 
 the premiums, having been previously sent by 
 the agent, after collection, to the heail office in 
 Montreal, were not in the municipality of King- 
 ston, when the assessment was made, did not 
 li'ake any difference. Plnvnic Jiim. Co. of Lou- 
 th:) V. Cili/ of Kiinjulon, 7 O. R. 343. — Ferguson. 
 
 By section 25 of the Saint John City Assscss- 
 ment Act of 1882, it is provided tliat " all rates 
 and taxes levied and imposed upon tUt> city of 
 
 I Saint >Tohn, shall be raised by an equal rate upon 
 ; the value of the real estate situate in the city, 
 I and part of the city to be taxed and upon the 
 I personal estate of the inhabitants and of persons 
 deemed and declared to be inhabitants or resi- 
 dents of the said city. • * • ^nj upon the 
 ' capital stock, income, or other thing of joint 
 stock companies, corporations, or persons asso- 
 I ciated in business. " And after providing for the 
 levying of a poll tax, such section goes ou to say 
 : that "the whole residue to be raised shall be 
 levied upon the whole ratable pi'operty, real and 
 1 personal, and ratable income and real value, and 
 j amount of the same as nearly as can be ascer- 
 i tained, provided that joint stock shall not be 
 j rated above the par value thereof." Section 28 
 I of the same Act provides that " all joint stock 
 companies and corporations shall ))e assessed, 
 I under this Act, in like manner as individuals : 
 and for the purposes of such assessment, the 
 president or any agent, or manager of such joint 
 ! stock, company or corporation, shall be deemed 
 ' and taken to be the owner of the real and per- 
 , sonal estate, capital stock and assets of such 
 , com])aiiy or corporation, and shall be dealt with 
 and may be proceeded against accordingly." 
 J. 1>. L. , the president of the bank of New 
 Brunswick, was assessed under the provisions of 
 , the above Act, on real and personal property of 
 ; the bank valued, in the aggregate, at 11,100,000. 
 I The capital stock of the bank at the time of 
 such assessment, was only $1,000,000, and he 
 j offered to pay the tuxes on that amount whicli 
 I was refused. It was not disputed that the bank 
 I was pfissessed of real and personal property of 
 ; the assessed value. On appeal from the Supreme 
 I Court of New Brunswick, refusing a certiorari 
 I to (|uash the saiil assessment :— Held, Fournier, 
 J., dissenting, that the real and personal jiro- 
 I perty of the bank are part of its capital stock, 
 and that the assessment could not exceed the 
 par value of such stock, namely, ?1, 000,000. 
 I Ex parte Jamet D. Lcwin, 1 1 S. C. R, 484. 
 
 ^ The defendant company carried on their busi- 
 ' ness at London and were assessed there. They 
 ; purchased the mortgages and other assets of the 
 j Brant Loan and Savings Company, a similar iii- 
 i stitiition wiiich carried on business in Brantford. 
 After this the latter company ceased to do busi- 
 ness and the defendantfi left the mortgages and 
 ; assets whicli had been transferred to tliem with 
 I an agent in Brantford for collection, but they 
 I had no branch office and did not carry ou busi- 
 ness there. The plaintiffs assessed them for 
 personal property in Brantford from which tlie 
 defendants did not appeal to the court of revi 
 sion, and the ])laintiffs brought an action to re- 
 cover the amount of the assessment: — Held, that 
 the defendants were assessable in London for the 
 property which tlie plaintiffs had assumed to 
 tax, anil that as they had no branch office in 
 Brantford and were not carrying on business 
 there the plaintiffs' assessment of them was ille- 
 gal and void : that there being no jurisdiction to 
 assess them in Brantford the defendants were not- 
 bountl to appeal to the court of revision and might 
 (piestion the assessment in the action. NicKle 
 c. Douglas (in appeal), 37 t^. B. C3, followed. 
 Cilii of lirnnlford v. Ontario Jnventment Co., 15 
 
 A. H. oor.. 
 
 The defendants were a life insurance comjiany 
 i with their head office at H., in this province, 
 
 and transacted 
 received applic 
 forwarded to 
 [Kilicies issued 
 on tlie same ali 
 in K. In an i 
 city of K., to r 
 (lefciulants ou 
 the defendants 
 and that their 1 
 they c( u'd not 
 had eleu„ed uii 
 snb-s. 2 to be 
 income : — Helil 
 guson, J., (18 ( 
 was not a brai 
 of section 35 i 
 prciniunis recei 
 assessable there 
 tlie year's tax 
 but this could c 
 sum total of ga 
 together with t 
 ncss done at th 
 tegiid part of 1 
 K. agency. C 
 Amirnnce Co., 
 
 Semble, tha 
 10 of section ' 
 tions 35 and 3 
 intended to co' 
 specilically asci 
 tangible and ir 
 into these pre 
 .Sullivan, (i Apf 
 lb. 
 
 See Lawle-tx 
 infra ; London 
 don, 15 A. R. ( 
 
 The t;vx imj 
 B.),upon "iuc 
 balance of gain 
 and where no s 
 there is no int 
 l)eing assessed 
 section or in 
 construction 
 plied to the in 
 a year, otherw 
 accepted sense 
 Lawlenn v. Siil 
 judgment of ,s 
 
 See London 
 dun, 15 A. R. 
 
 Sec i 
 
 The north 
 vey, and lot . 
 less, was assei 
 half," etc. ' 
 half lot numb 
 ♦." The coll 
 [wuicics :— Hl 
 indicated wan 
 
 V 
 
THE PROPERry Ot 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXE^H hi LAW SOClErY, 
 
 62 
 
 and transacted business by agents in K., who 
 received applications for insurances wliich they 
 forwarded to the head office, from which all 
 policies issued ready for delivery, tiie premiums 
 on the same also being collected by the agents 
 in K. 1" '^^ iction by the corporation of the 
 city of K., to recover taxes, assessed against tiie 
 defendants on income, it was contended that 
 tiic defendants' only place of business was in H. 
 and that their business was of sucli a nature that 
 they c u'd not be assessed at K., and that they 
 had ele.„ed under R. S. O. (18S7) e. 193, s. 35; 
 8ub-s. 2 to be assessed at H. on tlieir whole 
 income : — Held, reversing tlie decision of Fer- 
 guson, J., (IS O. 1{. 18), tliat tlie agency at K. 
 was not a branch business within the meaning 
 of section 35 above referred to, and tliat tlie 
 premiums received year by year at K. were not 
 assessalile there. Tlic ultiuuite i)rotit reiiresents 
 the year's taxable income under the statute, , 
 hut tiiis could only be ascertained by phicing tlie 
 sum total of gains and losses against each other, 
 together with the result of tlie volume of busi- 
 ness done at the head-office, and no distinct in- 
 tegral part of this iiicomu was referable to the 
 K. agency. City of Kiminton v. Canada Life 
 Amivnnce Co., 19 O. R. 4r)3. -Chy. I). 
 
 Sciuble, that notwithstanding sub-section 
 10 of section 2, "personal pro])erty" in sec- 
 tions 35 and 36 of R. S. O. (1887) c. 193 is 
 iutende<l to cover only something readily and 
 specifically ascertainalde, and "income" an in- 
 taiigililc and invisible entity is not to lie read 
 into tiiese provisions of tlie Act. Lawless v. 
 Sullivan, 6 App. Cas. 373, specially referred to. 
 lb. 
 
 Sec LawlcHu v. Sulliraii, G App. Cas. 373, 
 iilfru ; London Mutual Ins. Co. v. City of Lon- 
 don, 15 A. R. 6-29, p. 09. 
 
 (b) Of Income. 
 
 The tivx imposed by 31 Vict. c. 36, s. 4, (N. 
 B.), upon "income," is leviable in respect of the 
 halanee of gain over loss made in tlie fiscal year, 
 and wiiere no such balance of gain has been made 
 there is no income or fund which is capable of 
 heing assessed. There is nothing in the said 
 section or in the context which should induce a 
 construction of the word " income," when ap- 
 plied to the income of a commercial business for 
 a. year, otherwise than its natural and commonly- 
 accepted sense as the balance of gain over loss. 
 LaiHe.ss v. Sulliran, 6 App. Cas. 373, reversing 
 judgment of Supreme Court, 3 S. C. R. 117. 
 
 See London Mutual Inn. Co. v. City of Lon- 
 don, 15 A. R. 629, p. 70. 
 
 See also preceding Sub-head. 
 
 ccrs of the rtiuuicipality, they did not invflflidatc 
 the assessment, as the land was suflieiently 
 pointed out. McKay v. Crysler, 3 S. C. R. 436, 
 distinguished, yellen v. White, 29 Ciiy. 338.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 1'hc assessment of four lots, containing about 
 40U acres in the name of the plaintiff embraced 
 seven acres already sold and separately assessed, 
 of which fact tlie assessor was aware. The de- 
 fendant purchased at a sale for taxes, and the 
 plaintiff instituted proceedings impeaching the 
 sale witliin two years thereafter : —Held, allirin- 
 ing ttie judgment of the court below, that tlie 
 assessment was illegal, and vitiated the sale. 
 Flemimj v. McNalit), 8 A. R. 656. 
 
 A. & H. were the respective owners of the 
 north and centre parts of a certain lot, which 
 were both occupied by H. until the year 1871, 
 when the buildings were burned, and H. went 
 out of possession. He subse(iucntly paid the 
 taxes up to 1873, when he left the neighbour- 
 hood, and did not return until 1883, ami then 
 found his part and that of A.'s had been sold for 
 taxes, but he had received no notice of any taxes 
 I being in arrcar. In an action by H. and his 
 I wife, who had subsequently actjuired his title, it 
 appeared that both pieces had been assessed sep- 
 arately in 1872, together in 1873, were not asses- 
 sed at all in 1874, were assessed together as the 
 I " north-half of lot 13, one-tenth of an acre," in 
 ; 1875, together as the " north part )f lot 13," in 
 I 1876, in one parcel as " north part 13" in 1877, 
 I and that they had been sold for the taxes due on 
 I both parcels down to 1877, and for those on the 
 1 north piece for 1878 : — Held, that the tax sale 
 { was invalid and could not be sustained, and that 
 I the plaintifTs were entitled to recover possession. 
 i Hill v. Macauluij, 6 O. K. 251. — Ferguson. 
 
 In the year 1875, a lot of land containing 20(J 
 ; acres and patented as one lot was assessed on the 
 i resident roll as lot 114, 200 acres, value $1,000. 
 From 1876 to 1878, it was similarly assessed. 
 In 1879 it was also so assessed, except that the 
 quantity of land was stated to be 100 instead of 
 200 acres. The whole 200 acres was occupied by 
 a tenant who duly paid the taxes for each year 
 including 1879. On the non-iesiileiit roll for 
 1879, the east half of the lot appeared assessed 
 as 100 acres, value §800. By reason thereof it 
 was returneil to the county treasurer as in arrear 
 for the taxes of 1879, and a sale thereof made : — 
 Held, that the sale for taxes was invalid ; that 
 the assessment on the resident roll ff)r 1879, was 
 of the whole lot upon which the taxes were paid, 
 the niiiitake in stating the quantity of land to 
 1,'elOO acres, not making such assessment less an 
 assessment of the whole lot, while the error of 
 putting the east half on the non-resident roll 
 could not affect the owner's right to the land. 
 Jeffury v. Ilvu-i^, 9 0. R. 364.— C. 1'. 1). 
 
 3. OfLandx. 
 
 (a) Gentrally. 
 
 The north part of a lot called lot 1 in one sur- 
 vey, and lot 4 in another, of 100 acres more or 
 less, was assessed variously as "number 1, N. 
 half," etc. "Number 1, N. part," etc. " N. 
 half lot number 1," etc., and " broken lots 1 and 
 4" The collector's roll shewed similar discre- 
 [lancics : — Held, that though these irregularities 
 mdicated want of care and accuracy in the ofH- 
 
 Seotion 16 of cap. 100 C. S., New Rrunswick, 
 relating to rates and taxes provides that " real 
 estate where the assessors cannot obtain the 
 names of any of the owners shall bo rated in the 
 name of the occupier or person having ostensible 
 control, but under such description as to per- 
 sons and property * * as shall be sufficient 
 to indicate the property assessed and the charau- 
 ter in which fMe person is assessed." T. («., 
 owner of real estate in Westmorland county, N. 
 B., died, leaving a widow who administered his 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 n 
 
 
68 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 64 
 
 estate .111(1 rcsidcil (in tlie pioiKJity. The ino- | division of tlio asscssmunt roll, but instead of 
 peity was assessed foi' several years in tiie name being assessed by the numbers and names of the 
 
 lots alone, separately valued, and without the 
 name of the owner, it was entered witli the name 
 of the owner prefixed, and valued en bloc. The 
 taxes assessed against the whole, together with 
 the n.ime of the person taxed, were entered on 
 the cidlector's roll for the year, instead of being 
 entered on the non-resident tax roll, and trans- 
 mitted to the county treasurer. The owner Ije- 
 , came also the occupant of the lands before the 
 Qun;re, whetlier a i>erson who has laid out iloHvery to the collector of the collector's roll for 
 land into town lots or village lots for sale cannot ; 1879, anil ho paid tlie taxes so assessed to the 
 afterwards if he find he cannot dispose of tiieni collector in tliat year. The collector, notwith- 
 as such, or for any other reason rei)lace his land j standing, returned them to the clerk as non- 
 as it was before. In re G. If. A/laii, 10 0. R. , resident taxes unpaid, and the township clerk 
 110.— Wilson 
 
 of the estate of T. (i., and in 1878 it was assessed 
 in the name of " Widow G. :"— Hehl, affirming 
 the judgment of the Court below, that tiie last 
 named assessment was illegal as not comprising 
 such description of persons and property as 
 would be sufficient to indicate the property as- 
 sessed and the character in wliich the jierson was 
 assessed. Fhtita<ian v. Elliott, 12 .S. C. R. 435. 
 
 The Halifax City Assessment Act. 1888, made 1 
 the taxes .assessed on real estate in tlie city a ! 
 first lien tliereon exce))t as against the Crown; — 
 Held, aflirniing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, that sucli lien attached on a lot assessed 
 under the Act in preference to a mortgage made 
 before tiie Act was passed. O'Brien v. C'vt/xtvell, 
 17 S. C. K. 4-.'0. 
 
 The Act provided that in case of non-payment 
 of taxes assessed upon any lands tliereunder, 
 the city collector sliould sulimit to the mayor a 
 statement in duplicate of lands liable to be sold 
 
 returned tlieiii to the county treasurer in a "list 
 of non-resident taxes returned from the collec- 
 tor's roll," and tiiey were so entered in the 
 treasurer's books. In the treasurer's list of lands 
 liable to be sold for arrears of taxes in 1882, sent 
 to the township clerk, the Land in (piestion was 
 entered ciiarged with the taxes of 1879. The 
 land had in the meantiine been regul.arly as- 
 sessed, as occupied land, for the ye.irs 1880, 1881, 
 and 1882, but the assessor neglected to give 
 notice to the occupant that it was liable to be 
 sidd for the arrears of 1870, and the township 
 clerk omitted to include it, as he should liave 
 done, in the return made by him to the county 
 
 for such noil payment, to which stitenunts the | treasurer, pursuant to section 111, in the list of 
 mayor should affix his signature and the seal of j non-resident lands which ajipeared, by the assess- 
 the corporation ; one of such statements should ' ,„ciit roll of 1882, to have liecome occupied. The 
 then be filed with the city clerk, and the other ! land w.as accordingly sohl in December, 1882, for 
 returned to tlie collector with a warrant annexed ' " ' 
 
 thereto, and in any suit or other proceeding relat- 
 ing to the assessment on any real estate therein 
 mentioned, any statements or lists so signed and 
 sealed, should be received as eonclusive evidence 
 of the legality of the assessment, etc. In a 
 suit to reclose a mortgage on land which had 
 been sold for taxes under this act, the legality 
 of the assessment and sale was attacked : — 
 Held, per Strong, Taseiiereau and G Wynne, .IJ., 
 that to make this provision operative to cure a 
 defect in tlie assessment caused by failure to 
 give a notice recjuired by a previous section it 
 was necessary for the defendants to show, affir- 
 matively, that the statements had bi.en signed 
 and sealed in duplicate and filed as required 
 by tlie act, and the production and jiroof of 
 one of such statements was not sufficient. Per 
 llitchie, ('. J., and Patterson, J., that it was 
 sufficient to produce the statement returned to 
 he collector, signed and sealed as required, 
 and with the necessary warrant annexed, aiul 
 in the absence of evidence to tlie contrary it 
 must be assumed that all the proceedings were 
 regular, and that the provisions of the statute 
 requiring duplicate statements bad been com- 
 plied with. lb. 
 
 See lii'ckelt v. Johnston, ."^2 C. P. .301, p. 81 ; 
 Churc/i V. Fuiton, 5 S. C. K. 2.30, p. 77 ; Car- 
 mi v. Vi'iti-h, 9 O. l\. 70() ; Donnvnn v, J/oi/an, 
 15 A. It. 4^2, p. 64 ; Hall v. Farquhnrwii, IT) 
 A. R. 457, p. 65. 
 
 See also III., 8, p. 80. 
 
 (b) Non-Hmderi Landn. 
 
 Unoccupied land divided into lots was assessed 
 for the year 1879, and entered in the non-resident 
 
 the taxes of 1870— the owner having continued 
 in occupation, and being ignorant of the sale or 
 that the taxes were alleged to be in arrear : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Ferguson, J., 
 that the taxes having been entered in the collec- 
 tors roll, with the name of the person assessed, 
 the payment to the collector was valid, and 
 consequently that there were no taxes in ar- 
 rear for which the land could lawfully be sold. 
 Per Patter.s(.n, J. A., semble, under the cir- 
 cumstances in evidence, the sale h.id not been 
 properly conducted, and therefore the land had 
 not been sold in pursuance of and under the 
 authority of the Act so as to give operation to- 
 section 155. Donovan v. Hogan, 15 A. H. 4.32. 
 
 Plaintiff was the owner of a group of small 
 islands in Lake Rousseau, in the township of 
 Medora, containing in all less than fifty acies. 
 The island in question was patented to one Pope 
 by the description of island D. Plaintitt" pur- 
 chased it from Pope and called it by the fancy 
 name of Oak Island, and built a house and made 
 other improvements thereon, residing there for 
 some months in each year. The assessor having 
 been erroneously informed that Pope was the 
 owner of an island in Lake Rousseau called D, 
 put down island D in the non-resident division 
 of the assessment roll with the name "Ridjert 
 T. I'ope." This was done to distinguish it from 
 another island D in the same lake and township. 
 He did not know that this island D was one of 
 the group belonging to Hall, though he knew 
 that Hall v/aa putting improvements on one of 
 the islands, which was in fiiet island D or dak 
 Island. He supposed that the name of the im- 
 proved island was Flora ; and this was the name 
 of one of Hall'f islands, a small rock on which 
 there were no improvements. The inqiroved 
 island was the one meant tu be assessed, and 
 
66 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 66 
 
 actually assessed, though under a wrong name. 
 The taxes so assessed were actually paid. In 
 1883 the island D was sold for arrears of taxes 
 for the years 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882 :— 
 Held, attirnnng the judgment of Ferguson, J., 
 andof the Chancery Division, (120. R. 598), that 
 iBlaud D being idcutiiied as that intended to be 
 assessed, and being that on which the improve- 
 ments had been made, the owner was not affected 
 by the mistake of the assessor in describing it as 
 Flora Island ; and that the taxes having been duly 
 paid the sale was void : — Semble, that island D or 
 Oak Island should have been assessed on the resi 
 dent instead of the non-resident division of the 
 assessment roll. Hall v. Farquharson, 15 A. R. 
 457. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A., observations as to assess- 
 ment of several parcels of non-resident land less 
 than 200 acres for statute labour. lb. 
 
 See Jejfery v. //enn.t, 9 O. R. 364, p. 02; 
 Divirill V. Coe, 11 O. R. 222, p. 76 ; Dalziel v. 
 McUlory, 17 O. R. 80, p. 82. 
 
 (c) Crown and Indian Lands. 
 
 In 1808 an order in council was passed for a 
 grant of land to VV. , the daughter of a U. E. 
 Loyalist. In 181S certain land was located there- 
 under, and a patent issued therefor. In 1819 W. 
 petitioned the (iovernor-in-Council, stating that 
 this was by mistake and without any authority 
 from her ; and in 1820 an order in council was 
 
 {)as8ed allowing her to surrender the land and to 
 ocate other land in lieu thereof. In 1820, be- 
 fore the surrender, the surveyor-general furnish- 
 ed the treasurer with a list of lands in this dis- 
 trict, specifying this lot as deeded to W. The 
 land was thereupon assessed, and in 1831, hav- 
 ing l)een returned by the treasurer to the sheriff 
 as in arrear for the taxes for the years 1820-9, 
 and liable for sale, it was in that year sold to 8., 
 and a tax-deed given in 1832. In 18.39 S. con- 
 veyed to N., who in 1 840 conveyed to G., through 
 whom the plaintiff claimed. In 1839 N. peti- 
 tioned the Governor-in-C/Ouncil, stating that he 
 was the assignee of the tax-purchaser : that he 
 had discovered that the surveyor-general's return 
 was in error, the land having been surrendered, 
 but that under tlie circumstances the tax-s;\le 
 was regular, and that it should be confirmed, and 
 a patent issued to him. In 1840 an order in coun- 
 cil was passed, stating that if N.'s tax-title was 
 valid he did not require a patent, but if not, the 
 government had no power to make a free grant 
 of the land. In 1868 the Crown granted the 
 land to H., who conveyed to the defendant: — 
 Held, (reversing Burton, J., 6 O. R. 564,) that 
 asunder 59 Geo. III. c. 7 and 6 Geo. IV. c. 7, 
 only lands granted by the Crown were to be 
 liable to assessment and sale, and as, under the 
 circumstances, the lands never passed out of the 
 Crown and vested in W. — the formal surrender 
 being taken rather as a precautionary than as a 
 necessary act, and the mistake of the surveyor- 
 general in not giving notice of the surrender 
 could not make the land liable to be sold for 
 taxes as against the Crown — the tax sale was in- 
 valid, and nothing passed under it ; and that the 
 defendant, claiming under the subsequent patent, 
 was entitled to the land : — Quiere also, whether 
 the plaintiff had any claim against the Crown for 
 the moneys paid at the tax sale ; at all events 
 
 after the tax sale the parties dealt with the land 
 with notice of the difficulties that existed. Mof- 
 fatt V. Scratch, 8 O. R. 147.— 0. P. D.— affirmed, 
 12 A. R. 157. 
 
 Held, that land in which the Indian title has 
 been surrendered to the Crown and which has 
 been afterwards sold or located, is liable to be sold 
 for taxes imposed bj^ a municipality, although 
 while the title and interest are wholly in the 
 Crown, the land is exempt from taxation. Church 
 u. Fenton, 28 C. P. 384 ; 4 A. R. 159 ; 5 S. C. R. 
 239, referred to and followed. Totten v. Truax, 
 16 O. R. 490.— Boyd. 
 
 Certain lands, after the grant from the Crown, 
 became by certain mesne conveyances the pro- 
 perty of the Bank of Upper Canada, and upon 
 the failure of that bank were conveyed to ita 
 trustees, and were subsequently, with the other 
 assets of the bank, vested in the Crown by S.'t 
 Vict. c. 40 (D.) The Crown then sold them and 
 the purchaser gave a mortgii^o back to secure 
 part of the purchase money. The mortgage con- 
 tained the usual provision for payment of taxes, 
 but the taxes were not paid and the lands were 
 sold, tliis action being brought to set aside the 
 tax sale: — Held, per H.igarty, C.J.O., and Osier, 
 J. A., that the Act, .33 Vict. c. 40 (U.) was intra 
 vires, as dealing with " Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency "or "Banking and Incorporation of Banks." 
 That the lands were therefore properly vested 
 in the Crown .is trustee, and that the interest of 
 the Crown as mortgagee and trustee could not be 
 sold for arrears of taxes, but was exempt under 
 R. S. O. (1887) c. 193, s. 7, sub-s. I. Per Bur- 
 ton, J. A. That the Act was ultra vires as an 
 interference with "Property and Civil Rights in 
 the Province" and that the lands remained in the 
 trustees subject to taxation. That even if the 
 Act was intra vires still the lands, being vested 
 in the Crown in the place and stead of tiie trus- 
 tees voluntarily selected by the shareholdera of 
 the bank, were not exempt from taxation. Per 
 Maclennan, J.A. That the Act was ultra vires 
 and the lands subject to taxation, but that, upon 
 the evidence, the sale was fraudulent and void 
 ixs far as the interest of the Crown was concerned. 
 The judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, 17 
 O. R. 615, was therefore atiirmed. Burton, J. A., 
 dissenting. lieijina v. County of Wellington, 17 
 A. R. 421. 
 
 See Church v. Fenton, 5 S. C. R. 239, p. 77 ; 
 O'Grady v. McCagray, 2 O. R. 309, p. 83; 
 Stevenson v. Traynor, 12 0. R. 804, p, 75. 
 
 (d) For Local Improvements. 
 
 Effect of local improvement rate created at 
 the instance of covenantor (and others) upon his 
 covenant against incumbrances. See Cumberland 
 V. Keartis. 18 O. R. 151 ; 17 A. R. 281. 
 
 See Bain v. City of Montreal, 8 S. C. R. 252. 
 
 4. Exemptions. 
 
 By section 3 of the Assessment Amendment 
 Act, 51 Vict. c. 29 (O.), which came into force 
 on August Ist, 1888, section 7 of the Assessment 
 Act, R. S. 0. (1887) 0. 193 was amended by add- 
 ing to the exemptions: "All horses, etc., owned 
 and held by any owner or tenant of any farm. 
 
 
 00 
 
e? 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 68 
 
 and when ciirryiiig "" the senernl businesg of 
 fanning or griizini,'."' 'J'hc (Tefwndant township 
 WHS institiitud under the Muniuiiml Institutions 
 A<;tf()rAlj,'..ina, Miiskoka, etc., (ll.S.O. (1887)c. 
 18")), 8. 20 of wiiieli provided for the maiiing of an 
 iiHsessiuent roll, which saiil roll, liy section 28, 
 when tinivlly revised, was to he the roll of the 
 municipality until a new roll was made, the 
 council hy section 2!) to hx the time for making 
 the suhseipient roll at periods of not less than 
 one nor more than three years, and the year for 
 the purposes of the Act was to commence on 1st 
 danuary thereof ; and by section 364 of the Muni- 
 cipal Act,(K. S. 0. (I887)c. 184), the rates or taxes 
 were to be considered as imposed on anl from 
 Ist January, an<l end with 31st December, un- 
 less otherwise provided. By section 30 the coun- 
 cil might in each year after the final revision of 
 the roll pass a by-law levying a rate on all the 
 real and personal property, etc. Tlie assess- 
 ment for the year 1888 was made in the months 
 o{ March and April, and the roll was returned 
 to the clerk of the municipality on or about 1st 
 May, and was (inally revised by the council sit- 
 ting as a Court of llevision on 16th June. On 
 4th August a by-law was i)asscd directing a rate 
 to be levied to meet the current expenses for the 
 year : — Held, under the circumstances, the per- 
 sonal property mentioned was not exempt for 
 the year 1888. Hemleriton v. ToionMp of SlisUd, 
 17 O. R. 673. -Gait. 
 
 In an action brought by appellants against 
 respondents to recover the sum of IfSOS.oO for 
 three years' school taxes imposed on property 
 occupied by them as a farm situate in one muni- 
 cipality tlie products of which, with the excep- 
 tion of a portion sold to cover the expenses of 
 working and cultivating, were consumed at the 
 Mother House, situate in another municipality: — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Court be- 
 low, that as the property taxed was not occu- 
 pied by the respondents for the objects for 
 which they were instituted, but was held for the 
 purpose of deriving a revenue therefrom, it did 
 not come within the exemptions from taxation 
 for school rates provided for by 32 Vict. c. 16, 
 a. 13 (Que.) :— Held also, that said section 1.3 
 does not extend as regards exemptions, sections 
 77 of c. 1.5 of the C. S. L. C, which has not 
 l[)een repealed, but which has been amended by 
 the addition of 41 Vict. c. 6, s. 26 (Que.) Lea 
 Vomwixmirc'i B'Ecnlen pour la Municipality dii 
 Villa'ie tie St. St. Gabriel v. Les Smtrit de la 
 Conqreiiation de Sotre Dame de Montreal, 12 S. 
 C. R. 45. 
 
 Action by the City of Montre.il to recover the 
 sum of §408 for assessment or tiixes for the years 
 1878, 1879, 1880, in property in the said city 
 occupied by defendant. The property set out 
 in the plaintiff's dcclar.ation was during the 
 time mentioned therein occupied and used as a 
 private boarding and day school for girls kii])t 
 and maintained by defendant, who employed 
 divers teachers and who, during that time, had 
 therein on an average for their education as 
 pupils eighty-five girls per annum. The institu- 
 tion never received any grant from the plaintiff: 
 —Held, Gwynne, J., diss., that the institution 
 was an educational establishment within the 
 meaning of 41 Vict. c. (J, s. 26, (Que.), and 
 exempt from municipal taxation. Dame Marij 
 Wylie V. City oj Montreal, 12 S. C. R. 384. 
 
 Ry41 Vict. 0. 6,8. 26(Que.)alleducational houses 
 or establishments, which do not receive any sub- 
 vention from tike corporation or nmnicipality in 
 which they arc situated, are exempt from muni- 
 cipal and school assessments " whatever may be 
 the Act in virtue of which such assessments are 
 imposed, and notwithstanding all dispositions to 
 tile contrary :" — Held, reversing the judgment of 
 the court below, that the exemption from muni- 
 cipal taxes enjoyed by educational establish- 
 ments under said 41 Vict. c. 6. (Que.) s. 26, ex- 
 tends to taxes imposed for special purposes, e. g., 
 the construction of a drain in fi-ont of their pro- 
 perty. (Sir W. J. Ritchie, C.J., dissenting.) 
 Lf.i Krcl^wmtiqueK de St. Sutpicp de Montreal v. 
 City of Montreal, 16 S. C. R. 399. 
 
 Held, that by the true construction of sections 
 323, 326 and 327 of Quebec "Town Corporation 
 General Clauses Act, 1876" (40 Vict. c. 60) no 
 part of a railway is made taxable property ex- 
 cept tlie land as land occupied by the road, the 
 bridges or other superstructures thereon being 
 excluded. Corporation of St. Johns v. Central 
 Vermont R. W. Co., 14 App. Cas. 590, affirmini; 
 14 S. C. R. 288. 
 
 ,5. Statute Labour. 
 
 Tliere is no liability to perform statute labour 
 in a village municipality, and a by-law providing 
 for its commutation was held ultra vires and void, 
 and w.as tjuashed. /n re Stayner, 46 Q. B. 27.'>. 
 Osier. 
 
 Held, that a township council can provide for 
 the performance of statute labour upon the roads 
 of their township to the extent of the commuta- 
 tion tax charged in resiiect of non-resident lands, 
 and forpayinent therefor out of the general funds 
 of the municipality before such tax has been re- 
 ceived from the county treasurer ; and that the 
 performance of such work is not necessarily re- 
 stricted to any particular statute labour division, 
 In re Allan and Townnhip of Amabel, 32 C. P. 
 242.— Osier. 
 
 Observ.ations by Piitterson, J., ivs to assessment 
 of several parcels of non-resident land less than 
 200 acres for statute labour. .See Hall v, Far- 
 quhar.'ion, 1.5 A. R. 457. 
 
 6. Appeal to Court of Revision and County Jwlgt. 
 
 Where an assessment roll was returned to the 
 county clerk's office on the 1st May, but the cer- 
 tificate was neither signed nor sworn to till 4th 
 May, and additions were made to the roll be- 
 tween the 1st and 4th May, and the notice to 
 the parties assessed (signed) informed them that 
 they must give notice of appeal within fourteen 
 d.ays from tlie latter date: — Held, that a notice of 
 appeal given on 18th May was in time, because 
 the roll was not "delivered to the clerk com- 
 pleted and added up with the certificates and 
 affitlavits attached " before 4th May ; and that the 
 county .Judge should not therefore have dismissed 
 an appe.ll to him on the ground that the notice 
 was not served within fourteen days from Ist 
 M.iy, as well as because that was not the ground 
 taken before the Court of Revision : — Held, also, 
 had the Court of Revision proceedetl on that 
 ground their decision would have been bindingon 
 
ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 70 
 
 tlic county iliulgc. A inancliunus was therefore 
 directed to the county Juduu to try the appeal. 
 /„ re the Hon. O. W. AlTan, 10 0. R. 110.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Semble, the cour*v .council having extended 
 tlie time for the rotu. i of the roll to the 15th of 
 ,lunc, altiiough that date was disregarded by all 
 purtica to this application, the ai)pricant had of 
 rijjht the power to appeal within fourteen days 
 from such date. lb. 
 
 In an action to restrain the defendants, the 
 corporation of the township of Dyaart and the 
 members of the Court of Kevisi(,n tliureof, from 
 increasing the assessment on tiio plaintiffs' lands 
 ill th.-it township to §243,113.75, an increase of 
 S13'2,00O over the previous year, and from levy- 
 ing taxes thereon, the plaintifTs alleged that the 
 proceedings of the Court of Revision were all 
 parts of a fraudulent and improper arrangement 
 and conspiracy that had been entered into before 
 the holding of the said Court of Revision by the 
 members thereof in conjunction with others, to 
 increase the assessment of the plaintiffs. No 
 evidence was adduced as to the actual or assess- 
 able value of the lands, but the plaintiffs stated 
 that the highest bid they had had for them was 
 380,000. It was further alleged that tlie mem- 
 bers of the Court of Revision had bsfore their 
 election as councillors, complained that the com- 
 pany's assessment was not high enoiigh, and had 
 procured their election partly through announc- 
 ing that if they were elected the assessment 
 would be increased, and that they had held a 
 secret meeting with other persons and arranged 
 for bringing on appeals to that Court: — Held, 
 affirming the decision of the Chancery Division, 
 (9 0. R. 495), tV 't the matters complained of 
 were not sufBciuiit to affect the judgment of the 
 Court of Revision so as to render it void for 
 fraud ; and that the plaintiffs had no remedy 
 other than by an appeal to the Stipendiary Magis- 
 trate of Haliburton, under R. S. 0. c. 6, s. 23. 
 Canadian Laud and Emigration Company v. 
 ilitnivipaUt;/ of Dynart, 12 A. R. 80. 
 
 A County .Judge in appointing a day subse- 
 (juent to the first of August, for hearing an 
 appeal from a Court of llevision is not, under U. 
 S. 0. (1877) c. 180, 8. 59, sub-s. 7, exceeding his 
 jurisdiction, notwithstanding the terms of that 
 sub-section. In re Ronald ami the Villarje of 
 lintmU, 9 P. R. 232.— Cameron. 
 
 The plaintiffs, a Mutual Insurance Company, 
 eu'rying on business in London (Ont.), were as- 
 ac!>2?d for the gross amount of their receipts after 
 paym^mt of the year's losses and expenses, from 
 which assessment they appealed successively to 
 the Court of Revision and the County Judge, 
 Iwtli of whom sustained the action of tlie asses- 
 sor, wliiuh was affirmed by Proudfoot, J., (110. 
 H. .")92), on the ground that the decision of the 
 County Judge was final ; and an appeal to this 
 (Jouit was on a like ground dismissed with costs. 
 Where the assessor has jurisdiction to assess the 
 property, his assessment can only be reviewed 
 in the mode provided by the Act, viz. , by appeal 
 to the Court of Revision, and the (younty Judge. 
 London Mutual Insurance Co, v. City of' London, 
 15 A. R. 629. 
 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 180, s. 59, regulating appeals 
 to the County Judge from the Court of Revision 
 
 as to the assessment of property, provides (sub- 
 section 2) tiiat tile person appealing shall serve 
 upon the clerk of tlie municipality within five 
 days after the date limited by the Act for closing 
 the Court of I'eviaion a written notice of his 
 intention to appeal : (sub-section 3) that the 
 Judge shall notify the clerk of the day he ap- 
 points for hearing appeals ; and (sub-section 4) 
 that the clerk shall thereupon give notice to all 
 the parties appealed against. Section 50, sub- 
 section 19, provides that all the duties of the 
 (/ourt of Revision shall be completed, and the 
 rolls finally revised, before the 1st day of July 
 in each year. The Court of Revision neard the 
 appeals in question on the 10th June, 1886, and 
 rendered judgment on the following day. Notices 
 of appeal dated the 15th June, 1886, were served 
 upon the clerk on the 19th ; the Court of Revision 
 sat until the 5th July ; on the 15th July the 
 clerk notified the Judge that notice had been 
 given of these appeals, and on the 26th July the 
 Judge notified tiie clerk of the day that he had 
 appointed for hearing the appeals, and the clerk 
 notified the parties. Held, that the limitation 
 in section 59, sub-.scction 2, should be construed 
 to mean that notice of appeal should not be 
 served after the expiration of live days from the 
 closing of the Court of Revision ; and also that 
 the service in this case was within the five days, 
 as the notices were in the hands of the clerk 
 during the five days, and were acted upon by 
 him ; and further, that service prior to the 
 expiry of the five days was good service. Scoli 
 v. Toiun of Lixtowel ; Livimjstone v. Totcn oj 
 Lulcioet, 12 P. R. 77.— Hose. 
 
 Compelling Court of Revision to hoar appeals. 
 See In re Maria- and the Court of Revidon oJ 
 the Town of Gravcnhur.'ft, 18 0. R. 243. 
 
 Appeal from Court of Revision in the North- 
 West Territories. See Anyun v. Calqary School 
 Trustees, 16 S. C. R. 716. 
 
 See lie McLean and The Township of Ops, 45 
 Q. B. 325 ; Citi/ oJ Branlford v. OiUario Invest- 
 ment Co., 15 A. H. 005, p. 60 ; In re Roman 
 Catholic Separate Schools, 18 0. R. 606. 
 
 II. Taxes. 
 
 1. When due. 
 
 On the 2nd April, 1880, a by-law was passed 
 by the corporation of the city of Toronto im- 
 posing a rate for ttiat year, and on the same day 
 another by-law was passed providing for the 
 time and mode of payment, declaring that all 
 taxes over §5 should be due on 4th June, and 
 migiit be paid by three instalments, and that on 
 prompt payment of the first instalment on the 
 said 4th June, the time would be extended for 
 the payment of the other instalments to days 
 named, and so with the second instalment, etc., 
 and on non-payment an additional charge of five 
 per cent, was imposed. It was also expressly 
 provided that nothing therein contained should 
 affect or diminish the collector's right, when he 
 should deam it expedient, after a proper demand 
 made, to proceed at any time before the said 
 several days to collect the said taxes by distress, 
 etc. By the statute R. 8. 0. (1877) c 180, the 
 right to distrain is given on neglect to pay in fonr- 
 teen days after demand ; and such demand shall 
 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 i 
 
71 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 72 
 
 be made liy calling at least onti! at the party's 
 reaidenuc anil demanding tlic ttixus. Tiiu statute 
 also nrovidecl that all tuxes levied for any year, 
 should he considered to be imposed and to he due 
 from the Ist January, and end witli the 31st 
 December thereof, unless otherwise expressly 
 provided by by-law. The tax collector, about 
 20th May, left with the plaintid' wiioso taxes 
 were over 1(15, a tax bill stating, in accordance 
 with the above by-law, that the taxes were due 
 on 4th June, but that payment could be made 
 by instalments, etc. ; and that by want of punc- 
 tuality, the party would not only forfeit such 
 right, but render his goods liable to distress on 
 neglect to pay fourteen days after demand. After 
 the 4th June, the plaintiff, not having paid any 
 of the taxes, the tax collector, without anv fur- 
 ther demand, issued his warrant to his bailiff 
 who distrained the plaintift's goods on the 12th 
 June, and sold them on the 18th June :— Held, 
 that the taxes were not due until the 4th June, 
 and that no demand could bo made until that 
 date, and therefore the leaving a tax bill before 
 that date, even if otherwise a demand, could not 
 be deemed to be such ; and, QuaTo, whether the 
 mere leaving of such tax bill, even after the 4th 
 June, could oe deemed to be a demand. Cham- 
 berlain v. Turner, 31 C. P. 460. -C. I'. D. 
 
 Semble, that the rate and the time and mode 
 of payment should more properly have been con- 
 tained in the same by-law instead of separate ones 
 as here, but as they were passed on the same 
 day, even if an application to quash the latter 
 by-law on this ground had been made, it would 
 not be deemed nivalid, The plaintiff was there- 
 fore held entitled to recover the value of the 
 goods sold. Ih, 
 
 Under the Assessment Act, the assessment is 
 for the purpose of designating the person to be 
 charged, but no debt is due until the rate on 
 the dollar is imposed, and the amount of taxes 
 thus ascertained and fixed. By an agreement, 
 dated 4tb November, 1881, between one Q. and 
 defendants, for the sale of Q. 's business after a 
 recital to the same effect, the defendant cove- 
 nanted to pay, satisfy, and discharge all the 
 debts, dues, and liabilities, whether due or ac- 
 cruing, contracted by said Q. in coimection with 
 said business, etc. Q. was assessed for goods 
 sold under the agreement before the making 
 thereof, but the rate was not imposed, and the 
 amount of taxes ascertained and fixed until May, 
 1882, thereafter :— Held, that there being nodebt 
 until the rate was struck in May, 1882, Q. when 
 he sold the goods should have applied to have 
 the purchaser's name inserted instead of his own, 
 or have expressly provided in his agreement tiiat 
 the purchaser should indemnify him against this 
 amount ; and that the said taxes were not a debt 
 contracted in connection with said business with- 
 in the terms of the agreement. Devantiey v. 
 Dorr, 4 0. R. 206.— Wilson. 
 
 Section 364 of the Municipal Act, R. S. O. 
 (1887) c. 184, relates to the period of the fiscal 
 year for which the taxes are imposed and levied, 
 and not to the extension of the time for pay- 
 ment of the yearly taxes which is done by by-law 
 passed under the authority of section 53 of the 
 Assessment Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 193. Cham- 
 berlain V. Turner, 31 C. P. 460, and Carson v. 
 Veitch, 9 0. R. 706, considered. Goldie v. 
 Joht>», 16 A. R. 129. 
 
 2. Collection of . 
 
 (a) Collectors and their Sureties. 
 
 In an action neainst sureties for a town col- 
 lector for his default in paying over the sum 
 collected by him : — Held, (1) not necessary that 
 the roll should bo certified, but sufficient that it 
 was signed by the town ck k ; (2) that entries 
 made by the collector on his roll in the discharge 
 of the duties of his oHice of taxes paid to hini 
 were evidence against the sureties. Town of 
 Wellaml v. Brown, 4 O. R. 217.— C. P. D. 
 
 The jury, without any evidence to justify such 
 finding, allowed the collector a commission of 
 three and a half per cent, on the taxes collected 
 by liim :— Held, that this amount could not be 
 allowed, and that the amount against the sureties 
 must be increased by this amount, less a sum of 
 $75, which appeareil by a by-law put in by leave 
 on the motion, to bo the proper amount of remu- 
 neration to the collector, on defendants' pleading 
 a plea which would justify plaintiffs in making 
 such deduction, /h. 
 
 By by-law providing for the assessment and 
 levying of rates for 1885, passed by the council 
 on 11th December, 1885, the defendant was ap- 
 pointed collector to collect the rates for 1885. 
 On the 23rd December, 1886, the defendant 
 entered into a bond with sureties as collector 
 to the corporation of the village, which recited 
 that he had been appointed collector ; and on 
 the same day a resolution was passed by the 
 council that the bonds of P. B. as collector be 
 accepted, as presented to the council ; but no 
 other appointment of the defendant as collector 
 was proved, and the defendant swore that he 
 did not think he made any declaration of office 
 for any year : — Held, that the effect of the 
 defendant not havinc made and subscribed the 
 declaration required by section 27 1 of the M unici- 
 pal Act R. 8. 0. (1887) c. 184, was not to make his 
 acts void ; and having been duly appointed by 
 by-law collector, he held office until removed by 
 the council, even if what was done by tho council 
 on the 23rd December, 1886, did not constitute 
 a good appointment. Letvis >. Prady, 17 0. E. 
 377. -Q. 15. D. 
 
 Held, that the appointment in December, 1887, 
 of another person to collect the rates for 1887 
 had not the effect of removing the defendant 
 from office ; for it was an appointment to collect 
 the rates for that year only, and by section 12 of 
 the Assessment Act the council might appoint 
 such number of collectors as they might think 
 necessary ; but even if it had that effect, the 
 roll for 1886 had not been returned by the de- 
 fendant, and the resolution of the 17th January, 
 1888, authorized him to continue the collection 
 under section 133, and legalized the distress then 
 made. Ih. 
 
 See Village of Weston v. Conron, 15 0. R. 595. 
 
 (b) Warrant for. 
 Where a warrant for the collection of a single 
 sum for rates for several years included tne 
 amount of an assessment which did not appear 
 to be cither against the owner or the occupier of 
 the property : — Held, affirming the judgment of 
 the court below, that the inclusion of such as- 
 sessment would vitiate the warrant. Flanagan 
 V, Elliott, 12 S. C. R. 435. 
 
73 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 74 
 
 (c) Distress and Sale. 
 
 Helil, tluit tliu insertion in the by-law of the 
 diecretionary power to the collector tn distrain 
 wiiH improper anil uuauthorizeil. Chamberlain 
 V. Tuma; 31 C. T. 400.— C. P. D. 
 
 I'cr Ivoac, J.— Where there is suflicient dis- 
 tress on the property, and the nninici]>ulity by 
 its own laches put it ont of its power to distrain, 
 section 100 of II. 8. (>. (1877) c. 180, does not 
 avftil to give the right to collect by action. 
 Carmn v. Vtltrh, DO. U. 706. 
 
 The defendant, as collector of taxes of a village 
 for tlic year 1886, on the 9th .lanuary, 1888, 
 seized goods of tlie jdaintiff as a distress for 
 taxes asses.scd against the plaintiff upon ♦■he 
 iissessnient roll for 1886. The plaintiff brought 
 this action of replevin to recover the goods so 
 seized :— Held, upon the evidence, that it was 
 not .shewn that the plaintiff was not duly and 
 legally assessed for the taxes in respect of which 
 the distress was made. Lf.wisw. liradi/, 17 O. 
 R.377.-(^ B. D. 
 
 Section 1'20 of the Assessment Act, K. S. O. 
 (1887) c. 10;i, provides that the clerk shall deliver 
 the 11)11 to the collector on or before the Ist day of 
 Octulicr, or such other day as may be prescribed 
 by liy-law of tlie local municipality ; but no by- 
 law Wivs passed, and the roll for I88(i w as not 
 delivered by the clerk to the defendant until 
 about the Ist January, 1887: — Held, that the 
 provisions of section 12!), are directory, and not 
 niiiierative ; and the omission to deliver the roll 
 within the ])rescribed time had not the effect of 
 preventing the collector from proceding to col- 
 lect the taxes mentioned in the roll as soon as it 
 was delivered t(. him, or of rendering such pro- 
 ceedings invalid. Jb. 
 
 Section 132 of the Act provides that every 
 coUeetor shall return his roll to the treasurer 
 on or liefore tiie 1 4th December in each year, 
 or such day in the next year, not later than 
 the 1st February, as the council of the munici- 
 pality of may appoint; section 133 provides that 
 in case the collector fails or omits to collect the 
 taxes or any portion thereof by the day ap- 
 pointed the council may by resolution authorize 
 the collector, or some other person in his stead, 
 to continue the levy and colleotion of the unpaid 
 taxes in the manner and with the powers pro- 
 vided for by the general levy and collection of 
 taxes. On the 11th Decendier, 1886, (before 
 the roll was delivered to the collector) the 
 council passed a resolution that tlie collector 
 proceed at once to collect the taxes for 1 886 ; 
 on the 7th March, 1887, another resolution in- 
 structing P. |}, (the defendant), to enforce the 
 paymeiit of tlie uncollected taxes at once ; on 
 the 14th November, 1887, a resolution that P. 
 B. collector, be instructed to have the roll for 
 1886 returned by the 24th inst. ; and on the 
 17th January, 1888, (after the distress and be- 
 fore the replevy) a resolution that the time for 
 the collection of the unpaid taxes for 1S8G be 
 extended until the 15th February, 1888, and that 
 P. B. he authorized to collect until tliat date. 
 The roll for 1886 remained in the hands of the 
 defendant from the time of the delivery of it to 
 him until after the distress and replevy : —Held, 
 that tlie defendant was either the collector with- 
 in the meaning of section 132 when he made the 
 distress, and having the roll still in his hands 
 
 nnreturned was authorized to make it, follow- 
 ing Newbury r, Stephens, 16 Q. B. 66 ; or ho 
 was a person authorized as collector, or in the 
 stead of the collector, by the resolution of the 
 council to continue the levy and collection under 
 section l.SS, which provides no limit of time in 
 such case ; and in either case the distress by him 
 was valid. Ih. 
 
 It was proved that the defendant on the 1 1th 
 Jannary, 1887, <luly demanded the taxes dis- 
 trained for :— Held that this demand was suffi- 
 cient to warrant the distress, and the fact that 
 the defendant several times afterwards demand- 
 ed the same tuxes did not affect the validity of 
 the first demand, which was the only one re- 
 quired. Jl). 
 
 In December, 1880, the plaintiffs sold to one 
 H,. who was a tenant of the defendant Ci. ,of 
 certain premises in the city of Stratford, a safe 
 under the ordinary lien agreement. Under the 
 lease H. was to pay taxes. In October, 1887, 
 after the first instalment of purchase money had 
 been paid, H. surrendereil his lease to G., who 
 took over the chattels of H., (including the safe), 
 at a valuation, and assumed payment of the pro- 
 portion up to that time of the taxes for 188V. G. 
 then leased the premises to the defendant P., 
 and sold to him tlie chattels (including the safe.) 
 The defendant .1. was the collector of taxes for 
 the city of Stratford, and the roll for 1887 was 
 delivered to him on the 26th October, 1887. 
 It was provided by bylaws of the city that all 
 taxes aud assessments should be ]>aid by the Slst 
 December in each year, and that five per centum 
 should be added for non-payment and collected 
 as if the same had originally been imposed 
 and formed part of such unpaid tax or assess- 
 ment. On the 2iid November, 1887, J. served 
 on P. a tax notice shewing the amount of taxes 
 and re(juiring payment of these taxes on or be- 
 fore the 31st December " according to city by- 
 law ; after that date 5 cents on the dollar will 
 be added to the above amount." On the 9th 
 March, 1888, the plaintiff's demanded from the 
 defendants P. and G. possession of the safe, but 
 possession was refused, and on the same day 
 the defendant J., acting under the instructionp 
 of the defendant G. , issued his warrant to the 
 defendant T. to distrain, and the safe was seized 
 on thrt day and sold on the 15th March to the 
 defendant G., whose object in buying was to 
 protect P. No demand for payment of the 
 taxes other tliaii the demand served on the 2nd 
 November, 1887, had been made : — Held, per 
 lUnton and Maelennan, JJ.A., that the sale 
 (upon the evidence) was not made in gooil faith, 
 and was void : — Held also, per Osier, J. A., that 
 as to the collector and bailiff, though not as to 
 the other defendants, the sale was made in good 
 faith and would have protected them if otherwise 
 valid, but that it was bad as to all the defend- 
 ants on the ground that no demand had been 
 made by the collector after the time fixed by 
 the by-law for payment of the taxes. Ooldie v. 
 Johit.i, 16 A. K. 120. 
 
 Issue of execution by the receiver of taxes 
 for city of St. John and arrest in default of pay- 
 ment — Respondeat superior. See AtcSorley v. 
 Mayor, d-c, of the City oj St. John, 6 S. C. R. 
 531. 
 
 Sea Chamberlain v. Turner, 31 C. P. 460, p. 71. 
 
 C3 
 ft 
 
 n 
 
 9i 
 
 toil 
 
 s 
 
 mm 
 
 OB 
 
7B 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 76 
 
 Til, SAr.K or LASh Kim Ta\ks. 
 1. I'luoj'ii/ Tdxr* in Arimr. 
 
 In a »uit conimeiictMl liy a bill in tlio (Joint "f 
 Cliaiicury, uHkiiig foriiu acciniiit of tldiimncB hub- 
 tuiiunl by oertiiiii trcHpiiMHuH iillc'j,'(j(l to Imvu bucri 
 coiimiiUud by tlio ai)i)Lllaiit (ilffciuliuit) for uii 
 hijuiK.'tioii ami for iM.HsoBHioii, tli>' |>iiiiii|>.il (|iics- 
 tion rninud was win tlicr a huIo of tliu hiiul for 
 taxes, wiiicli tc'k iilnco on tliu l^t Martli, IS.W, 
 througlumd under whicli the rcni>oinleiit ([ilain- 
 tiff) claimed title, waH valid. The evidence la 
 fully set out in the report :— Held, that there was 
 no evidence to siiew liiat tlie land Hohl had been 
 properly nHsessed, and, therefore, tht; Kale of 
 the land in ((ueHtiori was in\aHd. |Stroiif,' and 
 (jwynnc, JJ., disamtingj. MiKuy v. Crynltv, 
 3 S. C. K. 4M(i. 
 
 On an niiplication under tiic Vendors ami Pur- 
 chasers Act, 11. H. O, ( 1 877) e. IO!t, to compel a pur- 
 chaser to carry out apurtliase.it was shewn that 
 the vendor claimed tlirouyli a tax sale, and had 
 declined to produce any further rvideuce of the 
 validity of the tax sale than tlie treasurer's deed, 
 and what might Ite obtained from tlie Treasurer's 
 books, returns, and warrants, to which ho re- 
 ferred the purchaser : — Held, that the treasurer's 
 lists of lands in arrears for taxes furnished to the 
 warden would bo as valid evidence of the non- 
 payment as the treasurer's warrant to the shcritr 
 under 10 Vict. c. 18'.', s. 55, was held to be by 
 tlie judgment in (Clarke »'. liuchanan, '2,5 Cliy. 
 55!> ; and that coupled with the warrant from 
 the worilen they would be conclusive, and would 
 afl'ord evidence of nQU-pnymcnt up to the time 
 of the sale AV Morton and Lot Ao. (1 on I'luu 
 No. 580 in the County nj York, 7 O, I!. 51).— 
 Proud foot, 
 
 A sale in 1 880 of non-resident lands for taxes 
 being impeached on the ground of no taxes being 
 due, the original ncmre.sulent collector's rolls for 
 187'7, 1878, and 1879, were produced, shewing 
 amounts in arrear for each year respectively, 
 which with interest amounted to the sum for 
 which the laud was sold. The due preparation 
 of the warrant to sell, and advertisiuL' in the 
 Official (jazette were also proved : — Held, sulli- 
 cient proof of the taxes being due. Filz(/iruld 
 V. Wi%oii, 8 0. U. Sfl'J.— (.'hv D. 
 
 On the 21st October, 1880, land was sold for 
 taxes for the years 1877 aiul 1878, and on the 
 15th November, 1881, a tax deed executed. The 
 patent from the Crown issued in 1878. There was 
 no evidence as to the right of the patentee of the 
 land previous to the issuing of the patent, nor 
 that the Crown I^nds Commissioner had made 
 any return to the treasurerof the land having been 
 treated as a free grant, sold or agreed to bo sold 
 by the Crown under section 106 of R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 180, 80 as to render it liable to bo assessed prior 
 to the year 1878 :— Held, there not being any taxes 
 proved to be in arrear for three years as reijuired, 
 the sale and tax deed were invalid. At the trial 
 the plaintiff produced his patent. The defen- 
 dant, in answer thereto, put in tlie tax deed :— 
 Held, that the plaintiiT by production of his 
 patent made out a prima facie case, and the de- 
 fendant, relying on his tax deed, was bound to 
 prove the sale and arrears for three yeais, that 
 IS, that some portion thereof was in arrear for 
 three jrears. Stevemon v. Traynor, 12 0. R. 
 o04. — \jt L, O. 
 
 i. Duties (i/ Miiiiiiljtnl OjllrcrH at to .■!)•/ mr* »/ 
 
 'I'llXlM. 
 
 Hy K.S.O.(lH77)c. 180, SN. 108, 100, the county 
 I troasiircr is to furnish the clt'rk of each niuuiti' 
 pality with lists ot lands three yearn in arreur 
 lor taXL's, and such clerks are to keep the li.ttH in 
 tlicir ollices for inspection, jtiid are togive copiev 
 to the assiHsors who arc to notify the occupant 
 anil owner, if known, by means of the usscssnient 
 nolii > , that the land is liable to be sidil fur ar- 
 rears of taxes, liy sectimis I.'i5 and ITifi a tux 
 deed is to be liiial and liimling on the foriiior 
 owners and all claiming under them if the laiiiis 
 art! not redeemed in one year, and the deed is tu 
 be valid against all parties if not (|ucstioiicd by 
 some interested person within two years fiimi 
 the time of sale. The land in (jiiestion was, in 
 1870. assessed as non-reaident. Defenilaiit he- 
 came the owner in 1 878, and having come torexiile 
 thereon in the former year, improperly paid tliuHO 
 taxes to the collector inxtead of to the treasurer. 
 No notice of arrears was given to the then owner 
 ami occupant, and they were not entered on the 
 roll for 188'J, as rcijuiieil by the Act. The de 
 feiidant paid all taxes subsequently tiemanded, 
 incluilingtho.se for 1882, but the land was, luit- 
 withstanding, put up and sold for the taxes of 
 I 1870, a trilling sum, 'ui the ,S0th December. 18S2. 
 The treasurer's deed was dated the l.oth Kehrii- 
 ] ary, 1881: - Held, tliat the sale could not be sup- 
 ported, as the notice rcipiired by section 100, that 
 the land was liable to be sold for taxes, had not 
 been given, and that such irregularity was nut 
 cured by sections 15.'> and 15(1 of the Act. Hutch- 
 inson i: Collier, 27 C. P. '240; Church i: Feutdii, 
 '28 C. P. at p. 404, doubted by Wilson, C. J.; -Per 
 Armour, .T. The substantial compliance with the 
 provisions of H. S. (). (1877) e. 180, ss. 108111 
 inclusive, is a condition precedent to the right 
 to sell non-resident lands for taxes:— Qua're, per 
 Wilson, C ■)., whether there was not evidence 
 that the land was not sold in a "fair, npun and 
 candid nunner," Obscrvatioi' ' i • pro- 
 
 priety of tax sales as iH' r.tiiT 
 
 teil unUi,! ii'gis- 
 .110, 11. 222.- 
 
 1 the assessor anil i- 
 ms 10!), IK) and In, of 
 TO imp . .'five and not 
 
 tative autliority. JJ'i 
 li. R, U. 
 
 Held, tliatthedi 
 ship clerk, under h 
 It, S, (). (1877) c. 1S(. 
 
 directory merely, and their p( turmance is con- 
 ditional to the validity of a t.. \ sale : — Burton, 
 .1, A,, diss, Donovan v, lloijnn, 15 A. II. 4,12. 
 
 See Smith v. Midland H. »', Co., 4 O. K. 494, 
 p. 81 ; llaidcy v, Soincm, 15 0, R. 276, p, 78; 
 Hall v. Furquhamon, 15 A, R, 457, p. 78. 
 
 3. WarruiU to Sell. 
 
 It was objected that the warrant was not nd- 
 dressed to any one. It recited that the treasurer 
 bad submitted to the warden the laud liable to 
 be sold, and proceeded: "Now, I, the warden, 
 command you," etc. This was given to the treas- 
 urer, was produced by him, and was acted on by 
 him. The warrant purported to be drawn up 
 pursuant to .32 Vict, o. 36, s, 128 :— Held, that 
 the warrant wab sufficient , Fitzuerald v. Wilson, 
 8 O, R. .Wg,— Chy. D. 
 
 The court will not bo punctilious in adhering 
 
 to the letter of the statute where there is rea- 
 
 I sonable accuracy, and no possible prejudice re- 
 
 Hcc Fluudijai 
 
77 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 78 
 
 RiiltiiiK froMi litcriil iiiiicciiraoy hi th« fnimo of 
 tlic wiirriint to bi.-H. Ih. 
 
 In Si'iittiiilicr, 1857, u lot in tliu towiiHliip of 
 Keppt'li ill till! county of <iroy, forniinn P'^'t •'• 
 a trout of land HnriuniluriMl to tliu itowii liy tlio 
 liidiunH, wav sold, and in INOI), tliu Dominion 
 (iovui'utiant, \Niio I'utaincd tliu niunii^i'inuiit of 
 tliii Indian landM, iHunud a patunt tiu^rul'or lo liiu 
 piuintiir. In IK70, tiic lot in iinoMlion, Ichh two 
 utit'M, wiiH sold for tiixt'H UHMONMfd and aiciiicd 
 dim for ttiu ycarH 1804 to I8()!(, to one l>, K,, who 
 gold to dufi'ndant ; un<l iih to tliu wiid two uuich, 
 tliv di'fi'iidant liccunitj imruliHHur tlii'ivof iitaHiilu 
 for tiixvH in IHT.i, 'I'hu wivrrantH for the stili! of 
 thu laiidit wuru gij^ned liy tliu wiiiilun, had tliu 
 Hual of tliu county, and autiioriz.cd the truaHiiiur 
 "to luvy uiioii thu varioUH |mrcul» of Iniid lirriv 
 iiiufttr int'iitioiiud for th.t arruarx of taxcH diiu 
 thcri'on and Nut opiioNitt! to uucli paiuul of lain!,'' 
 niid attaclu'd to thum; warraiitH were tlu^ liHtH of 
 liindH to liu Hold, including thu lands ciaiiiiud liy 
 plailititr. Thu liHts and thu wurraiitn wurc at- 
 tacliud touutliur by liuin^' iiaxtud tliu w'liolu 
 lcn){tii of tliu top, lint tliu lialH wuiu not authuii- 
 tii'ittt'd liy thu Hignatui'u of tliu wardi'ii and thu 
 neid of thu county. |{y suction I'JS of thu Am- 
 BOSHini'iit Act, '.VI Vict. c. 'M\, (().), thu warden ia 
 rvniiirud to return one of thu liHta of thu IiiiiiIh 
 toliueold for taxuM, traiiHliiitti'd to hini, utc, to 
 tliu ti'uaiiurur, with a warrant thurulo aonuxud 
 uiiii<T the hand of thu warden and Hual of thu 
 county, &u. : — IIuM, atliriiiin<{ tln^ jiidjjiiu'nt of 
 tliu court hulow, (I) Tlmtupon tliu lainlrt in i|iiuh- 
 tiiin liuiiig suriundurud to thu crown, thuy liu- 
 cikiiio ordinary unpatuntuil laiidx, and upon liuin^' 
 granted hccainu hablu to aBHUsHiiiunt ; ('!) That 
 tliu list and warrant may bu rugardud a.s oiiu on- 
 tiru iiiHtruinunt, and as the Hiibntantial i'ui|iiiri.'- 
 mcnts of the statute had buun uoni|ilii'd with, 
 any irrugularitiuH had buun cured by tiiu l.Mitli 
 section of R. S. O. (IH77) c, ISO, (Foiirnier iintl 
 Henry, .J.J. , dissunting.) Chiiirh v. Fnitoii, 5 
 S. 0. It. 2.S0. 
 
 .See FlniKUjan v. Elliott, 12 .S. C. I!. 4.'J."), p. «3. 
 
 4. Conduct of Salt. 
 
 Held, that the purchase under a tax sale by 
 thu township clurk, was a voidable trans lution. 
 UeckM V. Jolinxoii, .Ti C. I'. 301. -C. I'. I>. 
 
 Held, that a ruuvu of thu township in wliiuh 
 t1"' land sold for taxua aru situate, is not dis- 
 I. iilied uxotiicio, froiu purchasing. Tutlin v. 
 Truax, Hi O. R. 490.— Uoyd. 
 
 A ptiruhaso of land at a tax sale was made 
 nominally by one ii. for thu plaintiir, but was 
 in reality made with thu money and for thu 
 heiiolit of the plaintiff's husband, thu treasurer 
 tliu county, who conducted the sale : -Helil, 
 .1 an action of truspass, that thu treasurer's 
 position absolutely debarred liiin from becoming 
 a purchaser at the sale, and the h:i1u and con- 
 vtyaiico to thu plaintilT weru void ; and as thu 
 land ruinainud in thu hands of thu pursoiis 
 guilty of thu original fraud, thn sale was not 
 cured by the provisions of R. S. (). (1887) c. iy;i, 
 8. 189, although it took place in 18K.S, and thu 
 action was not brought till 188!). Mimuei/ v. 
 Smith, 17 0. R. «4t.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A^reonients between intending purchasers at 
 sheriff's sale. See Keefer v. HoaJ, 8 O. R. 69. 
 
 Owner's preHunce atsnlu hold not to ustop him 
 from coiii[ilaiiiing of irrugnluritiui in sulu. .Suu 
 Cl(u/;n V. Shih/i,/, U (). It. V>\. 
 
 At uHaluof land for taxus.thu truaKiiri^' is bound 
 iiiidur I!. S. (>. (18771 u. ISO, s. l:<7, if hu sulis 
 any |iHrticular part of a lot, to sell in prufurcncu 
 Niii'h part as he may consider best for lliu owner 
 to Hull first, and Hection I'JO docs not reliuvu him 
 from this duty ; and for such pur|ii>Hu liu niiixt 
 olitaiii the necessary information to unablu him 
 to airivu at a sound judgmunt thereon. .Suution 
 I'JO applies to thu duty of thu treasurer bcl'oru 
 tilt! salu ; sucti<in 138 to his duty at and after thu 
 , Halts ami bufore hu grants his uurtitiuatu. His- 
 tory of thu provisions of tliusu suctions tracuil. 
 //<(iV.(/ V. Somti-i, ISO. R. '27">.-(i. B. I>. 
 
 .Seniblu, it is sutlicient to sell so much of a lot 
 as may be necessary to secure thu paymunt of thu 
 taxes diiu, and thu jiartiuiilar part nuetl imt be 
 ditturniined until thu uurtiHcatu is given to thu 
 
 plirullastU'. III. 
 
 Whuro thu trcasurur, lioforu hu grantutl his 
 I citrtilicatu, knew that there was a house iipiin 
 the lot, ami although within a fuw miiiiites walk 
 of his ollice, dill not take thu trouble to ascer- 
 tain on what part of thu lot the house was 
 sitiiatuil, but gave his certiticutu tlescribing the 
 ' part sold HO as to includu thu gruatur part of 
 the liotisu t'-lluld, (atlirming on this ]ioiiit thu 
 judgin.nt of I'roudf.iot, .J., l.'J <). 1{. (i(K),) that 
 the sale not having buun fairly uonductutl was 
 I invalid, Jli. 
 
 I Thu inirchasu money was $1, although the 
 
 I valiU! with the iinprovemoiits was about $1,(100, 
 
 I no impiiry having been inadu as to its value, 
 
 j and thu township olllciuls having a])paruntly 
 
 I taken no pains to acijuiru any information about 
 
 I it buyoml what a]ipoareil on the assussment roll. 
 
 Semblu, pur llagarty, C. ,1. O. . I'atturson, anil 
 
 Osier, .1.). A., that thu salu woultl bu void as not 
 
 having been .luder the uiruuinstaiiuus opunly and 
 
 fairly <">-.it(uctuil within the muaning of suction 
 
 15") .,1 R. S. O. (1877) c. 180. Jlall v. Favqu- 
 
 hur.toii, 15 A. H. 4.")7. 
 
 Thu duty t'f thu county treasurer in reference 
 M tax sales obsurveil upon : Hall r. Hall, '1 K. 
 it A. .')()9 ; Haisluy v. Soinurs, l.S O. R. OOO.con- 
 I sidcred. lli, 
 
 .Semble, a sale for nioro taxes than are ac- 
 tually due, cannot be suiiportuil uniler suction 
 137, where section l.'tadous not apply in cuiisu- 
 (|iieiice of the sale not having been openly and 
 fairly conducted. Vokhain v. Hall, l.SCliy. 235; 
 I'Minbiirgh Lifu Ins. Co. i\ Ferguson, 32 Q. B. 
 2.-|3, followed. Ih. 
 
 Semble, the sale was not " fairly conducted," 
 as thu ad vurtisemcnt describing the lands as nn- 
 patuntud, was of such a character as to damp 
 the sale. Scott v. Stuart, 18 O. R. 21 1.— Chy. H. 
 
 .See IlaiHleji v. Somer-s 13 (). R. 600, p. 79 ; 
 Dei'trill V. Coe, 11 O. H. 222, p. 76; Donovan 
 V. Hoijan, 15 A. U. 432, p «' 
 
 , p. 64 
 
 '■'& 
 
 s 
 
 19 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 « 
 
 
 5. Cevlijicate of Sale. 
 
 A sherifF's certificate of sale for taxes is made 
 for the purpose of giving the purchaser ceitain 
 rights, in order to the protection of the property. 
 
79 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 tintil it is rcilcemed or becomes his absolutely, 
 ami forms no pirt of his title. Tlie description 
 in it being (lA'ctive does not invnlidato the 
 sheriff's deed, nor, Semble, would its absence. 
 Kelltx V. Whit", 2!) Chy. S.IS.-Spn.gge See 
 S. C, xnh nom. White v. .Ve/K 11 S. C. K. 
 587. 
 
 6. Jiedcmptioii oj Lniids Sold. 
 
 Held, that the certificate of the treasurer 
 that the land was not redeemed is sutlicient, and 
 tiiat an atlidavit cannot be re(|uired from a pnb- 
 lic officer as to the proper discharge of liis duty. 
 More evidence may be reipiired as between a 
 vendor and purcliaser than in a suit where the 
 owner or those claiming under him are parties. 
 Jifi Mort'in iiiid Lot Xo. >: on Plan No. r>SO iii 
 thi- Cotiiitii of York, 1 O. R. 59.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The act provided that the deed to a purchaser 
 of lands sold for taxes should be conclusive 
 evidence that all the provisions with reference 
 to the sale had been comidied with :— Held, per 
 Strong, Taschereau and Owynne, JJ., that thig 
 provision could only operate to make the deed 
 available to cure defects in the proceedings con- 
 nected with the sale and would not cover the 
 failure to give notice of assessment required be- 
 fore the taxes could be imposed : — Held, per 
 Ritchie, C. J., and Patterson, J., that the deed 
 could not be invoked in the present case to cure 
 any deft^cts in the proceedings as it was not de- 
 I livercd to the purchaser until alter the suit com- 
 I menced ; therefore a failure to give notice that 
 I the land was liable to be sold for taxes, which 
 ; notice was recpiired by the act, rendered tiie 
 sale void. O'Brien v. Coijuwell, 17 S. C. H. 
 420. 
 
 7. Deedn for. 
 
 The proper oBicei-s to execute the deed of land 
 sold for taxes are the warden and treasurer at 
 the time the deed is demanded, not the persons 
 holding those offices at the time of tiie sale. 
 Fergiixon v. Freeman, 27 Chy. 211.— Cliy. D. 
 
 Held, that the words "be the same more 
 
 or less," following the description of the (juantity 
 
 of land, improjjerly inserted in the sheriff 's <leed, 
 
 might be rejected as surplusage. JVcZ/cs v. While, 
 
 ' 29 Chy. 3.SS.— Spr.igge. See S. C, supra. 
 
 At a sale of part of a certain lot for taxes the 
 treasurer, who m;\de the sale, marked in the sale 
 hook tlie part sold as the soutli one-tenth, but 
 afterwards gave a certificate for the north one- 
 tenth, and this was finally conveyed to '' ' de- 
 fendant on December 5, 1884 ; the bid ,. !i fur 
 one-tentii of an acre only : — Held, that the 
 above state of facts did not invalidate the tax 
 sale and tiie title of the defendant to the north 
 one-teiitii, Haisley \. Somer.'<, 13 O. It. COO.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 A sheriff's deed of lands sold at a tax sale 
 described them as " forty-five acres of the south 
 half of lot 17 in the 4th concession " of King ; 
 and a deed given to one S. contained an excep- 
 tion, ' ' save ami excepting out of the same forty- 
 five acres sold for taxes : — Held, that tlie excep- 
 tion was void for uncertainty ; and a subsequent 
 release of lands jiurchased at the tax sale by the 
 sheriff's vcmlee to S. had sufficient to operate 
 upon and was effectual as a release. Pearson v. 
 Muiholland, 17 0. R. 502. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Certain patented lauds, which were sold for 
 taxes, were described in the advertisement as 
 unpatented, and in the treasuiur's deed as " all 
 that," etc., "being composed of all the right, 
 title, and interest of the lessee, locatee, licensee, 
 or purchaser from the Crown, in and to lot," etc. 
 Held, affirming the decision of Royd, C, that 
 the treasurer by his deed having purported to 
 sell the interest only of a locatee or purchaser 
 from the Crown, the power he exercised was 
 directeil to that pnrticnlar estate only, which, 
 being non-existent, there was nothing thut the 
 power could operate upon, and that the deed 
 was invalid. Scott v. Stmrt, IS O. R. 211.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 8. Objections Cured by Statute. 
 
 Quiere, (per Spr.agge, C.,) whether the provi- 
 j sions of section 155 of the Assessment Act of 
 I 1869 apply where a sale of land took place before 
 I the Act, Imt the deed was not executed until 
 1 after ; or wliether it applies only to a case where 
 I both were before or both after the enactment. 
 
 1 FeniHuoH v. Freeman, 27 Chy. 211. 
 
 I 
 
 QuiiTC, wliether since 32 Vict. c. 3fi, and pre- 
 
 ' ceding statutes, when some taxes are in arrear, 
 
 I but a sale has been matle for more, the defect 
 is cured. Xelles v. While, 29 Chy. 338.- 
 Spragge. See S. C, sub nom. White v. NeUet, 
 11 S. C. R. 587. 
 
 Per Fonrnier, Henry, and Gwynne, JJ.— 
 Where it appears that no jiortion of the taxes 
 has been overdue for the period prescrilied by 
 the ptatute under which the sale takes place, the 
 sale is invalid, and the defect is not cured bv 
 section \r^'^ of 32 Vict. e. 3(5, (Out.) Strong", 
 J., dirs., holding that section 155 applied to a 
 case where any taxes were in arrear at the 
 date of the sale. McKny v. Crysler, 3 S. C. H. 
 430. 
 
 Quiur.-", ;-'s to the effect of the curative provi- 
 sions of section 15G of the Assessment Act, 1*. 8. 
 O. (1877) c. 180, since the decision of the Sn|)reine 
 Court, in McKay v. Crysler, 3 S. C. R 436, and 
 whether a tax deed may be questioned for irre- 
 gularities in the .assessment ov in the proceedings 
 prior to sale after the lajisa of the two years. 
 Jefery v. Hewis, 9 O. R. 364.— C P. D. 
 
 Ejectment under a tax deed by the assignee 
 of the purchaser, who was the township clerk. 
 The sale was for the taxes alleged to be due for 
 the years 1871 and 1872. In the assessment 
 roll for 1871 the land was described as the "S. 
 pt. 12, .W acres ;" and for 1872 as " S. K. pt. 12, 
 53 acres ;" and it appeared that tlie land, whether 
 taken as the sou'h or south-east part, included 
 portions of the lot owned respectively by F. and 
 C. , and on which they had paid their taxes ; and 
 also certain lots of a village laid out on part of 
 12:— Held, that the plaintiff's title failed ; for 
 that the assessment was illegal. Per Wilson, C. 
 J. , also that the evidence, set out in the report 
 of this case, shewed that the defendant h.ad, as 
 between himself and the mi'nicipality, naid the 
 taxes upon his part of the 1- t :— Held, also, that 
 the detect was not cured by section 155 of the 
 
81 
 
 ASSESSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 Assessment Act of 1868, 32 Vict. c. 36 Ont. 
 fifcketl V. JohiMlon, 32 0. P. 301.— C. P. D. 
 
 Where it appeared that, as far as the county 
 treasurer was concerned, all the steps taken by 
 him in regard to the sale were rojjular, and au- 
 thorized by 32 Viot. c. 30, and that tlie sale had 
 taken place for tnxes actually in arrcar for the 
 reipiired length i time, followed by a tax deed 
 thereafter, which had not l)een (juostioned with- 
 in two years : — Held, that the sale and deed 
 were not afterwards impeachable, although it 
 was not clear on the evidence, whether the 
 county clerk and the assessor had or had not 
 properly complied with the reiiiiir<?inciita of sec- 
 tions 111 antl 112 of the said Act. Kmith v. 
 MkUamlR. W. Co., 4 0. R. 494. -Boyd. 
 
 Certain lands, wr.rth from SCOO to $800 hav- 
 ing been sold in November, 18SI , for .5().0C taxes, 
 being one-eleventh in excess of taxes really due, 
 the sale was on this ground set .-iside by Proud- 
 foot, J., who held that R. S. O. (1877), c. 180, 
 8. 155, did not cure the error, and that the 
 maxim de minimis non curat lex did not apply ; 
 but, on an appeal to the Divisional Court, (9 
 0. R. 451,) this judgment was reversed. Per 
 l!oyd, C— In Yokham v. Hall, 15 Chy. .TSS. the 
 excess of statute labor tax was clearly illegal, 
 and its imposition being unjustifiab?e vitiated 
 the sale. There was no illegal excess of tax 
 originally imposed upon the land in tliia case, 
 and the owner must be regarded as being notified 
 hy the advertisement of sale of the error in carry- 
 ing forward the amount, and having taken no 
 steps to have it remedied, pending the period 
 allowed for payment or redemption, he cannot 
 afterwards invoke its aid to annul the tax sale. 
 Per Ferguson, J. — The difference of twenty 
 cents and the calculation of interest and coni- 
 niission upon it must fall within the meaning of 
 the words "error or miscalculation" mentioned 
 in section 150 of R. S. 0. (1877), c. 180, and if so 
 the provision is that the tax deed shall not be in- 
 vidid. Yokham w. Hall, 15 Chy. 335, considered 
 and distinguished. Claxton v. Shihley, 10 O. R. 
 205. -Chy. D. 
 
 It was objected to the regularity of the sale, 
 that in 1881 neither the assessor nor the clerk 
 returned the lands as occupied, as in fact they 
 were, and further that the clerk did not examine 
 the assessment roll when returned by the asses- 
 sor as rei|u'"red by R. S. O. (1877), c. 180, s. 1 1 1 : 
 Semble, that these are matters of procedure only, 
 and would be cured by section 155. .5. C, 9 0. 
 R. 451.— Proudfoot. 
 
 It appeared that in the advertisement of the 
 sale it was not stated whether the land was 
 patented or unpatented :— Hehl, that R. S. O. 
 (1877), c. 180, 88. 150, 1.55 did not cure this de- 
 fect. HaUhy v. Somers, 13 0. R. 600 -Proud- 
 foot. See ScoU v. Stuart, 18 0. R. 211. 
 
 Though the owner of the land was known, he 
 was not notified as required by R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 180, s. 109, of the assessment and liability to 
 sell :— Held, that this was an omission which 
 was not cured by R. S. 0. (1877), c. 180. s. l.-)5. 
 HaUlfyv. Simm-K, 13 0. R. 600.- Proudfoot. 
 
 In 1882 a lot of land in the village of F. , as- 
 sewed for 1879 as "non-resident," was sold for 
 the taxes of the latter year, the treasurer's deed 
 therefor being executed in 1883. In an action 
 6 
 
 of ejectment brought by the purchaser against 
 the original owner in 1888, it appeared that in 
 1882 the list of lan<ls liable to be sold for arrears 
 of taxes required by section 108, H. S. O. (1877), 
 c. ISO, and which contained the lot in question, 
 was sent by the treasurer to the clerk of the 
 villiige, but that it had been lost, and although 
 the land was occupied at the time, it was not 
 roturiicd " as occnpied" nor w.as the owner noti- 
 '\ fied that it was liable to be sold for taxes as 
 1 provided for by section 109, R. 8. O. (1877), c. 
 I 180 :--Held, (Boyd, C, dissenting) that the sale 
 j was invalid, and that notwithstanding the lapse 
 of time the.xu defects were not cured by sections 
 155 or 156, R. S. O. (1877) '■. 180. Per Proud- 
 foot, . I. — The want of noti • co the defendant of 
 the arrears and of the liab ..ty of his land to be 
 I s(dd for thcni was the want of an essential re- 
 quisite to the power of sale. Per Ferguson, 
 .1. — The land having become occupied and hav- 
 ing sullicicnt distress on it to satisfy the taxes, 
 j .slioidd, notwithstanding the errors of the muni- 
 cipal olficors, be ci>'i:idered as if it had been 
 'returned "occipi'j.l" .and the sale under such 
 ' I'irciinistiinces being forbidden by section l.SO, 
 I R. S. O. (1877), c. 180, was not cured by section 
 I 1.50 of that statute. Pur Boyd, C. — ^^The omis- 
 I sion to raise within the proper time the objec- 
 I tion that section 109, H. S. 0. (1877), c. 180 was 
 ! not complied with is cured by section 156 : that 
 ; section being in the nature of a statute of limi- 
 ' t itions .as to such objection. Dalzhl v. Malloi-y, 
 I 17 0. H. SO.— Chy. D. 
 
 See Chwch v. Feiiton, 5 S. C. R. 2.39, p. 77 ; 
 I ll7i/7.- v. Xrlli'x, 1 1 .S. C. R. .587 ; Jhrenll v. 
 6V, II (). R. -222, p. 70; Doiiomn v. /loijcin, 15 
 A. I!. 432, p. 04 ; Ifnl/ v. Fan/iiharmii, 15 A. 
 R. 457, p. 78 ; Mooiifi/ v. Sinilh, 17 O. R. 644, 
 I). 77 ; O'/Jrl'ii V. Co'i.iwdl, 17 «. ('. R. 420, p. 
 SO. 
 
 9. Tiinr fur Impcwhing. 
 
 Under seetinii I of 37 Vict. c. 15, 0., ft tax 
 deed is valid and binding unless questioned before 
 ' a court of competent jurisdiction within two 
 ! years by a person interested. One O., the de- 
 fendant liorein claiming under a sheriff's deed, 
 given under an execution .against lands, and also 
 I under a deed from one M. , filed a petition under 
 the Quieting Titles Act within two years from 
 the obtaining of a tax deed by t-he plaintiff, who 
 became contestant in the proceedings, and filed 
 ! his claim under the tax deed, but, on the oppo- 
 I sition of ()., afterwards withdrew and abandoned 
 it. Afterwards an order was made by the leferee 
 dismissing O. 's petition, which order ivas affirm- 
 ed by a .lui'ge on ap[)eal, as she had failed to 
 make out -anyi/iiing. At the time the execution 
 issued under whiidi 0. purchased one of the par- 
 ties to the suit was dead, .and the interest of the 
 others had passed to M. by conveyance from 
 them to M. in trust to sell and .apply the pro- 
 ceeds to pay their creditors, and the deed from 
 M. was a breach of trust by M. with O.'s know- 
 ledge : —Held, that 0. was not a person interested 
 within the meaning of the Act, for that one of 
 the parties being dead the sheriff's deed con- 
 veyed nothing, and neither did the deed from 
 M., being a breach of trust. Per Osier, J., the 
 proceeilini|s under the Quieting Titles Act were 
 a (luestioning of the deed within the meaning of 
 
 •< 
 GS 
 
 rn 
 
 m 
 
ASSETS. 
 
 84 
 
 37 Vict. c. 15. Per Wilson, C. J., the proceed- 
 ings had no such effect, as the (luestioning must 
 be a successful questioning. McNaU v. Peer, 32 
 C. P. 545. -C. P. D. 
 
 The Statute of Limitations does not begin to 
 run against a tax purchaser until the period of 
 redemption has expii'ed. Smith v. Midland li. 
 W. Co., 4 0. H. 494.— IJoyd. 
 
 Held, following Hutchin.son r. Collier, 27 C. 
 P. 249, that the two years given by section 150 
 of R. S. O. (1877), c. 180, within which a tax 
 deed can be questioned, is to be computed from 
 the giving of the deed and not from the time of 
 the sale. The court, though not satisfied with the 
 decision as arrived at in that case, considered they 
 were honnd by it. Liittk v. liroddij, 10 O. i!. 5.")0. 
 — C. P. U. See Claiclon v. Sliihlen, Ih., at p. 298. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Ferguson, J., 
 that the two years limited by section i5(), 11. 8. 
 O. (1877), c. ISO, for impeaching a tax sale run 
 from the time of making the tax deed, not from 
 that of the auction sale The woi-d sale in that 
 section can be properly understood only in the 
 sense of conveyance. Hutchinson r. Collier, 27 
 C. P. 249 ; Church . . Fenton, L'H ( '. P. 204, ap- 
 proved of. The contrary view expressed in 
 Smith r. Midland, 4 0. K. 494: Lyttle i: IJioddy, 
 10 O. K. ;-).')() ; Claxton r. Shibley, 10 O. J!. 295 ; 
 and Deverill r. Coe, 1 1 0. R. 222, dissented from. 
 Donovan v. J/oijnn, 15 A. R. 4.'?2. 
 
 See Datiel v. Mallortj, 17 0. It. 80, p. 82. 
 
 10. Lien of Tax Purrhaiir, 
 
 Held, that R. S. O. (1877), c. 180, s. 165, does 
 not apply in a case where there have been no 
 taxes in arrear at the time of the sale of the 
 land for taxes. Charlton v. iVatgon, 4 O. R. 
 489. — Ferguson. 
 
 11. Other Crt^p*!. 
 
 Where the crown land connnissioner had er- 
 roneously returned certain lands to the munici- 
 pal officers as patented, whereas, although a 
 patent had been prepared, it hail never been in- 
 tended to be operative, nor been delivereil to the 
 grantee, B., who had paid oidy part of tlie pur- 
 chase money, and the lands were afterwards sold 
 for taxes : — Held, the tax sales were of no vali- 
 dity as against M., to whom a patent was sub- 
 sequently issued. O'dradi/ v. MiGiiffraii, 2 0. 
 R. 309. -Chy. D. ' " 
 
 Since 16 Vict. c. 182, s. 6(j, a tax sale of unpa- 
 tented lands conveys to a purchaser only such 
 rights in respect of the land as the original loca- 
 tee enjoyed, ib. 
 
 Under the Assessment Act of 18()9, 32 Vict. 
 c. 36, the lands of railways might be sold for 
 the non-payment of taxes. Smitk v. Midland li. 
 W. Co., 4 O. R. 494.— Chy. D. 
 
 Tax sale where no taxes in arreai'.— Cancella- 
 tion of deed. See Charlton v. ll'a/wM, 4 O. U. 
 489. 
 
 Agreements between intending purchasers at 
 sale. See Keejer v. lioaf, 8 0. R. 69. 
 
 Held, that the fact that the purchase money 
 WM not paid for n week or two after the sale 
 
 Haiale.y v. Somen, 
 
 did not invalidate the sale. 
 13 O. R. 60O.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, that the defendant was entitled under 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 95, s. 4, though not under K. 
 S. O. (1877), c. 180, s. 159, to compensation for 
 improvements to the land under mistake of title, 
 and also to be paid the amount paid for taxes, 
 interest and expenses. It/. 
 
 Purchase at tax sale by lessee during tenancy. 
 See Hei/den v. Castle , 15 O. R. 257. 
 
 IV. MlSCELLANKOU.S CaSEH. 
 
 Mandamus to municipal corporation to levy 
 sinking fund. See Clarke v. Toikii of Palnnrx- 
 ton, 6 O. R. 610. 
 
 Invalidity of assessment for want of notice. 
 See Jiain v. City of Montreal, 8 S. C. R. 252. 
 
 Action to recover taxes paid under belief that 
 assessment valid. /l>. 
 
 Action to have assessment quasheil after pay- 
 i ment of taxes under protest. See Ex jiarte 
 1 Jameg D. Lewiii, 1 1 S. C. R. 484. 
 
 I Per Strong, .1 . Kvery contribution to a pub- 
 lic purpose imposed b}' superior authority is a 
 
 ', " tax." Le" EcclSiiiaxtiipteM de St. Sulpuv de 
 Montrml v. Ci/;/ of Montreal, 16 S. C. R. 399. 
 
 ASSESSMENT ROLL. 
 
 See AssKs.s.MEN"r 
 
 AXij Taxes- 
 El KCTioNS. 
 
 -Pakliame.nt.'.,4V 
 
 ASSESSORS. 
 
 .See As.sES3Mj;.sr and Taxrs. 
 
 ASSETS. 
 
 See KxKcuTORs and AuMim8rKAT0R.s. 
 
 Per Proudfoot, J. — By the effeot of the .ludi- 
 cature Act all distinction between legal antl eiiui- 
 table debts, and legal and e([uituble remedies is 
 abolished. Debts of every kind are now recover- 
 able in one forum, and the same forum enable* 
 creditors to reach every kind of assets, whether 
 formerly legal or eciuitable, and the necessary 
 result is, that the distinction between legal and 
 ei{uitabl)! assets is at an end, and upon this sub- 
 ject the rules of law and equity being at vari- 
 ance, the latter are to prevail. Bunk of Toronto 
 v. Hall, O. R. 653. 
 
 There can be no mar.shalling of assets in favour 
 of a charity, lieeher v. Iloare, 8 O. H..328.- 
 Ferguson. 
 
 Debts owing to the defendant from persons 
 living in Ontario are assets in Ontario wbiuli 
 may ne rendered liable to the judgment within 
 the meaning of Rule 45 (e) 0. J. Act. (See Con. 
 Rule 271.) Purree y. Slater, 11 P. R. 607. -Rose. 
 
85 
 
 ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS. 
 
 86 
 
 m 
 
 ASSIQNMENT. i 
 
 I. For the Bknewt of Creditors— Sec ' 
 Bankruptcy and Insolvency. j 
 
 II. Equitable Assignment— See FIquitable j 
 Assignment. 
 
 III. Fraudulent Assignment— 6'ee IUnk- 
 
 KUPTCY AND In.SOLVENCY — FRAUDU- 
 LENT Conveyances. 
 
 IV. Ok Contracts— 5^ee Contracts. 
 
 V. Of Chose in Altion — See Chose in 
 
 Action. 
 
 VI. Of Goods and Chattels— .?ee Bills of 
 Sale and Chattel MoRT(iAGES. 
 
 VII. Ok Stock — See Company. 
 
 VIII. Of Dower— 5ec Dowkk. 
 
 IX. Ok Subject Matter ok Insurance— See 
 Insurance. 
 
 X. Of Policies— Sf*! Policies. 
 
 XI. Of Juikiments— See JcD(iMKNT— Prin- 
 cipal AND Surety. 
 
 XII. Of Leases— .S'ee Landlord amd Tenant. 
 
 XIIL Of Mortgages- See Mortgage. 
 
 XIV. Of Patents— Sec Patent ok Invention. 
 
 XV. Of Securities — See Principal and 
 Surety. 
 
 Equitable asHigninent of goods. See MrMaa- 
 ler V. Oarland, 31 C. P. .320 ; 8 A. R. 1. 
 
 Absolute assignnieiit of boiul intciulcd as u 
 security only. See Livimjaton v. Wco I, 27 Chy. 
 515. 
 
 Assignment of money in court — solicitor's 
 lien. See Yemen v. JohuMon, 11 P. K. 'J3I. 
 
 ATTACHMENT. . 
 
 I. Ok Debts— .Vee Atfachment of Debts. 
 
 II. Ok Goods— .Sec Absconding Debtor. 
 
 III. Of the Person — See CIontemi't of 
 Court — l'"vn)ENCE— Kxamination ok 
 Judgment Debtor. 
 
 ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS. 
 
 Who ma\ Attach, SO. 
 
 What mav re Attached, 80. 
 
 Proceedings by Bill is Kyrrrv, !M). 
 
 Kxamination ok Judcsment Dkbtor - 
 See I'^xa.mixatign ok .Jui)(;.ment Deb- 
 tor. 
 
 Dihectinc Issue to bk Tried, !M». 
 
 Al'I'EAl.S, !)1. 
 
 Practice, i)L'. 
 
 Costs, Wi. 
 
 Payment bv (iAHNisiiEEs, 9'i. 
 
 Under .Absconihn); Dkbtobs' Act — See 
 AnscoNDixi; Debtor. 
 
 XI. In Division Courts 
 
 ColltTS. 
 
 I. 
 
 IL 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VI IL 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 •S'ee Divisio.v 
 
 ASSISTANCE (WRIT OF). 
 
 The application of H. S. O. (1877) c. 66 is not 
 limited to purely common law actions pending in 
 those courts before the Judicature Act, but ex- 
 tends to all writs of execution ; and a writ of as- 
 listance in execution of a decree of the Court of 
 Chancery for the recovery of land, is a writ of 
 execution within the meaning of section 11 of 
 that Act, and is not in force after one year from 
 the teste, if unexecuted , unless renewed. Ad- 
 atmn v. Adamwn, 12 P. R. 21.— Boyd. 
 
 ASSIZES. 
 
 See Court of Assi/.e. 
 
 ASSURANCE. 
 
 See In.^urancb. 
 
 I. Who mav Attach. 
 
 Held, tliat !i ju(lj,'niont creditor, whose judg- 
 ment is for costs only, laiinot exaniine his judg- 
 ment debtor under K. S. O. (1877), c. 50, s. 304, 
 nor garnish debts due to him. llhiiit v. McCoU, 
 8 P. R. 4-28.-Dalton, (^ C. 
 
 A defendant who has obtained execution upon 
 a rule of court for the judgment of costs of the 
 
 idny by the plaintilY, is under K. S. O. (1877), o. 
 67, a. \'l, an<l c. ()6, s. 72, a judgment creditor, 
 
 ; and entitled to garnish moneys due by the plain- 
 
 Itiff. Eiliot V. Cattell, 9 P. 1!. .'{5. — Dalton, M(m- 
 
 i ter. — Osier. 
 
 The [icrson to receive payment under an order 
 for payment of costs only, is entitled to an order 
 attaching debts due or accruing due to the per- 
 son to pay. Any doubt txisting upon the Eng- 
 lish cases andtiie (). J. Act rules, is cleared up' 
 by R. S. (). (1877), c. 66, s. 72, lit: Irvine, a 
 Solicitor, 12 P. It. 2i)7. — Daltou, Ma.'</tr. 
 
 II. What MAY be Attached. 
 
 In garnishee proceedings a court of law will 
 as against the attaching creditor, protect an at- 
 torney's lien for costs of the actum or suit in 
 which, or by whicii the debt attached has been 
 recovered where tlie garnishee lias notice of the 
 lien. CaiKulian Jiant of Commerce v. Crouch, 8 
 P. U. 437.— Osier. 
 
 A court of ecjuity will restrain u creditor who 
 has obtained an attaching order at law from en- 
 forcing it against a fund recovered by means of 
 a suit in ei^uity to the prejudice of the attor- 
 ney's lien for costs in tiuit suit. I>>. 
 
 Q 
 
 S;' 
 
 MM 
 
 M 
 
 S 
 
 t 
 
87 
 
 ATTACHMENT OP DEBTS. 
 
 88 
 
 A (lel)t Ih ganiishablc where it consists of 
 money due linder an a\Nai'(l and decree of the 
 Court of Cliancery, although the full amount is 
 not ascertained hy reason of the costs not having 
 been taxed. ^Vhen the anio\int in such a case 
 is finally ascertained, execution may he issued 
 against the garnishee, although he still disimtes 
 his liability, and the Judge is not bound to direct 
 an issue. In re Sato v. Hnhhard, 8 1'. R. 445. — 
 Osier. 
 
 The defendant's father devised his estate to 
 trustees upon tlie trust, among others, "to pay 
 my son A. (the defendant) the interest of the 
 sum of S800 annually during the term of his 
 natural life." An order w.is made by the Master 
 in Chambers, directing the trustees to pay over 
 the interest from time to time accruing, to the 
 plaintif)', who was a judgment creditor of the 
 son. Uoiiil V. Wnllnie, !) I'. K. ;<35.— Dalton, 
 MnMer. 
 
 Held, artirniing the judgment of Annour, .J., 
 that a negotiable promissory note, not yet <lue, 
 is not a debt which may be attached within the 
 meaning of Itule T,Q of the (). .1. Act (Con. 
 Kule 935). Jadxun v. Cas^Ubi, 2 0. It. 521.— Q. 
 ]$. I). 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court l)e- 
 low, that under the garnishee clauses of the <.'. 
 \j. V. Act of I'rince Kdward Island transcripts 
 of ss, GO to 07 of tlie English C. L. 1'. Act, 
 18.")4, an overdue promissory note in tlie hands 
 of the payee is liable to be attached by a judg- 
 ment creditor, ami that payment of the amount 
 by the garnishee to the judgment creditor of 
 the payee, in pursuance of a Ju<lge's order, is a 
 valid discharge, h'ohlei v. h'aid-iii, 11 S, C. U. 
 137. 
 
 (!. was entitled under the will of (,'. to a life 
 estate in land, and to tlie proceeds of personalty 
 to be )iaid to her liy the executors. •Judgment 
 creditors of O. had had a fi. fa., goods returned 
 nulla liona, but iiad not sued out a li. fa. lands, 
 when a receiver was appointed to the estate of 
 C, whereupon the judgment creditors by peti- 
 tion, before the passing of the Ontario Judica- 
 ture Act, applied for an order that the receiver 
 might be directed to jiay their judgment out of 
 (i.'s money in his hands; or that they might 
 attach and sell ( r. 's life estate or, that the tenants 
 of the realty might be directed to attorn to the 
 petitioners and that tlicy might be put in receipt 
 of the rents and profits :— Held, (on appeal from 
 Troudfoot, V. C.) that such petition had been 
 properly dismissed, for the creditors were not in a 
 position when they presented it either to garnish 
 the personal estate, if that coiihl have lieeii done 
 under the A. J. Act, 1873, or to seize the real 
 estate under execution ; and they had therefore 
 no rights which the appointment of a receiver in- 
 terfered with. But, Held, following Re Cowans' 
 Kstate, L, R. 14 Cliy. I). (i.3S, that the petition- 
 ers might now garnish the moiicy.s in the hands 
 of the receiver ; and it being alleged that a li. 
 fa. lands had since issued, the court upon pay- 
 ment of costs granted leave to the petitioners, 
 under the prayer for general relief, to sue out 
 Buch writs as they might be advised. Lcam'mq v. 
 Worn, 7 A. R. 42., but see next case. 
 
 The interest of a debtor in a trust estate eon- 
 wisting of the right to a share of the proceeds of 
 
 the sale of such estate when made by the trus- 
 tees, is not attachable under rule 370 (Con. 
 Rule 935) relating to the attachment of debts. 
 It is only a debt legally or equitably due or 
 accruing due, that is to say, debltum in pra-senti 
 Bolvendum in future, which is capable of attach- 
 ment ; moneys which may or may not become 
 payable by a trustee to his cestui que trust are 
 not debts. 'I'he case of learning t'. VVoon, 7 A. 
 R. 42, is not to be followed, being founded on Re 
 Cowan's Estate 18 Chy. J). (138, which is now 
 overruled by Webb v. .Stenton, 11 Q. B. D. 530. 
 Judgment of Ferguson, J., (15 O.K. 66), reversed. 
 The proper course in such a case is to obtain 
 , ecpiitable execution against the debtor's interest 
 ■ by the appointment of a receiver. Vov this pur- 
 pose it is now unnecessary that the creditor 
 should issue writs of ti. fa. against goods or lands. 
 I Stuart V. Orouijh, 15 A. R. '299. 
 
 A judgment creditor does not, properly speak- 
 ing, become a creditor of the garnishee by ser- 
 vice of an attaching order upon the latter. The 
 garnishee continues to be debtor to his own cre- 
 tlitor, the judgment debtor, until he has paid the 
 amount owing into court, or to the attaching 
 creditor, after order so to pay, or a levy of the 
 j amount has been made of his property, when he 
 I ceases to be a debtor as to the amount paid or 
 levied : — Held, therefore, that the plaintitf, who 
 had obtained a garnishee order, garnishing a 
 debt due from the Brockville and Ottawa Rail- 
 way Company to W. S., his judgment debtor 
 (which railway was now represented by the de- 
 fendants), was not a " creditor" of the said com- 
 pany, holding a bona lide claim against it with- 
 in 27 Vict, c. 57, s. 10, (Dom.) Wardropey, 
 Canadian Pacijic liailway Company, 7 0. E. 
 321. — Ferguson. 
 
 E. A. conveyed real and personal estate to cue 
 B. upon trust, to convert the same into money, 
 and pay debts, etc. , and as to any balance re- 
 maining, upon trust to pay the same to R. A. 
 son of K. A., or if B. should see fit he might in- 
 vest the same in the purchase of a homestead, 
 and convey the same to 11, A. in fee : — Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of the County Court, that 
 there was no debt due from B. to R. A. which 
 could be garnished by the creditors of R. A. 
 MrKindsey v. A>i>uitromj, 10 A. R. 17- 
 
 McLcod contracted with Hawkins to erect a 
 house, for which he was to receive $1,225 ; $3(X) 
 when the frame was up, $300 when the building 
 was wholly enclosed, and the balance when the 
 
 I work was all completed. The building was to 
 be completed on or before the 3rd February, 
 1884. 3lcLeod went on with the work and re- 
 ceived the two sums of $300, but he had not com- 
 pleted the building on the 3rd of February, 1884. 
 
 ' He, however, continued the work till after that 
 time, and until after the 1st of April, when the 
 building being still unfinished, Hawkins entered, 
 took possession, and completed it. McCraney 
 fi 8on, having a judgment against McLeod, ob- 
 
 ' tamed ami served an attaching order and garnish- 
 ing summons on Hawkins, the garnishee, on the 
 15th of March, 1884 :— Held, that at the time of 
 serving the attaching order no debt existed ac- 
 
 ; cording to the terms of the contract, and no pro- 
 mise to pay had arisen by implication, and there- 
 
 . fore there was nothing upon which the attaching 
 order could operate. McCraney v. McLeod, 10 
 1'. R. 539.— iJalton, il/(M<er— Rose. 
 
19 
 
 ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS. 
 
 90 
 
 A judgment creditor seeking to garnish funds 
 due to his judgment debtor by S., served an 
 attaching order upon the assignee of S. under 
 an assignment for the benefit of creditors. At 
 the time of the service the assignee had in his 
 bauds the greater part of tlie moneys belonging 
 to the estate of S., but had not declared a divi- 
 dend ; and before he did so, but after the service 
 of the attaching order, the judgment debtor 
 assigned to (i. the dividends coniiuK to him from 
 the estate of S. : — Held, that the judgment cre<li- 
 tor was entitled as against G. to the dividends 
 from the insolvent estate based upon the amount 
 that was in the hands of the assignee when the 
 attaching order was made. MclJraney v. Mc- 
 Leod, 10 P. K. 539, explained and followed. 
 Parker v. Howe, 12 P. K. 351 — Dalton, Master. 
 
 By the judgment in this action the defendant 
 was found to owe the plaintiff $115, and he was 
 ordered to pay the plaintiff 's costs of action, less 
 gome interlocutory costs awarded to the defen- 
 dant. vSubsequent to judgment certain creditors 
 of the plaintiff' issued garnishment process from 
 a Division Court, attaching all debts due front 
 defendant to plaintiff. After the taxation of the 
 plaintitl's costs, but before the taxation of the 
 defendant's interlocutory costs, the defendant 
 paid $115 into the Division Court, having previ- 
 ously paid another sum of $115 to the sheriff to 
 procure his release from arrest under a capias 
 after judgment in this action : — Held, that the 
 costs coming to the plaintiff constituted an at- 
 tachable debt before taxation, which was bound 
 by the service of the garnishment process, and 
 properly payable into the Division Court after 
 it was ascertained by taxation ; and the defend- 
 ant could not object that his setoff was not 
 ascertained at the time of payment into court, 
 as it was by his own default ; and therefore the 
 money paid into court pursuant to the attach- 
 ment was to be taken to be part of the money 
 due to the plaintiff for costs, and not as represent- 
 ing the same debt as the money paid to the sheriff'. 
 Uaephcrsonv. Tisdale, 11 P. R. 261.— Boyd. 
 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 136, ss. 2-0, does not contem- 
 plate any alteration of the law where the case 
 remains strictly between landlord and tenant, 
 but makes a severance where a third interest 
 intervenes. And where a judgment creditor 
 garnished rents accruing due from several tenants 
 to the judgment debtors before any of the gale 
 days had arrived : — Held, that he was entitled 
 to payment over upon the gale days of the pro- 
 portion of the rents which had accrued due on 
 the day of service of the attivching order ; — 
 Qaiere, whether the rents could be garnished 
 •Kainst a mortgagee of the landlord. Mannie v. 
 Toronto Printiwj Co., 12 P. K. 12.— Dalton, 
 ilafter—Galt. 
 
 Hell?, reversing the decision of Falconbridge, 
 J., (13 P. R. 26), that moneys due or owing from 
 •n insurance company to a policy holder altliough 
 unadjusted are garnishable under the enlarged 
 provisions of Con. Rule 935. Webb i'. Stenton, 
 11 Q. n. D. 518, and Stuart r. Grough, 15 A. R. 
 299, considered. Canada Cotton Co. v, Parma- 
 ke, 13 P. R. 308. -C. P. D. 
 
 Held that the garnishees, being a foreign cor- 
 Doration, where not " within Ontario," and there- 
 lore not subject to the provisions of Con. Rule 
 938. /5. 
 
 So long as a railway company is a going con- 
 cern, bondholders whose bonds are a general 
 charge on the undertaking have no right, even 
 although interest on these bonds is in arrear, to 
 seize, or take, or sell, or foreclose any part of 
 the property of the company. Their remedy is 
 the appointment of a receiver. The bondholders 
 of the defendants in this case were held not en- 
 titled to the moneys claimed by them, which 
 were the earnings of the road deposited in a 
 bank, and which had been attached by judg- 
 ment creditors of the road. Decision of Boyd, 
 C, (18 O. R. 581), reversed. PhelpH v. .SY. Cath- 
 arines and Niai/ara Central R. W, Co., 19 0. R. 
 501.— Chy. D. 
 
 See Stuart v. McKim, 8 O. R. 739, p. 91 ; 
 Nicholson v. Shannon; McPhtmon v. Shannon, 
 28 Chy. 378. 
 
 III. Procekdisos by Bill in Equity. 
 
 The plaintiff claimed to be a creditor of 0. , 
 and as such tiled a bill alleging that 0. was mort- 
 gagee or otherwise entitled to some interest in 
 the lands of M. , and tiiat O. was about to dis- 
 pose of his interest therein in order to defeat the 
 claim of the plaintiff, and prayed an account of 
 what was due by O. , and to restrain M. from 
 paying O., and also an order for M. to pay plain- 
 tiff. At the hearing, the court (Spragge, C), 
 made a decree referring it to the Master to as- 
 certain what was due by O. to the plaintiff, and 
 if anything found due that O. should be ordered 
 to pay the amount due to the plaintiff, with 
 costs ; but dismissed the bill as against M., with 
 costs. Menziea v. Oijiloie, 27 Chy. 456. 
 
 The plaintiffs, who had recovered judgment 
 against the defendant, W., filed a bill alleging 
 that VV., being the owner of lands subject to a 
 mortgage, conspired with his co-defendant where- 
 by a second mortgage was executed by VV. to one 
 A., who paid the money to the co-defendant, 
 which was held by him as agent or trustee for 
 VV. The lauds were subsequently sold in a suit 
 by the first mortgagee, and realized sufficient 
 to pay the tw o mortgages only. The plaintiffs 
 proved their claim in that suit in the master's 
 office, but received nothing. They alleged that 
 they had been led to believe that the mortgage 
 by VV. to A. was bona fide, but had ascertained 
 that such was uot the fact ; and prayed that the 
 co-defendants might be ordered to pay over the 
 amount paid out of the proceeds of the land to 
 satisfy tne mortgage in favour of A, : — Held, 
 that the bill was in effect one to garnish the 
 money due to W. in the hands of his co-defen- 
 dant, and under the authority of Horsley v. Cox, 
 L. R. 4 Chy. 92, and St. Michael's College v. 
 Merrick, 1 A. R. 520; S. C, 26 Chy. 216, 
 could not be maintained. Gilchrist v. Wiley, 28 
 Chy, 425.— Blake. 
 
 V. DiRECTiN'o Issue to be Tried. 
 
 The defendant a member of the Legislative 
 Assembly, received a sum of money from a per- 
 son as an inducement or bribe to influence him 
 in his course in the assembly, which he handed 
 to the Speaker of the Assembly to wait the action 
 of the House w'th regard to the alleged bribery. 
 The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defen- 
 dant, issued au order attaching all debts due 
 
 n 
 
 70 
 (A 
 
 > 
 
 6B 
 H 
 
91 
 
 at: AOHMBNT OF DEBTS. 
 
 92 
 
 from ('. to the (Ipfcmlaiits, clainiiii{,' that the 
 money so haiKk'd to liiin Imciiiiu- ii ilelit payalilo 
 to the (leftiKlaiit. The conit, (ialt, .1., dissciit- 
 iug, without e.xiui. sing any (ipiiuou on the 
 iiieritH, tlirecteil an i«Hn>. to he tried, iiniler Uule 
 :i7:{, 0. J. Aet, (Con. Rule !•:«»), as to the gar- 
 nislieo'a indehtechiess. Tlie form of the lasne 
 was subseci\iently settled Ijy tlie registrar, namely 
 whether at the ilate of the serviee upon the gar- 
 nJKhec of the attaching order, there was any 
 debt due or accruing due from the giirmsiiee to 
 the defendant, which on appeal to the lull coiirt 
 was held sullieient. Sliiaii v. MrKvii, 8 O. H. 
 73»-C. r. I). 
 
 The plaintill', after recovering judgment against 
 the defendant, issued an attaching order upon 
 moneys in the hands of a Canada Company, 
 which were admittedly not tlie moneys of the 
 latter/ and which the plaintill swore he was in- 
 formed and believed belonged to the jiul^ment 
 debtor, but which were claimed by his son. There 
 was nothing before the Judge of the County 
 Court to support the assertion of the plaintiff, 
 and the examination of the clainumt taken at 
 the instance of the plaintiff, failed to shew that 
 there was any reason to believe that the claim 
 was not well founded :— Held, that the Judge 
 had under Knle 37">(Con. Rule 04;")) a discretion 
 to direct or refuse to direct the trial of an issue, 
 ivnd that such discretion was properly exercised 
 in refusing to so direct and in rescinding the 
 attaching order :— Semble, if the plaintiff had 
 been able to suggest even a plau.sible ground for 
 supposing that it was the money of the judg- 
 ment debtor, or to east a susiiicion upon the 
 bona tides of the claim of the son, it would have 
 been the duty of the .Judge to direct an issue, if 
 the plaintill' "desired it. Ju/iiiyoii v. Motuly, 12 
 P. K. '203.— C. of A. 
 
 See In re. Sato v. Iluhhurd, 8 I*. R. 445, p. 87 ; 
 Cavada Cotton Co. v. I'armaLr, 13 P. K. 308, 
 p. 9'J. 
 
 VI. AlTKALS. 
 
 Proceedings were taken before a county Judge 
 to garnish certain moneys, payable by the county 
 to the plaintiff, as clerk of the peace and county 
 crown attorney, and which moneys that Judge 
 ordered to be attached in favour of the creditor, 
 the present defendant. Thereupon, the debtor, 
 the defendant in those proceedings, filed a bill in 
 this court, seeking to restrain further action on 
 8uch order:— Held, that this court had no juris- 
 ilictioa to grant the relief asked ; that the proper 
 place to obtain such relief was by appeal to the 
 Court of Appeal ; and, without determining 
 whether the claim of the debtor agivinst the 
 county, was such as coul bo garnished, the 
 court (Proudfoot, V. C), refused the motion for 
 injunction, with costs. Van Sonnan v, Grant, 
 27 Chy. 498. 
 
 Held, that there is no appeal from an order 
 made in garnishee proceedings in a County Court, 
 under H. S. O. (1877), c. .")0, s. 313, appeals from 
 (bounty Courts being expressly limited to the 
 cases mentioned in section 3.5 of the County 
 Courts Act. Section 200 of the C. L. P. Aet 
 does not give a general appeal from the County 
 Courts being controlled by the subheading pre- 
 ceding section 189. Satu v. Ilnhlianl, 6 A. R. 
 i>4G. 
 
 Held, also, affirming Falconbridge, J., (13 P.R, 
 20), that the garniahees had the right to appeal 
 against an order directing the trial of an issue 
 between the ju(lgment creditors and a claimant 
 of the moneys attached. Canmla Cotton Co. v 
 Parma/ee, 13 P. R. 308. -C. P. D. 
 
 VII. Phactice. 
 
 The attidnvit on which to obtain an attaching 
 order may be made by the attorney of the judg- 
 ment creditor or by a partner of the attorney. 
 Semble, that proceedings on such order could 
 not be prohibited on the ground that it was 
 founded on a defective affidavit, that being a 
 mere matter of practice. In re Sato v. Hubbard, 
 8 P. R. 445.— Osier. 
 
 Semble, the ijuestion of the validity of a judg- 
 ment should not be argued on the return of a 
 garnishee summons, but should be raised on 
 an application to set aside the execution. EViot 
 V. Capell, 9 P. R. .35.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 VIII. Costs. 
 
 Where one of the parties to an issue arising 
 out of garnishment proceedings is out of the 
 jurisdiction, there is power under Rule 375 (C. 
 R. 945) to order security for costs. Canadian 
 Bank of Commerce v. Middkton, 12 P. R. 121,— 
 Dalton, Master. 
 
 See Call .0 Co. v. CollUis, 12 P. R. 413. 
 
 IX. Payment by Garnishees. 
 
 An appeal from the order of a county Judge 
 directing payment over to the plainti£f by a gar- 
 nishee of moneys in his hands was allowed by 
 the court in a former judgment (10 A. R. 17). 
 It appeared that the garnishee had paid over the 
 moneys in his hands uefore the appeal was in- 
 itiated : — Held, that the certificate of the former 
 judgment properly contained an award of resti- 
 tution of the money so paid, which the court 
 had authority to make under 45 Vict. c. 0, (Ont.) 
 McKindxey \. A r matron fj, 11 P. R. 200.— C. of A. 
 
 After an order to pay over had been made 
 upon a garnishee summons, but before the pro- 
 perty had been sold by the trustees, an order 
 for a receiver had been obtained by another 
 judgment creditor, under which a receiver wai 
 duly appointed, and notice thereof given to the 
 garnishees (the trustees) and the attaching credi- 
 tor. Notwithstanding this the garnishees sub- 
 sequently without further compulsion or threat 
 of execution paid the money to the attaching 
 creditor without moving against the attaching 
 order, and without notice to the receiver, or 
 giving him an opportunity of doing so : —Held, 
 that the ecpiitable execution must prevail, and 
 such payment did not discharge the garnishees. 
 The effect of the order Iw a receiver was abso- 
 lutely to preclude the judgment creditor from 
 enforcing the order ti) pay over and the garni- 
 shees from dia))osing of the money when received 
 by them (otherwise than by paying it to the re- 
 I ceiver), without leave of the court. The duty 
 of garnishees who h.'ive notice of circumstances 
 affecting the right of the attaching creditor to 
 enforce the order to pay over £K>inted out. Wood 
 
 Sh ArroRNEv 
 
ATTOBNET-OENERAL. 
 
 94 
 
 ,.. Dunn, L. R. 2 Q. IJ. D. 72, considered. The 
 effect of the appointment of a reuuiver upon the 
 rigiits of an attaching creditor considered . Haw- 
 kins I'. ( Ifttliercole, 1 Drew. 12; Ames i». Birken- 
 head Dock Co., 20 Beav. 332, noted on. Stuart 
 V. (Irowih, 15 A. R. 299. 
 
 Held, per Ritchie, C. .T., Strong and Taache- 
 reau, JJ.i affirming the jndgmcnt of the Court 
 of Queen's Bench, Montreal, that wliere moneys 
 have been voluntarily deposited by a garnishee 
 in the hands of the prothonotary, and the attach- 
 ment of such moneys is 8ubse(iuently (luashed by 
 a final judgment of the court, there being tlien 
 no longer any moneys subject to a distribution 
 i)r collocation, such mrmoys cannot be claimed 
 by an opposition en sous or<lre. Fournier and 
 (}wynne, JJ., dissenting, on the ground tiiat as 
 the moneys were still subject to the control of 
 thecourtat the time the opposition en sous ordre 
 was filed, such opposition w.as not too late, /iar- 
 mrd V. Mohnn, 15 S. C. R. "Hi. 
 
 ATTORNEY. 
 
 Sn ArroRNEY-GENERAT-— CotNTY Attorney— 
 Solicitor. 
 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Proudfoot, V. 
 C. (26 Chy. 126), that the doctrine of escheats 
 applies to Ontario ; that the Attorney-<!eneral 
 for Ontario is the proper person to represent the 
 Crown aiul to appropriate the escheat to the uses 
 of the province ; that the Court of Chancery 
 has jurisdiction in such a case ; and that it was 
 proper for the Attorney-General to file a bill in 
 the Court of Chancery to enforce the escheat. 
 Attorney (Irneral of Ontario v. 0'J{eit/y, C A. R. 
 576. 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Spragge, C. (28 
 Chy. 65), that the Attorney-General for Ontario, 
 as representing only a limited portion of the 
 public, with whom, if at all, a contract existed 
 for the construction of a bridge by a company 
 incorporated by the Dominion Parliament, from 
 Canada to the United States, .across the Niagara 
 River, had no locus standi. Attorneif-Oen^ral v. 
 International liridqe Co., (i A. R. 537. See also 
 S. C. 27 Chy. 37. " 
 
 The work being one within the jurisdiction of 
 the parliament of Canada, that parliament, pre- 
 sumably with the knowledge of the state of the 
 bridge, allowed debentures to be issued upon 
 it :— Held, upon this ground also the Attorney- 
 Oencral of Ontario was not the proper party to 
 file the information. S. C. G A. 11. 537. 
 
 As to the necessity of i public nuisance being 
 moved against by the Attorney-GeneraL See 
 Hathaimi/ v. Doig, 28 Chy. 461. 
 
 Semhle, but for the language used in Guelph i'. 
 The Canada Company, 4 Chy. 656, the proper 
 frame of a suit by a municipality against a rail- 
 way company for trespassing by running their 
 track .ilongone of the streets of the municipality 
 without tiieir consent would be by way of infor- 
 
 mation in the name of the Attorney -General 
 with the corporation as relators. Fenehn Falls 
 V. Victoria It. W. Co., 29 Chy. 4, -Boyd. 
 
 On an indictment, containing four counts for 
 obtaining money l)y false pretences, was en- 
 dorsed : ''I direct that this indictment be laid 
 before the grand jury. Montreal, 6th October, 
 1880:— By J. A. Mousseau, Q.C. ; C. P. David- 
 son, Q. O. ; L. O. Loranger, Attorney-General.'' 
 Messrs. Mousseau and Davidson were tlie two 
 counsel authorized to represent the Crown in all 
 the criminal proceedings during the term. A 
 motion supported by affidavit was made to quash 
 the indictment on the ground, inter alia, that the 
 preliminary formalities required by section 28 
 i of 32 and 33 Vict. c. 29 had not been observed. 
 ' The ciiief justice allowed the case to proceed, inti- 
 1 mating tiuit he would reserve the poin.. raised, 
 : should the defendant bo found guilty. T'he 
 defendant was convicted, and it was held, on 
 I appeal, reversing the ju<lt,'ment of the Court of 
 j Queen's Bench, that under 32 and 33 Vict. c. 29, 
 s. 28, the Attorney-General could not delegate 
 to the judgment and discretion of another the 
 power which the legislature had authorized biin 
 I personally to exercise to direct that a bill of in- 
 ' dictnicut for obtaining money by false pretences 
 j l)e laid before the grand jury ; and it being ad- 
 I mitted that the Attorney -General gave no direc- 
 i tions with reference to this indictment, the 
 j motion to (juasli should have been grant'id, and 
 the verdict ouglit to be set aside. Abrahanvt v. 
 1 The Qiieen, 6 S. C. R. 10. 
 
 To an action on a drainage by-law to compel a 
 nninicipal corporation to complete a drain, and 
 also to restrain a misapplication of moneys os- 
 .sessed, and for an account, the Attorney-General 
 is not a necessary party. See Smith v. Town- 
 nhip of Rahiijh, .'j O. R. 405. — Fei-guson. 
 
 Semble, that on an application to question a 
 patent under the Patent Act of 1872, the inter- 
 vention of tiic Attorney-General is not essential. 
 In re The Bdl Telephone Co., 9 O. R. 339.— C. 
 P. 1). 
 
 The questions in this case relating to the Fire 
 Insurance t'oinpany Acts, so far as raised, were 
 hehl not to be of such a constitutional character 
 as to require notice to the Attorney-General of 
 the province, and the Minister of .Justice of the 
 Dominion. Oorini/ v. London Mutual Fire Ins. 
 Co., 110. R. 82.— OConnor. 
 
 The Attorney-General ordered to be made a 
 party to a case involving the title to a roadway, 
 in order to give protection to the Dominion Gov- 
 ernment in exi)ropriating the land. See Re 
 Trevt Volley Canal— " Re Water Street" and 
 " Th" Road to the ]\ harj," 11 O. R. 687.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 The Attorney-General of the province is the 
 proper officer to sue in respect of all matters 
 having locality in the province. Soo Attorney- 
 General of Nora Scotia ex rel. Dickie v. Axford, 
 13 S. C. R. 294. 
 
 It is not necessary to make the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral a party to an action by an incorporated 
 educational institute for the removal of^ one of 
 the trustees for improper dealing with trust 
 funds. \Vilt)erfnrce Educational Institute v. Hol- 
 dcn, 17 0. R. 439.— Rose.. 
 
 ea 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
BAIL. 
 
 98 
 
 Senible, per Gw^nnc, J. —There ia no sound 
 reason why the Government of the Dominion 
 ghouhl not he bouuil hy the iudgmont of ii Court 
 of Justice in a suit in which the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral, as reproaenting the Government, was a 
 party defendiint, equally as any individual would 
 be, if the relief prayed by the information is 
 sought in the same interest and upon the same 
 grounds as were adjudicated upon by tlio judg- 
 ment in the former suit. Formecav. Attorney- 
 General of Canada, 17 8. C. R. 612. 
 
 ATTOENMENT, 
 
 See Lahdlord and Tenant. 
 
 AUCTION AND AUCTIONEERS. 
 
 Licensing Auctioneers— /See Municipal Coe- 
 
 POKATIONS. 
 
 In a bill filed by a mortgagor against his son, 
 a bidder at the sale by another of the defen- 
 dants, a loan company, to which bill the com- 
 pany and one B. were also defendants, it was 
 alleged that it had been agreed between the son 
 and B. that in consideration of the son's securing 
 to B. a debt of the plalntift', 6. would advance 
 the deposit necessary to enable the son to buy 
 the laud at the sale ; that the son should attend 
 and buy in the laud, which he accordingly did ; 
 that in consequence of B. 's refusal to make the 
 promised advance, the son was unable to carry 
 out the sale : that the bidding of the son deterred 
 others present from bidding, and that B. after- 
 wards privately bought the land at a great under- 
 value to the loss of the plaintiff : — Held, on 
 demurrer, that the bill sufHciently, though inar- 
 tificially, alleged that by reason of B. 's agreement 
 and refusal to make the advance agreed upon, 
 he had occasioned an abortive sale, and profited 
 thereby to the loss and damage of the plaintiff. 
 Cavipionv. Jirackenridge, 28Chy.201. — Spragge. 
 
 As to effect of misrepresentations in sale of 
 land by auction. See Stammern v. O'Donohoe, 
 28 Chy. 207 ; 8 A. R. 161 ; S. C. mb. nom. 
 O'Donohoe v. Stammers, 11 S. C. R. 368 ; Re 
 Murray and Kerr, 13 0. R. 414. 
 
 Compensation in case of mistake as to quan- 
 tity of land sold. See Cottingham v. Coltingham, 
 11 A. R. 624. 
 
 A master has no power to give leave to bid 
 to a party conducting a sale— Application must 
 bo made to the Court. Re Laycock — McOillivray 
 V. Johnson, 8 P. R. 548.— Blake. 
 
 Liberty to mortgagee and trustee to bid at 
 sale. See Richer v. Richer, 7 A. R. 282. 
 
 Power of factor to sell by auction for repay- 
 ment of advances without special authorization. 
 See Mitchell v. Syhes, 4 0. R. 501. 
 
 Contract not siened by the vendor, but sub- 
 sequently admitted by letters. See O'Donohoe 
 V. Stammers, 11 S. C. R. 358. 
 
 See Wilmot v. Stalker, 2 0. R. 78 ; Kee/er v 
 Roaf, 8 O. R. 69 ; 5ea V. McLean, 14 S. C. R. 632. 
 
 AUDIT. 
 
 Of county attorney's account. Sec In re Fen- 
 ton and the Hoard of A ndit of the County of York 
 31 C. V. 31 ; In re Stanton and the Board of 
 Audit the CowUy of Elgin, 3 O. R. 86. 
 
 AVERAGE. 
 
 .S'ee Ship. 
 
 AWARD. 
 
 See Arbitration and Award. 
 
 BAOGAOE. 
 
 See Carriers- Railways and Railway Com- 
 
 TANIES. 
 
 BAIL. 
 
 I. Liability of Hail, 96. 
 IL Procekdings auainst Bail, 97. 
 
 III. Surrender of Principal, 97. 
 
 IV. Special Bail. 
 
 1. Effect oj Pntling in, 98. 
 
 2. Coulf under R. S. 0. (1877), c. 50, 
 
 S.343, 99. 
 
 V. RiGHT.s OF Assignee of Bail Bond, 99. 
 
 VI. CiiARGiNQ in Execution- iSeePRisoNKB. 
 
 VII. Recognizance of Bail — See Recoo. 
 
 NIZANOB, 
 
 VIII. Attachment AGAINST AascoNDiNG Deb- 
 tor — iSee Abscondinb Debtor. 
 
 IX. In Criminal Mapters— iSee Criminal 
 Law. 
 
 Liability of Bail. 
 
 A Judge's order to hold to bail in the sum 
 of 9300, was obtained in an action of tort, in 
 which the plaintiff swore to a cause of action for 
 1500. The bail piece was in the usual form, 
 stating : "Bail for 8300 by order of," etc. The 
 recognizance of bail was in the words of the 
 statute, namely: "You," the bail " do jointly 
 and severally undertake that if" the defendant 
 in the original action "shall be condemned, then 
 he shall pay the costs and condemnation money, 
 or render himself to the custody of the sherifi^" 
 etc., "or you will do so for him." Rule 89 of 
 T. T. 1856, (Con. Rule 1085), provides that "the 
 bail shall only be liable for the sum sworn to by 
 the aiBdavrit of debt and costs of suit, not exceed- 
 ing in the whole the amount of their recog- 
 nizance." In the original action a verdict wu 
 obtained against the defendant for 9400, and 
 9125.27 costs. In an action on the recognizance 
 against the bail: — Held, Cameron, C.J., diss., 
 that the undertaking in the recognizance to pay 
 
 The sureties o 
 writ of no exeat 
 render their prii 
 application by m 
 and for rejiaym 
 sheriff as collate 
 ardson v. Richar 
 
97 
 
 BAIL. 
 
 98 
 
 ■'■:?: 
 
 the condemnation money, read in connection 
 witli Rule 89, (Con. Rule 1083) meant the 
 amount mentioned in the Judge's order; and 
 therefore the bail in this action were only liable 
 for the §300 the amount mentioned in tlio 
 Judge's order, and the costs of the original action 
 and of this action. The reasonablcneas of having 
 the recognizance express its meaning in simple 
 Inngunge, instead of adhering to a form of words 
 adapted to meet a diiTerent practice, suggested. 
 Baker v. Jackson, 9 O. R. 601.— C. P. 1>. 
 
 Held, that under Rule 89 o'. T. T. 1850, (Con. 
 Ivle 1085) the liability of bail is limited to the 
 amount of their recognizance; and the plain- 
 tiff having recovered in the orighial action the 
 wliole sum sworn to in the alliduvit of debt, his 
 recovery against the bail sliould not in any event 
 he more tiinn the former amount. Lahiq v. 
 Sliiigcrlaml, 17 O. R. 39'2.— Q. B. U. 
 
 II. Proceedings against Bail. 
 
 Where the plaintiff in an alimony suit obtains 
 a writ of arrest and the defendant gives bail, and 
 a breach of the bond is committed, the plaiutitf 
 is entitled to have the amount for which the 
 writ was marked paid into court, to be applied 
 from time to time in payment of the alimony 
 and costs : and, 8emble, that upon such payment 
 the sureties are entitled to be dischaiged from 
 their bond. Needhum v. Nieilham, '29 C'hy. 
 117. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the County 
 Judge, that proceedings to tix liail cannot lie 
 maintained on a writ of ca. sa. wliich is made re- 
 turuablu ininiidiately after the execution there- 
 of. For such puipdse it is necessary that the 
 writ sliould be returnable on a day certain, 
 (Hagarty, C. J. 0., dissenting.) Prodor v. 
 MuckurJe, 11 A. K. 480. 
 
 In an action on a bail bond the defenro was 
 that it had been altered after execution, ami tiiat 
 it was not. in the form rei|uircd by the statute : — 
 Hehl, allirniing the judgment of the .Sui)reme 
 Court of Nova Scotia that the defendant iiav- 
 ing icfusul to call tlic attesting witness to tiie 
 liiiiiil, nlio was their coiuisel in tiie ease, the de- 
 fence an to tlie alteration, alleged to be in tiio 
 attestation chiusc, could not succeed. Wood- 
 worth V. Lickic, 14 S. C. R. 734. 
 
 Held, that tlic objection as to be the form of 
 the bond lieing merely technical and unmeri- 
 toiious, could not be talicn for the first time be- 
 fore this court. Jb. 
 
 III. SUUUENDER OF PkINCIPAL. 
 
 The sureties on a statutory bail bond under a 
 writ of no exeat provincifl. have no power to sur- 
 render their principal as at common law. An 
 apphcation by sureties for discharge from a bond 
 and for repayment of the money paid to tlie 
 Bheriff as collateral security was refused. liich- 
 ardnonv. liiclumhon.SW R. 274.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where a defendant is arrested by a sheriff 
 under a ca re, and after verdict is surrendered 
 byhiahail to the same sheriff upon an action 
 being commenced against them, the sheritl' is not 
 entitled to a copy of the bail-piece before receiv- 
 
 7 
 
 ing the prisoner into custody ; and where suoh 
 refusal was given, the sheriii was compelled to 
 pay the costs of an application to stay proceed- 
 ings, and an order was nuvde to extend the timo 
 for surrender. OfkrHoH v. Corbett, 8 P. R. 617. 
 — Osier. 
 
 The defendants were special bail for one S. 
 upon an recognizance in an action by the plain- 
 tiffs against 8. The proceedings in the original 
 action were begun and carried on in the county 
 of Middlesex, and tlic condition of the recogniz 
 anco was that S. would, if condemned, satisfy, 
 etc., or render himself to the custody of tho 
 sheriff of Middlesex ; or tho cognizors, tho pro- 
 sent defendants, would do so for him. R. S. O., 
 (1877), c. 50, 8. 40 (Con. Rule 1062) provides 
 for the render of the defendant to tho sncriflF of 
 the county in which tho action against such de- 
 fendant has been brought; and section 42 of tho 
 same Act (Con. Rule 1064) provides that special 
 bail may surrender their principal to the sheriff of 
 the county in which the principal is resident or 
 found, and that upon proof of due notice to tho 
 plaintiff of the surrender, and production of the 
 sheriff's certificate thereof, a Judge sliall order 
 an exoneretur to be entered on the bail-piece, 
 and thereupon the bail shall be discharged. 
 Tho defendants on the 7th February, 1888, 
 rendered S. to the sheriff of Koifolk, .S. being 
 found in that county, and obtained from tho 
 ' sheriff a certificate of such render but obtained 
 no order for the entry of an exoneretur. Tho 
 writ of summons in this action upon the recog- 
 nizance was served on the defendants on tho 
 loth L f April, 1S8S, ami on the 10th April, 1888, 
 the defendants served on the jilaintifl's a notice 
 of the render of S. to the fiiierill' of Norfolk ; — 
 Hehl, that the bail were not entitled to bo dis- 
 cliaiged, and that the jilaintifTs were entitled to 
 bring this action upon the recognizance, because 
 no order for an exoneretur had been obtained, 
 notwithstanding the notice of rtnder ; but that, 
 tlie substantial duty of rendering the principal 
 having been ]iJifoniied, tho defendants should 
 be relieved ujiou terms. Tho court ordered 
 that ujion the defendants filing an order for an 
 exoneictur within two weeks and paying tho 
 costs of the action within ten days after taxation, 
 the judgment for the plaintifl's should be set 
 aside and all fortlier proceedings stayed ; other- 
 wise judgment to be entered for the plaintifl's 
 with costs. Ldiiiti V. Stinijerland, 17 0. U. 392. 
 — Ferguson. — Q. 15. D. 
 
 ' IV. .SvEciAL Bail. 
 1. Effi'vt oj PuUiiKj in. 
 
 The plaintiffs issued a writ of capias, irregular 
 and contratlictory in its provisions. It purjjorted 
 to be issued in a pending action in Miiich judg- 
 ment had been recov<ired,andclaimed the amount 
 of the judgment and further costs. It required 
 the defendant to put in special bail, which by its 
 recognizance meant an undertaking by sureties 
 to pay the condtmnation money in which tho 
 defendant " shall be condemned in this afetion." 
 The claim iiulorsed upo!i the writ and the re- 
 quirement as to special bail were alone applicablo 
 to a pending action on the judgment. The bail 
 to the sheriff undertook that special bail wouhl 
 be put in, and special bail was put in : — Held, 
 that the defendant and his sureties had, by put- 
 
 e 
 n 
 
 
 S 
 
99 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 100 
 
 ting in special bail, treated the writ us one iHSued! See Olwer v. Ntwhou»t, 32 C. P. 90 ; 8 A. R. 
 
 in an aotion on the judgment, and liiid placed the 122 ; Troop v. Hart,! S. C. R. 512 ; Dovimm 
 
 defendant in the same position as if ho had ap- 
 
 pcare(l in such action, and a statement of claim 
 
 delivered after such an ap|)earance was therefore 
 
 regular :— Somlile, eection ',\\ of tlie C. L. P. Act, 
 
 <U. S. (). (1877) c. 50, 8. .«»,) lias not beou repealed 
 
 by Rule 5, O, .1. Act. Cochrane Mamifactimmj 
 
 Company v, Lanwn, II 1*. R. 102.— Rose.— Q. 
 
 B. U. 
 
 iimon 
 
 Hank V. IhirhUon, 12 A. R. 90; Jiraniert y, 
 McKii-m, 10 O. R. 170 ; Adam-t v. Wulnon Mann- 
 factnrimi Co., (Limited), 15 (). R. 218 ; 16 A. R. 
 2 : 16 S. C. R. 543. 
 
 2. CoHtH under R. S. 0. (1877 J c. 60, a. 343. 
 
 Defendant was arrested and held to bail for 
 a ilebt alleged by plaintitf to be $704, but the 
 plaintiff recovered oidy §489. As to ?80 which 
 the plaintiff failed to recover, it was Held, on the 
 facts stated in the report of the case, that he had 
 no reasonable ground for believing defendant to 
 bo liable and he abandoned it at the trial, but aa 
 to the other portion for which he failed he had 
 reasonable ground :— Held, also the defendant 
 was entitled to tax his costs of defence against 
 the plaintiff under R. S. O. (1877), c. 50 s. 343. 
 I'orritt v. Fra^er, 8 P. R. 430.— Osier. 
 
 V. Rights of Assignee of Bail Bond. 
 
 Where a party is entitled to an assignment of 
 a bond, and to realize it for his own benefit, his 
 rights are the same in regard to money deposited ; 
 ami where in an alimony suit the statutory bond 
 under a writ of ne exeat has been given, the 
 plaintiff is entitled to have the moneys deposited 
 as collateral security therefor, paid into court, 
 and applied in discharging arrears of alimony. — 
 Richardion v. Richardion, 8 P. R. 274. — Spragge. 
 
 BAILIFF. 
 
 Set Division ConRTS. 
 
 BAILMENT. 
 
 See Carriers— Railways and Railway Com- 
 panies—Ship, 
 
 Where possession is changed it need not be 
 given personally to the creditor, purchaser or 
 mortgagee ; it may equally be given to a trustee 
 or bailee for him, and the debtor may increase 
 the claim of such bailee or may charge the gooda 
 with further sums in favour of othier persona. 
 McM(Mter v. Garland, 31 C. P. 320.— C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff had been for sometime a guest of 
 the defendant, an inn keeper, and on leaving the 
 inn, after paying his bill, was allowed to leave 
 a box containing some papers and books alleged 
 to be of value to the plaintiff, in the room of the 
 inn used for storing baggage, etc., the plaintiff 
 intended to take it away the dav following, but 
 owing to illness he did not call for it for several 
 weeks afterwards, when it was discovered that 
 the box was lost. There was no other evidence of 
 any negligence in the matter :— Held, reversing 
 the judgment of the County Court, that the 
 plaintiff could not recover. Palin v. Re\d, 10 
 A. R. 63. 
 
 BALLOT. 
 
 See Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 I. Assignments for the Benefit of Crkdi- 
 tors. 
 
 1. Ament of Creditors, 101. 
 
 2. Ej-eciUion of, 102. 
 
 3. Comtruction of, 103. 
 
 4. Descriptimi of Property, 104, 
 
 6. Proviiionn for Carrying on BiMineu, 
 104. 
 
 6. Partnership and Separate Crtdilon, 
 
 105. 
 
 7. Creditors holding Security, 106. 
 
 8. Effect of, on Leases, 107. 
 
 9. Operation of ExecutioiM, 107. 
 
 10. Notice of Claims, 108. 
 
 11. Proof of Claims, 108. 
 
 12. Priority of Claims, 110. 
 
 13. ProetediwjH hy Individual Creditors, 
 
 110. 
 
 14. Assignee, 111, 
 
 15. Dividend, 112. 
 
 16. Oilier Cases, 113. 
 
 17. Prejerential and Fraudulent Assign- 
 
 ments—See Fraudulent Conviy- 
 
 ANCES. 
 
 II. Deed of Composition and Discuahoi, 
 113. 
 
 III, Imperial Bankruptcy Acts, 115. 
 
 IV. Insolvent Acts 1864-69-75-79. 
 
 1. Jurisdiction of Insolvent Court, 116. 
 
 2. Who may Come Under, 116. 
 
 3. Assigtiee, 
 
 (a) Surety of, 117. 
 
 (b) What Property Vests in, 118. 
 
 (c) Rights, Duties and Liabilities, Hi, 
 
 4. Joint and Separate Creditors, 120. 
 
 5. Creditors Holding Security, '20. 
 
 6. Proceedings by Individual Creditors, 
 
 121. 
 
 Set-off, 122. 
 
 Merest, 122. 
 
 Fraud and Fraudulent Prtferenca. 
 
 (a) Transactions Protected, 123. 
 
 (b) IVansacliona Avoided, 125. 
 Fraudulent Concealment of As»^ 128. 
 
 11. Fraud in Obtaining Goods on Gredit, 
 127. 
 
 7. 
 8. 
 9. 
 
 10, 
 
 I, ASSKINMEN' 
 
101 
 
 BANKBUPTCnr AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 102 
 
 12. Diecharyf. 
 
 (a) Groinith /or He/usihy Diacharye, 
 
 120. 
 
 (b) Effect oj Ducharya, 130. 
 
 13. StpeulofAct, 131. 
 
 V. Mlt^CELLANKOUS CaSES, 131. 
 
 VI. I'owKJts OK Dominion Parliament and 
 Local Leoislatures— See Constitu- 
 tional Law. 
 
 VII. Winding up Aci^—See CoMrANY. 
 
 VIII. When Insolvent Okdered to give 
 Secukitv kok C08T.S— iSVe Costs. 
 
 IX. Stopvaoe in Transitu— iSee Sale of 
 Goods. 
 
 X. Taking Malicious Proceedings in 
 Bankrittcy — See Maliciois Ar- 
 rest, Prosecution, and other Pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 I, Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors. 
 
 1. Ai'xint 0/ Crtililom. 
 
 A trailer, ylio wns in embarrassed circum- 
 stances, nuitk' an nssigiiment for the bcnctit of 
 creditdrs of all liis estate, real and iiersonal, to 
 the jilaintiff, who lield a mortgage on a part of 
 the realty as security against his indorsement for 
 the assignor of notes then current. No creditor 
 joined in the conveyance, nor was the consent to 
 or knowledge of it by any creditor shewn : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the C-ouiity 
 Court, that the property was liable to seizure un- 
 der execution, for under the mortgage the trustee 
 was not ft creditor ; but — Semble, (per Patterson, 
 J, A.), that had the trustee been beneficially 
 interested in the proceeds of the property, his 
 assent would have rendered the deed irrevo- 
 cable. Cooper V. Dixon, 10 A. K. 50. 
 
 "The meaning of P.. S. O. (1887), c. 124, s. 3, 
 gub-8. 2, is that an ussignm'^rt executed without 
 the consent of the requisite lumber of creditors 
 shall have the same en'ect as if it had been exe- 
 cuted with such consent until and unless it be 
 superseded by an assignment oxecuted with such 
 consent ; and the words which occur through 
 the Act, " an ossignmont for th"? general benefit 
 of creditors under this Act," are to be governed 
 by this construction : — Held, therefore, that a 
 sherifi who had seized goods of insolvent debtors 
 under execution was not justified in refusing to 
 give them up to the debtors' assignet, who was 
 not a sheriff, and the assignment to whom had 
 not been assented to by the number Oi: creditors 
 required by R. S. O. (1887), c. 124, s. 3 ; but 
 Held, also, that as the goods were co\ered by a 
 chattel mortgage, the sherifif could set up the 
 rights of the mortgagee in answer to i n action 
 by the assignee to restrain the sale of '.ho goods 
 under the execution. Theassign^iO h^.tring Failed 
 in the action, because the mortgagee's rights 
 disentitled him to succeed, and the sheriff hav- 
 ing contested the assignee's rights on the other 
 gronnd, which was declared to be untenable, no 
 corts were given to either party. Anderson v. 
 Olm, 16 0. R, 592-Street. 
 
 It is sufficient under R. S. 0., (1887), c. 124, ■. 
 3| rob-8. 6, if the consent of creditors to an as- 
 ngnment is given subsequently to the assignment 
 
 being made, provided that it is given before any 
 assignment is made to the sheriff of the county. 
 nail V. Forti/e, 17 0. R. 435— MacMnhon. 
 
 Seo Nolan v. Donnelly, 4 O. R. 440, infra. 
 
 2. E.iccudon of. 
 
 The assignment in this case was executed by 
 one partner, at the request of his co-partner, iu 
 the partnership name, nnd was made at the 
 request of several creditors : — Held, that the 
 assignment was preperly executed, and that there 
 was suflicient assent of the creditors. Nolan v. 
 Donndbj, 4 0. 15. 440.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The assignment was executed by one of the 
 partners for a co-partner under verbal instruc- 
 tions from the co-portncr before leaving for Eng- 
 land to sign for him, if an at^siunment became 
 necessary ; nnd also under u cablegram received 
 from him while in England, to the same intent : — 
 Held, that tliough authority to execute a deed 
 must be by deed, this would not affect goods of 
 which the assignee took actual possession, name- 
 ly, the stock-in-trudc in the assicnee's store ; 
 nor goods warehoused for nnd held by a bank, 
 where the bunk was notified and agreed to hold 
 the surplus, after paying the bank's claim, for 
 the ai-signee, which was equivalent to taking 
 possession, nnd vvhich were the only goods in 
 question here. Nilkx v. Malthij, 5 O. li. 263. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Held, (Bnrton, J. A., dissenting), that the 
 directors of an incorporated trading company 
 had power to authorize the execution of an as- 
 signment for the benefit of creditors of the com- 
 pany, and that the defendants, execution credi- 
 tors, as strangers to the company could not 
 object that the authority of the shareholders 
 was not given, or tliat they had not ratified the 
 deed : I)only i'. Holmwood, 4 A. R. 555, distin- 
 guished. Per Burton, J. A., that the directors 
 cf)uld not do so without the sanction of the 
 shareholders. Wliliny v. Horty, 13 A. R. 7. 
 Affirmed by Supreme Court. Snb iMn. llorty v. 
 Whitivy, 14 S. C. R. 575. 
 
 To an action by L. against A. the defence was 
 release by deed. On the trial it was proved that 
 A. had executed an assignment for the benefit 
 of creditors and received authority by telegram 
 to sign the same for L. The deed was dated 8th 
 October, 1881, and afterwards, with knowledge 
 of it, L. continued to send goods to A., and on 
 5th November, 1881, he wrote to A. as follows : 
 "I have done as you desired by telegraphing 
 you to sign deed for me, and I feel confident 
 that you will see that I am protected and not 
 lose one cent by you. After you get matters 
 adjusted I would like you to send me a cheque 
 for $800." * * . In April, 1885, A. wrote a 
 letter to L., in which he said; "In one year 
 more I will try again for myself and hope to pay 
 you in full." In November, 1886, the account 
 sued upon was stated : — Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the Court below, Taschereau and 
 Patterson, JJ. , dissenting, that the execution of 
 the deed on his behalf being made without suffi- 
 cient authority L. was not bound by the release 
 contained therein and never having subsequently 
 assented to the deed, or recognized or acted 
 under it, he was not estopped from denying that 
 he had executed it : — Held, per Taschereau and 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 
 M 
 
103 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENOT. 
 
 KM 
 
 106 
 
 I'atti^rHon, .1.1., tliiit Uioiixh A. Iiiul no Hiilliuicnt 
 authority to Hij^'ii tliu (liu.d y<'t tliiTii wiin uii a^- 
 rcL'iiicnt t'* (!oiii|ii>iiiiil which WHS hitidiri;; on L. 
 anil tho iiiiilii-stjiiicliiij,' that N. wivm to ho pftiil in 
 full woulil he a friiuil niion tii«i othrr lii^ilitorH of 
 A., wlio iMiiM only nieivi tht.' diviiUiiili* riMlincil 
 by tho (Mtatt!. Lnniniff v. Aii(t<rxiiii, 17 S. (,'. 
 
 K. :u!i. 
 
 See 
 213, 1) 
 
 J til III: 
 11.'). 
 
 o/ ('uiiimem- V, Jeiikinn, 1(1 (). U. 
 
 H. Cunxlt'iirt'iun of. 
 
 full iliil not invfiliiliktu tiiu iloutl. O' lirien v. 
 I.'litihon, 10 A. It. ()0:J. 
 
 I Ifclil, ovciTulin),' KuhrrtHori i\ 'riiiiiiiiui (H 0, 
 K. '20), that .'iHHifjnniontii lor tint honclil of urcdi- 
 torH wui'u until 4S Vii:t. o. 'Jli (l)iit.) within the 
 Aut ruhttin;; to (/'Imttcl Mort;{.'i){('H and IhllHof 
 Sjilf, i;. S. «). (I,S77), <•. 111). Wkilimj V. l[,„',y, 
 l.'t A. U. 7. Ni'o alMo S. (J., Siili num. Uoivys 
 
 Whiiiini, 14 s. (;. K. 5ir.. 
 
 An aHrti^nniont for tho liunulit of rrviliton 
 tlion^ji conlinoil in tcriiiH to tho aHsignor'ii |i«r- 
 Honiii oHtiiti!, profcxMoil to 111! ilrawii under 48 
 Vi<;t. c. '.'((, (Out.): -Ilolil, it wan not within 
 thu Aut ; and thiM action hron>,'ht by thu lu- 
 Higuuu to Hut aMidu a chattel niort^'agu, nnigt lie 
 diMUiiHaud. lilu'iu v. I'liiku; 1« O. K. 109.— 
 
 Ko8U. 
 
 It in clear it was intendeil unilur tho Act 
 to bring all the estatu of tint asHignor into tho 
 hanilM of the aHHignue for general diHtrihutioa. 
 11). 
 
 On tho 2<lth May, INHO, two chattel niortgiigcH 
 were executed hy thu plaintill' to one .1. ( i. ( )ne 
 mortgage was to Hecii re .IJ'JI.') and interest; the 
 other bring a secnrity for curtain jironiissory 
 notes of tlie mortgagor endorsed by tho mort- 
 gagee, whicJi had licen ili.sciiunte<l by the defen- 
 uant, wlio was tho holder thereof. On tlie'ilth 
 July, botli the mortgages, together witli tho 
 gootls and cliattels coniprisecl therein, wore 
 assigned to defendant by .1. <i. (»n the 'J-.'nd I i|,,|,i, that all reference to tho real esUte 
 July, i.revionsly, II. (!. and .). (J., who had been living b.'cn striiek out from the form used for 
 trading in partnership, assigned to (). k k., making the assignment, the omissicm was not a 
 
 upon trust for the benclit of creditors, amongst I jstake, defect, or imperfection " within sec- 
 
 other things all the grain, larm stock, crops ti„n 10, and capable of atnoiidniont under that 
 whether growing or cut, and otlier chattels and ' jjcctioii. ll>. 
 
 effoots of the saiil assignors, or either of them, I „ , r » n .« 
 
 wheresoever situate, and also all mortgages and J^uu/N'"'" v Mallliii, .I (). R. 'JC.l, p. 10,5; 
 
 " *' ' Afomrlioiiif V. ItoMii-A, II A. K. "ti, p. 106; 
 
 all other iiersonal estate wheresouvur situate of 
 the said assignors, or either of them, or in which 
 any of them had any right or interest: — Held, 
 that the terms of tlio deed of assignment to O. 
 and K. wcresiitlicicnt to iiichidu these mortgages 
 and the goods comprised in tlicni, and therefore, 
 as regarded thclirst-named mortgage, there being 
 no contrary intention, it passed ■.inder tho deed, 
 BO that the sul)sei|iient assignment of that mort- 
 gage to the del'eiKhuit was of no avail ; but as 
 regarded the ollurmortgage, the defendant being 
 tho beneficial owner thereof, as holder of tho 
 notes secured thereby, and the mortgagee having 
 no interest therein, thero could bo no intention 
 that it should pass under the deed, and therefore 
 it passed to the defendant under the assignment 
 to him :— Semble, tliat there was evidence to 
 shew that the plaintiff rccogni/.cd tho defen- 
 dant's title as assignee. SiUlon v. Armstroua, 
 32C. P. ll.-C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that the omission of some part of tho 
 assignor's estate from tho assignnicnt or tho post- 
 poning the making of the assignment until cer- 
 tain favoured creditors had obtained judgment 
 and execution, did not invalidate it. Ndlex v. 
 Mallhij, 5 0. 11. 2G3. -C. P. 1). 
 
 Accidental omission of claim from schedule of 
 debts. See McLean v. (Jaiiand, 13 S. C. K. 366. 
 
 An assignment in trust for creditors, amongst 
 other things authorized the trustees to sell for 
 cash or on credit, and if on credit, with or with- 
 out security for the balance of purchase money 
 remaining unpaid, and also to pay in full any 
 debts which constituted a lien on the assets 
 where deemed advisable in the interests of the 
 trust:— Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 court below (2 O. R. 526) that the introduction 
 into the trust deed of power to sell on credit, 
 which was 80 given in good faith, did not invali- 
 date the assignment :— Held, also that the dis- 
 cretion vested in the trustee to pay such liens in 
 
 liaduMrh v. Slali-i; H A. 
 l.'9fi. 
 
 K. 402 ; 10 S. (;. R. 
 
 4. Jhsrri/ilii))! of Properly, 
 
 See Xo/tiii v. Donmllii, 4 (). 11. 440, p. 193; 
 'Vhitiiiijw. llony, 13 A. It. 7, p. 194. 
 
 5. Proi'i4onj<Jor Carrying on HiMhifgii, 
 
 All assignnicnt in trust for criMlitors of a small 
 stock of goods valued at about $230, and some 
 land, mado to a person not a creditor, contained 
 a provision empowering the assignee, without 
 consulting the croditors, to carry on tho buai- 
 ness, and wind it up, no time being stated there- 
 for : to pay all salarii's, wages, etc., and all ad- 
 vances made in goods and money for conduoting 
 said business in the winding up thereof, to the 
 best advantage, which advances ho was author 
 ixod to make, and also to sell the said land aito 
 him should seem moot, and to retain a reasonable 
 compensation for tho execution of the said trusts: 
 — Hold, (Wilson, C. J., dissenting) affirming the 
 judgment of ifagarty, C. J., that the assignment 
 was void, as containing provisions hindering and 
 delaying orcditors, ana such as they could not 
 reasonably be required to agree to. Oallagha 
 V. Class, 32 ('. P. 641.— (^ P. D. 
 
 Where an assignment provides for the carry* 
 ing on of the business of the insolvent debtor 
 by tho assignee, but only as subsidiary to 
 the winding up of the same, this is not unres- 
 sonable, and docs not invalidate the assignment 
 Ontario Bank v. Lament, 6 O. li. 147.— Boyi 
 
 By a deed of assignment for the benefit of 
 creditors tho trust was declared to be " to sell 
 and dispose of such portions of the said estate at 
 shall be readily sii 'cable either for cash or credit, 
 or under tho power hereinafter contained to cany 
 on the said business. * * and to stand poi- 
 
 E. &J. 
 divided tin 
 wed by M. 
 usignnicnt 
 for the bone 
 of the assi^ 
 Individi al c 
 action by M 
 to set asid( 
 that after tl 
 B.'s share 
 could not be 
 nership crc 
 first paid, a 
 •Ity was ba( 
 debtor may 
 OTer anothei 
 that the 
 Martin v. 
 
 On the dii 
 ♦nd W., the 
 
105 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 106 
 
 ■CRacd of tlio «fti(l innnoyn, nto., nnd all profits 
 anil iiicriNiso nrlMiiiK tlinrrfroiri, in triiHt to imy," 
 etc., nii'l a Hul)Noi|iutiit imrtof tlio <|i'imI pi-oviilvcl 
 that till! iiHiiigm^o " mIiiiII liavu powur to employ 
 tho Haiil party of tlio lirHt p.iit (tlio iiiHolvunt) or 
 any otlx'r ptTHon in wiliiliiiK up tliu alfairH of tliu 
 gaiil ti'iiHt I'Ntati!, ill I'ulU'cliii^ iiiul grttiii^ in liiH 
 cstatu anil t'tluolH lu'ioliy aoMih'iu'il, ami in carry- 
 ing on liix laiil trailo :" -llrlil, alliriiiiii^ tliu 
 jiiilgnii'Mt of llio County Court, (lla^jarty, C. J. 
 ()., iliHii'iitinii;), that tho ]irovlHionH aliovu Rct 
 forth iliil nut invaliilato tliu iluod. Jrnniiiijn v. 
 
 jVui", 10 A. n. ma. 
 
 A iloud of aHMi)^iiiiifiit for llio liciu'lit of i-roili- 
 tors gavo power "until tlin saiil truHtuo Bliall 
 deem it adviHaliU' to diMpoxcMif tlio Haid luiHiiicHH, 
 to carry on tlic Haiiic, (!in])loyiiig any poraon or 
 pcntons aH liiH agoiit or aficntM lor Hut:h piirpimu 
 if ho doi'iiiud it licHt, paying liiiii or tluMii hucIi 
 reasonalili' allowanro tlicri'for an may bo agn^od 
 upon, and to .Hup|i|y the Kaid agent or agenta with 
 8U('h goods or incri'handifiu aH may liu ruijiiiHito 
 for Huoh purpose," and the' tniHtuu was not to 
 become lialile for the ihdit.i or losnea of the said 
 busiiieHH ill any way except for tho distrihution 
 of the moneys coino to his hands under thu deed. 
 There was no eviduiicu of any intentional dis- 
 honesty oil the part of the assignor : — Held, ro- 
 versing tlie judgineiit of the ('oiinty Court, that 
 this provision did not invalidate the deed under 
 R. S. <). (IH77) o. 118. (Ilagarly, C.J.O., dis- 
 senting.) Alexamlir v. H'uriU, 10 A. U. 135. 
 
 0. Partnership and Separate Creditors. 
 
 Under an assignment by a firm in trust for 
 creditors, tho assignee was directed to distribute 
 the proceeds of tho pro|)erty iissiifiied " ratably 
 and proportionably among all tno creditors of 
 tho assignors in paj'ment and satisfaction as far 
 a8 jwssiole of their just debts, having duo regard 
 to the rights of partnership and private creditors, 
 and distributing the same as between them ac- 
 cording to law :" — Held, that the assignment was 
 valid, that it provided for tho payment, both of 
 the partnership and separate creditors, out of 
 their respective estates appointed for that pur- 
 pose according to luw, tho meaninc of which is 
 well known. N'elle.i v. Maltby, 5 O. R. 203. — 
 0. P. D. 
 
 E. & J. b'^Iiig in partnership, dissolved and 
 divided t'lieir assets. Subseipicntly E. being 
 sued b} M., an individual creditor, made an 
 aaaignnient of all his estate, real nnd personal, 
 for the benefit of his creditoi's, and by the terms 
 of the assignment, placed his partnership and 
 individial creditors on the same footing. In an 
 action by M. (after he had obtained judgment) 
 to set aside the a.ssignmcnt. It was: — Held, 
 that after tho dissolution and division of assets, 
 E.'s share became his separate property, and 
 could not bo assigned for the benefit of his part- 
 nership cred'lDrs until his individual debts wore 
 first paid, and that the assignment as to person- 
 alty was bad and must be set aside, but that a 
 debtor may give a preference to one creditor 
 over another under the Statute of Elizabeth, and 
 that the assignment as to realty was good. 
 Martin v. Evaua, 6 0. R. 238.— Boyd. 
 
 On the dissolution of a partnership between L, 
 «nd W., the latter transferred all his interest in 
 
 tho nartnpr»liip to Ti., who snlisetpientl^ beoamr 
 insolvent and assigned all his estate, nudndinu 
 that part of it which had formerly Ikmih asseta of 
 the partnerKhi|i, to the ilefi^ndant, in trust to pay 
 " tho claims of his creditors ratably and propor- 
 tionately, and without preference or priority, re- 
 cognizing hucIi liens, claims, charges, and priori- 
 ties as the law directs:" — Hold, ntversiiig the 
 judgment of I'roudfoot, .)., (5 (). R. 101), that 
 under tho terms of the deeil them was no pri- 
 ority between tho separato creditors of K. and 
 tho joint creditors of li, and VV,, all being <tc- 
 ditors of L , and that both classes of ereititorH 
 were entitled to bo paid pari passu. AfooriJiome 
 V. Hostwirk, 11 A. R. "((. 
 
 lluUi/, 46 Q. 11. 240 p. 1 14 ; 
 
 1(11) p. 12(); Milln V. Kerr, 
 
 V. Camuliim Hank of Com- 
 
 ; Itauk qf Toronto v. Hall, 
 
 See McKitiick v. 
 Ik Walk,,; A. I!, 
 7 A. R. 7()!) ; A', rr 
 vurre, 4 (). It. 0.'>2 
 O. R. O.")."!. 
 
 7. Credi/ori huUing Secnrily. 
 
 If a person borrow money from an innocent 
 lender, and employs it in preferring a creditor, 
 the lender is not debarred from suing for its re- 
 payineiit ; and if lie holds security, such as the 
 mortgage in this case, hu can charge the money 
 BO loaned oil such security. Court v. Holland, 4 
 O. K. 088.-lV(.udfoot. 
 
 Tho plaintilT, the holder of a chattel mortgage 
 with a covenant for payment, was not scheduled 
 in proceedings in insolvency under the Act of 
 1875, but he was aware of the proceedings, and 
 tho insolvent obtained a final discharge : — Held, 
 that the debt undiT tho chattel mortgage was not 
 extinguished. A subseipient common law assign- 
 incnt for tho benefit of creditors was made by the 
 debtor of all bis jiroporty to tho defendant in 
 trust to pay expenses, etc., and "to apply the 
 balance in or towards ])aymont of tho debts of 
 tho assignor in proportion to their respective 
 amounts without preference or priority." — Held, 
 that tho plaintiir was entitled to sue for the 
 whole debt, and therefore to share in the estate 
 proportionately under tho deed for the whole, 
 and that he was not bound to value his securiW 
 and rank for tho balance only. Utaly v. Samuel, 
 29 Chy. 105. 
 
 Tlio plaintilTs supplied B. with goods on the 
 guarantee of M. M, made an af>signment for the 
 bcneiit of creditors under 48 Vict. c. 26 (Ont.) 
 B. assigned in like manner a few days after. The 
 plaiutimi proved their claim for the full amonnt 
 on M.'s estate, and stated that they held as le- 
 curity their claim against B.'s estate, but did not 
 value it. B. ciTected u composition with her 
 creditors, and crave composition notes therefor. 
 Tho defendant M. 'a assignee refused to pay a 
 dividend to plaintiffs until they had valued their 
 security on B.'s estate. Upon a special case 
 being stated for the opinion ot the court, it waa : 
 —Held, that by B. 'a assignment his estate WM 
 placed in custodia logis, protected from judg- 
 ments and executions, and made available for 
 the creditors who were thus potentially aeised. 
 of their proper proportion of the asaeta. The 
 original personal claim was thus transmuted into 
 a claim m rem, and so could fairly be regarded 
 as in the nature of a security, which the plain- 
 tiffs were bound to value under s. 18, aub-a. 4 (6.) 
 Wyld v. Clarkson, 12 0. R. 689. -Boyd. 
 
 e 
 
 X! 
 
 SB 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
107 
 
 BAUKRUPTOY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 lOS 
 
 A deceased person, of whom the plaintifF was 
 executor, gave the defendants a guaranty in 
 respect of goods soUl and to be sold to another, 
 in the following tek lus :— " I hereby undertake to 
 guarantee you against all losa in respect of such 
 goods sold or to be sold, provided 1 shall not be 
 «alled on in any event to pay a, greater sum than 
 $2,500." The principal debtor being indebted 
 to the defendants in 5^5,500, made an assignment 
 under R. S. 0. (I8S7) c. 124, and the defendants 
 filed a claim with the assignee but did not in the 
 affidavit proving the claim state vhetlier they 
 held any security or not. At a later date the ])lain- 
 tiff paid the defendants the $2,5(iO and (ilcd a 
 claim with the assignee. The dividends from the 
 estate were insufficient to pay the bnliincc of the 
 defendants' claim -.—Held, that the guaranty 
 was not a security which the defendants were 
 required to value under the Act, and that the 
 omission from their claim of a piece of informa- 
 tion which could not affect it did not reriicr it 
 invalid :— Held, also, that this was a guaranty, 
 not of part, but of the whole of the debt, limited 
 in amount to $2,5)10, that is a guaranty of the 
 ultimate balance after all other sources were 
 exhauEted ; and the plaintiff was not entitled to 
 rank upon the estate in respect of the ?2,500, 
 nor to recover any part of any dividend which 
 the defendants had received. Hobson r. Bass, 
 L. K. (! Ch. 792, distinguished ; and Kllis v. 
 Emanuel, 1 Ex. D. 157, followed. J\farHn v. 
 llcMvlkn, 11) 0. E. 230.— Street. Reversed, 
 
 S. Effect of on Leaxes, 
 
 See GraJiam v. Lov<i, 10 0. R. 248 ; Baler v. 
 Atkinson, 11 0. R. 735; 14 A. R. 409; Linton 
 V. Imperial Hotel Co., 16 A. E. 337 ; Fiichex v. 
 Hamilton Tnhvve Co., 10 1'. R. 409 : Eacrett v. 
 Kml, 15 0. R. 9, p. 113. 
 
 9. Operation of Exeattions. 
 
 A writ of fi. fa. against the lands of one H. 
 bad been in the sheriff's hands since 1880, In 
 1887 the sheriff sold under it and received the 
 purchase money. Afterwards, and before pay- 
 ment over by the sheriff to the execution credi- 
 tors, H. assigned for the benefit of his creditors 
 under R. S. 0. 1887, c. 124. The assignee then 
 claimed the money in the sheriff 's hands : — Held, 
 affirming the decision of Robertson, J,, that the 
 assignee was not entitled to the money. Per 
 Boyd, C, R. S. 0. (1887), c. 124, s. 9, applies to 
 executions to which the Creditors' Relief Act 
 applies, and where distribution has to be made 
 under that Act, and did not apply to the writ 
 in this case ; and the writ in this case was exe- 
 cuted by the sale of the lands and receipt of the 
 money, which then became the property of the 
 execution creditors :—Semble, that if R. S. 0., 
 (1887), c. 124, s. 9, is to receive such a construc- 
 tion as would pass the money in a case such as 
 this to the assignee, thus giving him a higher 
 right than the execution debtor had, then the 
 enactment is ultra vires as a bankruptcy pro- 
 Tision. Per Ferguson, J., the authorities clearly 
 shew that after receipt of the money by the 
 sheriff, the writ was executed ; and semble, that 
 "completely executed by payment" in R. ,S. O., 
 (1887), c. 124, s. 9, means voluntary or involun- 
 tary payment to the sheriff. Sinclair v. Mc- 
 
 Dougall, 29 Q. B. 388, specially referred to. 
 ClarksoH V, Sei-ers, 17 O. R. 592.— Chy. D. 
 
 Held, (Burton, J. A., dissenting,) affirming 
 the judgment of Armour, C. J., that under R. 
 S. 0., (1887) 0. 124, s. 9, the costs for which the 
 execution creditor has a lien are the costs not of 
 the execution only but all the usual costs which 
 could be recovered from the debtor under an 
 execution. Jiyan v. Clarknon, 16 A. R. 311, 
 affirmed by Supreme Court, 17 S. C. R. 251. 
 Gwynntand Patterson, JJ., dissenting. 
 
 The precedence given to an assignment for the 
 general benefit of creditors by R. S. O. (1887) 
 c. 124, s. 9, over " all judgments and all execu- 
 tions not completely executed by payment" does 
 not extend to a judgment for alimony registered 
 under R. S. 0. (1887) c. 44, s. 30, against the 
 Liiids of a defendant prior to the registration of 
 an assignment by him ; and a plaintiff' in such a 
 judgment is not obliged to rank with the other 
 creditors of the defendant. Ahrahamv. Al^ra- 
 ham, 19 0. R.256.— MacMahon. 
 
 See Anderson v." Glasn, 16 O. R. 592, p. 101; 
 Ctarkson v. Attorviy-O'eiieralo/Canadc 16 A. R. 
 202, p. 110. 
 
 10. Notice of Claims, 
 
 H. A. B., being unable to pay his creditors in 
 full, made an assignment to K. F. B. for their 
 benefit. E. F. B. advertised in the Ontario 
 Gazet+e and alocal paper, nnderR. S. 0. (1877)c. 
 107, as amended by 46 Vict. c. 9, (Ont.) for all 
 creditors to send in their claims and by his clerk 
 C. E. B. sent notices to each creditor from a list 
 furnished by the assignor to said C. E. B., which 
 list he said must have contained the nanit-s of 
 the plaintiffs and C. & Co., who had assigned a 
 claim they had to the plaintiffs. No claim was 
 sent in under the notice by either the plaintiffs 
 or C. & Co., and the defendant distributed the 
 estate without regard to the plaintiffs or C. k 
 Co. At the trial it appeared that E. F. B. had 
 H. A. B. 's books, in which there was a credit to 
 the plaintiffs and C. & Co. ; that H. A. B. told 
 him before he divided the estate that C. & Co. 
 had sued him, and on the day of the division he 
 received a letter from plaintiffs' solicitor notify- 
 ing him. No proof was given of the posting ef 
 the individual notices to either plaintiffs or C. 
 k Co. : — Held, that the defendant had notice 
 of the plaintiffs' claim, and that he was liable to 
 the plaintiffs for their and C. & Co. 's proper divi- 
 dend on the estate. A trustee is not exonerated 
 by the Act if he had actual notice of the claim 
 before distribution, even though he may have 
 sent the notice prescribed, and received no re- 
 sponse to it. Carling Brewing and Malting Co, 
 V. Black; 6 0. R. 441.— Ferguson. 
 
 11. Proof of Claims. 
 
 F. agreed with the Bank of Montreal for a 
 line of credit to be secured by the discount of 
 certain bills and notes which he had himself dis- 
 counted, and which he indorsed and delivered to 
 the bank. He also arranged with the Merchants' 
 Bank to discount his own notes to be secured by 
 the deposit of his customers notes as collateral. 
 F. then failed, being largely indebted to both 
 banks, and made an assignment for the general 
 
 109 
 
 benefit of his 
 
 on his estate 
 
 tended that i 
 
 on the amoui 
 
 on the collate 
 
 assignment. 
 
 entitled to sh 
 
 the banks aiu 
 
 lowing Rhod( 
 
 creditor is en 
 
 of his debt, 
 
 whole withou 
 
 curities he mi 
 
 that he must 
 
 20s. on the £. 
 
 time the claiii 
 
 basis of the d 
 
 be fixed by tl 
 
 moneys receiv 
 
 to be credited 
 
 such sources i 
 
 unless they, 
 
 amount receiv 
 
 theS. That 
 
 the same pos 
 
 hands. That 
 
 line of credit I 
 
 real, and as lo 
 
 the bank couh 
 
 tract as the ori 
 
 notes discount 
 
 Eastman v. // 
 
 Boyd. 
 
 W. made a 
 benefit of his i 
 1884, H. filed 
 ing (1) upon tv 
 open account 
 (3) upon certai 
 for the accoinn 
 delivered by 1 
 security for W, 
 the claim tiic i 
 who had there 
 the T. notes \v 
 had thereupon 
 against W.'s 
 thereon. The n 
 payment of eiit 
 from \V. to H . 
 ment to trustee 
 ter brought thi 
 standing all tin 
 still entitled to 
 from the W. es 
 indebtedness, ; 
 filed :-Held, t 
 were not entitl 
 being separate 
 the other iiukl 
 to rank for the 
 payment in full 
 of Eastman c. [ 
 provided that t 
 than 100 cents 
 prevent T. also 
 had paid as ac 
 Spiem, 10 0. R, 
 
 When a mort 
 to a simple co: 
 simple contract 
 the creditor d( 
 
109 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 benefit of his cretlitors. In proving their clnims 
 on his estate before the assicnee, the banks con- 
 tended that they were only bound to give credit 
 on the amount of their claims for sums received 
 on the collateral securities up to the date of the 
 assignment. In an action by another creditor, 
 entitled to share under the assignment, against 
 the banks and the assignee. It was :— Held, fol- 
 lowing Rhodes v. Moxhay, 10 W. It. 103, that a 
 creditor is entitled to prove for the whole amount 
 of his debt, and to take a dividend upon the 
 wliole without prejudice to his rights against se- 
 curities he may hold, subject to tlie (jualification 
 that lie must not ultimately receive more than 
 20s. on the £. The state of the accounts, at the 
 time the claim is put in, is that which forms the 
 basis of the dividend sheet, and the amount is to 
 be fixed by the assignee, as at that date. Any 
 moneys received prior to that from collaterals arc 
 to be credited ; those received afterwards from 
 such sources need not to be taken into account, 
 unless they, with the dividend, bring up the 
 amount received by tlie creditor to 1(X> cts. on 
 the $. That substantially lK>th banks were in 
 the same position as to the securities in their 
 hands. That tliere was a distinct contract for a 
 line of credit to the debtor by the Bank of Mont- 
 real, and as long as that line was not exceeded, 
 the bank couhl prove on the footing of that con- 
 tract as the original debt, and hold the customer's 
 notes discounted in pursuance of it as securities. 
 Kaslmanv. Bank of Moutrtul, 10 O. K. 7'J. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 \V. made .m assignment to trustees for the 
 benefit of his creditors prior to 1884. In July, 
 1S84, H. filed a claim against the estate, claim- 
 ing (I) upon two mortgages on land : (2) upon an 
 open account and certain notes made by \V. ; 
 (3) upon certain notes made by T. in favour and 
 for the acconnnodation of W., and indorsed and 
 delivered by W. to H. as a general collateral 
 security for W. 's indebtedness to H. After filing 
 the claim the mortgage debts were paid to H., 
 who had thereupon assigned the mortgages, and 
 the T. notes were also paid by T. to H., and T. 
 had thereupon filed a claim in respect to them 
 against W.'s estate, and received a divi<lenil 
 thereon. The mortgages had been given to secure 
 payment of entirely separate and isolated debts 
 from W. to H . H. afterwards made an assign- 
 ment to trustees for his creditors, and these lat- 
 ter brought this action, claiming that notwith- 
 standing all tlie above circumstances, they were 
 still entitled to rank on and receive a dividend 
 from the W. estate on the whole of the above 
 indebtedness, and on H.'s claim as originally 
 filed :— Held, that as to the mortgage debts they 
 we'e not entitled to receive a dividend, these 
 being separate and distinct debts, but that as to 
 the other indebtedness, they were still entitled 
 to rank for the full amount, notwithstanding the 
 payment in full of the T. notes, on the authority 
 of Eastman t: Bank of Montreal, 10 O. R. 79, 
 provided that they did not in all receive more 
 than 100 cents on the dollar ; and this did not 
 prevent T. also ranking in respect to the sum he 
 had paid as accommodation maker. Young v. 
 Spiers, 16 O. K. 672.— Chy, D. 
 
 When a mortgagee is also a creditor in respect 
 to a simple contract debt, he cannot tack the 
 simple contract debt to the mortgage debt, and 
 the creditor does not by reason of his debtor 
 
 having made an assignment for the benefit of his 
 creditors, acijuire any higher position in this re- 
 spect than he occupied at the time of or imme- 
 diately prior to the assignment, lb. 
 
 12. Priority of Claims. 
 
 A petition was presented by the husband of D. 
 to declare his wife a lunatic which was opposed 
 by her. I'ending the hearing of the petition D. 
 assigned her separate estate for the benefit of 
 her creditors. The court dismissed the petition. 
 D. 's solicitor presented a petition for taxation 
 of D.'s costs, and for payment by the assignee 
 in priority to the claims of the creditors -.—Held, 
 that the costs of opposing the petition might be 
 classed as necessaries which the wife is liable to 
 pay out of her separate estate, and for whicli 
 that estate is liable in the hands of her assignee, 
 l)ut that they could not be put on the footing of 
 maintenance. Such costs sliould be paid ratjiijly 
 out of the assets, and costs subsequent to the 
 assignment should not rank in competition with 
 creditors before the assignment. Jie Diimbrill, 
 10 P. R. 21(J. -Boyd. 
 
 Power of Toronto .Stock Kxcliange to pass by- 
 laws giving preference to the claims of the ex- 
 change, and of members of the excliange foi debts 
 arising out of the stock exchange, transactions 
 f)n moneys realized from the sale of insolvents' 
 seats at the board. .See Clarhoii v. Toronto Stock 
 Exchuii;/!, 13 0. R. 213. 
 
 On the 3rd February, 1887, B., a coal mer- 
 chant, made an assignment to the plaintiff for 
 the benefit of iiia creditors. At tlie time of tliis 
 assignment there was due by B. a large sum for 
 duty on coal tliat i.ad been previously imported 
 by him and sold, The Crown claimed payment 
 from t,,^ 'laintitt', as assignee of B.. of tlie 
 amoiv.t liv for duties in priority to the payment 
 of the ciuinis of tlie general creditors of the 
 estate : — Held, attirmiiig the judgment of Ar- 
 mour, C. J., (15 O. H. (>32,) tliat the Crown was 
 not entitled to sucli priority and that if it elected 
 to come in under the assignment it was bound by 
 the terms thereof and could take only ratably and 
 proportionately witli the other creditors. Clark- 
 Mon V. Attormy-ikncral of Canada, 16 A. R. 202. 
 
 By an agreement entered into before action, 
 the Crown was placed in the same position as if 
 a writ of extent had been issued against B. on 
 the I'Jth February, 1887, for the recovery of 
 the duty payable by B. :— Held, in this also 
 afiirining the judgment of Armour, C. J., that a 
 writ of extent so issued would have availed the 
 Crown nothing as far as any property covered 
 by the assignment was concerned. II). 
 
 See Eacrett v. Kent, 15 0. R. 9, p. 113. 
 
 13. Proceedings by Individual Creditors. 
 
 Tlie mere fact that a creditor disputes the 
 validity of an assignment made by his debtor 
 for the general benefit of creditors, is no ground 
 for the assignee refusing to pay such creditor 
 his dividend out of the money realized from the 
 estate ; the assignment having been sustained 
 in the action brought by the creditor to impeach 
 it. The law on this question under assignments 
 for the benefit of creditors prior to 22 Vict. c. 
 
 e 
 
 7i 
 
 ■•a 
 
 > 
 
 s 
 
Ill 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 112 
 
 113 
 
 96, and the cases thereunder, considered. Deci- 
 aion of the Q. B. D., 10 O. R. 415, reversed. 
 KUeitftr V. Ganiivr, 14 A. R. 60 ; Uardmr v. 
 Kltepfer, 15 S. C. R. 390. 
 
 See Donomn v. Ihrhrt, 9 O. P.. 89 ; S. C, 12 
 A. R. 298, p. \2i; Macdomtld v. Mi-Call, 9 0. R. 
 185; S. C, 12 P. R. 9; Hyman .t Vo. v. Howdl, 
 13 O. R.400;(7oM'-fo'/c.s v. Foob:i, Hi O. R. 091 ; 
 Ktye» V. Kirkpatrirk; 19 O. R. 572, p. 112; 
 Fouchier Jk Son v. St. LoaU, '3 P. R. 318, p. 
 
 14. Assignee. 
 
 The duties of an assignee under such an in- 
 strument as the one in question in this case are 
 analogous to those of executors and trustees ad- ^ 
 ministering estates, and the court will consider 
 that a year is the proper time within which the 
 sale of the property assigned is to he made, wliere 
 the assignment leaves the time and manner of 
 ■uch sale in the discretion of tlie assignee. If 
 the sale l)e not made within a year the onus will 
 be cast on the assignee ot satisfying the court of 
 his bona fi(les in seeking further delay. Ontario 
 Bank v. Lnmont, C O. R. 147.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendant, who was assignee for creditors 
 of the mortgagor, was tlireatening to remove cer- 
 tain of the property comprised in the mortgage, 
 acting, OS he said, for tiio benefit of the creditors. 
 The plaintifl's claimed an injunction to restrain 
 him. In his defence lie alleged that lie was a 
 creditor of * he mortgagor at the time of tlie exe- 
 cution of che mortgage in (juestion, and that 
 after the commenoement of this suit he recovered 
 a judgment for the amount of his debt, and he 
 claimed a right to the i)roperty taken by liim as 
 against the plainti6F3 as such creditor : — Held, 
 that he was entitled thus to avail himself of his 
 position as a creditor at the date of the mortg.-vge, 
 notwithstanding the fact that in removing the 
 Boods he alleged that he had acted for the bene- 
 fit of the oreaitors, and although he <lid not re- 
 cover his judgment and execution before the 
 commencement of the suit, liohinson v. Cook, 
 6 0. R. 590.— Ferguson. 
 
 An assignee for the ijtnefit of creditors takes 
 only such title as Ids assignor had to the pro- 
 perty, lb. 
 
 As to power of judge to issue attachment 
 against assignee for contempt. iSee lie Pac- 
 quelte, 11 P. R. 463. 
 
 In the absence of a statutory title to sue as re- 1 
 presenting creditors, such as is conferred by 
 bankruptcy and insolvency statutes, an assignee 
 in trust for creditors can only enforce the wime 
 rights as the person making the assignment to 
 him could have enforced ; therefore the defen- 
 dant could not, by a plea in liis own name, ask 
 to have a conveyance, made by the del)tor to 
 the plaintifif prior to the assignment under which ' 
 defendant claimed, rescinded or set aside as frau- \ 
 dulent against creditors. The nullity of a deed j 
 should not be pronounced without putting all the ' 
 parties to it en cause en declaration de judgment \ 
 commun :— Semble, that plaintiff, being a second i 
 purchaser in good faith and for value, acquired \ 
 a valid title to tlie pro])erty which he could set 
 up e\ren against an action brought directly by ' 
 the creditors. Burland v. Moffatl, 11 S. C. R. ! 
 76. But see PorleoiM V. licynar, 13 App. Cas. 120. 
 
 Per Burton and Patterson. .IJ. A., sub-s. 3 of 
 8. 3 of 4S Vict. c. 26 (now repealed) did not vest 
 in an assignee the right to maintain an actioa 
 to recover back moneys p xid by a person in insol- 
 vent circumstances with/n one month of an as- 
 signment l)y him under tho Act. Clarkion v. On- 
 tario Bank, 15 A. R. 16C. See S. C. 13 0. R. 636. 
 
 AVhere a creditor brought an action for an 
 account against the assignee for the benefit of 
 creditors of his debtor after c Jinianding copi< 
 tho assignee's accounts, but ^i '.then • or. 
 any desire or making any attampt ic> ,- , iiie 
 accounts, and without waiting a reasonaljle time 
 for i)reparation of copies, the assignee was allow- 
 ed his costs as between solicitor and clien'. ^ut 
 of the balance of the estate in his hands, and in 
 case of deficiency the plaintiff was ordered per- 
 sonally to pay it. Sandford v. Porter, 16 A. R. 
 505. 
 
 An assignment for the benefit of creditors made 
 to a sheriff under R. S. O. (1SS7), c. 124, is made 
 to him as a public functionary, and on his deatV 
 the care and administration of the estate ass! • 
 ed devolves upon iiis deputy, and thereafter uj ; . 
 his successor in office. It is not coni|)eteut to th« 
 sheriff to disclaim or decline to act as such assig- 
 nee. lirou'H V. Grove, 18 O. K. 311.— Chy. D. 
 
 A pl.aintiff, a creditor, served a notice on an 
 assignee for creditors, pursuant to R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 124, s. 7, sub a. 2, requiring him to take pro- 
 ceedings to sot aside a certain bill of sale made 
 by the insolvent, and afterwards served on him 
 a notice of motion for an order giving him, the 
 creditor, permission to bring the action. After 
 being served with this notice, however, the 
 assignee, believing that he had authority to do 
 1 so, with the approval of a majority of the inspec- 
 I tors and creditors present at a meeting called 
 for the ))ur))ose, nuide a settlement with the 
 ! grantee of the bill of sale, wliich settlement, it 
 also appeared, was advantageous to the estate. 
 The plaintiff then, pursuant to his notice of 
 motion, obtained an order from a Judge, giving 
 him leave to bring this action imiicacliing the 
 bill of sale, without, however, tiie settlement 
 being brought to the notice of the Judge : — Held, 
 that the .settlement was valid and binding. 
 Keyen v. Kirkpalrick, 19 0. R. 572 —Boyd. 
 
 15. Dirldend. 
 
 Where C. , an insolvent, had assigned all fiis 
 assets and stock-in-trade to S., as trustee for 
 cn-ditors, and the plaintiff claimed a speciti': lien 
 on the same to the extent of certain trust moneyi, 
 which had come into C.'s hands, as trustee and 
 executor for the plaintifT, under tlic will of his 
 (tho plaintiff's) father, l)ut bad been v/rongfuUy 
 converted by V. to his own use, and nployed in 
 his own business to pay his trading d 'bts, but at 
 to which there did not appear to b<> ,iny identity 
 or connection witii the stock .a-trade assigned 
 to S. :— Held, that the plaintiff as against S. wai 
 only entitled to a dividend with the other cre- 
 ditors, on the full amount, with interest down 
 to the time of the assignment. Culhane v. Stuart, 
 6 0. R. 97. -Boyd. 
 
 As to the effect of receipt of a dividend. See 
 Miller v. Hamlin, 2 0. R. 103 ; Beenter v. Olittr, 
 10 A. R. 656. 
 
 See Klcepfe 
 C. B. 390, p. 
 
 The rule in 
 not be allowed 
 does not applj 
 meuts for the 
 Haye, 13 0. R 
 
 Held, follow 
 6, that 48 Vic 
 Provincial I^e 
 Bank, 13 0. R 
 
 Where the j 
 fain payments 
 u )tor within 
 au assignment 
 before it came 
 that the claim 
 the ground tha 
 upon the groun 
 obtain was defi: 
 3 of the statute 
 
 " Transfer" i 
 tended to covei 
 benefit of cred 
 R. S. 0. (18S7) 
 that Act is not( 
 to examination 
 dian Loan and 
 13 P. R. 310.- 
 
 The tenant o 
 cuted an assign) 
 and afterwards 
 tenant's propert 
 or such propert; 
 mises, the landl 
 past due before I 
 Held, that the 
 not affected bj 
 that goods so as 
 deemed in cust 
 0. K. 9.-Q. B. 
 
 Assignment o 
 useof thecriinii 
 
 15 S. C. H. ;j;i8. 
 
 Claim by wife 
 used in his busi 
 
 16 S. C. R. 720. 
 
 Spo Stev<i:- 
 Kdbj, 15 A. ]{. 
 
 II. Deed ok ( 
 
 Action of (lel)t 
 a deed of comito;- 
 oi the assignee ii 
 whereby the <!e] 
 tim. Plea, sett, 
 plaintiff covcmui 
 fectively and scv 
 them fifty cents o 
 against the said i 
 tion of the deed 
 insolvent firm's ( 
 tial claims again! 
 of which "tho 
 insohentsiheirc 
 
 8 
 
113 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 lU 
 
 See Klcepfer v. Gardner, 14 A. 11. CO ; 15 S. 
 C. R. 390, p. 111. 
 
 16. Other Cases. 
 
 The rule in bankruptcy that interest should 
 not be allowed after the date of tlio coininiiision 
 does not apply in the case of voluntary assign- 
 metits for the benefit of creditors. Stcimrl v. 
 Cage, 13 0. R. 458.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, following Broddy r. Stuart, 7 C. L. T. 
 6, that 48 Vict. c. 26 (Out.), is intra vires the 
 Provincial legislature. Clarl-xon v. Ontario 
 Bad; 13 0. R. 666.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where the plaintifT souglit to invalidate ccr- 
 liia payments of money made by .vn insolvent 
 J )tor within thirty days jirior to his miikirig 
 an assignment under 48 \ ict. c. 26 (Ont.), but 
 before it came into force :-- Held, on demurrer, 
 that the claim could not bi ustaincd eitiier upon 
 the ground that the statute was retrospective, or 
 upou the ground that what the plaintilf sought to 
 obtain was defined and given by section 3, sub-s. 
 3 of the statute. Ih. See S. C, 15 A. It. KJG. 
 
 " Transfer" used in Con. Rule 928 is not in- 
 tended to cover an ' ' assignment" for the general 
 benefit of creditors, valid and snlficient under 
 R. S. 0. (1887), c. 124, and an assignee under 
 that Act is not one of the persons to be siilijecU'd 
 to examination under that Rule. liriCmh Cana- 
 dian Loan and Ini;estmenl Company v. JJrilnell, 
 13 P. R. 310.— Boyd. 
 
 The tenant of certain freehold promises exe- 
 cuted an assignment under 48 Vict. c. 20 (Ont. ), 
 and afterwards, but before possession of tlie 
 tenant's property hud been taken by tiiu assignee, 
 or such property removed from tlie doniised pre- 
 mises, the landlord distrained for arruais of rent 
 past due before the making of the assignment : — 
 Held, that the lamllord's right of distre. s was 
 not affected by the assignment :—ilehl, also, 
 that goods so assigned were not to be therefore 
 deemed in custodifi legis. Eacrett v. Kent, 15 
 0. K. 9.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Assignment obtained by duress and impro]ier 
 use of the criminal process. See S/iorev v. Joncf, 
 15 S. C. R. 3118. 
 
 Claim by wife of insolvent for money lent and 
 used in his business. See Warner v. Murray, 
 16S. C. R. 720. 
 
 Soo titen;.:-' v. Cage, 13 O. R. 458; Coat.t v. 
 Kdbj, 15 A. R. 81. 
 
 II. Deed qv Composition and PiscnAROE. 
 
 Action of debt l)y the plaintifr cluiming under 
 » deed of composition and discharge, as assignee 
 01 the assignee in insolvency of a co-])iutner.ship, 
 whereby the debt iu question vvts assigmd to 
 him. Flea, setting out the (b '. whereby the 
 plaintiff covenanted with all tli^ creditors, col- 
 lectively and severally, to pay them and each of 
 them fifty cents on the ? oi their resju'ctive claims 
 against the said insolvent firm, and on confirma- 
 tion of the deed to pay the costs rcEpccting tlie 
 insolvent firm's estate * • and the prefureu- 
 bal claims against the said firm, in ci. wieration 
 of which " the said creditors" roh used to tlio 
 insolvents iheir cin.im8 against tliem, and directei' 
 
 a conveyance of the insolvent firm's estate to 
 them, and plaintiff averring that at the time of 
 the assignment of the debt to the plaintiff Ihero 
 were separate debts of the insolvent, or one of 
 tliem, unpaid and unsatisfied, wliicli were not 
 provided for by the deed :— Held, th;it tiie deed 
 provided for the payment of firm creditors only, 
 and did not include separate creditors, and 
 therefore that tlie plaintiff's title to the debt 
 faileil. McKitrick v. Ilalty, 40 Q. B. 246.— 
 (Jsler. 
 
 B. & Co., discounted with defeiidanta a draft 
 drawn by the former on the plaintiff for the 
 amount of his indebtedness wliieii plaintiff ac- 
 cepted, but did not pay at matnrity. Subse- 
 quently B. & Co. ni.ide an assignment for the 
 liem.'fit of their creditors ; and afterwanls plain- 
 tiff also becoming embarrassed, procured his 
 creditors, including ]}. & Co.'s estate to execute 
 a deed of composition and discharge whereby 
 plaintiff's cre<litors agreed to accept hfty cents oa 
 the dollar on their respective debts, payable thirty 
 d lys from the date of the deed, one D. being 
 surety for the saiil payment within the time limit- 
 ed. Tliere was a covenant by jjlaintiff' and his 
 surety to pay the composition to the several credi- 
 tors on or before a fixed date, and by the creditors 
 with plaintiff not to sue for their several debts, 
 and if plaintiff and his surety should observe and 
 perform the covenants, etc. on] their part, the 
 creditors would release and deliver up the bills 
 ami notes, etc. , hehl by them ; and if any of the 
 creditors should sue for tlieir debts tlie deed 
 might be pleaded in bar. The defendants re- 
 fused to execute the deed of composition. They 
 proved for the amount of the draft with other 
 indebtedness against B. & Co.'s estate and re- 
 '"eivcd a dividend of fifty cents and threatened to 
 sue plaintiff", and he, not knowing that they had 
 recoived the dividend, paid them the amount 
 of the draft, which they applied on B. & Co.'s 
 general indebtedness and were thus paid in full, 
 but on discovering the facts he brought this 
 action to recover the amount received by them. 
 The plaintiff had not paid B. k Co. the fifty cents 
 or any part thereof ;— Held, that the covenant 
 not to sue in tlie deed of composition and dis- 
 charge was not aljsolute, but merely conditional 
 on payment being made within thirty days ; and 
 as plaintiff had not paid B. & Co. within the 
 time limited he could not have claimed a release 
 and set up the covenant as a bar to the action, 
 (Rose, J., doubting) ; that the defendants were 
 trustees for B. & Co. to the extent of forty cents in 
 the dollar of the amount received from plaintiff, 
 and that B. & Co. 's estate could compel the de- 
 fendants to refund such amount to them, and 
 therefore plaintitr had no right of action against 
 the defenttants. Per Rose, .1. Had the deed of 
 composition and discharge been effective the de- 
 fendants coulil not have recovered from plaintiff 
 more than sutficient to satisfy their own claim in 
 full either iu their own right or as trustees for 
 B. & Co. Andrews v. Bank of Torordc, 15 O. R. 
 048.— C. P. D. 
 
 At a meeting of the defond.ant's croditors, at 
 which the plaintiff's were not represented, an ar- 
 rangement was made to accopt forty cent* on the 
 %, on the amount of the claims. A deed of com- 
 position with a covenant to accept the forty cents 
 was prepared, and was executed by C. N., the 
 manager of the plaintiffs' branch at L Theexe- 
 
 
 m 
 
 
115 
 
 BANKRUPTCY ANL» INSOLVENCY. 
 
 116 
 
 cution was "for Ban'', of Commerce, C. Nichol- 
 son," opposite to which wus an ordinary seal. 
 At the time the manager executed the deed, 
 there were two creditors mentioned in the sche- 
 dule who had not cxfcutcd. IJefore cither of 
 these creditors had executed, and l)cfore the 
 composition notes ha.l beta tendered to the man- 
 ager, he wrote defendants' solicitor withdrawing 
 from the arrangement. It did not appear that 
 the head office had reimdiated the managers 
 authority. The composition notes were subse- 
 quently tendered to tlic manager, but ho refused 
 to accept them. l?y the plaintiffs' Act of incor- 
 poration the managcmtut of the bank's affairs 
 was to be by the directors who had authority to i 
 open branches and to appoint the officers. The 
 chief place of business was to be at T., where the j 
 cor|)orate seal was kept :— Hiid, that the deed 
 was not binding on plaintiffs' corporation, not 
 being under the corporate seal, nor under a sig- 
 nature C' sign manual whereby it executed docu- 
 ments :— Held, however, on the evidence, that 
 the manager had author!., to agree to accept 
 less than the wliole of the claim, and did so 
 agree, and that the debtor performed his part 
 by tendering the notes : and that nu'.'.er K. S. O. 
 (ISSf) c. 44, 8. 53, sub-8. 7, the agreement was 
 irrevocable. Jlniik of Cominerec v. JeiikiiiK, Ki 
 0. R. 215.-C. P. D. 
 
 See McGee v. Cnmphtl/, 2 0._ R. 130, p. 127 ; 
 Jennings v. Ilyman, 110. R. C5. 
 
 III. Imperial Bankruitcv Acxt. 
 
 An English bankruptcy carries all the real 
 and personal property of the bankrupt in any 
 part of the British Dominions ; the theory of the 
 English IJanknipt Acts being t!iat when once a 
 forum had been established for the winding-up 
 of an estate, it is e.vpcditnt that the whole pro- 
 perty of the bankru])t should be brought there 
 in order that it may be ratably divided amongst 
 all his creditors ; and the assets of the bankrupt 
 having been thus taken away from him, credi- 
 tors will not be allowed to harass him with 
 unnecessary litigation. The defendants in these 
 actions carried on business in England and 
 Canada, and had creditors in both countries, 
 tht plaintiffs being Canadian creditors. The 
 dnfendants became subject to the English bank- 
 ruptcy laws, and a trustee in bankruptcy was 
 appointed, to whom the plaintiffs presented 
 their claim against the estate of the defcnd.ints, 
 which claim included the amonnt claimed in 
 these actions, which were begun in Ontario. 
 The English court made an order on the ap])li- 
 cation of the trustee restraining the plaintilfs 
 from further prosecuting these actions ; and upon 
 the application of the defendants an onler wa? 
 made in Chambers here staying proceedings in 
 them : — Held, affirming the decision of Rose, J., 
 (13 P. R, 86), who specially referred to Howell c. 
 Dominion of Canada Oils Refinery Co., 37 Q. B. 
 484 ; Regina v. College of Physicians and Sur- 
 geons of Ontario, 440. B. i)64 ; '::ilis c. McHenry, 
 L. R. 6 C. P. 228, that it was the duty of the 
 court here to aid the English court ; and that the 
 plaintiffs by putting in their claim before the 
 trustee had precluded themselves from objecting 
 to the authority of the English court ; and there- 
 fore that the order made in Chambers here was 
 a proper order under the circumstances. Liberty 
 
 was reserved to the plaintiffs to apply for leave 
 to proceed here after obtaining leave in Englaud. 
 Marilime Bank v. Stnoart, 13 P. R. 262.- Q. B. 
 D. Affirmed by Court of Appeal; Ih. 491. 
 
 IV. Ix.soLVENT At'TS OF 1864-69-75-79. 
 1 . Jnrmliction of Ivxolrent Court. 
 
 In 1S75, .T. M. and D. M. entered into partner- 
 ship, certain assets of J. M. being transferred to 
 the partnership, but nothing bein^ said as to his 
 lial)ilities. In 1870, the firm having become in- 
 solvent, li. was appointe<l a-ssignee. The part- 
 nership creditors were paid in full, and a surplin 
 remained. 1). M. then petitioned the county 
 judge in insolvency to divide the said surpJHa 
 between him and J. M.— R. then commenced tlu« 
 suit against I). M. to have it declared that the 
 said i)artner8hip deed was not binding upon him 
 as such assignee, but that the partnership deed 
 migi;t Ijo declared fraudulent and void, and thst 
 the court iiii>;hi take an account of the ])artner- 
 .■^hip property ami make division, and for an 
 injunction restraining I). M. from further pro- 
 ceeding with his petition : — Held, that the In- 
 solvent Court had jurisdiction to deal with the 
 matter, and this being so, was the proper tribu- 
 nal to do so, and this court would not interfere. 
 IM/ V. McDomjall, 2 O. R. G18.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Whc may Come Under. 
 
 One C. , a practising barrister, dealt largely in 
 land transactions, but it was not shewn tliat he 
 de|>cnded thereon for his living. Becoming in- 
 solvent, proceedings under the Insolvent Act of 
 1,S7.") were taken against him. ''he plaintiff was 
 assignee of a mortgage made by C., and brought 
 suit thereon against H., the assignee in insol- 
 vency of C. and U. and others, the owners of 
 parts of the mortgaged lands. It was olijected 
 by I), that C should have been made a party :— 
 Held, that C. was not a trader within the mean- 
 ing of the Insolvent Act and that nothing passed 
 to the assignee in the insolvency proceediiigi. 
 C. was therefore declared to be a nccess.iry 
 party, and leave was given to aild him as a de- 
 femlant. Jo-'^fph v. Jiathxr, 29 Chy. 421.- 
 Boyd. 
 
 This was an appeal from a judgment of the 
 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, making the rule 
 nisi taken out by the respondents absolute to 
 set aside verdict for plaintiff and enter judgment 
 for the defendants. The action was brouglit by 
 C. as assignee of L. P. V., under the Insolvent 
 Act of 187."), for several trespasses alleged to 
 have been committed on the property known 
 -s the Shubenacadie Canal property, and for 
 -.tnversion by C. et ai. to their own use nf the 
 ice taken off the lakes through which tliat canal 
 was intended to run. The declaration contained 
 six counts, the plaintiff claiming as assignee of F. 
 Among the pleas were denials of committing the 
 alleged wrongs, of the property being that of the 
 
 t)laintiif, and of his possession of it, the Last pies 
 )eing that "the said plaintiff was not, nnrii 
 such assignee as nllnged." After the trial both 
 counsel declined addressing the Judge, anil it 
 was agreed that a verdict should be entered for 
 the plaintiff with $10 damages, subject to the 
 opinion of the court, that the parties should be 
 
U7 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENOT. 
 
 iia 
 
 entitled to take all objections arisinij out of „lie 
 evidence and minutes, and that the court should 
 have power to enter judgment for or against »-ho 
 defendants with costs. A rule nisi for u new 
 trial to bo granted accordingly, and filed. The 
 rule was taken out as follows :— " On reading 
 the minutes of the learned Judge who tried the 
 cause, and tlie papers on file herein, and on 
 motion, it is ordered that the verdict entered 
 herein formally by consent subject to the opin- 
 ion of the court, with power to take all object- 
 tions arising out of the evidence and minutes, 
 and with jiower to the court to enter jr-lgment 
 for or against defendants, with costs, be set 
 aside with costs and a new trial granted herein." 
 This rule was made absolute in the following 
 terms :— "Ou argument, etc., it is ordered that 
 the rule nisi be made absolute with costs and 
 judgment entered for the defendants against the 
 pUintifl' with costs." Thereupon plaintiff aji- 
 pealed to tlie Supreme Court of Canada, and it 
 was:— Held, (Henry, J., dissenting), that by tra- 
 versing the allegation of plaintifT being assignee, 
 the defendants put in issue the fact implied in 
 the i vcrmcnt, that the plaintiff was assignee in 
 inaob 'incy, and that F. was a trader within the 
 meaniiigof the Insolvent Act of 1869, and as the 
 evidence did not establish that F. bought or sold 
 in the course of any trade or business, or got his 
 livelihood by buying and selling, that the plain- 
 tiff failed to prove this issue : I'cr Gwynne. J. 
 Assuming F. to be a trader still the defendants 
 were entitled i,o judgment upon the merits, 
 which had been argued at length. That the 
 agreement at nisi prius authorized the court to 
 render a verdict for plaintiff or defendant accord- 
 ing as they fihoiild consider either party upon the 
 law and the facts entitled ; that the court, hav- 
 uig exercised the jurisdiction conferred upon it 
 by this agreement, and rendered judgment for 
 the defendants, this court was also bound to give 
 judgment on the merits, and as the judgment of 
 the court below in favour of the defendants was 
 substantially correct to sustain it ; and it having 
 been objected that as the rule nisi asktd for a 
 new trial the rule absolute in favour of defendants 
 was erroneous, that such an <>l)jection was too 
 technical to be allowed to prevail, and that the 
 rule nisi, having, as it did, recited the agree- 
 ment at nisi prius, and the court below having 
 rendered a vordict for the defendants, it should 
 be upheld, except as to the plea of liberum tene- 
 mentum, wliich should be found for the plaintiff 
 or struck off the record, and that to order a new 
 trial could be but to protract a useless litigation 
 at great expense. Crtiiihlon v. Chilticl; 7 IS. C. 
 R.348, 
 
 3. Axmiji^'e, 
 
 (a) Siircti/ of. 
 
 Held, that where an oihcial assignee in insol- 
 vency had given a bond as such with sureties, 
 pursuant to the Insolvent Act of 187.>, and amend- 
 ing Acts, and the creditors had duly appointed 
 j the same individual to be creditors' assignee, 
 
 I S'' °*'^''"" '^^ °^ *^** ^^^' ''"* '""^ ""* reciuir- 
 i edhim to give security as such creditors' assignee, 
 Ithe snretics under "the l>ond given by him as 
 ! official assignee remained liable for his dealings 
 I with the estate, and were not discharged by rea- 
 jiwiof such appointment as creditors' assignee. 
 \Armiron;j v. Furgter, G O. R. 12ft.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Semble, that .one who brings an action against 
 an official assignee in insolvency for default in 
 dealing with a certain estate, upon his bond given 
 as security against auch defaults, is not bound to 
 ascertain if the assignee is in default as to other 
 estates ; and the sureties to the 1>ond are dis- 
 charged by payment to any one who recovers 
 judgment against them. lb. 
 
 Held, that where an official assignee under the 
 Insolvent Act of 1875 has taken possession of an 
 insolvent estate in that capacity, and subse- 
 (piently the creditors have, by a resolution 
 passed at a meeting of the creditors, continued 
 nim as assignee to the estate without exacting 
 any further security, and while acting as such 
 assignee he makes default to account for moneys 
 ' of the estate, the creditors have recourse upon 
 j the bond given for the due performance of his 
 duties as official assignee. Letouriieux v. Dan- 
 wreau, 12 S. C. K. 307. 
 
 (b) What Property Vesti in. 
 
 Upon the death of one member of a firm, and 
 the 8ubse(|uent insolvency of the surviving part- 
 ners, the joint estate passes to their assignee in 
 insolvency. But where the capital of surviving 
 partners having been lost, they, while the estato 
 was supposed to be solvent, conveyed the same 
 to a truHtee for creditors upon the request of the 
 executrix of a deceased partner in consideration 
 of a release by her from all liabilities ; and the 
 executrix afterwards, upon obtaining probate, 
 conveyed her interest to the trustee ; and sub- 
 sequently through a shrinkage in value the estate 
 became insufficient to meet the liabilities, it 
 was: — Held, that by the assignment to the trus- 
 tee, at the reciuest of the executrix, for valuable 
 consideration, they hail parted with all interest 
 in the estate, and nothing passed to the plaintiff, 
 as assignee, under j)r()cco(lings in insolvency 
 taken on the supposition that the assignment to 
 the trustee was an act of insolvency, and that 
 the assignment to the trustee not being ques- 
 tiiincd on the ground of fraud, tlie assignee of the 
 survivors was precluded from any enquiry. 
 Jhiridson v. I'aiipn, 28 Chy. 91. — Proudfi>ot. 
 
 A mortgagor and mortgagee dealt together for 
 some years without having any settlement of 
 accounts, and the former i)ecame insolvent. At 
 the date of the insolvency there existed a right 
 of set-off in favour of tne mortgagor for tiie 
 balance due him on their general aealings : — 
 Held, affirmini; the finding of the Master, that 
 such right of jt-off passed to the otiicial assignee 
 of the mortgagor, and that a transferee of the 
 security took it subject to the ecpiity. Court v. 
 Holland, 29 Chy. 19.- Boyd. 
 
 The payee of a promissory note made and pay- 
 able in Ontario, who had absconded to Michigan, 
 while tiiere, and after a writ of attachment in 
 insolvency had issued against him in Ontario, 
 endorsed the note for good consideration to the 
 plaintiffs, who took it Iwna fide. Evidence was 
 given to prove that by the law of Michigan the 
 endorisement was sufficient to pass the note to the 
 plaintiff: — Held, reversing the juclgmcnt of the 
 County Court, that the plaintiffs could not 
 recover, as the title to the note had vested in the 
 assignee before the endorsement, v.wX that hia 
 rights thereto could not l.e atlected by the law 
 of Michigan. Jenkn v, Doran, ."> A. R. o.")?. 
 
 Q 
 IS 
 
 n 
 
 < 
 
 SB 
 H 
 
 \ / ' 
 
119 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 m 
 
 An ORsignco in insolvency is entitled to all the 
 earnings of an insolvent which are earned after 
 the assignment in insolvency, and before dis- 
 charge, over and above what is necessary for the 
 reasonable maintenance of the insolvent and his 
 family. 'J'herefore, where an insolvent, pending 
 his discharge, applied part of his earnings in the 
 purchase of land for the benefit of his wife : — 
 Held, that to the extent of earnings so applied 
 the assignee was entitled to a lien on the land. 
 CUtrhon v. While, 4 0. R. CG3.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, also, that the repeal of the Insolvent 
 Acts by 43 Vict. c. 1 ( D), liefore claim made, was 
 no bar thereto, the estate of the insolvent having 
 vested in the assignee l)efore April 1st, 1880, 
 and there liaving been no reconveyance of the 
 property to tlic insolvent, who had, hi/Wever, 
 obtained his discharge before action brought. lb. 
 
 Sec Troop v. Hart, 7 S. C. R. 512; Jones 
 V. A'i/jHey, 11 S. C. R. 708, p. 120. 
 
 (c) Jiights, Dutien and LiahiUtka. 
 
 The rule of law which requires a mortgagee 
 selling under a power of sale in his mortgage to 
 observe the terms of such power, is also appli- 
 cable to sales by a trustee or ((uasi trustee acting 
 under a power ; — the power must bo followed 
 and the rule applies with equal force to sales by 
 an assignee of an insolvent estate, under the Act 
 of 1809, 8. 47, who in such cases acts umlor a 
 statutory jwwer authorizing a sale, "but only 
 after advertisemeni thereof for a ncM'iod of two 
 months." In re Jart-is v. Cooil-, 2!) C'hy. .S03.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 An assignee proccedo-l to sell t'.ie lands of 
 £he insolvent without giving notice of such in- 
 tended sale ' ' for a period of two months " as pre- 
 scribed by the Act, no sanction of the crtilitors 
 thereto having Won given : -Held, agocsl objec- 
 tion to the title by a vendee of the purchaser 
 at such sale. lb. 
 
 An assignee in insolvency bona fide suing in 
 discharge of his duty as such asjignce, will not 
 
 t 
 
 ngnce, 
 
 be reouired to give security for costs on the 
 round that he is without means and not bene- 
 cially interested in the suit. Vara v. Gould, 
 8 P. R. 31.— Stephens, Beferee. 
 
 The plaintiff, an attorney, was vhe official as- 
 signee of an insolvent estate. Ho broudit an 
 action on behalf of the estate and u.ied his own 
 name as the attorney on tlie record. The plain- 
 tiff olvtained a verdict :- Held, that under sec- 
 tion ;«2 of the Insolvent Act of 1875, ho was 
 entitled to 1 iv disbursements only against tUv. 
 defcii.l uits. Agnew v. No-is, 8 P. R. 07.— Osier. 
 
 Held, allirniing thn decision of the County 
 Cftuit, Burton, ,1.A., diss., that iho assigiicu of 
 »n iimolvent mortgagor can, f.n the bciielit of 
 »M(,liU,^ impeach a chattel mortgage for non- 
 uiimpliance with the Chattel Mortgage Acit. Re 
 Unrrclt, an imolvent, 5 A. R. 200. 
 
 In trover for goods against an assignee in in- 
 solvency : -Held, following the last case, lliiit 
 the assignee may object to the abscmo of a bill 
 of sale on an alleged sale by the ins-Kent just 
 as an execution creditor or subsequent purchaser 
 for value may do. Snarr v. Smilh, 45 Q. B. 
 loo.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 Upon the insolvency of the lessees, there were 
 goods upon the premises belonginr to them, kad 
 other goods stored with them, sufficient to piy 
 the taxes in arrear ; and a warrant being isaued 
 the bailiff notified the ai.iignee, but forbo^fe 
 distrain on the assignee's promise to pay, yiuiila 
 promise was eonfirined by the inspectors of the 
 estate. The goods having been afterwanla re. 
 moved, an order was made directing the assignw 
 to pay the taxes forthwith, with all costs, fun 
 Bowes, Insolvents, 5 A. R. 353. — Burton. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Connty 
 Court, that under section 67 of the Insolvent 
 Act of 1875, all debts exceeding $100 must be 
 sold separately, unless where there is a sale of 
 the whole estate en bloc ; and the purchaser of 
 such a debt, otherwise than the section direct), 
 cannot recover against the debtor. Fishn i' 
 O'Neill, 6 A. R. »!). 
 
 Retainer of solicitor by assignee under Inul' 
 vent Act 1875. Liability for Costs. .Sec Butter. 
 field V. Wells, 4. O. R. 108. 
 
 4. Joint and SejHirate Credilori, 
 
 Where, upon the dissolution of a firm, the 
 business is continncd by one of the partners, who 
 assumes the liabilities, the joint assets remainiog 
 in specie arc primarily a]>plicable to the payment 
 of the joint creditors of the firm. He Walker, 
 an Insolvent, 6 A. R. 169. 
 
 Held, that under section 88 of the Insolrent 
 Act of 1875, if the dividend is derived wholly 
 out of joint estate, the joint creditors alono cu 
 share until fully paid ; if wholly out of separate 
 estate, it belongs entirely to separate crediton 
 till they are paid, and if partly out of each clu) 
 of .assets, it should bo divided pro rata between 
 each class of debts. lb. 
 
 See McKitrkk v. Haley, 40 Q. B. 246, p. 114 
 
 5. Creditors holding Securiti/. 
 
 Under the Insolvent Act of 1S75, a creditor j 
 holding security at the time of the insolvency, 
 cannot realize the security, and prove on the 
 estate for the balance. Re Hurst, 31 Q. B. 116, 
 commented upon. Re Beattij, an Intolnnt, i 
 A. R. 40, 
 
 When an assignee in insolvency elects, under 
 section 84 of the Insolvent Act, 1875, to allowi 
 creditor to retain, at a valuation, the property 
 which ho holds as security for his del)t, tne cre- 
 ditor becomes a purchaser at that valuation, 
 freed from any right or equity to redeem on the 
 part of the insolvent or his estate. Hell y. Ro*, | 
 11 A. K. 458. 
 
 Wlicre the secured creditor has valued his se- 
 curity for the purpose of proof, the policy ui 
 cxjircss lauunagii of the Insolvent Ai't, 1875, »«■ I 
 <inire that the decisimi of the assignee shall bt 
 promptly made. A formal resolution of theu 
 signee allowing the creditor to retain the pw I 
 petty is not necessary. Therefore where thi I 
 asaigrii'c had ain])lc iinans of knowing the vilnij 
 of th(^ tiaseta before the creditor proved his clun I 
 and valued his security in January, 1879. w^ J 
 V'hcrc no meeting of creilitors was held afta I 
 that date till the 30th of July following, and tin I 
 
121 
 
 BANKnUPTOY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 122 
 
 estate was sold witlimit any reference to the 
 security ; ami wliere iiotliiii}; furtlier was douo 
 by the iisaigiiee until the l.'lth October following, 
 when he wrote to tlie creditor : " Vour elaini us 
 tiled shows a baianee over security of §3,0'JI.13, 
 but Mr. Leiteii (tlie imrciiaser of tiie estate) dis- 
 putes your claim to any dividend, on the ground, " 
 etc., it was :— Held, tiiat the assignee iiad signi- 
 liod iiis election to allow tlie creditor to retain 
 the security-, and his abiudonnient of any right 
 to redeem it /or the estate. //*. 
 
 .See Ikatij v. Samuel, 29 Chy. 105, p. lOG. 
 
 6, Proctedimjs hy Indiddual Gredilors, 
 
 In ejectment plaintilf claimed title under a 
 dceil from the assignee in insolvency of 1'. I). 
 Prior to the issue of the writ of attachment in 
 inaolvcncy I'. D. Iiad conveyed the property to 
 his lirother L I). Two of the creditors claimed 
 that the ilci'd was frailduleut, and made a ilcmand 
 luuler section (iS of the Ius(dvent Act of I87'> 
 on the assignee to take proceedings to have the 
 deed set aside, wliich tlie assignee, on instruc- 
 tions from theeredilors, refused to do, whereupon 
 the two creditors obtained from the judge an 
 order niidi'r that section anthori/ing them to 
 i.iic the proceedings on tlicir own bclialf. Pro- 
 ceedings were thereupon taken and the deed set i 
 aside, rhc land was advertised, the period there- 
 for being .shortened by the judge, and was sold 
 to F., but in reality to tlic plaintill' to whom F. 
 conveyed. The assignee was iiotilied of the sale 
 and reipicsted to executo a conveyance to the 
 purchaser \\ Inch, under instructions from the cre- 
 ditors he refused to do, whereupon an order was 
 obtained from the judge directing the assignee to 
 execute tlie deed, the assignee's solicitor attend- 
 ing and opposing tin; ni.iking of the order. Under 
 section OS the " Iteiielit derived from such pro- 
 ceedings shall belong exclusively to the creditor 
 instituting the .same fen- ids benefit ;" and under 
 section 7"), no sale is to bo completed unless it 
 "h;w l)een sanctioned by tliocreditorsat their first 
 meeting, or at any subseipient meeting called for 
 the purpose or by the inspeiitors ;" and also the 
 period of the a<lvertisenient might be shortened 
 "by the creditors with the approval of the 
 judge :"— Held, ijosc, ,1., dissenting, that the 
 sale and the deed thereunder was valid. Per 
 Gait, J. The efl'ect of section 08 was to with- 
 draw the property from the general body of 
 creditors, and to vest it in the litig.ating credi- 
 tors ; and, so far as regards ])roceediiig under 
 this section, creditors when referred to in the 
 statute meant litigating creditors, and not the 
 jjeueral body of crc^ditois ; and the sale having 
 Wu sanctioned by such litigating creditors, sec- 
 tion 78 had liecii eomplie<l with. I'er Cameron, 
 C. J. rndur section OS the benefit to accrue 
 from tin proceeding i>.kssed from the estate to 
 the litigating croditor.s ; and the sauetion of all 
 the creditors referred to in section 78 was not 
 requisite ; but even if it were, the defendant, a 
 men stranger to the insidveney proceedings, was 
 not m a position to raise the objection. Per 
 Cameron, C. J., also. An assignee under the 
 Insolvent A(t 1875, is not merely the executor 
 of a power, but takes the legal estate which on 
 conveyance by him vests in his grantee clothed 
 with the trusts with which it was invested in 
 the assignee. Per Rose, J. The meaning of 
 
 section G8 was not that the litigating creditors 
 were to have the exclusive benelitof the proeood- 
 ing without limitation, but merely the benefit 
 thereof as creditors, that is, payment of thoir 
 debts in full ; but any surplus must go to tho 
 other creditors : that on the deed to L. 1). being 
 set aside the property did not vest in tho liti- 
 gating creditors, but was in the assignee who 
 held it in trust to so distriljuto it, and this being 
 a matter for the general benefit of the creditors 
 it was subject to the other provisions of the Act, 
 and therefore to the provisions of section 78, 
 which had not been complied with, so that no 
 sale was made, and no title passed thereunder. 
 Itu Jarvis i". Cook, 2!) Chy. .'tO.'J, considered and 
 commented on. The defendant set up that he 
 had a title by possession ; and that the title was 
 outstanding in a mortgagee ; but the cvidoneo 
 failed to establish it. Duiiocan v. Ilrrbcii, 9 O. 
 U. 89.— U. P. D. .V. C, I'i A. P.. 298. 
 
 7. sci-oj: 
 
 15y a lease, made by the defendant to tho 
 insolvents, the lessees were "to get pay for im- 
 provements at a fair valuation, and to have the 
 right of purchase during the term by paying 
 the lessor first all claims by way of notes, or 
 otherwise he holds, or may hold against tho said 
 lessees, and the sum of $2:).'i. 15 as purchase 
 money," etc. In January, 1875, an attachment 
 under the Insolvent Act of 1809, was issued ; 
 and in March defendant filed his claim, which 
 included a note for S50(), most of which sum had 
 been expended in imprir-cments, and had been 
 obtained for that purpose. There had been a 
 valuation of the improvements at the end of 
 the term in 1877, at §275, in which defendant 
 did not take part, and tho assignee sued defen- 
 dant for that sum on his covenant : — Held, 
 Armour, J., dissenting, that the note formed an 
 e<piitablc if not a legal set-off against the claim ; 
 that the right to such set-ofT was matter of pro- 
 cedure, and governed therefore by the Act of 
 1875, not the Act of 1809 ; and that defendant 
 was not precluded by having proved his claim. 
 Per Armour, J., the (juestion was governed by 
 the Act of 1809, and the plaintiffs claim not 
 being li(|uidated, the defendant's claim could not 
 be the subject of set off: — Quiei'c, wliether under 
 the lease the payment of defendant's claim was 
 not a condition precedent to his paying for im- 
 provements. Alnnon V. Macdonald, 45 Q. B. 
 113.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Tho difference between our insolvent law, as 
 to set-off, and that in I'^uglaud and the United 
 States remarked upon. lb. 
 
 8. Iiderest. 
 
 After payment by an insolvent's estate of 100 
 cents in the dollar the creditors claimed interest 
 on their claims out of a surplus in the hands of 
 the assignee : — Held, (reversing the decision of 
 the court below) that notwithstanding the pro- 
 visions of section 99 of the Insolvent Act, interest 
 was payable on all debts originally bearinc inter- 
 est by contract or otherwise, but not whore it 
 was claimable by law as damages only : — Held, 
 also, that the claim to such interest was properly 
 brought before the court by petition filed by the 
 inspectors, who, acting under a resolution of 
 
 Q 
 
 n 
 
 M 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
123 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 124 
 
 creditore, lia»l rc(|UC8tc(l the assignee to pay sucli 
 Interest. //( re McDovjall, 8 A. R. 309. 
 
 See Stevart v. 6'af/c, 13 O. E. 458, p. 113. 
 
 9. Frawlavil FnuKliiliVt Preferences. 
 
 (a) Tranmclivna Prokcted, 
 
 A iDortgiigc is a "contract" vitliiii the mean- 
 ing of the Insolvent Act of 1875, section 13(t :— 
 Hehl, under tlic circiinist.inces stated in the re- 
 port of this case, that tlie defendant might hold 
 u mortgage in his favour created by n person in 
 insolvent circiinistaneea for certain advances 
 made hy the mortgiigies contemporaneously with 
 the execution of tjie incumbrance, and also for 
 future advances intended to be secured thereby, 
 though it was not shcM'n that sneh advances 
 vere made for the purjiose of enabling the mort- 
 gagor to carry on his business, but that such 
 mortgage was not a v.'did security for antecedent 
 advances made by the mortgagee, nor for notes 
 cndoiscd by the mortgagee for the mortgagor, 
 l)ut not paid, in respect of which therefore ho 
 had been a surety only, not a creditor. Smith 
 V. Htm-iwjloi}, 20 t'liy. 502.— Spraggc. 
 
 The defendants dibeounted at a bank a promis- 
 sory note which A. had given them, and on 
 niatuiity it was paid to tlie Itank out of A.'s 
 moneys within thirty days of hi.s inndvency. In 
 an action by the assignee to recover the amount 
 from the defendants iis being a payment within 
 section 134 of the Insolvent Act of 1875:— Held, 
 reversing the decision of the County Court, that 
 they were not liable, as the payment was not 
 made to them, but to the bank, who were tlie 
 BCtual creditors. Mi/lir v. Harriy, 6 A. \{. 203. 
 
 K. had a line of discount with the defendants 
 of $2(),(J<)(), for which $5,000 collaterals were de- 
 posited as security, ii^ometime afterwards his 
 indebtedness to the bank was nearly doubled 
 when the agent insisted upon obtaining addi- 
 tional security by deposit of further collaterals, 
 and which some months before the insolvency 
 were deposited. This was impeached by the 
 assignee in insolvency of K. as being an unjust 
 preference of the bank : — Held, alKrming the 
 decision of the Court below, (28 C'hy. 449,) that 
 the transfer to the defendants, of the securities 
 as collaterals was valid, the plaintifl' liaving failed 
 to establish that K. contemplated insolvency : — 
 Held, also, that the want of knowledge by the 
 defendants' manager would not have availed the 
 defend.ints, if the insolvent had, in fact, made 
 the transfer in contemplation of insolvency. 
 A'cZ/cs v. Bank of Montreal, 7 A. R. 743. 
 
 Another transfer had been made to the bank 
 within thirty days of the insolvency, which was 
 also impeached, but upon the faith of which the 
 bank had made advances to K. exceeding the 
 value of the securities so transferred, which 
 would not otherwise have been made :— Held, 
 that the bank had not thereby obtained an unjust 
 preference, and therefore the transaction could 
 not be impeached. lb. 
 
 The insolvent made a cash payment of $1,000 
 to the bank a few days before his insolvency, but 
 it was sworn that lie had been allowed to over- 
 draw upon an agreement to cover it by this pay- 
 ment, and it was not shewn that the bank 
 manager had, at that time, probable cause to 
 
 believe in his inability to meet his ^n^agemcnta 
 in full :— Held, that this money could not be re- 
 covered back. 11. 
 
 Upon the arrangement for a deed of coniixisi- 
 tion and discharge, the creditors required se- 
 curity for payment of the composition, and one 
 Meikle, a creditor, agreed to endorse the com- 
 position notes upon receiving a mortgage upon 
 the property settled upon the insolvent's wife, 
 securing liim in respect of his cndorsations, and 
 on payment of $250 in addition to his composi- 
 tion : — Held, not a fraudulent preference within 
 the meaning of the Act. lie Ihtsxell, 7 A. R. 
 777.— Burton. 
 
 A post nuptial settlement upon his wife was 
 made by an insolvent at a time when he was not 
 aware of his inability to meet his liabilities, and 
 while he had contracts on hand from which he 
 might reasonably have expected to make a profit, 
 tliough they afterwards proved unsuccessful :— 
 Held, no ground for refusing the insolvent his 
 discharge. Ih. 
 
 \V., the respondent, was a private banker who 
 had had various dealings with one D., and had 
 discounted for him at an exorbitant rate of in- 
 terest notes received by 1). in the course of his 
 business. D.'s indebtedness on new transactions 
 amounted to a large sum of money, but, being a 
 m.nn of very sanguine t( nipernnient, be had en- 
 tered into a new line of business, after obtaining 
 goods on credit to the amount of §4,000 or 
 §5,000, ui)on a representation to the parties sup- 
 plying such goods that, although without any 
 available capital, ho had experience in business. 
 About twelve days after he had commenced his 
 new business, being threatened by a mortgagee 
 with foreclosure proceedings, he apjilied to W., 
 who advanced him 5^300, part of which was ap- 
 plied in paying the overdue interest on the mort- 
 gage, and the surplus in retiring a note of D.'s 
 held by W. , D. executed a mortgage in favour 
 of W. and was granted a reduced rate of interest 
 on his indebtedness, and was told he would have 
 to work carefully to get through. D. became 
 insolvent about f'^ur months afterwards. In a 
 suit by Mel!., as assignee, impeaching the mort- 
 gage to W., it W.1S : — Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of the Court of Appeal, (McCrae v. Whytc, 
 7 A. R. 103), that AlcR. had not satisfied the 
 onus which was cast ujion him by the Insolvent 
 Act, of shewing that the insolvent at the time 
 of the execution of the mortgage in question con- 
 templated that his embarrassment must of neces- 
 sity terminate in insolvency. McCrae v. White, 
 9 S. C. R. 22. 
 
 G., in 1878, being unable, on account of de- 
 pression in business, to meet his liabilities, ap- 
 plied to his creditors for an extension of time for 
 the payment of their claims, showing a surplus 
 of S6,000, after deduction of his bad debts. The 
 creditors consented to grant his request, and 
 agreed to accept G.'s notes at 4, 8, 12 and 16 
 months, on condition that the l.-ist of them should 
 be endorsed to their satisfaction. N. (the re- 
 spondent) agreed to endorse the last notes on 
 condition that G. should deposit in a bank in his 
 (N. 's) name §75 per week to secure him for such 
 endorsation, and G. signed an agreement to that 
 effect. Thereupon N. endorsed G. 's notes to an 
 amount of over §4,000, and they were given to 
 G.'s creditors. On 31ft July, 1879, G., after 
 
 125 
 
 having deposi 
 \ ille Mane H 
 he had endon 
 .ts ossignco of 
 claiming that 
 were fraudule 
 deposite(i mig 
 the benefit of i 
 the judgment 
 (Que.) Ritchie 
 ing, that the a 
 which the moi 
 became pledg( 
 the Inaolvent 
 uo fraud on t 
 tion of assets 
 but a proper 
 portion of G. ' 
 contravention 
 ing ut the mot 
 <;urity wiiich ( 
 -contemplation 
 ence. Beamu 
 
 See BnuMleai 
 V. Price, 27 C 
 <Jliy. 483 ; S. C 
 7 A. K. 98. 
 
 (b) 
 
 The bill was 
 of one T. , to s 
 shortly before 
 defendant T. i 
 «2,000 made I: 
 question for tb 
 of his brother • 
 *2,000 with wl 
 swore that he ] 
 of a debt due b 
 brother. J. ] 
 moneys belong 
 evidence was u 
 called:-Held, 
 V.C, that un 
 which surrouiK 
 upon the defei 
 debt was due i 
 that the mone 
 thereof had bei 
 security of the 
 evidence set o 
 lish. The rule 
 Clarke, 18 Ch 
 kind should no 
 ')y the uncorro 
 thereto— appro 
 
 TheplaintifFe 
 stone and brick 
 were to receive 
 tractors who al 
 school board, 
 selves of the 
 tors for their ( 
 the contractors 
 •were at the tinr 
 the plaintiffs ki 
 vency issued af 
 after the assigni 
 ing the judgme 
 transaction was 
 
 I 
 
125 
 
 BANKRUPTOT AND INSOLVENOY. 
 
 126 
 
 [it of de- 
 ities, af.- 
 ■ time for 
 surplus 
 8. The 
 lest, and 
 12 and 16 
 m should 
 . (the re- 
 iiotcs on 
 nk in his 
 for such 
 t to that 
 ites to an 
 given to 
 Gr., after 
 
 having deposited $2,007.87 in N.'h name, in the 
 \illeMnrie Bank, failed, and N. paid the notes 
 he had endorsed, partly with the $2,007.87. U., 
 as assignee of ()., Drought an action against N., 
 claiming that the payments made to N. by G. 
 were froudulent, and ]iraying that the money so 
 deposituii might be reimbursed by N. to B. , for 
 the benefit of all G. 's creditors :— Held, affirming 
 the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, 
 (Que.) Ritchie, C. J., and Fournier, J., dissent- 
 ing, that the arrangement between G. and N., by 
 which the moneys deposited in the bank by O. 
 became pledged to N., was not void either under 
 the Insolvent Act or the Civil Code ; there was 
 no fraud on the creditors, nor such an abstrac- 
 tion of assets from creditors as the law forbids, 
 but a proper and legitimate appropriation of a 
 portion of G.'s assets in furtherance and not in 
 t;ontravention of the rights of the creditors, giv- 
 ing at the most to the surety a preferential se- 
 <;urity which could not be said to have been in 
 contemplation of insolvency or an unjust prefer- 
 ence. lieauHuleil v. Normand, 9 8. C. R. 711. 
 
 See BmMeail v. Shaw, 27 Chy. 280 ; Darliwj 
 v. /Vice, 27 Chy. 331 ; Daviilxon v. McGuire, 27 
 <Jhy. 483 ; S, C, ^ith nom. Davidnon v, Macyuire, 
 7 A. K. 98. 
 
 (b) Tyaiuactiont A voided. 
 
 The bill was tiled by the assignee in insolvency 
 of one T. , to set oside a mortg~age given by him 
 shortly before his insolvency, alleging that the 
 defendant T. S., who was endorser of a note for 
 82,000 made by T., procured the mortgage in 
 {{uestion for that amount to be made in the name 
 of his brother J. N., and that he gave J. N. the 
 32,000 with which the note was retired. T. N. 
 swore that he paid J. N. the money in discharge 
 of a debt due by him to J. N. and P. N. , another 
 brother. J. N. also swore that the mortgage 
 moneys belonged to him and P. N., but their 
 evidence was uncorroborated, and P. N. , was not 
 called:— Held, reversing the decree of Proudfoot, 
 V. C, that under the suspicious circumstances 
 which surrounded this case, the onus was wholly 
 upon the defendants, to prove not only that a 
 debt was due from T. N., J. N. and P. N., but 
 that the money received by them in payment 
 thereof had been honestly advanced to T. on the 
 security of the impeached mortgage, which the 
 evidence set out in the report failed to estab- 
 lish. The rule laid down in Merchants' Bank v. 
 Clarke, 18 Chy. 594, that transactions of this 
 kind should not be held sufficiently established 
 iiy the uncorroborated testimony of the parties 
 thereto— approved of. Morion v. Nihan, 5 A. R. 
 20. 
 
 The plaintifTs, who were aub-contractors for the 
 stone and brickwork of a public school, and who 
 were to receive payment from the principal con- 
 tractors who alone were recognized by the public 
 school board, procured an assignment to them- 
 selves of the balance due them by the contrac- 
 tors for their completed work, and payable to 
 the contractors by the board. The contractors 
 ■were at the time unable to pay their debts, which 
 the plaintiffs knew, and an attachment in insol- 
 vency issued against them within three months 
 after the assignment of the claim : — Held, affirm- 
 ing the judgment of Proudfoot, V. C, that the 
 transaction was an unjust preference under sec- 
 
 tion 133 of the Insolvent Act of 187<'i ; and, 
 Semble, that it was also within the meaning of 
 sections 130 and 132, and the plaintitTs could not 
 maintain a suit toeuforco payment 4)f the balance 
 assigned to them, Ori[hthH v. I'erry, A. K. 
 «72. 
 
 v., u shipowner in Yarmouth, N. S., employed 
 OS his agents in Liverpool J. & Co. , the defen<uuit 
 J. being a member of their firm, and as agents 
 in New York he employed the firm of 8. & It., 
 of which the defendant S. was a member. In 
 the course of his dealings with these agentit he 
 became indebted to both firms for acceptance by 
 them of his drafts, made when he was in wont 
 of money, towards the payment of which they 
 received the freights of nis vessel and remittan- 
 ces in money, (Jn one occasion he said that he 
 would give to the Liverpool firm a mortgage on 
 the "Tsernogora" or "Magnolia" when they 
 should require it, and in a subsequent conversa- 
 tion with a member of the firm he agreed to give 
 such mortgage on certain conditions which were 
 not carried out. He also promised the firm in 
 New York to give them security in case any- 
 thing happened, and mentioned as such security 
 a mortgage on the " Tsernogora." According to 
 F.'s own statement ho had sufficient property to 
 psiy his liabilities when these conversations took 
 place. A few weeks after these conversations 
 took place, F. executed a mortgage oi \\ shares 
 of the " Tsernogora " in favour of the defendants 
 J. and S. and had the same recorded, and within 
 thirty days thereafter a writ of attachment in 
 insolvency was issued against him. The plain- 
 tiff, who was appointed assignee of F.'a estate 
 by his creditors, filed a bill to have the mortgage 
 set aside, claiming that it was void under section 
 133 of the Insolvent Act of 1875. The defen- 
 dant J. did not answer the plaintiff's bill, and 
 the other defendants denied that the mortgage 
 was made in contemplation of insolvency, and 
 also claimed that as it was made under the pro- 
 visions of the Merchants' Shipping Act, (Imp.), 
 it was not affected by the Insolvent Act of 1875. 
 The Judge in equity, before whom the cause was 
 heard, made a decree in favour of the plaintiff, 
 and ordered the mortgage to be set aside, and 
 the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dismissed an 
 appeal from that judgment. On appeal to the 
 •Supreme Court qf Canada : — Held, affirming the 
 judgment of the court below, (Henry, J., dis- 
 senting), that the promise to awe security "in 
 case anything should happen ' could only mean 
 "inc.tsethe party should go into insolvency," 
 and that the transfer was void under section 133 
 of the Insolvent Act of 1875 : — Held, also, that 
 the provisions of the Merchants' Shipping Act 
 did not prevent the property in the ship passing 
 to the assignee under the Insolvent Act. done* 
 V. Kinney, 11 S. C. R. 708. 
 
 See Smith v. Uarriiujlon, 29 Chy. 502, p. 123 ; 
 Milhy V. Kerr, 8 S. C. R. 474, p. 142. 
 
 10. Fraudulent Concealment of Astels. 
 
 A final order of discharge obtained by an in- 
 solvent upon a deed of composition and discharge 
 duly confirmed, will be vacated by this court, ou 
 bill filed by a creditor, party to the insolvency 
 proceedings, where such discharge had been 
 obtained by a fraudulent concealment of assets. 
 An insolvent firm, on September 16th, 1878, made 
 
 S 
 
 •5 
 
 s 
 
w 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 128 
 
 •n Miilgnnicnt under the Insolvent Acts. On 
 Octolur 2n.l, IH78. u <lte.l »»' conili«mitl.>ti lUijl 
 <li»tliiilK< . iin<ltl' llie «"'il Attn, WiiH tXfCiltLiI, 
 wlimliv tl" si'i'l '''■"' t<>veniinti'.l t.p \>ny ii >'i'i- 
 tiiin iliviilih.l, antl i.u l-'tlmiiiiy '.'Slli, 1ST!', tliu 
 Judgi: ill iiiMcilvmty iiiaileun onliT for its roiilii- 
 iiialK-ii, a HW nil Htatcnitiit c.f tlio ns.-ctH iiiul lia 
 l.ililiiH 1.1 tlir linn liaving litin limt iliilv lilol I'.v 
 thu liieniliriH tlicieof. Long aftnwur.lM lun' of 
 tlio urciliti.ia, who liad (.'onai ntiil, on |iiO"unt 
 iif a certain dividend, tonssign hiH elaini to S. as 
 IniBtee for the insolvent liini, and lor the imi ■ 
 ]ioW! of exenitiiiK the said deed, thonj^h hi^ hini- 
 helf refiiHid to exeeute it, dinroverid (hat ('., 
 one of the niinilieiHof tiie Hini had fiaiidiilnilly 
 eonceiilcd k< ine of hin asHetH, and he tiled a iiill 
 in this loiirt to have the naiil died of < oniiio.'^i 
 
 ti( iikI till Older eonlirniillK the.stliie, deelalid 
 
 void »N nKiiioHt hini :- Held, that tlie deed anil 
 order of lonhi iiintion nil . t ho vaeiited as n jjard 
 t'd ('., and the iiisolveliey |)roerediii;;s reopi lud, 
 so that there niijiht he a due adiniiiistration of 
 the aMietH, thus withluhl, and the asMij^nnient to 
 S. ninst he jiievented from hein,!,' Hit n|i aM a Imr 
 tomieh relief. Mri/fc v. (•(im}J>'ll,'Hl I!. VM, 
 Chy. !>. ; leverning .V. C. 'JH Ciiy. .'lOS. 
 
 Held, (I'roudfoot, .!., diil.itaiiti), inasniueh 
 08 the a-ssttH fiauduleiitly einieealed were 
 O.'h jirivato proinrty, and not the ]iroii(rtyof 
 the iiartmihhil), the diseliarge should only lie 
 vuealed as to private estate of ( '. i'er rnnid- 
 foot, .1., the aN.sigiiiuent to S. was invalid. In iiij,' 
 made wilhoMt (Miiisidei; tioii, or for a eonsidiia 
 tion, whieh wa.s IK) natisfiution, luiiiK the pay 
 mint of a h .-o mm for a ' 
 
 )r a L'reater ; hut even if it 
 ive Tueii for value, it was 
 
 sullieieiit for the jilaiiitifr to shew that it was 
 entered into iiiuler a ii.islaku eauwed liy the 
 iiisolvtiit lirm, as to the true anioiiiil ot Ihu 
 ah.sil.s, whetliiT the liiiii aeted iniioeeiitly or 
 otherwise. Jh. 
 
 It nlpo afiiicarcd flint among ('.'a assets was a 
 certain kuim received hy him, or to whii'h lie had 
 n el.iiiii fn 'ii a eertnin railM.ay ((iiiiiiaiiy as eoiii- 
 pens.itioii for si rvires rendered a.s trm|ioiary 
 aetiiiK pi' sidi lit : ll<'ld, tli;it ('.Mas houiid to 
 retuMi .IS nil asset th<' |)oilioii of the eoiiipnisa- 
 tion piiyrilile fur.si rvici s r'lidi ri<I U)i to the datu 
 of the assiyimieiit ill iiisolviiK v, Imt not the 
 remainder. lb. 
 
 It appi .•iriiii,'tliat part of C.'sasst t.s was eei tain 
 railwav slork, ohtiiined hy liiiii on a eontraet, 
 (hat he w:is to ret.iin one half, il lie could u,'wf 
 the stock a iiiiu ketahle v.ilii,', Imt that if he eoiild 
 not do so within a certain lime, cxteiuliiiL,' In- 
 yoiid (he iiiiiiod of the ins<ilveiicy procecdiii,i;s, 
 the traiiBaetion was to ho v<iiil, ami in: was to re- 
 tr.Misfcr : Held, (li.il the kIi;ii(.s should iiavi^ 
 been retuiiied in his sworn statciiiciit as p.irt of 
 his aascts, f<ir the lanj.;iun;o of the statute w.i.s 
 lariic enouL'h to cover Kiicli an interest. It was 
 a valid executory contract, and a.s such passed 
 on insolvency to tho assignee, lli. 
 
 11. Frand in Ohlainiinj Goodn on Credit, 
 
 AVhere a judgment h.as )>cen recovered for a 
 dehtwidioiit frainl being chargi'd nnder ?. Kit! 
 of the Insolvent j\ct of l.S7ri, the plaintill' is 
 barred by such recovery from brinnintr another 
 action ig.uiist tho debtor charging tho fraud, 
 
 I even althougli tho jiidgmont was recovered bt 
 default, for thu plaintilf might have declared, 
 
 I averring Hiieli fraud, and had thu 4U0Htiuu tried. 
 /.ijhihoiiiid V. Uill, ;« 0. P. 240.— Cameron. 
 
 I <iii;ere, wlieth(!r, where an insolvent's CHtate 
 ' vested in an asHignee under tho Insolvent Act 
 
 before itM repeal, tiio action for tho alleged fraud 
 
 was a proceeding that might hu continuud there- 
 ' under under tho terms of tho repealing Act, 43 
 ; Vict. 0. 1, Don). , or of thu Interpretation Act, 31 
 
 \'icl. e. I, DoMi. ; and whether, also, thu sectiuQ 
 I i;iii of tlit^ Insolvdit Act of IH7<'> was ultra vires 
 ! the Doiiiinioii rarliaiiieiit. Remarks ns to tho 
 ! ililleK nee between .-section lltfl, and tho eorrcs- 
 
 ponding provision in Hcotioii 1)2 in tho Insulveiit 
 
 Actof ISIIK. /h. 
 
 I*, ot 111., merchants carrying on business in 
 Kngland, brought an action for $4,0()D on tho 
 eonimoii eoiint.s ag.iinst >F. S. et. al., and in order 
 to bring S. et al. within the purview of section 
 i;t(! ol the Insolviiit Act of 187.'», by a special 
 count alleged in their (loclaiaMoii that a [lurchose 
 of goods w.is made by S. et al. from them on tho 
 l.'ttli .March, IN7!>, ami another purchase on the 
 •J'.lth .M;iieli of the sainit year ; that when S. et 
 id. made llie said purehases they had probahle 
 caiisi fur belie\iiig (heniselves to bo uiiablu to 
 meet their ( iig.igements and concealed the fact 
 from I', et al., theieby becoming their creditoni 
 with intent to defraud I', et al. ,1. S. (appel- 
 hiiitl aniiiii;.-t otiiei' pleas, pleaded that tho con- 
 tract out of which the alleged cause of action 
 arose was made in I'lngland and not in Canada. 
 To this plea I', el al. demurred. It waa agreed 
 tli.it the pli .idiiiL's were to bo treated n.s ninendcd 
 by alleging that the delendants were traders and 
 Ihilish subjects resident and domiciled in{/'aiiad» 
 at the time of the piireliaHe of the goods in ijuci- 
 I tion and liad Mibseipiently beeonio in.solventa 
 under the Insolvi ii( Act of 1875, and anieiid- 
 I nienta thereto. !'» r liitchie, (!. .1., and I'our- 
 : nier, •!. : I. 'I hat section 1,'ili of tho Insolvent 
 ] Act of ).S7'> is inlia virtus the rarli.'imciit ot 
 I ( '.■iiiad.a. ■_'. 'I'lial I he eharue of frand in the prc- 
 \ .sent suit is iiieu^ly a (iroeecding to enforce pay- 
 i meiit of a debt under a law relating to hank- 
 riiptey and insolvency over whi(di subjci:t mat- 
 ter the I'ailiaiiu III of (laiiaila has jiower tologis- 
 i l.ile. .'{. .Mlhoiigli the fiiiiiduleiit net charged 
 I was coiiiiiiilteil ill another country beyond tllo 
 (eiritotial jiirisilK lion <if thi! courts in Canaila, 
 , tlie defiiiil;inl « as not exeni))t for that reason 
 I from liabilily iiinbi- 1 1 ii' pro visions of the l.'KUhscc- 
 tion of the I Msohenl Act, IS7."), and therefore the 
 jilc'i dciiiiiii' d to \\,'i;< bad and the appeal sliiiuld 
 I lie disniis.sed. I'c i (iwyniie, ,)., the deliiiUTer 
 does not raisi; the ipieslion whether the section 
 ! I lit! of the liisolveiil ,\etof Ih7"> is or is not ultm 
 (\iie.s the Dominion pailiameiit. for whether it 
 I be or not, the plea demurred to i.s bad, inasimich 
 •IS it •oi.fessiis the debt for which the action is 
 ' brought, and that ueli d, lit was incurred under 
 circumstances of ti.iiid, and oilers no matter 
 whatever of avoiilance or in bar of the action ; 
 (lierefore, if the njiiical be entertained it must 
 be dismissed. I'l i Strong, Henry, and Taschc- 
 rean, .1.1., there Ik iiig nothing cither in the lan- 
 guage or olijcct of Ihe 1,'illlli .section ot llio Insol- 
 vent Act to warrant the im)dication that it was 
 to have any elleei oiiL of Canada, it must be 
 held not to extend to the inirehaso of gnoda in 
 I'aiglaiid b^ delciiilant, stated in the second 
 
129 
 
 BANKRUPTOT AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 130 
 
 count of tho declaration. In thiH view, it i» 
 unnvccMvary to decide br to tho conRtitutional 
 
 ' ■■ ' "" '~ iicBtion, and tho 
 
 'he court being 
 diRnnsscd, with 
 
 valiiiity of tho enactment in (uicBtion, and tho 
 Aiipciil BhouUl he allowed. The cr ' ' ' 
 eiiually divided, the appeal was di^nii 
 out .:o8tB. ShifUU V. Pfid; 8 S. C. It 679 ; .V. C, 
 
 mb nom. i'ttk v. AAieW#, 6 A. U.B30} 31 C. P. 1 12. 
 
 l!i. Dincharge, 
 
 (a) Qroundsfor liffuning Ducharge. 
 
 Held, that tho inBolvcntH were not entitled to 
 a discharge under Heetion G5 of the insolvent 
 Act of 1870, as the facts Hct out in the report of 
 the case, did not shew that their failuru to pay 
 a dividend of tifty cents in the dollar was caused 
 hy circumstances arisini; more than one month 
 after the mailing of the declaration of insolvency, 
 for which they could not ho justly held respon- 
 siblo within tno meaning of the third proviso to 
 that section. Quiii c, as to the effect of neglect- 
 ing to mail such declaration to each creditor, as 
 required by that section. In re Oalbrailh and 
 ChriMe, 5 A. R. 358. 
 
 The insolvent swore to an afTidavik verifying 
 the statement of liabilities and assets, but inad- 
 vertently omitted tho statement of the causes to 
 which he attributed his insolvency, which, how- 
 ever, he made verbally at tho first meeting of 
 creditors, where the contestant was present. 
 This defect was not pointed out for more than 
 a year, and after tho discharge had been applied 
 for, and the insolvent then swore to another 
 affidavit supplying the omission : — Held, revers- 
 ing the decision of tho Judge of tho County 
 Court, that tho omission to furnish the statement 
 within seven daya from the assignment under 
 lection 17, was immaterial, as it expressly gave 
 the right to correct or supplement the statement, 
 which bad been done : — Held, also, that under 
 Bection 57, the omission complained of would not 
 disentitle the insolvent to his discharge, as it was 
 not wilful :— Held, also, that under the circum- 
 stances more fully set out in the report of the 
 case, the opposing creditor was estopped from 
 objecting to the omission. lie Martin and Eng- 
 lith, Insolvtnla, 5 A. R. 647. 
 
 Under sections 66 and 57 of the Insolvent Act 
 of 1875, a Judge has no power to grant an insol- 
 vent his discharge, where he has failed to keep 
 a cash book and account Iraoks suitable for his 
 trade, even although such omission may not bo 
 dne tia any fraudulent intention. Be Oooding, 
 an Insolvent, 6 A. R. 643. 
 
 Where an insolvent omits to keep books of 
 account suitable for his trade, he is not entitled 
 to an immediate discharge under the Insolvent 
 Act of 1875, though such failure may not be 
 owing to any improper motive. In this case, 
 however, as the insolvent had kept certain books, 
 which although imperfect were honestly meant 
 M a business record, his discharge was only sus- 
 pended for three months, lie Bullivant, an 
 Insolvent, 6 A. R. 638. 
 
 The insolvent, nine months before his insol- 
 Vflncy, stated to the contestant that he had a 
 rarplns of $40,000. When he failed it appeared 
 that there was a deficiency of about that amount, 
 the difference not being satisfactorily, if at all, 
 accounted for. He did not produce all his books, 
 
 8 
 
 but it was proved that they were kept in such a 
 manner that they would not shew thu true state 
 of his atlairs. Tho cash book had never been 
 balanced, and no Imlaiice sheet wns ever made 
 out ; bills were discounted which did nut aiipeur 
 in any of thu books, and goods were transferred 
 from his wh(dcHitlc to his retail place of businesa 
 without entry in thu books that wero keiit : — 
 Held, reversing tho order of tho Judge below 
 granting a discharge to thu insolvent, 1, that 
 though un insolvent may bu guilty of the otTenco 
 of not fully, clearly, and truly stating thu causes 
 of his insolvency, that is no ground for refusing 
 the discharge, even after a conviction for thu 
 oU'cncc ; 2, that the omission to keep any books 
 prevents tho judge from granting a discharge, 
 whether tho intent bo fraudulent or not ; but, 3, 
 when they have been kept, it is not essential, on 
 the one hand, that they should be kept in tho 
 most approved form nor arc they suHicicnt, on 
 tho other, however carefully k«^pt in some re- 
 spcctfl, if they fail to exhibit the insolvenfu 
 exact position ; 4, that under thu facts in this 
 case the insidvcnt was not entitled to his dis- 
 charge. Liberty to tho insolvent to renew tho 
 application was given, if he should be so advised 
 on his producing the remainder of his books. In 
 re Hill, 7 A. R. C94. 
 
 Semble, that it .in insolvent obtains the con- 
 sent of tho required number of creditors or tho 
 execution of a ilecd of composition and discharge 
 he may ut once make the a]>plication without 
 waiting for the expiration of a year ; ho is not 
 precluded however, from applying after the expi- 
 ration of a year, under tho ti4th section of the 
 Insolvent Act ( 1875). Ih. 
 
 In order to absolutely disentitle on ineolvent 
 to his dischorge on the ground of failure to keep 
 proper books of account, where the case is not 
 one of a commercial business, the party opposing 
 the discharge must shew that there were no 
 books ; or, if there were, in what resjicct they 
 were defective. lie Jhixnetl, 7 A. K. 777. 
 
 It is no objection to an application by an in- 
 solvent for a discharge under sections 64 and 65 
 of the Act, that a previous application under 
 section 56 to confirm a deed of composition and 
 discharge had been refused, where it appeared 
 that the ground of refusal was that the deed was 
 not executed by a sufticient number of creditors 
 who had proved claims. Ih. 
 
 Qmere, whether an assignee would bo justified 
 in reconveying the estate to the insolvent under 
 the directions contained in a deed so insuffi- 
 ciently executed. Ih. 
 
 Upon his appointment the assignee took an 
 inventory of the property, but owing to the exe- 
 cution of the deed of composition and discharge, 
 afterwards declared inoperative, did not remove 
 it : — Held, not a retention or concealment by 
 the insolvent, so as to disentitle him to his dis- 
 charge ; in such a case tho retention and con- 
 cealment necessary to disentitle an insolvent to 
 his discharge must be wilful and fraudulent. lb. 
 
 (b) Effect of Discharge. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Cameron, J., 
 that under the Insolvent Act of 1864, s. 9, sub-a. 
 6, a discharge in insolvency would form no an- 
 swer to proceedings upon a judgment against th© 
 
 I* 
 
 5 
 
 > 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-.?) 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 v 
 ^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ^1^ 1^ 
 
 i us 1110 
 
 1.8 
 
 U iL6 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 \ 
 
 <J 
 
 ,v 
 
 ^\ 
 
 rv 
 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. US80 
 
 (716) •72-4503 
 
 <v 
 

 i/j 
 
131 
 
 BANES. 
 
 132 
 
 133 
 
 ^A 
 
 defendant for seduction. Benninger v. Thrasher, 
 9 P. R. 206 -,8. C, 8ub nom. Beninger v. 
 Thraxher, 1 O. R. 313. -Q. B. D. 
 
 In 1866 judgment was recovered against the 
 defendant in this action for breach of promise of 
 marriage, and in another for seduction. The 
 defendant then made an assignment under the 
 Insolvent Act, \S64, having no assets, and his 
 only creditors being the plaintiflfs in the two 
 actions. No creditors appeared, and after twelve 
 months he petitioned for his discharge. The 
 application was duly advertised, and no opposi- 
 tion being made, was granted. He subsequently 
 acquirti some property, and execution was then 
 issi i, this action. The Master in Chambers 
 refi... c' to set aside the execution on motion made 
 by the defendant, and his order was reversed by 
 Osier, J. :— Held, affirming the decision of Osier, 
 J., thu'j *1 -5 want of assets at the time of mak- 
 ing the 'f nent could not be set up on the 
 appli';a- ■ a ground for avoiding the dis- 
 
 charge, . , 18 a matter for the consideration 
 of the insjl' I'lt court upon the application there- 
 for, and thivv unless attacked for fraud it was a 
 complete answer to the plaiutiSf 's claim : — Held, 
 also, that the plaintiff's claim was one which 
 was Varred by the discharge. Thomas v. Hall, 
 6 F. R. 172, and Parke v. Day, 24 0. P. 619, 
 commented upon. Forrester v. Thrasher, 9 P. 
 R. 383 ; 2 0. E. 38.— Q. B. D. 
 
 To an action by a commercial traveller for 
 wages, defendants pleaded a deed of composi- 
 tion and discharge in insolvency. The plaintitt 
 replied that the claim was privileged : — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the Queen's Bench, (45 
 Q. B. 188), that privileged claims are not within 
 the class of debts mentioned in section 63 of the 
 Insolvent Act of 1875, to which a discharge does 
 not apply without the consent of the creditor. 
 Fryer v. Shields, 6 A. R. 57. 
 
 See Beaty v. Samuel, 29 Chy. 105, p. 106. 
 
 13. Repeal of Act. 
 
 The repeal of the Insolvent Act does not 
 affect any insolvent whose estate has vested in 
 the assignee prior to the repeal. Cooper v. Kirk- 
 patrick, 8 P. R. 248.— Dalton, Q.C. 
 
 Held, that the doctrine of pressure which ob- 
 tained before the insolvency laws now occupies 
 the same position since their repeal. Brayley v. 
 Ellis, 1 O. R. 119. — Ferguson. Affirmed on ap- 
 peal. 9 A. U. 665. 
 
 See Lightbound v. Hill, 32 C. P. 249, p. 128 ; 
 Clarkson v. While, 4 0. R. 663, p. 119. 
 
 V. MiscELiiANEOvs Casks. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Chancery 
 Division (1 0. R. 167) Spragge, C.J.O., dissent- 
 ing, that an assignment under the Insolvent Act 
 1875, by an insolvent mortgagor does not stop 
 the running of the Sbttute of Limitations so as 
 to keep alive the claim of the mortgagee against 
 the land. Court t. Walsh, 9 A. R. 294. 
 
 A creditor who attended a meeting of creditors 
 after the execution of a deed of assignment, and 
 assented to be appointed a trustee to aid the 
 assignee in winding up the estate was— Held es- 
 
 topped from afterwards denying the validity of 
 the assignment. Gardner v. Klmpfer, 7 O. R, 
 603.— Osier. 
 
 As to effect of extinguishment of mortgage 
 after assignment in insolvency by mortgagor. 
 See In re Music Hall Block — Dumble v. Mcintosh, 
 8 0. R. 225. 
 
 Construction of words "insolvent and bank- 
 rupt" in a by-law. See Temple v. Toronto Stock 
 Exchange, 8 O. R. 705. 
 
 Acceptation of an insolvent succession — when 
 obtained by fraud. See Ayotte v. Boucher, 9 S. 
 0. R. 460. 
 
 Priority of the Crown over other creditors to 
 
 Eayment of moneys deposited in a bank that has 
 ecome insolvent. See Regina v. Barik of Nova 
 Scotia, 11 S. C. R. 1 ; The Liquidators of the 
 Maritime Bank v. Regina, 17 S. C. R. 657. 
 
 Held, that the statute 33 Vict. c. 40 (Dom.), 
 which recites the insolvency of the Bank of Upper 
 Canada, vests the property of the insolvent estate 
 in the Crown as trustee for the creditors, and 
 provides for its realization in order that the debts 
 may be paid, is within the powers of the Domin- 
 ion Parliament, under sub-section 21 of section 
 91 of the B. N. A. Act. Regina v. County oj 
 Wellington, 17 O. R. 615.— Q. B. D. 
 
 BANES. 
 
 I. Managers and Officers. ■ 
 
 1. Powers and Duties, 132. 
 II. Deposits, 133. 
 
 III. Deposit Receipts, 135. 
 
 IV, Cheques, 136. 
 
 V. Bills and Notes, 138. 
 AT. Taking Collateral Secubity. 
 
 1. Generally, 138. 
 
 2. BUls of Lading and WareJiouse Re- 
 
 ceipts, 140. 
 
 VII. Purchase or Sale of Goods, 145. 
 VIII. Miscellaneous Cases, 145. 
 IX. Winding up— See Compant. 
 
 X. Powers of Dominion Parliament and 
 
 Local Legislatures — <See Constitd- 
 TioNAL Law. 
 
 I. Managers and Officers. 
 
 ' 1. Powers and Duties. 
 
 Endorsement of note by bank manager— Suf- 
 ficiency of. See Small v. Riddel, 31 C. P. 373. 
 
 Liability of bank on guarantee of local agent. 
 See Dobell v. OiUario Batik, 3 O. R. 299. See 
 S. C, 9 A. R. 484. 
 
 A bank manager is not acting without the 
 scope of his authority in accepting the cheque of 
 a customer to deliver to another customer on a 
 particular day or on the happening of a specified 
 event. Grieve v. Molsons Bank, 8 0. R. 162. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
132 
 
 133 
 
 BANKS. 
 
 134 
 
 Deed of composition executed by local man- 
 ager "for Bank of Commerce C. Nicholson" 
 with ordinary seal : — Held, not binding on the 
 bank. Bank of Commerce v. Jenkins, 10 0. K. 
 215. -C. P. D. 
 
 Power of local manager to compound claim of 
 the bank. lb. 
 
 II. Deposits. 
 
 One MoE. , who was the assignee of an insol- 
 vent estate, kept the estate account as well as 
 his private account, at the defendants' bank. 
 Certain notes of the estate were deposited by hiin 
 with defendants for collection, and the proceeds 
 placed to the credit of the eatate, which McE., 
 as assignee, drew out by cheque, and redeposited 
 with defendants to his private account, and then 
 used for his own purposes. It did not appear 
 that the bank derived any benefit from the trans- 
 fer, or that McE. was indebted to them : — Held, 
 that defendants were not liable to repay the 
 amount to the estate. Clench v. Consolidated 
 Bank of Canada, 31 C. P. 169.— C. P. D. 
 
 S. G. acquired during the life of his first wife, 
 M. A. B., certain immovable property which 
 fonned part of the communaut6 de biens existing 
 between them. At his death, after his marriage 
 with H. S., his second wife, he was greatly in - 
 volved. His widow H. S., having accepted sous 
 benefice d'inventaire the universal usufructuary 
 .legacy made in her favour by S. 6., continued in 
 possession of her estate as well as that of M. A. 
 &., the first wife, and administered them both, 
 employing one G. to collect pay debts, etc. 
 Shortly afterwards, at a meeting of the creditors 
 of S. G. , of whom the respondents were the chief, 
 .a resolution was adopted authorizing H. S. to sell 
 and licitate the properties belonging to the estate 
 'of S. G., with the advice of an advocate and the 
 cashier of the respondents, and promising to ra- 
 tify anything done on their advice, and tne cre- 
 ditors resolved that the moneys derived from the 
 eale or licitation of the properties should be de- 
 j)08ited with the respondents, to be apportioned 
 among S. G.'s creditors pro rata. G. continued 
 .to collect the fruits and revenues and rents, and 
 acted generally for H. S. and under the advice 
 -aforesaid, and deposited both the moneys derived 
 from the estate of S. G. and those derived from 
 the estate of M. A. B., the first wife, with the 
 respondents, under an account headed ' ' Succes- 
 sion S. G." A balance remained after some 
 •cheques thereupon had been paid, for which this 
 ■action was now brought by tlie heirs and repre- 
 sentatives of Dame M. A. B. : — Held, per Strong, 
 Taschereau andGwynne, JJ., (Ritchie, C.J. , and 
 Fournier and Henry, JJ., contra,) that as be- 
 tween the heirs B. and the bank there was no 
 relation of creditor and debtor, nor any fiduciary 
 relation, nor any privity whatever ; and as the 
 moneys collected by G. belonging to the heirs of 
 
 B. were so collected by him as the agent of H. 
 S., and notas the agent of the bank, and received 
 by the bank in good faith, as applicable to the 
 ■<lel)ts of the estate of S. G. , and as the represen- 
 tatives of H. S. were not parties to the action, 
 the apjiellants could not recover the moneys sued 
 for. Oiraldi v. La Bannw Jacques Cartier, 9 S. 
 
 C. R. 597. 
 
 The plaintiffs were sureties to a bank for a 
 debt due by a company, and for which the bank 
 
 held other notes as collaterals. Under a special 
 agreement made in a prior suit, the receiver in 
 such suit deposited the proceeds of such colla- 
 terals in such bank subject to the order of the 
 court. The plaintiff!-, claimed to apply the pro- 
 ceeds so deposited to reduce the debt of the 
 company, but the bank refused so to apply them 
 without an order of court: — Held, (1) that the 
 bank was constituted a stakeholder of such 
 moneys, and could not so apply them without 
 the sanction of the court : (2) that the bank 
 was not chargeable with interest on the moneys 
 so deposited, even though it might have made 
 a profit on such moneys. HiUton v. Federal Bank, 
 9 P. R. 568. — Hodgins, Maater-in-Ordinary. 
 
 The plaintiff placed in the hands of one J. , a 
 practising solicitor, a mortgage given, to the plain- 
 tiff by one R., together with a discharge thereof 
 duly executed, for the purpose of enabling J. to 
 receive payment of the mortgage money, which 
 R. was borrowing from a Loan Company, and 
 which it was arranged, between the plaintiff and 
 J. , in the presence of the local manager of a bank 
 of which J. was the solicitor, should De deposited 
 by the solicitor in such bank to the credit of tae 
 plaintiff, and a deposit receipt obtained therefor. 
 J. did receive the money by a cheque of the Loan 
 Company, amounting with iaterest to $6,455, 
 whicn he deposited in the bank to his private ac- 
 count. About ten days afterwards he drew upon 
 his account for $3,000, which he deposited in the 
 same bank to the credit of the plantiff, obtained 
 a deposit receipt therefor in favourof the plaintiflT, 
 and transmitted the same to the plaintiff on the 
 26th of August, 1831, telling the plaintiff in hia 
 letter that '* the balance will be sent next week." 
 He drew upon the fund for his own purposes, and 
 died, without rendering any account, on the 4th 
 of September following : — Held, that the banlc 
 was not affected with notice of the money so de- 
 
 Eosited being trust moneys, so as to render the 
 ank liable for J.'s misappropriation thereof. 
 Bailey v. Jellett, 9 A. R. 187. 
 
 After the deposit of the plaintiff's money J. re- 
 covered a sum of $1,182.95 for the defendant S. 
 as her solicitor, which he also deposited in the 
 same account on the 24th of August, 1881. Up 
 to the time of J. 's death the amount at his cre- 
 dit always exceeded this sum : — Held, that the 
 moneys so deposited by J. had been held by him 
 in a fiduciary cIik racter, and might be followed 
 by B. & S. ; buc (in this reversing the judgment 
 of the court below) as between the plaintiff and 
 S., that S. had a first charge upon the sum at 
 the credit of J. for the full amount of her deposit, 
 and that the balance was applicable to the dis- 
 charge of the plaintiff's demand. lb. 
 
 The bank claimed the right to charge against 
 the acc>'unt in priority to the claims of the plain- 
 tiff am ^. cheques and notes of J. presented or 
 matur' ig after notice to the bank of J. 's death : — 
 Held, that they could not do so, and in conse- 
 quence of having made such claim both in this 
 court and the court below, they were refused 
 their costs. lb. 
 
 Where a deposit was made in a bank, and it 
 was shewn that at a directors' meeting, held the 
 previoiu day, the necessity of seeking outside 
 assistance or suspending payment had been con- 
 sidered and a resolution passed to suspend pay- 
 ment if such assiatap^e were refused, and tfaiat 
 
 
 
i»Jllill..i-lJI!-LU]i;MI 
 
 wmmm 
 
 m 
 
 BANES. 
 
 136 
 
 '§¥U 
 
 ■when the bank closed on the day the deposit 
 was made, it did not open again, and notice of 
 suspension of payment was given on the follow- 
 ing mornine : — Held, that the depositors were 
 entitled to be repaid the amount of their deposit 
 as obtained from them by fraud, and the liqui- 
 dators were ordered to pay the same with 
 interest from the date of the deposit. Quiiere, 
 whether motion by petition was the proper mode 
 of Procedure in a case like this. Be the Central 
 £ai)k oj Canada and the Wind'.ng-up Act, ch. 
 129 of R. S. C— Wells and MacMvrchy's Case, 
 15 O, K. 611.— MacMahon. 
 
 III. Deposit Receipts. 
 
 An incorporated bank, by its cashier, issued 
 deposit receipts in the following form: "Re- 
 ceived from the sum of $ , which this 
 bank will repay to the said or order, with 
 interest at four per cent, per a; ni ai, on receiving 
 fifteen days' notice. No interest will be allowed 
 unless the money remains with this bank six 
 months. This receipt to be given up to the 
 bank when payment of either principal or in- 
 terest is required :"— Held, that it was com- 
 petent under the Banking Act R. S. C. c. 120, 
 to issue such deposit receipts, and that even if 
 they did not possess all the incidents of promis- 
 sory notes, yet being meant to be transferred 
 by endorsement, they were so far negotiable as 
 to pass a good title to a bona fide purchaser for 
 value, taking without notice of any infirmity of 
 title, ife Central Bank-— Morton and Block's 
 Claims, 17 0. R. 574.— Boyd. 
 
 Semble, that these deposit i-eceipts were ne- 
 gotiable insjtruments under which the holders 
 were entitled to recover as upon a promissory 
 note made by the bank. A''oyer v. Richer, 13 
 L. C. Jur. 213, 15 L. C. Jur. 122, L. R. 5 P. C. 
 461, specially referred to, Jb, 
 
 The plaintiff, a Norwegian by birth and almost 
 totally ignorant of the English language, in Sep- 
 tember, 1884, deposited with the defendants at 
 one of their branch ofiices a sum of money and 
 received from the bank the usual deposit receipt, 
 at the time signing his name on the stub or coun- 
 terfoil of the receipt for the purpose of enabling 
 the bank to identify him at any time the money 
 might be demanded. For the purpose of safe 
 keeping, plaintiff, being about to proceed to 
 work elsewhere, left the receipt with one S. S. 
 About seven months afterwards plaintiff return- 
 ed when he was informed by S. S. that he had 
 withdrawn the money from the bank but pro- 
 mi id to return it. The plaintiff being ignorant 
 of the manner in which the money had oeen paid 
 out and of his rights as against the defendants 
 took no steps whatever against them, and S. S. 
 absconded from the coimtry in August, 1885, 
 heavily indebted. In the month of December 
 following, the plaintiff having been informed as 
 to his rights against the bank consulted a solici- 
 tor who undertook to attend to the matter, but 
 omitted to take any steps, and in the month of 
 April following (1886) the plaintiff through an- 
 otner solicitor made a demand on the bank for 
 payment which was refused. The demand so 
 maide was the first notice the bank had of the 
 fraud which had been practised on them : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Chancery 
 Division (14 O. B. 586) (1) that the plaintiff in 
 
 entrusting the receipt to S. S. was not guilty of 
 any act of negligence. (2) that his delay in 
 notifying the defendants of the fraud pei-petrated 
 on them was not a breach of any legal duty on 
 his part so as to estop him from recovering the 
 amount of his deposit. Merchants' Bank v. Lucas, 
 13 O. R. 520, distinguished in 14 O. R. 586. 
 Saderqnist v. Ontario Bank, 15 A. R. 609. 
 
 IV. Cheques, 
 
 The plaintiff's valuator, one H., filled in the 
 blanks in an application for a loan on statements 
 of one S. who forged the names of J. T. B. and 
 I. B. as applicants, and although H. had never 
 seen the property or the applicants, he certified 
 a valuation to the plaintiffs, who accepted the 
 loan, and signed his name as witness to the sig- 
 natures of the applicants. Cheques in payment 
 thereof to the order of tlie supposed borrowers 
 were obtained by S., who forged the names of 
 the payees, endorsed his own name, and received 
 payment of the cheques, which were drawn upon 
 the defendants, through other banks, who pre- 
 sented them to the defendants and received pay- 
 ment in good faith. The fraud was not dis- 
 covered for some time, during which the cheques 
 were returned to the plaintiffs at tlie end of the 
 month as paid, and the usual acknowledgment 
 of the correctness of the account was duly sign- 
 ed : — Held, affirming the judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench, 45 Q. B. 214, that the plaintift's were 
 not estopped from recovering the amount paid 
 on the forged endorsements from the defendants 
 by their agent's negligence, as it did not occur in 
 the transaction itself, and was not the proximate 
 cause of their loss : — Held, also, that the ac- 
 knowledgment of the plaintiffs of the correctness 
 of the account at the end of the month, was at 
 most an acknowledgment of the balance on the 
 assumption that the cheques had been paid to 
 the proper parties : — Held, also, that it could not 
 be said that the cheques were made payable to 
 fictitious payees, and were therefore payable to 
 bearer. A gricultural Savings and Loan A ssocia- 
 tion V. Federal Bank, 6 A. R. 192. 
 
 The plaintiffs were the holders for value of a 
 cheque drawn by the Mahon Bank on the Bank 
 of Montreal, at London, on the face of which 
 appeared the words " payable at Bank of Mon- 
 treal, Toronto, at par." The cheque was de- 
 posited by the plaintiffs to their own credit with 
 their bank at T., and in the usual course of busi- 
 ness was sent by that bank to the Bank of Mon- 
 treal at T. , and W the latter bank wa« credited 
 to the former. It was then forwarded to L., 
 where it was dishonoured, and in due course was 
 charged back by the Bank of Montreal to the 
 plaintiffs' bank, and again by the latter to the 
 plaintiffs. It appeared that the above words 
 were habitually used by the Mahon Bank on 
 their cheques with the assent of the Bank of 
 Montreal : — Held, that the whole effect of the 
 words was, that the Bank of Montreal at T. 
 would make no charge for cashmg the cheque, 
 and that they did not assume the risk of there 
 being funds to meet it, and that they did not 
 lose the right to charge it back on ascertaining 
 there were no funds, Bose-Belford Printing Co, 
 V, Bank of Montreal, 12 O. B. 644, — Armour. 
 
 The I. Bank cashed a cheque payable to the 
 order of the T, Manufacturing Company upon the 
 
 137 
 
 cndorsation 
 several pres 
 in the same 
 the company 
 pany against 
 tlie clieque, 
 iiig the clicq 
 pany requirt 
 tersigned bi 
 fact u ring Co 
 Oalt. 
 
 On the 2 
 
 clieques for t 
 
 of P. being d 
 
 the cliecpie o 
 
 ers in Toront 
 
 checjue shoul 
 
 July and it v 
 
 that a simila 
 
 cheijue. Th( 
 
 meat and cloi 
 
 27th of Juni 
 
 hands at the 
 
 served a writ 
 
 tills balance, 
 
 included). E 
 
 payment nor 
 
 The cheque i 
 
 Held, affirmiii 
 
 Division, tliat 
 
 meat to postp 
 
 of the 27th of 
 
 therefore had 
 
 time of the 
 
 altliough the i 
 
 cuse noii-pres( 
 
 honour beforj 
 
 bringing of tli 
 
 a countcnnan 
 
 Osier, J. A. T 
 
 ing and throu 
 
 solely on tlie i 
 
 fore the suspe 
 
 stage of the t 
 
 presentment i 
 
 time, tlie cvi(i 
 
 son to expec 
 
 honoured and 
 
 loss in oonse 
 
 Blackley v. I 
 
 S. C, p. 1. 
 
 The payees 
 which it was ( 
 on which thej 
 got it marked 
 to the drawe 
 away without 
 on the evenin 
 meat, and on 
 of the cliequ 
 affirming the 
 drawer of the 
 liability there 
 40.— 0. P. D, 
 
 Power of 
 names on c hei 
 V. Bank of M 
 
 See Bailey 
 iJrieve v. Mc 
 In re Summe 
 172. 
 
137 
 
 BANES. 
 
 138 
 
 cndorsation of the secretary alone, who had on 
 several previoua occasions cashecl other cheques 
 in the same way, and acted as general agent of 
 the company : — Held, in an action by tlie com- 
 pany against the bank to recover tlie amount of 
 tlie cheque, tliat the bank was justified in cash- 
 ing tlie cheque, although the by-laws of the com- 
 pany required that tiie cheque should be coun- 
 tersigned by tlie president. Thorold Manu- 
 factuving Co. v. Imperial Bank, 13 O. R. 330. — 
 Gait. 
 
 On the 26th June, P. and M. exchanged 
 cheques for the accommodation of P., the cheque 
 of P. being drawn on a bank in Hamilton, and 
 the cheque of M. being drawn on private bank- 
 ers in Toronto. It was agreed that tlie former 
 cheque should not be presented before tlie 1st of 
 July and it was alleged by P. but denied by M. 
 that a similar restriction applied to the latter 
 cheque. The private bankers suspended pay- 
 ment and closed their doors about noon on tlio 
 27th of June, having a large balance in their 
 hands at the credit of M., who, on that day, 
 served a writ on them in an action to recover 
 this balance, (the amount of the cheque being 
 included). His checjue was never presented for 
 payment nor was any notice of dishonour given. 
 The cheque of P. was presented and paid : — 
 Held, affirming the decision of the Queen's Bencli 
 Division, that even assuming there was no agree- 
 ment to postpone present)'' ;nt, P. had tlie whole 
 of the 27th of June to pi^ient M.'s cheque, and 
 therefore had not been guilty of laches up to the 
 time of the suspension of the bankers ; that 
 although the suspension would not in itself ex- 
 cuse non-presentment and want of notice of dis- 
 honour before action, yet this event and the 
 bringing of the action by M. , which operated as 
 a countermand of payment, would do so. Per 
 Osier, J. A. The defendant, having by his plead- 
 ing and throughout the case rested his defence 
 solely on the non-presentment of the cheque be- 
 fore the suspension of the bankers, must at this 
 stage of the cause be treated as having waived 
 presentment and notice of dishonour after that 
 time, tlie evidence showing that lie had no rea- 
 son to expect that his cheque would then oe 
 honoured and that he could have sustainet no 
 loss in consequence of such non-presentment, 
 BlarMey v. McCabe, 16 A. R. 295. See also 
 S. C, p. 1. 
 
 The payees of a cheque took it to the bank on 
 which it was drawn on the afternoon of the day 
 on which they received it from the drawer and 
 got it marked " good," the amount being charged 
 to the drawer's account. They then took it 
 away without demanding payment. The bank, 
 on the evening of the same day, suspended pay- 
 ment, and on the following day, on presentation 
 of the clieque payment was refused: — Held, 
 affirming the judgment of Street, J. , that the 
 drawer of the cheiiue was discharged from all 
 liability thereon. Boyd v. Nasm'Uh, 17 O. R. 
 40.— C. P. D. 
 
 Power of partner to endorse his partners' 
 names on cheques. See Manitoba Mortgage Go. 
 V. Bank of Montreal, 17 S. C. R. 692. 
 
 See Bailey v. Jellett, 9 A. B. 187, p. 134; 
 iJrieve v. Molsons Bank, 8 0. K. 162, p. 132 ; 
 /ft re Simmerfeldt v. Worts, 12 O. R. 48, p. 
 172. 
 
 V. Bills and Note.s. 
 
 Negligence in not giving notice to endorser. 
 See Stehihoffv. Merchants' Bank, 46 Q, B. 25. 
 
 Endorsement of note by bank manager — Suffi- 
 ciency of. See Snudl v. Biddel, 31 C. P. 373, 
 383. 
 
 Action to recover back amount paid by ac- 
 ceptor on a forged bill. — Denial of signature of 
 drawer and endorser. See liyan v. Bank of 
 Montreal, 12 0. R. 39 ; 14 A. R. 553. 
 
 See Black v. StricHand, 3 0. R. 217, p. 168 ; 
 Dominion Bank v. Oliitr, 17 O. R. 402, p. 140. 
 
 VI. Taking Collateral Security. ' 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 Section 28 of the revised regulations respect- 
 ing the sale and management of timber on Crown 
 lands in Quebec provides that "limit holders, in 
 order to enable them to obtain advances neces- 
 sary for tlieir operations, shall liave a right to 
 pledge tiieir limits as security without a bonus 
 becoming payable," and it further provides that 
 "if tlie jxu'ty giving sucli pledge shall fail to per- 
 form liis oliligations towards his cr' -iitors, the 
 latter * * may oljtain the next renewal in his 
 or their own name subject to payment of the 
 bonus, the transfer being then deemed complete. " 
 In 1873 and 1876 one F., who was now repre- 
 ented by the plaintiffs, procured for the purposes 
 of his business operatior s a lumberman, cer- 
 tain pecuniary advance om tlie defendants, 
 the National Bank, throug.i B. , their local man- 
 ager, and to secure repayment, gave to the de- 
 fendants certain promissory notes and valuable 
 securities, and as collateral security also gave a 
 written pledge dated 21st September, 1876, of 
 certain timber limits in Quebec, whicli pledge 
 purported on its face to be "for advances miue 
 and to be made" to him. In 1877, with the con- 
 sent of B., F. cancelled this supposed pledge, and 
 gave what purported to be a new pledge of the 
 licenses to the National Bank, which simply 
 stated tliat he tliereby pledged all his rights, 
 titles, and interests in the licenses to the defen- 
 dants, and which new pledge was indorsed oa 
 subsequent renewals of the licenses. The defen- 
 dants did not at any time bind themselves to 
 make any further advances to F., but as a mat- 
 ter of fact in 1877, 1878, and 1879, F. continued 
 to receive advances from the defendants. In 
 1882, P. being still indebted to them in a lar^e 
 sum, and the pledge of the timber limits still la 
 force, the defendants, pursuant to the above 
 section of the regulations, obtained an issue of 
 the licenses directly to themselves. The plain- 
 tiffs now brought this action for discovery of the 
 securities held by the defendants on account of 
 F.'s indebtedness, and for redemption, and for a 
 declaration that the defendants had no lien on 
 the timber limits in question: — Held, that as to 
 the advances made before the pledge was given 
 the security was valid, but that as to the future 
 advances, the pledge of the timber limits was 
 invalid as being in contravention of 34 Vict, c 
 5, 8. 40, (Dom.); — Held, however, that inas- 
 much as the defendants, although they had ob- 
 tained the issue of the licenses directly to them- 
 selves, and thus procured a complete title to the 
 property, under the above section of the regala- 
 
 
 4 
 
139 
 
 BANES. 
 
 140 
 
 141 
 
 
 tions, nevertheless voluntary restricted their 
 claim to a lien upon it for the whole amount of 
 F.'s indebtedness, they were entitled to judg- 
 ment declaring such lien, and that on payment 
 of such indebtedness the defendants should con- 
 vey the property to the plaintiflTs : — Held, fur- 
 ther, that it was open to the plaintiffs in this 
 action to object to the transaction as contraven- 
 ing the Banliing Acts, and it was not necessarv 
 for the purposii of such objection that the pro- 
 ceedings shmdd be by the Crown, Oravt v. 
 La Banqvf Nationak, 9 O. K. 411.— Ferguson. 
 
 Hemble, that if a mortgage upon lands be given 
 to a bank as security for futnre advances in con- 
 travention of the Banking Acts, and after the 
 debt has been contracted or advances made, an- 
 other mortgage be executed upon the same pro- 
 perty as amlitional security for the debt so con- 
 tracted or advances made, the second mortgage 
 will be valid, lb. 
 
 B., on the 19th January, 187C, transferred to 
 the bank of T. (appellants) by notarial deed a 
 hypothec on certain real estate in Montreal, made 
 by one C. to him, as collateral security for a 
 note which was discounted by tlie appellants 
 and the proceeds placed at B.'s credit on the 
 same day on which the transfer was made. The 
 action was brought by the appellants against the 
 insolvent estate of C, to set aside a prior hypo- 
 thec given by C. and to establish their priority: — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the court of 
 Queen's Bench, that the transfer of B. to the 
 bank of T. was not given to secure a past debt, 
 but to cover a contemporaneous loan, and was 
 therefore null and void, as being a contravention 
 of the Banking Act, 34 Vict. c. 5, s. 40, (Doni.) 
 Bank of Toronto v. Perkins, 8 S. C. R. 603. 
 
 The plaintiff, being indebted to the defendants 
 as indorser in the sum of about $7,000, and being 
 pressed for payment, which he was unable to 
 make, transferred to the defendants certain tim- 
 ber limits, which he stated had cost him $25,000, 
 to hold as security for his indebtedness, and for 
 the purpose of enabling them to sell it and realize 
 their debt. The regulations of the Crown Lands 
 Department, however, forbade the recognition 
 of any conditional transfer, and therefore the 
 assignment was in terms absolute. The defen- 
 dants, without adopting any means of ascertain- 
 ing the probable value of the limits, offered them 
 for sale Dy public auction, with the assent of the 
 plaintiff, when, no sufficient offer having been 
 made, they were withdrawn, and, without hav- 
 ing made any further inquiry as to value, they 
 were sold by private sale, without consulting the 
 
 Iilaintiff, for $6,000. The limits were subsequent- 
 y sold by the purchaser for a very Ini-ge sum. 
 Previous to the attempted sale by auction the 
 defendants had received several offers of sums 
 more than sufficient to pay off their claim. In 
 an action brought by the plaintiff against the 
 defendants for selling at a grossly inadequate 
 price. Armour, J., gave judgment in favour of 
 the plaintiff, with $19,654.38 damages, which, 
 on appeal to this Court, was affirmed with costs, 
 Hagarty, C. J. 0., dissenting, on the ground 
 that, under all the circumstances, there should 
 be a new trial for the purpose of furthering in- 
 vestigation. Per Burton and Patterson, JJ.A. 
 The defendants sold by private contract, with- 
 out authorisation, and did not take proper steps 
 to have the limits valued. Per Osier, J. A. The 
 
 lefendants were bound to exercise proper care 
 and discretion, and to adopt such means as would 
 be adoptetl by a prudent man to get the best 
 price that could be obtained. Prentice v. Con- 
 noUdated Bank, 13 A. R. 69. 
 
 Where a bank, holding a mortgage as addi- 
 tional security for the payment of certain notes, 
 substitutes for these notes renewals from time to 
 time, without, however, receiving actual pay- 
 ment, the whole series of notes and renewals 
 form links in one and the same chain of liability, 
 which is secured by the mortgage, although, ■» 
 a matter of book-keeping, the bank may have 
 treated the first notes, and the subsequent sub- 
 stituted notes as paid by the application of the 
 proceeds from time to time of the renewals. 
 Dominion Bank v. Oliver, 17 0. R. 402.— Boyd. 
 
 McK. gave a mortgage to the M. bank as 
 security for the present indel)tedness of, and 
 future advances to, a customer of the bank. 
 By the ^' ims of the mortgage McK. was to be 
 liable. ongst other things, for the promissory 
 notes, I.e., of the customer outstanding at the 
 date of the mortgage, and all renewals, altera- 
 tions, and substitutions thereof : — Held, per 
 Ritchie, C.J,, Fournier, and Taschereau, J J., 
 that the bank having given up the said promis- 
 sory notes, etc., and accepted as renewals there- 
 of, forged and worthless paper, McK. was to 
 the extent of such worthless paper relieved from 
 liability as such surety : — Held, per Strong, J., 
 that the bank having accepted the renewals ia 
 the ordinary course of banking business, and it 
 not being shewn that they were guilty of negli- 
 gence, the surety was not relieved : — Held, per 
 Gwynne, J. , that as there was a reference ordered 
 to take an account of the notes alleged to be 
 forged, the consideration of the surety s liability 
 should be postponed until the account was taken. 
 Merchants' Bank of Canada v. McKay, 15 S. C. 
 R. 672. 
 
 On appeal by the liquidator : — Held, affirming 
 the judgment of O'Connor, J. , that the bank had 
 the right to take thechattel mortgage in question. 
 Sections 45-48 of the Banking Act (R. S. C. c, 
 120), do not prohibit a bank from taking security 
 upon real, or as in this case upon personal pro- 
 perty, and making such arrangements for its 
 sale and disposition as they may think proper. 
 \Vhat is forbidden is, the investing the money 
 of the bank in trading. The transaction in 
 (luestion in this case was not a buying and sell- 
 ing of goods by investing the bank money there- 
 in, but was merely taking security for a debt 
 ali'eady incurred, and the carrying out of an 
 arrangement for the sale and realization of the 
 property mortgaged for payment of the debt. In 
 rePainy Lake Lvmber Co. — Stevarl, Liquidator 
 V. Union Bank of Lower Canada, 15 A. R. 749. 
 
 See Nel/es v. Bank qf Montreal, 7 A. R. 743, 
 p. 123; Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Wood- 
 ward, 8 A. R. 347, p. 169. 
 
 2. Bills of Lading and Warehouse JReceipls. 
 
 C. & Co. , carrying on business in Chicago, in 
 the state of Illinois, for the manufacture ol mill 
 machinery, etc., had certain machinery manu- 
 factured for theji in Stratford, Ont., which was 
 warehoused with M. & T., at Woodstock, Ont. 
 C. & Co. being pressed by plaintiffs, their bank- 
 
 ers in Chica 
 
 their notes 
 
 plaintiffs, e 
 
 warehouse i 
 
 turity of tli 
 
 retire them, 
 
 that effect tl 
 
 and new on 
 
 made out di 
 
 tember, 188 
 
 to a trustee 
 
 tors. On22j 
 
 of executior 
 
 Co., under ^ 
 
 fraudulent ] 
 
 Held, that t 
 
 could hold 1 
 
 C. & Co. bei 
 
 the transfer 
 
 that state a 
 
 valid and efl 
 
 gnbject to th 
 
 the warehou 
 
 held the goo 
 
 therefore a t 
 
 sion in the g 
 
 trustee's rig) 
 
 the hands of 
 
 the Bills of S 
 
 the Act as tc 
 
 receipts, did 
 
 corporation. 
 
 cctgo V. Corct 
 
 At the req 
 whom the C 
 sum of mon 
 houseman tc 
 storing certa 
 they could ol 
 to raise mone 
 for a year of 
 which the w 
 sideration of 
 gave him a 
 should be 
 issued a war 
 the property 
 dard Bank 
 which they ^ 
 appeared thi 
 on business 
 acquired the 
 house receip 
 an advance 
 that he had 
 had sent his 
 the receipt, 
 in insolvenc 
 K. et al. , as 
 possession 
 claiming the 
 M. then sue 
 the taking :- 
 Gwynne, Ji 
 Court of Aj 
 court of Qi: 
 never had 
 or property 
 make ^e re 
 stances in 
 within the 
 in the Ban 
 Fonrnier an 
 
140 
 
 141 
 
 BANKS. 
 
 m 
 
 
 erB in Chicago, for collateral security for two of 
 their notes of $5,000 each, discounted by the 
 plaintiffs, endorsed over to the plaintiits the 
 warehouse receipts for these goods. At the ma- 
 turity of the notes, C. & Co. not being able to 
 retire them, in pursuance of an arrangement to 
 that eflFect the wareliouse receipts were cancelled 
 and new ones, dated 12th October, 1883 were 
 made out direct to the plaintiffs. On 3rd Sep- 
 tember, 1883, C. & Co. had made an assignment 
 to a trustee in Chicago for the benefit of credi- 
 tors. On 22nd November defendant placed writs 
 of execution in the sheriff's hands against C. & 
 Co., under which these gooda were seized. No 
 fraudulent preference or intent was proved :— 
 Held, that the plaintifTs, a foreign corporation, 
 could hold personal property in Ontario ; that 
 C. & Co. bemg residents of the state of Illinois, 
 the transfer must be governed by the law of 
 that state according to which the transfer was 
 valid and effectual ; that, even if dealt with as 
 subject to the law of Ontario, when M. & T. gave 
 the warehouse receipts direct to the bank they 
 held the goods for the plaintiffs, and there was 
 therefore a transfer of both property and posses- 
 sion in the goods to the plaintiffs, subject to tlie 
 trustee's rights, if any ; and the goods being in 
 the hands of third parties and not of C. & Co. , 
 the Bills of Sale Act did not apply ; and also that 
 the Act as to banks and banking, and warehouse 
 receipts, did not apply to 1 ' e plaintiffs, a foreign 
 corporation. Commercial National Banh of Chi- 
 cago V. Corcoran, 6 O. E. u!27.— C. P. D. 
 
 At the request of the Consolidated Bank, to 
 whom the Canada Car Company owed a large 
 sum of money, M. consented to act as ware- 
 houseman to the company for the purpose of 
 storing certain car wheels and pig iron, so that 
 they could obtain warehouse receipts upon which 
 to raise money. The company granted M. a lease 
 for a year of a portion of their premises, upon 
 which the wheels and iron were situate, in con- 
 sideration of ^5. The Consolidated Bank then 
 gave him a written guarantee that the goods 
 should be forthcoming when required, and he 
 issued a warehouse receipt to the company for 
 the property, which they endorsed to the Stan- 
 dard Bank and obtained an advance thereon, 
 which they paid to tlie Consolidated Bank. It 
 appeared that M. was a warehousemai. carrying 
 on business in another part of the ci'cy ; that he 
 acquired the lease for the purpose of giving ware- 
 house receipts to enable the company to obtain 
 an advance from the Consolidated Bank ; and 
 that he had not seen the property himself, but 
 had sent his foreman to examine it before giving 
 the receipt. In February, 1877, an attachment 
 in insolvency issued against the company, and 
 K. et al., as their assignees in insolvency, took 
 possession of the goods covered by this receipt, 
 claiming them as part of the assets of the estate. 
 M. then sued K. et al. in trespass and trover for 
 the taking : — Held, (per Strong, Taschereau, and 
 Gwynne, JJ.,) affirming the judgment of the 
 Court of Appeal, 3 A. B. 35, and that of the 
 court of Queen's Bench, 43 Q. B. 78, that M. 
 never had any actual possession, control over, 
 or property in, the goods in question so as to 
 make the receipt given by M. , under the circum- 
 itanceB in this case, a valid warehouse receipt 
 within the meaning of the clauses in that behalf 
 in the Banking Act. Per Ritchie, C. J., and 
 Fonrnier and Henry, JJ., contra, that M. quoad 
 
 these goods was a warehouseman within the 
 meaning of 34 Vict. c. 6, (Dom.,) so as to make 
 his receipt endorsed effectual to pass the pro- 
 perty to the Standard Bank for the security of 
 the loan made to the company in the usual 
 course of its banking business. Milloy v. Kerr, 
 8 S. C. R. 474. 
 
 The appellants discounted for a trading firm, 
 on the understanding that a quantity of coal 
 purchased by the Hrm should be consigned to 
 them, and that they would transfer to the firm 
 the bills of lading, and should receive from one 
 of the members of the firm his receipt as a wharf- 
 inger and warehouseman for the coal as having 
 been deposited by them, which was done, and 
 the following receipt was given : ' ' Received in 
 store in Big Coal House warehouse at Toronto, 
 from Merchants' Bank of Canada, at Toronto, 
 fourteen hundred and fifty-eight (1,458) tons 
 stove coal, and two hundred and sixty-one tons 
 chestnut coal per schooners " Dundee," " Jessie 
 Druramond," "Gold Hunter," and "Annie Mul- 
 vey," to bo delivered to the order of the said 
 Merchants' Bank to be endorsed hereon. This is 
 to be regarded as a receipt under the provisions 
 of the statute .34 Vict. c. 5 (Dom. )— value $7,000. 
 The said coal in sheds facing esplanade is sepa- 
 rate from and will be kept separate and distin- 
 guishable from other coal. (Signed,) W. Snarr. 
 Dated 10th August, 1878." The partnership 
 having become insolvent, the assignee sought to 
 hold the coal as the goods of the insolvents, and 
 filed a bill impeaching the validity of the receipt. 
 The chancellor, wlio tried the case, found that 
 the receipt given was a valid receipt within the 
 provisions of tlie Banking Act, and was given by 
 a warehouseman, and that the bank was entitled 
 to hold all the coal in store of the description 
 named in the receipt. This judgment was re- 
 versed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and 
 on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada it 
 was : — Held, reversing the judgment of the 
 Court of Appeal, 8 A. K. 15, that it is not neces- 
 sary to the validity of the claim of a bank under 
 a warehouse receipt, given by an owner who is 
 a warehouseman and wharfinger, and has the 
 goods in his possession , that the receipt should 
 reach the hands of the bank by indorsement, 
 and that the receipt given by W.' S. in this case 
 was a receipt within the meaning of 34 Vict. c. 
 5 (Dom.) 2. (Ritchie, C. J., and Strong, J., dis- 
 senting,) that the finding of the chancellor as to 
 the fact of W. S. being a person authorized by 
 the statute to give the receipt in question should 
 not have been reversed, as there was evidence 
 that W. S. was a wharfinger and warehouseman. 
 3. (Per Fournier, Henry, and Taschereau, JJ.,) 
 that sections 46, 47 and 48 of 34 Vict. c. 5 
 (Dom.), are intra vires the Dominion Parliament. 
 Merchants'' Bank oj Canada v. Smith, 8 S. C. R. 
 612. 
 
 T. a miller gave warehouse receipts for wheat 
 to the plaintiffs attached to notes made by him, 
 payable to their order, to take up his overdue 
 notes which were secured by like receipts. The 
 receipts were in the following form • " Received 
 in store in my warehouse or mi'.l from farmers, 
 2,000 bushels of wheat, to be leiivered to the 
 order of myself, to be endorsed hereon. This is 
 to be regarded as a receipt unde the provisions 
 of statute 43 Vict. c. 22. The said wheat is 
 separate from and will be kept separate and dis- 
 
 ■t 
 
143 
 
 BANES. 
 
 144 
 
 145 
 
 tinguislmble from other grain." The receipts 
 were endoraed in lilank. T. did not keep the 
 wheat covered by the receipts distinct, but 
 ground some of it into flour and allowed the 
 remainder to be mixed with wheat subsequently 
 brought in by farmers and others. Before as- 
 signing in trust for creditors, he pointed out to 
 the plaintiffs one carload of flour made from the 
 wheat covered by the receipts, and admitted that 
 the wheat and flour in his mill was covered by 
 the receipts, and the next day the bank took 
 possession. The evidence shewed that there was 
 ttbout the same quantity of wheat and flour in 
 and about the mill at the date of the last receipt 
 as there was in dispute in this interpleader. T. 
 subsequently assigned, and the defendants after- 
 wards recovered a judgment against him. In an 
 interpleader action to try tlie right of the bank 
 under their wareliouse receipts as against the 
 defendants under their execution: — Held, that a 
 special endorsement of the receipts to the plain- 
 tiffs was not essential, and that the en<lor8ement 
 in blank of the receipts satisfied all the retiuire- 
 menta of tlic Banking Act, that Act not speci- 
 fying any particular mode in which the property 
 in the receipt is to be transferred, and that the 
 notes and receipts attached might be read to- 
 gether ; — Held, also, tiiat tlie mode of accjuiring 
 the receipts, viz. , by delivering up the overdue 
 notes with receipts, was unobjectionable, tlie 
 transaction being in fact a negotiation of the 
 notes by the surrender of the antecedent lieu 
 upon the wheat of T. ; or at any rate there was 
 a mere substitution or continuation of securities 
 according to the original understanding of the 
 parties : — Held, also, thatT., having undertaken 
 to keep " the grain separate and distinguishable 
 from other grain," and liaving failed to do so, it 
 became his duty to enable the plaintiffs to recover 
 what the receipts called for or its equivalent, and 
 having done this while able to dispose of his pro- 
 perty, the warehouse receipts attached upon the 
 property so indicated by him, and the plaintiffs 
 wero entitled to succeed against the execution 
 creditors. Bank of Hamilton v. John T. Noije 
 Mannfacturimj Co., 9 O. R. 631.— Boyd. 
 
 In proceedings taken in the master's offlce to 
 administer the estate of M. , which was insolvent, 
 the M. and D. banks brought in their claims as 
 creditors. Other creditors opposed these claims 
 on the grounds that the banks had been paid 
 large sums in reduction of their debts by assets 
 of the deceased, which they had taken after his 
 death and before administration. The banks set 
 up their right to the assets so taken under ware- 
 house receipts therefor, signed by H. and held 
 by them. It appeared that M. , who was a pro- 
 vision merchant, in his lifetime had obtained 
 advances from the banks on the faith of the 
 receipts being valid securities, he representing 
 to them that he had rented the cellar of his ware- 
 house to H. as warehouseman, and that as such 
 H. had sole charge of the cellar. Before the 
 receipts matured, M. disappeared and was sulj- 
 sequently found dead. Before his death became 
 known, H. and his solicitor took possession of 
 the cellar and the property covered by the re- 
 ceipts, and posted up in the cell - ><^ioe stating 
 that H. held the property therein as warehouse- 
 man of the banks, to whom he had granted re- 
 ceipts. Two days after taking possession, H. 
 refused to be any longer responsible for the pro- 
 perty, which was subsequently taken by the 
 
 banks under their receipts and as it was rapidly 
 deteriorating was sold by them. At the time of 
 the sale there was no personal representative to 
 M. 's estate, nor was there any execution credi- 
 tor. It appeared by the evidence of H. that he 
 had signed the receipts at M. 'a request and as a 
 matter of form, but that he had not leased the 
 cellar, nor had ho any control over it nor the 
 property contained in it: — Hold, that the receipts 
 were good between the parties and by the result 
 of the subsequent dealings they were rehabili- 
 tated so as to be valid against creditors by the 
 act of intervention on H. s part during the life 
 of M., but in any event, there being no creditor 
 who had any locus standi when the banks sold 
 under the receipts, they had the right to apply 
 the proceeds to reduce their claim against M. s 
 estate. Per Boyd, C. — There are two classes of 
 persons authorised to issue warehouse receipts 
 by section 7 of 43 Vict. c. 22 (Dom. ), (substituted 
 for 34 Vict. c. 5 s. 45 (Dom.), viz., bailees of 
 goods and keepers of a warehouse, etc., and the 
 same sort of proof is not required in the case of 
 the latter as in the former. The test of their 
 validity does not necessarily depend upon prov- 
 ing that the warehouseman was actually, visibly 
 and continuously in possession of them from first 
 to last. Per Proudfoot, J. — That section author- 
 izes persons who are not warehousemen alone, 
 but who may have other business also, to give 
 receipts, but these are comprised in the defini- 
 tion of "warehouse receipts," previously given 
 in the statute, which requires the goods to be 
 in the "actual, visible anl continued possession 
 of the bailees." Re, Monteith — Merchan'a' Bank 
 V. Monteith, 10 O. R. 529.— Chy. D. 
 
 The execution debtors, C. & Son, bought the 
 oats in question from persons who ahipped them 
 to Toronto consigued to their (the sellers') own 
 order, or to the order of some bank other than 
 the plaintiffs, sending the shipping receipt with 
 draft for the price of the oats attached to C. & 
 Son at Toronto. The latter then took the ship- 
 ping receipt to the plaintiffs, who advanced the 
 money thereon to pay the draft, returning the 
 shipping receipt to C. & Son for the purpose of 
 obtaining the oats from the carriers, after taking 
 from C. & Son a receipt in these words : " Re- 
 ceived in trust from the Dominion Bank bill of 
 lading for bushels oats, and I hereby under- 
 take to sell the property specified for said bank 
 and collect the proceeds of sale or sales thereof 
 and deposit the same with the said bank, in 
 Toronto, to the credit of same, I hereby acknow- 
 ledging myself to be bailee of the said property 
 for the said bank. " 0. & Son received the oati 
 from the carriers and warehoused them, taking 
 warehouse receipts in their own name, which 
 they endorsed to the plaintiffs, who then gave 
 up the bailee receipt : — Held, that no property 
 in the oats had passed to G. & Son when the 
 plaintiffs made the advance, and that the latter 
 were therefore entitled, at least as equitable 
 owners, as against execution creditor* of C. & 
 Son. The Chattel Mortgage Act could have no 
 application, for when the oats first came into the 
 possession of G. & Son, they came charged with 
 or subject to the plaintiffs' title. Dominion 
 Bank V. Davidnon, 12 A. E. 90. 
 
 The simple renewal of notes by a bank is not 
 a " negotiation" within the meaning of section 
 53, sub-B. 4, of the Bank Act, R. 8. C. c. 120, so 
 
 as to validai 
 lateral secuj 
 being made, 
 being given 
 by the bank 
 a new transa 
 in the condii 
 
 S'ving of ti 
 II. 402.— 
 
 A miller g 
 on some whe 
 mill for adv 
 vent about 
 period wheal 
 fresh wheat i 
 his death the 
 large shorta^ 
 menced short 
 and had cont 
 the time, Ii 
 appeared tha 
 of the wheat 
 had been sole 
 than the valu 
 ministrator :- 
 to the pu -^ht 
 fallow, 'Iradt 
 299.— Boyd. 
 
 The Molsor 
 
 warehouse rec 
 
 mercial paper 
 
 of business, a 
 
 of the goods 
 
 paying the d< 
 
 diately pledge 
 
 ment to hold I 
 
 debts due by ] 
 
 insolvent T., i 
 
 action against 
 
 plus must be ( 
 
 eral body of ci 
 
 parties to the 
 
 ment of the c( 
 
 ment was not 
 
 Banking Act, 
 
 goods were hu 
 
 yd, after appli 
 
 its proper note 
 
 bank under tl 
 
 (Ritchie, C, J. 
 
 senting). Pei 
 
 ought to have 
 
 Thompson r. 
 
 VII. Pc 
 
 By the Ban 
 banks are pro 
 goods or men 
 an action wou 
 bank for breac 
 horse-power 
 Bank, 3 0. R. 
 
 See /» re _ 
 Stewart Liqui 
 Canada, 16 A, 
 
 VIII 
 
 Loans made 
 V. Federal Bai 
 
 10 
 
145 
 
 BARRISTER AT LAW. 
 
 146 
 
 as to validate a warehouse receipt taken as col- 
 lateral security therefor, no such now advance 
 being made, and no such valuable consideration 
 being given or surrendered contemporaneously 
 by the hank as would represent the inception of 
 a new transaction, and no change being wrought 
 in the condition of the parties except the mere 
 giving of time. Dominion Bank v. Olirer, 17 
 0. 11. 402.— Bo>d. 
 
 A miller gave a warehouse receipt to a bank 
 on some wheat " and its product" stored in his 
 mill for advances made to him and died insol- 
 vent about two months after. During this 
 period wheat was constantly going out of and 
 fresh wheat coming into the mill. Just before 
 his death the bank took possession and found a 
 large shortage in the wheat which had com- 
 menced shortly after the receipt had been give., 
 and had continued to a greater or less degree all 
 the time. In the administration of his estate it 
 appeared that during the period of shortage some 
 of the wheat had been uoverted into flour which 
 had been sold and the proceeds, which were less 
 than the value of the shortage paid to the ad- 
 ministrator : — Held, that the bank was entitled 
 to the pu ihase money of the flour. Re Good- 
 fallow, traders' Bank v. Ooodfallow, 19 O. R. 
 299.— Boyd. 
 
 The Molsons Bank took from H. & Co. several 
 warehouse receipts as collateral security for com- 
 mercial paper discounted in the ordinary course 
 of business, and having a surplus from the sale 
 of the goods represented by the receipts, after 
 
 Saying the debts for which they were imnie- 
 iately pledged, claimed undfir a parol agree- 
 ment to hold that surplus in i)ayment of other 
 
 Transfer of stock. See Smith v. Bank of Nova 
 Scotia, 8 8. C. 11. 558. 
 
 Proving claims on Insolvent's Estate. See 
 EoHtman v. Bank of Montreal, 10 O. 11. 79. 
 
 Priority of Crown over other creditors for pay- 
 ment of moneys depositoil in a bank that has be- 
 come insolvent. See Hfi/iiia v. Bank of Nona 
 Scotia, 11 S. C. R. I; Liquidators of the Mari- 
 time Bank v. Beijina, 17 S. C. R. 657. 
 
 debts due by H. & Co. H. & Co. having become 
 insolvent T., as one of the creditors, brought an 
 action against the bank, claiming that the sur- 
 plus must be distributed ratably among tlie gen- 
 eral body of creditors. H. & Co. were not made 
 parties to the suit: — Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of the courts below, that the parol ajfree- 
 ment was not contrar3' to the provisions of the 
 Banking Act, R. S. 0. c. 120, and that after the 
 goods were lawfully sold the mouey that remain- 
 ed, after applying the proceeds of each sale to 
 its proper note, could properly bo applied by the 
 bank under the terms of the parol agreement. 
 {Ritchie, C. J., doubting, and Fournier, J., dis- 
 senting). Per Taschereau, J. That H. & Co. 
 ought to have been made parties to the suit. 
 Tlwmpaon r. Molsons Bank, 16 S. C. R. 664. 
 
 VII. PaRCHASE OR Sale of G30d3. 
 
 By the Banking Act, 34 Vict. c. 5, (Dom.), 
 banks are prohibited from buying and selling 
 goods or merchandize : — Held, therefore, that 
 an aetion would not I'e against an incorporated 
 bank for breach of warranty on the sale of a 
 horse-power machine. Radford v. Merchants' 
 Bank, 3 0. R. 529.— C. P. D. 
 
 See In re Rainy Lake Lumber Company — 
 Stewart Liquidator v. Union Bank of Lower 
 Canada, 15 A. R. 749, p. 140. 
 
 VIII. MlSCRLLAKKOUS CASES. 
 
 Loans made on deposit of stock. See Carnegie 
 V. Federal Bank of Canada, 5 O. R. 418. 
 
 10 
 
 BARGAIN AND SALE. 
 
 See Sale of Goods— Sale of Lands. 
 
 BARRATRY. 
 
 See Insurance. 
 
 BARRISTER AT LAW. 
 
 I. Counsel Feb— See Costs. 
 IL Retainer— .S\'e Solicitor. 
 
 III. Solicitor— -S(;e Solicitor. 
 
 IV. County Crown Attorney— <Siee CouNTV 
 
 Crown Attorney. 
 
 V, Law Society — See Law Society of 
 Upper Canada. 
 
 Practising barrister dealing largely in land 
 transactions, but not shewn to be dependent 
 thereon for his living : — Held not a trader under 
 the Insolvent Act. Joseph v. Haffner, 29 Chy. 
 421.— Boyd. 
 
 By 37 Vict. c. 20, N. S. (1874), the Lieuten- 
 ant-Governor of the province of Nova Scotia was 
 authorized to appoint provincial officers under 
 the name of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the 
 law for the province. By 37 Vict. c. 21, (N. 
 S.), the Lieutenant-Governor was authorized 
 to grant to any member of the bar a patent of 
 precedence in the courts of the province of Nova 
 Scotia. R., the respondent, was appointed by 
 the Governor-General on the 27th December, 
 1872, under the groat seal of Canada, a Queen's 
 Counsel, and by the uniform practice of the 
 court he had precedence over all members of the 
 bar not holding patents priir to his own. By 
 letters patent, dated 26th May, 1876, under the 
 
 freat seal of the province, and signed by the 
 lieutenant-Governor and Provincial Secretary, 
 several members of the bar were appointed 
 Queen's Counsel for Nova Scotia, and precedence 
 was granted to them as well as to other Queen's 
 Counsel appointed by the Governor-General after 
 the Ist of July 1867. A list of Queen's Counsel 
 to whom precedence had been thus given by the 
 Lieutenant-Governor, was published in the Royal 
 Gazette of the 27th May, 1876, and the name of 
 R., the respondeat, was included in the list, but 
 it gave precedence and preaudience before him 
 to several persons, including appellants, who did 
 not enjoy it before. Upon affidavits disclosing 
 
 
 
147 
 
 BARRISTER AT LAW. 
 
 148 
 
 ;|ii 
 
 the aborc and other facts, and on producing tho 
 original cnmrnisRion and letters putcnt, R., on 
 the 3rd January, 1877, obtained a rule nisi to 
 grant him rank and precedence over all Queen's 
 Counsel appointed in and for the prnvinceof Nova 
 Scotia since tho 2Uth December, 1872, aiid to set 
 aside, so far as they affected R. 's precedence, the 
 letters patent, dated the 2Cth May, 1870. This 
 rule was made absolute by the ISupreme Court of 
 NoTa Scotia, on the 2()th March, 1877, and the 
 decision of that court was in substance as fol- 
 lows : — 1. That the letterH patent of precedence, 
 issued by the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova 
 Scotia, were not issued under the great seal of 
 the province of Nova Scotia ; 2. That 37 Vict. cc. 
 20, 21, of the Acts of Nova Scotia, were not ultra 
 vires ; 3. That 37 Vict., c. 21, s. 2, (N. S.) was 
 not retrospective in its etl'ict, and that the letters 
 patent of the 2()th May, l87ti, issued under that 
 Act could not afl'ect the precedence of the respon- 
 dent. On the argument in appeal before the 
 Supreme Court of Canada the question of the 
 validity of the great seal of tlie province of Nova 
 Scotia was declared to have been settled by legis- 
 lation, 40 Vict. c. 3, (Dom.), and 40 Vict. c. 2,(N. 
 S.) A preliminary objection was raised to the 
 jurisdiction of the court to hear the appeal :— 
 Held, 1. That the judgment of the court below 
 was one from which an appeal would lie to the 
 Supreme Court of Canada; (Fournicr, J., dis- 
 senting.) 2. Per Strong, Fournier and Tasch- 
 ereau, JJ. :— That 37 Vict. c. 21, (N.S.), has not 
 a retrospective effect, and that the letters patent 
 issued under the authority of that Act could not 
 affect the precedence of the Queen's Counsel ap- 
 pointed by the Crown. 3. Per Henry, Tasche- 
 reau and Gwynne, J J. : — That the British North 
 America Act has not invested the legislatures of 
 the provinces with any control over the appoint- 
 ment of Queen's Counsel, and as Her Majesty 
 forms no part of the Provincial Legislature as 
 she does of the Dominion Parliament, no Act of 
 any such Local Legislature can in any manner 
 impair or affect her pierogative right to appoint 
 Queen's Counsel in Canada directly or through 
 Her Representative, the Governor-General, or 
 vest such prerogative right in the Lieutenant- 
 Governors of the provinces ; and that 37 Vict. 
 cc. 20 and 21, (N. S.), are ultra vires and void. 
 4. Per Strong and Fournier, J J. :— That as 
 this court ought never except in cases when 
 such adjudication is indispensai)le to the decision 
 of a cause, to pronounce upon the constitutional 
 power of a legislature to pass a statute, there 
 was no necessity in this case for them to express 
 an opinion upon the validity of the Acts in ques- 
 tion. Lmoir v. Ritchie, 3 S. C. R. 575. 
 
 The suppliant, an advocate of the province of 
 Quebec, and one of Her Majesty's counsel, was 
 retained by the Government of Canada as one of 
 the counsel for Great Britain before the Fishery 
 Commission, which sat at Halifax pursuant to 
 the Treaty of Washington. There was contra- 
 dictory evidence as to the terms of t^c letainer, 
 but the learned judge in the Exchequer Court 
 found " that each of the counsel engaged was to 
 receive a refresher equal to the retaining fv,e of 
 $1,000, that they were to be at liberty to draw 
 on a bank at Halifax for $1,000 a month during 
 the sittings of the Commission, that the expen- 
 ses of the suppliant and his family were to be 
 paid, and that the final amount of fees was to 
 remain unsettled until after the award." The 
 
 amount awarded by tho Commissioners was 
 $5,500,000. Tho suppliant claimed $10,000 as 
 his remuneration, in addition to $8,000 already 
 received by him : — Held, per Fournier, Henry 
 and Tasehereau, JJ., that the suppliant, under 
 tho agreement entered into with the Crown, was 
 entitled to sue by petition of right for a reason. 
 able sum in addition to the amount paid him, and 
 tiuit $8,000 awarded him in the Exchequer Court 
 was a reasonable sum. I'er Fournier, Henry, 
 Tasehereau and Gwynne, J J. : By the law of the 
 province of Quebec, counsel and odvocates can re- 
 cover for fees stipulated for by an express agree- 
 ment. Per Fournier and Henry, JJ. : By the law 
 also of the province of Ontario, counsel can re- 
 cover for such fees. Per Strong, J. : Tho terms 
 of the agreement, as establisheal)y the evidence, 
 shewed (in addition to an express agreement to 
 pay the suppliant's expenses) only an honorary 
 and gratuitous undertaking on the part of the 
 Crown to give additional remuneration for fees 
 beyond the amount of fees paid, which under- 
 taking is not only no foundation for an action 
 but excludes any right of action as upon an im- 
 plied contract to pay the reasonable value of tlie 
 services rendered : .-nd the suppliant could there- 
 fore recover only his expenses m addition to the 
 amount so paicl. Per Ritchie, C.J. : As the 
 atjreement between the suppliant and the Min- 
 ister of Marine and Fisheries, on behalf of Her 
 M.ajesty, was made at Ottawa, in Ontario, for 
 services to be performed at Halifax, in Nova 
 Scotia, it was not subject to the law of Quebec : 
 that in neither Ontario nor Nova Scotia could a 
 barrister maintain an action for fees, and there- 
 fore that the petition would not lie. lieijina v. 
 Doutre, 6 S. C. R. 342. 
 
 Held, on appeal to the Privy Council, that in 
 the absence of stipulation to the contrary, ex- 
 press or implied, he must be deemed to h.ive 
 been employed upon the usual terms according 
 to which such services are rendered, and that 
 his status in respect both of right and remedy 
 was not affected either by the lex loci contractus 
 or the lex loci solutionis. iS. C, 9 App. Cas. 
 745. 
 
 Per Gwynne, .T. ; By the Petition of Right Act, 
 s. 8, the subject is denied any remedy against 
 the Crown in any case in which he would not 
 have been entitled to such remedy in England, 
 under similar circumstances. By the laws in 
 force there prior to 23 and 24 Vict. c. .34, (Imp.), 
 counsel could not, at any time, in England, have 
 enforced payment of counsel fees by the Crown, 
 and therefore the suppliant should not recover. 
 S. C.,6S. C. R. 342. 
 
 Held, further, that the Petition of Right, 
 Canada, Act, 1876, s. 19, sub-s. 3, does not in 
 such case bar the remedy against the Crown by 
 petition. Kennedy v. Brown, 13 C. B. N. S. 
 677, commented upon. S. C, 9 App. Cas. 
 745. 
 
 Junior counsel are not at liberty to take posi- 
 tions in argument which conflict with the posi- 
 tions taken by their leaders. International 
 Bridge Co. v. Canada Southern R. W. Co., and 
 Canada Southern R. W. Co. v. Inteniatianat 
 Bridge Co., 7 A, R. 226, but see 19 C. L. J. 
 358. 
 
 As to right of different counsel representing 
 defendants with common defence to cross-exam- 
 
 149 
 
 ino a witne 
 itillan, 6 8. 
 
 Upon an 
 will not he 
 party. Lav 
 C. of A. 
 
 To entitle 
 tho bar of I 
 must be adi 
 Society of tli 
 39.-C. P. I 
 
 Exercise < 
 Society for i 
 V. Law Socie 
 17 0. R. 30C 
 
 Right of V 
 examination 
 minion Ban) 
 
 A mother 
 signed her ill 
 wnose repute 
 of a protesti 
 Catholic. Ii 
 signed a pap( 
 child deliven 
 lie institutio: 
 power to coi 
 and that the 
 ground for in 
 8 P. R. 23.- 
 
 Right of 
 a railway co: 
 child occasio 
 head bridge. 
 2 0. R, 658. 
 
 Devise to 
 lifetime of te 
 Hargraft v. 
 
 The father 
 to the custod 
 the mother w 
 O'Rourke v. 
 
 To an acti( 
 1, by the pla 
 an illegitima 
 lodging, and 
 child at the - 
 up as a defen 
 the plaintiff l 
 them that he 
 always been 
 famish her -« 
 the said mot! 
 op the child 
 her :— Held, 
 no answer to 
 
149 
 
 BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES. 
 
 ino a witness separfttoly. See Walker v. i[c- 
 MiUan, 6 S. C. R. 241. 
 
 Upon an interlocutory application the court 
 will not hear more than one counsel for any 
 party. Langdon v. Bobertioti, 12 P. K. 139. — 
 C. of A. 
 
 To entitle au P^nglish barrister to practise at 
 the bar of Her Majesty's courts in Ontario, ho 
 must be admitted to practise through the Law 
 Society of the province. In re D<: Sonm, 9 O. R. 
 39.— C. P. D. 
 
 Exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by Law 
 Society for professional misconduct. Sec Hands 
 V. Law Society of Upper Canada, 16 0. R. 625 ; 
 17 0. R. 300; 17 A. R. 41. 
 
 Ri^ht of witness to presence of counsel upon 
 examination under Con. Rule 576. See Do- 
 minion liank V. Bell, 13 P. K. 471. 
 
 BASTARD. 
 
 A mother some monthj before her death, con- 
 signed her illegitimate child, seven years of age, 
 whose reputed father was dead, to the custody 
 of a protestant institution, sho being a Roman 
 Catholic. Immediately before her death she 
 signed a paper expressing her desire to have her 
 child delivered up for nurture to a Roman Catho- 
 lic institution :— Held, that the court had not 
 power to compel the delivery up of the child, 
 and that the express wish of the mother was no 
 ground for interference. In re Smith, an Infant, 
 8 P. R. 23.— Hayarty. 
 
 Right of mother to recover damages against 
 a railway compony for death of her illegitimate 
 child occasioned by the construction of an over- 
 head bridge. See Gibson v. Midland R. W. Co. , 
 2 O. E. 668. 
 
 Devise to illegitimate child, who dies during 
 lifetime of testator, leaving legitimate issue. See 
 Hargrqfi v. Keegati, 10 0. R. 272. 
 
 The father of an illegitimate child has the right 
 to the custody and care thereof, except as against 
 the mother who has the right against the father. 
 O'Rourke v. Campbell, 13 O. R. 563.— Rose. 
 
 To an action under R. S. O. (1877), c. 131, s. 
 1^ by the plaintiff, the maternal grandmother of 
 an illegitimate female child, for food, clothing, 
 lodging, and other necessaries, supplied to the 
 child at the mother's request, the defendant set 
 up as a defence that he demanded the child from 
 the plaintiff and from the mother ; and informed 
 them that he would support the childj and had 
 always been ready and willing to do so, and to 
 fnmish her with food, etc., yet the plaintiff and 
 the said mother have and still refuse to deliver 
 up the child or allow the defendant to support 
 her : — Held, on demurrer, that this constituted 
 no answer to the action. lb. 
 
 BAWDY HOUSE. 
 
 See Public Morals. 
 
 BENEVOLENT SOOIETIES. 
 
 The " Act to secure to Wives and Cliildreii 
 the Benefit of Life Iiisuranie," 47 Vict. c. 20 
 (Oat.), applies to iiiHurances in societies in- 
 corporated under tlie liencvolent .Societies Act 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 167. Rurton, J. A., dis- 
 senting. Sii'ijt V. Proi'incial Provident Inatilu- 
 linn, 17 A. R. 60. Overruling Jlc 0' Heron, 11 
 P. R. 422. 
 
 L. was expelled from nienibershipin L.'U. St. 
 J,, an incorporated ))enetit society, for being in 
 default to pay six months' contributions. Article 
 20 of tlio society's by-laws, section 5, provides 
 tiiab " When a member sliall have neglected 
 during six months to pay his contributions, or 
 the entire amount of liis entrance fee, the society 
 may erase liis name from tlio list of members, 
 an(l ho shall then no longer form part of tiio 
 society ; for that puiTiose, at every general and 
 regular meeting, it is the duty of tiio Collector- 
 Treasurers to make known tiie names of those 
 wiio are indebted in six montlis' contributions, 
 or in a balance of tiieir entrance fee, and then 
 nny one may move that sucli mem))er8 be struck 
 off from the list of members of tiie society." L. 
 therefore brought suit under the almpe of a peti- 
 tion, praying tliat a writ of mandamus should 
 issue, enjoining tlie company to reinstate him in 
 his rights and privileges as a member of tlie 
 society. 1. On tlie ground that he liad not been 
 put en demeure in any way ; an<l that no state- 
 ment or notice had been given him of the amount 
 of his indeblodnesp. 2. On the ground tliat 
 many other members of tlie society were in arrear 
 for similar periods, and tliat it was not compe- 
 tent for tlie society to make any distinction 
 amongst those in arrears. 3. On the ground that 
 no motion was made at any regular meeting. 
 The Court of Queen's Bench for L. C. (appeal side) 
 held, that L. should have had "prior notice" of 
 tiie proceedings to be taken with the view to 
 his expulsion : — Held, on appeal, that as L. did 
 not raise by his pleading tlie want of "prior 
 notice," or make it a part of his case in the court 
 below, he could not do so in appeal. Per Tasch- 
 ereau and (iwynne, JJ. : — A member of that 
 society who admits that he is in arrears for six 
 months' contributions, is not entitled to "prior 
 notice " before he can bo pxpelled for non-pay- 
 ment of dues. L' Union St. Joseph de Montreal v. 
 Lapierre, 4 S. C. R. 164. 
 
 Members of charitable and provident societies 
 should not be allowed to litigate their grievances 
 within the society in courts of law until they 
 have exhausted every possible means of redress 
 afforded by the internal regulations of their 
 societies. Therefore, where the plaintiff being 
 expelled from the Ancient Order of Foresters, 
 filed his bill for restitution thereto on the ground 
 of illegal expulsion, but it appeared that the 
 rules of the society provided certaui internal 
 tribunals to which lie might have appealed for 
 redress, but had not. this court refused to inter- 
 fere. Essery v. Conrl Pride of the Dominion, 2: 
 0. R. 696.— Chy. D. 
 
 0. was a member ot Court Maple of the defen- 
 dants' order and was insured under the endow- 
 ment provisions thereof for $1,000. This court 
 left the order in a body and joined another order 
 of Foresters, and it was in consequence sus- 
 pended. On joining the new order it was ar- 
 
 a 
 s 
 
 ?! 
 
 8 
 
 S3 
 
 ;iai 
 
f 
 
 BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES. 
 
 162 
 
 liBl 
 
 ranged thatO., who wa« in ill-health and had 
 |.'one to Ciilifornia 'or uhango, KhouM be taken 
 and inHured with the otherH. Hy the rule* of 
 the defcndiinta' ordor nicnd)or8 of Husponded 
 courts in j;ood Mtandinj} at Huspeiigion were, on 
 application within tliirty days to tiio supreme 
 secretary, and payment of a fee of ;?!, to receive 
 a card of ineiMlicrsliip ami lie entitled to the 
 endowment, j)rovi(lod they ])aid all assessments 
 as they fell due, an<l afiiliatiMl with another lodjjo 
 f)f the order ; hut, if after thirty days, they must 
 pass a medical examination. O., on his return 
 from California, on ascertaining that Court Maple 
 had been snf-pendcd, witiiin the thirty days, hem^ 
 then in good standing, ap[)lied to the defendants' 
 supreme secretary for his c.ml of nieinhership, 
 tendering SI ami asaessments due, which was 
 refused on the grounil that a medical certificate 
 was necessary. (>., hy reason of his not having 
 the card, was prevented from affiliating though 
 he endeavoured to do so, with another court. 
 Uy the endowment certificate the $1,000 was 
 payable to the widow, orphans, or legal heirs of 
 O. , anil by endorsement thereon O. directed the 
 amount to be paid to the plaintiff', the widow : — 
 Held, that under the directicns so given, as well 
 as under U. S. O. (1S77), c 167, s. U, the widow 
 was entitled to re( )vcr the amount ; and that the 
 fact of (). being a member of another order did 
 not ipso facto deprive him of his rights and 
 membership of defendants' order. Oaten v. 
 Supreme Court of' the Independent Order of 
 ForeHters, 4 O. R. 535.— C. P. D. 
 
 At the trial an amendment was asked to set 
 up a forfeiture of the policy by reason of 0. hav- 
 ing gone to California without a permit, which 
 was lefused by the J\idge : — Held, under the 
 circumstances, the refusal was proper. The 
 frame an<l effect of tlie pleadings in this case 
 considered, lb. 
 
 Qua-re, whetlier the way, cause, and manner 
 in and for wliich 0. and the other members of 
 Court Maple left it and joined in a body another 
 Order might not, if properly pleaded, have re- 
 el uired some consideration. 11). 
 
 W. , who was a member ot a subordinate court 
 of the defendant society, died on the 6th of May, 
 1884. His admininistatrix claimed in this 
 action the amount of an endowment certificate 
 upon his life, which was subject to a ooridition 
 that the assured should at the time of his death 
 be a member of the society in good standing. 
 W. had not paid his monthly assessment due 
 1st March, 1884, and by his failure to pay had 
 become at once suspended by virtue of one of 
 the by-laws of the society, and his name appeared 
 upon the list of suspended members m the 
 minutes of a meeting held that month. He 
 had taken cold at Ciiristmas, 1883, and by the 
 end of February, 1884, it was apparent that he 
 could not recover, and he never rallied up to 
 the time of his death. Shortly before the 25th 
 of April, 1884, a sum sufficient to pay his 
 assessments due Ist March, 1st April, and 1st 
 May was paid on his behalf to the financial 
 secretary of the subordinate court. The condi- 
 tions to be performed by a suspended member 
 desirous of being reinstated after a suspension 
 has been in force for thirty days were according 
 to the by-laws, payment of arrears, passing 
 medical examination, and being approved of by 
 two-thirds vote of the subordinate court. It 
 
 was not possible for W. to have complied with 
 the second comlition, and ho did not attempt to 
 <lo so. — Held, that the by-laws were binding 
 upon W. and the plaintiff, and that he, not 
 having been reinstated in accordance therewith, 
 was not a member in gxxl standing at the time 
 of his death. WilU v. Supreme Court of the 
 Independent Order of Forexterit, 17 0. K. 317.— 
 Q. U. U. 
 
 It was contended that the fact of the receipt 
 of tiie arrears bj the financial secretary, and 
 certain other circ imstanccs, shewed a waiver 
 or created an estojipul on the part of the defen- 
 dants. It u|)pcarud that the financial secre- 
 tary was not familiar with the by-laws, and 
 thougiit and infoi'med W, that he was restored 
 to g(H)d standing by the payment of arrears ; 
 that he transmitted the asssssmcnts paid to the 
 supreme secretary of the society, who received 
 and retained them, but carried them to the 
 credit of the subordinate court, instead of to 
 the credit of \V., because in his view the rein- 
 statement was not completed ; and that W. 
 was reported reinstated by the subordinate 
 court on 2.5th April, 1S84, The financial secre- 
 tary had the right, under the by-laws, to receive 
 the arrears, but f)nly as a first step towards 
 reinstatement. Held, that in view of the fact 
 that W. was hopelessly ill when the supreme 
 secretary acknowledged the receipt of the 
 assessments, tiiere was no ground for the con- 
 tention that the defendants were estopped from 
 denying that they accepted the money with the 
 intention of keeping the policy alive and of 
 waiving the medical examination ; and that, 
 under all the circumstances, there was neither 
 the intention nor the authority on the part of 
 the supreme secretary to waive the examination. 
 lb. 
 
 As the plaintiff had been led by the action of 
 the supreme secretary and the officers of the 
 Court below to believe that W. had been rein- 
 stated, no costs were given against her. lb. 
 
 The plaintiff 's husband was the holder of two 
 certificates of the defendants, a pr3vident insti- 
 tution, whereby on his paying $1.50 and $2.50 
 respectively semi-annually on May 15th and 
 November 15th, together with assessments, and 
 conforming to the conditions thereof, the defen- 
 dants promised to pay the plaintiff a certain 
 amount on his death. Among the conditions were 
 that thirty days default in payment would sus- 
 pend him from membership and void the certifi- 
 cates, and that he should then be reinstated on 
 furnishing satisfactory proof of good health with- 
 in ninety days from such suspension, and paying 
 arrears and in the meanwhile the certificates 
 should be void, and of no effect. Plaintiff's 
 husband was in his ordinary good health oa 
 August 27th, 1886, but died on September 2nd, 
 1886, having paid all dues and assessments regu- 
 larly up to May 15th, 1886. It appeared that 
 on August 14th, the plaintiff's husband received 
 a letter from the detondants' secretary request- 
 ing payment of the dues due on May 15th 1886, 
 and of a certain assessment, and the same day 
 he remitted the money, and on August 21st, 
 1886, the defendants sent written receipts there- 
 for, marked across their faces : ' ' Conditional 
 that you are in good health ; " and also wrote 
 demanding payment of a certain other assessment 
 I as due from the plaintiff 's husband as a member. 
 
 183 
 
 which comn 
 him. On At 
 to the defcnc 
 aod on the sc 
 they had rcc( 
 receipts to 1 
 that they tru 
 The plamtiff 
 fcndants' hoc 
 the certificat 
 peared that i 
 of the defcnc: 
 terms of the I 
 this action a,^ 
 the certificat 
 Robertson, J 
 was entitled 1 
 that there wi 
 death, and f 
 vantage of hi 
 
 of the 'nopr 
 their crediii 
 clearly revi% 
 ilants could i 
 fault in ord 
 Per Boyd, C. 
 books and p 
 ceased never 
 v. Provincial 
 361.— Chy. ] 
 
 A society, 
 Societies' Ac 
 bers in case 
 rules provide 
 who " kept : 
 after notice 
 the society tl 
 ber, was guil 
 him directin 
 expulsion, a 
 passed expe 
 from the soci 
 tion to move 
 opportunity 
 explaining ' 
 sion was ille 
 tice,andthe 
 landy.L'Un 
 
 I. Gkn 
 il. Wii 
 
 £^«eGAiu 
 
 Powers o: 
 ing the hoi 
 
153 
 
 BILLS OF EZOHANOE AND PBOMISSORY NOTES. 
 
 18t 
 
 which communication, liowovcr, never reached 
 him. On August '23ril, 188C, the nhiintiff wrote 
 to the (lefendiints offering to pay tfio aaBCHHnirnt, 
 and on the same day the defendanta replied that 
 they had received the money, and forwarded tlio 
 receipts to the plaintitr's huRbard, und added 
 that they trusted that this would be satisfactory. 
 The plaintitT's husband was retained on the de- 
 fendants' books us a member all tho while, and 
 the certificateB were never cancelled. It also ap- 
 peared that it had not been the general practice 
 of the defendants to hold members to tho strict 
 terms of the payments. The plaintifTnow brought 
 this action agamst tho defendants to recover upon 
 the certificates: — Held, affirming tho decision of 
 Eobertson, J., 16 0. K. 382, that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to judgment, for the evidenceshewed 
 that there was no intention, up to her husband's 
 death, and for some time thereafter to take ad- 
 vantage of his default in payment, and the receipt 
 of the ^or<t ■ in August by the defendants, and 
 their crediiiiiu him on the books therewith, 
 clearly revived the certificate, and tho defon- 
 ilants could not be allowed to fall back on the de- 
 fault in order to destroy the plaintiff's right 
 Per Boyd, C. Upon the record supplied by the 
 books and practice of the corporation, the de- 
 ceased never ceased to be a member. Horton 
 v. Provincial Provident InaliltUion, 17 O. R. 
 361.— Chy. D. 
 
 A society, incorporated under the Benevolent 
 Societies' Act, for a£fording assistance to mem- 
 bers in case of illness or death, by one of its 
 rules provided for the exnidsion of any member 
 who " kept irregular ana intemperate conduct" 
 after notice to amend. On complaint made to 
 the society that the plaintifif, a proprietary mem- 
 ber, was guilty of such conduct, notice was sent 
 him directing him to amend or be subject to 
 expulsion, and a resolution was subsequently 
 passed expelling him, and his name was erased 
 from the society s books. No notice of the inten- 
 tion to move for his expulsion was given, or any 
 opportunity a£forded him of being p ^sent and 
 explaining his conduct : — Held, that the expul- 
 sion was illegal as being contrary to natural jus- 
 tice, and the resolution therefor null and void. Be- 
 landv.L'UnivnSt. Thomaa, 190. R. 747 Rose. 
 
 BEQUEST. 
 
 I, GXNERALLY — Set WiLL. 
 
 il. Widows' EvBcmov—See Dowbr. 
 
 BETTING. 
 See OAKiNa— Pabliahbntaay Elections. 
 
 tuvorns nuiy bo kept open. .Sou liei/inav. Ilodijf, 
 40 Q. B. 141 ; 7 A. 11. IMO ; App. Can. 117. 
 
 BILLS OF EXOHANOE AND PBOMIS- 
 SORY NOTES. 
 
 I, Parties. 
 
 1. Agents — See Principal and Aoent. 
 
 2. Married Women— See Husband and 
 
 WUE. 
 
 3. Pariit> >■■ -See PARTNEnsnip. 
 II. Form, 184. 
 
 III. Stamps. lHo, 
 
 IV. At uatio^, 158. 
 
 V Transfer y^kTETt Maturity, 159. 
 
 VI. Phesent.i' N ■, Protest and Notice of 
 DisTiii.voiUv, 159. 
 
 VII. At'CEPTOit AND Maker. 
 
 1. Officers of Companies, 163. 
 
 2. Other Canes, 165. 
 
 VIII. Drawer and Endorser, 166. 
 IX. Actions on. 
 
 1. At what Time, 165. 
 
 2. Pleas, 166. 
 
 3. Interest Recoverable, 166. 
 
 4. For Non- Acceptance, 167. 
 
 5. Other Cases, 167. 
 
 6. Jurisdiction of Division Courts — See 
 
 Division Courts. 
 
 X. Defences to Actions. 
 
 1. Plaintiff" not the Holder, 168. 
 
 2. Consideration as a Ground of Dejence, 
 
 (a) Accommodation or Want of Con- 
 
 sideration, 168. 
 
 (b) Partial Failure of Consideration, 
 
 170. 
 
 (c) Fraud and Illegal Consideration, 
 
 171. 
 
 3. Payment, 172. 
 
 4. Time given Jor Payment, 173. 
 6. Other Defences, 175. 
 
 XI. Miscellaneous Cases, 177. 
 
 XII. Duties of Banks in Connection with 
 Bills or Notes — See Banks. 
 
 XIII. Premium Notes— -See Insurance. 
 
 BIOAMT. 
 Su Criminal Law. 
 
 BIUIABD TABLES. 
 
 Powers of Provincial Legislature as to restrict- 
 ing the hours within which billiard rooms in 
 
 I 
 
 Si 
 
 i 
 
 laa 
 
 II. Form. 
 
 Held, that the note in this case was not a ne- 
 gotiable promissory note, not being made pay- 
 able absolutely and at all events, but only as 
 collateral security for plaintiGTs guarantee. 
 Sutherland v. Patterson, 4 0. R. 565.— C. P. D. 
 
 It is no objection to the validity of a 
 promissory note that it is for payment of a cer- 
 tain sum in currency. Currency must be held 
 to mean "United States Currency," when the 
 
 I K 
 
wmmmm 
 
 ms 
 
 mBom 
 
 m 
 
 BILLS OF EXOHANOE AND FROMISSOBT NOTES. 
 
 156 
 
 157 
 
 note is payable in the United States. Wallace 
 V. Soutlier, 16 S. C. R. TH. 
 
 One E., who had a contract with tlie defen- 
 <lant for certain carpenter's work, gave to the 
 plaintiff an order on tlie defendant in the follow- 
 ing form :—" Please pay to H. the sum of 
 $138.40 for flooring supplied to your buildings 
 on D. road, and charge to my account : " — Held, 
 that this was not an equiible assignment, but 
 a bill of exchange, ana t ' '.,1 in the absence of 
 written acceptance by her, the defendant was 
 not liable. Judgment of the County Court of 
 York reversed. Hall v. Prittie, 17 A. R. 306. 
 
 The statute R. S. C. c. 123, ss. 12-14, which 
 requires notes given for the purchase of a patent 
 rignt, before being issued to have the words 
 "given for a patent right," written or printed 
 thereon, provides that the endorsee or transferee 
 of a note with such words thereon shall have the 
 same defence as would have existed between 
 the original parties, and subjects to indictment 
 any one issuing, selling or transferring sucli notes 
 without such words written thsreon. One of 
 the plaintiffs gave two notes to the defendant 
 for the purchase money on the assignment of a 
 patent right on which the required words were 
 written. These notes were subsequently can- 
 celled, and in lieu thereof the notes in question 
 were given, made by both plaintiffs without 
 having the said words thereon : — Held, that the 
 notes were enforceable by defendant, these words 
 not being required as between maker and payee, 
 and, even if they were, the makers had the 
 right to and did waive having the same thereon. 
 Girvln v. Burke, 19 0. R. 204.— C. P. D. 
 
 SeeSwaisland v. Davidson, 3 0. R. 320, p. 158 ; 
 Harvey v. Bank of Hamilton, 16 S. C. R. 714, 
 p. 176 ; Be Central Bank — Morton and Block's 
 claim, 17 0. R. 574, p. 135. 
 
 III. Stamps. 
 
 The plaintiffs refused to purchase a note from 
 the holder, one C, because it was insufficiently 
 «tamped, whereupon C. afSxed double stamps 
 »nd transferred it to the plaintiffs, who did not 
 notice tliat the stamps had not been properly 
 cancelled until some time afterwards, when they 
 at once double stamped it and cancelled the 
 stamps under 42 Vict. c. 17, s. i3(Dom.) : — Held, 
 reversing the decisioa of the County Court, that 
 the plaintiffs, having taken the note in the full 
 belief that it had been properly double stamped 
 by C. y who was at the time the holder, were en- 
 titled to double stamp it under the above section, 
 upon discovering the defect. Trout v. Moulton, 
 5 A. R. 654. 
 
 Defendant having pleaded several distinct de* 
 fences to an action on a promissory note, the 
 Master in Chambers refused to allow him to add 
 a plea that the note was not duly stamped, hold- 
 ing that under R. S. O. c. 50, s. 270, such 
 amendment was not compulscry, but a matter 
 of discretion. On appeal, Osier, J,, affirmed his 
 decision. Caugkill v. Clarke, 9 P. R. 471. 
 
 In an action on a promissory note, which at its 
 making was not stamped, but had been double 
 stamped before action, and after the repeal of the 
 Stamp Act by the 45 Vict. c. 1 ( Dom. ), the defen- 
 dant denied the making of the note. At the trial 
 Wilson, C. J., refused leave to plead insufficient 
 
 stamping on account of the repeal of the Stamp 
 Act, out the plaintiff was allowed to amend by 
 adding allegations shewing the consideration for 
 the note, and gave judgment for the plaintiff : — 
 Held, that the judgment was right. Per Hagarty, 
 C. J. The learned Judge was not bound to 
 allow a plea of insufficient stamping to be added 
 by way of amendment, under the circumstances. 
 Per Armour and Cameron, JJ. The amend- 
 ment s'.iould have been allowed. Per Armour, 
 J. The note even if unstamped or insufficiently 
 stamped was admissible in evidence of the debt 
 to tlie plaintiff, the Stamp Act not prohibiting 
 such a use of it, and McKay v. Grinley, 30Q.B. 
 54, contra, should not be followed. Per Hagarty, 
 C, J., and Cameron, J. It is necessary, at all 
 events since the Judicature Act, to plead speci- 
 ally want of stamps. Per Cameron, J. The 
 unstamped note was in its inception valid, but 
 became invalid by neglect to stamp it. The re- 
 peal of the Stamp Act leaves the law where if; 
 was before thoue Acts were passed, and the note 
 being originally a valid transaction is valid. 
 S. a, 3 0. R. 269.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The note upon which this action was brought 
 had not been properly stamped, and it was urged 
 that it could not oe a payment or satisfaction of 
 one of which it was intended to be a renewal : — 
 Held, tliat the plaintiff being aware of the objec- 
 tion to the unstamped note, and receiving it in 
 lieu of the paper wnich he held, could not urge 
 this as an objection, he having declared upon it 
 ivs a promissory note. Baillie v. Dickson, 7 A. 
 R. 759. 
 
 Held, that a promissory note before being ne- 
 gotiated could be stamped by the maker on the 
 day of the making thereof, though after it had 
 been signed by him and indorsed by the payee. 
 Bank of Ottawa v. McLaughlin, 8 A. R. 543. 
 
 Where the defendant, being sued on a promis- 
 sory note, alleged that the said note was not duly 
 stamped before the repeal of the Stamp Act, nor 
 until after action brought, although he commu- 
 nicated the fact of the omission to the plaintiffs 
 before he was sued, and the plaintiffs denied that 
 the defendant had eo notified them, and alleged 
 that they double stamped the note as soon as 
 they had knowledge of the omission to stamp, 
 which was not till after action brought, and after 
 the repeal of the Stamp Act ; and the evidence 
 shewed that when the note came to the plaintiffs' 
 hands it appeared to be properly stamped : — 
 Held, that the defendant could not be allowed, 
 upon his own unsupported testimony, in such a 
 case to escape liabibty. The onus waa on him 
 to establish that the stamp waa not duly affixed, 
 and that the omission to duly stamp was so in- 
 telligibly communicated to the plaintiffs that it 
 could be said they acquired tne knowlege of 
 the defect at the time alleged by him. Bank oj 
 Ottawa v. McMorroio, 4 O. R. 345. 
 
 To cure a defect in stamping by double stamp- 
 ing forthwith was, under the Stamp Act, 42 Vict, 
 c. 17, s. 13, an inherent right existing during the 
 currency of the instrument, and accompanying 
 its possession ; and by virtue of the Interpreta- 
 tion Act, 31 Vict 0. 1 88. 3 and 7, sub-s. 36, the 
 same right still exists notwithstanding the re- 
 peal of the Stamp Act. Lb. 
 
 On an appeal from a report of a master who 
 had allowed the claim of a creditor based oa * 
 
 Eromisiiory nc 
 eiug made, { 
 until after the 
 Vict. c. 1 (I 
 double stamp! 
 note, such righ 
 " existing or a 
 that no distit 
 note that was 
 due. Caughil 
 of Ottawa V. I 
 to and commei 
 229.— Boyd. 
 
 An action w 
 to recover the 
 appeared that 
 received by T. 
 knew then thi 
 quired to be 
 thought, and 1 
 was not stamp 
 attorney for > 
 1880, and they 
 The bill was i 
 reserved to th< 
 the learned jui 
 as a fact the 
 stamped when 
 stamps were 
 not intentional 
 attention was( 
 1880;— Held, : 
 the holder of . 
 scamps upon a 
 as the state of 
 ledge within t 
 <Dom.) is aquj 
 not for the jui 
 That the " kn 
 actual knowle 
 knowledge, an 
 shewed that 1 
 first time on 1 
 amount of the 
 3. That the ' 
 time is not a 
 (Gwynne, J., 
 8 S. C. R. 54J 
 
 R. remittee 
 Fundy Quarry 
 of an account 
 auperintenden 
 v., was unst 
 <iuired by the 
 them as of th 
 was at least t 
 they were acl 
 paid, and an ( 
 pleaded, acco 
 New Brunswi 
 <iid not make 
 was offered ii 
 ground that i 
 plaintiff havi 
 manner in wl 
 having also s> 
 to stamps at I 
 aubject to lea 
 for a non-suit 
 Was again off 
 The trial resi 
 auit should b< 
 
157 
 
 BILLS OF EXOHANOE AND PBOMISSOBT NOTES. 
 
 158 
 
 Eromisiiory note unstamped at the time of its 
 eing made, and not properly double stamped 
 until after the repeal of the Stamp Acta by 45 
 Vict. c. 1 (Dom.) it was: — Held, that such 
 double stamping was sufficient to validate the 
 note, such right being reserved under the words, 
 "existing or accruing rights are preserved," and 
 that no distinction could be made between a 
 note that was current and a note that was over- 
 due. Caughill V. Clarke, 3 0. R. 272, and Bank 
 of Ottawa V. McMorrow, 4 O. R. 345, referred 
 to and commented on. Card v. Cooley, 6 O. R. 
 229.— Boyd. 
 
 An action was brought by T. et al. against G. 
 to recover the amount of a bill of exchance. It 
 appeared that the draft when made, and when 
 received by T. et al. , had no stamps ; that they 
 knew then that bills and promissory notes re- 
 quired to be stamped, but never gave it a 
 thought, and their nrst knowledge that the bill 
 was not stamped was when they gave it to their 
 attorney for collection on the 26th February, 
 1880, and they immediately put on double stamps. 
 The bill was received in evidence, leave being 
 reserved to the defendant to move for a non-suit ; 
 the learned judge stating his opinion that though 
 as a fact the plaintiffs knew the bill was not 
 stamped when they received it, and knew that 
 stamps were necessary, they accidentally and 
 not intentionally omitted to affix them till their 
 attention was called to the omission in February, 
 1880 ; — Held, 1. That the question as to whether 
 the holder of a bill or draft has affixed double 
 scamps upon an unstamped bill or draft so soon 
 as the state of the bill was brought to his know- 
 ledge within the terms of 42 Vict., c. 12, s. 13, 
 (Dom. ) is a question for the judge at the trial and 
 not for the jury. (G Wynne, J., dissenting.) 2. 
 That the ' ' knowledge" referred to in the Act is 
 actual knowledge and not imputed or presumed 
 knowledge, and that the evidence in this case 
 shewed that T. acquired this knowledge for the 
 first time on the day he affixed stamps for the 
 amount of the double duty, 26th February, 1880. 
 3. That the want of proper stamping in due 
 time is not a defence which need be pleaded. 
 <Gwynne, J., dissenting.) Cfiapman v. Tufts, 
 8 S. C. R. 543. 
 
 R. remitted by mail to V. a draft on Bay of 
 Fundy Quarrying Co., Boston, Mass., in payment 
 of an account of the company, of which R. was 
 superintendent. The draft, when received by 
 v., was unstamped, and V. affixed stamps re- 
 quired by the ar lount of the draft, and initialed 
 them as of the date the draft was drawn, which 
 was at least two days prior to the date on which 
 they were actually affixed. The draft was not 
 paid, and an action was brought against R. , who 
 pleaded, according to provisions of Cons. Stats. 
 New Brunswick, c. 37, s. 83, sub-s. 4, " that he 
 <lid not make the draft." On the trial t' ^ draft 
 was offered in evidence and objected to op the 
 ground that it was not sufficiently stampea, the 
 plaintiff having previously testified as to the 
 manner in which the stamps we^e put on, and 
 having also sworn that he knew the law relating 
 to stamps at the time. The draft was admitted, 
 subject to leave reserved to defendant to move 
 fur a non-suit, and at a later stage of the trial it 
 was again offered with the donble duty affixed. 
 The trial resulted in counsel agreeing that a non- 
 suit should be entered with leave reserved to de- 
 
 fendant to move for a verdict, the court to have 
 power to draw inferences of fact. On motion, 
 pursuant to such leave reserved, the Supreme 
 Court of New Brunswick set aside the non-suit 
 and ordered a verdict to be entered for the plain- 
 tiff on the ground that the defect in the draft of 
 want of stamps should have been specially plead- 
 ed. On appeal to the SupremeCourt of Canada : — 
 Held, Strong and Gwynne, JJ., dissenting, that 
 double duty should have been placed on the note 
 as soon as it came into the hands of the arawee 
 unstamped, and that it was too late at the trial 
 to affix such double duty, the plaintiff having 
 sworn that he knew the law relating to stamps, 
 which precludes the possibility of holding that it 
 was a mere error or mistake : — Held, abo, that 
 under the plea that defendant did not make the 
 draft, he was entitled to take advantage of the 
 defect for want of stamps. Per Strong, J., that 
 the note was sufficiently stamped, and plaintiffs 
 were entitled to recover. Per Gwynne, J., that 
 if the note was not sufficiently stamped the de- 
 fence should have been specially pleaded. Roberts 
 V. Vauyhan, 11 S. C. R. 273. 
 
 If a note is insufficiently stamped, the double 
 duty may be affixed as soon as the defect comes 
 to the actual knowledge of the holder. The 
 statute does not intend that implied knowledge 
 should govern it. Wallace v, Souther, 16 S. C, R. 
 717. 
 
 IV. Alteration. 
 
 D. gave C. two prornissory notes, payable to 
 C. or uearer, but having endorsed on them con- 
 temporaneously with their making, and in the 
 case of one of them on the edge of the paper, the 
 words "the withir notes not to be sold, which 
 endorsement the e .lence shewed formed part of 
 the contract between the parties. The notes 
 were transferred to S., with the word "not" in 
 the above endorsement, in the case of one of 
 thein erased, and the whole of the said endorse- 
 ment in the case of the other, in which it was 
 written along the edge, torn off, but ■« ithout de- 
 stroying any part of tne face of the note : — Held, 
 that whether the words of the above endorse- 
 ment were underwritten or endorsed was imma- 
 terial, they being part of the original contract, 
 and the effect of it was to prevent C. disposing 
 of the notes to a holder for value, so as to pre- 
 serve to the makers all defences and equities, as 
 against the first holder and volunteers under 
 him, thus qualifying their negotiability. Steait- 
 land V. Davidson, 3 0. R. 320.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, that the notes having been altered in a 
 material part, D. was discharged, and S. could 
 not be protected on the ground of any negligence 
 on D. 's part in respect to the note in which the 
 endorsement was written along the edge of the 
 paper, inasmuch as the notes were issued in a 
 perfected shape, and the doctrine of negligence 
 does not apply to such perfected instruments. 
 lb. 
 
 It appeared that S. was a private banker ; that 
 he had been informed before taking the notes 
 that they wei-e given in purchase of patent riffhts; 
 that he noticed the erasure in the one of them 
 first purchased, and that he paid much less than 
 the commercial value of them, whilfi they both 
 bore marks of infirmity and indeed of knavery : — 
 
 5 
 
 iaa 
 
1S9 
 
 BILLS OF EXOHANOE AND PBOMISBOBT NOTES. 
 
 160 
 
 161 
 
 Held, S. could not be considered an innocent 
 holder of the notes. lb. 
 
 After a promissory note, made by three per- 
 sons, in these words: "We, either three of us, 
 promise to pay D. P. or bearer," had been trans- 
 ferred to the plaintiff's testator, the payee's 
 name was added to the foot of the note, appar- 
 ently as maker. It did not appear how it camo 
 there, but it was not his signature : — Held, 
 aflBrm'ng the judgment of ihe County Court, 
 Morrison, J. A., dissenting, that it was such a 
 material alteration as to vitiate the note ; and 
 that this would have been so even if the name 
 had been placed there by the payee or by his 
 authority : — Held, also, that prima facie the 
 name was placed there improperly ; that it would 
 have lain upon the testator, if alive, to account 
 for tlie alteration, and his death did not dis- 
 pense with this requirement. Beid v. Huviphrey, 
 6 A. E. 403. 
 
 Per Morrison, J. A. — As tlie name of the 
 payee was forged, it was ineffectual to alter the 
 character of the note, and therefore, did not 
 vitiate it ; and in the absence of evidence to 
 shew how the name was added, the presumption 
 would be that, if genuine, it was placed there 
 as an endorsement. lb. 
 
 V. Transfer after Maturity. 
 
 In an action on a promissory note it was shewn 
 that after maturity, and while the payee con- 
 tinued to be the holder, the maker supplied the 
 payee and others with board, etc., the value of 
 which it was agreed should be applied in pay- 
 ment or -eduction of the note : — Held, (reversing 
 the judgment of the county judge), that a sub- 
 sequent transfer of the note could only be made 
 subject to the claim of the maker for such board, 
 etc. ; and that such claim was an equity which 
 attached to the note in the plaintiff's hands. 
 Ching v. Jefery, 12 A. K. 432. 
 
 See Canadian Securifies Co. v. Prentice, 9 P. R. 
 324, p. 175 ; Torrance v. Livingstone, 10 P. P. 
 29; Black v. Strickland, 3 0. R. 217, p. 168; 
 McOregor v. Bishov, 14 O. E. 7; p. 171. 
 
 VI. Preskntmei't, Protest and Notice or 
 
 DiSHONOnR. 
 
 The defendants made a joint and several pro- 
 missory note with one H., as sureties for him, 
 payable to the plaintiff :— Held, affirming the 
 judgment of the County Court, that in default 
 of payment at maturity their liability to pay 
 became absolute ; and that it was no defence for 
 them that the plaintiff neglected to present the 
 note for payment, or give notice of non-payment 
 by H., of which they were ignorant, and that 
 believing the note had been paid by H., they 
 took no steps to recover from him, although he 
 was able to pay, and before they became aware 
 of such non-payment H. had become insolvent. 
 Wilaon v. Broxm, 6 A. R. 87. 
 
 Defendants were maker and endorser respec- 
 tively of a promissory note for the accommoda- 
 tion of D., who discounted it with the plaintiffs, 
 they having knowledge of the facts. On the 
 maturity of the note plaintiffs handed it to D., 
 who was their solicitor, for protest. D. did not 
 protest or notify defendants of its dishonour, but 
 
 delivered it to them, adding that he had paid it. 
 About three months after its maturity D. ab- 
 Boonded in insolvent circumstances, and after 
 that defendants were for the first time notiSed 
 of the non-payment of the note. In an action 
 against defendants on the note they pleaded, on 
 equitable grounds, the above facts, and that by 
 the laches of the plaintiffs they were prevented 
 from obtaining indemnity from D., and that if 
 compelled to pay the note, they would be de- 
 frauded out of the amount : — Held, a good 
 defence, and that the defendants were discharg- 
 ed. Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Oreen, 46 
 Q. B. 81.— Cameron. 
 
 The plaintiff, a customer of the defendants' 
 branch nank at Chatham, handed to the mana- 
 ger there for collection a note made by G. C. to 
 and endorsed by T. C, both of whom lived at 
 Detroit, where the note was made and payable. 
 The Chatham branch stamped above the endorse- 
 ment of T. C. a special endorsement to them- 
 selves, but the Chatham manager without 
 endorsing the note sent it to their Windsor 
 branch for collection — Windsor being their near- 
 est branch for Detroit — without any instructions 
 as to the place of residence of the endorser, who, 
 however, was well known in Detroit. The 
 manager of the Windsor branch endorsed it to 
 the cashier of the First National Bank, their 
 agent tli^re, and sent it to him for collection. 
 Payment having been refused upon presentation 
 they handed it to a notary, who duly protested 
 it but enclosed the notice for T. C. , the endor- 
 ser, in the envelope containing the notice to the 
 Windsor branch, addressed to the manager of 
 that branch. A clerk in the Windsor branch 
 sent the notice for T. C. to the (Chatham branch; 
 which was duly posted at Windsor, but was 
 never received from the Chatham post oflBce, and 
 T. C, the endorser, never received any. notice. 
 The Chatham manager received the protest by 
 due course of mail, and could have seen from it, in 
 time to rectify the mistake, that the notice for 
 T. C. had been addressed to the Windsor agent. 
 The endorser having been sued in Detroit escaped 
 on the ground of want of notice, and, the maker 
 being worthless, the payee sued defendants for 
 neglect with regard to such notice. It appeared 
 that in Detroit it was the custom for the notary 
 to send notices for the endorsers to the bank 
 from which the note was received. It was con- 
 tended for defendants that the branches were 
 for this purpose distinct ; that the notice was 
 properly sent to Windsor, and thence to the 
 Chatham branch, whence the note came : and 
 that but for the neglect of the Post Office the 
 notice would have been duly received at Chat- 
 ham and sent to the endorser. But Held, that 
 the defendants were liable : that on sending the 
 note to their Windsor agent they should nave 
 given proper information as to the residence of 
 the endorser for the guidance of the notary : and 
 that the Chatham branch having notice from the 
 protest, which they should have examined, that 
 the notice for the endorser had been sent to 
 Windsor, thejr should at once have had a proper 
 notice served in Detroit, which they coula have 
 done J time. Sleinhoffy. Merchants' Bank, 46 
 Q. B. 25.-Q. B. D. 
 
 A notary at Montreal,Quebec, protested a note 
 upon which the defendant, an attorney practis- 
 ing at Belleville, Ontario, was endorser. The 
 
 notary could 
 but made an 
 and in the su] 
 addressed to ' 
 of Ontario, 
 and constant! 
 ville post off 
 Belleville in I 
 defendant's ei 
 tested by th 
 swore that he 
 but his clerks 
 letters from 
 The notice t( 
 " Belleville I 
 Held, (Camer 
 tation of the 
 the notice ad( 
 imitation of d 
 and such notii 
 have been suf 
 tination or n 
 senting), that 
 should be a i 
 Court were ju 
 tion of defenr 
 as good as the 
 that if it can 
 addressed, it -N 
 and the plaii 
 Per Cameron, 
 made the not: 
 Cameron, J., 
 the endorser, ^ 
 Court of App 
 167 ; 7 A. K. : 
 
 The endorse 
 during the cu 
 dorscd as sure 
 protest was se 
 last will and 
 and rficeived 
 his chddren 
 wife had occu 
 had been gra 
 suihcient 
 413.-Boyd. 
 
 In an actioi 
 of a promisso 
 der Rule 80, 
 judgment, th« 
 note, who it 
 dorsers, swon 
 of dishonour, 
 produced by 1 
 the motion :— 
 in Chambers 
 there was no 
 received noti 
 denial by thei 
 have been re 
 P. R. 561.—] 
 
 The protes 
 largement :— 
 evidence of 
 lufiicient, in 
 
 , The note 
 ing," and sin 
 so called wai 
 Port Arthur, 
 exactly corr 
 
 11 
 
 M 
 
161 
 
 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSOBT NOTES. 
 
 162 
 
 notary could not read the defendant's signature, 
 but made an imitation of it upon the notices 
 and in the superscription of the letter which was 
 addressed to "Belleville, P. O.," i. e., Province 
 of Ontario. The defendant was well known at, 
 and constantly received letters from the Belle- 
 ville post office. There was proved to be a 
 Belleville in New Brunswick. Other notes with 
 defendant's endorsement thereon, had been pro- 
 tested by the same notary. The defendant 
 swore that he had never received the notice ; 
 but his clerks, who were accustomed to take his 
 letters from the post office, were not called. 
 The notice to another endorser, addressed to 
 "Belleville P. O.," was received by him: — 
 Held, (Cameron, J., dissenting), that if the imi- 
 tation of the defendant's signature put upon 
 the notice addressed to Belleville, was an exact 
 imitation of defendant's signature uponthenote, 
 and such notice was posted at Montreal, it would 
 have been sufficient, whether it reached its des- 
 tination or not. But, Held, (Armour, J., dis- 
 senting), that upon the facts in evidence, there 
 should be a new trial. Per Armour, J.— The 
 Court were justified in inferring that the imita- 
 tion of defendant's signature in the address was 
 as good as the imitation of it in the protest, and 
 that if it came to the Belleville post office so 
 addressed, it would have been delivered to him ; 
 and the p]ainti£f was entitled to the verdict. 
 Per Cameron, J.— The illegibility of the address 
 made the notice insufficient. Upon a new trial 
 Cameron, J., delivered judgment, discharging 
 the endorser, which judgment was upheld in the 
 Court of Appeal. Baillie v. Dickson,46 Q. B. 
 167 ; 7 A. R. 759, 765. 
 
 The endorser, a married woman, diedintestate 
 during the currency of a note which she had en, 
 dorscd as surety for her husband, and notice of 
 protest was sent to " James Bell, executor of the 
 last will and testament of M. A. Bell, Perth," 
 and received by the husband, who resided with 
 his children in the house which his deceased 
 wife had occupied. No letters of administration 
 had been granted :— Held, that the notice was 
 sufficient. Merchants' Batik v. Bell, 29 Chy. 
 413.-Boyd. 
 
 In an action against the maker and endorsers 
 of a promissory note, in answer to a motion un- 
 der Rule 80, O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 739) for 
 judgment, the defendants, the endorsers of the 
 note, who it was said were accommodation en- 
 dorsers, swore that they had received no notice 
 of dishonour. The protest of the note was not 
 produced by the plaintiffs on the first return of 
 the motion : — Held, (on appeal from the Master 
 in Chambers who ordered judgment), that as 
 there was no evidence that the defendants had 
 received notice of dishonour, and a distinct 
 denial by them of such notice, the motion should 
 have been refused. Ontario Bank v. Burke, 10 
 P. R. 561.— Rose. 
 
 The protest having been produced after an en- 
 largement : — Held, that being only presumptive 
 evidence of the posting of the notice, it was not 
 •uificient, in the face of the denial. lb. 
 
 The note was dated " Prince Arthur's Land- 
 ing," and since the making of the note the place 
 so called was incorporated "luler the name of 
 Port Arthnr, the limits of the two places not 
 exactly corresponding. One of the endorsers 
 11 
 
 C. C. B. resided at Bowmanville : — Held, that 
 the sufficiency of a notice addressed to C. C. B. 
 at Port Arthur, was open to argument, upon 
 which the defendant was entitled to have a trial, 
 and on this ground judgment should not have 
 been ordered. lb. 
 
 The appellants discounted a note, made by P. 
 and endorsed by S. , in the Bank of Commerce. 
 8. died, leaving the respondei... his executor, 
 who proved the will before the note matured. 
 The note fell due on the 8th May, 1879, and was 
 protested for non-payment, and the bank, being 
 unaware of the death of S., addressed notice of 
 protest to S. at Toronto, where the note was 
 dated, under 37 Vict. c. 47, s. 1, (Dom). The ap- 
 pellants who knew of S.'s death before maturity 
 of the note, subsequently took up the note from 
 the bank, and, relying upon the notice of dis- 
 honour given by the bank, sued the defendant: 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal, (5 A. R. 458), which affirmed the judg- 
 ment of the Queen's Bench, (45 Q. B. 32), that 
 the holders of the note sued upon when it ma- 
 tured, not knowing of S.'s death, and having 
 sent him a notice in pursuance of 37 Vict. c. 
 47, s. 1, gave a good and sutficient notice to 
 bind the defendant, and that the notice so given 
 enured to the benefit of the appellants. Cos- 
 grave V. Boyle, 6 S. C. 1!. 165. 
 
 In an action upon an overdue promissory note 
 payable at a particular place, it is not necessary 
 to shew that there were, not funds at the place 
 named wherewith to retire the bill ; all that is 
 necessary in such case, even as against an indor- 
 ser, is to show presentment, non-payment, and 
 notice of dishonour. McDonald v. McArthiir, 
 8 A. R. 553. 
 
 The defendant, a married woman, was entitled 
 to dower in the lands of a former husband who 
 died in 1866, but dower had not been assigned 
 to her. After the death of her said husband she 
 continued to reside on the lands till 1882, when 
 she indorsed a note for the accommodation of her 
 son, and to an action thereon she set up that she 
 had no separate estate, but even if she had, being 
 an accommodation indorser only, she was not 
 liable. A judgment having been rendered against 
 her, she moved for . new trial, alleging in addi- 
 tion to her former defence, want of notice of dis- 
 honour. That application having been refused 
 she appealed to this court, when the ruling of 
 the learned Judge below was affirmed, as the pro- 
 duction of the protect for non-payment was suflS- 
 cient evidence of the notice of dishonour, and 
 there was not any merit in the other defence 
 sought to be raised. SoiUhavi v. Banton, 9 A. 
 R. 530. 
 
 The Merchants' Bank of Halifax (appellants) 
 as holders of promissory notes endorsed by McN. 
 (respondent) brought an action against him for 
 their amount. The notes were dated at Sum- 
 merside, and were payable at the agency of the 
 Merchants' Bank of Halifax, Sununerside. The 
 defendant resided at the town of Summerside, 
 and his place of business was there. Notices of 
 dishonour were given to defendant by posting 
 such notices, addressed to the defendant at Sum- 
 merside, at 1 o'clock p.m. on the day after the 
 day on which the notes matured, the postage on 
 such notices being duly prepaid in both cases. 
 There is no locpl delivery by letter carriers from 
 
 s 
 
S9i 
 
 163 
 
 BILLS OF EXOHANaE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 
 
 164 
 
 that post office in Summerside. No evidence was 
 given by defendant that he did not receive the 
 notices of dishonour, nor was any evidence given 
 by the plaintiffs that the defendant had received 
 them. The jury found for the defendant, con- 
 trary to the charge of the learned Judge. A 
 rule nisi having been granted to set aside this 
 verdict, and for a new trial, the court discharged 
 this rule nisi and directed the verdict to stand, 
 on the ground that the posting of the notices of 
 dishonour to the defendant was not sufficient 
 notice of dishonour, inasmuch as both plaintiff 
 and defendant resided in the same town, and 
 the notices of dishonour should have been deliv- 
 ered to the defendant personally, or left at his 
 residence or place of business : — Held, reversing 
 the judgment of the court below, that since the 
 passing of 37 Vict. c. 47, s. 1, (Dom.), the notices 
 given in the manner above set forth were suffi- 
 cient. MerchanW Dank of Halifax v. McNutt, 
 11 S. C. R. 126. 
 
 Where it is intended to designate under the 
 provisions of R. S. C. c. 123, s. 5, a place to 
 which notice of dishonour may be sent other 
 than the place at which the bill or note is dated 
 it is sufficient if the name of a place is written 
 under or beneath the signature of the party. 
 " Under his signature" does not mean that the 
 name of the place must be written by the party's 
 own hand ; it may be written by another person 
 if that other person had in any manner any kind 
 of authority from the party to write it. Hay 
 v. Burke, 16 A. R. 463. 
 
 Where a place has been so designated by any 
 party, the holder of the instrument may send 
 notice to that place, even if he has reason to 
 think or even knows that such place is not the 
 party's place of residence or place of business. 
 Cosgrave v. Boyle, 6 S. C. R, 165, considered 
 and applied. Judgment of the First Division 
 Court of Wentworth affirmed. lb. 
 
 Non-presentment of cheque before suspension 
 of bankers. See Blackley v. McCabe, 16 A. R. 
 295. 
 
 VII. ACCEPTOK AND MAiIER. 
 
 ■ 1. Officers of Companies, 
 
 Section 5 of 16 Vict. c. 241, gives power to the 
 Midland Railway Co., to become parties to bills, 
 and enacts : "Any bill of exchange drawn, ac- 
 cepted, or endorsed by the president of the com- 
 pany, with the countersignature of the secretary 
 of the company, or any two of the directors of 
 the company, and under the authority of a 
 quorum of a majority of the directors, shall be 
 binding upon the company, and every 
 bill of excnange . . accepted . . by the 
 president of the company, or any two of the di- 
 rectors as such, with the countersignature of the 
 secretary, shall be presumed to have been pro- 
 perly . . accepted . . for the company 
 until the contrary be shewn . . nor shall the 
 president or directors, of the company so . . 
 uccepting . . be thereby subjected individu- 
 ally to any liability whatever." A bill of ex- 
 change addressed "To the President, Midland 
 Railway, Port Hope," was accepted as follows ; 
 *' For the Midland Railway of Canada accepted 
 H. Head, secretary ; Geo. A. Cox, president," 
 the latter being then the president of the com- 
 
 pany : — Held, per Burton, J. A. and Osier, J., 
 affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench, 44 
 Q. B. 542, that tTie defendant Cox was person- 
 ally liable. Per Patterson and Morrison, JJ.A., 
 that he was not so liable. Madden v. Cox, 5 A. 
 R. 473. 
 
 The plaintiff made an arrangement in T. with 
 Y., an employee of a certain company, to dis- 
 count their draft on B. & Co., for $4,989.65, at 
 three months, and in pursuance of this arrange- 
 ment a draft was drawn in H. by Y. in the com- 
 pany's name, on plaintiff payaMe on demand to 
 their own order, for $4,800, dated 23rd July, 
 1883. This draft was taken by Y. to defendants 
 banking house at H., and there discounted by 
 him, and the proceeds drawn by cheques in the 
 name of the company. The draft was then for- 
 warded by the defendants to their branch in T. , 
 and by them presented to the plaintiff for accept- 
 ance and payment. Flaintin then discounted 
 the first mentioned draft with the defendants at 
 T., and with the proceeds paid the draft for 
 $4,800. Plaintiff, about 11th September, 1883, 
 discovered that both drafts had been forged by 
 Y. , and immediately notified defendants, at the 
 same time demanding payment of the amount 
 of the forged draft for $4,800 which was refused 
 by defendants. Plaintiff paid the first men- 
 tioned draft at maturity : — Held, that although 
 the plaintiff, by acceptance and payment, was 
 estopped from disputing the signature of the 
 company, the drawers, yet he was not estopped 
 from denying their signature as endorsers, even 
 though it was on the bill at the time of accept- 
 ance and payment ; — Held, also that defendants, 
 having no title to the bill tlie endorsement 
 being a forgery were not entitled to receive pay- 
 ment, and having been paid plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover back the amount so paid : — Held, that 
 plaintiff had not lost his right of action by his 
 delay in discovering the forgery, there being no 
 actual genuine party on the bill against whom 
 defendants could have recourse, and no remedy 
 having been lost by them by such delay. Hyan 
 V. Bank of Montreal, 12 0. R. 39.— Q. B. D.; 
 14 A. R. 533. 
 
 Action against the defendant as the maker of 
 a promissory note. Before the defendant's signa- 
 ture was, as alleged, the word "per," and under- 
 neath was the name " William titockdale, man- 
 ager." The alleged note was given in renewal 
 01 a note made by the Toronto Patent Wheel and 
 Waggon Company, limited, and was brought to 
 the defendant by plaintiff for the purpose of hav- 
 ing it executed by the company, when defendant, 
 who was the secretary of the company, signed it, 
 the intention being that the company's name 
 should be filled in over defendants by the com- 
 pany's manager, by stamping it with defendant's 
 stamp, but which was not done. After the note 
 became due, the plaintiff proved on it against 
 the company who had gone into insolvency, and 
 obtained a dividend :— Held, that tlie defendant 
 was not liable. Per Cameron, C. J. The defen- 
 dant, must be treated as maker of the note, ex- 
 trinsic evidence not being admissible to change 
 its legal effect : that the word " per •"' as written, 
 would not assist defendant for it might be treat- 
 ed as merely a flourish to the initial letter to 
 defendant's name ; but, even if assumed to be 
 per, i.e., by, it would merely signify that the 
 name Wm, Stockdale was written by defendant, 
 
 18S 
 
 which the 
 but that the 
 pany on the 
 on, had el 
 thereby abs* 
 A. Thedef 
 of a note, fo 
 fitrument ne 
 this was no 
 admission of 
 to alter a nc 
 upon which i 
 performed :- 
 79 of 40 Vict 
 note, as it di 
 by or on beh 
 latid, 9 O. F 
 750. 
 
 See Harve 
 714, p. 176. 
 
 Power of h 
 authority frc 
 5 A. R. 535. 
 
 Per Burton 
 against the t 
 note if it fail 
 Horner v. Ke 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Held, that 
 the benefit of 
 tain a joint a^ 
 K. S. O. (187 
 the full amou 
 ■separately in 
 •contribution 
 not refer to ■ 
 Riddel, 31 G. 
 
 Quajre, whi 
 the manager, 
 
 Eights of 
 See Harper ■ 
 
 Wherear. 
 for money lei 
 bar thereof 
 character in 
 will be implii 
 note is give, 
 the particulai 
 were here 
 guarantor. . 
 — MacMahoB 
 
 See Canad, 
 <J. B. 81, p. 
 171 ; Jenks v. 
 M 31 C. P. 
 
 The bill of 
 Ist Decembe 
 December, 1 
 ing), that thi 
 
165 
 
 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PR0MISS0B7 NOTES. 
 
 166 
 
 which the evidence shewed was not the case ; 
 but that the plaintiff by proving against the com- 
 pany on the note and accepting a dividend there- 
 on, had elected to look to the company, and 
 thereby absolved the defendant. Per Osier, J. 
 A. The defendant could not be treated as maker 
 of a note, for the evidence shewed that the in- 
 strument never was perfected as a note ; and that 
 this was no infringement of the rule as to the 
 admission of parol evidence, for its effect was not 
 to alter a note but to shew that the condition 
 upon which it was to become a note had not beun 
 performed : — Held, that the provisions of section 
 79 of 40 Vict. c. 43 (Dom. ), did not apply to this 
 note, as it did not purport to be a note signed 
 by or on behalf of the company. Brown v. How- 
 latid, 9 O. R. 48— C. P, D., affirmed 15 A. R. 
 760. 
 
 See Harvey v. Bank of Hamilton, 16 S. C. R. 
 714, p. 176. 
 
 2. Other Gases. 
 
 Power of husband to sign notes. Evidence of 
 authority from wife. Sr,d Cooper v. Blacklock, 
 5 A. R. 535. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A., where an action is brought 
 against the two makers cf a joint and several 
 note if it fail against one it must fail as to both. 
 Horner v. Kerr, 6 A. R. 30. 
 
 VIII. Drawer and Endorser, 
 
 Held, that a third person holding a note for 
 the benefit of one joint endorser, cannot main- 
 tain a joint action against the co-endorsers under 
 K. S. O, (1877), c. 116, ss. 2, 3, as endorsers for 
 the full amount of the note, but must sue each 
 .'Separately in a special action for his share of the 
 ■contribution : — Held also, that the Act does 
 not refer to partnership transactions. Small v. 
 Riddel, 31 G. P. 373. -C. P. D. 
 
 Quaare, whether the endorsement as made by 
 the manager, was sufficient, lb. 
 
 Bights of endorser against principal debtor. 
 See Harper v. GtUbert, 5 O. R. 152. 
 
 Where a r^^n-negotiable promissory note, given 
 for money lent to a firm, is made by one mem- 
 ber thereof and endorsed by the other, the 
 icharacter in which the endorsement is made, 
 will be implied from the purposes for which the 
 note is given, the endorsement obtained, and 
 the particular circumstances of the case, which 
 were here held to make such indorser liable as 
 guarantor. McPhee v. McPhee, 19 O. R. 603. 
 — MacMahon. 
 
 See Canadian Bank oj Commetce v. Green, 45 
 ■Q. B. 81, p. 160 ; Cross v. Currie, 5 A. R. 31, p. 
 171 ; Jenks v. Dor an, 5 A. R. 558 ; Small v. Rid- 
 •del, 31 C. P. 373, p. 173. 
 
 IX. Actions on. 
 
 1. At what Time. 
 
 The bill of exchange in this action fell due on 
 1st December, 1875, and the writ issued on 1st 
 December, 1881 : — Held (Cameron, J., dissent' 
 
 December, 1875, and therefore this action was 
 commenced in time. Sinclair v. Robson, 16 
 Q. B. 211, remarked upon. Edgar v. Magee, 
 1 O. R. 287.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Armour, J. Though the holder of a bill 
 may put himself in a position to commence his 
 action on the day the bill falls due by demand- 
 ing, and being refused payment, he is not bound 
 to do so : and if he does not, the acceptor has 
 the whole of the day of maturity on which to 
 pay the bill, and the statute does not commence 
 to run until the day after : — Quiere, whether, 
 even in case of such demand and refusal, the 
 statute will begin to run on that day. lb. 
 
 Per Cameron, J. Inasmuch as by C. S. U. O, o. 
 42, 8. 15, the bill might have been protested at 
 any time after three o'clock, on the day it fell 
 due it was then overdue, and the action was 
 commenced too late. lb. 
 
 Held, that the plaintiff, under the facts stated 
 in the report of this case, ha<l established his 
 right to sue upon the bill. lb. 
 
 After the death of one maker of a joint and 
 several promissory note signed by two, the de- 
 ceased being a surety only, a payment upon it 
 out of his own moneys and on his own account 
 was made by the surviving maker who was also 
 the sole executor of his deceased comaker : — 
 Held, that such payment did not take the debt 
 out of the Statute of Limitations as regards the 
 estate of the latter. Paxton v. Smith, 18 O. R. 
 178.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Re Cannon — Gates v. Cannon, (2) 13 O. 
 R. 705, p. 168. 
 
 2. Pleas. 
 
 The C. L. P. Act, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 50, s. 120, 
 empowers the court or a Judge to strike out pleas 
 not merely where they are embarrassing, because 
 confused in terms and so difficult to understand, 
 but where they combine several defences in one 
 plea, or are repetitions of a defence, already 
 pleaded, and may thus be embarrassing or pre- 
 judice a fair trial. In this case being an action 
 on promissory notes, the defendant having plea- 
 ded total failure of consideration, added other 
 Eleas repeating that defence, and setting up 
 esides another agreement, not necessarily con- 
 nected with the notes, and so stated as to leave 
 it uncertain whether it was intended as a sepa- 
 rate defence or as supporting the other defence : 
 — Held, affirming the judgment of Cameron, J., 
 that such pleas were properly struck out. AbeU 
 v. McLaren, 31 C. P. 517. -C. P. D. 
 
 Upon an application under Rule 127, {b) O. J. 
 Act, (See Con. Rule 374) a counter claim for 
 libel and slander against the plaintiffs in an 
 action on a promissory note was struck out. 
 Central Bank of Canada v. Osborne, 12 P. R. 
 160.— C. P. D. 
 
 3. Interest Becoverable. 
 
 A promissory note was dishonoured at matu- 
 rity, but was not protested by the holders (a 
 banking corporation) because of a waiver by the 
 indorsers of presentment and notice : — Held, 
 I that the indorsers were not liable to pay interest 
 
 I 
 
 £: 
 
 I 
 ^ 
 
 IS 
 
 ing), that the statute began to run on the 2nd ' thereon as a debt. Nor could a contract to pay 
 
m 
 
 BIU '^ OF EXOHANOE AND PBOMISSOBY NOTES. 
 
 168 
 
 169 
 
 interest be de'^ aced from a usage of banks to 
 charge interest on overdue debts, aud to collect 
 it it possible :— Semble, the iudorsers would be 
 liable to pay interest as damages for breach of 
 their contract. Ne McDougalt, 12 A. R. 265. 
 
 A note dated 11th January, 1862, payable to 
 and endorsed by one S. H., was for ^3,000, with 
 interest at the rate of two per cent, per month 
 until paid. By a covenant for payment con- 
 tained in a mortgage deed of the same date, 
 given by the defendant to the plaintiff as a col- 
 lateral security for the payment of this note, the 
 defendant covenanted to pay " the said sum of 
 *3,000 on the 11th day of July, 1862, with in- 
 terest thereon at the rate of twenty-four per 
 cent, per annum until paid." A judgment was 
 recovered upon the note, but not upon the cove- 
 nant. The master allowed for interest in respect 
 of this debt six per cent, only from the date of 
 the recovery of the judgment : — Held, that the 
 proper construction of the terms of both the note 
 and the covenant as to payment of interest was 
 that interest at the rate of twenty-four per cent, 
 should be paid up to the 11th July, 1862, and 
 not that interest should be paid at that rate 
 after such dayif the principal should then remain 
 unpaid. St. John v. Eyltrt, 10 S. C. R. 278. 
 
 See Bank oj Hamilton v. Harvey, 11 P. R. 145. 
 
 4. For Non-Acceplance. 
 
 On the maturity of a bill of exchange the 
 drawers thereof, thinking the acceptor would 
 be unable to meet it telegraphed him, that if 
 unable to pay it to draw on them for the amount. 
 The acceptor took the telegram to tlie manager 
 of the plaintiff's bank, who on the faith of it 
 discounted a sight bill drawn by the acceptor 
 on the drawers with the proceeds of which he 
 retired his acceptance whicli was held by another 
 bank. The drawers refused to accept the bill 
 so redrawn :— Held, that the telegram having 
 been sent for the purpose of inducing persons to 
 advance money on it, and to take the bill so 
 drawn in pursuance of it, a privity was created 
 between the plaintiffs and the defendants, send- 
 ers of the telegram, entitling the former to main- 
 tain an action against the latter for the money 
 so advanced : — Held, also, that no time being 
 mentioned in the telegram an authority to draw 
 at sight would be implied. Bank of Montreal 
 V. Thomcu, 16 0. R. 503.— 0. P. D. 
 
 5. Other Caseg. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence as to circumstances 
 connected with the endorsement where the en- 
 dorser duties his endorsement. See Bank of 
 Hamilton v. /iaac«, 16 0. R. 450. 
 
 0. brought in a claim in certain administration 
 proceedings on promissory notes assigned to him 
 by H. & Co., tmder an agreement between them, 
 which, however, was held void for champerty, 
 and 0. 's claim on the notes disallowed. O. there- 
 upon redelivered the notes to H. & Co. The 
 six yemn allowed by the Statute of Limitations 
 had expired before the notes were thus delivered 
 to H. it Co., but not before the date of the ad- 
 ministration order, nor before 0. tried to prove on 
 them in the administration proceedings : — Held, 
 that the order for adminiatration prevented the 
 
 bar of the Statute of Limitations :— Held, also, 
 that H. & Co., might now assert their title to 
 the notes, and prove on them, notwithstanding 
 the former champertous agreement with O. He 
 Cannon— Gates v. Cannm, (2) 13 O. R. 705.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 A promissory note made payable to John 
 Souther & Son was sued on by John Souther & 
 Co. : — Held, that it being clear by the evidence 
 that the plaintiff's were the persons designated as 
 payees, they could recover. Wallace v. Souther, 
 16 S. C. R. 717. 
 
 See Homer v. Kerr, 6 A. R. 30, p. 165. 
 
 X. Defences to Actions. 
 
 1. Plaintiff not the Holder. 
 
 The possession <j{ bills of exchange by the en- 
 dorser after he has specially endorsed them, is 
 primil facie evidence that he ? ' the owner of 
 them, and that they have been ? turned to him, 
 and taken up in due course of i.ime upon their 
 dishonour, although there be no re-endorsement; 
 so that by the possession he is remitted to his 
 original rights. Black v. Strickland, 3 O. R. 
 217.— Chy. D. 
 
 In July, 1877, W. drew a bill of exchange on 
 the defendants, payable to his own order, and the 
 latter accepted it. The bill was first specially 
 endorsed to the Bank of 0. , which specially en- 
 dorsed it for collection, to the Bank of C. It was 
 dishonoured and protested, and came again into 
 the hands of the Bank of O., which returned it to 
 W. on or before December, 1877. Afterwards, but 
 how did not appear, it got back into the hands of 
 the Bank of 0. In 1881 the plaintiff who was 
 W. 's agent, got it from the Bank of X). , along with 
 other papers of W., and W. , in November, 1881, 
 endorsed it to the order of the plaintiff, who now 
 sued the accejjtors. When produced the bill 
 appeared with all the special endorsements struck 
 out, leaving only the signature cf W., to the 
 
 ■Alt an- 
 '• Kflre 
 '•'<>. tr* 
 ; the de- 
 it ed the 
 t.vij'ience 
 
 first special endorsement, and wivh 
 dorsement to the order of th; v) • 
 was no re-endorsement from thf >: ■ 
 W. or to the plaintiff : — Hehl {i e cr> 
 cision of Ferguson, J. , who iisrl .lO! 
 plaintiff), that in the absence of ol- 
 it was to be inferred that \V., had Ctbisfiert any 
 claim of the Bank of 0., and had thereby pro- 
 cured or had the right to make the cancellation 
 of previous special endorsements. Callow v, 
 Lawrence, 3 M. & S. 95, cited and followed, lb. 
 
 2, Consideration as a Ground of Defence. 
 
 (a) Accommodation or Want of Consideration, 
 
 Declaration upon a promissory note. Third' 
 plea — " That the defendant made the said note 
 with and for the accommodation of one W. C, 
 at the request of the plaintiffs, in respect of a 
 pre-existing debt, then due to the plaintiffs by 
 the said W. C. alone, and the said note was drawn 
 payable on demand, with interest at 10 percent., 
 and except as aforesaid there was never any value 
 or consideration for the making or payment of 
 the said note by the defendant. " Fourth plea — 
 On equitable grounds. That the defendant made 
 the note jointly and severally with W. C. for his 
 accommodation, and aa his surety only, to secure 
 
 a debt due 
 note becaim 
 tension of t: 
 Held, that i 
 that no ext 
 therefore tli 
 that the foi 
 must be am 
 " Upon equ 
 served wit^ 
 Bank v. Bol 
 
 The defen 
 M. to assist 
 fendants w( 
 own note foi 
 with them 
 WheiiM.'s: 
 Ijeing then c 
 newalfor^r 
 plaintiffs. ] 
 was not an r 
 it to be so : 
 from the ev 
 to the plaint 
 sented by M. 
 and that the 
 dian Bank o, 
 347. 
 
 The M, mn 
 course of the 
 notes for mac 
 transferred 1 
 security to a 
 credit. The .-i 
 upon their s 
 for their own 
 up of the latf 
 ajent, had g 
 hiin, which 
 company, 
 company a lal 
 Tlie ))ank mj 
 dant's notes < 
 be replaced 
 then applied] 
 notes sued or 
 account.«i betj 
 a small balaif 
 notes were tti 
 notes given \\ 
 culties, and 
 and anotlier 
 had giuirautj 
 extent of $5(1 
 self, rosignei: 
 pay off the cJ 
 and take alll 
 the board wi 
 M. company! 
 the company! 
 to the plaint 
 the requisite, 
 by pledging! 
 company, aif 
 bank to ho! 
 repay the a( 
 the loan coiT 
 notes sued ol 
 the plaintiff! 
 their charaol 
 tween the 
 Held, that : 
 
BHiLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 
 
 170 
 
 a debt due to the plaintiffs, and that after the 
 note became due tlie plaintiff gave W. C. an ex- 
 tension of time for the payment of the note ; — 
 Held, that the third plea was good, for it shewed 
 that no extension of time had been given, and 
 therefore that there was no consideration ; and 
 that the fourth was not an equitable plea and 
 must be amended by striking out the words : 
 " Upon equitable grounds," and the jury notice 
 served with it allowed to stand. Merchants' 
 Bank v. Bobinson, 8 P. R. 117.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 The defendants made a, note for $200, to one 
 M. to assist M. in retiring paper in which de- 
 fendants were interested. M. discounted his 
 own note for $200 with the plaintiffs, depositing 
 with them the defendants' note as collateral. 
 When M.'s note fell due, the defendants' note 
 being then overdue, he paid iJ25 and gave a re- 
 newal for §175, leaving defendants note with the 
 plaintiffs. Per Wilson, C. J. — Defendants' note 
 was not an accommodation note ; but assuming 
 it to be so : — Held, that the proper inference 
 from the evidence was that it was transferred 
 to the plaintiffs as security for the debt repre- 
 sented by M.'s note, not for the note specially ; 
 and that the defendants remained liable. Cana- 
 dian Bank of Commerce v. Woodward, 8 A. R. 
 347. 
 
 The M. manufacturing company, in the usual 
 course of their business, took from their agents, 
 notes for machines supplied to them, whicli were 
 transferred by the M. company as collateral 
 security to a bank where they had a line of 
 credit. The agreement with the agents was that 
 upon their substituting their customers' notes 
 for their own, they were entitled to the delivery 
 up of the latter. The defendant, who was the 
 agent, had given notes for machines supplied 
 hnn, which were haucled to the bank by the 
 company. He afterwards transferred to the 
 company a large number of his customers' notes. 
 The bank manager finding some of the defen- 
 dant's notes overdue, demanded that they should 
 be replaced by fresh paper, and the company 
 then applied to the defendant, who gave the 
 notes sued on without getting an adjustment of 
 accounts between them, though there was but 
 a small balance due to the company ; and these 
 notes were transferred to the bank and the old 
 notes given vip. The M. company got into diffi- 
 culties, and the bank sued B., their president, 
 and another who, jointly witli the M. company, 
 had guaranteed the company's account to the 
 extent of $30,000. B.,in order to protect him- 
 self, resigned the presidency, and undertook to 
 pay off the company's indebtedness to the bank, 
 and take all their securities. A resolution of 
 the board was passed approving of this, and the 
 M. company directed the bank to transfer to B. 
 the company's securities on payment. B. applied 
 to the plaintiff for the money, and he advanced 
 the requisite amount, having obtained the same 
 by pledging stock and other securities to a loan 
 company, and took all the notes held by the 
 bank to hold for collection to pay expenses, 
 repay the advances, pay their indebtedness to 
 the loan company, and to account to B. The 
 notes sued on were amongst those transferred to 
 the plaintiff, who took them without notice of 
 their character, or the state of the account be- 
 tween the defendant and the M. company : — 
 Held, that he stood la the place of the bank, and 
 
 succeeded to all its rights, and that the defendant 
 was liable to the full amount of his notes in the 
 plaintiff's hands. Cowan v. DooliUle, 46 Q. B. 
 398.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Where, after a note is completed, so far as the 
 intention of the parties is concerned, it is signed 
 by a third person, or is so signed by him after 
 maturity, without any consideration moving 
 directly to such third person, or any agreement 
 to extend the time of payment, such third per- 
 son is not liable thereon. Crofts v. Beale, 11 C. 
 B. 172, followed ; and Currie v. Misa, L. R. 10 
 Ex. 153, 1 App. Cas. 554, and McLean v. Clydes- 
 dale Banking Co., 3 App. Cas. 95, distinguished. 
 Byan v. McKerral, 15 O. R. 460.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Soutliam v. Ranton, 9 A. R. 530, p. 162 ; 
 Fletelier v. Noble, 8 O. R. 122, p. 172 ; Leggatt 
 v. Clarry, 13 O. R. 105. 
 
 (b) Partial Failure of Consideration, 
 
 The defendant agreed with the plaintiff that 
 whatever goods P. should order of the plaintiff 
 ho would l)ecome surety for. P. sent a written 
 order to the plaintiff, who in addition to the 
 goods ordered, sent others, and the whole con- 
 signment was invoiced at prices higher than 
 those quoted by the plaintiff and than those at 
 which V. had ordered some of the goods. With- 
 out disclosing these facts to the defendant, but 
 in perfect good faith, the plaintiff presented a 
 bill of excliange upon P. for signature by the 
 defendant, who signed the same supposing; that 
 it was for the price of the goods ordered. P, 
 accepted the bill and kept the goods : — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the Queen's Bench, 
 (45 Q. B. 386,) that the defendant was liable to 
 the extent of the goods ordered, and that the 
 consideration for the bill failed as to the excess 
 only. Barber v. Morton, 7 A. R. 114. 
 
 K., acting as agent for the plaintiff company, 
 his wife, but which was in reality a trading 
 name for his own business, fraudulently repre- 
 sented that certain goods manufactared by him- 
 self, possessed curative or medicinal qualities 
 and were saleable, and thereby induced the 
 defendant to buy a quantity and to give his pro- 
 missory note therefor. In an action on the note 
 by the plaintiff company, the defendant counter- 
 claimed for part of the amount of the note, 
 which he had been obliged to pay to an innocent 
 holder. The jury found that the articles sold 
 were valueless ; that the defendant had been 
 induced to purchase by the misrepresentations, 
 and that he had received no consideration for 
 the note, except as to some of the pads, which 
 he had sold : — Held, that the plaintiff, could not 
 recover, for the partial failure of consideration, 
 being for an amount capable of definite compn- 
 tation, could be set up as an answer pro tanto, 
 and the consideration received had been more 
 than covered by the sum paid : — Held, also that 
 the defendant was entitled to recover against 
 the plaintiff company the damages sustained, 
 without having previously offered to return the 
 goods. Star Kidney Pad Go. v. Greenwood, 5 
 O. R. 28.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendants purchased the stock-in-trade 
 of one C. for $5,500, and an agreement under 
 seal was executed by the parties whereby defen- 
 dants covenanted to pay the said sum. The 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 '«5 
 
 
171 
 
 BILLd OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 
 
 172 
 
 agreement also provided tliat a portion of the 
 consideration should be secured by four promis- 
 sory notes of $1,100 each. After the lust note 
 became due, C. endorsed it " without recourse" 
 to the plaintiff. To an action on the note the 
 defendants pleaded that the value of the coods 
 had been misrepresented to them by C. and that 
 before said note became due, C. agreed to allow 
 a reduction of $500 from its face value, and that 
 plaintiff took the note after it had become due. 
 They paid $026.60 into Court, being the balance 
 due on the note with interest. At the trial 
 the plaintiff, in his evidence, admitted that 
 he did not claim to occupy any difllerent 
 position from C. The defendants' evidence 
 shewed a verbal agreement to make the re- 
 duction of $500, but C. swore he had never 
 made the agreement. Tlie Judge at the trial 
 found that C. had promised to make the reduc- 
 tion, and that the plaintiff stood in the same 
 position as C, and he dismissed the action 
 with costs :— Held, that the defendants had a, 
 right to enforce tlie agreement for the allow- 
 ance of $500, there being a partial failure of 
 consideration for an ascertained and liquidated 
 amount. McGregor v. Bishop, 14 0. R. 7.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 (c) Fraud and Illegal Cmmideration. 
 
 The defendant was arrestf i on the charge of 
 embezzling fines which he had received as a jus- 
 tice of the peace on the information of the reeve 
 of the township claiming the fines, who took the 
 proceedings with a view to force the defendant 
 into a settlement. He was brought before a 
 justice and committed for trial, and while under 
 arrest pressure was brought to bear on him to 
 compromise by giving security to procure his 
 release, and the plaintiff, who proposed to act on 
 his behalf, gave a note to the township for the 
 amount claimed and induced the defendant to 
 give him a note for the amount, endorsed by his 
 ■wife. The note included the amount of the fines, 
 and also expenses incurred by the township in an 
 investigation of the defendant's alleged default, 
 to which the latter was not a party. The de- 
 fendant was then brought before the deputy 
 county Judge, but no evidence was offered, and 
 it was stated that the affair had been settled, 
 and the charges would not be proceeded with, 
 whereupon the defendant was discharged. The 
 plaintiff now sought to recover from the defen- 
 dant's note: — Held that the consideration there 
 for being the stifling of a prosecution for felony 
 was illegal, and rendered the note void, and +liat 
 the plaintiff was in no better position than the 
 township would have been had they taken the 
 note. Bell v. Siddell, 2 0. K. 25.— Q. B. 1).: 10 
 A. R. 544. 
 
 B. endorsed a promissory note made by C. for 
 the^ purpose of retiring another similar note 
 which he had previously endorsed forC.'s ac- 
 commodation, and gave it to C. Instead of 
 retiring this note, however, C. handed it to the 
 plaintiff in payment of a debt, who took it in 
 good faith, but made no inquiry respecting C.'s 
 title to the note or his authority so to deal with 
 it : — Held, affirming the judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench, (43 Q. B. 599), that the plaintiff was 
 entitled to recover against B. Cross v. Ctirrie. 
 5 A. K. 31. 
 
 J., an infant gave to M. a promissory note for 
 the purchase money of a buggy, endorsed by his 
 father, who wasof unsoundmind, and unable to 
 understand what he was doing. The father re- 
 ceived no consideration, and M. was not aware of 
 his condition : — Held, on appeal from the mas- 
 ter at Woodstock, affirming his decision, that 
 the father's estate was not liable. Re James, 
 9 P. E. 88.— Boyd, 
 
 To an action on four promissory notes made 
 by the defendant and one H. payable to the 
 plaintiff, the defendant set up that the notes were 
 given for the purchase of the plaintiffs interest 
 in certain Homestead lands in the State of Michi- 
 gan, H. being the purchaser and defendant 
 surety ; that undc ■ the laws of Michigan only 
 persons of 21 yeai- of age could homestead lands ; 
 and that the plaintiff was under that age. There 
 was no representation that plaintiff was of age, 
 and H. obtained from plaintiff' a surrender of Lis 
 interest in the land whereby he was enabled to 
 have himself located in his stead, which he other- 
 wise might have had difficulty in doing, and he 
 got the same rights which he would have got if 
 the plaintiff'had been of full age : — Held, that it 
 could not be said that there was no consideration 
 for the notes, nor any misrepresentation ; and 
 the plaintiff was therefore held entitled to re- 
 cover. Fletcher v. Noble, 8 0. R. 122.— C. P. D. 
 
 Counter-claim alleging fraud in obtaining note. 
 See Morrison v. Earln, 5 0. R. 434 ; Garland v. 
 Thompnon, 9 0. R. 376. 
 
 A cheque given in settlement of losses at 
 matching coppers is a note of hand given in con- 
 sideration of a gambling debt within section 53, 
 sub-section 3 K. S. O. (1877) 47, and such a 
 security is void under 9 Anne, c. 14, even in the 
 hands of a bona fide holder for value. In re 
 Summer/eldt v. Worts, 12 O. R. 48— Q. B. I). 
 
 Defendant, while temporarily in New York, 
 drew a bill of exchange upon a firm of merchants 
 in Toronto, payable to the order of a New York 
 firm of commission merchants. The domicile of 
 the defendant was, at the time, in Ontario, and 
 the drawees were also domiciled there. The 
 draft was protested for nonacceptance, and upon 
 the payees suing the defendant, he set up that 
 the draft was given for a debt due from him in 
 respect to certain gambling transactions on the 
 New York Stock Exchange, and that, as such, 
 it was under the law of New York, an illegal 
 contract and invalid : — Held, upon a special case 
 directed to decide the point of law, that the 
 matter must be governed by the law of New 
 York, although the defendant was domiciled in 
 Ontario, and although the drawees were also 
 domiciled in Ontario; for the contract of the 
 drawer was to pay the money at the place where 
 he entered into the contract, in default of the 
 drawee paying, and the domicile of the drawer 
 did not affect the rule as stated. Story v . McKay, 
 15 0. R. 169.— Falconbridge. 
 
 See Star Kidney Pad Co. v. Greenwood, 5 
 0. E. 28, p. 170. 
 
 3. Payment. 
 
 A promissory note for $6,200, made by the 
 president and secretary of a syndicate formed 
 for completing the Hamilton and Dundas street 
 
173 
 
 BILLS OF EZOHANOE AND PROMISSORT NOTES. 
 
 174 
 
 railway, in favour of 0., S., and the defendants, 
 was endorsed by them to the Bank of Commerce 
 or order. On the day tlie note fell due O. and S. 
 respectively paid the same, O. paying $2,000 and 
 S. $4,200, the remaining sum due thereon, S. at 
 the time directing the bank agent to endorse it 
 to the plaintiff, who it appeared gave no value 
 for it. The agent endorsed it as follows : " Pay 
 to J. S.," the plaintiff "or order. D. Hughes 
 Charles, manager." The plaintiff thereupon sued 
 the defendants as endorsers : — Held, that the 
 plaintiff could not recover, for the evidence 
 shewed that S., by his payment intended to 
 satisfy the note, which being made for a purpose 
 directly relating to and not collateral to the 
 partnership of which S. and defendants were 
 partners, S. could not recover against defendants 
 thereon, and as the plaintiff' was found to have 
 only the same right as S. , neither could he 
 recover. Umall v. Jiiddel, 31 C. P. 373.— C. P. D. 
 
 Plea of payment to garnishee. See Jioblee v. 
 Rankin, 11 8. C. R. 137. 
 
 Payment by giving renewals. See Dominion 
 Bank v. Olii-er, 17 O. K. 402 ; liktd-ky v. A'ew- 
 my, 19 0. R. 169. 
 
 See Black v. Strickland, 3 0. R. 217, p. 168; 
 Heahy v. Dol->on, 8 O. R. 691, p. 174. 
 
 4. Timt ijivenfor Paymtnt. 
 
 A married woman signed a note in blank, and 
 tave it to her son " to ne used as he liked." He 
 hlled it up for $1,200, signed it, and transferred 
 it to the plaintiff, who was not made aware of 
 the circumstances under which it had been 
 signed. It was renewed twice without the mar- 
 ried woman's name, the original note remaining 
 in the plaintitY's hands : — Held, (reversing the 
 judgment of the court below) that the married 
 woman was a surety in respect of the note for 
 her son ; and that the authority to the son as to 
 using the note did not extend to keeping it afloat 
 after maturity without her knowledge ; and that 
 she had been discharged by the extension of the 
 time of payment. Deranney v. Brownlee, 8 A. 
 K. 355. 
 
 Held, that evidence of a parol agreement to 
 extend for two years the time for tTie payment 
 of a note payable on demand, was not admissible. 
 Per Gait, J. Even if the evidence was admis- 
 sible, by the terms of the agreement, in this case, 
 the time was to be suspended only on perform- 
 ance of certain conditions, which the defendant 
 had failed to do, and therefore the plaintiff was 
 entitled to enforce immediate payment. Por- 
 temia v. Muir, 8 0. R. 127.— C P. D. 
 
 On the 29th August, 1877, defendant R. made 
 a note of that date for $700, at eighteen months, 
 in favour of D., and for his accommodation, 
 which R. gave to 7\ without any restriction as 
 to its use. D., endorsed the same and handed it 
 to the plaintiff ; and at the same time gave the 
 plaintiff his, D. 's own note of the same date at 
 three months, taking from plaintiff the following 
 receipt : ' ' Received from R. a note endorsed by 
 D., payable eighteen months afterdate, for $700, 
 which note is given me only as collateral security 
 for the payment of certain note endorsed by me 
 for D., and when said note is fully paid, I agree 
 to return same. " On the 24th September, a state- 
 
 ment of account took place between the plaintiff 
 and D., when D. took up the note of the 29th of 
 August, by giving plaintiff another note for the 
 like amount at three months :— Held, Rose, J., 
 dissenting, that the true construction of the 
 agreement ' as, that D. should have eighteen 
 months, or so much thereof as the pla'ntitt chose 
 to give him, in which to pay off' tlie ^700 , and 
 that D.'s note might be renewed from iime to 
 time, so long as payment was not extended be* 
 yond the eighteen months ; and that under the 
 circumstances the note of the 24th September 
 could not be deemed to have been taken as a 
 payment of the note of 29th of August. De- 
 vanney v. Brownlee, 8 A. R. 355, distinguished. 
 Per Rose, J. The effect of the agreement was, 
 that tlie note was given as collateral security for 
 the payment witlnn the time limited by D.'s 
 note, namely, three months ; and the fact that 
 R. had eighteen months to make payment, could 
 make no difference ; and, that, apart from the 
 question whether the transaction of the 24th of 
 September constituted a payment or not, it 
 operated as a suspension of R.'s rights, whereby 
 she was discharged. Utaky v. Dolson, 8 0. R. 
 691.— C. P. D. 
 
 After the maturity of a note for $.300, and 
 after an action had been commenced against the 
 defendant, one of the endorsers thereof, alleged 
 to be a surety, the pi'incipal debtor executed a 
 document whereby he acknowledged his liability 
 on the note, notwithstanding that defendant had 
 been sued solely thereon, the Statute of Limita- 
 tions or any legal or equitable defence that might 
 be set up ; and he covenanted to pay the note 
 and interest by half-yearly payments of $50 each. 
 There was contradictory evidence as to the ac- 
 ceptance of the document by the plaintiff: — 
 Qufcre, whether the document, if accepted by 
 
 f)laintiff, constituted a discharge of the surety 
 )y the giving of time ; and whether the state- 
 ment of the pendency of the action against de- 
 fendant could be looked upon as a reservation of 
 plaintiff's rights ag.ninst him. Pirie v. Wyld, 11 
 0. R. 422.— C. P. D. 
 
 The holders of certain promissory notes agreed 
 with the maker thereof, and certain of the en- 
 dorsers to extend the time for payment. The 
 agreement expressly reserved all rights and 
 remedies against persons other than parties to 
 the agreement : — Held, that under these circum- 
 stances a subsequent endorser, not privy to the 
 said agreement, was nevertheless not released 
 thereby, for that his rights against the maker 
 and prior endorsers were not prejudiced, inas- 
 much as the reservation of the rights of the hol- 
 der against him, involved the reservation of his 
 rights against the others. Canadian Bank of 
 Commerce v. J^orthivood, 14 O. R. 207. — Boyd. 
 
 An endorsemert on the back of a note of the 
 payment of interest up to a future date beyond 
 the maturity of the note, in the absence of evi- 
 dence of mistake, is to be deemed an extension 
 of time for the payment of the note to such date, 
 so as to discharge a party thereto who is merely 
 a surety for the payment thereof. Jfyan v. Mc- 
 Kerrull, 15 0. R. 460. -C. P. D. 
 
 At maturity of certain promissory notes made 
 by the defendants, and held by the plaintiffs, 
 the defendants sent the plaintiff's a proposal for 
 a renewal in part, accompanied by a cheque for 
 
ITS 
 
 BILLS OF EXOHANOi: AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 
 
 176 
 
 ■I 
 
 part of th-) amount duo and two leiiewiil notes 
 for the baliiiifo, tliu total aUKjunt inchulinj,' a sum 
 for interest o-. the renewals. The nhiintiH's re- 
 turned the renowal notes, l)ut retained tl»eciie(iue, 
 ttnd brought tliis aetion upon the original notes, 
 giving eredit to the ainmiut of the eheciue :— 
 Held, by Street, J., in Chambers, refusing a 
 motion for judgment under Rule 80, (Con. Rule 
 739) that although there was no obligation on 
 the part of tlie eroditors to assent to the debtors' 
 proposal, yet by receiving the ehe(iuo and keej)- 
 ing it they must be taken to have applied it m 
 the manner in whiuli the debtor:^ when tender- 
 ing it stipulated, and as it included interest in 
 advance upon the renewals, the creditors were 
 bound to give the debtors the benefit of the time 
 for which the renewals were drawn : —Held, by 
 Queen's Bench IJivision, on appeal, that on the 
 8 ate of facts presented the plaintiffs were not 
 entitled to the indulgence of a speedy judgment 
 and execution. Loivden v. Martin, 12 P. U. 4'JO. 
 
 The appellant claimed that ho was only a 
 surety for his codefendants, and that he was 
 discharged by time being given to tho principal 
 to pay the nnte :— Held, that the fact of time 
 being so given being negatived by the evidence, 
 it was immaterial whether appellant was prin- 
 cipal or surety. The judgment of the Supreme 
 Court of Nova Scotia ('20 N. S, Rep. 50!)) affirm- 
 ed. Wallace v. SoiUhtr, 16 S. C. 11. 717. 
 
 5. Other Defences. 
 
 A promissory note made by the defendant had 
 been held by the Consolidated Bank, and after 
 its maturity, the defendant transferred certain 
 timber limits to the bank as collateral security 
 for the payment of the note, which limits the 
 bank sold. The plaintiffs became holders of the 
 note for value after dishonour, and after the 
 timber limits transaction, and brought this 
 action upon the note. A counter-claim against 
 the plaintiffs and the bank by the defendant, 
 setting up that the bank has sold tho timber 
 limits without authority and for an insufficient 
 price, and were thereby guilty of a breach of 
 trust, and claiming that the defendant should " e 
 permitted to set of so much of his claim thc»e- 
 lor against the bank as would satisfy the balance 
 claimed upon the note, was held bad, and struck 
 out, as not being properly a counter-claim. Per 
 Cameron, J., unless required by the clear legal 
 rights of the defendant for his protection against 
 the plaintiff's action, counter-claims are not to 
 be favoured. Canadian Seciritina Co. v. Pren- 
 tice, 9 P. R. 324.— Dalton, J/tM^er— Cameron. 
 
 In an action by the plaintiffs as endorsees of 
 a bill of exchange, the defendant (the acceptor) 
 set up that the bill was part of the price of goods 
 bought by them from H. & G., the drawers, and 
 filed a coimter-claim against the plaintiffs, and 
 H. & G. as defendants by counter-claim, claim- 
 ing that the bill was transferred to the plaintiffs 
 after maturity, with full notice and knowledge 
 of the facts, and claiming $10,000 damages from 
 H. & G. for breach of contract in respect of the 
 goods, and asking for the delivery up and can- 
 cellation of the bill, and other bills in the same 
 transaction. Upon the application of H. & G. 
 the Master in Cnambers struck out the counter- 
 claim, and the names of H. & G. as defendants :— 
 Semble, that as against the plaintiffs, the defence 
 
 should have been pleaded as a dt'enco to the 
 claim on tho bill. Torrance v. Liinni/atoHe, 10 
 P. R. 29.— Ualton, Maxter.—C. P. D. 
 
 An action was brought by the Bank of P. E. I. 
 against tho appellant on a promissory note, to 
 which ho pleaded set-off of a draft inudo by the 
 plaintiffs and endorsed to him ; to this there 
 was a replication that .'ic defendant was a con- 
 tributory on the stoek-.'jook of the bank, and 
 know that tho bank was insolvent when the draft 
 was purchaaed •, the defendant demurred on the 
 gnmud that the replication did not aver that 
 the debt for which tiie acti(m was brought was 
 due from tho defendant in his capacity as share- 
 holder or contributory : — Held, reversing tho 
 judgment of the C')urt below, that tho replica- 
 tion was bad in law. Inyi v. Jiank of' Prince 
 Edward Island, 11 S. C. R. 201). 
 
 H. , a director of a joint stock company, signed, 
 with other directors, a joint and several promis- 
 sory note in favour of the company, and took 
 security on a steamer of the company. The 
 note was, in form, non-negotiable, but that fact 
 was not observed by tho olilcials of tho Hamil- 
 ton Bank who discounted it and paid over the 
 proceeds to the company. H, knew that the 
 note was discounted, and before it fell duo ho 
 had in writing acknowledged his liability on it. 
 In an action on tho note by the Hamilton Bank 
 against H. .■ — Held, affirming the judgment of 
 the Court of Appeal, and that of the Divisional 
 Court, (9 O. It. 053) Strong, J., dissenting, that 
 although, in fact, the note was not negotiable, 
 the bank, in equity, was entitled to recover, 
 it being shown that th" note was intended by 
 makers to have l)een made nt;gotiable, and was 
 issued by them as such, but, by mistake or in- 
 advertence, it was not. expressed to bo payable 
 to the order of the payee. Harvey v. Hank of 
 JIamilluH, 1(5 S. C. R. 714. 
 
 Forgery of name of defendants to bill of Ex- 
 change — EstopiJcl from denying liability by con- 
 duct of defendants prejudicial to the plaintiffs. 
 See Merchantu' Hank v. Lucat, 13 0. R. 520; 
 15 A. R. 573. AlKrmed by the Supreme Court. 
 
 Held, that the fact that tho agreement be- 
 tween the holders of certain notes with the maker 
 thereof, and certain of the endorsers, provided 
 that upon payment and satisfaction of the hold- 
 ers certain collateral securities were to be as- 
 signed to one of the other parties to the agree- 
 ment did not discharge the subsequent endorser, 
 for the said arrangement was not absolute but 
 limited to those who were parties to it as be- 
 tween themselves only, and did not affect the 
 subsequent endorser's claim to the possession of 
 the said securities if he paid the holders. Can- 
 adian Bank of Commerce v, Northwood, 14 0. R. 
 207.— Boyd. 
 
 Where promissory notes of third persons were 
 transferred by the defendant without endorse- 
 ment as collateral security for a debt due by 
 him to the plaintiff, who now sued the defendant 
 for the amount of the debt, and the defendant 
 raised the objection that the plaintiff had been 
 guilty of laches in proceeding for the pay-nent 
 of the collateral noteci, and that he had not no- 
 tified the defendant of their nonpayment: — 
 Held, that if the defendant had been injured by 
 such laches or want of notice, and to the extent 
 to which he had been injured, he should be ex> 
 
 177 
 
 onerated from j 
 that the trial j 
 against the plai 
 tho laches and ' 
 it was a conelu 
 followed to tho 
 180. R. 409.— 
 
 See Wiliun ^ 
 fukral Jiank \ 
 Bank v. Turky 
 
 XI. 1 
 
 Whore certai 
 collateral for tli 
 for«l,000, whic 
 note given, sue 
 debt is discharji 
 yard, 10 P. R. 
 navy. 
 
 Securing end 
 Barber v. Mac/ 
 
 Aetion to rei 
 ceptor on a for 
 drawer antl en 
 Montreal, 12 0. 
 
 Forging endo 
 no makers nam 
 Segina v. Fee, '. 
 
 Sec //((// V. ( 
 Molmns Bank, 
 A. R. 476 ; Pi, 
 MacKinnon v. j 
 
 BILLS OF Li 
 
 I. Power.' 
 Leoi.' 
 Law. 
 
 ii. constr 
 
 III. Assign: 
 
 Held, that tli 
 been made in 
 deprive plaintif 
 ■c. 116, for not 
 pleadings, but 
 Quebec law wa 
 and ui the abse 
 to be the same. 
 497. -C. P. D. 
 
 BILLS 0] 
 
 I. Geneb 
 
 II. Paetii 
 
 III. Prope: 
 
 1. Aft, 
 
 2. 0th 
 
 3. Seiz 
 
 M 
 
 12 
 
177 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MORTOAQES. 
 
 178 
 
 onerated from payment,, but not otlierwiso ; and 
 that the trial jU(lj,'o had pushed the law too far 
 against the plaintitfin liokling that having found 
 tho laclies and want of notico aa a matter of fact 
 it WA8 a conulusion of law that detriment had 
 followed to tlio defendant. liynn v. McOonnell, 
 180. R. 409.— (Jhy. U. 
 
 See WiUon v. Broimi, (j A. R. 87, p. 139 j 
 fukral Btmk v. Hope, 6 0. R. 209 ; Muhom 
 Bank v. Turky, 8 O. R. 293. 
 
 XI. Miscellaneous Cases. 
 
 Wiiero certain securities had been assigned as 
 collateral for tiie payment of a promissory note 
 for $1,000, which note was partly paid and a now 
 note given, such security may bo held until the 
 debt is discharged iiy payment. Wiley v. Led- 
 yard, 10 P. K. 182. — Hodgins, Master- in-Ordi- 
 nary. 
 
 Scouring endorser by chattel mortgage. See 
 Barber v, Macfiiersoii, 13 A. It. .356. 
 
 Action to recover back amount paid by ac- 
 ceptor on a forged bill — Denial of signature of 
 drawer and endorser. See Ri/an v. Bank of 
 Montreal, 12 0. R. 039 ; 14 A. U. 533. 
 
 Forj^ing endorser's name to a promissory note, 
 no maker's name being tiiereto at the time. 8ee 
 Beginav. Fee, .'3 O. R. 8. 
 
 See Hall v. Griffith, 5 0. 11. 478; Lionais v. 
 Molmns Bank, 10 S. C. 11. 520 ; Jack v. Jack, 12 
 A. 11. 476; Purdoni v. Mchol, 10 O. R. 099; 
 MacKinnon ''. Ktroack, 15 S. C. R. 111. 
 
 BILLS OF LADING AND WAREHOUSE 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 I. Powers of Dominion and Provincial 
 Leoislatukes — See Constitutional 
 Law. 
 
 II. Construction ov—See Ship. 
 
 III. Assignment to Banks — See Banks. 
 
 Held, that the fact of the bill of lading having 
 been made in the Province of Quebec, did not 
 deprive plaintiffs of the benefit of R. S. O. (1877), 
 ■c. 116, for not only was this not set up by the 
 pleaduigs, but also it did not appear that the 
 Quebec law was different from that of Ontario ; 
 and in the absence of proof it would be assumed 
 to be the same. Langdon v. Robertson, 13 O. R. 
 497. -C. P. D. 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL 
 MORTOAGES. 
 
 I. Generally, 178. 
 
 II. Parties, 179. 
 
 JII. Property Passing. 
 
 1. After A rquired Property, 180. 
 
 2. Other Coits, 181. 
 5. Seizure oj Goodt Subject to Chattel 
 
 12 
 
 Mortgage— See Distress. 
 
 IV. Ueciistration and Chanoe of POflSRfl- 
 
 sion. 
 
 1. Affidavit of Bona Fiden, 182. 
 
 2. Jieijistralion, 183. 
 
 3. Change of PotneHsion, 184. 
 
 4. RejUing, 187. 
 
 V. t iNSIDERATION AND BoNA FiDKS. 
 
 k. Vo Secure Failure Advances, 188, 
 
 2 To Secure Endorser, 188. 
 
 3. Other Cascx, 189. 
 
 VI. Dk.scriition of Goods, 192. 
 
 VII. Fraudand Fraudulent Preferences — 
 See Fraudulent Conveyances. 
 
 VIII. Rights and Liaiulities of Mortoaooes 
 and Mortoaoees and those Claim- 
 ing Under Them. 
 
 1. At to PuHseasiun, 194, 
 
 2. Other Cases, 195. 
 
 IX. Who MAY Impeach, IC;. 
 
 X. MORTOAOF OF SHIPS— 566 SlIIP. 
 
 I. Generally. 
 
 Remarks upon the policy of the Chattel Mort- 
 gage Act. See Barker v. Leeson, 1 O. R. 114. 
 
 Tlio relation of landlord and tenant may be 
 created by proper words between mortgagee and 
 mortgagor for tiie bona tide purpose of further 
 securing the debt without being either a fraud 
 upon creditors or an evasion of tuo Chattel Mort- 
 gage Act. Trust and Loan Co. v. Lawrason, 
 « A. R. 28G ; 10 S. C. R. 679. 
 
 A chattel mortgage is a transfer of property 
 and effects within the meaning of 49 Vict. c. 16, 
 8. 12, (Ont.) Blakeley v. Blaase, 12 P. R. 565.— 
 MacMahon. 
 
 Semble, tiiat a sale of growing timber does 
 not come within the operation of the Bills of Sale 
 and Chattel Mortgage Act. Steinhojf v. McRck, 
 13 0. R. 546.-0. P. D. 
 
 A formal defect in a chattel mortgage may be 
 cured by a conveyance at any time before an 
 execution reaches the sheriff's hands, but such 
 conveyance whether effected by a deed or by 
 delivery only, has no retroactive operation, and 
 if void for intent to prefer under R. S. 0. (1877) 
 c. 118, would not suffice to cure the defects. 
 Smith v. Fair, 11 A. R. 755. 
 
 Held (overruling Robertson i-. Thomas, 8 O. 
 R. 20), that assignments for the benefit of credi- 
 tors were until 48 Vict. c. 26 (Ont. ), within the 
 Act relating to chattel mortgages and bills of 
 sale, R. S. O. (1877), c. 119. IVhiting v. Hovey, 
 13 A. R. 7. 
 
 An assignment by the directors of a joint stock 
 company of all the estate and property of the 
 company to trustees for the benefit of creditors 
 is not ultra vires such directors, and does not 
 require special statutory authority or the formal 
 assent of the whole body of shareholders. Quaere, 
 Is such an assignment within the provisions of 
 the Chattel Mortgage Act of Ontario, R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 119. Hovey v. Whiting, 14 S. C. B. 
 615. 
 
 I 
 
 I! 
 
 I 
 
 <9 
 
179 
 
 BILLS OF BALE AND CHATTEL MORTOAOES. 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 Where Hucli nn ansignment was maclo, and the 
 property WM formally hamlod over by the dircc- 
 tor* to the truHttcM, who took pogBCHnioii and 
 ■nb«e(iucntly iidvurtiHcd and iold the property 
 under the deed of assignment :— Held, that if 
 the assignment did conio within the terms of the 
 Act Its provisionH were fully complied with, the 
 deed lusing duly rcgiBtered and there being nn 
 actual oncl continued change of possession as re- 
 quired by section 5, II). 
 
 Right of bank to take chattel mortgage. See 
 In re Huiiiy Lab: Lumhtr Co.— Stewart, Liqui- 
 dator, V. Union llavkoj' Lower Canada, 16 A. R. 
 749. 
 
 Per Prondfoot.J.— The "advances" referred 
 to in R. 8. O. (1877), c 119, s, 6, need not be 
 pecuniary. Oouldimj v. Vinninij, 15 C). R. 201. 
 
 See Farliw/er v. McDumihl, 45 Q. B. 233, 
 p. 190 ; Morris v. Martin, 19 0. R. 504, p. 192. 
 
 II. Parties. 
 
 Where an arrangement had been entered into 
 between the partners of a tirm whereby, although 
 moneys were to be advanced by the firm, the 
 securities therefor were to be taken in the in- 
 dividual name of each partner according as each 
 was willing to accept the security of the person 
 seeking to borrow :— Held, that u chattel mort- 
 gage so token was valid as against creditors, and 
 that the mortgagee could properly make the 
 affidavit of bona hdes :— Semble, there is no legal 
 objection to a loan being made by one member 
 from the moneys of .a firm, and the taking as a 
 security therefor a chattel mortgage to himself. 
 Hobhs Hardware Co. v. Kitchen, 17 0. R. 303.— 
 Poyd. 
 
 By an antenuptial settlement executed 25th 
 March, 18S5, made between J. C. of the first 
 part, M. H. (the plaintiiT) his intended wife of 
 the second part and one M. of the third part, in 
 consideration of the intended marriage, certain 
 lands and the goods in question consisting of 
 horses, cows, and several articles of liousehold 
 furniture described as being in and upon and 
 around the premises and appurtenances used and 
 occupied by the said J. M. and being city num- 
 ber, etc., were conveyed and assigned to M. to 
 hold to the use of J. C. until the marriage, and 
 thereafter to the use of the plaintiff, her heirs, 
 executors, administrators, and assigns. The 
 marriage took place on the 27th of March. 
 Within five days from the execution of the as- 
 signment it was duly registered in the proper 
 office as a bill of sale. The affidavit of bona 
 tides was made by the plaintiiT after the mar- 
 riage, she being described therein as the bar- 
 gainee. The goods were aftflrwards seized by 
 an execution creditor of the husband ; the plain- 
 tiff claimed them and an interpleader issue was 
 directed by the High Court to be tried in the 
 County Court. At the trial it was objected that 
 the_ trustee should have been the claimant and 
 plaintiff in the issue, and on this ground judg- 
 ment was given for the defendant :— Held, (re- 
 versing the judgment of the court below) that 
 the plaintiff's beneficial interest in and posses- 
 sion of the property was sufficient to enable hei 
 to maintain her claim in the issue. Soli'' ('erv. 
 Hamott, 28 L. T. N. S. 702 followed • (2; That 
 the plaintiff was a person who, as birgaineo, 
 
 might properly make the affidavit of bona fldos. 
 (3) That the goods were sulHciently descrilwd 
 and identified :— Senddo, per Hagarty, C, J. 0,, 
 and Osier, J. A., that a marriage contract or 
 settlement in the form of the instrument in (jue«. 
 tion, was not a sale of personal property within 
 the Act and that registration therefore was not 
 necessary. I'er Patterson, J. A.— (1) That the 
 transaction was within the stiituto and (2) that 
 the legal title to the goods was in the plaintiff. 
 Whiting I'. Hovcy, 12 A. It. 119; Dominion 
 Bank v. Davidson, 12 A. R. 90, referred to. 
 Connell v. Ilickock, 15 A. R. 518. 
 
 III. PKOfEiiTY Passing. 
 
 1. After Acquired Property, 
 
 Held, that the terms of the agreement in thia 
 case were not sufficiently comprehensive to cover 
 the substituted, renewed, or added stock in 
 trade, Kitchimj v. Ilict^, (). K. 739.— Ciiy. 
 D. 
 
 In May, 1880, the defenilant D., being indebt- 
 ed to the phiintifl's in the sum of |8,000, gave 
 them n chattel mortgage on all his stock m-inule,. 
 chattels and effects then being in thr store of 
 the 811 vl defendant IJ., on Granville street, in 
 the city of Halifax ; and by the saiii mortgage 
 the said defendant D. further ngreod to convey 
 to the plaintiffs all stock which, during the con- 
 tinuance of the said indebtedi'ess, he might 
 purchase for the purijose of sub'jtitution in place 
 of stock then owned by him in connection witlv 
 his said business, which goods were never so 
 conveyed to the plaintiff. By the terms of the 
 mortgago, the debt due to the plaintiffs was to 
 be paid in three years, in twelve equal instal- 
 ments at specified times, and if any instalment 
 should be unpaid for fifteen days after becoming 
 due, the whole amount then due the plaintiffs 
 would become immediately payable, and they 
 could take possession of and sell the said mort- 
 gaged goods. It was further agreed between 
 the defendant D. and the plaintiffs, that to save 
 the business credit of D. the said mortgage was 
 not to be filed and was to bo kept secret, and it 
 was not filed until the 12th December, 1881. 
 On the 13th Deccnd)er, 1881, D. made an assign- 
 ment of all his property, real and personal, to 
 the defendant F., in trust for the benefit of his 
 (D.'s) creditors, and such trust deed was execu- 
 ted by D., F. and one creditor of D., and subse- 
 quently by a number of other creditors. F. had 
 no notice of the mortgage to the plaintiffs. F. 
 took possession of the goods in the store on 
 Granville street, and refused to deliver them to 
 the plaintiffs, who demanded them on the 14th 
 December, default having been made in the pay- 
 ments under the mortgage, and the plaintirts 
 brought this suit for the recovery of tne goods 
 and an account. Previous to Ihe suit being 
 commenced the defendant F. delivered to the 
 plaintiffs a small portion of the goods inthe 
 store, which, as he alleged, were all that remained 
 from the stock on the premises in May, 1880;— 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the court below 
 (Strong, J. , dissenting), that the legal title to 
 the property vested in the defendant F. must 
 prevail, 'he plaintiffs' title being merely equit- 
 able, and the equities between the parties being 
 equal. McAllister v. Forsyth, 12 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 A chattel mor 
 the itock-in-tra(! 
 ported to lie enu 
 WM dcsoribcd a 
 mises. The ichi 
 proceeded: "A: 
 any time may bt 
 and kept in the 
 whether now in 
 cbued and placi 
 the judgment of 
 after-acquired si 
 in the ordinarv 
 to the chattel 
 creditors of the c 
 their writs were 
 the time such a 
 ness ; the equita 
 luuh agreement 
 goods reaching I 
 A. R. 503. 
 
 J. R., by an ii 
 sell his business 
 and by it provi 
 waa to remain hi 
 that all after-ac 
 way of substitu 
 become his prop 
 purchase money, 
 nave the right t 
 Some seven yei 
 been made, he t( 
 off by auction, 
 ment for the bei 
 brought by the 
 the sons to resti 
 Held, that the h 
 of sale was to re 
 stock in the ven 
 equitable title i 
 
 S Hired, and to 
 on for defau 
 been made, and ] 
 of the assignee ( 
 that act clothed 
 after acquired 
 by the assiguir 
 executed :— Hel 
 not neec'. to be j 
 against ' ubsequc 
 Cnattel itlortga; 
 covering hhe ca 
 able interests in 
 property. The 
 oase and the 
 ior giving publ 
 oil. Banks v. 
 
 The mortgac 
 (Armour, J., d 
 incapable of ( 
 without change 
 mortgage as to 
 Mortgage Act. 
 127. 
 
 The plaintiff 
 "withes lying 
 river Moira," c 
 JMtrument, nc 
 ownc/, assumec 
 
181 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL M0BTOA0E8. 
 
 m 
 
 A ohuttvl innrtgagu convoyed to tlio plaintifT 
 the stock-in-trado ot tho tnortgauor, which jmr- 
 ported to Ixj enumcrnted in a Buhcdulo (A.) and 
 WM do8orlbod an being on certain named pro- 
 miiea. The ■cheduio after lotting out the goods 
 proceeded : " And oil coodfi * * which at 
 tny timo may bo ownea by tho said mortgagor 
 and kept in tho laid store for iinlo * * and 
 whether now in stock or hereafter to bo pur- 
 chased and placed in stock :" — Hold, (ntflrming 
 the judgment of tho County Court of York) that 
 after-ac(}uired stock brought into tho business 
 in the ordinarv course thereof, becamo subject 
 to the chattel mortgage as against execution 
 creditors of the mortgagor, notwithstanding that 
 their writs were in the hands of tho sheriff at 
 the time such stock was brought into tho busi- 
 ness ; the equitable right of the mortgugoe under 
 such agreeniont attaching immediately on tho 
 
 5 cods reaching the premises. Coyne v, Lee, 14 
 L. R. 603. 
 
 J. R., by an instrument in writing, acrced to 
 seU his business and stock-in-trade to his sons 
 and by it provided that all the existing stock 
 was to remain his property until it was paid for ; 
 that all after-acquired property brought in by 
 way of substitution for existing stock, was to 
 become his property by way of security for tho 
 purchase money, and that on default ho should 
 nave the right to re-enter and take posscBsioii. 
 Some seven years afterwards, default having 
 been made, he took possession and began soiling 
 off by auction. The sous then made an assign- 
 ment for tho benefit of creditors. In an action 
 brought by the assignee and some creditors of 
 the sons to restrain J. R. from selling. It was 
 Held, that the legal operation of the instrument 
 of sale was to retain the property in the existing 
 stock in tho vendor, and to confer upon him an 
 equitable title in tho stock to be afterwards ac- 
 quired, and to give him the right to take posses- 
 lion for default iu payment. Default having 
 been made, and possession taken before tlie rights 
 of the assignee or of any execution creditor arose, 
 that act clothed J. B. with the legal title in the 
 after acquired goods, which was not afifectcd 
 by the assignment for creditors subsequently 
 executed :— Held, also, that the instrument did 
 not neec. to be registered to make it operative, 
 against ' ubsequent creditors, the Bills of Sale and 
 Chattel iiTortgages Act, R. S. 0. (1887)c. 125, not 
 covering ^he case of agreements creating equit- 
 able interests in nonexisting and future-acciuircd 
 property. The eflect of the transaction in this 
 rase and the advisability of making provision 
 ior giving publicity by registration commented 
 on. Banks v. Nobinson, 15 O. R. 618.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Other Casen. 
 
 The mortgage covered growing crops : — Held, 
 (Armour, J., dissenting), that such crops being 
 incapable of delivery or change of possession 
 without change of occupation of the land, the 
 mortgage as to them was not within the Chattel 
 Mortgage Act. Hamilton v. Harrison, 46 Q. B. 
 127. 
 
 Tho plaintiff sued for conversion of certain 
 " withes lying on the island in the mouth of the 
 river Moira," claimed by him under a written 
 instrument, not under seal, whereby A., the 
 ownu, assumed to assign the withes to the plain- 
 
 tiff, as security for money lent. The dofcndanti 
 asserted a, lion on tho withes for advaiiccs to A.. 
 and also alleged that thcro had been an actual 
 delivery thereof to them, under which they had 
 taken possession prior to tho plaintiff's mort- 
 gage : — Held, that the instrument was a good 
 mortgage, thoiiah without sf.il, and was not void 
 for want of registration as against the defendants 
 claiming under tho alleged prior .'.elivory. Tho 
 alleged lien for advances could not bo enforced 
 against the plaintiff', who was found by tho jury 
 to bo an innocent mortgagee for value ; and tho 
 jury having upon contradictory evidence found 
 against the alli'Kod prior delivery, tho refusal of 
 the Judge of the County Court of Hastings to 
 disturb tho verdict was atlirniod. I'aterson »'. 
 Maughan, 39 Q. B. 371, approved of and follow- 
 ed. Hall V. Vollinn Hay fttiftiiiij and Fonvurd- 
 ing Company, 12 A. R. C5. 
 
 See Ounn v. Vurytaa, 6 O. R. (i85, p. 185. 
 
 IV. REaiSTHATION ANU CHANGE OF PoSSIMSION. 
 
 1. Affidavit of liona Fidcu. 
 
 Held (1) (reversing tho judgment of tho Court 
 below, 32 C. P. 43), that it need not appear on 
 the affidavit, or the mortgage, or tlie papers filed 
 therewith, that the agent of tiie mortgagee, 
 making tho affidavit, was aware of tho circum- 
 stances connected with such mortgage. Carlinle 
 v. Tait, 7 A. R. 10. 
 
 Tho affidavit of bona fides in a cliattel mort- 
 gage purported to bo swoi'ii before " T. B. F," 
 without any addition. The affidavit of execu- 
 tiou was sworn before the sumo commissioner, 
 his name being followed by tho words, " A 
 Commissioner in B. R., etc."— Hold, noobjection 
 to tho affidavit of bona fides. Hamilton v. Har- 
 rlson, 46 Q. B. 127.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The affidavit annexed to a chattel mortgn'^e 
 omitted the words, "or accruing duo," after 
 those "so justly due : "—Held, that the debt 
 might be stated os due when it really was duo, 
 and that it need not be ne<^essarily stated as 
 either due or accruing. Farlinijer v. McDonald, 
 45 Q. B. 233.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The affidavit stated that tho mortgage was 
 not granted for the purpose of protecting the 
 goods and chattels against the creditors of the 
 two mortgagors, naming them, or preventing the 
 creditors of tho said mortgagor from olitaining 
 payment for any claim against him, the naid 
 mortgagor :— Held, sufficient, for that tho word 
 mortgagor would mean each of the mortgagors 
 previously mentioned. lb. 
 
 The omission of the word "him," at the con- 
 clusion of the affidavit of bona fides registered 
 with a chattel mortgage, has the effect of des- 
 troying the security as against an executioi. wia- 
 ditor who has seized while the goods remair.e'l 
 in statu quo, but does not impair the instru- 
 ment as between the parties. Davis v. Wickson, 
 1 0. R. 369.— Boyd. 
 
 It is sufficient if one of several mortgagees 
 make the affidavit required by R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 119, B. 2. Tidey v. Craib, 4 O. R. 696.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 The mortgage did not state the amount of the 
 indebtedness ; and the affidavit of bona fides was 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .1, 
 .1, 
 
188 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MOBTOAOES. 
 
 184 
 
 it 
 
 equally defective, aa it merely stated that the 
 mortgagors "are fully indebted to me," the 
 mortgagee^ " in a large sum of money," no sum 
 being mentioned :— Held, void as against the 
 plaintiffs, the amount of indebtedness existing 
 or created by tlie mortgage not being mentioned 
 therein, and in the affidavit of bona tides as 
 required by the first and second sections of R. 
 S. O. (1877) c. 119. Siviviis, Turner A Burns 
 Foundni and UcncralMiiiuifacluriwj Co.(LiiniOd) 
 V. Barfuot, 9 O. R. 692. —Cameron ; 13 A. R.366. 
 
 Tlie affidavit of bona fide in a chattel mort- 
 gage taken to secure the mortgagee against liis 
 endorsement of two i)romissory notes, which were 
 referred to in a recital, stated tliat tlie mortgage 
 " was executed in good faith and for the express 
 purpose of securing we, the said mortgagee 
 therein named, against Im endorsement of a 
 certain promissory note for (sic) or any renewal 
 of the said recited promissory notes : " — Held, 
 that "his endorsement" miglit be read "my 
 ciulorsemcnt," as this wao clearly a clerical 
 error, but that even witli this correct.on, the 
 clause remained vague and inoomplete, and that 
 the affidavit was therefore fatally defective 
 Boldrkk v. Ruan, 17A. R. 253. 
 
 One partner can make the affidavit of bona 
 fides. Rom v. Dunn, 10 A. R. 052. 
 
 See DriKColl v. Clrem, 8 A. R. 366, p. 189 ; 
 Connelt v. JHckock, 15 A. It. 518, p. 180 ; Hobbn 
 Hardware Company v. Kitchen, 17 0. R. 363, p. 
 179. 
 
 2. Itafhtration. 
 
 Where tlie goods forming the subject of a 
 chattel mortgage are in bond, it is not necessary 
 tiiat the mortgage should be registered. May 
 V. Security Loan and Savinijs Co., 45 Q. B. 106. — 
 Q. B. 1). 
 
 A chattel mortgage was duly executed on the 
 12th of July, and tiled on the 18th, the 17th 
 having been Sunday : — Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of tlie Couuty Court, that such registrati ju 
 was too late, the Act R. S. 0. (1877) c. 119, re- 
 quiring ;lie same to be effected Vt'itliin five days 
 from the execution of the instrument ; tliat Sun- 
 day counted as one of such five days, and that 
 Rule 457, O. J. Act (Con. Rule 476) did not 
 apply. McLean v. Pinkerton, 7 A. R. 490. 
 
 The mortgage, besides being a security for 
 $1,4'^ actually advanced, provided that it should 
 also be a security for further advances, if neces- 
 sary, of goods .and merchandize to eiiable the 
 mortgagor " to carry on business," — not " to 
 enter into aud cairy on " as in the statute, -which 
 should ' ' be repaid on demand at .any time within 
 one year from the date hereof, or such other time 
 as the parties may agree thereto : "—Held, that 
 the omission of the words " to enter into " could 
 not render it unnecessary to register the mort- 
 gage, as regarded the $1,400. Quiere, per Wil- 
 son, C. J., whether the clause for future advan- 
 ces was not void as enabling payment to be 
 delayed, beyond the year. lb. 
 
 K. having become security for repayment by 
 H. of ?600, an agreement in writing was entered 
 into that in consideration thereof H. did assign 
 to K. " nil his right and claim to the goods and 
 stock-in-trade in the store of H. to an amount 
 
 sufficient to reimburse K. whatever he may pay 
 in consenuenee of becoming such surety as afore- 
 said, and should there not be stock enough for 
 that purpose in the store at such time, the bal- 
 ance after deducting the value of the said stock, 
 shall be m.ade up of the book debts then on the 
 books of H." This agreement was not regis- 
 tered. H. subsequently made an assignment 
 for the benefit of his creditors toC, at which 
 time only about $20 worth of the stock was the 
 same as had been in the store at the time of the 
 said agreement, and K.'s administratrix now 
 brought this action against H. for payment, and 
 in default, for payment by G. out of the proceeds 
 of the stock and book debts of H., (C. as well a, 
 H. F. & Co., creditors of H. who had executel 
 tlie assignment to 0. , being made parties defen- 
 dant with H. ) : — Held, reversing the decision of 
 I'roudfoot, J. , that, so far as the book debts were 
 concerned as to which registration was unneces- 
 sary, the agreement was valid and binding as 
 .against the creditors as well as H. Taylor v. 
 Whittemore, 10 Q. B. 440, cited and approved 
 of ; Short v. Kuttan, 12 Q. B. 79, not followed. 
 Kitchimj V. Hicks, 6 0. R, 739.— Chy. D. 
 
 Quiure whether registration is necessary to 
 support as against creditors, an instrument h' 
 which a charge upon future acquired chattels is 
 created. Jb. 
 
 Hold, .affirming the decision of Proudfoot, 
 .T., tiiat though an assignee for the benefit of cre- 
 ditors could not take advantage of the want of 
 registration, yet creditors themselves might, al- 
 though not creditors by judgment and execution 
 at tlie time of the assignment ; and followmg 
 I'arkes v. St. George, 2 O. R. 342, and Meriden 
 Silver Co. v. Lee, 2 0. R. 451, that the assign- 
 ment did not prevent them from impeaching it. 
 lb. See Parkes v. SI. George, 10 A. R. 496. 
 
 See Kelsei/ v. Rogers, 32 0. P. 624 ; Robinson 
 V. Cook, 6 O. R. 590 ; Hall v. Collins Bay Raft- 
 ing and Forwarding Co., 12 A. R. 65, p. 182; 
 Banks v. Robinson, 15 O. R. 618, p. 181 ; Con- 
 nell V. Hicknck, 15 A. R. 518, p. 180 ; fn re Raiwi 
 Lake Lumber Co., Stewart, Liquidator, v. Union 
 Bank oj Lower Canada, 15 A. R. 749, p. 198. 
 
 3. Change of Possession. 
 
 It was alleged that the plaintiff, who was 
 living with his mother, gave the horses in ques- 
 tion to her for his board, but no price was hxed 
 for them, and they were kept at the hoUoC and 
 used by the plaintiff as before : — Held, tha'-. there 
 was no sufficient change of possession to dispense 
 with a registered bill of sale, and the lale was 
 void as against the assignee in insolvency of the 
 plaintiff. Snarr v. Smith, 45 Q. B. 156.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 B. , a drygoods dealer in Ottawa, consigned 
 his stock-in-trade to S. S. & Co. , auctioneers in 
 Toronto, for sale, the proceeds to be applied (Ist) 
 in payment of $800 advanced to B. by 8. S. ftCo., 
 and (2nd) in payment of $250 advanced by MoM. 
 & Co. After the goods had reached the ware- 
 house of S. S. & Co., B. gave other orders on the 
 proceeds, which they accepted conditionally. 
 After the sale had been advertised, but before 
 the time appointed for selling, the sheriff levied 
 on the goods under an execution sued out by 
 the defendants, who, on ascertaining the nataro 
 
 185 
 
 and amount of S 
 to them, and 
 allowed to proo 
 from being paid 
 who should holt 
 parties were aBc< 
 caused the seve 
 Held, affiruing t 
 31 C. P. 320, 
 several orders o: 
 able assignmenti 
 that the assigntr 
 plete and contiii 
 under the circun 
 and therefore i 
 Ohattel Mortga^ 
 if that could be 
 having by their 
 subrogated to 
 priority to all tj 
 the proceeds for 
 T. Garland, 8 A 
 
 Where posses 
 given person all J 
 mort^.'vgi.o ; it ra 
 or bailee for hin 
 the claim of such 
 with further sui 
 S. C, 31 C. P. J 
 
 A. h.iving pur 
 in a celebrated I 
 money $50 more 
 on the understai 
 take care of the 
 to have her, and 
 be shared cquall 
 was, that they 
 purposes and shi 
 the year, and w 
 seized and sold 1 
 against B. , but i 
 the sheriff and pi 
 the mare had a > 
 time of the sale, 
 thepurchaiierat 
 tenaod that the 1 
 119, avoided th 
 execution, it wa 
 tended to apply 
 of specific ascerl 
 tion, and capab 
 sessed in specie 
 Bible chattel lik< 
 and B. were tei 
 that I? 'p posses 
 or exclusive p 
 both ; that the 
 terest in the n 
 came a co-owne 
 in the colt folio 
 was an owner < 
 Qmn V. Burges 
 
 The defendai 
 of McL. under i 
 pluntiffs the E 
 usignees under 
 by McL. to one 
 debtedness. T 
 Afterwards Mc 
 the goods as te 
 Kquently the b 
 to take pouessi 
 
181 
 
 1S6 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MOBTOAQES. 
 
 186 
 
 and amount of S. S. & Co. 'a claim, paid the same 
 to them, and the sale by arrangement was 
 allowed to prof »■• d, the amount realized there- 
 from being paia into the hands of the sheriff, 
 vho should hold the same until the rights of all 
 parties were ascertained. The sheriff thereupon 
 caused the several claimants to interplead : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Court below, 
 31 C. P. 320, Armour, J., diss., that the 
 several orders on S. S. & Co. operated as equit- 
 able assignments of the goods or their proceeds; 
 that the assignment to 8. S. & Co. was as com- 
 plete and continuous a change of possession as 
 under the circumstances it was possible to effect, 
 and therefore no necessity existed under the 
 Glisttel Mortgage Act for registermg the orders, 
 if that could be dcue ; and that the defendants 
 having by their payment to S. 8. & Co. been 
 subrogated to their rights, were entitled in 
 priority to all the other claimants to rank upon 
 the proceeds for the sum so advanced. McMaatcr 
 v. Garland, 8 A. R. 1. 
 
 Where possession is changed it need not be 
 given personally to the creditor, purchaser, or 
 inortgag>-o ; it may equally '/C given to a trustee 
 or bailee for him ; and the debtor may increase 
 the claim of such bailee, or may charge tbo goods 
 with further sums in favour of other persons. 
 S. C, 31 C. P. 320.— C. P. D. 
 
 A. having pur; hosed from B. a half interest 
 in a celebrated brood mare, paid in his purchase 
 money ?I50 more than the half interest was worth, 
 on the understanding that B. was to keep and 
 take care of the mare for a year, when A. was 
 to have her, and her expenses were thereafter to 
 be shared equally between them. The bargain 
 was, that they were to keep her for breeding 
 purposes and share the profits equally. During 
 the year, and while in B.'s possession, shfi was 
 seized and sold by the sheriff under an e:.. ^tion 
 against B., but notice of A.'s claim was given to 
 thesheriffand publicly at the sale. 8ub8equently 
 the mare had a colt which was in gremio at the 
 time of the sale. In an action by A. against C, 
 the purcha ser at the sheriff's sale, in which C. con- 
 tenaod that the Bills of Sale Act R. 8. O. ( 1877) c. 
 119, avoided the plaintiff's title as against the 
 execution, it was : — HelJ, that the Act was in- 
 tended to apply to personal chattels susceptible 
 of specific ascertainment and of accurate descrip- 
 tion, and capable of being transferred and pos- 
 sessed in specie, and did not apply to an indivi- 
 sible chattel like that in the present ^ase ; that A. 
 and B. were tenants in common df the mare ; 
 that B 'p possession of the niaro y^ not his sole 
 or exclusive possession, but the possession of 
 both ; that the sheriff's sale passed only B.'s in- 
 terest in the mare, and C. by his purchase be- 
 came a co-owner with A. ; and that the property 
 in the colt followed that of its dam, and that A. 
 was an owner of an undivided moiety in both. 
 Owin V. Burgess, 5 0. R. 685.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendants seized goods in the possession 
 of McL. under an execution against him ; and the 
 plaintiffs the Bank of M. , claimed the goods as 
 usicnees under a i unregistered bill of sole given 
 by McL. to one F. , as collateral secniity for in- 
 debtedness. There was no change of possession. 
 Afterwards McL. agreed with the bank to hold 
 the goods as tenant at will at a rental, and sub- 
 Hquently the bank made an ineffectual attempt 
 to take powMsion :— Held, (reversing the judg- 
 
 ment of the County Court of Lambton), that the 
 attempt to take possession of the goods was not 
 sufficient to satisfy R. 8. 0. (1877), c. 119, and 
 that the defendant was therefore entitled to 
 succeed. Parkcs v. St. George, 10 A. R. 496, 
 distinguished. McKdlar v. McOibhon, 12 A. R. 
 221. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Ferguson, J. , 
 9 O. R. 314, that in this cuie there had been such 
 an actual and continued change of possession as 
 to defeat the executions against tne company. 
 Parkes v. St. George, 10 A. R. 496, and Scrib- 
 ner v. Kinlooh, 12 A. R. 367, followed. Whit- 
 ing v. Hovey, 13 A. R. 7 ; See S. C, sub. nom. 
 Hovey v. Whiting, 14 8. C. R. 515. 
 
 The purchaser of the stock of a trader, where 
 the change of ownership is open and notorious, 
 may employ the former owner as a clerk in car- 
 rying on the business, and notwithstanding such 
 hiring there may still be "an actual and con- 
 tinued change of possession," as required by 
 R. 8. 0. (1877), cap. 119, s. 5. Ontario Bank 
 V. Wilcox, 43 Q. B. 460, distinguished. Kinloch 
 V. Scribner, 14 S. C. R. 77 ; S. C, sub nom. 
 Scribner v. McLaren, 2 0. R. 265 ; S. C, sub 
 nom. Scribner v. Kinloch, 12 A. R. 367. 
 
 In a chattel mortgage containing no redemise 
 clause there may be an implied contract that 
 the mortgagor shall remain in possession until 
 default, of equal efficacy with an express clause 
 to that effect ; and such an implied contract ne- 
 cessarily arises from the nature of the instrument, 
 unless it be very expressly excluded by its terms 
 Porter v. Flintoff, 6 C. P. 335, distinguished. 
 Ledrick v. Ashdown, 15 8 C. R. 227. 
 
 A chattel mortgage made by D. to McL. was 
 given to secure a sum made up of debts due to 
 McL. and two other persons : McL. made the 
 usual affidavit of bona fides, asserting that the 
 whole sum was due him ; no trust of any kind 
 appeared upon the mortgage, though the inten- 
 tion was that McL. should hold it as trustee for 
 the other two. The mortgage was filed within 
 the proper time after its execution. McL. as- 
 signed tlie mortgage to the plaintiffs, who after- 
 wards obtained judgment against D., and under 
 the execution the sheriff seized the property 
 covered by the mortgage. After this seizure 
 the plaintiffs instructed the sheriff to withdraw, 
 and then took and held possession of the pro- 
 perty under the mortgage. The defendants 
 placed writs of execution against the goods of 
 D. in the bands of the sheriff after the plaintiffs 
 had taken possession under their mortgage. D. 
 was solvent when he gave the chattel mortgage, 
 but insolvent when the plaintiffs took posses- 
 sion : — Held, that the fact that no trust was 
 declared on the face of the mortgage was noth- 
 ing more than an informality, and was cured by 
 the tc.king possession before the rights of credi- 
 tors had attached on the chattels ; and neither 
 the insolvency of the mortgagor at the time of 
 taking possession, nor the fact of the seizure 
 under execution before taking possession, affect- 
 ed the position of the plaintiffs : — Held, also, 
 that the taking possession could not be viewed 
 as a preference within 48 Vict. c. 26, s. 2 (Ont.)> 
 Bank of Hamilton v. Tamhlyn, 16 0. R. 247.— 
 Q. B. D. < 
 
 See Oliver v. Newhouse, 32 C. P. 90 ; 8 A. R. 
 122 ; Commercial National Batik of Chicago v. 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 1'" 
 
187 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MOBTOAaES. 
 
 188 
 
 nil 
 
 Corcoran, 6 0. R. 527, p. 141 ; Totlen v. Bowen, 8 
 A. R. 602 ; Dominion Bank v. Davidson, 12 A. R. 
 90, p. 144; Jn re Rainy Lake Lumber Co.—Slew- 
 ■art, Liquidator, v. Union Bank of Lower Canada, 
 15 A. R. 749; Bosa v. Dunn, 16 A. R. 552, p. 192. 
 
 4. Rejiliwj, 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the County 
 Court, that the subsequent purchasers and 
 mortgagees mentioned in section 10 of the Chat- 
 tel Mortgage Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 1 19, are those 
 becoming such after the expiration of a year from 
 the filing of the mortgage. Where therefore the 
 mortgage was registered in August, 1878, and 
 the piamtiff purchased the property in March, 
 1879, and the mortgage was not refiled :— Held, 
 th'it the plaintiff was not entitled, as against the 
 defendant, who took the property from him in 
 December, 1879. Hodgina v. Johnson, 5 A. R. 
 449. 
 
 Kissocli V. Jarvis, 9 C. P. 156, as to the neces- 
 sity of the renewal of a chattel mortgage from 
 year to year, approved of and followed, notwith- 
 standing the subsequent legislation contained in 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 119. Beaumont v. Cramp, 45 
 Q. B. 355. -Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintifiF held a chattel mortgage made by 
 one G. , which was dated 9th May, 1879, and filed 
 13th May. Defendants' mortgage from the same 
 mortgagor was dated in the December follow- 
 ing. On the 12th April, 1880, the plaintiff made 
 affidavit of the amount due up to the 10th April, 
 and refiled the mortgage under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 119, s. 10. The defendants were landlords of 
 the mortgagor and illegally distrained for rent, 
 whereupon the plaintiff brought trover for goods 
 levied upon by them and contained in his mort- 
 gage : — Held, that the defendants were neither 
 creditors nor subsequent purchasers or mortga- 
 gees within the statute, and therefore could not 
 object to the mortgage because the affidavit 
 verifying the statement of the amount due was 
 not made within the thirty days next preceding 
 the expiration of the year. Semble, that such 
 affidavit and statement should be made within 
 the thirty days. Oriffin v. McKenzie, 46 Q. B. 
 93.— Q. B. D. 
 
 B., the customer of a bank, executed a chattel 
 mortgage on his household effects, by way of 
 collateral security, in favour of the bank, which 
 was allowed to run into default, whereupon the 
 mortgagees proceeded to a sale, and appointed 
 W., their bailiff, for that purpose, who had the 
 property appraised and sold it to the plaintiff, a 
 creditor of B., by private sale for $900 ; and exe- 
 cuted a bill of sale thereof. The plaintiff, in 
 his evidence, swore that B. owed him about 
 $1,000, and he thought there was ample security 
 for the $900 and also additional security for B. s 
 indebtedness to himself, and that the goods 
 seemed to be worth about $5,000 ; and the plain- 
 tiff, without disturbing in any way the possession 
 of B., rented the property to him, and lie remain- 
 ed, as he had theretofore been, in possession. In 
 order effectually to carry out the proposed ar- 
 rangement with B., the bank by special power 
 appointed their local manager agent to accept 
 the chattel mortgage and as such agent to make 
 the affidavits required to be made by • lortga- 
 ^ees:— Held, (Patterson, J. A., dissenting), that 
 
 as under the circumstances stated the chattel 
 mortgage was satisfied quoad the goods, the 
 mortgage could not properly be renled ; and 
 notwithstanding the continued possession of the 
 mortgagor (B. ) it was not necessary for the piam- 
 tiff to fue a bill of sale from the bank to himself 
 in order to preserve his rights as against execa- 
 tion creditors of or bona fide purchasers from B., 
 the mortgagor. Carlisle v. Tait, 7 A. R. 10. 
 
 See Barker v. Leeaon, 1 O. R. 114, p. 196; 
 Tidey v. Oraib, 4 O. R. 696, p. 190. 
 
 V. COKSIDERATION AND BONA FiDES. 
 
 1. To Secure Future Advances. 
 
 See McLeanw. Pinkerton, 7 A. R. 490, p. 183; 
 OouMingv. Deeming, 15 0. R. 201. 
 
 2, To Secure Endorser. 
 
 A mortgage to secure the plaintiff as endorser 
 of notes not payable within a year : — Held, 
 invalid. May v. Security Loan and Savings Co., 
 45 Q. B. 106.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Semble, it is not essential to the validity of a 
 chattel mortgage to secure the mortgagee against 
 the endorsement of any bill or note, etc., under 
 8. 6 of R. S. 0. (1877), c. 119, that it should set 
 forth fully the agreement between the parties 
 and the amount of the liability intended to be 
 created, and that the liability which it professes 
 to secure, should be truly stated. Barber v. 
 Macpheraon, 13 A. R. 356. 
 
 In November, 1881, the plaintiff endorsed a 
 note for the accommodation of M. for $550 at 
 three months, and as indemnity against any lia- 
 bility in respect thereof, or of any renewal, took 
 from M. a chattel mortgage which was only re- 
 newed once, although the note remained unpaid 
 until the 4th of November, 1882, when $50 was 
 paid by M. on account, and a new note at six 
 months was given for $500, in which the plain- 
 tiff joined as maker instead of as endorser, and 
 after this note became due and remained unpaid 
 for six months the plaintiff obtained a second 
 mortgage from M. , reciting that he had endorsed 
 a note lor $550, which had not been paid, and 
 that plaintiff was still liable thereon, or on the 
 renewal thereof, and was liable to be called upon 
 at an}' time to pay the amount, and the plaintiff 
 was called upon to pay, and actually did pay tiie 
 note and interest amounting to about $590. In 
 an interpleader proceeding at the instance of an 
 execution creditor of M. : — Held (affirming the 
 judgment of the County Court), that the mort- 
 gage was void as against such creditor. The dis- 
 tinction between mortgages under the 1st and 
 under the 6th section of the Act, considered 
 and acted on. The distinction between the two 
 classes of cases provided for by the 6th section 
 considered. Keough v. Price, 27 C. P. 309; 
 O'Donohoe v. Wilson, 42 Q. B. 329 ; Ontario 
 Bank v. Wilcox, 43 Q. B. 463, commented on. lb. 
 
 In November, 1881, a chattel mortgage was 
 made to secure the plaintiff as indoreer of "^ 
 promissory note of the mortgagor, dated 4i . 
 October, 1881, at two months. A recital in the 
 instrument stated that it had been ^ven "as 
 security to the mortgagee against his indorse- 
 
 m 
 
 mentof said n 
 shall not extei 
 beyond one y( 
 against auy los 
 by reason of si 
 any renewal t 
 was made " fc 
 the mortgagee i 
 liability for thi 
 promissory noi 
 note or notes 
 accommodatior 
 renewals of the 
 (reversing the j 
 as the raortgag 
 vit covered all 
 part of the affi( 
 to the end w 
 vitiate the secu 
 309, remarked 
 ,366. 
 
 A chattel mo 
 to secure the n 
 wise incurred f 
 faith in pursu 
 promise, is not 
 assignments an 
 ly because it w 
 with the endori 
 quirements of ! 
 Act, R. S. 0. (1 
 Agreement in tl 
 ges to secure f 
 therein mentio 
 under that sect 
 incurred by em 
 that is necessai 
 not extending 
 ffjm the date o 
 ently describee 
 «nce in such 
 renewal or ext 
 not been agree 
 not bound to gi 
 gage if in othe 
 Wut, 15 A. R, 
 
 Held, (Hag 
 the mortgagee 
 previous mortj 
 given to secun 
 certain notes, 
 notes referred 
 renewal, then 
 latter niortga; 
 to abandon 
 Dougall, 10 Q 
 r. Smith, 17 
 458, referred t 
 ^il ; Ramsdeu 
 tinguished 
 
 See Tidey v 
 
 The mortga 
 AS uiily becon: 
 day, but the 
 niimey ackuuv 
 of tlie propert 
 given to secu 
 tlie mortgage 
 given for a pr 
 
 t 
 
189 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MOBTQAGES. 
 
 190 
 
 
 ment of said note, or any renewal thereof that 
 shall not extend the liability of the mortgagee 
 beyond one year from the date thereof ; and 
 against any loss that may be sustained by him 
 by reason of such endorsement of said note, or 
 any renewal thereof." The affidavit stated it 
 was made " fiT the express purpose of securing 
 tiie mortgagee against the payment of such his 
 liability tor the said mortgagor by reason of the 
 promissory note therein recited, or any future 
 note or notes which he may endorse for the 
 accommodation of the mortgagor, whether as 
 renewals of the said note or otherwise : " — Held, 
 {reversing the judgment of the court below), that 
 as the mortgage itself was good, and the affida- 
 vit covered all that is required by the Act, that 
 part of the affidavit from " or any future note " 
 to the end was unnecessary, and could not 
 vitiate the security. Keough v. Price, 27 C. P. 
 309, remarked upon. Driscoll v Qreen, 8 A. R. 
 366. 
 
 A chattel mortgage to indemnify an indorser or 
 to secure the mortgagee against liabilities other- 
 wise incurred for the mortgagor, if given in good 
 faith in pursuance of an antecedent absolute 
 promise, is not avoided by the Act relating to 
 aaaignments and preferences by insolvents, mere- 
 ly because it was not given contemporaneously 
 with the endorsement or other liability. The re- 
 quirements of section 6 of the Chattel Mortgage 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 119, as to setting forth an 
 agreement in the mortgage apply only to mortga- 
 ges to secure future advances for the purposes 
 thurein mentioned. In the case of a mortgage 
 under that section as security against liabilities 
 incurred by endorsing, or in any other way ; all 
 that is necessary is that the liability shall be one 
 not extending for a longer period than one year 
 f r jui the date of the mortgage, and shall be suffici- 
 ently described or identified therein. The refer- 
 ence in such a mortgage to a possible future 
 renewal or extension of the liability which has 
 not been agreed for and which the mortgagee is 
 not bound to grant, does not invalidate the mort- 
 gage if in other respects sufficient. Embury v. 
 fVest, 15 A. R. 357. 
 
 Held, (Hagarty, C. J. 0., dissenting), that 
 the mortgagee was entitled to fall back on a 
 previous mortgage covering the same chattels, 
 given to secure him against his endorsement of 
 certain notes, of one of which one of the two 
 notes referred to in the later mortgage was a 
 renewal, there being evidence that when the 
 latter mortgage was taken it was not intended 
 to abandon the earlier one. MoMartin v. Mc- 
 Dougall, 10 Q. B. 399, commented on. Boulton 
 r. Smith, 17 Q. B. 400, in Appeal, 18 Q. B. 
 458, referred to. Smale v. Burr, L. R. 8 C. P. 
 04 ; Ramsdeu v. Lupton, L. R. 9 Q. B. 17, dis- 
 tinguished. Boldrick V. Ryan, 17 A. R. 253. 
 
 See Tidey v. Craib, 4 0. R. 696, p. 190. 
 
 3. Other C<tnes. 
 
 The mortgage shewed the debt in the proviso 
 AS uuly becoming due and payable at a future 
 day, but the consideration was stated to be 
 Diouey acknowledged to be paid for the transfer 
 of tiie property, and the evidence shewed it was 
 Riven to secure an overdue debt : — Held, that 
 tlie mortgage could be upheld, regarding it as 
 jjiveu for u present debt to be paid at a future 
 
 day. Farlinger v. McDonald, 45 Q. B. 233.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The consideration in the mortgage was stated 
 as $1,148 ; but it appeared in evidence that the 
 amount actually owing was only $1,030.80. 
 At the trial the plaintiff was nonsuited, on 
 the ground that the consideration was not truly 
 stated, and that the mortgage was therefore 
 void as against the defendant, an executioa 
 creditor: — Held (Armour, J., dissenting), that 
 the nonsuit was wrong, for the erroneous state- 
 ment of the consideration did not avoid the 
 mortgage as a matter of law, but was a circum- 
 stance lor the jury to consider when deciding 
 the issue of fraud or no fraud. Hamilton v. 
 Harrison, 46 Q. B. 127.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Where two mortgagees, the defendants in this 
 action, took a chattel mortgage to themselves, 
 to secure certain moneys, naving at the time 
 knowledge of a pre-existing debt from the mort- 
 gagor to T. , ana of a prior, but unrenewed chat- 
 tel mortgage to T. to secure the same : — Held, 
 that such conduct did not amount to mala fides, 
 and T.'s unrenewed mortgage was void as against 
 them under R. S. 0. (1877) c. 119. Tidey v. 
 Craib, 4 0. R. 696.— Ferguson. 
 
 Held, that the fact that as to part of the 
 consideratioii for their mortgage the defendants 
 had not made an actual advance, but were merely 
 liable on promissory notes, did not invalidate 
 the mortgage, R. S. 0. (1877) c. 119 not requir- 
 ing, 08 does the corresponding English Act, that 
 the consideration should be truly expressed. lb. 
 
 Part of the consideration of the mortgage was 
 covered by a draft drawn by the mortgagee, a 
 merchant in the course of business, on the mort- 
 gagor, a customer, and discounted at a bank : — 
 Held, that the mere fact of the draft having 
 been discounted at the bank would not justify 
 the Court in assuming that the debt represented 
 by the draft was paid, and that the remedy on 
 the draft was to be alone looked to ; and there- 
 fore that the amount of the indebtedness in the 
 mortgage could not be said to be untruly stated. 
 Meriden Silver Plating Co. v. Lee. 2 O. R. 451, 
 commented on. Hepburn v. Park, 6 O. R. 472. — 
 Osier. — G. P. D., followed in Hyman v. Cuth- 
 bertson, 10 O. R. 443. 
 
 Q. and A. carrying on business as licensed 
 victuallers were indebted to the defendant S., a 
 wine merchant, to the amount of $1,531.66 ; and 
 being desirous of obtaining further advances to 
 aid them in carrying on their business, applied 
 to S. therefor, which S. agreed verbally to make 
 upon receiving security for such advances as 
 well as such prior indebtedness, and Q. and A. 
 accordingly on the 24th of January, 1882, execu- 
 ted a mortgage to S. on all their stock-in-trade, 
 securing $2,400, S. agreeing to make the further 
 advances in money and goods, as they should 
 require them in the course of their business, and 
 he did in fact between the date of the execution 
 of the mortgage and the 3rd of March following, 
 advance to them $300 in money and goods, and 
 the balance of the further advance was ready to 
 be given to them at any time during that period. 
 The affidavit of indebtedness in the sum of $2,400 
 was in the usual form, and the mortgage was 
 duly registered. On the last mentioned date Q. 
 and A. executed a deed of assignment for credi- 
 tors to the defendant C. of all their estate, where- 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 <aE 
 
 
m 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AlH) CHATTEL MOBTaAGES. 
 
 192 
 
 upon S., treating this aBBignment as a breach of 
 the covenant against selling or parting with pos- 
 session of the goods, seized them in the hands of 
 the assignee and sold the same, undertaking to 
 hold the proceeds subject to the order of the 
 court. Thereupon the plaintiff, a simple con- 
 tract creditor of Q. and A., upon a demand due 
 at the date of the mortgage, instituted proceed- 
 ings seeking to recover payment of his claim for 
 9101.94 and interest, and also seeking, on behalf 
 of all the creditors of Q. and A., to have the 
 mortgage declared void, and the amount realized 
 on the sale of the goods paid to the assignee : — 
 Held, that even if the f.ict of the mortgage being 
 expressed on the face of it to be made for a sum 
 greatly in excess of what it was proved was due, 
 was such an objection as might render the secu- 
 rity void under R. S. O. (1877) c. 119, as against 
 creditors, yet it being clearly shewn that every- 
 thincbetween the parties in connection therewith 
 was done bona fide, and there being no creditor in 
 a position to seize the goods if the mortgage were 
 set aside, the plaintiff could not succeed, and the 
 court (Patterson, J. A., dissenting), reversed the 
 judgment of the court below (2 0. R. 342. ) Per 
 Patterson, J. A., the mortgage and the affidavits 
 accompanying it, though in their form and state- 
 ments complying with all that is prescribed by 
 the statute, being untrue in fact rendered the 
 security void. Per Burton, J.A., although no 
 ground was shewn for impeaching the transaction 
 as a fraudulent preference, the mortgnge under 
 the Chattel Mortgage Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 119, 
 was invalid as n(;ainst creditors who were in a 
 position to attack it, wiiich the plaintiff here was 
 not, and as any informalities in the transaction 
 were cured by the mortgagee having taken pos- 
 session of the property, the plaintiff could not 
 maintain the action. 13arker v. Leeson, 1 O. E. 
 114, dissented from. Per Osier, J. A., the agree- 
 ment between the mortgagors and mortgagee 
 might be looked upon as having been really one 
 for a present advance, though the amount was to 
 be paid out to them as they required it. It was 
 not necessary therefore that it should be set forth 
 in the mortgage under section 6 of the Chattel 
 Mortgage Act, R. S. O., (1877) c. 119. Parkes 
 v. St. George, 10 A. R. 496. 
 
 A mercantile firm to whom a customer was 
 indebted on unmatured paper, part of which was 
 under discount at a bank, in good faith and in 
 the honest belief that it would enable him to 
 carry on his business agreed to make a fresh 
 advance to him of about one half of his indebt- 
 edness to them, and took from him to one of the 
 firm a chattel mortgage for the whole amount, 
 the mortgagee making the usual affidavit of bona 
 fides. When the mortgage was executed a cheque 
 for the fresh advance was given to the customer 
 who, pursuant to a subsequent arrangement, did 
 not use it, but afterwards drew at intervals on 
 the firm until the amount of the cheque was 
 
 5 aid, when it was returned :— Held, (Burton, 
 .A., doubting but expressing no opinion on this 
 point), affirming the finding of fact at the trial, 
 that even if the mortgage was defective under 
 the Chattel Mortgage Act yet the plaintiffs' exe- 
 cution creditors were not entitled to prevail, 
 becanse the mortBagee had taken actual posses- 
 sion o( the goods before the delivery of the writ 
 to the sheriff :— Held, also, that the mortgage 
 was valid. (1) Under the Chattel mortgage 
 Act ; though the debt was due to the partner 
 
 ship, one partner could properly take the mort- 
 gage and make the affidavit of bona fides, and it 
 was a mortgage to secure a present actual ad- 
 vance, and not future advances so as to come 
 within section 6 of ihe Act. (2) Under the 
 Assignments and Preferences Act ; because the 
 advance was made in the bona fide belief that 
 the mortgagor would thereby be enabled to con- 
 tinue his business and pay his debts in full. Per 
 Burton, and Osier, JJ.A. Even if the mort- 
 gage had been invalid and the mortgagee had 
 taken possession and sold after the delivery of 
 the writ an action for an account of the proceedg 
 would not lie against him at the suit of the exe- 
 cution creditor. His only remedy would be 
 to follow the goods, and seize them under his 
 execution. Judgment of Boyd, C, affirmed. 
 Jioaa V. Dunn, 16 A. R. 552. 
 
 A husband executed to his wife a chattel mort- 
 gage to secure her against loss by reason of her 
 having barred her dower in certain mortgages of 
 land. The goods were seized by his execution 
 creditors, claimed by her and sold pending inter- 
 pleader proceedings. The husband was still liv- 
 ing : — Held, that the money, the proceeds of the 
 goods, must remain in Court to abide further 
 order, so that the wife could have the same 
 security that she had by the mortgoge ; and if 
 she could not hereafter become entitled to the 
 money, it would be available to the husband's 
 creditors :— Held, also, that the chattel mort- 
 gage was valid, notwithstanding anything in 
 R. S. 0. (1887) c. 125, s. 6. Morris v. Martin, 
 19 0. E. 664.- Chy. D. 
 
 See Stevens, Ttmier tfc Burns Foundry and 
 Oeneral Manvfactimng Company (Limited], v. 
 Barfoot, 9 O. R. 692, p. IS.*) ; Macjie v. I/uvler, 
 9 P. E. 149 ; Kitchimj v. md:s, 6 O. R. 739, p. 
 184 ; JRiver Stave Co. v. Sell, 12 0. R. 557 ; Bobin- 
 nan V. Cook, 6 0. R. 590 ; Furlonr/ v. Beid, 12 
 O. R. 607 ; Gibbons v. Wilson, 17 A. R. 1. 
 
 VI. Description of Goods. 
 
 In a bill of sale certain goods vere described 
 as "one brown stallion, ten years old ; one bay 
 horse, eight years old : one black mare, nine 
 years old :" — Held , a siifficieiit description. Cor- 
 neill V. Abell, 31 0. P. 107.— Wilson. 
 
 Semble, that the description of goods as "in 
 bond," means in the customs warehouse, and is 
 a sufficient description as regards locality. Mat/ 
 V. Security Loan atid Savings Co., 45 Q. B. 106.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Semble, that a piano on board of a vessel would 
 not pass to a mortgagee under the words " with 
 her boats, guns, ammunition, small arms, and 
 appurtenances. " St. John v. Bullivant, 45 Q. R 
 614.-Q. B. D. 
 
 M. owning parts of lots 13 and 14, in the 2nd 
 concession of Murray, gave a chattel mortgage 
 of certain crops, grain, hay, etc., described as 
 "now being on the premises situate on the north- 
 east half of lot 14 in the 2nd concession, and 
 north half of lot 14 in the said concession of 
 Murray :"— Held, that crops and hay upon lot 
 13 could not pass. Grass v. Atistin, 7 A. R. 511. 
 
 The goods and chattels were described in a 
 chattel mortgage as follows :— Certain specific 
 articles were first enumerated in the mortgage, 
 
193 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MOBTOAOES. 
 
 m 
 
 and the description then proceeded, "also the 
 stocli of gold and silver watches, jewellery, and 
 electro-silver plate, which, at the date hereof, is 
 in the possession of the mortgagor in his said 
 store" (being a certain store of the mortgagor 
 thereinbefore specified). The evidence shewed 
 the electro-plated goods and watches were num- 
 bered, and might have been identified thereby : — 
 Held, a sufficient description of the goods mort- 
 gaged. Segsworth v. Meriden Silver Plating Co. , 
 § 0. R. 413.— Boyd. 
 
 In an action against a sherifif for false return 
 the defence was that the goo(''a seized and sub- 
 sequently, on his being indemnified, abandoned 
 by him, and which were on Bald Lake, Buck- 
 horn Lake, Sandy Creek, and Squaw River, were 
 covered by a chattel mortgage to a bank, the 
 goods in which mortgage were described as being 
 "now in and upon the waters of Mud Lake, 
 Pigeon Creek, Pigeon Lake, Sturgeon Lake, and 
 Scugog River, and the shore adjacent thereto. " 
 The evidence shewed that the former wr"- ■ 
 were well known as such, and as distinct from 
 and forming no part of the latter, and thai no 
 part of the goods seized had ever been " in and 
 upon" the latter : — Held, that the words in the 
 mortgage, "now in and upon," expressly limited 
 the goods to which they referred to those goods 
 which were then upon the waters mentioned in 
 the mortgage, and the shore adjacent thereto, 
 and could not include the goods seized. Don- 
 nelly V. Hall, 7 O. R. 581.— Q. B. D, 
 
 In a deed of assignment for the benefit of cre- 
 ditors, goods and chattels were described as all 
 the atock-in-trade, goods and chattels, etc., in- 
 cluding, among other things, all their stock-in- 
 trade which they, the assignors, " now have in 
 their store and dwelling in the village of Ren- 
 frew :" — Held, description insufficient, in that 
 the kind of stock-in-trade should have been men- 
 tioned. The safest course in these cases, in the 
 present uncertain state of the law, is for the 
 assignee to take possession and keep it. Nolan 
 V. Donnelly, 4 0. R. 440.— C. P. D. 
 
 The Consolidated Statutes of Manitoba, c 19, 
 I. 5, enact : "All the instruments mentioned 
 in this Act whether for the sale or mortgage of 
 goods and chattels, shall contain such a full and 
 sufficient description thereof that the same may 
 be thereby readily and easily known and dis- 
 tiL'guished :" — Held, Strong and Henry, JJ., 
 dissenting, that where goods in a chattel mort- 
 gage, were described as " all and singular the 
 goods, chattels, furniture, and household stuff 
 hereinafter particularly mentioned and descrilied 
 and pnrticutarly mentioned and described in the 
 schedule hereunto annexed marked A. ; all of 
 vhich goods and chattels are now situate, lying 
 and being, etc." (particularly describing the pre- 
 mises), without stating that such goods were all 
 the goods on the said premises, there was not a 
 full and sufficient description within the mean 
 ing of the above enactment and the mortgage 
 was void as against oxecution creditors. McCall 
 T. Wolff, 13 S. C. R. 130. 
 
 In a deed of assignnicT^t the property was 
 described as "all the real estate, lands, tene- 
 inents and hereditaments of the aaid debtors 
 (company) whatsoever and wheresoever, of or to 
 which they are now seized or entitled, or of or 
 to which they may have any estate, right or in- 
 terest of any kind or description, itith the ap- 
 
 13 
 
 purtenances, the particulars of which are more 
 particularly set out in the schedule hereto, and 
 all and singular the personal estate and effects, 
 stock-in-trade, goods, chattels * * and all 
 other the personal estate, and cfl'octs whatsoever 
 and wheresoever, whether upon the premises 
 where the debtors' business is carried on or else- 
 where, and which the said debtors are possessed 
 of or entitled to in any way whatever." The 
 schedule annexed specihcally designated the real 
 estate and included the foundry, erections and 
 buildings thereon erected, and all articles such 
 as engines, etc., in or upon said premises : — Held, 
 that this was a sufficient description of the pro- 
 perty intended to be conveyed to satisfy section 
 23of R. S. O. (1877) c. 119. McCall v. Wolff, 
 13 S. C. R. 130, approved and distinguished. 
 But see now 48 Vict. c. 26, s. 12, passed since 
 this case was decided. Hovey v. W kiting, 14 S. 
 C. R. 515. See S. C, sum nam. Whiting v. 
 Hoiey, 13 A. R. 7 ; 9 O. R. 314. 
 
 Semble, A description of property in a bill of 
 sale or chattel mortgage as " the stock-in-trade" 
 of the grantor in a specified locality, such as his 
 store or warehouse in such a place or street is 
 sufficient. Nolan v. Donelly, 4 O. R. 440, ob- 
 served upon. McCall i-. Wolf, 13 S. C. R. 130, 
 followed. lb. 
 
 What is a sufficient description of chattels 
 and animals discussed. See Boldrick v. Ryan, 
 17 A. R. 253. 
 
 See Connell v. Hickock, 15 A. R. 518, p. 180. 
 
 VIII. Rights and Liabilities of Mortoagors 
 AND Mortgagees, and those Claimino 
 UNDER Them. 
 
 1. ^.s to Possession. 
 
 The plaintiff, carrying on the business of a 
 druggist, mortgaged his stock-in-trade to the 
 defendant ; the instrument by which it was 
 effected, stipulating that the defendant should 
 take possession of the stock and premises, to 
 hold for four months in order to secure repay- 
 ment of money advanced, and power was given 
 to the mortgagee to add new stock so as to Keep 
 up the business. Default was made in payment, 
 and thereafter a large amount of stock was added, 
 some of the money being expended by the defen- 
 dant with the absent of the plaintiff; other money 
 being part of the profits of the business was thus 
 reinvested in new stock ; some of the old stock 
 remaining in specie. The matter was referred 
 to the master at Belleville, to take the accounts 
 of the dealings between the parties. Before the 
 master made his report, the plaintiff applied on 
 petition for the appointment of a receiver, on 
 the ground that the mortgage had been paid in 
 full :— Held, (1) that as the new stock belonged 
 to the mortgagee himself and the plaintiff could 
 could thereK>re have no claim upon it, and as 
 the master had not yet found which party was 
 indebted to the other, his finding would not be 
 anticipated by the appointment of a' receiver ; 
 (2) that althougli tlie defendant's right on default, 
 was to sell the original stock en bloc after notice, 
 still the defendant was at liberty to add further 
 capital and stock to the business, but not to the 
 prejudice of the mortgagor mo as to improve him 
 out of his estate ; and so long as the plaintiff 
 chose to allow the business to go on under the 
 
 g 
 
 i 
 
 •as 
 
 IS 
 
 J? 
 
 « 
 

 196 
 
 BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MOBTGAOES. 
 
 196 
 
 ,«• 
 
 Jtm 
 
 defendant's control, he had the right so to con- 
 duct it, subject to being called on to account. 
 Foster v. Murden, 29 Chy. 25.— Boyd. 
 
 Semble, per Wilson, 0. J. , that the purchaser 
 from the mortgagee under the power of sale con- 
 tained in the mortgage, leaving the mortgagor 
 in possession, is protected so long as the mort- 
 gage under which he bought has the protection 
 given it by registration : but when the term of 
 the mortgage expires the purchaser is no longer 
 protected, unless be takes actual possession, or 
 procures and registers a bill of sale from the 
 mortgagee. Carlixle v. Tait, 32 C. P. 43. 
 
 The plaintiff gave a chattel mortgage to H. to 
 secure certain money, with a proviso enabling 
 the mortgagee to take possession, and sell in case 
 the goods should be taken in execution by any 
 creditor of the mortgagor. These goods were so 
 taken and the defendant, to whom the mortgage 
 had been assigned by H. , took possession and 
 sold under it, for which the plaintiff sued in this 
 action, alleging that H. the mortgagee, verbally 
 agreed to pay these executions which were made 
 part of the money secured :— Held, that defen- 
 dant as as&ignee, took subject to such agreement 
 (which did not vary the terms of the mortgage), 
 though without notice of it : and that the plain- 
 tiff was therefore improperly nonsuited. Martin 
 V. Bearman, 4.5 Q. B. 205.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The chattel mortgage contained no redemise 
 clause, but did contain a clause that the mort- 
 gagee might take the goods if the mortgagor at- 
 tempted to sell, dispose of, or part with the pos- 
 session of the goods : — Held, that the mortgagee 
 had the right under the circumstances, of this 
 case to take the goods, although default in pay- 
 ment had not been made. Whimstll v. Oiffard, 
 3 0. R. 1.— Q. B. D. 
 
 In a chattel mortgage of the stock-in-trade and 
 business effects of a trader there was a proviso 
 to the effect that if the mortgagor should attempt 
 to sell or dispose of the said goods the mortga- 
 gee might take possession of the same as in case 
 of default of payment : — Held, that this proviso 
 only prohibited the sale of goods other than in 
 the ordinary course of business. (Ritchie, C.J., 
 contra.) Dedrkk v. Ashdovm, 15 S. C. R. 227. 
 
 See Robim v. Clark, 45 Q. B. 362 ; Whimell 
 V, Giffard, 3 0. R. 1, p. 196. 
 
 2. Other Cases. 
 The plaintiff, the holder of a chattel mortgage 
 vith a covenant for payment, was not scheduled 
 in proceedings in insolvency under the Act of 
 1873, but he was aware of the proceedings, and 
 the insolvent obtained a final discharge :— Held, 
 that the debt under the chattel mortgage was 
 not extinguished. Beaty v. Samuel, 29 Chy. 
 105. — Ferguson. 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the County 
 Court (Burton, J. A., dissenting), that the as- 
 signee of an insolvent mortgagor can, for the 
 benefit of creditors impeach a chattel mortgage 
 for noncompliance with the Chattel Mortgage 
 Act. Be Barrett, an IiisolveiU, 5 A. R. 206. 
 
 In trover for goods against an assignee in in- 
 solvency :— Held, following the last case that 
 the assignee may object to the absence of a bill 
 of sale on an alleged sale by the insolvent, just 
 
 as an execution creditor or subsequent purchaser 
 for value may do. Snarr v. Smith, 45 Q. B. 
 156.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A chattel mortgage which has expired by 
 effluxion of time under R. S. O. (1877) c. 119, g. 
 10, and has not been renewed or refiled, ceases to 
 be valid as against all creditors of the mortga- 
 gor then existing ; and a sale on default in gwxi 
 faith, made by tne mortgagee, with the consent 
 of the mortgagor, though good as between the 
 parties to the mortgage, only passes to the pur- 
 chaser a title subject to the rights of any credi- 
 tors who may take steps to follow the goods. 
 Barker v. Leeson, 1 O. R. 1 14. — Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff was mortgagee of certain goods 
 of one F. G. , a tenant of his father, the defen- 
 dant C. G. The landlord on the 17th February, 
 1883, went to the house of the tenant, and de- 
 clared that he seized everything for rent. He 
 touched nothing and made no inventory. On 
 24th February he went again and told the ten- 
 ant's wife that the property had been seized for 
 rent and to let no one take anything away, when 
 she promised to do her best for him. On 5tli 
 March the plaintiff, hearing that the goods were 
 going to be seized for rent, took possession under 
 his mortgage and removed the goods. A baiM 
 went the next day for taxes in arrear, and the 
 landlord gave him a distress warrant to take 
 goods for rent. The bailiff then took the goodi 
 which had been removed, and on the tenants 
 waiving an inventory .advertising, etc. , sold them 
 within two days to a nephew of the landlord :— 
 Qusre, whether a tenant can waive all statutable 
 formalities as to inventory, etc. , as regards the 
 mortgagee. Whimnell v. Giffard, 3 0. R. 1.— 
 Q. B. U. 
 
 Where a sheriff seizes goods under writs of 
 execution, and a mortgagee lays claim to them 
 under a chattel mortgage, the fact that he sub- 
 sequently directs the sheriff to sell under the 
 executions, does not necessarily amount to a 
 waiver of his claim under the mortgage. Segt- 
 worth V. Merideii Silver Plating Co., 3 0. R. 
 413.— Boyd. 
 
 H,, in consideration of his relieving C. from 
 executions against him, procured from C. and 
 his wife, the plaintiff, a promissory note for the 
 amount thereof, and also a chattel mortgage on 
 the goods of both as collateral security. He dis- 
 counted the note at a bank, and with the pro- 
 ceeds paid off the executions. Afterwards, hut 
 before the maturity of the note, and while it was 
 in the bank's hands, claiming that there was a 
 breach of the mortgage by the removal of cer- 
 tain goods which was disproved, and refusing 
 to allow the mortgagors to redeem, he took the 
 goods thereunder, and sold them, selling goods, 
 beyond the amount required to satisfy the mort- 
 .^age, including the plaintiff's own goods to the 
 amount of $137.50. In an action by the plaiu- 
 tiff to recover the damage thereby sustained, the 
 jury gave $275 : — Held, that the plaintiff was 
 entitled to recover : 1. The note being the prin- 
 cipal security, and the chattel mortgage merely 
 collateral, H. could not proceed on the mortsa^ 
 while the note was thus outstanding. 2. The 
 sr.ie was illegal by reason of the refusal of re- 
 c" jmption. 3. Even if the sale were merely irre- 
 gular in selling for a supposed breach, the plain- 
 tiff was entitled to recover the value of the 
 excess of the goods sold, and other damages be- 
 
m 
 
 BOND. 
 
 198 
 
 to them 
 
 he aab- 
 iniler the 
 >uut to a 
 Segt- 
 
 3 O.K. 
 
 C. from 
 II C. and 
 te for the 
 )rtgage on 
 Hedia- 
 the pro- 
 ards,but 
 lile it WM 
 ere was a 
 al of cer- 
 refusing 
 took the 
 ng goods, 
 the mort- 
 ods to the 
 the plain- 
 lined, the 
 intitf was 
 the prin- 
 ge merely 
 mortgage 
 2. The 
 isal of re- 
 lerely irre- 
 the phkin- 
 ae of the 
 images be- 
 
 yond nominal for her interest in the goods ; and 
 the verdict was held not excessive. 4 removal 
 of goods to justify a seizure under a chattel 
 mortgage must be by the mortgagors or on their 
 behalf, and not a wrongful removal by others. 
 Cochrane v. Boucher, 3 0. R. ^.62 — C. P. D. 
 
 Where a policy of insurance against loss or 
 damage by fire contained the following provision: 
 _' ■ If the property insured is assigned without 
 the written consent of the head oi£ce, * * 
 this policy shall thereby become void : " — Held, 
 that a chattel mortgage of the property insured 
 was not an assignment within the meaning of 
 sach condition. Sovereign Fire Ins. Go, of Van- 
 ada v. Peters, 12 S. C. R. 33. 
 
 A. C, owner of certain lands, mortgaged them 
 to a loan company, and afterwards executed two 
 successive mortgages to one H. Afterwards, 
 in 1887, A. C. sowed a quantity of fall wheat, 
 and in January, 1888, made a chattel mortgage 
 •of this wheat to G. , which chattel mortgage was 
 properly registered. On 4th April, 1888, oef ore 
 the harvest, under pressure from H., A. G. con- 
 veyed to H. the lands for a consideration equal 
 to what was due on the three mortgages, and a 
 small additional unsecured debt due from him 
 to H. On the 5th April, 1888, H. leased the 
 property to A. J. C. for a year. When the fall 
 wheat was ripe, A. J. C. cut and harvested it, but 
 G. sent and seized it under his chattel mortgage, 
 and A. J. C. now brought this action to recover 
 its value : — Held, that on his taking the convey- 
 ance from A. C, the rights of H., as mortgagee, 
 were merged, for the evidence pointed strongly 
 against an intention on his part that the mort- 
 gage debts should remain, and therefore G.'s 
 right as chattel mortgagee became prior in point 
 of time to the title of H., and the action must be 
 dismissed. As mortgagee, H. would no doubt 
 have had the right to take possession of the 
 crops as part of his security. Cameron v. Gib- 
 mi, 17 0. R. 233.— Street. 
 
 See King v. Duncan, 29 Chy. 113; Robins v. 
 Ckrk, 45 Q. B. 362 ; Brown v. Sweet, 7 A. R. 725 ; 
 Barker w. Leeson, 1 0. R. 114; Banks v. Robinson, 
 150.R.618, p. 181. 
 
 IX. Who May Impeach. 
 
 A judgment or execution creditor is entitled 
 to unpeach a chattel mortgage on the ground of 
 an irregularity or informality in the execution of 
 the document, or by reason of its noncompliance 
 with the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Act 
 R. S. 0. (1877) 0. 1 19 ; but a creditor who is not 
 inaposition to seize or levy on an execution on the 
 property, cannot maintain un action to have the 
 instrument declared invalid. A creditor in that 
 position can only maintain such a proceeding 
 where the security is impeached on the ground 
 of frand. Parkes v. St. George, 10 A. R, 496. 
 
 The plaintiffs took a chattel moitgage from 
 W., who the next day assigned to the defendant 
 in trust for the benefit of his creditors. The 
 defendant was not a creditor, and before any 
 creditor had been informed of the assignment 
 the plaintiffs, who had omitted to register their 
 mortgage, demanded of the defendant the goods 
 contained in it, which was refused, whereupon 
 this action was brought. Upon the application 
 of the defendant, with the consent of M. , a cre- 
 ditor of W., the Master in chambers ordered M. 
 
 to be adiled as a party defendant. In order to 
 test the validity of the plaintiffs' mortgage : — 
 Held, affirming the order of Gait, J., who res- 
 cindeid the master's order, that the defendant 
 was not entitled to the order, for when the plain- 
 tiff demanded the goods the creditors had no 
 right, and they could not by a subsequent assent 
 make good their claim under tbe assignment. 
 Hyman v. Bourne, 5 O. R. 430.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, following Parkes v. St. George, 10 A. R. 
 496, that the plaintiffs, not beir^g execution 
 creditors, 'lould not maintain an action to set 
 aside the Luortgage or. the ground that the debt 
 was incorrectly stated therem. Hyman v. Cuth- 
 bertson, 10 0. R. 443.— Q. B. D. 
 
 QuiBre, whether the liquidator of a company 
 under the Winding-Up Act of Canada, R. S. G. 
 c. 129, can object to the want of registration or 
 other formal defects in a chattel mortgage as an 
 execution creditor or subsequent mortgagee could 
 do. In re Rainy Lake Lumber Co., Stetoart, 
 Liquidator, v. Union Bank of Lower Canada, 15 
 A. R. 749. 
 
 See Griffin v. McKenzie, 46 Q. B. 93, p. 187 ; 
 Barkery. Leeson, 1 0. R. 114, p. \9^; Kitching v. 
 Hicks,6(). R. 739, p. 184; Macdonald v. McCall, 
 13 S. C. R. 247. 
 
 BOABD OF AUDIT. 
 
 See County Ceown Attobney. 
 
 BOABDINQ HOUSE. 
 
 See Innkeepke. 
 
 Upon the evidence in this case the county court 
 Judge decided that the defendant was not a board- 
 ing house keeper within R. S. 0. (1877) c. 147. 
 Wilson, J^. , indicated that he would have decided 
 otherwise. See Bees v. McKeown, 7 A. R. 521. 
 
 J. and his wife took rooms in premises kept by 
 defendant R. A., called the " Snandon House, ' 
 partly Ifumishing them and agreeing to pay $50 
 per month for rooms and board. Subsequently 
 they rented from plaintiff a piano. They left 
 the "Shandon House" in debt for board and 
 lodging to R. A., who thereupon detained the 
 piano, which was claimed by the plaintiff: — 
 Held, that the relation between the defendant 
 R. A. and J. was not that of innkeeper and 
 guest, but of boarding house keeper and boarder:- 
 Held, also, that as the piano was not the property 
 of J. and his wife, defendant had no lien on it 
 for board and lodging under R. S.O. (1877) c. 147. 
 Newcombe v. Anderson, 11 O. R. 665. — Q. B. D. 
 
 Qutere, whether the house kept by defendant 
 R. A. was an " inn " within the meaning of R. 
 S. O. (1877) c. 147, 8. 1. lb. 
 
 BOND. 
 
 I. Particular Bonds. 
 
 1. Appeal— See Couet of Appxal — 
 Privy Council— Supeehjh Goubt. 
 
 S 
 S 
 
 
 
I'm 
 
 m 
 
 BROKEB. 
 
 20O 
 
 2. Debenturt»—See Debentcres. 
 
 3. Division Court— See Division Copkts. 
 
 4. Rejilevin—See Replevin. 
 
 5. Baihvay—See Railways and Rail- 
 
 way Companies. 
 
 6. Security for Costs— See Costs. 
 
 7. Surety— See Principal and Surety. 
 
 By husband to wife. See Glass v. Burt, 8 0. 
 B. 391. 
 
 The bond contained a stipulation that in the 
 event of any sum being found due by M. to the 
 bank, interest should be payable thereon from the 
 time an account of the balance due was delivered 
 to the parties to the bond by the bank, aud 
 judgment was given in the coiu-t below in excess 
 of the penalty: — Held, however, as the law 
 would not allow a verdict against the obligors 
 for a greater sum than the penalty, interest 
 could not be computed on that amount until 
 after judgmeiit. Exchange Bank v. Springer; 
 Exchange Bank v. Barnes, 13 A. R. 390. 
 
 Defence to an action on a bond against sure- 
 ties that the bond when executed had no seals. 
 See Marshall ▼. Munidpality of Shelbume, 14 S. 
 C.R. 737. 
 
 Forfeiture of condition in bond and mortgage 
 to carry on a factory for twenty years, etc., in 
 consideration of receiving a municipal bonus. 
 See Village of Brussels v. Ronald, 4 O. R. 1 ; 11 
 A. R. 605. 
 
 A solicitor for a party will not be accepted by 
 the court as a bondsman for such party. Re 
 Oibson, 13 P. R. 359.— Robertson. 
 
 Evidence of being executed in blank — estoppel 
 •f defence from denying execution. See Regma 
 T. Chesley, 16 S. C. R. 306. 
 
 BONUS. 
 
 I. To Manufacturers — See Municipal 
 
 COKPORATIONS. 
 
 II. To Railways— 5'ee Railways AND Rail- 
 way Companies. 
 
 BOOKS. 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 BOXJNDABT. 
 
 L DxitcRiPTioN OF Land— 5'ee Deed. 
 n. Party Walls- See Buildings. 
 
 III. Possession under Mistake in Bounda- 
 
 ries— iSfee Limitation of Actions. 
 
 IV. Survey— See Survey. 
 
 V. By WATER-5'ec Water and Water 
 Courses. 
 
 Estoppel of adjoining proprietor from dibpa. 
 ting line run by surveyor with his acquiescence 
 after building operations had been commenced. 
 Orasett v. Carter, 10 S. C. R. 105. 
 
 The clause in the Act of Incorporation of the 
 Town of St. Johns, P. Q., extending the limits 
 of the town to the middle of the Richelieu River, 
 a navigable river, is intra vires the I'lovincial 
 Legislature. Central Vermont R. W. Co. v. Tovm 
 of St. Johns, 14 S. C. R. 288 ; 14 App. Cas, 590. 
 
 See Mooney v. Mclnto/ih, 14 S. C. R. 740 ; 
 McArtkur v. Browne, 17 S. C. R. 61. 
 
 BBEAOH OF PBOMISE OF HABBIAGE. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 BBEAD. 
 
 See Municipal Corporations. 
 
 BBIBEBT. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Parliamentary Elec- 
 tions. 
 
 Bonus by-law procured by bribery. See h 
 re Langdon and The Arthur Junction R. W. Co, 
 45 Q. B. 47. 
 
 XL 
 
 BBIDQE. 
 
 Construction and Maintenance of. 
 
 1. By Municipalities— See Way. 
 
 2. By Railway Companies—See Bail- 
 
 ways AND Railway Companies. 
 
 International Bridge Company— iJee 
 International Bridge Company. 
 
 Nominal damages and costs awarded against 
 defendant for infringing the rights of the plain- 
 tiflPs ferriage, by building a temporary bridge 
 across the river, defendant having removed the 
 bridge. See Oalameau v. OuiWault, 16S. C. B. 
 579. 
 
 BBITISH NOBTH AMEBIOA AOT, 1867. 
 See Constitutional Law. 
 
 BBOKEB. 
 
 Action against the defendants, stock-broken 
 at Toronto, for breach of duty in not buying cer- 
 tain stock for the plaintiff. On 25th March, the 
 plaintiff by telegraph instructed defendants to 
 buy the stock at 114 or less, which defendants 
 by letter in reply agreed to do, but siiid thtt 
 the telegram was received too late to enable them 
 to act on it that day. On Monday following, the 
 
201 
 
 BEOKEB. 
 
 90S 
 
 27th, defendants telegraphed plaintiff that they 
 had cancelled his order in the meantime, as there 
 were unfavourable rumours about the stock, and 
 that they were writing. The plaintiff received 
 this about noon the same day, but did not answer 
 it, waiting for the letter, which he received about 
 five o'clock the following day, the 28th, being 
 to tiio same effect as the telegram, and asking 
 the plaintiff to repeat the order if ho wished 
 defendant to buy for him. The plaintiff on the 
 receipt of the letter wrote, that from defendants' 
 telegram ho expected something more tangible 
 anddnlinito tliii mere general unfavourable im- 
 pression and suspicion for not filline his order, 
 and tiierefore waited for defendants' letter ; that 
 he had given a positive order to buy, etc. : — 
 Held, ( 1 ) tliat the correspondence shewed that 
 the plaintiff ratified or assented to the defendants' 
 course of conduct in disobeying his instructions 
 and exercising their discretion ; that the eon- 
 Btriietion of the correspondence was for the court 
 and not for the jury ; (2) that at all events no 
 damage was proved, as on the Monday when the 
 plaintiff became aware that defendants had de- 
 cided not to buy, the stock was still at 114. 
 Smith v. Forbex, 32 C. P. fi71.— C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff pledged with the defendants, 
 certain shares of bank stock, as security for a loan 
 under an agreement in writing, providing tliat 
 he was to keep up a casli margin of not less than 
 ten per cent, above the market price of the stock, 
 and authorizing the bank, in the event of default, 
 " to sell or dispose of the said security without 
 notice, and to apply the proceeds in liquidation 
 of the said advance." The plaintiff claimed that 
 before default was made, the bank wrongfully 
 loaned or sold his stock without his knowledge 
 or consent ; and that he was entitled to credit for 
 the amount realized, and to a return of interest 
 paid, and damages for being compelled to give 
 additional security. The defendants alleged that 
 althougii tlio stock was transferred backwards 
 and forwards by way of loan, it was never sold 
 until default was made :— Held, that if the stock 
 was sold before default made, such sale was tor- 
 tious, and following ex parte Dennison, 3Ves. 
 652, that a loan of the stock was a sale ; and that 
 the plaintiff might elect, either to claim damages, 
 or affirm the sale and claim the proceeds and 
 profits made by the bank ; one clement of the 
 measure of damages being, the highest point of 
 the stock market between the conversion and 
 the next default. But that if default was made, 
 the bank was entitled to sell the stock without 
 notice ; but only for the purpose of liquidating 
 the advance, and that credit must be given for 
 the proceeds, at the current rates of the days on 
 which the transfers were made, until the shares 
 had been transferred. Carnegie v. Federal Bank 
 o/CaiMda,5 0. R. 418.— Boyd. 
 
 In his pleadings, in an action for an account 
 the plaintiff set up that on 23rd April, 1878, he 
 transferred to the defendant 160 shares of a cer- 
 tain bank, as a security for a loan, and that pend- 
 ing the loan the defendants had sold the said 
 stock and realized more than the indebtedness, 
 whereof he claimed an account, and the parties 
 went to trial on admissions that the bank stock 
 was in the defendants' hands at the said date. 
 In the master's office, the plaintiff sought to raise 
 »n issue as to whether the defendants actually 
 did hold the bank stock on that date, or whether, 
 
 having held it previously as security for another 
 loan, thev had not parted with it before the said 
 date, and falsely represented to the plaintiff that 
 they still held it, and whether they were not liable 
 to be charged with its market value as of that 
 date : — Scmble, that inasmuch as it appeared that 
 the defendants held at the date of the loan 160 
 shares of the bank in question : and inasmuch as 
 the particular shares were not identified or ear- 
 marked in any way, it could not be -sonsidered 
 proved that tho defendants had not 160 shares 
 applicable to the plaintiff's loan on the date in 
 question. S. G.SO.R. 75.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff, a broker, pledged certain stock 
 with the defendants, brokers, for advances, and 
 it was agreed that the plaintiff might call for his 
 stock or tlic defendants for their money on two 
 days' notice. The defendants being in need of 
 tliat stock immediately used it for the purpose of 
 filling their own engagements. Subsequently 
 the defendants alleged that the plaintiff^ was in 
 default, and the plaintiff, not being aware that 
 they had disposed of his stock, gave them his 
 promissory notes for the amount claimed by the 
 defendants. He subsequently discovered that 
 they had sold tlie stock. The defendants set up 
 in defence to this action for the wrongful sale an 
 alleged custom of brokers that upon stock being 
 pledged to a broker he might use it as his own, 
 being ready to return to the pledgee when called 
 upon an equal number of shares of the same 
 stock : — Held, that no such custom was proved, 
 nor would such a custom be valid ; that the par- 
 ties might have agreed to be bound by such man- 
 ner of dealing, but in this case no such agreement 
 was proved. Mara v. Cox, 6 O. R. 359. — C. 
 P. D. 
 
 Held, that the defendants might lawfully 
 have rcpledged tlie stock to enable them to raise 
 the advances to the plaintiff, but that tlie sales 
 and other dispositions of the stock by tho defen- 
 dants without notice to the plaintiff, and when 
 he was not in default, were wrongful, and that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the de- 
 fendants the prices at which they sold the stock. 
 lb. 
 
 The jury found that the settlement which re- 
 sulted in the plaintiff giving notes to the defen- 
 dants was made by him with full knowledge of 
 his rights, but under pressure, and on this and 
 other findings a verdict was returned for the 
 defendants. The court, being of opinion that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict but for 
 this finding, and that the finding was against 
 law and evidence, directed a new trial, lb. 
 
 Plaintiff employed F. as his broker to purchase 
 shares in Federal Bank stock and to carry the 
 same for him until 1st December on margin, 
 depositing with him a large sum of money for 
 that purpose. F. transferred his business to the 
 defendants in July and with it paid over to them 
 the whole of the money which had been left ia 
 his hands by the plaintiff and they assumed F.'s 
 contract with the latter. On the 10th of August 
 they informed him of this by letter. On the 
 12th October the defendants called upon plaintiff 
 to put up $2,000 additional margin, the stock 
 having fallen in value, and on denkult they pro- 
 fessed to sell and represented to him that they 
 had sold his shares at a loss and charged him 
 with the difference thereon — upwards of $2,000. 
 
 I 
 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 IS 
 
 a 
 
20S 
 
 BXJILDIKa SOOIETT. 
 
 2M 
 
 It »ppeare(l that F. had never bought shares for 
 the ^aintiif; that he had not transferred and 
 that the defendants had never received any 
 ■hares from him for the plaintiff. The alleged 
 sale of these shares with the loss or difference on 
 which the defendants had charged the plaintiff 
 waa a mere pretence, defendants never having 
 bad any shares of the plaintiff to sell and the 
 broker with whom they had made the arrange- 
 ment to become the pretended purchaser havnig 
 bought none from them:— Held, nffirming the 
 judgment of the Common Pleas Division, 6 O. K. 
 505, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover 
 the money he had deposited with F. and which 
 the defendants had received from him, as money 
 had and received. Sutherland v. Cox, 15 A. R. 
 541, affirmed by the Supreme Court. 
 
 A contract by a broker to purchase stock for 
 a customer is not satisfied by the broker holding 
 himself liable to account for the market value of 
 the stock when the customer calls upon him to do 
 80 or then purchasing stock to comply with the 
 demand. If any such custom existed among 
 brokers, of which there was no evidence, it 
 would not be binding on the customer, unless he 
 knew of it and specially submitted to its con- 
 ditions, lb. 
 
 A firm of brokers purchased twenty shares of 
 bank stock for the defendant, the latter agreeing 
 to repay to the former the price paid therefor 
 on demand with interest, the brokers to hold the 
 stock as collateral security and receive a ten per 
 cent, margin and one quarter per cent, commis- 
 sion. The brokers took the stock in their own 
 names, and then transferred it to a loan company 
 together with other stock of the same character, 
 the transfer by them, though absolute in form, 
 being in fact a pledge to secure the repayment 
 of a much larger amount than the sum payable 
 by the defendant. The pledge had no reference 
 to the transaction with defendant, but was for 
 the brokers' own purposes. The defendant was 
 not informed of the transfer, and calls for further 
 margins were made from time to time as the 
 stock fell. On the 27th June, 1884, the brokers 
 suspended payment, at which date the stock had 
 fallen considerably ; and on the 26th December 
 they made an assignment for the benefit of credi- 
 tors to the plaintiff. Neither at the time of the 
 suspension or assignment, was any unpledged or 
 nnhypothecated stock held for or by the brokers, 
 nor was any transferred to the plaintiff, there 
 being only a right in him to redeem any stock 
 undisposed of by the pledgees. On the 4th 
 August, 1885, after the stock had, by legislative 
 enactment, been reduced to one-half its original 
 par value, or from $100 to |60 per share, the 
 plaintiff offered to transfer twenty shares of the 
 reduced stock, which the defendant refused to 
 accept. The plaintiff then brought this action 
 against defendant to recover the alleged balance 
 due on the stock : — Held, there could be no re- 
 covery, for that the delivery of the stock and 
 payment of the price were concurrent acts, and 
 the brokers were not in a position after the time 
 of insolvency to deliver the same, while at the 
 time of the plaintiff's offer there was no stock of 
 the nominal value per share of that which the 
 brokers purchased for the defendant, Clarkson 
 V. Snider, 10 O. R. 561.-C. P. D. 
 
 See Bice v. Ounn, 4 0. R. 579 ; In re The Cen- 
 tral Bank oj Canada — Bainea' Case, Nasmith'a 
 
 Case, 16 O. R. 293 ; 16 A, R. 237, p. 256 ; Dugtjcn 
 V. London and Canadian Loan and Agency Co 
 19 0. E. 272, p. 256. 
 
 BUILDINO cor ..'RAOT. 
 
 I. Contract— iS^fe Work and Labovs. 
 II. Mechanics' Lien— .See Likn. 
 
 BUILDINO SOOIETT. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 Held, under C. S. U. C, c. 53, s. 40, and 36 , 
 Vict. c. 104, s. 9 (Dom. ), that the plaintiffs, a loan 
 and savings society, were empowered to make 
 loans by way of mortgage oi real estate to a 
 person not a member thereof, and to take og 
 collateral security therefor the promissory note 
 of a person also not such member. Fri.chold 
 Loan and Savi7i(js' Society v. Farrell, 31 C. P. 
 453.— Wilson. 
 
 By section 3 of 37 Vict. c. 50, (Dom.) borrowers 
 from building societies incorporated under C. S. 
 U. C. c. 53, though not members of the society 
 or signing the rules, are made subject to all rules 
 in force at the time of becoming borrowers, so 
 that by virtue of such rules the society, on a sale 
 of land under a mortgage given by such borrower 
 to the society on default before the expiration of 
 the term fixed by the mortgage, are not restricted 
 to the amount originally advanced with the tlien 
 accrued interest, but are entitled in addition 
 thereto to discount the future repayment at such 
 rate of interest, and at such terms as the direc- 
 tors determine. The costs of sale and commis- 
 sion thereon were held to ba properly chargeable, 
 but not a charge for insurance and survey, or the 
 costs of an action on the covenant, as not coming 
 within the rules. Oreen v. Jiamilton Providmt 
 Loan Co., 31 C. P. 574.— C. P. D. 
 
 A mortgage was made, pursuant to 9 Vict. c. 
 90, to the president and treasurer of a building 
 society, their successors and assigns, in trust for 
 the society. The society having subsequently 
 exercised the power of sale, the then president 
 and treasurer, successors of the original mort- 
 gagees, conveyed to the purchaser by a deed 
 under seal not being the society's seal. The 
 purchaser sold to G. , who objected to the title :— 
 Held, that the lands were conveyed in fee simple 
 to the president and treasurer by the mortgage, 
 and that these officers for the time being had 
 the power to convey in fee, that the power waa 
 duly exercised by them, and G. was bound to 
 accept the title. Be Inylehart and Oagnier, 2ft 
 Chy. 418.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A circular was issued, with the knowledge of 
 the directors of the defendants' company, which, 
 amongst other things, set out that "loans can 
 be paid at any time and a discharge of the mort- 
 gage will be given, the rule of the society being, 
 when this privilege is taken advantage of, to 
 charge three montns' additional interest at the 
 same rate at which the loan was made." The 
 plaintiff saw this circular exposed in the o£Sce of 
 
ao6 
 
 BUILDINGS. 
 
 an appraiser of the company through whom the 
 loan was effected, and was thereby induced to 
 mortgage his land for twenty years, the loan to 
 1)6 repayable on the inataltnent plan : —Held, 
 (affirniiiig the decree of the court below), that the 
 plaintiff could insist on redeeming his mortgage 
 according to the terms set forth in tlie circular, 
 sucii right being s-istainable either on the footing 
 of tiio contract evidenced by the mortgage, the 
 effect of which was to incorporate the rules of 
 the society, while the evidence shewed tliat what 
 was put forward in tlie circular as the rule of 
 the society, was one of the rules referred to in 
 the mortgage ; or on the footing of a collateral 
 and independent contract. Hodgiim v. Ontario 
 Loan and Debenture Co., 7 A. R. 202. 
 
 Held, that although thj mortgage recited 
 that the mortgagor was a member of the society, 
 having subscribed for eighty-eight sliares of the 
 stock, which the society nad agreed to pay him in 
 advance on receiving that security therefor, etc., 
 yet witliout express stipulation to that effect, the 
 mortgagor could not be affected by rules made 
 subsequently to the execution of the mortgage, 
 even if he could under the system under which 
 the operations of the society were carried on lie 
 considered a member when he had received the 
 amount of his shares ; but that at all events his 
 liability could not be extended beyond the clear 
 words of his contract, whicli did not point to 
 any but the then existing rules, lb. 
 
 L. Cie do V. , a building society incorporated 
 under Con. Stats. L. C. c. 69, by its by-laws, on 
 the 21st August, declared that the principal 
 object. of the society was to purchase building 
 lots, and to build on such lots cottages costing 
 about $1,000 each for every one of its members. 
 In order to obtain its object the company, 
 through its directors, obeying the instructions of 
 the shareholders, on the 7th October, 1874, pur- 
 chased the particular lots described in the by- 
 laws and contracted for the building of twenty- 
 four cottages at f 1,250 each, the amount that 
 each of the shareholders had agreed to pay. A 
 year elapsed, during which the cottages were 
 built and drawn by lot for distribution among 
 the members. On the 11th October, 1875, the 
 vendors of the lots an<l contractors for the build- 
 ing of the cottages borrowed money from the 
 Dominion Building Society, and transferred to 
 the same as collateral security the moneys due 
 them by the appellants in virtue of the deeds of 
 purchase and building contract. The appellant 
 company accepted the transfer and paid some 
 moneys on account, and finally a deed of settle- 
 ment acte de reglement de compte was executed 
 between the two companies, upon which was 
 based the suit by H. , the respondent, as assignee 
 of the Dominion Mortgage Loan Company, 
 (which name was substituted for that of "The 
 Dominion Building Society," by 40 Vict. c. 80 
 (Dom.), against the appellants. The question 
 argued on the appeal was whether the purchase 
 of the lots and contract for building entered into 
 by the directors was intra vires the appellant 
 company :— Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 court below, that as the transaction in question 
 was for the purpose of carrying out the objects 
 of the society in strict accordance with its views, 
 it was not ultra vires. (Strong and Gwynne, 
 JJ., dissenting). La Compaqnie de Villas du 
 Cap Gibraltar v. Hughes, 11 S. C. R. 537. 
 
 BUILDINQS. 
 
 I. Party Walls, 206. 
 
 II. MiSCKLLANEOUH CASKS, 200. 
 
 III. Fixtures— 5ee Fixtures. 
 
 IV. Lateral Support — See Lateral Sup- 
 
 port. 
 
 V. Improvements— iSefi Improvements ok 
 Land — Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 VI, Municipal Powers as to— See Munici- 
 pal Corporations. 
 
 VII. Building Contract — .See Lien, — 
 Work and Labour. 
 
 VIII. Covenants in Leases— iSee Landlord 
 AND Tenant. 
 
 I. Party Walls. 
 
 Where the defendant raised the height of a, 
 party wall beyond that of the building of the 
 plaintiff, the adjoining owner, with the latter'* 
 consent, and subsequently opened a window 
 through the said wall, so raised, so as to overlook 
 the plaintiff's premises : — Held, that by piercing 
 the window defendant had distinctly given notice 
 that he ceased to regard the wall as a party wall ; 
 that it was an unauthorized user of the party 
 wall ; and the plaintiff was entitled to an in- 
 junction to restrain the further continuance of 
 such window, Sproule v. Stratford, 1 0. R. 
 335,— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff was the surviving trustee under 
 the will of one J. B. of certain land on which 
 was erected a two storey brick liouse, the west- 
 erlytwall of which formed the boundary of one 
 L. 's land, immediately adjoining the plaintiff's 
 on the west. L. leased to F. , who erected 
 thereon a large brick building, using the plain> 
 tiff's westerly wall as a party wall, inserting 
 joists therein, and building thereon so as to raise 
 it two storeys higlier, thereby weakening the 
 plaintiff's wall. F. mortgaged to a building 
 society, who, on default, sold to the defendant : 
 — Held, that the plaintiff, under the Ontario 
 Judicature Act, Rule 95, (Con. Kule 309) was 
 entitled to maintain an action as representing 
 the estate, without making the cestui qui trustent 
 parties ; and that he was entitled to a decree 
 that the defendant should desist from further 
 using the wall built on the pl.aintiff^s wall, or 
 the ends of the joists which he had placed therein, 
 but not to a direction that the defendant should 
 pull down such wall, which the defendant had 
 not erected : — Held, also, that the plaintiff wa* 
 entitled to recover as damages the expense of 
 removing such wall, so erected on his wall, and 
 the damages occasioned by his wall being weak- 
 ened, but not damages for the loss of a sale of 
 the property by reason of the erection. Brooke 
 v. McLean, 5 O. R. 209— C. P. D. 
 
 On the 26th September, 1877, S. contracted to 
 erect a proper and legal building for W. on his 
 (W.'s) land, in the city of St. John. Two days, 
 after, a by-law of the city of St. John, under the 
 Act of the legislature, 41 Vict. c. 6, "The St. 
 John Building Act, 1877," was passed, prohibit- 
 ing the erection of buildings such as the one con- 
 tracted for, and declaring them to be nuisances. 
 
 I 
 
 5s 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 tm 
 
207 
 
 BUILDINOS. 
 
 208 
 
 By hid coiitrnct, W. reserved the right to alter 
 or modify the jdims iind Bpucificivtions, nnd to 
 make miy ilcviiition in the coiigtruotion, dotnil 
 or execiitiiiu of thti work without avoiding the 
 contract, otu. By the ooutraot it was alno de- 
 clared tliat W. had tiiu'iigud H, an guperintendent 
 of the erection —his duty being to enforce the 
 conditions of the contract, f urniHli drawings, ete. , 
 make CHtiniatcH of the amount due, and issue 
 certifuate. While W.'s Imililing was in course 
 of erection, the centre wall, having been built on 
 ftn insufficient foundation, fell carrying with it 
 the party wall common to \V. and AlcM., his 
 neighbour. On an action by McM. ajjainst W. 
 an(r S. to recover daina>,'cg for the injury thus 
 sustained, the jury found a verdict for the plain- 
 tiff for general damages, $;},!).V2, and 81,375 for 
 loss of rent. Tliis l:itter amount was found 
 separately, in order tliat tiiu court niigiit reduce 
 it, if not recoverable, (hi motion to the .Supreme 
 Court of New Jb'unswick for a nonsuit or new 
 trial, the verdict was allowed to stand for $3,1)52, 
 the amount of tlio general damages f(mnd by the 
 jury. On appeal to tlie .Supreme Court and cross- 
 appeal by respondent to have verdict stand for 
 the full amount awarded by the jury :— Held, 
 (Gwynnc, J., dissenting) tiiat at the time of the 
 injury complained of, the contract for the erec- 
 tion of W.'s building lieing in contravention of 
 the provisions of a valid by-law of the city of .St. 
 John, the defendant W. , his contractors and his 
 agent (S.) were all equally responsilde for the 
 conseaueuces of tlie improper building of the 
 illegal wall which caused the injury to McM. 
 charged in the declai'ation. Tiiat the jury, in the 
 absence of any evidence to the contrary, could 
 adopt the actual loss of rent as a fair criterion by 
 which to establisli tiie actual amount of the 
 damage Kustained, and therefore the verdict 
 should stand for the full amount claimed "and 
 awarded. Per Gwynne, J., dissenting, that \V. 
 was not, by tlie terms of the contract, liable for 
 the injury, and even if the by-law did make the 
 buihling a nuisance, tlie plaintiff could not, under 
 the pleadings in the case, have the benefit of it. 
 Walker v. McMillan, S. C. R. 241. 
 
 R. (the appellant) brought an action against 
 H. (the respondent) for having erected a brick 
 wall over and upon the upper part of the south 
 wall or cornice of appellant s store, pierced 
 holes, etc. H. pleaded, inter alia, special leave 
 and license, and that he had done so for a valu- 
 able consideration paid by him, and an equi- 
 table rejoinder alleging that plaintiff and those 
 through whom he claimed nad notice of the 
 ilefendant's title to this easement at the time 
 they obtained their conveyances. In 1859 one 
 C, who then owned R.'s property, granted by 
 deed to H. the privilege of piercing the south 
 wall, carrying his stovepipe into the flues, and 
 erecting a wall above the south wall of the 
 building to form at that height the north wall 
 of respondent's building, which was higher than 
 R.'s. K. purch-ased in 1872 the property from 
 the Bank of Nova Scotia, who got it from one 
 F. , to whom C. had conveyed it— all these con- 
 veyances being for valuable consideration. The 
 deed from C. to H. was not recorded until 1871, 
 and R.'s solicitor, in searching the title, did not 
 search under C.'s name after the registry of the 
 deed by which the title passed out of C. in 1862, 
 and did not therefore observe the deed creating 
 the easement in favour of plaintifiF. There was I 
 
 evidence, when attention was called to it, that 
 respondent had no separate wall, and the north- 
 ern wall aliove appellant's building could ht 
 seen :— Held, that the continuance of illegal 
 burdens on K. 's property since the foe had been 
 aci|uirod by him, were, in law, fresh and dia- 
 tinct trespasses against him, for which ho wi<« 
 entitled to recover damages, unless ho was l>onr,l 
 by the license or grant ot C Hosh v. JlinUcr, 
 
 7 H. C. R. 280. 
 
 Action to have verbal agreement relating to 
 party wall put in writing and executed for the 
 purpose of registration. See Brooks v. t'oidey, 
 
 8 O. R. 549. 
 
 M. having purchased lot 14 for a building lot 
 resisted completion of the contract on the ground 
 that a party wall of the width of nine inches had 
 been built on the line between lots 14 and 16, 
 which at some places came over on to lot 14 to 
 the extent of six inches, and at another place to 
 the extent of nine inches, and that ho could not 
 get rid of the wall witlumt engaging in a lawsuit 
 with the owner of lot 15, and that the party wall 
 was not suitable to the class of buildings which 
 he desired to put up, nnd was worse than useless 
 to him. The evidence showed the wall did not 
 depreciate the value of the land : — Helil, that thii 
 benig so, and uinler all tiio circumstances of this 
 case, specific performance must be decreed, though 
 the matter complained of might have been pro- 
 per for compensation, had such been sought under 
 the condition of sale relating thereto. Imperial 
 Bank of Canada v. Metcalfe, 11 O. R. 407. —Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 C. and the defendant were owners of adjacent 
 lots and C. being about to build on his lot agreed 
 by writing under his seal to erect a party wall on 
 the dividing line, and eiiually upon both lots. 
 Defendant agreed to pay for the half of the front 
 forty feet thereof when erected, and for the rear 
 portion thereof whenever the defendant should 
 require to use it. Subsequently C. sold and 
 conveyed his lot to the plaintiffs in fee by deed 
 containing the usual statutory covenants, and the 
 plaintiffs entered into possession. Some years 
 later defendant erected a building on his lot, 
 making use of the rear part of such party wall, 
 by reason of which he became liable to pay 
 $98.65 and interest therefor, and did accordingly 
 pay the same to C. In an action by the plain- 
 tiffs, as assignees of C. 's interest in said land, 
 against the defendant to recover the sum so doe 
 in respect of such wall ;— Held, that the plain- 
 tiffs were not entitled as vendees of C. to recover, 
 the right to payment of the sum stipulated to 
 be paid for the wall under the covenant with C. 
 not having passed under the conveyance by C. 
 to the plaintiffs. Kenny v. Mackenzie, 12 A. R 
 346.— Hagarty. 
 
 The plaintiffs claimed that the wall between 
 theirs and the defendant's buildings was a party 
 wall : that defendant had, without plaintiffs con- 
 sent, raised it a foot above the plaintiffs' premises, 
 and altered the roof from a flat to a slanting one, 
 whereby water was discharged on the plaintiffs' 
 premises and injured them, for which they 
 claimed damages ; and also asked for adeclaration 
 that the wall was a party wall : that defendant 
 should be restrained from preventing plaintifb 
 from using the wall, together with the new part, 
 on payment by plaintiffs of half the cost thereof 
 
209 
 
 OABS. 
 
 and also from allowing tho water to bo (llichniv'ud 
 on plaintiOa' promiBCB. Tho wall was prov '.1 lo 
 be wholly on thu dvfoiidant'H land. The pait 
 constituting tho collar foundation proiuotod aorno 
 leven inuhus, upon which tho plaintiBii' had 
 reatud tho joists of their building in tho collar, 
 tho joists of tho uppur tloors boing lot into the 
 wall. Tho jury found that tho wall was a party 
 wall, and that tho plaintitl's' had HUstainod $35 
 damages. Judgment was entered for tho plain- 
 tilFs and adocreo made asasiied : — Hold, on mo- 
 tion to tho Divisional Court, that tho wall was 
 not a party wall, nor was there any eviilonco 
 from wnich a grant of, or tiio riglit to use a part 
 thereof, could bo presumed : that it was mis- 
 direction in tho loarne<l Judge to tell tiie jury 
 that the user of tho said wall for tho said pur- 
 poses for over twenty years constituted it a party 
 wall for at most it would merely give an ease- 
 ment for such purposes. Tiiis, however, was not 
 in question, as pluintill's' claim was not to con- 
 tinue such use, but to extend it : and that there 
 was also misdirection in stating that the defend- 
 dant would bo bound by any arrangement made 
 between the plaintill's' predecessors in title and 
 the tenant of tlie defendant's predecessors in title 
 under a twenty years' building lease, and whereby 
 the lessor, at tho expiration of tho term, took 
 the buildings at valuation, for there was nothing 
 to shew that tlio defendant's predecessors were 
 parties to tho arrangement. Jatiws v, Clement, 
 13 0. R. 115.— C. P. U. 
 
 Sub-section 18 of section 496 of the Municipal 
 Act, (R. S. O. 1887, c. 184) does not apply to 
 internal walls separating i>uildingH belonging to 
 the same owner, for to constitute party walls 
 they should separate the adjoining proijorties of 
 difi^rent owners. Rvjliia v. Gopp, 17 O. K. 738. 
 -C. P. D. 
 
 11, MlSCKLLANEOUS CaSES. 
 
 Destruction by fire after contract for sale. 
 See Stcphewon v. Bain, 8 P. R. 258. 
 
 Liability for injury occasioned by ice and 
 snow fallmg from the roof of a house. See 
 Landreville v, Oouin, 6 0. R. 455. 
 
 Owners in severalty of halves of a house. Re- 
 moval by one owner of ono-half of tho house. 
 See Wray v. Morrixon, 9 0. 11. 180. 
 
 Action for damages occasioned to a street rail- 
 way by the breaking down of the machinery 
 used in removing a building from one part of the 
 eity to another, when crossing the railway track, 
 «nd so impeding their traffic. See Toronto Street 
 Railway Go. v. Dollery, 12 A. R. 679. 
 
 Per O'Connor, J., a tug is not a "buildinc" 
 within the meaning of the 10th statutory condi- 
 tion of an insurance policy. Mitchell v. City oj 
 London Fire Ins. Co. (Limited), 12 0. R. 706. 
 
 Duty of architect in superintending erection 
 of buildings. See Badgley v. Dickson, 13 A. R. 
 494. 
 
 Two houses were built with extensions in rear 
 in a terrace or row, the outside walk of the ter- 
 race, and the extensions being brick, but the 
 inside walls between the houses themselves and 
 the adjoining houses, and also between the ex- 
 tensions and the main houses to the height of 
 14 
 
 the roofs of tho extensions being of woo<i and 
 the outside rear walls of tho houses, above the 
 roofs of the extensions were brick rriting 
 upon timbers at tho top of the wooden wa.'l be- 
 low, lu an action for specific performancn : — 
 Held, not to be "solid brick" houisos. Sonible, 
 they were not "brick houses." fitevenaot v. 
 Mcllenry, 16 0. R. 139.— ferguson. 
 
 Powers of municipal councils to prp'jcribo of 
 what materials or of what lliiokni>!:d internal 
 walls of buildings should be deo Regina v. 
 Copp, 17 O. R. 738. 
 
 BUT'.'ER MANUFAOTOBIES. 
 
 The " Act to Provide against Frauds in the 
 supplying of Milk to Ciieose or Butter Manufac- 
 tories," 51 Vict. 0. 32 (Ont,), though penal in its 
 nature, does not deal with criminal law within 
 the moaning of section 91, sub-section 27, of the 
 13, N. A. Act, but merely protects private rights 
 and is intra vires. Tho judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench Division, 17 0. R. 58, reversed. Regina 
 v. Wason, 17 A. R. 221. 
 
 See Regina v. Dowling, 17 O. R. 098, p. 219. 
 
 BY-LAWS. 
 
 I. Of CoRrOUATIONS GENERALIiY — Set 
 
 Company. 
 
 II. Of Municipal Corporations — See 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 
 III, 0FSClI00LBoAUDS-5e«PUBLIcSCU00LS. 
 
 IV. Relatinc! TO THE Sale of] Liquor — (See 
 
 Intoxicatino Liquors. 
 
 Held, that the validity of a by-law may bo 
 questioned on a motion to quash the conviction 
 made under it. Regina v. CiUhbert, 45 Q. B. 19. 
 — Osier. 
 
 By-laws must be reasonably clear and une- 
 quivocal in their language in order to vary or 
 alter the common law. Crowe v. Steeper, 46 
 Q. B. 87.— Q. B. D. 
 
 No seal was affixed to a municipal by-law, but 
 an impression of tho seal was made thereon : — 
 Held, sufficient. Re Croome and the City oJ 
 Brantford, 6 0. R. 188.— Rose. 
 
 As to power to repeal by laws. See Wright v. 
 Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron, 11 
 S. C. R. 95. - 
 
 OABS. ''_ 
 
 Cab Stakds— 5ee Municipal Corporations 
 
 Held, that R. S. 0. (1877) c. 174, s. 415, which 
 provides that the board of commissioners of police 
 shall in cities regulate and license the ownen of 
 cabs, etc., used For hire, does not authorize the 
 imposition of a license fee upon the driver of 
 
 i 
 
 2; 
 
su 
 
 OABBIEBS. 212 
 
 each vehicle ; nor does 42 Vict. c. 31 , s. 23, which 
 empowers the board to license any trade, calling, 
 business or profession, or the person employed 
 in such trade, etc. , give power over persons not 
 within its jurisdiction before so as to authorize 
 the imposition of such a license fee. Regina v. 
 Beeves, 1 0. R. 490.— Cameron. 
 
 CALLS ON STOCK. 
 
 See Company— Insurance. 
 
 CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT, 1878. 
 
 See Intoxicating Liquors. 
 
 CANCELLING STOCK. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 CANONS. 
 
 See Church— Evidence. 
 
 CANVASSERS. 
 
 See Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 CAPIAS. 
 
 See Arrest. 
 
 OAPL^ AD RESPONDENDUM. 
 
 See Arrest. 
 
 CAPIAS AD SATISFACIENDUM. 
 
 See Arrest. 
 
 CARETAKER. 
 
 See Limitation of Actions. 
 
 n. 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 Passengers and Luggage. 
 
 1. Oenerally, 212. 
 
 2. By Railwaya — See Railways 
 
 Railway Companies. 
 
 3. By Ship— See Ship. 
 Conveyance of Goods. 
 
 1. LUtbilUy Oenerally, 213. 
 
 and 
 
 2. By Railways — See Railways and 
 
 Railway Companies. 
 
 3. By Ship— See Ship. 
 
 in. Demurrage — See Demurrage. 
 
 I. Passengers and Luggage. 
 
 1. Oenerally, 
 
 Conveying travellers on Sunday. See Regina 
 V. Daggett ; Regina v. Fortier, 10. R. 537. 
 Attorney-General ex rel. Hobbs v. Niagara Fcdk, 
 Wesley Park, and Clifton Tramway Co., 19 0. 
 R. 624. 
 
 The plaintiff, who had purchased a special 
 excursion ticket from Toronto to Niagara and 
 return on the same day by a steamer of the de- 
 fendants, and which had been taken up by the 
 Eurser on that day, claimed tlie right to return 
 y it on the following day under an alleged 
 agreement with the purser, which the latter 
 denied . On the purser demanding the plaintiff's 
 fare, and the latter refusing to pay it, the porter 
 by the purser's direction, laid hold of a valise 
 wliich the plaintiff was carrying, and attempted 
 to take it and hold it for tlie fare, whereupon a 
 scuffle ensued, and the plaintiff was injured :— 
 Held, Osier J. dissenting, that tlie purser was 
 not acting within the scope of his duty in thug 
 forcibly attempting to take possession of the 
 valise, and the defendants were not liable for 
 his act : — Emerson v. Niagara Navigation Com- 
 ]mny, 2 0. E., 528.— C. P. D. 
 
 It appeared that the purser had been sum- 
 moned Viy the plaintiff before a magistrate for 
 the assault, and a fine imposed, whiclj he paid. 
 Per Wil.=on, 0. J. Tiiis, under 32-33 Vict. c. 
 20, s. 45 (Dom.), through a release to the purser, 
 did not constitute any bar to the present action 
 against the company. Jb. 
 
 Held, that the alleged imprisonment of the 
 plaintiff by the purser in his office for non-pay- 
 ment of his fare, not being an act which the 
 defendants tliemselves could legally have done, 
 the defendants were not liable for it. lb. 
 
 The defendants, who were carriers by water 
 of passengers and goods, made a special contract 
 with the Commercial Travellers' Association for 
 the season of 1885, by wliich members of the 
 Association were entitled to receive tickets for 
 passage at a reduced rate of fare upon certain 
 conditions, one of which was expressed thus :— 
 "with allowance of 300 lbs. of baggage free, but 
 the baggage must be at tlie owners risk against 
 all casualties : " — Held, upon the evidence, that 
 the agreement had been continued for, and was 
 binding during the period of 1886. Dixon v. 
 Richdieu Navigation Company, 15 A. R. 647. 
 
 In July, 1886, the plaintiff D., a commercial 
 traveller for a jeweller's firm, received a ticket 
 upon the .above condition for passage from Mon- 
 treal to Toronto. He took on board with him 
 three trunks, known as commercial travellers' 
 trunks, exceeding the allowed weight, containing 
 jewellery, jewellers' tools, and otner valuables, 
 the whole comprising the usual outfit of a tra- 
 veller for a jewellery house, and valued at about 
 $15,000. The jury found that the trunks did 
 not contain personal baggage but goods and 
 merchandise, and that they were received by 
 
 21 
 
 the defendan 
 Tlie property 
 the defendan 
 were relieved 
 of carriage :- 
 m that the t( 
 defendants f 
 lie words "i 
 intended to i 
 "owner's ris 
 at'uvT than wi 
 defendants, 
 merchandise i 
 baggage of a ] 
 tiff travelling 
 busmess. Po 
 not personal 1 
 permitted to t 
 out was comn 
 chandise whi( 
 entitled to chi 
 even in the a 
 not have been 
 at common la 
 carriers by v 
 That whateve 
 bated to "oy 
 other part of i 
 ties," qualifie 
 by the ownei 
 include a loss 
 defendants. I 
 3 Q. B. D. 195 
 Co., 4 A. R. t 
 Cas. 503, cor 
 Q. B. D. and ( 
 
 Injuries to 
 RAU.WAY Com 
 
 XL i 
 
 I. 
 
 Held, under 
 Majesty could 
 carrier. Regii 
 
 Claim of can 
 in Bill of Ladi 
 Montreal Forw 
 
 The plaintiff, 
 consigned to 1 
 Englund, a qua 
 the same to th( 
 at Waterf ord i: 
 ing carried to 
 agent the usual 
 had left the Ar 
 the plaintiff d 
 and applied to 
 resident in Toi 
 payment of the 
 DiU of lading, a 
 don. The chai 
 mnnicated by I 
 Black Rock, w 
 the necessary cl 
 the passage of 
 United States, 
 Nqaence of whi 
 that instead of ' 
 12th Februaiy, 
 23rd of March, 
 
21 
 
 CATTLE. 
 
 2U 
 
 the defendants with knowledge of that fact. 
 The property was damaged by the negligence of 
 the defendants, but they contended that they 
 were relieved from all liability by the conditions 
 of carriage : — Held, (Osier, J. A., dissenting), 
 (I) that the terms of the condition protected the 
 defendants from all liability for negligence. 
 The words " against all casualties " were merely 
 intended to extend the meaning of the term 
 " owner's risk " to all possible nontingencies 
 ot'iiVT than wilful misconduct on tlie part of the 
 defendants. (2) The goods, though in one sense 
 merchandise were to be treated fis the personal 
 hitggage of a person in the position of the plain- 
 tiff travelling with samples in the course of his 
 business. Per Osier, J. A. , ( 1 ) The property was 
 not personal baggage, such as a passenger was 
 permitted to take with him without extra charge, 
 but was commercial travellers' baggage or mer- 
 chandise which the company would have been 
 entitled to charge for, and for the loss of which, 
 even in the absence of conditions, they would 
 not have been liable, as personal baggage, either 
 at common law, or under the Act respecting 
 carriers by water, 37 Vict. c. 25, sec. 2. (2) 
 That whatever might be the meaning to be attri- 
 buted to "owners risk" standing alone, the 
 other part of the condition " against all casual- 
 ties," qualified it by limiting the risk assumed 
 by the owner to accidents, which would not 
 include a loss caused by the negligence of the 
 defendants. Lewis v. Great Western R.W. Co., 
 3 Q. B. D. 1'95 ; Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R.W. 
 Co., 4 A. R. 601 ; Wilson v. Xantho, 12 App. 
 Cas. 603, considered. The judgment of the 
 Q. B. D. and of the trial Judge reversed. Ih. 
 
 Injuries to passengers. 
 Railway Compames. 
 
 See Railways and 
 
 II. Conveyance of Goods. 
 
 1. Liability OeneraUy. 
 
 Held, under the circumstance of this case Her 
 Majesty could not be held liable as a common 
 carrier. Begiiia v. McFarlane, 7 S. C. R. 216. 
 
 Claim of carrier for excess in quantity named 
 in Bill of Lading : See Murton v. Kingston and 
 MmUreal Forwarding Co., 32 C. P. 366. 
 
 The plaintiff, a dealer in grains, etc. , in Canada, 
 coaaigned to his correspondent in Liverpool, 
 England, a quantity of clover seed, and delivered 
 the same to the agent of the defendant company 
 at Waterford in Ontario, ''jr the purpose of be- 
 ing carried to Liverpool, receiving from such 
 agent the usual bill of lading. Before the seed 
 had left the Americar ".'ontier for the sea-board 
 the plaintiff desired ^o change the consignee, 
 and applied to one B. , an aeent of the company, 
 resident in Toronto, for that purpose who, on 
 payment of the additional freight, granted a fr jsh 
 DiU of lading, agreeing to carry the seed to Lon- 
 don. The change of destination was duly com- 
 municated by B. to the agent of the company at 
 Bkck Rock, whose duty it was to have made 
 the necessary changes in the instrument securing 
 the passage of the goods duty free through the 
 United States, but this he omitted to do, in con- 
 •equence of which the seed went to Liverpool, so 
 that instead of bein^ delivered in London on the 
 12th February, it did not reach there until the 
 23rd of March, too late for the sowing trade, so 
 
 that the seed had to be sold at a heavy loss : — 
 Held (aiBrming the judgment of the court below, 
 1 O. R. 47.) (1) That the Toronto agent was 
 authorized to make the change in the destination 
 of the seed, and (2) that the defendants were 
 bound to indemnify the plaintiff against the loss 
 sustained by reason of the fall in the market 
 value of the seed, together with the additional 
 sum paid for the freight from Liverpool to Lon- 
 don : — Semble, that the same rule applies where 
 the goods are not intended for immediate sale at 
 their place of destination. Monteithv. Merchants' 
 Despatch and Transportation Co., 9 A. R. 282. 
 
 The plaintiff agreed with the M. D, T. Co. for 
 the conveyance of butter from London in Ontario 
 to England, The butter was carried from Lon- 
 don to the Suspension Bridge by the G. W. Ry. 
 Co. from the Bridge to New York by the N. Y. 
 C. R. R. Co., and from New York to England 
 by the Steamship Co., bills of lading being given 
 at London to the plaintiff by a person who signed 
 as agent severally and not jointly for the M. D. 
 T. Co.. the G. W. Ry. Co., and the G. W. 
 Steamship Co. The plaintiff sued for damage 
 sustained by the butter, joining the three com- 
 panies as defendants under the 0. J. Act s. 91. 
 It appeared that the damage occurred while the 
 butter was on a lighter of the N. Y. C. R. R. 
 Co. in New York harbour, and before it was 
 actually delivered at the pier or on board a vessel 
 of the Steamship Co :— Held, that the M. D. T. 
 Co. by virtue of its through contract was liable 
 for the damage : that the responsibility of the 
 Steamship Co. had not attached until after the 
 damage was done, one of the terms of the bill of 
 lading being that " this contract is executed and 
 accomplished and the liability of the G. W. Ry. 
 and its connections as common carriers there- 
 under terminates on the delivery of the goods or 
 property to the steamer or Steamship Company's 
 pier at New York, where the responsibility of 
 the Steamship Co. commences, and not before ;" 
 and that inasmuch as the butter had been re- 
 ceived in England by the consignees without ob- 
 jection, the Steamship Company would have 
 been protected by conditions wliich by the bill 
 of lading were made part of the contract, one of 
 which was to the same effect as the condition in 
 question in Moore v. Harris, 1 App. Cis. 318 ; 
 Quiere, by Patterson, J. A., if the M. D. T. Co. 
 and the G. W. S. S. Co. could properly have 
 been held jointly liable in this action. The judg- 
 ment of Osier, J. A., 4 O. R. 623, as to the de- 
 fendants tlie Merchants' Despatch Company was 
 aflSrmed. Hately v. Merchants' Despatch Trans- 
 portation Co., 12 A. R. 201. 
 
 Breach of contract to carry by a particular 
 route. Recovery of damages caused by conse- 
 quent payment of higher rates : See Langdon 
 V. Robertson, 13 0. R. 497. 
 
 CASE RESERVED. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 •"i. 
 
 5? 
 
 
 a 
 
 IS 
 i5 
 
 CATTLE. 
 
 Injuries to — See RAiLWAys and Railway Com- 
 panies. 
 
 
215 
 
 CERTIOBABI. 
 
 216 
 
 CENSUS. 
 
 See Municipal Corporations. 
 
 OENTBAL PBISON. 
 
 Under the authority conferred by section G of 
 E. S. O. c. 217 (1877), on the Inspector of Pri- 
 Bona to " make rules and regulations for the 
 management, discipline, and police of the Cen- 
 tral Prison, and for fixing and prescribing the 
 duties and conduct of the warden and every 
 other officer or servant employed tlierein," the 
 following rules were made, providing, amongst 
 other things, (Rule 201) that any officer or em- 
 ployee who sliould knowingly bring or attempt 
 to bring in to any prisoner any tobacco, should 
 be at once dismissed and criminally prosecuted : 
 and (Rule 219) that all officers or other em- 
 ployees of the contractors who may, under the 
 regulations, be permitted to enter the prison 
 workshops or j'ard must strictly conform to all 
 rules and regulations laid down for the guidance 
 of guards or employees of the prison, and any 
 infraction of such rules and regulations by such 
 employees of contractors will be promptly dealt 
 with. By section 27 of the Act, any person giv- 
 ing any tobacco to any convict, (except under the 
 rules of the institution), or conveying the same 
 to any convict, shall forfeit and pay the sum of 
 $40 to the warden, to be by him recovered for 
 the use of the prison in any Court o* competent 
 jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a workman in the 
 Central Prison, in the employment of a contrac- 
 tor therein, was detected conveying tobacco to a 
 convict, whereupon the warden directed a con- 
 stable to arrest him, which he did, and though 
 under no apprehension of plaintiff making any 
 attempt to escape, handcuffed him, and led him 
 through the pul)lic streets of Toronto to tlie 
 police station. On the charge preferred the 
 plaintiff was indicted : — Held, that the plaintiff 
 was subject to an indictment and therefore the 
 
 arrest was legal. Per Gait, C.J., and Rose, J 
 
 Under section 6, authority was conferred to make 
 the rules, and for disobedience thereof the plain- 
 tiff was subject to indictment, the remedy not 
 being limited to that prescribed by section 27. 
 Per XiacMahon, J. — The power conferred by sec- 
 tion 6 is limited to the objects therein expressed, 
 and does not authorize the making of a rule to 
 conflict with section 27, or which would cause 
 an offence to be created indictable at '•ommon 
 law, but that the plaintiff was by virtue of sec- 
 tion 25 of R. S. O. eh. 173, subject to indictment 
 under section 27, the remedy tliereunder not 
 being limited to the recovery of the penalty :— 
 Held, however, that under the circumstances the 
 handcuffing was not justifiable, and the consta- 
 ble was liable in trespass therefor, but no liabi- 
 lity attached to the warden as the evidence failed 
 to shew that he was a party to it. ' Hamilton v. 
 Massie, 18 0. R. 585.— C. P. D. 
 
 CERTAINTY. 
 
 In Award — See 
 
 AWARK. 
 
 Arbitration and 
 
 II. In Pleading— See Pleading. 
 
 CERTIFICATE. 
 
 I. Of Taxation — Ste Costs. 
 II. Of Dlscharok of Mortoage— /SeeMoKi- 
 
 GAGE. 
 
 CERTIOBABI. 
 I. In Civil Cases, 216. 
 II. In Criminal Cases. 
 
 1. To Bring up Information and Com- 
 
 mitment, 216. 
 
 2. To Bring up Convictions. 
 
 (a) When it lies, 217. 
 
 (b) Notice of Application, 219. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 219. 
 
 (d) Under Canada Temperance Act, 
 
 1S7S, and Liquor License Ad. 
 
 — See Intoxicating Liquobs. 
 To Bring up Inquisitions, 219, 
 Recognizance and Return of IFn'i, 220. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 5. Costs, 220. 
 
 I. In Civil Cases. 
 
 A motion for a writ of certiorari to bring np 
 into this Court all the proceedings, 'etc. , before 
 the Minister of Agriculture, including his deci- 
 sion therein, on an application made before him 
 to have a patent declared void for noncompli- 
 ance with the provisions of section 28 of the 
 Patent Act of 1872 was refused. In re Bell 
 Telephone Company, 9 O. R. 339.— C. P. D, 
 
 This case was tried before the Division Conri; 
 judge, who gave his decision in favour of the 
 plaintiff, but formally reserved the giving of 
 judgment to a subsequent day, to enable the 
 defendants to move for prohibition or certiorari. 
 In the meantime the defendants gave the required 
 notice : — Held, that the defendants could not 
 thus wait and take the chances of a decision in 
 their favour, and finding it adverse, apply for a 
 writ of certiorari and properly obtain it. Black 
 V. Wesley, 8 U. C. L. J. 277 ; Gallagher v. Bathie, 
 2 U. C. L. J. N. S. 73, and Holmes v. Reeve, 5 
 P. R. 58, folio, ^d. In re Knight v. United 
 Townships of Meaora and Wood, 11 0. R. 138.— 
 Q. B. D. ; 14 A. R. 112. 
 
 Held that the Divisional Court had no power 
 to remove proceedings by certiorari in order that 
 the decision of a judge might be quashed or 
 rescinded aa made in excess of his authority as a 
 special tribunal under the Railway Act. Rt 
 McQuillan and The Ouelph Junction R, W. Co,, 
 12 P. R. 294,— Chy. D. 
 
 II, In Criminal Cases. 
 
 1. To Bring up Information and Commitment. 
 
 Where a defendant has been committed for 
 trial, but afterwards admitted to bail and dii- 
 charged from custody, a superior court of law 
 has still power to remove the proceedings on 
 certiorari, but in its discretion it will not do so 
 where there is no reason to apprehend that he 
 
 217 
 
 will not be fi 
 K. 462.— Cai 
 
 Held, folic 
 the convictio 
 the writ of 
 R. S. 0. (18: 
 46 Q. B. 221, 
 
 Per Armo 
 Queen's Ben 
 tion for an i 
 although it h 
 ed in respect 
 32-33 Vict. < 
 the certiorari 
 Kinnon, 1 0. 
 
 Quaere, wh 
 taken away b; 
 Regina v. Spi 
 
 The defenc 
 police magisti 
 sions of C S. 
 Sessions, an( 
 Defendants n 
 move the con 
 33 Vict, c, i 
 33 Vict. c. ! 
 away the] rig 
 been an app< 
 where the ma 
 offence charg< 
 taken away, t 
 dence to see 
 to convict, an 
 gina v. Scott, 
 
 Held, that 
 move proceec 
 court from a 
 the peace aft 
 the purpose o 
 jection of evi( 
 against evidei 
 the court and 
 -Held, that 
 case been mo 
 nisi applied fc 
 cutor tor a i 
 further evidei 
 motions wouk 
 trate appearix 
 judgment and 
 as to the furtl 
 discretion wit 
 terfere. Regi 
 Q. B. D, 
 
 The writ oi 
 section 28 of 
 HP, R, 96,— 
 
 Held, that t 
 Vict. c. 49 (D< 
 tions and app 
 before or after 
 under section 
 »way upon ae 
 Sessions, that 
 •ppeal from ti 
 12 0, R. 372,- 
 
217 
 
 OEBTIOBABI. 
 
 218 
 
 ^not be fairly tried. 
 B. 462.— Cameron. 
 
 Eegitia v. Adams, 8 P. 
 
 I 
 
 2. To Bring up Convictions. 
 
 (a) When it lies. 
 
 Held, following Re Bates, 40 Q. B. 284, that 
 the conviction being for the breach of a by-law 
 the writ of certiorari was not taken away by 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 74. Regina v. Washington, 
 46 Q. B. 221.— Osier. 
 
 Per Armour, J. The Divisional Court of 
 Queen's Bench has power to quash a convic- 
 tion for an illegal adjudication of punishment, 
 although it heu been appealed against and affirm- 
 ed in respect to such adjudication ; and s. 71 of 
 32-33 Vict. c. 31 (Dom.), does not take away 
 the certiorari in such a case. McLellan y. Mc- 
 Kinnon, 1 O. R. 219. 
 
 Quaere, whether the right to a certiorari was 
 taken away by an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. 
 Segina v. Sparham, 8 O. E. 670. — Rose. 
 
 The defendants having been convicted by a 
 police magistrate of an ofience against the provi- 
 sions of C. S. C. V. 95, appealed to the Quarter 
 Sessions, and the convictions were affirmed. 
 Defendants now applied for a certiorari to re- 
 move the convictions, notwithstanding that 32- 
 33 Vict. c. 31, s. 71 (Dom.), as amended by 
 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 2 (Dom.), expressly takes 
 away the] right to certiorari where there has 
 been an appeal to the Sessions : — Held, that 
 where the magistrate has jurisdiction over the 
 offence charged, and the right to certiorari is 
 taken away, the court cannot examine the evi- 
 dence to see if the magistrate had jurisdiction 
 to convict, and the certiorari was refused. Be- 
 ytna v. Scott, 10 P. R. 517.— Rose. 
 
 Held, that a defendant is not entitled to re- 
 move proceedings by certiorari, to a superior 
 court from a police magistrate or a justice of 
 the peace after conviction, or at any time, for 
 the purpose of moving for a new trial for the re- 
 jection of evidence, or because the conviction is 
 against evidence, the conviction not being before 
 the court and no motion made to quash it. But 
 —Held, that even had the conviction in this 
 case been moved to be quashed, and an order 
 nisi applied for upon the magistrate and prose- 
 cutor tor a mandamus, to the former to hear 
 further evidence which he had refused, both 
 motions would have been discharged, the magis- 
 trate appearing to have acted to the best of his 
 judgment and not wrongfully, and his decision 
 as to the further evidence involving a matter of 
 discretion with which the court would not in- 
 terfere. Regina v. Richardson, 8 0. R. 651. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The writ of certiorari ia not taken away by 
 section 28 of 32-33 Vict. c. 32, (Dom.) S. V. 
 
 11 P. R. 95.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that though not expressly so enacted, 49 
 Vict. c. 49 (Dom.), is retrospective in its opera- 
 tions and applies to convictions whether made 
 before or after the passing of the Act, and that 
 under section 7 the right to certiorari is taken 
 away upon service of notice of appeal to the 
 Sessions, that being the first proceeding on an 
 appeal from the conviction. Regina v. Lynch, 
 
 12 0. R. 372.— VViUon. 
 
 Application was made to the Chief Justice of 
 the Supreme Court of Canada in Chambers, on 
 behalf of a person arrested on a warrant issued 
 on a conviction by a magistrate, for a writ of 
 habeas corpus, and for a certiorari to bring up 
 the proceedings before the magistrate, the appli- 
 cation being based on the lack of evidence to 
 warrant the conviction. The application was 
 dismissed. On appeal to the full court : — Held, 
 (Henry, J., diss.), the conviction having been 
 regular, and made by a court in the unques- 
 tionable exercise of its authority and acting 
 within its jurisdiction, the only objection be- 
 ing that the magistrate erred on the facts, 
 and that the evidence did not justify the con- 
 clusion at which he arrived as to the prisoner's 
 guilt, the Supreme Court could not go behind 
 the conviction and inquire into the merits of the 
 case by the use of » writ of habeas corpus, and 
 so constitute itself a Court of Appeal from the 
 magistrate's decision. In re Milina Trepanier 
 12 S. C. R. HI. 
 
 The only appellate power conferred on the 
 court in criminal cases is by the 49th section of 
 the Supreme and Exchequer Court Act, and it 
 could not have been the intention of the legisla- 
 ture while limiting appeals in criminal cases of 
 the highest importance, to impose on the court 
 the duty of revisal in matters of fact of all sum- 
 mary convictions before police or other magis- 
 trates throughout the Dominion, lb. 
 
 Section 34 of the Supreme Court Amendment 
 Act of 1876, does not in any case authorize the 
 issue of a writ of certiorari to accompany a 
 writ of habeas corpus granted by a judge of the 
 Supreme Court in chambers; ai u as the proceed- 
 ings before the court on habeas corpus arising out 
 of a criminal charge are only by way of appeal 
 from the decision of such judge in Chambers, 
 the said section does not authorize the court to 
 issue a writ of certiorari in such proceedings ; to 
 do so would be to assume appellate jurisdiction 
 over the inferior Court. lb. 
 
 The defendant was convicted by two justices of 
 the peace under the Weichts and Measures Act, 
 42 Vict. c. 16, s. 14, sub-s^ 2 (t)om.), as amended 
 by 47 Vict. c. 36, s. 7 (Dom. ), of obstructing an in- 
 spector in the discharge of his duty, and was fined 
 $100 and costs, to be levied by distress, imprison- 
 ment for three mouths being awarded in default 
 of distress. At the hearing before the justices 
 the defendant tendered his own evidence, which 
 was excluded. The defendant appealed to the 
 Quarter Sessions, and on the appeal again ten- 
 dered his own evidence, which was again exclu- 
 ded, and the conviction affirmed. On motion 
 for certiorari : — Held, that the conviction hav- 
 ing been affirmed in appeal certiorari was taken 
 away except for want or excess of jurisdiction, 
 and that there was no such want or excess of 
 jurisdiction, inasmuch as the justices and the 
 Quarter Sessions had jurisdiction to determine 
 whether the defendant's evidence was admissible 
 or not, and that such determination, even if 
 erroneous in law, could r.ol be icviewed by certi- 
 orari. Regina v. Dunning, 14 O. R. 52. — Q. B. D. 
 
 The right to certiorari is nob taken away in 
 cases arising under the Act to provide against 
 Frauds in the supplying of Milk to Cheese and 
 Butter Manufactories (51 Vict. cap. 32, Ont.), 
 but even if it had the court would not be 
 
 I 
 
 
ju.;iiy ^jiuBii 
 
 219 
 
 OESTUI QUE TRUST. 
 
 justified in refusing to examine the evidence to 
 see if the magistrate had jurisdiction, Regina 
 V, Bowling, 17 0. R.698.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Begina v. Green, 12 P. R. 372, infra. 
 
 (b) Notice of Application. 
 
 Where, on an application made after notice 
 to the convicting justices for a rule for a cer- 
 tiorari, the rule was refused, and on a subsequent 
 ex parte application on the same material the 
 rule was obtained, it was — Held, that the notice 
 of the first application would not enure to the 
 benefit of the defendant on his necond application, 
 and that the certiorari was irregularly obtained 
 for want of notice to the convicting justices. 
 Cameron, J., dissenting, being of opinion that a 
 Bubstantive motion should be made to (^uash the 
 writ of certiorari; and that the conviction being 
 before the court under a writ of certiorari un- 
 superseded, the validity of the conviction should 
 be inquired into. Begina v. Mc Allan, 45 Q. B. 
 402.-Galt.-Q. B. D, 
 
 (o) Other Cases. 
 
 In shewing cause to a rule nisi to quash a con- 
 viction, objection may be taken to the regularity 
 of the certiorari, and a separate application to 
 supersede it need not be made. Begina v. Mc- 
 Allan, 45 Q. B. 402.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that a conviction once regularly brought 
 into, and put upon the files of the court, is there 
 for all purposes, and that a defendant may move 
 to quash it, however or at whosoever instance 
 it may have been brought there. Where, there- 
 fore, on an application for a habeas corpus, under 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 70, a certiorari had issued, and 
 in obedience to it the conviction had been return- 
 ed, the conviction was quashed on motion, though 
 there had been no notice to the magistrate, or 
 recognizance. Regina v. Levecque, 30 Q. B. 
 509, distinguished. Begina v. Wehlan, 45 Q. 
 B. 396.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the defendant having had the cer- 
 tiorari directed to the magistrate who had con- 
 victed was estopped from objecting that the con- 
 viction was in reality made by three justices as 
 appeared from the memorandum of conviction 
 which was signed by them. Begina v. Smith, 46 
 Q. B. 442.— Osier. 
 
 Where the proceedings before a magistrate 
 are removed under 29-30 Vict. cap. 45, the 
 judge is not to sit as a court of appeal from 
 the findings of the police magistrate upon the 
 evidence which that officer has taken ; if any 
 fact found by the magistrate is disputed, and 
 he would have no jurisdiction had he not found 
 that fact, then the evidence may be looked at to 
 see whether there was anything to support his 
 finding upon it ; but if the jurisdiction to try 
 the offence charged does not come in question as 
 a part of the evidence, then the jurisdiction hav- 
 ing attached, his finding is not reviewable as a 
 general rule except upon an appeal. Beaina v. 
 Green, 12 P. R. 373.— Street. 
 
 (3) To Bring up Inquisitions, 
 The improper reception of evidence is no 
 ground for a certiorari to bring up a coroner's 
 
 inquisition. Regina v. Ingham, 5 B. & S. at p. 
 260, specially referred to. Regina v. Sanderson, 
 16 O. R. 106.— MacMahon. 
 
 4. Becognizance and Betum of Writ, 
 
 On a motion to quash a conviction by a justice 
 of the peace which had been appealed to the 
 county judge, an objection that the writ of cer- 
 tiorari was improperly directed to, and returned 
 by the clerk of the peace and county attorney, 
 instead of the county judge or magistrate, was 
 overruled. Begina v. Frawley, 45 Q. B. 227.— 
 Osier, 
 
 Where the recognizance to prosecute a certi- 
 orari^ returned after allowance of the latter by 
 the convicting justices, together with the con- 
 viction is substantially and clearly bad, and the 
 conviction may possibly be upheld, the allow- 
 ance of the certiorari may be quashed on the 
 return of the rule nisi to quash the conviction, 
 without a substantive motion for that purpose ; 
 but otherwise, where the objection is a trivial 
 one, or the conviction is clearly defective and 
 must inevitably be quashed. Begina v. Oluff, 
 46 Q. B. 565.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that an amended conviction cannot be 
 put in after the return of a writ of certiorari, 
 Begina v. MacKenzie, 6 O. R. 165. — Rose. 
 
 A magistrate can amend his conviction at any 
 time before the return of the certiorari. Begina 
 v. McCarthy, 11 O. R, 657.— Gait. 
 
 Held, that on the return of a writ of certiorari, 
 a recognizance is unnecessary. Begina v. Nunn, 
 10 P. R. 395.— Rose. 
 
 Held, that since the passing of the Dominion 
 Statute 49 Vict. c. 49, s. 8, there is no longer 
 necessity for a defendant, on removal by certio- 
 rari of a conviction against him, to enter into 
 the recognizance as to costs formerly required :— 
 Held, also, that the words " shall no longer 
 apply " in section 8 mean that from the day of 
 the passing of the statute the Imperial Act 5 
 Geo. II. c. 19, shall no longer apply, not that 
 the Imperial Act shall cease to have application 
 in Canada upon a general order being passed 
 under section 6 of the Dominion Act. Begina 
 v, SwalweU, 12 0. R. 391.— Wilson. 
 
 5. Costs. 
 
 Where an indictment for obstructing a high- 
 way had been removed by certiorari, at the in- 
 stance of the private prosecutor, into this 
 court, and the defendant had been acquitted :— 
 Held, that there was no power to impose pay- 
 ment of costs on such prosecutor. The Court, 
 however, has power to make payment of costs 
 a condition of any indulgence granted in such a 
 case such as the postponement of the trial or a 
 new trial, Begina v. Bart, 46 Q. B. 1.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 OESTUI QUE TRUST. 
 
 See Trust and Trustee. 
 
CHANQE OF POSSESSION. 
 
 OHALLENOE OF JURY. 
 
 See Trial. 
 
 CHAMBERS, JUDOE'S. 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE. 
 
 Where one having obtained an ussignmeat of a 
 judgment against a mortgagor brought an action 
 in his own name against the mortgagee who bad 
 sold under the power of sale to make him ac- 
 count for certain surplus moneys left in his hands 
 after such sale :- -Held, tliat the plaintiff was 
 entitled so to sue, and that such assignment of 
 judgment was not in contravention of the law 
 respecting champerty and maintenance. Har- 
 per v. Culbert, 5 O. K. 152. — Ferguson. 
 
 After the hearing and before the appeal was 
 argued, a motion was made to strike the case 
 out of the list, on the ground of maintenance, 
 and it was shewn that the defendant, the Rev. 
 J. P. D., did not wish to proceed with this suit ; 
 but that as he was pressed to do so by his vestry 
 and churchwardens, he allowed his name to be 
 used as appellant upon being indemnified by the 
 latter as to costs. Per Boyd, G. — There was 
 maintenance in the suit thougii not in the crimi- 
 nal sense, and the case should be struck out. 
 Per Proudfoot, J. — There was no maintenance. 
 The decree of Ferguson, J., was, however, varied 
 by allowing the costs of all parties up to the 
 hearing to come out of the fund. Langtry v. 
 Dumoulin, 7 0. R. 644. 
 
 It is not a champertous transaction that an as- 
 sociation of persons, with which the petitioner 
 was politically allied, agreed to pay the costs 
 of the petition. Even if the agreement wer« 
 champertous, that would not be a sufficient rea- 
 son to stay the proceedings on the petition. 
 North Simcue Election — Edwards v. Cooh, 1 H. 
 E. C. 617. 
 
 0., assuming that the firm of T. & O. of which 
 he was a member had a small claim of about 
 $300 against the estate of A. M. C, a deceased 
 intestate, ascertained that H. & Co. had a large 
 one of over $7,000 on promissory notes, and tried 
 to induce H. & Co. to join him in an action for 
 the administration of A. M. C.'s estate which 
 they declined to do. H. & Co. offered to sell 
 their claim to him for $2,000, w!iich offer 0. re- 
 fused to accept, but finally, witi'out the payment 
 of any valuable consideration, obtained an as- 
 signment of H. & Ce.'s ciciiin for the purpose of 
 coUe.-'ting it, under an agreement by which he 
 was to pay H. & Co one half of the amount col- 
 lected on said claim after payment of costs. H. 
 & Co. did not make themselves responsible for 
 any costs. O. obtained an administration order 
 against M. E. C. the administratrix of A. M. C. 
 who, not knowing anything of the claim on the 
 U. & Co. notes, did not resist the niakins of the 
 order ; but when the facts were elicited in the 
 Slaster's office, and when O.'s own claim wos 
 ilisallowed by the Master, filed a petition to have 
 the order set aside on the grounds of cham- 
 
 perty : — Held, that as a decree for odminiatn- 
 tion is for the benefit of all the creditors, and as 
 another creditor had established a claim under 
 it, the administration order could not be aet 
 aside : — Held, also, that the agreement between 
 0. and H. & Co. was champertous or so stronglv 
 savouring of it that it could not be maintained, 
 and that O. could not prove on the notes in this 
 administration suit. Keynell v. Sprye, 1 D. M. 
 & G. 671, and Hutley v. Hutley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 
 112, considered. Re Cannon, Gates v. Cannon, 
 13 0. R. 70.— Proudfoot. 
 
 0. brought in a claim in certain administra- 
 tion proceedings on promissory notes assigned 
 to him by H. & Co., under an agreement between 
 them, which, however, was held void for cham- 
 perty, and O. 's claim on the notes disallowed : 
 (See the last case). O. thereupon, redelivered 
 the notes to H. & Co. The six years allowed 
 by the Statute of Limitations had expired before 
 the notes were thus delivered to H. & Co., but 
 not before the date of the administration order, 
 nor before O. tried to prove on them in the ad- 
 ministration proceedings : — Held, that the order 
 for administration prevented the bar of the Sta- 
 tute of Limitations : — Held, also, that H. & Co. 
 might now assert their title to the notes, and 
 prove on them notwithstanding the former cham- 
 pertous agreement with O. Jie Camwn — Oatea 
 V. Cannon (2), 1.3 O. R. 705.— Proudfoot 
 
 B. became holder of forty shares upon trans- 
 fers from D. et al., in the capital stock of the St. 
 Gabriel Mutual Building Society. At the time 
 of the transfers the shares in question had been 
 declared forfeited for non-payment of dues. Sub- 
 sequently by a Superior Court judgment ren- 
 dered in a suit of one C, other shares, which 
 had been confiscated for similar reasons, were 
 declared to be valid and to have been illegally 
 forfeited. Thereupon B. by a petition for writ 
 of mandamus asked that he be recognized as a 
 member of the societj' and be paid the amount 
 of dividends already declared in favour of and 
 paid to other shareholders. B. 's action was met, 
 amongst other pleas, by one setting forth that B. 
 had acquired under the transfers in question 
 litigious rights and that, by law, he was only 
 entitled to recover from the respondents the 
 amount he had actually paid for the same, to- 
 gether with legal interest thereon, and his cost of 
 transfers. Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 court below, Fournier and Henry, JJ . , dissenting, 
 that at the time of the purchase of said shares, 
 
 B. was a buyer of litigious rights within the pro- 
 visions of Art. 1583 Civil Code (Que.) and under 
 Art. 1582 could only recover from the liquida- 
 tors the price paid by him with interest there- 
 on. — Also, that the exception in Art. 1584 § 4 of 
 
 C. C. only applies to the particular demand in 
 litigation which has been confirmed by a jude- 
 ment of a court, or which having been made 
 clear by evidence is ready for judgment. Brady 
 v. Stewart, 15 S. C. R. 82. 
 
 See McQueen v. Regina, 16 S. C. R, 1. 
 
 CHANGE OF POSSESSION. 
 
 See Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgaqi 
 Fraudulent Convevancks. 
 
 
 •5 
 
CHOSE IN ACTION. 
 
 22( 
 
 OHANQINO PLACE OF TBIAL. 
 
 iSfee Pleading. 
 
 OHANOma BEFEBENCE. 
 
 See Peactice. 
 
 OHABOma IN EXECUTION. 
 
 See Pr'SONER. 
 
 I. Benevolent Societies — See Benevo- 
 lent S'^iC'T.TIES. 
 
 II. Devlse TO— .See W .L. 
 
 There can be no marshalling of assets in favour 
 of a charity. Becher v. Hoare, 8 0. R. 328.— 
 Fergnson. 
 
 See A ttomey General of Nova Scotia v. A xford, 
 13 S. C. R. 294. 
 
 CHAETEB PARTY. 
 
 See Ship. 
 
 CHATTEL MOBTOAOE. 
 
 Set Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgaoes. 
 
 CHATTELS. 
 
 Assignment ov—See Bills of Sale and 
 Chattel Mortgages. 
 
 Conversion of— See Trover. 
 
 Gut ov—See Gift. 
 
 IV. Hire op— /See Hiring. 
 
 V. Lease or— See Lease. 
 
 VL Mortgage ov—See Bills of Sale and 
 Chattel Mortgages. 
 
 U. 
 
 in. 
 
 CHEESE. 
 
 See Butter Manufactories. 
 
 CHEMISTS. 
 
 See Pharmacy. 
 
 CHEQUE. 
 8te Banks— Paymejjt. 
 
 . A cheque given in settlement of losses at 
 matching coppers is a note of hand given in con. 
 sideration of a cambling debt within section 53, 
 sub-section 3, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 47, and such a 
 security is void under 9 Anne c. 14, even in the 
 hands of a bonil fide holder for value. In n 
 Summer feldt v. Worts, 12 O. P.. 48.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Power of partner to endorse cheque in ab- 
 sence of express authority — Estoppel by acqui- 
 escence in bank account. See Manitoba Alort 
 gage Co. v. Banh of Montreal, 17 S. C. R. 692. 
 
 CHILD. 
 
 iS^ee Infant— Parent and Child 
 
 CHOSE IN ACTION. 
 
 I. Assignment of, 224. 
 
 II. Attachment op Debts— See Attach- 
 ment OP Debts. 
 
 HI. Parties to Actions— See Pleading. 
 
 IV. Release of — See Release. 
 
 V. Effect of Sequestration — See Seques- 
 tration. 
 
 I. Assignment of. 
 
 By the terms of a deed of surrender of a lease 
 of a farm to the plaintifiP, the lessee W. was to 
 have the privilege of reaping or selling the fall 
 wheat sown, on payment of the rent in advance, 
 or securing it by first of October, 1878. On that 
 date arriving without such payment or s'jcurity, 
 the plaintifiT refused to allow its remova', where- 
 upon W. offered to give plaintiff an order for 
 $299.85, the amount of rent alleged to be due, 
 on the defendant, a commission merchant to 
 whom W. was accustomed to send his grain for 
 sale, if defendant would accept it. The plaintiff 
 accordingly saw defendant, who said he would 
 accept it if it was all right, and drew up an 
 order in plaintiff's favour, which W. signed. 
 The crain was then shipped to defendant, and 
 sold by him. Before the grain arrived, or at all 
 events before it was sold, W. verbally notified 
 defendant not to pay plaintiff, and the defendant 
 requiring written notice, W. wrote defendant 
 stating that he had found plaintiff's account 
 incorrect, and not to pay plaintiff without fur- 
 ther instructions. The defendant thereupon, 
 although expressly notified by the plaintiff's soli- 
 citor, that the plaintiff insisted on his right to be 
 paid, paid over the amount of the order to W. :— 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench, 44 Q. B. 398, that there was a good equi- 
 table assignment, and the plaintiff was therefore 
 entitled to recover. Mitchell v. Ooodall, 6 A. R. 
 164. 
 
 Declaration, that D., by writing, for valuable 
 consideration, duly assigned to plaintiff the snm 
 of $500, money due and to become due to D. by 
 defendants, whereof defendants had notice in 
 writing, and at the time of and after said assign- 
 ment, and after said notice, and before action, 
 defendants were indebted to D. in money suffi- 
 cient to pay the sum so assigned to plaiutiif, 
 
 etc. : — Helt 
 forth any ft 
 promise to j 
 Mituhell V. 
 Bauuister, 1 
 Smith V. A 
 Osier. 
 
 The secon 
 
 indebted to 
 
 for payment 
 
 to plaintitf, t 
 
 and to becoii 
 
 done by D. : 
 
 defendants ti 
 
 notified defe 
 
 th.it if he w 
 
 they liad exn 
 
 before Deccn 
 
 to him : thn 
 
 was prevent! 
 
 recover said 
 
 said Decenib 
 
 siiid sum, nn( 
 
 ing on said 
 
 proceedings, 
 
 of plaintiff, i 
 
 fully refused 
 
 good, as disc 
 
 assiginnent oi 
 
 for work and 
 
 and a promise 
 
 sue!) debt, i 
 
 The plainti: 
 
 secure certain 
 
 the mortguecc 
 
 the goods sTio 
 
 creditor of tl; 
 
 so taken, and 
 
 had been ass! 
 
 sold under it, 
 
 this action, a 
 
 verbally agree 
 
 were made pa 
 
 that the defei 
 
 such agreomer 
 
 of the mortgaj 
 
 and that the p 
 
 nonsuited. Jii 
 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintil 
 payment of $4, 
 his favour to 
 assignment, as 
 dant giving to 
 to " reassign ' 
 interest. On 
 alleging that , 
 Court (Spraggi 
 tion in favour 
 defendant havi 
 hold the securi 
 Livingston v. } 
 
 Held, that tl 
 Wned in a m^ 
 fMpecting shor 
 «n equitable asi 
 effected. Oreel 
 Royal Inn. Co. 
 
 Held, that t( 
 account for the 
 »ered by the 
 
 15 
 
 I 
 
225 
 
 CHOSE IN ACTION. 
 
 226 
 
 etc. :_Held, on demurrer, bad, as not setting 
 forth any fact from which the existtnce of nud 
 promise to pay a debt would bo implied by law. 
 Mitchell V. Goodall, 44 Q. B. 398, and Bricc v. 
 Bannister, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 569, distinguished. 
 Smidt V. Ancanter Toivimhij^, 45 Q. B. 80. — 
 Osier. 
 
 The second count stated that D. , being larcely 
 indebted to plaintiff, and being pressed by liini 
 for payment, it was agreed that I), should assign 
 to plaintitr, to secure part of said debt, §500 due 
 and to become due to U. by defendants for work 
 done by D. : that D. gave plnintifl'an order upon 
 defendants to pay same to plaintiff : that plaintiff 
 notified defendants, who represented to plaintiff 
 that if he would present said order as soon as 
 they had examined said \t'ork, which would be 
 before I.)ecend)er, 1879, they would ])ay the .'JSOO 
 to him : that by said representation plaintiff 
 was prevented from proceeding against D. to 
 recover said §500 : that afterwards and before 
 said Decendier, defendants being liable to pay 
 said sum, and well knowing that plaintiff, rely- 
 ing on said represention, refrained from such 
 proceedings, paid the same over to D. , in fraud 
 of plaintiff, and defendants thereafter wrong- 
 fnlly refused to pay same to plaintiff: — Held, 
 good, as disclosing a cause of action upon an 
 assignment of a debt due by defendants to U. 
 for work and labour performed for them l)y I)., 
 and a promise on their part to plaintiff to pay 
 such debt. Ih. 
 
 The plaintiff gave a chattel mortgage to H. to 
 secure certain money, with a proviso enabling 
 the mortgagee to take possession and sell in case 
 the goods should be taken in execution \>y any 
 creditor of the mortgagor. These goods were 
 so taken, and defcu<lant, to whom the mortgage 
 had been assigned by H., took possession and 
 sold under it, for wliich the plaintiff sued in 
 this action, alleging that H., the mortgagee, 
 verbally agreed to pay these executions, which 
 were made part of the money secured : — Held, 
 that the defendant, as assignee, took subject to 
 such agreement (which did not vary the terms 
 of the mortgage), though without notice of it ; 
 and that the plaintiff' therefore was improperly 
 nonsuited. Martin v. Bearmaii, 45 Q. B. 205. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff transferred a covenant for the 
 
 Sayment of $4,000, executed by four persons in 
 is favour to tho defendant by an absolute 
 assignment, as security for $2,000 ; the defen- 
 dant giving to the plaintiff a separate agreement 
 to " reassign " on payment of the loan and 
 interest. On a bill to obtain a reassignment, 
 alleging that such loan had been repaid, the 
 Court (Spragge, G. ) made a decree for redemp- 
 tion in favour of the plaintiff with costs ; the 
 defendant having set up a claim to be entitled to 
 hold the security as absolute purchaser thereof. 
 Livingston v. Wood, 27 Chy. 615. 
 
 Held, that the usual covenant to insure con- 
 tained in a mortgage executed under the Act 
 respecting short forms of mortgages operates as 
 an equitanle assignment of the insurance when 
 effected. Greet v. Citizenx' Ins. Co. ; Greet v. 
 Royal Inx- Co., 5 A. R. 596 ; 27 Chy. 121. 
 
 Held, that to an action by an assignee of an 
 account for the price of lumber and staves deli- 
 vered by the assignor to the defendant under 
 15 
 
 two certain contracts therefor, the defendant, 
 under 1{. S. 0. (1877) o. 116, ss. 7, 10, and the 
 Judicature Act, ss. 12, 16, and Hule 127, (Con. 
 Rule 373) can set up as a defence a claim for 
 damage for the nondelivery by the assignor to 
 the defendant of certain other timber and staves 
 speuilied in the contracts, and for the inferior 
 (piality of those delivered. Per Osier, J. , his 
 right to do so depeniled wholly upon R. S. O. c. 
 1 16, s. 10. In this case the learned judge, at the 
 trial, having refused to entertain the former de- 
 fence, a new trial was ordered. Exchamje Bank 
 v, Slimon, 32 C. P. 158.— C. P. D. 
 
 B. and D. having a claim against a company, B. 
 assigned his interest on it to D. upem certain 
 trusts, in which, however, B. had no interest : — 
 Held that the assignment was absolute and B. 
 entitled to sue : — Held, also, that B. having 
 been president of the comi'any when the cost.s 
 were incurred was no objection. Duff v. Cana- 
 dian Mutual Fire Imurance Co., 9 P. R. 292 — 
 Pioudfoot. 
 
 Held, — Rose, J., expressing no opinion on the 
 point— that where an ussigument of a mortgage 
 on land was alisolute in form, though as a matter 
 of fact the assignor retained a right to part of the 
 money, an action on the covenant in the mort- 
 gage must be brought in the name of the assignee. 
 Ward V. I/u<jlm, 8 O. R. 138.— C. P. U. 
 
 While the defendants C. & E. were negotia- 
 ting with the defendant J. for the purchase of his 
 stock of goods, the plaintiffs presented to C. & 
 K. an order upon them for ])art of the anticipated 
 purchase money, which order they had obtained 
 from ,1. in payment of a debt due by him to the 
 plaintiff's. This order C. & K. refused to pay or 
 accept. The sale was subsequently completed, 
 and the price paid in full to J. : — Hehl, that no 
 charge on the purchase money had thus been 
 created, and payment therefore could not be en- 
 forced against C. & E. Mitehul r. (ioodall, 5 
 A. It. 164, and WcMaster v. Garland, 8 A. R. I^ 
 observed upon and explained. Brotcn v. John- 
 .•ifon, 12 A. R. 190. 
 
 A receiver has no right to sue in his own name 
 for a debt due to the person or corporation whose 
 assets he has been appointed to receive ; nor can 
 that right bo conferred on him by order. But 
 where by an ex parte order made in the action 
 in which the plaintiff' was appointed receiver, he- 
 was authorized to bring action in his own name 
 for the collection of debts due to a certain grange, 
 and brought this action pursuant thereto, it 
 was — Held, that an amendment should be made 
 adding the grange as coplaintiffs without se- 
 curity being given for their costs, they being in- 
 solvent. It there were no person in whose name 
 the action could be brought, there would per- 
 haps be juriadiction to direct it to be brought in 
 the name of the receiver. McGuin v. Fretts, 13- 
 O. R. 699.-Chy. D. 
 
 S. recovered a judgment against S. S., and 
 plaintiff was appointed the receiver in that suit 
 to receive S, S.'s share of his father's estate 
 which he was entitled to under the will of the 
 latter. The share not being paid over plaintiff 
 brought action in his own name against the 
 father's executors to recover the amount. The 
 defendants demurred on the ground that the 
 cause of action, if any, was vested in S. S., and 
 that plaintiff had no right to bring the action : — 
 
 IS 
 
227 
 
 OHUROH. 
 
 Held, that tlie right of action was in S. S. ui.d 
 not the plaintiff: by his appointment the plain- 
 tiff became entitled to receive the amount, vlmI 
 the defendants, the executors, having notice of 
 hia appointment could not safely pay over the 
 money to any other, and in case of their refusal 
 to pay, the plaintiff's duty was to apply for 
 leave to bring an action in S. S. 's name. Mo- 
 Guin V. Fretts, 13 (). R. ()99, cited and followed. 
 Stmrt v. Oroiujh, 14 O. R. 255. —Robertson. 
 
 Held, that the fact that L. had assigned to 
 his wife his claim against the company for pay- 
 ment for services rendered by liim after the 
 winding-up order had been acted on, made no 
 difference to a claim of the company against him 
 for a debt based upon a breach of trust since any 
 such assignment would be subject to all the 
 equities against such claim, and against the 
 assignor as a director and trustee of the com- 
 pany's funds in the proceedings under the wind- 
 ing-up order. J{e Bolt and fron Co.—LiviiKjston's 
 Caw, 14 O. U. 211. -Boyd ; 16 A. R. 397. 
 
 .See McMaster v. Garhind, 8 A. R. 1, 185 ; 
 Armit ii>n<i v. Fair, 11 A. R. 180 ; Friendly v. 
 Canada Tranait Co., 10 O. K. 756; Lamjdon 
 V. Robertson, 13 O. R. 497 ; Hall v. Prittie, 
 17 A. R. SOU, p. l.')5. 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 I. Church of England, 227. 
 II. Other Relkjious iNSTiinTioNs, 232. 
 III. Devises and Bequests to— See Will. 
 
 I. Church of England. 
 
 Under the Church Temporalities Act, 3 Vict, 
 c. 74, ss. 2, 3, 6, a vestry capable of electing 
 churchwardens, forming a corporation under the 
 Act, so as to be capable as such of suins or being 
 sued, must be composed of persons holding pews 
 in the church by purchase or lease, or hoMiug 
 sittings therein by lease from the churchwardens. 
 The churchwardens of a church where the sit- 
 tings were wholly free, were therefore held not 
 liable on a contract made by their predecessors 
 for building the church. Anderson v. Worters, 
 32 C. P. C59.— Cameron. See 47 Vict. c. 89. 
 
 Where a testatoi bequeathed unto the incum- 
 bent of a certain church all the property she 
 might die possessed of, to be used for the relief 
 of the poor of the church, to be dispensed by the 
 said incumbent, and the churchwardens brought 
 an action, on behalf of themselves and all the 
 membei's of the congregation, against the execu- 
 tors, to have the estate administered, and for a 
 declaration tliat the incumbent was entitled to 
 distribute tlie fund, and an order for payment 
 over of all such sums as should have been dis- 
 tributed by the incumbent among the poor of the 
 church :— Held, on demurrer to the statement of 
 claim,that it was bad in substance,for the church- 
 wardens had no title to maintain the action, 
 since they could not be said to represent the in- 
 cumbent, to whom the bequest was made, and 
 who wivs not a member of the congregation in the 
 same sense us the plaintiffs and the other mem- 
 bers, and section 6 of the Church Temporalities 
 
 Act, 3 Vict. c. 74, did not authorize them to 
 sue. McClenaghan v. Grey, 4 O. R. 329.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Semble, that the said section ^vea church- 
 wardens authority in certain specified matters, 
 in which all the members of the church are in- 
 terested, but here the bequest was only to a par- 
 ticular class, viz., the poor of the church, and 
 therefore not within the section. Clowes v. Bil- 
 liard, L. R. 4 Chy. D. 413, and New Westmin- 
 ster Brewing Co. v. Hannah, 24 W. R. 899 fol- 
 lowed, and Werderman v. Soci^td GcJn^rale 
 d'Electricit^, L. R. 19 Chy. D. 240 distinguish- 
 ed. Ih. 
 
 The sum received for commutation under the 
 Clergy Reserve Act was paid to the Church So- 
 ciety of the Diocese of Huron, upon trust to pay 
 to the commuting clergy their stipends for life, 
 and when such payment should cease then "for 
 the support and maintenance of the clergy of the 
 Diocese of Huron in such manner as should from 
 time to time be declared by any by-law or by- 
 laws of the Synod to be from time to time passed 
 for that purpose." In 1860 a by-law was passed 
 providing that out of the surplus of the commu- 
 tation fund, clergymen of eight years and up- 
 wards active service should receive each $200, 
 with a provision for increase in certain events. 
 In 1873 the plaintiff became entitled under this 
 by-law, and in 1876 the Synod (the successors of 
 the church society) repealed all previous by- 
 laws respecting the fund, and made a different 
 appropriation of it : — Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of the court below, 9 A. R. 411, which re- 
 versed the decision of Proudfoot, J., 29 Chy. 348, 
 Fournier and Henry, JJ., dissenting, that under 
 the terms of the trust there was no contract be- 
 tween the plaintiff and defendants ; the trustees 
 had power, from time to time, to pass by-laws 
 regulating the fund in question and making a 
 different appropriation of it, for the support and 
 maintenance of the clergy of the diocese, and the 
 plaintiff must be assumed to have accepted his 
 stipend with that knowledge and on that condi- 
 tion. Wright v. Incorporated Synod of the Dio- 
 cese of Huron, 11 S. C. R. 95. 
 
 The Rev. J. H. being the incumbent of a 
 parish in the Diocese of Ontario, which was 
 endowed, and having acted in such capacity and 
 performed the duties thereof for several years, 
 discontinued the services in two other churches 
 which were attached to his parish. A commis- 
 sion was issued by the Bishop under the canon 
 in that behalf of the Synod of the said Diocese 
 No. 8, '"To enquire into the causes which led to 
 the closing of the said churches, and to report 
 whether there was lawful excuse for the said 
 Rev. J. H.'s discontinuance of the exercise of 
 his ministerial offices in said churches, and t<i 
 report whether there was sufficient primd facie 
 ground for institutingf urther proceedings against 
 the said Rev. J. H. as provided by said canon." 
 The commissioners reported that the churches 
 had been closed "because the members of the 
 church refused to attend and provide for the min- 
 istrations of the Rev. J. H in these churches :" 
 that an estrangement existed between the said 
 Rev. J. H. and his parishioner", mxA they de- 
 clined his ministrations. But th > . i '-. the opinion 
 of the commissioners, the proofs adduced were 
 not of such a nature as could be relied on to pro- 
 cure a conviction in an Ecclesiastical Court : and 
 
229 
 
 OHUBOH. 
 
 they declined to recommend the prosecution of 
 further legal action, although they believed there 
 waa no hope of a restoration of his ministerial 
 usefulness there, and that there was a primA 
 facie ground for instituting further proceedings 
 against him as provided by the canon ; but they 
 were of opinion that without the production of 
 other and much stronger evidence than that 
 adduced, the institution of further proceedings 
 would not result in a charge of breach of disci- 
 pline under the said canon being sustained. 
 After the making of tliis report, and upon tlie said 
 Rev. J. H. refusing to resign his said incum- 
 bency, the Bishop, by an instrument under seal, 
 revoked, or purported to revoke, his license, 
 .and appointed the Rev. A. E. T. as his successor, 
 and tue Synod declined to pay him (the Rev. 
 J. H. ) the annual proceeds of the endowment. 
 Upon an action being brought by the Rev. J. H. 
 to compel the Synod to pay him such proceeds :— 
 Held, that the oflfences {if any) came within the 
 second section of the canon ; ttiat any one 
 charged with such an offence has tiie right to be 
 tried, under section one, by the diocesan Court, 
 and lias the right of appeal to the metropolitan, 
 under section thirteen ; that the Bishop had not 
 the power to csiacel and annul the license of the 
 plaintiff, either without or for cause, without u 
 trial by the diocesan Court : and that the plain- 
 tiff must succeed : — Held, also, that the general 
 word " immorality " as used in the canon was 
 not restricted by the words following, specifying 
 particular offences, for such offences were not of 
 the same nature as tiie general word. Halliiodl 
 V. Iticiirporated Synod of the Diocent of Ontario, 
 7 0. R. 67.— Ferguson. 
 
 The church of St. James was erected into a 
 rectory " at the city of Toronto within the said 
 township (York)," by patent under 31 Geo. III. 
 «. 31, 8. 38, in 1836, and was endowed at differ- 
 ent times with lands situate some in the city of 
 Toronto, and some in the township of York. 
 When the lands were sold under 29 & 30 Vict, 
 •c. 16, and the proceeds had to be distributed by 
 the Synod of Toronto under 41 Vict. c. 69, there 
 were incumbents of parishes in the city of 
 Toroato and in the township of York, and it 
 was contended that only tlie incumbents of the 
 tity parisijes were entitled to participate in the 
 -distribution. On a special case being stated for 
 the opinion of the Court, it was— Held, that the 
 «ity of Toronto was, for the purposes of the 
 grant erecting the rectory to be considered as 
 being within and a part of the territory of the 
 township of York, and the grant was for the 
 benetit of both the township and the city as 
 one territory, and that the incumbents of the 
 churches in the township must, under 41 Vict, 
 c. 69, 8. 2, be inclutled among the participants 
 in the fund :— Semble, there would appear to 
 have been no authority for the creation of a 
 irectory in this province otlier than a rectory for 
 a township. Incorporated Synixl of the Diocene 
 of Tormfo v. Lcwii, 13 O. R. 738.— b'erguson. 
 Si/iwd of Huron v. Smith, 13 0. R. 755 n. 
 
 Certain land was granted by patent from the 
 Crowu, dated December 2ath, 1817, to I). B., 
 J. B. R., and \V. A. as trustees, for the sole use 
 and lieiiefit of the parishioners of the town of 
 \ork for ever, as a, churchyard and burying 
 ground for the inhabitants of the said town ot 
 York, ."-.ill appurtenant to the church then built 
 
 thereon. This patent was surrendered to the 
 Crown, and anotner, dated September 4th, 1820, 
 was issued to the same trustees, reciting the 
 terms of the former patent, and that it waa 
 intended that so much only of the said land as 
 was necessary for the purposes of a churchyard 
 and burying ground should be so appropriated, 
 and that such part of the said land as was not 
 so required for the use of the parishioners should 
 be held upon and for the trusts and uses here- 
 inafter stated, which trusts were as follows : — 
 ' ' In trust to hold the same for the sole use and 
 benefit of the resident clergyman of the said town 
 of York, and his succescors appointed or to be 
 appointedrectors of the Episcopal Church therein 
 to which the said land is appurtenant, to make 
 lease of the same with the assent of the incum- 
 bent, and to receive the rents due or to grow due 
 therefrom to his use," * * and when a rec- 
 tory was erected, and an incumbent appointed 
 * * " the trustees should convey to such in- 
 cumbent * * and his successors for ever as a 
 corporation sole to and for the same uses and 
 upon the same trusts." Certain other lands 
 were also granted by another patent from the 
 Crown, dated 26th April, 1819, to VV. D. P., 
 J. B., and J. S., upon trust to observe snch 
 directions, and to consent to and allow such 
 appropriation and disposition of them, and to 
 convey the same in such manner as should there- 
 after be directed by order in council. These 
 lands were subsequently conveyed by VV. D. P., 
 J. B. , and J. 8. to the other trustees, D. B., 
 J. B. R., and \V. A., by deed, dated July 4th, 
 1825, reciting an order in council dated Decem- 
 ber 2nd, 1824, requiring the grantors to convey 
 the said lands to the grantees for the use of the 
 church and of the clergyman incumbent thereon 
 for the time being (which recital was the only 
 evidence of the contents of the order in council), 
 " upon trust, nevertheless, that the grantees 
 should hold the lands for the sole use and benefit 
 of the resident clergyman of the town of York, 
 and his successors appointed or to be appointed 
 incumbent of the parsonage or rectory of the 
 Episcopal Cliurch, according to the rites and 
 ceremonies of the Church of England therein, 
 to which the said lands are appurtenant," which 
 deed contained a proviso for conveyance by the 
 trustees, upon the erection of a parsonage or 
 rectory and presentation thereto, in the same 
 terms as that contained in the patent of the 4th 
 ot September, 1820. The town of York vraa 
 subsequently incorporated as the city of Toronto, 
 and by letters patent, dated 16th January, 1836, 
 a parsonage or rectory was erected and consti- 
 tuted in the said city ot Toronto, designated as 
 the first parsonage or rectory within the town- 
 ship ot York, otherwise known as the parsonage 
 or rectory of St. James, and 800 acres of land 
 were set apart as a glebe or endowment, to be 
 held appurtenant with the said parsonage or 
 rectory, and the Hon. and Rev. J. S. was duly 
 presented to be the incumbent of the said par- 
 sonage or rectory of St. James, and by deed poll, 
 dated the 10th February, 1841, reciting the 
 patent ot the 4th September, 1820, the deed of 
 tlie 4th July, 1825, and the presentation ot the 
 Hon. and Rev. J. S., the said J. B. R., W. A., 
 and J. Gr. S., the then trustees, granted the said 
 lands described in the said patent and deed to 
 the said the Hon. and Rev. J. 8., rector of St. 
 James, and his successors in the said rectory 
 for ever as a corporation sole, to and for the same 
 
 I 
 
 sag 
 
 •5 
 laQ 
 
 .0% , 
 
231 
 
 OLEARINO LAND. 
 
 232 
 
 U8CB ami upon the same trustR as are iiitMitioncd 
 anil cxprcHSftl in tlie imteiit and deed. 'I'lie Hev. 
 H. ,). (i. Buccecdcd the saidjlon. imd Kt-v. .1. S. 
 as incumbent on the Kitli 'KiJuiiiiry, 1847, and 
 was in iiosHCHsidU of tlio naid lands, and in receipt 
 of the rents and prolits thereof until the time of 
 his death, which hapiiened on the iJOtli March, 
 1 32. In tlie year ISfif! the statute '.>!l & .'tO Vict. 
 c. Ifi, entitled, "An Act to provide for the Sale 
 of Rectory Unda in this Piovinee," was passed 
 by the parliament of Canada, which j,'ave the In- 
 corporated Synod of any Dioecse of the United 
 Church of Hnfiland and Ireland in Canada, or the 
 Churcli Society, with the consent of the .Synod 
 /here the Synod was not incorporated, "full 
 power and authority to sell and al.s(dutelyilispose 
 of any lands granted by the Crown in such dio- 
 cese, as a glebe of, or as appurtenant or belonging 
 to, or appropriated for, any rectory of the said 
 Church in such diocese, by whatever name the 
 same may be called, or in whonisoi'vei' the title 
 thereto may be vested." In a suit brought by 
 the incumbents of several lectories which were 
 subsequently erected in the said city of Toronto, 
 and the Synod of the ])ioccse of Tf)ronfo, to have 
 the lands covered by the patent of 1S20, and tlie 
 deed of IS'25 divided up under the provisions of 
 that Act, it was— irdd (affiniiing the judgment 
 of Ferguson, J., 7 O. It. 4<l!t), that the lands in 
 question were covered by the terms of the Art ; 
 that prior to the year ISC.Ci there were rectory 
 lands derived directly from the clergy reserves, 
 and lands specially granted to trustees, whicli 
 were treated as endowments for rectories, and 
 that the legislature intended to deal with both 
 classes : that the delivery up and cancellation of 
 the patent of 1817, being to correct an error, 
 could not be held to be such a consideration as 
 w uld make the patent of 1820 a grant for value , 
 that Crown grants which were of a quasi public 
 character were different from private gifts, and 
 the Synod, in the case of the former, had peti- 
 tioned for and obtainsd the power they desired : 
 that 14 k 15 Vict. c. 175, s. 2 (C. S. C. c. 74), 
 afforded strong evidence that prior to the year 
 18(i6 there had been endowments for rectories 
 out of the public domain, as well as out of the 
 clergy reserves. Lamj/ry v. DnmouHn, 7 O. E. 
 644.— Chy. D. See S. C, Dttnwulin v. Lawjlry, 
 13S.C.R.2r)8. 
 
 As to evidence to prove the contents of a 
 canon of the Church Society or Synod. See 
 Lavijlry v. Jhimoiiliii, 7 O. R. 499. 
 
 As to evidence to est.iblish the status of cer- 
 tain rectors. See S. C, 7 0. II. 499. 
 
 Upon an application by the churchwardens of 
 St. James' Church for leave to appeal from the 
 judgment of the Chancery Divisional Court (7 
 0. R. 644) in their own names, or in the name 
 of the rector, the defendant (who declined to 
 carry the case further) as their trustee : — Held, 
 that the rector was not a trustee for the appli- 
 cants, bnt would himself, if the contention should 
 prevail, be beneficially entitled to the fruits of 
 the litigation ; and that the applicants had not 
 such an interest as entitled them to be made 
 parties to the action, and the application was 
 therefore refused. The event rendered it unne- 
 cessary to consider whether or not the applica- 
 tion should have been made in this court or in 
 the court below. S. (7. , 11 A. R. CAi ; See S. C. , 
 «ifr nom. Dtt Moulin v. Langtry, 13 S. C. R. 258. 
 
 II. Othkr Rf.lioiou.s Institutions. 
 
 i Held, under the circumstances of this cise, 
 , that the trustees of a congregation of the Mctbo- 
 j dist Church had power to liorrow money and 
 
 secure it by chattel mortgage. Jinmn v, .Svtft 
 
 7 A. R. 725. 
 
 In 1821 J. Bowerman and J. Bull joined ia 
 conveying certain lands to three persons, tins- 
 tess of the West Lake meeting of friends, ap- 
 pointed by the monthly meeting to secure the 
 
 I titles of meeting house lots, and burying gronml.i, 
 " to have and to hold said parcel of land here- 
 
 i by granted unto tiio aforesaid trustees of i-uid 
 monthly meeting for the time being, and for 
 their successors in trust as said nieetiiii' shall 
 
 ' from time to time see cause to appoint, fi)r the 
 only use and benelit of said meeting," and in 
 1835 Bowerman executed a further conveyance 
 
 ; of a portion of those lands of which he had been 
 the owner to two of the said trustees, " and to 
 
 I their successors, in trust for said meeting so hjng 
 as the members constituting it shall remain nml 
 
 1 be from time time continued in religious unity 
 
 1 with (he yearly meeting of friends (called (,)u.i. 
 
 1 kers) as now established in London, Old Kng- 
 laiid, and no longer ;" habendum " unto the 
 aforesaid trustees of the said monthly meeting, 
 and to their successors in trust for the time be- 
 
 ! ing as said meeting shall from time to time see 
 
 ; cause to appoint, for the only use, behoof, and 
 benefit of the said monthly meeting." The de- 
 fendants contended that the identity of the ex- 
 isting monthly meeting with that deseriljcd in 
 these deeds had been lost by reason of departures 
 from the principles which governed the society 
 of friends at the time the trusts were created, as 
 
 i well in matters of discipline and practice as in 
 points of faith and doctrine, and that the ])lain- 
 
 I tifi's were consequently no longer entitled to the 
 
 i use and possession of the land : — Held, reversing 
 
 I the judgment of Proudfoot, J., (7 O. R. 17,) that 
 
 I the criterion as to the monthly meeting was not 
 the adherence to the doctrines and practices 
 whieli prevailed at the time the trusts were 
 created, but its continued existence as a monthly 
 meeting of the organization of the society of; 
 friends to which it oelonged at those times, ami 
 possibly to its members continuing in reliiiious 
 unity with the London yearly meeting : and that 
 the defendants, never having been recngnized 
 by or in connection with the Canada yearly 
 meeting, had no rights as an organization which 
 a court of law could recognise or enforce. Par- 
 (mid V. Joiip.'f, 12 A. R. 543 ; S. C, xvh mm. 
 
 Jomx V. norland, 14 S. C. E. 39. 
 
 Semble, that R. S. 0. (1877), o. 210, s. 10, as to 
 the appointment of trustees of lands by religions 
 bodies does not require the mode of appointment 
 to be determined at one meeting and the appoint- 
 ment itself made at another. Both things may 
 be done at the one meeting. S. C, 7 0. E. 17. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 CIRCUITY OF ACTION. 
 
 See Action. 
 
 CLEARING LAND. 
 
 See Fire — Waste. 
 
233 
 
 GOLLATERAL SEOURITY. 
 
 CLERQY RESERVES. 
 
 Kelcl, tlmt Cler^'y Reserve mniieya wliioli the 
 iminicipiility l>y l>y-law li.id spociticiilly iipiu-o- 
 i)ri;iti'il to (Mliicatiiniiil piirposo.s, w(M'oiiot witliin 
 tlie oDiiilitioii of a towiialiip trt'asiir(!r'K bond. 
 Tuirinhii) o/'Vaklaiiil v. /'rojier, I O. R, 3.S0. 
 
 CLERK. 
 
 I, Ok tiir Cuown ani> I'lkas— .S'ct Pn.vc- 
 
 TICK. 
 
 II. Of tiik I'kaoe — See County Chow s At- 
 
 TOIINF.V. 
 
 Hi. Oh' DivrsioN Coriii'.s — Sec Division 
 
 Col'KTS. 
 
 IV. Ok MuNRii'Ai.iTV— 5a' Ml-nicikau Cou- 
 
 I'OICATIONS. 
 
 CLOUD ON TITLE. 
 
 Sec Sai.i; ok Land. 
 
 CLUES. 
 
 Sa' Intoxicatini; Lk.htors. 
 
 COBOURG HARBOUR. 
 
 Sumble, that " Thu ("ommissiopor.s of tlic 
 Cohmiig Town Trust " are a corporation under 
 •2-2 ViiJt. 0. 72. .See Mr^iltcrry v. The. GomniU- 
 iioiiii-^ of the Cohoursi Town. Truxt, 45 Q. B. 240. 
 
 Graihial accretion occasioned by harbour 
 works. .Sec Slaiid/y v. Pn'ry, 3 S. C. R. 350. 
 
 COGNOVIT. 
 
 See Fraudulent .Judgment. 
 
 COLLATERAL SECURITY. 
 
 To Banks— -See Banks. 
 
 Where mortgages or other evidences of debt 
 are assigned u-. collateral security by a debtor bo 
 his creditor, the latter is Ijound to use due dili- 
 genoo in enforcing payment thereof ; and if 
 through liis default or laches tile money secured 
 thereby is lost, it will be charged against the 
 creditor, and deducted from hi.s deuuind. Synod 
 
 - Prou<lfoot. 
 lb. 550 n. 
 
 v. Dt Blaqmcre, 27 Chy. 536 
 Attirnied by the Court of Appeal. 
 
 A niortgagoo proceeded on the same day to 
 foreclose the property of the mortgagor and his 
 sureties by several bills upon their respective 
 mortgages and to sue at law, in different actions, 
 the same parties on notes held by the plaintiffs, 
 to which the mortgages were collateral : — Held, 
 that only one suit in equity was necessary, as all 
 
 I pavties might Imvo been brought before the cnurt 
 ! therein, all rcmeilies given wiiich might iiavo 
 been olitained at law, and all rightH more con- 
 veniently adjuntfd between the parties in one 
 tlian in several Huits,and the court would not be 
 deterred from granting relief by the eircumstuiico 
 of a decree iteing complicated. Mi rrhdiUt' Hunk 
 v. S/iarkci, 2S (liy. 108.— Spragge. 
 
 Where R. assigniMl a certain mortgage to M. 
 to secure jiayment of two promissory notes of 
 les.s amount than the mortgage debt, and M. 
 having i)rocin'ed an assignment to iiimself of a 
 certain judgment against !(., the slierill', pursu- 
 ant to wiits issued under the said judgment, 
 seized the mortgage ,so assigned, and M. refused 
 to execute a reassignment thereof to I!., until 
 not o:dy tlie amount due on the promissory notes, 
 but also that the balance due under the said 
 mortgage was paid :--Held, that K. was entitled 
 to a roaHnigMmcnt on payment of what was due 
 on tile notes oidy. fertile pluintitl's interest in 
 the m(U'tgage was not pro)ierly exigilde by tho 
 sheriff under R. S O. (1S77), e. (iO. Ross i>. 
 Simpson, 23 Chy. .").")3, distinguished, llumohr 
 v. Marx, .'! O. 1{. 107. — KergusoLi. 
 
 Right of Building iSucieties to take collateral 
 securities. .See Ffuluild Loiui and Sarings So- 
 ciety V. Famll, 31 C. R. 453. 
 
 Proceed ini_; on a chattel mortgagg for broach 
 of its terms befoi'o the note is due, for which the 
 mortgage was 'reld as collateral security. See 
 Corhraiii- v. Jiiichrr, .'! O. R. 402. 
 
 Where certain Hccuritic:! have been assigned as 
 collateral security for the payment of a proniis- 
 .sory note of .':<1,()00, w'licii note has been partly 
 paid and a new note given, snch securities may 
 be held until the debt is discharged by payment. 
 Wiliy v. Lulyard, 10 P. P.. 182.— Hodgins, Mas- 
 ter ill Ordinary. 
 
 Though the remedy of a creditor to recover a 
 de))t be l)arred by the Statute of Limitations, he 
 may hold the collateral securities for such debt 
 until imid. Ih. 
 
 Note given as collateral security to secure an 
 endorser. Effect of giving time to maker. 8e3 
 llealey v. Dolwn, 8 O. R. 091. 
 
 D. J. endorsed a promissory note for the 
 accommodation of W. J., who discounted it, 
 and gave D. J. a mortgage on certain land to 
 indemnify him against his liability as indorser 
 on the note. \V. .!., during the currency of the 
 note absconded, after obtaining from M. by false 
 pretences a clieque for a large sum, which ho 
 cashed, and gave part of the proceeds to D. J. to 
 take uj) the note, which I). J. did before matu- 
 rity. \V. J. told \i. ,]. that he had got the money 
 from M., with whom ho had dealings, as D. J. 
 knew, but D. J. had no notice of any wroag doing 
 in connection with the niouey : — Held, atBrming 
 the judgment of Boyd, C, (10 O. R. 1), that the 
 mortgage ceased to be an incumbrance on the 
 land when the note was retired ; that M. could 
 not follow his money into the note, and was 
 therefore not entitled to stand in the shoes of 
 D. J. , as to the security held by him, even if it 
 had been a mortgage to secure the payment of 
 the note. Jack v. Jack, 12 A. R. 476. 
 
 Sale, at a grossly inadequate price, of timber 
 limits held by a bank as collateral security. 
 See Prentice v. Consolidated Bank, 13 A. R. 69. 
 
 si 
 
 
 '!5 
 
836 
 
 00MPAN7. 
 
 23S 
 
 The plaintifTH had obtained a mortgage from 
 one of di'fenduntH aa coUatural security for a 
 debt, which thev had aflsigiied to a bank. The 
 court directed that judgment for a declaration 
 of lien for debt and coata, and aale to realize it, 
 wu to be entered for the plaintiffa only on the 
 production of the mortgage, and a reconveyance 
 or discharge thereof to the mortgagor. iSVtnii'a 
 Agricullurai Imphuieiil MamtJ'acturinij Co. v. 
 Ifutchhuoit, 17 O. R. (170.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Where notes have been given as collateral 
 Becurity for the price of Hale of a proiicrty, and 
 tlie property not having been paid for, tlie plea 
 of prescription ax to tno notes coiild not avail 
 against an action for tiie price. Mitchell v, //ol- 
 iuiui, 16 8. C. H. (IH7. 
 
 Kffect of liiciiea of bolder of notes given as 
 collateral security in not jH'oceeding for payment 
 of same or notifying principal debtor. >Sec Jiymi 
 V. McCoimvll, ISO. H. 40'J. 
 
 See Cownn. v. tholilfk, 46 Q. K 398 ; JliUton 
 V. Federal liniik;'.) V. It. JOS, p. :34 ; Canadian 
 Bank of Commeirt v. Woodward, 8 A. R. 347, 
 p. 169; C'aiiadia)! Hank of t'ommerce v. North- 
 wood, 14 0. H. 207, p. ITti; Pnrdom v. Mchol, 
 16 0. K. ()99; ir> A. 1!. 244; 15 S. C. R. 610. 
 
 COLLECTORS OF TAXES. 
 
 See Assessment and Taxes. 
 
 COLLEGE. 
 
 See Marsh v. Huron College, 27 Chy. 605. 
 
 COLLISION. 
 
 See Railways AND Railway Companies— Ship. 
 
 COMBINATION. 
 
 See Patent of Invention, 
 
 COMMISSION. 
 I. For Services Rendebed. 
 
 1. To Aijents — See Principal and 
 
 Agent. 
 
 2. To Executors and Administrators — 
 
 See Executors and Administra- 
 tors. 
 
 3. In Partition Suits— See Partition. 
 
 4. To Solicitor- See Solicitor. 
 
 6. To Tnvilees—See Trusts and Trcs- 
 
 TKB8. 
 
 COMMISSION MERCHANTS. 
 
 See Corhy v. Williams, 7 S. C. R. 470. 
 
 COMMISSION OF ENQUIBT. 
 
 Set County Courts. 
 
 COMMISSION TO EXAMINE WIT- 
 NESSES. 
 
 Set Evidence. 
 
 COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE. 
 
 <S'e« I'oLicE. 
 
 COMMITMENT. 
 
 I. Arrest— 5^cc Arrest. 
 
 II. For Contempt — Sec Contempt or 
 Cor RT — E V I i)EX< 'K. 
 
 III. Examination ok JuixiMENT I)i;iiT(iii— 
 
 iS'cc Examination of Juimiment Ijkb- 
 tor. 
 
 IV. By Maimstrates — .SVe Certiokari — 
 
 Ju.sTicE.s of the Peace. 
 
 V. Of Married Woman — -See Hcsbanb 
 AND Wife. 
 
 COMMON CARRIERS. 
 
 See Carriers. 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 I. Corporate Name and Existence, JSS. 
 
 II. Leoislative Authority over — Set 
 Constitutional Law, 
 
 III. Formation. 
 
 1. Promoters and Prospectus, 
 
 (a) Fraud and Misrepresentation, 
 
 238. 
 
 (b) Infants and Married Women m 
 
 Promoters, 241. 
 
 IV. Stock. 
 
 1. Allotment Subscription and Accep- 
 
 tance, 241. 
 
 2. Galls. 
 
 (a) Notice of, 250. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 251. 
 
 3. Transfer, 253. 
 
 4. Cancell'vf/, 257. 
 
 5. Forfeiture, 257. 
 
 6. Increasing, 259. 
 
 7. Votiny on, 260. 
 
 8. Mortgage of, 260. 
 
 9. Sale of under Execution, 260. 
 
 10. Preferential Slock— See IX. 3, p. 272. 
 
 V. Liability of Shareholders to Cre- 
 
 ditors, 260. 
 
 XI. AcTii 
 XII. AtTi 
 
 1. Gi 
 
 2. In 
 
 3. M 
 
 1 
 
 4. Qi 
 
 XIII. 
 
 A MAI 
 
 
 1. Ge 
 
 
 2. OJ 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Fore 
 
 XV. 
 
 WiNJ 
 
 
 1. A) 
 
 
 2. Li 
 
 
 (a 
 
 
 (b 
 
 
 (c 
 
 
 3. Co 
 
OOMPANT. 
 
 ^IT- 
 
 VII, 
 
 DiRKCTORS. 
 
 1. Qualification, 261. 
 
 2. Elfctim,'ia\. 
 
 3. Mt'ftiimn, '263. 
 
 4. Powers. 
 
 (a) Appointment ofA(jenlM, 263. 
 
 (b) 0^/i(T Cn»eM, 204. 
 8. Per.ion'il Liahility, 260. 
 6. Mamiipmj Director, 2(i6. 
 
 7.. Contractu hetwten DWei'tom and Com- 
 pan;/, 267. 
 
 8. O^A'-r ('(iw((,267. 
 
 Offioerh. 
 
 1 
 
 rr or 
 
 llTclIt — 
 
 ARI — 
 
 SBAXD 
 
 E, 'J38. 
 
 — Sf( 
 
 iation, 
 ncn an 
 
 Accep- 
 
 X 272. 
 Crf-- 
 
 Partiex to HiUn and Notes— See Bills 
 or KxcuANdE AND Promissoky 
 
 NoTKS. 
 
 2. Examination of Ojficern/or Dixcorery 
 
 — S'ee KviDKNUE. 
 
 3. Potfi-r of Officers to Rind Company — 
 
 See i'RINCIl'AL ANt) AdENT. 
 
 4. Surety of — See 1'ki.ncihal A.Ni", 
 
 SUHETY. 
 
 VIII. Conduct (if Busine.ss, 268. 
 
 IX. Powers of Companies. 
 
 1. Refjardinij By-lawx, 268. 
 
 2. ExjniMon of Members, 209. 
 
 3. To Issue Preferential Stock, 272. 
 
 4. To hold Land, 273. 
 
 6. To liorrniv Money, 274. 
 
 6. Chanijimj Head Office, 274. 
 
 7. Other Cases, 274. 
 
 X. Contracts By and With. 
 
 1. Necessity for Seal, 275. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 276. 
 
 3. Municipal Corporations — See Muni- 
 
 cipal Corporations. 
 
 XI. Actions by. 277. 
 XII. Actions and Proceedings Against. 
 
 1. Generally, 279. 
 
 2. Injunctions — See Injunction. 
 
 3. Mandamus — See Municipal Cou- 
 
 roRATioNs— Railways and Rail- 
 way Companies. 
 
 4. Quo Warranto Proceedings — See. 
 
 Municipal Corporations —Quo 
 Warranto. 
 
 XIII. Amalgamation of Companies. 
 
 1. Generally, 281. 
 
 2. Of Railway Companies — See Rail- 
 
 ways AND Railway Companies. 
 
 XrV. Foreign Companies, 281. 
 XV. Winding-up Acts. 
 
 1. Application of, 283. 
 
 2. Liquidators. 
 
 (a) Appointment of, 285. 
 
 (b) Remuneration, 285. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 286. 
 
 3. Contributories, 286. 
 
 4. Debts of Conipani/ transferred to Con- 
 trihntori^s, 2H7. 
 
 3. Payments by Companies when Insol- 
 vent, 288. 
 
 6. Priority of Claims of the Crown, 21)0. 
 
 7. Practice, 
 
 (ft) Powers of Judi/es and Masters, 
 
 2fl0. 
 (b) Apptals, 291. 
 (i!) Costs, 291. 
 ((!' Other Cases, 292. 
 
 8. Other Cases, 293. 
 
 9. Constilnlionality of— See Constitu- 
 
 tional Law. 
 
 XVI. Assessment of— 6Ve Assessment and 
 Taxes. 
 
 XVII. Particular Companies and Corpora- 
 tions— ,SVc TiiKiit Sevkhal Titles. 
 
 I. Corporate Name and Existence. 
 
 The plaintiff sued " Tlio Coinniissioners of the 
 Cobourg Town Trust," in whom the harbour at 
 Coboiirj^ is veBtetl in fee by 22 Vict. c. 72, for 
 damages for 1<>«h of hia vessel, ca\iHed by the 
 negligence of ilefcmlantH, who by their plea 
 merely traversed the negligence. At the trial 
 plaintifl' was nonsuited, on the objection that 
 defendants were sued as a corporation, but were 
 not so under the statute :— Held, that this ob- 
 jection should have been raised by plea, and 
 was not open to defendants on this reconl ; and 
 scinble, that if open, defendants were a corpora- 
 tion. Leave was granted to amend, if desired, 
 by substituting the names of the commissioners. 
 McShcrri/ v. Cummis.'iioners (f the Cobounj Town 
 Trust, 45 Q. B. 240.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Clianging the name of a company by statute 
 does not affect its right to maintain actions in 
 like manner as if the name had not been changed. 
 Prorinrial Insurance Co. v. Cameron, 31 C. P. 
 523.-C. P. i). 
 
 A deed to defendant company described it by 
 its original name of P. H. L. & U. 1». Co., when 
 in fact its name had then been changed : — 
 Held, a sufficient descriptio persona; to enable 
 the company to take, though it might not be 
 sufficient to sue in. Grand Junction R. W. Co. 
 V. Midland R. W. Co., 7 A. It. 081. 
 
 III. Formation. 
 
 1. Promoters and Prospectus. 
 
 (a) Fraud and Misrepresentation. 
 
 A suit was brought against a joint stock com- 
 
 Eany, and against four of the shareholders who 
 ad been the promoters of the company. The 
 bill alleged that the defendants, other than the 
 company, had been carrying on the lumber busi- 
 ness as partners and had become embarrassed ; 
 thiit they then concocted a scheme of forming a 
 joint stock company ; that the sole object of the 
 proposed company was to relieve the members of 
 the firm from personal liability for debts incurred 
 in the said business and induce the public to ad- 
 vance money to carry on the business; thatappli- 
 
288 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 240 
 
 cation was mailc to the government of Ontario 
 for a cliarter, and at the same time a prospectus 
 wa; issucil, which was set out in full in the bill; 
 that such prospectus containeil the followini^ 
 paragraphs among others, which the plaiiititf 
 alleged to he false : 1. The tiniher limits of the 
 company, inclusive of the recent jturchaso, con- 
 sist of 'J'2'2i s{juare miles, or 142,400 acies, and 
 are estimated to yield '200 million feet of lumber. 
 2. The interest of tlie pi'oprictors of tlie old 
 company in its assets, estimated at about $140, 
 000 over liabilities, has been transferred to tiie 
 new company at i!10."),000, all taken in paid up 
 stock, and the whole of the proceeds of the pre- 
 ferential stock will be used for the purposes of 
 the new company. .1. Preference stock not to 
 exceed S7''),000 will Ijc issued by the company to 
 guarantee eiglit per cent, yearly thereon to tiie _ . 
 
 year 18S(I, and over tliat amount the net prolits defendants as to certain contracts alleged bv 
 
 mortgage to the Ontario Bank, it having been 
 given after the prospectus was issued, it could 
 not have been in the prospectus, and, moreover, 
 that the shareholders were in no way damnified 
 thereby, as the new company would have been 
 ecjually liable f jr the debt i^ the mortgage had 
 not been give:i ; and as to the concealment of 
 the embarrasjed condition of the old company, 
 the evidence shewed that the old firm did not 
 believe themselves to be insolvent ; and in neither 
 case were they liable in an action of this kind. 
 I'elric V. Guelph Lumber Co. 11 S. C. R. 450. 
 
 The plaintiffs, formerly owners of a line of 
 steamers, filed the bill in this cause against the 
 <lefendants, who were formerly owners of another 
 line of steamers, seeking damages in respect of 
 lUeged misrepresentations on the part of the 
 
 will be divided amongst all the shareholders pro 
 rata. 4. Slionld the holders of preference stock 
 so desire, the eompanj' binds itself to take that 
 stock b:ick (luring the year 18S0 at par, with 
 eight per cent, per annum, on receiving six 
 montiis' notice in writing. 5. Even with pre- 
 sent \' w prices tiie company, owing to theirsupe- 
 rior facilities, will be able to pay a liandsome divi- 
 dend on tlieordinary as well as on the preference 
 stock, and when the lumber market improves, 
 as it nuist soon do, the prolits will be corres- 
 ponilingly increased. Tlie bill furtlier alleged 
 that the plaintiffs subscriiicd for stock in the 
 company on tlie faith of the statements in the 
 prospectus ; that the assets of the old companj' 
 were not transferred tn tlie new in the condition 
 that they were in at the time of issuing the 
 prosi.octiis ; that the embarrassed condition of 
 tlie old company was not made known to the 
 persons t iking stock in the new company, nor 
 was the fact of a mortgage on the a.ssets of the 
 old coin|iaiiy having been given to the Ontario 
 ]>ank, after the pro.spectus was issued but before 
 stock ccrtilicates were gniiited ; that the assets 
 of the old company were not worth §140,000, 
 or any sum over liabilities, but were worthless ; 
 and prayeil for a rescission of the contract for 
 taking stock, for repayment of the amount of 
 such stock, and for damages against the direc- 
 tors and promoters forinisreinesentation. Tiiere 
 was evidence to shew th.nt the promoters had 
 reason to believe the prospects of the new com- 
 pany to be good, and that they had honestly 
 valued their assets. On the argument three 
 grounds of relief were put forward: 1. Res- 
 cission of the contract to subscribe for prefer- 
 ence stock. 2. Spi ciiie performnnce of the eon- 
 tract to take back the preference stock during 
 the year 1S80 at i)ar. 3. D.images against the 
 <lircctors and promoters for misrepresentation. 
 The company having become insolvent the plain- 
 tiffs put their case principally on the third 
 ground :— Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 courts below, 2 0. R. 218 ; 11 A. R. 336, that 
 the plaintiffs could claim no relief against the 
 company by way of rescission of the contract, 
 because it appeared that they had acted as share- 
 holders and affirmed their contract as owners of , , „ „ , 
 
 shares after becoming aware of the grounds of ilesiriug to send his son to a place wWe he would 
 
 them to be held in connection with their line, and 
 whereby the plaintiffs alleged they were induced 
 to enter into an agreement with the defendanta 
 for the amalgamation of the two lines, and the 
 formation in connection with the defendants of 
 a joint stock comp.any to own and run the same. 
 The ;igreeinent was made in December, 1876, the 
 charter of the company was obtained in March, 
 1877, and the plaintilFs became aware of the 
 alleged misrepresentations in May, 1877: not- 
 withstanding which they continued to carry on 
 the business, allotted shares, and aUowed divi- 
 dends to bo paid until and after the bill was tiled, 
 which was not till February, 1881. The ruiise 
 was not brought to a hearing till May, J8S4, and 
 one of the defendants dieil while it was pending. 
 Tiie evidence as to the alleged misrepresentations 
 was conllieting :— Held, reversing the decision of 
 Wilson, (■..]., O. R. 385, that this was in effect 
 aconiniim law action of deceit, and the misrepre- 
 sentations alleged reijnired proof of the clearest 
 kind ; and, therefore, that the long delay, the 
 conduct of the plaintiffs, and their dealings with 
 the suliject matter disentitled them to relief upon 
 the evidence submitted : — Senible, if the plain- 
 tiffs had succeeded, the measure of damages 
 would have been a portion of the profits of the 
 contracts, as represented by the defendants, pro- 
 portioned to the plaintiffs' shares of the capital 
 stock of the company. Per Hagarty, C. J.O., the 
 action wns wrong in its framework ; it should 
 have been brought in tiie name of the company, 
 or on behalf of all its shareholders. Per Burton, 
 .J. A., the action could not have been maintained 
 by the company upon representations made to 
 tlie plaintiffs, /ka/t!/ v. lYeehn, 12 A. R. 50.— 
 Affirmed, 13 S. C. R. 1., Strong, J., dissenting. 
 
 The plaintiffs, a company formed for the pur- 
 pose of ecdonizing lands in the North-West Ter- 
 ritories, represented to defendant, by means of 
 an advertisement issued in a daily paper, that the 
 Dominion Government had agreed to the selec- 
 tion by tho company of a " compact choice tract 
 of land " in the said territories, " comprising 
 2,000,000 acres, for the purpose of settlement, 
 free from the use of intoxicating liquors." The 
 defendant, on the faith of these representations, 
 
 misrepresentation ;— Held, also, as to the action 
 against the defendants other than the company 
 for deceit, that the evidence failed to establish 
 such a case of fraudulent misrepresentation as 
 to entitle plaintiffs to succeed as for deceit :— 
 
 be precluded from the use of intoxicating liquors, 
 entered into two agreements with the company, 
 agreeing in each " to purchase and pay for 320 
 acres of land, in the order of choice from tho 
 odd numbered sections of our lands as procured 
 
 eld, also, as to the alleged concealment of the ' or to be procured from the Domiuiou," and paid 
 
241 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 212 
 
 certain instalments thoreon. It wiis proved that 
 tlie company never liiul, and could not obtain, 
 the choice compact tract stated, nor any special 
 privileges as to the exclusion of licjuors :— Held, 
 thatthese were material nusrcpresuntations; and 
 defendant, having been induced to enter into the 
 ai'reenicnts thereby, was therefore entitled to 
 liave them rescinded, and to recover back the 
 money paid by him. Tcnipcraiice Co/onir.atioii 
 Co. V. Fair/kid, 16 0. K. 544.— C. T*. I). 
 
 See Morrison v. Earl", 5 O. It. 4?14 ; Steroin 
 V. London Sferl Workt Co. — JJdaiw'n Case, 15 
 0. R. 75, p. 248 ; Ncl/ux v. Oulario Jnrenlmcnt 
 Axmialioii, 17 O. IJ. 129, p. 280. 
 
 (b) Infants and Marri<:d Women as I'romolers. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, that by reason of *^he iiifiuioy of one of the 
 live subsuri))ers, the company, which was formed 
 for the p'U'chase of a road under R. S. O. (IS77), 
 c. 152, had no legal e.xi.stcuwc at the time of the 
 registration of their Icclaration of im oijioration, 
 and that no subsequent ratification by liini after 
 attaining majority could validate his uoiitiact. 
 Hiimilloti and Flainboroni/h Uoad Co. v. 'J'oirn- 
 sml;Sam(t Plaint i£' v. Fl'att, ISA. K. 5.34. 
 
 Qiuere, whether a married woman can lej,'a!ly 
 be one of the live members re(|uircd by It. .S. O. 
 (1877), c. 152, to form a joint stock company for 
 the purpose of purchasing a road. Jh. 
 
 IV. Stock. 
 
 1. A Hot mind, Snbscriitlion. and Acceptance. 
 
 Tlie defendants, as partners, had been ap- 
 pointed agents of the idaintifTs, on condition 
 that they should become holders of 200 shares of 
 ithe capital stock of the com[)any. In pursuance 
 of tins agreement they were entered in the 
 stock register of the company for that number 
 of shares, under the partnership name ; and 200 
 shares of the original stock were allotted to them 
 aud the usual certilicate sent. They did not, 
 liowever, formally subscribe for tiio "stock. .\ 
 draft upon the linn for the lirst call was accepted 
 and paid, as arranged with one of the defendants. 
 .Subsequently, E. wrote to tlie plaintilFs that he 
 was about retiring from tlie firm, and dcsirin^' to 
 ba informed as to the position of the " stock 
 subscribed for by them :" signing the letter as 
 "sBuior partner," etc :— Hold, in an action for 
 calls, that the defendants were liable, and could 
 not hi heard to say tiiat tiiey bail not sul)seril)ed 
 for the stock ;— Held, also, that it was unueL,'es- 
 sary to shew that any specific shares had been 
 allotted to the defend nits ; or that the calls were 
 maiie by properly couslitutcd directors. Xa- 
 tmud Insurance Co. v. Eijksun, 29 Cliy. 400.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Claim; calls upon shares for which the defen- 
 dant's testator had aubscribed, and upon which 
 he hid paid ten per cent, at the time of subicrip- 
 tion. Djfeuce : by a by-law of the plaintilF com- 
 nv no subscriber of stock should be a share- 
 iol(l-r until the same had been allotted to him 
 by order of the board. The teatator subscribed 
 for fifty sliares, or any portion thereof which 
 nuglit be allotted to him, but no allotnioiit was 
 16 
 
 pai 
 
 hoi 
 
 ever made : — Held, on demurrer, bad ; for tho 
 by-law did not extend to a case in which a per- 
 son on subscribing paid the necessary deposit, 
 in whom tho shares would vest under 39 Vict, 
 c. 9.S, s. 2 (Ont.), the plaintiff company's Act of 
 incorporation. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lyman, 
 40 (I \\. 453.— Wilson. 
 
 In addition to fifty shares personally subscribed 
 by the defendants O. and .S. ami upon which 
 they were held liable, the plaintill's claimed that 
 they were holders, respectively, of seventy-five 
 and sixty shares, for which they had not sub- 
 scribed : —Held, on the evidence, set out in the 
 report, that O. was not such b(dder, but that 
 S. , was, and was therefore liable thereon. Union 
 Fire Ins. Co. v. O'tlara ; Same Plaintiff v. 
 .ShoMnd, 4 O. R. 359.— Osier. 
 
 The ]daintiflr, a creditor of a railway company, 
 sueil the defendant, as a shareholder therein, for 
 uniiaid stock. The ilefcndaiit bad signed the 
 stock-book which was beaded with an agreement 
 by tho subscribers to become stockholders for 
 the amount set opposite their respective names, 
 and upon allotment by the company "of my or 
 our siiid respective shares," they covenanted to 
 p.iy the company ten jier cunt, of tlie aminint of 
 said shares and all fui-tber calls. A resolution 
 was subseiiuently passed by the company in- 
 structing their secretary to issue allotment cer- 
 tilicates to each shareholder for tho shares held 
 ))y liiiii. The secretary accordinuly prepared 
 such certilicates, the one for the defendant re- 
 preseiitingtbat thecompaiiy "in aocordance with 
 your application for fifty shares," etc., "have 
 allotted you sh.ires amounting to .85,000." These 
 cc'titicates were not scnit to the shareholders, 
 but were haiuled to the company's brokers for 
 I delivery to them. The brokers published a 
 notice in a daily piper that those certificates 
 were lying at their office, but did not send 
 written notices to tho subscribers. The defen- 
 dant never called for or recoiviHl his certilicate 
 of allotment and never paid the ten per cent. 
 He swore that he signed ujion a verbal agree- 
 ment with one L., a promoter and a pi'ovisional 
 director of tho company, that he and another 
 should receive the contract for building the 
 road, wliiuh was never awarded to them; and 
 that he never had any notice of the allotment 
 having been made to liiin. The learned judge at 
 the trill was unable to say whether the defen- 
 il uit ri'ceived actual notice of allotment, but 
 found that tho company sent notices to him of 
 calls ; aud that his name was published as a 
 shareholder in a newspaper to which he was a 
 snliscriber. The only evidence of the notices 
 being sent to tho defeiul int was tho general 
 statement of the secretary, that ho directed 
 notices to bo sent ton mouths after the .allotment, 
 to those shareholders likely to pay, that their 
 calls were duo : —Held, reversing the judgment 
 of the Queen's Rench, Moss, C. J. A., dissenting, 
 that the defendant was not liable, as the evi- 
 ilence, more fully set out in the report of the 
 case, was not sulHoient to prove notice of allot- 
 ment to him: — Held, also, that if he h.ad re- 
 ceived notice of allotment, the fact that the con- 
 tract was not awarded, as promised, would have 
 formed no defence, as L. had no power to bind 
 the company by annexing such an agreement to 
 his subscription. Per Burton, J. A., that oven 
 if a notice of calls were sufficient to prove notice 
 
 I! 
 
 I 
 
 lati 
 
 •i 
 
243 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 m 
 
 of allotment, the d'jfundant would not have 
 been bound by such a notice received teu monthi 
 after his subscription, yitimitk v. Manning, fl 
 A. R. 126. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal, that the document signed )»y the respon- 
 dent was only an application for shares, and tiiat 
 it was necessary for the appellant to have shewn 
 notice within a reasonable time of the allotment 
 of shares to respondent, and that no notice 
 whatever of sucfx allotment had been proved. 
 (Ritchie, C. J., and Gwynne, J., dissenting.) 
 .V. C.,5S. C. 11. 417. 
 
 The Stadacona Insunince Company incorpo- 
 rated in 1874, employed local agents to obtain 
 subscriptions for stock in the district of Quebec, 
 such local agents to receive a commission on 
 shares subscribed. At the solicitation of one of 
 these local agents F. X. C, intending to sub- 
 scribe for five paid up shares, paid §500 and 
 signed his name to tlie subscription book, the 
 columns for the amount of the subscription and 
 the number of shares being at the time left in 
 blank. The columns were afterwards, in the 
 presence of appellant, fillcil in with the number 
 of shares (fifty shares) l)y the agent of the com- 
 pany, without F. X. (J. 'a consent. Having dis- 
 covered his position, one of appellant's brothers, 
 who had also subscribed in the same way, went 
 next day to Quebec and endeavoured, but inef- 
 fectually, to induce the company to relieve them 
 of the larger liability. At the end of the year 
 1875, the company declared a dividend of ten 
 per cent, on the paid-up capital (montant verso), 
 and the plaintiff received a chetiiie for S-W, for 
 which he gave a receipt. In the following year 
 the company suffered heavy losses, and notwith- 
 standing F. X. C.'s repeated endeavours to be 
 relieved from the larger liability, brought an 
 action against him to recover the third, fourth, 
 fifth, and sixth calls of five per cent, on fifty 
 shares of $100 each alleged to have been sub- 
 scribed by F. X. C. in the capital stock of the 
 .^mpany : -Held, (Sir W. J. Ritchie, C.J.,du- 
 .jitante), reversing the judgment of the court 
 below, that the evidence shewed the appellant 
 never entered into a contract to take fifty shares, 
 that the receipt given for a dividend of ten per 
 cent, on the amount actually paid (montant 
 vers<5), was not an admission of his liability for 
 the larger amount, and he therefore was not es- 
 topped from shewing that he was never in fact 
 holder of fifty shares in the capital stock of the 
 company. CoU v. Stadacona Ins. Co. 6 S. C. R. 
 193. 
 
 Shares had been assigned in the company's 
 books by the managing director in his own name, 
 as to twenty shares, and as attorney for another, 
 as to thirty, to the defendant, who did not sign 
 the usual formal acceptance for any of them, but 
 a certificate under the corporate seal of the com- 
 pany and the signature of the president, vice- 
 president and secretary of the company was sent 
 to him, certifying that he was the registered 
 owner of tlie twenty shares ; and defendant had, 
 in a bill filed against a third party for fraudu- 
 lently inducing him to pr.rchase the shares, for 
 which he had paid ?.500, admitted that he had 
 purchased the fifty shares :— Held, that defen- 
 dant was a sharclioldcr as to these fifty shares :— 
 Semble, that if any further formal acts were re- 
 quired to be done on the part of the defendant 
 
 to constitute him a shareholder he could be di- 
 rected to perform them. Boss v. JUachar, 8 0. 
 R. 417.-Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant with others agreed to apply for 
 a patent for a company for manufacturing pur- 
 poses, under R. S. O. (1877) R. 150, and signed a 
 stock list subscribing for certain shares, and 
 agreeing to pay therefor as provided by the Act 
 and the by-laws of the company. Subsequently 
 a petition purporting to be by thirteen of the 
 subscribers, but omitting the defendant's name,, 
 was presented to the Lieutenant-Governor of 
 Ontario for a patent incorporating the petition- 
 ers and "such others as might become share- 
 holders in the company thereby created a body 
 corporate, " etc. The stock list, however, sub- 
 scrioed by the defendant appeared to have been 
 filed in the office of the Secretary of State. Thfr 
 petitioners were accordingly incorporated, "and 
 each and all such other person or persons as now 
 is, or are, or shall at any time hereafter become 
 a shareholder or shareholders in the said com- 
 pany under the provisions of the said Act," etc. 
 The defendant did not subsequently to the in- 
 corporation subscribe for stock, but on the con- 
 trary repudiated his former subscription : — Held, 
 that the defendant was not a stockholder, and 
 was, therefore, not liable for calls on the shares, 
 wliich he purported to have subscribed for. 
 Tihonhurq A'jriculfwnl JUaniifacturing Co. v. 
 Ooodrlch',% 0. R. 565— Q. B. D. 
 
 Where a conditional agreement to take shares 
 in a company is broken the shareholder is freed 
 from lial)ility on such shares. But where the 
 agreement is collateral the shareholder is liable 
 on such shares, but has a right of action for 
 indemnity or damages against such company. 
 Clarke v. Union Fire. Ins, Co. — Caxton'a Case, 10 
 P. R. 339. — Hodgins, Ma^ltr in Ordinary. 
 
 T. signed a power of attorney to C. to subscribe 
 for twenty shares of stock, and delivered it to 
 him on the understanding that it was not to be 
 used except he became a director of the company. 
 C. directed the accountant to enter T.'s name 
 in the stock-ledger as a shareholder, which was 
 done. Blotting pads were issued, and an adver- 
 tisement puldishod in a newspaper, and a return 
 made to the government, with T.'s name inserted 
 as a director in the two former, and as a member 
 in the latter ; but no board was ever formed with 
 T. as a director. T. swore that he never saw the 
 pads, advertisement, or returns, and that he did 
 not know his name was in any of them ; and on 
 receipt of a not'ce claiming a five p^r cent, call, 
 he at once repudiated all liability : — Held, that 
 the stipulation tliat he was to be a director was 
 a condition precedtr't to his becoming liable as 
 a shareholder, and thut T.'s name must be re- 
 moved from the list of contributorics. Re Stan- 
 dard Fire In-i. Co.— Turners Case, 7 0. 11. 448.- 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 B. signed a power of attorney to subscribe for 
 stock under the same circumstances as Turner, 
 but was asked by letter to fix the time to suit 
 himself to pay the ten per cent, call, and he 
 added to the power a clause that " the ten per 
 cent, was to be payable in one year from date." 
 He was also notified by the secretary of the 
 company that he was a shareholder, and a notice 
 of a meeting was sent to him. There was no 
 evidence to shew that he nmde the formation of 
 
'§■ 
 
 316 
 
 00MPAN7. 
 
 246 
 
 the board a condition precedent to his becoming 
 a shareholder :— Held, that the entry by the 
 accountant of B.'s name as a stockholder was 
 equivalent to an entry by C. , to whom the power 
 was given, and was no delegation of any discre- 
 tionary power, but a mere ministerial act : — 
 Held, also, following National Insurance Co. v. 
 Egleson, 29 Chy. 406, that it was not material 
 that the name was not entered in the sub- 
 scription book, nor that there was no specific 
 allotment of stock ; and that B. was properly 
 (ilaced on the list. S. C— Barber's Case, 7 0. 
 R. 448.— Proudfoot. Reversed on appeal, 12 A. 
 R. 486. 
 
 This case was somewhat similar to the last 
 case, but there was an understanding that the 
 calls were to be paid in work, and $100 worth of 
 work was so done and credited in the books of 
 the company ; and C. , C. & Co. printed the pads, 
 saw the advertisement in the paper, and received 
 notices of the calls : — Held, that they were con- 
 tributories. .S'. C. — Copp, Clark tb Co.'s Case. — 
 7 0. R. 448.— Proudfoot. Reversed on appeal, 
 12 A. R. 486. 
 
 C. signed the power of attorney on the under- 
 standing that he was to be solicitor of the com- 
 pany in Toronto, and that he was to pay no cash 
 on his stock, but to get credit for his services. 
 A certificate that he was a holder of ten shares 
 was sent to him. and was in his possession for 
 some years ; and he was appointed solicitor under 
 the seal of the company, received notices of meet- 
 ings and calls, and did not expressly repudiate 
 his liability : — Held, that he was properly made 
 a contributory. S. C. — Caslon's Case, 7 O. R. 
 448.— Proudfoot. Affirmed on appeal, 12 A. R. 
 486; 12 S. C. R. 644, Henry, J., dissenting. 
 
 A contract between a company and a person 
 who makes application for shares must be dealt 
 with as ordinary contracts ; there must be an 
 offer by the one to take shares, and an accept- 
 ance of such offer by the company. One H., 
 subscribed for shares in a company, but no shares 
 were formally allotted to him by the directors. 
 Ci''s were made by the general manager, and 
 act ;es of such calls were sent by the secretary 
 to, ajd received by H., but the calls had never 
 been authorized by the directors :— Held, that 
 the unauthorized acts of the officers named could 
 not be construed to be an allotment, or a notifi- 
 cation of an allotment of stock, so as to bind the 
 company or prove an acceptance of H. 's subscrip- 
 tion for stock, fie Bolt ami Iron Compuiiy — 
 Hwenden'K Case, 10 P. R. 434.— Hodgi-is, Mas- 
 ter in Ordinary. 
 
 K. signed a stock-book headed as follows : 
 "We, the imdersigned, do hereby subscribe for 
 shares of the capital stock of the Alliance Insur- 
 ance Compiiny, and agree to take the number of 
 shares and for the amount set opposite our res- 
 pective signatures, and to pay on account thereof 
 to the secretary of the said company ten per cent, 
 of the amount of stock subscribed by us respec- 
 tively within thirty days from the day of our 
 Mveral subscriptions." The Act incorporating 
 the Alliance Company vested the shares of the 
 eompany in the persons who should subscribe 
 for the same. Before any stock was actually 
 allotted to K. the Alliance Company was ainalga- 
 
 wo Insurance Company, which company was 
 
 ordered to be wound up : — Held, that K. was 
 rightly made a contributory. Nasmith v. Man- 
 ning, 5 %i. C. R. 417, distinguished. It was en- 
 tended that K. never agreed to become a share- 
 holder in the Standard Company ; but — Held, 
 that the statute answered this objection, and 
 that being within the jurisdiction of the local 
 legislatures, it could not be objected to as unjust. 
 fie Standard Fire Lis. Co.— Kelly's Case, 7 O. R. 
 204. — Ferguson. Reversed on appeal, 12 A. R. 
 486. 
 
 Appeal from master's report, which placed 
 Certain parties on the list of stockholders as con- 
 tributories to the extent of their unpaid stock. 
 C, having been communicated with by the presi- 
 dent of the company, agreed to act as a director, 
 and gave his note for ^500, in order to obtain a 
 qualification. The president. subscribed for fifty 
 shares stock for him, on which the $500 would 
 pay ten per cent. C. then acted as a director 
 for some time without (as he alleged) knowing 
 that any stock had been subscribed for him. 
 Subsequently he was notified of a five per cent, 
 call on fifty shares, and he at once communicated 
 with the president, who told him not to mind, 
 and that the secretary would be initnicted, and 
 he was not troubled again about i^- At this 
 time his note had been carried by the companj', 
 and he had paid nothing. The president then 
 absconded, and he was notified of a five per 
 cent, call, and gave a note for §250 in payment 
 of same, not (as he alleged) because he was lia- 
 ble, but because he was told that would settle 
 his total liability, and he did not wish to enter 
 into a suit : — Held, that he was properly placed 
 on the list of contributories. .S'. C.—Chishotm's 
 Case, 7 0. R. 448. — Ferguson.— Proudfoot. 
 
 C. purchased shares in a certain company in 
 1878, but the papers recjuired to m.'ike a formal 
 transfer to him in the books of the company 
 were not furnished to the company till Decem- 
 ber 20th, 1881. On February Uth, 1882, C.'s 
 name was entered on the list of shareholders, 
 but there was no formal approval of the transfer 
 by the board of directors until May 10th, 188,3. 
 Before this, however, on November 15th, 1882, 
 C. was notified of a call on the shares for which 
 he was sued, and defended tlie action, but the 
 action, for some reason not explained, was not 
 proceeded with. This was the first intimation 
 C. received that the papers furnished by him 
 ha<l been acted upon, but he appeared to have 
 made no eniiuiries from the company subsc(iueiit- 
 ly to December 20th, 1881. The company ceased 
 to do business on May 13tii, 1883, and the wind- 
 ing-up order was made on October 9th, 1883. 
 It did not appear tliat (-. had taken any steps 
 to repudiate his position as a shareholder before 
 these winding-up proceedings ; nor did he shew 
 any prejudice resulting to him from the failure 
 of the company to notify him that the transfer 
 to his name had been actually consummated on 
 the books of the company : — Held, that under 
 the above circumstances 0. was rightly placed 
 on the list of contributories in the winding-up 
 proceedings. Sichell's Case L. R. 3 Chy. 11!>, 
 distinguished, fie Cole and The Canada Fire 
 and Marine Insurance Co. — Close's Case, 8 O. R. 
 92.— Boyd. 
 
 In the winding-up proceedings of the Q. C. 
 R. Co., the master placed the subscribers to the 
 stock-book upon the list of contributories. Tlio 
 
247 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 218 
 
 contributories appealed upon the grouiul that 
 altliougli they were subueribers for stock still no 
 stock hiul been allotted to them by the diiectors:- 
 ileld, that the master was right ; that the eou- 
 traet signed was an uiuiualilied taking of shares, 
 and that the Act R. S. U. (1877) c. 150 contem- 
 plates two modes of acciuiring stock, by sub- 
 scription and by allotment. In re Th". Quntn. 
 Cili/ J!('jiinii<j\C'o. of Toronto (Limited), 10 0. 
 R. 204. — Boyd. 
 
 C. subscribed for 160 shares in the H. com- 
 pany, the subscription list being headed : " We 
 subscribe for and agree to take tlie mniiber of 
 shares of the capital stock of tlie H. company 
 set opposite our signatures, and to pay on ac- 
 count thereof fifty per cent, to the secretary- 
 trciisurer of the company in (juarterly payments 
 of 12.J per cent, each of the amounts subscribed 
 for by us respectively, the (irst of such payments 
 to bo made on February 1st, I8S2." C. was at 
 the first shareholders' meeting elected a director, 
 and remained so until the final wiuding-up of 
 the company. One of the by-laws of the com- 
 pany provided for the calling of the second fifty 
 per cent, of the stock subscribed at any time 
 after Novend)cr 1st, 1S82, on thirty days' notice. 
 In August, 1883, the president of tlie company 
 iirrangcd w ith C. that he sliould sign for eighty 
 .shares on the terms of a new stock-book wliich 
 had been ojjcned, and that C.'s original stock 
 was to be treated as cancelled. C. accordingly 
 signed the new book. This arrangement with 
 C. was never connnunieated to tlie shareliolders 
 of tlie company. In January, 1SS4, a winding- 
 up order was made, and C. was subsequently 
 declared a contributory to the amount of IGO 
 shares. C. now appealed, claiming to be a con- 
 tributory only to the amount of eighty shares, on 
 the ground that the arrangement of August, 
 188.'}, was a valid comiiromise, entered into w ith 
 him because he subscribed originally on the 
 understanding, (1st) that the company was not 
 logo into operation before all the stock was sub- 
 scribed for ; and ('2nd) that only fifty per cent, 
 of his subscription would have to be paid : — 
 Held, that whether directors have inherent 
 power to compromise with shareholders or not, 
 there was nothing to support the compromise 
 here set up. As to (1st) U.'s actions as director 
 were totally at variance with this contention ; 
 and as to (2nd,) the subscription was uncondi- 
 tional, and though expressly providing for pay- 
 ment of fifty per cent, it was not inconsistent 
 with the Ijalauee being paid when required. 
 Moreover the by-laws, at the lulojition of which 
 C. was present, recognized the right to call up 
 the whole stock, ami C). appeared to have made 
 no dissent. Farlics v. Ilumiltoii Trilntnc Print- 
 inij and Pnhliihinn Co. — Copp's Case, 10 O. It. 
 497.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintifT, suing as assignee of an appeal 
 bond given by the defendants to G. & M. on an 
 appeal, which was dismissed, by S. and the N. 
 R. H. company from a judgment recovered by 
 G. k M., claimed the amount of the judgment 
 witii costs and interest, leas a sum realised ))y 
 the sheriff on G. & M.'s fi. fa. goods by the sale 
 to the plaintiflF of a mill and fixtures erected by 
 the N. R. H. Co., on crown lands which the 
 company occupied u.nder a letter of license from 
 the commissioner of crown lands. The defen- 
 dants were shareholders in the company, and after 
 
 the sheriff's sale they and the plaintiff agreed to 
 take steps to reorganise the company, the plain- 
 tiff to accept sliares in satisfaction of his claim. 
 This agreement, which the plaintiff had refused 
 to carry out, was relied on as a defence to this 
 action. At the trial the learned judge held that 
 the agreement was too vague for specific per- 
 formance, and was therefore no defence ; and 
 being of opinion that nothing passed by the 
 sheriff's sale to the plaintiff, he gave judgment 
 for tiie whole amount of the original judgment 
 of G. & M. with costs and interest, against the 
 wish of the plaintiff, who claimed only the re- 
 duced amount. The defendants moved against 
 the judgment respecting the agreement, and a 
 Divisional Court of two judges, while agreeing 
 that it was too vague for specific performance, 
 difl'ered as to its afl'ording a defence to the action. 
 The plaintiff also moved to reduce his judgment 
 by deducting tiie amount of his bid at the 
 sheriff's sale ; but that order, by reason of the 
 judges disagreeing, was not granted. On appeal 
 by the defendants it was : — Held, that the 
 agreement was only to accept shares in case the 
 comp:vny was reorganised, and such agreement 
 afforded no defence to this action ; and that the 
 judgment could properly be varied by entering 
 it for the reduced amount. The appeal wag 
 therefore dismissed, with costs. Brundaije v. 
 Howard, 13 A. K. 337. 
 
 V. signed a subscription list undertaking to 
 take shares in the capital stock of a company to 
 be incorporated by letters patent under 31 Vict, 
 c. 25 ((Jue. ), but his name did not appear in the 
 notice ap])lying for letters patent, nor as one of 
 the original coi'porators in the letters patent in- 
 corporating the company. The directors never 
 allottcil shares to P. and he never subsequently 
 acknowledged any liability to the company. In 
 an action brought bj' the company against P., 
 for $10,000 alleged to be due by him on 100 
 shares in the capital stock of the company it 
 was: — Held, aflirniing the judgment of the court 
 below, that P. was not liable for calls on stock. 
 Mwimi Textile and Print Co. v. Price ; Samt 
 Plaintiff V. Dot)€ll, 14 S. C. R. 664. 
 
 One D. signed his name as subscriber for a cer- 
 tain number of shares at the foot of a prospec- 
 tus of a iiroposed company, in which it was 
 stated that the capital was to be $75,000. With- 
 out D.'s knowledge or ac(piiescence, the com- 
 pany, as afterwards incorporated, had a capital 
 of §150,000. In accordance with the terms of 
 the subscription, and before the incorporation of 
 the company, D. paid up half the amount of his 
 shares. There was no allotment of stock to D., 
 no entry of his name in any stock-book, and no 
 acting on his part as shareholder. The company 
 being in process of liquidation, it was claimed 
 that D. was a contributory : — Held, that the 
 change made in the capital of the company was 
 a material one, and there being no acquiescence 
 or laches on D.'s part, he was not liable as a con- 
 tributory. Pitchford ('. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2, 
 specially referred to. Stevens v. London Sltd 
 Worki Co.— Delano's Ca.'ie, 15 0. R. 75.— Boyd. 
 
 One B. subscribed for twenty-five shares of 
 capital stock of the Central Bank of Canada, 
 but did not at the time of subscription, nor with- 
 in thirty dayc thereafter, make any payment 
 thereon. About eight months later, however, 
 payment was made oy B. to the bank, and the 
 
COMPANY. 
 
 250' 
 
 bank accepted payment from him of twenty per 
 cent, of the amount subscribed, and subsequently 
 dividend checjues were issued by the bank in 
 favour of B., were endorsed by him, and were 
 paid. Per Hagarty, C. J. O. When B. in fact 
 paid after the prescribed time it could he pro- 
 perly treated as a new subscription, whether he 
 again wrote his name or not. The substantial , 
 refjuiienients of the statute are complied with 
 by holding that as soon as the ten per cent, was 
 paid, and not till then, the signature was com- 
 plete. /" re The Central Jiaiik of Canada — 
 Baini'»'' Case, 16 A. I. 137.— 16 O. R. 293. 
 
 Per Burton and Osier, JJ. A. Where there is 
 an actually signed subscription contract, an 
 actual receipt by the Bank from the subscriber 
 of a payment on account of a number of shares 
 equal to those mentioned therein, and a subse- 
 quent receipt by that person of dividends on 
 that number, an acknowledgment of the sub- 
 scription contract at a time within which a pay- 
 ment could be effectually made thereon, is to bo 
 presumed, and under the circumstances P.. and 
 the Bviik were respettively estopped as against 
 each other from denying that his subscription 
 was rcacknowledged and that he had been a 
 stockholder. Jb. 
 
 Per Maclennan, J. A. The payment not hav- 
 ing been made within the prescribed time the 
 original subscription was void, but the subse- 
 quent payment accepted by the bank, and the 
 endorsement by B. of the dividend checjues, 
 operated as a new subscription. lb. 
 
 P. signed an instrument purporting to be a 
 subscription for shares in a company " proposed 
 to be incorporated" under the Ontario Joint 
 Stock Companies' letters Patent Act, in which 
 he agreed with the company and the signatories 
 thereto, to take the number of shares set oppo- 
 site to his name. B. signed an instrument pur- 
 porting to be an agreement to accept shares in 
 a company not at the time incorporated. P. and 
 B. were not corporators named in the Letters 
 Patent, and no shares were in fact ever allotted 
 to them, but they were entered in the books as 
 shareholders, and notices of meetings and de- 
 mands for payment of calls were sent to them, 
 and in winding-up proceedings they were placed 
 on the list of contributories : — Held, that there 
 being no company in existence when the instru- 
 ments in question were signed, they did not con- 
 stitute binding contracts to take shares so as, 
 without more, to make P. and B. liable as con- 
 tributories. In re. The London 'Speaker J'rvdiinj 
 Co.—Pcaree'it Case; In re Speii/ht Mami/acturimj 
 Co.—Bohl(hee'sCase, 16 A. K! 508. 
 
 The shareholders at the date of the issue of 
 the letters patent are those persons only who 
 are named therein and to whom stock is allotted 
 thereby ; and it is these persons and others who 
 may afterwards become shareholders who con- 
 stitute the company. In re The Queen City 
 Refining Co., 10 O. R. 264, explained. Jb. 
 
 C. , after the incorporation of a company under 
 theOntario JointStockCompanies' Letters Patent 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. i50, signed a share sub- 
 Mription book with the following heading ; — 
 " ^^ e, tiie undersigned, do hereby severally on 
 behalf of ourselves, our and each of our several 
 •nd respictive executors and administrators. 
 
 acknowledge ourselves to be subscribers to the 
 
 capital stock of the Zoological and Acclimati/a- 
 
 tion Society of Ontario for the nundier of .shares 
 
 and to the amount set ojiposite our several and 
 
 respective names and seals hereunder ; and we 
 
 do hereby covenant, promise, and agree, each 
 
 with the other of us, and with .S., to pay the 
 
 amount of our said several subscriptions and all 
 
 calls thereon, when and as the same may bo 
 
 called up and made under the provisions of the 
 
 Ontario Joint Stock Companies' Letters Patent 
 
 I Act, or under any by-laws which may be passed 
 
 J by the said company, and we request the num- 
 
 I ber of shares for which we .'subscribe hereunder 
 
 to be allotted to us." No shares were allotted 
 
 to C, he was not entered in the books of the 
 
 I company as a shareholder, and nevir made any 
 
 i payments. Four years after this document was 
 
 \ signed by C, the company was wound up, :.iu\ 
 
 I he was held liable as a contributory :— Held, 
 
 I reversing the Order of Boyd, ("., (17 O. R. .'{31), 
 
 j that this document did not, in the absence of 
 
 j any recognition by the company of C.'s position 
 
 j us a sharuhohler, alone and ox proprio vigorc 
 
 I create the liability contended for. Jie The Xo- 
 
 . oloijical and Acctimatizafioii Socithj of Ontario. — 
 
 Cox'x Case, 16 A. R. 543. 
 
 I The petitioner's father signed her name to a 
 I stock sul)scription-book of a bank, paid the calls, 
 j and received the dividend cheques, which were 
 endorsed by her at her father's re(iue8t, the 
 moneys being received by him. Tlie bank was 
 put into liquidation by win<ling-up proceedings, 
 and the ortlcr for call against contributories was 
 made three months before she came of age. A 
 year after the litjuidation connnenced she took 
 proceedings to have her name removed from the 
 list of contributories : — Hchl, that she was not 
 liable as a contributory, and that her name must 
 be removed from the list. J{e Central Bank and 
 IIo'M, 19 O. R. 7. — Boyd. 
 
 See Loiifj v. Ouelph Lumher Co., 31 C. P. l'2a, 
 p. '273; Prorincial /»«. Co. v. Cannron, 31 C. P. 
 523, p. '2r>S ; /'aije v. Aiislii; 10 S. C. 1!. 132, j). 
 •2.15 ; Christopher v. Xo.v<.n, 4 O. R. 672 p. 2(;8 ; 
 Wheeler and. Wilson ^fallnlaelHrin(J Co. v. Wil- 
 «o», 6 (t. R. 421, p. 2.")" •• Xelhs v. Ontario In- 
 restmeut Ass'n, 17 O. J!. 129, p. 280. 
 
 2. Calls. 
 
 (a) Xolice of. 
 
 Per Spraggc, C. J. O., and Hagarty, C. J. — 
 Notice of a call published in a newspaper in cme 
 district is sulHcient to render the shareholders 
 residing in that district liable to pay the call, 
 notwithstanding that the notice may not have 
 been published in other districts where stock is 
 held. Per Burton and Patterson, JJ.A., the 
 enactment as to notice ought to be construed 
 strictly ; particularly if by a literal reading of 
 the other provision calls were held valid though 
 payable at shorter intervals than thirty days. 
 Provincial Insurance Co. v. Worts, 9 A. R. 56 ;. 
 iV. C, nub novi. Provincial Imwance Co. v. 
 Cameron, 31 C. P. 523. 
 
 The charter of a company, 35 Vict. c. 104, 
 (Dom.), provided that one month's notice of 
 calls "shall be given." Per O'Connor, J. Send- 
 ing such notice by post was not a compliance with 
 this provision. Jfosn v. Machar, 8 O. R. 417. 
 
 I! 
 
 
 
 I 
 
■JBUiiti 
 
 251 
 
 00MPAN7. 
 
 3S2 
 
 The notice of two calls, one payable on the 
 27th of July, the other on the 27th of August, 
 was mailed at Montreal, on the 27tli of Juno, 
 addressed to the firm at Ottawa, which was re- 
 ceived by one of the defendants. There was 
 not any affirmative evidence that it was not 
 communicated by him to his co-partner ;— Held, 
 that such notice was insufficient as "not less than 
 thirty days' notice" was required ; and, there- 
 fore the mailing of a notice on the 27th of June, 
 requiring a call to be paid on the 27th of July, 
 ■was not in time : — otherwise the notice was 
 sufficiently established. Xalio7ial Ins. Co. v. 
 E<jlenon, 29 Chy. 40«.— Boyd. 
 
 The 37 Vict. c. 93, s. 7 (Ont.), under which the 
 calls sued for were made, provided that tliirty 
 days' notice of every call should be given. The 
 resolution making the call, was passed on the 
 3rd of August, 1881, the call to be payable ou 
 the 6th of tieptemljor. Notice to the defendants, 
 F. & B., was mailed in Toronto, on the 5th day 
 of August, and would reach Ottawa post-office, 
 where F. & B. lived, at 7 p.m., on the 6th. The 
 post-offioe closed at 7.30 p.m., but the letter 
 could not have leen obtained on that evening 
 without personal application to the postmaster. 
 It was received on Alonday the 8th of August: — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Hagarty, C. J., 
 Wilson, C. J., doubting, that the notice must 
 be deemed to have been given upon the mailing, 
 and therefore it was good. Per Wilson, C. J. — 
 If the thirty days were to be computed from 
 the time when the notice had or should have 
 reached its destination, they should be^in on 
 the Monday. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Filviim- 
 mons, 32 C. P. C02.— Hagarty. -C. P. D. 
 
 The defendant, S., it appeared, had made an 
 assignment in insolvency, but the stock had 
 not 1>een returned by him as part of his assets, 
 and that the assignee had never accepted it. 
 The notice of call was sent to the assignee, but 
 he directed his bookkeeper to forward it to S., 
 which he stated he had done, but the defendant 
 denied its receipt. The plaintiff's manager stated 
 that after the call was due, he paid S. a dividend 
 on the stock, and S. then said the call would be 
 paid : — Held, that S. was still a stockholder, and 
 must be deemed to have had notice. lb. 
 
 A call was made by resolutionoftheSrd August, 
 payable on the 6th September, and notice of it 
 was mailed at Toronto on the iitli August, ad- 
 dressed to defendants at Ottawa, but not received 
 until the 8th : — Held, sufficient, following the 
 last case. Union Fire Injt. Co. •. O'Gara ; Same 
 Plaintiffs v. Shoolbred, 4 O. R. 359.— Osier. 
 
 See Prorinc'.f.l Insurance Co. v. Worts, 9 A. 
 R. 56, p. 252 ; Nasmith v. Manning, 5 A. R. 
 126 ; 5 S. C. R. 417, p. 243. 
 
 (b) Other Cases. 
 
 The plaintiff!) by their Act of incorporation 
 were authorized to call in the stock by instal- 
 ments as the directors should appoint, subject 
 to a proviso tliat "no instalment shall exceed 
 ten per cent., or be called for or become payable 
 in less than tliirty days after public notice sliuU 
 have been given in ie or more of the several 
 newspapers published in every district where 
 stock may be held :— Held, per Spragge, C. J.O., 
 and Hagarty, C.J., that the times fixed for the 
 
 payment of install <!nt8 need not be thirtv dayi 
 apart ; but that ii ilments might be made pay- 
 able at any time, provided no call exceeded ten 
 per cent. , and thirty days intervened between 
 the date of notice of the call and the day on 
 which it was payable. Per Burton and Patter- 
 son, JJ.A., tliat no instalment could lawfully 
 be made payable in less than thirty davs from 
 the day for payment of the next preceding in- 
 stalment. Provincial Ins. Co. v. Worts, 9 A. R 
 56; S. C. sub nom. Provincial! ns. Co, v. Cameron, 
 31 C. P. 523. 
 
 Held, that the resolution of directors and not 
 the notice made the call ; and that a variation 
 in the days of payment between the resolution 
 and the notice invalidated the call, but not u 
 to defendant Cameron, or her testator, who had 
 made payments on or promised to pay such calls. 
 S. C, 31 C. P. 523. 
 
 It was objected that the calls had been res- 
 cinded by resolutions subsequently passed, and 
 set out in the case : — Held, that such resolution) 
 referred only to the terms or time of payment 
 lb. 
 
 Held, that upon the facts stated in vhe case 
 there had been no such preference or discrimina- 
 tion between different classes of shareholders as 
 to invalidate the calls, lb. 
 
 Interest was allowed from the time when the 
 last call became due. lb. 
 
 Action to recover calls on stock. The defen- 
 dant's Act of incorporation enabled the directora 
 to make calls at such times as they might daem 
 requisite, provided that successive calls should 
 be made at intervals of not lesa than two month) 
 between such calls, that no call should exceed ten 
 per cent., and that thirty days' notice should be 
 givea of every such call : — Held, not necessary 
 that the calls should be made by by-law, but 
 that a resolution was sufficient, and that the 
 resolution need not name the place of payment 
 of the calls, but that this could be done in the 
 notice. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. O'Oara ; Sam 
 Plaintiffs v. Shoolbred, 4 0. R. 359.— Osier. 
 
 A resolution was passed by which a call was 
 made of ten per cent., payable on the 1st March, 
 and it was thereby further resolved that a far- 
 ther call of ten per cent, be made payable on Ut 
 September : — Held, clearly not a call of twenty 
 per cent, but two calls of ten per cent, each ; and 
 I that the fact of the second call being illegal did 
 not invalidate the first call, because contained 
 in the same resolution. lb. 
 
 An alleged third call was objected to as being 
 a fourth call, in that the illegal call before k- 
 ferred to had not been abandoned ; but : — Held, 
 that the evidence clearly shewed such abandon- 
 ment. Ih. 
 
 Where certain shareholders of the G. L. Com- 
 pany sought to restrain a call on stock, on the 
 ground that it was l)eing made in contravention 
 of the terms of a certani unwritten agreement 
 alleged to have been entered into between all 
 the promoters, when the G. L. Company was 
 formed : — Held, that evidence of such agreement 
 was inadmissible, since it was contradictoryof 
 the written agreement entered into by the plain- 
 tiffs when subscribing for their shares, viz., to 
 take stock and pay the calls when duly made. 
 Christt'pher v. Noxon, 4 0. R. 672.— Proudfoot 
 
253 
 
 OOMPANT. 
 
 254 
 
 Where a bylaw making a call on stock was 
 .4Mntirinecl at a general meeting of shareholders, 
 nurportiug to be the annual meetinKi but not 
 held on the proper day for such annual meeting, 
 as prescribed by the by-laws of the company:— 
 Held, that one who, as a director, had seconded 
 A resolution of the directorate that the meeting 
 ahould be held on the day it woa held on, was 
 «8topped from objecting to the calls on this 
 cround, and so, therefore, were all those who 
 wliere coplaintitfs with him in an action to re- 
 strain the said call. Ih. 
 
 Where shareholders have assisted in making 
 and approved of calls, they cannot afterwards 
 object that the calls were improperly made. lb. 
 
 Where a call is made upon all stockholders 
 without discrimination, or partiality, the Court 
 ■will never interfere to determine whether it was 
 iieoessary, or not. lb, 
 
 Semble, however, that if calls were made in 
 
 .«uch a way as to favour one set of stockholders, 
 
 and impose an unequal burden upon others, an 
 
 equity might, perhaps, be found for interference. 
 
 Jb. 
 
 Held, that, under R. S. O. (1877) c. 150, ss. 37, 
 ■41, a shareholder, who is in arrear for unpaid 
 'Calls, is absolutely debarred from voting at a 
 shareholders' meeting ; and in any subsequent 
 Action by him to restrain a call, the by-law for 
 which was ratified at such a meeting, on the 
 .ground that his vote was wrongfully excluded, 
 the above objection can be taken advantage of 
 by the company, though that was not the ground 
 Assigned at the time for excluding the vote. lb. 
 
 Calls on insurance stock after suspension of 
 license. See Union Fire Ins. Co. v. jLyman, 46 
 <}. B. 471 ; Union Fire Ins. Co. v. FUzsimmons, 
 3i C. P. 602. 
 
 Under the circumstances shewn in the evi- 
 4leuce set out in the report : — Held, O'Conner, 
 J., dissenting, that secondary evidence of the 
 contents of the minute book of tlie company, 
 shewing the making of certain calls, was im- 
 properly rejected. Bonn v. Machar, 8 0. R. 
 417-Q. B. D. 
 
 See Fieldw Galloway, 5 0. R. 502, p. 261 ; Bosk 
 •V. Machar, 8 O. R. 417, p. 286 ; Be Boll, ami 
 Iron Company — Hoveiiden's Case, 10 P. R. 434, 
 p. 245 ; Fuclu^s v. Hamilton Tributie Printing 
 <ind Publishing Co.—Copp's Case, 10 0. R. 497, 
 j». 247. 
 
 3. Transfer. 
 
 The stock of an incorporated street railway 
 •company, consisting of 2,000 shares, was owned 
 exclusively by two brothers (G. & W). The 
 «liarter of the company required that there 
 sliould be a board of directors consisting of not 
 less than three members, each of whom should 
 hold stock to the amount of not less than jlIOO. 
 It having become necessary to raise funds for the 
 linrpose of carrying on the business of the com- 
 pany, the two brothers agreed that they should 
 •convey to M. (their father) one share each in 
 •order to qualify him as a director, and which 
 they <lid accordingly assign ; the father from 
 thenceforth acted as the third director, and the 
 funds for the construction and improvement of 
 the road, were obtained and expended thereon. 
 
 By his will the father bequeathed these two 
 shares to his daughter !<!., who, after the death 
 of her father, continued to exercise when neces- 
 sarv, the functions of director. After some time 
 G. became dissatisfied with the manner in which 
 S. discharged her duties as director, allegiDu 
 that she acted simply as the nominee of W., ana 
 finally asserted that the shares had been origi- 
 nally assigned to the father for the avowed pur- 
 pose of qualifying him to act, but in reality as 
 trustee for G. & W., and that he had not power 
 to dispose of them by will, and filed a bill seek- 
 ing to have it declared that M. had durins his 
 lifetime, and that S. since his death hod nelil 
 these shares simply as trustee of G. & W., and 
 that S, might be ordered to reassign them. The 
 couri, under the circumstances, dismissed the 
 bill, with costs. Kiely v. Smyth, 27 Chy. 220.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 The charter of the company provided that the 
 stock " shall be transfer.^iole in such way as the 
 directors shall by by-law direct " : — Held, that 
 this did not prevent the transfer of the sto'-k 
 until such a by law should be passed, but left it 
 as at common law, so that it might be transfer- 
 red by word of mouth. Jb, 
 
 Upon the facts stated in the report of this 
 case :— Held, that a transfer was sufficiently 
 shewn. lb. 
 
 Semble, that the plaintiff, one of the directors, 
 should be estopped from alleging that M. was 
 not properly qualified as a director, the effect of 
 which would have been to injuriously affect the 
 value of bonds of the company, to the issue of 
 which the plaintiff was a party. lb. 
 
 Held, in this case, that the transfer to M. was 
 not without consideration, the agreement by the 
 two brothers with each other to make it being 
 sutiicient lb. 
 
 Bank of L. brought an action against S. , the 
 appellant (defendant), as shareholder, to recover 
 a call of ten per cent, on twenty-five shares held 
 by him in that bank. By the 7th plea, and for 
 defence on equitable erounds, the defendant said, 
 " that before the said call or notice thereof to 
 the defendant, the defendant made in good faith 
 and for valid consideration in that behalf, a 
 transfer and assignment of all the shares and 
 stock which he ha^ held in the Bank of L. to a 
 person authorized and qualified to receive the 
 same, and the defendant and the transferees of 
 the said shares or stock did all things which were 
 necessary for the valid and final transferinj^ of 
 the said shares or stock ; but the said plaintiffs, 
 without legal excuse and without reason, refused 
 to record such transfer, or to register the same 
 in the books of the bank, or to recognize the 
 said transfer. And the defendant prays, that the 
 said liank of L. shall be compelled and decreed 
 to make and complete the said transfer, and to 
 do all things required on its part to be done to 
 make the said transfer valid and effectual, and 
 the said Bank of L. be enjoined from further 
 prosecution of this suit." The plaintiffs file<l 
 no replication to this plea, but at the trial of the 
 action, which took place before James, J., with- 
 out a jury, they attempted to justify the refusal 
 to permit the transfer of the shares upon the 
 ground that at a special general meeting of the 
 shareholders of the Bank of L. held on the 26t>| 
 June, 1873, it was resolved "that, in the opinioa 
 
OOMPANT. 
 
 266 
 
 of the meeting, the Rank of L. should not be 
 allowed to ^o into liijuidation, hut that Btips 
 should be taken to obtaiti a loan of mucIi sum a8 
 may be necessary to enable the bank to resume 
 specie payments, and that the shareholders agree 
 to hold their shares without assigning tiiem until 
 the principal and interest due on such loan shall 
 bo fully paid, and to execute, when required, a 
 bond to that eH'eet." The defendant was not 
 present at the meeting when this resolution was 
 passed, and it a])pcared from the evidence that 
 the Bank of L. etl'ected ii loan of §8(),()0<> from 
 the Bank of S. upon the security of one U., who 
 to secure himself, took bonds to lesser amounts 
 from other shareholders, including the defen- 
 dant, whose Imnd was released by B. when the 
 defendant solil his shares. 'I'liis he did in 1877 
 to certain jiersons then in good standing, and 
 powers of attorney executed by defendant and 
 the purchasLis respectively, were sent to the 
 manager of the Bunk of I,., in who!<e favour 
 they were drawn, to enable him to complete the 
 transfer. The directors of the Bank of L. re- 
 fused to permit the transfer, but the <lefendant 
 was not notified of their refusal, nor ilid they 
 make any claim against him for any indebtedness 
 on his part to the bank ; and it appeared also 
 from the evidence that subsequently to the reso- 
 lution of the 26th of June, 1873, and prior to 
 the sale by defendant of his shares, a large num- 
 ber of other shares had been transferreil in the 
 books of the Bank, xn October, 187f>, the IJank 
 of L. became insolvent, and the Bank of S., the 
 respondents, obtained leave to intervene and 
 carry on the action. At the trial a verdict was 
 found by the judge in favour of the appellant ; 
 but the Supremo Court of Nova Scotia, (James, 
 J., dissenting,) made absolute a rule nisi to set 
 aside the verdict. On appeal to the Supreme 
 Court of Canada, it was: —Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the Supremo Court of Nova Scotia, 
 that the resolution of the 26th June, 1873, couhl 
 not bind shareholders not present at that meet- 
 ing, even if it had been acted upon, and under 
 the facts disclosed in evidence the defen<Iant 
 aould not be deprived of his legal right under 
 the Banking Act to transfer his shares and to 
 have the transfer reeorde<l in the books of the 
 bank ; and the 7th plea was therefore a good 
 equitable defence to the action. Sniilh v. Bank 
 o/Xova Scotia, 8 S. C. R. 538. 
 
 Where a statutory liability is attempted to 
 1)6 imposed on a party which can only attach to 
 an actual legal shareholder in a company, he is 
 not estopped by the mere fact of having re- 
 ceived transfers of certificates of stock from ques- 
 tioning the legality of the issue of such stock. 
 Per Strong and Henry, JJ. , (Gwynne, J., con- 
 tra), that although A., a mortgagee of the shares 
 and not an absolute owner, had taken a transfer 
 absolute in form and caused it to be entered in 
 the books of the company as an absolute transfer, 
 he was not estopped from proving that the trans- 
 fer of the shares was by way of mortgage. Pane 
 V. AuMn, 10 S. 0. R. 132 ; 7 A. R. 1. 
 
 No special directions as to the transfer of 
 ■hares had been formally atlopted by the direc- 
 tors, but the transfer-book had been prepared for, 
 and adapted to, the system of marginal transfer. 
 One C. transferred certain shares in blank, sub- 
 ject, by marginal note, initialed by C, to the 
 order of a broker, and subject by a subsequent 
 
 marginal note, initialed by the broker, to the 
 order of B. B. signed an acceptance of the 
 shares immediately under the transfer in blank 
 signed by C, and was entered in the books of 
 the bank as the holder of the shares, the inter- 
 mediate transfers to and from the broker being 
 omitted. The transfer to TJ., and the accept, 
 ancc by him, to. place within a month of the 
 time of the suspension of the bank : — Held 
 affirming the decision of 15oyd,C., (160. H. 2D3)' 
 that this transfer and acceptance were a suffi- 
 cient compliance with, or at least not in any 
 way a violation of, tlie statutory provisions, 
 and that B. became the legal holder of the 
 shares, and was liable as a contributory. In rt 
 lite Cmtral Hank of Cuimda — lin'inen' Case, 16- 
 A. R. 237. 
 
 Where ten per cent, was not paid at tlic time 
 of original subscription of bank shares, nor^ 
 within thirty days tiicrcaftci-, as reijuired by the ' 
 Banking Act, H. S. C. c. 120, s. 20, but was 
 paid before the lirst transfer took place, and wag 
 accejjted by the bank :— Held, that subsequent 
 transferees of tlio shares were properly placed 
 upon the list of contributories i» winding-ui) 
 proceedings. In re the. Central Bank o/Canatla— 
 Ba'uien' Caw ; Aasmilh'.'i Caxe, 16 O. R. 293.— 
 Boyd. 16 A. R. 237. 
 
 The provision as to payment is for the protec- 
 tion of the public, and till payment is made the 
 person subscribing may not be able to deal with 
 the stock, Init he is at least equitable owner, and 
 may become legally entitled on making the pre- 
 scribed payment, lb. 
 
 Where it ajipeared that in one such ease the 
 transferee did not sign the acceptance, but that 
 he sul)se(iuently dealt with the shares by selling 
 ] and transferring tiiem : — Held, that the trans- 
 j ferees from him were properly placed upon the 
 list of contributories, notwithstanding anything 
 in the Banking Act, B. S. C, c. 120, s. 29. Ih. 
 
 Certain shares not nnmhered or capable of 
 identification, transferable on the books of a 
 company, were transferreil by the plaintiff to 
 brokers, " in trust" as security for the payment 
 of a loan. The plaiutill's transferrees afterwards 
 transferred the shares to others as security for 
 other and larger sums due by them than were 
 due b^- plaintiff to them. Each transfer suli- 
 sequent to that of the brokers was make " in 
 trust. " The plaintiti' « as aware that the brokers 
 were raising money on his shares, but was as- 
 sured by them that he could redeem his stock 
 on payment of the amount due by him. The 
 brokers being unable to redeem the shares, in an 
 action by the plaintiff against the last trans- 
 ferrees, who had sold them for a large sum after 
 tender by plaintiff of amount due by him, to 
 compel them to account for their value :— Held, 
 that the form of the transfer to the last holders 
 was sufficient to put them on enquiry, and that 
 they were chargeable with notice of the fact* 
 and of the plaintiff's rights in regard to the 
 shares ; and that he was entitled to the value of 
 the stock after payment of the amount he had 
 borrowed on it from the brokers, and that the 
 value of the shares was to be taken at their 
 highest market value between plaintiff's tender 
 and the conclusion of the trial herein. Biiggan 
 v. London <fc Canadian Loan and Aijency Co., 19 
 O. B. 272. --Street. 
 
2177 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 See Prorincial Im. Co. v. Cameron, 31 C. P. 
 623 J 9 A. 11. 56, p. 258 ; Chrixtoplur v. yoxoi\, 
 4 It. 072, p. 2«8 ; Thompson v. Vancula Fire 
 (mlMariiie Ins. Co., 9 O. K. 284, p. 20(5 ; lie 
 Cole awl The Canada Fire, and Mnr'me Insur- 
 ance Co.— Close' A Case, 8 O. H. 02, p. 246; In 
 re the. Central Hank of Canada — Haines' Case, 16 
 A. II. 2.S7, p. 295 ; Brady v. Stewart, 15 S. C. R. 
 82, p. 222. 
 
 4. Cancelling, 
 
 The (lefeiulant, an ori>{inal stockliolder in a 
 joint stock company, bis stock being fully paid 
 up, was olected a director, after a statement 
 prepared by the company's secretary liad been 
 published by tiiem, setting forth that the com- 
 pany was in a flourishing condition earning a 
 ten per cent, dividend. On the faith of such 
 statement defendant subscribed for new shares 
 in the company, but soon afterwards suspecting 
 that the statement was incorrect, he threatened 
 legal proceedings to compel them to cancel the 
 stock, wiiereupon a resolution was passed direct- 
 ing the books to be examined, and on such ex- 
 amination the statement was found to be false, j 
 and tlie company practically insolvent. A 
 meeting of the shareholders was then called, and 
 8 by-law passed cancelling the stock. After the 
 defendant's subscription tor the new stock, and 
 before tlie cancellation, as i>.lso before the de- 
 fendant became aware of the falsity of the 
 statement, the plaintiff became a creditor of the 
 company. The plaintiff after such cancellation, 
 issuer', a writ and obtained a judgment against 
 the company, and then sued defendant for the 
 amount of the new stock unpaid by him : — Held, 
 that the plaintiff could not recover: that there 
 was power to cancel the stock : that the cancel- 
 lation WU8 duly made ; and tha ..he defendant 
 was not guilty of any laches. Wheeler A Wil- 
 mn Mimiijacturing Co. v. Wilson, 6 0. K. 421. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 A tr.iding corporation has authority as an in- 
 cident of its existence to compromise all bonft 
 Kde claims made against it, and therefore has 
 power to compromise claims made by a share- 
 noldcr to be reliev< d of his shares either by 
 reason of fraud or misrepresentation or any 
 other cause which would enable the Court to 
 decree such relief ; but as the Court, if a share- 
 holder were to make a claim against the corpora- 
 tion for compensation in damages in respect of 
 some matter not connected in any way with the 
 validity of the shares held by him, could not 
 decree a cancellation pro tanto of those shares, 
 so the corporation itself cannot validly com- 
 promise a claim for damages against it by ac- 
 cepting the surrender of and by cancelling shares 
 of its capital stock held by the claimant. Judg- 
 ment of the Common Pleas Division reversed. 
 Limujstmie v. Temperance Colonization Society, 
 17 A. K. 379. ^ 
 
 See Long v. Ouelph Lumber Co, 31 C. P. 129, 
 p.273. 
 
 5. Forfeiture. 
 
 In an action for unpaid calls the shares held 
 hy the defendant Cameron as executrix and in 
 her own right, were transferred under powers of 
 «ttomcy, which were not produced :— Held, that 
 
 17 
 
 there was sufBcient evidence to shew the exist- 
 ence of such powers, and to let in secondary 
 evidence thereof, the defendant and the testator 
 having fully admitted their liability as owners 
 of the shares ; and that the evidence also shewed 
 that there had been no forfeiture, as was urged, 
 of such shares, the alleged forfeiture having 
 been conditional and never completed :— Held, 
 also, that tlie change in the corporate name of 
 the plaintiffs, as set out in the report, could under 
 the circumstances form no objection to their re- 
 covery. Prorincial Ins. Co. v. Cameron, 31 C. P. 
 523.— C. P. D, 
 
 It was urged that the shares of certain other 
 shareholders had not been legally forfeited, the 
 directors under the original charter not having 
 the power to do so :— Held, that they bad such 
 I)ower ; but that in any event this could not 
 affect the liability of these defendants. Ih. 
 
 'J'he plaintiff on becoming a member of the 
 defendant company, agreed to accept his shares 
 subject to the rules of the company. liule (> 
 was to the effect that in case of default of pay- 
 ment of dues for a year, the directors might 
 forfeit any share so in defaidt. The plaintiff 
 being in default for a year and upwards the di- 
 rectors declared his shares forfeited, and this 
 proceeding was afterwards confirmed at a meet- 
 ing of the shareholders. The plaintiff there- 
 upon instituted proceedings to have such forfei- 
 ture declared invalid, on the grounds, (1) that 
 notice of the intention to forfeit had not been 
 given to him ; (2) that notice of the forfeiture 
 had not been served on him, so that be had been 
 unable to appeal to the shareholders ; (3) that 
 the resolution did not expel the plaintifi' from 
 membership ; (4) that the plaintiff's name wa» 
 not set forth in full in such resolution, it did not 
 specify the shares to bo forfeited, and other per- 
 sons were included whose shares were jointly 
 forfeited ; (5) that no notice had been given of 
 the holding of the annual meeting for the elec- 
 tion of directors, so that the directorate was not 
 legally constituted ; (6) that one of the directors 
 who voted for the forfeiture had become insolvent 
 under the Act of 1875, although his shares con- 
 tinued to stand in his name in the books of the 
 conipaijy ; (7) that it was not shewn that proper 
 and sufficient notice had been given of the meet- 
 ing of the directors at which such forfeiture had 
 been declared ; (8) that the plaintiff had capi- 
 tal at his credit in the company out of which the 
 arrears might have been paid ; and that by a 
 by-law of the company, ' ' all fines and forfei- 
 tures should be charged to members liable, and, 
 if not paid, deducted from capital at the credit 
 of such member " : — Held, that these objection* 
 could not prevail, and that as to the Inst, this 
 was not such a. forfeiture as was referred to in 
 the rules. Nellis v. Second Mutual Building 
 Society of Ottawa, 29 Chy. 399.— Boyd. 
 
 When on May 31st, 1880, the directors of a 
 company passed a by-law reducing the number 
 of the directorate from five to three, and this 
 was confirmed at an adjourned general meeting of 
 shareholders on June 1st, 1 880, and a new board 
 of three forthwith appointed, but, it appeared, 
 no notice had been given either before the origi- 
 nal, or the adjourned meeting of the intention of 
 making any such change in the directorate : — 
 Held, that the appointment of the new board 
 was not a legal one, and a resolution by them to 
 
 I 
 
 l5 
 
00BIPAN7. 
 
 280 
 
 forfeit Btock for nonpayment of calls was in- 
 valiil :— Held, also, that the company were pro- 
 perly mailo parties to an action to rustraiii Huch 
 forfeiture, tlie reduction of the directorate to a 
 board of three being its act. Chrixlopher v. 
 Xoxon, 4 O. R. 672.— Proudfoot. 
 
 See Brady v. SUivati, 15 S. C. R. 82, p. 222. 
 
 6. Increaning. 
 
 The Ontario Wood Pavement Company, incor- 
 porated under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 23, with power 
 to increase hy by-lAw the capital stock of the 
 company "after the whole capital stock of tiie 
 company sliall have been allotted and paid in, 
 but not sooner," assumed to pass a by-law in- 
 creasina the capital stock from $130,000 to #250,- 
 000 before the original capital stock had been 
 paid in. P. et al,, execution creditors of the com- 
 pany, whose writ had been returned unsatisfied, 
 uistituted proceedings by way of sci. fa. against 
 A. as holiler of shares not fully p<iid up in said 
 company. It appeared from an. examination of 
 the books that the shares alleged to be held by 
 A. were shares of the increased capital and not 
 of that originally authorized :— Held, affirming 
 the judgment of the Court of Appeal, 7 A. 11. 1, 
 which reversed 30 C. P. 108, that as there was 
 evidence that the original nominal civpital of 
 9130,000 was never paid in, the directors had 
 uo power to increase the stock of the company, 
 and as the stock held by A. consisted wholly of 
 new unauthorized stock, P. et al. were not en- 
 titled to recover. Gwynne, J., dissenting, on 
 the ground that the objection not having been 
 taken by the defendant or tried, the court, under 
 section 22, K. S. 0. (1877), c 38, should put 
 tb« (luestious of fact upon which the validity 
 and sufficiency of the objections suggested by 
 the court rested, into a course for trial in due 
 form of law. Page v. Aiutin, 10 S. C. R. 132. 
 
 Held, affirming the ju<lgment of the C. P. D. 
 11 0. R. 444, (Burton, J. A. diss.), that the 
 duty of the Provincial Secretary of Ontario in 
 issuing the notice of the increase of the capital 
 stock of an incorporated company required to be 
 given under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 23, s. 5, sub-s. 18, is 
 merely ministerial and that on the requirements 
 of the Act being complied with he has no dis- 
 cretion in the matter, but must issue the notice. 
 ]}e The Mamey Mamifactxiring Co., 13 A. R. 446. 
 
 Held, Burton, J. A. doubting, that the power 
 conferred of increasing the capital stock by sub- 
 ss. 16, 17, and 18 of s. 5, is a general power not 
 limited to a single occasion. Ih. 
 
 Held, tliat there is nothing in the Act which 
 makes a prior subscription and payment of the 
 new stock, or a part of it, a prerequisite to the 
 right of the company to have the notice pub- 
 lished, lb. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A. The object with which 
 the statute was passed was to avoid the neces- 
 sity and expense of applying in each case to the 
 legislature for a charter, thus delegating the 
 power to grant the same to the executive under 
 cert.tin conditions ; there was, tlierefore, con- 
 ferred upon the executive the same right to 
 control the increase of capital, as without such 
 statute would have remained with the leuisla- 
 ture. Ih • * 
 
 Held, that mandamus was the proper mode 
 of enforcing the issue of the notice. iS^. C, II 
 O. R. 444. -C. P. D. 
 
 7. Voting on. 
 See Christopher v. Noxon, 4 0. R. 672, p. 268. 
 
 8. Mortgage of. 
 
 Duty of mortgagee to take proceedings against 
 purchaser of stock sold by him at auction to 
 complete the purchase. See Daniela v, A'oxon, 
 17 A. R. 206. 
 
 9. Sale o/vmler Execution, 
 
 See Cowwctkut and Piumtmpsic Rivers li, W. 
 Co, V. Morris, 14 S. C. R. 318. 
 
 V. Liability ok Suarkholders to CRF-niTOBs, 
 
 In an action brought by McK. under the pro- 
 visions of the Con. Sttvt. Can. c. 63, against K. 
 et al., as stockholders of a joint stock company 
 incorporated under stiid Act, to recover the 
 amount of an unpaid judgment they had ob- 
 tained against the company, the defendants K, 
 et al. , pleaded inter alia that they had paid up 
 their full shares and thereafter and before suit 
 had obtained and registered a certificate to that 
 effect : — Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 Court of Common Pleas, that under ss. .S3, 34, 
 and 35, Con. Stat. Can., c. 63, as soon as a 
 shareholder has paid up his full shares and hai 
 registered, although not until after the thirty 
 days mentioned in section 35 a certiKcate to 
 that effect, his liability to pay any debts of the 
 company then existing or thereafter contracted 
 ceases, excepting always debts to employees, as 
 specially mentioned in section 36. Ritchie, C. 
 J., and Fournier, J., dissenting. McKenziev. 
 Kittridge, 4 S. C. R. 368; 27 0. P. 65; 24 C. 
 P. 1. 
 
 After plaintiff had commenced an action against 
 the defendant to recover from him in respect of 
 his unpaid stock in a joint stock company, tbe 
 sum of $442.29, being the amount of an unsatis- 
 fied judgment recovered by the plaintiff against 
 the company one B. recovered a judgment against 
 the company for $4,333.08, and assigned it to one 
 G., who assigned part of the money recovered 
 to the exteut of $500, the amount of the defen- 
 dant's unpaid stock, to the defendant. The 
 object of the assignment to the defendant wm 
 to give him priority over the plaintiff's claim :— 
 Held, that the procuring of such assignment by 
 defendant being for such purpose, and being a 
 voluntary act on the defendant's part, and with 
 notice of plaintiff's claim, <lid not constitute a 
 defence to it ; but Scinblo, if the set-off hail 
 accrued to the defendant in his own right, al- 
 though after action brought, it would have been 
 otherwise. G. assigned the remainder of his 
 judgment to M., who after the commencement 
 of the plaintiff's action, and with knowledge 
 thereof, recovered a judgment against defen- 
 dant for $526.21 without defence, and to give 
 M. a preference in respect of his unpiid stock, 
 which defendant paid to M., who released the 
 company from their liability on the judgment 
 
261 
 
 OOMPANT. 
 
 ati2 
 
 80 recovered against them to the extent of $500 : — 
 Held, that the judgment so recovered, and the 
 payment thereunder constituted a good defence 
 to tlie plaintiff's claim ; and that the prior com- 
 mencement of the plaintiff's action wag imma- 
 terial. Fidd V. Gallowai/, 8 0. R. 502.— C. P. D. 
 
 In an action under 40 Vict. c. 43, s. 47, (Dom. ), 
 brought in Ontario against a shareholder there 
 rexidcnt of a company whoso head office was in 
 unother province, where judgment ha<l been ob- 
 tained by the plaintiff against the company and 
 execution thereon had been returned uiisatis- 
 tied :— Hold, reversing the judgment of Rose, J. , 
 7 (). U, 4.35, that the cause of action against the 
 shiireliolder was complete without the return 
 unsatisfied of an execution against the company 
 iu Ontario. Brice v. Munro, 12 A. K. 45.3. 
 
 See ir/i«<'/er <fc Wilnoii Manu/aclumii/ Co. v. 
 Wilfon, 6 0. R. 421, p. 237 ; f'wje v. AuMn, 10 
 !<. C. U. 132, p. 255, 25!); Harvey v. Hari'ey, 
 O A. K. 91 ; Flalf v. Waddtll, 18 O. 11. 539. 
 
 See also Subhead XV. 3, p. 286. 
 
 VI. Directors. 
 1. QualtficalioH. 
 
 See Kieiy v. Smyth, 27 Chy. 220, p. 234 ; Toronto 
 JSmoiiii/ and Maltiinj Co. v. Blake, 2 0. R. 175, 
 I). 26S. 
 
 2. Election. 
 
 At a meeting of the shareholders of a com- 
 pany, the capital stock of which was held by a 
 lew, a chairman was elected by a majority of the 
 votes of those present, without regard to the 
 stock held by them. Two of the shareholders 
 who were also provisional directors, and who 
 were candidates for reelection, were appointed 
 scrutineers in the same manner, and directors 
 •were tiien elected, excluding the plaintiff. The 
 plitiiitiff was president of the company, and 
 held a large anjount of stock, sufficient with 
 tliiit held by those who were favourable to him 
 to have controlled the vote if it had been taken 
 -jiccording to shares. It was the duty of the 
 scrutineers to decide as to wliat votes were valid, 
 and tliey also, with the aid of legal advice, in- 
 terpreted an instrument under which the plaiu- 
 tifl' had advanced a large sum of money to start 
 the company, and wliicli provided for the future 
 <lisposition of the siiares of the company, held 
 by the plaintiff as a security for his advances, 
 and allowed certain persons to vote as being 
 xjj'iui que trusts of ii portion of such shares : — 
 Held, that tlie duty of the scrutineers was so 
 plainly in conflict with their interest as candi- 
 dates for the directorate that they were dis- 
 qualified from so acting, and the election was 
 set aside, and a new election ordered, with costs 
 to be paid by the defendants. Dickson v. Mc- 
 Murray, 28 Chy. 533.— Proudfoot. 
 
 All election of officers obtained by a trick or 
 ^rtifice cannot be considered a bona tide election, 
 out when shares have been actually purchased 
 and paid for, the fact of their being purchased 
 with a view to influence the election is no objec- 
 tion. Toronto Brewing and MaUinn Co. v. Blake, 
 2 0. R. 175.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The plaintiffs were a company incorporated 
 under The Canada Joint Stock Companies' Act, 
 40 Vict. c. 43. Bv section 29, the directors 
 were to be elected uy the shareholders in gen- 
 eral meeting assembled, at such times as the by- 
 laws of the company should prescribe ; and by 
 section 30, in default of othar express provisions 
 therefor in the letters patent or by-laws, such 
 election should take place yearly, upon notice ; 
 that at all eeneral meetings each shareholder 
 who had paid all calls should be entitled to vote 
 on each snare held by him ; and that all ques- 
 tions should be determined by the majority of 
 vot«8. By section 31, the failure to elect direc- 
 tors at the proper time should not dissolve the 
 company; but such election should take place 
 at any (general meeting of the company duly 
 called for the purpose, the retiring clirectors to 
 continue in office until the election of their suc- 
 cessors. By section 32, power is given to the 
 directors to pass by-laws for, amongst other 
 things, the time, etc., of the holding of the an- 
 nual meeting of the company, the calling of 
 meetings, regular and special, of the directors 
 and of the company, the (luorum at such meet- 
 ings; but every such by-law, unless confirmed 
 at a general meeting of the company, should 
 only U6 in force until the next annual meeting 
 thereof ; one-fourth in value of the shareholders 
 could at all times call a special meeting for the 
 transaction of such business as might be speci- 
 fied in the notice given therefor. By a by-law 
 passed by the directors the last Tuesday in Sep- 
 tember was fixed as the ilate of the annual gen- 
 eral meeting, and the quorum for such meeting 
 was to consist of five members ; but at a special 
 meeting they were required iu addition to repre- 
 sent one-third of the capital stock. In 1884 
 there was no election of directors at the appointed 
 time, owing to the oiiice where the meetmg was 
 to have been held therefor being locked up and 
 the defendant refusing to attend the meeting or 
 give up the books, etc. ; and in October e. special 
 general meeting of the shareholders was held, 
 called on notice, stating the object thereof, on a 
 requisition by one-fourth in value of the share- 
 holders, and directors were elected, who ap- 
 pointed a new secretary. At the meeting there 
 were present three-fourths of the qualified vote 
 and one-third of the subscribed capital, but con- 
 siderably less than that amount of the nominal 
 capital. In an action by the company againr* 
 defendant for the non-delivery of the books, etc., 
 to the new secretary, the defendant set up as a 
 defence that he was still secretary, because, as 
 he alleged, the directors who appointed the new 
 secretary was not duly elected, and that there 
 was not a (lUorum at the meeting to transact 
 business : — Held, under the circumstances, there 
 was authority to call the special general meeting 
 for the election of directors ; and that it was 
 duly called by the proper number of sharehold- 
 ers : — Held, also, that the directors could by 
 by-law determine the quorum and all other 
 formal proceedings for the control and conduct 
 of the meetings of the board and shareholders ; 
 that there was a proper quorum present at the 
 meeting under the by-law ; and if the by-law 
 hfid required such one-third to be of the whole 
 capital stock it would have been ultra vires as 
 opposed to section 32. Per Rose, J. , the words 
 of section 31 , " any general meeting of the com- 
 pany duly called for the purpose," prop«rly 
 describe a special meeting, wnich may be called 
 
 'It. 
 
 I 
 
 
 lae 
 
263 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 264 
 
 oa provided l)y •octioii 32: -Hold, nlwi, thiit on 
 the ovidfiR'*! tlii' dcfi'iulaiit imiHt lie? docmcd t" 
 have uidnwfiilly dttaiiifd thi; iHiokH, vU\, ttint 
 there WHH lui ek'ttii)ii of ilircrtorH ile fiicto, iiiiil 
 a Hiiit ill tlif (■cuiipaiiy'.s imiin'; and an otHccr (if 
 the uoinliuny could not 1p«' iiriiiiitted to witliliold 
 what i)flonj{('d to tlio leiinpaiiy. In any event 
 the defencu net up wan not the proper way of 
 t<!8tinf{ the cU'tti'in of diicctoiH, which Khoiild 
 have been l)y motinn to stay ornet asido the jiro- 
 c'.ocdiiiK'*. Aiisliii Miiiiii'i Ci). {liiiiilfil) V. (Inn- 
 mill, 1(H). I!. (i!W.-C. I'. I). 
 
 See t'hri'lophn- \. .Vojoh, 4 t). 11. 072. 
 
 .'{. Mieliiiiin. 
 
 Five of the nine of the providioiial directors of 
 ti railway company lieiiiga(|noiuni. fonr of thcin 
 met at NViiinipegpnrsiiiintto a valid notice under 
 the statute, anil adjourned to a day named, when 
 Hix met at Toronto in allcj;cd piir.suance of such 
 ndvertiHcmcnt without advertisement or notice 
 under the statute ; — Held, that the meeting of 
 the six directors did not constitute a duly organ- 
 ized meeting of directors, though had all the 
 directors who wei-o at the meeting at Winnipeg 
 atteniled pursuant to the adjournment it might 
 have cured the irregularity. McLaren v. Fiskui, 
 28Chy. .%2.— Spragge. 
 
 U. S. O. (1877) c. li'iO, reijuires that companies 
 incorporated thereunder shall liuve not less than 
 three directors, who shall not he appointed 
 directors unless they arc shareholders, and it 
 was ]irovidcd l>y the hy-luws of the plaintiffs' 
 company that a director should not only lie (pia- 
 lificd when elected, hut that he should continue 
 to he BO. The plaintitlH* company was managed 
 by three directors, and one of them disposed of 
 his stock :— Held, that he tlieieupon ceased to 
 be a director, and the directorate then became 
 incomplete and ineonipetent to manage the aflairs 
 of the company. SemliK^ also, even assuming 
 that u i|Uoruui (2) of tiie directors could manage 
 the business, yet, where neither the statute nor 
 the by-laws gave the president a casting vote, 
 resolutions passed by such vote, at a meeting 
 attended only by the president and one other 
 director, were invalid. Toronto BretriiK/ and 
 Malliwj Co. v. niak(, '2 0. R. 175.— Prou'dfoot. 
 
 4. PoH'er.f. 
 (a) Appoint niciit o/ Agents. 
 
 The defendant company was a foreign corpo- 
 ration, whose directors had authority to appoint 
 such subordinate oHieers as the business of the 
 corporation might rccpiire. Hy power of attor- 
 ney under the corporate seal, they appointed a 
 general agent at Toronto, to take charge of, 
 conduct and manage the business of the agency 
 at Toronto, and of its sub-ngencies, giving him 
 power to do everything necessary and requisite 
 to all intents and purposes as fully as the com- 
 pany could do. He appointed the plaintiff a 
 sub-agent for a year, .ind at the end of that and 
 each succeeding year he renewed the appoint- 
 ment for a year. The plaintiff was paid ||I15 « 
 week and a commission on sales. He was sum- 
 marily dismissed. Evidence was given for the 
 defence that tiie corporation were in the habit of 
 appointing their agents and sub-agents at will:— 
 
 ' Hold, Spragge, ().,I.O., disHcnting (allirming the 
 
 jiidginent of the Court below refusing an onlur 
 
 ' nisi for u iioiiHiiit), that the appointment rnim 
 
 I year to year was clearly within the authm jty 
 
 ' of the directors, that the general authority wiw 
 
 ilelegated to the general agent, and that the 
 
 plaintiff had a right to rely upon the authority 
 
 HI) given when he entered into the eiigageiiieut. 
 
 I'er .Spragge, (.'..J.O. Though the defendar.ts 
 
 aci|uieMced in the appointment of the plaintilt', 
 
 there was no aci|nieMoence in the teriim of iIib 
 
 appointiiieiit, and it appeared that their prartii'o 
 
 was to engage their agents iit will only. 'I'lio 
 
 power of attorney, if it gave power to appoint 
 
 sub-agents at all, did not givt: power to npimint 
 
 them liy the year ; and the i,'eiicral agent wan 
 
 not held out by the company as having any MUeh 
 
 I authority. l/ownrth v. iS'iO'/ec Mnniifacliiiiiiif 
 
 j Co., S A. K. 2(14. 
 
 See Fiilkini'v v. tiranil Jnnrlion It. IT. Co,, 
 4 (>. R. H50 ; Cliirkr v. Union t'irv Ina. Co. — Ckk. 
 ton'f Citti; 10 I'. R. XV.i, p. 27(5. 
 
 (b) Other CuHM. 
 
 Held, that the directors of a Mutual Insnrauec 
 Co. may under 1!. .S. (). (lf>77) c. Kil, s. 2!), l.nr. 
 row money on promissoiy notes or debentures 
 without passing a by-law under seal. I'irloria 
 Mutual t'iri' /nn. Co. v. Thompnon, .32 C. 1'. 
 47(). — Cameron. 
 
 The defendants in the deed of assigiiiiient 
 covenanted that the mortgages were good ami 
 valid charges on the lands, and that the defoii- 
 dants bad not done or permitted any act, etc., 
 whereby the mortgages had become released or 
 disch.arged in jiart or in entirety. It appealed 
 that certain of the lands comprised in these 
 mortgages had been sidd for taxes : — Held, pur 
 (.)sler, j., that the covenant w.is not ultra vires 
 the company or the directors ; and that the plain- 
 tiffs were entitled thereunder to recover the value 
 of the lands so sold. Heal Kstnle Inm-siiiin'' 
 Co. v. Metropolitan linildinij .Soriely, H O. 
 476. 
 
 In a sheriff's interpleader, tl .iits 
 
 Bank claimed the property in qu- .s secu- 
 
 rity for advances made by them to tain com- 
 
 {laiiy incorporated under R. S. O. (i 71, c. l.'iO. 
 )y virtue of warehouse receipts co\i/iiig t' 
 property, and deposited with them by the s 
 company as security. Under R. >S. O. (1>7.) 
 c. 150, 8. 28, "The directors sh.ill have full 
 power in all things to administer the aflairs of 
 the company, and may make * * ony des- 
 cription of contract which the company may, 
 by law, enter into" ; and by subsection 2 of i-ec- 
 tion 30 of that Act express power is given to the 
 directors under the sanction of a by-law approved 
 of by not less than two-thirds in value of the 
 shareholders to hypothecate and pledge the real 
 and personal property of the company to secure- 
 any sum borrow ed, etc. There was no by-law 
 in this case, but the board of directors was well' 
 aware of the nature and extent of the transac- 
 tion with the bank and the hypothecation of 
 the goods, and adopted what was done : — Held, 
 that the property in the goods passed to the- 
 bank, and inasmuch as the company couhl not 
 have resumed possession thereof without satis- 
 fying the banks' lien, neither could the execu- 
 
285 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 266 
 
 tiori urcilitoM, who hiul im IiIkIut rigliti i\h t(» | 
 III olicrty Nci/ud tli.iii the on^iiiiil ilclitor : - Hi'ld, I 
 ulrto, tliiit tivoii if u l).v law were, Htiiotly H|ioiik- 
 iiiu, iii|iii^<iti^ in hiilOi ii ciihi'. yet, wIk^ii'Iio coin- i 
 III, lint li'iil lii'i'ii iiiiiili' liy tiic riiinpiiiiy, or uiiy 
 (if its Hliiiii'liiiidorH, lici'.iiiHi! (if iiiiy iriugiiliirity I 
 111' iiil'oi'iimlily ill wliiit wiiH ildiK', i\n wiiM till) caHi) 
 liiir, all fxi'ciitiou I'l'iiilitor cfiiiiil mil liu alldwuil 
 t(i interfile, tlicri' Ikhiiu im iiii|iiitaliim (if fraud 
 (ii- illinality ill itH Imiad and ouliialiio sciiku ; - J 
 lli'Iil. liii\V(!V(.'r, lipdli tli(! (!vidi!iicu ill tiiis cuiw, | 
 tlii^ (lc|iiiHitiiij,' of the Kddds in a wariilidiiMc, imd , 
 tlic liIhImj,' "f nidiicy ii|i()n tli(i Hocurity tlicreof, j 
 Ki'ciiicd to iio an ini|idrtaiit (lonHtitiiont for tliu 
 siiccc-ifiil |iniNcciitidii of tlic ('dinpaiiy'H liusino.s.s, j 
 an<l td lie Hiicli a matter as would fall witliin tliu | 
 
 (>iiiii|ii'i.i'ii f the dii('('t()i's to oaiisu to \w doiuj j 
 
 lliiiiiiyli llicii' niaiiam'r, as was tliu couifo ol 
 ili'.iliii^' licrc. Mirrhiiiil.t^ limik <>/ Camilla v. 
 Ilaitn,.'k,{\{). I!. 'JH.-,. -r.oyd. 
 
 'I'in' iudj^iiiLiil ill an ii(;ti()n liy the Itank of To- 
 roiili' ii.;ainst the (.'. Kailway Coniiiany, diicutcd 
 a reii I'i'iicu ati to who, otlior than the iilaiutillH, 
 wt'ii! lilt; li()ld(;rH of lionds of tliu dt^fondant coiii- 
 ji.iiiy dl' llii' .samu ulan,M, and an aoi:oiint of what 
 \v,i< diu.' td HUuh liiindholdui's, and it appuai'ud 
 liefdiit tliu nia.slui' thai lliu iiiaiia<jiiig diruutor of 
 tli(; (oiiipaiiy had issuud a ^ji'cat nuinhur of du- 
 liuntiiii ■) of tliu saniu ulass as tliu plaiiitiiTs' to J. 
 II. S., (!. J. iS., and .1. 15., who wuio thumaulvus 
 dircL'tdis of tlio uonipany at a disuount of twonty- 
 livu p,:i'ooiit. , ill HatiHfaotion of thuir ulaini.s 
 a(;:un--t tliu company. The |>laiiitifl'H thuroupon 
 wild liid dbtainud thuir dul)enturua8ulwu(|iiuntly, 
 coiilciidud that tlieso iinrties uould only claim 
 tli(! .iiiidiint actually advanuud liy tliuin, and that 
 tiiey cuuld not as directors, suU the duboiitures 
 to lliiiiim!lvu.s at a (lis(,'oiint : — Ifuld, atlirming 
 the iluci«ion of the Mawtur in Ordinary, that inas- 
 tiiiu'li MM thu company did not complain of thii 
 traiiHiiction, nor any sharuludders, and inaainuch 
 an tliu traiiHiiction was not ultra vires, it was not 
 ocimpctciit for the holders of the debentures of 
 tliu sa'iiu ulass, such as the plaintitl'a wuru, to 
 nipiij; I the position of J. II. S. , U. J. S., and 
 Mi. If the directors abused thuir po.sitiou so 
 as to gut an advantage at the expense of the 
 'iipany, it was for the corporation or its cor- 
 itors to complain. To permit the plaintitl's 
 ^ittiick them on this ground would be to re- 
 cogiii/,u the validity of the transfer of a right of 
 action to complain of a fraud, actual or construc- 
 tive. Ihiiik iifTormiloy. Colioun/, /'derlioroiii/h 
 ami Mm- mora If. W. Co., 10 O. K. 37(i.— Hoy'd. 
 
 A board of di iors cannot delegate to its offi- 
 cers or to third parties its statutory powers to 
 allot st(jck, or make calls. He liolt and Iron 
 Co.—IIi,miil,n's Case, 10 P. U. 434.— Hodgins, 
 Mailer in Ordinary. 
 
 An assignment by the directors of a joint stock 
 company of ; Mie estate and property of the 
 company to tri ,oes for the beneKt of creditors 
 is not ultra vires such directors, and does not re- 
 quire special statutory authority or the formal 
 assent of the whole body of shareholders. Hoi:ey 
 V. Whiimj, 14 S, C. \\. 515; S. C, mh nom. 
 Whiting V. Horey, 13 A. R. 7. 
 
 See Toro-.uo Brewimj and Malliim Co. v. 
 Bhkt, 2 0. R. 175, p. 278 ; Atuttin Minimi Co. 
 [Limiteil) V. Oemmel, 10 O. R. 690, p. 203 ; 
 Waildell V. Ontario Canning Co., 18 O. R. 41, 
 p. 281. 
 
 Uiic 
 
 r>. PfVHonal Lialiility. 
 v.. adviuK^ud !!|I4,()0<) to I. A M. on thtt 
 
 guaranty ol the defendant company, clearly act- 
 ing ultra virus, who (ditainud, as si^eiirity for iiicli 
 guaranty, an order from I. A .M., on the watt^r 
 works ('(iiiipiiiiy, fur the amount. I. it M. after- 
 wards indiii'cil the (hd'cinlaiits to give up the 
 order on replacing it by orders for half the 
 amount. I'', recdvercd jiidgmeiit by default 
 agiinst the defeiidantH, and by sci. fa. realized 
 tiu! anidiiiit of his loan :--lIel(l, allirming tho 
 master's r(rport, that 1)., who was one of tho 
 directors of thedufcndaiit eonipany, and who had 
 lieuii insti'iimeiital in procuring the aliovu guar- 
 anty, was pro|ierly charged with the amount the 
 defendants had hi.^t through the delivery up of 
 the di'der on the water works company ; but that 
 he was not liabh; for tin.' balance of tlie claim of 
 K., siiii'e it had Ix^en made up to the defendants 
 by the moneys ruali/.ed on the orders by which 
 tho order so delivered up had been replaced. 
 Will mull 11 V. Itiul (luaranlei: Co., '2)((Ihy. 484. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 When tho sharelndders of a eertaiu company 
 brought an action against the company and cor- 
 t.iin of its directors, alleging that the latter, 
 being a majority of tin; diruutorate, had negotia- 
 ted a transtcr of a iiiiinbur of their own aliarca to 
 one ( '..who siibseipuiiitly iK^uamo nianagor, know- 
 ing him to bo a man of no Niillicient means to pay 
 calls tlieredii, but wishing to escape liability for 
 (!urtain impendiii;:; calls ; and claimed that the 
 said directors should make good to the company 
 or to them the amount of calls due upon the 
 shares so tiansfurreil to < '. and unpaid by him ; 
 and the said directors alleged acipiiescenco and 
 laches on the plaintifTs' part in respect of the 
 matters complained of ; and the plaintifiTs proved 
 the transfer as alleged : —Held, reversing the 
 judgment of lloyd, C, (i O. R. 291, that the 
 defendant directors in allowing the transfers 
 complained of, were upon the evidence guilty of 
 no fraud towards the shareholders, and tiiat such 
 act was within tho scope of the prescribed pow- 
 ers and duties of directors, and as neither fraud 
 nor a breach of trust was proved, the cross-appeal 
 was allowed, and the action dismissed with costs. 
 Thomiison. v. Canada. Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 
 9 0. R. 284.— Chy. D. 
 
 On bills and notes. See Madden v. Cox, 5 
 A. R. 473 ; Bronm v. Iloirland, 9 O. R. 48 ; 16 
 A. 11. 750. 
 
 See Walmtley v. /lent Ciiaranlee Co. , 29 Chy. 
 484, p. 279 ; Thames Xarii/alion Co. {Limited) 
 V. lital, 13 A. R. 303, p. 277. 
 
 G. Manaijinij Director. 
 
 By-law 17 of the B. & I. Company provided 
 that tho managing director should be paid for 
 his services such sums as the company "^»ay 
 from time to time determine at a general meet- 
 ing." The only provision mode at a general 
 meeting was on 27th January, 1883, as follows : 
 " The salary of the managing direotor was fixed 
 until October 31st next, as at the rate of $4,000 
 per aimuin." L., the managing director sought 
 to recover for services rendered as such surae- 
 (juent to October 31st, 1883:— Held, that ho 
 cjould not do so. Re Bolt and Iron Co. — Living- 
 stone's Case, 14 0. R. 211.— Boyd. 16 A. R. 397. 
 
 I 
 
 41 
 
 IS 
 
 s'll. 
 
 
 ■m- 
 
 yS" 
 
 
 P 
 
 ' ■•i«r 
 
 Ri;- 
 
 ^ * i' 
 
267 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 2» 
 
 The position of L. as managing director ron- 1 
 tiering services for which remuneration was I 
 given, was not that of a servant hired by the | 
 company, but of a working member of the com- \ 
 pany, whoso rights as to payment were to bo 
 measured by the provisions of the charter and 
 by-laws of the company. Ih. 
 
 L. having withdrawn from the moneys of the 
 company a oei-tain sum on the assumption that 
 he was entitled to it in payment of his ser- 
 vices :— Held, that this was a breach of trust on 
 L.'s part, and the amount thus withdrawn formed 
 a debt based on a broach of trust, recoverable 
 by the liquidator, under the special provisions 
 of R. S. V. c. 129, and as to which no setoff 
 was permissible against any debt or dividend 
 <lue from the company to L. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that tliu master liad juiisdiction 
 under section 83 of the said Act to investigate 
 this transaction in these proceedings, wliich were 
 for the winding up of the company, anil no for- 
 mal objection should be allowed to affect the 
 proper operation of tliat section. Il>. 
 
 Held, further, that the fact that L. had as- 
 signed his said claim against the company to liis 
 wife, after the winding-up order had been acted 
 on, made no difference, since any such assign- ^ 
 ment woidd be subject to all the e((uities against | 
 such claim, and against tlie assignor as a direc- 
 tor and trustee of tlie company's funds in the \ 
 proceedings under the winding-up ord r. lb. \ 
 
 See Canada Centml U. W. Co. v. Mnrray, 8 t 
 S. C. R. 31.3, p. 277 ; AV rtnVo'i Mt'l'iral ami ' 
 Oeneral Life A»'>pnalioii (Limited), 11 O. H, 
 478, p. 294. i 
 
 7. Contracts between Directom and Company. 
 
 Where a voidable contract, fair in its terms 
 and within the powers of the company, has been 
 entered into by its directors witii one of tlieir 
 number as sole vendor : — Held, that such veii<lor 
 Wivs entitled to exercise his voting power as a 
 shareholder in a general meeting to ratify such 
 contract ; his doing so could not be deemed op- 
 pressive l>y reason of Ids individually possessing 
 a majoritv of votes, aciiuired in a maimer au- \ 
 thorized .)y the constitution of tlie companj-. ! 
 See North- West Ti-anyportiilioti Co. v. Beal/y, 12 I 
 App. Cas. 589. (This reverses judgment of IJoyd, , 
 C, mS.C.,>inbv(>m. lUattij \. North- ]V(st Trann- ' 
 portation Co. {Limited), (5 0. R. 300; affirms 
 judgment of Court of Appeal, 1 1 A. K. 205, and 
 reverses judgment of Supreme (/'ourt, 12 S. C. 
 R. 598.) I 
 
 In the absence of agreement, there is clearly 
 no duty or obligation on the part of directors to 
 pledge their own credit for the benefit of the 
 company. Chriatopher v. Noxon, 4 O. R. 672.— 
 Prouilfoot. 
 
 Where certain shares were allotted to one of 
 the directors of a company at par, in considera- 
 tion of which he offered to supply funds. to lueet 
 a pressing demand upon the company, and lie 
 voted on these shares at a general meeting of the 
 sliareholders, and no opposition was at tlie time 
 made to his so doii.g : — Held, that tiie share- 
 holders, must be considered to have ratitied the 
 transfer, and could not afterwards object to it 
 as improper. lb. 
 
 It was alleged that he thus acquired such stdcit 
 in order to obtain control of the company :— 
 .Seinble, that this would not lie improper, if no 
 improper means were used by him ; hut that iiad 
 he made a profit thereby, the company might 
 perhaps have claimed it. Ih. 
 
 An allotment of shares to a director, if a ques- 
 tionable act, may be ratilled liy the coin]iaiiy, 
 and for tliis purpose, as for .ill other acts within 
 tlie power of tlie corporation, the apiiroval of ;i 
 majority of shareholders ia sufficient. Jli. 
 
 I A director of a joint stock company, having a 
 ' judgment and execution of his own against the 
 i property of the company acting in good faith, 
 ' purchased the same at a sale by mortgagees, 
 ' under a power of sale for .?8,400, and sold it in 
 tiie following year for §23,000 :— Held, in wind- 
 ing-up proceedings, that he could not purchase 
 for his own benefit, Init licld the lanil as tiustee 
 for the company and was accountable for any 
 profit received on a resale, and by reason of his 
 refusing to pay o^•er or account for sucli profits, 
 and ill fact liy his appearing as a bidder at the 
 sale and so damping the l)idding, was guiltv of 
 a 1" 'ch of trust within K. S. C. c. 129, s.\S3. 
 /i'' .'. Ill Clay lirifk M(inii/<ic/iirlnii Co. — 'I'linicr'' 
 Cn--i<i, 19 0. R. 113.— Robertson." 
 
 See Toronto /hr„!ing and Ma/tin// Co. v. Jilnke, 
 2 0. R. 175, p. 2t)l. 
 
 8. Other Canes. 
 
 An objection was raised to the president of an 
 insurance company acting as such, because he 
 acted as the inspector of tiie company for which 
 he was paid a salary :— Hehl, that no weight ; 
 could be given to it, because three directors ^ 
 fonned a quorum of which the president need 
 not be one, and a quorum may have acted with- 
 out him ; and, moreover, for all that appeared ' 
 it might lie that he only received an additional 
 allowance as president while discharging the 
 duties of inspector. Vi florin Mutual Fire Ins. 
 Co. V. Thompson, 32 0. 1*. 470.— Cameron. 
 
 VIII. CoNlircT OF Hi'SINKSS. 
 
 Semble, that the amendment at page 302 of 
 the report of tliis case, l)cing to strike out a ccr- 
 
 \ t.iin canon and siilistitute anotlicr for it, tlii>ugh 
 moved as an amendment to a proposed anicinl- 
 ment of such canon, was rather a substantive 
 motion and should have been brought befiirc the 
 
 I Synod through tiie standing cummittee. fVritjhl 
 
 j V. Incorpornted Synod of the DivecKC oj Jlnioii, 
 29 Chy. 348.— I'roudfoot. Sec S. C, 9 A. R. 
 
 I 411 ; 11 S. C.Il. 9.5. 
 
 ' See Christopher v. Noxon, 4 O. R. ()72. 
 
 IX. PowER.s OF Companies. 
 
 1. Ilegardlmj By-laivs. 
 
 V. k L., brokers in partnership, were both 
 members of the Toronto Stock Kxchan''<', being 
 each the owner of one sent at the board. Tliey 
 assigned to the plaintiff for the general l)encfit 
 of creditors in IVccmbcr, 1884. The Toronto 
 Stock Kxchange by their by-laws provided that 
 in case of a member becoming insolvent and not 
 
309 
 
 OOKPANT. 
 
 370 
 
 m: 
 
 procuring a releaso from his creditors within a 
 named period, the Kxchnnge should have power 
 to realize the seats by sale, and the proceeds in 
 iiich case wore to bo applied, first, mi payment 
 of fines and dues to the Exchange ; secondly, 
 ill paym 'it of claims arising ont of Stock Kx- 
 change irunsactions of creditors, being niembors 
 of the Exchange; and thirdly, the balance, if 
 any, to be paid to the insolvent, or his legal rep- 
 resentative. Tlie seats of F. k L. were sold 
 under the by-laws of the Exchange and the pro- 
 ceeds remained in tho hands of tlie Kxchange. 
 Certain members of the Toronto Stock Ex- 
 change claiming to bo creditors of V. & L. pri<n' 
 to their insolvency, for debts arisi.;g out of Stock 
 Rxchange transactions, filed claims undc. the 
 by-laws prior to the sale of the seats. The 
 plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed to be en- 
 titled to tiie jcats and to tiie moneys arising 
 from their sale under the assignment to him for 
 tlie benelit of creditors. All parties concurret^ 
 in the sale of the seats, subject to their respec- 
 tive rights. This action was brought by the 
 plaintin, as assignee for the benefit of cre(litor.« 
 of F. & L, against the Toronto Stock Kxchange 
 for payment to him of the money realized from 
 the sale of the seats : — Held, 1, that it was com- 
 petent for the Toronto .Stock Exchange to pass 
 tlio by-laws in (|uestion giving the preference to 
 the claims of tlie Exchange, and to claims of 
 infimbers of the Exchange for debts arising out 
 of Stock Exchange triinsactions. 2. That tho 
 plaintifiP was the legal representative of the in- 
 solvents and entitled to the payment to him of 
 the iMilance of the moneys arising from the sale 
 of the said seats after payment of fines and fees 
 diio to the Exchange and chiims of creditors, 
 nioml)ers of the Kxchange, arising out of Stotk 
 Kxiihange transactions 3. Reversing the jndg- 
 mi-lit of (talt, J., dismissing the action, that as 
 the by-laws of the PjXcliange did not provide any 
 means for ascertaining or deciding a contest as 
 tn wl.at deductions might properly be made from 
 the proceeds of sale of the said seats that it was 
 iriiper to refer this matter for eniiuiry to the 
 ibister. Clnrkviii v. Toronto StocK Exchiimie, 
 13 0. R. 2i:{.— (,>. B. D. 
 
 As to the right to repeal by-laws to the pre- 
 judice of parties who have obtained rights unrler 
 siiuh by-laws. See Wright v. Im'orjwrnteit Syiioil 
 of the Dioefsf of Huron, 29 Chy. M% ; 9 A. R. 
 4II;11 S. C. R. 9-). 
 
 I 
 
 2. Expulsion of Membart. 
 
 Where a member of a college council complains 
 that he has been improperly expelled from the 
 t'oimcil, tho Courtof Chancery, under the Admin- 
 iatratiou of Justice Act, has jurisdiction in a 
 proper case to decree relief, that Act giving 
 junsdiction to tho Court of Chancery " in all 
 matters which would be cognizable in a court of 
 IkW ;" although the remedy in such a case in a 
 ooart of law would be sought by mandamus. 
 Manh v, Huron Cotteye, 27 C\\y. 605.— Spragge. 
 
 One of tho by-laws of an incorporated college 
 provided, amongst other things, that special 
 meetings of the council might be convened a» 
 the president should deem necessary, or upon 
 the reiiuisition of any three members of the 
 council, the notices of which special meetinga 
 should specify the business to be brought for- 
 ward, and that no business should be ii'troduced 
 at any special meeting in addition to that speci- 
 fied in the notice. Tne plaintiff, as one of the 
 members of the council, having acted in such a 
 manner as in the opinion of the president merited 
 his dismissal or expulsion from the Ixidy, a meet- 
 ing for that purpose was ordered to be convened 
 by the president, and notices were accordingly 
 sent to all the members of the council stating 
 that a meeting would be held " for s -.al busi- 
 ness," but omitting to say what >'- -h special 
 business was. At the meeting so callui',, at which 
 the plaintiff was jircsciit, a resolution was unani- 
 mously adopted, by the other members of the 
 council present, expelling the plaintiff from the 
 council : — Held, that the notice calling such 
 meeting was invalid, because it did not specify 
 the business intended to be brought before the 
 council ; and a dt^cree was pronounced declaring 
 that such rcsolntion of expulsion had been ille- 
 gally and improperly passed, and that the plain- 
 tiff continued to lie and was a member of the 
 council. Hut the court being of opinion that 
 the plaintiff had wittingly and designedly left 
 the members of the council under a false impres- 
 sion, us to his conduct in regard to the matters 
 which hail been the suliject of enrjuiry before 
 the council -if he did not designedly produce 
 such iiiipie.ssiiin— refu.scd the plaintiff the costs 
 of the proceedings. Ilj. 
 
 The fact that the plaintiff had attended a 
 meeting which had been illegally called, and had 
 entcied upon a defence before the council, ilid 
 not prevent liis afterwards filing a bill impeach- 
 ing tlic piDccLdiiigs as irregular and invalid. /'>. 
 
 Tlie wrong (if any) complained of being a per- 
 sonal wrong on the part of the members of the 
 council wlio voted for the resolution :~Qu!ere, 
 if costs were adjudged to the plaintiff, whether 
 they should not be paid by those members, Ih. 
 
 The reasons for which alone members of a 
 municiiial body may be disfranchised, do not 
 apply to tlie iiuiiibcrs of the governing body of 
 an educational institution whether incorporated 
 or not. /'). 
 
 Qua're, what would form a sutficicnt ground 
 for the expulisiim of a member of such a body as 
 the council of Huron college. Ih. 
 
 Members of charitable and provident societies 
 should not be allmvcd to litigate their grievances 
 in courts of law until t!iey have exhausted every 
 possible means of red? ess afforded by the internal 
 regnlation.s of their societies. Therefore, where 
 the plaintiff being expelled from the Ancient 
 Order of Foresters, filed his bill for restitution 
 thereto on the ground of illegal expulsion, but it 
 appeared that tlio rules of the society provided 
 certain internal triliunals to which he might have 
 appealed for redress, but had not, this court 
 refused to interfere. Esae.ry v. Court Pride of 
 the Domiuwii, 2 O. R. 591),— Chy, D. 
 
 By one of the by-laws of the defendants' asso- 
 ciation they were empowered to expel any mem- 
 
 m' 
 
 ^.tm. 
 
 % 
 
 I 
 
271 
 
 OOMPANY. 
 
 271 
 
 ber for refusing to siiltmit a (luestion arising 
 between niuiubers to arbitration, but it was pro- 
 vitleJ that such expulsion should take place only 
 after the case should have been sul)iiiitted to a 
 meeting of tiie association, due notice havnig 
 tirst been given to the parties that such a meet- 
 ing would be held. W. & Co., members of the 
 association, had a claim against the plaintilf, 
 who was also a member, consisting of three items 
 SI. 00 for balance of purchase money of grain; 
 $397.41 for freight on same graiu wliich they had 
 paid under jjrotest, and a sum for costs incurred 
 III an action brought by them to recover back the 
 f reigiit so paid. Tlie plaintiff paid the first item, 
 but disputed the balance of the account, where- 
 upon W. & Co. api)licd for and obtained a reso- 
 lution by defendants tiiat there should be an arbi- 
 tration, to which the plaintiff submitted, and he 
 afterwards admitted his liability for the amount 
 claimed for frciglit, and oll'ered his note at twelve 
 niontlis for it, which \V. & Co. declined. Upon 
 a submission, however, being tendered him cov- 
 ering the tlirce items, he refused to sign it as the 
 first two items were no longer in dispute. In con- 
 sequence of his refusal, the defendants expelled 
 him at a meeting called "to receive a report 
 from the committee, regarding the conduct of a 
 member."— Held, alKrming tlie decree of Proud- 
 foot, V. C. C-'T Ciiy. 23), that tl; > plaintiff was 
 improperly expelled, and was entitled to be re- 
 instated in his rights of membership. Per Bur- 
 ton and I'atteison, .J.J. A., that there had been 
 no refusal to arbitrate witliin the meaning of 
 the by-law, but only a refusal to arbitrate upon 
 a matter not in <lispute. Gaimun v. Toronto 
 Com Exchamje, 6 A. R. 208. . 
 
 Per (!alt, J., tliat tlie notice of the meeting 
 at whicli tlie expulsion took place was not a 
 sufiicient compliance with the provision which 
 reipiired that the object of the meeting should 
 he specially stated. //*. 
 
 The defendants' act of incorporation provided 
 for the a])pointinent of a committee of manage- 
 ment to iniinage the affairs, etc., of the corpora- 
 tion, and, under a by-law, the committee were 
 to consider and report on all offences under the 
 by-laws, if submitted to them, and to call a 
 special meeting of the corporation to pass judg- 
 ment thereon. Power was also given by the Act 
 of incorporation to expel members as by the by- 
 laws should be determined. l$y by-law 13 all 
 oomplainta to the committee or corporation were 
 to lie in writing. By by-law 21 any member 
 complained against, might have a hearing before 
 the corporation, and if the complaint be proved, 
 a vote should be taken by ballot — by a two- 
 tliirds m.ijority of those present and voting 
 being retpiired— first, for the forfeiture of the 
 seat, and then if lost for suspension. By by-law 
 24 a member becoming bankrupt or insolvent, 
 should not be entitled to take his seat ns a. mem- 
 ber of the corporation, or Do present at any 
 meeting thereof ; and such seat should revert to 
 the corporation to lie sold by them, if the mem- 
 ber bo not readmitted within six months from 
 tlie date of insolvency, and the proceeds applied 
 as directed therein. In November, 1883, with- 
 out any complaint in writing or notice to the 
 plaintiff or hearing l)efore the corporation, but 
 on the chairman and secretary, whom the com- 
 mittee had instructed to make enquiries, re- 
 porting that plaintiff waa offering to compro- 
 
 mise with his creditors, the secretary, by order 
 of the committee, wrote to plaintiff, calling hi« 
 attention to by-law 24 ; and on the same day 
 the list of members was altered by striking ont 
 the plaintiff's name. Nothing further was done 
 until Alarch following, when in conseipience 
 of a correspondence between the plaintiff's soli- 
 citors and the defendants, those members who 
 had previously reported on plaintiff's condition, 
 made a written complaint to the president com- 
 plaining of the plaintiff having been iiisidventin 
 October and November, and of his disqualifica- 
 tion thereby under by-law 24, and asking for an 
 investigation by the corporation, -whicli was had, 
 and by an open vote of 15 to 0, the complaint 
 was held to bo proved, the two complainants 
 voting with the majority. No steps were taken 
 to declare the seat forfeited or for suspension:— 
 Held, tliat insolvency under by-law 24, did not 
 refer to a condition of insolvency, but to a defi- 
 nite act of insolvency under a bankrupt or in- 
 solvent Act, e. g., by an assignment or tiie issue 
 of a writ of attachment ; and therefore plaintiff 
 did not come within its terms ; but ajiart from 
 this the defendants' proceedings wore clearly 
 illegal and void, for in November there was no 
 complaint that gave the comniittoe jurisdiction 
 to interfere ; and as the defendants' all'airs were 
 to be managed by the coinmittee, they were re- 
 sponsible for the eoiumittee's acts ; while the 
 complaint made in March was not a bon;\ fide 
 one, but merely an attempt to support the previ- 
 I ous illegal act ; and also the vote siiould have 
 been by ballot :— Held, also, tliat though defcn- 
 : dants'iiroceediiigs were alxiftive to deprive plain- 
 tiff' of his seat, the erasure of his name was an 
 I act most detrimental to the jilaintiff, as it pre- 
 , vented him from carrying on his business .as a 
 broker ; ami he was therefore entitled to recover 
 damages for the loss he ha<l sustained thereby. 
 , Remarks as to the impropriety of the two com- 
 j plainants acting us judges on their own com- 
 I plaint ; and if deemed present there would not 
 i be the requisite two-thirds majority, but other- 
 I wise if deemed neither present nor voting. Per 
 i Rose, ,J.— Tn the absence of a by-law providing 
 for ascertaining the fact of ins.<dvency, the find- 
 ' iiig of the jury herein that plaintiff was not in- 
 ' solvent was conclusive. Ti'itiplf v. Toronto 
 i Stock Exchamje, 8 O. R. TO'i.-C. P. 1). 
 
 I See EfKfi-i/ V. Court Pride of tin Dominion, 2 
 ' O. R. rm, )). 150 ; L'Uiiioii St. Jus/'j,!, ile MotU- 
 I rm/ V. f.apicrre, 4 S. C. It. l.")4, p. 150 ; lluiuU 
 ' V. Law Socie.li/ of I'pper (/a)ifi(/((, 17 A. R. 41 ; 
 ' He/and v. L' Union SI. Thomas, PJ O. H. 747, p. 
 I 153. 
 
 I 3. To Issm Preferential Sloik. 
 
 The defendants, a company incorporated under 
 the Ontario Joint Stock Companies' Ixitters 
 I Patent Act, R. S. O. (1877), e. 150, as .amended 
 'by 41 Vict. c. 8, s. 10, with a capital stock of 
 ' $300,000, in shares of 81,000 each, acting under 
 I section 17" of the Act, which authorized the 
 I issue of any part of the capital stock as pre- 
 ference shares, passed a by-law in 1877, for the 
 issue of 175,000 as such preference shares, 
 which were to have preference and priority as 
 respects dividends and otherwise as therein de- 
 clared, namely : 1. " The company guarantees 
 eight per cent, yearly to the extent of the pre- 
 ference stock, up to the year 1880, and over that 
 
273 
 
 COBn»ANY. 
 
 m 
 
 mm 
 
 amount (eight per cent.) the net dividentls will [ period, only the crown can take advantage of it. 
 
 be divided among all the shareholders pro 
 rnta." 2. "Should the holders of preference 
 bonds so desire, the company binds itself to 
 take the stock back during the year 1880, at 
 par, with interest at eight per cent, per annum, 
 on receiving six months' notice in writing, etc." 
 The plaintiff subscribed for and was allotted five 
 shares, amounting to ?5,000, which he paid up, 
 but contending that the by law was ultra vires 
 by reason of the above conditions, and the issue 
 of sliares therefore void, brought an action to 
 recover back the money paid therefor : — Held, 
 that the first couditioji of the by-law was not 
 idtra vires, as its proper construction was, not 
 that the interest was to be paid at all events, 
 and so possibly out of capital, but only if there 
 were profits out of whicli it coiihl be paid ; but 
 that the second condition was ultra vires, for 
 that the Act neither expressly nor impliedly 
 authorized the company to accept a surrender or 
 ■cancel the shares, repaying the amount thereof: — 
 Held, however, that the plaintiff could not re- 
 cover, for notwithstanding one or both of the 
 conditions were invalid, the shares themselves 
 were vali<l, there being authority to issue pre- 
 ference shares, and the plaintiff liiviug sub.scri- 
 
 and it is not a defence to an action of ejectment 
 that the lands were ac<iuired by the plaintiff 
 from the corporation after the period fixed by 
 the statute. /'/. 
 
 .Scmblc, the Dominion parliament has power 
 to enact that a license from the crown shall not 
 be necessary to enable corporations to hold lands 
 within the Dominion ; and a Dominion Act en- 
 abling a '^jucbec corporation to hold lands in 
 Ontario would operate as a license. lb. 
 
 3. To Burrow Money. 
 
 Kffect of mortgage not ratified by two-thirds 
 of the sharehidders of the company under R. S. 
 0. c. 119, s. 37. See McDoiujall v. Lindsay 
 Palter Mill Co., 10 ?. K. 247. 
 
 0. Chau'jiiiij Head Office. 
 
 Tl-'i Act incoi-porating a company provided 
 that the head olfice might be changed from 
 Ottawa to such other place as might ue deter- 
 minoil by the shareholders at any one of the 
 ' g(-'neral meetings. At the general annual meet- 
 f'Otiij \ inga resolution was passed authori/.ing the direc- 
 tors to consummate arrangements for the re- 
 moval of the licad office from Ottawa to Toronto. 
 The directors made the change, and the subse- 
 (juent animal meetings were hehl at Toronto, at 
 the first of which so held, the by-law referring 
 ti^ the phii'e of bfdding the annual meetings was 
 amended by substituting Toronto for Ottawa: — 
 Held, that the change was effectually made. 
 Union Fin: hii. Co. v. O'Oara; Same PlaUUiffa 
 V. Shoolhrtd, 4 O. H. 359. -Osier. 
 
 7. Other Ca-ies. 
 
 beil for preference shares, and having got them, 
 
 he became a sharcludder of tlu; company 
 
 V. ditclph Lumber Co., 31 C. V. 129.— (\ P. 1). 
 
 4. To Hold Land. I 
 
 I 
 The plaintiffs, a loan comj)aiiy, who, by the j 
 terms of their charter, were bound " to sell any ; 
 real estate ac(|uired in satisfaction of any debt i 
 vitliin five years after it shall have fallen to i 
 them, otherwise it shall revert to the |ireviou8 
 owner, or his heirs or assigns," acquired the 
 equity of redemption in certain land from a [ 
 mort^'agor by deed, in which was contained a I 
 provision against the merger of the legal and 
 
 cjiuitable estates. By agreement made within .^„ incorporated company, by its charter, was 
 the lue years t he pl.iintills sold to a purcba.ser, ^ authorized to carry on lusincss in the manage- 
 on whose default they resumed ijosscssion of the „,^.,^^ „f ,.^.,^, ,^,j^, personal p.oijerty ; guarantee 
 property. n an action for specilic performance ; ^^,^^3 thereof; to collects rents, etc.; procure 
 against a subsequent purchaser who objected to , ^ .^„^ ^^ negotiate the sale and purchase of 
 
 the title on the ground among others that the i ,,„,„^ mortg-.ges, stocks, and other securities, 
 plamtiffs had not sold the land within five years, .._^,„i j,,.„eraTly to transact every description of 
 from its accjuisition : '^ >tr.,u. — n.,i.i t\...t ti.ni .» . i . . •' r . . 
 
 form 
 aciiuir 
 rights 
 lut:- 
 
 «ell w.os sufficient to prevent a forfi.'iture wlioro 
 the sale was not carried out through the clcfaiilt 
 of the purchaser :— Hehl, also, that it was un- ' 
 necessary to procure a release from the former 
 purchaser whose contract and the determination 
 
 guaranteed by 
 
 they the right to speculate in the purchase of 
 mortgages or other securities, although they 
 might have been justified in investing any sur- 
 plus capital or accumulation of profits until the 
 
 iL„, „i .1 1 1 ii. t • 1 same was reciuired. Walmxley v. Rent Ouaran- 
 
 tnereof should, as a matter of ccniveyancniK, be . ,/-,. .in r<u.. a^a i>„«.,,if^«f 
 .„„;»„j : ii 1 1 r i.1 1 • i.i 1. 1 i \iei' (Jo., Sd KAxy. 484. — f roudtoot. 
 
 recited in the deed from the plar>tiffs to defen- ' 
 
 ' ■ • ■ - - •■ - - . Held,that37Vict.c.l03(Dom.),whichcroated 
 
 a corporation with power to carry on definite 
 kinds of business within the Dominion, was with- 
 in the legislative competence of the Dominion 
 parliament. The fact tiiat the corporation chose 
 to confine the exercise of its powers to one pro 
 
 daiit, 
 Co. V 
 
 London and Cunnilinn Lonn niul Ai/ency 1 
 Graham, 16 0. R. 329.— IJoyd. ' \ 
 
 A conveyance of lands to a corporation not 
 empowered by statute to hold lamls is voidable 
 only and not void under the statutes of mort- 
 main, and the lands can be forfeited by the 
 •cmwn only. McDiarmid v. Hwihes, 16 O. R. 
 570. -Q. fi. D. 
 
 Where, I corporation is empowered bv statute 
 
 to hold lands for a definite period, without any and InrcHtnwnt Ass'n. v. 
 
 frovision as to reverter, and holds beyond the Quebec, 9 App. Caa. 157. 
 
 18 
 
 vince and to local and provincial objects did not 
 cITcct its status as a (Corporation or operate to 
 render its original incorporation illegal as ultra 
 vires the said parliament. Colonial Bnildiiuj 
 
 AUorney-Oeneral (j/* 
 
 ^ 
 
 :jm 
 
975 
 
 OOMPANT. 
 
 21S 
 
 Held, that the corporation could not be pro- 
 hibited generally from acting as such within the 
 province, nor could it bo restrained from doing 
 Bpeciiied acts in violation of provincial law upon 
 a petition not directed and adapted to that pur- 
 pose, lb. 
 
 See FaUi'mer v. 
 0. R. 350. 
 
 Qrand Junction E. W, Co. , 4 
 
 X. CONTRACT.S BY AND WiTH. 
 
 1. NeccHxily for Senl. 
 
 To a declaration alleging that the plaintiffs 
 entered into an agreement with the defendants 
 to perform certain stone work, wliich they partly 
 
 Scrformed, and averring as a breach that the 
 efendants had prevented them from carrying 
 out and completing the work, whereby, etc., the 
 defendants pleaded the plaintitfs were an associ- 
 ation incorporated under H. JS. O. (1877) c. 138, 
 and that the agreement was not under the 
 plaintiffs' seal : — Held, on demurrer that the 
 plaintiffs being a trading corporation, enough was 
 not shewn to make the absence of a seal fatal to 
 the validity of the agreement. Ontario Co-oper 
 afive Slow. Cutlers' Association v. Clarke, 31 C. 
 P. 280.— Osier. 
 
 The plaintiffs were a company incorporated 
 under U. S. C. c. 6.3, and 24 Vict. c. 19, for the 
 manufacture and sale of cheese, etc. On tlie 
 10th of August, 1878, a written agreement was 
 entered into between one C, the plaintiffs' sec- 
 retary and salesman, and one JI., on behalf, as 
 was stated, of the plaintiffs and defendants re- 
 spectively, and which was signed by C. and M., 
 for the sale of the whole of the plaintiffs' July 
 cheese, as also of their August, September, and 
 October cheese, at prices named : — Held, that 
 the plaintiffs being a trading corporation, and 
 the contract one specially relating to the objects 
 and purposes of the company, it was binding 
 upon them, thougli not untler seal. Albert Cheese j 
 Co. V. Leeminy, 31 C. P. 272.— C. P. D. 
 
 Semble, that a contract made verbally with 
 the president of defendant's company with the 
 plaintiff engaging him for "the season," that is 
 early in May, until sometjme in November, as 
 master to manage a steamer, might be binding, 
 and that a nonsuit for the want of a corporate 
 seal was properly set aside. Ellin v. Mkllaml 
 R.W.Co.,1 A.Vi.AM. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the court of 
 appeal that the setting up of "the want of a,\ 
 seal " as a defence to an action on an assurance 
 policy which had been treated by all parties as 
 a valid policy was a fraud which a court of equity 
 could not refuse to interfere to prevent, without 
 ignoring its functions and its duty to prevent 
 and redress all frand whenever and in whatever 
 shape it appears ; and, therefore, the respondent 
 was entitled to the relief prayed, as founded on 
 the facts alleged in her equitable replication. 
 London Lije Amurance Co. v. Wright, 5 S. C. R. 
 466; 5 A. R. 218; 29 C. P. 221. 
 
 D., on the suggestion of R. and the Bank of 
 0.,that he should purchase certain lumber lield 
 by the bank as security for advances made to R., 
 required a guarantee from the bank that the 
 lumber should be satisfactorily culled and any 
 deficiency paid for by the bank. The directors 
 
 of tlie bank thereupon resolved to submit the 
 lumber to a culler, and if he reported satisfac- 
 torily, to give the guarantee. Their local agent, 
 however, with the approbation of their head 
 manager, without previously employing a culler 
 to report, gave a guarantee in writins, but not 
 under seal, " on 1)ehalf of the bank, that the 
 lumber should be satisfactorily culled previously 
 to shipment: — Held, that no seal was required, 
 and if the bank wished to repudiate it they 
 should repay the money paid to them by D., for 
 the lumber. JJobeli v. Ontario Bank, 3 0. R. 
 299.— Proudfoot ; 9 A. R. 484. 
 
 Where the directors of a company had power 
 to appoint officers and agents and dismiss them 
 at pleasure : — Held, thiit their appointment of a 
 solicitor need not be under the corporate seal. 
 Clarke v. Union Fire Ins. Co. — Caston's Case, 10 
 P. R. 339. — Hodgins, Master in Ordinary. 
 
 Contracts with municipal corporations. Sihliy 
 v. Viltaije of Diinnril/e, 8 A. R. 524 ; Lawrenet v. 
 Village o/Liicknow, 13 O. R. 421. 
 
 See Cleaver v. North of Scotland Canadian 
 Morti/aije Co. , 27 Chy. .508 ; Victoria Mutual Fire 
 Ills. Co. v. Thompson, 32 C. P. 476, p. 2fi4; 
 Canada Centnd li. W. Co. v. Murray, 8 S, C. 
 I{. 313, p. 277 ; Hank of Commerce v. Jenkins, 
 16 0. K. 215, p. 115. 
 
 2. Other Cases. 
 
 To an action on the common counts brought 
 by T. and \V. M. against the C. C. R. Co. to re- 
 cover money claimed to be due for fencing the 
 line of C!. (J. railway, the C. C. R. Co. pleaded 
 never indebted, and payment. The agreenieut 
 underwhich the fencing was made is as follows;— 
 " Memo, of fencing between Muskrat river, east, 
 to Renfrew. T. and W. M. to construct same 
 next spring for C. C. R. Co., to be equal to 3 
 boards (i inches wide, and posts 7 and 8 feet 
 apart, for .^1.25 per rod, company to furnish 
 cars for lumber. 
 
 " (Signed) T. & W. M. 
 A. B. F." 
 
 F. controlled nine-tenths of the stock, ami 
 publicly apjicared to be and was understo<iil to 
 be, .111(1 noted as managing director or manager 
 of the company, although he was at one time 
 contrnitnr for the building of the whole road. 
 T. mid \V. M. built the fence and the C. C. R. 
 Co. have had the benefit thereof ever since. The 
 ciise was tried before Patterson, J., and a jury, 
 and on the eviilenoe, in answer to certain ques- 
 tions submitted by the judge, the jury fouml 
 that T. and W. M., when they contracted, con- 
 sidered they were contracting with the comjiany 
 througli F., and that thei-e was no evidence tiiat 
 the company repudiated the contract till the 
 action was In'ought, and that the payments were 
 made as money which the company owed, not 
 money which they were paying to be charged to 
 F. and a general verdict was found for T. and 
 W. M. for $12,218.51. On appeal to the Su- 
 preme Court of Canada: —Held, (affirming the 
 judgment of the court below, 7 A. R. 646), that 
 it was properly loft to the jury to decide whether 
 the work iicrfoniied, of which the C. C. R. Co. 
 received the benefit, was contracted for Iw the 
 company through the instrumentality of F., or 
 whether tliey adopted and ratified the oontract. 
 
277 
 
 OOMPAKV. 
 
 and that the verdict could not be set aside on i 
 the ground of being against the weight of evi- 
 dence ; Kitchie, C. J., and Tascherean, J., dis- 
 senting, on the ground that there was no evi- 
 dence that F. had any authority to bind the 
 compsny, T. and W. M. being only sub-contrac- 
 tors, nor evidence of ratification. 2, That al- 
 though the contract entered into by P. for the 
 compiiny was not under seal, the action was 
 maintainable. Canada Central Jt. W. Co. v. 
 Murray, 8 S. C. R. 313. Special leave to ap- 
 peal to Her Majesty in Council refused, 8 App. 
 Cas. 574. 
 
 The plaintiffs were the owners of certain ! 
 boats, docks, etc., and being desirous of giving ' 
 up their business proposed to sell all their rights I 
 in their charter, boats, etc., to a company to be I 
 thereafter incorporated as the "Thames River i 
 Navigation Co." The proposal was assented to I 
 '■y the defendants and others subscribing to the | 
 stock of the new company, and the purchase ^ 
 money was to have been paid out of the funds I 
 of the latter when formed. Upon this under- ! 
 standing the vessels were delivered to the de- 1 
 fendants on behalf of all parties, and the snm 
 of $3,500 on account of such purchase was paiil 
 out of the money paid in by persons subscribing 
 for shares in the new company. Before the 
 completion of repairs necessary to render the 
 boats serviceable, one of them was destroyed by 
 an unexpected Hood, in conse(|uence of which, 
 proceedings for the incorporation of the new 
 company were abandoned: — Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the court below, 9 O. R. 754, that 
 the defendants were not liable for the balance of 
 the purchase money, as the circumstances shewed 
 there had never been a completed sale and pur- 
 chasp. The only contract proved, was a pro- 
 visional one to take effect upon the incorpora- 
 tion of a new company, and the delivery which 
 had taken place, was not in pursr.ance of a con- 
 tract of sale, but simply to enable the repairs 
 upon the vessels to be effected. ThawM Nai-i- 
 galion Co. {Limited) v. Reid, 13 A. R. 303. 
 
 Liability of Mutual Insurance Company com- 
 posed of different branches for costs of solicitor 
 for ser\'ice8 rendered to one branch. See />»//■ 
 v. Canada Mutual Fire Im, Co., 9 P. R. 292 ; 2 
 0. R. 560. 
 
 Contracts with foreign corporations. See 
 Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. v. Wextern Union 
 TeUgraph Co., 17 S. C. R. 161. 
 
 See Real Extate Investment Go. v. Metropolitan 
 BuUdimj Society, 3 0. R. 476, p. 204. 
 
 XI. Actions by. 
 
 In these oases which were actions for calls on 
 stiock, an objection was taken that there was no 
 power to sue, because the company's license 
 uader42Vlct. c. 26(Ont.), had been revoked, 
 but it was shewn that one R. had been appointed 
 receiver, and was specially required by order of 
 the Chancery Division to prosecute all members 
 irt arrears for calls ; and that he bad adopted 
 these actions, and was prosecuting them as re- 
 odver :— Held, that the objection was not ten- 
 »We. Union Fire Inn, Co. v. Fitzaimmonx ; 
 ^« Pluintip V. Shields, 32 C. I'. 602.- 
 H»g»ity.-C. P. D. 
 
 Where certain shareholders in a conipivny 
 joined with the company as plaintiffs, as a pi'e- 
 cantionary measure merely in case it should 
 transpire that their coplaintiffs, the company 
 were not entitled or unwilling to sue, the court 
 (Blake, V.C.) refused to allow a demurrer for 
 want of etjuity, as the objection was purely of 
 a formal nature. City Liijht and Heatnnj Co. of 
 London v. Mar/e, 28 Chy. 363. 
 
 A demurrer to a bill filed by shareholders of 
 an incori>orated company, on behalf of them- 
 selves and all other shareholders except the 
 defendants, in whicli the company were joined 
 as coplaintiffs, attacking a transaction wberi'l)y 
 all the shareliolders including some of those 
 whom the plaintiffs assumed to represent, re- 
 ceived shares in the transaction sought to be 
 impeached, was allowed. //*. 
 
 The court may interfere by mandatory injunc- 
 tion on an interlocutory application, but the 
 riglit must l)e very clear inilced. Where tlicie 
 are conflicting claimants to the position of pre- 
 8i<lent of a company, and one claimant takes 
 forcible possession of the company's jn'cmises, the 
 other clainiiiut, at all events when lie is at the 
 time the acting president, can bring an action to 
 restrain him in theniuiioof the company, tliougli 
 it be uncertain who is the rightful president. 
 Toronto Breirinij and Midliinj Co. v. Blakt, 2 
 O. R. 175.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 A corporation has the same right as an indi- 
 vidual to witlidraw its name from litigation to 
 which it has been n!a<lo a party plaintiff, but of 
 wiiicii it doesnotap]vrove. Iiilernntional Wreck- 
 iwj Co. v. Murphy, 12 P. R. 423.— Street. 
 
 The company it.self is the proper plaintiff in 
 actions for injury to the corporate jirnperty, imd 
 such ail .action by shaivliolders alone, shewing 
 no reason why the company has not instituted 
 the proceedings, cannot l)e sustained, lb. 
 
 But wlicre the complaint was that a majority 
 of the sbarclioldera had ol)taiiied possession of 
 the company's name and tlie control of its affairs, 
 and were using it improperly for tlieir own bene- 
 fit, and causing injury to the company's pro- 
 perty : — Held, that an action could l)e sustained 
 m the name of one or more sliareholdcrs, on bc- 
 lialf of themselves and all others, except the de- 
 fendaiitu, against the company and the majority 
 of the shareholders. Hi. 
 
 In an action by an incorporated educational 
 institute for the removal of one of the trustees, 
 who also acted as secretary, fr>r iillcgoil improper 
 dealing with the corporate fun<ls, jud<;ment w.is 
 ffiven, but without any finding of wilful miscon- 
 duct, directing such trustee's removal, on the 
 eround that so much doubt w as cant up<m his 
 dealings with the trust funds that it would not 
 be proper to allow him to remain a member of 
 the board. Such un action is maintainable with- 
 out making the Attorney -(icncral a party. H'lV- 
 berforce Educational Institute v. Ilotdrn, 17 0. R. 
 439.— Rose. 
 
 Action by plaintiffs to recover the price of an 
 implement manufactured by them. A winding- 
 up order had previously been obtained against 
 plaintifrs, and a liiiuidator ai)pointed. An objec- 
 tion was taken at the trial after the evidence 
 had been given, that the action should have been 
 brought in the name of the liijuidutor and witk 
 
 I 
 
 
 IS 
 25 
 
 M 
 
279 
 
 OCHPANY. 
 
 the approval of the court, muler section 31 of 
 R. S. C. 129. The order authorizing the liiiui- 
 «lator to sue either in his own name or in that 
 of tlie plaintiffs was put in after tlie hearing :— 
 HcM, that tlie objection was too late and must 
 l)e overruled : —Semble, tlie prop^'- course is to 
 move in chambers to dismiss the action for want 
 of autliority to sue; and semble als.) as tliu plain- 
 tifl's under tlie statute had power to sue, they 
 •could do HO without the autliority of the court, 
 if they choose to run the risk of costs. Si(rit>a 
 A'jiiculliiml Imph'me.nt MnitufucfuviiKj Cu. (Lim- 
 Ui-(/) V. tluUhinwu, 17 O. R. OTC — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Where a registered shareholder of a company 
 finding the annual reports of tlie company mis- 
 leading applies after notice for a writ of injunc- 
 tion to restrain the company from paying a divi- 
 dend, and upon such application the company 
 do not deny even generally the statements and 
 charges contained in the plaintift''8 affidavit and 
 petition, there is sufficient probable cause for 
 the issue of such writ, and consequently tjic 
 defendant, who upon the merits has succeeded 
 in getting the injunction dissolved, has no right 
 of action for damages resulting from the issue of 
 the injunction. Moutveul Sired RaUwaij Co. v. 
 nUchie, 16 8. C. R. 622. 
 
 f^(ni Flalt V. Waddell ; Ton-imnd \. Wadddl, 
 IS O. R. 539. 
 
 XII. Actions and Proceedinos Aciainst. 
 
 1. Gtncvally. 
 
 A company receiving money on deposit, which 
 is placed to its credit at a bank, is lial)le for tlie 
 money so received, though the taking of money 
 liy deposit be ultra vires ; and if the officers of 
 the company use such moneys in other ultra vires 
 transactions, that may be a proper matter for 
 the shareholders to charge those officers with, 
 but it is not one with which the deimsitor has 
 anytliing to do. ]Vahn4ey v. Rent Guarantee 
 Co., 29 Chy. 484.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The plaintiff being in doubt as to which com- 
 pany was liable, there having been a separate 
 contract with each, joined both as defendants : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff had a right to do so. 
 See Harvey v. Grand Trunk li. W. Co., 7 A. It. 
 71;-). 
 
 The plaintiff during his initiation as a member 
 of the deiiiUUi.nts' lodge, in the presence of the 
 principal officers and a number of members, con- 
 stituting a 'uU and perfect meeting, was inju'-ed 
 through the rough usage of some of the members. 
 It appeared that this and other proceedings were 
 taken with the knowledge of all those who were 
 present, and that somewhat similar proceedings 
 had happened on the occasion of other initiations, 
 and that they were allowed and not checked :— 
 Held, that they must be taken to have been done 
 with the consent of the corporate body, and that 
 the defendants were liable in damages for the in- 
 juries sustained. Kinvtr v. Phitnix Lodqe, I. 
 O. 0. F., 7 0. R. 377.-Q. B. D. 
 
 For goods supplied to an inchoate company. 
 See Seiffert v. Irving, 15 0. R. 173. 
 
 A corporation may be liable for false impriaon- 
 ment under au order of its agent acting within 
 the scope of his authority. Lyden v. McOee, 16 
 v>. K. 105. — C P. D. 
 
 An action for deceit will lie against a corpom- 
 tion. Mooir v. Ontario InvtHtment Ansociatin, 
 16 O. R. 269. -Robertson. 
 
 Demurrer to a statement of claim for damage* 
 against a company, wherein it was alleged that 
 the plaintiff was induced by fraudulent state- 
 ments ill the annual reports, and in letters writ- 
 ten to him by the president to purchase stock 
 practically from the company, which stock wu 
 valueless, overruled with costs. lb. 
 
 iSciiible, that if the plaintiff had been induced 
 to buy the stock from a private holder by the 
 false representations aforesaid, the corporation 
 would not have been liable, but only the indivi- 
 dual officers ; but that if the vendor of the shares 
 was privy to the representations, the plaintiff 
 could also recover against him. Ih. 
 
 Ill an action by a shareholder of an investment 
 association to have it declared that his subscrip- 
 tion for shares had been obtained by fraud and 
 misreprcsentatiuii, and that it was not binding 
 upon liini, and for other relief, it appeared that 
 in 1882 the said association had amalgamated 
 with a loan society, and under the terms of the 
 amalgamation the shareholders in the latter be- 
 came entitled, on payment of a premium of 
 seventeen per cent., to au ecjuivalent numlierof 
 shares of tlie fin'iiier. It was thus the plaintiff 
 became entitled to his shares in the association, 
 having previously been a shareholder in, and 
 manager of, the loan society ; and he was an 
 assenting ]jarty to the amalgamation, which he 
 now atta<;kcd as ultra vires, and brought about 
 by luisrepresentation and fraud, llut it wag 
 proved that there were many material misrepre- 
 seiitatioiis, falsely and fraudulently made, in a 
 certain report of the association, dated Decem- 
 ber 31st, 1888, which had been an important 
 factor in bringing about the assent to the amal- 
 gamation by the society, and in inducing the 
 plaintitrto .subscribe for the shares in the asao- 
 oiation, and that the plaintiff had not become 
 aware of their falsity until shortly before bring- 
 ing this action. After the amalgamation the 
 association borrowed large sums of money upon 
 debentures, etc., on the faith of the apparently 
 existing state of affairs, but it was not shown 
 that the association was insolvent, or on the eve 
 of insolvency : — Held, that the plaintiff was en- 
 titled to a rescission of the contract made by his 
 subscrijition for stock in the association : — Held, 
 also, that the fact of the plaintiff having sold 
 some of his shares would not prevent rescission 
 as to the remainder of them. NeUes v. Ontario 
 Investment Association, 17 O. R. 129. — Fergn- 
 son. 
 
 In a company consisting of seven shareholden, 
 the plaintiffs, four of the shareholders holding 
 twenty-five per cent, of the stock, claimed that 
 there had been mismanagement of the company's 
 funds in the payment out of large sums to the 
 president and secretary, for salaries or services 
 without any legal authority therefor, and in the 
 failure to declare any dividends though the com- 
 pany had made large profits, and that no satis- 
 factory investigation or statement of the com- 
 pany's affairs could be obtained though frequent- 
 ly applied for, and that it was impossiDle to 
 ascertain the company's true financial standing. 
 Under these circumstances an investigation of 
 the company's affairs was directed. At a meet- 
 
COMPANY. 
 
 282 
 
 ins of four of the directors, constituting the ma- 
 jority, helil after iJioceedings taken by tlie mi- 
 nority to disallow the illegal payments made to 
 the president and secretary, and without proper 
 notice to the minority of such meeting or its 
 object, a resolution was passed ratifying the pay- 
 ments made to the secretary, and at an adjourned 
 meeting, of which also the minority received no 
 notice, by-laws were passed ratifying the pay- 
 ments made to the president and secretary : — 
 Held, that the resolution and by-laws were in- 
 valid, and could not be confirmed by the share- 
 holders, and an injunction was granted restrain- 
 ing the company from acting thereunder, or 
 from holding a meeting of shareholders to ratify 
 and confirm same. WaMcU v. Ontario Cannimj 
 Co., 18 0. li. 4!. -Kobertsou. 
 
 A justice of tlie peace cannot compel a corpora- 
 tion to appear before him nor can he bind them 
 over to appear and answer to an indictmcut, and 
 he has no jurisdiction to bind over the prosecu- 
 tor or person who intends to present an indict- 
 ment against them. He Chupman v. Citi/ of 
 London, 19 0. R. .33.— Robertson. 
 
 See McSherry v. Communiovern of the. Cohovrri 
 Town Truxt, 45 Q. B. 250,p. 238 ; Walmxley v. 
 Rent Gmirantte Co., 29 Chy. 484, p. 266 ; Wil- 
 ton v. ^Etna Life Inn. Co., 8 P. R. 131, infra; 
 Christopher v. Noxon, 4 O. R. 672. 
 
 XIII. Amalgamation of Companies. 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 See Rt Standard Fire Inx, Co. — Kelly's Cane, 
 12 A. R. 486, p. 246 ; Nelle-i v. Ontario Jnve.fl- 
 ment Association, 17 0. R. 129, p. 280. 
 
 XIV. Foreign Companies. 
 
 Liability of foreign corporations to municipal 
 asaessnient. See /n re North of Scotland Cana- 
 dian Mortijaije Co., 31 C. ]'. .'io2 ; Phivntx /«.<. 
 Co. of London v. the City of Kimjston, 7 O. K. 
 343. 
 
 Service on a foreign insuriince company doing 
 bosiness in Ontario. See Wilion v. .Etna Life 
 Ins. Co., ^V. R. 131. 
 
 Held, that Ontario Bank shares, though sub- 
 tcrihed for at Montreal and at one time regis- 
 tered there, but transferred to liowmanville 
 during the testator's lifetime, and appearing in 
 the stock register there only, were Ontario assets. 
 Btoomfeld v. Brooke. 8 P. R. 266.— Taylor, Mas- 
 ter. 
 
 The locality of the forum of litigation deter- 
 mines whether a corporation is foreign or not. 
 A contract executed in Ontario and delivered by 
 the agent of the contractor to the contractee in 
 New York is governed by the laws of Ontario. 
 Clarke, v. Union Fire Inn. Co., 10 P. R. 313.— 
 Hodgins, Master in Ordinary, 
 
 Leave was given to sign final judgment under 
 Role 80 0. J. Act (Con. Rule 739) against a 
 company incorporated in England, having its 
 bead office there, and in process of liijuidution 
 there, but doing buainesa and having assets and 
 
 liabilities in Ontario. Plummer v. Lake .'iuperior 
 Native Copper Co., 10 P. R. 527.— Rose. 
 
 Held, that the plaintiff'x, a foreign corporation, 
 could hold personal property in Ontario. Com- 
 nwrrial National Bank o/'Chicaijo v. Corcoran, 6 
 O. R. 527.-C. P. D. 
 
 Held, the Act as to banks and banking, and 
 warehouse receipts, did not apply to the plain- 
 tiffs, a foreign corporation. III. 
 
 In 1869 the E. & N. A. Ry. Co. owning the 
 roud from St. John, N. B., westward to the 
 United States boundary, made an agreement 
 with the W. U. Tel. Co. giving the latter the 
 exclusive right for ninety-nine years to construct 
 and operate a line of telegraph over its road. In 
 187G a mortgage on the road was foreclosed and 
 the road itself sold under decri'o of the Eijuity 
 Court of New Brunswick to the St. J. & M. Ry. 
 Co., which company, in 1883, leased it to the 
 N. B. Ry. Co. for a term of 999 years. The 
 telegraph line was constructed by the \V. U. 
 Tel. Co. under the said agreement, and has been 
 continued ever since without any new agreement 
 being made with the St. J. & M. Ry. Co. or the 
 N. B. Ry. Co. The W. U. Tel. Co. is an 
 American company, incorporated by the State 
 of New York, for the purpose of constructing 
 and operating telegraph lines in the State. It» 
 charter neither allows it to engage, or prohibits 
 it from engaging, in business outsidi; of the State. 
 In 1888 the C. P. Ry. Co. completed a road from 
 Montreal to St. .John, a portion of it having 
 running powers over the line of the N. B. Ry. 
 Co., Oil which the \V. U. Tel. Co. had constructed 
 its telegraph line. The N. B. Ry. Co. having 
 given permission to the C. P. R. to construct 
 another telegraph line over the same road, the 
 \V. U. Tel. Co. applied for and obtained an in- 
 junction to prevent its being built. On appeal 
 to the supremo Court of Canada from the decree 
 of the Kquity Court granting the injunction : — 
 Held, 1. That the agreement made in 1869 be- 
 tween the K. & N. A. Ry. Co. and the \V. U. 
 Tel. Co. is binding on the present owners of the 
 road. 2. That tiie contract made witii the \V. 
 U. Tel. Co. was consistent with the purposes of 
 its incorporation, and not prohibited by its 
 cliarter nor by the local laws ot New Brunswick, 
 and its right to enter into such a contract and 
 carry on the Imsiness provided for thereby is u» 
 right recognized by the comity of nations. 3. 
 The exclusive right granted to the W. U. Tel. 
 Co. does not avoid the contract as being against 
 public policy, nor as l»eing a contract in restraint 
 of trade : — Held, per Gwynne, J., dissenting, 
 that the comity of nations does not retiuire the 
 courts of this country to enforce, in favour of a 
 foreign corporation, a contract depriving a rail- 
 way company in Canada of the right to permit 
 a domestic corporation, created for the purpose 
 of erecting telegraph lines in the Dominion, to 
 erect such a line upon its land, and depriving it 
 of the right to construct a telegrapli line upon 
 its own land. Canadian Pacifr P. W. Co. v. 
 Western Union Telegraph Co., 17 S. C. R. 151. 
 
 See Merchants' Bank of Halifax v. Gillespie, 10 
 S. C. R. 312, p. 283;/V»<c/(oniv. Standard Life 
 Assurance Co., 7 0. R. 188 ; In re Lake Superior 
 Native Copper Co. [Limiied), Re Plnmmer, 9 O. 
 R. 277, PP. 291, 294; Re Briton Medical and 
 General Ltfe Association, 12 A. R. 441, p. 293. 
 
 I 
 
 ,i 
 
 :</ it 
 
283 
 
 00MPAN7. 
 
 XV. WiNDi.NO-up Acts. 
 
 1. Application o/. 
 
 An order for compulsory winding-up may be 
 made under 41 Vict. c. 5, a. 5 (Ont.), notwith- 
 aUnding a resolution had been passed by the 
 shareholders of the conipimy, providing for tiie 
 voluntary winding-up of the affairs tliereof 
 under the supervision of the directors of the 
 company, and a committee of shareliolders ap- 
 pointed by them for that purpose. This not 
 being an extraordinary resolution under section 
 4, sub-section 3, under the circumstances ap- 
 pearing in the judgment:— Held, that the dis- 
 cretion of the judge appealed from had not been 
 improperly exercised. Jte Union Fire Inn. Co., 
 7 A. R. 783. 
 
 The Act applies to an Insurance Company in- 
 corporated by the Province of Ontario, notwith- 
 standing that R. S. O. (1877) c. 160, provides a 
 separate mode of distributing the deposit made 
 by the compan" with the Provincial Treasurer. 
 10. 
 
 Held, that 45 Vict. c. 23 (Dom.),i8 retroactive 
 in the sense of applying to companies whicli have 
 become insolvent before the date of that Act. 
 \Vi/ld v. Hamilton Mutual Innuraiict Co., 6 O. 
 R." 118. —Boyd. 
 
 The Steel Company of Canada (limited), in- 
 corporated in England under Imperial Joint 
 Stock Compitnies Acts, 18G2-1807, and carrying 
 on business in Nova .Scotia, and having its prin- 
 cipal place of Ijusiness at Londonderry, Kova 
 Scotia, was, by order of a judge, on the applica- 
 tion of the respondents and witii the consent of 
 the company, ordered to be wound up under 45 
 Vict. c. li!3 (Dom.). The appellants, creditors 
 of the Steel Company, intervened, and objected 
 to the jjraiiting of the winding-up order on the 
 ground tliat 45 V'ict. c. 23, was not applicable 
 to the company :— Held, reversing the judgment 
 of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Kournier, 
 J., dissenting), that 45 Vict. c. 23, was not ap- 
 plicable to such company. Mtrchanln' Bank of 
 Halifax v. llilkxpie, 10 S. C. R. 312. 
 
 J. I., tlie appellant, gave to one Q. his note 
 for $0,000, which was endorsed to the Rank of 
 P. E. 1.; the Union Bank of P. E. I. at the time 
 held a clicciue or dr.ift, made by the Bank of P. 
 E. I., for nearly the same amount, and this draft 
 the appellant purchased forsometliing more than 
 $200 less tlian its face value ; being sued on the 
 note he set off tlie amount of such chec^ue or 
 draft, and paid tlie dilTerence. On the trial lie 
 admitted he liad piirciiased it for tlie purpose of 
 using it as an ofi'-sut to the claim on his note, 
 which he luul made non-negotiable, and he also 
 admitted tliat if he could succeed in his set-ofF 
 and another party could succeed in a similar 
 transaction, the Union Bank would get their 
 claim against tlie Bank of P. E. I., which had 
 become insolvent, paid in full. The judge on 
 tlie trial cliarged tliat if the draft was endorsed 
 to the defcnilant to enable iiim to use it as a set- 
 off, he could not do so, because he was u eontrib- 
 ntory witiiin the meaning of the 7(ith section of 
 the Canada Winding-up Act, and that the Act, 
 which came into f<nce on the 12th May, 1882, 
 was retrospective as regards the endorsements 
 made before it was passed, but within thirty 
 
 days before the commencement of the proceed- 
 ings to wind up the affairs of the bank. The 
 jury, under the direction of the judge, found • 
 general verdict for the plaintiff for the amount 
 of the note and interest which the Supreme 
 Court refused to disturb. On appeal to the Su- 
 preme Court of Canada : -Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the court below, that appellant 
 having purchased the draft in question n>r value 
 and in good faith prior to 26th May, 1882, the 
 Canada Winding-up Act, 45 Vict. c. 23, was not 
 applicable, and therefore the appellant was en- 
 titled to the benefit of his set-off, and that the 
 Winding-up Act was not retrospective as to this 
 endorsement. Jngs v. Bank of Prince Edwanl 
 Island, 11 S. C. R. 265. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Court be- 
 low, 10 O. R. 489, that 47 Vict. c. 39, s. 2, ia 
 not limited in its application to companies being 
 wound up at the date of 46 Vict. c. 23, it applies 
 also to companies in liquidation, i.e., insolvent, 
 though not technically being wound up, and 
 against which proceedings are being taken to 
 realize their assets and pay their debts. He 
 Union Fire Ins. Co., 13 A. R. 268. 
 
 Sections 2 and 3 of the Winding-up Act 47 
 Vict. c. 39, providing for the winding-up of in- 
 solvent companies do not apply to banks, but an 
 insolvent bank whether in process of liquidation 
 or not at the time it is sought to bring it under 
 the Winding-up Act, must be wound up witli the 
 preliminary proceedings provided for by sections 
 99-102 of 45 Vict. c. 23, as amended by 47 Vict 
 0. 39. Strong and G Wynne, JJ., dissenting. 
 Mofl V. Bank of Nora Scotia ; In re Bank of 
 Liverpool, 14 S. C. R. 650. 
 
 Held, that the Winding-up Act, 45 Vict. c. 23 
 (Dom.), is intra vires the Dominion Parliament, 
 and is in the nature of an insolvency law, and 
 applies to all corporate bodies of the nature 
 mentioned in it all over the Dominion, and that 
 the company in question in this case though in- 
 corporated under a Provincial charter, was sub- 
 ject to its provisions. Re Eldorado Union Store 
 Co., 6 Russ. k Geld. 514 followed ; Merchant*' 
 Bank of Halifax v. Gillespie, 10 S. C. K. 312, 
 distinguished. He. Clarke and the Union Fire 
 /nx. Co. (2), 14 O. R. 618.— Boyd; 16 A. R. 
 161 ; snh miiii. Shoolbred v. Clarke, 17 S. U. R. 
 265. 
 
 On a petition by certain shareholders of the 
 company praying for a winding-up order under 
 R. S. C. c. 129 :-Held, that R. S. C. c. 129, 
 like the Insolvent Act of 1875, which provided 
 for the winding up of incorporated comiwmes, 
 is intended to be put into operation at the in- 
 stance of creditors only. In re Union Ranch Co. 
 of Canada (Limited), 15 O. R. 307. — Boyd. 
 
 Scmble, notwithstanding the Act, 52 Vict. c. 
 32 (Dom.), amending the Dominion Winding-up 
 Act, the Ontario Winding-up Act, R. S. 0. 
 1887, c. 183, does not apply to a company incor- 
 porated ill Ontario where application to wind 
 up is made on the ground of insolvency, becouae 
 local legislatures have >io jurisdiction in matters 
 of bankruptcy or insolvtnoy. Re Iron Clay- 
 Brick Manujacturimj Co.— Turner's Case, 19 0. 
 R. 113. — Robertson. 
 
 See Mackim v. Dowlinrj, 19 O. fi. 441. 
 
286 
 
 OOMPANT. 
 
 2. Liquidalora, 
 
 (a) Appointment of. 
 
 It iB a Buhstantial objection to a Winding-up 
 order uppointing a liquidator to the estate of an 
 inaolveiit company under 45 Vict. c. 23, that 
 such order lias been made without notice to the 
 creditors, contributories, shareholders or inein- 
 bcrs of tlie company as reciuired by section 24 of 
 tlie Act, and an order so made was set aside, 
 aiid the petition therefor referred back to the 
 judge to be dealt with anew. Per Owynne, J. 
 dissenting, that such an objection is purely tech- 
 nical and unsubstantial, and should not hv, 
 allowed to 'orm the subject of an appeal to this 
 court. Shoolii.'d V. Union Fire Ins. Co., 14 8. 
 C. R. 624, reversing <?. C, mih nom. He Union 
 fire Inn. Co., 13 A. K. 208, and -S. C, mh nom. 
 Rt CUirh V. Union Fire //w. Co., Shoolbred'x 
 One, 10 0. R. 489. 
 
 Upon a contest for the appointment of licjui- 
 dator ill a winding-up proceeding it is desirable 
 to follow the rules for guidance to be found in 
 the Knglish cases under the Winding-up Acts. 
 The court abstains from laying down any such 
 rule as that the nominee of the petitioning cre- 
 ditors should have a preference. The court will 
 consider the condition of affairs to ascertain 
 what parties are most interested in the due ad- 
 ministration of the estate in liquidation, and 
 other things being equal will act upon their re- 
 commendation. Jie Alpha Oil Co., 12 P. R. 
 298. -Boyd. 
 
 Where upon an application under the Do- 
 minion Act, the creditors were those whose in- 
 terests were most to be regarded, and the great 
 hulk of them favoured the appointment of the 
 sheriB' of I^mbton, and opposed the nominee 
 of the petitioning creditors, and the sheritT re- 
 sided in the county where the company's opera- 
 tions were carried on, and where all its ))ook8 
 «iid assets were, was already uc facto liquidator 
 under voluntary proceedings taken pursuant to 
 the Ontario Act, and was otherwise well ([uali- 
 fied for the posititm, the court appointed liini 
 liquidator. 1'he rule as to costs suggested in 
 Re Northern Assam Tea Co., L. H. 5 Cii. App. 
 644, followed. Jl>. 
 
 Under sections 98 mid 90 of the Winding-up 
 Act, R. S. C c. 129, meetings of shareholders 
 and creditors, lospeutively, of a bank, were held, 
 at whicii the sliareholders recommended the ap- 
 pointment of C. G. and S. as licpiidators, anil 
 the creditors r. (!. and IT. On the application 
 to the court for the appointment of tlirce liijui- 
 dators it appeared tliat resort to the double 
 liidtility of sfiareiiolders would be necessary to 
 satisfy the claims of creditors under R. S. C. c. 
 I'20, 8. 70: — Held, that the choice of the creditors, 
 they having the chief and immediate concern in 
 realizing the assets, shouli! be adopted. Jfe the 
 C<>i(ml Hunk of Canada, ; 5 O. R. 309.— Boyd. 
 
 Preference should be given to one who is 
 neither a creditoi nor a siuireholder, the general 
 rule heing that it is desirable that liciuidators 
 should be disinterested persons. Jb. 
 
 (b) Remuneration. 
 
 The intention of section 28 of the Winding-up 
 Act is that the remuueratiou is not necessarily 
 
 to be increased beuause three are to be paid 
 instead of one. The recompense for services is 
 usually a percentage based on the time occupied, 
 work done, and responsibility imposed, and when 
 fixed goes to the liquidator, and, if more than 
 one, is distributed amongst them. He The Cen- 
 tral Bank of Canada, 15 O. R. 309.— Boyd. 
 
 (c) Other Caien. 
 
 By 41 Vict. c. 58 (Dom.), the three plaintiffs 
 were appointed "joint assignees " of the Canadii 
 Agricultural Insurance Company for the purpose 
 of windiu(^-upunder41 Vict. c. 21 (Dom.) Twi> 
 of the planititfs, the third being unable to attend 
 through illness, met on the 2nd of January, 1879, 
 and made the 4th and 5th calls of ten per cent, 
 each on the stock of the company : — Held, that 
 the assignees must all join in maKing calls, and 
 that these calls were therefore invaud : —Held, 
 also, that a meeting of the three joint assignees 
 on the 27th of January, after notice of the 4tli 
 and 5th calls had been mailed on the 13th of 
 January, purporting to confirm the action of the 
 two assignees of the 2nd of January, had not 
 that effect. Honn v. Machar, 8 0. R. 417.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 An undertaking by a provisional liquidator in 
 possession to pay a landlord's claim to be paid 
 preferentially for over due rent after service of 
 notice under section 12 of 4.') Vict. c. 23 (Dom.), 
 is by sections 20 and 21 of that Act void, unless 
 the permission of the court is first obtaine<l. 
 Furhen v. Hamilton Trihune Co., 10 P. R. 409. 
 -Boyd. 
 
 Quii're, wliethci the liquidator of a company 
 can object to the want of registration or other 
 formal defects in a chattel mortgage as an execu- 
 tion creditor or subsciiueiit mortgagee could do. 
 In /•< Raiiiji Luke, Lnmbtr Co., Stewart, liquidator 
 V. Univii Bank of Luirtr Canada, 15 A. R. 749. 
 
 In assigning to provincial courts or judges 
 certain functions under the Winding-up Act, 
 Parliament intended that the same should lie 
 performed by means of the ordinary machinery 
 of the court and liy its ordinary procedure. It 
 is, therefore, no ground of objection to a wind- 
 ing-up order that the security to be given by the 
 liquidator appointed thereby is not fixed by the 
 order, but is left to be settled by a master. 
 Shoolhre.d v. Clarke — He Union Fire Inn. Co., 17 
 H. C. R. 265; S. C, sub mm. He Clarke and 
 The Union Fire Ins. Co., 16 A. R. 161. 
 
 3. Contributories. 
 
 Sections 70 and 77 of R. S. C. c. 120, must be 
 read together, and make liable as contributories 
 all those who hold shares at the time of the sus- 
 pension of the bank, or who have held shares at 
 any time within one month before the suspen- 
 sion. In re Central Bank of Canada — Baiiiei' 
 Case, 16 A. R. 237 ; 16 O. R. 293. 
 
 A shareholder who has fully paid up his shares 
 in a company is a " contributory " within the 
 meaning of section 5 of R. S. 0. (1887), c. 183, 
 so as to entitle him to initiate winding-up pro- 
 ceedings. He Macdonald and The Noxoii bro- 
 thers' Manufacturiny Co. (Limited), and R. S. 
 O. (1887), c. 183, 16 0. R. 368.— Ferguson. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 n li 
 
 Sift, 
 
 si* 
 
297 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 H., having been placed on the list of contribu- 
 torius in tlic w iiuliiigu]) proceedings of thu Coii- 
 tral liiink, iippciiluil on tiic ground tliiit tiio trims- 
 fcr of his BJiartH was a fraudiilunt transaction, 
 in view of I!. S. C. c. 120, a. 4.5, since the Imiiit 
 was trutlickiiig in its own shares for the purpose 
 of keeping up the appearatice of honA tide sales, 
 ami 80 eidianciug the market price of its shares, 
 and took llie api)ellant'8 notes in paynieut for 
 his shares, undertaking not to enf. ree thtin, hut 
 to deliver them up upon a resalo being efleeted, 
 which transactions were ultra viies of the 
 bunk :— Held, that this was no defence as against 
 the liquidators, who represented the creditors 
 08 well as the bank, lie Cuihal liimk-J. D. 
 Ileiuleritoii'i Cam; 17 0. H. 110.- KoberUon. 
 
 H. also appealed as to certain of the shares 
 upon the ground tliat lie had acfiuiied tiieni 
 within one njDiith before the suspension of the 
 bank, and al.so on the ground that those who 
 had transferred thcfie shares to him should also 
 have been placed on the list of contributories, 
 though they themselves had only aeijuired the 
 shares within the said month :— Held, that H. 
 was rightly on the list as to these shares, but 
 that his transferors should also be placed upon 
 it, an(l the report was referred back to the mas- 
 ter for this purpose, although the liipiidators 
 had not excejjted ti> the report. Licjuidators are 
 officers of tiie court, and the matter being 
 brought to the notice of the court on the appeal, 
 it was the duty of the court to protect the 
 interest of tlie creditors anil all parties con- 
 cerned, and to see that all were charged who 
 were legally chargeable. Jb. 
 
 A contributory of an insolvent company, who 
 is also a creditor, cannot set off the de))t due to 
 him by the comi)any against calls made in the 
 course of winding-up proceedings in respect of I 
 thu double liability imposed by tlie Hanking Act, j 
 K. S. C, c. 120. /Jijiiiddlorx of thi: Maritime ^ 
 lUmk V. Tioi'i>, 10 S. t'. R. 450. j 
 
 See fn re Central Hank of Canada — Baines' 
 Caie, 1« A. R. 2H7, p. 250. 
 
 Site Subhead IV. l,p, 241. 
 
 4. Dd)ts oj Compann Transjet-reil to Contrihii- 
 Inrien. 
 Uy sections 75 and 70 of 4.") Vict. c. 2H, it is 
 provided that if a debt due or owing by the 
 company has been transferred within thirty days 
 next before the coniniencenient of the winding- 
 up under tliat Act, or at any time afterwards, 
 to a contributory who knows, or has probable 
 cause for believing, the coninany to be unable to 
 meet its engngenients or to be in contemplation 
 of insolvency under the Act, for the purpose of 
 enabling such contributory to set up by way of 
 compensation or set-ofT the claim so transferred, 
 such debt cannot be set up by way of compensa- 
 tion or setoff against the claim upon such con- 
 tributory :- Held, that the sections in question 
 only apply to actions against a contributory 
 wlien the debt claimed is due from the person 
 sued in his capacity as contributory, //if/f v. 
 Bank of Priiire Ediiard Island, 11 S. C. R. 265. 
 
 Y. iu making a deposit on a Government con- 
 tract, gave a mark-^id cheque on the Central 
 Bank, in w Inch he was a shareholder, and which 
 cheque was subsequently cancelled and a deposit 
 
 receipt issued by the bank, substituted there- 
 for. Y. gave his note to the bank to cover the 
 amount of the receipt. The bank went into 
 liquidation on .Ird Uecember, 1887, and on 2(ltii 
 January, 1888, Y. having been reipiired by the 
 government to take up the deposit receipt niul 
 replace it with otiier security, took an aasign- 
 ment of thu receipt and notified the bank. Uii 
 being threatened with a suit on the note, hu lileil 
 a petition asking for leavu to set up the depunit 
 receipt auainst the note as a set-oU': — Held, fol- 
 lowing the lust case, that Y. as maker of the 
 note to the bank was a mere debtor and not i^ 
 contril>utory and that although also a sliarc- 
 holder, and so liable as u contributory, hu wiis 
 not a contributory, quoad the debt which arose 
 out of an independent transaction and for that 
 reason section 7.'1 of 1!. S. C. c. 12!) did not apply. 
 J II rt The. Centra/ Bank of Canaila — Yorkr't 
 Case, 15 0. R. 02.">. - Hoyd. 
 
 Held, tliat tlic prohibition in tlie Act against 
 acquiring debts for the purpose of set-ofiF is lim- 
 ited to the case of contributories : as to debtors 
 the law of set-ofT as administered by the court* 
 is applicable as if the company was a going con- 
 cern and following lie The ^Ioseley, etc., Coke 
 Co., Barrett's Case, 4 D. G. J. & 8. 756, that th& 
 right of si^t-ofl' virtually arose not by reason of 
 dealings subsequent to the winding-up order, 
 but of dealings prior thereto, because the en- 
 gagenient was to give security to the satisfaction 
 of the Government and in taking up the deposit 
 receipt and supplying better security Y. was 
 only fulHIIing that which he was obliged to do 
 by a prior bon.l fide engagement. Jl). 
 
 5. Payments hi/ Companies tvhen Insolvent. 
 
 The bank suspended payment September l.'ith, 
 1883. Winding-up proceedings were commenced 
 N<)veml)er 22nd, and an order made December 
 5th. R. k G. H. purchased a stock of h.irdware 
 held by the bank on which they owed $14,000 
 at the time of the sus])cnsioii. The bank wish- 
 ing to close the account sold the balance of the 
 stock to A. H. & Co., for $5,700, and agreed to 
 accept in payment cheiiues of the defendant 
 drawn <ni his deposit recount, and which were 
 drawn on and accepted by the bank on October 
 ;ilst. For tlie.>*e clieciues A. H. & Co. gave their 
 acceptances which were duly paid, lleforc the 
 stock was delivered R. & (}. H. settled tiie 
 balance of their debt to the bank. In an action 
 by the li(piidators of the bank against the defen- 
 dant to recover back the amount thus paid on 
 the defendant's cheques, under 45 Vict. c. 2.3,8. 
 75 (I>oin.), it was:— Held, that the pl.iintifT could 
 not recover, for the defendant had received no 
 valuable consideration from the bank which he 
 should be ordered to repay. Exchange Bank vf 
 Canada v. Stinsov, 8 O. R. 667.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendant owed A. H. & Co. a debt, 
 and gave his cheque on the bank for $92 in part 
 payment thereof, which the bank accepted from 
 A. H. & Co. on October 2.Srd, in retiring an 
 overdue bill : — Held, that the amount could not 
 !« recovered back. Ih. 
 
 On November 10th, defendant sold his cheque 
 for $.320 to his uncle, C, who was the hiciil head 
 of the bank, which cheque was negotiated and 
 
OOMPANT. 
 
 890 
 
 accepted by the bank on November 23r(l, (after 
 wiiitiinK'-iip pniueudingB had coinniencud) : — 
 Held, thiit, utthough it prolxibly wum im invalid 
 traiiwicti .1 as fivr iix tliu person wiio received the 
 money wiih eoncerncd, there waa no pnynient to 
 the (It'feiidant of anything within the acope 
 and meaning of section 15 of the Act. Ih, 
 
 The hiinit suspended puyment September 15th, 
 188^). Winding-up proceedings were cuninienced 
 Novendier '23rd, and an order made December 
 5th. 'I'he defendants C. & 8. being depositors in 
 the hanlc <iruw a cbeijue for 84,000 on November 
 Ist, on tlieir deposit account, wldch was given 
 tn I),, a debtor of the bank on notes maturing 
 the following December and January. D. gave 
 mortgage security to defendants for the checjue 
 on Uetiiliur Hist. The arrangement was all made 
 alxnit October otii, althougli the security was 
 not given until the Slst, and the cheque was not 
 proseiited to the bank until November 23rd, 
 when it was accepted as payment of the matur- 
 ing notes. In an action by the li(iuidators of the 
 bank against the defendants, to wnich D. was not 
 a party, to recover the amount thus paid on the 
 cheque as having been paid to defendants after 
 the winding-up proceedings were commenced, 
 and being an unjust preference, etc. : — Held, that 
 ujx)n the facta thei'e was no payment by the 
 liank to the defendants, and that the tranuaction 
 therefore was not within the statute 45 Vict. c. 
 523, 8. 75 ( Dom. ) Exchninie Bank of Canada v. 
 CoKiw- //, 8 O. K. 673.— Boyd. 
 
 C. who was being sued by the bank, obtained 
 defendants' cheque for $2,118, giving security 
 therefor on Noveud)er 2lHt, and retired the 
 notes in suit on November 23rd :— Held, that 
 the defendants could not be ordered to repay 
 the amount of the che<[ue, as being a wrongful 
 payment under the Act. Ih. 
 
 On November 15th, 1887, the day before the 
 Buspeiision of the Central Bank, one D., having 
 sulfiuient funds to his credit, drew a cheque 
 upon it payable toC, who deposited the same 
 in the Dominion Bank, and obtained an advance 
 upon it, and the Dominion Bank claimed upon 
 it in the winding up proceedings, having pre- 
 sented it for payment on November 17th, when, 
 however, the Central Bank had suspended pay- 
 ment. On November 23rd, 1887, the Central 
 Bank marked the cheque good, debiting D.'s ac- 
 count and crediting the Dominion Bank with 
 the.amount thereof. Afterwards, however, the 
 liquidators claiming the right to set off certain 
 BUDsequently accruing liabilities of D. against 
 the cheque, the Dominion Bank withdrew their 
 claim upon it, and the Master in Ordinary dis- 
 allowed it. Subsequently, and after the first 
 dividend had been paid, C. heard of this, and 
 tiled a claim on the cheque, on September 13th, 
 1887. The Master, however, held that the time 
 for tiling claims having elapsed, he had a discre- 
 tion as to allowing the claim, and allowed it 
 <mly subject to the said set oflf:— Held, that 
 there was no right to set off as claimed, and 
 that the allowance of the claim was ex debito 
 justitiie, and not discretionary. The fact of the 
 Central Bank having accepted the cheque, and 
 credited the amount to the Dominion Bank, and 
 charged the amount to D., shewed conclusively 
 that lit that time the Central Bank was not a 
 creditor of D. : nor did the case come within the 
 meaning (if any of the clauses in the Winding-up 
 
 Itt 
 
 Act relating to fraudulent preferences. Re Cent- 
 ml Uank.—CayUy'tCast, 17 O. K. 122.— Kobert- 
 
 6. Priority oj Claims of the Crown. 
 
 Priority of the Crown over other creditors for 
 
 Cayment of moneys deposited in a bank that baa 
 ecome insolvent. See lifijina v. liank of Nova 
 Scotia, II S, C. K. 1 ; Liquidulom of the Maritime 
 Bank v. Reqina, 17 S. C. K. 057. 
 
 7. Practice. 
 
 (a) Powers of JudijM and Masters. 
 
 In proceeding under a judgment for the wiml- 
 ing-up of a company, the nmster has the same 
 jurisdiction to try claims for uidiijuidated dam- 
 ages arising out of breach of contract as he 
 would have in an administration proceeding. 
 Clarke, v. Union Fire Inx. Co.— Canton's Case, 10 
 P. K. 339. — Hodgins, Manter in Ordinary. 
 
 The Dominion Insolvent Companies' Act, 45 
 Vict. c. 23, as amended by 47 Vict. c. 39, autho- 
 rizes the Master in Chambers, the Master in Or- 
 dinary, or any local master or referee to exercise 
 the powers conferred upon the court in Ontario 
 for the purpose of winding-up insolvent com- 
 panies. The Master in Chambers, made an order 
 for the winding-up of an insolvent company, 
 and referred it to the Master in Ordinary to 
 settle the list of contributories, take all neces- 
 sary accounts, make all necessary inquiries and 
 reports, and generally to do all necessary acti^ 
 matters, and things for the winding-up of the 
 business of the said company: — Held, (1) that 
 the powers vested in the judicial officers named 
 in the Act were conferred upon each of them as 
 persona designata, which they were not author- 
 ized to delegate to others or to each other ; (2) 
 that the reference was not authorized by the 
 Judicature Act or Rules, or the prior Acts and 
 Rules conferring jurisdiction upon the former 
 judicial officers in Chambers ; (3) that the juris- 
 diction of the Master in Ordinary under the 
 order of reference would be a delegated jurisdic- 
 tion as the substitute or deputy of the Master 
 in Chambers, and not the co-ordinate jurisdic- 
 tion conferred upon his office by the Act ; (4) 
 that the order of reference was not therefore 
 warranted by the Dominion or Provincial Acts, 
 and could not be proceeded on. In re Qneen 
 City Rejininy Co., 10 P. R. 415.— Hodgins, Mas- 
 ter in Ordinary. 
 
 It is not competent for the Master in Cham* 
 bers to make an order under section 77 of 45 
 Vict. c. 23 (Dom.), as amended by 47 Vict. c. 39, 
 s. 5 (Dom.), referring the winding-up to the 
 Master in Ordinary. That may be done by a 
 judge, as in conformity with the usual course of 
 proceedings in other causes and matters, but it 
 IS not the practice, save in one or two excep- 
 tional cases, to have references ordered by the 
 Master in Chambers to the Master in Ordinary. 
 The intention of the Act is that the Master in 
 Chambers, or Local Master, or Master in Ordi- 
 nary may grant a winding-up order, and conduct 
 all the proceedings necessary therefor in his own 
 office and before himself as a judicial officer. 
 Re Joseph Hall Manujacturing Co., 10 P. R. 
 485.— Boyd. 
 
 I 
 
 
 ;HJB 
 
 
291 
 
 COMPANY. 
 
 m 
 
 When proceeding under 45 Vict. c. 23, h.24 
 (I)oni.), asamenilecl by 47 V'i<t. c. 3!), ». 4 (Uoni.), 
 •the court hiiM power to refer the a|i|iointnieiit of 
 a li(|iiiilut<ir to tlie iniiHter. lie CUu-h' v. Union 
 Fire Ihk. Co., 10 O. H. 489.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 See Cldi-ke v. Union fire Inn. Cn.—CuHton'H 
 Cw<i; 10 I'. H. 3;«», p. liW ! He Holt and Iron 
 Co. — Urin<iiitonH Caxi; 14 0. R. 211. 16 A. H. 
 aU7, p. 2il7 ; Jle Central Biuik.—Cayley'n Cute, 
 17 O. K. l'2-.>, p. 21KJ. 
 
 (b) A})}iealii. 
 
 An appeal under the Act respecting the wind- 
 ing nj) of .Foint Stock Compui.ies, 41 Vict. o. 5, 
 «. 27 (()iit.),ciiiinot l)e entertained when Hecnrity 
 ItaH not been given witiiin eight days from the 
 rendering of tlie linal order or judgment appealed 
 from. Itt Union Fire Inn. Co., 7 A. K. 7«3. 
 
 W'licre a bond good in form with proper 
 sureties was tiled with tlio clerk of the C(mnty 
 (Jotirt, on the last of the eight days, though not 
 allowed by tlie judge : — Hehl, to bo witliin tlic 
 words, " given security before a judge," and a 
 aulhcient eom|iliance with tlie Act, though a 
 person tints tiling a l>on<l without allowance risks 
 Leing deprived of his right of appeal in the event 
 of the bond proving defective. Ih. 
 
 A winding-up order under 45 Vict. c. 23 ( Doin. ), 
 winding up a foreign company doing business iu 
 Ontario, made by one judge, will not be set aside 
 by another. An application for that purpose 
 must be made to the Divisional Court. In re 
 Lake. Hujieriur Native Copper Co. (Limited) — 
 J{e riitmmer, 9 0. U. 277.— Proudfoot. 
 
 An order was made by Proudfoot, J., in the 
 Chancery Division of the High Court directing 
 the wintfing up under 45 Vict. c. 23 (Dom.), 1882, 
 of a fire insurance company incorporated liy the 
 legislature of Ontario, and against which pro- 
 ceedings had previously been taken under R. S. 
 O. c. 160, and the " Joint Stock Companies 
 Windin(j-up Act, (Ont.)" This order appointed 
 the receiver in the former proceedings interim 
 liquidator, etc., and further referred it to the 
 master to appoint a liquidator, etc., and to settle 
 the list of contributories ; and further provided 
 that certain accounts and inquiries which had 
 been made under the previous proceedings, 
 should be incorporated with and used in the 
 winding-up proceedings under the Dominion 
 statute, in so far as they could properly be made 
 applicable : — Held, that this was an order 
 from which lui appeal would lie under section 
 78 of the Act of 1882. Re Union Fire Ins. Co., 
 13 A. R. 268. 
 
 The trial of a petition before a judge at the 
 assi/.es, praying that a li(iuidator might be 
 ordered to deliver up certain lumber claimed by 
 A bank is not the trial of an action, and there- 
 fore no appeal lies t < the Divisional Court. Jte 
 Huiity Lake Lumber Co., 12 P. R. 27.— Chy. D. 
 
 (c) Costn. 
 
 Under an order for winding-up an insolvent 
 •company under 45 Vict. c. 23, (Dom. ), the pro- 
 ceedings to enforce the liability of shareholders 
 nnist be taken by the liouidators, and not by 
 the petitioner for the winding-up order. When 
 
 proceedings are so taken by the lii|uidalor, and 
 are uiisuccessfnl, costs may lie awarded againit 
 him personally, leaving him to apply to Ttn al- 
 lowed such costs out of the assets of the com- 
 pany. Jie lioU and Iron Co. — Hovendrn'n Cam, 
 10 P. R. 434. — Hodgins, Manter in Ordinary, 
 
 One S., a contributory of the company, peti- 
 tioning to set aside a winding-up order, wni re- 
 (luireato give security for the costs of the com- 
 pany and a creditor opposing the petition, where 
 It appeared that S., although he had a nominal 
 inlercst as the holder of stock n|>on which no- 
 thing was paid, was not in miicIi a |>oHiti(m that 
 anytliiiig would bo made out of hiin iiiion exe- 
 cution, and was petitioning merely in the inter- 
 est of other persons who lived nut of the juris- 
 diction, and who had indoninitied him as (o 
 costs. /^• Itainy Lake Lnniher Co., 11 P, K, 
 314.— Hodgiim, Slattter in Ordinary, 
 
 In proceeding in a judgment for winding-up » 
 company, the former scilicitor of the company 
 brought in a claim for bills of costs alleged to lie 
 duo him which the master referred to one of the 
 taxing otiicers to tax:— Meld, that the master 
 had authority to direct such reference. Clarht 
 V. Union Fire Inn. Co.—Caxton's Cane, 10 P. R. 
 339, --Hodgins, Master in Ordinary, 
 
 On such a reference tlio taxing officer give* 
 his opinion as to whether the fees and chargei 
 claimed should bo allowed or disallowed, and on 
 that opinion the master makes his adjudication. 
 ///. 
 
 The taxing officer has a discretion as to the 
 attendance of parties claiming a right to attend 
 at such taxation, and his discretion will not be 
 lightly interfered with. His allocatur is suffi- 
 cient ])roof that the business charged for wu 
 done by the solicitor, /b. 
 
 The rule re(|uiring special circumstances to 
 warrant the reopening or taxation of a bill of 
 costs after twelve months does not apply where 
 the bill has been delivered after the company 
 has lieeu ordered to be wound up. Jb. 
 
 (d) Other CoMs. 
 
 The Chancery practice in sale ceses applies to 
 the sales under the Dominion In.'iolvent Coni- 
 
 f)anie8' Act ; and under such practice it is usual 
 )efore olTering property for sale to have an 
 inquiry whether a sale by auction, or under pri- 
 vate contract, would be the most advantageoM 
 to the estate. When a sale by private contract 
 is directed, an affidavit of the actual value of the 
 property should be produced, so that such value 
 may be compared with the price offered. Rt 
 Bolt and Iron Co., 10 P. R. 437.— Hodgins, 
 Maiter in Ordinary. 
 
 It is preferable to have the proceedings under 
 an order for winding up a company under 45 
 Vict. c. 23 (Dom.), conducted by solicitors who 
 are totally unconnected with the company to be 
 wound up. He Joteph Hall Mun'.i/actnriny Co., 
 10 P. R. 485.— Boyd. 
 
 Under the facts stated in the report an order 
 having been obtained in chaml)er8 by one creditor 
 for winding up a company, the conduct of the 
 proceedings was civeii to three creditors who 
 had also applied for such order. lb. 
 
S93 
 
 OOMPANY. 
 
 291 
 
 The court will not allow its atlinlniHtration of 
 luiiiut* tu l>e iutorfored with by otiior ))racev(liii|{M, 
 nfTuctiug the CNtatu ; and uroditora of 8Uuh catuto 
 bring tlieir righti) with them into the iniMtur's 
 oltioe, wiiiuh thd court lubstitutua for procuud- 
 iugH ttt law. CUirkti v. Union Fire Inn. ('o. — 
 dantua't Cane, 10 P. R. 339. — HodgiuH, Mauler 
 in Ordinary . 
 
 Uireution of writ of replevin to ihuritf who ia 
 alio liquidator of plaintittii. Seu A Ipha Oil Co. 
 V. Domitlly, 12 P. U, r.lO. 
 
 Canadian policy holdora petitioned for distri- 
 l)Ution of the dopoait ma<lu by tiiis company, a 
 foreign corporation, with tiio minister of Hnance 
 under 31 Vict. c. 48 (Dom.), and 34 Vict. c. 
 (Dom,), the company buins inaolvunt ; — Hold, 
 tlittt tiiey were entitled to tliu relief uskud, not- 
 withstanding that proceedings to wind up the 
 «oini)any were pending before the Knglish courts. 
 Itr Briton Mtdical and General Li/v A/t^ociuliun 
 iLimiled) (2), 12 0. R. 441.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Held, Burton, J. A., dissenting, that u wind- 
 iiigup order under 46 Vict. c. 3 ( Dom. ), ( K. S. C. 
 .«, 129) having been made, and the li(|uidator up- 
 pointed by tlio judge, the subsciiuunt proceedings 
 might properly be referred to the maiitvr. In re 
 Clarkeand The UnionFire Inn. Co., 10 A. R. 101. 
 
 SeeShoolbred v. Clarke, 17 S. C. R. L'STj, p. 280. 
 
 8. Other Caves. 
 
 The winding up of a company under 45 Vict. 
 <i. 23 (Uoin.), commences from the time of tlie 
 service of the notice under section 12, and tliere- 
 fore, under section «iit, a landlord'^ claim to be 
 pitid preferentially for overdue rent after such 
 service is invalid. An undertaking by a pro- 
 viaional li(juidator in {tossession to pay such a 
 cluim is by sections 2U and 21 void unless the 
 perniissidu of the court is first obtained. Fuches 
 V. Hamilton Tribune Co., 10 P. R. 409.— Boyd. 
 
 Tile li(piidator of an insolvent company 
 brouglit in for approval an agreement with cer- 
 I till parties for the sale to them of its assets at 
 apriceeijual to twenty-live cents on the dollar 
 of tlio cliiiiiis of the creditors of the company 
 "as may l)e admitted or adjudicated," in addi- 
 tion to the cost of the liquidation proceedings 
 to be taxed by the taxing oHicer, and tlie re- 
 nuiueratioii of the licjuidator to be settled by 
 the luaster. 'i'here was no mode of admitting 
 411 adjudicating on sucli claims provided in tlie 
 agreement. Tlie agreement was opposed by cer- 
 tiiiu creditors, and thereupon the proposed pur- 
 cliMcrs witlidrew from it: — Hehl, 1, Tiiat if the 
 creditors' claims were to be admitted by and be- 
 tween the parties the agreement was conditional, 
 *ii(l the purchasers by withdrawing before ascer- 
 tainment left the agieenient imperfect. 2. That 
 by not providing a mode of admitting or adjudi- 
 cating upiiii tlie creditors' claims, the agreement 
 was ambiguous, and parol evidence would hhte 
 to be adduced to explain it. 3. That for these 
 reasons tlie agreement was incapable of being 
 «nfori;ed, and couhl not be approved :— Quare, 
 whether an agreement to purchase the assets of 
 8 couiiiany at a certain rate in the dollar of the 
 unascertained claims of the creditors of such 
 company woultl be valid. He Boll and iron Co. , 
 10 r. li. 437.— Hodgins, Alanter in Ordinary. 
 
 After a wiuding-up order hod been made P., 
 a resident of Untario, brought an action against 
 the company in the state of Michigan, with a 
 view to attaching u steamer wintering there, 
 which was the property of the oonipaiiy. It 
 was shewn that representations that the com- 
 pany was perfectly solvent had been made by 
 both the secretary and managing director to P., 
 and P. swore that but for these representations 
 he would have taken proceedings Ixiforu he did, 
 which might have enabled him to obtain a judg- 
 ment before the winding-up order was made. 
 In uii action for un injunction t<« restrain P. 
 from proceeding with his action in Michigan, in 
 which it was shewn that other creditors of the 
 company, who were residents of the United 
 States and so not within the jurisdiction of the 
 court, were also proceeding against the steamer, 
 it was : — Held, that this cose could not be dis- 
 tinguished in principle from Kx parte Railway 
 .Steel and Plant Co.-- In re 'I'aylor, 8 Uhy. D. 
 183, and the continuance of the injunction, 
 which had been granted ex |>arte, was refusetL 
 In re Lake Superior S'atire Co/tjier Co, {lAm- 
 Hed)—Rc IHummer, » O. R. 277.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 C. P. S. applie<l for an order for the winding 
 up of the B. company under 45 Vict. u. 23 
 (Dom. ), and amending Acts, and as evidence of 
 the insolvency of the company shewe<l that, 
 being entitled to the boiieticial interest in a cer- 
 tain iwlicy on the life of her deceased husband, 
 she had demanded payment thereof from the 
 company, but it had ueen refused ; that the sus- 
 pension of the company had been announced iu 
 the papers, and that the manager of the head 
 oHice in Canada had stated that he was instructed 
 from the head oHice in England not to make any 
 payments on behalf of the company. It ap- 
 peared, however, that the (wlicy provided fur 
 payment in three mouths after proof of the 
 death of the insured had been receive<l by the 
 company, while the above demand for {Hiyiucut 
 was made a fortnight after the death, and no 
 other demand had ever been made :— Held, that 
 the debt was not due when the deinaiid was 
 mode, and therefore nonpayment was not ovi- 
 dcnce of insolvency within the meaning of 45 
 Vict. c. 23, 88. 9, 10, 11 (Dom.), nor would the 
 fact that the company had not paid clainis 
 amount to an acknowledgment of insolvency 
 within section 9 (d) of that Act, nor otherwise 
 was there sufficient evidence here of the insol- 
 vency of the company, and the petition must 
 be dismissed : — Held, also, that as a matter ol 
 pleading, if it had been intended to rely upon 
 the acknowledgment of insolvency, it should 
 have been stated in the petition. In re Jirilou 
 Medical and General Lift Association (Limited), 
 11 O. R. 478.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Semble, that even if a general manager of a. 
 company positively uureed that any winding-np 
 proceeding that should be necessary should bo 
 taken in Ontario rather than elsewhere, this 
 would not bind the company, for the busiiiesa of 
 the manager is to manage a going concern, it 
 is no part of his duty nor within his ixtwur to 
 arrange about putting an end to it. III. 
 
 Order by Scotch court granted in ]iroce«iliugs 
 for winding-up the plaintiff company, ordering 
 defendant, the officer of the court, to deliver up 
 certain IxKiks, etc., and in case of default au- 
 thorizing the liquidator to take proceedings 
 
 X 
 
 ■ 'i 
 
 I 
 
 
 i5 
 
296 
 
 COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT DUE. 
 
 S9t 
 
 against him in tlie courts of Ontnrio. See 
 Britinh Canadian Lumbering ami Timber Co. v. 
 GratU, 12 P. R. 301. 
 
 Preference of debts due tue Crown over debts 
 due to the subject. .See ''hrk-'on v. Attorney- 
 Oeneral of Ontario, 15 O. It. 032. 
 
 Where the shares which had been trnnsferred 
 to one placed on the list of contribntories had 
 been previously held by the cawhier of the bank 
 in trust, as alleged, for the bunk, which it was 
 objected was thus tratHokiiig in its own shares : — 
 Held, that even if the caHhier did hold the shares 
 »n trust for the directors of the bank, this would 
 Mot be iiecessarily illegal, no ho might have such 
 I'.hardS, under .section 4i) of the [{unking Act, as 
 security for overdue ;lebls ; and, besides, this 
 was u matter which, thougli it might give the 
 appellant a right to rescind during the currency 
 of the banking institution, became of no moment 
 after the rights of creditors represented by the 
 liiiuidators arose. The matter was not an abso- 
 lute nullity, but, at most, one which the share- 
 holders could waive as voidable, and it became, 
 by the suspension, of unimpeachable validity as 
 between the appellant and the liijuidators. In 
 re. Central Hank of Canada — Haines' Vane — 
 Natmilh'n Case, 16 0. H. 29.S.— IJoyd. 
 
 See Briton Medical and General Life Associa- 
 I on, {Limited) (2), 12 0. U. 441. 
 
 COMPENSATION. 
 
 I. Damaijbs Generally— See Damages. 
 II. For Lands Taken or Injured. 
 
 1. By Ooivmment — See Crown. 
 
 2. By MnnieiiinHtien — Set Municipal 
 
 CORI'OKATIOXS. 
 
 3. By liailtrni/n — See Railways and 
 
 Kailwav Companie.s. 
 
 III. For Imi'Rovkments— .5e«I.MPR0VEMKNTs 
 
 ON Land. 
 
 IV. For INJURIE.S— .See Neolkiencb. 
 
 V. In AcTioNSFOR Specific Performance— 
 See Specifk? Performance. 
 
 VI. On Sale.s of Land— /See Sale of Land- 
 Specific Performance. 
 
 VII. For Use of Works and Improvements 
 IN Streams— .svr Water and Water 
 
 COUR.SKS. 
 
 VIIL To AuENTs— ,S>«' Principal and Agent. 
 
 IX. To Executors— .S'e« Executors and Ad- 
 min istrator.s. 
 
 X. To Trustees— ,S'ce Trusts and Trcs- 
 
 TEE.S. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 See Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 
 
 COMPOUNDING. 
 
 See CuMPROMISINO. 
 
 COMPROMISINa. 
 
 1. Criminal Offences, 296. 
 II. Actions- .See Action— Solicitor. 
 
 1. Criminal Of/ences. 
 
 The defendant R. having been charged with 
 misapplying fines paid into his hands as a justice 
 of the peace, and proceedings instituted aguinst 
 him in respect thereof, the plaintiff, pendiuj;an. 
 investigation of the charge, voluntccreil hisaid 
 to assist H. in affecting u settlement of the 
 amount claimed by the mn-.iicipality, whieh he 
 undertook to discharge mwn the ilefendant R, 
 giving bis promissory note for the amount, in. 
 dorsed by his wife. The plaintill' thereupoa 
 settled the amtnint claimed by giving his note 
 therefor, whicli he alleged he had subsetpieitly 
 paid, and the defendants joined in a proininsory 
 note in the manner proposed by the plaintiff :_ 
 Held, aflirming the judgment of the court below 
 2 0. 11. 25, that the transaction in ett'ect amount' 
 ed to a compromise of a criminal charge, and 
 therefore that plaintiff was not entitled to re- 
 cover on the note given by the defendant. I}(H 
 V. Jliddell, 10 A. i{. 544. 
 
 Reference of indictment and all matters in 
 dirt'erence to arbitration. .See Tommhip of Hun- 
 ger/ord v. Lutlimer, 13 A. R. 315. 
 
 S., a trader in Yarmouth, N. S., had a num 
 her of creditors in Montreal. J., one of such 
 creditors, preferred a criminal charge against 
 S., sent a detei;tive to Yarmouth with a warrant, 
 caused such warrant to be indorsed by a local 
 magistrate and had S. brought to Montreal, 
 when the other creditors there issued writs of 
 capias for their respective claims. The father 
 of S. came to Montreal and in consideration of 
 the release of S. on both the civil and criminal 
 charges, transferred all his property for the 
 benefit of the Montreal creditors, and S. was 
 released from gaol having given his own recog- 
 nizance to appear on the criminal charge. In 
 tho settlement to the claims of the creditors was 
 added the costs of both the civil and eiiniin;il 
 suits. In a suit to set aside the transfer as licinj" 
 obtained by duress and to stifle the iriinijial 
 prosecution, the evidence showed that tlic cre- 
 ditors, in taking the proceedings they did, ex- 
 pected to obtain the security of the friemis of 
 S. : — Held, athrniing tho judgment of the cmirt 
 below, that the nature of the proceiulings ami 
 the evidence clearly showed that the criminal 
 process was only used for the purpose of getting 
 .S. to Montreal to enable the creditors to put 
 pressure on him, in order to get their ilaims 
 paid or secured, and the transi'er made by the 
 father under such circumstances was void. 
 Shorey v. Jones, 15 S. C. R. 398. 
 
 COMPULSORY REFERENCE. 
 
 .See Arbitration and Award. 
 
 I. 
 
 In 
 
 Co: 
 
 II. 
 
 Is 
 
 Dk 
 
 HI. 
 
 In 
 
 I'ot 
 
 IV. 
 
 In 
 
 Sa 
 
 
 '• 
 
 % 
 w 
 
 
 2. liji 
 
 OKI) 
 
 V. 
 
 In 
 
 Wi 
 
 CONFEi 
 
 
 .s 
 
 ee V 
 
 COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT DUB. 
 
 iS'ee Interest on Money. 
 
297 
 
 CONSTABLE. 
 
 296 
 
 COMPUTATION OF TIME. 
 
 See TiMK. 
 
 CONDITIONAL CONTRACT. 
 
 See Sale of Goods— Specivic Performancb. 
 
 CONDITIONS. 
 
 I. In C'nNTHAfTs— .S'«<' Contract. 
 II. In Dkeus— &'« Deed. 
 
 III. In Policies -.S'te Issitrance. 
 
 IV, In Sale ok Lands. 
 
 I. A',v Htuliray Compank» — See Kail- 
 
 wAv.s AND Railway Comhanies. 
 •_>. liij Ihi' Court— See Sale ok Land iiy 
 
 OlilJEK OK THE C'OUKT. 
 
 V, In Wills— fe Will. 
 
 CONFESSION OF JUDGEMENT. 
 
 See Feaudilkn T Judoment. 
 
 CONFLICT OF CASES. 
 
 See Courts. 
 
 CONFUSION OF PROPERTY. 
 
 Sec Olhrr v. Xi irhouic, S2 «'. 1'. 90 ; Smil/i v. 
 ilfirhiuil'i' Hank, '28 Cli)'. (>•.'!•; H A. R. 15 ; .1/c- 
 Ihnald V. Lane, 7 iS. ('. R. 402. 
 
 CONSIDERATION. 
 
 1. In Kills or Notes— .S'ec Bills of Kx- 
 
 t'HANGE AND PROMISSORY NoTES. 
 
 II. In Hills ok Sale ou CiiATrEL Mort- 
 (jAOEs-.SVc Bills ok Sale and Chat- 
 tel MoRTliAOES. 
 
 III. In C(pntra(ts— ftrCoNTRACT — Guaran- 
 tee and Indemnity. 
 
 !V, In Deeds — See Deed. 
 
 V. iNADEyu.vcY (IK— 5ee Fraud and Mis- 
 
 REI'ltESENTATION. 
 
 OONSOLIDATINa ACTIONS. 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 CONSPIRACY. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 By deputy returuiiig ollicer and agent of can- 
 didiito to interfere witli the franeliise of voters. 
 See Soulam/en Election — Choletle v. Buin, 10 S. 
 C. R. 052. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION OF MORTQAOES. 
 
 Set Mortoaue. 
 
 CONSTABLE. 
 
 In an action fur malicious arrest the jury 
 found a general verdict for the plaintiff, with 
 S200 dimiages. 'i'licy also specially found, in 
 answ'jr to a question put to them, " that the 
 defendant honestly believed that his duty as 
 cnn9tal)le called upon bim to make the arrest." 
 The learned judge thereupon entered a nonsuit, 
 holding that the defendant shouhl have received 
 notice of action. The general is.sue by statute 
 R. S. O. (1S77), c. 73, was not ple.-ided, and the 
 statement of defence was not framed so as to en- 
 able the defendaut to av.ail himself of it ; and the 
 court were of opinion under the facts, set out in 
 the case, that there was no evidence on which the 
 special finding of the jury could be supported : — 
 Held, that the nonsuit niiist be set aside, and 
 judgment intcred for the plaintilf, with $200 
 damages as assess('il. If tlie statute has not been 
 pleaded honest belief is no defence, if there ex- 
 isted no reasonable ground for such belief. Mc- 
 Kaij V. Cnmmiiigi, (1 (). I!. 400.— ('. P. I). 
 
 Liability in replevin for improperly impound- 
 ing sheep. Notice of action. See IbliottHon v. 
 flenry, 8 O. R. 025. 
 
 The plaintiffs appointed tlie d<.''en(iant chief of 
 police of the town of Stratford, at a named salary, 
 but sti])ulated that :■ v >uhl act as county con- 
 stable within the to v. ;■■ ly, and account for ami 
 |)ay over to the plaiiiiills, all fees received by him 
 from the coimty as a rewar<l for services per- 
 formed l)y him as a county constable: — Held, 
 that under S and Kdw. VI. c. 10, and 49 (>eo. 
 III. c. 120, the agreement to account for such 
 fees was invalid. Town of Slrntj'ord v. WiUon, 
 8 0. R. 104.— Rose. 
 
 Qua'i'e, whether the plaijitifTs, or the Board of 
 Police Commissioners, had the power to appoint 
 the defendant ; and whether, apart from the 
 statutes above mentioned, it was n()t ultra vires 
 the plaintiffs to bargain with the defendaut for 
 the accounting to them for the fees of another 
 office not under their control, lb. 
 
 L., the constable to whom the coroner de- 
 livered a summons for the jury was at the in- 
 ([uest sworn in as one of the jury, and was 
 sworn and gave evidence as a witness : — Held, 
 that the fact of L. being such constable did not 
 preclude him from being ou the jury, nor did 
 either of such positions preclude him from giv- 
 ing evidence. Reiiina v. Wineqarner, 17 O. R. 
 208.— C. P. D. 
 
 Liability in trespass for unjustifiable hand- 
 cutKiig. See Hamilton v. Masnie, 18 O. R. 
 585. 
 
 Arrest by constable under defective warrant. 
 See ReijiiM v. King, 18 0. R. 566. 
 
 
 si 
 
 
OONSTITUTIOirAL LAW. 
 
 300) 
 
 301 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 L GKNKRALI.V, 209. 
 
 II. Prbrooative of Crows— iSVe Crown. 
 
 III. ImpRRI.AL KSACTMiJNT.S. 
 
 1. Oemmlly, .300. 
 
 2. R'lntiwj to ShitiK- -.?fp Ship. 
 
 IV. Briti.sh North Amkrica Act, 1867. 
 
 1. Gnwally, .101. 
 
 2. As»tnitmfht ami Taxation, .30". 
 a liaxkinij, .S0.3. 
 
 4. Uanhriiitli->i anil Windlim-up AcU, 
 .303. 
 
 ,'). BUh of ladimi and Warehome Re- 
 ceipts, .304. 
 
 6. Courin and Jiidi/eji, .30"). 
 
 7. Criiniiiitl Lain and PtuaUiex, 306. 
 
 8. LWhealM, .307. 
 
 9. Fin/ii-rii-'', .307. 
 
 10. IncorpotaliiHi Companies, 309. 
 
 11. Inmriivc, 309. 
 
 12. /ntoxUittiii'i l.iiiiior.-i, ,310. 
 
 13. ./h>-o;>, 31.3. 
 
 14. Land:-, 31.3. 
 
 15. Lena! I'lorediiiv, 314. 
 
 16. Liren"!!!, 314. 
 
 17. Maiii^lrali-: 315. 
 
 18. Municipal, 315. 
 
 19. Naviijahh- Water.i, 315. 
 
 20. <^«^««'.s Counsel, 317. 
 
 21. Railii-ai/H'-Sif Kailways and Raif, 
 
 WAV COMI-ANIE-S. 
 
 22. Statidei In/ore Confederation, 31". 
 V. Other Statutes, 317. 
 
 VI. NoTU'F TO Attorneys-General, 319. 
 
 I. Gkneraij-y. 
 
 It would be unconstitutioual for the parliament 
 of Canada to j)as.s an Act, rendering Canadian 
 subjects and Canadian corporations ssubject to 
 such law8 :i8 niiglit lie passed l)y the congress 
 of the I'nitcd States : in fact an abdication of 
 sovereignty inconsi.stent «itli the relations of 
 Canada to the eninire of which it forms a part. 
 International Brin ,■ Co. v. Cauaila Soiithirn B. 
 IK. Co., 28 Chy. 114.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Per Strong and Fournier, J.I. — The .Supreme 
 Court ought never, except in cases when sucii 
 adjudication is indispensable to the decision of 
 a cause, to pronounce upon tlie constitutional 
 power of a legislature to pass a statute, Lmoir 
 V. Ritchie, 3 !S. C. 11. .")7o. 
 
 The legislative' enactments of a country have no 
 binding force proprio vigore in another country, 
 and a legislature cannot authorize corporations 
 created l)y it to carry on liusiness in a foreign 
 country. Where, however, a legislature assumes 
 so to do, such autiiority is only a legislative 
 sanction to the agreement of the corporators to 
 transact their business abiond as well as at liome. 
 Clarke v. Union Fire his. Co., 10 P. R. 313.— 
 Hodgins, Afasler i.i. Ordinary. 
 
 III. Imperial ExAcnriBNTS. 
 
 1. Oentrally. 
 
 Quaere, whether the Treating Act 7 Will. JU. 
 c. 4 is in force in this province. IhindoM Eke- 
 lion (Out.)— Cook v. Broiler, I H. K C, 20,). 
 
 Certain charges having been prefei red .-igainst 
 a County Court judge, a commission v;is issued 
 under the Great Seal of Canada, recit-ng these 
 facts and the provisions of 22 Geo. iii, c. "5 
 (Imp.) and directing the commissioner i to ex- 
 amine into the charges, and for that pu-pose to 
 summon witnesses and require them to gl .-e ci 
 dence on oath and produce papers; ivA t<i i, 
 port thereupon. The en((uiry proue'.iIfd, ami ,■» 
 motion was made for a proiiibition :— Held, that 
 enquiries under the Imperial Act should l)e 
 made before the Governor-General in eniincil, 
 and the .intliority could not be deli'gated, nor 
 enquiry upon oath authorized by conuuission;— 
 Held, also, that the commission could ntit lie 
 supported at common law, for it created a court 
 forbearing and enejuiring into ofTenees without 
 determining. Re Si/nier, 46 Q. H. 474.- -Wilson. 
 
 Under the Imperial statute, 14 Ik 15 Vict c. 
 63, regulating the ))oundary line l)etwoen old 
 Canada and S'ew IJrunswick, the whole of the 
 bay of Chaleurs is within the present l)oundaric« 
 of the provinces of Quebec and New Hnuiswick, 
 and within the Dominion of (.'anada and the 
 operation of the i''i.slieries Act, 31 \'iot. i\ (io. 
 'Iherefore the .ict of drifting for salnnni in the 
 bay of Chaleurs, although that drifting may have 
 been more than three miles from either shore of 
 New Brunswick or -of Quebec abutting on the 
 l)ay, is a rlrifting in C.inadian waters and within 
 the prohibition of the last mentioned Act, .iml 
 of tlie regulations made in virtue thereof. Moiml 
 v, McFre, 5 S. C. R. 66. 
 
 The fith section of .38 (ieo. III. c. 87 (Impe- 
 rial), prohibiting the gr.ant of probate to infants 
 under the age of twenty-one is in force in Ontario, 
 either as a rule of decision in ni.itters relating to 
 executors and ailministrators (It, S. O, (1877) c. 
 40, ss. 34 antl 35) or as a rule of practice in the 
 Probate Court in England (R. .S. O. (1877) ,•. 40, 
 s. 32). Meri-lmiti^' ISitnk v. Mimtnth, 10 1'. R. 
 3.34. — Hodgins, MuMerin Ordiiiavy. 
 
 Held, that 18 Kliz., c. 5, which en.icts thnt in 
 informer .sh.all .sue either in i)erson or by attm 
 ney is in force in this province, ■ind therefore 
 the plaintiff, an infant suing by his next friend, 
 could not maintain an action for a penalty umlcr 
 the Election Act, Oarrefl v. Roberts, 10 A. R. 
 (550. 
 
 As to Iniptirial Statute, 5 Geo. 11. c. 7, author- 
 izing the sale of land in equity for the ])ayinent 
 of delits in British lolonics. See Keiiriidi v, 
 Creelmaii, 14 S. C. K. 33. 
 
 The Statute 14 Geo. III. c. 78, s. 86, whidi w 
 an extension of 6 Anne, c. 31, ss. 6 and 7 is io 
 force in the province of Ontario as part of the 
 law of England introduced by the constitntioi"-'. 
 Act 31 Gen. JIT. c. 31, but has no ,'vpplii iMon to 
 protect a party from legal liability as ,i -onse- 
 ([uencc of negligenci'. Canada Snulln'rn II. W. 
 Co. V. /'Iielp.'<, 14 S. C. R, 132. 
 
 Held (Cameron, C. J., douV>ting), following 
 Stinfion ?•. Pennock, 14 Chy. 604, that tiio i't 
 Geo. III. e. 78, a. S3, entitling the niortg-igt-'J *■■> 
 
 have the insi 
 ing the burn 
 application , 
 was applical 
 Fire AKiiirai 
 P. D. 
 
 Held, thai 
 (I^rd Harelw 
 of a minor 1 
 parent or gu 
 ill force in tl 
 
 ■>, ISO. R 
 
 This actio 
 rei'over $220, 
 feiiilants hav 
 in bankrupt 
 claim and lo( 
 riiptcy ill K 
 judge III bail! 
 enjoining th 
 this action in 
 tario ; and si 
 this action b; 
 the proceedir 
 ">a.i iioiv. r ui 
 [■^'•i''.', •:.■ -ran 
 H.i, * atth 
 the order, eit 
 Act, or by re 
 the power of 
 and the order 
 proceedings v 
 of Canada Oil 
 giiia !'. Collej 
 Ontario, 44 (J 
 6 C. P. 228, SI 
 V. .sVci/'inV, \', 
 li. U. S. C.J 
 
 IV. RiiiT 
 
 The plaint: 
 i.ssnoil by the 
 c. lOi), sued t 
 railway conq 
 fficiitial l)on 
 trn.stoe toseci 
 being at the 
 the 31 Vict. 
 teM that the 
 In t'oreclose 
 things, direr 
 called ordina 
 stn k at a ce 
 the holders t 
 on the c(iiii| 
 (lelientures i 
 (D.ini.), the 
 (laiit compai 
 (lantaset <ip t 
 ill i|Uestioii w 
 41 (Out.), an 
 til take the d 
 Hock theriii 
 Act was not 
 Act, and the 
 a )X!titioner t 
 talkcn away 
 tho Act was 
 vsaa payable 
 domiciliated 
 
901 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 have the insurance money expended in rebuild- 
 ing the burneil buildings is not merely of local 
 application, but extends to tliis iirovince and 
 was applicable to the present case. C(in- v. 
 fire AKiiiraiicc AnnocidlioH, 14 O. K. 487. — C 
 P. D. 
 
 Held, that section 11 of 2(5 <ito. II. c. 33 
 (Lord Hanlwicko's Act), by which tiie marriage 
 of a minor by license, without the consent of 
 parent or guardian, was absolutely void, is not 
 Ml force in this province. Lawli t v. Chamher- 
 
 n, ISO. R. 2!)ti.— Boyd. 
 
 This action was begun in March, !S87, to 
 recover §'220,000 from the defendants. Tbc de- 
 fendants having become subject to proceeilinsrs 
 in bankruptcy, the |daiiititl's presented their 
 claim ami lodgc(l it with the a.s.signee in bank- 
 riii)tc\ in KiiKJanil in .September, 1SS7. The 
 juilge I li.i ruptcy in Kiiglanil made an order 
 eiijoiniiig tlie plaintitl's from proceeding with 
 this action in the High Court of .Justice for On- 
 tario ; and subsequently an ordci' wii-^ nuido in 
 this action by the Master in ('ii,inil>ci staying 
 tho proceedings for evi^r. (^itirro, whetiier tlierc 
 •>;is )io,-.-. r under the Muglish Haiikruptcy Act, 
 S'^S!^, * ^rant the injunction referred to? But 
 H '. , i :it there was power in tliis court to make 
 the order, either under section 10 of the Kiiglish 
 Act, or by reason of the eipiity of tiie case an<l 
 the power of tiie court to ,i(lmiMi.stcr that e(iuity, 
 and the order of the Master in Chandlers staying 
 proceeding.s was attirmed. Howell i: Dominion 
 of Canada Oils Refinery Co., 37 Q. B. 484 ; Re- 
 giiia i'. College of l'by>icians :ind Surgeons of 
 (hitario, 44 (}. U. 5M ; Kllis r. MoHenry, L. R. 
 6 C. P. 22.S, specially referred to. Muritimc. /laid- 
 V. .V<ci/v(W, 13 1*. k. 80. -Rose. //»., 202. — Q. 
 15. D. S. C, /6. 491. -C. of A. 
 
 IV. BiUTisii NoKTii Amkrica Act, 1867. 
 
 I . (Iincmllji. 
 
 The plaintiff, being tiio holder of a debenture 
 issued by the 15. &0. Railway Co. under 23 Vict. 
 c. !()!►, sued tlieieon. By the 27 Vict. c. ."i7, tiie 
 riiihvay com]iany were authorized to issue pre- 
 ferential bonds, and to execute a mortgage to a 
 trii.stoe to secure payment tiiercof. The railway, 
 being at the time of coiifederMtinn a local work, 
 the 31 Vict. c. 44 ((Mit. ) was passed, which leci- 
 tei! that the trustee was in pos.sessioii nml abiHit 
 til foreclo.se the mortgagt!, and amongst other 
 things, directed tliat tiie dclieiitures (therein 
 called ordinary bonds) should lie cuiivcited into 
 .'til k at a certain rate on the didlar ; aii,l that 
 the holders tiiercof sliduld have no other claim 
 on tlie ciiiii|iany than fur conversion cif their 
 (lelientures into stock. l>y llu> 41 Vict. c. 30 
 (D'liii.), tlu' H. it O. U.iiiway Co. and tlit; defen- 
 dant coni|)any were amalgamated. The defen- 
 dants set >ip tliat their liability on the debentures 
 ill 'iiiestioii was extinguished by the 31 Vict. c. 
 4t (Out.), and that they were ready and willing 
 tn take the debentures in exchange for reduced 
 iitock thereunder. Third replication that the 
 Act was not binding beoiiuae it was a private 
 Act, and the plaintifFwaa r.ot named therein, nor 
 a |K!titioner therefor, nor were his rights specially 
 talicn away thereby. Fourth replication, that 
 the Act was ultra vires, bei-auso the debenture 
 was pa,yabie in London, England, and waM tlicre 
 domiciliate! 1, and the holder resided there at ti 
 
 time of the passing of the Act, beyond the juris- 
 diction of the Ontario legislature :~ Held, on 
 demurrer, third replication bad ; for, though the 
 Ontario Act was in the nature of a private Act, 
 it sufficiently referred to the plaintiff by referring 
 to the class of bondhidders to which he belonged, 
 and that he was therefore bound thereby ;— Held, 
 also, fourth replication bad, for the local legis- 
 latures were not restricteil by the decree " pro- 
 perty and civil rights in the province " to legis- 
 lation respecting Iwnds held therein, and that 
 where debts or other obligations arc authorized 
 to be contracted under a local Act, passed in 
 relation to a matter within the power of the 
 local legislature, such debts may be dealt with 
 by subsequent Acts of the same legislature, not- 
 v.ltbstanaing that by a fiction of law they may be 
 domiciled out of the province. JoueK v. Canada 
 Central R. H . Co., 40 Q. B. 250.— Osier. 
 
 The term " provincial objects " in the B. N. A. 
 Act refers to local objects within a province, in 
 contradistinction to objects which are common 
 to all provinces in their collective or Dominion 
 ((uality. Clarke v. Union Fire Inn. Co., 10 P. R. 
 313. — Hodgins, Matter in Onliiiarij. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A.— The legislation of the 
 Dominion Parliament forbidding the defendants 
 contracting against liability for their own negli- 
 gence is not ultra vires. Voijel v. Grand Tivnk 
 R. W. Co., 10 A. R. 102. 
 
 Held, that in No. 13 of section 92 the worda 
 " property and civil rights in the province " 
 incluiie rights arising from contr.ict (which are 
 not in ex]ircss terms inchided under section 91), 
 and are not limited to such rights only as flow 
 frimi th> law, e. g., the status of persons. Citi- 
 ziiiK Int. Co. of Canada v. I'arton^ : Queen Ins. 
 Co. V. Par-ions, 7 App. Cas. 90; 4 S. C. R. 215. 
 
 .Sections 91 and 92 of the B. N. A. Act of 
 1807 must in regard to the classes of subjects 
 generally descrilied in section 91 be rend to- 
 get.ier, and the language of one interfireted ami,, 
 whire necessary, modified by that of the other 
 so lis to reconcile the respective powers they 
 contain and give effect to all of them. Kach 
 (piostion sliouhl be decided as best it can with- 
 out entering more largely than is necessary upon 
 an interpretation of tlie statute. /A. 
 
 2. Asscsument and Taxation. 
 
 Held, that section 3 of 43 Vict. c. 27 (Out.), 
 amending the Assessment Act was not ultra vires 
 tlie Ontario Legislature. In re North of Scotland 
 Canadian Morti/ai/e Co., 31 C. 1'. r)52, — C. P. D. 
 
 The plai.itifls sued the defendant for the pro- 
 portion of feen received by the defendant as 
 registrar, to which they were entitled under R. 
 S. O. (I877)c. lll,sa. 98 to 103. The defendant 
 demurred to tlie declaration on the ground that 
 these sections were ultra vires the local legis- 
 latuie, as they imposed an indirect tax and not 
 a tax for raising a revenue for provincial pur- 
 lioses : — Held, atlirming the judgment of Armour, 
 .1., that having received the money in (|U<..,wion 
 under the above Act, the defendant could not 
 deny that he received it fi>r the purposes therein 
 provided : — Held, also, that if a tax at all, it 
 wa.« clearly a direct tax, and intra vires. Counttj 
 of Hastings v. Ponton, T) A. R. 543. 
 
 I 
 
 !S 
 
 
303 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 301 
 
 Held, that Queboo Act, 43 and 44 Vict. c. 9, 
 which impoKed a duty of ten cents upon every 
 exhibit filed in court in any action depending 
 therein is ultra vires the provincial legislature. 
 Atlorneii-Oene.ral Jor Quebec v. Jiicil, 10 App. 
 Cas. 141. 
 
 Held, that the Quebec Act 45 Vict. c. 22, 
 which imposes certain direct taxes on certain 
 cuinnieruial corporations carrying, on business 
 in the province, is intra vires the provincial 
 legislature. A tax imposed upon l)anks which 
 carry on business within tlie province varying 
 in amount with the paid-up capital and with the 
 number of its oHicairs, wlietncr or not their 
 principal place of business is within the pro- 
 vince is direct taxation within clause 2 of section 
 92 of the IJritisii North America Act, 18()7, the 
 meaning of wliicli is not restricted in tliis respect 
 by either clause 2, .'J or 1") of section 91, Simi- 
 larly witii rej,'ard to insurance companies taxed 
 in a sum siieciticd l)y tlie Act. Bank of Toronto 
 v. Lumlic, 12 App. t'a.s. .ITO. 
 
 See LoiKjudii/ X(ivi() lion Co. v. City oj Mon- 
 treal, 15 S. (). K. 5G(>, p. 'Ml ; I'iijeon v. Ikrorder's 
 Court find Citi/ of Montreal, ITS. C. R. tUS, p. 
 314. 
 
 3. liuuhing. 
 
 Per Fournicr, Henry, and Taschercail, J.T., 
 sections 40, 47 and IS of ,'U Vict. c. 5 (Dom.), 
 (the Banking Act, 1871,) are intra vires the 
 Dominion Parliament. MfrtluvUs' Dank of Can- 
 ada v. Smith, S .S. C. R. 512. 
 
 4. Bankruptcy and Wiudinij-up Acts. 
 
 Per S|)ragg(', C. J. O. , and Morrison, J. A. — 
 Section 13(i, of tlie Insolvent .Vet, 1875, dealing; 
 with matter of proccciure incident to the law of 
 bankruptcy and insf)l vency, was within the juris- 
 diction of tlie Parliament of Canada to enact. 
 Peek V. ,S7i(V/(/.s G A. R. 039 : See S. C. sub nom. 
 Shitldi V. Peuk, 8 S. C. R. 579. 
 
 Per Burton, .f. A. — Section 136, which gives 
 certain creditors an additional remedy in the 
 provincial courts for the recovery of tlieir debts 
 in fall, is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada ; 
 but section 8, sub-section 7 of the Insolvent Act 
 of 1864, to the same effect, is still in force, the 
 Parliament of Canada having no power to repeal 
 it. lb. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A., it is immaterial whether 
 section 1,S6 is ultra vires or not ; for if the Par- 
 liament of Canada had the power to deal with 
 the subject of that section, it would be binding, 
 but if not, then the same en xtment in section 
 
 5, subsection 7 of the Act of 1804, is unrepealed 
 and in force. lb. 
 
 Held, that section 24 of 35 Vict. c. 26 (Dom.), 
 the Patent Act, is not ultra vires the Dominion 
 Parliament. Aitchenon v. Mann, 9 P. R. 473— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, following Broddy v. Stuart, 7 C. L. T. 
 
 6, that 48 Vict. c. 26 (Ont.), is intra vires the 
 provincial legislature. Clarknonv. Ontario Bank, 
 13 0. R. 666.— Ferguson; 15 A. R, 166. 
 
 Held, that the Winding-up Act, 45 Vict. c. 
 23 (Dom.), is intra virea the Dominion Parlia- 
 
 ment, and is in the nature of an insolvency law 
 and applies to all corporate bodies of the nature 
 mentioned in it all over the Dominion, and that 
 the company in question in this case, though in 
 corporated under a provincial charter, was sub- 
 ject to its provisions. Re Kldorado Union Store 
 Co., 6 Russ, V. (!el(l, 514, fcdlowed ; Merchants' 
 Bank of Halifax r. Oillespio, 10 H. C. R. 312, dig. 
 tingnished. Be Clarke and The Union fire hi/ 
 Co., 10 0. R. 489.— Proudfoot ; 14 0. R. 018.- 
 Boyd ; 16 A. R. 101. Affirmed by Suprenu^ Court, 
 Sub nom. Shoolhred v. Clarke, 17 S. C. R. 2(!5. 
 
 Certain 'ands, after the grant from tlie Crown, 
 became by certain mesne conveyamies the pro- 
 perty of the Bank of Upper Canada, and ujjon 
 the failure of that bank were conveyed to its 
 trustees, and were sul)Sc(|Uently, with tiie otiier 
 assets of tiie bank, vested in the Crown by ,13 
 Vict. c. 40 (Dom.). The Crown then s(dil them 
 and the piirchascr gave a mortgage back to secure 
 part of tlie purchase money. The mortg.ige con- 
 tained the usual provision for payment of taxes, 
 but the taxes woic not ]>aid and the lands were 
 sold, this action being brought to set aside the 
 tax lale :— Held, per Hagariy, C.J.O., and Osier, 
 .r.A , that the Act, .12 Vict. c. 40 (Dom.), was 
 inti'a vires, as dealing with " Bankruptcy and 
 Insolvency" or "Banking and Incorporation of 
 B.anks." That the lands were therefore properly 
 vested in the Crown as trustee, and that the in- 
 terest of the Crown as mortgagee and trustee 
 could not bo sold for arrears of taxes, but wag 
 exempt under K. S. O. '1887) c. 193, s. 7, suh-s. 
 i:— Per IJurton, .I.A. That the Act was ultra 
 vires as an interfereii.i with ''property ami 
 civil rights in the province" anil that the 
 lands reni.ained in the trustees subject to taxa- 
 tion. Tliat (^vi'ii if the Act was intra vires still 
 the lands, being vested in the Crown in the jil.icc 
 and stead of the trustees v(diiiitarily selected y 
 the shareholders of the bank, were not exempt 
 from taxation ; — Per Maclennan, J. A., That the 
 Act was ultra vires and the lands subject to taxa- 
 tion, but that, upon the evidence, the sale w.is 
 fraudulent and void as far as the interest of the 
 Crown was concerned. The judgment of the 
 Queen's Bcncli Division, 17 O. K. 015, w.as there- 
 fore affirmed. Burton, J. A., dissenting, /'egiiia 
 V. Count;/ oj WeUimjton, 17 A. H. 421. 
 
 Semble. Notwithstanding the Act, 52 Vict. c. 
 32 (Dom.), aineinling the Dominion Winding-up 
 Act, the Ontario Winding-up Act, R. S. 0. 
 (1887) c. 183, does not apply to a company in- 
 corporated in Ontario where application to wind 
 up is mailo on the ground of insolvency, because 
 local legislatures have no jurisdictiiui in matters 
 of bankruptcy or insolvency. AV Iron Clay 
 Brick Manujnctnrinrj Co. — Turner's Ca.se. 19 
 0. R. 113. -Robertson. 
 
 See Merchants' Bank of Halifax v. Qillenpie, 
 10 S. C. R. .•»"^ p. 283; Clartwn v. Severi, 17 
 O. R. 592, p. ..^. 
 
 5. BilLt of Lading and ]Vafehou.ie Receipt*. 
 
 The provisions of 34 Vict. c. 5 (Dom.), as to 
 warehouse receipts do not invaile the functions 
 of the provincial legislature by an interference 
 with "property and civil rights" in the pro- 
 vince. Smith V. Merchants' Bank, 28 Chy. 629. 
 In the Court of Appeal Armour, J,, was of a 
 
305 
 
 OONSTITUTIONAI. LAW. 
 
 306 
 
 fliffcrcnt opinion, S. ('., 8 A. II. I.'i ; S S. C. R. 
 
 Ah to vali.lity of U. S. O. (1877), c. 116, s. r., 
 ris|)cctinB Billn "f Ijuliiij,'. .St-c llnhlij v. Mcr- 
 chdiil.i' Di'spalch Co., '-' O. H. ."JSo. 
 
 6. Court)! and Jmltjea, 
 
 (.liiaTO, Wlicrc the l.iinl liiiviii;,' Ix'cii talicn 
 hhiUt m> Act of till! D'jiiiiniipii I'iirliniiient 
 wlKitlier tiic fimliiig of tin- iiiliitiator.s couM btj 
 reviewed under .SH \"iet. e. 1,') (Out.) Sori'ull 
 V. Cn/w/fi Soulhent Ji. W. Co., 5 A. |{. l.T 
 
 Held, that 40 Viet. c. 21, <'MtMl.li.shiiif,' ii ocmvl 
 of nnritinie jurifiiliclidii fur th^- jtiinimi' of ( ii. 
 t.iiii) is intra viie« of tiie l)i)MiitiiciM Parliament. 
 Thr PielonSmith v. Kiilli, 4 S. V. 1!. (MS. 
 
 The .12 Vi(!t. e. 22, .s. 2 (Out.); :{2 Vi.^t. .•. 21!, 
 (Out.) ; 3.1 Viet. c. 12, h. 1 (Out.), and It. S. (). 
 (1S77), c. 42, H. 2, ns^ninlng to reix'ai ('. S. U. 
 C. c. 14 and V. S. !j. C. e. I"), s. 8, and to 
 alxihsh tlie >(inrt of ii!!l)r;ii liiniiit fur the tri.il 
 of louMty eon. t jndj,'c.s, and rei,'idate tlieir tennru 
 of nllice are n)ira vins the |):ipviiuial legislature. 
 lii Sijiiier, 4(i (l 1'.. 474. - \\ iLson. 
 
 Pursuant to the Local Courts Aot, l{. S. O. 
 <lH77)c. 42,8. l(i. et se(|., tin? counties of Middle- 
 sex :ind Lainl)ton were proelaiincil l>y the Lieu- 
 tonant-dovernor aa a county ciiiirt <llstrict. IJy 
 aec'tion 17, in sueli a district tlie .several county 
 courts, divJHion courts, etc., sli.ill he Indd liy 
 the jM(lp(^s in the district in rotation. Ity the 
 Division Courts Act, I!. S. (). (I.S77) e. 47, a. Ill, 
 the division courts shall lie presided over hy the 
 eouiity court judges in their respective coun- 
 ties. An order for the eounnittal of the defen- 
 <lant was made hy the jmlgit oT tin' ((iiinty court 
 of the eouuty of l,and)ton, sitting in a division 
 court in the county of Middlesex under the pro- 
 visions of the T>ocal Courts Act. A motion for 
 a prohiliition was made ou the grouml that that 
 enaetment was ultra vir<\s : Held, Armour,.!., 
 dissenting, that the proviuciel Icgislaturir has 
 cmniilcte jurisdiction over the iIivi<iou courts, 
 including the aiipointnient of ollini > to iirxsidu 
 over them : that the learned jud^c ,wted in the 
 Middlesex divisitui court as on(! of the pcrsous 
 designated hy the hj^ishiture to preside over it, 
 and having regard to the enaciuicnt in ijucstion, 
 solely in its liciring ou division courts, it wcs 
 nut idtra vires. In re WUnoii v. Mrdu'ire, 2 O. 
 K. IIS.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Armour, .!.— Section l.'t of the Local 
 <'()iirtsAct is ultra vires. Tlio provisional legis- 
 lature having no ])ower to appoint c(uinty court 
 judges, uiither can it aullmri/o tln^ (Jovernor- 
 (ieiiera! to appoint one liy ordi'r as enacted (the 
 aiipointnient being proptnly made l»y letters 
 Jiiitiut under the great .seal), nor can it doptite a, 
 oonrity court judge to ncnninato another judge 
 to take his pl.icc a.s enacted. Tlic clear and side 
 effect of section 17 is to appoint the judgoof each 
 county court in any district judge of all the 
 otiier counties which is ultra vires. The pro- 
 yiueiftl legislature has no power to appoint the 
 indgea of the division courts; but it has not yet 
 aNsiuried to do so, and in this case the judge 
 acted solely by virtue of being judge of the 
 county court of the county of Lambton, .iml as 
 20 
 
 such assigned to perform the dntica of the jndgo 
 of the county court of Middlesex, and was there- 
 tore acting without authority, /'), 
 
 Held, per Armour anil O'Connor, .IJ,, that the 
 county judge of the county of l.,anark ha<l no 
 power to jiresidc at the sessions in the county of 
 Kenfrew, the provincial statute authorizing him 
 to do so bciu:; ultra vires. Wilson, C'. .1., upon 
 this point gave no positive o|iiuion, but inclined 
 to the opposite view. (Jilison v, MfDoiudd, 7 
 O. U. 401.— Q. n I). 
 
 Held, that the constitution of a court or judi- 
 cial tribunal for the determin.ition of disputes 
 under the Patent Act 1S72, s. 2S, was not ultra 
 vires tli(! Diinnnion Parliament. In rr thr lieU 
 '!'( /r/ihoiii Ciiin/iiiiiii <tii<l till' Titf/ihouc Mnnii/ar- 
 liiriii;/ Ctiiiipiiny mid llu .Miiiisfir of Ai)rirnltHri', 
 7 O. I{. <)<».">. -()sler. 
 
 The Dominion Controverted Klections Act of 
 
 1S7-I, .'{7 Vict. e. 10 (l)om. ), does not contravene 
 
 ' section !t2, Mib-scetion 14 of the British North 
 
 .\nierica Act, l.Sii7. The said sub-.sectiou does 
 
 I not relate to election petitions, while section 41 
 
 I of the s.ime -Vet reserved to the Parliament of 
 
 I Canada the power of creating a jurisdiction to 
 
 ' ih'tcrmine them. The P.ii'liament of Canada has 
 
 I (lower to commit sucii jurisiliction to existing 
 
 j liioviii;i.d courts. .Special leave refused to ap- 
 
 I pe.al from two eoiicurrent judgments of the cc.urta 
 
 I in Canada, atlirming tlic eouipetency and validity 
 
 of the said Act of IS74 ; it appi'ariii.; that there 
 
 was no substantial i|iicstioii rciiuiring to be dc- 
 
 termiiicd, nor any doubt of the .soundness of the 
 
 decisions, nor any reason to appiidicnd diliiculty 
 
 or disturbiin-e from leaving the decisions un- 
 
 i touched. \'ittiii V. L'liui/ois, Tt .App. (-'as. 115; 
 
 ,3.S. C. I{. 1. 
 
 I So much of section l.'itiof the Inl.ind Revenue 
 .\ct, ISi!7, (HI Vict. c. H) as gives the court •>f 
 Vice .Vdmiralty jwiisdiction in pidsecutions for 
 pcMi.ilties and forfeitures incurred thereunder, is 
 intra vires, iiotwithst.inding such court is estab- 
 lish, d in Canaila by lm[ierial autli'irity. Valiu 
 V. Langlois, (,S Can. S. ('. R. I ; ,"> App. Cas. 
 1 1.")) discus.sed and followed. Altornfy-tlentral 
 o/Canndn v. Flint, Hi .S. C. R. 707. 
 
 .Section 43, (). .T. Ai't, (ISHI) which provides 
 thit in c;iscs where the .imoiint in controversy 
 is under .S| ,l)!tO, no appcvil shall lie from the de- 
 cision of the Court of .\ppcal to the .Supremu 
 Court of Canada except by leave of a judge of 
 the former court is ultra vires of the Ontario 
 leg.'slaturc, and not binding on the .Supremu 
 Court. Remarks on an order granting such 
 leave on appellant .idcitaWing to ask no costs 
 of appeal. Clnrk-ion v. />'//■(//, 17 S. U. K. 251. 
 
 See 1,1 rr .Sprnii/r, 12 S. C. R. 140; lir Siin- 
 rnoiut and IM/lon, 12 O. R, 505. 
 
 7. Criminal Law and PenaltitH, 
 
 The legislative assembly of Ontario ha.s no 
 criminal jurisdiction, and therefore has no juris- 
 diction in case of a conspiracy to bribe members 
 to vote against the government considered as a 
 criminal otTeiice. Rnjiiut v. lianlinij, 7 O. R. 
 .524.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The jurisiliction of the provincial legislatures 
 over "property ami civil rights'' does not pro- 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
307 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- 
 
 am 
 
 elude tht) Parliament of Canada from giving to 
 an informer the right to recover, by a civil action, 
 H penalty inipoBed as a punishment for bribery 
 at an election. The Dominion Elections Act 
 1874, by section 100, provides that all !>e»altie8 
 and forfeitures (other than fines in cases of mis- 
 ilemeanor) imposed by the Act shall be recover- 
 able, with full costs of suit, by any nerson who 
 will sue for the same, by action of debt or infor- 
 mation, in any of Her Majesty's courts in tlie 
 province in which the cause of action arose, hav- 
 ing competent jurisdiction :— Held, nflirming 
 32 C. P. 632, that tiiis enactment was valid. 
 UoyU. V. Bell, 11 A. R. 32G. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Q. H. I). 
 (17 0. K. 58), that the " Act to Provide Against 
 Frauds in the.Siipplying of Mill; to t'hecse or But- 
 ter Manufactories,''^.')! Vict. c. 32 (Out.), though 
 i)enal in its nature, iloes not deal with criminal 
 law within the meaning of section 91, sub-section 
 27, of the B. N. A. Act, but merely protects pri- 
 vate rights and is intra vires. Itiiiinaw. WuKon, 
 17 A. R. 221. 
 
 So al.so the " Act respecting Appeals on Pro- 
 secutions toenforcc Penalties iiml Punish Otl'ences 
 under Provincial Acts," iVJ Vict. e. 15 (Out.), is 
 not legislation dealing witii criminal procedure 
 within the meaning of that sub-section aiul is 
 intra vires. lb. 
 
 See Ho(l(jcv. Keijina, 9 App. fas. 117; /{I't/inn 
 V. Frmnky, 7 A. 15. 24C ; Hei/iiKt v. Allbr'uilif, 
 9 P. R. 25 ; Begina v. Pipe, I 0. R. 43. 
 
 8. Etcheatf. 
 
 Held that lands in Canada escheated to the 
 Crown for defect of heirs belong to the pm 
 vince in which tiiey are situate and not t» the 
 Dominion, Attorncy-Oenertd of Ontario \, Mn- 
 ver, 8 App. Cas. 707 ; 5 S. C. K. 538. 
 
 At the date of passing the B. X. .V. .Act, 1807. 
 the revenue arising from all escheats to tlie 
 Crown within the then Province of Canada, was 
 subject to the disposal and ap)iropriation of tht^ 
 Canadian legislature and not of tiic Cmwii. 
 Although section 102 of the Act imposed upon 
 the Dominion the charge of the general pul)lic 
 revenue as then existing of tlie piovinces, yet 
 by section 109 the casual revenue ari.sing from 
 lands escheated to tlie Crown after tiiu union 
 was reserved to the jirovinces, tlie words "lands, 
 mines, minerals, anrl royalties" tiicrcin includ- 
 ing, according to their true construction, royal- 
 ties in respect of lands such as escheats, //;, 
 
 9. Fi-iherk-i. 
 
 On Ist .January, 1H74, the minister of marine 
 and fisheries of Canada iiuriM.rting to act under 
 the powere conferred upon him by .-i : tion 2, c. 
 60, 31 Vict,, executed on behalf of Her Majesty 
 to the suppliant an iii,>(tniment called a lease (if 
 fishery, wherel>,\ Mvi M'j'Hty purported to Icise 
 to the luppliant tm nine years a certain portion 
 of the Soutli Wist Miramichi f{iver in New 
 lirUBswiek for tlic purpose of Hy-Hsliing for s.t 
 bion therein. Tlie locus in (|iio being thus dc 
 scribed in the special case agreed to by tlie par 
 ties : " Price's Bend is about forty or forty-live 
 miles above the ebb and tlov of the tide, Tlie 
 
 stream for the greater part from this point up- 
 ward is navigable for canoes, small boats, flat- 
 bottomed scows, logs and timber. Logs are 
 usually driven down the river in high water in 
 the spring and fall. The stream is rapid. Dur- 
 ing Huminer it is in some places on the bars very 
 shallow." Certain persons who had received 
 (•onveyances of a portion of the rivoi', and who, 
 under such conveyances, claimed the exclnsivB 
 right of lishing in such portion, interrupted the 
 suppliant in the enjoyment of his Kshing under 
 the lease granted to him, and put him to certain 
 expenses in endeavouring to as.sert and defend 
 his claim to the ownershij) of the tishing of that 
 portion of the river included in his lease. The 
 Suprcuic Court of New lirunswiek having de- 
 cided adversely to his exclusive right to fish in 
 virtue of said lease, the suppliant presented u 
 petition of rii,dit and claimed compensatifm from 
 Her Majesty for the loss of his lishing privile^eg 
 and for' tlie ex|)cnses he had incurred. By 
 special case certain (jnestions (which are givtn 
 in the report) were submitted for the decision 
 of the court, and the Kxcheciuerf^nurt held inter 
 .alia that an exclusive right of tishing existed in 
 the parties who had received the conveyances, 
 and that the minister of niarine and hsherics 
 constMpiently had no power to grant a lease or 
 license unilcr section 2 ol the Fisheries Act of 
 the portion of the river in (piestion, and in 
 answer to the Stii (piestion, viz. : "where the 
 lands (aliove ti(l;il water) through which the s.iiil 
 river passes are iingranted by the Crown, could 
 the minister of marine an(l tisheries lawfully 
 issue a lease of that portion of the river)?" 
 Held, that the minister could not lawfully i.ssue 
 a lease of the bed of the rivei', but that he could 
 lawfully issue a license to lish as a franchise 
 apart from the ownership of the soil in that p^ir 
 tion of the rivi'r. The appellant thereupon ap 
 pealed to the Supreme C(Uirt of Canada on the 
 main (piestion ; whether oi not an exclusive 
 right ot tisliiiiL,' did so exist : — Held, (attirniing 
 the jud;;mcnt of the Kxeli('(|Uer (>)uit) 1st, the 
 general ^lower of rei,'iilatiiig and protecting the 
 tishi-rr. s iindci- the British North America Act, 
 1S<C, s. !tl, is in the Parliament of Canada, hut 
 th.^t the license granted by the minister of 
 marine and lislieries of the locus in (pu) was void 
 because said Act only authorizes the grantinLj of 
 leases "where the exclusive right of tishing (hies 
 not already exist liy !,iw," and in this case the 
 exclusive right ot tishing belonged to the owners 
 ')f the laud thidUf^h which that portion of the 
 .diraniielii river llows, Jlii/iiin v. L'oberlM'ii, ti 
 .S, C, H. 52, 
 
 Although the public may have in a river, such 
 as the one in (pu'stion, an easement or right to 
 lloat rafts or logs down and a right of passage 
 up and (lo«ii in Canada, etc., wherever the 
 w.iter is Millicieiitly high to be so used, such 
 right is not inconsistent with an exclusive right 
 of fishing or with the right of the owners of pro- 
 perty o)ipnsitc their respective lands od medium 
 Ilium a(pi;c. //*. 
 
 TIk^ rights of tishing in a river, such as is that 
 part of the Miruiiiiehi from I'l Ice's Bend to its 
 soui c, are an iiu ilent to the grant of the laml 
 thi'Migh which such river flows, and where such 
 grants have been made there is no authority 
 given by i\w |1 N. A, Act, lH(i7, to grant iv 
 right to tish, and the Dominion Parliament hius- 
 no right to give such authority, lb. 
 
1 
 
 309 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 310 
 
 Per Ritchie, C. -T., and Strong, Foiirnier and 
 Henry, J.I., (revcrHing tho judgment of the Ex- 
 cheiiuer Court on the Sth (jucstion sul)mittcd) 
 ungranted lands in tho province of New Bruns- 
 wick being in tho Crown for tho benefit of the 
 people of New Brunswick, the exclusive right 
 to nsh follows as an incident, and is in the 
 Oown as trustee for the benelit of tho people of 
 the province, and therefore a license by the 
 minister of marine and fisheries to fish in streams 
 running through provincial property would be 
 iUegal. lb. 
 
 10, Incorporalhiij Coiiijiniiifx. 
 
 Held, that 22 Vict. c. (i« of tho Parliament of 
 Canada which created n corporation having its 
 corporate existence and rights in the provinces 
 of Ontario and Quebec could not bo repealed or 
 moditied by the legislature of cither province 
 or by tho conjoint operation of both, but only 
 by the Dominion Parliament. Doliie v. Tern- 
 peralUiei Hoard, 7 App. Cas. l.SG. 
 
 Held, that the Quebec Act, 38 Vict.c.64, which 
 assumed to repeal and amend 22 Vict. c. (id, and 
 
 (1) To destroy a corporation created by the 
 Canadian Parliament and substitute a new one ; 
 
 (2) To alter materially the class of persons in- 
 terested in the coriiorate funds and not merely 
 to impose conditions upon the transaction of 
 business by the corporation within the province, 
 was invalid. Ih. 
 
 Held, that the Act .S7 Vict. c. 10.3 (Dom.), 
 which created a corporation witii power to carry 
 on certain definite liinds of business within tlie 
 Dominion was within the legislative competence 
 of the Dominion Parliament. The fact that the 
 corporation chose to confine the exercise of its 
 powers to one province, and to local and pro- 
 vincial objects did not affect its status as a cor- 
 poration, or operate to render its original incor- 
 poration illegal as ultra vires the said Parlia- 
 ment;— Held, further, that the corporation could 
 not be prohibited generally from acting as such 
 within the province ; nor could it be restrained 
 from doing specified acts in violation of the pro- 
 vincial law upon a petition not directed and 
 adapted to that putposo. Colonial linildhuj and 
 Investment Anwcialion v. Attornry-Oeneral of 
 Queher, 9 App. Cas. 1.57. 
 
 See Quiddy Hirer Driri7ii/ Hooin Co. v. Darid- 
 KOti, 10 S. C. R. 222, p. :ilO; ClarLr v. Union 
 Fh-e Inx. Co., 10 P. K. .SI 3, p. 29!). 
 
 II. Insmanci'. 
 
 In No. 2 of section 01 the words "regulation 
 of trade and commerce," include political ar- 
 rangementN in regard to trade re(|iiiriiig tile sanc- 
 tion of Parliament, regulation of tiade in matters 
 of inter provincial concern, and it may bo gen- 
 eral regulation . f tnide aflfecting the whole Do- 
 minion ; liut do ii.it include the regulation of the 
 eontiaets of a paiticular business or trade, such 
 a.i thy Imsincsa of fire insurance in a single pro- 
 vince, and therefore do not ( onflic t with the 
 power of proi)erty and civil riijlits conferred by 
 section 92, No. 13. ('ilizens hi^. Co. of Canada 
 
 App. 
 
 V. Parmus ; Qiii-cn's /».<. Co. V. Parnonx 7 
 Cas. 96 ; S. C. R. 216. 
 
 .39 Vict. c. 24 (Ont.), which deals with policies 
 of insurance entered into or in force in the piu- 
 vince of Ontario for insuring property situate 
 therein against tire and prescribes certain con- 
 ditions which are to form part of such contracts, 
 is a valid Act applicable to tho contracts of all 
 such insurers in Ontario, including corporations 
 and companies, whatever may bo their origin, 
 whether incorporated by British authority or l>y 
 foreign or colonial authority, lli. 
 
 The defendant, a mutual insurance company, 
 was incorporated by an Act of the Dominion 
 Parliament, 41 Vict. c. 40, by section 28 of which 
 it is provided that " any fraudulent misrepre- 
 sentation contained in the application therefor, 
 or any false statement respecting the title or tho 
 ownership of the applicant or his circumstances, 
 or the concealment of any incumbrance on the 
 insured property, or tho failure to notify the com- 
 pany of any change in the title or ownership of 
 the insured property, and to obtain the written 
 consent of the company thereto shall render the 
 policy void :" — Held on demurrer, that the mat- 
 ters provided for by the above section were sub- 
 ject matters of the "Fire Insurance Policy Act' 
 of Ontario, over which tho province has exclu- 
 sive jurisdiction ; and although they might lie 
 proper 8ul)jects of legal contract, they would 
 have no force or vitality through the Dominion 
 Act per se, but only by being used as required 
 or moditied by said Ontario Act, namely in the 
 manner provided for variations to the conditions 
 therein contained. Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Parsons 
 and The Queen Ins. Co. v. Parsons, 7 App. Cas. 
 9(5. commented upon. <lnrin<iy. London ilnt 'ml 
 Firr Im. Co., 11 O. R. 82.— O'Connor. 
 
 Tho Acts 31 Vict. c. 48, (Dom.), and 34 Vict. 
 c. 9 (Dom.), relating to insurance companies are 
 not ultra vires the Dominion Parliament. A'« 
 Briton Mtdical and C'eneral l.ifi' Aiwcia'ion 
 {Limited) (2) 12 O. R. 441.— Proudfoot. 
 
 12. Intoxicating Liqnort. 
 
 Held : — That the Act of tho Parliament of 
 Canad.a, 41 Vict. c. 16, " An Act respecting the 
 Traffic in Intoxicating Liijuors " cited as the 
 "Canada Temperance Act, 1878," is within the 
 legislative capacity of that body. Mai/or, <i<: , 
 uj Frederictoii v. lieijina, 3 S. C. K. 505. 
 
 By the British North America Act, 1807, 
 plenary powers of legislation are given to the 
 Parliament of Canada over all matters within 
 the scope of its jurisdiction, and they may be 
 exercised either absolutely or conditionally : in 
 the latter case the legislation may be ma<le to 
 depend ujn^i some subseriuent event, and lie 
 brought into force in one part of the Dominion 
 and not in the other. Ih. 
 
 Under sub-section 2 of section 91, B. N. 
 A. Act, 1867, "regulation of trade and coni- 
 nierco," the Parliament of Canada alone has the 
 power of prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating 
 liijuors in the Dominion or in any part of it, -lud 
 the court has no right whatever to eiii[uire what 
 motive induced Parliament to exercise its powers. 
 Henry, J., dissenting, lb. 
 
 Qua-re, per Cameron, J., as to the power of 
 the local legislature to limit or r.uthorize muni- 
 cipalities to limit the number of licenses ami as 
 
 0"% 
 
811 
 
 OONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 312 
 
 ti) the effoct of the dooision of the Suprenii! 
 (Joint ill city t)f Fruilcricton r. The Queen, ■'{ S. 
 C. II. 50r>. Ihiilm V. Howard, 45 Q. 15. .'MO. 
 
 Ilchl, that till! Cimada TciiiiHTaiiee Act, IH7S, 
 which, ill effect, wherever thinn^^liiiut the l)o 
 minion it in i)iit in force, uniformly prohiliitM 
 the Hale of intiixicatinj,' liiiuorH, except in wiioli^- 
 Hale (|Uiiiititicn, or for certain Hperilicd purposes, 
 regulates the tralfic in the excepted caHcs, ni.ikea 
 Kali'H of licpiors in vicdalion of the piohilutiouR 
 and rejjulationH coutaine<l in tht^ Act criminal 
 oUcnceH, punishable hy tine, and for the third or 
 Hul)He(|ucnt olleiutc hy imprisonment, in within 
 the li^islativi' competence of tlie Dominion Par- 
 liament. J!ii.i.i(ll V. Itiiiiiin, 7 App. Cas. 82!). 
 
 The objects and scope of the Act arc general, 
 viz ; to promote temperance liy means of a uni- 
 form law IJiroujjhout the Dominion. They re- 
 late to the pc-icf, order, and good government of 
 Canada, and not to the class of subjects, " jiro- 
 perty and civil rights." Provision for the special 
 a|>prieation of the Act to particidar places does 
 not alter its eiiaracter as general legislation. 
 
 .Sulijects which in one aspect and for one pur- 
 pose fall within section 92 of the liritish North 
 America Act, IS()7, may in another aspect and 
 for another jmrpose fall within section !)I. I!us- 
 sell r. The (,)uecn, 7 App. Cas. S'JO, explained 
 and a)i|)roved : — HcM, that the Li(|Uor License 
 Act, 1{. S O. (1877), e. 181 which in respect 
 of sections 4 and 5, makes regulations in the 
 nature of police or municipal regulations of a 
 merely local character for the good government 
 of taverns, etc., does not in rcs))ect of tho.se sec- 
 tions interfere with " the general regulation of 
 trade or eonnnerce," but comes witinn Nos. 8, 
 lo, and 10, of section !)'J of the Act of 18(17, and 
 is within the powers of the I'rovinciai [..egisliv- 
 tiire. JIuilijc V. Itujiiia, 9 App. C'us. 117. 
 
 Held further, that the local legislature had 
 jiower by the said Act of 18(i7, to entrust to a 
 Itoard of commissioners authority to enact regu- 
 lations of the above character, and thereby to 
 create otTcnces and annex penalties thereto. lb. 
 
 " Imprisonment" in No, 1,5 of section 9'-' of the 
 Act of 18(!7, means imprisonment with or with- 
 out hard labour. Ih. S. C. xiih num. ; lim'ina 
 V llodj/e, Ri'ijina v. Friiirliy, 7 A. R. 246; 
 (reversing .S". <'., 4(1 Q. \i. 141, 15.3) ; Itiyina v. 
 AUhruiht, 9 P. R. 25; Idyina v. Pipe, 1 0. 
 R. 43. 
 
 Held, per Ritchie, C.J. and Strong and Four- 
 nicr, JJ., that the provisions of the provincial 
 statute, 42 & 43 V'ict. o. 4 (Que.), ordering 
 houses in wdiich spirituous liquors, etc, are sold 
 to be closed on Sundays and every day between 
 eleven o'clock of the night and until live o'clock 
 in the morning, are police regulations within the 
 power of the legislature of Quebec. Poul'm v. 
 Corporation of Quebec, 9 S. C. R. 185. 
 
 The Quebec License Act, 41 Vict. c. 3, is intra 
 vires of the legislature of the Province of Quebec. 
 Hodge V. The Queen, 9 App. Ca- 117, followed. 
 Sitlle V. CUy of Three Rivem, 11 S. C. R. 25. 
 
 The inspector of licenses for the revenue dis- 
 trict of Montreal charged R., a drayman in the 
 employ of J. H. R. M. & Bros., duly licensed 
 brewers under the Dominion statutes 43 Vict. 
 
 I c. 10, before the court of special sessions of the 
 . |ieacu at Montreal, with having sold beer out- 
 sidu the business preinises of J. H. R. M. & 
 Itros., but within the said revenue district in 
 I contravention of the Quebec License Act, 1878 
 I and its amcnilments, luid asked a condemnation 
 of $95 and costs against R. for said offence. 
 Thureupon J. II. R. M. & Hros. and R., claim- 
 I ing inter alia that being licensed brewers undvr 
 \ llie Dominion statute, tliey had a right of selling 
 ; beer by and throiigii their employees and dray- 
 men without a |>rovincial license, and that 41 
 Vict. e. 3 (Quo.) and its ainendiiients were ultra 
 I vires, and if constitutional did not authorize his 
 I complaint against R. , caused a writ of prohibition 
 I to be issued out of the Superior Court enjoining 
 ' the court of special sessicms of the peace from 
 I further proceeding with the complaint against 
 ! H. :— Held, per Ritchie, C. J., and Strong, Four- 
 j nier and Henry, .(.)., that the Quebec License 
 Act and its nineiidments were intra vires, and 
 I that the court of special sessions of the peace 
 of Montreal having jurisdiction to try the alleged 
 ' ofTenee and being the proper tribunal to decide 
 the i|uestion of facts and of law involved, a writ 
 of prohiliitioii did not lie. Per Taschereau and 
 ( i Wynne, , J J., that the case was one which it 
 was proper for the Superior Court to deal with 
 by proceedings on prohibition. I'e • Owynne, J., 
 the Quebec License Act of 1878, imposes no 
 I (d)ligation upon brewers to take <nit a proviiieial 
 license to enable them to sell their beer, and 
 I therefore the court of special sessions of the 
 peace had no jurisdiction and pnihibition should 
 I issue absolutely. Molson v. Lambe, 15 8. C. R. 
 I 253. 
 
 I Held, that the Ontario Legislation, R. S. 0. 
 1 (1877) c. 181, ss. 92. 9.3, 105, 10(5 ; 41 Vict. c. 14, 
 ; ss. C, 8 ; 44 Vict. c. 27, ss. II, 12, 13, 14, 1(5 ; 47 
 j Vict. c. 34, s. .34 ; 50 Vict. c. .33, which repro- 
 I sent a body of legislation relating to municipali- 
 ties brought under the Canada Temperance Act, 
 j by which ways and means are provided for the 
 j enforcement of the Act by the application of 
 j local funds raised by local taxation or otherwise 
 I in the county, are not ultra vires the local 
 legislature ; and that the plaintiffs were ciititled 
 to recover from the defendants the expenses of 
 carrying out the provisions of the Temperance 
 Act in the license district of F. f ained out of a 
 part of the county of F. lAcenni Comniiisioneri 
 fur Frontenac v. Coiinly of FrouUnac, 14 O. R 
 '741,— Boyd. 
 
 The general law as to prohibition respecting 
 all Canada, which can only be enacted by the 
 Dominion, lieing localized by municipal sulfr.iges, 
 its enforcement becomes also a matter of local 
 importance in the province, within the meaning 
 of B. N. A. Act, section 92, item 10, and it may 
 bo enforced through the medium of provincial 
 officers, to be appointed and paid for according 
 to provincial legislation under B. N. A. Act, 92, 
 item 4. Ih. 
 
 The legislation in question might also fall 
 within the scope of B. N. A. Act, section 92, 
 item 8, as pertaining to municipal institutions in 
 the province. License Commissioners of Prince 
 Edward o. County of Prince Edward, 26 Chy. 
 452 ; License Commissioners of the North Riding 
 of the County of Norfolk r. Corporation of Nor- 
 folk, Armour, J,, Nov. Ist, 1887, (14 O. R. 749), 
 concurred in. 76. 
 
31S 
 
 OONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 8U 
 
 By the Now Brunswick Liquor Liccnso Act, 
 18H7, applications for licenses niiist bo euiorsod 
 by tiie certificate of nue-third of the ratepayers 
 of the (liHtrict for which the liceuHo itt a8ke<l. 
 Ho holder of a license can bo a nicnil>er of the 
 municipal council, a justice of the peace, or u 
 teacher in the public schools :— Held, that the 
 legislature could properly impose these oondi- 
 tionH to the obtaii.ing of a license, and the pro- 
 vision is not ultra vires the local legislature u» 
 being a prohibitory measure by renHon of the 
 ratepayers being able to prevent any licenses 
 lieing issued ; nor is it a measure in restraint of 
 trade by athxing a stigma to the business of sel- 
 ling liquor. Vanahe.r v. Peters ; O' Regan v. 
 PeUr», 17 S. C. R.44. 
 
 13. Jurors. 
 
 By the Dominion Act 32 & 33 Viot. c. 29, s. 
 44, the selection of jurors in criminal cases is 
 anthorisod to be in accordance with the provin- 
 cial laws, whether passed before or after the 
 coining into force of the H. N. A. Act, subject, 
 however, to any provision in any Act of the 
 Parliament of Canada, and in so fur as such laws 
 arc not inconsistent with any such Act. liy tho 
 provincial Acts 42 Vict. c. 14, and 44 Vict. c. 0, 
 the mode of selection of jurors in criminal cases, 
 as provided by C. 8, U. C. c. 31, as amended by 
 26 Vict. c. 44, was changed by excluding the 
 clerk of the peace as one of the selectors, and 
 requiring the selection to be made only from 
 those (lualified to serve as jurors whose surnames 
 began witli certain alphabetical letters, instead 
 of from the whole body of those competent to 
 serve as previously required. The jury in (pics- 
 tinn were selected under these Provincial Acts : — 
 Scmble, that the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 29 (Dom.), 
 was not ultia vires the Dominion Parliament as 
 being a delegation of their powers, and that tiie 
 selection niads in accordance with the Provincial 
 Acts, was valid, lietjiua v. U'Ruurke, 32 C. 1*. 
 388.-C. P. D. See .V. C, 1 O. U. 464. 
 
 Quiere, whether the selection and summoning 
 of jurors is a matter of procedure, or relates to 
 the constitution and organi/^tion of criminal 
 courts, lb. 
 
 14. Landn. 
 
 Kschcats. See Altoriiey-Oeneral of Ontario 
 v. Mercer, 8 App. C'as. 767 ; 5 S. O. K. 538, 
 mpra. 
 
 Right of Province of Ontario in Indian lands. 
 Sec liegina v. St. Catliarineii Milting and Lum- 
 ber Co., 10 O. K. 196 ; 13 A. R. 148 ; 13 S. C. 
 R. 577 ; 14 App. Cas. 46. 
 
 Semble, the Dominion Parliament has power 
 to enact that a license from the Crown shall not 
 be necessary to enable corporations to hold lands 
 within the Dominion ; and a Dominion Act en- 
 abling a Quebec corporation to hold lands in 
 Ontario would operate as a license. McDiarmid 
 V. Hxvjhes, IC O. R. 570.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, reveising S. C. in Supreme Court, which 
 kffirmcd the judgment of the Exchequer Court, 
 (14 S. C. K. 24,'>), that a conveyance by the pro- 
 vince of British Columbia to the Dominion of 
 "public lands" Iveing in substance an assignment 
 of its right to appropriate the territorial reve- 
 
 nues arising therefrom does not imply any trans- 
 fer of its interest in revenues arising from tho 
 prerogative rights of tho (Jrown. Tho precious 
 metals in, upon, and under such lands are not 
 incidents of the land but belong to tho Crown, 
 and, under section 109 of the British North 
 America Act of 1867, beneficially to the province, 
 anil an intention to transfer them must be ex- 
 prcKsed or necessarily implied. Atlortieij-(liii- 
 eral of liritinh Culumliid v. Attorney-General of 
 Canada, 14 App. Cas. 295. 
 
 Rights of railways to enter Crown lands. See 
 llooth V. Mc/ntyre, 31 C, P. 183. 
 
 See Foran v. Mclntyre, 45 t^. B. 288 ; Kegina 
 V. Jiohertnoti, G S. C. I!. 52, p. 308 ; Kennedy v. 
 City of Toronto, 12 0. R. 211. 
 
 15. Legal Procedure. 
 
 Qun're, can the Dominion Parliament give an 
 appeal in a case in which tiie legislature of a 
 province has expressly denied it. Danjon v. 
 Marquin, 3 S. C. H. 251. 
 
 Held, that the Act 31 Vict. c. 76 (Dom.), pro- 
 viding for the taking of evidence to be used ia 
 other countries is not ultra vires the Domininu 
 Parliament, for the taking of evidence in one of 
 the provinces for the use of foreign tribunals is 
 not a subject which is assigned to the exclusive 
 legislative authority oi the province, by section 
 92 of tho British North America Act, inasmuch 
 as such proceedings are of extra provincial perti- 
 nence, and do not relate to civil rights in the 
 province. He }yetherellaHdJom'n,AO. li.Tl'.i. — 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Qua're. Is section 51 of the Sujireme and Kx- 
 che<(uer Courts Act, which confers jiowcr on 
 judges of the Supreme Court to issue writs of 
 habeas corpus ultra vires. See In re Sproulf, 
 12 S. 0. K. 140. 
 
 See Doiile v. Bell, 11 A. R. 320, p. 307. 
 
 16. Licninpn. 
 
 The council of the city of Montreal is author- 
 ized by sub-sections 27 and 31 of section 123 of 
 37 Vict. c. 51 (Que.), to regulate and license 
 the sale in any private stall or shop in the city 
 outside of the public meat markets, of any meat, 
 fish, vegetables or provisions usually sold in 
 markets : — Held, affirming the judgments of the 
 courts below, that the sub-sections in ({uestiou 
 are intra vires the provincial legislature. Also 
 that a by-law passed by the city council under tho 
 authority of the above-named 8ul)-secti(ms fixing 
 the license to sell in a private stall at $200 ia 
 addition to the 7^ per cent, business tax, levied 
 upon all traders underunother by-law and which 
 th«; appellant had paid, is not invalid. Per 
 Strong, J. — That the words "other licenses" in 
 sub-section 9 of section 92 of the B. N. A. Act 
 include such a license as the provincial legisla- 
 ture have empowered the city of Montreal to 
 impose by the terms of the statute now under 
 consideration. Lamb v. Bank of Toronto, 12 
 App. Cas. 575 and Severn v. Begina, 12 S. C. R. 
 70, distinguished. Pigeon v. Itecwder's Court 
 and the City of Montreal, 17 S. C. R. 495. 
 
 I 
 
 
 it 
 
 i;r. 
 
315 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 816 
 
 Heo Ciliuw lim. Co. of' Caumln v. I'arxoiis, j 
 7 Ai.p. CaM. »« ; 4 S. C. H. 'Jl."), p. 310; /.'<;/i/-« 
 //„./[/(, 7 A. K. '24U i iii/rn. 
 
 See 8u»)hfa.l IV. Ii.», p. 310. 
 
 17. Minjintritten, 
 
 Hold, tlmt tli(! iippi)iiitiiiciit of police iiiagin- 
 triituH 18 not ultiii virion tlio LryiHlatiiro of 
 Oiitiiiio. Regiiiu r. numiott, I O. K. 445, fol- 
 lowcl. KiV'Mi V. L<-: ir.o. It. \m.-v,. I'. U 
 SiM! iiIho /f«(/i/t(i V. Hicltiifilson, 8 (). K. Cil. 
 
 'I'lio ( Vowii lia» tlu! prerogative ri«lit to appoint 
 justices of the peuee within the Doniinion of 
 C.iiia.la ami vnch of it« iirovincus, but it ilen)- 
 L-at.'il from that liulit l>V aHsenting to the 11. N. 
 A. Aft, uhiih conferreil upon either the Parlia- 
 iiient of Canaila or the legislatureN of the pro- 
 viriceH the power to pa.sH laWM jiroviding for 
 the api'ointnient of juxtieuH of tlie peace. .Such 
 lawM are in relation to tlie ailniiuiHtr.ition of 
 juMtice, ancl upon thi; proper eouHtruetion of 
 hcctionaitl antMI'iof the H. N. A. Act are ex- 
 eUiHively within the power of the jirovincial 
 l,'Hi»l,iture» umler Mection 1)-', panigraph 14. 
 A.lilitional weight iH given to the construction 
 placeil upon tliuae sections, hy the Parliament of 
 Canada having from time to time since the M. 
 S. A. Act passed laws recognizing the right as- 
 sumed by tiie provincial legislatures to pass 
 Much laws and the appointments inade under 
 thctn. An order nisi to tpiash a conviction made 
 by a police magistrate a|)pointed by the Lieu^ 
 tenant (Governor of Ontario under 4H Vict. c. 17 
 tt)nt.),on the grcnmd that such statute is ultra 
 vires, was, therefore, dischaigeil, with costs. 
 H, III mi v. liiish, 1.5 O. R. 3!)8.— y. II. I). Sec 
 also Jti,jiiiii v. Ikundt, I (). R. 44,'). 
 
 18. Miinicipnl. 
 
 Hyeliiuso 8 of the i»'2nd section of the H. N. A. 
 Act, exclusive power is given to the provincial 
 legislatures to make laws in relation to " nuini- 
 <Mpal institutions in the province," and clause 9 
 gives similar power in relation to " shop, saloon, 
 tiivern, auctioneer, ami other licenses in order 
 to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local, 
 or municipal purposes." Per .Spragge, (". J., 
 that clause !» is cumulative to clause S, an<l was 
 intended to authorize provincial legislation in 
 relation to licenses, for the purpose of raising a 
 n^veiuie as well as for the regulation of matters 
 of police. He'iina v. llnilijc ; linjina v. Fraw- 
 III, 7 A. R. 24G. 
 
 See lAceuHe, CommlMsioncrs for Frontennc v. 
 Coiinli/ of Friiiiiiiiac, I4(». R. 741 ; Cnitnil Vir- 
 tii'iid A', ir. Co. V. Tuwii <,/St. Juhiii, 14 S. C. R. 
 'JS8 ; 14 App. ("as. ."i!)0, p. .'IKi ; Lomjaiml yari- 
 tinliiin Co. v. City of Moiilnii/, 15 S. C. R. 50(i, 
 
 p. :!17. 
 
 19. Niii'ifiatile ird/cr.s. 
 
 llelil, following the case of The C'onunissioners 
 of tlie C'obourg 'I'own Trust, "J'J t'hy. .'177, that 
 tile commissioners of the Tonmto habour were 
 entitleil to ermpensation fur their seivices, and 
 tiiis, whether the harbour behuiged to the jjo- 
 miiiiuuor Provincial (Jovernnient, as in the event 
 of it being found to belong to the Dominion, it 
 
 mu8t be assumed tlmt the Dominion Ooverninent 
 intended tbu cotinnissioners to bu Hubjeet to the 
 law of the province in which the trust wm to !>« 
 administered. /Ir Toronto Harbour CommU- 
 niontri, '28 Cliy. 195. — JSpraggo. 
 
 (i. (defendant) was in possowion of a part of 
 the foreshore of the harbour of >Sumnier8ide, and 
 had erected thereon a wharf or block at which 
 vessels might unload. H. et. al. (the plaintifTs) 
 brought an action of ejuctment to recover poiwug- 
 sion of the miid foreshore. H. et ul. 'a title con- 
 sisted of letters patent under the great seal of 
 Prince Kdward Island, dated 3Uth August, 1H77, 
 by which the Crown in right of the island, and 
 assuming to act in exercise of authority conferreil 
 by a provincial statute, *2,'> Viet. c. 19, purfiort- 
 cd to grant to plaintilT in fee simple the land 
 8(night to be recovered in the action :— Held, 
 that under B. N. A. Act, 8, 108, the soil anil 
 bed of the foreshore in the harbour of .Summer- 
 side belonged to the Crown, as representing the 
 Dominion of Camidu, and therefore the grant 
 under the great seal of Prince Kdward Island tu 
 H. et al. was void and inoperative. Ilolmanv. 
 Grnn, S. ('. R. 707. 
 
 Professing to act under the puwers contained 
 in their Act of incorporation, 45 Vict. u. 100 N. 
 H., the (j. R. H. Co. erected booms and piers 
 in tlie Queddy river which impeded navigation— 
 the locus being in that part of the river which 
 is tidal ami navigable : — Hehl, attirniing the 
 judgment of the court below, that the Provin- 
 cial Legislature might incorporate a boom com- 
 pany, but could not give it power to obstruct a 
 tidal navigable river, and therefore the Act 45 
 Vict, c, 100 N. R., so far as it authorizes the 
 acts done by the company in erecting booms and 
 other works in the Queddy river obstructing its 
 navigation, was ultra vires the New Brunswick 
 Legislature. Qneddij Jliwr Drivimj Boom Co. 
 v. JJarldnoii, 10 S. C. R. 22*2. 
 
 An Act incorporating the town of St. JohnR, 
 Que., extended the limits of the town to the 
 middle of the Richelieu River, a navigable 
 river : — Held, intra vires the legislature of the 
 province of Quebec. Ctntriil VtriiwiU R. W. Co. 
 V. Town of St. Johns, 14 S. C. R. '288 ; 14 App. 
 Cas. 590. 
 
 By 39 Vict. c. .V2, s. I , sub-s. 3, (Que. ) the city of 
 Montreal is authorized to impose an animal tax 
 on "ferrymen or steamboat ferries ;" under the 
 authority of the said statute the cor])oratiun of 
 the city of Montreal passed a by-law im|>08iog 
 an annual tax of $200 on the proprietor or pro- 
 prietors of each and every steamboat ferry con- 
 veying to Montreal for hire travellers from any 
 place not more than nine miles distance from the 
 same, and obtained from the Recorder's court 
 for the city of Montreal a warrant of distress to 
 levy upon the appellant company the said tax 
 of jJ'JOO for each steamboat employed by them 
 during the year as ferry-boats between Loiig- 
 neuil and Montreal. In an action brought by 
 the aj)|)ellant company, claiming that the pn)- 
 vinciul statute wivs ultra vires the Provincial 
 Legislature and that the by-law was ultra vires 
 the coi'poiation, and asking for an injunction, 
 it was : — Held, ailirming the juilgment of the 
 court of Queen's Bench, Montreal, that the pro- 
 vincial legislation was intra vires. 2. Revers- 
 ing the judgineut of the court below, that the 
 
317 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 SU 
 
 hy-law was ultra virus, as tho wohIh used in tlie I 
 Ktatute only autlinrixv a 8iiiglu tax (ni tliu uwnur 
 of I'ach ferry, irrfspoctivu of tiio iiumbvr of 
 liiiutH or vuhhl'Ih hy iiiuatiH of wliiuli tliu ferry 
 kIkiiiIiI I)u worked. H. Atliriiiing tlie judginent 
 lit t!ie court below, that the jurittdictioii of tlie 
 |i,'irl>oiir uoiiiiiiitmioiierti of Montreal within cer- 
 t.iiii liiiiitit doi'H not exclinlethe right of the city 
 til tax and control ferricH within hiicIi liniitH. 
 J uiiiiiiiiiil iVdi'ilialiou Co, V. Cily a/ Montreal, 
 
 i.-.s. {;. H. r)(i(i. 
 
 See iiIho Water ami Watkk Coitkhkh. 
 
 20. QiU'cii'ii Coiitmel, 
 
 Appointment of QiK'cn'H Coiumel — Letters 
 iiattnt of precedence at the bar. See Lenoir v. 
 
 '..-. 1 • n is t' l> r.-r. 
 
 Jtiirhii; .S S. C. n. 57'>. 
 
 '22. Stututvx h'jort Conjfdernlion. 
 
 The powers conferred l)y tho Hritish North 
 America Act IS(i7, section 12!), upon the provin- 
 cial U'gitilaturea of Untario and (J>neliec, to repeal 
 and alter the statutes of the old Parliament of 
 Tiuiaila, are precisely coextenHive with tho 
 powers of direct legislation with which those 
 tiiiilius are invested by the other clauses of the 
 Act of 1807 :— Held, that 22 Vict. c. (iO, (of the 
 Parliament of Canada) w Inch created a corpora- 
 tion, having its corporate existence ami rights 
 in the provinces of Untario and (.Jueboc, (rould 
 not be repealed or modified by the legislature of 
 either province or by the conjoint operation of 
 both, but only by tho I'arlianient of the Do- 
 minion : — Held, further, that the Quebec Act, 
 ^{S Vict. c. (t4, which assumed to repeal and 
 amend the said 22 Vict. c. (Hi and (I) to destroy 
 u corporation created by the Canadian parlia- 
 ment and substitute a new one ; (2) to alter 
 m.'tterially the class of persiuis interested in the 
 ciM|Hirate funds, and not merely to impose con- 
 ditions upon the transaction of business by the 
 •coriKiration within the province, was invalid. 
 Citizens' Insurance Company of Canada c. I'ar- 
 s(iiis, 7 App. Cas. <Jt(, ap)iroved and distin- 
 ^tiiishcd. Z>oiie v. I'emporaltlies Board, 7 App. 
 <'na. 13(i. 
 
 V. Othru Statutes. 
 
 The Act 29 k 30 Vict. c. 16, being an Act 
 to provide for the sale of tho rectory lands of 
 this province, is intra, vires and valid, the Im- 
 perial Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 118, having removed 
 the restrictions upon legislation upon such sub- 
 ject matter formerly existing by force of 31 Geo. 
 III. c. 31, and Imp. Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 3.5. 
 Liimjlry v. Dunioidin, 7 O. R. 499.— Ferjiuson.— 
 Ciiy. I). *' 
 
 Held, that tho debentures in suit which had 
 bcfu issued under the authority of tlie Canadian 
 Act (1() Vict. c. 23.-)), by the trustees of the 
 Vueliec turnpike roads, aiipointed uniler Ordin- 
 ance, 4 \'ict. c. 17, and empowered thereby to 
 bonow moneys " on the credit and security of 
 the tolls thereby authorized to be imposed, and 
 of other moneys which might come into th^ 
 p(i.s,session and be at the disposal of the said 
 tnistoes, under and by virtue of the Ordinance, 
 and not to be paid out of or chargeable against 
 
 thu gunorul revenue of this province," did not 
 ureute a liability on the part of the proviuce, 
 in respect of either the princi|Htl or interest 
 thereof. Ite.i/iiia v. lidkau, 7 App. Cos. 473 ; 
 7.S. (!. K. 63. 
 
 Held, further, that the province of Canada 
 had not by its conduct and legislation recog- 
 nised its liability to nay tho same. The 7tli 
 section of the Act, 10 \ ict. , expressly took uwuy 
 the power which had been eonterred by the 27tli 
 section of the Urdinance to make advanceii out 
 of provincial funds for the payment of interest, 
 and by its proviso diistinguished these deben- 
 tures from those which had a provincial guaran- 
 tee. III. 
 
 Hold, that the Ontario Act 31) Vict. c. 24 i^i 
 not incimsisteiit with Dominion Act 38 Vict. u. 
 20, which requires all insurance conipanieH, 
 whether incorporated by foreign, dominion or 
 provincial authority, to obtain a license to Ih; 
 granted only upon compliance with the condi- 
 tions prescribed by tho Act. Citiznix' /ninirnnri- 
 ComjHiiiy of Ciinadii v. J'arnouh; (Jwe.n'H /iiAiir- 
 aiirr. Co. v. I'armitii, 7 App. Cas. Uti ; 4 8. C. K. 
 215. 
 
 Ilehl, that R. S. C. c. 101, s. 4, which enacts 
 that every one who being married iiiarries any 
 other person tlnring the life of the former hus- 
 band or wife whether the second marriage takes 
 place in Canada or elsewhere is guilty of felony, 
 provided that the person who contracts sueli 
 second marriage is a subject to Her Majesty, 
 resident in ('anada, and leaving tho same with 
 intent to commit the offence, is not ultra vires 
 the Dominion legislature either us being re- 
 pugnant to Imperial legislation or on any other 
 grounds. I'er Hoyd, C. — This statutory law m 
 nearly half a century old ; it ho:^ boon confirmed 
 by the court, past upon more than once by com- 
 petent colonial logiHlatnres and ratified by the 
 express sanction of the Imperial Parliament and 
 Her .Majesty in person, hcijina v. Jirierlty, 14 
 O. R. 52.'). 
 
 Hy section 1 1 of the Order in Council, admit- 
 ting the province of British Columbia into con- 
 federation, Kritisli Columbia agreed to convey 
 to the Dominion (iovernmont, in trust, to lie 
 appropriated in such manner as the Dominion 
 (jovornment, in trust, might deem advisable, in 
 furtherance of the construction of the Canadian 
 Pacific Railway, an extent of public lands along 
 the line of railway. After certain negotiationn 
 between the governments of Canada and British 
 Columbia, and in order to settle all disputes, an 
 agreement was entered into, and on the 19th De- 
 cember, 1SK3, the legislature of British Colum- 
 bia passed the statute 47 Vict. c. 14, by which 
 it was enacted inter alia as follows : — " From 
 and after the passing of this Act there shall be. 
 and there is hereby, granted to the Dominion 
 Government for the purpose of constructing and 
 to aiil in the construction of the portion of the 
 ] (/amidian Pacific Railway on the ni.iin land of 
 British Columbia, in trust, to be appropriated 
 as the Dominion Government may ileeia advis- 
 able, the public lands along tho line of railway 
 before mentioned, wherever it may be finally 
 located, to a width of twenty miles on each side 
 of said line, as provided in the Order in Council 
 section 11 admitting the province of British 
 Columbia into confederation." On tho 20tk 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 Si 
 
 * <4 
 
 1'% 
 

 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 O 
 
 
 t /^l^ 
 
 
 X 
 
 it 
 
 Sf(3 
 
 
 
 1.0 v^ ^ 
 
 =^^ 1^ 1^ 12.2 
 
 
 • 
 
 1.1 1."^!^ 
 = \)k 
 
 1.25 II 1.4 |,.6 
 
 t.11 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 w 
 
 m 
 
 /a 
 
 n 
 
 0/ 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WfBSTW.N.Y. 14580 
 
 (7!«) 872-4503 
 

 
 ■4? 
 
319 
 
 CONTEMPT OP COURT. 
 
 Sid 
 
 Noveni1)er, 1883, by public notice the Govern- 
 ment of British Columbia reserved a belt of 
 land of twenty miles in width along a line by 
 way of Bow Itiver Pass. In November, 1884, 
 the respondent in order to comply with the pro- 
 visions of the provincial statutes, filed a survey 
 of a certain parcel of land, situate within the 
 said belt of twenty miles, and the survey having 
 been finally accepted on 13th January, lSo5, 
 letters patent under the grei>t seal of the pro- 
 vince were issued to F. for tlie land in question. 
 The Attorney-General of Canada by information 
 of intrusion sought to recover possession of said 
 land, and the Excheiiuer Court having dismissed 
 the infoiination with costs, on appeal to the 
 Supreme Court cf Canada, it was :-Held, re- 
 versing the ],• ' ■i.:"-it of the Kxche<iuer Court, 
 Henry, J., d r^t.i.g, that at the date of the 
 grant the pro\iii<;e of Britisli Columbia had 
 ceased to liavc any interest in the land covered 
 by said grant anJ *1 i tiie title to the same was 
 in the Crown for t' nf and benefit of Canada. 
 Hiijina v. Forwi-il, o. K. 392. 
 
 VI. Is'oTicK TO A.tornevs-General. 
 
 The (piestions arising in this case as to the con- 
 ditions of a mutual tire insurance policy were :— 
 Held, not to bi- A sucli a constitutional character 
 as to re(iuire notice to the attorney -general of 
 the province, or the minister of justice of the 
 Dominion. See Goring v. London Mutual Fin- 
 Ina. Co., 11 0. R. 82. 
 
 See [lately v. Merchants' Dexputch, 2 O. R. 
 385. 
 
 CONTEMPT OF COURT. 
 
 I. Giving or Withholdi.no Kvidence— 
 See Evidence — Ex.\mination of 
 JuixiMENT Debtor. 
 II. Ok In.iunctiok— i'ec I.njcsction. 
 
 The sheriff of Oxford, in execuMng a writ of 
 replevin, was obstructed l)y the defendants, who 
 resc^ued the goods. On complaint of the sheriff's 
 officer, they were summarily tried before a police 
 magistrate, and fined, under 32-.S3 Viet. e. 32, 
 by which it is declared tliat any person dis- 
 cliarged or convicted in such a case shall l)e re- 
 leased fnun all furtlier or other criminal pro- 
 <%oding8 for the same cause. A motion after- 
 wards maile by the plaintiff to attach the same 
 parties for contempt was discharged, but with- 
 out costs. Haywood v. Hay, 46 Q. B. 562. — 
 Q. K. D. 
 
 Attachment against sheriff for disol>edience of 
 interpleader order. .See Maclean v. Anthony ; 
 dialer v. A nihoiiy, 6 O. R. 330. 
 
 A deputy sheriff was arrested under a writ of 
 attachment for default in obeying an order upon 
 his sheriff to deliver up to the claimant, who 
 bad succeeded on an interpleader issue, the 
 goods, etc., seized. Upon a motion by the 
 aepnty to be discharged from custody, it was 
 shewn that his noncompliance with the order 
 arose from a difficulty in which he found himself 
 by reason of the claim of another person wlio 
 ' had succeeded in an issue about the same goods. 
 
 and not from any deliberate intention to disre- 
 gard the order ; and his dbcharge was ordered 
 Semble, that tlie motion should have been for 
 leave to administer interrogatories to or for tlie 
 examination of the person committed, and foe a 
 habeas corpus. In re Mailland, <J wither \. Cookp 
 9 P. R. 400. -Osier. 
 
 On an application on behalf of the respondent 
 H. to an election petition, for an order nisi call- 
 ing on the defendant, ids opponent at the elec- 
 tion, to shew cause wliy lie should not be com- 
 mitted for contempt of court for publishim/ 
 articles in his newspaper, rcfiecting on and i)ie° 
 judging the conduct of the respondent and tlie 
 returning officer during the currency of an eluc- 
 tioii petition : — Held, on the materials iieforo the 
 court, a prima facie case of contempt was made 
 out; but as it appeared on the same materials 
 that the respondent had attended and spoken at 
 a meeting held for the purpose of approving uf 
 the conduct of the returning officer, and pre- 
 senting him with a gold watch as a mark of siioli 
 public approval, the applicant was also in fault 
 and the motion was refused. In re Botktctl'l 
 Election Cane, 4 0. U., 224.— C. P. D. 
 
 By an order of the county judge, upon the 
 application of the plaintiff, after hearing :.uin- 
 eious parties, including the defendants, a cer- 
 tain street on a registered plan was closed up. 
 Thereafter the <lcfeiidant municipality passed a 
 by-law declaring the street in question open. 
 On a motion to (juash the by-law — Held, that 
 the by-law should be quashed, as liavin» been 
 passed in (iisiegaid and contempt of the order : 
 — Held, also, that as the order shewed jurisdic- 
 tion on its face, the evidence upon which it had 
 been made should not be looked at on this ap- 
 plication. Waldie v. Burlington, 7 O. R. 192 — 
 itose ; 13 A. R. 104. 
 
 The plaintiffs' factum containing rctlectiong 
 on the judge in equity and the full court of New 
 Brunswick, was ordered to be taken off the files 
 of court as scandalous and impertinent. I'ec- 
 non\. Olicr, II S. C. R. 156. 
 
 The adjudication that the appellant, a solicitor 
 and officer of the court, and moved against in 
 that (juality, has been guilty of a contcmiit, ia 
 by itself an appealable judgment, although n(> 
 sentence for thi; contempt lias been pronounced 
 by the court, when the party in contempt lia.< 
 been ordered to jiay the costs of the aiiplicatioii 
 to commit the court in effect infficts a fine for 
 the contempt. In re Henry O'Jirieii ; Hei/wa 
 ex rel Felitz v. Homland, 16 S. C. R. 197. 
 
 The alleged contempt consisted in publishing 
 in a newspaper comments on a judgment ren- 
 dered by a master in chambers in a cause in 
 which the w riter was solicitor for the defendant. 
 'i'he motion to commit was made by the relator 
 in such cause. Notice of appeal from said judg- 
 ment had been given, but Inifore the motion wa* 
 made the notice was countermanded and the 
 appeal abandoned. Held, reversing the judgment 
 of Pioudfoot J., 11 (). R. 6;«, and the Court 
 of Appeal, 14 A. R. 184, that the proceedings. 
 in tlie cause before the master being at an end 
 the relator in the cause could not be prejudiced, 
 as a suitor, by the publication complained uf ; 
 and as such prejudice was the only ground on 
 which he could institute the prococdings forcon- 
 
 321 
 
 tempt he lia( 
 should not I 
 
 A rule ni 
 Brunswick i 
 an attachnie 
 contempt ii 
 newspaper v 
 tachment wi 
 cases in the 
 tachment w, 
 the party in 
 to answer in 
 he could, pu 
 so the court 
 pealed from 
 lute :— Held, 
 was not a fii 
 would lie u 
 Courts Act, 
 Baird, 16 S. 
 
 Attachmer 
 pany fordiso 
 refused becai 
 by himself ai 
 of directors, 
 writ and the ( 
 Dnnitri'st v. 
 Wilson. 
 
 Attachmen 
 remedy for d 
 
 A judge of 
 authority of • 
 an assignee ff 
 assignee. Tl 
 to deliver ovi 
 of the insolvt 
 judge made a 
 attachment r 
 tempt : — Hel 
 the statute, m 
 County Cour 
 jurisdiction a 
 fore no powe 
 attachment ; 
 Pacqueltc, 11 
 
 An inferior 
 unless by cx] 
 for any cont( 
 mittcd in the 
 
 Where a pt 
 has apologi/.ei 
 committal, et 
 a motion for h 
 in prison for 
 unless the cos 
 arc sooner pa 
 609.— Fergusi 
 
 Upon the t 
 Controverted 
 was exaininei 
 produce the oi 
 to have been 
 voters the da 
 stated that hi. 
 tion with otl 
 while the trii 
 structions rec 
 eral manager 
 service he \ 
 others, sliouh 
 
 21 
 
 w 
 
321 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 322 
 
 tempt he had no locus standi and his application ] accordance with a standing I'nlu of the company, 
 should not have been entertained. lit. ; but that he had uegkctcd to do so at the pi'opur 
 
 [ time. Upon the rotuni of an order nisi to eoni- 
 
 , nut the general manager aii<l the operator for 
 
 it was olijected that no origi- 
 
 i nal subpcL'na had been exiiiljitcd to the oiHTator 
 
 A rule nisi of the Supreme Court of New 
 Rruiiswiuk callintf upon 1']. to shew cause why I j. ^ r 
 an attachment shtuld not issue against hin. for I ^""t'^'l'Pt "f >^oart, 
 
 contempt in publishing certain^ '^.''t H t' of'U"^ i «'"^" »>"" ^^'«^«'='-vod with what purport.d to be 
 
 newspaper was made absolute and 
 tachment was issued. By the practice in such 
 cases in the said court it appeared that the at- 
 tachment was issued merely in order to bring 
 the partj' into court where lie might be ordered 
 to answer interrogations, and by hia answers, if 
 he could, purge his contempt. If unable to do 
 80 the court would pronounce sentence. E. ap- 
 pealed from the judgment making the rule abso 
 lute:— Held, that the judgment appealed from 
 was not a final judgment from which an appeal 
 would lie under the Supreme and Excheiiner 
 Courts Act, R. S. C. c. 135, s. 24 (a). Ellis v. 
 Bainl, 16 S. C. R. 147. 
 
 Attachment against the president of a com- 
 pany for disobedience of a writ of mandamus was 
 refused because it appeared that he could not, 
 by himself and without a majority of tiie board 
 of directors, perform the act required by the 
 writ and the other <lirectors had not been served. 
 DfMoi-M V. Midland B. W. Co., 10 P. U. 82.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Attachment not sequestration is the proper 
 remedy for disobeying a mandamus. Ih. 
 
 A judge of a County Court, acting under the 
 authority of 48 Vict. c. 20, s. 6 (Out.), removed ' 
 an assignee for creditors and sulistituted another ' 
 assignee. The first assignee, as alleged, refused : 
 to deliver over the keys of the place of business 
 of the insolvent to the second assignee, and the 
 judge made an order for the issue of a writ of 
 attachment against the first assignee for con- 
 tempt : — Held, that the judge, in acting under 
 the statute, was not exercising the powers of the 
 County Court, but an independent statutory 
 jurisdiction as persona designata, and had tliere- 
 fore no power to direct the issue of a writ of 
 attachment; and prohibit' m was ordered, ^e 
 Pacquelk, 11 P. R. 4«3.— Wilson. 
 
 An inferior court cannot at common law, nor 
 unless by express legislative enactment, commit 
 for any contempt except for a contempt com- 
 mitted in the face of the court. Ih. 
 
 Where a party is in prison fot con,em])t, and 
 has apologized, but has not pai<l the costs of his 
 committal, etc., the jjroper order to make upon 
 amotion for his discharge is, tiiat he be continued 
 in prison for his contempt for a time certain, 
 unless the costs of the proceedings against him 
 are sooner paid. Camphillv. Martin, 11 P. R. 
 609.— Ferguson. 
 
 Upon the trial of a petition under the Ontario 
 Controverted Klections Act, a telegraph operator 
 was examined as a witness, and was asked to 
 produce the originals of certain tehgrams alleged 
 to have been sent by the respondent to certain 
 voters the day before the election. The witness 
 stated that he had burnt the telegrams in ques- 
 tion with others after being 8ubp(enae<l, and 
 while the trial was actually going on, upon in- 
 structions received by telegraph from the gen- 
 eral manager of the telegraph company in whose 
 service he was ; that these telegrams, with 
 others, gliould have been destroyed before, in 
 21 
 
 a copy, and that none was jiroduceil in court ; 
 anil it was cont'.'udcd that the making away 
 with the messages was not ii contempt unless 
 the witness was duly subpcenaed to produce 
 them : — Held, that the question was not whether 
 there had been a proper service of a subpiena, 
 but whether there had been an interference with 
 evidence, which but for such interference would 
 have been before the court. The documents 
 were in existence at tlie beginning of the court; 
 during the trial they were destroyed by the de- 
 liberate action of the general manager, whereby 
 the court was hindered in the prosecution of an 
 investigation of a public nature ; and the man- 
 ager and operator were guilty of a cimtempt of 
 court. lie Dwiijht and Macklam, 15 O. R. 148. — 
 Boyd. —Osier. 
 
 A solicitor in an action had obtained an order 
 for the payment out to him of certain nu)neys 
 in court, and ujion such order obtained the 
 moneys. Subse<|uently an order was obtained 
 rescinding the above order and directing the 
 solicitor to forthwith repay the said moneys into 
 court, and to pay the costs of the application. 
 On his non-compliance therewith a motion was 
 ma<le for his comndttal:~lleld, that the order 
 for committal should go, for what was sought 
 by the motion was tlie punishment of the solici- 
 tor for his contempt in disobeying the order of 
 the court ; and that Con. Rule 867 had no ap- 
 plication. PrilchanI v. PrUchnrd, 18 O. R. 
 l"3.-McMahon. lb., 178. -C. P. D. 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 Making the CoNTRAcr. 
 
 1. Partiea, 323. 
 
 2. By Lettern or Telajrams 
 
 3. Parol Contracts, 32(5. 
 
 324. 
 
 4. Tenders, i'l^. 
 
 5. Completed Contract, 327. 
 
 6. Ratijication by Silence, 327. 
 
 7. Extrinsic Evidence — See F.vidence. 
 
 8. Necessity for Seal— SeeCoMPANY. 
 
 II. CONSIDERATIO.V, 327. 
 
 III. Operation of the Statute of Frauds. 
 
 1. Atjreemeiits i(. be Performed within a 
 
 Year, 32' 
 
 2. Part Perj jrmance, 
 
 (a) Generally, 330. 
 
 (b) Sale of Land — See Sale of Land. 
 
 — Si'EoiFio Performance. 
 
 3. Guarantee— See Guarantee and In- 
 
 demnity. 
 
 4. Sale of Goods— See Sale of Goods. 
 
 5. Sale of Land— See Sale of Land. 
 
 6. Leases — See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 
323 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 324 
 
 IV. Validity as Regards 1'lhuc Policy. 
 
 1. Restraint of Trade, 330. 
 
 2. OtliLr Cate^i, 330. 
 
 3. Champn-ty—Si-e Champkrty. 
 
 4. CompromUimj Criminal Offencex — See 
 
 CoMl'HOMI.SrNO. 
 
 6. Frawl ai'd Miireprenentaiion — See 
 
 FRAnO AND MlSKKI'RESENTATIO.V — 
 
 Fraudulent Conveyances. 
 V. Validity as Regards Statutes. 
 
 1. GamiiKj—See GAuma. 
 
 2. Sunday— See Sunday. 
 
 VI. Construction of Contracts. 
 
 1. Conditions Precedent, 331. 
 
 2. Implied Conditions, 332. 
 
 3. Other Casei, 333. 
 
 4. Extrinsic Evidence— See Evi-";:')E. 
 
 .'). Foreign Contracts -See FoREi i>' Law. 
 VII. Performance. 
 
 1. Excuse for Non-perjormance, 336. 
 
 2. When Time the Essence o/tlie CotUract. 
 
 (a) Oeneralhi, 337. 
 
 (b) Sak of Land— See Sale of Land. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 337. 
 
 4. Enforcinf/. 
 
 (a) Bj/ Whom, 340. 
 
 (b) Specific Performance — See Speci- 
 
 fic Performance. 
 
 VIII. Penalty for Breach of Contract— S'fe 
 Penalty by Contract. 
 
 IX. Damages for Breach of Contract— /See 
 Damages. 
 
 X. Assignment of Contracts, 340. 
 
 XI. Rescinding Contracts. 
 
 1. Generally, 341. 
 
 2. On Ground of Fraud — See Fraud 
 
 and Misrepresentation — Sale of 
 Goods — Sale of Land. 
 
 XII. Restraining Breaches of Contract — 
 See Injunction. 
 
 XIII. Particular Contracts and Contracts 
 
 BY AND WITH PARTICULAR PERSONS — 
 
 See The Several Titles. 
 
 I. Making the Contract. 
 
 1. Parlies. 
 
 The defendant D. after some correspondence 
 with plaintifFi as tu an advertising contract for 
 the LIniou Madicine Co. , had an interview with 
 plaintiffs as to entering into the same. A contract 
 had been drawn up by plaintiffs in expectation 
 that it would be made by the company, but on 
 ascertaining that the company was not incorpo- 
 rated it was at plaintiffs' request signed by D. , 
 and the entry in plaintiffi' books was "Gr. A. 
 Devlin, Toronto, Union Medicine Advertising 
 Contract." The firat and second payments were 
 made by D., but on the third payment coming 
 due, he stated his desire not to make it as it 
 might prejudice a claim he had against G., his 
 
 pai'tner, with whom ho iiad a dispute about the 
 piitiiersliip atr.iirs, whereupon plaintiffs 8aw(!., 
 and on his stating that it was D.'s business to 
 pay this account, the plaintiffs sued D., and 
 moved for judgment under Rule 80, (Con. Rule 
 739) stating in their affidavit, in support of the 
 motion that "tlie claim w."s under an agreement 
 made between tlie parties," etc., and that " the 
 defendant" 1). "was and still is, justly and truly 
 indebted to the plaintiffs in respect of tlie mat- 
 ters above s)t forth." D. put in an affidavit in 
 answer, in conseijuenco of wliich (-. was made 
 a party defendant, and the case proceeded to 
 trial:— Held tliat, on the evidence, the credit 
 under the contract was given to 1). ahuie ; but, 
 even treating 1). as an agent for an undisclosed 
 principal, namely for G. as one of the tinn, and 
 therefore that G. might ))e jointly liable with D., 
 the plaintiffs were bound to elect whether they 
 looked to D. or the firm, and that there was a 
 binding election not to treat the firm as liable, 
 but to rely on the individual liability of D. Mail 
 Prinliwi Co. v. Devlin, 17 0. R. 15.— C. P. D. 
 
 T., being in Newfoundland, discovered a mine 
 of pyrites, and on returning to Nova Scotia he 
 proposed to A. tliat they should buy it on specu- 
 lation. A. agreed, and advanced money towards 
 paying T. 'a expenses in going to Newfoundland 
 to secure the title. T. made the second journey 
 and obtained an agreement of purchase from the 
 owner of the mine for a limited time, but failing 
 to effect a sale within tliat time the agreement 
 lapsed. It was renewed, however, some two or 
 three times, A. continuing to advance money 
 for expenses. Finally, T. effected a sale of the 
 mine at a profit and had the necessary transfers 
 made for the purpose, keeping the matter of the 
 sale secret from A. On an action l)y A. for his 
 share of the profit under the original agree- 
 ment : — Held, affirming the judcment of the 
 court below, that the sale related back, as be- 
 tween T. and A., to the date of the first agree- 
 ment, and A. could recover. Tupper v. ^m- 
 nand, 16 S. C. R. 718. 
 
 See Canada Central R. W. Co. v. Murray, 8 
 S. C. R. 313, p. 277 ; Bank of Montreal v. Thomw, 
 16 O. R. 503, p. 326 ; Re McMUlan, 17 0. R. 344, 
 p. 340. 
 
 2. By Letters or Telegrami, 
 
 In order to convert a proposal into a promise, 
 the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, 
 and should be prompt and immediately given. 
 Fulton Bros. v. Upper Canada Furniture Co., 9 
 A. R. 211. 
 
 The plaintiffs having agreed to supply the de- 
 fendants with 100,000 feet of lumber subject to 
 inspection, the defendants in a subse(iu6nt letter 
 assumed that this was to be ' ' American inspec- 
 tion," and the plaintiffs answered "we do not 
 know anything about American inspection, but 
 will submit to any reasonable inspection. " No 
 formal waiver of the inspection claimed by the 
 defendants was mule by tliem, neither was there 
 any agreement by the plaintiffs to submit to such 
 inspection :— Hell (reversing the judgment of 
 the court below, 32 C. P. 422), that there had 
 not been shown " a clear accession on both sides 
 to one and the sa.ne set of terms," and that a 
 I concluded agreement had not been made out be- 
 tween the parties. lb. 
 
 ii| 
 
OONTRAOT. 
 
 326 
 
 M. oflFered to give J. |1,500 for a certain lot of 
 land containing a fifty feet frontage. J. replied 
 that he would take $1,750 for the fifty feet, or 
 fl,500 for thirty-five feet of the fifty feet. Be- 
 fore receiving any answer, J. telegraphed to M. : 
 "Coming Au)nday to accept $1,500. Waiting 
 immediate reply. " M. telegraphed back : ' ' Come 
 at once." M. now alleged that these telegrams 
 constituted a contract for the sale of the fifty 
 feet to him for $1,500, and claimed specific per- 
 formance : — Held, that the telegrams did not 
 constitute any such contract, for it was ambigu- 
 ous to which proposal of $1,500 J.'s telegram 
 referred, and moreover the words "coming to 
 accept" did not shew an actual acceptance, but 
 were merely an expression of intention to do 
 something in the future. McFarreu v. John- 
 «ton,^0. R. 161.— Proudfoot. 
 
 R. wrote to O. "I have considered the matter 
 of our conversation, and offer you $800 for tiio 
 property." 0. replied: "I have your favour 
 oflfering $800 for the proparty (describing it). I 
 liave concluded to accept your offer." The evi- 
 dence showed that at the prior conversation re- 
 ferred to in R. 'a letter, R. was seeking to buy 
 the property in question on terms of five or seven 
 jears' credit ; — Held, that as the acceptance by 
 0. was as of a cash offer, while R. did not intend 
 to mike any such offer, the contract could not 
 be specifically enforced, the parties differing in 
 their understanding of it. 0<iiiuum Seciirilien 
 Co. V. Richardion, 7 0. R. 182. —Boyd, ilfirmed 
 by Court of Appeal. Ih. 183. 
 
 A letter containing an offer written " without 
 prejudice" means " I make you an offer ; if you 
 do not accept it this letter is not to be used 
 against ms," but when the offer is accepted the 
 privilege is removed. S. C.,7 O. R. 182. — Boyd. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A., when a proposal is made in 
 writing by one party and accepted ad idem by 
 the other, either verbally or by acting upon it, 
 the contract is a written one. EUis v. Abelt, 10 
 A. R. 226. 
 
 On the 26th January, 1882, McI. wrote to H. 
 48 follows; "A. McI. agrees to take $.S5,000 
 for property known as McM. block. Terms — 
 one-third cash, balance in one year at eight per 
 cent, per annum. Open until Saturday 28th, 
 noon." On the same day H. accepted this offer 
 in the following terms : " I beg to accept your 
 -offer made this morning. I will accept the pro- 
 perty known as McM. block, being the property 
 on M. street, for $.35,000, payable one-third cash 
 •on completion of title, and balance in one year 
 at eight per cent. You will please have papers 
 and abstract submitted by your solicitor to N. 
 F. II., Esq., 22, D. block, as soon as possible, 
 that I may get conveyance and give mortgage."' 
 On a bill for specific performance, the Court of 
 Queen's Bench (Man. ) decreed that H. was en- 
 titled to have the agreement specifically per- 
 formed :-— Held, (Ritcnie, C. J., and Fournier, 
 J.,dbsenting) that there was no binding, uncon- 
 ditional acceptance of the offer of sale, and there- 
 fore no completed contract of sale between the 
 parties. Mclntyve v. Hof^d, 9 S. C. R. 556. 
 
 Where property was sold by auction, the 
 farticalars and conditions of sale not disclosing 
 the vendor's name, and the contract was duly 
 «gned by the purchaser, but was not by the 
 vendor or the auctioneer acting in the matter of 
 
 sale, and subsequently, in consequence of delays 
 on the part of the purchaser, the attorneys for 
 the vendor (one of whom was the vendor him- 
 self) wrote in the course of a correspondence 
 which ensued: "Re S.'s purchase, we would 
 like to close this." And referring to certain re- 
 presentations made in the advertisements of the 
 sale : '• They were not made part of the contract 
 of sale. * * Have the goodness to let us 
 know whether the vendee will pay cash or give 
 mortgage. If the latter we will prepare it at 
 once and send you draft for approval ;" and on 
 a subsequent occasion : " Re S. 's purchase. 
 Herewith please receive deed for approval," and 
 on another occasion the vendor himself wrote 
 "I shall take immediate steps to enforce the 
 contract :"— Held, affirming 8 A. R. 161, that 
 the conditions of sale together with the corres- 
 pondence were sufficient to constitute a com- 
 plete and perfect contract between the vendor 
 and purchaser within the Statute of Frauds. 
 O'Donohoe v. Stammers, 11 S. 0. R. 358. 
 
 On the maturity of a bill of exchange the 
 drawers thereof, thinking the acceptor would be 
 unable to meet it telegraphed him if unable to 
 pay it to draw on them for the amount. The 
 acceptor took the telegram to the manager of 
 the plaintiff's b:vnk, who on the faith of it dis- 
 counted a sight bill drawn by the acceptor on 
 the drawers with the proceeds of which he re- 
 tired his acceptance which was held by another 
 bank. The drawers refused to accept the bill so 
 redrawn : — Held, that the telegram having 
 been sent for the purpose of inducing; rsons to 
 advance money on it, and to take bill so 
 
 drawn in pursuance of it, a privity was, created 
 between the plaintiffs and the defendants, senders 
 of the telegram, entitling the former to maintain 
 an action against the latter for the money so 
 advanced : — Held, also, that no time being men- 
 tioned in the telegram an authority to draw at 
 sight would be implied. Bank of Montreal v. 
 Tlioma^ 16 0. R. 503.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Ockhii v. Masson, 6 A. R. 108 ; Ryati v. 
 Simj, 7 O. R. 266 ; Ghriatie v. Burnett, 10 0. R. 
 609 ; Nevitt v. McMurraij, 14 A. R. 126. 
 
 3. Parol Contracts. 
 
 An agreement to insure may be made by paroL 
 WrUffU v. Sun Mutual Life Imurance Co. , 5 A. 
 R. 218. 
 
 See Halleran v. Moon, 28 Chy. 319, p. 330 ; 
 Ellis V. Midland R. W. Co., 7 A. R. 464, p. 275 ; 
 Thompson v. MoUon'a Bank, 16 S.C.R.664, p. 145. 
 
 4. Tender.^. 
 
 The defendants acting as a committee to 
 superintend the reception of a large number of 
 persons, and being desirous, in addition to pro- 
 viding accommodation for them, to make a pro- 
 fit for themselves, advertised for tenders in a 
 newspaper, in which it was stated that there 
 would be a large number of persons present at 
 the proposed assemblage for whom meals wduld 
 be required, and tenderers were invited to sub- 
 mit a bill of fare which they would guarantee to 
 furnish for $1 a day, and the tenders were to 
 state what amount would be paid for such privi- 
 lege. The plaintiff was applied to personally 
 
 ^<9 
 
 
 i '■ 
 
OONTRAOT. 
 
 r-nsi 
 
 by M., one of the committee, to know whether 
 he would tender, and certain statements as to 
 the number of persons to be present, were then 
 made to him, and other particulars of defen- 
 dants' requirements were given to him, his at- 
 tention being called to the above advertisement, 
 which, however, he did not see. He Bubse- 
 quently saw one B. by whom the tenders were 
 to be received, who had been sent to him by M., 
 and who, in addition to the particulars already 
 mentioned, stated that they would guarantee 
 1,500 persons a day, but would require the plain- 
 tiff to provide for 2,000. The plaintiff then 
 wrote his tender by which he was to get seventy- 
 five cents a day for every three meal tickets, and 
 the committee were to charge one dollar, which 
 tender was accepted in writing. Veiy few per- 
 sons took their meals from the plaintiff, who, in 
 consequence, lost a large amount by the contract. 
 At the trial, the advertisement and requirements 
 were put in as evidence for the plaintiff, subject 
 to objection. In an action to recover the amount 
 of the plaintiff's loss from the defendants : — 
 Held, (MacMahon, J., disstntiiig) that the ten- 
 der and acceptance constituted the whole con- 
 tract ; and there was nothing in them to render 
 defendants liable. Per MacMahon, J. — 1 he ad- 
 vertisement and requirements must, under the 
 circumstances, be incorporated into the tender 
 and acceptance, and so foini part thereof so as 
 to render the defendants liable. McXecly i\ 
 McWilliams, 13 A. R. 324, and Lindley v. Lacey, 
 17 C. B. N. S. 578, commented on. Belts v. 
 Smit/i, 15 O. R. 413.— C. P. D. Reversed, 16 
 A. R. 421. 
 
 See JRegina v. Maclean, 8 S, C. B. 210, p. 334. 
 
 5, Completed Contract. 
 
 See Stephenson v. Bain, 8 P. R. 258 ; Srin Life 
 Assurance Co. v. Po-je, 15 A. R. 704. 
 
 6. Ratif cation by Silence. 
 
 See Be Monteith — Merchants' Bank v. Mon- 
 leiih, 12 P. R. 288. 
 
 II. CONSIDEKATION. 
 
 E., carrying on the trade or calling of a dealer 
 in pictures and photographic business, sold out 
 such business to W. , and by the agreement cov- 
 enanted "not to open or start a retail and pho- 
 tographic business of a similar character" in the 
 city of Toronto for five years. By a subsequent 
 • 'reement the first was modified, so as to allow 
 jL. to sell in any manner to persons residing out 
 of Toronto, and to sell retail in Toronto, on 
 allowing VV. a percentage on the prices realized. 
 W. filed a bill alleging that E. had, prior to such 
 second agreement, sold goods in contravention of 
 the first agreement, ana had subsequently sold 
 to a large amount, and prayed an account and 
 payment of his percentage. The court (Spragge, 
 C.) being of opinion that such second agietment 
 had been executed for a valuable consideration, 
 granted the decree as asked, and directed the 
 account to be taken by the master, although the 
 answer profesFed to state the actual amount of 
 sales, and on the motion for decree the ans\^ er 
 had been read as evidence by the plaintiff. 
 Williatnton v. Ewivg, 27 Chy. 696. 
 
 On 27th May, 1885, certain individuals form- 
 ing a cigar manufacturers association, amongst 
 whom was the defendant, considering tlienitelveg 
 aggrieved by the members of the cigar makers' 
 union, who refused to lower the price of making 
 a particular kind of cigar, entered into an ngree- 
 ment in writing between themselves of the first 
 part and S. of the second part, as follows: 
 " Whereas, for the mutual advantage and pro- 
 tection of the parties hereto * * it hab been 
 agreeJ that the parties of the first jart shall 
 become severally bound to S. in the sum of 
 ?£00 liquidated damages in case any of them 
 shall at any time during the continunnce of this 
 agreement, either directly or indirectly, Luy or 
 sell any cigars marked * * with the labels of 
 the cigar makers' union, or shall use ** * in 
 connection with the manufacture of cigars by 
 him any cigar-makers' union label, * * or 
 shall pel mit * * any cigar-makers' union, or 
 any union or set of men to compel him to hire or 
 employ union men only, or to dismiss any em- 
 ployee. Kow, therefore, * * the parties 
 hereto of the firs' art severally covenant with S. 
 each for himse' -lat he will, in cose ht .shall at 
 any time hereafter violate any of the foregoing 
 stipulations (setting them out) inimediattly pay 
 to S. the sum of $£00 : the intention being that 
 in case of a violation of all or any of the stipula- 
 tions * * aforesaid by any of the jurties 
 hereto of the first part, he, the said party so 
 oflencling, shall immediately forfeit and pay to 
 S. the full sum of §500, * * because of his 
 so offending, as liquidatf d and ascertained dam- 
 ages (and not as a penalty), to be by S. ajiplied, 
 etc. * * The intention, also, being that the 
 entire sum of §500 shall be the aniount of th« 
 ascertained and liquidated damages of any viola- 
 tion or breach whatever, of any of tlie stipula- 
 tions * * aforesaid on the part of any one 
 of the parties of the first part." Tlie defendant 
 having broken the above agreement in all re- 
 spects, S. brought this action ajjainst liim to 
 recover $500 as liquidated damages :— Held, that 
 the mutual obligations imposed by the eontract 
 constituted a sufiicient consideration for it ;— 
 Held, also, that the agreemeirt was n(,t invalid, 
 on grounds of public policy, and as in undue 
 restraint of trade. Collins v. Locke, A] p. Cas. 
 674 ; and Hornby r. Close, L. R. 2 Q. B 153, 
 distinguished. Schroder v. Lillis, 10 0. li. 358.— 
 Proudtoot. 
 
 The defendant, having delivered ties to a raib 
 vay company in excess of his contract, as he 
 alleged, arranged that such ties should bo re- 
 turnsd as reotived by the company on a eoiitraet 
 with the jilaintiff. In anticipation of .'■ncli re- 
 turns, and of jayment therefor, the jlaintifl paid 
 the defendant $1,COO, and brought this netion to 
 rtcoverthe some, alleging that he nevirwrsable 
 to procure returns or payment from the railway 
 ermpany, and that the considerati( n f( r the 
 §1,(00 had therefore failed. It was shewn in 
 evidence that the plaintiff had, in a ehiini against 
 the railway company for 19,883 ties, included 
 3,»C0 delivered by tiie defendant, and that, the 
 railway company disputed such claim, a settle- 
 ment had 1 een effected, the plaintill aiciijting 
 $1,CC0 in full of his claim, and giving tlie eom- 
 pany a foimal release of all d€mai:ds ;- Held, 
 that, to the extent to which the ties wire deli- 
 vered by the defendant on plaintifl's aecoimt, 
 the latter could not, in view of the cii cunistawes. 
 
 See Wicker v. D 
 
 III. Operation c 
 1. A(jreements to h 
 
CONTRACT. 
 
 «0 
 
 allege failure of consideration ; l)iit that ho was 
 notl)ouiiil hy the .settlement to pay for tie.s that 
 were not ilelivered, and therefore that the deter- 
 miiiivtion of the action deijundcd upon the result 
 of the enijiiiry directed aa to the nuniher of ties 
 delivered hy ilefcndant ; and an appeal from the 
 juilgineutdireutiuK such iucjiiiry was accordingly 
 dismissed. The olijuotion, tliat tiie judge at the 
 trial should have himself decided the istiue as to 
 failure of consideration, instead of directing an 
 inquiry hefore the master, is not one that the 
 court w'll entertain. Feathemtone v. VaiiAlleii, 
 12 A. .. 133. 
 
 The defendants, who had had a contract with 
 the Government of British Colnmhiafor the per- 
 formance of a puhlic work, hut had forfeited it, 
 after a part of the work had been done, agreed 
 with the plaintids that the latter should do the 
 remainder of tiie work under the contract, and 
 shoulil receive ninety ))cr cent, of the amount of 
 every estimate issued till tli<^ completion of the 
 work. Tlie written instrument embodying the 
 agreement referred to the contract as an exist- 
 ing one, l)ut the fact was, as was fully known by 
 all the parties, that at the time of making the 
 agreement the contract luul been forfeited, and 
 the tiovernment had taken possession of the 
 works. JS'o advant.ige was taken by the defen- 
 dants ; the plaintill's had examined the contract 
 with tile (Jovernment, and understooil as well as 
 the defcn(hints the exact position of a(L.,r3 ; but 
 all trusted to the possession of certain influence 
 hy which they hoped to get back the covitract, 
 and resume work upon it ; — Held, affirming the 
 julginent of the Q. 15. I)., that the failure to 
 obtain a restoration of the contract destroyed 
 the whole consideration for each party's agree- 
 ment or undertaking. Cunningham v. Dunn, 8 
 C. P. D. 443, applied, and followed. McKenna 
 v.McVamee, 14 A. R. 339. 
 
 See Wicher v. Darliinj, 9 0. R. 311, p. 330, 
 
 III. Operation of the Statute of Frauds. 
 
 1. Agreements to he Performed within a Year. 
 
 In an action on a verbal .agreement made in 
 November, foi' the hiringof plaintiff by defendant 
 for a year from the 1st of December then r.oxt : — 
 Held, that there couM be no recovery for wrong- 
 ful dismissal, the agreement being one not to be 
 performed within a year ; and that there being 
 an express agreement in fact, no other agreement 
 for a monthly hiring could be implied. Harper 
 V, Danes, 45 Q. K. 442.— Q. B. U. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the County 
 Court of York, that a contract for hiring for a 
 year or more, defeasible within the year, is with- 
 in the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds. 
 The agreement, as alleged by the plaintiff, was 
 made in February, 1880, whereby the defendant 
 was to p ly him for his services while he should 
 remain in defendant's employment, at the rate of 
 $500 a year, 'or one year, and thereafter at such 
 salary as might be agreed upon ; the plaintiff to 
 enter upon his duties, and his salary to commence 
 on the 3rd of March, then next, and defendant 
 was to be at liberty to determine the employment 
 at the expiration of a month named, otherwise 
 the agreement to remain in full force for a year, 
 «nd for such longer period as might be agreed 
 
 upon : — Held, clearly within the statute. Booth 
 V. I'rittie, e A. R. 080. 
 
 The court will enforce a verbal agreement, 
 altliough it is to do an act which is not to be per- 
 formed within a year from the time of making 
 the agreement, where tht considerfition therefor 
 has been executed. Ilatlcraii v. Moon, 28 Chy. 
 319.— Spragge. 
 
 To an action for a broacli of promise of mar- 
 riage, the plaintiff swore that "it was to be a 
 year's engagement, and we were to be married 
 in the following August : — Held, that this was 
 not an agreement not to bo performed within a 
 year and w.is, therefore, not void under the 
 statute, although not in writing. Smith v. 
 Jamicmii, 17 O. H. 626. —Q. B. D. 
 
 See Jirown v. Nelson, 7 O. R. 90, p. 338. 
 
 2. Part Performance. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 Held, (affirming the judgment of Proudfoofc, 
 .J. ), that the staying of the action was a sufficient 
 part performance to take the case out of the 
 Statute of Frauds. Coates v. Coates, 14 O. R. 
 195.— C. P. D. 
 
 IV. Validity as Reoards Public Policy. 
 
 1. Restraint of Trade. 
 
 D. , on entering the employment of W. as agent 
 in the vending of teas antl coffees, covenanted 
 with W. not to engage in the sale or delivery of 
 teas or coffees in the city of Toronto, either for 
 himself or as agent for any otlier person for at 
 least two years after leaving W. 'a employ. W. 
 moved for an injunction to restrain D., who 
 had left her employ, from violating the above 
 covenant : — Hehl, that the covenant was binding 
 upon D. , notwithstanding that the consideration 
 for it might have been inadequate : — Held, also, 
 that the above covenant was not invalid on 
 grounds of public policy. A covenant in restraint 
 of trade is not invalid unless the restraint is 
 larger and wider than the protection of the 
 covenantee can possibly require. Wicher v. Dar- 
 iiiui, 9 O. R. 311.— Rose. 
 
 8ee Schroder v. Lillis, 10 O. R. 358, p. 328. 
 
 2. Other Ca*es. 
 
 A. being about to sell a certain property, and 
 in order to induce his wife, B., to bar her dower, 
 entered into an agreement under seal, that all 
 money to bo received as purchase money for the 
 same, aa well as all rents received from a certaia 
 farm of A. 's should be invested in the joint names 
 of A. and one C, and the income paid over by 
 C. , who was authorized to draw the same, to B. 
 "as she may require it for the maintenance of 
 A. & B. and their family:" — Held, a valid agree- 
 ment, and not opposed to public policy. Laoin 
 V. Larin, 2 0. R. 187.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Lowering rates by railways. See Owen Sound 
 Steamship Co. v, Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., ll 
 0. R. 691 ; Lani/don v. Robertson, 13 O. R. 497 
 
 The plaintiff purchased from an alleged com- 
 pany hfteen bushels of huUess oats paying 
 
 
 «fes 
 
m 
 
 oontbaot. 
 
 332 
 
 vS 
 
 therefor $10 a bushel und reccivini' the com- 
 pany's bond to sell for him thirty huHlicls of oats 
 at the same price. The company found in the 
 defendant u purchaser of thirty bushuls of oats 
 and the plaintiff's oats were sold to liini and the 
 defendant's notes for $300 were transferred to 
 the plaintiff, the defendant getting the com- 
 pany's bond to sell sixty bushels for him at 
 the same price. This was but one of a very 
 large numoer of similar transactions and both 
 the plaintiff and the defendant were aware of 
 this, and that these transactions could not be 
 carried out without some one else being induced 
 to enter into a similar transaction by wliich 
 their own would be completed and a loss pro- 
 bably suffered by their successors. The oats 
 were not worth more than ordinary oats and the 
 transactions were in foct speculative and fraudu- 
 lent :— Held, (Burton, J. A., dissenting), that 
 the transaction could not be dealt with as an 
 isolated one, but that the whole scheme must 
 be looked at ; that the tendency of that scht me 
 was clearly contrary to the general well-l)cing 
 of the public and therefore that the transaction 
 in question forming part of that scheme was 
 against public policy and illegal, and that the 
 plaintiff could not recover the amount of the 
 notes given by the defendant. Judgment of the 
 County Court of Hastings affirmed on other 
 grounds. Boninteel v. Saylor, 17 A. K. 505. 
 
 See Fobertu v. Hall, 1 O. R. 388 ; Meredith v. 
 Williams, 27 Chy. 154; Canadian Pacijic R. W. 
 Co. v. Wentem Union Telegraph Co., 17 S. C. R. 
 151, p. 282. 
 
 VI. Construction of Contracts. 
 
 1. Conditions Precedent. 
 
 0. D. & Co. contracted with the government 
 to complete certain telegraph works, and M. af- 
 terwards contracted with O. D. & Co. to con- 
 struct part of the said works, in which latter 
 contract O. D. & Co. covenanted to pay M. at 
 the rate mentioned therein per mile, but the con- 
 tract was expressed to be subject to the condi- 
 tion that the said payments should be made to 
 M. within twenty days after the estimate of 
 the engineer in charge, to be by him put in from 
 time to time to the minister of public works, and 
 service of a copy of sueh estimate on O. D. & Co. : 
 — Held, that this alone, apart from other por- 
 tions of the contract, was sufficient to make such 
 estimate and service of a copy thereof a condi- 
 tion precedent to M.'s right to recover for work 
 done under his contract. McDonald v. Oliver, 
 3 O. R. 310.— Ferguson. 
 
 By a third contract T. M. and G. M. con- 
 tracted with both M. and O. D. & Co. to make 
 advances to M., and to become security for M.'s 
 due completion of the work, it being agreed 
 therein that "upon the completion of the con- 
 tract O. D. & Co. should pay T. M. and G. M. 
 the amount due them by M. for supplies, before 
 paying M. anything :"— Held, that there must 
 bean amount owing by 0. D. & Co. to M., for 
 which M. could recover against them, before O. 
 D. k Co. were liable tinder the above contract to 
 pay T. M. and G. M. anything, and that the in- 
 tention wati only to enable T. M. k G. M. to 
 intercept payment by 0. D. & Co. to M. of 
 money due from them to M . lb. 
 
 Performance of conditions by railway cnmimny 
 before receiving tlie debentures voted tiuiii by a 
 municipality as a bonus. See Bickfonl v. Tovn 
 of Chatham, 10 0. R. 257 ; 14 A. R. 32 ; 16 S 
 C. R. 235. 
 
 See Montreal City and District Sariwi't Bani 
 V. Covnty of Perth,' ^i C. P. 18 ; Blake v. A'lii- 
 ■patriek, A. B. 212; O'Brien v. liciiina, 4 S. 
 C. l\. 529; Ixhester v. Beuino^ 7 S. C. R. 696; 
 Jones V. lUqiva, 7 S. C. 11. 570 ; J'rorinnal In- 
 Huravce Co. v. Cameron, 31 C. P. 523 ; A. R, 
 56 ; Beijina v. Starrs, 17 S. C. R. 118. 
 
 2. Implied Conditions. 
 
 Held, that an express or implic<l contract for 
 safe transport is not created with the Crown be- 
 cause an individual pays tolls, imposed l)y statute 
 1 for the use of a pul)lic work, such as slide dues, 
 I for ]iassing his logs through government slides. 
 Beijiiia v. McFartune, 7 S. C. R. 210. 
 
 The defendant company, who were cnipowered 
 by statute to run a traction engine over eertain 
 highways in the county of York, and who by 
 their charter were allowed to construct a tram- 
 way in tlie county to be worked by horse or steam 
 power, upon such terms as might be agreed on 
 with the municipalities througn which tlie roail 
 might pass, entered into an agreement with the 
 county, whereby it was agreed that the company 
 should be at liberty to lay down a tramway along 
 a certain road ; that tlic tolls to be collected 
 should not itxceed certain specified rates on one 
 and two horse veliicles ; that the company, if 
 required, should run two passenger cars daily 
 each way, or in lieu thereof an omnibus or sleigh; 
 that in case horses, carriages, teams, or otSer 
 vehicles or animals met the horses, waggons, 
 carriages, or other vehicles of the company, the 
 latter should have the r'ght of way, and that 
 "so soon as this agretnie it shall have been rati- 
 fied by the said corpora' ion, the said company 
 shall forthwith withdraw their said traction 
 engine from the public highways of the said 
 county, and shall discontinue the use of the said 
 traction engine, and of any other traction engine, 
 upon or along such public highways. " The com- 
 pany insisted tliat they w-ere at liberty, under 
 the agreement, to run a steam motor upon the 
 said tramway. Thereupon an action was insti- 
 tuted by the corporation to restrain the use of 
 steam power on the tramway, which relief the 
 court below, 3 O. R. 5S4, (Proudfoot, J.), on the 
 hearing of the cause granted. Upon appeal, this 
 court being equally divided, the appeal was dis- 
 missed, with costs. Per Hagarty, C. J., and 
 Patterson, J. A. (agreeing with Proudfoot, J.), 
 on the true construction of the agreement there 
 was, if not an express, at least an implied quali- 
 fication excluding the use of steam as a motive 
 power. Per Burton, J. A., and Rose, J., what 
 the company hail agreed to abandon was only 
 tlie right theretofore exercised by them, — under 
 the general law, 31 Vict. c. 34 (R. S. 0. c. 186)- 
 of using traction engines on the public highway, 
 and that they were not restrained by the agree- 
 ment from using steam motors on the tramway. 
 County of York v. Toronto Gravel Road am 
 Concrete Co., 11 A. R. 765. Appeal to Supreme 
 Court dismissed, 12 S. C. R. 517. 
 
 In a chattel mortgage containing no redemise 
 clause, there may be an implied contract that 
 
 n 
 
333 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 334 
 
 tlic iiuirtgHgnr shall remain in pn^Bcsaion until 
 (lefnult. of eqiinl etliciicy witii an uxprysH clauHC 
 to that effect ; and such iin ini])lied contract 
 necessiirily arises from tliu nature of the instru- 
 nieiit unless it 1)C very expressly excluded by its 
 tciius. Portor r. Klintoff, (i C. I'. WM), dis- 
 ti?ii,'uislied. Ijedrkk v. Anhdoirn, \'t S C. R. 
 227. j 
 
 When one contracts to do work for another I 
 the jircparation for which involves outjay and 1 
 expense, a corresponding iigreemont, in tlic ah- ' 
 senee of any express provision, will he implied i 
 on the part of tiie person with whom he con- I 
 tracts to furnish the work ; hut no such inipli- ' 
 cation will he made where from circumstances : 
 known to, and in the contemplation of both | 
 parties at the date of the agreement to do the j 
 worii it was, and continued to be, beyond the | 
 power of the party to carry out such implied 1 
 agreement. Henry, J., dissenting. McKcima 
 V. ikNamee, 15 S. 0. R. 311. 
 
 X Othn- Ca.ie.i. 
 
 The rule now is, that if the legal part of the 
 contract in question "an bo severed from that 
 which is illegal, the lormer shall stand good 
 whether the illegality exist by statute or com- 
 mon law. Kilchiiii; v. Ilicki, G t). R. 7.39. — 
 Osier. 
 
 Appellant, part owner of a vessel, brought 
 an auti(m against respondents, merchants and 
 ship brokers in England, alleging in his declara- 
 tion that while he had entire charge of said ves- 
 sel as ship's husband, they, being his agents, re- 
 fused to obey and follow his directions in i jgard 
 to said vessel, and conmiitted a breacii of an 
 agreement by which they undertook not to 
 charter nor send the vessel on any voyage, ex- 
 cept as ordered by a]ipellant, or with his con- 
 sent. On the trial it appeared that E. V., a 
 brother of respondents, had obtained from ap- 
 pllant a fourth share in the vessel, the purchase 
 being effected by one of the respondents; and it 
 was also shewn that the agreement between the 
 parties was as alleged in the declaration. On 
 the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool, respon- 
 dents went to a large expense in coppering her, 
 contrary to directions, and sent her on a voyage 
 to New Orleans, of which appellant disapproved. 
 Appellant wrote to respondents, complaining of 
 their conduct and protesting against the expense 
 incurred. They replied that appellant conld 
 have no cause of complaint against them in their 
 management of the vessel, and alleged they 
 would not have purchased a fourth intei'est in 
 the vessel, if they had not understood that they 
 were to have the management and control of the 
 vessel when on the other side of the Atlantic. 
 A correspondence ensued, and on the 17th No- 
 vember, 1869, appellant wrote to them, referring 
 to the fact that respoidents complained of the 
 "eternal bickerings," and that it was not their 
 fault. He then reasserted his right to control the 
 vessel, stated in detail, his grounds of complaint 
 against them, and closed with the words : "To 
 end the matter, if your brother will dispose of 
 his quarter, I wil' purchase it, say for $4,200 in 
 cash." This an. unt was about the same price 
 for the share as appellant had sold it for some 
 years before. Respondents accepted the ofl'er, 
 and the transfer was made to appellant : — Held, 
 
 on appeal, reversing the judismctit of the Su- 
 preme Court of New Brunswick, that the ex- 
 pression "to end the matte,-" should be cim- 
 Mtrue<l as applying to the liickerings referred to, 
 and there had not been an accord and satisfac- 
 tion, the contract having been made between 
 a])pellant and respondents only, and being a 
 contract of agency apart from any (luestion of 
 ownership, the action was pro])erly brought by 
 appellant in his own name. Wcldon v. Viiinihuti, 
 -) S. C. R. 3"). 
 
 Under 32 and 33 Vict., c. 7. which provides 
 that the printing, binding, and other like '.vork 
 required for the several departments of the 
 government shall be done and furnished under 
 contracts to be entered into under authority of 
 the Governor in Council alter advertisement for 
 tenders, the Under-Secretary of State advertised 
 for tendci's for the printing "re(iuired by the 
 several departments of Ihc government." The 
 suppliants tendered for such printing, the speci- 
 fications annexed to the tender, which were 
 supplied by the government, containing various 
 provisions as to the manner of perfonning the 
 work and giving of security. The tenders were 
 accejjted by tlie Governor in Council, and an in- 
 denture was exec'.ited between the suppliants 
 and Her Majesty, by which the suppliants 
 agreed to perform and execute, etc., "all jobs or 
 lots of prmting for the several departments of 
 the (lovernment of Canada, of reports, etc., of 
 every description and kind soever coming within 
 the denomination of departmental printing, and 
 all the work and services connected therewith 
 and appertaining thereto, as set forth in the said 
 specification hereunto annexed, in such num- 
 bers and quantities as may bo specified in the 
 several requisitions which may be made upon 
 them for that purpose from time to time by and 
 on behalf of said several respective depart- 
 ments." Part of the departmental printing 
 having been given to others, the suppliants, by 
 their petition, claimed compensation by way of 
 damages, contending that they were entitled to 
 the whole of said printing : — Helil (affirming 
 the judgment of Henry, J., in the Exchequer 
 Court), that having regard to the whole scope 
 and nature of the transaction, the statute, the 
 advertisement, the tender, the acceptance, and 
 the contract, there was a clear intention shewn 
 that the contractors should have all the printing 
 that should be required by the several depart- 
 ments of the government, and that the contract 
 was not an unilateral contract, but a binding 
 mutual agreement. (Taschereau and Gwynne, 
 J.T., dissenting.) Reij'ma v. Mac Lean, 8 S. C. 
 R. 210. 
 
 S. and H., trading partners, sold out their 
 business to E. under a written agreement, as 
 follows : — " S. and H. do hereby bind them- 
 selves to E. under a penalty of $2,000, that 
 they will not do business in Chesley in hard- 
 ware for the term of five years." Within the 
 five years S. commenced a hardware business in 
 Chesley, in connection with M. :— Held, that 
 this di<l not amount to a breach of the above 
 agreement, though the matter was not free from 
 doubt. Elliott V. Stanley, 7 0. R. 350.— Boyd. 
 
 i One of the conditions of sale was, that the 
 
 ! timber was to be removed by T. within two 
 
 I years : — Held, that the effect of the condition 
 
 was that T. was only to have the right to cut 
 
 
 
 
335 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 336 
 
 337 
 
 jviid roiiiovo tliL' tiiiilur within two yeiu» hum 
 tli(! ilatu (if tlu; a'^'ri'diii'iit. Striiilioirv. ^frlial, 
 l.-JO. H. .-.4(i.~-(!. 1*. I). 
 
 Tliu iiliiiiitill coiiVDyiMl liJH farm to his son, 
 ttiilijucl to thi! iiayniciit of an annuity of !?()() a 
 year; aiul tlu; plaiiititl's "niainlrnancc in Iwanl, 
 wasliing ami koi')) out of tin; laini," or to " re- 
 ceive in casli an amount siitliriiiit to jiay for the 
 same yearly.'' Tluic was also a liond of same 
 date wlieieliy defenilant covunant','d to furnish 
 such maintenance, or pay such sum. Tlio defen- 
 dant sold the farm, and went to reside elsewliere. 
 The plaintifl' went and lived with him on the 
 new farm for sonu; years, receiving his main- 
 tenance, etc., hut i)cconiing dissatisfied left : — 
 HeM, tluit the jilaintifr was not l)ound to reside 
 with defendant wliorever he might choose to go ; 
 and under the circumstances was entitled to be 
 paid a reasonahle sum for his maintenance, pay- 
 aide at the en<l of each year. At the trial, the 
 defendant's counsel raised the objection that the 
 amount if any, was only payable at the end of 
 the j'car; The tri.il juclge overruled the objec- 
 tion, and decreed that plaintill' was entitled to 
 to receive $'2 a week, payable weekly. The 
 defendant's counsel then asked to have the 
 amount payable montidy, to which the judge 
 acceded, and gave judgment accordingly : — 
 Held, that the judgment could not l)e deemed to 
 be by consent, so as to preclude the defendant 
 from afterwanls moving against it. Sircciifj/ v. 
 SwMimi, 10 O. H. 9:.'.— C. P. D. 
 
 The defendants were a com))any cirrying on a 
 general telephone business with a central ollice 
 to connect sub.sci'ibers' telephones, and in addi- 
 tion carried on a messenger business for the i)\ir- 
 pose of delivering letters, messages, etc. By an 
 agreement the defenilantsas.signed their nieasen- 
 ger business to the plaintiffs and covenanted 
 that they would not transmit or give directly or 
 indirectly any messenger order to any person, 
 except the plaintiffs, and that they would cease 
 to do such business. 'J'he (!. N. W. Telegraph 
 Co., (one of the defendants' telephone sub- 
 scribers,) subse(iuently ojjened an office for a 
 messenger business, and applied for a telephone 
 in the usual way winch the defendants supplied 
 tliem with and by means of it the G. N. VV. 
 Telegraph Co. received orders for messengers, 
 etc. :— Held, that the defendants did not trans- 
 mit or give messenger orders when they placed 
 a subscriber in communication (through the cen- 
 tral office) with the G. N. W. Telegraph Co., 
 that they only afforded him a medium by which 
 to transmit or give his own order, which was a 
 case not provided for by the agreement, and the 
 action for an injunction to restrain defendants 
 was dismissed with costs. Elect rie Dfspatch 
 Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canadit, 
 17 0. R. 49.5. — Falconbridge. Affirmed Ih. 
 501.- Chy. D. 
 
 On appeal, per Hagarty, C. J. O., and Burton, 
 J. A. 'rhe covenant in question was broken, 
 subscribers being enabled by the activt inter- 
 vention of the defendants to give orders v.i the 
 kind referred to to persons other than the plain- 
 tiflfs. Per Osier, and Maclennan, J J. A. The 
 covenant was not broken, the defendants takinir 
 no active part in the transmission of the mes- 
 sages, but merely allowing subscribers to com- 
 municate with one another in the usual manner 
 -S. C, 17 A. R. 292. 
 
 See Omnium fJeniritieH Co, v. Ilirhardnoii,' () 
 n. 182, IS,!, p. 325: Hroimv. 2^eUii,7 0. ]{. 90, 
 ]). ;t:iH ; /ti/,ni v. Sinn, 7 O. K. 2()6 ; Mni.ilv. v. 
 /.nirli, H O. H. :m;Uii(ihes v. Moore, 11 A. R 
 
 mi 
 
 VII. I'KKKOKMANCE. 
 
 1. ExeuHf for NoK-performnnee. 
 
 Where the plaintiff was engaged by the de- 
 fenihint's for "the season," i.e., from early in 
 May till some time in November, as master to 
 manage the steamer I<lyl-\Vyld for §1, (MM), and 
 he continued so employed until September, wlion 
 the steamer was burnt: — Held, that the plaintiff 
 was not entitled to more than a pi'oportioiiate 
 share of the salary agreed upon, for the contract 
 was subject to the continued existence of the 
 vessel, ami ])erformance was excused by its des- 
 truction without the default of the defendant, 
 Semble, that such a contract made verbally with 
 the president of the defendant company might 
 be binding; and that a nonsuit for want of the 
 corporate seal was pi'oiierly set aside. Ellii v. 
 MUUand It. ]V. Co., 7 A. R. 404. 
 
 The plaintiff lent V. a sum of money, for secur- 
 ing the repayment of which V. gave a chattel 
 mortgage on goods ; which V. was to retain pos- 
 session of, and the defendant executed a bond, 
 I conditioned that indef.iultof jjayment the goods 
 i should be forthcondug for the pur[)ose of seizure 
 I and sale under the mortgage. Refore the day 
 ; of payment .arrived tin' goods tvere destroyed 
 by tiro, and an action having been commenced 
 against the defenilant on this bond, he pleaded 
 the fact of such destruction without any default 
 on his ])art : — Held, bad on demurrer, for not 
 negativing any default on the part of P, 
 (Cameron, .T., dissenting). Bomrell v. Sutlwr- 
 land, S A. R. 23S ; .S2 C. P. 131. 
 
 S. & Co. , contractors for the erection of a 
 building for the respondent in the city of St. 
 .lohn, N. R. , brought an action claiming to have 
 been prevented by respondent from carrying 
 out their contract. The declaration also con- 
 tained the common counts, part of the work 
 having been performed. By the terms of the 
 contract the builduig, when erected, would not 
 have conformed to the provisions of a by-law of 
 the city passed (under authority of an Act of 
 the general assembly of New Brunswick, 41 Vict, 
 c. 7) two <lays after the contract was signed. 
 On the trial of the action the plaintiffs were 
 nonsuited, and an application to the Supreme 
 Court of New Brunswick to set such nonsuit 
 aside was lefused :— Held (Henry, J., dissent- 
 ing) that the by-law of the city of St. John 
 made the contract illegal, and, therefore, the 
 plaintiffs could not recover. Walker r. Mc- 
 Millan, 6 S. C. R. 241, followed. Per Henry, 
 J. — That the erection of the building would not, 
 so far as the evidence shewed, be a violation of 
 the by-law, and therefore, the nonsuit should be 
 set aside and a new trial ordered. Spears v. 
 Il'a/to-, 11 S. C. R. 113. 
 
 Where an executory contract is entered into 
 respecting property or goods, if the subject- 
 matter be destroyed by the act of (jlod or via 
 major, over which neither party has any con- 
 trol, and without either party's default, the 
 parties are relieved. MrKenna v. McNarme, 
 14 A. R. .S3!>. 
 
 The defendan 
 to a linn of tli 
 the lirni was di 
 fused to cai'ry o 
 brought in tlie 
 partners, for (hi 
 that the dissoln 
 ticn in law for 
 out their contra 
 K. 470.--Q. B. 
 peal, 18 A. R. 5 
 
 See Slephennc 
 CudiM V. Coutes 
 
 W/ieu T 
 
 The plaintiff 
 the lease having 
 WU9 on or about 
 behalf of the del 
 sor, to surrenib 
 which he conse 
 $250, agreeing t 
 of February, 
 between tlie par 
 not actually givi 
 February, he ag 
 as reserved in 
 cepted by the di 
 dant refused to 
 upon, allegiuj^ i 
 refusal the mmd 
 named : — Held, 
 ment made of tl 
 the delay formei 
 sum agreed to 1) 
 R. 47. 
 
 On a sale of t 
 Gould, 9 A. 15. 
 
 Time may be ( 
 without any expi 
 sucli was tlie int 
 O, It. 188. 
 
 The plaintiff a 
 fendant seventy 
 Printing Compa 
 his note, payable 
 the shares, whic 
 the defendant's 
 seventy-six shaiv 
 the defendant foi 
 to pledge to a b 
 for the defendai 
 it was a conditio 
 fendant, who ha 
 Printing Compai 
 the position wh 
 director of the 
 fixed salary. T 
 the note retired 
 himself of the 11 
 been afterwards 
 managing directc 
 turn of the fort; 
 the purpose for 
 (viz : the raising 
 Hon. George " 
 22 
 
 Tl 
 
 12 
 
 I Bro 
 
3»7 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 388 
 
 The (IffeiiilinitH contracted In deliver lumber i 
 to a tirm of three jiii tiierH. Before delivc'ry 
 the lirm was dinsolved, iiiid the (IcfeiidiuitH re- 
 fused to curry out their contiui.t. In iin action 
 brongiit in tlie individuiil Miinics of the three i 
 partiierH, for dauiaj^cH for nun-delivery : — Held, 
 thiit the dissolution of thi: tirni w;ih no jiiHtitica- 
 tiou in law for the defciidimtM' refuMal to carry 
 out tlieir contract. .UfC'coi. // v. MrCiml, 19 O. 
 R 470.— Q. B. I>. Atlirnied by Court of Ap- 
 peal, 18 A. R. 217. 
 
 See S/e/iliKiison v. /.'.//«, H I', it. 100, 258; 
 Cort/ci V. C'oult.i, 14 O. H. li)5. 
 
 ■J. ]Vhen Time tht E-t'^ence. of Contract. 
 
 (a) O'eiierally. 
 
 Tlie plaintiff was lessee of certain premiacs, 
 the lease having nearly a year to run, when he 
 wu!) on or about the I.'ltli .lanuary a^jjilied to on 
 behalf of the defendant, th(! executor of tlic les- 
 sor, to surrender the reinainder of his term, 
 wliioh he consented to do in consideration of 
 ?250, agreeing to give np possession on the 1st 
 of February. In eonsoipicuco of ne;,'otiations 
 between tiiu parties interested, the jilaintiff did 
 not actually give up possession ntitii the end of 
 February, no agreenig to deduct a mouth's rent 
 as reserved in the lease?. I'osscssion was ac- 
 cepted by the defendant's agent, but the defen- 
 dant refused to pay the eonsider.ition agreed 
 upon, alleging as a piincipal ground for such 
 refusal the nondelivery of possession on the day 
 named :— Held, that time was not l)y tiie agree- 
 ment made of the essence of the contract, and 
 the delay foi'mcd no defence to an action for tiie 
 sum agreed to be paid. D^tinhj v. Vidnl, \t A. 
 R. 47. '^ 
 
 On a sale of tindicr limits. See Uixmnjleld v. 
 Gould, 9 A. It. 218. 
 
 Time may be of the essence of a contract even 
 without any express stipulation if it appears that 
 such was the intention. OMliiJd v. Dictsoii, 18 
 0. 1!. 188. 
 
 3. Other Canes. 
 
 The plaintiff agreed to purchase from the de- 
 fendant seventy-six shares of stock in the Globe 
 Printing Company, and gave to the defendant 
 his note, payable in two years, for the price of 
 the shares, whicli were transferred to him. At 
 the defendant's r-'ijuest he then pleilged these 
 seventy-six shares, and, as the jury found, lent 
 the defendant forty ibur other shares of his own, 
 to pledge to a bank, whicii discounted the note 
 for the defendant. The jury also found that 
 it was a condition of the purchase that the de- 
 fendant, who ha<l a large interest in the Globe 
 Printing Company, sliould keep the plaintiff in 
 the position which he occupied as managing 
 director of the Globe Printing Company, at a 
 fixed salary. The defendant at the maturity of 
 the note retired it, and took an assignment to 
 himself of the 120 shares. The plaintiff having 
 been afterwards dismissed from his position as 
 managing director, brought this action for a re- 
 turn of the forty-four sliares, on the ground that 
 the purpose for which they had been pledged, 
 (viz ; the raising of money by the defendant for 
 Hon. George Brown's estate,) had been fulfilled ; 
 22 
 
 and for a return of the note, and to bo roliovod 
 from the purchase of the seventy-six shares, on 
 the ground that the comlition of th'i purchase, 
 (vi/. : his being retained in ollice,) iiad not boon 
 fultilleil, but had been i»rokeu l)y tlie defendant's 
 procuring his dismissal: — Held, that as there 
 had ))een a partial performance of tlie defendant's 
 agreement, by retaininv; tlie plaintiff in oiHco for 
 the iieriod witliin whicli the seventy-six shares 
 were to have been paid for, there could bo no 
 rescissiim of the whole contract ; but that the 
 plaintiff — the finding of the jniy as to the forty- 
 four shares not having been moved against— was 
 entitled to a return of these shares, and the de- 
 fendant to judgment for the price of the seventy- 
 six shares : anil that the plaintiff's remedy, if 
 any, for wrongful disniissul was by an indepen- 
 dent action : — Held also, that the defendant 
 having performed his iKirtion of the agreement, 
 the .Statiae of Francis, as regards agreements 
 not to be performed within a year, was not ap- 
 plicable to the undertaking to keep the plaintiff 
 in office. Jiroivn v. AVAsom, 7 0. R. 90. — C. P. D, 
 
 In order to recover in an action for non-per- 
 formance of a contract to do work, the plaintiff 
 must shew a willingness and readiness on his 
 part to perform, an<l on the defendant's part a 
 distinct and uncijuivocal absolute refusal, and 
 tliat such refusal was ti'cated and acted upon by 
 the plaintiff ; for, if after refusal, he continue to 
 urge or demand compliance with the contract, 
 he must be deemed as considering it as not at an 
 end. McLdlnii v. Wiiinton, 12 O. R. 431.— C. 
 P. I). 
 
 In this cas<! tlie plaintiff set uj) a contract made 
 with defendants, to cut and lay <lown on the de- 
 fendants' limits a quantity of ties ; that he was 
 to Si dp his outtit to Port Arthur, where he was 
 to receive instructions from defendants as to the 
 means and way of forwarding same to the place 
 whore the work was to be performed. The plain- 
 tiff sent his outfit to Port Arthur, and claimed 
 that defendants neglected and refused to give 
 such instructions and refused to carry out the 
 contract whereby the plaintilF was damnified : 
 — Held, that the evidence disclosed that the 
 plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to 
 perform the contract ; and further, if a refusal 
 to perform by defendants was proved, that it 
 was not treated and acted upon by plaintiff as 
 such, but thereafter ho continued to treat the 
 contract as still subsisting:— Held, therefore, 
 the action failed, lb. 
 
 R. , who held a license from the government 
 of New Brunswick to cut timber on certain 
 lands, claimed that S., licensee of the adjoining 
 lot, was cutting timber on his grant, and he 
 issued a writ of replevin for some 800 logs al- 
 leged to be so cut by S. Tlie replevin suit was 
 settled by an agreement between the parties to 
 leave the matter to surveyors to estaolish the 
 line between the two lots, the agreement pro- 
 viding that the lines of the land held under the 
 said license (of R. ) shall bd surveyed and estab- 
 lished by (naming the surveyors) and the stumps 
 counted, etc.:— Held, reversing the judgment of 
 the Supreme Court of New Brunswick (26 N. 
 B. Rep. 258) that under this agreement the sur- 
 veyors were bound to make a formal survey, 
 and could not take a line run by one of them at 
 a former time as the said boundary line. Snow- 
 ball V. RUchie, 14 S. C. R. 741. 
 
 
 I r 
 
OONTBAOT. 
 
 340 
 
 Actidii for not tranHfuniiig to jilaiiilifTii claim 
 of a hulfliiL't'd in Manitoba, or rtitiiriiinj{ tlio |)iico 
 paid thci-fl'or. See UnnLi v. Yoiiiin, 10 A, K. 215, 
 
 In Maicli, 1883, TJ. coiitraitfd with C. et al. 
 for tilt! ilflivi'ry of »n engine in accordance with 
 the Hei reHliofV sygtcni to l)e placed in the yacht 
 "Ninie" then in coiirne of coiiHtrnction. The 
 engine was hiiilt, placed in the yacht, and upon 
 trial was found defective. On the 31st August 
 C. et nl. took out a saisio conBcrvatoire of the 
 yacht "Ninie" and claimed )ii!'2,199.37 for the 
 work and materials fiirnlNhed. B. petitioned to 
 
 Thiiiiifs S'nviijiitiiiii (,'<i. (/.imilril) v, Ur'nl 13 A. 
 II. ;i(t3; liidiord v. Chalhaiu, 14 A. H. .■■.'. 
 
 4. Eiiforciwj, 
 
 (a) % ll'Aom. 
 
 In consideration of aconvjyancn to him of » 
 certain farm, the iietitioner agreed with his 
 mother that ho woiihi, during her life, provide 
 her with a house on tiie farm, an<l witli neces- 
 saries, and support his lirothers and sisters 
 
 . . , thereon, until they reached iiixteen years of n)fc, 
 
 annul the attachment and pleaded that the i ho long as they remniutd at homo on the «a, ' 
 amount was not yet due, as C. ct al. had not farm, and assisted him so far as they were aUe in 
 performed their contract, and liy incidental de- ' the numagenient of it ;— Held, that the mother 
 mand claimed a large amount. After various had no rigiit or power to release the petitioner 
 proceedings the snisie ccmservatoire was uban- fiom the obligations undertaken by tiim with 
 (loncd ana the Court of Queen's Bench, on an ^ reference to his brothers and sisters under the 
 appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court in agreement, and if the children did tiieir part they 
 favour of B. , both on thejirincipal action and in- | could hold their brother to his promise, tlioiigh 
 cidental demand, ordered that experts be named j the agreement was not in tei'ms made with them 
 to ascertain whether the engine was built in ac- \ ,vg parties. ]}c McMUlun, 17 <>. U 344 :— Uoyd. 
 cordance with the contract and report on the' ^, ,,,, , ,, , . _ 
 
 Citij oj London Ash. Co., 10 A. 
 
 Sec Mitchdl v, 
 R. '262. 
 
 defects. A report was made by wnieh it was 
 declared that C. et al. 's contract was not carried 
 out and that work and materials of the value of 
 $226 was still necessary to complete the con- 
 tract. On motion to homologate the experts' 
 report, the Superior Court was again called 
 
 upon to adjudicate upo i the merits of tiie de- , ,^, ,, • -i, - i i r ^l 
 
 mand in chief and of the incidental demand, ; cavation, etc., of the (.eorgian Bay branch of the 
 hat as C. et al. had not ' ^ ""'"""" ' "'^''i'^ I^"'"*'^!'' "hortJy after the date 
 
 X. ASSKINMI'.NT OK CoNTUACTH. 
 
 On the 2nd August, 1878, H. C. & F. entered 
 into a contract with Her Alajesty to do the ex- 
 
 and that court held that 
 
 of the contract and after the commencement of 
 the work, H. C. & F. associated with themselves 
 several partners in the work, amongst others S. 
 k\\. (respondents), and on 3(»th June, 1879, the 
 whole contract was assigned to S. & R. Subse- 
 
 bnilt an engine as covenanted by them, B.'s 
 plea should be maintained, but as to the inci- 
 dental demand held the evidence in.suflicient to 
 warrant a judgment in favour of B. On appeal 
 
 to the Court of Queen's Bench that court, taking _ 
 
 into consideration the fact, that the yacht ' ffcntly, on the 25th July, 18^9 the contract 
 " Ninie " had, since the institution of the action, with H. C. & t . was cancelled by Order in Coun- 
 been sold in another suit at the instance of one cil on the ground that satisfactory progress had 
 of B.'s creditors, and purchased by C. et al. , the ""* been made with the work as rcfjuired by the 
 proceeds being deposited in court to be distil- contract. On the 5th August, 1879, S. t R, 
 
 I being (lepi 
 
 Duted amongst B. s creditors, credited B. with 
 J225 necessary to complete the engine, allowed 
 J750 damages on B.'s incidental demand, and 
 gave judgment in favour of C. et al. for the bal- 
 ance, viz., $1 ,225 with costs. The fact of the 
 sale and purchase of the yacht subsequent to 
 the institution of the action did not appear on 
 the pleadings. On appeal to the Supreme Court 
 of Canada and cross-appeal as to amount al- 
 lowed on incidental demand by the Court of 
 Queen's Bench it was :— Held, reversinc the judg- 
 ment of the Queen's Bench, Sir W. J. Ritchie, 
 C. J. and Taschereau, J., dissenting, that as It 
 was shewn that at the time of the institution of 
 C. et al.'s action, it was through faulty construc- 
 tion that the engine and machinery therewith 
 connected could not work according to the 
 Herreshofif system, on which system C. et al. 
 covenanted to build it, their action was prema- 
 
 notiiied the Minister of Railways of the transfer 
 made to them of the contract. On the 9th 
 August the Order in Council of 25th July was 
 sent toH. C. & F. On the I4th August, 1879, 
 an Order in Council was passed stating that as 
 the government had never assented to the tram- 
 fer and assignment of the contract to S. &. R, 
 the contractors should be notified that the con- 
 tract was taken out of their hands and annulled. 
 In consequence of this notification, S. & R., who 
 were carrying on the works, ceased work, and 
 with the consentof the Minister of Public Works, 
 realized their plant and presented a claim foi 
 dama}?es, aud finally H. C. & F. and S. & R. 
 filed apetitionof rightclaiining925O,000damaKea 
 for breach of contract. The statement in ae- 
 ! fence set up inter alia, the 17th clause of the 
 contract which provided against the contractors 
 assigning the contract, and in case of assignment 
 
 ture :-Held also, that the evidence in the case I 'without Her Majesty's consent, enabled Her 
 fully warranted the sum of $750 allowed by the Majesty to take the works out of the contractors 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench on B.'s incidental de- 
 mand, and therefore he was entitled to a judg- 
 ment for that amount on said incidental demand 
 ■with costs. — Taschereau J. was of opinion on 
 cross-appeal, that B.'s incidental demand should 
 have been dismissed with costs. Bfndtr v. Cor- 
 ner, 15 S. C. R. 19. 
 
 See Village of Brusseln v. Ronald, 4 0. B. 1 ; 
 11 A. R. 605; Spearay. Walker, 11 S. C. R. 113; 
 
 hands, and to employ such means as she might se« 
 fit to complete the same ; and in such case the 
 contractors should have no claim for any further 
 payment in respect of the works performed, but 
 remain liable for loss by reason of non-completion 
 by the contractor. At the trial there was evi- 
 dence that the Minister of Public Works knew 
 that S. & R. were partners, and that he was 
 satisfied that they were connected with the con- 
 cera. There was also evidence that the depart- 
 
341 
 
 CONVERSION. 
 
 342 
 
 iiieni knew S. &. R. worouiirryiiigoii tho worltM, 
 ami that S. k R. huil been inlornicil liy tlio 
 (lepiity Minister nf the ile|mrtiiiont tliutall tliiit 
 was iiecuHsary to ))o oflioiiiliy rei:oj{hi/.e(l ns cdii- 
 trootni'B, was to Hend n letter to the government 
 fioin H. <^'. & f. Ill tho Kxclu'(|Uor Court, 
 Henry, .1. awarded tho Hn|ipliaiit8 !!il7l,t>40.77 
 (lanmges. On appeal to the .Sniirenio Court it 
 «iw— Hehl, rovorsing tho judgment of Henry, .J., 
 (Fourniernnd Henry, J,l,,<U88enting,) TImt there 
 was no evidence of a binding assent on the part 
 of the Crown to an assignment of tlio eontraet 
 toS. & H- wlio therefore were not entitled to 
 recover. 2. That H. C. &. F., tho original eon- 
 tractors, 1)V assigning their contract put it in tho 
 power of tlie goverinuent to rescind the contract 
 absolutely, which was done l)y tho Order in Coun- 
 cilof tho 14th August, 1 871, and the contractors 
 under the 17th ulauKo could not recover either 
 for the value of work actually done, the loss of 
 prospective danuiges, or tho reduced value of 
 the plant. Hf(jiiia v. Siiiih, 10 )S. C. R. 1. 
 
 Assignnicnt of rights Imt without warranty 
 of ngreeinenl. nuvdo with certain fanners by 
 which the 1;. 'tr agreed to give the milk of their 
 cows to no otiier clieeso factory than to that of 
 N.l>. — liight of iicti«m. fSee Demirn v, Duhnimc, 
 16 S. C. R. 366. 
 
 XI. RKsciNDiNfi Contract.**. 
 
 1, Gcnrrallij. 
 
 Form of decree where mortgage rescinded 
 after money advanced. See Siipirior Loan ami 
 Saviuijs Co. V. Lucas, 15 A. E. 748. Reversing 
 S.C.,44Q. B. 106. 
 
 See liroion v. Nehon, 7 0. R. 90, p. 338 ; Beijina 
 T. Smith, 10 S. C. R. 1, supra ; Petrk v. Cwlph 
 Lumber Co., 11 S. C. R. 4.50, p. 240; Proctor v. 
 Mnlluinn, 13 0. R. 683 ; Clay Ion v. McComidl, 
 14 0. R. 608 ; 1.5 A. R. .560 ; NelltH v. Ontario In- 
 mmcnt Association, 17 0. R. 129, p. 280. 
 
 CONTRACTOR. 
 
 Set Work and Labour. • 
 
 Liability of contractor subject to insane delu- 
 sions within the knowledge of one of the plain- 
 tiffs. .See RobertHon v. Kdly, 2 0. R. 163. 
 
 Liability of contractor and corporation for 
 injury to workman in constructing works over 
 which the corporation exercised superintendence 
 by their engineer and inspector. See Murphy 
 V. City of Ottawa, 13 O. R. 334. 
 
 See WaU-er v. McMillan, 6 S. C. R. 241, p. 207. 
 
 CONTRIBUTION. 
 
 I. WiNDiNo-up Companies — See Com- 
 pany. 
 
 II. By Sdbety— /See Principal and Shrkty" 
 
 Held, that a third person holding a note for 
 the benefit of one joint endorser, cannot main- 
 
 tain a joint action against theco-endoriorH under 
 R. H. O. (1877), f. Ill), HH. •_', .•<, as enilorsers for 
 the full amount of tlie note, but must sue each 
 Hi'purately in a Mpeciiil .iclion for bis HJiare of 
 the contributiiin. Sninll v. Itiilili/, 31 C. 1*. 
 
 .S7:i.-c. I'. 1). 
 
 .Judgment against partners—ltighl of partner 
 to enforce contribution. See Honsingerw Love, 
 l(( O. R. 170. 
 
 See Kempt v. MaMuhy, ",t I'. R. .582, p. 16. 
 
 CONTRIBUTOi F3. 
 Ste Company. 
 
 CONTRIBUTOR'* NEGLTOENOE, 
 
 Sep XKcl.tiiKNCK. 
 
 CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. 
 
 1. MlNUni'AI.— .SVc illTNICIPAI. CoKI'OR.V 
 
 tions. 
 
 II. PARt.IAMKNTAI.V AND LeiIISI.ATIVK— 5ce 
 PaRLIAMKNTAKV I'^I.KC'TI )NS. 
 
 CONVERSION. 
 
 I. Ok OiiA'rrEi.s. 
 
 1. Oen'.ruUy, 342. 
 
 2. Damages, 345. 
 
 II. Ok Realty into Personalty, 346. 
 III. Trover— .^ee Trover, 
 
 I. Ok Chattel.-*. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 The plaintiff was executoi- of H. I>. , widow 
 of T. T). , whose executor the defendant was. 
 The plaintifl' claimed a piano in the bouse lately 
 occupied by the widow, of which the defendant 
 had the key. At an interview between the 
 plaintiff anil defendant the latter claimed tho 
 piano, but said he was willing to leave the ques- 
 tion of the ownership to a person to be named. 
 The plaintiff left him, promising to write, and 
 afterwards did write, saying he had decided to 
 bring the matter before the proper court. Sub- 
 sequently the plaintiff's solicitor wrote the de- 
 fendant offering to release all demands upon the 
 defendant giving up all claim to the piano, to 
 which the defendant's solicitor answered that 
 he could not comply with the demand. The de- 
 fendant commencecl an action in which the title 
 to the piano would come in question. The 
 plaintiff s solicitor having again written to ask 
 whether possession of the piano would be given, 
 the defendant's solicitor wrote that it was per- 
 fectly safe where it was, and that the action 
 commenced would decide the question. He also 
 wrote that the plaintiff would not have put the 
 law in motion : — Held, in an action of replevin, 
 assuming the piano to be the plaintifif's, that 
 
 t';;5 
 
 152 
 
 ''v.; 
 
-848 
 
 CONVERSION. 
 
 344 
 
 there was no evidence of trespass or conversion 
 to support the affii'inative of the issue, that the 
 defemfant did not. take or detain the piano. 
 Schaffer v. Dmnhle, 5 O. R. TIB— Q. B. D. 
 
 Tlie old learning on tlio subject of " conver- 
 sion" need not be imported into the system in- 
 troduced by the Jiidioatuie Act, which provides 
 for redress in case tiio plaintiff's goods are 
 wrongfully detained, oi- in case he is wrongfully 
 deprived of them. In all such cases the real 
 question is, whetlier there has been such an un- 
 autliorized dealing with the plaintiff's property 
 as has caused him damage, and if so, to what 
 extent has ho sustained damage. S/iinson v. 
 Bluii; 11 0. E. 90.— Boyd. 
 
 A bank placed an execution against M. , the 
 plaintiff's son, and one C, in the liands of B., a 
 Division Court bailiff, under wliich B. seized a 
 stallion as belonging to M., wiiich jilaintiff claim- 
 ed as her property, and which pending inter- 
 pleader proceedings instituted by her, was placed 
 with an innkeeper. Subsequently an execution 
 by P. against tlie same parties was placed in the 
 sheriff's hands, P.'s solicitor informed the sheriff 
 of all the circumstances, and he on the ?rd Oc- 
 tober, obtained froii the innkeeper a >i'ritten 
 undertaking to keep the horse — stated to be 
 under seizure by the sheriff — until further orders 
 from the sheriff. On 1 tth October the sheriff on 
 notice of plaintifTs rlaim interpleaded. On .Slst 
 October, the Divi.=ion Court interpleader was de- 
 cided in tlic plainMff's favour. Whereupon the 
 sliei'iff at once notified tliu innkeeper that he did 
 not claim any further rigjit to hold tlie liorso. 
 Before being so notified, the plaintiff demanded 
 the horse, but the innkeeper refused to deliver 
 it up until his ciiarges for keeping it were paid, 
 but did not assert any right to hold for the 
 sheriff. On 18th November, part of the charges 
 were paid, but it did not appear whether by 'he 
 bank or P. ; and the balance was subsccpiently 
 paid l)j' B. On the 3rd November an order was 
 made barring P.'s claim and directing the slieriff 
 to forthwith deliver the horse to plaintiff. On 
 14th November this action was commenced 
 against the l>ank. P., the sheriff and bailiff, for 
 conversion, and disobedience of the order of the 
 court directing redelivery, claiming the value of 
 the horse, loss of earnings, etc. Aljout 3rd De- 
 cember, after the commencement of the action, 
 the horse was tendered to plaintiff who refused 
 to accept it unless damages and costs were paid. 
 No notice of action was given : — Held, tliat there 
 could be no recovery against any of the parties 
 for the reason (1) that the bailiff should have 
 had notice of action ; (2) tiiat there was nothing 
 to connect the bank or P. with the seizure ; (3) 
 that though there was what constituted a seizure 
 by the sheriff, so as to entitle him to interplead 
 and make the innkeeper liable if he had not 
 kept the horse for him, the sheriff in no way 
 interfered with the bailiff's possession or control 
 over it, or in any way converted it to his own 
 use, it being at the time in the custody of the 
 .law. Pardee v. Glass, 11 0. R. 275.— C. P. D. 
 
 An engine, boiler, and other machinery, were 
 shippoJ ijy plaintiffs to the defendant E. under 
 a written order to ship same to his address as per 
 sum agreed on, viz., 8875 ; $225 to be allowed for 
 E."s portable engine and boiler, and $635 to be 
 paid on shipment ; but, if not settled for in cash 
 or notes within twenty days, then the whole 
 
 amount to become due. The order not to be 
 countermanded, anduntil payment themachinerv 
 to be at E.'s risk, which he was to insure, andm 
 demand was to assign the policy to the plaintiffs 
 and the title thereof was not to pass out of plain! 
 tiffs, E. agreeing not to sell or remove the same 
 without the plaintiffs' consent in writing. On dg. 
 fault in payment the plaintiffs could enter and 
 take and remove the machinery, and E. agreed to 
 deliver same to plaintiffs in like good order and 
 condition as received, save ordinary wear and 
 tear, and to pay expenses of removal. Any 
 notes or other security given by E. for his in. 
 debtedness to be collateral thereto. The machi- 
 nery was put up in a mill on premises leased 
 with right to purchase, by defendant D. to E.'s 
 wife for one or five years from 11th March, 1883 
 E.'s wife died on the 23rd October, 1883, and by 
 her will appointed E. sole executor, giving him 
 power to sell or dispose of any property to whicli 
 testatrix was or might be entitled. E, by deed 
 of 27th April, 188.5, demised and released to D. 
 all the rigiit, title, and interest in the premises 
 as well of himself as also as executor, together 
 witli the mill built thereon, with the boiler and 
 engine, etc., and on the same day D. leased tlie 
 said premises, mill and machinery, to E. for one 
 year. After the execution of this lease D. mort- 
 gaged tlie land, mill and machinery tn the defen- 
 dants the F. Loan Society. The defendant E. 
 never paid any cash, but gave his promissory note 
 at tliree months, which was renewed from time 
 to time, but ultimately E. having failed to pay 
 same, the plaintiffs demanded the machinery 
 when D. notified plaintiffs not to remo-e siiine 
 as also did the society : — Held, tliat the effect of 
 the transaction was, tliat the property was in the 
 plaintiffs, and that they were entitled thereto ; 
 and that there was an illegal detention by the 
 defendants D. and E. amounting to a conversion: 
 and that the F. Co. by having notified plaintiff 
 not to I'emove the machinery, were proper par- 
 ties to the suit to give plaintiffs lull relict ; and 
 that unless defendants allowed plaintiffs to re- 
 move tile machinery on demand, tlie plaintiffi 
 were entitled to recover .$050 with interest, be- 
 ing the price of machinery, and that upon re- 
 moval of the oncine and boiler the sum of $60 
 for repairs should be paid by plaintiffs to D. to 
 be repaid to plaintiffs oy E. Poison v. Demer, 
 12 O. R. 275.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, (reversing the judgment of the C. P. D.) 
 that the defendant could not be held liable for a 
 conversion of the goods in question, by reason of 
 his having joined in a bill of sale of them, and 
 having accepted and assigned a mortgage for the 
 balance of purchase money thereof ; no other act 
 of interference with the property on his part being 
 shewn, they never having been in his possession 
 or control, and he never having had the power 
 to deliver up or retain them so as to make a 
 demand upon and refusal by him evidence of s 
 conversion ; he having acted in such sale of the 
 goods as the agent, and by the authority of an- 
 other only. The plaintiff J. I. D. could not 
 maintain an action for the conversion of the pro- 
 perty in question ; for assuming that it was the 
 property of those under whom he claimed, which 
 was one of the matters in controversy, it did not 
 become vested in him until after the alleged 
 conversion ; neither could J. D. maintain the 
 action, he never having had the actual posset- 
 sion of the property but a mere right as receiver 
 
316 
 
 OONVESSION. 
 
 346 
 
 Bointed by the court to obtain the custody if i Trees cut by locatee under tlie Free Grant and 
 ■fbelonged to those whom he represented, which Homesteads' Act in the actual process of cultiva- 
 
 nuld not support the action, though it might tion were sold to the plaintiff a millowner, arid 
 Trm the ground of a special application to the "">"" "";-='' u.. *i.„ ,i,.*„..,i„.,i.o «i,» 4.:»,k„. i:»„„ 
 
 ourt for a mandamus or attachment or other 
 appropriate relief. Dickey v. McGaul, 14 A. R. 
 
 166. 
 
 One of the defendants was the purchaser of a 
 niano, which she had partly paid for, under a 
 conditional sale by which until fully paid for it 
 was to remain the property of the vendor, but, 
 before paying the balance due on it, she allowed 
 the other defendant, who had acted as the ven- 
 dor's agent in the sale to her, secretly to remove 
 
 were seized by the defendants the timber licen- 
 sees who also had a mill, and were taken by them 
 thereto and cut up into lumber. It was proved 
 that the plaintifif could not get other logs at that 
 season of the year: — Held, Cameron, C. J., dis- 
 senting, that the plaintiff was entitled to the 
 loss of profits sustained by him by being deprived 
 of cutting the logs into lumber at his mill. 
 Gockhurn v. Muskoka MM and Lumbar Co., 13 
 0. R. 343.— C. P. D. 
 
 uui " -o - 1 1 ^" *'* action for the conversion by the defen- 
 
 jnd take possession of it, he paying her the cash ^\^^n^, ^f certain logs of the plaintiff which had 
 payment she had made. After this transaction ] been out without permission on the plaintiff's 
 yween the defendants the plaintift purchased 1 la,,,!, and purchased by the defendant and hauled 
 from the vendor the notes given for the purchase to liis mill, and there cut into lumber, the mea- 
 money of the instrument, and took an assign- , swg of damages was held to be the value of the 
 nent under seal of the property in it. In an j jogg as they were in the defendant's yard at the 
 action against the defendants for the recovery ! time they were demanded by the plaintiff, with- 
 of the piano, in which no deinaiid was proved j out any deduction for cutting and hauling, it 
 
 '' "'"'"" ' appearing Uiat the defendant knew that he was 
 
 buying logs tak<;n from the plaintiff's land, or 
 at least that he suspected that such was the fact, 
 and wilfully abstained from inquiry : — Semble, 
 had the defendant been an innocent purchaser, 
 a different measure of damages might have been 
 applied. Smith v. Baechln; 18 O. R. 293.— 
 Street. 
 
 upon the defendant in possession of the instru- 
 ment, it was objected by him that neither deti- 
 nue nor trover would lie :— Held, that the plain- 
 tiff was entitled to recover chimages against 
 him for the conversion of the piano ; for it was 
 not necessary to impute the conversion to any 
 Darticuhvr period of time, and the defendant's 
 denial after action of the plaintiff's right to the 
 piano could be treated under the circumstances 
 as evidence of a conversion before action by the 
 8»id defendant of the plaintiff's interest in it 
 
 Damages against railway company, on a con- 
 __ _ tract to carry certain goocls on their railway and 
 
 Mid as against technical objections raised by a j connecting lines, for failure to deliver and for 
 wroiil! doer the benefit of all possible presump- conversion. See Wimhii v. Canadian Pacijic R. 
 tions should be allowed : -Held, also, that it | IC Co., 13 0. R. 652. 
 was not necessary that the vendor should be 
 added as a party in order to entitle the plaintiff 
 to succeed. Blackhy v. Dooley, 18 O. R. 381. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 See McNeill v. Haiim, 17 O. R. 479. 
 
 2. Damagen. 
 
 B. having possession of certain goods of S., S. 
 demanded them of him on 23id Dtceiiibcr. B. 
 refused to allow the more bulky goods to be re- 
 moved until after Christmas, on the ground that 
 it would interfere with his own trade. (Jn 24th 
 December, S. commenced this action for dam- 
 ages, oil the ground of wrongful conversion and 
 detention of the goods by B. On 2(ith December, 
 B. notified S. that he could remove the renuiin- 
 derof the goods. S. thereupon sent fcir tlicm, 
 but finding some of them had been seized under 
 process of attachment out of tlie Division Court, 
 removed the rest, and afterwards contested in 
 the Division Court the ownership of those 
 seised:— Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 Master in Ordinary, that S. was entitled to 
 damages for the detention of the goods on 23rd 
 December, but the measure of that damage 
 was nominal, and not the value of the goods de 
 
 II. Of Realty into Personalty. 
 
 P. being the owner of certain lands was served 
 by a railway company with notice of expropria- 
 tion and tendered a sum of money for right of 
 way and damage, which he refused. Subse- 
 quently on the application of the company and 
 with the consent of P. 's silicitor the county 
 judge made an order fixing the amount of secu- 
 rity to be given for damages, and the price of the 
 land, and giving the company possession upon 
 their paying the amount of such security into a 
 bank to the joint credit of P. and the company. 
 The money was paid in pursuant thereto. An 
 arbitration was then proceeded with, and the 
 compensation to be paid for the value of the land 
 taken and the damage to the remainder was 
 fixed by the award in separate sums. Proceed- 
 ings and appeals as to tlie costs kept the matter 
 open, and the money remained to tlie credit of 
 the joint account until P. died, after making his 
 will, by which he devised all his real estate to a 
 trustee, and appointed the plaintiff executor. 
 The defendants were appointed trustees in place 
 of t' trustee named in the will. Upon a spe- 
 cial ca.s<- for the opinion of the court as to whether 
 
 tained. S. acted on the letter of 26th December, the plaintiff as executor of the personal estate 
 
 and there did not appear to have been any <lis- 
 posal of the goods in the sense of their destruc- 
 tion orreiiiiiviil adverse to the plaintiff's proper- 
 ty, hut the iilaintiff was ultimately preventtd 
 from getting the goods, not because of the de- 
 fendant's niiseoi.duct, but because the claim of 
 attacliiiig <;i editors intervened. Utimiion v. Block, 
 110. R. 90.— Boyd. 
 
 or tho defendants as trustees of the testator's 
 land, was or M'ere entitled to the sums awarded 
 or any part thereof. It was : — Held, that notice 
 to treat having been given, and a claim made by 
 the landowner, and refused by the company, 
 and the money having been paid into court and 
 possession taken by the company, these circum- 
 stances under the authority of Hasih v. The Wor> 
 
 •■atM 
 
 
 - s 
 
 Uvi 't 
 
Ml 
 
 OOPTBIOHT. 
 
 348 
 
 cester Improvement Commissioners, 1 Jur. N. 
 S. 973, would entitle the landowner to have 
 .specific performance against the company, and 
 that therefore the land was converted into money 
 and the plaintiff as executor was entitled to the 
 .sums awarded. HoitMn v. Toronto General 
 Triuila Co., 12 O. R. 480.— Proudfoot. 
 
 See Wood v. Armour, 12 0. E. 146 ; Kearney 
 V. Kewii, 3 S. C. R. 332. 
 
 CONVICTION, 
 
 I. By Magistrates. 
 
 1. Getierally — See Justices of thb 
 Peace — Sessions. 
 
 2. Under Canada Temperance Act and 
 
 Liquor License Act — See Intoxicat- 
 ing LiQUOKS. 
 
 3. Appeal from—See Sessions. 
 
 II. Removal of— -^ee Ceetiorari — Intoxi- 
 
 cating Liquors. 
 
 A conviction must be under seal. 
 and Plows, 4S Q. B. 206.— Osier. 
 
 In re Ryer 
 
 CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Held, that R. S. O. (1377), c 158, s. 15, an Act 
 respecting co-operative associations which re- 
 quires the businer.s ihere referred to to be a cash 
 business, does no . prevent an association formed 
 to carry on a " labour "or " trade," from enter- 
 ing into contracts on credit necessary for and 
 incidental to such labour or trade — other than 
 contracts of buying or selling — such as contracts 
 for work or services. Ontario Go-operative Stone 
 CtiUers' Assoc'uUion v. Clarke, 31 C. P. 280. — 
 Osier. 
 
 COPYRIGHT. 
 
 See Trade Marks. 
 
 To create a perfect right undw 38 Vict. c. 88 
 "(Dom. ), there should be an ass^ament in writing 
 of such parts of the book as the owner of the 
 copyright therein is willing to permit his licensee 
 to publish ; but without any writing, there may 
 be such conduct on the part of the owner, in as- 
 sen^-ing to and encouraging the infringement com- 
 plained of, as to disentitle him to relief in equity 
 by way of iujunction. Alien v. Lyon, 5 U. R. 
 €15.— Boyd. 
 
 O., the writer of a book, printed the book 
 which he intended to copyright, with notice there- 
 in of copyright having been secured, although he 
 had not at the time actually taken the steps to 
 ■obtain copyright. He, however, did this merely 
 in anticipation of applying for copyright, which 
 he subsequently applied for and obtained. Fur- 
 thermore, it appeared to be sanctioned by the 
 practice at the office at Ottawa, and there was 
 no publication of the book till after the statu- 
 tory title of the author was complete : — Held, 
 
 that this did not invalidate the patent, and 
 quopre whether it was an infringement of section 
 17 of the Act respecting copyrights, 38 Vict. o. 
 88 (Dom. ), so as to suDJect G. to any peaalty" 
 Oemmill v. Garland, 12 O. R. 139.— Boyd ; U 
 S. C. R. 321. 
 
 On the title page of the book as published the 
 plaintiff caused these words to be printed ; 
 "Entered according to Act of Parliament, in 
 the year 1883, by J. A. Gemmill, in the office of 
 the Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa :" — Held 
 that this was suffa'cient compliance with section 
 9 of the said Act, although the form of words 
 used was not exactly the same as there prescribed, 
 inasmuch as the word " of Canada," omitted 
 after the word " Parliament," were immaterial. 
 General remarks on forms prescribed in various 
 cases by Acts of Parliament. iS'. C, sub now 
 Garland v. Gemmill, 14 S. C. R. 321. 
 
 The publisher of a work containing biograph- 
 ical sketches cannot copy them from a copy- 
 righted work, even where he has applied to the 
 subjects of such sketches and been referred to 
 the copyrighted works therefor. In works of 
 this nature where so much may be taken by 
 different publishers from common sources and 
 the information given must be in the same words, 
 the courts will be careful not to restrict the 
 right of one publisher to publish a work similar 
 to that of anothr r^ if he obtains the information 
 from common sources and does not, to save him- 
 self labour, merely copy from the work of the 
 other that which has been the result of the lat- 
 ter's skill and diligence. lb. 
 
 Section 5 of the Con. Stat. C. c. 81, is merely 
 directory, and so the neglect of the author of a 
 work to deposit a copy thereof in the library of 
 Parliament does not incapacitate him from pro- 
 ceeding for an infringement of it. Griffin v. 
 Kingston and Pembroke R. W. Co., 17 0. A, 
 660. — Falconbridge. 
 
 A railway ticket is not a subject of copyright 
 under the Act. lb. 
 
 The plaintiffs, a company incorporated in 
 England for the purpose of securing Canadian 
 copyright, and of acquiring the protection of the 
 Canadian Copyright Act, 1875, moved to restrain 
 the defendants from offering for sale in Canada 
 a collection of songs imported from New York, 
 which contained songs covered by the plaintiffs' 
 Canadian copyright : — Held, that neither the 
 facts that the domicile of the plaintiffs was in 
 London, England, nor that the defendants were 
 ignorant of the plaintiffs' right, were defences 
 to the plaintiffs' action. The affidavit of the 
 plaiutifis' manager, setting out their incorpori'- 
 tion, and the acquisition of the copyright of the 
 songs in question, and which was in no way 
 controverted, was held, for the purposes of the 
 motion, sufficient evidence of copyright. The 
 defendants were ordered to pay tlie coats of the 
 action although they had acted innocently, and 
 at once expressed regret, inasmuch as they had 
 contested the plaintiffs right in court. Aiiglo- 
 Canadian Music Publishers' Association ( Limited) 
 V. Winnifrith B Ahers, 15 O. R. 164.— Street. 
 
 There is a very clear distinction to be ob- 
 served in the Copyright Act, R. 8. C. c. 62, 
 between works which are of prior British copy- 
 right, and those which ai-e of prior Canadian 
 
 349 
 
 copyright. If thei 
 and thereafter Cai 
 by the production ( 
 6, that local copyri 
 by the importatioi 
 But if the Canadi 
 part of the author 
 section 4, the mo 
 outside importatio 
 Publishers' A ssociat 
 0. E. 239.— Boyd. 
 
 The Imperial Pai 
 reiterated colonial 
 sessor of a prior Ci 
 completely against 
 torial extent of th 
 English reproducti- 
 subsequent British 
 
 See Canada Piibl 
 R. 306 ; Robinson \ 
 
 A coroner for the 
 to have jurisdictio: 
 city of Ottawa, siti 
 V. Berry, 9 P. R. 1: 
 
 The inquisition %< 
 identifying the bodj 
 person with whos 
 charged ; but the p 
 the evidence shewei 
 mitted. lb. 
 
 At a coroner's ii 
 receivable under R 
 witness at such inqi 
 a statement inconsi 
 mony ; and indepen 
 improper reception 
 a certiorari to bring 
 . Regina v. Ingham, < 
 referred to. Reiji 
 106.— MacMahon.' 
 
 It is not improper 
 for the prosecution 
 the consent of the i 
 leached a conclusio 
 county attorney is t 
 proper language to I 
 their verdict after i 
 
 The caption to an 
 soners guilty 'of mui 
 was held at H. , etc. 
 of January, in the c 
 Majesty Queen Vict 
 be "an inquisition 
 Sovereign lady the 
 the body of an infaii 
 prisoners) then and 
 oath of " (giving the 
 and lawful men of 
 then and there dulj 
 quire for our said la 
 Wand by what r 
 came to her death, 
 etc. -—Held, that tl 
 holding the inquest 
 ciently appeared tin 
 
319 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 350 
 
 <x)pyriglit. If there is a prior British copyright, 
 jind thereafter Canadian copyright is obtained 
 by the production of the work, tiien, by section 
 6 that local copyright is subject to be invaded 
 by the importation of lawful British reprints. 
 But if the Canadian copyright is first on the 
 part of the author or his assigns, then, under 
 section 4, the monopoly is secured from all 
 outside importation. Amjlo-Canadian Mmic 
 Publishers' Association (Limited) v. Suckling, 17 
 0. R. 239.— Boyd. • 
 
 The Imperial Parliament has sanctioned and 
 reiterated colonial legislation whereby the pos- 
 sessor of a prior Canadian copyright is secured 
 completely against all interference to the terri- 
 torial extent of the Dominion, oven as against 
 Euglish reproductions or copies made under a 
 subsequent British copyright. lb. 
 
 See Canada Publishing Co. v. Gage, 11 S. C. 
 K. 306 ; Jiobinsoii v. Boyle, 18 0. R. 387. 
 
 CORONER. 
 
 A coroner for the county of Carleton was held 
 to have jurisdiction to hold an inquest in the 
 city of Ottawa, situate in that county. Regina 
 V. Berry, 9 P. R. 123.— Osier. 
 
 The inquisition was held to be defective iii not 
 identifying the body of the deceased as being the 
 person with whose death the prisoner was 
 charged ; but the prisoner was recommitted, as 
 the evidence shewed that a felony had been com- 
 mitted, lb. 
 
 At a coroner's inquest evidence is properly 
 receivable under R. Ci. C. c. 174, s. 234, that a 
 witness at such inquest has made at other times 
 a statement inconsistent with his present testi- 
 mony ; and independently of tluit enactment the 
 improper reception of evidence is no ground for 
 a certiorari to bring up the coroner's inquisition. 
 , Regina v. Ingham, 5 B. k S. at p. 260, specially 
 referred to. Keghm v. Sanderson, 15 O. R. 
 106.— MacMahon.' 
 
 Itis not improper for the county attorneyacting 
 for the prosecution to enter the jury-room, with 
 the consent of the coroner, after the jury have 
 reached a conclusion, where the object of the 
 county attorney is to advise the jury as to the 
 proper language to be employed in order to draw 
 their verdict after it has been arrived at. lb. 
 
 The caption to an inquisition finding the pri- 
 soners guilty 'of murder, slated that the inquest 
 was held at H., etc., on the Uth and Loth days 
 of January, in the 51st year of the reign of Her 
 Majesty Queen Victoria, and the inquisition to 
 be "an inquisition indented, taken for our 
 Sovereign lady the Queen," etc., "in view of 
 the body of an infant child of A. W. (one of the 
 prisoners) then and there lying, and upon the 
 oath of" (giving the names of the jurors) "good 
 and lawful men of the county, and who being 
 then and there duly sworn and charged to en- 
 (juire for our said lady the Queen, when, where, 
 now and by what means the said female child 
 came to her death, do upon their oaths say," 
 etc. -—Held, that the statement of the ti.»'" of 
 holding the inquent was sutiicieiit ; that it suffi- 
 ciently appeared that the presentment was un- 
 
 der oath : and that it need not be under seal : 
 that there was a .sufficient finding of the place 
 where the alleged murder was committed : and 
 of identification of the child murdered with 
 that of the body of which the view was had. 
 Regina v. Wiiiegariier, 17 0. R. 208.— C. P. D. 
 
 L. , the constable to whom the coroner delivered 
 the summons for the jury, was at the inqr ot 
 sworn in as one of the jury, and was sworn and 
 gave evidence as a witness ; and Y. , a juryman, 
 was also sworn and gave evidence as a witness :— 
 Held, that the fact of L. being such constable 
 did not preclude him from being on the jury, 
 nor did either of such positions preclude him 
 giving evidence : and so also Y. was not pre- 
 cluded. Ih. 
 
 CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES. 
 
 See Municipal Corpokations — Pabliahen- 
 TARY Elections. 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 I. Generally, 353. 
 
 II. By AND Against Particdlab Persons — 
 See The Several Titles. 
 
 III. Security for Costs. 
 
 1. When Ordered. 
 
 (a) Residents Abroad and Foreigners 
 
 in Ontario, 353. 
 
 (b) Bankruptcy and Insolvency, 356. 
 
 (c) Gostaof Former Suit Unpaid,^!. 
 
 (d) Other Cases, .358. 
 
 (e) In Division Court — See Division 
 
 Courts. 
 
 (f) In Exchequer Court— See Ex- 
 
 chequer Court. 
 
 (g) In Ejectment— See Ejectment. 
 (h) In interpleader — See Inter- 
 pleader. 
 
 (i) In Controverted Elections — See 
 Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 2. Amount and Nature of Security, Z59. 
 
 3. Increasing Security, 359. 
 
 4. Waiver of Right to, 359. 
 6. Practice in Moving for. 
 
 (a) Time for Applying, 360. 
 
 (b) Affidavits, 360. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 360. 
 
 6. Cancellation of Bond, 361, 
 
 7. Payment out of Court pending Ap- 
 
 peal, 361. 
 
 8. In Appeal. 
 
 (a) From County Court — See County 
 Courts. 
 
 
 
 
 s is 
 
361 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 (b) From High Court— See Couet 
 
 OF Appeal. 
 
 (c) To Siipreme Court— See Soprkme 
 
 COUKT. 
 
 (d) To Privy Council — See Privy 
 
 Council. 
 
 IV. When Party has Sccceeded only in 
 Part, 362. 
 
 V, Upon Counter claim or Set-off, 363. 
 
 VI. Third Party Costs, 364. 
 
 VII. Costs made Costs in the Cause, 365. 
 
 VIII. Abortive Proceedings, 363. 
 
 IX. Costs of the Day, 366. 
 
 X. Abandonment or Disclaimer, 366. 
 
 XI. Effect of Payment into Court— See 
 Payment. 
 
 XII. Set-off of Costs, 366. 
 
 Xin. Scale of Costs. 
 
 1. Generallij, 368. 
 
 2. In Interpleader — See Interpleader. 
 XIV. In the Discretion of the Judge. 
 
 1. Conduct of Partiex, 374. 
 
 2. UnnecpKMry and Vexatious Proceed- 
 
 imjs, 375.! 
 
 3. Good Cause, 377. 
 
 4. Other Cases, .380. 
 
 XV. Appeals as to Costs, 382. 
 XVI. Taxation. 
 
 1. Notice and Appointment, 382. 
 
 2. Attendance at, 383. 
 
 3. Production of Evidence, .383. 
 
 4. Costs AUoioed. 
 
 (a) Tariff, 383. 
 
 (b) Counsel Fee, 384. 
 
 (c) Witness fees and Subpoenas, 385. 
 
 (d) Other Cases, 386. 
 
 (e) Between Solicitor and Cf'ent — See 
 
 Solicitor. 
 
 5. Certifcate oj Taxation, 389. 
 
 6. Revision, 389. 
 
 7. Appeals from. 
 
 (a) Time for Appealing, 390. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 390. 
 XVII. Recovering Costs, .S91. 
 
 XVin. Interest on Cosis, 392. 
 XIX. Lien for Costs. 
 
 1. By Execution Creditor, 392. 
 
 2. By Solicitor— See Solicitor. 
 
 XX. In Particular Actions and Proceed- 
 ings. 
 
 1. Absconding Debtor— SeeAitsconDma 
 
 Debtor. 
 
 2. Administration— See Executors and 
 
 Adminjstkators. 
 
 3. Alimony— See Husband and Wife. 
 
 4. Appeals. 
 
 (a) (Jenerally-S.^e Appeal. 
 
 (b) From County Courts — iS^eeCoDNTv 
 
 Courts. 
 
 (c) From High Court — See Codrt 
 
 of Appeal. 
 
 (d) To Supreme Court—See Supreme 
 
 Court of Canada. 
 
 5. Arhitraliuns — See Arbitration and 
 
 Award— Railways and Railwav 
 Companies. 
 
 6. Arrest — See Arrest. 
 
 7. Attachment of Debts — See Attach- 
 
 ment of Debts. 
 
 8. Certiorari— See Certiorari. 
 
 9. Commission to Examine Witnesses- 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 10. Controrrrlcd Elections— See Munici- 
 
 PAL Corporations — Parliames- 
 tary Elkctions. 
 
 11. Conri"tioiis — See Intoxicating Li- 
 
 QUORs — Justices of the Peace, 
 
 12. Ejtclment —See Ejectment. 
 
 13. Examination of Judgment Debtor— 
 
 See Examination of Judhmest 
 Debtor. 
 
 14. Examination of Parties— See Evi- 
 
 dence. 
 
 15. .4 c 'ions fur Fraud and Misrepi-esenta- 
 
 lion— See Fraud and Misrepre- 
 sentation. 
 
 16. Setting Aside Fraudxdent Convey- 
 
 anres — See Fraudulent Convey- 
 
 ANCKS. 
 
 17. Injunctions — See Injunctions. 
 
 18. Interpleader — See Interpleader. 
 
 19. Lihel and Slander — See Defamation. 
 
 20. Mandamus— See Mandamus. 
 
 21. Mortgage Actions and Proceedings- 
 
 See Mortgage. 
 
 22. Partition — See Partition. 
 
 23. Payment of Money into Court— See 
 
 Payment. 
 
 24. Petition of Bight— See Petption of 
 
 Right. 
 
 2.5. In Pleading— See Pleading. 
 
 26. Quashing By-laws — See Municipal 
 
 Corporations. 
 
 27. Replevin— See Replevin. 
 
 28. Seduction — See Seduction. 
 
 29. Sheriff's Fees and Poundage — Sw 
 
 Sheriff. 
 
 30. Solicitor's Costs — See Solicitor. 
 
 31. Specific Performance— See Speciiic 
 
 Performance. 
 
 32. Vendors Actions— See Sale of Land. 
 
 33. Winding-up Companies — See Com- 
 
 pany. 
 
 34. Contesting Wills— SeeYfiLU 
 
 XXI. Staying Prockedings until Costs or 
 Former Proceedings are Paid— 
 See Practice. 
 
353 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 354 
 
 XXII. CoMMifWiON IN Lieu of Costs — See i 
 
 KXECDTORS AND AdmINISTRATORS- 
 
 Paktition. 
 
 XXIII. Costs and Expenses of Criminal 
 Jurisdiction— iS'ee Criminal Law. 
 
 I. Generally. 
 
 The wrong (if any) complained of, being a per- 
 ianal wrong on the part of the members of the 
 council who voted for the resolution : — Qucere, 
 if costs were adjudged to the plaintiff, whether 
 they should not be paid by those members. 
 Mamh v. Huron College, 27 Chy. 605. 
 
 Held, that the costs in this case having been 
 incurred in a proceeding consented to under a 
 common mistake of parties as to the proper tri- 
 bunal to decide the question, each party should 
 bear his own costs. Dolby v. Bell, 29 Chy. 
 336.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where it was held that a legatee having signed 
 a receipt, not being by law bound to execute 
 a release, no costs were given against him in an 
 action undefended to compel him to execute a 
 release. See Kaiser v. Boynton, 7 0. li. 143. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 In selecting the form of action regard must be 
 bad not only to the interests of the plaintiff, but 
 alio to those of the defendant, and when a simple 
 inexpensive mode of procedure is open, and a 
 more expensive and burdensome course is 
 adopted, it must be at the peril of costs. Van- 
 iewalern v, Morton, 9 O. R. 548. — Rose. 
 
 Sureties sued on a bail-bond, obtained an order 
 to stay proceedings on tlie render of their prin- 
 cipal, " upon payment of costs " : — Held, that 
 the words " upon payment of costs " are words 
 of agreement^ not mere words of condition, and 
 that execution for the costs was properly issued 
 under the order. Stuart v. Branton, 9 P. R. 
 566,— Dalton, Master. 
 
 In expropriation cases the costs should be 
 taxed liberally in favour of the proprietor ; but 
 where the statutes mention "costs "only, and 
 not "full costs," costs as between solicitor and 
 clientare not intended. Be Branson and Canada 
 Atlantic R. W. Co., 13 P. R. 440.— Boyd. 
 
 Where a railway company in expropriating 
 land under the Dominion Railway Act agreed to 
 pay to the land-owners "all costs incidental to 
 the arbitration" had to fix the compensation to 
 be paid : — Held, that the words did not extend 
 to costs as between solicitor and client, nor to 
 costs preliminary to the arbitration. lb. 
 
 The two judges who composed the divisional 
 court at the hearing of this case disagreeing, a 
 motion to set aside the judgment of the trial 
 judge in favour of the plaintiff was dismissed 
 with costs. Consineau v. City of London Fire 
 Int. Co., 15 O. R. 329.— Q. B. D. 
 
 IIL Secdritt for Costs, 
 1. When Ordered. 
 (•) Residents Abroad and Foreigners in Ontario. 
 
 Where a plaintiff resident without the juris- 
 diction wilfully stated in his bill that he resided 
 23 
 
 within it, security for costs was ordered. Snlher- 
 latid V. McDonald, 9 P. I!. 178.— Boyd. 
 
 A subsequent application to rescind the order 
 on the ground that the plaintiff had returned 
 within the jurisdiction and intended to remain 
 there at the time of the former application, but 
 had not then shewn the facts fully, was granted, 
 but on appeal this order was reversed, and the 
 order for security directed to stand. Ih. 
 
 Semble, that security will not be ordered, even 
 where the plaintiff is a foreigner who has come 
 within the jurisdiction temporarily, and only for 
 the purpose of maintaining the suit. Ih. 
 
 Where a plaintiff who resided out of the 
 jurisdiction did not endorse his place of resi- 
 dence on the writ, the costs of an application 
 for security were made costs to the defenilant 
 in the cause. McCready v. Bennessy, 9 P. R. 
 489.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 The right to security for costs under Rule 431 , 
 O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 1242) is absolute, where 
 the plaintiff resides out of Ontario, and it is 
 immaterial that the defendant has no defence 
 upon the merits. Quiere, as to the proper time 
 fur making application for such security. Bank 
 of Nova Scotia v. La Roche, 9 P. R. 303. — 
 Cameron. 
 
 A defendant is not necessarily entitled to 
 security for costs because the plaintiff's residence 
 is out of the jurisdiction. Doer v. Rand, 10 P. 
 R. 165.— Dalton, Ma,tter.— Gait. 
 
 If it be made apparent by evidence, which the 
 court should look at, that the defendant has no 
 defence, security will not be ordered. lb. 
 
 The defendant admitted on his examination in 
 this cause, that he owed the debt sued for, but 
 he afterwards alleged a counterclaim for illegal 
 arrest by the plaintiff in the course of his 
 action : — Held, that under these circumstances, 
 the defendant was not entitled to security for 
 costs, and a prajcipe order for security was set 
 aside with costs. lb. 
 
 Security for costs will not be ordered when 
 the defendant has admitted the cause of action ; 
 and it is not essential that the admission should 
 be in the action, on the pleadings, or in any 
 technical form. Anglo-American Casings Co., 
 (Limited) v. Rowlin, 10 P. R. 391.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff swore that there was no defence 
 on the merits, and produced a letter received 
 from the defendant before action, promising tu 
 pay the claim sued on : — Held, that this uncon- 
 tradicted and unexplained warranted the con- 
 clusion that there was no defence. Bank of 
 Nova Scotia v. La Roche, 9 P. K. 503, not fol- 
 lowed, lb. 
 
 Since the passing of Con. Rule 1251. the prac- 
 tice sanctioned by Doer v. Rand, 10 P. R. 165, 
 and Anglo-American Casings Co. v. Rowlin, lb. 
 391 is no longer applicable, and where a plaintiff, 
 against whom a prcecipe order for security for 
 costs had been obtained , moved to set it aside 
 and for judgment under Con. Rule 739 without 
 paying $50 into couic, under Con. Rule 1251 his 
 motion was dismissed. Payne v. Newberry, 13 
 P. R. 354.— Falconbridge. 
 
 An affidavit filed by the defendant set out that 
 "the 3aid plaintiff has been fur some time past. 
 
 ?5 
 
 S5 
 
 2 !5 
 
 :istf-i 
 
365 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 366 
 
 I 
 
 and is now residing, as I am infurmed and be- 
 lieve, out of the Province of Ontario, and be- 
 yond the jurisdiction of this court, having taken 
 up Ills residence in New Yorlt, one of the U. S. 
 A. : "— Semble, tliat a statement of the plain- 
 tiffs residence out of the jurisdiction, on infor- 
 mation and Ifclief is not sutHcient ;— -Held, that 
 the foreign residence of the plaintiff was liere 
 positively sworn to, and the affidavit was suffi- 
 cient in substance for the court to act upon it in 
 ordering security for costs. HolliiKj-iivoiili v. 
 llolUmjnvovth, 10 P. 11. 58.— Wilson. 
 
 Wiiere a plaintiff leaves the jurisdiction per- 
 manently while his action is pending, he will be 
 ordered to give security for costs past as well as 
 future, ilattly v. Merchant^'' Despatch Tram- 
 portal iuii Co., 10 P. n. 253.— Winchester, lieftree. 
 
 Parties residing out of the jurisdiction who 
 come into the master's office in an administra- 
 tion action pursuant to a notice to creditors, and 
 claim to be creditors of an estate administered 
 there, will be required to give security for costs, 
 Re Iiee.H—Urquharl v. Toronto Trust Co., 10 P. 
 E. 425. — Hodgins, Master in Ordinary. 
 
 A defendant ia entitled to security for costs 
 from a plaintiff whose permanent residence is 
 foreign, if at the time application is made the 
 plaintiflF is actually out of the jurisdiction. 
 Robtrt'<oii V. Cowan, 10 P. U. 508. — Dalton, 
 Ma'fter. 
 
 The plaintiffs having recovered judgment in 
 the action, the defendant appealed to the Court 
 of Appeal, and then moved to compel the plain- 
 tiffs to give security for costs, on the ground that 
 they resided out of the jurisdiction, and had 
 since the recovery of judgment ceased to carry 
 on business in this province, and withdrawn their 
 assets therefrom. The motion was refused. 
 Exchanije Bank v. Barnes, 11 P. R. 11. — Osier. 
 
 A defendant asking relief against his co-defen- 
 dant will not be ordered to give security for 
 costs on the ground of residence out of the juris- 
 diction :— Semble, such relief should not be 
 asked by way of counterclaim. Walmdey v. 
 Griffith, 11 P. R. 139 Dalton, Master. 
 
 Held, that the refusal of the solicitor for the 
 judgment creditor to disclose his client's pliice 
 of abode was not sufficient evidence of his living 
 out of the jurisdiction to support an order for 
 security for costs. Edwards v, Edwards, 12 P. 
 R. 583.— Ferguson. 
 
 Tlie writ of summons was indorsed with a 
 statement that the plaintiffs resided at the town- 
 ship of Brant, in the county of Bruce, and in 
 the state of Wisconsin, in the United States of 
 America. Upon this an order was issued upon 
 praecipe under Con. Rule 1242 by an officer of the 
 court requiring one of the plaintiffs to give se- 
 curity for costs and staying proceedings until 
 security should be given. The plaintiffs, desir- 
 ing to arrest the defendant, were refused an 
 order because of the stay of proceedings, and 
 then applied for and obtained an order allowing 
 them to deposit $400 with an officer of the court, 
 instead of giving a bond for security for costs, 
 and also declaring it to be without prejudice to 
 the right of the plaintiffs to set aside the order 
 staying proceedings, and they paid the $400 to 
 the officer Accordingly :— Held, that it appeared 
 
 frimi the indorsement on the writ that the plain- 
 tiffs resided out of Ontario, and that the issue of 
 an order for security under Con. Rule 1242 was 
 tliereby warranted ; but that the order issued, 
 being against one plaintiff only, was irregular and 
 migiit have been set aside ; it was not void, how- 
 ever, and was good until set aside : and having 
 been complied with, as it was by the deposit of 
 the money with the officer, the compliance made 
 it good, and it could not afterwards be set aside, 
 notwithstanding the reservation in the order:— 
 Semlde, that if it hail appeared by tliu indorse- 
 ment, as it afterwards did by affidavit, that one 
 of the plaintiffs in fact resided in Outariu, the 
 order for security would have been void, and 
 would have been set aside notwithstanding the 
 compliance with it. McVonnell v. Wake/ord, 13 
 P. K. 455. — Maclennan. 
 
 (b) Bankruptci/ and Iiuoloency. 
 
 An assignee in insolvency bona fide suing in 
 discharge of his duty as such assigi ie, will not 
 be required to give security for ■ >3ts on the 
 ground that he is without means, i. id not bene- 
 ficially interested in the suit. Vars v. (JouUl, 8 
 P. R., 31. — Stephens, Referee. 
 
 Where it appeai'ed that a large number of per- 
 sons had an interest in the settlement of the 
 (juestion involved in the suit, and they put for- 
 ward as plaintiff in the suit one of their number, 
 who was shewn to have been insolvent some 
 years before the commencement of the suit, and 
 did not appear to have accumulated any property 
 since his insolvency, security for costs was or- 
 dered. Hathiuay v. Doig, 9 P. R. 91.— Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 Security for costs was ordered in an action 
 brought by a ratepayer for himself and the other 
 ratepayers to restrain the delivery by the corpo- 
 ration of certain debentures to a railway com- 
 pany, where it appeared from the examination 
 of the plaintiff that he was financially incom- 
 petent to pay the defendants' costs, and wai 
 only interested to an insignificant nstiini; •. vi 
 where he swore that he expected cut t;v.; ^'m 
 named to pay his costs ancl to prot ivo i' . t- \'.' 
 the case go adversely, that be did •;.- .. .. >•> 
 spend any money on the prosecutim '.'. u n- 
 right in the matter, and that lie did ;io .'» 
 wno instructed the plaintiff's solicitor, -^m^ 
 v. St. Catharines, 10 P. R. 205.— Dalton, Masltr. 
 
 Where several parties suffer damage from the 
 acts of the defendant, and they agree among 
 themselves to share the costs of a test action by 
 one of them to establish his rights, security for 
 costs will not be ordered even though such a 
 plaintiff is insolvent. Clark v. St. Catharines, 
 10 P. R. 205, distinguished. Clarke v. R<ma 
 Timber Transport Co. (Limited), 10 P. K. 384.- 
 Dalton, Master. — Osier. 
 
 One S., a contributory of the company, peti- 
 tioning to sci; aside a winding-up order, was re- 
 quired to give security for the costs of the com- 
 pany and a creditor opposing the petition, where 
 it appeared that S. , although he had a nominal 
 interest as the holder of stock upon which noth- 
 ing was paid, was not in such a position that 
 anything could be made out of him upon execu- 
 tion, and was petitioning merely in tiie intereit 
 of other persons who lived out of the jurisdic- 
 
 9 
 
 il 
 
 3S7 
 
 tion, and who hi 
 costs. /?e Raim 
 314.— Dalton, Mi 
 
 The rule that s 
 ordered where it 
 several plaintiffs (1 
 siuue tlie law as ti 
 changed by Pule 
 Rules 300, 1171). 
 ever applicable t 
 costs against an ii 
 benefit of niiothe 
 P. R. 29.— Daltor 
 
 Where one pla 
 mechanic's lien a 
 other, an insolveii 
 get aside a sale c 
 <;o3ts was orderec 
 alone. Ih. 
 
 Where an inso 
 not an actor there 
 etrument in the 1 
 whom the action 
 will be ordered ; 
 cially wortidess, u 
 he partly bring th 
 other, is also hiir 
 result, lie has to bi 
 plaintiff, and cann 
 rityfor costs. D. 
 ^, distinguished. 
 Loan Co., 13 P. R 
 
 See Robertson v. 
 McKay v. Baker, 
 V. MacLellan, 13 
 
 (c) Costs 
 
 The plaintiff fil 
 daughter, alleging 
 the false represent 
 the daughter, upot 
 band was dead, wl 
 plaintiff V* as indue 
 property, which B. 
 and his nupposed ^ 
 plaintiflf, and the pi 
 sale of the property 
 thereoTi. This bi 
 want of prosecutio 
 tor of B. who had 
 ture under the fals( 
 that after his su 
 agreed, that upon 
 the property whicl 
 convey it to the pi 
 fie performance : — 
 not for substantial 
 and that defendan 
 security for costs. 
 192.-Ualton, Mai 
 
 The plaintiff, as 
 brought this actioi 
 to recover compen 
 to have been cause 
 of tlie defendants 
 letters of administ 
 had brought an aci 
 the same defendan 
 discontinued it. ' 
 
357 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 358 
 
 1 
 
 tion, and who had indemnified him as to the 
 costs. Ri Rainey Lake Lumher Co., 11 P. R. 
 314._Dalton, Master. 
 
 The rule that security for costs should not be 
 ordered where it could be only against one of 
 several plaintifla does not nowuniversally govern, 
 giuue the law as to joinder of plaintiffs hns been 
 changed by Rule 89, O. J. A. 1881. (See Con. 
 Rules ."JOO, 1171). Qujere, whether the rule was 
 ever applicable to the ordering of security for 
 costs against an insolvent plaintiff suing for the 
 benefit of another pei-son. IreiH;/ v. Clark, 12 
 P. R. 29.— Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 Where one plaintifT was suing to enforce a 
 mechanic's lien against certain land, and the 
 other, an insolvent, suing on another's behalf to 
 set aside a sale of the same land, security for 
 Kjosts was ordered against the latter plaintiff 
 alone. lb. 
 
 Where an insolvent plaintiff in an action is 
 not an aotor therein, but is a mere passive in- 
 strument in the hands of tlie real plaintiflf, by 
 whom the action is brought, security for coats 
 will be ordered ; but where the plaintiff, finan- 
 cially wortliless, unable to pay costs, although 
 he partly bring the action for the benefit of an- 
 other, is also himself largely interested in the 
 result, he has to be considered as the real acting 
 plaintiff, and cannot be compelled to give seci- 
 rityfor costs. Uelaney v. MacLellan, 13 P. R. 
 63, distinguished. Wallbridffe v. Trmt and 
 Loan Co., 13 P. R. 67.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 See Robertson v. McMaster. 8 I'. R. 14, p. 360 ; 
 McKay v. Baker, 12 P. R, 341, p. 358 ; Delaney 
 <f, MacLellan, 13 P. R. 63. 
 
 (c) Costs of Former Sail unpaid. 
 
 The plaintiff filed a bill against B. and his 
 daughter, alleging that he hatl been induced by 
 the false representations of defendants to marry 
 the daughter, upon the supposition that her hus- 
 band was dead, whereas he was alive : that the 
 plaintiff was induced by B. to expend money on 
 property, which B. was to convey to the plaintiff, 
 and his supposed wife, wlio afterwards left the 
 plaintifl, and the plaintiff claimed a lien upon and 
 sale of the property to repay his said expenditure 
 thereon. This bill having been dismissed for 
 want of prosecution, the plaintifif sued the execu- 
 tor of B. who had died, setting out his expendi- 
 ture under the false representations, and alleging 
 that after his supposed wife had left him B. 
 agreed, that upon receiving three years' rent of 
 the property which was under lease, he would 
 convey it to the plaintiflf, and praying for speci- 
 fic performance :— Held, that the second suit was 
 not for substantially the same cause as the first, 
 and that defendant therein was not entitled to 
 security for costs. Castcell v. Murray, 9 P. R. 
 192.-Dalton, Master.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff, as administrator of his late wife, 
 brought this action under R. S. 0. (1887) c. 135, 
 to recover compensation for her death, alleged 
 to have been caused by reason of the negligence 
 of the defendants. Previous to his obtaining 
 letters of administration to his wife's estate ho 
 had brought an action in his own name against 
 the same defendants for the same purpose, but 
 discontinued it. The costs of the first action 
 
 being unpaid, the defendants applied for security 
 for costs under Con. Rule 1243 : — Held, that the 
 cause of action in the two cases was not the 
 same, and an order staying proceedings till the 
 plaintiflf should give security for costs was set 
 aside. Lucas v. Cruickshank, 13 P. R. 31.— 
 Street. 
 
 (f) Other Cases. 
 
 The order for security for costs under Rule 
 431, 0. J. Act, (Con. Rule 1242), is a stay of pro- 
 ceedings, and a judge has no power to set it 
 aside when once properly issued and sign final 
 judgment under Rule 80, 0. J. Act. (Con. Rule 
 739). fiank of Nova Scotia v. LaRoche, 9 P. R. 
 503. — Cameron. 
 
 When the defendant has no defence. See Doer 
 V. Rami, 10 P. R. 165 ; Anglo- American Casimjs 
 Co. (Limited) v. Rowlin, 10 P. R. 391. 
 
 As to the rule tliat security for costs should 
 not be ordered when it could be only against 
 one of several plaintiffs. See Irving v. Clarke, 
 12 P. R. 29. 
 
 Action to remove a cloud from the title to cer- 
 tain land of the plaintiflf, a married woman, 
 whose husband when in embarrassed circum- 
 stances liad bought the land and taken a convey- 
 ance in her name. Tlie plaintiflf had no separate 
 estate, and her husband was not a person of 
 substance. There was no trust between the 
 husband and wife : — Held, (Proudfoot, J., dis- 
 senting), tliat though suing alone and without 
 separate estate, a married woman is not required 
 to give security for costs. The only person who 
 could be plaintiff on the title was the wife, and 
 her husband could not be joined as a necessary 
 or even a proper party. This case did not 
 come within the class of cases where a nominal 
 insolvent plaintifif is put forward, while the 
 substantial litigant keeps in the background in 
 order to avoid liability for costs. McKay v. 
 Baker, 12 P. R. 341.— Chy. D. 
 
 An application for an order for security for 
 costs was made on the ground that the plaintiflfs 
 had no corporate existence, and that their name 
 was being used by one C, who was insolvent : — 
 Held, upon the evidence, that there was nothing 
 to warrant the conclusion that this action was 
 really brought for the benefit of any other than 
 the plaintifis. Port Rowan and Lake Shore R. 
 W. Co. V. South Norfolk R. W. Co., 13 P. R. 
 327.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the question whether the plain- 
 tiflfs had or had not ceased to be an existing 
 corporation, having been raised upon the plead- 
 ings, could not be raised and determined on an 
 application for security for costs. lb. 
 
 The plaintiflf sued as lessee from her brother 
 of certain goods, for damages for illegal distress. 
 An action had been previously brought by her 
 brother in respect of the same distress against 
 the same defendant, and had been dismissed. 
 Semble, that under these circumstances security 
 for costs might be ordered. Denham v, Qooch, 
 13 P. R. 344.- Dalton, Master. 
 
 On the 5th November, 1885, an order was 
 made requiring the plaintifif to give security for 
 costs within four weeks and in default that the 
 action should be dismissed with costs, unless the 
 
■T" 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 li 
 
 I 
 
 court or judge on special application^ for that 
 purpose should other«'ise order. Within the 
 four weeks the plaintiff obtained a summons, 
 with a stay of proceedings, for " further time to 
 perfect security for costs," and on the 10th De- 
 cember, 1886, an order was made extending the 
 time till the 23rd December, 1885, but not pro- 
 viding that the dismissal of the action should 
 be the result of noncompliance with its terms. 
 Security was not furnished within the time so 
 extended, and it was contended that after that 
 the action was dead, and there was no jurisdic- 
 tion to make an order in it : — Held, that the ac- 
 tion never became dismissed under either of 
 these orders, and that a motion to dismiss was 
 regular and necessary. Whistler v. Hancock, 
 3 Q. B. D. 83 ; K?..g v. Davenport, 4 Q. B. D. 
 402 distinguished. Bank of Minnesota v. Page, 
 14 A. R. ^7. 
 
 2. Amount and Nahire of Security. 
 
 It is not essential that a bond for security for 
 costs should be by more than one obligor, if 
 otherwise sufiicient. Fletcher v. Noble, 9 P 1'.. 
 534. — Cameron. 
 
 The defendant having obtained on praecipe an 
 order for security /or costs, a local judge allowed 
 the plaintiff to pay $200 into court in lieu of giv- 
 ing a bond for $400, and afterwards ordered a 
 further payment of $50, but refused to increase 
 the latter sum. An nppeal fror the order of 
 the local judge was dismissed, as $250 appeared 
 to be sufficient : — Qusere, whether there is any 
 power to. fix the amount at less than $400, where 
 a praecipe order under Rule 431, 0. J. Act (Con. 
 Rule 1242) has been taken out. North v. Fisher, 
 lOP.R. 582. —Rose. 
 
 An order amending a pracipe order for secu- 
 rity for costs, istned under Rule 431, 0. J. Act, 
 (Con. Rule 1242) by reducing the security to 
 $2C0, cash paid into court, was reversed, where 
 no reason was shown for making the reduction : — 
 Held, that Rule 429, O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 1245) 
 does not authorize the reduction of the sum 
 named in Rule 431, O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 1242). 
 Hidden V. McKay, 11 P. R. 459.— Ferguson. 
 
 3. Increasing Security. 
 
 The usual praecipe order for secuiity for costs 
 had been taken out by the defendant and duly 
 complied with by the plaintiff. Subsequently 
 the cause was partially heard before Ferguson, 
 J., but was adjourned for three months owing 
 to the judge being required to open another 
 sittings of the court. The defendant thereupon, 
 seeing that the costs far exceeded the security 
 given, applied for an order for further security. 
 It was not shewn that the defendants could not 
 have foreseen that the $400 would not cover the 
 costs. Boyd, C. affirmed the judgment of Mr. 
 Stephens, refusing further security. Bell v. 
 landon, 9 P. R. 100. See S. C. pp. 161, 162. 
 
 See North v. Fisher, 10 P. R. 582, supra. 
 
 4. Waiver of Bight to. 
 
 The defendant was aware of the insolvency of 
 the plaintiff before the action was commenced, 
 but did not apply for security for costs until 
 
 after issue was joined, alleging that he was not 
 before aware that the plaintiff nad not obtained 
 his discharge : — Held, that the defendant hiA 
 waived his right to security. Bobertson v. Mc- 
 Master, 8 P. R. 14.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 A petition by the defendant to reduce the 
 amount of alimony allowed in the suit, came on 
 to be heard on the 5th of October, when counsel 
 for the plaintiff appeared and procured an en- 
 largement for two weeks to answer the defen- 
 dant's affidavits, and on the same day demanded 
 and received copies of them. On the 19th Oc- 
 tober, the counsel appeared and obtained a 
 further enlargement for two weeks, but before 
 the time expired applied for an order for secu- 
 rity for costs, on the grounds stated in the re- 
 port : — Held, without expressing an opinion on 
 the merits, that tl plaintiff had waived her 
 right, if any, to such security. Knowllon v. 
 Knowlton, 8 P. R. 400.— Stephens, Beftrtt,— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 The defendant demanded copies of affidavits 
 to be used on an injunction motion, and subse- 
 quently obtained an enlargement of the muticn : 
 — Held, not a waiver of his right to security for 
 costs, because the facts on which to base such 
 motion for security were unknown to him at the 
 time of the demand and enlargement. Hath 
 way v, Doig, 9 P. R. 91.— Ferguson. 
 
 5. Practice in Moving for. 
 
 (a) Time for Applying. 
 
 A motion for security for costs may be made 
 at any time before issue is joined. Caswell v. 
 Mmray, 9 P. R. 192.— Dalton, Jifay/er.— Boyd, 
 
 In a penal action brought by a common infor- 
 mer, an order for security for cotts, under sec- 
 tion 71 of the C. L. P. Act, was held to have 
 been properly made after the statement of de- 
 fence liad been delivered, and after the parties 
 had been examined, as authorized by Rule 429, 
 0. J. Act, (Con. Rule 1245) but, Held, that the 
 order should direct that security should be given 
 "for the costs to be incurred in such suitor 
 action," following the words of section 71. Bud- 
 worth V. Bdl, 10 P. R. 544.— Rose. 
 
 See Bobertson v. McMaster, 8 P. R. 14, svpra; 
 Bank of Nova Scotia v. La Boche, 9 P. R. 503, 
 p. 354 ; Exchange Bank v. Barnes, 11 P. R. 11, 
 p. 355. 
 
 (b) Affidavits. 
 
 An order for security for costs cannot be ob- 
 tained under section 71 of the Ccmmon Law 
 Procedure Act, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 50, upon an 
 aflBdavit made by defendant's attorney. That 
 section requires the affidavit to be made by the 
 defendant personally. An application made 
 upon the affidavit of the solicitor of defendants, 
 a corporation , was therefore refused. Martin qid 
 tarn V. Consolidated Bank, 45 Q. B. 163.-Q. B. D. 
 
 See Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 10 P. R. 
 58, p. 355. 
 
 (c) Other Cases. 
 
 Held, that a precipe order for security for 
 costs is a stay of proceedings while it exists, and 
 
 See Walmsley v. ( 
 
 7. Payment out i 
 
m 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 a motion for judgmert made simultaneously wHh 
 the motion to set aside the priecipe order' for 
 secnrity for costs was refused. Doer v. Rand, 
 10 P. R. 162.— Dalton, Maiiter.~Q,a.\t. 
 
 The statement of defence set up that the as- 
 sault complained of was in self-defence, and, as 
 an ^teriiative defence, that, while the defen- 
 dant did not admit his liability for damages, he 
 brought into court $150, and said that the same 
 vas sufficient, etc. :— Held, that the money paid 
 into court under this defence could not bo re- 
 tained there to answer the defendant's costs, if 
 be succeeded, unlcL'i a proper case was made for 
 ordering security for costs. Rogers v. Look, 1 1 
 p R. 118. — Kingsmill, Local Judge. — Hoyd. 
 See Bell v. Fraser, 12 A. R. 1. 
 
 See Walmsley v. Griffith, 11 P. R, 139, p. 355. 
 
 6. Cancetlaliou of Doml. 
 
 The plaintiff, who lived out of the jurisdiction, 
 obtained a judgment at the trial, which was 
 affirmed by the Divisional Court, except as to 
 one defendant against whom the action was 
 dismissed, without coats : — Held (reversiiig the 
 order of the Q. B. D., 11 P. K. 9), pending an 
 appeal to the Court of Appeal by the other de- 
 fendants, that the plniiititf was not entitled to 
 have delivered out to him for cancellation a 
 bond for security for costs of the action after 
 jndginent in his favour by the Q. B. D. before 
 thetirae for appealini; to this court luid actu- 
 ally elapsed, and while an appeal was actually 
 pending. Ilately v. Merchant^'' Despatch Co., 
 12 A. R. 640. 
 
 7. Payment out of Court Pending Appeal. 
 
 Plaintiffs, who resided in England, obtained 
 a verdict for the price of goods in defendants' 
 possession. The defendants appealed to the 
 Court of Appeal. Plaintiffs applied for pay- 
 ment out of $.100 paid in by them as security for 
 costs on commencinc the action : — Held, that as 
 the plaintiffs were shewn to have goods in the 
 country, and in the defendants' possession, the 
 }30O should be paid out. But for this the plain- 
 tiffs would not have been entitled to the money, 
 the appeal being a step in the original cause, not 
 a new action. Napier v. Hughen,9 P. R. 164. — 
 Wilson. 
 
 Money paid into court in lieu of giving the 
 usual bond for security for costs will not be paid 
 oat to the party paying it in, in whose favour a 
 decree has been made, pending an appeal to the 
 Conrt of Appeal. National /?«. Co. v. Eglexon, 
 9 P. R. 202.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendants being entitled by the judg- 
 ment of the Court of Appeal to the costs of the 
 action, obtained out of court for suit the bond 
 given by the plaintiff for security for such costs. 
 Before action on the bond, and pending an ap- 
 peal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the 
 Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Can- 
 ada, one of the sureties on the bond obtained 
 leave and paid into court to tiie credit of this 
 action |400, the amount due on the bond, to 
 abide further order. Upon the application of 
 the defendants, the company, Boyd, C. , directed 
 1200 of the $400 to be paid out to their solici- 
 tors, upon the solicitors undertaking to refund 
 
 the amount if the Supreme Court should vary 
 the ilisposition of costs made by the Court of 
 Appeal. Kelly v. Imperial Loan Co., 10 P. R. 
 499. 
 
 See Citizens' Ins. Co. -. Parsons, .32 C. P. 492 ; 
 McLaren v. CaidioeM, y P. K. 118. 
 
 IV. When Party has Succkkdkd only in Part. 
 
 The court refused in this case to reform an 
 instrument on parol evidence, although satisfied 
 tliat the plaintiffs ought to have succeeded had 
 tlic case been one depending on the weight due 
 to such evidence, and had the bill only asked 
 for that relief would have dismissed it with 
 costs ; but as the bill contained a prayer for fore- 
 closure, that relief was afforded the plaintiffs, 
 subject to the payment of such costs as the de- 
 fendant, an assignee in insolvency, had incurred 
 in resisting a rectification of the mortgage. Do- 
 minion Loan it Savim/s Society v. Darling, 27 
 Chy. 68.— Spragge. 
 
 In a suit seeking to restrain the use by defen- 
 dant of an oven, which liad been the subject of 
 a patent in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff 
 having succeeded as to part only of his claim, no 
 costs were given to either party up to the hear- 
 ing. A reference as to damages having been 
 directed, subsequent coats were ordered to abide 
 the result. Hunter v. Carrick, 28 Chy. 489.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Where a mortgagee claimed all the goods 
 seized by a sheriff under execution, but it ap- 
 peared on the trial of an interpleader issue be- 
 tween the mortgagee and the execution creditors 
 that some of the goods seized, amounting to ooe- 
 sixth of total value, were not covered by the 
 mortgage : — Semble, although the mortgagee 
 was entitled to the general costs of the issue a 
 deduction of one-sixth should be made in re- 
 spect of the goods as to which he failed. Segs- 
 worth V. Meriden Silver Plating Co., 3 O. R. 
 413.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, in this case, that the demurrer being 
 partially successful and partially unsuccessful, 
 neither party should get costs. Attorney Gen- 
 eral V. The Midlaiul Railway Co., 3 0. R. 511. 
 
 Boyd. 
 
 Plaintiff sued C. & G., G. being a married 
 woman, and obtained a verdict against both. In 
 term both defendants obtained a rule to enter s 
 nonsuit for them, or a verdict for G. The latter 
 part of the rule was made abHolute. The taxing 
 officer disallowed the plaintiff any costs in term, 
 because he had not given notice that he aban- 
 doned his verdict against G. , and taxed to her 
 one-half of the costs of the term motion, both 
 defendants having appeared by the same attor- 
 ney : — Held, on appeal, that a proper proportion 
 of the costs in term should be allowed to the 
 plaintiff, against defendant C, and the taxing 
 officer was directed to enquire whether any 
 binding contract of retainer had been entered 
 into by G., and if not to allow her only dis- 
 bursements. Clark V. Creighton, 9 P. R. 125. — 
 Osier. 
 
 Held, that inasmuch as the plaintiff succeeded 
 in the only branch of the case argued before the 
 Divisional Court, she should get her costs of 
 that appeal ; but as to the rest of the suit, to 
 
 
 
 
 .!>, 
 
 mSf. 
 
 f ' ■ *■ 
 
 I 
 
363 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 384 
 
 navu the cx]ionBc and trouble of the apportion- 
 ment, no osts should bo given or reucived. 
 Ooiitih V. Bei ch, 6 O. R. 009.— C'liy. D. 
 
 In this cns^ .ho defendant was refused Iuh 
 costs, 08 the ground on which lie had succeeded 
 did not go to the merits. Jtff/iiia v. S/uir/iam, 
 8 0. R. 570. -Rose. 
 
 The appeal of one of the dcfcniliititH, a bank, 
 was allowed and the bill against thcni (li.sini.sHed, 
 ^)ut as they set up a claim in their original 
 answer, which was urged uu appeal and could 
 not be maintained, they were held not entitled 
 to their costs of defence or of the appeal. Hat- 
 ley V. Je/lett, 9 A. R. IS". 
 
 See Porritt v. Fram-, 8 P. R. 430, p. 09 ; 
 litrtrain it Co. v. Mamey Manvfncliiriwj Co., 
 13 P. R. 184, p. 380. 
 
 See also next Subhead. 
 
 V. Upon Counterclaim ok Setoff. 
 
 An action on an unsettled account, to which 
 there was a counterclaim, also on an unsettled ac- 
 count, was referred. The referee found that 
 there was a sum of $148.81 due the plaintiff on 
 his claim, and $104. SO due the defendant on his 
 counterclaim, Icavint; a balance due defendant of 
 ^15.00, and he certified to entitle the defendant 
 to full costs. The Statute of Limitations was 
 pleaded resjiectively to the claim and counter- 
 claim, and the items barred by the statute were 
 in consequence disallowed ; but apart from the 
 statute tlie balance would have been in the plain- 
 tiflfs favour : — Held, that the plaintiff and defen- 
 dant were entitled to recover the coats of and 
 relating to the claim and counterclaim, and proof 
 thereof respectively, including the reference and 
 subsequent proceedings ; the defendant being 
 also entitled to recover the sum of $15.69. The 
 taxing officer to divide items in common ; and 
 jtidgment entered for the party in whose favour 
 the balance should be found. Coiighlin v. JJol- 
 fingsworth, 5 O. R. 207.— Rose. 
 
 Although for some purposes a claim and coun- 
 terclaim form but one action, yet the costs of 
 the counterclaim are to be taxed separately 
 from the costs of the action, a counterclaim be- 
 ing, for the purposes of taxation, to be treated as 
 » cross-action. McGowan v. Middleton, 11 Q. 
 B. D. 461, and Beddall v. Maitland, 17 Ch. D. 
 174, followed. E7nernon v. (Jeariv, 12 P. R. 
 399.— Street. 
 
 Where the order of a divisional court varied 
 the judgment at the trial by directing that the 
 counterclaim should be struck out and not dis- 
 missed, and should be disposed of in a separate 
 ivction, and also directed that the defendants 
 shordd pay into court the amount of the costs of 
 the action, but was silent as to the costs of the 
 counterclaim : — Held, that the rights of the 
 parties must be governed by this order, and not 
 by anything that preceded it, and that under it 
 the plaintiffs were not entitled to tax the costs 
 of the counterclaim. lb. 
 
 To an action on a building contract, the defen- 
 dant set up the defence that the work was in- 
 completely and unskilfully done, and counter- 
 claimed for damagba by reason thereof. The 
 master to whom ithe action was referred found 
 
 that $177 should be deducted for uuskili'nl and 
 incomplete work from the amount vlaimeil by 
 the plaintifl', and that the defendant had - iitfered 
 damage to the extent of $177 :— Held, thut the 
 (|Uestions raised by the defendant might have 
 iieen raised in a similar action before thu .Juili- 
 cature Act, and that he was not entitled to have 
 the costs dealt with as if what he had Hct np 
 was properly a counterclaim. Cutler v. Mont 
 \ 12 P. R. 504.— Armour. 
 
 ' The plaintiff claimed $1,205, the balance of 
 j the contract price for work done, and the ilefcii- 
 dant claimed that by reason of imperfect work 
 the balance should be reduced by $900. The de- 
 fendant was allowed $200.54 ni res])pet of hig 
 claim for reduction, and the plaintiff, therefore, 
 recovered $938. 4() :— Held, that what the defen- 
 dant claimed was neither a set-off nor a cnunter- 
 claini ; and, as the plaintiff had substantially 
 8ueceeile<l, he should get the general costs of the 
 action and reference, less the costs incurrpd by 
 the defendant in establishing the items of im. 
 pro|)er work on which he succeeded. Cutler i'. 
 Alorse, 12 P. R. 594, followed. Samkraony. 
 AsliMd, 13 P. R. 230.— Boyd. 
 
 Sec /h-oini v. A'elxon, 11 P. R. 121, p. 3G7 j 
 IVeurer v. Savyer, 16 A. R. 422, p. 378; Fimkr 
 v. Vieijcl, 13 1*. R. 133, p. 378; Berlmm A- Co. v, 
 Munsey MuHutadiiriiKj Co., 13 P. R. 184, p. 380. 
 
 VI. Tumi) Party Costs. 
 
 I Where the plaintiffs brought action against 
 
 the defendants to recover ijossession of certain 
 
 lands, and the latter resisted the claim, and also 
 
 served a third party notice upon IT. , claiming 
 
 indemnity ; and, thereupon, by order in uham- 
 
 bers, on the application of the defendants, H. 
 
 ! was made a party defendant to the action, and 
 
 I the plaintiffs afterwards abandoned their claim 
 
 j to the lands ; — Held, that the plaintiffs must 
 
 pay H.'s costs. Beard v. Credit Valley!!. W. 
 
 Co., 0. R. 616.— Ferguson. 
 
 The defendants, being sued as carriers for the 
 loss of goods in transit under a contract between 
 the plaintiffs and defendants, gave notice under 
 Rules 107 and 108 {Con. Rules 328 and 329) to 
 the third parties that they claimed indemnity 
 from them, under a contract to which the plain- 
 tiffs were strangers ; the third parties appeared, 
 and an order was made that they should be at 
 liberty to assist in defending the action and 
 should be bound by the result as regards the 
 liability of the defendants to the plaintiiTa. 
 The plaintiffs were nonsuited at the trial : — Held, 
 that the plaintiffs were not liable for the costs 
 ' of the third parties, or for the costs occasioned 
 by joining them ; nor were the defendants liable 
 for such costs. Tomlinnon v. Northern R. W. 
 Co. of Canada, 11 P. R. 419.— Armour. 
 
 Held, that the order of Armour, J. , (11 P.R. 
 419), refusing the third parties their costs, was 
 made in the exercise of a discretion which, by 
 section 52 O. J. Act, was not subject to review 
 without leave, and as no such leave had been 
 given, an appeal from the order was dismissed, 
 with costs. The court directed that such part 
 of the costs incurred by the third parties in es- 
 tablishing the defence as might properly have 
 been incurred by the defendants, should be al- 
 
 366 
 
 lowed by the tai 
 C. P. D- 
 
 In an action 1 
 received by the d 
 Buon a third pa 
 hmi. The third 
 was made that lit 
 the action as rega 
 pluintill' and thu 
 at the trial, call 
 witnesses called 1 
 and he bound by 
 delivered a statei 
 redly against th( 
 except a portion 
 was not a proper 
 tril'tition existed 
 was struck out a1 
 cation. The pla 
 tion:— Held, tha 
 the position .if o 
 own interest to i 
 (hould not reco^ 
 brought him in 
 Wallbridye v. Oc 
 
 VII. Costs k 
 
 In an appeal aj 
 security for costs 
 the costs made c( 
 Bell V. Landoii, J 
 
 The plaintiffs o 
 a foreign commiss 
 order contained tl 
 be costs in the ca 
 but was not pu* ii 
 that the directior 
 preclude the taxii 
 costs to the plaii 
 evidence had not 
 V. Slinsoii, 9 P. B 
 
 The venue in an 
 meat of a patent a 
 Brockville. As t 
 applying, the cost 
 in appeal were ma 
 xm V. Mann, 9 P. 
 
 Costs of movinf 
 of the absence of i 
 in the cause wher 
 diligent efforts, e 
 Brown v. Porter 
 260.— Rose. 
 
 VIII. Ab 
 
 An order was i 
 bers changing th 
 Simcoe, for which 
 chancery sittings 
 tiding at those si 
 the case, as it bel 
 lion :— Held, witl 
 master's order wa 
 tiff was justified i 
 occasioned by th 
 allowed to him. k 
 476. — Cameron. 
 
 The costs of a 
 cttse the jury dii 
 
366 COSTS. 
 
 M6 
 
 lowed by tho taxing officer, S. C, Ik, 620.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 In an action for rout or royalties upon iron 
 received by the defendants, tliey serveci a notice 
 upon » third party claiming contriiiution from 
 hilii. 'i''"' third puity appeared ; and an order 
 Wiis nuulo that he should be at lil)erty to defend 
 the actiiin as rejjarded the ([uestions between the 
 pluJHtitr and tlie defendants only, and to appear 
 at tho trial, call witnesses, crosscxiiniine the 
 witnesses called liy the plaintiff and defendants, 
 and be bound by the findings. The third party 
 delivered a statement of defence, which was di- 
 rectly against tho plaintiff's statement of claim, 
 except a portion thereof which stated that lie 
 was not a proper party, and that no right of con- 
 trilitition existed against him, but this portion 
 was struck out at the trial upon his own appli- 
 cation. Tho plaintiff' was successful in the ac- 
 tion;— Held, that the third party had a<lopted 
 the position of one who was called upon by his 
 own interest to defend the action, and that he 
 should not recover from the defendants who 
 brought him in his costs of so defending it. 
 Wallbridije v. Ouiijol, 13 P. R. 403.— Ferguson. 
 
 VII. CosTO MADE Costs in thk Caiise. 
 
 In an appeal against an order refusing further 
 security for costs, the appeal was dismissed, and 
 the costs made costs in the cause to the plaintiff'. 
 Bellv. Landoii, 9 P. R. 100.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff's obtaino.1 an order for the issue of 
 t foreign commission to examine a witness. The 
 order contained the usual direction that the costs 
 be costs in tho cause. The evidence was taken, 
 but was not pu* in at the trial. l?oyd, (.'. ; Held, 
 that the direction in the order as to costs did not 
 preclude the taxing officer from disallowing tho 
 costs to the plaintiff's, on the ground that the 
 evidence had not been used. Dominion etc. , Co. 
 V. Slinson, 9 P. K. 177. 
 
 The venue in an action to restrain the infringe- 
 ment of a patent was changed, without terms, to 
 Brockville. As the defendant had been slow in 
 applying, the costs of the application below and 
 in appeal were made costs in the cause. Aitche- 
 m v. Mann, 9 P. R. 253.— Boyd. 
 
 Costs of moving to postpone a trial on account 
 of the absence of a material witness will be costs 
 in the cause where the party moving has made 
 diligent efforts, etc., to secure the attendance. 
 Brown v. Porter — Knox v. Porter, 11 P. R. 
 260.— Rose. 
 
 VIII. Abortive Feoceedixos. 
 
 An order was made by the master in cham- 
 bers changing the venue from the assizes at 
 Simcoe, for which notice had been given, to the 
 chancery sittings in London. The judge pre- 
 liding at those sittings having refused to take 
 the case, as it belonged to a common law divi- 
 sion : — Held, without determining whether the 
 master's order was a proper one, that the plain- 
 tiff was justified in acting on it, and his costs 
 occasioned by the abortive proceedings, were 
 allowed to him. Schwab v. McQloughlin, 9 P. R. 
 476. — Cameron. 
 
 The costs of a trial which was abortive be- 
 cange the jury disagreed, no order to the con- 
 
 trary having been made by the judge at tho 
 trial, were held taxable against the defemlanli* 
 Ity the plaintiff who ultimately succeeded. Cuiic- 
 land V. Toirnnhip of likuht'im, II P. R. 54. — 
 Hose. 
 
 See nUMtl V. Struchnn, 8 P. R. 1\\, p. 380; 
 ChriMophrr v. Noxon, 10 P. R. 149, p. 385. 
 
 IX Cists of the Da v. 
 
 The practi'je 'i giving costs of tho day i» 
 superseded bv tlie O. J. Act. Js'o ollicer of tho 
 ] court has '.o\v power to issue a rule for such 
 ! conts. WIk^''! the plaintiff' fails to enter the 
 cause, defendant should apply to a judge under 
 Rule 204 (Con. liule 0(i.'')). The nuister in chani- 
 bors has no jurisdiction to entertain an applica- 
 tion for costs under that rule. HopkUix v. Sniilli, 
 9 P. R. 28r).-Dalton, Masln: 
 
 See Hojij v. C'rahbe, 12 P. R. 14, p. 384. 
 
 X. Abandonment ou Disci.aimpk. 
 
 J., one of the defendants, had bid for and had 
 become purchaser of a lot of land sold under the 
 provisions of It. S. O. (1877), c. 210, by certain 
 parties claiming to be trustees of the Coloured 
 Wcsleyan Methodist Church, whose proceedings 
 in respect of such attempted sale werein\peached 
 in tho action to which J. was made a party de- 
 fendant, although ho avowed his willingness to 
 withdraw from the purchase, and by his answer 
 disclaimed all interest in the result of the suit, 
 and alleged that no eff'ort had been made by him 
 to have the sale carried out, as he was aware 
 that tiie same would have to be first confirmed 
 l)y the members of the said church. At the trial 
 judgment was pronounced setting aside the sale, 
 and ordering the defendants generally to pay 
 costs : — Held, varying the judgment of the court 
 below, that under the circumstances, a formal 
 disclaimer was not required, and J. was ordered 
 to be paid his costs of the appeal, but the action 
 ill the court below was dismissed as against him, 
 without costs. Waw</ei/ v. Sinallwuod, 11 A. 
 R. 439. 
 
 See Beard v. 
 R. 616, p. 364. 
 
 Crtdit Valiey R. W. Co., 9 O. 
 
 XII. Set-off of Costs. 
 
 The costs of a motion in term are interlocutory 
 costs, and tho party to whom they are awarded 
 is entitled to have them set-ofi^ against the judg- 
 ment of the opposite party obtained in the same 
 cause. Younij v. Hobson, 8 P. R. 253.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the costs of a motion made after 
 judgment might be treated as interlocutory, for 
 the purposes of a set-off' under Reg. Gen. 52 
 (Con. Rule 120.5). lb. 
 
 In an action in a County Court, tried by a 
 judge without a jury, judgment was given for 
 $30, no order being made as to costs : —Held, 
 that no costs could be awarded, and a mandamus 
 was granted to the county court clerk to enter up 
 judgment for the plaintiff with costs, and with- 
 out allowing defendant to set-off against the 
 judgment the difference between County and 
 Division Court costs. Re Great Wentern Adver- 
 tising Co. V. Rainer, 9 P. R. 494. — Armour. 
 
 
 ( 
 
 '55 
 
.1 ■'.' 
 
 99t 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 368 
 
 
 Wliero judgmpntB were recovoretl in tlie name 
 uutioii, Ity thu pliiiiitiiron Ium cliiiin with guiiunti 
 ciiHtH of iiutioii, iiiiil thu ilufiiliduiit on lii§ uuuiitttr- 
 claim with uonts tliort'of, Much chiim nixl omintcr- 
 ohiiin ai'iHing out of tliu Hamt- Huhjuut iimttur, 
 thu jud^uioat for countorcliiim liirKt-'ly exceed- 
 ing tlio foniKii' in iiniount, ii sut-olF whh allowed 
 of 8o niucli of tlie money recovered l)y tlio de- 
 fendiuit a){ainHt tlie i)liiintiff on defenditnt'H coun- 
 terclaim aH wou'd cover the costs adjudge*! to 
 the plaintitr on his recovery of judgment against 
 thu defendant, ixitwithstanding thu claim of the 
 plaintifrs solicitors to a lien on the costs ad- 
 judged to the phiintiir. Jlroirii v. Xclnoti, 1 1 1'. 
 K. 121. -Diltou, MiiHtt-r.—Oalor. 
 
 Qua-re, when a judgment, as in this case, has 
 heen framed without directing a set-off, whetlier 
 a judge in chambers has power to direct it to 
 the prejudice of the solicitor, so us to vary the 
 decree of the court. Jb. 
 
 It is not a fair construction to incorporate 
 with liule 511 (Con, Rule II74) the provisions 
 of IJ. S. (>. (1877), c. r>0, s. 340, that section 
 being restricted to a case where there is a trial. 
 White r. Uclfry, 10 1', R. (14, commented ujjon. 
 Amlrcim v. City oj London, 12 P. U. 44. — 
 Ohy. I). 
 
 Under Rule 43(1 (Con. Kule 1204), a discre- 
 tion is allowed as to whether or not there shall 
 be a set-off of cost)i in the same action, where 
 costs are awarded to and against the parties ; 
 equitable considerations are allowed to enter 
 into the disposid of the contention, and there is 
 no strict right in (he matter. McCurlhy v. 
 Coopn; 12 P. R. 12*1.— Boyd. 
 
 A ilirection to set-off costs was properly re- 
 fusetl under the following circumstances : — The 
 plaintiff succeeded at thu trial of an action for 
 specific performance of a contract for the sale of 
 land, anil was given costs up to the trial : on 
 reference to a master he failed to shew title, and 
 was ordered to pay defendant his costs fcubseiiuent 
 to the trial, and to repay $500 of the purchase 
 money wliich had been paid by the defendant ; 
 the defendant's solicitor asserted u lien upon the 
 sum due by the plaintiff for costs, which could 
 be recovered upon the bond given by him as 
 security for costs, whereas the $500 could not be 
 recovered against the plaintiff, who was worth- 
 less, lb. 
 
 The plaintiff recovered judgment against the 
 defendant, with costs, upon a claim for the value 
 of goods sold under a distress for rent, of which 
 the defendant, the landlord himself, became the 
 purchaser ; and the defendant recovered judg- 
 ment against the plaintiff, with costs, upon a 
 counterclaim for rent and damages to the de- 
 mised premises. The judgment did not direct 
 any set-off, and the plaintiff's solicitors having 
 asserted a lien upon the judgment for costs 
 against the defendant, the taxing officer refused 
 to allow a set-off of the costs, awarded to plaintiff 
 and defendant respectively : — Held, that the 
 claim and counterclaim were separate and dis- 
 tinct, and the judgments must be treated as 
 judgments in separate actions ; and Con. Rule 
 1204 did not apply to enable the taxing officer to 
 deduct or set off costs. Under the circumstances 
 of this case, the Court (Rose, J., diss-nting), 
 ■deprived the plaintiff, who was finally successful 
 upon the appeals as to costs, of the costs of the 
 
 appeals. Link v. Bwtk, 13 P. R. 42fl.— Mao- 
 Mahon— C. P, 1). 
 
 Sue irAiV'' Siiriuii Machine Co. v. IWry, 10 P. 
 R. (14, p. 3«1»; liichindHOHV. Jrnkin, 10 P. R. 292 
 p. 3(11); Inland v. I'ilr.her, II P. R. 403, p. 370: 
 LinrnotH v. liailiy, 12 P. li. 536, p. 381 ; Tnuu 
 v, hixoii, 13 P. R. 27!», p. 374 } Johwton v. 
 Kinyon, 13 P. R. 24, p. 372. 
 
 XIII. .SCAl.K OF COHTH. 
 
 I. Ge.iiemlly, 
 
 The plaintiff sued the defendant on a foreign 
 judgment for $240, and specially endorsed thit 
 amount upon the writ r)f sumwions, Ho obtained 
 judgment in default of appearance : --Held, that 
 the foreign judgment was not a liipiidated or 
 ascertained amount within the meaning of R, 8. 
 O. (1877), c. f)0, 8. 15.3, and that the plaintiff wu 
 entitled to superior court costs. Davidson v, 
 Cameron, 8 P. R. «1. — Daltoii, Q. V. 
 
 Where a caiisu was properly within the equity 
 jurisdiction of a County (-'onrt, but the defen- 
 dants resided in a dUrerent county from that in 
 which the land in (inestion was situated, the 
 costs were ordered to be taxed on the higher 
 scale. Doubhdct v. Cmlit VaUnj It. W. To., 8 
 P. R. 41«.-Taylor, MaMer, 
 
 The plaintiff was entitled to the lateral sup- 
 port of the defendants' land, in which they 
 made excavations fur the purposes of a rink, 
 whereby the plaintiff's laud was damaged. The 
 damages were assessed at $40, but judgment 
 was given for thu restoration of the plaintiff'j 
 land : —Held, that thu plaintitV was entitled to 
 full costs. Snarr v. (Iranitt Curlinijand Skating 
 Co., 1 O. R., 102.— Ferguson, 
 
 The |)laintiff and defendant entered into part- 
 nership to furnish (i. & \V. with curtain staves, 
 for the price of $2,(K)0. The contract was not 
 fulfilled, and the plaintiff subseiiueutly brought 
 an action, and obtained u reference to take an 
 account of the partnershio dealings. The report 
 found that the plaintiff liad contributed to the 
 partnership capital $87.39, and the defendant 
 $233.89, and that there was due from the de- 
 fendant to thu plaintiff $43.74. The taxing 
 otKcer taxeil the plaintiff's costs under the lower 
 scale, on the ground that the case came within 
 C. S. U. C. c. 15, 8. 34, sub-s. 1. On appeal, 
 Cameron. J., reversed the taxing officer's ruling. 
 Blaney v. JMcdrath, 9 P. R. 417. 
 
 An action for the price of two distinct parcels 
 of goods sold and delivered. The defendants 
 accepted a bill of exchange for each parcel, one 
 bill being for $103.80, and theother for $10fa'.40. 
 At the time the action was brought the second 
 bill had not matured, as was alleged by the de- 
 fendants, and afterwards admitted by the plain- 
 tiffs. Upon the application of the plaintiffs, the 
 master made an order, under Rule .322 0. J. Act, 
 (Con. Rule 756) for final judgment against the 
 defendants for the first parcel of goods sold and 
 delivered, that is, for $103.80, with interest and 
 costs of suit, including the costs of the application, 
 " to be taxed occordjiig to the course and prac- 
 tice of the court." Under this order the taxing 
 officer allowed the plaintiffs county court costs 
 on thai part of their claim upon which they ob- 
 l I'.ied the order for judgment, and he allowed 
 
9w 
 
 OOSTS. 
 
 370 
 
 to tlie ilufumlantM Uio full costn of tlio liiuli 
 cuiirt <if juitico on thiit part of thu pluiiitintt' 
 claim upon which tlicdufunilaiiUHUccuudud, that 
 jitliu claim for <ill0().4O, thu pricu of thu ituuoiid 
 pttK'vl of goudM. Ulioii ail np|dicutioii by thu 
 <Iiifi'iiduiit8 to I'uviHu thu taxation : — Iluld, that 
 it Wii4 thu duty of thu taxing otticur to look 
 «t tiiu plcadingH, and if nucuHDnry ruccivu ath- 
 davitM HO ati to uacurtaiii tho factH r)f thu caHo ; 
 that Diviaion Cburt costH only ghould havu liucn 
 tiixtid to thu plaintifTH, as thu amount for which 
 they ohlainud iudKmcnt waa aRcortaincd by the 
 »ignaturu of thu dufundantfi, and was thercforn 
 witliiii the compctunuo of thu Division Court ; 
 tliat thu (IcfundantH ahould havu >Supurior Court 
 vo8tH down to und including thu atatcinent of 
 deft'iicu, which would not havu buun ruquirod 
 but for thu plaintiffH cluiiiiing improperly tliu 
 price of the Hecond parcel of goodH, which was 
 not iluu, and also thuir costs of this application, 
 with a act-off pro tanto against thu plaintillH' 
 juilijniciit and coHts. fVhitt'. Snriii<i Mar/iiiie Co, 
 V, Ikl/ry, 10 P. li. 04 —Wilson. 
 
 After a mortgagu salu, thu lirst mortgagee paid 
 thu Hurpiua proceeds of aalu ($1(12) into court. 
 Tiie third mortgagee petitioned for puyiiieiit out 
 to him of the $lU'i, alleging that thu Hucond mort- 
 gage was void for want of consideration, etc. 
 A rufciencu was directed, and the niuHter found 
 that the second mortgage was valid, and tliat a 
 miicli larger amount than ^Iti'i was due upon it. 
 The claimants of the fund lived in three ditferent 
 comities. An order niailo upon further directions 
 gavu the second mortgagee the costs of the peti- 
 tiiiiiiuid reference; — Held, that what was in con- 
 tent was the whole aiiKuint represuntud by the 
 aeciiiiil mortgage, and the subject matter thus 
 iiiviilvcil exceeded the limits of thu fornier cijuit- 
 able jurisdiction of the county court, and there- 
 fore, and also because the different respondents 
 resided in different counties, and the money in 
 <luestion was in court in u tliinl county, the 
 taxing officer was rigiit in taxing costs upon the 
 higher scilu. Jte Lyonx, 10 P. 1{. 150. — lioyd. 
 
 In an action in the Common Pleas Division, 
 for trespass to lands and removal of fixtures, the 
 plaintiff recovered a vcdict for $50. The taxing 
 officer taxed Division ("ourt costs to the plaintif]^ 
 ■ami full costs to the defendant. The pleadings 
 admitted 'in entry under an agreement as to 
 placing fixtures, and their removal and appro- 
 priation, but put in issue their wrongful re- 
 moval :— Hell, that the taxing officer was right, 
 the title to corporeal hereditaments not being in 
 fluestiou : — Held, also, that though the defen- 
 aant had failed to prove his defence, he was 
 entitled to set off his costs. liichardxon v. 
 Jtnkm, 10 P. R. 292.— C. P. D. 
 
 Action in thu Common Pleas Division for 
 1288.20, the balance of a claim of $1,828.20, for 
 8,;ilOlbs. of butter at 22c. per lb. $1,«00 had 
 been paid on account of the claim. The plain- 
 tiff obtained a verdict for $228.20. No certi- 
 ficate for costs was asked for at the trial : — Held, 
 en a mntiou to a judge, for an order directing the 
 defendant to pay to the plaintiff full costs, with- 
 «ut deduction or set-off, that the amount wrs 
 liquidated by the act of the parties, within the 
 meaning of R. S. 0. (1877), c. 43, s. 19, sub-s. 2, 
 «nd the plaintiff, without a judge's certificate, 
 *M entitled to County Court costs only. Dur- 
 itdv. McLean, 10 P. R. 295.— Rose. 
 
 24 
 
 MortgagooH, after tho cxercisn of thu puwur of 
 salu in their mortgage, claimed that $182.01 waa 
 atill due to them, but on an acc:«int being taken, 
 $20.07 was found due to the mortgiwor :— Huld, 
 that laying aside thu iiuestion of tho whole 
 amount of tho mortgagu money ($<i,70Q), the 
 amount involved was $202.08 and tlieruforu the 
 case was not within Itule 515 0. J. Act (C. S. 
 U. C. c. 15, a. 34, aub-H. 8)- -.See Con. Rule 
 1210 -and the coats were propurly taxud on the 
 highur scalu. Morton v. Itamtllon Prov'uleiU 
 ami Limn Society, 10 P. It. 030. - Proudfoot, 
 Affirmed, 11 P. R. 82.-Chy. D. 
 
 An order In ohambors, rofurred an action in 
 thu High Court of Justice to a master to aasoai) 
 tho dainagea, and directed that the costs ahould 
 bo taxed to whichever party was successful in 
 a certain appeal. Tliere waa no trial, and no 
 judgment waa entered. The master asscHsod tlio 
 d:imagus at $00, and the taxing officer ta;i'.d to 
 thu idi intiff, who succeeded in the appeal, his 
 costs upon tho High Court scale :— Hold, that 
 the otlicer had no power under the order to de- 
 turniinu tlie scale of costs, und he was therefore 
 right in taxing upon the scale of the court in 
 wliich thu action was brought. MrQaroty v. 
 Towno/Stmthroy, 11 P. R. 57.— Kose. 
 
 At thu trial thu luarnod judgu only allowed 
 County Court costs. On shuwing cause to tho 
 defendants' motion, tho plaintiff, who had not 
 moved, asked to have thu direction as to eosts 
 varied , and full costs allowed ; but the court, in 
 the absence of a substantive motion therefor, 
 refused to interfere. Dynifiit v. Northern and 
 Xorlh- WtMern li. \V. Co., 1 1 O. R. .343. -C. P. D. 
 
 In an action against justices of the peace for 
 false imprisonmunt, etc., the Divisional Court 
 (10 O. R. 031) ordered judgment to be entered 
 for the plaintiff for $25, the damages assessed 
 by the jury, leaving tlie costs to be taxed ac- 
 cording to such scale and wicli such rights as to 
 set-off as the statute and lules of court might 
 direct. Upon appeal from taxation: — Held, 
 that the action being witiiin the proper compe- 
 tence of the Division Court (unless the defen- 
 dant objected thereto), the plaintiff should have 
 costs only on the scale applicable to that court, 
 and the defendants should have their proper 
 costs by way of deduction or set-off : — Held, 
 also (Cameron, C. J., dubitante), that the effect 
 of R. iS. O. (1877), c. 73, 8. 19, read in connection 
 with section 12 of that Act and with R. S. O. 
 (1877). c. 43, 8. 18, sub-s. 5, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 47, 
 8. 53, »ub-8. 7, and R. 8. O. (1877), c. 50, s. 347, 
 is not to provide that the plaintiff should have 
 costs on the superior court scale when his re- 
 covery is within the jurisdiction of an inferior 
 court. Per Cameron, C. J.— The case came 
 under section 18 rather than section 19 of R. S. 
 O. (1877) c. 73. Ireland v. Pitcher, 11 P. R, 
 403.- C. P. D. 
 
 The defendants under a mortgage for $2,300, 
 made by plaintiff's father, and containing a dis- 
 tress clause, distrained the plaintiff's goods for 
 interest amounting to $112.65. The plaintiff 
 claimed that the distress was illegal and should 
 bo set aside, that the defendants should be en- 
 joined from selling the goods distrained, and that 
 the plaintiff shouhl be paid $200 damages, or if 
 the distress should be held legal, that the plain- 
 tiff should be subrogated to the right of the de- 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 >m 
 
 •31 » 
 
871 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 372 
 
 fondants wnder their mortgage, as f.gainst the 
 mortgagor. Tlie judge at the trial found in 
 favour of the plaintiff, assessing the damages at 
 t25, and granting the injunction prayed for ; but 
 this iudgment was reversed by the divisional 
 court and judgment for defendants was ordered 
 to be entered, with costs;— Held, that the action 
 was not one that could properly have been 
 brought nndei- the equity jurisdiction of the 
 County Court before the passing of the 0. J. 
 Act and Lav Reform Act, 1868, though the 
 arrears of inttrest and the damages found by 
 the learned judge were less than §20( ; and there- 
 fore the case did not come under Rule ')!") 0. J. 
 Act, (8ee Con. Ride 1219) and the costs should 
 be taxed on the scale of the High Court. Mc- 
 Donell V. liuildbuj and Loan Aumciation, 11 P. 
 R. 413. — Cameron. 
 
 Where in an action of libel a verdict for SI 
 damages was found, and the judge at the trial 
 gave no certificate for costs : — Held, that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to tax full co.sts. Carnett 
 V. Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 944, considered and fol- 
 lowed. Wilson V. Roberts, 11 P. R. 412.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 Where the plaintiff's claim in an action to en- 
 force a mechanic's lien was only §142, but at the 
 time the action was begun the aggregate amount 
 of the liens (the plaintiff's and another) regis- 
 tered against the property was over |200 : — 
 Held, that the action was properly brought in 
 the High Court of Justice, and the costs should 
 be on the scale of that court, and it made no 
 difference that the other lien holder failed to 
 substantiate his claim. Hall v. I'ilz, 11 P. R. 
 449.— Wilson. 
 
 The plaintiffs had judgment and execution 
 against one of the defendants for less than $200, 
 and sought in this action, though not on behalf 
 of all creditors, to set aside a conveyance liy 
 that defendant to the other, as fraudulent. At 
 the trial this action was dismissed. At the time 
 it was brought the sheriff' had other executions 
 in his hands against the same defendant, amount- 
 ing to moro than $200:- Held, that if the plain- 
 tiffs had been successful all the executions must 
 have been satisfi d out of the property covered 
 by the impeached conveyance, and the provi- 
 sions of the Creditors' Relief Act would have ap- 
 plied to the case, and therefore the aniount of 
 the subject matter involved exceeded $200, and 
 the costs were taxable on the High Court scale. 
 Dominion Bank v. Boffernav, 11 P. R. 504.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 It is proper practice to obtain a direction of a 
 judge as to the scale of costs before they are 
 taxed. lb. 
 
 The parties, by consent, allowed a verdict for 
 the plaintiff for $1 to be taken before the judge 
 at the as.sizes. to be altered according to the 
 result of a reference agreed upon, and also agreed 
 that the costs should abide the event. The 
 action was for damages for negligence, and the 
 award was in favour of the plaintiff for $85. A 
 question having arisen as to the scale of costs :— 
 Held, following Watson v. Garrett, 3 P. R. 74, 
 and Hyde v. Beardslcy, 18 Q. B. D. 244, that 
 " costs to abide the event" does not mean that 
 the plaintiff, if successful, shall necessarily have 
 full costs, but that he shall have such costs as, 
 under the statutes and rules of court, a plaintiff 
 
 recovering the amount that he recovers by the 
 event is entitled to, A ndrews v. City of London 
 12 P. R. 44.-Chy. D. » ./ , 
 
 Held, also, following Cumberland v. Eidout, 
 3 1*. R. 14, that the final judgment by means of 
 the reference was to be regarded as obtained 
 without a trial, and the costs tlierefore depended 
 upon Rule Sll, (See Con. Rule 1174) under 
 which the taxing officer was directed to proceed. 
 ll>. 
 
 The plaintiff in an action in the High Court of 
 Justice claimed $21(0.14, the balance of an ac- 
 count of $806 for rent and goods sold and deliv- 
 ered. The defendants in their statement of 
 defence admitted a liability of $170.30, but 
 claimed a credit of §81.14, leaving a balance of 
 $89. 16, which they bn mglit into court with their 
 defence. The plaintiff served notice under Piule 
 218 O. J. Act, 1881, accepting the amount paid 
 in in lull of the claim and proceeded to tax his 
 costs. Upon taxation a question arose as to the 
 scale of costs : — Held, that the provision in said 
 Rule 218, that the plaintiff' may tax his costs,, 
 does not give him costs according to any higher 
 scale than if he had entered judgment for the 
 sum which he received out of court ; the costs 
 should, therefore, be on the County Court scale, 
 as the whole amount of the account was over 
 $800, and the amount admitted by the defen- 
 dant was $170.30. Chick v. Toronto Eltdric 
 Lii/ht Co., 12 P. R. 58.— Rose; Tobin \. Mc- 
 Oillis, //,'. 60.— Armour. 
 
 The plaintiff held defendant's note for J.-JCO, 
 and gave it back to the defendant to hold until 
 the latter should be free from a certain liability 
 as surety. After he became freed he refused to 
 give up the note, and destroyed it, and this 
 action was brought for breach of his contract to 
 return the note. The action was referred to a 
 referee who found the plaintiff entitled to $314 
 damages, being the amount of the note and 
 interest :— Held, that so soon as the facts relat- 
 ing to the note had been arrived at, the quantum 
 of damages was a fixed amount ascertained by 
 calculating the amount of the defendant's liabi- 
 lity upon the note ; and therefore the claim was 
 within the jurisdiction of the County Court 
 under R. S. O. (1887), c 47, s. 19, subs. 2; and 
 the plaintiff was entitled to costs upon the 
 County Court scale only. The defendant was 
 entitled to set off the difference between County 
 Court and High Court costs of his defence. 
 Johnson v. Kenyan, 13 P. R. 24.— Street. 
 
 Before a motion for costs was made, the defen- 
 dant offered to pay the plaintiff's costs upon the 
 County Court scale : — Held, that this was not an 
 offer which the plaintiff was bound to accept, 
 and the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the 
 motion on the County Court scale. lb. 
 
 In an action by a judgment creditor, seeking 
 p.iyment out of land alleged to have been con- 
 veyed away by the debtor in fraud of the plain- 
 tiff, the proceedings were not alleged to be taken 
 on behalf of other creditors, and the plaintiff's 
 judgment was less than $200. It appeared that 
 there were three other claims, amounting in all 
 to $36, owing by the judgment debtor. Before 
 the triid of the action a settlement of the plain- 
 tiff's claim was effected for $75 and costs, and 
 upon the taxation of these costs a question arose 
 as to the scale : — Held, that the case was taken 
 
 373 
 
 out of the ] 
 Act by the c 
 defendant ; 
 need not be c 
 being less th 
 lower scale. 
 622 followed 
 P. R. 504 di 
 P. B. 106.—] 
 
 The plaint: 
 the defendan 
 after having 
 plaintiff's asi 
 court that tl 
 land :— Hehl, 
 in question in 
 the plaintiff ri 
 would have n 
 be on the scii 
 Haities, 13 P. 
 
 This action 
 plaintiff reco^ 
 gether with h 
 cording to iL' 
 that a Count 
 taiu and iuvi 
 suitors howe 
 sought to be r 
 pre.>iciibed by 
 Court would 1 
 White, 13 P. I 
 
 The case, no 
 not fall under 
 mination of tl 
 the discretion 
 audi discretioi 
 were applied t 
 allowe(l costs ( 
 defendant the 
 High Court, as 
 the amount wli 
 County Court, 
 
 The plaintii 
 brought in th 
 chanic's liei: 
 »245.2!), and r 
 a Hen on the h 
 upon the inves 
 of upwards of i 
 the landowner, 
 only $63.79, at 
 to this amoun 
 taxation of cos 
 have sued tiie 
 to recover the 
 proceeded in 
 tiffs, suing upo 
 entitled to C( 
 plaintiffs" clain 
 the Division ^ 
 the meaning of 
 Act, R. S. O. ( 
 could not hav 
 Division Court, 
 their costs upoi 
 v. Dixon, 13 P. 
 
 Held, that, , 
 koped to establ 
 titled them to 
 Iwdowner shot 
 ceis of his costs 
 
 
373 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 374 
 
 out of the provisioiia of the Creditors' Relief 
 Act by the compromise between tlie plaintiff and 
 defendant ; ana ...le claims of other creditors 
 need not be considered ; and the plaintiff's claim 
 being less than $200, the costs should be on the 
 lower scale. Forrest v. Layeock, IS Chy. at p. 
 622 followed. Dominion Bank v. Heffernan, 11 
 P. R. 504 distinguished. McKay v. Atwiee, 13 
 P. R. 106.— Boyd. Affirmed. lb. 146.— Chy. D. 
 
 The plaintiff sued for damages sustained by 
 the defendant cutting timber on his own land, 
 after having sold such timber standing to the 
 plaintiff's assignor. It was determined by tiie 
 court that the timber sold was an interest in 
 land ; — Held, that the title to land was brought 
 in question in the action, and therefore, althougii 
 the plaintiff recovered only #135, a County Court 
 would have no jurisdiction, and the costs should 
 be on the scale of the High Court. McNeill v. 
 Haines, 13 P. R. 115. — Ferguson. 
 
 This action M'as tricl without a jury, and tlie 
 plaintiff recovered judgment for $120.7'"), "to- 
 gether with his costs of action, '.,.) be taxed ,ic- 
 cording to tL" proper scale apf.lical)le :" — Held, 
 that a County Court has jurisdiction to enter- 
 tain and investigate accounts and claims of 
 suitors however large, provided the amount 
 sought to be recovered does not exceed the sum 
 prescribed by the Act ; and in this case a County 
 Court would have had jurisdiction. Bennett v. 
 White, 13 P. R. 149.— Ferguson. 
 
 The case, not having been tried by a jur}', did 
 not fall under Con. Rule 1172; and the deter- 
 mination of the scale of costs was a matter in 
 the discretion of the court. In the exercise of 
 sucli discretion the principles of Con. Ride 1172 
 were applied to the ca?e, and the plaintiff was 
 allowed costs on the County Court scale, and '^' ' 
 defendant the excess of his costs incurred in ine 
 High Court, as between solicitor ard client, over 
 the amount which he would have incurred in the 
 County Court, to be set off. lb. 
 
 The plaintiffs, sub-contractors, in an action 
 brought in the High Court to enforce a me- 
 chanic's liei:, claimed against the contractor 
 »245.29, and recovered §281.54. They claimed 
 a hen on the land for the anivjunt due them, but 
 upon the investigation of accounts to the extent 
 of upwards of $1,700 between the contractor and 
 the landowner, it was found that the latter owed 
 only $63.79, and the plaintiffs' lien was limited 
 to this amount : — Held, upon an appeal from 
 taxation of costs, that the contractor could not 
 have sued the landowner in the Division Court 
 to recover the balance of $63.79, but must have 
 proceeded in the County Court, and the plain- 
 tiffs, suing upon the same claim, were therefore 
 entitled to County Court costs ; and as the 
 plaintiffs' claim was beyond the jurisdiction of 
 the Division Court, upon any construction of 
 the meaning of section 28 of the Mechanics' Lien 
 Act, R. S. O. (1887) chapter 126, the plaintiffs 
 could not have brought their action in the 
 Division Court, and were therefore entitled to tax 
 their costs upon the C<. jnty Court scale. Truax 
 V. Dixon, 13 P. R. 279.— Gait.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that, as the plaintiffs could not have 
 hoBcd to establish a case which would have en- 
 titled them to High Court coats, the defendant 
 Undowner should lie allowed a set-off of the ex 
 MIS of his costs incurred in the High Court over 
 
 what he would have incurred in the County 
 Court ; but as the action was tried without a 
 jury, and Con. Rule 1172 did not apply, the tax 
 ing officer had no power to allow this set off with- 
 out the direction of the court ; and the judgment of 
 the court was amended so as to meet the case. Ih. 
 
 The statement of claim alleged that the defen- 
 dant was a monthly tenant of the plaintiff's land, 
 and that the plaintiff on a certain ilay terminated 
 the tenancy uy notice, and claimed damages for 
 injuries to the demised premises. The statement 
 of defence denied the allegation that the defen- 
 dant was the tenant (if the plaintiif : — Held, tliat 
 tlie title was put in issue by such denial, and as a 
 County Court would therefore have had no juris- 
 diction, the costs should be on tlie scale of the 
 High Court, although the plaintiff recovered 
 oidy $75: — Held, also, thiit the question whether 
 the title was in issue must be determined accord- 
 ing to the pleadings, and not according to what 
 took place on the trial or reference. Wormaii 
 V. Brady, 12 P. R. 618.— Armour. 
 
 In interpleader issues. See Masiiret v. Latis- 
 dell, 8 P. R. 57 ; Phippn v. Beamer, 8 P. R. 181 ; 
 Beaty v. Bryce, 9 P. R. 320; Arb'll v. Geiqer, 
 9 P. R. 523 ; Christie, v. Conway, 9 P. R, 529. 
 
 See Lirernois v. Bailey, 12 P. R. 535 ; 13 P. 
 R. 62, p. 381; 3/o.sc,s v. Moxts, 13 P. R. 12; 
 Foster V. Vieqel, 13 P. R. 133, p. 378. 
 
 XIV. In THE Discretion OF THK Jinx ii;. 
 1. Conduct of Parties. 
 
 When the defendant had by his answer denied 
 the agreement to convey, which however was 
 clearly established by his own evidence, Blake, 
 V.C., on dismissing the bill, refused to give the 
 defendant his costs. Feri/iison v. Fenpison, 28 
 Chy. 380. 
 
 In a suit instituted to compel payment of the 
 amount of a policy of insurance against tire the 
 company raised the defence of ultra vires, which 
 the court (Spragge, C. ) sustained and dismissed 
 the bill, but refused the company tlieir costs of 
 suit, as in opposing the plaintiff's claim they were 
 resisting upon inequitable grounds the payment 
 of a just debt. Lawson v. Canada Farmers' Ins. 
 Co. , 28 Chy. 525. 
 
 An order .vas made dismissing an action for 
 penalties under the Dominion Election Act, 37 
 Vict. c. 9, for wilful delay in prosecution, with- 
 out costs, ft r tiie reason that a prima facie case 
 of bribery was established against the defendant,, 
 which he had not attempted to contradict. 
 Miles V. Jioe, 10 P. R. 218.— Boyd. 
 
 Remarks as to the unnecessary introduction 
 of personal charges and assertions of motives in 
 resisting an ajiidication for mamlamus in this 
 case and costs refused in dismissing it. In re 
 Stanton and the Board of Audit of the County of 
 Elijin, 3 0. R. 86.— Hagarty. 
 
 In this case the motion to quash the by-law 
 was refused, but without costs, as the applicant 
 had been led into his position by the indiscretion 
 of certain members of the corporation. In re. 
 Workman and the Town of Lindsay, 7 O. R. 
 425.— Rose. 
 
 A conviction was quashed, without costs, 
 where it appeared that the defendant had at- 
 
 
 
 13^ 
 
 i':a5 
 
 X 
 
 « r 
 
^79 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 376 
 
 377 
 
 tempted to tamper with the informant. Regina 
 V. Jiyan, 10 0. R. 254.— Rose. 
 
 The defendants were ordered to pay the costs 
 of the action for infringment of a copyright al- 
 though they had acted innocently, and at once 
 expressed regret, inasmuch as they hud contested 
 the plaintiffs' right in court. Anglo-Canadian 
 Music PublUliers Ass'h. (Limited) v. W'mnifr'Uh 
 Brothers, 15 O. R. 164.— Street. 
 
 No costs were given to defendant in on action 
 to restrain him from using a certain designation 
 of his college as he had sought by the use of 
 the name to advantage himself in an unmeritori- 
 ous way. Robinson v. Bogle, 18 O. R. 387. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 On application for an injunction against a cor- 
 poration, though refused, the corporation were 
 not allowed their costs, as their conduct in the 
 matter in question was highly discreditable. 
 See Darby v. City oj Toronto, 17 0. R. 554. 
 
 An infant cannot during infancy avoid a lease 
 by him, reserving rent for his benefit, and pos- 
 session of the demised premises will be ordered 
 to be given in an action by the lessee for that 
 purpose. Hartshorn v. Early, 19 C. P. 139, and 
 Slator V. Brady, 14 Ir. C. L. R. 61, 342, followed. 
 The discretion given by Con. Rule 1 170 as to costs 
 authorizes the imposition against the infant of 
 the costs of an action to enforce such lease, in- 
 cluding the cof^ts of the official guardian, paid 
 by the plaintiffs. Lipsett v. Perdue, 18 O. R. 
 676. -C. P. D. 
 
 See Livingston v. Wood, 27 Ciiy. 515. 
 
 2. Unnecessary or Vexatious Proceedings. 
 
 Where one of several persons beneficially in- 
 terested under the will of a testator, without 
 making proper inquiries into the conduct and 
 dealings with the estate by the executors, insti- 
 tuted proceedings against them, and groundlessly 
 charged them with misconduct, causing thereby 
 much unnecessary costs and trouble, the court 
 (Spragge, C. ), being satisfied with the conduct 
 of tlie executors, refused to take the further 
 administration and winding up of the estate out 
 of their hands ; and it being sliewn that all the 
 other persons interested in the estate were satis- 
 fied with the conduct of the executors, ordered 
 the plaintiff to pay the costs of the suit. Rose- 
 hatch V. Parry, 27 Chy. 193. 
 
 A count having been drawn so as to invite a 
 demurrer, the demurrer was overruled without 
 costs. Smith v. Aiiccuiter TonmMp, 45 0. B. 
 86, -Osier. 
 
 A summons for a writ of prohibition to a Di- 
 vision Court was made absolute without costs, 
 there being no meritorious defence. Kinsey v. 
 Roche, 8 P. R. 515.— Osier. 
 
 It not appearing that there was any good rea- 
 son for filing a bill instead of proceeding to en- 
 force an award in the usual way, the court 
 (Spragge, C. ) refused to the plaintiff any costs 
 other than such as he would have been entitled 
 to had he proceeded to enforce the award under 
 the statute. Moore v. Buchier, 28 Chy. 606. 
 
 Where the defendant, who had covenanted 
 that only $664 was due on a mortgage held by 
 
 a building society on property purchased by 
 plaintiff, and his answer admitted an error in 
 the computation of the amount due to the so- 
 ciety, and offered to pay the difference between 
 the $664 and what he alleged was the cash value 
 of the mortgage and costs up to that time :— 
 HeM, that in the event of the society accepting 
 present payment of the cash value, the defen- 
 dant was entitled to his costs of suit, subse- 
 quent to answer. Stark v. Shepherd, 29 Chy. 
 316.— Proudfoot. 
 
 When it appeared that administration pro. 
 ceedings had been instituted without any shew 
 of reason, or proper foundation, for the benefit of 
 the estate, and that they had not, in their re- 
 sults, conduced to that benefit, the decision of 
 Proudfoot, J. , ordering the plaintiff to pay the 
 costs of all parties, was afSrmed on appeal. Re 
 Woodhall—Oarhuti v. Heioson, 2 0. R. 456.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Costs of cross actions refused where such ac- 
 tions unnecessary. Norvell v. Canada Soulhem 
 R. W. Co., 9 A. R. 325. 
 
 Costs not allowed where several motions de- 
 pend really upon the same considerations, and 
 there should have been only one motion. See 
 MonleUh v. Walsh, 10 P. R. 162. 
 
 The practice of bringing an action for an 
 amount due on a mortgage within the proper 
 competence of the Division Court in the High 
 Court, by making a claim for possession of the 
 land, is one that must l)e carefully guarded ; and 
 except in cases clearly indicating the necessity 
 for proceeding in the High Court, no costs will 
 be given to the plaintiff. In this case where the 
 amount claimed under a mortgage was within 
 the proper competence of the Division Court, but 
 the suit was brought in the High Court, .and there 
 were no circumstances shewing the necessity for 
 bringing it therein, no costs were allowed the 
 plaintiff. Vandewatersv. Norton, 9 0. R. 548.— 
 Rose. 
 
 Although in this case the plaintiff was entitled 
 to judgment of seizin, yet as there was no 
 demand made and the defendants were alwayb 
 ready and willing to assign the dower the plain- 
 tiff was not entitled to costs. Malone v. Malont, 
 17 0. R, 101. -Robertson. 
 
 Where a question might have been raised by 
 demurrer, without the expense of a trial, no 
 other costs or greater were taxed to the defen- 
 dantb than would have been taxed to them had 
 they simply demurred to the statement of claim, 
 and the demurrer had been decided in their 
 favour. Hepburn v. Township oJ Orjord, 19 0. 
 R. 585.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Campbell v. McDougall, 5 A. R. 503; 
 Stevenson v. Stevenson, 28 Chy. 232. In re Dean 
 V. Chamberlin, 8 P. R. 303; In re Flint and 
 Jelldt, 8 P. R. 361 ; McCardle v. Moore, 2 
 O. R. 229 ; Merchants' Bank v. Sparkes, 28 Chy. 
 108 ; Simpson v. Home, 28 Chy. 1 ; Purdy v. 
 Park, 9 P. R. 424 ; Wamley v. Smallwood, 11 
 A. R. 439, p. 366; Beaity v. O'Connor, 5 0. R. 
 731, 747 ; Vaiideioa^ers v. Norton, 9 0. R 548, 
 p. 353; Snider v. Snider —Snider v. Orr, 11 
 ¥. R. 140; Latour v. Smith, 13 P. R. 214, p. 
 386; FtUton v. Vipond, 13 P. R. 485, p. 380 ; Re 
 Allenby and Weir, Solicitors, 13 P. R. 403. 
 
 In an aotioi 
 wrong compla 
 the culpable c 
 the jury gave 
 declared that 
 costs, whereuj 
 entered for hii 
 cause was sho 
 to the defenc 
 1170), which 
 tried by a jur; 
 unless, upon i 
 good cause she 
 wise order. 1 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Where, in a 
 tained a verd 
 Held, that no 
 was necessary 
 deprived of s 
 Wilson r. Ro' 
 Bradley, 3 Ap 
 v. Conger, (2) 
 
 The court ct 
 finding of the 
 recover a verd 
 alleged for dej 
 that he was i 
 shewn by the 
 the same issue 
 be regarded. 
 
 An action b} 
 against the ba 
 recover the pre 
 the latter, sucl 
 seizure and sa 
 plaintiff upon < 
 execution debt 
 a County Coui 
 the plaintiff Wi 
 the circumstan 
 costs, and ordt 
 the action, and 
 should be dec 
 judgment. Or 
 cretion, this c( 
 learned judge.i 
 for the plaintii 
 reserved his o] 
 right in any ju 
 costs of a plain 
 right to recove 
 stantially prov 
 costs of the de 
 ilvle 428 (Con 
 over the appoi 
 cases to depriv 
 does not eztei 
 plaintiff or del 
 m his action oi 
 nent's costs. 
 in question is ( 
 of chancery, t 
 it was exercise 
 usual charactc 
 R. 517. 
 
 In an action 
 defendant was 
 plaintiff had f 
 jndge dismissei 
 
377 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 THE LAW SOCIETY. 
 
 378 
 
 3. Oood Cause. 
 
 In an action for seduction it appeared that the 
 wrong complained of was partly attributable to 
 the culpable conduct of the girl's parents, and 
 the jury gave a verdict for the defendant, but 
 declared that they desired him not to get the 
 costs, whereupon judgment was directed to be 
 entered for him without costs :— Held, that ^ood 
 cause was shown why costs should not be given 
 to the defendant within Rule 428 (Con. Kule 
 1170), which declares that where an action is 
 tried by a jury the costs shall follow the event, 
 unless, upon application made at the trial, for 
 good cause shewn, the judce or court shall other- 
 wise order. Walmaley v. Mitchell, 5 O. B. 427. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Where, in an action for libel, the plaintiff ob- 
 tained a verdict for twenty cents damages : — 
 Held, that no certificate or order for full costs 
 was necessary, and that the plaintiff could be 
 deprived of such costs for good cause only. 
 Wilson V. Roberts, 11 P. R. 412; Garnett v. 
 Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 544, followed. Weltbanks 
 V. Conger, (2) 12 P. R. 447.— C. P. D. 
 
 The court cannot look behind or beyond the 
 finding of the jury as to the right of a party to 
 recover a verdict, and therefore the cause here 
 alleged for depriving the plaintiff of costs, viz., 
 that he was really not entitled to recover, as 
 shewn by the result of a trial of substantially 
 the same issues before another forum, could not 
 he regarded. lb. 
 
 An action by the bailiff of one Division Court 
 against the bailiff of another Division Court to 
 recover the proceeds of goods seized and sold by 
 the latter, such goods being at the time of such 
 seizure and sale already under seizure by the 
 plaintiff upon executions in his hands against the 
 execution debtor, was tried before the judge of 
 a County Court, v.'ithout a jury, who held that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but, under 
 the circumstances, deprived the plaintiff' of his 
 costs, and ordered that the defendant's costs of 
 the action, and the costs of the seizure and sale, 
 should be deducted from the amount of the 
 judgment. On appeal fi-om such exercise of dis- 
 cretion, this court reversed the decision of the 
 learned judge, andordered judgment to be entered 
 for the plaintiff with costs. Hagarty, C. J. O., 
 reserved his opinion as to the existence of any 
 right in any judge to make a defendant pay the 
 costs of a plaintiff who has failed to establish a 
 right to recover, or to make a plaintiff who sub- 
 stantially proved his right to recover, pay the 
 costs of the defendant. Per Patterson, J. A. — 
 Knle 428 (Con. Rule 1170) gives full discretion 
 over the apportionment of costs, and in proper 
 cases to deprive the successful party of costs, but 
 does not extend to make any party, whether 
 plaintiff or defendant, who is wholly successful 
 m his action or defence, pay his defeated oppo- 
 nent's costs. Per Osier, J. A. — The jurisdiction 
 in question is one which existed in the old court 
 of chancery, though the circumstances in which 
 it was exercised, were of a very special and un- 
 usual character. Mitchell v. Vandtisen, 14 A. 
 R. 517. 
 
 In an action for libel, the jury found that the 
 defendant was guilty of libelling, but that the 
 plaintiff had sustained no damage. The trial 
 ]ndge dismissed the action, but ordered the de- 
 
 fendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, and gave the 
 latter judgment therefor. The defendant there- 
 upon moved in the Divisional Court against the 
 judgment for costs, which that court varied by 
 ordering the action to be dismissed with costs, 
 and the plaintiff having appealed to this court 
 from the judgment at the trial, dismissing the 
 action, as also from the judgment of the divi- 
 sional court:— Held, that although Rule 428 
 (Con. Rule 1170), gives to the judge or court the 
 power of depriving any of the parties to an ac- 
 tion, plaintiff or defendant, of their costs ; it 
 does not confer the power of compelling a suc- 
 cessful party to pay the costs of an unsuccessful 
 party: Mitchell v. Vandusen, 14 A. R. 517, con- 
 sidered, approved and followed : — Held, also, 
 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff from the 
 judgment at the trial, that a. venire de novo- 
 should be awarded : (Patterson, J. A., dissent- 
 ing from such direction). Wills v. Carman, 14 
 A. R. 656 ; Bush v. McGormack, 20 0. R. 497. 
 
 By R. S. 0. (1877), c. 52, s. 2, a successful 
 party on an application for a writ of prohibition 
 is entitled to and should be awarded costs, unless 
 the court in the proper exercise of a wise discre- 
 tion can see good cause for depriving such party 
 of them ; and such party should not be deprived 
 of costs unless there appear impropriety of con- 
 duct which induced the litigation, or impropri- 
 ety in the conduct thereof. Under the circum- 
 stances of this case, reported 12 P. R, 450, the 
 defendant was allowed costs of a successful mo- 
 tion for prohibition to a Division Court. Re 
 McLeod V. Emigh, (2) 12 P. R. 503.— C. P. D. 
 
 The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on 
 his claim for $200, and for the defendants on 
 their counterclaim for $100, and stated that 
 they wished the plaintiff to have full costs and 
 the defendants to have no costs, and the judge 
 gave effect to the expression of their wishes aa 
 to costs : — Held, that the recommendation of the 
 jury did not constitute good cause for depriving 
 the defendants of the costs of the counterclaim. 
 Weaver v. Sawyer, 16 A. R. 422, 
 
 In an action tried by a jury, where the defen- 
 dant recovers on a counterclaim, the costs 
 should be on the scale of the court in which the 
 action is brought by the plaintiff, unless the 
 judge for good cause makes a different order. 
 The fact that the recovery is for a sum within 
 the jurisdiction of an inferior court is not good 
 cause for such an order. Foster v. Viegd, 13 
 P. R. 133.— C. of A. 
 
 When the special jury before which an action 
 of libel was tried returned to the court-room 
 after considering their verdict, the foreman an- 
 nounced a verdict for the defendant. He then 
 asked if the jury had anything to do with the 
 question of costs. The trial judge replied that 
 he thought not, but if any recommendation was 
 made it would be considered. The foreman 
 then announced that in the opinion of the jury 
 each party ought to pay his own costs. Upon 
 a motion by the plaintiff to the trial judge for an 
 order disposing of the costs in the way recom- 
 mended by the jury : Held, that the recom- 
 mendation of the jury as to costs was not a part 
 of their verdict, but if so it was an announce- 
 ment of a result at which they had no right in 
 law to arrive ; the verdict was complete oefore 
 anything was said as to costs. If the verdict for 
 
 
 
 
879 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 380 
 
 ';■ 
 
 the defendant would not have been given except 
 with the recommendation as to coats, that would 
 be matter fur coniiideration upon a motion for a 
 new trial, and not upon the present motion. 
 Upon the motion the plaintiffs hied atiidavits of 
 some of the jurors, stating that they would not 
 have agreed in a verdict for the defendant if 
 they had thouglit the result would be to throw 
 upon the plaintiffs the whole costs of the aution. 
 Held, that tliese affidavits were not receivable 
 in evidence, llegiua v. Fellowes, 19 Q. B. 48, 
 followed. Jamieson v. Harker, 18 Q. B. 590, 
 distinguished. It was also contended by the 
 plaintiffs that the trial judge should make an 
 order depriving the successful defendant of 
 costs, upon the recommendation of the jury and 
 the facts appearing in evidence : Held, that the 
 question of costs was within the power of the trial 
 judge, and he could only interfere with the event 
 for " good cause. " (Con. Rule 1170). By act- 
 ing on the recommendation of the jury he would, 
 in effect, be abdicating his functions and allowing 
 the jury to determine what was " good cause. 
 "Good cause " means some misconduct leading 
 to the litigation, or in the course of the litiga- 
 tion, which requires the court injustice to inter- 
 fere, and there is a marked distinction between 
 interfering with costs going to the plaintiff and 
 coats going to the defendant ; and upon the 
 facts of this case there was no " good cause " for 
 interfering. Farquhar v. Robertson, 13 P. R. 
 156. — Rose. See also United Slates Express Go. 
 T. Donahue, lb. 158. 
 
 The plaintiffs claimed more than §13,000 upon 
 a special contract for iron sold to tlie defendants, 
 and damages for refusal to accept a portion of 
 the goods sold. The defendants denied their 
 liability to pay for any part of the iron, setting 
 up that it was not what they had contracted for, 
 and counterclaiming for damages for breach of 
 contract. The case was tried by a jury, who in 
 answer to questions left to them found that the 
 iron delivered was not up to contract, but that 
 the defendants had accepted and used a portion 
 of it ; and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs 
 by the trial judge for over $5,000 for the portion 
 of the iron used by the defendants, at the con- 
 tract price less fifteen per cent, for inferiority, as 
 found by the jury. The trial judge gave the 
 
 Slaintiffs the costs of the action and the defen- 
 ants the costs of the counterclaim, and the 
 Divisional Court (15 O. R. 516) affirmed the 
 judgment and disposition of costs. The de- 
 fendants appealed upon the question of costs 
 only, contending that they had succeeded upon 
 the issue as to the quality of the iron, and were 
 «ntitled to the costs of that issue. Thedefendants 
 had not asked at the trial to have judgment en- 
 tered for them upon such issue, nor was it so 
 «ntered : — Held, by the majority of the court, 
 that there was, upon the evidence, "good cause" 
 within the meaning of Con. Rule 1170 for de- 
 priving the defendants of the costs of the issue 
 found oy the jury in their favour, and the order 
 of the trial juilge and the Divisional Court should 
 not be interfered with. Per Hagarty C. J. O. — 
 If the trial judge did not intend by his order 
 to deprive the defendants of such costs, then the 
 costs were properly left to follow the event, 
 which was in favour of the plaintiffs to the ex- 
 tent of over 15,000. Per Burton, J. A.— The 
 defendants, not having applied for judgment 
 thereon, were not entitled to costs of the issue 
 
 found by the jury in their favour. Per Osier and 
 Maclennan, J J. A. — Although there was no 
 formal orderspecificallydepriving the defendants 
 of costs, the trial judge and the court below in- 
 tended to deprive them of costs for good cause. 
 Huxley v. West London Extension R. W. Co., 
 14 App. Cas. 26, specially referred to. Bertram 
 A' Co. v. Massey Manufacturing Co. 13 P. R 
 184.— C. of A. 
 
 The court can interfere with the trial judge's 
 discretion in depriving a successful party of 
 costs in an action tried by a jury, where he has 
 given effect to considerations which do not con- 
 stitute "good cause" within the meaning of Con. 
 Rule 1J70. Fulton v. Vipond, 13 P. R. 485.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff's principal claim, upon which he 
 succeeded, was for wood cut and removed by 
 the defendants. The trial judge ruled that the 
 conduct of the plaintiff in refusing a reniea- 
 surement caused unnecessary litigation, and he 
 deprived him of the costs of that claim. The 
 plaintiff and defendant had each had a measure- 
 ment made, and differed as to the result. The 
 Elaintiff refused to have a remeasurement and 
 rought the action, the result of which shewed 
 that nis measurement was correct :— Held, that 
 the plaintiff^s refusal was not misconduct in- 
 ducing the litigation, and there was no "good 
 cause for depriving him of costs. Huxley v. 
 West London Extension R. W. Co., 14 App. 
 Cas. at pp. 33-4, specially referred to. lb. 
 
 Con. Rule 1 170 providesthat where an action is 
 tried by a jury the costs shall follow the event, 
 unless, upon application made at the trial for 
 good cause shewn, the judge before whom the 
 action or issue is tried or the court otherwise 
 orders :— Semble, that there must be substan- 
 tially an application at the trial, and if the trial 
 judge, anticipating the application of counsel, 
 makes the order in presence of opposing counsel, 
 he makes it on application. lb. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 
 
 Boyd, C, overruled a demurrer, without costs, 
 as it was the first occasion the point decided 
 under it had arisen since the Judicature Act. 
 Rumohr v. Marx, 29 Chy. 179. 
 
 In this case the action was dismissed without 
 costs as the point decided was a new one, and 
 the statute was not plainly expressed. Wcdlaa 
 v. Board oj Public School Trustees far Union 
 School Section 9 of Township of Lobo, 11 0. R. 
 648.— Boyd. 
 
 The (juestion as to jurisdiction being impor- 
 tant, and open to reasonable doubt, no costs 
 were allowed. Re North York Election ( Dom. )— 
 Paterson v. Mulock, 32 C. P. 458. — Cameron. 
 
 Costs not asked for in rule, though they were 
 at the bar : — Held, no objection, as they are in 
 the discretion of the court under the Judicature 
 Act. In re Peck and the Town of Gait, 46 Q. B. 
 211.— Osier. 
 
 The plaintiff, by his bill, did not submit to do 
 what he was bound to do as the price of the re- 
 lief asked ; and the defendant asked relief which 
 the court could not grant. The court (Spragge, 
 
381 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 382 
 
 See TApxetl v. Perdue, 18 0. R. 575, p. 375. 
 
 a ), on pronouncing a decree, refused costs to , viewable ; and that tlie appeal should be al- 
 «ither party. Clemow v. Booth, 27 Chy. 15. [ lowed. S. G., 13 P. K. 62. 
 
 Where affidavits used on a motion were badly 
 written, scarcely legible and difficult to decipher, 
 the court (Spragge, C), refused the plaintiff all 
 coats connected with their preparation, although 
 the costs of the suit were given him. Burnham 
 V. Garvey, 27 Chy. 80. 
 
 Where the petitioner had carefully abstained j 
 from ascribing fraud or fraudulent conduct to tlie 
 plaititifi', and the circumstances were sucli as to 
 iuvite discussion, the court in diamissing the | 
 petition did so without costs. Rkker v. Bicker, '■ 
 27 Ciiy. 576. ' 
 
 Costs refused on ground of delay in proof of | 
 olaitn bv dowress. Hyde v. Barton, 8 P. 11. 
 205. 
 
 The defendant brought into court, witli his de- 
 feuoe, a sum which he pleaded was sufficient to 
 Answer the plaintiff's claim, and the judge at ; 
 the trial Knding that it was sufficient, directed ! 
 judgment to be entered for tiie defendant, with j 
 costs:— Held, that the judge at the trial had a j 
 diseretiou to deal witli the question of co:its, i 
 and having exercised it, the taxing officer had ' 
 no alternative but to tax to tlie defendant his 
 full coats incurred, as W'^U before as after the 
 payment into court. Smali v. Lyoii, 10 P. R. 
 223.— Cameron. 
 
 On a motion for a writ of prohibition to re- 
 strain an action in a Division Court : — Held, that , 
 as the learned judge who tried the case does not | 
 allow County Court costs in similar cases, and as 
 the plaintiff was obliged to sue in the Division 
 Court at the risk of prohibition, or in the County 
 Court, and lose bis costs, that the defendant 
 should get no costs of this motion, unless he 
 successfully resist the suit to be subsequently 
 brought to recover the amount of the note. Be 
 Younij V. Mordeii, 10 P. K. 276. — Rose. 
 
 The trial judge reserved judgment and after- 
 wards delivered a written judgment in the plain- 
 tiff's favour, but inadvertently omitted to make 
 any order as to costs : — Held, that the case came 
 within Rule 338 (Con. Rule 780), and that the 
 judge had power, even after an appeal to a Divi- 
 sional Court, which left his judgment undis- 
 turbed, to make an order as to costs. Fritz !'. 
 Hobson, l4 Ch. D. 542 followed. Hardy v. 
 Pickard, 12 P. R. 428.— Rose. 
 
 In an action for damages for breach of a con- 
 tract, the jury awarded the plaintiff $68.50, and 
 the trial judge entered judgment for that amount, 
 »nd certified to entitle the plaintiff to costs on 
 the Division Court scale, and to prevent the de- 
 fendant from setting off high court costs. On 
 appeal, a Divisional Court varied the order as to 
 coats 80 as to give the plaintiff such costs only 
 as he would nave recovered under R. S. O. 
 <1877) c. 50, 8. 347, sub-s. 3, where the judge at 
 the trial did not certify. Livernois v. Bailey, 
 12 P. R. 535. -C. P. D. 
 
 On appeal from this decision to the court of 
 sppeal, judgment was given dismissing the ap- 
 peal without costs, the judges in this court 
 wing divided in opinion, Hagarty, C. J. 0., 
 and Burton, J. A., being of opinion that the 
 trial judge had power to deal with the costs, and 
 that power having been exercised was not re- 
 
 XV. Appkals as to Costs. 
 
 Per Osier, J. A. , the rule as to an appeal on the 
 question of costs appears to be this, that if, in 
 making the order complained of, there has been 
 any violation of principle, or the court has pro- 
 ceeded on a wrong general rule, or if the dis- 
 cretion of the court has been exercised upon any 
 misapprehension of fact, a court of appeal will 
 interfere, but not otherwise. Wansley v. Small- 
 wjod, 1 1 A. R. 439. 
 
 On an application by an insurance company to 
 stay proceedin£(3, in an action on u policy, pend- 
 ing an arbitration as to the amount of loss under 
 *,)-■• statutory conditions, the court grantedastay, 
 on the company admitting its liability on the 
 policy ; an(l further ordered, but without defen- 
 dant's consent, tliat either party might, after the 
 award, apply to the court in respect of the costs 
 of the arbitration. On a subsequent application 
 an order was made by a judge in chambers for 
 defentlants to pay a part of such costs ; — Held, 
 that the court had j urisdiction to deal with the 
 costs ; and moreover, that defendants having 
 submitted to the ord^r of the court, and taken 
 the benefit of it, could not object to the order of 
 the judge made under it. Hughes v. British 
 America Imuranee Co., and Hwfhes v. London 
 Assurance Co., 7 O. R. 465— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Re 01 instead v. Errington, 11 P. R. 366 ; 
 Uvernoisv. Bailey, 12 P. R. 535 ; 13 P. R. 62, 
 p. 381. 
 
 See, also, Subhead XVI. 7, p. 390. 
 
 XV. Taxation. 
 1. Notice and Appointment. 
 
 The plaintiff's costs were being taxed by one 
 of the taxing officers at Toronto, when he ap- 
 plied to stop the taxation in order that he 
 might have the order for taxation varied. The 
 taxation was stopped, the officer gave up to the 
 plaintiff the bill of costs which he had brought 
 in for taxation, and nothing further was done : — 
 Held, that the effect of this was that the ap- 
 pointment to tax and the taxation lapsed, and no 
 further proceedings could have been had with- 
 out a fresh appointment ; and, therefore, the tax- 
 ing officer was not thereafter seized of the taxa- 
 tion, and the local registrar in whose office the 
 action had been begun and was pending could 
 properly issue his appointment, and tax the 
 plaintiff's costs. Gousine.nu v. Citt/ of London 
 Fire Ins. Co., 13 P. R. 36. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the taxation was properly had 
 during the long vacation. lb. 
 
 The defendants objected that they hod not a 
 reasonable notice of the taxation by the local 
 registrar, but did not ask for an enlargement of 
 it, relying instead on objections they took to its 
 proceeding at all, and the taxation proceeded in 
 tlieir absence : — Held, that having taken the risk 
 they must also take the result, lb. 
 
 S^'5 
 
 
 
 'li 
 
 i? 
 
 i 
 
COSTS. 
 
 3H 
 
 2. Attendance at. 
 
 The taxing officer has a discretion as to the 
 attendance of parties claiming a right to attend 
 on taxation, and his discretion will not be light- 
 ly interfered with. Clarke v. Union Fire /vs. 
 Co — Caston'8 Case, 10 P. R. 339.— Hodgins, Max- 
 lerin Ordinary. 
 
 G., a judgment creditor of W. A. C, garnished 
 a fund recovered by J. W. C, suing as the as- 
 signee of \V. A. C. (jr. disputed the validity of 
 the assignment from W. A. C. to J. W. C , and 
 an issue was directed to be tried between G. and 
 J. W. C., as to tlie portion of the fund which 
 would remain after satisfying the claim of the 
 solicitor of J. W. C, who had a lien upon the 
 fund for bis costs incurred in the recovery of it. 
 Upon appeal from the taxation of these costs, 
 before the trial of the issue : — Held, that G. had 
 the right to be represented upon the taxation 
 and appeal, as in one event he bad an interest in 
 the reduction of the solicitor's bill, and there 
 oould not be two taxations, one as against J. W. 
 C, and the other as against G. if he succeeded 
 in the issue. Oall dt Co. v. Collins, 12 P. R. 
 413.-Cliy. D. 
 
 3. Production of Evidence. 
 
 The taxing officers have the power to call for 
 evidence on taxations pending before them. 
 Williavison v, Tomi of Aylmer, 12 P. R. 129.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Where the plaintiff was out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, and a taxing officer had refused to proceed 
 •with the taxation of her costs of the action 
 against the defendant until she was produced 
 before him for examination, touching her retainer 
 of the solicitor in whose name the proceedings 
 in the action had been conducted, it was directed 
 that the officer should first examine other wit- 
 nesses, and then if unable to decide the question 
 of retainer, should report to a judge in Chambers. 
 lb. 
 
 4. Costs allowed, 
 (a) Tariff. 
 
 Held, that the local masters, who are paid by 
 fees instead of salary, are entitled to charge one 
 (oilar per hour in money under Chancery Tariff 
 • f :23rd Ivlarch, 1875, when taxing costs, ilfc- 
 i iwiKn V. Clarke, 9 P. R. 555. — Boyd. 
 
 i.Jie tariff of costs now in force does not pre- 
 tfc "< '' exhaust all possible items of services for 
 i-einuneration is to be made. The object 
 ! , -riff is to provide a fixed or movable scale 
 for usual and ordinary services and as to all 
 items embraced therein it is generally conclusive, 
 but for other matters one haa to go outside of 
 the tariff to the practice and course of the court. 
 It is therefore for the taxing officer to determine, 
 according to a proper discretion, what allowance 
 to make Kir procuring the attendance of witnesses 
 who live out of the jurisdiction. Rules 154 and 
 168 of T. T., 18ri6, are still in force as to matters 
 not embraced in the tariff of 1881. Ball v. 
 Crompton Corset Co., 11 P. R. 266.— Boyd. 
 
 See ^e McKeen and the Township of South 
 Oower, 12 P. R. 5.53, p. 385 ; CaHy v. City of 
 London, 13 P. R. 286, p. 385 
 
 (b) Counsel Fee. 
 
 Where evidence taken before the master, sit- 
 ting for a judge, was entered in the decree as 
 having been taken in court, the same fees were 
 taxed to counsel before the master as before a 
 judge. Kae v. Trim, 8 P. R. 405.— Taylor„ 
 Master. 
 
 On an aj)plication for further security for coats, 
 a counsel fee of $10 was allowed. Bell v. Lan- 
 don 9 P. K. 100.— Boyd. 
 
 When the actions were in the Court of Appeal, 
 Burton, J. A., made an order that only one ap> 
 peal book should be printed for the three cases, 
 and the three cases were argued together, but 
 the defence wns different :— Held, that the tax- 
 ing officer was right in allowing separate counsel 
 fees in each case. Petrie v. Ouelph Lumber Co., 
 Stewart v. Ouelph Lumber Co. , Inglis v. Ouelph 
 Lumber Co., 10 P. R. 600.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where the defendant's solicitor was served 
 with a short notice of motion, which was admit- 
 ted to be defective : — Held, that the defendant 
 was not entitled to the costs of counsel attending 
 on the motion merely to show that the notice was 
 irregular. Waller v. Claris, 11 P. R. 130.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 The Administration of Justice Act, 1885, has 
 not conferred upon local registrars of the High 
 Court the power of taxing counsel fees of any 
 greater amount than is allowed by the tariff of 
 costs in force. Bank of British North America 
 V. Western Assurance Co., 11 P. R. 30. — Boyd. 
 
 Upon an appeal from the taxation of the plain- 
 tiflTs party and party costs :— Held, a counsel 
 fee for settling plaintiff's reply to the defendant's 
 counterclaim should have been taxed in addition 
 to fee allowed on settling statement of claim. 
 Alexander v. School Trustees of Olottcenter, 11 
 P. R. 157.— Wilson. 
 
 The discretion of the taxing officer as to coun- 
 sel fee at the trial should not be interfered with. 
 lb, 
 
 A counsel fee of $5 for each necessary and 
 proper enlargement of a court motion should bfr 
 taxed. McGallum v. McCallum, II P. R. 179.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Under an order made at the Assizes post- 
 poning the trial upon payment of " the costs of 
 the day," only one counsel fee of $10 is taxable. 
 Hogg V. Crabbe, 12 P. R, 14.— Proudfoot. 
 
 An E.ction came on for trial, and a postpone* 
 ment \re,H applied for by the defendant, and was 
 ordered upon payment of thj costs of the day :— 
 Held, that counsel fees were chargeable and tax- 
 able recording to the discretion of the taxing 
 officer, and not according to any arbitrary hmit. 
 Hogg V. Crabbe, 12 P. R. 14, dissented from. 
 Cutwater V. Mullett, 13 P. R. 609. — Armour. 
 
 In taxing the costs of an arbitration upon the 
 County Court scale, no larger fee for attendance 
 of counsel before the arbitrators than (25 can 
 be allowed, even though the attendance is for 
 several days. Re Montague and the Township of 
 Aldbor^ugh, 12 P. R. 141.— Wilson. 
 
 Held, that the amount to be allowed per 
 diem to arbitrators and counsel was a matter 
 peculiarly within the province of the taxing 
 
385 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 386 
 
 ofiBcer, and his decision should not bo interfered 
 ■with. Re Hillyard and Hoyal Insurance Co., 12 
 P. R. 285.— Gait. 
 
 Item 163 of Tariflf A, Con. Rules, should be 
 read as part of item 164 ; and the taxing officers 
 at Toronto have authority to conf.ider tlie ques- 
 tion of increased counsel fees in the case of an 
 arbitration where there is no cause in court and 
 a reference to a local officer to tax costs has been 
 made under R. S. O. (1887), c. 53, s. 24. Re 
 McKetn and Towmhip ofHouth Goinr, 12 P. R. 
 653.-Boyd. 
 
 No counsel fee was allowed upon an appeal 
 from pending taxation of costs to the master 
 under Con. Rule 854. Re ^eleon, a solicitor, 13 
 P. R. 30.— Falconbridge. 
 
 See Reyina v. Doutre, 6 S. C. R. 342. 
 
 (c) Witness Fees and Subpoenas, 
 
 A taxing officer refused to allow the plaintiffs 
 the expenses of seventeen witnesses who were 
 snbpceoaed to attend a trial at Hamilton, which 
 proved abortive, the trial being postponed be- 
 cause the defendants had not obeyed an order to 
 produce. The defen<lants were ordered to pay 
 the costs of the hearing at Hamilton rendered 
 nugatory by the postponement. The seventeen 
 witnesses were subpccnaed to be examined at the 
 abortive trial, and were examined at the ad- 
 jonmed trial upon matters which the judge held 
 could not be interfered with by the court : — 
 Held, that in refusing the plaintiffs the costs of 
 subpcenaingtheseseventeenwitnesses, the taxing 
 officer did not erroneously exercise the discre- 
 tion given him by Rule 4420. J. Act (Con. Rule 
 1214). Christopher v. Nvxon, 10 P. R. 149.— 
 Prondfoot. 
 
 The plaintiff, not being bound to rely on the 
 admissions of the defendants on their examina- 
 tion for discovery, the costs of procuring the 
 attendance of a witness to prove what was then 
 admitted should have been taxed. A lexander 
 V. School Trustees of Gloucester, 11 P. R. 157.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Where there is no daily peremptory list of 
 cases at the assizes, and it is necessary to keep 
 the witnesses in attendance from the first day, 
 the fees for such attendance should be taxed. 
 lb. 
 
 The plaintiff's own physician attended on him 
 during an examination de bene esse, and was 
 called as a witness at the trial, when he stated 
 what his charges for attendance on thu plaintiff 
 would amount to :— Held, that there being 
 nothing to bhew that he did not include in his 
 statement the charges for attendance at the ex- 
 amination, they must be taken to have been in- 
 cluded in the verdict, and could not be taxed to 
 the plaintiff as part of the coets of the action. 
 Carly v. City oj London, 13 P. R. 285.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 Held, Armour, C. J. , dubitante, having regard 
 to Con. Rules 264, 1212. 1217, and items 16 and 
 17 of tariff A., that the plaintiff was not'entitled 
 to tax anything for costs of service by his solici- 
 tor of writs of aubpcena. lb. 
 25 
 
 By the judgment on further directions the 
 plaintiffs were awarded the costs of the action 
 and reference. Upon appeal from the taxation 
 of such costs the defendant contended that the 
 plaintiffs should not be allowed the costs of at- 
 tendances and witnesses in the master's office 
 relating to items in the account in question as 
 to which the plaintiffs failed : — Held, that the 
 plaintiffs were entitled to all the costs properly, 
 fairly, and reasonably incurred upor. tlie refer- 
 ence, but not to costs of unnecessary pre ceedinga 
 or witnesses, and costs of witnesses called to 
 establish sometViing on which the party calling 
 them failed were in the discretion uf the taxing 
 officer. Con. Rules 1195 and 1216 considered. 
 Littour V. Smii.'i, 13 P. R. 214.— Boyd. 
 
 Where costs were awarded to the plaintiffs 
 upon a postponement of the trial, and the case 
 was not tried till after the taxation of such costs 
 was closed, but it appeared upon appeal from 
 the taxation that some of the witnesses allowed 
 for were not called when the case was actually 
 tried, the taxation was reopened upon payment 
 of costs, and the taxing officer was directed to 
 reconsider the allowance of w itness fees. Coiimee 
 V. North American Railway Ccntractiiuj Co., 1ft 
 P. R. 433.— MacMahon.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Ball v. Crompton Corset Co., II P. R. 256, 
 p. 383. 
 
 (d) Other Cases. 
 
 A bill had been filed but not served, and was 
 subsequently dismissed with costs by the plaintiff. 
 It appeared that, though no answer had been 
 drawn, the defendant's solicitor had received in- 
 structions to defend, some two months before 
 the dismissal of the bill : — Held, that defendant 
 was entitled to tax instructions, and the costs of 
 the taxation. Bisstlt v. Slrachaii, 8 P. R. 211.— 
 Taylor, Master. 
 
 On a taxation between party and party, in- 
 structions for reply will not be allowed, as well 
 as instructions for statement of claim. But ex- 
 penses incurred in procuring a deed, and certain 
 other documents, whiih caused a saving of ex- 
 pense, were allowed . Torrance v. Torrance, 9 
 P. R. 271.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A person of the sumc name as the defendant 
 served by mistake with the writ in the action, 
 was held entitled to bis onsts of opposing a mo- 
 tion for judgment under Rule' 324, O. J. Act. 
 (Con. Rule 744), Lucas v. Fraser, 9 P. R. 319.— 
 Dalton, Master. 
 
 Necessary letters between a solicitor and his 
 agent on the business of the cause are taxable as 
 between party and party, whether the agent 
 resides in the county town of the county iu 
 which the solicitor lesides, or in another county, 
 or in Toronto. Agnew v. Plunkett,9 P. R. 456. — 
 Osier. 
 
 The costs of serving an infant personally who 
 is out of the jurisdiction will not be allowed. 
 Bew V. Anthony, 9 P. R. 845.— Boyd. 
 
 Expense incurred for surveys and other special 
 work of that nature, made in order to qualify 
 witnesses (surveyf rs) to give evidence, are not 
 taxable between party and party, the English 
 
 ••• ■■ 
 
 =3 
 
 9^ 
 
387 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Chancery Order 120 (1845) not being in force 
 here. McOannon v. Clarke, 9 P. R. 555.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 The taxing officer refused to allow charges 
 for maps prepared to identify the details of the 
 line mentioned in the judgment as tliat which 
 the judge considered the true line, and also for 
 a certificate of the state ol the cause, for a letter 
 advising of judgment, and for instructions on 
 motion for judgment :— Held, that there being 
 no error in principle, but only an exercise of dis- 
 cretion by tlie taxing officer, tlic court would 
 not interfere with his ruling. Ih. 
 
 The defendants were the same in all three 
 actions. The actions were brought against the 
 defendants other tlian the company as wrong- 
 doers. They were sued for an alleged conspiracy 
 to defraud, which it was alleged they carried into 
 ■eflfeot by defrauding the plaintilTs respectively. 
 The defendant McLean defended, meeting the 
 charge directly. The other defendants did the 
 same, but they further said that they obtained 
 their information from McLean, and that they 
 believed it to be true, and believed that the state- 
 ment made by them and McLean, which was the 
 foundation of the actions, was true : — Held, that 
 the taxing officer was right in allowing two bills 
 of costs, one to the defendant McLean and one to 
 the other defendants. Petrie v. Guelph Lumber 
 Co., Stewart v. Giielph Lumber Co., Inglia v. 
 Guelph Lumber Co., 10 P. R. 600.— Ferguson. 
 
 Upon an appeal from the taxation of the plain- 
 tiff's party and party costs :— Held, tl.e costs of 
 a similiter, with jury notice, were properly dis- 
 allowed. A lexander v. School Trustees of Glou- 
 cester, 11 P. R. 157.— Wilson. 
 
 Instructions for the examination of the plain- 
 tiff, and of the defendants, each $2, should have 
 been taxed. Ih. 
 
 Attendances to bespeak copies of depositions 
 of parties, on their examination for discovery in 
 the action, should have been taxed. lb. 
 
 A fee for attending to hear judgment on a day 
 fixed, when the judge deferred it till a subse- 
 quent day at Toronto, should have been taxed. 
 Jb. 
 
 Afee for attending to hear judgment atToronto 
 should have been taxed, although a fee on a pre- 
 vious attendance, when judgment was deferred, 
 had been allowed, and a charge for sending a 
 telegram, advising defendants of result of judg- 
 ment, by direction ©f judge, should have been 
 allowed. lb. 
 
 Where the judge directed reasons for judgment 
 in plaintiffs favour to be put in, the plaintifif's 
 charges for drawing, settling, engrossing, etc., 
 such reasons should have been taxed. lb. 
 
 Instructions for common affidavit of disburse- 
 ments were properly disallowed. Jb. 
 
 Instructions for brief should be allowed where 
 the brief itself is allowed. McGaUum v. Mc- 
 CaUum, 11 P. R. 179.— Boyd. 
 
 Charges for procuring copies of opinions of 
 judges in another action, for the instruction of 
 couusel, should not be taxed as between party 
 and party. Piatt v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 12 
 P. R. 273.— Boyd. 
 
 The court refused to interfere with the discre- 
 tion of the taxing officer in allowing certain 
 costs to the L-olicitor, of proceedings which had 
 been set aside in the action as irregular, and as 
 to which the judgment creditor alleged negli- 
 gence and want of skill. Gall ds Co. v. Collins, 
 
 12 P. R. 413.— Chy. D. 
 
 Held, that only one attendance should be 
 allowecl on ol>taiuiug a priucipe order, Latour 
 V. Sniilh, 13 P. R. 214. — Boyd. 
 
 An order was obtained by the plaintiff, who 
 sued for damages tor bodily injuries sustained, 
 for his own examination de bene esse before the 
 trial. The order provided that after the conclu- 
 sion of the plaintiff's examination, he should 
 submit to a personal examination by medical 
 men on behalf of the defendants, and that the 
 defendants mightafterwards continue their c oss- 
 examination of the plaintiff; and that the ex- 
 amination might be given in evidence at the 
 trial, "provided the defendants had been able to 
 continue and complete their cross-examination of 
 the plaintiff after the said medical examination." 
 The plaintiff was examined, and partly cross-ex- 
 amined, under this order, and was examined by 
 the medical men, but his cross examination, 
 owing to his ill-health, was never completed. 
 The plaintiff was not examined as a witness at 
 the trial ; the depositions taken were offered in 
 evidence, but were rejected as inadmissible under 
 the terms of the order. The plaintiff succeeded 
 in the action : — Held, under the circumstances 
 of the case, that the examination of the plaintiff 
 de bene esse was a proper and reasonable pro- 
 ceeding, and as the failure to complete it was 
 through no fault of the plaintiff or his solicitor, 
 and as it was not without use to the defendants, 
 the costs of it should have been taxed to the 
 plaintiff as part of the costs of the action. Beau- 
 fort V. Ashburnhani, 13 C. B. N. S. 598 ; 32 L. 
 J. N. S. C. P. 97 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 710; 11 W. 
 R. 267 ; 9 J v. 822, followed. Garty v. City oj 
 London, 13 P. R. 285.— Gait.— Q. B. D. 
 
 In an action against a municipal corporation 
 for injury to a drain, the corporation caused the 
 two contractors who had constructed the drain, 
 and the assignee of one of them, to be made de- 
 fendants. The two contractors were partners at 
 the time of the construction of the drain, but 
 had dissolved partnership before the action was 
 begun. One partner appeared, and defended by 
 one solicitor, and the other partner and his 
 assignee by another solicitor. Judgment was 
 given dismissing the claim of the corporation 
 against the added defendants with costs, but 
 they were not by the judgment limited to one 
 set of costs:— Held, that there was no "law 
 of the court " which, under the circumstances of 
 this case, justified the taxing officer in refusing 
 to allow more than one set of costs to the 
 added defendants. Con. Rule 1202 considered. 
 Melbourne v. City of Toronto, 13 P. R. 346.— 
 Armour. 
 
 Where the arbitrators having authority so to 
 do awarded costs, and their award not having 
 been moved against, it was the duty of the taxing 
 officer to tax costs. Re Smith v. City of Toronto, 
 
 13 P. R. 479.— Q. B. D. See Re BeoUy v. City 
 oJ Toronto. lb. 316. 
 
 See Clark v. Creighton, 9 P. R. 125, p. 362. 
 
 389 
 
 Upon the 
 taxing office 
 when the ( 
 should furtl 
 10 P. R. 44^ 
 
 An appeal 
 not lie until 
 
 Under Ru 
 1194, 1231), ( 
 
 of his ruling 
 taxatiun, am 
 his right to i 
 has issued hi 
 
 An inform 
 ten at the ei 
 was taxed a 
 officer, and i 
 tliat this wa 
 cate of taxu 
 satisfy the n 
 lin, 10 P. R 
 P. R. 179, d 
 R. 413.— Ch 
 
 There is ni 
 costs for the 
 and issuing 
 local officers 
 of an executii 
 selves of wha 
 They signify 
 tion of the f 
 their fnnctioi 
 up results, as 
 note the bill 
 with the dat 
 signature, w 
 allocatur to s 
 They have 
 allowed or 
 «Ierical error 
 Cuerrier v, 
 Ohy. D. 
 
 Any object 
 on in writing 
 is affixed. 
 
 Remarks u 
 equity as to 
 tion. lb. 
 
 See McCal 
 ^90. 
 
 Held that 
 bers to revii 
 costs taxed u 
 properly mac 
 as Rule 447 ( 
 Toronto tax 
 438 O.J. Act 
 lOP. R. 40. 
 
 It is a coi 
 niade on ap 
 items, or on 
 to refer the 
 officers at Tc 
 Vtwy. 11 P. 
 
389 
 
 OOflTS. 
 
 9M 
 
 6. Certificale of Taxation, 
 
 Upon the issuing of a certificate of taxation a 
 taxing officer is functus officio, and it is only 
 when tlie court requires information tliat he 
 should further certify. Langtry v. Damoulin, 
 10 P. R. 444.— Boyd. 
 
 An uppeal from a certificate of taxation will 
 not lie until the certificate has been filed. lb. 
 
 Under Rules 437 and 448, 0. T. Act {Con. Rules 
 1194, 1231), a taxing officer may issue a certificate 
 of his ruling on any points in dispute pending the 
 taxation, and upon it an appeal may uc had, but 
 his right to issue such certificate ceases when he 
 has issued his final certificate, lb. 
 
 An informal certificate of taxation was writ- 
 ten at the end of a bill of costs, shewing that it 
 was taxed at so much, initialed by the taxing 
 ofhcer, and marked " filed " in his office : — Held, 
 that this was not a sufficient filing of a certifi- 
 cate of taxation for the purposes of appeal, to 
 satisfy the rule laid down in Langtry t;. Dumou- 
 lin, 10 P. R. 444. McCallum v. McCallum, 11 
 P. R. 179, distinguished. Qall v. Collins, 12 P. 
 R. 413.— Chy. D. 
 
 There is no need for local officers, when taxing 
 costs for the purpose of completing a judgment 
 and issuing execution thereon (which they as 
 local officers may also do), to preface the issuing 
 of an execution by a formal certificate to them- 
 selves of what tlicy have done upon the taxation. 
 They signify clearly and sufficiently the comple- 
 tion of the taxation, and the full discharge of 
 their functions as taxing officers, when they add 
 up results, ascertain the correct amount payable, 
 note the bill of costs as taxed at such a sum, 
 with the date, and verify the whole with their 
 signature, which is a sufficient certificate or 
 allocatur to shew that the taxation is at an end. 
 They have no power to alter what they have 
 allowed or disallowed after this, except as to 
 «Ierical errors, and they are then functi officiis. 
 Caemer v. iVhite, 12 P. R. 571. — Robertson.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Any objections to the taxation must be carried 
 on in writing, before the signature of the officer 
 is affixed. lb. 
 
 Remarks upon the former practice at law and 
 equity as to allocaturs and certificates of taxa- 
 tion. 76. 
 
 See McCallum v. McCallum, 11 P. R. 179, p. 
 390. 
 
 6. Revision, ' • 
 
 Held that an application to a judge in cham- 
 bers to review a taxation of a sheriff's bill of 
 costs taxed under R. S. O. (1877) c. 66, s. 48, was 
 properly made under R. S. O. (1877) c. 66, s. 52, 
 as Rule 447 (Con. Rule 1230) applied only to the 
 Toronto taxing officers appointed under Rule 
 438 0. J. Act (Con. Rule 194). OraiU v. Grant, 
 10 P. R. 40.— Wilson. 
 
 It is a convenient practice, when any case is 
 made on appeal from taxation as to several 
 items, or on the ground of general exorbitancy, 
 to refer the whole bill to one of the taxing 
 officers at Toronto, as upon a revision. Quay v. 
 <itiay, 11 p. R. 258.— Boyd. 
 
 A certain sum of money had been paid into 
 court as security for the defendants' appeal to 
 the court of appeal, which was afterwards aban- 
 doned ; and by an order riitde on the consent of 
 both parties it was provided that the plaintiff's 
 costs should be paid out of this money after tax- 
 ation : — Held (Armour, C. J., dissenting), that 
 this money was a fund in court within the mean- 
 ing of Con. Rule 1207, and there should be a re- 
 vision by one of the taxing officers at Toronto of 
 the taxation of costs by the local registrar. Per 
 Armour, C.J. —The object of Con. Rule 1207 was 
 for the protection of a fund in court, where the 
 parties to the taxation of costs payable thereout 
 were none of them sufficiently interested in tha 
 fund in court to protect it. Cousineau v. Cily 
 ofLoiulon Fire Ins, Co., 13 P. R. 36.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Piatt v. Grand Trunk R. W. Go,, 12 P. 
 R. 273, p. 391. 
 
 7. Appeals from. 
 
 (a) Time Jor Appealing. 
 
 Appeals from taxation by local officers must bs 
 brought on within eight days from the date of 
 the taxing officer's certificate. Stark v. Fisher, 
 11 P. R. 233.— Boyd. 
 
 Appeals from the taxation of costs by local 
 registrars are subject to the eight days' limit 
 prescribed as to appeals from orders of masters 
 and local judges, as was held in Stark v. Fisher, 
 11 P. R. 233, but the time for appealing may be 
 enlarged by the master in chamoers or a judge. 
 Quay V. Qmy, 11 P. R, 258.— Boyd. 
 
 Appeals from taxation should be brought on 
 within a reasonable time, and within eight days, 
 the time limited for appeals under Rule 427, O. 
 J. Act (Con. Rule 846), is a reasonable time. 
 Stark V. Fisher, 1 1 P. R. 235, and Quay v. Quay, 
 11 P. R. 258, approved. Ireland v. Pitcher, II 
 P. R. 403.— C. P. D. 
 
 The time for appealing from a taxation of 
 costs begins to run from the date of the certifi- 
 cate of taxation, not from the date of each ruling 
 in the course of taxation. Re O'Donohoe, a Solt- 
 cUor, 12 P. R. 612.— Armour. 
 
 See McCallum v. 
 infra. 
 
 McCaUum, 10 P. R. 179,. 
 
 (b) Other Casea. 
 
 Queere, as to whether an appeal from taxation 
 of the costs of an action in the Court of Appeal 
 should not have been to a judge of the Court of 
 Appeal, instead of to one of the chancery division. 
 Petrie v. Guelph Lumber Co., 10 P. R. 600.— Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 Where no formal certificate of the result of a 
 taxation by a local registrar of the party and 
 party costs was filed, but the bill itself, with a 
 memorandum at the end signed by the reeiatrar 
 showing the result, was filed in the local office 
 and forwarded to 'Toronto for the purposes of an 
 appeal, and it was admitted that execution had 
 issued upon such memorandum : —Held, that the 
 appeal should not be barred because no more 
 formal certificate was filed. Two clear days* 
 notice of such an appealis sufficient: Exchange 
 Bank v. Newell, 19 C. L. J. 253, distinguished. 
 McCallum v. McCallum, 11 P. R. 179.— Boyd. 
 
 55 
 
 
 
991 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 Rule 447 (Con. Rule 1230), applirs to a taxa- 
 tion of coata conducted by a local taxing oflicor 
 under the powers given him by 48 Vict. c. 13, 
 a. 22 (0.), and an appeal from such taxation 
 does not lie unleaa objections are carried in be- 
 fore the officer, as required by that rule. Quay 
 t'. Quay, 11 P. K. 258, followed. Stiowden v. 
 Ilvnthn/lon, 12 P. R. 248.-Proudfoot. 
 
 Upon an appeal to a judge in chambers from 
 the taxation of costs by a local taxing officer, 
 where the bill was referred to one of the taxing 
 officers at Toronto as upon a revision :— Held, 
 that there should be no costs of the appeal and 
 revision, unless substantially entire success was 
 with one party or the other. P/alt v. Grand 
 Trunk JR. W. Co., 12 P. R. 273.-«oyd. 
 
 An appeal should not be allowed as to any 
 item not included in the objections put in to the 
 taxation. Jb, 
 
 An appeal from the taxation of costs where 
 the amount in question is less than $40, should 
 not be brought before a divisional court. Re 
 JUcPae and The Ontario and Quebec R. W. Go. , 
 12 P. R, 327.— Chy. D. 
 
 The practice upon appeals from pending tax- 
 ations of costs to the master in chambers, or the 
 master in ordinary, under ton. Rule 854, should 
 be simple and inexpensive; there is no necessity 
 for a formal order, or a counsel fee, upon such an 
 appeal. Re Nehon, a Solicitor, 13 P. R. 30.— 
 Falconbridge. 
 
 It is not desirable that any taxation should 
 come more than cmce by May of appeal before a 
 judge ; and where there was an appeal pending 
 the taxation to the master in ortiinary, and an 
 appeal from his order to a judge in chambers, 
 the latter was ordered to stand over till after 
 the close of the taxation, lb. 
 
 As there was no need to appeal in this case, 
 and the application might have been made in 
 chambers, no costs of it were given. Fmichier 
 V, St. Louis, 13 P. R. 318. 
 
 An appeal from taxation of costs was enter- 
 tained in chambers where the amount involved 
 was only (5.32, for the reason that a question of 
 principle was involved. Mmik v. Benjamin, 13 
 P. R. 256.— Robertson. 
 
 Upon appeals from taxation of costs the court 
 will not interfere with the discretion of the tax- 
 ing officer as to the quantum or quoties of fees ; 
 and this mle covers any question of distribution 
 or allotment of charges among different cases or 
 branches of a case. Conmee v. North American 
 Railway Contracting Co. 13 P. R. 433.— Mac- 
 Mahun.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Lamjtry v. Dumonlin, 10 P. R. 444, p. 
 389; GaU v. Collins, 12 P. R. 413, p. 389. 
 
 XVII. Becoverino Costs. 
 
 Bight to recover costs from opposite party 
 where attorney is paid by a fixed salary. See 
 Stevenson v. Corporation of KingHoti, 31 C. P. 
 333, p. 43. See R. S. O. (1887), c. 184, s. 
 278(3). 
 
 The defendant in this action was represented 
 by a firm purporting to be a firm of solicitors, 
 «ao of the members, however, not being a duly 
 
 admitted or certificated solicitor. The plaintiff 
 objected to the costs awarded the defendant ia 
 the action being taxed to him : — Held, that in 
 the absence of proof that these costs had not 
 been paid by the defendant to the persons who 
 acted as his solicitors, the objection could not 
 prevail j nor could it even if pre had been 
 given. Retder v. liloom, 3 Ring. « ; ' v. 
 
 Sexton, 1 Dowl. 180 followed. Scott v. Daly, 
 12 P. R. 610.— Armour. 
 
 See Kempt v. Uacaidey, 9 P. R. 582, p. 16. 
 
 XVIII. Interest on Co.sts, 
 
 Costs of all parties to an action for the con- 
 struction of a will were ordered to be paid out of 
 the estate of the testator, and were taxed in 
 1883, but there were no funds available for their 
 payment until 1888 :— Held, that interest upon 
 these costs could not be allowed out of the estate. 
 Archer v. Severn, 12 P. R. 048.— Ferguson. 
 
 XIX. Lien for Costs. 
 1. By Execntion Creditor. 
 Held, (Burton, J. A., dissenting,) affirming 
 the judgment of Armour, C. J., that under R. 
 S. 0., (1887), c. 124, s. 9, the costs forwhich the 
 execution creditor has a lien, arc the costs not of 
 the execution only, but all the usual costs which 
 could be recovered from the debtor under niii 
 execution. Ryan v. Clarhon, 16 A. R. 311, 
 affirmed by Supreme C*urt, 17 S. C. R. 25U 
 Gwyune and Patterson, JJ., dissenting. 
 
 COUNCIL. 
 
 See Municipal Cobporations. 
 
 COUNSEL. 
 
 See Barrister at Law. 
 
 COUNTERCLAIM. 
 
 I. Pleading. 
 
 1. Generally — See Pleading. 
 
 2, Actions for Recovery of Land— See 
 
 Ejectment. 
 
 II. Costs of— See Costs. 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 I. JUDOX. 
 
 1. Appointment of, 393. 
 
 2. Removal of, 393. 
 
 3. As Local Judge of High Court— See 
 
 Practice. 
 
 4. 0/ Division Courts — See Division 
 
 Courts. 
 
 5. Mandamus to— See Mandamus. 
 
 6. Prohibition to — See Prohibition. 
 
 393 
 
 7. A, 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 8. In 
 
 i 
 
 9. ^r 
 
 A 
 II. Juris 
 
 1. Li 
 
 3 
 
 2. Ti, 
 
 3. Rl 
 
 4. Oil 
 6. Ap 
 
 6. Int 
 
 7. Coi 
 
 C 
 
 8. Dii 
 
 III. Pleai 
 
 IV. Praci 
 V. Costs, 
 
 VI. Appe.^ 
 
 1. }Vh 
 
 2. Boh 
 
 Ai 
 
 3. Re/, 
 
 4. Cost 
 
 Held, tliat tl 
 ing a deputy 
 aljseiioe of the 
 uuilcr K. S. O. 
 essential to eii:i 
 "the county jiu 
 county. Rei/in 
 
 An objeatioi 
 under R. S. 0. 
 entertained, ht 
 the proceudingi 
 tried before tl 
 Dancey, 12 A. 
 
 Certain char^ 
 a County Court 
 under tlio Grea 
 facts and tlie | 
 (Imp), and dir 
 amino into the 
 summon witne 
 evidence on o;i 
 report thereupn 
 a motion was 
 that enquiries 
 made before th 
 and the author 
 enquiry upon o. 
 Held, also, th 
 supported at co 
 
.393 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 394 
 
 7. Appeals from AmeMinents and Voters' 
 
 Z/w<—>Se(! Assessment and Taxes — 
 Parliamentary Klkctions. 
 
 8. InveKl'igal'ion of Muniripal Matters — 
 
 Set Municipal Corporations. 
 
 9. Municipal Controi>erled E/fctionn—See 
 
 Municipal Corporations. 
 
 II. Jurisdiction. 
 
 1. Luptidutfd a}id Ascertained Claims, 
 
 394. 
 
 2. Title to Land in Question, 396. 
 
 3. Ihpkvin, 397. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 398. 
 
 .5. AppHcationfor Fidl Costs — iS>e Costs 
 — Interpleader. 
 
 6. Interpleader— See Interpleader. 
 
 7. County Jiuljies' Criminal Court — iSee 
 
 Criminal Law. 
 
 8. District ComcAs— /SceDiSTRiCTCouRTS. 
 
 III. Pleading, 400. 
 
 IV. Practice, 401. 
 V. Costs, 401. 
 
 VI. Appeal fro.m. 
 
 1. When Appeal Lies, 402. 
 
 2. Bond and Security — See Court of 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 3. Reference hack to Assess Damages, 404. 
 
 4. Costs, 404. 
 
 I. JUDtiE. 
 
 1 . Appointment of. 
 
 Held, thiitthecommissioainthU case appoint- 
 ing a deputy judge during pleasure and the 
 absoiioe of the county judge, was validly issued 
 uudcr R. S. O. (1877) o. 42, and that it was not 
 essential to enable the deputy judge to act that 
 the county judge should be absent from the 
 county. Hfijina v. Fee, 3 0. R. 107.— 0. P. D. 
 
 An objection to the jurisdiction exercised 
 under R. S. O. (1877), c. 42, ss. 16, 22, was not 
 entertiined, because there was notiiing upon 
 the proceedings to sliew that the case was not 
 tried before tlie proper judge. McKenzie v. 
 Dancey, 12 A. R. 317. 
 
 2. Removal of. 
 
 Certain charges having been preferred against 
 a County Court judge, a commission was issued 
 under the Great Seal of Canada, reciting these 
 (acts aud the provisions of 22 G30. III. c. 75, 
 (Imp.), and directing the commisi>i oners to ex- 
 amine into the charges, and for that purpose to 
 aummon witnesses, and require them to give 
 evidence on oath and produce papers ; and to 
 repart thereupon. The enquiry proceeded, and 
 a motion was made for a prohibition : — Held, 
 that enquiries under the Imperial Act should be 
 made before the Governour General in Council, 
 and the authority could not be delegated, nor 
 enquiry upon oath authorized by commission : — 
 Held, also, that the commission could not be 
 supported at common law, for it created a court 
 
 for hearing and enn^uiring into oSences without 
 determining. Re Squier, 46 Q. B. 474.— Wil 
 son. 
 
 Tlio C. 8. C. c. 13, and 31 Vict c. 38 (Dom.) 
 ^ive power to issue commissions for emiuiring 
 into tiiu administration of justice when the en- 
 quiry is not regulated by any special law, and an 
 enquiry into the conduct of any one connected 
 witli the administration of justice is within the 
 meaning thereof. ISut :— Held, that this enquiry 
 into the conduct of a County Court judge falla 
 within the exception in the Act, being regulated 
 by C. S. U. C. c. 14, 88. 1 and 4, which are a 
 special law for such cases. lb. 
 
 The 32 Vict. c. 22, s. 2 (Ont.) ; 32 Vict. c. 26 
 (Out.) ; 33 Vict. c. 12, s. 1 (Ont), and R, 8. O. 
 (1877), c. 42, s. 2, assuming to repeal C. S. U. 
 C. c. 14, and C. S. U. C. c. 15, b. 3. and to 
 abolish the court of impeachment for the trial 
 of County Court judges, and regulate their tenure 
 of otiice, are ultra vires of the provincial legisla- 
 ture, lb. 
 
 The tenure of office of the County Court judges 
 is still regulated by C. S. U. C. c. 16, s. 3. lb. 
 
 The dif/crent modes of proceeding against 
 County Court judges, for misconduct, pointed 
 out. lb. 
 
 II. Jurisdiction. 
 
 1. Liquidated and Ascertained Clainu, 
 
 A County Court has jurisdiction to try a claim 
 up to $400, which is made up of an unliquidated 
 amount of less than $200, and the balance of a 
 liquidated amount. Vo<jt v. Boyle, 8 P. R. 249. — 
 Hagarty. 
 
 Tlie plaintiff sued in the County Court, on the 
 indebitatus count, for $375, claiming by his par- 
 ticulars, balance due from defendant to Ist No- 
 vember, 1877, $120; wages from 1st November, 
 1877, to 1st November, 1878, $360, leas amount 
 paid $160, $200. Balance, $320. On objection 
 being taken at the trial to the jurisdiction of the 
 County Court, the plaintiff was allowed to amend 
 by striking out all the items except the first: — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the County 
 Court, that the particulars were no part of the 
 record, which shewed an amount within the 
 jurisdiction of the County Court ; but : — Held, 
 also, that judgment for that sum would be a bar 
 to any future action for work done at any time 
 before the commencement of this suit. David- 
 son V. Belleville awl North Hastings R. W. Oo., 
 5 A. R. 315. 
 
 Action for the price of thirty hogsheads of 
 goods. It appeared that K. sold to S., the de- 
 fendants' testator, a quantity of goods, which 
 K,, in his evidence, said was a definite quantity, 
 which he could not recollect, but not less than 
 thirty hogsheads, and not more than forty, at the 
 price of $10 par hogshead : — Held, that the de- 
 mand was liquidated by the act of the parties 
 at the tiins of sale, and the action was therefore 
 within the jurisdiction of the County Court. 
 Watson v. Severn, 6 A. R. 559. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A. — That it was not impro- 
 per to leave to the jury the question whether 
 the amount was ascertained by the act of the 
 parties. lb. 
 
 fl 
 
 
 a 
 
396 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 396 
 
 307 
 
 Thu plaintiff purchaicd, l)y mimpU', from tlic 
 dufoixlant two lotH of Imrlcy, coiisiBtiiifc' of ten 
 •n<l fivB car IoucIh rcHpcctivcly. On rtttii t of tlm 
 (int lot, the plaintiff, iilloging tluit tlit' Imlk did 
 not corrcHpond with thu miniplu, clainiid J200 
 for inforiority in <|uality. The difindiiiit dis- 
 puted any liability, and the plaintitl' tiirtutentd 
 to dishonour tho draft which luid bteii drawn on 
 him for tho prioo. In order to sustain his credit 
 with tho l)ank, tho defendant telcgraidii d the 
 plaintiff to accept, and that he would accept 
 plaintiflf's draft for tho fJOO. The difendant's 
 draft for the price, though the defendant was 
 not awaro of it, had tiiin lieen paid liy tlie phiin- 
 tiff. A deduction of 8100 from the price of the 
 second lot of five car loads was suliseciuently 
 demanded on the same ground, and tlic plaintiff' 
 refused to pay the defendant's draft for that lot 
 unless ho sent a checjuc for that amount, and in- 
 structed tho bank to pay tho plaintifl's dishon- 
 oured draft for $2(K) claimed in respect of the 
 first lot. Tho defendant telegraphed the plain- 
 tiff, "Accept my draft. Will be down Wednes- 
 day and pay you." The plaintiff having paid 
 the second draft, sued tho defendant m tho 
 County Court for ?.SGO:— Held, reversing tiie 
 judgment of tho court below, per Burton and 
 I'utterson, JJ.A., that the sums of $200 and 
 JlOO were both liquidated by the act of the par- 
 tics; that the whole demand was therefore 
 within the jurisdiction of the County Court, and 
 that plaintiff was entitled to recover. I'cr 
 Hagarty, C. J. 0. — Without deciding that either 
 demand was liquidated, the court in this case 
 had jurisdiction. It cannot entertain any un- 
 liquidated cause of action over $200 ; but it has 
 jurisdiction to try any number of unliquidated 
 causes of action in debt, covenant or contract, 
 so long as each docs not exceed $200, and the 
 aggregate does not exceed $400. Mc Lavghlin v. 
 Schaejer, 13 A. R. 253. 
 
 The plaintiff agreed to sell tho defendant a 
 piano for $400, to be paid by notes at one and 
 two years, with interest, with a rebate for cash. 
 The piano was delivered at the defendant's resi- 
 dence, who after using it for some time objected 
 to retain it, and refused to give the notes or pay 
 the stipulated price. The plaintiff thereupon 
 sued the defendant in the County Court, claiming 
 the $400 and interest. At the trial leave was 
 
 fiven to strike out the words "with interest" : — 
 [eld, that the amount was ascertained by the 
 act of the parties, and that defendant having 
 neglected to pay, either by notes or cash, the 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover in an action for 
 goods sold and delivered. Oreenizen v. *Bvma, 
 13 A. R. 481. 
 
 Pending negotiations for the sale by the plain- 
 tiff to the defendant of a certain business as a 
 going concern the defendant entered into pos- 
 session, made sales, and received moneys, enter- 
 ing the receipts in a cash book. The negotia- 
 tions fell through and the plaintiff brought this 
 action in the County Court to recover "$271.03, 
 the return of moneys received by the defendant 
 belonging to the plaintiff, l)eing proceeds from 
 sales of goods in plaintiff's shop, as follows : " 
 setting forth the sums received on each day by 
 the defendant: — Held, that this sum was not 
 ascertained by its receipt by the defendant and 
 the bringing of the action by the plaintiff for the 
 Bun so received. Bobb v. Mwray, 16 A. R. 503. 
 
 Tho incroased jurisdiction applies only in the 
 comparatively plain and siiuplo cases where, hy 
 thu act of tho parties or the siunaturo of tho 
 defendant, the amount is liquidated orasccrtnincd 
 as being due from one party to tho other on ac- 
 count of some debt, covenant, or contract be- 
 tween them ; such ascortainniunt of the amount 
 by the act of tho parties being something u(|ui- 
 vulcnt to the stating of an account between thtTn, 
 lb. 
 
 See also Co.sth XIII., p. .168. 
 
 2. Tith to Land in QuenUon, 
 
 The County Court, on its c(|uity side, had power 
 to grant an injunction in any case conung within 
 its juriHdiotion. Tho fact of the title to land 
 coming in ((Ucstion did not oust thu jurisdiutioD 
 of the (,'ounty Court on its equity side. Itae v. 
 Trim, 8 P. H. 405.— Taylor, MaKlf.r. 
 
 S. , being indebted to tho plaintiffs, entered 
 into an agreement to mortgage to them, nnionj^et 
 other lands, certain lands Known as the Do- 
 minion Hotel property. A mortgage was on the 
 name day executed, but by mistake the Uominion 
 Hotel property was omitted therefrom, and a lot 
 formerly owned by S. adjacent thereto iuKcrtcd. 
 The defendant had been the tenant of S., and 
 after tho mortgage, attorned and paid some rent 
 to the plaiutifls, Dclieving them to have a title 
 to the lands. In an action for arrears of rent :— 
 Held, that after such attornment and payment 
 of rent, the defendant could not be heard to deny 
 the plaintiff's title, and they being tho eciuitnhfo 
 owners of tho land, were entitled to recover :— 
 Held, also, that the title not being open to ques- 
 tion by the defendant, tho County Court had 
 juriHdii'tion. Bank of Montreal v. Oikhrint, 6 
 A. R. 659. 
 
 Tho defendants, by an agreement nndcr seal 
 with one S., acquired a right of user in certain 
 land for the purpose of pasturing their cattle. 
 There was no demise, or right of distress, or any 
 thing in the agreement to make the defendants 
 tenants of S. There was, however, a covenant 
 that S. would not allow his own animals, or 
 those of others, to enter upon the land in question. 
 The question, whether S. gave the defendants 
 such an interest in the land as entitled them to 
 impound cattle, was held not to be a question of 
 title in the sense that it would oust the jurisdic- 
 tion of the county court. Graham v. Upettigtie, 
 12 A. R. 261. 
 
 Where, in an action of trespass for pullingdown 
 fences and for mesne profits, the plaintiff allcced 
 his title at the time from which he claimed to 
 recover mesne profits ; and the defendant, in his 
 statement of defence, denied that he committed 
 any of the wrongs in the plaintifl's statement of 
 claim mentioned, and denied that he was liable 
 in damages or otherwise on the alleged causes of 
 action :— Held, that on these pleadings the title 
 to land was expressly brought in question, and 
 the jurisdiction of theCounty Court ousted. Held 
 also, that the defendant was not estopped from 
 raising the question of jurisdiction at the trial, 
 because of his omission to file an affidavit under 
 the R. S. 0. (1877) c. 43, s. 28, that his pleading 
 was not vexatious, or for the mere purpose of ex- 
 cluding jurisdiction ; such an omission being a. 
 
 mere irrugularil 
 been Hut aside, 
 diction where 
 naestion of tit! 
 B. 222, follow! 
 
 Tliu Htatemei 
 action within tl: 
 could not have 
 plcoding wheth 
 ted, anil theref^ 
 384) did not np: 
 quuHtion of jur 
 V. Younij, 14 A, 
 
 It was conteii 
 pcd from dispnl 
 missions, and bi 
 covered a judgii 
 fendant'stcniinl 
 damagcH for pu 
 profits for a per 
 the date of ejec 
 dill not go furti 
 Hold, that tlic , 
 evidence aj^aint 
 the writ of ejec 
 in question, an( 
 ipect of the pet 
 claimed prior 
 
 The cxprcHsii 
 holding 'lenant! 
 Bueh si^mbhinco 
 that the right 
 confers no auth 
 try the questioi 
 and as soon as i 
 is really in ilisp 
 right which thu 
 is hound to disn 
 24 C. I'. 60, am 
 B. .'597, not fol 
 before the coun 
 gent up, the hig 
 ceedings upon t 
 Act. Price v. ( 
 
 The plaintiff 
 that ho was, an 
 yearn, the ownc 
 occupied, and c 
 by the defendat 
 by his statemen 
 tiff's claim, and 
 confession and 
 brought in the 1 
 recovered $120 
 the pleadings tl 
 his title to tho 
 Court would ha 
 costs should be 
 Danaher v. Liti 
 
 See Richardsi 
 Worma7i v. Bra 
 V. HaineH, 13 P 
 
 See also 
 
 In an action c 
 court of Haldin 
 fendants from t 
 removed to the 
 
887 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 398 
 
 in«r*< iri'ugiilnrity, for which tliu ])Il'ii nii^ht hitvo 
 bei'ii Hutiwidu, l»it not opurutiiif; to (.'imfitr juriN' 
 dictii>ti when) thi! di'fi^iiui! in fiiut laiHed tho 
 noeatioii of title. Cuniiiboll r. DaviilHun, 10 (j. 
 B, '.nW, folhiwoil. 
 
 Thti Htatument of chiini presented a e,'\uHo of 
 ictioii within the jiirimlietion, an<l tiie (left'n<lnnt 
 cniiM not have ileninrred ; it <le|ienil('il iiiion hiN 
 pleading whether tlie juriHdiotuiii would Ijo ous- 
 ted, and therefore Kule IHilO. .). Act (Con. Rule 
 384) did not npiily to prevent the raising of the 
 qui'Htion of jurisdiction at tho trial. Niiihrovl: 
 V. Youiiij, H A. il. 1(7. 
 
 It wad cnntcn<lod that the defendant was CHto|i- 
 pcd from disputing the plaintilT's title hy hisud- 
 miaaions, and by reason of the plaint ill' liaviiig re- 
 covered a judgment in ejeetnunit against the de- 
 fendnnt's tenants ; hut the pluintitrs elaini was for 
 damngeH for pidling down fences, and for mesne 
 profits for a period of live or six nionths prior to 
 tho date of ejectment, and tho admissions of title 
 did not go further liack tlian tho ejectment ; — 
 Held, that the judgment against his tenants was 
 evidence against the dcfcntlant, at the date of 
 the writ of ejectment, lint that title was really 
 in (pic8tif)n, and necessary to bo j)roved in re- 
 gpeot of the period for which mesne iirotits were 
 claimed prior to tho ejectiiieut. Jit, 
 
 The expression " colour of right " in tho Over- 
 holding 'I enants'Aet,J{. S.O.(ISb7)c. 144, means 
 auuh semblanco or ap|)eai'ancu of right as shews 
 that the right is really in dispute. The Act 
 confers no authority upon the county judge to 
 try the (piestion of'^ the tenant's right or title ; 
 and as soon as it is made to appear that the right 
 ia really in dispute, there is tlien that colour of 
 right which the Act contemplates, and the judge 
 is hound to dismiss the case, (filbert r. Uoylc, 
 24 C. P. 60, and Woodbury r. Marshall, 10 Q. 
 B. r)97, not followed. Upon tho proceedinjjs 
 before the county judge being commanded to be 
 aent up, the high court has power to stay pro- 
 ceedings upon tho writ of possession under the 
 Act. Price V. Guiiiam, ICO. R. 264. — Armour. 
 
 The plaintifT by his statement of claim alleged 
 that ho was, and had been for more than six 
 years, the owner of certain land, which was un- 
 occupied, and claimed damages for timber cut 
 by the defendant on such laud. The defendant, 
 by his statement of defence, disputed the plain- 
 tiff's claim, and set up certain facts by way of 
 confession and avoidance. The action was 
 brought in the High Court, but the pluintifif only 
 recovered $120 damngos :— Held, that under 
 the pleadings the plaintiti' was obliged to prove 
 his title to the land, and therefore the County 
 Court would have had no jurisdiction, and the 
 costs should be on the scale of the High C'ourt. 
 Danaher v. Little, 13 P. R. 361.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Rkhar(hon v. Jenkin, 10 P. R. 292, p. 369; 
 Worman v. Brady, 12 P. R. 618, p. 374; McNeill 
 V. HaintH, 13 P. K. 11 5, p. 373. 
 
 See also, Division Codet.s, I., •?.. 
 
 3. Replevin. 
 
 In an action of leplevin, brought in the county 
 court of Haldimand, for a mare taken by the de- 
 fendants from the plaintiff's close in that county, 
 removed to tho county of Brant, and there de- 
 
 tained until replevied :— Held, that the taking 
 could not be justified under a warrant issued for 
 tint arrest of tho plaintiti' on a charge of stealing 
 Ml nuire ; and although thu original taking wan 
 jiiatilieil under a search warnmt issued in ilaldi- 
 nuuid, to search the plaintilf's premises in Hal- 
 dinumd for the nuire, and to bring it la'fore a jus- 
 tice of that county, yet the Hub8e(|Uent removal 
 to the county of lirant, an<l detention there, were 
 not, and constituted the clefendant a trespasser 
 all initio, and therefore tho ('ounty Court of 
 Haldimand had jurisdiction to re])levy the goodit 
 in Brant. Jfoovir v. Criiiij, 12 A. R, 72, 
 
 4. Olhi'r Caiirn. 
 An issuchad been directed from a CountyConrt 
 toonoofthesuperioreourts under 11. S. O. (1N77) 
 c. 49, s. 12, to try whether a conveyance of certain 
 lands by a judgment debtor was fraudulent, an<l 
 the County Court had delineil tho issue to be 
 tried, and tl'.e time and place of trial. The jdain- 
 tiff, in pursuance of the direction, prepared and 
 delivered the issue to dcftindant, the grantee in 
 the conveyance, who did not return it ; and tho 
 plaintifT, after the time for trial had elapsed, ap- 
 plied in tho superior court for an order ab.solute 
 for sale of the land ; — Held, such order could 
 be made only in the County Court, whence the 
 issue had been directed, and that tho superior 
 court could only try the issue, and could make 
 no final disposition of tho matter: — Held, also, 
 that the application was not in any event well 
 founded, as the plaintiti' should hav ; proceeded 
 with tho trial of the issue. (^utt>rc, as 'o the 
 granting of a new trial, or reviewing tho verdict 
 upon such an issue. Meirhaiiln' Dauk v. Brooker, 
 8 P. R. 133. -Osier. 
 
 A County Court judge has power to give a fiat 
 in term time for the issue of a writ of (juo war- 
 ranto to try a contested municipal election : — 
 Held, that Rule 1 M. T. 14 Vict, has become in- 
 operative by tho effect of 8ubae([uent statutory 
 enactments to which it is repugnant. Kegiva ex 
 rd. McDonald v. Avdemoii, 8 P. R. 241.— Osier. 
 
 Power of County Court judge to set aside writ 
 of quo warranto when issued on hid fiat. See 
 Begina ex rel. Gratit v. Culeinan, 8 P. R. 497 ; 
 S. C. 46 Q. B. 175 ; 7 A. R. 619 ; Beijhia ex rel. 
 O'Dwyer r. Lewis, 32 C. P. 104 ; S. C.,niil) nom. 
 Reijina ex rel. Dwyre v. Lewin, 8 P. R. 497. 
 
 A verdict was entered for the plaintiff on the 
 trial of an issue directed by the Court of Chan- 
 cery, to be tried at the sittings of tho County 
 Court of the county of Duflcrin. The County 
 Court judge set aside the \ erdict, and entered a 
 nonsuit, on grounds embracing matters of law as 
 well as of fact and evidence : — Held, that he 
 had no power to do so, and that the application 
 should have been made to the court that directed 
 the issue. Barker v. Leenon, 9 P. R. 107. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 In an action in a County Court, on a promissory 
 note made by the defendant, in which the de- 
 fendant claimed indemnity against the third 
 party, the third party having appeared, the 
 teamed judge of the County Court directed cer- 
 tain issues to be tried between the defendant 
 and the third party. At the trial he found for 
 the plaintiff, and investigated accounts between 
 the defendant and tho third party, amounting to 
 
 
 
 2 ^ 
 
m 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 400 
 
 more than §10,000, upon which lie found that a 
 balance of more than S3,000 would be payable 
 to the defendant, and he directed that the third 
 party shoidd, out of tiiis balance, pay to the de- 
 fendant the amoynfcof the plaintlna claim. On 
 a motion for a prohibition : — Held, that the 
 order directing the issues between the defen- 
 r'ants and the third party, with the proceedings 
 taten under it, were right. Held, also, that as 
 the only relief which could be given to the de- 
 fendant against tlie tliird party, was protection 
 against the dem.and of the plaintiff, which was 
 within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the County 
 Court, tlie learned juilge was not acting beyond 
 his jurisdiction in investigating accounts of sums 
 beyond his jurisdiction. Ntald v. Corldnd u :, 
 4U. R. 317.— Wilson. 
 
 Held, that a County Court has jurisdiction to 
 entertain and investigate accounts and claims 
 of suitors iiowever large, provided the amount 
 sought to be recovered docs not exceed the sum 
 
 i)rescribed by the A^c. Bennett v. Whili', 13 
 ^ R. 11!). —Ferguson. 
 
 Wliere in an action in the County Court, judg- 
 ment is given for a sum in itself within the juris- 
 diction of the court, but wJiioh is tlie balance 
 of a sum Ijeyond the jurisdiction, and which was 
 arrived at not by any settlement or statement of 
 account between the parties, but as tlie ascer- 
 tainment of a disputed account : — Held, tliis 
 was the allowance of a claim beyond the juris- 
 diction of the court, and a wril .A prohibition 
 was granted. Sherwood v. Cliiie, 17 0. R. 30. 
 
 Quajre, whether in a proceeding before him, a 
 County Court judge can of iiis )wn motion ex- 
 amine pi'oc'edings pending in a division of the 
 High Court; but — Held, that the defendant 
 should have been allowed to produce such pro- 
 ceedings in order to meet technical objections as 
 to the state of the cause not being shewn. Hol- 
 I'mgswurlh v. HoliaujHworth, 10 V E. 58. — Wil- 
 son. 
 
 Where, after ju<lgment in an action in the 
 Common Pleas Division, an issue on a garnishee 
 application was directed to be tried under Rule 
 373, O. r '.ct (Con. Rule 93!)), by a county judge 
 andjurj Held, that such judge had no jurisdic- 
 tion to miv.>e an order to produce before trial, and 
 consequently no authority to make any order on a 
 failure to produce. Cochrane v. Morrison, 10 
 P. R. 606.— Rnse. 
 
 County Court judges acting under Rule 422, 
 O. J. Act (Con. liule 41) have no jurisdiction 
 under sub-section 47 and 48, O. J. Act, to order 
 references in opposed cases. White v. Betmcr, 
 10 P. R. 531.— Boyd. 
 
 A judge of a County Court, acting under the 
 authority of 48 Vict. c. 2G, s. « (Ont.), removed 
 an assignee for creditors, and substituted another 
 assignee. The first assignee, as alleged, refused 
 to deliver over the keys of the place of business 
 of the insolvent to the second assignee, and the 
 judge made an order for tiie issue of a writ of 
 attachment against the lirat assignee for con- 
 tempt : — Held, that the judge, in acting under 
 the statute, was not exercising the powers of 
 the County Court, but an independent statutory 
 jurirdiction cs persona designata, and had there- 
 fore no power to direct the issue of a writ of at- 
 tachment ; and prohibition was ordered. Re 
 PacquetU, 11 P. Pi. 463. -Wilson, 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Robertson J., 
 (16 O. R. 275), where the County Court judge 
 is making an investigation pursuant to tlie reso- 
 lution of a council under R. S. 0. (1887) c. 184, g. 
 477. he is acting as persona designata, and not in 
 a judicial capacity, and is not subject to coutrol 
 by a writ of prohibition. That writ is not to be 
 applied to any proceedings of any person or 
 body of persons, whether they be pupularly 
 called a court or by any other name, on whom 
 the law confers no power of pronouncing any 
 judgment or order imposing any legal duty or 
 obligation on any individual. Re Squier 46 Q. 
 B. 474, considered, /m ?'e Godson and the City 
 of Toronto, 16 A. R. 452. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Proudfoot, 
 J., (9 O. R. 274,) that the status of C, as a person, 
 oi the assignee of a person, who registered apian, 
 ws a question of law an<l fact combined, for the 
 county judge to determine upon C. 's application 
 to him, under U. S. 0. (1877) c. Ill, s. 84, to 
 amend the plan, and that his decision was not ex- 
 aminable in prohibition. I)i re Chlnholm and the 
 Town ofOakrille, 12 A. R. 225. 
 
 The judge of a County Court who orders the 
 issue of a writ of attachment out of the High 
 Court, under section 2 of the absconding Debtors' 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 66, has no jurisdiction to 
 entertain an application to set aside such writ. 
 Disherv. Disher, 12 P. R. 518.— C. P. D. 
 
 The judge of a County Court has no power, 
 either as such judge or as local judge of the High 
 Court, to order the issue of a ca. sa. in an action 
 in the High Court. Cochrane M mufacturiug Co. 
 V. Lamon, 11 P. R. 351, followed. A judge of 
 the High Court, sitting in "single court," haa 
 power to set it^ide such an order. WalerltmtM 
 V. McVeigh, 12 P. R. 676.— Armour. 
 
 Jurisdiction of county judge to make order as 
 to time for holding court to hear appeals from 
 voters' lists. .See In re the Voters' list for the 
 City of St. Thomas, Re Boyes, 13 O. R. 3, 
 
 See Gibson v. McDonald, 7 0. R. 401, p. 306; 
 McKenzie v. Dancey, 12 A. R. 317. 
 
 III. Pleading. 
 
 As to the power of the master in chambers to 
 change the venue in County Court actions. See 
 Briyliam v. McKenzie, 10 P. R. 406. 
 
 Held, that there is no appeal to the full court 
 in term from an order of the clerk of the crown 
 and pleas, made on an application to change the 
 venue in l.'ounty Court cases under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 50, s. 155 ; but the only appeal in such cases 
 is to a judge in chambers under sec. 31 of that 
 act : — Held, however, that if an appeal did he 
 to the full court, it might be made direct thereto 
 without first going before a judge in chambers. 
 Mahon v. NichoUs, 31 C. P. 22.— 0. P. U. 
 
 Semble, in such cases the proper course is to 
 follow, OS laid down in the Act, the practice in 
 force in the superior courts ; and that the mere 
 fact of the cause of action having arisen in the 
 county to which it. is sought to change the venue, 
 is not of itself sufficient to outweigh any actual 
 preponderance of convenience arising from other 
 causes in favour of retaining the venue where 
 the plaintiff had laid it. lb. 
 
 401 
 
 Held, that tl! 
 vin in a Count 
 trained, may b« 
 under R. S. O. ( 
 Duchenaull, 14 ( 
 
 Under the s) 
 Court of Justice, 
 Judicature Act, 
 where a materii; 
 and the pleading 
 with respect the 
 as in issue. Wi 
 Robmaon, 4 O. 
 V. Young, 14 A. 
 
 Where a rule n 
 by the juilgc to s 
 Held, that it was 
 to enlarge the rul 
 In re Dean v. CI. 
 
 At the trial, th 
 left to them in h 
 ment wjvs eiiterc 
 Court judge snbf 
 judgment for the 
 Rule 490 0. J. A 
 poweriia extendc 
 possessed by tin 
 <Con. Rule 755) ai 
 Court was right i 
 the defendants ii 
 tion to another 
 pint, Stewart v. 
 liama v. Crow, IC 
 I-iiM, 13 A. R. 43 
 
 Reading scctii 
 County Courts i 
 having regard to i 
 Act (Con. Kule 1 
 move before the 
 diet or judgmeni 
 during the hrst t 
 sittings after the 
 sarily to be made 
 judge may enter 
 Scope of section 
 47, as to moving 
 aside the judgnu 
 Smith IK Rooney, 
 to the existing hv 
 Cahe, 12 P. R. ,50 
 
 See Fergtixon v. 
 Merchants' Bttnk \ 
 Barker V. Leescn, 
 Im, 14 A. R. 503 
 
 In an action i 
 judge without a 
 136, no order boi 
 that no costs couli 
 mus was granted 
 «nter up judgment 
 Md without allow 
 the judgment the 
 and Division Cour 
 wtimng Co. v, Ra 
 
 26 
 
401 
 
 OOUNTT COURTS. 
 
 402 
 
 Helil, that the venue in any action of reple- 
 vin in a County Court, except for goorls dis- 
 trained, may be changed to any other county, 
 under R. S.'O. (1877) c 50, s. 155. O'Donnell v. 
 DucheiMuli, 14 O. R. 1. — O'Connor. 
 
 Under the system of pleading in the High 
 Court of Justice, and in County Courts, under the 
 Judicature Act, Hules 128, 146, 147, 148,240, 
 where a material fact is alleged in a pleading, 
 and the pleading of the opposite party is silent 
 with respect tliereto, the fact must be considered 
 as in issue. Waterloo Mutual B^ire Ins. Co. v. 
 Robinson, 4 O. R. 295, approved of. Stahrook 
 V. Yomg, 14 A. R. 97. 
 
 IV. Practice. 
 
 Where a rule nisi inaCounty Courtwas ordered 
 by the judge to stand over until the next term : — 
 Held, tliat it was not ucceasary to take out a rule 
 to enlarge the rule nisi to prevent it from lapsing. 
 In re Dean v. Chamber/ in, 8 V. R. .SO.S. —Osier. 
 
 At the trial, the jury answered all the questions 
 left to them in favour of the plaintiff, and judg- 
 ment was entered for hira, whicli tlie County 
 Court judge subsecjuently set aside and entered 
 judgment for the defendants : — Held, that under 
 Kule 490 0. J. Act (Con. Rule 1257), tlie same 
 poweriis extcniled to the County Couits as is 
 possessed by the liigh court under Rule ,321, 
 (Con. Rule 755) and that the judge of the County 
 Court was riglit in giving judgment in favour of 
 the defendants instead of submitting the ques- 
 tion to another jury. See also, on the same 
 pint, Stewart )'. Rounds, 7 A. R. 575, and Wil- 
 liams p. Crow, 10 A. R. .301. Mc.Coiiml'. v. ir»7- 
 Uns, 13 A. R. 438. 
 
 Reading section 41 with section 20 of the 
 County Courts Act, R. S. 0. (1887) c 47, ami 
 having regard to the provisions of Kule 488 O. J. 
 Act (Con. Kule 1255) :— Held, that a party may 
 move before the judge in court against the ver- 
 dict or judgment at the trial, cither before, or 
 during the first two days of tin; next quarterly 
 sittings after the trial. The motion is not neces- 
 sarily to be made at the usual fixyd sittings ; the 
 judge may entertain it at any previous time. 
 Scope of section 42, sub-s. 5, R. S. O. (1887) c. 
 47, as to moving before the County Court to set 
 Slide tlie judgment at the trial, observed on. 
 Smith !'. Rooney, J2 Q. R. (561, is not applicable 
 to the existing law and practice. Norton v. Mc- 
 Cahe, 12 P. R. ,506. -C. of A. 
 
 See Fergwnn v. MeMart'm 1 1 A. R. 731 , p. 403 ; 
 MerchaitW Hank v. lirooh'.r , P. R. 133, p. 398 ; 
 Barker V. Lccicii, 9 P. R. 107, p. .398 ; Cuyne v. 
 Lee, 14 A. R. 503, p. 404. 
 
 V. Costs. 
 
 In an action in a County Court, tried by a 
 judge without a jury, judgment was given for 
 $36, no order being miide as to costs:— Held, 
 that no costs could be awarded, and a manda- 
 mus was granted to the County Court clerk to 
 enter up judgment for the plaintiff without costs, 
 »nd without allowing defendant to set off against 
 the judgment the difference between the County 
 and Division Court costs. Re Great. fVestern Ad- 
 txrtimng Co. v. Rainer, 9 P. R. 494.— Armour. 
 26 
 
 VI. Appeal from. 
 
 1. When Appeal Lies. 
 
 Although the jurisdiction of the Court of Ap- 
 peal is nut limited in appeals from the County 
 Court as it is in appeals from the superior courts, 
 under section 18, sub-section 3, of the Appeal 
 Act, it will not in ordinary cases interfere where 
 a new trial has been refused by the County Court 
 upon a matter of discretion onlv. Campbell v. 
 Prince, 5 A. R. 330. 
 
 In an action tor assault against a public ofBcer, 
 in which the jury had found a verdict of $100, 
 and a new trial, asked for on the ground that the 
 verdict was against evidence, was refused, the 
 Court of Appeal granted anew tiial, as the evi- 
 dence strongly preponderated in the defendants* 
 favour, and there was reason to believe the jury 
 had been misled by the charge. lb. 
 
 The verdict in this case was set aside by the 
 judge of the County Court, and a nonsuit entered, 
 upon a ground not taken as a defence ot the trial, 
 or in the rule nisi : — Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment, that the judge erred in giving effect to 
 the objection, which, if taken at the trial, would 
 have been met with an amendment. As the evi- 
 dence shewed that the plaintiff was entitled to 
 succeed upon the merits, the appeal was allowed, 
 and the rule in the court below discharged. 
 Clarke v. Ban-on, 6 A. R. 309. 
 
 At the trial the judge left several matters of 
 fact in dispute to the jury, the jury found on 
 one point only and the judge g'"anted a new 
 trial owing to his dissatisfaction with the verdict, 
 the court refused to interfere with his discretion, 
 as it did not appear that he w.os clearly wrong. 
 Hunter v. Vantlone, 6 A. R. 337. 
 
 In an action of replevin, the defendant, for a 
 second plea, avowed for board due by plaintiff to 
 him as a boarding-house keeper ; and for a third, 
 avowed for a lien on the goods of plaintiff under 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 147, s. 2. On the trial, before 
 the judge of the County Court (York) without a 
 jury, the evidence as to whether the defendant 
 was the keeper of a boarding-house was contra- 
 dictory, but the learned judge decided in favour 
 of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was 
 not a boarding '.iouse keeper. On appeal this 
 finding of the County Court judge was aiSrmed, 
 although, had the matter come before this court 
 in the first instance, it would have decided other- 
 wise, and under the circumstances, no costs of 
 the appeal were given to the respondent. Rees 
 V. Mckeown, 7 A. R. 521. 
 
 This case had been remitted to the court be- 
 low, this court being of opinion that the record 
 should be there amended and a verdict entered 
 for tl e plaintiff .igainst the defendant B. alone 
 (0 A. R. 411). The judge of the County Court 
 instead of entering such a verdict, directed a 
 new trial, the parties to apply to amend their 
 pleadings as they might be advised, so that B. 
 might raise any defence which he was not obliged 
 to raise in the action on the joint liability : — 
 Held, that the direction of the judge as to the 
 way in which he thought it most just to the de- 
 fendant B. that the application to amend should 
 be made, was an exorcise of his discretion with 
 which this court in the exercise of its appellate 
 jurisdiction would not interfere, yvilnon v. 
 Brown, 7 A. R, 181. 
 
 Sail 
 
 
403 
 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 40( 
 
 405 
 
 % 
 
 Appeal in garniBhee proceedings. See Van 
 Norman v. Gravl, 27 Cby. 498 ; Sato v. Hub- 
 bard, 6 A. R. 546; McKimhty v. Armstrong, 
 11 P. E. 200. 
 
 Appeal from order of countj; judge, setting 
 aside fiat and writ of summons in the nature of 
 a quo warranto. See Jieghia ex rel. Grant v. 
 Coleman, 7 A. R. 619. 
 
 The judge, at the trial in the County Court, 
 entered a verdict tor tlie plaintiff, instead of di- 
 recting judgment to be entered, and afterwards 
 refused a rule nisi to set aside such verdict. 
 Rule 405 of the 0. J. Act in effect forbids the 
 granting of any rule to shew cause where the ap- 
 plication is against the judgment of a judge who 
 tries a cause without a jury. Quaere, as to the 
 application of this rule to County Courts by Rule 
 490 O. J. Act; but— Held (per Patterson, J. A.), 
 that the entry of the verdict might be treated 
 as a direction to enter judgment, and was a de- 
 cision from which an apjjcal would lie under 
 Rule 510 O. J. Act. Williams v. C'rciv, 10 A. 
 R. 301. 
 
 An objection to an appeal from a judge refus- 
 ing such rule might be raised by motion in cham- 
 bers, but it is not obligatory to raise it in that 
 manner. Jb. 
 
 An action in the County Court of Carleton was 
 tried without a jury by the junior judge of that 
 county, who, alter consideration, entered a ver- 
 dict for the defendant. A court, composed of the 
 senior and junior judges of Carleton, and the 
 judge of the County Court of Prcscott and Rus- 
 sell, subsequently assumed to .set aside the ver- 
 dict, and to enter judgment for the plaintiff, 
 dissentiente the junior judge of Carleton :— Held , 
 that the judgment of a court so constituted was 
 invalid, and that the verdict atthe trial was not 
 a£feoted thereby. Per Patterson, J. A., the 
 verdict at the trial was a final judgment of the 
 court, and could not be attacked except by an 
 appeal to this court. Rule 510, O. J. Act (Con. 
 Rule 798), gives a party no right to move in the 
 County Court. Per Osier, J. A., the party dis 
 satisfied with the judgment at the trial may, un- 
 der Rule 510 0. J. Act (Con. Rule 798), move 
 against it before the judge himself ; and an ap- 
 peal to this court may, under 45 Vict. c. 6, s. 4 
 (Ont.), as properly be brought from the deci- 
 sion on such motion as from the judgment at 
 the trial. Fergtison v. McMarlin, 11 A. R. 731. 
 
 An order for leave to sign judgment under 
 Rule 80 (Con. Rule 739), is in its nature final, 
 and not interlocutory, and such an order made 
 in the County Court, or district court, is appeal- 
 able. Bank of Minnesota v. Page, 14 A. R. 347. 
 
 In an action pending in the High Court, an 
 interpleader issue and all subsequent proceed- 
 ings were transferred, under the 44 Vict. c. 7, s. 
 1 (Ont.), to the County Court of Middlesex. By 
 a subsequent order made on consent, the trial of 
 such issue was withdrawn from Middlesex, and 
 a special case was agreed on, and the venue 
 changed from Middlesex to York, where the 
 special case was argued : — Held, per Patterson 
 and Osier, JJ.A. , that in strictness the appeal 
 should be quashed. The transfer to the Middle- 
 sex Coimty Court was final, and there was no 
 jurisdiction under the statute or otherwise to 
 transfer the issue or any part of it, or to change 
 
 the venue to any other County Court. The 
 proceedings in the County Court of York could 
 therefore only be regarded as a summary trial 
 by consent from which no appeal lay. Comt 
 V. Lee, 14 A. R. 503. 
 
 An interpleader issue, arising out of an action 
 in the chancery division of the High Court of 
 justice, was sent to a County Court for trial by 
 order madein chambers : — Held, that it was to be 
 intended that the order was made under 44 Vict, 
 c. 7 (Ont.), rather than under the interpleader 
 jurisdiction of the old court of chancery ; and 
 that being so, that a divisional court of the High 
 Court of justice had no jurisdiction to hear an 
 appeal from the judgment of the County Court 
 on such issue, and that such apjienl should have 
 been to the Court of Appeal, under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 54, s. 23. Clone v. Exchavie Buhk, 11 P. K. 
 186.~Chy. D. 
 
 Semble, that an appeal lies from the order of 
 the judge of the County Court under the Regi«- 
 try Act, altering or amending a plan. In rt 
 Waldle v. Village of liiirlitigtoii, 13 A. R. KM. 
 
 When a case in the County Court has been 
 tried with a jury, the onlv appeal given by the 
 R. S. 0. (1887) c. 47, s. 41, direct to the Court of 
 Appeal from the judgment at trial, is when such 
 judgment is directed to be entcrid upon special 
 findings of the jury, and it is complained of as 
 being wrong in law upon such findings. Any 
 other appeal raising an objection to the conduct 
 of the proceedings at the trial, on a motion for a 
 non-suit, or the reception or rejection of evidence, 
 or the charge to the jury, must be brought from 
 the decision of the judge upon a subsequent 
 motion for a new trial. The general language of 
 section 42 does not apply when the case is one 
 coming within section 41. Weaver v. Sawyer, 
 16 A. R. 442 
 
 The right or claim mentioned in section 42 of 
 the County Courts Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 47, i» 
 that which forms the subject of the action, not 
 the right to take any particular step in the course 
 of the action ; and an order made in chambets 
 in a County Court action, striking out a jury no- 
 tice, is not an order finally disposing of a right 
 or claim within the meaning of the section, but 
 is in its nature an interlocutory order, and not 
 appealable. McPhtrson v. Wilxon, 13 P. R. 
 339.— Osier. 
 
 See Mahon v. Kicholh, 31 C. P. 22, p. 400; 
 MeKenzie v. Davey, 12 A. R. 317. 
 
 3. Eeference Back to Anseits Damages. 
 
 The Court of Appeal directed a verdict to be 
 entered for the plaintiff against a tavern-keeper 
 for selling liquor to her husband after being for- 
 bidden by the plaintiff, his wife, to do so, bnt 
 referred it back to the County Court judge to 
 assess the damages, declining to follow the coarse 
 adopted in Denny \>. The Montreal Telegraph 
 Co., 3 A. R. 628. Axmtin v. Davis, 7 A. R. 478. 
 
 4. Costs, 
 
 As the judgment was varied on a matter of 
 discretion, no costs of appeal were given. Canf" 
 bell v. Prince, 5 A. R. 330. 
 
 , havi 
 
 
 The court, 
 the County L 
 the appeal on ^ 
 80 far as to direct 
 the return of .. 
 necessary amend 
 T. Braion et al, " 
 
 ■ Cour 
 ipay 
 •ec1 
 wl 
 
 6 
 
 COUNTY < 
 
 Where the acci 
 York, for the q 
 1879, for expense 
 tration of crimin 
 county board of 
 the items were 
 treasurer as not j 
 consolidated rev« 
 in the schedule, i 
 fore, in auditing 
 for a subsequent 
 the amount of sa 
 BUS was granted 
 order for such de 
 Board of Audit o 
 31.-C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that th 
 though not clerk 
 ing within R. 8. i 
 form part of the 
 of criminal justic 
 
 Under an ordei 
 is entitled to $4 ( 
 informations, et 
 charges for the 
 certificate of the 
 should be allowe 
 before the county 
 of larceny, havin 
 was tried at the 
 on three of then 
 two cases were nc 
 attorney, obtainec 
 for and charged a 
 five cases, which 
 audit, and paid 
 upon the twenty 
 allowed by the pi 
 cisinn communica 
 >!ie amount from 
 that a mandamus 
 ■indit, to rescind 
 orovincial treasu 
 
 ■lucting the an 
 their discretion u: 
 In re Stanton an 
 County oj Elgin, ', 
 
 A fee of fifty C( 
 attorney for attei 
 criminal courts, i 
 tries for each pris^ 
 sammarily. The 
 actual attendance 
 tries in each of th 
 •gainst C, which 
 him and his electi 
 cases on which t' 
 were only allowed 
 ruling of the proi 
 for the same rei 
 
401 
 
 405 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 409 
 
 The court, having no power, on an appeal from 
 the County Court to amend the record, allowed 
 the appeal on payment of costs by the appellant, 
 BO far 08 to direct the issue of a rule nisi, upon 
 the return of which, in the court below, the 
 necessary amendment could be made. Wilson 
 V. Broivn et al, 6 A. K, 411. 
 
 COUNTY CROWN ATTORNEY. 
 
 Where the account of the county attorney of 
 York, for the quarter ending Slst December, 
 1879, for expenses connected with the adminis- 
 tration of criminal justice, was audited by the 
 county board of audit, and paid, but certain of 
 the items wero disallowed by the provincial 
 treasurer as not payable by the Crown out of the 
 consolidated revenue fund, not being contained 
 in the schedule, and the board of audit, there- 
 fore, In auditing the county attorney's account 
 for a subsequent quarter, deducted therefrom 
 the amount of said disallowed items, a manda- 
 mus was granted to the board to rescind their 
 order for such deduction. In re Fejilon and the 
 Board of Audit of the County of York, 31 C. P. 
 31.-C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that the county attorney of York, 
 though not clerk of the peace, is an officer com- 
 ing within R. S. O. (1877) c. 85, whose expenses 
 form part of the expenses of the administration 
 of criminal justice. lb. 
 
 Under an order in council the county attorney 
 is entitled to $4 on receiving and examining all 
 informations, etc., connected with criminal 
 charges for the court of assize, etc., upon the 
 Ciirtmcate of the crown counsel that such fee 
 should be allowed. One C. on being brought 
 before the county judge on twenty-five charges 
 of larceny, having elected to be tried by a jury, 
 was tried at the ensuing assizes, and convicted 
 on three of them ; but the remaining twenty- 
 two cases were not tried. The plaintiff, a county 
 attorney, obtained the crown counsel's certificate 
 for and cliarged a fee of $4 in each of the twenty- 
 five cases, which was passed by the board of 
 audit, and paid by the county treasurer, but 
 upon the twenty-two untried cases being dis- 
 allowed by the provincial treasurer and his de- 
 cision communicated to the board they deducted 
 ♦'jb amount from a subsequent account : — Held, 
 that a mandamus would not lie to the board of 
 !ndit, to rescind their order, the ruling of the 
 orovincial treasurer being a good reason for 
 
 Hucting the amount, which was a matter for 
 their discretion under the K. S, 0. (1877), c. 85. 
 In re Stanton ami the Board )f Audit of the 
 County oj Elgin, 3 O. R. 86. — I lagarty. 
 
 A fee of fifty cents is allow 3d to the county 
 attorney for attendance in t) e county juflge's 
 criminal courts, and making the necessary en- 
 tries for each prisoner not cor senting to be tried 
 lammarily. The plaintiff charged fifty cents for 
 actual attendances and making the necessary en- 
 tries in each of the twenty- live charges preferred 
 against C, which were separately read over to 
 him and his election taken thereon. The three 
 cases on which the priso.ier was actually tried 
 were only allowed by the board of audit, on the 
 mlingof the provincial treasurer :— Held, that 
 for the same reasons nji above, a mandamus 
 
 would not lie to the board of audit to allow the 
 fee in the other cases. Il>. 
 
 The plaintiff claimed 31 for an affidavit veri- 
 fying the jurors' book, and $1 for a certificate 
 drawn up by him for the county judge to sign, 
 of the receipt of such books, etc. The tariff 
 allows $1 " for each certificate required to be 
 entered in the jurors' book to verify the same:" — 
 Held, that these fees could not be allowed, and 
 that a mandamus would not lie. lb. 
 
 As to the propriety of a county attorney en- 
 tering the jury room and advising coroner's jury 
 as to the language of their verdict. See Reijina 
 V. Sanderson, 15 0. R. 106. 
 
 See Van Norman v. Grant, 27 Chy. 498, p. 91. 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 I. Appeals to. 
 
 1. From Judge of Court of Appeal, 406. 
 
 2. From High Court, 406. 
 
 3. From County Courts — ^ee County 
 
 Courts. 
 
 4. From District Courts — iS^ee Distbict 
 
 Courts. 
 
 5. From Surrogate Courts— See Surro- 
 
 (iATE Courts. 
 
 6. Time for Appealing and Notice, 408. 
 
 7. Appeal Books, 411. 
 
 8. Bond and Security. 
 
 (a) Generally, 411. 
 
 (b) Further Security, 412. 
 
 (c) Delivery up of Bond and Payment 
 
 out of Court, 412. 
 
 9. Slaying Proceedings on Bond, 412. 
 
 10. Discontinuance, 41.3. 
 
 11. Other Cases, 413. 
 
 II. Appeals from— iS'ee Privy Council- 
 Supreme Court of Canada. 
 
 III. Enforcing Jcdoment, 414. 
 
 IV. Cases Relatinh to Appeals Gener- 
 
 ally— iS'ee Appeal. 
 
 I. Appeals to. 
 
 1. From Judge of Court of Appeal. 
 
 Held, Spragge, C. J. 0., dubitante, that an 
 appeal will not lie from an order of a judge of 
 the Court of Appeal extending the time for ap- 
 pealing to the Supreme Court of Canada. Ne%ll 
 V. Travellers' Ins. Co., 9 A. R. 54. 
 
 2. From High Court. 
 
 Upon an application by the churchwardens of 
 St. James' churcli, for leave to appeal from the 
 judgment of the Chancery Divisional Court (7 
 O. R. 644) in their own names, or in the name of 
 the rector, the defendant (who declined to carry 
 the case further), as their trustee : — Held, th*t 
 the rector was not a trustee for the applicants, 
 but would himself, if the contention should pre- 
 vail, be beneficially entitled to the fruits of the 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 5: 
 
 i is 
 
M^BP 
 
 407 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 408 
 
 litication ; and that the applicants had not 8uch 
 an interest as entitled them to be made parties 
 to the action ; and the application was therefore 
 refused. The event rendered it unnecessary to 
 consider whether or not the application was pro- 
 perly made to this court. Lawjtry v. Dumoulin, 
 11 A. K. 544. 
 
 The plaintiffs by their agent, Patrick R., in 
 April, 1877, procured u. judgment to be signed 
 against Peter K., the defendant, who, for pur- 
 poses of his own. suffered the judgment to go by 
 default. No execution was ever issued thereon. 
 After the death of Peter, the plaintiffs assigned 
 the judgment to the wife of Patrick, who paid 
 them ?50 therefor ; and, on her application. Ar- 
 mour, J., made an order allowing execution to 
 issue against the executors of Peter. The ex- 
 ecutors then applied to set aside the judgment 
 as having been fraudulently obtained, and to be 
 allowed to defend the action, or for such other 
 order as should seem just; and upon such appli- 
 cation, Wilson, C. J., made an order setting 
 aside the judgment and all proceedings in the ac- 
 tion, and directing the plaintiffs to repay the $50. 
 This order was affirmed on appeal by the Com- 
 mon Pleas division : — Held, that an appeal lay 
 from the order of the Common Pleas division, 
 . as it was, in effect, a final disposition of the whole 
 matter, and a bar to the plaintiffs' further pro- 
 ceeding ; but, although the members of this 
 court were all of opinion for different reasons 
 that the order below was wrong, they did not 
 agree as to the extent to which it should be 
 modified or reversed, and therefore the appeal 
 was dismissed, without costs. Schrttder v. 
 Rooney, 11 A. R. 673. 
 
 Held, reversing the order of the Queen's Bench 
 divisional court, 11 P. R. 9, that the plaintiff' 
 was not entitled to- have delivered out to him 
 for cancellation a bond for security for costs of 
 the action, after judgment in his favour by the 
 Queen's Bench divisional court, before the time 
 for appealing to this court had elapsed, and 
 while an appeal was actually pending. The 
 order of the court below, even if interlocutory, 
 was appealable under the language of the Court 
 of Appeal Act, and as the penalty of the bond 
 ■was $1,000, and the defendants' costs exceeded 
 that amount, the sum in controversy was suffi- 
 cient to warrant an appeal, and it could not be 
 said that it was a matter so entirely in the dis- 
 cretion of the court below, that this court would 
 not interfere. The right of appeal conferred by 
 the Judicature Act considered :— Qua;re (per Bur- 
 ton and Patterson, JJ. A.), whether the order in 
 appeal was interlocutory :—Quici-e (per Osier, 
 J. A., and Gait, J.), whether ss. 33 and 34 O. J. 
 Act, apply to appeals from interlocutory orders. 
 Satclyy. Merdianls' Despatch Co., 12 A. R. 640. 
 
 The objection that the judge at the trial should 
 himself have decided the issue as to failure of 
 consideration, instead of directing an enquiry be- 
 fore the master, is not one that the court will 
 entertain. Feathemtone v. Van A I Ian, 12 A. R. 
 133. 
 
 The decision of a judge of the High Court of 
 justice (which bv section 28 of the O. J. Act 44 
 Vict. c. 5, is the decision of the court) in an 
 interpleader issue to try the title to property 
 taken under execution on a final judgment in the 
 suit on which it is issued, is not an interlocutory 
 
 order within the meaning of that expression in 
 section 35 of the O. J. Act, or if it is, it is auch 
 an order as was appealable before the passingof 
 that Act, and in either case it is appealable now 
 Hovey v. Whiting, 14 S. C. R. 515 ; 12 A R 
 119. 
 
 Appeal from an order of a judge of the High 
 Court, for the winding up of a company under 45 
 Vict. c. 23 (Dom.). See He Union Fire Innr- 
 atice Co., 13 A. R. 268. S. C, mb twm. Sdiool. 
 bred v. Union Fire Inn. Co. 14 S. C. R. 624. 
 
 The defendant, who was convicted by two juj. 
 tices under the Canada Temperance Act, removed 
 the conviction by certiorari, and the same wat 
 quashed (10 O. R. 727). On appeal to thij 
 court: — Held that there was no jurisdiction ij 
 this court to heiir the appeal, and the samewai 
 therefore quashed, with costs, to be paid by the 
 informant, liegiua v. Eli, 13 A. R. 526. 
 
 The defendants having been convicted on an 
 indictment for a nuisance, which had been re- 
 moved into the Queen's Bench Division by 
 certiorari, moved for a new trial, which wai 
 refused : — Held, that no appeal would lie to this 
 court from the judgment refusing the new trial, 
 and that it could make no difference that the 
 indictment had been removed by certiorari, and 
 tried on the civil side. Regina v. Eli, 13 A, R 
 526; Regina v. Lalibert(i, 1 S. C. R. 117, re- 
 ferred to. Regina v. City of London, 15 A. U, 
 414. 
 
 An order was made by a judge sitting in court, 
 directing theexecution by the defendants (mort- 
 gagees) of a reconveyance or discharge, directed 
 by a previous judgment, or in default for a se- 
 questration ; — Held, that an appeal to the Court 
 of Appeal lay without leave, whether the order 
 was to be rectarded as interlocutory or not. 
 Semble, per Hagarty, C. J. O. , and Patterson, 
 J. A., that such an order is not in its nature 
 interlocutory. Bull v. North British Canadim 
 Investment Co., 12 P. R. 284.— C. of A. 
 
 Appeal to Court of Appeal, from order of judge 
 in chambers, affirming order of master to strile 
 out jury notice, refused. Adamson v. Adanmn, 
 12 P. R. 469.— Boyd.— C. of A. 
 
 Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, from 
 an order of the Common Pleas division changing 
 the place of trial, was asked by the plainti^ 
 because it was of importance to him in other 
 litigation to have the question of venue decided, 
 and was granted upon his undertaking to pay 
 the costs of both parties of the appeal. Grcejf 
 v. Siddall, 12 O. R. 577.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See In re Hall, 8 A. R. 135 ; Conmee v. Con- 
 adian Pacific li. W. Co., and Canadian Pacif( 
 R. W. Co. V. Conmee, 12 A. R. 744. 
 
 See also Appeax. I., p. 25. 
 
 6. Time for Appealing and Notice. 
 
 Where a decree was made at the hearing of » 
 case, but certain questions were reserved for 
 further directions :— Held, that the year within 
 which an appeal could be brought ran from the 
 making of the decree on further directions, and 
 not from that on the hearing. Freed v. On, 6 
 A. R. 690. 
 
409 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 410 
 
 Two only of several defendants appealed. The 
 lemondent, by her reasons against the appeal, 
 claimed relief over against two of the other de- 
 fendants to the suit, and served them with rea- 
 80DS against appeal, and subsequently with the 
 printed appeal book, and with notice of setting 
 down the appeal for argument. These defendants 
 bad never been served with the statutory month's 
 notice of appeal, nor furnished with security for 
 the costs ot appeal, nor afforded an opportunity 
 of taking part in the settlement of the appeal 
 book:— Held, that they were properly before 
 tbe court. lb. 
 
 By the oversight of a clerk of the appellant's 
 golicitor, the notice of appeal required by 15.S.0. 
 (1877), c. 38, (s. 38 O. J. Act 1881), was not given 
 to the registrar of the court appealed from, but 
 itwBS duly served on the respondent, who had 
 not been prejudiced. Boyd, C, allowed the 
 notice to be nled within tour days, upon pay- 
 ment of costs. Be Lewis, Laws v. Laics, 9 P. 
 R. 72.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, that s. 38, O. J. Act, did not affect the 
 plaintiflfs' right under R. S. O. (1877), c. 38, s. 46, 
 to appeal within a year from the making of the 
 decree, which had been pronounced on the 2nd 
 April, 1881, before the first mentioned Act came 
 into force. Workman v. Hobb, 9 P. R. 169. — 
 Dalton, Q. C. . 
 
 By the decree in question " further direc- 
 tions" were reserved, and it also appeared that 
 the defendant resided in England, but it was not 
 shewn that any attempt had been made to com- 
 mnnicate with her, nor that if there had it 
 would have been of any use, nor that the defen- 
 dant had been prejudiced by it:— Held, not 
 laCScient special circumstances to entitle the de- 
 fendant to obtain leave to appeal after the lapse 
 of tiie month within which notice of ippeal is 
 to be given. MilUr v. Broum, 9 P. I. 542. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 A plaintiff was advised by his solicitor on the 
 3rd of July, of the judgment of the court given 
 on the 30tn of June. He did not see his solici- 
 tor again until the 20th of August, when he, for 
 the first time, learned that he snould have caused 
 notice of appeal to be served within a month 
 from the rendering of the judgment. (Section 
 380. J. Act) :— Held, not a sufficient ground for 
 giving leave to appeal, and thus denying to the 
 party who had obtained the judgment of the 
 eonrtthe right to have it enforced as promptly 
 aithe rules and practice of the court will per- 
 nit:— Held, also, that the fact that the plaintiff 
 might be prejudiced in another action a^jainst 
 another party in another division of the High 
 Cunrt of justice, by this judgment, wi>s not u 
 ironnd for granting the indulgence sought. 
 
 WUhy V. Standard Fire /nwn«ec Co., 10 P. K. 
 J4, 40.-Can-^ron.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A notice served on Mondty, October 6th, of 
 to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a judg- 
 Rwnt given on the 4th of September, was held 
 too late. Wriuht v. Leyn, 10 P. K. 354.— Ual- 
 ton. Matter. 
 
 Anotice of appeal to the Court of Appeal is not 
 aa initiatiou of the appeal. Where notice was 
 wrred, but the security required by section 38, 
 0. J. Act, was not given : — Held, that there 
 wai no appeal pending, and a motion to set aside 
 
 the notice of appeal, or to dismiss the appeal, 
 was dismissed. Smith v. Smith, IIP. It. 6. — 
 Dalton, Master. — Rose. 
 
 Semble, R. S. O. (1877), c. 38, s. 46, would have 
 the effect of preventing an appeal from a judg- 
 ment more than a year old, unless leave were 
 obtained from the Court of Appeal ; but if new 
 evidence were admitted, and the case heard 
 anew, the time for appealing would run from 
 the date of the later judgment : — Semble, also, 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 38, s. 22, was not intended to 
 apply to newly discovered evidence. Synod v. 
 UeBlaquiere, 10 P. R. 11, followed. Bank of 
 British North America v. Western Insurance 
 Co., 11 P. R. 434.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Cross applications in respect of the same sub- 
 ject matter were argued together, and both were 
 dismissed by a judgment pronounced on the 26th 
 April, 1885. I'he question argued was an im- 
 portant one, viz. , the ultra vires of an Act. Sepa- 
 rate orders were taken out dismissing the two 
 applications, and the time for appealing from 
 both orders was extended till the 6th of June, on 
 whicL day one of the parties gave notice of ap- 
 peal from the order adverse to him. The other 
 {mrty, who was not desirous of appealing unless 
 lis opponent appealed, was advised too late to 
 serve notice within the time limited, and there- 
 fore applied, after the expiration of the time, to 
 have it extended : — Held, that it was a proper 
 case for exercising a discretion in favour of the 
 applicant, and leave to appeal w.is accordingly 
 granted. Be Lake Superior Native Copper Co., 
 11 P. R. 36.— Proudfoot. 
 
 An appeal was not made within the time re- 
 quired by Rule 461 (Con. Rule 484), as it waa 
 supposed that Christmas vacation did not count. 
 On the facts stated in the judgment, leave was 
 given to appeal on payment of costs. Sieve- 
 wriaht v. Leys, 9 P. R. 200.— Dnlton, Master. 
 
 Where leave of the court is necessary for an 
 appeal, application therefor should be made 
 within three months from the judgment to be 
 appealed from ; but in a case where, although 
 leave to appeal was necessary, none was obtained, 
 and the appellant gave notice and tiled his appeal 
 bond, which was allowed without objection by 
 the respondent, and where the appeal presented 
 a fairly arguable question of law, and no sittings 
 had been lost by the delay : — HeUl, that such an 
 equity was raised in the appellant's favour as 
 tiititled him to relief after the three months. 
 The rule laid down in Sievewrieht v. Leys, 9 
 P. R. 200, is the rule that should oe acted upon 
 in regard to extension of time. Langdon v. 
 Bobertnon, 12 P. R. 139.— C. of A. 
 
 Motion to dismiss the defendants' appeal to- 
 this court for want of prosecution. The judg- 
 ment appealed from (12 O. R. 119) was pro- 
 nounced on the 28th April, 1886, and notice of 
 appeal was given within two weeks thereafter. 
 Security was given at the end of June, but the 
 draft appeal case was not sent to the plaintiff's 
 solicitors till the 24th September following, 
 and did not reach them till the 27th September. 
 The period from that date till the 1st of March, 
 1887, was occupied by correspondence between 
 the solicitors for the parties, in an attempt to 
 settle the appeal case, and at the end of that 
 prriod it became apparent that there must be a 
 motion to a judge to settle the case. From thfr. 
 
 ■m ■ 
 
411 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 412 
 
 let of March, however, till the 28th of April, 
 when a year had run from the pronouncing^ of 
 judgment, nothing was done, and this motion 
 was made on the 14th May, 1887. The reason 
 given for the delay after the 1st March was, that 
 the appellants' solicitor thought it best to have 
 the case settled by the judge who tried the action, 
 and that that judge did not during the time in 
 question hold chambers, he being away on circuit. 
 It was shewn, however, on the other side, that 
 he was not continuously absent during this 
 period :— Held, by Patterson, J. A., in chambers, 
 that no special circumstances were shewn to 
 justify an extension of the time, and that the 
 appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecu- 
 tion. Plait V. Grand Trunk If. W. Co., 12 P. R. 
 380. — Patterson. — <'.". Ol 
 
 Held, on appeal, by t: . '. ''at the judge 
 
 in chambers had powe • . ' lie order dis- 
 
 missing the appeal, and that notliing wns shewn 
 to warrant interference with his dibi'retion. Ih. 
 
 See He Union Fire In. Co., 7 A. R. .?". iifra. 
 
 7. Appeal Books. 
 
 The formal judgment or order appealed from 
 should be printed in the appeal book. Thomp- 
 son V. Robmson, 16 A. R. 175. 
 
 Where no written judgment has been delivered 
 by the court appealed from, a statement of the 
 grounds assigned therefor should be obtained 
 from the reporter, or from notes of counsel who 
 attend to hear judgment, and should be inserted 
 in the appeal book. lilacMey v. Kenny, 16 A. R. 
 522 ; See Boswell v. Sutherland, 8 A. R. 233. 
 
 See Petrie v. 
 60O, p. 384. 
 
 Guelph Lumber Co., 10 P. R. 
 
 8. Bond and Security. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 The bond for $400, given under the provisions 
 of R. S.O. (1877) c.38,s.26, is a security for the 
 costs of appeal only ; in order to stay execution 
 for the costs of the court below, further security 
 must be given. Powell v. Peck, 8 P. R. 85. — 
 Stephens, Referee. 
 
 An order allowing $400 to be paid into court 
 by the appellant, in lieu of a bond, will be granted 
 ex parte. Connolly v. O'Reilly, 8 P. R. 159.— 
 Stephens, Referee, 
 
 An appeal under the Act respecting the wind- 
 ing up 01 joint stock companies, 41 Vict. c. 5, s. 
 27 (Ont.), cannot be entertained when security 
 has not been given within eight days from the 
 rendering of the final order or judgment appealed 
 from. Re Union Fire Ins. Co. , 7 A. R. 783. 
 
 Where a bond good in form, with proper sure- 
 ties, was filed with the clerk of the County 
 Court on the last of the eight days, though 
 not allowed by the judge : — Held to be within 
 the words "given security before a judge," and 
 a sufficient compliance with the Act, though a 
 person thus filing a ))ond without allowance, risks 
 Deing deprived of his right of appeal in the event 
 of the bond proving defective. Jb. 
 
 Where, on a motion in chambers to disallow a 
 bond given on an appeal, it appeared from the 
 
 examination of one of the bondsmen that he htd 
 lands of sufficient value, but that the convey, 
 ances to him were unregistered, it was directed 
 that the conveyances should be registered. 
 Adaniaon v. ^Idawwon, 9 P. R. 96.— Stepheni 
 Referee. ' 
 
 See Smith V. Smith, 11 P. R. 6, p. 410. 
 
 (b) Further Security. 
 
 An application for further security for coste 
 of appeal, on the ground of the insolvency of one 
 or more of the sureties, should be made to the 
 court appealed from. Lumsden v, Davis, 10 P 
 R. 10.— Burton. 
 
 Where one of the sureties in a bond given to 
 secure the costs in the court below became worth- 
 less : — Held, that the respondent was entitled to 
 tt new one. Gage v. Cancula Publishing Co., 10 
 P. R. 169.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 (c) Delivery up of Bond aud Payment out of 
 Court. 
 
 On appeal to the Court of Appeal, from the 
 judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in fa- 
 vour of one P. against the Citizens' Insurance 
 Company, the company paid into court a sum 
 of money as security for the amount of the judg- 
 ment, as well as for interest and costs, and also 
 for the costs of the appeal. The appeal was dis- 
 missed with costs, and the company then ap- 
 pealed to the Supreme Court, and paid a further 
 sum into court as security for the costs of such 
 appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the 
 appeal with costs. A judge's order was then ob- 
 tained, under which the moneys were paid out of 
 court to G. and M., to whom P. had assigned 
 them. The company afterwards appealed to the 
 Privy Council, when the appeal was allowed 
 and the judgment of the Supreme Court re- 
 versed. On an action brought therefor :— Held, 
 by Hagarty, C. J., that the company were en- 
 titled to recover back the moneys so paid out of 
 court on the judge's order with interest thereon 
 from that payment at six per cent. ; and also all 
 sums paid for costs, but without interest. Citi- 
 zens' Ins. Co. V. Parsons, 32 C. P. 492. 
 
 A judgment by the Court of Appeal, in favonr 
 of a defendant appellant, puts an end to all 
 liability upon the appeal bond, which may after 
 such judgment be delivered up to the appellant, 
 even where the other party has given notice of 
 appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Bur- 
 gess V. Conway, U P. R. 514. — Dalton, Mm. 
 ter. — (ialt. 
 
 Notice should be given to the opposite party of 
 a motion to take the appeal bona o£f the files. 
 lb. 
 
 Where mo- .y has been paid into court for a 
 specific purpose, and that purpose has been 
 answered in favour of the party paying it in it 
 will be paid out to that party. McLaren t. 
 Caldwell, 9 P. R. 118.— Proudfoot. 
 
 9. Slaying Proceedings on Bond. 
 
 An action against the sureties upon a bond 
 given by the defendants in the action of H^ 
 
 413 
 
 Ijaren v. Canad 
 upon the appeal 
 of Appeal in tha 
 Larea v. Canada < 
 of Appeal to Her 
 appeal security 1 
 «hiding security 
 and execution ha 
 Held, that proc« 
 this action. Mc 
 Dalton, Master, 
 
 10 
 
 The condition 
 defendant was a 
 vould effectual!} 
 such costs and dt 
 «a8e the judgmci 
 The appellant dis 
 to B. S.O. (1877) 
 " thereupou the i 
 titled to the cost: 
 «eedingsinappea 
 for such costs or i 
 meut in the court 
 ther proceedings 
 had been brought 
 matter was referr 
 respondent's cos 
 Held, affirming I 
 had been aifirme 
 that these costs 
 apndent by virti 
 the meaning of 
 prosecute." IIw 
 Rose. See also I 
 add Southern R, 
 
 See Cousineau \ 
 13 P. R. 36, p. 3S 
 
 As the court be] 
 as to whether thei 
 the appeal was sii 
 nonsuit, but leavii 
 touched. Walton 
 
 In an action fo 
 county road in r( 
 plaintiff. A rule 
 obtained to enter 
 this court made i 
 On appeal the C( 
 made no order as 
 in which a new tr 
 disposed of by thi 
 nisi was completf 
 far as this court i 
 enter a nonsuit, w 
 it without asking 
 regarded the newt 
 also, Wilson, C. J, 
 Appeal have no i 
 Conrtof AppealA 
 this court to reop 
 question whether, 
 should be granted 
 32C. P. 35.— C. ] 
 
 Section 43 of th 
 0. 1877, 0. 38), w 
 appeal against a ju 
 
413 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 m 
 
 laxen v. Canada Central Railway Company, 
 upon the appeal of the defendants to the Court 
 of Appeal in that case. The dtjfendanta in Mc- 
 Laren V. Canada Central appealed from the Court 
 of Appeal to Her M ijesty,ia Council, and in that 
 appeal security had been given and allowed, in- 
 chiding security for the whole amount recovered, 
 and execution had been stayed in consequence : — 
 Held, that proceedings must also be stayed in 
 this action. McLaren v. Stephens, 10 P. R. 88. — 
 Dalton, Master. 
 
 10. Discontinuance, 
 
 The condition of an appeal bond in which the 
 defendant was a surety was that the appellant 
 would effectually prosecute his appeal, and p:vy 
 auch costs and damages as might be awai-dod in 
 oase the judgment appealed from was affirmed. 
 Tlie appellant discontinued the appeal pursuant 
 to R- S. 0. (1877) c. S5, s. 41, which enacts that 
 " thereupon the respondent sliall at once be en- 
 titled to the costs of and occasioned by the pro- 
 ceedings in appefil, and may eitlier sign judgment 
 for such costs or obtain an order for their pay- 
 ment in the court below, and may take all fur- 
 ther proceedines in that court as if no appeal 
 had been brouglit." The registrar, to whom the 
 matter was referred, assessed the damages at the 
 respondent's costs of opposing the appeal : — 
 Held, affirming his finding, that the judgment 
 bad been affirmed by tiie discontinuance, and 
 that these costs had been awarded to the re- 
 (Dondent by virtue of section 41 : — Quajre, as to 
 the meaning of the expression " effiictually 
 prosecute." Hughes v. lioi/le, 5 0. R. 395.— 
 Rose. See also International Bridqe Co. v. Can- 
 ada Southern Ji. \V. Co., 9 P. R. 250. 
 
 See Cousineau v. City of London Fire Ins. Co. , 
 13 P. R 36, p. 382. 
 
 11. Other Cases. 
 
 As the court below had pronounced no opinion 
 as to whether there should be a new trial or not, 
 the appeal was simply allowed, setting aside the 
 nonsuit, but leaving the question of new trial un- 
 touched. Walton v. County of York, 6 A. R. 181. 
 
 In an action for negligeiice in not keeping a 
 county road in repair, the jury found for tiie 
 plaintiff. A rule uisi naving been subsequently 
 obtained to enter a nonsuit, or for a new trial, 
 this court made it absolute to enter a nonsuit. 
 On appeal the court allowed the appeal, but 
 made no order as to that portion of the rule nisi 
 in which a new trial was asked, leaving it to be 
 disposed of by this court : — Held, that the rule 
 nisi was completely and finallv disposed of, so 
 far as this court was concerned, by the rule to 
 enter a nonsuit, which the defendants, by taking 
 it without asking for any reservation so far as 
 regarded the new trial, had acquiesced in : — Held, 
 also, Wilson, C. J., dissenting, that the Court of 
 Appeal have no power, under section 23 of the 
 Court of Appeal Act, U. S. O. ( 1877) c. 38, to direct 
 this court to reopen the rule or reconsider the 
 qaestion whether, in their discretion, a new trial 
 should be granted. Walton v. County of York, 
 32C. P. 35.-C. P. D. 
 
 Section 43 of the Court of Appeal Act (R. S. 
 0. 1877, c. 38), which provides " when on an 
 appeal against a judgment in any action personal, 
 
 tlie Court of Appeal gives judgment for the re- 
 spondent, interest shall be allowed by the court 
 for such time as execution has been delayed by 
 the appeal," does not apply to a case where the 
 judgment of the court below is in favour of the 
 defendant, and is reversed on appeal. In such 
 case the court on reversing the judgment, gave 
 liberty to the appellant, the plaintiff in the court 
 below, to move to be at liberty to enter judg- 
 ment as directed by this court, nunc pro tunc, 
 whereby he would bo enabled to recover interest 
 on the amount of the verdict rendered in his 
 favour. Quinlaii v. Union Fire Jns. Go., 8 A. 
 R. 376. (See R. S. 0. (1887), c. 44, s. 88.) 
 
 This court is allowed, and required by law, to 
 give judgment " according to the very right and 
 .)U: tice of the case," and, up to the last moment, 
 lias the riglit to make any amendment proper 
 for tlie attainment of th:vt end. Tlierefore, where 
 the duroiidaiits had by their answers admitted 
 the truth of certain paragraphs of the bill, which 
 ohargeil that they had severally purchased with 
 notice of the claim of the plaintitf ; but subse- 
 quently they swore that they did not intend to 
 make such admission ; that in fact they had not 
 had such notice, and the admission was made ia 
 ignorance of its eflfect ; the defendants up to the 
 last stage of the proceedings should be at liberty 
 to set up the facts as a means of defence. Peter- 
 kin V. McFarlane, 9 A. R. 429. — Hagarty. 
 
 Costs of an appeal from the surrogate court 
 to the Court of Appeil should be taxed on the 
 scile of the court appealed from, as provided by 
 Rule 23 of the Court of Appeal, and not on the 
 scale of County Court Appeals. Regan v. Waters, 
 10 P. R. 364.— Osier, 
 
 The plaintiflF served notice of appeal from the 
 judgment of the Common Pleas division (15 O.R. 
 544) upon both defendants, and furnished both 
 with security for costs of appeal, but disclaimed 
 any relief against the defendant B., and brought 
 him before the court only that the defendant L. 
 might obtain any relief over against B. that he 
 might consider himself entitled to. No notice 
 of setting down or reasons of appeal were served 
 on B. L. claimed no relief against B. in his 
 pleadings or reasons of appeal : — Held, that B. 
 was not a person who would or might be afifected 
 by a reversal of the decision complained of, and 
 there was no reason for retaining nim before the 
 court. O' Sullivan v. Lake, 12 P. R. 550. — Oaler. 
 
 The defendants, appealing from a divisional 
 court, applied for leave to adduce farther evi- 
 dence in the Court of Appeal, to corroborate that 
 already taken upon a point which was argued 
 before the divisional court, and decided ad- 
 versely to the applicants. The application was 
 refused. Remarks ou the reception of further 
 evidence by appellate courts. Merchants' Bank 
 V. Lucas, 12 P. R. 526.— C. of A. 
 
 See A uslin v. Davis, 7 A. R. 478, p. 404 ; Orand 
 Junction R. W. Go. v. County of Peterborough, 13 
 A. R. 420. 
 
 III. Enforcing Judgment. 
 
 Held, that a certificate of the Court of Appeal 
 may be acted on in the court below, without 
 issuing a rule upon such certificate. McArlhw 
 V. Township of Southwold, 8 P. R. 27. — Jackson, 
 Master. 
 
 mil'' 
 
415 
 
 OOUBT OF KEVISION. 
 
 m 
 
 An ex parte motion to make the certificate of 
 jndument of t'oiirt of Appeal an order of tlie 
 High Court of jubtice ■waBiefused, the master in 
 chambers being of opinion tliat fiich a course 
 ■was unnecesBary. Freed v. Orr, 9 P. K. 181. — 
 Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 Remarks as to the practice of making a certi- 
 ficate of the judgment of the Court of Appeal 
 an order of the Court of Chancery, which has 
 be£1i the uniform practice of that court, and is 
 not inconsiBtent with R. S. 0. (1877), c 38, s. 44. 
 Norvall v, L uvoikt Hvvtlitrn Jf. W. Co. ; Ctm- 
 nivgham v. Cahaila Southern R. W. Co., 9 P. R. 
 339. 
 
 The proper way of enforcing a judgment of 
 the Court of Apj cal is, to have the judgment of 
 the court beh.w amended, if neccsf ary, according 
 to the judgment in appeal ; and when amended, 
 to issue process theieon. Section 44 of the 
 Appeal Act, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 38, is not super- 
 seded liy section 14 of the 0. J. Act. LGiff07i 
 V. Canada Faiviem' Mutval Ins. Co., 8 A. R. 
 613. See 6'. 6'., 9 P. R. 185. 
 
 COURT OF AFSJZE, OF OYEE AND TER- 
 MINER AND GENERAL GAOL 
 LELIVIRY. 
 
 Held, Wilson, C. J., disHenting, that the court 
 of assize, of oyer and terminer and general gaol 
 delivery, is now, by virtue of the Judicature 
 Act, the Hifili Court of Justice. Jiegiva v. Bunt- 
 ing, 7 0. R. 118. 
 
 There is nothing to prevent a judge sitting at 
 the assizes hearing a chamber motion, if he is 
 disposed for the purj ose, to treat the court-room 
 as his chambers. Hat 7na Agricultural Implement 
 Manvjactwihg Co. v. Perdue, 11 P. R. 224 — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 The various statutes of British Columbia pro- 
 viding for the holding of courts of oyer and 
 terminer and general gaol delivery render un- 
 necessary a conjmission to the presiding judge. — 
 Per Strong, J. : — The power of issuing a com- 
 mission, if necessary, belonged to the Lieutenant- 
 Governor of the province (Henry J., contra). 
 In re Robert Evan Sprmde, 12 S. C. R. 140. 
 
 COURT OF CHANCERY. 
 I. Jurisdiction. 
 
 1. Oenerally, 415, 
 
 2. Exclusive Jurisdiction — See Trial. 
 n. Pleaping in Equity— See Pleading. 
 III. Practice in Equity— (See Practice. 
 
 I. Jurisdiction. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 The Conrt of Chancery has jurisdiction in cases 
 of escheat, and held, that it was proper for the 
 attorney -general to file a bill in that court to 
 enforce an escheat. Atlorney-Oeneral of Ontario 
 T. O'Reilly, 6 A. R. 576. 
 
 The Court of Chancery haa no jurisdiction to 
 restrain proceedings on an order granted by a 
 County Court judge to garnish moneys payable 
 by the county to the plaintiff as clerk of the peace 
 and county crown attorney. The applicatioa 
 should be to the Court of Appeal. Van Xortnan 
 V. Grant, 27 Chy. 498.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where a member of a college council complains 
 that lio has been improperly expelled from the 
 council, the Court of Chancery, under the A, J. 
 Act, has jurisdiction in a proper case to decree 
 relief; that Act giving jurisdiction to the Court 
 of Chancery "in all matters M'hich would be 
 cognizable in a court of law, "although the remedy 
 in such a case in a court of law would be sought 
 by niimdaniiia. Murxh v. Huron College, 27 Cliy. 
 COS.— Spiaggo. 
 
 As to power of the Court of Chancery tonuike 
 an assesMnent on policy holders in the solvent 
 branches of a mutual insurance company, for the 
 purpose of paying off the liability due to the 
 guarantee stockholders. See Duff v. Canadian 
 Mutual Ins. Co. , 6 A. R. 238. 
 
 Where an agreement fora submission contained 
 a clause that it should be made a rule of the 
 Court of Queen's Rcnch, in England, and all pro- 
 ceedings thereunder should be governed, as in 
 Great Britain, by the provisions of the Engliah 
 C. L. P. Act :— Held, that this formed no objec- 
 tion to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery 
 in this province. Direct United States Cable Co, 
 (Limited) v. Dominion Telegraph Co. of Canada, 
 8A. R. 416. 
 
 See Attorney -General of Canada, ex rel. Bar- 
 rett v. International Bridge Co. , 28 Chy. 65. 
 
 COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Impeachment of County Court judge. See Et 
 Squier, 46 Q. B. 474, p. 394. 
 
 COURT OF REVISION. 
 
 I. AssKssMENTs — See Assessment and 
 
 TaXE3. 
 
 11. Voters' Lists ■ 
 Elections. 
 
 See Parliamentary 
 
 Compelling Court of Revision to hear voters' 
 lists appeals. See In re Marter and the Court nf 
 Revision of the Town of Gravenhurst, 18 0. B. 
 243. 
 
 Held, that the Court of Revision has juris- 
 diction, under R. S. 0. (1887), c. 225, s. 120, 
 sub-s. 3, on the application of the person asses- 
 sed, or of any municipal elector (or ratepayer, as 
 under R. S. O. (1887), c. 227, s. 48, subs. 3), t» 
 hear and determine complaints, (a) in regard to 
 the religion of the person placed on the roll as 
 Protestant or Roman Catholic, and (b) as to 
 whether such person is or is not a supporter of 
 public or separate schools within the nie'>ningof 
 the provisions of law in that behalf id (c), 
 whicn appears to be involved in (b), wiiore such 
 person has been placed in the wrong column of 
 the assessment roll for the purposes of the school 
 
 417 
 
 tax. In re Rci 
 0. R. 606.— Bo 
 
 It is compete 
 determine whe 
 wrongfully cmi 
 the assesement 
 upon the conipl 
 any elector, or i 
 
 I. SuPERio: 
 II. Powers i 
 
 1. Oenert 
 
 2. Su77im 
 
 ofC 
 
 III. Conflic 
 
 IV. LEfllSLAI 
 
 STITUTl 
 
 V. Rules of 
 
 VI. Appeals 
 
 VII. Pkohiuit 
 
 VIII. Particul 
 
 ERAL T 
 
 IX. Foreign i 
 
 I. SUPE 
 
 Remarks as to 
 inferior Court. S 
 
 I] 
 
 ] 
 
 Held (O'Connor 
 diction given to th 
 c. 12, SB. 45 to 48, 
 not oust the jurist 
 offence is of a crir 
 same act may be ir 
 legislature, and in 
 nour. Regina v. 
 
 Per O'Connor, J. 
 ce» done in contra VI 
 tion of parliament, 
 felony, and bread 
 alone has jurisdicti 
 civil and criminal, 1 
 the lex et consuetu 
 High Court of Pai 1 
 to deal with all mii 
 nity, or concerning 
 Its business, with 
 Ih. 
 
 \: 
 
 It was contended 
 «lncer, under the 
 <9 Vict. c. 40 (Don 
 "ominiongovemii 
 sittings of a court 
 "0 jurisdiction in 
 27 
 
417 
 
 COVENANT. 
 
 418 
 
 tax. •/'» »■« Hcman Catholic Separate Schooln, 18 
 0. R. 606.— Boyd.— Hobirtson. 
 
 It is competent for the court of revision to 
 determine whether the name of any person 
 wrongfully omitted from the proper column of 
 the assessment roll, should be inserted therein, 
 upon the complaint of the person himself, or of 
 any elector, or ratepayer, ib. 
 
 COURTS. 
 
 I. SrvERioR AND Infeiiior, 417. 
 
 II. Powers of. 
 
 1. Oenerally, 417. 
 
 2. Summary Jiirindiction—SeeCosTEliTT 
 
 OF Court. 
 
 III. CoKFLicTiKfi Decisions, 418. 
 
 IV. Leoislative Powers as to— See Con- 
 
 stitutional Law. 
 
 V. Rules of Court— .S'e* Rules of Court. 
 
 VI. Appeals from— 5ee Appeal. 
 
 VII. Prohibition— See Prohiiiition. 
 
 VIII. Particular Courts— iSee Their Sev- 
 EKAL Titles. 
 
 IX. Foreign Courts— See Foreign Courts. 
 
 I. Superior and Inferior. 
 
 Remarks as to what constitutes a superior or 
 inferior Court. See Hegina v. O'Bowke, 32 C. P. 
 
 II. PowEBS of. 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 Held (O'Connor, J. , dissenting), that the juris- 
 iliction given to the lej,'ialature by R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 12, ss. 45 to 48, to punish for a contempt does 
 not oust the jurisdiction of the courts where the 
 offence is of a criminal character, but that the 
 tame act may be in one aspect a contempt of the 
 legislature, and in another aspect a misdemea- 
 nour. Reyina v. ISuiUimj, 7 O. R. 524.— Q. B. 
 I). 
 
 Per O'Connor, J., that in all matters and offen- 
 ces done in contravention of the law and constitu- 
 tion of parliament, with the exception of treason, 
 felony, and breaches of the peace, parliament 
 alone has jurisdiction, and the ordinary courts, 
 civil and criminal, have no jurisdiction. 2. That 
 the lejt et consuetude pai'liamenti reserves to the 
 High Court of Parliament exclusive jurisdiction 
 to deal with all matters relating to its own dig- 
 mty.or concerning its powers, its members, and 
 itahusiness, with the above three exceptions. 
 
 It was contended in this case that the revising 
 cfficer, under the Electoral Franchise Act, 48 & 
 I'M lot. c. 40 (Dam. ), was an appointment of the 
 I'ominion government, and that his sittings were 
 •ittings of a court of record, and that there was 
 10 jurisdiction in a provincial court to issue a 
 
 27 
 
 mandamus to him :— Held, that the Dominion 
 parliament, had by the Klcctoral Franchise Act» 
 interfered with civil rights in this province, and 
 having made no provision for a court to superin- 
 tend tlie conduct of the cflicials appointed under 
 that Act, and following Valin v. Lanclois, 3 S. 
 C. R. 1, that until such court is created, the pro- 
 vincial courts, by virtue of their inherent juris- 
 diction, have a right to superintend the dis- 
 charge of their duties by any inferior officer or 
 tribunal. Jie Siwmonn and Ualtott, 12 O. R. 
 505.— Proiidfoot. 
 
 Held, that an inferior court hos no jurisdiction 
 to entertain an action brought upon the judgment 
 of a superior court. He Ehtrix v. Brooke 10 P. R. 
 257.-Galt. Reversed, S. C, 11 P. R. 296.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The supreme court of British Columbia is 
 clothed with all the powers and jurisdiction, 
 civil and criminal, necessaiy or essential to the 
 full and perfect administration of justice, civil 
 or criminal, in the province ; powers as full and 
 ample as those known to the common law and 
 possessed by the superior courts of England. 
 In re Bobert Evan Sprovle, 12 S. C. R. 140. 
 
 As to power to grant judgment of foreclosure 
 or direct a sale of land beyond the territorial 
 jurisdiction of the courts. See Strange v. Bad- 
 ford, 15 0. R. 145. 
 
 III. Conflictino Decisions. 
 
 When a decision of the court of appeal in 
 England is at variance with a decision of the 
 court of appeal of this province, the latter 
 should be followed here, as the former court ia 
 not the court of ultimate appeal for the pro- 
 vince : Sutton V. Sutton, 22 Chy. D. 511, not fol- 
 lowed. Macdonald v. MrDovald, 11 0. R. 
 187.— Proudfoot. See also Alt Donald v. Elliott^ 
 12 O. R. 98. 
 
 Observations upon the effect of a decision 
 where the Court is equally divided. Clarkson 
 V, Attorney-General oj Canada, 16 A. R. 202. 
 
 See Oottld v. Beattie, 11 P. R. 329. 
 
 I. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 COVENANT. 
 Generally, 419. 
 Joint Covenantors, 419. 
 Contracts Relating to Land. 
 
 1. Generally, 419. 
 
 2. CovenantH Ruwiing with the Land, 
 
 (a) Generally, 421. 
 
 (b) In Leases — See Landlord ani> 
 Tenant. 
 
 3. Covenants for Title— See Covenants 
 
 for Title. 
 
 4. In Leases— See Landlord and Ten- 
 
 ant. 
 
 5. In Mortgages — See Mortgage. 
 
 IV. In Policies— See Insurance. 
 V. Other Covenants, 423. 
 
 lis 
 
419 
 
 OOVENANT. 
 
 VI. Assignment or Mobtoaoe or, 424. 
 VII. Actions on, 424, 
 
 VIII. DaMA(IE8 FOK BllEACIIES OF, 424. 
 
 IX. Injunction aoain.st Breach ov — See 
 Injunction. 
 
 X. Belief aoain.st Fokkeiture, 425. 
 
 I. Generally. 
 
 The general rule is, that where you cannot 
 sever the illegal from tlie logal part of a cove- 
 nant, the contract is altogether void, but where 
 you can sever them, whether tlio illegality be 
 created by the statute, or by the common law, 
 you may reject the bad part, and retain the 
 good, kitching v. Hicks, 6 0. R. 739.— Usler. 
 
 II. Joint Covenantors. 
 
 Semble, the rule stated in Rawle on Cove- 
 nants, 4th ed., p. 5.S8, that when two persons 
 jointly covenant with another, a joint action lies 
 for the covenantee on a breach of covenant by 
 one of the covenantors only, because they are 
 sureties for each other for tlie due performance 
 of the covenant, should he limited to the case of 
 antecedent breaches, and not be extended to pro- 
 missory tngaKcments, in the absence of language 
 imputing such suretyship in regard to future acts 
 or breaches. Elliott v. Stanley, 7 O. R. 350. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 III. In Contracts Relating to Land. 
 1. Oenerally. 
 
 M. gave a mortgage to T. on certain lands. 
 The mortgage was in the statutory short form, 
 except that immediately after the printed cove- 
 nant for payment the following words wore in- 
 serted in writing : "It being understood, how- 
 ever, that the said lands only shall in any event 
 be liable for the payment of ttie mortgage. " The 
 distress clause remained unerased m its usual 
 place, viz. : after the covenants. T. assigned the 
 mortgage to H. , who, on an instalment of interest 
 falling due, distrained for it. M. now brought 
 this action for a wrongful distress : — Held, that 
 M. was entitled to recover the amount distrained 
 for with interest and costs, for the earlier pro- 
 vision controlled the subsequent one, both be- 
 cause it was first in the deed, and because it was 
 in writing, and the words superadded in writing 
 were entitled to have greater efifect attributed to 
 them than the printed clauses. McKai/ v. 
 Hoioard, 6 0. R. 135.— Boyd. 
 
 H.S. by deed dated 4th November, I863,grant- 
 ed his farm and some chattels to his son T. S. , in 
 consideration of $300, " subject to be defeated 
 And rendered null and void upon the non-perfor- 
 mance by the said party of the second part of 
 the following condition, or any part thereof, viz. , 
 the said party of the second part covenants to 
 feed, clothe, support and maintain the said party 
 of the first part * * during the term of his 
 natural life. • * ." T. S. having fulfilled 
 the condition during his lifetime, died on the 5th 
 October, 1865, leaving a widow and one child. 
 The widow removed from the farm, but offered 
 to tak'-. H. S. with her to her father's house, and 
 
 have him provided for there, or to allow him to 
 go to hei- brother's house in the same way, i)oth 
 of which off'ors were declined, and as no main- 
 tenance was provided for him by her at the farm 
 he treated the condition ns broken and brought 
 an action of ejectment, and recovered judgment; 
 and convoyed the farm awuy by deed, and the 
 defendant became the owner by subsequent con- 
 veyance. H. IS. was subsequently 8Ut>port6d 
 part of the time on the farm uy the defendant, 
 and died in 1880. In an action of ejectment by 
 the infant daughter of T. 8., claiming under the 
 deed to her father against the defendant, it 
 was : — Held, afiirmingthe judgment of Armour, 
 J., (Proudfoot, iJ., dissenting,) that the grantor 
 was not bound to accept the oilers made, and 
 that the conilitions of tlie deed were broken and 
 the land forfeited. Per Armour, .1., {at the 
 trial}, the deed must bu c(in!4truud as being made 
 upon condition and us l)cing defeated and ren- 
 dered void by the nonpurformanco of the cove- 
 nant. The effect of tlu* covenant is, that H. 8, 
 was to be maintained wherever he might choose 
 to live, but ho was not bound to go to any place 
 the covenantor or his representatives might re- 
 quire him to go, and he was justified in refusing 
 to accept the offers made. Per Boyd, C, the 
 parent who for value purchases the right to 
 support from his son has, if the written instru- 
 ment is silent on the point, the first and con- 
 trolling choice as to the place of abode. If the 
 father's wishes are reasonable, having regard to 
 his age and station in life, the court ought to 
 respect them in preference to the counter propo- 
 sitions of those who are to supply the mainten- 
 ance. There was here no caprice, no unwar- 
 rantable obstinacy in the father's resolve to 
 cling to the homestead, such as should induce 
 the court to disregard the general rule. The 
 result is, that the conditions of the deed were 
 broken and the land forfeited. Per Proudfoot, 
 J., the life interest of H. S. was not reserved 
 out of the land, it rested solely on the condition, 
 with probably an equitable charge on the land. 
 The condition is to maintain without specifica- 
 tion of place ; it imposes no personal obligation 
 on the grantee, it may be fulfilled by any one 
 having an interest in the property, and may be 
 performed wherever the grantee or his represen- 
 tative might reasonably offer. Per Ferguson, J., 
 it was a condition annexed to the estate granted, 
 the proper effect of which was that if broken the 
 title would go to the grantor, or those claiming 
 from him the reversion in the lands ; the grantor 
 was not bound to accept the oS'er tiiat was made, 
 and there was a breach of the condition, the effect 
 of which was to revest the estate. MUlette t. 
 Sabourin, 12 0. R. 248.— Chy. D. 
 
 The defendant M. had in his possession, as ex- 
 ecutor of J. D. C., a mortgageiof one R., which 
 the agent of M. had deposited with H. as col- 
 lateral security for moneys advanced to such 
 agent, in all about $100. Some years after M. 
 executed an assignment of this mortgage to S. 
 C. a legatee under the will, for the alleged pur- 
 pose of securing payment of her legacy, at the 
 same time giving a personal covenant for the 
 same object. H. assuming to act as owner of 
 such mortgage, wrote to the persons ownine the 
 equity of redemption, that he controlled the 
 mortgage ; that the lands were encumbered for 
 more than their value, and suggesting that they 
 should convey their right to him. This they did 
 
 See Cokman 
 
421 
 
 COVENANT. 
 
 422 
 
 for JI30, by convoying to a trustee for H. and 
 subsequently H. in cunBideration of S>'WO obtain- 
 ed from vS. C. an assignment of lior interest in 
 the R. mortgage, and ulso un assignment of tlie 
 covenant of M. H. subscijuently sold these lands 
 for an alleged concideration of $6,000; accepting 
 a conveyance of other lands, which he shortly 
 afterwards sold for $6,500 cash. The whole 
 amount of H.'s claim, including the $500 paid S. 
 C, did not exceed $1,500. In a proceeding in- 
 stituted by H. against M., this court, on appeal, 
 reversed the judgment of the Common Pleas 
 division (100. R. 5S),holding that notwithstand- 
 ing II. 's dealings with the lands, ho was entitled 
 to enforce payment of M.'s covenant. Wilkiut 
 V. McLean, 13 A. R. 407. 
 
 Covenant of railway company to construct a, 
 station, in consideration of the company receiving 
 a municipal bonus. Sec Bicl^ford v. Town of 
 Chathavi, 10 O. R. 257 ; 14 A. R. 32 ; 16 S. C. 
 R. 235. 
 
 See Coleman v. Hill, 10 O. R. 172. 
 
 2. Covenants Running with the Laiul. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 Where D., the owner of certain lands, on seM- 
 5ng p*rt to B , inserteil this clause in the con- 
 vayance : " Belle vuo sijuare is private property, 
 but is always to reni'iin unbuilt upon, except oue 
 rewlencB with the necessary outbaiMings, in- 
 cluling porter's lodge," auil the purchaser, on 
 his pirt, covenanted not to allow any I>u3ine3s of 
 a certain kind to be carried on on the part con- 
 veyed :— Hold, that the bonetit of the restriction 
 passed to the assignee of the purchaser, as one 
 of the advantages and privileges appurtenant to 
 the land, though the word ".assigns" was not 
 there, and though the benefit of it was not for- 1 
 milly transferred to him. ViinKowjhnet v. Denl- 
 .ion, 1 O. II. 349.— Boyd ; U A. R. 699. Soe .S'. 
 C, 28 Chy. 485. 
 
 Where it is clearly, intended to give some tan- 
 gible benefit to a grantee by such a covenant in 
 the conveyance to him, and it formed a part of 
 the consideration which induced his purchase, 
 the court will go far to give elTect to the lan- 
 guage, whatever hardship may be occasioned to 
 the party who has entered into the engagement. 
 <S. a, I 0. R. 349. 
 
 Where the person who was building the house 
 objected to, held under an agreement for a lease, 
 but had made no outlay on the property till 
 after notice was served on her, nor paid any 
 rent : — Held, that ""he was not in the same posi- 
 tion as an innocent person holding for value under 
 a completed instrument, and the erection of the 
 house must be stopped. lb. 
 
 Where the square had been built upon for 
 years without objection by purchaser or his ven- 
 dee, the plaintiff, but the building had been 
 erected by purchasers under a mortgage executed 
 by D. before he conveyed to B. :— Held, no proof 
 of acquiescence, as they could not have objected 
 with effect. Ih. 
 
 Theland having been sold under a mortgage, 
 a portion came again to the hands of D. , who 
 proceeded to convey parts of it for building 
 purposes:— Held, that D.'s liability under 
 
 restrictive agreement not to build on Bollevno 
 square, revived on bis again accjuiring the pro- 
 perty. 5. C\, 11 A. 11.699. 
 
 On the Ist December, 1870, A. M., by deed, 
 conveyed certain lands to his grandsons \V. M. 
 and D. M., as tenants in common ; and on the 
 same day an agreement in writing was made be- 
 tween the parties whereby W. M. and D. M. 
 agreed to pay the following sums of money, and 
 fulfil the agreement, namely, that W. M. and D. 
 M should thenceforward support their mother, 
 the plaintiff, and furnish her with reasonable, 
 suitEklile, and comfortable bo.ard, lodging, and 
 clothing, and medical attendance during her life- 
 time, and maintain her in a proper manner ; and 
 in the event of any disagreement between W. M., 
 D. M., and the plaintiff, whereby she would bo 
 obliged to leave the said premises, they were to 
 pay her $55 a year in lieu of such board, etc., 
 and, if not paid, to be recoverable by suit at law. 
 The covenants, payments and annuities to be 
 chargeable against the said land. The plaintiff 
 was no party to the agreement. On the 4th 
 October, 1872, the defend int W. M., for a nomi- 
 nal consideration of $1,000, conveyed his undi- 
 vided half interest to the plaintiff, but of which 
 she said she was not aware ; and or 1st Mirch, 
 1877, she reconveyed the same to W. M. " free 
 from incumbrances." On 12th January, 1882, D. 
 M. sold his undivided half interest to C. , and a 
 conveyance was executed, but the sale was never 
 carried though. On 27th September, 1883, D. 
 M. sold his said interest to G. A. B. , and, to save 
 registration charges, the conveyance was made 
 by C. to U. A. B. On 20th March, 1884, G. A. 
 B. conveyed to E. and S., who in May, 1884, 
 ejected the plaintiff from the land. The agree- 
 ment was not registered until 27th January, 
 1832 :— Held, reversing the judgment of (4alt, 
 J., at the trial, that the agreement did not create 
 a rent charge, as no power of distress was con- 
 ferred ; that if either a rent service or rent seek 
 there would be a right of distress and apportion- 
 ment, but if neither, but covenant cliarged on 
 land, performance of it would be decreed ; that 
 upon the conveyance by W. M. to the plaintiff, 
 the whole charge was n^^t extinguished, but an 
 apportionment took place ; and tiiat therefore 
 defendant was entitled to enforce performance 
 against D. M.'s undivided half interest, in the 
 hands of E. and S., whom the evidence shewed 
 were purchasers with notice. McCaakill v. Mc- 
 Caskill, 12 O. R. 783.— C. P. D. 
 
 G. and the defendant were owners of adjacent 
 lots, and C. being about to build on his lot 
 agreed, by writing under seal, to erect a party- 
 \t all on the dividing line and equally on both 
 lots, defendant agreeing to pay for the half of 
 the front forty feet thereof when erected, and 
 for the rear portion thereof whenever defendant 
 should require to use it. Subsequently C. sold 
 and conveyed his lot to the plaintiffs in fee, by 
 deed containing the upual statutory covenants, 
 and the plaintiffs entered into possession. Some 
 years later, defendant erected a buildiue on his 
 lot, making use of the rear part of such party- 
 wall, by reason of which he became liabl to 
 pay $98.65, and interest therefor, and did ac- 
 cordingly pay the same to C. In an actio;- 'y 
 the plaintiffs, aa assignees of C.'s interest in 'v.ld 
 land, against the do^ndant to recover the .ir.m 
 so due in respect of such wall : — Held, that the 
 
 i 
 
 * >! >» 
 
 
 1;? I 
 
 m 
 
COVENANT. 
 
 m 
 
 plaintiffs wfio not entitltil an vcndctg of C, to 
 recover, the right to puyinent of tlie Buni stipu- 
 luted to hv juid for tliu wall under the covenant 
 with C. not Imvinj; passed under the conveyance 
 by C. to the phvintitl's. Keitiiy v. Muvkenzie, 12 
 A. R. 346. 
 
 See Clark v. /iofjart, 27 Chy. 460; Amhrone 
 V. Fraser, 14 O. K. 561 j Andemon v. Stevt^^'Oii, 
 15 0. R. 6G». 
 
 V. Other Covenants. 
 
 A covenant to insure for the benefit of an 
 incutnl)rancer, operates as un equitable ansign- 
 nient of the policy of insurance when etlectcd, 
 Ortel\. Cilntiii' Juti. Co., 27 Chy. 121.— Spragge. 
 
 D. , on entering the t itiploy nicnt of W ., as agent 
 in the vending of teas nn(l coft'ces, covenanted 
 with W. not to iiignge in the falo or delivery of 
 tens or coflces in the city of Toronto, cither for ' 
 hinihclf or as agent lor any otlur pcrtfu for ni i 
 least two years afttr having W.'s iniplojy. W. 
 now moved forun iiijunctidu to restrain 1)., who ] 
 had left her employ, from violating the above 
 covenant :— Helet, that the covenant was binding 
 upon 1)., notwithstanding that the CfiUt-ideralion 
 for it might have been inadequate ; — Held, also, 
 that the above covenant was not invalid on 
 grounds of |niblic policy. A covenant in re- 
 straint of trade is not invalid unless the restraint 
 is larger and widi i than the protection of the 
 covenantee can \ otsibly require. Wither v. Dar- 
 ling, 9 0. R. 311.— Rose. 
 
 In 1875, J. R. obtained letters patent for im- 
 1 rvcirents in "harvesters," and fold and as- 
 dVjjUed to the plainlifja the exclusive right to 
 manufacture and sell the svine, and to sell such 
 right to other peisons. In the same year the 
 plaiiitifls executed a deed to the defeiidrnt, as- 
 signirg to the defendant the exclufcive right to 
 manutacture and sell fuch " harvesters" in 
 certain counties, be paying $10 royalty on each 
 one to be manufactured by him. It vas then 
 covenanted by and on the pait of the plaintilTs 
 that the original patentee, J. R., would war- 
 rant and delcnd the defendant in the poraession 
 of the said patent within the territory thereby 
 granttd, and further agreed that if J. R. neg- 
 lected or refused to protect and defend him in his 
 peaceable possession of the said patent, then the 
 royalty agreed to be paid by him should cease. 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. C, and Morrison, J. A., that 
 the plaintins, under this covenant, were liable 
 only to the defendant in case J. R. neglected to 
 defend bim against all persons having a right 
 to manufacture and sell the machines, not as 
 against mere wrong doers. Per Bui ton and Pat- 
 terson, JJ.A., that the terms of the covenant 
 bound J. R. to protect the defendant against all 
 infringers, the rule of construction of covenants 
 to "warrant and defend," as applied to lands, 
 not having any application in cases like the 
 present. The court being equally divided, the 
 appeal from decision of Ferguson, J. (2 O. R. 
 627) was dismissed. Green v. Watson, 10 A. R. 
 113. 
 
 A.ction for purpose of enforcing covenant to 
 maintain a railway station on lands granted to 
 a railway company for the purposes of a station. 
 See Jeaxup v. Orawl Trunk R. W. Co. , 7 A . R. 128. 
 See also Bick/ord v. Chatham, 14 A. R. 32. 
 
 Where there was a covenant by defendant that 
 one-half of the surplus prooeeda of goods, trana- 
 f erred by the plaintifl' to the defendant after de- 
 duction of liabilities, should bo paid to the plain- 
 tiir by thu defendant, by his promissory note at 
 two years, with u proviso that should thu (K:feu- 
 dant, or the firm ot T. Si 8,, of which thu dulen- 
 dant was a ineinbcr, dispose of their bukiiitss, or 
 maku an assignment for the benefit of ciediton, 
 the note should bcconu) due, and S. Bub8C(|uently 
 retired from the business and transferred to tho 
 defendant all his interest therein :— Held, that 
 the transfer by IS. to 'I', was not a breach of tho 
 covenant, and that the time of payment of tho 
 note was not thereby accelerated. Atanterii v. 
 Thretkeld, 12 0. R. 04 5. -Q. R. D. 
 
 Covenant not to sue in deed of compoHition, 
 Sec Awlreivn v. Hank of Toronto, 15 0. R. 
 648. 
 
 See Wmiammn v. Kimuj, 27 Chy. flflO, p, 327; 
 ihetn v. Wuixoii, 2 (). R. 627; Ketd Kutulc In- 
 r(n(7)i(nt (o. v. Metropolitan Buildini/ Socifty, 
 3 O. R. 476, p. 204 ; Electric Despatch Or), of 
 Toronto V. fiill Telephone Co. of Canada, 17 0. 
 1!. 405; 17 A. R. 202, p. 3.S5. 
 
 . VI. ASSIONMKNTOR MoRTUAdKOI". 
 
 The plaintifl' transferred a covenant for the 
 payment of $4,000, executed by four pcifone in 
 his favour to the defendant, by an abtolutc aa- 
 signmtnt, as security for$2,C00; the detcndant 
 giving to the plaintiff a sejarate agrttmentto 
 "reassign" on jaymentof the loan and intcicst. 
 On a bill to obtain a reassignment, alleging that 
 such loan had been repaid, the couit (t'jiDgge, 
 C.,) made a decree for redemption in favour of 
 the plaintiff, with costs; the defendant having 
 set up a claim to be entitled to hold the security 
 as absolute puichaser thereof. Llvimjuton v> 
 Wood, 27 Chy. 515. 
 
 VII. Actions on. 
 
 In an action brought to reform a lease, and 
 claiming damages for breach of a covenant:— 
 Held, that such claim for damages was not a 
 "purely money demand" under the A. J. Act, 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 49, s. 4. aoxcanlock v. Mam, 9 
 P. R. 270.— Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 W. sold land to H., and covenanted to indem- 
 nify him against a mortgage thereon:— Held, 
 that 11. was not entitled to solicitor and cbent, 
 but only to party and party, costs of an action, 
 on the covenant. Button v. Warizcr, 11 P. E. 
 302.— Proud foot. 
 
 See Elliott v. Stanley, 7 0. R. 350, p. 419. 
 
 VIII. Damages for Breaches of. 
 
 The corporation of the county of Ottawa, 
 under the authority of a by-law, undertook to 
 deliver to tho Montreal, Ottawa and V\ estern 
 Railway Company, for stock subscribed by them, 
 2,C00 debentures of the corporation, of $100 
 each, payable in twenty-five years from date, 
 and bearing six per cent, interest, and subse- 
 quently, without any valid cause or reason, re- 
 
 Sec Meiinie v 
 
426 
 
 COVENANTS FOR TITLE. 
 
 fuaeil nnil nuglcctcd to Imsiio iiiid itolientiiroii. In 
 ftii iictiDii l)ri)ii;{ht by thii coin|miiy (ij,'aiii»l the 
 -nrporatiiiii, Holt'ly for iLiiiKtuefi for thcii- iiui;loct 
 I I'l'fuHiil to iMsiio Hikiil <ltlp(!iitureM : — lluld, 
 ..iriiiiiiK tliu judgiiK.'nt of tlu.' uoiirt liclow, tliat 
 thi' ciir|ioratioii, apart from itH liability for the 
 amount of tliu iudcbtiMliiit.sttand iiitcrimt thereon, 
 WiiH lialili! iindur ArtirluH I0<tr>, lOTM, 1840, and 
 1H4I I'ivil Codu (</ii(!. ), for ■Uinvjri.'s for lireach 
 of c iv'onint. Kitohiu, (1. .)., and (iwynno, <l., 
 di84i'iitiiii{. (''Hiiili/ of Oilnii'ii V. Moiihrnl, 
 Otlawii iind Wt.ilerii A', ^y. Co., 14 .S. C. R.MKl. 
 
 .See Meiiine v. LtMi, H t). U. .•{i)7, p. 47U. 
 
 X. ItKLIKF AiiAINST FdUKKlTUKK. 
 
 Till! dcfoiidaiit g ivu a niortyajju to iho plaintill', 
 in wliicli ho oovuiumtud to pay tlio mortgagu 
 money in ninu u(|ual annu.il in.'italinMit.s, ainl also 
 to oUmp up and foncL! tun aorca in uacli year for 
 fivu years from thu date of the lUDrti^age, and to 
 build a log houHO on I he land witliiu one year, 
 and there wan a proviso "that the mortgage 
 Hould im'nedialelyheeomediieand payal)le after 
 
 fault lieing mule in building the lunne and 
 rin^ till! land at the perioU of time abi)ve 
 ..tioned." No default oceurred in ))iyment 
 of tho m)rtgigo money, but the log lioino was 
 not built until about a month after tlio expiry of 
 the lir.st year, nor were ten aeres fenei:d, thouj^h 
 more than ten were cleared : — Held, that tlie 
 plaiiititF was entitled to insist on a forfeiture of 
 the exteiid<:d terms of payment in eonsecjiionee 
 of tho breach of covenants as to the erection of 
 the house, and to judgment for redemption or 
 foreclosure, but should have no costs. J{cliof is 
 given against forfeitures for nonp.ayment of rent, 
 and ill certain <;ases for neglecting to iiisnro, 
 but no case appears iu wliich tlefanlt like the 
 present has been relieved against : — Seinblo, that 
 if llio only default had been tho not putting up 
 of the fence, the forfeiture would l)e relieved 
 against, for the clearing of the land was the 
 substantial part of the covenant : — Semble, also, 
 that ill this province eipiity will not relieve 
 against a proviso in a niortgago that on default 
 of p;iymunt of a part of the debt tho whole shall 
 become due. Oniham v. Husn, (i 0. 11. 154. — 
 Hagarty. 
 
 M'Kay v. MeKajf, 31 C. P. 1.— 
 
 COVENANTS FOR TITLE. 
 
 I. Gbnkkally, 425. 
 II. Damaoes, 428. 
 
 I. Generally. 
 
 Action by the plaintiff against defendant as 
 aduiiaiatratrix of one J. McK. for breach of 
 covenant for title contained in a deed made by 
 him to his son, the plaintiff. The deed purpor- 
 ted to be under the .Short Forms Act, and the 
 covenant was that the grantor had the right to 
 convey, omitting the words "notwithstanding 
 My act of the said covenantor" : — Hold, follow- 
 ing Brown v. O'Dwyer, 35 Q. B. 354, that al- 
 though not in accordance with the statute, it 
 bound the covenantor as an absolute covenant 
 that he was seized and had a right to convey in 
 
 ft.'c Himplu. 
 C. v. 1). 
 
 Itap'ieared that, at the time of thu transac- 
 tion in iiiu'stioii, the father was some sevunty' 
 years o'<l, and reposed great conliilenec in hi* 
 son, the plaintill', and was in the habit of rely- 
 ing upon I in advice. Without any ni>()arunt 
 reason lor parting with the land, on wliieh lie 
 lived, au<l wlii .'li was worth iJli.OOO, ho was in- 
 dured by tl"j ,i!aintiir t.> sell it to him for !}3,00<», 
 ^1,000 of which I'Diisisted of alleged stale de- 
 mands by the son i,'aiiist the father, barred by 
 the Htaliite of liniit.itioiis, and the balance of 
 •"<•.', (100 was secured by a mortgage, with interest 
 iit six |i(!r cent., nuith'ir principal nor interest 
 being p.iyalde for ten years, tho father being 
 iiermilted to rem kin on the land during his life, 
 riie mortg,i:^e w.is lU'inluced, with tho registrar's 
 certilicate of iliseharge endorsocl thereon, hut 
 there was no cvidimce as to the execution of tho 
 discharge, or as to how the mortgage came into 
 the plaintid's possession. Tli' ■ was no corrob- 
 oration of the [daintilf's statiment of the exist- 
 ence of the delit of $I,0;M), except a receipt of 
 9\!i, which tUv. court refused to accept as genuine, 
 while in enrroburation of his assertion of tho 
 payment of the niorlgige, some four receipts 
 , were put in by the pl.untiff, which, though pur- 
 I porting to have been iveii at dill'.'rent intervals 
 and ditTcreut jilaces, witliiu four years from tho 
 , execution of the mortgage, all appeared by the 
 water mark to have been written on and torn 
 from the same .sheet of p.aper : and being of a 
 i very suspicious character, the court also refused 
 I to accept tliein as genuine : — Held, that the evi- 
 dence having failed to prove that the mortgage 
 j had been paid oU', and it being therefore out- 
 I standing, no action could be lirought on the 
 I covenant in the deed. Ih. 
 
 I Ona sale of " timber limits," held under liceu- 
 I ses, in pursuance of the Con. >Stat. Canada, c. 
 1 2."J, a clause of simple warranty (garantie do 
 tons troubles geniiralemeut (|uelcon(|ues) does 
 not operate to protect the purcha.sor against 
 eviction by a person claiming to be entitled 
 under a prior liccnsd to a portion of the limits 
 sold. Ducondit v. Dujiuy, 9 App. Cas. 150. Re- 
 versing judgment of .Supremo Court, 6 S. C. R. 
 425. 
 
 It is a firmly established rule of property in 
 Ontario, that covenants for title are sufficient to 
 work an estoppel, though it is otherwise held in 
 England. Casselinan v. CasKelman, 9 0. R. 
 442.— Proudfoot. 
 
 On 3rd February, 1873, the company granted 
 to A. T. P. (through whom S. P., the original 
 plaintitr in this action, claimed), a mill site on 
 the river Maitland witii certain easements, one 
 of which w.as the right to erect a dam across the 
 river, high enough to take up eight feet of the 
 fall of the river, the location of the dam being 
 detined by the deed, and covenanted that they 
 had the right to convey and for quiet enjoyment 
 The company had previously granted (without 
 reserving any of the easements granted to A. 
 T. P.), an island in the river called "Island C," 
 and two parcels of land, one on each bank, im- 
 mediately opposite each other, and adjoining the 
 property of the plaintiff, called respectively 
 "The Great Meadow," and "Block F,"all three 
 of which were above the land granted to A. T. 
 
 
 
427 
 
 COVENANTS FOR TITLE. 
 
 m 
 
 P., and subsequently became the property of H. 
 Y. A. In an action by S. P. (who died after ac- 
 tion brought, M. A. P. being made plaintiff by 
 order of revivor,) against the company, it was 
 . alleged and proved that a dam could not be 
 maintained across the river high enougli to take 
 up eight feet of the fall of the river, without 
 submerging a great part of, if not the whole 
 of "Island C," and penning back water and ice 
 on "The Great Meadow," and "Block F," and 
 encroaching upon the rights of H. Y. A. as 
 riparian proprietor of the said lauds. It was 
 contended, on the part of the defendants, that 
 the mortgagees of the property should lie made 
 parties: — Held, that O. J. Act, s. 17, snb-s. 5, 
 enables a mortgagor, entitled to the possession 
 of land, as to which the mortgagee has given no 
 notice of his intention to take possession, to sue 
 to prevent or recover damages in respect of any 
 trespass or other wrong relative thereto in his 
 own name only, and that the objection for want 
 of parties ought not to prevail : — Held, also, 
 that in an action on a covenant for (luiet enjc y- 
 ment a plaintiff must shew an interruption or 
 obstruction of the casement, in order to entitle 
 him to recover, and that S. P. not having at- 
 tempted to enjoy his easement by building a 
 dam in the place and manner speciiicd, and not 
 having been interrupted, he could not succeed 
 on the covenant for quiet enjoyment :— Held, 
 also, as to the covenant for title, that as the Su- 
 preme Court of Canada had decided in I'latt r. 
 Attrill, 10 S. C. K. 425, that the company had 
 no right to grant the easement to A. T. P., that 
 <lrcisicn was binding here, although the company 
 were not parties to the suit; and that the cove- 
 nant was broken as soon as it was made, and the 
 plaintiff was entitled to such damages as accrued 
 during the life of S. P. ; and, following 1 he 
 Empire Gold Mining Co. ?'. Jones, 19 C. P. 245, 
 that the damages would be the difference in 
 money between the value of the estate that had 
 passed, and that which the deed purported to 
 convey, and the company covenanted that they 
 had a right to convey. It appeared that during 
 S. P.'s ownership the government had construct- 
 ed a breakwater at the mouth of the river, and 
 that S. P. had been awarded damages " on ac- 
 count of the penning or damming up of the 
 waters by the construction of the breakwater, 
 and forcing them back on S. P. 's property," and 
 on another account not material to this action: — 
 Held, that as the sum awarded was a lump sum 
 for both accounts together, and as the evidence 
 on the arbitration shewed that the breakwater 
 only affected S. P. to the extent of three feet of 
 water, leaving him a fall of five feet, the value 
 of which could only be ascertained by a refer- 
 ence, and as the subjects of the arbitration and 
 the action on the covenant were not the same, 
 the company were not entitled to set off the 
 money recovered from the government against 
 their liability for damages for their breach of 
 contract: — Held, also, that the registration of 
 the previous conveyances, even if that was no- 
 tice, was no bar to a recovery on the covenant. 
 The plaintiff, therefore, was held entitled to 
 damages for breach of the covenant for title, 
 and a reference was directed. Piatt v. Grand 
 Truvt B. W. Co. of Canada, 12 0. R. 119.— 
 Prondfoot. See 64 Vict., c. 42, s. 35 (Ont.). 
 
 Action on covenants in a deed of land, whereby 
 the defendant covenanted that he had done no 
 
 act * * whereliy or by means whereof the 
 lands • * were, or should, or might be in any- 
 wise impeached, charged, or affected, or encum- 
 bered in title, "state, or otherwise however, and 
 that the grantees should enjoy them free from 
 all encumbrances. It appeared that a scheme of 
 local improvement which resulted in the imposi- 
 tion of a fixed rate for ten years, as a charge 
 upon the lands conveyed, to defray the expense 
 of the improvement, was undertaken, at the 
 instance and upon the petition of the defendant 
 and other property-holders interested, under 
 R. S. 0. (1887), c. 184, s. 612, sub-s. 9. The by- 
 law creating the charge was passed before the 
 conveyance to the plaintiff, although the precise 
 sum to be paid by each parcel was not ascer- 
 tained by apportionment till after the convey- 
 ance. The by-law also contained a provision for 
 connuutation at the option of the owner :— Held 
 (affirming the decision of Robertson, J.), that 
 the action of the defendant in joining in the pe- 
 tition, Mtts the means by which an incuuibrance 
 was created on the property, and was a breach 
 of the covenants for which the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to recover : — Held, also, that the plain- 
 tiff's were entitled as damages in this action to a 
 sum sufficient to remove the charge. Per 15oyd, 
 C. — Diflerent would be the conclusion if the 
 taxes had been imposed by municipal authority, 
 without the intervention of the defendant ; 
 Mooie V. Hynes, 22 Q. B. D. 107, distinguished. 
 Cmutxrland v. Kenrnx, 18 0. K. 151. — Chy. T). 
 Afiiimed 17 A. R. 281. See also He Viuydon 
 and IlimmlU, 20 0. R. 199. 
 
 429 
 
 II. Damaoe.s, 
 
 The deed with absolute covenants for title 
 contained two several parcels of land, and the 
 plaintiff was evicted from one, but was still 
 o\\'ner of the most valuable parrel. — Held, that 
 the measure of damages vus i.ot the whole pur- 
 chase money, but only the proportit-natc value 
 of that part to which the title failed. McKay 
 v. HrKay, 31 C. P. 1.— C. P. D. 
 
 S. P. brought an action for damages sustained 
 and to be sustained by reason of breaches of cove- 
 nants for title in a conveyance of certain lands to 
 him, and before the trial died intestate, where- 
 upon his administratrix took out an order of re- 
 vivor, which order it was now sought to set aside 
 on the ground that the right of action did not 
 survive to her ; — Held, that as to damages which 
 accrued during the lifetime of S. P., his adminis- 
 tratrix was entitled to sue for the same ; but that 
 this w\is not so as to damages which might have 
 accrued since his death, for which :--Somlile, the 
 heir, or devisee, might bring an action. I'lalt 
 v. Ormid Truhk R. W. Co. (Tf Canada, 11 0. E. 
 24P.— Prondfoot. 
 
 In the case of such covenants running with 
 the land, where only a formal breach takes place 
 in the life of the ancestor, the remedy for dam- 
 <•> ca accruing after his death passes to the heir 
 or devisee; but where not only the breach took 
 place, but damages accrued in the lifetime of the 
 ancestor, the remedy for these damages passes 
 to' the personal representative. Ih. 
 
 See Piatt v. Grand Truvk P. W. Co. oj 
 Canada, 12 O. E. 119, p. 427 ; Cvmherland v. 
 Keams, 18 O. R. 151, supra. 
 
 GBED] 
 
 01 
 
 i5i«e Bankrupt 
 
 L 
 
 A receiver w 
 this suit to col 
 expenses, to pa 
 were to be pai(i 
 to the parties 
 ptirsnant to ad\ 
 fiis claim. The 
 By 44 Vict. c. 
 authorized to ; 
 stock to he issu 
 were to be paid 
 who were appoi 
 ment of all moi 
 discharge of the 
 of court was n 
 defendants, dk 
 providing for th 
 proved under th 
 all who came ur 
 the dollar :— Hi 
 baring altered : 
 proved his clai 
 and should not 
 an action for his 
 if possible. Lei 
 Chy. 480.-Proi 
 
 See Menzies v. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 XIII. 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 OB 
 
 Abof 
 
 ASSA 
 
 1. Tl 
 
 2. El 
 
 BlOAl 
 
 Bribi 
 
 CON.SI 
 
 Embf 
 Falsi 
 
 F0R(f 
 ST 
 
 1. Tl 
 
 2. Ev 
 
 3. Oti 
 Frait 
 
 OK 
 
 Frau 
 Larci 
 
 LlBEI 
 
 Malk 
 Ma Ml 
 
 MCRI 
 
 d 
 
429 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 GBEDITORS' RELIEF ACT. 
 
 See Execution. 
 
 CREDITORS' SUIT. 
 
 Sw Bankruptcy and Insolvency— FRAur 
 LENT Conveyances. 
 
 A receiver was appointed under the decree in 
 this suit to collect revenue, and, after paying 
 expenses, to pay the balances into court, which 
 were to be paiil nut on the report of the master 
 to the parties entitled as found by him. S., 
 porBnant to advertisement for creditors, proved 
 His claim. The master had not made his report. 
 By 44 Vict. c. 61 (Out.), the defendants were 
 »uthorizcd to pledge the bonds or debenture 
 stock to lie issued thereunder, and the proceeds 
 were to be paid out on the order of C. and F., 
 who were appointed creditors" trustees, in pay- 
 ment of all money necessary to be paid for the 
 discharge of the receiver in this suit. An onler 
 of court was made on the application of the 
 defendants, discharging tlie receiver without 
 providing for the payment of claimants who had 
 proved under the lUcree. Tiie Act directed that 
 all who came under it should take lifty cents on 
 the dollar : — Held, that tlic position of affairs 
 having altered since the time at which S. had 
 proved his claim, he was not bound thereby, 
 and should not be restrained from prosecuting 
 an action for his debt to recover the full .iniount, 
 if possible. Let v. Credit Valley li. 11'. Co., '20 
 Chy. 480.-Proudfoot. 
 
 See Meiizies v. Ouilvk, 27 Cliy. 456, p. 90. 
 
 I. 
 
 n. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 XIII. 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 Abortion, 431. 
 as.saiti.t. 
 
 1. The Offence, 4.31. 
 
 2. Evidence, 4.S2. 
 Bigamy, 432. 
 Bribery, 4.3.3. 
 con.si'iracy, 434. 
 Embezzlement, 434. 
 Faij^e Pketences, 4.34. 
 
 FoRdERY AND UTTERINd FOR(!ED In- 
 STRl'MKNTS. 
 
 1. The Offence, 43"). 
 
 2. Evidence, 438. 
 
 3. Other Ca-ies—See Forgery. 
 Fraudulently DKPRiviNci ok Use 
 
 OK Property, 439. 
 
 Fraudulent RemovalokG()ods,440. 
 
 Larceny, 440. 
 
 Libel, 441. 
 
 Malicious Injuryto Property, 442. 
 
 Maliciously Wounding ^ 442. 
 
 Murder and Manslaughter, 442. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 XX. 
 
 XXI. 
 XXIL 
 XXIII. 
 
 430 
 
 Perjury-, 443. 
 
 PiAPE, 444. 
 
 Receiving Stolen Good.s, 444. 
 
 Rekusisc to Provide kor Family, 
 444. 
 
 Other Okkences, 44.5. 
 
 1. E.cto7-f{on—See Extortion. 
 
 2. Frauds in Supiihjimj Milk to Cheese 
 or Butler Manufactories — See 
 Bitter Manukactories. 
 
 3. Gaming— See Gaming. 
 
 4. Public J/o)a?.'«-.S'eePuBLi(;MoRALS. 
 
 5. Illeyal Sale rif Intnxicalinij Lii/uorn 
 — See Intoxicating Lun'oR"*. 
 
 6. Sunday—See Sunday. 
 
 7. Vai/rnncy—See Public Morals. 
 
 Summary CoNvnrnoNS — See Justice 
 OK THE Peace. 
 
 Legislative JuKTSDKvrioN—.S'ec CoN» 
 
 STIT.rTIONAL LaW. 
 
 Jurisdiction ok forRTs — .SVe Court 
 OK Assi/E— High Court of Jus- 
 tice. 
 
 XXIV. Procedure, Pkactice and Trial. 
 
 1. Indictment, 44.'). 
 
 2. Summnri/ Trial before County 
 
 Juilije, 440. 
 
 3. Ca^e lieservcd, 447. , 
 
 4. /»>•//, 448. 
 
 5. Evidence. 
 
 (a) Confessions and Admissions, 
 
 4.50. 
 
 (b) Dyiuij Declarations, 4.50. 
 
 (c) Depositions, 4.50. 
 
 (d) Coni/ieteut and Compellable 
 
 Witnesses, 450. 
 
 (e) Discreditiuij Witness, 452. 
 
 (f) Accomplices, 452. 
 
 (g) Corroborative, 452. 
 
 (h) Of Identity, 452. 
 
 (1) Other Cases, 452. 
 
 (j) In Extradition Proceedinijs — 
 See Extradition. 
 
 6. Conrictions - - See C'ertiorari — 
 
 Justice ok the Peace. 
 
 New Trial, 4.5.3. 
 Error, 4.54. 
 Appeal. 
 
 1. To Privy Council, 454. 
 
 2. To Supreme Court, 4.54, 
 
 3. To Hi<ih Court— See Hi(iH Court 
 
 OF .IrsricE. 
 
 XXVIII. Appkehenhion and Arrest of Of- 
 fenders, 454. 
 
 Bail, 454. 
 
 HABEAsCoRPIS-SfeHABEAsCOBPUS. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 XXVL 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 XXX. 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 S?^5 
 
 
 <:i 
 
 
 co.sts and expen.sks of criminal 
 Jurisdiction, 455. 
 
431 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 432 
 
 433 
 
 XXXII. Private Prosecutors. 
 
 1. Liability for Cosfn, 455. 
 
 2. Proceeiliiins In/ore Magislraliin — 
 
 Ste .J CSTK'KS OF THE PEACE. 
 
 XXXIII. Enfobcemknt ok Penalties — See 
 Justices of the Peace. 
 
 XXXIV. CoMPROMisixfi Prosecutions — See 
 Compromising. 
 
 XXXV. Action for Malkhous Prosecution 
 — SVe Malicious Arrest, Prose- 
 cution AND Other I'ROCEEDiNcis. 
 
 XXXVI. Su.srENsiON of Actions in cases of 
 Felony— /S^ee Action. 
 
 XXXVII. When Criminal Procefdinos a 
 Bar to Further Action — .See 
 Release. 
 
 I. Abortion. 
 
 The prisoner was iiidicteil for unlawfully us- 
 ing an instrument on J. L. , witli intent to pro- 
 cure a miscarriage. .1. L. was called for the 
 prosecution to provo the charge, anil in cross- 
 examination denied that she had told H. A., H. 
 R.. and M. T. tiiat liefore the prisoner had oper- 
 ated on her she had been operated on by Dr. B. 
 for the purpose of procuring a miscarriage. H. 
 A., H. R. and M. T. were called for the defence, 
 and swore that J. L. had so told them. Dr. B. 
 was then called by the Crown, and he swore that 
 he had not operated on J. L. : — Hold, that the 
 evidence of Dr. B. was properly admitted ; but 
 in any event the prisoner's case was not so 
 affected by the evidence as to warrant a reversal 
 of the conviction, even if the evidence were not 
 strictly admissible, lleijina v. Andrews, 12 0. 
 R. 184.— C. P. D. 
 
 II. Assault. 
 
 1. The 0£enc,e. 
 
 The lefendants were convicted for unlawfully 
 assaulting F. V. "by standing in front of the 
 horses and carriage driven by the said V., in a 
 hostil' manner, and thereby forcibly detaining 
 him, tlie said V,, in the public highway against 
 his will:- Hold, that the conviction was bad 
 in stating the detention as a conclusion, and not 
 as part of the ciiarge, which, as shewn by the 
 conviction, was merely standing in front of the 
 horses, and did not amount to au assault. Re- 
 tjina V. McEllitiott, ^ O. R. 5:15.— Wilson. 
 
 An assault witli intent to commit a felony is 
 an attempt to commit such felony within the 
 meaning of section 18.S of the R. S. C. c. 174. 
 On an indictment for rape a conviction for an 
 assault with intent to commit rape is valid. — On 
 such conviction the prisoner was held properly 
 sentenced to iniprisonmeut under R. S. C. c. 162, 
 B. 38. John V. The Queen, 15 S. C. R. 384. 
 
 A warr.int of connnitment issued by two jus- 
 tices of the peace, for nonpayment of a fine and 
 costs imposed on J. I). , who had been convicted 
 of an oflFence under the Indian Act, directed the 
 constables of the county of B. to take and de- 
 liver J. D. to the keeper of the common jail of 
 the county, to bo kept there for two months, un- 
 less the fine and costs imposed, including the 
 costs of conveying to the jail, should be sooner 
 
 paid : — Held, that the justices having had juris- 
 diction over the oflence, and the warrant being 
 valid on its face, it afforded a complete protec- 
 tion to the constable executing it, and that the 
 defendant was properly convicted of assaulting 
 the constable while attempting to execute the 
 warrant, notwithstanding that the awarding of 
 the punishment may have been erroneous in di- 
 recting imprisonment for the nonpayment of the 
 fine and costs, including costs of conveying to 
 jail, as not authorized by the said act. Reqim, 
 V. King, 18 0. R. 566.— C. P. D. 
 
 2. Evidence, 
 
 On an indictment for assault and battery, oc- 
 casioning actual bodih' harm : — Held, that the 
 defendent is not a competent witness on his own 
 behalf under 43 Vict. c. 37 (Dom.). Reqinav. 
 Richardson, 46 Q. B. 375.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Upon the trial of the prisoner, a school teacher, 
 for an indecent assault upon one of his scholars, 
 it appeared that he forbade the prosecutrix tell- 
 ing her parents what had happened, and they 
 did not hear of it for two months. After the 
 prosecutrix had given evidence of the assault, 
 evidence was tendered of the conduct of the 
 prisoner towards her subsequent to the assault :— 
 Held, that the evidence was admissible as tend- 
 ing to shew the indecent quality of the assault, 
 and as being in effect a part or continuation of 
 the same transaction as that with which the 
 prisoner was charged. Per Hagarty, C. J., and 
 Armour, J. The evidence w.as properly admis- 
 sible as evidence in chief. Regxna v. Chute, 46 
 Q. B. 555.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of having un- 
 lawfully assaulted the complainant, who was the 
 daughter of the convicting justice, where the only 
 evidence was, that the defendant had, in com- 
 pany with one Spragge, gone to the complain- 
 ant's house at the hour of about ten o'clock p.m., 
 and Spragge had knocked at the door and told 
 the complainant that he desired to introduce the 
 defendant, whereupon the complainant repUed 
 that they had come to insult her, and that she 
 would have them both arrested in the morn- 
 ing : —Held, that there was no evidence of an 
 as';uult, and the conviction must be quashed. 
 Reyina v. Langford, 15 O, R. 5'2. — Rose. 
 
 An assault on a constable attempting to serve 
 a summons issued by a magistrate on information 
 charging violation of the Canada Temperance 
 Act, is an assault on a peace othcer in the dae 
 execution of his duty, and indictable undei R. S. 
 C, c. 162, 8. 34. On .'he trial of an indictment 
 for such assault the wife <;* the defendant is not 
 a competent witness on his behalf. AfacFarlant 
 v. The Queen, 16 S. C. R. 393. 
 
 See Regina v. Triganzie, 15 0. R. 294, p. 453. 
 
 III. BlOAMY. 
 
 The prisoner was convicted of bigamy under 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 20, s. 68, which enacts that 
 whosoever, being married, marries any other 
 person during the life of the former husband or 
 wife, whether the second marriage takes place 
 in Canada or elsewhere, is guilty of felony * * 
 provided that nothing in tliis section contained 
 shall extend to any second marriage oontrooted 
 
 elsewhere th 
 subject of H< 
 leaving the i 
 offence. Th 
 Toronto, th( 
 judge at the 
 prisoner was 
 and to the s 
 him guilty :- 
 jury should h 
 they found h 
 of his being i 
 subject of H 
 that he had le 
 offence; and 
 the Crown to 
 Wilson, C. J. 
 iiot have bei 
 Pierce, 13 O. 
 
 Held, that 
 that every oi 
 ■other person 
 band or wife 
 pla«e in Cam 
 provided ths 
 second marr 
 resident in C 
 intent to coi 
 the Doininioi 
 nant to lm\ 
 grounds. P< 
 nearly half a 
 by the court 
 competent c( 
 the express s 
 and Her Muj 
 14 0. R. 525 
 
 In order to 
 took place i 
 otiiciating m 
 that during < 
 solemnized h 
 a clergyman 
 understood i 
 marriage, th: 
 in Michigan, 
 with the Sc 
 laws, and th 
 was solemniz 
 laws of that 
 was admissil 
 second marri 
 same, even a 
 been presum 
 
 Per Boyd, 
 riage, it is n 
 where Britis 
 case. Regii 
 lowed. Ih. 
 
 The givet 
 may be ind 
 JEleetion (Doi 
 C.584. 
 
 On demur 
 report of th( 
 a change in 
 Ontario, by 
 to vote AKaii 
 nor, J., disi 
 
433 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 4M 
 
 elsewhere than in Canada, by any other than a 
 subject of Her Majesty, reaideat in Canada, and 
 leaving the same with the intent to commit the 
 offence. The first marriage was contracted in 
 Toronto, the second in Detroit, U. S. The 
 judge at the trial directed the jury that if the 
 prisoner was married to his first wife in Toronto, 
 and to the second in Detroit, they should find 
 him guilty : — Held, a misdirection, and that the 
 jury should have been told in addition that before 
 they found him guilty they ought to be satisfied 
 of his being at the time of his second marriage a 
 subject of Her Majesty resident in Canada, and 
 that he had left Canada with intent to commit tlie 
 offence; and: — Held, that it was incumbent on 
 the Crown to prove these matters. Quii?re, per 
 Wilson, C. J. , whether the t.'jal should or should 
 iiot have been declared a nullity. licjina v. 
 puree, 13 0. R. 226. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that R. S. C. c. 161, s. 4, which enacts 
 that every one who being married marrie« any i 
 ■other person during the life of the former hus- 1 
 band or wife whether the second marriage takes I 
 place in Canada or elsewhere is guilty of felony, I 
 provided that the person who contracts such { 
 second marriage is a subject of Her Majesty, I 
 resident in Canada, and leaving the same with '■ 
 intent to commit the offence, is not ultra vires | 
 the Dominion legislature either as being repug- 1 
 naut to Imperial legislation or on any other 
 grounds. Per Boyd, C. — This statutory law is 
 nearly half a century old ; it has been confirmed 
 by the court, passed upon more than ouoe by 
 competent colonial legislatures, und ratified by 
 the express sanction of the Imperial Parliament 
 and Her Majesty in person. liegina v. Brierly, 
 14 0. R. 525.— Chy. D. 
 
 In order to prove the second marriage, which 
 took place in Michigan, the evidence of the 
 officiating minister was tendered, who siicwed 
 that during the last twenty- five years he had 
 solemnized hundreds of marriages, that he was 
 a clergyman of the Methodist church, that he | 
 understood the laws of Michigan relating to 
 marriage, that he had been all the while reaident 
 in Michigan, that he had had uominunications 
 with the Secretary of State regarding these 
 laws, and that this so called second marriage 
 was solemnized by him according to the marriage 
 laws of that State: — Held, that this evidence 
 was admissible in proof of the validity of the 
 second marriage, and was sufficient proof of the 
 same, even assuming that such ought not to have 
 been presumed. lb. 
 
 Per Boyd, C. — In the case of a second mar- 
 riage, it is not essential to prove the foreign law 
 where British subjefta are concerned, as in this 
 case. Reffina v. Griffin, 14 Cox, C. C. 308, fol- 
 lowed, n. 
 
 IV. Bribrry. 
 
 The giver of a bribe as well as the receiver 
 may be indicted for bribery, iforth Victoria 
 Bleetion (Dom.) — Cameron \. Macltnnan, 1 H. E. 
 C. 584. 
 
 On demurrer to an indictment (set out in tho 
 report of the case) for conspiracy to bring about 
 aohange in the government of the provmce of 
 Ontario, by bribmg members of the legislature 
 to vote ftKainst the government :— Held, O'Con- 
 nor, J., diaaentiug. 1. That an indictable of- 
 28 
 
 fence was disclosed ; that a conspiracy to bribe 
 members of parliament is a misdemeanour at com- 
 mon law, and as iiuch indictable. 2. That the 
 jurisdiction given to the legislature by R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 12, ss. 43, 41), 47, 48, to punfsh as for a 
 contempt, docs nut oust the juri^sdiction of the 
 nourts where the offence is of a criminal charac- 
 ter, but that tiie same act may be, in one aspect 
 a contempt of the legislature, and in another 
 aspect a misdemeanour. 3. That the legislative 
 assembly has no criminal jurisdiction, and hence 
 no jurisdiction over the matter, considered as a 
 criminal offence. 4. That the indictment, con- 
 sidered as a pleading, sufficiently stated the 
 offence intended to be charged. Per O'Connor, 
 J. — 1. That ths bribery of a member of parlia- 
 ment, in a matter concerning parliament or par- 
 liamentary business, is not an indictable offence 
 at common law, and has not been made so by 
 any statute. 2. That in all matters and offences 
 done in contravention of the law and constitu- 
 tion of parliament, with the exception of trea- 
 son, felony, and breaches of the peace, parlia- 
 ment alone has jurisdiction, and the ordinary 
 courts, civil and criminal, have no jurisdiction. 
 3. That the lex et consuetudo Parlio.menti re- 
 serves to the High Court of Parliament exclusive 
 jurisdiction to deal with all matters relating to its 
 own dignity, or concerning its powers, its mem- 
 bers, and its business, with the above three excep- 
 tions. Ili-f/ina V. Bunting, 7 0. R. 524. — Q. B. D. 
 
 V. CON.SPIHAOY. 
 
 Held that the defendants, members of a trade 
 union, in conspiring to injure a non-unionist 
 workman, B., by depriving liiin of his employ- 
 ment, were guilty of an indictable misdemeanour, 
 and that what they conspii'cd to do was not for 
 the purposes of their trade combination, within 
 the meaning of 11. S. C. c. 173, s. 13, sub-s. 2 ; 
 and that upon the evidence the conviction of 
 the defendants, for unlawfully conspiring to- 
 gether to injure B. in his trade and, to prevent 
 him from carrying it on, was right. Semble, 
 also, that the indictment in this case wis suffi- 
 cient. Retjina v. Gibson, 16 O. K. 704— Q.B.D. 
 
 See Reijina v. Bunting, 7 0. R. 524, supra ; 
 Soulaiu/es Election (Dom.) — Cholette v. Bain, 10 
 S. C. R. 652. 
 
 VI. Embezzlement. 
 See In re Hall, 8 A. R. 31, p. 436. 
 
 VIL False Pretences. 
 
 The defendant, by untrue representations, 
 made with knowledge that tliey were untrue, 
 induced the prosecutor to sign a contract to pay 
 8240 for seed wheat. The defendant also repre- 
 sented that he was tho agent of H., whose name 
 appeared in the contract. H. afterwards called 
 upon the prosecutor and procured him to sign 
 and deliver to him a promissory note in his, H. 8, 
 favour for the $240. The contract did not pro- 
 vide for the giving of a note, and when the 
 representations were made the giving a note 
 was not mentioned. The prosecutor, Yiowever, 
 swore that he gave the note because he had 
 entered into the contract. The defendant was 
 indicted for that he, by false pretences, fraudu- 
 lently induced the proaeoutor to write his name 
 
 
 •fcs 
 
 
 m 
 
436 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 43& 
 
 437 
 
 J 
 
 upon a paper so that it might be afterwards 
 dealt with as a valuable seciirity ; and upon a 
 second count for, by false pretences, procuring 
 the prosecutor to deliver to H. a certain valuable 
 security :— Held, upon a case reserved, that the 
 charge of false pretences can be sustained as well 
 where the money is obtained or the iiote pro- 
 cured to be given through the medium of a 
 contract, as when obtained or procured without 
 a contract ; and the fact that the prosecutor 
 gave a note instead of the money, by agreement 
 with H., did not relieve the prisoner from the 
 consequences of his fraud ; the giving of the 
 note was the direct result of the fraud by which 
 the contract had been procured ; and the defen- 
 dant was properly convicted on the first count 
 as being guilty of an offence under R. S. C. 
 c. 164, s. 78 ; but :— Held, that the note before it 
 was delivered to H. was not a valuable security, 
 but only a paper upon which the prosecutor had 
 written his name, so that it might be afterwards 
 used and dealt with as a valuable security ; 
 and the conviction of the defendant upon the 
 second count could not stand. Rex v. Danger, 
 Dears & B. C. C. 307, followed. Regiua v. Jii/- 
 mal, 17 O. R. 227.-Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant was indicted in the first count 
 of the indictment for obtaining from one H. a 
 promissory note with intent to defraud, and in 
 the second count with inducing H. to make the 
 said note with like intent. The evidence shewed 
 that on 4th May, 1887, the defendant's agent 
 called on H., and obtained from him an order 
 addressed to defendant to deliver to H., at R. 
 station, thirty biishelsof Blue Mountain Improved 
 8eneca Fall Wheat, wliich H. was to put out on 
 shares, and to pay defendant $240 when de- 
 livered, and to equally divide the produce 
 thereof with the holder of the order, after de- 
 ducting said amonnt. On 23rd May, defendant 
 called, produced the order, and by false and 
 fraudulent representations as to the quality of 
 the wheat, and his having full control of it, its 
 growth and yielding qualities, and that a note 
 defendant requested him to sign was not negoti- 
 able, induced H. to sign the note. Evidence 
 was received, under objection, of similar frauds 
 on others, shewing that defendant was at the 
 time engaged in practising a series of syste- 
 matic frauds on the community. The defendant 
 was found guilty and convicted : — Held, on a 
 case reserved, that the conviction should be 
 aflBrmed on the second count, as the evidence 
 shewed that the note was signed by H. not 
 merely to secure the carrying out of the con- 
 tract contained in the order, but on the faith of 
 the representations made ; and it was imma- 
 terial that a note was taken when the order 
 called for cash ; and, also, that the evidence 
 objected to was properly receivable. Eegina v. 
 Hope, 17 0. R. 463.— C. P. R. 
 
 See Ahrahnrnx v. The Queen, 6 S. C. R. 10, p. 
 445 ; Hegina v. Goodman, 2 O. R. 468, p. 447 ; 
 Goodman v. Etgina, 3 0. R. 18, p. 447. 
 
 VIII. FOKOERV AND UtTERINO FoROED InsTRD- 
 
 MENT8. 
 
 1. The Offence. 
 
 Held, that the alteratioi. of a $2 Dominion 
 note to one of the denomination of J20, such al- 
 
 teration consisting in the addition of a cypher 
 after the figure two, wherever that figure oc- 
 curred in the margin of the note, was forgery, 
 and that the prisoner was rightly convicted 
 therefor. Ile.gi)M v. Bail, 7 O. R. 228.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The prisoner was a clork in the employ of the 
 mayor and common council of the city of New- 
 ark, (in the State of New Jersey, U. S. A.), a 
 portion of his duties being to receive payment 
 of taxes payable to the city ; and on the 18th of 
 November, 1881, asumof .$5()2.32, for taxes, etc., 
 due upon certain lands in that city, was paid to- 
 him — such sum being included with other taxes 
 in a cheque of the party assessed for $4,094. The 
 $562.32 was composed of three items: costs $7.70, 
 interest §72.08, and taxes $482.54— each of 
 which recjuired to be entered in a separate column 
 of the cash bonk belonging to the office of the 
 comptroller. The gross sum (.$562.32) had ap- 
 parently been entered first in the column headed 
 "Totals," and subsequently in making the sepa- 
 rate entries the sum of $4S2.54 was entered as 
 $282.54, and the figure " 3 " in the total column 
 substituted ; the difference ($200) being ab- 
 stracted by the prisoner from moneys paid to him' 
 on that day :— Held, per Osier, .J. (il P. R. 373), 
 and Boyd, C, and Proudfoot, J. (3 O. R. 331). 
 that the offence was forgery. On appeal; — 
 Held (Per Spragge, C. J. O., and Gait, J.), that 
 this act amounted to the crime of forgery, and, 
 as such, rendered the prisoner liable to extra- 
 dition. Per Burton and Patterson, J.T.A., that 
 such alteration was not forgery, though the act 
 amounted to one of enibezzlement, and therefore 
 that the prisoner was entitled to be discharged, 
 embezzlement not being one of the offences for 
 which a party was at the time liable to be extra- 
 dited under the Ashburton Treaty. In re Hall, 
 8 A. R. 31. 
 
 It is not necessary to constitute the crime of 
 forgery that another's right shall have been ac- 
 tUcolly prejudiced, the possibility of prejudice to 
 another is sufficient ; and if publication be ne- 
 cessary, the books in question being of a public 
 character, the forged entry in them must oe re- 
 garded as having been published as soon as 
 made. ,V. C, 3 O. R. 331.— Chy. D. 
 
 P. was the superintendent of the Blocksley 
 Almshouse, situated in and supported by the 
 city of Philadelphia, U. S. A. Parties supplying 
 provisions, etc. , for the use of the charity were 
 paid by warrants duly prepared and signed by 
 the proper officers thereol. Three such war- 
 rants for the payment of certain persons or firms 
 were in the hands of W., the secretary of the 
 almshouse, to be delivered to them on their re- 
 spectively signing the stub or counterfoil of the 
 warrants. P., who was well known to the sec- 
 retary, applied to him for these warrants, stating 
 that he had authority from the several parties to 
 sign for them, which he did accordingly, and W. 
 handed over to him the warrants, which were 
 subsequently cashed at the office of the city 
 treasurer. P. having fled to this Province, an 
 application was made for his extradition before 
 the judge of the County Court of Wentworth, 
 when expert evidence was adduced, proving 
 that according to the statute law of Pennsylvania, 
 as also at common law as there interpreted, these 
 facts constituted the crime of forgery: — Held, 
 on appeal, per Spragge, C J. C, and Patterson, 
 J. A., (affirming the judgment of the Queen's 
 
 Bench Div. 1 
 to the crime 
 liable to be ex 
 Ferguson, J., 
 cion of any c 
 facts would I 
 forgery; buti 
 infer that W. 
 combined tog< 
 the fraud by 1 
 was therefore 
 of P. for the 
 the order for h 
 1)6 affirmed. I 
 which is the 
 contined to th 
 Be Phipps, 8 
 
 Thi prison e 
 of Middlesex, 
 a book in whi 
 ceipts of all 
 collector, and 
 account kept 1 
 with the mon« 
 the collector's 
 close of his ter 
 to the inspect 
 contained the 
 as to the corre 
 taincd :— Heh 
 property of th 
 party of the p 
 examined by 
 amounts recei 
 the prisoner a 
 of the same n 
 was a defaulte 
 falcation, alte 
 false entries tl 
 out, and chan( 
 Some of these 
 self, and othei 
 but the clerk < 
 false changed 
 stituted forgei 
 our statute 32- 
 that under the 
 c.25(Dom.),it 
 should be sue 
 an offence agaj 
 offence, howe\ 
 by the laws < 
 0. R.,265.-C 
 
 W. , a divisi 
 •gainst the pr 
 same they arr: 
 and endorsed 
 the note in ax 
 order of A. u. 
 prisoner, who 
 A. D. M.'seni 
 wards with th 
 He then hand 
 his name as i 
 took it away v 
 forgery. The 
 the endorsemt 
 victed : — HeU 
 2 M. & Rob. 
 143, and Reg 
 the convictioE 
 diotment as fi 
 
437 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 438 
 
 Bench Div. 1 0. R. 586) that the acts nniounteil 
 to tlie crime of forgery, and 8o rendered P. 
 liable to be extradited. Per Burton, J. A., and 
 Ferguson, J. , that in the absence of any suspi- 
 cion of any complicity of W. in the fraud, the 
 facts would not have made out the crime of 
 forgery ; but as the evidence afforded ground to 
 infer that W. and P. were in collusion, and had 
 combined together for the purpose of committing 
 the fraud by means of the false documents, and 
 was therefore sufficient to warrant the committal 
 of P. for the crime of forgery at common law, 
 the order for his committal ^' t extradition should 
 be affirmed. Per Spragge, <_.. J. O. — The 'orgery 
 which is the subject of the treaty cannot be 
 confined to the statutory felony of forgery. In 
 He Phipps, 8 A. R. 77. 
 
 ThT prisoner, who was collector of the county 
 of Middlesex, in the State of New Jersey, kept 
 a book in which to enter the payment and re- 
 ceipts of all moneys received by him as such 
 collector, and which was the principal book of 
 account kept by him. The book was purchased 
 with the money of the county, and was kept in 
 the collector's office, and was left by him at the 
 close of his term of office ; it was by statute open 
 to the inspection of those interested in it, and 
 contained the certificate of the county auditors 
 as to the correctness of the matters therein con- 
 tained :— Held, that the book was the public 
 property of the county, and not the private pro- 
 perty of the prisoner. After the book had been 
 examined by the proper auditors as to the 
 amounts received and paid out by and through 
 the prisoner as such collector, and a certificate 
 of the same made by them, the prisoner, who 
 was a defaulter, with intent to cover up his de- 
 falcation, altered the book by mai.ing certain 
 false entries therein of moneys received and paid 
 out, and changing the additions to correspond. 
 Some of these entries were by the prisoner him- 
 self, and others by his clerk under his direction, 
 but the clerk on finding that such entries were 
 false changed them back : — Held, that this con- 
 stituted forgery at common law, as well as under 
 our statute 32-33 Vict. c. 19(Dom.):— Held, also, 
 that under the Extradition Act of 1877, 40 Vict, 
 c. 25(Dom,),it is essential thatthe offence charged 
 should be such as if committed here would be 
 an offence against the laws of this country. The 
 offence, however, was also proved to lie forgery 
 by the laws of New Jersey. In re Jarrard, 4 
 0. R., 265. -C. P. D. Affirmed, 20 C. L. J. 145. 
 
 W. , a division court bailiff, had an execution 
 against the prisoner and H. M., and to settle the 
 same they arranged to give a note made by A. M . 
 and endorsed by A. D. M. VV. then drew up 
 the note in question, which was payable to the 
 order of A. D. M., and which he handed to the 
 prisoner, who took it away to obtain, as he said, 
 A. D. M, 'a endorsement, returning shortly after- 
 wards with the name A. U. M. enilorsed thereon. 
 He then handed the note to A. M. , who signed 
 his name as maker and handed it to W., who 
 took it away with him. The endorsement was a 
 forgery. The prisoner was indicted for forging 
 the endorsement on a promissory note, and con- 
 victed : — Held, following Retina r. Butterwick, 
 2 M. & Rob. 196 ; Regina v. Mops^, 1 1 Cox 
 143, and Regina v. Harper, 7 Q. 6. D. 78, that 
 the conviction could not be sustained on the in- 
 dictment as framed. The instrument, by reason 
 
 of the maker's name not being signed to it at 
 the time of the forgery, was not a promissory 
 note ; and neither could the conviction be sus- 
 tained on the count for uttering, as after it was 
 signed by A. M. it was never in the prisoner's 
 possession, but was delivered by A. 51. to wit- 
 ness, Per Cameron, C. J. As to the meaning 
 of section 45 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 19 (Dom.), that 
 possibly a conviction could be had under it, un- 
 less it only extended to forging by making a 
 copy of some existing document or thing written 
 or printed or otherwise made capable of being 
 read for the purpose of fraud, and not to forg- 
 ing a name on a paper written properly as an 
 original paper, and not as a copy of any exist- 
 ing document or writing. Rei/ina v. McFee, 13 
 0. R. 8.-C. P. D, 
 
 A cargo of oats was received at an elevator 
 for the S. Co., of which the prisoner was a 
 member, and also secretary and financial man- 
 ager, with power to sign notes, etc. On the day 
 of their receipt, a clerk of the S. Co., who was 
 authorized so to do, prisoner having nothing to 
 do with the buying and selling of the grain, signed 
 an order for the delivery of 19,886 bushels of the 
 oats to a railway company, consigned to the S. 
 Co. 's agents in New York, on whom two drafts 
 were drawn by the S. Co., signed by the prisoner, 
 which were accepted and paid. Warehouse re- 
 ceipts transferable by endorsement were given to 
 the S. Co. for these oats, though after the 
 delivery thereof to the railway company, and 
 were allowed to remain with the S. Co. without 
 any demand being made for their cancellation. 
 Subsequently, the prisoner, in the name of the 
 S. Co., discounted two promissory notes at a 
 bank, and endorsed the warehouse receipts as 
 security for the payment thereof, the notes con- 
 taining a statement that the receipts were 
 pledged as such security with authority to sell, 
 etc., in default of payment : — Held, in extradi- 
 tion proceedings, that the endorsement to the 
 bank of the receipts did not constitute a forgery. 
 In re Sherman, 19 O. R. 315.— C. P. D. 
 
 2. Evidence. 
 
 By section 218 of R. S. C. c. 174, " The evi- 
 dence of any person interested or supposed to 
 be interested in respect of any deed, writing, 
 instrument, or other matter given in evidence 
 on the trial of anj' indictment or information 
 against any person for any offence punishable 
 under the 'Act respecting forgery,' shall not be 
 sufficient to sustain a conviction for any of the 
 said offences unless the same is corroborated by 
 other legal evidence in support of such prosecu- 
 tion. " The prisoner was indicted for forgery in 
 feloniously uttering a cheque signed by H. J. & 
 Co. on the Quebec Bank, which he had altered 
 from $400 to $1,400. The evidence in support 
 of the forgery was that of J., who though a 
 member of the firm when the cheque was made, 
 had ceased to be such at the time of the trial, 
 and who had been released by his partner from 
 all liability and disclaimed any interest in the 
 cheque. There was some evidence of the lia- 
 bilities of the firm to creditors at the time of J. 'a 
 withdrawal :— Held, (Rose, J. , dissenting), that 
 J. was not a person interested, or supposed to be 
 interested, within the meaning of tne act ; and 
 his evidence did not require corroboration. 
 Reijina v. Hagei-man, 15 O. R. 598.-C. P. D. 
 
 
 :3 
 
499 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 440 
 
 The defendant was convicted of uttering, with 
 knowledge that it was a forgery, the endorsement 
 of the name "Taylor Brothers" upon a pro- 
 missory note, which hiul been discounted by a 
 bank, but given up and destroyed before matu- 
 rity, upon see arity being furnished to the bank. 
 The manager of the bank and the business part- 
 ner of the defendant cave evidence of the forgery, 
 and the three members of the firm of Taylor 
 Brothers were also called as witnesses, and denied 
 having endorsed the note, or having any know- 
 ledge of it : — Hold, tliat the members of the 
 firm of Taylor Brothers were not persons in- 
 terested or supposed to be interested in respect 
 of the endorsement, within the meaning of R. 
 S. C. c. 174, s. 218, and their evidence therefore 
 was sufficient to corroborate that of the other 
 witnesses. Ru/ina v. Selby, 16 O. R. 255. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Wilson, C. J., in extradition proceedings 
 the evidence of interested parties need not be 
 corroborated. In re H. L. Lee, 5 0. R. 58.S. 
 
 The prisoner was indicted along with W. ; the 
 first count charging W. witli forging a circular 
 note of the National Bank of Scotland ; and the 
 second with uttering it knowing it to be forged. 
 The prisoner was chai-ged as an accessory before 
 the fact. Evidence was admitted shewing that 
 two persons named F. and H. had been tried and 
 convicted in Montreal of uttering similar forged 
 circular notes, printed from the same plate as 
 those uttered by W. : that the prisoner was in 
 Montreal with F. , they having arrived and re- 
 gistered their names together at the same hotel, 
 and occupied adjoining rooms : that after F. and 
 H. had been convicted on one charge, they ad- 
 mitted their guilt on several others ; and that a 
 number of these circular notes were found on F. 
 and H., which were produced at the trial of the 
 prisoner. Before the evidence was tendered, it 
 was proved that the prisoner was in company 
 with W., who was proved to have uttered simi- 
 lar notes. Evidence was also admitted shewing 
 that a large number of tlie notes were found con- 
 cealed at a place near where the prisoner had 
 been seen, and were concealed, as was alleged 
 by him, after W. had been arrested :— Held, 
 that the evidence was properly received in proof 
 of the guilty knowledge of the prisoner. Renina 
 V. Bent, 10 O. R. 557.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Reguia v. Hovey, 8 P. R. 345. 
 
 IX. Fraudulently Deprivino of the Use of 
 Property. 
 
 The defendant sohi to C, amongst other 
 things, a horse-power and belt, part of his stock 
 in the trade of a butcher, in which he also sold 
 a half interest to C. The horse-power had been 
 hired from one M. , and at the time of the sale, 
 the term of hiring had not expired. At its ex- 
 
 a, M. demanded it, and C. claimed that he 
 purchased it from defendant. The defen- 
 dant then employed a man to take it out of the 
 premises where it was kept, and deliver it to M., 
 which he did. The defendant was summarily 
 tried before a police magistra and convicted of 
 an offence against 32-33 Viuc. c. 21, s 110, 
 <Dom. ) :— Heul, that the conviction was bad, 
 there being no offence against that section, and 
 
 no jurisdiction in the police magistrate to try 
 summarily ; and that it was bad also in not shew- 
 ing the time and place of the commission of the 
 offence. Remarks upon the improper use of the 
 criminal law in aid of civil rights. Regina v, 
 Yotmij, 5 O. II. 400.— Rose. 
 
 X. Fraudulent Removal of Goods. 
 
 The fraudulent removal of goods, under 11 
 Geo. II. c. 19, 8. 4, is a crime, and a conviction 
 therefor was consequently quashed, with costs, 
 against the landlord, because the defendant had 
 been compelled to give evidence on the prosecu- 
 tion. Regina v. Lackie, 7 O. R. 431. — Rose. 
 
 XI. Larceny. 
 
 Held, that if an indictment for stealing cer- 
 tain articles, be sustainable as to some of the 
 articles stolen, the conviction is good, although 
 the indictment may contain any number of 
 articles as to which an indictment could not be 
 sustained. Regina v. St. Benin, 8 P. R. 16— 
 Cameron. 
 
 The prisoner was indicted for larceny under 
 the Indian Act of 1880, 43 Vict. c. 28, s. 66 
 (Dom.), and was convicted : — Held (Wilson, J., 
 dissenting), that he ought not to have been con- 
 victed, because (per Armour, J.), the wood, the 
 subject of the alleged larceny, was not, in the 
 absence of satisfactory information, supported 
 by affidavit, " seized and detained as subject to 
 forfeiture " under the Act, and because (per 
 O'Connor, J.) the affidavit required by section 
 64 had not been made, and was a condition pre- 
 cedent to a seizure. Per Wilson, C. J., section 
 64 cannot apply to trees found by the officer of 
 the department in the act of being removed from 
 the lot on which they have been wrongfully cut, 
 or where there can be no doubt they have been 
 unlawfully cut, for such an application would 
 make it impossible to effect a seizure in such 
 cases. Regina v. Fearman, 10 O. R. 660— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The information charged that the prisoner at 
 a named time and place "being a trustee of a 
 sum of money * * the property of the C. B. 
 of C. (a corporate body) for the use of the said 
 the C. B. of C, did unlawfully and with intent 
 to defraud, convert and appropriate the same 
 to his own use, contrary to the statute in that 
 behalf:"— Held, that the prisoner was by this 
 information charged with a criminal offence 
 under the Larceny Act, R. 8. C. c. 164. Regina 
 v. Cox, 16 O. R. 228.— MacMahon. 
 
 The defendant was indicted and convicted 
 under the Larceny Act, R. 8. C. c. 164, s. 65, 
 for that he, being a trustee of two negotiable 
 securities for thj payment of |5,250 each, the 
 property of the C. Dank, for the use and benefit 
 of the 0. bank, unlawfully and with intent to 
 defraud, did convert and appropriate the two 
 negotiable securities to the use and benefit of 
 him, the defendant, etc. At the trial the 
 following letter, written and signed by the de- 
 fendant, dated 6tu November, 1885, was pro- 
 duced : "I have this day been entrusted by A. 
 (the cashier of the C. bank) with two notes of 
 $5,250 each, for the specific purpose of paying 
 
 Ml 
 
 two notes foi 
 on 8th Noveni 
 consider myse 
 amenable to t 
 
 S reduced at t 
 efendant wer 
 for |5,250 eacl 
 two drafts for 
 answering the 
 amount nienti 
 were not actu 
 on the 9th No 
 the 8th. It 
 were held bj 
 appeared in ev 
 one B. to disc 
 B. retaining $ 
 
 Sart of the ba 
 ant in diamo 
 up the two $5 
 ceeds of the t 
 identified by 
 and entries 
 book, also pr( 
 transactions > 
 judge stated n 
 —Held, upon 
 the property < 
 in his private 
 evidence, thai 
 documents wi 
 and that, not 
 to the nature 
 and place of p 
 dence to go 1 
 drafts produci 
 tioned in the '. 
 defendant sho 
 ing the procec 
 the securities 
 for a purpose 
 version of the 
 the nature o 
 an sppropriat 
 ties tliemselvi 
 bridge, J., e'' 
 definition of ] 
 tion 2 of R. £ 
 of the indict 
 proof was giv 
 the Attorney 
 164, s. 65, sub 
 this objectioi 
 case reserved 
 properly aris 
 Queen, 5 B. J 
 ntU, 17 0. R. 
 
 To an int 
 which was cc 
 defendant pi 
 ments coropl 
 true in substi 
 the public be 
 alleged libel e 
 that the plea 
 set out the \\. 
 fendnnt inter 
 from 37 Vict 
 the words ' • 
 a justificatic 
 
Ml 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 442 
 
 two notes for 95,000 that are due in Montreal 
 on 8th November, 1885, and my failing this shall 
 consider myself committing criminal offence and 
 amenable to the criminal law. " The securities 
 
 Sroduced at the trial as those converted by the 
 efendant were two drafts, not promissory notes, 
 for |5|2!)0 each, dated 7th November, 1885 ; and 
 two drafts for $5,000 each were also produced 
 answering the description of the notes for that 
 amount mentioned in the letter, except that they 
 were not actually notes, and were due at Toronto 
 on the 9th November instead of at Montreal on 
 the 8th. It was shewn, however, that they 
 were held by a person in Montreal. It also 
 appeared in evidence that the defendant procured 
 one B. to discount the two drafts for $5,2.50 each, 
 B. retaining $1,000 for an old debt, and paying 
 
 Sart of the balance of the proceeds to the defcn- 
 ant in diamonds. The defendant did not take 
 up the two $5,000 drafts and retained the pro- 
 ceeds of the two new drafts. The drafts were 
 identified by witnesses as to dates, amounts, etc., 
 and entries in the defendant's memorandum 
 book, also produced, shewed the nature of the 
 transactions with the cashier and B. The trial 
 judge stated a case for the opinion of the court : 
 —Held, upon the evidence, that the drafts were 
 the property of the bank and not of the cashier 
 in his private capacity : and, upon the law and 
 evidence, that the defendant was a trustee of the 
 documents within the meaning of the statute ; 
 and that, notwithstanding the discrepancies as 
 to the nature of the instruments, the due date, 
 and place of payment, there was sufficient evi- 
 dence to go to the jury of the identity of the 
 drafts produced at the trial with the notes men- 
 tioned in the letter. It was contended that the 
 defendant should have been indicted for convert- 
 ing the proceeds of the securities, inasmuch as 
 the securities were entrusted to the defendant 
 for a purpose which rendered necessary the con- 
 version of the securities themselves : — Held, that 
 the nature of the transaction with B. shewed 
 an appropriation by the defendant of the securi- 
 ties tfiemselves to his own use ; and, per Falcon- 
 bridge, J., even if it had been otherwise, the 
 definition of property in sub-section (e.) of sec- 
 tion 2 of R. 8. C. c. 164 shewed the sufficiency 
 of the indictment. It was objected that no 
 proof was given at the trial that the sanction of 
 the Attorney-General, required by R. S. C. c. 
 164, 8. 65, Bub-8. 2, had been given : — Held, that 
 this objection was not open to the court upon a 
 case reserved, not being a question that could 
 properly arise at the triol. Knowlden v. The 
 Queen, 5 B. & 8. 532, followed. Keyina v. Bar- 
 netf, 17 0. R. 649-Q. B. D. 
 
 XII. LiBEU 
 
 To an indictment for libel, the language of 
 which was couched in vague general terms, the 
 defendant pleaded that the words and state- 
 ments complained of in the indictment were 
 true in substance and in fact, and that it was for 
 the public benefit that the matters charged in the 
 alleged libel should be published by him :— Held, 
 that the plea was insufficient, because it did not 
 set out the particular facts upon which the de- 
 fendnnt intended to rely ; and that the omission 
 from .37 Vict. c. 38, s. 5 (R. 8. C. c. 163, s. 4) of 
 the words "in the manner required in pleading 
 a justification in an action for defamation, 
 
 which were contained in C. 8. U. C. o. 103, s. 
 0, had not the effect of altering the rule : -Held, 
 also, that this was a case in which the court 
 should, in the exercise of its discretion, quash 
 the plea upon a sitmmary motion, without requir- 
 ing a demurrer, a course permitted by section 
 143 of R. 8. C. c. 174, as interpreted by section 
 2, sub-section (e). Reyina v. Creiyhton, 19 0. R. 
 339.— MacMahon. 
 
 XIII. Malicious Injury to Pkopertv. 
 
 In an indictment purporting to be under 32 
 & 33 Vict. c. 22, 8. 45 (Uom.), for malicious in- 
 jury to property, the word "feloniously" was 
 omitted : — Held, bad, and ordered to be quashed. 
 Jieyina v. Ootujh, 3 O. R. 402.— C. P. D. 
 
 Under section 58 of tlie Malicious Injuries to 
 Property Act, R. 8. C. c. 16S, the offence must 
 be "unlawfully and maliciously" committed, 
 and the damage must exceed twenty dollars. In 
 this case the warrant of coinmitment charged the 
 offence as having been wilfully and maliciously 
 committed, omitting the word "unlawfully": — 
 Held, that this was fatal to the commitment 
 and it was directed to be quashed : — Held, also, 
 that the commitment should have alleged that 
 the damage exceeded twenty dollars. Reyina, 
 V. Fife, 17 0. R. 710.— C. P. D. 
 
 8ee Reyina v. McDonald, 10 O. R. 553, p. 453; 
 Reyina v. McDonald, 12 O. R. 381. 
 
 XIV. Maliciously Woundino. 
 
 On motion to discharge prisoner on habeas 
 corpus on conviction before a police magistrate, 
 the conviction charged that the prisoner did 
 "unlawfully and maliciously cut and wound one 
 Mary Kelly, with intent then and there to do 
 her grievous bodily harm": — Held, that, the 
 addition of the words, "with intent to do grie- 
 vous bodily harm, "did not vitiate the conviction, 
 and that the prisoner might be lawfully con- 
 victed of the statutory misdemeanourof malicious 
 wounding: — Held, also, that imprisonment at 
 hard labour for a year was properly awarded 
 under 38 Vict. c. 47 (Uom). Reqina v. Boucher, 
 8 P. R. 20.— Hagarty. Affirmed, 4 A. R. 191. 
 .See Cassels Dig. 180. 
 
 XV. MuRi/ER AND Manslaughter. 
 
 An indictment contained two counts, one 
 charging the prisoner with murdering M. J. T. 
 on the 10th November, 1881; the other with 
 manslaughter of the said M. J. T. on the same 
 day. The grand jury found "a true bill." A 
 motion to quash the indictment for misjoinder 
 was refused, the counsel for the prosecution 
 electing to proceed on the first count only : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the court a quo, 
 that the indictment was sufficient. Theal v. 
 The Queen, 7 S. C. R. 397. 
 
 The prisoner was convicted of manslaughter 
 in killing his wife, who died on the 10th Novem- 
 ber, 1881. The immediate cause of her death 
 was acute inflammation of the liver, which the 
 medical testimony proved might be occasioned 
 by a blow or a fall against a hard substance. 
 About three weeks before her death, (17th Oc- 
 tober preceding) the prisoner had knocked hi» 
 
 *<.i, ■ • 
 
 ;8 
 
443 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 444 
 
 445 
 
 wife down with a bottle : she fell nKiiinst a door, 
 and remained on the floor iusunHiule for some 
 time ; sho wus confined to her bod soon after- 
 wardii and never recovered. Elvidence was given 
 of frequent acts of violence coniniitted by the 
 
 SrisoDer upon his wife within a year of lier 
 eath, by knocking her down and kicking her 
 in the side. On the reserved ijuestions, viz., 
 whether the evidence of assaults and violence 
 committed by the prisoner upon the deceased, 
 prior to the lOth November or tho 17th October, 
 1881, was properly received, and whether there 
 was any evidence to leave to tlie jury to sustain 
 the charge in the first count of the indictment : - 
 Held, aflirming the judgment of the supreme 
 court of New Urunswick, that the evidence was 
 properly received, and that tiiere was evidence 
 to submit to tlie jury tli.at the disease which 
 caused her death was produced by the injuries 
 inflicted by the prisoner. Ik 
 
 At the trial of the prisoner upon an indict- 
 ment for murder, a witness for the Crown swore 
 upon direct examination tliat deceased lived 
 about thirty rods from him, and that one night, 
 about half an hour after he had heard shots in 
 the direction of deceased's house, deceased came 
 to the witness's house, and asked the witness to 
 take him in, for he was shot. The witness did 
 so, and deceased died there some hours after- 
 wards. Kvidence of statements made by deceased 
 after being taken into the '-itness's house wag 
 rejected. Upon a case reserved it was contended 
 on behalf of the prisoner : (1) that his counsel 
 was entitled to ask the witness in cross-exami- 
 nation whether deceased mentioned any particu- 
 lar person as the person who attacked him ; (2) 
 that statements made by deceased after he arrived 
 at tlie witness' house were admissible as part 
 of the res gestn.' ; (3) that such statements or 
 some of them were admissible as dying declara- 
 tions: — Held, (1) That the admission of evidence 
 of a complaint having been made ought properly 
 to be confined to rape and its allied offences, 
 but even if sucli evidence is admissible in other 
 cases, it can oidy be so where, as in such offences, 
 the complainant has been examined as a witness ; 
 and moreover, in this case, when deceased asked 
 the witness to take him in, for he was shot, he 
 was not making a complaint at all, but merely 
 assigning a reason for asking to be taken in, and 
 the question proposed to be asked was not rele- 
 vant. (2) That the statements made by deceased 
 after he was taken into the house were not 
 admissible as part of the res gestae, being made 
 after all action on the part ot the wrong doer 
 had ceased through the completion of the princi- 
 pal act, and after all pursuit or danger had 
 ceased. Eegina v. Bedingfield, 14 Cox 341, and 
 Reginan. Goddard, 15 Cox, 7, followed. (3) That 
 upon the evidence, the statements made by de- 
 ceased after being taken into the house were not 
 made under a settled hopeless expectation of 
 death, and were tliereforo not admissible in 
 evidence as a dying declaration. liegina v. Mc- 
 Malum, 180. K. 502.— Q. B. D. 
 
 XVI. Perjury. 
 
 D., in answering to faits et articles on the 
 contestation of a saisie arrfit, or attachment, 
 stated among other things, "Ist, that he, D., 
 owed nothing for his board ; 2nd, that he, D., 
 
 from altout the beginnins of 1880 to towards 
 the end of the year 1881, liad paid the board of 
 one F., the rent of his room, and furnished him 
 all the necessaries of life with scarcely any ex- 
 ception : 3rd, that he, F., during all that time, 
 1880 and 1881, had no means of support what- 
 ever." D. being charged with perjury, in the 
 assignments of perjury and in the negative 
 avennents, the facts sworn to by D. in his ans- 
 wers were distinctly negatived, in the terms in 
 which they were made : — Held, that under the 
 general terms of the negative averments, it was 
 competent for the prosecution to prove special 
 facts to establish the falsity of the answers given 
 by D. in his answers on faits et articles, and the 
 conviction could not be set aside because of the 
 admission of such proof. Even if the evidence 
 was inadmissible, there being other charges in 
 the same count which were pleaded to, a judg- 
 ment given on a general verdict of guilty on 
 that count would be sustained. Dotanie v. He- 
 giiia, 15 S. C. R. 358. 
 
 Scmble, that if the county judge in tho course 
 of an investigation under R. S. O. (1887), c. 184, 
 8, 477, proceeded to the United States to take 
 evidence, any oath administered by him in the 
 United States would have no legal significance, 
 and any false statement made by a person sworn 
 before him under such circumstances would not 
 have attached to it the consequences of perjury. 
 In re Godson and the City of Toronto, 16 O. R. 
 275.— Robertson. 
 
 XVII. Rape. 
 
 The defendant was indicted and convicted for 
 committing a rape on his daughter. T le learned 
 judge left it to the jury to say whether on the 
 evidence the act of connection was consummated 
 through fear, or merely through solicitation ;— 
 Held, that the question was one of fact entirely 
 for the jury, and could not have been withdrawn 
 from them, there being ample evidence to sustain 
 the charge, and it having been left to them with 
 the proper direction in such a case. liegina v. 
 Cardo, 170. R. 11— C. P. D. 
 
 See John v. The Queen, 15 S. C. R. 384, 
 p. 431 ; Jiegiiia v. Lloyd, 19 O. R. 352, p. 448. 
 
 XVIII. Receiving Stolen Goods. 
 See liegina v. St. Denin, 8 P. R. 16, p. 446. 
 
 XIX. Refusing to Provide kok Family. 
 
 Held, Armour, J., dissenting, that the evidence 
 of a wife is inadmissible, on the prosecution (if 
 her husband for refusal to support her, under 
 .32 .33 Vict. 0. 20, s. 25 (Dom. ) Begi7ia v. Bis«ell, 
 1 0. R. 514. 
 
 Under 32-33 Vict. c. 20, s. 25 (Dom.), as amen- 
 ded by 49 Vict. c. 51, s. 1 (Dom.), defendant 
 was charged by his wife, before a magistrate, 
 with refusing to provide necessary clothing and 
 lodging for herself and children. At the close 
 of the case for the prosecution, defendant was 
 tendered as a witness on his own behalf. The 
 magistrate refused to hear his evidence, not 
 because he was the defendant, but because he 
 did not wish to hear evidence for the defence ; 
 
 and 8ubac< 
 committed 
 dant's evid( 
 defence ; tl 
 such evidei 
 such weigh 
 exercise of 
 to review ; 
 tion of the j 
 and duties ( 
 and that 
 eludes the 
 well as befo 
 11 P. R. 47 
 
 As to wh« 
 appropriate 
 repair an ex 
 Jh re ToiriiM 
 the Comity ( 
 
 Quiere, at 
 trie wires ar 
 with the wi 
 Telephone C 
 O. R. 571. 
 
 As to au 
 make rules ( 
 Hamilton v. 
 
 XXIV, P 
 
 On an inc 
 -obtaining m 
 dorsed : "I 
 before the gi 
 1880 :— By J 
 son, Q. C. ; 
 Messrs, Mou 
 counsel auth 
 the criminal 
 motion suppi 
 the indictmi 
 the prelimiu; 
 32.33 Vict. 
 chief justice 
 mating that 
 should the d 
 fendant was 
 peal, reversi 
 Queen's Ben 
 s. 28, the Att 
 the judgment 
 which the h 
 sonally to ex( 
 ment for obt 
 laid before tl 
 ted that the . 
 with referem 
 quash should 
 ought to be E 
 6 S. C. R. 1( 
 
 An indicti 
 dants in the . 
 of oyer and 
 being called 
 murred to th 
 was subsequ 
 
445 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 ami subsequently, without further evi<lcnce, 
 committed liini for trial : — Hold, thiit the defen- 
 dant's evidence should have been taken for the 
 defence; that a magistrate is bonutl to accept 
 such evidence in coses of this kind and give it 
 such weight as ho thinks proper, and tliat the 
 exercise of his discretion to the contrary is open 
 to review: — Held, also, that the amended sec- 
 tion of the Act is intended to enlarge the powers 
 and duties of niagistrat^js in cases of this nature, 
 and that the word "prosecution" tliercin in- 
 cludes the proceedings before magistrates as 
 well as before a higher court. Jlf'/ina v. Mitjtr, 
 11 P. R. 477.— Wilson. 
 
 XX. Othkr Ofkbnoes. 
 
 As to whether indictment or mandivmus is the 
 appropriate remedy to compel a municipality to 
 repair an existing bridge or erect a new one. 8eo 
 In re TowiinhipM of MoiUtun andCanhorouf/h and 
 the Count;/ of HaUUmand, 12 A. R. SO."!. 
 
 Qmere, as to whether one company using elec- 
 tric wires are liable to indictment for interfering 
 with the wires of another company. See Bell 
 Telephone Co. v. Belleville Electric Light Co., 12 
 O. R. 571. 
 
 As to authority of inspector of prisons to 
 make rules creating un indictable offence. See 
 Hamilton v. MwiHie, 18 O. R. 586. 
 
 XXIV. Procedure, Practice and Trial. 
 
 1. Indictment. 
 
 On an indictment, containing four counts for 
 obtaining money by false pretences, was en- 
 dorsed : "I direct that this indicti ut be laid 
 before the grand jury. Montreal, Oth October, 
 1880 :— By J. A. Mousseau, Q. C. ; C. P. David- 
 son, Q. C. ; L. O. Loranger, Attorney-General. 
 Messrs. Mousseau and Davidson were the two 
 counsel authorized to represent the Crown in all 
 the criminal proceedings during the term. A 
 motion supported by affidavit was made to (juash 
 the indictment on the ground, inter alia, that 
 the preliminary formalities required by s. 28 of 
 32-33 Vict. c. 29, had not been observed. The 
 •chief justice allowed the case to proceed, inti- 
 mating that he would reserve the point raised, 
 should the defendant be found guilty. The de- 
 fendant was convicted, and it was Held, on ap- 
 peal, reversing the judgment of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench, that under 32-33 Vict. c. 29, 
 8. 28, the Attorney-General could not delegate to 
 the judgment and discretion of another the power 
 which the legislature had authorized him per- 
 sonally to exercise to direct that a bill of indict- 
 ment for obtaining money by false pretences be 
 laid before the grand jury ; and it being admit- 
 ted that the Attorney-General gave no directions 
 with reference to this indictment, the motion to 
 quash should have been granted, and the verdict 
 ought to be set aside. Abrahams v. The Queen, 
 6 .H. C. R. 10. 
 
 An indictment was found against the defen- 
 dants in the High Court of Justice, at its sittings 
 of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery, and on 
 being called upon to plead, the defendants de- 
 murred to the indictment. A writ of certiorari 
 was subsequently obtained by the defendants. 
 
 in obedience to which the indictment, demurrer, 
 and joinder were removed to the Queen's Bench 
 ilivision. Upon the return, the Crown took out 
 a side-bar rule for a concilium, and the demurrer 
 was set down for argument. A motion was made 
 by the defendants to set aside the proceedings 
 of theCrown, on the ground that they should have 
 been called upon to appear and plead de novo ia 
 this division : — Held (Wilson, C. J., dissenting), 
 that the court of assize of oyer and terminer 
 and general gaol delivery is now, by virtue of 
 the Judicature Act, the High Court of Justice ; 
 that the indictment was found, and the defen- 
 dants appeared and demurred thereto in the High 
 Court of Justice ; and that it was not necessary 
 to plead de novo to the indictment. Regina v. 
 Bimtiiig, 7 O. R. 118.-Q. B. D. 
 
 An order made pursuant to Dominion statute 
 .32 k 33 Vict. c. 29, s. 11, directing a change 
 of venue, would be sufficient .although contain- 
 ing no reference to any provision for expenses, 
 wlien the indictment has been pleaded to and 
 the trial proceeded with without objection, and 
 even in a court of error there could be no valid 
 objection to a conviction foumled on such order. 
 In re Robert Eean Sproule, 12 S. C. R. 140. 
 
 Where two or more names are laid in an indict- 
 ment under an alias dictus, it is not necessary 
 to prove them all. Jacobs v. The Queen, 16 S. 
 C. R. 433. 
 
 J. was indicted for the murder of A. J., 
 otherwise called K. K. On the trial it was 
 proved that the deceased Wiis known by the 
 name of K. K., but there was no evidence that 
 she ever went by the other name : — Held, affirm- 
 ing the judgment of the court belo^f, that this 
 variance between the indictment .and the evi- 
 dence did not invalidate the conviction of J. 
 for manslaughter. lb. 
 
 See Rei/ina v. Goitgh, 3 0. R. 402, p. 442 ; Re- 
 ghia V. St. Denin, 8 P. R. 16, p. 440 ; Theal v. 
 The Queen, 7 8. C. R. 397, p. 442 ; Regina v. 
 Qoodman, 2 O. R. 468, p. 447 ; Regina v. Otbson, 
 16 0. R. 704, pp. 434, 447. 
 
 2. Summary Trial be/ore County Judge. 
 
 The prisoner was convicted before a county 
 judge's criminal court on a charge of receiving 
 stolen goods, knowing them to have been felo- 
 niously stolen, and was sentenced to imprison- 
 ment. On an application for a habeas corpus : — 
 Held, that the court was a court of record, and 
 thit under R. S. O. (1877), c. 70 s. 1, there was 
 therefore no right to the writ. Regina v. St. 
 Denis, 8 P. R. 16.— Cameron. 
 
 Held, also, that the judge had power to im- 
 prison, lb. 
 
 The prisoners were committed for trial on a 
 charge of gambling in a railway train. On the 
 case coming before the county judi^e for trial, an 
 inilictinent was preferred, under 42 Vict. c. 44, s. 
 3 (D')m. ), for obtaining money by false pretences. 
 The prisoners' counsel objected to the prisoners 
 being tried on a ditferent charge from that on 
 whicli they had been committed. The objec- 
 tion was overruled, and the charge read over to 
 the prisoners, and, on its being explained that 
 they could be tried forthwith or remain in cus- 
 tody until the next sittings of oyer and terminer. 
 
 •ah* 
 
 ^ "" 
 
 ^'<;' 
 
447 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 m 
 
 •to., thny pleaded not fruilty, nnd snid thiit they 
 were reudy for trial. The uii«e lh»^n proceodotl, 
 and the prisoners were 'jimvicted ; no ([ncHtion 
 1l>eing raised us to tlieir having heen tried without 
 their consent, iiUhotigh thtir counsel took other 
 objeotiona to the proceedings. A writ of habeas 
 corpus having been issued, and tiic prisoners' 
 discharge moved for, on the ground of tliu absenco 
 of such consent ;—i[i'ld, that the motion must 
 be refused. Per Wilson, C. J. It was unneces- 
 sary to decide whether the prihoncrs' remedy 
 was by habeas corpus or writ of error, becnuHe, 
 on the facts, they were not entitled to either 
 remedy. Per Osier, J. Tlie {irisoners having 
 been imprisoned under the conviction of a court 
 of record, an objection of error in a procciding 
 must be by writ of error ; the writ of ha))edu 
 corpus was therefore iniprovidently issued, and 
 should be quashed, llnjinu v. Goodman, 2 O. 
 R. 468.-C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintifTs in error were charged witli hav- 
 ing defrauded one C. by a gnnie called three card 
 monte. They consented to be summarily tried. 
 When brought up for trial, the crown attorney 
 asked for and obtained leave to substitute a 
 charge of combining to obtain money by false 
 pretences, the prisoners objecting. The trial 
 proceeded without the con.>-ent of the prisoners 
 obtained to be tried bunimnrily for this oHence. 
 They were convicted and sentenced to one year's 
 imprisonment : — Held, (n error, that their con- 
 sent to be summarily tried on the substituted 
 charge should appear, and that in its absence the 
 conviction was bad : — Held, also that it was bad 
 in adjudging the sentence of one year, the Act, 
 40 Vict. c. 32 (Dom.), only authorizing a sen- 
 tence for any term less than a year. Uoothtian 
 V. Jtegina, 3 0. R. 18- Q. B. D. 
 
 3. Cam Reserved. 
 
 Under C. S. U. 0. c. 112, any question of Law 
 which may have arisen on a criminal triol, 
 may be reserved for the consideration of the jus- 
 tices of either of Her Majesty's superior courts 
 of common law. Quiere, per Armour, J., having 
 regard to the provisions of tlie Judicature Act, 
 whether a reservation to the justices of the 
 Queen's Bench division of tlie High Court of 
 Justice was authorized. Eeijina v. Biasell, 1 
 O. R. 514. 
 
 Held, that a police magistrate cannot reserve 
 a case for the opinion of a superior court under 
 C. S. U. C. c. 112, as he is not within the terms 
 of that Act. Begina v. Richardson, 8 O. R. 651 
 — Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that a Crown case reserved should be 
 reserved for the consideration of the justices 
 of one of the divisions of the High Court, not of 
 a divisional court, and when the court is asked 
 whether on the evidence the defendants were 
 lawfully convicted the whole of the evidence 
 should not be made part of the case, but merely 
 the material facts established by the evidence. 
 Regma v. Oihson, 16 0. K. 704.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the sufficiency of an indictment upon 
 motion to quash is not a question of law which 
 arises on the trial, and therefore cannot be 
 reserved under R. S. C. c. 174, s. 259, and the 
 court has no power to entertain it. Falconbridge, 
 J., dubitante. Ih. 
 
 On a Crown case reserved it is not proper to 
 reserve the question whether there is sufficient 
 evidence in support of the criminal charge, that 
 buing a (luestion for the jury ; whether there ia 
 any evidence is a <|UC8tion of law for the judge. 
 The evidence against the prisoners here was the 
 uncorroborated evidence of the woman charged 
 to have been raped which, in view of admissions 
 made by her, and the circumstances, was un 
 satisfactory :— Held, that the evidence was pro- 
 perly 8ui>n)itted to the jury, but the court 
 directed that the attention of the executive 
 should be called to the case. Regina v. Llond 
 19 0. R. 352. -C. P. D. 
 
 To an indictment for murder, the prisoner 
 plenilfd, challenging the array of the jury panel, 
 which plea was demurred to and judgment given 
 in favour of the crown by the judge holding 
 the court of oyer and terminer, who, at the 
 request of the prisoner, reserved a case for the 
 consideration of the Common Pleas division :— 
 Held, not a matter which could be reserved under 
 C. S. U. C. c, 112, and the case was therefore 
 directed to be (luashed. Regina v. O'Rovrke, 
 32 C. P. 388.— C. P. D. See S. C, 1 O. R. 
 464 ; Morin v. The Queen, 18 S. C. R. 407. 
 
 Semblc, per Wilson, C. J., that a writ of error 
 was the proper remedy, and that, notwithstand- 
 ing the Judicature Act, it would lie in the first 
 instance to either the Queen's Bench or Common 
 Pleas division, and not to the Court of Appeal. 
 lb. 
 
 See Reijiva v.' Andrrvn, 12 0. R. 184, p. 452 t 
 Regina v. Hanielt, 17 O. R. 649, p. 441 ; finV- 
 hoin V. The Queen, 15 S. C. R. 421, p. 449. 
 
 4. Jury. 
 
 By the Dominion Act 32 & 33 Vict. c. 29, s. 
 44, the selection of jurors in criminal cases is 
 authorized to be in accordance with the provincial 
 laws, whether parsed before or after the coming 
 into force of the B. N. A. Act, subject, however, 
 to any provision in any Act of the Parliament of 
 Canada, an<l in so far as such laws are not incon- 
 sistent with anv such act. By the provincial 
 Acts 42 Vict. c."l4, and 44 Vict. c. 6, the mode 
 of,selection of jurors in criminal cases, as provided 
 by C. S. U. C. c. 31, as amended by 26 Vict, 
 c. 44, was changed, by excluding the clerk of the 
 peace as one of the selectors, and requiring the 
 selection to be made only from those qualitied to 
 serve as jurors whose surnames began with cer- 
 tain alphabetical letters, instead of from thc- 
 whole body of those competent to servo as pre- 
 viously required. The jury in question were 
 selected under these provincial Acts. Semble, 
 that the 32 and 33 Vict. c. 29 (Dom.), was not 
 ultra vires the Dominion parliament as being 
 a delegation of their powers, and that the selec- 
 tion made in accordance with the provincial 
 Acts, was valid. Regina v. O'Rourke, 32 C. P. 
 388.— C. P. D. 
 
 Quicrc, whether the selection and summoning 
 of jurors is a matter of procedure, or relates to 
 the constitution and organization of criminal 
 courts. II). >Seo next case. 
 
 By 32 & 33 Vict. c. 29, s. 44 (Dom.), every 
 person qualified and summoned to serve as a 
 juror in criminal cases according to the law ia 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 449 
 
 any provinci 
 in such |trov 
 i)efor« the I 
 and in so fa 
 with any A 
 42 Vict. c. 
 the niipde of 
 regulated by 
 jury was aeb 
 tutes, anil tl 
 which tlic IT 
 given for tli 
 guilty andsc 
 — Held, per 
 statute waH n 
 ing and api 
 uriniinal proc 
 4«4.-(/. B. 
 
 Semblc, tl 
 c. ai, wliurt 
 dcalingof th 
 are not assig 
 
 Per ArnioH 
 raised l)y the 
 challenge to t 
 
 Qna're, wh 
 been rcwrvii 
 afterwards be 
 lb. 
 
 In the cour 
 uig, the jury ii 
 stable, and 
 tlieni, referrii 
 murder in P. 
 the slightest ( 
 they were try 
 The prisoner w 
 juilgnient of t 
 in Nova Scoti 
 the cicrijiynian 
 lie saiil tiiattli 
 as to iiffeL't t 
 15 S. V. R. 4t 
 
 H. having 
 having adniii 
 murder, niovi 
 ground that o 
 nod not been 
 panel of juroi 
 Lainoureux ai 
 panel for the 
 prisoner was t 
 Lanioureux. 
 reux's suiiim 
 returned Josi 
 moned. Moii 
 and answered 
 swor;. ui a j 
 W.18 tried. (. 
 per IJitchie, (. 
 JJ., that thi 
 served by the 
 question arisii 
 of section 259 
 Taschereau a 
 judgment of i 
 assuming the 
 240, c. 174 R 
 larity complai 
 (lixsenting. 
 421. ^ 
 
 29 
 
449 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 450 
 
 liny province, is doclarcd to bo (iiiivlilivd to i 
 in Midi provinw), wlictlier 8uuh laws wcM'cpi 
 
 servo 
 • pnHsud 
 l)eforo tlio |{. N. A. Act or after it miliji'ct to, 
 anil in ho far as aiiuli laws are not inconsistent 
 with any Aet of tlie Parliament of L'linaila. IJy 
 4'2 Vict. 0. 14(0nt.), and 44 Vict. c. »l(()nt. ), 
 the mo<lc of selecting jurors in all cases, formerly 
 regulated by L'O Vict. e. 44, was cliaii;4ed. The 
 jury was selcctcil acconling to the Untario sta- 
 tutes, and tlie pri.soni'r challenged the array, to 
 which the crown dcmnrred, and judgment was 
 given for the crown. The prisoner was found 
 ijuilty and sentenced, and he then brought error ; 
 —Held, per Hiigarty, C. .1., that the l)ominion 
 statute was not ultra vires by reason of its adopt- 
 ing and applying the lasvs of Ontario as to 
 uriniinal procedure. Ilvijina v. O'ltottrkr, 1 i). R. 
 
 .Send>le, that under .m. 13il, Con. Stat. U. C. 
 c. .'U, where no " nnindiderence" or fraudulent 
 dealing of the sherdV is .shewn, any irregularities 
 arc not assignable foi' error. Jb. 
 
 Per Armour and Cameron, Jd. The objection 
 raised by the prisoner was not a good ground of 
 ehnllenge to the array. Jb. 
 
 Qiuere, whether, when such a ((ucstion has 
 l)cen reserved by a judge at the trial, it can 
 afterwards be made the subject of a writuf error. 
 lb. 
 
 In the course of a trial for murder by shoot- 
 ing, the jury attended church in charge of a con- 
 stable, an<l the clergyman directly addressed 
 them, referring to th(! case of a man hung for 
 muriler in l*. K. !., and urging them, if they had 
 the slightest (huibt of the guilt of the prisoner 
 they were trying, to temper justice with e(|uity. 
 The prlHoner was convicted :- Held, atlirniing the 
 juilgnieiit of the court of crown cases reserved, 
 in Nova Scotia, that although the rcnnirks of 
 the clergyman were highly improper it could not 
 lie said th.it the jury were so iuHuenced by them 
 as to ad'ect tlieir verdict. Piwejier v. lietjiiia, 
 15 S. C. R. 401. 
 
 15. having been found guilty of feloniously 
 having adnnnistereil poison with intent to 
 murder, niov(-d to arrest the judgment on the 
 eround that one of the jurors who tried the ease 
 had not been returneil as such. The general 
 panel of jurors containi-d the names of Joseph 
 Laniimreux and Moi.se l.amoureux. The special 
 panel for the term of the court, at which the 
 prisoner was tried, contained the name of Joseph 
 Luiiouieiix. The sheriff served Joseph Lamou- 
 reux's summons on Moisc Lamourenx, and 
 returned Joseph Lamourenx as the party sum- 
 moned. Moise Lamourenx appeared in court 
 and answered to the name of Joseph and was 
 swnr;, as a juror without challenge when B. 
 was tried. On a riserved case it was Held, 
 per liitchic, (/'. J., and Taschereau and Gwynne, 
 JJ., that the point should not have been re- 
 served by the judge at the trial, it not beinc a 
 question arising at the trial within the meaning 
 of section 259, e. 174 R. fS. C. :— Held, also, per 
 Taschereau and (iwynne, JJ. , affirming the 
 judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, that 
 assuming the point could bo reserved, section 
 'i4(|, c. 174 R. S. C. clearly covered the irregu- 
 larity complained of. Strong and Fournier, JJ., 
 •licsenting. Briaebois v. Iteaina, 15 S. C. R. 
 421. 
 
 29 
 
 6. Kfidence. 
 
 (a) Coii/etiionn (Did AdmisKionx. 
 
 Where it appeared that a police constable 
 gave the usual caution to the prisoner, who was 
 arrested on a charge of obstructing a railway 
 train by placing blocks upon the line, but after- 
 wards said to him; "T'ho truth will go better 
 than a lie. If any one prompted you to it you 
 hail better tell about it, whereupon the prisoner 
 said that he did the act charged against him : — 
 Held, that the admission was not receivable in 
 evidence, and a conviction grounded thereon was 
 improper. Regina r. Fennell, 7 Q. R. 1). 147, 
 followed. Iteijiiia v. Homp, 17 O. R. 5G7 — 
 Chy. 1). 
 
 (b) Dying Duclarationi. 
 
 See Keijiiia v. McMahoii, 18 O. R. SO'.', p. 
 443. 
 
 (e) Depimliou'i. 
 
 Upon a prosecution for uttering forged notes, 
 the deposition of one S. taken before the police 
 magistrate on the preliminary investigation was 
 read, upon the following ])ro<)f that !S. was absent 
 from Canada: — H. swore that S. had a few 
 months before left his(R."s) house, where she 
 (S.) had for a time lodged, that she bad since 
 twice heard from her in the U. S. A. , but not for 
 six months. The chief constable of Hamilton, 
 where the prisoner was tried, proved ineffectual 
 attempts to find .S. by means of personal enquiries 
 in some places, and correspondence with the 
 police of other cities. S. had for some time lived 
 with the prisoner as his wife : — Held, upon a 
 case reserved, Cameron, J., dissenting, that the 
 admissibility of the deposition was in the discre- 
 tion of the judge at the trial, and that it could 
 not bo said that he had wrongly admitted it. 
 Ui^ijina V. Ntlsoit, 1 0. II. .500— Q. B. D. 
 
 (d) Competent and Compellable Wltnesneit. 
 
 Assault. Sec Reifma v. Richardson, 46 Q. B. 
 .S75, p. 432 ; McFarlane v. The Queen, 16 8. C. 
 R. 393, p. 432. 
 
 Fraudulent removal of goods. See liei/ina v. 
 Lackie,7 0. R. 431. 
 
 Husband and wife. See Rf<iina v. liisse/l, 1 
 O. R. 514 ; Rei/ina v. Meyer, 1 1 P. H. 477 ; 
 McFarlane v. The Queen, 16 8. C. R. 393. 
 
 Upon trial of an information for practising 
 contrary to the provisions of the Ontario Medi- 
 cal Act, R. S. O. (1S77), c. 142:-Held (fol- 
 lowing Regina r. Roddy, 41 Q. B. 291), that 
 the defendant was properly rejected as a witness 
 in his own behalf. Jleijina v. Sparhum, 8 O. R. 
 570.— Rose. 
 
 Held, that under section 123 of the Canada 
 Temperance Act, 1878, a defendant is compell- 
 able, when called as a witness, to answer ques- 
 tions, even though tending to criminate himself. 
 Regina v. Halpm, 12 0. R. 330, not followed. 
 Review of legislation on the subject of such 
 evidence. Regina v. Fee, 13 0. R. 590,— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 ?3 
 
 dh. 
 
 «t^. 
 
 
 
 
451 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 401 
 
 '"1 
 
 ('ailing iiiii)j;iHlrati! uh a witiii'Hg in iiroiuoiitioii 
 UDtltir tli«! ('iiiiiiilii 'riMiipi'iMiu'o Act, IS7N, with a 
 viuw of Hlu^wing liiH iiilcn^Ht in tliu pi'oguuutiim, 
 •See Jteijiiin v. .Sjtriinlc, 14 O. R, 37r). 
 
 I'he dufunilant was coiiviotoil of gulling and 
 delivurinx tuas an tliti agoiit of I'. \V., a noiiruHi- 
 dont of till) county, in violation of a liy law of 
 the county of iiruuu, (ho tliiicl nuction of whiuli 
 was a copy of Huction I of 48 Vict. u. 40. (Out.). 
 Thu dufundant, ugaiiiHt tlio prott^nt of Ida conn- 
 Rol, wan callud ax a \\itiu>HH, and HWoi't* that liu 
 iMHight the tua in oiUHtioii from one \V. of thu 
 city of Ijoiidon, and tli.it ho did not Hcdl im the 
 lattcr'H agunt, hut on Ilia own ..cuoiint; that lie 
 had forniL'i'ly Hold tua on coininiHHion for \V. but 
 purcli'iHud that in qiiuHtion for thu piirpoHu of 
 ovading tho hydaw. Tlio conviction allugud 
 that dufundant waH thu agunt 4if 1*. W., Iiiit did 
 not Htato that hu li-id not thu nucuNHrU'y licuiiHu 
 to untitlu him to do thu act coinjdaiiicd of: — 
 Huld, I. That di'fuiid;int Innng, iiiidui thu evi- 
 dence, an indupunili'iit trader, and not an agent, 
 <lid not comu within thu Coij.solidatud Municipal 
 Act, IHS.'I, 8. 4!)">, 8ub-H. U, nor within 48 Vict, 
 c. 40(Unt. ). '2. That defendant had liuun iin- 
 pnmurlycoinpullod to give uviduncu against liini- 
 8oir 3. That thu having a Hcuiihu {h a niattur of 
 <lefence, and not of proof by the proHucution. 
 litginax. McNkol, II O. R. 65!).- Wilson. 
 
 The defendant was convicted before two jus- 
 tices of the jiuacu under the Weights and 
 Measures Act, 42 Vict. c. 10, s. 14, subs. 2, 
 (Doin. ), as amuiidud by 47 Viet. c. ."JO, s. 7 ( Uoni. ), 
 of obstructing un inspector in the discharge of 
 his duty, and was fined iJlOO and costs, to be 
 levicil by distress, imprisonment for three months 
 being awarded in default of distress. At the 
 hearing before the justices the defendant ten- 
 dered Ids own evidence, which was excluded. 
 The defun<lant appealed to the Quarter Sessions, 
 and on the appeal again tendered his own evi- 
 dence, which was again excluded, and the 
 conviction afKrined. On motion for certiorari : — 
 Held, that the conviction having been affirmed 
 in appeal certiorari was taken away excejit for 
 want or excess of jurisdiction, and that there 
 was no such want or excess or jurisdiction, in- 
 asmuch as the justices and the Quarter Sessions 
 had jurisdiction to determine whether the de- 
 fendant's evidence was admissible or not, and 
 that such determinati(m, even if erroneous in 
 law, could not be reviewed by certiorari. Per 
 Armour, C. J.— That even if the determination on 
 this point could be reviewed the justices were 
 right in excluding the evidence of the defendant, 
 inasmuch as the offence charged was a crime. 
 Beuina v. Dunnimj, 14 O. R. 52.— Q. B. D. 
 
 _ L., the constable to whom the coroner de- 
 livered the summons for the jury, was at the 
 inquest sworn in as one of the jury, and was 
 sworn and gave evidence as a witness ; and Y., 
 a juryman, was also sworn and gave evidence 
 as a witness :— Held, that the fact of L. being 
 such constable did not preclude him from being 
 on the jury, nor did either of such positions 
 preclude him giving evidence : and so also Y. was 
 not precluded. Rojina v. JFineoar/ier, 17 0. R. 
 208.— C. P. D. » . • 
 
 On the trial of an offence of being " unlawfully 
 found drunk on the public street" contrary to 
 the provisions of a municipal by-law, the magis- 
 
 tiale cannot rcfiiHu to rccuivo the defendant's 
 
 evideneu. JUijiiM v. UnuU, 18 O. U, lUO 
 
 ('. P. 1). 
 
 (o) DUcredUiiiij W'UntM. 
 
 At a coroner's iiic{U(>8t evidence is proiiorly 
 reciuvablu under K. S. (J. c. 174, s. 234, tlialp 
 witnuHH at such ini|iiust has inadu at other tiines 
 H statuniunt iiicdnsiHtunt with his present testi- 
 mony ; and inclu;)(!iiduntly of that enactment the 
 iiii|)ropei' rccuptioii of evideneu is no ground for 
 a certiorari to bring u|> thu coroner's ini|uisitinn. 
 Kugiiia i: Ingham, 5 II. k S., at p. 200, H|Micialiy 
 refuiTud to. Hi'(ftna v. SanilevHon, 15 O. R. 106. 
 — MacMahon. 
 
 (f) ArrovipHffn. 
 
 The i|uestiiiii wlnttht^r or not a judge, in charg- 
 ing a jury, shmild caution them that the uvi- 
 denee of an iieconiplico should bo corroborated, 
 is nut a matter for a, court to review on a ciwe 
 reserved, for it is not a i|uustioii of law but of 
 practice, thoiigii a practice which should not Iw 
 omitted. Kcgina i\ Stiibbs, 7 Vox, C. C. 48, 
 and liegina c. IJuekwith. 8 t'. P. 277, fidlowed. 
 R<<jiii<i V. Aiidnii'K, 12 0. R. 184— C. P. 1). 
 
 Remarks as to tho application to civil cikiiscs 
 of tho practice in criminal cases regarding the 
 corroboration of accomplices. See lir. AlonUith 
 —Miri-liauli' Itaiik v. MonlrAth, 10 (). R. 529; 
 United States Erpreitx Co. v. Dunohue., 14 O. R. 
 333. 
 
 (g) Corrohuratire. 
 
 In cases of forgery. See Hei/ina v. Jltu/fr- 
 man, 15 O. R. 5!t8, j). 4.'?8 ; Jlii/inu v. Seibi/, IC 
 O. R. 256, p. 439 ; In re 11. L. Lee, 5 6. R. 
 583. 
 
 See also last Subhead. 
 
 (h) Of Identity. 
 
 Quture, whether a certificate of a previou»< non- 
 viction is sutticiunt primiV facie evidcn "' 
 the identity of tho accused with the 
 the same name so jn'uviously convict*!' i 
 
 V. Edijar, 15 O. R. 142.— Rose. 
 
 To identify defendant ns a private prom i if or. 
 .iee Mai/ v. Jhid, Hi A. R. 150. 
 
 See Jacobs v. The Queen, 16 S. C. 11.43.3, 
 p. 440. 
 
 (i) Other Casen. 
 
 Held, that a magistrate cannot take judicial 
 notice of orders in council, or their publication, 
 without proof thereof by |)roduction of the offi- 
 cial Gazette, and therefore that a conviction was 
 bad, which was made without such evidence, 
 that the Canada Temperance Act of 1878, was 
 in force in the county pursuant to the terms of 
 section 90 thereof. Jtetjitia v. BeHuett, 1 O. R. 
 445.— Cameron. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A. Remarks upon the gen- 
 eral right of a person charged before a, migi^itrate 
 with an indictable offence to call witnesses for 
 b's defence 
 
 
 and of a person whose extraditio* 
 
 463 
 
 is deniandeil 
 is charged w 
 .Seiiible, that 
 in tliu lepoi 
 rujucted. // 
 
 Two indie 
 defeiidantH I 
 trees reH|ie<' 
 charged wcii 
 l\w same iiij 
 waMdone in t 
 defelidant.H w 
 of clfHtroyin,! 
 to thu offelici 
 was admit te 
 lieeii coiniiiil 
 that thuuviil 
 v, McDonnhi 
 
 A witness 
 dunce as a in 
 crown prosec 
 medical sciu 
 what di.'<tanc( 
 1 have stiKli 
 but from bo( 
 as to the gr<ili 
 ical witne.i.si^ 
 i:<iiifiite it. 'I 
 from the iiiiir 
 liavu been lii 
 mid on what I 
 thu result of 
 Huhl, Strong, 
 that by IiIh | 
 had establixlit 
 caltixpcrt, am 
 'Uxaiiiination, i 
 no Hucli iiiilic 
 distance at w 
 perly received 
 i\. 401. 
 
 .Am indictm 
 
 actual bodily 
 
 charging a pr 
 
 "•■"c. The 
 
 I upon wli 
 
 one of that cli 
 prei ■"IIS conv 
 piin orient n 
 of indictn 
 
 the prisoner, a 
 second part ch 
 prisoner in hi 
 character. Tl 
 <lencu in rebut 
 tion 20 of c. 29 
 a prior convici 
 of the indictm 
 tion :— Held, 
 perly admissib 
 evidence can < 
 evidence of a ] 
 ter of punishm 
 Regina v. Row 
 Reijiiia V. Triij 
 
 •Sue Thml v. 
 
 The defondai 
 indictment for 
 
463 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 iM 
 
 niid cm wliatlii! hiiHi'il Iijn opinion hh to it, 
 tliu I'CHiilt of liiH examination of the hoily 
 
 ix (luinaniluti to iiliew hy uviduiiuo tliitt what liu 
 JH cliargcd witli Ih not an ixtiiulitlon oriniii : — 
 ,S(.'nil>lui that iht: uvliliuicu \\t:n- ollui'tid, uHMtati^l 
 ill tliu it'|iort of tiio ci\Hf, waH not iiniiropuily 
 rcjuctt'd. Jn re I'hi/iii'i, S A, K. 77. 
 
 Two iiidictniriitM welt |ii('ft'ii('d iij^aiiiHt the 
 cU'fciiilaiitH foi' fcionioiiHly drxtioyiiii; tlio frnit 
 Iri't'M ri'H|iuctivcly of M. and ('. 'I hr oIUmu'ch 
 cliar^jt'd were provi'd to iiavc limicoinniittnl on 
 thi: NHiiK! iduht, and thii injiiiy <'oiii|iIaiiiiMl of 
 wasdoni' in tli)^ Niiiiu'iiianncr in liotli raticH. 'I'lii! 
 (IcfriKhiiitx well' imt on tlicir trial on lli(M'liarnc 
 of di'MtmyinjL! M. s Uv.vh ; ami cvidciic't; relating 
 to the otluiKU' (.'harf{od in th(! otln^i' indictnii-iit, 
 wax admitted un HJiowiii^ tliat the oU'eiiei^H had 
 heeli committed hy the game perKon : - lltdd, 
 that llioevideiue wax properly reeeived. Jlnjiiid 
 V. Mi-lhnnlil, 10 O. I!. UX\.- V. I*. 1). 
 
 A witiiesH waH called at ihu trial to ^ivc uvi- 
 <lviicu aH a medical expert, and in aimwer to the 
 crown primeciitor, ho Huid, " there are imliciaiii 
 mudical Hcieiiuo from which it can he Haid lit 
 what di.stancu ainall shot were lircd at the liody. 
 1 have studied thiH — not personal experienco, 
 hut from hookN." He waa not crosH-examined 
 aa to the ^I'ouiidH of thiH Htatonient, and no med- 
 ical witncMHCM were called hy the priMoner to 
 ciiiifiiti^ it. 'I'iie witneHHthen Htated thediMtancu 
 frniii the iinirdered man at which the HJiot muflt 
 liavi) hccii tired, in the ease liefore tin; conrt, 
 
 )n aH to it, giving 
 of the hody : — 
 Held, SIroii},', .)., and Fonriiior, .)., disxenting, 
 that h\ IiIh preliininnry Htatemcnt the witiicHS 
 hail UHtahliNlieil hiii capacity to B])uak as u medi- 
 cal expert, and it not having been hIiowd hy crosM- 
 «xaiiimatioii, or other teHtiinony, that there were 
 no Hiicli indicia as Htated, his evidence as to the 
 <liHtaiice at which the HJiot was iireil, wau pro- 
 perly received. I'nepir v. The. (Jiteen, 15 S. C. 
 ii. 401. 
 
 An indictment for an aHsault occasioning 
 actual bodily harm contained n second count 
 <'linr<^'iiig a prior conviction for an inilictuble 
 " ' c. '!'ho oirencc disclosed by the indict- 
 ... .ji upon which the prisoner wah tried was not 
 one of that class of otCences for which, after a 
 prt'\ -"US conviction for felony, etc., additional 
 piiii luent might bo iinposecl. The first part 
 of iixlictment, only, was read in arraigning 
 
 the prisoner, and no allusion was made to the 
 second part charging the prior conviction. The 
 prisoner in his (lofence gave evidence of good 
 «'liarttcter. The crown gave some general evi- 
 dence in rebuttal, .t 1 then tendered, under sec- 
 tion 20 of c. 20, .32-: \'ict., a certificate to prove 
 a prior conviction, .lud read the second clause 
 of the indictment charging such prior convic- 
 tion : — Held, I hat this evidence was not pro- 
 perly admissible as to character, and that such 
 evidence can only be as to general reputation ; 
 evidence of a pri' Miviction going to the mat- 
 ter of punishment ud not to general character. 
 Regina v. Rowton, 10 C'«x C. C, 2o, followed. 
 Hn/iua V. TriuaiiziH, 15 O. R. 294.— Q. B. D. 
 
 8ce Theal v. The Queen, 7 S. C. R. 397, p. 442. 
 
 XXV. New Tkial. 
 
 The defendants having been convicted on an 
 indictment for a nuisance which had been re- 
 
 moved into the (jueun's lleneh by certiorari, 
 moved for a new trial, which was refuwul : — 
 Hi'hl, that no appeal would liu to this court 
 from the judgincnil refusing the new trial, ami 
 that it could make no ditrerence that the indii ' 
 ment had been reinoveil by certiorari, and tried 
 on the civil si.le. Retina e. Kli, l.'i A. R. 6'M; 
 Regina -•. LixUharU; I .S. (;. R. 117, reforrwl to. 
 Ufijiua V. diiij of LoiiduH, 15 A. R. 414. 
 
 (^uiero, whether in any case of niisdumounoor 
 a new trial can now bu granted, (J. H. U. C 
 e. 12. 112, li;i-32 & ;« Viet. c. 29, a. 80 
 (l)oin.). Ih. 
 
 XXVI. Kkkok. 
 
 See liiijiiui v. Uoixlman, 2 O. R. 408, p. 
 447 : (iDiMliiian v. Hfi/ina, 3 O. R. 18, p. 447 ; 
 AV,7,M„, V. O'Hotirkt, .'12 C. P. 388, p. 448 ; H. 
 C. I (). R. 4tJ4, |). 449. 
 
 XXVII. Al-I-EAL. 
 
 I. To /'rii'i/ Council. 
 
 The rule of the privy council is not to gruit 
 leav(> to appeal in criniinal casus except where 
 Slime clear departure from thu ruquiremunta of 
 jiistiet! is alleged to have t<ikuii place. Kiel v. 
 Thi: Qiuai, 10 App. ('as. 075. 
 
 See 51 Vict. c. 43 (Doni.). 
 
 2. To Siiprcnu Court ofCatmda. 
 
 The only appellate power conferred on the 
 Hupremo ('ourt in criminal coHes is by suctioD 
 49 of the Supreme and F^xche(|uer C^ourtH Act 
 which limits appeals in criminal coses to those 
 of the highest ini|>ortiincc, and dotis not impose 
 on thu court the duty of ruvisal in matters of 
 fact of all siiinmary convictions before magis- 
 trates. In i-eANliiui Ttepaiiwr, I2S. C. R. HI. 
 
 XXVIII. Ari'KKHKN.SION ANI> AKKK.ST <»K Or- 
 KK.NDKKS. 
 
 The prisoner was arrested in Toronto, upon 
 information contained in a telegram from Kug- 
 land, charging him with having committed a 
 felony in that country, and stating that a war- 
 rant had been issued there for his arrest : — Held, 
 that a person cannot, under the Imperial Act 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 34, legally be arrested or detained 
 here for an offence committed out of Canada, 
 unless upon a warrant issued where the offence 
 was committed, and endorsed by a judge of a 
 superior court in this country. Such warrant 
 must disclose a felony according to the law of 
 this co\intry, and Sunible, that the expression 
 "felony, to wit, larceny," is insufticient. The 
 prisoner was therefore discharged, lieyina v. 
 McHolme, 8 I*. R. 452. —Cameron. 
 
 See Uamillon v. Maume, 18 O. R. 585, p. 215. 
 
 XXIX. Bail. 
 
 The recognizance entered into by tlie defen- 
 dants on the removal of the proceedings from the 
 sittings of oyer and terminer and general gaol 
 delivery, to the Queen's liench Division of the 
 High Court, provided that they should "appear 
 
4» 
 
 OBOPS. 
 
 456 
 
 in this court and answer and coni))ly with any 
 judgment which may lie given upon or in refer- 
 once to a certain indictment, etc., or upon or 
 in reference to the demurrer to such indictnient, 
 and plead to said indictment if so required." 
 Per AVilson, C. J. Seniblu, that the practice 
 and procedure before the Juilicuturc Act should 
 be maintainted in its entirety ; though possibly 
 it might be varied by agreement. By the recog- 
 nizance th . defendants had not agreed to vary 
 it, but the5 might thereunder elect to appear and 
 answer to the indictment, or to appear and aigue 
 the demurrer ; and they, being ready to api)car 
 and answer the indictment, would fully per- 
 form the condition of the recognizance by so 
 doing. Regina v. Bunting, 7 0. R. 118. 
 
 Held, that a judge of the High Couit has 
 power under section 83 of the Criminal Pro- 
 cedure Act, K. S. C. c. 174, to admit to bail in 
 cases wliere the accused has not been finally 
 committed for trial if he " think it right so to 
 do ;" but in this case, the cliarge being a serious 
 one, the magistrate before whom the prisoner 
 appeared, having refused to admit biin to bail, 
 aiul no depositions having been taken, an order 
 for bail was refused. Jieyini v. Cox, Hi O. 15. 
 228.— MacMahon. 
 
 granted in such a case, such as the postpone- 
 ment of the trial or a new trial. Il>. 
 
 Kxiilcnce that defendant was private prose- 
 cutor in an action by pluintitl's to recover costs 
 under 1{. .S. C. c. 8, s. 111. See 3Iay v. Neid, 
 Hi A. K. 150. 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 COSTO AND KXI'KNSES OF CRIMINAF, 
 JUKISDICTION. 
 
 Held, that the liability of the crown to the 
 payment of expenses connected with the admin- 
 istration ui criminal justice in the province out 
 of the consolidated revenue fund is restricted, 
 under R. S. O. (1877), c 8(), s. 1, to such ex- 
 penses as are mentioned in tiie schedule to the 
 Act ; and that the county, uniler R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 85, is required to pay all other proper expenses 
 connected therewith. He Fnilon and Ihf: liofuu 
 o/Andit of the County of YoH; 31 C. P. 31.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Where the account of the county attorney of 
 York, for the quarter ending 31st JJecend)er, 
 1879, for expenses connected with the adminis- 
 tration of criminal justice, was audited by the 
 county board of audit and paid, but certain of 
 the items were disallowed by the provincial 
 treasurer as not payable by the Crown out of 
 the consolidated revenue fund, not being con- 
 tained in the schedule, and the board of audit, 
 therefore, in auditing the county attorney's ac- 
 count for a subsequent quarter, deducted there- 
 from the amount of said disallow lid items, a 
 mandamus was granted to the board to rescind 
 their order for such reduction. Jb. 
 
 See In re Stanton and the Board of Audit Jor 
 the County qf Elgin, 3 0. E. 86, p. 405. 
 
 XXXIT. Private Prosecutor.s. 
 
 1. Liability for Co8tn. 
 
 Where an indictment for obstructing a high- 
 way had been removed by certiorari, at the m- 
 st(\nce of the private prosecutor, into this court, 
 and the defendant had been acquitted :— Held, 
 that there was no power to impose payment of 
 costs on such prosecutor. Jivgina v. IJart, 45 
 Q. B. l.-Q. B, I). 
 
 The Court, however, has power to make pay- 
 ment of costs a condition of any indulgence 
 
 CROPS. 
 
 I'he plaintiff, who had been married in 1864, 
 cultivated land living upon it with her husband 
 an<l working it under his advice, one-half of 
 which had in 1874 been devised to her by the 
 father of her husband, the other half having 
 been in like manner devised to her son. In au 
 int':rpltader action brought by her against an 
 execution creditor of her husband : — Held, aliirm- 
 ing the judgment of the court below, (4G Q. B. 
 52,) that the plaintiff was entitled to the crops 
 on the whole farm as agf.inst the execution credi- 
 tor. Iiiijram v. Taylor, 7 A. R. 210. 
 
 Upon default made in payment of a mortgage 
 the mortgagee has the unquestionable right to 
 take possession of the property in the state in 
 which it then is as to crops, and to hold the 
 whole as his security. Therefore, when land 
 was sold in July under a decree made in a mort- 
 gage suit, without any reservation of crops :— 
 Held, that the purchaser took all that the mort- 
 gagee could beneficially hold possession of, and 
 was entitled to the unsecured growing crops, 
 mature and immature. MclJuwull v. rhipiM\, 
 1 O. R. 143.-Chy. D. 
 
 Crops to be sown upon certain land may be 
 the subject of sale, as any other after-acquired 
 property, and the property in them will pass, 
 when sown, if they arc so described as to be 
 capable 'leing identified when acquired. Urass 
 V. Aut' ,i, 7 A. R. 511. 
 
 As to growing cropr comprised in chattel 
 mortgages. See J/k :ulton v. IlurriHoii, 4(J Q. B. 
 127 ; Laimj v. Ontario Loan and Sarinyn Cu.,4^ 
 i). B. 114; Grass V. Anntin, 7 A. R. 511 ; Came- 
 ron V. Vihson, 17 O. R. 233. 
 
 Construction of provisions in lease as to crops. 
 See Harrison v. Pinknei/, A. R. 225. 
 
 C. being in default on his mortgage of realty 
 to the plaintitl's, in Ajiril, 1882, gave tlicin a 
 chattel mortgage, in ccniaideration ot which they 
 agreed to allow him to remain in possession and 
 take the year's crop. On the 2nd July, 1S82, 
 the plaintiffs took formal possession of the land. 
 On the 17th July, 1882, the defendant, having 
 obtained judgment against C. , placed a ti. fa. in 
 the hands of the sherifr, who seized the grcwing 
 crops on the land in question on the same d.iy, 
 and sold them in August. The plaintiffs had 
 commenced ejectment proceedings on the 15th 
 June, and they signed judgment on the 30th 
 September, in the iame year. The plaintiffa 
 claimed the crops, and an interpleader issue was 
 tried :— Held, atfirming the judgment of the 
 Common Pleas Division, (5 O. R. 371), that the 
 defendant had the right on the 17th July, by 
 virtue of the agreement made in April, to seize 
 the crops, as C. » property. The seizure and sale 
 having taken place before the judgment in eject- 
 ment, the rule that the judgment related back o 
 the day of the coumjeucenient of the action, i.<> 
 
 457 
 
 as to make C. 
 could not ava 
 dint and Liiu 
 2.">0. 
 
 Action to re 
 the value of a I 
 witli weed pn 
 
 of injury— jo'i 
 v. Fr<i', 13 (). 
 
 Growing cr 
 sion and int<.' 
 being fructns 
 unilcr cxeouti 
 not i'.n interes 
 the statute of 
 delivery to tli 
 the owner, an 
 the act of the 
 Registry Act 
 peiidcntly of 
 transfer them, 
 severance at 
 piiss to the pn 
 0. K. 233.— St 
 
 A. C, owner 
 to a loan comj); 
 successive mor 
 1S77, A. C. SOX 
 la .lanuary, l> 
 tiiia wheat to 
 properly registi 
 the iiarvcst, un 
 veycd to H. th 
 to what was <li 
 sniiiU adilition 
 to H. Ou Apr 
 perty to A. J. 
 wheat was ripe 
 but (r. sent anil 
 gage, and ,V. J 
 recover its valu 
 conveyance fro 
 mortgagee, wer( 
 strongly against 
 the mortgage d« 
 (l.'s rights as cl 
 point of time t( 
 must he dismisi 
 doul)t have had 
 the crops as pai 
 
 Sec Cknivr 
 Moiiijaije Co,, 
 17 0. li. 525. 
 
 01 
 
 See Siii'i 
 
457 
 
 CROWN. 
 
 458 
 
 pone- 
 
 as to make C. liiinself a trespasser from tliatdate, 
 coulil not avail the plaiiititl's. Ilnmillon Pruni- 
 ihiit and Loan Suricii/ v. Cam/ibell, 12 A. R. 
 2.')0. 
 
 Action to recover damages for depreoiation in 
 the value of a farm, caused Ijy sowinjj seed, mixed 
 with weed purchasi'd from defendant — evidence 
 of injury —joinder of mortgagee. See McMiillen 
 V. Fn<; 13 O. R. 57. 
 
 Growing cr<Ji)S .sown by the jjerson in posses- 
 sion and intended to be reaped at maturity, 
 huing fructus industriales, are chattels seizable 
 uniler execution, and the ownership of ihcrr. !» 
 not ;in interest in land within the 4th section of 
 tlie statute of frauds. Tliey are Ixmnd by the 
 delivery to the sheriff of an execution against 
 the owner, and they must equally be l)ound by 
 tlie act of the owner. They are not witliin the 
 Registry Act l)ecause they are eliattels inde- 
 pendently of the form of the agreement to 
 tr.insfer tiicm, and of tlie period before or after 
 severance at whicli tlie property in tbem is to 
 pass to the pnrcliaser. Camtrou v. (I'ihuoii, 17 
 0. H. 2.S3.— Street. 
 
 A. C, owner of certain lanils, mortgaged them 
 to a loan company, and afterwards executed two 
 successive mortgages to one H. Afterwards, in 
 1877, A. C. sowed a ((uantity of fall wheat, anil 
 in .l.inuary, IHSS, m;ide a chattel mortg.age of 
 this wheat to (J., whicli cliiittel mortgage w.".3 
 properly registered. On April 4th, 18SS, before 
 the liarvest, under pressure from II., A. C con- 
 veyed to H. tlie lauds for a consideration eipial 
 to wiiat was due on tlie three mortgages, and a 
 sniiill additionil iiusecured debt due from him 
 to H. On April the M\, ISSS, H. leased the pro- 
 perty to A. J. C for a year. When the fall 
 wheat was ripe A. J. C. cut anil iiarvested it, 
 hut (r, sent and seized it under his chattel mort- 
 g,ago, and A. J. C. now brought this action to 
 recover its value : — liehl, tliat on his taking the 
 ciniveyance from A. C, the rights of H., as 
 mortgagee, were merged, for the eviileuco pointed 
 8triinj.;'.y against an intention on ids part that 
 the mortgage debts should remain, and tiiereforo 
 (i.'s rights as ciiattel mortgagee became pi'ior in 
 point of time to the title of H., and the action 
 must be dismissed. As mortgagee H. would no 
 (ioulit have had the right to take possession of 
 the ci'ops as part of his security, fb. 
 
 See Clcaivr v. Nurth of Scnifaii'l Canadian 
 Moiiyaoe Co,, 27 Chy. rM ; O'XcHl i\ On-ai, 
 17 <). li. .520. 
 
 CROSS INTERROQATORIES. 
 
 See EVIDENCB. 
 
 CROSS PETITIONS. 
 
 .Vee Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 CROSS ACTION. 
 
 iSVi; Action. 
 
 CROSS APPEALS. 
 
 See Sri'KEME Court of Canada. 
 
 CROSS BILL. 
 
 Stt Plbadinci. 
 
 CROWN. 
 
 I. I'krocativk, 4.18. 
 
 II. ClIMI'ENSATION FOR LAND TAO'- OR 
 
 In.iuuei), 4ri9. 
 
 III. LlAnil.ITY FOR TOUTH, 461. 
 
 IV. Miscellaneous Cases, 461. 
 V. Escheat— See Escheat. 
 
 VI. Petition ok Right— .S'ce Te/ttion of 
 
 RliillT. 
 
 VII. Crown Lands— 5ee Crown Land.s. 
 
 V^III. Crown Timukk—.SVc Crown Lands. 
 
 L\. PfiE.scuii'TioN AiiAiNST THE Crown — See 
 LiMiT.vnoN OF Actions. 
 
 X. CcsTo.Ms— 5tc Revenue. 
 
 1. 1'11ER0<!.\TIVE. 
 
 The Bank of Prince Edward Island became 
 insolvent and a winding-up order w.is made on 
 the 19th June, 18S2. At the time of its insol- 
 vency the bank was indebted to Her Majesty in 
 the sum of $!):$, 494.20, being part of the public 
 moneys of (janida which had been deposited by 
 several departments of the government to the 
 credit of tiie recoiver-gencal. The first claim 
 j tiled by the minister of finance at the re({ue8t of 
 J the respondents (lii|uidator8 of the bank) did not 
 ; specially notify the liipiidators that Her Majesty 
 ! would insist upon the privilege of being paid in 
 I full. Two dividends of fifteen per cent, each 
 I were afterwards paid, and on tiie 2Sth February, 
 ; 18S4, there was a balance due of $60,420.95. Oa 
 I tliat day the res(>ondents were notified that Her 
 I Majesty intended to insist upon her prerogative 
 I riglit to be paid in full. At this time the liqui- 
 I dators had in their hands a sum suflicidntto pay 
 I in full Her Majesty's claim. The following ob- 
 jection to the claim was allowed by tho Supreme 
 Court of Prince Edward Island, viz. : " That 
 Her Majesty the Queen, represented by the min- 
 ister of finance and the receiver-general, has 
 no prerogative or other right Ut receive from the 
 li(piidators of the bank of r'rin.;e Edward Island 
 the whole amount due to Her Majesty , .ts claimed 
 by the proof thereof, and has only a right to 
 receive dividends as an ordinary creditor of the 
 above banking company. On appeal to the Su- 
 preme Court of C'anada : — Held, reversing the 
 judgmcntof tho court below, (l)tliab the Crown, 
 claiming as a simple contract creditor has a 
 right to priority ovei' other creditors of equal 
 degree. This prerogative privilege IkjIoubs to 
 the Crown as representing the Dominion of Can- 
 ada, when claiming as a creditor of a provincial 
 corporation in a provincial court, and is not 
 taken away in proceedings in insolvency by 45 
 
 
 
CROWN. 
 
 460^ 
 
 Vict. c. 23 ; (2) that the Crown had not waived 
 its right to be preferred in this case by the form 
 in M'hich the claim was made, and by the accep- 
 tance of two dividends. Reijina v. The Bank of 
 Nova Scotia, 11 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 The prerogatives of the Crown exist in British 
 colonies to the same extent as iu tho United King- 
 dom. The Queen v. Bank of Nona Scotia, 1 1 
 S. C. R. 1, followed. Liquhlafors oj the Mari- 
 time Bank v. The Queen, 17 S. C. U. C57. 
 
 The Queen is the head of the constitutional 
 government of Canada, and in matters affect- 
 ing the Dominion at large, lier ])rerogative8 are 
 exercised by the Dominion government, ib. 
 
 The Crown prerogatives can only l)c taken 
 away by express statutory enactment. There- 
 fore Her Majesty's right to payment in full of 
 a claim against the assels of an insolvent bank 
 in priority to all other creditors, is not inter- 
 fered with by the provision of the Bank Act 
 (K. S. C. c. 120, 8. 70), giving note holders a iirst 
 lien on such assets, the Crown not being named 
 in such enactment. Gwynnc and Patterson, 
 JJ., contra : — Held, per Gwynnc, J., that under 
 legislation of the old Pro\ince of Canada, left 
 unrepealed by the B. N. A. Act, no such pre- 
 rogative could be claimed in the 1 lovinces of 
 Ontario and Quebec ; the court would not, 
 therefore, be justified in holding that such a 
 right attached, under the B. N. A. Act, in one 
 Province of Canada whicii docs not exist in 
 them all. Ib. 
 
 An insurance companj-, in order to deposit 
 J50,000witli the minister of finance and receive 
 a license to do business in Canada, according to 
 the provisions of the Insurance Act (R. S. C. 
 r 124), deposited the money in a bank and for- 
 warded the deposit rcceijit to the minister. The 
 money in the bank drew interest which, by 
 arrangement, was received by the company. 
 The bank having failed the government claimed 
 payment in full of this money as money deposi- 
 ted by the Crown :— Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the court below, Strong, J., dissenting, 
 that it was not the money of the Crown but was 
 hehl by the finance minister in trust for the 
 company ; it was not, therefore, subject to the 
 prerogative of payment in full in priority to 
 other creditors, fb. 
 
 See Clarknon v. Aftornei/deneral of Canada, 
 15 O. R. 682 ; 16 A. R. 202. 
 
 II. COMPKNSATION tOK LaNDS TakEN OH 
 InJUKF.I), 
 
 The government of Canada, having taken the 
 land of the defendant's testator for the purposes 
 of the Welland canal, paid into court, under the 
 atatutc, a sum awarded by the va'uers, intended 
 to cover all claims which the owner might have 
 of any kind. The owner was to be at liberty 
 to remove buildings, etc., and on jiayment 
 of the money to convey free from all other 
 incumbrances, including taxes. The plaintiff 
 was lessee of the property so taken, and claimed 
 compensation for disturbance :— Held, that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to compensation out of 
 the money paid into court, and that his claim 
 was one which the owner was liable, under .S? 
 Vict. c. 1.1, 8. 1 (l)om.)i to pay, and which I 
 shoald have lieen taken into consideration, and I 
 
 which the evidence shewed had been taken 
 into consideration, in settling the amount to 
 be paid by the government on taking posses- 
 sion of the lands. In re the Welland Canal 
 Enlarriement— Fitch v. McBae, 29 Chy. 139.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 When land is taken under authority of legis- 
 lative provisions similar to Revised Statutes of 
 Nova Scotia, 4th series, c. 3(i, s. 40 et serj., the 
 compensation money, as regards the capacity of 
 married women to ileal with it, is still to be re- 
 garded in eijuity as land. Kcarnei/ v. Kecni, 3 
 S. C. R. 332. 
 
 T. C. S. devised his estate of Clark Hill, with 
 the islands, lands, and grounds appertaining, to 
 his nephew M. M. 'a grandmother by her will, 
 directed her executors to pay him $2,000 a year 
 so long as he should remain the owner and actual 
 occupant of Clark Hill, "to enable him the better 
 to keep up, decorate, and beautify the property 
 known as Clark Hill, and the islands connected 
 therewith:" — Held, that the expropriation, 
 under an Act of the legislature, of a part of the 
 Clark Hill estate, did not in any way affect M.'s 
 right to this annuity ; and therefore in awarding 
 compensation to M. for the lands expropriated 
 the arbitrators properly excluded the considera- 
 tion of any contemplated loss by M. of this 
 annuity, hi re Muckltni and the Commis-iiomrit 
 of the Niaijara Fallx Park, 14 A. R. 20. 
 
 A failure by M. to reside and occupy would 
 be in the nature of a forfeiture for breach of a 
 condition subsequent, and his right to the annuity 
 would continueabsolute until something occurred 
 to divest the estate which must be by his own 
 act or default ; the vis major of a binding statute 
 could not work a forfeiture. Upon the evidence 
 the court refused to interfere with the amount 
 of compensation awarded. Ib. 
 
 The statute 48 Vict. c. 21 (Ont. ), does not em- 
 power the commissioners appointed thereunder 
 to expropriate the rights of a road company or 
 to close up any part of the road for the pur- 
 poses of the Niagara Falls Park. Re Niaijara 
 Falls Park— Fuller's Caxc, 14 A. R. 6r). 
 
 The statute 4S Vict. c. 21 (Out.), authorized 
 the taking of land for the purpose of a pul)lic 
 park, and defined land, as including "any par- 
 cel of land, stream, * * and any easemcut 
 in any land." There was no express provision 
 for compensation for lands injuriously affected, 
 the compensation, price, or value mentioned in 
 the Act, being only for the land taken. Four- 
 teen acres of an estate of tiiirtytliree acres 
 owned by H. were taken for tlie pari-. The 
 thirty-three acres were separated by a road 
 from another fir()i)erty ott-ned by 11. and leased 
 ))y iiim for the purposes of an hotel for a term 
 of twenty years from Fel)rHary, 18S1. The 
 water sujjply for tiie hotel was. and iuid been 
 for thirty years, derived from springs on the 
 fourteen acres. The court refused to interfere 
 with the amount of compensation awarded, and 
 the ajjpcal was therefore dismissed, except as to 
 the (pirstion of the supply of water for the 
 hotel property. As to that, it being an ease- 
 ment which i)as8ed to the tenant under the 
 lease, and being "land" within the meaning of 
 tlic Act, the fourteen acres might be expropria- 
 teil, leaving the easement to be enjoyed by B. 
 as appurtenant to the hotel property ; or it 
 
 461 
 
 might be ext 
 be a proper si 
 appearing up( 
 whether or r 
 award was rel 
 under the cirt 
 party. Per 
 statute made 
 gating the o\ 
 taken, it was 
 tionately to tl 
 diminution ir 
 gociated fron 
 arbitrators wi 
 in determinii 
 Re Bwh and 
 Falls Park, 1 
 
 See Tylee v 
 Queen v. Re</i 
 Canal— Re " 
 the Wharf," 1 
 
 III 
 
 The maxim 
 applies to allc 
 a public dep; 
 Mill Co. v. T 
 
 As to liabil 
 of its servant 
 C. U. 210. 
 
 For misfeas 
 MeLcod, 8 S. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Proceeding! 
 ing debtor foi 
 gina v. Sterna 
 
 I'er Ritchie 
 nor tiie clerk 
 officer iu char 
 miniiin of Cai 
 express or in 
 Crown to any 
 ally authorize 
 tract duly eir 
 the contractoi 
 the specific n 
 terms of the 
 4 S. C. R. 52! 
 
 Forfeiture i 
 porationscon 
 See AtcDiani 
 
 S. et al. ni 
 the Queen, re 
 works, for t 
 lump sum. 
 a final estima 
 and payment 
 ferred u clain 
 in inch final < 
 JD the constn 
 changes and 
 engineer of b< 
 cording to tl 
 new contract 
 versing the 
 exchefiuer, I 
 
461 
 
 GROWN LANDS. 
 
 462 
 
 might be extinguished, in which case it would 
 be a proper subject for compensation, and it not 
 appearing upon the material before tlie court 
 whether or not this had been conwidered, the 
 award was referred back to tiie arbitrators, but 
 under the circumstances without costs to cither 
 party. Per Patterson, J. A., although the 
 statute made no express provision for compen- 
 sating the owner for the part of his land not 
 taken, it was fair and reasonable to add propor- 
 tionately to the price of the part taken for any 
 diminution in value of the part left when dis- 
 sociated from the other ; and therefore the 
 arbitrators were riglit in acting upon that view 
 in determining the amount of compensation. 
 Re Buxh and the ComiiiiifnioncrK of llw Nio<juru 
 Falls Park; 14 A. 1{. 73. 
 
 See Tyke v. The Queen. 7 S. C. R. 6.51 ; Mc- 
 Queen V. Jteijiiia, 16 8. C. R. 1 ; ]{e Trent Vo/Zi-i/ 
 Canal— He " Witter Street" and "the lioad to 
 the Wharf," no. R. 687. 
 
 III. LiABiMi V FOR Torts. 
 
 The maxim that the Crown can do no wrong 
 applies to alleged tf)rtious acts of the officers of 
 a public department of Ontario. See Mn.'<kvka 
 Mill Co. V. The (Jaeiu, 28 Chy. ~)<3X 
 
 As to liability of the ( 'rown for the negligence 
 of its servants. See Ji'e</ina v. McFiirlane, 7 S. 
 C. U. 216. 
 
 For misfeasance of its servants. See Itei/iua 
 McLeoil, 8 S. {'. R. 1. 
 
 IV. Miscellaneous Cases. 
 
 Proceedings by attachment ag'iiiist abscond- 
 ing debtor for debt due to tile Crown. See I'e- 
 gina v. Steimrt, 8 I'. It. 207, p. 2. 
 
 Per Ritchie, (!. .J. That ncitiier the engineer 
 nor tlie clerk of the works, nor any aubordiiu'te 
 oBicer in charge of any of the works of the Do- 
 minion of Caniula, liave any (xiwcr or authoi'ity, 
 express or imiiliud under tlie law, to bind the 
 Crown to any contract or exj)enditurc not .speci- 
 ally authorized l)y tiie express terms of tlie con 
 tract duly entered into lietween tlie Crown and 
 the contractor according to law, and then only in 
 the specific manner proviiled for by tlie express 
 terms of the contract. O'lirien v. The Qiicni, 
 4 S. C. R. r>20. 
 
 Forfeiture by the Crown of lands held by cor- 
 porations contrary to the statutes of niortniaiii. 
 See MrDiarmid v. Jlmjhen, Hi O. R. 57<t. 
 
 S. et al. made a contr.ict with Her .Majesty 
 the Queen, represented by the minister of public 
 works, for the construction of a bridge for a 
 lump sum. After the completion of the bridge 
 a final estimate was given liy the ciiief engineer, 
 and payment thereof made, but S. et m. pre- 
 ferred u claim for the value of work, not included 
 in such final estimate, alleged to have lieen done 
 in the construction of the bridge, and caused by 
 changes and alterations ordered by the cliief 
 engineer of so radical a nature as to create, ac- 
 cording to the contention of the claimants, a 
 new contrnit between the parties :— Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of Henry, J., in the 
 excheiiuer, Fournier, J., dissenting, that the 
 
 engineer could not make a new contract binding 
 on the crown ; that the claim came within the 
 original contract and the provisions thereof 
 which made the certificate of the chief engineer 
 a condition precedent to recovery, and such cer- 
 tificate not having been obtained, the claim must 
 be dismissed. Jteijina v. Staim, 17 S. C. R. 118. 
 
 The Crown having referred the claim to arbi- 
 tration instead of insisting throughout on its 
 strict legal rights, no costs were allowed. Jb. 
 
 Semble, per Gwynne, J. There is no sound 
 reason why the government of the Dominion 
 should not be bound by the judgment of a court 
 of justice in a suit to which the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral, as representing the government, was a, 
 party defendant, equally as any individual 
 would be, if tlie relief prayed by the informa- 
 tion is sought in the same interest and upon the 
 same grounds as wi're adjudicated upon by the 
 judgment in the former suit. Fonseca, v. At- 
 torney -Oentral of Canada, 17 S. C. R. 612. 
 
 See Mc Arthur v. The Queen, 10 0. R. 191, p. 472. 
 
 CROWN LANDS. 
 
 Property of the Dominion or Prov- 
 inces — See CoNsTiTursoNAL Law. 
 
 Dominion Lands Act, 462. 
 Free (iiiASTs and Homesteads Acr,464. 
 Crown Patents. 
 \. Generally, 465. 
 
 2. De.fcripfioii of Land in Patenfu—See 
 Deed. 
 
 R lOHTs before Is,sue of Patent, 466. 
 
 Rllil'TS OF(iRANTEHS, 466. 
 
 Cancellation of Patent, 4(i7. 
 Minerals, 468. 
 Crown Timher. 
 
 1. Rhjht^ of Loratiex, 469. 
 
 2. liiijiits of LicinHeii', 470. 
 
 HuiHWATS VE-STED in TIIE CltOWN, 472. 
 
 Indian Lands— .Sec Indian Lands. 
 
 Ordnance Lands— Sep Ordnance Lands 
 — Rideac Canal. 
 
 AssE.'isMENT OF — .SVe Asse.ssment and 
 Ta.xes. 
 
 Possession of— .9ec Limitation of Ac- 
 tions. 
 
 Powers of Railway Comvanii'.s— Sm 
 Railways AND Railway C^o.mpa^ies. 
 
 II. Dominion Lands Act. 
 
 The plaintiff in his bill of complaint, alleged 
 in the sixth paragraph as follows : " Prior to the 
 1st of May, 187'), the plaintiff made application 
 to homestead the said lands in rpiestion herein, 
 and procured proper affidavits, according to the 
 statute, whereby lie proved to the satisfaction of 
 the dominion lands agent in that behalf (and 
 the plaintiff charges the same to be true), that 
 
 IL 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 V!L 
 
 Vlll. 
 
 I.\. 
 
 X. 
 
 XL 
 XIL 
 
 XI I L 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
^ 
 
 463 
 
 GROWN LANDS. 
 
 m 
 
 -'«-3'i 
 
 the Siiiil (Icfendaiit Fiiniier luul never sottleil on 
 <jr improved tlie said lands assumed to l)e liome- 
 Hteadud )>y liitii or tliu lands herein in tiuestion, 
 but had been absent tlieruf i oni continuously since 
 his pretended honicsteading and |>recniption en- 
 tries, and tllereupon liie claim of the defendant 
 Fanner under the said entries became and was 
 forthwith forfeited, and any i)reteiuled rights of 
 the defendant Farmer thereunder ceased, and the 
 plaintiff tliereunder, on or about the 8th -Nfay, 
 1875, and then and there with the assent and liy 
 the (lirection of the dominion lands agent, who 
 caused the s;inie to be picpared for the plaintiff', 
 signed an application for liomestcad right to the 
 lands in (jnestion in thissuit,acci>rding toforniA, 
 mentioned in 35 Vict. c. '2'.i, s. ',i\i, and did make 
 and swear to an alHdavil according to form B, 
 mentioneil in section 'A'.i, suit-section 7, of the 
 same Act, and <lid i):iy to the same agent the 
 homestead fee of SI", who accepted and received 
 the same as the liomestcad fee, and thereupon 
 the plaiiitiir was infoiincd that he had done all 
 that was necessary or rcijniied for him to do 
 nnder the statute anil tlie regul.itious of tlie de- 
 partment, and that tlic statute said : Upon 
 making this atliilavil and tiling it, and on jtay- 
 ment of an oflice fee of SIO (for whicii he shall 
 receive a recei|)t from the agent), he should be 
 permitted to enter the lands specified in the 
 ap]dicatiiin ; and theniii)on, and in pnrsnance 
 theroiif, and in good faith, tiie plaintid' didfoith- 
 with enter iiiion said land and take actual 
 ))ossession thereof, and liis ever since remained 
 in actual i>cc\ipation tliercof, and has erected a 
 ho\ise and other liuildings thereon, cleareil a 
 large portion of the said lands and fenced ami 
 cultivated the same, and made many othei' 
 valuable iui|)rovements tiicrcon, coating in tlie 
 aggregate !?!,000.'" On demurrer for want of 
 eijuity : — Held, reversing the jadgmeut of the 
 court lielow and allowing the deuinrrer, that the 
 plaintiirhad no locus stindi tf> attack the validity 
 of the ]i.itciit issued by the crown to the defen- 
 dant, as he had not alleged a suHicient interest 
 or rigiit to the land thei'ein mentioned, within 
 the meaning of section tlO, or of sub-sections 7 
 and S of section 'Xi of .V) Vict. c. 21$, there being 
 no allegation that an entry of a homoatead right 
 in the lands in question had been made, and 
 that plaintiff ha<l been autlioii/.ed to take pos- 
 session of the land by the agent, or by some one 
 having authority to do so on liehalf of the crown, 
 or a suflicient allegation that the crown was 
 ignorant of the f.auts of ])laintitl"s possession and 
 improvements. (Taschcreau and (iwyiine, J.I., 
 dissenting.) Fanner v. LiriiKi-'lone, 8 8. C. R. 
 140. 
 
 On the 'ilst November, 1881, Sinnott et al. 
 obtained a permit from the crown timber agent, 
 Manitoba, "to ent, take and have tor their own 
 use from that part of range 10 R that extends 
 five miles north and live miles south of the Cana- 
 dian I'aeilic Railway track," the following (pian- 
 titiesof timber : 'J,000 cords of wood and 25,000 
 ties; permit to expire Ist May, 1882. They ob- 
 tained another permit on the lOth February, 
 1882, to ent 25,000 ties. In February, 1882. 
 under leave granted by an order in council of 27tli 
 October, 1881, .Scoble et al. cut timber for the 
 pur|iose of the construction of the Canadian 
 FaciHc Railway from the lands covered by the 
 permitof the21stNovember, 1881. Sinnottctal., 
 by their bill of complaint, claimed to be entitled 
 
 : by their permit to the sole right of cutting timber 
 . on the said lands until the Ist May, 1882, aiul 
 I prayed that tlie defendants .Scoble et al, might 
 ' be restrained by injunction from cutting tiinuer 
 ^ on said lands, and might be ordei'cd to account 
 for the value of the timber cut. An interim in- 
 junction was granted against Scoble et al., who 
 , justified their acts under the order in council of 
 I the27lh October, 1881, and denied the exclusive 
 ))ossessi(m or title to the hinds or standing tinilier. 
 i The injunction was made perpetual by the judge 
 I who heard the cause, Imt, on rehearing, the judg- 
 ment was reversed, and it was ordered that an in- 
 [ (juiry should be made as to damages sulfered by 
 (lefeiidants by reason of the issueof the interim in^ 
 , junctiini at the instance of the plaintiffs : — Held, 
 j that the 4lecree made on ivhearing by the court 
 of (Queen's licncli, Manitoba, should be allirmed, 
 : un<l that the permit in (piestion did not come 
 within the ])rovisioiisof the Dominion l^uds Act 
 of 1870, and did not vest in Sinnott et al. (the 
 plaint ilfs), any estate, right or title in the tract 
 of land upon which they were ])ermitted to cut, 
 nor did it deprive the government from giving 
 like licenses or others of C(|ual authority toother 
 ])crsons, as long as there was sufiicient timber to 
 satisfy the reciiiirements of the plaiiitilfs' licenses. 
 .Siiiitu'l/ V. SaMc, 11 .S. C. U. 571. 
 
 111. Free Grants and Homesteads Act. 
 
 By It. .S. 0. (IS77),c. 24, free grants of lands 
 for hoinestoads are only authorized to bo made 
 to men. /^o;/t< v. Loirfhiaii, 27 Chy. 55^, — 
 I'rouilfoot. 
 
 The plaintiff was, in March, 18S4, hicated as 
 the i)uichascr of a lot in the township of Bur- 
 leigh, and obtained a patent therefor in Xovem- 
 ber, 18S8, the patent l)eing in the usual form of 
 a patent in fee to a purchaser, without any 
 reservation of timber or any reference to the 
 " Free (Jrants and Hon\estea<ls -Vet." The de- 
 fenilants, assuming to iict nnder a timber license 
 issued in May, 1SS8, covering this and other 
 lots, entered upon the lot after the issue of the 
 
 1)atent ami took timl)er therefrom. In the 
 icense the lot was referreil to as " located and 
 sold." The township of Burleiirh w.is within 
 the geographical limits describe! in .secticm 4 of 
 the Free (Jrants and Homesteads Act, II. 8. 0. 
 (1887) e. 25, but had never been appropriated or 
 set apart as free grant lands nnder the pro- 
 visions of that Act : — Held, that tlie lot was not 
 i "land located or S(dil within the limits of the 
 ! free grant territory," within the meaning of 
 that Act, and that the patent was not subject to 
 the reservations as to timber in that Act con- 
 tained. The expression "Free t J rant Territory" 
 in section 10 does not refer to the whole terri- 
 tory or tract defined in section 4, but only to 
 such portion of that territory or tract as may be 
 actually set apart and appropriated by the Lieu- 
 tenant(Jovernor in council under the Act: — 
 Held, further, that there being no actual reser- 
 vation in the patent the defendants had no rijjht 
 to cut the timber after its i.ssue, and were liable 
 in damages. Judgment of MacMahon, J., af- 
 firmed. iShairp v. Lahjicld Lumber Co., 17 A, 
 R. 322. 
 
 The defendant was locatee of curtain lands 
 umler the Free Grants and Homesteads Act, R. 
 S. O. (1887)c. 25, and duly obtained patents there- 
 
465 
 
 CROWN LANDS. 
 
 466 
 
 for. Afterwards he ami hin wife sold and con- 
 veyed parts of the land, he taking back mort- 
 gages to secure the purchase money : — Held, that 
 the mortgages were not interests in the land ex- 
 empt from levy under execution within the 
 meaning of section 20, suhscctiun 2. The ex- 
 emption extends to the land or any part tliereof 
 or interest therein, so hmg as it is iicld by the 
 original locatitm title, whether before or after 
 patent; but where there liJis been a valid alie- 
 nation, a mortgage taken by the original looatee 
 <loes not vest in him (juii locatoe. The word 
 "interest" used in the sub-section does not ex- 
 tend to the chattel interest of a mortgagee. 
 <7(i«H v. Kmit el iix., 19<>. R. 422. — ISoyd. Af- 
 firmed 20 0. R. 294.-(?. 15. I). 
 
 Plaintiff was a locatee of a free grant and 
 Jiomestead lot, which, at the time he located it, 
 in May, 1S77, was subject to a regulation of an 
 order in council of the 27tii of May, ISO!), pro- 
 viding that holders of tinilier licen.ses siiould 
 have the right to haul tjieir timber or logs over 
 the uncleared portion of any land so located, and 
 to make necessary roads tiiercon for tiiat purpose, 
 ■etc. The patent in favour of plaintiff was issued 
 in June, 188.S, and contained only the usual ' 
 reservations of mines, minerals and navigable j 
 waters. The defendant was the holder of a ' 
 timber license issueil after the date of the tiatcnt, ' 
 and justified the trespasses coni|ilainod of under ' 
 the authority of the f)rder in council : — Held, 
 attirming KH). R. 2.")J, th:it tlieonly reservations 
 ■or exceptions from the grant were tliose men- 
 tioned in tiie patent, and tliat the plaintiflT's land 
 was not subject to the rciiulations of tlic order in 
 council. Semble, that sucli regulations ap|)ly 
 only before the issue of tlie patent to lands located 
 under the order in council, anil tlieii only so far 
 as rigiits of way, etc.. are expressly conferred 
 upon tiie licensee by the terms of ids license. 
 Dnnkiu v. Corkhurn', 15 A. It. 4!t3. 
 
 See Lamjmaid v. Mirkh, 16 (). R. 11 1, p. 470. 
 
 IV. Crown Patents. 
 
 1. flenerally. 
 
 Per Strong, .J., that when the crown has issued 
 the letters patent in view of all the facts, the grant 
 is conclusive, and a party cannut set up eipiitics 
 ■behind tlie patent. Fdrnur v. L!iiii<isloiii , 8 S. 
 C. R. 140. 
 
 Per Patterson, .J. A. — The rule that acceptance 
 is essential to the operation of an instrument 
 cannot be applied to letters patent from the 
 crown. Mojj'att v. Srrnlrh, 12 A. R. l.")7. 
 
 In a patent from the Crown, of lots 10 and 17, 
 in the llth conc<!ss!on of .Snowdon, the pateutee 
 Was described as '"a free grunt settler;" but the 
 patent on its face purported to grant the land ab- 
 solutely and unconditionally, and did not contain 
 the statements rct|uired by section 10 of the Free 
 Grants and Homesteads .Act, R. .S. (). (1877), c. 
 24 ; and there wa.s no evidence that the patentee 
 ever was a locatcc of the land \inder said Act, 
 •or that the Crown intended isstiing the patent 
 theieuuder : — Held, that the lanil must be 
 deemed to have lieen crantcd alisidutely and 
 unconditionally. ScmbTe, that the patent miglit 
 have issued under section 12 of the Public Lands 
 30 
 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 23. Canada PeriiiantiU 
 Loan and Saviwja Co. v. Taylor, 31 C. P. 41.— 
 Osier. 
 
 Held, that, in construing a patent, reference 
 might be had to papers in the crown lands office 
 connected with the application for the patent. 
 lirady v. Soilhr, 13 O. R. 402.— Proudfoot. 
 See S. C, 10 O. R. 49 ; 17 A. R. 305. 
 
 .See Kinw'dy v. City of Turoii'o, 12 O. R. 211, 
 p. 4'J3 ; Dunkinv. Cockhuru, 15 A. R. 493, p. 405. 
 
 V. Rl(iHT.S HEKORK ISSUK i>F PATENT. 
 
 The R. S. (). c. 25, s. 20 (1877,) declares that; 
 any mortgage or lien created by tlie mmiineesof 
 tlie crown iu lauds for whicli tlic patent has not 
 issued, shall in law and eiiuity iiave the same 
 force and effect, and no otiier, as if letters patent 
 had before the execution of such instrument 
 becu issued in favour of the grantor : — HeM, 
 tliat under this provision a mortgagor and mort- 
 gagee had all the rights and liabilities as be- 
 tween themselves, that they would have had, had 
 the fieeliold been actually vested in the mort- 
 gagor ; tiiat the mortgagor was entitled to set 
 up the statute of limitations against any one 
 claiming undersucii mortgage; tliat tlie exercise 
 of the power of sale by the mortgagee had not the 
 etl'ect of stopping the running of tlie statute, and 
 that the fact that the comniissioucr of crown 
 lauds before tlie issuing of the patent, had made a 
 meuiorandum in his "ruling" upon the claims 
 of the parties, that the sales made to them were 
 "not intended to cut out the right, if any, Dr. 
 Dickenson may have as such mortgagee," had 
 not the effect of cs,,oppiiig the mortgagor or 
 tliose chiiiniiig under him, from claiming the 
 beiielit of the statute. — S|u-.igge, C, dissenting. 
 Ii'(i/sO(( V. Lindmy, 27 Ciiy. 353. Atlirmed, 
 A. R. 00!). 
 
 .\ by-law i);issed by a municipal corporation 
 eamiot have the effect of t:iking any lands of the 
 Crown ill additiou to those appropriated by the 
 Crown for the pur|iose of highways in order to 
 the oiiciiiiig up of the country. Neither can par- 
 ties iu pos.session of crown lands before jiatent 
 issued dedicate any portiou of the same ; parties 
 so in possessicm, however, may so far bind thein- 
 .selves by their acts as tint when a patent shall 
 issue to them the lands granted would be bound 
 by any right or ea-jeneiit to which their sanc- 
 tion has been obtained. I!a< v. Trim, 27 Chy. 
 374.— Blake. 
 
 Where a person is iu pisscssion with the assent 
 of the Crown, paying rent, or where a person is 
 a purchaser, although the p;iteutlia3 not issued, 
 such per.son can maintain trespass against a 
 wrong-doer, liruyca v. Itoo:, 19 O. R. 433 — 
 MacMahon. 
 
 See also Subhead I.\. 1, p. 469. 
 
 VI. Rights of Grantees. 
 
 L., in 1875, applied for a homestead entry for 
 the S. W. J of section 30, township 6, range 4 
 west, preempted by P., and paid ^10 fee to a 
 clerk at the office, but was subsetiuently in- 
 forineil by the otficcrs of the Crown that his ap- 
 plication could not be recoguizod, and was re 
 
 
 Ss:i 
 
 
r 
 
 ^m 
 
 ua 
 
 OBOWi^' LANDS. 
 
 468 
 
 IJ 
 
 fancied the 810 he Imd paid. F. subsetiiiently 
 paid for the land by a military bounty warrmit 
 in pursuance of section 2.'i of 3.'> Vict. c. 23. L. 
 entered upon the land and made inipruvenicnts. 
 In 1878, after the conflicting clainjs of F. and 
 L. had been considered by tlie olllcers of the 
 Crown, a patent for tlii.s land was gra.;tcd by the 
 Crown to F., who bi-ougiitan action of ejectment 
 against L. to recover possession of tlic aaid land. 
 P., at the trial, put in, as proof of his title the 
 letters patent, and L. was allowed against tiie 
 objection of F.'s counsel, to set up an c(juitable 
 defence, and to go into evidence for the ])urpo8e 
 of attacking tiie plaintiil "s patent as liaving been 
 issued to him in error, and by improvidence and 
 fraud. Tiie jnilge, who tried tiie case without 
 a jury, rendered a venlict for the defendant: — 
 Held, on appeal, reversing tiie judgment of the 
 court of Queen'.s Bencli (Manitoba), that L. not 
 being in possession under tiie statute, had no 
 parliamentary title to the possession of tlie land, 
 nor any title wiiatever tliat could prevail against 
 the title of F. umlcr tlie hitters patent. Farmer 
 V. LivinijsloH, 5 S. C. R. i."il. 
 
 Right of commissioner of crown binds to 
 grant a right to construct a wharf over the 
 navigable waters of the bay of Toronto. See 
 Ckudinnimj v. Timur, 9 O. IJ. 34. 
 
 Qua-re, whether the soil at tlie bottom of the 
 Toronto bay at tlie place in (juestion was vested 
 in the province or in tlie city of Toronto, uniler 
 the patent from the Crown of the island. //(. 
 
 Kights of patentee as riparian proprietor. See 
 Hmokim v. Ma/iafi/, '29 Cliv. 3'.'() ; Jdilli v. /ioolh, 
 10 O. li. 351 ; 11 O. R. 4!)1 ; 14 A. R. 419 ; 15 
 App. Cas. 188. 
 
 See Watwn v. Limlmi/, 27 Cliy. 253; 6 A. R. 
 606; Duncan v. Cocklntni, 15 A. R. 493, p. 
 465. 
 
 See also Subhead IX., p. 469. 
 
 VII. Cancellation of Patent. 
 
 Where the crown lands commissioner had er- 
 roneously returned certain lands to tlie munici- 
 pal ofheers as patented, whereas, although a 
 patent had been prepared, it li.id never been in- 
 tended to be operative, nor been deliveied to the 
 grantee, H., who hail paid only a part of the 
 purchase money, and tlie lands were afterwards 
 sold for taxes: — Held, per Ferguson, J., 15. hav- 
 ing assigned his interc^st, and the assit'iiee hav- 
 ing surrendered 'lis interest to the Crown, be- 
 fore the issue of the patent to M., it eould not 
 be said that at tiie time of tiie issue of the patent 
 to M., there was Jiny "adverse claim" to the 
 lands in ipiestion within 23 Vict. c. 2, s. 22, so 
 aa to debar tlie commissioner from cancelling the 
 patent to 11 under that section. O'dradu v. 
 McCafrap, 2 0. R. 309.-Chy. 1). 
 
 It is not essential to the validity of a disclaimer 
 that it should be by deed or by record. Where 
 therefore on the 19tli .tune, 1818, a free grant or 
 patent for 20() acres of crown lands was issued 
 in favour of W., ns daughter of a U. K Loyal- 
 ist, who shortly afterwards petitioned the Gov- 
 ernor in council, stating that the lands were 
 S anted to her by mistake and without her au- 
 ority. whereupon an order in council was 
 
 pafc-i-'d in 1820 allowing her to surrender them ;— 
 Held, alfirining the judgment of the C. 1'. I)., it 
 O. R. 147 (Patterson, J. A„ dissenting), that the 
 lands by reason of VV. disagreeing to the grant 
 never passed out of the Crown. Moffatt v. 
 Scratch, 12 A. R. 157. 
 
 Letters patent having lieen issued to F. of cer- 
 tain lands claimed iiy him under the Manitoba 
 Act (35 Vict. c. 3, as amended by 35 Viet. c. 52), 
 and an information having been tiled under R. 
 S. C. c. .54, 8. 57, at the instance of a relator 
 claiming part of said lands to set aside said let- 
 ters patent as issued in error or improvidence : — 
 Held, that a judgment avoiding letters patent 
 upon such an information eould only be justilicd 
 and 8up))orted upon the same grounds being es- 
 tablished ill evidence as would be necessary if 
 the proceedings were liy scire facias. Fowfca, 
 V. Atlorney-Otuvral of ('aiiaila, 17 S. C. R,. 
 (il2. 
 
 The term "improvidence," as distinguished 
 from error, applies to ciises where the grant has 
 been to tiie prejudice of the commonwealth or the 
 general injury of tlie ]iulilic, or where the rights 
 of any individual in the thing granted are inju- 
 riously att'ceted l)y the letters patent; and F."» 
 title having lieen recognized by the government 
 as good and valid uiuler the Manitolia Act, and 
 the lands granted to him in recognition of that 
 right, the letters patent could not be set aside 
 as having l)een issued improvidcntly except upon 
 the ground that some other person had a superior 
 title also valid under the Act. //;. 
 
 Letters patent cannot be judicially pronounced 
 to have been issued in error or improvidcntly 
 when lands have been granted upon which a 
 trespasser, having no colour of right in law, has 
 entered and was in possession without the know- 
 ledge of the government officials ujioii whom rests 
 the duty of executing and issuing the letters 
 patent, and of investigating and passing judg- 
 ment upon tlie claims therefor ; or wlien such tres- 
 passer, or any person claiming under him, has 
 not made any .ajiivlieation for letters patent; or 
 when such an application has been made and 
 refused without any express determination of 
 the otlicials refusing the application, or any 
 record having liceii made of the application hav- 
 ing lieen made and rejected. //). 
 
 Per Patterson, .1. —That in the construction of 
 the statute ell'ect must be given to the term " ini- 
 providence"' as meaning .something distinct from 
 fraud or error; letters jialent may, therefore, lie 
 '"dd to have been issued iinprovideiitly if issued 
 in ignorance of a sulistaiitial claim by persons 
 other than the patentee to the land, which, if it 
 had been known, would have lieeii investigated 
 and passed upon before the patent issued ; and 
 it is not the iluty of the court to form a definite 
 opinion as to the relative strength of opposing 
 claims. Ih. 
 
 See McArUmr v. The. Queen, 10 0. R. 19U 
 p. 472. 
 
 VIII. Minerals. 
 
 Sec AttornryOeneral of British Columbia v. 
 Altoniei/deiieral of Canada, 14 App. Gas. 295, 
 p. 314. ' 
 
 Under sect 
 
 amended by 
 
 the locatee o 
 
 trees as ma 
 
 building and 
 
 may also cu 
 
 to be remove 
 
 for cultivatif 
 
 necessary bu 
 
 the limit of i 
 
 was nothing 
 
 ing and cult 
 
 in various sh 
 
 good faith fo 
 
 vating, as wi 
 
 being necess 
 
 together and 
 
 cut such pin 
 
 fencing whei 
 
 they can be 
 
 when the trt 
 
 clearing for 
 
 disposed of. 
 
 Lnmber Co., 
 
 Trees cut 
 of cultivatio 
 owner, and • 
 timber liceiu 
 taken by tlu 
 It was prov« 
 other logs a 
 Cameron, C 
 was entitled 
 him liy beinj 
 lumber at hi 
 
 Where a 
 tion thereof 
 thereon, thii 
 building, bu 
 nent house 
 had enough 
 out reserviiif 
 serving thesi 
 perty of the ( 
 the Crown h 
 Parhr v. M 
 
 Where a 
 standing ter 
 land which I 
 ing first to 1 
 down : — He 
 the Crown, 
 in clearing t 
 trees, lb. 
 
 The mea: 
 all standing 
 cut during I 
 land for cu 
 fence on th 
 otherwise, i 
 perty of tin 
 
 In 1871, i 
 steads Act, 1 
 department 
 or performc 
 was located 
 for the dist 
 the lot to H 
 
469 
 
 CROWN LANDS. 
 
 m 
 
 IX. Crown Timdkr. 
 
 1. liUjhtu ofLocafven. 
 
 Under section 10 of R. S. O. (1877), c. 24, as 
 amended l)y section 2 of 43 Vict. c. 4 (Ont.), 
 the locatee of land " may cut and use such pine 
 trees as may be necessary for tlie purpose of 
 building and fencing on the land .so located, and 
 may also cut and dispose of all trees roiiuired 
 to f»e removed in the actual clearing of such land 
 for cultivation, but no pine trees (except for the 
 necessary building aforesaid) shall be cut )>eyond 
 the limit of such actual clearing :" — Held, there 
 was nothing to prevent the locatee cutting, clear- 
 ing and cultivating the land in several parcels 
 in various shapes aiul forms, so long as done in 
 good faith for the purpose of clearing and culti- 
 vating, as was found to be the fact liere ; it not 
 being necessary that the clearings sliould be 
 together and contiguous ; that tlie locatee may 
 cut such pine trees necessary for building and 
 fencing wherever he ciiooses on tlie hind, but 
 they can be only used for such purpose ; but 
 when the trees are cut in the actual ]>rocess of 
 clearing for cultivation they may be sold and 
 disposed of. Cockhnrn v. Mnnkoka, Mill nnd 
 Lumber Co., 13 O. R. 343.— C. V. 1). 
 
 Trees cut by the locatee in the actual process 
 of cultivation were sold to the plaiutii]', a mill 
 owner, and were sci/ed by the defendants, the 
 timber licensees, who also had a mill, and M'cre 
 taken by them tliereto and cut up into hnnber. 
 It was proved that the plaintiff could not get 
 other logs at that season of the year: — Held, 
 Cameron, C. J., disseuting, that tiio plaintill' 
 was entitled to the loss of profits sustained l)y 
 him by being deprived of cutting the logs into 
 lumber at his mill. lb. 
 
 Where a locatee of lands, in clearing a por- 
 tion thereof, reserved twenty-six pine trees 
 thereon, thinking that they wouM lie useful for 
 building, but had previously erected a perma- 
 nent house and staijle, and i)Ut up fences, and 
 hail enough tindicr left for building a barn with- 
 out reserving these trees : — Held, that l)y thus re- 
 serving these trees, the locatee left tiiem the pro- 
 perty of the Crown, and a licensee of timl)er under 
 the Crown had a right to cut and remove them. 
 Parkfrrv. Maxwell, 14 O. R. 239.— Chy. D. 
 
 Where a locatee of lands left certain trees 
 standing temporarily on a certain portion of the 
 land which he was in process of clearing, intend- 
 ing first to burn the fallow and then to cut them 
 down : — Held, that a licensee of timlier under 
 the Crown, had no right to interrupt the locatee 
 in clearing the lands and to cut and remove such 
 trees. lb. 
 
 The meaning of 43 Vict. c. 4 (Out.), is, that 
 all standing pine belongs to the Crown ; when 
 cut during the process of actually clearing the 
 land for cultivation, or in order to buiUl and 
 fence on the location, it belongs to the locatee ; 
 otherwise, when cut, it still continues the pro- 
 perty of the Crown. Ih. 
 
 In 1871, S., under the Free Orant and Home- 
 steads Act, located certain land in the crown lands 
 department, but never entered into possession, 
 or performed the settlement duties. The lot 
 was located through B., the crown lands agent 
 for the district. In 1873 S. sold the timber on 
 the lot to B, In 1875 B. wrote the department 
 
 asking if a cancellation and relocation would 
 atlect his title to the pine, and th.at it be re- 
 located subject to his claim. The department 
 replied that if the purchase was a bona fiile one, 
 and in accordance witli the order in council, a, 
 relocation woidd not all'ect his claim. The order 
 in council was that the department woidil re- 
 cognize the right of all purchasers or locatces of 
 free grant lanils who had purchased or located 
 any lot on or before .30tli September, 1871, and 
 who on that day were in actual occupation of, 
 or resident on the lots located, to sell and dis- 
 pose of all pine trees on the said lots. On lOth 
 Septembei', 1875, S. 's location was cancelled for 
 nonperformance of the settlement duties : and 
 on the 3rd .luly, 1H76, the lot was relocated to 
 the plaintiff. The plaintiff was informed by 
 B. of his purchase of the timber, anil stated 
 that he had a good title to it, which the plain- 
 tiff believed, and acted on that l)elief. On the 
 9th Novcml)er, 188(i, the patent issued to the 
 plaintiff, and contained no reservation of the 
 pine trees. In 18iS3, B. .sold the timber to the 
 defendant, who in October, 188G, cut .same not- 
 withstanding he was notified by the plaintifl'to 
 desist. The timber was removed by defendant 
 after the issue of the patent. In an action by 
 ])laintiff to recover the value of the timl)er : — 
 Held, that as the jjatent contained no reserva- 
 tion of the pine trees standing or being on the 
 land, and as the hind was located prior to 4,S 
 Vict, c 4 (Ont.), the trees "remaining on the 
 land" at the time of the patent j)assed to the 
 plaintitf ; that prior to the issue of the jiatent, 
 the locatee under R. S. O. (1877), c. 24, s. 10, 
 had no right to cut timber except for build- 
 ing, fencing, and fuel, and in the actual clear- 
 ing of the land for cultivation; nor was there 
 any right under 37 Vict. c. 23 (Ont.), for the 
 locatee was not on or before 30th September, 
 1871, " in actual occupation or resident on the 
 lots located ;"' and, semble, that the words, 
 "remaining on the land," applied only to the 
 trees not then cut ; but it was not necessary to 
 decide this point, for the plaintiff being in pos- 
 session with the assent of the Crown, he had 
 title to the timber as against the defendant a 
 wrongdoer : — Held, .ilso that the plaintifl' hav- 
 ing, acted lin 15. 's misrepresentations, was not 
 estopped from bringing the action. Lanijmaid 
 V. MkkU, IGO. R. 111. 
 
 2. Rights of Licensees. 
 
 The plaintiff herein, a timber licensee, sold hia 
 interest in the license and limits to one W. , who 
 entered and cut timber, but the transfer M'as 
 not proved, and by the regulations of the crown 
 lands department all transfers were to be in 
 writing and subject to their approval, and were 
 to be valid only from such approval : — Held, that 
 the legal title to the limits and timber thereon 
 was in the plaintiff, and that W. 'a possession was 
 the plaintiff's, who was entitled to maintain an 
 action for damage done to the limits. Booth v. 
 MclHtyrc, 31 C. P. 183.— C. P. D. 
 
 Under the provisions of the Quebec Act, 41 
 Vict. c. 14, the 1). of C. L. Co., in November, 
 1881, alleging themselves to be proprietors and 
 in possession of a number of lots in the township 
 of Whitton, P. Q., obtained an ex parte injunc- 
 tion, restraining (i, B. H. et al. from further 
 
 
 ■Ssi 
 
 Ji^ii 
 
 
471 
 
 CUSTOM AND USAGE. 
 
 472 
 
 473 
 
 proKccuting liinilicring oporations wliioli they 
 had bogtin on tln;»i) lots. (i. IJ. If. ct ill. were 
 cutting ill virtue of a, lic^n.se fioiii tlie govern- 
 ment, dutud 3ril Miiy, lS8i, wiiicli wasa renewal 
 of a former license. By a report of the executive 
 council of the province of Quebec, dated l8t 
 April, 1S8I, and a|)pri)ved liy tiie lieutenant- 
 governor in council on the 7th of the same month, 
 theconuni.s.sionerof crown landx wasautiiori/cd 
 to sell to the company tlie lands in (juestion, and 
 the company de|)OHited S1'2,(HK( to the credit of' 
 the department, to lie ap])liud cm account of the ' 
 intended purchu.se. On the Otii May, tlic com- 1 
 pany gave out a conti'act for tiie clearing of ai 
 portion of the land, and on the litth .Inly, IH81, ' 
 the commisMionercxecutcdadccd ofsalein favour ' 
 of the compmy, 8ul)ject, among-st other condi- 
 tions, " to the current licenses to cut timber on 
 the lots." Upon the writ l)eing returned, the 
 injunction was sus))ciided. (i. 15. H. et al. ans- 
 wered the ]ietition. and the superior court dis- 
 solved the injunction. On appeal to the court 
 of Queen's Hench, this judgment was reversed 
 and the injunction applied for made perpetual. 
 On a])ppal (o the Supreme (Vmit of Canada it 
 was: — Held (Henry and Owynne, dJ. , dissent- 
 ing), tiiat th(! 1). of C. Ij. & C. ( 'o. hail not acciuired 
 any valid title to the lauds in (piestion prior to 
 the l!)th duly, lS8I,and that by the instrument 
 of that date their rights were sul>ordinatcd to all 
 current licenses, and (!. U. H. et al. having 
 established their right to possess said lands for 
 the purpo.se of carrying on their hnnber opera- 
 tions, undei- a license from the Crown dated 3rd 
 May, 1881, the injunction granted ex parte to 
 theD. of C. L & C. Co., in November, 1881, 
 under the provisions of 41 Vict. c. 14 (Que.), 
 had been j)roperly dissolved by the superior 
 court. Jfall V. Dominion of Canada Land and 
 Colonhtttion Co. (Limited), 8 S. C. R. 631. 
 
 McA. iiled an application with the proper 
 government oHicial for a license to cut timber 
 upon two bertiis. and complied with the usual 
 regulations, one of which was the payment of a 
 certain sum for gidund rent, and iiis ap[dication 
 was duly forwarded to the commissioner of 
 crown lands ; but owing to a defective survey it 
 was impossible then to convey the berths. Sub- 
 sequently the survey difficulty was removed, and 
 his application as to <me of the berths was ac- 
 cepted in the year 1801, but he having removed 
 to the United States, never received any notice 
 of such acceptance. In 1881 he first heard 
 of the acceptance, and in 1884 sold all his in- 
 terest therein for .^4,000. R. afterwards became 
 entitled by subsequent assignments for value to 
 all McA.'s interest, the assignments being duly 
 filed in the crown lands dei)artment. McA. and 
 B., in 1884 joined in a petiticm of right for the 
 issue of the license, and the Attorney-(!eneral de- 
 murred to the same:— Held, that there was no 
 laches on the part of McA. in not enforcing a 
 right which he did not know existed, and there 
 was no intention on his part to abandon the light 
 when he did become aware of it, as he treated it 
 as a valuable asset. As between subjects a de- 
 lay of four years would probably be under ordi- 
 nary circumstances, a defence to a claim for 
 specific performance ; but under the facts in this 
 case a vendor would not be allowed to set up 
 such a defence :— Held, also, that as the assign- 
 ments were duly filed, and the Crown had the 
 power of forfeiting the claim for nonpayment, and 
 
 did not do so, even were the rule between suli- 
 jects to apply, it would not be a bar in this case : 
 — .Semble, it may bo doubted whether the same 
 Rule should apply to the Crown, and whether ib'3 
 subject should not have the right to a completion 
 of the purchase at any time before it has been 
 forfeited. Mc Arthur v. The Queen, 10 0. R, 
 I'JI.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Construction of railways through lands under 
 timber license. .See liooth v. Mclnti/re, 31 C. P. 
 183; Foran v. Mclntijre, 45 Q. 11. 288; Mc 
 Arthur v. Northern and Pacijic Junction R. W. 
 Co., 15 0. R. 7;J3; 17 A. R. 86. 
 
 See Sinnott v. ,SVo/(/^, II S. C. R. 574, p. 404; 
 Parker v. Mn.enxll, 14 O. R. 239, p. 409 ; Dun- 
 kin v. Corkburn, 15 A. R. 493, p. 405. 
 
 X. Hkihw.ws Vested in the Crown. 
 
 See Jlae. v. Trim, 27 Chy. 374; Re Trent 
 Valley Canal—" Re Water Street and Tht Road, 
 to the Wharf," 1 1 O. R. 087. 
 
 CROWN TIMBER. 
 
 See Crown L.vnus. 
 
 OUMMINOS ISLAND- 
 SCO i?e(7t«a v. Count;/ of Carlelon, 1 O. R. 277. 
 
 CURTESY, TENANT BY. 
 
 See. E.sT.^TE. 
 
 CUSTODY OP INFANTS. 
 
 See Infant. 
 
 CUSTOM AND USAGE. 
 
 Qua-re, whether evidence as to how contracts 
 for artesian wells were usually made in Barric, 
 should have been properly received in this case. 
 Bnrrie lias Co. v. Sullivan, 5 A. R. 110. 
 
 The plaintiffs alleged that it was the custom of 
 agents to give each other credit for [)remiums 
 on reassurance and to settle at the end of the 
 month, when the balance, if any, was handed 
 over, but no knowledge by defendants of such 
 a course of dealing, nor such a course of deal- 
 ing on the part of their agents, was proved : — 
 Held, that even if such a custom had been proved 
 to exist between local agents, it Would not bo 
 binding on the company, unless authorized by it. 
 Weitern A-Hmrance Co. v. Provincial Dm. Co., 5 
 A. R. 190. 
 
 Evidence of custom in foreig". country rejected 
 where the contract was made in Ontario. See 
 William.ii v. Corhey, 5 A. R, 026. 
 
 Held, that the colt in (lucetion in this case, five 
 weeks old, following its aam, could not be said to 
 
 be running at 
 country, whicl 
 thus to follo\ 
 Trunk R. W. 
 
 Held, that 
 t)arl)ed wire fi 
 other municip 
 erect them, 
 shewing that t 
 ous or a nuisa 
 
 At the trial 
 draft was rfct\ 
 luiilerstand by 
 To this (lues 
 the judge rule 
 (which it was 
 by the usage 
 of, hail a iiiea 
 them ill their 
 couhl not be | 
 era could not 
 tlie meaning 
 governed, aiu 
 V.\. •-'(H)) a pr< 
 for the ipicstii 
 l.iivc been aski 
 CCS which wo 
 words in oth( 
 that upon proi 
 tiim woulil ha 
 Uic judge's rn 
 cnimsel from 
 trial was ordei 
 47.-> (J. 15. !>• 
 A proinissor 
 rity, but was 
 hanking cori)oi 
 iiulorsurs of \ 
 that the indora 
 thereon as a d< 
 interest bo dec 
 charge interest 
 it if possible. 
 
 Custom of 1 
 stock. Sec M 
 land v. Co.c, 
 
 Custom of 1 
 C. R. 318. 
 
 Sec Prorinrt 
 5 S. C. R. -irn! 
 
 real Forirordi 
 Proftor, 5 O. 
 
 Hee Attorneij 
 n S. C. H. 2'j 
 
 DA 
 
473 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 474 
 
 be running at Iitrgc, thu univcrsul (.UKtom of the 
 country, whicli ought to govern, being for oolts 
 thus to follow the dam. llUlynvd v. (Inind 
 Trunk K. W. Co., 8 O. K. 5S3— y. IJ. 1). 
 
 Hehl, that evidence of tlic common use of 
 iMvrhud wire fencca in otlier town.siiipH, and that 
 other municipalities held out inducumuntH to 
 erect them, should not have liccii rejected, as 
 shewing that they were not considered clanger- 
 ous or a nuisance, lb. 
 
 At the trial the bank manager to wiiom the 
 draft was returned, was asked, " What do you 
 understand by tlie words added by defendant'.'"' 
 To this (juesi-l'^M olijeetion was taken, and 
 the judge ruled that in the absence of evidence 
 (whieh it was atlmitted couhl not lie given), that 
 liy the usage of )>aiikers the words complained 
 of, had a meaning other tiian that cimveyed by 
 thcin in their natural construction, tlie (picstion 
 coulil not be put : — Hehl that the usag(! of bank- 
 ers could not in any way be the rule liy which 
 the meaning of such words could be held to be 
 governed, and (following Daines r. Hartley, ,S 
 V,\. -(H)) a proper fiaindation had not been laid 
 fdi the (juestion ; that the witness should first 
 l.iivc been asked if there were any circumstan- 
 ie.-< which would lead him to undeistnnd the 
 words in other than their natural sense, and 
 tliat upon proof of such circumstances tlie (|Ue8- 
 tiiin would have been allowable. As, however, 
 the judge's ruling had |)iccluded the jilaintitl's 
 cnunsel from laying such a foundation, a new 
 trial was ordered. HuUr v. VruoLalt, 10 O. li. 
 475- Q. B. D. 
 
 A promissory note was dishonoured at matu- 
 rity, but was not protested by the holders (a 
 hanking corporation) because of a waiver by the 
 indorsers of presentment and nutiec :— Hehl, 
 that the indorsers were not liable to pay interest 
 thereon a-s a debt. JS'or couh'. ' idutraet to pay 
 interest bo deduced from a ii--aj^c of l)anks to 
 charge interest on overdue debts, and to collect 
 it if possilde. 7.V McDoiujiill, 12 A. K. 'JG"). 
 
 Custom of brokers in dealing with customers' 
 stock. See Mara v. Cox, (i O. II. H.")!! ; .Suther- 
 land v. Co.i; (i O. K. .")(».") ; 15 A. P.. 5H. 
 
 Custom of Paris. See /'Hon v. Ilruiut, "i S. 
 C. R. 318. 
 
 See Proniirial lii^. Co. of CoiKiiIri v. Coniio//;/, 
 5 S. C. R. '258; Million V. Kiiui-lmi mill Moi'it- 
 rent Forirnrdiini Co., H2 C. P. .'UiO ; I'aijn v. 
 Proctor, 5 O. R. '-'.■W. 
 
 CUSTOMS. 
 
 Stv Rf.vk.sik. 
 
 CYPRES- 
 
 See Atlorniii-d'eiicrnl nj'Xorn Scotia v. Ax/ord, 
 13 8. C. R.'2!»4. 
 
 DAMAGE FEASANT. 
 
 Src DiSTKESS. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 I. Genehallv, 474. 
 II. Pro.xi.mate or Remote, 470. 
 
 III. PkAOTICK ok AlTEI.LATE COURTS, 478. 
 
 IV. Actions on Contracts. 
 
 1. Carriaijf of t^oodi — See. Railways 
 
 ANu Uailwav C().mi'anie.s— Ship. 
 
 2. Sale of GoodxSe^ Sale of Goods. 
 .S. Silk of Land—See Sale ok Land. 
 
 4. Sale of Timher- -See. TiMnER. 
 
 5. ]VarraHlij—Sce Wahrantv. 
 
 6. )Vork and Lahmr — See, Work and 
 
 LAnorK. 
 
 7. Li'/n'idalid Dnmaijex or Penally — Set 
 
 Pkxai.tv iiv Contract. 
 
 V. Actions on Covenants. 
 
 1. Oineralhj—Sec Covenant. 
 
 2. Corcnanis for Title. —See Covenants 
 
 KOR TlTI.H. 
 
 3. /nZ,e<wM-.S'e(;LANni,ORi) andTen \st. 
 VI. Actions for Peusonal I.n.iukies. 
 
 1. Lihtl and Slander — See Defamation. 
 
 2. 2Jalkion-i Prociediuii') — Sie Mali- 
 
 ciors AuuEST, Pkosecution and 
 oriiEK Phockediniis. 
 
 3. Ntijtiijence—Ste Xeii licence. 
 VII. ACTIOKS FOR Ix.iiiiv to Proi'ertv. 
 
 1. Dinl rcHx- See Disikkss. 
 
 2. Mesne I'rotilt—See Ljectmiont. 
 
 3. Parly IValtuSee Buildinos. 
 
 t. Lateral Supi>orl — <!>V( L.vrERAL Sfr- 
 i'ort. 
 
 5. Liahilili/nf Miiiiicipalifiii.i — Se< Ml'Xi- 
 ciHAL CouroRATioNs— Way. 
 
 'o. Lialnliti/ of liailiray Companies — See 
 Railways and Railway Com- 
 panies. 
 
 7. Tr<■^pn.ss —See Tuespas.s. 
 
 8. liy nraiiKiiieSee \\ vter and Water 
 
 C0UIUE.S. 
 
 VIII. Comi'ensatios in Actions for .Specific 
 Pekformance— .S'ce Specific Perfor- 
 mance. 
 
 IX. Assessment of Damaoes. 
 
 1. Notice of— See Trial. 
 
 2. Ihj MaMer or Referee— See Practice. 
 
 3. By Jury— See Trim.. 
 
 4. Entering Judgment — ^ee Judgment. 
 
 X. Excessive Da.mac.es— S« New Trial. 
 
 XI. Other Particular Cask.s — See The 
 Several Titles. 
 
 I. Generally. 
 
 Damages for sale of stock given in pledge be- 
 fore default of pletlgor. See Carneijie v. Federal 
 Bank, 5 O. R. 418. 
 
^pm 
 
 476 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 478 
 
 477 
 
 
 DaniageM to n niiinicipal ciii'iior.itioii upon 
 fiiiliii'u i>t (k'fciiilaiit in |ictriii'iiiaiire of cdiitraot 
 to carry on nianufacluriH aiiuidinj,' to tlio tcrnis 
 of a l)ylaw granting liini aiil. See yiltiiiji' uj' 
 Jirn.<M,U V. h'vnald, 4 (). K. I ; II A. 1{. OO:). 
 
 Petition of right for daiimgcs for failure on the 
 part of the Crown to {lurforiii agrtenicnt. See 
 Wimlior iiiid Aiinapulii Jl. W, Co. v. linjimt, 
 11 App. Cas. 333. 
 
 The measure of damages recoverable liy tenant 
 for life of insured prcniisi's is tlio full value of 
 Buch premises to tiio extent of the sum insured, 
 Cti/((iri'tl V. Sfiidnaiiia File and l.ifii Inmiancn 
 Co., 11 S. C. K. L'l-'. 
 
 The plaintiir had agreed with the defendant to 
 purchase the claim to land scrip in Manitoba, of 
 a half-hieed, and defendant procured to be as- 
 signed to plaintiir the claim of one alleged to be 
 n child of a lialflirecd. This proved to be erro- 
 neous, and the scrip which had been issued to 
 him was worthless : — Held, atlirmiiig the jiulg- 
 ment of the l.'ounty Court that the plaintiir was 
 entitled to recover from the defendant tlie 
 amount paid by the plaintiir for the purchase of 
 the so-called right ; the pUintill' to assign to the 
 defendant, (piantum valeat, the land scrip ho 
 had received. Barns v. Yomuj, 10 A. It. 21.'). 
 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. ()., and (ialt, J. — No court 
 has or ouaht to have the right ex proprio motu 
 to direct judgment for nominal danuigcs wliere 
 a jury has refused to .award them. Per Osier, 
 J. A. — Nominal damages sho\ild not be added, 
 unless it clearly ap])car that such damages are a 
 mere matter of form, or that the omission to find 
 them was accidental, or unintentional, or an 
 oversight following a distinct intention to find 
 the plaintirt's cause of acti<m proved. WilU v. 
 Carina)!, l-t A. K. ()5tj. 
 
 Per Patterson, .I.A. — The jury having left no 
 fact undetermined, the plaintiff was entitled to 
 judgment, which might jiroperly be entered for 
 nominal damages with full costs. lb. 
 
 Defendant agreed to furnish plaintiff with 
 money to construct a drain in the township of 
 Dunwich known as the Mennie <lrain, the amount 
 to be furnished "nottoexceetl the sum of Jl,,50() 
 at any time," and to pay the same to plaintilf as 
 often and in such sums as might be required, the 
 plaintiff to give the defendant his note for each 
 sum recpiired, and to pay defendant interest at 
 twelve per cent, per annum for the use of said 
 moneys. Plaintiff alleged that upon the strength 
 of this agreement he contracted with the town- 
 ship to construct the drain. Defendant furnished 
 money from time to time to the plaintiff, ex- 
 ceeding in all $1 ,500, but not sufficient to com- 
 plete the drain, and defendant refused to furnish 
 more. The plaintiff borrowed moneys from others 
 at less than twelve per cent, interest, but claimed 
 damages for alleged breach of his agreement, 
 contending that he was thereby delayed in com- 
 pleting the drain, and that owing to such delay 
 and to the winter setting in he lost largely, in- 
 stead of making a profit, which he would other- 
 wise have made :— Held, that whether the agree- 
 ment was to furnish money to the extent of 
 91,500 only, or to such extent as might be neces- 
 sary for the construction of the drain, not ex- 
 ceeding SI, .500 at any one time, the only (lam- 
 ages for which defendant was liable would be 
 
 the difference between the rata of interest pay. 
 able to the defendant under the agreement and 
 the market rate of interest ut the time of the 
 breach. Per Armour, ,)., under the true con- 
 struction of the agreement the defendant wag 
 l«>und to supply !f l,5()(( only. Mtniiif v. Ltilch, 
 HO. R. 307.— Q. H. D. 
 
 The defendant, who was a contractor for cer- 
 tain work in this province, entered into an agree- 
 ment with the plaintitfs that if they wouhl go to 
 New York, at their own exnense, and procure 
 about 200 labourers, he would give them work 
 at$l.23aday. The plaintill' brought the labour- 
 ers but the defendant refused to employ them. 
 The plaintiffs were aUowed as damages for the 
 breach of the agreement, $25 their expenses in 
 going to and returning from New York, and 
 9700 the amount of atlvances nuide by them in 
 paying the fares of certain of the labourers from 
 New York. They were not allowed commission 
 that would have been received by them from the 
 men if employment had been furnished. Judg- 
 ment of ttie (Queen's ISench Division athrmcu. 
 Aldiidia v. McMiihoii, 17 A. R. 34. 
 
 Damages in action against sheriff for takinjj 
 insutlicient boiul in action of replevin. 8ee Nor- 
 man V. Hope, 13 O. K. 556 ; 14 O. It. 287. 
 
 .See Diingaii v. London and Canadian Loan A 
 A<i<iicij Co., 19 O. K. 272, but see S. C. in Court 
 of Appeal. 
 
 II. Proximate or Remotk. 
 
 I'laintitt' bought seed barley from defendant 
 guaranteed to be clean. The seed was sown and 
 it was afterwards discovered that it was mixed 
 with a weed called wild vetches or wild peas, 
 which took root and grew up with the barley. 
 In an action to recover <lamages fordeprecialinn 
 in the value of the farm the evidence shewed 
 that the plaintiff bad not sustaineil any damage 
 to his crop, but bo tendered evidence to shew 
 depreciation in the value of the farm which the 
 learned jutlge refused to receive. On motion 
 for a new trial : — Held (reversing the judgment 
 of Gait, J.), the plaintiff should have been al- 
 lowed to substantiate if he could that the neces- 
 sary cimseciuencc of sowing the foul seed wag 
 to lower appreciably the value of the farm. 
 McMiUlm V. Free, 13 0. R. 57.— Chy. D. 
 
 The defendants 'laving built a subway in front 
 of the plaintiffs' property, and in so doing low- 
 ered the highway so as to cut off the access 
 thereto, which was previously enjoyed, unilcr 
 the circumstances set out in 7 O. R. 270; 8 0. 
 R. 59: 12 A. R. 393; 12 S. C. K. 250, an.l 12 
 App. Cas. C02, it was referred to an official 
 referee, to take an account of the damage, if 
 any, siistained by the plaintiffs by reason of the 
 wrongful acts of the defendants, and to fix the 
 compensation propel' to be paid in respect there- 
 of. On such reference the referee ruled, (1) 
 that the measure of damages was the difference 
 in value of the property l)efore and after the 
 construction with interest added ; (2) that the 
 prospective capabilities or value of the land 
 could not be taken into account except so far as 
 such element entered into the computation of 
 the then market value, or had regard to what 
 would have been the present value of the prop- 
 erty had the subway not been constructed ; and 
 
 (,'{) tluU the 
 cial damages 
 appeal from 
 cor|Miralio; 
 were not pr 
 their tort b 
 good all ilam 
 would lie fo 
 ages l>eing of 
 jury to the j) 
 If, in the evi 
 inuted from 
 cover under 
 dence might 
 the property 
 piospettive < 
 ot the trcspa 
 pi'iisatiou on 
 to be used to 
 detriment su 
 tinn of the 
 present and 
 W,.il V. Par! 
 
 Whoi'e u ri 
 tract eutereil 
 the eastern 
 western part, 
 on a refereni 
 .ictual deprei 
 pari of the ci 
 pertaining ti 
 the city, y<t 
 from s\ich d 
 fact for consii 
 a Ions in tax 
 reasonably c 
 fault formed 
 ca|iiUili/ed s( 
 compensation 
 titled. .Stat 
 much less bei 
 cipality by rt 
 sUitinn being 
 personal loss 
 ellers or citi/ 
 station, or tl 
 the land indi 
 hood could ni 
 se of the dai 
 Held, also, tli 
 tliat they we 
 to the west* 
 should be ast 
 ■done either 
 reeling a yei 
 V. Crtdil Vui 
 Boyd. 
 
 After the t 
 Ditches and 
 completion c 
 bouring land 
 ■of the partie 
 ing reijuired 
 neer, to insp« 
 ing it comple 
 the plaintiff' 
 inspect the v 
 cording to th 
 ■of the award 
 tiff in conse({ 
 water remaii 
 ihe provisior 
 
477 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 478 
 
 (,')) tliitt till! itliiiiitiira wui'v lint oiititl(Ml to Mpi-- < 
 t'iiil iluiiiaguH fur injury tolliuir IxiHiiicxM. On uii 
 upiM'ikl from tliJH ruliiiu it wiin : -ilclil, tliiit tliv \ 
 I'oiixinitio: weit! lial>lr iih wroiig-dncrH, wliol 
 wfio not ))iiitt'ctt!(l friiiii the ('<iiihih|||(miu('8 i>f 
 tiiuir tort t))' uny Htiitutory iiriiviMloii, to iiiitko I 
 giMiil all ilainages miHtainoil, for wliiuli an action 
 would liu for tliuir iinaiitliori/.i.'<l act, audi dain- 
 agt-H liuitig of a twofold cliaructur, involving in- 
 jury to tliu plaintill'M' land and to their Imitiiioga. 
 If, in tlic vvidcncu, one injury coultl be diiici'iiii- 
 inated flniii tin? otiiur, it wan uoiniietuilt to re- 
 cover under liotii iieads. Held, altto, that evi- 
 dence iniglit he received of the preHent value of 
 till' property with a view to throw light on the 
 pioMpuctive capuliilitieH of the land at the date 
 ot the trei))asH, hut not to form a liaaih for com- 
 pi'iisatioii on its present value; mich evidence I 
 to W' UHcd to aid ill lixing conipeiisalion for the | 
 detriment HU«tained at the date of the ]ierpetra' 
 tioii of the wrong, having regard to the then ' 
 preauiit and potential value of tiie property. ' 
 W,,i V, Parkdnlf, 15 O. R. SlO.-IJoyd. 
 
 Wliere a railway comiiany in lireach of a eon- j 
 trad entered into l>y them to run traiim from ' 
 tlic eaHtern part of the city of St. T. to the i 
 wciiterii part, ceased to run such trains: — Held, ', 
 on a reference as to damages, that though the 
 actual deprociatioii of property in llie western 
 part of the city resulting tiierefroiii was a matter 1 
 pertaining to the jiroperty owners, anil not to ' 
 the city, yet the lessened taxation resulting 
 from such depreciation was not too remote a 
 fact for consideration on the reference, and such ; 
 a loss in taxation which could he traced to or 
 reasonalily connected with the ooiiipany's do- 
 fault formed a yearly standard which iiiiglit he 
 ciipitali/.ed so as to fairly represent the money 
 c'oiiipensation to which the ]ilaiiitit!'8 were en- 
 titled. Stated hroadly the enijuiry was how 
 imicii less lieiietit had lieen received by the muni 
 cipality liy reason of the railway service at one 
 station heing discontinued. Constat, that the 
 per.soMal loss or ineonvenieiice siilFered by trav- 
 ellet's or citizens from the aliandimmeiit of the 
 station, or the actual depreciation in value of 
 tlie land individually owned in that neighbour- 
 hood could not be reckoned as con.stituents per 
 su of the damages sull'ered by the corporation. 
 Held, also, that if the railway company admitted 
 that they were never again going to run trains 
 to the western end of the city, the damages 
 slioiiM be assessed onue for all, which migiit be 
 done either by fixing one solid sum, or l>y di- 
 recting a yearly payment. Citi/o/'Sl. Thonian 
 V. t'ledil Valley kailiray Co., 15 O. R. 07S. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 After the time fixed by an award under the 
 Ditches and Watercourses' Act, 188.S, for the 
 coinpletinn of certain drainage work by neigh- 
 bouring landowners, the plaintiff, who was one 
 •of the parties interested in the award, in writ- 
 ing reijuired the defendant, as township engi- 
 neer, to inspeut the work with the object of hav- 
 ing it completed according to the award, but as 
 the plaintiff alleged the defendant neglected to 
 inspect the work or cause it to be completed ac- 
 oording to the award, and thereby the provisions 
 of the award were not carried out, and the plain- 
 tiff in consequence suffered damage by reason of 
 •Water remaining on his land, etc. : — Held, that 
 4;lie provisions of section 13 of the above Act as 
 
 to the inspection by the engineer is imperative, 
 and an action would lie lor lu'cach of his duty; 
 Itilt even if the evideliCi! bid shi^Wii such li 
 breach, the daiiiagcs claimed were not tlie proxi- 
 mate, necessary, or natural re-iiilt thereof. The 
 other provisions of sei^tioii 13 arc merely fier- 
 missive, ami no uctimi would lie for their iion- 
 
 {lerfiiriiiaiicc; nor, wmc it ntlicrwise, ccuild it lio 
 leld that the damages claiiiii'(l were the proxi- 
 mate result of such iiiuipeiformaiice. riioae 
 who by the terms of tlie award, miglit to liavo 
 done the work, were the pi.'isoiis pruxiniatoly 
 responsible for the damages. O'lli/riif v. Camp- 
 hdl, 15 O, K. 33«.-(i. H. \). 
 
 in. Pra<ti(;k ok Appellate Courts. 
 
 The court on appeal directed a verdict to be 
 entered for the plaintill' against a tavern keeper 
 for selling liipior to her hii.sbaiid after being for- 
 bidden by the plaintiff, his wife, to do so, but 
 referred it back to the County Court judge to 
 assess the damages, declining to follow theuoume 
 adopted ill Denny v. The Montreal Telegraph 
 Co., ;i A. I{. (C.'S. .1 11*1 ill V. Dai-ix, 7 A. R. 478. 
 
 In an action of damages, if the amount award- 
 ed in the court ot first instance is not such oa to 
 shock the sense of justice and to make it appar- 
 eiil that there was error or |iartiality on the part 
 of the judge (the exercise of a discretion on his 
 part being in the nature of the case required) an 
 appellate court will not interfere with the «li«- 
 cretioii such judge has exercised in determining 
 the amount of damages. Lvi'i v. lived, 6 S. C. R. 
 482. 
 
 PerOwynnc, .1., a Court of Appeal should not 
 interfere with damages awarded by a judgment 
 under consideration in ajipeal unless they appear 
 to have been calculated iiptm a wrong principle, 
 or arrived at without regard to considerations 
 which ought to govern a tribunal in awarding 
 damages. It is not sullicicnt if the judges in 
 the appeal sitting as judges in the first instance 
 might have given, as some of the judges in the 
 court below in this case, were disposed to give 
 larger damages. Maifor of the City of Moiilrnal 
 V. Hull, 12 S. C. K. 74. 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 I. An.VTEMKNT OK ACTIOS— ."JpC AOTION. 
 
 11. PBK.sr.Mi'TioN AS TO— .Vce Evidence. 
 
 III. Ok PARTiN'ER- A'ee Partnership. 
 
 IV. Ok Surety— 5ee Principal and SuRBiTr. 
 
 V. Scire Facias and Rkvivor— /See Scirb 
 Facias and Revivor. 
 
 Death of solo defendant — Adding parties 
 See McCarthy v. Arbmkle, 31 C. P. 48. 
 
 Death between verdict and judgment. See 
 Sihbald v. Graml Trunk K. W. Co., 19 O. R. 
 164; Muirhead v. Stiiiref, 14 S. C. R. 735; 
 While V. Parker, 16 S. C. R. 699. 
 
 Order for judgment when after a verdict the 
 judge who presided at the trial died before giv- 
 
DEBENTURES. 
 
 480 
 
 481 
 
 iiiK jmlKinciil. tlnicnn. Mci! Wtllhauk'* v. t'uii'i' i\ 
 
 \'i r. K. :»:>4. 
 
 Ddutli <if mIk riir ii|i)ioint(;il hhhI^'IH'c iiinlcr' R. 
 H. <). (IH87), f. I-J4. .N!c y//o»t)) V. f/cocf, 18 O. 
 K. 311. 
 
 Dyiiifj (Iccliiratioii. Sec ltnf,ii<i \. MiMiihon, 
 18 (). H, r.O'i. 
 
 DE BENE ESSE. 
 
 .S'c KvillKNCK. 
 
 DEBENTURES. 
 
 I. MlINI(II'AI.-.S'<T MUNKUI'AI, C'oni'OUA- 
 
 TKlNH. 
 
 II. Railway -,SVi Railways anu Railway 
 
 C'dMl'AMK--. i 
 
 iitiii'o, hy ' 
 
 •lantH ngri'fd to pay to tlic bearer ,C200 Btg. at \ 
 tl)u (itli('(> of a iianu'cl liank niul (ni u naiiiiMl ilay, 
 upon jtri'Mtiitutioii iinil surrviulor tlioru of the 
 (Iclienture. AvcmikiiI of iMiifoiiiiaiict! of all I'oii- 
 (litioiiH iiieccdi'iit. Hreai'li, iKiii-payint'iil of tbo 
 i)rinci)ial sum : — Meld, l>y Osli'r, J., and aliirnu'd 
 liy tli(^ lull I'ourt, (I) that tlio prescnlation and 
 Hurri'iidcr of tlic debenture at Hueh plate auti , 
 date were eonditidiiH preeedenl, and the perfor- 
 mance of such eonditidus having; bi'en aveired in 
 the derlaration, a rcpliealitin allej;in{^ jn'cHeuta- 
 tiou on a later day was ii de]>arlur(! ; ('J) that it 
 wan no objection to a rejilication that it tihewed 
 for tbi' first time that interest only was claimed, 
 for that being merely an accessory to the i)rin<.i- 
 pal, need not be claimed as dninagOH : — Held, 
 also, that a i)lea which, after traversinj^ the pre- 
 sentati(>n of the debenture nuido et Hmufi, al- 
 leged it was aflei wards paid and was then <luly 
 surrendered to the defendiiiitg, was a goofl j)lea, 
 as the plaintifl's, by excepting to it, admitted 
 payment of the principal sum, which would in- 
 clude the nominal dumagcs, if any, alone re- 
 coverable for its detention, while the surrender 
 of the debenture would shew that the ]iayment 
 was in satisfaction and discharge of the debt, if 
 not of the damages also: that it was no answer 
 to the plea to say that the surrender before the 
 damages were paid was by mere oversight and 
 inadvertence so long as it a]ipearcd to be inten- 
 tional ; but that it would be a good answer to say 
 that such delivery was on the express agreement 
 that the right to damages was reserved : — Held, 
 also, that after failure to make a due ]>resenta- 
 tion, there could be no recovery until a demand 
 was made for payment, which must be made on 
 the defendants. Osborne v. Preston and Hcrlin 
 K. W. Co., 9 C. P. 241, and Fellowes v. Ottawa 
 Oas Co., 19 C. P. 174, comniented upon. Mont- 
 rtnl City nnd Dulrkt SaimKiH liatik v. Covvty of 
 Perth, 32 C. P. 18.-~C. P. D. 
 
 The C. P. & M. Railway company being auth- 
 orized by 38 Vict. c. 47 (Ont.), to issue preferen- 
 tial debenturefl, the holders of which, it was 
 enacted might, on default in payment, obtain a 
 
 forei'hmuro or salo of tlio railway by suit in 
 chancery, the diructors pasHcd a by law unactiiiK 
 that such debenturuH should be isHued, under the 
 seal of the <:i)mpauy, ami shoubl "bo nugotiateil 
 from tinie to time as the proceetlM thereof siiull 
 be reipiiriMl for the purpoaes of the eompnny by 
 the managing director." DebenturcN were ac- 
 cordingly issued in blank, and handed to tlie 
 managing director, who, Huliseipiently, the rail- 
 way l>eiiig indebted to the plaiiititl', delivered 
 certain of them to the latter, as security for such 
 debt. The debentures wt^re in the following 
 form : deluMitiire No. 
 
 Thi^C. 1*. iV M. Itailway ('oinpany owes the bank 
 of Toronto, or order, the sum of $l,0(K) iiayable 
 in ten years * * with interest at eight per 
 cent, per annum, payable half-yearly, on preseii 
 tatihn of the proper coupons hereto attiiched. 
 The name, " ISJiiik of Tordiito" was not tilled in 
 unl il about the I ime of delivery to the pliiintill'H, 
 who now brought this action for an account of 
 what was du(! under the debentures and pay- 
 ment, or, in default, a nah^ by the court of tlio 
 iiroperty of the company : Meld, that the dc- 
 lientnres were valiil, and judgment must go ug 
 asked. The strict rules of the common law re- 
 lating to dee'dsare not applii'abh! to such ileben- 
 tures, but rather the rules of the law merchant 
 relating to negotiable securities. Itut if this 
 were not so, the fact that the nanu-, bank of 
 Toronto, was not tilled in until ilelivery to the 
 ])laintiH's did not make the debentures void ; it 
 would come within that class of cases where 
 deeds havc^ been held good notwithstanding an 
 alteration or subsei|nent addition, because, at 
 the tinieof execution, there was something whivh 
 could not be aNcerlaiiied, and was therefore to 
 be lilleil up afterwards. Here, however, tlnrre 
 was no execution, whicli iiii))orts delivery, prior 
 to the lim<: when the nanu! was filled in : — Held 
 al.so, that, though the debentures were under 
 seal, this did not iletract from their character, 
 which was r.ither that of pnniiiHSory notes than 
 of mortgages ; ami tlunijih the Act made them » 
 charge on all the j>rop('rtyof the company, with 
 a right of foreclosure and sale, this M'as some- 
 thing superinilnced upon the security by virtue 
 of the statute: — Held, further, that tlie com- 
 pany having issued the debentures in blank and 
 iumded them to the managing director, who was 
 also secretary and treasurer, to be dealt with by 
 him at bis discretion, he was empowered to com- 
 plete them by theinsertion of the obligee's name, 
 and the company W(Uild be estopped from rely- 
 I ing on such defences as the above : — Held, lastly, 
 I that inasmuch as it a|<p(arcd that these ilcl)cn- 
 I tures were delivered wiih u view to facilitate the 
 ! comj)any"s operations in g'ltting out and dispos- 
 ing of ore, the main branch of its business, thi» 
 [ was a " negotiation " of them "for the purpose* 
 ; of carrying «m the company's business," ami so 
 '. within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and by- 
 law. litiiikofTnrmilow Ciilioiiri/, Petrrlioronijhy 
 ami Mm mora II. W. Co., 7 0. R. 1.— Boyd. 
 
 Illegal issue of railway bonds rentlered valid' 
 by Act of the legislature. See Ci<i/ of Queliec v. 
 Qvebpc Cevtral It. H'. Co., 10 S. C.R. 56.3. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench for Low er Canada that a deben- 
 ture being a negotiable instrument a railway 
 company that has complied with all the condi- 
 tions precedent stated in the by-law to the issu- 
 
 ing and ileli 
 luuiiicipality, 
 from any dec 
 iiientiou»-d in 
 tur<\ Hiicb as 
 etc. Article 
 diiwclitiug. 
 14 8. C. R. 7 
 
 Sen Joiim 
 K 250, p. :«)! 
 
 Set FiiA 
 
 CONKLH" 
 
 In P 
 
 DEOLi 
 
 ,SVr .M 
 
 DECLA 
 
 1. Or Vn 
 
 II. On Bi 
 
 III. In Ot 
 
 A municipi 
 or|)ark,on hu 
 by any trust 
 in any inannc 
 Municipal A 
 where no pri 
 con»e(iuence 
 (leal with hu 
 special )iurp< 
 section 407. 
 from the act 
 the municina 
 purpose indi( 
 to the public 
 were the woi 
 from any ere 
 the municipi 
 thereof, and 
 church, /ii 
 B. 211.— Osl 
 
 31 
 
481 
 
 DEED. 
 
 482 
 
 iiiK ikiiil ili'livi'iy of ili'liciitiinM Kniiitdil liv a 
 iiiiiiiici|Mility, ix itiititli'il to sniil ili'ltviiturcM frov 
 rtoiii iiiiy ili'i'lariitinii on tlioir fiici.' of <'iiniliti(iiiN 
 incut ioiifil ill \\ir liy liiW to liu |ii'rfcii'iiiu<l in fii- 
 tiirti, Hiii'li iiH tlio fiitiii'ti kr(^iiing ii|>iit' tlio rouilH, 
 do. ArtioKs llii'J, Miiiiii;i|Mil Coilu, Fournicr, .F., 
 iliMtciitiii^. I'lirinh iif' St. ('inairev. Mcfavlnm, 
 14 H. C. 11. 7.'I8. 
 
 Sco Jnne* v. Canailn Ctnlral II. W. Co., 46 Q. 
 15. 250, p. 3««. 
 
 DECEIT. 
 
 .Vee l''KAri> ANI> iMlSHKI-KKSKNTATKIN. 
 
 DECISIONS. 
 
 CoNKLumNd Dkcishinh— .9e« C<»ukth. 
 
 DECLARATION. 
 
 In I*l.KA»IN(l.S— .Vee pLKAIItNII. 
 
 DECLARATION OF OFFICE. 
 
 Sfe Mi'.Niril'AI. CoUI'DRATIONfl. 
 
 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 
 
 See JirixiMKNT. 
 
 DECREE. 
 
 I. Of Foukci.osi'hk— .SVc Mokt<!A<:f:. 
 II. On Hii.i, kok Sai.k— /S'lr MoiiTdAcK. 
 III. In Otiiki! Actions— .SVk I'iialtick, 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 A miinioipal cor|ionitinii layinj; out ii H(|uare 
 or park, on liinilHii(^i|uirc(l l>y tlnjin iintruniiiifllcd 
 liy nny tiMiHt uh to its tlixposal, may doal with it 
 in any iiianntir antliori/od liy Huc-tion "lOtl of tiie 
 Municipal Act, K. S. (). (I.s:7). c 174, at leant 
 where no private rij,'iitH have been a<.'(|iiired in 
 conHcipionce of their action; Imt tliey cannot so 
 deal with landu cledicatod liy I lie owner for a 
 S|)ecial piirp<Kse, wliieli case Ih provided for l>y 
 Bection 407. Whether the d(Mlication ariHCH only 
 from the act of the owner, or by exprcHH ){raiit, 
 the iiiuniciiiality must accept it, if at all, for the 
 pin-pose indicated. The owner of land dedicated 
 to the public a S(|uare, by filing a plan upon which 
 were the words, "Sipiare to remain always free 
 from any erection or obstruction:"— Held, that 
 the inunici|)dlity had no power to close up jMirt 
 thereof, and to dispose of it to tnistees of a 
 cliurch. /,( ,(• Peck and the IcwnofUaU, 40 Q. 
 15. 21 1. -Osier. 
 31 
 
 .\ by law paHMuil by a iiiiiiiicipal curporation 
 cannot have the i-irect of taking any Iiiij<In of the 
 Crown In addition to iIiohc a|ipropriati >l by the 
 ( 'row II for til)' pnriioHo of lii){liwayM in order to 
 the opening up of the country. Neither can 
 INii'ticN ill iMiHHeHition of i.'i'owii laiidM bcft'ie pat- 
 ent IsMiii'd dedicate any portion of the Hiinie; 
 uarticH ho in |KWKcHHiiiii, liouever, may ho far 
 iiind theniHelvcH by their actM aH that when a 
 patent Hhall iHHiie to them the laiiilH granted 
 would be bound by any ii;!lit or ca»ciiiciit to 
 which their Hamlion liax bo'ii obtained. Kite v. 
 Trim, 27 Chy. 374.-l»lake. 
 
 Held, that the regiMtralion of a )ilnii of n huIi- 
 diviNion of a town lot aii<l hiIim made in aciMird- 
 mice with it, doeH not cciiiNtitiite a dedication of 
 the landH thereon to the public, //; ir MtitioH 
 awl Ihi ('iti/„/'Sl. T/iomiii, It A. Ii. :W:i. 
 
 The mere fact of the owner of laiiils Helling 
 them in lotH accoiilin^ to a plan HhewiiiK HtreetH 
 and laiieH adjoiniii){ the Mcvcial IhIh does not bind 
 him to uontiiiue Hiirli strei'tH and laiicH, iinleHH a 
 purehaRer iH materially iin'oiiMiiicnccd by the 
 uloHing of any of thiMii. Cinii/ v, (.'ill/ of' 'J'uioiito, 
 II A. H. 4I«; 14 S. V. K. Kl'. 
 
 Hue y nil Kowihuil v. pi'iiismi, 28 Chy. 486; 
 1 O. R. :Wi; II A. n. lilt'.l, p. 4-.'l ; KiiiHttly v. 
 Cily of Toronto, 12 O. It. 211, p. 4U3. 
 
 DEED. 
 
 I. EXECDTION. 
 
 1. .9eo/, 48.1. 
 
 2. In ntmik, 483. 
 
 II. Kwiuiw, 48:i. 
 
 III. ALTKItATION, 483. 
 
 IV. CoNSTUUCTION AND Ol'KKATION. 
 
 1. Dfisrriiilloii of' /'nrtifn, 484. 
 
 2. Coimidiratioii, 484. 
 
 .S. Drsrri/ilinn of Lnvil, 4S,'>. 
 
 4. tUUtlf Ciralid — iSVc I';>tatk. 
 
 5. Conditioni, Hi'mrml'ioiit, and Excep- 
 
 tioiix, 490. 
 (J. IlalHwhini, 403. 
 
 7. Itei'di Uiidrr tlu' Slioii Fomin AcU, 
 
 (a) itnundty, 41)3. 
 
 (b) Lmsfn—Stit: Landi.okd and Te- 
 
 nant. 
 
 (c) Morlgaijen—See MoktcAOK. 
 
 8. /{aiyoiii and Sii/r, 4!)4. 
 
 9. Ollifr Ciims, 4!»4. 
 
 10. Covenants in—-S'iv Covenant — Cove- 
 nants Foit Titlk. 
 
 V. Rectifvinc! and Vauvimi. 
 
 1. Rectify'iiiij, 49t">. 
 
 2. Parol EridenciAo Kari/--."f*7'EviDF.NC'E. 
 VI. SETriN(J Aside. 
 
 1. For Fraud -S'cr Vravo and Mishep- 
 
 RESKNTATION— ritAI'DULKNT CoN- 
 VKVANCKS. 
 
 2. Cloud oil Title— See .Sale ok Landh. 
 
 
 
488 
 
 DEED. 
 
 484 
 
 485 
 
 •I 
 
 S' 
 
 VII. Proof of — See Evidence. 
 VIII. Prksumptions A8 to D.;fiDS — See Evi- 
 
 DKNCE. 
 
 IX. EsTori'EL BY Deed— 5ce Estoppel. 
 
 X. Re(1istration of— -See Reciistry Laws. 
 
 XI. Particular Deeds— See The Several 
 Titles. 
 
 I. PLxecutiov. 
 1. Seal. 
 
 Tha (Iciendants' Actof Incorporation provided 
 thrit 'all policies shall * * be signed * * 
 and being so signed and countersigned and un- 
 <ler the seal of the company, siiall be deemed 
 valid and binding npon tiiem." The policy sued 
 on was issued by tlie company without the cor- 
 porate seal being atlixcd, altiiough tlie attesta- 
 tion clause stated that the company had there- 
 unto affixed its seal : — Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of tlie C. P. {2d U. P. '2-2\), that the policy 
 was a valid contract to grant an insurance. Per 
 Moss, ('. .T. A. The pulicy supplied internal 
 evidence of a mutual mistake against which a 
 court of eiiuity would, if necessary, relieve. 
 Wmjht v. .*>'(/» MiiIikU Life Iim. Co., 5 A. R. 
 218. Affirmed, Lmidoii Life Ins. Go. v. \Vri'/ht, 
 5 S. C. R. 4()6. 
 
 The testimonium clause iu a power of attorney 
 declared that the principal set his hand and seal 
 to the instrument. Tiie attestation clause de- 
 clared tiiat it was signed and scaled in the pre- 
 sence of a subscril)ing witnes-t, and opposite tlie 
 signature of the principal was a visibl« impres- 
 sion made by the pen in the form of a scroll in 
 which was inscribed the word "seal:" — Held, 
 a sufHuient sealing of the document, lie Bdl 
 ami Black, 1 O. R. 123— Boyd. 
 
 Defence to an action on a bond against sure- 
 ties that the l)ond when executed had no seals. 
 See Mai-fhnll v. Manidiial'dy of Shelburne, 14 
 S. C. \\. 737. See also Rcijiiia v. Chetleu, 16 S. C. 
 R. 306. 
 
 2. In Blank. 
 
 Evidence of bond of suretyship to the Ct'owu 
 being executed in blank. — Estoppel of defen- 
 dant from denving execution. See Heijina v. 
 Chesley, 16 H. C. il. : i)G. 
 
 II. Escrow. 
 
 See ConfrderatioH Life A-snoriation of Canada 
 V. O'Donnelt, 10 S. C. R. 92; 13 ,S. C. R. 218. 
 
 III. Ai.tkration. 
 
 H. obtained from his debtor an absolute con- 
 veyance of land as security, which was attacked 
 l»y the plaintiff, who had 8ul)se(juently recovered 
 an executiim against tlie grantor, as being a 
 fraudulent preference. It was shawn that the 
 deed, after its execution, had been altered by 
 the grantee so as to convey the correct lot (22 
 instead of 122), the only lot owned by the gran- 
 tor, but no re-execution or acknowledgment 
 took place; the grantor, however, acLCjited a 
 lease from H, of the correct lot, which he after- 
 
 wards surrendered to H. : — Held, that aa the 
 grantor, according to the I'uling in Sayles v. 
 Brown, 28 Chy. 10, could not claim to have the 
 conveyance vacated, so neither could his creditor, 
 the plaintiff. SomiuerriUe v. Baf,, 28 Chy. His. 
 
 Alteration of discharge of mortgage by mort- 
 gagee's agent. See Saylen v. Brown, 28 Chy. 10. 
 
 In an action to recover possession of land it 
 ap])eared that one of the deeds forming a link 
 in the plaintiff's title had been altered by the 
 grantor's agent under authority of a letter from 
 the grantor. The alteration consisted in the 
 agent rewriting the first two pages and substi- 
 tuting a new grantee. The letter was not under 
 seal; and the deed was not re-executed or re- 
 delivered by the grantor. The plaintiff proved 
 that he had a good equitable right to jio.sses. 
 sion: — Held, that the deed was void at law; 
 but that the plaintitl' was entitleil to recoviM- on 
 his eijuitable title. Leave was also granted to 
 add the owner of the legal estate as plaintiff if 
 necessary. Thome v. U'illiamn, 13 O. R. Wn.~ 
 C. P. 1). 
 
 Alteration of bail bond after execution. See 
 WoodmoHh v. Dickie, 14 S. C. R. 734. 
 
 See Heal Enta/e Inwutment Co. v. JU etrojtolitan 
 Bnildiiiij .Society, 3 0. R. 470. 
 
 IV, Construction and Operation. 
 
 1. Description of Parlies. 
 
 The deed to the defendant company described 
 it by its original name of P. H. L. & B. R. Co., 
 when in fact its n:ime had then been changed:— 
 Held, a sufficient descriptio persona', to eiial)lfi 
 the company to tiike, tliougli it might not Iw 
 sufficient to sue in. Orand J Miction II. IK. Co. 
 V. Midland li. W. Co., 7 A. R. 681. 
 
 2. Consideration. 
 
 The defendant being the owner of the etjuity 
 of redein])tion in certain lands, executed a decil 
 on October 18tli, 1S84, purporting to convey 
 them directly to his wife for a consideration of 
 .^100, the receiiit of which was acknowledged in 
 the margin and in the body of the deed. The 
 plaintiff, who claimed by conveyance from the 
 wife brought this act: :) t , recover possession 
 from the defendant, who i:onteinled th.it the 
 deed to his wife had been made without consi- 
 deration, and was, therefore, void. The plaiutilf 
 purchased boiiA fide without notice of there hav- 
 ing been no consi<leiation : — Held, that umlcr 
 4!l Vict. c. 20, .s. 1(1 (Out.), the acknowledgment 
 of tlie consideration in the deed authori/ed the 
 plaintiff to deal on tlie footing of its having l>een 
 I p;iid upcm execution of it, and the defendant 
 i could not now dispute the consideration. That 
 section of the Act is not to be restricted to 
 ; claims upon alleged veniloic' liens and the like. 
 j Semble, that even if the ileed iu (|iiestion were 
 ; to be considered voluntary ami without consi- 
 deration, the authorities, tlioiii|li not at all in 
 unison, were sr'licient to support a judgment in 
 the plaintiffs favour, inasmuch as lie had at all 
 events a good title in equity, which wivs now 
 suffi.:ient. Jones V. MrOralh (2), 10 O. R. 017.— 
 Chy. a 
 
485 
 
 DEED. 
 
 3. Deaa-iption of Land. 
 
 The premises intuiulcd to be conveyed by n 
 tiix deed, fi'om tlio warden and treasurer to tlie 
 jdiiintiir, were describc<l therein as 180 aeres of 
 tiio east halves of two lota " connneneinf; at the 
 finiit east lialvua of said lots, taking the fidl 
 lii-eadtli of eauli half res|)ectively and running 
 nortiiwards so far as rtM|uircd, to make ninety 
 acres of each east half:" — Held, that "north- 
 wards" niiglit l)e rejected, l)eing evidently a mis- 
 take for westward. Fcn/UMon v. Freeman, 27 
 Chy. 21I.-Chy. D. 
 
 A description of land in a deed by reference 
 to other conveyances for a fuller description is 
 sufficient. In re. Trdenii and JIurner, 28 Chy. 
 ti'24.— Blake. 
 
 Held, that tlie words " ))e the same more or 
 loss," following tlie description of the ipiantity 
 of land, im|)ropcrly inserteil in a sherifl's <leed 
 luigiit be rejected as surplusage. NcUm v. While, 
 2<.» Ciiy. :l.S8.— Spragge. 
 
 1). sold to the predecessor in title of tlie plain- 
 tiff certain lands, and tlie deed contained tlie 
 following (wiiicli was held to amount to a cove- 
 nant, the beiietit of which passed to tlie plaiii- 
 titf ) : — " Hcllcvue sijiiari; is private jtroperty, 
 hut it is always to reiiiaiii unbuilt upon except 
 one residence with the necessary outbuildings, 
 including jiorter's lodge." The land having 
 been .sold under a mortgage, a portion came 
 again to the hands of 1>. , who proceeded to con- 
 vey parts of it for buiMing purposes : — Held, 
 that parol evidence was a<lmissiblc to show 
 what was meant by " Ikllevuo si|uare,"' no plan 
 or deseriiition being incorporated in the deed. 
 VaiiKouijhnc.tv, De.n'uiou, 11 A. R. 099. 
 
 In IS51 ,.I. (jurchased the whole of lot 20 from 
 the Crown, the lot nominally containing 200 
 acres, and describsd in the crown lands ilepart- 
 nicnt liooksas ccuitainiiig 175 acres, more or less. 
 On ;JOth October, 1852, licfore taking out his pa- 
 tent, .1. sold and assigned, by a written assign- 
 ment to R., the east half or part of the lot 
 ilcsi'iibeil as seventy-five aeres, "neither more or 
 less." In 18t)3, R. sold to R. his interest in this 
 parcel, descrilied as containing " s(!venty-five 
 acres, more or less," and as being composed of 
 the east jiart of the lot. t)ii 22ud .Inly, 188:i, R. 
 took out ii patent of his jjortion, tlie land being 
 described as "seventy-live acres, moiv or less," 
 bciiiu all the lot except the west 100 acres. On 
 2Htli August, I8()8. ,1., who retained all he liad 
 not soKl to It., took out a patent himself, the 
 land being descrilied as the west 100 acre's, with- 
 <'Ut the Words more or less, those words having 
 lieen erased from the printed form on which the 
 piitent was written. Sub.seiiuently H. rceonveyed 
 t<i R., tlimugh whom tiie plaintillelaimed as heir 
 of his father, and as having acquired the title of 
 the (ithur heirs, d., after obtaining his patent, 
 «-oiiveye(l the northerly and .southerly ])ortions to 
 his two sous, the defendants. About the time 
 •'• took out his patent, by instructions from the 
 plainlilf's fatlie,-, a surveyor ran a line dividing 
 the seventy-live acres from the 100 acres ; and in 
 l>S74, he procuircd another line to be run under 
 instructions to lay oil' the seventy-five acres, 
 which was done, and the plaintilf's father and 
 -I. jointly erected a fence on such line. In 188:1, 
 the |ilaiiititf discovert d that tiie actual acreage 
 exceeded 175 acres by some eleven acres. The 
 
 actual occupation under B.'s patent was con(ine<l 
 to the seventy-five acres : — Held, that B. 'a patent 
 would of itself iiiclmlc the eleven acres ; and 
 there was nothing to shew that the patent was 
 issued by fraud or mistake so as to entitle defen- 
 dants to have it reformed ; and that defendants 
 on the evidence, except as to a small portion 
 thereof, failed to shew any possessory title to the 
 land in (juestion. Cain v. Jnnkin, 6 O. R. 532. — 
 C. I'. D. AlKrmed, 13 A. R. 525. 
 
 In 1861, W. D. P., who owned a piece of land 
 bounded on the south by Queen street, on the 
 east by William street, on the west by Dummer 
 street, and running north some distance, laid out 
 the southerly portion into lots depicted upon a 
 plan, which plan showed the boundary line be- 
 tween the plaintiff's and defendant's lots to be 
 exactly 600 feet fror.i (Juecn street. There were 
 no stakes or other mai'ks on the ground to indi- 
 cate the boundaries of the lots or the extent of 
 land so laid out. Many years afterwards the 
 remaining' land to the north of the parcel so laid 
 out, was laid out in lots, so depicted on another 
 ])lan, and a street was shown between the north- 
 erly limit of the first plan and the southerly 
 limit of the second plan. The actual distance, 
 however, of this street from Queen street was 
 greater than the first plan on its face showed it 
 to be, and the parties owning lots on the first 
 plan appeared to have taken u)> their lots as if 
 <,>ucen street and the street (ui the north of the 
 first phm were actual limits of the plan. Per 
 Strong, .T., I. The true boundary line between 
 the plaintitT's and defendant's lits was a line 
 commencing at a point COO feet from Dummer 
 street, as measured on the ground at the time 
 when the plan was made ; but in the absence of 
 evidence showing a measurement on the levelled 
 street, that point couhl not bu accepted as the 
 I true point of commencement of the boundary in 
 ti|uostion; 2. Inasti-.- ' -s the conveyances to 
 j the ]Kirties were <i..' I' according to the first 
 I phm, the second plan could not bo invoked to 
 i aid in ascertaining the limits of the lot so con- 
 veyed. Ora-seft v. Carter, 10 S. C. R. 105. 
 
 Per Strong, J. , where lands are described by 
 reference to a plan, the plan is considered as in- 
 corporated witli the deed, and the boundaries of 
 the lands conveyed as defined by the plan are to 
 be taken as part of the description. Jb. 
 
 In construing a deed of land not subject to 
 special statutory regulations, extrinsic evidence 
 of monuments and actual boundary marks is 
 inailmissible to control the deed, but if reference 
 is made by the deed to such monuments and 
 boundaries, they control, though they may call 
 for courses, distances, or computed contents 
 which do not agree with those in the cloed. Ih. 
 
 When a conveyance describes the property by 
 reference to a plan, the plan becomes incorpo- 
 rated witii the conveyance, and just as much part 
 of the description as if it had been dr.awn upon 
 the face of the conveyance, and to determine 
 what passes by the conveyance, the description 
 and plan alone are to be looked at, their con- 
 struction being a (|nestion of law. l^inUh v. Mil- 
 lioi,.t, 16 A. R 140 ; 15 O. R. 45.3. 
 
 Where, therefore, lots were sold by reference 
 to a plan, iind in the plan the lots were laid out 
 in rectangular and not in rhcnnboidal shape, the 
 dividing lines between the lota were held to run 
 
487 
 
 DEED. 
 
 488; 
 
 489 
 
 il 
 
 at right augh's to the e-vdniittt't lini; of frontage, 
 and the ownership ot the laud in dispute was 
 determined hy this test. f>. C, 10 A. K. 140. 
 Reversing, IfiO. li. 453. 
 
 When a close or piirccl of himl is granted hy 
 a specifio name, and it can l>e .shewn what are 
 the houndarie.i of .siuli close or ])iurei, the gov- 
 erning part of llie description is tlie specific 
 name, anil the whole p:n\il will liass, even 
 though to the geueial description there is super- 
 added a puiticular description hy metes ii'ul 
 hounds, or hy a plan which does not .'<hcw the 
 whole contents of the land as included in the 
 designation hy which it in known. AtlriU v. 
 P/all, lOS. C. R. 425. 
 
 In 185!), the then owner.'* of part of the lands 
 in question had aj)lan i)repaied and registered, 
 and in IhTl, tliey conveyed a paicel which tliey 
 deserihed as l)lock I''. : Held, that it must lie 
 presumed they intended to convey the same par- 
 cel of land shewn on said plan as hlock F with 
 the same natural houndai ies as those indicated 
 thereon. Hi. ,..j. 
 
 Held, that though a plan not certified us le- 
 ijuired hy the registry law. R. S. (). (1877), e. 
 Ill, s. 82, Kul' s. 2, had, alllidugh dcposileil in 
 the rcgistiy otlice, no efh rt jinder the legistry 
 law, yet in a deed i<fi rcnce might he made to 
 it, as it nnght to any other ilo< uineiit in the 
 registry otlice or elsewhere, for the description 
 or (lesignatioii of a lot. Fi ripisaii v. WiiiKvr, 
 10 (). 1;. i:i-()(onnor. See 11 O. R. 88. 
 
 In an action of ejeetmeiit the (|uesti(in to he 
 di cided was whetlu'r the locus was situate within 
 the plaintill's lot, No. .") in concession 18, or w itli- 
 in defendant's lot adjoining No. 24 in concession 
 17. The grant through which the plaintifl's 
 title was originally derived, gave the southdii 
 boundary of lot '> as a starting point, the ccjuisc 
 Ijeing thence eiglity-four < liains more or less to 
 the river. Tiie original snrxeys were lost, and 
 this starting point could not l.e ascertained : — 
 Held, attirniing the judgment of the t'ouitof 
 Appeal, (11 A. H. 7(-8, which lever.-ed '_' 0. H. 
 014), iStrong and 1'asclieri an, .IJ., dissenting, 
 that .such southern iMuiiuUuy coulil not he as- 
 certained hy measuring hack e.vactly eiglity-four 
 chains from the river, i'lumbv. tjtttnhojj, 14 !S. 
 C. K. 739. 
 
 A patent from the Crown purported to grant 
 theW. half of a certain lot (f land, through i\liieh 
 tlowcd the I'', liver, i.'-suing out of the C. lake in 
 the N. W. corner of the hall lot, and running 
 across the half lot in a diagonal dinction. In 
 t!ie metes and hounds given in the patent occur 
 red the following courses: "'llicn S. 73 degrees 
 15 minutes \V. 24 chains, more or less, to ('. 
 lake; Ihenee southerly, aleiig the watel's edge, 
 to the allowance for 1(1.. d lieiwecu the flth ami 
 10th concessions; thciue S. 16 degiees "15 mill- 
 utea E. 21 chains, more or less, to the place of 
 beginning; containing seventy-six acres, more 
 or less, together with the waters thereon lying 
 and being." FiMin the point thus indicated on 
 the margin of the C lake, which was aliout the 
 place of issuance of the F. river Irom it, a shoal, 
 a good part of whiih was expofed, extended 
 .^eross in a southerly ilirectic n to the road be- 
 tween the !(th and Kith conetssioiiK. It was 
 contended that the said metes and bounds iudi- 
 
 i eated that a course was to be taken from the 
 said point on the margin of the C lake along lim 
 I E. hank of the river to the imaginary eastern 
 I boundary line of the half lot, then across the river, 
 , and nj) the other side to the said road, and that 
 this interpretation coiiiciiled with the ,icreage 
 mentioned in the jiatent, and that none of the 
 land covered by the I'', river jiassed to the gran- 
 tee; — Held, however, that the plan and desciip- 
 tion of the lot, together with the other circi ni- 
 stances of the case, shewed that by the ''wai I's 
 edge" was meant the edge of the lake, i. e. , tee 
 shoal above mentioned, wliich wa.s to be taken 
 aw the margin of the lake, and the couix, indi- 
 cated wa.s acloss the hike on the line of the said 
 shoal, so that the be<l of the river crossing the 
 , half lot passed to the grantee, notwithstanding 
 I that by this interpretation about fourteen acres 
 I above the ((uantity inentic'iied in the jiatent 
 passed thereliy. 'Ihere being a reasonably ac- 
 I curate particularizalion of the four boundaries, 
 the ((iiantity ot acres must not be legaidedas 
 jthe controlling term of the description. The 
 j fair pvesumption was that such a course was 
 meant as would give the most direct points of 
 connection hctween the termini thereof. Hi 
 Trtiil VnUd) C'aiinl (mil l.am/.s /•.V/trvjnlalid at 
 /■'cm /(III Fail.-; 12 (). K. l,")3.-lioy.l. 
 
 I Where a river flowed diagonally through a 
 certain lot of land, and the owner of the lot 
 granted the |iart theleof Ijing N. or V). ol the 
 said river to mie party, and the part lying S. or 
 
 , W. of the said river to the other pat ty : — llehl, 
 that this would cany the ownerslni) of the soil 
 to the mid thiiad of the liver to the respec- 
 tive ]iartiis, no evidence of intei.tii n inconsis- 
 tent therewith appearing upon the instrument. 
 
 A erowii jiatent, issued in 18.")2, conveyed to 
 the plaintiH .M. I!, a tract of land "containing 
 by adnii asiin meiit sixty aeies, be the same mere 
 or less. ' and dtherwise known as lol i) in the 
 
 ] 4th ((riicession of th(^ towiishijiof (Ijis, "exclu- 
 
 , sive of the lands eiivi-red by tlii' waters of the S. 
 river, whiih are henby reseivid, together with 
 free access to the shore tluieof for all vessels, 
 boats, .mil perseuis."' The lot actually i-ontaiiied 
 20(( at res, but the dry luiit was only sixty acres. 
 
 ' At and before the' issue of the patent, there' w:ia 
 a certain mill dam on the .S. rive'r, whi. Ii raiseil 
 
 ;th(^ wate^rs of the river and Hooded a portion of 
 lot !l ; the plaintilTs diil not object to the flood- 
 ing of lot !l ly the dam. but brought this acti(in 
 to lestrain the defeiidants from still fiiitlicr 
 Hooding the lot to the extent of about four 
 acies, bj' the use of biacket boards upon the 
 dam, w hich raised the watei' about a foot. The 
 two judges lon. posing the IHvisioiial Court, 
 agree'd in reveising the judgment of I'romlfoeit, 
 
 '■)., (l:U». H. W>2i. and iii holding that the defen- 
 dants had no prescriptive right to oxertlow the 
 lilaini ills' lands by means of the 1 racket ho.iiils, 
 but ilisngrced as to the coiistiuetion of the 
 pate'iit : as to w hich it was :- Held, per Ariiiour. 
 C. >).. that the winds in the giant, " ceiitaiuiifj; 
 hy admeusuremeiil sixty acies, he the s.tiiu' nori 
 or less," elid not ceinti ol or alli'i t the deseription 
 of the land granteil, that description being plain 
 and unainbiguouB ; that the woriis " I'xclusive 
 of the lands covered by the waters of the .S. 
 river, whitii ar<^ her< by reserved,' nieant the 
 waters of the river S. iu its nutuial channel. 
 
 ihe waters ' 
 condition ; a 
 patent, not o 
 the drowned 
 river; and t 
 title to the h 
 ned back by 
 dam. I'er S 
 cription in t 
 . ..n-trnet ion 
 I make 
 . , with 
 tent : .ind, tl 
 strueil as if 
 both witliiii i 
 the river ; 1 1 
 mcaHun- I 1 
 as miiii' 
 hoanls. r>iii 
 that the wor 
 not mean the 
 naturd ch'ii 
 ),p;,tht at wh' 
 
 , ' rt <'♦ --'.se 
 of ii.-- >"v liii 
 istciiee ot th 
 at their nati 
 ordinary chi 
 Siidltr, 10 
 
 Tlio propc 
 W.1S descrilx' 
 game being H 
 dale, on the 
 shown that 
 of I'arkd de, 
 as sucli striH' 
 avenue, but 
 roail or way 
 deseription \ 
 reference to 
 the propert 
 Sliri imon V. 
 guson. 
 
 L. inoonvi 
 coinposed of 
 the 4lh com 
 and bounds 
 of the same 
 only pirt of 
 sale was thr 
 lot 17, givii 
 east half, th 
 same (luant 
 The sheritr 
 lot sold by 1 
 the south hi 
 concession 
 Hf'd, follo\ 
 deed was vn 
 the except i 
 void for u 
 laml, 17 0. 
 
 Held,thf 
 deed to .S. c 
 to he conve 
 were contrt 
 
 See m/ 
 V. B'jolh, 1 
 Ciis. 158; ( 
 624; McA^ 
 
488: 
 
 489 
 
 DEED. 
 
 490 
 
 ilic waters botweon its shores in its niitural 
 <;oiulitioii ; (ind therefore tliat H. took uii'lir tlie 
 patent, not only the ('.ry pai't of lot !), l)ut also 
 the drowned land, exuhuilny the channel of the 
 river ; and th(! plaintifFs had established their 
 title to the laud U)ion which the water was pen- 
 ned back by tlie use of bracket boards n|)on t he 
 dam. I'er Street, .1. — Tlio language of the des- 
 cription in the patent admits of two ililFerent 
 ■ i'ii'<trii(lion», and that should p ovail which 
 1 make the quantity of land conveyed 
 .',• with the (luantity mentioned in the pa- 
 tent : and, therefore, the patent should be con- 
 strued as if it excluded all the drowned land 
 lH)th within and without tiie actual cliiinnel of 
 the river : the ex tent of the drowned land Ijeing 
 meartiired by refi'renee to tiie height ipf the water 
 asnnintiii. 'ly the dam without iho bracket 
 boards, liut: -lleld, by the court of appeal 
 that the words " the waters of the S. riv^^r" did 
 not mean the waters of tliat river llowiiig in its 
 naturd channel mercdy, or tlie water at the 
 lipiirht at which they might hajipen to be on the 
 r i .: i.',\ issue of the patent, but had the 
 t 'ct"*' reserving from the grant that portion 
 of li;v ii.c liable to be covcrecl, owing to the ex- 
 istence ot the dam, by the waters of the river, 
 at their natural height at .any time during the 
 ordinary changes of the seasons. /Irtnli/ v. 
 fSwlltr, Hi (). K. 10. -Q. IJ. 1) ; 17 A. R. 3(i5. 
 
 The property in an agreement for exchange, 
 was descrii)ed as " {.'{.l feet on (!. avenue, the 
 samo being ',VM feet west from R. avenue, I'ark- 
 dale, on the north side of said avenue. It was 
 shown tliat R. avenvie was the west l)oundary 
 of Parkd lie, anil (}. avenue a street in it, which, 
 as sui'li street, would have its termination at R. 
 aveniK', Init it exiendeil across II. avenue as a 
 road or way outside of I'arkdale, and no further 
 description was given, such as the depth or by 
 reference to a plan or otherwise : — Held, that 
 the property was not sulliciently desciibed. 
 .Stirnisoii V.' Mclfennj, Ki O. R. 139.— Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 L. in conveying land to .S. described it as being 
 ciimpiised of the southerly half of lot 17, in 
 the 4th concession of King, giving it tlie metes 
 and bounds of the "ast half, lint excepting out 
 of the same forty-five acres sold for taxes. The 
 only pirt of lot 17 which L. had before the tax 
 sale was that conveyed to him by B. as part of 
 lot 17, giving it the metes and bounds of the 
 east h.alf, the sami; as in the deed to S. ; and the 
 same ijuantity w.as conveyed in both deeds. 
 The sheriir's deed described a portion of the 
 lot sold by him for taxes as "forty-live .acres of 
 the south half of said lot iiumbir 17, in the 4th 
 concession of the said towii.ship of King:"' — 
 Ht-'il, following the decisions that the .sherifT's 
 deed was void for uncertainty : — Holi'. also, that 
 the exception in the deed to S. vms likewise 
 void for uncertainty. M:i.lhiiUanil v. Alulliol- 
 lawl, 17 0. R. 502. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the metes and bounds given in the 
 deed to.S. correctly ih'scribed the lands intended 
 to he conveyed, and the words " so.itherly half" 
 were controlled by them, /,'». 
 
 See McArlhur v. aUlie^, 20 Chy. '223 ; A'a./M 
 V. Booth, 11 O. R. 4!n ; 14 A R. 4l0; 1.5 App. 
 C.a.1. 15S; ColHw/liom v. Col/iii'i/iam, 11 A. I. 
 624; Mc Arthur v. Brown, 17 S.' C. R. 61. 
 
 j .5. Conilltlona, ninrrviUioiu, and ExrepliotiH. 
 
 j Defenilant conveyed to his son .7. L., jun., the 
 i east half of a lot, " reserving from the operation 
 1 of these presents unto the saiil parties of the tirst 
 j and scct)nil parts (tin- latter being defendant's 
 wife), during their joint lives, and during the 
 life of the survivor, one acre of the.saiil lot liere- 
 I by conveyed, the same acre to be taken in any 
 i [lart of the lainls hereby conveyed, where the 
 said ))arties of the lirst and second parts see tit. " 
 ; Defendant continued to live on the landH with 
 I his son till the hitter's death, in 1S70. Several 
 yeais before his death, J. L., jun., built a small 
 house on the land, which w.is occupie<l by his 
 men till his death. After his son's death the de- 
 fendant wcntoti' the land, but returned in almut 
 a yeai-, and lived in the small house built by hii) 
 .son, and improved the same. The inortgiigees 
 of the son sold to the plaintill' under the power 
 in their mortgage, and the defenilant, at the sale 
 { to the plaintitl', on being asked, said he had not 
 < selected his , acre, was then asked to d<» so, and 
 i then selected the part where he was living. The 
 plaintill was inesent and heard thi.s, and his 
 conveyance was "subject to the reservations con- 
 tained in the deed from .1. L., sen., (the defen- 
 I dant) to.). L., jun. :'' -Held, that the reservation 
 j in the deed from the defendant to his son was 
 I more properly an exception than a reservation : 
 I that an estate for t he joint lives of the defendant 
 , and his wife, and for the life of the survivor, 
 remained in the defendant ; and he therefore 
 i was entitled to seleit the acre at any time, ami 
 j was not bound to do so in the lifetime of liia 
 ' Sim. Burnham '•. Ram.sey, 32 Q. B. 49, distin- 
 ' tinguishc 1. Lupolnte v. Lajltiir, 46 Q. B. 16. — 
 1 Q. B. U. 
 
 The estate in i|uestion had been conveyed to 
 <!. 1). & L. R, between whom a partition hail 
 been made, not uiide;- seal, giving to L. P. the 
 east half. Afterwards (!. I), conveyed to the 
 dcfi ndant his interest in the east half, and after 
 the execution of the deed by the defendant to 
 his lon L. P. by clced reciting that by oversight 
 there was no release from him of the ciist half, 
 and that he was desirous of completing the 
 
 I son's title, released the cast half to the son. It 
 
 ■ was contended that the defendant owned only 
 an undivided inoiecy of the lot when he conveyed 
 to his son, and that the plaintiff, claiming 
 through the son, could recover an undivided 
 moiety of the acre selected by the defendant ; 
 but :^Held, otherwise, for the plaintitT took his 
 deed subject to the reservation in the defendant's 
 deed to his son, and the deed from L. P. to the 
 
 I son would enure only to the benefit of the title 
 
 ' conveyed to him by his father. It). 
 
 W. (J., being seized in fee, by an instrument 
 , purported to lease to his daughters "three .acres, 
 I with the right of way to a well, including an 
 ! orchard and ilwelling-house, after the decease of 
 j his beloved wife, .1. (i.," to hold to his daugh- 
 ters for and during their lives, or the life of the 
 survivor of them, at the yearly rent of twenty 
 cents, if doir.auded. Ten days afterwards he 
 conveyed in fee to his son W. f!., the laud of 
 which the three acres formed part, the son hav- 
 ing actual notice of the .agreeniei»t iietween his 
 sisters .anil R. O. Subscijuently, W. (r. con- 
 veyed to the plaintiff, "Eubject to the right of 
 R. C's wife and daughters to occupy the house 
 and three acres during the life of them or the 
 
 
DEED. 
 
 492: 
 
 St 
 
 "ISRb 
 
 survivor, and the right to and from the well," 
 and Hubji'ct to ii mortgage, wliich tlir jilaiiitifV 
 agreed to pay oil. To this deed the i>laiiitifr 
 was an cxeeiiting party. 'J'lie |iliiintill' brought 
 cjuctnient against K. (J.'h daiighteiH for tlie three 
 acres: — Held, that the agreeiiieiil i>y wliiili It. 
 \i. intended to demise the tlnee acrea created a 
 term at onee, the wife of It. d. retuiiiinr; tile 
 right to oeeui)y during her life:— Heiil, also, 
 that the words "sul>ject to,"ete., in tiie tmivey- 
 aiicu to tlie plaintit!, either operated as an ex- 
 ception, or, l)y reason of the execution of the 
 deed liy the plaintiff, as a regrant of the three 
 acres to lier vendor. In either ease, tiierefore, 
 the plaintiff was entitled to succeed, (^uiere, 
 also, if the deed operated as a regrant to \V. 
 G., wlictiierif the lease were void, as contended, 
 as creating a freeliold interest to comnience in 
 futuro, W. (■., having notice of liis si-sterw' claim 
 under it, wonlil not Ijc restrained from diKtiirl)- 
 ing them. Wilson v. Oiliiiit; Mi Q. H. 545. — 
 Q. H. J). 
 
 The grantor conveyed certain lanils to the 
 grantee, his heirs and assigns, and by a pro\ .io 
 at the concluding part of the deed declared 
 "nevertheless, 'h'it the above L. shall have no 
 right to sell, afieii, or dispose in any way what- 
 soever of tli,> I'.bove-ii' ^'>1 ioned premises, but 
 have only the use <iuring his life-time, after 
 which his children will liave full right to the 
 said property above mentioned:"' — Held, on de- 
 murrer, that such proviso was repugnant to the 
 grant and haben<lum, in fee, and tliercf(jie void. 
 Lario v. li'nlLir, 28 C'hy. 210.— Spragge. 
 
 By 18 Vict. c. 25(», W. F. and his brother 
 were aiithori/,cd to sell certain ont;iiled projjcrty 
 in consideration of a nonredccmablc rent re|irc- 
 seuting the value of the property. On the Tth 
 September, IStiO, W. K, the appellant, and E. 
 F., assigned to tlieii' brother, A. I'., a piece of 
 land fornii;"^' part of the above entailed projierty, 
 in consideration of a rente foncierc of six pounds, 
 payable the first day of October of each year. 
 The deed was registered and contained tlie fol- 
 lowing stipulation : "liut it Is agreed that the 
 assignee cannot alienate in any manner whateo- 
 ever the said land, nor any part thereof, to any 
 person without the express and written consent 
 of the a.s8ignor8 under penalty of the nullity of 
 the .said deed." The projierty was 8ubsci|uently 
 seized by a judgment creditor of A. F. , ami a]i- 
 pellant opposed the sale and asked that the sei- 
 zure be (leclared null, because the pio])erty 
 seized could not be sold by reason of tlie above 
 prohibition to alienate:— Held, on appeal, .-itliini- 
 ing the judgment of the court belov, tliat the 
 deed was made in aceordancc with the p-ovi- 
 sions of 18 Viet. c. 250, and being a puiely onei'- 
 0U8 title on its face, the prohibition to alienate 
 contained in said deed was void. Ait. 070 ( '. ('. 
 L. C. Quaere, whether the substitutes may not, 
 when the substitution opens, attack the deed for 
 want of suflleient consideration. Frnxe.r v. Pott- 
 Hot, 4 S. (;. H. 515. 
 
 On f«eptembcr 2()th, 1844, ,1. I,c R by deed 
 bargained and stdd, etc., to the municipal conn 
 oil of D. dis.riet, in consideration of five shil- 
 lings, a certain lot for the purpose of erecting 
 thereon a school-house for the use of the D. dis- 
 trict. Habendum, for the purpose aforesaid, 
 unto the municipal council forever. The deed 
 was Bubjcct to a proviso, that the said council 
 
 should within one year from its date erect a 
 school-house for the use of the said district, or 
 if the said council should at any time erect any 
 other bnihllng fave said school-house and neces- 
 sary ollices, or should sell, lease, alien, transfer, 
 or convey the said land, it should be lawful for 
 the saiil .J. I,e Ii. and his heirs to re enter and 
 avoid the estate of the said municipal council. 
 .1. Le W. by his will, dated .Tidy 2.11(1, 1847, de- 
 vi.sed all his real estate to certain nieces, and 
 died in the year 1848, without having revoked 
 or altered said will. The muiilci|ial eouiieil 
 complied with tliecondltinn by building a. schoel- 
 lunise, and at the time of the making ot the will, 
 the condition had not been broken, but the suc- 
 cessors of 1). district dealt with the luiul other- 
 wise than was authoiizeil by the deed, and broke 
 the condition. The land having Ijeen sold, a 
 petition was filed to have it declaied whether 
 the devisees under the will of J. I,e IJ. or his 
 heirsat-law were entitled to the iirocccds there- 
 of :- Held, tiuit the word "po.ssilillity " in R. .S, 
 O. (1877), !•. 10(i, s. 2, includes a "right of entry 
 for condition broken,"' nw nti<med in section 10, 
 and is more extensive than tl\e latter phrase; 
 and might therefore be a subject of a devise, 
 and i:< covered by the general name of "land." 
 Ami that up(m the breach of the condition no 
 nev estate was acquired, so as to re(|ulre words 
 apjiliciible to after-ac()uired estates to be found 
 in the will. The j)osaibllity of reverter was a 
 eoi tingent interest that existed In the testator 
 whoi the will was made, and the suliKe(|i',ent 
 breacii of the condition ga\ " a light of entry by 
 which t!.e contingent interest might be convert- 
 ed into an estate in possession:— Held, also, 
 that a "condition of re-entry,'" or comlillon 
 strictly so called, as distluguished from a "con- 
 ditional limitation,"" is a means by which an 
 estate or int< rest is Ui be jiieniiuiirely defeated 
 ami <leterniiiied, and no other estate created in 
 its room ; ami that the condition In this case 
 was therefore peifeetlj valid. The devisees and 
 not the heirs of .1. F.e 15. weie eonsecjuently held 
 entitled to the land or llie money representing 
 it. htr, Milnt/,; 1 1 (). H. 020. — I'roud foot. 
 
 Certain ordnance land vested in the Crown 
 was, in 1858, patented to the corporation of the 
 city of T., with the ffdlowlng clause in the 
 patent: " I'rovided always, ami this grant is 
 subject to the f<dlowing conditions, viz., that 
 (the land) * * shall be dedicated by the said 
 corporation, and by tliem maintained for the 
 I put])oseof a pi;l)iic paik for the use, benetit, and 
 ' lecreation of the inhaliitants of the said city of 
 iT., for all time to eoiiie"' * " 'J'he corpo- 
 
 ration <if T., in IS7(l, obtaincil from the Ontario 
 I Legislature an .A<t empowding them " to lease, 
 I sell, or olheiwi.se dispose of "' tiie said land, and 
 one of their cimimltttes transferred It to another 
 : to use as a cattle : ket. receiving a yeaily rent 
 therefor which they apiilleil to a park fund as 
 provided by the Act giving tlie jjower to sell, 
 etc. In an action by a ratepayer to prevent the 
 land being used as a cattle niari et, and more 
 money being spent on it for that purpose, in 
 w Inch it wa.-- contended that the land w as granted 
 upon a condition under whicli the Crown might 
 retake it, and that the Act of the provincial 
 legislature was ultra vires in dealing with it, 
 it was:— Held, on demurrer, that the words in 
 the patent " Provided always, and this grant is 
 subject to the following conditions," tlid not 
 
492; 
 
 DEED. 
 
 m 
 
 crcnte ii comlition annexed to the estate granted, 
 but ft iriiat was created the Hanie an if the words 
 used had been " upon the ffilhiwing trusts," and 
 that by tlie grant tlie grantors ]>arted with all 
 their estate and interest : -Held, also, tliat the 
 words "otherwise dispose of," when read with 
 the rest of tlie Act, covrrtd the mode of using 
 the property adopted, viz., as a cattle market, 
 and the demurrer waf. allowed with costs. AVu- 
 neUy v. Cilyaj Toi-dulD, !•_'(>. K. "211. — I'erguson. 
 
 in an action of tresjjass q. c. f. the ilefendants 
 justified under a reservaliim or exception in a 
 deed through which the plaintiti' claimed title 
 and in which the dcs<'ri]>tion of the property was 
 followed by the words, "exceiiting and reserv- 
 ing a rij'ht of way or roail allowiimc of t«(i roils 
 in width along the south sid<' oi .suid lot :" — 
 Hehl, that this was oidy a nscrvatioiiol a right 
 of way to the grantor a-id not .in cxi-iptioii of 
 the soil. WrUihi v. JiirL,«,ii , 10 O. li, 47<».— 
 Q. 1$. 1). 
 
 6. Il(ii,*iiiliiiii. 
 
 T. and his si n 1). cUsireil to efTcct a certain 
 gettlenient of la'iilcd property, but em)iloycd a 
 non-profcssion.d i ouveyanccr t'l <lr;,w the deed 
 of settlement, who failed to provide for many of 
 the essential jirovisions of the agreement, and as 
 to the land, iiiaile 'C. , in eon.siilcr.it ion of natural 
 love and alf'cetion, grant the same to I*., his heirs 
 and assigns, habendum "'after the deecase of T, 
 unto and to the only proper use and behoof of 
 D., his heirs ami assigns for evci- :" and 1>. now 
 hrnught this action for waste agaiir-t 'I'.: Held, 
 that the deed was not void as passing oidy a free- 
 hold to commence ill fiituro, for the habendnm is 
 notexsential to a deed, and the granting )iart was 
 sufficient of itself to pxss the immediate freehold 
 to I)., the exprcs^eil consider.itioii of natural love 
 and affection sullieing to c.irry tln' use to I)., in 
 whom the deed, viewed as a covenant to stand 
 seized, would vest the entire estate. I>nt ipiiere, 
 whether the express limitation of the use in the 
 hal)enduni after T.'s death would not rebut the 
 implication of mi immediiiti' vesting of the tis. 
 at the date of the deed in 1)., so that the use of 
 sn much of the estate as was not expressly 
 liniitcil, viz., for the life of 'P.. toulted to and 
 vested in T. Piiii/n/. v. /hnila/i. (J (). I!. HI — 
 lioyd. The decree M Inch directed the deed to 
 1m; reformed w.is reverserl. ."^ee S, C, "'ili HfDii., 
 Duuhf V. I)ii,i/iip. in A. H. (iTO. 
 
 Sue /in.jhf v. .l/.-.l/,„r«i/, 1 (). I!. 172; /!< 
 li'niiihinn awl W'niijU-'.rnrlh. .5 (». K. till ; /^, 
 Yoiniij, !( V. I!. .")'_'l ; /mi»ri<i/ Hani: at' (.'aiidiiii 
 V. Metcalfe, 1 ! (>. R. 467. 
 
 7. Jhtd« Under llu: Short Fornix Act". 
 
 (a) (Itnerally. 
 
 Tlie operatinu of an opiinary deed of bargain 
 and sdf under W. ."<. •). (I><77\ c. 1()-J, convey 
 nig lands to trustees eoiisideicd an<l acti^d on. 
 S'utiiii y. f.niiiii;/, '21 i'Uy. Iti'.t. Cliy. 1). 
 
 In a deeil piir{H>rting to be under the hShort 
 Forms .Act, the covenant w.as that the grantor 
 IijmI the right to convey, omitting the words 
 "Notwithstanding any act of the sajd Cove- 
 nantor :"H(ld, following IJrowii c. O'Dwycr, 
 35 Q. B. ,354, that although not in accordance 
 
 with the statute it bound the covenantor as 
 un ;d)solute covenant that he was seized and had 
 a right to convey in fee simple. McKay v. Mc- 
 Kay, 31 C. 1'. 1,— C. P. U. 
 
 See ^falll|han v. Caxri, ,5 0. R. 518 ; Keayn v. 
 Emard, lo'o. R. 314 ; Wiitjitld v, Fowlie, 14 O. 
 H. 102, 
 
 8, liaraain and Sale. 
 
 lly iiKlenture of bargain and sale made in 
 lS5(i between L. and K., L. in consideration of 
 •'?4,00() (the receipt whereof was thereby acknow- 
 ledged) did remise, release, and quit claim unto 
 K., his heirs and assigns, the south half, etc., 
 ♦') have and to hold, etc. : — Held, that since 14 
 anil l."> Vict. c. 7, s. 2, the words "remise, releiwo 
 and ipiit claim ' may iperate as a grant; and 
 either before or since that enactment they would 
 operate as a bargain and sale. Acre v. Living- 
 stone, 2() Q. B. 282, not followed. Fearxon 
 v. Malholland, 17 O. R. .'502.— Q. B. D. 
 
 9. Other Caxex. 
 
 I'cr II. \\. Taschercau and (iwynne, .J.J., that 
 a deed, taken under Vict. c. 37, s. 17, before a 
 notary (though not under the seal of the com- 
 missioiicr.s) from a person in possessicm, wh'ch 
 was subsei|iiently continned liy a judgment of 
 ratilicalioii of a Superior Court, was a valid 
 ; deed, that all rights of property weie purged, 
 ' and that if any of the auteurs of the petitioner 
 failed to urge their rights on the moneys depos- 
 ited by reason o( the customary dower, the rati- 
 ticn*!'!!! of the title was none the less valid. 
 Chen-kr v. The Qneeii, 4 S. C. K. 1. 
 
 ()nthe2Stli .liiue, 1H77. the appellants entered 
 into an agreenient before lliinti^r, N. I'., by 
 which, willioiit any reserve, they acknowledged 
 to owe, and promised to pay cei tain sums of 
 money, amongst others, to Mrs. 1,., transferee 
 of one of the venilois, who, on the 3rd of April, 
 lS7.'i, sold the Windsor hotel jiropcrty in Mon- 
 treal to the appellants, and by the same deed, 
 Mrs. L. agreed to assist the appellants in ob- 
 taining a loan of !*.t"i'l. '"•••, and to relinquish 
 thepiiority of her hy|iothec for her share on 
 the |iro|ierty, to extend to six years the period 
 for the )iaymeiit of the balam-e due her, waiving 
 also any right to interest until the a|ipellant 
 company bad an available surplus after paying 
 iii*erest and insurance in coiiiiectioii with the 
 new loan. Subse(|ueiitly, on l."ith .lune, 1880, 
 Mrs. L. , by not aril'' deed, transferred to the 
 respondent the bal.i.ice alleged to be due her 
 under the deed of the "JSth .lune, 1877, and the 
 respondent biought an action to recover this 
 balance with interest from the Kst .luly, 1877, to 
 tlie loth December, 188."), date of the action. 
 To this action the appelhints pleaded inter alia, 
 that under the deed of the L'8tli .lune, 1877, 
 interest couhl be demanded only from the Ist 
 Jidy, 1881, the .secretary of the company having 
 on said dale testified tor the first time there 
 was an available surplus ; and a'so that l)oth 
 principal and ie.terest were comjieiisated by the 
 sum of S1,!IO'.70 paid the city for assessments 
 imposed under 42 it 43 Vict. c. 53, (Que.), for 
 the costs of public improvements made in the 
 vicinity of the, property jirior to the sale of the 
 property to the company in 18/5. The assess- 
 
 
 .^1 
 
 :M; 
 
495 
 
 DEED. 
 
 496 
 
 inent rolls originally made f<ir tlieso iniprovii- 
 incnts were set aside by two judgiiiuiits in IS76 
 and 1879 :— Held, tliat under the eiruumstanuiis 
 the respondent could not be said to be the garant 
 of tlie piirehasurs of the property, an<l tliere- 
 fore he was entitled to tlie payment of the 
 balance alleged to bu due under the deed of the 
 28tii .June, IS77, notwithstanding any claim tlie 
 appellants might have against tlieir vendors un- 
 der the general warranty stipulated in the deed 
 of purchase of April, 187.'):— Hehl, also, that by 
 the terms of thi^ deed of the 'J8tli of June, 1877, 
 interest could l)e recovered only from the 1st of 
 July, 1881. tViii'Uor H<>lvi Co. v. CVu*s 12 S. C. 
 1{. (i24. 
 
 V. Rkctikvinc; and Vai!VIS(i. 
 
 1. Iti'ilij'niiiij. 
 
 Held, that the evidence set out in tlie report 
 of this case shewed that the agreement of tlie 
 parties was tliit Ihe plain) ill' slmuld have a 
 deed witli covenants as <listinguishcd from a 
 <|uit claim dec d, and that it was through the 
 mistake of all the parlies tliat the covenant, as 
 framed, was entered into, and that the deed 
 shiiuld l)e accoiiliiigly refi)rmed by limiting the 
 luiveiiant to the grantor's own acts in the usual 
 form. MvK^l!l v. MtKay, .'tl C. 1". I.— C. I'. \). 
 
 A mortgage which had been executed by the 
 defendant I., ivciting that it had been agretjd to 
 lie given to secure notes held l)y tin; plaintilfs, and 
 eoiitaining covenants fcir title, was reformed, on 
 ji.irol evidence, by substituting for one of the 
 piircels iiiseitiMl by mistake, which did not 
 belong to 1.. anotlier lot proved to be his at the 
 time of erc'atiiig the moitgage ; and l)eing the 
 only other lot owned by him. Such a nmrtgage 
 is not volmitiuy or without consideration so as 
 to exclude rcfdrmation. Ilniik of Toronto v. 
 Iririii, 28 Cliy. WM. 
 
 The plaintill's sought a rectitleation of the .U'- 
 seription of tiie premises covered by a nmrtgage 
 to them, by including therein the water lots and 
 dock property in front of the bits descrilied in 
 the moitg.age. The iilaintilFs relied on parol 
 testimony, while the docmneutary evidence was 
 all in favour of the defendant :— Held, aHirming 
 the decree of SpragLfi', ("., 27 thy. (iS, that no 
 ease was made for a reformation of the mortgage. 
 J)(iimiiioii Loan SocU'.iy v. D'ir/iii'j, 5 A. I!. .")7(). 
 
 Reetifv'iig .irticles of partncrslii]). See 3fiir- 
 doiiald V. Worthimjlnn, 7 A. R.-'iSl ; 9S.C.R.327. 
 
 IJectifying diied executed mainly to jiroteet 
 property from an anticipated aeiioii for bleach 
 of contract. Him Mitmli// v. 'i'inkii, i\0. H. lJ2."i. 
 
 Action to ol)tain fiom defendanlx a runvey- 
 iince of a certain lot which had been included 
 by mistake in a mortgage of which 'Ue defen- 
 dants were assignees. See liiiil'i' n v. AN ul Exinti , 
 Loan and Dehciiliu-i' Co., 8 (). K. WA. 
 
 In an action to restrain waste it was shown 
 that the plaintilVolitained from his father a deed 
 of the puMuises in iiuestinu the tutlier swearing 
 that he supposed when exicnling tlie document , 
 that it was bis w\U he whs making, and tlie con- I 
 veyancer who prepared the ih'cd admitted in his ' 
 evidence that he might havesuggestcMl lo the sub- ! 
 scribing witness to the deed not to talk too iiiucli ' 
 to tin; old man about the writing, as perhaps he 
 
 W(mld not sign it; and the deed as prepared was 
 silent altogether as to curtain provisions and pay- 
 ments that were to be made as alleged by the 
 (ilaintifT. The court reversed the decree lif the 
 court below (ti (). R. 141), directinj/ the deed to 
 be reformed ; and ordered the bill to he dismissed, 
 with costs, and the deed to be delivered up to ho 
 cancelled. Diiiilo/i v. Duulop, 10 A. R. (i7(). 
 
 A. F. ,sr., in .lannary, 1877, conveyed to A. 
 v., jr., jiart of lot 7, and A. I'"., jr., in 187!) con- 
 veyed the same to II. |{. in October, 1S77, A. 
 F. , sr. , executed a cleeil purporting to convey to 
 J. S. all lot 7, without excepting any iiortion, ,). 
 S. giving a mortgage b.ick to secure the jiur- 
 ehase money. In 1878 .V. F,. sr., died, having 
 devised to M. F. all his lands not pi'cvionsly 
 conveyed by him. In 1882 M. F. conveyed ,ill 
 lanils MO devised to him to plaintilt'. in 1831 J. 
 S. failing to jiay the mortg.ige debt the executors 
 of A. F., sr., sold the prii|ii'rty comprised in the 
 mortgage dei'd lo T. (!., and in 1884 T. (!. con- 
 veyed the same to the defi;.'idant. It appeared 
 that in the original conveyaiiL'! to .1. S., and in 
 all the siibse(|nriit transactions livpending there- 
 upon, without <lcceit or fraud on e'tlier side, Imt 
 from acci<leiit ami ignorance tliere had been tlie 
 same mutuality of mistake between the parties 
 dealing with each other, not as to wliat piece of 
 land was sold and purchased, nor is to wliat Wiis 
 intended to be I'oiiveyed, Imt in designating tlie 
 land as I lie whole of lot 7 instead of only the part 
 thereof intended to be eoiiveyeil and dealt with. 
 In an action for the rectitica'ion of certain deeds 
 Held, per ()"('iuiiior, .1. : — T!iat itwas not neces- 
 sary or right that the executors of \. F. , sr., 
 should be p.iities to the action. Fi ri/iisiiii v. 
 
 ]y;„sor, i(» o. n. i.-i. 
 
 I'er O'CoiuKU-, .1., that the rule that the court 
 will not interfere to rei'tit'y an instrument upon 
 parol evidence on the ground of mutual mistake 
 when the defendant ileiiies that tliere was such 
 mutual mistaki' only a|)plies where the defen- 
 dant so deuyiui; was a (larty to the instrument 
 in (|iiestion. /'.. 
 
 I'er Hov .<, ('., rev.'i'sing the judgment of 
 O"t'>>mior, '. 'I'ln' evidence in this case does not 
 eou.e up to the standard Laid down in l)"ininion 
 lyoap Society r. Darling, ."> A. I!. .">77. by Mikss, 
 ('. .1., that "It must be d<nion,st rated what the 
 true t'.'rms of the bargaiii wcie, and that by mu- 
 tual II istake they were not incorjioratiHl in the 
 writiiij;. The iiroof must be clear, s.itisfactory, 
 ami eo'ielusive. " The defendant bought lot 7, 
 as conti'.ineil 'ii S.'s mortgage, ami obtaiiieil a 
 deed from the executors according toa registered 
 Jilaii which is to be treated as incorporated 
 iliercwith, and he is, even as against his repre- 
 sentation lo tlie plaiiitiir that the piece in dis- 
 pute was a (lortion of the property sIk^ was in 
 treaty for and Mibsi c|iienlly puich.ised, entitled 
 to claim the lieiiefitoi' ( J. 's position as purchaser 
 and registered owner for \ aliic. Per I'roudfoot, 
 J. — Kven if the ic|)reseiitation wa're jiroved the 
 plaintili owiiecl iifi property, at the time itwas 
 madi', to be allectcd liy it, and such an expression 
 of opinion should not estop liim finui piii iliasing 
 lot 7 eighttiii months aft awards. I'lie jnir 
 chasers at tli> auction sale gi.t a lietter bargain 
 tlian tiiey thoin.'hl they had niade, but they li.-id 
 no knowledge of am right to be interfered with 
 had they clios'ii to iisselt their title to the whole 
 lot. This raises no eijuity against them in the 
 
497 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 486 
 
 plaintiiT's favour. Evon if the ilufoiulivnt had 
 notice of the plaintiff's equity he ia entitled to 
 claim the henetit of the wiint of notice to the pur- 
 chasers at the auction sale. S. C, 11 O. 11. S8. 
 
 M. being possei sed of curtain lands subject to 
 a mortgage, made a lease thereof for a term of 
 years to tiio plaintitf, which provided, amongst 
 other things, that $15 siiould be expended in tlie 
 first year of the term in procuring manure for 
 the purposes of the farm. Afterwards he created 
 a mortgage in favour of tlio defemlant, and 
 assigued to him this lease as collateral security. 
 The defeudiint distrained for rent claimed to be 
 due, and plaintiff replevied the goods sei/.od, 
 claiming there was no rent due; and proved the 
 payment of certain moneys to the first mortga- 
 gee, and claimed also credit for 81") a year in 
 respect of manure furnished and cx]>ended in 
 each year on the prenUHos, which, at the trial, 
 was proved to have been the true iigroement be- 
 tween the landlord aixl tenant, though not so 
 expressed in the lease, and the lease was ordered 
 to ue reformed accordingly ; - Held, that the lease 
 should not have been reformed as against tlefiu- 
 dant, he being a bon:l fide purchaser for value, 
 withimt notice of the facts on winch the [ilaiutiirs 
 equity rested. Forsc v. Siir< riiii, 14 A. I!. 48'J. 
 
 This case is reported in 44 Q. 15. HMi. It 
 was an action of eji-ctment liy niortgiigees 
 against mortgagor, wiiicli was defcniled by the 
 latter on eciuitable grounds, namely, that l)y 
 mi.stake, and contrary to the true agieement of 
 the partitas, the (juartci-ly repayments mention- 
 ed in tlie proviso were larger tluiu lliey slioidd 
 have been, and that tlie redemi.se clause was 
 omitted. •Iu<lgn>ent was given at the trial by 
 Patterson, J. A., in favour of the defendant, 
 rectifying the agreement in accordance with 
 his contention, which was afterwards atlirmcd 
 l)y the full court, Ifagarty, C .1., dissenting. 
 The a])|)eal was allowed on ap])cal to the ("oui't 
 of Appeal on the groumls n\entioned in the judg- 
 nientof llagarty, C. .1., in ihe court below, viz., 
 that the defendant was entitled to a decree for 
 rescission only, and that a decree for rectifica- 
 tion of the mortgage was improper, the parties 
 never having been ad idem. Sii/iirior l.uun and 
 Sariwji Co. V. Lucai, l."i A. R. 748. 
 
 In order to secure the rectification of an in- 
 strument, the dearest evidence is required to 
 be adduced. If the court, after considering all 
 tlie circumstances surrounding the making of 
 the instrument, whether it accords with what 
 Would reasonably and probably havi' been the 
 a>;ieenient between the parties, gauging the 
 crediliility of wilne.s.ses, paying due regai'd to 
 theii' interest in the subject matter, ami weigh- 
 ing their tcatiniony, i.s satisfied beyond reason- 
 able (liiubl that the iiistrunicnt does not eniliody 
 the true agreement between the paities, it should 
 rtvtify it. 'V\w tran.saclion between the j)lain- 
 till' ami defendant was an exchange of mort- 
 gages. 'I'lie plaintitf in assigning his mortgage 
 t<i the (Icfenchint, gi. ^ lied bin. self against ])er- 
 smial liability : b\it the defendant in assigning 
 hei mortgage did n(;t do so, and the plaintiff 
 sucil her upon the covenant in her assignment, 
 that the niortgiigc assigned was a good and 
 valid security, alleging that it w;is not so: — 
 Held, upon the evidence, that the true agree- 
 iment was that neither i lif olaintifT nor the de- 
 rfcndant should be personally liable in respect 
 32 
 
 of the mortgage which each assigned to the other; 
 and rectification according to such agreement was 
 adjudged. Vlarke v. Jostlin, 160. R. 68— Q.B.D. 
 
 Per Ferguson, J. — In order that a deed may 
 be reformed by the coni-t, there must be at least 
 two things established, namely, an agreement 
 diflering from the document, well proved by such 
 evidence as leaves no reason.'tble ground for 
 doubt as to the existence and terms of such 
 agreement, and a mutual mistake of the parties 
 by reason of wiiich sudi agreemeut was not 
 properly exprcsscil in the (Feed. McNeill v. 
 Uaiiicx, 17 O. H. 479. 
 
 The lessee set up ni\ agreement between him- 
 self and the leswr that the lease should expire 
 at her death, in case she shcmld not live for the 
 full term of ten years, and ask(!d that the lease 
 should be I'cffHuied accordingly. The only evi- 
 dence in su|)i)ort of this, was that of the lessee 
 and his wife, ami of a relation of theirs, whose 
 \ menu)iy was shewn to be untrustworthy : — 
 ' Held, that this evidence was not suflicient, after 
 I sonianyyearsof ac( I uiescence, and after the death 
 I of the lessor, to justify the retormation of the 
 j lease. T/ialclirr v. JJoirniitii 18 0. R. 'iOii — Street. 
 
 In one of the conveyances in the chain of 
 
 i title, the grant was to the jiarly of the third 
 
 part, wlu^reas there were only two parties to 
 
 the cimveyance, and the piirty of the second 
 
 ])art <lid not execute it ; — Held, that this was a 
 
 valid objection, though the instrument would be 
 
 at on(;e corrected or reforniud as against the 
 
 grantors ; or could bo cured by another convey- 
 
 ■ ani^e drawn with i)i'oj)or certainty. Re Clarke 
 
 ianilChnmherliiin, 18 0. R. 270.— Boyd. 
 
 ; Rectification of the mortgage deed as to the 
 time of the lir.st payment of ])rincii)al, was ro- 
 
 ; fuse<l where it was sought by the mortgagoi'S at 
 
 j a time when tin; payuu'ut in any event was long 
 past due, and the mortgagees, without fraud, 
 had acted upon the mortgage as executed, and 
 
 I without notice of the intention of the mort- 
 giigors to have the payment fixed for a later 
 
 : period ; and where also there was really no 
 agreement upon which to found the rectifica- 
 tion, the defendants' local appraiser and agent 
 to receive applications having no express or 
 implied authority to make such agreements. 
 Edmotiil'f V. Hiimillon Provhltnt and Loan So- 
 ciety, 19 0. R. 077.— Q. B. D. 
 
 DEFAMATION, 
 
 I. Pkivii,i;(;ki) Comminicatioss. 
 
 1. J)!.^rIii„y):of a Dulij, 499. 
 
 2. Crilici.ini on Public Men and Matters, 
 
 rm. 
 
 3. A n to Standiiti/ of Bimne-is Men, 501. 
 
 4. Othpr Caws; rm. 
 
 II. CllAU<:IN(! CutMK, 505. 
 
 III. I.MMOKALITVOR UNFITNESS FOR SoCIETT, 
 
 506. 
 
 IV. AFFECTiNfi Peii-sons IN Trade, Bn.SINBSS 
 
 OR OTHER KmI'LOYMENT, 506. 
 
 V. Actions For. 
 
 1. i?y and Ayainsl Whom, 508. 
 
DEFAMATION. 
 
 509 
 
 2. Pleadimjx. 
 
 (tt) Statement of Claim and Innuendo, 
 600. 
 
 (b) Defence, 510. 
 
 (c) Other Cdseti, an. 
 
 3. PaflicularH, !il\. 
 1. Evide.ncc. 
 
 (a) Examination hejore Trial, b\\. 
 
 (b) 0/ Piihlirnfmn, 512. 
 
 (c) Proof of Jhfninalory Matttr and 
 
 Innuenilij, 5llt. 
 
 (d) Of Malic, 514. 
 
 (e) O/AfT Canes, 514. 
 5. Pametf/es, 5Ui. 
 
 (i. C(M/.i, 51(5. 
 
 7. A'cif Trial— Sn Xi:\v TiiiAi.. 
 VI. Ai-.)i,0(:v, 517. 
 VII. Mis(!Ki,i,ANKOfs Casks, 517. 
 VIII. St.AMtKU OK Tixr.i;, 517. 
 
 I. PrIVILKiIKK ('OMMrSI(!ATinNS. 
 
 1. I)ixr/i<i,</e of n l>nty. 
 
 The ajiiiellant I)., having been uppointuil chief 
 post office ins|jcit(ir for Caimila, was eiigaj,'cil, 
 uiKler (lircctioiiH fioiii the postiimstcr-^'eiicral, in 
 making eminiiicsintocui tain iiicjiulaiiteawhicli 
 had been iliscoveied at the St. .loiin post ofhce. 
 After making cn(|uiiie.s, he had a conversatidn 
 with the ics])(indent, \V., ahme in a room in tlie 
 post office, eliaiging him with abstracting miss- 
 ing letters, wliich respondent strongly denied. 
 Thereupon theassistantpostniaster was called in, 
 and the appellant said: "I have charged Mr. W. 
 with abstracting the letters. I have charged Mr. 
 W. with the abstractions that have occnrred from 
 those money letters, and I have concluded to sus- 
 pend him." The respondent having brought an 
 action for slander, was allowed to give evidence 
 of the conversation betw een himself and appel- 
 lant. There was no nthiM- evidence of malice. 
 The jury found that ajjixdlant was not actuated 
 by ill-feeling toward the respondent in making 
 the observation to him, but found tliat \w was 
 so actuated in the communication he made to the 
 assistant postmaster :- Held, on appeal, 1. That 
 the appellantwas hi the due discharge of hisduty 
 and acting in accordanc'c with his instructions, 
 and that the words aildressed to the assistant 
 postmaster wore privileged. 2. That the onus 
 lay upon respondent to prove that the appellant 
 acted under the influence of malicious feelings, 
 and as the jury found that the appellant had not 
 been actuated by ill-feeling, the respondent was 
 not entitled to retain his verdict, anil the rule for 
 a nonsuit should be made absolute. Dewe v. 
 Waterhury, 6 S. C. R. UX 
 
 The defendant's son, alleged to be an infant 
 within twenty -one years of age, was broiight 
 before a magistrate charged w ith assault. The 
 <lefendant .attended before the magistrate. On 
 the plaintiflf being called as a wit;. ess on the 
 prosecutor's behalf, the defendant objected to 
 his giving evidence, stating that "he," plain- 
 tifif, " is a perjurer, he perjured himself three 
 times at Butt's trial before you. " There was no 
 evidence to shew that the defendant was acting 
 
 for and on behalf of his son, with his son's con- 
 sent, nor was it absolutely proved that the son 
 was a minor : — Held, that the communication 
 was not privileged, and could not bo withilrawn 
 from the jury. A nonsuit entered by the 
 juflge at the trial was therefore set aside and a 
 new trial directed, with costs to the plaiiitili', if 
 he succeeded, but, if not, without costs, unless 
 the parties agreed to the action being dismisHcd, 
 with costs to be paid by the defendant. I'er 
 tJameron, C J. — Under like circumstances a 
 counsel, attorney, or jiarty to the action or pro- 
 ceeding would be privileged ; and .Semble, also, 
 even a stranger when peiniitted by another to 
 act for him with the magistrate's sanction. Per 
 Cameron, ('. .1., also. If the defendant was 
 acting ill good faith an<l without malice, under 
 the bclii.'f that it was his duty to inform the 
 inagistnite of th<! witness's bud character, he 
 might have aipialitied privilege, but the iiuestion 
 of malice would be for the jury. Coinin v. 
 Land, II, I:M). R. 1.3.-C. 1'. I). 
 
 .See Fariinr v. Hamilton Tiilivne Printing 
 and Publixhinij Co., \i O. \i. 5:W, p. 5()6. 
 
 2. Criticism on Pnhliv Men and Matters, 
 
 In an action of libel, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 
 ' defence set up that the alleged libel was pidi- 
 ; lished on a ]>rivilcged occasion ; the ground of 
 ' pi'ivilege being that it was a fair andliouA fide 
 ' comnuMit upon a matter of public and general 
 j interest, w liich had become such by means of the 
 ' plaintiir's own appeal to the pidtlic through the 
 j medium of the |>resM, inviting public attention 
 to bis j)r<ifessional chiiracter and ]>osition, and 
 challenging public criticism uy)on his conduct in 
 coiincctiou with all the matters referred to in 
 the alleged libel, which was printed and pub- 
 lished by the defendant bon:\ tide, for the public 
 benefit, and withriut malice : -Held, ullirming 
 the judgment of Hose,.!., (SO. 1!. 53), a good 
 defence, farmer v. The llamilton Tribune (.'o., 
 3 0. R. 5;tH, and Murphy r. Halpiii, Ir. R. ,S C. 
 L. 127, distinguisheil. Macdonell v. Jtohinsan, 
 12 A. R. 270. 
 
 I In an action of libel the libel consisted of 
 ' lett(MS of a Very gross ciiaracter jiublif'.ied in the 
 j defendants' news[).ipcr rcllccting on (he plaintiff 
 . as warden of the Central Prison. The defcn- 
 ] (hints refused to give the name of the writer of 
 ' the letters, and assumed lesponsibility therefor. 
 Tlie learned juilge told the jury that "every one 
 has a right to comment on matters of public in- 
 terest and general concern, provided he does so 
 faiily anil with an honest ))urpose * * such 
 comments are ,not libellous, however severe in 
 their terms, unless they are written intemperatc- 
 ly and maliciously." The jury found for tlie 
 plaintiff' with §8,000 (himages .---Held, that the 
 libel was not privileged, or published on a [irivi- 
 leged occision : that no exception could be taken 
 to the judge's charge; nor could it be said that 
 the libel was a fair comment upcui a ])ubli<' mat- 
 ter in whicii the public had an interest. Jlnssie 
 V. Toronto Frintinu Co., 11 O. R. .3(12. -C. P. I). 
 
 The plaintiffs brought a written advertisement 
 to the dc^feiidant for the purpose of having it 
 published in his newspaper, but the defendant 
 refused to insert it, and tlu' jdatiitiffs took it 
 away intimating that it would be immediately 
 
509 
 
 501 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 « con. 
 « Son 
 .'iitirin 
 
 lUWtl 
 
 ■ the 
 ind a 
 itr, if 
 
 llll.'SK 
 8Hf(l, 
 
 I'tr 
 
 • plO- 
 
 nlso, 
 «r to 
 
 IVr 
 
 was 
 ndtr 
 
 tlio 
 
 ho 
 
 tidtl 
 V, 
 
 piibliBliml in another n(!WH|in])or. It wah so 
 ptihliHhcd ; nnd on the day of itn piililicittion an 
 article, written liefore its i)iil>li(Ntti(>n, appeared 
 in the defendant's newspaper, referring to it as 
 unKt fur piihlieation. The plaintill's sued the 
 defendant for lihel. The trial jnd^e told tlic 
 jury that if the nrtiele was nothing more than 
 a fair eriticisni of the advertiHenieiit, it was not 
 libellous. It was objccto \ tiuit the di^fendant was 
 not entitled to eritieise the advertisement '"■ 
 cause it had not been published before the article 
 criticising it: — Held, that this was not a valid 
 objection. <rrahu7nv. McKimm, 11(0. H. 475.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 In an action for libel tiie trial Jnilgo ruled that 
 the plaintiffs were bound to jirodnce nnd put in 
 as part of their ease tlie written advi^rtisemcnl 
 referred to liy the defendant in the aitiile rom- 
 plaincd of; and the plaintill's, though prfjtesting, 
 accepted the ruling and put in tlie evidence; — 
 Helil, that the ruling was wrong; but that tlie 
 plaintiffs wore not entitled to a new tiial, the 
 only injury to the ]>laintifl's being to let the de- 
 fenilant's uounsel have the la.st word with the 
 jury. //*. 
 
 See Ftirmir v. Ilitmillim Tiilmiii awl Ptililiih- 
 iv'i Co., 3 (). I!. .^SS, p. cm ; IIVZ/.v v. Curmiiii, 17 
 O.'R. 22.3, p. Slf). 
 
 ,"?. At to the Staud'iiuj of Itiisiiu ■<.* vnii. 
 
 The defendant published of and concerning the 
 plaintiff, a business man, in a written eirculai-, 
 called "The Legal Tleeonl Co., Kenfrew," a.state- 
 mcnt meaning that ])laintil1' had given a eliattel 
 mortgage on his proi.erty, whcieas he had only 
 assigned one held l)y him against another: — 
 Held, libellous, and not privileged. Lemaif v. 
 Chamhtrlaiii, lOO. I{. G.'W-Q. H. I). 
 
 A subscriber to a mercantile agency company 
 applied to them for information as to the staml- 
 ing of a customer, and in order to furnish it, 
 they re(|uest«d a local agent of theirs (the de- 
 fendant C) to advise them confidentially on the 
 subject. In an action by the customer against 
 the local agent for an alleged libel consisting of 
 the information given by him to the company in 
 answer to their re(|uest ;-- Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the c(uirt beh)W, (1*2 (). R. 791) 
 that the information having been procured for 
 the purpose of being connnunicated to a person 
 interested in making the incjuiry, and there 
 beinc nothing in the language in excess of what 
 the defendant might fairly state, the communi- 
 cation was privilege<l, and there being no j)roof 
 of e.vpre.ss malice, the ])laintifl' was not entitled 
 to recover. 'J'cutil v. JJmi, W'iiiian d- Co., 15 
 A. R. 85. 
 
 It is the occasion of publishing the alleged 
 libel which constitutes the privilege. Where 
 privilege exists, implied malici; i.s negatived, 
 and the burden of sliewing express malice is on 
 the plaintiff. The mere untruth of the stato- 
 menl, unless coupled with proof that the defen- 
 dant knew that what he was stating was untrue, 
 is not evidence of express malice. Clark i: Moly- 
 neaux, 3 Q. B. I). 235 ; Mclnteo c. McCuUoch, 
 2 E. & A. 390, referred to and followed. Ih. 
 
 Scmble, per Osier, J. A., a mercantile agency 
 company have no higher privilege for their 
 busiuess publications than other members of 
 
 I the community, and a general publication of 
 
 ci'iniinately is not privileged, Ih. 
 
 The plaintifV and oni! S. had been in partner- 
 ship, S. having retired and left the country. 
 .Sul)se<juently the plaintiff nuide an assignment 
 for the benefit of creditors, 'i'be defendant was 
 a crcMlitor and was a])poinled one of the inspec- 
 tors of the estate. S. wrote a letter to one l'\ 
 lei.iuve to the |)laintifl"s business, a portion of 
 which the ])laintitl' elaime<l to be libellous, the 
 lemainder being admittedly ju'lvilened. V. for- 
 warded th(^ whole letter to the defendant who 
 shewed it to his eoinspeetor, a creditor, and 
 also to another creditor. In an action against 
 the defendant for th(^ ])ublication :— Held, that 
 llie ()ce:isi(in of the publication was privileged, 
 and that tlie privilege attached to the whole 
 letter, it having been shewn only to persons 
 ei|ually interested with th(! defendant in the 
 matter, /lun-fiilh v. Ki/iioiir, 19 (). it. (>40 — 
 ('. I'. I). 
 
 4. Other Canen. 
 
 (*laim : That the defendant, an inspector of 
 licenses, fal.-iely and maliciously published of the 
 plaintiff a circular which he caused to be sent 
 to all liceiiKcd victuallers, etc., in the riding, 
 containing the following words: " \V. K. (anil 
 other.>5)are in the habit of drinking intoxicating 
 li(|ii()rs to excess, and you are hereby notified 
 lliiit you are not to sell, give, etc., intoxicating 
 lii|Uois to the said |)arties, or to the wife, hus- 
 band, child, employee, agent, or any member of 
 the family, or household of the said parties." 
 I)efcnce ; That the commissioners in good faith, 
 intcniling to act within thescoiieof their powers, 
 passed a resolution, "That no intoxicating li- 
 (|Uora shall, under any pretence, be sold in any 
 tavern, etc., to any person who has tin: habit of 
 drinking intoxicating liijuors to excess, or the 
 i wife, etc., t>f such person, or any person eon- 
 I cerning whon. nr>tice had been given to the laud- 
 ] lord by the husband, etc., of such person, or any 
 justice of the peace oi' inspeclur, that such person 
 . is in the haoit of drinking," etc. : that the 
 i licenses were i.ssued to the peisons to whom the 
 ' notices were addressed, suliject to the right of 
 I suspending them for breach of the resolution. 
 j And the defendant justified upon information 
 obtained respecting the plaintitV, upon which hu 
 j followed the terms of the resolution : — Held, on 
 t demurrer, that the license oommi.saioners had no 
 jiower to pass the resolution, and tbci'efore that 
 the defence was bad, for theconununication wa.s 
 not privileged, and the defendant's belief in the 
 validity of the resolution could not create any 
 privilege, liohcrtx v. Climie — Murjihi/ v. Clhu'w, 
 46 Q. B. 204.— Osier. 
 
 The defendants and others signed a petition 
 to the license commissioners of the city of Hamil- 
 I ton, praying that a license might not be granted 
 i to the ])laintit}', aiul stating that his tavern was 
 one of the worst drinking holes in the county : 
 that it was kept very disorderly : that there was 
 no suitable acconnnodation, anil th:it the land- 
 lord was very much given to drinking : — Held, 
 that the occasion of the presentation or publica- 
 tion of the petition was not absolutely privileged, 
 but that tlie onus lay upon the plaintiff to prove 
 express niulice, and that the defendants used the 
 
 
m 
 
 503 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 604 
 
 I 
 
 (K'caiiion for hoiiic iiiilirccl or wroil^ niotivc 'I'lii! 
 jury K'lvc a vcnlict for tin; jiluiiitillfdr SI.WK), 
 mill till! coiirt WiiK of o|iiiiioii on lliiM'viilciico, 
 verdict, itnil gum nil nuTitM, that tlii're nIioiiM 
 lie a new trial, (-'annroii, .)., liefore whom the 
 ca»o waH tiieil, iliKMcnting. lyikurkx v. J/oinll, 
 
 no. K. :»()(». -Q. i». I). 
 
 Tin- |)laintiir wasaHNiHlnnt in the m1io|i of ('., a 
 ilnij.%'iMt, over whi<'h the dif' inlaiit anil hcihiis- 
 l)anil, a |iliyMirian, livtil, the latter lannK <'•'" 
 lanilloiil anil eustomer. 'I'hi' ilefenilant having 
 in the iireseiiee of a witness aei iiNeil tlii' |ilaintitl' 
 of having tiikeii .^t from iier trunk up.slairH, her j 
 liUNhanil tohlC. that the plaintill' must lie (lis- | 
 ehargeil, or he would nenil him no more |H-eHeri|)- j 
 tions. A meeting was, however, arranged | 
 between tho jiarth'H in the |)resene(; of the 
 witness, for the pin pose, as tiiey said, of an 
 investigation. On this oceasion the slandernns 
 worilH were nqieateil, and the iilaintifl' was dis- 
 charged from {'.'s employment; -Held, that 
 what was said at this meeting was privileged, ; 
 and the ease having heen left to the jury gem;- 
 nilly a verdiet for the pliiiitill' was .set aside. 
 J/o'iynnriM v. Sliirlair, 1 (). K. •.'(i(». -i}. H. D. i 
 
 Tiiu liliintiir, a sehool trustee, with another j 
 trustee, under the authority of the sehool hoard, 
 purchased a nuantity of lirewood for use in the 
 KchooMif)iise. In l)eeend)er, shortly hefore the 
 nnmieipal and school trustee elections, the de- 
 fendant and H., another' sehool trustee, were 
 discussing tin' taxes, when defemlant said that 
 the trustees had jiaid too nnicli for the wood : j 
 that jdaintiir had culled it, and .sold the hest of j 
 it, and had drawn the culled wood to the sch'ool- 
 hou^e : and, on If. remonstrating with hint, .'^aid : , 
 "Oh, Imt he did. and I can prove it:" that he , 
 coulil prove it hy a ))3rson named N. Snlisc- 
 (jucntly in the .same month, a diseussion took ; 
 place l)etween defendant and H., tirst ns to, 
 council, and then as to bcIiooI matters, when ! 
 defendant rel.ited the conversation he luid had | 
 with N. in which he had said to N. that the i 
 wood wa.s dear, and that N. had said that it 
 was No. 2 at that : that there was something 
 strange aliout the wood, and it must have been | 
 culled, for they hought No. 1, and drew No. 2 
 to the schooldiou.sc. In an action for slander : — 
 Held, Rose, J. , dissenting, that the words having 
 been spoken by a pcr.son interested to another, 
 also interested, the occasion was privileged ; and 
 in the absence of jjroof of express nialiee no 
 action would lie. Jila(/diH v. Jiinintl, !) O. R. 
 593.— C. P. 1). ' 
 
 Qua>re, whether defamatory words spoken of 
 a person holding an elective ollice with regard 
 thereto, not followed by special damage, are 
 actionalde when they would not be so when 
 spoken of the holder in his private capacity. Ih. 
 
 There was no evidence to sustain the slander 
 laid in this case ; but an amendment was allowed, 
 to comply, as was alleged, with the evidence. 
 The only objection made at the trial by the de- 
 fendant was that he should be allowed to examine 
 witnesses on the new count, which was done. 
 An objection to the amendment in term was 
 therefore not allowed. The evidence in support 
 of the amended count consisted not of statements 
 made voluntarily by the defendant, but of ans- 
 wers to questions put to him, after he had laid a 
 charge against the plaintiff, as to the nature of 
 
 it :- Meld, that this was not mifTicicnt to HUNtaiu 
 an action for slander : uiid that wordH so spokon 
 wt le privileged. Mc('iiiin V. I'rtntviitu, 10 0. 
 
 vileuet 
 
 Mf(\inn 
 .■)7.J.--('. I'. I). 
 
 W. was in the employ of a mining company, 
 of which li. was president, and had l>een wiirk- 
 ing in the mining district under an ariangeineiit 
 by w hich his wife was to draw half his wages at 
 the headquarters of the company (her hoiue). 
 Alter he ccised to be employed by the company, 
 but while still in the mining district and before 
 lie was settled with and his wages jiaid un, his 
 wife, with a companion, went to L. to apply for 
 some of her hiiMband's wages, and he replied, 
 "We don't owe him anything now, he stole the 
 boat, the eooking stov*-, ami a lot of other thingn 
 and sold them." The secretary of the company 
 had previously received a letter stating that the 
 plaintiir had done what the defendant said he 
 had. Thedefemhint by his statenn^nt of defence 
 denied using the words, and gave evidence to that 
 ell'ecl :it the trial, but proposed also to give evi- 
 dence that whatever tho words used were, he 
 honestly believed them to be true, and leave was 
 asked to amend by setting this u|). The judge 
 who tried the ease, held that the occasion wits 
 not jii'ivileged, and refused to allow the amend- 
 ment, and on a motion for a new trial it was:— 
 Held (reversing tho judgment of O'Cimnor, .1.), 
 that liie occasion was privileged, and a new trial 
 was granted to give the |)laintiiran opportunity 
 to prove malice. IIV//'* v. Liiulop, 13 O. R. 
 434.— Chy. I). 
 
 Where one used defamatory language of an- 
 other under eirenmstances of qujisi privilege, 
 but used the words in bad faith, not believing 
 them to be true:— Held, that the expressions 
 nuist be considered as in excess of the require- 
 ments of the occasion and malicious, and he was 
 not |)rotectcd in an action for ilamages. .laeob 
 r. Lawrence, 4 L. R. (Ir.)C. L. C82, cited and 
 relied on. ir.//.s v. Lindnp (2), 14 0. R. 27.').- 
 Chy. 1). Ailirmed 15 A. R. 695. 
 
 The j)lainti£f had been working for a couple 
 of days for the defendant as a, seamstress, when 
 the defendant missed $1 1, and so informed plain- 
 tiir. She drove piuintitT home that evening, 
 stating she would reijuire her again in a week or 
 so. Next day defendant laid the case before 
 the chief of police, who said plaintiff must have 
 taken the money. The defendant then went to 
 a Mrs. W. for whom she thought tho plaintiff 
 was working, anil on being informed tho plain- 
 tiff was not there, asked to see Mrs. VV. alone, 
 and said, "I have missed $5. I went to the 
 chief of police and laid the case before him," 
 and ho said "plaintitF had taken the money;" 
 that plaintiff was the only one at defendant's 
 liousc except defendant's children and sister. 
 Defendant asked what she should do, and asked 
 if she could have the plaintiflf arrested. Mrs. 
 W. advised her not to, but to go and seo plain- 
 tiff. The defendant then went to a Mrs. B. for 
 whom the plaintiff was 'vorking, and called 
 plaintiff outside and told her what the chief had 
 said ; she then put her hand on plaintiff's shoul- 
 der and said, "You did, you must have taken 
 it," and asked her to confess and give back the 
 money, and defendant would give her all her 
 sewing. The plaintiff denied taking the money, 
 and asked to be taken to her father, and the de- 
 fendant drove her to her father's residence. 
 
 lUsfore doiTig 
 was the m.itl 
 dant accused 
 Mrs. II. si^i'l. 
 Mown open, si 
 aid, you must 
 t„. On arriv 
 did not want 
 asking what 
 plaintill,d«:te 
 gome money, 
 police had sn 
 knew plainlill 
 Ih) accused ni 
 acfenilant ajM 
 »nd said she ' 
 the father till 
 own resiionsil 
 Held, that 
 that the won 
 were privileg 
 and tliiise s 
 liny erimina 
 
 «4.-i'. I'. > 
 
 The i>hvinti 
 ship of ('. fio 
 the auditors' 
 j|,4(Hlanil Jj 
 hiin, he was 
 apjMiinled by 
 aniined into t 
 Ilia report »i 
 mistake of tl 
 the «l32.:t2. 
 accounted fm 
 attended a ni 
 fendant, who 
 after examin 
 council that 1 
 plauation as 
 interest on h 
 township fun 
 report til tha 
 pluintilVwro 
 to pay the 
 council, and 
 he owed, wl 
 paper, slatii 
 the mixing 
 ilebled in S 
 had made i 
 township, a 
 age and slil 
 In an actioi 
 discusaed ii 
 which defei 
 and a meml 
 ([ualitied pi 
 say wheth 
 language ei 
 was in exci 
 if in excess 
 of malice, 
 the court r 
 17 0. R. 2 
 
 See lira 
 V. (Iraliiiii 
 V. U. G04, 
 
 Held, o 
 an action 
 
604 
 
 505 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 606 
 
 lUifiiru (loln}( iM», Mrn. \\. nnUi'.A ]iliiintiir what 
 wiiH tilt' iiiatler, ami |ilaintil)' Haiil tliat ilctVii- 
 iluiit accimuil lii'i' of taking hdiik' of lii^r iiiinit'y. 
 Mi'H. li. Haiti, tliiit tlniiii)^'!) tlir ilooi' having licrii 
 liliiwii opoii, hIiv lii-ai'd tliu ili'fi'iiilaiit nay, " N'oil 
 dill, you liiUHt liavr,"aiiil llirii tlir (liiorNlaiiiliiiil 
 to. Oil ari'ival at lii^r fatliuiV, tliu ilrl't'iiilaiit 
 (lid not vtaiit to j^o in, Imt on lii.i incNHlng Ikt, 
 oiikinjj what wuh tint matter hetwctni licr ami 
 pluintiir, <l(,'f<'iii!iinl iiifoi'iiicil him HJif hail iniH^-ril 
 801110 iiioney, ami tolil him what tliu thiif of 
 policu hail Nuiil. 'I'liu father uKkuil Uvv if hIiu 
 knew iilaintifr'n character, ami why hIiu hIioiiIiI 
 Im) uccMBCil niiii'i! than ilefendikiit'H Hister. The 
 (Ivfenilant ajipeareil Hhockeit at the Hiigj^eHtinii, 
 and Haid hIic wmild have plaintill' aricHteil; and 
 till! father then Haul that hIiu would do ho oii her 
 own i'CHi)iinHil>ility. In an action of Hlamler : - 
 Hehl, tliat the action wiih not inaiiitainalile ; 
 that the wordn H|i(iki'n to the |ilaintiirM father 
 were privileged, while thime heard liy Mih. I'., 
 and tliiHu Hiioken to Mrn. \V. did not impiiti! 
 any crimimil otleiiee. <ior.it v. Unrr, IH O. K. 
 ({44.-1'. I*. I>. 
 
 The ]ilaiiitifr had hcen trea»iirer of the town- 
 nhipof ('. from lS82to ISSfi, whin liy iia>oti of 
 the auditoiH' report, shew ing that two Hiiin.'i of 
 91,4(10 and i<l .'<'.', .'{'J were not aiiiiuiiled fur liy 
 him, he waH iliHiniHHed. A commiHHioner wan 
 up)i(iinted l>y the Lieuteiiaiit-dovernor, whoex- 
 uniitied into the matter, ami in l>eeeiiilier miide 
 his report ntating that the .'Sl.'KIO item wiisa 
 nUHtiike of the auditors, and that, except as to 
 the ?Ji;W.;t'i, all the to\MiKhip moneys were 
 aucoiiiited for. Tho eoininissioner Hulisiqueiitly 
 attended a nieetiiig of the council, at which de- 
 fendant, who was a councillor, waH prcHent, and 
 after exaiiiining plaintitl' on oath iiifurmcd tiie 
 council that he wan Hatinlied with plaintill's ex- 
 planation aH til $12') of this sum, namely, lieing 
 interest on his own moneys deposited witli the 
 towimliip fiimis ; ami he made an addition to his 
 report to that ellect. In Fehruary following the 
 plaintill wrote to a newspaper that he was ready 
 to pay the township any iiioneyH either the 
 council, auditoivs, or comnii.sHioner could shew 
 he owed, wl.creiipon the defendant wrote to the 
 paper, slating that the eomniissioner, ap;iit from 
 the mixing of moneys, had found plaintill' in- 
 delited in SIlTi, ami alsri stating that plaintill' 
 had made nevcral thousand dollars nut of the 
 township, and could well atlord to]iay his short- 
 age and still have some thoii.sauds to the good. 
 In an action for liliel :— Held, that the matter 
 discussed in the defemlaiit's letter licing one in 
 which defendant was interested as a ratepayer 
 and a meiiiher of the council, there might lie a 
 iiualilied privilege, still it was for the jury to 
 say whetlur under the circumstaiiees the 
 language employed was within the iirivilege, or 
 was in excess of what the occasion justilied ; and 
 if ill excess, they could properly draw inlerem-e 
 of malice. The jury having found for plaintitl 
 the court refused to interfere. Colrin v. Mr Kay, 
 17 0. R. 21'.'.-C. P. D. 
 
 See liradley v. Mr/iit„.i/,, .'> O. R. 227 ; tiromlni 
 V. (IralMin, I'l I*. R. 4,">1 ; Hall v. (.•onmulocl; 12 
 P. R. 004, p. r>12. 
 
 II. CnARUINIi Cki.mk. 
 
 Held, on demurrer to a statement of cliiini in 
 an action of slander, that any defamatory charge 
 
 referalile to wrong-iloliig niidor Hvetion 2(1, or 
 Heetion oS, of the Act relating to nialicioUH in- 
 juries to property, It. S. ('. e. KlH, iNaitionaliU', 
 without proof of special damage; lor the pun- 
 iNhmeiit of impriKonmeiit, and lint merelv the 
 iiitlii'lioii of a tine is impoHcd m the eane ot such 
 ollriiees ; liiit it is otIiei'M imi in the ease of it 
 defamatory charge releialde to seition 27, or 
 Huction oti of that .\ct, for Mueli olleiiccs are 
 piiniMhalile liy tine only. Itoiilli ij v. Jlitrrit, 18 
 (). R. 40.'. Jloyd. 
 
 See (lurst v. /hn; VH). R. (J44, p. 005 ; S wit- 
 '.cr V. Luidmaii, IN (). R. 42(», p. .Il.'i. 
 
 III. ImMUKAI.ITV OB I'SKITNKSS Hilt SiM'IKTY. 
 
 : To a stateinent of claim, cliurging tho defen- 
 dants with the puldishingof tin.' plaintill', in their 
 ncwsji.'iper, that he had seduced and lietrayed one 
 I li. I'., and was a man unlit for the society of 
 ' respectalde people, etc. , whereliy the plauitill' 
 I was injured in his ciedit, etc., the ilefelidantH 
 I pleaded that the article was pnlilislied lionil tide 
 I and without malice, and for the pulilic henelit, 
 and in the usual course of the defendants" duty 
 »H pulilic journalists, and was ii correct, fair, 
 and honest re|iort of proceedings of pulilic in- 
 terest and eoneern :- Held, on demurrer, liail, 
 for the piililication complained of was in no 
 ; seiisi^ fill- the niildii; lienetit, nor pulilished in tho 
 course of the defendants' duty. Fiintu r v. llmnil- 
 lull 'I'l-iliiiiif I'rinlimj mid i'lthlishiin/ I'o., ',i O. 
 I R. 5,'18- Wilson. 
 
 Sec Palmtr v. Solincx, 45 Q. 15. I.">, p. 509. 
 
 IV'. Akkki'Timi I'khsuxh isTuadk, Ri'slnhmsou, 
 
 OTIIKI! lOMri.dVMKST. 
 
 The defendant spoke of the plaintill', a miller 
 and grain liiiyer, that one of the liig millers, 
 (meaning the plaintill') had run awuy owing 
 money to him ami otliers ; that he, the del'en- 
 (hint had come in to catch the plaintill', liut that 
 he had gone or cleared out. At the trial a non- 
 suit was entered, on theolijection that the words 
 were not shewn to have licen iimhI with refeieiico 
 to the plaintill's husiness, and no special damage 
 was proved ; —Held, that the nonsuit was wrong, 
 tor the words used east an imputation upon tho 
 solvency and lirancial standing of the plaintiff, 
 and it was for the jury to say whether they were 
 spoken in refeienee to his business, and calcu- 
 lated to injure him therein. Lolt v. JJniri/, 1 
 (). R. .577. -Q. R. \). 
 
 S. et al., (reapomlcnts) partners in trade, sued 
 the I). T. Co., (appellants) for defamation of the 
 rcs]i<indeiits in their trade. In the declaration 
 it was alleged: — I. That they were wholesale 
 and retail merchants at Halifax! That appel- 
 lants wrongfully, falsely and maliciously, by 
 means of their telegraph lines, transmitted, sent 
 and published from their otiice at Halifax to 
 tiieir ollice in St. John, and there caused to bo 
 printed, copied, circulated and published the 
 faUe and defamatory message following: "John 
 Silver & ('o., wholesale clothiers, of Grenvillo 
 street, have failed ; liabilities heavy." 2. That 
 same message was caused also to be published 
 in other parts of the Dominion. 3. That the 
 appellants promised and agreed with the pro- 
 prietor or publisher of the ISt. John Daily Tele- 
 
^, 
 
 
 "V^' 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 % 
 
 Li 
 
 11.25 
 
 IA£ 12.8 12.5 
 1^ 1^ III 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 us |4.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 6" 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 7 
 
 V 
 
 >" 
 
 <? 
 
 / 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 
 23 WtST MAIN STRifT 
 
 WfBSTM,N.Y. 145N 
 
 (716) •72-4503 
 
) 
 
 A^ 
 
 
 I/.. 
 
 e 
 
 \;^Q 
 
 »^<^ 
 
 ■«v" 
 
 '^ 
 
wt 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 508 
 
 S09 
 
 I 
 
 ^raph newspaper, ami entered into an arrange- 
 ment witli him, whereby the appellants agreed 
 to collect anil transmit, by nicaus of their tele- 
 graph lines, news despatches to said newspaper 
 irom time to time, and that such publislier should 
 pay for all such messages, a-id shovdd publish 
 them in his newspaper, and that in pursiiaiiue 
 of said agreement, the appellants wrongfully, 
 maliciously, and by means of said telegraph, 
 transmitted, sent, and |)ublished from their i 
 office in Halilax to their olHce in St. dohn, and ; 
 there falsely and maliciously ciuiscd to be writ- 
 ten, printed, copied, circulated, and published 
 the above mc-,sage, whereby many customers 
 who had heretofore dealt with plaintiffs, ceased 
 to do so, and • l.c-lr credit and business standing 
 and reputati w 'j thereby greatly damaged. 
 The 1). T. (. . ■eiiiod the several publications 
 charged, and also tlie entering i;ito the agree- 
 ment mentioned ir Mie third count and the for- 
 warding of the '.• -s»i."es as alleged. At the 
 t iiti it was provi . ... the telegram which was 
 publibhod in th.- 1 -1.4 p:<per, was corrected in 
 
 the evening editr ,. ad that the publisher's 
 agreement was with oi.e Snyder, an officer of 
 the company, to furnish him neus at so much 
 for every hundred words, but that he only paid 
 for such as he used. The original despatch was 
 not produced The only evidence as to damage 
 was the evidence of two witnesses, who proved 
 that by reason of the publication, they ceased 
 to do bui,' CSS with the respondents as tiiey had 
 previously been accustomed to do. This evi- 
 dence was objected to as inailmissible, but \vas 
 received. The dealings of these witnesses with 
 the plaintiffs consisted in selling their exchange 
 and sometimes discounting their notes. The 
 counsel for the defendants moved for a nonsuit, 
 which was lefus^ed, an<l the case was submitted 
 to the jury who, upon the evidence, rendered a 
 verdict f(n' tlie plaintiffs with §7,000 damages. 
 On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, it 
 was :— Held, (Taschereau andCwynne, JJ., dis- 
 8entin«), that the appellants, D. T. Co., were 
 responsible for the publication of the libel in 
 question. Per Taschereau and Gwynne, JJ., 
 assuming the agreement in question to be one 
 within the scoi)e of the purposes for which the 
 defendants were incoi-porateJ, and that Snyder 
 had sufficient authority to enter into it on behalf 
 of the defendant company, the evidence estab- 
 lished that the defendants collected compiled 
 and transmitted the news for the proprietor of 
 the newspaper, as his confidential agents and at 
 his request, and that they were not responsible 
 for the publication by the said proprietor and 
 publisher of said news, for which the damaces 
 were awarded. 2. Sir \V. Ritchie, C. J., doubt- 
 ing, and Henry, J., dissenting, that the damages 
 were excessive, and therefore a new trial ought 
 to be granted.;— Held, also, per Strong, Tasche- 
 reau and Gwynne, JJ. No special damages 
 having been alleged in the declaration, the evi- 
 dence as to such damages, having been objected 
 to, was inadmissible, and therefore a new trial 
 should be granted. Dominion Ttk<jrnph Co. v. 
 Silver, 10 S. C. H. 238. 
 
 The statement of claim alleged that from 1874 
 to 1883 the plaintiff was registrar of deeds of the 
 county of rSruco : that in 1880 on a petition of 
 the defendants to the Lientenant-doveriKir, a 
 commissioner was appointed to enquire into the 
 conduct of the plaintiff as registrar, and an en- 
 
 quiry held, when charges of a defamatory 
 character were made against the plaintiff, setting 
 them out : that the charges were not sustained 
 in law or by the evidence, and were shewn to 
 be, and wore, untrue in fact, and to have been 
 made maliciously and with the design of injuring 
 the plaintiff ; that before the commissioner had 
 made any report on the charges tlie defendants 
 maliciously, and without any reasonable or 
 probable cause, and with design and intention 
 of injuring the plaintiff in his reputation, 
 character and l)uslness, caused the accusations, 
 charges, and defamatory statements therein- 
 before specially mentioned, and portions of the 
 evidence adduccil before the said commissioners, 
 together with certain statements made by one 
 R., who, during the investigation, acted as de- 
 fendants' solicitor, to be printed and published 
 in pamphlets and in the minutes of the county 
 council, and circulated throughout the county 
 and elsewhere in the province, greatly to the 
 prejudice, detriment, damage, and injury of 
 the plaintiff : -Held, on demurrer, that a good 
 cause of action for libel was shewn, and that such 
 action lies against a municipal corporation. J/c- 
 Ltty V. Cuuuty of Bruce, 14 O. R. 308. — Wilson. 
 
 See Skirvinij v. Roks, 31 C. P. 423, inj)u.; Far- 
 mer V. Hamilton Tribune Pnntimj and Puhliih- 
 i)i(/ Co., 3 O. R. 538, p. 506; Huber v. CrookaU, 
 16 O. R. 475, p. 513 ; Liuingston v. Trout, 9 0. 
 R. 488, p. 509 ; Scott v. Crerar, 11 O. R. 541, 14 
 A. R. 152, p. 515. 
 
 V. Actions for. 
 
 1. By and againm Whom. 
 
 A medical practitioner registered in Great 
 Britain but not in this province, cannot maintain 
 an action against a person slandering him in his 
 profession. See SkirviiKj v. Hos.t, 31 C. P. 423. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Held, under R. 8. O. (1877), c. 125, that in 
 an action for a tort (in this case the action was 
 Tor slander) committed by a wife during cover- 
 ture, the husbaiul is not a proper party, but the 
 wife must be sued alone. Anifr v. lloijern, 31 C. 
 P. 195.— Osier. See Lee v. Hopkins, 20 0. R. 
 
 A married woman may bring an action of libel 
 in her own name without joining her husband 
 as plaintiff. The omission of the words "either 
 in contract, or in tort or otherwise," found in 
 section 2 (2) of the Married Woman's Property 
 Act, 1884, from section 3 (2), R. S. O. (1887) c. 
 132, docs not limit the legal effect and operation 
 of that section, i^iiahr v. Bean, 18 0. H. 70. — 
 Royd. 
 
 Where slanderous words were spoken under 
 such circumstances as that the person to whom 
 they were spoken did not know to which of a 
 class of two persons they were intended to be 
 ajiplii'd ; — Held, that either of the two members 
 of the class was entitled to sue, but it was neces- 
 sary for her to prove that the words were untrue 
 of the other member, otherwise she conhl not 
 recover. A/brec/U v. Burkholdtr, 18 0. R. 287. 
 — Street. 
 
 See Dominion Te/ri/raph Co. v. Silver, 10 S. 
 C. R. 338, J). 507 ; McLay v. County of Brme, 
 14 O. R. 398, mpra. 
 
508 
 
 latory 
 ptting 
 
 S09 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 510 
 
 2. Pleadings. 
 
 (a) Statement of Claim and Innuendo. 
 
 A declaration by a married woman for slander, 
 jiii'iuting that she had committed incest and 
 adultery with her father, and alleging as grounds 
 of special damage (1), the loss of the consortium 
 of her husband, (2), the loss of the society of 
 friends, was: — Held, on demurrer, good, al- , 
 though the second ground was clearly insuffi- 
 cient in not naming the friends. Palmer v. hol- 
 mes, 45 Q. B. 15.— Osier. 
 
 The statement of claim in an action of libel 
 brought by plaintilf, an insurance inspector and 
 adjuster, and at the time of action brought the 
 litjuidator of an insurance company, alleged that 
 defendant in an article published in his news- 
 paper commenting on the trial of a previous ac- 
 tion of libel brought ljy plaintiff against defen- 
 dant in which plaintiff' had recovered one .shil- 
 ling damages, stated that he would not have been 
 siiriirised if the jury had found more favourably 
 for plaintiff, for though evidence of general re- 
 putation was admitted, the court had refused to 
 allow evidence of specific acts of iuijiroper con- 
 duct, unless directly coiniected with the ins\ir- 
 auce company ; and that in further commenting 
 on said trial in his said article falsely and mali- 
 ciously published of the plaintiff, in his business 
 as an insurance adjuster, that plaintiff would 
 have been asked to explain the purcliase of a 
 <;laim in respect of a loss, one half of the amount 
 of which he afterwards received from the com- 
 pany while their adjuster; and as to gifts re- 
 ceived from persons whose losses he had adjus- 
 ted ; the innuendo alleged being that plaintiff 
 had been dishonest in adjusting cliiims and had 
 accepted bribes, etc. ; and that the article was 
 an unfair and false report of the trial. The de- 
 fendant by his statement of defence admitted 
 the puljlicalion of the article, but denied the 
 innuendo, and also any malice, etc. ; and alleged 
 that there was an inaccuracy in the article as to 
 the (juestion which might have been asked plain- 
 tiff by which a wrong impression might have 
 been conveyed which was corrected at the ear- 
 liest opportunity in defendant's newspaper by an 
 article stating that the ijuestion referred to 
 should have been that the purchase was made 
 in respect of a loss which occurred while he was 
 the company's adjuster, but that the payment 
 was after he had left the ccmpauy : — Held, on 
 ^lemurrer, that the difference between the first 
 and second articles as to the payment on the 
 alleged purchase was material, for if it was 
 proved that the lirst article was in this respect 
 false to the knowledge of the defendant, and he 
 nuide no correction, this would be evidence of 
 malice, and would probably materially affect the 
 ■damages; but even if imnuiterial the plaintiff 
 ■was not prejudiceil: that it was <udy offered as 
 a defence to a portion of the damages. The de- 
 murrer was therefore oveiruled. Lirimjxton v. 
 Tioal, i) O. U. 488.— Rose. 
 
 W., a judge of the supreme court of B. C. , 
 brought an action against H., editor, for a libel 
 ■contained in the following article published in 
 his paper : " The McNamee- Mitchell .Suit. 
 In the sworn evidence of Mr. McNamee, de- 
 fendant, in the suit of McKenna r. McNamee, 
 lately tried at Ottawa, the following passage 
 .occurs : ' Six of them were in partnership (in the 
 
 dry dock contract) out in British Columbia, one 
 of whom was the premier of the province. ' The 
 premier of the province at the time referred to 
 was Hon. Mr. Walkern, now a judge of the 
 supreme court. Mr. Walkem's career on the 
 bench has been above reproach. His course has 
 been such as to win for him tlie admiration of 
 many of lis old political enemies. But he owes 
 it to himself to refute this charge. We feel sure 
 that Mr. McN.amee must be labouring under a 
 mistake. Had the statement been made off the 
 stand it would have been scouted as untrue; but 
 having been made under the sanctity of an oath it 
 cannot be treated lightly or allowed to pass un- 
 heeded." 'J"he innuendoes alleged by the declara- 
 tion to be contained in this article were : 1. That 
 VV. corruptly entered into partnership with Mc- 
 Namee while holding offices of public trust, and 
 thereby unlawfully acquired large sums of public 
 money. 2. That he did so under cloak of his 
 p\iblic position ancl by fraudulently pretending 
 that he acted in the interest of the government. 
 3. That he connnitted criminal offences punish- 
 able by law. 4. That he continued to hold his 
 interest in the contract after his elevation to the 
 bench : — Held, that the article was susceptible 
 of the first of the above innuendoes, but not of 
 the others whicli should have been, but were not, 
 distinctly withdrawn from the consideration of 
 the jury at the trial. On the trial the jury 
 found a verdict for the plaintiff, with $2,500 dam- 
 ages :— Held, per Strong, Fonrnier, Taschereau 
 and Owynne JJ., that the case was improperly 
 left to the jury but the only prejudice sustained 
 by the <lefendaut thereby was that of excessive 
 damages, and the verdict might stand on the 
 plaintiff consenting to the damages being reduced 
 to !?500 ; — Held, per Ritchie, C. J., that there 
 had been a mistrial, and the consent of both 
 parties to such reduction was necessary. Ilif/gins 
 V. WalL-em, 17 S. C. R. 225. 
 
 See Iliiher v .Crookall, 10 O. R. 475, p. 513. 
 
 (b) Defence. 
 
 In an action for libel the plea of not guilty 
 was held inconsistent with a plea of apology and 
 payment into court, and was ordered to be struck 
 out. IJoi/lc V. Owen Sound Printimj Co., 8 P. 
 R. 69.— Ualton, Q. C. 
 
 Held, that the omission to plead privilege as 
 a defence did not preclude the defendant from 
 setting it up at the trial. Blajden v. Bennett, 
 9 0. R. .59.S.— C. P. U. 
 
 To an action of slander the defendant set up 
 as a defence facts which amounted to a juatifi- 
 cation, but restricted their effect to the mitiga- 
 tion of thedanuvges: — Held, this constituted » 
 good defence. W'ilion v. fVoudx, 9 0. R. 687. — 
 Rose. 
 
 In libel a .lea in mitigation of damages must 
 in its natuie l)e an adniissitm that the plaintiff 
 is entitleil to recover some compensation; but it 
 amounts to a contention that tiie amount of the 
 plaintiff's recovery shall be limited to the value 
 of the plaintiff's character, which value is Affect- 
 ed by the facts pleaded. Such a plea, b.iaed 
 upon the plaintiff's bad character, must either 
 shew tluit the plaintiff' is a man of bad general 
 reputation or character, or that the plaintiff has 
 a bad character with regard to some specific act 
 
 ••■ . ■ •• 
 
 5:-., 
 
 "**■■ 
 
 
su 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 512 
 
 513 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 whicli relates to the charge in the libel com- 
 plttined of. Moort v. Alitvhell, 11 0. R. 21.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 It is not permissible to a defendant to plead 
 justification to a libel, and under that defence 
 to offer evidence of the plaintiff's bad character 
 in mitigation of damages. Wilson r. Woods, 9 
 O. R. G87, disapproved of. Jb. 
 
 See Linngdon v. Tront, 9 0. R. 48S, p. 509; 
 Switzer v. Laidman, 18 0. R. 420, p. 515. 
 
 (c) Other Cases. 
 
 
 
 Counter claim for libel excluded in an action 
 for negligence, See MeLejm v. Hamilton Street 
 Jiailway Co., U P. R. 19.S. 
 
 And in an action on a promissory note. See 
 Central Bank of Canada v. OnUri. ;2 P. R. 
 160. 
 
 Amendment of pleadings. See McCaun v. 
 Preneveau, 10 0. R. 57.S. 
 
 3. Particulars. 
 
 In an action of libel the plaintiff alleged that 
 the defendant had accused him in a newspaper 
 article of having made false returns to the gov- 
 ernment in his business of distiller. To this the 
 defendant pleaded justification : — Held, thiit the 
 plaintiff was entitled to particulars of the de- 
 fence intended to be set up under this plea. 
 Corcoran v. liobb, 8 P. R. 49.— Dalto! , Q. C. 
 
 In an action for slaniler in charging the plaiu- 
 tiff with theft, particulars were ordered shewing 
 the person to whom tlie words were spoken, or 
 if sucli person were iinknown, or the words were 
 spoken to the plaintiff, then the name of any 
 person who was present and heard or might 
 have heard the words spoken. Thornton v. 
 Capntock, 9 P. R. 535.— Cameron. 
 
 Particulars in an action for libel cannot be 
 struck out as insufficient ; if those delivered are 
 too general, the judge at the trial will exercise 
 his discretion as to tlie admission of evidence 
 thereunder. Cithen.s' Iiixiiranfc Co. v. Campbell, 
 10 P. R. 129.— Dalton, il/as^e)-.— Cameron. 
 
 An order for particulars, under the statement 
 of claim in an action of slander, of the names of 
 the persons to whom tlic alleged slander was 
 spoken, was rescinded l)ecause tlie examination 
 of the pi, ntiff gave to the defendant all the 
 discoverj' that he sought to obtain by the order 
 for particulars :— Semblo, in actions of slander 
 the practice laid down in Thornton v. Capstock, 
 9 P. R. 535, as to particulars to be furnisheil 
 shouhl be followed in preference to that prevail- 
 ing in Kngland. Gould v. Bealtie, 11 P. R. 329.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 4. Evidence. 
 
 (a) Examination before Trial. 
 
 Held, that the assistant or sub-editor of the 
 defendants was an officer of the company exa- 
 minable for the purpose of discovery under R. 
 
 S. O. (1877), c. 50, 8. 15fi. Maitland v. Ghhc 
 Printimj Co., 9 P. R. 370.— Osier. 
 
 In an action for libel against a newspaper, the 
 defendants, on a motion under Rule 285, 0. J. 
 Act, (Con. Rule 566) were with certain restric- 
 tions, allowed to examine the plaintiff before 
 defence filed. Tate v. Olobe Printing Co., 11 P. 
 R. 253.— Dalton, Master, 
 
 No man can be compalled to answer a ques- 
 tion incriminating himself. And where tiie 
 defendant upon his examination for discovery 
 in un action of libel refused to answer questions 
 as to the authorship of an alleged libel, and 
 claimed privilege, not before the examiner, but 
 afterwards upon a motion by the plaintiff" to 
 commit him for refusal to answer, swearing 
 positively that the answers might tend to crimi- 
 nate him : — Held, that he was entitled to the 
 pi'ivilege, and that it was not too late to claim 
 it. The costs of tiie motion to commit, were 
 made costs to the plaintiff in the cause. Hall 
 v. Coiranlock, 12 P. R. 604— Boyd. 
 
 (b) Of Publication. 
 
 The plaintiff had been a servant of the defen- 
 dant, and on leaving the defendant's service, 
 asked for a statement of acconnt, whereupon the 
 defendant made out an account as follows : " M r. 
 Joseph Jackson to AVm. .Staley, Dr." Amongst 
 the items were the following : "Stole hay dur- 
 ing winter. $4.00," and " stole h.atchet-hammer, 
 §1.50." The account was placed in an unsealed 
 envelope and banded to M., the plaintiff's then 
 employer who took it to the plaintiff's house and 
 put it on the table lietween the plaintiff and his 
 wife while at supper. The wife took up the en- 
 velope and taking out the account read it to the 
 plaintiff who could neither read nor write. There 
 was no evidence to shew that the defendant knew 
 that the plaintiff could not read, the only know- 
 ledge that defendant could have had being that 
 the wife had signed plaintiff's contract with 
 defendant, but it did not appear that the defen- 
 dant's attention was called to this fact or that 
 he knew that the signature was not the plaintiff's 
 own hand-writing ; nor was there any evidence 
 that M. read the account or took it out of the 
 envelope, and he was not called as a witness. 
 In an action of libel on the account, it was : — 
 Held, that there was no evidence of publication ; 
 and as the onus of proof thereof was on the 
 plaintiff, the action failed. Jackson v. Stalty, 
 9 0. K. 334.- C. P. 1). 
 
 The plaintiff was the patentee and manufac- 
 turer of an automatic steam injector, and the 
 defendants were a company manufacturing 
 automatic steam injectors, one J. being their 
 manager. A printed circular signed "Peiiberthy 
 Injector Company," cont.iincd certain state- 
 ments as to the mode in which the plaintiff had 
 obtained his patent, and tiiis action was brought 
 by him on the ground tiiat these statements 
 were libellous. At the trial it was proved that 
 the circular had l)een found in various places, 
 but the only proof of publication was an ad- 
 mission by J. , made in conversation with the 
 plaintiff, that the circular had iieen issued by 
 the Penberthy Injector Comjiany in reference to^ 
 a circular issued by the plaintiff :— Held, that. 
 no autliority can be inferred iu a general maii- 
 
 hy th 
 
513 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 514 
 
 ager or other officer of a bank or trading corpo- 
 ration of any kind to subject tlio corporation to 
 actiiius for libel by his admissions to ar.y person 
 tiiat he had publisiied a, libel on another person 
 by tiieir authority, and that tiiero was therefore 
 uo proof of publication. If J. had been called 
 as a witness and proved that he had been so 
 authorized, and that it formed part of his duty 
 to do the act complained of, then the libel would 
 be the act of the corporation. Tench v. Great 
 Western R. VV. Co., ;W Q. K. 8, distinguished. 
 Decision of the Queen's Bench Division reversed. 
 Carroll V. Penberthy Injector Co., 16 A. R. 446. 
 
 (c) Proof of Defamatory Matter and Innuendo. 
 
 A draft drawn on the plaintiff being presented 
 for acceptance at his place of business by a clerk 
 iu an agency of a bank, answer was returned that 
 the drawee (plaintiff) was away from home, in 
 the Western iStates, and the clerk so noted the 
 answer on the back of tiie draft. The defendant, 
 the manager of the bank agency, added in his 
 own handwriting to what the clerk hail written 
 the words " or .San Francisco, or the Rocky 
 Mountains," and the draft was thereupon re- 
 turned to another bank, Ijy wliich it had been 
 sent for presentation, and by wliich after its 
 return it was handed to the bankers of the 
 drawers. Innuendo, "that the defendant meant 
 to impute that the plaintiff had lelt for paits 
 unknown, not intending to rt* rn to Ontario, au'l 
 witii intent to deframl " his creditors : — Heid, 
 that the words weie capable of tlie libellous 
 meaning alleged, and a nonsuit was therefore set 
 aside and a new trial <lirected, in order to sub- 
 mit to the jury the question whether the words 
 did in fact bear that meaning :— Held, also, on 
 the facts set out in the report, that there was 
 evidence to goto the jury in fcuj)pnrt of the innu- 
 endo. At the trial the liank manager to whom 
 the draft was returned was .isked, " \\ Juit do you 
 understand by the words added by defendant?" 
 To this question objection was tsikin, and the 
 judge ruled that in the absence of evidence 
 (which it was admitted could not lie given), that 
 by tlie u.'age of 1 anktrs the words complained 
 of hud a meaning other than th'it conveyed iy 
 them in their natural construction, the question 
 could not be put: — Held, that the usage of 
 hankers could not in any way lie the rule by 
 which the meaning of such words could be held 
 to be governed, but (following Daines c. Hartley, 
 3 Kx. 200) that nevertheless a projitr foundation 
 had not been laid for the (luohtion ; that the 
 witness shoidd liave first been a.«ked if there 
 were any circumstances which would lead him 
 to understand tlie words in other than. their 
 natural sense, and that upon j;><)of of such 
 circumstances the (juestion would have been 
 allowable. As, however, the judge's ruling had 
 precluded the plaintiff's counsel fioni laying 
 such a foundation, a niw trial was ordered. 
 Hiilttr V. Crookall, 10 O. R. 475.- Q. B. L>. 
 
 In an action against a mercantile agency com- 
 pany the alleged libel consisted of the publica- 
 tion aniimg ' he general body of tiie defendants' 
 Bubscriliers of a notice or circular containing the 
 words, after the plaintiff's name : "If interested 
 inquire at the ofhce." The defendants pleaded 
 that the notice also contained words explrinatory 
 of the alleged libel, which should be read iu con- 
 
 33 
 
 nection therewith, and wliich had not been set 
 out in the statement of claim. Upon this the 
 plaintiff' took issue. At the trial it ajipeareil 
 that the circular contained not (mly the expres- 
 sion alleged in the statement of claim, but also 
 a further statement referring to, and explanatory 
 of it. The evidence was contined to tlie effect 
 and meaning of the words set out in the state- 
 ment of claim, notwithstanding the defendants' 
 objection, that they could not be severed from 
 the rest of the circular. The plaintiff' insisted 
 that an amendment was unnecessary, and made 
 no application to amend until the jury had re- 
 tired : — Held, that there was a variance lietweeii 
 the libel alleged and that proved, and i;hat as the 
 proposed amendment would have raised a new 
 issue to which the evidence did not api)ly the 
 plaintiff should have been nonsuited. 'J'odit v. 
 Dun., n'hmin d; Co., 15 A. R. S5 ; r_» O. R. 791. 
 
 See McGami v. P re.nevtaii , 10 O. R. 573. 
 
 (d) Of Mulke. 
 
 In an action for malicious prosecution and 
 slander : — Held, that evidence of the motives 
 which induced the defendant to lay the charge 
 before the nuigistrate was properly receivable, 
 and should not have been rejected as was done 
 here. McVann v, Prenevtau, 10 0. P 573. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 See Btve v. Wnterlmri/, S. C. R. 143, p. 499 ; 
 Wilcocks V. Jlowdl, 5 O. R. 360, p. 503 ; Wells 
 V. Lhidop, 14 O. It. '275 ; 15 A. R. 695, p. 504 ; 
 Tcdd v. Bun Wman cD Co. A. R. 85, p. 501 ; 
 Coltln V. McKay, 17 O. R. , p. 505. 
 
 (e) Other Cases. 
 
 Action for libel contained in anonymous cir- 
 culars written on a type-writer imputing unpro- 
 fessional conduct to the plaintiff' in sending 
 "bummers" round "touting" for business, and 
 in inducing other i-olicitors' clients to leave them 
 and employ plaintiff's firm. The evidence, 
 which was circun'stantial, was that on the 13th 
 October, P., M. and McK., members of the 
 legal profession in Hamilton, received through 
 the post the above circulais all of the same im- 
 port though not copiis, marked with the 2 p.m. 
 post mark, and must have letn posted between 
 2 and 3 p.m., as the practice was to change the 
 post nuirk as the hour stiutk. The defendant 
 and a film of C. & W. had their office in the 
 same building, the latter having a caligraph 
 which the defendant, who was an expert writer 
 thereon, was in the habit of using. About 12.30 
 on the day in question the defendant borrowed 
 the caligraph and had it away U ng enough to 
 write the circulars. About 2.30 after the de- 
 fendant had returned the machine, he came back 
 with a piece of pajier in his hiind which looked 
 like foolscap with the edge torn off and similar 
 in appearance to one of the circulars, wliich he 
 put into the machine and wrote something on. 
 He then went out, and returned in about three 
 minutes and got an envelope, which resembled 
 an envelope enclosing one of the circulars, which 
 he put into the machine. It appeared, however, 
 that the envelope was one of a job lot which a 
 clerk in M.'s office had disposed of amongst the 
 profession. In the type-writer there were peeu- 
 
 f. I 
 
515 
 
 DEFAMATION. 
 
 618 
 
 517 
 
 liai'ities, namely, in certain of llic letters being 
 hlnrred, wliicli wore found in tlie circulars. 
 The circular alao cont.iiue'l expressions similar 
 to those used by defendant in speaking about 
 plaintitf. After (,". iiad l)een subpa'iiaed to pro- 
 duce the machine, the defendant advised him 
 not to do so; and a hrotlier of C.'s, of whom 
 the defendant w.is legal adviser, wrote to C. also 
 advising liim not to produce it, but he said he 
 did not write at defendant's request. The plain- 
 tiff also tendereil evidence as to the defendant's 
 style of composition, which was rejected:— 
 Held, Hose, J. , dissenting, ( 1 ) that the evidence 
 was not sufiicient to be submitted to the jury 
 and it was therefore ))roperly withdrawn from 
 them ; and (2) that the evidence of style of com- 
 position was pr iperly rejected. Srolt v. Crtrar, 
 11 O. 11. 541.— C. P. 1). Reversed in appeal, 
 14 A. K. 152. 
 
 Seiid)le, a witness could not be asked his opin- 
 ion as to tlie autlior.ship of a letter, S. C, 14 
 A. I!, ni. 
 
 Per Hurton and Osier, J.J. A. Evidence of 
 literary style on which to found a comparison, 
 if admissible at all, is not so otherwise than as 
 expert evidence. Ih. 
 
 In this action of libel the defendant did not 
 plead justificatiiin, but he said in his defence 
 that the alleged libel was a fair comment upon 
 matters of public and general interest : — Helil, 
 that he was entitled under this defence to shew 
 that the matters upon which he connnented were 
 true. Lefroy v. Kurnside, 4 L. R. (Ireland) 55(5 ; 
 Davis V. Shenstcne, 11 App. Cas. 187; and Rior- 
 dan r. Wilicox, 4 Times L. R. 475, referred to. 
 WilU V. Carman, 17 0. R. 223.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 When in an action for slander and libel, im- 
 puting criminal offences, the defendant set up 
 by way of mitig ition of damages, that the plain- 
 tiff had confessed to a third party that he had 
 done the acts charged against him : — Held, that 
 evidence of such a confession was only admis- 
 sible under a plea of justification, unless the de- 
 fendant added on the record that she had now 
 good cause for discrediting that part of the ad- 
 mission or confession alleged to have been made 
 by the plaintiff, although she honestly believed 
 it to be true at the time she repeated the words 
 complained of : — Hehl, also, that objection 
 should have been taken to the pleading either 
 by demurrer or by application to strike it out as 
 embariassing. Hw'Uzer v. Laidman, 18 (>. R. 
 420.— Chy. D. 
 
 Action for libel. The libel consisted of a let- 
 ter published in a Hoston, U. 8., newspaper, 
 claimed to have been written by defeixlant. 
 The letter, which was signed by a per.sonof the 
 same name as the defendant, stated that it was 
 •written in answer to an anonymous letter, dated 
 15th September, pu' dished in the i?ame news- 
 paper, which the writer stited he had seen tlie 
 manuscript of , and which was a clumsy attempt 
 to make the writer believe was written further 
 off than Ottawa, and had also seen the manu- 
 script of a letter written by an Ottawa shoe 
 dealer to a Hoston firm, and that the hand- 
 writing of both were the same. The anonymous 
 letter referred to a trip nia<le by defendant to 
 New Brunswick, which was also referred to in 
 the letter in question. The letter in (juestion 
 also spoke of the writer of tiie anonymous letter 
 
 as a person who had come to Ottawa and opened 
 a boot and shoe business, and stayed at the same 
 hotel as the writer of the letter in questicm. The 
 letter also spoke of a certain machine called 
 the Crescent Heel Plate Machine as our machhie. 
 The defendant at the trial refused to answer 
 whether or not he was the writer of the letter 
 in question, claiming privilege on the ground 
 that it might criminate him, and the publishers 
 for tiw examination of wliom a commission 
 issued, refused to be examined for the like rea- 
 son. The defendant in his examination stated 
 that both he and the plaintiff were boot and 
 shoe dealers in Ottawa ; that he was a subscri- 
 ber and correspondent to this paper ; that he 
 had been on a trip to New Brunswick, and on 
 his return saw the anonymous letter of 1,5th 
 September in this newspaper, as also the manu- 
 script thereof, as well as the manuscript of a 
 letter to a Huston firm, both apparently in the 
 same handwrituig. The plain'ifi^'s counsel stated 
 that in addition o the above he intended prov- 
 ing that whei laintiff came to Ottawa, he 
 stopped at the ., me hotel as defendant, and that 
 defendant was the sole agent for the Crescent 
 Heel Plate Machine -.—Held, that this was suffi- 
 cient evidence to go to the jury of defendant 
 ))cing the author of the letter in question. 
 Quiere, whether the refusal to answer the direct 
 (juesjtion as to authorship, or the claim of pri- 
 vilege against criminal proceedings, afforde<l 
 any evidence thereof, , by way of admission or 
 estoppel or otherwise. Ilarkim v. Doney, 17 
 O. R. 22.— C. P. D. 
 
 See WikocX-x v. Howell, 5 O. K. .360, p. 50.3; 
 Bradley v. Mcliiio.sli, 5 O. R. 227 ; Lii)imi»- 
 ton V. Tront, 9 O. R. 4S8, p, 509 ; Moore' \. 
 Mitchell, 11 O. R. 21, p. 511 ; /)owjMio?t Tele- 
 ijraph Co. v. .Silver, 10 S. O. R. 238, p. 507; 
 Millelte v. Lit In, 10 P. R. '2ii5 ; Graham' v. Mr- 
 Kimm, 19 0. R. 475, p. 501. 
 
 5. Damages. 
 
 Held, per Cameron, C. J., and (lalt, J., that 
 in this case the damnges were excessive, and they 
 were directed to bj reduced to .§1,000, provided 
 such sum was paid by a named d.ite and plain- 
 tiff" elected to take such sum, otherwise a new 
 trial was directed. Per Rose, .J., that under the 
 circumstances t he damages were not excessive ; 
 but as plaintiff's counsel hail intimated that a 
 smaller amount would be accepted if paid within 
 a reasonable time, he wonhl accede to the re- 
 duction, on phiintilf accepting such amount, 
 otheiwise the motion for a new trial should l)e 
 dismissed. Mwxii v. Toronto Printing Co., \l 
 O. R. 302. -C. P. 1). 
 
 •See ir»V/.< v. Carman, 14 
 
 Nominal Damtvges. 
 A. R. 05(5. 
 
 See WilcorLf v. Ifowell, 5 O. R. 300, p. 503 ; 
 Dominion Teleip-apk Co. v. Silrcr, 10 S. C. R. 
 238, p. 507; Ui<j[l'in'* v. Walkem, 17 S. C. K, 
 225. 
 
 See also next Subhead. 
 
 (5. ContH. 
 
 Where in an action of libel a verdict for §1 
 damages was found, and the judge at the trial 
 
516 
 
 517 
 
 DESOBIPTION OF GOODS. 
 
 518 
 
 jTivvu no certificate for costs : — Held, that the' 
 plaintiff was ctititle<l to tax full costs, (liirnett j 
 (• HnuUey, 3 App. (*as. 944, coiisidereil and fol- i 
 lo\ve<l. Wi/sonv. Ilohtrtx, UP. 1!. 41'2.— Q. B. \}. 
 
 Where, in an action for libel, tlie plaintiff 
 olit:iiiied a verdict for twenty cents damages : — 
 Held, that no curtiticate or order for full costs 
 was necessary, and that tiie jdaintitr could be 
 deprived of such costs for good cause only. 
 Wilson V. Rolierts, 11 P. R. 412, followed. 
 WcUhaiik.1 V. CoiKjer, (2) 1'-' P. R. 447.— C. V. D. 
 
 Recommendation of jury as to costs. See 
 Farqnhar v. Ruhcvtmn, 13 P. II. 15(). 
 
 Order of judge dismissing action aiul ordering 
 defendant to pay plaintiff's costs where the 
 jury found that the defen<laut was guilty of 
 libelling, but that the plaintiff had sustained no 
 damage — set aside. Sec Wills v. Carman, 14 A. 
 R. 656. 
 
 See Comaii v. Landell, 13 0. K. 13, p. 500. 
 
 VI. Ai'ouvsY. 
 
 See Ddylc v. Oh-ch Sound Pnit/imj Co. , 8 P. 
 E. 69, p. 511. 
 
 A judicial officer cannot delegate the discharge 
 of his judicial functions to another unless ex- 
 ])rc.ssly (impowercd so to do. /» re Qiueit City 
 littiiiliiii Co., 10 P. R. 415. — Hodgins, Master in 
 Urdiiuirij. 
 
 Of power of apjiointment. 
 Li'llaii, 11 0. R. 1:M. 
 
 Of payment in hypothec. 
 vault, 10 S. C. R. ()1«. 
 
 See Smith v. Mc- 
 
 See Reeves v. Per- 
 
 DELIVERY. 
 
 I. Of Gift — See Gift. 
 II. Of Goods— -See Sale ok Goods. 
 Ill, Of Possession— Sec Sale ok Lands. 
 
 Of in.surance policy as an escrow. See Con- 
 J'fdtralion Life. Aumciatioii of Canada v. 0'Do7i- 
 ndl, 10 S. C. R. 92; 13 S. C. R. 218. 
 
 See 
 
 VII. MiSCELLAHEOlTL CASES. 
 
 Separation of jury after jui-^e's charge. 
 StUwdl v. Rciinie, 7 O. 1{. 3.")5 
 
 A recovery of a verdict in an action for libel 
 jigainst some of several partica concerned in the 
 lutcl, and payment of the amount of verdict and 
 nil costs without judgment being entered, is a 
 bar to an action against otliers for the same libel, 
 II7A0C/.-V v. Iloinll, 8 O. R, 576.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Limitation in action for libel. Mayor of 
 Muiilrea/ v. Hall, 12 S. C. R. 74. 
 
 It is for the jury to say wiiether alleged defa- 
 matory matter i)ublishc(l is a libel or not, and 
 the widest latitude is given to them in dealing 
 with it. WilU V. Carman, 17 O. R. 223.— Q. 
 15. 1). . 
 
 VIII. Slander of Title. 
 
 Counter claim for slander of title in a mortgage 
 action. See Udell v. licnnctt, 13 P. R. IC. 
 
 See Ontario InduMrial Loan and. Inrcstment 
 Oj. v. Lindsey, 3 O. R. 66 ; 4 O. R. 473. 
 
 DEFICIENCY OF ASSETS. 
 
 Jite EXECfTOKS AND Au.MlNI.-STKATOU.S. 
 
 DELAY. 
 
 See. LacUKS. 
 
 DELEGATION. 
 
 I'OWEK OF ATTt)l!NF.Y — .SV'K PRINCIPAL AND 
 AliENT. 
 
 DEMURRAGE. 
 
 .S'ee Ship. 
 
 DEMURRER. 
 
 I. PLEADINti— (See PLEADINCi — SPECIFIC 
 
 Performance. 
 II. JuDo.MENT OS— See .Judgment. 
 
 DEPARTURE IN PLEADINQ. 
 
 See Pleading. 
 
 DEPOSITIONS. 
 
 Under Commissions— .See Evidence. 
 
 Evidence of deposition taken before police 
 magistrate on proof of absence of witness from 
 Canada. See Jieijina v. Xelxon, 1 O. R. 500. 
 
 DEPOSITS. 
 
 See Banks. 
 
 DESCENT. 
 
 See I'jSTate. 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF G( ODS. 
 
 See Bills of Sale and CiiArrEL Mort<!A()ks. 
 
 I •• ; ■'I 
 
 5!?: !S 
 
 
 
 I' 
 
519 
 
 DI800VEBY. 
 
 DESOBIPTION OF LAND. 
 
 I. In Deeds- —S'm Dkku — 8ai.e otLAND, 
 II. In Patents— iS'et' Deed. 
 
 III. In Wills— 6'ee Will. 
 
 IV. Ok Road or Ruiiit of Way— See Way. 
 
 DESERTION. 
 
 Alimony for — Sie Husiianu and Wife. 
 
 DESISTMENT, 
 
 See Railways and Railway Companies. 
 
 DETENTION. 
 
 See Conversion. 
 
 DETINUE. 
 
 See Conversion. 
 
 DEVASTAVIT. 
 
 See Executors and Administrators. 
 
 DEVISE. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES ACT. 
 
 Widows Elf.ction — Six Dower. 
 
 The Devolution of Estates Act has not super- 
 seded but is to be read in conjunction with R. 8. 
 0. (1877), c. 106, ss. 3G, 37, and mortgaged land 
 devised by will is primarily liable to pay its own 
 burdens unless the will otherwise directs by sucli 
 terms as distinctly and unmistakably refer to 
 or describe the mortgage debts. Masoii v. 
 Mmon, 13 O. R. 725.— Boyd. 
 
 Where a will devised lands to the executors on 
 trust to aell the same : — Held, that the case was 
 not within section 8 of the Devolution of Estates 
 Act, and the approval of the official guardian or 
 au order of the court was not necessary to vali- 
 date a sale. Jn re livolh's Kxtate, 16 0. R. 429. 
 —Ferguson. 
 
 The word ' ' devolve " in section 8, is not 
 nsed in its strict and accepted meaning of 
 falling upon by way of succession, but in the 
 sense merely of " passing," and what is meant is 
 that where infants are concerned no real estate 
 which, but for the preceding sections, would not 
 come to the executors or administrators by a 
 devise, gift or conveyance, can be validly soKi 
 
 without the written consent of the oflTicial 
 guardian. lb. 
 
 On a, sale of lands the purchaser objected to tiie 
 title on the grounds (1) that there was no evidence 
 that a certain mortgage had been discharged and 
 (2) that the title beinsdeduced through thodeviscc 
 of a person who had died since the coming into 
 force of the "Devolution of Estates Act," 11. >S. 0. 
 (1887) c. 108, the legal estate was outstanding 
 in the executor of such person. It appeared 
 that all debts of the testator had been paid : — 
 Held, that both matters were matters of con- 
 veyancing, and not of title. Martin v, Afanee, 
 19 O. R. 705. -Chy. D. 
 
 Under the " Devolution of Estates Act," where 
 debts have been paid, or where there are no 
 debts, executors will hold the bare legal estate 
 for the devisee of the land of the deceased, lb. 
 Reversed on appeal. 
 
 See i?e Nixon, 13 0. R. 314 ; 7i'« Wilson and 
 Toronto Incandescent Electric Liijht Co., 20 0. 
 E. 597. 
 
 [See54 Vict, c, 18(0nt.)J 
 
 DICKINSON'S ISLAND. 
 
 Dickinson's Island in Lake St. Francis is part 
 of the county of Glengarry. Meyina v. Duquette, 
 9 P. R. ?9. -Osier. 
 
 DIRECTORS. 
 
 See Company — Railways and Railway 
 
 Co.MPANIES. 
 
 DISCLAIMER. 
 
 1 . In Actions — See Costs. 
 
 II. Of Office — See Municipal Corpora 
 tions. 
 
 Application by defendants to have their names 
 struck out in an action of ejectment disclaiming 
 any interest in the land, and not being in posses- 
 sion at or subsequent to the issue of the writ. 
 See Avi/lo-Ca nadiun Mortijwje Co. v. Cotter, 8 
 P. R. 111. 
 
 It is not essential to the validity of a dis- 
 claimer of a grant of bind that it should be by 
 deed or by record. Mojj'att v. Scratch, 12 A. R. 
 157. 
 
 DISCONTINUANCE. 
 
 I. In Actions — See Practice. 
 
 II. Of Possession — See Limitation ok 
 Actions. 
 
 DISCOVERY. 
 
 I. Examination of Parties— <S'ee Evi- 
 dence — Examination of JuDiiMENr 
 Debtor. 
 
m 
 
 DISTRESS. 
 
 II. Of Documents— See Evidence. 
 III. Of New Evidence— <S'ee New Trial. 
 
 Adding parties 'in tho master's office for the 
 purpose of discovery. Sea Hopper v. Harrixon, 
 28 Chy. 22. 
 
 DISMISSING ACTIONS. 
 
 Se: Practice. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION. 
 
 I. Of ARDiThATORd — See Ariutration and 
 Award. 
 
 II. Of Memders of Monicipal Councils — 
 <S'ec Municipal Corporations. 
 
 III. Of Parliamentary Candidates— iSec 
 
 Parliamentarv Elections. 
 
 IV. Of (^ ^iiooL Trustees — See Public 
 
 Schools. 
 
 V. Of Ma<jistrates— 5ee Intoxicating Li- 
 quors — Justice of the Peace. 
 
 VI. Of Voters— iSee Parliamentary Elec- 
 tions. 
 
 Where two shareliolders, who were also pro- 
 visional directors, and who were candidates for 
 re-election, were appointed sceutineers, and 
 directors were then elected excluding the plain- 
 tiff:— Held, that the duty of the scrutineers was 
 so plainly in conflict with their interest as 
 candidates for^ the directorate, that they were 
 dis(|ualifled from so acting. Dickwn v. McMur- 
 ray, 28 Chy. 533.— Proudfoot. 
 
 DISTRESS. 
 
 I. For Rent and Charges ok Land. 
 
 1. What ConstiMea a Bistrcsn, 522. 
 
 2. For what Rents. 
 
 (a) Powers in Mortgages, 522. 
 
 (b) After Insnlvency of Lessee, 526. 
 
 (c) When Amount of Rent not Deter- 
 
 mined, 527. 
 
 3. For Annuity, 528. 
 
 4. Set-off or Counter Claim, 328. 
 
 5. What may be Distrained. 
 
 (a) Property of Joint Owners, 528, 
 
 (b) Property of Third Parlies, 528. 
 
 (c) Ooods in Custody oftheLaiv, 528. 
 
 (d) Exemptions for Benylt of Trade, 
 
 529. 
 
 (e) Ooods Subject to Chattel Mort- 
 
 gages, 529. 
 
 (f) Fixtures — iSee Fixtures. 
 
 6. Abamlonment and Retaking, 530. 
 
 7. Wrongful or Irregular Distress. 
 
 (a) Action for Removal of Ooods, 530. 
 
 (b) Justification as Owner, 530. 
 
 (c) Douhln Value, 530. 
 
 (d) Damages, 530. 
 
 (e) Other Cases, 531. 
 
 II. For Municipal Taxes — See Assessment 
 AND Taxes. 
 
 III. PuR(;iiASE OF Dlstress by Distrainor, 
 
 531. 
 
 IV. DAMAfiE Feasant, 531. 
 
 V. Under MAfiis-'HATEs Warrant — See 
 Justice of the Peace. 
 
 VI. Landlord's Claim for Rent on Exe- 
 cution— .S'ec Sheriff. 
 
 I. For Rent and Chaiwjes on Land. 
 L What Conntilnles a Distress. 
 
 The plaintiff was mortgagee of certain goods 
 of one F. G. , a tenant of his father, the defen- 
 dant C. (J. Tlie laudlonl on the 17th Febru- 
 ary, 1883, went to the house of the tenant, and 
 declared that he seized everything for rent. He 
 touched nothing and made no inventory. On 
 24th February he went again and told the ten- 
 ant's wife that the property had been seized for 
 rent, and to let no one take anything away, 
 when she promised to do her best for him. On 
 5th March the plaintiff took possession under 
 his mortgage and removed the goods. A bailiff 
 went the next day for taxes in arrear, and the 
 landlord gave him a (listress warrant to take 
 goods for rent. The bailiff then took the goods 
 which had been removed, and on the tenant's 
 waiving an inventory, advertising, etc., sold 
 them within two days to a nephew of the land- 
 lord : — Held, that the landlord's two visits of 
 17th and 24th February did not amount to a 
 distress. Qua;re, whether a tenant can waive 
 all statutable formalities as to inventory, etc., 
 as regarks the mortgagee. Whimsell v. Oiffard, 
 3 O. R. 1.— Q. B. D. 
 
 2. For what Rents. 
 (a) Powers in Mortgages. 
 
 By a mortgage under the Short Forms of Mort- 
 gages Act, the interest was mad< payable on the 
 30th of January in each year, and the mortgage 
 contained a power oi distress for arrears of in- 
 terest. On the 30th January, 1879, two years' 
 interest was overdue, and on 23rd May following 
 the defendants, under power of attorney from the 
 mortgagee, and as his agents, entered upon the 
 mortgaged premises, and distrained the plaintiff's 
 goods for arrears of interest. The plaintiff was 
 tenant of the mortgagor, and had entered after 
 the mortgage. The defendants notified the plain- 
 tiff that they had distrained, but they did not 
 remove the goods, nor place any one in charge. 
 On the 18th August following the defendants ais- 
 trained, and sold the plaintiffs goods for ^.76 
 and costs, being for a half-year's interest, ending 
 30th July, 1879, in addition to the previous 
 seizure and demand : — Held, that the defendants 
 having abandoned the first seizure, could not seize 
 a second time for the same demand : — Held, also, 
 that the half-year's interest claimed by the 
 second seizure was not due by the terms of the 
 
 ^■* 10, ' 
 
 '"Jfcjf h. 
 
 
 s \ 
 
523 
 
 DISTRESS. 
 
 524 
 
 525 
 
 inortgnco, aiul tlmt the diHtroKH was for that 
 roiiHoii illegal ; — (^iiiiTO, whetiiiT the goocls of a 
 Dtraiigt-r uoiild be seizt'd umler siicli a distrcsH 
 riaiise. I,a Vnmiairf' v. I/iroii, 4') (). B. 7. — Q. 
 IS. I>. 
 
 A mortgage of land coiitaiiied no attornment 
 uluuHe, and no provision exi)ie»8ly ci-eating the 
 velationship of liiiullonl and t( nant between the 
 mortgagor and mortgagee, bnt it provided for 
 |)088eHHion by the mortgagor vintil default ; that 
 on default in payment of any one instalment for 
 two months all 'liould liecome due, and that on 
 default in payment of any instalment the mortga- 
 gees might "distrain therefor, and by distress 
 warrant recover by way of rent reserved, as in 
 the ease r)f a dtinise of the said lands, so much 
 an should be in arrear. The tirst instalment fell 
 dueonthe 1st Noveudter, 187!', and the moitga- 
 gors being in possession, the mortgagee.! dis- 
 trained therefor on theGtliOetober, 18S0:- Held, 
 that this right to distrain was a mere license, 
 and did not warrant the taking of a stranger's 
 goods upon the premises. Semble, per Cameron, 
 J., that the mortgagors, on default, ceased to 
 hohl as tenants, and the distress thci-efore was 
 illegal, as having been made more than six 
 months after their term had expii'ed. Lainy v. 
 OiiUtrio Loan awl Samwjti Co., 46 Q. B. 114. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff mortgaged hi.s land to the F. L. 
 k S.'s Co. by a mortgage which contained a dis- 
 tress clause, and gave a second mortgage to the 
 defendant, by which it was agreed between 
 them that if default was maile in payment of 
 interest to the company the defendant should be 
 at liberty to pay it, and should have the same 
 remedies for its recovery from the mortgagor 
 that the company had. Default having been 
 made the company exercised their power of sale, 
 and the defendant became the purchaser. Aftei- 
 signing a contract for the purchase he distrained 
 the goods of the plaintiff' for the interest that 
 had fallen in arrear to the company. Shortly 
 afterwards he obtained a foi'mal conveyance of 
 the land expressed to Ije under the power of 
 sale in the company's mortgage : — Held, that 
 the plaintiffs estate having paid the mortgage 
 debt to the company in full the defendant could 
 not be said by means of his purchase thereof to 
 have paid the interest in arrear so as to entitle 
 him to distrain therefoi'. Harron v. Yeinen, 3 
 0. R. 126.— Q. B. D. 
 
 M. gave a mortgage to T. on certain lands. 
 The mortgage was in the statutory short form, 
 except that iramediately after the printed cove- 
 nant for payment the following words were in- 
 serted in writing : " It being understood, how- 
 ever, that the saJd lands only shall in any event 
 be liable for the payment of the mortgage. " The 
 distress clause remained unerased in its usual 
 place, viz. : after the covenants. T. assigned 
 the mortgage to H., who, on an inctulni'.-.ii, oi 
 interest falling due, distrained for it. M. now 
 brought this action for a wrongful distress : — 
 Held, that M. was entitled to recover the amount 
 distrained for with interest and costs, for the 
 earlier provision controlled the subsequent one, 
 both because it was first in the deed and because 
 it was in writing, and the words supe; added in 
 writing were entitled to have greater efifect 
 attributed to them than the printed clauses. 
 McKay v. Howard, 60. R. 135.— Boyd. 
 
 The nluintifT's father executed a mortgage, 
 declared to be in pursuance of the short form of 
 iMortgage Act, of certain land, dated 17th No- 
 vendjer, 1881, to the defendants, but which was 
 not executed by them, for the term of seven 
 years, the principal and interest being repay- 
 able by instalments on the 1st November in each 
 year. The mortgage contained a demise clause 
 for the term of the mortgage at a rental equal 
 to the instalment of principal and interest and 
 due at the same time, and also a distress clause. 
 The mortgagor was to remain in possession until 
 default. He remained in possession and paid 
 the instalments due on the I st November, 1882 
 and 1883. He died intestate in December, 1884, 
 when the plaintiff, a son, by arrangement with 
 the other heirs-at-law and the wi<1ow, occupied 
 the land. At the father's death there was due 
 for j)rincipal $100, and for interest $147. The 
 interest was subsef|uently paid by the plaintiff. 
 In October, 188."), after the interest had been so 
 paid, the defendants executed a distress warrant 
 to their bailiff, directing him t.. l..>y $112.55, 
 "the amount of interest due (m the 1st Novem- 
 ber, 1884," under which the bailif distrained 
 the plaintifl"8 goods : — Held, that i>y reason of 
 the provisions of the moi'tgage, the mortgagor 
 remaining in possession, and the payments made 
 by him, the relationship of landlord and tenant 
 on the basis of a tenancy from year to year was 
 created between the parties, with the right to 
 distrain, which was not put an end to by the 
 death of the mortgagor:— Held, also, that not- 
 withstanding the distress was stated to be for 
 interest, the defendants, being entitled to dis- 
 train for principal, could justify therefor. Mc- 
 Doncll V. Bniklhii/ and Loan Axxonalian, To- 
 ronto, 10 O. R. 580.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The distress clause in the Short Forms of 
 Mortgages Act is merely a license to take the 
 goods of the mortgagor; the intention being to 
 piovide in a concise referential manner for the 
 disposal of the goods when seized in the same 
 manner as goods seized for rent. Trnnt and Loan 
 Co. V. Lairrason, 6 A. li. 28(i. 
 
 A mortgage made in pursuance of this Act, 
 contained the following: "and the mortgagor 
 doth release to the company all his claims upon 
 the said lands, and iloth attorn to and become 
 tenant at will to the mf)rtgagees, subject to the 
 said proviso.'' It also provided that the mort- 
 gagees on default of payment for two months, 
 might on one month's notice, enter on and lease 
 or sell the lands ; thivt they might distrain for 
 arrears of interest, and that until default of 
 payment, the mortgagors should have (piiet 
 possession: — Held, Oslei, J., dissenting, revers- 
 ing the judgment of the Queen's Bench, 45 Q. 
 B. 176, that though the relation of landlord 
 and tenant may have been thereby created, yet 
 there was no rent fixed for which there was 
 power to distrain, and the plaintiffs therefore 
 could not claim a landlord's right, as against an 
 execution creditor, of a year's arrears ol interest 
 rn their mortgage before removal by the sheriff. 
 lb. Affirmed on appeal to Supreme Court, 10 
 S. C. R. 670. 
 
 On the 31st of May, 1883, one D. mortgaged 
 to the plaintiffs certain lands to secure the sum 
 of $iiO,000 then advanced by them to him. The 
 advances were repayable as follows: $500 on the 
 1st of December, 1883; $500 in each of the 
 
DISTRESS. 
 
 526 
 
 niniitliR of Juno mid December in «iivi!li of tho 
 four following yeiirx; anil .'jll"),r)0() on tilt- Ut nf 
 .June, 1888; togctliui' with inteiuHt at tin: rato of 
 Huvun |)pr centum pel' annum from tilt* ist of 
 Juno, 1883, to liu |iiiiil lialf-ycarly on tlu! iHt 
 (lays of Juno and l)cccinl)(;r in ciicli year. Tiie 
 inortLtngo wiih made in iiiirHiiancc of tlie Act ro- 
 spoctiiiK Sliort l'"oi'mHof Moitgagos and contained 
 tho following claiiHc dcHciiiicil in the margin us 
 " Ite-demisc clause"; ''And tlie iiior(i,'iigees 
 lease to tlie mortgagor tho said lands from tlie 
 date hereof until tlie date herein provided for 
 tho last payment of any of the moneys licrohy 
 secured nndisturlied by the mortgagees or their 
 assv^ns, he, the mortgagor, i)ayiMg therefor in 
 every year during tho said term, on each and 
 every of the days in the above proviso for re- 
 domption api)ointed for payment of the moneys 
 hereoy secui'cil, such icnt or sum as ciiuals in 
 amount the amount payablt! on such (lavs re- 
 spectively according to tlie said proviso, without 
 any deduction. And it is agreed that such pay- 
 ments when so made slinll respectively bo taken 
 and b(! in all respects in satisfaction of t he moneys 
 so then payable accoriiiiig to the said proviso." 
 The mortgage did not contain the stalutoi'y dis- 
 tress clause or the statutory ;lause jirovidiiigfor 
 possession by the mortgagor until default, and it 
 was not cxccuteil bj' tho mortgagee*^. .At the 
 time it was given D. was himself in occupation 
 of certain of the (irojierties compiisod in it of 
 the annual rental vahu; of about ."jil ,1200 while 
 the other properties comprised in it were in the 
 occupation of tenants cif O. and were producing 
 an annual rental of alioul .'S"i,()tK). After the exe- 
 cution of the mortgage tho proptMtics continued 
 to be occupied in tho same manner by I), or his 
 tenants and some payments nndei- the mortgage 
 were duly made by I). In 1887 tho goods of i). 
 on one of the properties comprised in the mort- 
 gage, and occupied by him, were seized under 
 executions against him and .sold, and the plain- 
 tiflFs eluimod that as landlords they were entitled 
 to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale the 
 amount duo to them for tho nnpaiil instalments 
 of principal ami interest of .June and December, 
 1880 : — Hold, reversing the judgment of the 
 Queen's Hcnch Division, 15 (). K. 440, that this 
 dlaim was well founded, the rehition of landlord 
 and tenant having been validly created between 
 the parties, and the execution creditors in the 
 absence of fraud not being entitled to complain. 
 Trust and Loan ("o. i: Lawrason, A. R. 'iSH, 10 
 S. C. R. 670, dist'uguished. Ontario Loan and 
 Debenture Co. v. Jfohhx, 1(5 A. R. 253. 
 
 In 1881 jdaintiff made a mortgage to the 
 defendants maturing ii ■ 1886, in which was con- 
 tained a provit^o "v.dortho Short Forms of Mort- 
 gages Act, that tho mortgagees might distrain 
 for arrears of interest, and a special provision 
 by which plaintills leased the lands until the 
 maturity of the mortgage, at a rental of the same 
 amount as tho interest. In August, 18,88, while 
 plaintiff was in possession, the defendants dis- 
 trained on his goods for rent or interest due at 
 the maturity of the mortgage in 1880 and also 
 for the amount in 1887 and 1888: — Hold, in an 
 action for illegal distress, that no right of distress 
 existed as to the rent due at the maturity of the 
 mortgage, as more than six months had elapsed 
 after the expiry of the tenancy. Ktinck v. 
 Ontario hidimtrial Loan and Investment Co. 
 (Limited) 16 0. R. 562.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, on the evidence, that there was nr> 
 definite tenancy after the maturity of tho 
 mortgage, and that the intcroHt thereafter being 
 rceoveralilo not by tho torii'.s o' the contract, 
 but as damages, the rent became uncertain, and 
 therefore there was no right of distress. Ih, 
 
 (b) After Insolrency of Lenaec. 
 
 The defendant made a lease under seal to R,, 
 dated the 8tli November, 1881, for five years 
 from the 12th November, at the rent of .§400, 
 payable half-yearly in ailvanco on the 12tli No- 
 vember, and May in each year. The lease con- 
 tained a covenant that, "if the lessee shall make 
 any assignment for the benetit of creditors, * * 
 the said term shall imniodiatidy become forfeited 
 and void, and the full amoMiit of the current 
 yearly rent shall bo at oiue due and payable." 
 M. paid the iirst half-year's rent. On the 5th 
 May, 1885, R. made an assii^niiient for the benefit 
 of creditors ; and (Ui tho 8tli May, tlic defendant, 
 claiming to do so, under the above covenant, 
 distrained for the half-year's rent, which, in the 
 regular course of time would have been payable 
 in advance on the 12tb Miy : - Held, that the 
 distress was valid; lor that under the above 
 eovonant it might be hehl tint the money re- 
 served as rent accrued due at the same instant 
 as the lease terminated, and not thereafter ; but, 
 even it' that construction could not be given to 
 it, the distress would nevertheless bo valid, 
 although made for nioiiey elaimod foe rent falling 
 due after tho expiration of the term, by reason of 
 the le8.soo's express jiorsonal covenant declaring 
 and constituting tho sum as rent; anil the 
 eovonant which was binding on the tenant was 
 equally binding on the plaiiitid' as his assignee. 
 Graham v. Lamj, 10 O. 11. 248. — \\'ils(.ii. — But 
 see the next case. 
 
 Defendants, in 1881, by indenture under the 
 Short ITornis Act, leased cert lin promises to ()., 
 for ton years, at a yearly rent, payable (piarterly 
 in advance, with a covenant that if the lease 
 should be taken in execution, or if the lessees 
 should make an assignment for the benetit of 
 creditors, the lease should immediately become 
 forfeited and void, and the next ensuing one 
 year's rent should be at once due and payable. 
 There was also a proviso for re-entry on nonpay- 
 ment of rent, or seizure or forfeiture of the term 
 for any of the causes aforesaid. In August, 1 88.S, 
 O. assigned to B. , as trustee for the benetit of 
 creditors, who woiit-into possession, whereupon 
 defendants distrained for six months' rent then 
 in arrear. and one year's rent payable in conse- 
 (juenee of the assignment. 'I'hree executions 
 were soon after placed in the sheritf's hands, and 
 the solicitors for the plaintiff under the first and 
 third executions paid the rent claimed to prevent 
 the sale of the goods by defendants and B., 
 though not admitting defendants' right to it. 
 The sheriff afterwards sold for less than the exe- 
 cutions, and repaid the solicitors : — Held, that 
 the distress was illegal, for tho statute 8 Anne 
 c. 14, 8. 6, applies only to cases where the 
 tenancy has been determined by lapse of time, 
 and not by forfeiture ; and that the plaintiff B. 
 was entitled to recover the amount received by 
 defendants. Graham ?•. Lang, 10 0. R. 248, not 
 followed. Per Armour, J. — The year's rent 
 became due only by virtue of the forfeiture, the 
 
 1;^ 
 
 sul 
 
527 
 
 DISTRESS. 
 
 528 
 
 529 
 
 (lifitrcHH was an iin<!([iiivooal act indicating the 
 intention to forfeit, and evidence of sucii an 
 intuntioii previouily formed ; ho timt lieforo tlii! 
 diNtrcHH defendiintt* Imd elected to treat the term 
 an forfeited, and liavliig done so their riglit to 
 «liHtrain wan at an end. Moreover tlii^ liad not 
 ilistraineil dnring the poasuHsion of tlie tenants 
 from wiioni tlie rent liecamo dnc, and even if 
 defendants liad a ri),'iit to <li8train, the provision 
 malting one year's rent payable was fraudnlent 
 us against eriMlitoiH :—Qua're, jier Wilson, C.J., 
 us to this latter point. Per Armour, J. — The 
 fxeeution creditors for whom the money was 
 paid, in order to enalile the sheriff to seize under 
 their executions, might also recover ; Wilson, C. 
 J., doubting. IJut held l>y the Cf)urt of Appeal 
 that the money so paid could not be recovered 
 back, either by the execution creditors on whose 
 behalf it was paid or by I', an a..signee. liaker 
 V. Atkiimni, 1 1 0. R. 735.-Q. II. U. ; 14 A. R. 409. 
 
 R, by lease dated 2Stli of November, 1887, 
 was lessee for live years from the 1st of February, 
 1888, of curtain premises at a ycaily rental of 
 §.370, payable (|U;irterly in advance, the lease 
 containing a provision that if the lessee should 
 make any assignment for the .benefit of his 
 creditors, the then current year's rent should 
 immediately become liueand payalile, and might 
 be distrained for, but that in other respects the 
 term should immediately become forfeited and 
 iit an end. It w,\s also agreed tlmt the Act, 50 
 Vict. c. '2H(()iit. ). should not aj)ply to the lease. 
 B. paid .*!l(iO on account of rent on the 7tli July, 
 1888, and on tiie Kitli .Inly, 1888, made an 
 assignment to tlie })laintiH'f(n- the benefit of his 
 cre<litors, and the plaiiitifF went into possession 
 of tlie premi.tes, and remained in possessicm imtil 
 the 1st of September, 1888. On the 24tli July, 
 1888, the defeiKlints clistrained for, and were 
 
 fiaid by the plaintilF as assignee, S270, the 
 lalance of the current year's rent : — Held, that 
 the lease did not become void because of the 
 ttssigmnent, l)ut only voidable ; that the right 
 to claim tlie accelerated rent depended, not upon 
 the lessors' election to forfeit the term, but upon 
 the fact of the lessee having made an assignment 
 for the benefits of liis creditors ; that the clause 
 was divisible ; and that the lessors might 
 «li8train for the rent as they had not elected to 
 forfeit the term, the distress itself not being 
 an election to forfeit. Held, also, that the goods 
 in the possession of the assignee were not in cus- 
 todia legis so as to protect them from distress. 
 The position ami liability of such an assignee 
 on becoming assignee of the term, considered. 
 Wyld V. cTarkson, 12 O. R. .589, explained ; 
 Atkinson i: Baker, 14 A. R. 409, and Griffith v. 
 Brown, 21 C. P. 12, considered. Linton v. Im- 
 perial Hold Co., 16 A. R. .337. 
 
 (c) Wlien Amount of Rent not Determined. 
 
 _ The defendant leased certain land to the plain- 
 tiff for a term, during which the latter was to 
 make improvements, and at the expiration of the 
 term the value of such improvements, as well as 
 the amount of the rent, was to be fixed by arbi- 
 tration. The defendant having distrained for 
 rent claimed to be due •.—Held, that there being 
 no fixed rent agreed upon there was no right of 
 distress, and the defendant was therefore merely 
 a trespasser and liable in damages to the actual 
 
 value of the goods, but not to double their value, 
 as it was not n case within 2 VV, ft M. Sess. I, 
 e. 5, s. r», which refers to the wilful abuse of 
 the power of distrcKS. Mitrhc.ll v. MrJhtffii, 31 
 C. P. 200.— (Jail. Hut \Vil',on (!. J., andOaler, 
 J., did not concur. Heo S C, Ih., 649. 
 
 Scmble, that although there may be no rent 
 in arrear until the same is fixed )>y arbitration, 
 there cannot be said to be none <lue. lb. 
 
 3. F..r Annuity. 
 See Crone v. Crone, 27 Chy. 42.5, p. 23. 
 
 4. Set-ojff or Counter Claim, 
 
 The defendant having distrained for rent in 
 arrear, the pl.aintifT elainied that defendant was 
 indebted to him in damages for breach of the 
 covenants in the lease to repair, and to lease to 
 plaintifl' an adjoining ])ieeo of land, and obttiined 
 ex parte an interim injunction restraining pro- 
 ceedings under the ilistress wliich was dissolved 
 on the ground of concealment of facts :- -Held, 
 that the damages claimed by the jilaintifT were 
 not a "debt" within section 3 of .W Vict. c. 23 
 (Ont. ), so as to constitute a sot-off against the 
 rent; and although under the O. J. Act they 
 might be the subject of counter claim they would 
 not justify an injunction as against a distress 
 levied as here. Walton v. Henry, 18 O. R. 
 620.— MacMahon. 
 
 5. What vury lie Dintrained. 
 
 (a) Pnqwly of Joint Owners. 
 
 Where the ])laiutiff had not shewn that he 
 was solely entitle<l to possession of the logs, the 
 subject of distress, and the seizure as regarded 
 his co-owner being lawful the plaintiff could not 
 maintain replc in. Spri-igge, C. J. ()., dissenting. 
 Patterson v. Thnmimun, 9 A. R. 326. 
 
 (b) Property of Third Parties. 
 
 C having paid rent due by R. to H. in ordeV 
 to secure the sum so paid and other advances, 
 took an assignment of the residue of the term 
 from R. who forthwith took a lease from C. for 
 a term of three months, the rental being the 
 amount of C. 's advances to R. : — Hehl, that such 
 a lease, however binding between the parties, 
 could not create the relation of landlord and 
 tenant so as to enalile C. to distrain the goods of 
 third p.irties on the premises, the intei'tion, as 
 disclosed by the evidence set out in the report, 
 being manifestly not to create such relation ex- 
 cept as a scheme to enable 0. to seize such goods. 
 Thomas v. Canuron, 8 O. K. 441.— Q. 15. D. 
 
 See Laing v. Ontairo Loan and SarimjH Co., 
 46 Q. B. 114, p. 523; La Va-'iiiaire v. Heron, 45 
 Q. B.7, p. 52.3. 
 
 See also .Subhead I., 5, (d), p. 529. 
 
 (c) Goods in the Custody of the Law. 
 
 A landlord cannot distrain goods held under 
 execution and in custody of the law. See Grant 
 V. Grant, 10 P. R. 40. 
 
 (e) 
 
 Laing v. 
 114.-Q. 
 
529 
 
 DISTRESS. 
 
 680 
 
 The tenant of certain frceliold preniiHcs exe- 
 cuted an aHHignnicnt umler 48 Viet. e. 2tt (Ont. ), 
 and afterwardH, l>ut before poHHeHHion of the 
 tcnant'M projierty had been taken by the aHaigneo, 
 or sucli j)roperty removed from the demised 
 preniixea, the landlonl dlMtriined for arrearH of 
 rent past duo before tbe making of tlie aHaign- 
 inont:— Held, tliat the laniUord'tt right of diatrenH 
 was not affected by tlie aMsignmcnt : — Held, 
 also, that goods mo assigned were not to bo 
 therefore deemed in euHtotlia legis. Eacrtlt v. 
 Kent, 15 0. 11. 9.-Q. B. D. 
 
 See Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co., 16 A. R. 
 ,337, p. 527. 
 
 (d) Exemptionn for Bmfjit of Trade. 
 
 The defendant disti'ained for rent a reaping 
 machine on preniHes leased by him to one O., 
 from whom lI.u j aintitF, an hotel keeper, had 
 the u.se of the yaril and staliic-. 'I'iie niauhin< 
 ha' ' '^en loft at the jjlaintifi s hotel about six 
 uiontlis before l)y one H., an agent for the sale 
 of reaping machines, when he w.is stopping 
 there, and R. had never been at tlie hot(d si nee. 
 except perh.njis on one occasion. The plaintiff 
 was paid notliing for keeping the macliine, nor 
 did he assume any r(H|)oiisiliility therefor. At 
 tlie trial it was souglit to prove that it was es- 
 sential to tlie plaintill's business to veccivc and 
 kee)) such macliiiies brought by his customers, 
 but tiio evidence mcintly shewed that a refusal 
 to do so would or might render his hotcd less 
 popular: — Held, rev(.'rsiiig the judgment of tlie 
 County Court, tiiat the machine was not exempt 
 from distress. Milclull v. (.'ojU'i', '> A. H. .")-"). 
 
 The exemption from distress of goods en- 
 trusted to pcr.sons carrying on certain public 
 trades, to exerci.se tiieir trades upon them, is a 
 privilege grounded on ])ul)lic policy for the 
 benetit of trade. In this case saw-logs were 
 taken to a saw-mill by tlie plaintiff, to la con- 
 verted into lumber in the due course of business 
 of the mill, and were distrained there for rent 
 by defendant : — Held, that the business of saw- 
 ing lumber for hire is a trade in which is ex- 
 empted from distress for I'ent tiie [iroperty of a 
 stranger brought in to be converted into lum- 
 ber. Paterwn v. '/'hompsnu, 4G Q. B. 7. — Q. 
 B. D. See.S'. C, 9 A. R. ;«(>. 
 
 (e) Goods Subject to CJiatli I Morlijwjtt, 
 
 A mortgage provided that on default in pay- 
 ment of any one instalment for two months all 
 should become due, and that in default of pay- 
 ment of any instalment the mortgagees might 
 distrain. Tlie first instalment fell due Ist No- 
 vember, 1870, and the mortgagors being in pos- 
 session the mortgagees distrained therefor on 
 the fith October, 1880. They distrained crops 
 produced from the land after tlu! 1st November, 
 1879, and the plaintiffs claimed them under a 
 chattel mortgage, given on 31st May, 1880, of 
 such crops, which had then been just sown : — 
 Held, that the growing crop passed by the chat- 
 tel mortgage to the plaintiiis, who were entitled 
 to recover for them as against the defendants. 
 Laing v. Ontario Loan and Savings Co., 46 Q. B. 
 114. -Q. B. D. 
 
 .14 
 
 Puty of tenant to protect ninrtgagod gooiU. 
 See Ihrring v. WiUon, 4 O. B. (i07. 
 
 0. AhandommtU aiul Betaking, 
 .See La FuweuVe v. Iferon, 45 Q. B. 7, p. 6!2i 
 
 7. Wrongful or Irregular Diatrtu. 
 
 (a) Action for Itemoral o/doodi. 
 
 The plaintiff hnving renuvined in possewiion 
 and pail rent after i expiry of bis term tho 
 defendnnts levied a .i iiess ujjon plaintiflf'a 
 goods in the premises, situate six miles from 
 Toronto, for two moitlis' arrears of rent, and 
 removed the gor ' ; to Toronto to impound aiid 
 sell. The idaii . brouglil an acti"'^ i-i trespiiM, 
 c'aiming that he was not defcu^aut's tenant: — 
 Hehl, 1. That the relat' nsliipof landlord and 
 tenant, existed at thci tin.' of the distress. 2. 
 Tiiat thercmovaU. I'oiniito, unless unnecesaiir; 
 and unreasonable, or tn.ilicioUH, was not a good 
 ground of action. MaMreijor v. IhJ'oe, 14 (J. K. 
 87.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 (b) .luMiJifdtion a» Oumer. 
 
 \V here a party distrained, as landlord, on gords 
 whidi as a niattei' of fact had. by subsequent 
 agreement between himself and the tenant, but 
 before the distress, l)cc()me his absolutely :— 
 Held, tiiat he niigiit justify the taking on this 
 latter ground. Armour, .J., dissenting, on the 
 ground that tlie instrument under which the de- 
 fendant chiimed the goods, set out in the report, 
 liad not the effect of transferring tbe property in 
 tiiein to tlie defendant. Hell v. Irish, 46 Q. Bk 
 1(}7.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 (c) Donhle Value. 
 
 I'er Cameron, J.— Where a plaintiff claima 
 double value for distraining when no rent was 
 due, he must make such claim at the trial and 
 ask to have the jury directed upon it. Bell v. 
 Irish, 45 Q. B. 167. 
 
 Ill an action for illegal distress, in which the 
 judge who tried the case found that the plain- 
 tifif occupieil the premises in question undor an 
 agreement with the def ndant, by the terms of 
 which no rent was payaole by the plaintiflF to 
 the defendant, and that the distress was there- 
 fore illegal, upon which the plaintiffs claimed 
 double the value of the goods as damages, under 
 2 W. & M. sess. 1, c. 5, s. .5 :— Held, that 
 the .5th section of the statute, by reference to 
 the 2nd section, does not extend to a holding of 
 land where there is no rent reserved, and that 
 the plaintiff was not entitled to double value. 
 McCankil/v. Rodd, 14 O. R. 282.— Rose. 
 
 See Mitchell v. McDnffy, 31 C. P. 266, 649, p. 
 628. 
 
 (d) Damages. 
 
 In proof of an alleged tender to the bailiff, 
 the plaintiff said that he asked the bailiff for a 
 bill of demands, with all costs, and he would 
 
 Eay him : that he, plaintiff, had then $87 in his 
 and, which w.ib sufficient to pay the rent and 
 
 ; :: ■ ;a 
 
 
 'V II 
 
 "*!|i 
 
 
 "•I 
 
 
 fl 
 
631 
 
 DISTRESS. 
 
 532 
 
 I 
 
 "I 
 
 coBta, and said, "Here is your money;" but that 
 the bailiff refused to receive it. This was de- 
 nied by the bailiff; but the question was left to 
 the jury, who found that there was a tender. 
 The goods distrained were afterwards sold by 
 the bailiff: — Hehl, that on the evidence the 
 finding of the jury could not be interfered with, 
 and there must be held to have been a tender to 
 the bailiff; and that the landlord was respon- 
 sible for the bailiff's act (Matheson r. Kelly, 24 
 C. P. 598, distinguished), and that bv reason 
 of the illegal distress the plaintiff would be en- 
 titled to recover as damages the difference be- 
 tween the goods and the rent due ; but as the 
 sale was after the tender, the plaintiff' could re- 
 cover the full value of the goods : — Held, also, 
 that on the evidence the damages found were 
 not excessive. Howell v. LhtuwvU Rink and 
 Park Co., 13 O. R. 476.— C. P. D. 
 
 For wrongful propeo<lings under power of sale 
 in a mortgage, illegal distress upon chattels, and 
 consequent wrongs: — Hold, that the plaintiffs 
 were entitled to recover more than their mere 
 money loss. Ei/ntovi/i v. I/cuniltim Provident 
 and Loan Sormi/, i!) O. R. 077. — i^. B. D. 
 
 (e) 0/fter Cams. 
 
 On a distress for rent no notice tlieieof in 
 writing was given to tlie lessee; nor a legal aji- 
 praisement made before sale ; and the actual 
 value of the goods sold was nmcli greater tliun 
 the amount (lue for rent :— Held, that the dis- 
 tress was illegal. TTomdl v. IJxInicell Rhih and 
 Park Co., 1.^ (>. R. 470.— C. P. 1). 
 
 See McKay v. Hovaid, O. R. 1.S.5, 
 Walton V. Henry, 18 O. R. 620, p. .528. 
 
 p. r.2 
 
 III. Purchase of Distres.s by Disnt.MxoK. 
 
 H., who was the president of the defendants, an 
 incorporated company, and also a member of an 
 incorporated gas conipany, purcliased the goods 
 at the sale for the gas company, Tlie judge at 
 the trial charged the jury, tlnit FI. was both 
 seller and buyer, and that tlie sale was void : — 
 Held, a misdirection ; but as it appcired that no 
 snbs'-antial wrong or miscarriage was occasioned 
 thereby, the court, under Rule .111, (). .1. A., 
 (Con. lUUe 791) could not interfere. Ihnridl v. 
 LMlowell Rink and Park Co., 13 0. R. 476. -C. 
 P. D. 
 
 IV. Dama(ie Feasant. 
 
 A municipal council by by-law, passed pur- 
 suant to the Municipal Act, enacted that cer- 
 tain descriptions of animals (naming them), and 
 all four-footed animals known to be bieachy, 
 should not be allowed to run at large in the 
 township ; and provided for fixing the height of 
 fences. The plaintiffs cattle strayed from the 
 highway into the lands of defendant Williams, 
 ■whose fences were not of the height required by 
 the by-law. He distrained them and they were 
 impounded, defendant Steeper being the p(nind- 
 keeper. In an action of replevin :— Held, that 
 as the by-law did not affirmatively authorize 
 these cattle to run at large by negatively ])io- 
 viding that certain other classes of animals 
 should not be allowed to do so, the plaintiff was 
 
 liable at common law, and under R. S. O. (1877)»- 
 c. 195, for the damage done, irrespective of any 
 
 ?[uestion as to the height of the defendant's 
 enees. Crowe v. Steeper, 46 Q. B. 87.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Defendant seized the plaintiff^'s oxen damage 
 feasant in his wheat field, and being unable t» 
 find a pound-keeper, turned them loose near the 
 plaintiff's gate. On the evening of the same day 
 the defendant again seized them for doing dam- 
 age to lii.3 meadow and impounded them, giving 
 a statement of his claim for damage to the wheat, 
 but making no claim for injury to the meadow : — 
 Held, that the damage to the wheat had been 
 abandoned, and that the impounding and sale of 
 the oxen for the damage so claime<l were illegal. 
 The plaintiff forbade the sale, when defendant 
 told the pound-keeper to sell and that he would 
 be responsible : — Held, that the defendant and 
 pound-keeper were l)otli liable. Spafford v. 
 Hubbell, M. T. 2 Vict., U. & J. Dig. Col. 1517, 
 explained. Bni^it v. MeCombe, 8 A. R. 598. 
 
 The defendants by an agreement under seal 
 with one S. acquired a right of user in certain 
 land for the purpose of |)asturing their cattle. 
 There was no demise, or right of distress, or any- 
 thing in the agreement to make the defendants 
 tenants of .'^. There was, however, a covenant 
 that S. would not allow his own animals, or those 
 of others to enter upon the land in qixestion : — 
 Held, that the defendants had no right under 
 this agreement to distrain the plaintifTs cattle 
 damage feasant upon the land : — Sendile, the de- 
 fendant's lemedy (if any) was by action on the 
 covenant .ngaiiist .'*. Craham v. Spettii/ue, 12 
 A. R. 261. 
 
 A distraint of cattle damage feasant cannot he 
 
 supported unless tlie cattle are taken at the time 
 
 the damage is done ; if tlicy are driven out after 
 
 doing damage, they cannot bo seized on their re- 
 
 ] entry for the former damage, Ih. 
 
 I Replevin will not lie against a pound-keeper. 
 j In this case the sheep whicli were impounded 
 were grazing upon an oi)en common with the 
 ! consent of the. owner thereof, and were being 
 ' horded by a boy in charge of them with a view 
 to driving them Iioi,io. when they were taken 
 possession of by two constables, against the 
 boy's i-omonstraiu'o : —Hold, that the sheep were 
 not "running at large." in contravention of a 
 by-law of tlie m\niici|)ality on the subject, and 
 that the coustalilos were lialde in replevin for 
 impounding them ; but that replevin would not 
 lie against tlie ponnd-koeper :— Held, also, that 
 the constables wcvv not entitled to notice of 
 action.— Per O'Connor, J. — because, although 
 they were public otiicers, it was no part of their 
 duty as such officers to distrain and impound the 
 sheep, even if tliey were "running at large" 
 contrary to the by-law ; they were merely 
 "other" persons, who under the by-law were 
 empowered to take and deliver to the pound- 
 keeper. Per Wilson. C. J. — Unless some facts 
 existed wliieli might give rise to an honest belief 
 that the slu'e|) wore at large, ,and unless they 
 honestly believed that such a state of things ex- 
 isted, they were not entitle<l to notice of action, 
 hut such a state of facts did not exist under the 
 evidence in this case. Ihhottaon v, Henry, 8 0. 
 R. 625.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Rt MiUoy and (he Township of Onondana, 
 6 O. JR. 573. 
 
533 
 
 DIVISION OOUBTS. 
 
 534 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE. 
 
 I. Statute of Distributions, 533. 
 
 II. Devolution of Estates— .S(;e Dkvoi.u- 
 TioN OF Estates Act. 
 
 III. HoTCHPOT—iSee Hotohpot. 
 
 IV. Partition of Estate— iSee Pastition. 
 
 V. According to Testamentary Disposi- 
 tions— iSce Will. 
 
 VI. Administration Proceedings— ^ee Ex- 
 ecutors AND Administrators. 
 
 VII. Parties to Distribute— &c Executors 
 AND Administrators. 
 
 I. Stati:te of Dlstributions. 
 
 The proviso in the statute of distribiitioiis that 
 "There be no representatives admitted amongst 
 collaterals after brothers' and sisters' cliildren" 
 excludes the children of a deceased nepiiew of 
 the intestate. Croirther v. Cawthra, 1 O. R. 
 128.— Boyd. 
 
 ^eeArMlw. Roach, .5 O. R. 699; Re Qiiimhy— 
 Qxtimhy v. (Jiiimby, ii O. R. 738. 
 
 DISTRICT COURTS. 
 
 I. Jurisdiction, ')SS. 
 II. Appeals from, .5.33. 
 
 m 
 
 III. Execution, .534. 
 
 I. JURISDI'JTION. 
 
 Held, that the jurisdiction conferred on the 
 District Court of ths P.-ovisional J udicial District 
 of Thunder Bay by 47 Vict. c. 14, ss. 4, .5, (Ont. ) 
 is not subject to the exceptions to tlie general 
 jurisdiction of the County Courts mentioned in 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 43, s. 18, and that, therefore, 
 the District Court has power to ti-y actions ii> 
 which the title to land comes in question. Mc- 
 Qtioid v. Cooper, 11 O. R. 21.3.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The District Court of the Provisional Judicial 
 District of Thunder Bay has jurisdiction in inter- 
 pleader under R. 8. O. (1887), c. 91, s. 56; for 
 it has "the jurisdiction possessed by County 
 Courts," which is by R. S. O. (1877) c. 4.5, s. 
 19, sub-s. 6, "in " nterpleader matters as pro- 
 vided by the Interpleader Act" ; an<l such juris- 
 diction is determinable in a sheriff's interpleader 
 by the fact whether the process under which 
 the goods were seized has issued out of the 
 District Court, and not by the amount for which 
 the recovery was had or the process issued. 
 hbixlerv. SiUlivan, 16 0. R. 418.— Armou 
 
 The High Court of Justice has no jurisdicf on 
 by virtue of R. S. O. (1887), c. 91, s. 56, sub-s. 
 2, or otherwise to entertain a motion against a 
 verdict or judgment obtained in the l)istrict 
 Court in an mterpleader issue. Ih, 
 
 II. Appeals from. 
 
 There is an appeal to the Court of Appeal 
 from the judgmeutifi of the District Courts of^the 
 
 Provisional Judicial Districts. Section 34 of 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 90, imports that when by the 
 law in force with regard to County Courts an 
 appeat lies from those courts to the Court of 
 Appeal, it lies also from the District Courts. 
 Bank of Miimenota v. Page, 14 A. R. 347. 
 
 An order for leave to sign judgment under 
 Rule 80 (Con. Rule 739) is in its nature final and 
 not merely interlocutory, and therefore such an 
 order if made in a County Court would be ap- 
 pealable by virtue of 45 Vict. c. 6, s. 4 (On:.), 
 and is also appealable when made in a District 
 Court. lb. 
 
 47 Vict. c. 14, 8. 4 (Ont. ), assumes the exist- 
 ence of the right of appeal from District Courts ; 
 and the optional right to move against the 
 verdict in the High Court, provi<led by sub-sec- 
 tion 5, is not the appeal referred to in the first 
 part of the section, in the words "subject to 
 appeal. " lb. 
 
 III. Execution. 
 
 Upon a transcript from a Division Court to a 
 District Court, it is not necessary to issue a fi. 
 fa. goods from such District Court before a valid 
 sale can take place under a fi. fa lands issued 
 tlierefroni. Kehoe v. Brown, 13 C. P. 549, 
 observed upon. Daby v. f!ehl, 18 O. R. 132.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 DITCHES AND DRAINAGE. 
 
 See Municipal Corporaiions — Water and 
 Water Courses. 
 
 DIVIDEND. 
 
 .S'ei? Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 
 
 IV. 
 
 1. 0/ Debtx, 542. 
 
 2. Of Goods, 544. 
 Execution, 644. 
 
 
 
 ^5 
 
 <,? "'.; ft 
 
 1.. ^ k 
 
 I. 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 ""Slat* 
 
 1 
 
 
 1. Where Actions mtist be Brought, 535. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 2. Title to Land in Question, 536. 
 
 
 3. Claims Axcertaine.d by Signature of 
 
 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 
 
 (a) Notes, 537. 
 
 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 538. 
 
 
 
 4. Abaiulonment of Excess, 539. 
 
 
 
 5. Splitting Causet of Action, 540. 
 
 
 
 6. Other Cases, 541. 
 
 
 
 7. In Matters of Practice— See Subhead 
 
 
 
 IX., p. .548. 
 
 
 
 8. Notice Disputing Jurisdiction, 542. 
 
 
 
 9. Application for full Costs — See Costs. 
 
 
 II. 
 
 Security for Costs, 542. 
 
 
 III. 
 
 Attachment. 
 
 
 V. Interpleader, 545. 
 
 1^' f 
 
■535 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 636 
 
 i 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 
 Si 
 
 i '■ 
 I ' 
 
 m 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 XIII. 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Examination of Judgment Debtor, 
 
 546. 
 Prohibition, 546. * 
 
 Mandamu.s to— 5fie Mandamus. 
 Practice and Procedure. 
 
 1. Service, 549. 
 
 2. Payment of Money into Court, 550. 
 S. Other Cases, 550. 
 
 New Trial, 552. 
 
 Appeal from, 553. 
 
 Transcript of Judgment, 553. 
 
 Judge, 553. 
 
 Clerk and his Sureties, 554. 
 
 Bailiffs. 
 
 1. Actions Against. 
 
 (a) Notice of A rtion, 554. 
 
 (b) When Action to he Commenced, 
 
 554. 
 
 (c) For Injury to Property, 554. 
 
 2. Canrassinfi at Elections, 555. 
 y VI. Division Court Bonds, 555. 
 
 I. Jurisdiction. 
 
 1. Where Actions 7nust be Brought. 
 
 The defendant who resided within the limits of 
 the tenth Division Court of the county of York 
 drew a ch( qae in the plaintiff's favour within 
 the limits uf the first Division Court of the same 
 county upon a bank situate in the tenth division. 
 The cheque having been dishonoured, the plain- 
 tiff sued upon it in tlie first Division Court : — 
 Held, that tl'e action was improperly brought 
 there and that q, summons for a prohibition 
 thereto, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, 
 must be made absolute. Ki)i<i v. Farrell, 8 P. 
 R. 119.-0sler. 
 
 The defendant residing at Port Elgin, by let- 
 ter, instructed the plaintiff, an attorney at To- 
 ronto, to take certain legal proceedings. The 
 plaintiff having performed these siTvices brought 
 the present suit in a Division Court at Toronto, 
 to recover his fees :— Held, that the cause of 
 action partly arose in each place, and that a 
 prohibition should issue. In re Hagel v. Dal- 
 rymph, 8 P. K. 183.- Hagarty. 
 
 The plaintiflF lived in Ottawa, and the defen- 
 dant corporation luid its head office at Hamilton. 
 The plaintiff made a mortgage to tlie defendants, 
 and a dispute arising between the plaintiff and 
 the defendants as to the amount of interest to 
 be paid thereon, the defendants claimed the full 
 interest according to the mortgage, and desired 
 the plaintiflF to remit it by mail to their office at 
 Hamilton, which the plaintiff refused to do. 
 The defendants then began proceedings under 
 the power of sale contained in their mortgage, 
 and also an action for the recovery of the land, 
 whereupon the plaintiff paid the money to his 
 solicitors in Ottawa, and the latter sent 5t under 
 protest to the defendants' solicitors in Hamilton, 
 who in turn paid it to the defendants in Hamil- 
 ton. On an action brought in the Division Court 
 in Ottawa for the recovery of the money so paid 
 under protest :— Held, that when the plaintiflT 
 
 made the payment by reason of the action against 
 him the defendants former direction to pay by 
 deposit of the money in the Ottawa P. 0. was 
 superseded ; and that the payment having been 
 made by the plaintiff i.i Hamilton, the whole 
 cause of action did not therefore arise at Ottawa. 
 Garland v. Omnitlm Securities Co., 10 P. R, 
 135.— Wilson. 
 
 The Grand Trunk Railway having their head 
 office in Montreal, P. Q., are not defendants 
 residing or carrying on business in tliis province, 
 within the meaning of R. S. O. (1877), c. 47, s. 
 62. In re Oiiyv. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 10 
 P. R. 372.— Osier. 
 
 A plaint was brought in the first Division 
 Court of Middlesex upon' a contract signed by 
 the defendant, dated at London, to pay to the 
 order of the plaintiffs at London, " $16 in wood 
 delivered on the Hamilton and Nortli Western 
 Railway," which was not in Middlesex. The 
 defendant resided in the county of Simcoe : — 
 Held, that the coui't in which the plaint was 
 brouglit had no jurisdiction, lie Elliott <fc Son 
 V. Norris, 17 O. R. 78.— Gait. 
 
 The plaintiffs resided in the district of Algoma, 
 and the defendant in tlie county of Wentworth. 
 The defendant telegraphed from Wentworth an 
 order for i, ton of fish to be sent to him by the 
 plaintiffs, .*nd the laiter shipped the fish from 
 Algoma to Wentworth. The plaintiffs sued for 
 tlie price of the fish : — Held, on motion for pro- 
 hibition, that the whole cause of action arose in 
 Algoma, and a Division Court there liad jurisdic- 
 tion. Cowan r. O'Connor, 20 Q. B. D. 640, and 
 Newcombe v. De Roos, 2 E. & E. 271, followed. 
 Re Noble v. Cline, 18 0. R. 33.— Gait. 
 
 See In re Emus v. Sutton, 8 P. R. 367, p. 551 ; 
 In re McCallum v. Oracey, 10 P. R. 514, p. 538 ; 
 Re Olmslead v. Errington, 11 P. R. 366, p. 547 ; 
 
 2. Tith to Land in QueMion. 
 
 In an action in a Division Court to recover 
 $79.50 for taxes on certain land, which defen- 
 dant was to pay as rent therefor, the facts as to 
 the terms and conditions of the tenancy were 
 disputed, but the defendant did not dispute the 
 plaintiff's title. On the plaintiff obtaining judg- 
 ment for the amount claimed, the defendant ap- 
 plied for a prohibition, on the ground that the 
 title to land was brought in question : — Held, 
 that thr, amount was properly recoverable in a 
 Division Court. In re English v. Mulholland, 
 9 P. R. 145.— Cameron. 
 
 The judgment of the Queen's Bench Division 
 (11 O. R. 138), refusing to order prohibition to 
 a Division Court, was affirmed on appeal on the 
 ground that d<!fendants were liable to repair the 
 road in question, which was not a public road 
 "vested as a Provincial work in Her Majesty or 
 in any public department or board," and that 
 the title to land was not brought in question. 
 Re Knight v. Atedora, 14 A. R. 112. 
 
 The ' 'aintiff agreed to sell to the defendant 
 a parcel of land for $1,750, of which $10 was 
 paid on the execution of the written agreement. 
 The agreement contained no provision as to pos- 
 session, but the defendant went into possession 
 as the purchaser. The plaintiff was unable to 
 make the title and the defendant continued in 
 
537 
 
 DIVISION OOUBTS. 
 
 538 
 
 possession for a considerable time. The plain- 
 tiff brought a Division Court action for use and 
 occupation. The defendant set up that the con- 
 tract had not been rescinded. when he gave up 
 possession and that he never became tenant to 
 tlie plaintiff nor liable to pay rent ; —Held, that 
 the plaintiff' was bound to prove a contract, ex- 
 press or implied, to pay compensation for the 
 use and occupation, and in order to do so, it 
 might have been necessary to shew when the 
 contract of sale went off ; but that was not a 
 bringing of the title into question so as to oust 
 the jurisdiction of the Division Court. Re Craw- 
 ford v. Seney, 17 O. R. 74.— Q. B. D. 
 
 In prohibition the court must be satisfied that 
 the title really comes in question ; it is not 
 enough that some question is raised by the de- 
 fendant's notice. Purser v. Bradburne, 7 P. R. 
 18, distinguished. Order of Street, J. , granting 
 prohibition reversed. Jh, 
 
 See Vandewaterti v. llorton, 9 0. R. 548, p. 
 370 ; Jte Bmheil v. Mon.f, 11 P. R. 251, p. 547. 
 
 See also County Courts II. 2, p. 396. 
 
 3. Claims Ascertained bi/ Signature of Defendant. 
 
 (a) Xotes. 
 
 Plaintiff having paid a note of which he and 
 defendant were joint makers, for $109, but which 
 the plaintiff' signed as a surety only : — Held, that 
 plaintiff' could not sue defendant in a Division 
 Court for tlie money so paid, the amount not 
 being ascertained by tlie signature of defendant. 
 A summons for prohibition was made absolute 
 without costs, there being no meritorious defence. 
 Kinsey v. lioche, 8 P. R. 515.— Osier. 
 
 Plaintiff sued on a promissory note for $73. 14, 
 payable with interest at seven per cent. ; tlie 
 principal and interest together .imounting to 
 il0.'}.44: — Held, that under the Division Courts 
 Act, 1883, the amount of fixed legal damages in 
 the nature of interest for nonpayment of a pro- 
 missory note need not be under tlie signature of 
 defendant, and tlie above claim could therefore 
 be recovered in a Division Court. McCrackeu v. 
 Crtswick; 8 P. R. 501.— Hagarty. 
 
 The plaintiff' sued on a promissory note for 
 $158, payable witli interest at ten per cent., the 
 principal and interest amounting to $185.05: — 
 Held, following McCraclien v. Creswick, 8 P. R. 
 5()l, that under the Division Courts Act, 1880, 
 4,'( Vict. c. 8(Out. ), the above claim couhl be 
 recovered in the Division Court. In re Wid- 
 meyer v. MeMahou, 32 C. P. 187.— C. P. 1). 
 
 In an action in the ninth Division Court of 
 the county of Hastings, <iii a promissory note for 
 $200 and interest, tile judge who tried the case 
 (the junior judge of the county) entered judg- 
 ment for $200, the amount of tiie note, $7.17 
 accrued interest and costs: — Held, on a motion 
 for prohibition, tiiat the wording of the statute 
 is clear, namely, "all claims for the recovery of 
 debt or money demand tlie amount or balance of 
 which dons not exceed $200," and tiie motion 
 was granted ; MoCracken c. Creswick, 8 P. R. 
 501, and VVidmeyer c. McMahon et al.,32 C. P. 
 187, referred to and distinguished. Re Youmj v. 
 Morden, 10 P. R. 270.— Roe;. 
 
 A promissory note was dated at Milton, in the 
 county of Halton, 17thSepteml)er, 1877, and was 
 
 for $100, payable three months afterdate at Mil- 
 ton, with interest at eight per cent, per annum. 
 The amount claimed was $149.50. Tlie maker 
 died in the county of Essex, long after the 
 maturity of the note ; her will was proved in 
 Essex, and the defendants, at the time of the 
 action resided in that county. The plaintiff 
 having sued upon the note in a Divisi(m Court 
 of the county of Halton : — Held, that the death 
 of the maker, the circumstances of b . making a 
 will appointing the defendants executors, and 
 the proving of the will by the executors were no 
 part of the cause of action, which was complete 
 before the granting of the probate :— Held, also, 
 that the Divii'ion Court of Halton, which was 
 sought to be prohfb'ted, had jurisdiction by 
 virtue of 43 Vict. c. 8, ss. 8, 12, (Ont.) Re Mc- 
 Callnm v. Oracey, 10 P. R. 514.— C. P. D. 
 
 See In re Stogdale and Wilson, 8 P. R. 5, p. 
 539 ; In re Ontario Bank v. Harston, 9 P. R. 47, 
 p. 541. 
 
 (b) Other Gases, 
 
 Where the original demand, no matter how 
 large, is ascertained by the signature of the 
 party liable, and a lialance not exceeding $200 
 remains due, the Division Courts under the Act 
 of 1880 have jurisdiction. Hank of Ottawa v. 
 McLatiijhlin, 8 A. R. 543. — Spragge. 
 
 By the Division Courts Act, 1880, these courts 
 have jurisdiction in actions for a debt, the 
 amount or balance of which does not exceed 
 $200, and the amount or original amount of the 
 claim is ascertained by tiie signature of the de- 
 fendant. Where the claim was upon the follow- 
 ing document : "Received from R.W., an order 
 from C. B. , ordering me to pay him tlie sum of 
 $140, which is accepted on the following condi- 
 tions, providing he carries oui his agreement 
 with me as cheese-maker." Signed by the de- 
 fendant : — Held, that the Division Court liad no 
 jurisdiction, because the writing did not ascer- 
 tain the aminiat, inasmuch as it depended upon 
 the happening of certain events with respect to 
 wiiich evidence had to be adduced. Wiltsie v. 
 Ward, 8 A. Pv. 54!». —Spragge. 
 
 "Mr. Thomas For'ar.— Plea.se ship us your 
 olil boiler and engine, to be in good shape, to our 
 address, not lat'T than June 7th, 18S3, for the 
 sum of $115 and shafting.— (;. C'limie & Son :" — 
 Held, that the foregoing order did not ascertain 
 tlie amount due, so as to bring the case within 
 the increased jurisdiction ci the Division Courts 
 under 43 Vict. c. 8 (Ont.). Forfar \. Cliinie, 10 
 P. R. 90.— Rose. 
 
 Wliere a clioque was given to the defendant 
 by the plaintiff as a loan of the money represented 
 by it ; — Held, tiiat the endorsement of the signa- 
 ture of the defendant on the ciieque which was 
 payable to his order, was a sufficient ascertain- 
 ment of the amount of the phiintiff's claim by 
 the signature of the defendant to satisfy section 
 54 of R. a. 0. (1877) c. 47, as amended by sec- 
 tion 2 of 43 Vict. c. 8 (Out.), and to give a 
 Division Court jurisdiction where the amount 
 claimed without ascertainment would have been 
 beyond its competence. Kinsey v. Roche, 8 P. 
 R. 515, overruled ; and Wiltsie v. Ward, 8 A. 
 R. 549, and Forfar v. Climie, 10 P. R. <M), 
 specially referred to. Cushman v. Reid, 20 C. 
 
 if- 
 
 • »• 
 
 m 
 
 U' 
 
 ;a 
 
 r » 
 
 ;;i 
 
 • tj, 
 
 'S 
 
 'e ;., 
 
 
 "«« '" ■ 
 
 >i 
 
 'ur. I'l 
 
 
 
 . .1 
 
 sir v- 
 
 •t 
 
 ■cr "• 
 
 II 
 
 S::' 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 t 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 "«S 5 
 
 
 '3^ f 
 
 
 ''iSj 
 
 
 :,;** 
 
 
 .-» 
 
 
 N«i5 
 
 
539 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 540 
 
 P. 147, distinguished. A'e (Iraham v. TomUiinon, 
 12 r. 11. 367.— Wilsoii. -Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant, for valuable consideration, 
 executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff, con- 
 ditioned for the payment of tlie principal and 
 interest secured by a mortgage executed by the 
 plaintiff. The defendant having made default 
 in payment of the interest for four years, tiie 
 plaintiff was compelled to pay the arrears 
 amounting in all, together witli interest on the 
 amount unpaid, to 5;l()3, for the recovery of 
 which he sued the defendant in the County 
 Court when judgment was given for that sum, 
 together withDivision Court costs, against which 
 the amount of the defendant's County Court costs 
 was ordered to be set-otl':— Held, (reversing the 
 judgment of the court below) (1) that the debt 
 or money demand arose from payment of the 
 money by the plaintiff, and the amount of it was 
 not ascertained by the signing of tlie bond. (2) 
 That under the circumstances the judge had no 
 discretion to refuse the plaintiff, who had been 
 successful in the litigation, his full County Court 
 costs. Mitchell v. Vandusen, 14 A. R. 517, con- 
 sidered and followed. Kinsey r. Roche, 8 P. R. 
 515 ; Wiltsie v. Ward, 8 A. R. 549 ; Forfar v. 
 Climie, 10 P. R. 90, approved. Craham /•. 
 Tomlinson, 12 P. R. 307, referred to. McDermid 
 v. AIcDcrjfiiil, 15 A. R. 287. 
 
 The defendant signed a writing in these words : 
 "Brantford, Oct. 9th, 1880. If anything hap- 
 pens to me sudden, this is to insure my son 
 Joseph (the plaintiff) to take $100 from his sis- 
 ter Hannah's share, to repay money lent to her ; 
 if I live until this time next year I will settle it 
 with him :" — Held, that tliis was not a sufKcient 
 ascertainment of the amount due, by the signa- 
 ture of tlie dcfcnilant, within the meaning of R. 
 8. O. (1887), c. 51, s. 70, to allow of a claim upon 
 it and other items (amounting to about §00) being 
 joined in a Division Court action. McDermid r. 
 McDermid, 15 A. R. 287, followed; Re Graham 
 V. Tomlinson, 12 P. R. 307, referred to. Atones 
 V. Mones, 13 P. R. 12. — Robertson. Affirmed, 
 Jb. 144.— Chy. D. 
 
 See While Sewhu/ Machine Co. v. Belfry, 10 
 P. R. 04, p. 309; 'lie Oordon v. O'Brien, 11 P. 
 R. 287, p. 540. 
 
 4. AhandunmetU of Excess. 
 
 The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Di- 
 vision Court for IJIOO, and endoised on the sum- 
 mons as particulars a promissory note for .^125 :— 
 Held, that the plaintiff miglit at the trial aliaudon 
 in his particulars the excess above SlOO, so as to 
 bring the case within Division Court jurisdic- 
 tion. Inrt SloijikUe and \yiUon,i} P. R. 5. — 
 Hagarty. 
 
 The plaintilf sued in the Division Court on a 
 claim which was originally composed of a solici- 
 tor's bill of costs, .^lUi.OO; damages, $09.33 ; due 
 for advice, ;#() ; total j<l 1 1.39. The plaintiff aban- 
 doned as to 11. 39, without specifying from what 
 items he threw the amount off. The plaintiff, 
 at the trial, agreed to take $30 for the first 
 item, and the judge reduced the §09.33 to §02, 
 the SO item was struck out, and the total then 
 stood §92.33. This sum was further reduced to 
 §80, for which judgment was entered : — Held, 
 atlirmiug the judgment of Wilson, C. J., that 
 
 prohibition was pioperly directed; that the 
 abandonment being general, it could not be as- 
 sumed that the plaintiff had made a reduction 
 in his demand for damages, so as to give the 
 court jurisdiction ; and even if the court had 
 power to confine the prohibition to the claim for 
 damages, it cotdd not be done here, for it did 
 not appear how much of the §80 was applicable 
 to such claim. Meekw Scohell, 4^0. K. 553. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 See lie White v. ilalhrnilh, 12 P. R. 513, p. 
 551 ; lie Eberts v. ISruoke, 10 P. R. 257 ; 11 P. 
 R. 296, p. 541 ; Public School j'rus/ees oj Section 
 9 Niitfawaswia v. The Township of Noltairasaga, 
 15 A. R. 310, infra, p. 552. 
 
 6. Splitting Catises of Action. 
 
 The defendant rented certain premises from 
 the plaintifi' for a year, agreeing in writing to 
 pay monthly §125 therefoi', but no formal lease 
 was executed. Wlien the rent had become four 
 months in arrear the plaintilf entered three 
 plaints in a Division Court against the defen- 
 dant, each for a month's rent, ^125: — Held, that 
 the sums claimed in the three plaints were pay- 
 able under the one contract, and would have 
 been included in one count under the old system 
 of pleading; and, therefore, that the division 
 into three plaints was improper under R. S. 0. 
 (1877), c. 47, s. 59:— Held, also, that the defen- 
 dant's signature to the memorandum of leiise 
 could not be construed as ascertaining the 
 amounts claimed in the plaints ; and prohibition 
 was ordered. He Oordon v. O'Brien, IIP. 1{. 
 287.— O'Connor. 
 
 In 1887, the plaintiffs sued the council in the 
 Division Court for the surplus rates I'eceived by 
 them in 1881, and recovered judgment therefor. 
 They afterwards brought this action in the 
 County Court for the surplus received in the 
 five subsequent years. The defendants contend- 
 ed that the claim was res judicata by reason of 
 the judgment in the Division Court, and also 
 that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, 
 because by suing in the Division Court for the 
 surplus of 1881 alone, they had divided their 
 cause of action into two or more suits contrary 
 to section 77 of the Division Courts Act, R. 8. 0. 
 (1887), c. 51 : Held, reversing the judgment of 
 the County Court, (I) that the recovery in the 
 Division C/'ourt being for a wholly distinct and 
 separate cause of action, and not n])oii a balance 
 of account under section 77, or alter abandon- 
 nieiit of excess under D. ('. Rule Xo. 8, was no 
 defence to an action for the suij)lus late.s re- 
 
 j ceived by the ilefendants in the subseijiient 
 
 I years. (2) That if there had been a sjilittiiig of 
 the cause of action within the meaning of the 
 Act, by suing for the surplus of (me year alone, 
 the objection .should have been taken as a de- 
 fence, or by way of motion for pmliibition, in 
 the lirst suit, and could not be pleaded as a liar 
 to this action. .Semble, that t!ie several claims 
 being entirely distinct and unconnected, diil not 
 form "cause of one action'' so as to come within 
 the prchibition of section 77 against dividing a 
 cause of action. Re Ackroyil, 1 Ex. 479, re- 
 
 j ferred to. I'nblic School Trusters of Section !> 
 Xoftairasai/d v. 7'/ic Tou'ii.thlp of Kottawasaija, 
 
 \ 15 A. R. 310. 
 
541 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 648 
 
 6. Otlttr Canes. 
 
 As to proceeding for debts within the juris- 
 ^liction of the Division or County Courts against 
 married women. iSee lia IVidnieyer v. Ale- 
 Mahoii, 32 C. P. 187. 
 
 The Division Courts' Act, 1880, does not apply 
 to the Division Courts in territorial divisions, 
 und unorganized tracts, and a prohibition was 
 ordered to restrain ii stipendiary magistrate from 
 adjudicating upon a claim on a promissory note 
 for $110. In re Tlie Ontario Bank v. Hamton, 
 «P. It. 47.— Osier. 
 
 The process of Division Courts is of no effect 
 outside the province of Ontario. Ontario Glasn 
 Co. v. Swartz, 9 V. R. 252. — IJameron. 
 
 The plaintiff brought liis action in a Division 
 Court for .574..'11, his claim lieing $lo(i..'lU, an un- 
 iisccrtaiiicd amount, as against wiiich he admitted 
 <i set-off of $82.05. At the trial in the Division 
 C()urt the plaintiff afliruied, and the defendant 
 deuie<l, that there had been au agreement be- 
 tween them to set-off against tlic plaintiff's claim 
 the value of certain purchases made by tlie plain- 
 tiff from tlie defendant, ai'.d tile judge at the 
 trial found, as a matter of fact, that there liad 
 been such an agreement : — Held, following Flem- 
 ing V. Livingstone, 6 I'. R. 63, and Dixon v. 
 Snarr, 6 P. R. 336, that it was a question of fact 
 for tlie judge of the Division Court to determine 
 whether or not there was an agreement between 
 the plaintiff and defendant ; and tlie judge hav- 
 ing determined that there was, there was juris- 
 <liction, and a prohibition was refused. Jn re 
 Jenkins v. Miller, 10 P. It. U5. —Cameron. 
 
 Application for a prohibition to the judge of 
 the first Division Court of the county of Kent, 
 and to the plaintiff's, to prohibit them from pro- 
 secuting au action, which was biought ujion a 
 County Court judgment for .$211.87, the plain- 
 tifl's abandoning the e.xccss of their claim over 
 ^100, and claiming ?^100:— Held, that an infe- 
 rior court has no jurisdiction to entertain an ac- 
 tion brought upon the judgment of a superior 
 <;ourt. h'eEherts v. Brooke, 10 P. R. 2.57.— Gait. 
 Keversed, 11 P. K. 2i)6.— Q. P.. D. 
 
 A Division Court has jnrisdiotioii to entertain 
 a claim for less than .$100 made l)y a mortgagor 
 «pou the suiplus proceeds of a mortgage sale 
 wliieli realized less than 55400. Such a claim is 
 an e(initable cause of action for money had and 
 received, lie Liii<iri( v. Canwld LiKtn and Hank- 
 iiKj Co., 11 P. \i. 512.— r.oyd. 
 
 A claim aggregating more than §100 and less 
 than 5!200, whieli is made up of two amounts, 
 one Ii(|uidated and one unliiiuidated and both less 
 than §100, cannot be sued in a Divi.iion Court. 
 Per Armour, .l. — -'l'lie claims could not have been 
 sued together before 41) Vict. c. 15, s. 6 (Out. ),aiid 
 that Act does not expressly or impliedly affect 
 the ([uestiou. Per O'Conuoi', .1.— But for 4'J 
 Vict. c. 15, s. (i (Out. ).tiiu case would be governed 
 by \ogt /•. Boyle, 8 P. H. 240. It must be as- 
 sumed that the legislature intended Ijy that 
 enactment to lay down a rule of combination to 
 regulate the whole subject; and the eiiaotment 
 being silent as to the combinalion of such ehiinis 
 as are here sued on, they ninst be taken to be 
 ■excluded from the jurisdiction, lie Walih v. 
 Jilliolt, II P. H. 520 -Q. B. D. 
 
 See Truax v. Duon, 13 P. K. 270, p. 373. 
 
 8. Notice DispiUing Jurisdiction. 
 
 Held, afii'rming tlie judgment of Cameron, J., 
 8 P. R. 374, that the notice mentioned in sec- 
 tion 14 of 43 Vict. c. 8 (Ont. ), refers only to suits 
 otherwise of the proper competence of the Divi- 
 sion Court, but which have been brought in the 
 wrong division. He Mead v. Creary, 32 C. P. 
 l.-C. P. D. 
 
 Held (disagreeing with the court below, 110. 
 R. 138, and alHrming Mead v. Creary, 8 P. R. 
 374, 32 C. P. 1 ), that the notice under 48 Vict. 
 c. 14, s. 1, amending 43 Vict. e. 8, s. 14, disput- 
 ing the jurisdiction, is only required when a suit 
 otherwise of the proper competence of the Di- 
 vision Court has been brought in the wrong Di- 
 vision, and the want of such notice cannot give 
 the Division Court jurisilietion if the title to 
 land is brought in question, (llagarty, C. J. O., 
 expressing no opinion on this point. ) Re Knight 
 V. Medora, 14 A. K. 1 12. 
 
 Held, doubting, but following Re Knight v. 
 Medora, 14 A. R. 112, and Re Mead v. Creary, 
 32 C. P. 1, that the operation of section 14 of 
 the Division Courts Act, 1880, is restricted to 
 cases within the general jurisdiction of the Di- 
 vision Courts, and tlie absence of a notice under' 
 that section disputing the jurisdiction cannot 
 give jurisdiction wliere the amount claimed ia 
 beyond the connietence of a Division Court. Rt 
 Grahamy. Tominmon, 12 P. R. 367. — Wilson. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 See Clarke v. Macdonald, 4 0. R. 310, p. 643. 
 
 II. Skoukity for Costs. 
 
 Under R. S. O. (1877) e. 47, s. 244, an order 
 for security for costs may be made in a Division 
 Court. Re Fletcher and Noble, 9 P. R. 255.— 
 Cameron. 
 
 III. Attachment. 
 
 1. Of Debts. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Cameron, J., 
 8 P. R. 374, that a primary creditor can garnish 
 part of a debt due by a third person to the pri- 
 mary debtor for which, as between the primary 
 debtor and the garnishee, a suit uould not be 
 maintained in the Division Court by reason of 
 the amount being in excess of the jurisdiction. 
 Re Mead v. Creary, 32 C. P. 1.— C. P. D. 
 
 Seiiible, that money paid to a Division Court 
 clerk for a suitor in a cause is paid in to the use 
 of the suitor, and is garuishable. Bland v. 
 Andrews, 45 Q. B. 431.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Cameron, J. It does not become a debt 
 from the Division Court clerk to the suitor till 
 demand made, and so is not garnishable until 
 then. 11). 
 
 Where the garnishee, who was clerk of the 
 first Division Court of the county of York, bad 
 submitted himself to the jurisdiction, and had 
 paid the money in his hands into the tenth 
 Division Court of the county, from which latter 
 court the summons issued, and the judge of the 
 Division Court had acted within his jurisdiction 
 in determining whether the garnishee was in- 
 debted to the primary creditor and whcwher the 
 
 
AB 
 
 DIVISION OOUBTS. 
 
 544 
 
 debt was attachable : — Held, that the order of 
 Gait, J., discharging a sumnions for a prohibi- 
 tion was right ; and a rule nisi to rescind the 
 same, and for a writ of proliibition, was dis- 
 charged. Dolphin V. Layton, L. B. 4 ; C. P. D. 
 130. Remarked upon. Jb. 
 
 A plaintiff in a Division Court, proceeding 
 against a primary debtor and a, garnishee in a 
 court which would not liave jurisdiction against 
 the primary debtor alone, must prove a garnish- 
 able debt in the hands of the garnishee ; other- 
 wise, a prohibition will lie. In re Holland v. 
 Wallace, 8 P. R. 186.— Hagarty. 
 
 A garnishes is not a defendant within the 
 meaning of the R. S. 0. (1877), c 47, s. 62. 
 lb. 
 
 A garnishee is not a " party to a cause," under 
 43 Vict. c. 8, s. 17, for the purpose of an appeal. 
 Camtron v. Allen, 10 P. R. 192.— Cameron. 
 
 The garnishees, though partners, resided in 
 diflercnt places out of the jurisdiction of the 
 Division Court, and Init one of them was served. 
 No order was made dispensing with service on 
 the other. The Division Court judge gave 
 judgment against botli in their absence. Per 
 Armour, J. The prohibition might be supported 
 on this ground. R. 8. O. (1877), c 47, s. 134 con- 
 strued. The Judicature Act does not apply to a 
 case of this kind, the proceedings of which are 
 specially provided for in the Division Courts 
 Act. Clarke v. MacdouakI, 4 O. R. 310.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Armour, J., 
 that where a garnishee does not file a notice dis- 
 puting the jurisdiction of a Division Court with- 
 in the time required by 43 Vict, c.8, s. 14(0nt.), 
 though no objection can be taken to this juris- 
 diction of the Division Court in that court, the 
 jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice to pro- 
 hibit the proceedings is not ousted, lb. 
 
 The defendant was the medical health ofhcer 
 of the city of London, and his monthly salary as 
 such was attached in the hands of the city cor- 
 poration, in a Division Court action. It was 
 claimed by the defend ant that $25 of the amount 
 due him was exempt from attachment under 
 R.S.O. (1877)c. 47, s. 125. No latts were in dis- 
 pute, and the Division Court judge determined, 
 as a matter of law, upon the construction of the 
 above section, and of the Public Health Act, 
 1884, and amending Acts, the Municipal Act, 
 1883, section 281, and a by-law of the city of 
 London, that the defmdant's salary was not so 
 exempt: — Held, by Rose, J., in chambers, that 
 the decision of the judge could be reviewed upon 
 a motion for prohibition, and that he had 
 determined wrorgly:— Held, by tlie Q. B. D. 
 Wilson, C. J., ditstntinp, that the defendant 
 ■was not an employee within the meaning of 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 47, 8. 125, and that it was 
 therefore rightly detei mined that his salary was 
 not exempt, lie ilarjie v. Hnlchinson, 12 P. 
 R. 167. 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Street, J., in 
 Chambers, that the judge of a Division Court 
 has no jurisdiction to give judgment against a 
 garnishee withont piocf of the amount owing by 
 the garnishee to the judgment debtor, and for 
 such a cause prohibition will lie. He Johnston 
 V. Therrien, 12 P. R. 442.— Q. B. D. 
 
 There is nothing in the sub- section substituteil 
 by 49 Vict. c. 15, s. 12, for R. S. O (1877) c. 47. 
 8. 13G, sub-s. 2, which repeals the condition 
 precedent in section 132 to the judge's giving 
 judgment against the garnishee, lb. 
 
 Held, that, if necessary, the writ of pro- 
 hibition sliould go to compel tiie repayment to 
 the garnishee of money paid by him into the 
 Division Court. Ih 
 
 Where money comes into the hands of a Di- 
 vision Court clerk under a garnisiiee summons, 
 and he is made aware of a writ of attachment 
 under the Al)SConding Debtors' Act, he must 
 pay the money to the sheriff and not to the pri- 
 mary creditor, under the provisions of section 
 16 of the Absconding Debtors' Act, R, S. 0. 
 (1877), c. 66. lie Moore v. Wallace, 13 P. R. 
 201.— Q. B. D. 
 
 \Vhere after the service upon the garnisiices 
 of a Division Court garnishee summons a 
 County Court writ of attacl nent was placed 
 in the hands of the sheriff, n i the garnishees 
 paid the amount owing by them to the primary 
 debtor, to the sheriff, but the judge in the 
 Division Court ordered the sherill' to pay tiie 
 money to the Division Court clerk, and the 
 clerk to pay it out to the primary creditors in 
 the Division Court : — Held, that the judge was 
 right in ruling that the money should have been 
 paid by the garnishte.* to the Division Court 
 clerk under section 18!) of the Division Courts 
 Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 51, and therefore his order 
 upon the sheriff to pay it to the clerk could not 
 be interfered witii ; but the order to pay out 
 to the primary creditors was contrary to section 
 16 of the Absconding Debtors' Act ; and prohi- 
 bition to restrain the clerk from so paying out 
 the money was directed, lb. 
 
 See Macpherson v. Tixdale, 11 P, R, 261, p. 
 
 89. 
 
 2. Of Good,'. 
 
 Of goods of absconding d,ii>''' , ■;•. J-'\'.rcinif 
 . Smi/h, 10 P. R. 360. 
 
 IV. ExECUTioir. 
 
 Per Osier, J. A married woman's separate 
 personal estate, but not her real estate, may be 
 charged and sold under a judgment against her 
 in the Division Court. 1 he omission to prove 
 the existence of such personal estate, though it 
 may be urged as a defence, does not affect the 
 jurisdiction. Proliiliition was therefore refused. 
 In re Wii/mtyer v. McMahon, 32 C. P. 187. 
 
 Held, that the teinis "fieri facias" and "war- 
 rant of execution," used in the Division Courts 
 Act, are conveitible terms. Marjle v. Hiintery 
 9 P. K. 149.-CanKron. 
 
 Qua're, under R. f5. O. (1877), e. 47, s. ICO, 
 whether a person whose goods have been seized 
 under Division Court i)roce:<s can have any fur- 
 ther lelief than the restoration of his gooils. 
 Tiieki-tl V. L'ati.n, (i O. R. 486.— C. P. D. 
 
 1 he plaintiffs recovered judgment in tlie Di- 
 vision Court and ifcsut d an execution thcreuii 
 under which nothing was made and wliicii ex- 
 pired by lapse of tinie. At the request of tlie 
 
T 
 
 545 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 54ft 
 
 pliiiiitiffs' solicitor the bailiff rutun»'.Jtl tlie writ 1 
 nulla bona, althongli it wiiH alleged that there 
 were goods out of which the debt might have 
 been luviu<l. Upon this return the plaintiffs 
 procured a transcript of their Division Court 
 juilgnient in regular form and Tiled the same in 
 the office of the clerk of the County Court and 
 sued out a writ of fi. fa. goods in crcler to obtain 
 the benefit of the provisions of the Creditors 
 Relief Act. The respondent S., the holder of a 
 warrant of execution in the Division Court, then 
 niove<l to set aside the plaintiffs' proceedings 
 and they were accordingly set aside by the 
 County Court judge on the ground that the 
 judgment in the court was void, being founded 
 on a return to an expired execution :— Held, that 
 u return of nulla bona where there were goods, 
 was no more tiiau an irregularity to be com- 
 plained of by the defendant. Ontario Bank r. 
 Kirby, 16 C. P. 3.5, followed. Is'or could a third 
 party object that such a return was made at the 
 instance of tlie solicitor of the plaintiffs : — Held, 
 also (reversing the juilgmcnt of the County 
 Court), that a return of nulla bona could be 
 properly nuide after the expiration of the writ 
 and that the transcript and judgment in the 
 County Court founded thereon were valid and 
 regular. Mo/iou'it Bank v. McMwldn, Ex Parte 
 Sloan, 15 A. R. iVio. 
 
 See Dalby v. GM, 18 O. R. 132, p. 553. 
 
 V. Interpleapeb. 
 
 There is no right of appeal from the decision 
 of the judge in an interpleader suit in a Division 
 Court, even when the amount in dispute exceeds 
 $100. Ill re Turner v. Imperial liaiiJ: of Canada, 
 9 P. R. 19.— Osier. 
 
 Hehl, that the term "execution creditors," 
 used in section 11 of the Interpleader Act (R. 
 S. 0. (1877) c. M), taken in connection with sec- 
 tion 12, includes parties holding executions in 
 Division Courts, who are therefore proper par- 
 ties to, and should be called upon in an inter- 
 pleader application by a sheriff. Maejie v. lluii- 
 ter, 9 P. R. 149.— Cameron. 
 
 The plaintiff, a Division Court bailiff, having 
 sei/.cd a quantity of wheat under a warrant of 
 execution against one P. which the defendant 
 claimed, an interpleailer summons issued, and on 
 its riiturn was adjourned with leave to the de- 
 fendant to tile his chiim in tifteen days. After- 
 wards the case came up for final hearing, when 
 tlie judge made this order, "the claimant not 
 having put in his claim or complied with the 
 order above made is barred, and is ordered to 
 pay the costs in fiiteeii days." The plaintiff, as 
 such bailiff, thereupon brought this action to 
 recover the wheat, which the defendant had ob- 
 tained possession of pciuling the summons : — 
 Held, on appeal, affirming the decision of the 
 County Court judge, that the minute so made 
 by the judge in the iiiterideader issue was eiiui- 
 valent to stating th,\t the claim was dismis.sed, 
 and was final and conclusive upon the defendant, 
 and that he could not be heard to say that the 
 bailiff hiul not seized the wheat. Hunter v. Van- 
 Htone, 7 A. R. 750. 
 
 On an interpleader proceeding in the Division 
 Court under 48 Vict. c. 14, s. (i, sub-s. 3 (Ont.), 
 in respect of a claim to goods taken in execu- 
 
 35 
 
 tion, any claims between the parties themselves 
 for damages arising out of the execution of the 
 process, must also be brought before and adjudi- 
 cated upon by the jmlge who hears the inter- 
 pleader summons. Whether such claims are 
 then brought forward or not the adjudication 
 upcm tlie summons is final and conclusive between 
 the parties, and no action can afterwards be 
 maintained in respect of them. In such an ac- 
 tion the fact of the previous adjudication may 
 bo properly pleaded as a defence. Reversing 
 Wilson, C. J., 9 O. R. 767 :— Quare, whether 
 the proceedings therein can be summarily stayed 
 on motion : — Qua're, whether an appeal lies 
 under c. 14, s. 7, sub s. 2, from the adjudication 
 of the judge of the Division Court on a claim for 
 damages, /'ox v. Sijmimjton, 13 A. R. 296. 
 
 VI. Examination of Judgment Debtor. 
 
 The order of a Division Court judge upon 
 judgment summons directed that the defendant 
 should pay the judgment debt within a fixed 
 period, and in default that he should be com- 
 mitted to gaol : — Hehl, that the part of the order 
 as to imprisonment was not sustainable ; the 
 defendant, if he did not pay within the time 
 limited, was entitled to a day to shew cause why 
 he did not pay ; and the prohibition was ordered : 
 — Semble, the defendant should have called upon 
 the clerk of the court to shew cause against the 
 issuing of any order for imprisonment, as such 
 order is merely a ministerial act. lie Wo/lz v. 
 Blake/j/, 11 P. R. 430.— Wilson. 
 
 A judgment against a married woman liy 
 virtue of the Married Woman's Property Act 
 creates no general personal liability, but merely 
 charges her separate estate ; and the provisions 
 of section 177 of the Division Courts Act, 
 11. 8. O. (1877) c. 47, as amended by 43 Vict. c. 
 8, touching the examination of judgment debtors, 
 are not applicable to a married woman against 
 whom judgment has lieen obtained in the 
 Division Court, and even if liable to be examined, 
 such a person is not liable to be committed to 
 gaol under section 172. Metropolitan L. & S. 
 Co. V. Mara, 8 P. R. 355, distinguished. L'e 
 AIcLeod v. Emiij/i, 12 P. R. 450.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, following Regina r. The judge of the 
 Brompton County Court, 18 Q. B. D. 213, that 
 the judge's endorsement on the judgment sum- 
 mons was the order upon such siimnums ; and 
 that a subsequent order was illegal. Ih. 
 
 See lie Young v. Parker .0 Co., 12 P. R. 64(i, 
 p. 549. 
 
 VII. PHOHIBfilON. 
 
 On an application foraiiroliibitiontoaDivision 
 Court after judgment and execution, where tlie 
 question of jurisdiction depends upon disputed 
 facts— as in this case. up(m whether the person 
 by whom the bargain sued upon was made, 
 acted as jilaintitf's or defendant's agent — if the 
 Division Court judge has decided this question 
 on evidence, and louiid in favour of his juris- 
 diction, the court will not interfere with lii» 
 finding ; but here, there having been no such 
 decision, and the want of jurisdiction being clear 
 upon the affidavits filed, a prohibition was grant- 
 ed. Stepheni v. Lajilante, 8 P. R. 52. — Hiigurty. 
 
 <.■- »'V It 
 
 Z" "- II 
 
 «: Si 
 
 1 11 
 
 "Si 
 
547 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 648 
 
 £49 
 
 
 
 Bi 
 
 *H 
 
 No cnse exists for piolubition to a Division 
 Court puudinK "■" npi'ti'il from *'"'•'' tiowt *" the 
 Court of Appeal under 43 Vict. c. 8, (Out.). 
 Wiltiey V. Ward, 9 P. R. 216.— Cuineron. 
 
 The nature of the claim, as appearing on the 
 «umnions, is the claim recognizablu on a motion 
 
 for proiiibition. 
 C. 1'. D. 
 
 Meek v.Scohdl, 4 O. K. 553.— 
 
 A., entered a notice disputing plaintiff's claim 
 in a Division Court suit, and objecting to tlie 
 jurisdiction of tlie court, but did not appear at 
 the trial when tlie junior judge of tlie county of 
 York, upon proof of the jdaintiff's claim, and 
 audi facts as in the absence of proof to the 
 contrary established a prima facie case of juris- 
 diction entered a judgment in favour ot the 
 plaintitf for $44.75. On motion for pr()hil)ition 
 on the ground of want of jurisdicticm :— Held, 
 following Archibald v. IJushey, 7 P. R. 304, that 
 the granting of pi'ohibition under the circum- 
 stances was discietionary : that it would be 
 unfair to place upon the judge trying the c:ise, 
 the burden of crossexamiiiing the witnesses to 
 ascertain juii -diction : tliat if a jirima facie case 
 of jurisdiction is made out the defendant is 
 himself to blame if it is not displaced : and as 
 neither a good defence on the merits was shewn, 
 nor despatch used in makinj.' 'he application, the 
 motion was refused with costs. Frie.mlli/ v. 
 ^W'd/er. 10 P. R. 267.— Rose. Attiiined, /l>. 
 427.— 0. P. D. 
 
 Upon proceedings being taken in the Division 
 Court in an action in wiiich tiiat court has not 
 jurisdiction, the defendant is entitled to prohibi- 
 tion immediately upon the action being brought, 
 and the fact of no notice of statutory defence 
 being given under section 1)2 R. S. U. (1877), 
 c. 47, does not affect the defendant's right to 
 prohibition. /" re Summerfeldt v. Wo7-tx, 12 
 O. R. 48.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff sued in a Division Court for the 
 conversion of a mirror, which the defendant 
 contended was annexed to the freehold and had 
 passed to him therewith. The judge of the Di- 
 vision Court found that the mirror was a chattel 
 and gave judgment for the plaintiff: — Held, 
 reversing the decision of OConuor, J., who had 
 directed a writ of prohibition to issue, that, the 
 judge of the Division Court having found as a 
 fact that the mirror was a chattel, his decision 
 should not be interfered with by way of prohibi- 
 tion, lie Bmhellx. Alosn, 11 P. R. 251.— C. P i). 
 
 Where a defendant, upon being sued in the 
 first Division Court in the county of Middlesex, 
 filed a notice disputing the jurisdiction and 
 served a notice of motion returnable before a 
 judge in chambers for an order directing the 
 issue of a writ of prohibition to the said Division 
 Court, to prohibit the judge thereof and the 
 
 Slaintiff from proceeding with the suit in that 
 ►ivision Court on the ground of want of juris- 
 diction in that court to hear and determine the 
 same, but did not entitle his notice of motion, 
 nor the affidavit filed in support of the motion, 
 in any di\"ision of the High Court of Justice : — 
 Held, affirming the order of O'Connor, J., in 
 chambers, granting the writ, nou a fatal objec- 
 tion, but one which could and should be amended 
 under Rule 474, O. J. Act (Con. Rule 444) :— 
 Be Olrmtead v. Errington, 11 P. R. 366.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 Held, that, although before the motion for 
 prohibition came on to be heard the plaintiff' in 
 the Division Court caused the plaint to be trans- 
 ferred to the proper Division Court in the county 
 of Lambton, nevertheless the defendant, upon 
 being sued in a wrong Division Court, had the 
 right to apply for prohibition, and the judge iu 
 chambers liaving in his discretion given the de- 
 fendant his costs of the motion of prohibition, 
 that discretion could not be interfered with. 
 lb. 
 
 Motion for prohibition to a Division Court on 
 the ground that the western fair association 
 did not exist in fi'ct or in hiw, and could have 
 no title to the g .id stand in dispute, and there- 
 fore the court had no jurisdiction to enforce the 
 judgment in the suit : — Held, that the question 
 of corporation or no corpoi'atioii was one of fact, 
 and that the decision thereon was not review- 
 able in prohibition. Jfc The Western Fnir 
 Asuoviation v. Ilutchimon, 12 P. R. 40. — Rose. 
 Affirmed, Ih. 41.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The determination by a Division Court judge 
 of the question, depending u])on tlie construction 
 of certain statutes, whether a medical health 
 officer of a city was an employee within the 
 meaning of 1{. S. O. (1877) c. 47, s. 125, is review- 
 able on a motion for ])ruhil)ition. In re Macjie 
 v. I Inlchbison, 12 P. R. 41. --Rose. Affirmed, 
 lb. 167. -Q. B. D. 
 
 A motion for prohibition to a Division Court 
 on the ground that the action was revived by the 
 administrator of the plaintiff' without serving a 
 summons or notice on the defendant, as required 
 by the Division Court rules, was refused, the 
 irregularity complained of bning a mere matter 
 of practice, and therefore not reviewable in pro- 
 hibition, lie McKay v. Palmer, 12 P. li. 219.— 
 Rose. See also Fee v. Mcllhanjey, 9 P. R. 
 329. 
 
 By R. S. 0. (1877) c. 52, s. 2, a successful party 
 on application for a writ of prohibition is entitled 
 to and should be awarded costs unless the court 
 in the proper exercise of a wise discretion can 
 see good cause for depriving such party of them ; 
 and such party should not be deprived of costs 
 unless there appear impropriety ot conduct which 
 induced the litigation, or impropriety in the con- 
 duct thereof. Under the circumstances of this 
 case, reported 12 P. R. 450, the defendant was 
 allowed costs of a successful motion for prohibi- 
 tion to a Division Court, lie McLeod v. Emigh 
 (2), 12 P. R. 503.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that an application by the detendiuit 
 to the superior court to set aside a judgment 
 was not a bar to the motion for prohibition. 
 Re McGregor v. Norton, 13 P. R. 223. -C. 
 P. D. 
 
 Prohibition was granted to a Division Court 
 where there were no facts in dispute and the 
 judge in the inferior court applied a wrong rule 
 of law to the facts and grounded his judgment 
 upon a misconstruction of certain statutes. He 
 Long Point Co. v. Andernon, 19 O. R. 487.— Q. 
 B. D. Reversed on appeal. 
 
 See Kinsey v. Roche, 8 P. R. 515, p. 537 ; In 
 re Johnston v. Therrien, 12 P. R. 442, p. 543. 
 
 See also the several Subheads. 
 
548 
 
 m 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 850 
 
 IX. Practice and Pkockduke. 
 
 1. Service. 
 
 .Service upon a defcmlant resident out of the 
 jurisdictiun ia not a principle of practice witliin 
 tlie meaning of section 244 of the Division Cuurt 
 Act, but a branch nr system of practice, or a 
 means of relief which tlie procedure in Uiviaion 
 Courts does not admit of buiiij; applied. Neither 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 47, 8. 244, uur liules 8 and 45 
 O. .J. Act, (Con. Rules 232, 271) make applicable 
 to Division Courts the statutory rules and prac- 
 tice governing service on defendants out ot the 
 jurisdiction in actions in the Superior Courts. 
 Ill re Out! v. Grand Trunk li. W. Co., 10 P. R. 
 572.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the service of the writ in this ac- 
 tion on the station-master of the defendants at 
 IJowmanville, was void, but the defendants hav- 
 ing appeared at the trial, and after their objec- 
 tion to the jurisdiction had been overruled, hav- 
 ing proceeded with tlic defence and cross-exam- 
 ined witnesses, etc. : — Held, that they had there- 
 by precluded themselves from objecting to tiie 
 jurisdiction. lb. 
 
 In an action on a promissory note, ))rought in 
 a Division Court, M., the indorser, was made a 
 defendant by the order of the judge, and was 
 served by the original defendant, the maker of 
 tlie note, with a notice claiming relief over and 
 indemnity, but was not served with the sum- 
 mons or a copy of the plaintitf 's demand. M. 
 tiled a notice disputing the defendant's claim 
 against him and the jurisdiction of the court to 
 try it, and also appeared at the trial, and gave 
 «vidence and objected to the jurisdiction. Judg- 
 ment was given for the plaintiffs against botli 
 the original defendant and M. : — Held, that judg- 
 ment could not have been given against M. in 
 his absence, because the writ of summons and 
 statement of claim had not been served upon 
 him; but that by appearing in the suit and tak- 
 ing part in the proceedings both before and at 
 the trial M. hail waived service of the summons 
 iiud demand. In re Mcrchantu' Bank' v. Van 
 Allen, 10 P. R. 348.— Osier. 
 
 After judgment obtained against the firm of 
 P. & Co. in a Division Court, upon service of 
 summons on M. P., who was in fact the only 
 member of the firm, an after-judgment sum- 
 mons was issued and served on R. P. The Di- 
 vision Court judge determined that R. P. had 
 made himself liable as a partner by holding him- 
 self out as such, and was bound by the judgment, 
 and liable to be examined as a judgment debt- 
 or: — Held, on motion for prohibition, that sub- 
 sections 4, 5, and of section 108 of the Divi- 
 sion Courts Act, R. 8. O. (1887) c. 51, are applic- 
 able only to persons who are in truth partners ; 
 and prohibition was ordered. Munster v. Rail- 
 ton, 10 Q. B. D. 475; 11 Q. B. D. 43."); 10 App. 
 Cas. ()80, referred to. lie Youm/ v. Parker cO 
 Co., 12 P. R. 046.— Armour. 
 
 At the time of the issue of the summons in a 
 Division Court plaint the defendant was in On- 
 tario, but she lelt without its having been served 
 upon her, and an order was made after she had 
 left for substitutional service. In the material 
 upon which she supported a motion for prohibi- 
 tion she did not negative the existence of such 
 facts as would give jurisdiction to make an order 
 
 for substitutional service, and from her own 
 affidavit it was to be inferred that the summons 
 had come t' her knowledge : — Held, that, as the 
 judge in the Division Court had j irisd'^jtion 
 under section 100 of R. S. O. (188?) <>. 61 as 
 amended by 51 Vict. c. 10, s. 1, to order substi- 
 tutional service if certain facts were made to 
 a]>pear, ami as the dcfenclant was subject to the 
 summons at the time it was issued, it was for the 
 judge to determine whether the facts necessary 
 to give jurisdiction appeared, and his determin- 
 ation could not l)e reviewed by the High Court. 
 lUIIibbitt V. Sdiilbroth, 18 O. R. 399.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See McKay v. Palmer, 12 P. R. 219, p. 648 ; 
 Re Soule.'t v. Link, 12 P. R. 533, p. 551. 
 
 2. Payment of Money into Court. 
 
 The defendant in a Division Court suit paid a 
 sum of money into court as a full satisfaction of 
 the plaintiff's demand, under R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 51, s. 125, and the plaintiff was notified 
 thereof. The plaintiff notified the clerk of the 
 court, but not in writing, that he intended to 
 proceed for the remainder of his claim. Section 
 126 of R. S. 0. (1887) c. 51 provides that when 
 payment is made into court uniler section 125 
 tlie plaintiff is to be notified, " and the sum so 
 paid shall be paid to the plaintiff, and all pro- 
 ceedings in the action stayed, unless within 
 three days after the receipt of the notice the 
 plaintiff signifies in writing to the clerk his 
 intention to proceed * * in which case the 
 action shall proceed as if brought originally for 
 such remainder only " : — Held, that the words 
 of the statute are imperative ; and in the absence 
 of the written notice all proceedings were stayed. 
 A trial which took place afterwards was there- 
 fore a nullity ; and prohibition was granted 
 restraining proceedings upon the judgment re- 
 covered by the plaintiff at such trial: — Held, 
 also, that an application by the defendant to 
 the inferior court to set aside the judgment so 
 recovered was not a bar to the motion for pro- 
 hibition : — Semble, it was a convenient practice 
 to move in the inferior court. Decision of 
 Falcoubridge, J. , 13 P. R. 28 reversed. Re Mc- 
 Greijor v. Norton, 13 P. K. 223.— C. P. D. 
 
 3. Other Cases. 
 
 A witness in a Division Court suit having ad- 
 mitted that he was the real debtor, the plaintiff 
 was allowed, under D. C. Rule 1 15 to substitute 
 the witness as a defendant and obtain a judgment 
 against him : — Held, on an application for a pro- 
 hibition, that the Division Court Judge had the 
 power to do this. In re Henney v. Scott, 8 P. R. 
 251.— Gait. 
 
 The plaintiff residing within the limits of the 
 ninth Division Court of VVentworth, sued, in 
 that court two defendants, who both resided in 
 St. Catharines, on a cause of action which partly 
 arose in St. Catharines. One defendant put in 
 a notice of defence disputing the claim and the 
 jurisdiction of the court. At the trial neither 
 defendant appeared, and the Division Court 
 judge gave judgment for the plaintiff without 
 requiring any proof of the claim, in accordance, 
 it vias said, with the practice in that county : — 
 Held, that proof of tlie claim should have been 
 
 ; :: : :a 
 
 ^Z « . ''' 
 
 'S.Z "T • It 
 
 "*'^ :-' :i 
 
 
 4 
 
DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 552; 
 
 m '• «• 
 
 I - 
 
 ai 
 
 fivcn, and a pToliilntion wns ordered Mitli costs: 
 [eld, also tiif.t un npplieiition for u now trial by 
 the defendant who had j^iven the notice wu« no 
 waiver of his right to object to the jurisdiction : 
 and that the other defendant could not prejudice 
 such right by having given no notice of defence. 
 /nrt EmiiH v. button, 8 l\ R. 307.— Cameron. 
 
 In a suit in a Division Court upon a negotiable 
 instrument, where the Humnions is specially en- 
 dorsed, and defendant docs not dispute the claim, 
 the plaintiflf is entitled to enter judgment for the 
 amount claimed, without the production or filing 
 of such instrument. In re JJriiikwaler v. Clar- 
 ridge, 8 P. R. 004.— llagaity. 
 
 The Judicature Act and rules in relation to 
 i rocedure do not apply to the Division Courts ; 
 and Rule 330 of the "Supreme Court of Judica- 
 ture (Con. Rule 797) applies only to the courts 
 to which in teims it is made applicable. Bank 
 n/Otlawa v. McLavg/ilin, 8 A. R. 543. 
 
 Qua-re, whether the third party clauses of the 
 0. J. Act apply to Division Courts. In re Mer- 
 ehanfx' Bank v. Van Allni, 10 P. R. 348. 
 
 The judge of a Division Court has no jurisdic- 
 tion to set aside a judgment after the expiry of 
 fourteen days from the trial. He Fuley v. Moran, 
 11 P. R. 31(i.— Wilson. 
 
 Although the defendant hns fourteen days to 
 move against a judgment in the Division Court, 
 it is proper for the plaintiflF to enter judgment 
 and issue execution forthwith, nnless restrained 
 by the judge to a future named day. lb. 
 
 The practice nnder Ride 270, O. J. Act, (Con. 
 Rule 795) is not applicable to Division Courts, lb. 
 
 General Rule 8 of the Division Courts provides 
 that ■when the excess of a claim is abandoned to 
 bring the amount within the jurisdiction, it must 
 be done in the first instance on the claim ; — Held, 
 that this rule does not prevent the judge before 
 or at the trial from permitting the plaintifl'to 
 amend his claim upon such teinis as he thinks 
 fit ; General Rule 1 1 8 and section 304 of the ''Mvi- 
 sion Courts Act afford ample authority foi per- 
 mitting such amendment ; but the judge cannot 
 be compelled by mandamus to exercite his dis- 
 cretion to permit an amendment. Re ]\hite v. 
 Oalbraith, 12 P. R. 513.— Armour. 
 
 T., one of the defendants in a Division Court 
 action, resided out of Ontario, and process was 
 served substitutionally upon him. L., the other 
 defendant, objected that the court had no juris- 
 diction by reason of T.'s absence from the Pro- 
 vince. No written notice of this objection was 
 given before the trial, there was a conflict of evi- 
 dence as to whether it was taken .it the trial, 
 and the suit was defended on a difTerent ground. 
 The trial was on the 13th of January, 1888, when 
 judgment went for the plaintiff for more than 
 f 100 ; a new trial was moved for by L., and was 
 refused on the 23rd of February, 1888; execu- 
 tion then issued, under which goods of L., were 
 seized, and became the subject of an interpleader. 
 L. did not appeal, but on the 16th of May 1888, 
 moved for prohibition : — Held, that L. having 
 taken his chances at the trial, and not having 
 appealed nor sufficiently accounted for his delay 
 in moving, the discretion of the court should not 
 be exercised in his favour. Be Soulea v. Littie, 
 12 P. R. 533.— Falconbridge. 
 
 An objection to splitting a cause of action 
 should be taken asa (fefcnce or by way of nuitioii 
 for a prohibition and not as a bar to a subsequent 
 action. See Public School TrnsleiM of tiiclion 
 No. 0, Noltairanajiav. The TovnuhipoJ' N Ottawa- 
 xaga, 15 A. R. 310. 
 
 The proper form of judgment in the Division 
 Court when the excess is abandoned or the ac- 
 tion is for balance of an account, pointed out. 
 
 When the action was called for trial the 
 plaiiitifl' and bis ngent were accidentally absent 
 from the court, and the action was dismissed. 
 The plaintiff afterwards obtained from the 
 judge ex parte an order for the reHtoration of 
 the case to the docket for trial at the next sit- 
 tings. The defendant uuulc a motion to rescind 
 this order, which was refused, and he then ap- 
 plied for prohibition :— Held, that the judge 
 iuid power to dispense with notice of motion 
 for the order ; and the motion for prohibition 
 was refused. Be Backhouxe v. Ih'njht, 13 P. R. 
 117— Rose. 
 
 In a Division Court suit a jury was demanded 
 and called, but the jiresidiiig judge withdrew 
 from their consideration everything except the 
 amount of damages to be awarded, saying there 
 were no fact.s in the case disputed, the ]ilaintitf's 
 evidence being uncontradicted. The jury asses- 
 sed the dnmngcs, and judjjmcnt was entered for 
 the plaintiff :— Held, that where the plaintiff 
 furnishes evidence which the judge thinks suffi- 
 cient to support his case, the case cannot be 
 withdrawn from the jury ; the mere fact that 
 the defendant does not call evidence to contro- 
 vert the plaintiff's evidence does not conclu'lo 
 the matter, for the jury niieht refuse to credit 
 the plaintiff, and pioperly find a verdict for the 
 defendant. The judge in this case exeieded his 
 jurisdiction by assuming the functions of the 
 jury ; and the right to have the cafe sul mittcd 
 to the jury being an absolute statutory right,, 
 the violation of it was ground for prohibition. 
 Be Livix V. Old, 17 O. R. 610— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Be Wollzv. Blakcly, 11 P. R. 4,S0, p. 540; 
 In reKvi(/ht v. United Townnhi/)S of Malar a and 
 Wood, 1 i O. R. 138, p. 216 ; F(e v. Mcllhar<i<ij, 
 9 P. R. 329, infra. 
 
 X. New Trial. 
 
 After judgment in an action in a Division Court 
 of the county of Victoria, the defendant within 
 the fourteen days required by the Division Courts 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 47, s. 107, moved on notice 
 filed with the clerk of the court, for a new trial 
 on the ground of the discovery of fresh evidence, 
 but did not within the fourteen days file an iiffi- 
 davit as recjuired by the Division Court Rule 142. 
 An affidavit was subsequently filed, the motion 
 heard, and a new trial granted by the County 
 Court Judge. A motion for prohibition was 
 refused, the transgression of a rule of practice 
 forming no ground for such motion. Fee v. 
 Mcllhargey, 9 P. R. 329.— Osier. 
 
 An action was tried in a Division Court witb 
 a jury on the 15th January, when they found 
 for the plaintiff with a recommendation that 
 plaintiff should pay his own and defendant's 
 costs, whereupon judgment was entered for the 
 
S53 
 
 DIVISION COURTS. 
 
 5U 
 
 pliiiiitifr with costs roscrvctl. On 24tli Jiinimry 
 tlu- judge (lircctud "juilKmoi't for jiliiintifr witli 
 costs on vonliot of .jury." On Atli Kulirimry 
 an applicsatiori w,is inailo for a now tri.il wliioli 
 was graiitud on Kith Fuhniary ; — Huhl, that tho 
 application for the now trial was too hito, not 
 hiiving l)!on iimlo within fourteen days from 
 tlio ti'ial as rctiuirod hy section 145 of tlio Di- 
 vision Courts Act, R. S. O. (18S7) c. rA ; and a 
 prohibition was tliereforo directed, lilaml v. 
 //(Mrs 1»0. H. 407.— Gait. 
 
 See //( r« Eram v. Suf/oii,HO. R. 307, p. 551. 
 
 XI, Api'kal From. 
 
 At tho trial tlio plaintitT elected to take a non- 
 suit, .and the judj^e lefnsed a new trial i—Hidd, 
 that plaintiir was entitled to move to set aside 
 tiu' nonsuit, and if refused could appeal tliero- 
 from. liaiil: nj OUnirn v. MrLawihlin, 8 A. R. 
 54:1. 
 
 An appeal does not lie under tho Division 
 Courts Act, 1H8I), on a (|nestion arising between 
 a prinnry creditor or ])laintiir and a garnisiiee. 
 Section 17 of tiie Act gives tiio right of appeal 
 tn "any p;irty to a cause," but a garnishee is 
 not a "pirty to a cause ;" ho is merely a party 
 to the proceedings. Beswick r. Happy, 'J Kx. 
 315, followed, but not a))proved of. CameroHX. 
 All''ii, 10 1'. K. I !»2.— Cameron. 
 
 In intcr])lc idor suits. Wee In re. Turner v. 
 Jiiiperial Haul: nf Canada, !( P. R. 1!), p. 545; 
 Fov V. S!/mhi<i''m, n A. R. '29li, j). 540. 
 
 .Seo WilUcy v. Ward, 9 P. R. 210, p. 547. 
 
 XII. Transcript of Judciment. 
 
 Tho defendant filed a notice disputingtheclaim 
 and the jui'isiliotion of the first Division Court 
 of tho comity of Miildlescx, but did not appo ir 
 at tlie trial, and judgment was given against him. 
 .Subsequently a transcript of the jmlgmcnt was 
 transmitted to the seventh Division Court of 
 Siincoo. — Held, that the judgment did not there- 
 by liocome a judgment of tiie Siincoo Court, and 
 prohibition to the .Middlesex Court was granted 
 after such traiismissioii. Re EU'wtl c(r Son v. 
 NorrU, 17 O. R. 78.— Gait. 
 
 Upon a transcript from a Division Court to a 
 District (/'ourt, it is not necessary to issue a fi. 
 fa. goods from such District Court before a valid 
 sale can take place under a fi. fa. lands issued 
 therefrom. Kelioe v. JJrown, 13 C. P. 549, ob- 
 ' sierved upon. Dahij v. Gehl, 18 O. R. 132. — C. 
 F. D. 
 
 XIII. JUDOE. 
 
 . Under the authority of tho following deputa- 
 tion: "Belleville, Out., 24th July, 1880. I 
 Hereby appoint K. B. Fralick, Esq., btirrister-at- 
 law, as my deputy to hold the second Division 
 i'GonrK <^f the "County of Hastings, on Monday, 
 '^the 26th day ■>* July, instant, at the Towii Hall, 
 ;' ito the •townshij, of Sydney. T. A. Lazier, juni- 
 or judge, C. H." -The person therein named 
 tried this case at the time and place appointed, 
 ■'-jfclUt doliveced his judgment, acaording to iv po»t- 
 ', ponemcnt for that purpose, on 2nd August fol- 
 
 I Ipwing, at tho juilge's chambers In Belleville, 
 . outsicle tho limits of the second Division Court, 
 I but within the county, without having named a 
 day and hour for delivery thereof in writing at 
 tlio clerk's odico : — Held, (1) That tho word 
 ' "judge" in section 20 of K. H. O. (1877) c. 47, in- 
 clu'''is tht^ junior judge, and that the deputation 
 was t'"'!refori! valid. (2) That tho proper con- 
 Htriutit'i of tho same was, "to hold the second 
 Divis''ii (Jourt of the County of Hastings, to 
 bo holdeii on Monday," etc., and that his ap- 
 T.iiintmcnt continued until ho had performed the 
 ))nrpoHe for which it was undo. (3) That the 
 clFect was to ch)tlie Mr. Fralick with all the 
 powers of the junior judge during the time of 
 his app lintmcnt, wherever ho might bo within 
 tho county. And tho rule was therefore made 
 alMolute to rescind tho order made by Onlt, J., 
 for a prohibition. Canr;ron, J., dissenting. In 
 He Ulh,'.H v. Ward, 45 i). B. 375.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Am to right of provincial government to ap- 
 pr)int a Division Court judge. Htsmln re Wit- 
 ■■<on V. MrOiiire, 2 O. R. U.S. 
 
 XIV. Ci.EKK AND HIS SURETIES. 
 
 KITiict of special arrangumont made with clerk 
 as to fees. See Viclorii Mutual Fire. Insurance 
 Co. V. Daridson, 3 O. R. 378. 
 
 XV. Bailiffs; 
 
 1. Aclion'< Aijitin-it. 
 
 (a) Notice of Action. 
 
 Section 231 of the Division Courts Act, R. S. 
 O. (1877), c. 47, enacts that any action or prose- 
 cution against any person for any thing done in 
 pursuance of the Act, Kliall bo commenced with- 
 in six months after the fact was committed, etc., 
 and notice in writing of such action, and of ihe 
 cause thereof, shall be given to the defendant 
 one mouth at least before the commencement of 
 the action : — Held, that personal service waa not 
 renuired, but that service on the wife at the 
 defendant's residence was sufiicient. Hamw v. 
 Johnston, 3 0. R. 100.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that the court in which the action is to 
 be brought, need not be stated in the "otice ; but 
 even if required, Sumble, that the statement in 
 tho notice that the action would be brought in 
 the High Court of Justice, without naming tho 
 particular division was sutficieat. Ih. 
 
 (b) When Action to he Commenced. 
 
 Held, that in computing the time in which the 
 action must bo brought the day on which the 
 fact Wits committed, must be excluded, so that 
 an action commenced on the 5th June, for an 
 act committed on the 5th December, was in 
 time. Ilanm v. Johmton, 3 O. R. 100.— C. P. D, 
 
 (c) For injury to Property. 
 
 The defendant, a bailiff of a Division Coart, 
 under an execution against plaintiff's father, 
 seized two horses, waggon, etc., which, on an 
 inj;erpleader proceeding, were decided to be the 
 goods of the plaintiff, who at the end of three 
 
 ;::: 
 
 :S 
 
 • to, 
 
 
 Sirr 
 
 t8 
 
 55 «;t 
 
 55 s 
 
 <» 
 
 i 
 •f 
 
 
 '1 
 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 t Ik 
 
 I M 
 
 I 
 
806 
 
 DOMICILE. 
 
 556; 
 
 ; »• 
 
 • ::: 
 
 81 
 
 I - 
 
 m 
 
 wocUn olitaiiii'tl iioRNeMNimi »! tliciii rioiii the 
 bailiff. Ill uii itction lnoiij^ht liy tlio i)laintiir 
 aguiliHt tliu (Ivfunilaiit for iiiuiiaj.!(> ilmiu to tfiis 
 liofHes (luring tlio tiiiio they were in IiIh |)()km»!H- 
 Hion, thu jury uiiiUr tlm direct ion of I lie jiulgi!, 
 fouiul a verdict for the plaiiitill' and .'*8(l dam- 
 am'H, wliicli verdict the judge niiliNe(|nen(ly n:- 
 fuM««l to Hot afiide :— Held, a(liriiiiii;< Ihejud),'- 
 inciitof the (,'ounty C'om t, that tiie liiidiiig of 
 the judge on the interpleader prooeeilingH forni- 
 etl no ground of defence to a Hiiit fur daiuageM 
 for the alleged injury to the [iroperty. Ftirnnr 
 V. TohUi, 10 A. U. (19. 
 
 2. GanvuHniim at Ekcliom, 
 
 Observations on the imiJtoprioty of DiviHion 
 Court bailid'H cnnvnNHiiig voters during an tlec- 
 tioii. North V'ulitriu Klirliiiii- Camiroti v. 
 MttrlenmiH, 1 H. K. V. (il'.»— Morrison. 
 
 XVI. DlVIHlON C'OUKT nONIIH. 
 
 All Division (-'onrt bonds made befori! Ist July, 
 18«!», arc cflectually relen,se.l by ;i(l Vii't. e. ((, n. 
 f) (Out.), as to liabilities iiicuri'ed thereun<ler, 
 both before and since that date. Re Fvuiikli», 8 
 P. R. 470- Wake. 
 
 DIVISIONAL COURT. 
 
 <S'ee Hkiii Col'iit ok .Iiistick. 
 
 DIVORCE. 
 
 8m Husband ank Wikk. 
 
 DOCTORS. 
 
 See Medical Piuctitioneus. 
 
 DOGS. 
 
 The owner of a sheep killed or injured by a 
 d»yg, can, under R. S. O. (ISS7), c. 214, s. 15, re- 
 cover the damage occasioned thereby without 
 proving that the dog had a propensity to kill or 
 injure sheep ; and the Act applies to a case 
 where the dog has been set upon sheep. — Nei/iiia 
 v. Perrin, 16 O. R. 44fi.-Q. H. 1). 
 
 DOMICILE. 
 
 See Foreign Law— Inteknationai. Law. 
 
 The local legislature are not restricted by the 
 decree "Property and Civil ri<5ht8 in the Pro 
 vince " to legislation respecting bonds held 
 therein, and where debts or other obl'r.iUons 
 are authorized to be contracted undr •■ :. local 
 Act passed in relation to a matter w-uiin the 
 power of the Local Legislature, such debts may 
 
 be dealt with by subHeiiuent Aetn of the same 
 legislature niitwitliHtanding that by a (Ictioti of 
 law they iniiy be dotnieiled out of the province, 
 ./owi v, Cnmiiln Cnilml. II, IK, Co., 40 Q, U. 
 250.— Osier. 
 
 The validity of a divorce depends upon tli(! 
 domicile of tho parties. See liii(st v, (litisl, ;t 
 (1. K. .'144, .")70 ; .Uaiiiini \. Maiiiini, II A. It. 
 I7M. 
 
 Change of residence to avoid arrest. See AVc- 
 xhman v. MrL,ltnii, 10 P. R. I'J2. 
 
 Ill or about 1S22, W., a iiativtMif Ireland, 
 came to Canada and wun employed as a slianty- 
 man on tho Honinieiu'ri', in the Province of 
 Upper ('aiiada. In IH27 he gotout timber for 
 himself, and in IH'JS, while in (jlmliee, where he 
 was in the haliit of gning every summer with 
 rafts of timber, he was enj,'iigicf ti> b<: in.'irricd 
 to one M, ()., the widow of one McM., in his 
 lifetime of Upper Caiiiida. \V. was married to 
 the widow in the month of Stpl ember, ami 
 shoitly after his marriage be returned to the 
 lionncchere to carry on lumlieiing operations 
 ther'c as formerly, and on his way up he left his 
 wife and dangliter in the mi;,'hl)ouiiiood of 
 Ayliner, in Lower (,'aiiada. In the winter' he 
 came down for her and brought lier to his home 
 on tl -i lionncchere and lived there for ten or 
 twelve years and acquired coiisidcrabh; wealth. 
 W. declare<l in the presence of the priest who 
 performed the ceremony that he was ajoni'nalier 
 do la I'loviiic) de (Quebec, and ho was so de- 
 scribed in the c(M'tilicate of nuirriagc. M. (,►. 
 having died without a will \V. married agaji, 
 and by his will left his projierty to his second 
 wife, th(! a]ipellant. The respondents, by their 
 action, claimed there was community of |)roperty 
 between M. (,)., tlieir granduiotlicr, and W., 
 aecoriling to tht; laws of Lower Canada, and 
 demanded their share of it in right of heirship. 
 Tho ap))ellant disputecl this claim, contending 
 there was no conummity : — Held, leversing tho 
 judgment of the court below, Fouriuer and 
 Taschereau, .1.1., dissenting, that the facts of 
 the present case were not sudicicnt to prove 
 that \V. had acijuired a domicile in the Province 
 of (Juebcc at the time of this marriage. Also, 
 that the certilicate acte de nianiuj^e, has only 
 relation to residence in connection with ni.i.tri- 
 1 monial domicile, and llierefoie has relation to 
 I the ceremony of marriag<? ;ind its validity- alone, 
 j and not to ilomicile in reference to the civil 
 status of the parties. Wadxirarfh v. Mrfaril, 
 i I2S. C. R. 4(i(;. Ailirmedby J/r.1/H//()( v. Il'«f/s. 
 worth, 14 App. ('as. 031. 
 
 Held, upon the facts set out in the judgment 
 that although a testator's original dpiiiicirc was 
 in Ontiirio, he had changed it to the United 
 States, whicli was his domicile at the time of 
 his death, and his will therefore must be con- 
 strued ficcording to the laws of Minnesota, U. 
 8., so far as regards all his personal estate, and 
 his real estate there ; according to the laws of 
 Manitoba as regards his lands there; ard as to 
 the Ontario lands they devolved on his execu- 
 tors. McV. melt v. McConndl, 18 O. R. 36.— 
 Robertson. 
 
 Action by a foreign company upon a contract 
 made in a foreign country against two defen- 
 dants, oneof whom resided in Manitoba, and was 
 there served with process. Upon a motion by 
 
 IL 
 
 in. 
 
567 
 
 DOWER. 
 
 558 
 
 thill ilofundaiit to Mut URJilo tho mrvu'c, it uiim 
 coiituiiik'd liy till! iiliiintin'M tliiit tiio otluT tlv- 
 foiiilant waiii onliiiarily rcNiilciit or iloinicijcil in 
 Ontario, within tlm niuiiningof Con. |{uli! 'J7I ''')■ 
 iinil thurcftirii tiiiit thit coiirt h'ul jiiiiNilii^tion. 
 It iipixwirt'il tliat lit till- tinii- of tint inotion the 
 hiftur ilcff^nilant wiiN an i'iii|iloyi:iM>f tlDidovcin 
 nii'iit of tlu! I'roviiu'C! of lonelier ; tlmt prior to 
 I8S;{, liiH iloiiiioih' was in (|)iit'ln'i', wlit'iiut' Ik^ 
 roni'iviMl to Manitiilia, whore In^ ii'Hiiltsil until 
 INHO; that liii went to AiiHtraliii ; that in IHHT 
 or IHSH III! n.'liii'iii'il to Caiiaihi, ami ri'Miilnl part 
 of till! tinit' ill 'roronto, ami part of the tinit! in 
 Wiiinipt!;<, until .Septi'mlier, ISHO, wjitn he re- 
 tiirncil to (^iKilieu ; that he reiiiaimd while in 
 Tiiionto for only three niontliM at a time ; tint 
 his wife hail recently gone to Kiirope aii'l iliil 
 not iiiteiiil to return to Toronto; that liin 
 fiunily were Ktill in Toronto, Imt his intention 
 was to kee]) them there only until lie ^ n. noiiie- 
 tliiiig to do ; that Tonintii wan never loi.keil 
 upon as n perinaiient home for the f.imily ; and 
 that it wnH the intention of the family to no to 
 him aH soon as ho hIiouM Heiid for them : - Meld, 
 that he was neither " doiiiieile(l nor onliiiarily 
 residt'iit within Ontario;" and the seiviee \,,if, 
 set aside. H'liiij r l,(iiii/i (.'o. v. Wonil.t, ]'.i I*. \{. 
 ■'ill. — Hodgiiis, Mathv-iii-Orri'iHiiiii. 
 
 Sec Carln'i-iijht v. Hin(h, .*? (). U. ;),S|. 
 
 DOMINION LANDS ACT. 
 
 Sir Cuow N Lands. 
 
 DOMINION PARLIAMENT. 
 
 I. PoWKliS uV—Si.K CoNSTIIfTloNAI, [.AW. 
 II. El.Kl'TIONH TO — iSVc I'aumamkntauy 
 
 El.KCTIIINS. 
 
 DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA. 
 
 Sea < J I vv. 
 
 DOUBLE VALUE. 
 
 DOWER. 
 
 Rifiirr OK. 
 
 1. Partnership Lands, 5.58. 
 
 2. Mort(iaijeil Lands, o58. 
 .3. Other Cases, 561. 
 
 Eioiir OF DowKKSs to Paktition- 
 Partition. 
 
 HI. Widows' Elkction. 
 
 1. Acceplivg Devises or Beqtiests, 562. 
 
 2. Under BevohUion of Estates Act, 56(5. 
 
 II. 
 
 -See 
 
 IV'. ItAItllKK IIV STAIITK fir LiMITATIOMM, 
 
 567. 
 V. SAt,K. OK iNDKii ExKcrrioN, nd". 
 VI. Actions koii. 
 
 1. Prtsumplioii ofdrnlh nf l/iishami, 567. 
 
 2, I'lfiiiliiiij itiid I'tuetifi , 567. 
 .'{, J)aniuijis, .Mil). 
 
 VII. Rniins ok Piiu'Iiamkhs wiikn riiKiu; i>* 
 
 OlTsrVNIIINII iJoWKII, .'»70. 
 
 VIII. Misi'Ki.i.ANKous Cahk.s, 571. 
 
 I. UliillT OK. 
 
 1. /'(irtiii rshij) Liuids. 
 
 Ft appearing that ceitiiin I'.iids owned by .T, 
 O'X. and It. O'N. were part of the assets of tho 
 partm!rsliip, having heeii jiiiichased with part- 
 nership funds, and the rent afterwards eolleeted 
 and received hy the iiartnership and treated in 
 all respects as partiier.shi]) inimeys :— Held, that 
 the wives of ,J. O'N. and I!. O'X had no in- 
 ehoate right of dower in these lands. In rr. 
 Afiisir Hull llloch, Diiiiilile v. Mcintosh, 8 (). R. 
 22."i- Ferguson. 
 
 2. Morluayed Lands. 
 
 Held, that tho statute 42 Viet. o. 22(Ont.), 
 " An .Act to nnieiid tho law of dower," does not 
 apply to mortgages made hefore it was paHsed. 
 Miir/tiid(i/r V. Cltnlciiii, 6 A. It, I. 
 
 In rcs])eut to discliarge.s of mortgages, what 
 the Registry Aet makes taiitamoiint to a reeon- 
 veyanee is the eertirK!ate of discharge and tho 
 registration of it, not the execution of tho cer- 
 tilii'ate merely. Therefore, where in 1868, II. 
 O'X., in partnership with .1. O'N. executed ii 
 mortgage on certain real estate, and his wife 
 joined to liar her dower, and the mortgage money 
 was suhseipiently paid, and a discharge of the 
 mortgage signed hut not registered, and after- 
 wards tho i)artnershi]) hecame insolvent, and the 
 mortgiigee's executors eoiiveyed the property 
 to the assignee in insolvency, who had now con- 
 tracted to S(!ll to a pureh.iser : — Held, that the 
 wife of R. O'X. could not have dower at law in 
 the land in (piestion, neither could she have 
 dower out of the ci|uitalilo estate, because that 
 had jiassed away from her husband to the assig- 
 nee, and the former could not now die aei/.ed of 
 it. In re Muiic Hall lilnci;, Dinnhle v. Mcin- 
 tosh,^ O. R. 225— Ferguson. 
 
 In 1868, J. O'X. and R. O'X. executed a mort- 
 gage on certain land, which was in full force 
 and unsatisfied at the date of thei.' i.. solvency. 
 Afterwards in 1870, it was declareil \ y judg- 
 ment of the court to have been extinguished by 
 lapse of time. Neither of the wives of J. O'N. 
 and R. O'N. joined in this mortgage : — Held, 
 nevertheless, that, in the face of the assignment 
 in insolvenc:y, the extinguishment of the mort- 
 gage did not have the effect of again vesting the 
 estate in J. O'N. and R. O'N., so that the dower 
 of their wives attached. 76. 
 
 In 1881, C. S. mortgagedcertainlands to J. A., 
 his wife M. S. joining and barring dower. In 
 
 «S: 
 
 '^ 
 
 :» 
 
 .: "i 
 
 ;a 
 
 a to! 
 
 '< 
 
 |S»r 
 
 'S 
 
 ;- ,1 
 
 .," 
 
 »2m 
 
 
 
 •1 
 
 :-::•; 
 
 II 
 
 •8; 
 
 
 
 !;■ \ 
 
S59 
 
 DOWER. 
 
 560 
 
 S61 
 
 1884, C. fS. sold the lamls to C, M. S. again 
 joining in the conveyance. C. gave hack a nioit- 
 gage to secure payment of part of the purchase 
 money, M-hich mortgage was made to M. S. On 
 a judgment creditor of C. 8. seeking a declara- 
 tion tliat iM. S. held this mortgage as trustee for 
 C. S. , and for a sale and payment tliereout of 
 his judgment debt, M. S. alleged that the mort- 
 jjage was made to lier la consideration of her 
 joining in tlie sale to O., and thus bnrring her 
 right to dower :— Held, that M. S. had no such 
 right of dower rts alieg(^il, ii' 1 that there was no 
 consideration for the ni:dilng of the mortgage to 
 C, ai\d that slie held the same as trustee for C. 
 S. Fleury r. I'ringle, 26 t'liy. 07, and Ulack i: 
 Fountain, •J3Chy, 174. followed. Smart v. Sur- 
 eiuion, 9 0. It. 040— Ferguson. 
 
 Where one died entitled to an equity of re- 
 <lemption in certain real estate, which he had 
 oi'iginally purchased subject to tlie mortgage still 
 existing thereon, and the same having been sidd 
 in certain ailmini.stration jir.ioeedings, his widow 
 now claimed arrears of dower in respee, tliereof 
 <lnring the ])eriod between tlie dcatli and sale, 
 when she was in possession by herself or her 
 tenants :— Held, that tliere being no assignment 
 of dower, and the husband not having died seized 
 in fee so as to give his widow legal dower, she 
 was not entitled to arrears of dower as of riglit, 
 but only upon the ecpiitable consideration of the 
 court, and the projjcr mode of exercising the 
 same was to deduct from the rents received by 
 thcwidowplusanoceu)iatioM lentchaiged against 
 her, so nuich as she had jiioperly applied in meet- 
 ing necess.iry outlay and expenditure in respect 
 of tlio laud and l)uilcliMgs, and allow her one- 
 third of the rejiidue as her arre:irs of dower, lie 
 .Percy, Sicinir/ v. J\r,-;/, 11 O. R. 374.— 15oyd. 
 
 . D. being owner in fee of certain lauds, on 
 4th March, 1884, mortgaged the same, to secure 
 payment live years alter date, of certain mnneys. 
 On lotii March, 1884. he married the plaintitl', 
 and dii'd intestate cm Kitli August, 1884. He 
 left no other estate : — Held, tiuit tlic plaintiff 
 could only claim d(iW(!r in the eqiuty ofredenip- 
 tion, unless she eoutril)nte(l ratahly to the 
 amount .f tlie mortgage ineumbrauce. Metliod 
 of arriving at the amount of dower in .such caries 
 pointed out. Rei<l r. Reid, 'J!) Cliy. 372, com- 
 mented upon, Doliliiii V. Ihihhin, 110. R. o34. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 H. being possessed of some lands executed 
 mortgages of them, some of which were given 
 to secure unpaid jmrohMse money, and others to 
 secure the repayment of money lent to H. The 
 wife of the mortgagor had joined in themortgages 
 to bar dower. H. having died intestate :— Held, 
 on sale of the lands under decree, directing a sum 
 in gross, in lieu of dower, to be paid to the 
 widow, that she was entitled to dower out of the 
 whole amount realized from the sale, after de- 
 ducting therefrom the amount of the mortgages 
 given by H. to secrire unpaid purchase money, 
 out not of the other mortijages. Re Hopkins ; 
 Bariieiv, Hopkins, 8 P. R, 100. — Blake. 
 
 The widow of a mortgagor, the defendant in a 
 mortgage suit, did not prove her claim for dower 
 on the reference before the master, as it was not 
 then certain that the riglits of the mortgagee 
 would be fully protected, and she was not found 
 an incumbrancer l)y the report. By consent of 
 
 all parties a sale was had, and the purchaser paid 
 ten per cent, of the purchase money down, but 
 subsequently applied for and obtained from the 
 referee an order dispensing with the payment of 
 the purchase money into court, aiul vesting tlie 
 estate in the piu'chaser. The widow opposed the 
 granting of this order, claiiniug to be allowed in 
 to prove her claim for dower, but without avail. 
 On appeal, Proudfoot, V.C, allowed the appeal, 
 and reversed the referee's order, but withfint 
 costs, as the dilatory conduct of the widow had 
 invited discussion, /lyde v. Barton, 8 P. R. 205. 
 
 The defendant, a judgment debtor beir g the 
 owner of lands subject to mortgages in .vhich h'.s 
 wife had joined, sold the same, and allowed her 
 to receive a part of the purchase money for hir 
 dower. On an ap]dication for a ca. sa. : — Held 
 that she was not entitled to anytliingfor dower, 
 and that the 42 Viet., c. 22, s. 2 (Out.), does not 
 apply to a ease of voluntary sale liy a husband, 
 Calvert v. Black, 8 P. R. 2o5.— Oalt. 
 
 W. H. in 1883 made a mortgage of vacant 
 land to a loan company, purporting to be a se- 
 curity for an advance of §0,0(10, but with an 
 agreement of even date that, the purpose of the 
 loan being to 'jnable \V. H. to erect a house on 
 the land, the mortgage money should be ad- 
 vanced only on arciiitect's certificates of the 
 ])rogi'ess of the building. M. A. H., wife of 
 \V. H., joined in tliis mortgage for the pur- 
 pose of barring her dower only. The house 
 was built and the mortgage moneys went into 
 j the building as agreed. In 1880, \V. H. died, 
 I and in the course of the administration of his 
 [ estate real and personal by tlie court this land 
 I was .sold. — Held, reversing tlie decision of the 
 1 master-in-ordinary, tliat M. A. H. was entitled 
 to dower in the full value of the land out of 
 the balance of ))urcliase money remaining after 
 the payment off' of tlie mortgage, and this on the 
 authority of Re Kobeitson, Rol)ertson r. Itobert- 
 son, 24 Cliy. 442, 25 C'liv. 270, 48li, and by virtue 
 of 42 Vict. c. 22, s. I (Out.). Whatever may l)e 
 the full meaning of 42 Vict. e. 22, s. 1 (Out.), it 
 cannot be held to have the cITrct of making the 
 rights of a dowercss less than tliey were held to 
 be in Re itobertson, Robertson r. Robertson, 
 Be /la;ine — Tradern' Bank v. Murray, 14 0. R. 
 600. ^Ferguson. 
 
 Where one mortgaged certain hinds in fee, his 
 wife joining to bar dower, and subsetpiently in 
 his life time conveyed away his ecjuity of re- 
 demption, and the mortgagees afterwar.lr sold 
 untlcr the power of sale and had a surplus in 
 their hands, which they desired to pay into 
 court under R. S. O. (18S7), c. 1.33, s. 7 :— Held, 
 reversing tlie decision of tlie Master in Chambers, 
 that they should be allowed to do so, in view of 
 the conflict of opinion and decision as to sections 
 5 and 8 of R. S. O. (1887) c. 133, entitled an Act 
 respecting Dower. There is a sharp distinction 
 matle in those sections between the wife's dower 
 in the legal estate which she has barred in a 
 mortgage for herbusband's benefit, andas to which 
 her rights accrue, or rather enlarge to their 
 originiu extent the moment a sale is had for the 
 purpose of satisfying the mortgage, and the 
 dower which is given by section 1 iu respect of a 
 mere equitable estate ; for by that section such 
 equitable dower arises and attaches at the time 
 of the husbanil's death and not before, and non 
 constat that the widow had no claim to the sur- 
 
 in his 
 
9 
 
 561 
 
 DOWER. 
 
 562 
 
 plus moneys in this case. Smart r. Sorcnson, 9 
 •O. R. 640, consiilered. He ,htmei Croskery, l(» O. 
 R. 207.- " >yd. 
 
 There can be no dower in land of which the 
 "husband had merely acijuired the efjnity of re- 
 demption, anil whicli lie had jjarted witli. lie 
 -C'roskery, 10 0. 11. 207, fnUowed. Gardner v. 
 Brown, 19 0. R. 202. — MacMahon. 
 
 R. G. and J. G. beinj; the owners, subject to 
 the dower of their mother K., and on annuity in 
 her favour, of certain laiuLs, mortgaged them to 
 one C. to secure advances made by him to them. 
 R. knew of the mortgage and was asked, but re- 
 fused to execute it. .Subsequently R. G. and 
 J. G. mortgiiged the lands to M. to secure ad- 
 vances madv. by iiim. R. released all her claims 
 for the purpose of this niortya.!,'!'. but received 
 
 upon an estate, is, that the tenant for life must 
 keep down the interest on such cliarge, .and the 
 duty of the reniainderm.an is to pay the principal. 
 This rule was applied wlicre r, widow claimed to 
 have (lower out of her husband's estate, which 
 at the time of her marriage was subject to certain 
 legacies and a mortgage, in prifcrence to an 
 annuity given her by his will ; she being held 
 bound to pay one-third of the interest on these 
 claims until they OeiMUic payable, after which 
 the remainderman must pay all the interest as 
 well .as tlic principal thereof. Itdil v. Iteid, 29 
 Chy. ,S72.— .Spragge. 
 
 Where a husband died entitled to the reversion 
 in fee in certain lands expectant on a life estate 
 therein : — Hehl, that dower could not be claimed 
 therein, for that tlio liusband had never been 
 
 no benefit from the advances. " This mortgage seized during coverture of an estate of inhent- 
 Avas taken by M. without any uotici- of the mort- ' ""«o m possession. The demandant, who was a 
 gage to C, and w.is registered before it ;,nd h*'"i"«'-''" *" ^'^ life estate, was hold not entitled 
 gained priority over it. Under this mortgage i *" **»'' "I' tl>'it tl"-''e '"ii'l 'j^^c" '>■ forfeiture thcre- 
 the lands w<-.e sold, and after payment of the I "f '»>' nonpayment of rent or other breach of 
 claim of the plaintiffs a suipliis remaine.l wiiich ""^'il»'\"*- ^-«''^''' ^'- -^^i^i-eUan, 2 O. R. 587.— 
 1?. claimed in priority t.dj.— Held, reversing the 
 <lecwion of Boyd.C, 16 O. R. 321, that she was 
 not entitled to i)riority. The jjriority gained by 
 to M. by force of the Itegistry Act did not enure 
 her benefit as she was not a purchaser or mort- 
 gagee, nor did that priority etuire to her lienetit 
 as surety by virtue of the dectrino of subroga- 
 tion, because that <loetrine eouh! not lie invoked 
 to defeat the honest claims .and superior equities 
 •of third persons. Mac/i ihkiii v. '-'rd;/, ]() A. R. 
 224. Reversed by the Supreini^ Court. 
 
 Certain lands were, subject to a lirst mortgage, 
 
 C. P. D. 
 See Ke Ifmcixh, 17 0, R. 4.54, p. 571. 
 
 III. Widow's Election. 
 1. Acccplinij JJcfises or BnqiiesU. 
 
 A testator devised and bequeathed to his wife, 
 during widowhood, all his household goods, fur- 
 nitur(% etc., together with an annuity of twenty 
 didlnrs, and also the fiee use, during i,he same 
 time, of the lioniestead lot, together with the 
 
 a charge registered by an I'^ugine Coi)i]iany in ! several dwellings and other buihiings thereon, 
 respect to the i)rice of an engine supplied l)y i Two parcels of his real estate he devised to his 
 them, and a ii>oitgage to the plaintiff registered | two .sons, upon whieli lie placed certain fixed 
 subsequently to the said charge; ■ 1 the lands ' valuations —found by the master to be the full 
 having been sold under the jiower oi sale in the ; values — and directed one of the sons to pay three 
 first mortgage, a contest rose ill this action in re- , lift'is of the interest cuiiiputed on the valuation 
 spect to the surplus left afUr satisfaction of tlie ' of his lot l< the three daughters of the testator 
 first mortgage. Tliel'higineCompaiiy hadrcsiimed for life, the other smi to pay interest on the 
 possession of the engine, and sold it, and claimed ; valuation of his lot to the executors during the 
 the balance of the price under the ch ugc! out of I life or widowhood of l.is mother. The home- 
 ihe said surplus in jnioiity to the jilaiiitiii": -- | stead and the other portions of his real, as also 
 Held, that they were entitled to make tiiat claim, his personal estate, the testator directed to be 
 and that having si id the engine witiioiit notice : sold and the proceeds divided at the death or 
 to the plaintiff, tlie latter was entitled to im- i marriage of the widow : — Held, that she was 
 peach the sale by shewing that a greater sum j not forced to elect, anil that the direction to sell 
 could have been realixeil, if it had been [iroperly the lands wn i not suHicii'iit to put her to her 
 
 sold after proper notice. Ibit: — Held, also, that 
 the plaintifi" was alone entitled to the value of 
 the interest of the wife of the owner of the 
 equity of redemption in the land .as inchoate 
 dowress; i'.iasmuch as she had barred her dower 
 in his favour, whereas she had not done so in 
 connejtiori v/itli the charge of the Engine Com- 
 pany. In the absence of arrangement, the value 
 •of this interest must be ascertained and retain- 
 ed in court to be paid out to the plaintiff if tlio 
 right of dower attached by the wife surviving 
 
 election. liciUtr'iii v. /}(i/i(':lii, 27 Chy. 41. — 
 ' I'roudfoot. 
 
 , The tcstati r by his will, executed in 1840, 
 ' gave the annual income of all his real estate to 
 I his wife, for the support of herself and children 
 I during widowhood; and after her death or mar- 
 j riage, and the youngest child attaining majority, 
 I the property was be divided. He appointed his 
 I widow and eldest son executrix and executor, 
 t both of whom continued to reside, with the 
 
 i„7- ».„„u„„ 1 14- ii i> • /I T •'.: , other memliers of the family, m the homestead, 
 
 tier husband, and to the Engine Companv if it : , , -.^i ^.i » V i • i 
 
 ■ '■ -. . t" . .1 '^ and she, with the cmisent of her son, received 
 
 did not attach. Diichi'r \. Vnnnda Permanent 
 Loan and SavingH Co., 18 O. R. 273.— Royd. 
 
 See Reid v. Reld, 29 Chy. 372, p. 562 ; Rv Ilewixh, 
 i70.R. 454,p. 571. 
 
 3. Other Canes, 
 
 The general rule as between a tenant for life 
 •tad the remainderman in respect of a charge 
 
 36 
 
 the rents of the realty, which she applied in the 
 support of the children for more than twenty 
 years after the death of the testator, without 
 having had dower assigned to her, or having 
 made any demand therefor. Some of the lands 
 had been acquired by the testator .after the exe- 
 cution of the will, and as to them there was an 
 intestacy. A bill having been filed by one of 
 the heirs, seeking an account of rents received 
 
 ; :: ■ :a 
 •;:£ 5?! 'i 
 
 nT "^ . It 
 >«* ••; <i 
 
563 
 
 DO WEB. 
 
 56i 
 
 by the widow, and a partition of descended 
 lands:— Held, on rehearing (in this ailirniing 
 the order of Proudfoot, V. C, 25 Cliy. 293), 
 that the widow was not bound to elect between 
 the provision made for her by the will and her 
 dower, and that notwitiistanding the lapse of 
 time she was entitled, out of the devised land 
 to retain one-third of the rents in respect of 
 past and future dower; but that, as to the de- 
 scended lands, the remedy was barred by the 
 Statute of Limitations; that tlie cliiim niado by 
 the widow in her answer, and awarded her l)y 
 the decree, was a pursuing the remedy so as to 
 bring the case within the statute, although as 
 to the rents of these lands received, tlie widow 
 was entitled to set off against tlie claim made 
 by the plaintiff, tlie amount wliieh she was en- 
 titled to have received theieout as dowress. 
 (Proudfoot, V. C, dissenting wlui considered 
 the widow entitled to the same relief in respect 
 of these as of tlie lands devised.) Lahlluir v. 
 Jiukex, 27 Chy. 101. -Chy. 1). 
 
 her by the will ; the latter forming a charge 
 upon the lands devised. McLellan v. McLellan, 
 29 Chy. 1.— Boyd. 
 
 A testator devised all his real and personal es- 
 tate, to trustees to sell the realty and get in the 
 personalty, the proceeds of which, after pay. 
 ment of debts, they were to invest in their names 
 u])on trust to pay the annual income to his two' 
 sons in equal moieties, they maintaining their 
 motlier during life ; and after the death of each 
 of tlie sons the trustees to hold one moiety of the 
 i trust moneys upon trust to pay and divide and 
 ' transfer the same equally between and amongst 
 such of his children as should be living at his 
 decease, and the issue then living of sueli chil- 
 dren as should be then dead, as tenants iu com- 
 mon ni a course of distribution, according to the 
 stocks, and not to the number of indiviitnal ob- 
 jects, and so that the issue of any clceuased eliild 
 should take, by way of substitution, amongst 
 them the share or respective sliai'es oidy, whieii 
 the deceased pai'ont or parents would, if living 
 have taken :— Held, that the widow was not put 
 to her election, luit was entitled to dower as 
 well as the provision made for her by the will : 
 anil it being alleged that the sons had not provi. 
 (led for her mair.tenance, a declaration was made 
 that she was entitled to such maintenance, and 
 a reference was directed to find what would he 
 a proper sum f(U' that purpose. Mrdarry v> 
 nomji.-<on, 29 ("hy. 287.— Proudfoot. 
 
 \ testator, amongst other things, made cer- 
 
 The testator bequeathed to his widow for life 
 an annuity of .SOO, payable by bis son J., his j 
 heirs, etc., together with all and singular his j 
 household furniture, etc., and in the event of bis i 
 widow remaining in the dwelling-house on the ; 
 premises after his decease, she was to have the ; 
 free use of certain rooms therein ; and iu ease of i 
 sickness while there this son was to see that slie i 
 had proper medical attendance and nursing. 
 This annuity as yv^l as the other beciuests the ! 
 
 testator ehaiged upon the lands in question, and j tain becjuests in favour of his widow, and direct- 
 devised the same so burthcned to his said son, i ed that liis farm, the oidy real estate he posses- 
 the defendant. The widow filed her bill for j ged, should be leased to two of his three brothers 
 payment of the annuity alone, not claiming any ! „amed as executors until such time as his ne- 
 lien on the land in respect of the charges created j phew and son attained twenty-one ;— Held, that, 
 in hei' favour by the will or for dowei-. The | under these eircu'iistancts, the widow was bound 
 usual decree for payment or in defa\dt sale was ; to elect between her dower and the benefits given 
 made, M;ith reference to the master at Mainilton, j by the will. Jiutli/ v. Jiodi/, 29 C\\y. .324.— 
 under which the land was sold, without any ; Prouilfoot. 
 
 reference to dower or the other charges, and the i „„ . , .... ,,. 
 
 purchase money was paid int.. ecmrt. In the .^''« testator nia.le a provision in favour of his 
 master's office the widow made no claim, either \ ?^"1""' """'•'', """'■ •i"vaiitageotis to her than her 
 for dower or in respect of the other charges; but I "l*'^^'''-'^* ^^ d,.wre.ss, an.l winch was expressly 
 she afterwards presented a petition to have it 1 «'«" '" ,"" "f, 'l""''''. and given during wulow- 
 declared that she was entitled to dow.r iu the '";'"'• ,•'"' V''^ ''''" '"'!'''} "J""'/'"' t^'" ^""V' 
 land and to compensati.m in resiact of the be- I « ''en the widow inanied a brother <'fl|e'- de- 
 quests above set out, and prayed that a sum in j e''"«'','^ husband and thereupon tiled a bill a leg- 
 gross out of the money in court should be pah' >"« ^''''^ ^^\^ ''"'^ accepte.l the provisions and bo- 
 to her in lieu of dower, an<l a i.roper sum allowed ' U"'^^'*'*' '"'"'': I"'' '^\"\ «'''^'V *" '"'',' ''^ *''*-' T' "! 
 by way of compensation for the other benefits :- I >g""' ■"•'^e of her nghr to .lower, had she elected 
 Held,followii)gMurphyr. Murphy, 2.-. Chy. 81,1 t"takt^ <""■<=';; ">".l '" l"-'"' eyideuee she 8W..re 
 that the widow was not put to herelecti..n by the i t'ft «1'<'.'''"1 '"*•" 'gi'orant of s„eh righl until 
 will, and that she was entitle.l to have a proper | f'vise.l in respect thereof in 18S0, shortly be.ore 
 sum paid to her for dower out of the purchase '}'''• second marriage, an. now s..ught to have 
 money in court ; but that by her ac.iuieseing in | ;!°";':!l;\^^'>^.''f!^!\!'^=^."^;!l^;,,,*]!.'t^ *'l'^^ „3 
 
 the sale of the land, and by her laches, she had ' ^ " .w,„»., 
 
 waived her right to any compensation for the 
 loss of the benefits bequeathed to her. Hijilei/ v. j 
 liipley, 28 Chy. 610.— Spraggc. I 
 
 A testator devised to his widow his '• house 
 and orchar.l for a home for herself an.l children 
 as long as she may live," and to his son Duncan | 
 all his title and interest in the farm lot, and all ' 
 implements therein, " at the death of my wife i 
 
 as aforesaid, on condition that he shall provide ' tees, and the survivor of them, anil the h"irs of 
 for her board and maintenance, he, my son Dun- 1 such survivor, gave his widow an annu.,^ and 
 can, holdingpossession of the lanil from the time pidvidc.l that when his son should attain the 
 of mydecease, subject to the provisoaforesaid:"— age of lwenty-.)ne his trustees sliould convey to 
 Held, that the wi.low was put to her elect!. >n him one-half .)f the estate and the residue when 
 between her dower and the provision made for ■ he should attain thirty, subject however to the 
 
 iDrantia juris neminem exeusat " applied, and' 
 i the bill was disniissed, with costs. Oillain v. 
 Ulillmn, 29 (.'hy. ;{7(>.— Spraggc. 
 
 ! In the ease of sejiarato .Icvises though the wife 
 may be barrel of her dower in one she is not 
 therefore barred of her dower in the others. 
 
 j Cownii V. liMsf.vtr, .5 O. R. 624. — Proudfoot. 
 
 A testator, by his will ami codicils, devising 
 his real estate, etc., tc (!. H. M. and li. M., trns- 
 le 
 
565 
 
 DOWER. 
 
 566 
 
 
 annuity. He also provided that if his son 
 should die before attaining the aae of thirty, the 
 said trustees or trustee should hold ' ' the said 
 real and personal estate, moneys, and securities, 
 or so much thereof as shall remain in their hands, 
 in trust to distribute the same according to the 
 statute of distributions." The last codicil ap- 
 pointed G. E. T. & G. R. and the survis'or of 
 them, and the heirs, executors, administrators 
 and assigns of such survivor new tiustccs and 
 executors in place of G. H. M. and B. M., with 
 the same powers. The son attained the age of 
 twenty-one, received half of the estate, and died 
 before attaining the age of thirty unmarried and 
 without issue : — Held, that the widow was en- 
 titled to her annuity as well as her share under 
 the statute of distrilmtions ; but that tlie testa- 
 tor, having treated the real and personal estate 
 as a blended fund to be distributed, she was not 
 also entitled to dower, and that she must elect 
 between the distributive share and the dower. 
 Ke Quimhy — Quimbi/ v. Quinihy, "> O. IJ. 738. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 J. C, by his will devised as follows: First, I 
 will and bequeath unto my beloved wife, E. C., 
 one-half undivided of the place wlicre I now live 
 being * * so long as she shall live and no 
 longer. I also will and bequeath unto my said 
 wife one-half of all the goods and chattels I may 
 own at the time of my demise * * Tliird, I 
 will and bequeath unto my grandson, D. C, and 
 to his heirs and assigns forever, the place or 
 homestead where I now live, it l)l■in^' » • * 
 with all that appertains thereto : subject, never- 
 theless, to the following conditions, that is to 
 say ; my wife E. C. shall have quiet and peace- 
 able possession of all said ])remises with all that 
 appertains to said half of said homestead for her 
 own use and benefit as long as she shall live 
 * * I also will and be(juealli unto my said 
 grandson, D. C, one-half of all the goods .and 
 chattels 1 may own at the time of my demise." 
 In an action by the wife, E. V., claiming both 
 tlie legacy and her dower, it was : — Held, that 
 she must elect. The testator having treated the 
 homestead as one whole thing, tlie half of wjiich 
 he specifically bequeathed to his wife. Card v. 
 Cooky, 6 O. R. 2-29.— Hoyd. 
 
 A testator, after bequeathing certain legacies, 
 devised his lands to his sons, charging them, 
 however, with the legacies and also with an an- 
 nuity of .$1(K} to his widow, to whom he also be- 
 queathed his furniture, apartments in his dwel- 
 hng house, and sundry other things. The estate 
 was sufficient to answer all legacies, and also tlie 
 widow's dower : — Held, that the widow was not 
 put to her election as between the will and iier 
 dower. Wilson v. Wilnon, 7 0. R. 177. — Osier. 
 
 Where a will in express terms makes provision 
 foi' the testator's wife in lieu of dower, thus 
 bringing directly to her mind that slie cannot 
 have dower and the benefits of the will as well, 
 much less dealing with the property left to her, 
 will evidence an election on lier part to take un- 
 der the will, than would be sufficient in the 
 absence of such express provision : — Held, in 
 this ease, that, there being such provision, the 
 evidence set out in the report of the case was 
 sutticient to establish an election to take under 
 the will, though otherwise it would not have 
 been. Nixon v. Anhenhuriif, 7 O. R. 064. — 
 Cameron. 
 
 A will bequeathing to a wife the dwelling- 
 house for her natural life, the household goods 
 and an annuity of .?;J()0 secured to her out of the 
 estate was- -Held not to put the widow to her 
 election. In re Jiiijijar — liiijijar v. Stinsoii, 8 O. 
 R. 372. — Ferguson. 
 
 A testator, by his will, left all his real and 
 personal property to J. K., " subject to the fol- 
 lowing bequest, viz. : to my wife E. K., a one- 
 third interest in all my real aiul personal estate, 
 so long as she shall remaiii unmarried :'' — Held, 
 that E. K. was bound to elect between the will 
 and her dower, foi- the former imported that 
 there was to be the same manner of division of 
 the hind as of the personalty, viz : a division of 
 the entire property ol each kinil, which would 
 be defeated if dower were first subtri.^ ted from 
 the realty, lie (juimby — QHind)y r. Quimby, 5 
 (>. K. 738, followed. Anuikn v. K>ik, 9 O. R. 
 439.— Hoyd. 
 
 By the first clause in his will, a testator 
 directed that his executrix should pay his debts 
 out of bis personal estate, and then proceeded 
 to leave to his wife, whom he n.anied as his 
 executiix, certain lands subject to incumbrances, 
 and all bis stock, cattle, etc., upon the said 
 lands, and then devised the residue of h'S real 
 and personal estate (after payment of his just 
 debts and funeral expenses) and all the rents 
 and issues thereof to a brother and sister for 
 their lives, to be equally divided between them, 
 share and sliai'e alike, and after their de.ath, to 
 their children, their heirs and assigns for ever, 
 share and share alike. The brother predeceased 
 j the testator. The widow now brought this 
 I action for the constructiorr of the will : — Held, 
 j that the wiilow was not put to her election as 
 I to dower, there being no such intention to be 
 gatliercd from the will : — Held, also, that it 
 I was too late now for the widow to elect to take 
 ] her interest in her bushawrs undisposed of real 
 estate under the Devolution of Estates Act, 
 li. S. O. (1887), e. 108, s. 4, subs. 2. By bring- 
 ing this action she had nunle her election. Rudd 
 V. Jfarixr, 16 0. R. 422, -MacMahon. 
 
 Where a testator ])rnvided by his will : " that 
 the farm be kept till the youngest surviving 
 child comes of age, at which time Iwouhl desire 
 the property to be sold and the proceeds to be 
 equally divided between all my chihlren, and 
 my wife. * * My will is, that I would like 
 the farm rented to some good tenant, on the 
 best terms possible, the rent to be used in the 
 suppoi't and maintenance of the family irow at 
 home." The farm refeircd to was the only real 
 property possessed by the testator either at the 
 time of making his will or at his death : — Held, 
 per I'erguson, J., that the widow was intended 
 to bo included itr the word family, and that the 
 widow was put to her election as to dower, since 
 owing to the direction to lease the farm, all the 
 provisions of the will could not be carried into 
 effect consistently with the dower being set 
 apart. Dairnon v. Frasor, 18 O. R. 496. 
 
 2. Under Devolution ofEMates Act. 
 
 R. died intestate entitled to real and personal 
 property leaving a widow and children : — Held, 
 that the widow having elected to take her 
 interest under section 4 of " The Devolution of 
 
 • '•• 
 
 '«! 
 
 
 :a 
 
 S'Hj 
 
 ;a 
 
 Stft, 
 
 '«! 
 
 il«B ••. 
 
 '•1 
 
 
 • * 
 
 «!2 ^f' ■ 
 
 
 ';;„, V . 
 
 •» 
 
 ■ :- «S; 
 
 !> 
 
 
 II 
 
 ''* 
 
 •ff; 
 
 "«:!: 
 
 ''9 
 
567 
 
 DOWEB. 
 
 568 
 
 Estates Act, 1886."' 49 Vict. c. '22 (Out.), was 
 entitled to one-third of the real estate absolutely. 
 Ji<i Itf.ddan, 12 O. K. 781.— Boyd. 
 
 An election by a widow to take licr distribu- 
 tive share in lieu of her dower under section 4, 
 subsection 2 of "Tlie Devolution of Estates 
 Act," may lie made by will, wliicli as to such 
 election speaks from the time of its execution, 
 und not from the time of her death. Re Inrjohhy, 
 19 0. R. 28;}.— Robertson. 
 
 See Hu'hl v. Harper, 16 O. E. 422, p. 566. 
 
 IV. Bakked by Statute of Limitations. 
 
 Tlie willow and heir joined in creating a term 
 in the descended lands for ten years, and in the 
 lease it was statcil that it had been mutually 
 jigreed between tlie parties thereto tliat one- 
 third of tlic rent should Ijc paid to the widow in 
 each year, which was accordingly done during 
 tile currency of the term : — Held, that this had 
 the eO'ect of preventing the lapse of time being 
 set up as a bar under the statute to the widow's 
 right to dower. Franerv. Oitim, 27 Chy. 6.3. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 The owner of land died intestate in 18.58, leav- 
 ing bis widow and two infant daughters in pos- 
 session, all of whom continued to occupy and 
 cultivate the farm until 1883, when the daugh- 
 ters left tlic premises. In February, 1884, the 
 widow intermarried with J. M. No proceeding 
 had meanwhile been taken or claim made by the 
 widow to have dower assigned to hei'. Jn an 
 action brought by the daughters against .1. M. 
 and his wife, to recover possession thereof, the 
 mother claimed she was entitled to retain pos- 
 session of the premises in respect of her dower, 
 but :— Held, that the right to dower was barred 
 by 38 Vict. c. 16, s. 14 (Out.), which recpiires 
 proceedings to be taken to enforce a widow's 
 dower within ten years from tlie death of her 
 husband. McDonald v. MvUae, 13 A. R. 
 121. 
 
 See Laidlaw v. JarJrcs, 27 Chy. 101, p. .'363 ; 
 Baiikt V. lidlamv, 27 Chy. 342, p. 568 ; Johiixton 
 V. 0/ira; 3 O. K. 26 ; Pya/I v. McKee, 3 0. R. 
 151. 
 
 V. Sale of under Execution. 
 Hee noiKjlax Y. llutchl-iov, 12 A. R. 110. 
 
 VI. Actions for. 
 
 1. Presumption of Death of Hmhand. 
 
 Held, that the presumption of death arising 
 from continued absence of the defendant's hus- 
 band, unheard of for seven years, is sufficient to 
 sustain an action of dower as against the objection 
 that he is still living. QlleK v. Morrow, 1 O. R., 
 527. -Q. B. D. 
 
 2. Pleadinq and Practice. 
 
 In a bill seeking to obtain the benefit of a 
 sale of land freed from the dower of the widow 
 
 of the deceased owner, it was alleged that he 
 had died at such a time as would, if true, bar 
 the widow's right to dower, and submitted "that 
 the defendant E. B. (the widow) is not entitled 
 to dower:" — Held, a sufficient allegation that the 
 defendant's right to dower was barred by the 
 statute, though it omitted to state that this wag 
 the legal result of any particular statute. Banks 
 V. Bellamy, 27 Chy. 342. — Spragge. 
 
 To a summons under "The Dower Procedure 
 Act," R. S. O. (1877), c. 55, with the statutory 
 notice endorsed under s. 10, claiming damages, 
 the defendant entered an appearance under s. 
 20, with an acknowledgment tiiat he was tenant 
 of the freehold, and consent that plaintiff might 
 have judgment for her dower, and take the 
 necessary proceedings to have the same assigned 
 to her. The plaintid then served a declaration 
 claiming dower as well as damages for its deten- 
 tion: — Held, tliat the declaration was bad, and 
 must bo set aside, in claiming dower when her 
 right to it M-as admitted. Quiere, whether such 
 damages might not be recovered on a record 
 properly framed. Linfoot v. Duucombe, 21 C. P. 
 484, remarked upon. Harvey v. Peamall, 31 C. 
 P. 239.— Wilson. 
 
 The report in an action of dower was filed on 
 29tli Maj', during the Easter sittings of the 
 cinirt. A motion was made against it within 
 the first four days of the Michaelmas sittings: — 
 Held, that the motion was too late, for it should 
 have been made to a vacation judge under Rules 
 482 and 483, (Con. Rule 21").) GilcH v. Mor- 
 row, 4 0. B. 649.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A plaintiff in an action for dower recovered 
 judgment, but before the execution of the writ 
 of assignment of dower, and after its issue, the 
 tenant of the freeliold died, having devised the 
 land in question totlie presentdefendant : — Held, 
 that the plaintiff must proceed against the devisee 
 by scire facias, and not by suggestion or revivor. 
 Davin V. Denimon, 8 P. R. 7. — Hagarty. 
 
 In an action for dower and damages for deten- 
 tion of dower, defendants appcarecf under R. .S. 
 O. (1877) c. 55, s. 20, .and filed acknowledgmentof 
 tenancy, consent to dower, etc. Plaintiffs soli- 
 citor thereupon entered judgment of seisin, is- 
 sued writ of assignment of dower, and proceeded 
 for damages. The judgment of seisin was held 
 at the hearing to be final, and to preclude any 
 proceeding for damages, but leave was given to 
 plaiiitifT to move in chambers to vacate it. The 
 master in chambers made an order vacating the 
 judgment : — Held, on appeal, that the order was 
 one in the discretion of the master, which was 
 pro))erly exercised undei- the circumstances in 
 the plaintifPs favour, especially as judgment had 
 been signed througli mistake of her solicitor. 
 Ryanw Fish, 9 P. R. 458.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The statement of claim in an action of dower 
 alleged that the plaintiff was the widow of L., 
 who died seized of such an estate (in certaiu 
 lands) as to entitle and give the plaintiff i^e|3tat(| 
 of dower therein: — Held, that the plc^4i^g8i>Q 
 dower are governed by the O. J.. Acf ;^ th%t .the 
 right of dower is a legal conclusion ,/ro'n[( certain 
 facts, and these facts should be stated .in the 
 pleading. The statement of claim was therefore 
 held insuiTicient. and was struck out, leave bping 
 given to amcnu. Lander v. Carrier, 10 P. R. 
 612.— Proudfoot— Chy. D. 
 
 ■ JTS^ 
 
DOWER. 
 
 ■['Hli PhOPERTY 01 
 "HE LAW SOCIETY, 
 
 570 
 
 
 The writ of Bunimons was endorsed under the 
 0. J. Act with a claim for dower and arrears of 
 dower. The defendant entered an appearance, 
 but added to it an acknowledgment of the plain- 
 tiff's right to dower, and a consent to her taking 
 proceedings to have the same assigned to her 
 under the Dower Procedure Act, R, 8. O. (1877), 
 c. 55. The plaintiff delivered a sstatement of 
 claim, taking no notice in it of the acknowledg- 
 ment and consent, and claiming dower and ar- 
 rears : — Held, that it was necessary tor the plain- 
 tiff to deliver a statement of claim in order to 
 recover her dower, and she could not, having 
 elected to institute proceedings under the O. .J. 
 Act, be compelled to take any steps under tlie 
 Dower Act. Moore v. Moore, 11 P. P. .324.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 In an actionfordamagesfor detention of dower, 
 defendants pleaded (1) that the lands in (juestion 
 were wild, and plaintiff was not entitled to the 
 sum claimed for damages, if any; (2) ♦'■'+ ohiin- 
 tiff had assigned her claim for damages; (it) set 
 off for moneys expended in respect of said lands ; 
 (4) that they did not detain, but were always 
 willing, etc. On a motion in chambers, after 
 issue joined, for an order directing a reference 
 as to the damages under section 47 O. J. Act, 
 and upon evidence by affidavit both for and 
 against the truth of the pleas, the master made 
 an order striking out the 2nd and 3rd picas, and 
 directing a reference : — Held, that the master 
 had no Jurisdiction to make the order, and that 
 the issues raised questions that were properly 
 triable only at the hearing. Jlyaii v. Fish, 10 
 P. R. 187.— Dalton, Mailer.— IhoinUoot. 
 
 M. M. made his will April 1.3th, 1888, devis 
 ing his farm to his two sons, appointed the de- 
 fendants his executors, and dietl May 21st, 1888. 
 In an action of dower by the widow of M. M. 
 against the executors, in which they set up that 
 the sons were the tenants of the freehold, and 
 should be made parties, it was: — Held, that 
 since the Devolution of Estates Act, R. S. 0. 
 (1887), c. 108, 8. 4, devisees are nc necessary 
 parties to an action for dower. Malune v. 
 Matune, 17 0. R. 101.— Robertson. 
 
 When no demand was made, although the 
 plaintiff was entitled to judgment of seisin it 
 should be without costs. Jh. 
 
 See Leitch v. McLellan, 2 O. 1!. 587, p. ">02 ; 
 Ryan v. Fish, 4 O. R. 335, p. 570. 
 
 3. Damages. 
 
 Queers, whether damages for detention of 
 dower, or for arrears of dower, can be recovered 
 under the Dower Act. (Jilea v. Morrow, 1 O. R. 
 527. 
 
 R. brought an action for dower against F., the 
 tenant of the freehold, who claimed title tiirougli 
 the devisee of her husband, and endorsed her 
 writ with a claim for damages for detention of 
 dower. F. appeared and admitted his tenancy, 
 and R.'s right to dower;— Held, that R. might, 
 nevertheless, go on and recover damages for the 
 detention from and after demand for dower made 
 by her on F. Eyan v. Fish, 4 O. R. 335.— 
 WiUon. 
 
 Held, that R. S. 0. (1877), c. 55 has not taken 
 away or diminished the right of a dowress to 
 
 damages as well as mesne profits, as for deten- 
 tion, against all persons and in all cases where 
 they were recoverable before August 10th, 1850. 
 Ih. 
 
 Held, that, at all events, since the 0. J. Act, 
 s. 17, sub-s. 10, a tenant of the freehold claim- 
 ing, as in this case, may plead tliat lie has 
 at all times, since he became sucii tenant, been 
 ready and willing to render tile plaintiti' her 
 (iower, and if the plaintiff desires to avuid that 
 plea she sliould reply a demand and refusal. 
 lb. 
 
 Qua'rc, whetlier if such demand and refusal be 
 pleaded and proved, (himages can be computed 
 against such a tenant from tlio death of the 
 husband or only from the date of tlie plaintiff's 
 demand for dower. Ih. 
 
 Held, that a widow cannot recover damages 
 for detention of dower when iier husliaiid did 
 not die seized, even though she made demand 
 for dower. Morgan v. Morgan, 15 (). R. 194. — 
 Chy, D. 
 
 Held, in this case, that as no demand was 
 made, although the plaintiff was entitled to 
 judgment of seisin, it should be witliout costs; 
 and as defendants were always ready and willing 
 to assign the dower, plaintiff was nut entitled to 
 damages for detention. Maloiit y. Malone, IV 
 O. R. 101.— Robertson. 
 
 See Harvey v. Pearsall, 31 C. P. 239, p. 508 ; 
 Ryan v. Fiah, 9 P. R. 458, p. 508. 
 
 VII. Rights of Purchasers when tiuck£ is 
 
 OlTSTANDIMi DoWEU. 
 
 At a sale under a decree on the 2")tli March, 
 1879, -A. purcliased the land in (juestion. On 
 the lOth April, 1879, he transferred liis interest 
 to W., and on the 2(ith April, one H. j)urchased 
 and took an assignment of the dower of one S. 
 in the land. On the 16th February, 1880, A. 
 applied to be relieved from tlie contract to pur- 
 chase on the ground of the outstanding dower. 
 The evidence shewed that S. had agreed with 
 the heir-at-law, to accept a gross sum in lieu of 
 her dower, that AV. really purchased tiie dower, 
 but took tlie assignment in H. 's name, and that 
 thi.s application though in A.'s name, was really 
 made by W. :— Held, that no relief could be 
 granted, the applicant having himself created 
 the obstacle by means of wliioli he S(mght to pre- 
 vent the sale being carried out. Frustr v. Oiiim, 
 8 P. 11.278.— Spragge. 
 
 An owner of real estate who alone enters into 
 an agreement to sell will be required to procure 
 a bar of his wife's dower or abate tlie inirclmse 
 money in the event of her refusal. VaiiNorman 
 r. Beaupre, 5 C'hv. 599 followed. Longhead v. 
 •'itubb.i, 27 Chy. 387.— Proudfoot. 
 
 On a sale of lanil by an infant under R. S. 0. 
 (1877), c. 40, ss. 75-83, an order was made under 
 44 Vict. c. 14, s. 5 (Ont.), barring the dower of 
 the infant's mother who was a lunatic and con- 
 fined in an asylum. He VoUhurt, 9 P. R. 350. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 On a vendor and purchaser application, it ap- 
 peared that in 1877, a decree was made for par- 
 tition or sale of the lands in question, to which 
 four married men were parties, whose wives,. 
 
 
...<iiir.-fr':!i7:''r'i',-'.T-^.,s\' '>^m-^--v-.^.i,->:<>n.'^r-l>ftn^''-^-i-a''i'n-,'r--^^^ 
 
 571 
 
 DYING DECLARATION. 
 
 572 
 
 howevei, were not made parties, either originally 
 or in the master's office, and the lands were sold 
 pursuant to the deci'ee, and a vesting order 
 granted to the purchaser, under whom the pre- 
 sent vendor claimed titie :— Hold, that, notwith- 
 standing the Conveyancing Act, K. !S. O. (1887), 
 c. 44, 8. 53, subs. 10, the inchoate right of dower 
 of the wives was not affected by the proceedings. 
 Re Hall-Dare's Contract, 21 Ohy. D. 41, con- 
 sidered. In the case of two of the wives, their 
 husbands had, prior to the partition proceedings, 
 mortgaged the lands, the wives joining to bar 
 their dower : —Held, that these two no longer 
 had any right of dower. In He Croskerry, IG 
 O. R. 207, 209, referred to. li'c Hewkh, 17 O. 
 R. 454.— Boyd. 
 
 VIII. Miscellaneous Cases. 
 
 In ejectment the defendant was allowed to set 
 up a counter claim for dower out of the lands in 
 question. Remarks as to the form of decree 
 in such a case. Glasx v. Glasa, 9 P. R. 14. — 
 Osier. 
 
 Per Rose, J.— Evidence of the value of the 
 right of dower is properly admissible in deter- 
 mining the value of a debtor's liabilities. Rae 
 V. McDonald, 13 O. R. 352. 
 
 Validity of chattel mortgage executed by a 
 husband to his wife to secure her against loss by 
 reason of her having barred her dower in cer- 
 tain mortgages of land. 8ee Morrin v. Martin, 
 19 0. R. 564. 
 
 See Lavin v. Lavin, 2 0. R. 187. 
 
 DRAINS AND DRAINAGE OF LAND. 
 
 <See Mdnicipal Cokpouations— Water and 
 Watekcoukses. 
 
 DRUGGISTS. 
 
 See Phakmaov Act. 
 
 DURESS. 
 
 The plaintiff being an agent for the defendants, 
 an agricultural manufacturing company, sold to 
 one S. a mowing machine for $52, taking in e).- 
 change ahorse, notwithstanding his instructions 
 were to sell for cash only. The company, hoiv- 
 «ver, adopted the sale by accepting from tie 
 plaintiff a chattel mortgage on the horse for 
 their claim. Shortly afterwards the defenilants 
 becoming dissatisfied, C. their general agent 
 )roposed to S. to return the mower and receive 
 jack the horse. This being agreed to, C. saw 
 the plaintiff and informed hwu that he was 
 authorised to take back the horse to S. and 
 urged the plaintiff' to do so himself or allow hiri 
 (C.) to do so. S. at first objected, but on beir^ 
 threatened "with an action," he consented, and 
 lent C. a horse and buggy, and also a halter so 
 as to lead the horse away. Subsecjuently, on 
 the same <lay, the plaintiff, when informed that 
 the horse had been returned to S. , told C. that 
 
 I" 
 
 he had no right to take back the horse, alleging 
 that he was worth $\)5, for which sum he brought 
 this action against the defendants. At the trial 
 the jury found that the horse had been takea 
 away against the will of the plaintiff, and under 
 a threat of criminal proceedings, and judgment 
 was given in favour of the plaintiff for $85, as 
 "being the value of the horse. The county judge 
 refused to set aside such judgment and find- 
 ings : — Held, that there was no evidence of 
 duress by tlireats, sufficient to avoid the plain- 
 tiff's consent to return the horse to S. The law 
 as to duress by threats of imprisonment consid- 
 ered. Judgment of court below reversed. Piper 
 V. Harris Munujavturimj Co., 15 A. R. 642. 
 
 Where duress is alleged, it must be mani- 
 fest that force preponderated throughout, so 
 as to disable the one interested from acting 
 as a free agent. Although the plaintiff in this 
 action, in which besought to have his marriage 
 with the defendant declared void, on the ground 
 that he was forced into it by intimidation and 
 threats, at first protested, by his subsequent 
 conduct he displayed a readiness to assist in the 
 preliminary and final details, and submitted to 
 the proposed method of procedure, and intelli- 
 gently forwarded its accomplishment : — Held, 
 on the evidence, that his consent to the 
 marriage was proved. Lawless v. Chamberlain, 
 18 O. R. 296.— Boyd. 
 
 S., a trader in Yarmouth, N.S., had a number 
 of creditors in Montreal. J., one of such credi- 
 tors, preferred a criminal charge against S., sent 
 a detective to Yarmouth with a warrant, caused 
 such warrant to be endorsed by a local magis- 
 trate, and had 8. brought to Montreal, when 
 the other creditors then issued writs of capias 
 for their respective claims. The father of S. 
 came to Montreal and, in consideration of the 
 release of S. on both civil and criminal charges, 
 transferred all his property for the benefit of the 
 Montreal creditors, and S. was released from 
 gaol, having given his own recognizance to 
 appear on the criminal charge. In the settle- 
 ment to the claims of the creditors was added 
 the costs of both civil and criminal suits. In a 
 suit to sut aside the transfer as being obtained 
 by duress and to stifie the criminal prosecution 
 the evidence shewed that the creditors in taking 
 the proceedings they did expected to obtain the 
 security of the friends of S. : — Held, approving 
 the judgment of the court below, that the 
 nature of the proceedin;;;s and the evidence 
 cleai'ly shewed that tbo criminal process was 
 only used for tlio purpose of getting S. to 
 Montreal to enable the creditors to put pressure 
 on him in order to get their claims paid or 
 secured, and the transfer made by the father 
 under such circumstances was void. Shorey v. 
 Jones, 15 S. C. R. 398. 
 
 443. 
 
 DUTIES. 
 
 See Revenue. 
 
 DYING DECLARATION. 
 
 See Reyina v. McMahon, 18 O. R. 502, p. 
 
TT 
 
 572 
 
 573 
 
 EJECTMENT. 
 
 574 
 
 EASEMENT. 
 
 L Rights by Prescription— •S'ee Limita- 
 tion OF Actions. 
 
 II. Lateral Support— &« Latkral Sop- 
 port. 
 
 III. Party Walls— 5ee Buildings. 
 
 IV. Lights— iSee Lights. 
 
 V. RuiHT ok way — See Way. 
 
 VI. Water- See Watkr and Watkr 
 Courses. 
 
 One piece of land cannot be said to be bnr- 
 ^lened by an easement in favour of another piece 
 when both belong absolutely to the same owner, 
 ■who has, in the exercise of his own unrestricted 
 right of enjoyment, the power of using both as 
 he thinks tit and of making the use of one parcel 
 subservient to tliat of the otiier, if he chooses so 
 to do, — and if the title to dilFerent parts comes 
 to be vested in the same owner, there is an ex- 
 tinguishment of any easements which nuiy pre- 
 viously have existed, a species of merger by wiiich 
 what may have been, whilst the different parcels 
 were in separate hands, legal easements, cease 
 to be so, and become mere easements in fact — 
 <juasi easements. If the (juasi servient tenement 
 is subsequently first conveyed without expressly 
 providing for the continuance of the easements, 
 there is no implied reservation for the benefit of 
 tiie land retained by the grantor, except of ease- 
 ments of necessity, and no distinction is to be 
 made for this purpose between easements which 
 Are apparent and those which are non-apparent. 
 If the dominant tenement is first granted, all 
 <]uasi easements whicii have been enjoyed as ap- 
 pendant to it over a quasi servient tenement re- 
 tained by the grantor, pass by implication. 
 AttrM V. Plait, 10 S. C. K. 42"). 
 
 In 184.3, B. et. al. (the plaintiffs) by deed 
 obtained the right of draining their property by 
 passing a good drain through an alley left open 
 between two houses on another lot in the town 
 of St. John's. In 1880, W. ct al. (defendants) 
 built a barn covering the alley under which the 
 drain was constructed, and used it to store hay, 
 etc. , the flooring being loose and the barn resting 
 «D wooden posts. In 1881 the drain needing re- 
 pairs the plaintiffs brought an action confessoria 
 against defendants as proprietors of the servient 
 laud, praying that they (plaintiffs) may be de- 
 clared to have a right to the servitude constitu- 
 ted by the deed of 184;<, and that the defendants 
 be ordered to demolish such a portion of the barn 
 AS diminished the use of the drain, and rendered 
 its exercise more inconvenient, and claiming 
 •damages ; the defendants pleaded inter alia that 
 there was no change of condition of the servient 
 laud contrary to law, and prayed for the <lismis- 
 ■sal of plaintiU's' action : — Held, Gwynne, J. dis- 
 senting, that by the building of the barn in 
 4[uestion, the plaintiffs' means of access to the 
 drain had been materially interfered with and 
 rendered more expensive, and therefore that the 
 juilgment of the court below ordering the defen- 
 <lant8 to demolish a portion of their barn cover- 
 ing the saiddrain, in order to allow the plaintiffs 
 to repair the drain as easily as" they might have 
 done in 184.'i, when said drain was not covered, 
 and to pay 9i50 damages should be afHfmed. Per 
 
 Gwynne, J., That all plaintiffs were entitled to 
 was a declaration of the right to free access to 
 the land in question for the purpose of nmking 
 all necessary re])air8 in the drain as occasion 
 might require, without any impediment or ob- 
 struction to their so doing being caused by the 
 barn which had been erected over the drain, and 
 that the action for damages was premature. 
 Wheeler v. Black, 14 S. C. R. 242. 
 
 Right to danuiges agaiubt railway company 
 for injury to easement in con.atrnction of their 
 road.' See WvUk v. Norihem R. W. Co., 14 0. 
 
 R. im. 
 
 See DavU v. LewU, 8 0. R. 1 ; AtcKenzie v. 
 Mi-ataHiihlin, 8 O. R. Ill ; PlaU v. amnd Tnmk 
 It W. Co. of Canada, 12 O. R. 119, p. 427; 
 Bell Telephone Co. v. Belleville Electric Liijht Co., 
 12 O. R. 571; Re Buih and the CoinmUsionern 
 of the Niaijara Falls Park, 14 A. R. 73, p. 
 4(J1. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 See Church. 
 
 
 EJECTMENT. 
 
 I. Plaintiff's Title. 
 
 1. 
 
 Evidence of Title, 574. 
 
 2. 
 
 Other Gates, 576. 
 
 II. By Particular Persons. 
 
 1. 
 
 Landlord, 576. 
 
 2 
 
 Mortyar/eei, 576. 
 
 3. 
 
 Married Women, 577. 
 
 III. Practice AND Procedure. 
 
 \. 
 
 Writ of Snmmons. 
 
 
 (a) /.M«e of Writ, 577. 
 
 
 (b) Service, 577. 
 
 2. 
 
 Venue, 57-7. 
 
 3. 
 
 Appearance, 578. 
 
 4. 
 
 Adding and Striking out Parlies, 578. 
 
 5. 
 
 Statement oj Claim, 579. 
 
 6. 
 
 Counter Claim, 579. 
 
 7. 
 
 Joinder of Actioim, 580. 
 
 8. 
 
 Equitable Defences, 580. 
 
 9. 
 
 Judgment, 580. , 
 
 10. 
 
 Writ of Assistance, 581. 
 
 11. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 
 (a) Security for Costs, 581. 
 
 
 (b) Liahilily of Admiuislrator, 582. 
 
 IV. M 
 
 esne Profits, 582. 
 
 V. Effect of Judgment as an Estoppel — 
 
 
 See JUDiiMENT. 
 
 I. Plaintiff's Title. 
 
 1. Evidence oJ Title. 
 
 The plaintiff was .issignecin insolvency of H., 
 who bought from the purchaser at the sheriff's 
 
 5 :: ; ;a 
 
 "km. !* •! 
 
 IS 
 
 
 I) 
 
 ;*•« 
 
 'si:: 
 
 •• 
 
 ■«. 
 
 
 
 SI." 
 
 '4 
 
 I* 
 
 « 
 
 ifi 
 
 
676 
 
 EJECTMENT. 
 
 57ff. 
 
 677 
 
 sale. H. lease<l to T. and put him in poaseasioii, 
 and hail some ainiill buililings put on tlio land. 
 Subsequently, tlio defcndiint O. nmdi) iintrnt! 
 representations toT., which inchiced iiini to ((nit 
 possesRtun, wliereupon (>. went in ami occnjiie'd, 
 claiming under defendant W., wlio, he alleged, 
 had an nitere.st in the land, W. hy his answer 
 adopted O.'s possession and claimed under con- 
 veyance from the Crown, ))ut failed to prove his 
 title :— Held, fidlowinj; I >oe Johnson c. May tup, 
 3 A. &K. 1S8, that the possession so fraudulently 
 obtaine<l l»y O. did not entitle liim to put the 
 plaintiff upon proof of Ids title. Xc/le.s v. tVhile, 
 29 Chy. .S.'iS.— Spraggc. Affirmed by Supreme 
 Court, Cassels' Dig. 374. 
 
 AVhere land had liecn taken by the Hrcat Wes- 
 tern R. \V. (."o. f(n' the purposes of theii' railway 
 under 9 Vict. c. 81, s. 30, and 10 Vict. c. !)y, 
 the company, in ejoctnient brouglit by them, can 
 rely on the title iicipiired thereby, and are not 
 driven to prove strictly the title of theirgrantors. 
 Oreat We«ler7i R. W. Co. v. 7y«^:,3•2 C. 1'. IGO.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 In an action to recover possession of land it 
 appeared that one of the deeds forndng a link 
 in the plaintiff's title had been altered by the 
 grantors agent under authority of a letter from 
 the grantor. The alteration consisted in the 
 agent rewriting the first two pages and substi- 
 tuting a new grantee. The letter was not under 
 seal ; and the deed was not re-executed or re- 
 delivered by the grantor. The ]>laintili' proved 
 that he had a good equitable right to possession : 
 — Held, that the deed was void at law ; but 
 that the plaintifl' was entitled to recover on bis 
 e([uitable title. Leave was also granted to add 
 the owner of the leg.d estate as j)laintiirif neces- 
 sary. Thome v. ]Vi/liam->, 130. R. 077.— C. P. U. 
 
 Where in an action for recovery of lan<ls by 
 M. who had bought them at a sale under exe- 
 cution against J. K., it was objected that he 
 had failed to prove that. I. K. had at the time of 
 such sale any title to the said lands : — Held, 
 that it was no answ er to this objection to say 
 that the defend mt had in setting up certain 
 facts " by way of a further and separate defence" 
 alleged that •!. K. was tlie patentee of the lands 
 in question, for that such an allegation could 
 not be made use of by the plaintifl' to satisfy any 
 defect in his evidence to prove his case, the 
 burden of which nsted on him by reason of the 
 said defend.int having pleaded possession in 
 herself and her tenants :— Held, also, that the 
 fact that in the course of certain prior proceed- 
 ings had by M. on an execution against A. K. 
 the *ife of .T. K., for the purpose of selling the 
 said lands, M. had then asserted that they 
 belonged to her, did not estop M. from now as 
 against J. K. and A. K. , alleging that they 
 Lelouged to J. K. McGee v. Kane, 14 O. R. 
 226. — Ferguson. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of land, the 
 plaintiffs claimed title under a deed from the 
 executors of one .S., but the only evidence of 
 the will produced by them was the copy of the 
 probate from the registry office with the affidavit 
 of verification attached :— Held, that this was 
 not proper evidence of the will. The plain- 
 tiffs, however, sought to support their case by 
 reference to a certain statement in the defen- 
 dants' pleading, iu which, besides denying their 
 
 right to recover, she herself also claimed title 
 under a deed from the executors of S. : — Hehl, 
 that tliey could not take tiuit part of the jileail- 
 ing wliich suitcMl their purpose and reject the 
 rest : they could not use a sci up of it to eke out 
 the insulHciency of their own evidence. Barber 
 v. McKui/, 17 O. R. -)(i2.-Chy. D. 
 
 See Vail Velior v. /fiit/hson, 9 A. K. 390 ; Hudd 
 V. Frank; ]10. H. 758. 
 
 2. Other Caxe-t. < 
 
 Where the defendant, claiming to be the owner 
 of certain land, procured the plaiutifT's tenant 
 to attorn to liim and thereby claimed the pos- 
 session :— Held, in ejectment, that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to recover by reason of the defen- 
 dant having thus obtained possession from the 
 lilaintiff's tenant; but that this was not to estop 
 the defendant from disputing the plaintiff's title 
 and shewing title in himself in any action he 
 might bring to recover possession. MulhoUand 
 v. Harman, 6 O. K. 540.— C. P. D. 
 
 Where a corporation is empowered by statute 
 to hold lands for a definite jieiiod, without any 
 provision as to reverter, and holds beyond the 
 period, oidy the Crown can take advantage of it, 
 and it is not a defence to an action of ejectment 
 that the lands were acquired by the plaintiff 
 from the corporation after the period fixed by 
 the statute. McDlnrmid v. /Iiu/hes, 16 O, R.. 
 570. -Q. B. U. 
 
 See riirky v. Benedict, 7 A. R. ,300. 
 
 II. Bv T'AKTri'if.AU Pkrsoxs. 
 
 I. Landlord. 
 
 In an action of ejectment by a landlord against 
 a tenant whose term ha<l expired : — Held, that 
 ' the defendant was not precluded from setting up 
 I that the plaintilf's title expired or was put an 
 j end to dui'ing the term ; and to raise such de- 
 ! fence it was not necessary for tlie tenant to go 
 i out of and then resume possession. Kelly v, 
 j Wolff, 12 P. R. 234.— Ualton, MaHter.—lioaQ. 
 
 j Sections 65 and 60 of the Ejectment Act dO' 
 i not apply where a bona tide defence or dispute 
 ' is raised ; and in this case a motion by the plain- 
 tiff for security for damaijes and costs, under 
 these sections, was refused, reversing the deci- 
 sion of the master in chand)ers. Quicre, whether 
 sections (i5 and 00 would apply to any case where 
 the tenant actually gives up possession, so that 
 the landlord is in possession, and then retakes. 
 Ih. 
 
 Held, per the master in chambers, that it is- 
 not now necessary for the plaintiff to sign the 
 notice under section 5 of the Ejectment Act, re- 
 quiring the defendant to give the security sought. 
 lb. 
 
 2. Mortgagees. 
 
 A mortgagee proceeded in ejectment against a 
 mortgagor, and afterwards tiled a bill iu chan- 
 cery against him for a sale : — Held, that as the 
 mortgagee could, since the Administration of 
 Justice Act, R. S..O. (1877), c. 49, obtain in the 
 chancery suit all the remedies he could obtain 
 iu the ejectment suit, the latter should be stayed 
 
 In an 
 may be c 
 power to ( 
 Act (Con. 
 by, and i 
 (1877), c. 
 V. Manioi 
 
 An actii 
 ment, and 
 is not an i 
 
 3B 
 
57ff. 
 
 677 
 
 EJECTMENT. 
 
 578 
 
 forever. Hay v. McArthur, 8 P. R. 321.— Dal- 
 ton, Manln: 
 
 III ail action of ejectment by mortgagees, on 
 the application of the infant (lefend<ii»ts, iin order 
 for immediate posaessiun and sale of the mort- 
 gaged preniiitea was made, witii a reference to 
 the master to take the usual accounts ; but $80 
 was ordered to be paiil into court to meet the 
 expenses of the sale. Wtntern Canada Loan and 
 Savinij* i'rt. v. Dunn, 9 P. II. 587.— Armour. Re- 
 versing A', v. , lb. 490. 
 
 See In re Flint and Jellett, 8 P. R. 361 ; Frogt 
 V. BiniH, 12 O. R. 6G9. 
 
 3. Married IVomen. 
 
 The plaintiflFand defendant, hor husband, were 
 mariied in February, IfeOS, the plaintiff then 
 owning the land in question in fee simple. 
 The defendant was then carrying on business, 
 which, at his wife's request, he sold out for 
 ^2,000, and expended it on improving the said 
 lands. The plaintitl' and defendant resided to- 
 gether on the lands until April, 1886, when they 
 disagreed, and the plaintlH left the premises, the 
 defendant and their only child continuing to re- 
 side thereon, 'i'he plaintiU brought an action for 
 possession, and for use and occupation. No de- 
 mand was made prior to service of writ : — Held, 
 following Donnelly v. Donnelly, 9 O. K. 673, the 
 plaintiff was entitled to pcjssession ; but could 
 only recover for the use and occupation since the 
 service of the writ. Held, alto, that the defen- 
 dant could not claim for the moneys expended 
 by him on the land. Till v. Till, 15 O. R. 133.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 III. Practice AND PuGCEDURE. 
 
 1. Writ of Summons. 
 
 (a) Insue of Writ. 
 
 A writ of ejectment for the recovery of the 
 possession of land may issue out of the proper 
 office in any county, without reference to the 
 locality of the land. Canada l^nrmanent Loan 
 and SavimjH Co. v. Foley, 9 P. li. 273.— Dalton, 
 Mauler. 
 
 (b) Service. 
 
 The writ of summons in ejectment was served 
 upon defendant's wife after he had left the 
 country. Au order to sign judgment against 
 the husband was grunted in default of appear- 
 ance. 'J'runt and Loan Co. v. Jones, 8 P. R. 
 65.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 2. Venue. 
 
 In an action of ejectment the place of trial 
 may be changed by order of a judge. If the 
 power to change is not given by Uule 2.54, O. J. 
 Act (Con. Rule 053), it is not taken away there- 
 by, and it previously existed under li. 8. O. 
 (1877), c. 51, s. 23. Canadian Pacijic H. W. Co. 
 V. MauioH, 11 P. R. 247. -Proudfoot.— Chy. D. 
 
 An action by a mortgagee for foreclosure, pay- 
 ment, and poa.-icssiuii ot the mortgaged premises 
 is not an actiou of ejectment witiiiu the meaning 
 
 37 
 
 of the exception in Rule 254, 0. J. Act (Con, 
 Rule 653), and the venue need not therefore in 
 such an action be laid in the county where the 
 lands lie. Seymour v. Deilariih, 11 P. R. 472. — 
 Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 3. Appearance. 
 
 In an action of ejectment, (}., the landlady of 
 the lief eiidant C, intervened and appeared to the 
 writ. C. did not appear until statement of claim 
 delivered, when he appeared and jdined with G. 
 in the statement of defence: — Held, that the 
 appearance of O. was regular. Coriiiij v. Cam- 
 eron, 10 P. R. 496.— Dalton, Mu^iter.—Oalev. 
 
 4. Addinc/ and Striking out Parties, 
 
 111 ejectment the plaintiff obtained a verdict, 
 but as the defendant had made imiproveroents on 
 the land under a bona fide belief that the land 
 was his own he was held entitled to the relief 
 given by R. S. O. (1877), c. 95, s. 4, and the 
 master in chancery at Ottawa was directed to 
 ascertain the value of such inipiovements and 
 report thereon which he did. A rule nisi hav- 
 ing been obtained to refer back the report for 
 the reasons stated, it appeared that after the 
 report the defendant dieil intestate, and that no 
 personal representative had been appointed, 
 leaving a widow who was residing on the lautl 
 in question and a son by a former wile but no 
 children by the second wife, and also that de- 
 fendant had assigned all his interest in the sum 
 to be found due for improvements to a loan so- 
 ciety. The court peimitted the plaintiti' to 
 amend his rule nisi by calling on the widow or 
 son of the deceased and on tlie luan society to 
 shew cause why they should not be made parties 
 to the suit and why the former should not be 
 appointed under A. J. Act, s. 9, to represent the 
 estate of the defendant for the purposes of this 
 motion and all subsequent proceedings in the 
 reference, and why in that event the relief asked 
 by the rule should not be granted. '1 he rule to 
 be returnable on fourteen days' notice before a 
 single judge. McCarthy v. Arbuckle, 31 C. P. 
 48.— Osier. 
 
 An application by defendants in an action of 
 ejectment to have their names struck out on the 
 ground that thej' were not in possession at or 
 subsequent to the issue of the wiit, and disclaim 
 anj' interest in the land, is regidarly made before 
 appearance, although tlie application would be 
 entertained after appeal anee w here the justice of 
 the case required it. But where two defendants 
 applied after appearance to have their names 
 struck out, and the court, from tlie facta, enter- 
 tained a doubt as to the gooil faith of these de- 
 fendants, the application was dismissed, with 
 costs. Anglo-Canadian Mortgage Co. v. Cotter, 
 8 P. R. 111.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 In an action of ejectment and for mesne profits, 
 the defendant O. was tenant in possession, and 
 had two months after the service of the writ 
 upon him, paid rent to his co-defendant, his 
 landlord. An application by O. to have his 
 name struck out as a p.irty to the suit, he hav- 
 ing gone out of possession on the expiration of 
 his lease, was refused with costs. Johnston v. 
 Oliver, 9 P. R. 353.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 w 
 
 5 :: • .'a 
 
570 
 
 EJECTMENT. 
 
 580 
 
 S^i: 
 
 Where the plaintifTH brouglit action again8t 
 the dufciulants to reuovur poaHussion of curtain 
 lauds, and tlie latter reuiatud tiiu claim, uud uUu 
 served a third uarty notice upon H. , claiming 
 indemnity ; and, thereupon, ))y order in cliani- 
 bers, on tiie application of the defendants, H. 
 was made u party defendant to tlie action, and 
 the plaintitfs afterwards abandoned their claim 
 to the lands : — Held, that the plaintiffs must pay 
 H.'s costs. Beard V. Credit Valley R. W. Co., 
 9 0. 11. 610.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Thome v. Wdliavia, 13 0. R. 577, p. 576 ; 
 McMaster v. Manon, 12 P. K. 278. 
 
 5. Statement of Claim, 
 
 A writ in ejectment was served on 15th 
 August, 18S1, and an ap^jcarance entered after 
 the 22nd of the same month: — Held, that plain- 
 tiff need not file a statement of claim, under the 
 new practice, and tliat a notice of trial served 
 immediately after tlie entry of the appearance 
 was regular, the cause being then at issue. Laid- 
 law V. Aahbauijh, 9 P. R. 6.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 The plaintiff indorsed liis writ of summons and 
 filed his statement of claim to recover possession 
 of the land in dispute, as being the assignee of 
 a lease made by him to the defendants, who 
 assigned to a tliird party, who assigned and sur- 
 rendered to the plaintiff. The defence was that 
 the lease was in effect a mortgage, ami fraud and 
 want of consideration were alleged : — Held, that 
 the plaintiff could not amend his statement of 
 claim, and ask a foreclosure of the land as mort- 
 gagee. Mcllhargey v. McQinnis, 9 P. R. 157. — 
 Wilson. 
 
 Held, that the mention of the date of issue 
 of a writ of ejectment in the statement of claim 
 was essential. But leave was given to amend 
 on payment of costs. Scott v. Creiyhlon, 9 P, 
 R. 253.— Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 6. Counler-Claim, 
 
 In ejectment the defendant was allowed to set 
 up a counter-claim for dower out of the lands in 
 question. Remarks as to the form of decree in 
 such a case. Glasn v. (Hhus, 9 P. R. 14.— Osier. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of land and for 
 mesne profits, a counter-claim for damages for 
 illegal distress against the plaintiff and his bailiff 
 who executed the distress was held good. Dock- 
 atader v. Phipps, 9 P. R. 204.— Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 The defendant C. counter-claimed for damages 
 in respect of a trespass by the plaintiff upon the 
 lands in question, whilst lieC. was in possession, 
 and for au assault, etc., whereby he was com- 
 pelled to quit the premises :— Held, that the 
 counterclaim was not joining another cause of 
 action with an action for the recovery of land 
 within the meaning of Rule 116 O. J. Act (Con. 
 Rule 341) :— Held, also, that the counter-claim 
 should not be disallowed or excluded under 
 Rules 127 (6) (Con. Rule 374), or 168, O. J. 
 Act, on the ground of inconvenience, it not ap- 
 pearing that there would be any inconvenience, 
 and :— Semble, that the counter-claim was suffi- 
 ciently conneeted with the cause of action to 
 make it advisable that they should be tried 
 
 together. Qoring v. Cameron, 10 P. R. 406. — 
 Dalton, Mauler. — Osier. 
 
 To an action to recover possession of land it 
 is a uood cause of coun .r-claim that defendant 
 was induced by his solicitor's fraud to make two 
 promissory notes, which were then overdue, 
 and in plaintiff's hands, wlio took them with 
 knowledge of the fraud ; and praying that plain- 
 tiff might be restrained from negotiating or 
 parting with them, and that they should ite 
 delivered up to be cancelled ; for the fact of the 
 notes being overdue in plaintiff's hands had not 
 the effect of destroying the right to have them 
 delivered up. Prilchard v, Pritchard, 17 0. 1{. 
 50. — Street. 
 
 Held, the defendant can counter-claim without 
 leave ; but that he cannot in his counter-claim 
 without leave under Con. Rule 341 join another 
 cause of action with a claim for the recovery of 
 land. lb. 
 
 7. Joinder of Actiom. 
 
 As to joining any other cause of action with 
 an action for the I'ccovery of land. See Ooriiiij 
 v. Cameron, 10 P. R. 496. 
 
 The plaintiff, without leave, joined other causes 
 of action in an action for the recovery of land, 
 contrary to Con. Rule 311. Upon a motion by 
 the defendant to set aside the writ of summons, 
 the master in chambers made an order for tiie 
 amendment of the writ 1>y striking out tlie 
 portion of the indorsement containing the other 
 claims, upon payment of costs. Robertson, J., 
 on appeal, upheld the niiister's order. White v, 
 Ravmiy, 12 P. R. (i2(). 
 
 See Pritchard v. Prilchard, 17 0. R. 50, supra. 
 
 8. Equitable U^ences. 
 
 In ejectment where equitable issues are raised 
 under R. S. O. (1877) c. 50, s. 257, the issues must 
 be tried without a jury. Bryan v. Mitchell, 8 
 P. R. .302.— Dalton, Q. C— Armour. 
 
 Per Gwynne, J. : — That under the practice 
 which prevailed in lOngland in 1870, which prac- 
 tice was in force in Manitoba under 38 Vict. c. 
 12, at the time of the bringing of this suit, au 
 equitable defence could not be set up in an action 
 of ejectment. Farmer v. Lirimjutone, 5 S. C, II. 
 221. 
 
 9. JudijmetU. 
 
 Application for order to sign final judgment 
 under Con. Rule 756. See Truxl and Loan Co. 
 V. Hill, 9 P. R. 8 ; Cook v. Lemieux, 10 P. R. 
 577. 
 
 Where a statement of claim in an action for 
 the recovery of land was held good on denmrrer, 
 and upon the case going down to trial, the 
 plaintiff proved all the material allegations in it. 
 — Hold, that he was thereupon entitled to judg- 
 ment, and that O. J. A. 1881, s. 44. did not 
 apply, and an objection that the plaintiff had not 
 sufficiently proved his title could not be enter- 
 tained. Johnasson v. Bonhote, 2 Ch. D. 208, 
 distinguished. McGee v. Kaiie, 14 O. R. 226. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 The defe 
 whioii the 
 to a iiiortjj 
 costs, on 
 able to pa_, 
 rwiUy brou 
 shuwa tha 
 ie88 ; that 
 ful that ht 
 question tc 
 their own 
 the advice 
 «u action! 
 who was tl 
 bringing!, 
 of tlie haul 
 .and that h 
 insolvent, 
 evidence tl 
 tuiued the 
 look to til 
 under thea 
 regarded 
 plaintiff; 
 security 
 
 i 
 
581 
 
 ELEOTION. 
 
 582 
 
 \fmw 
 
 Siuce the Ontario Judicature Act, a judgment 
 recovered in an action of ejectment by default of 
 appearance will sustain a defence of rea judicata 
 to un action subseiiuently brought by the defcn- 
 <laDt to try the same question. Cochrane v. 
 Hamilton Provident and Loan .Society, 16 O. R. 
 I'.»8 followed. Ball v. Cnthcarl, 1«0. R. .523.— 
 
 <;. I'. D. 
 
 The action, to recover possession of land, was 
 tried without a jury before tiie Consolidated 
 Rules came into force, and the trial judge 
 ordered that judgment should bo entered for the 
 pluiutiff for possession of the laud, and judgment 
 was at once entered accordingly, and the plain- 
 tifl" put in possession by the sheriff under a writ 
 of possession : — Held, that under the practice, 
 ami having regard to Rules 273, 274, i75, 341, 
 and 379, of the Ontario Judicature Act, 1881 
 (Con. Rules 682, 687, 088, 808), there was noth- 
 ing to remove actions for the recovery of land 
 out of the general rule, and the entry of judg- 
 ment and subsequent proceedings were regular. 
 Section 34 of R. 8. O. (1877), c. 51, was repealed 
 by Rule 273 (Con. Rule 082), of the Ontario 
 Judicature Act, 1881. Riidd v. Frank, 17 O. R. 
 758.— Q. H. D. 
 
 See Uatnou v. Kelchum, 2 0. R. 237 : Trust 
 nud Loan Co. v. Jones, S P. R. 05, p. 577. 
 
 10. Writ of Assistance. 
 
 Tl.e application of R. S. 0. (1877), c. 66 is not 
 li'iiited to merely common law actions pending 
 in those courts before the Judicature Act, but 
 «xtcnds to all writs of execution ; and a writ of 
 assistance in execution of a decree of the Court 
 of Chancery for the recovery of land, is a writ 
 of execution within the meaning of section 11 
 of that Act, and is not in force after one year 
 from the teste, if unexecuted, unless renewed. 
 AdamsoH v. Adamson, 12 P. R. 21. — Uoyd. 
 
 12. Costs. 
 
 (a) Security for Costs. 
 
 The defendants in an action of ejectment, in 
 whicli the plaintifi' claimed title as owner subject 
 to a mortgage to a l)ank, moved for security for 
 costs, on the ground tluit the plaintiff was not 
 able to pay costs, and that the action was not 
 rtially brought by him but by the bank. It was 
 slifwa that the plaintiff was linancially worth- 
 less ; that liis interest in the land was so doubt- 
 ful that ho did not feel sufhcient interest in the 
 question to litigate it ; that the bank instructed 
 their own solicitor to look into the title, took 
 the advice of counsel, ami were advised to have 
 ■au iiction brought in the name of the mortgagor, 
 who was then for the first time consulted about 
 bringing the action ; that tlie ordinary solicitor 
 of the bank was retained to bring the action ; 
 and that he admitted he knew the plaintiff was 
 iuiiolvent. It was fairly deducible from the 
 evidence that the bank had really in fact re- 
 tiiiued the solicitor, and that the solicitor would 
 lotik to the bank for his costs : — Held, that 
 under these circumstances the action must be 
 regarded as that of the bank, and not of the 
 plaintiff; who was therefore required to give 
 security for costs. Parker v. Great Western 
 
 R. W. Co., OCR. 76(1, and Androwi •-. Marris, 
 7 Dowl. P. C. 712, followed. JJelaney v. Mac- 
 Lellaii, 13 P. R. 63. -Dalton, Master.— Rosa. 
 
 See Kelly v. Wolf, 12 P. R, 234, p. 679. 
 
 (b) Lialiilify of Administrator. 
 
 A trustee or executor stands in the 8anie 
 position as any other litigant with respect to 
 costs. And whore an action of ejectment was 
 brought by the administrator of a deceased 
 person in whom the legal estate in certain land 
 was vested, and by the holder of a mortgage 
 created by the deceased person upon such land, 
 and it ap)ieared that the deceased purchased 
 the land with such moneys of the defendant, 
 and took the conveyance in his own name, 
 and that the defendant was the true owner of 
 tlie land :— Held, that the fact that there was 
 no declaration of trust in favour of the defendant, 
 and that the evidence in the hands of the ad- 
 ministrator tended to show that the deceased 
 was in his lifetime owner and not trustee, did 
 not relievo the administrator from liability for 
 costs ; which were given to the defendant 
 against both plaintiffs. Smith v. Williamson, 13 
 P. R. 126.--HOSC. 
 
 IV. Mesne Pkokits. 
 
 Qurerc as to when mense profits may now be 
 recovered in ejectment. McCarthy v. Arbtickle, 
 31 C. P. 405.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Pyatt v, McKee, 3 0. R. 151 ; Dockstader 
 V. Phipps, 9 P. R. 204, p. 579; Seabrook v. 
 Youwj, 14 A. R. 97, p. 397 ; Adamson v. 
 Adamson, 17 0. R. 407, p. 592. 
 
 ELECTION. 
 
 I. Widow's Election — See Dower. 
 II. Under Wills- See Will. 
 
 III. Ok D1RECT0R.S— See Company. 
 
 IV. Of Members of Municipal Councils — 
 
 Stt Municipal Corporations. 
 
 V. Of Members of Parliament or Legis- 
 lative Assemdlv- See Parliament- 
 ary Elections. 
 
 Trustees — See Public 
 
 VI. Of School 
 Schools. 
 
 VII. Votp.rs' Tjsts — See Parliamentary 
 Elections. 
 
 Where lands were advertised for sale under a 
 decree, and the purchaser, the owner of the ad- 
 joining lot, who had also been in possession by 
 his son of the advertised premises, tendered for 
 them, knowing that the lands comprised fewer 
 acres than the advertisement stated, and intend- 
 ing to seek an abatement after the purchase was 
 complete, and a subsequent incumbrancer offer- 
 ed to give the same price for them as the pur- 
 chaser: — Held, that the petitioner should be put 
 to his election, either to take the land without 
 abatement of the purchase money, or let it go 
 
 ••'111, 11; 
 
 ;'-. II 
 
 
 > 
 8 
 
 ^1 
 
683 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 ias 
 
 
 
 111 the Hnlwemiont Innuinbrancc'r. Varmiehiiil 
 V. t'lirin, 8 1'. H. 2Mt.--Sttiilunii, IMmtf.— 
 Itlake. 
 
 Ai>plivuti(iu to mniit action to tlic court to 
 taku fvicUiiici' lifter nifiiwil to call witniKHOB. 
 .S«'o MitcdimiUU v. Woilhiiiytov, 7 A. II. 531. 
 
 Wlime the plaintiff tilnd liiH 1)111 Booking to 
 (IIIiihIi a oortaiii municipal liy-law, pawHod toopon 
 a roail, and aJHo un award made tlioreiindor:-— 
 Holii, that thoro wiih ndtlnnjj; inconHiBtont in thiB, 
 and the plaintiH' waH notlioiind toolect lietwcen 
 attacking tlio l»y-law and attacking tho award. 
 JhmluK/ V. Tov'iixhlp of CnrdiJi; 2 (). H. .S'2».— 
 Chy. I).' 
 
 Wlioro, however, under Biichcircumstnncos.tlic 
 tilaintifl', lieing called on liy tho court to elect, 
 liad elected to attack the award, and consented 
 to a decree netting it anide, anil ordering a new 
 arliitration, which arbitration he had iirosccutcd 
 until another award was made, which ho had 
 not iiu)ve<l acaiuHt witliin the time allowed 
 tlurofor:— Hcfd, he could not afterwards com- 
 plain of having been forced to elect at the hear- 
 ing. //;. 
 
 In an action of foreclosure upon a mortgage 
 which eontaiiiB a clauBo by which the principal 
 fallH duo upon default made in jiayment of any 
 iiiBtulment of interest, if tho plaintiff claims the 
 benefit of tho clause, and calls in tho whole 
 mortgage debt, ho is bound by his election u.nd 
 inuHt accept prinuipal, interest, and costs, when- 
 ever tendered, although ho docs not pray for a 
 personal order for inimediato payment. Drum- 
 mond V. (}uickurd, cited in (irccn r. Adams, 2 
 Chy. (!hamb. 124, overrnled. Cni'^o v. liohd, 
 1 O. R. 384.— Uoyd; reversing 6'. C, 9 P. K. 
 111. 
 
 Election by assignee to allow creditor to retain, 
 at a valuation, property held by him as security. 
 See Dell v. ViVs, 11 A. i{. 458. 
 
 Election to waive personal liability on a note 
 and uocopt the liability of the company by prov- 
 ing against the company on the note, and acce|)t- 
 ing a dividend thereon. See Brown v. Jlowland, 
 9 O. 11. 48; 15 A. 1{. 750. 
 
 J. E. Dunham carried on business at Montreal 
 from February, ]88(!, to Ist Septcndjcr, 1S8(), 
 undorthestyloof J.E.Dunham &(/'o. The same 
 J. K Dunham with VV. W. Park carried on busi- 
 ness at Toronto from Ist May, 1886, to I st August 
 1886, under the same style, .1. E. Dunham & Co. 
 By the articloa of partnership between Dunham 
 and Park it was agreed that Uunhani should nttt 
 sign the tirm name to bills or notes. The dissolu- 
 tion of tho partnership between iJunham and Park 
 was not advertised until the 20th August, 188(i. 
 Dunham for ])urposcs of bis own, and without 
 the knowledge of Park, ui>on the 1 1 th of August, 
 188(5, signed a aeries of notes amounting to 
 f21,0(X) with the tirm name of J. E. Dunham & 
 Co., and gave them to one Isaacs. The note in 
 question in this action was one of th it series, 
 but antedated upon the .'U)th of .July. The 
 plaintiffs who had no knowledge of Park being 
 a member of J. E. Dunham and Co. , took this 
 note without notice of any infirmity, and to 
 secure a pre-existing debt which was overdue. 
 The judge at the trial charged the jury that the 
 plaiutitls had a right to resort to either tirm for 
 
 payment. Held, n nilndiruction, and that there 
 W1U4 no such right of electiiin; that it was for the 
 creditiii' to prove who IiIh debtor was and not for 
 tho defendants to prove that they were nut the 
 debtors. Slaiidard Hank v. iJunnani, 14 O. K. 
 07.-g. H. D. 
 
 Election by suing one person instead of the 
 members of the lirni. See Mnil Prhilimi Co, v. 
 Devlin, 17 O. H. 16. 
 
 Upon a motion for an interim injiiiirtion the 
 defendants tiled nn adldavit and statement shew- 
 ing that they had applied insurance moneys 
 received by them, in respect of loss by (ire of 
 buildings upon land mortgaged to them by the 
 plaintin's, upon overdue instalments of principal, 
 and an insurance premium [laid by them ; and 
 in their statement of defence they also stated 
 their position in a way inconsistent with that 
 which they afterwards took, vi/., that tho in- 
 surance money was apjilicablc upon the whole 
 principal, which by virtue of an acceleration 
 clause in the mortgage, had become ilue ;- Held, 
 that the dofeiidantB had made their election, 8o 
 far as the ell'ect of the default and the njiplica- 
 tion of the insurance money was concerni d, not 
 to claim tho wlmlo principal as having become 
 due by reason of the default ; and that they 
 must apply the insurance money, as required l)y 
 K. S. (3. cli. 102, sec, 4, sub-sec. 2, upon arrears 
 of ])rincipal and interest. Corham r. King.ston, 
 17 O. R. 4.'{2, approved and followed. KttmowU 
 V. Hamilton I'rovident niid Loan Soculi/, \9 
 O. K. 677.— Q. a D. Reversed in appeal, 18 
 A. H. 347. 
 
 EMBARRASSINQ PLEADINGS. 
 
 See Plkadinhh. 
 
 EMBEZZLEMENT. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 EMBLEMENTS. 
 
 See Crop.1. 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 Sec Ckown— MuNKUi'Ai, CoKroRATioNs— Rah.- 
 WAY ANiJ Railway Comtaniks. 
 
 Right of tenant to compensation. See /« re 
 Wetland Camd Jinlari/emenl — Filch v. Mcliae, 
 29 Chy. 139, p. 113. 
 
 Where the land itself upon which a trade is 
 carried on, is expropriated, damage to the good- 
 will may be a proper subject of compensation. 
 Ricket's Case, L. R. 2 H. L. 175, distinguished. 
 Ke AlcCautey and City of Toronto, 18 O. K. 
 416.— Boyd. 
 
 :eq 
 
584 
 
 585 
 
 ESTATE. 
 
 586 
 
 ENDORSEMENT. 
 
 I. Ok Wkitm— .S'efl I'KAfriCK. 
 JJ. (H' Dit.i.s OK NoTKH— .SVc nii,i,H (>K K.\- 
 
 rllAMlK AND I'llDMISNOlCY NoTKS. 
 
 ENTAIL. 
 
 ♦ See Khtaik, 
 
 ENTIRETIES, ESTATE BY. 
 
 See Kmtate. 
 
 EQUITABLE ASSETS. 
 
 Sec /{anil! qf Tonnli, v. Hall, 6 0. R. 0/5.3. 
 
 EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT. 
 
 .S'ftcCnosK IN AcnoN. 
 
 EQUITABLE DEFENCE. 
 
 .^ee I'liKCTMBNT— I'LKADINli. 
 
 EQUITABLE ESTATE. 
 
 See KxECUTiov— MowTOAiiE. 
 
 I'er Burton, J. A. The owner of an cquitaljlo 
 
 • estivte cannot, notwitliHtanding the .Juilicature 
 
 Act, iii'dcccil against a trcH])aM8ui' in liis own name. 
 
 Ho in Htill hoiiiul to huc in the nainu of hiH trua- 
 
 toe. Adamxou v. Adumnon, 7 A. 1{. 592. 
 
 Sec also S. C, 28 Cliy. 221 ; 9 A. R. 592 ; 12 
 
 a 0. R. mi. 
 
 EQUITABLE EXECUTION. 
 
 See Execution. 
 
 EQUITABLE JURISDICTION. 
 
 See County Court— Trial. 
 
 EQUITABLE LIEN. 
 
 See LiKN. 
 
 SQUITT OF REDEMPTION. 
 
 See MoRTOAciE. 
 
 ERROR. 
 
 Stt Criminal Law. 
 
 ESCHEAT. 
 
 IIclil, nirnMiiing tlm .jiulgniiint of IVouiIfoot, 
 V. C, 20 ( 'hy. rJli, that thuiloctrinuof cHchoat* 
 applicH to Ontario; that tliu Attoniuy-Ooriural 
 for Ontario \n the proper pdraou to ropruMunt tliu 
 Crown ami to approprlatu the uHchcat to thouHCH 
 of the Province ; tliat tliu Court of Chancery iian 
 jiiriHilietiiui in hucIi a caHU ; and that it waH 
 propiir for the Attorney-Ooneral to lllo a hill in 
 the (y'ourt of (Jliancery to enforce the CNcheat. 
 A/torii(y-U't'ii(ni/ of Oiifario v. O'lMtli/, >t A. R. 
 57(i. See iS'. C hiiIi. iwiii. Atlorni'y-dKiir.raf of 
 Oiildi-io V. Mi.rci'i; 5 S. V.. U. CIS ; 8 App. Ca». 
 707, p. 307. 
 
 See Simiisoii v. Corhflt, 10 A. R. .12 ; AUoriin/- 
 (leiiinti (ifOiitiiriow Al/<inuy-(/eiicralo/Cuu(ulu, 
 14 H. C. K. 7.'tO. 
 
 ESCROW. 
 
 See Coufi'ilfirnUoii Li/< A nmcialion v. O'DonnM, 
 10 S. C. U. 02; S. C, !3 S. C. R. 218. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 ESTATE. 
 
 Estate at Will— .SW Limitation oh 
 
 Actions. 
 
 For Years— .Vcc Landlord and Ten- 
 ant. 
 
 E.state for Like. 
 
 1. Generally, .587. 
 
 2. liy Curlcxy, 580. 
 
 3. Doicer — See Dower. 
 
 4. Improvements effected by Tenant — 
 
 .See Improvements ON Land. 
 
 5. Lan<h taken for Railway purpoms — 
 
 See Railways aNi> Railway Com- 
 panies. 
 
 Estate Tail, 590. 
 
 Estate in Fee, ,590. 
 
 Estate hy Entireties, 591. 
 
 .Joint Tenants, 691. 
 
 Tenants in Common, 592. 
 
 Equitable Estates — See Equitable 
 Estate. 
 
 Rule in Shelley's Case, 593. 
 
 Heir-at-Law, 593. 
 
 Conveyance ok— See Deed. 
 
 Trust E.states— See Trusts and Trus- 
 tees—Uses AND Trusts. 
 
 Administration of — See Executors 
 AND Administrators. 
 
 Conversion of Realty into Pbbhon- 
 ALTY— See Conversion — Will. 
 
 ! :: r :a 
 
 £ lu , It; 
 
 '•" *'t f 
 
 ?•':•. it 
 
 - »-. t II 
 
 «■■•,: 
 
 ■" »B; 
 
 ■* I*, 
 
 ;ii 
 I 
 
 II 
 
587 
 
 ESTATR 
 
 58S 
 
 XVI. Devolution of Estates Act— /See De- 
 
 volution oif Estates Act. 
 
 XVII. Distribution of— See Distribution of 
 
 Estate. 
 
 XVIII. Partition of— See Partition. 
 XIX. Devise of— See Will. 
 XX. Of Particular Persons. 
 
 1. Married Woman— See Dowrh—Rvs- 
 
 BANP and Wife. 
 
 2. Infants—See Infant. 
 
 3. Lunatics— See Lunatic. 
 
 4. Tenanta for Years — Hce Landlord 
 
 AND Tenant. 
 
 III. Estate for Life. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 The general rule as between a tenant for life 
 and the remainderman in respect of a charge 
 upon an estate, is, that the ten.int for life must 
 keep down the interest on such charge, and the 
 rluty of the remainderman is to pay the principal. 
 lieid V. Jieid, 29 Chy. 372.— Spragge. 
 
 The word "demise" is an efTcctive word to 
 convey an estate of freehold, and is of like im- 
 port with, and equivalent to the word "grant." 
 An estate for life was therefore held to be validly 
 created by the words "demise and lease" to E. 
 M. for lite; and livery of seisin was held un- 
 i.^cessary. Spears v. Milkr, 32 C. P. GGl.— 
 Annour. 
 
 The defendant leased to hi.s father the lands 
 in question in this action for life, to work and 
 enjoy the same, Lut that should the father in 
 his later years become incapable of taking charge 
 of the place as it should be by good husbandry, 
 then and in such ease the defendant was to be 
 at liberty to govern the lands as seemed bu«t to 
 him. And in the event of the father becoming 
 ncapable of manual labour he was to be sup- 
 ported by the son, and it was agreed that, sub- 
 ject to the son's rights, the father was entitled 
 to peaceable and quiet possession. The father 
 became incapable of taking proper care of the 
 plai-e, and in consequence the defendant re- 
 entered and worked the farm. vSubse(iuently 
 thereto the interest of the father was sold by 
 the sheriff to tlie plaintiff, who brought eject- 
 ment. The jury having found the facts as above 
 stated: — Held (reversing the judgment of tlie 
 court below, 31 C. P. 417), that the defendant 
 had, according to the terms of the lease, the 
 right to possession, and that the plaintiff must 
 therefore fail in his action. Turley v. Benedict, 
 7 A. R. 300. 
 
 Held, following Drake i: Wigle, 22 C. P. 405, 
 that a tenant for life in this country may cut 
 down timber in the proper course of good hus- 
 bandry, in order to bring the proper proportion 
 of the land under cultivation, and pcrha|)s des- 
 troy such timber, but that he cannot cut down 
 timber even for the same purpose, and sell it. 
 Saunders v. Breakie, 5 0. K. 603. — Ferguson. 
 
 Mrs. H. the owner of lot 13, built a house 
 thereon, but which on a survey made by a sur- 
 veyor, B., was found to have encroached on lot 
 
 12, owned by R., seven and ahalf inches, where- 
 upon the following agreement was entered into ; 
 "It is hereby agreed between R. and Mrs. H. 
 that the line as surveyed between the lots of the 
 above parties on Cherry street, by Mr. B. i» 
 correct, but that the said Mrs. H. be permitted 
 to occupy her house durinq; her life, and not he 
 compelled to remove the same, notwithstanding 
 a portion of it is on the land of said R. ; but that 
 after the death of the said Mrs. H., said 11. may 
 claim the whole of his said lot ; and that in the 
 meantime said R. shall occupy his said lot up to 
 the said line in the rear of the said house." The 
 defendant had purchased from M. to whom Mrs. 
 H. had sold some twelve years prior to the trial, 
 which took place in the spring of 1886, M. at the 
 time being aware of the agreement, but of which 
 defendant when he bought had no notice. The 
 defendant moved a fence, which plaintiff had 
 erected in rear of the house in accordance with 
 B.'s survey, in a line with the house, and also 
 veneered the house with brick so as to cause it 
 to encroach one and a-half inches further on 
 plaintiff's lot. Mrs. H. died within ten years 
 before action commenced, which was brought to 
 recover that part of lot 12 encroached on by de- 
 fendant :— Held, that the plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover, for that the agreement nnist be con- 
 strued as a demise to Mrs. H. for life of that 
 portion of lot 12 covered by the house, and not 
 merely a license to occupy the same, so that the 
 right of entry oT the plaintiff, who claimed under 
 R. did not accrue until Mrs. H.'s death, and 
 therefore plaintiff having brought his action 
 within ten years of Mrs. H.'s death, was not 
 barred by the Statute of Limitations. It w.is 
 objected that the plaintiff nuist fail under the 
 registry laws, because tlie grant to Mrs. H. it 
 appeared had not been registered, and defendant 
 bought in ignorance of plaintiff's rights ; but : — 
 Held, that the registry laws did not affect tlie 
 matter, for as defendant bought lot 13 and nut 
 12, the instrument relating to lot 12 would not 
 properly be registered on lot 13 : — Held, also, 
 that the agreement signed by Mrs. H. recognizing 
 the line run by B. as the true boundary between 
 the lots, relieved the plaintiff from doing more 
 than sliewing where that line ran, and imposed 
 on defendant, who claimed by mesne conveyance 
 from Mrs. H., the burden of shewing that such 
 line was incorrect. Per Rose J. Tlie plaintiS 
 was clearly entitled to recover as to the one and 
 a-half inches ; but as to the seven and a-half 
 inches, though in doubt, he concurred in tlie 
 judgment of tlie court. Roan v. Kronxhein, 12 
 O. R. 197.— C. P. D. 
 
 A deed made by C. G. (mother) to J. H. O. 
 (daughter) just after the latter's marriage, con- 
 tuined the following provision : "It being here- 
 by declared and agreed that it is intended by 
 this deed to vest in the said .1. H. (J. life interest 
 and estate in the said land, and at her decease 
 the same is to go to the lawful issue of the said 
 .T. Fl. (J., and to be held by tliem, their heirs 
 and assigns in equal shares," and was executed 
 by both grantor and grantee. No issue were in 
 existence at the date of the deed. Subsequently 
 J. II. G. and her children, with the exception of 
 two, executed a mortgage in fee of the property ; 
 of these two, one died in the lifetime of J. H. G. 
 leaving infant children. In an application under 
 the Vendor and Purchaser Act, R. S. 0. (1877), 
 c. 109, on a sale by the mortgagee it was : — 
 
589 
 
 ESTATE. 
 
 590 
 
 Heidi that the real design of the grantor and J. 
 H. G. the grantee, appearing on the face of the 
 deed, was that only a laenefiuial life estate should 
 be given to the grantee, and that the beneficial 
 remainder in fee should go to her children : that 
 each child born while tlie grantee lived would 
 have a vested right to share in the property, 
 and that such share would descend to those who 
 died before the grantee ; and that such a title 
 could not be forced on a purchaser, lie Morice 
 and Rishridger, 13 O. R. (J40.— Boyd. 
 
 A testator f;ave all his estate, real and per- 
 sonal, to trustees upon trust to allow and give 
 the use thereof to his wife during her life for 
 her support and maintenance, and after her death 
 to sell and divide thp proceeds among his chil- 
 dren equally ;— Held, tliatthe wife had the right 
 to leave the farm and deal herself directly witli 
 the tenant during her life. Hefferman v. Tay- 
 lor, 15 O. li. 670.— Boyd. 
 
 In this case, those entitled in remainder were 
 the adult children of the life tenant, and no ac- 
 tive duties were cast by tlie will on the trustees 
 during the continuance of the life estate, and 
 sucli being the case, the court would give effect 
 to the usual incidents of an estate for life Ijy which 
 the tenant can occupy it or let it, or otherwise 
 dispose of it as seems liest to that tenant : — 
 Held, therefore, tliat a lease theretofore made by 
 the trustees without the sanction of the widow, 
 tiiough there was no evidence of mala fides on 
 their part, must nevertlieless be set aside, and 
 possession of tlie property given to the widow or 
 her nominee. Ih. 
 
 The plaintiff's testatrix, who had a life estate 
 in certain lands, made a lease of them for ten 
 years to one of the defendants, who was entitled 
 to the reversion in fee. The reservation of rent 
 in the lease was to tlie lessor simply, and the 
 covenant for payment of rent was "with the 
 lessor, her heirs and assigns," for payment to 
 "the said lessor, her heirs and assigns." Tlie 
 lessor died before the expiration of the ten years, 
 and this action was brought by the executrix of 
 her will to recover (inter alia) the instalments 
 of rent which l/ccanio nayal)le. as it was alleged, 
 upon the lease after her deatli : — Held, that, as 
 tlie interest of the lessor was a frecholil interest, 
 the plaintiff could not recover either as being 
 entitled to the reversion of a chattel interest, 
 or as being the jiorson designated by the cove- 
 nant : — Held, also, that there was no estoppel 
 to prevent the 1 ssee from shewing that the title 
 of the lessor had come to an end, and that he 
 himself became the owner upon her death. 
 Thatcher v, iomuan, 18 O; R. 205.— Street. 
 
 See In re Trekvm and Horner, 28 Chy. 624 ; 
 Wihon v. Gilmer, 46 Q. B. 54.'5, p. 491. 
 
 2. By Curtesy. 
 
 A testator devised his property to trustees, in 
 trust to pay the rents and profits to his wife 
 durante viduitate, and if she married again she 
 was to have an annuity, and the jiroperty was 
 to be applied as directed for the benefit of the 
 children, and divided among them when the 
 youngest came of age. One daughter married, 
 and died before the period of division, leaving a 
 husband and two children. The testator's widow 
 
 married again before the death of the daughter: — 
 Held, that the husband of the daughter was 
 tenant by the curtesy of hei' share, Jones v. 
 DatvHon, 8 P. R. 481.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Deed in fee made by tenant by the curtesy. — 
 Effect of. See McGregor v. McGregor, 27 Chy. 
 470. 
 
 In 1869 L. married O., his deceased wife's 
 sister. G., having had a son by L., died, in 1871, 
 seized of certain lands of which L. remained in 
 continuous possession until 1883, the time of 
 action brought : — Hehl, thatL.'s occupation was 
 to be attributed to his rightful character, which 
 was that of tenant by the curtesy, so as not to 
 woi'k tortiously against the heir-at-law of the 
 wife. Re. Murray Canal — Lawson v. Powers, 6 
 O. R. 685.— Boyd. 
 
 It is not necessary to entitle to tenancy by the 
 curtesy that the marriage should have been 
 canonical, lb. 
 
 See Merchants' Bank v. Bell, 29 Chy. 413 ; 
 Wij/ie v. Framptim, 17 O. R. 515; Anderson v. 
 Hanna, 19 O. R. 58; Cameron v. Walker, 19 O. 
 R. 212. 
 
 IV. Estate Tail. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of 
 Ajipeal, 6 A. R. 312, Henry, J., diss., that the 
 execution and registration in accordance with 
 the revised statutes of Ontario, (1877), c. Ill, s. 
 67, of a discharge of a mortgage in fee simple 
 made by a tenant in tail rcconveys the land to 
 the mortgagor barred of the entail. Lawlor v. 
 Lawlor, .OS. C. R. 194. 
 
 V. Estate in Fee. 
 
 Where mortgagees in fee in possession execu- 
 ted a deed purporting to "convey, assign, re- 
 lease, and quit claim" to the grantees, "their 
 lieirs and assigns forever, all and singular," the 
 mortgaged land, habendum " as and for all the 
 estate and interest " of the grantors " in and to 
 the same": — Held, sufficient to pass the fee to 
 the grantees. Br'n/ht v. McMiirray, 1 O. R. 
 172.- Boyd. 
 
 A husband and wife were the parties of the 
 third part in a conveyance, whereby the wife's 
 father, did "grant unto the said party of the 
 third part his heirs and assigns forever, "etc., 
 habendum " unto the said party of the third 
 part, his heirs and assigns, to and for his and 
 their sole ami only use forever": — Held, that 
 by the operation of the Statute of Uses, the 
 husband took an estate in fee simple. Re Young, 
 9 P. R. 521.— Boyd. 
 
 A. by deed sold and assigiic'. certain lands to 
 B. his heirs, executors, administrators, and as- 
 signs, " to have and to hohl the same unto B. 
 his heirs, executors, administrators, an<l assigns 
 in trust, for the solo and sejiarate use of A. for 
 life, and alter A.'s decease, in trust for C. for 
 her life ; and after (J.'s decease, in trust for the 
 heirs of A., and in the event of A. surviving C, 
 then in trust to convey and revest the said premi- 
 ses in A., his heirs, executors, administrators, 
 and assigns, for their own proper use and bene- 
 fit for ever. But shouhl C. survive A., then and 
 in that event, and in the further event of the 
 
 • I* - 
 
 
 
 
 •». 
 
 if 
 
 3. 
 i 
 
S91 
 
 ESTATE. 
 
 'NS! 
 
 (Icceiise of C, in trust to coiu'ev the said pre- 
 mises to sucli persons and in such manner as A. 
 shall by his last will and testament order, desig- 
 nate, and appoint. But in the event of A. dying 
 intestate, then in trust to sell and convey the 
 said premises for A.'s heirs, executors, adminis- 
 trators, and assi^'ns": — Held, that A. took an 
 estate in foe simple, subject to the intervening 
 life estate of C. ; for no such special trust M'as 
 created as took the case out of the Statute of 
 Uses. Ih liiiKjham and Wri(/ijlem'orth, 5 O. R. 
 (ill. — Ferguson. 
 
 Certain owners of the equity of redemption in 
 lands bv deed granted the same to "A., his heirs 
 iind assigns, to have and to hold the same to A., 
 his heirs and assigns, unto and to the use of B. , 
 his heirs and assigns." This was dated July 
 17th, 1S75, and r.gistered July 21st, 1875:— 
 Held, that whether tliis deed operated under the 
 Statute of Uses or not, B. took under it the 
 beneficial interest in fee, iind it had the same 
 elfect as if it were a conveyance to A. upon trust 
 for the benefit of B. ImjicrUil liaiik of Canada 
 V. Metcnii'i', 1 1 0. R. 4G7.— Ferguson. 
 
 Sen lie Mor^ic, 8 P. R. 475, infra, ; Re Morire 
 on'/ /iishrid'ii'r, l.S O. R. 610, p. 589; Adamson 
 V. Adani'<on, 17 O. R. 407, p. 592. 
 
 VI. ESTATK I)Y En'TIRKTIES. 
 
 Per Armour, J. Quii-re, whether the effect 
 of the Married Woman's Acts may not be to do 
 jiwaj' wit!) the estate by entireties, and make 
 husband and wife, wlion devisees, tenants in com- 
 mon. Orijliii V. Palforson, 45 Q. B. 536. 
 
 Where a deed in a chain of title had been 
 made to a liu.-ib.ind and wife as joint tenants: — 
 Held, following Shaver i\ Hart, 31 Q. B. 60.3, 
 that notwithstanding tiie terms of the deed the 
 hnsband and wife took by entireties. And where 
 tlie liusband made a conveyance of the same land 
 in the lifetime of his wife, she merely joining to 
 bar her dower, and she predeceased her hus- 
 band: — Held, that the husliand's deed conveyed 
 the fee. lit .1/ow, 8 P. H. 475.— Blake. 
 
 Held that a lease for life to a husband and 
 wife makes them tenants by entireties, so that 
 the whole accrues to the survivor. Leitch v. 
 Mrl.dlan, 2 O. 1>. 587.— Osier.— C. P. D. 
 
 VII. Joint Tenants. 
 
 Granting that a release by one joint tenant 
 would extinguish the right of both, it does not 
 follow that entering into a new agreement by 
 one will prejudice the right of the other. Clarke. 
 V. Union Fire fnK. Co, — McPhee's Claim, 6 O. 
 R. 635.- Proudfoot. 
 
 Two several lots were conveyed, by the deed 
 in trust set out in the repoi t, to C. and A. res- 
 pectively to the use of O. and A., their heirs 
 and assigns, as joint tenants, and not as tenants 
 in c(miuion : — Held, that under the provisions of 
 such deed, the grantees took the respective lots 
 in severalty. Adam-soti v. Adamson, 7 A. R. 
 592 ; 12 S. C. R. 563. 
 
 By a settlement certain lands were conveye<l 
 to trustees, upon trust to hold the said land * * 
 situated * • being lot No. 2 * " to G. 
 
 A. ; and also lot No. 1, situated * * to A. 
 A., sons of (the settler) * * to the use of 
 them, their heirs and assigns as joint tenants, 
 and not as tenants in common * * aiul, lastly, 
 upon trust, that the said trustees * * shall, 
 well, and sufficiently convey and assure, absn- 
 lutely in fee to the said parties respectively, 
 etc.: — Held, that this trust was an executed 
 trust, in which the limitations were expressly 
 declared, and that neither a difficulty in ascer- 
 taining the true construction and legal meaning 
 of the words used, nor tiie final trust directing 
 the trustees to make the conveyances of the 
 legal estate made any difference : and that the 
 words must I'cceive the same construction as it 
 they were found in a common law conveyance: — 
 Held, also, that an estate in fee in lot 2 passed 
 to G. A., and that the words, "as joint tenants, 
 and not as tenants in common," were used to 
 prevent (J. A. and A. A. from taking as tenants 
 in common, as it was supposed they would have 
 taken under 4 Wm. IV. e. 1, s. 48, and that 
 they wore needlessly used : — Held, also, that as 
 G. A. died intestate and unmarried, after Janu- 
 ary 1st, 1S52, the '' I'endants, as the children of 
 a deceased brother of the plaintiff, took an equal 
 share in the lands as cotenants in common with 
 the plaintiff A. A. : that they were as much en- 
 titled to the possession of tiie lands as the plain- 
 tiff, and that the plaintiff having obtained the 
 legal estate from tl:e trustees should hold the 
 same as a trustee for all the tenants in common : — 
 Held, also, that there being no proof of ouster 
 of the plaintill" he could not recover from the 
 defendants any mesne profits in this action. 
 Adamnon v. Adamaon, 17 O. R. 407. — Ferguson. 
 
 See Ln/)oinle v. Lnftnir, 46 Q. B. 10. p. 490; 
 Re Morxe, 8 P. R. 475, p. 591. 
 
 VIII. Tenants in Common. 
 
 The defendant, husband of one of several ten- 
 ants in connnon, being in ))ossession of the joint 
 estate, purchased the same at sheriff's sale, of 
 which fact the co-tenants were aware, but took 
 no steps to impeach the transaction until after 
 such a lapse of time as that under the statute 
 the defendant acquired title by possession. The 
 court, on a bill filed by the other tenants in com- 
 mon, asking to set aside the .sheriffs sale .ind 
 deed on the ground of fraud and collusion Ikj- 
 tween thedefendant and execution creditor, 'f'l- 
 tived such charges, and dismissed the bill, ^h 
 costs. Kennedy v. liaUman, 27 Chy. 38 - 
 Blake. 
 
 One of two executors and coresidua>-y lega- 
 tees got in portions of the residuary estate, and 
 as to such his estate was held liable as for a 
 legacy to the other residuary legatee, 1 9 C. L. J. 
 95. Some of the residuary estate consisted of 
 lands, which the co-resiiluary legatee as tenant 
 in common occupied, or got in the rents and pro- 
 fits of: — Held, (1) that the account extended 
 oidy to whatever had been paid or given by ten- 
 ants or occupants of the joint pro])erty more than 
 theco-tenant"s just share or proportion. (2) That 
 such co-tenant was not liable for the profits or 
 produce taken by him from the common property, 
 nor for his enjoyment of such property when 
 there was no exclusion or ouster. (3) That the 
 six years' bar of the Statute of Limitations ap- 
 plied to such claim. Re Kirkiiatrick — Kirkpa- 
 
593 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 594 
 
 trick V. Stevenson, 10 P. R. 4. — Hodgins, Master 
 ill Ordinary. 
 
 A tenant in common occupying the common 
 property is not chargeable witli tlie value of 
 timber cut by him on sucli property during his 
 occupation. Mitnde v. Lindnay, 10 P. R. 173. — 
 Hodgina, MaMer in Ordinary. 
 
 See Griffin v. Patterson, 45 Q. B. 536, p. 591 ; 
 Adam-ion v. Adamson, 17 O. 11. 407, p. 5'J2. 
 
 X. Rule in Shelley's Case. 
 
 IJy ante-nuptial settlement, reciting tliat F. 
 intendcil to make provision for his future wife, 
 F. ngreed witli her and K. to transfer and con- 
 vey to K. certain property he expected to acipiirc, 
 to hoI<l unto K. for the joint use and benefit of 
 him, F., and his intended wife duiing tlieii' joint 
 hves, and after tlie decease of either of tliem to 
 tlie use of the survivor durini,' liis or Iier natural 
 hfe, anil after tlie decease of tlie survivor, to the 
 use of the heirs of F. as he might liy will direct: 
 and it was further agreed that articles of settle- 
 ment should be executed in pursuance of this 
 <Iocument. After the marriage, F. , pursuant to 
 tlio said ante-nuptial settlemoiit, convoyed, in 
 1.S70, certain land to K. and his heirs, upon 
 trust, with the consent of F. and his wife, or 
 the survivor, to sell, lease or otherwise convey 
 the same, and to hold the moneys thereon arising 
 upon the trusts and subject to the jwwers con- 
 tained in the ante-nuptial settlement. F.'s wife 
 li;iving died :— Held, that, though there were 
 children of the marriage still surviving, F. was 
 entitled to a conveyance of the lands from K. to 
 himself in fee simple, for that the trusts of the 
 ,inte-nuptial settlement were executed and not 
 executory, and under tiiem F. Iiail an ciiuitable 
 estate in fee simple under the rule in Shelley's 
 Case. Ferris v. FirrU, 9 0. U. 324. — Ferguson. 
 
 See Re Gamer, C O. R. 282 ; Smith v. Smith, 
 « 0. R. 677. 
 
 XI. Heik-at-Law. 
 
 A. \V. B. by his will dated August 14th, 18.50, 
 lifter giving a life estate to his wife, provided as 
 follows: "After the death of my said wife, I 
 devise the lands * • known as ' Russell Hill ' 
 to my nephews, the Hon. R. B. & W. A. B., 
 .s(uis of my brother, the late Hon. W. W. B. 
 ■<leceased, their heirs and assigns forever, or in 
 ease of the death of them or either of them, in 
 my own lifetime ; then I devise the share of 
 such deceased, to the heir-at-law or heirs-at-law 
 of such deceased, his, her, or their heirs and 
 assigns," and died January ir)th, 1866, leaving 
 W. A. ^i. and two sons and two ihuighters of 
 the Hor. R. B. (who predeceased him) him sur- 
 viving. One of the daughters died 10th July, 
 18()6, i.nmarried and intestate, during the life- 
 time rt the life-tenant, who was in possession 
 unUI lier death, which happened on April 19th, 
 187'/. On her death the two sons and surviving 
 dn'ighter entered into possession, collected rents, 
 so id parts thereof, dividing the proceeds in e<jual 
 sl.ai'cs amongst themselves ; and partitioned 
 fart of the unsold balince thereof by deed, 
 lated Slst January, 1885, and in all respects 
 dealt with the said lands and the proceeds 
 thereof as if they were all equally interested 
 therein; their father, the Hon. R. B., having 
 
 38 
 
 by his will divided his estate eciually between 
 them. In May, 1886, the plaintiff, the eldest 
 son of the said Hon. R. B., was advised he woa 
 entitled to the whole as " heir-at-law" of his 
 father. In an action for the construction of 
 the said will and recovery back of the moneys 
 paid over, and the partitioned lands remaining 
 unsold, and the proceeds of those sold, and for 
 a declaration that the ])laintiir was solely entitled 
 to the unpartitioned land. It was: — Held, fol- 
 lowing Tylee v. Deal, 19 Ohy. 601, that the Act 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 6 (O. S. U. C. c. 82, abolishing 
 primogeniture) which came into force 1st Jan- 
 uary, 1852, does not apply except in cases of 
 intestacy, and that the plaintiff was heir-<at-law : 
 — Held, also, that the several divisions of pro- 
 perty and money did not come under the head 
 of "Family arrangements." But : — Held, also, 
 that the moneys p;iid over more than six years 
 before action, could not bo recovered ; and fol- 
 lowing Rogers y. Injiham, 3 Ch. U. .351, that as 
 to the moneys paid over within six years, an 
 action for money liad and received, would not 
 lie for moneys paid by one p irty to another under 
 a mistake of law common to both, when both 
 had a full knowledge of all the facts : — Held, 
 lastly, that nnneys not paid over, being proceeds 
 of lately sold laud, could not be recovered by 
 the plaintiff, as the binds of which they were 
 the proceeds had become vested in the different 
 parties claiming them by possession as tenants 
 in common and by the partition deed. Baldwin 
 V. KiiiiiMone, 16 0. R. 341. — Robertson. But 
 see S. G., 18 A. R. 63. This case has been car- 
 ried to the Privy Council. 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 I. By Deep, 595. 
 II. In Pais. 
 
 1. Title to Land, 596. 
 
 2. BilU of Exchanije and Promissory 
 
 Xole.i, 598. 
 
 3. Credilorx, 599. 
 
 4. Companies, 600. 
 
 5. Fraud, 600. 
 
 C. Acceiilini/ Dividends, 601. 
 
 7. Transfer of Stock, GOl. 
 
 8. Payments, 601. 
 
 9. lieceipt.s, 602. 
 
 10. Assiijnnient and Use of Patents of In- 
 
 vention, 602. 
 
 11. iVef/Z/j/aiw, 602. 
 
 12. Municipal MalferK, 603. 
 
 13. School Trustees, 603. 
 
 14. Criminal Matters, 604. 
 
 15. Other Cases, 604. 
 
 16. Insurance Companies — See Inscr- 
 
 ANCE. 
 
 By Pleading, 606. 
 
 By Record— ^ee Judument. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 ; :■ :a 
 
 :•;?;! :s j 
 "<:. it 
 
 •8. ! 
 
 
 5- 
 
 I 
 
 Between Landlord and Tenant— iS«e 
 Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 In Matters of 
 
 TICK. 
 
 Practice — -^ee Pbac- 
 
595 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 596 
 
 1^; 
 
 ••'• 
 
 ^vl» ' 
 
 
 , 
 
 9m. ^ 
 
 t 
 
 5a:! 
 
 
 3£lt 
 
 1 
 
 *•»,> 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 3l|ill 
 
 X 
 
 «SB 
 
 
 ^S 
 
 I. By Deed. 
 
 G. W. F., being the patentee of a certain lot 
 described as of 200 acres, but in wliich there 
 was a deficiency, conveyed half of the lot to J. 
 B. P., who conveyed it to trustees, to hold in 
 trust for E. F., wife of G. W. F., upon certain 
 trusts declared in tlie deed, and witliout power 
 to her to anticipate. Tlie deficiency was subse- 
 tjuently discovered and upon tlie application to 
 the government in tlie name of tlio trustees by 
 G. W. F., wlioni tlicy appointed their agent for 
 that purpose, a grant of land as compensation 
 for the deficiency was made to tlie trustees of 
 
 E. F. , describing them as sucii. Subsequently 
 an instrument under seal, exiiressed to be made 
 between J. B. P. of the first part, and E. F., 
 wife of G. W. F., of the second part, ami the 
 trustees of the third part, Avhich recited the 
 facts and also that the trustees had no real inter- 
 est therein, but wore named as grantees merely 
 na being the legal owners of tlu,' original half lot, 
 was executed by J. B. P. and E. F., whereby 
 they declared that the parties of tlic first and 
 second parts were not in any way interested in 
 the lands granted as compensation, and that the 
 trustees held them as trustees for G. W. ¥., the 
 patentee of the original lot. After this the trus- 
 tees, by the direction of G. W. F. conveyed to 
 E., under whom tlic defendants claimed. E. 
 
 F. now brought this action to recover the land: — 
 Held (Hagarty, C. J., dissenting), that E. and 
 those claiming under him must be held to have 
 had notice of the title of t)ie trustees, who were 
 described in the patent as trustees of E. F. : 
 that this land was subject to the trusts of the 
 previous conveyance to them : that E. F. was 
 not estopped by the declaration executed by .1. 
 B. P. and herself, which did not divest her of 
 her title, and that therefore she was entitled to 
 recover. Foolt v. 7^/Ve, 4 O. R. 94. — Q. B. D. 
 Affirmed, see Footl v. McGconjc, 12 A. R. 351. 
 
 M. C. made a voluntary deed of certain land 
 to L. C. At that time M. C. had no title to the 
 land, it having been previously sold for taxes 
 and conveyed by sheriff's deed to B. There 
 were no recitals or covenants for title in the 
 deed to L. C, and by it M. C. did "assign, 
 transfer, demise, release, convey, and forever 
 quit claim" to L. C, his heirs and assigns, all 
 his estate in the land. Subscrjuently B. sold 
 and conveyed the land to M. C. :— Held, that 
 the deed from M. C. to L. C. did not operate 
 by estoppel to vest the estate in the land subse- 
 quently acquired from B. in L. C, for (1) there 
 was no recital or covenants for title ; (2) it did 
 not purport to grant any estate in the land, but 
 merely to assign or release and quit claim to L., 
 M. C.'s interest therein; (3) it never had any 
 operation, for L. C. never paid anything for the 
 land, never went into possession, never claimed 
 to be owner of it, or paid the taxes, and from 
 the first repudiated the gift. Cn-i.fchnan v. Cas- 
 adman, 9 O. R. 442.— Proudfoot. 
 
 It is a finnly established rule of property in 
 Ontario that covenants for title are sufficient to 
 •work an estoppel, though it is otherwise held in 
 England. lb. 
 
 T. to whom the patent of the land in question 
 issued, by deed poll made prior thereto, bar- 
 
 fained, sold, aliened, and confirmed the land to 
 I. habendum to L. and his heirs; with a cove- 
 
 nant of warranty : — Held, that on obtaining the 
 patent T. was estopped by the deed from setting 
 up title in himself under the patent. Sobertxoiii 
 V. Daley, 11 O. R. 352.— C. P. D. 
 
 MoM. , in building a house, by mistake built 
 part of it on the land of the adjoining owner B. 
 On discovering this he applied to B. with a 
 view of purchasing a portion of B.'s lot, and 
 B. on 29th July, 1880, wrote : " I hereby offer 
 to sell you twenty-five feet frontage for the sum 
 of .§250, to be paid six months from this date, 
 otherwise this offer to be null " * * and B. 
 accepted such offer at the foot in the words, " I 
 hereby accept the above offer." McM. seven 
 days after registered a plan as No. 327, alleged 
 to be of his own property, but which included 
 the twenty-five feet as part of lot M., and the 
 next day executed a mortgnge on lot M. M^ith a 
 description, which included the twenty -five feet, 
 and which was assigned to the defendants the 
 O. S. Co. B.'s offer to sell to McM. was not 
 acted on within the six months limited, and B. 
 afterwards, in January, 1883, sold and conveyed 
 the twenty-five feet (which was called lot 40 on 
 his (B.'s) plan No. 3!)(>, registered 20th January, 
 1883) to McM. for §400, payable ,$100 cash and 
 mortgage for $300, and which mortgage was at 
 the instance of B. taken to his daughter N. , the 
 plaintiff. The O. S. f "o. subsequently sold under 
 the power of sale in their mortgage to the defen- 
 dant W. In an action by N. to realise her 
 mortgage, it was : — Helil (reversing the judg- 
 ment of Proudfoot, .!.), that the original dealing 
 between B. and Mc>I. created no binding con- 
 tract on the latter, it being merely an option 
 given him ; and he not having completed the 
 purchase within six months the subsequent sale 
 and conveyance by B. to McM. was upon a new 
 and distinct contract. No interest in the 
 twentj'-five feet (lot 40) passed to the 0. S. Co. 
 under McM.'s mortgage, and the subsequent 
 conveyance to him " fed the esto])pel " created 
 by his prior mortgage to the extent only of 
 McM.'s interest wliich was that of owner of the 
 equity of redemption, or owner of the twenty- 
 five feet (lot 40) charged with §300, and it made 
 no difference that the S300 mortgage was taken 
 to the plaintiff instead of to B., the effect of the 
 whole transaction being that W. was the owner 
 of lot 40 subject to a first mortgage of $300 in 
 favour of the plaintiff and to a second mortgage 
 of the O. .S. Co. B. having by his dealing with 
 McM. created in hini the status of owner, and 
 in the plaintiff that of mortgagee, was not, nor 
 was the plaintiff in a position to complain of the 
 registration of plan 327. Uoe Irvine v. Webster, 
 2 Q. B. 2.34 ; Uoe Hennessey v. Meyers, 2 O. 
 S. 424 observed upon. Nevill v. McMurray, 14 
 A. R. 120. 
 
 See Pierce v. Cnnavan. 29 Chy. 32 ; In re 
 LaphutteamJ the Tou-nof Pderlorowjh, 5 O. R. 
 634 ; Pratt v. ^Iraml. Trviik R. W. Co., 8 O. R. 
 499 ; Mdfatt v. Merrhavtx' lianl- of Canada, 11 
 8. C. R. 46 ; Mitclii/l V. Uullaml, 16 S. C. R. 
 687 ; Lawrence v. Awhrwn, 17 S. C. R. 349. 
 
 II. In Pais. 
 
 1. Title to Land. 
 
 L. , a married woman, about the year 1830 
 assumed to devise certain land to her daughter 
 
597 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 S9a 
 
 P. and her husband O. for their lives, and there- 
 after to their children. T. (one of the children) 
 went into possession of part of it, at the instance 
 of 0., about 1855, and built thereon anil remained 
 in undisturbed iiossession for over twenty-eight 
 years. Those who were entitled in remainder 
 under the will (the life estate having expired) 
 brought an action to have the land partitioned or 
 sold, and T. claimed his part by length of pos- 
 sesion : — Held (reversing the judgment of Fer- 
 guson, J. ), that although T. might be estopped 
 from denying the title of L., still he was not es- 
 topped from denying that L. had transferred her 
 title to those now claiming, and that as they 
 claimed under the will of L. (a married woman), 
 made in 1828, before there was power to devise, 
 and so void on its face, they had no title, and T. 
 must succeed. Board v. Board, L. K. Q. 15. 
 48, and Taine v. .Jones, L. R. 18 Eij. .320, dis- 
 tinguished. Smith V. Smith, 5 0. R. GOO.— Chy. 
 U. 
 
 A mortgagee having commenced proceedings 
 under a mortgage, one H. C. S. professed to have 
 a claim to some of tlie property as un alleged 
 partner of the mortgagor, H. H. S. It appeared, 
 however, that H. C. S. was present when the 
 mortgage was given, and knew all about the 
 transaction : that the money which tlie mortgage 
 was given to secure was partly for the purposes 
 of a printing office, in which lie claimed to be in- 
 terested as such partner ; and that he had, at the 
 thne of the transaction, made no oljjection and 
 asserted no cl.iim : — Held, that, under these cir- 
 cumstances, H. C. S. M'as L'stoppe<l from setting 
 up any right or title as against the mortgagees, 
 whose title was the same as if he had joined in 
 the mortgage, liobimon v. Cook, G O. K. 590. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 T. was the own< : of lot 9, and C. was tlie 
 owner of lot 8 adjo.niiig it on tlie south. Hoth 
 lots had formerly Ijloiiged to one person, aii<l 
 there was no exact indication of tlie true boun- 
 dary line between them. T. being about to buihl, 
 employed a surveyor to ascertain the boundary. 
 The surveyor went to the place, and asked 0. 
 where he claimed his northern boundary was. C. 
 pointed out an old fence, running jiart of the way 
 across the land between the lots and an old post, 
 and said the line of the fence produced to the 
 post was his boundary lino. The surveyor then 
 took the average line of the fence and iiroduoed 
 it till it met the post. He 8take<l out this line, 
 C. not objecting. A few days afterwards T., 
 with his architect and builder, went on the 
 ground and, in the presence of C., the builder 
 again marked out the boundary by means of a 
 line connecting the .iurveyor's marks, V. not ob- 
 jecting. Excavating was commenced ;vccording 
 to that line iii;mediately, and T."s house was 
 built according to the line on the extreme 
 verge of T. 's laud. The first time that C. raised 
 any objection to the boundary so marked was 
 when the walls of T.'s house were up and ready 
 for the roof and considerable money had been ex- 
 pended in building :— Held, that C. was estopped 
 from disputing that the line run by the surveyor, 
 was the true line. Graiiett v. Carter, 10 S. C R. 
 10.5. 
 
 The Island of Anticosti, held in joint owner- 
 ship by a number of people, was sold by licitation 
 for;$101,000. The report of distribution allotted 
 toU. B. (plainti£f) $10,578.66, for his share, as 
 
 owner of one-sixth of the island acquired from 
 the Island of Anticosti Company, who' had 
 previously acquired one-sixth from Dame C. 
 Langan, widow of H. G. Forsyth. The respon- 
 dent's claim was disputed by the appellant, the 
 daughter and legal representative of Dame C. 
 Langan, alleging that the sale by her through 
 her attorney, W. L. F. , of the one-sixth to the 
 Anticosti Company was a nullity, because the 
 Act incorporating the company was ultra vires 
 the Dominion Government, and that the sale 
 by W. L. F., as attorney for his mother, to 
 himself, as representing the Anticosti Company, 
 was not valid. The Anticosti Company was 
 one of the defendants in the action for licitation, 
 and the appellant an intervening party ; no 
 proceedings were taken by the appellant prior 
 to judgment, attacking either the constitution- 
 ality of the Island of Anticosti Company's 
 charter or the status of the plaintiff, now respon- 
 dent;— Hehl, aifirming the judgment of the 
 court below, Ritchie, C. J., and Gwynne, J., 
 dissenting, that as Dame C. Langan had herself 
 recognized the existence of the company, and 
 as the appellant, her legal representative, was a 
 party to the suit ordering the licitation of the 
 property, she, the appellant, could not now on 
 a report of distribution, raise the constitutional 
 (piestion as to the validity of the Act of the 
 Dominion Parliament constituting the company, 
 and W.1S now estopped from claiming the right 
 of setting aside the tlecd of sale, for which her 
 mother had received good and valuable conside- 
 ration. Forxyth v. Bury, 15 8. C. R. 543. 
 
 By an arrangement made within ten years 
 before this ai'tion of ejectment was begun, the 
 land in question was conveyed by the owners of 
 the legal estate to D., tlirough whom the plain- 
 tiff claimed. One of the terms of the conveyance 
 and a jiart of tlio consideration was that D. 
 should, and he did thereby, release adcbt which 
 he li('l(i .igainst the defcmlant and others. The 
 defendant did not execute the conveyances, but 
 he was an assenting party to the whole transac- 
 tion, and was aware that the conveyance was 
 being executed, and that D. was releasing his 
 liability :— Held, th.at he was estopped from 
 setting up a prior adver.se possession in himself 
 as effectually as if he had liecn a conveying 
 party. ^fclJiarmhl w Hmjhen, ItiO, R. .570. — 
 Q. K 1). 
 
 See J////0-V. Ilamliii, 2 0. R. 103; Mulhol- 
 /find V. lliu-nian, G O. R. 54G ; Stahrook v. 
 Youiii/, 14 A. R. 97. 
 
 2. Bi//t of Exrhnmje and Promiswnj Xote.". 
 
 Held, in this case, that although plaintiff, by 
 acceptance and payment, was estopped from 
 disputing the signature of the company, the 
 drawers, yet he was not estopped from denying 
 their signature as endorsers, even though it was 
 on the bill at the time of acceptance and pay- 
 ment. I{yan v. Bank of Montrftd, 12 O. R. 
 39.— Q. B. D. ; 14 A. R. 5.33. 
 
 II. Y. , after having for some time carried on 
 business as "The Hamilton Cotton Co." in part- 
 nership with the defendants, retired from the 
 company and entered their employ as general 
 manager, blank drafts, etc. , signed by the com- 
 pany being placed in his hands for the financial 
 purposes of the company. In June, 1883, H. Y. , 
 
 ' t: ■ :a 
 
 Z '■' ' (• 
 
 ^•- II 
 
 /« 
 
 ^ 'I 
 
 
599 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 600 
 
 for liis own purposes, drew in the name of the 
 <lL'fun(lant8 on M. at Montreal for §2,700, which 
 was ilisuoiinted by the plaintiffs, and the draft 
 sent by tliem to Montreal for acceptance, tlie 
 proceeds being first credited to defendants but 
 subsequently to H. Y. The draft was duly 
 lionoured by the drawee, and would have ma- 
 tured on the 28tii of September. About a month 
 before the maturing thereof H. Y. waited on the 
 bank authorities, and re(iue8ted them to recall 
 the draft, alleging tiiat the company were settl- 
 ing with tiie acceptor. On tiie same day the 
 
 solicitor for the 
 an order or li'tic • 
 informing I e.nio 
 draft made in ') 
 to retire and oh 
 ami as it had been 
 
 \ nny obtained from H. Y. 
 
 ied to tlie defendants, 
 
 - of his having so used a 
 
 \d requesting them 
 
 ■^ .1 .^- ime to his account, 
 
 discounted i ir his accommo- 
 
 dation and pre ci-ls applied toiiisowu use, they 
 (defendants) si;< ul". rot pay i'liv part of it. 
 .Shortly afterwarls tli Vfeu' " separately 
 and on distinct occasion.,, ci' Mid ,it the bank, 
 defendant L. asking to lie sliewn tlie di'ait, which 
 was handed to and closely examined by him, and 
 when asked why he was so critical in Ids exam- 
 ainination answered that tlic "signature of J. 
 M. V. was usually not so shaky " ; that lie would 
 call in a day or two and see if the draft was taken 
 uj). iJefendant J. M. Y. on visiting the bank 
 after exanuning the draft very carefully, when 
 lie was asked by one of the officers of the insti- 
 tution if lie would send a cheque for it, answered 
 that it was too late that day, Imt that he would 
 send a cheque the following day. No cheque 
 was scut, liowever, and on or about tlie 13th of 
 Septcmlier the manager of the l)ank and the 
 bank solicitor called to see J. M. Y., and asked 
 wliy tlie cheque had not been sent by him, when 
 lie admitted liaviiig promised to send the same ; 
 that at the time he had thought he would send 
 it, and could not say why it had not been sent. 
 He declined to say whetlieror not the signature 
 to the draft was his. H. Y. subse(iuently left 
 the country. The trial judge found that the 
 draft was a forgery, but the judgment was rever- 
 sed by the Divisional Court on the ground of 
 estoppel by conduct on the ])art of the defen- 
 dants ; — Held, (reversing the judgment of tlie 
 C. P. IX, 13 0. R. .520) that the conduct of the 
 defendants was not such as to preclude them 
 from setting up the defence of forgery : Held, 
 also, that the act of forgery in this transaction 
 not being an act professing to have been done 
 for or under the authority of the persons sought 
 to be charged was incapable of ratification. 
 — Hagarty C. .J. <.)., dissenting. Meirhanls' 
 Bnnk v. Lucas, lo A. R. 573. 
 
 3. Creditors. 
 
 A creditor who had proved his claim in a 
 creditors' suit held in this case not estopjied from 
 prosecuting an action for the same debt. See 
 Jm v. Gredil Valley li. W. Co., 29 Cliy. 480. 
 
 The idaintiff filed his bill on the 14th March, 
 1874. On the 31st of the same mouth, an attacii- 
 ment in insolvency was issued by tiie defendant 
 acainst the plaintiff. The decree dismissed the 
 plaintiff's bill; with costs, in October, 1874. 
 Defendant proved against the estate for the costs 
 of tlie Chancery suit, liut did not take his divi- 
 dend from the assignee in insolvency, and took 
 
 no further steps for the recovery of his claim 
 until after the order for discharge of the plain- 
 tiff (2.')th May, 1877), when he issued execution. 
 On the application of the plaintiff, Spragge, C, 
 refused to set aside the execution, holding that 
 defendant was entitled to issue it, and that the 
 proving against the estate for the costs of the 
 suit when it was not legally provable, did not 
 operate as an estoppel in pais between the plain- 
 tiff and defendant. Stevenson v. Sexsmith, 8 1'. 
 R. 286. 
 
 After the execution of a deed of assignment 
 for creditors the assignee called a meeting of the 
 creditors, at which the defendant, a creditor, 
 attended and assented to a resolution appointing 
 him one of the trustees to aid the assignee in 
 winding up the estate ; and a resolution was also 
 passed to pay certain arrears of wages; and he 
 examined and reported on the amount and con- 
 dition of the stock. A few days afterwards he 
 brought an action on his claim against the debt- 
 ors, recovered judgment by default, and issued 
 execution, contending that the assignment was 
 invalid; — Held, that the defendant had assented 
 to the assignment and was estopped from deny- 
 ing its validity, dardner v. Kleopfer, 7 O. 1!. 
 G()3.— Osier. 
 
 A creditor is not debarred from participating 
 in the benefits of an assignment in trust for the 
 general benefit of creditors by an unsuccessful 
 attempt to have such deed set aside as defective. 
 Gardner v. Kloepfer, 15 S. C. R. 390. 
 
 4. Companies, 
 
 Under the authority of the Act, 38 Vict. c. 47, 
 tlieC. V. & M. R. Co. issued debentures in blank, 
 which were handed to the managing director 
 who subsequently handed them to the plaintiffs 
 as security for a debt of the railway. In an ac- 
 tion for an account of what was due under the 
 debentures and payment, or in default a sale, 
 it was : — Held, that the company having issued 
 the debentures in blank and handed them to the 
 maiiiiging director, who was also secretary and 
 treasurer, to be dealt with liy him at his discre- 
 tion, he was empowered to complete them by 
 the insertion of the obligee's name, and that the 
 company would be estopped from relying on the 
 fact that the name was not filled in until delivery 
 to the jilaintiffs. Bank of Toronto v. Cohour;/, 
 Peterhordtii/h and Marmora li. W. Co., 7 O. R. 
 1.— Boyd. 
 
 5. Fraud. 
 
 An executor or administrator is estopped by 
 the fraud or criminal acts of the deceased person 
 he ri; .r scuts from scckingtoinvalidate securities 
 tainted by such fraud or criminal acts which 
 such deceased person had given to his creditors 
 during his lifetime. Merchnnis' Bank v. Monleith, 
 10 P. R. 467. — Hodgins, Master-in-Ordinury. 
 
 Fraud is necessary to the existence of an estop- 
 pel by coniluct. The person must have been 
 deceived. The party to whom the representa- 
 tion is made must have Ijeen ignorant of the 
 truth of the matter, and the representation 
 must have been made with the knowledge of 
 the facts, and tlie representation must be plain 
 and not a matter of mere inference or opinion ; 
 
T^ 
 
 601 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 602 
 
 and certainty is essential to all estoppels. Mc- 
 aeev. Kane, 14 0. R. 226.— Ferguson. 
 
 8. Accepting Diindencln, 
 
 F. being about to indorse notes for the accom- 
 modation of B., conveyed his real estate to O., 
 who then conveyed to the wife of F. After- 
 wards F. became an insolvent under the Insolvent 
 Act of 1875, and the asHignee took proceedings 
 to impeach the transaction, the result of whicli 
 was, that it was declared fraudulent and void as 
 against the assignee, who tliereui)on advertised 
 the property for sale, and sold it as part of the 
 estate of F. to the defendants. Pe iding these 
 proceedings the plaintilT had ol)tained execution 
 on a judgment against F.'s wife, on promis.sory 
 notes made by her and F., iinder which tlie 
 sheriff', after tiie sale by the assignee, sold all 
 her right, title and interest in the same property 
 to the plaintiff'. The plaintiff jiroved his claim 
 on the notes and received a dividend in the in- 
 solvency proceedings against F. : — Held, (1) re- 
 versing (3 U. K. 523), tliat he was not estopjied 
 by the receipt of tlie dividend nor by the decree 
 obtained in the suit of the assignee (to whi(;l\ he 
 had not been made a party) from asserting that 
 the property belonged to F.'s wife and was exi- 
 gible under his execution against her : Init ('J), 
 that the conveyance to her being in fact shewn 
 to be fraudulent and void against the assignee in 
 insolvency, the plaintiff' h.ad acquired no title by 
 the sheriffs sale to himself under tiie execution, 
 and that the title of the defendants who were in 
 possession under the assignee could not be im- 
 peaclied by the plaintiff'. iMiller c. Handin, 2 C>. 
 I{. 103, as to theert'ect of a receipt of a dividend, 
 distinguished. Beevur v. Olirer, 10 A. R. 65(i. 
 
 See Cold V. Stndacona Ins. Co., 6 S. C. R. 
 193, p. 243 ; Reijiua v. Hunk of Xora Scotia, 11 
 S. C. E. 1, p. 45!( ; III re Central Bank of Can- 
 ada— Baiwiti" Case, 16 A. K. 237, p. 249. 
 
 7. Transfer of Stock. 
 
 Where a statutory liability is attempted to be 
 imposed on a party which can only attach to an 
 iictual legal shareholder in a company, he is not 
 estopped by tiie mere fact of having received 
 transfers of certificates of stock from tiuestion- 
 ing the legality ol tlie issue of such stock. Per 
 Strong and Henry, .1.1. ((Jwymie, J., contra), 
 that although A. , a mortgagee of the shares and 
 not an absolute owner, had taken a transfer- 
 absolute in form and caused it to be entered in 
 the books of the company as an absolute transfer, 
 he was not estopped from [HMving that the trans- 
 fer was by way of mortgage. 27-28 Vict. c. 23 
 (subs. PJof s. 5). rugi'V. Amtin, 10 S. C. R. 132. 
 
 See In re Central Bank of Canada — Baines' 
 Case, 16 A. R. 237, p. 256. 
 
 8. Payments. 
 
 Tho chamberlain of the city of Saint John is 
 authorized, with<(ut any previous proceedings, 
 to issue execution for taxes if not paid within a 
 certain time after notice. In order to avoid 
 such execution the bank of New Brunswick paid 
 their taxes under protest : — Held, that such pay- 
 
 ment did not preclude them from afterwards 
 taking proceedings to have the assessment quali- 
 fied. i!x parte James D. Lewin, 1 1 8. C. R. 
 484. 
 
 9. Rteeipts, 
 
 Held, that defendants were not under tiie cir- 
 cumstances of this case' bound by their admission 
 on the jiolicy of the receipt of the premium. 
 See Western Ass. Co. v. Provincial Ins. Co., 5 
 A. R. 190. 
 
 Tlie acknowledgment of tiie plaintiffs of the 
 correctness of the account in their bank book 
 at the enil of the month, although a number of 
 cheques drawn by them had been paid by the 
 defendants on forged endorsements of the payees 
 thereof, was at most an acknowledgment of 
 the l>alance on the assumption that the cheques 
 liiid been paid to the proper parties. Agrienltu- 
 ral Savings d- Loan Association v. Federal Hank, 
 6 A. R. 192 ; .S'. C.,snl) nom. Aiirii-nltnral Invest- 
 ment Co. V. Federal Bank, 45 Q. B. 214. 
 
 .See Munittiha Morti/ai/e Co. v. Bank of Mon- 
 treal, 17 S. C. R. 692. 
 
 10. Assignment anil Use of Patents of 
 Invention. 
 
 One C. assigned an undivided interest in a 
 patent to B. with whom lie entered into partner- 
 ship. During the partneisliip B. retained the 
 interest so assigned, and upon a dissolution re- 
 assigned simply what he had received without 
 giving any covenant and without asserting by 
 
 recital or otiierwise the validity of tlic patent : 
 
 Hehl, that B. was not estopped from disputing 
 the validity of the patent. Crip Printing and 
 Publishing Co. of Toronto v. BtUterJiekl, 1 i'a. R. 
 145. 
 
 11. Negligence, 
 
 The plaintiff's valuator, one H., filled in the 
 blanks in an application for a loan on statements 
 of one S. who forged the names of J. T. B. and 
 I. B. as aiiplicants, and althoiigii H. had never 
 seen the property or the applicants, he certified 
 a valuation to tlie plaintiffs, who accepted the 
 loan, and signed his iiiime as witness to the sig- 
 natures of the applicants. Cliocjues in payment 
 thereof to the order of the supposed buriowera 
 were (tbtained by S., who forged the name of 
 the payees, endorsed his own naiiie, and received 
 payment of the chefpU's, which were drawn upoa 
 the dufuiidants, through other banks, who pi-e- 
 pent'jd them to the defendants and received pay- 
 ment in good faith. The fraud was not discov- 
 ered for some time, during which the chiMpies 
 were returned to the plaintiff's at the end of the 
 month as paid, and the usual acknowledgment 
 of the correctness of tlie account was duly 
 signed :— Meld, that the plaintiff's were not es- 
 topped from reooveriiig the amount paid on the 
 forged endorsements from the defendants by their 
 agent's negligence, as it did not occur in the crans- 
 action itself, and was not the proximate cause of 
 their loss. Aijrirnltnral Savim/s and Loan Ass 
 V. Federal Bank, 6 A. R. 192; 45 Q. B. 214. 
 
 See Saderqiiist v. Ontario Bank, 14 0. R, 580 • 
 15 A. R. 609, p. 1.36. 
 
 ^''' 
 
 ^::. 
 
 
 ^«8f 
 
 sa 
 
 Mb,; 
 
 «*! 
 
 Str. 
 
 '.a 
 
 •;; 5;f 
 
 
 
 
 
 t « 
 
 'ay'' 
 
 •1 
 
 « ».i ; 
 
 n 
 
 •6 
 
 
 I 
 
<08 
 
 ESTOPPEL. 
 
 604 
 
 
 12. Municipal Matters. 
 
 A corporation may bo ])oun(l by aciiiiiescence 
 us an individual may. TuiniMp nj' I'mtbruku v. 
 Cauaila Cmtral R. W. 6V., 3 O. R. 503. —Osier. 
 
 On a motion for injunction by W., a rate- 
 payer, against a town corporation to restrain 
 them from paying for a situ for a post office, it 
 was sliewn that a vote of the ratepayers liad 
 been taken as to whicli of two sites (one owned 
 by the town and the c*'ier by one McA.) should 
 be chosen, tliat \V. had taken an active part in 
 supi)ort of the one owned by the corporation and 
 the majority of ratepayers liad voted for the 
 other. It was contended tliat W. was estopped 
 by his conduct from maintaining the suit, and 
 that McA. and the individual members of the 
 corporation sliould have been made parties. W. 
 having denied that ho was aware that the site 
 ohoseu was to be paid for by defendants, and 
 no sufficient proof of tiiat fact liaving been given : 
 — Held, that lie was not estopped, and for the 
 purposes of the niotion, that although McA. and 
 the members of the corporation might not, if 
 joined, have been considered iniprojier parties, 
 still they wore not necessary parties, and the in- 
 junction was granted. Wallaw v. Town of 
 'OravyevUle, 5 O. K. 37.— Ferguson. 
 
 The persons applying to(juash a by-law incor- 
 porating a portion of a township as a village 
 had all voted at the municipal elections holdeu 
 for the village as incorporated by the by law in 
 question ; one of them had been a candidate for 
 the office of reeve, and another had been elected 
 to the school l)oard, but none of them had in 
 any way promoted the passing of the by-law, or 
 had any part in the taking of the census objected 
 "to : — Held, that the applicants were not estop- 
 ped from moving to quash the by-law. lie 
 FentoH v. County of Simcoe, 10 O. R. 27. — Wilson. 
 
 Held, that the applicant in this case was not 
 precluded from moving against a by-law by rea- 
 son of his having expressed an opinion in its 
 favour before its passage. lu re Ptck v. Town of 
 Gait, 46 Q. B. 211.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the applicant had not by voting 
 against the by-law disentitled himself to apply 
 to the court to quash it, or to the costs of iiis 
 motion. Re A rw'<tronf/ mid Toirtuihip of Toronto, 
 17 0. R. 760.— Falcoiibridge. 
 
 A ratepayer of a municipality cannot maintain 
 an action, on behalf of himself and the other 
 ratepayers, .against the municipality for the im- 
 proper construction of a drain authorized by 
 by-law, when such ratepayer has himself been a 
 contractor for a portion of the work, and has 
 received his .share of the money voted for the 
 work in excess of the amount exiiended. Dillon 
 V. TownMp oj Ralci'jh, 14 S. C. R. 739; 13 A. 
 R.53. 
 
 13, School Trmtees. 
 
 Where certain persons were elected school 
 trustees, and at a meeting of the bo.-»rd held 
 subsequently to tiie election, were declared duly 
 elected, but, proceedings having been meanwhile 
 commenced to question the validity of the elec- 
 tion, at a subsequent meeting of the board, they 
 acquiesced in the conclusion of the board to hold 
 anew election, and became candidates again, and 
 
 canvassed as such, until the twenty days allowed 
 for disputing the first election had elapsed (the 
 proceedings formerly commenced for that pur- 
 l)ose having been meanwhile dropped), and were 
 not elected at the second election : — Held, they 
 could not afterwards maintain a suit to have it 
 declared they were the <luly elected trustees. 
 Fonter v. Stokei, 2 O. K. 590.— Ferguson. 
 
 A trustee of a public school board is not pre- 
 cluded from becoming a relator in a quo warranto 
 proceeding against another member of the board 
 because he acquiesced in the payment of an 
 account rendered for services which disqualified 
 the member rendering the same from holding 
 the office of trustee. See Regina ex rel. Stewart 
 v. Sfandisli, 6 O. R. 408.— C. P. D. 
 
 14. Criminal Matters. 
 
 The defendant in this case having had the cer- 
 tiorari directed to the magistrate who convicted 
 was held to be estopped from objecting that the 
 conviction was in reality made by three as ap- 
 peared from the memorandum of conviction 
 which was signed by them. Reyvia v. Smith, 
 46 Q. B. 442.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that where an adjournment of the pro- 
 ceedings before the magistrate for more than 
 one week had been made at the request of the 
 defendant, who afterwards attended on the 
 resumed proceedings, taking his chances of 
 securing a dismissal of the prosecution, and 
 urging that on the evidence it ought to be dis- 
 missed, defendant had estopped himself from 
 objecting afterwards that such subsequent pro- 
 ceedings on the prosecution were on this ground 
 illegal. Reijina v. llvffcrnan, 13 0. R. 616. — 
 Robertson. 
 
 15. Other Casen. 
 
 Semble, upon the facts stated in the report of 
 this case, that the plaintiff, one of the directors, 
 should be estoppe(l from alleging that M. was 
 not properly qualified as a director, the effect of 
 which would have been to injuriously affect the 
 value of bonds of the company, to the issue of 
 which the plaintiff was a party. Kiely v. Smyth, 
 •21 Ciiy. 2-JO. — Spragge. 
 
 The fact that the plaintiff had attended a 
 meeting which had been illegally called, and had 
 entered upon a defence before the council, did 
 not preclude him from afterwards filing a bill 
 impeaching the proceedings as irregular and 
 invalid. Marsh v. Huron College, 27 Cliy. 605. — 
 Spragge. 
 
 Held, in a suit against a registrar by a munici- 
 pal corporation for the proportion of fees to 
 which the corporation was entitled under R. S. 
 0. (1877) c. Ill, that having received the money 
 in question under the above Act he could not 
 deny that he i-eceived it for the purposes therein 
 provided. County of llaaVmi;^ v. Ponton, 5 A. 
 R. 543. 
 
 The plaintiff in this case souglit to have his 
 name removed from the list of sh.ireholders : — 
 Held, that thongh as against the company the 
 plaintiff, had he come before tiie court in good 
 time, might perhaps have had his contract res- 
 cinded, yet his having, as the fact was, acted at 
 
604 
 
 605 
 
 liSTOPPEL. 
 
 606 
 
 a meeting of the aharehulders after knowledge 
 of what he now charged against them, precluded 
 him from asserting any such right now, and his 
 bill must bo dismissed with costs. Pelrie v. 
 43iielph Lumber Co., 2 O. R. 218 ; 11 A. 11. 33« ; 
 11 S. C. R. 450. 
 
 It was proved that the owner was himself pre- 
 sent at the sale in question, and purcliased one 
 lot which was ten or eleven aliead of tiio lot in 
 question, and also another lot three below it on 
 the list ; but it was not shewn that he was pre- 
 sent when tlie actual lot in question was sohl : — 
 Held, that he was not estopped by conduct from 
 complaining of the sale : — HcUl, also, that the 
 fact that ti>e owner was informed witiiin three 
 nionths after the sale of the lot having been sold, 
 when he uiigiit have redeemed it, would not de- 
 prive him of his right of action. L'Uixton v. 
 Ultibley, 9 0. R. 451.— Proudfoot. 
 
 J. McA. et al.'s, (plaintiff's) auteurs having 
 leased a certain portion of a lot of land for min- 
 ing purposes described in the deed by metes and 
 bounds with tlie following option: " Pourra le 
 dit acqu(;reur changer la course des lignes et 
 bornes du dit lopin de terrc sans en augmenter 
 les bornes, I'etendue ou superficie en suivant 
 <lans ue cas la course ou ligne de la dite vcine 
 «le quart/, qu'il peut y avoir ot se rencoutrer en 
 cet endroit, apros que lui, le dit baillcur, aura 
 prospecte le dit lopin de terre susbailld," adopted 
 certain lines of a survey made by one Proulx, as 
 containing the vein of quartz. B. et al.'s (de- 
 fendant's') auteurs leased another portion of the 
 same lot. In an action on bornage between the 
 ])arties the court appointed thi'ee surveyors to 
 lix the boundaries. Each surveyor made a sepa- 
 rate report, and the report and plan of tlie sur- 
 veyor Legendre, adopting Proulx's lines, was 
 adopted and homologated liy the court ; — Held, 
 affirming the judgment of the court below, 
 Gwynne, J. dissenting, that plaintiff's auteurs 
 having located their claim in accordance with 
 the terms of their deed tliey were now estopped 
 from claiming that their property siiould lie 
 bounded according to the true course of tiie 
 vein of q\iartz, and that the judgment Iiomolo- 
 gating tile survey adopting Proulx's lines and 
 survey was riglit and should be affirmed, J/c- 
 Arthur v. Brown, 17 S. C. It, 01. 
 
 In 1870, the defendant, under agreement 
 therefor with his fatiier, tlie owner of a farm, 
 went into possession of a certain portion tliereof, 
 and remained in possession sixteen years. Tlie 
 exact nature of the agreement did not appear, 
 but it pointed to the ownership in defendant of 
 the portion occupied. In 1870, tlie fatiier exe- 
 cuted a mortgage of tiio wlidle of the farm to tiie 
 L. & C. Loan Co., wliioli was witnessed by de- 
 fendant, who made the affidavit of execution on 
 wliicli tlie mortgage was re;^istered. The defen- 
 dant swore that lie was not aware of the con- 
 tents of the mortgage, nor that it included the 
 portion of which he w;is in possession. In 18S2 
 the father made a mortgage to the plaintiffs also 
 «f the whole lot, and ou default the plaintiffs 
 brought an action to recover possession of the 
 portion occupied by defendant ;— Held, that the 
 evidence shewed that the defendant had been in 
 exclusive possession of the land occupied by him 
 for the statutory period so as to acquire a title 
 thereto by possession ; and that the fact of his 
 being a witness to the mortgage to the L. & C. 
 
 Co. , and its subsequent rogistration, under the 
 circumstances, did not by virtue of section 78 of 
 the Registry Act R. S. O. (1877), c. Ill, create 
 an estoppel. WtnUrii Citmula Loan Co. v. Qar- 
 rUon, 10 0. R. 81.— C. P. U. 
 
 Held, that a ratepayer, not a Roman Catholic, 
 being wrongfully assessed as u Roman Catholic 
 and supporter of separate schools, who through 
 inadvertence or other cause docs not appeal 
 therefrom, is not estopped (nor are other rate- 
 payers) from claiming with reference to the as- 
 sessment of the following or future years, that 
 he is not a Roman Catholic. /« re Roman GcUho- 
 lic Sejiarate Schools, 18 0. R. 00«.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, that a ratepayer, being a Roman Catho- 
 lic, and appearing in the assessment roll as such 
 and as a supporter of separate schools, who has 
 not given the notice required by R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. '227, s. 40, is not (nor are other ratepayers) 
 estopped from claiming, in the following or 
 future year, that he should not be placed as a 
 supporter of separate schools with reference to 
 the assessment of such year, although he has not 
 given notice of withdrawal mentioned in B. S. 
 O. (1887), c. 227, 8. 47. lb. 
 
 See National Ins. Co. v. Egleson, 29 Chy. 
 400 ; Re Martin v. EikjHuIi, 5 A. R. 647 ; Chris- 
 toplier V. Noxon, 4 O. K. 672 ; Western Bank 
 of Canada v. Greey, 12 O. R. 68 ; Duffas v. 
 Creit/hton, 14 S. C. H. 740 ; Forsyth v. Bury, 15 
 S. C. U. 543 ; Wickens v. McMeekin, 15 O. R. 
 408 ; Blackky v. Kenny, 16 A. R. 522 ; O'Keeft 
 V. Curran, 17 S. C. R. 596. 
 
 III. By Pleading. 
 
 The plaintiffs having filed their bill in Ontario, 
 must be taken to admit that the court has juris- 
 diction in respect of the matters therein em- 
 braced ; and tlie practice of the court requiring 
 it, and a method having been provided for 
 service of process out of the jurisdiction, the 
 plaintiffs were bound to follow the practice if 
 the objection were taken. Eji'liange Bank v. 
 S/iriniiir, Exchanijc Bank v. Barnes, 29 Chy. 
 270. --('by. D. 
 
 The note upon which this action was brought 
 had not been properly stamped, and it was urged 
 that it could not be a payment or satisfaction of 
 one of which it was intended to be u renewal : — 
 Held, that the plaintifr being aware of the objec- 
 tion to the unstamped note, and receiving it in 
 lieu of the paper which he held, could not nr^e 
 this as an objection, he having declared upon it 
 as a promissory note. Baillie v. Dickson, 7 A. 
 R. 759. 
 
 See Moore v. Buchier, 28 Chy. 606, p. 51. 
 
 ESTREAT. 
 
 See Keco«nizance. 
 
 EVICTION. 
 
 See Forcible Entry — Landlord amd Tenant. 
 
 ■t i 
 
 
 tc 
 
 ■■ til., ii; 
 S Pi 'V, 
 
 i:! 
 '',1 
 
 v; 
 Is, 
 
 
607 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 J "•* , 
 
 • 5*"" 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 I. Mattkbs Judicially Noticed, 611. 
 II. Admihsions, 
 
 1. By I'arlUs, 611. 
 
 2. By ritadwyM,(in, 
 
 3. AtlmissionH without Prejudice, Q\2. 
 
 4. Other rrev, v, (112. 
 
 5. By Coiiiinel—See Pabliamentary 
 
 Klfxtions. 
 
 6. In Controverted Election Proceed- 
 
 Mif/f—iVeePARLiAMENTABV Elec- 
 tions. 
 
 7. Payment into Court— Se.eVAYMEHT. 
 
 8. /» Criminal CancH—See Ckijiinal 
 
 Law. 
 
 III. Pre-shmitionh. 
 
 1. Alto JMdn, 61.S. 
 
 2. From Non- Product ion of Paper», 
 
 613. 
 
 3. Arimnfj from Official Appointments 
 
 and Actn, 613. 
 
 4. As to Death, 614. 
 
 5. Other Canes, 614. 
 
 6. Of Payment of Mortijcuje — See 
 
 M0RT(iAUE. 
 
 IV. Privileged Communications. 
 
 1. Solicitors, 616. 
 
 2. Documents relating to the Public 
 
 Service, 616. 
 
 3. Withholding Documents on the 
 
 Ground of Privilege, 617. 
 
 4. In Lihel and Slander — See Defam- 
 
 ation. 
 
 V. Attendance of Witnesses. 
 
 1. Sei-rke of Subpcena, Q19. 
 
 2. Other Cas-s, 619. 
 
 3. Witness Fees and Subpanas — See 
 
 Costs. 
 
 VI. Competent and Compellable Wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 1. Generally, 619. 
 
 2. In Criminal Cases— See Criminal 
 
 Law. 
 
 VII. Examination under Commission. 
 
 L Application for and Issue of Com- 
 mission, 620. 
 
 2. Cross Interrogatories, 622. 
 
 3. Taking Evidence and Production 
 
 o/' Documents, 622. 
 
 4. Return of Commission, 622. 
 
 5. Costs, 624. 
 
 6. De Bene Esse— See IX., 10, p. 636. 
 
 VIII. Letters Rogatory, 624. 
 IX. Examination of Parties and VVit- 
 
 NESSKS BEFORE TrIAU 
 
 1. Application for — Time, 624. 
 
 2. Service oj Appointment, 626. 
 
 3. Place of Examination, 626. 
 
 4. Persons who wioj, be Examined, 
 (a.) Plaintiff— Defendant, 627. 
 
 (b) Persons for whose Immedialn 
 Benefit Action is Prosecuted, 
 627. 
 
 (o) Officers of Corporations, 628. 
 
 (d) Other Persons, 630. 
 
 5. Production and Inspection oJ Docu- 
 
 ments — See X. , i>. 638. 
 
 6. Conducting Examination. 
 
 (a) Refusing to Answer, 632. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 633. 
 
 7. He- Examination, 635. 
 
 8. Use ()/■ Examination at Trial, 63.1 
 
 9. Fees and Costs, 635. 
 
 10. De Bene Esie, 636. 
 
 11. Under Commission — See VII., i>. 
 
 620. 
 
 12. Pruci'tdliigs for Non-Compliancr. 
 
 with Order for Discovery or In- 
 teiTogatorics. 
 
 (a) Attachment and Motion to Com- 
 
 mit, 637. 
 
 (b) Dismissing Action or Strilciiig 
 
 out Defence for Failure to 
 Attend, 638. 
 
 X. Production ANDlNSPEtTioNOFDocu- 
 ments. 
 
 1. Order to Produce, 638. 
 
 2. Production of Documents, 6.39. 
 
 3. Withholding on the Ground ofPrid- 
 
 lege— See IV. 3, p. 617. 
 
 4. Better Affidavit of Documents, 641. 
 
 5. Returning Documents, 642. 
 
 XI. Examination of Witnesses at 
 Trial. 
 
 1. Ordering Witnesses out of Court, 
 
 642. 
 
 2. Refusing to Answer, C43. 
 
 3. Discrediting Witnesses, 644. 
 
 4. Cross- Examination, 644. 
 
 5. Other Cases, 644. 
 
 XII. Judicial, Official, and Other Pub- 
 lic Documents. 
 
 1. Judgments. 
 
 (a) PronJ of, 644. 
 
 (b; Effect of— See Judgment. 
 
 2. Proof of other Jiidicial Proceid- 
 
 ings, 645. 
 
 3. Evidence and Short-hand Notesy 
 
 646. 
 
 4. Other Documents, 647. 
 Xni. Private Documents. 
 
 1. 7'/rt«;», 648. 
 
 2. Ancient Documents, 649. 
 
 3. Church Canons, 649. 
 
 4. Telegrams, 649. 
 
 6. Receipts, 649. 
 
 6. Other Writings, 649. 
 
 7. Wills-SeeYf ihu 
 
009 EVIDENOE. 
 
 XIV. Parol Explanation ok Do(;uments. XXVII. Corrobouative Evidknok, 
 
 610 
 
 1. To Vary or Explain DmiIx. 
 
 (a) Generally, BflO. 
 
 (b) De.edu Ahuohite in Jorm hut In- 
 
 teniled to he held nnSeciirity — 
 See MoRTtlAtlE. 
 
 (c) Descriptionof Land — Sue Deed. 
 
 2. To Kectify Deedn—See Deed. 
 
 3. To Vary or Explain other fVritimjx. 
 (tt) Parlien to Contracts, 652. 
 
 (b) Connideration, 653. 
 
 (o) Particular Wordx, 653. 
 
 (d) Reference to other Docume.ntu, 
 
 654. 
 
 (e) Subject Matter of Contract , C>55. 
 {{) Hereipti—See XIII., 5, p. 649. 
 (g) TerwK and Incidtnix, 657. 
 
 (h) Mistake, 602. . 
 (i) WUls—SeeV/iLL. 
 
 XV. Proof by Handwriting, 662. 
 
 XVI. Prook by Subscrihino Witness, 662. 
 
 XVJI. Prook by Seoondauy Evidence. 
 
 1. When Documents munt he Pro- 
 
 duced, 663. 
 
 2. Proof of Deedt and Wills by Me- 
 
 morials, 663. 
 
 3. Lost Docvinents, 664. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 665. 
 
 XVIII. Prook akterNotice toProuuce,C06. 
 XIX. Proof by ENTRira. 
 
 1. As against Sureties, 666. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 6G6. 
 
 XX. Effect of Judgment in Former 
 Proceedings— .S'ee Judgment. 
 
 XXI. Hearsay Evidence. 
 
 1. In Questions of Pedhjree, 668. 
 
 2. Eindence of Heputation, 668. 
 
 3. Dyimj Declarations, 669. 
 
 XXII. Expert Evidence, 669. 
 
 XXIII. Of Identity — See Criminal Law, 
 
 XXIV. Proof of Foreign Lvw. — See 
 
 Foreign Law. 
 
 XXV. Evidence of Custom and Usage — 
 See Custom and Usacse. 
 
 XXVI. Product'ion and Admission of Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 1. Onus Probandi, 671. 
 
 2. Relevancy, Vill. 
 
 3. Evidence in Former Action, 677. 
 
 4. In lieply, 678. 
 
 5. Exhibits, 678. 
 
 6. Other Cases, 678. 
 
 7. Privileged Communications — See 
 
 IV. p. 617. 
 
 8. On Taxation— See Costs. 
 39 
 
 1. Corroborating Accomplices, 679. 
 
 2. In Actions bif or against Repre- 
 
 sentatives of Deceased, 680. 
 
 3. To Establish Wills, 682. 
 
 4. In Criminal Cases — See Criminal 
 
 Law. 
 
 5. Other Cases, 682. 
 XXVIII. Contradictory Evidence. 
 
 1. Generally, 683. 
 
 2. New Trial when Verdict is against 
 
 the Weiijht of Evidence— See a nvf 
 Trial.' 
 
 XXIX. Right to Begin and Reply — See 
 Trial. 
 
 XXX. Evidence in Particular Actionh 
 or Pkoceeoinus. 
 
 1. j4(/eH('y -.fee Pkincipal AND Agent- 
 
 2. Appeal— See Appeal. 
 
 3. Arbitrations -See Arbitration 
 
 and Award. 
 
 4. Bankruptcy — See Bankruptcy 
 
 AND Insolvency. 
 
 5. Breach of Promise of Marriage — 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 6. Custom— See Custom and Usage. 
 
 7. Controverted Elections— See Par- 
 
 liamentary Elections. 
 
 8. Defamatiiin-See Defamation. 
 
 9. Division Court Actions — See Divi- 
 
 sion Coukts. 
 
 10. Dower — See Dower. 
 
 11. Examination of Judgment Debtor — 
 
 See Examination of Judgment 
 Debtor. 
 
 12. Fraud— Sie Fraud and Misrep- 
 
 resentation. 
 
 13. Extradition— See Extrapition. 
 
 14. Infringement of Patmt- — See 
 
 Patent for iNVENiiu.v. 
 
 15. Libel— See Defamation. 
 
 16. Malicious Proceedings — See Ma- 
 
 licious Arrest, Prosecution 
 and Other Proceedings. 
 
 17. Negligence— See Negligence. 
 
 18. Proceedings before Magidrates — 
 
 See Intoxicating Liquors — 
 Justice of the Peace. 
 
 19. Quieting Titles — See Quieting 
 
 Titles. 
 
 20. Sale of Intoxicating Liquors — See 
 
 Sale of Intoxicating Liquors. 
 
 21. Seduction— See Seduction. 
 
 22. Slander— See Defamation. 
 
 23. Taxation— See Costs, 
 
 24. Sale oj Land for Taxes — See As- 
 sessment and Taxes. 
 
 25. Of T'Ule-See Ejectment- Limi- 
 tation ok Actions— Quietin(j 
 Titles— Sale of Land — Tres- 
 pass. 
 
 26. Of Trusts— See Trusts and Trus- 
 ters, 
 
 •», 
 
 *£5 
 
 
611 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 612 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 ^'■i. 
 
 
 3&ii. 
 
 I 
 
 ••«,»: 
 
 K 
 
 S^lr 
 
 ^ 
 
 ?•££; 1 
 
 m 
 
 ^t:;'« 
 
 S 
 
 •■i*i(»>ii 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^SB^i' 
 
 
 *«!:; 
 
 KviDBNci IK Ckiminal Cankh 
 Chiminai. Law. 
 
 XXXII. Ari'i.ioATioNH FOR New TniAL— .V^'i- 
 Nkw Tkial. 
 
 OrKNINd I'lIBUCATION ON DiHCOVKKV 
 
 OK Nkw KviDKNCK— Jft« Oi-kninii 
 
 I'Ulll.ICATION. 
 
 XXXIIl. 
 
 Ste iinilur a duud from thu exouutora of fl, : — H 
 tliiit tliuy coulil not takiJ that part uf the |i 
 iiig whiuli suited tliuir piirpoMu and rujuul 
 rust : tliuy could not uho a Murap of it to i>ku out 
 tho iiiHutliuiuncy of their own i^idenfu. fiwhfr 
 V. Mi-Kay, 17 O. R. M'l. (hy. 1). 
 
 See C/iiii'i'r V. North of Srotlund CaiuiiHan 
 MorlijiKje Co,, 27 Chy. 508. 
 
 I. Matterh Judicially Noticed. 
 
 Held, that a tnngistratc cannot take judicial 
 notice of ordura in council, or their publication, 
 without proof thereof by production of the 
 official (iaxctte, and th'Tuforu that a conviction 
 was bad whicli waa niiidu without uuch evidence 
 that the Canada Teniiicriince Act, IH78, was in 
 force in the county iiiirsuant to the Icrma of 
 section Ofl thereof. Keyina v. liinnett, 1 O. R. 
 445. —Cameron. 
 
 See Regina v. Atkimon, 15 O. It. 110, p. 614. 
 
 II. ADMI.S.SIONS. 
 
 1. By Partita. 
 
 See Court v. Holland ; Ex parte Holland and 
 Walsh, 8 P. R. 219, p. 647 ; /» re. liriton Medi- 
 cal and (t'eneral Life Ahk'h (Limited), 11 O. R. 
 478, p. 294 ; HoijerH v. IVil.son, 12 1*. R. 322, 545 ; 
 Carroll v. Penberthy Injector Co., 16 A. R. 44(!, 
 p. 51.3 ; Haiuls v. Law Society of U^tptr Canada, 
 17 A. R. 41. 
 
 2. By Pleadinqs, 
 
 A bill was filed by D. D. against I. and B. , 
 "trading aa partners," and J. D. alleging a 
 wrongful converaion by I. and B. of certain 
 timber, the property of the plaintiff, and furtlier 
 alleging that .1. D. was a party to an aj^reemenc 
 sot lorth therein respecting the aalo of the sai(l 
 timber as a surety oidy, and claiming the return 
 of the timber, an account and damages. I. and 
 B. in their answer admitted that tho timber had 
 been removed by them, but alleged that it haci 
 been in accordance with an agreement entered 
 into by them with J. D., and with A., his as- 
 signee, who liad a proper authority for that 
 purpose :— Held, reversing the decision of Fer- 
 guson, J., that the whole of the admission waa to 
 be looked at, audit waa not such as entitled the 
 plaintiff to a decree because it did not admit a 
 conversion of timber of which the plaintiff was 
 sole owner, as alleged in the bill ; but under it 
 I. and B. might shew that J. D. had an interest 
 in the timber and authority to act for and re- 
 present D, D. in the transaction in cpcstion. 
 Dovey V. Irwin, 4 0. R. 8.— Chy. D. 
 
 Per Armour, J. Wlien a material fact is 
 alleged in a pleading, and the pleading of the 
 opposite party ia silent with respect thereto, the 
 fact muat be conaidered as in isaue ; therefore, 
 it waa, in thia caae, competent for C. , a co-defen- 
 dant, to deny the execution of the bond, tiis 
 pleading not expresaly admitting it. Waterloo 
 Mutual Ins. Co. v. Robinson, i 0. R. 295. 
 
 The plaintiffs, sought to support their case by 
 reference to a certam statement in the defen- 
 dant's pleading, in which, besides denying their 
 right to recover, she herself also claimed title 
 
 .1. AdminMonH without Prejudice. 
 
 Overtures of pa('iti<;ation, and any other oHem 
 or propoaitions betwoun liligatini; p.iitieH, ex- 
 preasly or impliedly, made "without prejudice," 
 are inadmiaaible in evidence on grounds of pub- 
 lic policy, althougli the penileiioy of audi negn- 
 tiations aa a matter of I'act may be looked at. 
 Cuunly of York v. Tortnitii (Irami Rund and 
 Concrete Co., .'1 0. R. 584.— IVoudfoot. 
 
 Where ncgotiationa witli n view to aettlement 
 are carried on between tiie parlies and a 8e"''e- 
 ment of a auit concluded by nieaiia of 1< 
 nuirkod "without prejudice " the lettera i 
 given iu evidence to prove tiie binding ci 
 notwithstanding the reatiictive worda. yuiu... 
 v. I'ardon, 6 U. R. 719.— Wilaon. 
 
 A letter containing an otfer written " without 
 ))rejudiue," nieana " I make you an offer, if you 
 do not accept it, tiiis letter ia not to be used 
 against me. ' Kut when the offer ia accepted, 
 the privilege ia removed. Omnium SeeurilieH 
 Co. v. KichnrdHon, 7 O. R. 182.— Boyd. 
 
 All communications expressed to bo written 
 without prejudice, and fairly made for the pur- 
 pose of expresaing the writer's views on the mat- 
 ter of litigation or dispute, as well aa overtures 
 for settlement or eompromiae, and which arc not 
 made with some other object in view and wrong 
 motives, are not admissible in evidence. Where 
 therefore a letter written without prejudice and 
 coming within the above rule was admitted at 
 the trial ; the court not being able to say that 
 defendant waa not prejudiced thereby, a new 
 trial was directed. Pirie v. Wyld, 11 O. R. 
 422-C. P. D. 
 
 In anawor to plaintitFa letter enclosing state- 
 ment of his loas under a policy of insurance, 
 defendants replied that they thought the loss in 
 place of $I,S,(M).5, the amount claimed by plaintiff, 
 should be $11,734.9U ; adding : " Thia auin, we 
 conaider, not only reasonable, but liberal, and 
 which we are liable for, without any prejudice 
 to or waiver of, any condition of the policy." 
 Some further correapondence took place, but no 
 arrangement waa arrived at, and an action was 
 brought : — Held, that the letter was properly 
 admitted in evidence, for it was not stated to be 
 without prejudice generally, nor waa any objec- 
 tion taken to its reception at the trial, the de- 
 fendanta by tho letter merely claiming that it 
 should not be deemed a waiver of any condition 
 of the policy, and both parties acted on this 
 view. Ilarlney v. North Britinh Fire Iiuiuraiife 
 Co., 13 0. R. 581. -C. P. D. 
 
 4. Other Cases. 
 
 The statement of one partner on his exnmuia- 
 tion ill a suit against the firm as to transactions 
 which occurred during the partnership binds all 
 
 «1S 
 
 tht) partui! 
 of some of 
 Ihc! atatei 
 tht'y objec 
 Daltou, M 
 
 Admiiai 
 
 trourse of u 
 and signed 
 trr V. Ail in 
 
 A (lefen 
 
 il^MUH in HI 
 M'fVl'enee, 
 former sol 
 lendunt aw 
 iMlmiaaiima, 
 pirly charj 
 slieun thu 
 cliiuige hill 
 |Nirtiea by i 
 ilcBeaii. I 
 
 Admisaic 
 tion. Nee 
 
 Quu're, H 
 rect iiueatio 
 privilege a| 
 .any i!videni 
 e«ti»j)p{'l or 
 U R. 22.— 
 
 Where an 
 deed waa aij 
 whicii was y\ 
 Held, that 
 -been delivej 
 jii rial Bank 
 4ti7.— Fcrgij 
 
 Nee IVelUX 
 -594. 
 
 2. /'/ 
 
 Held, thai 
 iniglit be as| 
 tile report ' 
 the goods t(k 
 the list, anif 
 at the trial ,[ 
 produce, thl 
 that it statif 
 necessary fcl 
 that the effJ 
 to the plail 
 approvuJ e» 
 Vckk'y V. ilf 
 
 .3. A 
 
 iismg _ 
 
 Held, th.J 
 officer of a f 
 such officer! 
 aiiined and [ 
 altliough nJ 
 •of Ilia appoil 
 ^ip of Hal 
 loot. 
 
«1S 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 Iht) partiiurs, uuluso thoy iiuuk, by an oxmuiiiatiun i 
 of loiuo of thuiiiaulvoH, tu u»utrii*liut oi' iiiialif/ 
 tlio iitaiuinenlN uf tliu partiiur wIionv uvhIuiii u 
 tlu-y objuut t(>. Tiiylor v. Couk, II I'. H, 00. - | 
 Dikltuii, Mauler. 
 
 AiliniiiiioiiH iii.'uU' Ituforu tliu iiiaHtci' in tlu^ 
 ooui'Ho ol' u rufciuuco HJiould l)u put into writing ^ 
 aiitl oiguud by tliti party niiil<ingtiiu niiuit'. Fan- \ 
 l,f V. AUi.sKii, II v. H. 2H;i. - Boyd. ' 
 
 A tlufendunt wiut allowud to attuuk uertaiu I 
 iUMMH in an ituoouiit, whicli, in thu coiirHe of a I 
 irfc'fcntio, liiid lioiMi adnutted to he oonect iiy Iuh j 
 foriuur Holicitor, Hinuu duuuitHud, wlit'iu tliu du- ] 
 liiiidiint Hworu that liu had not u\itliiii'i/c'd thu \ 
 adniiHHioUM, and that thi: itunm wuru not pro- 
 pi'i'ly chai'giMililt: against him, and wlieru it wan ' 
 Mlii'un that III) rupoi't hail liuun made and no 
 i:liaugu had tal<en pluco in thu ponition of thu 
 iKirtiuu by reason of thu adnnHHions. Mc/Si'ini v. 
 McUeaii, II 1'. K. 4v!!>.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 AdiuiaaionH of defuudnnt in aution of Huduc- 
 tion. .See Pulmbu v. McClntry, V2 O. H. 11)2. 
 
 (JuH-re, whether the refusal to answer thu di- 
 rect (jueHtion aa to autlun'Hhip, or the claim of 
 {)rivilege agaiuat criminal proceedings, aD'ords 
 any tsvidenee thereof, by way of adniitision or 
 cHt(»ppcl or othorwise. Jlarlunn v. JJuuty, 17 
 -0. B. 22.— Hose. 
 
 III. Pkksumptions. 
 
 1 . Ax lo Deeds. 
 
 Where an equity of redemption conveyed by 
 Jeud was subject to a mortgage a discharge of 
 which was registered the same day as the deed : — 
 Meld, that the deed must be assumed to have 
 ,beeu ilelivered before it was registered. Im- 
 jH.rial Bank of Canada v. Alttcul/'c, 11 O. U. 
 41)7. — Ferguson. 
 
 See H'ellx v. Northern H. W. Co., 14 O. R. 
 -51)4. 
 
 2. From Non-Production of Paper a. 
 
 Held, that the letter from K. to the defendants 
 jiiight be assumed upon the evidence set out in 
 tlie report to state that he had made a sale of 
 the goods to the ]>laintiti'H at the prices named in 
 tlie list, and that as such letter was not produced 
 at the trial, tliough called for by the notice to 
 produce, the court might, if necessaiy, presume 
 tliat it stated anything further which might be 
 necessary for the plaintifi''s case ; — Held, also, 
 that the effect of the letter from the defendants 
 to the plaintiffs was not impaired by the <lis- 
 approvaj expressed therein of part of the order. 
 <J(kIei/ V. MaH.son, A. K. 108. 
 
 3. Arising from Official AppotHtmentu and Acta. 
 
 Held, that if a person acts notoriously as the 
 ofhcer of a corporation and is recognized by it as 
 such officer a regular appointment will be pre- 
 sumed and his acts will bind the corporation, 
 Although no written proof is or can be adduced 
 •of Ilia appointment. School Trimteeti oj the Toiirn- 
 Mp of JlamUloH v. Neil, 28 Chy. 408.— Proud- 
 ioot 
 
 Thudufcndaut was convietod of perjury alleKu<l 
 to havu been c(nnmitled in a uuunu triei' at % 
 Division Court held by one H. under a counuis- 
 hion issued by thu (Jovornor-denoral in (<ouncil 
 ugipointiug him deputy judge of the County 
 Court of tiio county of Victoria, during plooHu u 
 and the absence of the county judge under tl' i 
 luavu of absence granted to him by an ordor in 
 i'o,iii''il : -Hoid, it was not necessary for thu 
 Crowii to prove the order in council granting 
 the leav " of absence, for its existence, and that 
 the commission was not uti'cte by thu lapse of 
 time, would be presumed, in accordance wiiU 
 the general presumption of law that a |)erson 
 acting in a public capacity was duly appointed 
 and authorized to act, the onus of shewing thu 
 contrary being on the defendant, /{cijiiia v. Fre, 
 3 O. R. 107.— C. 1". I). 
 
 An information was laid before K., who de- 
 scribed himself as '• one of Her Majesty's police 
 magistrates in anil jt the county of Oxford ;"and 
 he was similarly licsL^■ibed in the summons and 
 conviction. K.'s commission was issued on the 
 I'ith .lanuary, and appointed him police nuigis- 
 trate in and for thu county of Oxford. It wad 
 urged that Woodstock an(l Ingersoll were two 
 towns in the county, and that each had, at the 
 time of iiitoi Illation l.dd, a population of mor : 
 than 5,000 inhabitants, so m to have, by law, 
 each a police mat;istratc, which it must be pre- 
 sumed wos the case here ; and thurefore K.couM 
 not be police magistrate for the county whidi 
 included those towns, as there could not be more 
 than one police magistrate for the same county. 
 On motion to quash the conviction : — Held, that 
 the applicati<ni must be refused ; that there was 
 no judicial knowledge of the fact of such towns 
 coniaininu such population, and no knowledge 
 of it by affidavit or otherwise ; that even if there 
 was more than one police magistrate, the other 
 might have been appointed suDsequently to K. ; 
 and the appointment of such other, and not K., 
 would be void ; and under R. .S. C. c. 106, s. 17, 
 the conviction must be deemed suiBcieut. 
 Rtgina, v. Atkinfion, 15 O. R. 110, — Wilson. 
 
 4. Ah to Death. 
 
 Held, that the presumption of death arising 
 from continued absence of the demandant's hus- 
 band, unheard of for seven years, is sufficient to 
 sustain an action for dower as against the objec- 
 tion that he is still living. U'des v. Morrow, 1 0. K. 
 527.— Osier. 
 
 5. Other Ca^es. 
 
 When one to whom a devise prima facie bene- 
 ficial to him is made neither accepts or rejects 
 the same, but remains passive, he will be pre- 
 sumed to accept. Re Defoe, 2 O. R. 623. —Boyd. 
 
 J. and R. living at P., had dealings extending 
 over several years with D.&Co., who lived at K., 
 and borrowed money from him from time to time. 
 To secure the money borrowed they executed a 
 mortgage to D. & Co. , purporting to be for 1(4,000, 
 but really intendedassecurityforwbatevershould 
 be due to them from time to time on the loan 
 account. On taking the accounts in the master's 
 office some years afterwards, and after J. and R. 
 had made an assignment in insolvency, it ap- 
 peared that shortly after executing this mortgage. 
 
 « s: : .'5 
 
 * la. > *% 
 
 V , 
 
 n 
 
 41 
 
 II 
 
 itt' 
 
 1 1 
 
 I' 
 
615 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 61& 
 
 ?s®, 
 
 'HI 
 
 c: 
 
 » M, - 
 
 ♦ r... 
 
 
 and before so much ns $4,000 had been ailvnnced 
 by D., J. and R. drew on D. & Co. for $l,r)00:— 
 Held, that, under these circumstances, the i)re- 
 sunption that D. & Co. owed J. and R. the ?1,500 
 drawn for, was rebutted, tlie draft being the 
 natural nio<le in which J. and R. woukl procure 
 an advance on the security of tlie mortgage to D. 
 ACo. Court V. Holland, iO. II G88.-Proudfoot. 
 
 A protest is only presumptive evidence of the 
 posting of notices of dialiouciur tif a note, and is 
 insufficient in the face of denial by the endorsers 
 that they had received notice. Ontario Bank 
 V. Burke, 10 P. R. 501.— Rose. 
 
 Where the owners of lands, adjoining original 
 road allowances, laid out roads on their lands 
 which were used as public roads for upwards of 
 eighty years, the original road allowances being 
 all that time in the nccuputidu of the owners of 
 the lands, and used and treated as their own 
 property, and no evidence was adduced to raise 
 a presumption that comjivnaation had been paid 
 to thim tor the roads po laid out :— Held, atlinn- 
 ing the judgment of Osier, J. A., (8 O. R. 98,) that 
 the prcEunipticn was tliat the original road al- 
 lowances had been taken and used in lieu of the 
 roads laid out by the owners through their lands, 
 and that a by-law to open up the original road 
 allowance as of right was invalid, liurritt r. 
 Marlborough, 29 Q. B. 119, approved; Cameron 
 V. Wait, 3 A. R. 175, explained. Beimcr v. 
 Villoye ofGrimnhy, 13 A. K. 225. 
 
 K. brought an action for trespass to bis land in 
 laying pipes to carry water to a public insti- 
 tution. The land liad been upid as a public high- 
 way for many years, and there was an old 
 statute authorising its expropriatien for public 
 purposes, but the records ot the municipality 
 which would contain the proceedings on such 
 eipropriation, it any had been taken, Mere lost : 
 — Held, revirsiig the judj.ment of tlie Supreme 
 Court of Nova 8cotia (-.0 M. S. Rep. 95) that in 
 the absence of any evidi nee of didication of the 
 road it must be presumed that tlic piocecdings 
 undrr the statute were rightly taken and K. 
 eould not recover, Dkki^on v, Kiarnry, 14 S. 
 C. R. 743. 
 
 Presumption of foreign law. 8ee Re O'Bnm, 
 3 0. R. 326; Lumjdonv. Bvlniixov, 13 O. R. 
 497. 
 
 A train of the Canada Atlantic Railway Com- 
 pany passed the plaintill's farm about 10:.S0 a.ni. 
 and another passed about nocm. Some time 
 after the second train pas.sed it was discovered 
 that the tindier and wood cm plaint id's land was 
 on fire, which fire spread rapidly after being dis- 
 covered and destroyed a nuuntity of the standing 
 tinjber on said land, in an action against the 
 company it was shown that the engine which 
 ia£ ed at 10:80 was in a defective state, and 
 ik'ly to throw dangerous sparks, while the 
 other engine was in good repair and provided 
 witli all necessary ai)pliuncc8 for ' otcction 
 against tire. The jury found, on question sub- 
 mitted, that the fire came from the engine first 
 passing, that it arose tlirough negligence on the 
 part u( the company, and tliat such ni'gligenoe 
 consisted in running the engine when she was a 
 bad fire thrower and dangerous : — Held, affirm- 
 ing the judgment of the Court of Appeal, (14 
 A. R. 309), that there being sufficient evidence 
 to justify the jury in finding that the engine 
 
 E' 
 
 which passed fii'st was out of order, and it being 
 admitted that the second engine was in good re- 
 pair, the fair inference, i» the absence of any 
 evidence that the tire came from the latter, was 
 that it came from the engine out of order, and 
 the verdict should not be disturl>ed. Canada 
 Atlantic It W. Co. v. Mojcley, 15 S. C. R. 145. 
 
 Presumption of marriage. 8ee O'Connor v. 
 Kcnnedi/, 15 O. R. 20. 
 
 IVesuniption of candidate's intentions when he 
 places money in the hands of his agent and gives 
 no directions or exercises no control over it. See 
 Keijina ex ret Johns v. Stewart, 16 O. R. 583. 
 
 See Re Aforw, 8 P. R. 475, p. 6i5 ; Beid v. 
 Hinnphruj, 6 A. R. 403, p. 159; Lincoln Election 
 (2) (()nt.)~l'nvlivii v. Bykat, She ink's Vote, I 
 H. E. C. 500; Be O'Brien, 3 O. R. 326 ; Corlnj v.. 
 Cray, J5 O. R. 1, p. «(jl. 
 
 IV. Privileged Communications. 
 
 1. Solicitor g. 
 
 In an action by the devisee of R. to recover 
 possession from the defendant of land conveyed 
 by him to R., of which the defendant remained 
 in possession, the defence was that the convey- 
 ance to R., though in form absolute, was inten- 
 ded to operate as a mortgage. 'J he evidence of 
 E. and P., two solicitors, as to sti'ienunts made 
 to them by R. in his lifetime as to his intentions 
 with regard to the land, was taken fubject to 
 objection. The evidence of E. shewed that R."s 
 statement to him was made in E."s ofhce in the 
 I presence of P. and of another person who was a 
 frien(^. of R.'s, but not a professional man. E. 
 thought R. made the statement as a preliminary 
 to instructing him as to something that was to 
 be done by him as a solicitor, but 1\. ilid not 
 g've any int.tiytions, and there was nothing to 
 shew that he ever ii. tended to do so, and no jiro- 
 fessional cmjiloymint followed fn in the convcr- 
 sa'ion. E. could not leccdlect wlu ther lie was 
 askc d for his advice or opinion at the time, hut 
 he made no charge for professional services. 
 P.'s t vidence was tliat he bail spokt n to R. about 
 the affaiis of l'\ as the solicitor and a friend of 
 the K. fanuly, and had advised 1!. to try to save 
 the property in (piestion for the V. family. It 
 also appeared that It. was an occasional client 
 of E. and P., but that in the tranpaotions in 
 question he bad employed (jther solicitors: — 
 Held, that the communications toE. and P. were 
 not made to them in their professional capacity, 
 and were therefore not privilrgeif, and were 
 properly icceivalile in evidence; Falcon bridge^ 
 .1., ihnihting .'is to the evidence of E. Bndd v. 
 Frank, 17 O. R. 758.— Q. B. D. 
 
 2. Documents Belatiiig to the Puhlir Serriee. 
 
 In an action for libel and slander the plain- 
 fill's counsel iiisisti'd on the iirodnction of a err- 
 tain anonymous letter written by the defendant 
 to tlieOnlarioCovcrnment relating to the lictiis- 
 ing of the plaintitT's hotel. The head of the dc- 
 paitnitnt attended and declined to produce the 
 letter on the ground that its production woulit 
 be injurious to tlie public service, and it was 
 therefore privileged. The judge ordered the 
 letter to be produced, but stated that if the 
 
 «17 
 
 Hel.1, . 
 
 master 
 |ii-ivil"; 
 ir'icji I ' 
 
 (>. W.IS 
 
 uotiv.dy 
 illip,:iel 
 the li;iiil 
 
 })eisins 
 lyiJ. in 
 were not 
 V. M<n 
 
 Lottei 
 a clerk, 
 gate the 
 of the co: 
 reference 
 from pr( 
 II V. R 
 
 In an 
 the plai 
 eonlractc 
 of railwi 
 tificates 
 were fal 
 nients sh 
 surveys 
 lititjatior 
 if thoy « 
 action 
 that infc 
 suremen 
 surveyoi 
 
«17 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 618 
 
 court should hold that the production was not 
 fonipulhible, any verdict recovered would go for 
 nothing. The letter was then produced and read. 
 Tilt' jiiilgu told the jury that the letter was not 
 cvideiiuo of libel as it was privileged, but that 
 it could be looked at as evidence of m.dice on 
 the slander count. The jury found for the plain- 
 tiff: — Held, that the question wlieHier the pro- 
 duction of such a document was injurious to the 
 )iublic service, must be determinjd, not by tiie 
 juilge, but by tiie liead of tlie department hav- 
 ing the custody of the paper, and the produc- 
 tion of tlie document ougiit not to havf been 
 comi)jlied. Under the circumstances a new 
 trial witliout costs was granted. Bradley v. 
 MclufiMk, 5 O. R. 227.— C. P. D. 
 
 3. Withho/'limj Documents on the Ground of 
 Privilege. 
 
 Among the grounds of defence set up in an 
 action to recover the amount of the policy of in- 
 surance were, that tlie pi lintifl' s books hid been 
 falsified ; and th. t the (n-e liad occurred throigh 
 the wiifid negligence of tlie plaintiff. The de- 
 fonlautH employed two exports to iiivosiigate 
 the plaintiff's Iwoks and his conduct with respect 
 to tiie file, and these exp';rts made reports. Tlic 
 defendants' aflidavit (ui production set out as 
 documunts which tliey objected to produce : 
 " Iteport of adjuster, for Norwich Union Fire 
 Insurance Society for counsel's opinion tliercon," 
 "Various mem')randa taken 1)V adjuster for pie- 
 jwr.ition of report, and for iuforiLiacion of coun- 
 sel." It was furtlier stated in tlie aflidavit that 
 tlieso documents were " ])iivileged, being jti'rtof 
 tlio defendants" case and prepared for the iu- 
 •struetion of counsel, and jnvpared specially for 
 this litigation and in conteniplatimi thereof:" — 
 Held, oh apiieal, reversing the decision of the 
 master' in eli iinbers, that these documents were 
 ]nivilcgoil from jiroductiou. Maalouidd v. Nor- 
 n-U-h I'liUm Fire Ills. Co., 10 P. H. 501. -Rose. 
 
 (i. was general solicitor for tl i bank, and was 
 JK^tiw'ly engaged in negotiating the transaction 
 iin[),:Kli(Ml in the action, not only on behalf of 
 the bank but on lielialf of himself and of other 
 peis'ins : —Held, that letters written to the bank 
 l)y<!. ill rererence to the transaction in (luestion 
 were not jirivileged from production. I'uw.ion 
 v. Mrr,-h(tnfs Bank; II P. II, 18.— Boyd. j 
 
 Letters written to the defendant compmy by ' 
 a clerk, who was specially instructed to invosti- | 
 gate the plaintitT's acc(mnts and take the advice 
 of tile company's solicitors, and which contiinod i 
 reference to tlieir advice, were held privileged ! 
 from production. Hoin/hton v. Cifhf,m' Iiin. Co., ! 
 II V. K. ]\0. — \HlUmiMn.itfr. ! 
 
 In an action to recover payments made by ; 
 the plaintiffs to the defendants, who were I 
 contractors for the building of the plaintifFs line 
 of railway, on the ground that the progress cer- j 
 titicates upon which the payments were niaile 
 were false and fraudulent : Held, that docu- ] 
 iiieuts shewing the results of nieasurcmeuts and 
 surveys made ljy the plaintiffs for the purpose of 
 litiijation were privileged from production, oven 
 if they were procured for the purpose of another 
 action between the same parties ; but : — Held, 
 that information obt:iined by means of the mca- 
 suremsnts and examiaation of the company's 
 surveyors was not per so privileged ; and the 
 
 jilaintiffs were therefore ordered to give parti- 
 culars of the errors in the certificates on which 
 they relied, although this might involve the dis- 
 closing of matters of fact derived from privileged 
 communications. Cauadian Pacific R. W. Co. 
 v. Conni'ie, 11 P. R. 297.— Boyd— C. of A. 
 
 The defendant D. M. McD. claimed privilege 
 for certain documents in his possession, assert- 
 ing that he held them merely as solicitor for hi.i 
 mother and co-defendant, F. McD. No order 
 to produce had at the time of the application 
 been taken out as against F. McD., nor had she 
 been served with notice of the application : — 
 Held, that I). M. McD. should not have been 
 ordei'cd to produce those documents without F. 
 McD. being called upon to shew cause why they 
 should not be produced. MacOregor v. McDon- 
 ald, II P. R. 386.— C. P. D. 
 
 To obtain privilege for a document mentioned 
 in an affiilavit on production, the grounds upon 
 which it is claimed must be stated. A state- 
 ment that according to plaintifif's contention a 
 d™ ument contains a libel, and therefore exposes 
 th defendant to a criminal charge, is not suffi- 
 cient to jiroteet the document ; tlie defendant 
 must go further and express his belief that the 
 jiroductiim of the document will expose hira to 
 a criminal charge, liromlcy v. Oraham, 11 P. 
 K. 4,51.— Dalton, Mailer. 
 
 In an action to restrain the infringement of a 
 ])atent, in which the defence set up that the sup- 
 ])osed invention had been previously patented 
 ill the United States and England, copies of 
 American patents material to the defendant's 
 case, were |)rocui'ed by his solicitors of their 
 own motion for the purposes of the action : — 
 Held, that such documents were privileged from 
 production, (t'uct/ih O. Co. v. Whftehead, 9 P. 
 R. 509.— Dalton, Mm/er. 
 
 In an actio.i op a promissory note given by the 
 defendant to the (ilaiutifTs in payment of a quan- 
 tity of pads made by the plaintiBfs, and said to 
 jvjssess curative properties when applied to the 
 liody, the defence Wiis, tliatthe note was obtained 
 ))y fraud and that the pads purchased were use- 
 less and possessed no healing properties. The 
 defendant dc>inauded production and discovery 
 of the formula or recipe from which the paiis 
 were made, in order to shew that they were 
 valueless, which the plaintiGI's refused on the 
 ground that no reiu'cscntation was made as to 
 their ingredients, th.at the composition was a 
 secret not patented, and th.at discovery would 
 iajure them in their business : — Held, that the 
 defeiid.ant was not entitled to the discove^. 
 iSf/ftr Kidney Pad Go. v. Greenwood, 3 O. R. 
 280. — Cameron. 
 
 The pluintifl in an action for damages for 
 injuries sustained in a railway accident, sought 
 to compel the defendants to produce a certain 
 leport of an investigation held by the defendants 
 immediately after the accident, and the notes of 
 evidence taken at the investigation. These 
 documents according to the evidence of H., an 
 officer of the defendants, who was examined for 
 discovery in the action, were not obtained for the 
 solicitor of the defendants, nor for the purpose 
 of being laid before him for advice, nor in view 
 of any impending or threatened litigation, nor 
 after litigivtiou commenced ; but, " for the pur- 
 pose of the managenieut of the line ; for our 
 
il9 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 621 
 
 t 
 
 ... < 
 
 t 
 
 Si't 
 
 t 
 
 r . 
 
 Ifc 
 
 ■«f.P' 
 
 "* 
 
 «Ktk 
 
 ^ 
 
 <«»'• 
 
 own purposes ; it was not intended for a jjurpose 
 » 1 this kind " (i. e., for use in legal proceedings). 
 In answer to the question whether the defen- 
 dants' solicitor was present at the investigation, 
 H. said, " No, it would be entirely between the 
 officers of the company." The affidavit of the 
 solicitor stated that the information was obtain- 
 ed that he might advise the defendants as to 
 their liability for damages arising from the acci- 
 dent, and that it had been used for that purpose 
 a.id no other. The defendants' affidavit .of j 
 documents did not claim privilege for these 
 (locuments, but denied the possession of any 
 documents relating to the matters in question ; 
 but it was admitted that the affidavit of docu- 
 ments had been prepared under misapprehension 
 of the facts, and that these documents were in 
 the possession of the defendants : — Held, that 
 the court need not under tliese circumstances 
 u( nsider whether the examination of H. could 
 be received to contradict the affidavit of docu- 
 ments, but should look at the matter as if the 
 documents had been set out and privilege claim- 
 ed for them : and that upon tlie statements of 
 ir. and the solicitor the documents were not 
 1)1 ivileged and should be produced. Wlieeler /'. 
 ■ lO Marchant, 17 Chy. U. H7o, and Westinghouse 
 V. Midland R. W. flo., 48 L. T. Rep. N. S. 402, 
 Oraml Trunk It. IC. Co., 12 
 Affirmed on appral, Ih. (i34. 
 
 marriage are both competent and compellable 
 witnesses, and may therefore be examined under 
 the C. L. P. Act. McLaughlin v. Moore, 10 1\ 
 R. 326. — Osier. Superseding Woodman v. Blair, 
 8 P. R. 179 ; Jones v. Gallon, 9 P. R. 296. 
 
 Mental capacity. 
 K. 591 
 
 followed. Belts v. 
 P. R. 86. -C. P. T). 
 
 Held, that no privilege attaches to telegrams 
 1 . the possession of a telegrapli company. 45 
 Vict. c. 93, s. 18 (Dom.), should not be read 
 as giving an absolute privilege, Jle Dwii/ht and 
 Macklam, 15 O. R. 148.— Boyd— Osier. 
 
 See Merchants' Bank v. Pierson, 8 P. R. 123, 
 p. 637 ; Rradlei/v. Mcintosh, 5 0. R. 227, p. 617. 
 
 V. Attendance of Witnes.sks. 
 1. Service of Suhpania. 
 
 When a party to an action who lives in a 
 foreign country comes within the jurisiliction, 
 S( vice upon him of an appointment and sub- 
 puna, as in the case of resident litigants, is 
 sufficient to compel his attendance ; and it lies 
 upon the party so served to object at tiie time to 
 the payment of conduct money. Comsfork v. 
 llarris, 12 P. R. 17.— Hoyd. 
 
 2. Other Cases. 
 
 Postponement o' trial where party inuible to 
 a ..end owing to ill health and swears that he is a 
 material witness in his own behalf. See Schnliz 
 v. Wood, 6 S. C. R. 585. 
 
 Held that the operator was the proper person 
 to subpcona to produce telegrams, as he had 
 the control of them and the ability to produce 
 t .'Ui. lie Dujujht and Macklam, 15 0. R. 148, — 
 Boyd. — Osier. 
 
 See Ueorye '/'. Smith ('o. 
 345, p. 636. 
 
 V. Greey, 11 P. R. 
 
 VI. Competknt and Compellable WrrNEs.sEs. 
 1. Oenerally. 
 
 Since the passing of 46 Vict, c, 10, s. 3 (Ont. ), 
 the parties to an action for breach of promise of 
 
 See Udy v. Stewart, 10 U. 
 
 VII. EXA.MINATION UNDER COMMIS.SION. 
 
 1. Application for , and Issue- of Commission. 
 
 Where a witness who had been previonslj- 
 examined under a commission, stated on affidavit 
 that he had further evidence to give to explain 
 or coi-rect iiis former evidence : — Held, a new 
 commission should issue to further examine him. 
 and that in such case he should be considei-ed iis 
 a witness for tlie party who desires to re-examine 
 him :- Held, al.so, tliat strong suspicion of a 
 depi'aved motive in the witness for desiring to he 
 re-examined, was not a sufficient ground upon 
 which to resist the application. Rogers v. Man- 
 nivij, 8 P. R. 2. — Hagarty. 
 
 The referee made an order striking out as 
 impertinent certain interrogatories to be admin- 
 istered to a witness under eomnjissiou : — Held, 
 on appeal, that the referee has no juris<liction 
 to strike out interrogatories for impertinence. 
 Tiie proper course is, for the witness to demur 
 to the impertinent question. WiUianf v. Corhij, 
 8 P. R. 83.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where a commission was issued to England to ■ 
 take evidence in a case involving many intricate 
 questions of fact, the evidence was ordered to be 
 taken on viva voce cpiestions, instead of upon 
 interrogatories. Watson v. McDonald, 8 P. R. 
 354.— Osier. 
 
 On an application for a foreign commission to 
 examine a witness who is travelling, it should l>e 
 shewn that he will remain at the place to which 
 the commission is directed a sufficient time to 
 allow of its due execution. Sini/er v. C. W. Wil- 
 liams Manufactimnij Co., 8 P. It. 483. — Blake. 
 
 A com./iission to examine witnesses in a foreign 
 country may be issued in the case of the trial 
 of an election petition. Cnnnrall Klfction (.'<) 
 (Doni.)—Madinnan v. Uinjln, 1 H. E. C. 8(13. 
 
 Where an application for a commission to ex- 
 amine a witness in New York, was made before 
 an officia' referee, and referred by liim to a judge, 
 it was— Held that matters coming within tlie 
 jurisdiction of any officer of the court should be 
 disposed ot ^y him in the usual way, and the 
 parties might then appeal from such decision. 
 Hui/hes V. Beex, 9 P. R. 86.— Boyil. 
 
 Where an order was miide for a oommissioncr 
 to examine one M. viva voce and other witncs.s(s 
 on interrogatories : — Held, that the commission 
 could not issue to examine M. only, without 
 amending the order. Smith v. Babcock, 9 P. R. 
 )75.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A commission will issue to examine a witness, 
 notwitlistanding that his character for veracity 
 is impeached. The proper course in snch a case 
 is to call witnesses at the trial for that purpose. 
 Xordheinier v. McKillop, 10 P. R. 246.— Gait. 
 
 In an action to restrain an alleged nuisance, 
 caused by the defendants' cattle byres in the city 
 
621 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 622 
 
 of Toronto, an application was made by the de- 
 fendants for the issue of a commission to certain 
 cities in the U. S., to talie evidence in their l)e- 
 lialf concerning the cattle byres in those cities. 
 It was admitted that the only point on which 
 witnesses in the States could be usefully exam- 
 ined was, as to whether proper means had been 
 taken by the defendants to minimize the objec- 
 tionable accompaniments or incidents of their 
 business. None of the persons sought to be ex- 
 amined were named in the application, nor wna it 
 sworn that such persons could not be ready to 
 attend personally at the trial : — Held, upon this 
 state of facts, that the order for the commission 
 must be refused. Attoiney-Gtivercd v. Qooder- 
 ham, 10 P. R. 2.59— Boyd. 
 
 A commission to take evidence out of the 
 jurisdiction will not be ordered till after issue 
 joined, nor then unless the applicnnt shews by 
 uifidavit what evidence he expects to obtain. 
 Smith V. Qreey, 10 P. R. 531.— Guy. D. 
 
 Upon an application for a foreign commission 
 it is not necessary to shew that the action is 
 technically at issue : it is sufficient that it be 
 sliewn that soine issue is raised on the pleadings 
 which must be tried in the action. Smith v. 
 (Ireey, 11 P. R. .38.— Boyd. 
 
 Commission to take evidence abroad on the 
 return to a writ of habeas corpus. See Re Smart 
 Infants, 12 P. R. 2. 
 
 There is no hard and fast rule as to the grant- 
 ing or refusing of a foreign commission ; it is a 
 matter of discretion : but in the case of the ex- 
 amination of a party being sought the court will 
 lie more circumspect than in the case of an ordi- 
 nary witness. Milk v. MUh, 12 P. R. 47.3.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 In an action of alimony where there were alle- 
 gations of cruelty, and the plaintiff had also in- 
 stituted criminal proceedings for bigamy against 
 the defendant, who had left the jurisdiction and 
 applied to be examined abroad : — Held, that the 
 <lefendant was a, necessary witness and that the 
 reason given by him for not being able to attend 
 tlie trial, viz., that he was afraid to retui'u to 
 the jurisdiction on account of the criminal pro- 
 ceedings, was sufficient ; and a commission was 
 ordered. Ih. 
 
 The court will not hesitate to make an order 
 for a foreign commission for the examination of 
 a witness who is abroad, and whose presence 
 cannot be procured for the purr^osc of giving evi- 
 dence in court, because such witness is a cn- 
 ]ilaintiif or co-defendant of the person applying. 
 WiUon V. McDonald, 13 P. R. 6.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The Divisional Court, on appeal, a«lmitted evi- 
 dence which was not formally before the master or 
 judge in Chambers below, and being satisfied that 
 thedefendantMcD. could not be induced to return I 
 from abroad to give evidence, and that his evi- 
 dence was important to the defendant C, were 
 of the opinion that the latter was entitled to a 
 commission to examine McD. abroad ; but gave 
 no costs of the appeal. Ih. 
 
 The plaintiff was seeking damages for breach 
 of a contract made with persons whom he alleged 
 to be agents of the defendant. Before delivering 
 a statement of claim, and after many months had 
 elapsed since appearance, the plaintiff obtained 
 an order to examine the defendant under a 
 
 foreign commission at Chicago, in the United 
 States of America for the purpose, as he alleged, 
 of obtaining information for the purpose of fram- 
 ing his statement of claim, and also for conveni- 
 ence, as the defendant was continually travelling 
 about in the course of her career as a public singer, 
 and it might not be possible to take her evidence 
 later if it were not taken at Chicago, where she 
 was shortly to be : — Held, that the circum- 
 stances were not such as justified the order, and 
 it was set aside. Thornton v. Qye, 13 P. R. 
 273.— Street. 
 
 See Lockwood v. Bew, 10 P. R. 655, infra. 
 
 2. Croits Interrogatories. 
 
 When a foreign commission issues on the mas- 
 ter's certificate, under (i. O. 221, (Con. Rules 
 58, 590), cross interrogatories should be filed in 
 the office of the clerk of records and writs ; and 
 where they were filed by a defendant in the mas- 
 ter's office instead, and notice of filing given, but 
 by accident the commission was forwarded with- 
 out them, an application made on the return of 
 the commission executed to suppresb the (deposi- 
 tions was refused, with costs. Darling v. Dar- 
 ling, 8 P. R. 391.— Taylor, Jfasier. —Proudfoot. 
 
 3. Taking Emdenre and Production of Documenti. 
 
 Books and documents produced in an action 
 may, when a proper case is made out, be sent out 
 of the jurisdicticm for ihe purpose of the exami- 
 nation of witnesses before a foreign commission. 
 But documents produced in another action, 
 which is sub judice, will not be taken from the 
 office for such a purpose. Clarke v. Union Fire 
 Inn. Co.—Chahol's Case, 10 P. R. 413.— Hodgins, 
 Mattcr-in-Ordinnry. 
 
 The rules of exndence as to leading questions 
 at a trial cannot be strictly applied to interro- 
 gatories administered under a foreign commission 
 in the master's office. A party to the suit who, 
 in Ijringing in his account into the master's office, 
 files an .affidavit verifying it, may be asked : " Is 
 the account in the schedule to your affidavit 
 correct?" thus leaving it to the other side to 
 cross-examine, instead of beating about the bush 
 as to each particular item in order to avoid lead- 
 ing questions. Lnrkwoodv. Bew, 10 P. R. 655. — 
 Hodgins, Master-in-Ordinary. — Proudfoot. 
 
 An application to strike out objectionable in- 
 terrogatories may be made before the issue of 
 the commission to take evidence. lb. 
 
 See McDonald v. Mnrrni/, 5 O. R. 559, p. 
 646; W,lliam.'< v. Corhy, 8 P. R. 83, p. 620 ; Dar- 
 ling V. Darling, 8 P. R. 391, p. 623 ; Millmlle 
 Miilnnl Marine Fire Inn. Co. v. Drincoll, 11 S. C. 
 K. 183, p. ()23. 
 
 4. Return of Commimon. 
 
 Where the instructions directed that the de- 
 positions must be subscribed by the witness, and 
 a witness could not write, the commissioner cer- 
 tified to that fact, and the interpreter and com- 
 missioner signed their names : — Held, sufficient. 
 Darling v. Darling, 8 P. R. 391. — Taylor, 
 Manter. — Proudfoot. 
 
 !" ' 
 
 '«! 
 
 •■* •■ 
 
 :a 
 
 i^; 
 
 ;a 
 
 ««! 
 
 !?. 
 
 '.Z 
 
 ;■., ' 
 
 t J* 
 
 
 
 •!., ' 
 
 t * 
 
 *l ; 
 
 it 
 
 «»• ;• 
 
 'i 
 
 <«. 
 
 i> 
 
 1*1.* I 
 
 It 
 
 *.-. '• 
 
 #1 
 
 *■-• 
 
 II 
 
 «*j 
 
 i: 
 
 
 1 1 
 
623 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 824 
 
 •■►.1,11 
 
 i ■*»«.,,» 
 
 On the facts stated in the judgment :— Held, 
 tliat the interpreter was not such an agent or 
 correspondent of the comphiinant as would jus- 
 tify the suppression of the depositions on that 
 ground, fh. 
 
 The commissioner was an Italian, and the in- 
 structions to him were in English :— Held, no 
 ohjection, as it did not appear that the commis- 
 sioner was unacquainted with the Knglish lan- 
 guage. //*. 
 
 It did not appear that the commissioner took 
 down the evidence :— Held, immaterial, under 
 the instructions set out in the report. lb. 
 
 The depositions of the claimant were taken 
 by one commissioner, and those of a witness by 
 another : — Held immaterial. lb. 
 
 The time for the return of a foreign commis- 
 sion was extended from the 1st February, by an 
 order of the master-in-ordiiiary, in the following 
 terms : " I extend the time for the return of the 
 commission peremptorily to the 24th February. " 
 The witnesses were examined viva voce on the 
 24th February, all parties being represented : — 
 Held, that the master was wrong in excluding 
 this evidence, as the commission being executed 
 on the 24th February, there was no irregularity 
 because of the necessary delay occasioned by its 
 transmission from a foreign country, and in any 
 event, the effect of the plaintiffs being repre- 
 sented at the examination was to waive any 
 objection that tlie eviilence was not returned to 
 the master's ortice by the 24th February'. Bar~ 
 lliili V. Barlliin, 9 P. U. 500.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, that where a foreign commission had 
 been opened before trial for the convenience of 
 j)arties, it was too late at the trial to object to 
 the mode of its execution. Wa/tou v. Ajijohn, 
 5 0. R. 65.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A commission was issued out of the .Supreme 
 Court of New Brunswick directed to two com- 
 missioners — one named l)y each of the parties to 
 the suit — to take evidence at St. Thomas. W. I., 
 with liberty to plaintiff's commissioner to pro- 
 ceed ex ])arte if the other neglected or refused 
 • to attend. Both commissioners attended tlie 
 examination, and defendant's nominee cross- 
 examined the witness but refused to certify to 
 the return, which was sent back to the court 
 signed by one commissioner only. Some of the 
 intorrogatoriesand cross-intci'rogatories were put 
 to the witnesses by the commissioners : — Held, 
 that the failure to administer the interrogato- 
 ries according to the terms of the commission 
 was a substantial objection, and rendered the 
 evidence incapable of being received. Per 
 Ritchie, C. J., and Strong, Fournierand Henry, 
 JJ. , that the refusal of one commissioner to sign 
 the return was merely directory and did not 
 vitiate it. Per Owynne, J., that the return 
 should have been signed by l)oth commissioners, 
 and not having been so signed was void, and the 
 evidence under it should not have been read. 
 MiUnllc Mutual Marine ami Fire Im. Co. v. 
 Drhro//, 11 S. C. K. 183. 
 
 Held, that the court in permitting a foreign 
 commission to be opencil before the trial, will 
 not impose restrictions as to the use to be made 
 of the knowledge of the evidence which would 
 be acquired by the solicitors by such opening. 
 
 Smith V. Greey, II P. R. 238.— Dalton, Mau- 
 ler. — Boyd. 
 
 5. Costs. 
 
 The jdaintiff obtained an order for the issue 
 of a foreign commission to examine a witness. 
 The order contained the usual direction that the 
 costs be costs in the cause. The evidence was 
 taken, but neither the plaintiffs who succeeded 
 in the suit, nor the defendant, put it in at the 
 trial:— Held, that the direction in the order .is 
 to costs did not preclude the taxing otHcer from 
 disallowing the costs to the plaintiffs on the 
 ground that the evidence had not been used. 
 Domiuion, etc., Co. v. litinson, 9 P. R. 177. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 VIII. Letter-s Ror.ATOEY. 
 
 Held, that the Act 31 Vict. c. 76 (Dom.), is 
 not ultra vires the Dominion Parliament, for 
 the taking of evidence in one of the provinces 
 for use in foreign tribunals is not a subject which 
 is assigned to the exclusive legislative authority 
 of the province by section 92 of the British 
 North America Act, inasmuch as such pro- 
 ceedings are of extra provincial pertinence, and 
 do not relate to civil rights in the province. Ih 
 Wetherdl v. .Jonts, 4 O. R. 713.— Chy. D. 
 
 IX. Examination of Parties and Witnesses 
 Before Trial. 
 
 1. Application for — Time. 
 
 Where an order to examine a party to a suit 
 has been granted before the trial, such examina- 
 tion cannot be had after the trial has taken place ; 
 and it was so held where the verdict rendered at 
 the trial was a nominal verdict only, subject to 
 a reference to arbiti-ation. Shtlli/ v. Hussey, S 
 P. E. 2.-)0.— Dalton, Q.C. 
 
 The niaster-in-chambers has power under 
 Rule 2S5, O. .J. .\ct, (See Con. Rule .566), to 
 direct evidence to be taken at any stage of the 
 proceedings in a cause. In this case a witness 
 about to leave the country was examined before 
 a special examiner, under a cliambor order, dur- 
 ing a reference in the master's olHce, on which 
 his evidence was to be used. AV Dmmford— 
 Dimnford v. Duiis/ord, 9 P. R. 172. — Dalton, 
 iMasler. 
 
 An action having been bi'ought in the Chancery 
 Division to set aside a judgment as fraudulent 
 the plaintiff took out an appointment for the ex- 
 amination of the defendant after the delivery of 
 the statement of defence, but before the close of 
 the pleadings : — Held, that the former Chancery 
 practice must apply to actions in the Chancery 
 Division in t!ie case of examinations for dis- 
 covery. Rule 219 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 502), 
 refers to an existing practice which is not re- 
 pealed by the Act. Davis v. Wicksoii, 9 P. R. 
 219. — Dalton, Master. 
 
 If the issues between co-defendantsareniaterial 
 to the case of the plaintiff or to the character 
 of the relief which he seeks, he may examine a 
 defendant upon them, though there is no issue 
 between that defendant and himself. Alejcaiider 
 v. Diamond, 9 P. R. 274. — Ferguson. 
 
625 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 t» 
 
 Rule 285, 0. J. Act, (Coii, Riilu .')()()), applies 
 to exuininations for (Uscovery buforc trial, uiid 
 tlie exiiinination of adbfendaiit may lio iiad iiiidur 
 it before defence tiled. An examination may be 
 obtained under it at any stage of tlie cause and 
 thoufih no motion is pen<ling. Fiikmi v. Cham- 
 herlaiii, 9 P. R. 283.— Boyd. 
 
 The former chancery practice as to the stage 
 of the cause at wliich examination of parties may 
 be had now governs in all divisions of the High 
 Court. In ti ' case an appointment to examine 
 under section loOof the C L. P. Act was set 
 aside because the affidavit re((uired by tliat sec- 
 tion had not l)een filed. TUnonlmr<i Maimfiichir- 
 iinj Co. V. iloodrich, 10 P. R. '327. -Dalton, 
 
 In an action for libel against a newspaper, 
 the defendants on amotion under Rule 'JIS.) (). J. 
 Act (Con. Rule 56(j), were allowed to examine 
 with certain restrictions the plaiiitifT befoie de- 
 fence filed. Talc V. a/oix' I'liiiliiifj Co., 11 P. 
 1!. 253. —Dalton, Mii.iter. 
 
 Parties allowed to examine each other for dis- 
 ■covery before hearing after return to a writ of 
 habeas corpus. See 7iV Smart liifiiiitx, 12 P. R. 2. 
 
 In an action by creditors of the defendant R. 
 to set aside con ve3'ances by liim to tlie defendant 
 O. as fraudulent, the plaintilf swore lliat it 
 was necessary to have an examination of 
 tlie defendants before delivering the statement 
 of claim, iu order that it might lie framcl with 
 proper particularity as to the fraud, of wliich 
 they had no personal knowledge, ami a local 
 judge, upon the applieation of the iilaintilF ex 
 parte, made an (uder for such exainiiiatioii : — 
 Held, that tiie order should not at any rate have 
 been made ex parte ; and that in tliis ciise tlie 
 order should not have been made at all, the posi- 
 tion of a defendant resisting a claim as to which 
 he has no personal knowledge, and of a pliiintiff 
 advancing such a claim being vastly diUerent. 
 Hooey v. Gilbert, 12 P. R. 114. -Rose. 
 
 Immediately after appearance in an action a 
 subpiena was issued and an appointnuiut given 
 for an examination of the defendant, and also of 
 a jierson not a party, before a siieeial examine:', 
 to give evidence on behalf of the |)laintifl's on a 
 iimtion to be made by them under tlie rules res- 
 jiecting replevin for an order for replevying a 
 certain guaranty, the subject of the action. 
 The subp(ena and appointment were moved 
 against on the grounrl that there was no 
 motion, petition, or other prooeeiling iiending 
 in the action, and the provisions of Con. Hule 
 578 were therefore not a))plifial)le : — Held that 
 there must be a pending moti(m on which the ex- 
 amination is to be taken ; and sudi was not the 
 •case here, as the subpiena 8])okeof a " motion to 
 be made." Mc.Murray »'. Gi\md Trunk R. \V. 
 Co., 3 Chy. Chamb. R. 130; Stovel c. Coles, //>. 
 302, referred to:— Hehl, also, that the intended 
 examination, being manifestly on the m>:rit3 of 
 the acticm, was improper at this stage, as it was 
 too early iu the action for the plaintiffs to obtain 
 discovery except by a special order under Con. 
 Itule 566. Tradeix' liimk v. Ktan, 13 P. R. 
 <iO. — Dalton, Matter. 
 
 After the plaintiff had signed interlocutory 
 judgment against the defendant in an action of 
 tert, the defendant sought to examine the plaiu- 
 
 40 
 
 tiff for discovery, the action being about to come 
 on at the assizes for ussessmeiit of damages. Con. 
 Rule 4SD states that the examination of a plain- 
 tiff by a ilefendant may take place at any time 
 after such defendant has delivered his statement 
 of defence: — Held, tliat the defenilant could not 
 examine the plaintiff. Ashley v. lirenlon, 13 P. 
 R. OH. — Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 An order for examination before the delivery 
 of pleadings, whether for discovery or evidence, 
 should only be granted uiiiler exceptional cir- 
 cumstances, and where absolutely necessary iu 
 the interests of justice. Thomion v. Oye, 13 P. 
 R. 273. —Street. 
 
 See Leltch v, 
 R. (571, p. 629. 
 
 Graml Trunk R. W. Co., 12 P. 
 
 2. Sarrice of Appointment. 
 
 Held, that service on the defendant's attorney 
 at his homo at 9.3!) p.m. on Saturday of an order 
 and appointment to examine the defendant at 2 
 p.m. on the following Tuesday, was irregiiiar, 
 the notice not being siiflieiont: — Held, that Rule 
 of Court 13.") (See Con. Rule 480) applies to the 
 service of orders and appointments to examine, 
 and that this service must be treated as if made 
 oil the following Monday. Seun v. Ilewitl, 8 P. 
 H.70.— Q. B. D. 
 
 An appointment was made ex parte by the 
 master at Ottawa, for the examination of the 
 ilefendant at his olHce in Ottawa. A copy of 
 the appointment and of a subpiena were served 
 on the defendant, who resided in Hull, P. Q., 
 
 '• and a copy of the appointment was served on 
 the defeudanfs solicitor: — Held, that the pro- 
 ceedings were regular, and warranted by G. O. 
 Chy. 13S, (See C)n. Rule 487), following Moffatt 
 r. Prentice, (! P. R. 33, and that consequently 
 relief might be had on the defond.ant's failure to 
 attend under (i. (). Chy. 144, (See Con. Rules 
 
 ^ 499, 520), and alsf> "'^'t the appointment might 
 be made >• > ,i,iile. (Semble, this mode of exami- 
 nation, and that provided for by R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 50, are not interfered with by the O. J. Act, 
 
 , s. 52. linuk of British North America v. Eddy, 
 
 I 9 P. R. .396.— Osier. 
 
 ! Upon a motion by the defendant to compel 
 
 the plaintiff to attend again for examination, 
 
 after his refusal to be sworn upon an appoiut- 
 ; ment for his cross-examination upon an atHdavit 
 
 tiled on a pending motion, the only material 
 I tiled was a certificate of the examiner, which 
 I did not shew tiiat due service of subptena and 
 
 a|>pointment and p:iyment of conduct money 
 I had been made : Semble, the certificate of the 
 I examiner as to these points would not have 
 
 been sufficient ; and :— Held, that, in the ab- 
 ; sence of evidence, it was not to be inferred 
 I from the fact that the plaintiff attended at the 
 
 time and place aiipointed for his examination ; 
 
 that there was any right then to examine him ; 
 \ and the plaintiff did not by such attendance 
 
 waive his right to have the service and payment 
 
 proved. MeLaan v. Bruce, 12 P. R. 602. — 
 
 Boyd. 
 
 3. Place of Examination. 
 
 A party out of the jurisdiction will be ordered 
 to attuud to be examined at that place within 
 
 •'«5 
 
 a 
 
 V. I 
 
 «8 
 
 
 H 
 
687 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 62S 
 
 *•»«•* 
 
 the jurisdiction wliere, in the opinion of the court 
 it is <no8t expedient that the examination should 
 be held, and nut necessarily that neAvest to his 
 
 filace of abode. Smith v. Bahcock, 9 P. R. 07. — 
 Voudfoot. 
 
 See Bank of liritiih North America v. Eddy, 
 9 P. R. 3»6, p. «2(). 
 
 4. Persona who may hp Examined. 
 (a) Plniiififf— Defendant. 
 
 A defendant whose interest is identical with 
 that of the plaintiff, is a party adverse in interest 
 to his co-defendant, and may bo examined by 
 his co-defendant under (». O. I38(>iee Con. Rule 
 487). When the plaintiff's solicitor is present 
 .it such examination it may be road at the hear- 
 ing against the plaintiff. The successful defen- 
 dant will be allowed the costs of such examina- 
 tion. Moore v. Boyd, 8 P. R. 413.— 'J'aylor, 
 Manter. 
 
 Discovei'y by means of oral examination under 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 50, s. l.">(), et seq., was limited 
 to cases in which the party to be examined is 
 compcliablu to give evidence by or on behalf of 
 the opposite party. Jones v. Galluii, 9 P. R. 
 ^96.— Osier. 
 
 Upon a motion for judgment under Con. Rule 
 739 the defendant may satisf)' the judge that 
 there is a good defence otherwise than by affi- 
 davit ; and one means of doing so is by cross- 
 examination of the plaintiff on his affidavit tiled 
 in support of tlie motion. Kivijxley v. Dunn, 13 
 P. R. .300.— MacMahon. 
 
 In action for breach of promise of marriage. 
 See Woodman v. Blair, 8 P. R. 179 ; Jonex v. 
 Gallon, 9 P. R. 296 ; superseded by McLaughlin 
 V. Moore, 10 P. R. 326. 
 
 See Botdton v. Blake, 1 1 P. R. 196, p. 631 ; 
 Hall V. Goiranlock, 12 P. R. C04, p. 633. 
 
 Oj) Persona for whose Immediate Benefit Action 
 is Prosecuted. 
 
 In an action of replevin a party was added as 
 a defendant at the instance of the defendant, who 
 claimed indemnity against him on the ground 
 of a warranty. After issue the plaintiff obtained 
 from the judge of the County Court of Lanil)ton 
 an order tc examine the third party : — Held, 
 that thonr'a on the face of the pleadings tliere 
 was no direct issue between the ])laintiff and 
 third party, yet as the latter had all the rights 
 of the defendant, and virtually took his place, the 
 case was within the spirit at all events, of Pule 
 224 O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 488), and that the 
 examination should be allowed. Bradhy v. 
 Clarke, 9 P. R. 410.— Dalton, 3/fw^er.— Came- 
 ron. 
 
 One M., having effected certain insurances in 
 his favour, assigned one of the policies to the 
 plaintiff, one o' his creditors, and the other to 
 one C, as trustee for the benefit of creditors. 
 In actions on such policies : —Held, that M. was 
 examinable under Rule 224 O. J. Act (Con. 
 Rule 488), as " a person for whose i -nmediate 
 benefit" the sdits were prosecuted. Macdonnid 
 V. Nonnich Union I-s. Co.; Clarkson v. Fire 
 Im. A»Kociation, 10 P. R. 462.— Rose. 
 
 A'l action against an endorser of a promissory 
 note, was brought by a membt-r of the firm of 
 bankers who discounted it. The firm was coni- 
 
 Sosed of two members only, B. and M., who had 
 issolved partnership, and the action was brought 
 after the tlissolution in the name of M. only. The 
 master in chambers made un order under Rule 
 224 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 488) for the examina 
 tion of, and the proiluction of documents by B., 
 as a person for wliose inmiediate benefit tiic 
 order was being prosecuted. On appeal, Rose, 
 J., thought the evidence as to the interest of li. 
 unsatisfactory, but refused to set aside the order 
 of the master, varying it, however, by directing 
 that the examination of H. and his affidavit on 
 production should not be used excej)t for the 
 ])urpose of discovery. Mink/er v. McMillan, 10 
 P. R. 506.— Dalton, Master.— Rose. 
 
 (o) Officers of Corporations. 
 
 Held, that the assistant or sub-editor of the 
 defendants was un officer of the company exam- 
 inable for the purpose of discovery under R. S. 
 O. (1877) c. 50, s. 156. Mailland v. (Hlohe Print- 
 imj Co., 9 P. R. 370.— Osier. 
 
 Semble, that a person who has ceased to be 
 an officer of a corpoiation cannot be examined 
 for discovery uiulcr 42 Vict. c. 15, s. 7, and 
 Rule 227 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 487), unless tiie 
 nuittcrs in res|)ect of which he is sought to be 
 examined occurred wliile he was such officer. //*. 
 
 Chy. (i. O. 268 has been superseded by Rule 
 283 O. J. Act (Con. Rules 576, 577). A party 
 to an action cannot now be examined upon his 
 affidavit on production, with this exception that 
 by Rule 220 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 511, jmrt) an 
 officer of a corporation may be so examined. 
 Frith V. Byan, 10 P. R. 235.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 In an action upon a fire insurance policy 
 against a company : — Held, that the local agent 
 of tlie company, who receiveil the application 
 and the premium and issued the interim receipt, 
 and his successor, who had charge of the agency 
 when the fire occurred, were properly examin- 
 able for discovery, before the trial, as officers of 
 the company under tlie C. L. P. Act. Goring v. 
 London Mutual Fire Lis. Co., 10 P. R. 642.— Rose. 
 
 Qmerc, whether a person may be an officer 
 examinable for the purposes of discovery, but 
 not one whose evidence can bind the company. 
 
 In an action upon a life insurance policy an 
 order was made, at the instance of the plaintiff, 
 for the examination' of the local agent of the 
 insurance company, who procured tne applica- 
 tion for insurance, for discovery only. Hartne.tt 
 V. Canada Mutual Aid Association, 12 P. R. 
 401. — Robertson. 
 
 Where a corporation was sued for negligence- 
 residting in an accident, an order was jnanc for 
 the examination for discovery of the driver of 
 the traction engine which was the alleged cause 
 of the accident. Odell v. Cify of Oltatoo, 12 P. 
 R. 446. — Armour. 
 
 A station agent of a railway company is an 
 officer examinable under R. S. 0. (1877), c. 50, a. 
 156. Ramsay v. Midland R. W. Co., 10 P. R. 
 48. — Dalton, Master. — Wilson. 
 
EVIDENCE. 
 
 6S0 
 
 Held, Henry, J., dissenting, tiiat the locomo- 
 tive superinten<lent and locomotive foreman of 
 a railway company are " officers of the corpora- 
 tion " who may be examined as provided in R. 
 S. O. (1877) c. 50, 8. 156, and the evidence of 
 such oificers as to the conditions of the respec- 
 tive engines and the difference as to danger from 
 fire between a wood-burning and a coal-ljurning 
 engine, taken under sai<l section, was properly 
 admitted on the trial of this cause, Canada At- 
 lantic R. W. Go. V. Moxley, 15 S. C. 11. 145. 
 
 An order for the e.xamination of a person as 
 an officer of a corporation, untler R. S. O. (1877) 
 0. 50, 8. 15(>, is properly made ex parte. Tlio 
 conductor of a train on which the plaintiff was a 
 passenger when the accident out of which the 
 action arose occurred was held examinable as an 
 officer of the railway company, under section 
 !.")6. Leitrhx. Grand Trunk A'. W. Co., 12 P. 
 R. 541. — MacMahon. 
 
 Held, (1) affirming the decision of MacMahon, 
 J., 12 P. R. 541, that the conductor of a train of 
 the defendants through wliose alleged miscon- 
 duct the plaintiff was injured was an officer of 
 the defendants within the meaning of R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 50, s. 156, examinable for discovery in 
 an action for damages for the injuries sustained. 
 (2) Reversing the decision of MacMahon, J. 
 (Falconbridge, J., dubitantc) that such conduc- 
 tor could be examined by the plaintiff before a 
 second trial, notwithstanding that he had been 
 examined as a witness at the first trial, had been 
 cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff', and 
 had then offered to produce a certain book in 
 his possession. S. C., 12 P. R. 671.— Q. B. I). 
 
 On appeal : — Held, per Hagarty, C. J. 0., 
 and Burton, J. A., that the conductor was not 
 examinable as an officer under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 50, s. 156, (Con. Rule 487) ; and per Osier 
 and Maclcnnan, .IJ. A., that he was examinable. 
 S. C, 13 P. R. 369. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A. The only officers intended 
 by section 156 were such officers as might under 
 tlie former system have been properly made 
 defendants for discovery merely. Tlie examina- 
 tion sought was not really ii r discovery ; it was a 
 fishing inquiry, to ascertain before the trial what 
 precise evidence a particular witness would give. 
 Canada Atlantic R. VV. Co. r. Moxley, 15 S. C. 
 R. 145, discussed. //(. 
 
 Per Osier, J. A. The test of the propriety of 
 allowing an officer or servant of a corporation to 
 ^Mi examined for discovery is his ability to j^ivo 
 the necessary information. A person who is en- 
 trusted with the charge of a railway train in the 
 course of its transit, tlie conductor of the train, 
 ir« as to that particular occasion and for that par- 
 ticular purpose to be regarded as an officer of 
 the corporation oa distinguished from a mere 
 servant, no matter how temporary his employ- 
 ment, or how summary the corporation's power 
 of dismissal, lb. 
 
 8emble, per Osier, J. A. , that the depositions 
 of an officer of a company upon examination for 
 discovery can only be read against the company 
 at the trial, if at all, when they have taken part 
 in the examination, lb. 
 
 Held, that a track -foreman, a switch-foreman, 
 and two engine-drivers in the employ of the de- 
 
 fendant comiiany Here not officers of the company 
 examinable for discovery under Con. Rule 487, 
 in au action for damages arising out of a railway 
 accident. Kn'uiht v. ilrand Trunk li. W, Co., 
 13 P. R. 386. -MacMaliou. 
 
 In an action to recover the value of horses 
 killed l)y a train on the defendants' railway, it 
 was alleged by the plaintifl' and denied by the 
 defendants that the hitter had failed to erect 
 and maintain proper fences on either side of the 
 railway wliere it crossed the plaintirt''s property: 
 — Held, that the foreman who had chnrge of the 
 fences on the railway in the section which inclu- 
 ded the locus in quo, subject to the orders of a 
 road-master, was not an officer of the comimny 
 who could be examined for discovery. Knight 
 i: Onuid Trunk R. W. Co., 13 P. R. 386 ; Leach 
 r. (irand Trunk H. \V. Co., 13 P. R. 388, followed. 
 Fo>r/c V. Canadian Pacijic H. W. Co., 13 P. R. 
 413. — Robertson. 
 
 A rule of defendant company provided that 
 the driver of a "light engine" has all the res- 
 poiisi))ilicies of a conductor in cases where a train 
 of cars is attached to the engine : — Held, over- 
 ruling Ferguson, J. , 13 P. R. 388, that the driver 
 of the light engine which knocked down and 
 killed the man for whose death the action was 
 brought, was an officer of the company who could 
 be examined for discovery under Con. Kule 487. 
 Knight V. (Jrand Trunk R. W. Co., 13 P. R. 386, 
 distinguished. Lcnrh v. Grand Trunk R. W. 
 Co., (2) 13 P. R. 467.— Ch:^. D. 
 
 (d) Other Fentons). 
 
 Au order for the examination of a witness 
 before trial under O. J. Act, Rule 285 (Con. 
 Rule 566) will not lie made where no greater 
 necessity for it is shewn than the couvenience 
 of the party wlio applies for it in preparing, and 
 presenting his case tor trial. Ciinuijie v. Fvd- 
 <ral Hank, 10 P. R. 6!).— Ferguson. 
 
 Upon a motion pending, witnesses may still 
 by (i. O. Chy. 266 be examined iinderasubptuna 
 and appointment. That order has not been su- 
 perseded by Rule 285 O. J. Act (Con. liiUe 566). 
 Township of Monaghan r. Dobbin, 2 C. L. T. 
 260, overruled. McMillan v. Wannhorcnirih, 10 
 P. R. 377. -Ferguson. 
 
 A clerk in a Toronto warehouse accepted a hill 
 of excliango on behalf of liis employer, who re- 
 8ide<l in Pliiladelphia, U. S. In an action on 
 the bill tlie employer denied the authority of his 
 clerk to accept : — Held, reversing the decision 
 of tlie master, that the clerk could not be ex- 
 amined under Rule 285, O. J. Act (Con. Rule 
 566). Semble, neitiier could the Toronto manager 
 of the business be examined under the Rule. 
 Ro-ienhnmv. SUliman, 11 P. R. 7. — Dalton, Mas- 
 ter. — Rose. 
 
 The powers of the special examiner under G. 
 O. Chy. 147, as to directing the production of 
 documents, extend to examinations under Rule 
 285, O. J. Act (Con. Rule 566). Orpen v. Keir, 
 11 P. R. 128.— Boyd. 
 
 Upon an examination of a party under Ride 
 285 (Con. Rule 566), at a stase of the action 
 earlier than an examination will be ordered as of 
 
 !■ 
 
 ;: ■ : a 
 
 !sj • ; a 
 
 f.:i 
 
 i 
 
 *v 
 
 . ■! 
 
 >5 
 
 . it 
 
 •i.* 
 
 ' 1) 
 
 •» 
 
 ' • 1 
 
 " ■•* 
 
 ' It 
 
 »«. 
 
 ti 
 
 
 isi.^' 
 
681 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 632 
 
 633 
 
 c'()\ii'»c, (inly iimtcrial documL'nts should be jiro- ' 
 duceil such as would 1)0 produced in the ordinary 
 cnurno iit II later stage. Ih. 
 
 'i"he right of extraordinary discovery must iie 
 jealously guarded, lest itliealmsed, and itshouhl 
 under Hule •-'8"), O. J. Act (Con. llulc TidO), be 
 conceded only when it is dearly proved to he 
 nteessary for the furtherance of justice, lioul- 
 (oil V. lUokv, 11 1'. H. I'JO.-Hoyd. 
 
 An application to examine nndor Rule 285 
 (Con. Hule TiOU) is in the discretion of the court, 
 and that dixcietion cannot he said to have been 
 wiongly exerciseil in aUowing the defendant to 
 examine the plaintifl' and three witnefses before 
 <k'livcring the defence, in order to obtain for the 
 purpose ol pleading a knowledge of nuiterial 
 facts, which the dclendaut could not otherwise 
 get. lb. 
 
 'i'lic defendants asserted as a counter claim in 
 this action a claim against the plaintiff, which 
 tiny liad bought from the assignee for creditors 
 of I". iV L, stock brokers, who were not parties 
 to the suif- This claim was the balance of an 
 account for carrying stock for the phiintifl". The 
 plaintiir swoie that he believed that F. and L. 
 had dealt imprope-'ly with the stock that they 
 were carrying for iiim, but that he liad no means 
 of discovering what they had done with it unless 
 by examining them. Under these circumstances 
 an order was made under Hule 285, O. J. Act 
 (Con. Hale 5(i(>), for the examination of 1"'. and 
 L. , for the ])nrposo of" discovery only. Canieijie 
 V. Cox, 11 1". R. 311.— Dalton, Ma-itcr. 
 
 The plaintiff, who was the father of A. S. M., 
 an insolvent trader, sued the assignee and trustee 
 for the lienetit of creditors of A. 8. M., claiming 
 a declaration of right to rank on the e.state for a 
 largo sum. The assignee was instructed by the 
 creditors to resist the claim and had himself no 
 ])ersonal knowledge of it, and could find no entry 
 <if it in the books or papers of A. fS. M. Under 
 these circumstances an order under Hule 285 
 (Con. Ivule 5(){)), for the examination of A. 8. M. 
 by tiie defendant, for the purposes of discovery 
 before the trial, was atlirmed. Murra;/ v. ICffi'- 
 7iir,\\ V. I!. 440. — Kergustm, 
 
 Where the plaiutitl'had a good cause of action 
 against the defendant, but was unable to frame 
 his statement of claim unless he could examine 
 the defendant and his employer, who was not a 
 party to tlie .suit :— Held, that he was entitled 
 to such discovery under Rule 285, O. J. Act 
 (Con. Rule 500), and that an order for such ex- 
 amination by a local judge of the High Court had 
 been properly made, (lordon v. J'/iillipg, 11 P. 
 R. 540-Q. li. ]). 
 
 In an action against the trustees of an Orange 
 Ijodge for the price of work and materials in 
 building a hall, the chairman of the board of 
 trustees was cxamiiied, and could give no infor- 
 mation as to the matters in dispute. His exami- 
 nation shewed that the arcliitect employed by 
 the defendants was the person from wliom alone 
 t!ie information conld be had. The defendants 
 had successfully resisted production of the 
 
 Elans, as being in custody of the architect, and 
 elougiug to him. Under these circumstunces 
 an order for the examination of the architect, by 
 the plaintiff for discovery only, was afiiriued. 
 Smilh V. Clarke, 12 V. K. 217.— Rose. 
 
 In an action of ejectment, where the plaintilV 
 claimed title under n conveyance from the father 
 of the defendant in 1885, and the defendant 
 claimed by virtue of possession since 1874, under 
 a verbal aurecinent to purchase made with his 
 father, and the defendant said «n his examina- 
 tion that he had paid his father money on ac- 
 count of the purchase, which he had entered in 
 his father's books, an order was made forexami 
 nation of the father and production of his books 
 for the purpose of discovery before the trial : — 
 Held, by the master in chambers, that the father 
 might have been made a party under Hule 10!) 
 (Con. Rule 330), on the ground <ii his having 
 been a party to a fraud in conveying land to the 
 plaintiffs after he had made an agreement with 
 his son, and such being the case, there was no 
 doubt of his liability tooe examined under Rule 
 285 (Con. Rule 566). McManter v. Mason, 12 
 P. R. 278.— Dalton, Master.— (\si.\t. 
 
 In an action by a vendor for specific perform- 
 ance of a contract for sale of land, at the price 
 of S24,000, it apjjcared that less than three 
 weeks before the contract the vendor had ob- 
 tained a conveyance of the land from his two 
 sisters, in which the consideration expressed 
 was $.",000. The sisters were old and infirm, 
 and being unmarried lived, and had for a great 
 many years lived, with the plaintiff, and were 
 said to be under his influence. The defendant 
 was advised that so great a difference in the 
 price required explanation, and had made en- 
 ileavours to see the sisters, but ha<l been refused 
 access to them, and the plaintiff had refused to 
 procure them to join in the conveyance to the 
 defendant : — Held, that under these circumstan- 
 ces the defendant should be allowed, under Rule 
 285 (Con. Ride 5(56), to examine the two sisters 
 before delivering his defence. Brown v. Pear.i, 
 12 P. R. 390.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 6. Gondncting ExaminatioH. 
 
 (a) RefiMitg to A jiswer. 
 
 The bill alleged that the defendant assisted in 
 the fraud by which the plaintiff was inthiced to 
 convey certain land to lier husband, the other 
 defendant. H., answered the bill denying all 
 charges of fraud, disclaiming all interest in the 
 subject matter of the suit, and asking for her 
 costs : — Held, that it was competent for the plain- 
 tiff on cross-examining the defendant on her an- 
 swer and disclaimer, to establish if possible the 
 fraud out of her own mouth. McFarland v. Mc- 
 Far/and, 9 P. R. 73.— Boyd. 
 
 In an action of libel against a husband as the 
 
 writer of libellous articles, and as editor of a 
 
 newspaper in which they were printed, and his 
 
 wife as owner and publisher of the newspaper, 
 
 on examination after issue joined in the action, 
 
 ! the husband refused to answer questions as to 
 
 \ ttic ownership of the new8i)aper on the ground 
 
 j that his answers might tenet to expose his wife 
 
 I to a criminal prosecution for publication of the 
 
 i libels, and the wife refused to answer questions 
 
 as to the authorship of the newspaper articles 
 
 in ijuestion, and as to the editing of the news- 
 
 )iaper, on the like grounds as to her husband :— 
 
 Held, on appeal, that defendants were justified 
 
 in their refusals. Milktle v. Lille, 10 P. 11. 
 
 205.— (ialt. 
 
632 
 
 'l-'bKTY ub 
 
 633 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 634 
 
 1 
 
 Held, that tho penal provisions of the statute 
 13 Eliz, c. 5, afford no excuse for u refusal by a 
 defendant in an action brouglit to sot usidu u 
 fraudulent conveyance to answer (questions put 
 to him regarding the fraudulent tnmaactiun. 
 DmH/ord v. CarUste, 10 P. R. 449.--15oyd. 
 
 The O. J, Act has introduced a new interme- 
 diate practice, departing in some measure from 
 the old rules of Chancery and Common Law, 
 such new practice being indicated by Rule 2Hri ; 
 (Con. Rule SlU), that where a (juestion has been 
 substantially answered, a further answer ought 
 not to be compelled, and when discovery would 
 be oppressive, it is the duty of the court to exer- 
 cise its discretion by refusing discovery, as also 
 where the discovery cannot possibly help tho 
 plaintiiT to obtain a decree. I'ariter v. Wells, 
 18 Chy. 1). 477, considered and followed. Mac- 
 Oregor v. McDonald, 11 P. R. 38ti.— C. P. 1). 
 
 In an action for damages for falsely and mali- 
 ciously and without reasonable and probiible 
 cause preferring a charge of perjury, and olso a 
 charge of obtaining a valuable security by false 
 pretences, the defence averred that the plaintiff 
 and one J. conspired together to obtain two 
 promissory notes from tlie defendant by falte 
 pretences ; that the plaintiff first visited the de- 
 fendant, and by fraud and falsehood induced 
 him to enter into a contract to purchase curt.iin 
 hayforks, and that J . followe<l him in course of 
 time, in pursuance of their fraudulent scheme, 
 and by fraud and falsehood and false pretences 
 obtained the notes: — Held, that upon examina- 
 tion of the plaintiff for discovery the defendant 
 should be permitted to inquire into the dealings 
 between the plaintiff ■ "d J., fully and freely to 
 ascertain whether J. and the plaintifl' wore act- 
 ing in concert, and whether any false pretence 
 made by J. was in fact a false pretence by the 
 plaintiff, and for this purpose might investigate 
 all sales of forks made by the plaintiff or J., or 
 either of them, under any agreement or arrange- 
 ment, and the history of all notes received in 
 carrying out such sales, and of all entries in the 
 plaintiff 's bill books, and all other books relating 
 to such transactions. Colter v. McPhcrsov, 12 
 P. R. 630.— Rose. 
 
 No man can be compelled to answer a (lucstion 
 incriminating himself. And where the defen- 
 dant upon his examination for iliscovery in an 
 action of libel refused to answer questions as to 
 the authorship of an alleged libel, and claimed 
 privilege, not before the examiner, but after- 
 wards upon a motion by the plaintiff to commit 
 him for refusal to answer, swearing positively 
 that the answers might tend to criminate film : 
 — Held, that he was entitled to the privilege, 
 and that it was not too late to claim it. Ihe 
 costs of the motion to conmiit were made costs 
 to the plaintiff in the cause. Hall v. tlowuiUock, 
 12 P. R. <J04. 
 
 See McLean v. Bruce, 12 P. R. 602, p. 626. 
 
 See Subhead XI. 2, p. 643. 
 
 (b) Other Cases. 
 
 Upon the examination of two defendants before 
 a master, he ?t the request of their solicitor, 
 directed two other defendants present on behalf 
 of the plaintiff, who was too ill to attend, to 
 
 withdraw, but they refused. The master tiicre- 
 u))on declined to proceed with the examination: — 
 Held, on appeal, that the master should have 
 allowed one defendant to bo present on behalf of 
 the plaintiff, if he was satisfied that this was 
 required for the proper representation of tho 
 plaintiff 's interest, but by analogy to R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 50, 8. 260, he might recpiire such defen- 
 dant to be examined first, if he was to be called 
 as a witness. Sitxii-riijht v. Sivewriijht, 8 1*. R. 
 81, — Spragge. 
 
 The general law applicable to discovery 
 governs in patent cases. A defendant may 
 be properly interrogated as to the grounds of 
 his attacking a plaintiff's iiatent, and there 
 should be a fair ami full disclosure of tlie parti- 
 cular lines of attack which are contemplated, 
 but no such individualizing of the persons who 
 are alleged to be prior users as would enable the 
 plaintiff to fix upon the defendant's witnesses. 
 Smith V. Creey, 10 P. R. 482.— Boyd. 
 
 A special examiner has authority to exclude 
 one defendant from his office during the exami- 
 nation of the co-defendant, at the reciuest of the 
 plaintiff'. Culi-erircH v. liirncy, 10 P. R. 575. — 
 Rose. 
 
 Upon an examination before a special exami- 
 ner at his chambers: — (1) T!ie examining coun- 
 sel has no right to have a clerk present to assist 
 him, if the opposite party objects. (2) If docu- 
 ments are produced by the party under e\itnri 
 nation, the opposite party is entitled to have 
 them marked as exhibits. (3) It is within tl-.t; 
 discretion of the examiner to exclude irom his 
 chambers even the solicitor for the examinant, 
 if bis presence interferes, in the examiner's 
 opinion, with the duo execution of his duty as 
 examiner. HatnU v. Upper Canada Furniture 
 Co., 12 P. R. 292.— Ualton, Mader. 
 
 A special examiner or officer of the court 
 taking an examination in a cause or proceeding 
 pending in court has no power to authorize any 
 other person to take- down the deiiositions in 
 shorthand ; and a person cannot be compelled, 
 ill the face of his objection, to submit himself' 
 for examination where the examiner proposes to 
 have the depositions so taken R. .S. U. (1887) 
 c. 44, ss. 147, 148, and Con. Rules oOl-S con- 
 sidered. Bradt v. Bradt, 13 P. R. 271.— 
 Street. 
 
 The examination of a witness who has refused 
 to make an affidavit, conducted by one party 
 without notice to his opponent, is irregular and 
 inadmissible as evidence upon a motion. Ulcjthtn- 
 soii V. Dcdlas, 13 P. R. 450.— Boyd. 
 
 In an action against the maker and indorser 
 of a promissory note judgment went by default 
 against the indorser, but the maker appeared 
 and upon the consent of the plaintiff's obtained 
 an order under Con. Rule 5(j(> for the examina- 
 tion before a special examiner of the in.lnrser and 
 his bookkeeper before delivery of tlefence, tho 
 object being to shew that the indorser alone w.is 
 liable on the note, that he procured it by 
 frauil from the maker, and that the plaintiff's 
 held it with notice : — Held, that the interests of 
 the indorser as a party might be affected by the 
 examination, and that he waj entitled tii liave 
 counsel present upon the examination to protect 
 his interests. Dominion Bunk v. Bell, 13 P. R. 
 471.— Chy. D. 
 
 iz ■ '■ a 
 
635 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 636 
 
 637 
 
 «::; 
 
 
 In answer to the tlofcndiint'a npnli cation fi>r n 
 ruceivvr to receive the interest of the plaintiff 
 us reHi'hiary legatee uniler a will, of wiiich lie 
 wag uIho the HUrviving exi'ciitur, the plaintiH' 
 tiled un uiiiiluvit in which he Htate<l that the 
 estate was insiiffioieut to pay the delits and spe- 
 <5iHc legacies, and that tncre would le no sum 
 coining to him as resi<luary legatee :— Held, 
 that the plaintiff upon crosH-exuiiiination upon 
 Ilia affidavit, must answer as to whether there 
 were any and what debts and legacies unpaid. 
 Mi-Lmn V. Itrua, 13 1'. R. 5(14.— Robertson.— 
 
 <;. 1^ i>. 
 
 7. Rc-Examiuat'iotu 
 
 A party having before judgment exanune<l 
 4«ti<)ther party to tiie ciuso adverse in interest 
 under K. 8. O. (1877), «• .W, 8. 156, is not enti- 
 tled to a re-examination of the same party 
 «xcept under the most special circumstances. 
 Tliortmrii v. lirnini, 8 P. K. I l4.-Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 See /{oiii'i-M V. Maniiiiiij, 8 P. R, 2, p. ti'20 ; 
 7/iw.xeW V.' Macdiwald, 12 P. R. 4.58, j). (i41. 
 UUch V. Grand Trunk li. W. Co., 12 P. R. 071, 
 J). «2». 
 
 8. Une of Kaiminn/ion at Trioh 
 
 Before delivery of his statement of defence 
 •one of the defendants obtained an onler to 
 examine an officer of the plaintifl's for discovery, 
 and examined him thereunder, but he was not 
 further examined by counsel for the plaintiffs :— 
 Held, thatsuch defendant could, under Con. Rule 
 506, read the depositions so taken, as evidence 
 «t the trial of the action. Union Hank v. titarrit, 
 13 P. R. 108.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Moore v. Boyd, 8 P. R. 413, p. (527 ; Elliotl 
 V. Canadian Pacific li. 11'. Co., 12 P. R. 593, p. 
 637 ; Carty v. City of Loudon, 13 P. Jl. 285, i). 
 6.36 ; Leilch v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 12 P. R. 
 671 ; 13 P. R. 369, p. 629. 
 
 9. Fees and Conts. 
 
 Where an examination of parties pursuant to 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 60, 8. 161, takes place before 
 a deputy-clerk of the Crown, though not desig- 
 nated in the order as acting in his oHicial capa- 
 city, the fees for such examination are payable 
 in stamps, and not in money. Denmark v. Mc- 
 CoTMijhy, 8 P. R. 136.— Osier. 
 
 Where formerly the parties in an action for 
 breach of promise of marriage, not being com- 
 petent or compellable witnesses for each other, 
 the plaintiff was not allowed the costs of the pre- 
 liminary examin.ition of the defendant, under R. 
 S. O. (1877), c. 50, 8. 156. But the plaintiff's 
 costs of his own examination were allowed, as 
 this took place at the instance of the defendant. 
 Woodman v. Blair, 8 P. R. 179.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 The president of the plaintiffs lived in the U. 
 S., but being in Toronto, he was there sub- 
 poenaed on the 22nd April, to attend on the 28th 
 April, for examination for discovery before a 
 special examiner at Toronto. He was paid SI, 
 and made no objection as to the amount, nor did 
 he object that he was prevented by engagements 
 from attending, but he failed to attend :— Held, 
 that he should have attended on the day ap- 
 
 pointed, and that the fact that there were then 
 Iiending against him, at the instance of a stran- 
 ger to the action, proceedings for perjury, which 
 might affect some point in controversy, though 
 it might be a reason for his refusing to answer 
 anv t|uestion on tiiis point, was not a reason for 
 refusing to attend at all ; and he was ordered to 
 attend at his own expense. Bolckovv i'. Foster, 
 7 P. R. 388, distinguished. Oeonje T. Smith 
 Cominmy v. (,'rtey, 11 P. U. 345.— Boyd. 
 
 All order was obtained by the plaintiff, who 
 sued fur damages for bodily injuries sustained, 
 for his own examination de bene esse before the 
 trial. The order provided that after the con- 
 clusion of the plaintiff's examination ho should 
 submit to a uersonal examination by medical 
 men on behalf of the defendants, anil that the 
 defendants might afterwards continue their 
 cross-examination of the ])laintiff ; and that the 
 examination might be given in evidence at the 
 trial " provided the de^ndants had been able to 
 continue and complete their cross-examination." 
 The plaintiff was examined and partly cross- 
 examined under this order and was examined by 
 the medical men, but his cross-examination 
 owing to his ill-liealth was never completed. 
 The plaintiff was not examined as a witness at 
 the trial ; the depositions taken were offered in 
 evidence, but were rejected as inadmissible 
 under the terms of the order. The plaintiff 
 succeeded in tlie actinii : — Held, under the cir- 
 cumstances of tlie case, that the examination of 
 the plaintiff' de bene esse was a proper and rea- 
 sonable proceeiling, and as the failure to com- 
 plete it was through no fault of the plaintiff or 
 Iiis solicitor, and as it was not without use to 
 the defendants, the costs of it should have been 
 taxed to the plaintiff as part of the costs of the 
 action. Beaufort r. Ashburnhain, 13 C. B. N. 
 S. .-)!)8; 32 L. J. N. S. C. P. 97 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 
 710 ; 1 1 W. R. 2(i7 ; 9 Jur. 822, followed. Carty 
 V. GUy of London, 13 P. R. 285.— (Jalt.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff's own physician attended on him 
 during the examination de bene esse, and was 
 called as a witness at the trial, when he otated 
 what his charges for attendance on the plaintiff 
 amounted to: — Hohl, that, there being nothing 
 to shew that he did not include in liis state- 
 ment the charges for attendance at the examina- 
 tion, they must be taken to have been included 
 in the verdict, and could not be taxed to the 
 plaintiff as part of the costs of the action. Jb. 
 
 10. De Bern Esse. 
 
 Held, following the former chancery practice, 
 that a local judge may make an ex parte order 
 for the examination of a witness de bene esse, 
 on the ground that he is dangerously ill, and not 
 likely to recover. Baker v. Jackson, 10 P. R. 
 6-24. —Rose. 
 
 Semble, that an affidavit of the solicitor of his 
 information and belief, with the grounds there- 
 of, that the witness is dangerously ill is suffi- 
 cient. Jb. 
 
 The affidavit, and the circumstance that the 
 order was not acted upon for thirteen days after 
 it was issued, were regarded as unsatisfactory, 
 and limitations were imposed upon the use at the 
 trial of the evidence taken under the order. Ih. 
 
 12. 
 
 G. 0. ( 
 
 521), are m 
 Upon a 
 udministi 
 accounts 
 
636 
 
 637 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 638 
 
 
 No order of any moment sbouM be made ex 
 parte, except in u case uf emergeiiuy. Tbo point 
 in dispute in tlie action waa as tu the uenuiueiiesH 
 of a document, wliich tiie plaintitT alleged to be 
 a forgery, obtaiued eitlier by imitation of his 
 iiignature, or by personation: — Held, cm appeal 
 from the order of a local judge directing the 
 «xamination of the plaintiff de bene esse as a 
 witness on his own behalf that no order sliould 
 be made which would have the eticct of saving 
 the plaintiff from personal attendance at the 
 trial, and examination before the court and 
 jury. ThoinoK v. Slorei/, 11 F. R. 417. — Uose. 
 
 In an action under Lord Campbell's Act, an 
 order was made for the examination before the 
 trial de bene esse, on behalf of the plaintitf, of 
 the only witness to the accident which occasioned 
 the death of the deceased. It was provided that 
 the examination should not be used at the trial 
 unless the plaintiff was unable to procure the 
 Attendance of the witness. Elliott v. C'antidUin 
 Pacific R. W. Co., \i W U. 593.— Ualton, 
 Mimler. 
 
 See Carty v. Citi) of London, 13 P. R. 285, 
 p. 63«. 
 
 12. Proctediinjs for Nim-compliauct with Urdtr 
 for Discove.ry or Inttmiijatoritx. 
 
 (a) Attachment and Motion to Commit. 
 
 Where a party to be examined refuses to pro- 
 «luce books, etc., as required by the notice to 
 produce, served with the oi-der to examine under 
 R. 8. U. (1877) c. 50, s. 161, or refuses or neglects 
 to attend for examination, or refunesto be sworn 
 or to answer lawful ([ucstions, pursuant to such 
 order, proceedings against him by attuchincnt 
 must be taken before the court, and not before a 
 judge in chambers. Merchants' Bank v. Pienon, 
 8 P. R. 123.— Osier. 
 
 Semble, that the action could not l)e dismissed 
 under R. S. O. (1877) c. 50, s. 170a, 41 Vict. c. 3, 
 a. 9, for disobedience by the plaintiff of the 
 notice to produce. lb. 
 
 Held, that the refusal to produce the plain- 
 tiffs' books, under the facts stated in the report 
 of the case, was not warranted, /b. 
 
 A certiticate given by a master that certain 
 accounts filed under his order are not sufficient 
 in substance and form, cornea within G. O. 642 
 (see Con. Rule 849), and cannot be enforced by at- 
 tachment until confirmed by the lapse of a month. 
 Fo/iter v. Morden, 9 P. R. 70. — Proudfoot. 
 
 On motion for an order for the committal of 
 one of the defendants for non-production of 
 documents under Rule 420, O. J. Act (Con. Rule 
 30), which vests in the master in chambers the 
 powers of the referee in chambers of the ("Jourt 
 of Chancery, the master held that matters re- 
 lating to the liberty of the subject having been 
 excepted from the jurisdiction of the clerk of 
 the Crown and pleas under the former practice, 
 are still beyond his jurisdiction by J{ule 420, O. 
 d. Act (Con. Rule 30). Kee/'e v. Ward, 9 P. 
 R. 220. 
 
 G. O. Chy. 201 and 296 (See Con. Rules 547, 
 4)21), are still in force in the Chancery Division. 
 Upon a motion to commit the defendant (an 
 administrator) for neglecting to bring in his 
 accounts before a day named pursuant to the 
 
 direction of the maater : -Held, that personal 
 service upon the defendant of the master's direc- 
 tion and of the notice of motion to commit was 
 not necessary. Jte llarnden, llarndtn v. Ham- 
 den, 11 P. R. 35.— Boyd. 
 
 A party who has been ordered by the court t<» 
 attend for further examination after a refusal t4> 
 answer (luestions, is in contempt if he does not 
 so attenii, but that is not a bar to his appealing 
 from the order. Proceedings under the order 
 will n<it be stayed pending tiie appeal. Mnr- 
 llreijor v. Mr Donald, 11 1*. R. 518.— Dalton, 
 
 •eijdi 
 Matter 
 
 -Armour, 
 
 See Lure.ry v. W'o/fe, 10 P. R. 488, p. 640 ; 
 ;/:•'/ V. Oowanlock, 12 P. R. 604, p. 633. 
 
 (b) Dixmuiinfi Action or Strikimj out Defence for 
 Failure to Attend. 
 
 A summons to dismiss an action for breach of 
 an order tu examine, generally implies a stay of 
 proceedings ; but where tiie judge who granted 
 the summons struck out the part relating to a 
 stay, and the summoua was afterwards enlarged 
 without any mention of a stay, a notice of trial 
 served while the summons was pending, was 
 held to be regular. Merchnnti' Hank v. Pieriton, 
 8 P. R. 129. -Dalton, Q.C. See S. V., lb. 123. 
 
 Upon failure of the plaintiff to attend for ex- 
 amination, the action should not be stayed till he 
 does attend ; it is sufficient to impose a stay for 
 a definite time. Conulock v. llarriH, 12 P. R. 
 17.— Boyd. 
 
 Upon a motion to dismiss the action for the 
 plaintiff's non-attendance to be examined for 
 discovery pursuant to appointment, the plaintiff' 
 offered to submit herself for examination at any 
 time at her own expense. The master in cham- 
 bers, nevertheless, dismissed the action with 
 costs, the plaintiff's claim not being, in his 
 opinion, an honest or fair one. Denfuim v. 
 Ooovh, 13 P. R. 344.— Dalton, Manter. 
 
 There is no power to strike out the statement 
 of defence of an incorporated company for the 
 default of an officer of sucli company in not 
 attending for examination for discovery. Badge- 
 row v. Grawl Trunk R. W. Co., 13 P. R. 132.— 
 Dalton, Master ; Central Prean Aiotociation v. 
 American Prean AsMOciation, 13 P. R. 353. — 
 Falcohbridge. 
 
 X. Pkoduction and Inspection of Docdhbnts. 
 1. Order to Produce. 
 
 An action was brought upon the covenant 
 contained in a chattel mortgage which covered 
 goods in the United States, and which was not 
 registered in Ontario : — Held, on an application 
 for inspection of the mortgage, that the court 
 had power, irrespective of the Common Law 
 Procedure Act, to order inspection of the mort- 
 gage in question, or of any document sued upon. 
 Emmem v. MidJlenmn, 8 P. R. 320.— Dalton, 
 Q.C. 
 
 In an administration suit, where certain credi- 
 tors produced promissory notes as vouchers for 
 nearly all their claim, the maater, as of course, 
 ordered production of the books and accounts. 
 On appeal, Proudfoot, V. C. held (8 P. R. 86), 
 that in the first instance (no special cause for iu- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hit 
 
 
 •m. , 
 
EVroENOE. 
 
 90 
 
 641 
 
 I 
 
 •li: 
 
 •• I! 
 
 vi!Hti^ntiiig tho arrniintM Ixiinfj madn out), the 
 liiiiHtor hIkiuM Iiuvi! .'ic'i'i'ptiMl iifl Riiiricicnt thr 
 i)fler of th('( ri'ilildiH tDiillow iin iiiH|i('rli()ii of thf 
 iMiokH and iiccDiiiitH at their otlicc ; - FrcM, iiivrr- 
 ninn tliJH tli'i'iNiiiii, that tho oxcciitoiH wtTu iiIho 
 tuitith^cl loan iiilitliivil iilciitifyiii^ tho IkxiUh iiixl 
 aciMiiiiitH iiH lii'iiig nil ill thi'ir iiohhcmhIoii rcliitilig 
 totlir (tlaiiii. /.V IIohh HhIhI' . "> A. I{. 8'_'. 
 
 OnliTH to prodiicn iiiiih'i- ( i. <). I.'W, am iiiado 
 fdi' thi! piiriKiHo of t* iiofii'iiig only, and xiich 
 oidfi'H will not l)L' (^iifoi'ct'd for tliti [iiii'Iiohuh of u 
 rcfci'fiico : — till! iiropiT coiiiho in an application 
 to thr iiuiHtcr, to whom inatti'i'H in <lieiputti liavu 
 \hh:\\ ref<Tio<l. Uildtrhriiom v. McDunuUt, 8 I'. 
 II. .■(S!). -.StepliciiH, Kijvnc. 
 
 Where a person of unHoiuid mind duo8 hy a 
 next friend, the iiHiial ]>ra'('i|H! order that the 
 plaintilVdo |irodiiee in iiroper, and is Hullicieiitly 
 obeyed liy the allidavit of the next friend, 
 Travis^ V. IUI/,H\: I!. .ViO. — Hoyd. 
 
 Tlie diifeiidantH had liled and <lulivered their 
 iitatt iiient of defeiieu, hut the pleadings iiad not 
 heeii eloH(Ml : — Held, that the plaintiti' wnH en- 
 titled to the jineeipo order for prmluetion. 
 Dal,- V. JIdll, !) f. K. IO(i. -I'roudfoot. 
 
 Where, after judgment in an action in tlio 
 Coniinon I'leaM divJHioii, an isHiiu of a garni»liee 
 application waH directed to lie tried under liiilc 
 :{73, <). .1. Act (Con. liule !W9), by u county 
 judge and jury :— Held, that such judge had no 
 jurindiotion to make an order to produce before 
 trial, and coiisc(|Ueiitly no authority to make 
 any order on a failure to produce. Cochran'' v. 
 Mvrrixun, 10 \\ K. 00(}.-Koae. 
 
 After delivery of an interpleader iswio a party 
 to it may take out a pru'cipe order for pro<luc- 
 tion by the opposite; party. Such order should 
 be igsucd and the record (MiHRed in the principal 
 office of the court in Toronto, as no locality is 
 pointed out by the usual proceedings in inter- 
 pleader. Dimihiion S. and I. Co. v. Kitroy, 12 
 P. R. 1!). — Daltoii, MoHle.r. 
 
 In an action a^'ainst tho defendants, as exe- 
 cutors and residuary legatees under a will, for a 
 declaration that the will should not bo adniittcil 
 to probate on the ground that it was altered 
 after execution, and for administratis i and i)ar- 
 tition: — Held, that the ease came within Rule 
 235 (C(m. J{ule ,519), and until the plaintills 
 established the alteration cliaiged, they were not 
 entitled to discovery of instruments afi'cctiiig 
 the estate of the testator. JJtirat v. Barber, 12 
 P. R. 4(J7.— Boyd. 
 
 It is not necessary that an application by a 
 plaintiti' for ins|iRction shfiuld be supported by 
 a sjiecitic statement of merits, if from the mate- 
 rial iK'fore the court it can be dcterniine<l whether 
 the claim is or is not based upon merits. Mac- 
 lean \. Jill rhir * JiJlIu Co. , 1 .S P. R. 50( ». — C. 1'. I). 
 
 Sec MacOreijor v. McDonald, 11 1*. R. 386, p. 
 618. 
 
 2. Prndvction of Doc.nme,nlf>. 
 
 [By Con. L'nir. 512 till' ilr/io'ni'nt in every affidavil 
 on production in xuhjccl to crom-examination.] 
 
 Tlieproperniode in examinations for discovery, 
 where a witness neglects or refuses to produce, 
 is for the examiner to direct what documents 
 
 shall be produced ami have the examination 
 adjourned for that pur|ioso. The practice ot 
 enaliliti).; a party by iiieans of a Hubpieim duces 
 tecum til get priiduetion on a two-day notice of 
 
 any doeiiiiK^iits he el ses to iiarticularizo is not 
 
 to be rncoiiraged, and a motion to commit for 
 lion produi'tion was refused. It in desirable to 
 postpone examinations for <liscovery until after 
 production. Laiiryw. H'oZ/c, 10 I'. K. 48S.- 
 Uoyd. 
 
 Tlu; plaiiitill', in Ids allidavit of dociinientx, 
 luentioucd " oilier letters and papers tiled herein, 
 the parti(julaiN of which I cannot now depose to," 
 and stated " that mucIi documents were filed in 
 this court on the motion inadi! by defendant for 
 bis diH('har>,'e from custody, as I am informed 
 and believe" : -Helil, that the plaintiirsatKdavit 
 was Hiitlieicnt ; and that the del'endant must 
 iiisjieet the documents at the oHlcu where they 
 were IIIihI, or tjike the necessary steps to have 
 tlxuii transmitted to the othee of the court at 
 his own ])la('e of abode : —Held, also, that an alli- 
 davit to show tin; iiicorrectnesB of the atlidavil 
 of documents could not be received, following 
 ifones v. Monte Viileo (las (,'o., 5 Q. IJ, D. 55(j. 
 Lyon V. McKay, 10 P. R. 557.— Uosu. 
 
 The usual atlidavit on production of documents 
 made by an otlie(;r of the defendants, contained 
 a stalement that the defendants objected to pro- 
 duce their repairs book and train register, but 
 that they would produce such portions of the 
 books "as arc relevant for inspection at the 
 offices of thecompany " ; and a further statement 
 that the company "hail sealed up such jiarts of 
 the said books as do not relate to the matters in 
 ((UCHtion in this action." At the trial the plain- 
 till' called as witnesses, tho train despatcher, 
 locomotive engineer, and an engine driver of the 
 defendants. 'I he presiding judge refused, on 
 the evidence then Kiveii, to direct tho books to 
 be unsealed : — Hehl, reversing the order of Kohp, 
 .). , 10 I'. K. 553, that the tacts of the c.i r »lle« ' 
 a right in the )daintiii' to hav" tlie~ books <ii 
 the coni]iany jiroduced. Mi ' ■ Cnnuiln 
 
 Attuntii: J{. \V. Co., 11 P. >. li. D. 
 
 Even against a partyV affidavit, if tho 
 
 court is leanoiiably certaii it he ha;^ 'rrone- 
 
 ously represented or niisre|irLh' i led tl nature 
 of documents, a further iiffidavit on i 'iiluctiou 
 will be ordered. The rule laid dowu in .Jones 
 ?'. Monte Video (Jas Co., 5 Q. B. 1). 55(i, may 
 be accepted as the general rule on the subject of 
 the production of iloeumcnts, but it should be 
 read in conjunction with The Attorney-<!eneral 
 i: Kmerson, 10 Q. B. U. 191. Jh. 
 
 In an action to establish a will, which the de- 
 fendants imp(;ached for want of testanu iitaiy 
 capacity, and .set uj) a prior will, the defendant 
 included in hi.s affidavit on production, co])ies of 
 letters from hinuself to the testatrix, but objected 
 to produce them for insncction on the ground 
 that they were never mailed or sent to their des- 
 tination. Their materiality and relevancy to 
 the issues was not disputed : — HeUl, that all 
 memoraiKla and writings, or pieces of paper 
 with writiiif,' on which may throw light on the 
 case, whether they wouhl or would not be evi- 
 dence per se, are subject to production, unless 
 they can be protected ; and the nicrefait in the 
 case of a letter that it was not forwarded to its 
 destination, is no ground of exemption. Tlu^se 
 
 trtss foi 
 liatl agrt 
 tiir foi' 
 to tho 
 the rent 
 This lett 
 which wi 
 hy the pi 
 making 
 agreed t( 
 to have 
 dants fo 
 Btateniei 
 frame 
 114, .i 
 Co., l.f H 
 
 U|M)n 
 mcnts frc 
 the plain 
 tiona of i 
 
 Semblc 
 davit of I 
 tion is m 
 producti( 
 second n 
 rials whi< 
 
640 
 
 641 
 
 EVIDENCB. 
 
 642 
 
 luttiiiM went Uu:ri'f()i<! onlcriMl to hu iJi'diUicuil. 
 Ciiiiii i-iiu V. L'diniroii, 10 I'. K. O'J*-. -Ifnytl, 
 
 Sniililo— Pit Spriiggt', ('. J. ()., niid I'littuiHon, 
 <l. A., iiltliiJU)^li a |iiii'ly to II cuiiHi! iiiiiy hv en- 
 titled to call itii' tlir |>ro(lii>'ti(iii of ilociiiiiints, in 
 (iriltji' to olitiiiii (liMiiVfiy, itdocH not fiiliow timt 
 till' roiiti'litH (if Niu'li ildi'iiiiK'iiti; ale in tlu'iiiHclvoH 
 
 l:VillullL'C. ClIIKIlIll L'l III lilt It. ir. (,'(/, V. Mr- 
 
 1,111111, 8 A. K. mil. 
 
 It IH iinitiiKoiiiililc that liookH in ioiihIiuiI iimc 
 hIioiiIiI Iiv riijiiiitd to Im Ijiimglit Iniii without 
 tilt' jiii'i)<di('ti(>ii for tlir |<iii'1iomo of iiii cxiiiiiiiiii- 
 lion, iiiilt^i-H llio L'xuiiiiiiir in tlii' cduiHu of tlii- 
 uxiiniiniition iuIch I lint tlicy an; ni't'CHHaiy, 
 Vuvintoik V. llairiM, I'i I'. H. 17.— Boyd. 
 
 Upon a ]iending motion vO rcHtrnin tli« dcftn- 
 dant from rccciviiiL' any im iicyH diitt under a 
 certain contraet, and to ii]i|i(iiiit the )>liiintil) re- 
 ceiver of Hiieli nioiK yH, nil utiidavit of the ilefeii- 
 dant'H ]inrln('r was lilcd in uiiHwer, and he xiih 
 eriiHK-cxaniined iiiion it liy the jplaintill ; he wan 
 iiii.'dilu to aiihucr a niiiiilicr ol ijueHtionH uitli 
 Kleienci! to (he defendiint'H jinHition in regard to 
 till' jiartnerHlii|i, liecatiKe he had not with him 
 the liookH of till) |i;irtiierKliip, from whii h aloiin 
 the factH could lie iiHcertiiined, niid he refiiHcd to 
 produce hucIi liookH :- Held, that he xliould lie 
 ordered to attend for lurtlier examination, and 
 to produce the liookH rti|iiired, at IiIh own ex- 
 pense. In re Kmnia Silver Mining Co., L. K. 
 10 (!liy. Ii)4, folloued. liiitisill \'. Muiduiiald, 
 12 I'. K. 458.-iMiieMahon. 
 
 In an action to recover an amount alleged to 
 be duu liy the defendaiitn upon an advertiHing 
 contract after ereilitiiig an anuiunt admitted tu 
 Imj due liy the plidiitill' to the delendaiitH fur 
 rent, and aUo to recover dam.iges for illeyil dig- 
 trtHH for rent, it upjieared ihat the defendants 
 hod agreed to pay a certain Bum to the plain- 
 tilTfor adveititting, and had ako written a letter 
 to tho plaiiitifl' af;rceing that u certain part of 
 the rent t-hould be taken out in adveitiiiing. 
 TbiH letter purported to liu in anuwcr to a letter 
 which WHH in the delendantH'posHCHHion, written 
 by the plaiiitill' but ol Hhich he bad no copy, 
 making a propoHiil which the defendants had 
 agreed to: — Held, that the plaintiff wan entitled 
 to bavu IiIh own letter produced by the defen- 
 dants for his inspection before delivery of his 
 statement of claim, in order to enable him to 
 frame 't properly. Hooey v. Gilbert, 12 P. R. 
 114, V iiigiiiHiied. MarUan v. liarbir ct- Etlin 
 Co., I.i P. K. 5(«>.— C. I'. D. 
 
 See AliTclianU' Bank v. I'lersov, 8 P. R. 123, 
 p. 037 ; Orpin v. Kerr, 11 P. R. 128, p. «30. 
 
 4. Belter Affidavit of Documentn. 
 
 UiM>it a motion for a better affidavit of docu- 
 ments from the defendants, the Merchants' Bank, 
 the plaintillfi were allowed to read the deposi- 
 tions uf an otticer of the hank taken for use upon 
 a previous motion in the action. Puhmoh v. 
 MerchuiUn' Bank, 11 P. R. 18.— Boyd. 
 
 Semble, a second application for a better affi- 
 davit of documeuts is improper, where no objec- 
 tion is mode on the Krst application to the uou- 
 production of the documeuts in question, the 
 second motion not being made upon any mate- 
 rials which did uut exist at the time of the first 
 
 41 
 
 million, lliiwjhiim v. Vitiunii' tun, Co., 11 P. R. 
 ] 110. — Daltoii, .Mimlir. 
 
 ' The plaiiitiir nought to compel the defendant 
 V. Mel), to file a better nllidavit <if documentH, 
 and relied upon the atlidavit of documentH uf a 
 ' co-defendant l>, M, Mr!)., and also, upon all 
 ' alliilavit of K, M(d>. , liled upon an iiiterlocutory 
 niiitiiin in the action, iih Hliewing that hIic had 
 I in lirr poHsexHiiin a power of attorney and Htate- 
 ' nii'iilH of lucouiit which were not m t nut or in 
 any way iilliided to in heiiillidavit of dorumeiilH, 
 I wherein hIic Htated that the documentH Het out 
 ! were the only oni h in her poHseHsion relating to 
 i\n- iii'tinii. In the nllidavit on the interlociitoiy 
 1 motion K, Mel), aiiiiiittiil that hIic had receivid 
 j the jowcrof iitloiney and MlateliientH of account 
 in ipieHtion froni |). .M. .Mel)., but not that hIio 
 had llii'iii at the time of making her atlidavit of 
 doeiiiiRiits :— Held, reveiHing the order of Wil- 
 Hon, (.!. .)., in chanili) I'H, that the atlidavit of U. 
 M. Mel), could not lie received to contradict the 
 uflldavit of doiunnnlH ol F. .Mel)., and that her 
 udmlHHioiiH reJKil upon were not hutliciintly ex- 
 Illicit, for it wuH nut to be iiiferied in the lace of 
 lier iitliih vit of dniuniiiitH that at the time of 
 making it she still bad the doeiiiiientH m hich 
 were at (Jiie time received by her; and, jiir liose, 
 fl., upon a snbHi'(|ii('iit motion, the court having 
 refused to order a better atlidavit of dociinieiitN, 
 an applii.'ation under lliile 2.'I4 (Con. Hull! olS), 
 made u|>on the same material, for inspection of 
 the docuniciits in i|UeHlion un the former appli- 
 cation, could not succeed. Macli'iii/or v. Jlc- 
 Duiudd, 12 P. li.8l.-C. P. D. 
 
 See Lijon v. Mr Kay, 10 P. R. 557, p. 040 ; 
 Miu/ii/v. Canada AUaiilk B. IV. Co., II P. K. 
 30, p. 040. 
 
 5. liilnrninij Dnrumnnls. 
 
 The object of the production of documents in 
 ActiiuiH, is to enable either party to discover ibc 
 existence and aei|uire a knowledge of the eon- 
 tents of the decils and writings relevant tu the 
 case ; and when that object is acconi]ilished the 
 documents will go back to the oiiHtndy of the 
 party producing them. Jnr/iiii/ v. Onrliiuj, 10 
 P. R. I. — llo<lgins, Alanlrr-iuOrdiiiai-y. 
 
 The master has a discretion to direct parties 
 to leave documents in his ollieo so long as any 
 useful purpose may be answered by their remain- 
 ing there, and then to allow the party pruducing 
 them to take them back. Jb. 
 
 XI. Examination ok Witnesses at Tkial. 
 1. Orderiiuj Wit nexnen out of Court. 
 
 The attorney for the resjiondent may be or- 
 dered out of court when a witness is being 
 examined on a charge of a corrupt bargain for 
 his withdrawal from the election contest, when 
 the evidence of such witness may refer to the 
 sayings and doings of such attorney in respect of 
 such witlnlrawal. Soiitli Oxford Election (Unt. ) — 
 Hopkins V, Oliver, 1 H. E. C. 243.— Draper. 
 
 At the beginning of a trial all witnesses were 
 ordered out of court, except the parties to the 
 action. Judgment having been given dismissing 
 the action as against the defendant P., his co- 
 defendant M. entered upon his case and called 
 P. as a witness. P. had remained in court and 
 
 z a 
 
 ■a- . ' <5 
 
 t ' -a 
 
 >? ■ * 
 
 5-. i' 
 
 '■• t 
 
643 
 
 EVIDHNOE. 
 
 6M 
 
 645 
 
 if 
 
 H 
 
 
 1' 
 
 heard the whole of the evidence adduced by the 
 plaintiflf, and liis evidence was rejected on this 
 ground : — lleUI, tiiat the evidence of 1*. was im- 
 properly rejected, and a new trial was ordered. 
 iMakmity v. Macilomll, i) O. R. 137.— C. P. D, 
 
 At the trial of an action the witnesses were 
 ordered out of court. Before the case was closed 
 the defendant's counsel tendered a witness who 
 had reniaine<l in court, but the presiding judge 
 refused to allow him to be examined : — Held, that 
 there must be a new ti-ial. Per Proudfoot, J. — 
 The practice is to receive such evidence, but with 
 great care, li/wk v. Iie.'<.se, 12 O. R. 522. — Chy. D. 
 
 See Sivowrhiht v. Sirewrii/ht, 8 P. R. 81, p. 
 634 ; CulvenvM v. Barm-y, 10 P. R. 575, p. G34. 
 
 2. UvfusiiKj to A nswer. 
 
 Plaintitr (respondent; a teller in a bank in 
 New York, absconded with funds of the bank, 
 and came to St. John, N. li., where he was ar- 
 rested by defendant (appellant), a detective re- 
 siding in Halifax, N. S. , and imprisoned in the 
 police station for several hours. No charge hav- 
 ing been niiuie against him he was released. 
 While plaintilf was a prisoner at the police sta- 
 tion, the defendant went to plaintiff's boarding 
 house and saw his wife, read to her a telegram, 
 and demanded and obtained from her money she 
 had in her possession, telling her that it belonged 
 t I the bank and that her iiusband was in custo- 
 <ly. In an action tor assauU and false imprison- 
 ment, and for money had and received, the de- 
 fendant pleaded inter alia, that the numey had 
 been framlulently stolen by the plaintitf at the 
 city of New York, from the bank, and was not 
 the money of the plaintiff ; that defendant, as 
 agent of the bank, reeeiveil the money to and 
 for the use of the bank, and paid it over to theUi. 
 {Several witnesses were examined, ami the plai:.- 
 tiff being examined as a witness on his own be- 
 half did not, on cross-examination, answer cer- 
 tain questions, relying, as he sai<l, upon his 
 counsel to advise him, ami on being interrogated 
 as to his belief tiiat his so (h)ing wouhl tend to 
 criminatediim, he remained silent, and on being 
 pressed he refused to answer whether he appre- 
 hendeil serious consequences if he answered the 
 ipiestion proposed. The learned judge then told 
 the jury that tiiere was no identification of the 
 money, ami directed them that, if they shoulil be 
 of opinion that the money was obtained by 'oF'ce 
 or iluress from plaintiff's wife, they should find 
 f<u" the plaintiff': — Held (Henry, J., dissenting), 
 that the defend:mt was entitled to tiie oath of 
 the party that he objected to answer because he 
 l)elieveil his answering would tend to criminate 
 him. I'oioer v. Ellii, ti S. C. R. 1. 
 
 TIeld, that under section 12.1 of the Canada 
 Temperance Act, 1878, a defendant is compell- 
 able, when c.tlled as a witness, to answer ques- 
 tions, even though tending to criminate himself. 
 Hegina r. Halpin, 12 O. R. 330, not followed. 
 Review of legislation ou the subject of such 
 evidence. Ilcjiiia v. Fee, 13 0. R. u"JO.— Chy. 1). 
 
 Refusing to answer questions in an action of 
 hhA tending to criminate. See Jlall v. (luwan- 
 lork. 12 P. R, G()4, iiifra. 
 
 See /^.7»'m<i v. MrXkol, 1 1 0. R. 059, p. 451 ; 
 M'-Uaii V. limn; 13 P. R. 504, p. 035. 
 
 See also Subhead IX. 6 (a), p. 632. 
 
 3. DUcrediliiuj Witness. 
 
 At a coroner's inquest evidence is properly re- 
 ceivalde under |{. S. C. c. 174, s. 234, that a 
 witness at such incjuest has made at other times 
 a statement inconsistent with his present testi- 
 mony. J{('!iiiiu V. iSamlerHoii, 15 O. R. lOIJ. — 
 MaeMahon. 
 
 See liaid: of JIamillon v. 
 .677. 
 
 Ixaacti, 16 0. It. 450, 
 
 4. Croi^s- Examination, 
 
 The defendants appeared by the same attor- 
 ney, pleaded jointly by the same attorney, and 
 their defence was, in substance, precisely the 
 same, but they were represented at the trial by 
 separate counsel. On examination of one of the 
 plaintiff's witnesses, both counsel claimed the 
 right to cross-examine the witness : — Held, affir- 
 ming the ruling of the judge at the trial, that 
 the judge was right in allowing only one counsel 
 to cross-examine the witness, lyulker v. J/c- 
 il/(«((H, OS. C. R. 241. 
 
 5. Ol/ttr Ca,icn. 
 
 Held, in this case, that it was unnecessary that 
 the denial in the answer should be met by more 
 than the plaintiff's own evidence, for tile defen- 
 dant had been examined, and had furnished 
 sufficient ground for (li.screditing himself. AIo- 
 bi.rly v. liruok-i, 27 Chy. 270.--l'roudfoot. 
 
 Per Wilson, C. J. — A party calling the oppo- 
 site party as a witness, makes iiim his witness 
 to all intents and purposes. Danbar v. Meek, 
 32 C. P. 195. 
 
 Per Wilson, C. J.— Where the materiality of 
 certain enquiries is obvious, and is assumed at 
 the trial, as e. g. , in the present case with regard 
 to the temnei'atc halnts or otherwise of the de- 
 ceased, there is no need to sulinnt it to the jury. 
 lin.s.'itH v. Canada Lij'i- Ansiiraiict Co., 32 {;. P. 
 256. 
 
 See Mafdoi:alj, v. tVoiihiunfoii, 7 A. R. 531 ; 
 Murray v. Canada Central li. If. Co., 7 A. R. 
 64l>. 
 
 XII. Judicial, Okktiiai., and otkek Public 
 
 I3(H'U.MENTS. 
 
 1. Jiidi/iueiUs, 
 
 (a) Proof oj. 
 
 Ill an action of damages for malicious arrest 
 and imprisonment of plaintiff, under a capias, 
 issued by a sti])eudiury magistrate in Nova 
 Scotia, whose judgment, it was alleged, was re- 
 versed on .".ppeal by the .Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia, ot-al evidence — " that the decision of the 
 magistrate was reversed," was deeined suftieient 
 evidence by the judge at the trial of the deter- 
 mination of the suit below: — Held, reversing 
 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia, that such evidence was inadmissible, aiid 
 was not proper evidence of a final judgment of 
 the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Ouim v. 
 Cox, 3 S. C. R. 29tj. 
 
 The defendant in an action on i. judgment ob- 
 tained in Iowa, U. S. A. pleaded denying the 
 
 Actio 
 riie ma! 
 licfore i 
 prefer 
 tile ten 
 pliiinlif 
 niitted 
 nient 
 not .siifli 
 icgularj 
 duced. 
 <'. P 
 
 The 
 intoxicii 
 the (' 
 stating 
 victed 
 .•\ct, an 
 .•<ititii 
 tioiis, .• 
 vii'ted 
 tlie Can 
 llie dal 
 liie nat 
 llie first 
 there is 
 unless 
 for of ft 
 the rec< 
 this, th 
 that if I 
 
644 
 
 645 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 recovery of the jutlgiiieiit. Upon a motion for 
 judgment under Rule 322 (Con. Rule 756) upon 
 the pleading verilied by aiiidavit, and the pro- 
 "i.ction of au exemplihcation of a judgment: — 
 Held, affii'ining the opinion of the master that 
 judgment could not be ordered on these mate- 
 rials under Rule 322 (Con. Rule 75ti), the de- 
 fendant having put the judgment distinctly in 
 issue. IL'.iiebtn/ v. Turner, 2 O. R. 284 —Dal - 
 ton, Maxter.—(^. B. U. 
 
 A certified cojjy of the certificate of the Court 
 of Ajtpeal of the result of .an appeal in an ac- 
 tion is not evidence of the judtrnient tliereia iu 
 another action between diif'ereiit p:irties. lihuk- 
 ki/ w KeiiUKij, 19 0. R. 109. ■ -Robertson. 
 
 See Court v. Holland— Kr parte Hollawl. and 
 WaMi, 8 P. R. 2Il», p. 047. 
 
 2. Proof of other Jndirial Proceedings. 
 
 Held, that the County Court judge's order to 
 wrrest was well proved, uniler R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 62, s. 28, by the production of a copy ccrtifieil 
 jis .such, under the hand of the clerk of tlie court ; 
 but tluit tlie attidavit on which tlie capias issued, 
 tiled in tliat couit, was not duly proved by the 
 production of a copy of the affidavit similarly 
 cuitified, and with a seal attached, .apparently 
 that of the court, but not referred to or des- 
 cribed in the certificate. Timmins v. Wright, 
 45 Q. B. 246.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Wliere a petitionei- under the Quieting Titles 
 Act claimed title through a vesting order made 
 upon a sale under a decree in an administration 
 suit; — Held, under (lunn i'. L)ol)le, ISCliy. 605, 
 ihat in the absence of proof to the contrary, tlie 
 order should be assumed to be regular, and that it 
 was unnecessary to give evidence sliewing title. 
 lie Morse, S 1'. R. 475. -Blake. 
 
 Action for malicious prosecution and shunter. 
 Tiie malicious prosecution arose out of a charge 
 before a magistrate and a subse(juent indictment 
 preferred at tlie (juarter sessions. In proof of 
 the terniiuatiou of the criminal proceedings, the 
 |)laiiitifr pioduccd iu evidence, wliicli was ad- 
 mitted subject to objei'ti<m, tlie original imlict- 
 iiient endorsed " no liill" : --Held, that this was 
 not sutlicient, liut that a reconl should have been 
 regularly .'lawn uj) and an examined cojty pro- 
 <luced. McUium v. I'renerean, 10 O. R. 573. — 
 <'. 1'. U. 
 
 The di fendant was convicted of having sold 
 intoxicating liiiuor contrary to the provisions of 
 tlie Canada '1 einpcrauce Act, the conviction 
 slating that the defendant was formerly con- 
 victed of a first anil second ollence againit said 
 .Act, and that this was the third otrenco. The 
 cfititicate produced to prove the prior ccmvic- 
 tioiis, siiii])ly stateil that Klias Clark was con- 
 victed as for a first and second otl'euce against 
 tlie Canada Teiiiperaiice Act, 1878, setting forth 
 I lie dates of the convictions, but not statiiig 
 the nature of the otleuces, or whether against 
 tlic first or second part ot the Act : — Held, that 
 t lii'i'e is no power to punish as for a third oH'encc 
 unless there have been two prior convictions 
 tor otlences of the same nature, and as neither 
 the record of conviction nor the evidence shewed 
 this, the conviction must lie finished : Seinble, 
 that if the conviction were well drawn, the simi- 
 
 larity of name of the person mentioned in the 
 certificateand the defendant wouldafford proof of 
 identity, liegina v. Clark, 15 O. R. 49. — Rose. 
 
 The plaintiffs were tried, for briljery at an 
 election, at the Haldimand assizes in the Spring 
 of 1887 and acquitted. The information upon 
 which the indictment was supposed to have been 
 founded was laiil against them by the defendant, 
 and he was examined as a witness before the 
 grand jury. At the concluBion of the trial the 
 presiding judge, at the request of the counsel for 
 the accused, endorsed on the in<lictmeiit the 
 statement that it was proved that the defciidant 
 was the private prosecutor. The plaintiffs taxeil 
 their costs of the prosecut- . . and brought this 
 action to recover payme.it I these costs from 
 the defendant. The iuformacion and indictment 
 (there being no evidence connecting the latter 
 with the former) with the endorsement and the 
 fact that the defendant Wiis examined as a wit- 
 ness before the gi'and jui-y were the only evidence 
 that the defendant W".'! the private prosecutor: 
 — Held, that tli : p'ldorsement on the indictment 
 bad no force as a judgment or finding of fact and 
 could not be accoiited as proof of the defendant's 
 position :-— Held, also, that the facts that the 
 information w is laiil by the defendant and that 
 he was examined as a witness before the grand 
 jury were not suHicient evidence that he was the 
 private prosecutor. Decision of the County 
 Court of the couiitv of Lincoln reversed. Maif 
 V. Held, 16 A. R. 150. 
 
 Lands were sold under a fi. fa. lands after the 
 expiry of the year, and a deed executed to the 
 grantor of the plaintiff by the sherifiF which re- 
 cited that the writ had been duly renewed, but 
 neither the sheriff's nor the district clerk's books 
 shewed any such renewal : -Hold, that no re- 
 new.ll was proved, and the sale was invalid. 
 Dahyv. Geht, IS O. R. 132.— C. P. I). 
 
 No certificate by a judicial officer of proceed- 
 ings had bcfin-e him can properly be settled 
 where it is inteuded to be used as evidence, un- 
 less in the pieseiicc of, or at least on notice to, 
 all the parties concerned. Re Itijaii v. Siinonton, 
 13 P. R. 299. -Street 
 
 Foreign judicial proceedings, and documents on 
 applicvtiim for extradition. See liegina v. 
 Browne, 31 C. P. 484 ; A. R. .380 ; InreH. L. 
 Lee, 5 O. R, 583 : //* re Weir, 14 (). R. 389. 
 
 3. Evidenee. and Shorthand Note-i. 
 
 Tlie shorthand notes of the shorthfind writer 
 employed by the court to take down the evidence 
 were not extended in his handwriting, but wera 
 signed by iii:n : -Held, tiiat the notes of evi- 
 dence cojiid not be objected to. Megantic Elec- 
 tion— Cote V. (louht, 9 S. C. R. 279. 
 
 Kvidence given by one F. , a witness, was taken 
 bef.ire an examiner in shorthand, by ipiestioii 
 and answer. The evidcnoo was duly certified 
 by the examiner and an otlice copy put in at the 
 trial: -Held, under R. S. 0. (1877), c. 50, ss. 
 105, 166, as amended by 41 Vict. c. 8, s. 8(0nt.), 
 andO. ,1. Act, Hules 282, 285 (Con. Rules 564. 
 5t)ti), the evidence was properly received. M''- 
 Dowdd v. Murray, 5 O. R. .5.59. -C. P. 1). 
 
 Two partners in business ( T. Ik. R. (t'Ncill) 
 I executed two mortgages in fuvouruf J. W., W. 
 
M7 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 648: 
 
 «S< i« 
 
 assigned the mortgagea to H., liy way of deriva- 
 tive mortgage, on the 'ilst March, IS77. 1" Jau- 
 uary, 1877, the O'Neills beciime insolvent, and 
 the plaintiff, their assignee, filed a l)ill to redeem 
 these nioi-tgagcs. After decree W. bccnmo in- 
 solvent, and the suit was revived in the name of 
 1'. & 1'., his assignees, in his stead. On the 
 reference, H. claimed so much of the amount 
 due on the original mortgngei,, as would satisfy 
 his derivative mortgiigu, and P. claimed the 
 remainder. Against their claims the plaintiff 
 tiled two similar surcharges, one againnt H. and 
 the other a>;ain8t 1'. & 1'. In support of his 
 surcharges, the plaintiff offered the following 
 evidence : 1. A certified copy of the evidence 
 taken in an action at law brought by the plain- 
 tiff' against \\., in which he recovered judg- 
 ment, in the spring of 1870, for a considerable 
 sum as the unpaid pnichabe money for goods 
 sold by the O'Neilis to W. A certified copy of 
 the judgment of the Court of Common I'leas, a 
 rule fur a new trial, and an exeuiplitication of 
 tiie judgment roll. 2. A certified copy of the 
 depositioiig of W. taken in this suit before the 
 muster at Cobourg, prior to the nuiking of the 
 decree :— Held, I. 'I'hut the evidence of the 
 common law action could not Ve read as against 
 either H. or R & I'., but that the evidence of W. 
 himself might possibly be received against his 
 assignees P. & P., as admissions made by him, 
 and that the excmplitication of the judgment 
 might be used against his assignees to shew an 
 indebtedness from W. to the plaintiff' as assig- 
 nee of the O'Neills on a particular account. M. 
 That the depositions of W. before the muster at 
 Cobourg, like liiB answer to the suit, could be 
 read against himself, and under the later au- 
 thorities against H. also. CotuI v. Holland — 
 ex parte liul/avd and WaUh, 8 P. R. 219.— 
 Taylor, Master. 
 
 In a mortgage action there was a .'cfcrence to 
 a master for sale, etc. After sale and satisfiic- 
 !on of the plaintiff's claim out of the proceeds, 
 a balance remained in court, which K. <i. ap- 
 Tjlied to the master to have paid out to her. 
 tjpon such application R. <i. was examined be- 
 fore the master, who refused the application. 
 .\n oriler was afterwards made by a judge re- 
 ferring to the muster to ascertain who was en- 
 titled to the fun<l, and to .'settle ])riorities. Upon 
 Buch reference the master ruled that the dejiosi- 
 tioiisof K. (i. taken upon the former a|iplication 
 couhl be read :- Held, reversing the decision of 
 Robertson, J., in chambers, that the <le])OMitious 
 vould be read subject to the right of A., an o])- 
 posing claimant of the fund to crosH-cxaniine H. 
 O. upon thi-m; R. (i. to attend for such cross- 
 exandnation upon payment of conduct money 
 by A. '.— Held, also, that A. was estiij)ped from 
 appealing from the nuistcr's ruling by reastm of 
 his not having olijected to the evidence being 
 referred to at a certain stage of the proceedings. 
 MadeniMii v. Uray, 12 P. It. 431. — C'hy \). 
 
 4. Other Documcvls, 
 
 Certain alleged copies of journals of parlia- 
 ment were tendered in evidence. It was not 
 proved that originals of which the copies ten- 
 dered were sjvid to be copies ever existed, nor 
 •was it shewn that the copies tendered were 
 copies of any original. They were, however, 
 
 shewn to have come from the parliamentary 
 lil)rary at Ottawa, and most of them purported 
 to have been printed by the Queen's printer : — 
 Held, that, in the absence of a statute making 
 them admissible, they could not be received. 
 LatKjIry v. l>umoid'tn, 7 O. R. 499. —Ferguson. 
 
 On an application to set aside a nonsuit in an 
 action bought by the plaintiff' for damages for- 
 injuries occasioned by the defendants' negligence 
 while in their employment. The court, on the 
 argument, allowed the plaintiO', on terms, to 
 give in evidence tlic proclamation bringing into 
 force the Ontario Factory Act. Jhaii v. On- 
 tarioCottcn MillxVo., 14 0. It. 119.— Q. B. D, 
 
 Held, that in construing a patent, reference 
 nuiy be had to papers in the Crown Lands Office, 
 connected with the application for tlie patent. 
 Jlrady v. Sadkr, 13 O. R. (J!»2.- Proudfoot. See. 
 .S. v., 10 O. R. 49; 17 A. R. 31)5. 
 
 Registered Instruments. 8ee McDonald v. 
 Murray, 5 O. R. 559. 
 
 XIII. Private Documents. 
 
 1. Pla)M. 
 
 Certain maps of the city of Toronto, made by 
 city surveyors in 1857 and IS.W, shewing there- 
 on a sijuare marked "Hellevue scpiarc," were 
 offered in evidence to shew the boundaries of 
 the s(juaie. It was shewn that the defendant 
 knew of these maps, Init they were not pre])ared 
 under his insliuctions:— Held, that the nuips 
 could not be receive<l in evidence to shew the 
 boundaries of the siiuure. Per Hagarty, C. J. 
 O., and Osier, J. A. — The maps were adndssible 
 to shew that there was such a square known as 
 Rellevuc square, but not as evidence of title or 
 Imunditry. Per Ihirton, J. A., and Patterson, 
 J. A. — The nuips were not admissible in evi- 
 dence witlumt its Ijcinj; shew n that they hail 
 been prepared under the instructions of the de- 
 fendant, or on information given by him. Ite- 
 niarks on the serious eonse(|Ucnces likt^ly to 
 arise from the constant changes in the names of 
 streets in the city of Toronto. I'anKovi/linil v. 
 Ihnixon, 1 1 A. R. 699. 
 
 Hehl, in this case, that inasmuch as the con- 
 veyances to tlic j)arties were made according to 
 the tirst plan, the second plan could not be in- 
 voked to aid in ascertaining tlie limits of the 
 hits conveyed. (Iramit v. C'artir, 10 S. O. R. 
 105. 
 
 As evidence of the formatirni of school sec- 
 tions in a township by the municipal council 
 thereof a rough sketch or map (U:sigiiateil 
 "school section map township of H.,' but without 
 signature, seal, or date, having the apieaiunce 
 of being very old and there being no other nuijt 
 to be found, was iiro<luced from the pinper cus- 
 tody. In 1888, before this action was com- 
 menced, but after the beginning of the agitation 
 which gave rise thereto, the municipal council 
 passed u by law "to mnke alterations in scliool 
 section mail, " and anthorized the clerk to cor- 
 rect the ma]), etc.; and that when any diflicultj' 
 arose as to boundaries of school sections recourse 
 was had, at least in some instances, to this 
 map:- Held, that the map must be assumed to 
 be drawn in pursuance of section 1 1 of the 
 "Public .Schools Act,"' and therefore afforded 
 
«49 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 650 
 
 eviilence of tlie original division of the town- 
 ship into school sections by the township council. 
 Tnixlee/t for Srhnol Sertiuii jVo. ,?/f of the Towu- 
 jihiji of Ihirford v. Township of liurford, 18 O. 
 R. o-M).- -Ferguson. 
 
 2. Ancient Documentt. 
 
 Held, that the production of an original mort- 
 gage, which was more than twenty years old, 
 proved itself under R. S. 0. (1877), c. 109, s. 1, 
 sub-s. 1, which makes such a document evidence 
 of the truth of the recitals contained therein 
 until shewn to l)e untrue. Allan v. McTavinh, 
 28 Chy. .'530.— Spragge ; S A. R. 440. 
 
 See imperial Bank of Canada v. Metcalf, 11 
 O. R. 4G7 ; McDonald v. McDougall, 16 O. R. 
 401. 
 
 .3. Church Canons. 
 
 ?]vidence offered of the contents of a canon of 
 the church society or synod discussed. See 
 Luntilnj V. Dumoulin, 7 O. R. 499. 
 
 4. Telij/ramn. 
 
 In an election trial the court ordered the agent 
 of a tflfgraph company to pi'oduce all telegrams 
 sent by the respondent antl his alleged agent 
 during his election, reserving to the respondent 
 the rigiit to move the Court of Appciil on the 
 point. South Oxford Kli'ction (Onf.) —llo/ikins v. 
 Olinr, 1 H. E. U. 243. 
 
 Hold, that the o|)erator was the proper person 
 to subpoMia to produce the tciegr.ams, <is he had 
 the control of tlu'm ami the al)ilitv to produce 
 them. Re Dwiijlit and Macklain, 15 R. 148.— 
 Roy<l.— Osier. .Sec S. C, Ik, p. (51). 
 
 a. Keccipl^. 
 
 Held, that a mortgage which contains an ac- 
 knowledgment of receipt of the mortgige money, 
 )>ut no covenant for repayment of money, does 
 not of itself afford conclusive evidence of a debt 
 .so that the mortgagee or his assigns can main- 
 tain an action for its recovery. London Loan 
 Co. V. Smyth, 32 C. P. 530. -C. P. \>. 
 
 The acknowledgment of the correctness of a 
 bank account at the cnil of a month was held to 
 1)0 at most an .acknowledgment of the balance 
 on the assumption that the clietpies had been 
 paid to the proper parties. A ijr {cultural Sar- 
 imjK and Loan A-swciation v. Federal Bank, 6 A. 
 R. 192. 
 
 See LirimiKton v. Wood, 27 Chy. 515, p. C62 ; 
 Steinhoffv.'McCrae, 13 0. R. 540, p. 6.56; Men- 
 delsmhn Piano Co. v. Grahatn, 19 0. R. 83. 
 
 6. Other Writinji. 
 
 As to admissibility of solicitors' correspon- 
 dence and requisitions of title in an action for 
 specific performance. See McClumj v. Mc- 
 Crarken, 3 O, it. 596. 
 
 As to a note insuiiiciently stamped being ad- 
 missible as evidence of a debt. See Cawjhill v. 
 Clarke, 3 0. R. 269. 
 
 Held, that a document which has not been 
 
 firoved nor produced at the trial cannot be re- 
 ied on or made part of a case in appeal. Lion- 
 aii V. Mohan's Bank, 10 S. C. R. 62a 
 
 See Licinijstoii v. Cook, 27 Chy. 515, p. 662. 
 
 XIV. Parol Kxpi.anation of Uoc0mknts. 
 
 1 . To Vary or Explain Deedn. 
 
 (a) Qenerally. 
 
 To rectify mistake in amount of life assurance 
 policy. See ^Elna Life Inx. Co. v. Brodie, R 
 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 The plaintiff sought to restrain the «lcfcndaiit 
 from cutting timber on lands demised to him, 
 contrary to the covenants in the lease. At the 
 trial defendant tendered parol evidence of aii 
 agrecmentbetwecnliimself and the plaintiff, dis- 
 tinct from and prior to the lease, which, he con- 
 tended, moditied the restrictions in the Icjise, and 
 gave him tiie right to cut the timber:— Held, 
 atiiruiiiig the decision of Ferguson, J., that 
 eviilence of the i)arol agreement could not be ad- 
 mitted. O'itroyv. McMi/tau,(iO. l\. 120.— Chy. D. 
 
 The plaintilF, by a lease under seal, leased to 
 the defendant a shop, save and except the bot- 
 tom ])ortiou of the east window, and save and 
 except a portion of the shop described by metes 
 and iiouiuls. The defendant alleged that prior 
 to his accepting the lease, and entering into the 
 consideration for such acceptance, an indepen- 
 dent and collateral [)arol agreement, separate 
 and distinct from and not made part of the lease, 
 was entered into, whereby the defendant was to 
 have permissionor license to remove certain rough 
 shelving, etc., and to tit up the shop, including; 
 the portion reserved by the plaintiff, with hand- 
 some and ornamental show cases, during the 
 continuance of the term, so as to give the sliop 
 a uniform appearance for the defendant's benefit, 
 and that in pursuance of such agreement, and 
 with ])laintili"s consent, the show cases were put 
 in : — Held, that the evidence of such agreement 
 was not admissible as it would add to the written 
 agreement, and was not collateral thereto ; but 
 even if admissible, if it amounted to an ease- 
 ment or grant of an incorporeal right, it shouhl 
 have been under seal, and not being under seal, 
 the license was a (larol license, not incidental to 
 a valid grant, and was revocable, and the fact 
 that it was for consideration and for a term cer- 
 tain could nmke no difference. It was held also 
 that the evidence failed to establish the alleged 
 agreement, and that the plaintiff was notestopped 
 from denying it. McKenzie v. McOlauijhhn, 8 
 O. R. 111.— C. P. D. 
 
 A mortgage made by T. to VV., was aa- 
 signed to M. No money was actually advanced 
 on the mortgage by W. , but before the assign- 
 n:ent to M., a parol agreemcut was come to le- 
 tweenM.andT. thatM. shouldhold the mortgage 
 a« security for the debt which T. owed to M. on » 
 note :— Held, that M. was entitled to hold the 
 mortgage as security for the amount due him from 
 T. Mclntyrev. Thompson.GO.R.TiO — Proudfoot. 
 
 The rule that a n.ortgage for a specific snm 
 may be shewn to be for other purposes by parol 
 evidence, is not confined to cases where the per- 
 son having the legal estate is the original moit- 
 
 ij ■ ; a 
 
 
 "ll 
 
 * • 
 
651 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 662: 
 
 gagee whose cliiim has hecn paid off, and with 
 whom the new agreement for security has been 
 mode. The same principle applies whenever the 
 legal estate becomes vested in the creditor by 
 the agreement of the mortgag<ir as here. Ih. 
 
 A conveyance was made by the j)Iaintift' tothe 
 defendant for the expressed consideration of 
 $5,000. It was shewn by tiic evidence of the 
 plaintiff and her two daughters, that tlie defen- 
 dant in bargaining for the purchase of a lot of 
 land, had agreed to give §7, 500 tlierefor, the 
 <lefendant paying $5,000 down and retai-iing in 
 his hands $'2,o(K) to meet certain claims which he 
 alleged were likely to be nuide against tlie pro- 
 perty. This the defendant denied, but I'roud- 
 foot, J., l)efore whom tiic evidence was taken, 
 was of opinion that tile bargain was as sworn to 
 by the plaintiir, and pronounced judgment giving 
 her a lien for the $2,.")0O and interest. On ap- 
 jieal this judgment Wi:s afiirmed, Burton, J. A., 
 dissenting, and Pattcn^on, J. A., dubitante. 
 Remarks as to the adniissiltility of parol evidence 
 in such a case. Mar-th v. limit, 9 A. 1!. 595. 
 
 In an action of foreclosure of a txrtain mort- 
 giigc of lands, the defence set up tiiat the mort- 
 gage W1V8 given to secure a l)alance of purchase 
 money for the laud due troni tlie dcfcndiint: tiiat 
 the piaintifl' at tlie time of the purcliiise falsely 
 represented that no one -w.as in iiossossion of the 
 land, and that she could deliver immediate pos- 
 session, which she agreed to do by a certain <late, 
 and the defendant was thereby induced to accept 
 a conveyance (which was in the statutory short 
 form) and give the mortgage: tint as a matter 
 of fact the hiiul was at the time of such repre- 
 sentations and for a long time after in possession 
 of one L., and the plaintiff was unable to de- 
 liver up possession on the same date : that after 
 the expiry of the said date the defendant threat- 
 ened proceedings for breach of the plaiiitill's 
 agreement, and for the said niisreprcsentatiou.s, 
 and the plaintiff in consideration that he would 
 forbear the same, agreed with liiiii that the times 
 of payment under the mortgage should be post- 
 poned for a length of time e(iuivalent lo that 
 during which he was kept out of possession, and 
 wouhl pay him any damages sustained by him, 
 and that he ilid so forbear, and by virtue of the 
 premises no payment was yet due under the 
 mortgage: which matters of defence being duly 
 proved : — Held, that though the collateral parol 
 i<<{reement to deliver pos.sossiiiu by a fixed date 
 could not lje enforced, because it contradicted or 
 added to the short form covenant for delivery of 
 possession in the deed of conveyance, yet on ac- 
 count of the said misrepresentations and the 
 6u)>8cquent agreement, the plaintiff's action niu.st 
 be (lismissed, and the defendant, having counter- 
 claimed for damages, was entitled to the same, 
 and to a reference to fix the amount thereof. 
 KeaijH v. Emanl, 10 O. R. 314.— Ferguson. 
 
 The plaintiff had under several leases been in 
 occupation of a farm of the defendant's for about 
 twenty-five years. In eonsequeiiee of the dwell- 
 ing on the lot having liccome unfit for occupa- 
 tion by the lessee he notified the lessor of his 
 intention to give up the ]ireniiscs at the end of 
 his term. 'I hereupon it was agreed that the 
 lessor would put up a new house, the plaintiff 
 ugreeinc to accept a new lease for six years and 
 pay an increase in his rent of .$1 'lOa year. I'lnin- 
 tiff also agreed to perform some work in connec- 
 
 tion with the building in the summer of the first 
 year of the term, ana a written lease was exe- 
 cuted containing a covenant liy the lessor to 
 build a new house "during the said term." The 
 lessor insisted that he had the whole tei-m with- 
 in which to put up the house ; — Hehl {affirming 
 the judgment of the court below), that the cir- 
 cumstances attending the execution of the lease 
 as also the corroboration afforded by the least; 
 itself warranted the court in admitting parol 
 evidence to shew that the first year of the term 
 was the year in which the hr)use was to be ereot- 
 e<l : —Held, also, that even if the lease w.as meant 
 to be silent as to the year for building, a reason- 
 able time w<mld be inteinled, and that the cove- 
 nant of the plaintiff being to perform certain 
 work on the building during the first summer of 
 the term, and the iiicreascd rent bring payable 
 for the whole term then created, tiie first year 
 must be considered rea.sonable. Rutmer v. 
 /iriimindl, VA A. R. 411. 
 
 Action to recover royalties alleged to be pay- 
 able on threshing machines manufactured by 
 defendant under an indenture made between 
 plaintiff IJ. and defendant, whereby the plaiiititf 
 li. sold and transferred to the defendant the 
 right to manufacture and use a certain invention 
 I known as " Heam's 'I'lireslier ;" and in coiisideia- 
 I tion thereof the defendant agreed to pay a 
 j named royalty on all machines nianufactured 
 I "upon or after" the jiriiioiplo of the invention. 
 I I'arol evidence was admitted, subject to objee- 
 I tion, that the plaintiff agreed to prevent any 
 I infringement of the patent, and, if he failed to 
 ! do so, lie should not lie entitled to any royalties. 
 The agreement contained no such stipiilaticju : — 
 Held, tliat the parol evidence was not admissible 
 to vary the deed, following McNeely 
 
 McWil 
 Mmin; 14(>. H. 
 
 lianis, ISA. H. 324. Hitim 
 4I'2.— r. P. I). 
 
 A chattel mortgage of certain timber was 
 expres.sed to he given in consideration of tiie 
 ])ayment of $300 to the mortgagor ; all the cov- 
 enants and provisions being applicable to a 
 money payment or default therein. At tlio 
 trial it was endeavoured by jiarol evidence to 
 shew that upon the delivery of certain j)ieces of 
 timber sold by the father of the mortgagor to 
 j the mortgagee, the whole of the provisions of 
 j the mortgage were to become ineffective and 
 I the mortgagees be prevented from claiming pay- 
 ment of the sum stipulated for in the manner 
 and at the time set forth :- Held, tliatthe parol 
 evidence was inadmii-Hible. Tyton v. Abir- 
 i-roiiilw, 16 0. K. 98.-C. P. D. 
 
 As to the admission of extrinsic evidence to 
 aid in the construction of a crown patent. See 
 lirndy v. Sadkv, 13 O. R. ()92 ; 16 O. R. 49; 
 17 A. R. 305. 
 
 See Pihin v. linnicl, 5 S. V. R. 318 ; MHIh v. 
 AV;;-, 7 A. H. 709 ; l.nHorh< v. 0'll,«jtu,, I O. 
 R. 300 : Cinturoii v. WiUhniinu, dm/ nnd lirtw^ 
 It. W. Co., 27 Chy. 95; 28 Chy. Wil. 
 
 3. To Vari) or Ejiilain vlhcr Writiiiijt. 
 
 (a) Pat-lien to Contractu. 
 
 As to admissil>ility of extrinsic evidence to 
 explain the capacity in which the maker sigiieil 
 
653 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 6M 
 
 a promissory note. See Rrovn v. ITowJand, 9 
 O. R. 48 ; 15 A. H. 750. 
 
 D. agreed to purchase certain lands as agent 
 for K., and accordingly executed an agreement 
 for the purchase of the same in her own name : — 
 Held, tliat the evidence of D.'s agency was re- 
 ceivable though not in writing, and that no sub- 
 8C(iuent dealing of I)., as by acquiring the legal 
 estate, could operate to the disadvantage of K. : 
 — Qunre, whether IJartlett c. Pickersgill, 1 Cox. 
 15, 4 Kast 577, n. is still to be regarded as good 
 law. Kitchfii v. Dolan, !) O. R. 4.32. —Boyd. 
 
 Parol evi<lenoe is always admissible to shew 
 the situation of the j)arties at the time the wri- 
 ting was made, tlio circumstances under which 
 it was made, tiio time when it was made, and 
 the relative trades of tiie respective parties. 
 VhiMe V. Burnett, 10 O. R. 609.— Q. B. I). 
 
 Although extiinsic parol evidence may be 
 given to identify one of the parties, it cannot 
 be given to supply information as to the person 
 to whom an offer in a memorandum required to 
 lie in writing by the Statute of Framls was 
 made or for whom it was intended. Whili- v. 
 Tomalin, 19 O. R. 51.3.— Chy. 1). 
 
 (b) Consideration, 
 
 Tlie defendant, after a note payable to the 
 plaintiff had become due, and wliilo it rcniained 
 unpaid, endorsed upon it the following words: - 
 " I guarantee the payment of tlie within note to 
 Messrs. T. T). ACo. , (tlie jdaintiffs) on demand." 
 The evidence shewed that the consideration fm- 
 this guarantee- was ttic giving of time to oiieC, 
 for whose debt tcitiie plaintiiT the note wasgiven 
 as collateral security :- Held, that the evidence 
 th.at the giving of time toC. was the considera- 
 tion for the guarantee, did not contradict the 
 latter, though it was expressed to be " on de- 
 mand ;" for these words referred to a <lcmand 
 upon the guarantor after furbearanco to press 
 V. ; and that such forbearance was a good con- 
 siileration. Dariatx. riiiiston, 45 i}. B. 3(i!). — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 (c) Particular Word-i. 
 
 Held, that the letters of the defendant, set out 
 in the report and read togctlier in the light of 
 the parol evidence, constituted a sufficient note 
 or memorandum in writing within the 17th sec- 
 tion of the Statute of Friuids, niul that parol 
 evidence was also admissible to shew what the 
 words "work" and "rig" used therein referred 
 to. Chrintie v. linrncll, 10 (). R. 009.- Q. 
 1$. D. 
 
 The p'aintifT'i agreed to sell to the defendants 
 a waterwheel, "and place the same in position" 
 for f 1.50, but the defendants refused payment 
 upon the ground that the wheel had not been 
 ])roperly jiiaced. ami did not in fact jierfoini the 
 work stipulated ffir. The jury found for the 
 defendants, and the judge of the County Court 
 granted a new trial — costs to abide the event. 
 ()n appeal this court refused to interfere with 
 the discretion of the judge of the court below, 
 considering that the term " placed in position" 
 was so indefinite that the defendant was at lib- 
 erty to shew what was meant thereby ; the 
 M'riting, by such parol evidence not being added 
 
 to or varied, but only rendered intelligible. 
 Harris v. Moore, 10 A. H. 10. 
 
 The jdaintiiT Ixiught the office and idant of a 
 newspaper, gave a chattel mortgage thereon to 
 W., and placed I', in charge, j'lie defendants 
 nuide advances to P. for the purjOTse of carrying 
 on the business. \V. sold the property by auc- 
 tion for the amount of the mortgage debt to the 
 defendants, who supjiosing that V. was tlio 
 owner, wished to secure themselves for the ad- 
 vances made to him. The defendants then agreed 
 to sell theprojierty to the plaintiff ; but a dispute 
 arose as to the price, and this action was brouglit 
 to obtain specific performance of the agreement. 
 There was written evidence of the .agreement in 
 a document signed by the defendant Moore, part 
 of which was as follows: "Price of this office to 
 be wliat it h.is cost Mr. Horton (the other defen- 
 dant) and my.'ielf." Specific performance was 
 decreed by consent, and it was referred to the 
 master .at London to take the accounts, and to 
 report what was the true agreement between the 
 parties : — Held (reversing the decision of the 
 master and of Ferguson, .1.), that the defendants 
 had tiie right to shew before the master what 
 they meant by the reference to the cost of the 
 office as fixinir the price: and that, upon the 
 evidence, the true agreement between the parties 
 was, that the price was to be the amount paid 
 to \V. plus the advances to P. lliu/fii-i v. Muun , 
 11 A. 1!. .-)(i9. 
 
 The dc'ff ndants carrying on business in manu- 
 facturing and upholstering goods, entered into 
 an ayrcement in wi'iting with |)hiintitf whereby 
 I he w.is t:i mainifactnre all the upholstered goods 
 I .sold bj'diem at an advance of eleven per cent, up- 
 j on the actual first cost of goods nuide anil shipped 
 I from Toronto, the percentage to jjay cost of 
 packing and shipping llie gooils, and material 
 used as packing to bo charged at actual cost 
 prici'. Before the agreement was reduced to 
 writing certain estimates were m.ade as to what 
 the actual first cost would be taking material 
 and hibour as constituting the cost, and the 
 plaintiff in forwarding some of the numfactui'ed 
 goods ado])ted the estimates :— Hehl, that the 
 parties by their agreement had precluded them- 
 selves from showing anything iiu:onsistont with 
 the natural meaning of the words "actual first 
 cost," that such meaniuK must govern ; and 
 that the plaintiff was entitleil to recover his 
 percentage thereon, lilwk v. Toroiiti) Ujihol- 
 st.riiiiiCo., 15 0. U. 042. -C. P. 1). 
 
 (d) lieferrnre to other Dorumenli. 
 
 The defendants acting as a connnittee to su- 
 perintend the reception of a large nund)er of. 
 persons, anil being desirous, in addition to pro- 
 viding acoonnuodation for them, to make a jirofit 
 for themselves, advrrtised for tenders in a ncws- 
 i)apcr, in whith it was stated that there would 
 bo a large ninnbcr of persons present at the pro- 
 posed assemblage for whom meals would be re- 
 ipiired, and tenderers were invited to submit a 
 bill of fare which they would guarantee to fur- 
 nish for $1 a day. and the tenders were to state 
 what amount would be ])aid for such privilege. 
 The plaintiff was njiplied to personally by M.. 
 one of the committee, to know whether he would 
 tender, and certain statements as to the number 
 of persons to be present, were then made to him, 
 
 «5 
 
 a 
 
 ij! 
 
€55 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 656 
 
 
 1 8**** ''" 
 
 und other piirticulnrs of (lefendanta' require- 
 iiieuts were givon to him, his attention noirig 
 (.'ailed to the above advertisement, which, liow- 
 cvor, he did not see. He sui, "ecjuently saw one 
 B. by whom the tenders were lo be received, 
 who had been sent to him by M., and who, in 
 addition to the (larticiilars already mentioned, 
 stated that they wonM guarantee 1,500 persons 
 a day, l)ut would require the plaintiff to provide 
 for 2,000. The plaintiff then wiote his tender 
 by which he was to get 75 cents a day for every 
 three meal tickets, and the committee were to 
 charge 81, which tender was accepted in writing. 
 Very few persons took their meals from the 
 plaintiff, who, in consequence, lost a large 
 tunount by the contract. At the trial, the ad- 
 vertisement and rc(|uirements were put in as 
 evidence for the plaintiff, subject to objection. 
 In an action to recover the amount of the plain- 
 tiff's loss from the defendants: — Held (MacMa- 
 lion, J., dissenting), that the tender and accept- 
 ance constituted the whole contract ; and there 
 was nothing in them to render defendants lia))le. 
 Per .MacMahon, J. — The advertisement and re- 
 quirements must, under the circumstances, be 
 incorporated into the tender and acceptance, 
 and so form part thereof so as to render the de- 
 fenilants liable .McNeely c. McWilliams, 13 A. 
 ■R. 324, and Lindley )". f^acey, 17 <-". B. N. S. 
 578, coiumeuted on. Bettx v. Smith, 15 O. R. 
 41.3.— C. P. I). Reversed 16 A. R. 421. 
 
 Ill an action by the plaintiff, a passenger by 
 defendants' railway, for the loss of her baggnge, 
 an<l in which tlie defence was that the defen- 
 «lants' liability was limited by a c(mdition on the 
 ticket to SlOO, certain letters were admitted in 
 evidence, one written by the defendants' bag- 
 gage agent to the passenger agent asking whether 
 plaintiff's attention had been called to the C(m- 
 <lition on the ticket, and why it had not been 
 signeil by her, and tile other the reply thereto, 
 stating that the com])any's rules did not require 
 luiliuiited first-class tickets to be signed, and that 
 this ticket had beeo sold at full tariff rate : — 
 Helil. that tlie letters were ])voperly admitted; 
 but they were of no consequence as the ticket on 
 its face shewed that it was not purchased subject 
 to the condition. Kirkstall Brewing Co. r. I'ur- 
 ness R. W. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 468, followed. 
 Aiiilcrnoii V. Caimilian Pacific If. W. Co., 17 0. 
 i;. 747.— C. P. D. 
 
 (e) Subject ^fatter of Contract. 
 
 Where a contract was expressed to sell limits 
 Nos. 1 and 3 for the sumof §15,.5O0 ; also all the 
 plant used in connection with the shanty now in 
 operation on limit No. 1, included in the list 
 made out last summer and the material then not 
 included which had been used in the winter's 
 operations of 1880 and 1881, at the price of 
 §3,000 : —Held, sufficiently definite to satisfy 
 the Statute of Frauds, since the plant referreil 
 to therein could easily be identified by parol 
 evidence .-xs being that specifically described 
 in a certain writing which accompanied the 
 above contract, and which was signed in the 
 firm's name and by the purchaser, as also could 
 the terms of credit to be allowed as to the pay- 
 ment of $l.'>,.500, and such parol evidence was 
 admissible though the contract imported prima 
 facie, etc., a down payment of the $15,.')0O. 
 Jkid V. Smith, 2 0. R. C9.— Chy. D. 
 
 J. S. F. and his two brothers were joint 
 owners of a lot of land v.-hich the former, with- 
 (Hit any authority from his brothers, agreed to 
 sell to the ])Iaintiff, and for a portion of the 
 purchase money, signed a receipt " Fowlds 
 Brothers," the name in which .J. S. F. and one 
 of his brothers carried on business. A water- 
 QDurse ran through the lot which J. S. F. swore 
 he expressly stipulated should remain open, this, 
 however, was denied by the plaintiff and the 
 receipt was silent in respect to it. The owners 
 refused to execute any conveyance wliich did not 
 reserve the use of the water, the brotiiera of J. 
 S. F. swearing that they never woulil have sanc- 
 tioned any sale that did not make such reserva- 
 tion, and that they had oidy approved of the sale 
 effected by J. 8. F. on his statement that it had 
 been so reserved. In an action for specific per- 
 formance as claimed by tlie purchaser, Proud- 
 foot, J., at the tri d, rejected the evidence of 
 the brothers as to the nature of the bargain re- 
 ported to them by J. S. F., (and which tlieyhad 
 ratified), and gave judgment in fav(mr of the 
 plaintiff :— Held, reversing the ju<lginent at the 
 trial, that the evidence was improperly rejected, 
 and there being no authority to ,1. S. F. either 
 antecedent or sul)se(juciit to bind his co-owners, 
 the plaintiirs case failed and the .iction was ilis- 
 niissed, with costs. At or about the time of the 
 negotiations with the plaintiff it w.is alleged that 
 other persons had been endeavouring to pur- 
 chase the lot but failed on the ground that the 
 owners insisted on the reservation of a right to 
 use the water :—Quiere, per Hagarty, C. .J. O., 
 whether the evidence on this point was so col- 
 lateral in its nature .t.s to justify its rejection 
 by tlie judge at the trial. Travey v. Fuirlda, 
 13 A. R. 11.5. 
 
 A receipt, qua receipt, is not a contract, but a 
 mere acknowlndgnient, and is open to exjdana- 
 tion and (.•ontrailictiou by parol. S. sold all 
 the elm and soft inajilo trees im a certain lot to 
 T., and at the time of sale gave T. the following 
 receipt: "Received from .1. L. for T. , the sum 
 of .$500, onaccountof elm .and soft maple," etc., 
 on the said lot, describing it. Parol evidence 
 was admitted to shew, and the jury found, that 
 "one of the coixlitions of the sale was that the 
 timber was to be removeil by T. within two 
 years :" — Held, that the receipt was not the 
 contract between the parties, but a mere ac- 
 knowledgment of so much money ; and there- 
 fore the parol evidence was properly admitted. 
 Held, also that the effect of the condition was 
 that T. was only to have the right to cut .and 
 remove the timber within the two years from 
 the date of the aiirecment. .lohnston v. Short- 
 reed, 12 O. R. 033. followed. Steinhnf \. Mc- 
 Rae, 13 O. R. 546.— C. P. I). 
 
 In an action for not delivering promissory 
 notes for the ])rice of a harvesting machine as 
 stipulated for in a writing signed by the de- 
 fendant, who swore at the trial that he never 
 agreed to give such notes and tliat by the agree- 
 ment verbally entc.ed into by him with iHaiu- 
 tiff's agent no ^iioh stipulation was made and 
 that when the writing was read over by the 
 agent no mention was made of such notes ; and 
 defendant sought to call witnesses present at 
 the bargain to prove these facts, but the judge 
 refu.sed to permit such evidence to be given as 
 fraud was not set up as a defence ; und also re- 
 
656 
 
 657 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 658 
 
 fused to allow an ameinlnient setting up such 
 defence by rcascm of which judgment was en- 
 tered ajjainst defendant, whicli the judge reluacd 
 to set aside. On appeal, this court, whilst ex- 
 i)re»3ing no opinion as to tlie effect the eviileiice, 
 if given, ought to have with the jury, were of 
 opinion it ought to have l)eeu submitted to them, 
 and if necessary for that purpose that an 
 amendment should have been peimitted at the 
 trial. The appeal was, therefore, allowed with 
 costs, and a new trial ordered without costs. 
 McPhersoii v. Wilnon, IT) A. H. 294. 
 
 I., the maker, and F., tlie indorser, of a 
 prnmissory note were sued upon it, and F. de- 
 nied his indorsement. At the trial an indenture 
 of the conveyance of land from I. to F. was ])ut 
 in without objection, and I. testified that it was 
 given to secure F. against his indorsement of 
 certain notes of which the one sued on was a 
 renewal. There was nothing in the indenture 
 to shew that it was given for anytliiiig l)ut tlie 
 expressed consideration of S^.^OO, and it was not 
 pretended that such consideration was ])aid : — 
 Held, that it was competent for F. to shew whit 
 tlie indenture was given for, that it was not 
 given to secure him against such indorseiiK'nt ; 
 and therefore evidence of the existence (>f an 
 indebtedness from I. to F. upon an open ac- 
 fount was receivable t(» sapi)r)rt the iiroof tliat 
 it w;v8 given to secure such indebtedness. Hunk 
 of Iftiiiiilton V. hcutcs, 10 (J. R. 450. —(i. IJ. I). 
 
 The ))laiiitiff at the ti'ial sought to give evi- 
 dence of certain transactions between the agcIl^, 
 of tlic defendants and a brother of the plaintitt', 
 for the purpose of shewing that the plaintitr 
 having become aware of them liefore the appli- 
 cation made by him was justified in believing 
 that the defendants did not regard the con lition 
 ill the policy as to oi;ciipation as a iii;itciial 
 line : — Held, tint this evidence wis properly re- 
 jected. I'p.rk V. A</ri'tt/tiiraf Ins. Co., 19 0. It. 
 404.— Q. B. D. 
 
 ,See Ailanunn v. Ytaqer, 10 A. R. 477 ; Foiier 
 V. lliixxet/, 12 0. l\. Uk 
 
 (f ) Tfrini and Iiifidentn. 
 
 \y arrant !/.] The iibiintiff sued the dcfembint, 
 a pi luo maker, for a lireach of a M'arranty given 
 by his salesman on tlie sale of a iiiino, tint the 
 instrument was then sound and in good order. 
 The plaintiir signed the ordinary receipt note, 
 which is set out in the report, providing for pay- 
 ment of the jiricc, ami that until paid the pro- 
 perty should remain in defendant, in which there 
 W.18 no mention of the warranty :— Held, that 
 parol evidence of the warranty was admissible, as 
 it was apparent that the receipt note was not in- 
 tended to be the evidence of tlie whole contract. 
 'Jua-re, whether this (juestiou should not have 
 been left to the jury. McMhIUh v. WillianiH, 5 
 A. R. 518. 
 
 A mortgage on a vessel was executed to secure 
 the purchase money and registered with the cus- 
 toms, and annexed to it w.as .an instrument of 
 the same date under seal executed by the de- 
 fendants reciting the mortgage, and that the 
 terms of payment were set forth therein for con- 
 venience of registry, and " this indenture is ex- 
 ecuted for the jiurpose of evidencing the true 
 agreement between the parties which is herein- 
 42 
 
 I after stated." The terms of payment were then 
 , stated, diHering from those in the registered 
 ^ mortgage ; and defendants covenanted t<> insuro 
 
 the vessel for .ij<l,400 and assign the policy to 
 ' plaintiff. The alleged warranty was verbal and 
 ! was not made out at the time of executing the 
 I writings, but defendants swore that they would 
 
 not have bought without the warranty, and 
 j would not otherwise have given over one-third 
 
 of the price for a vessel which could not bo in- 
 I sured ;— Held, tliat evidence of the verbal war- 
 
 ranty was admissible ; that it did not vary or 
 I alter the writings ; and tli:it the declaration that 
 I the iiistriiiiicnt was made to evidence the tniu 
 I agreement referred nieridv to the terms of pay- 
 ment. La /{orhe V. (///Hi/an, 1 O. R. 30O.— 
 
 (.1 15. 1). 
 
 On motion to a Divisional Court to enter judg- 
 ment fur defendant on the ground that the con- 
 tract was in writing, and therefore jiirol evi- 
 dence of warranty was iiiadmi-ssiblc. The Com- 
 mon I'loas Division refused a rule ; and the de- 
 fendant apiicale 1 as to the iirincipal (jucstion, 
 viz. : tile adinissil)ility of p irol evidence : —Held, 
 by Hagarty, C. .1. O., and Hose, .1., that parol 
 evidence was pro])crly a liiiitted -tint (as held in 
 Vicmiet r. Tregerit, 24 C. P. ."ill-'t, aiiproved of in 
 McMuUeii i: Williams, o A. R. 518). it wis a 
 (liiestion of fact for the jury whctlier the written 
 Older cinbo lieil the whole contract, anil there- 
 fore, tlu'ir till ling on this point was conclusive: — 
 Held, liy liurton, .1. A., and Cameron, C. J., <^ 
 P., that pirol cvidenca of a warranty was iinpro- 
 pcrly admitted. Per Burton, J. .\. (1) When a 
 proposal is made in writing by one party and ac- 
 ce[)tcd ad idem liy the otiier, either verbally or 
 by acting upon it, the contract is a written one. 
 (2) If tlic writing embodies the contract, the 
 judge is Ixmnd to ex'iludc all evidence to slieMT 
 that the real intontion of the jiarties was differ- 
 , ent from that which apinsars in the writing. (.3) 
 , .\ warranty, thouuh a collateral undertaking, is 
 part of the contract of sale, and, if the contnujt 
 is in writing, antecedent rciirescntations, not 
 embodied in tlic written contract, are not war- 
 I rauties, and cannot bss proved unless it is shewn 
 i that they were fr.iudtilently ma le and the con- 
 ^ tract was so induced. (4) If the contract is 
 not reduced to writing, or if, though there is a 
 written docmnent, the evidence leads the court 
 \ to infer that the writing does not contain the 
 whole agreement, it is for tlie jury to say 
 wlietlior antecedent re|>resentations did or did 
 not amount to warranties. In this case there 
 ' was no almissible evidence of a warranty, and 
 the judgment should be for the defendmt. 
 E/lis v. Ah"/!, 10 A. R. 226. 
 
 1 Other Case-H. ] The respondent sued the appel- 
 ! lants for breach of contract to carry petroleum 
 j in covered cars from L. to H., alleging that they 
 negligently carried the same upon open platfonn 
 cars whereby the barrels in which the oil was 
 were exposed to the sun and weather and were 
 destroyed. At the trial a verbal contract between 
 I plaintiffs and defendants' alleged agent at L. WfW 
 I jiroveil that the defendants would carry the oil in 
 j covered cars with despatch. The oil was forward- 
 ed in open cars and delayed in different places 
 and in consequence a large (juantity was lost. On 
 the shipment of the oil a receipt note was given 
 which said nothing about covered cars and which 
 i stated that the goods were subject to coaditiona 
 
 <5 
 
 1 • 
 
EVIDENCE. 
 
 660 
 
 t: 
 
 : 
 
 ciidorsoti tliLTCoii, OIK) of wliicli was tlmt the «le- 
 fuiidiint!) would not lio liable for leakage or de- 
 liiys mid that the oil was carried at the owner's 
 risk, f'er Strong, Foiirnier, Henry, and (iwynne, 
 .IJ. The evidence was adinissihle to prove a ver- 
 l>al contract to carry in covered cars which con- 
 tract the agent at L. was anthori/.cd to enter 
 into and which iiiu.st he incorporated with the 
 writing ao as to make tiie whole coutrict one for 
 carriage in the (Mtvered cai's and that non-com- 
 pliance with tii(^ j)rovi.sions an to carriage in 
 covered cars prevented the appellants setting 
 np the condition that "oil was carried at the 
 owner's risk," as exempting them from liability. 
 (Irniid Trunk- 11. W. Co. o/' Canada v. l<"il:ijir<ild, 
 r. S. C. R. 204. 
 
 Held, in this case tlmt the policy was a general 
 insurance ot the ])ropcrty itself and not merely of 
 the niortgjigee's interest, and tliat parol evidence 
 was not admissiiile to |)rove that the lo;\n com- 
 pany and insurers hnd in ailecting an insurance 
 on mortgaged property, only the interest of th«! 
 mortgagees iniderconsidi'rat ion. J/uir.'.i v. Dimi- 
 inioii Fin- and, Marine Inx. Co., 2 (). K. Sit. — 
 IVoudfoot. But see .V. (/. 8 A. 1!. (!44. 
 
 Where certain shareholders of the (il. L. Com- 
 pany sought to restrain a call on stock on the 
 ground that it was being made in contravention 
 of the terms of a certain unwritten agreement, 
 alleged to have been entered into beUveen all 
 the promoters when the company was formed ; — 
 Held, that evidence of such af;reement was inad- 
 missible, since it was contradictory of the written 
 agreement entered into by the plaintiffs when 
 subscribing for their shares, viz., to take stock 
 and pay the calls when duly made. Clirixtopher 
 V. Noxon, 4 O. R. 672.-Proudfoot. 
 
 The pl.iintiffs in the beginning of January, 
 1880, had ))urchascd through V. k G. of Alon- 
 treal, a quantity of rails, and rcijuiring 2,000 tons 
 more, negotiations were entered into between H. , 
 the plaintiff's agent, C. &<!., and the defendant, 
 which resulted in a note being signed on the 14th 
 January, by V. & (!. addresse<l to the defendant, 
 advising him that they had sold to the plaintifl'son 
 the defendant's account 2,000 tons of rails (fit) lbs. 
 to the yard I at i'H. ISs. fld.stg. perton, paymentto 
 be made in London against documents, and credit 
 to be there opened with approved bankers in 
 favour of defendant's agent. The defendant who 
 was then in Montreal, si^'ued a sale note in simi- 
 lar terms to the above. The sale was immediately 
 communicated to the pl,'\intifVs, who signed a 
 confinnatory note, adding the words that the 
 make should be either Ebbwvale or Moss l^ay, 
 and wrote across the face that the rails were to 
 be .W 11)8. "ordinarj' section and specification." 
 This confirmatorj' note was not communiciited 
 to the defendant until after action brought. The 
 credit was opened by the plaintiffs in accordance 
 with the contract. The plaintiffs and defendant 
 were dealers in, and not nmnufiicturers of mils. 
 The defendant, at the time the contract was 
 entered into, had purchased rails from a firm in 
 England, who were also dealers and not nianu- 
 faeturers, and who had arranged with the manu- 
 facturers at Ebbwvale, for the manufacture of 
 rails of a section known as "Hamilton and North 
 ■Western," and which came within the terms, 
 "ordinary section," by which a number of dif- 
 ferent kinds of sections wci-e embraced ; and 
 these were the rails which the defendant inten- 
 
 ded delivering to the plaintiffs. The |ilaintitr» 
 required a section callcl "Siindberg," which also 
 came within the term "ordinary section," ami 
 when they discovered the defemlunt's rails wein 
 Hamilton and North- Western, they endeavoured 
 to get defendant to change the section, wliiiii 
 the defendant was unable to do. The plaint ills 
 allowed the rails to be shipjied to them iiiid 
 paid for under the credit, and it was not till 
 afterwards that they notified the defendant of 
 their refusal to accept, contending that under 
 the contract they had a right to name the sec- 
 tion:— Held, that even if the confirmatory note 
 were embraced in the contract, it did not give 
 the plaintiffs the right of selection ; that parol 
 evidence was not ailmissible to add such a term 
 to the contract; and that the evidence failed to 
 establish any usage giving such right, especially 
 as the ])arties were dealers and not nmnufiic- 
 turers, ami in view of the plaintiff's conduct in 
 the matter, and that the contract was therefore 
 performed by the section delivered, Paijv v. 
 I'roitor, 5 O. K. 238.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that evidence of a parol agreement to 
 extend for two years the time for the payment 
 of a note payable on <1enmiid, was not admis- 
 sible. T'erCJalt, J. — Kven if th(! evidence was 
 admisKil)le, by the terms of the agreement, in 
 I this case, the time was to be suspended ordy on 
 perform.ince of ci'i tain conditions, which tlu; 
 I tiefendant had failed to do, and therefore the 
 ,])laintitl" was entitled to enforce immediate 
 I |);iymeiit, Porliom v, ^fu'lr, H O. R, 127. - 
 C. P. I). 
 
 Defendant got from the jdaintiff six different 
 sums of money, amounting together to !5!3,0()0 
 for whidi he gave receiyits. Three of these sta- 
 ted that defendant received so much money from 
 plaintiff', " loan on oil, usual rate of interest.'' 
 The remaining three were similar to the others, 
 but eonclnileil " payable within one year from 
 ilate, with interest at nine ))er iient. perannuni." 
 Defcinlant .«et up a |iarol iigrecmcnt with plain- 
 tiff', by which defendant had the right at any 
 time to re(|uire plaintiff to take in pnyment of 
 the moneys so lent the oil which defendant had 
 in jilaintiff's tanks at the market price at the 
 time when defendant so reciuired plaintiff' to take 
 the oil ;— Held, that sucli a parol agreement 
 coulil not be set np to alter the terms of the re- 
 ceijits which shewed such loans were to be re- 
 paid in money ; and although the jury found 
 the parol agreement to have been made, the 
 court having all the facts before them, set aside 
 , the verilict and judgment for the defendant and 
 1 directed judgment to be entered for the amount 
 of the ]>laintiff 's claim. Lanay v. Brahe, 10 0. 
 ' R. 428.- Q. 15. 1). 
 
 The plaintiff's agent at Oravenhurst shipped 
 two car loads of shingles on defendant's cars. 
 I The shipping bill was in the usunl form, and re- 
 I (|uestcddefeiidants to receive the undermentioned 
 i property, etc. , addressed toN. Dyment (the plain- 
 tiff), Wyoming, to be sent subject to tlieir tariff, 
 etc. Then, in the appropriate columns, followed 
 I the description of a car load of shingles, giving 
 the number of the car, etc. Then under this 
 Mere the words, "To Henry James, Mitchell," 
 and then another car load of shingles was des- 
 I cribcd. Parol evidence was admittedat the trial 
 1 to shew that the meaning of the shipping bill 
 I was that the first named car load was to go to 
 
I;*- ' 
 
 660 
 
 661 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 the plaintiff at Wyominj^, and the other to Hoiiry 
 James, at Mitchell, and that the agent so tohl 
 the defendants' station agent wlien shipping the 
 goods : — Held, that thn evidence was properly 
 ailniittcd. Dymentv. Xorthorii and Xnrfh- iVesl- 
 em R. yV. Co., 11 O. R. 343.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The defendants in writing offered the ])laintiffs 
 to "furnish scows and deliver all the stone re- 
 (piired for the Onieniee briilge as ii\»t as you 
 require them, for the sum of seventy-tive cents 
 per cubic yard," which the plaintiffs in writing 
 acceiit'd "at the price and conditions named ":-- 
 Helil, revoi'sing the judgment of the O. P. D., 
 !t 0. R. 728, that parol evidence could not he 
 received to shew that the delivery was only to 
 take place in case the water, along the lake an<l 
 river route over which the stone iiad to lie car- 
 ried, was of such a height as would enable the 
 defendants to use their steamers in towinj; the 
 Hcows. McNedey v. Mv IVltliamn, 13 A. K. 
 :fU. 
 
 A by-law to establish a I'oad must, on its face, 
 siiew the boundaries of the I'oad or refer to some 
 document wherein they are detined ; and tlie 
 intention of the framcrs of the by-law cannot 
 be ascertained by extrinsic evidence. Tomixhlp 
 of St. Vincent v. (.'reeiiJiM, 12 0. R. SilT.-C. 
 P. D. 
 
 By an agreement in writing R. contracted to 
 cut for A, a (ju-intity of wood and haul and 
 deliver the same at a time and to a place men- 
 tioned, B. to pay for the same on delivery. The 
 agreement nii'de no provision for securing to A. 
 the payment of his lal)oui , but when it wasdrawn 
 up there was a verbal agreement between tlie I 
 parties that in default of payment by B. the j 
 wood coiild be held by A. as security and be 
 sold for the amount of his claim : — Held, revcr- ' 
 sing the judgment of the court Ixdow, Henry J. 
 dissenting, that evidence of this verbal agree- 
 ment was admissible on tiie trial of an action of 
 replevin for the wood by an assignee of A., anil 
 that its effect was to give B. a lien on I lie wood 
 for the amount due him. Hi/o-t v. MrMUtau, 
 15 S. C. R. li)i. 
 
 Although where land is sold subject to an out- 
 standiiii,' mortgage, there arises a presumption or 
 8iii)posed intention in e(iuity on the part of the 
 purchaser, to indemnify the vendor against the 
 mortgau'c (tiiat is, if under the actual circuni- 
 stauc IS, the parties are to be considered to have 
 really occupied the relation of vendor and pur- 
 ciiaser). yet this presumption may be rebutted 
 by parol evidence ; and it was held to have been 
 so rebutted in this case, in which it appeared to 
 be contrary to the real intention of tlie parties 
 to the traiisaction in (juestion, who, moreover, 
 were not strictly in the relation of vendor and 
 purchaser. Parol evidence, however, could not 
 have been given in support of or to strengthen 
 the presumption or eipiity in the first place, 
 though such evidence co\ild be given in answer 
 to the evidence advanced to rebut such pre- 
 sumption or equity. Gorhy v. Gray, 15 O. K, 1. 
 — Ferguson. 
 
 At the trial evidence was admitted on behalf 
 of the plaintiffs of representations made by di- 
 rectors of the defendant company, at meetings 
 held to consider the question of granting the 
 second bonus, to the effect that by the second 
 agreement the defendants would be bound to 
 
 nuiintain the stations for all time : — Held, that 
 this evidence was clearly inadmissible. Town- 
 uliip of Nnttrnnmniia v. Ifanilllon and N^orth- 
 W'l'Hlmi R. ir. Co.', 10 A. R. W2. 
 
 Parol evidence of trust. See Bank of Montreal 
 v. Stewart, 14 O. R. 4,S'2. 
 
 Hoo Count 1/ of Yuri: v. Toronto (Irnrel Road 
 awl Conn-e'le Co., 3 O. It. 584; Uttinhoff v. 
 MiRae, 13 O. R. 54(i, p. (iofi. 
 
 (h) M intake. 
 
 Held, that the rule that the court will not in- 
 terfere to rectify an instrument on parol evi- 
 dence, on the ground of nuitual mistake, when 
 the defendant denies that there was such mutual 
 mistake, only applies where the defendant so 
 denying was a party to the instrument in (jues- 
 tion. Ferijumn v. Wiu'^or, 10 O. II. 13. — 
 O'Connor. See .S'. C. in appeal, 1 1 O. R. 88. 
 
 See .Etna Life fnx. Co. v. Rrn<i;e, 5 S. C. R. 
 I; Re .'^tnn/in -IVelifini/ y. Van Krery, 17 O. H. 
 34'.>. 
 
 XV. Pkoof ok Handwuitinc. 
 
 A chccpu'of the pbiiutiff.s, when produced at 
 the lieariiiti. had written on it, " in full of all 
 his (the defendiuitV) claims for notes or other- 
 wise,' and which word.s the plaintiff swore were 
 on tlic el; 'ijue when .sent to the defendant, which 
 he denied, However. Foui' orosses were on the 
 face of tlif checpie, and some initial letters in the 
 margin, and (licsu the plaintitr stated were the 
 initials of a clerk in the bank, whom he had re- 
 Huested t(i initial the words so introduced : The 
 court (Sprngg.!, ('. ) refused to receive this as 
 evidenc'c of a receii)t in full, in the absence of 
 the bank clerk, who should have been called as 
 a witness. lArinfjtton w Wood, "27 Chy. 515. 
 
 That a document not in existence was written 
 by a particular individual may be proved by a 
 person who had had possession of and destroyed 
 it, though he only ac(piired knowledge of the 
 handwriting of the alleged writer some weeks 
 after the document was destroyed and could 
 only .say that from liis recollection of the docu- 
 ment it was written by the same person. 
 (< Wynne, .1., dissenting. In an action for a 
 written lilicl the defendant was asked, on cross- 
 examination, if he had not changed his signature 
 since the action began, which he denied : — Held, 
 (iwynne and Patterson, JJ., dissenting, that 
 documentary evidence was admissible to shew- 
 that the signature had been changed. Per Pat- 
 terson, J. -The witness could properly be asked, 
 on cross-examination, if he had not changed his 
 signature, but the opposing party must be satis- 
 lied with his answer, and could not go further 
 and give attirmativc evidence of the fact. Alex- 
 ander V. Vije, 1(5 S. V. It. 301. 
 
 XVI. PuooK nv SuBSCRiniNO Witness. 
 
 In an .action on a bail bond the defence was 
 that it had been altered after execution, and 
 that it was not in the form required by the 
 statute : —Held, affirming the judgment of the 
 
€63 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 664 
 
 <^ai' 
 
 
 »!• 
 
 Sunrtiiie Court of Nova Hootia tlmt the <le- 1 The production of a royistered iiu'iuorial txe- 
 fumliuit having ixfiisid to cull the iitte»tiiiu wit- ciitu.l l.y tliii gianteu, whett! possi-Bsioii is not 
 iicHH to the bond, who was tiieir coiinscl iii the shewn to follow the deed, is not Hiiliici.nt tvi 
 
 case, the difunoe a» to the alteration, alleged to 
 be in the attcHtation clause, could not succeed 
 Wood worth v. Uidii. 14 .S. C. li. 7.'M. 
 
 H 
 
 St'e MnrshuU v, Muiiu-ipiiliiij of SheUnmie 
 (". R. 7.S7, i». «7r). 
 
 14 
 
 XVII. I'liooK nv Skcoxdakv Evidknck. 
 I. Wlu'ti Duciiiiiriiti miiiit he Prudiicfd, 
 
 Undevthe ciicunistunees shown in the evidence 
 act out in tlie report :- Held, O'Connor, J., dis- 
 Heiitini;, that secondary evidence of the contents 
 of th<' niinute hook of theconiimny, shewing the 
 making of certain calls, was ini|iro])erly rejected. 
 /,Vxx V. Mwhar, SO. H. 417-— Q. U. 1>. 
 
 IVr l-'ournier and Henry, JJ. That as there 
 was eviilence that a certificate or report had 
 lieen given l»y the engineer in this case oral evi 
 
 dencc in ]>idof of the deed. I'lvidenue in proof 
 of a paper title in the defendant commented on. 
 MulhoHuudv. JJanmiii.aO. B. r.46.— C. P. D. 
 
 A registered memorial twenty years old of a 
 will executed by a devisee when possession of 
 the laiul has been consistent with the registerwl 
 title, is good evidence of the devise therein con- 
 tained, (iough I'. McHrido, 10 C. V. Itifi, 
 specially refei'red to. McDonald v. McDomjnU, 
 l(i(>. R.401. Rose. 
 
 In an application under the Vendors and Pur- 
 chasers' Act, R. S. 0. (18S7) c. 112, it anpearcd 
 that a registered memorial of a deed poll or in- 
 dorsement executetl by tiie party asHigning nuule 
 (m the i)ack of a mortgage (describing it) Tiahen- 
 dum "to have and to hold the said inortgnged 
 premises unto (assignee) his heirs and assigns, 
 etc., * * suliject to the provisos .-ind con- 
 ditions in sai<l mortgage, which said deed poll 
 
 deuce (>f the contents of the certilicate or report ; or indorsement by way of ap~-ignment, is wit 
 
 v. QticU 
 .See Mrlhntald v. Miivmij, S O. R. 5.")9, p. (iflfi 
 
 was inailniissible 
 Ci-utnit 11. ir. Co, 
 
 Cllii ill Qui III 
 10 S.' C. R. 5G3, 
 
 evidence of the 
 lie Mam, l(i 
 
 •J. Proof nf Dcidn and WUIm hy Memorin/n. 
 
 A memorial regi.stered over sixty years, but 
 executed by the grantee only :— Held, not sntli- 
 cieut secondary evidence of the deed to which it 
 purjiorted to relate, notwithstanding that con- 
 veyances had been made at early dates by per- 
 sons claiming under the registered title, but wiio 
 had not Iiad actual possession of the land. Van- 
 r.Uor V. ITiijIiion, » A. R. 3!K) ; 45 Q. B. 252. 
 
 The laud in (jucstion was one out of sever.al lots 
 mentioned in the memorial, which had been 
 patented by the Crown to the grantor named in 
 ti'.e memorial, and two others, as tenants in com- 
 mon. The memorial set out a grant of an undi- 
 vided moiety of each lot deacril)ed in it. Pro- 
 ceedings in partition ha<l been taken in 18.34 by 
 the gjantee against another tenant in common, 
 in wliich the lot in ([uestion had been assigned 
 in severalty to the grantee : — Held, that tliese 
 proceedings diil not, oven in connection with the 
 conveyances above mentioned, avail to make the 
 memorial admissible as evidence of the deed : — 
 Held, also, tiiat it would not be made .idmis- 
 eible by the fact that possession of some of the 
 lands had gone in accordance with it, so long as 
 there had l)een no sucli possession of the lands 
 now in (piestion ; and that it was not aided in 
 this respect by the Vendors and Purchasers' Act, 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 109. But Held that the plain- 
 tiffs, who claimed only an undivided moiety of 
 the lot under the grantee named in the memorial, 
 while they could not recover in res|)ect of the 
 title of the grantor in that memorial, could 
 nevertheless make title, by virtue of the judg- 
 ment in partition, to the undivided interest of 
 the patentee against whom the partition was 
 had ; that judgment being evidence against the 
 lost mentioned patentee of title to the whole lot. 
 One of three patentees was not accounted for by 
 the evidence, and it was not shewn that her title 
 hod devolved upon the others. The plaintiQ's 
 were therefore held entitled to recover only for 
 one undivided third part of the laud. lb. 
 
 nessed," etc., was otfered as 
 assignment:— Held, sutKcient. 
 O. I{. Hid.— Ferguson. 
 
 A contract of sale of land provided that the 
 vendors slioiild not be bound to pioduce any 
 deeds or evidence of title except such as they 
 might have in their possession, but should shew 
 a good title, etc. It appeared that A. P. by an 
 indenture of .lanuary Kith, IS.'iS, conveyed the 
 lands in (|uestion to trustees on certain trusts, 
 which deed was registered by memorial not 
 containing the trusts. By deed of a])pointment 
 dated July 4th, 1862, made in pursuance of 
 the (leed of 18.58, also registered by memorial 
 which purported to contain a full copy of 
 the deed in which were recitals which set out 
 what puri)orted to bo the trusts of the former 
 deed and shewed a life estate in A. P., with a 
 power of appointment in him, A. P. duly ap- 
 pointed to trustees who were represented by the 
 vendors, with directions to sell after his death, 
 which had recently occurred ; neither of these 
 ileeds was in the possession or power of the ven- 
 dors, the trustees. On an application under the 
 Vendors ivnd Purchasers' Act:— Held, that the 
 vendors were not bound to produce these two 
 deeds, and that the production of the memorial 
 of the deed of appointment twenty years old, 
 reciting the trusts of the trust deed, was suffi- 
 cient evidence of what those trusts were ; and as 
 there was an absolute trust for sale the purchas- 
 er should take the title. A. P. in 187.3 assumeil 
 to mortgage the lands in fee, and died in 1887. 
 He Ponton ami Swaiixton, 16 0. R. 669.— Boyd. 
 
 3. Lo-it IJocumeiits, 
 
 Where a sale of lands for taxes had taken 
 place, and a suit was subsequently instituted by 
 the purchaser to set aside a conveyance to the 
 defendant executed after the registration of his 
 own deed and the defendant impeached the deed 
 executed in pursuance of such sale, it was shewn 
 that a warrant had l>een at one time in the court- 
 house, a portion of which was destroyed by fire, 
 and that on that occasion the warrant had been 
 prolmbly consumed:— Held, sufficient evidence 
 to authorize the court in admitting secondary 
 
665 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 66ft 
 
 duly ap- 
 
 evidence of its coiitentfi; which, on being tnkt^i 
 I'gtaliliRhed Biitihfiictoi'ily the existence and con- 
 tents of such warrant : and, on rehearing, an 
 objection being ruisei! whicii had not been taiicn 
 at the original hearing, tiiut tiui tonnship or 
 county clerk should have been called to produce 
 or negative the existence of a duplicate of such 
 warrant: — Held, that if such proof were neces- 
 hury, attidavit evidence to shew wliat was the 
 fact shoiiid be received. Fin/ifon v. Ficeiiian, 
 '27Chy. 'ill.— Ohy. D. 
 
 A copy of an order and of a writ of execution 
 issued pursuant tiiereto admitted in cviiicncc, an 
 ntiicial in the ottice whi-re tiic same hud been 
 tiled testifying that ho had made tiiu copies troui 
 the originals, which were proved to have been 
 lost. Wnidioin'. V. Caiutdiun Padji'c li. M'. Co., 
 7 0. R. 3'2I.— Ferguson. 
 
 On a reference, U. sought to use a certain bill 
 of costs as a voucher of moneys properly ex- 
 puiulcd by him in legal proceedings, and it was 
 aLuwn that the said bill had been properly 
 brought into the nuister's olhce on u former re- 
 ftsrence and properly left there, and that search 
 hud been niaile for it, but without success, al- 
 though there was no evidence that it had been 
 reniovcil, or that it had been noticed or setn 
 ulseuhcro afterwards, nor of any occasion whuu 
 it would probably havu been removed fmm the 
 olhce:— Held, that the master should have ad- 
 mitted secondary evidence of its eontents ; and 
 proceedings should have been taken iu respict 
 to it as nearly as might be the same as if H. had 
 been able to produce it. Biatly v. JIulduii, 10 
 0. K. 278.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where a party endeavours to prove by oral 
 testimony the contents of a written document, 
 the court betore giving eHcct to such testimony, 
 should be convinced that ail the terms have been 
 proven. It is not sutlicieut for the party under- 
 taking such a duty to lurnish evidence of certain 
 clauses which support his claim, but he must set 
 out the whole document so that the court may 
 he able to give effect to all its provisions, and 
 that by testimony of the clearest nature. The 
 document need not be set forth in evidence in 
 its very words, but its exact sense and eli'ect 
 must bo shewn. Jiosn v. WiKUimHun, 14 O. K. 
 184.— Kose. 
 
 (4) Other (.'(tufs. 
 
 Held, that a notarial copy of uu assignment in 
 insolvency may be received as evidence of such 
 assignment under C. >S. C. c. SO, s. '2. PrMcott 
 Election (Out.) — AlcKeiizie v. HamUtvn, 1 U. 
 E. C. 1. 
 
 In an action for calls on stock where shares 
 held by a defendant as executrix and in her own 
 right were transferred under powers of attorney 
 winch were not pro<luced : — Held, that theie 
 was sufhcient evidence to shew the existence of 
 such poweis, and to let in secondaiy evidence 
 thereof, the defendant and the testator having 
 fully admitted their liability as owners of the 
 shaies. I'roviiicial Inn. Co. v. Cameron, 31 C 
 P. 523.— C. P. D. 
 
 In an action on an agreement for the sale of 
 land in Winnip<'g, Manitoba, the agreement, 
 which was regisiered by defendants, was pro- 
 
 ducoil by the Registrar of Winnipeg, in whose 
 otticial custody it was, on his exanuiuition un- 
 der a commission. The registrar refused to 
 part with it, but left a copy ccrtilied under his 
 hand and official seal to be u true copy, which 
 was attached to the commi.ssion, and produced 
 at the trial. One M., who was exannned under 
 the conwnission, and uIho at the trial, proved 
 that the agreement prod need by the registrar 
 w«s the original, and that it was signed by the 
 defendants, and the copy attached to the com- 
 mission was a true copy :— Held, that the regis- 
 trar's certitieate as to the copy was sulHcicnt 
 under O. .J. Act, Rule 203, (Con. Rule tJ46), 
 aiul that a certificate by the commissioner wan 
 not re(|uired ; that the absence of the original 
 was sufficiently accounted for to euable second- 
 ary evidence to be received by means of tho 
 copy. McDonald v. Mnvray, 5 O. R. 550. — 
 C. I'. I). 
 
 At a former trial a copy of an agreement be- 
 tween tho parties was admitted in place of tho 
 original : — Held, that the admission so nia<le waa 
 good for the subsccjuent trial. Ih. 
 
 See AleMudcr v. Vye, 16 S. C. R. 501, p. 662. 
 
 XVIIl. I'ROOK AFTKU NoTICK TO PnOTifCE. 
 
 See Ockky v. J/'mtoh, A. R. 108, p. 013. 
 
 XIX. Proof dy E.stkiks. 
 
 1. As AijaiuM SuntiiH. 
 
 A loan and savings society appointeil (i. their 
 treasurer ; and the plaintitl's and defenilant by 
 two separate bonds became sureties for the due 
 discliaige of the duties of such officer. («. made 
 default in his oflice, and a suit was ihslituted by 
 the society against all the sureties, which was 
 compromiscil by the jilaintifl's paying about one- 
 half of the sum elaimed by tlie society : Held, 
 that in such a case the entiies of (!. in the books 
 of tlie society were not evidence against the sure- 
 ties during the lifetime of U. Murriiy v. (JihxuH, 
 j-.'SChy. l-'.--!Spragge. 
 
 The cases deciding that entries in the books of 
 an orticer are evidence in his lifetime against 
 sureties (luestioiieil. .See Victoria Mutual Fire 
 lii^. Co. V. Daridnon, 3 O. li. 378. 
 
 In an action against sureties for a town col- 
 lector for his default in paying over tlie sum col- 
 lected by him : — Held, that entries made by the 
 collector on his roll, in the discharge of the duties 
 of his ofhce, of taxes paid to him were evidence 
 against the sureties. Town of WMand v. Brown, 
 4 O. R. 217.— C. P. D. 
 
 2. Other Ca.ie.s, 
 
 Two partners in business (T. & R. O'Neill) 
 executed two mortgages in favour of J. W. W. 
 assigned the mortgages to H., by way of deriva- 
 tive mortgage, on the 21st March, 1877. In 
 •January, 1877, the O'Neills became insolvent,, 
 and the plaintiff, their assignee, tiled a bill to 
 redeem these mortgages. After decree W. be- 
 came insolvent, and the suit was revived in 
 the name of P. & P., his assignees in his stead. 
 On the reference, U. claimed so much of the 
 
 «5 
 
 5| 
 
667 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 «::rr 
 
 
 iiiiioiint line oil till' (ii'i;{iiiiil inort^agcH iih woiilit 
 satidfy liin ill riviitjvc iiiorlgaj,'!', mill I'. I'liiiiiicil 
 tliii I'cinaiiiili'r. A^MJimt tiirir I'laiiiiH tint |>l iiii- 
 till liloil two Niiiiiiar NiiicliiiigiH, oiu' iigiiiiiMl 
 II., mill till.! (itliur aguiiiMt I', it I'. In miiji- 
 piirt of IiIh Hui'cli.'irgfH tlic |iliiiiitill' ollrii'il in 
 t'vlileiicu : I. tliu liiKikH of tlio linn of '!'. it i!. 
 O'Neill; -2. till) Imoki* of \V, : ■ lloM, that the 
 lio'ikH of 'I', it II. O'Neill, eoiilil not lio iinuiI 
 iij<ailiHl either W'.'n annii,'neea or li. 'J'liat the 
 eiiliieH in the IiooUh of W. were cvideiico an 
 ailiiiiH.sioiiH agaiiiHt IiIh aHnigiieeH, iiiiil a8 to 
 tiMiifiaetiiilia liefore the'iUt Maieli, 1877, agailiNl 
 M., to Hliew the Htate of the aeeoiiiit at the ilate 
 of the a8.'<igiiiiieiit. Coiirly, Uultuml h'.iiiiiili 
 J/i,ll(iiid anil Wahli, 8 1'. K. ■Jl!>. 'I'a.vli.r, 
 MuHli-.r. 
 
 After the ooeurreiice of the aueiilent which 
 eautieil the ileHtnictioii of the plaintitt'H luinlier, 
 |{. an engioe-iliivei' of the ilefeiiilantH, anil who 
 wan ill cliaigu of the locomotive (No. .">) on the 
 (lay the lire ouciiri'eil, iniiile an entry in what 
 wa.s teriiieil the leji.iiis hook, kept in the ile- 
 feiiilantb' .sliop.s : " liottoni liin of hunnet in 
 stack w.uitM making light * * Screen wanteil 
 in front of ^isli pan." At the trial 1!. waxcalleil 
 a» a witness on the |>art of the plaintitl', ami 
 proveil \\\n having inaile Hiieli iiii entry in the 
 iiHual ciinrseof his iliities. IVr .Spiaggc, ('.tJ.O.. 
 ami Ha^arty, ('. .1., hucIi entry wms ])iopirly 
 pro.hiceil anil read to the jiirj'. I'er lliii Inn ami 
 I'attersiiii, Jtl. A., such entry or re|ioit Wii.s 
 merely a narrative of a past occiirreme, or some 
 tiling in the opinion of !>. reipiiring attciitimi, 
 ami in any view couhl only he receivalile as 
 eviilenee against the ciiiii|iaiiy, if at all, upon the 
 proof of I). 's ilcatli. Ciiiiiulii t'l iihiil /f. ir. Co. 
 V. MrLarni, S A. H. 'iM. 
 
 Hehl, that a eojiied specilication of the entry 
 of a culler's ini'usiircmints in the hooks of the 
 .supervisor, signed liy the supii\ isur or his 
 deputy under ('. S. ('. e. 4(i, s. IK, is receivalile 
 us evidence of siieli nieasureiiieiits. l)i)liiU v. 
 Uiilario Jiinik, !» A. I!. 484. 
 
 A ineinoramlum or entry in a hook in the office 
 of a Bherifl', in the handwriting of the deputy 
 Hherill', purporting to he an entry of the icceijit 
 of a certain writ liy the sherill', admilted in evi- 
 dence, suhjecl to ohjeetion, the sherill' and the 
 then deputy sheritl' lieiiig dead, and the existing 
 deputy sherill' having proved the handwriting 
 and the place from which the hook was produced. 
 W'aril ruiii' v. Canadian J'arijir II. 11'. Co., 7 O. 
 R. 321. — Ferguson. 
 
 Held, that certain hooks of the company con- 
 taining statements of rejiairs reijuired, on the 
 engines connected with the train, one of which 
 was ill a defective condition and likely to throw 
 dangerous sparks among others, were also pro- 
 perly admittuil in evidence without calling the 
 persons hy whom the entries were made. Cana- 
 da Atlantic li. W. Co. v. Moxhy, 15 S. C. 1!. 
 145 ; 14 A. R. 309. 
 
 To determine adiaputed boundary line hetween 
 two lota, the Held notes of (S., iilaiid surveyor, 
 were offered in evidence, but objuctod to on the 
 ground that they were not made by S. in the 
 execution of his duty us such surveyor : — Held, 
 that the objection was good, and tlie evidence 
 iiiudmissible. McGnijor v. Ktilkr, 9 O. ]i. 
 077. — Proudfoot, 
 
 A claim by the next nf kin of iideeunnuit legatcu 
 cannot he adjudicated upon in the almunce of a 
 peisiiiial representative of hiicIi legatee, liut 
 . where entries had been made in the execiitor'it 
 ' bodkx giving credit to such next of kin, for [inr 
 lions ol such iltMcased legatee's share, hucIi en- 
 tries were held to be evidence of the relatimi 
 ship of debtor and creditor between siich execii. 
 tor and next of kin, and could be read without 
 entering into the coiiHideralioii of the origin of 
 the indebtedness. Hi' Kirk/iiilrirk Kirkfjatrhk 
 v. Stir' nMtn, 10 l*. R. 4. Ilodgins, Mn.sti r-iu- 
 Ordiiiarj/. 
 
 In an action on a jioliey of life irisiiraiice 
 I which was not countersigned according to the 
 terms of a memorandum on its margin the de- 
 fence was that the preiniuni was never ]iuii| 
 land the policy was never delivered. ()u the 
 I trial the judge admitted in evidence an entry in 
 I the hooks of Ins father made by the deceased 
 ; holder of the policy, shewing the {layinent to an 
 I agent of the company of nn anioiint eipiul to tliu 
 premium which the evidence shewed was paid 
 liy money given to deceased by his father. Hu 
 also admitted the evidence of the agent who had 
 since died, taken at a former trial of the cause 
 to the ell'ect that the premium was not paid ami 
 that he would not countersign the p<iiiey until it 
 wa.s p.iid, that the policy was only given to the 
 deceased to eiialilc him to examine it and not as 
 a duly executed policy. 'I'lie jury found a verdict 
 for till' plaintiir. I'er .Strong .1. 'J'lie evidence 
 of the entry in the books of the deceased wiih 
 im|ilopcrly admitted, din/idiiiition Lift: A-^W' 
 liiif ion iij Canada V. O' I'Jouuitl, 13 S. C. R. '2\H. 
 
 McK. was a nieinber of two firms, (". McK. k 
 Co. and McK. it .M. In an action against .McK. 
 
 [ti, M. for goods sold and delivered it appeared 
 on the trial that the goods were ordered hy 
 McK. and shipped to the place of business of 
 McK. it M., lint were charged in plaintiirs 
 books to t'. McK. k i'o., wliieh lie said was 
 done at McK's. reijuest. McK. called as a 
 witness for plaintiff, corroboiated this, and on 
 
 I eross-exaiiiination he produced, subject to oh- 
 jeetion, the hooks of C McK. & Co., in which 
 these goods were credited to that firm. A ver- 
 dict was given for the ilcfendant M. : - Held, re- 
 versing the jiidgiiieiit of the court below, that 
 the books of C. McK. it Co. Were jiroperly in 
 evidence on the cross-examination ot .McK. and 
 the rule for a new trial should be discharged. 
 Atidir V. IVIilte, 10 S. C. R. 44.'). 
 
 XXI. Hi;aksav Kvidknoe. 
 1. In (JittntioHH of J't'diiirKK, 
 
 Declarations made by the deceased mother of 
 the plaiiitill'. in tlio hearing of tiie plaintiff and 
 of the plaiiitill "s son, as to the marriage of the 
 jdaiiitill's parents, receiveil in evidence to prove 
 the plaiiitili's pedigree. ir(t//vc v. Muiriii/, .") 
 O. H. (i3S.— Usler. 
 
 2. Ev'uhme of Unputalion. 
 
 The locality ami extent of a sijuarc being in 
 (jucstion. iSemble, that this being a matter of a 
 (piasi public nature in which a class of the peo- 
 ple in the neighbourhood would be concerned, 
 evidence of reputation was admissible; and 
 
 WU 
 
 '^ 
 
 m 
 
EVIDENCE. 
 
 670 
 
 iiiiilur tliu oii't'iiiiiNtunco* aot nut ill tlio report, it i 
 watt: — lltiiil, lliiit tliu Hi(iiui'i' wiiH Miiiri(Muiiily ilu 
 liiiud l)y «ili:li iiviilDlico. Vail Koinihiii i v. Itriii 
 w», I (). 11. ;)tl». -Uoyil; II A. It. (lltll. 
 
 I'urtaiii {icrHoiiH wi^ru huuiI um iiuMiinliuutH of 
 c'oi'taiii ruotorioH l)uloiigiiig to tliu ('liiirrli of 
 Kiiglivnil ill tlilH I'roviiKiu, iiiiil it wiih olijoutiid 
 tliiil the uoiiMtitiitioii of llii; Huiil rectoiiuH hud 
 not l)t;(.'ii legally provod ; — livid, that oviduiiue 
 U4 to thu ltDHMi'MMioii or oceiipaiicy hy the plain- | 
 tilln of their reapeetive chiiichi'M, ami hh to their 
 ollieiatiiig aei'ordiiig to the riileH of the eliurch ' 
 liH pei'Moiiti having tlie uiire of hoiiIh, ami of their 
 ifuogliilioii hy the Chiireh Society or Synod,! 
 wax adiniHMihIe au hoiiiu evidenee of their Htalutt j 
 U8 Hiich rectors. Laiujlry v. Daiiwatin, 7 O, 11. 
 4y!>. — KergUbon. 
 
 .S. Dijinij hi'daratiow. 
 Sue Keijiiiu V. MrMnhoii, 18 O. K. 502, p. 4».t. 
 
 XXII. KXIKKT KVIDENCK. 
 
 Tho pnrtieM desired the aHHistaiiee of Hcieiitilie i 
 evidence iih to the height of the defendant'8 dam { 
 and the etl'eet of raining it. The court (I'roiid- | 
 fniit, ,1.) appointed an engineer to iiiMpeet ami i 
 reportthereoii, re'terving the eoHtM until Imm repcu't i 
 sliiiiild be obtained. Itaii'kinx v. Miihiill'i/, 'J!( 
 thy. U-JO. ■ I 
 
 IIiMnarks upon the impropriety of receiving] 
 the opinioiiH of Hiirveyors a.s e.xperts a.s to the 
 pi()l)er mode of making a Hiirvey under a Ntatute. j 
 See Tuiriishiji of Sliijj'uril v. //(//, tl A. R. ■_'".'J. | 
 
 Where the opinioiiH of e.\pert.i on foreign law 1 
 lire eonllieting, the court will examine for itxelf 
 the deci»ioiiH and text books of the foreign 
 einintry, in order to arrive at a satisfactory con- 
 clusion. Ji'ln- V. <liniH, 4 O. K. r)7!». -Q. ». I). 
 
 As to costs incurred for ex]>ensvH of surveys 
 and other special work of that nature in order 
 to <iualify surveyors to give evidence. See i1/c- 
 (tuiiiiuii V. Clarlr, i) 1'. i!. iit'io. 
 
 As a rule the courts diseounteiiiiiiee prnfes- 
 8ii)ual or ipuisi-expeit evidence fruiii being 
 lii'ought before them in writing. Atlornty- 
 (kiiiralv. aooJcrhaiii, 10 1'. K. 'J,)!). -Boyd. 
 
 The evidence of professional draughtsnien was 
 in this ease held to have been properly ail- 
 mitted to shew what, according to the general 
 piaeliet and usage of draughtsmen in preparing 
 plans, certain shadings aiid marks on said plans 
 were intended to indicate. Al/rill v. /'tall, 10 
 X. C. i;. 4'25. 
 
 On the trial of an issue directed by tho sur- 
 rogate judge bclore a jury, evidence was given 
 us to the mental capacity of the testator by per- 
 sons ac(iuainted with him, the grant of proliate 
 being opjwsed by the widow on the ground, 
 amongst others, of mental incapacity, 'j'lie judge 
 at the trial being of o])inioii that the witnesses 
 examined were not of a class ipialilied to give 
 scientitic evidence as experts, witlnlrew the ease 
 from the jury, and gave judgment in favour of 
 tlie phiintitl's, granting probate of the will, which 
 he afterwards refused to set aside. Ou appeal a 
 new trial was directed, and the costs of appeal 
 oidi;red to be paid by the plaiiititl's, it being 
 
 belli that the ease Hlionid have gone to tlin jury, 
 ami that the opinion of hui'Ii witnesHeit wi'.re 
 cle.irly admissible, being of ni'M't! or less vainu 
 iii->:oi'diiig to their skill, or experience or apti- 
 tude for jnilging of such matters, all which testa 
 would be iipplied bv the jiirv. /i'"/aH v. W'aliin, 
 10 A H. H,-}. 
 
 Ill the(U)urseof a refi:reiiee to makea iNirtitioii 
 of linds, a master appointed two skilled porsoim 
 to exainine the property and prepare a scht^me 
 of partition, and on their evidenee he ailopted 
 the scheme iire[iared : Held, that the eoiiise 
 adopted by thi! mister was a riasonablo one : 
 that he had the power under (i. O. ('hy. *2iO 
 ('. !on. Kiile 7I{| to take such coiirsts and that the 
 fees paid to the skilled persons by the defendant 
 should be taxed to him. Mi'Knijw Ki'fJ'ir, IJ 
 I'. It. "J.-tlJ. — Kerguson. 
 
 A witness was called at the trial to give evi- 
 dence as a inedieal expert, and in answer to the 
 crown prosecutor, he said "there are indicia in 
 miullcal Ki'ieiiee from which it can be said at 
 wliat tlistanee small shot were lired at the body. 
 1 have studied this -not personal experience, 
 but from books," He wivs not eross-uxaiiiiiivd 
 as to th(! grounds of this statement and no medi- 
 cal witnesses wt.'ro calleil by the prisoner to 
 confute it. The witness then stated the distance 
 from the murdered man at which the shot must 
 have b(U!ii lired in the ease before the court and 
 on what he b.ised his opinion as to it, giving the 
 result of his examiiiation of the body: — HoM, 
 (Strong and Foiirnier, JJ., dissenting), that by 
 ids preliminary statement the witnesa hu<l eM- 
 tabli.shed his capacity to speak as a medical 
 expert, and it not having been shewn by erosH-cx- 
 amiiiation or othir testimony that there were iin 
 such indicia as stated, his evidenee as tothudis- 
 tanee at which the shot was lired was properly 
 received. J'nijtirv. TheQititn, 15 8. C. K. 401. 
 
 The plaintiil', a riparian pro]irietor brought an 
 action against one L. to compel him to demolish 
 a dam which Jj. had erected on the river Mille 
 Isles, and to pay damages for injitiy caused hy 
 saiil dam. in this action judgment was nnxlcr- 
 ed ordering the demolition of the dam and pay- 
 ment ot the damages. While this judgment 
 was ill appeal an agreement hir settlement was 
 arrived at between the parties by which it was 
 agreed that the dam should be demoiislied by a 
 certain day, failing which, the judgment for de- 
 molition should be curried out. The property 
 was siibsetpiently sold to the defendant who 
 bought with the full knowledge of the agree- 
 ment iiMiuestion and agreed to lie bound by tiuid 
 agreement and also by the judgment as if he 
 had been a party thereto. Tlie defendant, how- 
 ever, did not completely demolish the dam, but 
 used a portion at one end and the foundation of 
 it thi'oughont for a new dam. 'J'lie plaintiff 
 then brought the [ireseiit acticm against the de- 
 fendant for the demolition of this second dam 
 and for damages. In this action the Superior 
 Court, after hearing a number of witnesses, ap- 
 pointed as expert an engineer who reported that 
 the ilam caused no injury to plaiiitilT's property. 
 This report the court gave ellect to, refusing a 
 motion made by plaiiitilT asking leave to exam- 
 ine the expert and other witnesses for the pur- 
 pose of shewing the incorreetncss of thu report, 
 and dismissed the action with costs on the ground 
 that the ilefendant had only exercised the rights 
 
 .•;5 
 
 • I 
 
 •ii 
 
671 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 672 
 
 673 
 
 If ^* 
 
 givfii him by cliajitcr 51 of the C. S. L. C.,] 
 uiiil the pluiiitifi' IjudsuHercd no dnmage:— Hfhl | 
 (per Fouiiiier, Owyiine iiiitl Pattcison, JJ. ), that 
 ehajiter Td of the C. S. L. C. hvA no niiplication, 
 the lights of the [jarties heiiig legulatid by the 
 agieeiiiLiit for settlement arising out of the first 
 atticii, whiuli Mas a "tr-\nsacti<)n" witliin the 
 meaning of nrtidcH 1J)1S and lit'20 of the Civil 
 •^(ide. I*er Fournier and (Iwynne, JJ. — On tiie 
 wliole ividence the plaintitl' was entitled to J 
 judjnient and the apjical should be allowed.! 
 I'-.r Hitehie, C J., and Tasehereau, J. — '1 he ap- 
 pial should be di.'-niissed, but in any event all 
 the plaintif!' could a.'^k was to have the case re- 
 mitted to the eourt of first instance to take 
 further evidence, which was the principal ground 
 of his appeal to the Court of Queen's I'cikIi as 
 stated in his factum. Tattersin, J., while of 
 opiinen the law and evidence woidd liave WiT- 
 ranted a judgment for the plaintiff concurred in 
 the view that under the ciieunistances all the 
 plaintiff could ask was to have the case remitted. 
 JJarihj v. Filial midt, 17 S. C. R. '_'!)-'. 
 
 See MoxiT V. Snarr, 45 Q. B. 428 ; Re<jina v. 
 lirierly, 14 O. R. 52r>, p. 433. 
 
 In a "diSbats de comptes" between A. G. (ap- 
 
 . lityof 
 
 a minor, and l)ame H. V. (respondent), univer- 
 
 pellant) in his quality of tutor to M. L. H. C. 
 
 \ 
 
 XXVI. Pkoijuction ANn Au.mission of Kvi- 
 
 DENCE. 
 
 1. OiiHK Pfobamli. 
 
 Wiien defendants in a redemption suit on 
 proving their claim in the master's oflice pro- 
 duced their niorlgages and filed an affidavit 
 verifying their claims, and stating that 8l!(),;i(i!t,- 
 88 was due thim for moneys advanced by them 
 to the mortgagor and secuied by the said mort- 
 gages : — Held, that their claim was jirinia facie ' 
 proven, and the onus of reducing the amount' 
 rested with the plaintiff. Cfiii/ v. IJo/hid— 
 Er parte Doran, 8 V. R. 213. Taylor, Master.— 
 Blake. 
 
 The plaintiffs held a mortgage made by the 
 defendant, who covenanted to pay the mortgage 
 money ami interest, defendant conveyed his 
 equity of redemption to A., who subsequently 
 released to tlie plaintifls for a nominal considera- 
 tion, after striving for a substantial one. The 
 defendant, as piM*^ of the arrangement, yavethe ! 
 plaintiH's his not • fo some interest. The plain- i 
 tifls having sued on ihe covenant for pa^ nieiit, i 
 the jury were directed that if the release and 
 note were taken by the plaintiffs in satisfaction 
 of the liability on the covenant, to find for the | 
 defendant ; if taken under a stipulation that it 
 should not have that cH'ect, to find for the jilain- 
 tifl's ; and that in Ihe absence of evidence upon j 
 these points, the inference wouhl be that it was 
 taken in satisfaction of plaintiffs' claim, the 
 charge being thereby merged. The jury f<mnd 
 for the defendant : — Hehl, that there was no ! 
 uiiadirection, the onus of proving that there i.s 
 no merger being upon the plaintiff in such a [ 
 case ; and the verdict was sustained. North 
 oj Scotland Mortgage Co. v. Uddl, 40 Q. B. 
 611.— Q. B. D. 
 
 In actions against solicitors for negligence, 
 See O'Doiiolior.v. Whitly, •_> (). R. 424, hi; Kerr— 
 Akers and Ball, 29 Cliy. 188. 
 
 As to proving malice in an action of slander 
 against a public ofUoer. See Deuie v. Watcr- 
 l>i.ry, « S. C. R. 143. 
 
 sal legatee of her late 'lusband L. R., who had 
 had possession of the minor's property (his 
 grandchild) as tutor, the following items, viz., 
 5r(,4()().()3 (for stock of goods sold by L. R. to 
 his son), and ?45l.()7, and |$)0.76, for "ciish 
 received at the counter," charged by the respon- 
 dent in her account, were contested. In 187l> 
 L. L. R. , the nii)U)r's father, nuvrried one M. (', 
 (j., and liy contract of maniage obtained from 
 his father, L, R. , two immovable properties, eu, 
 avanconent d'hoirie. At the same time L. R., 
 the father, retired from business and left to L. 
 L. R., his son, thevlude of his stock-in-trade, 
 which was valued at §r>, 460.63, niaki^ig an in- 
 ver.tory thereof. [,. T^. R. died in 1872, leaviut:- 
 one child, said M. [.. H. C. R., and L. R., her 
 grandfallier, was a])pointed her tutor. There 
 was no evidence that the .stock-in trade had 
 been stdd by the father and purchased by the 
 son, or that the father gave it to his son. How- 
 ever, when L. W., in his capacity of tutor '■■• \ni 
 grandchild, made an inventory of his son's suc- 
 cession, he charged his sou with this amount of 
 fr),-IOO,03 : — Hehl (reversing the judgment of 
 the court l>elow), that it was for the respondent 
 to prove that there had been a sale of the stock 
 in-trade by L, R. to hi.s son L. L. it., the minor's 
 father, and th.it there being no evidence of such 
 a sale, the res|ioiident could not legally c!iari.'o 
 the minor with that amount. As to the other 
 t;wo items, these Mere firanted to the respon- 
 dent by the Court of Queen's Binch, on the 
 ground that, although they had been entered as 
 cash received at the counter, there was evidenee 
 that they had been already entered in the leilger. 
 'J'he only evidence to support this fact, was tiie 
 atlidavit of one Hebert, the bookkeeper of L, R. 
 filed with the reddition ue comptes before no- 
 tary, prior to the institution of this action ; 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, that the atlidavit of Hebert was inadmis- 
 sible evid< ncc, and therefore these ti'o items 
 could not be chaiged against the minor, (lug- 
 iioii V. I'riiiri , 7 N. C, R. 386. Special leave to 
 appeal to Her Majesty in Conneil in this case, 
 was refused. .See A'. C, 8 App. Cas. 103. 
 
 In jiroceeding to impeach a conveyance exe- 
 cuted in pursuance of a power of sab; in a mort- 
 gajie the purchaser, or those claiming under him. 
 must shew a due exercise of the power of sale; 
 the onus of impeaching it is not upon the party 
 alleging the invalioity of the deed, liaillill v. 
 ./,(//, 28 Chy. 140-Si.raggc. 
 
 Scmble, that R. S. (J. (1877), e. IO!t, s. 2, is 
 retrospective so as to cast the onusof disiirnviiig 
 the iiayment of the consideration on the party 
 impeaehiiig a conveyance as voluntary, even 
 though the transaction took place piior to that/ 
 enactment. Sanders v. Malnburg, 1 U. R. 178.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 The power of a municipal council to close up 
 a road under section 504 of the Municipal Act, 
 (187"), whereby any one is excluded iroiii access 
 to his lands, is a conditional one only, and if 
 another convenient road is not already in exist- 
 ence, or is not opened by another by-law passud 
 before the time fixed for closing the road, tlie by- 
 law closing the road may be quashed, 'i'lie onus 
 of shewing that another convenient road is open 
 
673 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 074 
 
 to the applicant is upon the corporation. A dams 
 and Towimhip of East Whitby, 2 O. R. 473.— 
 Osier. 
 
 lu an election petition : — Held, by Fournier, 
 Henry and (iwyime, JJ., that the onus probundi 
 was oil the appellant, wlio by his preliminary 
 objections hail athrnicd tiio discpialiHcation of 
 the petitioner. Contra — liitcliie, (J. J., Strong, 
 and I'aschereau, J J. Mciianlic Elextion ( Dom. ) — 
 Firchette v. (/onkt, 8 IS. C. R. 169. 
 
 Per Hag<vrty, C. J. O. — Where a corrupt prac- 
 tice is proved at an election trial, the onus is at 
 ouce shifted to the respondent to bring liiniself 
 within the saving clause, K. S. 0. (Ia77) c. 10, 
 8. Iti'i. Prescdtt Klection — Alexander c. H agar, 
 1 ]•]. C. 88, followed. Miixkoka and J'arri/ 
 Soimd Election (O)U.) — Pai/el v. Fuuqiiitr, 1 K. 
 C. 197. 
 
 Where the defendant, being sued on a pro- 
 missory note, alleged that the said note was not 
 duly stamped before the re()eal of the .Stamp Act 
 nor until after action brought, althougii lie had 
 cdinniunicatetl the fact of that omission to tlio 
 plaiiititl's before he was sued, and the plaiiitiltVi 
 denied that the defendant had so notified them, 
 and alleged that tiiey double-stamped the note 
 as soon as they had knowledge of the oinis- 
 gion to stamp, which wa.s not till after action 
 brought, and after the repeal of the .Stamp Act; 
 and the evidence shewed that when the note 
 came to the pluintills' hands it appeared to be 
 properly Htamped :^Held, that the defciiilant 
 coulil not be allowed upon his own unsup|)oi'tcd 
 testimony, in such a case, to escape liability. 
 The onus was on him to establisli that the stamp 
 was not duly allixeil, and that the omission to 
 duly stamp was so intelligibly coiinnunicatcd to 
 the plaiiititl's that it could be said they ac(iuiicd 
 the knowledge of the defect at the time alleged 
 by him. Jlaiik o/Ottaii-a v. McMurniir,4 O. U. 
 345— IJoyd. 
 
 I >efeiidantH, Toronto merchants, engagcil plain- 
 tilt's, Chicago brokers, to buy and sell gniiii in 
 t'hieago on margin, which the latter did. ailvanc- 
 iiig them money for wiiich tin y sued. I )eteiitl.ints 
 liiiviiig refused to settle for losses sustained : - 
 llciil, icversing the jud,,'meiitof I'atler.son, ,1. A., 
 that, assuming the .State law to be that if the 
 contract was to deal in siudi .i way that luily the 
 dill'eieiiccs in price aliduld lie settled according 
 to the rise ami fall of the market, and no grain 
 he either delivei'ed or acce|)ted, the contract 
 would be a gambling contr.ict and diegal, it lay 
 upon defendants to establish clearly that siicii 
 was the character of the dealing and this defence 
 not having been clearly jiroved, judgment was 
 given for the plaintitl's. Jiicc v. O'liiiii, 4 O. K. 
 079. -Q. li. D. 
 
 Action to set aside a conveyance obtained from 
 an old woman who was deaf and unable to write, 
 and who had no relatives or friends, by the reeve 
 of the township in which she lived, and who was 
 well known as a justice of the peace, and an 
 active, shrewd business man engageil in many 
 enterprist^s. The phiintili' was examined, anil 
 after giving evidence of the above facts, jiart of 
 the del'enilant'a depositions in the suit were put 
 in, in which he ailmitted that she placed a good 
 deai of coiitidjiicc in him ; she h(,wever having 
 swum in her evidence that she never placed any 
 (iepeudeuee ou him. The plaiiititl's case was 
 
 43 
 
 closed, and it was contended that the onus was 
 now on the <lefendant to shew that the transac- 
 tion was a righteous one. The defendant declined 
 to call any witnesses, ami plaintitrs action waa 
 dismissed: — Held, on niotioii for a new trial, 
 sustaining the judgment of I'roudfoot, J., that 
 the onus was not on the defendant, and that the 
 plaiiititr must prove her case. .Seudde, the mere 
 existence of eonlidence is not enough ; intlueiiec 
 must be proved, and is not to be presumed from 
 the existence of eonlidence. Waliis r. Andrews, 
 ItK'hy. (j.'17, followed. ^Mch'imii v. Milne, 5 O. 
 R. 100.— Chy. I). 
 
 Where one brought an action to restrain the 
 diversion of the water which supplied his mill 
 from the channel in which it had tlowed for more 
 than twenty years, and it appeared that the 
 channel was an artificial cut, diverting the 
 water Ironi its natural outlet, and hail been 
 made originally at the instance and by the per- 
 mission of the then owner of the creek in which 
 tile water naturally flowed partly for the benefit 
 of the owner '.vlio had, however, on many occa- 
 sions, bloeked up the cut, and so turned the water 
 to its natural outlet : — Held, that such iui occu- 
 pation would not give a statutory right to the 
 licensee, and that the onus was on the ])laiiitifr 
 to make out his right and shew that tliere had 
 been a change in the mode of user after the 
 origination by permission. Matculm v. Hunter, 
 CO. R. lOL'.-Hoyd. 
 
 It is not suttieient for a party to any litigation 
 I on whom the onus is to say that he couhl furnish 
 I the neccs.sary proof if he had certain jiapers. It 
 I is his duty to have these papers, or to have them 
 I produced, the means of causing their production 
 'being what the law 'eems aiiipie. Exchdiii/e 
 j ISiiiik of Cdiiiitia V. S/iiiii<ii r — t^oniti I'luint'iffHV. 
 •llarniH,1'' ■' .'109. — Ferguson. 
 
 In .lu'ic, ;;i",4, the plaint ill' and defend. mt, by 
 
 writing, entered into an agreement forsujiplying 
 
 I together the iron for the (irand .lunction llail- 
 
 ; way, and providing for the division of tliesuriiliis 
 
 ; or jirolits. No division of the luulits was made 
 
 'and the defendant went on invesiing the receipts 
 
 , from that enterprise in otiiii eoulraets, and the 
 
 pl.-iintiir claimed a like intercMt in them also, 
 
 which the deleii'Iant denied his right to :— Held, 
 
 ■ that the. onus of negativing sti ;li right of the 
 
 plaintid' rested on the ileieml.nl : and having 
 
 f.iiled to negative his right to such share, the 
 
 court declared him entitled theicio and direeteil 
 
 a reference to take the a'coiints between the 
 
 I parties. Cminroii v. Jlirkjaid, II A. R. 5'2. 
 
 This case was reversed by tlie I'rivy Council. 
 
 In an interpleader action to try the right to 
 
 the proceeds of the goods solil by the sherill One 
 
 of the jilaintitis was a mortga;.;ee of the goods. 
 
 He put ill and proved the eh.ittel mortgage, but 
 
 gave no evidence of a debt or of pressure used. 
 
 On this the judge charged the jury that there 
 
 ! was no evidence of a debt or of jirc^sure, and he 
 
 refused to allow the consideration to be proved 
 
 ' alter the plaintifl's dosed their c se. The jury 
 
 i brought in a verdict for the ilefenibiut. t)ji a 
 
 i motion to enter a judgment for plaintiHs or for 
 
 a new trial, it was held that theie mubtbe a new 
 
 trial. IVr Hoyd, C- The mortgogee plaintiff 
 
 \ proved enough to cast the burthen of attack on 
 
 i the defendant. I'roof of the m.irtgage duly exe- 
 
 I euted shewed that the property and title to the 
 
 I •» tfi 
 
 I »i (; 
 
 t • 
 
 t: 
 
675 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 676 
 
 <?»■ 
 
 
 '5SW 
 
 
 
 
 Cl'v' 
 
 gooils pasHed from the judgment debtor to the 
 mortgagee before the ueiziirc. The execution 
 creditor ahould displace this ownership by shew- 
 ing want of cDusideration or other reason. Sus- 
 picion wouhl not juHtify the conclusion that the 
 niortgaj,'(! was a vohiutary instrument contrary 
 to its [lurpiirt. There was no evidence that the 
 wife knew of the husband's insolvency, and con- 
 curred with him in iin attempt to gain a prefer- 
 ence at the expense of the other creditors. Per 
 Proudfoot, J.— The mortgage might '.'3 valid if 
 given for a present advance of money for carry- 
 ing on the business or other proper purpose, and 
 insolvency would not be a circumstance shifting 
 the onus of pioof, and the production of the 
 mortgage would be |)rim;i facie evidence ; as the 
 jd.iintiir, the mortgagee, ii[)peared to have been 
 misled, and was refuse<l leave to supplement his 
 evitlunco ; a new trial should be granted to him. 
 Fiir/oiiij V. /,V/r/, 1-J I). R. ml. -Chy. D. 
 
 In action of liliel. See Jackson v. Slaley, 9 
 O. K. ;«4. 
 
 On 'J 1st October, 1880, land was sold for taxes 
 for the years 1877 and 1878, and on l.">th Novem- 
 ber IS8I, a tax derd exicuted. The ])atL'iit from 
 the I 'rown issued in 1878. There was no evi- 
 dence as to the right of the patentee of the land 
 previous to the issuing of the patent, nor that 
 the Clown Lands ('oniiriissicpuei' had made any 
 returns to tlie treasurei' of the land having been 
 ti'cated ns;i free grant, sold or agreeil to be sold 
 liy tlie Crown, under section 10(5 of 11. .S. (). 
 (1877) c. 180, so as to reiidiT it lialde to be 
 assessed prior to tlie year 187S : — Held, there 
 not beuij; any tuxes proved to be in arrear for 
 three years as reipured, the sale and tax deed 
 were invalid. At the trial the plaintill produced 
 his ]) itent. The defiudant, in answ et thereto, 
 ])Ut in the tax deed : HeM, tiiat tin.' plaintiff 
 by proilucti(Ui of his |)atent made out a prima 
 facii: case, atnl tlie defeud.mt, relying on his ti-^: 
 deed, w.is bound to prove the sale and arrears 
 for three years, tiiat is, that sonii; portion 
 thereof was in ariear for tliree years. S/cveusuii 
 V. Tmi/iio); l'_» (). K. 804. -C. P. D. 
 
 In an action by a municipal corporation to v 
 strain the uwner of land fioni obstructing an 
 alleged pulilic highway o\er his land, till' onus 
 of jtroving the cxisteiici' of such highway rests 
 on the plaintitl's. Si. I'iiireiit v. Oreelijie.ld, 15 
 A. H. .".1)7. 
 
 In an action on a bond against the sureties of 
 the defaulting clerk of the nuinicipality of Shol 
 biiriie, tlic defence raised was that the bond was 
 not executed by them as it had no seals attached 
 when the sureti(!s signed it:- Meld, affirming 
 the judgment of the .'supreme (Jouit of Nova 
 .SiH)tia, Henry .1. dubitante, that the jilain- 
 tiff's had proved a prima facie ca^e of a, bond 
 properly executed ori its face, and as the de- 
 fendant had not negatived the due Cvecution of 
 the bond, it being consistent with his evidence 
 tliat it was duly executed, the onus of |)roving 
 want of execution was nut thrown "tf the de- 
 fendant, and as neither the subscribing witness 
 nor the principal obligor was called at the trial 
 to corrotinrate the evidence of the defendant, 
 plaiLitiffs wei'e entitled to recover, i/arshntl v. 
 .\Juni<-ii>((lil!/ of Shclhiiriii; 14 IS. C. Pv. 737. 
 
 Onus of disproving nuirriage of parties. See 
 O'Connor V. Keniieili/, 15 O. R. 20. 
 
 Where, in adnjinistration proceedingB, the 
 widow of the deceased claimed from the execu- 
 tor repayment of certain moneys paid by her, at 
 her husband's request, out of ner separate pro- 
 
 fierty, on premiums payable on policies on his 
 ife, which she swore were to be repaid to her ; 
 and it appeared that the moneys were paid by 
 a third person who held them to tho use of the 
 claimant ; that she acquiesced in the ;jayment of 
 them with great reluctance; and th;'t she had no 
 claim to any part of the policy moi.eys, whieh 
 were wholly at the dispositi<m of the deoensi ' 
 Held, that under these circumstances the mui 
 was on the executor to prove that the moneys 
 I were a gift to the deceased, and it was not neces- 
 I sary f<n' theclaimant to produce corroborative evi- 
 j dence that the nn)neys were to be repaid in order 
 to recover. In onler to make out that money paid 
 I by a wife to her husband w.is a gift, it is neces- 
 sary to i)rove it either by direct evidence or by 
 such a course of dealingbetween the husban<l and 
 wife as shews that the money was so paid to him a^ 
 agift. Elliolf V. Ihixscll, 1<)(). R. 413.- Robertson. 
 
 I In actiim by workman against his employers 
 for damages under the Factories Act, R. S. 0. 
 (1887) c. 208. See liUiik v. OiiUirio W litd Co., 
 19 (). It. 578. 
 
 The fact of bank shares being purchased in 
 trust at a time when the trustee was solvent im- 
 ports an interest in sonieliody else, and the onus 
 is upon a ])arty who has seized such sliares to 
 prove that they are in fact the pro))erfy of the 
 trnstee, and n.i such available to satisfy the de- 
 mand of his creditors. .Sweeney r. liank of 
 Montreal, 12 Aj)p. Cas. G17, followed. Muir v. 
 Carli'.r — llohmti v. Cartir, 10 S. C R. 473. 
 
 A municipal coqioration, under the authority 
 of a bylaw, issued and handed to the Treasurer 
 of the Province of ti>uebec .'?,')0,00(» of its deben- 
 tures as subsidy to a railway company, the same 
 to be paid over to the com])any in the manner 
 and siilijcct to the same conditions in which the 
 governnii'ut (irovincial sidisidy was jiayable 
 I umler 44 ami 4.") Vnt. c. 2, s. 19, viz., "when 
 the road was completed and in good nnming 
 (M'der to the satisfacti<m of the Lieutenant (iov- 
 eruor in council." The debentures were signed 
 by .S. M. who WIS electe<l w inleu and took and 
 held possession of the ofiice after the fornu.- war- 
 I den had ver bally resigned the position. In an ac- 
 I tion br<mght by the railway company to recover 
 I from the treasurer of the ]MOvince the ^.'lO.tlOO 
 debentures after the government bonus had been 
 paid and in which action the municipal corpora- 
 tion was mise en cause as a co-defendant, the 
 I Provincial Treasurer pleaded by demurrer only, 
 ' which was overruled, and the county of Pontine 
 1 pleaded general ilenial and that the debintures 
 I were illeg.dly signed : — HeM, that the provincial 
 : treasurer having admitted by his pleadings t'lat 
 the railway Inul been completed to the sat,.-iac- 
 I tion of the Lieut,enant(iovernor in council the 
 onus was on the municipal corporation ..iise en 
 cause, to prove that the goveriunent h.id not 
 acted in conformity with the statutt.'. Strong, 
 J., dissenting. Cuuniij of Poutiac v. Rohh, 17 
 .X. C. R. 40e. 
 
 See /ffijiiia v. Frr, 3 <>. R. 107; Morton v. 
 Niknn. 5 A. R. 20; yinilvn v. Frmter, 28 (^hy. 
 502; Hiirki v. 7'«/;/or, 46 Q. H. I). 371. ./o/i/t- 
 stoH V. rhrUlit, 31 (. . P. 3.">8 ; linan v. h'roimhii,!, 
 12 O. E. 197; Conmcc v. Ccmadian /'acjA'c /I- 
 
 of.J. 
 K. He 
 K. If. 
 
 notes, 
 nicnt i 
 nize S. 
 virtue 
 tion ajj 
 with th^ 
 of the 
 recfiven 
 nient ii 
 w.is no 
 Kcclcs 
 S/'intrl 
 
 I. wai 
 when ill 
 of notes 
 newal, 
 note ' 
 I. 'a ansv 
 trailictii 
 of llai, 
 
 See 
 flick'!/ 
 
 Stiijilito. 
 lanlic l: 
 
 A f,i 
 I'laintil! 
 
677 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 ]V. Co. — Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. v. Conmee, 
 11 P. R. 149; McKmzie v. Dancey, 12 A. R. 317. 
 
 forlon V. 
 •iH ('hy. 
 1 , Johit- 
 
 I'llixhf'hl, 
 
 2. Relevancy. 
 
 Where the right of a company to use a traction 
 ungiue on curtain highways under an agreement 
 witli a municipality was disputed : — Held, that 
 tiie fact that the company for several years 
 after the agreement used horse power only, 
 was not to be overlooked as evidencing the 
 true agreement of the parties. CouiUi/ of York 
 V. Toronto Gravel Roatl (tiidConcnlc Co., 30. R. 
 584.--Proudfoot. 
 
 In an action against a railway company for loss 
 I asioned by firealle;;e I to have arisen from one 
 o. llioir engines (No. ;">), with a view of shewing i 
 that tlie engine was defectively constructed, evi- 
 dence was given tliat on previous occasions when 
 it was in the .same or an ii;.|iroved condition, it 
 had tlirown out sparks causing fires. PerSpragge, 
 V. .1. O., and Hagarty, C. J., such evidence was 
 properly receivable. Cuiimlu Cmtral R. W. Co., 
 v. McLaren, 8 A. U. 5U4. 
 
 The plaintiff rented to tlio defendant a field 
 for the purpose of growing tliix at an agreed 
 rental of !?!() an acre. In answer to the claim 
 for rent, the defendant atteuipted to sliew that 
 he had sustained damage liy reason of the grtumd 
 being full of thistles, anil that it hail l)ei'n stipu- 
 lateil that an allowance was to be made in .suuli 
 case for the lo.ss to tlie defendant : He! 1, that 
 evidtnee was jiroperly admitted ft>r the guidan'-i^ 
 of the jury, in ailju>tinn such allowance, as tohoiv 
 tlie defendant had him.^elf .settled with otiier 
 persons wlio liad thistles in tiieir fields rented 
 by him. Wiinhold v. Khni, 10 A. \i. '20. 
 
 S. was an assignee for tile beiielit of creditors 
 of J. K., and <!. was siinilaily assignee o' E. H. 
 K. Hefoie tile assignments .1. was a creiiitor of 
 \\. U. K. for money lent iiul as holder of i ertain 
 notes. After tlie assignment .S. obtained a judg- 
 ment against K. If. I''., i)nt (i. refused to recog- 
 nize S. a.s a eieditor on Iv H. K.'s estate by 
 virtue of the judgiiieiil, S, tiien brought an ac- 
 tion against ( i. for an .ecuunt of (i.'s dealings 
 witli the (.'state of K. II. K., ami for tliepayiiuiit 
 of the juilLjment : Hel.l, that the judgiiieiit 
 recovered against K. II. E. after liis assign- 
 ment in an action to w hicli (!. was not a party 
 was not even piim.i fi:ie evidence against tl. 
 Eccles r. Lowiy, 23 Chy. 1H7, considered. 
 S/fwart v. 0'a:i<', 13 O. 11. 4.")S. -Proudfoot. 
 
 I. was asked whether F. did not say to him 
 when lie; asked him to indorse one of the series 
 of notes of which tlie on: in question was a re- 
 newal, thit lie, F., " never backed anybody's 
 note " : — Held, tills question was irrelevant, and 
 I.'s answer to it coiuluMive; and oviileace con- 
 trailiotiiig such answer >> is inadmissible, /{auk 
 of Hani:!':)!, v. /.la./c.^ I i (). II. 450. -(,». li. U. 
 
 Sec Trw^y w Fowid-'. 13 A. I!. 1 !.">, p. 6.56 ; 
 llichy v. .S'^)(l./•, II O. R 106; Scoivjall v. 
 SI(ti>l,'toii, 'l-lO.ll. 'JOti; Mor/ty V. Ciiimla At- 
 lanlic R. W. Co., II P. K. 39, p. 640. 
 
 3. Evidence in Former Action, 
 A former suit had b',.n instituteil by the 
 
 tiff had not acquired the legal estate until after 
 the bill was filed : — Held, that under such cir- 
 cumstances the question was not res judicata, 
 and that the evidence taken in the former suit 
 and the examination of defendant by the plain- 
 tiff therein were admissible in the present one, 
 the issue being practically the same. Adamion 
 v. Adanuson, 28 Chy. 221.— Spragge. 
 
 4. In Reply. 
 
 The judge at the trial nonsuited, because he 
 thought the agreement had not been properly 
 proved, but allowed the case to go to the jury 
 on the issue of fraud, the onus of which was on 
 the defendants, and for assessment of damages. 
 The defendant's cimnsel cross-examined one of 
 the plaintiB's witnesses on the question of fraud, 
 and tlie plaintiff re-examined him upon the 
 cross examination : — Held, that such re-exam- 
 ination did not deprive the plaintiff of his right 
 to call witnesses in reply to the defendant's evi- 
 dence of fraud, at all events this was a matter 
 for the judge at the trial, and the plaintiff having 
 had to open the ca.se, the fact of the case going 
 to the jury only on the issue of fraud and for the 
 assessment of damages, did not deprive the plain- 
 tiff of the right to r<:ply. McDonald v. Murray, 
 5 (). R. 559. C. P. D. 
 
 A medical man called by the defendant stated, 
 from the evidence given by the defendant and 
 the evidence given throughout the case, he could 
 not say the defendant's treatment was bail sur- 
 gery. The filaiiititl' iiroimsed to call evidence in 
 icjily to shew from what defendant stated at the 
 trial the treatment was bad surgery : — Held, in- 
 admissible. VanMeri v. Fareirell, 12 U. R. 
 285. -C. P. U. 
 
 5. E.vhlljiti. 
 
 If documents are produced by the party un- 
 der examination, the opposite party is entitled 
 to have them marked as exliil)its. Hand.i v. 
 (rpper Canada Furniiitrc Co., 12 P. R. 292.— 
 Daltoii, Master. 
 
 An order for a ca. sa. was granted upon two 
 affidavits; one that of the 'roronto agent for 
 tlie plaintiff's solicitors exhibiting a copy of an 
 affidavit made by one of such solicitors, stating 
 tliat he believed it to bo a true copy, and that 
 the original was stated to have been enclosed in 
 a letter received by him that day, but was not 
 so enclosed, but not stating that such an affida- 
 vit ever existed. The cojiy of atiidavit marked 
 as an exhibit to the alhdavit of tlie Toronto 
 agent was not filed as an exhibit, and was sub- 
 sequently produced to the court as an original 
 athdavit, a new jurat liaving been added : — 
 Held, pt-'r Falcoiitiridge, .1., that the exhibit, 
 even th'.uigh it was not actually in t'..e hands of 
 the otfieer of the court, was p^-t of the record 
 of the case, and should not have been so dealt 
 with, dilberl v. Stilci, 13 P. R. 121. 
 
 6. Other Ca^ell. 
 
 After judgment, at the trial, but before the 
 .argument in banc, the ■tefeiidants put in the re- 
 
 • I 
 
 .1 » 
 
 ■ii 
 
 plaintiff which had been dismiiitied, as the plain- j port of a caiie beaiing upon the question, decided 
 
679 
 
 EVIDENOE. 
 
 «::r;t 
 
 
 
 
 in the Supreme Court of the United States, veri- 
 fied by atfidavit: — Held, admissible. liice v. 
 O'linn, 4 O. H. 579. -Q. B. D. 
 
 At the close of the defence, the plaintiff's 
 counsel, witiiout objection, put in the defen- 
 dant's exauiination before trial. The plaintiff's 
 counsel, in addressing the jury, read a portion 
 thereof; and the judge, in his charge, read other 
 portions: — Held, there could be no objection to 
 the judge reading such other portions, as they 
 were i)roperly in evidence. Scowjall v. Staple- 
 ton, 12 O. 11. 200.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Canada Central K. W. Co. v. McLaren, 8 
 A. R. 5()4 ; Clarke v. Union Fire Inx. Co. — Clialwt's 
 Caxe, 10 I'. R. 41.1, p. ()22 ; Moxley v. Canada 
 Atlantic R. W. Co., 11 1'. R, 39, p. 640. 
 
 XXVII. Com )BOKATivE Evidence. 
 1. Corroboratinij Accomplice . 
 
 The plaintiffs claimed that a sum of money 
 had bcjn stolen from them by defendant, and 
 brought in action to recover the money or la'id 
 in wlii^'i it had lieen invested. The evidence 
 in proof of the charge was that of accomplices, 
 and in corroijDration, the evidence of iletectives 
 who stated that defendant admitted the charge. 
 The judge cliarged the jury that if it wa.i a 
 criminal trial he should be compelled to tell 
 them that, though they might convict on tlie 
 evidence of accomplices, it was never safe to do 
 so, and there should be some corroborative evi- 
 dence to turn the scale against the presumption 
 of innocence. He further s:iid that this was not 
 a crrminal case, but yet he could not say the 
 rule ought not to be applied, perhaps not pre- 
 cisely in the same way, but they were to exercise 
 their common sense as to how far tliey W(ndcl 
 credit or discredit the evidence of accomplices. 
 He also stated that wiien he said that corrobora- 
 tive evidence was necessary wiien accusations 
 were sworn to by accomplices, he desired them 
 to understaml that the more particular point of 
 corroboration should be tiie identity of the per- 
 son accused, and unless the corroltorative evi- 
 dence identitied the defendant with tiie stealing 
 on the occasion and under the circumstances 
 detailed in the evidence, it would not be cor- 
 roborative. His identity should be contained 
 in the evidence of corroboration : — Held, {(iait, 
 J., dissenting) that the effect of the charge and 
 the impres.sioii it was calculated to leave on the 
 minds of the jury, fairly consid^'red, was that 
 the evidence of accomplices in crime, which 
 crime gave rise to tlie civil action, ought not to 
 be credited or nilied on, unless corroborated, 
 and was misdirection ; and there was also mis- 
 direction in charging that the corrolioration 
 must be as to the identity of the party charged 
 with the criminal act. It was urge«i that the 
 misdirection, if any, w.as immaterial, because 
 the defendant could not have been present 
 taking part in the stealing fif the mo?u'y, be- 
 c.iuse an alllii was proved ; l)ut : — Held, that 
 the effect that the evidence as to the alilii had 
 upon the jury depended nnich upon the credit 
 to be attached to the accomplices' evidence, and 
 ae it could not he ascertained on what ground 
 th(^ jury found for tlie defendant, it was inipos- 
 siMe to say that the jury may not have di.scre- 
 diied the accomplices' evidence because of the 
 
 alleged want of corroboration. The judge 
 also in his charge, after stating that the plain- 
 tiff in an action had to make out his case, added, 
 that is, he has to satisfy them that the evi- 
 dence is sufficient to cause them to believe "with- 
 out any reasonable doubt" that the claim the 
 plaintiff makes is correct, and, if he fails to 
 do so, there should be a verdict against him. 
 Per Cameron, C .1. — While of opinion that this 
 was putting the ])laintiffs' obligation more bur- 
 deusoniely than the law recpiired, he could not 
 say the learned ju<lge was without the w.arrant 
 of authority for sf) cliarging. Thurtell v. Beau- 
 mont, 1 Bing. 339, and Uichardson r. Canada 
 West Farmers' Ins. Co., 17 C. P. 34\, c<mnnen- 
 ted on. Per Rose, J. — The charge on this point 
 was (piite correct. United Stales Express Co. v. 
 Donohoe, 14 O. R. 333.— C. P. U. 
 
 Remarks as to the api)lication to civil causes 
 of the practice in criminal cases regarding the 
 corroboration cf accomplices. See lie .Monteilh — 
 Merchaut.i' Bank v. Monteith, 10 O. R. 529. 
 
 2. In Action.1 by or aijainst Repre.<ientatives of 
 Deceased. 
 
 K. had a.ssigned the moneys due to him by iS. : 
 — Held, that K., who was a witness, was not 
 "an opposite or iiitercsted party to the suit," 
 within the meanin< of the Evidence Act, R..S O. 
 (1877) c. 02, 8. 11) and his evidence thercfoie 
 did not rcipiire corroboration as .igainst ihe 
 e.veeutors of S. Wutson v. Severn, G A. R. 5.59. 
 
 Helil, that under section 10 of the Evidence 
 Act, 1{. S. O. (1S77) c. 02, any evidence adduced 
 by a party interested against an execui. -x cor- 
 roborating the evidence of the intenisted party 
 in any particular, must be submitted to the 
 jury, as sufficient in ])oint of law, the weight to 
 lie attached to it in point of fact being a matter 
 for their consiileration. Orr v. Orr, 21 (.'hy. 
 ,S!t7, and McDonald r. McKin-ion, 20 Chy. 12, 
 coniniented upon. Parker v. Parker, 32 C P. 
 11.3. — Armour. 
 
 In this case, which was an action on the com- 
 mon counts against tiie defendant as executrix, 
 etc., formoney paid to the use of the defend.uit's 
 testator, the transaction arose out of some pro- 
 mis -ory noti's made by the testator and the 
 plaintiff, but which the plaintill' alleged he signed 
 for the testator's acconmuidation, and had sidi- 
 se(|uently paid f<u' the testator: — Held, cui the 
 evidence set out in the report, that the plaintiff's 
 evidence was sutliciently corroborated within the 
 meaning ot the Act : and that the count for 
 money paid was supported, lb. 
 
 When tch item in an account against the 
 estate of a deceased ])erson is an indepemliMit 
 transaction, and constitutes a sejwirate and indc- 
 ))etiilent cause of action, to satisfy the statute 
 11. S. O. (I.S77) c, 02, 8. 10, some essential cor- 
 roboration of the intercsteil jiarty's evidence 
 must be adiliieed as to each item. 6^/0^• v. 
 a rout. 32 (.'. P. 511.— C. P. D. lie Jloss, 29 
 Chy. .•SS,-.. -Iloyd. 
 
 The plaintifT claimed to recover agali\st the 
 defendant as administrator of his deceaed 
 brother, W. O., two sums, one of $800, which 
 she alleged W. O. received for her fiom another 
 brother, .S. G., also deceased ; and the other of 
 
 I 681 
 
 on 
 
 will 
 
 tnlt 
 
 plai 
 
 his 
 
 of 1 
 
681 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 $1,500, which she alleged W. G. proiniaeil to 
 leave her in consideratinn of her ruinainiii^ with 
 him, taking cnre of and managing liin hoiiHo, a.s 
 long as he lived. An to the $800, the i)l,iintiirs 
 evidence was held to he sulficiently ooitoIk)- 
 rated by the evidence set <iut in the repoit, 
 within the meaning of tlio statute, but other- 
 wise as to the 81,500. Couk v. (Irani, Wi I'. I'. 
 511.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The widow of the intestate claimed against bin 
 estate a sum of 5700, which she alleged he bad 
 borrowed from heraftur her marriage, and aboiit 
 ten years before liis death, for the junjiose of 
 buying a stock-in-trade. The money ,as ile- 
 ])08ited in a l)ank at the time of the marriage, 
 which took |)lace before the ('. S. U. *.'. c. 73. 
 Kvidence was given in corroboration of tliecliiim- 
 ant to the efl'ect tliat — ■'He(I^a\VM) Iuld iiic he 
 had got S(!OOor.'5i700 from his wife. .She bud got 
 a little moniiy. He said he had paid that money 
 fi'r tlie thing.s he bad in the store. This wiis 
 i-ftcr he had bought F^. out. * * He said his 
 V ife had helped him to jidOO or .'*70<>. * * I 
 Ubderstood he had used the money to buy nut 
 the Inisiness " : — Held. atHrming the order of the 
 chancellor, reversing the finding of the mastiir 
 at Hamilton, that slic could not recover. I'ei' 
 .Spragge, (.'. , and Blake, \. C. The evidence of 
 the widow was not sufliciently corroborated. I'cr 
 Proudfoot, V. C. The evidence that the chose 
 in action was originally hers, and that she gave 
 it to her husl>an<l, was corroborated, and this 
 corrolKjration was sutlicieiit to su}>port hei own 
 evidence that it was a lo.in ; but the ('. .S. U. C. 
 c. 73, gave her the right to a.sserther proprietor- 
 ship as against her lrisl)and, and as incident 
 tlioreto the right to bring a suit against him : to 
 which proceedings however the Statute of I, imi- 
 tations was a bar, and therefore her remedy was 
 gone. Re Laws — Lan's v. Lairs, 28 Chy. 3H'J, — 
 Chy. D. 
 
 The testator, father of the jdaintiffs wife, 
 suggested to liim to purchase a lot of laml which 
 was subject to a mortgage, saying that if be 
 would do so, and liavc the property conveyed to 
 his (plaintifFs) wife, be would ])ay off the incum- 
 brance. The plaintit!' in eon.se(|uence made the 
 purchase, and h.id the property conveyed as 
 suggested, but the testator refused to i)ay the 
 instalments on the mortgage ai-.'l the plaintiflF 
 was compelled to pay it himself. Ti. > testator 
 subse(|Uently expressed his regretat having thus 
 acted, and promised the ])laintiff that he would 
 do better for them ; that he would pay plaintiff 
 S150 a year for ten years, and beiiucath to his 
 wife SI, 000. By the will, however, only .■?1(»0 
 was left to her, and the plaintill' instituted the 
 present suit against the representative of his 
 father-in-law to enforce such second agreement, 
 or for payment of damages by reason of the 
 breach thereof. The only direct evidence was 
 that of the plaintiff. At the bearing tiici(! were 
 jjroduced two receipts signed by the daughter 
 for $200 and .S200 respectively, expressed to be 
 on account of money left her by her father's 
 will : and witnesses swore that the testator had 
 told them that he had agreed to pay for the 
 place if the plaintiff would take o\it the deed in 
 his wife's name, an<l that he was making tlie 
 payments as the plaintiff had so taken the deed : 
 — Held, that there was sufficient corroboration 
 of the evidence of the plaintiff as required by the 
 
 statute (H. S. O. (1877) c. 62). IlaUtran v. 
 Moon, 28 (Jhy. 319.— Spragge. 
 
 W. 1). n. alleged that in 1872, 1). IJ. tranp- 
 feire<l to liim as a g'ft 100 shares of a certain 
 s'dck, part of the assets of the firm, and as eor- 
 roliorative evidence thereof proved the transfer 
 of the stock to him, and a retransfer afterwards 
 on .lanuary .30lli, 1873 ; which retransfer, he 
 s.iid, was to prevent the surplus of the savings 
 l)ank a])i)earing to lie less, and also produced the 
 printed statement of the savings bank of Decem- 
 i)cr 31st, IS72, shewing this stock : — Held, that 
 this was not such corroborative evidence of the 
 gift as satislied the statute \\. S. O. (1877) c. 02, 
 8. 10. Burn v. Burn, 8 O. R. 237.— Ferguson. 
 
 Plaintiff, after her busliand's deatli, and about 
 twenty-live years before action brought, went to 
 live with testator, her son-in-law, and resided 
 witli him u|) to the time of his wife's death, 
 alx.ut twelve years before action. She alleged 
 that after her daughter's death, testator agreed 
 to ]my her wages if slie would continue to live 
 with him and takt' care of bis family. She ac- 
 coriiingly did so till bis death in 1855, up to 
 whiv'b date she had recc'ved nothing from him. 
 In an action against hia estate fiu' wages plaintiff 
 relied on the evidence of a witness to tiie effect 
 that testator, about two years before his death, 
 told witness phiintitV should be handsomely paid 
 for lier services : and ,dso on the evidence of 
 anothei- son-in-law, that two or three years before 
 his death testator told witness that he would pay 
 her well. It also appeared th.at by his will tes- 
 tator directed all his property to bo converted 
 into money and investeil in mortgage security, 
 and the whole income paid to plaintiff during 
 her lifetime ; but tliere was no evidence as to the 
 v.ihie of this be(|ucst, and it was suggested that 
 after jmyment of (bl>ts the residue wouhl be very 
 small :--Hcld, that there was no sufficient cor- 
 roborative evidence within R. S. O. (1877) c. 62, 
 8. I(t. Tii'-hxr V. McMahon, II U. It. 718.- 
 Q. 15. 1). 
 
 .See /i'<' .Wdvray- Purilom V. Murraij, 29 Chy. 
 443 ; Mfi^-./f V. Brwlthnii; G A. R. cijO ; EUiutf 
 V. «»«W/, I'M). R. 413, p. C7ti. 
 
 3. To EdahlUh Wills. 
 
 The evidence of various witnesses for the de- 
 fence was conflicting as to the incidents which 
 
 happc 1 shortly before the testator's ilecease ; 
 
 and Wilde they all spoke of the testator's un- 
 willingness to give tile plaintitf mor;' than $10, 
 there was no evidei>ce, other than that of the 
 defendant, of his desire to give her the bulk of 
 
 I his propeity or to make any disposition of it : — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Proudfoot, J., 
 
 I that the second will could not be establishtd on 
 tlii^ uncorroborated evidence of the defendant, 
 and the prior will was declared to be the testa- 
 tor's last will. Ifojij V. Maijiiire, 11 A. R. 5^yl. 
 
 ! 4. Otiur Ca.<es. 
 
 ; In cases where there is suspicion of fraud. 
 I See McKay v. M<Kay, 31 C. P. I ; Morton v, 
 j Nihan, 5 A. R. 20. 
 
 In extradition proceedings. Ser. / • re II. E. 
 Lee, 5 O. R. 583. 
 
 «5 
 
 .i > 
 t I 
 
 I I 
 
683 
 
 EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOB. 
 
 ¥ 
 
 III 
 
 h 
 
 In an action for breach of promige of marriage. 
 See CoxteUo v. Hunter, 12 0. R. 333; Yarwood 
 V. llarl, 16 O. R. 23, 16 A. R. 532. 
 
 XXVIII. CONTRADICTOKY EVIDENCE. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 One C entered into ngreeinents with several 
 parties to carry freights for them at certain 
 named prices to be paid to the defendant— not 
 mentioning any particular vessels in which the 
 same were to l)e carried— and then agreed with 
 the defenflant, as part owner and master of ves- 
 sels in which tlie plaintiffs h'ad an interest, at 
 rates consideialily below the sums agreed upon. 
 The defendant and C. l)oth swoi'e that the ar- 
 r.ingenient had not been made by C as agent of 
 the defendant, but for his own hencKt :— Held, 
 that the fact of the defendant having rendered 
 an account in bin own name and also sued for a 
 portion of the freight, though aided by the 
 other circumstances mentioned in the judgment, 
 was not suflicient to countervail the positive de- 
 nials of the defendant and C, that the contracts 
 had not Ixsen made in behalf of and as agent for 
 the defendant, freight being prima facie payable 
 to the master of a vessel, and the cargo need 
 not be delivered by him until the freight there- 
 of is paid ; although in any other transaction such i 
 conduct would have been strong evidence that the j 
 defendant was the principal contractor. Mer- i 
 chants' Hank V. Graham, 21 Chy.524.- -Proudfoot. ; 
 
 Held, on the evidence in this case as to the ' 
 amount of wages, each party swearing to a dif- 
 ferent agreement, and the other evidence being 
 contradictory, the fair inference M'as tliai the 
 parties' minds were never ad idem, anil the 
 recovery could only be on the <(U)iHtum nieniit. I 
 Hocmr v. Afemtr, 7 O. R. 629. C. P. I). j 
 
 Where the evidence is contradictory the o»>urt 
 will not interfere with the Hndings ot the judge 
 whotriedthecase. Cookv. FatUrsoH.\OA. R.645> 
 
 Where there is a direct conflict of testimony, 
 the finding of the judge at the trial must be re- ! 
 garded as decisive, and should not be overti'rned I 
 m appeal by a court which has not had ths ad- 
 vantage of seeing the witnesses and obseiving 
 their demeanoui' while under examination, •'ira- 
 sett V. Carter, 10 S. C. R. 105. 
 
 The judge who tried the case, in which '.he 
 evidence was conflicting and irreconcilable, rei't- 
 ed his conclusion in fiivoiu- of tiie defcndait 
 on the documentary cviilcncc and the probabili- 
 ties arising in the case This court, while nut 
 differing from tl\o judge i« to the credibility of 
 the parties or their witiiv sses, having come to a 
 different conclusion on the whole evidence, al- 
 lowed the appeal, and reversed the decisicm of 
 the court below. Cftner'Oi v. liiikfuril, 1 1 \. It. 
 62. This case was reversed by the Privy ('oiincll. 
 
 It is not an i\ general thing the best rule, in 
 e«*vs of \aiying opinion as to value, to reject 
 one set of witnesses in toto and to adopt tht 
 figures of au opposing set. It is rathi i to be 
 8up|H>8ed that neither is exactly to be followed, 
 »nd that truth lies somewhere between the ex. 
 treme.s. Munsiew LinrUay, WO. ^,. 510. Boyd_ 
 
 See Mitchell v. Strathy, 28 Thy. 80 ; Murraij 
 v, HiUchhmm, 14 A. R 489. ^ank of Hamil- 
 ton v. IsaaM, 16 O. R. 450. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT 
 DEBTOB. 
 
 I. Who May br Kxaminrd, 684. 
 
 II. Ordkr for Examination and Service, 
 680. 
 
 III. Appeal from Order, 686. 
 
 IV'. Co.NDrcT OF Examination, 686. 
 
 V. Non-Attendanck, 686. 
 
 VI. Unsati.sfactorv Answers, 687. 
 
 VII. Costs, 688. 
 
 VIII, In Division Courts. ^ee Division 
 
 COCRTS. 
 
 I. Who May be Examined. 
 
 Held, that a judgment creditor, whose judg- 
 ment is for costs only, catuii t examine his judg- 
 ment debtor under R. S. (). (1877) c. .W, s. .304. 
 nor garnish debts duo to liim. Ghent v. McColl, 
 8 P. R. 428. -Daltou, (i. C. 
 
 A judgment creditor in such a case may ex- 
 amine his judgment debtor under R, S. (). (1877) 
 c. 49, 8. 17. It). 
 
 The defendant recovered judgment against the 
 plaintiff in the action for his costs of defence, on 
 a judgment of nonsuit :~Held, that the plain- 
 till' was not a judgment debtor, examinable un- 
 der s, 17 R, S. (). (1877), c. 49, or », .304, |{. S. 
 O. (1877), c. .M), or Rule 366 O. J. Act (Con. 
 Rule 926). McL-ichlin r. Blackburn, 7 P. R. 
 287, dissented from; Lovell r. (iibson, (i P. R. 
 132, commented upon. Mei/ern v. Kendrick, 9 
 i P. R. 363. -Osier. 
 
 A person against whom a judgment has been 
 piix-«)vered for costs only, cannot be ex.iminod as 
 * judgment debtor. Con. Hules 92() and 934 
 considered. Meyers i: Kendrick, 9 P. I!. .S63, 
 has not been affected by the introduction of 
 
 ' Con. Rule 9.34, and is still the law. Troutmaii 
 
 I V. Fixkiti, 13 P. R. 153. -C. P. D. 
 
 : The solicitor of a judgment debtor who had 
 ' absconded, transferred jjroperty of the judgment 
 1 debtor to a purchaser, under power of attorney, 
 j an<l received the consiileration money, !?4,00O. 
 Upon an application to examiiie the solicitor 
 under 49 Vict. o. 16, s. 12, (Ont,) :— HeM, that 
 this provision being remedial and for tlie pur- 
 ' pose of enabling the judgment creditor the bet- 
 ter to discover property of his debtor, it should 
 be construed so as to .advance the remedy, so 
 far as the fair meaning of the words will per- 
 mit. The word "transfer'" in the expression, 
 " any person to whom the debtor has made a 
 ; transfer of his property or effects," should not 
 i be limited to the transfer of the title to the pro- 
 perty or effects, but should be regarded as 
 •'((ually an|)licable to tin ti iwisfer of the posnoH 
 sion ; and llicrcfore the solicitor was a pcrmm 
 ; to whom a transfer of the debtor's property and 
 { effects to the extent of $4,000 liad been made, 
 ! for the \ioHHeHsion of that sum had been trans- 
 ferreil to him !>> his debtor. Per Armour, C. 
 J. — The solicitoi was also an employee of the 
 judgment debtor within the meaning of the sec- 
 tion. Gowanx v, liamtt, 12 P. R. 330.— Dalton, 
 ilf<M<er.— Rose.— Q. B. D. 
 
685 
 
 EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR. 
 
 686 
 
 "Transfer" used in Gon. Rule 928 is not in- 
 tended to cover an " aasigninent " for the general 
 benefit of oreditors, valid and sutficicnt under 
 R. 8. O. (1887) 0. 124, and an aHsignee under 
 that Act 18 not one of the i>er8on8 to be subjected 
 to examination under that Kule. Britinh Can- 
 adian Loan and Inventment Co. v. liritneil, 13 
 P. R. 310. -Boyd. 
 
 Notwit))Htanding changes made in tlie practice 
 as to examining judgment debtors, embodied in 
 Con. Rule 926, a judgment debtor is not under 
 the new, any more than under the old practice, 
 examinable until the judgment creditor bus 
 placed a fi. fa. in the sheriff's hands, and it has 
 been returned nulla bona, or the siieriif has 
 notified the judgment creditor that, if called 
 upon to make a return, it would be nulla bona. 
 Ontario Hank v. Trowern, 13 V. R. 422.— Mac- 
 MahoD. 
 
 See Blackley v. Blau^t, 12 P. R. 565, wfra. 
 
 II. Ordkr for Examination and Service. 
 
 Wiien serving a defendant with an order to 
 examine him as a judgment debtor, it is not 
 necessary to exhibit the original order, unless 
 demanilcd, in order to entitle tlie plaintiff to 
 move for a ca. sn. against him, under R. S. (). 
 (1877) c. .lO, 8. 305. Iwiivrial Hank v. Dickey, 
 
 8 P. H. 246.— Gait. 
 
 Held, tliat under Rule 369, O. J. Act, (Con. 
 Rule 930), an appointment signed by the ex- 
 aminer, and not a copy, must be served on the 
 person to be examined. Mti/ers v. Kcndiick, 
 
 9 P. K. 303. -Osier. 
 
 An examination under A. J. Act, ss. 17, IS or 
 C. L. P. Act, s. 304, can only be taken under 
 a rule of court or judge's order. Ifj. 
 
 A married woman, a judgment debtor, wiio 
 refusc.t to attend and be examined as to iier 
 estate and effects, or refuses to di-sclose her pro- 
 perty, or to L'ive satisfaotorj answers to (jues- 
 tions under R. S. O. (1877), c. 50, ss. 304, 305. 
 may Ik- committed for disobedience of tlie 
 statute, notwithstanding the R. S. O. (1877) c. 
 67, ■•<. 3. Mi/ro/iolittni Loan and •Sai'inijs Co. v. 
 Mara, 8 P. R. 355.— Wilson. 
 
 The order for connnitmcnt in such case is not 
 mesne or final process, but punishment for dis- 
 ol)edience of the statute. Ih. 
 
 Qu.'i're, as to the liability of a married woman 
 to arrest. lb. 
 
 An order under 49 Vict. c. 16, s. 12 (Out.), 
 for examination of tlie transferee of a judg- 
 ment lebtor, should not l)e made witiiout notice 
 to tbi- tiaiisferee ; nor should an order under 
 that .section be made without proof that tiie 
 tr'iusfer was nv.idc since the date when the 
 liability of tlic judgment debtor was incurred 
 Hl„kckyy. Blaase, 12 P. R. 565.— MacMahon. 
 
 A chattel mortgage is a transfer of property 
 and effects within the meaning of 49 Vict. c. 16, 
 s. 12. Ih. 
 
 See Re Chatham Harvester Co. v. Campbell, 
 12 P. R. 666, p. 687. 
 
 III. Appral from Order, 
 
 A transferee was allowed to appeal from an 
 order for bis examination after the time for 
 appealing had expired, his delav being Hatisfac- 
 torily explained. Blakelcy v. maate, 12 P. R. 
 565. — MacMahon. 
 
 IV. Conduit of Examination. 
 
 In examination of a judgment debtor under 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 50, 8. 304, the object of the 
 encpiiry is to shew what property or means the 
 debtor has at the>time of the examination which 
 can be made available to the creditor, and the 
 enquiry is not restricted to the period of the 
 contracting of the debt, but it may be shewn 
 that at some anterior time, no matter how far 
 back, the debtor had property, as to which he 
 may be reijuired to give an account ; and it is 
 not a sufficient answer to the enquiry merely to 
 say that it has all been disposed of before the 
 debt was incurred. Ontario Bank v. Mitchell, 
 32 C. P. 73.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Upon a motion to commit the defendant foi 
 unsatisfactory answers upon his examination as 
 a jiulgment debtor : — Held, that the examination 
 should not be so conduotetl as to try to entrap 
 the debtor, but it should be f\dl, fair, and search- 
 ing. 2. That the broad test to be applied in 
 gauging the character of the answers, in order 
 to determine whether they are satisfactory, is : 
 Having regard to the circumstances of c.icli par- 
 ticular ca.se, are the answers sufficient to satisfy 
 the mind of a rcasoiudile person that full and 
 true disclosure has been nmde. 3. That v here 
 tlie particulars wherein dissatisfaction is felt 
 have been pointed out, an opportunity should be 
 given to the debtor of n^coiiciling what may be 
 conceived to be contradictions or supplying what 
 may appear to be oiiii.ssioiis. 4. That the onliii- 
 ary rules for dealing with evidence in litigated 
 matters, where money or money's worth only is 
 involved, are not to be applieil, witiiout more, 
 to cases where the liberty of the person is at 
 stake. And in the present case, where the ex- 
 amination was protracted and ranged over a 
 period of more than two years, during which the 
 defendant had had two lines of business going 
 on, he was allowed an opportunity to protect 
 himself by explanations, upon various parts of 
 his examinaticm, relied upon as shewing that a 
 considerable sum of money h.'ul not been ac- 
 counted for, being brought to his notice ; and 
 having ]^^'vn thus further examined, and it not 
 having been shewn that he had any means avail- 
 able to satisfy tlie jutlgment, and his answers as 
 a whole being reasonably satisfactory, in view 
 of the rules !il)ove laid down, amotion to commit 
 was refused. History of the enactments con- 
 tained in Con. Rules 928 and 932. Graham v. 
 Di'rlin, 13 P. R. 245.— Boyd. 
 
 See Foder v. Van }Yormer, 12 P. R. 597, p. 688. 
 
 V. Non-Attendance. 
 
 Held, that the defendant was liable to com- 
 mittal for contempt in not attending to be ex- 
 amined as a judgment debtor, although she was 
 a married woman and the judgment was one for 
 costs. Her imprisonment under such committal 
 would not be an imprisonment for nonpayment 
 
 <5 
 
 i \ 
 
 1 I 
 
687 
 
 EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR. 
 
 ■4**"' 
 
 8at>. 
 
 
 ».- 4,.. 
 
 m 
 
 of costs. Pearson v. Eiuery, 12 P. R. 4Gfl.— 
 FergiiHuii. 
 
 If thu original onlor is not shown at the tiinu 
 of service of it copy, tliu porHon served cannot 
 he liroii{{ht into contempt for (lisobcdience to it : 
 MeycrM v. Komirick, !) I'. 11. ut p. .'J(iO, followed. 
 lilakiliyv. n/ims,', V2 V. 1!. r)«r).--MucMiilion. 
 
 Upon the return of a Imhciia corpus, an order 
 WHS made by a jud^e of the High Court for the 
 diachurge of tlie dctendaiit from custody under u 
 writ of uttachincnt innuod by order of a county 
 judge in an action in a C>.,iuty Court : — Ilehl, 
 that an order to examine the ilefendant as a 
 judgment debtor, and an aiipointmcnt under it 
 together were e(|uivalent to an order that the 
 debtor hIiouUI attend u|)(in the day mentioned in 
 the appointment, and when he obeyed the oriler 
 by attending and oilering to be examined, it.s 
 force was sjient and the power of the exuudner 
 under it at an end ; to obtain a fresh appoint- 
 ment, a fresh order was necessary. Jarvis i>. 
 Jones, 4 P. H. Ml ; McCircgor v. Stuart, 5 I*. H. 
 56 referred to. /{c Vhalham Ilarcetlfr Co. v. 
 CaiHiMl, 121'. R. ()08. -Street. 
 
 If an order for substituted service of a sum- 
 mons or notice of motion to comndt c.inbcmade 
 at all, even under the wide language of Con. 
 Rule 407, it siiould not be made excej)t in a case 
 where no doul)t exi.sts that the notice has ccmie 
 to the knowledge of thu person against whom 
 the application is made, Ih. 
 
 The order asked for by the summons, viz., for 
 the committal of the defendant to the common 
 gaol was the appropriate punishment authorized 
 by I!. S. (). {\>i") c. ■)(», s. SOu, fordisol)edience 
 to an ordci- to attend for examination ; and an 
 ordoi' for the issue of a writ of attachment 
 . re(|uiriMg the sheriH' to hold the debtor in 
 custoily for an indelinite period was im]ir(iper. 
 At any rate a dillerent order from that indicated 
 in the summons should not have been made in 
 the al).si!iice of the delttor. The writ of attach- 
 ment under wiiich the debtor was held was 
 impro])erly issued without notice to him. as 
 required by Con. Rule .S7!> ; and it made no: 
 dilierence that it was in lieu of one which had I 
 expired. /I). 
 
 V'l. Ux.SATISFAt'TOJlY ANSWERS. 
 
 A satisfactory answer, upon examination as a 
 judgment debtor, according tr) the statute R. S. 
 O. (1S77), c. "lO, s. 30"), means more than that the 
 answer shall be a full, appropriate and pertinent 
 answer to the ipiestion : it means that the answer 
 shall shew a satisfactory disposition of the pro- 
 perty. Crooks V. Stroud, 10 V. R. 1,31.— Wilson. 
 
 The defendant in bis examination said ho had 
 no real estate nor any personal estate. In the 
 fall of 1882 he had aliout ^'AOO in money; he 
 paid his bills with it, ,ind lost the balance .at the 
 horse-races at Ruffalo. Since the fall of 1882 
 he had been in his father's employ ; he got 
 nothing l)Ut his board and clothing. When 
 asked as to the conveyance of the tannery lot to 
 his father, which he held in trust for him, he 
 said: "1 could not say what the consideration 
 was, or whether I was paid anything or not; I 
 forget ; I can't think of it, I forget whether I 
 received any money for that then or since ; it 
 was before judgment. * * My father wanted 
 
 mo to get it fixed" : — Held, that the defendant, 
 in Ids examination, had disclosed his property 
 and his transactions respecting the same; and 
 had not concealed or made away with liis pro- 
 perty in order to defeat or defraud his creditors. 
 Held, however, that the defendant had not 
 unswcrod fully or truthfully with respect to the 
 fact of receiving or not receiving money or other 
 consideration ; and that the answers he had given 
 respecting his transactions with his property 
 were not satisfactory by reason of the illegal 
 ami wrongful ilisposition of it by gambling or 
 horse-racing and otherwise. Ilefendant was 
 allowe<l to appear for further exannnation ; and 
 ordered to pay the costs of the first examination 
 and this application forthwith. Jb, 
 
 The defendant, a widow, upon her exannna- 
 tion as a judgment debtor adndtted having lent 
 her brother ^300, and having in her house at the 
 time of the exannnation .^100, which she refused 
 to hand over to apply on the judgment, because 
 she had no other property with which to support 
 herself and three chihlrtn. The judge to whom 
 an application to conmdt the defendant for un- 
 satisfactory answers was made, held that the 
 facta of the cose did not bring it within the 
 decisions in Metropolitan L. & S. Co. r. Mara, 
 8 1'. R. r.r>, and Crooks r. Stroud, 10 P. R. V.U, 
 and without laying down any rule, declined, in 
 the exercise of his discretion, to order a com- 
 mittal without further information than was 
 afforded by the examination. McKai/ v. Alhcr- 
 Ion, 12 P. R. 4(i4.— Rose. 
 
 It is the duty of a party who is examined as 
 a judgment debtor to furnish such explanation 
 about his affairs as will place his dealings in an 
 inUdligible shape, autl not leave his creditors to 
 find out, as best they may, what it is the busi- 
 ness of the debtor to make clear. Nor is it 
 enough for the debtor t(» say, touching ivny 
 particular transaction, that he does not know or 
 does not remember, if he have the means at 
 hand to (pialify himself to exjilain. t'ostrr v. 
 Villi Worimr, VI P. R. 597. — Hoyd. 
 
 A notice of motion seeking relief against a 
 parly for giving unsati'.iactoiy answers on his 
 exannnation should pi rticulari/c the answers 
 complained of. lb. 
 
 Precision should be used on the examination 
 in ascertaining the exact state of facts, as shewn 
 in books or accounts, and care exercised that 
 there is no uncertainty as to any dates or amounts 
 in (juestion, as the judge can or.ly look at what 
 is proveil or admitted. Ih. 
 
 On the state of facts referred to in the judg- 
 ment, the defendant was ordered to attend and 
 be further examined at his own exix^nse mkI to 
 l>ay the costs of a motion to commit him for 
 unsatisfactory answers. Ex jjarte Bra(ll)ury, 14 
 C. R. IT), and Kx parte Moir, 21 Ch. 1). fil, 
 followed. Crooks r. Strou.l, 10 I*. R. 131 ; 
 r^emon r. Lemon, 6 I'. R. 184; and Hobbs v. 
 Scott, 2.3 Q. R. 619, discussed. lb. 
 
 See Ontario Bank v. MMiell, .32 C. P. 7.3, p. 
 086 ; ilraham v. Devlin, 13 P. R. 245, p. 680. 
 
 VII. Costs. 
 
 Where a judgment debtor disobeyed an order 
 for his examination, he was directed to pay the 
 
EXEOUTION. 
 
 690 
 
 costs of an application for a ca. Ra., although 
 the motion wiis (liginissed upon his giving a 
 sufficient excuse for liis (lisolMsilienco. Imperiiil 
 Batik V. Dichy, 8 P. R. 24(!.-<!alt. 
 
 f^ooCrook'i V. Stroud, 10 P. K. 131, |). (I8S ; 
 Foster \. Va.Wormer, 12 P. R. 597, p. (JHS. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF PARTIES AND 
 WITNESSES. 
 
 See EviDKNCE. 
 
 EXCHANGE. 
 
 Whore lands were exchanged hotwi'cn the 
 pliiintifl' and defeiidiiiit wliicdi were sul)j('ct to 
 certain niort.'nges, tlie defendant was iiold bouml 
 to pay oil' tliose on the lands convcyoil to him, 
 and to protect tiie plaintill'froni liul)ility tiiei'con. 
 lioijd V. Johmtoii, 19 (). H. .')!»S. -Hoyd. 
 
 Sec White v. Tomalin, 19 O. R. .")I3. 
 
 EXCHEQUER COURT. 
 
 See Pktition of Ukiiit. 
 
 Senible, per Strong, J,, there is nothing in 
 section G.'lof the Supreme and Kxciie([uer Court 
 Act, contining appeals from the Kxcheipicr Court 
 to a recourse against dual judgments only, the 
 word used being "decision," which is applic- 
 able as well to lules aiul orders luit final as to 
 final decisions. JJuiijoii v. Marquis, 3 8. C. \\. 
 251. 
 
 Where, by a letter addressed to the sup|)liant, 
 the secretary of the public works department 
 stated, that he was dt^sircil by tin- minister of 
 public works to otler the sum of .'?,S,!»,"i(» in full 
 settli'inent of the HU])pliant'8 claim auainst the 
 dep.'irtnient, an application on behalf of the 
 crown for security for costs was refused, on tin; 
 ground that the jiower of ordering a party to 
 give security for costs, being a matter of dis- 
 cretion anil not of absolute right, the crown in 
 this case could snfTer no inconvenience fi'cun not 
 getting security, as well as on the gi'ound of 
 delay in making the apjilication. Application 
 for security for costs in this court nnist lie made 
 within the time allowed for tiling st.-itement in 
 defence, except under special circumstances. 
 Wood V. Thv (Jiii'i), 7 S. C. R. (i.3l. 
 
 A statement of claim was filed by the At- 
 torney-tieneral for the province of Ontario 
 in the Kxclie(|U('r (Jourt of Canada, praying 
 " that it may be declared that the j)crsonnl pro- 
 perty of persons domiciled within the province 
 of Ontario, dying intestate and leaving no next 
 of kin or other person entitled thereto other 
 than Her Majesty, belongs tf> the piovince or 
 to Her Majesty in trust for the province." The 
 Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada 
 in .answer to the statement of claim made, 
 prayed that "it be <leclared the personal pro- 
 perty of persons who have died intestate in 
 Ontario since confederation, leaving no next of 
 44 
 
 kin or other person entitled thereto rxcept Her 
 Majesty, belongs to the Dominion of Canada, or 
 to Her Majesty in trust for the Dominion of 
 (y'anaila. " No reply was filed, and on an appli- 
 cation to Mr. ilusticu (i Wynne in chambers for 
 a summons for an order to fix the time an<l 
 placj of trial or hearing, the summons was dis- 
 charged on the ground that the case di<l not 
 ))resent a projier case for the decision of the 
 court. A motion was then made before the 
 Kxche(|uer Court, Sir W. J. Ritchie, ])rusiding, 
 by way of appeal from the order of Mr. 'lustice 
 <>wyini<!, for an order to fix the time and place 
 of trial. The motion was dismissed without 
 costs, on the ground that he was not prepared 
 to interfere with the order of another judge of 
 the sanu! court. On appeal to the full court : — 
 Held, aliirming the decisions a)>|>ealed from, 
 that the jileadings did not disclose any nuitter 
 in cimtrovirsy in reference to which the court 
 could be properly asked to adjudge, or which a 
 judgment of the court could affect. Attorney- 
 (li'mrnl of Oiilariov. Atlorncy-Utneral of Can- 
 ada, 14 S. C. R. 7.'U). 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 I. Immepiatk E.xecution, 691. 
 II. TiMK OF Is.suiN(;, ()91. 
 
 III. Fieri Facias (Coous). 
 
 1. Tliiif of Operation, 692. 
 
 2. What Amoiiiits to a Sei-:urr, 692. 
 
 3. Properly Liahlc to Scizurf, 692. 
 
 4. Partnernhip Property, 693. 
 
 5. Sale, of Stork, 693. 
 
 6. Itctimi of, 693. 
 
 7. Lialiilily of Execution Creditor, 694. 
 
 8. Coiijlieliwi Clainm — Set Inteh- 
 
 PLEADER. 
 
 IV. Fieri Facias (Lands). 
 
 1. hmie of, 694. 
 
 2. Property Liable to Seizure. 
 
 (a) Eqnitahle Iiitereits, 694. 
 
 (b) Other Casex, 695. 
 
 3. What Amouiitu to a Seizure, 697. 
 
 4. Sale Under. 
 
 (a) Adrertinemeiit, 697. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 697. 
 
 V. Venditioni K.xi-onas, 698. 
 
 VI. Equitable Execution— Receivee, 698. 
 
 VII. SEQUE.STRATION, 700. 
 
 VIII. OniKR Writs of Execution. 
 
 1. .4<^neA»ie?t^— .S'ceAiiscoNDiNriDBitTOR. 
 
 2. CapiasSee Arrest. 
 
 3. Distress — See Distress. 
 
 4. Writ of Assistance—See Ejectment. 
 
 5. In Division Courts — «See Drvisioir 
 
 Courts. 
 
 IX. Amendment, 701. 
 X. Renewing Writs, 702. 
 XI. Setting Aside Executions, 702. 
 
 r 
 
 S 
 
 l( 
 
 n 
 
 u 
 
 <5 
 
 I 
 
 ,i f 
 
 i I 
 
EXECUTION. 
 
 
 :K5 -.ft ; 
 
 El) 
 
 ii;:l 
 
 i 
 
 XII. Staying Exkoution, 703. 
 
 XIII. AriANnoNMKNT, 703. 
 
 XIV. Pkiokii'v ok Kxkcutions. 
 
 1. (Uneml/y, 703. 
 
 2. Creditors' IMii-f Act, 705. 
 
 3. A(jninxl AnHiijnmentii - See. Dank- 
 
 UI'ITCY AND InsoLVKNOY. 
 
 •1. Lnmltord'H Claim Jor Kent — See 
 
 SllKKIKK. 
 
 XV. KxK< TTioNS AoAiNST Mahiukd Womk.n 
 
 —Sir DoWKIl— Ht'SHANI) ANU WlKK. 
 
 XVI. CiiAUoi.Mi inKxkoution— .ScePniHONKK. 
 XVII, Shkkikk's Duty and Liahii.ity — See 
 
 SlIKKIKF. 
 
 1. Immkdiate ExKcmoN. 
 
 Where it appears the ilcfentlnnt has no defence, 
 and has made, or is intending to make a fraudu- 
 lent disposition of his property, or is so dealing 
 with it as to eMd)arra88 tlie phiintiff in reacliing 
 it by cxeuution, the court wdl, on motion, under 
 Rule 324, (Con. Rule 744), upon a proper case 
 beinu made, order judgment and inuiiediato ex- 
 ecution. In tiie event of othei' executions being 
 obtained ag.tinst tlie debtor's )iroperty bi'fore the 
 time at whicli the pluintiif would be entitled to 
 issue executions as r)n a judgment in default of 
 appearance, and the amount realized being in- 
 Buiticicut to satisfy all parties, a ratable division 
 should be made. Khiloch v. Morton, 9 P. K. 
 38. -Osier. 
 
 II. Time of Is.sriNn. 
 
 made the order asked for. The master : —Weld, 
 that the admissions of 1). in his croMH-exiiininit- 
 tioM justitied the order under Con. Iluhi T.W, 
 and avoided the necessity of sending an iNHiio lo 
 be tried uniler Con. Hule 870 ;- lleUI, alHo, that 
 Con. Kule 7^)0 was applicaldo at tliis Ktiigu of 
 the cause, i. e., after judgment olttainud willidut 
 pleadings. Teinutht A: Co. v. Manhtrd <(• Co., 
 12 I'. K. «H». -Palton, Muster. 
 
 III. FiKRi Facias ((ioons). 
 
 I. Time o/O/ieration, 
 
 A sheriff received two executions against one 
 M.'s goods, on the IHth January, and ITith Feb- 
 ruary, respectively. He made a formal m'i/.urc 
 on the delivery of the first writ, but left no (Piic 
 in possession, and the execution ilebtor remauiod 
 in possession, and carried on his business as be- 
 fore the seizure. There had been a stay on this 
 writ by the solicitor for the execution creditor, 
 but on the delivery of the second writ the siierifT 
 was directed to proceed on both. On tlie (ith 
 of March, the goods, consisting of tiie whole of 
 the execution debtor's stock-in-trade, were sold 
 by the execution debtor to the plaintiffs, who 
 removed them to their own place of business. 
 On 22iid March, the sheritf seized all the g<i(Hl8 
 then in the pl.iintiffs' possession, which he liiul 
 received from the execution debtor, as also cer- 
 tain goods of the plaintiffs' which he claimed to 
 take in lieu of goods received from the execution 
 debtor and sold by plaintiffs. The sale to the 
 plaintiffs was found to be bonft tide, ami for 
 value, and without notice of the executions. In 
 replevin for the goods: Held (Wilson, C. . I,, 
 dissenting), that the sheriff was entitled to the 
 goods of the execut'on debtor then in plnintiirs' 
 possession; but not to the goods takeii^ by the 
 
 When a decree ordered payment forthwith | », ' .^ ;,, ,;;,„ „f t,,„^^ ^„,,, , t,,^. plaintiffs • that 
 ter the making of a report, an execution issued , , •' . .' 
 
 *..,. *i... _» 1....1 \.. «i„.i .„.. ....:.!.. there wa 
 
 aft 
 
 before the report had been tiled was set aside 
 with costs :— Seinble, the report did not recjuire 
 confirmation under the decree. Jellett v. A iidtr- 
 Hon, 8 I'. R. .387.— Hodgins, Heje.ree. 
 
 An execution issued on the same day that a 
 judgment in default of appearance, contrary to 
 Order 9, Rule 4, (Con. Rule 70o), is signed, is 
 an irregularity only, and not a nullity. Mac- 
 donald v. Crombk, 2 0. R. 243. -Q. IJ. D. 
 
 As to t'-e time of issuing execution against i 
 Mutual Insurance Companies. .See Lownoii v. 
 Canada Fat-mem' Mutual Inn. Co., 8 A. 1!. 013. 
 Reversing <S'. C, 9 P. R. 185, and overruling 
 Lount V. Canada Farmers" Ins. Co., 8 P. R. 433. 
 
 Qusere per Rose J., whether there is any 
 period fixed by the statute beyond which the 
 court may not have the power to allow execution 
 to be issued. McCulloitah v. Syh'n, 11 P. R. 
 337. 
 
 The plaintiffs recovered judgment against the 
 defendants, sued as a partnership firm, by de- 
 fault of appearance, after service of the writ of 
 summons upon M., a member of the firm, and 
 then moved under Con. Rule 876 for leave to 
 issue execution upon such judgment against D., 
 as a member of the firm, who had appeared. D. 
 disputed his liability, but upon his cross-exami- 
 nation upon an affidavit filed on the motion, 
 such facts appeared as convinced the master in 
 chambers that he was a general partner, and he 
 
 was no abandonment of the executions, 
 nor any such conduct on the part of the sliuriff 
 or the execution creditor as tc» estop them from 
 asserting that the executions were in force. On 
 the sheriff' making his seizure on the 22nd March, 
 tile plaintifl' gave him an undertaking to answer 
 for all goods sidd by him thereafter, it the sheriff 
 should be held entitled to the goods: — Held, 
 under a counter-claim s(;tting up this undertak- 
 ing the slieritr was entitled to recover the value 
 of the goods s(dd b\- the plaintitrs after the 'J2iul 
 March, and befoie the issue of the writ of re- 
 plevin. Pntteriiou V. McKitlur, 4 O. I!. 407.— 
 C. P. I). 
 
 2. What A mounts to a Seizure. 
 
 As to what constitutes a valid seizure under a 
 condition in a policy of insurance, providing that 
 if the insured property should be levied upon or 
 taken into possession or custody under any legal 
 process the policy should cease to l)e binding. 
 See May v. Standard Fire Inn. Co., 5 A. R. 605. 
 
 See Pardee v. Ola.it>, 1 1 0. R. 27o, p. 343. 
 
 3. Property Liable to Seizure. 
 Shares in ship. See Trerice v. liurketl, 1 
 
 0. 
 
 R. 80. 
 
 Indivisible chattel. SeeCi/nMY. liurgesx, 50. 
 R. C85 ; Be McDonagh v. Jephson, 16 A. R. 107. 
 
093 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 Sharoa t>f the atook of an Inoorporatod com- 
 pany may ite sui/od antlaold under the Kxccution 
 Act, R. H. O. (IH77), u. 00, by a alieriif under a 
 fi. fa. gooda, and ha ia entitled t<i an inter- 
 pleader under auction 10 uf the Interpleader Act 
 K. S. O, (1877), c. 64, where an advorau claim to 
 the atock ia aclvancod. Hrowii v. NeUon, 10 1*. 
 R. 421. — Dalton, Meuler — Cameron. 
 
 A trader, who waa in embarraaacd ciruum- 
 atancea, made an aaaignnient for the honulit of 
 creditora of all hia oatate, real and poraonal, to 
 the plaintiff, who held a mortgage on a part of 
 the realty aa accurity againathiauidoracmunt for 
 the aaaignor of nolea then current. No creditor 
 joined in the convuvanco, nor waa the consent 
 to or knowledge of ft by any creditor ahewn :— 
 Held, atKrniing the judgment of the Co\mty 
 Court, that the property wua liable to aeixuro 
 under execution, for under tlie mortgage the 
 truatee waa not a creditor; but— Scnildo {per 
 Patterson, ,J. A.), that had the truatee been bene- 
 ficially intereatcd in the proceeds of the property, 
 Ilia aaacnt would have rendered the deed irrevo- 
 cable. Cooper V. Dixoti, 10 A. 1!. 60. 
 
 4. Parlnv.rship Property. 
 
 In a auit by an infant partner againat hia co- 
 partner praying for disaolutioii, receiver, refer- 
 ence, etc., after a decree proconfoaao, and during 
 the taking of the accounta under an agreement 
 for a continuance of the partncrahip busineaa 
 for that purpoae— certain creditora of the firm 
 obtained judgmentsandexecutionaat law againat 
 the {lartner of the infant who waa not informed 
 of theae proceedinga until the sheriff had aeizod, 
 and was about to sell, the whole of the partner- 
 ship property :— Held, on motion for injunc- 
 tion, that the proceedings at law were not with- 
 in the proviaiona of R. S. O. (1877) c. 12.3, a. 8, 
 and that the aalo should be restrained : — Held, 
 also, that the execution creditora might bo made 
 partica for that purpoae on motion aimply. 
 Youwj V. Hiiher, 29 Cliy. 49. — Ferguson. 
 
 Saleofanindiviaiblcchattolonexecutionagainat 
 a co-owner. See Onnn v. liunjens, 5 O. R. 685. 
 
 Kxecution againat the firm and againat indi- 
 vidual members of the firm. Priority. See Jiank 
 0/ ToroiUo V. Hall, 6 O. R. 653. 
 
 iioe London and Canadian Loan and Aiinicy 
 Co. V. Morphii, 10 O. R. 86, 14 A. R. 577, p.' 701 ; 
 Re McDonaijh v. Jephavn, 16 A. H. 107, p. 708. 
 
 5. Sale of Stock. 
 
 Where a number of shares of railway atock 
 were aeized and advertised to be sold in one lot, 
 neither the defendant nor any one interested in 
 the sale requesting the sheriff to sell the sliarea 
 separately, and such shares were sold for an 
 amount far in excess of the judgment debt for 
 which the property was taken into execution, 
 such sale in the absence of proof of fraud or 
 collusion was held good and valid. Connecticut 
 and PoBmrnpsic Rivera R. W. Co. v. Morris, 14 
 S. C. R. 318. 
 
 6. Return of. 
 
 See ifoUons' Bank v. McMeeken, Ex parte 
 Sloan, 15 A. R. 535, p. 545. 
 
 7. LidUlily of h'.reculion Creditor. 
 
 For maliciously isauing execution. See Tiu-k- 
 ctt V. Kidon, « (). R. 486. 
 
 Tlio mortgagee of the chattels aei/ed the niort- 
 uatted goods under an execution in a auit for the 
 aebt secured by the mortgage. The cXfcution 
 waa aet aaide ita being againat good faith. In 
 an action for the wrongful aeizure and i;i>nvi'r- 
 sioii of the goods; -Held, that tiie iiiortg.igee 
 could nr)t justify the Hei/.iiie under the mortgage. 
 Dedruk v. Ashdou-n, 16 S. (,'. R. 227. 
 
 The defendants, who lived in Hiimiltnii, had 
 a claim against W. at Ingersoll, and thinking 
 he wiiH carrying on business on his own aoinunt 
 issued a writ therefor tiirough Ihi-ii' miliritors 
 C k W. which was served by (', who went to 
 Ingersoll under special instructions from defen- 
 danta to do so, and to take such steps as they 
 migiit think best to recover the claim. A judg- 
 ment was afterwards obtained, and an exccutiou 
 against W.'s goods issued. The sherill' sent hia 
 officer to execute tlie writ who was informed by 
 W. that he had no goods, whicii tlic odiccr be- 
 lieved to be true, and so informed tiie Hhcriff 
 who accordingly notified C & 15. ('. it I'., re- 
 fused to accept this, and wrote \,\w sheritt' in 
 effect that he had acted im])roperIy in not Hciz- 
 ing the goods, on ex parte statements, and that 
 he must take such actiim as would eiuilile liim 
 to test the truth of the statements lie had acted 
 on. The sheriff then seized the goods anil 
 applied for an interi)leader order. The goods 
 were proved to be the plaintiffs. In an aition 
 to recover damages occasioned by the seizure ; — 
 Held, that tlie sTicritl' nuist be assumed to have 
 seized, under the circumstances, under in.struc- 
 tions from the defendants' solicitors, and as 
 the solicitors were acting under special instruc- 
 tions from the defendants to take such proceed- 
 ings aa they might think liest, the latter were 
 liivldc to the plaintiff. Smith r, Keal, 9 Q. It. I). 
 340, diatinguiahed. Wilkiiixun v, JItirrii/, 15 
 O. K. 346.— Rose. 
 
 IV. Fieri Facias (Lands.) 
 
 1. /.MHC of. 
 
 Held, (affirming the judgment of Ferguson, J., 
 7 O. R. 215) following boe d. Spalford c. Brown, 
 3 O. S. 95, and OnUrio Bank r. Kirby, 16 C. 
 P. 35, decided under 43 Geo. III. c. 1, that the 
 isaue of an execution against lands before the re- 
 turn of an execution against gooda is, under R. 
 S. O. (1877), c. 66, an irregularity only, and not 
 a void proceeding, the provision of both statutes 
 being in effect the same. Rosa v. Malone, 7 0. 
 R. .S97— Chy. D. 
 
 See Hillyard v. Swan, 12 P. R. 226. 
 
 2. Properly liable to Seizure. 
 
 (a) Equitable Interests. 
 
 Four persons joined in executing a mortgage 
 of their joint estate, and subsequently the 
 interest of three of them was sold under execu- 
 tions at law : — Held, that the sale was inopera- 
 tive ; that the owner of the equity of redemption 
 had a right to redeem ; and that the purchaser 
 at the sheriff's aale, who was also the mortgagee, 
 havinir gone into posaesaion of the mortgage 
 
 
*f4^:t, 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 // 
 
 
 ^° 4is 
 
 ^ ^w 4^^% #j>^ 
 
 
 
 '"^J^ 
 
 %^ 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 h 
 
 7: 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 S 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 l^|28 
 
 mm 
 
 11.25 11.4 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 2.2 
 
 l£ HO 
 
 J4 
 
 1.6 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STREET 
 
 WBBSTW.N.V. 14580 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
.V4 
 
•jinMpwppip 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 3! 3': 
 
 
 
 i:?- 
 
 I 
 
 Id 
 
 2«a 
 
 Instate, was bound to account for tlie rents and 
 jji'ofits. Cronii v. ChamlierVm, '27 Cliy. 551. — 
 Spragge. See Wood v. Hurl, 28 Chy. 146. 
 
 Where R, iissigneda mortgage to M. to secure 
 l)aynient of two note.s of less amount than the 
 morlgage del)t, and M. liaving procured an 
 assignment to liimself of a judgment against !{., 
 tlie .shci'itl', pursuant to writs issued under the 
 saiil judgment, seizeil the mortgage so assigned, 
 and M . lef used to execute a re-assignment thereof 
 to R. until not only tiie amount due on tlie 
 notes, but also the balance due on the mort- 
 gage was paid : — Held, that R. was entitled to a 
 reassignment on payment of what was due on 
 the notei^only, for the ])laintiff's interest in the 
 mortgage was not j)ro])erly exigible by the 
 siieriH' under K. S. (). (IHT'T), c.' 66. Ross v. 
 Sinij'son, 'i',\ Chy. 552, distinguished. Itumohr 
 V. Marx, .i O. R. 167. — Ferguson. 
 
 Trustees under the will of F. S., holding oer- 
 tain lauds by virtue thereof on trust to sell as 
 soon as cuivcniently niigiit be after lier decease, 
 and distribute the jiroceeds among her children, 
 one of whom was I). V. L., contracted to sell 
 the said lands to one H. T. There were at the 
 time writs of fieri facias in the sheriff's hands 
 .igainst tile lands of \). V. L., some of which 
 liail been placed therein befoie tlie date of the 
 said contract : — Held, nevertheless, that the 
 said writs did not form any incuml)i.i""» on the 
 lands in tlie hands of the trustees so as to pre- 
 vent them conveying the same to a purchaser 
 iiidefectibly, and tliat any share of the purchase 
 money whicii D. V. L. was entitled to he would 
 get as personal, not as real estate : —Held, also, 
 that the purchaser was not liound to see to the 
 application of the jiurcliase money. Re Leiuix 
 ami Thome, 14 0. R. 133.— Boyd.' 
 
 Held, that Con. Rule 1008, notwithstanding the 
 lieading " .Summary Inquiries into Fraudulent 
 Convej-auces," is not limited to cases of equita- 
 ble iut'^rests arising under fraudulent convey- 
 ances, but ajiplies to a case where a judgment 
 creditor is seeking to make available the inter- 
 est of his debtor under an agreement for the 
 purchase of land. A reference was directed to 
 ascertain what interest tlie debtor had in the 
 land in question. Wood r. Hurl, 28 Gr. 146, 
 not followed owing to the change in the law by 
 Con. Rule 5. Peters v. Sloues.i, 13 P. R, 235.— 
 (;alt. 
 
 (b) Other Cases. 
 
 Execution against husband and wife. — Sepa- 
 rate Estate. — Tenancy by entireties. See Griffin 
 v. Patterson, 45 Q, B. 536. 
 
 Tlie land of a testator or intestate is liable to 
 lie sold only for his debt, and where it is shewn 
 that tiie judgment was not in fact recovered in 
 respect of such a debt, but that the execution 
 creditors never were creditors of the deceased, a 
 sale of the land under it cannot be supported. 
 Freed v. Orr, 6 A. R. 690. 
 
 G. obtained a loan of §3,700 through R., from 
 the plaintiffs, upon the security of 220 acres of 
 land, by falsely representing that R. had pur- 
 chase<l the 220 acres from W. for $7,500, and 
 had paid 84,000 cash, and wanted the loan to 
 pay the balance with, and on the receipt of the 
 loan paid W. the $3,000, which was the total 
 
 purchase money for the 220 acres ; and another 
 parcel of aljout fifty acres, and was the full value 
 of both parcels. G. got the conveyar ,e from 
 W. of both parcels, and conveyed the 220 acres 
 to R. to carry out the scheme, and retained the 
 fifty acres himself, in an action by the plaintifli) 
 it was : — Held, that on the conveyanceof the fifty 
 acres being executed to G. , the land immediately 
 became the property in equity of tlie plaintiffs. 
 That the laud was not subject to the claims of 
 certain execution creditors of G. , whose ti. fas. 
 were in the sheriffs hands. But that a mortgage 
 on the fifty acres made by S., who had no title 
 could not be ordered to be removed by the mort- 
 gagee (although tile mortgage money was paid,] 
 as the mortgagee was no party to the action. 
 Hamilton Provident and Loan Soeiely v. Gilbert 
 6 O. R. 434. — Ferguson. 
 
 The defendant's first husband died in 1S70, 
 and she contracted a second marriage in 1871. 
 This action was before the Married Woman's 
 Property Act, 1884, was i)assed :— Held, rever- 
 sing the judgment of Osier, J. A. (6 0. R. 581), 
 that the defend".rt's light to unassigned dnwer 
 in the lands of her first husband was not sepa- 
 rate estate, but was property falling within R, 
 S. O. (1877), c. 125, s. 3, and she not having the 
 jus disponendi without her husband's concur- 
 rence, her interest was not liable to be sold under 
 execution against her. Doufjias v. Hutchimn, 
 12 A. R. 110. 
 
 Qua're, per Patterson, J. A., whether a writof 
 fieri facias is the ajipropriate remedy for reacli- 
 ing tlie separate property of a married woman. 
 Pj. See, however, Sterner v. Oliver, 10 A. R. 
 656, 661, per 0.sler, J. A. See 50 Vict. c. 8. 
 
 The defendant was locatee of certain lands 
 under the Free Grants and Homesteads' Act, R. 
 S. O. (1877), c. 25, and duly obtained patents 
 therefor. Afterwards he and his wife sold and 
 conveyed parts of the land, he taking back mort- 
 gages to secure the purchase money : — Held, that 
 the mortgages were not interests in the land 
 exempt from levy under execution within the 
 meaning of section 20, sub-section 2. The ex- 
 emption extends to the land or any part thereof 
 or interest therein so long as it is held liy the 
 original location title, whether before or after 
 patent ; but where there has been a valid aliena- 
 tion, a mortgage taken by the original locatee 
 does not vest in him qua locatee. The word 
 "interest" used in the sub-section does not ex- 
 tend to the chattel interest of a mortgagee. 
 Cann v. Knott, 19 0. R. 422.— Boyd. 
 
 1). (respondent) proprietor of a lot in Montreal 
 sold it to C. et al. In 1879 C. , who had ac- 
 quired the interest of his co-owners retroceded 
 j the lot in question to I). In July, 1884, the 
 sheriff of the district at the instance of J. M. D. 
 et al. (appellants) judgment creditors of C., 
 seized, sold and adjudicated the lot in question 
 to G. etal., who paid the adjudication and ob- 
 tained a sheriff's title to the lot in question. D. 
 did not register her deed of retrocession until 
 3rd October, ISSi, being a date subseciuent to 
 the seizure and sale by the sheriff, but prior to 
 the registration of the deed from the sheriff. 
 Thereupon D. by a petition en nullity en dicret 
 prayed that the seizure, sale, adjudication and 
 sheriff's title be set aside and declared nullM 
 having been made super non domino. At tiu 
 
6?7 
 
 EZEOUTION. 
 
 trial it was proven that from the date of the deed 
 of retrocession D. had been assessed for the lot 
 in question and paid taxes thereon, and that it 
 was in possession of one McA. as her tenant at 
 the time of the seizure : — Held, that the seizure 
 and sale in the present instances having been 
 made super non domino et non possidente, the 
 sheriff's title was null. Art. 632 C. C. P. Per 
 Taschereau J. : The provisions of Arts. 2090 and 
 2091 C. C. refer to a valid seizure and sale and 
 cannot he invoked against the registration of the 
 deed of retrocession by the respondent. Du- 
 fresw V. Dixon, 16 S. S. R. 596. 
 
 3. WlMt Amounts to a Seizure. 
 SeeRobiitHOU v. Benjin, 10 P. K. 127, p. 5. 
 
 4. Sale Under. 
 
 (a) Adrertiscment, 
 
 Where an advertisement of the sale of lands 
 by a sheriff under writs of execution, stated that 
 the sheritf had seized and taken them in execu- 
 tion, and that they or the right and interest of 
 the judgment debtor therein would be ofi'ered for 
 gale :_Hold, that this was sufficient, and that it 
 was not necessary for the advertisement to de- 
 fine more ))articularly the nature of the estate 
 or interest to be sold. McGce v. Kane, 14 O. 
 R. 226. — Ferguson. 
 
 See Daby v. Geld, 18 O. R. 132, p. 69S. 
 
 (b) Other Caaen. 
 
 P. created three several mortgages on separate 
 portions of his estate, in all about 140 acres, 
 estimated as worth §6,000, subject to incum- 
 brances amounting to §3,500 and interest. One 
 of the mortgages was in favour of the di'fendant 
 M,, who sul>se(iuently ac(tuired tlie interests of 
 the other two mortgagees. After the creation of 
 these mortgages, P. executed a deed of trust of 
 the whole property in order to defeat a claim of 
 title set up to ten acres by one S. Defaidt was 
 made in payment of M. 's mortgage, who recover- 
 ed jiulgniont, on .viiich he sued out execution, and 
 under it tlie shd'iff (after tiie defendant M. had 
 80 au(juired the other mortgages) proceeded to 
 a sale of the property, which lie oflfcred in three 
 distinct parcels, and AI. bid for and became the 
 purchaser of all at s\mis amounting in tlie whole 
 toS20. The cestuis ([ue trust thereupon filed a 
 bill to redeem, alleging that the sale to M. had 
 been at a gross undervalue, and praying to have 
 the same set aside ; the court, however, refused 
 the relief asked with c<isfs, being of opinion 
 that the deed of trust was fraudulent, and that 
 the price realized was large, considering that it 
 was a sheriff's sale. Parr v. Moitlijomery, 27 
 Chy. 52:,— Blake. 
 
 Lands were sold under a fi. fa. lands after the 
 expiry of the year, and a deed executed to the 
 grantor of the plaintiff by the sheriff' which re- 
 cited that the writ had been duly renewed, but 
 neither the sheriff 's nor the district clerk's books 
 shewed any such renewal : — Held, that no re- 
 newal was proved, and the sale was invalid. 
 Subsequently, an ordinary writ of fi. fa. lands 
 was issued on thu judgment, a sale was made 
 
 and a deed to the plaintiff executed by the 
 sheriff: — Held, that the fact of an ordinary fi. 
 fa. lands being issued instead of an alias fi. fa, 
 and the advertisement being as if the proceed- 
 ings were initiatory proceAlings towards effect- 
 ing a sale of the defendant's lands, would not of 
 itself invalidate the sale. Daby v. Geh/, IS 
 0. R. 132.— C. P. D. 
 
 In 1886, one of the defendants commenced an 
 action against the present plaintiff and others, 
 to set aside the sheriff's first deed, which was 
 dismissed for want of prosecution : — Held, that 
 the said defendant was not thereby estopped from 
 setting up the invalidity of the sheriff's sale. 
 Held, also, that, under the circumstances, the 
 defendants coidd not set up that the proceedings 
 under the expired writ constituted a payment 
 of the execution debt. Bank of Upper Canada 
 v. Murphy, 7 Q. B. 328, distinguislied. Ih. 
 
 V. Venditioni Exponas. 
 
 Sheriff's sale under ven. ex. Proces verl)al. 
 what it should ccmtain. Art. 638, (/. C. P. See 
 Montreal Loan and Murliiai/e Co. v. Fautaix, 3 
 S. C. R. 411. 
 
 VI. Kquitaulk Execution— Rkceivek. 
 
 Plaintiff claimed a debt of S200 from the 
 defendant. Defendant did not appear. The 
 only property the defendant owned was tlie 
 equity of redem])tion in certain lands, on wliich 
 there were two mortgages, one lield liy the plain- 
 tiff", the other outstanding in other hands. On 
 application of plaintitlfor ju<lgment for ,*>200an<l 
 interest, and for a decree for sale of tlic equity of 
 redemption : — Held, on the authority of Karr /•. 
 Styles, 26 Chy. 309. that tlie plaintiff could 
 have judgment as asked, notwithstanding that 
 in this case tiieie were no fi. fa.s. in the sherifl".« 
 hands. Juhiinoii v. Jierrnttt, 9 P. P. 337. — Fer- 
 gus(m. 
 
 Held, that in the appointmout of a receiver 
 the ccmrt acts only U[)oii a jji'oper case being 
 made out for the exorcife of it.s jurisdiction, ac- 
 cording to well established principles, and in that 
 sense only can a receiver be said to be ex debito 
 justitiie whether the application be interlocutory 
 or made at the liearing, whether the ajqioinl- 
 nient of the receiver is the sole object <if the 
 action or only incidental to other relief, and 
 whether the relief is sougiit at the in.stance of a 
 judgment creditor, or of any one else, and the 
 court will not ; ppoint a receiver by way of 
 I [uitable execution upon the ground that it 
 
 '■'A do no harm unless there is reason to sup- 
 pose that there i.s something to receive in which 
 the jdaintift' can be interested. In this case the 
 court affirmed the judgment of Ferguson, .1. (8 
 O. R. 256), refusing tlie ajtpointnient of a re- 
 ceiver. Smith V. i'ort Dover and Lake Huron 
 n. W. Co., 12 A. R. 288. 
 
 The interest of a dolitor in a trust estate con- 
 sisting of the right to a share of the proceeds of 
 the sale of such estate when made by the trustees, 
 is not attachable under Rule 370 O. d. A., 
 (Con. Rule 9,35) relating to the attachment of 
 debts. It is only a debt legally or equitably 
 due or accruing due, that is to say, debitum in 
 
 
 if > 
 
'089 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 700 
 
 Soil 
 
 '«{; 
 
 pni-senti solvenduin iii futuro, wliich is capable 
 of attachment ; moneys which may or may not 
 become payable by a trustee toiiis cestui que trust 
 are not debts. The case of Leaminy v. Woon, 
 7 A. R. 42 is not to be followed, being founded 
 on Re Cowan's Estate, 18 Ch. D. 038, which is 
 now overruled by Wel)b i: Stenton, 11 Q. 15. 1). 
 5.TO. Judgment of Ferguson, J. (15 0. it. 06), 
 reversed. Tlie ))roper course in such a case is 
 to obtain eiiuitalde execution against the debtor's 
 interest by the appointment of a receiver. For 
 this purpose it is now unnecessary that the 
 creditor should issue writs of ti. fa. again.st 
 goods or lands. Stuart v. Gromjh, 15 A. R. 299. 
 
 After an order to i)ay over had lieeu made 
 u])on a garnishee summons, but before the pro- 
 perty had been sold by the trustees, an order 
 for a receiver " a' been o))tained by auotlicr 
 judgment credini, under which a receiver was 
 duly ,ii)i)()intud, and notice tiieieof given to the 
 garnislices (tlie trustees) and tlie attaching cred- 
 itor. Notwitiistanding this the garnishees .sub- 
 sequently witiiout furtiier compulsion or threat 
 of execution paid tlie money to the attaching 
 creditor without moving against the attaching 
 order, and without notice to the receiver, or 
 giving iiim an opportunity of doing so: —Held, 
 that the e(juitablc execution must prevail, and 
 such payment did not discharge tlie garnishees. 
 Tiie eUcct of tiie order tor a receiver was abso- 
 lutely to jireclude tiie judgment creditor from 
 enforcing tlie order to jiay over and the garni- 
 shees fidin disposing of the money when received 
 by them (otherwise than by paying it to the re- 
 ceiver), without leave of the court. Il>. 
 
 The effect of the appointment of a receiver 
 n])on the rights of an attaching creditor con- 
 sidered Hawkins r. (iathercole, 1 Drew. 12 ; 
 Ames i\ Birkenhead Docl- Co., 20 Beav. 332, 
 acted on. Ih. 
 
 Under the .hulicature Act the court has jiower 
 to award e([uitable execution after judgment in 
 any and every case where it is just and conve- 
 nient to do so. Where writs of execution had 
 issued, but had not become exigible against the 
 lands (subject to mortgages) of a judgment del)tor 
 possessing no [jersonalty, and wlio was oidlect- 
 ing the rents and jiaying other creditors, a recei- 
 ver of the pro])erty was appointed by way of 
 equitable execution to collect the rents subject 
 to the rights of the mortgagees, and to apply 
 them for the benefit of creditors under the Credi- 
 tors' Relief Act. In sucli a case the receiver 
 should be an officer of the Court. Kirk v. 
 Bur<iex% 15 0. R. 008. -Boyd. 
 
 A motion for the appointment of a receiver by 
 way of equitivblo execution is properly male in 
 court, notwithstanding the language of tlieO. J. 
 Act, section 17, sub-section 8, and Rule 399 
 (Con. Rule 113-1), and the applicant will not he 
 re.stricted to the costs of a chamber motion. 
 Kimaid v. Kincakl, 12 V. R. 402.— Ferguson. 
 
 A judgment for .$212.00 is not too small to 
 justify the judgment creditor in moving for a 
 receiver. //*. 
 
 It is no answer to such a, motion that the 
 judgment creditor could probably make the 
 amount of his judgment out of the defendant 
 l)y the sale under common law process of other 
 property of the defendant than that sought to 
 
 be reached by the appointment of a receiver 
 lb. 
 
 Judgment creditors on the 7th December, 
 1888, moved for a receiver by way of e(jHitiible 
 exeention to receive money which they alleged 
 would be due to the judgment debtor on the 
 21st December, 1888, for salary as a school- 
 master : — Held, that if the debt was one which 
 could be gr.rnished, the judgment creditors 
 should attach it ; if it could not Ije garnished, 
 it was because tliere was no debt at all. Kin- 
 caid r. Kiucaid, 12 V. R. 462, distinguished. 
 Trunt and Loan Co. v. Gordiiir, 12 P. R. 054.— 
 Street. 
 
 VII. Sequesxkation. 
 
 On moving for a writ of secjuestration for a 
 breach of an injunction, two clear days' notice 
 of motion is sufficient. Cook v. Credit Valhy 
 R. ir. Co., 8P. R. 107. -Blake. 
 
 Held, that a writ of sequestration could not 
 issue under Rule 3.39, (Con. Rule 802), on an 
 ordinary common law judgment for a (lebt re- 
 covered before the passing of the Judicature 
 Act, it not being an order for j)ayineut of a 
 specilic sum, and no day named for payment in 
 
 I it. London and Canadian Loan and Ajency Co. 
 
 I V. iMerritt, 32 C. V. 375.— C. P. D. 
 
 I 'J'lie property sought to be sequestered, was 
 I property in tlie hands of five trustees under a 
 I will. Two of the trustees, one of whom was the 
 I judgment debtor and took a life interest in part 
 of the projierty, resided witiiin the jurisdiction, 
 I the other trustees resided out of the jurisdiction 
 I in St. John, N. 15. : — Held, that service of a 
 ! ii'jtice of motion founded on such writ of seipies- 
 ; tration on such non-resident trustees was suffi- 
 cient, though a judgment or decree founded 
 upon it would not avail the plaintiffs in the 
 courts of New Brunswick. lb. 
 
 Semble, that under awiitof sequestration a 
 debtor's choscs in action can be reached. Ih. 
 
 Where an injunction is ordered at tlie hearing 
 of a cause and the parties enjoined give the 
 security recjuired by R. S. O. (1877), c. 38, s. 26, 
 pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal, all 
 proceedings to enforce the injunction are by 
 virtue of section 27 of that Act thereupon 
 I stayed, and a writ of sequestration cam ot there- 
 fore be obtained pending the appeal on the 
 ground of noncompliance with the injunction. 
 Dundas c. Hamilton and Milton Road Company, 
 19 Chy. 455 followed, and preferre<l to McLaren 
 ('. Caldwell, 29 Chy. 438. McGarrey v. Town 
 v/airathroijfQO. R. 138. — Proiidfoot. 
 
 The plaintiffs, having recovered a judgment 
 against the defendants for a large sum, obtained 
 an order from a judge in chambers ordering de- 
 fendants to pay the amount due upon such judg- 
 ment to the sheriff, to whom executions had 
 issued against defendants' goods, or tn the plain- 
 tiffs, by a day certain, and in default that a writ 
 of sequestration should issue. Default having 
 been made a writ of sequestration issued accord- 
 ingly : — Held, that though the writ could not 
 have issued to enforce the judgment, which was 
 for the payment of money, without limiting a 
 time certain, yet that the judge's order was a 
 judgment for disobedience of which the writ 
 
 701 
 
 might i..sue, ai 
 issued, liondo 
 Co. V. Murphy, 
 
 Defendants w 
 Exchange (a co 
 stock iMiard th 
 able \alue, am 
 Jants on compl; 
 laws of the co 
 things, provide! 
 cxeliiiiige ))y a 
 seat, for leave 
 time tlie name < 
 the purchaser v 
 had theretofore 
 he granted. A 
 lier of the Stocl 
 by-laws, bo adi 
 ken previously 
 business pulilicl 
 six iiiiiuthsprev 
 upon his own a 
 exchange as a i 
 ance to lie by b 
 or a ]ioi'tion of 1 
 ceptcil lie inigh 
 alreailv a men 
 ,^,000'to the o 
 ore.ite a seat foi 
 .seats oil tlie boii 
 thirty-three we 
 members of tli 
 having applied 
 .sequestration ti: 
 cxcliaiigc : — He 
 the piij|)crty of 
 able under proc 
 ment its I'xecul 
 to do any act l 
 from any act tc 
 yet that iiiasmv 
 trol the t'-iercis' 
 the excliaiige, 
 seats could lie 
 fused, without 
 ability of legisl 
 the writ of seq 
 
 On the argil 
 appear that M 
 the plaiiititl's, 
 for the |)ur|)osc 
 X. This ('oui 
 aside from tlie 
 lion of title to 
 by the coMt'ii 
 the stock excl 
 affirmed tlii' 
 prejudice to 
 cure liiin.sclf to 
 ■V.C, 14A. R. 
 
 Attachment 
 remedy for dis 
 V. ilidlaml R. 
 
 |i 
 
 g 
 
 An order w 
 hers amendin 
 executrix, so . 
 heriiersonally 
 fi. fa. in the s' 
 
 
700 
 
 701 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 702 
 
 night i .sue, and that the writ was regularly ^ 
 issued. Iiomlon and CaniuUan Loan and A ijem y . 
 Co. V. Jhirphy, 10 O. R. 86.— Wilson. 
 
 Defeiidauts were members of the Toronto Stock ^ 
 Excliaiigo (a corporation), and hiul seats at the 
 stock iioard thereof, shown to be of consider- ^ 
 able value, and to bo saleable by the defen- 
 dants on compliance by them with certain by- ] 
 laws of the coi-poration, which, among other 
 tiiiui's, provided for a written application to the ^ 
 exeliiuige by any member wishing to sell his ; 
 seat, for leave to sell, submitting at the same | 
 time tliu name of the proposed purchaser, and if : 
 the purchaser was in such a case acceptable, or 
 had theretofore been accepted, the leave would , 
 be granted. A party desiring to become a mem- 
 ber of the Stock Excliange could not, under the 
 by-laws, bo admittted a member unless ho had 
 teen previously a stock broker, resident, doing 
 business publicly as such, in Toronto, for at least 
 six inonths previously to his application, and had 
 upon his own application been accepted by the 
 excliiUi^'C as a member, the vote for his accept- 1 
 ance to be by ballot, and 'me Idack ball in five, I 
 or a portion of live, to exclude. After l)eing ac- 
 cepted lie might purchase a seat from some one \ 
 already a member, or pay an ei.i ranee fee of | 
 .54,000 to the excluuige. and by such payment 
 oreate a seat for iiiniself. The total nundier of 1 
 seats on the board was limited to forty whereof ' 
 thirty-throe wc taken u[) by the thirty-throo , 
 members of the Kxchan-o. The se(piestratoi' ' 
 having applied for an order under the writ of ' 
 .sequestration to sell the defendants' seat at tlie 
 exchange :— Held, that although such seats were 
 the property of the debtor and siiould ))e sale- 
 able under process, and the court couM irnple- , 
 inent its execution by ordering the defendants ^ 
 to do any act necessary to effect, or to refrain ^ 
 from any act to obstruct, the sale of the seats ; 
 yet that inasmuch as the court could not con- 
 trol the exercise of the ballot by the moml>ors of 
 t.iie excliange, no cfToctual order for sale of the ^ 
 .seats could be made : the application was, re- 
 fused, wirliout costs. Remarks on tlie desir- 
 ability of legislation to extend the 'operation of 
 the writ of seijuestration to meet s jh cases. lb. 
 
 On the argument in appeal it was made to 
 appear that M, had paid off the judgment of 
 the plaintift's, and was carrying on the appeal 
 for the ))nrpose of obtaining the seat owned by 
 N. This court, under the circumstances, and 
 aside fioni the fact that the ultimate comi)le- 
 tion of title to a purchaser could only be eflfected 
 by the contingent co-operation and assent of 
 the stuck cxclijingo, as provided by its by-laws, 
 affirmed the judgment appealed from without 
 prejudice to any right M. might have to pro- 
 cure liinisclf to 1)0 substituted for the plaintifiFs. 
 .V.C, 14A. R. 577. 
 
 Attachment not sequestration is the proper 
 remeily for diso))eying a mandamus. Deimivest 
 \: Midland It W. Co., 10 P. R. 82.— Wilson. 
 
 IX. Amendment. 
 
 An order was made by the master in cham- 
 bers amending a judgment entered against C. as 
 executrix, so as to make it a judgment against 
 her personally , and also amending the writs of 
 fi. fa. in the sheriff's hands so as to be conform- 
 
 able with the judgment as amended. The order 
 was made nunc pro tunc upon the allegation that 
 all parties interested had consented, and thnt an 
 execution at the suit of the M. Co. against C. 
 personally had expired. On an application made 
 by the M. Co. to set aside the order, on the 
 ground that their writ had not expired, but was 
 in full force ; and that the effect of the amend- 
 ment was to give plaintiffs' writ priority, the 
 master made an order setting aside his previous 
 order, and directing the amendments made there- 
 under to be struck out. On motion by way of 
 appeal to the Divisional Court to rescind the last 
 named order : — Hold, Cameron, C..J., dissenting, 
 that the motion nnist bo refused ; for tliat though 
 the M. Co. were strangers to the action in which 
 the amendments were made, they had a locus 
 standi to apply to have same set aside. Glasi 
 v. Cameruii, 9 O. R. 712.— C. P. D. 
 
 See milliard v. Smm, 12 P. R. 226. 
 
 X. Renewinc Writs. 
 
 Writs of execution were issued on the 12th 
 IJecember, 1S81, in Toronto, and forwarded to 
 the sheriff of an outer county. On the Oth De- 
 cember, 1882, the plaintiff wrote to the sheriff 
 to forward the writs for renewal, and on the 11th 
 Deceudjcr telegraphed him to the like effect and 
 he replied that he had just mailed them. On 
 the same day the plaintiff filed a pnecipe requir- 
 ing the renewal. Tlie writs were i-oceived on 
 the 12th Decor •. On an application for an 
 ordi'r for leave -enew nunc pro tunc it was 
 held that the de..iy was not the fault of the 
 sheriff' or other oHicer of the court, and that 
 thei-e was no power to make the amendment. 
 Loifson V. Canada Fdrmcrn' Mutual Inn. Co., 9 
 P. R. 309. — Daltou, ^fa■^<f,'l■. 
 
 Con. Rule 894 providing for the renewal of 
 writs of execution necessarily intends the re- 
 moval in each case of the writ out of the actual 
 possession of t\\p sheriff for thepurposoof such re- 
 newal. This is an exception to the general rule, 
 and the time during which a writ may for the 
 purposes of renewal be kept out of the hands of 
 the sheriff without interference with the right 
 of priority is commensurate with the time rea- 
 sonably necessary to effect the renewal; but the 
 exception cannot be made to extend so as to 
 cover mistakes, never so honestly made, the 
 consequence of which is a failure to replace th 
 writ in the hands of the sheriff for so long a 
 period as six or seven months. And where H. 
 placed a writ f)f ti. fa. lands in the hands of a 
 sheriff in November, 1883, and renewed it from 
 year to year till October, 1886, when he removed 
 it for the purposes of renewal only, and by mis- 
 take did not replace it till April, 1887 : — Held, 
 that he had lost his priority over L. , a mortga- 
 gee, whose mortgage was registered against the 
 land of the execution debtor in July, 1885; and 
 it made no difference that no new rights had in 
 the meantime intervened. He IJime and Ltdley, 
 13 P. R. 1.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Dahy v. Oehl, 18 0. R. 132, p. 698. 
 
 XI. Setting Aside Executions. 
 
 The plaintiff filed his bill on the 14th March, 
 1874. On the 31st of the same month an attach- 
 
 •5 
 
 I 
 
 I' > 
 
703 
 
 EXEOUTION. 
 
 704 
 
 705 
 
 
 
 
 
 iB gj M . 
 
 ment in insolvency was issued by defendant 
 against plaiiititf. The decree dismissed tlie 
 plaintiffs bill with costs, in October, 1874. Tiie 
 defcnilant proved against the estate for the costs 
 of the suit, liiit did not take his dividend, and 
 took no furtiier steps tf) recover his claim until 
 after the order for discharge of plaintiff ('-'Sth 
 May, 1S77), when lie issued execu*'on. On the 
 application of the plaintifl', Spraggo, C, refused 
 to set aside the execution, holding that defen- 
 dant was entitleil to issue it, and that the prov- 
 ing against the estace for the costs when it was 
 not legally pr'ovahle, did not operate as an 
 estoppel in piis between the plaintifl and defen- 
 dant. StcrenHOn v. Sexxmith, 8 P. R. 286. 
 
 See Jelktlv. Andersoii, 8 P. R. 387, p. 691. 
 
 XII. Stavixo Execution. 
 
 The plaintiff on tiie sale of certain lands tc ' ic 
 defendant R. , left in her hands a sum of §:" of 
 the purchase money as security against an exe- 
 cution in another action then in the hands of the 
 sheriff againsc the plaintiffs lands. Subsequently 
 thcplaintitf appealed in that action, and on doing 
 so gave a bond with sureties conditioned to pay 
 the debt and costs : — Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the i-durt below, that the perfecting and 
 allowance of such security operated as a super- 
 sedeas of the writ of execution, not as a stay 
 thereof merely, and that the plaintiff was there- 
 fore entitled r.o recover the balance of the pur- 
 chase money from R. O'Doiiolwe v. Robinson, 
 10 A. R. 622. 
 
 XIII. Abandonment. 
 
 When a iluriff, having seized goods of suffi- 
 cient value to satisfy the plaintitl's execution, 
 abandons them on being indemnified he should 
 not get the benefit of any doul)t which may be 
 raised as to their realizing enougli if sold. Don- 
 nelly v. JJall, 7 O. R. 581.— Q. 13. D. 
 
 A writ of attachment against the goods of 
 M. in the ]iossession of !S. was placed in the 
 sheriff's hands and goods seized under it. After 
 the seizure the goods, with the consent of the 
 plaintiff's solicitor, were left by the sheriff' in 
 charge of S. , who undertook that the same should 
 be held intact. The sheriff made a return to the 
 writ, that he had seize'l the goods. 'I'he sheriff 
 subsecpientlj' seized the goods under execution of 
 the creditors. In an action against the sheriff: — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Supreme I 
 Court of Nova fScotia, that the act of leaving the 
 goods in the possession of S. was not an al)an- 
 donment by the plaintiff's solicitor of the seizure, 
 and if it were the sheriff was estopped by his 
 return to the writ from raising the question : — 
 Held, also, th'it the act of plaintifl''8 solicitor act- 
 ing as attorney for S. in a suit connected with 
 the saniegoocls was not evidence of an intention 
 to discontinue proceedings under the attachment. 
 Biifus V. Gnitjhton, 14 S. C. R. 740.— Spragge. 
 
 See Patterson v. McKellar, 4 0. K. 407, p. 692. 
 
 XIV. Priority ok Executions. 
 
 1. Oeni-raUij. 
 
 The common law right as to the priority of an 
 execution creditor of a lunatic, who has an exe- 
 
 cution in the hands of the sheriff before the 
 lunatic has been declared such, will not be inter- 
 fered with by injunction restraining him from 
 realizing under his writ. In re Grant, 28 Chy. 
 457. — Spragge. 
 
 11. & E. were partners in business, and became 
 financially involved. L. , R. & Co. obtained a 
 judgment against the firm for a firm debt, ami 
 placed tlie execution in the sheriff's hands, with 
 a direction to levy of the goods of R. Mibse- 
 quently the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against 
 li. and E. individually and as members of the 
 firm, and placed their execution in the sheriff's 
 hands. The sheriff made the greater part of 
 the amount of the plaintiff's execution out of 
 the assets of the firm, and returned it "nulla 
 bona" as to the residue, although, while the 
 plaintiff's execution was in his hands, he had 
 sold thvi furniture of R., being his individual 
 property, and applied the proceeds upon the 
 execution of L., 11. & Co., which was first in his 
 hands; and notwithstanding that the plaintiffs' 
 solicitor bad notified him that the plaintiffs claim- 
 ed the proceeds of the furniture as applicable to 
 their execution oidy: — -Held (reversing tiie judg- 
 ment of Proudfoot, J. , 6 O. R. ()44), Proudfcot, 
 J., dissenting, that the jdaintiffs could not re- 
 cover against the sheriff for a false return ; that 
 the property of the individual partners was lia- 
 ble on a judgment against the firm ; and that the 
 plaintiffs were not entitled to priority over the 
 first execution, because their judgment was 
 against the partners as individuals as well as 
 mem))ers of the firm. Per Proudfoot, J., the 
 rule that the joint estate is for joint creditors, 
 and the separate estate for separate creditors, 
 is not confined to cases of bankrui)tcy and the 
 administration of assets on the decease of a 
 partner, and there are various ways in wliicli 
 the question may be raised in eijuity. Although 
 It may be proper enough to give a creditor the 
 benefit of his diligence, where the contest is be- 
 tween several creditors of the same debtor, with 
 no equity arising from the nature of the property 
 taken in execution, or from the natui'e, of the 
 rights involved, no such preference should be 
 given where it works the injiistice of depriving 
 the sejiarate creditor of the benefit of the pro- 
 perty of his debtor. Hy the effect of the Judi- 
 cature Act all distinction between legal and 
 equitable debts and legal and equitable remedies 
 is abolished. Del)ts of every kind are now re- 
 coverable in one forum, and the same forum en- 
 ables creditors to reach every kind of assets, 
 whether formerly legal or equitable, and the 
 necessary result is, that the distinction between 
 legal and equitable assets is at an end, and upon 
 this subject the rules of law and e(juity iieingat 
 variance, the latter are to prevail. Bank of To- 
 ronfo V. IJull, 6 O. R. 0-)3.— Chy. D. 
 
 The plaintiff was tenant in common with the 
 defendants, and was proved to have received 
 more than liis proper share of the rent. The 
 defendants claimed against the plaintiffs share 
 of the land for the excess of the rent received 
 by the jdaintiff. There were executions in the 
 sheriff's han<ls, and the execution creditors had 
 come in under the decree in the cause : — Held, 
 that the defendant's claim being simply for a 
 debt for which an action might be bronght, there 
 was no actual charge until a judgment was ob- 
 tained. That the execution creditors did not 
 
 The plain, 
 D., under w 
 defendant a 
 goods under 
 01 which th 
 and default 
 court, or gi 
 of the good I 
 ceeds paid i 
 •ulteil in fa 
 the claim of 
 the demand 
 'ore the tria. 
 execution fo 
 "herift's han 
 
 45 
 
704 
 
 705 
 
 EXECUTION. 
 
 7oe 
 
 lose their priority by coining in under the decree, 
 and were entitled to have it niaintaitied. And 
 that the case was not varied by some of the 
 defendants being infants. McPkerxon v. Mc- 
 Phtrsuii, 10 P. K. 140. — Proudfoot. 
 
 ■Sec K'mlni'h v. Morion, P. R. 3S, p. (iOl ; 
 DarliiKj V. Smith, 10 P. K. SfiO, p. (i ; IMmxon 
 V. lierr/iii, 10 P. U. 127, p. ") ; Coiirsollrn v. 
 Fooh.''', ICO. R. ()i»l ; He Hi me and Ledh'y, 13 
 P. R. 1, p. 702 ; Cole v. Hall, 12 P. R. 584 ; i;j 
 P. K. 100. 
 
 2. Creditors' Relief Act. 
 
 Tlie plaintiffs placed a writ of execution against 
 the defendant in tiie hands of the slicrifi' of On- 
 tario, on tlie 0th December, 1H.S4. The sheriff 
 seized the defendant's goods on the Sth Deceni- 
 bur. The defendant made a mortgage of his 
 goods to I), on the 9th December. H. placed a 
 second execution against the defendant in the 
 hands of the sheriff on the 22nd December. On 
 the 31st December the mortgagee D. paid to the 
 sheriff" the wliole amount of the first execution, 
 §1 1"), specially appropriating the payment to that 
 execution :■ -Held, that the money paid to the 
 sheriff was not li'vied by him within the meaning 
 of the Creditors' Uelief Act, 43 Viet. c. 10 (Out), 
 and tiiat the .ir.st execution creditor was en- 
 titled to the whole of it. Daries /hvirimj and 
 Maltiuij Co. V. .^niith, 10 P. R. 027. — Dalton, 
 Mii'iter. — Hojc. 
 
 Since the coming into force of the Creditors 
 Relief Act of 1880, March 25tli, 1884, execution 
 creditors who obtain stop orders on funds in 
 court, do not obtain any jtriority thereby, l)ut all 
 must share ratably. As some of tlie pronsi(ms 
 of the statute are to enable simiile contract cre- 
 ditors to come in and obtain the position of exe- 
 cution creditors, they must have the same right 
 with regard to funds in court as tiicy would have 
 with regard to funds in the sheriff's hands, and 
 in any case where an execution creditor obtains 
 a stop order, there must be a reference to the 
 master to ascertain if any other creditors desire 
 to ask a share of tiie fund. Daivxon v. Moff'ntl, 
 1H». It. 184. -Chy. D. 
 
 Held, atlirming the juclL'ment of the county 
 court (if Perth, that the ci-editor under whose 
 execution an amount in tlie hands of a sheriff 
 for distribution under tiie Creditors' Relief Act, 
 1880, was levied, and which was insuthcieiit to 
 pay all claims in full, was not entitled to priority 
 of payment of the costs of obtaining a judgment 
 and execution. /'oWfo».s v. J/i/tri, 12 A. K. 80. 
 See R. .S. O. (1887), e. 0.5, s. 20. 
 
 The plaintiffs obtained execution .against one 
 D., under which a seizure was made, when the 
 defendant and another party made claim to the 
 goods under a chattel mortgage, in conscipience 
 of whicli the usual interpleader order was issued, 
 and default having been made in payment into 
 court, or giving security for the appraised value 
 of the goods, the same were sold anil the pro- 
 ceeds paid into court. The trial of the issue re- 
 sulted ill favour of the claimants, but on appeal 
 the claim of the defendants was disallowed, and 
 the demand of the other claimant was paid. He- 
 fore the trial took place, the defendants placed an 
 execution for the amount of their demand in the 
 «herift's hands against tlie goods of D. When 
 
 45 
 
 finally disposing of the matter, the ju<lge of tho 
 County Court directed that the money in court 
 should, after payment of certain costs, be paid 
 out to the plaintiH's and defendants ratably, ac- 
 e.irdiiig to their respective claims under the Cre- 
 ditors' Relief Act, 43 Vict. c. 10(Oiit. ). The plain- 
 tiff's thereupon appealed, and on the liearing, the 
 court being equally divided the apjieal was dis- 
 missed, with costs. Per Patterson and Osier, 
 ,1J, A. The moneys ivere properly distributable 
 under the statute. Per Hagarty, C. .1. O., and 
 Murton, J. A. Tliese moneys were not moneys 
 " made or levied under execution," and there- 
 fore did not come within the provisions of tho 
 Act. Ittidy. CoinuiK, 13 A. K. 501. 
 
 A sheriff Iiad seized goods under writs of fi. fa. 
 in his hands, when the goods were claimed by a 
 diattel mortgagee. An interjdcader issue was 
 directed, and an order was niaile for the sheriff 
 to sell tlie goods and jiay the proceeds into 
 court, which was done. After the claim of the 
 ciiattel mortgagee had been barred., a question 
 arose as to the distribution of the money ia 
 court : — Held, that the seizure under the writs,, 
 together with the conversion into money by tho 
 sheriff' under the order of the court, and the linal 
 barring of tho claim of the chattel mortgagee, 
 constituted a levying of tiie money under the 
 writs by the sheritf, in the sense of section 5 of 
 the Creditors' Relief Act, 1880, and therefore 
 that the money in court should be distributed 
 ratably, according to the provisions of that Act ; 
 but :— Held, also, upon a liberal construction of 
 section 3,0 of 49 Vict. c. 10 (Out.), that tho exe- 
 cution creditors who contested the chattel 
 mortgagee's claim in the interpleader were en- 
 titled to their costs of the interpleader as 
 "costs of tiie execution" if they failed tore- 
 cover them from the claimant. Levy v. Davie*, 
 12 P. R. 93.— Dalton, MaMer. 
 
 One creditor cannot attack tho judgment of 
 another, and oliject to his sharing, pursuant to 
 the Creditors' Relief Act, in the distribution of 
 moneys levied by the slierifl' under executions iu 
 his hands, on the ground that the note on which 
 such judgment was recovered was niisdescribed, 
 and the date of its maturity was misstated in 
 the writ of sumnions, in order to obtain judg- 
 ment earlier than could otherwise have been 
 done ; the debtor not consenting or objecting to 
 the recovery. Bowerman v. Phillip.% 15 A. R. 
 679. 
 
 When the debt is bona fide, another creditor 
 cannot object to the judgment merely because 
 there was a defence which the debtor might 
 have set up to the particular action. Glass v, 
 Cameron, 9 O. R. 712: Macdonald r. Boice, 
 12 Chy. 48, distinguished. Jh. 
 
 Whatever powers the Creditors' Relief Act 
 in»iy give to a creditor to contest the claim of mi- 
 other, it does not extend to the impeaching of a. 
 judgment by a summary proceeding before the 
 county judge. Ih 
 
 Under an exeoutir>i issued by the plaintiffs,, 
 the sheriff, whilst suc'i execution was tho only 
 one in his hands, !:ei<!e<l certain goods of the 
 debtor, which were lainied by D., whereupon 
 an interpleader summons was obtained by the 
 sheriff which was argued before the chief justice 
 of the Queen's Bench Division, who made an 
 order barring the claimant, without any issue 
 
 
;l I 
 
 707 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 708 
 
 709 
 
 Sail. 
 
 
 ■■■I JJj; 
 
 IS 
 
 being directed. This order did not state tliivt 
 the parties consented to a siinimary disposal of 
 the matter, and the facts did not clearly appear. 
 The siieriff proceeded and sold the projjerty, and 
 made an entry under the Creditors' Relief Act. 
 Tin; appellants and several other creditors de- 
 livered certilicates to tlie sheriff within tlie 
 proper time, who framed a sciieme for the dis- 
 tribution of the money as if no interpleader 
 proceedings had been had. On appeal from him, 
 the County Court judge gave the whole fund to 
 the plaintiffs, under sub-section 4 section li of the 
 Creditors' Relief Act. On appeal from such 
 order to this court, the a)ipeal was dismissed, 
 the court l)eing eijiuiUy divided. Per Burton 
 and I'atter.-ioii, J.J. A. — As there was a contest 
 between the execution creditor and claimant, 
 and an adjudication in favour of the former, the 
 proceedings which took place upon the inter- 
 pleader sunnnons came within sub-section 4 sec- 
 tion 3 of tlie Act, and entitled tlio plaintiffs to 
 the whole proceeds of tlie property, and the 
 order appealed from was coirect. Per Hagarty, 
 O. J. (). — 'i'iie circuni.xtances of this case do not 
 bring it within tliat section, and tlie appeal 
 shoulil be alloweil and tlie moneys distributed 
 as if no interpleader jiroceediiigs had lieeii taken. [ 
 Per Osier, J. A. — 'i'he order disposing of the' 
 interplea<ler sumiiions was not a proceeding 
 under tlie Inteiiileader Act, liecause it did not 
 shew on its face the consent of parties to 
 the suniinary disposition of tlie claim : but even 
 if it was .111 iiiterjileader proceeding, it was not 
 witliin tlie mischief of the Act, which intended 
 to provi<le only for tlie case whei'e an issue had 
 been directed. Jinitk oj Hamilton v. JJiurell, 
 15 A. R. 500. 
 
 The Creditors' Relief Act applies to execution 
 creditors against lands in (|uestion in a mortgage 
 action for foreclosure or sale, and all such credi- 
 tors must share ratalily in tlie proceeds of sale, 
 after payment of tlie mortgage debt, interest, 
 and costs. Hari'iy v. McXtil, 1*2 P. R. 3(j'2. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 Semble, in the case of foreclo.sure, the old 
 form of decree giving execution creditors as 
 subse(iueiit encuinbrancers lilierty to redeem ac- 
 cording to their iiriorities, is no longer applicable. 
 lb. 
 
 The Creditors' Relief Act is merely intended 
 to al)olisli i)riority among execution creditors of 
 the same class, and not to alter the legal effect 
 of the executions themselves, or to effect a dis- 
 tribution of separate and partnership assets in 
 the manner in which such assets are administered 
 in iiankruptcy. There were in the sheriff's 
 hands executions: (1) ag:iinst R. alone; (2) 
 against U., .1. J., and(i. J., on a joint note given 
 by them for the price of a horse, J. J. being 
 merely a surety for R. and G. J., who bought 
 the horse as partnership property ; (3) against 
 O. J. and R. on a joint note given by them for 
 the price of a threshing m ichine, purchased for 
 the purpose of lieiug used in another partnership 
 business, carried on l)y them quite distinct from 
 that partnership to which the horse behmged : 
 and (4) against (t. J. and R., on a joint note in 
 which R.. was surety only for O. J. The horse 
 was seized and sold : —Held, Burton, J. A. , dis- 
 senting, that under an execution against three, 
 the joint or partnership property of two may be 
 levied, and the proceeds of this sale were dis- 
 
 I tributablo ratably among the executions (2), 
 ] (3), and (4). Per Burton, J. A.— The proceeds 
 I of the sale should bo applied in satisfaction df 
 j execution (3) alone, the property sold being the 
 
 joint jiroperty of the persons liable under that 
 1 execution. Proceedings against partncrsliip 
 I property under a separate execution against one 
 
 of the partners considered. lie McDomuih v 
 I Jep/ison, 16 A. R. 107. 
 
 I Held, that the word " fortiiwith," contained 
 i in section 4 of the Creditors' Relief Act, [{. .'<. 0. 
 c. ()5, with reference to the entry by the sheriff 
 of money levied under execution, must receive 
 a strict construction, and means "without any 
 delay." Even if eipiivalent to " within a lenson- 
 able time," a delay of fifteen days after the sale 
 was hold to be not reasonable. MaxireH v. 
 Searfe, 18 O. R. 52!).— Armour. 
 
 See Mac/ie V. Ptav.ioii, 8 O. R. 745, p. 6; 
 Dommion Bank v, HcJ'enutn, 11 P. R, 504 
 p. .371. 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 I. PuoiiATH AND LkTTERS OK AliMINISTRA- 
 TION, 701). 
 
 II. Rti;iiTS, Authority and Duty. 
 
 1. liiitmncration, 711. 
 
 2. Dchts dw to Exirntors and A<lmiiii»- 
 
 trators \nj JJeccaxcd, 713. 
 
 3. MdUdijiiKj Heal Eitata. 
 
 (a) Valninij, 713. 
 
 (b) SSi'lUmj, 713. 
 
 (c) Mortija'/uKj — See Trusts and 
 
 TufSTKKS. 
 
 (d) DUcharijinij Mortijages, 714. 
 
 (e) h'l'/iiilrti, 71(). 
 
 4. Payment of' Moni'ij into Court, 71(1. 
 
 5. Other Cns(s, 71C. 
 
 (). Inrentment of Money — See Thusts and 
 Tkustek.s. 
 
 III. Liabilities. 
 
 1. Devastavit, 711. 
 
 2. For Intenut, "JIT. 
 
 i. For Art H of Each Other, 11%. 
 4. Other Cases, 720. 
 
 IV. Actions and Proceedings By, 721. 
 V. Actions and Proceedings Acainst. 
 
 1. Removal of Exeaitor, 723. 
 
 2. Parties, 723. 
 
 3. Pleading, 724. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 724. 
 
 5. Corroborative Eoidence in AdioM 
 
 Aijainsl Executors and Administra- 
 tors (It. S. 0. c. 6V, s. 10)— See 
 
 EVIDESCK. 
 
 6. Limitation of Art ions — See LiuiiTA- 
 
 TioN OF Actions. 
 
 VI. Administration Proceedings. 
 
 1. Administration Actions and Orden, 
 725. 
 
 One IJ 
 of her ci 
 there. ! 
 with his 
 niiiiistral 
 gate Con 
 and as n 
 adniini.st 
 liavc the 
 for a wri 
 prcvciitiii 
 inandamu 
 Held, fail 
 it niiisl 111 
 according 
 ministrati| 
 a better 
 kin, is wi 
 iif kill 
 the court 
 obtained 
 pointcc, 
 jiidi,'e 
 appoiiitiL 
 not as of 
 judge wli( 
 red with 
 (1S77), L. 
 of a cred 
 followed, 
 guislied 
 
 Tli.^ Gt 
 rial), ])rol 
 under the 
 either as 
 executor^ 
 •*0, ss. 34 
 Probate 
 ■W, s. 32) 
 P. R. 334 
 
 An iiifi 
 Diinstratq 
 probate 
 infant is| 
 vests no I 
 
 The dej 
 being at t 
 in the coJ 
 of any reil 
 theplaiiitl 
 Juiuistrati 
 
709 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 710 
 
 2. Parlies, 728. 
 
 3. Practice, 729. 
 
 4. Effect ofDecreti or Ordtr,. 732 
 
 5. Costs. 
 
 (a) SoUcifur'.H Coats or Comnissiou, 732. 
 
 (b) Other Camn, 7.34. 
 
 VII. Costs, 735. 
 
 VIII. Adminihtrator Ai) Litem, 737. 
 IX. ExKcuToE DK .Son Tout, 738. 
 X. Ukkicikncy of Asskts, 738. 
 XI. Lani).'< as Asskts, 739. 
 XII. AsTri'.steks— .SVrTursTSAN'nTRusTEKs. 
 
 I, Probate and Lf.ttkrs of Admixistr.vtion'. 
 
 One U. tlyiiig dmiiiciled iibniad, I!., a creditor 
 of her estate, ol)taiiied letters of administration 
 tliere. Sul)fic(iiieiitly S., as apiHUiitee of R. and 
 witli liis consent, apidied here for letters of ad- 
 luiniatration to bo granted to him liy the Surro- 
 gate Court. K., however, residing at Toronto, 
 and as ne.xt of kin to 15. , also applied here for 
 ailniinistratinn to H."s estite. S. now iipplicd to 
 have the matter transferred into this court, or 
 for a writ of prohibition to tlie Surrogate judge 
 preventing him i^niiiting letters to E. , and a 
 mandamus ordering him to grant them to S. : — 
 Held, failing any proof as to the law in Maine, 
 it must be assumed to agree with the liiw liere, 
 aoconling to which tlie court will not grant ad- 
 ministration to a creditor, so long as one having 
 a Ijettor claim, as is the case with the next of 
 Itin, is willing to act ; and, inasmucii as the next 
 i)f kin did n<it appear to have been cited before 
 the cciurtin Maine, tlie status of tlie creditor who 
 obtained administration there, or of his ap- 
 pointee, was not such as to compel tiie .Surrogite 
 judge here to pass over the next of kin. The 
 appointment of a creditor as administrator is 
 not as of riglit, but rests in the discretion of tiio 
 judge who apnoints, and that cannot be intcrfei - 
 red with by any peremptory writ ; and R. S. (). 
 (1877), e. 4(), ss. 32, 3(i, do not better the claim 
 of a creditor. Browne r. Phillips, Ambl. 41 (J, 
 followed. He Hill. 1.. R. 2 P. & D. 89, distin- 
 guished. Be O'lh-kii, 3 O. R. 320.— Boyd. 
 
 TIm (ith section of 38 Geo. III. c. 87 (Impe- 
 rial), jirohibiting the grant of prolwteto infants 
 under the age of twenty-one is in f jrce in Ontario, 
 either as a rule of decision in matters relatintcto 
 executors and administrators, (R. S. O. (1877), e. 
 40, Ks. 34 and .35) or as a rule of practice in the 
 Probate Conrt in England, (R. S. O. (1877), c. 
 46, s. 32). Mcrckaiits' Bank v. MoHlcit/i, 10 
 P. R, 334. — Hodgins, Manter-iit-Ordinari/. 
 
 An infant cannot lawfully be appointed ad- 
 minstrator of an cdtato, and therefore a grant of 
 probate or of letters of administration to an 
 infant is void, and confers no office on, and 
 vests no estate in such infant. Ih. 
 
 The deceased was a resident of Buflfalo, N. Y., 
 behig at the time of his death, which occurred 
 in the county of Lincoln, Ontario, not possessed 
 of any real or jiersonal property in this province ; 
 the plaintiff (his widow) obtained letters of ad- 
 Juinistration from the Surrogate Court of York : 
 
 -Hold, the grant of letters 1)V the Surrogate 
 Court of York was valid an(l ell'cctual, aiu', 
 Senil)le, tiiat even if the deceased had left real 
 («• i)ersonal estate in souki other county, the 
 administration obtained in York hiid ellcct over 
 the personal estate of the deceased in all parts 
 of Ontario until revoked. Jtiiiiiiii/i v (iraiid 
 Trunk U. W. Co., 15 A. R. 477. 
 
 A mandamus was directed to issue to compel 
 the judge of the Suirogate C'onrt of the county 
 of Wellington, to grant adiuinistration witli the 
 will annexed of a eertain tcntatm- to (1. 1)., one 
 of the next of kin (who hail tiled all necessary 
 papeis), notwitlistandiug tiiat in an issue di- 
 rected out of the Slid Surrogate Court a jury 
 had found against the will. It appeared that 
 the present a])plieaiil was no party t(p that issue, 
 and that since the trial of it this court had held 
 in favour of the will :--Held, that this was not 
 a case for an ajipeal from tiie refusal to grant 
 administration under section 31 of the Surrogito 
 Court Act, because an appeal uinler that section 
 would ajipear to be granted only wiien some one 
 contests the grant of administration, which no 
 one was doing here :-Sem1)le, that this cfiurt 
 has jurisdiction to declare a will valid. lJ\rk- 
 ■fou'v. Moiiliilh, 14 O. R. 719.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The jdaiutitl's sued as executors under the last 
 will and tL^stanient of }}., deceased, ;xlleging that 
 the will was duly proved in the jiroper Surro- 
 gate Courl. The defendant denied tlie validity 
 of the probate by reason of the mode of proof 
 and invalidity of the will. Held, on demurrer, 
 that the defence was liad : that when it is de- 
 sired to attack the validity of .-i pi'obate, issued 
 by a Surrogate Court having jurisdiction, and 
 wlnni the person on wliose death the administra- 
 tion was issuf<l is really dea<l, it must be done 
 in an independent proceeding with the proper 
 jiarties befoi'c the court. Irwiii r. Bank of 
 Montreal, 38 Q. B. 375 followed. (^'luere, 
 whether the application must Ije to tlie Surrogate 
 Court or not. Uouk v. Buok, 15 O. R. 119. — 
 Rose. 
 
 Since the Ontario .Judicature Act the rule in 
 e(|uity prevails as opposed to that at law, that 
 letters of administration when obtained relate 
 back to the death, and it issutiieient if a jilaintiff 
 suing as administrator qualities before the trial. 
 Tried V. RohiMou, 10 O. R. 433.— Cliy. D. 
 
 The personalty of a person who died since the 
 Devolution of Estates Act was less than §2,(KK), 
 but her whole estate, including land was more 
 than that sum : — Held, that a contest as to the 
 grant of probate of her will could not be removed 
 from a Surrogate Court to the High Court ; for 
 the words " personal estate " in section 31, sub- 
 section 2, of the Surrogate (^ourts Act, R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 50, mean personal estate proper, not- 
 withstanding that by the l)ev(dution of Estates 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 108, the whole estate is 
 now to be administered as personalty, lie 
 NixoH, 13 P. R. 314.— Boyd. 
 
 Executors having defended an action on a note 
 as executors and judgment having been recovered 
 against them as such, they were held to have 
 accepted office ; want of probate was immaterial 
 and the sheriffs sale on such judgment was valid. 
 McDonald v. McDonald, 17 A. R. 192. 
 
 See Chard v. Rae, 18 0. K. 371, p 722. 
 
 251, 
 
 si; 
 
■)i (: 
 
 'SIS 
 
 , 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 
 •MB *** > . 
 
 Hit 
 
 
 711 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 712 
 
 II. RiiiiiTs, Authority, and Dutv. 
 
 1. I'einiiiKialion. 
 
 A testator gave to each of liis executorH a, sum 
 of 840 " ill ifiiiiiiuTatioii for tlieir troiil)Iu. " In 
 cunyiiif; on tlie iiBaiiM of tlie estate one of tlie 
 exeeutoi's, with the iiiiowledgeof ills co-executor, 
 uud witlioiitany leiiioiiMtnince from him, used in 
 Ills IjiisinusM.S'iUOof the estate, and theotlieiliad 
 taken a mortgage, in ids own name, for S!)00 
 l)eh)ngiiig to tlie estate, witliout executing any 
 declaration of trust in respect thereof. Undtir 
 these circunistaiiecs the court refused to the sur- 
 viving executor, and to the executor of the 
 deceased executor, their costs of the suit ; the 
 court, however, heing satistied that neither of 
 them had lieen guilty of any wilful misconduct, 
 di<l not eliarge tliem with costs, and allowed 
 them the amount of their commission ; l)ut re 
 fused to allow them to receive tiio legacies given 
 by the will, which were exi)ressed to ho in 
 remuneratidii foi' their troul)le. Kciintdy v. 
 J'iiiijU, '11 C'hy. .SO."). — iSiiragge. 
 
 The fact that, on an account heing taken in the 
 niastei's olHce pursuant to a decree in an adiiiin- 
 istnition suit, a lialaiice has lieen found against 
 an executor, some of the items of whieii are the 
 result of a surcharge, is not alone sulHcient to 
 disentitle him to compensation under K. .S. O. 
 (1877), e. 107, s. 41. HitftiiTiijht \. Liii", 10. 
 R. 37"). — Proudfoot. 
 
 Executors were charged l>y the master in tak- 
 ing the acciunts in an administration suit with 
 the sum of j!!>,404.4-', and allowed as dishurse- 
 meiits tlie sum of .S8, 228.77. 'lliese amounts in- 
 cluded on both sides a sum of !*.'$, 2118.25, repre- 
 senting securities either in the possession of the 
 plaintifT at the time of the testator's death, or 
 handed over to the phiiiititf immediately after- 
 wards. The master alloweil the executors a com- 
 mission of §400 (.11 the total receipts, including 
 the said sum of S!3,2.S8.2r) : — Held, that theexecu- 
 tors were entitleil to coMi])ensatioii in respect of 
 the said sum of S.S,238.25 : — Jield, also, that the 
 commission allowed was not excessive. Jit 
 Batt- Wiiuld v. Il7ii7f,9 1'. R. 447.- I'roudfoot. 
 
 Where there is a he<iuest of a share of the 
 residuary est.ate to executors it is not to be 
 inferred that the bcijuest was given in lieu of 
 compensation, jis in the case of a legacy of a 
 definite sum, but it is nevertheless one of the 
 elements to tie considered in dealing with the 
 question of compensation : — Held, that in tliis 
 case, the executors were entitled to compensa- 
 tion, notwithstanding a lietjuest to them of a 
 sliare of the residue, because the amount of the 
 residue was, when the will was made and after 
 the testator's death, a matter of extreme un- 
 certainty ; nevertheless, no percentages sliould 
 be allowed (.u the sh.are .if the residue, wliieli 
 the executors --.jlv under the residuary clause 
 in tlie will. iio//,<' Home, of the Cili/ of llamUton 
 V. Leu-is, 4 O. 1!. 18. — lioyd. 
 
 a. W. by will directed his executors to re- 
 tain for tlieir own use and benefit the sum of 
 $200 each, in lieu of all charges for tlieir services 
 in performing the duties imposed on them as 
 executorsof this my will : — Held, that under no 
 circumstances could the executors who liad 
 accepted jirobate claim a larger siiiii than the 
 amount specified as compensation for their ser- 
 
 vices. Denison r. Doniaon, 17 Chy. 306, doubted. 
 \V\Uiamn V. Hoy, !)0. R. 534.— Uoyd. 
 
 .Semble, that if an executor refused otherwise 
 to act, and if it was found impracticable to deal 
 with those entitled to the assets, the court would 
 have jurisdiction to permit the compensation 
 given by the statute to be awarded to him uii 
 condition of his relin(|uishing what was given to 
 him by the will. Ih. 
 
 The taking of administration proceedings docs 
 not deprive executors of tiieir functions or even 
 suspend them, and a reasonable allowance should 
 lie made for moneys received pendente lite. In 
 re lloiislitriji'i; Jloiisl/c7'i/er v. Kru/z, 10 (). [{. 
 -.21.— Hoyd. 
 
 The right of an executor to compensatiim 
 depends entirely upon K. S. O. (1877) c. 107, 
 sd. .■!7, 41, aiul as that statute has fixed no 
 standard, each case is to be dealt with on its 
 merits, according to the discretion of the judge. 
 The courts have laid down no intlexible rule in 
 this regard and the adoption of any liaiil and 
 fast commissic n (such as five per cent. ) would 
 defeat the intention of the statute. Tiie order 
 of Ferguson, J., 11 1*. R. 272, reversed, and the 
 master's report restored. He Fkmimj, 11 P. H. 
 42(i.— Cliy. U. 
 
 Held, that there was no duty cast ujion the 
 petitioner in this ease which required him to not 
 ag.iiiist the interests of his co-executor, nor did 
 he incur any appreciable additional risk or re- 
 sponsibility, and he was therefore not entitled 
 to a larger share of the commission awarded, lb. 
 
 Kxecutors claimed compensation in r<'spect of 
 receipts amounting to ?j29,00O, and of disburse- 
 ments amounting to ^."),000. All the work of 
 collecting and paying over was done after an or- 
 der for administration had been made, and was 
 done under the advice of solicitors, and in the 
 more important matters under the direction of 
 the master. An item introduced on each side of 
 the account was a transfer of mortgage to the 
 liliiiiititi', amounting to !*4,084.47, which was 
 carried out in pursuance of an agreement made 
 by the solicitors and sanctioned by the master. 
 It also appeared that the plaintiH's solicitor cmjI- 
 lected ami handed over to the executors $2,400, 
 iiiid also made a payment to them of .§IO,0<M) fur 
 which lie was pe-.sonally liable :- Held, that al- 
 though the administration order <lid not put an 
 end to the functions of the executors, yet it 
 greatly diminished their responsibility, and it 
 (lid so in this case to an almost vanishing point ; 
 and the compensation was reduced from ?<l,l'J3 
 to §440, nothing lieing allowed in respect of the 
 item of !?4,084.47, one per cent, in respect of 
 the items of .«2,4()0 and li!;IO,000, two and a-half 
 per cent, on the balance of the collections, and 
 five per cent on the disbursements except the 
 transfer. Tlioirqinoii v. Fairbairii, 11 P. R. 
 333.— Boyd. 
 
 Where the personal estate not specifically he- 
 queatbed come to the hands of certain executors 
 and trustees, was §41,818.90, of which they ex- 
 pended $25,100.93, and the rents and profits of 
 real estate that came to their hands were §4,- 
 051.90 of which they expended *3, 81 (J. 91. and 
 there appeared a large number of items on each 
 siile of the account, over 300 on one side, and 
 over 400 on the other, ond it appeared that there 
 
 713 
 
 tempted 
 had read 
 legitimatt 
 children 
 too low 
 that the ( 
 sense, juc 
 eluded al 
 intereste( 
 that ther 
 of the far 
 be referi 
 might, 
 what wa 
 Ktrr V. 
 
 After ( 
 gatfee tocj 
 and broiJ 
 on the c q 
 
713 
 
 EXEOUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 714 
 
 upim the 
 liin to ii-t 
 nor (lid 
 isk or re- 
 t entitled 
 irduil. lb. 
 
 Imd Imt'ii a good dual of labour, inuviukI troiiMo 
 in tliu management of the estate ; — llcM, that 
 five \)vv cent, on tbe total ttuni tliuneonie to tiieir 
 hands way not excessive to be allowed as <'(>ni- 
 jiuMMiition, although ?ii|(i,!)5.S.0."> of the estate 
 nioneytt remaiMe<l in theii' liandM with whieh 
 they were chargeable. Aivlni- v. Si-rmi, \',i (). 
 R. ;il(l.— Ferguson. 
 
 fico Burn v, Jiitrii, S (). R. 237. 
 
 See also Trusts and Titi'KTKKs, 
 
 2. J)el>l'< Due to Exec ii I urn <tiitl .iihiiliil-ilraturK 
 III) Dtvtitmd. 
 
 Where the estate of a deceased (lorson is in- 
 solvent, the provisions of the Aet ivspeetiiii,' 
 tnistees displace any right on the part of the ex- 
 eeiitiir to retain in full ; anil as against an exe- 
 cutor claiming as creditor, any other creditor 
 may set up the Statute of Limitations, lie Itiiis, 
 ■29'Vhy. 385.- lioyd. 
 
 3. ManaijbKj Itinl EMatc. 
 
 (a) VaUiinij. 
 
 A testator provided in his will that cm the 
 death of his widow bis executors should liavc 
 ins farm valued, and gave permission to his son 
 E. to take it at their valuation, after which the 
 proceeds were to be divided amongst all Ids 
 ciiildren, of whom the executois were two. I'l 
 having made up his mind to take the farm, the \ 
 executors called in his aid in nominating three j 
 valuers, and proceeded to value the farm, he ■ 
 being present, without notifying the other chil- 
 dren. There was no evidence tliat be bad at- 
 tempted to intlueuce the valuers, or that they 
 had reached their conclusion in other than a 
 legitimate and upright way, but certain of the 
 children had impeached the valuation aa being 
 too low and asked for administration : — Held, 
 that the executors who were exercising in some 
 sense, judicial functions, should either have ex- 
 cluded all interested, or should have invited all 
 interested to take part in appointing valuers ; 
 that there should therefore Ije another valuation 
 of the farm, and if tbe parties desired, it might 
 be referred to the master, or the executors 
 might, on notice to all interested, proceeil to do 
 what was needful in that behalf. lit Ken; 
 Ktrr v. Kerr, 8 O. R. 484.— Boyd. 
 
 (b) Selliiiff. 
 
 Where a testator devised to his wife for life a 
 parcel of land "witli the power of sale at any 
 time during her life subject to the consent of my 
 executors." Three executors were appointed by 
 the will, one of whom dieil. A contract for sale 
 of part of the land having been entered into, it 
 was objected by the purchaser that the cimsent 
 of the two surviving executors was not suffi- 
 cient :— Held, that in the conflicting state of the 
 authorities upon tbe (juestion tlie title was not 
 one which the court could force upon a pur- 
 chaser. Re MarNabb, 10. R., 94.— Proudfoot. 
 
 After default made in a mortgage, the mort- 
 gaeee took proceedings under the power of sale 
 ana brought an action of ejectment and an action 
 on the covenant. He died during the progress 
 
 of these proceedings, [n the two actions judg- 
 ments were recovered against the mortgagor 
 and tlic' lainl't were sold under the power of sale; 
 the pincliase money being paid partly in cash 
 and )Miitly by a mortgage for the lialance. This 
 mnrtj;.iL;e was sMlisei|uently tuiiied into cash at a 
 less amount than its f.iee value, and in addition 
 .siilitMtor's costs for doing so were charged. In an 
 action for an account by the mortgagor against 
 the niort;;agee's e\ecutnrs, who had continued 
 tlie proeeedinus. It «as ; -Held, leversing the 
 JMilgnient of I'roudfoot, .1., tiial the defeniiants 
 were entitled to sell .iiid give time for payment 
 of part of the purchase money without the con- 
 sent of tiie mortgagor; )>ut that tlicy nmst ac- 
 count f(U' the purchase money as cash at tbe 
 time of the sab;, ami that they'eould not charge 
 tbe mortgagor witii the discount on the mort- 
 gage or the costs of turning it into cash ; luul 
 tliat they were entitled to all tiirec sets of costs; 
 tbost^ of the two actions lieing given to them liy 
 tiic judgments tliey had obtained ; and tiiose of 
 exercising tile power of sale under the statutory 
 form of mortgage as a matter of contract, they 
 being made a lirst charge upmi the proceeds of 
 tbe sale, R. .S. (). (IH77) c. 103. Jinttli/ v. 
 O'<'oiiiiur, -} O. R. 731.— C'hy. 1). 
 
 Under a certain will the executors were di- 
 rected to sell and disiiosc of a farm "either at 
 public or private sale as to them nuiy seem best, 
 foi' the best ])ricc, and on the most advantageous 
 terms that reasonably can be (d)taincd for the 
 same ": -Held, that the power to sell involved a 
 power to secui'c part of the price by means of a 
 mortgage on the jiroperty sold, the manner of 
 sale being left to the discretion of the ti'ustees. 
 /iV <h-(ili(im ('mil nut, 17 O. R. 570. — Boyd. 
 
 .See Sm v. McLean, 14 S. C. R. 032. 
 
 (d) Dmcharijimj Mortijaijes. 
 
 About 18,37, Andrew McMinn devised his lands 
 to his wife Marj* McMinn, for life, with remain- 
 der to Maria Kearney. Letters of administration 
 with the will annexed were granted to the widow. 
 At the time of the testator's death the lands 
 were mortgaged for i'150. A suit to foreclose 
 this mortgage was instituted after the testator's 
 death, and it was alleged that under it a fore- 
 closure was obtained, and the property sold, and 
 purchased l)y the administratrix for t!)05. There 
 was evidence that tbe administratrix received 
 ])ersonal assets of the testatoi' sufficient to pay 
 off the mortgage had she chosen so to apply 
 them. The .sum of €725 w.a.s lent to the admin- 
 istratrix by AnnKeaii, hei' daughter by a former 
 marriage. The administratrix then sold the pro- 
 perty to the public authorities for £1,750, out of 
 which sbepaid her daughter t'40O. From 1858 the 
 daughter, with the leave of the iidministr.atrix, 
 occupied about one (juartcr of .an acre of the land, 
 until, in 1873, under the authority of an expro- 
 priation Act, she was ejected from it, the 
 commissioner taking in all three acres and three 
 tenths of this i)roi)erty, the balance being in the 
 occupation of Maria Kearney and her husband, 
 Fi'ancis Kearney (the appellants). These three 
 acres and three-tenths were appraised at .$2,310, 
 and that sum was paid into court to abide a 
 decision as to the legal or equitable rights of the 
 parties respectively. Ann Kean claimed a title 
 to the whole of the land taken, under an alleged 
 
 
715 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATOR: 
 
 716 
 
 'Si 1 
 
 
 &s 
 
 |t:^ ) 
 
 '8892; 
 
 « 
 
 parol nj{renni<fiit witli licr inothor, tliiitHho ohouM I 
 Imvt^ till! land in siitiNtactidii of i';W.">, tlut ruHicUio | 
 uiipiiid of tlu! loan of .C7-">, miil olitaiiicil a iiilu 
 lii«i for tli(! payiiiiuit to hurof the Miiiuof !i^'_',3H>, 
 tliu amount awanUil aH coiniicnMation for the 
 laiiil. In Miiy, IfiT-, lli" adniinrntiatrlx cxecutfil 
 iin informal iiiHtiiinu nt uink'r .seal, iiurportiu):; 
 to 1)1! a U'asi! of her lifo istatu to the aiipulliints 
 in tho whole iiroperty, reHervinfi a icntal of 
 gi80 a year ami iilierty to oicuiiy two rodms in 
 II (l\veilitij,'-hons(! then oeeii|iii'cl liy her. On a 
 inoLicjii to make thin rule alisohite. several alticla- 
 vitM were tiled, iiieludinj,' those of the H|i|MdlantM. 
 (>n the ISth January. ISTo, the matter was 
 referred to the ina.iter, 'o tak- evidence ami 
 report thereon, siilijeet to .sueii report hciny 
 inodilied hy the eourt or a judge. The niantfr 
 reported thattiui a))))ellantM had the .solu le^al 
 and eciuitahle rigiits in tiie pr(i|)erty. On motion 
 ' to uoiilirni that repoit, tilt! court made an order 
 npiiortioning the .':<*i,;{IO hetween Ann Keim and 
 theappellaiit.s.tiiefornier heiiij,' declared entitled 
 to he paid .*!l,Oir).(ll, and the latter, on lilingthe 
 writtijii eoiiHent of Mrs. Mc.Minn, the residue of 
 tlie.'?2,.Sl(l: -Held, on ajipual, that the adniinin- 
 tratiix, having personal asuet.i of the testator 
 suthcieiit to diacharge tiie mortgage, wa.s hound 
 ill the due course of her adminiHt ration to dia- 
 charge said iiieuniluaneo, and that the parol 
 agrouiiieiit niade hy her with her daiiglitcr was 
 null and void. KrnriiPi/ v. Kinii, .'l S. C. 1!. 
 332. 
 
 A testator by his will directed his exeeutora 
 to cancel and entirely release the indebtedness 
 of his .son W. S. upon and by virtue of a inort- 
 jfage to tlie testator, such release to operate and 
 take effect immediately on and from the said 
 testator's death. In an action for tlie adminis- 
 tration of the testator's estate, W. S. claimed 
 the discharge of the mortgage, but the executors 
 contended that thoy were not bound to give it 
 Uiitil W. S. paid the amount of his other in- 
 debtedness to the estate. The master found in 
 favour of the executors. On appeal from the 
 master it was:— Held, that the executors were 
 not entitled to insist on payment of the other 
 indebtedness before discharging the mortgage. 
 Archer v. Serern, 12 O. IJ, ()15,-— Proudfoot. 
 14 A. R. 723. 
 
 Per Burton, i). A., dissenting from the other 
 members of the court. The beipiest of the mort- 
 gage was not a specific bccjuest ; and without 
 reference as to what the original purpose of 
 filing the bill was, W. S. had claimed to have 
 his mortgage released and had olitained an order 
 for its unconditional discharge so that be stood 
 in the same position as if he liad brought an ac- 
 tion for that purpose expressly, and bad thus 
 brought himself within the rule, that he who 
 seeks equity must do e([uity : whereas the effect 
 of 'the judgment appealed from by reason of the 
 operation of the Statute of Limitations was to 
 leave the legatee free from *^!e debt due by him 
 to the estate and to expose the executors to a 
 liability to make good that loss. S. C, 14 A. R. 
 723. 
 
 Held, following Northey v. Northey, 2 Atk. 77, 
 that although at law the assent of the executor 
 is necessary to the vesting of a specific legacy, 
 in equity he is considered as a bare trustee, and 
 if he refuse his assent without cause he may be 
 compelled to give it, and that here the execu- 
 
 tors' refusal was without cause. S. C, 12 0, R. 
 01"). — Proudfoot. 
 
 H. Iiy his v/ill ap])ointod F. and VV. executors 
 and ti u itees of his estate. F. for the purpose 
 of seeiiiiiig a debt due by him to the estate, ex- 
 ei.'Uted a mortgage to \V. \V. died intestate, 
 and F., live years subsequently having agit'e(l 
 to .sell the mortgaged pieinises to M., executed 
 a statutory ilischarge of th<! mortgage, which he 
 expressed to do as Hi>le surviving executor, and 
 then (.'onveved the estate to .M. : — Held (atlirm. 
 Ill); the juilgiiient of Hoyd, (!., 13 O. K. 21), 
 that the act of F. , in executing such discharge, 
 had not tlie etVect of releasing tlie land from the 
 mortgage. Itiatij v. Shnir, 14 A. li. (!()((. 
 
 (e) licpairn. 
 
 M. H. (the executrix umler a w ill which was 
 subsequently set aside), having expended .^rilili.Sr) 
 in ie|)airs to the real estate, and the testritoi's 
 will liaving given her a life estate in all th (,d 
 estate, and having also given her "the incume 
 of all investments of which I may bo [los.scsscd 
 tor her own u.se, and also the principal of such 
 investnients as siie may re(iuire to use for her 
 own benefit ;" — Held, that the t^OHtJ.S.") was pro- 
 perly allowed to her. Jlill v. Hill, OO. R. 244.- 
 Ferguson. 
 
 4. Payiiienl of Money into Court. 
 
 Payment of legacies to infants into Court. 
 Sea I'l'e Parr, 11 P. R. 301. 
 
 See lie Cnrni — W'rli/ht v. Curry; Curry v. 
 Ciirry, 8 P. It. 340, p. 724. 
 
 5. Other Canes. 
 
 By the third clause of her will, H. M. the tes- 
 tatrix, disposed of all her property, movables, 
 and immovaViles, in favour of her children as uni- 
 versal legatees. The legacy was subject to the 
 extended powers of administration conferred by 
 the fifth clause of the will (referred to in the 
 statement of the case), and also the power to 
 alter the disposition in favour of the testatrix's 
 children given by the same clause to her husband 
 H. L., the executor, ond also by the will the 
 executor was exoneratefl from the obligation of 
 making nn inventory and rendering aai account. 
 H. L., in his quality of testamentary executor 
 and administrator to the eritate of the said H. M., 
 endorsed accommodation promissory notes signed 
 by C. L., one of his children, and "TheM. Bk." 
 (respondent), as holder thereof for value, obtained 
 judgment against both the maker and endorser. 
 An execution was subsequently issued against 
 H. L., es (iualit6, and certain real estate of the 
 late H. M. , which he detained in his said capa- 
 city was seized and advertised for sale. J. D. 
 L. et al. (the appellants), who were the only child- 
 ren of the defendant H. L. , and his wife, opposed 
 the sale of the property seized mi the ground that 
 the said property was insaisissable : — Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of tho court below, Tas- 
 chereau and Gwynne, JJ., dissenting, that the 
 endorsements were not authorized by the will, 
 and that the clause in the will, exempting the 
 property of the testatrix from execution, was 
 
716 
 
 (). U. 
 
 i!iit(]r8 
 ir[i(mc 
 
 fiiteil 
 licit lie 
 1', and 
 ullinii- 
 
 717 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 718 
 
 valiil, and imiHt Im jjivoii ofl'tct lO. Art. 07'2, C, 
 (J. Lioiiiiii V. Muhoit'x /laid; 10 S. C. U, Ti'-'fi. 
 
 Wliffi,' a toHtator providud for tliti itioi^tioii 
 "of. .iiitaldi^ talilft ' over liin ;,'iiivu, "not to 
 exci't'd ':>l,i'>(M)," and alHo of nionuincntul talili'tn 
 or Mtones, t'tc,,and tlio or(!C'tion tlu'ii'nl ovtr tlii^ 
 gravl^•^ of liJH (U^cuaHt'd wivt^H, and diiid wortli 
 j;20l>,0<)0, and tlio vxeuutoiti Hpcnt $,'{,(I(K) on a 
 moiiiniicnt to liiin and IiIh wivi's, i'(umo\ ing tin; 
 reiiiaiiiH of tliu di'ccaMC'cl wives to tlioHaint: Imrial 
 iilaiu ax tlie testator: — Hi^ld, tliat they nii>,'lit 
 iiidpcrly 1)0 allo«t'd llie Haid Huni of .*.'t,(MIO ni 
 tliuir acoonnts. Archer v, Sercni, \',i (). R. 
 310,— Ferguson. 
 
 Si'c M <■>■<■ kail ts' lid id- V. Afiiitli ilh~L\r /intii 
 Shniiliird Life Axtiiniiur Co. 10 1'. It. rjMS ; Jk 
 Mi:Doii'jal( TrmU, U l*. K. 404, 
 
 III. LlAIUI.ITIKS. 
 
 1. DtvaKlarit. 
 
 An Infant, wlietlicr oxocutor or exfcutor do 
 son tort in not lialdu foi' a duvaHtavit, fjugacies 
 (liri'c.'ti'd to lie paid out of a mixed resiihu! are a 
 charge on land. Voiiinjv. Piirrc'<, 11 (). K. T)!!?. 
 — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Sue J!i: ii'tiliourk — Caneyv. (lahoiirie, 13 O. R. 
 
 \ 2. For Inlered, 
 
 it U not usual to allow interest on claiivs 
 wJH're there is no fraud, or wilful withholding of 
 acciiunts, only a loose mode of dealing hetweeii 
 the: pailies. The discretion under whith iv jury 
 may allow interest applies to the master's oHiee. 
 lie Kirh]iati-kk~ KirliKitrU-l: v. Sfrniimni, 10 P. 
 R. 4. — Hodgins, Mustcr-iii-Ordiudri/. 
 
 The Englisli rules revjulating the award of in- 
 terest against execui s and trustees may he 
 approximated in this province, (1) hy chaiging 
 an executor who negligently I'ctains funds which 
 ho should have paid over or made |)roductivc for 
 the estate, at the statutory rate of six percent. : 
 (2) l!y charging him who has liroken his trust 
 by using the money for his own i)ur|)oses (though 
 not intr:'.do or speculation) at such a rate of in- 
 terest as is the then current value of money ; 
 and (3) Hy charging him who makes gain out of 
 his trust by embarking the money in specuh.tive 
 or trading adventures with the protits or with 
 compound interest, as the case may be. The 
 executors in this case kept considerable and con- 
 stantly increasing balances in their hands from 
 year to year, and allowed the acting executor to 
 use the money as he pleased. It was not proved 
 that any pi'oht was made out of it, and no special 
 evidence was given to shew what the current 
 rate of interest iluring that period was ; but the 
 notes and mortgages held by the executors bore 
 interest for the most part at six per cent. The 
 master charged thi executors with interest at six 
 per cent, per annum, with annual rests upon 
 moneys in their hands belonging to the estate, 
 and allowed them the usual commission and 
 costs. On an appeal from the report of the 
 master, it was : — Held, that the interest should 
 be charged at six percent, ; but that the awarding 
 of oompound interest was opposed to the spirit 
 of the decision in luglis v. Beaty, 2 A. B. 453, 
 
 and could oidy be uphelil as being In the nature 
 of a penalty impost il on the executors. In rr 
 IIiiiihIii i;/! I- llnn.ilit nil r V. Krnl:, 10 (». It. 
 Ml.-Hoyd. 
 
 The executors retained in their hands a sum 
 of .■:<l,l(l() to nn<'t claims against the estate, ami 
 wvvi! not called upon to pay it into i:ourt : — 
 Held, that the amount ri;tained was not un- 
 reasonable, and that the executors weiu not 
 eli.iigealile with interest in respt.'ctof it. /7i«i»/(- 
 Kdii V. Fiiirhiiini, 11 1*. It, .'{33. — lioyd. 
 
 Held, that the executors in this case shnidd 
 III liarged with interest upon the residue in 
 tin i. !i;vnils after the time when itw.is distribut- 
 abli and the annual rate, ot interest charged 
 accorilingly upon it fioni the tinu; when it might 
 l)rop' ily have b' u disti 'huted, or ,ippropri:ited, 
 down to the 1 lie of its actual paymeiil., t if not 
 yet ]iaid i' n ii to the present time, /lui/s' Jlaiiin of 
 the I '/((/■ //inni/fiiii v. Lt iri.i, 4 U. R. IM. I'oycf, 
 
 \N lieru moneys are left '.ly will to be invested 
 at the discretion of ihe executor or trustee, 
 the discretion so given cainiot be exercised other- 
 wise ilian according to law, and does not warrant 
 an investment in nersonal .securities orsecinitics 
 
 not sanctioned liy Ihe court ;— Held, that an 
 executor and trustee who de])o.<ifeil funds so left 
 in trust for infants, at three and a-half or four 
 per cent, interest, in a savings bank, did not 
 conform to his duty ; ami his fiilure to do so ex- 
 posed him to pay the legal rate of int rest for 
 the money, .dtliough he acted innocently and 
 honestly ; and the aeiiuiesciiice of the statutory 
 guardian of the infa' not being for their liene- 
 
 ■ tit. did not relieve lain : — Held, also, that the 
 defemlant was not entitled to costs out of the 
 fund, lint that he should be relieved from paying 
 
 j costs, Sin-dtt V. HVA^o/', 10 O. R. •_'». — Boyd. 
 
 I See McCardle v. Moorv, 2 O. R. 229, p. 735 ; 
 
 ' He, (Viiirfir — Croiiier v. Iliiniiiiii, 10 O. R l.")0, 
 p. 720 ; Airhiir v. Stmrii, 13 (». R. 310, j). 7-0 : 
 AV (I'dlioiirit: — Caii i/ v. l/aliuitric, 13 O, It. 03."), 
 
 ' p. 721. 
 
 3. For Ac/n 0/ Eai:h Other. 
 
 .T. U., sr., and S. 1)., of Montreal, had been 
 executors of V. 15., who died in Montreal about 
 KS44. S. 1). j^roved the will in Ontario. The 
 plaintitl's (two infants) vore solely entitled un- 
 der this will. J. ]{., sr., died in Montreal in 
 1S()0. T, l>. ami. I, 11, jr., were his executors, 
 and both jtrovud the will in Ontario, but T. B. 
 alone acted as executor, .1. B. jr., having given 
 him a power of attorney to act for him in all 
 matters relating to the estate. The plaintiii's 
 and T. B. and J. B. jr., were each entitled to a 
 one-third sluire under the will of J. I'.., sr. A 
 suit was brought for the administration of both 
 estates, and a receiver appointed, in taking the 
 accounts before the master S, D.'s attemlance 
 was dispensed with, as it appeared that none of 
 the assets of C. B. 's estate in Ontario had come 
 to his hands. The master found T. B. and J. 
 B., jr., who did not appear or tile any accounts, 
 indebted to the estates in about $.") 1,000. In 
 default of evidence to shew that any of the 
 assets come to their hands formed part of C. B.'s 
 estate, the master further found that the whole 
 formed part of J. B., sr.'s estate. The decree 
 ordered the executors to distinguish the assets 
 of each estate, and notified them that in default 
 
 S 
 
9li 
 
 EXEOUTOBS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 720 
 
 
 
 the whole would be takeu to belong to the estate 
 of J. 15., sr. T. M. having died, the suit was 
 revived. J. H, , jr., a|)i)lied to the court for 
 leave to open and retake the aceounts, on the 
 gnuind tliat be liad been kept in ignorance of 
 the proceedings by Ills co-o.xecutors. Leave was 
 given liini to surcharge and fakify. J. 15., jr., 
 now distinguished the assets of tlie two estates, 
 and souglitto be relieved from liability as to tlie 
 estate ol C. 15., on tlio ground that he was not 
 executor of that estate : as to tlie J. 15., sr., 
 estate, lie also sought to be relieved in several 
 respects. The master's judgment was upon these 
 points: — Held, tliatT. 15. and J. B., jr., did not, 
 b}' proving the will of J. 15., sr., become execu- 
 tors of C. 15., as J. 15., sr., was not tlie sole or 
 surviving executor of C. 15..' — Held, tiiat .1. 15., 
 jr., was liable for the moneys of .1. 15.,sr.'s 
 estate, come to the hands of T. 15., whether 
 before or after the [)roving of tiie will, or before 
 or after tlic power of attorney, liluomfidd v. 
 BrooLc, 8 V. 11. 2G().— Taylor, Mashr. 
 
 A testator who, by his will, expressed the 
 fullest contidence in C. (one oi his trustees), 
 directed them to be guided entirely by the 
 judgment of ( '. as to the sale, disposal, ami re- 
 investment of his American securities, and de- 
 clared that his trustees shoulil not be respon- 
 sible for any loss occasioned thereby. ('. having 
 made unauthorized investments of these moneys 
 which proved worthless, the master charged his 
 co-trustee 15. with the amount thereof : — Held, 
 that even if at the suit of creditors 15. might liave 
 been cliargeable, yet as against legatees he was 
 exonerated. Jiit'rrit/ v. I'urritt, 29 Cliy. .321.— 
 Proud foot. 
 
 H. & V. were iqipointed executors. H. took 
 upon himself tiie actual management of tlie 
 estate, with tlie knowledge and consent of, but 
 not under any ex|)ress agreement witli C. H. 
 applied a sum of money to his own use, but of 
 this C was not aware. Tiie will contained the 
 usual indemnity clause exonerating each from 
 liability for the other: — Held, that C. was not 
 liable for the sum ap])ropriate(l by H. Kiiui v. 
 HUloii, 29 Cliy. .SSI.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A., 15, & C, the three executors under a will, 
 sold certain real estate of the testator. C, who 
 was entitled to the annual income of tiie pro- 
 ceeds tliereof, took tlie most active part in the 
 management of the estate, as the others lived at 
 a distance, and ein])loye<l a solicitor who received 
 two sums S980 and ^1,580, part of the proceeds 
 of said sale, the former in January, 1876, and 
 the latter in February, 1882. Botli the other 
 executors M'ere aware of his employment and 
 that these sums were in his hands. In Kebruary, 
 1884, the solicitor .absconded causing a loss to 
 the estate of !?1.9()0, the balance then in his 
 hands. In the will there was a clause "that 
 each (of the executors) should be responsible for 
 his or her acts only, and irresponsible for any 
 loss unless through wilful neglect or default": — 
 Held, tliat all three were ecjuaily liable and must 
 make good the amount to the estate, the rule 
 being when one or more of several trustees act 
 in getting in and dealing with the trust funds, 
 an inactive trustee is aecoimtable therefor equal- 
 ly with the others, if having the means of know- 
 ledge by the exercise of ordinary vigilance, he 
 stnnds by and permits a breach of trust to go on. 
 McCarler v. McCarter, 7 O. R. 243.— Boyd. 
 
 By his will, P. S. C. empowered his executorg, 
 if re<iuire>l, to sell a parcel of his lands to pay off 
 "delits or eneumbrances " against his estate, 
 The land was sold by tiie executors, all of whom 
 in .some degree acted in their executorial capacity 
 or as trustjes, but by tacit consent, one of tliem 
 took the actual management of the estate and 
 received the moneys arising from it, including 
 the proceeds of the said sale, which he misap- 
 propriated. H. A. C, an executrix, joined in 
 the conveyance to tlie purchaser for the sake 
 of conformity, but did not receive any of the 
 purchase money, nor was there any evidence 
 that she knew a balance remained in the Iiaiula 
 of her co-trustee after .satisfying the "debts or 
 encumbrances,'" or that he was mLsapplying it :— 
 Held, that under these circumstances, H, A. 
 ('. was not responsible to the estate for the mis- 
 appropriation liy her co-trustee : — Held, also, 
 that even if she had been liable for the principal 
 money so misaiipropriated, she would not have 
 been for the interest, inasmuch as tiie principal 
 never came into her hands. McCarter r. Mc- 
 Carter, 7 O. II. 24.'? ; Burrows v. Walls, 5 DeO. 
 M. & (t. 2;5:5; Rodbard i: Cof)ke, 2.'> W. R. -.,56, 
 and Cowell v. Oatcombe, 27 Boav. 068, dis- 
 tinguished. Up Cruniir — Growler v. Ilinman, 
 100. R. l.'iO.— Ferguson. 
 
 When one of two executors who was entitled 
 under the will of his testator to a large sum 
 charged on the real estate, but which could not 
 be considered a legacy or a debt in such a sense 
 that the personal property was the primary fund 
 for the payment of it, had applied in his own 
 business a portion of the personal estate, which 
 was by the will directed to be invested, ,-md 
 which, although large, was not equal in amount 
 to the charge in his favour on the realty, and his 
 coexcjutor, tlidugh aware of such application, 
 had not taken any steps to prevent the same : — 
 Held, that they were both ecjually liable to 
 account f(U' the whole of the princijial sum and 
 interest with rests. Re tJrowter, Crowtcr v. 
 Hinmaii, 10 0. R. ir)9, distinguished. Archtr 
 v. Scrern, 13 0. R. 31(j. — Ferguson. 
 
 4. Other Casen, 
 
 Where a will creates a life estate in chattels, 
 the executor is discharged when he li.ands over 
 such chattels to the tenant for life. The tenant 
 for life. Mid not the executor then becomes liable 
 for them to the person entitled in roinaimler. 
 Ill re Miinnk, 10 P. R. 98. — Hodgins, Misler-'m- 
 Ordinnnj. 
 
 The 57tli and .58th sections of the Surrogate 
 Act (R.S. 0. (1877). c. 4(1), protect parties bonil 
 fiile making ji.ayments to an executor or adminis- 
 trator notwithstanding any invalidity in the 
 probate or letters of administration, but they do 
 not protect payments made to third parties by 
 an infant assuming to act as administrator of the 
 estate. Mfrcha.11/n' Hank v. MonMth, 10 P. R. 
 334. — Hodgins, Master-in-Ordinary. 
 
 G. lent money to W. on his promissory note, 
 and when he died held such note as security. 
 15y his will he directed his executors to get in 
 the moneys outstanding and invest the same in 
 such stocks as they might deem advisable. C, 
 the executor, who proved tl.e will, left the loan 
 outstanding on the note, and at a subsequent 
 
720 
 
 
 721 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTBATOBS. 
 
 722 
 
 time reneweil it anil took a new note made 
 by the firm of W. Hros., of whioh W. was a 
 nioiiil>ei'. The reason this was done, as stated 
 1)V ('.. was ))ecauae lie could gut seven and 
 a-luilf per ^^ent. interest for the estate, which 
 was more than he could have done if he had 
 invested in stocks. W. Hros. afterwards be- 
 came insolvent .and the amount of the note 
 w:>a lost to the estate. It was shown that the 
 executor was advised not to invest in stocks. 
 In t.iking the accounts in the niaster'.s oHicc, it 
 was h('l(l that the amount of the note should not 
 be charged against him ])ers(inally : l)Ut on aj)- 
 pcal it was Hehl ; — That it was a very oi)vious 
 case of breach of trust which could not be ex- 
 cused whatever might be the hardship resulting 
 to the executor. Interest was allowed to him, 
 however, at the increased rate from the date at 
 which he was cliarged with tlie note, and it was 
 directed that interest should not be charged 
 ai'aiiist him at si.x per cent., if it was proved that 
 he could not have invested in stocks to realize 
 that rate. J'f Onhniirif —('nsi i/ v. trillion rli', 
 13 (». R. ().'}."). — Hoy d. See .V. ('■., 12 P. It. l»52. 
 
 Moneys bei|ueathed directly to iuf.int legatees 
 and which had been invested by the defendants, 
 the executors of the testatrix, were demanded of 
 iuid received from them bj' one F., a solicitor 
 who had obtained from the Surrogate Court his 
 appointment as guardian of the infants. V. sub- 
 seipiently misapplied the moneys .md absconded. 
 Hehl (reversing the judgment of Ferguson, J., 
 II 0. I'. 505, Hagarty, C. .1. O., dissenting), 
 that the defendants were not liable. Iftti/i/iu-i v. 
 Law, 14 A. K. 383. 
 
 Sec HiiyrH- v. Proctor. 10 P. R. 2.5, p. 724 ; 
 Burn V. Kurn, 8 O. R. i?,! . 
 
 IV. Acrioxs AND Prockedincs Uv. 
 
 Ill an action of trespass for entering the 
 warehouse , of a deceased ])ers(iii (of whom the 
 plftintitf was the administrator) after his death 
 and taUing and converting thy goods therein, the 
 ilefenil.iiit set otf a debt iliie by deceased to him. 
 .An ailministration order had been made of wliich 
 the defenibint liad iiotiee before defence. The 
 set-olV was held bad under 27 Vict. c. 28, s. 28, 
 ami also because of tiie administration order. 
 iln»f,:ihv. WaUli, lOP.R. l(i2.-l)alton, .1/(is/e,-. 
 
 Til an action by the administrator in Ontario 
 of \V. M. , deceased, on a jxilicy im the life of 
 \\. M., which by tlie terms thereof, was payable 
 in Montreal, in the province of Quebec, the de- 
 fendants pleaded that the policy was issued from 
 their otiice in Montreal; that by its terms the 
 moneys were payable there ; that the defendants 
 had no office in Ontario for the payment of 
 moneys by tliem, and t' t the plaintiff had not 
 obtained letters of admims*-"ation in Quebec, and 
 had no right or t'tle to sue for the moneys : — 
 Held, on demurrer, a good defence. I'ri/rhanI, 
 V. Sinmlard Life Asvirance Co., 7 O. R., 188.— 
 Rose. 
 
 The plaintiflfs by their agent, Patrick R., in 
 April, 1877, procured a jutlgment to be signed 
 sgainst Peter H., the defendant who, for pur- 
 poses of his own, sutTered judgment to go by de- 
 fault. No execution was ever issued thereon. 
 After the death of Peter the plaintiffs assigned 
 the judgment to the wife of Patrick, who paid 
 46 
 
 them §50 therefor ; and on her application 
 Armour, .)., made an order allowing execution 
 to issue ag.iinst the executors of Peter. The ex- 
 ecutors then applied to set aside the .iidgment 
 as having been fraudulently obtaine.' ""d to be 
 allowed to defend the action or for such other 
 order as would seem just and upon such a|)])li- 
 cition Wilson, ('. J., made iin order setting 
 aside the judgment and all proceedings in the 
 action and directing the iilaintiH's to jiay tlieiSSO. 
 Tliis order was affirmed on ai)])eal to the ( 'om- 
 nioii Pleas Division ; —Upon appeal from this 
 order of tlie (Simmon Pleas Division the court 
 were all of opinion but for dilfereiit reasons that 
 the order was wrong, but did not agrcie as to the 
 extent to which it should be modified. Per 
 Hag.irty, C. .1. ()., and Osier, J. A. — The jinlg- 
 ment should merely be set asiile and the ex- 
 ecutors allowed in to defend. Per Hurton, 
 •I. A. — 'I'lie executors cannot be heard to allege 
 their testator's fraudulent purpose ; they are 
 estopi>ed from coiiKiiing the operation of the 
 judgment within the limit of his intended fraud, 
 and the judgment should be allowed to stand. 
 Per Patterson, ,T. A. — The judgment slunild not 
 bo set aside, but the onler of Armour, J., 
 should be rescinded, and it should bo declared 
 that Patrick's wife as assignee of the judgment, 
 was not entitled to issue execution, because the 
 judgment was procured by Patrick, herhusbai.d, 
 and suffered by Peter, for a fraudulent purpose, 
 of which she had notice, when she took the as- 
 signment. Srhrocder v. lloonay, 11 A. R. 673. 
 
 The rule in eiiuity is, that when a jierson is 
 entitled to obtain letters of administration he 
 may begin an action as administrator before ho 
 has full" clothed himself with that character; 
 but th' .ianie doctrine does not apply where the 
 person immediately entitled to obtain adminis- 
 tration is not the one who begins the action. 
 Trice i\ Robinson, 10 O. R. 433, distinguished. 
 Vha,-d V. Jiao, 18 O. R. 371.— Boyd. 
 
 Where the point is specially raised on the 
 pleadings as to the time when the letters of ad- 
 ministration were obtained, it devolves upon 
 the court to ascertain whethe'- an action was 
 begun in time by a properly constituted plain- 
 tiff, lb. 
 
 The father of the plaintiff obtained judgment 
 against L. and R. in an action upon a promissory 
 note on the 2f)tli October, 18(58, and the plaintiff 
 began this action against L. and R. upon the 
 judgment on the 22nd October, 1888. At that 
 time the plaintiff's father was dead and no per- 
 sonal representative of his estate had been ap- 
 pointed. On the 4th Noveml)er, 1889, letters of 
 administration to his father's estate were granted 
 to the plaintiff, the widow renouncing probate 
 on the same day. Subseijuently to that the 
 statement of claim was delivered, and the action 
 continued against R. alone. 11. by his state- 
 ment of defence put the plaintiff to the proof of 
 his position and title to sue on the judgment, 
 and set up, amongst other defences, the Statute of 
 Limitations, ft. S. O. (1887) c. 60, s. 1 :— Held, 
 that the widow was the person primarily entitled 
 to administer, and as she had not renounced 
 when the action was begun, the plaintiff h.td at 
 that time no status ; and as against the Statute 
 of Limitations that no action was rightly begun 
 within the period of twenty years fixed by the 
 statute as that within which an action upon a 
 
 
 
••Sit, 
 
 I 
 
 Cs*. 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 i' f 
 
 723 
 
 EXEOUTOBS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 721 
 
 bond or other specialty shall be commenced ; 
 and therefore the action failed. Semble, that 
 an objection raised at the trial that L. was not 
 before tlie court was a valid one ; for an action 
 on a joint judgment is not diti'erent in principle 
 from ail action of conti'act against joint contrac- 
 tors. Jli. 
 
 See BenNi/ v. O'Connor, 5 O. R. 731, p. 714 ; 
 Trice r. JMiinion, 16 0. 1!. 4.S3, p. 710. 
 
 v. Actions and Pkooeedinos Auainst. 
 
 1. Removal of Executor. 
 
 An executor cannot be removed from his posi 
 tion, wliere imytliing remains to bo done apper- 
 taining to his otiice, even although the will pro- 
 vides for his continuance as a trustee thereunder 
 after his duties as executor have ceased, and he 
 has acted as trustee by investing part of the 
 trust moneys. In ro Moore, McAlpine v. Moore, 
 21 Ch. 1). 778, distinguished. He limh, 19 O. 
 R. 1. — l>ol)ert.son. 
 
 Hekl, affirming tlie judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench for Lower Canada (appeal side) (M. L. R. 
 3Q. 15. 191) that Art. 282 C. C. does not apply 
 to exocutofs chosen by the testator, a. '.J that in 
 an action for the removal i ." one executor when 
 there are several executors, tlie existence of a 
 law-suit between such executor and the estate 
 he represents, and the evidence of irregularities 
 in bis administration but not exhibiting any 
 incapacity or dishonesty, are not a sullicient 
 cr.use for his removal. Arts. 28.5, 917 C. C. 
 (Strong, J., dissenting). Mitchell v. Mitchell, 16 
 S. C. R, 722. 
 
 2. Partiex. 
 
 An action for money bad and received will lie 
 wherever a certain amount of money belonging 
 to one person has improperly come to the hands 
 of another. Therefore wliere a railway company 
 paid to the executors of a tenant for life the sum 
 payalile for tlie fee simple of lands taken by the 
 company for the purposes of their road, and 
 8ubse(iuently the reniaiiidcrman filed a bill 
 against the eoiiijMiny and the representatives of 
 the tenant for life, seeking to obtain payment 
 from the company of the ])ropirtion of purchase 
 money paj'able to the reniainderman : — Held, 
 that the executors were properly made parties 
 with a view to the company obtaining relief over 
 against them in the event of the companj* being 
 compelle<l to make good the money in the first 
 instance, and a demurrer by the executors was 
 overruled with costs, on the ground tJiat the 
 ooinpa»y were entitled to a remedy over against 
 them for the amount overpaid tliem, and on 
 the additional ground tiiat the bill alleged all 
 facts necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to a direct 
 decree against them, although the bill was not 
 framed with a view to a direct remedy against 
 the executors ; for "the payine..., being made 
 by the company to the executors * * * of 
 money, to a proportion of which the plaintiffs 
 were entitled, and the payment being made with- 
 out the authority of the jilaintiffs it became 
 money had and received by the executors to the 
 use of the plaintiffs." Owston v. Orand Trunk 
 R. \y. Go., 28 Chy. 431.— Sprngge. 
 
 Making executors parties to an action for the 
 rectification of deeds. See Fergnxou v. Winsor, 
 10 O J!. 1.3. 
 
 See Burn v. Burn, 8 0. R. 237. 
 
 See also Subhead VI. 2, p. 728. 
 
 3. Pleadiwj. 
 
 In an action on two promissory notes against 
 the executors of the makerthey pleaded, 1. That 
 they never were executors. 2. Plene adininis- 
 travit. The plaintiff obtained a verdict, and 
 judgment was entered for the debt and costs to 
 be levied of the goods of the testator in the hands 
 of tlie defendants, his executors, if tiiey liad so 
 much thereof, and if not, then to be levied of the 
 proper goods and chattels of the defendants. X 
 motion to amend the judgment by relieving the 
 defendants from personal liability was ruhiseil 
 with costs, for as they had denied their repre- 
 sentative ciiaracter, the plaintiffs were entitled 
 to such judgment, llmjch v. Proctor, 10 P. R. 
 25.— Daiton, MuHtei 
 
 See Ganijhnn 
 Leslie v. Calrin 
 
 , V. Sharpe, (i A. R. 417, p. 7'26; 
 I, 9 O. R. 2(»7, p. 725. 
 
 4. Other Cnxex. 
 
 An order for partition or sale was made under 
 (;. O. 640, (Con. Rule 989), by the master at Lon- 
 don, of the estate of one M., deceased. In pro- 
 ceeding under that order the master advertised 
 for cretlitors, and M. & M. sent in a claim for 
 obtaining letters of administration, and for de- 
 fending .an action in the court of C. P., brought 
 by W. M., a defendant in this suit, and entitled 
 to a share of the estate, against the adminis 
 tratrix. The master allowed the claim, and \V. 
 M. appealed, on the ground that ueitlior the 
 deceased nor bis estate was indebted to .M. &M. 
 
 I and that they were not entitled to prove as credi- 
 tors in this cause : — Held, that she was justified 
 in defending the suit, and the appeal was dismis- 
 
 ' sed. McKtuj v. McKay, 8 P. R.334.— Proudfoot. 
 
 , The I'cferee in chambers has no jurisdiction 
 i to make an order for payment into court by an 
 executor or adininistrat(U' of .amounts admitted 
 by him to In; in his hands. A'r- (Jnrry— Wriuhl 
 V. Curry— ('n cry v. Citrry, S P. H. 340.— Ste- 
 phens, J'e/eree. 
 
 An agreement to make a will in favour of an 
 adopted child may be enforced against the per- 
 sonal representatives of tlie obligor. See Rolxrts 
 
 \ v. I fall, 1 (). It. 388. 
 1 
 
 j (t. having dissolved partnership with M., by 
 1 the terms ot the dissolution liehl certain land 
 I subject to a lien of S.)C."), to be paid by .M., .M. 
 I then arranged a sale to C. or .■?2,250, iiitendiug 
 I to defraud any company wh:> would lend 81,125. 
 : (HI the security of the land (it beintr really worth 
 about §600), and drew up a receipt of jsl.loO, 
 representing that sum as being part payment of 
 the consideration money, which O. signed. G. 
 subsequently executed a conveyance with §2,2511 
 inserted as the consideration, and deposited it 
 with his solicitor as an escrow, to be delivered 
 up on payment of his $525 lien. It appeared G. 
 had since died, and S. was appointed his ad- 
 ministrator. M. and C. by means of an over- 
 valuation and certain misrepresentations, oue of 
 
 725 
 
 Ajudgmei 
 a debt of th 
 the indebtei 
 other credit 
 ministration 
 tion is of g{ 
 judgment 
 tor of H. L. 
 by him and 
 H.'8 estate 
 the court, 
 judgment 
 upon it, an 
 aske<l to be 
 the claim, i 
 dishonour 
 promissory 
 been obtain 
 the master 
 permitted 
 is only prir 
 and devisee 
 23 Chy. 167 
 Hank V. M 
 
 See Re 
 252, p. 30 
 192. 
 
 VI. 
 
 l.Ad 
 Where ol 
 
724 
 
 for the 
 
 I'i'/i.vor, 
 
 725 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 ffll} 
 
 In pro- 
 
 which was the production of G.'a receipt, ob- 
 tained a loan of $1,125 from the plaintiffs to C, 
 and out of the proceeds paid S. the $525, and 
 took up the deed. At the trial it was shewn 
 tiiat the plaintiffs were aware of the death of G. 
 before they acted on or even knew of the exist- 
 ence of his receipt, and that S. knew nothing of 
 the transaction except that he was entitled to 
 the lien for $525 : — Held (reversing the judg- 
 ment of Proudfoot, J.), that the plaintiffs could 
 not recover against S. as representative of U., 
 for no cause of action existed against G. at the 
 time of hia death, and S. had done no wrong. 
 HamUton, Pronident iS; Loan Society v. Curndlyi 
 0. P>. 623.— Chy. D. 
 
 In the absence of fiduciary relationship no re- 
 covery can be had against the representatives of a 
 deceased person who is charged with fraud unless 
 profit has accrued to the wrongdoer's estate. Ih. 
 
 The plaintiff sued the executors of D. D. C 
 for an account of all profit accrued to tlie estate 
 of U. U. C, by reason of tlie user by iiini of a 
 certain niacliine made by him in alleged infringe- 
 ment of the plaintifTs patent, whicli protic con- 
 sisted in the saving of expense to D. D. 0. : — 
 Held, on demurrer to the statement of claim, 
 tiiat the plaintiff had no remedy against the ex- 
 ecutors of 1). D. C. in respect of such profit ac- 
 crued to him prior to his death. Phillips v. 
 Honifray, 24 Ch. 1). 439, discusse<l, and regarded 
 as decisive in the present case. Semble, that if 
 the statement of claim could be read to mean 
 that l)y reason of the wrongful act complained of, 
 property of a tangible character, passed from the 
 plaintiff's estate to that of D. D. C. , as distinct 
 from the saving of expense, the conclusion might 
 be diffei'ent. Ledie v. Galrin, 9 0. K. 207.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 A judgment obtained against an executor upon 
 a debt of the deceased, is conclusive evidence of 
 the indeVjtedness to the plaintiff as against all 
 other creditors of the deceased, and is so in ad- 
 ministration proceedings, though the administra- 
 tion is of goods and lands. Therefore where a 
 judgment had been obtained against the execu- 
 tor of H. on certain promissory notes endorsed 
 l>y him and maturing after his death, and upon 
 H.'8 estate afterwards being ai^ainistered by 
 the court, the judgment creditor brought the 
 judgment into the muster's ofhce and claimed 
 upon it, and other creditors of H. thereupon 
 asked to be allowed to adduce evidence ns against 
 the claim, on the ground that no proper notice of 
 dishonour had been sent by the holder of the 
 promissory notes, upon which judgment had 
 been obtained : — Held, reversing the decision of 
 the master in ordinary, that they could not be 
 pennitted to do so. Semble, such a judgment 
 is only prima facie evidence against heirs-at-law 
 and devisees of the deceased. Eccles v. Lowry, 
 23Chy. 167, commented on. He Hague, Traders' 
 Bank v. Murray, 13 O. R. 727.— t'erguson. 
 
 See Re Oabourie— Casey v. (fabowie, 12 P. R. 
 252, p. 30 ; McDonald v. McDonald, 17 A. R. 
 192. 
 
 VI. Administration Proceedings. 
 1. Adminislration Actions and Orders. 
 
 Wiiere one of several persons beneficially in- 
 terested under the will of a testator, without 
 
 making proi)er inquiries into the conduct rnd 
 dealings with the estate by the executors, insti- 
 tuted proceedings against them, and gi'oundlessly 
 charged them with misconduct, causing tlierel)y 
 unnecessaiy costs and trouble, the court 'leing 
 satisfied with the conduct of the executors, re- 
 fused to take the further administration ,in<l 
 windingup of tli. estate out of their hands ; and 
 it being shewn that all the other persons inter- 
 ested in the estate were satisfied witli tlie con- 
 duct of the executors, ordered the plaintiff to 
 pay the costs of the suit, liufibalcli v. Parry, 
 27 Cliy. 193.— Spraggc. 
 
 If the allegations in a bill state a case entitling 
 a party to relief, he may under the general pmyer 
 have it, though his specific prayer may have been 
 for other relief ; but a plaintiff" cannot tnko ad- 
 vantage of the ambiguity of his own pleading 
 so as to claim upon facts stated in the bill alio 
 intuitu, a relief entirely foreign to the scupe of 
 the bill. The bill, which was filed against the 
 executors of 0. S. , his widowand children, prayed 
 that the proceeds of an insurance policy which 
 had been effected by the deceased for his wife 
 and chihlren shonhl be subjected in the hands of 
 the executors, to the payment of moneys lent by 
 the plaintiff to the deceased, and applied by him 
 to the support of his children, and that the exe- 
 cutors might be restrained from [laying over the 
 money. Hlake, V. C, overruled a demurrer 
 thereto, and under the prayer for general relief 
 granted administration :— Held, reversing this 
 decision, that under the circumst'^'-'es the plain- 
 tiff was not entitled to the administration decree. 
 GaiKjhan v, Sharpe, 6 A. R. 417. 
 
 An administration order was granted by the 
 master at Chatham under (t. 0. 038 (Uon. Rule 
 972), while a suit was pending for the construc- 
 tion of the will of the testator, in which adminis- 
 tration was asked, and in which the executors 
 were charged with misconduct, and before a year 
 had elapsed since the death of the testator. 
 Upon appeal proceedings before the master were 
 stayed, and special directions given as to the 
 administration as set forth in the order on 
 appeal. Hcyivood v. Sivewriijhl, 8 P. R. 79. — 
 Spr gge. 
 
 A creditor of an intestate served notice of mc 
 tion for an administration order imder('. O. 638 
 (Con, Rule 972), on D.'s widow and administra- 
 trix. The widow then served a sinular notice 
 upon the heirs of her husband, and filed affi- 
 davits alleging a deficiency of the personalty to 
 pay debts : that creditors were suing, and also 
 filed a consent of the adult heirs to an order in 
 her favour. The master at Chatham granted an 
 administration order to the widow, and, on 
 appeal, Proudfoot, V. C, held that he was right. 
 Re, Drafjrioii — Draqqou v. Drai/ijoii ; Re Draijijon 
 —Abed V. Drayyoii, 8 P. R. 330. 
 
 When a claim against a deceased's person's 
 estate is one arising out of a contract of surety- 
 ship, the court will not, unless by consent of all 
 parties, make an administration decree except 
 on a bill filed. Re Goltoii— Pinker v. Coltoii, 8 
 P. R. 542.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Semble, that administration of an estate will 
 not be ordered bj' the court where no legal 
 personal representative has been appointed or 
 dispensed with, though an executrix de son tort 
 is before the court. lb. 
 
 
h.L.J ,. i.U«i|Ji!il4|5 
 
 727 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 728 
 
 729 
 
 f«-. 
 
 •«ii| 
 
 An order maj' be obtained under the general 
 onlers for the administration of the personal 
 estate of the testator Ijy tlie personal repre- 
 sentative of a legatee as well as by the legatee 
 himself. Simp-^uii v. Hvrm, '28 Chy. I. — 
 Spragge. 
 
 An administration of an estate in which in- 
 fants were intereste<l, was made on the mere 
 sugijestion of tlieir next friend tliat it would be 
 for tlieir benefit, witliout going into the merits 
 of tile e.ise between tlie plaintitt' anil tlie defen- 
 dant, the executor. AV WilifOK — Lloyd v. Tick- 
 home, » P. R. 89.— Proudfoot. 
 
 An order for the administration of an estate 
 of A deceased per.son was refuseil, on the ground 
 that twelve months iiad not elap.sed from the 
 death of the deceased, no special circumstances 
 being shewn. Vnint v. Grant, 9 P. R. 211. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 In an administration matter under G. O. C'hj'. 
 OlS, ()4!) (Con. HuleTlS), the plaintiff claimed to 
 be a creditor of the estate, by reason of the 
 support aiul maintenance l)y him of the testator's 
 wife (in England) during the testator's lifetime : 
 — Held, that the jdaintiti's claim should ))e sup- 
 porteil l)y viva voce evidence, and an action was 
 directed to be entered, (hrjoiii v. JJarliiii/toii, 
 !» 1'. It. -298.— Boy<l. 
 
 C. M. clied in 1809 entitled to real and per- 
 sonal estate, which l)y will he devised and 
 bequeathed to his two illegitimate children D. & 
 E., in tlie event of either dying, his share to go 
 to the survivor, and he appointed ('. executor 
 .•ind guardian of ]J. &. E. who were infants. C. 
 forthwith took possession of tiie estate and man- 
 aged tiie same for the benefit of the infants, 
 lioth D. & E. died in 1871, D. surviving E. C. 
 afterwards, also in 1871, paid off a mortgage 
 outstanding iijion the realty, and took a convey- 
 ance of the land from tiie mortgagee to himself 
 iu foe. On July -Jitli, 1880, the plaintiffs juo- 
 curcd a grant from the Crown uniler the seal of 
 this province, of real and personal estate of which 
 D. died entit'-'d, upon certain trusts therein set 
 forth, and as such grantee, on October 20th, 
 1880, procured letters of administration to D.'s 
 estate : — Held, that the plaintiffs as sucli admin- 
 istrators were entitled to an account of the de- 
 fendan'^'s dealings with the real and personal 
 estate of C. M. : — Held, also, that although the 
 original mortgagee might, under the circumstan- 
 ces, have become entitled to hold the mortgaged 
 lands freed from the cjuity of redemption, yet 
 that the defendant, standing in a fiduciary rela- 
 tion to the lands in (jucstion, could not set up 
 the title ac(|uired from the mortgagee adversely 
 to the plaintiffs, but was a trustee tiiereof for the 
 plaintiffs :— Held, also, that notwithstanding At- 
 torney-Oeneral v. Mercer, o .S. C. R. o38, the 
 plaintifl's" right to an account as administrator 
 of D.'s estate was not affected by the alleged 
 invalidity of the grant to them of the escheated 
 estate, and neither the eestuis que trustent named 
 in the grant from the Crown, nor the Attorney- 
 (ieneral for the Dominion were necessary par- 
 ties : — Held, also, that the Statute of Limitations 
 was no bar to the action. Simjison v. Corhetl, 
 5 O. K. 377. — Ferguson. Affirmed on appeal, 
 S. C, lOA. R. 32. 
 
 The jurisdiction in chambers to grant admin- 
 istration orders, applies only to simple cases of 
 
 accounts, and the judge or master in chambers 
 may take the administration accounts in cham- 
 bers without referring them to the master's otliee, 
 But to all such references Chancery Order 220 
 (Con. Rule 57) applies. In re Munsie, 10 P. R, 
 98. — Hodgins, MciMer-in-Ordinary. 
 
 Where on an application for an administration 
 order, it appe.-irs that there is a substantial and 
 preliminary (piestion to be decided, such question 
 should be tlecided before the reference is ordered ; 
 and the court may limit a time within which the 
 parties may try the issue. But if the issue is 
 not tried, or the order is made in chaiiiliers 
 without first directing such issue, the parties are 
 held to have waived such preliminary (luestion, 
 and cannot raise it in taking the accounts under 
 such order in the master's office, lb. 
 
 Where a testator dies out of the jurisdiction 
 of the court an administration order will not he 
 granted, unless it is clearly shewn that there are 
 no personal assets here in respect of which an- 
 cillary letters probate could be obtained. He 
 Armour — Moore v. Armour, 10 P. R. 44S.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 An administration of the real estate may only 
 be had in a very special case, but should be 
 .sought by action and not summary ajiplication. 
 Ih. 
 
 See Darhhon v. Oliver, 29 Chy. 433; Ri 
 Morphy—Morphji v. Nh-en, 1 1 P. R. .321, p. 
 731 ; liurn v. Jinrn, 8 O. R. 237 ; lie Caniion, 
 Outes V. Cannon, 13 O. K. 70, 705, p. 732. 
 
 2. Parties. 
 
 The bill shewed that the testator had appoint- 
 ed four executors, three of whomdied, but stated 
 that those so dying had never received any por- 
 tion of the assets. In a suit for the administra- 
 tion of the estate, a demurrer ore tenus on the 
 ground that the representatives of such deceased 
 executors should be parties, was overruled with 
 costs. Wehiiter v. Leys, 28 Chy. 471.— Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 The bill for the administration of the estate of 
 G. E. alleged that G. had appointed his brother 
 J. E. ills executor, and devised to him all his 
 estate upon trust for the benefit of the testator's 
 wife and children as to J. would seem best; 
 j the will giving J . power to sell the realty. J.E. 
 i proved the will of G. , and shortly after his death 
 I made his own will by which he purported to dis- 
 j pose of G.'s estate, the validity of which the bill 
 'impugned, and C. S. !>., a married daughter of 
 I (i , was made a defendant, the bill alleging her to 
 be the wife of S. H. 1). .1. E. made an appoint- 
 ment under G. 's will, whereby C. S. D. became 
 ; entitled to a portion of the estate. The defen- 
 , dant demurred on the ground that S.H.I), stic.dd 
 i have been a party ; — Held, that the interest of 
 C. S. I), was merely a chose in action not re- 
 I duced into possession by her husband, in respect 
 ■ of which she might be sued as a feme s<de, and 
 ! therefore the demurrer was overruled with costs, 
 I following Lawson v. Laidlaw, 3 A. H. 77. Sieve- 
 ' wriifht V. Leys, 28 Chy. 498. — Proudfoot. 
 I 
 
 , The bill in this case distinctly charged that 
 j the defendant had misapplied the moneys of the 
 I estate of G. mixing them with hia own, and em- 
 
 The plal 
 creditor, ai 
 Held, thatr 
 made uiidj 
 171, 0. J. 
 
 The ju'iil 
 tiff and de 
 R. 543, wl| 
 and surety 
 under G. 
 proper, wJ 
 
 An appll 
 admiiiistrJ 
 local uiastl 
 a judge inf 
 R. 422. -f 
 
 Under i 
 local niiis 
 (Con. RulJ 
 of wilful [ 
 the accoiiil 
 appeal, 
 costs iniLs 
 oiiscoiulul 
 
728 
 
 729 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 730 
 
 mbers, 
 cham- 
 i otlice. 
 ler 220 
 ) I'. R. 
 
 433; Re 
 ,. 321, p. 
 
 ■; ('uiiiiuil, 
 ■32. 
 
 ploying them for his own purposes, a demurrer 
 ore teiiiis that O.'s estate was not properly re- 
 pruseuted, on the ground that one executor could 
 not represent the estates of both G. and J. was 
 also overruled with costs ; for although during 
 the progress of the cause it might become neces- 
 sary to liave diti'ereut persons represent the two 
 estates that did not constitute a ground of de- 
 nuu'rer. lb. 
 
 The plaintiff filed his bill against his two 
 brothers seeking administration of his fatlier's 
 estate, of which he alleged they had possessed 
 themselves en his deutli in 1848. It appeared 
 that the plaintiff attained his majority in 1857, 
 and it was not proved that any fraud or conceal- 
 ment luid been practised upon him : — Held, that 
 the suit was improperly constituted, as the 
 father's personal representative was not before 
 the court. Hvghea v. Hughes, 6 A. R. 373. 
 
 See Hopper v. Harrinon, 28 Chy. 22. 
 
 3. Practice. 
 
 Tiic master has authority to take the account 
 with rests, under the ordinary reference, as 
 against an executor, but where he declines to 
 cliargo tile executor in this way, if it is intended 
 to appeal, he should be required to report the 
 facts to enable the court to determine on the 
 propriety of his decision. Quicre, whether it is 
 not tiie more proper course to bring tlie matter 
 up on furtlier directions with all the materials 
 for consiileration spread out on the report, rather 
 than to appeal in such a case. Sitrewriijht v. 
 Leij-s 1 O. R. 375.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that the jurisdiction of local mast(!rs in 
 administration suits, under (J. O. Cliy. 038, 
 (Con. Rule 972) is not interiered with by rule 
 422, (). J. Act, (.SVe Con. Rules 41, 138) the 
 practice in such matters is preserved intact by 
 Rule 3, O. J. Act. In such nuitters there is 
 power to direct service to be made out of tiie 
 jurisdiction. He Allan — Pucock v. Allan, 9 P. 
 R. 277.— Chy. U. 
 
 The plaintiff was an executor as well as a 
 creditor, and was charged with wilful default : — 
 Held, that en(juiry as to such default could be 
 made under the order of reference (Form No. 
 171, 0. J. Act). It). 
 
 The principal and surety being here the plain- 
 titl'aiid defendant respectively, He Collins, 8 I*. 
 R. 543, which decides that in a case of principal 
 and surety a summary application to administer 
 under G. C). Chy. 038 (Con. Rule 972) is im- 
 proper, was held not to apply, lb. 
 
 An application to consolidate two motions for 
 adniinistrati(m and partitiim pending before a 
 local uuister should be made to him and not to 
 a judge in chambers. Lambier v. Lambier, 9 P. 
 R. 422.— Boyd. 
 
 Under an administration order granted by a 
 local master pursuant to G. U. Chj . 038, 639, 
 (Con. Rides 972-974) he may investigate questions 
 of wilful default and misconduct arising upon 
 the accounts, and if he refuses, the plaintiff should 
 appeal. If an action is conin>enced the extra 
 costs must be borne by the plaintiff. When the 
 misconduct is Buch as would entitle a plaintiff at 
 
 the outset to apply for an injunction or receiver, 
 an action should be brought. Sullivan v. Harty, 
 !) P. R. 500.— Koyd. 
 
 A claim by the next of kin of a deceased lega- 
 tee, cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence 
 of a personal representative of such legatee. Rut 
 where entries had been made in the ex.cutor's 
 books giving credit to such next of kin, for por- 
 tions of such deceased legatee's share, such en- 
 tries were held to be evidence of the relationship 
 between debtor and creditor, between such ex- 
 ecutor and next of kin, and could be read with- 
 out entering irito the consiileration of the origin 
 of the indebtedness. lie Kirkputrick — Kirk- 
 pa/rii-k v. iS/i'Vtnson, 10 P. R. 4. — Hodgins, 
 Masltfr- ill - Onlin a ry. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the master's office is not 
 co-extensive with that of the court in enquiring 
 into and adjudicating upon the validity of docu- 
 ments ; and there is no authority to support any 
 implied or assumed delegation of the functions 
 of the court to the master. Nor is there any 
 practice in the master's oliice which aUows parties 
 to obtain a reference to the master so as to evade 
 the ordinary judicial functions of the courts, 
 and then invoke those judicial functions in a tri- 
 bunal of <leiegated and subordinate jurisdiction. 
 The plaintitfs when taking accounts before the 
 master under the ordinary chamber order for the 
 administration of personal estate, sought to have 
 it declared that a beijuest to R. , who was one of 
 the witnesses to the will, was valid : — Held, 1. 
 That the nuister had no jurisdiction under such 
 order anil on oral pleadings to adjudicate upon 
 the validity of the will ; 2. That even if there 
 was such jurisdiction, it could not l)e exercised 
 in the absence of a personal representative of R. "s 
 csiate :— Quicre, whetiier since Ryan c. Uever- 
 eux. Hi Q. H. 100, such a bequest would be held 
 to be invalid. In re Miin-s!,; 10 P. K. 9S.— 
 Hodgins, Master-iR-Ordiuury. 
 
 In proceeding to take the accounts under an 
 ordinary cliand)er order administration, certain 
 unsecured creditors and the administrator souglit 
 to impeach the validity of certain warehouse re- 
 ceipts assigned to the plaintiff's by the testator in 
 his lifetime, and on which he had received ad- 
 vances. On appeal from the master's ruling, it 
 was held by Boyd, C. , tluit as the court t^ikes 
 possession of the estate for the purposes of ad- 
 ministration, the nuister's olKce possesses all the 
 powers requisite for tl\e aduiiuistration of the as- 
 sets, and had therefore jurisdiction to try the 
 question. And that in the ease of a creditor's 
 administration reference, any creditor had a right 
 to resist or attack the claims of any other credi- 
 tor sought to be proved in tlie master's office. 
 McichaiUs' Bank v. Monleith, 10 P. R. 458. 
 
 An appeal from the order of the master in 
 chambers, changing tlie place of reference in an 
 administration suit fro,m Brantford to Walker- 
 ton, and giving the conduct of reference to the 
 defendants, the executors, instead of the plain- 
 tiff, was dismissed with costs :— Hehl, that the 
 reference in administration actions should prima 
 facie bo to the place where the person whose 
 estate is to be administered resided. G. U. Chy. 
 038, (Con. Rule 972) governs the case, and the 
 practice laid down in Macara r. Gwynne, 3 Chy. 
 310 is inapplicable. T/iompsun v. Fairhaini, 
 10 P. R. 533.— Boyd. 
 
 Its. 
 
731 
 
 EXEOUTOBS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 732 
 
 <•.'. 
 
 '♦, 
 
 «—■ • 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 Cm, 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 .w "•> 
 
 > ' 
 
 •"»: 
 
 
 ST v> 
 
 
 ,; 
 
 
 ■ill 
 ill' 
 
 •>«. '^'. 
 
 k 
 
 o..-"^ 
 
 «*« ^v 
 
 \ 
 
 ■•-; 
 
 1 
 
 :E' 
 
 •k* 
 
 "During the arguuieiit before the master, and 
 •on the appeal tlie solieitor for oertain of tlie 
 (lefeniliints otlier tli:ui the exeeiitor^ askeil for 
 the cimduot of tlie relerenee in the event of its 
 being taken froni the plaiutiti's :— Held, that the 
 solicitor could nut obtain the conduct of tlie re- 
 ference unless by a sulistantive application. The 
 appeal was dismissed, without prejudice to a 
 substantive application. Ih. 
 
 A suminaiy order was made for the adminis- 
 tration of the personal estate of M. deceased. 
 The order was not entered as a judgment, as it 
 slioiild iiave been l)y liule C^H'^ ((.'on. Rule 
 541)), owing to a mistake of an officer of the 
 court. Tiie L. and ('. L. and A. Co., who 
 were execution creditors of one of the legatees 
 and devisees of M., obtained a'l order ai)point- 
 ing the company receiver of the sliare of t'lo 
 execution debtor, and served notice of this 
 receiveiship upon the executors of M., but re- 
 ceived no notice of tlie inoceediiigs umler the 
 administration order. The coiii])any, however, 
 were informed of the proceedings, and upon an 
 ex jiarto motion procured the administration 
 order to be jiroperly entered as a judgment, and 
 then applied for the carriage of the proceedings 
 under it : — field, that the status of tlie company 
 was not that of assi^'iiee of the legatee, but only 
 of a chargee or lienhohler u|)on the fund or pro 
 ])erty to which the legatee was entitled ; and 
 therefore the company would not have been en- 
 titled in the tirst instance to asU in invituni for 
 a summary order to administer ; and the slip 
 ■which was made in not iiaving the order to ad- 
 minister properly entered ilid not give tliem any 
 ailditional right in that respect ; but notice of 
 the proceedings should have been given t<^ the 
 company in order that they might lie bound l)y 
 what was done. Jff Morpliy, Mur/ihi/ v. Xicoi, 
 11 P. R. 321.— Hoyd. 
 
 A receiver, a])pointed as the company were 
 liere, has a right to assert his claims actively, 
 though he may recpiire in some instances the 
 sanction of the court : and a contention having 
 been raised as to a foi'feiture of the interest of 
 the legatee, le.ave was given to the company to 
 asacrt their claim by an action. Ih. 
 
 During a reference in an administration suit 
 the master apjiointed the solicitor for one of the 
 unsecured creditors of tlie estate in (juestion to 
 represent tlie general body of tinsecured credi- 
 tors. The Imperial Rank were unsecured credi- 
 tors of the estate ; tiiey sent in a claim to the 
 administrator in answer to tiie statutory adver- 
 tisement for creditors, but did not prove their 
 claim before the master. The nomination of the 
 one solicitor for the unsecured creditors was an 
 ex parte proceeding, of wliich the bank were not 
 notified till a year afterwards : — Held, that in 
 the absence of contract or of an order of the 
 master made under conditions contemplated by 
 <;. O. Chy. 218 (Con. Rules 49, 1188), the solici- 
 tor could not recover from the Imperial Rank 
 .my portion of tiie costs incurred on liehalf of 
 the iinseeured creditors in contesting the claims 
 •of the seemed creditors:— Held, also, that the 
 -doctrine of ratification by silence or inaction did 
 not apply to a case like this. Hall v. Laver, 1 Ha. 
 ."iTI, followeil. Re Moiileitli — Me)rliavf/i' Bank v. 
 Jfoiitflth, 12 P. R. 288. — Dalton, Mwttcr. —Boyd. 
 
 Held, that the ailniinistration proceedings 
 taken against au iufaut co-executor without uu- 
 
 i serving the usual practice of serving the otlictal 
 guardian were invalid. Re Jackson — Mamiey v 
 ViooMaiikx, 12 P. 11. 475. -Boyd. 
 
 The provisions of the rules and general orders 
 , as to service in case of infancy apply whether 
 I the infant be a sole or a joint defendant, and 
 wliether he be sued personally or in a represen- 
 tative capacity. Jb. 
 
 See He Houk Exfate, 5 A. R. 82, 8 P. H. 86, p. 639. 
 
 4. Effect of Decife or Order. 
 
 Held that a decree in an administration suit, 
 although it may enure to the benefit of all cre- 
 ditors of an estate, does not prevent the .Statute 
 of Limitations from running in favour of debtors 
 to the estate. Archer v. decern, 12 O. R. filo. 
 — Proud foot. 
 
 A decre for administration is for the benefit 
 of all the .editors, so where O. had obtained an 
 a'lniinistration order upon a claim of a firm of 
 which ho was a member, but which was dis- 
 allow(!d by the master, and also upon a claim 
 olitained in a maniiet savouring strongly of 
 champerty, but anotlier creditor had establislieJ 
 a claim under the order : — Held, that the order 
 could not be set aside. /iV Cnniiim — Onli.t v. 
 CiiKiwii, \^0. R. 70— Prou.lfoot. 
 
 O. brought in a claim in certain administration 
 proceeding.s on promis.«ory notes assigned to him 
 by H. & Co., under an agreement between them, 
 wliich, however, was held void for chaniperty, 
 and O.'s claim on the notes disallowed. 0. 
 thereujwn redelivered the notes to H. & Co. 
 The six years .illowed by the Statute of Limita- 
 tions luul expired before the notes were thus 
 delivered to H. & Co., but not before the date 
 of the administration order, nor before O. tried 
 to pro\ e them in the administration proceed- 
 ings : — Held, that the order for administration 
 ])revente,{ the " ar c' the Statute of Limitations. 
 h'e Cuifioi!- ' • s V, Sanncii (2), 13 O. JC. "05.— 
 Proud fo'ji,. 
 
 Sec :ion:H;'. ■-. ]VaU. 10 P. R. 1G2, p. 721. 
 
 5. Co>its. 
 
 (a) Solicitors' Co.sf.i or Commission. 
 
 ^^'here a master in his discretion fixes the com- 
 mission to be allowed to parties under (i. 0. (J43 
 (Con. Rule 1187) and settles the disbursements 
 in the suit, there is an apjieal to a judge in 
 chambers from his finding. The disbursements 
 should still be submitted to the Master in 
 Ordinary for revision like other bills of costs. 
 CampMI V. CanqMl, 8 P. R. 159.— Blake. 
 
 In partition and administration suits, the com- 
 mission in lieu of costs should be divided into 
 ecjual fractional parts, and the parts allotted to 
 the solicitors in proportion to the amount of work 
 done by and tlie responsibility imposed upon 
 them. Dodije v. Clupp, 8 P. R. 388. — Proudfoct. 
 
 Objection to the commission allotted may be 
 raised on a motion for distribution withoat 
 previous notice of appeal being given. Ih. 
 
 Where in an administration suit property sold 
 subject to a mortgage : — Held, that the commis- 
 siou iu lieu of costs should be upon the amount 
 
 5 li)^ 
 
733 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 734 
 
 realized l>y the sale — that is, upon the actuiil 
 viihie <>F the interest of the intestate in the pru- 
 pertv in question, not upon the whole purchane 
 money, lie McGuU-McVoU v. McVoU, 8 P. K. 
 480.— Hlftke. 
 
 On a motion for distrihution under the report 
 of the master, un application was made on behalf 
 of the plaintitf for the allowance of » lump sum j 
 for the coats and disliursemcnts of the motion, 
 Boyd, C, made the usual order, and declined to 
 allow any .sums for costs and disbursements, over 
 and above the amount found in the report. Rk 
 Fkin-ii—Fkiinj v. F/eary, P. R. 87. 
 
 In an administration suit in which the estate 
 was insolvent, the total assets being .•?7'2,0(JO, the 
 liabilities §138, 47j, and tlie creditors ISO in 
 munbcr, and in wliicli the connnission of tlie 
 sohoitor who acted for all parties, was allowed 
 by the master, uiuler (J. O. (-!hy. 043 (Con. 
 Rule 11H7), at.*90.5, eijiht creditors, at the close 
 of the suit, and without notice to the solicitor 
 until fourteen days before nu)ving, applied for 
 an order for tlie delivery and ta.xation of the 
 solicitor's bill instead of the allowance of the 
 coinniissif)n, on tlie ground that tlie commission 
 was excessive : — Meld, that tiie comniission was 
 not so e.\orl)itant as to warrant tlie substitution 
 of a taxed bill, and a probable reduction by 
 that mode of payment, especially as the benefit 
 to the creditors would be tiilling. In reSluihiii'i 
 -Aiillicsx. IJcnn; 10 1'. R. 2.30,'— Hoyd. 
 
 The scope of the (i. O. Cliy. G4.S (Con. Rule 
 1187), is merely to aid in fixing a solicitor's re- 
 niuueration. It is not intended to do strict 
 justice, but is only a sort of convenient expedient 
 for fixing costs without taxation. Ih. 
 
 A very liberal compensation in such cases is 
 not per se a reason for reducing the commission, 
 or directing the taxation of a bill in its stead, 
 nor jier contra is a low and inadequate compen- 
 sation a reason for increasing the comniission, 
 or directing paj'uient by a taxed bill. Ih. 
 
 Semble, that, in cases affected by this order, 
 any party interested in the estate, who may 
 cksiie that a solicitor should be jiaid in the par- 
 ticular matter or suit on the scale of a taxed 
 bill iiiste.'ul of by commission, should give notice 
 to the solicitor to tiiat ell'ect, and have the inas- 
 tur note it in his book, at the earliest stage pos- 
 sible in the proceedings ; but there is no practice 
 authnri/ing the substitution of a bill of costs for 
 ooniiui.ssion at the oj tioii of any party, lb. 
 
 Bills of costs for services rendered to an estate 
 after a testator's death, down to the date of an 
 order for the administration of the estate, were 
 ))ai(l by the executor after the oi'der and pend- 
 ing administration pniceedings : — Held, that 
 there could lie no taxation of the bills as against 
 tlie executor at the instance of ereditoi's, but 
 that the bills should be moderated. .So far as 
 tile solicitors were concerned the payment by 
 the executor was to be regarded as payment of 
 the hills, and to obtain a taxation after payment 
 a case would have to be maile against the solici- 
 tors. Practically the moderation might lie ho 
 conducted, if warranted l»y special circumstan- 
 ces, as to differ but little from a taxation. Re 
 Ilmjw, Timlem' JJankv. Murray, 12 P. U. 110.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Held, that a hical master has no jurisdiction 
 to make an order under Con. Rule 1187 allowing 
 the parties to an action or i)roceeding for adminis- 
 tration and partition taxed costs instead of the 
 commission provided for by the Rule, "unless 
 otherwise ordered by the court or a judi{e." 
 This was an action in which a judgment for par- 
 tition and administration was pronounced by 
 Hoyil, C. : — Held, that more especially in this 
 case a local master had no power to interfere, 
 for by ordering taxed costs instead of commis- 
 sion he was verying the judgment. Hi-ialrickt 
 v. JI<:iLilrkl:i, 13 P.' II. 70.— Boyd. 
 
 Witiion V. lie.atty — In re Doiioraii, 29 Chy. 
 2S0; 9 A. R. 149 ; C/arkv. Clark, 8 P. R. lolj ; 
 Cameron v. f.aroiu; 9 P. R. .304; Jia AUmhy 
 and Weir, Solkilor/t, 13 P. R. 403. 
 
 (b) Other Cmc». 
 
 Executors may be deprivcdof their costs where 
 they have improperly managed th'; affairs of the 
 estate, though not guilty of any wilful miscon- 
 duct ; and this rule was acted on where the per- 
 sonal representative of one of the c.vecutors was 
 a party to the suit, tliough he iiad not acted in 
 the inanagement of the estate ; his testator's 
 estate being ample. Kiiinii/;/ v. Pii/i/ie, 27 Chy. 
 30.'). — Spragge. 
 
 Where an executor, by his niiscon<luct in the 
 management of the estate, causes a suit, and but 
 for the fact of the suit having been brought tho 
 assets would liavu been dissipated, the court will 
 not, as ,1 general rule, allow such e.<eeutor his 
 costs out of the estate, although no loss lias been 
 sustaineil ; and where in such a case, the party 
 interested Hied a bill without calling upon the 
 executor for an account, or affording him any 
 opportunity of shewing that his dealings were 
 correct, tiie court (Spragge, C. ) refused the costs 
 of the suit to cither party up to the taking of the 
 accounts, lint directed the executor to pay the 
 subsequent costs. .Vi/»;).-'o» v. / tonic, '2S Chy. 1. 
 
 In a suit for administration it appeared that 
 the personal representative had kept very iniper. 
 feet accounts of the estate, and that those brought 
 into the master's office had been made up partly 
 from scattered entries and partly from niemory : 
 — Hehl, a sufficient justification for the institu- 
 tion of the suit, and that the plaintiff was entitled 
 to the costs from the defendant up to the hearing, 
 alth(uigh no loss had occurred to the estate. 
 Killin.1 V. KUlins, 29 Chy. 472.— Proudfoot. 
 
 It was shewn that the personal representa- 
 tive had invested the moneys of the estate in 
 land out of the jurisdiction of the court as well 
 as on personal security, but no loss had bei^ii sus- 
 taiiiecl, all having been repaid by the borrowers: 
 — Held, that these facts did not constitute any 
 ground for depriving her of the costs of suit sub- 
 sequent to the decree. //(. 
 
 The plaintiff being a lunatic, and entitle<l to 
 maintenance out of the income of a fund in the 
 hands of executors, brought an action for the in- 
 come, and for administration. The master re- 
 ported a balance of income in the hands of the 
 executors, being an amount charged against them 
 for interest upon moneys retained by them and 
 not invested according to the terms of the will ; 
 but the conduct of the executors was otherwise 
 
 
735 
 
 EXEOUTOBS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 736 
 
 Cm. ' 
 
 
 '«t; I 
 
 M : 
 
 proper :— Hold, that if thoquestionof the liability 
 of the executors for the interest had been the 
 only one in the action, the executors should have 
 been ordered lo pay the costs ; Imt inasmuch as 
 agenerai administration wasunnecessarijysought 
 by bill and granted, no costs shouhl be awarded 
 for or against the executors. McGardle v. Moore, 
 2(). R. '22'J. — Boyd. 
 
 When it appeared that the administration pro- 
 ceedings liad been instituted without any shew 
 of reason, or proper foundation for tlie beneiitof 
 the estate, and that tliey had not, in their 
 results, uon<Uiced to that bencKt, tlie decision of 
 Proudfoot, J., ordering the plaiutitt' to pay *' '-3 
 costsof all parties, was alfirnicd. He Woodhali — 
 Garhutt V. /h-imon, 2 (). R. 45().— Chy. 1). 
 
 In an action for an account l)y a mortgagor, 
 against the executors of a mortgagee who liad 
 sold the mortgaged premises under the power of 
 sale in the mortgage, and who had also taken 
 proceedings at law, a small lialance of §10 was 
 fotind in his favour. I'laintitt' having made cer- 
 tain charges which lie failed to substantiate, and 
 not liaving proveil that an account was demanded 
 and witiiheld from him ; and certain special 
 matter pleaded by the defendants being found 
 against tliem : — Held, neither party entitled to 
 costs. JJt'dt/i/ v. O'Connor, 5 0. R. 747.— Boyd. 
 
 Parties residing out of the jurisdiction who 
 come into the master's office in an administra- 
 tion action pursuant to a notice to creditors, and 
 claim to be creditors of an estate administered 
 there, will lie recpiired to give security for costs. 
 7?e lii'c^ — Urqiiharl v. Toronto TrimU Co., 10 
 P. R. 425. — Hodgins, Manttr-in-Ordinary . 
 
 Held, that the executors in this case were en- 
 titled to their costs, because the action was not 
 occasioned by their misconduct ; but tiiuy were 
 disallowed tlie costs of such part of the enquiry 
 as was caused by the misapplication of the funds 
 or their failure to make reasonably accurate en- 
 tries of their dealings with the estate. Inre lions, 
 huytr — Jlonshcnitrv, Krnfz, 1 O. R. .52 1 . — Roy d. 
 
 The admiiii.'itrator is a necessary party to an I 
 administration suit, and as such, should get iiisj 
 general bill of costs incurred in the ordinary 
 proceedings in which ho took pai't ; but where 
 an estate is insolvent, the creditors are the per- 
 sons really interested in the litigation, and it is 
 for them, and not for the administrator, to take 
 active steps by way of appeal to reduce the 
 claims of secured e; editors. The administrator 
 is entitled to attend upon such appeals, and to 
 tax a W'atcliing brief, but not such costs as if he 
 were the principal litigant. l>e Mont.cUk — Mer- 
 ehanW Bank v. Monteith, 11 P. R. 301.— Royd. 
 
 See He Monteith — Merrhi.nls' Bank v. Mon- 
 teith, 12 P. R. 288. p. 731. 
 
 VII. Costs. 
 
 M. H. proved a will as executrix, afterwards 
 a 8ul)se(iuent will was found dated about a time 
 when the trstator was in a weak state of health, 
 both physical and mental. A suit was brought 
 by S. H. , the executor in the later will against 
 M. H. to set aside the first and establish the 
 second will, which was successful, and in which 
 M. H. was ordered to pay costs :— Held, that 
 
 M. H., in an action for an account of her deal- 
 ings with the estate, having a fair (luestion for 
 litigation in endeavouring to uphold the first 
 will, was entitled to the costs thereof (uit of the 
 estate. Hill v. Hill, G O. R. 244. -Fergus.m. 
 
 Held, that an infant is incapable of bringing 
 suits in bis own name, or of making himself oi' 
 the estate he assumed to represent liable for tlie 
 costs of such suits. Mercluinls' Bank v. Mont< lih, 
 10 P. R. 334. — Hodgins, Master in-Ordinanj, 
 
 The jdaintitf wished to administer to the estiite 
 of his brother in the county of Westmoreliiud 
 and province of New Rrunswick, but was uiiulile 
 to give the necessary administration bond until 
 the defendant W. and one .1. , agreed to become 
 his bondsmen, securing themselves by having tlie 
 estate placed in the hands of the defendants. A 
 portion of the estate consisted of some Knglisli 
 railway stock which the defendants wisiied to 
 convert into money, but the plaintitT would not 
 assist them in doing so. In passing the accounts 
 of the estate in the Probate Court of Westnioie- 
 land county, it was founil that there weie 
 several persons entitled to participate as next of 
 kin of the deceased, and the respective amounts 
 due the several claimants were settled by the 
 coui't. Owing to the plaintifi "s refusal to join in 
 realizing the stock, however, the defendants were 
 unable to pay some of these parties their respec- 
 tive shares, and finally the plaintifT filed a bill to 
 compel the defendants to pay him his portion of 
 the estate, with .^1,000 which he claimed ,is 
 comniission, and also to hand over to him the 
 shares of the next of kin. At the hearing, a decree 
 was made diiecting the estate to be disposed of by 
 the defendants, and that they were entitled to 
 their costs, as lietwcen solicitor and client, which 
 could be retained out of the plaintiff's share of 
 the estate. On appeal, Proudfoot, J., rever.seil 
 th;it portion of the decree which made the pliiiii- 
 tiff's share of the estate liable for the defendants' 
 costs; but the Court of Appeal (10 A. R. 7ti) 
 restored the original judgment. On appeal to 
 the Supreme Court of Canada : — Hehl, atliiniing 
 the judgment of the court below, that as the 
 misconduct of the plaintiff had caused all the 
 litigation, the Court of .Appeal had acted rigjitly 
 in refusing to compel any of the other of the 
 next of kin to bear the burden of the costs. 
 O'.Sulliran v. Hartij, 1 1 S. C. R. 322. 
 
 A trustee or executor stands in the same posi- 
 tion as any either litigant with respect to costs. 
 Smith V. Williamson, 13 P. R. 126. — Rose. 
 
 Where an action of ejectment was brought 
 by the administrator of a deceased person in 
 whom the legal estate in certain land was vested, 
 and by the holder of a mortgage created by the 
 deceased person upon such land, and it ajijiearsd 
 that the deceased purchased the land with the 
 mcmeys of the defendant, and took the convey- 
 ance in his own name, and that the defeiichuit 
 was the true owner of the laud: — Held, that the 
 fact that there was no declaration of trust in 
 favour of the defendant, and that the evidence 
 in the hanils of the administrator tended to shew 
 that the deceased was in his lifetime owner and 
 not trustee, di<l not relieve the administrator 
 from liability for costs ; whic)i were given to the 
 defendant against both plaintiffs. Jh. 
 
 See Kennedy v. rinijle, 27 Chy. SO;"), p. 711; 
 Re Donovan— WiUon v. Beatty 29 Chy. 280; 
 
736 
 
 737 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS 
 
 981 
 
 9 A. R. 149; McKni/ v. McKay, 8 P. R. :m, p. 
 724; Utatly V. O'Connor, i3 O. R. 731, p. 714; 
 Spratt V. Wilson, I'J O. R. '.'8, p. 718. 
 
 See also Subhead V'l. 5, (b), p. 734. 
 
 VIII. Administratok ad Litkm. 
 
 A motion iiiailo uiider R. S. O. (1877) o. 40, s. 
 9 to appoint an aihniuistiator ail litem of tliu 
 estate of a dceeased person may lie made before 
 tlie referee, as tliis seetion merely extends a 
 jurisdiction alreaily possessed by him under (1. 
 0, ■)(! (See Con. Rule •_'10). Collirr v. Siniy.k, 
 8 1". 1!. -I'i. — Stephens, yiV/uw.— Spragge. 
 
 It is competent to the court, on a pro])er case 
 beini' made, to appoint or dispense with an ad- 
 ministrator ad litem, and then lo ilireet an ac- 
 count, but to justify such an order it siiould ap- 
 iH'iu' not only in general teiins that the estate 
 was small, but a statement shewing the nature 
 aud amount of the personal estate ougiit to be 
 produced and verified, lie Colton — Fisher v. 
 VoUuii, 8 V. R. 54'.2.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Held, that the court has no power, where 
 the administration of an intestate's estate forms 
 the subject of the suit, lo app(iint a representa- 
 tive under R. S. O. (1877) e. 4!), s. 9, as the in- 
 testate is not a party interested in the matters 
 in question in the suit within the meaning of 
 that section. J/wjhcti v. JliKjhe.t, G A. R. 373. 
 
 The (uiginal jjlaintiir having died pendente 
 lite aud an order having been obtained to con- 
 tinue the ))i<)ceeilings in the name of an admin- 
 istrator ad litem -.—Held, that the plaintill's 
 costs, between scdicitor and client, should be 
 paid out of the interest recovered : — Held, also, 
 that tlie administrator ad litem was not entitled 
 to be paid the residue of the fund ; but as to 
 this liberty to apply was granted. McCardle v. 
 iloorr, '2 O. R. •2'J!).--]ioyd. 
 
 C. joineil his wife in executing a mortgage on 
 her land to a company, covenanting for payment, 
 and then died intestate. The company, being 
 aliout to be<^in an action to realize their claim on 
 the niiirti;age, desired to have C\"s estate repre- 
 sented for tlie purpose of claiming againsit it for 
 any deficiency. Js'o letters of administration 
 having been taken out : — Held, that it was pro- 
 per to apjxiint an adniiidstrator ad litem under 
 Cnn. Rule 311. licCldimbimn and Canada Life 
 Asfuraiicc Co., 12 P. R. 649. — Ferguson. 
 
 It is not intended by Con. Rule 311 that the 
 bushiessof the Surrogate Court should in a large 
 measure be transferred to the HighC(nirt; the 
 intcnlion is, to provide for necessities arising in 
 thepiojiiess of an actum, where representation 
 of an estate is requiied in the action, and there 
 has not liccn carelessness or negligence on the 
 part of the party who may require the appoint- 
 nicnt to he made. Under the ciicunistances of 
 this case an application for the appointment of an 
 admhiistiator a<l litem was I'efuscd. Re Ch ind)- 
 lis-s, 1"JP R, 649, distinguished. Mi'irv. Wilson, 
 ISP. 1!. 33.- Ferguson. 
 
 In a mortgage action in which foreclosure only 
 was sought, it w as stated that the lauds were 
 iiotequid in value to the mmtgage deljt. The 
 mortgigor being dead and having left no estate 
 whatever except the equity of redemption sought 
 to be foreclosed, the executor named in the will 
 
 47 
 
 of the mortgagor, which had not boon oflfered for 
 probate, was appointed adniinistrator ad litem 
 without security, under ('on. itulc 311. Cameron 
 v. J'liilUjM, 13 P. I ,. 78, -Ferguson. 
 
 In framing an ordei under Con. Rule 311 ap- 
 pointing an administrator ad litem it is not.sulli- 
 cient that the order state " it is ordered that A. 
 be and he is hereby ajipointed adniinistrator ad 
 litem to the i.'state of li." ; the oriler is really a 
 grant of adnnnistration, aiil should contain tho 
 particulars mentioned in Rule IS of the Surro- 
 gate Rules : and if such is the fact, should also, 
 in view of R. S. U. (1887) c. ."lO, s. .W, state that 
 the administration is of the real and personal 
 estate, (.'amiron v. P/iilli/ts (Xo. ,'), 13 P. R. 
 141. — Ferguson. 
 
 The plaintilF claimed from tho defendants a 
 sum of money, part of which had been deposited 
 by K. P., and part by the plaintitl' herself, but 
 all in the name of E. 1!., who was a non-existent 
 person. K. P. died intestate before this action 
 was brought, ami no letters of a.'..ninistratioii 
 to his estate having issued, the plaintitl' applied 
 under Con. Rule;!ll for the appointment of aa 
 administrator ad litem. The Court refused to 
 make an aiipointment. Meir r. Wilsmi, I'M'. R. 
 33, approved of and followed. Jujrtl v. Lumli.d 
 llan/dmj and Loan Co., 13 P. R. 210.— Q. B. U. 
 
 See AV iJonoran — Wil.wn v. Bnalty, 29 Chy. 
 280 ; 9 A. R. 149. 
 
 IX. Executor de Sox Tort. 
 
 The party who sells or gives the goods of a> 
 deceased person to another, but not the pur- 
 chaser or receiver, is subject to the liability of 
 an executor do son tort. The rule that where 
 an executor takes the testator's goods on a claim 
 of property i:i them himself, although it after- 
 wards appear he had no right, .such claim being 
 expressive of a dillcrent purpose from that of 
 administration as executor, is also applicable to 
 the case of a person taking the goods of a de- 
 ceased person under a fair claim of title, such 
 person, though he may not be able to establish 
 his claim of title completely in every respect, is 
 not liable to be charged as an executor de sou 
 tort. MrrchanU Hank v. Mont<itli, 10 P. R. 
 467. — llodgins, Maatcr-in-OfdInary. 
 
 See ^e Coilon—Fixhcr v. Colton, 8 I'. R. 542, 
 p. 726; Yvun(j v. Purvis, 11 O. R. 597, p. 717. 
 
 X. Deficiency oi' Assets. 
 
 The effect of section 30 of R. S. O. (1877), c. 
 107, is to disable an executor from giving prefer- 
 aucc to one creditor over another, so that where 
 he pays ono. c'cdiior in full the presumption is 
 that he has as.'-ets snilicicnt to pay all; and if, 
 upon a linal adjustment of tho accounts of the 
 estate, it is made to appear that one creditor has 
 received payment in full, either voluntarily or 
 by process of law, and that there is a deficiency 
 of assets, such creditor will be ordered to refund 
 at the instance of the other creditors, the statute 
 thus placing creditors and legatees in this respect 
 upon the same footing. Chumberlm v. Clark, 9 
 A. R. 273 ; 1 0. K. 135. 
 
 I. R. endorsed notes for the accommodation 
 of J. R. The holders received out of the estate 
 
 
W'^" 
 
 739 
 
 EXTRADITION. 
 
 740 
 
 741 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 h^ 
 
 5K! 
 
 ^' 
 
 •M ,. 
 
 
 Ci^' 
 
 
 
 
 "^•t: 
 
 '< 
 
 ^ 
 
 f-. 
 
 of J. R. ftfter Ills (k'lith sixty cents in the dollar, 
 leaving $3,5(10 unpaid. M. , tlio executor of I, 
 K,, (laid tliJH, 1, It., wlio died Ist January, 
 1881, left all the residue of lier estate, real and 
 personal, to lie equally divided, share aiul share 
 alike, between J. K., J. V. and .1. |{. Shortly 
 1)ufore Iter death I. U. luul another will prepare(1, 
 but died without executing it. There was a re- 
 siduary clause in this latter will of all her pro- 
 perty, diicctinjj n division of it into four eijual 
 parts, one sliaie of which was to be given to ij. 
 K. On 4th .January, 1884, all persons interested 
 in the residiuiry devises in tlic will and in the 
 intended will «igiied a wiittcn agreement on the 
 back of tile latter, that they accepted the dis- 
 tribution of the estiite of I. K. ju'ovided for in 
 the latter, in lieu of that contained in any other 
 will though duly executed. l>y his own will, 
 executii<l on I.Stli February, 1884, J. It. ilirected 
 that tile estate of 1. R. so far as he was inter- 
 ested theieiii should i)c divided according to the 
 agreement signed l)y liim on 4th January, 1884: 
 Held (1) that H. , the executor of I. H. , bad the 
 right to jiay or retain out of J. R.'s share of her 
 residuary estate tlie full balance which he had 
 been oliligel to pay on said acconnnodation 
 notes, altlioiiLih J. H.'s estate was insolvent, and 
 although the accommodation paper in (|uesti(jn i 
 fell due alter I. R.'s death. R. S. O. (1887), c. 
 107, s. .SO, abolishing the right of retainer in 
 ease of a deliciency of assets, has referc^nce to 
 the debtor's estate, not to the creditor's, and 
 where a le;,'atee is iudcbteil to the testator, the 
 executor may retain the legacy either in jiart or 
 full s itisf.iction of the <lebt by way of set ott", 
 and this is not affected by that statute. (2) The 
 agreement of January 4th, 1884, was binding on 
 J. R. and WIS binding on his executor and could 
 not be iinpeiiched by liis creditors. Tlie only 
 l)ossible ground of complaint by creditors was 
 that this agreement violated 1.3 Kliz. c. .'), but 
 that statute is directed against fraudulent alien- 
 ations of property, wluu'eby the debtor dimin- 
 ishes the estate, and does not touch the ease of 
 his neglecting or i fusing to enrich himself. 
 Bain v. Malcolm, IL. O. R. 444. — Proudfoot. 
 
 XL Lands as Assets. 
 
 The land of a testator or intestate is liable to 
 be sold only for his debt, and where it is siiewn 
 that the judgment was not in fact recovered in 
 respect of such a debt, but that the execution 
 creditors never were creditors of the deceased, 
 a sale of the land luider it cannot be supported. 
 Freed v. Vn; « A. R. 090. 
 
 EXECUTOR DE SON TORT. 
 
 See Executors and Administrators. 
 
 EXECUTORY DEVISE. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 EXHIBITS. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 EXPERT EVIDENCE. 
 
 See Evidence. 
 
 EXPLOSION. 
 
 Set Insurance. 
 
 EXPRESS COMPANY. 
 
 Right to the facilities aft'orded by railways in 
 the conduct of their business. See The Vickem 
 Ex/)n:H>i (,'(). V. Cuiiadian Pacific li. W. Co., 9 0. 
 R. 201, 13 A. R. 210. 
 
 EXPROPRIATION OF LAND. 
 
 I. Rv Chown,— .?ec Crown. 
 IL Hv Minfcipalities — See Municipal 
 
 CoKI>OKATI(IN9. 
 
 III. By Railways —See Railways and Rail- 
 way CoMl'ASIKS. 
 
 EXPULSION. 
 
 I. Of Mkmueks of CoMi'ANiKS. — .See CoM- 
 
 I'ASY. 
 
 II. Ok PtJi'ii.s FROM Schools.— See Public 
 
 SCIKJOLS. 
 
 EXTENT (WRIT OP.) 
 
 See Olark<oii v. A/turiiey-Ueniral of Canada, 
 16 A. R. 202, p. 110. 
 
 EXTORTION.' 
 
 A ra^igistrate acting under .32-33 Vict. c. 
 20, 8. 37 (l)om.), convicted four persons for 
 creating a disturbance thereunder, and imposed 
 upon each afi'ie of .iJli.dO, but instead of severing 
 the costs which he hail charged, imposed tlie 
 full amount thereof against each difendant, and 
 received it from each : —Held, that under the 
 circumstances, more fullyset out in the report of 
 tlie CISC, the overcharge must be deemed to have 
 been wilfully made, so as to render the defen- 
 dant liable to the penalty imposed in such case* 
 by R. S. O. (1877) c. 77, s. 4. /'amons qui tam 
 v. Crahbe, 31 C. P. 151.— C. P. D. 
 
 EXTRADITION. 
 
 I. AsHBURTON Treaty and Statutes. 
 
 1. Gen or a lip, 741. 
 
 2. Evidence, 741. 
 
 charged i 
 suspect 1 
 lieve that 
 of the cr 
 said H. 
 some sev( 
 money. 
 H. L. Le 
 did felon 
 forged, . 
 sufficient, 
 the prisoi 
 the allegii 
 the jirisoi 
 
 as surplui 
 
 men law, 
 
 Vict. c. 
 
 (Dom.); 
 
 from obje 
 
 ceedings, 
 
 quired. 
 
 The , 
 County 
 Extraditi 
 junior jui 
 -R. 612.. ^ 
 
 On an I 
 prisoner I 
 order of I 
 of murdel 
 Ashburtcf 
 33 Vict. 
 
741 
 
 EXTBADITION. 
 
 742 
 
 1. ASUDUKTON TnHATY AND STATUTES. 
 
 1. Qenerally. 
 
 An accessory before the fact is liable to extra- 
 dition, ))ut an accessory after I'lo fact is not. 
 Rtijina v. Browne, 6 A. R. 38« ; 31 C. V. 484. 
 
 Per iSpragge, C J. O. — The forffo/y which is 
 the subject of the treaty, cannot b', confined to 
 tiio statutory felony of forgery. Jn re. Phippn, 
 8 A. R. 77. 
 
 Held, that 40 Vict. c. 2.') (T)om.), is not in 
 force, but that the law and practice relating; to 
 the extradition of fngitive criminals between the 
 Uiiit'iil States and Canada, is to be found in the 
 Asliburton Treaty, Art. X., the 31 Vict. c. 94 
 (Dom.), 33 Vict, c 25 (Doni.), and the Imp. 
 Acts, 33 and 34 Vict. c. 52, and 3B-37 Vict, 
 c. 00. Re Williams, 7 I'. R. 275, approved <jf. 
 liaiiiM V. lirowne, 31 C. P. 484 ; <!>'. V. on ap- 
 pcivl, 6 A. R. 380. 
 
 ■Senible, per Proudfont, J. — It is not neces- 
 sary for purposes of extradition that the crime 
 clmrged should have been sucii an act as would 
 have constituted that crime at the date of tlie 
 Aalihurton Treaty. It is suflicieut if it consti- 
 tuted the crime in question at the date of its 
 alleged conunissiou. Jii re llall, 3 O. R. .331. 
 
 Held that under the Extradition Act, 1877 
 (40 Vict. c. 25 Dom.), it is essential that the 
 offence charged sliotdd be such as if committed 
 here would be an oH'i'nce against the laws ot this 
 country. The offence in this case was proved 
 to be forgery by the laws of New .Jersey. In rt 
 Jarrard, 4 0. R. 205. -O. P. D. 
 
 In extradition proceedings the information 
 charged that the informant " hath just cause to 
 suspect and believe, and doth suspect and be- 
 heve that H. L. Lee," the prisoner, " is accused 
 of the crime of forgery," etc , " for that the 
 said H. L, Lee," etc., " did feloniously forge" 
 some seventy-eight orders for the payment of 
 money. The 7Uth charge was, that the .>-aid 
 H. L. Lee, at the aforesaid several times, etc., 
 did feloniously utter, knowing the same to be 
 forged, the said several orders, etc. •.--Held, 
 sutticient, for that the informatinn charged that 
 the prisoner "did feloniously forge," etc. ; and 
 tlie allegation that the informant believed that 
 the prisoner " is accused," etc., mightbe treated 
 as surplusage; but even it ol)jectionable at com- 
 mon law, it was good under s. 11 of 32 & .33 
 Vict. c. 30 (Dom.), and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27 
 (Dom. ) ; and moreover the 79th charge was free 
 from ot>jection : — Held, also, that in these pro- 
 ceedings, a plea to the information is not re- 
 quired. Lire H. L. Le.p, 50. R. 583.— C. P. D. 
 
 The expression " all judges, etc., of the 
 County Court," contained in section 5 of the 
 Extradition Act, R. S. «'. ch. 142, includes the 
 junior judge of Bald court. In re Parker, 19 O. 
 Jl. 612.— Rose. 
 
 2. Evidence. 
 
 On an application for the discharge of a 
 prisoner committed for extradition under an 
 order of the county judge of Kent, on a charge 
 of murder. Per Wilson, C. J. , that under The 
 Ashburton Treaty Art. X. ; 31 Vict. c. 94 (Dom. ), 
 33 Vict. c. 26 (Dom.), 33 Vict c. 30 ss. 4,6 
 
 (Dom.), and the Imp. Acts 33-34 Vict. c. 62, 
 and 30-37 Vict. c. 00, a certified copy of an in- 
 dictment for murder found by the grand jury of 
 Krie county, .State of New York, U. .S., wiw of 
 itself sutticient evidence to justify the committal 
 of such prisoner for extradition. Per Osier, .)., 
 tliat such indictment was not evidence fur any 
 ]>urpose. Per Wilson, C. J., an<l Osier, J., ttiat 
 tlie other evidence taken before the county 
 judge, documentary and viva voce, set out in 
 the report, was insutiieient, as it shewed at most 
 that the prisoner was an accessory after the fact, 
 which dill not come within the treaty. Per 
 (Salt, J,, that if the case had turned on the in- 
 dictment alone, he would have hesitated to ac- 
 cept it as conclusive against the accused ; but 
 that the other evidence together with the in- 
 dictment, was sutticient to wariant his extra- 
 dition. Ilcijiua v. Urownii, 31 C. P. 484. See 
 next case. 
 
 Upon an application to the county judge of 
 Kent Lv extradition of the defendant, who was 
 under iiidictnient in the .State of New York for 
 murder, the coroner who had held the iiKiuest 
 there, proved by oral testimony before the county 
 judge here, the original depositions taken on 
 oath before him, and aL^o copii s of the deposi- 
 tions certified by him to be true co]>ies ;^Held, 
 that uiidei'sectiou 14 of the Imperial Extradition 
 Act of 1870, the original d positimis were 
 properly received, as the power given therein to 
 use the original de|iositions is not (jnalified by 
 31 Vict. c. 94, s. 2 (Dom.) ; and that the evi- 
 dence <l'sclosed therein wassullicient to warrant 
 the extradition of the prisoner as an accessory 
 before the fact: — Held, also, tliat the foreign 
 iiidictineiit was notadniissilile as evidence against 
 the aecused. It was shewn that the only warrant 
 issued iu this c.ise was the warrant issued by 
 the district attorney, after the grand jury had 
 found a true bill for murder, which did not \.o- 
 f'ess to be issued u[ion the depositicjns, nor was 
 it proved upon what evidence the bill was found : 
 — Semblo, per Patterson, J. A., that the right 
 given by section 14 above referred to, to use 
 copies of depositions is confined by the effect of 
 section 2 of 31 Vict. c. 94, to those cases in 
 which a warrant has been issued in the United 
 States upon the depositions. S. V. A. 11. 
 380. 
 
 A prisoner was committed for extradition to 
 the United States, on a charge of having forged 
 a resolution of a city council relating to the issue 
 of bonds, of having forged a bond of said city, and 
 of uttering the same :— Held, on an application 
 for his discharge, that the resolution being an 
 essential prelimiiunry to the issue of the bond, 
 and the bond being an instrument which might 
 be the subject of forgery, although not executed 
 in strict accordance with the code of the state in 
 which the bond was issued, there was a prima 
 facie case made out against the prisoner, and 
 that he should be remanded as to the charge of 
 forgery, lieijina v. Hovey, 8 P. R. 345.— Oslor, 
 
 Held, that the evidence against the prisoner 
 of having uttered a forged instrument not being 
 otherwise aufiicient, the court could not look at 
 an indictment against him found by the grand 
 jury of an American criminal cor.rt. Ih. 
 
 Held, that the original warrant, within the 
 meaning of 31 Vict. c. 94, s. 2 (Dom.), is not the 
 first of two or more consecutive warrants, but 
 
 •rt 
 
 •■» 
 
743 
 
 FAOTOB. 
 
 744 
 
 745 
 
 II! 
 
 I 
 
 -"• ill 
 
 
 
 1^" 
 
 l< 
 
 i» uiiy warrant iHHiieil in tliu United .SlutoM of 
 Anitiicu. Hi /'hipjix, I O. R. 080.— (i. H. I). 
 Sou S. V. 8 A. It. 77. 
 
 I'or I'attorHDn.if. A., roniarlig ujion tliogonoral 
 rigiit of a iH'iHon ciuir/,'t;(l liuforo a niajjlMtratu 
 with an inclictaliio oll'cnco to call witnfHNCX for 
 liiM doftiiK,', anil of a pornon wIiohc extratiition 
 in demanded to mIicw liy i'vi(lcm;ii that what \n; 
 in chargcil with i(4 not an cxlraililion (Miniu : — 
 8und)l(', that tho cvidi'ni'u iilt'iMt'd in thJH eaHu, 
 as Htati'ilin the ri'iiort, was iu^jropcrly rojcctud. 
 S. V. H A. \{. 11. 
 
 Wiiure tiio facts in eviduntc, tiiou;;ii Hullicient 
 to warrant extradition if dejioaed to hy witnesNeH 
 wliouoidd really testify to their occnrrenee, wero 
 Hworn to from information '^<idy, tiiu prisoner wan 
 diHeimrged. In m Parker, 9 1*. R. 33'J.— Osier, 
 
 Certain fiireigii depositions nscd were sworn to 
 before K. ( J., a justice of tiie peace for (Cincin- 
 nati township, Hamilton county, Ohio. A eer- 
 titieate was attached, eonnneneing, " I, Daidei 
 J. Dalton, eh^rk of the Court of Conunon I'leas 
 for said Hamilton county," certifying as to tiio 
 signature ot K. (!., and that iu! was aduly ipiali- 
 tied justiet^ of the peace fur said county, and en- 
 titled to take depositions of witnesses, etc., and 
 coneliuled, " In testimony wlieriMii 1 iuive here- 
 unto set my liaiid and aflixeil the seal of the said 
 eomt at Cincii.nati, etc. I). ,1. Dalton, hy 
 Richard ('. Itohiiei-, deputy." 'i'othis was attach- 
 ed the certilieale of the governor of the 1- tate 
 of Ohio, under the great seal of the State, certi- 
 fy iiiL' that I ). .1. Dalton, " whose genuine signa- 
 ture and seal are allixed to the annexed attesta- 
 tion, was at the date thereof clerk of the said 
 court," etc. : that "he is the pn)])er person to 
 make such attotiition, which is in due form, ami 
 that his ollicial acts are entitled to full faith and 
 credit." 'I'he court, without specially pronoun- 
 cing on the (piestidU, refused to allow an ohjec- 
 tion, which as a matter of tact was not taken, to 
 the suHieiency i t the depositions under 45 Vict. 
 c. 25, s. 9, snh-s. 2 («) (Doni.), for the official 
 seal of 1). .J. Dalton was attached, and the gover- 
 nor certified that he was the proper jjerson to 
 nuike i-neh atu station ; and also there was 
 viva voce evidence given in jiroof thereof, so 
 that the " j)a]iers were authenticated hy the 
 oath of some « itnei-s " under suh-.?. (!>). In 
 re H. E. Le,; 5 (). It. 58.'}.— C. J'. D. 
 
 Per Wil.son, C. .T. In these proceedings the 
 evidence of interested parties need not be cor- 
 roborated, lb. 
 
 In extradition jiroceedings the information, 
 warrant and dcjrositions were certified under the 
 hand arid ^eal of a jusliie of the peace of Oscoda 
 township, in the county ot Josio, in the .State of 
 Michigan. .'I In re was aho a certificate under 
 the hand of the clerk of the county of Josio and 
 the elerk ot the Circuit Court for the said county 
 and the ollicial >eal ol the saul Circuit Court, 
 certifying that iho said justice of the peace was, 
 at the time ot signing his certificate, a duly 
 qualified justice of the peace, in the active dis- 
 charge of the duties of his said office, and that 
 his official seals w< re entitled to full credit. At 
 the hearing bifr. ■ the county judge, before 
 whom the extri^dit on proceedings were had, S. 
 stated he was ' !:<) prosei uting attorney for Josio 
 county, and all criminal prosecutions therein 
 came under his care. He identified the papers, 
 
 and that they were tho depositions and copies of 
 depositions relating to the charge ; and that the 
 justices who took tiio depositions were justices 
 of the peace as alleged, ami had jurisdietinn in 
 the premises : — Held, that the documents were 
 sufficiently authenticated. " Authenticated," 
 as used in section U of 40 Vict., c. 'I'l (Doni.), is 
 in ellect the same as "attested" in section '2 of 
 ;H Viet., c. 1)4 (Doni.). In Kc Wiir, 14 O. U. 
 
 asu.-c. I*, u. 
 
 Held, that the depositions and statenieiitit 
 admissible in evidenc(Mue iu)t restricted to tlioio 
 iruide in respect of the charge upon which the 
 origiiuil wairant issued, lli. 
 
 Held, that the de]iositions, etc., before^ the 
 County Court judge disclosed sufficient evidence 
 to warrant the defendant being placed on his 
 trial for murder caused, as was alleged, by the 
 defendant having feloinously ravished the dc;- 
 ecased while in such a state of health as to has- 
 ten her death. Ih. 
 
 I'or Cameron, C.J. Tho 'Divisioiuvl t'ourt 
 cannot review the decision of the judicial olllecr 
 having jtu'isdiction to hear extradition cuties 
 upon the weight of evidence. Ih. 
 
 On a charge of forgery of a promissory note, 
 alleged to have been committed in the Static nf 
 Kansas, the justice liefoi'c whom the deiiositions 
 were made was ccrtitiiMl to he a justice of the 
 peace, with power to administer oatlis : — Ilelil, 
 that he was a magistrate or officer of a foreign 
 state within section 10 of the Kxtradition Act ; 
 and also that it was not necessary that he should 
 be a federal and not a state officer : and further 
 that the depositions need not be taken in the 
 presence of the accused. In re I'arkcr, I'J O. 1!. 
 (J 12.— Rose. 
 
 The dejjositions produced and acted upon 
 before the committing judge failed to shew that 
 the iu)te, alleged to be forged, was pro<luced and 
 identilieil by the de[)oncnts or any of them : — 
 Held, that this constituted a valid ground for 
 refusing extradition ; and that there was no 
 power to remand the accused to have further 
 evidence taken before the extradition judge as 
 to such identilication. lb. 
 
 EXTRAS. 
 
 See Womc and Labour. 
 
 PAOTOR. 
 
 S. , a niannfacturer, desiring to borrow money 
 from M., agreed with M. in writing, that M. 
 should have the selling of the gi ods manufac- 
 tured at his, S.'s, factory; that ,S. should give 
 M. a mortgage on the factory, and premises to 
 secure $5,000, and interest, to be advanced hy 
 M., and should furnish to M. all the goods manu- 
 faetured at the factory, and manufacture the 
 same to the satisfaction of M., and ship the 
 same to M., as M. directed, at such times, and 
 in such reosonable quantities as he from time to 
 lime should direct, and should pay M. a del 
 credere commission of seven anda-half percent, 
 for selling the same, and interest at eight per 
 cent, on all moneys advanced by M. over the 
 
744 
 
 745 
 
 FENCES. 
 
 746 
 
 $5,00(); and M. covonimtcd, as liiH onlcrii wtTO 
 fillcil anil tlut ({oikIh ri^^oivcd, to ailvatii'<^ in 
 c«hIi to S. HoviMity-livci pc^r ocnt. of t)i«M'hi<li'Halu 
 tnido vaino of hucIi goods, anit for that iiui'|iono 
 the H.'iid g<iodM wfM'c to liu invoiced to M. at Hucdi 
 value that lie, M., eould noII them to the lioHt 
 ndvantage. It wan agrei^l al«o, tliat all goodH 
 inaiiiifaetiired at th(t taetory Mliould lie Hold otdy 
 |)y or thioiigli M.: — Held, that the altove agn^e- 
 iiu'iit eoiiHtitiited M. a facitor, iH)t a pledgee, for 
 he had power to Nell witliout I'egai'd to any do- 
 fiudt in i)aynient, in the ordinary courMO of 
 trade:— I leld, also, that M.'h authority to stdl 
 wa« irrevocalile: Meld, further, that, nnder tho 
 interi'Kt that M. hail in the goodH, and from tho 
 lialuie of the dialingx, and arriingements of S,, 
 mill M., if S. did not repay the; advanucH niado 
 til him, or did not deliver to M. goods Kutficienfc 
 to kee|> hin advances jirotected liy ft si-rplns of 
 twi ntytivo ])er cent, of goods at the wholesale 
 trade value, and it lieeame necessary for M. to 
 protect himself against sui'ii default, and he 
 ciinid not V ithin a rea'^onahle time have sold to 
 customers, he could sell by auction, and was not 
 liiinud to delay until private sah.'seonid he nuido. 
 It .ippeared I hut (tertain goods not spc^cially or- 
 dered hy the plaintilV v,vm kciiI to him hy tho 
 defendant on soini^ arrangement, on which ho 
 ndvanciid seventy live per cent., and which 
 goods wcr(! sold l>y him in tho same manner as 
 goods sent to (ill his orders; — Held, that he iuid 
 the same right to scdl these goods as the goods 
 received under tlu^ wiitten agreement. Mi(<:hi:ll 
 V. Siibx, 4(). K. TiOl, Wils<m. 
 
 !•'., a nnisic teacher at lleardstown, 111., wrote 
 tn K. & (^'o., att'hicago, that he had a customer 
 named. I . , to whom he coidil sell a piano, and desir- 
 ing thom to ship one in their own name, to ho sub- 
 ject to their order, hut F. to pay freight charges 
 in case of no sale, and return jjiano toplaintill's, 
 lie, F., simjily to net as their agent. K. & Co, 
 not having the style of piano recpiircd, handed 
 F.'s letter to plaintitt's, piano niannfactni-ers in 
 Chicago, who after communicating with F., 
 Blii|ipeil a piano to lieardstown, consigned to 
 their own order, but to be delivered to F., on 
 payment of freight chargea. The piano was 
 received by F. ai 15cardstown, antl its receipt 
 aciiiiowledged in a letter to plain tills. It was 
 shipped by F. to Virginia City, 111., and from 
 there to F. , at Toronto, under the assumed name 
 cf K., and was there pledged by F. under such 
 assumed name, with dofeiidant 1). , a paw nbroker, 
 to covci' an amount loaned by D. to i)ay the 
 charges as well as a further advance, F. re])ro- 
 scntiiig that ho intended openiny an agency for 
 the sale of pianos. The piano was taken by J). 
 to his own prendsos, whore it remained until 
 replevied :— Hold, that there was no sale to F. 
 of tho piano, as it never was intended that tho 
 property should pass to him : — Hold, also, that 
 F. was not an agent within the meaning of tho 
 Factors' Act, \L S. O. (1887), c. 121, ss. 2, 4, 5, 
 so as to enable him to pledge the piano ; nor, 
 per Rose, J., was he an ugeut "entrusted with 
 the possesdm of goods. Bmh v. Fry, 15 
 0. R. 122.— C. P. 1). 
 
 FACTORIES' ACT. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 FACTUM. 
 
 .S'("« Sl'PRKMK CofllT OK CaNAHA. 
 
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 
 
 Sen Mamcioi'.s Aiiniisr.l'itosi'.ciTioN amiotiikh 
 I'uiirKKDlMis 'I' 111;.- PASS. 
 
 FALSE PRETENCES. 
 
 Sir Clil.MlNAI. Law. 
 
 FALSE REPRESENTATION. 
 
 .S'll FHAL'I) ami MiSllEl'HIISr.NTAIION. 
 
 FARM CROSSINGS. 
 
 See ItAIl.WAVH AMI HaII.WAV CllMrAMKS. 
 
 FATHER AND SON. 
 
 Srt 1'AKKN'I' and Cllll.ll. 
 
 FELONY. 
 
 I. GKNEnAi.LY—.S'ce Criminal Law. 
 
 II. Sl'SI'KNSION OF ACTTOS IN CASES OF 
 
 F'elonv— iSVc Action. 
 
 FEME COVERT. 
 
 See HusiiAND and Wife. 
 
 FENCES. 
 
 I. Covenant to Keep up Fences — iSVe 
 Laxdi.okd and Tenant. 
 
 II. Railway Fences— *;« Railways and 
 Railway Companies. 
 
 Obligation of municipal corporation to fence 
 ditches on higl-.vays in a dangerous condition. 
 Sec Walton v. t'out:iy of York, ti A. R. 181. 
 
 Cattle straying from highway on laud not 
 fenced as re(|uired by municipal by-law. — Re- 
 quisites of by-law. See Crowe v. Steeper, 46 Q. 
 B. 87. 
 
 The plaintiffs predeccaaor in title had granted 
 to defendant's predecessor in title a right of way 
 over land afterwards conveyed to plaintiff, such 
 right of way being conditioned upon the grantees 
 thereof "fencing and keeping in repair" the 
 roadway over which the easement was granted. 
 Shortly afterwards the grantees fenced the sides 
 
 » 
 
 f •t: 
 
747 
 
 FIBE. 
 
 74S 
 
 749 
 
 •• 3i» J: : 
 
 •ttH ",■ 
 
 
 of the roadway, and put gates at each end of it, 
 which, after remaining many years, rotted away: 
 — Held, that on the proper construction of the 
 instrument the right of way was dependent 
 upon defendant's maintaining fences not merely 
 at the sides of the way in question, but also at the 
 ends of it, where they might have gates as part 
 of the fences : — Held, also, that even if this was 
 not the proper construction of the instrument, 
 plaintiff. !>,s owner of the soil, wa? entitled, him- 
 self to i mce the ends of the way, putting gates 
 therein of such width and construction as would 
 reasonably admit of the right of way being con- 
 veniently used. Clendenan v. Blalchford, 15 O. 
 R. 285.— Q. B. D. 
 
 FERRY. 
 
 The Crown granted a license to the town of 
 Belleville, giving t.iC right to ferry " between 
 the town of Belleville to Ameliasburg'" : — Held, 
 a sufficient grant of a right of ferriage to and 
 from the two places named. Anderwn v. Jellett, 
 fl .S. C. R. 1. 
 
 Under the authority of tills license the town 
 of Belleville executed a lease to the plaintiff 
 granting the franchise ' ' to ferry to and from the 
 town of Belleville to Ameliasburg," a township 
 having a water frontage of about ten or twelve 
 miles, directly opposite to Belleville, such lease 
 providing only for one landing place on each side, 
 and a ferry was established within the limits of 
 the town of Belleville on the one side, to a point 
 across the bay of Quinte, in the townsliip of 
 Ameliasburg, within an extension of the east and 
 west limits of Belleville. The defendants estab- 
 lished another ferry across another part of the 
 bay of Quinte, between the township of Amelias- 
 burg and a place in the township of Sidney, wliich 
 adjoins the city of Belleville, the termini being 
 on the one side two miles from the western limits 
 of Belleville, and on the Aineliasburg shore, about 
 two miles west from the landing plajc of the 
 plaintiff's ferry :— Held (reversing the judgment 
 of the courts below 27 (^hy. 411 ; 7 A. R. 341), 
 that the establishment and use of the plaintiff's 
 ferry within the limits aforesaid for many years 
 had fixed the termini of tlie said ferry, and that 
 the defendants' ferry was no infringement of 
 the plaintiff's right. Il>. 
 
 Liability of municipal corporation for Injuries 
 caused by negligence of officers in the manage- 
 ment of ferry boat. See City of Saint John v. 
 Macdonald, 14 S. C. K. 1. 
 
 Constitutionality of Statute of Provincial 
 Legislature authorizing a municipality to im- 
 pose an annual tax on " ferrymen or steamboat 
 ferries." Construction of by-law made there- 
 under. See Lowjueuil Naviqation Go. v. City 
 of Montreal, 15 S. C. R. 566. 
 
 By 38 Vict., c. 97, the plaintiffs were author- 
 ized to build and maintain a toll bridge on the 
 river L'Assomption at a place called "Portage," 
 and if the said bridge should by accident or 
 otherwise be destroyed, become unsafe or im- 
 
 Eassable, the said plaintiffs were bound to re- 
 uild the said bridge within fifteen monthd next 
 following the giving way of said bridge, under 
 penalty of forreiture of the advantages to them 
 
 by this Act granted ; and during any time that 
 the said bridge should be unsafe or impassible 
 they were bound to maintain a ferry across the 
 said river, for which they might recover the 
 tolls. " The bridge was accidentally carried away 
 by ice, but rebuilt and opened for traffic within 
 fifteen months. During the reconstruction, 
 although plaintiffs maintained a ferry across 
 the river, the defendant built a temporary 
 bridge within the limits of the plaintiffs' franchise 
 and allowed it to be used by parties crossing 
 the river. In an actior brought by the plaintiffs, 
 claiming .$1,000 damages, rnd praying that de- 
 fendant be condemned td demolish the tempo- 
 rary bridge, on appeal to the Supreme Court it 
 was : — Held, 1st, that as rights in future niiglit 
 be bound, tlie case was appealable under R. 
 S. C. c. 135, s. 29 (6). lind, Reversing the 
 judgment of the court below, Ritchie, C.J., and 
 Patterson, J., dissenting. That tlie exclusive 
 statutory privilege extended to the ferry, and 
 while maintained by the plaintiffs the defendant 
 had no right to build the temporary bridge, but 
 as the bridge had since been demolished the 
 court would merely award nominal damages and 
 costs. Galarneau v. G"Ubault, 16 S. C. R. 
 579. 
 
 FIERI FACIAS. 
 
 See Execution. 
 
 FINES. 
 
 Set PE>fAL Actions and Penalties. 
 
 FIRE. 
 
 I. Loss BY FiKE AFTER CoNTEAOr OF SaLE, 
 
 748. 
 
 IL When AN Excuse for non-performance 
 OF Contract — See Contract. 
 
 III. Carria(je of Goods, 749. 
 
 IV. Clearing Land, 749. 
 
 V. From Railway Enoines— Sec Railways 
 AND Railway Companies. 
 
 VI. From Steamboats— See Ships. 
 
 VII. Liability of Tenant ArrER Fire— .See 
 Landlord and '^hnant. 
 
 VIII. Insurance against— See Insurance. 
 
 I. Loss BY Fire acter Contract of Sale. 
 
 A purchaser at a sale under decree signed the 
 usual contract to purchase, and paid the deposit. 
 The next day the buildings on the property were 
 burned down : — Held, on appeal, reversing the 
 decision of the referee, 8 P. R. 166, that the 
 loss would not fall on the purchaser, as the in- 
 terest contracted for did not vest in him till the 
 report on sale was confirmed. Stephenson v 
 Bain, 8 P. R. 258. -Proudfoot. 
 
 premises, 
 of grain i 
 cisioii of 
 princi])li 
 Kylanils 
 iniog K. 
 and tl<al 
 sge sustn 
 of actim" 
 580, doul 
 
749 
 
 FIXTUBES. 
 
 750 
 
 III. Carriage of Goods. 
 See Brodie v. Northern R. W. Co., 6 0. R. 
 
 180. 
 
 IV. Clearinu Land. 
 
 The defendant, for the purpose of clearing his 
 land, set out fire on tlie same, but before doing so, 
 consulted with the plaintiff, who had some lum- 
 ber piled on an ailjoining lot, and who agreed 
 that the weather was favourable, the wind blow- 
 ing in a direction away from the plaintiff's pro- 
 perty, and to prevent its spreading thereto, the 
 defendant burnt up the stubble, etc., around the 
 plaintiff's property. The tire was set out on 
 Monday, the wind continuing in the same direc- 
 tion on Tuesday and Wednesday, and in the 
 interval there were falls of rain, in conse(iuence 
 of which the defendant did not keep watcli over 
 the fire. On Thursday morning there were in- 
 dications of a change of wind, and the defendant 
 sent his son to watch the tire, but when the lat- 
 te' I'.rrived on the ground, tlie wind was blowing 
 u, heavy gale, at tlie rate of from thirty-tive to 
 forty miles an hour, and the lire comnnniicated 
 to the plaintitt''8 property, which was destroyed, 
 and it appeared tliat even if the defendant had 
 been watching he could not have prevented the 
 fire spreading : — Held, that the defendant was 
 not liable for the damage sustained by the plain- 
 tiff. Murphy v. Ballon, o 0. K. 541.— C. T. D. 
 
 Where fire has been properly set out by a 
 person on his land for the necessary purposes of 
 luiabandry, at a proper place, time and season, 
 and managed with due care, he is not responsible 
 for dar.iage occasioned by it. But wliere the 
 defendant, whilst harvesting in his own field, 
 threw upon th'^ ■ ound a lighted match thinking 
 he had extinguisned it, which however set fire to 
 combustible material, and the defendant on after- 
 wards discovering it, tiiough he could easily have 
 put it out, after confining it to one spot left it, 
 anticipating no danger, and after burning for 
 four or live days, tlie fire spread to the plaintiff's 
 prennses, and destroyed liis })arn with a (piantity 
 of grain and liay, the court in reversing the de- 
 cision of the Queen's Bench, considered that tlie 
 principle and iloctvine established in Fletcher c. 
 Kyiands, L. R. .'< H. L. 330, and Jones e. Fest- 
 iniog K. W. Co., L. K. 3 Q. B. 733, applied; 
 and that the defendant was liable for the dam- 
 age sustained by the plaintiff, even in the absence 
 of actual negligence. Gaston v. Wald, 19 Q. B. 
 586, doubteil. Fnrlontj v. Carroll, 7 A. K. 143, 
 
 FIRE INSURANCE. 
 
 See Ixsuit/vycE. 
 
 FIRE LIMITS. ' 
 
 See Municipal Corporations. 
 
 FISHEB7. 
 
 Under the Imperial Statute, 14-15 Vict. c. 93, 
 regulating the boundary line between old Can- 
 
 ada and New Brunswick, the whole of the Bay 
 of Chaleurs is within the present bouiularies of 
 the Provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick 
 and within tiie Dominion of Canada, and tlie 
 operation of the Fisheries Act, 31 Vict., c. CO. 
 Tlierefore the act of drifting for salmon in the 
 Bay of Chaleurs, although that drifting may 
 have been more than throe miles from either 
 siiore of New Brunswick or of Quebec al)utting 
 on the bay, is a drifting in Canadian waters and 
 within the prohibition of the last mentioned 
 Act, and of the regulations made in virtue tiiere- 
 of. Moa-at v. McFee, 5 S. 0. R. ()(i. 
 
 The term "on view" in sub-section 4 of sec- 
 tion 16 of the Fisiheries Act is not to ))e limited 
 to seeing tlie net in the water while in tlie very 
 act of drifting. If the party acting "on view" 
 sees what, if testified to by him, woulil be sulii- 
 cient to convict of the offence charged, tl>at is 
 sufficient for the purposes of the Act. lb. 
 
 Three several actions for trespass and assault 
 were brought by A. B. & C, respectively, rip- 
 arian proprietors of land fronting on risers above 
 the ebb and ttow of the tide, against V. , for for- 
 cibly seizing and taking away their fishing rods 
 and lines, while they were engaged in fly-fishing 
 for salmon in front of their respective lots. The 
 defendant was a fishery officer, appointed under 
 the Fishery Act (31 Vict. c. (50, Uom. ), and justified 
 the seizure an the ground that the plaiiitifi's were 
 fishing without licence in violation of an order- 
 iii-council of .June 11th, 1879, passed in pursu- 
 ance of section 19 of the Act, which order was 
 in these words, — "Fishing for salmon in the 
 Dominion of Canada, except under the author- 
 ity of leases or licenses from the department of 
 marine and fisheries, is hereby prohibited." 
 The defendant was armed and was in conii)any 
 with several others, a suHicient number to have 
 enforced the seizure if resistance had been made. 
 There was no actual injury. A. recovered $3,- 
 000, afterwards reduced to .'iil, 500 damages; B. 
 §1,200; and C. 81,000:— Held, that sections 2 
 and 19 of the Fisheries Act, and the order-in- 
 council of the Uth of June, 1879, did not auth- 
 orize the defendant in' his capacity of inspector 
 of fisheries, to interfere with A. B. & C.'s ex- 
 clusive right as riparian proprietors of fishing 
 at the locus in quo ; but that tlse damages in all 
 the cases were excessive, and therefore new trials 
 should be granted; — Held, also (Gwynne, J., 
 dissenting), that when the defendant committed 
 the trespasses complained of, he was acting as a 
 Dominion officer, under the instructions of the 
 department of marine and fisheries, and was 
 not entitled to notice of action under C. y. N. 
 B. , c. 89, s. 1 , or c. 90, s. 8. Venning v. Stead- 
 man, 9 S. C. R. 200. 
 
 Liability of inspector's sureties for deputy's 
 default — Disputes within s. 11 of 37 Vict. c. 
 45(Dom.). See Verratt v. McAulay,5 O. R. 
 313. 
 
 See Regina v. Rohertnon, 6 S. C. R. 52, p. 308. 
 
 FIXTURES. 
 
 The plaintiff owning land mortgaged it and 
 afterwards built a house thereon which was 
 placed on blocks of wood and was held by its own 
 
 1 
 * 
 
 '• i 
 
761 
 
 FIXTURES. 
 
 752 
 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 Cm. 
 
 (MM '" >l • 
 
 •-.*"' J'. 
 
 SSI e> <i 
 
 "■"SB: 
 
 Is 
 
 9«a 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ! • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 . > 
 
 
 f ' .'- 
 
 
 
 
 1 Si 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 't.'> 
 
 
 
 
 ■ :ui'. 
 
 
 1 '^ 
 i 1 
 
 J: 
 
 ! 
 
 ;' 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1' 
 
 k 
 
 " 
 
 
 '■' 
 
 
 '( 
 ' ' 
 
 i 
 
 
 1^ ii^iii 
 
 ila 
 
 
 ; 
 
 weight on them. Per Armour J. tlie house was a 
 mere chattel, not having become by annexation 
 to the land or by tiic intention of its owner part 
 of the hind. Per Cameron J. tlie house was a 
 fixture. Ph'dlip.i v. (Iraitd Riirr Farmerx" Mu- 
 tual Fire Inx. Co. 4G (,). li. 3.S4.-Q. \i. D. 
 
 S. mortgaged land upon wliich was a sawmill, 
 together witli macliinery, jjlant, trade and other 
 fixtures, to the Dominion IJank. He afterwards 
 ei'ected a drying-kiln with tiio necessary iron 
 piping for drying liimhci', and su))sc(juently re- 
 leased his e(|uity of redemption in all tlie j)r<)- 
 perty mortgaged to the mortgagees. Tlie latter 
 sold to the plaintitf the iron piping, wliieli was 
 claimed l)y defemlant under a sale from S. : — 
 Held, that iirinia facie the pi])ing being part of 
 a building erected for the jiurpoae of improving 
 the inheritance, was a llxture, and passed to the 
 mortgagees, eitlicr under their mortgage or the 
 release ; tiiat the Imrden of shewing that it was 
 to continue chattel ]iropcrty, when put into the 
 kiln. lay on the defendant : and that the plain- 
 till' therefore must succeed. Burke v. Taylor, 
 4GQ. 15. 371.- Q. ]5. D. 
 
 Certain iiiaehiiiery was placed in a factory on 
 the premi.'ics in (]Uestioii, some before and some 
 after the execution of the mortgage to the plain- 
 tiffs in 187-1. The mortgagor (the defendant) 
 had no interest in any of tiio machinery at tiie 
 date of the mortgage to the |)l;iiiitiffs, having 
 jiieviously .sold out to one Abel ; but afterwards 
 he became solely entitled to all of it, and he then 
 executed a chattel mortg.ige of the same to tiie 
 Parry Hound J^uiiil>er Conipany. On the refer- 
 ence under decree obtained by jdaintili's the 
 master made the liinibe*' comjiany parties .as sub- 
 so(|uent encumbrancers :— Held (assuming the 
 machinery, or some portions of it, to he trade 
 fixtures removable as lictwcen landlord and ten- 
 ant), that the uiachinery (or such portion afore- 
 said), wlien acfjuired by the mortgagor, would go 
 to increase the plaintiffs' security ; and that 
 therefore the master was riglit in making the 
 lumber ooiiipaiiy parties as sulwcfjuent encum- 
 brancers. Further, tliat there appeared no good 
 reason why the plaiiititl's having purchased and 
 taken an assignment of a mortgage made liy de- 
 fendant in 1809, were not entitled under it 
 to have the greater jiart if not all the machinery 
 added to their security. LdihIoii ((• Cauddinii 
 Loan lie. Co. v. Pul/ord, 8 P. 1!. 150.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Mortgagors of vacan' land, adjacent to their 
 foundry, wl.ich was constructed of stone, erected 
 thereon a fiaiue building as a loan-to to the 
 foundry, and ])laced in it tiireo lathes, an iron 
 planer, two drills, a crane and a sliajier, all of 
 which, with the exception of one drill, which 
 was bolted to the frame work, the latter being 
 bolted to the girders, were kept in their ]iosi- 
 tion by their own weiglit, witliout being fast- 
 ened to any part of the Itiiilding, and were capa- 
 ble of being removed without injury to eitlier 
 building or macliinery. When the mortgage 
 was given the lajid was not worth the money 
 advanced, but the mortgagees relied upon a sub- 
 stantial building wliich the mortgagors intended 
 to erect on it as an extension to their factory, 
 and took a covenant to insure the building for 
 84,000, but they did not bind the mortgagors to 
 build or put in machinery : — Held, reversing 
 the decree of Spragge, C, that the machines 
 were not fixtures, as they were not put in the 
 
 I building with the intention that they should he- 
 ! come part of the realty : — Held, also, tliat the 
 
 mere fact that such machines are brought upon 
 I the land by the owner of the freehold raises no 
 ; presumption that he intends to make tliein part 
 j of the realty. Per Patterson, J. A., tlie weight 
 I of authority is against construing as lixtures 
 ! anything which is not annexed in fact to tlie 
 
 realty, except where the articles form part of the 
 
 fal)ric as an integral portion of the architectural 
 ; design, or as in the case of a millstone, which is 
 I ail essential part of the mill. McDonald r. 
 
 Weeks, 8 Cliy. 297, dissented from. KecJ'cr v. 
 ; Merrill, A. R. 121. 
 
 I The plaintiffs were registered mortgagees of a 
 1 large tract of land. M. desiring to build a mil! 
 in a village where part of tiie land lay, took u 
 deed of a small portion tliereof from one of the 
 I owners of tlie equity of re(leni])tion, in order that 
 ' he (M.) should erect a llouring mill thereon. M,, 
 j without searcliing tiie title, and without actual 
 ] notice of the plaintiffs' mortgage, erected the mill 
 with' the intention of establishing a iiusiness 
 j there. Before its completion, and liefore the ma- 
 j chiiicry was put in, he discovered the mortgage, 
 I but jiroceeded to ]mt in a boiler, engine, iiiill- 
 stoiies, and several machines necessary for carry- 
 ing on milling. On the plaintiffs attempting to 
 sell under their mortgage, the machinery wm 
 ! removed by M. An injunction was granted to 
 stay tlie removal, and an issue was directed to 
 [ try the title to the mill and macliinery. A mini- 
 ': ber of the machines were not attached to the 
 i building, being kept in place by their own weight; 
 I but they were necessary for tlie working of the 
 I mill, and suited for that jiurpose only, and the 
 whole structure— buihling, engine-house, boilers, 
 , engine, and machinery — was put up with llicex- 
 : press puq.ose of establishing a ffouring mill on 
 land that M. believed to be his own : — Held, that 
 ; the mill ami its contents passe<l to the niortga- 
 'gees; and an order was made for restitution of 
 I the machinery which had been removed, and the 
 i injunction extended to iirevent its removal in 
 j future, with the liiierty to M. to pay its value to 
 I the plaintiffs, which they ought to accept, if 
 j odered, and release the machinery. Jjicttoii v. 
 Hunter, 29 Cliy. 73. — Ferguson. 
 
 Certain counters were embraced in the con- 
 tract for the carpenter's work of a drug store, 
 and nailed to a scantling, which was placed in the 
 wall of the store. The bottom or ledge of the 
 counters was made fast t'l the door of the store, 
 and the end connected with the frame-work of 
 the windows in such a way tli;' t the waiiiscotting 
 at the bottom of the windows would be materially 
 injured by taking them (the counters) out, and 
 the lloor of the building also would bo consider- 
 ably damaged : — Held, that the counters were 
 part of the freehold and included in a mortgage 
 thereof, and not chattel property. Holland i\ 
 Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 328, and Keefer r. Merril, 
 () A. R. 121, upproved of. MrCauslandv. J/c- 
 Cfdlum, 3 O. R. 305.— Ferguson. 
 
 H. H. 8. gave a mortgage to R. to secure a 
 past debt and future 'vances, in which it was 
 recited that security « as to be given ' ' by the 
 kinds hereinafter mentioned, and also by the 
 machinery hereinafter mentioned," and which 
 proceeded to mortgage the said lands, " together 
 with the machinery and foundry apparatus now 
 in use and that may in future be used in the 
 
752 
 
 753 
 
 FIXTURES. 
 
 784 
 
 brick and frame buildings situate on the said 
 lots, used as a machine shop and a foundry 
 downstairs and as a printing ofhce upstairs, the 
 imvchinerj' being composed of one printing press, 
 etc. (describing various ivrticles of machinery), 
 togetlier witli all the machinery now in or that 
 may hereafter bo put in tlie said premises." In 
 the jiroviso in the mortgage the projjerty was 
 described as '• lamls and chattels." Tiie mort- 
 g.ife'e was registered, hut was not filed asa chattel 
 iniirts^age, nor was there change of possession : — 
 Held, that the above was, in effect, a mortgage 
 of the machine shop am! foundry, and of tlio 
 niiiiting otlice, as going concerns, not of tjielaud 
 its such and chattels as such, and had the same 
 force and effect as if these had l)oen mortgaged, 
 iiiuiiing them : — Held, therefore, that certain 
 iirtich's in question in this action, which were at 
 tlio time of the execution of the mortgage on the 
 l)remi^^es, and were es.sential jruts of the going 
 concerns, passed under the mortgage: — Held, 
 idsn, following Kitching r. Hicks, (). R. 739, 
 that tliu mortgage was in any event good witliont 
 registration as a chattel mortgage, so far as it 
 was a moi'tgage upon ])roperty brouglit upon the 
 ))rciiiises after its date. Buliinaon v. Cool', 6 
 
 0. R. o'.tO. — Ferguson. 
 
 T., l)cing liquidator of a company wliioh was 
 hoiiig wound up sold the manufactory to H. for 
 .*0,OOO, |)art in cash and the Ijalance secured by 
 a mortgage on the premises. At the time of the 
 sale there was an engine, boiler, pulleys, etc., 
 among the machinery on the premises, but no 
 mention of them was made in the mortgage. H. 
 afterwards undertook to sell the engine, boiler, 
 ami pulleys, but T. objected until assured that 
 tliey would l>e replaced by better machinery. 
 H. purchased from I. and H., the defendants, 
 another engine, l)oiler, shafting, hangei-s, aiul 
 pulleys to re])laco tlie old ones, paying part in 
 ca.sh, and .securing the balance by notes, under a 
 written agreement, which sti))ulatcd that the 
 property shoidd not pass to it., but was to re- 
 main in I and H. until the full payment of the 
 price, anil of any obligations given tlierefor, but 
 H. was to have possession at once, ami to use 
 the same until default in payment * * when 
 
 1. and If. miglit resume possession. The engine 
 and l)oiler were placed upon a stone foundation 
 and brii'ked over in a l)uililiiig on the i>remises 
 other than that from wliicli the old (uics had 
 been removed. 'I'liey could be removed l)y tak- 
 ing down a part of the wall of tlie buildings in 
 which they were placed, and without injury to 
 the old building ; but were so athxed to the 
 realty as under ordinary circumstant'cs to be- 
 come a part of it. H. failed, assigned bis estate 
 for the benefit of bis creditors, and made default 
 in p,ayment, and I. and H. began to remove tlie 
 machinery. In an action brought by T, for an 
 injunction restraining the defendants 1. and H. 
 from such removal: — Held, that the express 
 agreement between H. and the defendants that 
 the property in the machinery should not pa.ss 
 from the defendants to H. until jiaid for, and the 
 intention with which the articles were attixed, 
 must govern ; and that tiio machinery therefore 
 did not become part of the realty or pass to the 
 plaintiffs. Thomas v. Inglis, 7 O. R. 588.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that under the statutory covenant to 
 repair, tiie tenant was bound to keep in repair 
 48 
 
 not only the demised premises but also impliedly 
 
 all fixtures and things erected or made during 
 
 the term which he had a right to erect or make; 
 
 that the right to erect sucii fixtures is to this 
 
 extent, viz., that tliey shall not be such as to 
 
 diminish the value of the demised premises, nor 
 
 to increase the burden upon tiiem as against the 
 
 I landlord, nor to impair tlic evidence of title. 
 
 I The pliiintifrs reversion not beini; injured by the 
 
 I acts complained of, there was no waste and no 
 
 i forfeiture. JIotilcrnc'iK v. Laiui, II O. J!. I — Q. 
 
 [ ]!. D. 
 
 O. & K. under a verbal agreement with an 
 agent of tiie fanadp Company (wliich that com- 
 i pany refused to adupt) entered into ])osscssion 
 of land belonging to the latter, ami erected a 
 steaui mill tliereon. They jirocured from the 
 plaintiffs an engine, boiler, etc., under an agree- 
 ment that the property therein should not pass 
 ! to the veixlees till ])aid for. They exchanged 
 1 the jilaintiir's boiler for another made by one \)., 
 \ which they put up with the plaintiff's engine. 
 ; This coming to the knowledge of the plaintitl'a 
 they seized their own boiler, in conseipience of 
 ' which O. & K. on the 27tli November, 18H3, 
 ; executed to the plaintiffs a chattel mortgage on 
 ! the "U. " boiler. Prior to this date, however, 
 ' and on the 12th of the sume month (). & K. 
 executed a mortgage on the said lands and pre- 
 j mises to the defendant, to whom they were in- 
 I debted, and three days later as a matter of pre- 
 I caution and as part of the same bargain they 
 \ executed a chattel mortgage in his favour as 
 further security for a debt due him (not naming 
 any amount), and assigned all and singular cer- 
 tain goods, etc., viz. : "One mill nd machinery, 
 one frame bouse * * two bay horses," etc. 
 This security by reason of defects under the 
 : Chattel Mortgage Act \Aas void as against the 
 I plaintiff's claim. Prior to the commencement 
 : of this action the defendant obtained from the 
 ' Canada Company a deeil of the land inqueiition. 
 On appeal to this court it was:— Hehl (in this 
 reversmg the judgment of the court below, 9 
 ! O. R. f)92), that although O. & K. had not any 
 interest in the land on which they had so erected 
 their mill, and placed their machinery, yet by 
 their mortga!,'e the " 1)." boiler and other fix- 
 tures not originally purchased from the plaintiffs 
 I passed to the defendant as part of the realty; 
 1 such mortgage unlike that of the chattels not 
 ; rc(iuiring registration to give it validity :^Held, 
 also, that the defendant might support his title 
 under the deed from the Canada Company; the 
 boiler having been affixed to the land and pas- 
 sing under the deed as part of the realty. Per 
 Patterson, J. A. — No dilficulty existed in sup- 
 porting the defendant's title under either of his 
 own mortgages, or under the conveyance from 
 the Canacla Company. Strmm v. /iar/ool, 13 
 A. R. 36(). 
 
 Quan-e, whether the plaintiff the proprietor of 
 a skating rink, was a person engaged in trade, 
 so as to make fixtures used in his business 
 exempt from distress. Howell v. LtMlowdl Bink 
 and Pari: Co., 13 0. R. 470.— C. P. D. 
 
 Under the particular circumstances herein, a 
 hardwood flooring, put down specially for skat- 
 ing, and capable of removal, was held to be a 
 tenant fixture, and exempt from distress. There 
 was no finding by the jury that the flooring 
 could be restored in the same plight as before 
 
 
756 
 
 FOBOIBLE ENTRY. 
 
 768 
 
 distress ; but in view of the finding of the tender 
 having been made, this was not now material. 
 lb. 
 
 See Deivar v. Mal/ory, 27 Chy. 303; Joseph 
 Hall Mannfactwimi Co. v. I/azlelt, 8 O. U. 4(i5; 
 Polxoii v. nef/cer, 12 O R. 215, p. 344; WiiiMd 
 V. Fowlie, 14 0. R. 102. 
 
 FLOATING TIMBER. 
 
 See Water and \Vater Courses. 
 
 FOLLOWING MONEY OR SECURITIES. 
 
 Trust Moneys — See Trusts and Trustees. 
 
 Payment l»y a bank on forged endorsement of 
 cheque. Right of the drawer to recover l)ack. 
 See Af/rictdtitral Invcdment Co. v. Federal Bank, 
 45Q.'B. 214; 6 A. R. 192. 
 
 The testator by his will left money to his 
 children, which was to be paid to them on their 
 coming of ago, and be deposited by the executors 
 in a savings bank in the meantime. One of the 
 executors appropriated and set apart certain 
 moneys of his testator to answer the trusts of the 
 will, which moneys were afterwards paid by him 
 to the solicitor of the guardian of the infants, 
 who made default in payment over of the same, 
 and the amount never reached the hands of tlie 
 guardian : — Held that the moneys by the act of 
 setting apart had become, in the hands of the 
 executor, impressed with the trusts of the will, 
 and he could not properly pay the same to the 
 guardian, nor could the guardian properly re- 
 ceive the amount ; and, although the fund never 
 reached the hands of tlie guardian so as to render 
 her surety liable to make good the .amount, yet, 
 under the circumstances, the guardian was per- 
 sonally responsible for the money so paid to her 
 solicitor, and a decree to that effect was pro- 
 nounced, with costs ; though asagainst the surety 
 the bill was dismissed, with costs. (Jalbraith v. 
 Duncomhe, 28 Chy. 27.— Blake. 
 
 G. obtained a loan of $3,700 tlirough R. from 
 the plaintilfs, upon the security of 220 acres of 
 land, by falsely representing that R. had pur- 
 chased the 220 acres from W. for 87, .500, and 
 had paid $4,000 cash, and wanted the loan to 
 pay the balance witii, and on the receipt of the 
 loan paid W. the $3,000, which w.as the total 
 purchase money for the 220 acres ; .and another 
 parcel of about fifty acres, and was the full 
 value of both parcels. G. got the conveyance 
 from W. of l)oth parcels, and conveyed the 220 
 acres to R. to carry out the scheme, and retained 
 the fifty acres himself. In an action by the 
 plaintiffs, it was :— Held, that on the conveyance 
 of the fifty acres being executed to G., the land 
 immediately became the property in equity of 
 the plaintiffs. That the land was not subject to 
 the claims of certain execution creditors of (J., 
 whose fi. fas. were in the 8heritl''8 hands. But 
 that a mortgage on the fifty acres, made by S. , 
 who had no title, could not be ordered to be re- 
 moved by the mortgagee (although the mortgage 
 
 money was paid), as the mortgagee was no party 
 to the action. Hamilton Provident and Loan 
 Society v. Gilbert, 6 O. R. 434. — Ferguson. 
 
 D. J. endorsed a promissory note for tlie ac- 
 commodivtion of W. .1., who discounted it, .and 
 gave 1). J. a mortgage on certain land to indem- 
 nify him against his liability as indorser on the 
 note. \V. J. , (luring the currency of tlie note 
 abscon<led, after obtaining from M. liy false 
 pretences a che([ue for a large sum, which lie 
 cashed, and gave part of the proceeds to \). ,]. 
 to take up the note, which D. J. did before ma- 
 turity. W. .1. told 1). J. tiiat he had got the 
 money from M. , with whom ho had dealings, as 
 D. J. knew, but 1). J. had no notice of any 
 wrongdoing in connection with the money ; — 
 Held, afhrming the judgment of Boyd, C, (10 
 O. R. 1 ), that the mortgage ceased to l)e an in- 
 cumbrance on the land wlien the note was retired; 
 thiit M. could not follow the money into the note 
 and was therefore not entitled to stand in the 
 shoes of D. J., as to the security held by him, 
 even if it had been a mortg<age to secure the 
 p.aymeut of the note. Jat-k v. Jack, 12 A. R. 
 470. 
 
 A miller gave a warehouse receipt to a bank 
 on some wheat "and its product" stored in his 
 mill for advances made to him and died insolvent 
 about two months after. During this period 
 wheat was constantly going out of and fresh 
 wheat coming into the mill. Just before his 
 death tlie bank took possession and found a large 
 shortage in tlie wheat which had commenced 
 shortly after the receipt had been given and liad 
 continued to a greater or less degree all the time. 
 In the administration of his estate it a|)peared 
 that during the period of shortage sonic of the 
 wheat had been converted into flour which iiad 
 been sold and the proceeds, which were less th.iu 
 the value of the shortage, paid to the adminis- 
 trator : — Held that the bank was entitled to the 
 purchase money of the flour. Re Gooitfitllow— 
 Traderx Bunk v. Goodfallow, 19 O. R. 299.- 
 Boyd. 
 
 See Bailey v. Jellett, 9 A. R. 187, p. 134; 
 Giraldi v. La Banqiie Jacquex Cartier, 9. S. C. 
 R. .W, p. 133 ; Elian v. Bank oj Montreal, 12 
 O. R. 39 : 14 A. R. 533, p. 1(>-^. 
 
 FORCIBLE ENTRY. 
 
 Upon a conviction for a forcible entry an order 
 for restitution is usually awarded in favour of 
 the party dispossessed, irrespective of the (jues- 
 tion of title, but where redress is sougiit by a 
 civil action the title of the plaintiff must be 
 considered, and the court will not generally in- 
 vestigate it upon an interlocutory proceeding, 
 such as an application for an interlocutory in- 
 junction. Toronto Brewing and Mailing Co. v, 
 Blake, 2 O. R. 175.~Proudfoot. 
 
 Where there are conflicting claimants to the 
 position of president of a company, and one 
 claimant takes forcible possession of the com- 
 pany's premises, the other claimant, at .all events 
 when he is at the time acting president, can 
 bring an action to restrain him in the name of 
 the company, although it is uncertain who is the 
 rightful president. lb. 
 
756 
 
 767 
 
 FOREIGN LAW AND FOBEIONEB. 
 
 7S8 
 
 FORECLOSURE. 
 
 See MoBTOAGK. 
 
 FOREIGN COMPANIES. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 FOREIGN CONTRACT. 
 
 See FoREicN Law. 
 
 FOREIGN COUNTRY. 
 
 See FoEEir.N Law. 
 
 Devise to. See Pai-khtirKt v. Roy, 27 Chy. 
 361; 7 A. R. 614. 
 
 FOREIGN COURTS. 
 
 Jurisdiction of foreign courts in cases of 
 diforce. See Magiirn v. Magtirn, 3 0. R. 579, 
 llA. R. 178. 
 
 In tlie course of proceedings taken in Scotland 
 for winding-up the plaintiffs' company, an order 
 was made by a Scotcii court for delivery by the 
 defendant, as one of the officers of tlie company, 
 of certain books and papers said to be in his 
 hands, and it was provided that in case of de- 
 fault the li(iuidator miglit proceed against the 
 defendant, wlio lived in Ontario, in any court in 
 Ontario having authority to compel delivery, and 
 upon default this action was brought for that 
 purpose :— Held, that there was and could be no 
 final adjudication of rights by the order, for it 
 could only be open ive by enforcing it against 
 the person of the defendant by attachment for 
 disobedience, and such enforcement could not be 
 of extra-territorial efficacy. There was no power 
 in a winding-up proceeding to pronounce an 
 order equivalent to a final judgment on the 
 merits, based upon service of a person out of the 
 jurisdiction of the Scottish court. And an order 
 striking out the defence in the action on the 
 ground that it was res judicata by the order of the 
 Scottish court was rescinded. Reynolds r. Bar- 
 nedo Banking Co. , Cassel's Dig. p. 92, followed. 
 Semble, that the order of the Scottish court 
 should have been limited to such books and 
 papers as were in the hands of the defendant .at 
 its date. British Canadian Lnmbc ring and Tim- 
 krCo. v. Grant, 12 P. R. .SOI.— Boyil. 
 
 Quaere as to the power of a judge under the 
 English Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to grant an in- 
 junction enjoining plaintiffs from proceeding 
 with an action in the High Court of Justice for 
 Ontario against defendants, who were subject to 
 the proceedings in bankruptcy in England. See 
 Maritime Bank v. Stewart, 13 P. R. 86.— Rose. 
 
 FOREIGN INDICTMENT. 
 
 As evidence in extradition proceedings. See 
 Regina v. Ilovey, 8 P. R. 345. 
 
 FOREIGN JUDGMENT. 
 
 See Judgment. 
 
 FOREIGN LAW AND FOREIGNER. 
 
 I. Foreign Law. 
 
 1. Operation of, 758. 
 
 2. Proof of, 761. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 762. 
 
 4. Domicile— See Domicile. 
 
 5. Foreign Courts — See Fokeign Courts. 
 
 6. Foreign Divorce— See Husband and 
 
 Wife. 
 
 7. Foreign Judgments — See Judgment. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 Foreigner- 
 
 International 
 tional Law. 
 
 See Alien. 
 Law — See 
 
 Interna- 
 
 FOREIGN DIVORCE. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 I. Foreign Law. 
 1. Operation of. 
 
 Per Ritchie, C. J. As the agreement in this 
 case between the suppliant an advocate of the 
 Province of Quebec and a Minister of the Crown 
 at Ottawa, on behalf of Her Majesty, was nuide 
 at Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, for ser- 
 vices to be performed in Halifax, in the pro- 
 vince of Nova Scotia, it was not subject to the 
 law of the province of Quebec. Regina v. 
 Doutre, 6 S. C. R. 342. 
 
 The plaintiff, at Kingston, Ontario, liaving on 
 the 20th October, ascertained from the defendant 
 in reply to his inquiry the price for forging a 
 cross-head for an engine, wrote on the same day 
 to the defendant at Montreal, Quebec, enclosing 
 a <lrawiug and asking him to ship the cross-head 
 to him at Kingston as soon as finished, per G. T. 
 R. In answer defendant wrote that the matter 
 would have immediate attention, " and as soon 
 as ready I will ship to your address. ' The cross- 
 head was subsequently shipped to plaintiff at 
 Kingston as directed, when a defect in the forging 
 was discovered, and after being used on the 
 plaintiff''3 steamer for some months it broke at 
 the defective point. On a motion to set aside 
 the service of the writ herein the plaintiff under- 
 took to prove at the trial a cause of action which 
 arose in Ontario, or in respect of a contract made 
 therein, within the R. S. O. (1877) c. 50, s. 49 :— 
 Held, reversing the decision of the Common 
 Pleas (31 C. P. 164), that the contract being to 
 forge and deliver on the Grand Trimk Railway 
 at Montreal, was a contract made in the pro- 
 vince of Quebec, and the defect in the beam, 
 being the breach of the warranty that it should 
 be reasonably lit for the purpose for which it 
 was made, existed when it left the workshop at 
 Montreal, the breach also occurred in that pro- 
 vince, and the plaintiff therefore must be non- 
 suited. Oildersleeve v. McDowjall, 6 A. R. 553. 
 
 ^^ , I 
 
759 
 
 FOREIGN LAW AND FOBEIQNER. 
 
 760 
 
 761 
 
 «>"• 
 
 «t3! 
 
 • "■• 
 
 ?" "' 
 
 Sail 
 
 
 Cs. 
 
 
 «.»"• 
 
 *» "^i 
 
 •■< ■;' 
 
 
 Hvu 
 
 
 •u , 
 
 
 f V,, 
 
 .] ■ , 
 
 
 •1' 
 
 )i 
 
 
 
 Where the defendants in a suit reside in this 
 country, and the principal oilice of tlie plaintiflTs 
 is in Knghind, and a contract is entered into 
 there between the parties wliich is to be exe- 
 cuted in Now York, a suit in respect thereof 
 may l)e instituted in this province. JJirect 
 Cahlc Co. V. Dominion Ttk<iraph Co., 28 Chy. 
 648.— IJlalic. 
 
 A note made in Ontario, payable at a particular 
 place in Qucl)ec, is a contract deemed to be made 
 in (,>ucbec, tiie place of performance, and under 
 C. S. C. c. 57, s. 4, is i)ayable at the place 
 named therein, the C. S. U. C. c. 42, requiring 
 the use of the resti'ictive words, ' ' not otherwise 
 or elsewhere," applying only to notes made and 
 payable in Ontario.' 'J'Jie note in this case was 
 made in Toronto, pajalde at the Mechanics' 
 Hank, Montreal, and was sent to Montreal, and 
 there lield until maturity, when it was presented 
 for jiaymcnt and dishonoured : — Held, that the 
 contract being performable in (Quebec, and the 
 breach occurring there, the cause of action arose 
 there, so as to bring the defendant within the 
 operation of 22 Vict. c. 5, s. 58, and to make a 
 judgmert recovered against him in Quebec, on a 
 jiersonal service in Ontario, conclusive on the 
 merits; and the defendant was therefore pre- 
 cluded from setting up a defence on the merits, 
 and was allowed to except to the jurisdiction 
 onlv. (iHiiere, whether the personal service re- 
 ferred to in R. S. O. (1877) c. 50, s. 145, refers 
 to personal service in Quebec. U>. 
 
 Defendant, wiiile temporarily in New York, 
 drew a bill of exchange upon a firm of merchants 
 in Toronto, payable to the order of a New York 
 firm of eonnjiission merchants. The domicile of | 
 the defendant was, at the time, in Ontario, and 
 tiie drawees were also domiciled there. The 
 draft was protested for non-acceptance, and upon 
 the payees suing the defendant, he set up that 
 the draft was given for a debt due from him in 
 res])ect to certain gambling transactions on the 
 New York stock exchange, and that, as such, it 
 was under the law of New York, an illegal con- 
 tract, and invalid : — Helil, upon a special case 
 directed to decide the point of law, that the 
 matter must be governed by the law of New 
 York, although the defendant w-as domiciled in 
 Ontario and although the drawers were also 
 domiciled in Ontario; for the contract of the 
 drawer was to pay the money at the place w'here 
 he entered into the contract, in default of the 
 drawee paying, and thu domicile of the drawer 
 did not aflect the rule as stated. Story v. Mc- 
 Kay, 15 O. R. 169.— Falconbridge. 
 
 Partnersliip article?— Ownership of plant — 
 Law of Que))ec. HecAfacilonaldv, Worthimjlon, 
 7 A. R. 531 ; 9 S. C. K. 327. 
 
 To an action by the administrator in Ontario 
 of W. M., deceased, on a policy on the life of W. 
 M., which, by the terms thereof, was payable in 
 Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, the defen- 
 dants pleaded that the policy was issued from 
 their ofiloe in MontrePi ; that by its terms the 
 moneys were payable < iiere ; that the defendants 
 had no office in Ontario for the payment of 
 moneys by them, and that the plaintiff had not 
 obtained letters of administration in Quebec, 
 and had no right or title to sue for the money : — 
 Held, on demurrer, a good defence. Pritckard 
 V. Standard Life Ass. Co., 7 0. R. 188.— Rose. 
 
 The defendants signed and sealed a number of 
 policies in blank, and sent them to an agent in 
 New York to be filled up and issued as insur- 
 ances were effected. A. , their agent there, tilled 
 up one for a risk of $2,500 on a Inmber yard, a 
 risk greater than extra hazardous, although he 
 had been instructe<l not to take any extra hazar- 
 dous risk for more than SI. 500. He issued the 
 policy witiiout receiving the payment of the 
 premium, altlumgh a condition was indorsed on 
 it that no insurance proposeil to the company 
 was to bo considered in force until the premium 
 sliould be paid in cash. The policy was issued 
 on tlie 8tii August. The tire occurred on the 
 10th AugiLst. A che(|ue for the premium was 
 sent to tlie comj)aiiy on the 11th August, which 
 was imniediatcly returned and the risk repudi- 
 ated. Under the winding-up proceedings of the 
 company, it was attempted to prove a claim for 
 the loiss in the master's office, when it was eon- 
 tended that the law of the State of New York, 
 where the policy was issued, governed the con- 
 tract, and under tliat law the agent Iiad power 
 to waive tiie jiayment of the prcmiuin. The 
 master disallowed the claim, (10 1'. R. 813), hold- 
 ing that the law of Ontario governed tiie con- 
 tract. On an appeal from the master's certifi- 
 cate, it was : — Held, that the master was right. 
 That the law of Ontario governed, as tiie place 
 where the pcdicy was signed and sealed was the 
 place wiiere th.e contract was made. Clarke, v. 
 Union Fire Int. Co. — Rr E.rpnrI Lumber Co., G 
 O. R. 223.— Ferguson ; U) V. R. 313. 
 
 The locality of tlie forum of litigation deter- 
 mines whether a corporation is foreign or not, 
 A contract executed in Ontario and delivered by 
 an agent of the contractor to the contractce in 
 New York is governed bv tlie laws of Ontario. 
 S. C, 10 p. K. 313.— Hodgins, Master -in-Ordi- 
 nary. 
 
 C. & Co. carrying on liusiness in Chicago, in the 
 State of Hlinois, for the manufacture of mill 
 machinery, etc., had certain machinery manu- 
 factured for them in Stratford, Out., whicli w:i8 
 warehoused with M. & T. , at Woodstock, Ont. 
 C. & Co. being pressed by plaintitls, their ban!:- 
 era in Chicago, for coUateral security for two of 
 their notes of $5,000 eacli, discounted by the 
 plaintitls, endorsed ovei' to tlie plaintiffs the 
 warehouse receipts for these goods. At the ma- 
 turity of the notes, C. & Co., not being in ii 
 pjsition to retire them, in pursuance of an ar- 
 rangement to that effect, tlie warehouse receipts 
 were cancelled and new ones dated 12th October, 
 1883, were made out direct to the plaintifi's. Ou 
 3rd September, 1883, C. k Co. had made an 
 assignment to a trustee in Chicago for tiie licnefit 
 of creditors. On 22nd November, the defendant 
 placed writs of execution in the sheriff's hands 
 against C. k Co., under which these goods were 
 seized. No fraudulent preference or intent was 
 proved : — Held, that the plaintiffs, a foreign 
 corporation, could hold personal property in 
 Ontario ; that C. & Co. , being residents of the 
 State of niinois, the transfer must be governed 
 by the law of that State, according to which the 
 transfer was valid and effectual; that, even if 
 dealt with as subject to the law of Ontario, 
 when M. & T. gave the warehouse receipts direct 
 to the bank, they held the goods for the plain- 
 tiffs, and there was therefore a transfer of both 
 property and possesaion in the goods to the 
 
11 u 
 
 760 
 
 a number of 
 an agent in 
 ed as inaur- 
 there, filled 
 iber yard, a 
 although he 
 extra hazar- 
 e issued the 
 nent oi the 
 indorsed on 
 ,liu company 
 the premium 
 y was issued 
 uvrod on the 
 iit'inium was 
 Hist, which 
 risk rcpudi- 
 ledings of the 
 e a claim for 
 n it was con- 
 f Now York, 
 ned the con- 
 t had power 
 cniium. The 
 R. 313), hold- 
 rned the con- 
 aster's certifi- 
 ;er was right. 
 1, as tlie place 
 scaled was tlie 
 le. Clarke, v. 
 fjumhcr Co., 6 
 113. 
 
 tigation deter- 
 foreign or not. 
 1(1 delivered by 
 b contractee in 
 aws of Ontario. 
 Mnstcr-in-Ordi 
 
 Chicago, in the 
 factiirc of mill 
 icliinery manu 
 )nt. , which was 
 I'oodstock, Out. 
 ill's, their bank- 
 urity for two of 
 icountcd by the 
 10 plaintiffs the 
 Is. At the nia- 
 not being in a 
 iiiauco of an ar- 
 rohonse receipts 
 ed I'Jtb October, 
 le plaintiffs. On 
 1. had made aii 
 ^o for the benefit 
 r, tho defendant 
 sheriff's hands 
 hese goods were 
 cc or intent was 
 itifTs, a foreign 
 lal property in 
 residents of the 
 lust be governed 
 ling to which the 
 ,1 ; that, even if 
 law of Ontario, 
 se receipts direct 
 ids for the plain- 
 transfer of both 
 he goods to the 
 
 781 
 
 FORFEITURE. 
 
 -/iW :;!JCIETY, 
 
 762 
 
 plaintiflfs, snbject to the trustee's rights, if any ; 
 and the goods being in tho hands of third par- 
 ties and not of C. & Co. , the Hills of Sale Act 
 did not apply ; and the Act as to banks and 
 banking, and warehouse receipts did not apply 
 to the plaintiff's, a foreign corporation. Com- 
 mercial Nalional Bank of Chirni/o v. Corcoran, 
 6 0. R. 527.-C. P. 1). 
 
 A company incorporated in the State of 
 Michigan, while in insolvent circumstun.oes, had 
 given a mortgage upon chattels in Ontario to 
 defendant, a Michigan creditor, to secure pre- 
 vious cash advances nuule to the company undei 
 verbal promises by two directors that security 
 would be given. Tho effect of the mortgage was 
 to delay and prejudice other creditors and give 
 defendant a preference over them : — Held, tluvt, 
 the proi)erty mortgaged being in Ontario, tho 
 transaction was governed by the laws of Ontario 
 without regard to the laws of Michigan. Jiinr 
 SlacfCo. v. Sill, 1-2 O. R. rwT.— Q. R. D. _Sce 
 also Marthinmn v. I'atterKon, 20 O. R. 125, 720. 
 
 The husband of the defendant, while a bachelor 
 domiciled in this province, had, in tlic years 1871 
 and 187<i, ell'ectcd throe policies of insurance 
 on his life with companies whose head offices 
 in Canada were at M., in the prjvince of Que- 
 l)ec, where the insurance moneys were payable. 
 After his marriage, and while still domiciled 
 in this province, he endorsed declarations on the 
 policies in favour of defendant, and handed them 
 to her. After his death the insurance moneys 
 were claimed by the defendant and by the plain- 
 tiffs as administrator of his estate, against which 
 there were creditors : — Held, that the endorse- 
 ments on the policies were goveined by the law 
 of this province. Lee v. Abdy, 17 Q. R. D. 309, 
 followed. Toronto General Tru>itn Co. v. S'cicdl, 
 17 0. R. 4-i2.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Re O'lirkn, 3 0. R. 320, p. 709 ; /fiiijlies 
 V. Ji'i-ei, 5 0. R. (i.')4 ; Lanydou v. Robertson, 13 
 0. R. 4!)7. p. 177. 
 
 2. Proof of. 
 
 Defendants, Toronto merchants, engaged plain- 
 tiffs, Cliieago brokers, to buy and sell grain in 
 Chicago on nuirgin, which the latter did, advanc- 
 ing tlieni money for which they sued. Defen- 
 dants having refused to settle for losses sus- 
 tained :— Hold, reversing the judgment of Pat- 
 terson, >).A., that assuming tho State law to be 
 that if tlio contract was to deal in sucli a way 
 that only the ditt'orences in prices should be 
 settled according to the rise and fall of the mar- 
 ket, and no grain be either delivered or accepted, 
 the contiact would be a gambling contract and 
 illegal, it lay ii])on defendants to establish clearly 
 that such was tho character of the dealing and 
 this defence not having been clearly proved, 
 judgment was given for the plaintiff's, like v. 
 Gmn, 4 0. R. 579.— Q. B. D. 
 
 After judgment, at the trial, but before the 
 argument in banc, tiio defendants put in the 
 report of a case bearing upon the question, de- 
 cided in the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 verified by athdavit:— Held, admissible. Ih. 
 
 Where the opinions of experts on foreign law 
 are confficting, the court will examine for itself 
 the decisions and text books of the foreign 
 
 country, in order to arrive at a satisfactory con- 
 clusion, lb. 
 
 See Re O'Brien, 3 O. R. 32G, p. 709 ; Lanadon 
 V. Robertson, 13 0. R. 497, p. 177. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 
 
 Evidence cf the custom of brokers at Toledo, 
 U. S., the contract being made in Ontario was :— 
 Held to have been i)roperly rejected. Williams 
 V. Corheij, 5 A. R. (i2G. 
 
 Difference between our ins(dvent law as to 
 set-off' and that in England and the United States 
 remarked upon. See Mason v. Macdonuld, 45 
 Q. B. 113. 
 
 Law of Ohio respecting property of married 
 woman. See Lerine v. Glajtin, 31 C. P. 000. 
 
 Law of Michigan as to endorsement on note. 
 See Jenks v. Doran, 5 A. R. 558. 
 
 Defence of foreign action pending. See Direct 
 United Slates Calile Co. (Limiled) v. Dominion 
 Teleijraph Co. of' Canada, 8 A. K. 410. 
 
 Forgery by laws of New Jersey and Pennsyl- 
 vania. See In re Jarrard, 4 O. R. 265; Re 
 Pliipps, 8 A. R. 77. 
 
 Held in this case that failing any information 
 respecting the law in Maine, U. S. , as to grants 
 of administration, it must be assumed to agree 
 with the law in this province. Re O'Brien, 
 3 O. R. 320.— Chy. D. Sec also Lanijdon v. 
 Robertson, 13 0. R. 497. 
 
 FORFEITURE. 
 
 I. Of Covenant— /SVtf Covenant. 
 II. Of Dower- i^ee Dower. 
 in. Of Insurance— &e Insurance. 
 IV. Of Lease — See Landlord and Tenant. 
 V. Of Office— 5ee Municii'al Coki-ora- 
 TioNS— Public Schools. 
 VI. Of Stock— /SVe Company. 
 
 Of condition in a bond and mortgage to carry 
 on a factory in consideration of receiving muni- 
 cipal bonus. See Villai/e of Brussels V. Ronald, 
 4 0. R. 1 ; 11 A. R. 005. 
 
 Of right to land of railway company owing to 
 non-coniplotion of work. See Urand Junction 
 R. IK. Co. V. Midland R. W. Co., 7 A. R. 681. 
 
 Of land by company not soiling within the 
 time limited by their cliarter. See London and 
 Canadian Loan and Ai/ency Co. v. Graham, 16 
 O. R. 329. 
 
 As to the effect, on an annuity granted to a 
 person so long as he should remain the owner and 
 actually occupy certain laml, of the Crown expro- 
 priating part of tho land. See In re Macklem 
 and the Commissioners of the Niagara Falls Park, 
 14 A. R. 20. 
 
 8. M. had become entitled under T. C. S's, 
 will to certain property called ' Clarke Hill." 
 

 M «M* , V. til 
 
 «:« 
 
 Cm« 
 
 IS" 
 
 IS' 
 
 I m 
 
 763 
 
 FRAUD AND MI8BEFBESENTATI0N. 
 
 761 
 
 of which T. C. S. was owner when he died, and 
 also to an undivided interest in certain other 
 property of which T. C. 8. w as tenant in com- 
 mon. He also became entitled to a legacy un- 
 der the following clause of A. II. .S.'s will : " I 
 will and direct that so soon as S. M. * * can 
 and does take actual possession of the real estate 
 and property * * under the will of T. C S. 
 * * my executors * * shall * * so 
 long as lie remains tlie owner and actual occu- 
 pant of the said real estate pay over to him * * 
 the annual sum of $2,000 to enable, etc." : — 
 Held, tliat tills clause, read in connection with 
 the will of T. C. S., rcleired only to the land 
 of which T. C. S., was absolute owner, and not 
 to the land he owned in common :— Held, also, 
 that actual jjossission and occupation of the land 
 by 8. M. was consonant with and satistied by 
 the possession of a servant or caretaker, or even 
 a worker on shares, iind that S. M.'s temporary 
 absence from the mansion house on the property 
 which was kept furnished and in charge of a 
 servant, did not create a forfeiture. Mackiem 
 V. Mackiem, 19 O. R. 482.— IJoyd. 
 
 FORGERY. 
 
 See Criminal Law — Extradition. 
 
 Of bills of exchange and promissory notes. 
 See Moi^er v. Snnrr, 45 Q. B. 4'28 ; Jiynn v. 
 BankofiMoiitnal, 12 O. R. 39; 14 A. R. 533; 
 JHerchinili' Hank of Canada \. McKay, 12 0. H. 
 498; Merchatitn' Bank v. Liimx, 13 "O. R. 520; 
 15 A. R. 573, p. 599 ; Reid v. Jluniphreij, A. 
 R. 403, p. 159. 
 
 Payment by bank on forged endorsement of 
 cheque. Right of the drawer to recover back. 
 See Aiirkullural /iiventmaU Co. v. Ftdtral Bank, 
 45 Q. B. 214; 6 A. R. 195, p. 136. 
 
 New trial when forgery is alleged. See Moser 
 V. Unarr, 45 Q. B. 428. 
 
 FORMER DISCOVERT. 
 
 See Judgment. 
 
 FORMER RECOVERY. 
 
 See Judgment. 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 I. In Sale or Conveyance of Land. 
 
 1. Improvidence, 764. 
 
 2. Undue Influence. 
 
 (a) Parent and Child, 766. 
 
 (b) Other Pemom, 767. 
 
 3. Asa ijronnd of Action or Defence, 769, 
 
 4. Fraudnknt Conveyanccti an Ai/amt 
 
 Crrdilorn—Six Fraudulent Co.v- 
 veyances. 
 
 5. Sales hy Atf.tion — See Auction and 
 
 Auctionker. 
 
 0. Spirljic Performance of Contract — Stt 
 
 Specific I'euformance. 
 
 II. Other Contracts, 778. 
 III. Actions for. 
 
 1. Ei'idence, 782. 
 
 2. DamaijiH, 783. 
 
 3. CW/.S, 784. 
 
 4. Other Caxes, 785. 
 
 IV. Mlscellaneous Cases, 788. 
 
 V. By AcKST—Sre Principal and Agent— 
 Valuatok. 
 
 VI. By Attorney or Solicitor— /See Solici- 
 tor. 
 
 VII. By Promoters of Companies. — 5ce Com- 
 pany. 
 
 VIII. FHAUnULENT AssKiNM F.NTS AND PfiE- 
 
 fekknces— <%»' Hankkuptcy and In- 
 solvency — FuAUDULfcNT Convey- 
 ances. 
 
 IX. Fraud AND Illkoal Consideration in 
 Bills ok Noti.s— .SVc Bills of E.\- 
 cuan(!F. and Phomissorv JSotes. 
 
 FORMS. 
 
 Short Forms Acts— See Deed— Landlord and 
 Tenant — Mortgage, 
 
 General remarks by Boyd, C, on forms pre- 
 scribed by Acts of Parliament. Gemmill v. 
 Garland, 12 O. R. 139. See .V. C, sub nam. 
 Garland v. Gemmill, U S. C. R. 321. 
 
 The question of the authority of schedules to 
 Acts of Parliament iliscusaed. Truax v. Dixon, 
 17 0. R. 366.— Q. B. D. 
 
 FkA DULKNT J r 1 )f 1 M KNT- 
 
 LENT Judgment. 
 
 -See Fraddu- 
 
 XI. In Insurance— See Insurance. 
 
 See Parliamentaby 
 
 XII. In ?]lkciions 
 Eluctions. 
 
 XIII. Following Money — See Following 
 
 Money and Securities — Trusts and 
 Trustees. 
 
 XIV, Fraudulent Depriving op use of 
 
 Property— See Criminal Law. 
 
 XV. Fraudulent Rbmoval of Goods— iS« 
 Criminal Law, 
 
 I, In Sale or Conveyance of Land. 
 1. Improvidence. 
 
 In a suit to set aside a conveyance on the 
 ground of want of consideration, it was alleged 
 that the grantor was bodily and mentally infirm, 
 but the evidence shewed that the only diflference 
 between the grantor and grantee was, that the 
 former was an older man than the other. The 
 crantee, however, had given about the full mar- 
 ket value of the land conveyed, and to secure 
 part of the purchase money, had executed a 
 mortgage thereon. In diRimBBing the bill the 
 
 765 
 
 II ills 
 
765 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 786 
 
 Court, (Fcrfi[U80n, J.) directed the costs of the 
 defeixliiot to be deducted from the amount due 
 under the mortgage, if the costs were not paid 
 within li month, it being alleged that the next 
 friend of tlie plaiutitl' was wortliless. Travis v. 
 Bdl, -19 Cliy. 150. 
 
 Ou August 30th, 1875, the plaintiff, an illite- 
 rate man, over seventy live years old, voluntarily 
 conveyed his farm to the defendants, his sons. 
 On tlie same day the defendants leasecl the farm 
 to tlie plaintiff for the term of his natural life, 
 reserving no rent. On 2.Srd .September, 1875, the 
 plaiiitill leased to D. , one of the defendants, but 
 for the benefit of both, the said farm for the 
 term of his, the plaintiff's life, reserving a rent 
 of SlOO a year, and " the proper board, clotiiing, 
 and lodging " of the plaintiff' " so long as he 
 remains on the premises," and by the same deed 
 transferred to D. all the goods and chattels on 
 the farm. The defendants, thereupon, went into 
 possession of the farm, on which the plaintiff also 
 continued to reside, and before action brou^iht 
 had built a house on it, and made sundry im 
 provenients : — Held, that upon the evidence set 
 out in the case, the grant of 30tli August, 1875, 
 and the lease of 2.'lrd September, 1875, nuist be 
 set aside on grounds of improvidence, and want 
 of proper professional advice : — Held, however, 
 that thiiuyli it appeared that the defendants liad 
 made serious default in regard to the lease of 
 23nl September, 1875, and had been guilty of 
 violence and ill-treatment towards the pl.iintiff, 
 yet tlie above relief could only be granted upon 
 the terms of the defendants being repaid all 
 sums expended in improvements and rep.iirs of 
 a permanent and substantial nature l)y which 
 the pie.seat value of the farm was enhanced, 
 with interest fiom the time these sums were 
 actually disbursed ; also the moneys paid by 
 thcni to keep <lown the interest on a certain 
 mortga^'e, which had existed on the farm evu>- 
 since its niiginal purchase by the ))laintirt', and 
 any iirin 'ipal moneys thereof paid by them ; 
 also of- tlie defendant D. being repaid rents paid 
 to the ])laintirt', and tlie value of such m liiite- 
 nanee as he had given to the plaintiff', but that 
 on the other hand, tlie defendants must be 
 charged with deterioration, to be set off against 
 improvements, and with rents and protits of all 
 kinds received by them, and with an occupation 
 rent, and also with the value of the chattels 
 mcntiiiiied in the lease, and given up to them by 
 the plaintiff'. Shamujnn v. Hhanaijun, 7 O. R. 
 20!).— I'erguson. 
 
 Where a railway company contracted for the 
 purchase of certain land with B. , a married 
 woman, in the absence of her husband : -Held, 
 that the company were under no obligatinn to 
 see ti.at IJ. had independent advice in the mat- 
 ter ; and inasmuch as the price seemed not to 
 be grossly inadequate, and B. appeared to be 
 fully compos mentis, and no unfair advantage 
 having been taken of her, the agreement could 
 not be set aside, liri/ton v. Ontario and Quebec 
 R. W. Co., 8 O. R. 380.— Ferguson. 
 
 If two persons, no matter whether a confiden- 
 tial relationship exists between them or not, 
 stand ill such a relation to each other that one can 
 take an undue advantage of the other, whether 
 byreison of distress, or recklessness, orwildness, 
 or want of care, and when the facts shew that 
 one party has taken undue advantage of the 
 
 other by reason of the circumstances mentioned, 
 a transaction resting upon such unconscionable 
 dealing, will not be allowed to stand :--Held, 
 therefore, in the present case, afRrming the deci- 
 sion of Osier, J. A., it appearing upon the evi- 
 dence in the report, that the plaintiff being over- 
 matched and overreached by the defenilant, with- 
 out informati m and without advice, had made a 
 most improvident exchange of certain real and 
 personal property of bis own for certain real and 
 personal property of the defendant — the plaintifif 
 was entitled to have the triinsaction rescinded ; 
 that the plaintiff's general condition of ignor- 
 ance, his want of skill in business, and his com- 
 parative imbecility of intellect, were sueli as to 
 re<iuire the court to deliver him from the disad- 
 vantages of a transaction which he would not 
 have entered into had he been i)ro|)t'rly advised 
 and protected. IVitlen v. Duitiielli/, U 0. 11. 391. — 
 Chy. D. 
 
 One of the plaintiffs was the owner of a farm 
 valued at about .*!4,50), and being, as was also 
 his wife, old and feeble and incapable of doing 
 nmcli manual labour, and also illiterate, negoti- 
 ated with the defeiiilaiit, the wife's nephew, a 
 young man, with the object of etiecting an ar- 
 rangement for their support and maintenance. 
 The defendant without permitting the husband 
 plaintiff' to olitain iiideiiemlent advice induced 
 him and his wife to execute a deed to defendant, 
 the latter giving them back a life lease. The 
 consideration in the deed was natural luve and 
 atfeotion, .iJl, and the life lease. The habendum 
 and covenants for (piiet enjoyment were made 
 subject to the lea.se and the covenants therein. 
 The annual rental in the lease was §1 with a 
 covenant for (piiet enjoyment, and a special 
 covenant by defendant to support and maintain 
 the plaintiffs, on performanee of which lie was 
 to have the proceeds of the laud. The defen- 
 dant was also to pay §30 in cash yearly, and 
 provide plaintiffs with a horse and vehicle and 
 linuse room. On failure )>y defendant to per- 
 form such provisions plaintiffs were to have the 
 piooee<ls of the land on giving defendant two 
 months' notice in writing, and if the default still 
 ciintinued plaintiffs were to be at liberty to take 
 steps to eject defendant. The deed did not con- 
 tain any power of revocation in ease of defen- 
 dant's default : — Held, under the circumstances, 
 the deed and life lease must be set aside. Ha- 
 garty v. Bateman, 19 O. It. 381.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Hillock v. Button, 29 Chy. 490 ; Oough v. 
 Bench, 6 O. K. 699 ; 
 
 2. Undue Injluence. 
 
 (a) Parent and Child. 
 
 Semble, that the evidence more fully set out in 
 the report of this case, shewed that the transac- 
 tion in this case was one which a court of equity 
 would set aside as having been entered into by the 
 father improvidently, and by reason of undue 
 influence practised upon him by the nlaiutitt'. 
 McKay v. McKay, 31 C. P. 1.— C. P. D. 
 
 A conveyance of land from a man ninety years 
 old to his son was prepared on the instructions 
 of the latter, and recited that the son had agreed 
 to pay his father $10 a month for his life, but no 
 such agreement had in fact been made, and there 
 was no other consideration. The deed was not 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 S*! 
 
 1 
 
787 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPBESENTATION. 
 
 768 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ir 
 
 explained to tlio father, and the golioitor's clork, 
 whu witnessed it, uiiiihl not any that lio iiad even 
 read it over to liini. Tliere was no direct fraud, 
 but the fatlier who had hucotno uhildish was un- 
 der tile iiitluenue of his son and iiad acted without 
 advice : — Hehl, atlirming the decision of tlie 
 court l)elow ('27 (Miy. 507) that tlie deed, iuiving 
 l)eun exeeuti'd witiiout proper advice, hhouKl bo 
 set aside. Lafin v. Lmnn, 7 A. K, 197. 
 
 In an action to restrain waste it was shown 
 that the phiintilT obtained from liis fatlier a deed 
 of tlie premises in ([uestion, the fatlier swearing 
 tliat liu su[)p(ised wlicn executing tiie clneunieiit 
 tliat it was ids will he was making, and thi^ c ii- 
 veyancer who prepared the deed ailmitted in liis 
 evidence tliat he migiit have suggested to the sub- 
 scribing witness to the deed not to talk too much 
 to the old man about the writing, as perhaps he 
 would not sign it ; and the deed as prepared was 
 silent altogetlier as to certain j)roviaioiis and pay- 
 ments tliat were to be made as alleged by the 
 plaintiff. Tlie court reversed the decree pro- 
 nounced by the court below (sub, nom. 1 )unlap c. 
 |)unhip, GO. H. 141), directing the deed to be 
 retormed ; and ordered the bill to bo dismissed, 
 with costs, and the deed to be delivered up to 
 be cancelled. JJiadop v. JJiiulajt, 10 A. 11. 070. 
 
 Tlie defendant had become liable as accom- 
 modation endorser for the husband of one of the 
 plaintiQ's, who, with his wife, became makers of 
 a joint note to defendant as security, and which 
 it was agreed should be paid cut of the proceeds 
 of certain lands that had been previously con- 
 veyed by the husband to bis wife. Instead of 
 doing so, however, the husband sold the lands, 
 and absconded, leaving his wife behind. The 
 defendant, on learning this, went to the wife in 
 a state of excitement, threatened to aid in pro- 
 ceedings criminal as well as civil unless he oli- 
 tained security, and urged her to procure her 
 mother to give security on a piece of land belong- 
 ing to the latter. Ti...j, the mother, after per- 
 suasion by the daughter, agreed to give the de- 
 fendant, advising the plaintitf's legal adviser 
 should not be consulted, and on the evening of 
 the following day, a deed absolute in form, was 
 executed by both the mother and daughter, the 
 latter having dower in the land, in favour of the 
 defendant, who, at the mother's request, gave a 
 separate memorandum of defeazance. There 
 had been no direct communication between the 
 defendant and the mother ; nor were tliere any 
 threats made or undue iutluenee apparent at the 
 time of execution of the deed, both grantors be- 
 ing aware that they were giving security. In 
 an action impeaching this deed as having been 
 obtained by threats and undue influence, the 
 trial Judge (Armour, C. J.) dismissed the action 
 Avitli costs, which judgment was set aside by the 
 Divisional Court of the Common Pleas Division, 
 (15 O. R. 533). On appeal to this court, the 
 judgment of the Common Pleas Division was 
 reversed, and the judgment of the trial Judge 
 restored with costs. Ulieard v. Laird, 15 A. K. 
 339. 
 
 SueShaniKjanv. Shanaf/an, 7 O. R. 209, p. 765; 
 Burn V. Bum, 8 0. IJ. 237. 
 
 (b) Other Persom. 
 
 Where it was shewn that a voluntary deed 
 had been executed without independent advice. 
 
 the grantor standing in such a relation to the 
 grantee, as that ho was likely to bo under her 
 influoi'co, the court (S|)raggo, C.), owing to the 
 peci.-.,ir relationship of the parties, set the con- 
 veyance aside, although no fraud or moral wrong 
 could lie imputed to the grantee ; and idthoiigh 
 it was probable, from all the circumstances of 
 the case, that if the contents and legal ell'cct of 
 the instrument hail been fully explained to tlie 
 grantor by an independent legal adviser, tin; 
 grantor would still have executed the deeil 
 though probably with some moditications in the 
 details. The relief was granted without eustM, 
 however, as no case of actual fraud was est:ili- 
 lishcd:— in this following Lavin v. Lavin, 7 
 A. R. 197. Ini'iii V. Youikj, '-'S Chy. 511. 
 
 The defendant, a grandncphew of tlie plain- 
 till', who was of advanced age and feebli! niiinl, 
 obtained from the latter, a conveyance of certain 
 land, her only pfojierty and means of maiiittii- 
 ance, for a nominal consideration. He veilcilly 
 promised to support her as a consiileiatidii fur 
 the grant. He brought a witness, who w,is a 
 stranger, from a distance, to explain the deed 
 and witness it, though other relatives in the 
 neighbourhood were not consulted. It was ex- 
 plained to her that the defendant couht not he 
 legally bound to maintain her, as he was a niiiuir. 
 The (feed contained no power of revocation : — 
 Held, that the ileed should be cancelled, on the 
 ground that the plaintiff w.as not in a tit state of 
 mind to understand its effect : but indopcnclently 
 of this, that it had been made imiirovi<lently and 
 under undue intluence, and was wholly volun- 
 tary, and therefore could not stand. Witldijidd 
 V. SimoiiK, 1 O. R. 483.— Hagarty. 
 
 Action to set aside a convey.ance obtained frnni 
 an old woman who was deaf and unable to write, 
 (,nd who had no relatives orfrieiiils, by the reeve 
 of the township in which she lived, and who wns 
 well k'.iown as a justice of the peace, and an 
 active, shrewd business man, engaged in ninny 
 enterprises. The plaintiff' wasexaniined, and after 
 giving evidence of the above facts, part of the 
 defendant's depositions in the suit were put in, in 
 which he admitted that she iilaced a good deal of 
 confidence in him ; she, however, having sworn in 
 her evidence that she never placed any depeiul- 
 ence upon him. The jdaintiff's case was closed, 
 and it was contended that the onus was now on 
 the defendant to shew that the transaction was 
 a righteous one. The defendant declined to enll 
 any witnesses, and the plaintiff's action was dis- 
 missed : — Held, on motion for new trial (sus- 
 taining the judgment of Proudfoot, J.), that the 
 onus wa.s not on tlie defendant, and that the 
 plaintiff must prove her case. McEwan v. Milne, 
 5 0. R. ICO.— Chy. D. 
 
 .Semblc, the mere existence of confidence is not 
 enough ; influence must he proved and is not to 
 be presumed from the existence of confidence. 
 Wallis V. Andrews, 10 <Jhy. 637, followed. Ik 
 
 In an action by a vendor for specific perform- 
 ance of a contract for sale of land, at the price 
 of !J24,000, it appeared that less than three weeks 
 before the contract the rendor had obtained ft 
 conveyance of the land from his two sisters, ia 
 which the consideration expressed was §5,000. 
 The sisters were old and infirm, and being un- 
 married lived, and had for a great many yci'.i» 
 lived, with the plaintiff, and were said to be 
 
768 
 
 769 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 W^ 
 
 under hia intlucix^u. The tlufeiidant wan advised i 
 that 8(1 yiuat IV diiruroiieo in tlio iirice rL'(£uirod 
 (,'X|)laiMtioii, iiiid hud nuulu uiideavouru to see the 
 siaters, but had lit-uii rut'imuil access to them, ] 
 and the plaintitt' liad refused to procure them to 
 join ill the conveyaiico to thodefenchmt :— Hehl, . 
 that under these circumstanceH tiie defendant i 
 should be allowed, under llule '2S5 (Con. Itnle 
 WiC), to cxainine tiie two sisters liefore deliver- 
 ing iiis defence, lirowaw I'enrK, 121'. H. 3U6. — ] 
 Dulton, Mauler. 
 
 The execution of the will in this case under 
 the circumstances of tiio testator's a>{o and con- 
 (Uticin, and the absence of tiny exiilanation to 
 him of the etFect of his testamentary act was 
 held to be a frau<l on the part of tliese concerned 
 ill piiicuring its execution. See Frcenutn v. 
 Fmiiia)!, 19 O. R. 141. 
 
 See Kilhotirnv. Arnold, A. 11. 158. 
 
 3. -4.^ rt Ground of Action or Defence. 
 
 Defendant w.s mortgagee of plaintiff's farm, 
 and the latter, being unable to pay tlie mortgage, 
 asked defendant to l)uy the farm, and defendant 
 offereil him therefor some cash and a mortgage 
 for.*(!l!l, representing to him that the mortgage 
 was a seooiul mortgage ; that the liind was as 
 good as defendant's own land, and that any 
 inoiieydender would readily cash it at a small 
 discount, thus inducing plaintiff', an ignorant 
 man, to accept it, wlien in fact the defendant 
 knew it was a fourth mortgage and almost worth- 
 less. After this an abstract of title was shewn 
 to the i)laintirt", but it did not appear that he 
 read it or that it was read or ex|)lained to him. 
 The jury having fonmi for plaintiff in an action 
 for deceit, on motion for a nonsuit : —Hehl, that 
 theve was no obligation on the plaintiff, as a 
 matter of law, to examine the title or search 
 the registry othce, but that his omission to do so 
 was matter for comment only ; and that his liav- 
 ing been furnislied with the means of knowing, 
 of whicii he did not avail himself, after the false 
 statements had been made, was no answer to the 
 action ;—8emble, that on sustaining the verdict 
 a reci)iiveyaui!e of the mortgage to defendant 
 might he ordered. Nothing was .said as to the 
 amount of the prior mortgage, but the jury hav- 
 ing found that the re|)resencation was false to 
 the knowledge of the defendant, and was made 
 with intent to deceive, and did deceive the plain- 
 tiff;— Held, that taking the wiiole statement to- 
 gether tlie verdict was not unwarranted. Burr 
 V. Dottii, 4.1 i.) B. 491.— Q. 15. D. 
 
 Wiiere on the sale or couvey.moe of land the 
 existence of an incumbrance is eonce.aled by the 
 vendor, who covenants against incumbrances ; 
 and the purchaser executes a mortgage to secure 
 & balance of unpaid purchase money, the court 
 will restrain an action to enforce payment of 
 such mortgage brouglit at the instance of the 
 mortgigee — or the voluntary transferee, unless 
 the amount of the incumbrance so concealed is 
 dednoted from the sum secured by such mort- 
 gage. Louelnce v. Harriiitftoii, 27 Chy. 178.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 This principle was applied in a case where the 
 purciiasei- w.is a married woman, and her hus- 
 band hid joined in and executed the mortgage 
 by whicli he covenanted to pay the amount 
 49 
 
 Mecured therol)y, although the covenant against 
 iueumhranees was to the wife an<l not tu the 
 husbaud the covenantor himself, lb. 
 
 W. conveyed to his nejjhow, K. , for an alleged 
 consideration of 81,200, fifty acres of laud, and 
 afterwards these parties applied to the plaintiff 
 the appraiser of a loan company, for a loan of 
 $1,000 to pay, as wasullegeil, upon the purchase 
 money, \\ . asserting that the property was well 
 worth $2,200 easli, or §2,500 on a fair credit. 
 Tlie plaintiff, relying ou the statements of W. 
 ocrtihed the value accordingly and the loan was 
 effected. The laud was not worth the §1,000 
 advanced, and sohl for .?800, leaving a balanco 
 due the company of nearly ijJuOO, which they re- 
 (|uired the [ilaintifl' to pay, and which ho did 
 settle with tiie company for, considering himself 
 li.iblo, and olitained from the com|jany an assign- 
 ment of their securities. Tiie court (I'roudfoot, 
 V.C. ), being satisfied that the whole trans.action 
 was a frauilulent scheme to obtain the loan upon 
 the certificate of the plaintiff, ordered both de- 
 fendants to make good the deficiency, and pay 
 the costs of the suit ; holding that the plaintifl 
 was eutitleil to take an assignment of the claim 
 as against W. to indemnify himself ; that he 
 could sustain this suit though ho had only secur- 
 ed the money without paying it ; that he bad an 
 independent right of suit against \V. for the mis- 
 representation, and that it was unnecessary that; 
 the denial in the answer should be met by more 
 than the plaintiff's own evidence for the defen- 
 dant had been examined, and had furnished suf- 
 ficient ground for discrediting himself. Mohcrly 
 V. lirookf, 27 Chy. 270.— Proud foot. 
 
 The defendant, liust)and of one of several ten- 
 ants in common, being in possession of the joint 
 estate, purchased the same at sherifl's sale, of 
 which fact the co-tenants were aware, but took 
 no steps to impeach tiie transaction until after 
 such a lapse of time as that un<ler the statute the 
 defendant acquired title liy possession. Blake, 
 V. C. , on a bill tiled by the other tenants in com- 
 mon, asking to set aside the sheritf's sale and 
 deed on the ground of fraud and collusion be- 
 tween the defendant and execution creditor, 
 negatived such charges, and dismissed the bill,, 
 with costs. Kennedy v. Balemnn, 27 Chy. 380. 
 
 A married woman, who could neither read nor 
 write, and was possessed of real estate, was asked 
 to join in a conveyance by w.ay of mortgage in 
 order to bar her dower in her husband's land. 
 The mortgagee's solicitor knew that she had ob- 
 jected to mortgage her land, and it was not ex- 
 plained to her or iier husband that, by her join- 
 ing, her estate would be liable in any way. In 
 fact the husband and wife were made joint gran- 
 tors, and jointly covenanted for payment. After 
 the death of the husband, proceedings were in- 
 stituted against his widow to compel payment" 
 by the assignee of the security. The court 
 (Boyd, C. ) under the circumstances, declared the 
 instrument invalid as against the sep.irate estate 
 of the widow, and dismissed the bill with costs. 
 Barrows v. Leavens, 29 Chy. 475. 
 
 The plaintiffs, A. & J. filed a bill for the pur- 
 pose of having a deed made to the <lefendant by 
 J. declared voiil, as having been obtained by 
 fraud and misrepresentation. The bill alleged 
 that J. had subsequently made a deed of thfe 
 same property to A., for the purpose of remedy- 
 
 y ii 
 
771 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 772 
 
 773 
 
 ml ■ 
 
 
 <=; ' 
 
 i* 
 
 :»t ' 
 
 
 Stti : 
 t 
 
 
 «s: 
 
 "■». 
 
 
 •?l 
 
 ""j;. 
 
 
 f-vv ■ 
 
 
 B*"!!'. '• 
 
 
 •-•••V 1 
 
 
 *-•: 1 
 
 
 
 
 -«l; I 
 
 
 .s:r ' 
 
 
 '8ai§; 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 Is 
 
 
 r 
 
 iiiK, ax far iih Ik; cdiiIiI, tint wiDiig Ik^ IiikI doiii! 
 liy (•(iiivf^ing to till! iklVnilaiit, tlic 1)111 allfj^iii;,' 
 tliiit HiU'li ilciil ti) A. wiiH in iclii til liiiii " a« 
 trimtiii: fur tint lirii-i "f A. M.," who lia'l died 
 w.MZtil. TIksIiIII ill no plaiMi allc^^ml tiiat A. wan 
 tniMtiu', liiit ill till! fnlliiwiiig |iaia^'ra|ili it was 
 
 Ht/ltlMl 111 it " lll'foll! till! UXl lUtioii lit Kllcll laMt 
 
 iiuMitiiiiiid cIi'imI till' htiiHof tlic Malil A. M., wlio 
 iiif till! ri;;litliil owiii'is of till! Haiil laiiil," itc. 
 Held, that not with.Mtaiidiii.! thi! ahsi'inti! of any 
 f\|ir(SH allr^;alioii of A. lii'iii),' Miifli tiiintn-, Hiilli- 
 i.'ii'lit was Mtatod t<i hIii:w that In; hail ai'ii'|it(il 
 till! ollii'i! of tiiisti'i!, and as siii'li was i!iitilliMl to 
 litlgili! till! .siiliji'ct iiiatti Tsof till! liiU, and a do 
 iiiuirei' for want of iipiity was oviTiiilod with 
 costH. Ml- Lain v. liiitce, 21) (Jliy. 507. 
 
 A di!iiiiin(!r oi'o ti'iiui for inisjoiinliif of plain- 
 tills, it aiipcaiin;,' liy thn liill that .1. had no 
 inli'icst in the (|iit!>tioii raisi'd was hUuwimI, 
 willi'Mit costs. Kouliu i: ilordaii, 'JO < 'liy. WIW, 
 followed. III. 
 
 'I'hi! defi'iidiiiit and his lirotlii'i' pai'titionud 
 tlli!ii' lands, deleiiilant takiii;; tlli! west half ol 
 a lot, on whioli \\ai an hotel, and the liiothei-, 
 the east half, on wliieli a store was eieeteil. i a h 
 siipposiii;^ that the division line ran liitweeii Mie 
 two liiiildiM;;s. 'I'lii; defendant sold his poi tioii 
 to the pi lintiir, wiio h id lived o[iposite lor many 
 years, tlie land heinj; d. sriil)i!d as the West lialf 
 aeeordin;; to a pi in. The hotel eiieroaihed upon 
 till: e ist li ilf at the re ir end of the liiiililing alioiit 
 thirty-ioiir inelies, the value of the land en- 
 4:ioiicliel upon lieiiij,' very tiilliii;,'. It appeared 
 that the hotel eoiild I) ! moved for aliollt .§-10; and 
 that delendant had oll'ereil to pro(!Ure a lease of 
 the portion eiicroaehid upon at a iioiiiinal rent, 
 wliieli WIS refined. I'he plaiiitill' eharj^iid that 
 the delendant h id falsely and fraudulently re- 
 iiiesented that oiie division line hctweeii the two 
 jots r.in li(!twe(!ii the two liiiildiiij^s, and liroiiglit 
 tin action therefor, priying for a rescission of the 
 sale, for an account of her iiiiprovoniuiits mule, 
 and for ilania'.ies. 'I'lii! deed was drawn after 
 the allcLjed rnisrepres(!Mtatioii .iiid after the plain- 
 till' knew of the eiicroaehnii'iit, and nothing was 
 then said about the liiii!. 'I'liu learned judyi! at 
 the trial found that there w is no false represen- 
 tation, liut lie aild''d defendant's brother as a 
 ji.irtv, and directed him to convey to tlii! plain- 
 tilF the land encroiclu'd upon; -Held, that the 
 action could not ln! maintiiined, for, among other 
 reasons, the ])l,iiiitiir knew of the eiicro.ii;hmeiit 
 when she took the eonveyanee, wdiicli nude no 
 jirovision respect iug it ; .iiid she had so de ilt with 
 the projierty a>' to [ireclude her from claiming a 
 rescission : — Meld, also, that under the cireuni- 
 Btances, more fully st ited in the report of the 
 case, the brother shonlil not have been added ; 
 and the plaintitl', having b.ised lii'r action on the 
 ground of fraud, should not be alloweil to rely 
 upon an entirely dillerent ground. Danlmr v. 
 Mwk, 32 C. r. 195.— C. I'. I). 
 
 The defend mt was assignee of a land warrant 
 issued to a constable of the North- West .Mounted 
 Police Force, for serviie in that body, which en 
 titled him upon its face to locate l(»0 acres upon 
 any of the dominion lands, subject to sale at $1 
 per acre. The deieiidant induced the plaintift 
 to purchase the warrant by representing to him 
 that he would be entitled to obtain from the 
 government 1(50 acres of land. There were laiiils 
 subject to Bale at $1 per acre when tlie warrant 
 
 was isHiied and tliort!after. liy varioiiH statiituii 
 and oriiiirs in council the douiiiiion lands wi:ru 
 made Hiiliiect til sale at higher priee-i than ^fX uvf 
 acre, but tlieMo land warrants were to be aeirpted 
 by the governnieiit in piirt payment ol ,s| |„.|. 
 acre. The pl.iiiitdl' was lefiiseil l.tiids at .'>:| per 
 acre by the (,'rowii, and then lironglit Ihisartina 
 to rescind the sale to him on the ground of tliu 
 misrepresentation. The jury found tli.it defi'ii. 
 dant repri'Ment 'd to pl.tintlll', to induce hiiii to 
 piirehase, that the warrant Would entitle liiiii to 
 IliO acres of lainl ; that the pi diitill piireliascd 
 on the faith of this ; that the ripresinlalioii w;ik 
 false ; and that defendant made it without know- 
 ing whether it was true or falsi', inteinliiig it to 
 be relied upon; -Held, .\l inoiir, .!., diis. iitiiiL', 
 that the plaintiir must fail ; for the ciuistriietjoii 
 of the warrant idearly expres-.eil that the lioiilcT 
 w.is entitled to ItiO .icies ol kind at .^I pir ai'ie, 
 and not simply to a credit of .SjllO on a piireliane 
 and the ri'presentation was sinh as deieiiikiiit 
 might |iroperly in ike. I'er .\i niour, ,1. Ijie re. 
 pre entation that the warra it woiikl (!iitltle tliv 
 |i! dliliir to IliO acres of l.inil eiiiiipieheiided tliu 
 allirmation of fact by the defendant that tlicru 
 were then Dominion lands silbjeet to sale itt ^j 
 per aere, and this not being s.i i lie plain till' sIkumI 
 Miiceecd. Mrh'iir.i)' v. hici/hl, '-' It. l!. Iltili. - 
 q. H. I). ; 11 A. I!. .-ISl. 
 
 The plaintiir, an illiterate iinn, held :i liiiml 
 for a deed of i ertaiii kind on whieli a liikiiue of 
 purchase money was unpaid, and hid aeipiiivila 
 title to till! lainls under the st itute of liniilatiiiilS 
 lint was not .aware of ihe ell'eet ot Ins possession. 
 Till! delellil lilt, who hid pnieliised the iiiti'l't'st 
 of the heirs of the (n'i:;in il (Mviier and veiiijer ami 
 his solicitor, by represi ntliig to the pi diil ilf tlint 
 he hail no title, iiidueed him to accept a lease ul 
 the laud from tlii! defend int for t«o yens, utii 
 noniiiial rent with a coveii mt to yieiil up pisses- 
 sion at tlie end of the term : Ifeld, tiiat, iiiiiler 
 the circilllHtaiiees the lease must be set asiile, 
 but even if allowed to sl.iiid it Would not oon- 
 stitilte ail acknowleilgMieiit snlliejent to displaa' 
 the pkiintill's title, for it-i elleet would only lie 
 to i;reato an estoppel diiiino its continuaiia', 
 Illtlork- V. SiiIImii, '2 O. R. 5t,S. — ('. 1'. I». 
 
 Scnible, per Oder, J., that although the evi- 
 dence in this case shewed tliat there was iin in. 
 tent,ion t i deceive on the part of defeiid.int's 
 manager, still there was such a inisst U.einriit iif 
 a mati'ri.il fact as but for tli' notice received liy 
 plaintiffs through their so|i(!itor would reiidiT 
 the defeiidints liable for the d nil ige siistiinuil 
 thereby. AV'// AVd'e liii-'sliiii:iil Co. v. Metro- 
 /iiililiin /iaildiiiij Sorii'lif. .'{ O. li. 470. 
 
 Action oil a promissory note for iSl.OOO inailc 
 by the defeiidaiit to one .M. The note wis given 
 in payment of the lirst instalment of the iinr- 
 chase money of a share in ii syndicate foiiiitil 
 under an agreement which stated that " We the 
 undersigned hereby eoveiialit, proinise. and agree 
 with each other to form ourselves into a syn- 
 ilicate," to purchase a lot of ;!00 acres of liiml 
 in Manitoba from .M., for .'Jol^OOO. divided intii 
 tifteen shares of §;k.'k'(.'k.'j;> <!ach, to be paiil to 
 the tru.stee of the syndicate ; the i!X])eii»e8of 
 purchasing, advertising, selling, etc , to he borne 
 proportionately by each member according toliis 
 share, appointing M. tru.stee to form the syiiili- 
 cate, and on completion the members were to 
 appoint M., or any other person trustee to carry 
 
772 
 
 773 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 m 
 
 out tho olijoctH of ill'' lyiiiliciito, Tlii! HyiulicNiti: vent niu'i rHuioii in null iiiiil <if no rtfcf-t whon It 
 waHi'iiiii|ili:ttMl,aiiil tliu<l(!f>!riil:uit ii])|iiiiiiti'il tniH- | is tiii! rimiilt cit ilccnit unci i'uri°ii|it jinii'ticcM, ai'- 
 tec, ami a cdiivoyaiii.')! of tlit! laml nmilu to him. ' tilli'cM ami fraud ; i.'l) tli tt nr* A. in tliiN mm', uli- 
 It a|>)>i'ar('il tint M. Iiy I'lauiluliiiitly rupruHintiii^ taimil tlii> HJ^'mituicN nf It, ct al. to tin' cIitcI In 
 
 i|Uistioii liv fiiuiil, tlir latter mIiouIiI not 1m' Imr- 
 (jii'm'd with the iJclitH of Ihcif iii'tolvcnt father. 
 j Ai/oH, V. Iloiichcr, !» H. ('. It. Kid, 
 
 I <1. M., a man of nluiation, utII ai'imaintnl 
 
 with iMinnni Trial JMi^imuM, cxccntnl a lionil to 
 
 pay cfitain huioh of moni'V. i" L'eitain rvcntn to 
 
 I tlh^ MiM'chant.i' liank of ( aniila. I>y an ai,'ri'i'- 
 
 • inent, Itraiin^' even ihitc with Ihi' Imnd, it wuh 
 
 I'i'i'iti'il iiili'i' alia that in ronHidciatinn of a inoit- 
 
 ;;au'e j^ianltMl to the liank hy M. Ilros. it Co., thii 
 
 , lianU liiid a^'ieed to niiike fiiithei' advanecM to .M. 
 
 l!i'o><. Hi Co., joint olili^oi'H with (i, M., and par- 
 
 I ties to the aj,'ii'enienl, and that tiie nglec inent 
 
 ; was executed to weeiire tlu^ hank in eaH(^ Ihero 
 
 I should he any delieieiiey in the .issets of the linn, 
 
 I or in the value of the piopei ty eom|iri.sed i i said 
 
 niortga>;(% and to seeuie the liank tmni nitiinato 
 
 loss. the a^^reeineut eiuilained also a pioviso 
 
 that if the lli'in siionld well and tiuly pay their 
 
 iiidehteilnes.H, then the lionil and ai,'ii'enient 
 
 should heeonie wholly void. In a suit hiought 
 
 upon the said ani'eement a;;ainst (i. M., .'ilh^,'ing 
 
 a deliciency in the assel.s of the firm and iiidelit- 
 
 eduess to the li.mk, (i, .\1, pleaded that tin; 
 
 ai^rc'irient had lieeii executed liy him on repie- 
 
 t(i ilcieudant that thu price he M. paid for tli 
 Imiil wa.s .'?,')(>, ()IM», whureaH it wan only .•<;il,()()0. 
 that it wan wi'il worth .■!?.")( I,(M)0 was snitalile for 
 hciiiL^ laid out for town lots, ami that it <:oulil be 
 riachly M(dd at lar>,'ely remunerative priics, in- 
 ilui'cil thiHicfendant, who resided in 'Toronto, and 
 liail MO knowledL;(^ or means of aci|uirin>{ kimw- 
 leii;,'c, hut rclieil upon the truth of these state- 
 inilils, to enter into tini a;;riM'inent. 'Ihedefeli- 
 iliuit ill i'onse(|ueiice asked to have the ii},'rechient 
 ruHiiiidid ami the note delivered up to he can- 
 iiiHed : Held, that liy reason of the misrepre- 
 siiiitation the dcfeiulant would h.ive lieen cntilled 
 to lii^ leleascd from the contract li.id he Ik'cu 
 solely eoiiecincd, Init that the defendant was 
 net ill a position aloiu; t'l put an end to the aj,'ree- 
 iiieiit, for that the so called symlieali^ was in 
 fiiit a iiaitlicrship, and all tlu; niemhers thereof 
 wcri^ not askiii)^' for its nscission ; ami the d(^ 
 i('ii(lant's remedy must he hy cross action or 
 I'liiintcr-claim for deceit. Mairiscii v. /''.tirlx, U 
 
 0, \{. 4:t»,-c, I'. I). 
 
 Kvideiice not adinissihle to cut down to a niort- 
 ){a);i: an instrumiiiit al>s<dute in form whadi had 
 hei'ii executed for the purpose of securing! a deht 
 
 • to a ^'lai.tee, Imt the main ohject of wliic'h i scuti ti(Mi made to him hy one of his co ohlit^ois 
 
 was to jirotcct the |)ropcrty Iroin the results of 
 unanticipated ••ictionfor hi-cach of contraet. See 
 SUimUll V. TiiikU, (i (). R. (l.'r).--lioyd. i 
 
 .A. who hail a cflaini aj^aiust tin,- insolvent estate i 
 (if Dr. 15,, purchased a ri^ht of redemption Dr. j 
 ]>. had at the tiim^ of his death in a certain piece 
 (if land ; and in order that 15. et al. (the respon- 
 dents, l)r. IJ.'s cliildr(,'ii) who we;e perfectly sol- 
 vcnt, should acc"|it the succession of l>r. 15., A. 
 caused to la^ preparc^d a deed of assignment hy a 
 notary of this right of redemption to li. et al.. 
 wh(i, a few days after the death of tlieir fatliiu', 
 had Ikkmi induced for a sum of .-'."lO to consent to 
 c^L'iuisc thi.s right of I'edemption. The notiiry 
 who piejiared the decid without the know ledge 
 (if I!, et al. returned it to A., telling him that he 
 did not like to receive the deed hcicause he be- 
 lieved that ill signing it I!, etal. made themsidv('s 
 heirs of l>r. 15., ami besides he believed that if 
 R etal. knew that in .signing the d.cd thi-y ae- 
 cepted the sueecssion of tlieir father, and were 
 respoiisihle fur his (lul)ts, they W(Mdd not sign. 
 Another notary residing at a distance was sent 
 forhy A., to whom he gave the deed as pre[i:ir(^(l, 
 and the notary then went to the residence of 15. 
 etal., read the deed to the parties, and without 
 any explanation whatever passed and executed 
 the deed of cession wdioreby 15. et ill. became re- 
 sponsible for the debts of their father. On be- 
 ing informed of the legal etl'eet of their signature, 
 B. et al. formally renounced to the succession of 
 tlieii father. There was also evide.iee that 15. 
 et al. had done some conservatory acts and a(!ts 
 of aJiiiiuistratiou for their mother, but it was 
 not proved that in any of these transactions they 
 had taken the quality of heirs. The amount in 
 dispute was made up by including interest which 
 on the face of the declaration w.is prescribed. 
 The respondents did not demur to this p vrt of 
 
 tliat it w.is to secure the bank agiiust any loss 
 which might arise by icasoii of the refraining 
 from the registration of the mortg.ige, or liy rea- 
 son oi any over v. dilation of the property em- 
 braced in the moilgage, and not otherwise. The 
 bank, tln^ plaintills, nia(l(^ no i'e|ii'esentationH 
 what(^ver tothe defemlaiits; 1 1 eld, a tli ruling the 
 jiidginentof tluMionrt liidow,.")(). K. 122 ( 1 wyiine, 
 .1, dissenting, t hatd. M. was bom id by thiM'Xecu- 
 tion of the documents, and w.is liabh! upon them 
 according to their tenor and ell'ect. Mnjl'iill v. 
 M'ichiiiti'' liiiiik <ii' ('(iiKiilii, 11 S. C. K. 4(!. 
 Leave to aj)peal t,. the I'rivy Council refused. 
 
 In an action on a promissory note, the defen- 
 dant ('ounltir-elaiined, setting u|) that tin,' iiot(! 
 was given in part paymiMit of the pnrcdiase 
 inouey of certain land in Maiiitiba, which thu 
 defend int alleged that ho was induced to jmr- 
 ehaso by plaintill's false representation as to its 
 value and location The jury found tlu; amount 
 due (Ui the note w.is .^L.^iilt), liut th.it the defen- 
 dant was induced to enter into the contract to 
 purchase the land by tlu; plaintill's fraudulent 
 misrepresentations ; and they assessed his daina- 
 g(!s at the above amount ; and juilgmeut was 
 entered in defendant's favour : — Held, on the 
 (evidence, as set out in the report, there would 
 be no rescission of the contract, but defendant 
 must rely on his cl.tiin for damages for deceit ; 
 that the evidence failed to disclose actu.il fraud, 
 at all events the <ndy evidence which could be 
 submitt(!d to the jury was as to location, but 
 while this was too slight to allow the verdict to 
 stand, the court did not feel justified in dispos- 
 ing of the case themselves, tli(nigh perhaps they 
 might do so under O. J. Act, ItuloH'Jl (C(m, Rule 
 75.5). They therefore directed a new trial on the 
 counter-claim, but so that plaintiff's legitimate 
 claim on the note should not be delayecl in the 
 
 the demand, nor was any separate judgment meantime, judgment was directed to be entered 
 rendered iis to it: — Held, (1) that the case was in his f.ivour thereon, (Jarland v. Tlwmpson, 
 •appealable ; (2) that the acceptance of an insol- 9 0. R. 37<J.— C P. D. 
 
775 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 775. 
 
 717 
 
 
 Mi«reijre3eiitatioiis to purchaBcr as to the luml 
 being free from iiicumljraiiccs. isee Cameron v. 
 Carter, 9 O. II. 420. j 
 
 III an action of foreclosure of a certain niort- 1 
 gagi! of lands, the defeni.e set up that the more- ' 
 gage was given to seeuie a l)alance of purehase 
 iiioiiuy lor the land due fioni tiie defend, nt : 
 that the plaintiil' at tlie time of the purchase 
 fal.sely npresented that no one was in posses- 
 uion uf tile land, and tliat she could deliver 
 immediate possi ."sion, which she agreed to do by 
 a certain date, and the defendant was thereby 
 induecil to aci,i p*^ a conveyance (wliich was in 
 the statutory short form), and give tiie inortgnge : 
 that as a matter of fac' tiie land was at the time 
 of such representations ami for a long time after 
 in possession of one L., and the plaintill' was 
 unable to deliver up possession on the said date : 
 that after the expiry of the said date the defen- 
 dant threatened prcjceedings for bieacii of the 
 plaiiititl's agreenie- t, and for tlie said misrepre- 
 sentations, aiid tile plaintill in consideration that 
 lie would forbear the same, agiee<l w ilh iiiin that 
 the times for payment under the mortgage should 
 be postponed for a length of time eijuivaleiit to 
 that during wiiicli he was kept out oi possession, 
 and would pay him any damages sustained by 
 liii', and that he did so forbear, and by virtue of 
 the premises no payment was yet due under the 
 mortgage ; which inatteia of defence being duly 
 proved : --Held, that though the collateral parol 
 agreement to deliver possession by a fi.xed date 
 could not l)e enforced, because it contradicted 
 or addeii to the short form eovcii.'it fordeliveiy 
 of possession in tlie deed of conveyance, yet on 
 account of tiie said misrepresentations and the 
 Buljsequent agreement, the plaintiU's action must 
 be dismissed, and the defendant, liaving counter- 
 claimed for danuigi'S, was entitled to the same, 
 and to a reference to lix tiie amount theieof. 
 Ktayn V. Einard, 10 O. U. .'114.— Ferguson. | 
 
 Fraud l)y mortgagee purchasing through an- , 
 other at mortgage sale. See FauUls v IJurjitr, 
 9 A. R. 537. I 
 
 Tlie plaintill' negotiated with the defoiidants 
 tirithth for the jiurehiise of the lands in (jues- 
 tion, and at dillercnt times ol)t(iined Irom tliem 
 writings giving him the option to purchase for ! 
 $•-'0,000. J)efendants (irifhth .set up that these 
 iiegoliations were had with plaintiB' as their 
 agent with the view of eU'ecting thiongh him a 
 sale to the Independent Order of Odd Fellows 
 at the same or a higher price for the defendants 
 GriHith. After these o])ti<>ns had been given to 
 the plaintiff he, on the loieno(m of the 17th 1 
 February, 1882, agreed to sell to the Odil Fel- ! 
 lows for .'|f'2r),000 ; ami afterwards on tln^ same day , 
 ho went to the defendants (iritiith I'lid otlercd to ; 
 piuchase for .'SI !),">( 10 in lieu of the .S'iO.OOO )ire- j 
 viously named. He was asked by tlu' (iritliths | 
 ■whether the sale to the Odd Fellows was olt, to j 
 which he replied that it was, and in the same 
 conversation informed the (iritfiihs that he could 
 not sell the property for .*;'J(),0 0. as a reason j 
 why he should get it for .•<llt,r)(iO, for if solil to ' 
 another he, plaintiff, would be entitkil to a com- j 
 missiiin of ^500; and the (inflitlis thereupon I 
 agreed to sell to plaintiff for .¥19..')00. Subse- ! 
 quuiitly on the same day plaintilf entered into a 
 contract in writing to sell to the Odd Fellows 
 for ii'io.OOO: — Held, that without n^ferenc" to the 
 question of agency to sell, the uvideuce shewed 
 
 that a sale to the Odd Fellows was in contem- 
 plation of both pa"tie8 and was the foundatiou 
 of the trans.aetioii, and reversing the judgment 
 of I'roudfoot, J. , that the misrepresentation by 
 the plaintill' in regard to the sale to the Odd 
 Fellows, was such as disentitled him to a decree 
 for specilic performance. (Burton, J. A., dis- 
 sentiente. ) Walnisley v. Griffith, 10 A. R. 3l'7. 
 
 The defendant, in January, 1882, bought land 
 in Manitoba from the plaintiff for speculative 
 purposes, paying .^500 in cash, and giving a mort- 
 gage for the balance of the purchase money. 
 Before the conveyances were executed the defen- 
 dant, in answer to inquiries made by him to per- 
 sons on the spot, received unfavourable accounts 
 of the property, which were, however, explained 
 away by the agent of the plaintiff. The defen- 
 dant resisted payment of the mortgage, on « liieh 
 this action was brought, and counter-claimed for 
 a return of the -S'lOO, upon the ground of false 
 representation by the nlaintiff's agent. On the 
 27th .July, 1882, the defendant visited the land 
 and found it worthless, and in the end of August 
 or the beginning of .September, gave notice of his 
 intention to repudiate the contract. Armour, J., 
 who tried the action, without a jury, found that 
 the delendant was imluccd to purchase by false 
 repre: Liitations, but that he had by his delay 
 elected to atKrni the contract. The yueen's liench 
 Divisional Court allirmed the first finding (2 0. 1!. 
 '!")4), but set aside the second and gave judgment 
 in the ilelendaiit's favour. Armour, J., coiiciu- 
 ring in that judgment :— field, that the (piestiiin 
 of false representation was peculiarly one for 
 the jnilge at tiie trial, and that his Hiuliiig 
 should not be disturbed, especially as it was 
 concurred in by the Divisional Ci.nit :--Hold, 
 also, (Burton, J. A., dissenting), that the defen- 
 dant hail not by lapse of time, acquiescence, or 
 delay, lost his right to rescind. I'ci Burton, J..\,, 
 there w;is evidence to justify the finding of 
 Armour, J., that the dcfendjint had made his 
 election, and no sutlieient grounds were shewn 
 for disturbing it ; but as Arnionr, .1., concnripd 
 in the judgment of the Divisional Court, and as 
 the merits of the eas(! did not call for interior- 
 ence. the judgment of the Divisional Court should 
 be atfirmed. J^ee v. MacMahon, 11 A. li. 55.J. 
 
 A party who seeks to set aside a conveyance 
 of laud executed in )iursuance of a contract of 
 sale, for misrepresentation rel.ating to a matter 
 of title, is iiouiul to establish fraud to the same 
 extent and degree us a plaintifl' in an action for 
 deceit. Hell v. Atacklin, lo 8. C. R. 570. 
 
 B. bought land described as " two parcels 
 containing eigliteen acres, more or less," and 
 afterwards brought an action for rescission of liis 
 contract, on the grounds that he believed he wm 
 buying the whole lotoft'cred for sale, being some 
 twenty-five acres, and that the vendor had lalsely 
 represented the land sold as extending to the 
 river front. The evidence on the trial showed 
 that H. had kiii'wledge, before his purchase, that 
 a portion of the lot had been sold :- field, allirni- 
 iiig the judgment of the court below, that even 
 if B. was not fully aware that the portion so sold 
 was that bordering on the river front, the know- 
 ledge he had was sullicieiit to put him on incpiiry 
 as to its situation, aid he could not recover ou 
 the ground of misrepresentation. Jh. 
 
 The plaintiffs, a company formed for the pur- 
 pose of colonizing lau'l'i in the Korth-VVest Ter- 
 
 ing 
 
775. 
 
 777 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 778 
 
 ritDi'ies, represented to defendant, by means of 
 an advertisement issued in a tiaily paper, tliat 
 the Dominion Government iiad agreed to the 
 selection by the company of a " compact clioioe 
 traet of land," in the said territories, " compris- 
 ing 2,000,000 acres, for the purpose of settle- 
 ment, free from the use of intoxicating liquors." 
 The defendant, on tlie faith of tliese representa- 
 tions, desiring to send his son to a place where 
 he would be precluded from the use of intoxica- 
 ting liquors, entered into two agreements with 
 the couipauj', agreeing in each " to purchase and 
 pay for 320 acres of land, in the order of choice 
 from the odd numl)ered sections of our lands as 
 prncuied or to be procured from the Dominion," 
 and paid certain instalments thereon. It was 
 proved that the conipany never had, and could 
 not ot)tain, the choice compact ti'act stated, 
 nor any s|>eeial privileges as to the exclusion of 
 liquors ; — Held, that these were material mis- 
 representations ; and defendant, having heeu 
 iniluced to enter into the agreements tliereliy, 
 was tlicrefore entitled to have them reseimleil, 
 and to recover back the money paid by him. 
 Per Gait, C. J., the agreements were void 
 under the Statute of Frauds, as when they were 
 made the plaintifFs had no lands, and there was 
 nothing in the agreements to shew wliat lands 
 the defendant was entitled to, or the plaintili's 
 were liound to convey : — Held, on appeal, jior 
 Hagart}-, C.J.O., the agreement was void for 
 Hncertaiut3', the land in (piestion not being in 
 any way delineil or ascertained, or capable of 
 being defined or asi'crtained, and at any rate mis- 
 representations justifying recession were proved. 
 Per Burton, U.slcr, and Maclennan, JJ.A., the 
 plaintitrs were unable to give to the defendant 
 tlie right of selection they had agreed to give 
 him, so that the action necessarily failed, and 
 llie defeudaut was entitled to judgment on his 
 counter-claim tlicre being a failure of considera- 
 tion. Per Burton, J. A., the agreement was 
 in itself sulliciently certain, and was not void 
 lor misrepresentation. Per Maclennan, J. A., 
 no misrepresentations justifying a rescission 
 of iLe contract were proved, but the agree- 
 ment was void for vagueness ami uncertainty. 
 Teiiijii.nivce ColoiiLa/ion Cotiip"nii v. Fair/ivUl, 
 16 U. 1!. 544.— C. P. D. ; 17 A. R. •205. 
 
 In an action to set aside a conveyance made 
 Ly the plaintifl' in favour of the defendant, it 
 was charged tliat the conveyance in question was 
 never executed or delivcrecl by tlie piaintill, but 
 that the alleged execution thereof was obtained 
 by the defendant's fraud, and that the plaintill' 
 signed the conveyance thinking that he wis 
 signing another instrument relating to the estate 
 of his deceased wife. There was also a general 
 charge that the conveyance had been obtained 
 by the fraud and undue influence of the defen- 
 dant, hut there were no specific allegations as to 
 the nature of the fraud or umlue iidluence. The 
 statement of defence was a mere general denial 
 of the allegations set out in the statement of 
 claim. At the trial the ]daintifl' tendered evi- 
 dence as to the defendant having induced him to 
 drink to excess about the time of the transaction 
 in question ; as to the plaintiff's want of educa- 
 tion or business capacity and other evidence of 
 that nature, and also evidence as to the posi- 
 tion of the wife's estate and as to transactions 
 between the parties in connection with it, but 
 the learned Judge ruled that this evidence could 
 
 not be introduced under the gtneral allegations 
 contained in the statement of claim, an<l at the 
 end of the case gave judgment in favour of the 
 defendant : — Held, that the exclusion of evidence 
 had been pushed too far, and that for a proper 
 determination of the real merits of the case it 
 would be advisable to admit evidence of every 
 cireunistanee, declaration, or negotiation be- 
 tween tlic parties, which could throw any light 
 on conduct or motive, and they ordered a u-.w 
 trial, costs to abide the final result, eacli j .irty 
 having leave to amend. McDoiudd v. Joliwtuii, 
 10 x\. R. 430. 
 
 See CaimroH v. Cumtioii, 14 O. J>. 501. 
 
 II. Other Conikm ts. 
 
 The plaintiff in 1 873 sold to defenrlant certain 
 tiud)er limits and chattel iimperty lor .•?85,0(iO, 
 payable in eight yearly instalments, with many 
 special terms as to advances to be made by plain- 
 titf to defendant to a.ssist him in getting nut 
 lumber thereon, connnissiou to be paid by defen- 
 dant to plaintit}', etc. Uy deed in 1878, reciting 
 that defendant had been unable to carry out this 
 agreement, it was agreed that in <ipn<ideration of 
 defendant being released from all <)l)ligatioiis to 
 idaiutilf except as sot out in a deed of composi- 
 tion of the same date, the said agreement should 
 be cancelled. Uy the colnl)o^ition deed, between 
 the defendant and his creditois, to which i)lain- 
 t iff was a [Mrty, the creditors agreed to accept 
 25 cents in the .S, on their respective e'aims, which 
 was to l)e paid in part ciut of the proceeds of a 
 raft belonging to ilefendant. then on its way to 
 Quebec, and the balance in tluce years ; and cer- 
 tain lands were assigned as security. To enalde 
 defendant to transport his said timlter to market, 
 the plaintiff agreed to advamc the necessary 
 funds, for whieli ho was tn have a preferential 
 claim on the proceeds. The unpaid balance due 
 by one J., under an agreement made by the 
 plaintiff was to be deducted from the full and not 
 from the reduced amount due to the plaintiff, 
 and in fixing tlie amount due to the plaintifl' 
 $30,000 was to 'le deducted for the retrocession 
 of the limits, which the plaintiff had agreed to 
 sell to delendant by the cancelled agreement. 
 It appeared that the defendant in 1878, repre- 
 senting himself to be un.ible to meet his engage- 
 ments, and to be largely indebted to one E., 
 among others, and owing the ])laintill abuut 
 680,000, had called a meeting ol his creditors, 
 the lesnlt of whiidi was the composition dee<l 
 mentioned and the agreement of the same date 
 with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had taken pos- 
 session of the property so taken back by him, 
 and had received the advances made by him to 
 enable the defendant to get down the raft, and 
 pait of the money due by J. He had never 
 ullered back todefeiidantsuch property or money, 
 nor offered to release the security, and E. . with 
 defenilanys <ither creditors, had been paid in 
 full. Having discovered that there was no such 
 delit as represenleil due by the defendant toE. , 
 the plaintiff sued on his agreement of 1873 ; — 
 Held, (Armcuir, J., dissenting), that the whole 
 transaction evidenced by the two deeds in 1878, 
 must be regarded as one arrangement ; that the 
 plaintiff could not be treated as a creditor who 
 liad received part of his claiai, and been induced 
 by fraud to release the residue ; that he could 
 not repudiate the release for fraud, not being in 
 
 Ml 
 
779 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 780' 
 
 "•Ml 
 
 Us*' t 
 
 .i^img 
 
 ,,j. 
 
 11 position or having offered to repudiate the ' 
 whole arniDgemeut ; iinil that his proper remedy ; 
 was an autiou for the daniiiges caused by defen- 
 dant's deceit. Per Armour, .)., the composition 
 having been ol)taincd by fraud, the plaintiff was 
 entitled to sue for the lialanoeof his debt, credit- 
 ing the agreed price ol tlie property and money 
 receive<l to the defeiulant. /Vfiwr v. MrLeaii, 
 ■Hi i). U. .SO'i.— Q. 13. D. 
 
 S. had been treasurer of a nunicijial corjjora- 
 tion, and a bond which he had given liaving been 
 mislaid, tlie council being under the impression 
 that he had given no security, reiiuired liini to 
 furnish it. The council, having examined his 
 books, concluded that they were in his debt, as 
 the books sliewed, and the reeve believing this 
 was the case represented to the defendant that 
 S., defendant's son, "was all right on the books." 
 Defendant on this signed a bond as surety for 
 the duo i)erformanee by !S. of his duties which he 
 said he would not have done but for the reeve "s 
 statement. The reeve also said that if defendant 
 did not go his surety S. would lose his position. 
 Aftcrwanls, as S. liad been drinking, defendant 
 wrote to the council desiring to have his bond 
 annulled, but he withdrew this letter at the re- 
 (piest of S. After S. had been disndssed, and 
 the deiiciency in his accounts di.scovcreil, defen- 
 dant said he would pay whatever had occurred 
 since he signed the bond. Upon the first trial , 
 no plea of fraud was put in, and a new trial was 
 granted on aliidavits not raising this defence ; 
 but defendant gave notice that he would at the , 
 trial move to add such a plea. 'J'iie liiarned ' 
 judge at tlie trial refused the application, hold- ! 
 ing that the plea could not be supported on this '. 
 evidence, but he found that the bond was given 
 upon the assumption and statement that the trea- 
 surer was not then in arrear : — Held, Hagarty, ' 
 C. J., dissenting, that the plea should have been 
 added, and that defendant was entitled to a vt^r- ! 
 diet upon it. Per Hagarty. C. J., there was no i 
 false statement, and no fraud, and therefore the 
 plea was not sustained. VUlaiic of O'aiiaiioque \ 
 V. Sitiiiden, 1 O. R. 1.— Q. B. L). | 
 
 Where one M. was induced to become a mem- ! 
 ber of a firm, on the faith of representations 
 made to hi'" that the previous losses of the tirin 
 only amounted to S1H,000, but it subsequently 
 turned out that such losses amounted to about 
 .^22,000 or 924,000 :— Held, that M. by reason 
 of such misrepresentation was entitled to be 
 relieved from such agreement, and to be indem- 
 nified by the other m'!nd)ers of the tirm against 
 all liabilities incurred by him as such partner, 
 prior to the discovery of the untruth of the re- 
 presentation made as to the losses of the firm. 
 Merchmifs Haul: v. Thompson, Mol/on v. Crriiij, 
 no. |{. 541. — Boyd. 
 
 Held, that M. having become a partner also 
 on the faith the firm in (luestion intending 
 to form a syndicate arrangement with another 
 firm, which arrangement faded to be carried out 
 for want of the concurrence of some of the mem- 
 bers of such other lirni, he was on that account 
 also entitled to be relieved from his agreement 
 to become a partner, /h. 
 
 A contract induced by fraud is not void but 
 voidable merely at the option of the party affected 
 or prejudiced thei-eby ; and when the party af- 
 fected adopts the contract induced by the fraud, 
 the discovery of a new incident of the fraud does 
 
 not revive the right to repudiate. Tn this caw 
 there being no finding by the jury that the de- 
 tendant had knowledge of, and had waived the 
 fraud, a new trial was directed. Wallnn v 
 Simp-oii, t>0. Pv. 21.3.— C. P. IJ. 
 
 The defendant, at the instance of F., the pliiiii- 
 tiff's manager, endorsed the note of C, to sccuie 
 an advance to the latter on grain. It was rcpii- 
 sented to defendant by F. that the giving of his 
 name was a mere formal matter : that oidy 7,") 
 per cent, of the value of the grain would be ail 
 vanccd : that warehouse receipts would be takei., 
 and tliat he (F. ) would from time to tini',, see 
 that the grain was in store, and wouhl hold it in 
 security for the money advanced, crediting tlie 
 ))roceeds of any sales uiion the note in (|uesti(iii. 
 The defendant was subsequently induced, by the 
 representation of F,, as the jury found, that it 
 would not alter his position, to sign a guaranty 
 under seal, which, though not intended, ns !•'. 
 stated, to vary the defendants" original liability, 
 as a matter of fact did so, by permitting tlie 
 plaintiffs to release or abandon their security 
 upon the grain, upon the faith of which defon- 
 tlant became liable as endorser : — Held, that the 
 guaranty was void as against the defendant ; and 
 that it was not necessary to prove that the liaiik 
 manager knew, when he made it, that his rejire- 
 sentation was false ; nor was it an answer that 
 the defendant could have examined the deed fur 
 himself, as he was ei'titled to rely upon the re- 
 ])resentation of the bank's agent. Molton-i Jlaiik 
 v. Tiir/c;/, 8 (). R. 2'J3.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 Amongst other defences, in iin action on a cove- 
 nant to pay contained i ! a chattel mortg.age, the 
 defendant set up that the mortgage in (piestion 
 was given for the piirpose of defeating and delay- 
 ing creditors of tlie mortgagor, and that the 
 IilaintiQ' (the mortgagee) was aware of that at the 
 time, and aided and abetted the defendant, and 
 that l)y reason thereof the mortgage was void 
 and the covenant could not be enforced against 
 defendant :- Held, that even if the defence was 
 proved, the defendant, being a party to tlie 
 frartd, should not be allowed to set it up us an 
 answer to his liability on the covenant. .1/i7/i- 
 can V. Jimrlon, S O. R. 50.S.-Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintitV sued ur^a a, foreign judgnieiit, 
 which he had o'^t o^ jd against the defendant 
 upon a covenant b^ <e defendant to indeniiiify 
 him against a iiiortj^ ,e made by the plaintiff to 
 one <T.. who had foi -closed the mortgage and 
 afterwards obtained juugment against the plain- 
 tiff on the covenant : — Hehl, that the effect of 
 (!. suing on the covenant in the mortgage after 
 foreclosure was to open the foreclosure, and an 
 allegation that the plaintiQ' had improperly con- 
 cealed the fact of the foreclosure from the foreign 
 court was no defence to this action : —Held, also, 
 that an allegation that G. had agreed to take 
 the land in full satisfaction of his debt showed 
 no defence, but a mere verbal agreement with- 
 out consideration: — Held, also, that an allegation 
 that the plaintiff had sustained no damage hy 
 
 ' the judgment and execution against liim, and 
 that the writs of fi. fa. against him were retained 
 in the sheriff's hands under a fraudulent a;jrce- 
 ment between G. .and the plaintilT, in order to 
 
 ' sustain the proceedings against the defendant, 
 showed no fraud, and was no answer to tlicM- 
 tion. Per Wilson, .C.J., the defendant was not 
 
 I at liberty to set up in answer to this action mat- 
 
780' 
 
 781 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 782 
 
 tcrs which could have been pleaded in the origi- 
 nal cauau. Faislei/ v. liroitdy, 11 I'. 1!. "202.— 
 Wilson— C. P. U. 
 
 The defendant agreed to become security with 
 McG. for McH. to the plaintirts. Plaintiffs' boH- 
 citoi' se.it two bonda to tlieir agont for execution, 
 ono by defendant, tlie otlier l>y Mc( J. Tiie agent 
 attoniled defendant to j;et lii.s l)ond exeeute<l, 
 an<l in answer to a remark of defendants (made 
 lielore he signed the l)ond), that Mclf. iiad 
 promised to sign a l)ond too, told him tliat a 
 Imiiil had l)een sent up to be signed l)v Mc(!. 
 Defendant then signed tlie l)ond, b\it McfJ. sub- 
 sequently refused to sign liis. 'I'iie jury found 
 tiiat a statement was made leading defendant 
 tn suppose that tlic liond executoil was eoudi- 
 tional upon the execution of the proposed bond 
 from Mc<i., and that its execution was obtained 
 bya false, altiiongh unintentionally so, rej)resen- 
 tiition : — Held, (aliirming the judgment of C)'("on- 
 nnr, .J.), that the plaintifl's could not recover. 
 Toronto lireiniKi iiinl Malliini Co. v. flrni/, ]'.i 
 0. It. (!-t.— Chy.' I). 
 
 r. 1'. niiu'tgaged certain lands to J. JI. as secu- 
 rity for .S'i, 100 and interest, who left the mort- 
 gage with I',, (i. I'., ;i solicitor, for safe kee()ing. 
 Afterwards K. K., a client of K. (!. I'., sold liis 
 farui to his own son for 81,700, who, through 
 E. (i. 1'., procured the advance of the purchase 
 money from a loan company on mortgage, and the 
 money being transmitted to K. (!. 1'., the latter 
 retained it, and handed to K. K. as security for it 
 what jnu'ported to Ix- an assigiunenl of the mort- 
 jiiigefrom 1'. I', to.l H., executed by J. H., which 
 K. K. registered. .1. H. now brought this action, 
 denying the validity of the said assignment, and 
 claiming the removal of it as a cloud upon her 
 title, an<l for payment of the mortgage by P. P.. 
 (ir on delault a sale of the land. K. K. set U]) the 
 defence of a bona tide purchase by him of the 
 said mortgage without notice : — Hehl, thatinaa- 
 nuieh as it ajjpeared that J. H. executed the as- 
 siuinnent upon a misrejiresentation of its nature, 
 character, and contents, ludieving it only to pro- 
 vide for an extension of the term of payment of 
 the mortgage held by her, the assignmeut was 
 void, even in the hands of an innoecnit hohler 
 and slumld be eancelled. There l)eing no trans- 
 mission of estate legal or otherwise, there was 
 no basis on which to fouml a defence of purchase 
 for value: — Held, also, that under the circum- 
 stances, the transfer of the mortgage to K. K. 
 was not carried out in such a way as to make 
 liini a jinrchaser for value of it. inasmuch as K. 
 K. who <lealt solely with K. (J. P. in the matter, 
 knew he was p.aying no money which could pos- 
 sihiy go to satisfy .J. II., but was taking the 
 assignment as security for the money due from 
 his son to him, and therefore had no reason to 
 trust to any statement in the assignment that J. 
 H. had been p.aid her mortgage money, and was 
 notjnstilied in accepting tiie nssigmnent with- 
 out the privity of J. H. ; and therefore on this 
 ground .1. H. was entitled to relief by way of 
 Ren for the mortgage money. Doctrine of ex 
 parte Swinbanks, 1 1 Chy. D. o'i."), applied. 
 Hrrrhmer v. Ei/iolt, 14 O. K. 714.— Boyd. 
 
 Aasigmnent for the benefit of creditors ob- 
 tained by duress and improper use of the crimi- 
 nal process. .See Sliotey v. Jones, 15 S. C. R. 398. 
 
 The plaintiff with the intention of parting 
 with the possession and property in certai.i Hour 
 
 made an absolute sale of same, o)i apparently 
 short terncs of credit, to defendant, who with- 
 held from jdaintitl' his intenticm to pay for the 
 flour by setting up a claim he had ac(juircd 
 against the plaiutili';— Held, that this dnl not 
 constitute a fraud on the defendant's part so as 
 to entitle the plaintiff to disaflirin the contract 
 and I'eplevy the ilcmr. /Sakcrv. Fishm; 1!)0. It. 
 GoO.— C, P. L). 
 
 See /I'oi/o'.s- V. Ulluwiiii, 27 Chy. 1.S7 ; Beaiixule'd 
 V. Xormiiiiil, 9 ,S. V. If. 711, p. 12.") ; Star Kidin'n 
 /'(III Compitiii/ V. li'rieiiivooil, fiO. 11. 28, p. 170 ; 
 Moffiill V. Merchants' Hank vf Cduudii, 1 1 S. C. 
 R. -10, p. 774. 
 
 HI. AcTioN.s Fon. 
 
 1. Evidence. 
 
 j In an action on a bond against two sureties, 
 the defendant It. set up the defence and gave 
 I evidence that his signature to the bond had been 
 : obtained by fraud. The evidence of his co-de- 
 fendant, C, was tendered for the purpose of 
 I shewing that C's signature to the lumd had also 
 ; been so obtained, which was rejected as inad- 
 \ missible : — Held, that the evidence of C was 
 I admissible as shewing a fraud practised on him, 
 with respect to the same instrninent by the same 
 person, and at or about the same time as the 
 alleged fraud on It., and because it was confir- 
 matory of R."s evidence; and a new trial was 
 ordered. Per Armour, J., when a material fact 
 , is a'hged in a pleading, and the pleading of the 
 i opposite party is silent with respect thereto the 
 ' fact nnist be considered as in issue ; therefore it 
 ■ was competent for (!. to deny the execution of 
 the bond, his pleading not expressly ailmitting 
 it. Wattrloo Mntual Ins. Co. v. Hohinson, 4 O. 
 I R. 295.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The bill alleged that the defendant assisted in 
 j the fraud by which the plaintiff was induced to 
 I convey certain land to her husband, the other 
 i defenciant. He answered the bill, denying all 
 charges of fraud, disclaiming .all interest in the 
 ' subject matter of the suit, and asking for her 
 costs:— Held, that it was competent for the 
 j plaintiff on cross-examining the defendant on 
 her a'lswer, .and disclaimer to establish, if pos- 
 sible, the fraud out of her own mouth. McFar- 
 
 I land V. Mr.tnrlaud, 9 P. R. 73.— Boyd. 
 
 I 
 
 j In this action the plaintiff, in her statement of 
 
 i claim, charged her brother the defendant \). M. 
 
 I Mel)., with inducing her father to make a will 
 in her mother's favour, with the fraudulent de- 
 sign on the part of I). M. McD. of obtaining the 
 whole estate for himself, and charged that her 
 father was induced to make the will by frau- 
 
 '. dulent misrepresentations, and that after her 
 father's death, 1). M. Mel), obtained from her 
 
 i mother a power of attorney to manage the estate, 
 and invested large sums in the purchase of pro- 
 
 ' perty in his own name and that of his wife, and 
 
 ! prayed to have the will set aside. D. M. Mel)., 
 in his examination for discovery before the trial, 
 admitted receiving the power of attorney from 
 his mother after his father's death, and dealing 
 with the estate under it, but lenied having used 
 any portion of the est.ate for his own purposes : — 
 Held, that although what took place after the 
 father's ileath was no proof of the fraudulent de- 
 sign, it might throw light upon it ; and although 
 
ma 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 784 
 
 SSI' I;:j» 
 
 
 the plaint-iT was entitled to know generally what 
 dealings the defendant D. M. MeU. liad with 
 the estate, and to interi'()<,'ato D. M. McU. njjon 
 his examinatiiin before the trial, as to wlietlicr 
 he had invested all the moneys of the estate in 
 liis own or Ids wife's name, yet a general inquiry 
 as to his dealings with eacli part and parcel of 
 the estate, or as to wliat (iroperty came into his 
 hands under the power of attorney, should not 
 be ))erniitted. Maidruior \. McDonald, 11 P. 
 R. ;18(>.— C. P. I). 
 
 The defendant 1). M. Mel), claimed privilege 
 for certain doounients in iiis ))ossession, asisert- 
 iiig that he held tiieni merely as solicitor for liia 
 mother and co-deleiidant. F. McI). No oriler 
 to j)roihu-c had at the time of tlie ai)plieati(in 
 been takc'n out as against V. Mel)., nor had slic 
 been served with notice of the application: — 
 Held, that D. M. McD. should not have Iiccti 
 ordered to Jiroduce these documents witliout K. 
 Mcl). lieing called upon to shew cause wliy they 
 should not be produced. //'. 
 
 In an action for damages for falsely and mali- 
 ciously and without rcasonal)lc and )irob.vble 
 cause im^ferring a charge of ])erjurv, and also a 
 charge of obtaining a valuable .security by falsi; 
 pretences, the defence averred that tiie pjaintitl' 
 and one J. conspired t.ogetlier to obtain two pro- 
 missory notes from the clefendant by false ))re- 
 tences ; that tlie plaintiff first visited the defen- 
 dant, and by fraud and faNehoed induced him 
 to enter into a contract to purchase certain hay- 
 forks, and that J. fnUowed liim in course of time, 
 in pnrsuaneo of their fi'audident scheme, and by 
 fraud and falsehood and false pretences (pl)taiiied 
 the notes :— Held, that upon examination of the 
 plaintili' for discovery the defendant should be 
 permitted to inquire into the dealings between 
 the plaintiff and .J., fully and freely to ascertain 
 wliether J. and the plaintiff ^vere acting in con- 
 cert, and whether any false jiretence made by .1. 
 was in fact a false pretence by the plaintid'. and 
 for this purpose might investigate all sales of 
 forks made by the plaintiff or J., or either of 
 them, under any agreement or arrangement, and 
 the history of all notes receiveil in carrying out 
 such sales, and of all entries in the plaintiU's 
 bill books, and all other books relating to such 
 transactions. Colter v. McPhcrxon, 12 P. P. 
 630.— Rose. 
 
 2. Daniagfx. 
 
 By a covenant in a lease of a farm from defen- 
 dant to the plaintiff, it was provided that upon 
 receiving six months' notice from the lessor that 
 he had s(dd the farm, and ni)on receiving com- 
 pensation for all labour up to the date of the 
 notice, from which he had derived no return, 
 the lessee would deliver up possession at the end 
 of six months, the compensation being duly paid. 
 Defendant served the plaintiff' with a notice that 
 he had sold the farm, in consequence of which 
 the plaintiff desisted from putting in crops, and 
 other work for which he had made preparation, 
 and rented another farm. Upon ascertaining 
 that the notice was untrue, the plaintiff refused 
 to give up possession, and sued the defendant for 
 false representation : — Held, reversing the judg 
 ment of the Queen's Bench (-15 Q. B. 94), that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to recover the damages 
 sustained by him in consequence of the notice. 
 Cowling v. Dkkmn, 5 A. R. 549. 
 
 Measure of damages in an action of deceit on 
 the part of the defendants, owners of a line of 
 steamers, as to certain contracts alleged by them 
 to be lield in connection with their line of steam- 
 ers, whereby the jdaintiffs, owners of another 
 line of steamers, alleged that they were imluceil 
 to enter into an agreement with the defcmlanta 
 for the anialgamati<in of the two hues, and tlio 
 formation in connection with the defendants ef 
 a joint stock company to own and run the same. 
 See IScallij v. Nidoii, 12 A. R. 50. 
 
 See (Inrlaiid v. T/iomjimii, O. 1!. 37<), p. 774. 
 
 3. Co-sls. 
 
 On a bill Hied by W. against T. and his sister, 
 charging them with conspiracy, and inipoiKhiiii; 
 a deed on the ground of fraud and undiu in- 
 fluence, the court (.Spragge, C.,) although satis- 
 tied that no fraud or undue inlluence had hceu 
 practised im the grantor, set aside the (Iced m 
 the same had been i!xecuted without proper ad- 
 vice, but refused the i)laintiff costs in eonse- 
 qucuce of tin; unfoiin<bMl charges of fraud enn- 
 tainiid in tin; l)ill : and as against the female 
 defendant dismissed the bill, with costs; the 
 fact that the court was of o)>inion that if the 
 fidlest explamitions had been given to the father 
 of the nature and effect of his deed he wmdil 
 still have executed it, making no difference in 
 that respect as to what was required on the part 
 (vf a voluntary gr.antee, which T. in effect was. 
 I.nnii V. I.(irh>,'2~ Cliy. r)()7 ; 7 A. I!. 197. Fol- 
 lowed in Iririii r. Yoitiiii, 28 t'hy. .")ll. 
 
 The mortg.igee at whose instance the sale in 
 this ca.se had been eil'ected having been made a 
 defendant to the l)ill and charges made of his 
 havim; combined with the agent to (ielraiid the 
 principal, all ot which were neg.atived, the hill 
 as against him, was dismis.sed with costs. 
 Thmiipsiiii v. Ilobnan, 28 Chy. Ho. — Spragge. 
 
 In a suit to set aside a ciiuveyance on the ground 
 of want of consideration, it was alleged that the 
 grantor was bodily and mentally infirm, but the 
 evidence shewed that the only difference between 
 the grantor and grantee was, that the former was 
 an older man than the other. The (grantee, how- 
 ever, had given aliout the full market value of 
 the land conveyed, and to secure pait of the pur- 
 cha.se money had executed a mortgage thereon. 
 In dismissing the bill, the court (Ferguson. J.) 
 directe<l the costs of the defendant to be deduct- 
 ed from the amount due under the mortgage, if 
 the costs were not paid within a month, it bi;iii)/ 
 alleged tluit the next frii;nd of the phuntiif was 
 worthless. Trnvin v. Jii II, 2{) Chy. 150. 
 
 Fraud having been charged against a defen- 
 dant who was a .solicitor, and the charge bein^ 
 wholly uusu|)ported : — Scinblo, that it would 
 have been proper not merely to deprive the plain- 
 tiff of her costs tint to allow such clefendant all 
 his coats. Freed v. Oir, 6 A. R. 690. 
 
 The defendants were the same in all three 
 .actions. The actions were brought against the 
 defendants other than the eomi)auy as wrong- 
 doers. They were sued for an alleged conspiracy 
 to defraud, which it was alleged they carried into 
 effect by defrauding the plaintiffs respectively. 
 The defendant ^IcLean defended, meeting tlio 
 charge directly. The other defendants did tha 
 
785 
 
 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 788 
 
 same, but tliey further said that they obtained 
 vbeir informntion from McLean, and that they 
 believed it to be true, and believed that the state- 
 ment made by them and McLean, which was the 
 foundation of the actions, was trne:— Held, that 
 the taxing ofhcer was right in allowing two bills 
 of costs, one to the defendant Mel -can and one 
 to the other defendants. Pi'trie y. Gnelpli Luiii- 
 her Co., ami two Other Cam.i, 10 P. 1!. 000.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 4. Olhtr Cctit's. 
 
 The inchoate right of dower at law, obtained 
 by a wife in land conveyed to her husband, 
 niidses her a projjer party defendant to a suit tu 
 sot aside a conveyance, procured by fraud, by 
 herself and her husband. McFarlaml v. McFar- 
 /,(«(/, 9 P. R. 73.— Boyd. 
 
 There must be a wilful and fraudulent .state- 
 ment of that which is false to maintain an action 
 of deceit, and the luw still distinguisljes between 
 legal and nu)ral frauil in this respect. P'trif. v. 
 Giitljili Lvmbe.r Co., and two Otiirr rVoicv, '2 0. H. 
 •JIS.— Chy. 1>. 
 
 Action against personal representatives of de- 
 ceased person wlio is charged with fraud. See 
 Ihunitloii /'rorkhitt and Loan 'Sucitly v. ('oriiell, 
 4 0. It. 023. 
 
 Per .•\rniour, .1. , whore a buyer seeks to recover 
 ilnmages by an action for deceit against the .sel- 
 ler of any property by reason of any false repre- 
 si.'nt;itions made; by such seller upon the sale to 
 him of such property, it is not necessary fur him 
 ill order to maintain such action to return or 
 offer to return the property so sold, and in res- 
 I :ot of which such representation was made. It 
 is only necessary to do so when the buyer <lis- 
 ii .firms and seeks to rescind the sale ,is being 
 .iltoijethcr void by reason of the false represen- 
 tation, and to recover back the consideration he 
 has paid or given for the property. Star Kidivij 
 Pad Co. V. dreiHVoml, 5 O. K. 28. 
 
 (i. obtained a loan of ?!.3,70() tlirougii R. from 
 the plaintifls, upon the security of 2l'0 acres of 
 huiil, by falsely representing that R. had pur- 
 chased the 220 acres from \V. lor S7,")00, an<l 
 had ])aid .S4,000 cash, and wanted the loan to 
 pay tlie balance with, and on the receii)t of the 
 loan paid W. the .«;3,000, which was the total 
 purchase money ff)r the 220 acres ; and another 
 parcel of aVjout 50 acres, and was the full value 
 of both parcels. (1. got the conveyance from \V. 
 c' )oth parcels, and conveyed the 220 acres to 
 P.. to carry out the scheme, and retained the 50 
 acres himself. In an action by the plaintiffs it 
 was ;— Held, that on the conveyance ul the 50 
 acres being executed to CJ., the land innneiliately 
 hecauie the property in equity of the |)laintiffs. 
 That the land was not subject to the claims of 
 certain execution creditors of U. , whose li. fas. 
 were in the sheriff's haiuls. ]5ut that a moi-tgage 
 on the 50 acres, made by S., who had no title, 
 could not be ordered to ))e removed by the incu't- 
 gagee (although the mortgage money was paid), 
 «8 the mortgagee was no party to the action. 
 Hamilton Provilenl and Loan Suciidy v. Gilhert, 
 6 0. |{. 434.— Ferguson. 
 
 Action to recover from defendant a sum of 
 money paid him in Hcttlcment of a loss by fire on 
 a stock of goods, by reason, as wos urged, of a 
 
 50 
 
 misrepresentation as to the value of such stock 
 
 at a date prior to the fire. The statement of 
 
 claim alleged that defendant had falsely and 
 
 fraudulently represented his net loss to be the 
 
 amount so paid, whereby the plaintiffs were 
 
 induced to p ty the same ; and that defendant 
 
 falsely and fraudulently represented that at the 
 
 date prior to the lire his stock on hand was of a 
 
 certain value, whereas it was of a much leas 
 
 value ; anil that it was on the basis of such value 
 
 that the calculation was made as to the amount 
 
 of such net loss ; also setting up the statutory 
 
 conditions whereby, as alleged, the claim was 
 
 vitiated for fraud and false swearing as to the 
 
 amount of tiie loss . —Held, on the issue as raised, 
 
 the plaintiffs must fail, for the issue was as to 
 
 : tlie amount of the net loss which the evidence 
 
 , sheweil had been misrepresented ; and also that 
 
 . there would be no recovery on the record as 
 
 I framed, lor — plaintiffs having acccpteil a svirren- 
 
 der of tlie policy — tliey had not otl'cred to, and 
 
 jiossilily could not, jilacedel'ciulant in his original 
 
 ^ position ; that no anieiidmeiit would avail, for to 
 
 maintain an action of deceit not only must there 
 
 I be inisrepreseiitation, but it must be to the dain- 
 
 j age of the plaintiffs, which the evidence failed 
 
 to shew ; that the statutory conditions could 
 
 hardly be invoked, foi- no proofs of loss had been 
 
 recpiired ; but, even if invoked, they would afford 
 
 '. no defence, as there was no misrepresentation as 
 
 ' to tlie amount of loss ; — Hel 1, also, that the mis- 
 
 , representation, even as urged, was immaterial, 
 
 I for it being as to the value of the stock at the 
 
 ! named date, the fact of its causing an erroneous 
 
 c.ilculation upon which the amount of the loss 
 
 i was based, would make no difference so ioug as it 
 
 was shewn that the loss itself was within the true 
 
 amount ; and also the plaintiffs were estopped 
 
 from setting it up, as the evidence shewed that 
 
 they dill not rely upon it. but on the knowledge 
 
 acijuireil and independent information obtained 
 
 : by the plaintiffs' agent in the course of his inves- 
 
 ! tigation : — Senible, that on the evidence there 
 
 was no misrepresentation at all. Ituyal Ins. Co. 
 
 V. Bj/er.1, <J (>. R. 120.— C. I". U. 
 
 To sustain an action for deceit actual fraud 
 must be proved, which is to be judged of I'.; the 
 nature and character of the representations made, 
 considered with reference to the object for which 
 they were made, the knowledge or means of 
 knowledge of the person making them, and the 
 intention which the law fully imputes to produce 
 those conseijucnces which are the natural result 
 of his acts ; and it must also be establislieil that 
 such fraud was the inducing cause to tlie loii- 
 tract, and must have piodueed in the mind of the 
 person alleged to be defrauded an erroneous belief 
 inllueiiciiw his conduct. See Garland v. Thump- 
 son, 9 0. R. 376. 
 
 The defendant delivered a piano to the plaintifif 
 on a " hire contr.ict," the price being stated to 
 be .S500, payable by crediting §100 on an old 
 piano taken in exchange, and the balance of $4(J0 
 i)V monthly instalments, the plaintiff giving a 
 note for the §41)0. payable by like instalments. 
 The contract stated that the defendant did 
 " neither part with said piano,'' nor did the 
 plaintiff "acquire any title " to it until the note 
 was fully paid. Certain instalments fell due ami 
 payment was enforced, and there were instal- 
 ments in arrear when action was brought. The 
 plaintiff sued for fraudulent misrepresentatioua, 
 
787 
 
 FRAUD AND MISBEPRESENTATION. 
 
 788 
 
 I lit* 
 
 
 
 and for general damages for 1)reach of implied 
 warranties ; the alleged misrepresentations or 
 warranties being that the piano was wortli ^iiOO ; 
 that it was a Hrst-elass instrument, and as good 
 as any Steinway or (,'liickering piano. The jury 
 fonnd for the i)laintitr, witii damages; — Held, 
 that the plaintill' could notsuueeed as to the false 
 representation, for tlie evidence sliewcd that 
 after sh • discovered tlio piano was not as repre- 
 sented, siie did not disathrm the contract, or 
 ilVer to return the jjiano, hut treated the con- 
 t as subsisting ; nor eouhl she recover in an 
 .i;( '111 for deceit, for slie failed to sliew that the 
 ■'iU: .int did not believe the statements made 
 i,u )>u true, or that they were made recklessly ; 
 and also n i damages were siiewn ; and — Senible, 
 the statements were sucii as are properly styled 
 simple CI inmctidation : — Held, also, tliat as the 
 pi . . ir'rty ' it j)".ssed, an action for the breacli 
 
 of v>ari;'ii(-y ivouM , ot lie. Fn/c \. MUliiian, 10 
 
 o. K. ooa— c. v. i>. 
 
 L. F. D. being the owner of certain valuable 
 property, mortgaged it for S700, became of un- 
 sound mind and ^^■as confined in an asylum. 
 During his eonfiuenient M. A. I)., his second 
 wife, procured S., the holder of the mortgage, 
 to sell under the power of sale, and tiie property 
 was sold for SIMM) to K. K., sister of M. A. I). 
 Two years after K. K. sold tlie property to M. 
 K. |{. f(U' Sr),(K)0, and a mortgage for $4,000 un- 
 paid purcliase money was taken to M. A. I). In 
 an action by L. K. 1)., by L. 1). his next friend, 
 to set aside the sale or for an account, it was : — 
 Held, on the evidence, that the property was 
 sold at a great undervalue under the power of 
 sale, and that K. K. was the agent of M. A. 1)., 
 but that as M. E. H. was a purchaser for value 
 without notice, the sale must stand, but an ac- 
 count of the proceeils was ordered against M. A. 
 i). Du/ivDiie V. Diifrcm'', 10 O. R. 7":i.— Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 Deposit made in bank which contemplated 
 su.spension, and did not o\wu again after the 
 day on wiiieh the deposit was nuide. —Recovery 
 back ot the money. See I'c T/ir Ciiilra' Hank 
 of Canada a)id I he iriiidiiKi up Act, R. S. C. c. 
 1,20; WclU lO MacMnrch'ifs cii.si', 15 U. 1!. 611. 
 
 An action for deceit will lie against a corpora- 
 tion. Moore, v. Ontario lurcxtmiiil Annociation, 
 16 O. R. '26!).— Robertson. 
 
 Demurrer to a statement of claim for damages 
 .against a company, wherein it was alleged that 
 the plaintiff was induced by fraudulent state- 
 ments in the annual re])orts of the c(>m]iany, 
 and in letters written to him by the President 
 to purchase stock practically from the company, 
 which stock was valueless, ov' nled with cost.s. 
 
 Semble, that if tiie plaintifl' had been in<luced 
 to buy the stock from a private holder by the 
 false representations aforesaid, the corporation 
 would not have been liable, but only the indivi- 
 dual officers ; but that if the vendor of the shares 
 was privy to the representations, the plaintiff 
 could also recover against him. Ih. 
 
 Action by a married woman against the father, 
 mother and brother of her husband for damages 
 for false representations made to her before 
 marriage as to the character and financial stand- 
 ing of her husband, and for entering into a frau- 
 
 ilulcnt conspiracy to induce the plaintitTto enter 
 into the marriage contract : — Held, that the 
 action being without precedent a id contrary to 
 public policy, was not maintainable, liremun v. 
 /{reniim, 19 O. R. ;W7. — Kalconbridge. 
 
 See Fra.'<erv. McUaii, 46 Q. R. .S02, p. 779; 
 Le,' V. MrMahon, -JO. U. 6r)4, 11 A. R. T)-)-), p. 
 776; Ml rchdiitt' lliitik w Thompson — Mallan v. 
 ('rail), :iO. I!. ")4l ; Jinitti/ v. Neelon, 12 A. R. 
 nQ. p. 240 ; Mojliitt v. Miirhautx' Bunk of (Jan- 
 (Ida, 11 S. C. R.46, p. 774. 
 
 IV. MiSORLLANKOlT.S CaSES. 
 
 Fraudident transfer of shares by directors of 
 of a company, to a person of insuflicient means to 
 pay impending calls, in order to avoid liability for 
 s\ich calls. See Thompson v. ('anada Fin and 
 Marine Insurance Co., ^O. R. 284. 
 
 An executor or administrator is estoj)pe(l by 
 the fraud or crimin.al acts of the deceased per 
 ons lie represents from seeking to invalidate se- 
 curities tainted by such fraud or criminal acts 
 which such deceased person had given to his 
 creditors during his lifetime. Mcrr/wnls flunk 
 V. Montiilli, 10 V. R. 467.— Hodgins, Ma.sler-in- 
 tJrdinary. 
 
 Impeaching judgment in a partition case on 
 llie ground of fraud or deception having been 
 prasticed on the court. See jinkim/ v. ,/ciihinii, 
 
 11 A. I!. 02. 
 
 \ Impeai:hing decision of a Court of Revision on 
 the ground of improper arrangement or con- 
 spiracy entered into before the holding of tiie 
 court by the members thereof in conjunction 
 with others to increase the assessment of plain- 
 tiffs. See Canadian Land and Emiiiratiuu Co. 
 V. MunicqiatHy of Dyxart, 12 A. R. 80. 
 
 Defence of fraud pi'actiseil on a foreign court 
 to an action on a foreign judgment. See Wood- 
 ruff v. McLennan, 14 A. R. 242. 
 
 Of two innocent parties, one of whom must 
 suffer on .account of the fraud or crime of a 
 third, the one most to Idame by enabling the 
 wrong to bo committed should bear the lo?s. See 
 Merchants'' Hunk of Canada v. McKay, 12 0. K. 
 498; 1,5 S.C. R. 672. 
 
 Effect of fraudulent judicial sale. Sec Mit- 
 chell \. City of London Fire Ini. Co., {Limited), 
 
 12 O. R. 7i)6. 
 
 Costs of otlicial guardian where there has 
 been fraud by the infant. .See fVi-nti/ate y. Wesl- 
 ijatfi, 1 1 P. R. 62. 
 
 I'raud is necessary to the existence of an 
 estopjiel by conduct. The person must have 
 been deceived. The party to whom the repre- 
 sentation is made must have been ignorant of 
 the truth of the matter, and the representation 
 must have been m.ade with the knowledge of 
 the facts, and it (the representation) must be 
 plain and not a matter of mere inference or 
 opinion ; and certainty is essential to all estop- 
 pels. Md/ee V. Kane, 14 O. K. 226.— Fergu- 
 ' son. 
 
 i Evidence of fraud when fraud not set up as a 
 I defence. See McPherson v. Wilton, 15 A. R. 
 1294. 
 
 
 ] 
 
 I. 
 
 E 
 
 II. 
 
 P 
 
 III. 
 
 R 
 
 IV. 
 
 R 
 
 V. 
 
 R 
 
788 
 
 789 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 790 
 
 FRAUDS (STATUTE OF). 
 
 I. Respectino Aokeements to he Per- 
 formed WITHIN THE Year— iSee Con- 
 tract. 
 
 II. Promises to Third Parties— 5ep(!uAR- 
 antee ani> Inuemmtv. 
 
 III. Respectino Leases— .Vee Lanim.okd and 
 
 Tenant. 
 
 IV. EESPECTiNf! Sales of Goods— <See Sale 
 
 OF (iOODS. 
 
 V. Rkspectinc Sales of Land or Interest 
 IN Land -See Sale of Land— Specific 
 Performance. 
 
 VI, Parol Evidence to Vary Deeds or 
 
 WKiTiN(is — See Evidence. 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. 
 
 I, As Against Creditors. 
 
 L Under 13 Elk. c. 6—Ii. S. 0. (IS77) 
 e. 11S~/,S Vict. c. ,%-/f. S. O. 
 (1887) e. 12J,. 
 
 (a) Geiier(tHij, 789. 
 
 (b) Who ure Inwlnents, 791. 
 
 (c) Iii./e7U of Parties, 793. 
 
 (il) Chanijr of J'onse^xioii, 794. 
 
 (e) ADsiiinmeiit.'i for the lienejit oj 
 
 Creditors, 79.5. 
 
 (f) Conveyance of Lmids, 799. 
 
 (g) liUh if Sale and Chattel Mort- 
 
 ijaijes, 801. 
 (h) Ante Nuptial Settlements, 812. 
 (i) Post Nuptial Settlementf,, 813. 
 (j) Otlwr Cases, 815. 
 
 2. Summary Inquiries into Fraudulent 
 
 Cunveyances, 819. 
 
 3. Proceedings to Set Aside. 
 
 (a) At Whose Instance — Parties, 819. 
 
 (b) Pleadiuij, 824. 
 
 (c) Cosi^*, 824. 
 
 (d) Other Cases, 826. 
 
 4. Under Insolvent Acts — See Bank- 
 
 ruptcy and Insolvency. 
 
 II. As Between Parties — See Fraud and 
 Misrepresentation. 
 
 III. Limitation ok Timf, for Settincj Aside 
 — See Limitation ok A<'t>ons. 
 
 I. As Against Creditors. 
 
 1. Under 13 Eliz. c. S—R. S. 0. (1877) c. 118— 
 48 Vic. c. ^0—P. S. O. (1887) c. IJ4. 
 
 (a) Oenerally. 
 
 13 Eliz. c. 5 is directeil against fraiululent 
 alienations of property, whereby the debtor di- 
 minishes the estate, aiul does not touch the case 
 of his neglecting or refusing to enrich himself. 
 Bainv. Malcolm, 13 O. R. 444. — Proudfoot. 
 
 In actions by assignees for creditors under 48 
 Vict. c. 26 (Out.), and amendments (nowR. S. O. 
 
 (1887) c. 124) to impeach transactions as fraudu- 
 lent and void, under that statute, the court was 
 evenly divided as to the conatitutional validity 
 of the Act. Clark'son v. Ontario Bank and three 
 other cases, 15 A. R. 160. 
 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. O., and Osier, .J. A. The 
 statute wliich is one of general a])plication for 
 the disposition of insolvent estates, must ))c re- 
 garded as a whole and is ultra vii'cs, as being 
 legislation on tliu subjects of bankruptcy and 
 insolvency. //). 
 
 Per Burton and Patterson, .1.1 .A. — The matters 
 dealt with by the statute come clearly within 
 the definition of " Property and civil rights in 
 the Province." //*. 
 
 Per Burton, .1. A., section 2 of 4S Vict. c. 26 
 (now R. S, <). (1887), c 124, s. 2), shonl,', bo read 
 as intended to invalidate any act fraudulent in 
 the sense of being a violation of the statute if 
 it lias the effect of defeating or delaying credi- 
 tors or giving one or more of them a ])refcrcnco 
 over others. Kennedy v. Freeman, 15 A. B. 
 166. 
 
 Semble, per Osier, .1. A., the meaning of sec- 
 tion 2 is, that when c?. person is in insolvent 
 circumstances, if either the intent or the cU'ect 
 of the transaction is to prefer the creditor, that 
 is all that is necessary to avoid it. Ih. 
 
 The defendant who was employed as financial 
 manager of a firm advanced to them a large sum 
 of money, to be repaid on his giving six months' 
 notice demanding payment, on default of which 
 tlio firm covenanted to assign certain securities. 
 This notice was given on 15th January, 1885, but 
 although repeated demands for payment wei-c 
 made by defendant, nothing was done until 19th 
 December, 1885, when a transfer to him of cer- 
 tain securities was made by the firm, who within 
 two months made an assignment under 48 Vict, 
 c. 26 (Ont. ), which came into force on 1st Septem- 
 ber, 1885. In an action by the assignee under 
 that statute to recover back the amount realized 
 fromtiic securities, it was : — Held, that whether 
 or not the firm were in insolvent circumstances 
 at the time of the transfer of the securities, tite 
 statute was not retrospective so as to apply to a 
 transfer made as this was in pursuance of a pre- 
 e.Kisting binding agreement for valuable con- 
 sideration, and valid under the then state of the 
 law. Quicre, whether the effect of the statute 
 is to alter the law in this respect. Clarksou v. 
 Sterlimj, 15 A. R. 234. 
 
 Effect of the words " or which has such effect"' 
 in R. S. O. (1887), c. 124, s. 2. See Molsons 
 Bank v. //alter, 16 A. R. 323. 
 
 A transaction entered into by a person in in- 
 solvent circumstances is not impeachable, unless 
 the person claiming the benefit of the transac- 
 tion had notice or knowledge of the insolvency 
 and did not act in good faith. Johnson v. //ojie, 
 17 A. R. 10. 
 
 A security given by a person in insolvent cir- 
 cumstances to secure an actual advanc made 
 without notice or knowledge of the insolvency, 
 and in good faith, is not impeachable, because 
 the moneys advanced are, pursuant to the direc- 
 tion of the insolvent, paid over to one of his 
 creditors, who thereby obtains a preference. 
 Stoddart v. Wilson, 16 O. R. 17, disapproved. 
 
-^ 
 
 7»i 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 792 
 
 Mm-, '' *>« 
 
 ««■». >. .... 
 
 .■!•"« 
 ^»«. 
 
 
 Jaws 
 laSr 
 
 Judgment uf tlio County Court of Hastings re- 
 
 VUISUll. Jll. 
 
 Held, fiillnwiiijj Johnson ?'. Hope, 17 A. It. 10, 
 that an assignee for tlie henetit of creditors un- 
 der R. S. <). (1887), c. 124, suing to set aside as 
 void a mortgage of real estate made by his as- 
 signor when in insolvent uircunistanues, to a 
 creaitor, nuist, in order to succeed, establish that 
 the creditor knew at the time he took the niort- 
 jj.ige that the mortgagor was insolvent and un- 
 able to pay his delits in full. Lamb v. Yintiiij, 
 19 O. K. 104.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A farmer mortgaged his farm to secure a debt 
 due Ijy liiin to the mortgagee and a small sum 
 advanced at the time tiie mortgage was made. 
 He knewattlu! time lie made the mortgage that 
 he was unable to pay his debts in full, and that 
 he was giving the mortgagee a preference over 
 his other creditors. The jn'aetical effect was 
 that tile mortgagee was paid in full and that the 
 rest of the creditors received nothing. The 
 mortgagee, however, was not aware at the time 
 he took the mfU'tgagu, that the mortgagor was in 
 insolvent circumstances;— Held, following John- 
 .soii ('. Hope, 17 A. 1!. 10, that the mortgage was 
 not void against creditors, uniler sec. '2 of R. S. 
 <>. (1887), c. 124. (.'ihlioiis V. McDonald, 19 0. R. 
 290.— (Street ; 18 A. R. 1 -)9. 
 
 One wlio has a right of action for tort and 
 subsequently recovers judgment is not a creditor 
 within the meaning of the Assignments and 
 Preferences Act, so as to be in a position to 
 attack miller that Act, a transaction entered 
 into by the tort feasor before the ;iction was 
 commenced. Where a transaction is attacked 
 under that Act, knowledge by the transferee of 
 the insolvency of the transferor must be shown. 
 Johnson v. Hope, 17 A. K. 10, adhered to. 
 Judgment of the County Court of Hastings 
 attirmed. Ashh'ij v Jirowii, 17 A. R, 500. 
 
 See MuhoM Bank v. Haher, 16 A. R. 323 ; IS 
 S. C. R. 88, p. 803. 
 
 (1)) Who are limolvenU. 
 
 The meaning of U. S. O. ( 1877), c. 1 18, as amend- 
 ed by 48 Vict. e. 20, 8. 2 (O. ), is that a conveyance 
 of property which has the effect of defeating, 
 delaying, or prejudicing his creditors, or of giv 
 ing a preference, is utterly void when made by 
 a person at a time when he is in insolvent cir- 
 cumstances, or unable to pay his debts in full, 
 or knows that he is on the eve of insolvency. 
 Jiae V. McDoHaU, 13 O. R. 352.— C. P. D. 
 
 In an actioii by the plaintiflf", a creditor, to set 
 nside a mortgage made by the debtor to the 
 defendant M. :— Held on the evidence, the debt- 
 or was insolvent when he made the mortgage, 
 whereby the defendant obtained a preference 
 over the other creditors, including the plaintiflf, 
 and that the mortgage must be set aside. lb. 
 
 Per Rose, J.— A debtor is legally insolvent 
 when he has not sufficient property to pay all 
 his debts if sold under legal process ; and com- 
 mercially insolvent when he has not the means 
 to pay off and discharge his commercial obliga- 
 tions as they become due in the ordinary course 
 of business, lb. 
 
 Per Cameron, C. J. In determining whether 
 a debtor is insolvent, etc., hia assets or eflfects are 
 
 not to be estimated at what they might bring at 
 a forced sale under execution, but at the fair 
 value iu cash on the market at any ordinary .sale, 
 lb. 
 
 Per Rose, J. — Evidence of the value of the 
 right of dower is properly admissible in detcr- 
 miiiing the value of a debtor's liabilities, ib. 
 
 Two of the debts were to relatives of the deljt- 
 or, secured by mortgage and promissory notiis. 
 The judge at the trial charged that because the 
 debts were under the control of tlie debtor they 
 should not be included in estimating his liabili- 
 ties. Per Rose, J. This was misdiiection. /6. 
 
 A man may be deemed in " insolvent circum- 
 stances," within the moaning of 48 Vict. c. 26, 
 s. 2, if he does not pay his way, and is unable to 
 meet the current demands of creditors, and if he 
 has not the means of paying them in full out of 
 his assets realized upon a sale for cash or its 
 ecpiivulont. Rae r. Mcltonald, 13 O. R. 352, 
 discussed. Warnork v. Kta'jijer, 14 O. R. 288. 
 -Chy. 1). ; 15 A. R. 324. 
 
 On 19th December, 1885, a transfer of certaiu 
 book debts was made by the firm of IJ. M. & Co., 
 to defendant, under a contract therefor, iiiaile 
 on the KJth August, 1884, whereby defendant 
 lent the firm SI 5,000, whicli was to be repaid uii 
 six months' notice, and ilclendaut to be employ- 
 ed as a clerk at §2,000 a year. The firm subse- 
 quently made an assignment under 48 Vict. c. 
 20 (Out.), to the plaintiff, for the benefit of their 
 creditors. The plaintiff claimed that at the time 
 of the transfer the firm was insolvent, and there- 
 fore the transfer was invalid as giving, or having 
 the effect of giving, the defendant a preference. 
 At the time of the transfer the value of the firm's 
 stock of goods at the ordinary selling value was 
 nearly double the amount of the tiriu'a liabilities; 
 but when they were sold by the plaintiff, some 
 two months afterwards, they only realized a 
 third of the ordinary selling price, and much less 
 than the liabilities : — Held, that the firm were 
 not insolvent at the time of the transfer ; and 
 th« transfer was therefore valid. Clarkwn v. 
 ISterlimj, 14 O. R. 400.— C. P. D. 
 
 Under a judgment recovered and execution 
 issued thereon iii February, 1887, certain goods 
 and chattels of C. were seized. These goods 
 were covered by a chattel mortgage made on 18th 
 December, 18SG, in favour of the defendant. 
 The evidence shewed that at the time of the 
 mortgage there was a surplus of about .$13,000 
 of assets over liabilities. All the assets were 
 either mortgaged or under warehouse receipts:— 
 Held, that C. could not be deemed to be insol- 
 vent at the time of the makliij^' of the mortgage 
 within 48 Vict. c. 20 (Ont.). Dor.ilniun Bank 
 V. Cowav, 14 O. R. 465.— Rose. 
 
 There is no wider meaning to be given to the 
 words " unable to pay his ilebts in full " than to 
 "insolvent circumstances"; but both expres- 
 sions refer to the same financial condition, that is, 
 to a -; i.iJition in which a debtor is placed when 
 he h ■. '"ot sufficient property subject to execu- 
 tion to pay all his debts if sold under legal pro- 
 cess at a sale fairly and reasonably conducted. 
 lb. 
 
 The fact that all the assets were either mort- 
 gaged or under warehouse receipts is not alone 
 sufficient to render a debtor insolvent. Ih. 
 
792 
 
 793 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 794- 
 
 (c) Intent of Partiex, | 
 
 In order to create n fraudulent preference j 
 under tlie statute of Elizabeth as interpreted by < 
 H. S. O. (1877) c. 1*5, 8. 15, not only must there 
 exist a fraudulent intent in the mind of the 
 niortt'agor, but also in that of the mortgagee. 
 
 In an aution impeachinc the transfer of certain 
 notes by an insolvent trader to his wife, the hus- 
 band swore such transfer was made to secure her 
 the payment of moneys loaned by her. Imme- 
 diately after such transfer he al)sc(inded from the 
 province. At the trial the jury found, in an- 
 swer to (piestions put by the presiding judge, (1) 
 
 In this case, which was that of a mortgage of ., . . , -. , i ■ ^ ^i - *• - i i - ' i ■ i 
 
 , u 1 1 ii I I ■ 4. t 1 that the husb.inil at the tnne he al)sconde<l was 
 
 goods :— Held, that nosuch intent was shown on . , . i 1 1 4. , 1 • 1 1 * • f n ,.>» 
 ?. i. r ii 1. (J 1 1 4» I not so vent and aide to pay his debts in fill ; 2) 
 
 the part of the mortiiUKee ; nor hemblc, on the ., , , , ,• ir i ii i- * 1 ^i 
 
 } , . , . ,. „° ij- I n I. a i\ that he knew himself at the time to lie on the 
 
 part of the mortgagor. Hepburn, v. 1 uric, o O. , . 
 
 \y t-a i< M ^\ I P^'c ot in 
 
 notes to his wife was not voluntary ; (4) that the 
 schemo of such transfer originated with him and 
 not with his wife. The jury, however, faik'il to 
 find with what intent the transfer was made, anil 
 
 472. -C. P. D. 
 
 Under K. S. O. (1S77), c 118, s. 2, the intent 
 
 with which the conveyance, or gift in (piestion was 
 
 mailc, must be looked at, and if it was obtained 
 
 as tlie result of honest pressure -on the part of : gave a verdict in favour of the defendant (the 
 
 the creditor, that rebuts the presumption of an ] wife), which, on motion in term, the judge re- 
 
 iiiteiit on the debtors part to act in fraud of the ; fused to disturb. On appeal this court, luiiig of 
 
 law. Sinter V. (.//irer, 1 O. I!. LOS— Chy. 1). j opinion that the aii.swers given by the jury ilid 
 
 . , , , ^, . . , , . I not afford sufhcient ground for a decision under 
 
 Ihe weightof authority greatly preponderates j ,^_ ^^ ^^ ^^^.-^^ ^_ ,,j^ „,.^,,.,.^,, ,^ ,^^^^ ^,.^^, ,,„^ 
 
 m favour of the view that in order to work a ; ^^^^j^^,, ^,,^ circumstances directed each party to 
 
 i bear tlioir own cci.sts,bothof the appeal and of the 
 
 new trial. Frailenhnrjli v. Hdnkiiis, 12 A. R. "Jo". 
 
 fraudulent preference of a ci-editor, under R. S. 
 0. (1877)c. 118, there must be a concurrence 
 of intent so to do on the |)art of both debtor and 
 creditor : and the rule of tlie c(piirt is not to act 
 upon mere siisiiicion in the altsciice of atlirmative 
 (nidence of fraud, or of controlling circumstan- 
 tial evidence leading to that conclusion. Lancey 
 ('.The Merchants' I5ank, 10 O. R. 1G9 (note), 
 foUowed in preference to Ivey c. Knox, 8 U. 
 11. (!S5, G48. liimifiw. Mackaij, 10 U. R. 1G7.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 A chattel mortgage given as security for a 
 bona fide debt cannot be avoided under R. S. 
 0. (1877), c. US, by simply shewing that the 
 
 See Allan v. McTuiinh, 8 A. K. 440, p. 801. 
 
 (d) Change of Possei^sion, 
 
 G. liad recovered a judgment against his fatlier 
 for costs in an action iiistituteil by the latter, 
 and under the execution issued thereon seized a 
 horse as the property of the father in the pos- 
 session of the plaintiff A., another son. It was 
 shewn that ."everal yeais before the father had 
 agreed to convey his farm to A. and another 
 
 debtor was insolvent, and intended to give the ' brother W. , both of whom assumed possession 
 
 mortgagee a preference, but there must be 
 knowledge on the part of the creditor taking 
 the mortgage so as to constitute a concurrence 
 of intent on the part of the debtor and creditor ; 
 and the amendment made by 47 A'ict. c. 10 s. 
 3(0nt. ) does not affect the matter. IJunis v. 
 McKay, 10 O. R. 107, followed. In" this case 
 there was no knowletlge on the part of the 
 
 Hid control of the property before any convey- 
 ance was executed, and so continued in posses- 
 sion, the father continuing to reside on the place 
 with the two sons, [lart of the consideration for 
 the conveyance being that tliey should support 
 him. The sons also bought the chattel property 
 from their father, the horse in question having 
 been purchased by A. fur S.W, and this he kept 
 
 mortgiigec of the debtor's insolvency ; and it ; upon the premises, as had always been done, 
 al.so appc.ired that the mortgaijc was given in ! using him in the work of tlie farm, and occasion- 
 pursniincc of a previous promise to give security | ally working for others with him for hire, the 
 tor the debt. The mortgage was therefore up- ! father sometimes using him for his own purposes, 
 held:- Qua're, whether, where the statute may j On this state of facts, the judge of the county 
 be defeated by shewing an antecedent promise I court of H.istings in an interpleader issue, lelt 
 to give security, it must be such as the premise | the question of property to the jury, who found 
 iiulicated. Mcliuherli v. Sleiiiojl', 1 1 O. U. ;iG'J. — a verdict for A. The court being of ii))iuion that 
 
 the claim of (!. haviuir arisen long after the al- 
 leged sale of chattels, it would requiie a prepon- 
 
 C. 1>. u. 
 
 A trailer who was in insolvent circumstances 
 and for whom the plaintiff' I), was liable as in 
 dorser on notes discounted at a 
 current, was urged by him for a settlement and 
 security, which, however, he refused to give, but 
 otfered to sell K. the whole of his stock-in-trade, 
 househiild furniture, etc. I'), accordingly bought 
 it, paying the vendor 5>1, 400, the excess in value 
 of the goods over and above the notes, which he 
 retired the same day. Next day the vendor ab- 
 sconded, but the evidence failed to satisfy the 
 court that E. intended to commit any fraud in 
 the arrangement so carried out. Held, affirming 
 the judgment of the court below, that although 
 E. was aware that the debtor was in pecuniary 
 embariMssment, the transaction, in the absence 
 of proof of mala tides, was not liable ti) be iin- 
 lieachud as a fraudulent preference. Ltwis v. 
 Brou-h. — Elliott V. Lrown, 10 A. R. 039. 
 
 derance of evideniii in favour of U., to iiuUicc 
 
 1 1 »i I the court to interfere with the tindini' of the iurv 
 )anK anil then I ,, , , • , ,■ , .. • .> , 1 ^ i- . 1 ..1 
 (but winch (lul not exist) iciused to disturb the 
 
 conclusion of the judge as to the linding of the 
 
 i jury, and dismissed an apjieal with costs. Dun- 
 
 ford v. Davforl, 8 A. R. 518. 
 
 In an interpleader issue it was alleged that 
 the plaintiff (the claimant) had purchased a horse 
 from iS. R. S. , a married woman carrying on 
 business in her own name, the i)rice of which 
 was said to have been paid partly in a note of 
 hand by .S. R. S. and her husband, for money 
 lent to them, and partly by a set-off" of wages 
 coming to plaintiff" from .S. H. S. On the com- 
 pletion of the purchase the plaintiff took the 
 horse, together with a cutter and harness be- 
 longing to S. R. S., and was absent for two or 
 three days. On his return he put the horse in 
 
795 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVEYANOES. 
 
 796 
 
 797 
 
 (■! 
 
 
 "•», 
 
 
 is:- 
 
 »tc: 
 
 £»*: 
 
 J;^i 
 
 SBu' 
 
 i-:j» 
 
 
 
 
 *' ^» 
 
 ca:. 
 
 
 
 +» »* 
 
 mkV 
 
 
 MMh. 
 
 •• 
 
 "".;; 
 
 
 |-v». 
 
 
 »c: 
 
 <i' 
 
 e^^ 
 
 II 
 
 •-•:• 
 
 %. 
 
 ••"*,: 
 
 * 
 
 *-«tj 
 
 ! 
 
 ^f~-» 
 
 
 •duw. 
 
 
 '•£ 
 
 
 [=: 
 
 
 
 IS' 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 
 the stable of S. B. S. as liufore, uud fed it with 
 liei' fodder, etc. —no other act wassliewn to indi- 
 cate a ciianjjc of ownership before tiic animal 
 was seized by the sherill' under a li. fa. yoi'ds 
 issiied against S. 15. S, I'er JJiirtoii and Patter- 
 son, .I.J. A., iillinning the jiidgiiicnt of the county 
 court, that there was notsuch a continued change 
 of possession as to satisfy the re(piirenients of the 
 statute, n.S.().(lS77),c. I IS, and that the judge 
 had rightly withdrawn the case from the juiy. 
 I'er llagarty, C). ()., and Osier, J. A. There 
 being a jury the evidence was such as to require 
 the case to be left to them. I'llthjiyw v. Thomas, 
 Vl A. K. 077. 
 
 See Kiiihx'h V. Sn-ihiin; 14 S. (J. R. 77, .S'. ('., 
 mill iioin. ; tSi'i-ilnier v. MrLarai, '1 O R. 'IVtn ; .S. 
 C "lilt iioiii. Sciihiicr V. I\iii/(ith, \'l A. I>. 'Mu, p. 
 18(i; Kerr v. Caiidtliiui limih of (.'oiiiiiicrcc, 4 
 (». K. (i;VJ, iii/rn. 
 
 (e) AniKjiuiiriita for l.ln' Bunclil of Creililort. 
 
 15 , an insolvent debtor, made ii deed of his 
 stock-in-trade and lands to the plaintill' in trust, 
 to conveit the same into money, pay liie ex- 
 penses of the trust, rjtain ten percent, of moneys 
 received by way of compensation, and pay tlie 
 
 ** .•' , ,' • I 1 !■ I iiiuiii/ till i;i.-.iuiii:ii mil ii.il ii'uiiiiu Liiu t:ii:uinna tu 
 
 present exe.n.tn.n and otherprivdege<lereditMrs, I ^„,„„it j„ ,i„y ,,„„iitioMs, .and did not provide 
 ifany, according to priority, next to divide the; f„, ,^ ,.,,i,,,,^,. „,■ j,,„ ,,^,,j,„, j,, ,„,„„u.r :- 
 
 biulance pan passu mnongst al ..tiier creditors. ; n,,l,l, that tlie instrument was valid, and could 
 ami to pay the surplus if any to 1>. he plain- | „„t l,„ „,.t aside, and the case was distinguishable 
 tilt took po.-ssussion under the deed. Jnetiilstee' 
 was not a creditiu', and there was no evidence of 
 any accfptance of the deed by, or eomniuiiiea- 
 tion of it, to any of the creditors. 'I'he defeii- 
 
 lu a deed of asaignnient for the benefit uf credi- 
 tors, the following clause wriR inserted : "And 
 it is hereby declared and agreed that the party 
 of the third part, the assignee, shall, .is soon as 
 oonvenieiitly in.iy ho, collect and get in all out- 
 standing credits, etc., atid sell the sai<l real ;ind 
 personal proj)erty hereby assigned, by auction or 
 private contract, us a whole or in portions, for 
 cash or on credit, ami generally on such terms 
 and in such manner as he shall deem best or 
 suitable, having regard to the ol)ject of tliose 
 presents." IS'o fraudulent intention of defeating 
 or delaying ci-editors was siiown : Held, aljinii- 
 ing till! judgment of the court below— Jiaileiiaoli 
 V. Slater, 8 A. K. 4(Vi- tiiat the fact of the deed 
 authorizing a sale upon credit did not, per su, 
 invalidate it, and the deed couhl not on that 
 account be impeached as a fraudulent preference 
 
 ! of creditors within the Act It. S. O. (1877), e. 
 
 I lis, 8. '2. SUUtr V. JlailtHiirli, 10 S. C. U. '2m. 
 
 I Where it w.is sought to set aside an assign- 
 I ineiit of re.d and pcrsinial pio|)erty made by an 
 j insolvent debtur to a trustee fin- creditors, on 
 the ground that the assignee had, before the 
 I execution of it satistied some of his creditors in 
 ! full by traiisfiM'iing goods of his to them in a 
 i manner .dlt^ged to l)e preferential, but tht' instru- 
 ment imi)eaclied did not re(piire the creditors to 
 
 dants seized under an execution a few d.iys after 
 the deed : — Held (affirming the judgment of the 
 county judge of Haltoii), thattlie deed was a re- 
 vocal)le, voluntary instrument, tlie relation of 
 trustee and cestui (jue trust not having been 
 established between tiio plaintitf and the credi- 
 tors, and therefore void as against the defen- 
 dants. Held, also, that it was void under I!. ,S. 
 O., (I'^f^T). e. 118, s. ■_', as it did not provide for 
 
 from tliosi! Ameiieaii cases which einliody tiio 
 
 • principle that a debtor shall not be .allowed to 
 
 I dispose )iieferentially of part of his est ite, and as 
 
 i part of the same scheme to turn over the remain- 
 
 i der of it to tiustecs for ereilitors by an instni- 
 
 j nieiit « Inch provides forhis discharge :-.Semble, 
 
 that where in sueli an iiistrunieiit the goods are 
 
 transferred subject to the jjiyinentof rent to a 
 
 prior mortgagee this does not invalid. ite the 
 
 instrument. Ontario Bank v. Laiuont, O. 1!. 
 
 I 147.— Boyd. 
 
 Two persons carried on business under the 
 
 paying ratably anil ))ioportiimably, and without "■'"I'c <if " (!■ & W." Having become unable to 
 preference or jiriority all the creditors, but gave P/Vy their liabilities, they made an assigiimeut to 
 
 the plaintid's of all tlnur partnership ellects ami 
 of all the iiersiui.d effects of (i., "other than 
 wearing apparel," in and about the dwelling- 
 house of ',« , in trust to pay .ill the creditors of 
 " (J. it VV. ;"- Meld. (afHrming the judgment of 
 the court below, H2 C. I*. (iS), that the deed Wivs 
 void, in consei|uence of providing for the paynieut 
 
 a preference to otliors besides execution credi- 
 tors. Aiidn ir v. Slnarl, (i A. H. 4!).). 
 
 W. iind \V. made an assignment of all their 
 assets, both se|)arate and partiiershij) property, 
 to the plaintitl in trust, to realize and pay " all 
 the just debts of the said creditors of tlie said 
 
 debtors ratably and proporti^onably, and without „f partnersliipcreditors only ; and p.irol evi.lence 
 preference or priority. lliere was a proviso „.,,<, „„t a.lmissible to prove th.at the obiect of 
 that tho trustee might pay any creditor m full , tl,e i.arties, in making the assignment, was to 
 whose debt c(uistituted a lien on .any part of the , provide for the payment of separate as well as 
 assets, whenever he deemed it fidvisableso to <lo. partnership creditors. Mil .■< v. Kerr, 7 A. 11. 
 It appeared tlnat one of the partners h.-ul no pro-, 709. ,See McKitrick v. Jfa!ey, 46 Q. B. 246. 
 party, and owed but .SI 10; th.at the other had "^ 
 
 some househ(dd furniture which was seized for I JIcP. Bros., a firm compo.sed of two partners, 
 rent, which it satisfied : that he owed less than : by deed .assigned to the pl.iintifT the partnership 
 IJIOO otherwise ; and that all these separate debts jiropcrty and assets only, upon trust to p.ay the 
 had been satisfied :— Held, Cameron, J., dissent- i joint creditors only. The ''eed authorized the 
 ing, that the .assignment was not void in provid- j |)laintifl' to p.ay creditors' claims either with or 
 ing for payment of partnership creditors only, j without interest. On the day before the .assign- 
 Held, also, that the provision that the trustee i meiit the sherifT h.ad seized the partnership pro- 
 
 might pay off any lien or charge on the assets, 
 did not invalidate the assignment. Held, also, 
 that there was, under the facts stated in the re- 
 port of the case, an actual and continual change 
 of possession. Kerr v. Canadiau Bunk of Com- 
 merce, 4 0. R, 652.— Q. B. D, 
 
 perty under two writs of execution (one of which 
 he swore at the trial he thought was against one 
 of the partners only, but there was no further 
 proof of this), and put the plaintiff in possession 
 iis his bailiff. MoR Bros, then determined to 
 assign to the plaintiff, and it was arranged be- 
 
 For tho 
 u(|iiitable 
 ainiiiigst a 
 circumstai 
 all his pri 
 sell the sal 
 in full the 
 the assigi 
 
 dtllCM' pt.'is 
 annexed t 
 pose, to (11 
 tile severa 
 sc-liediile ; 
 iissigiior. 
 lit'liiw hell 
 or hy iiiad 
 and the del 
 jiiil:,'in(!iit 1 
 the sherill' 
 Division 111 
 i|iieiu;e of I 
 On appeal 
 iliviili'd. th 
 
 A. R 4nr, : 
 
 A., alHrmii 
 Division, ( 
 Caniei'on, 
 82().,Sii, iipi 
 was not p 
 omission f 
 circuiiiitaii 
 validate tl; 
 s. 2. IVr 
 ii))|( ireiitlj 
 Divisinnai 
 (leni;e on 
 proved, tli 
 treituil 
 Hagarty, 
 fniin the 
 Toriaiice, 
 could not I 
 ti',1, per 
 Remarks [ 
 stances iin 
 of reiitaiK 
 not he an i 
 and Came: 
 the provi' 
 Qnaue, (pi 
 ted credit 
 execution, 
 of such eh 
 the .Suprei 
 and Four_ 
 judgment 
 sen ting) t 
 expressed 
 he a distr 
 among al 
 not houiK 
 
796 
 
 797 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVEYANOES. 
 
 798 
 
 twccn the shoriff and the plaititifT that on tho i uruditora niiinoil in thesuheilulc. Per Stronu, J. 
 vxucution of tliu asHi^nmunt tliu ])liiiatiir bIiouUI 'J'liat tliu HHxignuu was contiuiMl to tliu Hfliuttulc, 
 rt'tiiin possession Hulijuct only to tliesuoxucutioiiH; Imt uH'uct ninst liu givoii tu tliu word "intent" 
 — Hi'lii. tiiat tbo duoil was not void nndor it, S, in tliu statute, ami as tliu cviduncu sliowud that 
 (). (1H77), c. 118, for intent to piufor tliu partner- a l)i)n;\ tide ell'oit was made to aseertaiii the 
 ship creditor ; nor for intent to prefer particnlar , names of all the creditors before the fxciiition 
 creditors, even if such intent wer<i shown, hy the of the deed, it did not appear that the insolvent 
 
 intended to ))refer tlio uohedide ereditdis, and 
 tlie deed, therefore, was not voiil under U.S. (). 
 (1877), 0. 118, s. '2. Sumblu, per Stroii;;, ,). That 
 the word "preference" in 11. S. (). (IS77), e. 118, 
 s. -, imports a " voluntary preference," and is 
 not ai)|ilieal)le to the ease ot a deed ohtaiui'd hy a 
 creditor or creditors, who to ohlain it, have 
 l>roui,'lit pressure to hear on the dcl)tor. McLatii 
 V. daiiaiiil, 13 S. (J. R. 300. 
 
 nrraiiKeniunt hetweun the plaintiti'uiid the shurill', 
 inasmuch as tho assignors were not parties to 
 micii arrangement ; nor liy reason of the provi- 
 sion lor payment of creditors' claims with or 
 witliout interest. Emirl v. Sf.imii, 12 A. II. 1)9. 
 
 Kor the expressed iiurnosu of making a fair and 
 wiiiilahle distribution ol his property and utfects 
 iuiiongst all his creditors a trader in insolvent 
 circumstances executed a deed of assignment of 
 all his property, real and personal, in trust to 
 Bcll tiiusanie, and out of the ))rocuuds : (1) to pay 
 ill full the several delits tliiu or to l)i!c<)mu due by 
 tliu assignor to tliu assignee, iiTiid the several 
 otiier persons anil tirms designated in asciiudule 
 lUiiicxeil tlieri^to, and if iiisutiicieiit for tliat (lur- 
 iHjsc, to distribute the [irocecds r.italdy amongst 
 tlic several [icrsons and tiriiis iiained in the said 
 siiieiliilu ; and ("J) to reliirii any siiijihis totlij' K., as ass 
 assiniior. A claim for .S2(».8(i wliicli the court suppose ' ^ 
 lii'liiw held to bu estahlisheil, was in igiior nice 
 or hv inailvertence omitted from such schedule, 
 1111(1 the del'euilant, a scheduled ercilitor, obtained 
 jiuliiiiieut for §1,780."."); and under his execiitiiin 
 the shrrill' seized the giiods. 'I'lie (Jomuion I'Icas 
 Division held the deuil to be invalid in eoinc- 
 
 ciute of the omission iif such claim for .'$_'(i.80. 
 
 I|IICI1 
 
 On appeal, the court of ii.p|)e:d being i!i|Uillyj 
 ilividi'd, the appeal «vas ilismlssud, with co<ls (10 
 A. H 40,5 ) llagarty, (!. .1. (>., and liurton, J. 
 A., alhi'ining the jiidginuiitof tliu Common I'lcas 
 Division, (32 C. 1'. .'iJl). I'.itter.siPii, .1. A., and 
 (Iiineron, C. d., hcM, that the alleged delit of 
 82(i.8i), upon the evidence set out in the rep.irt. 
 was not proved ; and that even if proved, its 
 (imission from the schedule tlid not, under the 
 ciicuin stances, sliew the intent necessary to in- 
 validate tliu deed under \l. .S. O. (1877), c. 118, 
 s. 2. I'cr llagarty, C. J. ()., there having been 
 ii])p;iruntly no discussion at tliu tri.il, or in tliu 
 Divisional (!ourt, as to the siirticieiiey of tliu evi- 
 dence oil wliicli thu alleguil debt was held to bu 
 proved, the existunou of such del)t should not be 
 treitud as open to (piestion in tliis court. Per 
 Hagarty, C. J. ()., .-11111 Burton, d. A., dissenting 
 fniiu the opinion of Wilson, C. .1., in riiornu r. 
 Torrance, 18('. P. at p. 3."), thu creditor omitted 
 cmild not now bo admitted to the suhudulu. (.'011- 
 tra, per Pattt.'rson. .J. A., and (.'aineron, C. .1. 
 Remarks pur C I'neron, (J. J., as to the circum- 
 stinces under wliicli a provision for the payniuut 
 of rent and taxes as a first charge would or would 
 not be an objection. Kem irks pur Hiirtou, .J. A., 
 and (!ameron,(.". .1., as to the olijuut and utfuct of 
 the proviso to R. ,S. O. (18771, c 118, s. 2 : - 
 Quau'e, (per Cameron, C. .J.,) whether, the omit- 
 ted creditor not having obtained judgineiit and 
 execution, thu dofendant could take advantage 
 of such claim to defeat the plaintiffs right. Jn 
 tho Supreme Court, it was held per Hitehie, C. J. 
 and Fonrnier and Tachereau, -iJ., reversing the 
 judgment ef the court below, (Henry, J., dis- 
 senting) that the consideration for the deed, as 
 expressed on its face, was tli:it there should 
 be a distribution of the estate of the insolvent 
 among ."vU his creditors, and the .assignee w-.is 
 not bound to coutine such distribution to the 
 
 Thu tirm of H. & Co., consisting of three mem- 
 bers, supplied goods to the di fcndanis, and 
 subseipiently one of the meinbcrs retiri'il, and 
 transferred bis interest in tlu; assets oi the tirm 
 to the remaining partners, who eontiniied to 
 carry on busines.s under thcs.imu tirm name, and 
 afterwards made an iissigninciit to K., under -48 
 Vict, e 20, (().) for tile benetit of their creditors, 
 ^nec, s.dd to tlii^ |)laintitl' the debt 
 1 to be due from tliu defeiid.ants to K. 
 & t'o. , for the price of the goods supplied, 
 and also thu iiiten^stof K. iV. Co., in any goods 
 supplied and charged to anyone, remiining un- 
 sold, and the plainlitl lirougiit this action to 
 recover the same. The goods in (piestion, how- 
 ever. Were not purchased by defeii.lants, but 
 Were consigned to them for sale by U. it C'o., by 
 whose instructions tln^ proceeds of tln^ goods 
 actually sold, were remitted to II. fi (Jo., to 
 whom they had buun assigned by I!, it Co. At 
 the trial it app -areil from the evidence that the 
 (lel'encu was uiiilertakcn and condnuti'd for the 
 defendants l)y 11. & Co. The leirned jmlgi! fiuind 
 til it no del)t had ever existed from the defen- 
 dants to R. it (Jo., and dismissed the action, re- 
 fusing to add H. & Co. as puties. Tliu pi lintitl' 
 moved by way of appeal 'idni this jiidgmunt, 
 seeking to ni.ike H. .t Co. and 1'}. parties, and to 
 uliirgu the defend-iuts in the character of bailees 
 of the residue, reiiiining unsold, of tlie goods 
 eonsigiied to lac;ii by R. it (!o. , in which he 
 claimed an interest, subject to the right of H. &, 
 Co., if the transfer to them .slnnild be upheld, 
 or ab.soliitelyif that transfer should be set aside 
 as a fraudulent prel'ereiice ; — Held, 1. I'll it these 
 ipiestions were "([iiustions invidvud in the ac- 
 ti(m" within the meaniug of Rule 1(>3, Ontario 
 .fudicaturc Act (Con, Rule 324) having regard 
 to the manner in which thu defence was con- 
 ducted, and to the fact that thu traiisfur to 
 H. & (-0. was set up in thu dufence, and that 
 the plaintiff should be .allowed to amend under 
 tliat Rule, but that the amendment must be 
 coiiliiied to the plaintitl's possible rights. 2. 
 riiat by sec. 7 of 48 Vict. c. 20, 10. was the only 
 person entitled to enl'orce the right of the cre- 
 ditors of R. it (!o. to set aside the transfer to H. 
 it (Jo., but that transfer was not m.ule by the 
 same tirm of I!. &Co. which assigned to K. ; that 
 die two estate.^ were distinct, and the e. editors 
 of the original firm, not the creditors of the new 
 irm, were those only against wdioin a fraudulent 
 |)rufereiice by the original firm could be declared 
 void ; that the plaintiff could have no higher 
 'ight than E., through whom he claimed, and 
 jould not therofore attack the assignment to H. 
 .t Co. The plaintiff was granted leave to ameud. 
 
799 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 800 
 
 ! 
 
 ««{. 
 
 I 
 
 )>y (iilding H. A Co. as (lofi;n<lftiiti!, hi8 claim 
 agiiiiist tliciii to 1)1! liiniti'il to iiii iiccniiiit of their 
 «li'l)t, mill of iiayinciitMon uccouiit tliiToof, ami, 
 «H iigaiiiHt the oi igiiiivl dcfriKhiiitH, to olitiiin tho 
 Ulisolil ^(ii)(1h hh Hooii ns* the dclit <liii! II. fi. Co. 
 nh"ul(l 111! M;iti»tii'(l ; anil liy lutiliii^,' K. ntt u i>liiiii 
 till until lilin;,' hin cmistMit, payment liy tlio 
 pliiiiitilV of till) iluffnil.iiit's whole cintH to Im a 
 oonilitimi piuouilciit. Kali'imhriilge, .1., duhi- 
 timti!, as to till! (liKiHisitioii of coHtH. Ailtims v. 
 W'lilioii Miiiiiil'ttHuiiii'i Cii., (/Aiiiilnl) IT) (). U. 
 L'1H.-1,». |{. 1). ; Hi A. K. •-'. 
 
 A ili'cd of aHsijjnineiit of iiroperty in tnist for 
 till! hiiulit of cit'ditorn |iioviil(!il for the distrilm- [ 
 tioii of the as.ii'ls l)y till! asHJ^ini' a.s foUow.s : 
 Fiixt, to pay ourtaiii iiannd rri'ditors in full ; 
 m;coiidly, if milliciint ansutM ruinaint'd alter Hueli 
 i)ayiiii lit to ]):iy rcitain other iiaiiii d creditoid 
 111 full, or, if (he assetH should not he suHieient, 
 to disfiihi'te the same jiro nlt^ among such | 
 second inelirreil creditors; thiidly, to divide 1 
 the iiiiiainiiig .assets anioiii,,' all the creditors not 
 ju'efrrred in cinial proportions according to their 
 rc-iiiective elaims ; and, fourthly, to i>;iy the 
 lialance reniaiiiing alter distrihutioii to the as- 
 higiior. The deed reijuired all creditors cxccut- j 
 iiig it to release the assignor from any and every 
 claim of tho executing creditor auainst him, ami 
 provided that the assignee should not 1»! liahle ' 
 to acciiiiiit for more money and elVeets than he 
 should actually re(!eive, nor he responsihie fori 
 any loss or dam.ige to the trust, except such as 
 should h.ippcn through his own wilful neglect. [ 
 III an action to .^et aside tho deed :— Held, af- 
 tinning the judgment ol the court helow,( J wyiine 
 ami I'attersoii, J.I. dissenting, that the deed was ; 
 one to which it was inireasonahle to ex](e(!t uii- ; 
 preferred creditors to h(!come parties, and there- 
 fore, and heciiiise it contained a resulting trust i 
 in favour of the debtor, it was void under the '< 
 statute, l.S Kliz. eh. !i. Wliilmiin v. Union Hank 
 of llidifaj-, Ki.S. C. K. 410. 
 
 Sec Mi-Snh v. Proy, 3'2 C. P. r)45, p. 83 ; Cooper 
 V. irixon, 10 A. H. m, p. 101 ; Al'xnnilir v. 
 Wdvil/, 10 A. 1!. 1:15, p 10."); lU'emerw Olim; 
 10 A. K. 0.')(1, p. fiOl ; Mr/hmald v. Mv(!.ill, \'i 
 A. H. 5i).S, p. .S'2'2 ; llovfj v. Whilinij, 14 S. ('. 
 R. "il,"), p. 1114 ; Lowri'iii-c v. Amlrrxon- 17 S. (.'. 
 K. :i49, i>. 103. 
 
 ( f ) Coiircjinncc of Litndn. 
 
 A son left his father's house at the age of six- 
 teen, with the assent of tlu! father, a farmer, and 
 went totiiaeh school at a distance, it being agreed 
 ' that he should rt^mit to his father from time to 
 time a part of his earnings, and that the same 
 should be repaid by the father after the son 
 attained majority, as the son should want it. 
 Ac(!orilingly remittances were alleged to have 
 neeii made to his father, which, on the son com- 
 ing of age, amounted to8<)00, andupwarils, when 
 he found his father was unable to repay his ad- 
 vances. It was arranged that the son should 
 make further advances, and that unless tho 
 father paid them the son was to have the farm 
 conveyed to him, subject to certain incumbrances 
 upon it. Advances were Hub8e(|Uontly made by 
 the son, anil on a settlement made in 1877, it 
 was jisccrtaincd that tho father's indebtedness 
 amounted to ^1,()00 and upwards, which it was 
 then agreed should be the consideration for the 
 purchase of the eiiuity of redemption of the 
 
 801 
 
 father in tho premifioR, tl •oyanco of which 
 
 was inipcached by a jm creditor of tlio 
 
 lather under 13 VX\/.. Tii., ^..iirt being satislied 
 of the boiii\ lides f>f the dualings between (In; 
 father and the son, and that the siiins claiiiieil 
 had really been advanced, (although the only 
 evidence of the dealings was that of the fatlier 
 iind son) disinisMed the bill, hut without costs. 
 Jiirk V. (Iriiij, 27 Chy. (!. -.Spriigge. 
 
 Inaxuitbya creditor impeaching; a sale by 
 N. to his sister, made in consideration of her 
 nssumiiig two mortKagos on the land, eertaiii 
 executiiiiiH against him which flie paid, and oi a 
 debt due to hersell, it ajine.ired sliu was awaic 
 of the plaintitl's claim ; that hor brother had no 
 other property to meet it ; that he was of iin- 
 provideiit habits ; that a sherifl's sale was pcml 
 iiig ; that X. had [ircviously refused a larger snni 
 for the land than ids sister gave ; that K. coii- 
 tinued after the' sale to reside on the land ; tli.it 
 
 she shortly afterwards sold the estate for ii 
 
 than twice what she ga for it, and thai »lio 
 bought other lands w' .rt of the proceeds, 
 
 upon which lands X. id resi.led : Hid, 
 
 that sullicient was s! wiirrant a decree 
 
 declaring the conveyance by N. to his sister 
 fraudulent as against creditors under the st.itute 
 
 f Klizabcth. 
 .S[)ragge. 
 
 Mnritt V. .ViVf*', 28 Chy. 34(5. 
 
 ,S. purchased lands with moneys payable to 
 bill) by the crown for work done under a con- 
 tr.ict, which lands he jiroeiired to be conveyed 
 to his wif(! : — Held, that although the moneys 
 could not be reached by garnishing them berorii 
 being paid by the <'rown, yet that the iiinncy 
 having passed out of the crown, by reason of tlio 
 husband's atipointment in f.ivourof his wile, the 
 ell'ect was to defraud eri^ditors, and the gift was 
 tlu'reforc void under the statute of Kli/abetli. 
 Xiiholson V. tSlidiinon -McJ'/icr.ton v. Shannon, 
 28 Chy. .•178.— Spragge. 
 
 A sale of a lot at an .ibsurdly inadei|uato price, 
 tho sale being otherwise attended with suspicion, 
 was set aside as fraudulent under the statute of 
 I'.lizabeth. /lank of Toronto v. Irwin, 2S Cliy. 
 ;i!t7.-Spragge. 
 
 I)., the purchaser of land, in 1850, gave a mort- 
 gage thereon to A,, the vendor, to secure partef 
 the purchase nioiioy. 'J'axes were allowed to ae- 
 cumulate, for which the laud was sold, and I), 
 became the purcluLser in 18(»S. In IS72, I), maile 
 conveyances of his other land and personal pro- 
 ])erty to his two sons, each of whom gave liack 
 a mortgage to secure the maintenance of \>. anil 
 his wife, and the payment of certain sums to 
 other children. No claim was made on the iiiiirt- 
 gage given by I), until 1870, and the iilaiutitf 
 claiming as assignee of A., recovered judgiupiit 
 against l>. in .luno, 1878, on the covenant. In 
 the s.'uuo year, in order to defeat this judgment, 
 tlie mortg.iges made in 1872 to I), were rcleaseil 
 and new inortgagos made to his wife securing 
 snbstanti.ally tho same provision. The plaiiitiif 
 having obtained a decree in the court below to 
 .set aside the transactions of 1872 and 1878, n.s 
 fraudulent against creditors, such judgment was 
 reversed on appeal. Per Burton and Patter- 
 son, .JJ.A., the transaction of 1872, upon the 
 evidence more fully set out in tho report, 
 was not frauihilent, for it was not volui.tary, 
 but brought about by preseure on the part of the 
 
800 
 
 801 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVEYANOES. 
 
 MiiiM, mill wiiH for vivluabli! ooimiiU'i'iitiiiii ; tho I hail no notiou that tliii convoyiinutt frniii M. of 
 nit'ii! fact, thiirffdiii, it it wtTii Hhuwii, of ui'imIi- liilst May, IHH7, was invalid, nor of the roiivoy- 
 torH l)('iti){<lulayuil H'oulil not (liH|iuimt! with proof I aiiuu of 'Jlnt May, IH't, liut he hail noticu of 
 of intent to ilulay, utc. , ami tliori! wan no Hulliei i thtt thri-u nmrt^agu.i to (', , ami thikt C elainicd 
 cut |ir>iiif of Huuh intent, eitlur on the part of the the whole ilel>t a^'aiimt the land, and also that 
 father or Honn, and certainly not on the part of there wax a defect in C'm title umlcr the secnnd 
 tliu latter, which was eHHenlial, fur the evidence 'ami third niiirt>{ageH : Meld, that the plidntitl', 
 went to sliew that thin delit, wlii'li wan tle^ "idy heiiig hound hy hucIi notice, eoidd not avail him- 
 (MIC, wan neitlicr ktiown oi' apprelicnded. I'er Hcif of any defect in title ariMin>< from iM, exe- 
 Itinten, d. A, The alle;,'aiion in tlii- hill that ; cntiiig tlie latter two mortgagcH to (,' , altliorjjh 
 the |ilaintiir was a creditor in rcMpecl if a deht ' Htill helng the owner of the eipiity of redempt'on, 
 ixJNtlng ))cfore IKT'J, was not proved, tor there ' that the pi lintill' aeipiiriMl IiIh title with know- 
 was no Bnllieient proof of any anxigmnent to ledge that ('. i lainu'd a delit re[ireNcnted hy tho 
 tlie plaintiir, of wliich the judgment wan no i three lU'iitgagcH, and took hix mortgage, Huhjcct 
 iviilcncc, and a deed of the land hy the niort- to hucIi claim liy (',, ; -Meld, also, the the deed 
 j;agcc, A., to the plaiiitid', woidd not operate as from M. of 'ilttt May, IN(17, was either voliin- 
 an aHHignment of the deht or of the mortgage ; tary or a frandnlent prefi^rence, and in either 
 imr was it Hudioient to whew the mortgage, and case void ; and that the fact that M.'m wife joined 
 that the iudgment was for the money Hccnrcd liy to liar dower, in tiie two list mortgJigeH to ('. 
 it. I'cr Patterson,.!. A. I'roof of the assign- itter slu^ had apparently liucome the owner of 
 iiiuiit was immaterial, for the plaintil! iiad judg i he eipiity of redemption, eonstitnt(Ml her a party 
 iiiciil for the mortgagi! deht, and if the intent to to the accounting which took place with C. in 
 defeat such deht had ))een shewn, the grantees ' respect to the continuing deht, and lionnd her 
 iif tiio land could not (piestion tho execution [ in her character of assignee of the ei|uity of re- 
 phiiutill's title. Al/tni v. Mc'/'urinh, 8 A. I{. demption if she could be so considered. Ed- 
 440; reversing, 28 Chy. ii'Mi. i iran/n v. Moniioii, ',i (). U. 4'J8.— Wilson. 
 
 Held, that a deed of assignment of lands in ; |„ |S78J. D., carrying on businesH as a wool 
 
 trust for creditors, under the cireum.stances of 
 this ca:,e, was not void under l.'t I'M/., c. 5 ; and 
 that scctiop. IS of the Imligent Deljtors' Act, now 
 R. S, (>. (1877), c. 118, s. 2, does not refer to 
 real pro|.crty. McNnl, v. I'eir, '.Vl (J. I'. (54.').— 
 C. !'. i». 
 
 Tile male defendant mortgaged his property 
 si'vcial times, and linally sold the eipiity of re- 
 demption. His wife harred her dower in each 
 miiitgagc, under an agreement with her husliand, 
 mailu on the lirst occasion, that lie would con- 
 vey other property to her. Upon tiiis claim 
 being reiterated on tlie s.ile of tlie equity of re- 
 dciiiption, and the refusal of the wife to join in 
 the conveyance unless the promise of the hus- 
 liaiiil was fullilled, the hushand conveyed other 
 laiiil til a trustee for her. The ell'ect was tiiat 
 
 men hant, arranged with his two sons, H. I), and 
 T. I)., to convey to M, 1). two p.arcels of land 
 whiidi 11. \), was to hold until T. I), cainu of age. 
 M. I), held the land until 1S82, when he conveyed 
 it to his fatiier, who immediately recoiiveyed one 
 p.ircel to II. 1>. and tiie other to T. I>. It waa 
 found that tho convey.inces of 1882 were merely 
 to oarry out the trust upon which llie conveyanco 
 of 1878 was maik^ ; that when it wasniiidcj, 1). 
 was ill a position to pay all hisdelitsin full, oven 
 after iluducting the property in (|iiestioii ; and 
 that no deht in existence when the conveyance of 
 IH78 was made was now unpaid, except a (iuni 
 of .^1,()()() due to the wife for riMit, which was 
 secured hy mortgage, but it appi ared slii! joined 
 ill the conveyunce, and therefore it was not 
 
 available to the iilaintill's for tlie purpose of 
 
 theiiiaintiir, a creditor of the husiiand. was ile- ^ '*''"i"H the conveyance aside; — Meld, that the 
 
 layeii and liindered in recovering his tb-bt : — 
 Held, iillirming the decision of the court below, 
 tliattiie conveyance to the wife's trustee, was not 
 voluntary ; and as the transaction had been tound 
 to have lieeii bona tide, and without intent to do- 
 Irauil cicditi IS, it could not be impi^ached under 
 in Kliz. c. "). lidiviK V. Mtiijiiiri', 7 A. It. 704. 
 
 conveyances to M. 1). and T. I>. were Vidid, for 
 that under the circumstances they could not be 
 deemed to be maile witli intent to hiniler, delay, 
 or defraud creditors. Biiiik o/ Muiilrcal v. Ddiit, 
 DO. R. rtM.—C. v. u. 
 
 Oil 4tli Ajiril, IW).S, M. and his wife (to bar 
 dower) mortgaged the lands in i|uestioii to ( '. 
 On '21st May, 18(i7, M. bidiig in in.solvoiit cir- 
 I'unislances, conveyed the said lands to \V. 
 totheuseof M.'s wife. In l.S(i8 and 1872 M. ' 
 executcil two other mortgages to ('. for the debt 
 originally secured by the first mortg.igo. On 
 
 The dofendaiit K. C'. having entered into a, 
 business |iartnership, at the instigation of hi» 
 wife conveyed certain land to her to jirevent its 
 becoming liablts to creditors of the new (inn. He, 
 then, as agent of his wife, placed tho property 
 in the hands of the plaintiil', a land agent, to sell 
 or exchange, and tliiongh him an agreement for 
 exchange was arranged. The plaintitl' sued the 
 
 , ,, . r- (-1 wife for his eomniis^ion, and recovered a verdict 
 
 20tli llccember, 1874, M. ami his wife (to bar ! against her, but while the action was pending 
 dower) mortgiged the .said lands to ('. All the she recoiiveyed the land to her husband. There 
 above deeds were registered alioiit the time of was no coiibideration for any of these coiivey- 
 tlieirrcspc'ctive executions. On (itii March, 187ti, ' aiices. In an action to set aside the reconvey- 
 (i. assigned to the plaintiil', but the deed was not j aiice as fraudulent and void against the creditors 
 registcied. On 7th dune, 187t), .M. and his wife of tlie wife, it was : -Held, (reversing the judg- 
 jointly mortgaged the same lands to the plain- I nient of tJalt, 0. J., C. P., at the triid) that the 
 tiffliy deed registered 1.5th •July, 1870. (Jn 2l8t 1 convcyanee by the husband to the wife liavinjf 
 May, 1874, W. and M. and his wife granted and | been made to <lefraud creditors (following Mun- 
 rekiised the said lands to C. until payment of the dell v. Tinkis, (i O. R. 025) the court would not 
 mortgage of 1872, and on payment thereof to assist a person who has placed hia property in 
 the ii.su of M. in fee. This, however, was not the name of another in order to defraud hi» 
 registered till 4tli August, 1881. The plaintiff j crc.litora ; that the wife had an interest in the 
 51 
 

 *■"*', :■: 
 <!•••}; II 
 
 
 I 
 
 803 
 
 FRAUDULENT G0NVE7AN0ES. 
 
 801 
 
 Im- 
 
 properly which could be made available to her 
 creditors for the p.i.vinent of her debts, and that 
 the eoiivi'yani^e from her wa.» made with intent 
 to dele it, delay, and prejudice her creditors, 
 and th it a« the evidence shelved siie was unable 
 to pay iier dehts in full, it fell witiiin the pro- 
 viKioiis ot 4S Vict. c. -M, s. "J (Out.), and was void. 
 John-io,, V. a ine, IG O. K. 1-J9.— Chy. D. 
 
 The defendant made a voluntary conveyance 
 to his « ifi' of certain real estate owned by liiui. 
 Without this real e.-.tate, his lial)ilities, among 
 wincii was a delit to tile plaintiffs of al)out 
 SI, .")(»(). exoeedi'd his ass. ts. He continued to 
 deal laii;ely with tlie plaintitl's down to the time 
 of his faihire some years alteiwards, the balance 
 then due tlieiM ImIi'i^' about. .»;2;{,(lOO, but much 
 miu'e ill ui .':i>l,ri()(l lia.l l>i en in the meantime paid 
 to Iheiii : -ll'.'ld, alhiniiiig llie decision of IJoyd, 
 C, tiiat the ciinveyaiice was fiamlulent and void 
 as against creditors. Fitiiu ni v. Kdiiii/, Hi A. 
 ]{. '27(). S...- liliirkkij V. KiUtii-ii, U) (). II. 109 ; 
 18 A. I!. 13."). 
 
 I'er M iclennan. J A. The settlement having 
 been in ide « itli the object of putting the proptirty 
 bi^yon.l the (h.iuiicsaiid uncertainties of the busi- 
 ness in wlii.di tile settler was eng igeil and whicli 
 he continued to ciiry on until insolvent, must 
 be re_Mr<le.l as h iviiig Ix.eii m ide with intent to 
 <lcfr.iiid the ciedilois of that biisiiiiss, and it 
 was niiiieccsaiy to prove any old debt still un- 
 paiil. III. 
 
 Tlie (Kfond.tut W. , who was an executor under 
 the will ol one J., made in f cvour of himself and 
 tliedchnlaiit II., who wa< his I'oexe^'iitor under 
 
 the will, ,1, tga,.;e to sttiure the repiyment ol 
 
 trust moneys ini|iinpirly u>ed by W., in Ineacli 
 of trii>t. \V. was at the tune this m.u'tga'.'e Wiis 
 given, an. I I'oiitiiiiuil to hi- in insolvent circ im- 
 staiic .s lint had made- no as-ignnient lor the bene- 
 lit ol his crcd lots. Tlu- plaintitl's, execution 
 creditors of W., att icked the mortgage : — Held, 
 that no .is-igiuneiit li ivmg been made, an execu- 
 tion iTiMlitor iiii^'iit attack ilie security and take 
 advant.ige of s. •_> ol th.' A t, R. .S (). (I8S7), c. 
 121. Hild, that neither H nor H. and W. as 
 executcMs, were, in the st.ict i-ense of the word, 
 cre<lit.irs of \V., .and that the mntgage there- 
 fore could not l)c s t aside as having liecn given 
 with intent to prefer, oi- as h iving the eliVct of 
 prefi.'i riiii;, one cielitor to another. Mol.toiii 
 liaiik V. Haiti, ; Hi A. R. :<'J.S Affirmed by the 
 Suiirt.'ine Court, 18 S. ( '. R. 8S. 
 
 Held, (Osier, J. A., dissenting), that the words 
 "or which has such ellect ' in s. 2, It. S. (). 
 (18S7), c. 124, rel itc only to the immediate pre- 
 cedii'g el luse deding with the preference of one 
 creditor over others, .ind this mortg ge not be 
 in:^ in ide with intent to defeat, delay, or ]ire- 
 jndice creditors, c nild not lie set aside on the 
 groniid thit it . id the ellect of defeating, de- 
 laying or piejudi.ing them. Per Osier, .J. A. — 
 These words apply to the whole of the antece- 
 dent p.irt of tlie seetion. embr.icing as well con- 
 veyan 'es nude with in'ent to deteat, delay or 
 prejiidie'e, as those m ide with intent to prefer 
 only, and any conveyance or transfer by an in- 
 solvent (with the excepiioiis specially nientioned 
 ill 8. 3 , which has the ell'ect of defeating, delay- 
 ing, prejudicing or preferring creditors, what- 
 ever may have been tlie intent with which it 
 is made, is within the statute, lb. 
 
 See Parr v. Moiitiiomery, 27 Chy. 521, p. 691; 
 liae V. McDonald, 13 O. R. 352, p. 791. 
 
 (g) Bilh of Safe and Chattel Afortf/agen, 
 
 G. & E., bakers, on the I8tli May, 1880, agreed 
 with the defemlants that if the latter would 
 supply them with Hour they would give them a 
 chattel mortgage on their horses, waggons, and 
 baking utensils. Defendants uccordiiiLdy deli- 
 livered from day to day a cpiantity of Hour to 
 (J. & E. On 2()th .May, the chattel mortgage not 
 having been execn'ed, the defendants wrote to 
 <i. K. to have it done. I ne niorlgage was ac- 
 cordingly drawn, covering the sales made, and 
 was executed by the mortgagors only on 10th 
 June, 1880, amf filed mi the 12th. (}. & E. nb- 
 scoiided on the 12th, and on the 14th defendants 
 took [lossessioii under a clause in the mortgas^e 
 wliich allowed them to do so in <ase the mort- 
 gagors "shiuild attempt to sell, dispose of. or in 
 any w.iy part with the possession of said goods," 
 and removed them to their own w.irehouse. The 
 mortgagealso contained a redemise clause. The 
 jurat of the aliidavit of bona tides wat not signed 
 liy the coniiii ssioner. The deteiidants swore 
 that they would not li.ive adv.inced tlie Hour if 
 this security !iad not been promised, and that 
 they had no intention of getting a preference over 
 other creditors. The plaintitl's writ ot attach- 
 ment issued on the 17tli .Iiine, and the slierifT 
 seizeil the goods under it on the .SOth June :— 
 Held, that the mortgage must be considered as 
 li iviiig been given when the contrnct io give it 
 was entered into, viz., when tlie Hour was first 
 sold on credit <ui the 18th May, to en.ilile liefen- 
 d lilts to carry on their business; ami therefore 
 there was umler R. tS. <). (1877), c. 118, no pre- 
 ference of defendants, who became creditors only 
 by this act : — Held, .also, the property having 
 passed by the bill of sde, and the detend.intsbe- 
 iii'.' in actual possession when die plaintitl's at- 
 tachment issued, that they had a right to retain 
 the goo.ls as ag.iinst the plaintifl', subject to the 
 mortgagors' right of action, if any, for taking 
 possession before default ; —.Semble, however, 
 tli.tt umler the clause in the mortg.age above 
 mentioned, defendants were justified in taking 
 possession, when tlie mortgagors .•ibscondeil, 
 leaving no one in charge of tiie goods. Jiuliim 
 V Clark, 4,-)(i. ]J. 302. -Q. 15. D. 
 
 L. being in insolvent ciri'iimstances exeouteil 
 .a cli ittel mortgage to D. wdio was cogiiiziUit of 
 his state ; and shortly aftertlie exi'Ciition thereof, 
 in collusion with the mortgagee but against an 
 expressed prohibition, made a delivery or pre- 
 tended sale of the goods to one M., which was 
 contrary to the terms of the mortgage, and tlie 
 mortgiigi'e sued for breach of the covenant there- 
 in, adding the common counts, the mortgage 
 having then three moiitlis to run : -Held, that 
 the mortgage and judgment, so fiir .is the cove- 
 nant was concerned, were void as being a fraud 
 upon credit(U-8. The mortgagor was really in- 
 ilebted to the mortgagee upon ,in account, though 
 the time for payment was extended three montlis 
 by the mortgage : — Ffeld, that the mortg.igee 
 was entitled to retain his judgment on the com- 
 mon counts as there was not any violation of the 
 Act (R. S. O. (1877), e. llS.jin the debtor when 
 sued not insisting on the fact of the credit not 
 having expired, or that the debt had been merged 
 
 805 
 
805 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. 
 
 m 
 
 in the mortgage. 
 113.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Kin(f V. Duncan, 29 Chy. 
 
 The trustees of a church had been sued by the 
 defeiiduiit, aiul pending the action they psiHsed a 
 resolution uutliorizing the raising by loan of $400 
 to pay oil' urj,>-iit claims, which recited that it 
 was necessary to give security to the party mak- 
 ing tlio advance. The pluintifl' being one of the 
 trustees, thereupon advanced the money, obtain- 
 ing from the trustees a chattel mortgage on all 
 the movables contained in the churcli, which was 
 prepared by a partner of the general solicitor of 
 the trustees who was lit'fending the action against 
 tiiem, but neither partner was called us a witness 
 on the trial. In an interpleader issue the judge at 
 tlie trial found for defendant: — Held, (Burton, 
 J,, dubitante,) atlirming the decision of the C. 1'. 
 1)., that tlie mortgage was not invalid un<ler 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. !»o, 8. 13, and the fact that all 
 the moveable property of the mortgagors was 
 included in the security, was not of itself sutii 
 cient to satisfy the court of any fraudulent in- 
 tent in making it. Jiroicn v. Sictel, 7 A. H. 
 ?2C,. 
 
 (hie S., a trader who was in embarrassed cir- 
 cunisitances, on consultation with \V., one of his 
 creditors, was advi.xed by liini to make an assign- 
 ment of all his stotk-in-trade and ellects, which 
 he did to his wife, in whose name the business 
 was afterwards carried on, she obtaining from 
 tlie plaintiirs goods on her own credit ; and on 
 thu plaintill's agreeing to settle tlie claims of two 
 other creditors, which they did, she i xeciited to 
 them a chattel nmrtgage on all the ellects in her 
 shop. The sherill liaviiig seized the goods under 
 an execution at the suit of anotiier creditor, tlie 
 plaiutirt's instituted interpleader proceedings ; — 
 Held, that the mortgaiie to them was a fraudu- 
 lent preference, and as such void against credi- 
 tors, Boyd v. GkiM, 8 A. 1{. (>32. 
 
 11. being ." crcditiir of A., applied to him to 
 give security for his debt, and, uimer threat of 
 suit, iMoeiired from him a chattel mortgage on 
 Ills stock in- trade. Although K. knew A. to be 
 in ditticulties, and hail also the means of learn- 
 ing that he was insolvent, it did not appear that 
 he actually knew that A. was insolvent when he 
 olitained the mortgage ; while the mortgagor 
 sought to gain time and to go on with his busi- 
 ness :— Held, tiiat the mortgage given under 
 hucli circunistanceg was not a fraudulent ])refer- 
 cnce within |{. S. O. (1877), c. 118. Si'jsworlh 
 \: Me.riikii Silvtr I'lalinii Co., 3 O. K. 413.— 
 Hovd. 
 
 The plaintiff was married in 1871) without any 
 marriage contract or settlement, being possessed 
 of ab'iut .?l,.'iOO derived from the estate of a 
 fornitr husband, which she lent at ditl'erent 
 times to her husband, <lirectiy or in paying his 
 debts, a small portion hiving been lent prior to 
 their marriage. In January, 1879, on a further 
 ftdvance of .$'200, she obtained from her husband 
 Rchittel mortgage of certain goods, farm stock, 
 implements and other chattels, which w; ; duly 
 registered but not renewed. In November, 1879, 
 she insisted upon and obtained from her husbuinl 
 a bill of sale and other goods, for the expressed 
 consideration of 3300. The phiintilf and her 
 hiislKUid continued to reside together, and appa- 
 rently hud the use of the goods in much the Hume 
 way aa prior to such bill of sale being uiade, 
 
 she and her sons working the farm on which the 
 parties resided, and which had been conveyed 
 by her husband to a trustee for the benefit of the 
 plaintiH', the husband working or not as pleased 
 himself. The evidence established the bona 
 fides of the claims set up by the plaintiti', and 
 for the purpose of securing a creditor of the hus- 
 band she executed a chattel mortgage in her own 
 name on the goods : — Held (atlirming the juilgo 
 of the County Court, York), that the bill of sale 
 and chattel mortgage were not open to objection 
 as being given direct to the wife by the husband; 
 and that even if her title under the chattel mort- 
 gage could not be supported for want of a sutH- 
 cient change of pos.session, she could claim uniler 
 the bill of sale, which being obtained by pressure 
 was not a fraudulent preference under 11. fS. (). 
 (1877), c. 118. Totleii v. Boiren, 8 A. 11. 002. 
 
 Held, in this case, that inasmuch as the mort- 
 gagor was coerced into making the second mort- 
 J,, jjc, the making of such iiiortjiage could not be 
 regarded as a fr.iudulcnt preference. Tidti/ v. 
 Cmib, 4 U. It. WIG. — Ferguson. 
 
 Where it was sought to set aside a bill of sale 
 of |)crsoiial projierty a.s fraudulent ami void, as 
 against the creditors of the gr,int(ir, and the evi- 
 dence showed that it was reluctantly given by 
 the del)tor, who only yielded after .some delay, 
 and to a continuous insistancc on the part of hia 
 creditors, his intent being to escape his creditor's 
 importunitv, anil that the demand uf the creditor 
 was made bona fide, with no intent but to obtain 
 the security, wliii.'li she was advised she ought to 
 have : — Held, aliirniing the decision of I'roud- 
 fiiot, .1., that the bill of .sale was not void under 
 1{. S, (). (IS77), 0. 118, s. 2. .Slater v. Olircr, 
 7 (). n. 158. -»Jhy. D. 
 
 S. & W., a firm, of whom \V. was a minor, 
 becoming embarrassed arranged with H., the 
 managing man of J. (i. &. Co., their principal 
 crcilitnr, to give security for their debt. At the 
 instigation of II. two notc;s for the amount of 
 this mdolpteilness niaturiim at short dates were 
 made by fS. and \V., payable to 1'. ,and en lor.sed 
 to .(. (i. & Co. by 1'., will) was a biothe -in-law 
 of J. (J., and connected with bim ii. another 
 business, and a chattel mortyagc was given by 
 S. & \V. on everything tiiey had in their busi- 
 ness to P. to secure bim, and 850 was paid him 
 by J. C. & Co., for endorsing tlie notes. A few 
 days after the mortgage was given C. caused the 
 sheriff to seize .S. & W.'s gooils under an execo- 
 tiiui in his hands, received sub^eijueiit to the 
 making "f the mortgage. In an interpleader 
 Jiction between P., claiming under the chattel 
 mortgage, and C. claiming under his execution: — 
 Meld, that the mortgage must be treated as if 
 given to J. (i. & Co., for it was made to P. only 
 as adevice to avoid the statute against fraudulent 
 preferences, and that upon the evidence sel out 
 in the reiiort it must lie held void as against 
 creditors :— "■eniblc, that the share of the infant 
 \V. did not pass by the chattel mortgage, nor by 
 the assignment for the benetit of creditors w hich 
 was afterwards made. Powell v. t'aUUr, 8 O. 
 R. 505.— Proudfool;. 
 
 In March, 1879, the defendant K., a milliner, 
 removed her business to the village of Tara, and 
 in the Novemlh-'r following changed her then re- 
 sidence and place of business to a shop owned by 
 her co-defeudant, adjoining to and uuclt-r tb« 
 
807 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 S09 
 
 
 
 SBU' 
 
 
 CS.V 
 
 *' "? 
 
 •M.:;- 
 
 
 /I0? 
 
 
 *-«Ji 
 
 ( 
 
 same roof as his own. In the spring of 1880 the 
 (lefeudunta commenced other I)usine8s transac- 
 tions, when her co-defendant lent K. $120 to en- 
 able iier to purchase stock for her business, she 
 promising tu give him security for its repayment 
 by executing in his favour a mortgage on every- 
 thing slie had. Tile purtic.i continued their busi- 
 ness relations, T. advancing K. moneys from time 
 to time, till in November, 1880, slio was indebted 
 to him in tlie sum of $4(i3.73, inchuling one year's 
 rent of her shop, a bill of E. 's for medical .ittend- 
 nnce, and a sum for interest accrued due, and for 
 whicii she executed a chattel mortgage, covering 
 nil her stock-in-trade and liousehold effects. 
 Both defendants swore that K. refused to execute 
 the security, notwithstanding her promise to do 
 so, until after the receipt by her of a letter from 
 'J'.'s solicitors demanding payment, or in default 
 an action would be brought. Per iSpragge, C. J. 
 O., and Burton, J. A., allirming the judgment of 
 Ferguson, J., (I l». R. 119,) tiiat although the 
 transaction was open to grave doubts, yet the 
 same having been sustained by the judge who 
 lieard the evidence, and who considercil that 
 there was sufficient pressure proved to show that 
 the mortgage was not given voluntarily, there 
 were no sufficient grounds shown to justify an 
 interference l)y this court with the decision of 
 the learned judge. Per Patterson and Morrison, 
 .7J. A., dissenting. — The evidence stiliiciently 
 established that tlie mortgage was given with 
 intent to prefer the niortf'agee to the other credi- 
 tors of the mortgagor : tliat it was not given in 
 c'onse(|uence of juessure on the part of the mort- 
 gagee, or in fnlHlment of a promise to give it ; 
 tind even if such pressure or j)romise had satis- 
 factorily been shown, tlie intent to prefer would 
 nevertheless have existed within the meaning of 
 the statute, and have defeated the mortgage. 
 Jirayky v. EHU, 9 A. R. .^GS. 
 
 C, a retail trader, being indebte<l to H. h Co., 
 wholesale merchants, gave them a chattel mort- 
 gage to secure such indebtedness, and also a fur- 
 ther sum of about the same amount, advanced 
 to him l)y H. & L'o at the time of the giving of 
 the mortgage, which C. rc)iresente<l was suHi- 
 eient to pay off in full all lii.s other creditors. 
 (!.'s indebtedness to H. & Co., was covered by 
 liis promissory iu)tes, vhich at tlie time of the 
 execution of the mortgage were on discount with 
 H. & C's baiikers. liuriiig the currency of tlie 
 inoitgage. C. liaving allowed his prcperty to be 
 eeized for rent, H, & (,'o. took possession under 
 their mortgage. ('. being unable to iiay his 
 creditors, the plaiutills, who were crcditois, but 
 liad not recovered judunieiit or execution, took 
 action to set aside the chattel mortgage ; — Meld, 
 iittirniing the judgment of Armour, J., that under 
 the evidence set out in the report there was no 
 fraud, and following Hepburn r. Park, (t (). R. 
 47-, that the fact that the notes in (luestion were 
 lield by the mortgagees' bankers on di.scount did 
 not invalidate tlie mortgage. Ilyxiun v. Ciith- 
 Ixrl-soii, 10 O. R. 443.- g H. I). 
 
 A fcrnial defect in a chattel mortgage may be 
 cured by a conveyance at any time before an 
 execution reaches the sheriff's liaiids ; but .»uch 
 conveyance, M'hether cHected by a deed or by 
 delivery only, has no retroactive operation, and 
 if void for intent to prefer under R. S. (>. (1877), 
 c. 118, would not sutlice to cure the defects. The 
 intent to prefer is a question of fact for the jury ; 
 
 and therefore where the jury found that there 
 was such intent, and where there was evidence 
 to support the finding, the judgment of the 
 county judge setting aside the jury's verdict in 
 favour of the execution creditor was reversed, 
 but a new trial was directed in order that evi- 
 dence might be given to shew that the bill of 
 sale was made in order to carry out honestly the 
 original mortgage contract. (Osier, J. A., dis- 
 senting.) Smith V. fair, 11 A. R. 755. 
 
 An insolvent debtor informed his creditors of 
 his difficulties, and on the 19th March, 1885, all 
 but two of the creditors signed a memorandum 
 to the effect that the best thing he could do was 
 to sell out his stock and effects for n sum named 
 and agreed to be paid by one fif the creditors, 
 and which would pay all his creditors fifty cents 
 in the dollar on certain terms, ami those who 
 signed agreed to accept fifty cents in full of their 
 claims. The debtor afterwards accordingly, hy 
 bill of sale dated the 9th of April following, sold 
 and conveyed his assets to one of tlic credi- 
 tors, who had signed the memorandum, for the 
 sum and on the terms named therein, which were 
 that the money was to be paid in four and eijjlit 
 months, and the purchaser was to endorse the 
 vendor's notes, so that he could transfer them to 
 the creditors. The bill of sale referred to the 
 previous agreement, and recited that " the credi- 
 tors" had agreed to accejit these notes " in full 
 satisfaction and discharge of their respective 
 claims" against the deljtor, and also provided 
 thiit the balance, if any, " after deducting the 
 debt of the purchasers," (who were among those 
 agreeing to accept the fifty cent compositinn,) 
 siiould bo paid to the debtor : — Held, that this 
 amounted in effect to a condition that any credi- 
 tor receiving the fifty cents in the dollar of his 
 claim, should release the debtor, and that the 
 sale was therefore void as against the two mm- 
 assenting creditors under l{. S. O. (1877), c. \\i, 
 a. 2. Per O'Connor, .]., the reservation to the 
 ])urchasers of "the amount of the debt" was am- 
 biguous, and might mean their wlude debt, in 
 which case the sale was ]ireferential, and so void. 
 Jiiuiiiiiis v. J/i/iiKdi, 11 O. R. 05.-^0. H. 1). 
 
 A comjiaiiy. incorporated in the state of Mielii- 
 gan, while in insolvent circumstances, had given 
 a mortgage upon dintti Is in Ontario to ilefen- 
 dant. a Michigan creditor, to secure previous 
 cash advances made to the coinpuny under ver- 
 bal ]iromises by tW' dincttors tliatscicnrity woidd 
 be given. The elicit of the mortgage was to de- 
 lay and prejudice other creditors and give de- 
 fendant a iirefcrcnce over them:— Held, tliat 
 under 48 Vict. c. 'J(>(Ont. ), without regard utall 
 to any question of bona lides, jin ssure, or kimw- 
 ledge of the company's tinMiicial position hy its 
 officers, or by tlefendant, (be ell. ct alone of the 
 transaction avi ided it: — Held, idso, that this 
 mortgage was imt given in pinsii.ince of any an- 
 tecedent contractor jiroimse nf the company, 
 but jven if it were that it could not be iijiheld, 
 'oecause it was not shown to have been given in 
 consideration of a money advance made in the 
 boim fide belief that aucli advance would ciialiie 
 the debtors to continue business and pay their 
 debts in full. Ji'ivir Slair Com/xivy v. Sill, 12 
 O. R. 557.— Q. B. I). See Mar'.himou v. I'ultfr- 
 HO,,, 20 O. R. 125, 720. 
 
 A company being indebted to L. A B. in ft 
 large amount, and believing that tlieir charter 
 
 I'lie plai 
 a country 
 as their « 
 thereon as 
 The mortgi 
 the jiroper 
 mortgage t 
 hands at I 
 these latte 
 the Countj 
 in the mor 
 expected 
 who was il 
 made no cll 
 of tlie Coul 
 that the acl 
 gage on go J 
 though all! 
 executionsl 
 covered bj 
 transactioil 
 tors, so thif 
 tiffs to C. 
 ciitions. 
 gage buck] 
 same transi 
 interest ofj 
 mortgage 
 gage of tin] 
 cutions wl| 
 therefore \ 
 daiits, the i 
 •t. bom ill 
 r<!ferred tct 
 distrihutivl 
 cover thei/ 
 «» ttgainstl 
 pressed wl 
 money, wl 
 under the! 
 A. R. 565.1 
 
 A mortd 
 •equiredcl 
 
.«09 
 
 FRAUDULENT 00NVE7AN0ES. 
 
 810 
 
 dill not allow a mortgage on their property to 
 secure an overdue debt, made an agreement to 
 give such mortgage for an advunce of a larger 
 81U11, agreeing to return the amount of the debt 
 tu the mortgagees. At the time of this trans- 
 action the company believed that by getting 
 time from this creditor they would be able to 
 carry on tlieir business and avoid failure. This 
 hope was not realized, however, as the com- 
 pany were subse(iuently compelled to stop 
 pajinent, and the respondents, who were 
 also creditors, obtained judgments ami issued 
 executions against the goods secured ljy the 
 mortgage, and ou an interpleader issue brought 
 to try tlie title to such goods, the Chancellor 
 licaring the cause gave judgment for the execu- 
 tion creditors ^7 O. R. loi), and the Court of 
 Appeal sustained tliat judgment by a division 
 of the court (12 A. R. 13"). On appeal to the 
 Supreme Cou.t of Canada : — Held, reversing the 
 juilgment of the Cliancellor, that inaamucli us 
 the company bona lide believed that by giving 
 tills mortgage and getting an extension of time 
 for payment of plaintiff's' debt they would be 
 able to carry ou tiieir business, the mortgage 
 was not a preference of this debt over those of 
 otiier creditors, and not a fraudulent preference 
 imder R. S. O. (1877), c. 118. Luwj v. Han- 
 cud; 12 S. C. R. 5;i2. 
 
 The plaintitl's sold to C. their stock-in-trade in 
 a country suore which he had managed for them 
 as their agent ; and took a chattel mortgage 
 thereon as security for the purchase money. 
 The mortgage also included sundry other chattels 
 the property of C At the time of tlie sale and 
 mortgage there were executions in the sheriffs 
 hands at the suit of the defendants by which 
 these latter goods were bounil. The judge of 
 the Ciiunty Court found they had been included 
 in tile mortgage in order to ilefeat or delay an 
 expected execution against C. at the suit of 8. 
 wlio was no party to the proceedings aiul had 
 made no claim : — Held, affirming the judgment 
 of the County (Jourt (Osier, J. A., dissenting), 
 tliat the acceptance by the plaintiils of a mort- 
 gage on goods which they knew belonged to C. 
 thougii already bound up by the defendants' 
 executions, with knowledge of the judgment re- 
 covered by S. against C. , rendered the whole 
 transaction fraudulent and void against credi- 
 tors, so that the stock-in-trade sold by the plain- 
 tiflfs to C. became subject to the defendants' exe- 
 cutions. I'er Osier, J. A. 'J' he sale and mort- 
 gage back of the stock-in-trade being parts of 
 same transaction the executions bouiul only the 
 interest of (J. therein, and were subject to the 
 mortgage for the purchase money. The mort- 
 gage ot the other goods could not affect the exe- 
 cutions which had all along bound them, and 
 therefore was not fraudulent against the defen- 
 dants, the only creditors who were complaining of 
 it. dominion Bank o. iJavidson, 12 A. 11. 20, 
 referred to. The issue might have been found 
 distributively, and the plaintiffs could either re- 
 cover their own goods under the mortgage tit'o 
 as against the executions, or eijuitably, as im- 
 pressed with a trust to secure the purchase 
 money, which was paramount to any claim 
 under the executions. Cameron v. Perrin, 14 
 A. R. 565. 
 
 A mortgage by an insolvent person on future, 
 acquired chattels to secure the repayment of the 
 
 price of such charvels to the vendor thereof is 
 binding, notwithstanding 48 Vict. c. 2(5, s. 2 
 (Out.). Ovuldinij v. Ittemim/, 1") O. K. 201.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 On April 26th, 1880, M. A. V'., in pursuance 
 of a written agreement of tile same date, gave a 
 mortgage to the plaintiffs on her furniture and 
 stock-in-trade, present and future, to secure ad- 
 vances of goods to be made by the plaintiffs 
 within seven months, to the extent of §1,000 in 
 value ; and at the same time she executed a mort- 
 gage on the .same goods to secure a past indebt- 
 edness to tile plaiutilfs. Tiie advances were made, 
 pursuant to the mortgage, to the extent of abuut 
 .^6(J0. M. A. V. was insolvent at the time, l)Ut 
 not to the knowledge of tiie plaintitl's, and the 
 transaction was an honest one througliout. Over 
 a year after, the goods were seized in execution 
 by tlie defendant. At that time the past indelit- 
 edness secured by the mortgage relating thereto 
 had all Ijeen paid oU'. It i(id not appear tliat 
 the payments were made out of the new goods : 
 — Held by the Divisional Court, upon the evi- 
 dence, that tlier" v.'cro two agioenients — one to 
 secure a past indebtedness, and the other to se- 
 cure the future advaiccs ; and that the mort- 
 gage to secure future advances was a valid se- 
 curity within section of R. S. O. (1887), c. 1 IJ). 
 Coyne r. Lee, 14 A. R. 503, cited and followed. 
 Held, also, tliat the transaction had not the 
 elfect of giving a preference under 48 Vict. c. 26, 
 s. 2. The mortgage was not void under 48 Vict. 
 c. 26, 8. 2, for substantially it was given by 
 way of security for a present actual bonil tide 
 sale and delivery of goods, within the exception 
 to that section ; and it was not a preference of 
 the plaintiffs over t)ther creditors, as but for it 
 the plaintifi's would never have become creditors 
 at all ; and there was no (pieation under section 
 3(1), as to the gootis blearing a fair and relative 
 value to the consideration therefor, inasmuch as 
 it was not an absolute conveyance or transfer, 
 but a mortgage, and would attach only to the 
 exact extent to which value was given therefor, 
 by the ilelivery of goods. Ih. 
 
 Per Proudfoot, J. The " advances " referred 
 to in R. 8. O. (1877), c. 119, s. 6, need not be 
 pecuniary. Jb. 
 
 \V., being in insolvent circumstances, and 
 pressed by one of his creditors, CJ., procured his 
 wife to convey her house and lot to O., who, by 
 consent of Mrs. W., applied part of the purchase 
 money in payment of W.'s debt to him, and jiaitl 
 the balance to W., who made a chattel mort- 
 gage on his stock-in-trade to his wife for the 
 amount of the purchase money which she should 
 have received ;— Held (reversing the judgment 
 of Rose, J., at the trial), that the chattel mort- 
 gage was void as against \V. 's creditors under R. 
 S. U. (1887) c. 124, and that it did not come 
 within any of the e.vceptions in section 3. Per 
 Street, d. The necessary preference of a parti- 
 cular creditor placed the transaction outside of 
 the class which it was the intention of the legis- 
 lature to protect. S/oildarf v. Wi/xoH, 16 O. 
 R., 17. — Q. B. U. Disapproved in Johnioii v. 
 Hope, 17 A. R. 10. 
 
 A solicitor, acting for a creditor, obtained for 
 the debtor on the security of a chattel mortgage 
 a loan from another client who was ignorant of 
 the purpose for which the loau was required. 
 
311 
 
 FBAUDULENT 00NVE7ANGES. 
 
 812 
 
 <s; 't 5; 
 
 »!| 
 
 J; M» 
 
 San 
 
 
 CK 
 
 
 s;* 
 
 '»» ■*■ 
 
 »«•*, 
 
 
 "Wi', 
 
 
 f-v 
 
 
 »r. 
 
 '1' 
 
 €-••} 
 
 41 
 
 •-W. 
 
 1 
 
 •«•»., 
 
 
 1 
 
 } 
 
 
 
 lavs 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 The solicitor, by direction of the debtor, out of 
 the moneys advanced paid off the creditor in 
 full and shortly afterwards the debtor assigned : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Chancery 
 Division, 17 O. I.'. '2^0, that the mortgage was 
 one to secure a present actual bona tide advance, 
 and could not be inipeadied. Stoddart r. Wil- 
 son, 16 O. It. 17, (lucstioned. The (picstion of 
 notice to the solicitor as aifectiuf; the client dis- 
 cussed. Uibbonx v. WHkoh, 17 A. K. 1. 
 
 I'laintifTs having recovered judgment against 
 one H. issued execution under which the sheiilF 
 professed to sell certain goods of 11., and gave a 
 deed to plaintiffs conveying all the " share and 
 interest " of H. in thegiHuls. .Si.x months before 
 the recovery of the pluintifls' judgment, H. had 
 made a mortgage covering all the goods proposetl 
 to be sold by tlie sheriff. The plaintiffs filed a 
 bill to set this niortgjige aside as fraudulent under 
 the statute of Eli/.., and fraudulent in fact. The 
 court below held the nu>rtgiige good and dis- 
 missed the bill : — Held, that no fraud being 
 shown, and the plaintitl's not offering to redeem 
 the mortgage, the action was rightly dismissed. 
 HaUj'ax liankhitj Co, v. Mattlun; 10 .S. C. R. 
 721. 
 
 It appeared on the trial of an interpleader 
 issue, that the claimant had agreed in writing 
 with the execution debior, an insolvent, to fur- 
 nish material to the latter for tlie manufacture 
 of carriages, from time to time, for one year, 
 it being provided that no property in such goods 
 should pass, but that notwithstanding any im- 
 provement or work upon the same, or change of 
 form or addition thereto or use tliereof, the same 
 and every part thereof should be and remain the 
 goods and property of the claimant. The mate- 
 rial was supplied and manufactured into car- 
 riages by the execution delitor, which were 
 seized by the defendants, execution creditors of 
 his, and the claimant claimed the same, more 
 being owing to him for tlie material supplied 
 than the value of the goods seized : — Held, re- 
 versing the decision of Armour, ('. .]., tliat the 
 above agreement was not one wiiich could be 
 said necessarily to have the effect of defeating 
 or delaying creditors, and in the absence of 
 fraud the claimant w.is entitled to succeed on 
 the issue: — Held, also, tiiat the fact that the 
 claimant, thinking that the above agreement was 
 lost, from time to time took mortgages from the 
 execution debtor upon the carriages manufactured 
 by him, made no difference ; for even if this had 
 the effect of vesting the property therein in him 
 that could only be subject to the lien of the 
 claimant to be paiil out of them. Moreover the 
 mortgages having been taken, not to supersede 
 the original writing, but under the error that 
 that being lost (as supposed) would be no longer 
 availal)le, the rights of the parties were still 
 subject to the original agreement. ]i ellhmikK 
 V. Iltney, 19 <>. H. 549.— Chy. U. 
 
 See Jlephurn v. I'aric, O. R. 472, pp. 190, 
 793 ; McNohrrtK v. Steinof, 1 1 O. R. .S(!9, p. 79.3 : 
 McCallv. McDonald, 13 S. C. R. 247,p. SJ2: 
 Harber v. Mncpherson, 13 A. [{. 356, p. 18S ; 
 Fitrloiiij V. Reid, 12 O. K. 607, p 675 ; Domi- 
 nion Hank v. Covan, 14 0. R. 465, p. 792 ; 
 ConU V. Kelleii, 15 A. R. 81, p. 818 ; lianki v. 
 Jtobirmn, 15 O. R. 618, p. 181 ; Hank of Hnm- 
 ilton v. Tamhlyn, 16 O. R. 247, p. 186 ; Morris 
 V. Martin, 19 (». K. 564, p. 192. 
 
 (h) Ante y'upti(d Settlements. 
 
 In November, 1876, a marriage being contem- 
 plated between the defendant an(i Al., the defen- 
 dant's father proposed that M. should erect a 
 house, which he had intended building, on a lot 
 belonging to the father, who agreed to convey 
 tlie same to his daughter as a marriage poitioii. 
 This M, assented to, and in that mouth the iiiai- 
 riage took place. During the year following .M. 
 built the house, and his father-in-law conveyed 
 the lot to the defendant as hiid been previously 
 agreed upon. In .January, 18S0, M. became in- 
 solvent, and proceedings were taken by U'.i 
 assignee to have the transaction declared Irau.l- 
 ulent as against creditors, under the l;Uii(l 
 ! section of the Insolvent Act, 1875 ; or under 
 , the 13th Klizabcth, c. 5 :— Held, (athrming tlio 
 ; decree of I'loudfoot, V. C, 27 Chy. 48;jj tliiii 
 ' no fraudulent intention was shewn on tiie pait 
 I of Al., and any knowledge by the defendant or 
 ! her father was distinctly negatived by tiie evi- 
 dence, and therefore the transaction could nut 
 be impeached under either statute. Jackson 1: 
 • Bowman, 14 Chy. 156, remarked upon, distiii- 
 I guished and approved 01. Dund.1011 v. Maijain, 
 I 7 A. 1!. 98. 
 
 I In an action brought by 'J'. K. & Co. on be- 
 half of themselves and .ill other creditors, of J. 
 (r. against J. (J., his wife, and the trustee to set 
 aside a marriage settlement by which J. C, a 
 i day or two before his marriage, had settled the 
 I greater portion of his property on his wife, in 
 which it was shown that he and his wife before 
 the marriage, were living on the most intimate 
 tci'nis short of the intimacy of husband and 
 i wife, and that she would have accepted a pro- 
 posal of marriage without hesitation, without 
 any condition as to a marriage settlement, and 
 j that he was in insolvent circumstances, of whicli 
 fact she must have been aware, and that the 
 I settlement was purely voluntary on his part, and 
 that slio knew nothing of it until she was asked 
 1 to sign the deed :— Held, that the settlement 
 I was not the consideration, or part of the con- 
 sideration of the marriage, and that it must be 
 i set aside as fraudulent and void against crcili- 
 I tors : Commercial Bank r. Cooke, 9 Chy. .'i2t, 
 ; and Columbine r. Fenhall, 1 .Sm. <fe (i. 228, 
 I referred to and followed : Fraser i'. Thomiwon, 
 1 <iif. 49, distinguished. I'hompton v. iJirre, 
 I 120. n. 651. -Chy. D. 
 
 I On 28th .June, 187(5, L. et al. sold to Al. T. .i 
 I property for $12,250, of which .?3.789 were paid 
 I in cash. On 16th June, 1879, K. T., daughter of 
 M. T., married J. K., and in their contract of 
 I marriage M. T. made a donation to his daughter, 
 ! K. T. , of certain property of considerable value, 
 and remained with no other property than tli.it 
 I sohl to him by L. etal. In July, 1881, L. ctal. 
 I brought an action to set aside the gift in quca- 
 I tion, claiming that the property sold having In- 
 come so depreciated in value as to be insufficient 
 to cover their claim for the balance remaining 
 due to them, and secured only by the projierty 
 so sold, the gift in this marriage contract had 
 reduced M. 1., to a state of insolvency, and had 
 been made in fraud of L. ct al. , and that at the 
 time the gift was made, M. T. was notoriously 
 insolvent. M. T., pleaded inter alia, denying 
 averments of insolvency, fraud, or wrong-doing. 
 The only evidence of the value of the property 
 still held by M. T. at the date of theoonatioD, 
 
 S., a wl 
 mariiage \ 
 tion, verba 
 meat for h 
 of a partic 
 sequently, 
 place, wlii( 
 to was sold 
 anticipateii 
 twci •! the 
 .lune, 1873 
 ties fotir SI! 
 Ijiirjiose of 
 the inipro 
 815,.*<20. oj 
 ances of wl 
 to 8. liimsj 
 veyed tiie 
 was not red 
 
 S. Slll)sel|li| 
 
 filed by thi 
 conveyancl 
 the court (I 
 an agreemf 
 the parties 
 only ('vidtl 
 theniselvt 
 p.ireels to I 
 ciared tliol 
 in settlemi 
 It was alhl 
 of the settl 
 in the repf 
 was not sf/ 
 property i| 
 •lid not. 1/ 
 remained 
 Chy. 280. 
 
 One of I 
 
 March, If 
 Wb wife 01 
 ling-houseT 
 following I 
 compromil 
 February/ 
 was app*! 
 filed a bill 
 
812 
 
 813 
 
 FRAUDULENT 0ONVE7ANOES. 
 
 814 
 
 16th June, 1879, was the evidence of an auc- 1 
 tloncer, who merely spoke of tlio value of the I 
 propurty in Novcinbiii-, 1881, and tliat of a real 
 estate agent, who did not know in wiiat condi- 
 tion tiie property was two years before, but , 
 ptated that it was not wortii more than §(i,(>0() 
 in Novemlier, 1881, adding that lie considered : 
 property a little lietter now tiian it was two ' 
 years before, although very little changed in 
 price ; — Held, (reversing the judgment of tlie ; 
 (,'oiirt below), that in order to obtain the revo- i 
 cation of the n\!t in ((uestion, it was incumbent 
 (111 tiie plaintill's to jirove the inaolvency or de- 
 coiilitiiie of the donor at the time of the iloiia- i 
 tioii, and that there was no proof in this ease , 
 huBicicnt to show that the iiroperty remaining 
 to the donor at the date of his (lonation was iii- 
 iukiiu.ite to pay the hypothecary claims with 
 which it was charged. 'J'reacisi/ v. Liiii/t/l, !( S. 
 C. K. 441. ■ " ! 
 
 See liovtliod v. Shnir, 27 Chy. "280, infra ; 
 Hilloi'l: V. lint toil, 2!) Chy. 4!I0. 
 
 (i) Post Niijifkd Sel//(mciits. 
 
 S., a wholesale merchant, upon the treaty for 
 marriage with tlie defendant, and at her sugges- 
 tion, verbally agreed to make a provision or settle- 
 ment for her benetit, and proposed the purchase 
 of a particular proiierty for that purpose. fSuli- 
 sefiuently, and after the marriage liad taken 
 place, which was in 1870, the [iropcrtj' referred 
 to was sold, liut producing a 1 iiger sum than was 
 anticipated, S. did notbuv. Afterwanls, and lie- 
 tweci the Dtli of April," 1H72, and the lOtli of 
 .lunc, 1873, 8, purchased amongst other jimper- 
 ties four several parcels of land, for the alleged 
 purpose of the proposed settlement, which, with 
 the iiiiprovcmeiits put thereon, amounted to 
 815,.S20. or tliereaboiits ; some of the convey- 
 ances of which it was alleged were in error taken 
 to 8. himsell', who, two years afterwards, con- 
 veyed the same in trust for his wife, but thedeeil 
 was not registered until three years after its date. 
 S, subscfiueiitly became insolvent, and on a l>ill 
 tiled by the assignee of his estate impc^achiiig the 
 conveyance in trust as a fraud upon creditors, 
 the court (I'rondfoot, V. C.) being satisfied that 
 an agreement, thougli verbal, had been m:iile by 
 the parties i>rior to the marriage, although the 
 only (!vidence thereof was that of the parties 
 themselves, .and that the conveyances of the 
 parcels to .S. had been so made by mistake, de- 
 clared the clefendant entitled to hohl the lands 
 in settlement, and dismissed the bill, with costs. 
 It was alleged that S. was indebted at the time 
 of the settlement, but nptm the evidence set out 
 in the report of this case, it was held that this 
 was not shewn, and that the entry of some of the 
 property in the business liooks of 8. as an asset 
 did not, under the circumstances, shew that it 
 remained his property, liomlead v. S/iaw, 27 
 Chy. 280. — Proud foot. 
 
 One of the members of a trading firm, in 
 March, 1875, effected a voluntary settlement on 
 his wife of land on which he had erected a dwel- 
 ling-house at an expense of $.S,000, and in July 
 following the firm were compelled to effect a 
 compromise of their liabilities, and finally, in 
 February, 1877, became insolvent. The plaintiff 
 was appointed their assignee, and thereujion 
 filed a bill impeaching the settlement as having 
 
 been made, while insolvent, with a view of 
 defrauding creditors. There was no evidence 
 that any debt due at the time of making the set- 
 tlement was unpaid at the date of the insolvency. 
 Under these circumstances the court, on rehear- 
 ing, reversed a decree of Proudfuot. V. ('., tli- 
 rectinj the payment of the plaiiitiH's claim out 
 of the estate remaining after the ])ayiiieiit of two 
 mortgages created by the wife anil repaying to 
 the wife what, if anytiiiiig, she had paid on 
 account of the luircliaso of the land, and dis- 
 missed the l)ill without prejudice to the ri;,dit to 
 institute procee<liiigs to ol)taiii relief out of any 
 sejiarate estate of the wife. Diirlini/ v. Price, 
 27 Chj^. .S31.— Chy. D. 
 
 The defendant H., who was carrying on a thriv- 
 ing business, and possessed of personal property 
 to the value of about .'?1,<'()0, his debts not ex- 
 ceeding half that sum, in I87(i bought some land 
 which he had conveyed to his wife, who liad been 
 instrumental in increasing the earnings of her 
 husband. It was shewn that all debts due by 15. 
 at the time of the settlement had been paid lie- 
 fore the institution of this suit by the plaiiititf, 
 whose debt had accrued after this con vey. nice : — 
 Held, under the circumstances, that the plaiiitifl' 
 was not in a position to impeach the conveyance, 
 .IS it had not been made with a view of iilaciiig 
 I the property beyond the reacli of future credi- 
 : tors. Collnnl v. Btiimtt, 28 Chy. ooO.— Spnigge. 
 
 In 1877, H., b(;ing in ditliculties, could iiotob- 
 taiii credit. In 1878 the delit to the plaintill' was 
 contracted, and in the same j'car B. made addi- 
 tions to tiie house on the land, which he paid 
 for :— Held, that in respect of the moneys so ex- 
 pended, the c:isc cinie within the jirincilile of 
 tiackson r. Bowman, 14 Chy. l.'iH. Ih. 
 
 \ The defendant V. was married in 1849 with >nt 
 any settlement. He was appointed and acted as 
 executor of the estate of iiis wife's father, and, 
 acting on behalf of liis wife, he received large 
 liiiins from the estate which it was allegiMl he 
 borrowed from lier : — £7, tiOO before ISA'./, and 
 .i!2,8(MJ in 1879; all such moneys being charged 
 to the wife in the books of the estate. The con- 
 veyances iinjieaclied in this suit were of lands 
 I which, with other property, had been pnrch.ased 
 , by the husband with the moneys so received on 
 1 account of his wile, the deeds for which, how- 
 1 ever, had been taken in the name of K. The 
 i mother of his wife had frequently requested F. 
 1 to settle these properties on the w ife, and wliicli 
 he did not object to do, and in 1873, when ho 
 with his wife was about to visit Eurojie, F. did 
 convey the property in question to the wife. In 
 1872 and 1873 F., jointly witii one C, entered 
 I into extensive speculations and made aconsider- 
 I able amount of money. In 1873 F. endorsed C.'s 
 ' note for .?1().000, which C. discounted, and the 
 same remained unpaid, and F. in 1874 gave bis 
 cheque to the plaintill' for S4,000 on which this 
 suit was instituted : Held (1) that as to the 
 t'7,000, F. having acted for his wife in obtaining 
 this money from lier father's estate, and having 
 never made any claim thereto in exercise of his 
 marital right, having borrowed it only, as estab- 
 lished by the testimony of the wife's mother, 
 there was no reduction into possession by the 
 husband of the money. (2) And as to the 
 £2,800 the onus was upon the plaintiff to estab- 
 lish a gift to the husband by the wife, which he 
 failed to do ; ou the contrary, the evidence 
 
■vf 
 
 815 
 
 FRAUDULENT 0ONVE7AN0ES. 
 
 816 
 
 ■ 
 
 817 
 
 CS!. 
 S5! : ?? "r 
 
 
 
 .*'*«£ 
 
 shewed it to have been a loan. Wlien F. incurred 
 the liability for C, he was in aHluent uiruum- 
 stances, and continued to be so for a year after 
 the conveyance impeached in this suit, after 
 which period the liability to the plaintitf was 
 incurred : — Held, that the plaintitl was not, in 
 respect of his own claim, in a position to im- 
 peach the conveyance, and could not be in a 
 better position than the prior creditors, who 
 clearly could not have avoided the transaction, 
 the settlcmenthaving l)een made when the settlor 
 in a pecuniary point of view was well able to 
 make it. Vindcn v. Francr, 28 Chy. ii02. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 A husband, not being in ilebt or engaged in or 
 contciuplatiii",' engaging in business, bought cer- 
 tain land and stock thereon from one C, the 
 purchase money comprising nearly all the hus- 
 band's means, and procured ('. to make the 
 conveyance and assignment thereof direct to the 
 wife, who liad been married to her husliand in 
 18(10 witiiout any marriage contract or settle- 
 ment ; and tlie wife mortgaged the property to 
 the plaintiff. In an interpleader action Ijetwecn 
 the plaintitf and defendants, sul)seqnent execu- 
 tion creditors of tiie iiusband, to try tlie title to 
 the above stock : — Held, that the husband, being 
 in a position to make such voluntary gift or set- 
 tlement, the conveyance was good : that the pro- 
 perty in (juestion was the wife's equitable sepa- 
 rate estate, and was not affecteil by section ") of the 
 Married Wonuui's Property Act. K. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 125, which leaves such settlements untouched. 
 Per Osier, .1. Tlie legal ownership of tiie goods 
 would vest in tlie husband in his marital riglit, 
 and to constitute him a trustee for his wife there 
 mus: be clear and convincing evidence of an in- 
 tention on his part to make himself such trustee, 
 and divest himself of all title to or interest in 
 the ])roperty,and to enal>le the wife to absolutely 
 dispose of it ; while the evidence here merely 
 sheweil that though tiie goods were formally 
 assigned to her. and she was to have the use and 
 enjoyment of them, the right to alienate and 
 dis])0se of them was to remain in the huslianil. 
 O'Dnliprly v. Ontario Hank; .32 C. P. 28.-). -C. 
 P. D. 
 
 See /jVrti'ix V. Maiinivv, 7 A. R. 
 Re liu>-<>:n, 7 A. R. 777, p. 124. 
 
 ( j) Other Cw^es. 
 
 704, p. 801 ; 
 
 A man in insolvent circumstances was sued 
 about the same time by two creditors, one of the 
 plaintiffs being his son. To the one action he en- 
 tered a defence, whij" to the other, that brought 
 by his son, he made no <lefence, by reason of 
 which judgment wa', obtained therein and all his 
 efFects sold, which were bought in by an agent 
 of the son, the whole realizing less than the debt, 
 interest, and costs. In order to make up siitfi- 
 cient to satisfy the balance of his son's claim, 
 the defendant in the action was urged to make \ 
 an assignment to his son of nil his book debts, 
 which he did, thereby denuding himself of all 
 property : — Held, that as the book debts could \ 
 lie seized under .in execution, the assignment \ 
 thereof was a fraudulent preference within the 
 Act ; and the assignment being declared void, '■ 
 the son was orderea to account for the moneys 
 received thereunder. Under the circumstances 
 
 no costs were allowed to either party. Lahutt 
 V. liixd, 28 Chy. 5!W. — Spragge. 
 
 Where T. , being then insolvent, transferred 
 
 to A., one of his creditors, all his estate and 
 
 elt'ects, and it appeared that tlie impelling uaii.so 
 
 of the transfer was the application of A. to lie 
 
 paid or protected, and the present plaintitf, also 
 
 j a creditor, sought to set aside the said transfenis 
 
 1 a frauilnlent preference : — Semble, the transfer 
 
 I was not "voluntary" within 15. S. 0.(1877), c. 118, 
 
 ' and could not be set aside. Before tlie prcsiMit 
 
 I proceedings A. had transferred the said elfects 
 
 i for value to a bona tide purchaser : — Held, tliat 
 
 A. could not, in any event, be called on to make 
 
 good the value of the goods, as if he wcio a 
 
 debtor of the plaintilT. Sliuirl v. Trfiiialii, .S 
 
 O. R. 190-Hoyd. 
 
 L. being in insolvent circumstances went to A. 
 and asked A. to procure discounts for him, wiiich 
 A. agreed to do on condition that he should ly. 
 tain a part of the proceeils of the paper wliich 
 should be brought to him, and apply it to tlie 
 indebtedness of I., to him, and to several otliur 
 creditors whom lie. A., represented. 'I his was 
 agreed to and acted on. and certain secniities 
 were thus transferred to A. by L., L., also at 
 the .same time, reijuested A. to sell some leather 
 for him, which A. agreed to do on similar terms 
 as to the application of the proceeds, and tlie 
 leather was duly transferred to A. wlio was 
 aware of L.'s circumstances. (In an action being 
 brought impeaching the transfer of tlie .stenii- 
 ties as a fraudulent preference :— Held, that iiias- 
 mucli as the idea of the transfer as made was 
 propo.sed by A., and he and not L. , was the 
 originator of the scheme, whereby he, and the 
 creditors re])rescnted liy him were preferri'd, the 
 transfers were not made " voluntarily,'' and 
 " with intent" to give such creditors a prefer- 
 ence over the other creditors within the iiieaiiiiig 
 of the statute, and could not be set .aside. W'hil- 
 ney V. Tohy, (5 (J. R. 54. — Ferguson. 
 
 Pressure will not validate a security unless it 
 be a bona tide pressure to secure a debt, and 
 without a view of obtaining a preference over 
 the other creditors. PuuxU v. Calder, 8 (). R. 
 505. — Prou<lf oot. 
 
 v., who was a piactising attorney, and .also 
 clerk of the peace and county attorney, having 
 been ordered to pay over certain moneys, or 
 in default be struck oil' the roll of attorneys, 
 made an assignment of his emoluments as county 
 attorney to H.,W. ,and J., to secure the amount 
 which he had been ortlered to pay their client, 
 at the s.ame time telling H., \V.. and J., that he 
 would leave it to them to hand him back such 
 part as they chose on which to live, such an .is- 
 signment being generally executed at the begin- 
 ning of e.ach ((uarter, upon which they drew tlie 
 amount coming from the county and handed V. 
 Itack a portion to live on. Subsequently V. re- 
 covered a judgment in favour of a client, on 
 which costs were taxed in his favour at $164, 
 which he also assigned to secure the same claim. 
 About a month afterwards the plaintiff G., m 
 an execution creditor, obtaining an attaching 
 order :— Held, (affirming the judgment of .Senk- 
 ler, county judge,) that the existence of the 
 order held by H., W., and J., was a sufficient 
 pressure to prevent the assignment executed by 
 V. being considered a preference within the 
 
 I t 
 
 J. M., wl 
 
 with the coi 
 brother, wh 
 the insolven 
 &M., effect 
 trade, book 
 at 60c. in tl 
 paid to S. 
 there(jf on . 
 Held, that l 
 M a fraudu 
 "<'■ McNawj 
 
 Held, per 
 chereau, JJ. 
 or more cret 
 ingof Art. : 
 liorser of a ^ 
 fight under 
 remedy pro^ 
 fraudulently 
 52I 
 
816 
 
 Lahutt 
 
 817 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 8tt 
 
 ineiwiiiiK of the Act R. S. O. (1877), c. 118. 
 Uraiil V. VaiiXonnan, 7 A. R. 52(5. 
 
 I'cr Armour, J., a provision in a lease that if 
 the lessees shall make an assignment fur the 
 benotit of creditors tlic said term sliiill inime- 
 (liiitcly become forfeited and void and the full 
 amount of the next ensuing one year's rent shall 
 be at once due an<l payable, is frauilulent and 
 vniil against creditors. Baker v. Atkinson, 11 
 0. H. 735. 
 
 Ill an action by a creditor for an amount due 
 on a mortgage, and to set aside a conveyance of 
 personal property in which the judge w ho tried 
 tlic case lound tliat the transaction complained 
 ( f was not made with intent to defeat tiie claims 
 of creditors, or to give a preference, and that no 
 cnlhision or fraud was proved, it was : — Held, 
 that as none of tiie creditors were judgment anil 
 exei-Mition creditors, in the absence of fraud, tlie 
 plaintiffs could not set aside tlie transaction 
 inukr the statute of Klizaljcth, and tliat althougli 
 umler48 Vict. c. 2(), s. 2 (<Jnt.), it might possil)ly 
 1)0 that the transaction should l>e lield to l)e void 
 as aijainst creditors as iiaving the effect of defeat- 
 ing, delaying, or prejudicing creditors, yet as 
 the sale wivs not a sliam, or a colourable one, 
 but was a real transaction and bona tide, that 
 the phvintill's failed on tliat brancli of the case. 
 Part of tlie purchase money of the goods was 
 ariaiige<l by the substitution of a note of the 
 defendants for the notes of the defendant .1. 1',, 
 wliicii had been transferred to a banker, and 
 which note was on the subsequent sate to the 
 (lefciKlant F. paid by him : — Held, that the 
 transaction was a bona tide jiayment under 48 
 Viet. c. 20. 8. .3 (Ont.). Buildinij and Luau /l.v- 
 Kocialion V. Palmer, 12 0. R. 1. — Ferguson, 
 
 The jury having found that T. was, to his own 
 knowledge and that of the preferred creditors, 
 unable to pay his debts in full, and that assign- 
 ments to certain creditors of two policies of in- 
 surance and moneys secured thereby, after the 
 larger portion of the property insured had been 
 ilestroycd by fire, ha(l been made under simu- 
 lated pressure with the intent on the part of '['. 
 to give, and on the part of the preferred credi- 
 tors to obtain a preference over the other credi- 
 tors of T. :— Held, that the assignments were 
 null and void under R. S. O. (1877), c. 118, s. 2, 
 as against the other creditors of T. /vey v. 
 Knox, 8 O. R. 63.5.— Q. H. D. 
 
 .1. M., who was in insolvent circumstances, 
 with the concurrence if not at the instance of his 
 brother, who was liable as indorser on some of 
 the insolvent's paper held by the defendants .S. 
 & XI., effected a sale of all his (J. M.'s) stock-in- 
 trade, book debts, etc. , to a bona fide jiurchaser 
 at tiOc. in the dollar ; the proceeds of the sale he 
 paid to S. &, M., and they credited a portion 
 thereof on the notes endorsed by the brother :— 
 Held, that this was not liable to be impeached 
 at a fraudulent preference of S. & M. Harrty 
 V. McNamjhtoH, 10 A. R. 616. 
 
 Held, per Ritchie, C. J., Fournier and Tas- 
 chereau, JJ,, that a fraudulent preference to one 
 ormore creditors is a secretion within the mean- 
 ing of Art. 798 C. C. P. (Que.) Also, that an en- 
 ilorser of a note discounted by a bank has the 
 right under Art. 1953 C. C. to avail himself of the 
 remedy provided by Art. 793 C. C. P. if the maker 
 fraudulently disposes of his property. (Strong, 
 62 
 
 Henry, Gwynne, J.I. , c(mtra.) Mackinnon v. 
 Keruack, 15 S. C. H. 111. 
 
 One Chamberlain being in insolvent circum- 
 stances, and indebted to K. in $120, was pressed 
 by himfor payment when he agreed to sell K. a 
 horse for .SI 10, in part payment ; and about the 
 15th August, 1885, delivered the horse in pur- 
 suance of such agreement. K. kept possession 
 of and worked the horse for one day, and then 
 he lent him to Chamberlain, who continued to 
 use him in his business until the early part of 
 October following, when he returned the horse 
 to K., who tlicnceforward retained possession of 
 him. On the 31st of October, (Uiamberlain exe- 
 1 cuted an a.ssignment to the plaintiff in pursuance 
 of the Act 48 V^ict. c. 26 (Ont.) respecting assign- 
 ments for the benefit of creilitors, which came 
 into force on the 1st September, 1885. In an 
 I action against K, to recover the horse on the 
 [ground of fraudulent preference :— Held, artirm- 
 I iiig the judgment if the court below, that the 
 
 * sale having been made before the Act came into 
 1 force, the provisions thereof ilid not apply. Ings 
 
 c. IJank of Prince Kdward Isl.ind, 11 S. C. R. 
 I 26.5, followed ;--Held, also, tliat the sale was not 
 ! void, either as a fraudulent preference under II. 
 
 S. O. fl877). c. 118,orfornoiicompliancc with the 
 ' Hills of Sale Act. Coals v. Kelli/, 15 A. R. 81. 
 
 Held, (attirming the judgment of the Chy. L). 
 14 (). R. 288), that book debts are a species of 
 property covered by section 2 of 48 Vict. c. 26 
 (Ont. ), and that any gift, conveyance, assignment, 
 transfer, or delivery thereof by a debtor in 
 I insolvent circumstances, is void. Burton, J. A., 
 dissenting. lVar)wck v. Klieji/er, 15 A. R. 324, 
 
 j A favoured creditor, with the connivance of 
 I an insolvent debtor, procured a third person to 
 
 purchase the debtor's entire stock-in-trade, for 
 I which the purchaser gave his note to the debtor, 
 1 who immediately indorsed it to the favoured 
 
 creditor, who discounted it with a bank. The 
 ' debtor did not execute any assignment for the 
 
 benefit of creditors. In an action by the other 
 
 creditors to compel the preference credit- • to 
 I share ratably with them :— Held, (reversing the 
 ', judgment of (lalt, C. J., at the trial) that as the 
 
 preference creditor had disposed of the note to 
 1 a bon.1 fide holder fcr value no relief could be 
 ! given. JioberUon v. .'iollaiid, 16 O. R. 532.— 
 
 (\ P. D. 
 
 A person knowing that a claim was to be made 
 
 i agiiinst him by the father of a young woman for 
 
 her seduction, some six days before the writ 
 
 • issued therefor, arranged with his brother, who 
 was aware of all the facts, to sell out to him his 
 
 I estate, receiving for himself #150. the balance to 
 1 be applied in payment of his liabilities, the iii- 
 I tention being not to acknowledge or treat the 
 j claim for seduction as a liability. The action 
 j for seduction was proceeded with and judgment 
 I recovered thereon : — Held, that the father hav- 
 ing a cause of action at the time of the transfer 
 was a person who might become a creditor within 
 the meaning of the statute ; and having become 
 a judgment creditor, the sale having been made 
 with intent to defeat his claim must oe set aside. 
 Barling t\ Bishopp, 29 Beav. 417, followed ; Kx 
 parte Mercer, 17 Q. B. D. 290, distinguished. 
 Cameron v. Cnnack, 18 0. R. 520. — Rose. Re- 
 versed, 17 A. R. 489. 
 
 See Wellbank« v. Heney, 19 0. R. 649, p. 811. 
 
819 
 
 FSAUOULENT OONVETANOES. 
 
 820 
 
 trn-r. >• •: 
 
 t*v* , : ' ,' 
 •«»J 1 1, 
 
 isms 
 
 is 
 
 2. Summary Inquiries into Frmululent Cimvpy- 
 ancen. 
 
 An issue hndlicendirccttHl from ii County Court 
 to one ol the Supurior C'ourts under I!. S. (). 
 (1877), c. 4!t, 8. 12, to try wluthiT ;i itoiiveynm^e 
 of uurtiiiu lands liy ii ju(l>,'niciit dubtor was fiau- 
 dulont, anil tliu County Court li.id defined the 
 issue tu be tried, and tlic time and pluee of trial. 
 The pluiutitr, in purauaiiee of the direction, i)re- 
 pared and dulivtMed the issue to <lefendant, the 
 grantee in the eonveyanee, who did not return 
 it ; and the plainlilf, alter tlie time for trial had 
 ulapned, applied in the >Superior Court for an 
 order al)soliite for sale of the land : — Held, huuIi 
 order could be made only in the Coiiuty Court, 
 whence the issue had been directed, and that the 
 .Superior Court could only try the issue, and could 
 nuike no final disposition of the matter: — Held 
 
 comprising all the real estate owned by tho 
 judgment debtor, aa an indemnity to the assignee 
 against an incumbrance on lands sold and con- 
 veyed by both parties to the assignee. The bill 
 eliarged that such assignment was executiil in 
 fraud (if creditors, as by rea.son of tlie joint o.fu. 
 paliou of tho partners the shcritl' wii.s nnalilc to 
 ascertain what portion of such chattels lieli>ii;;u(l 
 to the execution debtor, aiul prayed adeclaiatioii 
 that such assignment was void as against thu 
 plaiiitills, and that such portion of the goods ami 
 lands as was not re(|uired to indemnify the as- 
 signee might be sold, and the proceeds applied 
 in payment of the plaintitl's claim. A denauiur 
 l>y the execution debtor for want of cipiity was 
 allowed, with costs. Kiitlcof linchnslcrv. Slum:- 
 h'iii.w, 27 Chy. .327.— ^pragge. 
 
 The plaintilF liled her bill foraliinony, alleging 
 
 also, that the a|)plieation was not in any event that a conspiracy had been entenid into betwitii 
 well founded, as the plaintili' should have pro- I l,,.r husband and the other defendant to prevent 
 
 ceeded with the trial of the issue Qua're, as to ' 
 the granting of a new trial, or reviewing the ver- 
 dict upon such an issue. Merchants Hank v. 
 Hrooker, 8 1'. R. 133. —Osier. 
 
 Held, following Eastern Counties, etc., 11. W. 
 Co, V. Marriage, 9 11. L. Ca. 3'2 ; Lang v. Kerr, 
 
 L. Ii. 3 Ani), Cas. o'-'O ; and Van Norman r. ■ ,,, ... ,,,-,- , i ^, ,• 
 
 (Irant, 27 Chy. 4!)8, that both sections 10 and II ! I liecourt, (Boyd, C.) over-ruled thedeimirier 
 
 her realizi ig any alimony that might be aw.inled 
 her, and that for that purpose her liusbandfiuudu- 
 Icntly conveyed all his lands to the cn-defun- 
 daiit, and the bill prayed to have such convey- 
 ance declared fraudulent. The grantee in the im- 
 Ijoaehcd conveyance demurred for multifaiions- 
 iiess, for want of eiiuity, and want of parties. 
 
 of R. S. O. (1877), e. lit, are to be governed by 1 "" t'"^ li"st two grounds, but alli.wed the. lemur 
 the he.uling immediately preceding section 10 ; 1 "■'■ f'"' «'!^"t ."' I''"'"""" : ^''e l.laintitVnot havuig 
 BO that where tlie interest sought to l)e reached I 
 
 by the creditors has not been concealed by a frau 
 dulent conveyance, the judge has no authority 
 to give summary relief under section 11, and a 
 decree for [lartition issued by a local master at 
 the instance of a purchaser at sheriir's sale, 
 under an order made by a County Court judge 
 
 where the interest which had been scdd was that ' "oy"-'- 
 
 recovered judgment and execution could only sue 
 in a representative capacity that is on behalf of 
 her.self and all other creditors. Longeway c. 
 Mitchell, 17 Chy. 190, Turner r. Hmitli, 2() 
 Chy. 19S, Culver i: Swayze, 20 Chy. 39.'), and 
 Morphy r. Wilson, 27 Chy. 1, considered and 
 followed. Camplidl v. Campbell, 29 Chy. 2,)'.'.— 
 
 of one of four tenants in common in an cipiity 
 of redemption in land which was subject to two 
 mortgages in different lands was on appeal re- 
 versed with costs. Wood v. Hurt, 28 Chy. 14(). 
 — Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that Con. Rule 1008, notwithstanding the 
 heading "Summary Inquiries into Fraudulent 
 Conveyances," is not limited to cases of eijuit- 
 able interests arising under fraudulent convey- 
 ances, but applies to a case where a judgment 
 creditor is seeking to make available the interest 
 of his debtor under an agreement for the pur- 
 chase of land. A reference was directed to as- 
 certain what interest the debtor had in the land 
 in question. PcUrs v. Stime-sx, 13 I'. R. 23.5. — 
 <"».ilt. 
 
 3. Proceediwjx to Set Ankle. 
 
 (a) At Whone lustaiice — Parties. 
 
 Where a suit is instituted by a judgment cre- 
 ditor, who has not placed an execution against 
 lands in the hands of the sheritT, in order to set 
 aside a deed as fradulent, he must sue on behalf 
 of all creditors of defendant, and the fact that 
 the deed was made by a third party in con- 
 sideration of money paid by the debtor does iu)t 
 alter the rule of pleading in this respect. Mor- 
 phy V. Wilson, 27 Chy. 1. — Spragge. 
 
 The plaintiffs were execution creditors of one 
 of two co-partners in trade, both of whom had 
 joined in an assignment by way of mortgage of all 
 their goods and chattels, and also certain lands, 
 
 A creditor's assignee, not himself a creditor, 
 cannot sustain an action to set aside a fraudu- 
 lent conveyance or transfer made by the debtor, 
 prior to the assignment under which he claims 
 to be such assignee. lAnnidm v. Scott, 4 U. R. 
 323. — Ferguson. 
 
 H., a creditor of S., in respect of a debt for 
 which he held security on the lands of S., sought 
 to have a chattel mortgage made by the latter 
 declared void as a fraudulent preference:— Held, 
 that in the absence of jiroof that the security 
 held by him was inadefiunte ho could not suc- 
 ceed, ('lark V. Ham'illini Prondunt and Loan 
 Society, 9 0. I{. 177.— Chy. D. 
 
 Where one impeached a conveyance of land 
 to M., the wife of K., on the ground that the 
 laud was really bought with K.'s money, and was 
 so bought ami conveyed to M, at K.'s direction, 
 with the intent of delaying and hindering the 
 {•laintiff and other creditors of K., and no fraudu- 
 lent intent in respect to the said conveyance 
 was i)roved, and it appeared that tho plaintiff 
 himself was consulted with regard to the matter, 
 and knowing all the circumstances of K.'s finan- 
 cial position, expressed his approval of what was 
 ilouo ; and it further appeared that the plaintiff 
 was not himself a creditor of K., at the time of 
 the impeached conveyance, but only became so 
 subsequently by endorsing and finally paying » 
 promissory note of K. 's representing o liability 
 incurred by K. prior to the impeached convey- 
 ance :— Held, affirming the decision of Ferguson, 
 J. , that under these circumstances the plaintiff 
 
 could not hi 
 hiu. Fer(f 
 Chy. D. 
 
 The plain 
 veyancc dai 
 by M. to(!. 
 as creditors, 
 not recoveri 
 of which tin 
 23ril, 1883, 
 ered in an m 
 of certain im 
 contained in 
 the s.iid niorl 
 Theplaintitl 
 action to giv 
 Ist, 1880, Wii 
 for the purcl 
 into by then 
 1880, and tli 
 certain niisrt 
 validity of I 
 however, tli.i 
 was to be tin 
 capital .stock 
 and that the 
 ferred until i 
 evidence so s 
 Held (per Fe 
 only began ai 
 covenant in i 
 inasmuch as t 
 cedent to thii 
 were at the d; 
 it was intciu 
 plainti*''s mus 
 IperU.jd, C^ 
 really becom 
 vered judgm- 
 the plaintiHs 
 and ns it was 
 conveyance w 
 sequent cred 
 standi to rec( 
 impeached co 
 tary charactt 
 gether illuso 
 origin of the 
 representatir 
 after the imi 
 whatever can 
 they did not 
 resijcct of it. 
 right, ['or 
 damages cou! 
 occurred, yet 
 purchase of 
 resentations 
 from the agr 
 the plaintiffs 
 them to hav( 
 exclusion of 
 as aforesaid, i 
 was wrong ; 
 that on the 
 impe.ichcd af 
 one. Real 
 (Imked) v. 
 90. R. 4f)4.- 
 
 C. who wa 
 
 » chattel moi 
 defendants iK 
 
821 
 
 FRAUDULENT 00NVE7AN0ES. 
 
 could not have the deed gut ((.Hide as a fraud upon 
 him. Fernuson v. Ferguson, O. K. 218. — 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Tlie plaintifl'n sought to sctnaido a certain con- 
 veyance dated February '27th, KSSO, and made 
 by M. to <!., as executed in fraud of tiieniHelves 
 as creditors. It appeared thattiic jdaintiO's had 
 not recfivered judguient tor tlie del»t in respect 
 of whicli tiiey claimed to hu creditors until July 
 23ril, I88.S, and that tliis was a judgment recov- 
 ered in an a(^tion on a covenant as to the validity 
 of certain mortgages purchased by tliem from M. 
 contained in a deed of March Ist, 1880, by whieli 
 tlie said mortgages were conveyed by M. to tliem. 
 Tlic plaintifi's, however, sougiit at the trial of this 
 action to give evidence that tliis deed of March 
 Ist, 1880, WAS made in pursuance of an agreement 
 for the purcliasc of the said mortgages entered 
 into by themselves with M. l)efore Ist January, 
 ISSO, and that this agreement was induced by 
 certain misrepresentations made by M. as to the 
 valitlity of the said mortgages. It appeared, 
 however, that tlic consideration of the purchase 
 was to be the transfer of certain shares in the 
 capital stock of the plaintiffs' company to M., 
 and that these shares were not actually so trans- 
 ferred until after :J7th February, 1880, and the 
 evidence so sought to be given was excluded : — 
 Held (per Ferguson, J.), that the liability of M. 
 only began at the time of the execution of the 
 covennnt in the deed of March Ist, 1880, and 
 inasmuch as the impeached conveyance was ante- 
 cedent to this, ami it was not shewn that there 
 were nt the date of it any existing debts, nor that 
 it was intended to defeat any fnture debt, the 
 plainti*''s must be nonsuiteil : — Held, on appeal, 
 IperL'.jd, C), that since the plaintiffs did not 
 really become creditors of M. until they reco- 
 vered judgment, the legal and only position of 
 the plaintitts was that of sul>si'(|uent creditors, 
 and as it was not pretendeil that the impeached 
 conveyance was given with a view to defeat sub- 
 sequent creditors, the plaintiffs had no locus 
 standi to recover under l.'l Eliz. c. 5, even if the 
 impeached conveyance was held to be of a volun- 
 tary character, as to which f|uaTe. It was alto- 
 gether illusory to endeavour to trace back the 
 origin of the ]daintitfs' claim to the alleged mis- 
 representations which were not acted upon until 
 after the impeached conveyance, and moreover, 
 whatever cause of actiou the plaintiffs then had, 
 they did not prosecute it, or become creilitors in 
 re8|)ect of it. The judgment below was therefore 
 right. I'er Proudfoot, J., though un acti(m for 
 damages could uot be brought until the damnge 
 occurred, yet if the original agreement for the 
 purchase of the mortgages was based on misrep- 
 resentations of M., the plaintitts' right d.ited 
 from the agreement. It was not necessary for 
 the plaintiffs to be creditors, it was sutiicient for 
 them to have a right of action ; therefore the 
 exclusion of the evidence offered by the plaintiQ's 
 as aforesaid, and the juilgment of the court below 
 was wrong :—HeM, also (per Proudfoot, J.), 
 that on the evidence adduced, the conveyance 
 impeached appeared to have been a voluntary 
 one. Real Kxtate Loan Compnny of Canada 
 (Imitf.d) V. Yorkv'dle and Vatiqfian Road Co., 
 90. R. 464.— Chy. D. 
 
 C. who was in insolvent circumstances, made 
 » chattel mortgage of his stock-in-trade to the 
 defendants M. & Co., to secure a debt and after- 
 
 I wards exeeuteil a general assignment to the de- 
 fendant F. for the benefit of his creditors. The 
 plaintiffs, who were simple contract creditors of 
 C, and whose debts were not due, brought this 
 1 action on behalf of themselves and idl other cre- 
 ditors of C except the defendants M. & Co., to 
 have the mortgage declared void under R. S. O, 
 (1877), c. 118 : — Held, atlirming the judgment of 
 Ferguson, J . (0 O. i{. 18."i) that the mortgage was 
 void under the said statute ; that the plaintitrs 
 could nmintain the action, and that it was no 
 objection that they tlid not include the mortga- 
 gees among the creditors, on whose behalf tliey 
 I professed to sue. Longeway c. Mitclicll, 17 
 (Chy. 1!»0, followed. Manlonald v. McCiitl, 12 
 I A. Pi. ;■)!»;{ ; .V. C, xiih iioni. McCall v. Ale- 
 I Donald, 13 S. C. II. 247. 
 
 i Held in the Court of Appeal, (Burton, J. 
 
 A., dissenting) that the circumstance that C. 'a 
 I e(iuity of redemption in the goocls had been 
 
 assigned to F. did not deprive the plaintiffs of 
 I the right to maintain the action to avoid the 
 I mortgage. The goods having been sold by con- 
 I sent, pending the action, and the money paid 
 I into court, the judgment in the court below 
 I directed the payment out of the money to F. , 
 
 the assignee, for distribution by him under the 
 j trust of the as-iignnicnt. The judgment in 
 I this particular, was varied on the ground that 
 , the goods had not passed to V. by the assign- 
 i mcnt, and tl.o money wao left to be dealt with 
 
 by the court below on application of the parties 
 I claiming it. lb. 
 
 j Per Burton, J. A. C. having '>ef<.re execution 
 j or .any other process issued, conveyed his interest 
 ' in the property to F., there was no way by which 
 I a lien could be obtained upon tne lU'oport;,' by 
 I execution or otherwise, and any dciree made 
 I must be fruitless, and the court should not make 
 a decree which it was powerless to enforce. Ih. 
 
 Held, that the fact that the plaintiffs were 
 simple contract creditors only, and that the 
 mortgagor had, prior to action brought, made an 
 assignment for the benefit of creditors generally, 
 and that the plaintiffs were not attacking the 
 assignment as well as the niortg.ige, did not ilc- 
 bar them from the relief claimed. Meriden .Sil- 
 ver Co. c. Lee, 2 O. R. 451, followed. .?. C, 9 
 O. K. 185.— Ferguson. 
 
 Held, following Macdonald i\ McCall, 12 A. 
 
 11. 593, that a creditor to maintain an action to 
 
 set aside a mortgage as a fraudulent preference, 
 
 need not be a juilgment creditor. Rae v. Mc- 
 
 , Domdd, 13 O. I!. 352. -C. P. D. 
 
 i A subsequent .creditor cannot uphold an actiou 
 to set aside a voluntary conveyance under 13 
 Eliz. c. 5, merely on the grouml that a debt of 
 prior date to the conveyance is still un[)aid, if 
 such prior debt has become barred by lapse of 
 time. Slritthers v. Cknuv', 14 O. R. 726.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 In an action to set aside a conveyance by K. 
 to his wife as fr.iudulent, brought by the assignee 
 for the benefit of creditors of K., in pursuance 
 of the powers conferred upon such assignee by 48 
 Vict. c. 26, 8. 7 (Ont.), an order was made adding 
 certain execution creditors of K. as parties plain- 
 tiff, upon the motion of the pl.iintiff, who desired 
 that the action should not be defeated, if in other 
 litigation pending it should be determined that 
 
 i'l 
 
823 
 
 FRAUDULENT OONVEYANOES. 
 
 824 
 
 the Act wiut ultru virus, 
 P. It. 466.— C. P. D. 
 
 II 
 
 I 
 
 CK 
 
 :»ct:: 
 
 an 
 
 :»:^» 
 
 9» 
 
 ;}::>• 
 
 
 
 
 »>».. 
 
 ea 
 
 
 SIT 
 
 t!"r 
 
 •u.:: 
 
 
 |-«" 
 
 '. ; 
 
 »«{ 
 
 M 
 
 Oj 
 
 ; ** 
 
 •M>m 
 
 ! 1. 
 
 *»*, 
 
 
 •»«{ 
 
 fM... 
 
 
 •SlU«H 
 
 
 <8«S 
 
 
 fS" 
 
 
 
 lao 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 Since the .Judicature Act, in an action by a 
 8imi)lu contract creditor, cUiiniing merely to set 
 aaiile a conveyance ax fraudulent against credi- 
 tors, tlie debtor and grantor i.s a necessary party 
 as well as the grantee, ililihoiin v. Darrill, 12 
 I'. 11. 478. — Kose. 
 
 Per llagarty, ('..I.**., and Oshr, J. A. In case 
 of a continuous <lealing and account where the 
 customer goes on ])aying with one hand on gen- 
 eral account and |iurcha8ing fresh goods with 
 the otiier hand to an c(|ual or larger amount, 
 witii a constantly increasing balance against him, 
 the creditor is from tiie conunencenient of such 
 dealing, so long as his ultimate balance remains 
 unpaid, in a position to attack an alleged volun- 
 tary conveyance. Firijii/ioii V. Kintiy, IG A. H. 
 '_'76. 
 
 The action was brought to set aside a convey- 
 ance as fraudident against creditors. The plain- 
 titi's sued on behalf of themselves and all other 
 creditors of the defendant 1!. W,, and began this 
 action in July, 1S88. The statement of <lefence 
 tiled in December, 1888, alleged that in August, 
 1888, li. W. executed an assignment for the 
 benelitof his creditors under 48 Vict. c. 2(((0nt. )i 
 whereby the exclusive right of action became 
 vested in the assignee. In February, 1880, the 
 ))laintiU'8 obtained an order under K. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 124, s. 7, sub-s. 2, giving them leave to take pro- 
 ocedings in the name of the assignee Init for their 
 own exclusive benefit to set aside the conveyance 
 in (juestion ; and then applied for an order adding 
 or substituting the assignee as plaintiff in this 
 action. The consent of the assignee was not 
 tiled ; — Held, that the assignee could not be 
 added as a jilaintifT without his consent in writ- 
 ing being filed, under Con. Rule 324 (b);but that 
 the plaintiff's bad the right to proceed under the 
 order they had obtained by bringing a new action 
 in the name of the assignee, to which his consent 
 would not be necessary. Bank of London v. 
 Wallace, 13 P. R. 17().-Q. H. D. 
 
 Where an assignment under the statute had 
 been made to a sheriff, who died shortly after, 
 and proceedings were subsequently taken in their 
 own names by judgment creditors of the assignor 
 to set aside a transfer of property as fraudu- 
 lent :— Held, that the plaintiffs, suing alone, 
 had no locus standi to maintain the action. 
 lirowti V. Uruve, 18 O. R. 311.— Chy. D. 
 
 Where a debtor at the express instance and 
 under the advice and with the assent of a credi- 
 tor who holds, to secure past and future advan- 
 ces, a mortgage upon certain of the debtor's 
 land, makes a voluntary conveyance of his equity 
 of redemption in that land to his wife, that cre- 
 ditor cannot ofterwards contend that the convey- 
 Jince is voluntary and void as against him. Such 
 a mortgagee cannot charge against the land under 
 his mortgage any advances made after notice of 
 the conveyance. Hopkinson i\ Rolt, 9 H. L. C. 
 514, and similar cases, considered and applied. 
 Blackky v. Kenny, 16 A. R. 522. 
 
 See McLean v. Bruc>', 29 Chy. 507, p. 771 ; 
 Scane v. Duckett, 3 O. R. 370, p. 824 ; Hi/man v. 
 Bourne, 5 0. K. 430, p. 198; Mundellw. finkU, 6 
 O. R. 625; Building and Loan Association v. Pal- 
 mer, 12 O. R. 1, p. 817; Adams v. Watson Manu- 
 
 Ftniiison v. Kenney, 12 1 facluring Co. {Limited), 15 O. R. 218 ; 16 A. R. '.', 
 ' p. 7l>9; MuUon* Bank v. Ilaller, 16 A. K. 323, p. 
 803; Ileaton v. McKdlai; 13 P. R. 81. 
 
 (b) I'lcadiiuj. 
 
 In an action *o set aside a conveyance of land 
 as a fraudulent preference the non-averment th.it 
 the plaintiff sues on behalf of all other cicditdrs 
 is not ground for demurrer, but a mere infor- 
 mality, to be dealt with under O. J. Act, Rules 
 10.3, 104, (Con. I!ules.324,.325). Sranev. JJiickelt, 
 3 O. R. 370. -Boyd. 
 
 Where in an action by the assignee of C. for 
 the benefit of his creditors under 48 Vict. c. 20, 
 (Out. ) stated to be brought for the benefit of one 
 of such creditors, the F. Hank, to set aside a 
 mortgage made to the defendants, as fraudulent 
 and ))referential, a judgment for foreclosure of 
 i the mortgage obtained against the plaintiti' was 
 I pleaded as a liar to the action, and a counter- 
 1 claim was asserted for payment by the V. Mank 
 j of certain moneys alleged to be due to the defen- 
 dants, a motion to strike out such defence and 
 counter-claim was refused, and the plaintiff wiis 
 left to demur :— .Semble, that the counter-cliiini 
 was not iniidniissible. Glann v. Grant, 12 P. R. 
 480 -Royd. 
 
 If a defenilant wishes to set up in answer to 
 an action to declare him a trustee of land the 
 defence that the land was conveyed to him for a 
 fraudulent purpose he must in his pleailing 
 specifically say so, and admit his own criminality 
 in joining in a criminal act. If the plaintiff can 
 make out his case without disclosing the alleged 
 I fraud, the defendant will not be allowed to show, 
 as a reason why the plaintiff should not recover, 
 the fraud in which the defendant himself par- 
 ticipated. Judgment of Ferguson, J., reversed, 
 Day v. Day, 17 A, R, 157, 
 
 See Cam/iheU v, Camphetl, 29 Chy. 2.')2; 
 AdamHV. Watson Munufacluriwi Co., 15 0, K, 
 218 ; 16 A, R. 2, p. 799. 
 
 (c) Cost.t. 
 
 W. assigned all his estate by deed to B., one 
 of his creditors, in trust for his creditors gen- 
 erally. Afterwards, at u meeting of creditors 
 it was resolved, with B,'s consent, that M,, aa 
 an execution creditor of VV,, should bring an 
 action on behalf of all the creditors of W,,to 
 contest the validity of a certain chattel mort- 
 gage made to H. & Co.. by W., prior to the 
 above assignment to B,, the costs of which the 
 creditors present agreed should be borne by the 
 estate. H, & Co., were not present at the 
 meeting. This action by M., was dismissed 
 with costs, and B. , who had retained the solici- 
 tor and really managed and controlled the action, 
 paid the defendants H. & Co.'s costs of th.it 
 action, and also the costs of the solicitor who 
 acted for M., out of the moneys of the estate, 
 $462 in all. H. & Co., as creditors, of W,, now 
 brought this action, asking that the executors 
 of M, should pay the $462 to B, to be distribu- 
 ted among the creditors of W, There was no evi- 
 dence of M. or his executors having requested 
 B. to pay the 8462 of costs :— Held, that as to 
 the $300 paid to M.'s solicitor, no request od 
 M.'8 part to B. to pay this to the solicitor could 
 
824 
 
 825 
 
 FBAUDULENT 0ONVETA.N0ES. 
 
 I 
 
 be implied, for M. did not retain tlie solicitor | 
 or inaiiiigo the proccedinj^g, Imt nioroly allowed i 
 his name to l)e used an ]ilaiutill', and ^l. was not ' 
 linblt' to the solicitor us to those costs, and there- 
 fore the pIuintiH' failed as to that sum, thongh, 
 Sembli', ». had no authority to expend moneys 
 of the estate in endeavouring to get or obtain ' 
 property not assigned to him : — Held, also, that 
 the plaintitl's could not succeed as to the hal- 
 mice, §102, for there could be no reasonable 
 doubt that they knciw that this 81H'2 which was \ 
 paid to them by IJ. , as their costs of defence, 
 was moneys of the estate of which 15. was trus- 
 tee, and nuist be held to have assented to its 
 being so paid. Hi/man v. Jfoirill, 13 O. U. 
 400.— l''ergu8on. 
 
 In a creditor's action to set aside a chattel 
 mortgage as preferential, the judgment at the 
 trial declared that the mortgage was fraudulent 
 and void as against the jilaintitl' and such other 
 creditors of the defendant C'. as might contri- 
 bute to the expenses of the suit ; and directed 
 that the plaintitf should be paid his |iarty and 
 party costs by the defendant Mc(-'. , and his ad- 
 ditional costs as between solicitor and client out 
 of the fuiul recovered for the creditors by set- 
 ting aside the mortgage. The case was carried 
 by tiie defenilants to the Court of A))peal and ' 
 tlicSu)preme Court of C Canada, and the judgment 
 at the trial was finally atHrmed in all respects, 
 but the additional costs as between solicitor anil 
 client were not given by tiie Court of Aj)peal or 
 the Supreme Court : — Held, that the plaintiflf's 
 expenses in saving the fund were not limited to 
 party and party costs, but extended to those 
 incurred as between solicitor and client to the ' 
 end of the proceedings in the Supreme Court ; ' 
 that tlie plaintiQ' h;ul a right to object to the 
 other creditors coming in to share in the fund 
 until they had contributed to these extra costs ; 
 and, in order to avoid circuity, it was directed 
 tliat the}' should be taxed and paid out of the 
 fund. Mao/omld v. ilcCa/l, lU P. R. 9.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 In an action by a judgment creditor seeking 
 payment out of land alligcd to have been con- 
 veyed away by the debtor in fraud of the plain- 
 tiff, the proceedings were not alleged to l)e taken t 
 ou behalf of other creditors, and the plaintiU's 
 judgment was less than 8-00. It appeared that 
 there were three other claims, amounting in all 
 to.*3ti, owing by the judgment del)tor. Jiel'ore 
 the tri il of the action a settlement of the plain- 
 tiff's claim was ellected for 875 and costs, and i 
 upon tlie taxation of these costs ai|Uestion arose 
 as to the scale : — Held, that the case was taken 
 out of the provisions of the Creditors' Itelief Act ' 
 by the compromise between the plaintili' anddc- I 
 fendant ; and the claims of other creditors need I 
 not be considered; and the idaintiti's claim' 
 being hss than $200, the costs should be on the 
 lower scale. Forrest r. Laycock, 18 Cliy. at p. 
 622, followed. Dominion Hank r. Heffernan, 
 11 P. I!. ,')()4, distinguished. AlcKay v. JUai/ee, 
 13 P. K. 106, 146. -Chy. D. 
 
 In an action by creditors to set aside a con- 
 veyance of land as fraudulent, a consent judg- 
 ment was pronounced, which was so framed as 
 to exclude creditors other than the plaintiil's 
 from sharing in the proceeds of the jiroperty. 
 Upon the petition of a creditor this judgment 
 was opened up, the eonveyauue was declared 
 
 fraudulent and void af^ainst all croditom, and a 
 reference was directed to a master to sell the 
 lands and distribute the proceeds of sale amoujj 
 the creditors and incumbrancers. It was also 
 ordered that the petitioner's costs should be paid 
 by the iiiaintiffs anil the two defendants, 'i'liu 
 master made a special tinding in his report that 
 the whole of the jietitioner's costs had been paid 
 by one of the defendants. The latter appealed 
 from the report on the ground that the plain- 
 tiffs shoiilil have been found liable to coiitriliu- 
 tion in respect of these costs, and also moved 
 substantively for an order for payment of one- 
 third thereof by the i)l.\intiirs : — Held, that the 
 master was right umler the terms of the refer- 
 ence not to deal with the (juestion of contribu- 
 tion ; but that the appellant was entitled to a 
 substantive order against the plaintitl's for pay- 
 ment of one-third of the costs, because the 
 jilaintill's were jointly liable with him and the 
 other defendant therefor. Foiu-hiir it .S'o)/ v. 
 St. Loiih, 13 !'. H. 318.— Hoyd. 
 
 See Fia<l<'ii!ivr<ih v. llaxkiiix, 12 A. 1!. 2,57, i>. 
 794; Vvvrml/es v, FuoktH, 10 O. K. 091, p. 827. 
 
 (d) Other Caxex. 
 
 H. obtained from bis debtor an absolute con- 
 veyance of hind as seuuiity wliicli was attacked 
 by the plaintiil' who bad subseiiuently recovered 
 an execution against the grantor as being a 
 fraudulent preference. H. insisted th;it the con- 
 veyance to liim was bona tide, while the grantor 
 alleged it had been obtained by the fraud of H. 
 The court (Hlake, V. C), in view of the fact that 
 the grantor in another suit had sworn that it was 
 made for a valuable consideration and in good 
 faith, refused the relief asked ; the other circum- 
 stances in the case being such as not to justify 
 a decree on the grantor's present statements, 
 although not estopped by the first statement, 
 but that he was at liberty now to jiie.sent the 
 facts otherwise. In such a case the exjilanations 
 given for the difl'erent account of the transaction 
 must be convincing. Under these ciivumstances 
 and H. claiming to hcdd the land only as security 
 for the amount due him, and the court being 
 satisfied of the bona tides of the transaction, 
 ordered an account to be taken of the amount 
 due H., and the land to be sold ; the proceeds 
 to be ap[died tirst in payment of the amount due 
 to H. for principal, interest, and costs, and the 
 balance as in ordinary fraudulent conveyance 
 cases ; and for these jiuiposes the usual reference 
 to the master was directed. Summtrrilli. v. lim-, 
 28 Chy. 618. 
 
 One (i., in 1873, made a conveyance in fee of 
 certain lands. The Indder of an uns.itistied judg- 
 ment for a debt incurred prior to the coiiveyanco 
 brought this action to have the said conveyance 
 declared viduntary and void as against him. It 
 was pleaded in defence that the right to have tlio 
 relief asked had become extinguished, for that 
 the Stitute of Limitations had rendered the deed 
 of 1873, under which possession was taken, inde- 
 feasible by creditors : — Held, that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to the relief asked. lioycr v. 
 Goffield, 11 O. K. 571.— Boyd. 
 
 A fraudulent deed remains so to the end of 
 time, though it may not be cB'ectively impeach- 
 able because of purchasers for value withoub 
 
. -^f^ 
 
 827 
 
 FBAUDULENT JUDGMENT 
 
 828 
 
 
 
 pa 
 
 is 
 
 iiotiou having iiiturvciiutl, or liucnuHC of tliu i 
 cLiiiiiH (if all ci'tMlitoi'H hiiviiig lioun burrtjil or ux- { 
 tiiitjiiiiiliud liy IttpHo "f jiiiirrt. ll>. i 
 
 An a giMHTivl rule tlio dnutriiui of Hiiltrog.itiiiii i 
 <lo(M not iipi'ly ill fivvoiir of a |>iirly who Iiiih not 
 imiil iiioiify Of j.;ivrii Nomrtliiii^' in KatiMf.iction or 
 extingnisiiinciit of ii mM'iiiity, cliiiiii. or (Iciiiiiinl, 
 or |)uiily ho, or wlm liaii not jiaiil Hoini'tliing 
 liv wiiy of K''tt'"K '" " Hccni'ity, or llii' likr. 
 I lit' |>liiiiilill', ill! cxccnlion crcMljtor agiiiiiHl 
 laniJH. Iii'oiiulitanactiiiii liiNctiisiiii'aHfrauiinlcnt, 
 twoiiKH't;,'";,' Hof I ("il rstatc in olu by lii.i<'Xt'ciitinn \ 
 •li'litor ami Kiiiu-uodcil as I'l tln' liiNt, tlic action ' 
 lieilii,' iliHiiiisMcil as to tliu Ki'cond niort;,'ago. 'I'ln^ ; 
 laii(U \\<rr Molil lull dill not icali/i^ ciioiiiili to jiay | 
 tllf plumtitr :md llli' Hctond niort^'.igcc. 'I'lic ; 
 Iilnintiir tiii'li claiini'd to lie t'lititlcd liy IiIm tlili- j 
 jjciiiM^ to priority for Ins Airntioii over tliu second 
 niort^.iL;r toilii' rxti'iit of the nioit;,'.ij,'i' no Hct 
 n>^id(' as fiaiidiilrnt : lli'lil, that lie wnH not 
 entitled to any unch prioiity :im to IiIh cxcuiitinn, 
 but that his costs :is lictwccn sulicitnr ami client 
 over and .iliove his costs as lietwiicii party and ' 
 
 Jiarty, iimi such of the latter costs as might not, 
 >v. realized from thi^ defemlants (other than the I 
 sutMMid moi tuiigce) weri^ a lirst oliar;;e ini the fund | 
 as ill l\\c nature of nalvaire. I'ourKolkii v. Fuukix, | 
 10 O. 1{. O'.tl. — I'crgusoii. 
 
 FRAUDULENT DEPRIVING OF USE 
 OF PROPERTY. 
 
 .SVc Clil.MINAI. fi.WV. 
 
 FRAUDULENT DEVICE. 
 
 Sen Parliamentauv I'Ilkutions. 
 
 FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT. 
 
 1. WllKN OliTAISKI) IIY (JoNKESSION OR De- 
 
 KAIM.T, 82". 
 
 II. Otiii-.u Casks, S.30. 
 
 1. When Oiitainkii iiy(.'<)nkkssi()n ok Dekai'lt. 
 
 A man in insolvent eircumstanoos was sued 
 about the same time by two cieilitors, one of the 
 plaintitis being his son. To tliu one action he 
 entered a delence, while to tho other — that 
 brought by his son — he made no defence by reason 
 of wliich judgment was obtained therein, and 
 all his etreets sold, which wero bought in by an 
 agent of the son, the whole rcali/.ing lesH than 
 the debt, interest, and costs. 'J'he amount claimed 
 ))y the son was admittetl to be u bona fide debt. 
 The court (Spragge, (J.) : — Held, that the re- 
 fraining from putting in a defence to the action 
 1>rouglit by the son was not such a, facilitating 
 of his recovering judgment as was prohibited 
 by the statute--R. S. O. (1877) c. IIS, in this 
 following Young r. (Christie, 7 Cliy. 317. Labitll 
 V. Bixell, 'J8 I 'by. 59.3. See also, Kinij v. Z)«?t- 
 can, 29 0hy. 113. 
 
 The defendant C, defended an action brought 
 Against him by the plaiutitl's, while in an action 
 
 brought against him by defendant H. , he outvreil 
 an appearance and filed a ]>h!a Home days lurfore 
 the plea was due, and on the Name day tilcil a 
 relicla verilicatioiM', whereupon judgment wiw 
 signeil anil execution issued : Held, that tlieso 
 proceedings did nototrend against the prov isioim 
 ol tlie Act K. S. <). (IS77) e. IIS, s. 1; followiiig 
 in this the decision in Voiiiig r. Christie, 7 ('liy, 
 ;il'-'; .McKeniii .'. Smith, lOCIiv. 1(1; Libatt,' 
 Hixell, '.'SChy. r,'X\ ; and Ma' kedu^ r. Watt, 
 decided ill appeal liSlli iNoV. I.SHj. Ilidinin, v. 
 .Vca/c, 'JlKJhy. 278. -I'roudfoot. 
 
 The defendant, a ercditnr of ()., who was in 
 insolvent ciieiinislances, i^ninmcnced an aclien 
 on the '.'.'lib .May, 188'.'. I!y airaii.;enieiit witli 
 ()., who appeared, pleaded to the plaintiU's 
 statement of el dm, and eoiiscnted to ,'in nnlur 
 striking out his defence, a jiiilgmt'iit wasolilaiiiuil 
 the next ilay. The plaintill' cimimen 'ed pro. 
 eecdnigs immediately after the defendant, ,inil 
 in due cuiii.ic ubtaincd judgment against ()., uml 
 till! v.diiiily of the defendant s jndgiiieiit cainciu 
 Hucsliiin on interpleader: Held, I'ollouin;^ tlie 
 ili'cisiiiiiM under \i. S. (). (IS77) e. IIS, ilialtlie 
 deiemlaiii M juil^'inint was valid : I'lr .Armour, 
 •I. Il the matter were res intcgi.i, ()., I. y ac- 
 tively inlei firing to enable the ilctciidaiit tn 
 rec()\cr a jiidgimuit again>t him Mioncr than hy 
 dill' course of law he iiilierwise wmild have doia', 
 was giving a coiilcssion of jiilgmcnt within tlio 
 wordsof the Act, and tN'rtainly within its spirit. 
 /»/■»./• v. l.wiiH, I (), K. (VlA.-i.). W. I), 
 
 The plaintill' was suing the defenilaiit, F,, 
 who was in insolvent cireiimstaiiciH, whin tlie 
 defendant, M., applied to him, imd by tlircats 
 of action toenfmce his claim, and a promise ti) 
 give time to I'', if he aceediMl to Ins reipn-t. in- 
 diieed V. to exeeiite a cognovit wiicreby M. nb- 
 tained |)i ioiily over the plaintill'. liotli partlii 
 placed writs of exccntioii in tlie sherilfs liaiiiU. 
 Under that at the suit of M., the yoods of F. 
 were sold, .M. bo' ing p " leof. the iiiieoof 
 which he 't'lii <hi iiMiiiint of his ju'i;:iiiciit 
 
 and n 1 I li.iJance from the sherill':— 
 
 Hell' j; tlie jiidgiiicnl f theciiiirt lnldW, 
 
 3(). , that the eo;:no^ > as collusive ami 
 
 void 1 It. ,S. (), (1877) 1 . I.S, s. 1, and tlio 
 
 ainoiiii. ' diy.ed .' the s.ile liy the slierilf wan 
 propel ly pplii ,U. to the pliintill's writ :- 
 Held, also, tliat |iid;,'iiient for p.iyinciil liy M, 
 to the pi liiititl'iii the lirocceds of the sile could 
 properly be made in this action. Muilr v. 
 McU/tiiie, H A. R. (175. 
 
 Where certain iiersons who wero liable as en- 
 dorsers of (!ertain promissory notes not yet due, 
 knowing the maker's insolvent eirciinistiinces, 
 under threat of suit, iniluced him to ;;ive a c<>^- 
 iiovit actionem, whereon they entered jtnl iiiiiit 
 and issued execution :— Held, not such i> -iire 
 as exempted the cognovit and sub.seipni, pro- 
 ceedings from being collusive, fraudulent and void 
 within R. H. (), (1877) c. 118, Miriilai Silnr 
 Co. V. Lff, '1 O. R. 45l.-lJoyd. 
 
 A mercantile firm obtained from their debtor 
 promissory notes for the amount of his indebted- 
 ness which notes they endorsed to third parties; 
 before the notes were due and while they were 
 still outstanding in the hands of third partiea 
 they applied to the debtor to give a cognovit 
 actionem, knowing at the time that he had re- 
 cently given a chattel mortgage on kia stock-in- 
 
 lic ilcclarei 
 juilginent, 
 becaiisi! th' 
 lier hiisb.'ini 
 lent pnrpo.' 
 took the 
 A, K. (I7.'{. 
 
 Held, till 
 fiiiliiig to i 
 ill a loreign 
 oil licr p.irl 
 the valid it 
 Muiiiirit y. 
 
829 
 
 FRAUDULENT JUDOMENT. 
 
 tniil(Miiiil will) liopulcMHly iiiMiilvi-iit juhI iiikIci' 
 tlirfnt of Miiit thmli^litiir niivu tluicoj^iiovit, ii|H(ri 
 wliii'li jiiiluiiii'iit witH iMiUti't'<l iiiiil rxciMil imi 
 JHtiurd : lli^lil. a fnillillllt'lll |il'('f«rc'iic'i', iiiiil tliiil. 
 tlif ji>il).'Mi('iit mill iixi'iMitioM Wfi'i! fi'.tinluli'iit mill 
 vi.i.l imilir II. S, (), (ISTT) ^^ IIS: lli'lil, iilmi, 
 llml tla^ tniiiNiirliiiii nmlil iint \>i- Mii|i|Mii't<'il mi 
 till' (,'iiiiiinl of |iiiMsiirij. Kx |tirt(: ll.ill, H) ('ii. 
 1). m) followoil. III. 
 
 Till' |iliiiiitill'i liy their ii^^nit, Piiti'ii'k It,, in 
 Alinl. IH77. proiinril ;i jiiiluniriit. to liii f.i>,'iii'il 
 ii^iiiiiMt I'rIiU' I!., tilt! ilctViiil;iiit, wliii, fur |mi- 
 tioMiH iif IiIm own, NiiD'i'i't'il till' jiiil^^iiiriit til un iiy 
 (Iff mil. Nil cxfi'iitiiiii wiiH rviT issiiimI liu'riuii. 
 Aflir till' iU!;itli (if I't'lcr, tlir iiliiiiil lllx assixii'il 
 
 till' iiii'K""'"' '" ''"' ^*''''' "' l'i''''<'l<. will' |"iiil 
 thrill !*'ift llirrcfoi' ; ainl, lui her :i|i|ilirii.t KUI, 
 Ariiioiii'i •'• "">'''' "0 oi'ili'i' iilliiwiii^' (^\l (tiitiiiii 
 til isHiii^ auiiiii.it tlif ixciiitiiiM lit' l'<:trr. 'I'Ik! cx- 
 cuiitiii's thru ii|i|iliril to si'l asiilo tln^ jiiil^iiiriil , 
 a.1 li:iviiiK liiM'ii fi'.iiiiliilt'iM ly iililaiiit'il, ami (n Ixi 
 ullnwril to ilcl'iMlil till' ai'lioll. or fur HlU'h iillliT 
 orilrl' as shoiilil )i('rlii jilsl ; ainl ll|iiin M||i:h a|>|ili 
 ciitiiiii, Wilson,*'. •!., iii.iiii' an oi'cIim' nettiii;^ 
 a.siili' till' jinl^'ini'iit ami ail |ii''>i;iMMliiigs in lliu 
 ft.'tinii. anil iliri'i'tiiii,' tin- iilaintidVi to ii'|iay tin; 
 .^.'ill. This oriler was allirni'il on a|i|H.'al liy tliu 
 t'lminion I'luas Division. I'ci' lliiiiiity, (J. .!.()., 
 Hiiil (InIi'I', •!. A. : 'lilt' jii(l>,'iiiuiit HJioiilil iiiiMrly 
 III! sit asiili' ami tho rxcciilois allowiil in to ih'- 
 fc'iiil. IVr liiiitoii. .1. A. : Till! cxi'tMitors (;an- ; 
 not 111' liiviril to alli';,'!! Ihrir tcstutor ,s frniiliilcnt \ 
 |iur|iosr ; tiny aii' i'sto| pcil I'loin (.'niiliiiin;^ tin; 
 npi'ialion of t In; jini^iiii'iit within tin' limit of hix 
 intc'Mili'ii Iniiiil : ami the ju'lj.;iii(nit hIioiiIiI Ik; ' 
 iilli.wi'il to staiiil ViV Patterson, .1. A, : -Thi' [ 
 jiiilKHii'nt Hhonlii not In; set asi'lc. liut the onUir 
 nl Aniiour. ,1., shonlil In- rcsiiinieil, ami it Hhoiild 
 lie ilci'larcii that I'atrirk'M wife a.s ,i,ssif,'m'i! ol tlio j 
 jml^Siiicnt. was nut cntitlcil to issiu' ixei; '*ioii, | 
 liL'i'aii.se till! iuii{,'ineiit was inoi'iiieii liy I'.ilrii'k, j 
 lior luishanil, ami snirtri'il liy I'l'ti!'' lor.i I'rimiii- : 
 lent ]iiir|iosi!, of wllieh she ll.-i'l liotiee when .she 
 took till! iiHsignineiit. Schrwihr v, /lounn/, 1 1 | 
 A, H. (i7:i. ' ! 
 
 Ili'lil, that tho mm feasanec of tlni wife in j 
 fiuliiiH to a|)p"ar or li fenii an action for ilis'oree j 
 in a tiireigii eoiirt, iliil iiiit amount to i'ollii.sioii| 
 on lii'i' jiart ho an to estnj) her Iroiii iinpiaching 
 the valiility of tin: liecieu niiuie in tliat court, 
 Mwiiirn \. Ma'jnrn, II A. R. IT'S. 
 
 Oil tho 'iStli M iri'h, ISS'2, a writ wis i«nu' li liy 
 Ci!tal., re.spouileiits, against oiio M., for the 
 recovery of the Hiini of ?H-M."»r» ',\'.\, aiiil h liil writ 
 WHS iliiiy iinloi'Meil, in aconrilaneu with the pro- 
 vinioii.s of tliu .liiiliuutuie Act, with particiilai'M 
 of tlie el.iini of the reapomients for the saiii sum 
 of,'?:i'2,l, ")")..'{;{ on an ai count pres'i'iiisly st ited ami 
 settli'd lietweeii ('. et al, and M,, siieli iinouiit 
 being arrived at by allowiiij,' to M, a discount of 
 five per cent, for tile unexpireil balaii'ie of the 
 term of credit to wliich M, was entitled on th.- 
 piireliase of the goods. No ujipeaniiicu was 
 enteied by M, to the writ, and on the 8th April 
 juilgiiieiit was recovered for the ainouiit, and on 
 tile same day writs of execution were Lssiied. M, 
 et id., appellints, creditors of M., instituted an 
 action against him on the 8tlt April, ISS2, and 
 obtained jutl^ineiit on tho 14th .April, and on the 
 Mine d.iy writs of execiitinn were issued. The 
 8tnok-in-trade was sold liy the sheriiF at public 
 auction, under all the exeoutiuus in his hands, to 
 
 the respoiidents, who were the higlieit bidderN, 
 On a trial in an interpleader Ihsui', to try wlietlier 
 app' llaiit-i' exeeiuion ;igaiiint .M. Wis eii'itl'd ti> 
 priority over tli.it of reipondents, and wlietlier 
 the jiiilgiii "lit of the latter wai void for iraud, 
 and as bein^ a preference ; mid wlntlier r< spon. 
 dents'exiiMitioiis were void as against appellants' 
 exe'tutioii.iiiiaci'ouiit of their liaviii:< isiUi'd them 
 before tlie exp riilion of eight d.tys from the last 
 day foi'appeiiaiiee, .Mr. .Iiistiee .Arm piii diieetud 
 a Vt'i'iliet or jii'lgiiieiit to be eiitei'id m f ivoiir of 
 the appell.iiits. That jiidgnient w.i" rever.sed by 
 the t/iiren's Iteiirh Divi.sioii of the High Court i')( 
 .liiNiice of Ontario (■.'(), K. '.'.J.'Ji, wIms.' julgment 
 WIS alliiiiii'.l by tliet'oiiilof Appeil for Ontario. 
 Oil .ipp.al to the .Siipnine Court of C.ui ola : — 
 Ili'M. allirniiii^' the judgment ol the ('oiiit of 
 Appeal, 10 ,\. II. !»•_', th.il what the debtor did 
 in this I'liM! di'l ii >l emMtilitte a tr iiiiliibtit pre- 
 fereiiee pioh lilted by |{, ,S. (). ( IH77l, c. I IS, and 
 th it till' preiii .tine issue of the exeeuli.iii of tho 
 resp iiiiIi'iiIm was only an irie;;iilaiity and not a 
 nullity. Miu-ilmcilil. v. Cronihir, II ,s. C, It. 
 107. 
 
 ."<., a jiiil','nient creditor of ,|, N., sr., applied 
 to the Siipreiii'! Court of ,New Muiii^wiek, ou 
 iitlidavits, to have a jiid-tnieiit of ,1. N , jr., 
 ag.iiiist.l. N., sr., his f itlier, s.-t as ile ,im bi'iii({ 
 olit.iineil by eolln^ioii and tr.uil. and in older to 
 cover up asiits of the -aid d. N , sr. I ho facts 
 allcjtil 111 the allid.ivits siipportiiiu the oppllca- 
 tioii Were: tli.il a iiognovit was given and saiil 
 jiidoiiienl. of .). N., sr. , was .si^ne 1 on tlie same 
 day ; th it no a''i! miit was ever r.ndered of the 
 I d lit ; that no eiitiii s were ever in i li! by said 
 ■I. N,, jr., .igainst Ids father; th it tin! iccoiint 
 for which tin! l!.l^'llovit was given was in ide up 
 fioiii cileilatioii iri I not Iron boiks ; tii it the 
 lather hid nd'errd t'l hive tlie jud^nieiit dis- 
 clia'g 'il on p lyiiie it of a mU'li sin dler sum ; and 
 th it on .'111 ex iiiiiii ilioii ol the latli"i' I'm' dis- 
 I'losiire he Would ii it swe ir that In: owed Ills son 
 the ainoiint and that he li id n i set tleiu lit of 
 accounts. The allid ivils in .iiiswer stit d how 
 the iltlits had aei'iued, giving th" do lils ; that 
 tlieie was no collusion b tw 'eii the fa' her and 
 son ; that the son fi'ei|u iitiy asked his lather 
 for a s.'ttli'iiiint but coiild not g t it : ami that 
 lie hid never b en a pirtv to. or autliori/.,!i| any 
 settlement. 'I'lie colli t below held til it the ap- 
 plic lilt hid failed to shew frilld and refused to 
 set iside the jii'lglii''nt ; — Hold, that Mie ih-eisioil 
 of the court lielow sliuild bo allirined. Siiutuball 
 V. X,l/s,„i, lO.S. V. \i. 7li>, 
 
 .See firlU V. <,ii/liiirai/, 5 O. R. 502, p. 201. 
 
 II. Otukii Cases. 
 
 Ill an action bya creditor against asharoliolder 
 for unpaid stock, in a upaiiv incorpor ited un- 
 der :i-2 fi .•(;$ Vict. c. I.'{(l)mii,)': -H, b|, (P. irton, 
 .1. dissenting), that the sli irehoMer under a plea 
 that tho judgment w.is ohtuined by fraud, was 
 entitled to set up .is a defeiico that the company 
 hid not in the original suit been served with 
 process, under section .50, the person served as 
 secret iry not being such officer. Per Burton, J. 
 A. Such an omission was im irregularity only 
 which must be moved against promptly, and 
 could not be the subject of a plei; hut that 
 fraud or collusion between tho plaintiff tii'l tho 
 company or its uiEcers, would avoid the judg- 
 
 M 
 
. ^ .- -r .^vTr- ^y'.-'i-T.r-rr.-''?^— ii ^iiu ■' i»iii»t.uifii 
 
 *(■ 
 
 831 
 
 GAMING. 
 
 832 
 
 833 
 
 c: 
 
 .»!«; 
 
 sm 
 
 :^.:::• 
 
 s» 
 
 '{;:>» 
 
 
 «.k: 
 
 €» 
 
 
 sa" 
 
 »;? 
 
 I^HM. 
 
 ■ ^ 
 
 •WI.K 
 
 
 r-v 
 
 ,;> ; 
 
 »c; 
 
 n 
 
 e»^ 
 
 » 
 
 •"■-. 
 
 1 
 
 •Mn., 
 
 « 
 
 *-«{ 
 
 » 
 
 4 
 
 ,r— • 
 
 
 •mtamt 
 
 
 >»$ 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 meiit, or could ])e set up by plea, but was not 
 shewn by the evidence here, tiarrey v. Harvey, 
 A. K. 91. 
 
 Where proceediiiya for a partition in a County 
 Court liave been terminated by an onler con- 
 tinuing sucli partition, and nothing remains to bo 
 done by way of enforcing the judgment, sucii 
 judgment cannot afterwards be inipeached on 
 tlie ground of fraud or deception practised on 
 tiic court otherwise than in resisting an action 
 in wliicli it is relied on, or by bringing an action 
 for tiie expi'ess purpose of setting it aside. 
 Jeiikiiig V. Ji-nkiiuj, 1 1 A. R, 92. 
 
 Defence of judgment recovered by fraud in 
 an action on a foreign judgment. See Wood- 
 riifv. McLellm, 14 A. R. 24-2. 
 
 See Stewart v. Sufton, 8 0. R. 341 ; Paisley v. 
 Uroddii, 1 1 P. R. 202 ; !iowennun v. Phillips, 
 l.l A. R. 079, p. 706. 
 
 FRAUDULENT REMOVAL OF GOODS. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 FRAUDULENTLY DEPRIVING OF 
 THE USE OF PROPERTY. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 FREE GRANTS AND HOMESTEADS 
 
 Ao:< 
 
 See Crows Lands. 
 
 GAME. 
 
 Tiie defendant killed upon his own land, wliich 
 adjoined tliat of the plaintiH's and was iinfcnced, 
 a (leer, one of tiio jn'ogeny of certain deer im- 
 ported by the phiintifls and dcfemlant, and 
 allowe<l to run at largo upon tliu laiul : — Held, 
 tii'.t tlie deer was fiMic naturii' and, having Ix'cn 
 shot by the defendant upon ids own land, 
 belonged to him : — Held, also, tiiat neither tlie 
 Act incorporating the plaintifl's, 29-30 Vict., 
 c. 122, nor R. ri. O. (1887) c. 221, s. 10, vested 
 the al)8olute property in the deer in the plain- 
 tiff's, /{r LinKj Point Co. V. AiKlerKOii, 19 0. R. 
 487.— Q. R. 1>. «ee S. C, 18 A. R. 401. 
 
 GAMING. 
 
 Tlie defendant, being tlie proprietor of a news- 
 ])aper, advertised in it tliat whoever should guess 
 the number nearest to the nuni)>er of lieans which 
 had lieen placed in u sealed glass jar in a window 
 on a public street, should receive a $20 goUl piece; 
 the person making the next nearest guess, a set 
 of harness ; and tlie person making the third 
 nearest guess, a $ri gold piece ; any person de- 
 siring to coiii])cte to buy a copy of the newspaper, 
 and to write his name and the supposed number 
 of the beans ou a coupon to be cut out of the 
 
 paper. The defendant was convicted of a con- 
 travention of C. S. 0. c. 95 :— He'd, that as the 
 approximation to the number depended aa ...uch 
 upon the exercise of skill and judgincut vs upon 
 chance, this was not a "mode of chance " for 
 the disposing of property within the meaninj^ of 
 tlie Act. J{e<)iiia v. Dodda, 4 O. R. .190.— 
 1 Q. R. D. 
 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. The Act applied to the 
 unlawful disposal of some existing real or per- 
 sonal property. In this case tliere were no 
 specific gold coins, nor was there any partionlar 
 set of harness, to be disposed of, which miglit 
 have been forfeited pursuant to section 3 of ilie 
 Act, and therefore the conviction was bad on 
 that ground. Jh. 
 
 The defendant placed in his shop window a 
 globular glass jar, securely sealed, containing a 
 number of buttons of different sizes. He oti'i'ied 
 to the person who should guess the number 
 nearest to the number of buttons in the jar a 
 pony and cart, which he exhibited in his window, 
 stipulating that the successful one should buy a 
 certain amount of his goods :— Held, that as tlie 
 approximation of the numberof buttons dcpendL-d 
 upon the exercise of judgment, observation, and 
 mental effort, this was not a " mode of cliaiiee " 
 for the disposal of property within the meaning 
 of the Act:— Quicre, whether defendant sliould 
 not get the costs of quashing conviction made to 
 test the law in such a case. Uei/ina v. Jamitioii, 
 7 0. R. 149.— Rose. 
 
 Defendants, Toronto merchants, engaged plain- 
 tiffs, Chicago brokers, to buy and sell grain in 
 Chicago on margin, which the latter did, advanc- 
 ing them money for which they sued. Dufon- 
 daiits having refused to settle for losses .sustain- 
 ed : — Held, reversing the judgment of Patter- 
 son, J. A., that, assuming the State law to be 
 that if the contract was to deal in such a way 
 that only the differences in prices should be 
 settled according to the ris': and fall of the 
 market, and no grain be either delivered or 
 accejited, the contract would be agiiinbling con- 
 tract and illegal, it lay upon defendants to estali- 
 lisli clearly that such was the character of the 
 dealing, and this defence not having been clearly 
 proved, judgnient was given for the plaintilTs. 
 Ji'ii-e v. Uiiun. 4 O. R. 579.- Q. R. I). 
 
 The defendant was convicted by the police 
 magistrate of the city of Toronto for jihiying at 
 a game of cards called faro, contrary to the 
 stritutc 12 (Jeo. II., c. 28, and sentenced to pay 
 foO sterling, the penalty thereby iin))osed ; — 
 Held, tint under 27 (ieo. In., c. I, s. 2, the juris- 
 diction of justices of the jicace iii such eases was 
 taken away, and in lieu thereof the reeovet y of 
 such a penalty was to bo by civil action. Tiie 
 conviction was therefore (juashed :— Semble, per 
 Wilson, 0, .)., that the defendant could have 
 been convicted under the Municipal Act, 40 
 Vict. c. 18, s. 49, sub-8. 3.S, agiinst gambling, 
 and the by-law of the municipality passed with 
 reference thereto. Hnjiiia v. Mathixon, 4 O. K. 
 559.— (\ P. D. 
 
 1>. and H. agreed to match a colt owned by 
 1). against a colt owned by .S. Under the agree- 
 ment thi stakes were deposited witli P., who, 
 default being made by 1)., handed over the 
 amount of D.'s deposit toH., although 1>. had 
 previously deinaucled it buck. D. now brouglit 
 
 A cliequ 
 matching c( 
 sideiation o 
 3, R. S. O. 
 void under I 
 bona tide li< 
 v. ICo/tv, 12 
 
833 
 
 GIFT. 
 
 88» 
 
 this action against H. and P. to recover the 
 amount of tiie deposit : — Held, that the race 
 was an illegal one under 13 (Jeo. II., c. 19, one 
 of the participants nut being the owner of the 
 horse lie bet upon, and therefore 1). could not 
 recover l)ack from H . tlie deposit money, being 
 himself in pari <lelicto : — Held, however, that 
 inasmuch, as P. sliould have handed back D.'s 
 deposit on demand made before disposal, 1). coulil 
 now recover tlic unionnt of tlie same from P. 
 Dans V. JJewiU, 9 O. R. 435.— Boyd. 
 
 The Act 40 Vict. c. 31 ( Pom. ), intituled an Act 
 fnr tlic repression oi betting and pool selling, 
 does not forl)id betting, and doea not apply to 
 8take-liolders in any of tlie three cases mentioned 
 in seo'ion •_'. Jinjinav. Dillon, 10 P. R. 352. — 
 Osier. 
 
 A clicfiuo given in settlomcnt of losses at 
 matching copjiers is a note of hand given in con- 
 sideration of a gaiuliling debt within s. 53, sub-s. 
 3, R. 8. O. (1S77) c. 47, anil such a secuiity is 
 void uniler 9 Anne, c. 14, even in the hands of a 
 bona tide holder for value. In re. Suinvwrfuldl 
 V. ]YorU, VZ U. K. 4S.— (i. H. D. 
 
 A conviction under the provisions of the " Act 
 respecting (iaining Houses," R. S. 0. c. 158, s. 
 6, provided, in addition to tine and imprison- 
 ment, fur distress in default of payment of the 
 (i„e;_Held, that the punishment being in ex- 
 cess of that warranted by the statute, the con- 
 viction must be (juaslied •. — Held, also, that, as 
 the niaximuni peualty prescribed for the olieiico 
 was iiiii)osed, the defect in the conviction in the 
 provision for distress was not cured under R. S. 
 C. c. ITS, ss. 8" and 88. Ktgina v. 8parham, 8 
 0. R. 570, approved of. Utijina v. Lo<jaii,\*i 
 0. R. 335.— Cliy. 1). 
 
 The Act 51 Vict. o. 42, 1 (Doni.), makes it 
 an iiidiital)le oHence to make or aiithr)rize con- 
 tracts liy way of gaining or wagering on the ri.se 
 or fall iif stocks and inerchaiidi/<s and to luiliit- 
 ually frequent any otliee or place where such 
 contracts are made. I>y section 3 : The keepers 
 of such places are to be held to bo keepers of 
 common gaming houses ; the place of business 
 to be a conimon gaming house, and the instru- 
 ments u>e(l instruments of gaming, " the whole 
 within the nuMiiing of 1!. !S. C'. c. 158, the Act 
 respecting (laming Houses, :md shall be sidtjoct 
 to all the provisions of the said Act." Section 
 of the ]i. S. C c. 1 58, enacts that pei.sons 
 playing or hloking on while others are playinj;, 
 are guilty of an otl'enco under the Act ; and by 
 section i(, authority is given to the policenuigis- 
 trate to try oU'ences under the Act summarily. 
 An infiprmation under R. iS. C c. 158, charging; 
 tliedeiendant and others with unlawfully play- 
 ing in a common gaming-house, was heard bef<ire 
 the police m.igistiatc summarily and tliedrfen- 
 dant eonvieled. The evidence shewed that the 
 defenilant was merely in a plate where it was 
 alleged that contracts in violation of the 51 
 Vict. e. 4'-', were made : — Held, that secticm 3 of 
 61 Vict. c. 42 (l)(mi.), was not incorporatcil into 
 sections 4 and (i of R. 8. i'. c. 158, so as to make 
 the fact of a person being in an office or place 
 of business where such prohibited contracts were 
 made equivalent to playing or looking on while 
 others were playing in a common gaming-house 
 and 80 punishable by summary conviction. 
 %iHa V. Murphy, 17 O. R. 201.— C. P. D. 
 
 53 
 
 Section 2 of B. S. C. c. 159, prohibits the sale 
 of " any lot, card, or ticket, or other means or 
 device for * * selling or otherwise disposing 
 of any property, real or personal, by lots, tic- 
 kets, or any mode of chance whatsoever." The 
 complainant went to the defendant's place of 
 business, and having been told by the defendant 
 that in certain spaces on the two shelves there 
 were in cans of tea a gold watch, a, diamond 
 ring, or $20 in money, he paid one dollar and 
 received a can of tea, which, containing an 
 article of small value, he handed the can back, 
 paid an additional fifty cents, and received an- 
 other can, w'l'ch also contained an article of 
 small value, xle handed this can back also, 
 paid another ..ty cents and secured another can, 
 which also contained an article of small value. 
 He then refused to pay any more money, and 
 went away, taking the third can and the article 
 in it with him. On a complaiut laid by him 
 before the police magistrate, the defendant was 
 convic^'.,d. in that he "unlawfully did sell cer- 
 t; in packages of tea, being the means of dispos- 
 ing of a gohl watch, a diamond ring, $2o in 
 money, by a mode of chance, against the form 
 of the statute," etc. : — Held, that the transac- 
 tion came within the terms of the said section 
 2, so as to make the defendant liable to convic- 
 tion thereunder ; — Held, also, that " The Sum- 
 mary Convictions Act," applied to cure any de- 
 fect in the form of the cimviction. Reijina v. 
 Freeman, 18 0. R. 524.-C. P. D. 
 
 GAOL. 
 
 Arbitration between city and county as to 
 compensation for care and maintenance of pris- 
 oners. See In re the Arhitrnlion between the City 
 0/ St. Catharines and the ComUy of Lincoln, 4G 
 Q. B. 425. 
 
 GARNISHMENT. 
 
 Sec Attachjient of Debts— Division Courts. 
 
 GENERAL AVERAGE. 
 
 See IN.SURANCE— Ship. 
 
 GENERAL SESSIONS. 
 
 See Sessions. 
 
 GIFT. 
 
 I. Genehallv, 835. 
 II. Ok Personaltv. 
 
 1. Hmhand and Wife, 835. 
 
 2. Other PersonK, 837. 
 
 III. Donatio Mortis Causa, 838. 
 
 IV. Lands— See Dedication — Voluntary 
 
 Conveyance. 
 
 V. By Wills -See Will. 
 
835 
 
 OIPT. 
 
 837 
 
 I. Generally. 
 
 
 Held, that the word " bonus " in 3(! Vict. c. I 
 48, 8. 372, 8ub-s. 5 (Ont.), does not necessarily j 
 import a gift. See Scotlinh Ameriran Invent ment I 
 Co. V. Villaue of Elora, 6 A. R. ()2S. 
 
 Per Street, J. — Tlie order in council directing 
 that all funds received under the Canada Tem- 
 perance Act within any city or county which 
 had adopted the Act, which would otherwise 
 belong to the Crown, sliould be paid to the 
 treasurer of such city or county for tlie purposes 
 of the Act, operated as a gift from the Crown to 
 the municipality, witli an intimation added as 
 to the purpose to which it was expected the gift 
 would oe applied, but carrying with it no legal 
 obligation that it should be a])plied in any par- 
 ticular manner. It was a complete gift ; the 
 money was finally at home, so f.ir as the Crown 
 was concerned, when the municipality received 
 it, and the revocation of the order could not 
 revoke a completed transaction, nor retract that 
 which had been actually done under it. United 
 Cowitien of L(ii/.i and <lirnrilli: v. Toii-n of 
 Brockville.n O. 11. 2G1. 
 
 11. Ok Per-sonaltv. 
 
 1. Husttand and Wift. 
 
 One .T. O'B., and B. (ri5., his wife, were the 
 holders of a certain dc])iisit certiticate of the 
 Bank of British North America to the follow- 
 ing purport: "Heteived from .1. O'li, and 1>. 
 OB. the sum of S'.'.SOO, for which Me aie ae- 
 countible to either, with interest at current 
 rate," etc. Three or four days before his death, 
 J. O'B. called his wife to his l)e(lside, and in the 
 presence of P., f;ave the certificate to her, say- 
 ing slie wa.s to keep it for iier own use, and un- 
 etiuivocally expressing an intention to make an 
 absolute gift of the money to her: — Held, J. 
 O'B. having died, that his wife was entitled to 
 the money in the liank. O'Brien v. O' linen, 4 
 O. R. 450. — Ferguson. 
 
 The widow of ii testator claimed as a gift from 
 her husband a promissory note payable to his 
 order, but not endorsed by him. The evidence, 
 iu the master's olHce, on taking the accounts of 
 the estate, shewed that the wife h id taken pos- 
 session of this and otlier notes belonging to her 
 husband during his lifetime. Tlie master at Lon- 
 don found that under the circumstances appear- 
 ing in the report of the case ('2!) (^hy. 44.'{), the 
 testator had intended the note to l)eloiig to the 
 widow, and that it did not form part of the assets 
 of the estate, which finding was reversed by the 
 court (Blake, V. C. ) :— Held perSpragge, C. J.O., 
 and Morrison, J. A., (reversing the order then 
 pronounced) that the evidence established a valid 
 gift inter vivos. Per Burton and Patterson, JJ. 
 A. — That even if the facts shewn in the evidence 
 failed to establish a good gift inter vivos, the 
 testator under the circnmstanees had constituted 
 himself a trustee for liis wife of the note. Per 
 Burton, J. A. — The mere delivery of such a note, 
 not endorsed, could not take effect as a gift inter 
 vivos. Per Spragge, C. J. O. — There is no dis- 
 tinction in this respect between a gift inter vivos 
 and a donatio mortis causa. Tittany v. Clarke, 
 6 Chy. 474, remarked upon by Spragge, C. .J. 
 O. . Re Murray— Purdltam v. Murray, 9 A. R. 
 369. 
 
 The evidence shewed that the husband had 
 purchased a piano, and had made a present of it 
 to his wife by putting it in the house where they 
 lived, and 8ubse(iuently recognizing her right tn 
 it : — Held, that the piano did not form ])art of 
 the wife's separate estate, as the husband could 
 not at common law make a gift inter vivoa of 
 this description of property, so as to prevent its 
 passing to his personal representatives; ami that 
 there was no evidence of intention on his part 
 to constitute himself a trustee of the piano for 
 his wife. Scliafftr v. JJumhle, 5 O. R. 716.— 
 Cameron. 
 
 W. (J. gave to his wife, M. G., a bond condi. 
 tioned as follows : "That my executors .shall jiay 
 M. <i. S200 in one year, and .*200 in two years 
 after my decease, and these payments to lie 
 made as above stated to M. G. I bind myself 
 to make full provision for her in my will to be 
 hereafter made. And should I not make a will, 
 this shall be full authority to my executors to 
 make such payments. When my executois ful- 
 til the above named obligation by making said 
 payments the above obligation to be mill and 
 voiil, otherwise to remain in full force and vir- 
 tue. " W. (!. died leaving a will, which, how- 
 ever, did not specially mention the above obli- 
 gation. M. (!. alleged that she had left the 
 home of the testator for good cause, and that 
 this bond was given to induce her to return 
 and live with him, which she did ; Iml the 
 judge found otherwise, and that the bond wus 
 wholly without consideration in fact. M. (!. 
 now sued the executors of \V. (i. for the •?400 
 mentioned in the bonil:— Held, that M. (!. could 
 not recover for that if the action were cnnsid- 
 ercd as an action at l.iw on the bond, the lioiid 
 was void, since at law husband and wife could 
 not contract; while if considered as a suit in 
 eiiuity it was eiiuivalcnt to a suit for siiedtio 
 \)erfornvince, or the enforcement of an im|]erfect 
 gift, and in either case ecpiity would not aid a 
 volunteer, neither did the presence of a seal 
 mike any diH'erenee : — Meld, also, that tliehond 
 could not be legurded as a declaration of trust. 
 (,'ta.ss V. Uiirt, H O. R. :«)1.— Ferguson. 
 
 The defendant, liavini; in her ])ossessi(m a 
 large sum of money which her husband had f<Wen 
 Iiei', went with him to the bank to deposit it, 
 and was about to do so when, on a (piestioii 
 arising as to the power of withdrawini; it in 
 case of the wife's illness, the money at the hank 
 agent's sugL'cstion, was deposited in both tlieir 
 names subject to withdrawal by either of them, 
 and it remained on deposit uninterfered with liy 
 the husband up to the time of his death wliicli 
 occurred some months after : — Held, that there 
 was a good gift inter vivos to the wife. I'aijnt 
 v. Marnhall, 18 0. R. 488. -C. P. D. 
 
 Where, in administration proceedings, the 
 widow of the deceased claimed from the executor 
 repayment of certain moneys paid by her, at her 
 husband's reijuest, out of her separate property, 
 on premiums paj'able on policies on his liff. 
 which she swore were to be repaid to her ; anJ 
 it appeared that the moneys were paid by a 
 third person who held them to the use of the 
 claimant ; that she acijuiesceil in the paynientof 
 them with great reluctance ; and that she h>il 
 no claim to any part of the policy moneys, which 
 were wholly at the disposition of the deceaseds- 
 Held, that under these circumstances the onui 
 
837 
 
 GLENGARRY (COUNTY OP) 
 
 838 
 
 ml had 
 !iit of it 
 ire they 
 right to 
 part of 
 111 oouhl 
 vivos of 
 jvcnt its 
 Mill that 
 Ilia part 
 piiiiu) for 
 I. 716.- 
 
 iiil ciinili- 
 sliall pay 
 wo years 
 its to he 
 III myself 
 will to he 
 ike a will, 
 jcutors to 
 tutors ful- 
 akinn siiid 
 1 null ami 
 ;c and vir- 
 hich, how- 
 above ohli- 
 ,il kit the 
 ;, anil that 
 ■ to rt'tiirn 
 [ ; 1)ilt the 
 [■', bond was 
 vet. M.(l. 
 or the 84(10 
 M. (i.coulil 
 i-erc cansid- 
 111, till! hoiid 
 I wife eoulil 
 IS a suit in 
 for speatic 
 an imiit-'ifect 
 il not aid a 
 ■o „f a seal 
 hat till! hmiil 
 ion of trust. 
 
 Sdll. 
 
 i)iissi!»si(in a 
 mil had fiiven 
 to dcpi'sit it, 
 lU a iiiiostinii 
 clrawiiri it i" 
 y at the hank 
 
 in both their 
 ther of them, 
 ■fend with hy 
 i death which 
 1(1, that there 
 
 wife. I'l'Ji" 
 
 1). 
 
 [)ceeiliiigs, the 
 m the executor 
 
 I by Iwr. »t ''" 
 irate pro\)erty, 
 L.g on his life, 
 liil to her ; and 
 lere paid hy » 
 the "se »f *'", 
 the payment of 
 nd that she hw 
 moneys, whicH 
 the ilcciaaeil;- 
 tances the own 
 
 was on the executor to prove that the moneys 
 were a gift to the deceased, and that it was not 
 necessary for the claimant to produce corrobo- 
 rative evidence that the moneys were to be re- 
 paid in order to recover. Elliott v. Btwucll, 19 
 0. R. 413.— Robertson. 
 
 In order to make out that money paid by u 
 wife to her husband was a gift, it is necessary 
 to prove it either by direct evidence or by such 
 a course of dealing between the liusband and 
 wife as shews that the money was so paid tu him 
 iis a gift. lb. 
 
 M. having assigned liis property to trustees 
 for the benefit of his creditors his wife preferred 
 a claim against the estate for money lent to Jil. 
 and used in his business. The assignee refused 
 to acknowledge the claim, contending that it 
 was not a loan but a gift to M. It was not dis- 
 puted that the wife had money of her own and 
 that M . had received it. The trial judge gave 
 judgment against the assignee, holding that M. 
 did not receive the money as a gift. Tliis judg- 
 ment was confirmed on appeal : — Held, confirm- 
 ing the judgment of tlie Court of Appeal, that 
 as the whole case was one of fact, namely, 
 whether the money was given to M. as a loan by, 
 or gift from, his wife, who in the present state 
 of the law is in the same position, considered as 
 a creditor of her husband, as a stranger, and as 
 this fact was found on the hearing in favour of 
 the wife and confirmed by the Court of Apiieal, 
 this, the second api)ellate court, would not 
 interfere with such finding. Warner v. Murrai/, 
 16 S. C. P.. 720. 
 
 See Viiukn v. Fra-ser, 2S Cliy. 502, p. 81.") ; 
 O'Dolarty v. Ontario liaid; 32 C. P. 285, p. 815. 
 
 2. Olh~- /'crxonn. 
 
 The plaintiff had performed services for one 
 P. in his life-time, and he, intending to make 
 Bomo leoDgnition thereof told her that a certain 
 pmniissory note payable to himself or bearer, 
 which he produceil, was hers, saying: "Here 
 is your note ; take it when you want it." The 
 plaintiff tohl him to keep it for her, as slie had 
 no plaie in which to keep it herself, and he did 
 80 :— Held, utiirming the judgment of the 
 County Court, that this constituted a complete 
 gift inter vivos, there being a gift, and an ac- 
 ceptance of it by the donee, and actual delivery 
 not being necessary as in the case of a donatio 
 mortis causa :— Held, also, that the plaiiititrs 
 evidence was, upon the facts stated in the re- 
 port, sufficiently corroborated. Watson v. 
 Bra(Maw, 6 A. R. GfiO. 
 
 A verbal gift of personal 'chattels does not 
 confer any property on the donee, if there be no 
 actual delivery to him. Therefore, where the 
 mother of the defendant, while on her death- 
 lied, gave to another son, J., the key of a 
 drawer containing a mortgage in her favour ex- 
 ecuted by the defendant, directing J. to give 
 the instrument to the defendant in the event of 
 her not again seeing him, and the defendant was 
 subseipiently summoned by telegraph to see his 
 mother, and he thereupon again visited her, 
 when she told him that his mortgage was in the 
 drawer, and that when he went homo he should 
 take it with him ; but he did not on this occa- 
 sion take possessiou of or see it, and after the 
 
 mother's death (intestate) J., as directed by 
 her, handed the mortgage to the defendant : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Boyd, C, (8 O. 
 R. 516), that there hail not been such a complete 
 delivery of the security as to constitute a gift 
 inter vivos or a donatio mortis causa, and there- 
 fore that the money due on the mortgage 
 formed part of the personal assets of the de- 
 ceased. Watson I'. Bradshaw, (S A. R. 656, 
 
 ni)on. Trariti v. Trari.s, 12 A. R. 
 
 observed 
 438. 
 
 The mother had signed and given to defendant 
 a year befoi'e her death a receipt for interest on 
 the mortgage, and had endorsed a similar receipt 
 on the mortgage, but no money was paid : — 
 Held, a valid gift of the interest. .V. C, 8 O. 
 R. 516. 
 
 A testator, who was suffering from an incur- 
 able disease, went to stay with his married 
 daughter, one of the defendants hereto, and was 
 tended and nursed by her, and was afterwards 
 joined by his wife, wlio remained with him until 
 his death which took place shortly after. Nearly 
 three months after lie had been at defendant's 
 house, another daughter asked him to give de- 
 fend mt the price of a piano, when he said he 
 would not do that, but pointing to a box in 
 wiiicii he kept some money and promissory 
 notes, and which he kept locked, retaining the 
 key, said it was defendant's to do what she liked 
 with, and that there was sufficient for all. No 
 change was made in the possession of tlie box 
 
 j and its contents, it continuing in his possession 
 up to tlie time of liis death, he taking what 
 
 I money he required for his own use and for pre- 
 sents to his wife and daughters, the defendant at 
 his request sometimes taking out money for 
 him for such purposes. The notes were never 
 otherwise alluded to : — Held, that neither a 
 good donatio mortis cauaa nor gift inter vivos 
 to defendant was .shewn, but that the testator's 
 intention was that the defendant should be paid 
 for her services, and she was accordingly allowed 
 for his board anil her attendance on him as w-ell 
 as for the board of his wife. Broicn v. Ihiry, 
 1 8 O. R. ,559. — MacMahon. 
 
 See Fri'tmau v. Freeman, 19 O. R. 141, 
 in/ra ; Turner v. Prerost, 17 H. C. R. 283. 
 
 III. DoN.^Tio Mortis Cau.sa. 
 
 .shortly before the execution of the will 
 testator had handed to his daughter a bank de- 
 posit receipt which she had transterred to her 
 name, and partly used, he stating that he 
 wanted her to take care of him, and that he was 
 going to have a will drawn: — Held, that the 
 gift of the deposit receipt was a valid donatio 
 mortis causa. Freeman v. Freeman, 19 O. R. 
 141.— C. P. D. 
 
 See He Murrai/ — Purdham v. Murray, 9 A. 
 R. 369, p. 835 ; Tracin v. Travin, 12 A. R. 438, 
 ^upra ; Brown v. Dacey, 18 O. R. 559, supra. 
 
 GLENGARRY (COUNTY OF). 
 
 Dickinson's Island, on I^vkc St. Francis, is 
 part of the county of (ilengarry. Jttjiiia v. 
 Duquette, 9 P. R. 29.- Osier. 
 
'^ 
 
 [('• 
 
 !l 
 
 839 
 
 GUASANTEE AND INDEMNITT. 
 
 84Q. 
 
 S41 
 
 
 «R.«i5; 
 
 aooDs. 
 
 I. ASSION MENT OR M ORTG A« E OK — See lil LLS 
 OK .SaLK and ClIAITKL MoRTtlAUKS. 
 
 II. CONVEKSIO.N OK— 5e€ CONVEKSION. 
 
 III. OiKTOK— 6'ep GiiT. 
 
 IV. Hike ok— .SVc Hihjno. 
 
 V. Cakkiaije ok— .Vcc Cakkieks. 
 VI. Sale ok— .SVc Sale ok Goods. 
 VII. Wakhanty ov—See Warkantv. 
 
 GOODWILL. 
 
 S. anil If., trailiiig jjiirtiiers sold out their 
 business to K. under a written agreement, as fol- 
 lows: — " S. & H. do hereby bind tlicniselvus to 
 E. under a penalty of §2,000, tlial they will not 
 do business in Cliesley in liardwaru for the term 
 of live years.' Within the live years iS. eoiu- 
 nieuced a iiardware business in C'hesky, in con- 
 nection wilii i\l.: — Hehl,lhat this did not amount 
 to u luiach of tile aliove agreement, tilough liie 
 mutter was not free from doidjt. Klliolt v. Htuii- 
 ley, 7 O. R. 350.— Boyd. 
 
 Partnership articles for a lirm of three persons 
 provided thac if any piirtner should viohite cer- 
 tain comlilions of the terms of partnersldp the 
 others could compel lum to retire by giving tiiree 
 months notice of their intention so to do, and a 
 partner so retiring shouhl loifeit his claim to a 
 share of the goodwill of the l)Usiness. One of 
 the partners liaving broken such conditions of 
 partnership tiiu others verl)ally notified him that 
 he must leave the lirm ami to avoid publicity he 
 consented to an inunediale (bss(dution which 
 was advertised as "a dissolution l>y mutual con- 
 sent." After the dissolution the retiiiiig part- 
 ner made an assignment of his goodwill iind in- 
 terest in tlie busi'iess and the assignee iironght 
 an action against the remaining [laitners for the 
 value of the same: -Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of tile C. I'. I). Mead i\ OKeefe, 15 O. 
 U. .S4, .-md Court of Appeal. I,") A. H. lO.S, 
 (Fournier, J., dis.-ientiiif;), lliut the action of tlie 
 defendants in advertising tiiat tile dissolution 
 was '• liy inutiud con.-eiil" did not pieciuiie tiiem 
 from sliewmg that it to.>k place in coiise<|Uence 
 of the miscoiuliict of tlie ii tiling partner; tiiat 
 tile foiteituie of tile gooihs dl was caused liy tile 
 inipro|i( r conduct wliicli led to tlie expulsion of 
 the partner in fault and not liy tiie mode in 
 whicii sucii expulsion was ellei ted ; and, tiiere- 
 fore, llie want of notice re([iiired iiy tiie articles 
 of mtcution to expel coiilil not ln' relied on as 
 taking tiie retirement out of that provision of the 
 articles l)y wiiicli tlie goodwiii was forleited:— 
 Held, also, tiiat if it was a dis.solution iiy one 
 partner voluntarily retiring no claim could lie 
 made Iiy tiie retiring jiartner in resjiect to good- 
 will, as the account to be taken under tlie jiart- 
 nership articles in such cases dots not provide 
 tliuiefor :^Nenible, that the goodwill consisted 
 ■wholly of the trade name of the lirui. O'KtiJe 
 V. Curimi, 17 JS. C. R. G'.Mi. 
 
 Where tiie land itself ujion whicli n trade is 
 carried on is expropriated, damage to tiie good 
 will may lie a proiier subject of compensation. 
 Itiuket's Case, L. R. 2 H. L. 175, distinguished. 
 
 Re McCanley and City of Toronto, 18 0. R. 416. 
 —Boyd. 
 
 See Williamson v. Ewinij, 27 Cby. 696, p. 327 ; 
 Electric Despatch Co. of Toronto v. Bell Telephone 
 Co. of Canada. 17 O. R. 495; lb. 501; 17 A. R. 
 292, p. 335. 
 
 GBOWING CROPS. 
 
 See Crops. 
 
 GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY. 
 
 I. Ol'EKATION OK THE STATUTE OK FRAUDS. 
 
 1. Aijreementit Within the Statute, SiO. 
 
 2. Connideralion , 841. 
 
 II. Construction ok Contract. 
 
 1. WluU Amounts to a Guarantee, 842. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 842. 
 
 III. CoNTiNUiNo Gi akantee, 84.3. 
 
 IV. Pav.ment or Satisfaction, 844. 
 V. Determination ok Contract, 845. 
 
 VI. Miscellaneous Cases, 845. • 
 
 VII. As Retwekn Pkinch'al and Surety— 
 See I'kinoifal and Surety. 
 
 VIII. Warranty — See Warranty. 
 
 I. Operation of the Statute of Frauds. 
 
 1. Ayreements Within the Statute. 
 
 Where a contractor for the building of a lious* 
 made default in carrying on the work, and in 
 eonsenuence, tlie owner, acting under a clause 
 in tlie coiuraet to that ellect, dismissed him, and 
 agreed verlially with a sub-eonti actor, who had 
 iieen employed by the contractor, tiiat if the 
 sui>-contiMctor would go on and liiiish the work 
 he the owner would pay him: — Iteld, tiiat tiie 
 iigreement witli the sub-contractor was a iiew 
 and indeiiendent contract, and was not a con- 
 tract to answer for the delit, default or miscarri- 
 ;ige of another witiiin tiie fourtii .section of the 
 Statute of I'rauds, and was therefore valid and 
 binding on the owner, although not in writing, 
 lioiid i;. Treaiiy, 37 ii- R. 300, distinguishtd. 
 I'elrie v. Jtuniir; (iuist v. Hunter, 2 U. R. 
 233.— Boyd. ; 10 A. R. 127. 
 
 F. being indebted to tlie plaintifTs, who were 
 pressing him for payment, the defemlant sieved 
 the toUowing document and delivered it tu ilie 
 plaiiititl's ill consideration of tlieir giving time to 
 F. : " 1 will guarantee that tlie security oll'ercd 
 by Mr. Joiin Fleming tor the balance of your 
 account will be executed and loi warded within 
 ten days." Thesecuiity referred to was a mort- 
 gage upon real estate to be executed, and n paid- 
 up life policy of ^5,000, which F. hud iigreed 
 verbally to give the piaintiHs, neitiier of which 
 existed at the time of F.'s agreement, or tlio de- 
 fendant's guaranty. F. iievei gave the security, 
 and the phiintifl's, by refraining from suing him, 
 lost their debt : — Held, atlirming tlie juiigiiitnt 
 of Burton, J. A., Uagurty, C.J., diasentinij, that 
 
 The defJ 
 plaintiflr, ]il 
 unpaid, enl 
 " 1 guaranl 
 Messrs. T.f 
 Tlio evideJ 
 this guarai) 
 for whose T 
 given as col 
 oeiice thatf 
 •iderationl 
 
 OH 
 
m 
 
 aUABANTEE AND INDEMNITY. 
 
 842 
 
 tlie writing signed by the defendant was not 
 sufficient to satisfy the fourth section of the 
 .Statute of Frauds, whether regardeil us an origi- 
 nal promise or guaranty. Per Hagarty, (J. J. 
 Tlie contract was divisible. The writing was 
 not suHieient as to the mortgage of real estate, 
 because the promise of the debtor himself was 
 not enforceable against him, not being in writing, 
 but as to the policy the writing was suHioient. 
 Liijhtbound V. Warnock, 4 0. K. 187.— Q. U. U. 
 
 A collateral verbal promise to pay the debt 
 of anotlier, who still remains liable, altliougli 
 founded on a good consideration, is not binding. 
 Tlicrefore where defendant had bought the stock 
 of one A. , who was indebted to the plaiiicilf for 
 wages, and in order to induce the plaintitf to 
 continue witli the defendant, the defendant 
 promised to see that he was paid, and the plain- 
 till' did accordingly work for the defendant ; — 
 Ht'hl, reversing the judgment of tlie County 
 Court, that the Statute of Frauds was a bar to 
 tliu action. Jamtax. Butfoiir, 7 A. ll. t(jl. 
 
 A. M. was carrying on l)usines8 as a brewer 
 when, owing to tinanciul difficulties, he left, and 
 .S. M., his brother, a large creditor, took charge 
 thereof. The plaintiff claimed that at this time 
 there was a large sum due him for wages under 
 a sjiecial agreement made with A. M. ; and that 
 .*<. M. agreed, if ho would remain, to )niy him 
 tile past w.iges then due him, anil like wages for 
 tiie future :— Held, that the agreement by S. M. 
 to (lay such i)ast wages being merely a collateral 
 promise A. M. remaining liable, and not b'jing in 
 writing, could not be enforced : — Held, aljO, that, 
 on the evidence as to the amount of wages, each 
 party sweaiing to a different agreement, and the 
 other evidence being contradictory the fair infer- 
 ence was that the parties' minds were never ad 
 idem, and the recovery would only be on the 
 quantum meruit. Hoener v. Meriiei; 7 O. K. 
 6'2!).— C. P. 1). 
 
 In an action for the price of goods supplied by 
 the plaintiU's to C A. K., it was proved that the 
 plaintiffs received in an envelope, addressed to 
 their firm, the following letter : " Lake Superior, 
 Out., July 4th, 1883. (Icntlemen,— I beg to in- 
 form you that I have assumed all liabilities of 
 the S. V. Co. lately carried on by Mr. C. A. !•). , 
 anil am responsible to the amount contracted by 
 him up to .July 24th, 1882. Kindly ship eha.ses 
 immediately. Respectfully yours, (.Signed) C. J. 
 >S.'' The envelope was lost, but its receipt and 
 the address on it were proved :— Held, a sutHcient 
 tigrecment in writing to satisfy the statute for 
 that the address on the envelope referring to the 
 "gentlemen" within shewed that the plaintiffs 
 were the jiersons guaranteed. Jiichard v. Still- 
 M(«, 8 0. H. oil.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Consideration. 
 
 The defendant, after a note payable to the 
 plaintiff, had become due and while it remained 
 unpaid, endorsed upon it the following words ; 
 " I guarantee the payment of the within note to 
 Messrs. T. D. & Co. (the plaintiffs), on demand." 
 The evidence shewed that the consideration for 
 this guarantee was the giving of time to one C, 
 for whose debt to the plaintiff the note wr.s 
 
 §ivcn as collateral security :— Held, that the cvi- 
 ence that the giving of time to C. was the con- 
 sideration for the guarantee did not contradict 
 
 the latter, though it was expressed to be '* on 
 demand ; " for these words referred to a demand 
 upon the guarantor after forbearance to press C. ; 
 and that such forbearance wiis a good considera- 
 tion. Davien v. Funslon, 45 Q. H. .S(j9. — Q. B. 1). 
 
 See Whilelaw v. Taylor, 4.5 (J. 15. 44G, infra. 
 
 II. Construction of Contract. 
 
 1. What Amountu to a Guarantee. 
 
 The jtlaintiff agreed with M. to repair a boiler 
 in the hitter's sawmill. Dui'iiig the j)rogress of 
 the work he received the following letter from 
 the defendant : "As Mr. Morden's sawmill at 
 liismark i.s about to come into my hands right 
 away, and as I am to assume the expense of re- 
 pairs to the boiler, be good enough to push for- 
 ward the work to be done by you on the boiler 
 as fast as possible ; everything at present is at a 
 standstill waiting on you. I'lease push on the 
 work and oblige yours truly, R. Taylor." The 
 plaintitr, without communicating 'vith the defen- 
 dant, went on with the work. The defendant's 
 contemplated purchase was not carried out : — 
 Held, that had not rendi red himself liable by 
 his letter for the price of the work done, and 
 that a nonsuit had been properly entered. White- 
 law V. Taylor, 4.5 Q. U. 44(>.— Q. \i. 1). 
 
 See nobi'll V. Onlario /lauL; 3 O. R. 290, )). 
 843 ; Snlhcrlund v. Paldr-son, 4 O. R. 505, p. 844. 
 
 See also Subhead I., 1, p. 840. 
 
 2. Other Case.-: 
 
 The defendant R. contracted with the plain- 
 tiffs to deliver on their vessels at Montreal a 
 large (piantity of deals, and hedelivered iu 1877, 
 all but 108 standard hundreds. These could 
 not be shipped till the spring of 1878, and R. 
 required in the meantime to receive payment 
 for them. He had in his yard at Ottawa more 
 than the reijuircd quantity of deals ; and in 
 
 I place of then separating and delivering to the 
 plaintiff's the l(t8 standard.^, he procured his son 
 to give a storage receipt under 34 Vict. c. 5 
 (Dom.), acknowledging the receipt from the 
 
 ! Ontario iJank of 1(18 standard huniireds of deals 
 
 : specifying the qvudities required by the contract. 
 The bank theraupon gave a giuiranty to the 
 
 ' plaintiffs that those deals should " be satisfac- 
 torily culled next spring previous to shipment, 
 and that any question arising as to the same 
 shall be settled in the manner usual in Quebec, 
 viz.: Messrs. I). & Co. for purchasers, and 
 Messrs. C. & R., for Mr. R., to agree upon a 
 sworn culler t( act in the interests of both 
 ])arties." Thereupim the plaintiff's paid for the 
 deals, and the bank received the money. In the 
 spring of 1878, R. forwarded 108 standards to 
 Montreal by two barges, being urged to expedi- 
 tion in so doing by the plaintilf's : and sixty stan- 
 dard were loaded on vessels of the plaintiff8,which 
 sailed with them to England. The quality of 
 the remaining forty-eight standards was objected 
 to and they Mere landed at Montreal, and there 
 culled and found deficient in quality. Messrs, 
 C. ft H., agents at Montreal for the defendant 
 R., verbally agreed with the plaintiffs, after the 
 sixty standards had been shipped, that the 
 quality of the forty-eight standards should he 
 
-..•;»KU.inB!.Wfl.n|Hlit»w 
 
 843 
 
 GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY. 
 
 844 
 
 845 
 
 c: ♦' 
 
 
 »« : 
 
 ':% 
 
 Sw ; 
 
 :if 
 
 
 *M 
 
 est. 
 
 
 s;; ft 
 
 ■« 
 
 "- 
 
 »•<■ 
 
 
 •«,•; 
 
 
 (Tvv ;; 
 
 1 
 
 0c; 11 
 
 
 «•<:* 
 
 
 •-»» k. 
 
 
 •-«K. J 
 
 
 •"«5;l 
 
 
 •aa»i 
 
 
 !«£ 
 
 
 taken to be the average of the whole 108 : — 
 Held (Spingge, 0. J. O. dissenting,) reversing 
 the ducnsion of IVoudfoot, .1. (3 O. K. 299), that 
 the guaranty given by the bank only required 
 that tlie plaintiffs should be sutisflcd with tlie 
 uuUing at K.'s yard in Ottawa, and that no 
 objection having been made there tiie guaranty 
 was satisfied. Hut held nlso, tliat tlie bank was 
 not bound by tlie agreement made at Montreal 
 by C. & U., and even if the culling were to have 
 been at Montreal the shipment of the sixty 
 standards having rendered it impossible to settle 
 the ((uestion in differcnuc in the manner agreed 
 upon, the bank nould have been discharged. 
 Dohell v. Oiilcmo nuiik;0 A. 15. 484. 
 
 Held, by I'roudfoot, J. , in the court below, that 
 the guarantee did not come within the descrip- 
 tion of a guarantee for the act of a thir<l party, 
 for the bank were selling under K. !S. O. (1877) 
 c. 121, by virtue of being holders of a ware- 
 house receipt for the lumber. .S'. C. , 3 O. R. 299. 
 
 A deceased person, of whom the plaintiff was 
 executor, gave the defendants a guaranty in re- 
 spect of goods sold and to be sold to another, 
 in the following terms : — "In consideration of 
 the goods sold by you on credit to M. , and of any 
 further goods which you may sell to M. upon cre- 
 <lit during the next twelve months from date, I 
 hereby undertake to guarantee you against all 
 loss in respect of such goods so sold or to be 
 sold, provided I shall not be called on in any 
 event to pay a greater sum than ^2,500." The 
 principal debtor, being indebted to the defen- 
 dants in $5,5(10, made an assignment under R. 8. 
 U. ( IS87), c. 124, and the defendants tiled a claim 
 with the assignee but did not in the alKdavit 
 proving the claim state whether they held any 
 security or not. At a later date the plaintiff 
 {Mid the defendants the $2,r)00 and tiled a claim 
 with the assignee. The dividends from the 
 estate were insuliicient to pay the balance of the 
 defendants' claim : — Held, that theguaranty was 
 not a security which the defendants were re- 
 (luired to value under the Act, and that the 
 omission from their claim of a piece of informa- 
 tion which could not affect it did not render it 
 invalid : — Held, also, that this was a guaranty 
 not of part, but of the whole of the debt, lim- 
 ited in amount to $2,500, that is, a guaranty of 
 the ultimate balance after all other sources were 
 exhausted ; and the plaintiff was not entitled to 
 rank upon the estate in respect of the $2,500, 
 nor to recover any part of any dividend which 
 the defendants had received. Hobson r. Bass, 
 L. R. ti Ch. 792, distinguished ; and KUis v. 
 Kmmanuel, 1 Kx. I). 157, followed. Martin v. 
 Ale Mullen, 19 O. R. 230.— Street. 
 
 But held on appeal to the Queen's Bench Di- 
 vision, Street, .)., dissenting, that the guarantee 
 was a limited suretyship for a tioating balance 
 and was to be construed as applicable to u part 
 only of the debt coextensive with the amount 
 of the guarantee and the plaintiff was entitled 
 to a dividend from the estate of M. in respect 
 of the $2,500 paid. .S'. C, 20 O. R. 257. 
 
 See Sutherland V. Patterson, 4 0. U 5ti6, infra. 
 
 III. CoNTiNuixo Guarantee. 
 
 On nth June, 1877, defendant wrote to the 
 plaintiff that J. H. , the person he wished to as- 
 
 sist, "informs mo now that I could help him by 
 pledging myself to you that you might give him 
 a letter of credit in Montreal, and I now say, if 
 you will assist him in that way to $7,000 or 
 §8,000 that I will become responsible to you for 
 the like amount in any manner you may wish, 
 etc." J. >S. then applied to the plaintiff, who 
 gave a continuing guarantee in hia favour to 
 some Mon^.eal merchants, dated 2Uth August, 
 for goods to the extent of $5,000, for three yi'urs. 
 At the same time the following note signed l>y 
 the defendant in blank was tilled up by J . >S. ; 
 "Three years after date I promise to pay to the 
 order of J. S. $5,000, etc. "Value receivoil." 
 To which was added. "This note is given as 
 collateral security for a guarantee of $ii,(X)0 
 given to J. S. by A. S.," the plaintiff. No no- 
 tice was ever given to defendant of the plain- 
 tiff's guarantee, or of the form in which the 
 note was tilled in. In an action on the defen- 
 dant's letter as a continuing guarantee, — and on 
 the note. Per Wilson, C. J. — The letter was a 
 guarantee, but not a continuing one, and there 
 could be no recovery under it as the evidence 
 shewed that the amount of $5,000 secured there- 
 by had been paiil. Per Gait, J., agreeing with 
 the judgment of Burton, J. A., at the trial, it 
 was not a guarantee, but merely a propoHitiou 
 leading up to a guarantee; at all events, if a 
 guarantee, it was not a continuing one. Suther- 
 land V. Pa/lernoii, 4 O. R. 565.— C. P. U. 
 
 See Coiiyrave Brewing and Malting Co. v- 
 Starrs, 11 A. R. 156; 12 S. C. R. 571, p. 845; 
 Mrrr.lianta' Bank of Canada v. McKay, 15 S. C. 
 R. 072, p. 140. 
 
 IV. Payment or Satisfaction. 
 
 Declaration on a guaranty, by wliicb in consid- 
 eration of the plaintiffs accepting three notes of (i. 
 for $751 each, in satisfaction of their claim against 
 (!. & Co., defendant did, "to the extent of $751, 
 guarantee the payment of the first two of the 
 said notes according to their tenor and effect." 
 Pleas, 1. That the notes were payable to plain- 
 tiffs' order, and the plaintiffs entforsed the tirst 
 note to certain persons who held it at maturity, 
 and to whom in the event of G. not paying it, 
 the plaintiffs were liable as endorsers : that G. 
 notihed defendant of his inability to pay it in 
 full, and defendant paid thereon $276, of which 
 plaintiffs had notice, and afterwards G. failed 
 to pay the second note, whereupon defendant 
 paid the plaintiffs $476, being the balance of the 
 sum of $751 guaranteed by defendant. 2. That 
 the first two notes to the amount of $1,276, were 
 paid to plaintiffs as they became due, whereby 
 defendant's guarantee was satisfied : — Held, on 
 demurrer, pleas bad ; for, as to the first, defen- 
 dant was not liable to the plaintiffs' endorsees, 
 and no express or implied request by the plain- 
 tiffs to pay was shewn ; and as to the second the 
 guarantee was not satisfied by the payment of G. 
 of $751. Crnlhem v. Bell, 45 Q. B. 473. -Osier. 
 
 The defendant, in order to enable one G. to 
 carry out a contemplated settlement with the 
 plaintiffs (creditors of G.), signed a memoran- 
 dum guaranteeing the payment by G. of the first 
 two of three promissory notes of $751 each, " to 
 the extent of $751." When the first note to 
 mature fell due G. was unable to meet it, and 
 the defendant, without the knowledge of the 
 
 Semble, 
 the writ isl 
 ticulars ar^ 
 final judgil 
 defence. 
 R. 312. - 
 
 Molson'im 
 780 ; Moffi 
 
 11 8. (;. J 
 
 0. R. 5891 
 
814 
 
 845 
 
 HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 846 
 
 plaintiffs or their agents, enabled G. to raise a 
 pait of the amount required to retire that note, 
 which amount U. so applied ; and this sum the 
 defendant suhsequently was compelled to pay : — 
 Held, (affirming the judgment of tiie court below, 
 4() Q. W. 3()5,) no answer to u claim afterwards 
 made upon the defendant to pay the second 
 note on G.'s failing to do so, the advance which 
 had heen so made by the defendant to ^i. form- 
 ing no part of the sum the defendant was liable 
 for under his guarantee. .V. C. 8 A. 1{. 537. 
 
 V. Determination ok Contract. 
 
 By an agreement under seal made in April, 
 \H1'J, the defendant guaranteed to C & Sons, or 
 tiie members for the time being forming such 
 tirni, the price of any goods supplied by (J. & 
 Sons to one Q. to the amount of $r),000, and 
 whicii he agreed should he a continuing guar- 
 antee. C. died in September, 1881, after which 
 the sons, who were named as executors in his 
 will, curried on tiic same business under the like 
 tirm name until December, IS8'2, when the assets 
 of the partnership were transferred to tiie plain- 
 titl's, a juint stock company. Q. continued to 
 obtain goods from the sons, and the plaintiffs 
 since the fornuition of tiie joint stock company, 
 until tlie spring of 1883. Meanwhile, and on 
 tlieStii of April, 1882, the defendant being dis- 
 satisfied with the manner in which Q. was con- 
 ducting his business, wrote to the hrm forbid- 
 ding them to supply any more goods to Q. under 
 such guarantee : — Held, affirming the judgment 
 of Rose, •)., (5 O. Ik. 189), that such notice put 
 an eiid to defendant's liability for any goods 
 subscipieiitly supplied to Q. ; but — Held, by 
 the Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of 
 the Court of Appeal, which reversed the judg- 
 ment of Kose, J., that the death of P. C. dis- 
 solved the firm of C. & Sons, and put an end to 
 the contract of suretyship. Cos(jrave Brtwimj 
 and Malliiiij Co. v. Slarm, 11 A. R. 156 ; .V. C, 
 mill iioiii. •'ilarrx v. Coiiiirare, 12 S. C. R. 561. 
 
 VI. MwcELLANEons Cases. 
 
 Held, that a promise of indemnity to a sheriff 
 by an attorney is binding on his client, when 
 the attorney had the conduct of the suit in the 
 course of which the promise was made, and the 
 subsequent acts of the client shewed that he had 
 adopted the attorney's proceedings. Muirhecul 
 v. Shirreff, 14 S. 0. R. 735. 
 
 Semble, where in an action on a guaranty, 
 the writ is not specially indorsed, but full par- 
 ticulars are set out in the statement of claim, 
 final judgment may be signed upon default of 
 defence. MoIsoh'h Bank v. Dillabawjh, 13 P. 
 R. 312. -Boyd. 
 
 Mohon'H Bank v. Turley, 8 O. R. 293, p. 
 780 ; Moffatt v. Merchants' Bank, 5 0. R. 122 ; 
 11 8. C. II. 46, p. 774 ; Wyld v. Clarkson, 12 
 0. R. 589, p. 106. 
 
 aUABDIAN. 
 
 I. Of Infant — See Infant. 
 II. Of Lunatic— ^ce Lunatic. 
 
 HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 I. Issue ok. 
 
 1. When Oranled, me. 
 
 2. Who may Orant, 847. 
 
 3. Practke, 847. 
 II. Appeals, 848. 
 
 III. Return. 
 
 1. Heviewii (/ Ei'idence, 849. 
 
 2. Other Canes, 849. 
 
 IV. Discharge of Prisoner, 849. 
 
 V. Action FOR Penalty under 31 Car. II. 
 c. 2, s. 6, 850. 
 
 VI. Application ok R. S. O. c. 70, 850. 
 
 I. Issue ok. 
 
 1. When Granted. 
 
 Writ held to be issued improvidently when 
 the matter in controversy ha<l been decided and 
 the legality of the detention of the prisoner es- 
 tablished in the previous ])roceedings. See In 
 re Hall 32 C. P. 498 ; 8 A. R. 135. 
 
 The prisoner was convicted before a county 
 judge's Criminal Court. On an application for 
 a habeas corpus : — Held, that the court was a 
 Court of Record, and that under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 70 s. 1 there was therefore no right to the 
 writ. Ueijinay. St. Denis, 8 P. R. 16. —Cameron. 
 
 Held, (Henry, J., dissenting), that the con- 
 viction having been regular, and made by a court 
 in the unquestionable exercise of its authority 
 and acting within its jurisdiction, tlie only objec- 
 tion being that the magistrate erred on the facts, 
 and that the evidence did not justify the con- 
 clusion at which he arrived as to tiie guilt of the 
 prisoner, the Supreme Court could not go behind 
 the conviction and en(iuire into the merits of the 
 case by the use of a writ of habeas corpus, and 
 thus constitute itself a court of appeal from the 
 magistrate's decision. In re Melina Trepanier, 
 12 S. C. R. 111. 
 
 After a conviction of felony by a court having 
 general jurisdiction over the offence charged a 
 writ of habeas corpus is an inappropriate remedy. 
 In re SprouU, 12 S. C. R. 140. 
 
 The right to issue a writ of habeas corpus 
 being limited by section 51 of the Supreme and 
 Exchequer Court Act, to " an inquiry into the 
 cause of commitment in any criminal case under 
 any Act of the Parliament of Canada," such writ 
 cannot be issued in a case of murder, which is a 
 case of common law. Fournier and Henry JJ. 
 dissenting. Ih. 
 
 Per Fournier and Henry JJ. :— The restric- 
 tion imposed by section 51 is merely intended to 
 exclude any entpiiry into the cause of commit- 
 ment for the infraction of some provincial law ; 
 and the words "in any criminal case" were 
 inserted to exclude the habeas corpus in civil 
 matters ; it is sufficient to give jurisdiction if the 
 commitment be in virtue of an Act of the Par- 
 liament of Canada, lb. 
 
 Query — Is section 51 of the Supreme and 
 Exchequer Court Act ultra vires ? lb. 
 
847 
 
 HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 848 
 
 5JJH. s..<l 
 
 SSI 5::*» 
 «s: ■ 
 
 aw: ir 
 
 -«j.j 
 
 Hold, that a writ of habeas corpus Bhoiild not 
 issue wiiere the uccuseil is in custody pending a 
 prcliminiiry investigiition before a magistrate, 
 (luring a remand to enable the prosecution to 
 supply evidence in support of the charge. 
 /{euina v. Cox, 10 O. R. 228.-MacMahon. 
 
 See Utipnn v. (londman, 2 O. R. 4(i8, p. 447 ; 
 Hi Smart Infunl^, Vl V. 11. 312, 435, 635, p. 848. 
 
 2. Who mnii Grant. 
 
 Section 51 of the Supreme and Exchequer 
 Court Act (Iocs not interfere with the inlierent 
 right wliich the Supreme Court in common with 
 every HU|>crior court, has incident to its juris- 
 diction to cn(|uirc into and judge of the regu- 
 larity or abu.se of it.s process, and to quash a 
 writ of liabeas corpus and 8ub8C(iucnt proceed- 
 ings tliereon wlicn, in the opinion of the court, 
 sucii writ h.is been im))roviiiently issued by a 
 judge of saiil court. The section does not c<ni- 
 stitute tiie individual judges of the Supreme 
 ("ouit separate and independent courts, nor con- 
 fer on the judges a jurisdiction outside of and 
 indepenilent of the court, and obedience to a 
 writ is.sued undei- .said section cannot be enforced 
 by the judge but by the court, which alone can 
 issue an attaihment for contempt in not obeying 
 its process (Kournier and Henry, JJ., dissent- 
 ing). — Per Strong, J. — The words of section 51 
 expressly giving an appeal when the writ has 
 been refused or the prisoner remanded, must be 
 attributed to tlie excessive caution of the legis- 
 lature to provide all due protection to the sub- 
 ject in the matter of personal liberty, and not to 
 an intention to deprive the court of the right to 
 entertain appeals from, and revise, rescind and 
 vary, orders made under this section. In re 
 Sproule, 12 S. C. R. 140. 
 
 3. Practice. 
 
 Power of judge in chambers. See Re'jina v. 
 Ar!<cott,9 0. R. 541. 
 
 Held, that the provision in R. S. (). (1887), c. 
 70, s. 6, tliat the court or judge ))efore whom 
 any writ of habeas corpus is retui'nable, may 
 proceed to examine into the truth of the facts 
 set forth in such return by aiH<l.ivit or by affir- 
 mation, is ]>ermissive oidy, and tliat a judge has 
 power in sucji a case to <lirect that the evidence 
 shall be taken viva voce befoi'c him. In this 
 matter it was directed, as in Re Murdoch, 9 P. 
 R. 132, that the evidence should be taken vivil 
 voce, and it wa.s further ordered that a foreign 
 commission should issue to take evidence abroad, 
 and that the parties to the application should bo 
 at liberty to examine each other for discovery 
 before the hearing. The costs of the demurrer 
 to the return (11 P. R. 482) were given against 
 the father of the infant in any event of the pro- 
 ceeding, lie Smart Infants, 12 P. R. 2. — Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 A father was proceeding by habeas corpus to 
 obtain an order awarding him the custody of his 
 infant children :— Held (by Ferguson, J.), that 
 a more comprehensive adjudication could bie had 
 upon a petition, and that there was power to 
 direct that a petition should be substituted for 
 the habeas corpus proceedings. Such a direc- 
 tion was given where it appeared to be in the 
 
 interest of the infants and all concerned. This 
 order was atlirmed by tlie Chancery Divisidn 
 and the Court of Appeal with one variation, 
 viz., the habeas corpus to run concuirently with 
 the petition directed to be filed, and to he dis- 
 posed of with it, and the Court of Appeal holil. 
 mg that the infants' father liad waived liis right 
 to appeal from the onler directing the tiling of u 
 petition by having coinplicd witli sucli order :— 
 Scmble, but for the waiver, the appeal (if tiie 
 father must have succeeded ; for the power given 
 by Rule 474, O.J. Act (Con. Rule 444,, is tn 
 amend any defects or errors, not to compel ,i 
 litigant to adopt a dillerent form of remedy 
 for r>iie which is in itself competent and regular. 
 /.'(- Smart liijuiitx, 12 1'. H. 312, 43.\ (i3r). 
 
 If the record of a su|)erior court, jjrnilueiil 
 on an application f(»r a writ of lialieas enrjius, 
 contains the recital of f.icts rei|\iisiti' to confer 
 jurisdiction it is conclusive .iiid cannot lie cun- 
 tradictcd by extrinsic cviilencc iHciuv, •)., ili.s- 
 senting.) //( r<: Sproiil,; 12 S. C. H. 14II. 
 
 Senible, that when a jU(U'c in a ))rovince lias 
 the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus re- 
 turnable in tei'in as well as in vacation, a judjje 
 of the Supreme Courl niif,'lit niak(! the writ lie 
 authorizes rcturnabh^ in said co\irt in term as 
 well as immediately (I-'ouiiiier and Henry, ,1.1., 
 dissenting). Il>. 
 
 An aj)i)lication to tlio couit to (juasli a writof 
 habeah ccirpus as imiirovidently issued may lie 
 entertained in tiie absence of the prisoner. 
 (Henry, .1., dissenting). Jb. 
 
 II. Al'PKALS. 
 
 The Act 29-30 Vict. c. 45 apparently substi- 
 tuted the right of appeal in halieas corpus casea 
 for successive applications from court to court. 
 In re Hall, 8 A. H. 135. 
 
 Per Ritchie, C. J. As regards habeas coipua 
 in criminal matters, the Suiireiiie Court has only 
 concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the 
 Superior Courts of the various jiroviiices, and 
 not an appellate jurisdiction, and there is nn 
 necessity for an appeal from tlit! juili^'iuciit of 
 any judge or (^ourt, or any appellate cunrt, he- 
 cause the prisoner can come direct to any judge 
 of the Supreme Court individually, and ii|inn 
 that judge refu.sing the writ or remaiuliiig the 
 prisoner, he couht take his ajipeal to the full 
 court. In re Bourhur, Cassel's Dig. 1S2. 
 
 The only appellate power conferred on the 
 Supreme Court in criminal cases is by the 4iHh 
 section of the Supreme and Kxclie(|ncr ( 'ouit Act, 
 and it could not have been the intention of the 
 legislature, while limiting appeals in criminal 
 cases of the highest importance, to impose on 
 the court the duty of revis.il in matters of fivct 
 of all the summary convictions before police or 
 other magistrates throughout the Dominion.— 
 Section .34 of the Supreme Court Amendment 
 Act of 1876 does not in any case authorize the 
 issue of a writ of certiorari to accompany a 
 writ of habeas corpus granted by a judge of the 
 Supreme Court in chambers ; and as the pro- 
 ceedings before the court on habeas corpus 
 arising out of a criminal charge are only by 
 way of appeal from the decision of the judge 
 in chambers, the said section does not authorize 
 
 I\1 
 
 Held in 
 plaintiff frc 
 
 54 
 
848 
 
 849 
 
 HALF-BREEDS' BIOHTS. 
 
 850 
 
 the court to issue a writ of uertiorari in sucli 
 prouc'edinus ; to do so would be to ussutnu 
 appelliite jurisdiction over tiic inferior court. 
 In rit Melina Ttr/janier, 12 H. C. R. 111. 
 
 For the purpose of an appeal to the S\iprenic 
 Court of Canada in a Imbeus corpus case the lirst 
 litcp is tlie tiling of the case iu appeal with tiie 
 registrar. Tlie judgment of the (Jourt of Appeal 
 in a iialieas corpus proceeding was pronounced 
 (111 i;ith November, 1888. Notice of intention to 
 appeal was immediately given but the case in 
 appeal was not filed in the .Su|)reine Court until 
 IStli February, IH8!» :— Held, that the appeal was 
 not brought within sixty days fioin the date on 
 wliich tlie juilgmeiit sought to be appealed from 
 was pronounced and there was no jurisdiction to 
 liuar it. Ill re Smart Iiifaittn, 10 S. C I!. H'Jli. 
 
 III. KkTI KN. 
 
 (a) licriniriiiij L'ridiiu'c, 
 
 Held, that where the proceedings Ix'forc a 
 iiiagistnite are removed under '2'.) &. .'iO Vict. c. 
 ■l.j, s. .5. the juilgc is nut to sit a« a court of 
 appeal fiom the liudiiigs of the magistrate upon 
 tliecvidrnce ; if any fact found I)y the magis- 
 tnite is disputed, and he would have no juri^di<; 
 tiiin had he not found the fact, tin ii the evidence 
 may be lonked at to see whether there was any- 
 thing to sii)iiiort his findings upon it ; ))Ut if the 
 jiuisdiction tu try tiie oU'ence charged does not 
 idiiie in (juestion as a part of the evidence, then 
 tlie jurisdiction having attached, his ti, 'ding is 
 not reviewable as a rule except upon :ui appeal. 
 Htijina v. GrtA-ii, j'i 1'. 1!. 'A~'.i, — Street. 
 
 (b) Other Cdxr.s, 
 
 .V return was made by the mother of the in- 
 fants, in whose custody tli'V were, to a writ of 
 liabe.is corpus obt.iined by the father with the 
 oliject of compelling thedelivery of tiieir custody 
 to liiiii. The return stated that they were all 
 under twelve, the age mentioned in K. S. (). 
 (1S77), c. l.'iO, sec. I ; — Held, upon denuirrer, 
 thai the reiurn nuist be considered in the light, 
 not only of the common law, but of the statu- 
 tory provisions with regard to the custody of 
 infants, and lliat the return was sufficient in law. 
 Re Murdoch, P. R. \',i'2, e.\plaine<l and fol- 
 lowed, lie Htnart liifantx, 11 P. R. 482.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 The course to be taken by tho court on return 
 of a habeas corpus, shewing prisoner detained 
 under a defective warrant in execution of a con- 
 viction of a justice of the peace discussed. — 
 Arsvotl V. Lillejj, 11 O. H. 1.53.— Q. R. D. 
 
 A return l)y the sheriff' to the writ setting 
 out the conviction and sentence and the affirma- 
 tion thereof by the Court of Error is a good and 
 sufficient return. If actually written by hiui or 
 under his direction the return need not be 
 eigiied by the sheriff (Henry J. tlissenting). 
 h re SproiUe, 12 S. C. R. 140. 
 
 IV. Dlscharcje of Prisoner. 
 
 Held in this case that the discharge of tho 
 plaintiff from custody on habeas corpus was not 
 64 
 
 a (plashing of the conviction. Ilnntcr v. QUki- 
 Hun, 7 O. R. 735.— t^. IJ. 1). 
 
 Even if the writ of habeas corpus in this cnse 
 had been rightly issued, the prisoner on the 
 materials betore the judge was not entitled to 
 his discharge, but should have been remanded. 
 In r'' Sj,roiilf, 12 S. C. It. HO. 
 
 See /.'(</'»" V. ArM-,,!/, !) O. R. Ml. 
 
 V. .\CTION l-ciU I'KNAI.TV IMiKIt 31 C.\K. II., 
 
 c. •_', s. 0. 
 
 The defendant L., a niagistrato, had convicted 
 the plaintill' fi>i' being the kceiK'f of a bawdy 
 house, and scnttMiccd lier to six mimths" imj)ri- 
 soument. I'lainlitl', after undcM'going two days' 
 im])risonment, was released on bail, pending an 
 appeal to the sessions. The appeal was dis- 
 missed and iilaiutitl' subsc(|uently arrested upon 
 a warrant issued by the defendant L. under 
 advice of defendant H. tiu^ county crown attor- 
 ney. Upon ntuiii to hal)ea» corpus she was 
 discharged ti 'm custody under the latter war- 
 rant, upon the ground that it did not take into 
 aci'ouut the two ilays' iin|)risoninent she had 
 sull'ered ])ri(>r to her appeal. T'hereupon she 
 was iletaiued under a tliinl warrant, on which 
 uolhiiig turned, and she was again arrested under 
 a fourth warrant issued by defendant L. upon 
 the original coiivictiou. In an action brought 
 l)y the ]daiiitill'fi>r the penalty of €,')00 awarded 
 by the (ith section of the habeas corpus Act, 31 
 Car. II.. c. 2 :— Held, reversing the judgment 
 of Camiion, C. .1., at the trial, that the 6th 
 section of the habeas corpus Act, 31 Oar. II., 
 c. 2, has no application to a case in which the 
 prisoner is c<intineil upon a warrant in execu- 
 tion : — Held, also, that the warrant in execution, 
 issued by the I'onvicting justice up<m the dis- 
 charge of the prisoner finiii custody for defects 
 in the former warrant, was the legal order and 
 process of the court having juiisiliction in the 
 cause: — Send)le, that tiic warrant issued after 
 tho dismissal of the appeal by the sessions, and 
 which followed the original ccmviction in direct- 
 ing imprisonment foi-six months, without making 
 allowance for the two days' imprisonment already 
 suffered, was not o])eti to objection. Aricoll v. 
 Lilley, 11 O. R. l.'iS.-Q. P.. \). Aiiirnicd 14 A. 
 R. 297. 
 
 VI. Application of R. S. O. c. 70. 
 
 .Semble, per Ritchie, C. .1., that chapter 70 of 
 the Revised St.itutes of Ontario relating to 
 habeas corpus does not apply to the Supreme 
 Court of Canada. //( re Mcliiia Trepanier, 12 
 S. C. R. 111. 
 
 See Regina v. Ar.icoU, O. R. 541. 
 
 HABENDUM. 
 
 See Deed. 
 
 HALF BREEDS' RIGHTS. 
 
 See Bums v. Young, 10 A. R. 215. 
 
 ; II 
 
861 
 
 HIGH OOUBT OF JUSTICE. 
 
 852 
 
 HANDWRITINO. 
 
 See KviDENCE. 
 
 HARBOUR. 
 
 Sec CououKd Hakbour. 
 
 The soil and heel of tiie foreshore in public 
 harbours is vested in the Dominion Government. 
 See Holman v. (Irnen, « S. C. R. 707. 
 
 I, CONHTITITTION OV CoURT. 
 
 HARD LABOUR. 
 
 .S'w I.MPniSONMEST. 
 
 HAWKERS. 
 
 See Mu-Nicu-Ai. Corporations. 
 
 HEALTH. 
 
 iSiee Public Health. 
 
 HEIR-AT-LAW. 
 
 See Estate. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 HIOH COURT OF JUSTICE. 
 
 CoNSTITrTION OF CoURT, 8i52. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 1. Criminal, 852. 
 
 2. Civil. 
 
 3. Quaxhini/ Convictions — 6^ee Justice of 
 
 THE Peace. 
 
 Divisions and Divi.sional Courts. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 JuriHclictioii, 853. 
 Appealu to. 
 
 (a) From Simjle Judije, 854. 
 
 (b) From Judr/e or Master-in-Cham- 
 
 Iters— See Practice. 
 
 (c) Other Appeals, 856. 
 
 (d) Practice on Appeah, 857. 
 
 3. Appeah from— See Court of Appeal. 
 
 4. Trann/errinij Causes from one Division 
 
 to Another— See Practice. 
 
 5. Exclusive Jwrisdiclion oj the Court oj 
 
 Chancery — See Trial. 
 
 6. Otluir Cases, 858. 
 IV. Single Judoe, 859. 
 
 V. Powers of Local Judcje — See Practice. 
 VI. Pleadino in— See Pleadind. 
 VII. Practice in— See Practice. 
 VIII. Trial— See Trial. 
 
 An indictment was found against the dofuu. 
 dants in the Higii Court of Justice at its sittings 
 of Oyer and 'Icrnnnerandtiaol Delivery, uml on 
 being called upon to plead tiic defendiiiitH ilu- 
 murreil to the indictment. A writ of certiorari 
 was subseiiuently obtained by the defendants, 
 and tlio indictment, demurrer, and joinder were 
 removed to the Queen's liench Division. Upon 
 tlie return the Crown took out a side-bur rule fur 
 a concilium, and the demurrer was set down for 
 argument. Defendants moved to set asiile the 
 proceedings of the Crown on the ground tiiat thuy 
 should have been called upon to appcur and ]ilt'ii(l 
 de novo in this division: — Held, Wilson, C. .)., 
 dissenting, that the Court of Assize of Oyer aiid 
 Terminer and (ieneral (Jaol Delivery is now, hy 
 virtue of the .ludiuature Act, the High Court of 
 Justice : that the indictment was found, and tliu 
 defendants ap)>eurcd and demurred thereto in the 
 High ('ourt of Justice; and that it was nut 
 necessary to jjlead <te novo to the indictment. 
 Reuiiia V. liuiiliiifj, 7 0. K. 118.— Q. H. D. 
 
 Per Armour and O'Connor, JJ. : The Supreme 
 Court of Judicature is not properly a court, uml 
 ought more properly to h;ivc licen called the Su- 
 premo Council of Judicature. The divisions of 
 the High Court arc not themselves courts, luit 
 together constitute the High Court, whicli is 
 thus divided for the convenience of transactinj; 
 business ; and the judges sit us judges of tiic 
 High Court, and exercise the jurisdiction and ail- 
 minister the jurisdiction of the High Court. Ih. 
 
 See Jiegina v. Beemer, 15 O. R. 2GG. 
 
 II. Jurisdiction, 
 
 1. Criminal. 
 
 A judge of the High (/Ourt has power under 
 section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Act (R. 8. 
 C. c. 174), to admit to bail in cases where tlie 
 accused has not been tinully committed for trial 
 if he thinks it right to do so. Reijina v. Cluj; 
 16 O. R. 228.— MacMahon. 
 
 See Reijina v. Bunlimj, 7 O. R. 1 18, suitra : 
 Beyina v. Beemer, 15 O. R. 266 ; Beijina v. 
 Bunchy, 18 O. R. 478, p. 854 ; Heqina v. BirchuU, 
 19 O. R. 697, p. 854. 
 
 2. Civil. 
 
 As to jurisdiction to set aside an award made 
 under the Railway Act of 1868 (31 Vict. c. 28 
 (Uom.) See In re Hortun and Admastoii nnd 
 Canada Central B. W. C'(;.,45Q. B. 141. 
 
 In trials of controverted 'elections. See /" re 
 Bussell Election (Dom.) — Henderson v. Dicken- 
 son, 1 O. R. 439 ; Mitchell v. Cameron, 8 S. C. 
 R. 126 ; Montmorency Election (Dom.)— VaVm v. 
 Lawjiois, 3 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of Armour, J., 
 that where a garnishee does not file a notici! dis- 
 puting the jurisdiction of a Division Court with- 
 in the time required by 43 Vict. c. 8, s. 14 
 (Ont. ), though no objection can be taken to this 
 jurisdiction of the Division Court in that Court, 
 the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice to 
 prohibit the |)roccedings is not ousted. Clari* 
 v. MacdonaJd, 4 O. R. 310. -Q. B. D. 
 
 853 
 
 Semble, 
 c.'unty judj 
 R.S. 0.(18 
 immediate { 
 not exclude 
 join the tak 
 making use 
 collateral tc 
 hut othorwi 
 a judge of ti 
 of the coun 
 Jenkins v. (. 
 693.— Proui 
 
 Per Came 
 Court has ti 
 election offi( 
 power to do 
 Voters' Ijistj 
 13 0. R. .3. 
 
 Upon the 
 being comnn 
 has power tt 
 possession ui 
 R. S. O. (18t 
 R. 264.— An 
 
 The High 
 by virtue of 
 2, or otherwi 
 verdict or j 
 Court in an 
 Sullivan, 16 ( 
 
 The High 
 
 where a man 
 to be void dt 
 some essentia 
 null and void 
 most clear an 
 the interposit 
 Main, 18 
 
 See Dicksol 
 Strmuje v. /{q 
 
 :iii. Divij 
 
 Held that 
 to remove pro 
 the decision a 
 scinded as ml 
 special tribuif 
 c. 109. Be I 
 *. ir. Co., l\ 
 
 A Division! 
 1051 to set 
 "•"de by a - 
 Court action. I 
 Q. B. D, 
 
 Undpr R. 
 "id c. 62, 88.1 
 could cxercisJ 
 proceeding, uT 
 Courts to ^riJ 
 ing by the H 
 Chancery mil 
 upon motion I 
 appearing to I 
 ^ty Division' 
 junsdiction.1 
 and Town oft 
 
852 
 
 853 
 
 HIOH COURT OF JUSTICE. 
 
 8M 
 
 Semkle, that the powers conferred on tlio 
 c>'unty judge under tlie Railway Act of Onturio, 
 R. S. q. (1877) c. 165, 8. '20, 8ub-8. 23, of ordering 
 immudinte poBscssion, before arbitration had, <lo 
 not exclude the juriadiction of this court to en- 
 join the taking of ijossesaion, if the company is 
 milking use oT its powers to attain any object 
 collateral to that for which it was incorijorated ; 
 imt otherwise it is not within the jurisdiction of 
 It judge of this court to interfere with an order 
 of tlie county judge, though granted ex parte. 
 Jtukiiu V, VeiilruT Ontario R, W. Co., 4 O. R. 
 69.'1.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Per Cameron, C. J. Quhto whether the High 
 Court has the power to interfere with certain 
 election officers, except whore express statutory 
 power to do so is given. In re lievmtm oj the 
 Vohrs" Lint for the City of St. Thoman — He Uoyes, 
 n 0. R. 3. 
 
 Upon the proceedings before the coimty judge 
 being commanded to bo sent up, the High Oourt 
 liiw power to stay pnweedings upon the writ of 
 po.ssusaion under the Overiiolding Tenants' Act, 
 R. S. O. (1887) c. 144. Prii-c v. OuiiMiie, 10 O. 
 R. 264.— Armour. 
 
 Tiie High Court of JuHtice luvs no jurisdiction, 
 by virtue of R. S. O. (1887) c. 91, s. 60, sub-s. 
 2, or otherwise, to entertain a motion against a 
 verdict or judgment obtained in the District 
 Court in an interpleader issue. Ishister v. 
 mivan, 10 O. R. 418.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The High Court of Justice has jurisdiction, 
 wliere a marriage correct in form is ascertained 
 to be void do jure by reason of the absence of 
 8ome essential preliminary, to declare the same 
 null and void ab initio ; but nothing short of the 
 most clear and convincing testimony will justify 
 the interposition of the court. Laviless v. Cham- 
 kriaiii, 18 O. K. 296.— Boyd. 
 
 See Dickson v. Monteith, 14 O. R. 719, p. 857 ; 
 Stramje v. Radford, 15 O. R. 145. 
 
 ^ni. Divisions AND Divisional Courts. 
 
 1, Jurisdiction. 
 
 Held that the Divisional Court had no power 
 to remove proceedings by certiorari in order that 
 the decision of a judge might be ({uashod or re- 
 scinded as made in excess of his authority as a 
 special tribunal under the Railway Act, R. 8. C. 
 c. 109. Re MrQuillan and the One/ph Junction 
 S. W. Co., 12 P. R. 294.— Chy. D. 
 
 A Divisional Court has power under Con. Rule 
 1051 to set aside or vary an order for arrest 
 made by a County Court judge in a County 
 Court action. Elliott v. McCvaig, 13 P. R. 416.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Und9r R. S. 0.(1877) c 40, a. 86; c. 49, a. aj; 
 «nd c. 52, SB. 4, ct seq., the Court of Chancery 
 could exercise the powers of a court of law in any 
 proceeding, and the powers of the Common Law 
 Courts to grant mandamus upon motion not be- 
 ing by the latter Act restricted, the Court of 
 Chancery might also have granted a mandamus 
 upon motion ; and under the O. J. Act, nothing 
 appearing to restrict the jurisdiction, the Chan- 
 ce:^ Division of the High Court has the same 
 jurisdiction. Re Board of Education ofNapanee 
 and Town ofNapanee, 29 Chy. 395.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that this being a cane which before the 
 O. J. Act would have been in tiio solo jurisdic 
 tion of the Court of Chancery to grant the re- 
 lief asked, the Divisional Court could act with- 
 out tlie intervention of a second jury ; and the 
 evidence failing to establish the plaintiO's right 
 to the relief asked for, the decree was set ivsiile ; 
 but as to the damages, as they had not been 
 moved against, they were not interfered with. 
 James \. Clement, 13 O. R. 115.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Scmblc, that the Chancery Divisicm of the 
 High C'ourt has jurisdiction to declare a will 
 valid. Dickson and Monteith, 14 O. H. 719. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 The juristliction to hear motions for ordi'rn 
 nisi in criminal matters vested in the Common 
 Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice is 
 the original jurisdicticm of the Court of Common 
 Pleas prior to Confederation, and by virtue of 
 section 5 of C. S. U. C. c. 10, the court "may 
 bo holden by any one or more of the judges 
 thereof in the absence of the others." On the 
 return of an order nisi to ipiash a conviction, 
 the court was composed of two of the judges 
 thereof, the third judge being absent:— Held, 
 that the court was properly constituted to dispose 
 of the order. Rc/ina v. Ruurhy, 18 0. R. 478. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 On a motion to make absolute a. rule nisi in a. 
 criminal matter before the Chancery Divisional 
 Court :— Held, per Boyd, C, that the court had 
 jurisdiction to entertain the matter, for the 
 divisional sittings of the High Court of Justice 
 are now the ecjuivalent for tne former sittings 
 in full court in term at common law, or for tlie 
 purpose of rehearing in Chancery, an<l the crimi- 
 nal jurisdiction vested in the High Court not 
 exercisable by a single judge is by the effect of 
 legislation to be administered by judges comijos- 
 ing any of these Divisional Courts. Kach Divis- 
 ion is to follow the same practice, and therefore 
 the Chancery Division is empowered to use the 
 criminal practice and procedure which was 
 formerly peculiar or limited to the Common Law 
 Courts :— Held, per Ferguson, J. , that the court 
 had not jurisdiction to entertain the matter, 
 inasmuch as it was a Divisional Court sitting 
 under the provisions of Con. Rule 218 ; and 
 had, therefore, only power to exercise the juris- 
 diction of the High Court for the purposes re- 
 ferred to in R. S. O. (1887), c. 44, s. 62, and not 
 the power to exercise the full jurisdiction of the 
 High Court, such as, semble, would be possessed 
 by a division of the court sittings under the pro- 
 visions of old marginal Rule 480. There were 
 no rules of court whereby it had been ordered 
 that any criminal business should be transacted 
 and disposed of by this Divisional Court of the 
 High Court, for the purpose of which it would 
 be necessary to exercise any part of the criminal 
 jurisdiction of the High Court. Regina v. 
 Birchall, 19 0. R. 697.— Chy. D. 
 
 See Regina v. Beemer, 15 0. R. 266. 
 
 2. Appeals to. 
 
 (a) From Single Judge. 
 
 Where a judge in single court had, before the 
 Judicature Act, decided applications to quash a 
 by-law and to set-off judgments : — Held, that- 
 
— ^ 
 
 866 
 
 HIGH COURT OF JX7STI0E. 
 
 856 
 
 867 
 
 liii 
 
 sail! i:^ 
 
 
 fix;; !• 
 
 \ 
 
 under tint Art tlivro coiilil liti no uiipciil to u 
 l>iviHi(iiiiil Cniirt. Jii rf (ln/i iim (iiiil thf 'J'oirn- 
 fhi/) iif Ittuhmlir : (irmit v. Mr/lljiiiii , U^ i.). 
 11. :»7!». «.•. I!. I). 
 
 A hiviHJiiiiul ('oiiit liiiH iKi jui'iHilictidii to en- 
 tiM'tain nil a|i|i(','il fi'iiiii all iinlcr of ii jiiil^'v, 
 niailr ill coiii't, Oil liioljoil, <'\ci']il liy coiimilit. 
 Ku (ialci'iio, Itl (,>. It. M7lt, fiillow'uil. MvTii'riittii 
 V. Fmzcf, 1» I'. I!. '.Mil.— thy. I). 
 
 Rul«s 27 1 iiiid :il7, (). .1. Act (Soo Con. Itiilii 
 7!)H), I'L'.sti'ii't I lie juiiHilit'tinii of till! Divisional 
 ('oiiit after jii(ij,'iii(nt to immim in wiiicli tlie tiiiil- 
 iii|;s of fact liavc liceii iiiiiiis|Mitecl, ami in wliicli 
 it iM only hoii^lit to iiiodify or Hct uhIiIc tlic con 
 clu.sioii drawn liy the judges tlicrefioni ; lint if 
 the appeal \n on tilt! uiiole case, iih to liotli factn 
 and law, it iiiiiNt l)c to tlic Court of A|ipeal, 
 Timli- V. J'liiiiiix III'*. Co., 21) Chy. ■\'M.— 
 Chy. I). 
 
 Although the decree \\a,n pronounced liefore 
 the .liidicaliire Act, and iniglit liavi^ licuii reheard 
 under the foiiner jiractice, yet thu caiiHe not 
 having lieeii net down to he reheard hefore tho 
 coining into fr)rce of tlie .\ct, it could not under 
 the provisioiiM of the Act re.siiecting pending 
 bUHinc.Ms, 1)1! reheard. ///. 
 
 An action having liceii tried hefore a judge 
 with ft jury, the judgment wan directed to lie 
 entered liy the judge Upon the iinHweiH to (pies- 
 tioiiH put liy him to the jury, and the dainagtis 
 were aHsessed liy the jury. The defendants siili- 
 .sequently moved liefore the three judges of the 
 Kivisional Court to set aside the judgment di- 
 ifieted to lie entered, Imt the Divisional ("ourt, 
 when giving judgment upon the motion, con- 
 sisted of two judges only, one of them being tho 
 judge at the trial : — Held, that a conrt ho cfin- 
 stituted h;id hy reason of Heetion 29, sub Hection 
 f) of tho .fudicature Act, no jiower to give judg- 
 ment, and there being therefore nothing to ap- 
 peal from leave to appeal was refused. Vochranv 
 v. Boucher, 8 A. H. 555. 
 
 Held, that a Divisional Court may review tlio 
 action of a judge insetting aside a writ of ca. sa. 
 and the arrest thereunder, and also his action 
 in making tho order to arrest. Cartiniijht v. 
 //iiid.s, -.i O. R. ;j84.— C. P. D. 
 
 This action was not tried, Imt was referred to 
 the master, further directions and irosts being 
 ro.scrved. After report made the ease was hoard 
 on further directions before Prondfoot, .1. : — 
 Held, that the case could not be reheard before 
 tho Divisional C'ourt, as the proceedings taken 
 could not be regarded as the trial of an action 
 within the moaning of Rules ,S17 and .'ilO O. J. 
 Act (See Con. Rule 708). \Van.H/<'y v. Small- 
 wood, 10 P. R. 2.3.3. -Chy. D. 
 
 Hold, notwithstanding section'28, sub-sections 
 2 and .3, 0. J. Act, that the Divisional Court 
 had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the order 
 of Armour, J., in this case having regard to the 
 language of Rule 2.54, (). J. Act (Con. Rule 6.53), 
 and of the order itself. Jiiill v. North British 
 Va»)adiati Loan and Invenlment Co. {Limited), 
 11 P. R. 83.-C.P. D. 
 
 An order of a judge sitting at the assizes 
 changing the place of trial on leave given by the 
 master in chambers, who refused the applica- 
 tion, to 80 appeal from his decision was held to 
 
 be an order of tli<! judge and not of the Iliuh 
 Court, and could thtrelore \n\ rcviewiMl by tTi<: 
 DiviMional < ourt. .Snriiia A<iriiiilliiiiit Im/iti 
 nil III Miiiiii/'iiitiiriini Co, V. I'lnlm, II p. J{ 
 224. C. P. 1). 
 
 Till! trial of a lietition before a judge at thit 
 iiHsi/.cs, praying that a lii|uiilator might be iii. 
 dered to deliver up cirtaiii lumber claiiiud hy 
 a bank is not the trial of an action, ami, lliere- 
 fore, no appeal lies to the DiviHimial Coiirt. 
 He Itiiiiiill Lute /jIUIllier Co., 12 P. It. 27 - 
 
 I hy. D. ■ 
 
 Leavft was given to ajipeal from tlu! deeision 
 of Prondfoot, .1. (12 (). I!. 41)2), because of tint 
 iliiportance of the (|Ucstioli and of ccpiilliii jnu 
 decisions. An appeal now lies to ,i liivisiniia] 
 (.'ourt from a discretionary order, by virtue cif 
 4!t Vict. c. Hi, H. .'I!* ("nt.), but that eiiiiclineiii 
 has not altered the rule that a very strong cuhv 
 iiiiist bi! made out to induce the court to rcvcfKo 
 such an order. J'oml/ v. Peek, 12 P. R. .34.— 
 Prondfoot. -Chy. D. 
 
 Held, that no appeal will lie to a Diviiioiiul 
 ("ourt fmni the decision of a judge acting iiiiili'r 
 R. .S. C. c. 10!l s. 8, siib-.M. 2H. A'. Mei,hiillnii 
 mill th' l/iiel/ih .hiiirliiiii /!. W. Co, 12 I', R. 
 2!)4. Chy. D. 
 
 The jurisdiction of tlu! full court to rehear 
 motions to ipiasli convictions has imt been taken 
 away by the .liidicature Act, but still exists in 
 the Divisional Courts. Ji'ii/inii v. Fee, i;( (), K. 
 .5<)(). -Chy. D. 
 
 See Iiniierial Loan Co. v. Hiiloi, 13 P. R. .5!t, p. 
 858; nriiiiia v. AteAii/n/, 14 (>. Ii. »i43 ; Tills: 
 Till, 15'o. R. 1.33, p. 8h!»; Coii.^iiirnii v. fill/ of 
 London Fire Jus. Co., 15 O. R. :tJ!t, p. 8.5!». ' 
 
 (c) Other Appeal*. 
 
 An interpleader issue arising out of an action 
 in the Chanceiy Division of tlit! High Court of 
 .lustico was sent to a County Ciurt for trial by 
 order iiiacle in cliambei'H : — Held, that it was to 
 be intended that tho order was made iiiidor 44 
 Vict. e. 7 (Dnt. ), rather than under the inter 
 pleader jurisdiction of the old Court of Cliani'cry; 
 and that being so, that a Divisional Court of the 
 High Court of .lustico had no jurisdiction to 
 hear an appeal from the judgment of the ( louiity 
 Court on such issue, and that such ajiiieal should 
 have been to the Court of Appeal under It. S. 0. 
 (1877) c. .54, 8. 2.3. done v. Hxchanw Bank, 11 
 P. R. 186.— Chy. 1). 
 
 Pending proceedings under an order for the 
 winding-up of a company under 45 Vict. c. 23 
 (Doin.), the Union Bank tiled a ))etition praying 
 that the li(juidutor might bo ordered to deliver 
 np certain lumber claimed by the bank. The 
 petition came on to be heard before a judge in 
 court, and was adjourned by him for tho sake of 
 convenience before the judge holding the Port 
 Arthur assizes, who heard the evidence orally 
 and pronounced judgment thereon ;— Held, that 
 the proceeding at Port Arthur was not the trial 
 of an action, and therefore and also having re- 
 gard to the provisions of 45 Vict. c. 23, _s. 78 
 (Dom.), that no appeal lay to the Divisional 
 Court, lie Rainey Lake Lumber Co., 12 P. R. 
 27.— Chy. D. 
 
 The deci 
 14th, and 
 ciiiher, i\\\ 
 being tli(t 
 was on ap 
 tive iiiiitiol 
 Rule 414 ([ 
 appeal waj 
 the court 
 were with, 
 10 P. H. 
 
856 
 
 Iliu 
 
 867 
 
 HIGH OOUBT OF JUSTICE 
 
 IK' lliKh 
 
 I I'V tfn; 
 
 IcriMloll 
 •..f th.. 
 llllrlilii' 
 
 K. :»».- 
 
 I'er fJ.'imcron, C. •!. Tin- Oivinidnal Court 
 cuniKit irvirw tliu iliiciHidii of tlui juiliciul otiicur 
 |iiiviii)j; jiiriNilirtioii to lirar cxtnulitioii cuhui 
 uiiiiii tlm wc'ij^lit of (^vidi'iiru. In /■'■ IfVtr, 14 
 0. K. -MX 
 
 A iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiH wiiN iliroutuil to JHiiiU! to compel 
 ihi! jikIKi- of tlio Siirro;;iit(' Coiiil of tin' ciiiiiity 
 (it NVrlliii^toii to Ki'Hiil iiiliiiiniHlralioii with tliu 
 will aiiiii'Xi'il of a cntaiii tcHtator to (•. I)., olio 
 iif till' ii('\t of kill (who hail tilitil all lU'rcMHary 
 papi'i'H), not withstiiiiiliii^' I liat in an jhhiii! ilii'uctuil 
 oiitiif till' naiil Siii'i'o^atirCoui'l a ]»■'>' huil foiinil 
 H^aiiiHl till! will, il a|>|it'ai'L'<l that tliii pri^Hi'nt 
 appliriiiit was ni> patty to that Ikhuc, anil that 
 Kiiict' till' trial of it tluH imiuiI hail hiihl iu fuviiiir 
 of till! will : llrlil, that tliiH was not a uaHc; 
 fur an appi'.'il fioiii tlii' ri'fuHal to ({rant uilniiniH- 
 tratioii iinili'i' till' .'tist Miction of thr Suiiogatf 
 CiiiniH All, lii'i'aiisit an appral nnilir that HiiL'tion 
 wiiiilil appt'ar to hogianiLiI only whiui Honiu ono 
 cmitrhtM ihu ){iantof ailininiM'.ratioii, which no 
 one wasiloing hric :- SLnihli-, that thiR court hax 
 iiirisiliction to dcclaro a will valiil. l>ii:k>iiin v. 
 MuiiliiUi, I4(>. K. Tlit.— I'rouilfoot. 
 
 tho ilofiiiKlunt livcil ahroail, in Tuxaii, tlio juilg- 
 niont wiM complex, utul thcr« were only twelve 
 ilayH i.'XcliiNivi! of vacation iliiiin^ which ituoiilil 
 havi! Ixicn Hcttlcil, hiavt- to Met the c.iunu ilnwa 
 
 V. 
 
 (il) I'mrliri' on Appeals. 
 
 All ap|)eal niailc at the lirnt HittinfTH of the 
 court :- ilelil, not too late uinler Kiile 414 (See 
 Coll. Kiile S47| though more than ei^ht ilayw hail 
 cla]>Hcil anil the time hail not hein extuiiileil. 
 Ihwwu V. MnrUoiiiiM, .Ti C. 1'. 407.— ('. P. I). 
 
 Ah to tteparatiMippeiil.s to (.'oiirt of Appeal anil 
 Uivinional l/'oiirt. iSee llntilij v. Af< iv/mnts' Dr/i- 
 patch Co., 4 (). R. 7'-'.'{. 
 
 Held, in tluH caHc, that inaHmiich an the )>lain- 
 tiff BUcceeiliil in the only liranuh of the civhc 
 ar^iicil liefore the DiviHioiial < oiirt, hIii; hIiiiuIiI 
 gel her co.itH of that appeal, hut an to the rent of 
 the suit, to save the lixpeime ami troulile of ap- 
 portioiimi'iit, no cohIh shoulil lie ^'iven or re- 
 Cfivcil. (loii'jh V. /lincluiH). H. Oi)S>. -( 'liy. I). 
 
 When a case ia im|)roperly net ilowii to lie re- 
 licnril, a HuliHlantive motion hIiouIiI lie miulu to 
 strike it out. Waiia/ii/ v. Sniulliruod, 1(» I*. R. 
 23;).~('liy. I). 
 
 The ilecixiiiii appcaleil from wa.s given on the 
 14th, anil the notice of iippial on the 2(ith Nov- 
 vinlier, Ihe (ii'Hl ilay of Michaelmati Hillings 
 being the 17th Novenihcr : — Senilile, that this 
 woH on appeal from a judge, unil nol ii Buh.stan- 
 tive niiilion to rescind hi.s order, and if ho, and 
 Rule 414 (See ('on. Itule S47) was to govorii, ihu 
 appeal '.vas too lato, lial :— Held, even ho, that 
 the court would extend the time, as the merits 
 were with Ihe appellant. McljUitn v. Markt, 
 10 P. H. 4r)l.-ti. H. 1). 
 
 The judgment at the trial was pronounced on 
 the IDthof .luiic, IHS.'i, hut was not drawn upanil 
 settled till the 1 1th Scptendier. The sittings of 
 the Chancery Divisional Court (to which the de- 
 fendant wished to appeal) liegaii on the 3rd Sep- 
 teniher:— llehl that the time for appealing under 
 Eule.")'.'3 (See Con. Rule 7!'S) began to run from 
 the lUtli June, and that it was not extended by 
 the neglect to draw up the judgment, although, 
 as the judgment was not drawn up, the cause 
 could not be set down under Rule 522 (Con. 
 Kule 8(X). But, as there was a bon.1 fide in- 
 tcDtiou to appeal, instructious bad been given, 
 
 Was granted on paynieiil of conIm. Ilicki'ii 
 Slum; II I'. K. HS. Chy, I). 
 
 A motion to extend the lime fur moving be- 
 fore a lliviMlonal Court against the jiidgineiil of 
 the trial judge Hhoidd not lie made to a judge in 
 chamberH, lull to the hiviHimial (Jourt ititdf. ///t- 
 pttriat Loan Co. v. Hiihi/, l.'i I'. II. Wt. -KergUHon. 
 
 New evidence was allowed to lie used upon 
 aiipeal under Con. Rule i'lHo, and the ili'iiNion of 
 I'ergUMiin, .). (i;» I'. If. ;WH), Wiii nversid there- 
 upon. The diHcovi'iy of the new ividiin'e after 
 a Milling of ihe Divisional C'uiirl had passed was 
 received as an excuse for delay. Lmck v. (Iriind 
 1 Trunk II. W. Co. (2), i:i I'. I!. 4ti7. (Uiy, D. 
 
 ' It was contended by the phiiiit ill's before a 
 DiviMiiinal ( 'ourt that the ilefeiidantM were mem- 
 bers of a lie facto coipiiraliiin in uhiihtliey held 
 shares that were not tiilly paid up, and that re 
 I'overy could be had against them In I lie extt^nt of 
 the ainounts remaining unpaid iipnii theirshares, 
 but no such case was mule upon the pleadings 
 or at the trial. The court treated this contentinii 
 as not having been raised, and leserved leave to 
 the plainlills to raise il in fre>h actioim. as they 
 might be advised, t'liitl v. Wiiililill—TowuHriiil 
 V. Wadiblt, 1«<J. K. .').•«».— g. H. 1). 
 
 See Cochrane v. Itoiirhcr, S A. R. .I.^, p. K>7i ; 
 Pkrct v. Palmer, 12 I'. R. :{08, |). X}. 
 
 (I. Ot/nr CdKKH. 
 
 I'er Patterson, .1. A. — My the effoet of the 
 .ludiealure .Act a decision of any one division is 
 a decision of the High Couit. In re //(ill, H A. 
 
 II. i;t5. 
 
 An award having been directed to be made 
 within a yeir by an order of the Chancery Di- 
 viHion where the parties were litigating euncern- 
 ing it; — Held, that a niution to set it aside sin mid 
 have been made in that division, and should be 
 transferred. In re. '/'mrns/ii/t of Mnnkoka and 
 Villaiji' of (Jnirtnliurnl, ti (>. I!. .'{52. — Cameron. 
 
 An objection that a notice of motion given for 
 a Hillings of the Divisimial Court, and served in 
 time to be set down during thai sittings, could 
 not be set down in the following sitlings, was 
 overruled, /inismrt v. MrEwen, 10 O. R. 17!*. 
 — C. P. D. 
 
 In moving to <|uash a by law, the practice 
 having been adopted of ap[>lyiiig to a judge Hilling 
 alone, an objection that Ihe application hIiouIu 
 have been to the Divisional ( 'ourt was not enter- 
 tained ; but such an applicalimi if re(|uiicil to be 
 made to the Divisional Court, must be to the 
 common law Divisional Courts, and not to the 
 Chancery Divisional Court, /n re Funnton and 
 thi' Tuwnxhip of Tilliunj Eaut, 11 O. R. 75. — 
 O'Connor. 
 
 The Divisional Court ought not to entertain 
 applications to (juash by-laws, which should be 
 nutde to a Hinglo judge. Lamlry v. CiUj of 
 Ottawa, 11 P. R. 442.— C. P. D. 
 
 The two judges who composed the Divisional 
 Court at the hearing of this case disagreeing, a 
 
 ^ll 
 
HISINO. 
 
 28) "■" 
 
 ■it" ■ V 
 
 *waib I- 
 \ 
 
 >iss'*i 
 
 i 
 
 motion to set aside the judgment of the_ trial 
 judge in favour of the plaintifif was dismissed. 
 CouKineau v. City of Lottdon Fire I t. Co., 15 0. 
 R. 329.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See JRegina v. Buntiny, 7 0, R. 118, p. 852. 
 
 IV. Single Judgu. 
 
 Held, that a single judge, sitting as the court, 
 has power to review the findings of an official 
 referee upon a reference under section 48 O. J. 
 Act. Hill V. Northern Pacific Junction li. W. 
 Co., 11 P. R. 103.— Ferguson. 
 
 The judge who presides at the trial and pro- 
 nounces judgment by default for the defendant 
 in the absence of the plniuuif, has power under 
 Rule 270 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 795), when after- 
 wards sitting as the court at Toronto, to set aside 
 such judgment. Jio8s v. Carxcatlen, 11 P. R. 
 104. — Ferguson. 
 
 Applications to quash by-laws. See /» re 
 FimxtoH and Tilbury Eaxt, 1 1 O. R. 74, p. 858 ; 
 Landry v. City of Ultnwa, 11 P. R. 442, p. 858. 
 
 As to power to hear motions to quash convic- 
 tions. See Rcyina v. McAtdey, 14 0. R. 643. 
 
 A judge has jurisdiction under section 48 
 0. .T. Act, to mitke a compulsory order re- 
 ferring not only questions of account, but also 
 all the issues of fact in any action to an official 
 referee. AVard v. Pilley, 5 Q. \i. D. 427, fol- 
 lowed. S/iivldn V. MacDunaid, 14 A. R. 118. 
 
 Under the O. J. Act, s. 25, sub-s. 2, a judge 
 sitting elsewhere than in a Divisional Court is 
 to decide all (piestious properly coming before 
 him, and is not to reserve any case, or any point 
 in a case, for tlie consideration of th' Divisional 
 Court. Till V. Till, 15 0. R. 133.— C. P. D. 
 
 On the trial of an action, the pleadings were 
 admitted to state tiie facts, and wliat was 
 called "a special case on the pleadings," was re- 
 served for the opinion of tlie judges of this 
 court. On the case coming before the Uiviaional 
 Court it was held that the special case as such 
 could not be entertained; but the application 
 was directed to be turned into a motion for 
 judgment under Rule .323, (Con. Rule 757) or 
 on the pleadings and admissions under Rules 315 
 and 321. (Con. Rules 748, 755. ) lb. 
 
 Appeal directly to the Supreme Court without 
 any intermediate appeal either to the Divisiouid 
 Court or the Court of Appeal. See A'///'- v. Can- 
 ada Compaui/ — Hinlop v. Toioi of McGilkvray, 
 15 S. C. R. i88. 
 
 See Si/nod v. DeBlaquiere, 10 P. R. 11 ; lieyiiia 
 V. lieemer, 15 0. R. 2G6. 
 
 See also Subhead III. 2, (a), p. 854 
 
 HIQH SCHOOLS. 
 
 See Public Schools. 
 
 HIGHWAY. 
 
 See Way. 
 
 HIRINO. 
 
 I. Of Chattels, 860. 
 II. Of Employees — See Master and Ser. 
 
 VANT. 
 
 III. Of Conveyances and Rooms at Elec- 
 tions — See Parliamentary Elec- 
 tions. 
 
 I. Of Chattels. 
 
 Action for false representation and for im- 
 plied warranty on the sale of a piano uuder i' 
 " hire contract." See Frye v. Milligan, 10 0. 
 R. 509. 
 
 Plaintiff sued the defendants for the value of 
 a portable engine and boiler which had been 
 hired by the defendants, and which boiler had 
 exploded when in their possession immediately 
 after tliey had begun to use it, and while in 
 charge of a competent <'ngineer : — Held, that as 
 the lessor of a chattel for hire impliedly warrants 
 that it is reasoiiiibly fit for the purpose for which 
 it is let, the plaintiff, in the absence of negligence 
 on the part of the defendants, could not recover. 
 Per Armour, J. — The plaintiff was bound to es- 
 tablish beyond reasonalde doubt that the defen- 
 dants were guilty of negligence, and that such 
 negligence caused the explosion and destruction 
 of tlie boiler and engine, and the negligence re- 
 quired i 1 be established was ordinary negligence, 
 for the liirer of a chattel is required to use no 
 more than that degree of diligence which pru- 
 dent men use, that is, which the generality of 
 men use in keeping their own goods of the same 
 kind. The explosion aiul destruction of the 
 engine and lioiler not being legally attributable 
 to the negligence of the defendants, they were 
 relieved from tlie performance of their promise 
 to return them, and the contract of hiring was 
 di-isolved. Reynolds v. lioxbiirqh, 10 0. R. 
 649.- Q. B. D. 
 
 Remarks upon the position of holders of hire 
 receipts after resuming possession of the chattels 
 coveied thereby. Dixchirw. Canada I'ermnnnit 
 Loan and Savinrjs Co., 18 O. R. 273. — Boyd. 
 
 Where machinery was sold upon the terms 
 expressed in a liire receipt that "The title of 
 anil light to the possession of the above men- 
 tioned property wherever it may be, shall re- 
 main vested in the said vendor and suliject to 
 his order until paid for in full " : — Held, that 
 the vendor or his assigns had the legal right 
 (the purchase money being in arrear and unpaid) 
 to enter upon the premises where the property 
 was, in order to resume actual possession of the 
 machinery, giving notice and using all care iuso 
 doing, but that it would be illegal for him to 
 take possevsion by force, and an injunction 
 might properly issue to restrain acts of force on 
 belialf of the vendor, but only on the terms that 
 the assignee of the vendee be likewise enjomed 
 from using force in resisting the vendor. Before 
 taking possession of the machinery the vendor 
 was ordered to give such security aa is usual in 
 replevin. Tniders' Bank of Canada v. 0. <fc 
 J. Jirumi Manufacturimj Co., 18 O. R. 430.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 See Oliver v. Neivhoune, .32 C. P. 90; Thonasv. 
 IiiiiHk, 7 O. R. 588, p. 753 ; Bickfo-d v. Camda. 
 Southern Ji. W. Co., 14 S. C. K. 7i3. p. 47. 
 
HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 HOLIDAY. 
 
 See Time. 
 
 HORSE BAGE. 
 
 See Davis v. HewiH 9 O. R. 435, p. 833. 
 
 HOSPITAL. 
 
 Injunction granted to restrain a municipality 
 from erecting a smallpox hospital within an- 
 other municipality. ISee Tonm-ihip of Elizabeth- 
 town \-. Town of Brockcitk, 10 O. 11. 372. 
 
 HOTCHPOT. 
 
 A secured creditor need not bruig his security 
 into hotchpot as a condition precedent to ranking 
 on tiie estate of a deceased person, liis lien being 
 expressly preserved ))y the Act, It. S. (). (1877), 
 c. 107, s. .'lO. C/irunhrrhnv. Clark, 1 O. R. 135. 
 —Proudfoot ; 9 A. R. 273. 
 
 J. H. died intestate, and among his assets was 
 a promissory note for S.jOO niiuh; l)y hiw son in 
 respect to moneys received l)y tlie latti'r from 
 him. 'I'lic sou pre-deceasud J. H. and died in- 
 testate and insolvent, leaving a ciiilil, who, under 
 the Statute of l)istril)utions, was entitled to a 
 one-fiftli distrilnitivc siiare of the estate of .1. 
 H. :— Held, tliat the graiidcliild of .1. H. was not 
 bound to bring tlie ifiSW into hotch;, -' before 
 sharingin tlie estate of .1, H., and tli ,r • .>. O. 
 (18771, c. 10,"), ss. 41-43, did not apply U. !l.i , case. 
 Jlc Hall, 14 0. H. 557.-15oyd. 
 
 Difference between tlie law of England and our 
 own as to advancements to children commented 
 on. Under our law advanceineut ij neither a 
 loan nor deljt to be repaid, nor an abs(thite gift. 
 It is a l)estowment of property by a iiarent on a 
 child, on condition tiiat if the tlonee claims to 
 share in the intestate estate of the donor, he 
 shall bring in tliis property for tlie purposes of 
 equal distribution. lb. 
 
 Semble, that the administrator of .1. H. did 
 not properly and fully represent tlie next of kin 
 entitled to share in tlie estate of .1. H., and tliey 
 would not be bound by any decision in their 
 absence. lb. 
 
 HOTEL. 
 
 See Innkkeper — Intoxicatinq Liquors. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 I. ACTIOM FOK BkE.ACH OF PROMISE OF 
 
 Marria(;k, 863. 
 
 II. Makuiage, 806. 
 
 III. Removal of Disability by Marriage, 
 867. 
 
 IV, Marriage Settlements. 
 
 1. Generally, 868. 
 
 2, Fraudulent aijainst Creditors. — .See 
 
 Fraudulent Conveyances, 
 
 V. Husband AND Wife TAKiNd by Entire- 
 ties— -S'ee Estate. 
 
 VI. Tenancy by CuRTESY~See Estate. 
 
 VII. Dower — See Dower. 
 
 VIII. Property, Ruihts and Liabilities of 
 Wife. 
 
 1. Separate EMate, 869. 
 
 2. Conreijance of Heal Eitate, 871. 
 
 3. Redcmittion of Husband's Mortgage, 
 
 873. 
 
 4. Liability on Contracts. 
 
 (a) Generally, 874. 
 
 (b) Hwihand's Contracts, 876. 
 
 (c) Se/mratc Trading, 877. 
 
 5. Liability for Torts, 880, 
 
 6. Judgmint and ExcctUion, 880. 
 
 7. Liability to Arrest or Commitment, 
 
 881. 
 
 8. Quarantine, 881. 
 
 9. Dower — Si-c Dower. 
 
 10. Wills by Married Women — See Will. 
 
 IX. Dkai.in(!s Between Husband and 
 
 Wife. 
 
 1. Generally, 882. 
 
 2. Gifts between Husband and Wife — 
 
 See Fkaudulknt Conveyances — 
 (iiFT—VoLUNTAiiY Conveyances. 
 
 X, Husband's Liabilities, 
 
 1. For Wije's Necessaries, 883. 
 
 2, On Contracts made by Wife, 884. 
 
 XI, Actions and Proceedings by and 
 Against. 
 
 1. Wife Suing by Next Friend, 884. 
 
 2. Parties to Suits. 
 
 (a) Generally— See Pleading. 
 
 (b) Foreclosure — .9ee MoRTGAiiE. 
 
 (c) Specific Performance — See Spe- 
 
 cific Performance, 
 
 3. Actions by Wife Against Husbaml, 
 
 884. 
 
 4. Other Ca.ies, 885, 
 
 5. Motion for Judgment against Wife 
 
 under Con. Rule 739— See .Judg- 
 ment, 
 
 XII, Deed of Separation, 886. 
 
 XIII. Foreign Divorce, 887. 
 
 XIV. Alimony. 
 
 1. Writ of Arrest, 887. 
 
 2. Writ of Ne Exeat, 888. 
 
 3. Particulars, 888. 
 
 4. When Granted. 
 
 ■ (a) De.iertion, 888. 
 
 (b) Interim Alimony, 888. 
 
883 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 6. Costs, 890. 
 
 6. Aiiptication to Reduce, Amount, 891. 
 
 7. other Canes, 891. 
 
 XV. Ml.-<CELLASEOUS CASES, 892. 
 
 XV'I. Custody of Infants— S<?e Infant. 
 
 XVII. Ilt'SllAMlS iNsrUANl'E FOR BkNKKIT OF 
 
 WiF' \Ni>Cnii,i)KKN — See Insukanck. 
 
 XVIII. PiKFI'SINd TO PkoVIDK FOR WiFE AND 
 
 CiiiLDRKN— .SV( Criminal Law. 
 
 I. Action 
 
 FOR BKEA(nr OK 
 
 Marriaok. 
 
 I'ro.mise of 
 
 In an .lotion for breacli of promise of marriage 
 it w;is piovfd tiiat the dufeniliint, on lieing 
 charged by tiiu plaiiitiU'.s fatlier with having got 
 her in tlu' family way, and liaving pronii.sud to 
 marry lier - the phdntitl having Ijeen seduced, 
 and had a eiiihl l>y hitn — replied; "I will 
 marry iier if it is mine," and also that he could 
 not do ;inytliing until he got some land fioni his 
 father when he would many her. It further 
 appeared that the defendant had ailmitted some 
 time previously having got lifty acres from his 
 father. There was no proof of an actual promise 
 on the plaintill's part, hut on tlie cross-examin- 
 ation of the plainlitt's fatlier he stated that he- 
 fore speaknig to the defendant ahout marrying 
 his daughter .she had told him she was going to 
 get marneil to the defendant : — Held, Gait, .1., 
 doubting, that there was sutlieient evidence of a 
 mutual piomise to marry to go to the jury, and i 
 a verdict for the plaintill" was upheld. Fisher 
 V. CnilKim, :J1 I'. 1". -JSO.—C. 1'. J). | 
 
 In the lirst count of the declaration the pro- 
 mise alleged was to niivij within a rea.sonahle 
 time ; ;'.nd in the second count on a day now 
 past: — Held, both counts 8ustaiiial)le on tlie ■ 
 evidence, but especially the second. Jli. \ 
 
 .Since the passing of -15 Vict. c. 10, s. ;{ (Out. ). 
 the parties to an action for breach of promise of 
 marriage are both competent and compellable^ 
 witnesai s, and may therefore be examined under 
 the C. L. I'. Alt. AlcLaiKjhtiii v. Moore, 10 I'. 11. 
 326. — Osier. ,Su|)erse(liiig IVoxlman v. lilair, 
 «R R. 170, Joins v. ^'a//oH,91^ R. '290. 
 
 A discharge in insolvency is a bar to a judg- 
 ment in an action for breach of promise of mar- 
 riage. See t'ornster v. Thrasher, 9 P. R. .'JS3 ; 
 2 0. R. 3«, p. 131. 
 
 Arrest of defendant under Ca. Re. .Statement 
 of damage. Corrolioiatiou. .See Doneifan v. 
 Short, \1 P. K. obO p. .'>e. 
 
 In an action for breach of promise of marriage, 
 the plaintiff stated that the defemlant promised 
 to marry her in the fall of 1873, but when that 
 time had arrived he excused his doing so, be- 
 cause he said he had not his house built, and ho 
 agreed not to marry until he had a suitable 
 house. The plaintifT told liim she wsis willing ] 
 to live in a slnnty, and he said he would not 
 marry until he couhl keep plaintiff. Tlie house ■ 
 ■was built ill the summer of 1878. No definite 
 promise was proved after the fall of 1S7.3, "outj 
 the plaintiff and di;lendant kept up friendly re- 1 
 lationft until 1884, when the defendant married | 
 another wonuu, and this action was brought, i 
 
 The defenciant denied the promise. In his ex- 
 amination before the trial, he admitted visiting 
 the plaintiff and of talking to her of marriiis^e, 
 but he said it was not of their marriage, but that 
 of other per.ions : that when he visited In r sho 
 was alone, and that he kissed her. In corrolidia- 
 tion of the plaintiff's evidence, a witness stated 
 that in the fa'.l of 1882, he had a conversation 
 with the plaimiff, who, refeii! ' to some girls 
 who visited hih house. id 1 .snot going to 
 marry those who waui' ' i . imuse, but the girl 
 who wanted him ; and on witness saying he sup- 
 posed this was the plaintiff, the defendant an. 
 swered "yes." The witness stated that iii tiic; 
 next spring, or the following one, he hail a fur- 
 ther conversati(m with defendant, wli ^ dg. 
 fendaut said he was either going to i ut ■ mA\ 
 his house or get n led, when witness said lie 
 suiiposed ])hiin^;iF and defendant would soon 
 make a match, to which the defendant made no 
 reply. At tin trial it was objected that tlieie 
 w.is no cvideiivc to corrobori'' *'■ iilaintitrs 
 evidence as to the alleged pre i-.i ni.i! that the 
 action was baried by the Statu:,' ' >' ' . iiiitations. 
 The learned judge overruled the oiiju .tion, and 
 left the case to the jury : — Held, that the action 
 was not maintainable. Per Cameron, C. .T.— 
 There was evidence to go to the jury corrobora- 
 tive of the jiromise stated by plaintill'; hut, 
 per Cameron, C. .1., and Rose,.!., the action 
 was barred by the Statute of Limit;itions, the 
 latter expressing no o|iinion as to the corrobora- 
 tive evidence. Per (ialt, .1., without dissent- 
 ing as to the .Statute of Limitations, the ])lain- 
 titFs evidence was not sufficiently corroborated. 
 Goslello V. Hunter, V2 O. R. 333.— t;. P. D. 
 
 In an action for breach of promise of marriage 
 the jury found that there was at first a mutual 
 jiromise to marry in six months, and a siibse- 
 (|iu'nt mutual promise to marry on the death of 
 the defendant's father. The jury were also 
 asked ((,). 3) : "After the father's death in April, 
 1870, did the defeiidiiit, in response to a iiuos- 
 tion by the |)laintitl', say that all was left to his 
 brother to share, and that until his hmtlier 
 shared with him he could not marry her?" To 
 which they answered, "yes." The divisinn of 
 thefalher's estate lid not take place till De- 
 cember, 1887: — Held (Fahoiibridge, ,1., dissent- 
 ing), that the answer to tli;- tliird ipiestioii was 
 a finding of a mutual jiromise to marry upon a 
 division of l\w. defend Hit's father's estate, ami, 
 as a breach of that |)riiinise did not take place 
 until December, 1887, tlie cause of action arising 
 thereupon was not barred by the Statute of 
 Limitations at tli'j time tin; action was briiiij,'iit 
 in 1888. The several mutual promises were all 
 indejieiident contracts, the proniisi! of the one 
 party being the consideration for the proiiii,se 
 tiy the other, so t...., each successive iiiiitual 
 promise became a nev .ind independent cont met, 
 from the breach <>•' ivliich only the statute would 
 begin to run. « ^ostello i: Hunter, iL' I). IJ. 'XVA, 
 distinguisheil. (Vr Falcuiibridge, .f., that the 
 answer of the jury to the third ipiestion did not 
 shew a new or .substituted a,greement. but an 
 exiaise for delay or a continuance of the original 
 promise, and the ease was therefore governi d by 
 <.'ostel!o >'. Hunter. Cr>i>il v. Connn'k, 16 (). li. 
 406.— Q. B. J>. Athrnicd 16 A. R. .''.32. 
 
 Held, Falconbridge, ,L , dissenting, that want 
 of bodily chastity is the only misconduct 
 
m 
 
 865 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 which affords a justification in law for a breach 
 of a promise to marry. It is no justification to 
 shew that the worn m had l)een heard to use ob- 
 scene laiigu ige ; mir is such evidence admissible 
 in initijatioii of damages, although general evi- 
 dence uf reputation may i)erha[)s be admissible. 
 Ih. 
 
 In an action for breach of promise of marriage 
 the plaiiititt' swore to tiie prouiis>', and the de- 
 fciiilaiit denied it, and iilb.'gcd that the plaintiff 
 had bi'cn his niistnss, which she denied. Wit 
 ncsses were called on her l)ehalf who shewed 
 th.it the parties were of the same social rank ; 
 tliat there was nothing unreasonable or improb- 
 able in their bediming engaged to be married ; 
 that lie formed hec' acquaintance in I8S0, and 
 then eniinnenced and continued for about six 
 yc;ir.-t to pay her att'-'Ution, during which time 
 his vi-iits •<> her were constant; th.it he took 
 her out (111 ■ iiig freijuently ; that she received the 
 attentions of no other man during that period, 
 nor did he paj' attention to any other woman ; 
 th.it lie was received l)y her family .ts a lover ; 
 tli;it he went to see and sat np with her father 
 during his last illness; and that he made her 
 frequent presents of jewidlery, wearing apparel, 
 and money. Letters also were jnit in by tlie 
 pliiiiitill'. written by the defendant to ber about 
 the time it was alleged he had broken olf their 
 enf,'agemeiit, addressing her in loving terms. 
 The jury lound that tlirne was a coiitiaet, and 
 a lire leh by the defendant, and that the ile- 
 fcndiint had failed to ])rove his defence ; and 
 they gave the iduintifT ilaui.yges ; — Held, that 
 tlic evidence given was material evidence in sup- 
 port of the ]>romise to m irry, and that it fur- 
 nished the coirolioration of the pl.iintitl's testi- 
 mony reipiired by U. S. O. (IH87) c. (il, s. 0. 
 Yanvuod v. Jlart, Iti O. R. •S.i.—Q. 15. I). 
 
 It was eoi, tended th:. t the evidence was as 
 consis'eiit with thi! keep ng by the defendant of 
 the |)liintilV as his miisiriss, as it was with an 
 enjiiigeiiient tomairy : — llcld. that the l)resuiiip- 
 tion was in favour of the moral and .igaiiist the 
 imiiioial r.'UitKiiislii)); and the f;ict that the de- 
 fendant .set lip the immoral relationship as a de- 
 fen 'C did not lender the eviilence less material 
 in support of the pioinise. Ih. 
 
 Ill an action for breach of promise of marriage 
 the ilefen.lan:. ridmitted a promise but said that 
 lie Wii.t an infiinr, « lu'ii be in ide it. and that 
 there w.is uc ratiliea ion in writing after major- 
 ity, as ii.(|iiir.d by |{. >. (). (1.S87) c. IlM, s. G 
 The plaiiUilt insisied that there was no cngagi'- 
 nuii; lieiwcn ber an I the defendant until he 
 l)C«iM.e of age on the •.!Otb August. 1.SH7. The 
 jury f.'iind that the promise to niiiriy was (iist 
 niadi (>:. thit <iav. There beiiii,' evidence to 
 sll.^t lin thai linding. and also i.videiiee upon 
 wliieh (lie jury might havit found a previous 
 proud e. the c omt refused to interlere with the 
 Knliiij. There was i vidi nee to corroborate the 
 statement ef the pliintill" tint an en^au'emeiit 
 to iiia'iy I'xisted, such evidenct^ being not incon- 
 iiistciii, with the preeise engagement sworn to by 
 the plaiiui!!' as laving been enteted into on the 
 •Mil .August. ISH," : - Hel.l, th it this evidence 
 siUisiie I the reiiiiirrments of H. S. < ). (1887) o. 
 til, s. II, and it wii not necessary that it should 
 go so far as to negative ibe i)romise which the 
 defendant admitted he made before majority. 
 Swith V. Jamitxuii, 17 O. U. 02(5.-0!. B. 1). 
 
 65 
 
 The plaintiff swore that "it was to be a year's 
 engagement, and we were to be married in the 
 following August ;" — HeM, that this was not an 
 agreement not to be performed within a year, 
 and was therefore not void under the Statute of 
 Frauds, although not in writing. II). 
 
 In an action for breach of promise of marriage 
 the plaintiff's evidence was that after pnnnising 
 to marry her in 18,^0, the defendant in March, 
 188l>, visited her and repudiated his promise, 
 whereupon she ordered him out of her house, 
 and refused afterwards to renew the engagement. 
 The trial judge nonsuited the plaintitf on the 
 ground that this amounted to an absolute re- 
 lease, and that the relatiimsliip between the 
 parties was terminatiid : — Held, that the ilefen- 
 dant having previously violated his engagement, 
 the matter should have been left to the jury, 
 who might liave reasoned that the plaintiff chose 
 to consider the connection at an end, and that 
 she was not willing to subject herself to the 
 pain and inortilication of being again deceived. 
 Rcynotds v. Jam'u'<oii, 19 (). K. "ilW. — Cby. I). 
 
 II. Marriaoe. 
 
 In order to render void a ceremony of mar- 
 riage, otherwise valid, on the ground that the 
 man was intoxicited, it must be shewn tliat tliere 
 was such a state of intoxication as to deprive 
 him of all sense and volition, and to render hiiu 
 incapable of knowing what he was about. Hob- 
 I III V. Ituliliii, "28 Chy. 4;V.t.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Semble : — A combination amongst persons, 
 friendly to a woman, to induce a man to consent 
 to marry her, it not being shewn that she had 
 done imything to j)roeure her friends to do any 
 improper a<:t in order to bring about the consent, 
 wotild not avoid the marriage, lb. 
 
 A marriage entered into while the man is so 
 intoxicited as to be incapable of understand- 
 ing what he is ab.mt is voidable only and may be 
 ratified and conlirined. Ih. 
 
 Three years after the ceremony of iiiarriage, 
 wdiicb the m.in allei;ed he had been induced to 
 enter into while uinler arrest and intoxicated, an 
 action at law was brought against him for neces- 
 saries furnished to the woman, and for expenses 
 incurred in the burial of Iiim- child, in which the 
 validity of the marriage was ilisti-ictly put in 
 I issue. Before the cause was called on for trial, 
 j the 111 111 signed a memorandum cndorsjil on the 
 record in wiiich he .idmitted the existence and 
 validity of the niariiage, and consented to a 
 venliet foi' the pi .intill in the action : — Held, 
 that if the marriage was previously voidable, it 
 was thereby confirmed. lb. 
 
 15y Knjilish law as adopted in this province in 
 17il-, marriage with a deceased wife's sister was 
 not ipso faeto void, but w.is esteemed valid for 
 all civil jmriioses, unless annulled during the 
 lifctiim: of tin. parties. Such remained toe law 
 here niilil 4.') \'ict e. t-2 (Dmn.), which removed 
 all disabilities. It> .Mmri'ii Canal — l.awson v. 
 r„wfr:i, 6 O. 11. C85. -lioyd. 
 
 In ejectment it appe;u'ed thai M., one of the 
 ilefeud.ints, was nuiiried to N., 7th Febru.iry, 
 lr<()(>, on one calling of banns, a dispensation 
 having been procured from tbo Rouiau CatlioUc 
 
-T^ 
 
 867 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 CS!' 
 
 awe: ii 
 
 
 Archbishop for the other two calls, both parties 
 belonging to that faith. The husliand had im- 
 mediate aiul continued pf)syi:s»ion of the land in 
 (|iie8tion under deed III him. Of tliia marriage 
 was borii, 20tli February, ISti", an only dauuhtur. 
 N. ilieil ."{id May, ISllS, and iiis widow AI., on 
 11th October, 1S70, internuirrieil with the de- 
 fendant K.,and they continued in uninterrrupteil 
 poBsesfiion until the issue of the writ herein. On 
 nth .January, ISSfi, the daughlcr of M. * N. 
 intermarried witli the jilaintilF, to whom was 
 born, in weiUock (.'ird .luly, ISHIi,) tliougli con- 
 ceived l)efore. the infant plaintiff, tlie niotiicr 
 dying on tiie foUowinj,' day. On the issue of 
 the writ lierein by the plaintiif and his infant 
 daughter against M. and her husliand, the de- 
 fendant K., they claimed title by possession and 
 denied the validity ot the marriage between M. 
 and N., on the grounil of the non-]iid)iieation of 
 banns: --Held, (I) That the onus of di-iproving 
 the marriage /as on the defendants. ('_') Tiiat 
 26 (leo. II., e. .'iS, was in force in ("anada as to 
 publication of b.mns. (.1) That 37 Vict. e. (i, 
 s. I, reiiedied any def-c:ct in the marri.ige. (4) 
 That the invalidity was not established, inas- 
 much as defendants iHd nut prove that no license 
 had beirii issued for this marriage, so as to over- 
 come the legal presumption in favour of marriage. 
 O'Connor v. Knnndy, ISO. H. '20.— Q. H. I). 
 
 Per Armour, C. J. - KuU effect is given to the 
 proviso of section 1 of .'17 Vict. c. (i (Out.) by 
 reading itas liiniteil to preserving the invalidity 
 of a m.irriage illegally solemnized, wlieii either 
 of the parties to such illegal marriage has since, 
 during the life of the other, contracteil marriage 
 aocording to law. lb. 
 
 The High ('ourt of .Justice in this jirovince 
 has jurisdiction, where a miirriage coi'ri'ct in 
 form is ascertained to be voj<l de jure liy reason 
 of the absence of some essential preliminai-y, to 
 declare the same null and void ab initio : Init 
 nothing short of the most clear and convincing 
 testimony will justify the interpositicm of the 
 court. Laiclv.KHx. i'hamfxrlaiu, ISO. li. 296. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 Where duress is alleged, it must be manifest 
 that force preponderated throughout, so as to 
 disable the one interested from acting as a free 
 agent. Although the plaintiff in this action, in 
 which he sought to have his marriage with the 
 defenil int declared void, on the ground that he 
 was forced into it by intimidation and threats, 
 at first protested, by his subse(pii;nt conduct he 
 di8|ilayed a readiness to assist in the prelimi- 
 nary and final details, and submitted to the 
 proposed method of procedure, and intelligently 
 forwarded its accomplishment • —Held, on the 
 evidence, that his consent to ti. narriage was 
 proved. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that section 11 of 26 0eo. II., s. .S.3 
 
 (Lonl Hardwicke's Act), by which the marriage 
 of a minor by license, without the con.sent of 
 parent or guardian, was absolutely void, is not 
 in force in tliis province, lb. 
 
 See Wwhwofth v. AfrCord, 12 S. C. R. 466 ; 
 MrMullen v. Wiidiworth, 14 App. Cas. 631, p. 
 556. 
 
 III. Removal OF Disability by Markiack. 
 Sec Cameron v. Walker, 19 0. It. 212. 
 
 IV. Marriaiie Settlements 
 
 1. Oenerally. 
 
 The plaintiff, in 1S.')4, being about to marry, 
 conveyed certain lands to trustees— one of wlimii 
 was her intended husband — tipon trust to suffer 
 her to receive the rents, etc., to her own use 
 during her natural life, and upon her deatli, if 
 she sliould leave a child or children surviving 
 her, in trust to convey the lands, etc., unto .such 
 chilli or children, their heirs, etc., for evi'r, freed 
 and discharged of the trust mentioned in the 
 deed ; and in case of her death, before her hus- 
 band, without any child, in trust to ]iermit liim 
 I to receive the rents, etc., for life, and after his 
 ; death, or in case he should die liefore the plain- 
 ' till', she leaving no child, then in trust to convey 
 I the said lands to her right hciis, frecil and dis- 
 i charged from the trusts thereof. The deed j^ave 
 I the trustees powei' to .sell or lease, and also to 
 I bo'row on the security of the lands. The hu8- 
 i band died in IS7!I, there never having been any 
 child of the marriage, and the plaintiff, win. was 
 then fifty-three years old, rc(|uested the tins ees 
 to reconvey the trust estate to her, which tl..y 
 declined to do without the sanction of the court, 
 as the trust for children was not conlined tn the 
 issue of the then contcniplateil marriage, hut was 
 wide enough to include the children of any otiicr 
 marriage, but;— Held, that as there were no 
 children, and it must be assumed tliat the plain- 
 tiff never could have any children, she was en- 
 titled, as equitable tenant in fee sini)>ie, to cull 
 upon the trustees for a conveyance ; the costs of 
 the trustees to come out of the estate. FanM 
 v. Caiiii-.rmi, 21) Chy. 313. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 The absence > " a power of revocation from a 
 voluntary settlement is not a ground for setting 
 it aside. Tin; plaintiff, who hail just, coiiio of 
 age, being about to marry, ap|>licd to her solici- 
 tor, who was also her guardian, for ailviic as to 
 her property, and had several consultations with 
 him, at which the heads of a mairia'.'c settlement 
 were agreed ujiou. The solicitor diil not know 
 the husband, and acted solely in the interests of 
 the plaintill'. Nothing was .said almut a power 
 of revocation in the settlement, which contained 
 the usual clauses, but gave rather more |ioHer 
 than usual to the |ilaintifY. and was made in cnu- 
 sideration of marriage : —Held, that it was nut a 
 voluntiry settlement, and that, as it eonlaiii.'ii 
 the usual clauses in such deeds, and simply 
 oinitteii a (lower of revocation which is not usual 
 in settlements for value, there was no evidence 
 of iniprovidence, or ground for setting it aside, 
 in the alisence of fraud or mistake, llillnrki, 
 liatlnn, 2!)('liy. 4!)0. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 It is evident from the scope of C. S. U. <'. c. 
 73 that notwithstanding a marriage setllcuieut 
 any separate p'.Tson il iiropcify of a married 
 woman acquired after marriage and not i oiiiiiig 
 under or being affected by such setticicent, 
 sh.ill be subject to the provisions of t lie .^otin 
 the same manner as if no sueli sett lenient had 
 been made, and as to such property tlie married 
 woman shall be considered as having tnairied 
 without a settlement. Ihiionon v. MoiJulf, 13 
 0. R. 170.— Hoyd. 
 
 By antenuptial settlement made in lS,Sl,«a 
 reformed afterwards by decree of this court, C. 
 <J. being possessed of iS'i.-i.OtK), and also of .£1,- 
 000, conveyed these gums to trustees on trust 
 
868 
 
 169 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 WO 
 
 after the marriage to pay the income to her, to 
 her separate use, and after her decease to pay 
 the said income, or suuh part as she shouhl up- 
 point to R. (>., her intended huslMtnd, cluring 
 his life, and after liis death, on trMst, "to anil 
 for any cliihl or chihhen of the s;iid intended 
 marriage, sliurc and share alike if more than one, 
 anil if only one, then to such one in trust to ap 
 
 The plaintiff and her huslmnd were married 
 before 1859. In 1870 he, being free fnindobt, 
 purchased land and had it conveyed to his wife, 
 the plaintill' ; who with the rents and profits 
 thereof, she and her husliand not living on the 
 land, witii money rnised by mortgage t'-'ireof, 
 and witii money borrowed from her sons, pur- 
 chased the chattels in '|Ucntion herein, which 
 
 ply the yearly income, revenue and increase I were seized under executionagainst tiio husband: 
 
 arising from the said trust funds and estati- to- ' " '' ' 
 
 wards the maintenance, support and eduoi, Mon 
 of such chihlren during their resjjective niinor- 
 itii'S, each child to receive his or her share of 
 the priiici])al of said trust fund and estate on 
 hi.s or her attaining the age of twenty-one years, 
 or in case of fenmles on attaining sucii aje or 
 litiiig married." The marriage took place, and 
 C. (i. <licd in 1884, leaving R. (i. her surviving, 
 and two children, issue of the miirriage, H. U. 
 0. (J. and A. (i. fJ. the former of wliom, how- 
 ever, died in 188(J, under age :— Held, that H. 
 K. (!. (!. took a vested interest at birth in the 
 moity of the sums of S_'5,000 and .i:i,O0<t, and 
 tliat l>. (i., his father, was entitled, as next of 
 kill of H. R. (-}. (!. to a moiety of said amounts. 
 
 iiml that letters of administration shouhl be ji„lg„,ent of the County Court, that liie i)!;; 
 taken out to his estate before the same could titf was cntillcd to recover, as the cvide 
 properly be paid to R. U. Udl v. Udmonr, 14 i^]^^.y,,^,,\ that the husband had a. .niiesccd in 
 
 0. K. 1 -JO. —Boyd 
 
 Settlement of personal property. Registra- 
 tion of instrument as l)ill of sale. Alhdavit of 
 hona lides. Wife maintaining claim, without 
 joining trustee in the settlement, to goods in 
 interpleader issue. Sec Coniitll v. Ilkkock, 15 
 A. K. 518. 
 
 See FtrrU v. Ferrix, ft O. R. .124, p. .503. 
 Huijliex V. liiten, !i O. R. (i.")4. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Propertv Riciiirs 
 
 WlKI 
 
 AM) LlAlilMTIKS OK 
 
 1. Sfiniratc Ettate. 
 
 In .Taiinary, lS5(i, R. McC. .sold certain real 
 I'Btiitc to .1. Mc( '., liis sister, bv iint.irial liccd, in ; 
 wliicli kIic lussunied the (lualities (if ii wife duly j 
 sepiiratcd as to )iropcrty of her iinsliand, J.C. A. ' 
 After the lallei's deatii, in ISOll,.!. McC, be- 
 fore a niitaiT, renonnoed to the (■ommunautc <le ' 
 Wens which snbsisteil between lier and her late j 
 husband. 10. C. K., a judgiiwiit cieditor of |{. > 
 McC, seized the said real estate as lielonL'ing to j 
 tile vacant estate of the said R. McC. ,di. ,ascd. 
 J. McC. oppo.sed the sale on the ground that the 
 eeiznre was made suptT nom domino et possi- 
 (lente, an<l setting uj) title and possession. She 
 proved some acts of possession, and that the 
 property had stood for some time in the books 
 of the niuni(M|)ality in iicr name. K. (J. K. con- 
 tested this o|iposition on the ground that J. 
 MuC.'s title was l)ad in law, and simulated and 
 fianihilcnt, and that there was no posses.uon : — 
 Held, that by her renunciation to the coinmun- 
 aiite lie l)icns which subsisted between her and 
 her late husliand at the date of the deed of Jan- 
 uary, 18.5(1, J. Mel', divested her.self of any title 
 or interest in said lands, and could not now 
 claim the legal possession of the lands under 
 that deed or by prescription, or maintain an op- 
 position becanse the seizure was super nom 
 domino et non possideute. McVoikUl v. Kiiitihi, 
 3 S. C. R. 233. 
 
 Held, that the chattels were her .separate pro- 
 perty within the meaning of R. S. (>. (1877) c. 
 125, s. 1, and free from the <lebts of her hus- 
 l)an(l. Trol/er v. Ch-.mlwfs, 2 O. R. 515.— 
 
 y. 15. u. 
 
 Hehl (reversing the judgment of the Ccmnty 
 Court of York), that the rents deriveil by a feme 
 covert, married before 185'.(, from real estate ac- 
 <|iiireil by her in 18(i5, were her separate estate. 
 Il(ini<r V. Ktir, A. R. 30. 
 
 The iilaintill, a wiilf,/, had, during her cover- 
 ture, lent tlie defendants a sum of money which 
 she earned when living apart from her husband, 
 who had never iiiaile any claim to this money, 
 or to any of her earnings : — Held, aihrniiiig the 
 
 "lin- 
 nce 
 her 
 treating lier earnings as her .separate (>r'>pr..-;y ; 
 and tha( C. S. U. C. c. 73, whirh was Ji force 
 when the money was lent, in no way abridged 
 the power of the husband to make such a settle- 
 ment liy his acts or acciuiecence as well as by a 
 formal writing or distinct words. Carroll v. 
 Filzijerald, 6 A. R. 03. 
 
 The plaintiff, a married woman, who had been 
 married in 18(il, lived on a 200 acre lot with her 
 husband and children. The land had belonged 
 to In r husband's father, who died in 1874, hav- 
 ing <lcvised the east half to the plaintitl's son, a 
 niiii.ir. and the west half to the |)lainti(I, there 
 being then a judgtiicnt against tlic husband, 
 which it was siiiiposed was the testator's reason 
 for such ilevise. The whole farm had been oc- 
 cupied and iarmed together, llie )daiiitiir being 
 uiuh;r tile impression that she was entitled to 
 the son's half until he came of age. The hus- 
 band did some little ivork about the place, but 
 it was gi'iicrally known and undcistood by those 
 who worked up;ni tlie farm, a;- well as by the 
 public, that the ])lace was hers and how it had 
 iieeii left to her. The crops having been seized 
 uiulin' an execution issued u|ion the jinigmcnt 
 above mentioned : -Held, on an interph.ider 
 issue ; I. That the W'fc was not carrying on any 
 occupation or trade si'p irate irtun her husband, 
 nor were these crojis her wages 'jr earnings, 
 within section 7 of the .Married Woman's i'ro- 
 perty Act, H. S. (>. (1S77I c. 125; 2. That she 
 was entitled to such crops as owner of the land, 
 for the husbind could not be said to be working 
 the farm as he.id of the family, and the casi! was 
 distinguislialile, therefore, from Lett i\ Com- 
 merci.il liauk, -'4 t^. B. .552 ; 3. That the crops 
 on both halves o( the lot must be treated in tha 
 same way, the whole being managed in all re- 
 spects a-i one farm. Iiiifram v. Taylor, 46 Q. 
 B. .52.— Q. 15. 1). ; 7 A. R. 216. 
 
 A petition w.os presented by the husband of 
 D. to declare his wife a lunatic which, was op- 
 posed by \\ r. I'eii Hie; the hearini; of the peti- 
 tion l>. ai>t;<i<;ned ler separate estate for the benefit 
 
■n' 
 
 871 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 872 
 
 873 
 
 c 
 
 
 » 
 
 s» 
 
 €S 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 •mf. 
 
 ', • 
 
 HMt*. 
 
 
 "Mi 
 
 ••; 
 
 rv 
 
 '5:' 
 
 sne; 
 
 ir 
 
 o*-: 
 
 ♦I 
 
 •WW. 
 
 •««, 
 
 « 
 
 «Mc: 
 
 , 1 
 
 ,r-<w 
 
 
 
 
 of her creditors. The court (lismisRed the peti- 
 tion. D.'b solicitor preseiitcil a petition for 
 taxation of iJ.'s costs, iiiiil f.ir imyiiicnt liy the 
 assi^^neo in priority to tlie cliiinis of tlie creditors : 
 — Held, that thr costs of opposing the petition 
 ini^ht he clasMcd as nccensirics which the wife 
 is liahie to pay out of lici' separate estate, ami 
 for wiiicii that csfiitc is lialili' in tlie hands of her 
 assignee, hut that tiny could not he put oil the 
 footing of iiiaintcnaiice. Such costs should he 
 paiil riitalily out of the assets, and costs sub- 
 8e(|Ut'iit to the assii;iiiiieiit sliuidd not niiik in 
 competition with iivditcus lufure the assign 
 mciit. J{c Dumhnll, 10 I*. 11. 'ilO.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendant's lirst hiishuiid dieil in 1870, 
 and she contracted a second niarriuge in IH7I, 
 This aoiion was Itefore the Married Woiiian's 
 Property Act, 1884, was passed : -Htld. i(!\er- 
 sing tli."jiid«iiieiit of Osier, ,1. A. (0 () K. .")8I), 
 thai the dcfcnch'nt's right to unassigmd dower 
 in the lands of her first hiisli^ind was not sepa- 
 rate estate, hut was property falling within K. 
 S. (). (1877) c. I'J."), s. 'A, and slit^ not having the 
 jus disponendi without her husliand's conciir- 
 rcnee, iier interest was not liahie to he S(dd under 
 execution aj^aiiist her. /)oii(/ltin v. tlulrhison, 
 12 A. R. 110. 
 
 Qinere, per Patterson, . I. A., whetlier a writ of 
 fieri lacias is the ajipiopi i .te leiiierly for reach- 
 ing the separate picpeity of a man led woman. 
 lb. See liowevi r Huiiiir v, (>/(/•■ i\ 10 A. R. 
 6.')(i, W>\, per O.slcr, J. A. -See TiO Vict. e. 8. 
 
 ,'\ iiiariied woman to w lioipi land is conveyed, 
 suliject to ineiimhraiiee, whether liy way of pur- 
 chase or exeh;»iigc. is hound to iiideiiiiilfy her 
 graiiU)! aga'Mst the |>aynieiitof sinh ineuinhranee 
 ami the pi.iperty so louveyed to her is sepaale 
 est.ite w»lh respect to wh'eh such ohligatinu 
 arises. 
 C. P. I). 
 
 MrMihuilw nUkr-. 1« O. H. 7.W.- 
 
 r. 187, i 
 
 •-'77. p. ! 
 
 |i S7I : 
 
 •2H.-), p. 
 
 See/jtn llWm.jrr v. .V.-.l/,(/i,.„, 3'_>C. 
 p. 8S| ; Miirrmi \. M>i'iiltiiii>, S .\. K. 
 87!l ; '.(■(///» V. /'■itr,r.„i„, 45 Q 15. .VMi, 
 O'/hih I'y y. 0„fur, > liim/:, ;{•_' ('. I'. 
 815 ; Siri irri(i/i> v. /, i/s, 'JS ( 'hy. 4!t8 ; .S'');;./( ;-.s v. | 
 McO^hliKi, 1 O.K. \~,>,\).SS'l;S,.vlliiiiii V. It'ii.loi,, 
 9 A. l; .->;)0, p. Iti'J ; .' w.lh V. Mrl.,ll.,„. 1 1 (). I!. 
 191 ; Dawioii v. Mnjrill, i;{ () R. i;(», J). SOS ; 
 A)iilii(i.<r\. /■'/•(is'-r, 14i). !!. r>.">l, p. 877; Kloik v. 
 Vliiimlit liiii, IT) S. r. li. ."-."), p. 877. 
 
 '2. Conn i/ii III! iil'llidlKxInli.. 
 
 Wlieie a deed in a iliain of title had heeii 
 liiale to a luishaml ami wife ,is joint ten mts : 
 Held, lollowing Shn\ei r. Ilait..'!! i). I!. (Kt.S, 
 that II 'mitlistamlliiL; the teinis of the deed the 
 hushind ami wif. look hy eniiieties. And when 
 the hnsliaml male a t iiiiveyani'e o: the same land 
 in the lieiiiue of his wie, she merely joining 
 to har In I ilower, and slii prede "easeil |j, r jms 
 band: — lledd, th it the hiishand's ih.'eil unveyed 
 thef.c. Ri' .«..»,,, 8 P K. 47.V -Blake. 
 
 In I8.S4, C A., a inarriel woiniin, jiiiijiorted 
 t«) convey to one I',, in fee, I he ea I hall of a hit 
 of land grante I to lici liy the Ciowii, hut the 
 conveyaiic(! was invalnl hy reason of the want of 
 the. u.su.tl certllie.ile hy justices of Ihi; pe.iee on 
 the deed. T. never took possession, hnl in 18,'j'J 
 conv yed to H, throiiyh mIioiii the plainlilV 
 olaiiuvU. lu ur about the year l8U(i, the two 
 
 sons of C. A. went and resided on the west half 
 of the land upon the understanding and agiee- 
 ment with their mother that they were to have 
 the wliole lot, but no conveyance was executed 
 to them until 187i>. During* the interval, how- 
 ever, the sons jiaid the taxes on the whole pro. 
 perty, aiiilcut tiniher at times on the east half :—. 
 Held (reversing the judgment of the (j!. B. IJ. 2 
 (». R. .So'J), that this was a sutlieient "actual 
 po.ssession or enjoyment " of the east half of the 
 lot to prevent tlie operation of section 1.'} of U. 
 S. (». (1877) 0. 127 (.•«] Vict. c. 18, s. p.'), hy 
 means of which such void deed would be ven- 
 deied valid. Osier, .J. A., dissenting. EllioU 
 v. lirown, 11 A. R. '228. 
 
 Where a railway company contracted for the 
 purchase of certain hind with B., a married wii- 
 man, in the absence' of her husband :- llelil, 
 that the company were under no obligation to 
 see that B. had independent advice in the mut- 
 ter; and iiiasi;:'.;"h as the price seemed ii<it to ho 
 grossly inadequate, and B. appeared to he fiiljy 
 compos mentis, and no unfair advantage having 
 been taken of her, the agreement could imt hi> 
 set aside. B 's marriage took place in 187(1, and 
 the land was held by her to her separate u.se :— 
 Held, that the concurrence of her husband in 
 the contract was unnecess.iry, nor \, ^^s it neces- 
 sary for him to join in the conveyance. Jli-i/inn. 
 v. ii„i,iriu ami QiuIhc I{. IT. Co., 8 O. R. ;w'o.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 The real estate of a married woman, married 
 after March 2nd, 1872, whether owned by liur 
 at the time i.f her niairiage, or aeijuired in any 
 manner during her coverture, may be conveyed 
 by her withutit thi^ eoncuireiKu; of her hie hand; 
 :iiid her emilracts respecting siieli real estate are 
 biniling upon her without the joinder of her 
 husb^md. ///. 
 
 .1. H., by his will dattd 14th April, IS7-1, de- 
 vised certain properly to his daiightei-. M. .\. ,1., 
 foi life, wall leiiiiumhr to li'er ehildren, and .lucj 
 .soon .iftei miking i\u; will. .M .\. .1. died ahimt 
 l^8(l, ItMviiig liveehildrcn, the yoiingt'st of wlmni 
 came of a:;e in I.S8I. Before the death of ,1. II., 
 one iif the I'hildien, M. .). .1., in.irrud miu (,'., 
 and ( '. Ill 1870 d. serted his wife and had not 
 lieeii heard ef aftei wanis: Held, that .M. .1. C, 
 could eiiiiviy her interest in the propiity with- 
 out the coiienireiiee of lur hiislpand. I!r Cuuller 
 ciml .Siiiilh, 8 O. R. ,'>'M'). -l''crgusnii. 
 
 l.'p '11 a petition under the Settled Hstates 
 Aet, B'lyd, t '., dis|iensuil with the examiii.itiim 
 reipiire'l liy the Aet of a miriiid wiim.ni intir- 
 ested who Incti out of tint jiirisdei ion, lait not 
 one who lived within the jiii isiiiclimi. I he 
 Married Woman s I'ropeitv Act, 1884 (Oiil.), 
 does not apfily tu cases under the Settled Ka- 
 tatesAet, where the wnniiin hid aci|iiiieil the 
 piiipi fly befori' the passing of the foruier Aft 
 /h En<ilUi, \\ V. l\. 198.- Boyd. 
 
 Where a woman, married in I,s(i7 without 
 niarii ige settlement, aeipiiied lamis in 187!), hy 
 deed of c nveyance t'> her ili fee simple absohite: 
 — Held, that she conhl eoiivey the siod laii.ls to 
 .a jnirehaser without tin; concurrence nt her 
 hush.iMil. /iV Koiikli; 14 U. R. 183 —Ferguson. 
 
 In an a'tion for specific perfcirmanee hy a 
 married woman, the (piestioi: was whether the 
 husband of thejilainlill was entitled to a tenancy 
 hy the curtesy initiate in certain laud of ih« 
 
 When 
 
 coining 
 iisicle coir 
 an infant 
 wi le igiio 
 clffi ndaiil 
 (reversing 
 tiiai), tha 
 licfoie tht 
 cunijilcte 
 spceitic oil 
 had icce' 
 Meiv 
 IllnlUlls, 
 
 iiisiilliciei 
 convcyai 
 
 .\ wo 
 mill win 
 inj;, ,ie,^ 
 reiiiaind'e 
 an. I ill 
 com eyed 
 huslLaml 
 vcy.iiice 
 freed fi„ 
 hiishaiid 
 title ill fi 
 be made. 
 Co., KiO 
 
 The, (I, 
 
 Aei. IHM 
 isthatal 
 duriiiL' t 
 
 3. y.' 
 
 I'lainti^ 
 mnrtgagel 
 I'll! pose <| 
 to he .alln 
 after forJ 
 biishand,! 
 deiuurreif 
 on the gr 
 
873 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 974 
 
 ulaiutiir which she agreed to sell to the defen- 
 dant, HO as to require tlie joining of the liuaband 
 in the conveyance. The marriage took place in 
 1807, and issuu li:id been born iilive. Tlie land 
 WHS ac(|uircd l>y tlie plaintiQ', one portion in 
 1!S7!), and tlie reiiiiiinder in ISH'2 : — Helil, that the 
 case was governed by R. S. O. (1877), c. 1'2.'}, »». 
 3aii(l 4, similar to uub-section8'2 and .{of section 
 4 of K. S. O. (1887), c. l;W, aii.l the hind could 
 ndl be conveyed by the plaintitf alone, uultss by 
 virtue of an order under .'il Vict. c. 21 (Out.), ho 
 as to give the imruliuser a title free from the 
 husliaiid'H claim ; and under the circumstances 
 of this case such an order was matlc : — Sendde, 
 tluf wife alone could convey her own estate in 
 the land. Ke Koiikle, 14 U. R. IS.'t, and Adams 
 r. lioomis, '24 VAty, 242, consitlered. iVylii v. 
 h'lam/iloii, 171). R. •'ilf). — Rose. 
 
 The efTcct of legislation now embodicil in R. 
 S. 0. (lSf>7), c. 127, .'*. .'1, has been to give to 
 the conveyance of an infant feme covert the 
 same characteristics as are liy law attributed to 
 the conveyances of male infants, i. c., if such 
 (iucils are of beiielit to the infant or operate to 
 pass an estate or interest tliey are voidable not 
 void. )l7i«//.s- v. Linni, ir.O. R. 481.- ('by. I». 
 
 When a little nioie than two months after 
 cciining of age, a married woman sought to set 
 iiside conveyances for value made by her, while 
 an infant feme covert, to the defendants, who 
 wi le ignorant of her disability, and uniler which 
 di'fi iiilants had taken possession, it was:— Held 
 (reviising the judgment of Rose. J., at the 
 trial), tiiat she was entitled to such relief ; but 
 before the same c<iiild be granted, slie must make 
 coiiijilcte Tcstoralion to the defendants of the 
 speoilic or an C(iuivalent value of that which slie 
 liad rccuived from lliem during her infancy, 
 iltie aciiuiescence for about two and a half 
 inoiulis. after attaining majority was considere<l 
 iiisiillicient to operate as a ratitication of the 
 conveyance. //'. 
 
 A woman married l)ctiveen IH.'iO and 1S72, 
 and who liad i.ssue living and capable of inherit 
 ing. a('(|iiired before the yar 1H72, a vested 
 remainder in fee in land subject to a life estate, 
 and in 1S8(! the life tenant still iieing alive, 
 conveyed her remainder by deed without her 
 hushand joining thei'ein; — Helil, tliat the eoii- 
 veyanco was valid to pass her whole intei'cst 
 freed fidiii any right, interest, or control of her 
 husband, ami tiic life tenant having died, a good 
 title in fee simpli' under the conveyance could 
 he made, /'i (.Iriia i/ aii'l llic 'J'nronlj lltdl lJsl(tt( 
 Co.. Kit). K. 22(;. ■ Robcrtscm. 
 
 Tlieidlect of the " Married Woman's Property 
 Aei, lS,")il,'' as to property not excejited thereby, 
 intiiat all interference on the part of the husband 
 (luring their joint lives is ended. Cameron v. 
 M'm/Ac)-, 19 (). it. 212.— t'hy. 1). 
 
 3. Hetleiiiplidii <>/ IJii.iImikVk Morlgtti/e., 
 
 I'laiiititf, being the wife of A. \V. C. who 
 ninitgaged his lands, she joined tliercin for the 
 pui pose of barring her dower, brought an action 
 to lie .allowed to redeem the mortgaged premises 
 after forcclosuie by the mortgagee against the 
 hiisliand, l)ut during the husband's lifetime. A 
 demurrer to the plaintiff's statement of claim, 
 on the ground that the plaintiff had no interest 
 
 in the hands, and that her plcidingsaffirnied that 
 her husband's interest liatl been toreulosed, wan 
 allowctl. Conner V. //«!(//*<, (J O. R. 451. — I'roud- 
 foot. 
 
 4. LinhUiUj on Contracts, 
 
 ((t) Oenerally. 
 
 Quafc, per Rurton, .1. A., whether a married 
 woman can be liable on a joint contiact. Jloniir 
 V. K<rr, ^)A. R. 3(». 
 
 Action against husband and wife for the price 
 of goods supplied in 1877 l)y plaintid' to the 
 female (lefcndant, who was married in IS.'ili with- 
 out a marriage scttleinent, and who lived with 
 Iter husband and family. The liusl)and and wife 
 were devisees in lee of land under a <levi«e to 
 them in lH(i(J, and the siieritt' had, in 1874, 
 alleeted to sell to tile wife the husbami's interest 
 in the land under an execution against the lius- 
 iiaiid ;- Meld, that the wife's interest in the land 
 Was not sueli as to entitle the plaintill' t<) a 
 remedy ag.iinst it: — Held, also. Armour, .]., 
 ilissintiiii.', that she was not liable to the plaiu- 
 titr for tlie goods sold :-l'er llagarty, C. .1.— 
 The fact of a woman (living with her liiisl)aiid and 
 laniiiyj ordering household goods does not raise 
 an implied per.sonal promise to pay or bind her 
 Separate estate, or any other presumption than 
 tliat she is acting as her husband's agent ; and 
 the interest of the luisl)and, being inaiienablu, 
 was not saleable uuder execution under R. .S. (>. 
 (1 877) c. ()(), 8. .S!». Per Armour, J.— (1) That 
 whatever might be the etlect of the sheriff's 
 sale, it should be treated according to the effect 
 ascribed to it Ijy the plaintiff's and female de- 
 fendant's conduct, vi/. , as having vested the 
 est.ito ill her. (2| That from the evidence it was 
 the fair inferi^nce that the claim was the separ- 
 .ate ilebt of the wife, part of it having been in- 
 curred by her in rc;i])ect of thelnisiness of farm- 
 ing, in which she appeared to be engaged on her 
 own account ; that she had contracted in re- 
 spect ot separate per.sonal estate .appearing to 
 be hers, and that the husband's name shouhl be 
 struck out. and a verdict entered for the amount 
 against her. (Ifillhi v. /'iil/rr^'dii, 4i\Q. H. ."iMO. — 
 i). 15. 1). 
 
 In an action on a inoniissory note made by the 
 defendant (!., a feme covert, married after 2nd 
 Mareli. 1872, without a settlement, and C, her 
 1 rotlier, as trustees under their father's will, for 
 the purpose of raising money to pay certain in- 
 surances on the trust estate, it appeared that 
 the testator had ilcvised his real estate to his 
 tiiistees in trust to .sell as one R. should ileem 
 exiiedieiit, and out of the proceeds to pay debts 
 and invest the residue, and to expend tlie income 
 in the maintenance of the trustee and his other 
 children until the youngest should attain the 
 age of twenty-one, and then eijually to divide 
 amongst all the children, the issue of deceased 
 chihlren to represent their ])arcnt: — Held, that 
 until the youngest c:ime of age, C. had no sepa- 
 rate estate available in execution, and th.at she 
 was not liable on the note ; Armour, J., dissent- 
 ing, .and ludding that the true construction of 
 the Married Woman's Property Act is impliedly 
 to enable a feme covert to incur debts, to make 
 engagements, and to enter into contracts as if 
 she were a feme sole and that the remedy in re- 
 spect of any such debts, etc. , should be against 
 her personally, and should I'ot depend upon the 
 
875 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 876. 
 
 877 
 
 am 
 
 
 
 
 rat:. 
 
 •SfelM) 
 
 fact of her ever Imving had ncparatc etitate or 
 not. Clarke v. Cre.iuhtuii, 45 Q. B. 514.— Q. B. D. 
 
 In till action in a Uivision (.'ourt againut a 
 tnari'it'il woiiiuti on a proinlHsory note, tliv uxist- 
 onci! of Mepurate real eHtalo was proved, but no 
 evidence was given of any Hcparale peraonal 
 estate. .Iiidgincnt viM rendered for pluiiilill', 
 tlie amount tlioreof to be paid out of tiiu acparatu 
 property she had wlien the note wa.s made. In 
 re H'ldnii-i/ir v. McMahoii, 32 C. I'. 1S7. — C. 
 P. I). 
 
 Tlic rule of the court is, tlmt it will not re- 
 strain a married woman from <lealing with her 
 separate etttate pending .suit ; but if slie die 
 seized thereof, tiie court will administer her es- 
 tate (or the uatiufaction of her debtM : — Held, 
 therefore, tliat the estate of a married woman, 
 deceased, in the hands of lier infant heirs, was 
 liable to the payment of a note on which she was 
 endorser as surety for her husl)aiid, Merchaiil-i' 
 Hank V. Bdl, 129 Cliy. 413.— Boyd. 
 
 The endorser, a nuirried woman, died intestate 
 during the currency of the note, and notice of 
 protest was sent to ' ' James Bell, executor of the 
 last will and testament of M. A. Bell, I'erth," 
 and received by the husband, who resided with 
 his children in the house which his deceased wife 
 had occupied. No letters of administration had 
 been granted : — Held, that the notice was suth- 
 nient, and the interest of the husband as tenant 
 by the curtesy was directed to be exhausted be- 
 fore resorting to the estate of the rliildren in re- 
 mainder. The costs of the infant defendants 
 were to be added to the plaintiti'V claim, anil 
 paid out of the estate if not realized against the 
 liusband. Il>. 
 
 Held, per Burton, J., at the trial, that the 
 defendant Catharine, wlio joined in the note 
 ■with her husband, the other defendant, was not, 
 under the facts stated in the rept)rt, possessed of 
 separate estate, and was therefore not liable, not- 
 withstanding her admission endorsed on the note 
 that the payee had advanced the money on the 
 faith of such separate estate. Bell v. liiddcll, 2 
 O. R. 25. 
 
 In an action against a marrieil woman, mar- 
 ried in 1871. on a promissory note made by her, 
 the only property she was proved to have was a 
 right to dower in certain land owned Ity a former 
 husband. .Judgment was entered for the plain- 
 tiff for the amount of his claim, with a direction 
 for the recovery of tlie same out of the separate 
 property then and at the date of tlie making of 
 the note vested in defendant, or in any j)erson in 
 trust for her, with which amount sueii separate 
 estate was chargec'. Wallacv v. HutchiKon, 3 O. 
 R. .S98.— C. P. I). 
 
 A creditor's rights against a married woman 
 debtor are determined by the statute at the 
 time the debt is contracted ; and cannot l)e en- 
 larged by the debtor subsetiuently becoming a 
 widow. Rt McLeod v. Emiqh, 12 P. l\. 450.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 To entitle a plaintiff to recover judgment on a 
 contract entered into by a married woman it is 
 necessary for him to shew that at the time the 
 contract was entered into by her she owned 
 separate estate in respect of which she is entitled 
 by statute to contract. Moort v. Jacknon, 16 
 A. R. 431. 
 
 The defendant, a married woman endorsed 
 certain notes held bythenlaintiff and wrote liini 
 the following letter ; " I ludd 400 acres of laiK) 
 near W. which is worth 9.^3,000 and is all in my 
 own name and right. By y<mr renewing of tlie 
 note for $1,. 500 and the other for $000 I pledge 
 myself solemnly to <lo nothing to affect my 
 interest in the said lands either by deed or iiKirt. 
 gage unless said notes are paid to yon in full." 
 The notes and the letter were proved at the Iri.il 
 and the examination of the defendant before lli<. 
 trial in which she stated that at the tiini' hIiu 
 signed the notes she owned i)roperty on her own 
 account was also put in. There was no eviilciice 
 as to the date of the niairiage of the defeinl.uil 
 or as to the mode in which the property wiis 
 held by her : — Held, reversing the decision of 
 Boyd, ('. , that there was not sulHcient evidence 
 to entitle the plaintiff to recover, /h. 
 
 Upon a motion by the plaintiffs for suiniuiiiy 
 judgment aijainst a married woman under I 'mi. 
 Rule 730; — Held, foUowing Moore r. .Jackson, 
 16 A. R. 431, that the plaintilfs were bouml to 
 prove the existence of some separate properly at 
 the time of entering into the alleged coiitiiiel, 
 and that this was not shewn by the atlidavit ; 
 and the motion for judgment was refused. Ckhu- 
 ditin liaiik <•/ Comiiierri v. W'oudeock, 13 1'. K. 
 242. — Ferguson. 
 
 .See Amhrouc v. Fraxev, 14 O. K. 551, p. S77. 
 
 (b) Ilusbaml'i C'on/racU. 
 
 Plaintiff agreed with .J. R. to build a house 
 on certain land for .*>850. After building the 
 house he discovered that the land belonged not 
 to J. R. but to J. R.'s wife, who, at the time of 
 the agreement, was an infant, and was in no 
 way a party to it. Afterwards .J. R. and his 
 wife sold and conveyed the land and house to 
 M., an innocent purchaser. The plaintiff was 
 only paid a portion of the SSoO, and now brought 
 this action to recover the balance from the wife 
 of .1. R., or the amount by which the buiiiling 
 hid enhanced the value of the land :— Held, 
 tl .at inasmuch as there was no property or fund 
 transferred or settled upon the wife that would 
 have been liable to seizure by a creditor, the 
 plaintiff could not recover against her. Kiwaid 
 V. Head, 7 O. R. 12. —Ferguson. 
 
 In 1849 W. F. married A. F. without marri- 
 age settlement. In 1872 \V. F. entered into ii 
 covenant for himself, his heirs and assigns, us 
 lessor of certain lands, to pay, at the expiration 
 of the lease, for a certain malthouse, wiiicli the 
 lessee was to have liberty to erect, and did erect 
 upon the demised pKiinises.. Pending the term 
 \V. F. conveyed the reversion in such a way 
 that it became vested in himself and \V. na 
 trustee, as to the whole lioiieticial interest for 
 A. F. :— Held (atlirming the decision of Fergu- 
 son, J., 1'-' O. R. 459), that the separate estate 
 of A. F. was not bound by the covenant, though 
 she was eijuitablc owner of the reversion as 
 above mentioned at the time of the erection of 
 the malthouse, and until the expiration of the 
 lease. Per Boyd, C. — Whether the covenant was 
 one that ran with the land or not, and whether 
 A. F. or her trustees were assignees within the 
 meaning of 32 Hen. VIII. c. 34, or not, priv- 
 ity of estate is not tantamount to privity of con- 
 
 to that ca 
 goods fro 
 is-sue to ( 
 execution 
 the evide 
 did it ap 
 L'incinna 
 hut that I 
 deemed 
 proteetioi 
 also, that 
 Hamilton 
 put into I 
 ness, tho 
 L'vlni, 
 
 Hchl, 
 Woman ii 
 occupatio 
 separatel; 
 a.s if she 
 without 
 of equity 
 party. 
 
 Where 
 made by 
 ture, and 
 made in 
 dant wii 
 from hei 
 
87& 
 
 877 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 878 
 
 p. S77. 
 
 tract 80 as without more to afluct tlie 8i)i)arate 
 estate of a inurriud woman, ah if hIic had us])L'ui- 
 ally coiitractful with refurenco thereto. Am- 
 hw V. Fm»,',; 14 0. U. 551.-Cliy. U. 
 
 Wlifii the sale of real CHtate hy th»! wife, duly 
 separated hh to property from her husltaiid, to 
 hei' lui«band'H ereditoris shewn to iuixv. lieen iii- 
 teniled to operate an a Meenrity only for the l)ay- 
 inent of her husliand'H dehts, .such a Hale will he 
 Bel aside aw a eontravention of Art. lUOl C C. 
 (p. Q.) Klovk V. Chainliertiii, 15 S. C". K. U'-'o. 
 
 (c) ScparalK Trailiiiij. 
 
 \\ here a wife had purchaNcd the estate of 
 lier Imslianil, who had heuonu- in.'folvent, and 
 thereafter authorized him hy power of attorney 
 to manage the same fur her, and to make |iromis- 
 sory notes in and alxiut the said business: —Held, 
 that notwithstanding the jxiwer of attorney the 
 real seope of the hiishand's agency could he as- 
 oeitaineil from any admissilile evidence, and 
 there was sutlieient to justify a linding that tlu^ 
 husli;nn) had authority to sign the notes in (pies- 
 tion which wei'e given to creditors fora dohtdue 
 iK-fore his insolvency, ('uo/iirv. Hlwkloi'k, f) 
 A. K. r).S5. 
 
 The plaintiff, a niirried woman, was nuiiried 
 in Cmcinnati, (lliin, i-i October, IH7H, without 
 any marriage settlement, and not possessed of 
 any separate estate except ahout .'J'JtM). n»!r 
 Imsliand carried on business there \intil Oecem- 
 her, 1.S78, when he failed, ami an assignee was 
 appointed. The phiintilf claimed that she then 
 pureliaseil the stock from the assigiu-e, and 
 carried on a busines.s, similar to that cairied on 
 by her husband, on herown behalf and .separately 
 from him. Sul»,se(|uently she renuived to Ham- 
 ilton, where her husband hail j)icviously gone, 
 and the goods which remained unsold were sent 
 to fjamilton, where with them she coniinenced 
 and carried on, as she claimed, a similar business 
 to that carried on in Cincinnati, purchasing new 
 goods from time to time. Upon an interpleader 
 is.sue to try her right to these goods as against 
 execution creditors of her husband : — Hehl, on 
 the evidence set out in the report, that not only 
 did it a])pcar that the business carried on in 
 Cincinnati by the wife was in fact tht husband's, 
 but tliat according to the law of Ohio it must be 
 deemed to he such in the ah.sence of an order of 
 protection, which was the ca.se hero : — Held, 
 also, that the business subsequently carried on in 
 H.miilton, although §400 of her money had been 
 put into it was also in fact the husband's busi- 
 ness, though carried on in the wife's name. 
 Lerim v. Clafliii, 31 C. P. 000.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Held, that ilobts contracted l)y a married 
 woman in carrying on a business (U'emph>ynient, 
 occupation or trade, on her own behalf, or 
 separately from her husliand, may be sued for 
 as if she were an uninarrieil woman ; that is, 
 without regard to separate estate such as courts 
 of equity recognize as that particular class of pro- 
 perty. ' Ikrry v. Zni.i, 32 C. P. 231.— Wilson. 
 
 Where to a declaration on a promissory note 
 made by a married woman she pleaded cover- 
 ture, and the plaintiffs replied that the note was 
 made in respect of a business in which defen- 
 dant was employed on her own behalf separate 
 from her husband, but diil not allege that she 
 
 -Held, that the replica- 
 
 had separate [iroporty ; 
 tton was good. ih. 
 
 ]J. tfdd the plaintiff that having failed he was 
 unable to carry on business in his own name, 
 and ordereil goods to he shipped to the defen- 
 dant, his wife, who was carrying on business as 
 a grocer, either on his or her order, the account 
 to be opened in her name. (Joods were shipped 
 accordingly upon onlers of the husband, and on 
 one order of the defendant, anil Itills were drawn 
 upon the defendant and accepted by her or in her 
 name l)y herauthority. She had separate estate : 
 — Held, Hagarty, ('. .1., dissenting, that the 
 idaintilfwas entitled to recover. Per Cameron, 
 J., the defendant was liable, being possessed of 
 separate estate, whether the goods were bought 
 by her m- by her husband. In the latter case she 
 would be siu'ety for her husband as acceptor of 
 hills drawn upon her for the price of the goods. 
 Per Hagarty, C. J., the goods were bought hy 
 the hus1>anil, and the liability was his and not 
 the wife's, her name being used merely to shield 
 him fi-om his creditors, and the plaintilV being 
 aware of this ; therefore the defendant was not 
 lialdc to him. //iw/h v. JSaiiii:, '_> O. R. 302.— 
 Q P.. I). 
 
 In an inter]>leailer issue to tiythe right to 
 certain goods seized under an execution against 
 A. and claimed by 1!., his wife, it appeared that 
 since their marriage a store business had been 
 carried on in the name of tlie wife, and that 
 fre(|uent trades and tran.sactions in real estate 
 had also taken place in her name, but that in 
 most of them the husband was the l)ar^ainor, 
 and it was only when the bargains had to lie 
 carried out that the wife appeared in them ; that 
 the husband kept the store books, which she 
 said she did not know much aliout, as she was 
 no scholar; that the husband made nearly all 
 the purchases of stock, and sold goods, and spoke 
 and acted as if he were the owner; that he was 
 not in receipt of wages, bvit took what money 
 he wanted out of the store when he pleased, and 
 in the transaction out of which the judgment 
 and execution arose under which th<! stock was 
 seized, he opened the negotiation by a letter 
 signed by himself, referring to the property he 
 offered in trade as his property, and when the 
 bargain was closed took a deed of the store in 
 his own name, and gave back a mortgage and 
 his own note for the balance due. The jury, in 
 the face of the juilge's charge in favour of the 
 execution creditor, found that the stock was the 
 pi'opcrty of the wife, that she did not act fraudu- 
 lently, and that she carried on business sepa- 
 rate from her husband. Upon a motion to the 
 Chancery Divisional Court to set aside the ver- 
 dict, and to enter a verdict for the defendant, 
 or for a nonsuit, or for a new trial, on the ground 
 tliat the verdict was contrary to the evidence 
 and to the direction of the judge, and perverse, 
 and that it was against the weight of the evi- 
 dence, it was :— Held, that the business was not 
 one protected by U. S. O. (1877), c 125, s. 7; 
 that the verdict could not be sustained ; and 
 under Rule 321, O. J. Act and U. S. O. (1877). c. 
 50, s. 383, it was set aside and judgment entered 
 for the defendant. Murray r. McCallum,8A. 
 R. 277, referred to and distinguished. C'mnp- 
 hdl V. Coh, 7 O. H. 127.— Chy. D. 
 
 The plaintiff, a married woman, carried on 
 business as an hotel-keeper, and owned the 
 
■PM 
 
 879 
 
 HUBBAlfD AND WIFE. 
 
 c < 
 
 !5; 
 
 »' 
 
 ■ 1% 
 
 >; 
 
 CK. 
 
 •%m 
 
 M^H, 
 
 
 «<li! 
 
 .. » 
 
 IMM> 
 
 
 ■MS. 
 
 ' ; 
 
 rv'^ 
 
 t' 
 
 ••'^i ] 
 
 4 
 
 
 •-e; 
 
 ;,! 
 
 I'hattt'lH ill thi! Iiottil. Tliu dufunilant, liur Iiiih- 
 luiiiil, intui'ft'icd with tliu pliiiiitiit' in iicr himi- 
 ntnH iiy tiikiiij; tin; iitci'iplH, ^ivili^j oriicTN to 
 Hc'i'viiiitN, iiiiil iiialli'itiitiii^ tliu pliiiiiliir. All in- 
 iiiiiL'tiiiii wiiH ^riiiili'il i'o,stniiiiiii>; tlii^ ilt^friiiliiiit 
 I'niiii iiitrifiiiiij; in llu! Im.sincHH, or « itii tlii! nit- 
 viiniN, or ii^ciitH, or ri^noviiiK iiiiy of tlu^ iiluiii- 
 titl'H (•li,itt<^lH: Sciiililr, llmt, if iiski'd for, an 
 iiijiiiictioii iiii^lit iilxo liav<' liccii ('runted cxidiiil- 
 lU'ft'iidiint from tliu hotel under tlie eir- 
 
 Ituiniilhl V. Doiimllji, 1) (). K. 
 
 ilij^ th 
 ciiniHtHnceH 
 iVtW. — lioHe, 
 
 In oilier tliiil tlie property of ii innrried wo 
 iiiMii u III! ('urncs on u liiiHiiieHs for heiNelf may 
 he prulecled from exceiitioiiH a;.'aiiiHt her iiim- 
 Iriiid, it iH not lueesNarv tliat Hhe hIioiiIiI live 
 separate ai'd apart from her hiiHliand, or that 
 the liiisjneHs Nhoiild he curried on in a lioiiNe 
 other than that in wliieh the liiishunil uikI \m 
 wife reMidu. Atiirrnif v. MrUa/liim, H A. U. '277. 
 
 Tlie plaint ill', who wax )i>>HHe.MHed of a Niiin of 
 money (iihoiit ••*.'l(l()), felt diKHutiHlied with her 
 hilidialiii's maiia^'emeilt of his liiiKineHS, hix goods 
 having lieeii sold under exeeiiticiii for di^ht 
 wliiLst r< siding on a rented farm, tlie sale not 
 reali/iiiL' siillieieiit lo pay the arrears of rent 
 and his delits ; leaving, in fact, unpaid the delil 
 for which the dereiidant in tlie present action 
 had olilained exeiiition. The linsliand had liter- 
 ally no means, ami the plaiiitiU'residved to start 
 hotel keeping, and ugrtu'd to give her hiishand 
 !j<l,") a month for his services as harkeeper, the 
 duties of which he discharged, and resiiled with 
 her in the hotel. It was shewn that whilst thus 
 engaged she hail two jiartneis in carrying on the 
 hotel ImsincHS. The defemlant seized the goods 
 ill tli(^ hotel, ami in an interpleader issue u ver 
 diet was rendered in favour of the jilaintin, 
 w liicli the court in Imno refused to set aside. ( In 
 appeal to this court : - Tfeld, jier Spragge, ('..I., 
 and ('anieron,.!., that the facts shewed the (ilaiii- 
 tiir to have had a separate trade or occupation 
 within the .Act, th(^ liushund not having the con- 
 trol of the liiisiness, hut heiiig IiIiimI lor a |iar- 
 ticuhir duty. I'cr iiiirton, i). A., it was not in- 
 tended that there should he iin em|iiiry under the 
 Actus to the hoiia lides of such t lans.ietions ; 
 hut tliiit thi^ hict of the hiishiiiid's interference 
 with the coiicurnnce of the wife, depriveil it at 
 once of its separate character. I'cr ISurton and 
 Pattcr.soii, .1.1. .\., that the interference of the 
 Inishand w itii the husiness, us shewn hy the evi- 
 dence, wus such in reality as to prevent its heing 
 t rcatcd .18 the separute business of the plaiiitill'. 
 
 A married woman carried on husiness in her 
 own name, the husiness being managed for her 
 by \h'V husband. Kor the jiurposc of the busi- 
 ness she ])urcliu.sed the goods constituting her 
 stoek-iii-trade. and which the vendors sold to 
 her upon her credit exclusively, and not to her 
 hu.sbaiid : — Held, atiirniing the decision of the 
 C. R I). , (14 O.H. 468), that even though the husi- 
 ness might not be the business of the wife, car- 
 ried on by her separately from her husband, 
 within the ineaning of section 7, so as to pro- 
 tect the earnings from her husband's creditors, 
 the goods so sold to the wife were her own pro- 
 perty, under section 5 of the Act, and were not 
 liable to be taken in execution at the suit of the 
 husband's creditors. Whether this would be so 
 with regard to goods purchased, and to be paid 
 
 for out of earning of Munh a liUHineiM: Quierv. 
 />iimiiii()u Sariiii/M iiiiil luveMinent Sur.'uiy v. 
 Kilrui/, 15 A. K.*4H7. 
 
 The defendant, u married woman, married tii 
 her present huHbund in IH77, or IH7S, and car- 
 rying on business separately from him by funn- 
 ing one of her former hiisb.incrs farms, in |SH,'{ 
 and ISS4, contracted the debt sued on. .Sim 
 was eiititle<l to dower in the lands of her tiiHt 
 hii.Hbaiid, who died in IH7'>, which were solil, 
 reali/.ing a laru'e sum, and also to her sh.ire in 
 his personal estate, neither of which she liml 
 reciiveil : Held, that (he Act of |,S,S4, 47 Vid. 
 c. I!) (Out.), had not the ellect ol repealing; 
 the prior .Acts, and that it «as not necessary tii 
 shew that the difiiidant had marrieil, or liail 
 acipiired separ.ile estate since the .Act of lSS4 
 came into lorci^ that it was siitliciently sin \vn 
 that slu! wnti |iossessi'd of sepuiute estate', .iinl 
 that she intended it slioiild be lioiind. Tliu 
 plaiiitill' was, theridoic, held eiititliMl to have 
 judgment against it. IIdIh rlsun v. Lun/Ci/iir, IN 
 (). K. 4l>!l. Mai'.Mahon. 
 
 K. S. (». (ISS7), c. I.T2, s. r., subs. 1, inakca 
 the earnings of a married woman in a traih' or 
 occupation in which In r husband has no pm 
 prietarv interest separate property. //). 
 
 See <lnjliii v. I'ullrr.i,i„, 4.') Q. II. MC, p.874; Jte- 
 i/ina V. Ciivi/iliiil/, 8 1*. K. f)5, \t. 880. 
 
 ."i. IJnhilit}/ for Tortx. 
 
 Where the plaintiH' proved a joint wrongful 
 occupation iukI eonversioii of the rents and |irn- 
 lits of his land by a husband and wife: llt^lil, 
 that the husband and wife were jointly liable to 
 tlu^ ]il;iiiitill', iiiid tlu^ plainliir was entitled to 
 iccover against the separatt: property of the 
 wife, for it could not. be inferred that the lattir 
 was acting under the direction or coi^rcioii ef 
 her hiisband so as to exempt her from liability. 
 /iaibrw nVstiirn; r,0. It. IKi. IJoyd. 
 
 .\ bear belonging to one of the defendants 
 escaped from premises, tlu^ sc|iai'.ite |)roperty "f 
 his wife, tlii' other dcrendant, where it hud hceii 
 confined by him without objection from her, and 
 attacked .'11^1 injured the idaintifT on a jnililic 
 street : -Held, that the wife having under II. 
 S. (). (1887) c. l.H'i, ss. :{ and 14, all the rights 
 of a feme sidi; in respect of her sepanite property, 
 might have had the bear removed theretroiii, 
 and not having done so she was liable to the 
 plaintiff' for the injury compl.iined of. The 
 ))rinciple of Kletcher i: Hylands, L. H. I Kx. 
 ■-'8J, L. R. ;{ H. L. ;{:«), apiilied. Shaw v. Ak- 
 (Jriuni, l!»0. K. ;»9.— Cliy. 1). 
 
 C. Jmhimenl ami Exeadion. 
 
 In an action in a Division Court against a mar- 
 ried woman on a proinissoiy .note, the existence 
 of scfiarate real estate was proved, but no evi- 
 deneo was given of any separate personal estate. 
 Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, theanioiiiit 
 thereof to be paid out of the separate property 
 she had when the note was made. Per W ilson, 
 C. J. The Married Woman's Act is eomjilietl 
 with by a general judgnient or by a general judg- 
 ment against her separate property, and under 
 such judginent after acquired separate personal 
 
881 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 |ir(i|i(!i'ty ciiti Irti folldwuil. I'oi'OhIi^i, •). A mar- 
 rii'il woiiiuirH Hi'piiruto |i<m'H(iiuiI cHtivtc, liiit nut 
 lior real I'Htatt!, may liu <^liarui!cl aii<l moIiI iiikIii- 
 a jiiil^'iiKiiil a^.iiiiHt \wv in tlir DiviHiuii Court, 
 Till' iiiiii^Hioii til jirovci till! fxiMtciH'i! nf hmcIi 
 »(!|iaiat(i iHTNoniilentatr, tlinii^li it may lit- ui't!<'il 
 iiH a il»'f<"iic(', iliM^H nut all'i'1'1 tlic jiiiiHiliilidn. 
 I'riiliiliitiiin was tlicrrforc rcfiiHt'd. /n rr iViil- 
 ,myn-\. MrMahon, WiV. I'. IS7.--C'. I*. I). 
 
 Tlii^ oriKiicil lU'iiL't'Hf) ill tlic ai'timi \saA himvimI 
 ii|ii>ii llii^ilt'fi'iKiaiil, tliu marncil wiimaii, |MM'hiiii' 
 iilly; kIioxwoic that hIiii iiauilt'il it to lit r IiiihIiuhI, 
 hut iii'Vi'i' ailtliiii'i/.cil any our tii art fur licr as 
 milifitor. Slu! was not prooodtnl aj^ainst as a 
 iiiarrii')! wuinaii. I)., an attorin^y, aiipi'ircil for 
 \\vx anil lirr liiislianil, anil jiiilu'ini'iit was si^jiiril 
 a;{aiMMt liiith •h^l'itnilants liy coiihciiI nf I)., as Iiim' 
 atliiriii'V, on an urili'r inaili' in I'iiaiiilicrs in IH'ri. 
 Kxoiiition was at onci! issiu'd uiicli'r llm jihIk- 
 iiifiit, and tho |it!rsonal pri)|icrty of tlii^ fciiialc 
 ilifi'iidaiit was Kii,'.i'il and sold liy I lie sliriiU'i 
 witlioiit c'oin))!aiiit Iroin lirr. \l a|>|><iai'iMl tliat | 
 lit tli(^ till II' of till' ronnncni'i'incnt of tlii^ suit tin- 1 
 iniiirird woman had an inti'iosh in critain real ' 
 istati' wliicli sliiMiiid lior linshainl coiivi'yiMl away 
 iiftcr ai'tion liioiii^lit and lict'ori' jiid^'ini'iit. No, 
 iillid.ivil fioiii till' mall' drfi'iidaiit nor from I)., 
 till' attorney, was tilrd : Meld, lliat altrr tlicv 
 Imij; laiwi' of timr and undertint ciiciimstaiu'cs 
 sliewn tlii^ jndnini'iit sliould not lie sit aside. 
 ,l/./.i((H V. Smith, 10 V. H. 14.5. - Dalton, Mnsl.r. j 
 
 \ jiidgniL'nt against a marrii^d woman liy 
 virliRMif till! Marriiid Woman's I'l'opi'rty .\ct ; 
 cri'iilt's no ;,'i'iiiral personal lialiility, Imt merely \ 
 i,iiarf,'i's lier separate e.^tat^! : and tlie provisions 
 iif section 177 of the Division ('oiirts Act, K. S. 
 0. (IS77). e. 47, as ami'iided liy 4:{ N'iet. e. 8, 
 tdut'iiiiij,' the examination of jiidf^nieiit delilors, 
 iuu not '.iipliealile to a married woman aj;aiiist 
 whom judgment lias heeii olitained in the Di- \ 
 visidii Court, and even if lialile to lie eximined, I 
 such a person is not lialde to he eoinmitted to ' 
 Kiial under seetion IS'2. Metropolitan L. k S. | 
 Ti). i; Mara, S I*. K. \\Tt7\, distinguished. A'< l 
 Mi-Limlw h:ml<ih, \'1V. It. 450.— ('. 1'. I). ] 
 
 .ludgineiit under Con. Rule 7.'50. -.S"*'- Jfiii;- j 
 
 MF.NT. 
 
 .See DiiHiikix v. /fiilr/iisoii, 12 A. K. 110, p. I 
 871; Camiiliaii lUtiih ol' ('<imiii<rcf v. Wooilroi-IcA 
 n v. 11. 242, ji. .S7(i. ' I 
 
 7. lAahUlty lo ArreHt or Commitment. 
 
 Helil, that the defendant was li.alilc to eom- 
 iiiittal for contempt in not attending to ho ex- 
 amined as a jiidginoiit dehtor, although she was 
 a niarried woman and the judgment was one for 
 costs. Her imprisonment under such committal 
 would not he an iniprisoninent for nonpayment 
 of costs. Pearmii V. Riwrij, 12 P. J!. 4(iG.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 See Afftropn/ifnii Loan mid Savini/s Co. v. 
 .Vom, 8 P. I!. S.-iS, p. 085; He AtcLeod'v. Eviiqh, 
 12 P. R. 450, mpra. 
 
 8. Quarantine. 
 
 Held, that the right of a dowress to occupy 
 
 the mansion house during her days of quarantine 
 
 « not merely a personal right, but that she is 
 
 entitled to have reasonable and proper attend- 
 
 56 
 
 M\i'i< luid eompanioiiNliip, and an action will 
 Ihen^fore lie fur the eviction of Riii'li (Miinpnninii 
 or atti'udant. I^iicon v. Knur, H O. K. 4r>:V 
 <'. P. 1). 
 
 I.\. DkM.INIIS IIKTWKKN Mi'SllAMi ANI> W'iKK. 
 
 I. til w ml/ 1/. 
 
 'I'lie widow of tile intestate elaiined against 
 his estate a siiiii of .•:i!700, wliieh she alleged he 
 hiid liorriiwed from her after Inr marriagi', and 
 alioutten years liefore his deal h, fur the purpose 
 of liuyiiig a stock in-trade. The money w.is de- 
 posited in a li.'ink at the time ol liie niarria;,e, 
 ^\liieli took place ln'for.! IlieC .S. II. ('. i:. 73; • 
 lli'ld, )ier Proiidloot, V.C, that the ('. S. U. ( '. 
 e. 7't, gave her i he right to assert her proprietor- 
 ship as against her hiisliaiid, and us inciilent 
 tiieieto the light to liriiig a suit against him ; to 
 which proieeilings however the Statute of l.iiiii- 
 litions was a har. A'c Lmrs Lmis v. I.iui'i, "Js 
 Cliy. .■IS'J. 
 
 Where liy an iiirreement licfort; mirriigemade 
 in Moiitre;il lietween the intending liusliaiiil and 
 wife, it was piovidi'd that each shcnild iiiioy all 
 property, real and personal, which <'illier might 
 possess at tie time of, or aeipiire during the 
 marri.iife, in any way as his or her sepaiate 
 property, anil should have the ahsolnte (tiintrol 
 and iiianagenieiit thereof frei! from thedelits and 
 demands of the other, and after marriage the 
 wife aeipiired certain land of which slu; and lier 
 huslianii executed a niortgaee, and the wife con- 
 veyed to the husliand in fee : -Held, that liy the 
 agreement the land was vested in the wife as lior 
 proper separate estite, and there was no ineon- 
 griii'tv in the husliand lieing the grantee of the 
 wife.' (tudeii .'. .McArtliur, :<(i t,». It. \iM\. ilis- 
 tingnished. Sainlirnv. A/iil^liiir'/, I (). K. 178.— 
 lioyd. 
 
 A. lieing alioul to sella certain property, and 
 in order loinduce his wife, li., lo liar lieidower, 
 entered into an agreement iiinler seal, lliat all 
 money to lie received as purchase money for ihu 
 same, as well as .ill rents leceivcil from a i.ertaiii 
 firm of .\.'.s should lie invested in the joint 
 names of A. and oin; C, and the iiieouic paid 
 over liy C, who was authorized to draw the 
 same, to B. ''as she may rei|uiru it for the 
 maintenance of A. and H. and their family ;" — 
 FFeld, a valid agreement, and not opjioscd to 
 pnlilie policy. I,ai'i)i v. Loriii, ~ (). K. 187. — 
 Prcudfoot. 
 
 Chattel mortgage and hill of sale given liy hua- 
 hand to his wife for advances made to him out 
 of her separate estate. — Change of |)ii.sses3ioii. — 
 Fraudulent prelcrence. Sec Tolle.it </. Uuiveii, 8 
 A. R. tiO'J. 
 
 A husliand, on 'Jiid September, 1885, by deed 
 of bargain and sale, m.ade in pursuance of the Act 
 respecting short forms of conveyances, conveyed 
 to his wife certain lands, the consideration being 
 " natural love and atreetionand .^5," the receipt 
 of the consideration being also admitted in the 
 deed, besides the usual m.uginal receipt of the 
 $5 ; habendum to the wife, her heirs and assigns 
 for her and their sole and only use forever : — 
 Held, that the evident intention of the owner 
 might be given effect t<i, as far at least as the 
 beneficial interest in the property was concerned, 
 and an order was, therefore, maile vesting in the 
 

 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 t Iffi 112.0 
 
 III i.8 
 
 11.25 il.4 III 1.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 wm 
 

 f/j 
 
 1^ 
 
'-jj^CB^ 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 884 
 
 885 
 
 wife all the estate and interest of the husband at ! 
 the date of this deed to her. Whitehead v. I 
 Whitehead, 14 0. R. 621.— Proudfoot. | 
 
 A conveyance direct from husband to wife is j 
 not iiecess.arily void to all intents and purposes ; 
 in equity it may be valid. Jones v. McOrtith, 
 
 15 O. R. 189.— Chy. D. See 1{. S. O. (1887) c. 
 100 8. 5. 
 
 Tlie defendant being ..he owner of the equity 
 of redemption in certain lands, executed a deed 
 on October 18th, 1884, purporting to convey 
 thcni directly to his wife for a consideration of 
 SlOO, tiie i-^ceipt of which was acknowledged in 
 the margin and in the body of the deed. The 
 plaintiff, i,'a.^ claimed by conveyance from the 
 wife, br' h *'liis action to recover possession 
 from th il.fendant, who contended that the 
 deed to his wife had been mr\de without consid- 
 eration, and w."s, therefore, void. The plaintiff 
 purchased b'.-N. fide witliout notice of there 
 iiaviup been : ideraMon : — Held, that under 
 49 Vict. e. 'I' .'■ ;<)nt.), the acknowledgment 
 of the consKn . /i n in the deed authorized the 
 plaintiff to deal -.'i the footing of its having 
 been paid upon execution of it, and the defen- 
 dant could not now dispute the consideration. 
 Jones V. McOrath, (2) 16 O. R. 617.— Chy. D. 
 
 40 Vicl. c. 20, s. 10 (Ont.), is not to be re- 
 stricted to claims upon alleged vendors' liens 
 and the like. Jb. 
 
 Semble, that even if the deed in question were 
 to be considered voluntary and without consider- 
 ation, the authorities though not at all in unison, 
 were sufficient to support a judgment in the 
 plaintiffs favour, inasmucli as he had at all 
 events a good title in equity, which was now 
 sufficient. lb. 
 
 Claim by wife of insolvent for money lent and 
 used in his business. See Warner v. Murray, 
 
 16 S. (J. R. 720. 
 
 See aiasa v. Burt, 8 O. R. 391, p. 836. 
 See also Subhead XI., 3, p. 884. 
 
 X. Husband'.s Liabilities. 
 1. For Wife's Necensaries. .' 
 
 The defendant's wife, who had been supported 
 by tiie plaintiff with the defendant's consent, 
 returned to her husband's home, but was turned 
 out of the house by him, whereupon the plain- 
 tiff again took charge of and supported her: — 
 Hehl. that the defendant, by turning his wife 
 out of his house, sent her forth as his delegated 
 agent to pledge his credit for tlie necessaries of 
 life suitable to her position, and that the plain- 
 tiff was therefore entitled to assert a claim 
 against the defendant for his expenses in so sup- 
 porting the defendant's wife. And such claim 
 can be maintained up to the date of a judgment 
 allowing alimony to the defendant's wife, 
 Hwihfx V. liei'H, 10 P. R. 301.— Hodgins, Master- 
 in-Ordinary. 
 
 Held, that a foreign judgment for alimony, put 
 an end to any implied liability on the husband's 
 part to pay for his wife's maintenance subse- 
 quently to the date from which alimony was to 
 be paid under such judgment. S. C, 9 0. R. 
 198. -Proudfoot. 
 
 2. On Contracts Made by Wife. 
 See (lrt,lfin v. Patterson, 45 Q. B. 536, p. 874. 
 
 XI. Actions ani> PKocEEDiNds by and against, 
 
 1. WifeSuinij by Next Friend. 
 
 When a married woman filed a bill in respect 
 of property acquired by lier after tlie passing of 
 33 Vict. c. 16 (the 2nd day of March, 1872,) she 
 is not, though married before that date, required 
 to sue ))y a next fi-iend. Leave was given to 
 strike out the n.ime of a next friend, where one 
 had been named by mistake, and an order liad 
 been obtained retjuiring security for costs. Shrl- 
 hjl v. Oorin;/, 8 P. 1!. 36. Stephens, Referee.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 \Vliero a married woman, married before tlio 
 passing of 3.5 Vict. c. 16, (2nd March, 1872), 
 files a bill in respect of property, whether ac- 
 quired before or after that date, slie is requircil 
 to sue by a next friend. Shelley r. Goring, 8 P.R. 
 36, referred to. OoUfrey v. Harrison, 8 P. R. 
 272.— Stephens, Referee. 
 
 In an action by a married woman comnienoeil 
 before the O. J. Act, it was held oi^ demurrer 
 that the plaintiff must sue by next friend, ami 
 an order was made accordingly. Subsequently, 
 and after the passing of the O. J. Act, the next 
 friend became insolvent. On an application to 
 the master in chambers for the appointment nf 
 a new next friend, he made an order for sucli 
 appointment, which was affirmed on appeal liy 
 Proudfoot, ■!., he holding that he was bound liy 
 the previous order: that even although under 
 the O. J. Act, Rule 97, a married woman may 
 sue in respect of her separate estate without a 
 next friend, by Rule 484 tiiis was not to apply 
 to pending business. On appeal to the Divi- 
 sional Court the judgment of Proudfoot, J. (10 
 P. R. 86), was affirmed. Per Rose, J. , that there 
 was no evidence to shew tiiat the woman had 
 separate estate when tiie order appealed from 
 was made. Webster \. Leys, 5 O. R. 599.— C. 
 P. D. 
 
 See Vardon v. Vardon, 6 0. R. 719, infra. 
 
 3. Actions by Wife Against Husband. 
 
 Held (affinning the decision of Wilson, C. .1., 
 C. P. ), a married woman can not only bring an 
 action against her husband in her own name, hut 
 she can also compromise it, or deal with it as she 
 pleases, just as .-iny other suitor can; and if the 
 plaintiff and 'lefendant have agreed to certain 
 terms in settlement of such a suit, such contract 
 can be enforced against the defendant, by tlie 
 plaintiff suing in her own name without a next 
 friend. And so in the present case where, by 
 way of compromising such a suit, the parties to 
 it agreed that the plaintiff should execute a pro- 
 per deed of separation containing certain cove- 
 nants by her, in return for which the defendant 
 should convey to the plaintiff certain lands and 
 pay certain moneys : — Held, that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to specific performance of this 
 agreement ; that it was not the separation which 
 was being enforced, but the performance by the 
 defendant of his contract. Vardon v. Vardon, 
 6 O. R. 719.— Chy. D. 
 
885 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 A woman, married to her husband in 1880 
 without marriage settlement, afterwards advan- 
 ced certain moneys to him, which she now sought 
 to recover as money lent. She failed, however, 
 to prove a contract for repayment : — Held, that 
 slio could not recover. Hopkiivs v. Hopkins, 7 
 0. K. 224.— Ferguson. 
 
 During the trial M. A. D. obtained leave to 
 amend, and claimed to be allowed a sum of $1,- 
 500, which she alleged she had given to her hus- 
 band, the plaintiff, as a loan, and which was 
 employed in thp purchase of the property and 
 building thereon: — Held, that as no contract for 
 repayment was shewn, no security being taken 
 and no attempt having been made to collect the 
 amount, although many years had passed, the 
 ti-ansaction could not be treated as a loan, and 
 tiie wife could not recover or be allowed the 
 amount so claimed. Dufresnt v. Dufresne, 10 
 0. R. 773.— Ferguson. 
 
 The plaintiff and defendant, lier husband, were 
 inarried in February, 1865, the plaintiff then 
 owning the land in ijuestion in fee simple. The 
 defendant was then carrying on business, which, 
 at his wife's request, he sold out for $2,000, and 
 expended it on improving the said hnds. The 
 plaintiff and defendant resided together on the 
 lands until April, 1886, when they disagreed, 
 and the plaintiff left the premises, the defendant 
 and their only child continuing to reside thereon. 
 The plaintiff brought an action for possession, 
 and for use and occupation. No demand was 
 made prior to service of writ :— Held, following 
 Donnelly v. Donnelly, 9 O. R. 673, the plaintiff 
 was entitled to possession ; but could only re- 
 cover for the use and occupation since the service 
 of the writ:— Held, also, that the defendant 
 could not claim for the moneys expended by him 
 on the land. Till v. Till, 15 0. H. 133.— C. P. 
 U. 
 
 4. Olhet- Cases. 
 
 Slander of married woman — Special damage. 
 See Painter v. Solmes, 45 Q. B. 15, p. 509. 
 
 Evidence of husband and wife upon prosecu- 
 tion of husband for refusal to provide for family. 
 See Renina v. Bissell, 1 O. R. 514, p. 444 ; liegina 
 V. Afeyer, 11 P. R. 477, p. 445. 
 
 Application to restrain nuisance where the 
 title to property injured is in the wife. See 
 Hathaway v. Doif/, 6 A. R. 264, p. 924. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the County 
 Court, that notwithstanding R. S. O. (1877) c. 
 125, s. 20, a married woman is still entitled, 
 under 21 Jac. I. , c. 16, to bring an action in re- 
 spect of her separate property within six years 
 after becoming discovers. Carroll v. FUzaerald, 
 5 A. R. 322. 
 
 Action by husband on behalf of himself and 
 children against a railway company, claiming 
 damages under Lord Canipbell's Act for death of 
 wife. See Lttt v. St. Lawrence and Ottawa R. 
 W. Co., 1 O. R. 545; 11 A. R. 1 ; 11 S. C. R. 
 422. 
 
 The court has no authority to make a personal 
 order against a defendant, a married woman, 
 unless she has separate estate. Where a bill 
 prayed such a personal order but contained no 
 
 allegation as to separate estate, the order was re- 
 fused. G V. R , 9 P. R. 174.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A married woman was lessee of certain pre- 
 mises in which her husband sold liquor without 
 a license, contrary to the provisions of R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 181 :--Held, that she was liable to be 
 fined under section 83 of the Act, although the 
 sale of the liquor took place in her absence. 
 Rer/inav. Cam/jbell, 8 P. R. 55. — Hagarty. 
 
 Refusal of husband and wife to answer ques- 
 tions that might criminate each other in an 
 action of libel. See Millelte v. Litle, 10 P. R. 
 265. 
 
 Action to remove a cloud from the title to cer- 
 tain land of the plaintiff, a married woman, 
 whose husband when in embarrassed circum- 
 stances had bought the land and taken a convey- 
 ance in her name. The plaintiff had no separate 
 estate, and her Imsband was not a person of su))- 
 stance. There was no trust between tlie hus- 
 band and wife: — Hehl, Proudfoot, J., dissenting, 
 that although suing alone and without sepaiate 
 estate, a married woman is not required to give 
 security for costs. The only person who could 
 be plaintiff on the title was the wife, and her 
 husband could not be joined as a necessary or 
 even a proper party. The case did not come 
 within tne class of cases where a nominal insol- 
 vent plaintiff is put forward whilst the substan- 
 tial litigant keeps in the background in order to 
 avoid liability for costs ; and an order for 
 security for costs was set aside. McKay v. 
 Baker, 12 P. R. 341.— Chy. D. 
 
 Action by a married woman against the father, 
 mother, and brother of her husband for damages 
 for false representations made to her before 
 marriage as to the character and financial stand- 
 ing of her husband, and for entering into a 
 fraudulent conspiracy to induce the plaintiff to 
 enter into the marriage contract : — Held, that 
 the action being without precedent and contrary 
 to public policy was not maintainable. Brennen 
 V. Brennen, 19 O. R. 327.— Falconbridge. 
 
 See Connell v. Hickock, 15 A. R. 518, p. 180. 
 
 XII. Dked of Separation. 
 
 Semble, that a provision of a deed of separa- 
 tion that the maintenance secured to the wife 
 for life, and her children during their residence 
 with her, should continue notwithstanding a re- 
 newal of cohabitation, and that in the event of 
 parties again separating for any the like causes 
 as induced the first parting, the whole of the 
 provisions of tiie deed should revive, does not 
 render the deed void, on the ground that it is 
 contrary to the policy of the law, as being a 
 provision for future separation. Meredith v. 
 WiUiam-% 27 C ;. 154.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where a dv.jd after reciting an agreement for 
 separation between husband and wife ; that she 
 was to have the custody of the children until 
 twelve years old, and that he in consideration of 
 her releasing her dower in his lands, had agreed 
 to pay her a certain sum for her own and the chil- 
 dren's maintenance, secured to the wife for her 
 separate maintenance a yearly sum of $600, and 
 a further yearly sum of $2()0 for the mainte- 
 nance of each of the children so long as they 
 should continue in her custody, and providea, 
 
Ip ,3l^©S-.."J' .. »■ 
 
 887 
 
 HUSBAND AlfJ) WIFE. 
 
 888 
 
 e<ii 
 
 that in the event of a recunciliation taking place 
 the annuity fof the wife and allowance for tlie 
 children should not be thereby defeated or re- 
 voked ; and in case of any future separation of 
 the parties for any of the same causes (which 
 were such as to justify a separation), tlio whole 
 of tlie provisions of the deed should be revived 
 and be in full force :— Held, that such deed, 
 upon a fair construction of it, was not open to 
 objection as pioviding for a future separation ; 
 and, Senilile, if it haiTprovided tor such separa- 
 tion for the causes mentioned, it wi uld not have 
 been void. //;. 
 
 XIII. FOBEICN DrV'ORCE. 
 
 Where one obtained a divorce from his wife 
 in a forei{;n state, in which he was bona fide 
 domiciled, by proceedings of which notice was 
 served personally on the wife living here, which 
 were not collusive, nor contiar_ 'i natural jus- 
 tice, and for adultery on thewif 's part: — Held, 
 that entire credit must be given to the foreign 
 divorce in this province, although the wife at 
 the time of the divorce proceedings resided here, 
 for the domicile of the husl)and was the domicile 
 of the wife, and the validity of the divorce de- 
 pended on the law of t)ie domicile of the parties. 
 Outsl V. Oxest, .-} 0. R. 314.— Boyd. 
 
 In an action for alimony the defendant relied 
 upon a divorce granted on his own petition by 
 the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, 
 where he then resided ; tiie wife (the present 
 plaintiff) having made no defence thereto though 
 notified of the proceedings. It appeared that 
 the domicil of the husband at the ' nne of the 
 marriage and of the di\'orce was Canadian, 
 though the nuirriage was cele))rated at Detroit, 
 and the wife was an American citizen. It was 
 proved that the evidence of desertion by tiie 
 wife as alleged by tlie husljand, and on which the 
 decree for divorce was founded, was untrue : — 
 Held, that the decree, having been obtained on 
 an untrue statement of facts, and for a cause 
 not recognized by our law, could not be set up 
 as ii bar to the wife's claim for alimony :— Held, 
 also, that the non-feasance of the wife in failing 
 to appear or defend the action for divorce did 
 not amount to collusion on iier part so as to 
 estop her from impeaching the validity of the 
 decree made in that action. Maqurnx. Maijiirn, 
 II A. R. 178. 
 
 Held, affirming the decision of the Chancery 
 Division, 3 O. R. 570, and following Harvey v. 
 Farnie, -) P. D. 153; 6 P. D. 35; 8 App. Cas. 
 43, that the jurisdiction to divorce depends upon 
 the d micile of the parties, that is of the hus- 
 band — and this being Canadian, the Missouri 
 court had no jurisdiction. lb. 
 
 PerHagarty,C. J. 0.— -There is no safe ground 
 for distinction between domicile for succession, 
 and for matrimonial purposes, or a domicile by 
 reaideucc. Ih. 
 
 XIV. Ammony. 
 1. Writ of Arrest. 
 
 Where the plaintiff in an alimony suit obtains 
 a writ of arrest, and the defendant gives bail, 
 and a breach of the bond is committed, the plain- 
 tiff is entitled to have the amount for which the 
 
 writ was marked, paid into court, to be applied 
 from time to time in payment of the alimony and 
 costs : and — Semble, that upon such payment the 
 sureties are entitled to be discharged from their 
 bond. Needham v, Needham, 29 Chy. 117.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 2. Writ of Xe Exeat. 
 
 Where, in an alimony suit, the statutory bond 
 under a w»it of ne exeat has been given the 
 plaintiff is entitled to have the moneys deposited 
 as collateral security therefor paid into court 
 and applied in discharging arrears of alimony. 
 Hichnrdsnn v. Jiickurdnon, 8 P. R. 274. — Proud- 
 foot. — Spragge. 
 
 3. ParticiUarn. 
 
 The statement of claim in an alimony suit 
 contained the following clause : " The plaintiff 
 alleges and charges adultery on the jiart of the 
 defendant as a further ground for relief in the 
 premises." The plaintiff was ordered to give 
 particulars of the acts of adultery intended to be 
 ])roved within a month, and limited to those only 
 at the hearing. In default no evidence to be 
 given under the general charge. .Such an allega- 
 tion, without specifying particulars, is bad. 
 Rosemtadt v. Rommladt, 9 P. l{. 31 1. -Boyd. 
 
 4. 117(671 Granted. 
 (a) Desertion. 
 
 In consequence of a wife having disobeyed her 
 husband by visiting at the house of his brother- 
 in-law, the husband, during her absence, put 
 sundry chattels belonging 1o her outside the 
 <lwelling-hou8e, and locked the door: — Held, 
 that this was such an act of exclusion and ex- 
 pulsion by the husband its 'ntitled the wife to a 
 decree for alimony, indejiendently of the fact 
 that during such exclusion of the wife the hus- 
 band entered into a formal mai'riage with another 
 woman, with whom he continued to live until 
 after the institution of this suit ; and, Quuire, 
 whether adultery jjcr se by tlie husband is not a 
 ground entitling the wife to alimony. IJowty 
 v. Ilowfii, 27 Chy. 57.— Spragge. 
 
 In an alimony action the defendant in his de- 
 fence alleged that ho had refused, and still re- 
 fused to support the plaintiff by reason of her 
 having committed adultery with M. At the trial 
 it appeared that the plaintiff, on being charged 
 by the defendant with adultery, and ordered to 
 go away, left his house, though, before she actu- 
 ally departed, he forbade her to go. The defen- 
 dant persisted in the charge of adultery, but did 
 not attempt to prove it. The ])laintitl proved 
 none of the acts of violence alleged in her state- 
 ment of claim: — Held, that the statements in 
 the defence, taken in connection with the above 
 facts, must be treated as sufficient proof of de- 
 sertion on his part, and he must be taken to 
 have dispensed with the necessity for the plain- 
 tiff offering to return. Fen-is v. Ferris, 7 0. R. 
 496. -Osier. * 
 
 (b) Interim Alimony. 
 
 An application for interim alimony cannot be 
 made until defence is filed, or the time for filing 
 
HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 889 
 
 it has expired, Peck v. Peck, 9 P. R. 299.— 
 Dalton, Master, 
 
 A writ was issued in an alimony suit on 27th 
 December, 1882, and served on the 4th January, 
 1883. Tlie statement of claim was filed 11th 
 April, 1883, and a sittings of the court held on 
 2nd April, 1883. On the application of the 
 plaintiff on the 15th May, 1883, to the master iu 
 chambers, interim alimony was allowed her from 
 the Lst May, 1883, her delay in proceeding not 
 being satisfactorily accounted for. On appeal, 
 Boyd, C. , upheld the master's order. Thomp- 
 son V. Thumpson, 9 P. K. 526. — Boyd. 
 
 Interim alimony was stayed until the plaintiff 
 had produced on oath, books, papers, etc., be- 
 longing to her husband, which she had taken 
 with her when leaving his house, and which de- 
 prived him of the means of paying it. Old v. 
 Old, 9 P. R. 552.— Boy<l. 
 
 Held, that the principle which underlies all 
 the decisions is, that the allotment of alimony 
 pendente lite depends upon the marital relation- 
 ship of the parties existin;^ de facto. Walker v. 
 Walker, 10 P. R. C33.— lioyd. 
 
 The court exercises a discretion in granting or 
 withholding alimony pendente lite which is re- 
 gulated by the circumstances of each case. And 
 tiie defendant in this action by his own act and 
 conduct hiivint; clothed the plaintiff with the re- 
 putation of being his wite, although he denied 
 the marriage, the decision o' che master award- 
 ing iuttriiii alimony was not interfered with. 
 Ih. 
 
 Held, that a wife was not entitled to interim 
 alimony and disbnr.semcnts where she sued on 
 the ground of desertion, not alleging cruelty, and 
 where the husband offered by his defence and 
 by affidavit to resume cohabitation with her. 
 Snider v. Snider — Snider v. Orr, 11 P. R. 140. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 An order of the local master directing the de- 
 fendant in an alimony action based upon deser- 
 tion to pay interim alimony wasaflirnied, tliough 
 the wife was in occupaton of the defendant's 
 homestead ; she having established that she was 
 in need of interim alimony, and the defendant 
 not shewing that nhn was in receijit of any in- 
 come from the farm. An order flirtjcting the 
 defendant to pay forthwith interim disbursements 
 wasatHrmed, exrei't as to the counsid fee to be 
 paid to the plaintiffs solicitor, who intendeil to 
 act as counsel at tlie trial. Laluiide v. Lalumle, 
 11 P. H. 143— Proudloot. 
 
 The peculiar practice of a'varding interim ali- 
 mony and disbuisenieiits in alimony suits is 
 founded on the presumption that the husbmd 
 has everytliing and the wife nothing, but when 
 the contrary appears the presumption is done 
 away ; and the jourt will, on applications for 
 interim alimony, consider the question of the 
 wife's ability to maintain herself out of separate 
 estate or other sources of income, such as her 
 earnings and allowances from friends. Knapp 
 V. Kn^ipp, 12 P. R. 105.— Chy. D. 
 
 Where the wife had been living apart from 
 her husband for five years, and had been support- 
 ing herself out of the rents of houses owned by 
 her, and by taking boarders, and through assist- 
 
 890 
 
 ance rendered by members of her family, the 
 court refused to award interim alimony, but di- 
 rected the husband to pay the prospective cash 
 disbursements of the plaintiff's solicitors upon 
 their undertaking to account. Ih. 
 
 Per Boyd, C. The change in the status of 
 married women under recent legislation has no 
 effect upon the law as to disbursements in actions 
 for alimony, unless the wife is actually in receipt 
 of such independent and separate means of sup- 
 port as will enable her to live and pay the costs 
 of litigation without alimentation pending the 
 action for alimony, lb. 
 
 5. Costs. 
 
 Waiver of right to security for costs. See 
 Knowlton v. Kuuwlton, 8 P. R. 400, p. 3G0. 
 
 Appeal from order of referee directing security 
 for costs alloweil without costs, as the suit was 
 for alimony. /6. — Proud foot. 
 
 In a s\iit by the woman for alimony brought 
 seventeen years after the marriage on the ground 
 of refusal by the man to receive her as his wife, 
 he set up the invalidity of the marriage, hut 
 while under examination stated that if it was 
 determined that she was his wife he w. aid re- 
 ceive her as such. The court (Proudfoot. V. C. ), 
 while finding there was a valid marriage di- 
 rected that upon tlie defendant undertaking to 
 receive the plaintiff as his wife, the bill should 
 be dismissed ; but ordered tl' lefindant to pay 
 the costs between solicitor ; client. liobliii 
 V. Roblin, 28 Chy. 439. 
 
 The plaintiff, during the pendency of a motion 
 
 for interim alimony, returned toherhiishand : 
 
 Held, that the defendant must pay the costs as 
 between solicitor and olii^nt of the plaintiff's 
 solicitor. Leonard v. Leonard, 9 P. K. 450.— 
 Dalton, Mailer. 
 
 An application to compel the defendant to pay 
 the costs of the plaintiff's solicitors in an action 
 for alimony. Th.' action was settled before trial, 
 '.he plaintiff refusing to live w^ith the defendant, 
 and the defenlant agreeing to pay the plaintiff's 
 solicitors' costs : - Held, that bi fore the Act 32 
 Vict. e. 18 (Out.), (,;. .S. O (1877) c. 40, s. 48), 
 the defin lant would have been liable to piy 
 costs : —Held, under the wording of section 2 
 of the above Act, tliat the plaintiff had not 
 failed to obtain a decree for alimony, and that 
 tlie defendant was therefore liable to pay costs 
 Moore V. Moure, 10 P. R. 284.— Dalton, Afas- 
 ler. 
 
 Pending an action for alimony, and before trial, 
 the plaintiff returned to liv e with the defendant : 
 
 Helil, that the defendant should pay only the 
 cash disbursements of the plaintiffs solicitors. 
 Keith V. Keith, 25 Chy. 110, considered. A'mr/- 
 rosf V. livKjriMe, 10 P. R. 299.- Proudfoot — 
 Affirmed lb. 590.— Chy. D. 
 
 An order was made in an alimony suit for 
 payment to the pliiiitiff, before the trial, of 
 •^22.35, on account of her disbursements for wit- 
 ness fets, and of $40 on account of counsel fee : — 
 Quaire, whether the counsel fee should be paid 
 in advance if the plaintiffs solicitor acts as 
 counsel. Intjram v. Injram, 10 P. R. 569. 
 
HTFOTHtQUE. 
 
 892 
 
 893 
 
 5*: 5:1)1 
 
 mini ■ . 
 
 Ferguson. See, also, Mafiurn v. Magum, lb. 
 570 : Brad ten v. Bradley, lb. 571. 
 
 The defendant having, at the trial, after the 
 plaintifTs evidence hadoeen fiivon, for the first 
 time ofl'erud to take her b,ick to his house :— 
 Held, tliat the judgment for alimony should 
 stand over for six weeks to see if this oflFer was 
 carried out, and that the plaintiff was, in any 
 event, entitled to her full costs of suit. Ferris 
 V. Fm-is, 7 O. R. 496.— Osier. 
 
 See Lalomh v. Lalomle, 11 P. R. 143, p. 889 ; 
 Knapp V. Knapp, 12 P. R. 105, p. 889. 
 
 C. Application to Reduce Amount, 
 
 On an application to reduce the amount of ali- 
 mony payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, 
 the property of the defendant was variously es- 
 timated (lands and personalt\) at from $2,9.S8 
 to $6,000, and tlie evidence of the defentlant, 
 when cross-examined upon liis affidavit filed by 
 him in support of the motion, being unsatisfac- 
 tory, the court (Ferguson, V. C), refused to in- 
 terfere with the re))ort of the master fixing the 
 amount wliich had Iteen paid under such report 
 for about eighteen months without objection ; 
 but the result of the application was not to be 
 considered conclusive .ig.iinst the defendant on 
 any other motion he should be advised to make. 
 Hotivay v. Holway, 29 Chy. 41. 
 
 7. Other Cases. 
 
 Where in a suit for alimony a decree was ob- 
 tained and registered in the counties in which 
 the defendant owned lands, pursu.int to R. S. O. 
 (1877), c. 40, 8. 44, and writs of fieri facias 
 against the goods of the defendant had been 
 issued and returned nulla bon;i, on application 
 by petition, setting fortli the facts, an order was 
 made declaring tile plaintiff to have a lien upon 
 the lands of the defendant afl'ected by the regis- 
 tration of the decree, and for an immediate sale 
 of the 8:iid lands, the proceeds to be paid into 
 court, and applied in payment of alimony. For- 
 renter v. Forrester, 9 P. R. 338.— Hlake. 
 
 Where a suit for alimony was pending, and it 
 was alleged, that an .action brought against the 
 husband was so brought for the purpose of de- 
 feating the suit for alimony and depriving the 
 wife of her dower, .an order was made adrp'tting 
 the wife to defend the action. Ferris v. Ferris, 
 9 P. R. 443. Dal ton, Mnsti'r. 
 
 Change of venue in action of alimony. See 
 Fogg V. Fogg, 12 P. R. 249.— Ferguson. 
 
 The precedence given to an assignment for the 
 general benefit of creditors by R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 124, 8. 9, over "all judgments and all execu- 
 tions not completely executed by payment" does 
 not extend to a judgment for alimony registered 
 under R. S. 0. (1887), c. 44, s. .30, against the 
 lands of a defendant prior to the registration of 
 an .assignment by him ; and a plaintiff in such a 
 judgment is not obliged to rank with the other 
 creditors of the defendmt. Abraham v. Abra- 
 ham, 19 O. R. 256.— MacMahon. 
 
 See Hv^hfJi v. He.es, 9 O. R. 198. p. 883 ; Ma- 
 {lurnv. Magum, 11 A. R. 178, p. 887. 
 
 XV. MiscBLLANKors Cases. 
 
 Law of Quebec as to assets belonging to the 
 community existing between husband and wife. 
 See Pilon v. Brunet, 5 S. C. R. 318. 
 
 Held, in an interpleader suit, that a married 
 woman was not u proper surety, and time was 
 given to substitute another surety for hei'. 
 Alulliii v. Pasco, 8 P. R. 372.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 When land is taken under authority of legis- 
 lative provisions similar to Revised Statutes of 
 Nova Scotia (4th Series), c. 36, s. 40, et seq., the 
 compensation money, as regards the capacity of 
 married women to deal with it, is still to be 
 regarded in equity as land. Kearney v. Kcan, 
 3 S. C. R. 332. 
 
 Qua>re whether a married woman can be one 
 of the five ])ersoiis required for the formation of 
 a road company under H. S. O. (1877), c. 152. 
 See I/amillon and Flamhorough Boad Co, v. 
 Towiisend, 13 A. R. 5:i4. 
 
 Appoint nt of husbands as trustees for their 
 wives. . McLnrhliii v. Usborne — Maqee v. 
 Ushorne, 7 O. R. 297. 
 
 Sale of liquor by wife to Indians. Liability 
 of husband. See Begina v. McAidey, 14 0. R. 
 643. 
 
 HYPOTHEQUE. 
 
 On the 14th October, 1874, Mrs. R. sold to 
 one Q. the south half of the cadastral lot No. 
 4679. in the city of Montreal, and on the same 
 day Mrs. C. sold him the north half of the same 
 lot. On the 17th October, 1874, Q. sold to (), 
 and to L. and R. three undivided fourths of the 
 two properties en bloc for a sum of $49,612.50, 
 in deiluctiou of which purchasers paid cash $22,- 
 2t6.874, 'i"il covenanted to pay the balance for 
 Q. to Mrs. I!. Mrs. R. was not a party to this 
 last deed, and did not then accept the delegated 
 debtors. In .lune, 1876, Mrs. U. sued G. et al. 
 hypothecarily for sums due to her on the deed 
 of sale by hersilf to Q.,aud thereupon G. aban- 
 doned (delaiss^ en justice) his undivided fourth 
 of the s,aid south half of lot No. 4679. On the 
 4th December, 1877, Mrs. R. accepted the dele- 
 gation of payment nuade in her favour by Q. in 
 the deed of the 17th October, 1874, and after- 
 war<l8 brought the present action against G. for 
 one-third part of the debt of $27,3.56.68, with 
 interest due her in virtue of said delegation of 
 payment. U, contended that the .acceptance of 
 the delegation of ))ayment being subsequent to 
 the hypothecary action and his delaissciment, was 
 null and of no effect, and th<refore he could not 
 be sued for any portion of the money : — Held, 
 that nnder these circumstances G. was lelieved 
 fr-om personal liability nnder the delegotion of 
 payment, but only to the extent of his interest 
 in the south half of said lot No. 4679, and re- 
 mained liable for his interest in the remainder 
 of the property, the amount to be estimated by 
 a valuation (ventilation) of the south half of the 
 lot proportionately to the price of the whole 
 property. Reeves v. Perravll, 10 S. C. R. 616. 
 
 By a judgment en declaration d'hypoth^ue 
 cei'tain property in the possession and ownership 
 of respondents was declared hypothecated ia 
 favour of the appellant in the sum of $5,200 and 
 
892 
 
 IMPRISONMENT. 
 
 894 
 
 interest and costs ; they were condemned to sur- 
 render the same in order that it might be judi- 
 cially sold to satisfy the judgment, unless they 
 preferred to pay to appellant the amount of the 
 jiutguient. By the judgment it was also ilecreod 
 that the option should be made within forty 
 days of the service to be made upon them of the 
 jiulgment, and in default of their so doiiiu within 
 the said delay that the respondents oe con- 
 demned to pay to the appellant the amount of 
 the judgment. This judgment (the respondents 
 rt'sicling in Scotland and having no doinicil in 
 Canada), was served at the prothoiiotary's office 
 and on the respondents' attorneys. After the 
 delay of forty days, no choice or o])tion having 
 been made, the appellant caused a writ of fi. fa. 
 de tcrris to issue against the respcmdents for the 
 full amount of the judgment. The sheriff first 
 seized the property hypothecated, sold it and 
 hiinded over the jjroneeds to a prior moitjiageo. 
 Another wiit of fi. fa. de terris was then issued 
 and other realty !>elonging to the respondents 
 was seized. To this second seizure the respon- 
 dents tiled an opposition h tin <raniiduler. claiming 
 that the judgment had not been served on them 
 and that they were not personally liable for tiie 
 del>t due to appellant: —Held, 1st. That it is 
 not necessary to serve a judgment en ileclaraticm 
 d'hypotlu^i|ue (m a defendant who is absent from 
 the province and has no domicile. Art. 476 
 C.C. P. and C. S. L. C. c. 49 s. 15. 2nd. That 
 the respondents, ()y not oppco.iig the first seizure 
 ot their property, had waivnd any irregularity 
 (if any) as to the service of the judgment. 3rd. 
 That, in an action en deela.i'atioii d'hypotbeciue 
 the defendant, m.ay in default of his surrender- 
 ing the property wiiliin the period ti.xed by the 
 court, be personally condenmed to pay the full 
 amount of the ptaintitfs claim. Art. 2005 U. C. 
 Dubnc V. Kiddon, l(i 8. C. W. 357. 
 
 IDENTITY. 
 
 Evidence ov-See Criminal Law. 
 
 Identification of pledged stock. See Cdrnci/in 
 v. Federal Bunk o/ Canada, 8 0. R. 75, p. 202. 
 
 Proof of identity of chattel. See S'evens, 
 Tiinicr <0 liiiriiK Fonndrit mid h'lnend M,iiiiif'ac- 
 tiuhnj Co. (Liinihdi v. liar/uot, 9 0. K. 092. 
 
 A discharge of mortgage was signed by 
 "Eliza" Switzer, whereas the mortgage pur- 
 porting to be discharged was made to "Eliza- 
 beth" Switzer: — Held, on a vendor and pur- 
 chaser application, that there was no valid ob- 
 jection to the discharge, for the identity of the 
 per.s(m signing was established by affidavit to 
 tlie satisfaction of the registrar, and as a matter 
 of fandly usage the names are synonymcms and 
 interchangeable. /?<{ Clarke and Cliamhertain, 
 18 0. R. 270.— Boyd. 
 
 See Oliver v. Newhowfe, 32 C. P. 90 ; 8 A. R. 
 122. 
 
 ILLEGALITY. 
 
 I. Of Contracts. 
 
 1. Oenrrallij — See, Contract. 
 
 2. Of Consideration — See. Bills ok Ex- 
 
 change and Promissory Notks. 
 
 ILLEGITIMATE CHILD. 
 
 ^ee Bastard. 
 
 IMMEDIATE EXECUTION. 
 
 See Exkcution. 
 
 IMMORALITY. 
 
 See Pdblic Morals. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Of County Court judge. See Re Squier, 46 
 Q. B. 474, p. 394. 
 
 IMPOUNDING. 
 
 See Distress — Municipal Cori'orations. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 ILLEGAL DETENTION. 
 
 See Conversion. 
 
 IMPRISONMENT. 
 
 Arrest. 
 
 1. Oenerally — See Arrest. 
 
 2. MaHcioii.1 /l)Tc.s<— «?cpMaliciocs Ar- 
 rest, Prosecution and other Pro- 
 ceedinos. 
 
 Attachment — ■S'^'e Absconding Debtor 
 —Contempt of Court — Evidence — 
 ExAMi.vATioN OF Jud(;ment Debtor. 
 
 Disobedience of Judg.ment Summons — 
 See Division Courts. 
 
 False Imprisonment — See Justice of 
 THE Peace— Trespass. 
 
 V. CoNvi(!TioNS — See Intoxicating Li- 
 quors—Justice of the Peace. 
 
 VI. Duress — See Duress. 
 
 VII. Prisoner— iSee Prisoner. 
 
 VIII. Habeas Corpus— See Habeas Corpus. 
 
 A county judge has power to imprison in the 
 county judges' criminal court. Re<jina v. St. 
 Denis, 8 P. R. 16. — Cameron. 
 
 " Standing in front of the horses and carriage 
 driven by V." although he wat " thereby 
 forcibly detained im the highway gainst his 
 will " is not an imprisonment. See Regina v. 
 McEUUjolt, 3 O. R. 535. 
 

 895 
 
 IMPBOVEMIINTS ON LAND. 
 
 896 
 
 tS;);:::! 
 
 ::fei«i. 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS ON LAND. 
 
 I. Tbcst Property, 89j. 
 II. Tenant for Like, 895. 
 
 III. Mistake of Title, 896. 
 
 IV. Unskilful Survey, 900. 
 
 V. Eent 1'ayahle iiY Improvements — S'ei> 
 Landlord anu Tenant. 
 
 VI. Assessments for Local Improvk,ments 
 —See, Assessment and Taxes. 
 
 I. Trust Property. 
 
 The court under special circumstances, allowed 
 monoy to l)e expended on improvements on a 
 certain proptTty of a testator wlio liad directed 
 by hU will that the rent.s and protits of all his 
 property should be expended in payment of 
 debts, and in the support of his wife an(i children 
 until tiie youngest child should come of age. lii' 
 BeiKhr, 8 P. R. 399.— Spragge. 
 
 See Foott v. Rk-e., 4 O. R. 94, p. 899 ; Foott v. 
 McOeorge, 12 A. R. 351, p. 899. 
 
 II. Tenant for Life. 
 
 J. T. S. devised certain lands to M. H. for life, 
 and afterwards to any child of M. H. who might 
 survive her, in fee. M. H. had one child, aged 
 ten, wJien she petitioned under 19-20 Vict., c. 
 1 20(Imp. ), chiiming to be allowed for expenditure 
 made by her upon two houses upon the land for 
 much needed rep lira and Listing improvements, 
 and also for .<!100, paid to a tenant for improve- 
 ments made by him under a ])roniise from the 
 testator that be siiould be paid for them ; ami 
 praying fora sale, or power to lease :— Held, that 
 M. H. might be reimbursed tlu- $100, from tlio 
 testator's general estate, as this appeared to have 
 been a debt due by the testator: but neither this 
 nor the other expenditure coulil be charged on 
 the land : — Held, further, it appearing that there 
 was no means from the income of tlie property of 
 putting it into a sutiiciently remune-ative con- 
 dition to support M. H., and iier ciiild, it was 
 apro|iercasufor tlie sale or leasing of tlic estate, 
 with a rigiit to build. The re|)airs of a tenant 
 for life, however substantial and lasting, are his 
 own voluntary act, and do not arise from any obli- 
 gations, and he cannotcliarge theinheritancewith 
 them, y^' ,S,iiifh\H Triisls, 4 O. R. 518.— Boyd. 
 
 Under the will of W. B. K. his widow, E. K., 
 took a life estate in the whole of his real property 
 (see 12 O. R. 469). and hia son, VV., the remain- 
 der in fee. A railway company, after the death 
 of \V. H. K., expropriated jiart of the lands and 
 paid the compensation money to E. K., who had 
 obtained le ters of guardianship of her infant 
 children. This money she expended in inaknig 
 improvements in tiie remaining portion of the 
 lands. After W. attained full age lie sold this 
 land with the improvements on it, E. K. joinini; 
 in the coMveyan«e in ignorance of her rights to a 
 life estate, and receiving no compensation in re- 
 spect to it. W. afterwards died intestate, and 
 in taking the accounts in this action as against 
 E. K. in respect to the moneys received by her 
 08 above from 'he railway, the heirs of W. sought 
 to charge E. K. with the whole of the said 
 
 money (loss the value of her life estate), without 
 regard lo the sums spent by her on the improve- 
 ment of the rest of the land :— Held, that if W. 
 were living and making this claim, E. K. could 
 have answered it by shewing that he had already 
 got the ecpiivalent by the sale of the other 
 property long before the termination of her life 
 estate at a value enhanced by the improvements, 
 and that besides she had released to his pur- 
 chaser her life estate, which further enhanced 
 the amount of purchase money received by him, 
 and since his heirs (the present claimants) roulil 
 have no higher claim than he would have had if 
 living, E. K. could answer the claim now made 
 by them in the same way. E. K. couhl not be 
 said to occupy the position only of a tenant for 
 life seeking to charge the estate with the value 
 of a permanent improvement made by her, or 
 seeking to charge the remainderman with such 
 value or part of it. IVilioii v. Ora/ia7n('2), 13 0. 
 R. 061. — Ferguson. — Osier. 
 
 See Hill V. /////, 6 O. R.244, p. 71 (J. 
 
 III. Mistake OF Title. 
 
 Tlie plaintiff being in possession of property — 
 a flouring-mill — of which be believed his wife to 
 be owner in fee as heiress of her father, expended 
 upon it about $3,253. After her death the 
 fath-ir's will was discovered, which gave her a 
 life ei;tate only. Upon a reference to the master, 
 at Ixindon, to asi:ertain the amount of enhanco- 
 moiit in value of the property, that otticer, on 
 the evidence adduced, founil that its value at 
 the deatli of the testator was .?2,700, and that 
 the value at the date of the report was .$4,500 : — 
 Held, that he had, under the circumstances, 
 properly found the enlianced value of the estate 
 by reason of such expenditure to be $1,800, not 
 §I,300~althougli upon a sale under a decree of 
 tlie court the inopcity had realized $4,000 only 
 — and further, that the plaintill was entitled to 
 interest on such enhanced value from the time 
 the numey was expended. Fairci.tl v. BurwAl, 
 27 C'liy. 445. -Proudioot. 
 
 The master-inordinarv, on appeal from the 
 master at London thought the plaintiff had been 
 charged with rent on tiie unimproved value; 
 but I'rouilfoot, V. ('. , on appeal, reversed this 
 finding, thinking it against the weight of evi- 
 dence, which he had the same opportunity of 
 judging of as the master-inordinary, who had 
 not seen the witnesses. Ih. 
 
 Semble, that a forced sale for cash is not a 
 proper- mode of determining the amount of the 
 errbancemcnt in value of an estate which has been 
 improved by a ji'-rson in possession under a bona 
 fide mistake of title. Ih. 
 
 Some time before 1863 the defendant M. at the 
 solicitation of his father arrd mother went into 
 possesMon of 300 acres o'l land, 100 acres of which 
 were the estate of tire mother, and cultivated 
 the same, relying on the promise and agi'eemei.t 
 of his parents to give him a conveyance. In 
 1866 the mother died without having executed 
 any deed of her 100 acres, and inOctolierof that 
 year the father, in the belief that he was heir to 
 his wife, executed a conveyance to M. of the 
 whole 300 acres, and which M. executed as 
 grantee. The father died in 1873, and M. con- 
 tinued to reside on the property with the know- 
 
897 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS ON LAND. 
 
 89S 
 
 i), without 
 B improve- 
 tlmt if W. 
 1. K. could 
 iul already 
 
 the other 
 of hor life 
 povemetits, 
 o his pur- 
 r enhanced 
 ed hy him, 
 ants) fould 
 liave had if 
 
 now made 
 )ul(l not be 
 , tenant for 
 h the value 
 
 by her, or 
 
 with fluch 
 m (2), 13 0. 
 
 property— 
 I his wife to 
 r, expended 
 • death tiie 
 gave her a 
 tiie master, 
 of enhanco- 
 t officer, on 
 its value at 
 lO, and tliat 
 as $4 , 500:- 
 cunistances, 
 of the estate 
 $1,800, not 
 a decree of 
 $4,000 only 
 s entitled to 
 :im the time 
 V. liurwi'll, 
 
 ial from the 
 itiff had been 
 •oved value ; 
 •evt:rsed tliiu 
 jilt of evi- 
 portiinity of 
 ,ry, wlio had 
 
 cash is not a 
 mount of the 
 liich has been 
 under a bonil 
 
 antM. at the 
 er went into 
 cres of which 
 cultivated 
 III! agreemei.t 
 'eyance. In 
 .ng executed 
 jtolierof that 
 e was heir to 
 o M. of the 
 executed as 
 , and M. con- 
 th the know- 
 
 ledge of his several brothers and sisters until 
 1877, when, owing to an objection raised by a 
 railway company who desired to obtain a deed of 
 a portion of the 1 00 acres, it was discovered that 
 the deed li 1886 had not ett'ectually conveyed that 
 portion belonging to the mother, and thereupon 
 the defendant obtained a deed of quit claim from 
 the several heirs. In 1878 a bill was tiled by the 
 heirs impeaching this deed as having been ob- 
 t' iued by fraud, and the court being satisfied 
 that the same had been obtained improperly set 
 it aside with costs ; but ordered M. to be allowed 
 for his improvements, as having been made under 
 a l)ona tide mistake of title, lie accounting for 
 rents and protits since the death of the father. 
 McOreyor v. McUretjor, 27 C'hy. 470. — Spragge. 
 
 The owner of lands created two mortgages 
 thereon, and subsequently released his equity to 
 the miirtgageo who was entitled to priority, who 
 afterwards bouglit the interest of the mortgagor 
 at sheiitl's sale, and subsecjuently sold the pre- 
 mises to several purchasers, who bought without 
 notice of the second mortgage : — Held, that this 
 had not the effect of merging the mortgagee's 
 charge in the equity of redemption ; and that in 
 a proceeding by parties claiming under the second 
 niortgagf, tlieir only right was to redeem as 
 puisne incumbrancers, and that the purchasers 
 were entitled to an enquiry as to the enhayced 
 value of the property by reason of their improve- 
 ments. Wtaver v. Vandiiscn — Wills v. Ayerman, 
 27 Chy. 477.— Spragge. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Gait, J., (31 
 C. P. 227,) that under U. S. O. (1877) c. 95, s. 
 4, which entitles a defendant in ejectment to 
 the value of the lasting improvements made on 
 the laud to the extent to which the land has been 
 enhanced thereby, the plaintiti' is entitled to an 
 account of the rents and protits to be set ofl 
 against the value of such improvements. Mc- 
 Carthy v. Arbuvkte, 31 C. P. 405.— C. P. D. 
 See also S. C, lb. 48. 
 
 In ejectment it was ordered in Hilary Term, 
 1879,that a verdict should be entered for plaintiff, 
 but no execution to issue until the value of the 
 improvements was ascertained and the amount 
 thereof paid to the detendant, and that it be re- 
 ferred to the master in chancery at Ottawa to 
 ascci'tain such value. The master made his re- 
 port on the 30th of October, 1879, merely find- 
 ing the value of the improvements, without 
 making any allowance for the rents and protits. 
 In Easter 'i'erm, 1880, the plaintiff moved to re- 
 fer back the report to the master to make such 
 allowance :— Held, that the reference was to 
 the master as an officer of the court, and that 
 there was nothii.g in any of the sections of the 
 C. L. P. Act, Jl. S. O. (1877) c. 50, relating to 
 arbitrations, which interfered with the right of 
 the cuurt, under the circumstances, to review 
 the act of their othcer, and to send the matter 
 back for liis reconsideration. The matter was 
 therefore referred back to the master to make 
 such allowance. lb. 
 
 Where in 1875, in an action of ejectment the 
 parties agreed in writing that a verdict be en- 
 tered for the plaintiff, but not enforced until de- 
 fem' ut had pai<l $bO for costs and the value of 
 his improvements, said value to be fixed by ar- 
 bitration; and, though the $50 had not been 
 paid, nor the said value bo ascertained, plaintitf 
 
 67 
 
 entered judgment on the verdict, and ejected 
 the defendant, whose devisee now filed this bill, 
 claiming possession, damages, a reference as to 
 improvements, and an order for payment of the 
 amount found due, and of the $50 for costs : — 
 Held, that though the judgment could not be 
 set aside, and possession given to plaintitf, the 
 plai'itiif was entitled to a reference as prayed, 
 with costs. Watsuii v. Ketchum, 2 O. R. 237. — 
 (Jhy. D. 
 
 When a claimant of certain lands commenced 
 an action of ejectr.ent, in which he afterwards 
 entered a nolle pros., and then, subsequently, 
 commenced a suit in this court for the recovery 
 of the said lands, and the defendant claimed 
 compensation tv^i improvements made underbona 
 fide mistake of title :— Held, the defendant was 
 entitled to compensation for improvements made 
 before the ejectment action, and for those made 
 between the nolle pros, and the commencement 
 of the second suit, but not for those made dur- 
 ing the pendency of the ejectment, or since the 
 commencement of the second suit. O'Grady v. 
 McCaffray, 2 O. R. 309.— Chy. D. 
 
 G. W. F. , being the patentee of a certain lot 
 described as of 200 acres, but in which there 
 was a deficiency, conveyed half of the lot to J. 
 B. P., who conveyed it to trustees, to hold in 
 trust for E. F., wife of G. W, F., upon cer- 
 tain trusts declared in the deed, and without 
 power to her to anticipate. The deficiency was 
 subsequently discovered and upon the applica- 
 tion to the government in the name of the 
 trustees by G. W. F., whom they appointed 
 their agent for that purpose, a grant of land 
 as compensation for the deficiency was made to 
 the trustees of E. F. describing them as such. 
 Subsequently an instrument under seal, ex- 
 pressed to be made between J. B. P., of the 
 first part, and E. F., wife of G. W. F., of the 
 second part, and the trustees of the third part, 
 which recited the facts and also that the trus- 
 tees had no real interest therein, but were 
 named as grantees merely as being the leeal 
 owners of the original half lot, was executed oy 
 J. B. P. and E. F., whereby they declared that 
 the parties of the first and second parts were 
 not in any way interested in the lands granted 
 as compensation, and that the trustees held 
 them as trustees for G. W. P., the patentee 
 of the original lot. After this the trustees 
 by the direction of G. W. F., conveyed to E., 
 under whom the defendants' claimed. E. F. 
 now brought this action to recover the land : — 
 Held, (Hagaity, C. J., dissenting) that E. and 
 t'.iose claiming under him must be held to have 
 had notice of the title of the trustees, who were 
 described in the patent as trustees of E. F. ; 
 that this land was subject to the trusts of the 
 previous conveyance to them : that E. F. was 
 not estopped by the declaration executed by J. 
 B. P. and herself, which did not divest her of 
 her title, and that therefore she was entitled to 
 recover :— Held, also, that there should be a re- 
 ference to the master to take an account of 
 taxes paid and permanent improvements made 
 upon the lands, further consideration being re- 
 served. Per Hagarty, C. J. The legal estate 
 being in the defendant by conveyance from the 
 trustees, the plaintiff should shew an equity to 
 recover what she claimed as part of the trust 
 estate, which she had not done ; that the patent 
 
INOOSPOSATED OOMPANIES. 
 
 900 
 
 
 to the trustocH, though describing them as such, 
 did not in terms declare any trust respecting 
 this land, and it couhl nut ho assumed that 
 It formed part of the trust premises. Per 
 Armour, .), The case was not witiiin 1{. S. O. 
 (1877) c. !).■>, s. 4, as to improvements under a 
 miHtake of title, but Wcis governed by the prin- 
 ciples of e juity governing the relationship of 
 trustee and cestui quo trust. Per (Jameron, J. 
 The (i.ise was within the statute. Foott v. liice, 
 4 O. R. 94 —Q. B. U. Affirmed. See FooH v. 
 McOeorg,', 12 A. R. 351. 
 
 No occupation rent should be charged against 
 one who has lieen in occupation of land under 
 mistake of title, in respect of the increased value 
 thereof arising from improvements which are nut 
 allowed him. McOreyor v. McOreijor, 5 O. R. 
 617.— Ferguson. 
 
 Improvements made under a mistake of title 
 are not, since R. S, O. (1877), c. 95, a. 4, to be 
 allowed for as liberally as improvements made 
 by a mortgagee in possession, Afnnnie v. Lindsay, 
 10 P. 11. 173. Hodgins, Mnster-in-Ordinarij. 
 
 The enhanced value of a farm, improved 
 under a mistake of title, is found by deducting 
 from the present value of the land, with the 
 improvements, the estimated present value of 
 the land without the improvements, plus any 
 increase in value from other causes than such 
 improvements. lb. Hut see S. C. 110. R. 520. 
 
 The occupation rent chargeable to a person 
 improving land under a mistake of title is the 
 rental value of tlie land without the improve- 
 ments, lb. 
 
 In fixing an occupation rent to be charged 
 against one who had been occupying land under 
 mistake of title, and at the same time an allow- 
 ance to be m:vde to him for improvements, if 
 such occupation rent is charged on the full in- 
 creased value (as it should be in such case), then 
 interest should be allowed on the actual costs of 
 proper outlay for lasting improvements as an 
 offset. Manner of taking the account and con- 
 tra account in such cases pointed out. S. C, II 
 O. R. 520. -Boyd. 
 
 In this action it was referred to the master to 
 take an account of the rents and profits received 
 by one who h id occupied land under mistake of 
 title, viz.: as assignee of a devisee the devise to 
 whom was void, and to fix an occupation rent to 
 be paid by him, and also to fix the sum to be al- 
 lowed to him in respect of improvements, and 
 to certain legacies charged by the will on the 
 said lauil ami which he had discharged, and also 
 of payments made by him on account of taxes, 
 and it appearing that in discharge of some of 
 the said legacies less th in the face value thereof 
 had been paid:— Held, that in computing inter- 
 est on the sums so paid in respect of the lega- 
 cies, it should only be computed on the amounts 
 actu illy paid, ami not on the face value of the 
 legacies, and further that ti.e account should be 
 taken together so that on one ■-•.;« would appear 
 the disbursements for improvements, legacies, 
 and taxes, and on the other the occupatior rent, 
 lb. 
 
 Held, in this caso where a tax sale was set 
 aside for irregularities in sale, that the defen- 
 dant was entitled under R. S. O. (1877) o. 96, s. 
 4, though not under R. S. 0. (1877) c. 180, a. 
 
 169, to compensation for improvements to the 
 land under mistake of title, and also to be paid 
 the amount paid for taxes, interest and expenses. 
 llaidfyy. SomerH, 13 0. R. UOO,— Proudtoot, 
 
 H. by his will appointed F. and W. executors 
 and trustees of his estate. F. for the purpose of 
 securing a debt duo him by the estate, executeii 
 a mortgage to \V.— W. died intestate, and V., 
 five years subsequently having agreed to sell the 
 niortgaged premises to M., executed a statutory 
 discharge of the mortgage, which he expressed 
 to do as sole surviving executor, and then con- 
 veyed the estate to M. Held, (aflirnnng the 
 judgment of Boyd, C, 13 O. R, 21), that the act 
 of h., in executing a discharge of his own mort- 
 gage had not the efTect of releasing the lan<l :— 
 Held, also (in this reversing the same judg. 
 ment), that M., the purchaser and his assigns, 
 were not entitled to any lien for improvements 
 on the lands during their occupancy thereof. 
 limty V. Slimo, 14 A. H. 600. 
 
 IV. Unskilful Survey. 
 
 Where 8. having purchased a lot of land, em- 
 ployed a public land surveyor to mark out the 
 boundaries of it for him, and the surveyor, by 
 reason of an unskilful survey, included in the lot, 
 as marked out by him, land which should not 
 have been so included, and S. misled thereby, 
 effected improvements upon the land so" errone- 
 ously included :— Held, on recovery of the said 
 land by the rightful owner, that S. was entitled 
 to compensation for the said improvements, un- 
 der R, S. O. (1877) c, 51, ss. 29, 30. Plumb v. 
 Stetnhoff, 2 O. R. 614— Ferguson. But see S. 
 a. 11 A. R. 788; 14 8. C. R. 739. 
 
 IBIPROVEMENTS ON STREAMS. 
 
 See Water and Water Cour8e,s. 
 
 IMPROVIDENCE. 
 
 See Fraud and Misrepresentation. 
 
 "Improvidence "as distinguished from "error" 
 as applie('. to letters patent whirh are sought to 
 be avoided and set aside as issued "improvi- 
 dently." See Fonspca v. Attorney-General of 
 Canada, 17 S. C. R 612. 
 
 I. ASSE.S.SMENT OF- 
 TAXfS. 
 
 INCOME. 
 
 See Assessment and 
 
 II. Income Qualification of Voters- 
 Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 INCORPORATED OOMPANIES. 
 
 See CoHPANT. 
 
 ■8u 
 
 The 
 under , 
 vidual. 
 
 Ah 
 
 The pr 
 
 the ln,li; 
 
 (Dotn.), 
 
 0. J., 
 
 heeu con 
 
 wood, th 
 
 not in th( 
 
 fiupporteu 
 
 subject 
 
 cause, pe 
 
 J^y sec. 6< 
 
 tion prec( 
 
 —Sec. 64 
 
 officer of 
 
 moved fr( 
 
900 
 
 901 
 
 INDIANS. 
 
 902 
 
 its to the 
 ;o be paid 
 oxpeiiHeg. 
 
 UlltOdt. 
 
 executors 
 purpoHu (if 
 
 , CXOCUtt'l'l 
 
 ;e, ami F., 
 i to Bull tlie 
 X statutory 
 ! exproHHcd 
 I then con- 
 inning the 
 that tiiu act 
 I own inort- 
 ;ho land ;— 
 lamo judg- 
 his asHigns, 
 provements 
 cy thereof. 
 
 of land, em- 
 nark out the 
 surveyor, hy 
 ed in the lot, 
 1 should not 
 jled thereby, 
 imI soorrone- 
 f of the said 
 was entitled 
 venK^nts, un- 
 Plumb V. 
 But see S. 
 
 REAMS. 
 
 URSES. 
 
 STATION. 
 
 from "error 
 are sought to 
 ed ' ' iinprovi- 
 ey-Qeneral of 
 
 INDECENT ASSAULT. 
 
 See Regina v. Chule, 46 Q. B. 555, p. 432. 
 
 iESSMENT ANB 
 
 Voters— iS« 
 
 [0N9. 
 
 >ANIE8. 
 
 INDEMNITY. 
 
 ijee. Guarantee and Indrmnity. 
 
 INDIAN ACT. 
 
 See Indianh — Indian F.aniw — Intoxicatino 
 Liquors. 
 
 The words "appeal brought" in section 108 
 of the Indian Act, U. 8. C. c. 43, are satiHlicd by 
 the giving of notice and perfecting the appeal by 
 the giving of the security provided for \>y the 
 Summary Convictions Act ; and it is not neces- 
 sary for an appellant from a conviction under that 
 Act to bring his appeal to a hearing within tlie 
 time limited by section 108. In re Hunter c. (!rif- 
 fiths, 7 P. I{. 80, not followed. Semlde, merely 
 giving notice of appeal within the thirty diiy.s 
 would have satisfied the words of tlio statute. 
 Heginn v. AJcOuuley, 12 P. R. 259. — Armour. 
 
 The Canada Temperance Act can have no 
 operation where the Indian Act is in force. 
 J{e Aletcal/e, 17 O. U. 357.— Boyd. 
 
 INDIAN LANDS. 
 
 Assessment or— See Assessment and Taxes. 
 
 The Liquor License Act applies to Indian land 
 under lease from the Crown to a private indi- 
 vidual. Regina v. DHqiictl(','3 1'. K. 29. — Osier. 
 
 Application to quash a by-law regulating ani- 
 mals running at largo in municipalities in which 
 are situate Indian lands. See in re MiUoy and 
 the ToumMp o/' Onoiidaija, 6 0. R. 573. 
 
 Held, that the defendant, wlin was a visiting 
 superintendent and commissioner of Indian 
 ailiiirs for the Brant and Haldimaud Reserve, 
 had jurisdiction under tiie statutes relating to i 
 Indian aflfairs to act as a justice of the peace in | 
 the matter of a charge ag linst the plaintiff for 
 unlawfully trespassing upon and removing cord- | 
 wood from the Indian Reserve in the county of 
 Brant. Hunter v. Gilkiwii, 7 O. U. 735.— Q.B. D. 
 
 The prisoner was indicted for larceny under 
 the Indian Act of 1880, 43 Vict. c. 28, s. 66 
 (Dom.), and was convicted :— Held (Wilson, 
 C. J., disseiitingi, that he ought not to have 
 been convicted, because, per Armour, J., the 
 wood, the subject of the alleged larceny, was 
 not in tlie absence of satisfactory information, 
 supported by affidavit, " seized and detained as 
 subject to forfeiture " under the Act ; and be- 
 cause, per O'Connor, J., the affidavit required 
 by sec. 64, had not been made, and was a condi- 
 tion precedent to a seizure. Per Wilson, C. J . 
 — Sec. 64 cannot apply to trees found by the 
 officer of the department in the act of being re- 
 moved from the lot ou which they have been 
 
 wrongfully cut, or where there can be no doubt 
 tlioy have Ijeen unlawfi'lly cut, for such an 
 application would make it Impossible to vlTeet a 
 xeixuru in such ease. Ritjiiia v. Fearindii, 10 
 O. R. 660. -0. B. I). 
 
 The defendant was convicted for moving hay 
 from Indian IhiuIh contrary to section 26 of the 
 Indian Act, K. S. C. c. 43:— Held, that the 
 word "hay" used in the statute does nut 
 necessarily mean hay from natural grass only, 
 but wli.'tt is eomuionly known as hay, namely, 
 either from natural grass or gratis sown and cul- 
 tivated : — Held, also, that under tiiis Act and 
 the legislation iiie()r|iorated therewith, there is 
 no power to include in the conviction the costs 
 of commitment and conveying to jail. Reijina 
 V. Hood, 17 O. R. 725.— C. P. \i. 
 
 Section 109 of the British North America 
 .•\eti)f 1867 gives to each province the entire 
 benelicial interest of the (;rown in all lands 
 within its boundaries, which at the time of the 
 union were vested in the Crown subject to such 
 rights as the l)iiiiiini(m can maintain under 
 sections 108 and 117. Attorney-Oeneral of 
 Ontario r. Mercer (8 App. C'as. 767), followed : 
 By royal proclaiiiation in 1763, possession was 
 granted to certain Indian tribes of such lands, 
 " parts of our doiiiinioiis and territories" as not 
 ha'-iiig lioen ceded to or purchased by the Crown 
 Were reserved " for tli<^ present " to them as their 
 hunting grounds. The proclamation further 
 enacteil that all purchases from the Indians of 
 lands rrserved to thoiii must be made on behalf 
 of the Crown by the governor of the colony in 
 wliieh the lands lie, and not by any private per- 
 son. Ill 1873 the lands in suit, situate in 
 Ontario, which had been in Indian occupation 
 untd that date under the said proclamation, 
 were, to the extent of the whole right and title 
 of the Indiiii inhabitants therein, surrendered 
 to the governiiieot of the Dominion for the 
 Crown, subject to a certain qualified privilege 
 of hunting and fishing :— Held, that by force of 
 the proclaiiiation the tenure of the Indians was 
 a personal and usufructuary right dependent 
 upon the good will of the down ; that the lands 
 were thereby, and at tlie time of the union, 
 vested in the Crown, subject to the Indian title, 
 wliicli was " an interest other than that of the 
 province in the same," within the meaning of 
 secticm 109 : — Held, also, that by force of the 
 said surrender the certain benelicial interest in 
 the lands subjeet to the privilege was trans- 
 mitted to the province in the terms of section 
 109. The Dominion power of legislation over 
 linds reserved for the Indians is not inconsistent 
 with the beneficial interest of the Province 
 therein. St. Catharine'n MilHng and Lumber 
 (\t. V. The. Queen, 14 App. Cas. 46. Judgments 
 in courts below 13 s. C. 11. 577 ; 13 A. R. 148 ; 
 10 0. R. 19t), affirmed. 
 
 INDIANS. 
 
 I. Indian Lands— See Indian Lands. 
 
 II. Sale of Liquor to— S'ee Intoxicating 
 Liquors. 
 
 As to right of electors on Indian lands to vote 
 under Canada Temperance Act, 1878. See 
 
 1 * 
 
'I ' "■ 
 
 "I 
 
 903 
 
 mTANT. 
 
 904 
 
 
 'UK 
 
 
 3m ' 
 
 
 A«(7ina V. Sharelcm; 1 1 (). R. 727. Re Meleal/e, 
 17 O. I{. 357. 
 
 On an applicatiiin wliich wrm granted undur 
 Rulo 80 ((N)ii. Riilo TM», for judgment ivguin«t 
 an Indian living Mitli IiIh tril)u on their reHurve, 
 and not being tlio lioldcr of any real or perHonal 
 property oiitnide tlie ri'Murvo : —Held, ttiat since 
 the repeal of ('. (S. ('. c. It, there Ih nothing to 
 prevent an Indian xiiing and being Hued, although 
 by the Indian Actof l»8(t, Meetion77 (Doin.), the 
 judgment will not bind any property of the In- 
 dian except that dcHcrilieil in Heution 75. Bryce 
 V. matt, 11 P. R. 112,— Dalton, Mnntir. 
 
 Claims of half-brecdH. See liimin v. Young, 
 10 A. K. 215. 
 
 INDIOTMENT. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 As to whether in<lictnient or mandamus i» the 
 appropriate remedy to conii-el a municipality to 
 repair an existing bridge or erect a new one. 
 See /n re The 7 •»•««/(('/>.< of MoiilUm and Vttn- 
 borowfh atiU lite Coiinli/ of llaldimand, 12 A. U. 
 603. 
 
 INDIGENT DEBTOBS' ACT. 
 
 In an action for Bcduction, the defendant was 
 arrested under a writ of ca. re., and judgment 
 having been entered against him, a ca. sa. was 
 issued, and he was surreiidered by his bailtotiiu 
 custody of the sheriff:— Held, that the defen- 
 dant was not in custody as a debtor, or on exe- 
 cution, but on mesne process as a wrong-doer, 
 and that he was not entitled to an order for pay- 
 ment of a weekly allowance under the Indigent 
 Debtors' Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 69. Wheatly 
 V. Sharp, 8 P. R. 189.— Cameron. 
 
 Held, that it is within the power of the clerk 
 of the Crown in chambers to make an order for 
 the payment of a weekly allowance to a debtor, 
 under the above Act, wliere it can legally be 
 made. lb. 
 
 INFANT. 
 
 I. Powers of. 
 
 1, To Z>ewi»e, 904. 
 
 2. As Executor, 904. 
 
 II. CONTRACIS BY, 904. 
 
 IV. Actions and Proceedings By 
 Against. 
 
 1. An Executor, 906. 
 
 2. Next Friend, 906. 
 
 3. Official Ouavdian. 
 
 (a) Service on, 906. 
 
 (b) Coats, 907. 
 
 4. O^r Cases, 907. 
 
 5. Partition of Estate— See EsiATi. 
 
 AND 
 
 V. (iirARDIAN AND TRUSTEE 
 
 1. Sec ur ill/ by, 908. 
 
 2. Other Oases, 908. 
 VI. CCSTODY OK, 90fi. 
 
 VII. Siiri'oRT ok, 911. 
 VIII. Infants' Kstatk. 
 
 1. AilrannnuHt, Oil. 
 
 2. Maintenance, 911. 
 X Sale.',/ 911. 
 
 4. Partition of— Sec Partition. 
 
 5. Pai/inriil of Money Out of Court, 913. 
 0. Trmtets of— See Tku.st.s and Trus- 
 
 TKKS. 
 
 7. PosHPHsiun By or Af/ainst Infants — See 
 Limitation ok Action.s. 
 
 IX. Anoi'TioN, 91.S. 
 
 X. MiscKi.LANEous Cases, 913. 
 
 XI. Parknt and Cmui—See Parent ami 
 Ciiii.i). 
 
 XII. Ii.i.F.diTiMATE Child— .SVc Bastard. 
 
 XIII. Seduction of— See Seduction. 
 
 I. Powers ok. 
 
 1, To Devise. 
 
 In a so-called will, executed a few days before 
 her death, G. L.'s wife, assumed to devise the 
 land in question to L. At the date of this will 
 G. was only eighteen years of age ; — Held, that 
 the will was invalid. C. 8. U. C. c. 7.S, s. 16 
 (K. S. O. (1877), c. 106, s. 6), only removes the 
 disability of coverture in resiiect to wills, not 
 of infancy. He Murray Vanal — Lawsoii v. 
 Pollers, 6 O. K. 685.— Boyd. 
 
 2. As Executor. 
 
 See Merehants' 
 334, pp. 709, 720, 
 Vrookshanks, 12 P. 
 
 Bank V. Monteith, 10 P. R 
 73ti ; Re Jackson — Massey v. 
 
 R. 475, p. 907. 
 
 II, Contracts by. 
 
 The plointifF being at the time an infant, on 
 20th Feliruary, 1878, executed a mortgage in 
 favour of the <lefendants. The proceeds were 
 chiefly applied in paying off prior incumbrances 
 on the land. The plaintiff came of age on 19th 
 April, 18S0. After this date, and with full 
 knowledge of his position, he, on Jannars' IGth, 
 1884, executed another mortgage, with the ob- 
 ject of in part paying off the mortgage in ques- 
 tion ; and, moreover, by certain conversations 
 with an agent of the defendants he admitted his 
 liability under the latter mortgage, nor did he 
 take any steps to disaffirm it until 7th Septem- 
 ber, 1882. On 30th September, 1882, this ac- 
 tion was commenced : — Held, that the mortgage 
 in question was not void, but only voidable, and 
 that the plaintiff's conduct after he came of age 
 amounted to a ratitication of it. Foley v. Can- 
 
 Wher 
 by a tut 
 through 
 tutor, h 
 tion to I 
 tutor ha 
 88 requi 
 authoriy 
 the oblij 
 void, 
 becomiii 
 if made 1 
 Jity or if 
 tutor, 
 
 Ifai 
 ^uently I 
 
904 
 
 906 
 
 INFANT. 
 
 aila Pertnanent Loan and Savings Co, , 4 0. R. 
 .•tS.-Chy. D. 
 
 'I'lio riilu ii now well ostublitihod, that the dooil 
 iif nu infant is not void at> initio, l)nt voidnblu, 
 (in liiH nttuining majority, if lie wiHhos to avoid 
 it, ho niUHt oxprcHsly rupuiliato his contract 
 within a roasonalilu time after coming of ago, 
 (itlicrwiHC hiH Hilunco will be hold to amount to 
 nn allirmanco of it. Jh. 
 
 Semblu, tliat actn of less moment and HJgnili- 
 canco than are required to avoid tlio conveyance 
 of a minor, may l)e Hullieienl evidence of itH rati- 
 fication. Ih. 
 
 Seniblo (per Proudfoot, .1.), that it must bo 
 presumed that an adult wiio alllrniH a deed exe- 
 cuted by him during infancy, does ao with 
 ItMOwledgo of his rights, and of hia exemption 
 from liability. Il>. 
 
 Per lloyil, C. — The policy of the law now is 
 generally to allow the infant to suspend hit ulti- 
 iiinte decision npon([ue8lionHof lienedt or injury, 
 lill he ia of legal capacity to iiind iiinmell' as an 
 adult. Wlien he arrives at majority lie is clotlicd 
 with full legal capacity witli all its incidents, 
 and, at. an adult, has no special protection on tho 
 ground of ignorance of the law, and any dis- 
 aflirnmnce by him of a deed executed during 
 minority should only bo given eflect to on the 
 tenns of his restoring to tlic otiier party, as far 
 as possible, any lienotit obtained by him during 
 minority. /Ii. 
 
 ,, ,. r 1 li. 1 i 1 ■ . trienil sliould p 
 
 Kxecution of chattel mortgage and assignment ■, .,-,» 15,,,. f 
 
 for creditors by infant partner. ,See Pumll v. '• ' ' • - ■ • 
 
 Calder, 8 O. 1!. 505, p. 80(5. 
 
 tho lender against a Bubso(piont purchaser of th« 
 property mortgaged will not lie. Hi. 
 
 Infant stock-holder repudiating liability hi 
 contributory. Noo lif Central Hank and Iiogu, 
 10 (). H. 7, p. 'riO. 
 
 IV. Actions AND Phockkdinci!* Hv and Against. 
 
 1, Ax K.iinilor. 
 
 An infant wlietiier executor or executor de 
 son tort is not liable for a deviiatavit. Young 
 v. Piin-ix, II (). R. 507.— Proudfoot. 
 
 See Mevflianl; lutnk v. Munlf.itli, 10 P. K. 
 3.S4 p. 7H(i. /I'rJuiidN — AfuHiej/v. VrookshankK, 
 I -J I'. R. 475, p. 007. 
 
 2. NtxlFrincd. 
 
 An administi'ati^ ■ of an estate in which in- 
 fants were int' rcii "1, was uuide on the mere 
 anggestior; of Uieii next friend tliat it wimld be 
 for tiieir licnefit, witliout going into tlio merits 
 of the case between the plaintilf an<l the defen- 
 
 I dant, tlio executor. AV Wilnou- 
 
 ; home, 9 P. R. 89.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where one commenced an actionas next friend 
 to an infant to restrain waste on the 'nfant's 
 ])roporly without any notice to tlie defendant, 
 and without any investigation as to tho good 
 reasons wliicli tlie defendant had for acting in 
 tlie manner complained of :— Held, that tlie next 
 friend should pay the costs. Jlil/ v. Mitt, 8 O, 
 
 -Lloyd v. Tich- 
 
 Application to set aside a conveyance made 
 liy plaintilT, a married woman, while under age. 
 —Terms of granting relief.— Ac(|uiescence after 
 attaining majority. Sec Wknlli v. Lmrn,\iiO. 
 R. 481, p. 873. 
 
 An infant cannot during infancy avc 1 a lease 
 ))y him, reserving rent for his lienefit, and pos- 
 session of tho demised premises will be ordered 
 to be given in an action by the lessee for that 
 purpose. Hartshorn v. Early, 19 C. P. 1.S9, and 
 Slator /'. Brady, 14 Ir. C. L. R. 61, .342, followed. 
 The discretion given by Con. Rule 1 170 as to costs 
 authorizes the imposition against the infant of 
 the costs of an action to enforce such lease, in- 
 cluding the costs of the otticial guardian, paid 
 by the plaintitl's. LipacM v. Pirdiie, 18 O. R. 
 575.- C. P. D. 
 
 Where a loan of money ia improperly obtained 
 by a tutor for hia own purposes and the lender, 
 through his agent who was also the subrogate 
 tutor, has knowledge that the judicial authoriza- 
 tion to borrow has beeii obtained without the 
 tutor having first submitted a aummary account 
 as required liy Article 298 C. C, and that such 
 authorization is otherwise irregular on ita face, 
 the obligation given by the tutor is null and 
 void. The ratification by the minor after 
 becoming of ags of such obligation is not binding 
 if made without knowledge of the causes of nul- 
 lity or illegality of the obligation given by the 
 tutor. Davis v. Kerr, 17 S. C. K. 235. 
 
 If a mortgage, granted by a tutor and aubse- 
 quently ratified oy a minor when of age, ia de- 
 «lared null and void, an hypothecary action by 
 
 An oi'der was made indemnifying the next 
 friend of the infant jilaintifl's out of tneir money 
 for the costs of an appeal to tho Supreme Court 
 of (>anada, where tlie appeal was advised by 
 more than one counsel, and one of the judges of 
 the Court of Ajipeal had dissented from the rest. 
 Cotlhuifiam v. Cottingliam , 11 P. R. 13. — Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 Action for penalty under Election Act. See 
 aan-fM V. liolttrtx, 10 A. 11. 650 p. 914. 
 
 When an infant appears and defends a suit 
 by his guardian ad litem, or by his next friend 
 institutes proceedings, he is bound by such 
 proceedings just aa if he had been (;n adult. 
 Hicker v. Richer, 27 Chy. 576. — Proudfoot. 
 
 ' -•■- 3. Officiat Guardian. 
 (a) Service on. 
 
 The costs of serving an infant personally who 
 is out of the jurisdiction, will not be allowed, 
 the proper method is to obtain a proecipe order 
 appointing a guardian ad litem, under G. 0. Chy. 
 610, and serve liiin. The official guardian is 
 now by O. J. Act, section 66, such guardian. In 
 this case an allowance was ordered to be made 
 if the peraonal aervice on the infants had facili- 
 tated the official guardian in communicating 
 with them or their relatives. Jtew v. Anthony, 
 9 P. R. 545.— Boyd. 
 
 In a partition auit an order allowing substi- 
 tutional service of the bill, on the official guar- 
 dian of an infant defendant, resident without 
 the juriadiction of the court, was granted on the 
 ground that the share of the infant in the lands 
 
907 
 
 INFANT. 
 
 908 
 
 in qnestion amounted to only $40, and substi- 
 tutional set »'ice v/ould be inexpensive. Weather- 
 head V. fVeathcrhead, 9 P. K. 96.— Stephens, 
 
 Re/eree. 
 
 Held, that administration proceedings taken 
 against an infant co-executor without observing 
 the usual practice of serving tl e oHicial guar- 
 dian were invalid. lit' Jack-nt>ii—Mns.try v. 
 Crookshankn, 12 P. R. 475.— Hoyd. 
 
 The provisions of the rules and general orders 
 as to service in case of infancy apply whether 
 the infant be a sole or a joint defendant, and 
 whether he be sued personally or in a represen- 
 tative capacity. Ih. 
 
 In a proceeding by petition under tlie Quiet- 
 ing Titles Act, service on the oHicial guardian, 
 is good service upon infants who are reqiured to 
 be notified of the proceedings. A'c Murray, \'A 
 V. R. 367. -Ferguson. 
 
 (b) GodK. 
 
 The official guardian's costs of defending this 
 action on bshaif of an infant defendant were 
 ordered to be paid by the plaintiff, notwithstand- 
 ing that judgment was pronouncc<l in favour of 
 the plaintiff against the infant defendant, and 
 that the latter had been found to be a party to 
 the fraud which occasioned the action. West- 
 gate v, Westgate, 11 P. R. 62.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Lipsett v. Perdue, 18 O. R. 575, p. 905. 
 
 4. Other Canes. 
 
 Where there was no evidence to shew that 
 infants had been served with a de<'ree of fore- 
 closure, reserving to them a day tu shew cause 
 on attaining their majority, but it was shewn 
 that they had been served with notice of pro- 
 ceedings under the Quieting Titles Act, proof of 
 service of the decree was dispensed with. lie 
 OUchrist, 8 P. R. 472.— Wake. 
 
 A final order of foreclosure should reserve a 
 day for infant defendants to shew cause. Spragge, 
 C, was of opinion that the ptactice should be 
 changed for the sake of putting an end to litiga- 
 tion and to the evil of having estates tied up for 
 perhaps many years, but refused to change the 
 practice in the present case. London and 
 Canadian Loan and Agenci/ Co. v. Everett, 8 P. 
 R. 489.— Spragge. 
 
 In an action of ejectment by niorlgagees, on 
 the application of the infant defendants, an order 
 for immediate possession and sale of the mort- 
 gage premises was made, with a reference to the 
 master to take the usual accounts, but $80 was 
 ordered to be paid into court to meet the ex- 
 penses of the sale. Wexterii Canada Loan and 
 ilavings Co. v. Dunn, 9 P. R. 587. — Armour. — 
 Rescinding order of the master in chambers in 
 S. C. lb. 490. 
 
 Costs of enforcing lease made by infant and 
 costs of otiicial guardian. See Lipsett v. Perdue, 
 18 O. R. 575, p. 905. 
 
 Defence of infancy to action for breach of pro- 
 mise of marriage. See Smith v. Jamieson, 17 O. 
 R. 626, p. 865. 
 
 A person lending money to a tutor, which he 
 proves to have been used to the advantage and 
 benefit of the minor, has a personal remedy 
 against the minor when of age for the amount so 
 loaned and used. Davi-H v. Kerr, 17 S. G. R. 
 235. 
 
 See Young v. Huber, 29 Chy. 49, p. 916; 
 McPhermm v. McPherson, 10 P. R. 140, p. 705. 
 
 V. Guardian and Trustee. 
 1. Security by. 
 
 An order having been made under 47 Vict. c. 
 20, s. 12 (Ont.), for tlie appointment of a trustee 
 to receive insurance moneys to which infants 
 were entitled, the master-in-ordinary named a 
 person as trustee, and required him to give se- 
 curity in double the amount to be received. On 
 an ex parte appeal tlie direction of the master 
 that security should be given was atlirmed, and : — 
 Held, that it would be contrary to the uniform 
 practice of the court to appoint any one as the 
 custodian of infants' money, whether as trustee 
 or guanlian, without requiring secnrity for the 
 proper discharge of his duties, lie Thin, 10 P. 
 R. 490. — Hodgins, MaMer-in-Ordinary. — Boyd. 
 
 A foreigner was appointed trustee for infants 
 under 47 Vict. c. 20 (Ont.), to receive insurance 
 moneys, without being re(£uired to give security 
 in this province, on its being shewn that he had 
 given security upon his appointment as guardian, 
 to the satisfaction of a court in the state where 
 ho and the infants resided. Tiie insurance com- 
 pany were discharged upon payment to the trus- 
 tee of the moneys in their hands. Re Andrews, 
 11 P. R. 199.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Galbraith v. Buncombe, 28 Chy. 27. 
 
 2. Other Cases. 
 
 It was provided in a will, (1) That the inter- 
 est on investments should be paid by trustees 
 for the benefit of certain infants to their guardian 
 appointed by the will, or to such guardian, ex- 
 cept the father of the infants, as the court should 
 appoint; and (2) That if the father applied to 
 the court, the trustees were to allow the interest 
 to accumulate and be invested till tl.c infants 
 became of age. The guardian named ct^ased to 
 act, and after the lapse of two years (notice hav- 
 ing been given to the father), it was ordered, 
 (I) That the petitioner, the aunt of the infants, 
 with whom they had lived since the death of 
 their mother, the testatrix, should be appointed 
 guardian ; (2) That the petitioner should ne paid 
 for the past maintenance of the infants. A'e 
 Hey wood, 8 P. I!. 292.— Rlake. 
 
 The sum aUotted to the guardian of infants 
 for commission in i)artition suits should not be 
 measured only by the work done in the master's 
 office. Cameron v, Leroux, 9 P. R. 304. — Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 Where one brought an action against an exe- 
 cutor in this counti-y to recover legacies be- 
 queathed to infants, resident in Minnesota, of 
 whom he had been appointed guardian by a 
 Probate Court of Minnesota, and it appeared 
 that the duties and powers of guardians under 
 the laws of Minnesota were not greater than 
 
gc9 
 
 INPANT. 
 
 910 
 
 those of testamentary guardians, or suardians 
 appointed by a Surrogate Court in this coun- 
 try:— Held, that the money must be paid into 
 court, and not to the foreign guardian. Semble, 
 that the rule might be niodiKed if the sum were 
 small, and the whole, or nearly the whole, were 
 recjuired for the infant's education and mainten- 
 ance, or other immediate nae. Flanthm v. 
 D' Evelyn, 4 0. R. 704.— Proudfoot. 
 
 An application for an order sanctioning the 
 payment of a bequest in favour of infants to 
 their father, who with the infants resided in a 
 foreign state, an<l had there ))een appointed 
 guardian by a .Surrogate Court, was refused, and 
 the executors were ordered to pay the amount 
 of tlie bequest into court, lie Andrews, 11 1', 
 R. 199, distinguished. He Parr, 11 P. R. .101.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Payment of infants' legacy to guardian. See 
 Hi((jijini V. Lfiw, 11 O. R. 565. 
 
 Held, that the duly appointed tutors in tlie 
 Province of Quebec of an infant domiciled and 
 residing there, which province had also been the 
 domicile of the father at his deatii, were entitled 
 to have paid over to them from the Ontario ad- 
 ministrators of the father's estate, there being 
 no creditors' money coming to the infant from 
 said estate, which had been collected in Ontario. 
 Hanrahnn v. Hnnrahan, 19 0. R. :{9«.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Galbraith v. Duncomhe, 28 Chy. 27 ; Iieu> v. 
 Anthony, 9 P. R. r)45, p. 906; liallrayy. Lnrtie, 
 15 >S. C. K. 102; Hickcyv. .Stover, 11 O. R. 106; 
 Kent V. Kent, 20 O. R. 445; Clarke v. Macdonell, 
 SJO O. R. 564. 
 
 VI. Custody of. 
 
 The mother of a child six years of .ige, whose 
 fatlicr was dead, having remarried, delivered 
 up the child to a cousin for nurture and adop 
 tion. No written .'greemcnt was made and the 
 parties differed as to tiie verbal understanding : 
 — Held, that the court looking oidy to the best 
 interests of the child, should refuse to direct its 
 redelivery to the mother. The fact of the 
 mother having remarried, and having children 
 by both husbands, and that tiie child would be 
 "nder the custody of a stepfather, was regarded 
 as one ground for the non-interference of the 
 court. In re Scott, vS P. R. 58. — Osier. 
 
 While the undoubted natural right of a father 
 tn the custody and guardianship of his child 
 is undisputed, and while the law imputes ability 
 and inclination to the parent to perform his 
 duty to his child, the riLdit is yet founded upon 
 his actual capacity to dischargd this duty, and 
 his superior claim to the custody of his offspring 
 may be suspended while the inca^iacity lasts. 
 Under the circumstances of this case, stated in 
 the report, theG(mrt refused, on the application 
 of the father, to take the ciiild out of ( 3 cus- 
 tody of its grandmother and her brother-ni '.aw. 
 Re Ferijmon, 8 P. R. 556. — Boyd. 
 
 Where the father and mother of a female 
 child under five years of age were living apart, 
 the court refused, under the circumstances 
 stated in the judgment, to take the child out 
 of the custody of the mother, but allowed the 
 father to have access to the child at stated times. 
 In re Murdoch, 9 P. R. 132.— Osier. 
 
 Custody of illegitimate child. See In re Smith, 
 8 P. R. 23, p. 149; O'Rourke v. Campbell, 13 
 O. R. 563, p. 149. 
 
 A return was made by the mother of the in- 
 fants, in whose custody they were, to a writ ot 
 habeas corpus obtained by the father with the 
 object of compelling the delivery of their custody 
 to him. The return stated that they were all 
 under twelve, the age mentioned in R. S. 0. 
 (1877) c. 130, s. 1 :— Held, upon demurrer, that 
 the return must be considered in the ligiit, not 
 only of the common law, but of tlio statutory 
 provisions with regard to the custody of infants, 
 and that the return was sufficient in law. Re 
 Murdocii, 9 P. R. 132, explained and followed. 
 Hi; Smart Infunta, 11 P. R. 482.— Ferguson. 
 
 A father was proceeding by habeas corpus to 
 obtain an order awarding him the custody of his 
 infant children (See 12 P. R. 2):— Held, that 
 a more comprehensive adjudication could be had 
 upon a petition, and that there was power to 
 direct that a petition should be substituted for 
 the habeas corpus proceedings. Such a direction 
 was given wlicre it appeared to be in the in- 
 terest of the infants and all concerned. .S'. C, 
 12 P. R. 312.— Ferguson. 
 
 The order of Ferguson, J., mpnt, was affirmed 
 with one variation, viz., the habeas corpus to 
 run concurrently with the petition and to be 
 disposed of with it. S. C, Ik 435.— Chy. D. 
 
 The order of the Chancery Divisional Court, 
 12 P. II. 435, affirmed on appeal :— Held, that 
 the infants' father had waivetl his right to ap- 
 peal from the order diiocting the filing of a pe- 
 tition by having complied witli such order : — 
 Semble, but for the waiver of the appeal the 
 father must have succec il ; for the power 
 given by Rule 474, O. J. A. (Con. Rule 444), 
 is to amend any defects or errors, not to compel 
 a litigant to adopt a different form of remedy 
 for one which is in itself competent and regular. 
 S. C, lb. 635.— C. of A. 
 
 Upon an application by the father of two in- 
 fants under the ages of five and throe respec- 
 tively , for a habeas corpus to obtain their custody 
 from the mother, it appeared that the applicant 
 was a man of drunken habits and of evil con- 
 versation, that he had beaten his wife and so 
 ill-t.'eated her that she was justified in leaving 
 him, while she was a moral and sober woman. 
 It was also shewn that the maternal grand- 
 mother of the infants was able and willing to 
 give them a home with their mother, who lived 
 with her, while the paternal grandmother was 
 neither able nor willing to do so : — Held, that, 
 having regard to the welfare of the infants and 
 the conduct of the parents, the mother should 
 have the custoily for the present. lie Dickson 
 Infantu, 12 P. R. 659.— Street. 
 
 It was urged that the father had a right to 
 have the children brought up as Presbyterians, 
 and that the mother and her mother were both 
 members of the Salvation anny :— Held, that 
 this question was not a pressing one owing to 
 the tender age of the infants ; the father might 
 raise it again, lb. 
 
 Held, also, that having regard to the wide 
 discretion given by R. S. 0. (1887), c. 137, s. 1, 
 the judge was freed from any possible obliga- 
 
911 
 
 INFANT. 
 
 912 
 
 
 8*1 
 
 ■i| 
 
 i! 
 
 tion to make, upon the application of the father 
 an order -which would be reversed on the ap- 
 plication of the mother. lb. 
 
 See Jiobertu v. Ifall, 1 O. K. 388, p. 913. 
 
 VII. Support of. 
 
 Where a father whose children are maintained 
 by another, and who could have obtained posses- 
 sion of their persona by habeas corpus, allows 
 theiii to be so maintained, he is liable for their 
 support and maintenance to the person in whose 
 care such children are. Hughes v, Reaa, 10 P. 
 R. 301. — Hodgins, JUaiter-iii-Ordiiiart/. 
 
 Liability of jjarent for wearing apparel fur- 
 nished to his SOI). See Hayman v. Heieard, 18 
 C. r. 353. 
 
 VIII. Infants' Estate. 
 
 1. Advancement. 
 
 Difference between the law of England and 
 our own as to advancements to children, com- 
 mented on. Under our law an advancement is 
 neitlicr a loan nor (iebt to be repaid, nor an 
 absol\ite gift. It is a bestowment of property by 
 a parent on a, child, on condition that if t)ie 
 donee claims to share in the intestate estate of 
 the donor, he shall bring in this property for the 
 purposes of e(jual distribution. lie Hall, 14 
 O. R. 557.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Maintenance. 
 
 Wheie an allowance for past maintenance of 
 infants is souglit out of the infants' estate, it is a 
 rule that the principal is not to be encroached 
 upon, unless for unavoidable reasons falling little 
 short of necessity ; and the court will not sanc- 
 tion a higher allowance for past expenditure 
 than wouid have been awarded for maintenance 
 if a prior application had been made therefor. 
 Where the aggregate amount of principal of the 
 estate of five infants was $11,250, the master 
 allowed their mother $9,.")04 for five years' past 
 maintenance, but Boyd, C, on appeal, reduced 
 the amo"nt to $C,ii00. Crane v. Craig, 11 P. R. 
 236.— Boyd. 
 
 See lie Hej/woo-l, 8 P. R. 292, p. 908. 
 
 3. Sale of. 
 
 Although by the general rule and course of 
 proceeding in mortgage cases the mortgagor is 
 entitled to six montlis to redeem, before a sale 
 is ordered, the court will, under special circum- 
 stances, direct an immediate sale, even against 
 the infant heirs of the mortgagor. Swift v. 
 Mi7Uer, 27 Chy. 217.— Blake. 
 
 Liberty of plaintiff, who was mortgagee and 
 trustee, to bid at sale of the mortgaged pre- 
 mises made under a decree. See Ricker v. 
 Richer, 27 Chy. 576; 7 A. R. 282. 
 
 On a sale of the land of an infant under R. S. 
 O. (1877), c. 40, ss. 75-83, an order was made 
 under 44 Vict. c. 14, s. 5 (Ont.), barring the 
 dower of the infant's mother, who was a lunatic 
 and confined in an asylum. Re Colthart, 9 P. 
 R. 356.— Ferguson. 
 
 Interest of infants in land, barred by a con- 
 veyance to a railway company by their mother 
 who was part owner. See Dunlop v. Canada 
 Central R. W. Co., 45 Q. B. 74. 
 
 Certain infants' lands were sold under an order 
 which appeared upon its face to have been pro- 
 secuted under the statuable jurisdiction of the 
 Court of Chancery relating to the sale of infants' 
 estates: 12 Vict. c. 72, R. S. O. (1877), c. 40, s. 
 76. The petition and order were entitled in the 
 matter of the infants, and the subsequent pro- 
 ceedings were taken as provided by the general 
 orders of the court, the order setting out that 
 what was being done was because it was benefi- 
 cial to the infants, and the conveyance was exe- 
 cuted by the referee for the infants. A srbse- 
 quent purchaser objected that the order for sale 
 did not disclose any jurisdiction : — Held, that 
 as the court would never allow the infants to 
 recede from what was so done for their benefit, 
 a subsequent purchaser could not raise doubts 
 as to jurisdiction, when upon the face of the 
 proceedings the statute authorizing the sale ap- 
 peared to have been followed. Calvert v. God- 
 frey, 6 Beav. 97, considered and distinguished. 
 Bleau V. Blean, 10 O. R. 093.— Boyd. 
 
 Where a will devised lands to the executors 
 on trust to sell the same : — Held, that the case 
 was not within section 8 of the Devolution of 
 Estates Act and the approval of the official 
 guardi; '-. or an order of the court was not nR- 
 cessary to a sale. The word " devolve" in this 
 section, is not used in its strict and accepted 
 meaning of falling upon by way of succession, 
 but in the sense merely of " passing," and what 
 is meant is, that where infants are concerned, 
 no real estate which, but for the preceding sec- 
 tions, would not come to the executors or ad- 
 ministrators by a devise, gift, or conveypnco, 
 can be validly sold without the written consent 
 of tlie official guardian. In re Booth'n TrustK, 16 
 O. R. 42'.). --Ferguson. 
 
 Notwithstanding the provision of R. S. O. 
 (1887), c. 137, 8. 4, that an application for the 
 .sale of an infant's lands shall not be made witli- 
 out the consent of the infant if he is of the age 
 of fourteen years, the consent of a majority of 
 infant lan<lowners may be sufficient ; for by the 
 Interpretation Act, R. S. O. (1887), c 1, s. 8. 
 aub-ss. 24 and 34, words importing the singular 
 nimiber shall include more persons than one, an<l 
 females as well as males, and where an act or 
 thing is refptired to be done by more than two 
 persons, a majority of tliem may do it. And in 
 tliis case, where there were three infants all 
 over fourteen, and two of them consented to a 
 sale of their lands, but the eldest had disap- 
 peared and could not be reached, an order was 
 made dispensing with the consent of the one, 
 the sale being evidently for the benefit of all the 
 family. Re Harding, 13 P. R. 112.— Boyd. 
 
 Upon a petition under R. iS. O. (1887), c. 137, 
 s. 3, for the sale of lands belonging to three in- 
 fants, the examination of the eldest, a girl of 
 sixteen, was dispensed with, notwithstanding 
 the provisions of section 4 of the Act and of 
 Con. R"le 999, upon the ground that she was an 
 imbecile. Re Lane, 9 P. R. 251, and Re Harding, 
 13 P. R. 112, followed. Re Delanty, 13 P. R. 
 143. — Ferguson. 
 
 See Re Hornihrook, 12 P. R. 591. 
 
912 
 
 913 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 914 
 
 by a con- 
 jir mother 
 r. Canada 
 
 it an order 
 I been pro- 
 ion of the 
 of infants' 
 '), c. 40, s. 
 tied in the 
 juent pro- 
 ;he general 
 g out that 
 was beiieti- 
 ;e was exe- 
 A si'bse- 
 ler for sale 
 Held, that 
 infants to 
 eir benefit, 
 lise doubts 
 face of the 
 the sale ap- 
 'crt V. CJod- 
 tinguished. 
 I. 
 
 e executors 
 at the case 
 ivolution of 
 
 the official 
 was not n«- 
 >lve" in this 
 id accepted 
 
 succession, 
 ;," and what 
 
 concerned, 
 eccding sec- 
 utors or ad- 
 conveypnce, 
 
 ten consent 
 
 n Trusts, 16 
 
 jf R. S. <). 
 tion for the 
 
 made with- 
 8 of the age 
 
 majority of 
 
 ; for by the 
 ), e. 1, 8. 8, 
 the singular 
 han one, and 
 re an act or 
 re than two 
 
 it. And in 
 infants all 
 nsented to a 
 , had di sap- 
 in order was 
 
 of the one, 
 ?fit of all the 
 
 -Boyd. 
 
 887), c. 137, 
 ; to three in- 
 ;i;t, a girl of 
 ivithstanding 
 Act and of 
 it she was an 
 Re Harding, 
 !i/, l.S P. R. 
 
 6. Payment of Money Out of Court. 
 
 Payment of money out of court to infants 
 under order made prior to passage of O. J. Act. 
 See Re Cameron, 9 P. R. 77. 
 
 A sum of money left by McD. in his will to 
 his daughter, who predeceased him, was paid 
 into court by McD. 's executors. The daughter 
 by her will had disposed of the moneys which 
 she expected from her father's estate, leaving 
 part to her husband and part to her infant 
 children, naming her husband executor, and <li- 
 recting him to invest the infants' shares and ex- 
 pend the interest for their maintenance. It was 
 admitted by the official guardian on belialf of 
 the infants that there was no reason to anticipate 
 danger to the money if paid to the executor : — 
 Held, that the will of the testatrix should be re- 
 spected, and the infants' money paid out to the 
 executor. Jifi McDowiall TriMts, 11 P. R.494. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 IX. Adoi'tion. 
 
 Where a father enters into a contract whereby 
 he ])arts with the custody and control of his 
 child, witli the bona fide intention of advancing 
 the welfare of the child, there is nothing in such 
 a contract illegal or contrary to public policy ; 
 and although, where such a contract is execu- 
 tory on both sides, the court cannot decree spe- 
 cific performance, by reason of the want of mu- 
 tuality, yet where the contract has been faith- 
 fully performed so far as the fatlier and chilil are 
 concerned, so that their status has become al- 
 tered, the court will, if possible, enforce in specie 
 the performance of tlie contract by the other 
 party to it. Jiolje.rt.'< v. Hall, 1 O. R. .S88.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Where, the parents of the plaintiff agreed with 
 H. and his wife to give up to them their daugh- 
 ter, the plaintiff, then six years old, to bring up 
 as thei- own, and make her sole heiress to their 
 property at their death, and where it appeared 
 that the agreement was bona fide intended by 
 the father for the ultimate benefit of the plain- 
 tiff, and that the plaintiff had remained with H. 
 and his wife for twenty years, rendering them 
 efficient service, and it appeared H. intended her 
 to have liis property, and regarded the agree 
 nient as binding, so that he considered it un- 
 necessary to make a will : — Held (reversing the 
 judgment of Ferguson, J. ), that the agreement 
 could be enforced against H.'s representative, 
 and that it must be decreed accordingly: — Held, 
 also (affirming F'erguson, J.), that inasmuch as, 
 if the parents of the plaintiflF had brought a suit 
 upon the agreement in this case and recovered, 
 they would be trustees of the proceeds for her, 
 the plaintiff might maintain the suit in her own 
 name, Ih, 
 
 X. Mlscellaveous Cases. 
 
 Quasre, whether an order made by the referee 
 of titles barring the claims of an infant heir-at- 
 law would have the eflFect of divesting the estate 
 of the infant. Jie Sliaver, 6 0. R. 312.— Boyd. 
 
 An infant cannot form one of the five persons 
 r^iuisite to incorporate a road company under 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 152. See Hc.Aton and Flam- 
 borough Road Co. V. Toionsend, 13 A. R. 634. 
 
 68 
 
 Held, that section 2 of 26 Geo. III., c. 33 
 (Lord Hard wick's Act), by which the marriage 
 of a minor by license without the consent of the 
 parent or guardian was absolutely void is not in 
 force in this province. Lawless v. Chamberlain, 
 18 0. R. 296.— Boyd. 
 
 INFORMATION. 
 
 I. Before Magistkates— 6Ve Intoxicat- 
 ing Liquors— Justice of the Peace. 
 
 II. Removal of— .S'cc Certiorari. 
 
 In charging forgery in proceedings under the 
 Extradition Act. See In re H. L. Lee, 5 O. R. 
 583, p. 741. 
 
 INFORMER. 
 
 Held, that 18 Eliz. c. 5, which enacts that an 
 informer shall sue cither in person or by attorney, 
 is in force in tiiis Province ; and, therefore, the 
 plaintiff, an infant suing by his next friend, could 
 not maintain an action for a penalty under the 
 Election Act. The appellant having omitted to 
 take this objection in the court below, this court 
 Oh allowing tlie appeal on that ground refused 
 him his costs of appeal. Onrretl v. Boberls, 10 
 A. R. 650. 
 
 A i)crson who sues for a penalty given by the 
 Election Act is a common informer. 76. 
 
 INJUNCTION, 
 
 I. From County Court, 915. 
 II. When Granted. 
 
 1. On Application of Attorney-General, 
 
 915. 
 
 2. To Stay Legal Proceedings, 915. 
 
 3. To Restrain A rbitrators from Proceed- 
 
 ing -See Akbitratioh AND Award. 
 
 4. Breaches of Contract or Covenant, 916. 
 
 5. Against Corporations and Companies. 
 
 (a) Municipal Corporations, 917. 
 
 (b) Railway Companies, 919. 
 
 (c) Other Companies and Corpora- 
 
 tions, 920. 
 
 6. Commiltinij or Continuing Nuisances. 
 
 (a) Offensive Trades, 923. 
 
 (b) Pollution or Penning back Water 
 
 — See Water and Water- 
 
 COUI^SES. 
 
 7. Breach of Copyright— See CoFYmonr. 
 
 8. liifringement of Traxle Marks— See 
 
 Trade Marks. 
 
 9. Infringement of Patents— See Patent 
 
 FOR Invention. 
 
 10. To Restrain Waste— See Waste. 
 
 11. Other Cases, 92i. 
 
»16 
 
 INJUNOTION. 
 
 91S 
 
 917 
 
 H 
 
 
 III. Practice. 
 
 1. Delay in Applying, 926. 
 
 2. Addinij Partks, 926. 
 
 3. Exlendimj or Continuin<j, 926. 
 
 4. Ai'pealK, 927. 
 
 5. cro,f<.s 927. 
 
 IV. Interim Injunction, 927. 
 V. Breach of Injunction, 928. 
 
 I. From Countv Court. 
 
 The County Court on its equity side had power 
 to grant an injunction in any caae coming with- 
 in its jurisdiction. Tlie fact of the title to land 
 coming in question did not oust tlie jurisdiction 
 of the County Court on its equity side. Hae v. 
 Trim, 8 P. R. 405.— Taylor, Ma-tter. 
 
 II. When Granted. 
 
 1. On Application of Atiorney-Oeneral. 
 
 Atlorney-Ofneral v. International Brid(ie Co., 
 27 Chy. 37 ; 6 A. R. 537, p. 93 ; Hathaway v. 
 Doig, 28 Chy. 461 ; Atl<mmj-Geueral—Ex rel. 
 Hohbs V. Niagara FalU \Vi:deij Park and Clifton 
 Tramway Co., 19 0. |{. 024, p. 923. 
 
 2. To Slay Legal Proceedings. 
 
 A court of equity will restrain a creditor who 
 has obtained an attaching order at law, from en- 
 forcing it against a fund recovered by means of 
 a suit inequity to the prejudice of the attorneys' 
 lieu for costs in that suit. Canadian Bank of 
 Commirre V. Crouch, 8 P. R. 437.— Osier. 
 
 Where on the sale and conveyance of land the 
 existence of an incumbrance is concealed by the 
 vendor, who covenants against incumbrances 
 and the purchaser executes a mortgage to secure 
 a balance of unpaid purchase money, the court 
 will restrain au action to enforce payment of such 
 mortgage, brought at the instance of the nK)rt- 
 gagee— or the voluntary transferee— unless the 
 amount of the incumbrance so concealed is 
 deducted from the sum secured by such mort- 
 gage. This principle was applied in a case where 
 the purcliaser was a married woman, and her 
 husband had joined in and executed the mort- 
 gage, by which he covcn:i.ited to pay tlie amount 
 secured thereby, although tlie covenant against 
 incumbrances was to the wife and not to the 
 husband, the covenantor himself. Lovelace v. 
 Harrington, 27 Chy. 178.— .Spragge. 
 
 I'roceedings were taken before a county judge 
 to garni.sh certain moneys, payable by the 
 county to the plaintiff, as clerk of the peace and 
 county crown attorney, and which money that 
 judfio onlered to be attached in favour of the 
 creditoi-, the present defeiulant. Thereupon the 
 debtor, the defendant in those proceedings, filed 
 a bill in this court, seeking to restrain further 
 action on such order :— Held, that this court 
 had no jurisdiction to grant the relief asked ; 
 that the proper course to obtain such relief was, 
 by appeal to the Court of Appeal ; and without 
 determining whether the claim of the debtor 
 against the county was such as could be garn- 
 
 ished, the court (Proudfoot, V. C), refused the 
 motion for injunction, with costs. Van Norman 
 V. Grant, 27 Chy. 498. 
 
 The plaintiff who claimed title under a deed, 
 made before, though registered after, the lodg- 
 ing of an execution in the hands of the sheiitf, 
 was ; — Held, entitledto an injunction to restrain 
 a sale by an execution creditor, of tlie interest 
 which her co-defendant in the execution would 
 have had in the land but for such deed ; and slie 
 was not bound to attend the sherifPs sale, explain 
 her interest and protest. liusxell v. Bu-inell, 28 
 Chy. 419. — Spragge. 
 
 The common law right as to the priority of an 
 execution creditor of a lunatic wlio has ar exe- 
 cution in the hands of a sheriff before the lunatic 
 has been declared such, will not be interfered 
 with by injunction restraining him from realizing 
 under his writ. In re Grant, 28 Chy. 457.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 In a suit by an infant partner against his co- 
 partner praying for dissolution, receiver, refei'- 
 ence, etc., after a decree pro confesso, and dur- 
 ing the taking of the accounts — under an agree- 
 ment for tlie continuance of the partnersliip 
 business for that purpose — certain creditors of 
 the firm obtained judgments and executions at 
 law against tlie partner of the infant, who was 
 not informed of these proceedings until the 
 sheriff had seized, and was about to sell, tlio 
 whole of the partnersliip property :— Held, on 
 motion for injunction, that the proceedings at 
 law were not within the provisions of R. 6. 0. 
 (1877) c. 123, 8. 8, and that the sale should be 
 restrained :— Held, also, that the execution 
 creditors might be made parties for that purpose 
 on motion simply. Young v. Hiiber, 29 Chy. 
 49. — Ferguson. 
 
 Order by judge in bankruptcy in England 
 enjoining plaintiffs from proceeding in the High 
 Court of Justice for Ontario. See Maritime 
 liankx. .Stewart, 13 P. R. 86, p. 116. 
 
 See Le<' v. Credit Valle;/ R. W. Co., 29 Chy. 
 480, p. 429 ; Georgian Baij Tran'<portntion Co. v. 
 Fisher, 5 A. R. 383; Finn v. Dominion Savings 
 and Lireitnitnt Societi/, 6 A. R. 20; Davin v. 
 Lewis, 8 0. R. 1. 
 
 4. Breaches of Contract or Covenant. 
 
 The owner of real estate in effecting a sale of 
 a portion thereof, covenanted with tlie purchaser 
 that he would retain a certain square unbuilt 
 upon, with the exception of one residence with 
 the necessary outbuildings including porter's 
 lodge ; the purchaser on his part covenanting 
 tliat he or his assigns would not allow any busi- 
 ness of a public nature, such as a tavern, requir- 
 ing a license to make it allowable in the eye of 
 the law, to be carried on upon the portion con- 
 veyed to him. A<bill was filed alleging that the 
 vendor and the defendant E. W. , who resided 
 with him, were in violation of the covenant erect- 
 ing a house upon such square not within the ex- 
 ception of the covenant. The bill set forth the 
 dimensions of the square, and alleged that the 
 same was particularly shewn and delineated on 
 the map of the city of Toronto, published in 
 1857, and was situated between certain named 
 streets ; — Held, on demurrer for want of equity, 
 that the square was pointed out with sufficient 
 
91S 
 
 917 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 nt 
 
 efused t)ic 
 m Norvian 
 
 ler a deed, 
 , the lodg- 
 ihe sheriff, 
 to restrain 
 le interest 
 bion would 
 d ; and siie 
 lie, explain 
 RwmU, '28 
 
 •iority of an 
 laa ar exe- 
 the lunatic 
 • interfered 
 )m realizing 
 Jhy. 457.- 
 
 linst his oo- 
 liver, refer- 
 D, and dnr- 
 ir au agree- 
 partnership 
 cretlitors nf 
 xecutions at 
 it, who was 
 J until the 
 to sell, the 
 •.—Held, on 
 )ceedings at 
 I of R. §. 0. 
 le should be 
 e execution 
 .hat purpose 
 er, 29 Chy. 
 
 in England 
 in the High 
 e Maritime 
 6. 
 
 7o., 29 Chy. 
 'lation Co. v. 
 lion SavingH 
 0; Davis V. 
 
 >enaut. 
 
 ting a sale of 
 he purchaser 
 iiai'C unbuilt 
 aidcncc with 
 ing portor"s 
 covenanting 
 ow any Imsi- 
 vern, requir- 
 "in the eye of 
 imrtiou con- 
 ning that the 
 who resided 
 veuant erect- 
 ithin the ex- 
 set forth the 
 ged that the 
 lelineateil on 
 publisheil in 
 :rtain named 
 ,nt of equity, 
 ith sufficient 
 
 distinctneas, and the fact that it comprised 
 about six acres of land, while the portion con- 
 veyed to the purchaser was about one-fourth of 
 an acre only, was not such a ground of hardship 
 a.s would prevent the court from interfering by 
 injunction to restrain the breach of covenant, 
 and E. W. , being joined with the vendor in the 
 erection of the house, she could not be heard to 
 say she had not notice of the covenant, and the 
 demurrer wrs overruled with costs. VanKowjh- 
 net v. Denison, 28 Chy. 485.— Proudfoot. .See 
 S. C.,10. R. 349; 11 A. R. 699. 
 
 See Clmme v. Canada Southern R, W. Co., 4 O. 
 R. '28, p. 919. 
 
 4. Against Corporations and Companies. 
 
 (a) Municipal Corporations. 
 
 The plaintiff and others, councillors of the 
 town of Petrolia, attended a meeting of the 
 council on the 5th April. They were absent at 
 the next meeting called for and held on the 31st 
 May and thenceforward, without authorization, 
 till the 7th of .fuly, when, at a meeting of the 
 council, a resolution declaring their seats vacant 
 and ordering a new election was put, and an 
 amendment to refer the matter to the town soli- 
 citor was lost, whereupon the dissentients left 
 the room, in consequence of which there was no 
 quorum, when the original motion was put and 
 carried : — Held, (1 ) that the three months should 
 be counted from the 31st May, being the first 
 meeting that the plaintiffs had not attended ; and 
 that the resolution was therefore void, as well 
 as on the ground that there was no quorum pre- 
 sent when it was passed ; (2) that the court had 
 jurisdiction to entertain a motion for an injunc- 
 tion restraining the defendants from interfering 
 with the plaintiffs in the exercise of their official 
 duties, and that the injunction might be awarded 
 upon an interlocutory application. Meai-ns v. 
 Town of Petrolia, 28 Chy. 98.— Proudfoot. 
 
 To restrain the reeve and village corporation 
 from excluding plaintiff from office as councillor. 
 See Smith v. Pelersville, 28 Chy. 599. 
 
 To restrain misapplication of moneys assessed 
 for drainage purposes. See Smith v. Totmwhi/i 
 of Raleigh, 3 0. K. 405. 
 
 On a motion for injunction by VV. a ratepayer, 
 against a town corporation to restrain them from 
 paying for a site for a post-office, it was shewn 
 that a vote of the ratepayers had been taken as 
 to which of two sites (one owned by the town 
 and the other by one McA. ) should be chosen, 
 that W. had taken an active part in support of 
 the one owned by the corporation, and the ma- 
 jority of ratepayers had voted for the other. 
 It was contended that W. was estopped by his 
 conduct from maintaining the suit, and that 
 McA. and the individual members of the cor- 
 poration should have been made parties. VV. 
 having denied tiiat he was aware that the site 
 chosen was to be paid for by defendants, and no 
 sufficient proof of that fact having been given: — 
 Held, that he was not estopped, and that although 
 MoA. and the members of the corporation might 
 not, if joined, have been considered improper 
 parties, still they were not necessary parties, 
 and the injunction was sranted. Wallace v. 
 Town qf OrangtviUe, 5 0. K. 37.— Ferguson. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of 
 Queen^s Bench (P. Q.), Fournierand Tasohereau, 
 JJ., dissenting, that the portion of the railway 
 bridge built over the Richelieu river, and the 
 railway track belonging to appellant's company 
 within the limits of the town of St. .lohns, are 
 exempt from taxation under sections 326 and 
 327 of 40 Vict. c. 29, (P. Q.) although no re- 
 turn had been made to the council by the com- 
 pany of the actual value of their real estate in 
 the municipality. 2. That a warrant to levy 
 the rates upon such property for the years 1880- 
 83, is illegal and void and that a writ of injunc- 
 tion is a proper remedy to enjoin the corpora- 
 tion to desist from all proceedings to enforce the 
 same. Central Vermont R. W. Co. v. Town of 
 St. Johns, 14 S. C. R. 288. Affirmed, 14 App. 
 Cas. 590. 
 
 To restrain the corporation of one municipality 
 from estalilishiug a smallpox hospital within the 
 limits of another. See Tuwnsuii> of Elizabnth- 
 town V. Town of Brock uille, 10 0. R. 37'2.— Boyd. 
 
 To restrain municipal corporation.s from the 
 abuse of their power to exempt from taxation 
 manufacturing establishments. See Scott v. Til- 
 .wnlmra. 13 A. R. 233. 
 
 manuiaccunng csiaoiis 
 .■<onbnrg, 13 A. R. 233. 
 
 To restrain defendants and Court of Revision 
 from increasing plaintiff's assessment. See Cana- 
 dian Loan and limiiiration Co. v. Municipality 
 o/Dysart, 9 O. R. 495 ; 12 A. R. 80, p. 69. 
 
 The defendants' council passed through two 
 readings by-laws for the limitation of the number 
 of tavern and shop licenses, under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 181, ss. 17 and 24. Before the third reading 
 the council passed a resolution authorizing the 
 submission to the electors, contemporaneously 
 with the general municipal elections, of tiie ques- 
 tion whether such limitation was desirable or 
 not, reserving, however, to the council, the final 
 decision upon the propriety of passing the by- 
 laws. The council also passed a subsequent re- 
 solution authorizing the expemliture of $300 out 
 of municipal funds in advertising the vote so to 
 be taken. After the expenditure of the greater 
 portion of the sum so voted, an action was brought 
 by the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all 
 other ratepayers except the individual defen- 
 dants, against the corporation and against the 
 individual members of a sub-comniitteo appoint- 
 ed by the council to superintend the advertising 
 of the vote, and an interim injunction was 
 moved for to restrain the defendants from sub- 
 mitting the question to the electors and from 
 printing ballot papers, advertising the vote, or 
 otherwise expending municipal moneys for the 
 purposes contemplated by the resolutions : — 
 Held, 1. That in so far as the application de- 
 pended upon the expenditure of municipal funds 
 for an improper purpose, it was too late, the 
 greater portion of the funds voted having already 
 been expended, and that the plaintiff should be 
 left to obtain such order for repayment to the 
 city by the other defendants as he might appear 
 entitled to at the trial. 2. That the taking of 
 a vote without legislative authority upon a mat- 
 ter over which, without the electoral assent, the 
 council i.ad complete jurisdiction should not be 
 restrained, there being no express legislative 
 prohibition, and the council having acted Ixina 
 fide, unless some good reason were shown for 
 the conclusion that the result would be injuiious 
 
WT ■jjgRg'' 
 
 919 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 « 
 I 
 
 I 1 
 
 I 
 
 or unjust to the corporation or some of ita mem- 
 bers, which was not shewn iu this case :— Semble, 
 that if tlie resolution had proposed to give to 
 the result of the proposed vote a final and bind- 
 ing effect, thus substituting the direct decision 
 of the electors for that of the council, the sub- 
 mission of the by-law to the vote of the electors 
 would hnve been illegal and ultra vires, and 
 would have been restrained. Helm i'. Port Hope, 
 22 Chy. 273, distinguished. Davies v. Cit;/ of 
 Torovto, 15 O. R. 33.— Street. 
 
 To restrain municipal council from proceeding 
 to enforce rights claimed under an illegal by- 
 law, the by-law not having been quashed. See 
 Rose v. Tommhip of Went fVavHuwsh, 19 0. K. 
 294. 
 
 To restrain municipalities from continuing 
 improperly constructed drainage works. See 
 McGarvey v. Town of SIrafhroy, 10 A. R. 631 ; 
 Van Egmond v. Town of Seaforth, 6 O. K. fj^O ; 
 Malott V. Townshi]) of Alersea, 9 O. K. 611. 
 
 See Clark v. St. Catharives, 10 P. R. 205, p. 
 927; Chaplin v. Public School Board of the Toteii 
 of H'oodmock, 16 O. R. 728, p. 923. 
 
 (b) Railway Companies. 
 
 Where the defendants, a railway company, 
 through their riglit of way agent, purchased cer- 
 tain land for the railway from the plaintiff, and 
 verbally agreed with him at the time to make 
 and maintain certain over and under crossings 
 across the railway, to be built on the land so 
 purchased, whereupon the plaintiff conveyed 
 the land to them, for a less sum than he other- 
 wise would have tlone, and for more than ten 
 years the defendants maintained the crossings 
 as agreed, but afterwards caused some to be 
 filled up or ol)structed : — Held, that, whether 
 the agent had authority to make such an agree- 
 ment or not, the plaintiff was entitled to dam- 
 ages and an injunction to restrain the defendants 
 from interfering with the crossing, for the com- 
 pany had recognized the agreement, and ade- 
 quate compensation could not be given to the 
 plaintiff iu damages, and, moreover, farm cross- 
 ings, when once made by a railway company, 
 must, under C. 8. C. c. 66, s. 13, et seq., which 
 was incorporated in the defendants' charter, be 
 maintained by it, and this independently of any 
 agreement for permanent maintenance, although 
 it is otherwise as to stations. Cloitse v. Canada 
 Southern R. W. Co., 4 0. R. 28. — Proudfoot. 
 
 Where the special Act of a railway company 
 incorporated the clauses of the General Railway 
 Act relating t.) powers, plans, and surveys, and 
 lands and their valuation, and also authorized 
 the company from and out of the 'ores obtained 
 along their line of railway, to manufacture iron 
 and steel for their own use, and to acquire mining 
 properties by purchase ; and the company had 
 chosen a site for a station upon the lands of the 
 plaintiffs, covering a valuable mine of magnetic 
 iron ore, and called upon the plaintiffs to arbi- 
 trate, and the plaintiffs were unwilling to part 
 with the land :— Held, that the plaintiffs could 
 not obtain an injunction restraining the company 
 from expropriating the land in question, even 
 though it were conceded that the company knew 
 of the mine, and that it was the property of the 
 plaintiffs, for the legislature had left the expro- 
 
 priation clauses to their full effect, which, in this 
 country, at least, enables the company to acquire 
 the fee of the land. Aliter, if it were proved 
 that the company were acquiring the land not for 
 the purposes for which the powers were given, 
 but for some collateral object, as, for example, 
 with the object of afterwards selling it to a third 
 party. Semble, that if it should afterwards ap- 
 pear that such a scheme was actually in conteni- 
 Elation, and had been carried out, means miglit 
 e found to frustrate it. Jtnkinn v. Central 
 Ontario R. W. Co., 4 O. U. 593. -Proudfoot. 
 
 A municipality may file a bill to compel a rail- 
 way company to put streets and highways im- 
 properly traversed by their line of railway in 
 good repair, and will not be restricted to pro- 
 ceeding by indictment or information. Fenelm 
 Falls v. Victoria R. IV. Co., 29 Chy. 4.— Boyd. 
 
 A municipal corporation, filed a bill seeking 
 to restrain the defendants, a railway company, 
 from trespassing by running tlieir track along 
 one of tlie streets of th municipality without 
 the consent thereof, thus mpeding traffic in con- 
 travention of the Hailw.y Act C. S. C. c. 66, s. 
 12, sub-s. 1 : — Held, that under the Municipal 
 Act there is such power of manageuient, con- 
 trol, etc., given vo municipalities, and such a 
 responsibility cast upon them as to justify them 
 in intervening on behalf of the inhabitants for 
 the preservation of their rights. Semble, but 
 for the language used in Guelph v. The Canada 
 Company, 4 Chy. 656, the proper frame of the 
 suit would have been by way of information in 
 the name of the Attorney-General with the cor- 
 poration as relators. lb. 
 
 An action for an injunction may be maintaiued 
 by a municipality to restrain the obstruction cf 
 a highway. They aie not confined to the remedy 
 by indictment. Fenelon Falls r. Victoria R. 
 W. Co., 29 Chy. 4, approved of. .S'^. Vincent v. 
 Greenfield, 15 A. R. 667. 
 
 See Attomey-Oeneral v. International Bridge 
 Co., 27 Chy. 37; 6 A. i*. 537; Sanson \. 
 Northern R. W. Co., 29 Chy <!:•' ;; S26. 
 
 (c) Other Companie I a'. 
 
 ri'at'ons. 
 
 Where there are conflicti .i£ /iinf.nts to the 
 position of president of a company, and one 
 takes forcible possession of the company's pre- 
 mises, the other claimant, at all events when he 
 is at the time the acting president, can bring an 
 action to restrain him in the name of the com- 
 pany, though it be uncertain who is the right- 
 ful president. Toronto Brevnmi and Maltiiui 
 Co. v. Blake, 2 O. R. 175.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The plaintiffs individually were members of 
 the Master Plasterers' Association, and the 
 defendants individually were members of the 
 Operative Plasterers' Association. The plain- 
 tiffs did not by their writ state in what charac- 
 ter they sued ; but by their affidavits filed pro- 
 fessed to represent their association, and joined 
 the defendants as representins; the operative 
 association. Some of the defendants by threats, 
 intimidation and violence, prevented one man, 
 who had contracted to work for one of the plain- 
 tiffs, from fulfilling his contract, and induced 
 him to leave Toronto, where he had been hired 
 
INJUNCTION. 
 
 922 
 
 irhich, 
 oy 
 
 , in this 
 ^ to acquire 
 were proved 
 e land not for 
 1 were given, 
 for example, 
 :; it to a third 
 terwards ap- 
 y in conteni- 
 ineans niiglit 
 i.t V. Central 
 roudfoot. 
 
 2ompel a rail- 
 ighways im- 
 )f railway in 
 ■icted to pro- 
 on. Fendm 
 y. 4. — Boyd, 
 
 bill seeking 
 ay company, 
 
 track along 
 ality without 
 trattic in con- 
 C. c. 60, 8. 
 he Municipal 
 gement, con- 
 , and such a 
 
 justify them 
 habitants for 
 
 Semble, but 
 
 The Canada 
 frame cf the 
 iformation in 
 with the cor- 
 
 )e maintained 
 )bstruction of 
 to the remedy 
 . Victoria R. 
 St. Vincent v, 
 
 tional Bridge 
 ; Sanson v. 
 
 ;r S'26. 
 
 ryicitmis. 
 
 Lf.nt.nt8 to tiie 
 my, and ons 
 mpany's pre- 
 ents when he 
 I can bring an 
 e of the com- 
 I is the right- 
 and Mall'mfj 
 Foot. 
 
 i members of 
 on, and the 
 mbers of the 
 . The plain- 
 what charac- 
 vits filed pro- 
 n, aud joined 
 the operative 
 [ts by threats, 
 ted one man, 
 e of the plain- 
 and induced 
 id been hired 
 
 to work, whereby his master sufifered injury to 
 his business :— Held, that this entitled the 
 master to an injunction restraining these de- 
 fendants from so interfering with his servants. 
 HyWH V. Fitshtr, 4 O. H. 60. — Wilson. 
 
 It appeared that previous to the intimidation 
 four workmen had struck work with one W., a 
 member of the plaintiffs' association, because \V. 
 had refused to pay one of his workmen the wages 
 demanded for him by them. Thereupon the 
 plaintitl's' association passed a resolution impos- 
 ing a tine on any of its members who should 
 employ the four striking workmen, and com- 
 municated this to the defendants' association. 
 The latter demanded the rescission of the reso- 
 lution, and notified the plaintiffs' association 
 that m default the workmen would strike. The 
 resolution was not rescinded aud the workmen 
 struck. The intimidation complained of by the 
 plaintiff's followed as a consequence: — Held, 
 that the defendants, by shewing the fact of the 
 resolution of the plaintiff's' association, which 
 the plaintiff's had not divulged on their motion 
 ex parte for the injunction, which they now 
 moved to continue, were entitled to have the 
 injunction dissolved : — Held, also, upon the 
 merits, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to 
 the injunction on account of their resolution. 
 lb. 
 
 An interlocutory injunction having been 
 granted to restrain defenilants, who were carry- 
 ing on business in partnership as an electric 
 light company under license from a municipal 
 corporation, from running their lines in such a 
 way as to interfere with the safe and efficient 
 working of the business of the plaintiff's, an in- 
 corporated telephone company, also licensees of 
 the corporation, under authority graiited two 
 years previously to the defendants' license : — 
 Held, that, although the circumstance that the 
 plaintiffs were in possession of tiie ground, and 
 had their poles erected about two years before 
 the defendants put up their poles, did not give 
 them the exclusive possession or right to use the 
 sides of the road on which they had placed their 
 poles, yet, their possession being earlier than 
 that of the defendants, the defendants had not 
 the right to do any act interfering with or to 
 the injury of the plaintiff's' rights. Held, also, 
 that independently of the provisions of U. 6. O. 
 (1877) c. 157, ss. 5!) and 70, as exteuded to elec- 
 tric light companies, by 45 Vict. c. 19, s. 3 (Out.), 
 the plaintiffs were entitled to relief on the gen- 
 eral ground upon which protection and relief in 
 cases of this kind are granted. Q,ua>re, whether 
 deteudants were liable to indictment. BM 
 Telephane. Co. v. Bt'lktHlle Electric Litiht Co. , 12 
 0. R. 571.— Wilson. 
 
 Where a registered shareholder of a company 
 finding the annual reports of the company mis- 
 leading applies for a writ of injunction to re- 
 strain the company from paying a dividend, and 
 upon such application the company do not deny 
 even generally the statements and charges con- 
 tained in the plaintitis' affidavit, aud petition 
 there is sufficient probable cause for the issue of 
 such writ, and consequently the defendant, who 
 upou the merits has succeeded in getting the in- 
 junction dissolved, has no ri^ht of action for 
 damages resulting from the issue of the injunc- 
 tion. MoiUrecU Street Railway Vo. v. Ritchie, 
 16 8. C. K. 622. 
 
 In a company consisting of seven shareholders, 
 the plaintiffs, four of the shareholders holding 
 twenty-five per cent, of the stock, claimed that 
 there had been mismanagement of the company's 
 funds in the payment out of large sums to the 
 president and secretary, for salaries or services 
 without any legal authority therefor, and in the 
 failure to declare any dividends though the com- 
 pany had made large profits, and that no satis- 
 factory investigation or statement of the com- 
 pany's affairs could be obtained though fre- 
 quently applied for, and that it was impossible 
 to ascertain the company's true financial stand- 
 ing. Under these circumstances an investiga- 
 tion of the company's aff'airs was directed. 
 At a meeting of four of the directors, consti- 
 tuting the majority, held, after proceedings 
 taken by the minority to disallow the illegal 
 payments made to the president and secretary, 
 and without proper notice to the minority of 
 such meeting or its object, a resolution was 
 passed ratifying the payments made to the sec- 
 retary, and at an adjourned meeting, of which 
 also the minority received no notice, by-laws 
 were passetl ratifying the payments made to the 
 president and secretary :— Held, that the reso- 
 lution and by-laws were invalid, and could not 
 be confirmed by the shareholders, and an injunc- 
 tion was granted restraining the company from 
 acting thereunder, or from holding a meeting of 
 shareholders to ratify and confirm the same. 
 WadilfU v. Ontario Canniwj Co., 18 O. R. 41. — 
 Robertson. 
 
 In an action brought by a ratepayer against a 
 school board, three of the persons elected as 
 trustees, and one G., tlie statement of claim 
 alleged that the tiiree defendant trustees had by 
 reason of their being interested in certain con- 
 tracts with the board ipso facto vacated tlieir 
 seats, by virtue of section 247 of the Public 
 Schools Act, It. S. O, (1887), c. 225; that they 
 nevertheless continued to sit and vote, and had 
 voted in favour of certain resolutions which 
 were passed, whereby the principal of the 
 schools was dismissed and the defendant G. ap- 
 pointed in his place; and that but for the votes 
 of the three defendant trustees the result would 
 have been different. The prayer was that the 
 seats of the tliree should be declared vacant, and 
 the votes and resolution declared void, and for 
 an injunction restraining the defendants the 
 trustees from further acting as members of the 
 board:— Held, upim demurrer, following Hard- 
 wick V. Brown, L. R. 8 V,. P. 40t>, that the seat 
 of a trustee does not under section 247 actually 
 become vacant until the other members of the 
 board have declared it to have become v.icant ; 
 and in this case, no action having been taken by 
 the remaining members of the board, that the 
 seats of the three defendani trustees were full; 
 and being full, that the court would not inter- 
 fere by injunction to restrain the occupants of 
 them from acting as trustees. 2. That quo war- 
 ranto proceedings were the only mean^ by which 
 the seats of school trustees could be declared 
 vacant by the court ; that the duty of declaring 
 them vacant, if the facts charged were estab- 
 lished, devolved upon the remaining individual 
 members of the board, who were not parties to 
 the action and were not made parties by the fact 
 that the school corporation was a party defen- 
 dant. Regina t). Mayor of Hereford, 2 Salk. 
 701 ; Rex v. Smith, 2 M. & S. 583, referred to. 
 
■ jX l.Jl..i|»* 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 924 
 
 
 3. That the defendant G. was an unnecessary 
 and improper party to the action. Chaplin v. 
 Public School Board oj the Totvn of Woodstock, 
 
 16 O. R. 728.— Street. 
 
 The seats being full, the court will not inter- 
 fere by injunction to restrain the occupants of 
 them from acting as trustees. Injunction, since 
 the Judicature Act, seems to be the appropriate, 
 or at all events the alternative, remedy in cases 
 of disputed claims of this n.ature, in which manda- 
 muswould have been formerly required. In Smith 
 V. Petersville, 28 Chy. 599 ; Mearns w. Petrolia, 
 28 Chy. 98 ; Aslatt v. Corporation of Southamp- 
 ton, 16 Ch. D. 143, injunction was granted at 
 the suit of the holders of seats at a council board, 
 to restrain other persons claiming the seats 
 from preventing their exercising their rights as 
 such actual holders, because before the Judica- 
 ture Act mandamus was the remedy provided 
 for enforcing the rights of the occupants of 
 offices against persons preventing their enjoy- 
 ment of them. But on the other hand, where 
 the actual holder of the office is charged with 
 holding it improperly, quo warranto proceedings 
 on behalf of the Queen remain the only means 
 by which it can be declared vacant (sec Regina 
 ex rel. Stewart v. Standish, 60 R. 403) ; and 
 so long ai it is full, a general injunction against 
 acting in it cannot be granted, lb. 
 
 The defendants by letters patent under the 
 Street Railway Act, H. S. O. (1887) c. 171, were 
 authorized to build an . operate (on all days ex- 
 cept Sundays) a street railway, etc. On an in- 
 formation laid to restrain the operating the rail- 
 way on Sunday : — Held, per Gait, C. J., that an 
 information would not lie for the Act did not 
 prohibit the running cars on Sunday:— Per 
 Rose, J., that the information would lie, for the 
 authority to operate the railway ■' on all days 
 except Sundays " implied a prohibition against 
 working it on Sunday : -Per MacMalion, J., 
 that the information would not lie, for no pri- 
 vate right or right of property was involved nor 
 any injury of a public nature done, and the in- 
 terference of the court will not be exercised 
 merely to enforce performiince of a moral duty. 
 Altorney-Oene.ral, ex rel liichard Hoblm v. Nia- 
 gara Falls Wesley Park and Clifton Tramway 
 Co., 19 O. R. 624.-C. P. D. Affirmed on appeal. 
 
 See Attorney-General v. International Bridqe 
 Co., 27 Chy. 37 ; 6 A. R. 537 ; Electric Despatch 
 Co. of Toronto v. Rell Telephone Co. of Canada, 
 
 17 0. R. 495; 17 A. R. 292, p. 335. 
 
 6. Committing or Continuing Nnisa'r.ces. 
 
 (a) Offensive Trades. 
 
 The defendant was engaged in making boilers 
 and gas receivers ; in the manufacture of which 
 it was necessary to join togetl.er pieces of iron, 
 about an inch thick, by riveting, which produced 
 noises, continuing from seven in the moining 
 until six o'clock at night, rendering the occupa- 
 tion of the house of the plaintilfs wife, which 
 was only fifteen feet <listant, and in which they 
 lived, almost impossible and seriously interfered 
 ■with her health. Upon a bill filed by the plain- 
 tiff, Proudfoot, V. C. (28 Chy. 461), granted an 
 interlocutory injunction restraining the defen- 
 dant from continuing the boiler-making in such a 
 manner as to be a nuisance to the plaintiff and 
 
 his premises : — Held, reversing this decree, that 
 the wife was the proper person to file the bill, 
 fur OS an injury to property is the ground of jur- 
 isdiction in cases of nuisance, the owner of the 
 property is the proper party to complain, Qunre, 
 whether the husband nad any title in the land, 
 and whether his occupancy with his wife was 
 more than permissive on her part. An applica- 
 tion made by counsel to add the wife as a party, 
 in order to meet the difficulty, authority having 
 been given by her, was refused on the ground 
 that tlie suit was not merely improperly con- 
 stituted, but that the husband having no locus 
 standi, the suit had no proper existence at all, 
 and another person wlio had the right could not 
 be substituted for one who had not the right to 
 institute the procecdini,'s : — Held, also, that if 
 the suit h been properly constituted, the court 
 would not have interfered with the discretion of 
 Proudfoot, V. C. , in granting the interlocutory 
 injunction. Huthuvay v. Doig, 6 A. R. 264. 
 
 1 1 . Other Cases. 
 
 A notice of motion for partition having been 
 served, the plaintill' moved for an injunction 
 restraining the delundant from collecting vt;nts 
 and for a receiver. It appeared that the defen- 
 dant was a stranger whose right to be in posses- 
 sion was denitd : — field, that no relief could be 
 hadagiinst him without bill filed. Young v. 
 Wrijht, 8 P. R. 198.— Blake. 
 
 Held, under the circumstances of this case, 
 that the vendor of standing timber was entitled 
 to an injunction to prevent the cutting and re- 
 moving of tiinbi r by the vendee until payment 
 of the agreed price. See Summers v. Cuok, 28 
 Chy. 179. 
 
 To prevent removal of fixtures. See Dickson 
 V. Hunter, 29 Chy. 7H, p. 752. 
 
 Where the defendant raised the height of a 
 party wall beyond that of the building of the 
 plaintiff, the adjoining owner, without the lat- 
 ter's consent and subsequently opened a win- 
 dow through the wall so raised so as to overlook 
 the plaintiff's premises : Held, that by pierc- 
 ing the window defendant had distinctly given 
 notice that he ceasseil to regard the wall so as a 
 party wall, that it was an unauthorized user of 
 the party wall, and that plaintifl' was entitled 
 to an injunction to restrain the further contin- 
 uance of such window. Sproule v. Stratford, 1 
 O. R. 3.35,— Boyd. 
 
 In 188.3, M. \V. being seized of certain lands, 
 conveyed half thereof to O. \V. in fee, describing 
 the same by metes and bounds, and afterwards 
 died having devised tiic other half to .\'. There 
 was a house upon the haids in question so situate 
 that hidf of it was on the poition granted toG. 
 W., and half on the portion devised to M. No 
 specific mention of the house was made either in 
 the deed to G. W. or in the will. M. now com- 
 menced, in defiance of (}. W.'s protests, to pull 
 down the half of the house situate on the land 
 devised to her, and (x. W. applied in the present 
 action for an injunction to restrain the same :— 
 Held, that he was entitled to the relief claimed. 
 Wray v. Morrison, 9 O. R. 180. — Ferguson. 
 
 The plaintiff, a married woman, carried on 
 business as an hotel-keeper, and owned the 
 chattels iu the hotel. The defendant, her bus- 
 
925 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 926 
 
 band, interfered with tlie plaintiff in her business 
 by taking the receipts, giving orders to ser- 
 vants, and maltreating uie plaintiff. An in- 
 junction was granted restraining tlie defendant 
 from interfering in the business or with the 
 servants or agents, or removing any of tlie plain- 
 tiff's chattels :— Semble, that, if asked for, un 
 injunction might idso have been granted exclud- 
 ing the defendant from tiie hotel under the 
 circumstances. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 9 O. R. 
 673.— Rose. 
 
 Oi' a motion by a road company for an injunc- 
 tion to restrain the defendant from passing 
 through their toll gates without paying tolU 
 wiien demanilcd, it was contended that because 
 there was a statutory remedy for the recovery 
 of a penalty for each offence under section 12l(, 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 152, the court would not in- 
 terfere by way of injunction :— Hell, that as 
 the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case 
 in regard to die rights they claimed, there was 
 jurisdiction to interfere by way of injunction 
 pending the determination of the (piestiou at the 
 trial, and an injunction was granted, upon a 
 C(m9ideration of the l)alance ot couvenifuce, in 
 favour of the plaintiffs. Letton r. Coodden, L. 
 R. 2 Kq., 130, and Cory r. Yarmouth, etc., R. 
 W. Co., 3 Ha. .')!I3, connidercd and followed. 
 Ilamiltim and Miltun Road (,'o. v. Jiiu/ilierry, 
 13 0. R. 4()(). —Ferguson. 
 
 Held, that the court has jurisdiction to pre- 
 vent trustees about to sell property under a 
 power or trust for sale, from selling in an im- 
 prudent and impropi^r manner ; and tlins in this 
 case where it appeared that altliougli eestuLs que 
 trustent representing five-sixths of the property 
 desired a sale without reserve, the interests of 
 the remainder .vould be prejudiced by so selling, 
 an injunction was granted to rcstr.iin such 
 trustees from selling without a reserve bid. 
 Downey v. Dennia, 14 0. R. 219. — Ferguson. 
 
 To restrain use by defendant of name used by 
 plaintiffs to designate their business. See Hoh- 
 vmn V. Boijle, 18 O. R. 387. 
 
 The defendant having distrained for rent in 
 arrear, the plaintiff claimed that drfendint was 
 indebted to him in dam.iges for breach of the 
 coven;ints in the lease to repair, and to le.i>e to 
 plaintiff an adjoining piece of land, ;ind olit.iim^d 
 ex parte an interim injunction restraining pro- 
 ceedings under the distress wliich was dissolved 
 on the ground of conceabncnt of f.iets : -Hudd, 
 that tlie damages claimed by the plaintiff were 
 not a " debt" within section 3 of "lO Vict. c. 23, 
 (Ont.), so as to constitute a set-off against the 
 rent ; and alth(mgh under the O. J. Act they 
 might be the subject of counter-claim, they 
 would not justify an injunction as against a dis- 
 tress levied as here. Walton v. Hinry, 18 O. 
 R. 620.— MacMahon. 
 
 The plaintiffs, by first sinking a well on the 
 land near the defendants, did not thereby ac- 
 quire the right to restrain the defendants from 
 sinking wells upon their own lands for the pur- 
 pose of reaching the poi tion of the reservoir 
 which lies under them. Ontario Natural Gas 
 €o. v. Smart ; In re Ontario Natural Gas Co. v. 
 Township of Goxfiehl South, 19 O. R. 591.— 
 Street. This case if in appeal. 
 
 See Mead v. O'Keffe, 15 0. R. 84 ; S. C, 
 O'Keefe v. Gurran, 17 S. C. R. 690, p. 839 ; 
 
 Canadian Land and Emif/ration Go. v, Munici- 
 pality of Dymrt, 12 A. R. 80, p. 69. 
 
 III. Practice. 
 
 1. Delay in Applying. 
 
 The plaintiff was owner of a steam vesBcl ply- 
 ing on Lake Couchiching, and accustomed to run 
 into the River Severn, where it leaves the lake, 
 and to lie in a basin alongside a wharf ut Washago. 
 The defendants in extending their line of rail- 
 way, constructed a bridge across the river, which 
 completely obstructed the entrance, and caused, 
 it was alleged, special damage to the plaintiff, 
 who was obliged to moor his boat in a basin on 
 the lake side of the bridge, which was somewhat 
 too small for its intended purposes. Some cor- 
 respondence took place while the bridge was in 
 course of construction, by the plaintiff personally, 
 and through his solicitor with the defendants' 
 general manager, in the nature of protests, but 
 the bridge had been in use for several years with- 
 out action on the part of the plaintiff, when a bill 
 was filed, praying that it might be declared a 
 nuisance, and that the defi'iidants might be or- 
 dered to .abate it : — Held, that by the delay in 
 taking action, and otherwise, there had been 
 uneijuivocal acquiescence in the action of the de- 
 fendants, and the bill was therefore dismissed, 
 with costs. Sanxmi v. Northern R. W. Co. , 29 
 Chy. 459. — Spragge. 
 
 See Dadex v. Gity of Toronto, 15 0. R. 33, 
 p. 919. 
 
 2. Adding Parties. 
 
 After decree a party defendant may be added 
 for the purposes of an injunction on motion 
 merely. See Young v. Huher, 29 Chy. 49, p. 
 916 ; Peterkin v. Marfarlane, lb. 53, note. 
 
 See Hathaway v. Doig, 6 A. R. 264, p. 924. 
 
 3. Extending or Continuing. 
 
 A motion by the plaintiff to continue an ex 
 parte injunction was refused, with cosfs, but at 
 the same time leave was given to amenil the bill, 
 and another intfrlocutory injunction was granted 
 ex p.irte. On the return of the motion to con- 
 tinue the latter, it was objected that tlie costs 
 of the former motion which had not been taxed 
 were not paid :— Held, that the nonpayment 
 was no objection to the motion being proceeded 
 with. Taylor v. Hall, 29 L'hy. 101.— Ferguson. 
 
 The proposed amendments of the bill were set 
 out substantially in the order for the injunction, 
 which was served : — Held, that, as the defen- 
 dant had thereby notice of thd proposed amend- 
 ments, the objection that the amended bill had 
 not been served was not entitled to prevail. 
 Where there appeared to be a substantial 
 matter to be tried and no irreparable injury 
 would be done by preserving the subject matter 
 of the suit in medio, an injunction restraining 
 the defendant from dealing with it was continued 
 to the hearing. lb. 
 
 On a motion to continue an injunction the 
 defendant may bring forward such facts as he 
 might if he were moving to dissolve the injunc- 
 tion, and may shew suppression of facts by the 
 
■^! 
 
 I 
 
 INJUNCTION. 
 
 929 
 
 
 ^11 ^' 
 
 j;l 
 
 
 plaintifTas a ground for dissolving it, and may 
 tl ereupon move to dissolve it. Hynea v. Finher, 
 4 0. R. 60.— Wilson. 
 
 4. Appeals, 
 
 Seution 27 of the Court of Appeal Act, 11. S, 
 O. (IH77) c. 38, does not apply to proceedings by 
 injunction, whether tiic writ has been iusucd 
 before or after decree in the cause. McLaren v. 
 Caldwell, 29 Chy. 438.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where an injunction is ordered at the hearing 
 of a cause, and the parties enjoined give the se- 
 curity required by R. S. O. (1877) c. 38, s. 26, 
 pending un appeal to the Court of Appeal, all 
 proceedings to enforce the injunction are, by 
 virtue of section 27 of that Act, thereupon 
 stayed ; und a writ of sequestration cannot there- 
 fore lie obtained, pending the appeal, on the 
 ground of non-compliunce with the injunction. 
 Uuudas ('. Hamilton and Milton Road Co., 19 
 C'hy. 455, followed, and preferred to McLaren 
 ('. Caldwell, 2!) Chy. 438. McOamei/ v. Town 
 vf Sli-athroji, 6 0. R. 138.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that the operation of an injunction 
 awarded by a judgment of the court below was 
 stayed pending an appeal to this court, after the 
 perfecting of the security on appeal, by virtue of 
 R. S. 0. (1877) 0. .38, s. 27. Vity of Toronto v. 
 Toronto Street R. W. Co., 12 P. R. 3fjl.— C. of A. 
 
 5. Coits. 
 
 Security for costs was ordered in an action 
 brought by a ratepayer for himself and the other 
 ratepayers to restrain tlie delivery by the cor- 
 poration of certain debentures to a railway com- 
 pany, where it appeared from the examination of 
 the plaintiff that he was financially incompetent 
 to pay the defendants' costs, and was only in- 
 terested to an insignificant extent ; and where he 
 swore that he expected certain persons named to 
 pay his costs and to protect him should thocase 
 go adversely, that he did not want to spend any 
 money on the prosecution of his own right in the 
 matter, and that he dit' not know who instructed 
 the plaintiff's solicitor. Clark v. Ht. ( .tharines, 
 10 P. R. 205.- Dalton, Master. 
 
 Where an ex parte injunction is dissolved on 
 the ground of concealment of the true state of 
 facts, it is proper to dissolve it with costs ; and 
 "with costs" in such case means " with costs 
 payable forthwith." Walton v. Henry, 13 P. K. 
 390.— MacMahon. 
 
 See Donnelly v. Donnelly, 90. R. 673, p. 929. 
 
 IV. Interim Injunction. 
 
 An interim injunction was granted, without 
 going into the case, in terms of an undertaking 
 given by the defendants upon a prior return of 
 the motion, that nothing should be done in the 
 meantime. On settling the minutes the regis- 
 trar refused to comply with the request of the 
 defendants, by inserting an undertalcing on the 
 part of the plaintiffs that the property be re- 
 tained in the same plight and condition as at the 
 date of the order. A motion was made to vary 
 the minutes by inserting such an undertaking : — 
 Held, that though the undertaking might have 
 
 been properly asked for on the motion as a con- 
 dition of granting the injunction, it could not 
 now bo exacted, as the effect would be to reverse 
 or alter the order which had been made by ar- 
 rangement of the parties. As a misunderstand- 
 ing seemed to have ariien, however, the injunc- 
 tion was stayed for tendays toallow asubstantive 
 motion to be made for an injunction restraining 
 the plaintiffs from doing anything detrimcutul 
 to the property pending the interim injunction. 
 Uemlrie v. Bealty, 20 Chy. 42,3.— Proudfoot, 
 
 An interim injunction will not bo granted in 
 aid of a plaintiff', to preserve the suliject niatti'r 
 of his action in statu quo long enough to enable 
 him to obtain the decisicm of un Appellate Cnurt 
 on points already decided in other cases, against 
 his contention, in courts of lirst instance. WiiUl 
 v. Mc Master, 4 O. K. 717. — Ferguson. 
 
 The plaintiff, who claimed the exclusive user 
 of certain streams flowing through his lands, 
 which right the defendants denied, obtained an 
 interlocutory injunction restraining the defen- 
 dants from using his improvements thereon for 
 floating down their logs, upon the usual under- 
 taking to pay any damages sustained thereby :— 
 Held, reversing the order of Proudfoot, V. C., 
 Armour, J., dissenting, that the plaintiff was 
 not entitled to an interlocutory injunction, as it 
 was not shewn that irremediable damage would 
 result from refusing it, or that the b.ilanceof in- 
 convenience was in his favour. Remarks as to 
 the general principles on which interlocutory in- 
 junctions should be granted or refused. Mc- 
 Laren V. Caldwell, 6 A. R. 363. 
 
 Upon a conviction for a forcible entry an order 
 for restitution is usually awarded in favour of 
 the party dispossessed, irrespective of the ques- 
 tion of title, out where redress is sought by a 
 civil action the title of the plaintiff must be con- 
 sidered, and the court will not generally inves- 
 tigate it upon an interlocutory proceeding, such 
 as an application for an interlocutory injunction. 
 Toronto Brewiiif/ and Maltiwj Go. v. Blake, 2 
 O. R. 175.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The court may interfere by mandatory injunc- 
 tion on an interlocutory application, but the 
 right must be very clear indeed. lb. 
 
 See Mmriis v. Town of Petrolin, 28 Chy. 98, 
 p. 917 ; Hathaway v. Doig, 6 A. R. 264, p. 924. 
 
 VI. Breacu of Injunction. 
 
 On moving for a writ of sequestration for 
 breach of injunction two clear days notice of 
 motion is sufficient. Cook v. Credit Valley R. 
 W. Co., 8 P. R. 167.— Blake. 
 
 Pending the injunction in this case (see 40. R. 
 
 E. 60), one P., who was not a party to the action, 
 ut was a memljer of the plaintiffs' association, 
 on behalf of the association hired one H. to work 
 for him. McCord and Jenkins, members of the 
 defendants' association, but not parties to the 
 action, hearing of this went to H. and induced 
 him to refuse to work for P. ard to leave 
 Toronto. The court was of opinion that M. and 
 J. knew of the injunction pending at the time. 
 The plaintiffs did not state by their writ that 
 they sued in any representative character, nor 
 did they sue the defendants in a representa- 
 tive capacity, but the plaintiffs' affidavits stated 
 
929 
 
 INSPECTION AOT. 
 
 930 
 
 ion as a con- 
 it could not 
 be to revorae 
 made by ar- 
 lunderatniul- 
 , the injuiiu- 
 i8ubatiiiitive 
 1 restnuiiing 
 (lotriincutul 
 ii injuuution. 
 'rouilfool. 
 
 le grautuil in 
 hject iiiiitter 
 gli to unable 
 [)elLite Court 
 lases, against 
 banco. Wi/ld 
 on. 
 
 xcluBivc user 
 li h:a lamia, 
 , obtained an 
 g the defcn- 
 3 thereon for 
 usual under- 
 d thereby : — 
 dfoot, V. C, 
 plaintiff was 
 unction, us it 
 amage would 
 balance of in- 
 Remarks as to 
 srlocutory in- 
 efused. Mc- 
 
 intry an order 
 
 in favour of 
 
 ! of the ques- 
 
 sought by a 
 
 must be con- 
 
 iieially invea- 
 
 ceeding, such 
 
 y injunction. 
 
 V. Blake, 2 
 
 atory injunc- 
 tion, but the 
 lb. 
 
 , 28 Chy. 98, 
 I. 264, p. 924. 
 
 PION. 
 
 lestration for 
 ays notice of 
 dit Valley E. 
 
 se (see 4 0. R. 
 
 to the action, 
 
 s' association, 
 
 ine H. to work 
 
 embers of the 
 
 parties to the 
 
 and induced 
 
 av^ to leave 
 
 in that M. and 
 
 at the time. 
 
 heir writ that 
 
 oharacter, nor 
 
 a representa- 
 
 Bdavita stated 
 
 that tiic plaintiffs reprbaented their association ! 
 mid the (lofendantH, theirs. Un motion to com- 
 mit M. and tl. for contempt ol' pioccsa of the 
 court :— Held, that tiic master plaitcrers' asao- 
 ciatioa was not made a party to nor aiitlicicntly 
 ri'iircHiiitcd in tliu action by theallcgations in th<) 
 liiaMitiHa' aihdavita ; and that no act against the 
 idiiiiitiH's individually having been established, 
 aI. and J. could not be held guilty of contempt 
 for interference with the association and 1'. : 
 that though the association miuht be added by 
 aniciidnient, tile injunction would also huvutobo 
 unii'uded, and in tlio muaiitime M. and <l. must 
 be uciiuittcil of contempt of the injunction as it 
 now stood, and therefore the motion must fail. 
 Jlyiim v. Fishi'r — McConl ami Ji iihiim < 'wt, 
 4 0. R. 78.-g. B. 1). 
 
 On a motion to commit a defendant for non- 
 eoiiipliancc with a decree which contaiiicil this 
 ilaiine ; " And this court dotli further order and 
 decree that an injunction be awarded to the 
 nlaintitr pepetually reatraiiiiiig tiie defendant, 
 liis servants, workmen, and iigcnts from tres- 
 passing upon the lands of tlic plamlitl' in the 
 pleadings mentioned," the trespass complained 
 of lieing two walls built by the defendant on 
 four inches of the plaintiff's land, it was ob- 
 jected : I. That the suit was revived while 
 pending in the Court of Appeal by an order 
 issued from the Division of the High Court of 
 Justice appealed from. 2. Tliatno certilicateof 
 the Supreme Court (which hail in substance 
 affirmed the decree) had been served ; and 3. 
 That the notice of motion did not specify the 
 acts of disobedience. It was:- Held, that the 
 suit was jiroperly revived : that it was not 
 necessary to serve the eertiticate of the Supreme 
 Court when the decree was not materially 
 altered, and when the defendant well knew that 
 the decree would be enforced ; and that when 
 (as in this case) a correspondence h;id shewn the 
 defendant what acts wers complained of, it was 
 not necessary to repeat thtni in the notice of 
 motion, and the objections were overruled : — 
 Held, also, that imder the form of decree, the 
 plaintiff was entitled to have the walls removed, 
 and if the defendant did not remove them within 
 a month the order must go. (irunetl v. Carter, 
 6 0. R. 584.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendant was committed for breach of 
 u» injunction, but was discharged on an appli- 
 cation explaining and apologizing for his con- 
 tempt. It appeared that he was unable to pay 
 costs, and therefore, though costs of both 
 motions were imposed, paymcnttheieof was not 
 made a condition of such dii'charge. Dounelly 
 V. Dmnelly, 9 O. R. 673.- Osier. 
 
 A municipal corporation having been enjoined 
 from purchasing a property for municipal pur- 
 poses under a by-law which was invalid, re- 
 pealed such by-law and prociedtd to purchase 
 the same property under a new by-law valid on 
 its face : — Held, that in purchasing under the 
 new by-law the corporation was not guilty of a 
 breach of the injunction, and a motion for a 
 writ of sequestration was disniis-ed. Yowi;/ v. 
 TonnofHidjietown, 18 O. 1>. HO.~MacMahon. 
 See also Wald^'e v. Jiurlimjtoti, 1 O. R. 192 ; 13 
 A. It. 104, p. 3 ; . 
 
 See JUcGarvey v. Town of Straihroy, 6 0. 
 m, p. 927. 
 
 69 
 
 R. 
 
 INNKEEPER. 
 
 iSe« Intoxicating Liquokh, 
 
 The. plaintiff had been for some time a guest 
 ?f the defendant, an innkeeper, and on leauiig 
 th < inn, after paying his bill, was allowed to 
 I'avi u box containing some papers and books 
 alL.'jed to be of value to the plaintiff, in the 
 rn:tm of the inn uaed for storing luggage, etc. 
 The plaintiff intended to take it away tlie day 
 following, but owing to illness he did not call 
 for it for several weeks afterwards, when it was 
 discovered that the box was lost ; there was no 
 other evidence of any negligence in the matter: — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the County 
 Court, that the phiintitl could not recover. 
 Palin V. lldil, 10 A. It. 03. 
 
 An innkeeper, olaiinin„' to act under I!. S. (). 
 (1887), c. 154, sold by public auction a stallion 
 belonging to the plaintill', a boarder at bis inn, 
 to enforce a lien tlieieoi. for the keep and ai;- 
 coinmotlation thereof ; — Holfl, that the lien ex- 
 isted and the sale was aulhori/ed. Jlnll'iiiini v- 
 WalUtrhoustaudUroddii, 19 0. R. 180.— C. I'. I>. 
 
 After the lien accrued the plaintiff removed 
 the stallion and subaequeiitly brought it back 
 to the inn : — Held, that the lien revived on the 
 return of the stallion, tb. 
 
 See Xeivcombe v. Anderson, 11 0. R. 66.">, p. 
 198. 
 
 INQUEST. 
 
 See CoKONKK. 
 
 INSOLVENCY. 
 
 See Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 
 
 INSPECTION ACT. 
 
 Liability of inspectors' sureties for deputy's- 
 default. See Verrall v. McAnlay, 5 0. R. 313. 
 
 In an action against a government inspector 
 of raw hides for fraudulently grading and brand- 
 ing incorrect weights and qualities on hides : — 
 Held, that "anything done under this Act," in 
 R. S. C. c. 99, 8. 20, has the same meaning 
 throughout the section, and means "anything 
 intended to be done under this Act;" and thu 
 defendant not appearing to have acted mala tide, 
 or to have intended not to perform his duty 
 under the Act, was entitled to the protection of 
 this section, though he had not pleaded the 
 general issue in terms, inasmuch as he had in 
 effect stated that what he did was done under 
 the Act: — Semble, that full effect may be given 
 to sections 96 and 104 of R. S. C. c. 99, by hold- 
 ing that up to five per cent, of any deficiency or 
 excess in tne weight of certain kinds of leather 
 the inspector is protected against any action, 
 and aa to any excess he is entitled to any defence 
 open to him under the Act or otherwise. Grant 
 V. Culhard, 19 0. R. 20.— Rose. 
 
"'"iiim 
 
 931 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 932 
 
 SSI",:.* 
 
 INSURANOE. 
 
 I. Lk(1ISI, \TIVK .lUKISllIcrioN -.S'l'- CoSSTI- 
 TITIONAI, I.AW. 
 
 II. InsIKANCK ('oMl'AMKS (iKNKIIAI.I.Y. 
 
 1. (loviriiiHoiii Jhjiotil, W\2. 
 
 2. C<illn nil Siiivk tifle.f SiiHiM'nxioii of' Li- 
 
 '\. I'oHi-ji iini Umlcr Seal, l);W. 
 4. Lura'iti/ o/OjiardtioiiK, 'XV.i. 
 
 III. FiiiK Insiuanck. 
 
 I. A/ii>/liiilii>ii of Firn Iniiirtni'i Pn/iii/ 
 
 A.t, i);u. 
 
 ti. /'(/>•//( of ApiilicalioH, IIU4. 
 
 .'{. Aiilhority mid l>nly oj Aiji'iil, 1)84. 
 
 4. Poijinciil of /'rciniiimn, \)'.U\. 
 
 6. Inle.iiiii Hiteijiln, 9H(). 
 «. Iitiiim'ilr. Iiilci-fxt, 1)37. 
 
 7. Ily Of /or Miirlijaijejn, DM!). 
 
 8. Form i.f Fotlry, *dVA. 
 
 1). I'liryiiii/ S/iiliilory ('iiiiilifiiiii.i, 1)43. 
 
 10. Iii'ii>iiiiiibl<:ntsn of Comlil'miiK, l)4r>. 
 
 11. iJi.'Cii/Uwito/ Piviierh/ttiKl /'reiiiimni, 
 
 1)47. 
 
 12. I'ropirly Cornrd, 950. 
 
 in. /{!'/,:■< /n>olr(i( —t!j])/ihsln.i,\}'>\. 
 
 14. Viihtaliiiii of Propi.rly, !).")!. 
 
 15. Tilli unit Imuiiidiranri-ii, D.VJ. 
 
 Hi. An^ii/iime.iit, Alhiintinii or hirum- 
 * Orttnir. of the, I'roperly Insnrvd or of 
 
 till- i'o/ici/, 955. 
 
 17. Prinraiiil ,Siili.'<i'i/iif III lii.iiirinia-, !)5tt. 
 IS. Allirnlioii of Prcmi>«H~-l iirriiwi- of 
 RmL'—Chaiiije of (hxiijialioii, OHO. 
 
 19. Baiii/er from IiweiidUirism, !)(i"J, 
 
 20. Nolicn, Avvoniil and Proof if Lo.M,^{S'^. 
 
 21. IVuirrr of Coiidilioi.x, 'Mil. 
 
 22. Misr,pi\Hrnfation an to Los.t, 9GS. 
 
 23. Liability for Loase-i, OOS. 
 
 24. DaniiujK hij Rnmoval oJ (iOod.i, 909. 
 
 25. Ni'i/lcct to Save Property Imiired, 909. 
 
 26. Salvaije, 909. 
 
 27. Pa;;ment of Losses. 
 
 (a) Time of Payment, 909. 
 
 (b) OtMr Casein, 971. 
 
 28. Siiliro:/(dion, 972. 
 
 29. Re-Iiixxirance, 972. 
 
 30. Terminatiwj Policy, 973. 
 
 31. Refer mice to Arbitration, 973. 
 
 32. Interest on Claims, 975. 
 
 33. Pleadinif in Actions on Policies, 975. 
 
 31. Application of Inxuranci' Money by 
 
 Atorliia(jee — See Mo kt( i ao k. 
 35. Mutual Insurance Companii's, 
 
 (a) Premium N'otes and Assessments, 
 
 977. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 978. 
 
 IV. Maeine Insukance. 
 
 1. Insurable Interest, 980 
 
 2. Seiiworthiiiess, 1)80. 
 
 3. Warntnly of Safely, 980. ' 
 
 4. Ihlny ill Protecwing Voyaije, 081. 
 f). Ihiialioii, 1)81. 
 
 0. (I'oods Iiisiind, 1)81. 
 
 7. Jteronry fur Lous of Freiijhl, 1)82. 
 
 8. Perils of Ihi- .SVa, 1)83. 
 
 9. Coiidilioiix, 1)83. 
 
 10. Abaiidonmiiil and Loss, 985. 
 
 n. barratry, 1)89. 
 
 12. /Ice )•<(;/«■, OS!). 
 
 13. Re-liisiniiiiri; DIM). 
 
 14. J)oiilili'{nsnraiiriiiiid<'onlrihiil!oii,'.)'M. 
 
 15. yVwifl /uc ('oiiimiiiriniti nt of .|i7(o/t<, 
 
 I)!) I. 
 
 V. LiFK ASSUIIANCK. 
 
 1. The Policy, mi. 
 
 2. Insurable Interest, flO"?, 
 
 .'{. Payment of Pn mi am and Delivery ol 
 Poliey, 1)1)3. 
 
 4. Mis.iluliDii'iils and Suppression if 
 
 Facts by Assnrrd, 1)97. 
 
 5. A itoidimj Policy by I iitempc ranee , I OO 1 . 
 0. Pmiment in case of Total Disabilih/, 
 
 lim. 
 
 7. Asiii/nmLnt of, 1002. 
 
 8. Rrclifyiii;/ Misliike in Policy, 1002. 
 
 9. For Bemjitof Wife and Children, lOO.I. 
 
 10. ]inierolnil and Frhiidty Societies — See 
 Wv.S K VOI.KNT S( iC'l K.TY. 
 
 VI. ACCIDKNT LiFK ASSDRANCK, 1004. 
 
 VII. An.MINlSTKATION OK AssUllANfJK (^(IM- 
 
 I'ANV'sDki'osit, 1005. 
 
 VIII. WiNDIXd ITI'CCMI'ANIES— SesCoMl'ANV. 
 
 IX. ESTOI'I'EL IN COSTKACTS OK InmURANCK, 
 lfX)0. 
 
 X. Mlsckllankous Cases, 1000. 
 
 XI. ASSESHMKNT ok InsURANCK CoMI'ANrhX 
 
 <!>'ee AssKSSMH.NT anu Taxk.s. 
 
 II. Insurance Comkasies Genekallv. 
 
 1. Government Deposit. 
 
 An insurance company in order to deposit 
 $50,000 will) tlie niiuiHter of finanue and rccoive 
 a license to do busineaa in Canada according tu 
 the provisions of the Insurance Act (H. S. C. 
 c. 124), deposited the money in a bank, <and for- 
 warded the deposit receipt to the minister. Tlie 
 money in tlie bank drew interest, whicli liy 
 arrangement was received by tlie company. The 
 bank having failed, the government claiinoil 
 payment in full of this money as money deposi- 
 ted by the Crown : — Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the court below. Strong, J., dissenting, 
 that it was not the money of the Crown , but was 
 held by the finance minister in trust f()r the 
 company. It was not therefore subject to the 
 prerogative of payment in full in priority to 
 other creditors. Liquidators of the Maritime 
 Bank v. The Queen, 17 S. C. R. 657. 
 
 Mi i! 
 
1S83 
 
 IN8URAN0E. 
 
 934 
 
 IL CnlU on Slock ajler SiiMpcinwn of lAaiUf. 
 
 In thuHu caicH wliiuli wuris autinnM for uiiIIh on 
 Htiick, an (ihjectioii wiih taken that tlicri; w:i8 no 
 ixiwur tn M\a, liuuauHO tliu uomnaiiy'H licvnHu 
 uiidci' 4'i Vict. c. 2.1 (Out.), liail heun revoked, 
 l)iit it was Hliuwn that (iiie It. iiail huon apiiointuil 
 iBooivor, anil was Hnt'oially reijiiirud hy order of 
 tlie (-'hancory Division to prosoeute all nienihurH 
 ill arrenr for oallH; and that he had adopteil 
 (heHe actioMH, ami wax proHeeiitiiig thuin an ru- 
 eeivnr : -Ht'ld, that tlio objeetion wu» not tcu- 
 al)li'. Union Fin- /;i.«. Co. v. Fll'-'ilnimnns ; Stimr 
 I'hiinlijfx V. S/iiilils, .TJC. I'. (102.- llagarty. 
 
 Statement : Call on Htoek. Defence : That liy 
 all order of the Lieutenant-( Governor of Ontario 
 in council, i^Mued under 42 Vict. c. 25, the plaiii- 
 tillx' lieenHe had been and Htill wan HUHpeniled, 
 wliereliy it liecanie unlawful for the plaintillk to 
 ilo any further liuHinesH in Ontario; ami that the 
 rails HUecl for were made for the purpoHe of en- 
 !ililin)i the |)lainti(I's to carry on their Inixiui'ss in 
 Ontario : -Held, on ileniiirrer, that the ilelence 
 .liould have alli^ned notice in the (ia/ette of the 
 vus|)en!iion of the license, pursuant to |{. .S. O. 
 (IS77), c. KIO, H. .S4, and 42 \'ict. c. 25, h. H, 
 Hu1)-8. 7; hut an amendment was allowed, this 
 j)oint not having been taken, and : — Held, also, 
 li ){(iod defence for that bringing an action for 
 imiIIr was transacting business of insurance with- 
 in the nitvming of the above Acts. Union Fin' 
 In.t. Co. V. Lyman, 46 (J. B. 471. — Wilson. 
 
 3. Policy not Under Scut. 
 
 .Section 7 of .37 Vict. c. 86 (Ont.) incorpora- 
 ting the appellants after specifying the powers 
 of the directors, enacts : — " but no contract shall 
 lie valid unless made under the seal of the com- 
 pany, and signed by the president, etc." .1. K. 
 \V. l)rought an action to recover the amount of a 
 policy issued by the appellants in favour of her 
 father. The jMilicy sued on was on a printed 
 form, anil luul the usual attestation clause : To a 
 plea tliat the policy sued on was not sealed, and 
 tiieiefore not binding upon the appollants. The 
 plaihtiti' replied on equitable grounds, alleging 
 that the defendants accepted the deceased's ap- 
 plication for insurance, and that the policy was 
 issued and acted noon by all parties as a valid 
 policy, but the seal was inadvertently omitted 
 tn l)e allixed, and claiming that the defendants 
 should bo estopped from setting up the absence 
 of the seal or ordered to aliix it : —Held, atKrni- 
 ing 29 C. r. 221 and 5 A. R. 218, that the set- 
 ting up of "the want of a seal" as a defence, 
 was a fraud which a court of equity could not 
 refuse to interfere to prevent without ignoring 
 its functions and its duty to prevent aud red- 
 ress all fraud whenever and in whatever shape 
 it ajjpears, aud therefore the respondent was 
 entitled to the relief prayed, as founded upon 
 the facts alleged in her ecjuitable replication, 
 (Ritchie, C. J., and Taschereau, J., dissenting). 
 Loudon Lije Inn. Co. v. Wriijht, 5 S. C. R. 466. 
 
 See liiirnelt v. Union Mutual Fire Ini. Co., .32 
 C. P. 134, p. 976. 
 
 4. Locality of Operationn. 
 
 A company incorporated by a Provincial Leg- 
 islature for the business of iuauraiice, possesses 
 
 I the Humu capacity and fraucliiscs within the 
 I jurisdiction, creating it is a roniiiaiiy incorpora 
 ted by the Imperial or Dominion I'ltrliauients ; 
 and may enter into contracts outside the pro 
 vinoo wherever snch ciMilrarts are recogni/ed 
 by comity or oth 'rwise. ('/(irLr v. Union Fire 
 Int. Co., 10 P. It. 31:J. Iloilgins, Munlir in- 
 Ordinary. See .S', t'., 6 0. H. 223. 
 
 See Hnffx, Canadian Mnlnal Firr Inn. Co., !> 
 P. H. 292, p. 979. 
 
 IV. KiKK lNHni\N<'K. 
 I. .ipiilicaliDn of Fire Intnrnnn J'uliry Act. 
 
 The Fire Insuranfo Policy Act, P. H. O. (1K77) 
 e. 162, docs not a)>|i1y to property ovitsiile of 
 Ontario. Cnvuron v. Canxi'.a Fin and. .Murine 
 In". Co., 6 0. K. 392.-0.lti. 
 
 Application of Act to Mutual Insurance Coin- 
 pauies. 8eo Itoliins \ . i'irlorid. Mnlndt Fire Inn. 
 Co., 6 A. R. 427, II. 9114; .\fntnal In:. Co. of IM 
 Coiinlji of Wi'llin'jlon v. Fny, 5 S. (!, H. 82, p. 
 97H ; (iorimj v. London Mulnal F'.rc Inn. Co., II 
 O. R. 82, p. 980. 
 
 2. Form of Application. 
 
 Tn the application for insurance prepared by 
 the compiny there was inserted, in very Hniafi 
 type, a notice that the estimated value of per- 
 sonal property and of eauh building to be insured 
 "must be stated separately," etc., which had 
 escaped the notice of the applicant, and such 
 separate valuations, etc., were not given. The 
 court being of the opinion that although this pro- 
 vision might not have been framed in order to 
 elude observation, it was certainly calculated to 
 elude observation, refused to give the insurers 
 the benefit of it, if under the circumstances it 
 would have operated in their favour, (,'reet v. 
 Citizenn Ins. Co., 27 Chy. 121. — Spragge. See 
 .!>'. C. 5 A. R. 590. 
 
 Seo Smith v. City of London Inn. Co., 11 O. 
 R. .38; 14 A. R. .328; 15 S. C. R. 69, p. 9.50; 
 Cockhnrn v. Urilinh America Annnrance Co., 19 
 O. R. 245, p. 937. 
 
 3. Authority and Duly of Afjent. 
 
 The agent of an insurance company cannot, 
 without the express sanction of his principals, 
 grunt an insurance in his own favour binding oa 
 the company. And the same principle prevails 
 in the case of a second insurance, although the 
 prior policy hud been gr.uitod with the express 
 sanction and approval of the company. White 
 V. Lancanhirc Inn. Co., 27 Chy. 61. — Blake. 
 
 The defendants executed policies, a.iiioowledg- 
 ing the receipt of the premiums for re-iucurances, 
 which their agent at 8t. John had accepted, and 
 sent them to him for delivery, but afterwarda 
 hearing that a loss had occurred, and that the 
 premiums had never been paid, they instructed 
 him not to deliver the policies. The plaintiffs 
 alleged that it was the custom of agents to give 
 each other credit for such premiums, and to set- 
 tle at the end of the montii, when the balance, 
 if uny, was handed by one to the other ; but no 
 knowledge by defendants of such u course of 
 dealing, nor such a course of dealing on the part 
 
.■ jpljl U.M,1— — -■■ ^' 
 
 935 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 3n;i:ji 
 
 aa:;;r 
 
 
 SI 
 
 
 I 
 
 of their agents, was proved, and it wus shewn 
 that their agents had no authority to reinsure, 
 except upon payment of the premium : — Held, 
 affirming 26 Chy. ()61, that the defendants were 
 not liaUu : — Held, also, thateven if such a custom 
 had been proved to exist, it would not be binding 
 on the company, unless authorized by it : — Held, 
 also, that the defendants were not bound by their 
 admission on the policy of the receipt of the 
 premium. Xenos r. VVickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296, 
 distinguished. WcMtcni Axxurance Co, v. Pro- 
 rhicial lux. Co., 5 A. R. 190. 
 
 An agent instructed t*- receive payment for his 
 principal, cannot, as a general rule, accept any- 
 thing but money : — Held, therefore, on this 
 principle, and also in view of R. S. O. (1877), c. 
 161, 8. 34, and of the fact that the renewal re- 
 ceipt in question in this case, contained a notice 
 that it would not be valid unless dated and 
 countersigned by the agent on the day on which 
 the money was paid, that, where in consider- 
 ation merely of a setting off of debts as betM'ecn 
 the agent of a company and a policy holder, the 
 former wrongfully delivered a renewal receipt 
 to the latter, tlie receipt did not bmd tlic com- 
 pany, and the policy lapsed. Fra-.er v. Gore 
 Distritl Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 2 O. R. 416.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 In an action brought on an interim receipt, 
 signed by one S., an agent for the respondent 
 company at L. One of the pleas was that S. 
 was not respondent's duly authorized agent, 
 !i8 alleged. The general managers of the com- 
 pany for Ontario had appointed, by a letter, 
 signed by them both, one W., as general agent 
 for the city of L. S., the person by whom the 
 interim receipt in the present case was signed, 
 was employed by W. to solicit applications, bat 
 had no authority from, or correspondence with, 
 the head office of the company. In his evi- 
 dence, S. said he was authorized by W. to sign 
 interim receipts, and the jury so found. He also 
 stated that Z., one of the joint general mana- 
 gers, was informed that he (.S.) issued interim 
 receipts, and that the former said he was to be 
 considered as W. 's agent. There was no evidence 
 that the other general manager knew what capa- 
 city S. was acting in : — Held, affirming the judg- 
 «)er . of the Court of Appeal that W. had no 
 power to delegate his functions ; and that 8. had 
 no authority to bind the respondent company. 
 Per Strong, J. , the general agents, being joint 
 agents, could only bind the respondent company 
 by their joint concurrent acts, the appointment 
 of S. as Agent by Z. without the concurrence 
 of the other general manager would have been 
 insufficient. Svmmern v. Commercial Union 
 Im. To., 6 S. C. K. 19. See Cockhurn v. British 
 America Assurance Co., 19 O. R. 245, p. 937. 
 
 Agent tilling up application. See Soivden v. 
 Standard Fire Ins. Co., 5 A. R. 290, p. 948; 
 Quinlau v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 8 A. K. 376, 
 p. 949; Graham v. Ontario Mutual Ins. Co., 
 J4 0. R. 358, p. 954. 
 
 Assent of agent to assignment. See McQueen 
 V. Phunix Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 4 S. C. R. 660, 
 p. 956. 
 
 .Xotice to agent. See Billinglon v. Provin- 
 eiol Ins. Co. of Canada, 3 S. C. R. 182, p. 967 ; 
 Klein v. Union Fire In». Co., 3 0. R. 234, p. 
 941. 
 
 I Authority of agent to give time for payment 
 of ^jremium. See Moffatt v. Reliance Mutual 
 Lije Assurance Co., 4o Q. B. 561, p. 994. 
 
 Power of agent to waive conditions in policy. 
 See Western Assurauce Go. v, Donll, 12 S. C. R. 
 446, p. 958. 
 
 Power of agent to vary condition. See Peck 
 V. Aijricullural Ins. Co., 19 O. R. 494, p. 
 950. 
 
 4. Payment of Premiums. 
 
 The fire occurred on the 13th of September. 
 On the 15th September, the plaintiff, tnro'igh u 
 solicitor, paid the amount of an overdue insur- 
 ance premium note to the defendants, whi' were 
 ignorant of the loss. On the 17th of September, 
 notice of loss was given to tlie defendants, when 
 they immediately returned the premium to the 
 solicitor : — Held, that the payment having been 
 made in fraud of the defendants, could not avail 
 tlie plaintiff. Scars v. A'/ricultural Ins. Co., 32 
 C. P. 585.-C. P. D. 
 
 See Fra-.cr v. (/ore District Mutual Fire lux. 
 Co., 2 0. R. 416, p. 935; Neitl v. Union Mutual 
 Life Ins. Co., 7 A. R. 171, p. 995; Anchor 
 Marine Ins. Co. v. Corliett, 9 S. C. R. ,3, p. 
 984. 
 
 5. liUerini Receipts. 
 
 The plaintiff was insured by the defendants 
 under an interim receipt, which stated that it 
 was " subject to approval at the head <)ffice, and 
 to the conditions of the policy. Uidess pre- 
 viously cancelled this receipt Vjinds the com- 
 pany for thirty days from the date hereof, and 
 no longer : " — Held, that the conditions of .the 
 policy applied to the insurance during the 
 thirty days, and included any variations of the 
 statutory conditions adopted by the defendants. 
 Compton V. Mercantile Ins. Co., 27 Chy. 334.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 An interim note being merely an agreement 
 for interim insurance -j)reliminary to the grant 
 of a policy is not a policy within the meaning of 
 that term in the Ontario Act. " Subject to all 
 the usual terms and conditions of this company" 
 in such note means that such conditions ought 
 to be read into the interim contract to the ex- 
 tent to which they may lawfully be made a part 
 of the policy when issued by following the 
 directions of the statute, subject always to the 
 statutable condition that they should be held to 
 be just and reasonable by the court or judge. 
 Citizens' Ins. Co. of Canada v. Parsons — Queen't 
 Ins. Co. V. Parsons, 7 App. Cas. 96. See 50' 
 Vict. c. 26, 8. 114. 
 
 The plaintiff had for some years insured his 
 mill and machinery therein with the defendants, 
 the policy having been effected through one of 
 their local agents, there being abo another 
 insurance witn another company. The plain- 
 tiff, desiring additional insurance thereon, signed 
 an application therefor, for a portion thereof^ 
 through the same agent, on which was an in- 
 dorsement, of which he was unaware, and to 
 which his attention was not called, that where 
 steam was used for propelling purposes the pro- 
 
887 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 938 
 
 jiosal WHS required to be submitted to the 
 (lefendauts before the interim receipt was issued. 
 The agent issued the interim receipt to the 
 plaintiff at the time of the proposal, as was his 
 pr^.utice, I'ecocnized by the defendants. The 
 application, which contained a statement, with- 
 out the names of the companies, of the amount 
 of additional insurances effected elsewhere and 
 also the amount of the prior insurance, was sent 
 by tlic agent to the defendants, but was mislaid 
 by tliem after they had made from it cei'tain 
 oxlcnsions on the policy, which had also been 
 forwarded to them lor tiiat purpose. About two 
 iiioutlis after the date of tiie interim receipt the 
 defendants wrote tiioir agent declining to oou- 
 timie the risk on the interim recei|)t, retainuig 
 however the portion ot the premium earned, at 
 tiie sai::e time reinsuring luilf the risk. Of this 
 the plaintiff was not informed, nor was any 
 portion of the premium repaid him : — Held, tiiat 
 the indorsements formed no part of the applica- 
 tion signed by tlie plaintiff, and that the agent 
 was acting in tlie apparent scope of liia authority, 
 and was to bo (leemed prima facie to bo the 
 agent of the company ; and as the defendants 
 never repudiated '.,"ie contract, l>ut merely de- 
 termined to put an end to it and treated it as a 
 subsisting contract, tlicy were liable upon it. 
 ('ockhaniw Bril'mli Ainerica As'^itrance Co., 19 
 O. R, 245.— Q. B. U. 
 
 Under the eighth statutory condition the de- 
 fendants claimed that they were not liable upon 
 tlie receipt because there was prior insurance in 
 anotlier company, and their assent did not ap- 
 pear in and w.is not indorsed on the policy, oi' 
 tliat tliey were not liable upon tlieir earlier in- 
 surance because of the suliseijuent insurance in 
 otiier companies without their assent : — Held, 
 that tlie application and the interim receipt 
 CDttstitutcd the contract of insui'ance, and as in 
 this contract the total amount '' insurance was 
 truly stated, and the contract continued to l)e 
 binding until after the loiss occurred, the de- 
 fendants must be considered to iuive assented to 
 such insur.ince, ami would l)e compellalde to 
 make their assent appear in or to have it in- 
 ilorsed on their policy if sucli policy were 
 i.;Micd : — Held, al.so, tiiat the prior insurance 
 was voidable, not void, and that the defendants, 
 .after tlie sulise juent contiact was entered into 
 in wliich the total amount of insurance was 
 stated, an<l after they knew tliat it was entered 
 into, liad elected not to avoid the prior iusur- 
 .ince, but to treat it as still subsisting by ex- 
 tending it. Jb. 
 
 Semble, that the defendants, having assented 
 to the insurance stated in the contract of insur- 
 .ance, could not assert tiiat tlie effecting such 
 insurance had the result of avoiding tlie prior 
 insurance effected by tlieir policy. ll>. 
 
 (i. liituruUlc /iilfirent. 
 
 A vendor, who lias agreed to sell for full value, 
 has nevertheless, pending the contract of sale, a 
 perfect right to insure the premises sold. If 
 Hucli a vendor insures the premises, desoriliing 
 them as "his,'' this is no misrepresentation, for 
 pending the contract he remains the legal owner. 
 The fact of the vendor insuring under such cir- 
 cumstances, being an assignee in bankruptcy, 
 makes no difference from the case of an (jrdinary 
 
 vendor. Clill v. Canada Fire and Marine lug. 
 Co., 1 O. R., 341.— Boyd. 
 
 The appellants granted a fire policy to one T. 
 on divers buildings and their contents for $3,- 
 280. In his written application T. represented 
 that he was the owner of the premises, while 
 he had previously sold them to S., the respon- 
 dent, subject to a right of redemption, which 
 rigiit T., at the time of the application, had 
 availed himself of by paying back to S. a part 
 of the money advance(l, leaving still due to S. 
 a sum of $1,5)0. Subsequent to the applica- 
 tion, and after some correspondence, the respec- 
 tive interests of T. and S. in the property were 
 fully exidaincd to tiie appellants through their 
 agents. Thereupon a transfer for — (the amount 
 being in blank) was made to .S. by T. and ac- 
 cepted by the appellants. The action was for 
 .$3,280, tiio amount of insurance on the buildings 
 and effects: — Held, that at the time of the ap- 
 plication for insurance T. Iiad an insurable in- 
 terest in the piopertj', and as the appellants had 
 accented tlie transfer made by T. to S., which 
 was intended by all parties to be for §1,510, the 
 amount then due by T. to .S., the latter was en- 
 titled to recover the said sum of $1,510. 2nd. 
 That S. having no insur.dde interest in the 
 moveables, the transfer made to him !)y T. was 
 not sufficient to vest in him T.'s rights under 
 the policy with regard to said moveables. Art. 
 24S2 C. C. L. C. Ollaii-a Ayrkullitral Im. Co. 
 V. Shi-ridin, 5 S. C. R. 157. 
 
 .1., the manager of appellant's firm, insured 
 the stock of one S., a debtor to th; iirm, in the 
 name and for the benefit of the appellant. At 
 the time of effecting sucli insurance J. repre- 
 sented appellant to be mortgagee of the stock of 
 8. S. became insolvent <ind J. was appointed 
 creditors' assignee, and tlie property of the in- 
 solvent was conveyed to him by the official as- 
 signee. On 8th March, 1876, S. made a bill of 
 sale of Ills stock to J., having effected a com- 
 position with his creditors under the Insolvent 
 Act of 1875, but not having had the same con- 
 firmed by the court. The insurance policy was 
 renewed on 5th August, 1876, one year after its 
 issue. On 12th .lanuary, 1877, the bill of sale 
 to .7. was discharged and a new bill of sale given 
 by S. to tlie appellant, who claimed that the 
 former had been taken by J. as his agent, and 
 the execution of the latter was merely carrying 
 out the original intention of the parties. The 
 stock Wivs destroyed by fire on 8th March, 1877. 
 An action having been brought on the ])olicy it 
 was tried before .Smith, .)., without a jury, and 
 a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The Su- 
 preme Court of Nova Scotia set asi<le this ver- 
 <lict and ordered a new trial on the ground that 
 plaintiff had no insurable interest in the proper- 
 ty when insurance was efl'ected, and that no in- 
 terest subseiiuently ac(^uired would entitle him 
 to maintain the action. One of the tonditioDB 
 of the po'icy wa.s, "that all insurances, whether 
 oriL'inal or renewed, shall be considered as made 
 under the original rf presentation, in so far as it 
 may not be varied by a new representation in 
 writing, which in all cases it shall be incumbent 
 on the party insured to make when the risk has 
 been changed, either within itself or by the sur- 
 rounding or adjacent buildings." On appeal to 
 the Supreme Court of Canada : —Held, that the 
 appellant having had no insurable interest when 
 
 \ 
 
•^ 
 
 VJt" " "' ' -• 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 94(r 
 
 9;: 31 
 
 58!"?: 
 
 •>*" -.1 
 
 -tt„5;; 
 9C;l 
 
 aMkJl 
 
 able to plaintiffs. Attached to the policy on a 
 
 printed slip dated 29th May, 1881, was the 
 
 following clause : " It is hereby agreed that this 
 
 insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee 
 
 ! only therein shall not be invalidated by any act 
 
 ' cr neglect of the mortgagor or owner of tlif 
 
 I property insured, nor by the occupation of tlic 
 
 I premises for purposes more hazardous than an 
 
 I peiniitted by the terms of the policy ;" a los-' 
 
 I having occurred the defemlants disjmted theii 
 
 ' lia))ility, and the matter was referred to an 
 
 [ arbitratoi-, who awarded in favour of the phiiii 
 
 ' tills, after refusing to admit evidence for tin- 
 
 I defendants, that the policy had been obtaiiicil 
 
 l)y fraiul :— Held, tjiat tiie above clause prn 
 
 vided only against future acts that tiie defeii- 
 
 t dants did not thereby guarantee the policy li> 
 
 ) he insurance was efTccted, the subsequently ac- 
 ([uired interest gave him no claim, to the benefit 
 of the policy, the renewal of the existing policy 
 being merely a continuance of the original con- 
 tract. Hoii'cird V. Lancashire Ins. Co., 11 S. C. 
 Vk. !I2. 
 
 Held (reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low), Fournier, .1., dissenting, that C". had an 
 insurable interest in the ])roperty in ((uestion in 
 this case at the time of the loss as husband of 
 the owner in fee and tenant l)y tiie curtesy in- 
 itiate, and having had also an insural)le interest 
 when the insurance was effected, liie jjolicy was 
 not avoided l)y a deed given by C. to B., who 
 had reconveyed to C.'s wife. Cn/ihrill v. Stad- 
 ucona Fire ami Lift Iiix. Co., 11 !S. C. R. '2\'2. 
 
 In 1877 T. held a jmlicy of insurance on his ' the plaintiffs as indisputable, and therefore iliat 
 property which he rnorti'aged to AV. in 1881, they were not debarred from setting nji that 
 and an endorsement on tlie policy, whicli liail ' the insurance had been effected by fraud, and 
 l)een annually renewed, made the loss payable tiie case was remitted to tiie arbitrator for tin- 
 to W. In 1882 T. conveyed to W. ids equity admission of such evidence :— Held, also, tiiiii 
 of redemption in tlie pioiierty, and a few months ^ the clause ilid not amount to a new insurance in 
 after, at the re(|uest of W. , an endorsement was ' favour of the mortgagee, (hnninm .Stcnritii-.s ( o 
 made on the jiolicy permitting the premises to v. Canmla Fire Mit/nal /»<. Cu., 1 O. li. 4!»4. - 
 I'emain vacant. The policy was renewed each ' Hagarty. 
 
 year until 188.") when all tiie policies of the in- 
 surance company were called in and replaced by 
 new policies, that held l)y W. being replaced by 
 another in the name of T. to wliich \V. objected 
 and returneil it to the agent who retained it. 
 'J'he premiums were paid by W. up to the end 
 of 188G. The insured premises were burned, 
 and a special agent of the company, iiaving 
 power to settle or compromise the loss, gave to 
 W. a new policy in tlie name of T. having the 
 vacancy permit and an assignment from T. to 
 \V. endorse<l thereon and containing a condition 
 not in the old policy, namely, tiiat all en<loise- 
 nients or transfers were to be authorized by tlie 
 office at .St. John, N. B., and signed by the 
 general agent there. The company having re 
 
 On'.'lst February, 187!>, A. 15. &. Co., the plain- 
 tiffs, gave a mortgage on a mill property cuv- 
 \ eimnting to insure, which they did in tlie I! 
 comjiany, by policy dated Mttii March, IhT'.l, 
 exiiiring 1st Marcli, 1880. On 10th Maicli, 
 187!», A. left the firm. On 1st March, ISSO, 
 the mortgagees, having received no renewal 
 receipt of the above policy, insured theprojicrty 
 in the U. company in the name of the plaintitVs. 
 This U. policy jirovided that the loss should lie 
 j payable to the mortgagees, mid the insurance as 
 i to the interest of the latter should not be in 
 validated by any act of the mortgagors, and 
 ! that if the mortgagors did any act invalidating 
 j the policy, and the insurers should pay tin- 
 
 fused payment an action was brought on the "»'ount of the policy to the mortgagees hey 
 new policy against them, and the agent wlio s''0"':l''f s"''>°ii'^ted to the rights of the latter, 
 first issued the policy to T. was joined as a de- , «'• '"i«l't.l)ay the whole .,f the mortgage debt, 
 
 policy to 'I', was j 
 fendant, relief being asked against him for 
 bi'cach of duty and false representations. The 
 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia set aside a ver- 
 dict for the plaintiff' in such action and ordered 
 ii new trial on the ground that his interest was 
 not insured and that T. had no insui'able in- 
 terest to enable \V. to recover on the assign- 
 ment. On appeal from such decision the Su- 
 
 and obtain an assignment of the niortga;.'c. 
 There \vas no written apjilicaticm for the U. 
 policy. The U. policy was simply handed lo 
 the insurers, and from it they drew their policy, 
 which had the statutory conditions only. No 
 representations w ere made to them in any dtlicr 
 way. The premium was paid by the mortgagees, 
 who collected it from the plaintiffs, the latter 
 preme Court of Canada •-^HehC'iweVsing tlie I •'■^ving taken no part in effecting it. On Htli 
 judgment of the court below (20 N. S. Rep. ; *,''"■'-■''' .^^S I, the mortgagees wrote a letter to 
 487) that the company having accepted the j t'>e l'>-'«'"t'fl',« "» ^Ij'^h they represented the U 
 with knowledge of the fact ' I"'l"=y =!» "ubsputable. A hre having occurred 
 
 premiums from \V. 
 
 that T. had ceased to have any interest iii the 
 ]iroperty, they must be taken to have intended 
 to (leal with W. as owner of the property and 
 the contract of insurance was complete. Wyman 
 V. Imperial Insurance Co., ItJ S. C. R. 715. 
 
 Partnership interest. Nee Stil/man v. Affri- 
 fullnral Iu.<urancii Co., 16 0. R. 145, p. 951. 
 
 See Klein v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 3 0. R. 234, 
 I>. 941. 
 
 the U. company paid the mortgagees the an.oiuit 
 of the loss, which more than covered tbeaniocnt 
 due on the mortgage, of which they took an 
 assignment. The evidence shewed that at the 
 time of effecting this policy there were certain 
 insurances on the property, and also certain 
 mortgages, of which the U. company were not 
 informed and to which they never assented. 
 The plaintiffs now, suing cm the IJ. jHilicy 
 claimed to have the mortgage dischargcil and 
 the balance of the insurance money paid to 
 them, and the U. company connterclaimed for 
 the amount due on the mortgage : — Held (re- 
 versing the decision of Ferguson, J.), that tlie 
 M. who had mortgaged his property to the i ntni-communication of A. 's retirement fi i the 
 
 plaintiffs, snbse(juently on the second of April, ' Krni was not a breach of statutory condition No. 
 
 J881, insured with defendants, loss if any pay- I, because A., though he hail retired, retained 
 
 7. By or for Mortijni/eei. 
 
941 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 942 
 
 nil insurable interest, both as liable to tbe 
 covenants in the mortgage, and as still retaining 
 the right to reileem the mortgage ; and, more- 
 (iver, even if A. had no interest at all, the sur- 
 viving partners could recover according to the 
 extent of their interest. Senible. that even if 
 notice of the change liad been of moment, yet, 
 since tlie evidence sliewed that tiie matter of 
 tlie policy, as between the mortgatjees and tlie 
 I', company, was left to tlie uiidcr-derks to 
 (leal witli, and that a cleik of the mortgagees 
 informed a clerk of the U. company of tlie 
 cliHlige in question, a jury might ]iro)iei'ly find 
 that notice of the cliange Wiis coinniuiiicated to 
 tlic U. company. Khiii v. I'liiuii Fin- /iii. Co., 
 ;!(). R. ■2.14.— Chy. D. 
 
 Held, further, tliat the non-comiiuinieation of 
 otiier mortgages, sulis('(|uent to tliat to tiie plain- 
 tiffs, was not a l)reach of statutory condition No. 
 1, l)ecause such non-ooiiimunication will not, 
 ii))ait from stipulation, iriesjiective of the nature 
 and amount of the otiier mortgages, and without 
 any imputation of fraud, avoid a jiolicy ; and also 
 because the jdaintifl's were not l)ound unasked 
 to state the exact nature and extent of tiie in- 
 terest to l)e insured, and there was at least eon- 
 tiibiitory negligence on the jiart of tlie insurers, 
 wlio might be regarded as having waived infor- 
 mation as to tile mortgages. (Samo r. (ioro Dis- 
 trict Mutual Ins. Co., 1 A. It. .")-!.">, followed. 
 
 Held, further, that the fact of there being two 
 prior insurances unassented to was not a breacli 
 of statutory condition No. S, because the evi- 
 dence siiewed the U. policy was to take tlie 
 place of the R. ])(diey, and of the prior insur- 
 ances one was assented to on the face of the R. 
 jiolicj' and the other !iad been taken in substitu- 
 tion for another, which .also ajipeared as assented 
 to on the It. jiolicy. It was tiie duty of the I'. 
 coni|Kuiy to have projicrly issued their )iolicy, 
 agreeing to take tiie position of the P>. coniiiany, 
 as also it was tli(^ duty of the mortgagees to see 
 tlie policy properly issued. [Ii. 
 
 Hehl, further, that the letter of Utii March, 
 ISSl, contained representations which the mort- 
 gagees were bound to make good, especially as 
 tlie U. conipauy acted as agents for the plain- 
 tiffs in effecting the policy. II). 
 
 Held, further, that the claim of the IT. com- 
 (lany to foreclose could not be entertained, for 
 tiie U. company eouhl not tnke advantage of 
 their own default, in not making the formal 
 entry of assent to the ))rior insurances on their 
 policy, to bring into play the .subrogation clause 
 for their own advantage. Spriii!;tield Fire Ins, 
 ('o. i: Allen, 43 N. Y. 387, distinguished. //». 
 
 Hehl, lastly, on the whole ease, it should be 
 declared that the mortgage had been paid, and 
 tlie proper discharge slioiild be execiite<l, and 
 the mortgagees should pay the balance of the in- 
 surance money to the plaintiffs, witii interest, 
 with costs of suit to the plaintiffs as against both 
 defendants, but without prejudice to the defend- 
 daiits litigating their respective liabilities as be- 
 tween tliemselves, Ih, 
 
 (^iiere, whether upon the facts stated in the 
 reiiort the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover 
 on the ground of the e(miproniise made between 
 the parties. lb. 
 
 Held, tliat the usual covenant to insure con- 
 tained in a mortgage executed under the Act 
 respecting short forms of mortgages operates as 
 an etjuitabie assignment of the insurance when 
 effected. (Ini-t v. Ci/iztin Jus. Co. — Greet v.. 
 /!o>jn/ Ills. Cu., 5 A. R. 5%. 
 
 Under a covenant in a mortgage the mort- 
 g.agor effected an insurance in the Queen Insur- 
 ance Co. for $(i,000, and traii.sferied the policy 
 I to the mortgagees. The iiiortga;;ee, not having 
 ^ received the renewa) receipt within three days 
 ( before the expiration of the pnliey as reiiuired 
 by the mortgage, efi'ected an iiisiiiiiiicu of .*>."), t)0(> 
 with the Imperial Insurance Co., and by a sub- 
 .se(iuc!it arrangement tlio Qiioei policy was 
 allowed to lapse. In ISSO a fire occurred and 
 an amount was paid by the iiisi', nice conip.any 
 which was a|)|)lied on the mortgage reducing it 
 , to .?l,7-"iO, and the policy was reiluced to that 
 amount. The jiolicy was then laucelled, and an 
 application made by the iin estuieiit company 
 for a policy for said sum. The policy was to be, 
 and was, is.sued in the name of tlie owner, stated 
 in the application to be the [l liuliff. The prem- 
 i iuuis were paid liy the plaiotilf. Attached to 
 : the policy was tbe mortgageclau.se whereby the 
 insurance, as to the niortg .gei-s' interest onlj', 
 should not be invalidated by any act of the 
 mortgagor; and if payment was made to the 
 , ni.)rtgagees and, as to the nioitg:igor no liability 
 I therefor existed, the com|'any as to such pay- 
 ment should lie subrogiited to the mortgagees' 
 rights under all securities held collaterid to the 
 mortgage debt. In 18S'2 a fire occurred and the 
 insurance coni|)any paid the investment com- 
 ' pany the $l,7oO. The jdaintiff claimed to have 
 ; his mortgage ilischarged ; but the insurance com- 
 pany di-sputed this, setting uji that plaintiff had 
 , no claim under the policy ; aid th.it having paiu 
 the investment company they were subrogated 
 to their rights : — Held, th.-it tlie jilaintiti' was 
 entitled to the benetit of the money paid and to 
 have his moitgage dischargi d, uides;< he had 
 done something to forfeit his rights ; but that 
 there was no forfeiture, certain grounds of 
 avoidance set up by the defendants not being 
 i tenable. Klein /•. Union Fire Ins. Co., 3 O. 
 R. '234 followed, ami Omniuni Securities Co. r. 
 Canada Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 1 (). R. 494„ 
 , observed upon in the Court of Ajipeal. liii/l v. 
 Xorlh lir'it'ixh (.'aiinih'aii. Iiin.iliiieiit Co., 14 U. 
 It. 3-2-2.— C. 1". 1). ; 1.-) A. R. 4'21. 
 
 A mortgagor insured his mill against tire with 
 the defenilants, the policy being payable on its 
 face, to the extent of one-half, (o the mortgagee. 
 Attached to the policy was a separate slip called 
 a " mortgagee clause," by whielii' was provided 
 ■ that the insurance, as to the interest of the mort- 
 ' gagee only therein, should not be invalidated by 
 any act or neglect of tlie mortgagor ; and, also, 
 that whenever the comp.iiiy should pay the 
 ' mortgagee anj' sum for loss under tlie policy, 
 and should claim that, as to the mortgagor, no 
 ; liability existed therefor, it should, to the extent 
 : of such payment, be subrogated to all the rights 
 of the party to whom such payment should be 
 made. Proofs of loss were imt made by the 
 mortgagor and mortgagee until within sixty 
 days of the end of the yi ar after a tire had oc- 
 curred ; and within sixty days after the proofs 
 were delivered, an action was commenced by 
 the mortgagor and the reijresentativea of the 
 
i—.t" ■" — 
 
 943 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 944 
 
 945 
 
 ! 
 
 
 mortgatfce :— Hnld (affirming the judgment of 
 Hiiyil, 'C, at the trial), that the mortgagee 
 was not bound as "the assured," under statu- 
 tory I'onditiou 12, to make proofs of loss, 
 anil that here the person assured, the mort- 
 gagor, was the person to make them, under con- 
 ditions twelve and thirteen : — Held, also, that 
 the neglect of the assured to make the proofs of 
 loss in proper time, sn that the sixty days there- j 
 after might expire before the termination of the 
 year after the loss, within which an action had i 
 to be brou^lit under condition twenty-two, was 
 a negleut from the <;onse(iuences of whicli the I 
 mortgagee was relieved by tlio mortgagee clause, 
 and tliat, as far as he was concerned, the action 
 WHS not Itrnuglit too sonn : — Held, also, that the 
 words "shall claim that, as to the mortgagor, < 
 no lialiility exists." in the mnrtgiigee clause, 
 meant " and as to the mortgagor no liability ex- ' 
 ists ;'' and tiiat, as the policy was valid at the 1 
 time <M the (ire, and nothing was shown to liave 
 taken |)Iacc since to render it invalid, there was 
 a liability to the mortgagor : that condition 
 *2'2 barred the remedy and not the right, and the 
 <lefendants were not entitled to subrogation :— 
 Held, also, that the mortgagor was bound to 
 make the proofs in such time, that the sixty i 
 •hiys would elapse before the expiration of the ! 
 year limited for bringing tlie action and his \ 
 remedy as to the other half of the policy was 
 barred. Anderson v. Sniii/c.pii Mutual Fire /«i. ' 
 Co. of Mount Forisl, 18 O'. R. .S.i.").— Chy. 1). 
 
 Sec l/owf.i v. DomJnJon Fire, and Mar'uic. Iw. 
 Co., 8 A. II. (i44, p. %!. 
 
 8. Form of Policy. 
 
 Xecessity of seal to policy. See Wri'ihl v. ' 
 London Life y1.«. Co., 5 A. R. 218 ; S. G. .■<nl) ; 
 nom. Lmidcn Life .'i.i.^nrance Co. v. Wriifht, \ 
 r> S. V. R. 4(i(i, p. 03.3 ; Burnett v. Union Mutual \ 
 Fire lui. Co., 32 C. P. 1.S4, p. 976. ! 
 
 Printing statutorv conditions. J/a?/ v. Stan- . 
 dard Fire Int. Co.,'5 A. R. 605, p. 944'; Citizens' ■ 
 Jns. Co. of Catinda. v. Parnons ; Queen Int. Co. 
 v. /'arioos, 7 App. Cas. 96, infra. 
 
 Printing additional conditions. See Sandx v. 
 Standard Ins. Co., 27 Chy. 167 ; 26 Chy. 115. 
 
 Omission to fill up blank in a condition. See 
 .Sftrtcs V. A<irirullurallu.i. Co, 32 C. P. 585, p. 945. 
 
 9. Viirying Statutory Conditions. 
 
 Held, tiiat according to the true construction 
 of the Act, 39 Vict. c. 24 (Ont.), whatever 
 may be the conditions sought to be imposed by 
 insurance companies, no such conditions shall 
 avail against the statutory conditions, and the 
 latter sliall alone be deemed to be part of the 
 policy and resorted to by the insurers, notwith- 
 standing any conditions of their own, unless the 
 latter are indicated as vai'iations in the manner 
 presciibed by the Act. The penalty for not ol)- 
 serving that manner is that the policy becomes 
 subject to the statutory conditions, whethei' 
 ])rinted or not. Citizens' In-t. Co. of Canada v. 
 Parmns ; (fne.en /ni. Co. v. Pamonit, 7 App. Cas. 
 
 m. 
 
 Where a company has printed its own condi- 
 tions and failed to print the statutory ones it is 
 
 not the case that the policy must be deemed to 
 be without any conditions at all. fb. 
 
 Compliance with statutory enactment as tc) 
 printing. See flamh v. Standard Ins. Co., 27 
 Chy. 167. 
 
 Action on a fii'e policy, upon which the statu- 
 tory conditions M-ero not indorsed, but which was 
 on its face declared to ba subject to the com- 
 pany's conditions indorsed, the eleventh of 
 which was that tlie insured should do all in his 
 power to .save and protect the insured property, 
 and prevent injury thereto. Hj' thcseventeentli 
 condition tlic nonfullilmcnt of tlie-*c conditions 
 entailed tlic forfeiture of the policy. The jiuy 
 found Mpuciallv, amongst otlicr things, that the 
 pbtintitl' wilfully neglected to .save, and pre- 
 vented others from saving, the insured property, 
 whereby his goods were prevente 1 from bein;.; 
 saved, but they dis.igreed as to the defence of 
 fraudulent over- valuation ;- -Held, tint under 
 the ileoision of the Privy Council in Parsons r. 
 Citizens' Ins. Co., 7 App. Cas. 9li, the policy 
 must be taken to l)e a policy with t!ie statutory 
 conditions only ; and a new trial was grant&l 
 that the case might proceed as upon such a policy. 
 JJer/iu V. i^iieen fns. Co., 46 Q. B. 611.— Q. B. I). 
 
 By an adilitional condition of a policy of insur- 
 ance, it was provided that if the insureil ])r<>- 
 perty sliould be levied upon, or tivkeu iut(» pos- 
 session or custody luiiler any legal process, or tlie 
 title shrmld be disputed in any proceeding inlaw 
 or e(|uity, the policy should cease to be bincliii;^ 
 u))on the '.■.om])any. After the insurance was 
 effected an execution issued against the goods of 
 the insured, under which the l)ailiff made a for- 
 mal seizure, but did not deprive the insured of 
 their ))ossc.'ssiou or custody, or place any one in 
 possession, and upon a bond being given a day 
 or two afterwards, the seizure was withdrawn. 
 The (.'ourt of Common Pleas, 30 C, P. 51, held 
 that this was a valid seizure, and that the 
 ])laintiff, who was mortgagee of the goods, and 
 to whom the loss was payable, could not there- 
 fore recover : — Held, reversing this judgnieiit, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Per 
 Burton, Patterson, and ^lorrison, .LJ.A., that 
 there had not been a seizure within the meaning 
 of the condition, which refers to an actual cus- 
 tody and change of possession. Per Armour, 
 J., that the condition was not birding on tlie 
 insured, as it was not iirinteil in compliance with 
 R. S. <). (1877), c. 102, s. 4. Wilson r. The 
 Standard Fire Ins. Co., 29 C. P. 308. followed 
 and approved of. Seinble, per Patter.son, J. A,, 
 that the condition was void, as being unjust ami 
 unreasonable. Jtemarks by Patterson, J. A., as 
 to the principle and considerations upon which 
 the validity of a variation of or addition to the 
 statutory conditions shouhl be tested and de- 
 termined. May V. Standard Fire fns. Co., 5 
 A. It. 60.-i. 
 
 The ilefendant, a mutual insurance company, 
 was incorporated by an Act of the Domininii 
 Parliament, 41 Vict. c. 40, by section 28 of 
 which it is provided that "any fraudulent niis- 
 representatiim contained in the application 
 therefor, or any false statement resjiecting the 
 title or the ownersliip of the applicant or liis 
 circumstances, or tiio concc:dinent of any in- 
 cumbrance on the insured property, or the fail- 
 ure to notify tlie company of any change in the 
 
 'deiitly 
 
945 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 ■FliiuY OF 
 
 im 
 
 that the 
 
 uoinpany. 
 Doinininii 
 ^tion 2S of 
 iliilent mis- 
 appliciitioii 
 peoting the 
 cant or liis 
 of any in- 
 )!• the fail- 
 tinge in tho 
 
 title or ownership of the insured property, and 
 to obtain tlie written consent of the company 
 thereto shall render the policy voiil : " — Helcl, 
 on demurrer, that tho matters provided for by 
 the above section were subject matters of the 
 " Fire Insurance Policy Act " of Ontario, over 
 which the province has exclusive jurisdiction ; 
 and although they might be proper subjects of 
 legal contract, tliey would have no force or 
 vitality through tlie Dominion Act per se, but 
 onlv by being used as required or modified by 
 8ai(\ Ontario Act, namely, in tlic niiuiuer pro- 
 vided for variations to tlie conditions tlici'ein 
 contained. Citizens" Ins. Co. r. Parsons and 
 Queen Ins. (Jo. v. Parsons, 7 App. Cas. !)(}, 
 commented upon. Ooriii'/ v. Liiinhni Matiinl 
 Fire Ills. Co., 11 O. I{. 82. -O'Connor. 
 
 10. JhaxoiiahltiieKn of Coii'li/imt.i. 
 
 A premium note, dated tho 24th May, 1880, 
 given on effecting an insuivuice v"*-' he defen- 
 dants company, stated tliattliu insured for value 
 received on policy No. l,40r>, dated tlietttli May, 
 1880 ; promised to pay the coin])any .114.50 on 
 tiie 24th of December, ISSO, with interest at 
 seven per cent. , and contained an ai^reemont tiiat 
 if the note were not paid at mitui'ity, the wiiole 
 Amount of tlie premium should bo ccinsidered as 
 earnetl, and the policy siioiild be null and void 
 so long as the note remained unpaid. U|)ou tlie 
 policy, which was dated the 14th May, 188(1, and 
 took effect from the 24th May, ISSO, was en- 
 dorsed a variitioii condition that the policy 
 should not bo valid or binding until the prciniuni 
 was actually piid, unless credit was given for it; 
 ,and in that case it was a condition of the con- 
 tract " that if such prciiiiuin be not ))aid 
 
 18 , the whole amount of prcmiiiiii shall then 
 
 be considered as earned, and the policy shall be 
 null and void, so long as any |)art thereof re- 
 mains unpaid." 'I'iio application, wliieli was 
 made a part of the policy, stated that the 
 premium wasdue on the 24tli Djcomber, 188 ) : — 
 Held, that the omission to till up tho blank in 
 the condition, did not prevent its < -orating, for 
 the condition would be perfect without the 
 figures " 18," which might be rejected as sur- 
 plusage; but that the conilition could be re- 
 'lorined by inserting the words and figures evi- 
 •dently intended — namely, the 24th December, 
 1880; or might have been filled up by the par- 
 tics : — Held, also, that the condition was not 
 'Unreasonable, being in cll'ect the s:imc as that 
 provided for in the case of mutual insurance 
 companies by R. S. O. (1877) c. 1(51. Scarf v. 
 Agriniltiiral I11.1. Co., 32 U. P. 58.->.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Per Burton, J. A. — That a clause in the appli- 
 cation, in this case, stating that the agent of the 
 company filling up the application shoiihl be re- 
 garded as the agent of the applicant was not, by 
 reason of its being made part of the policy, a 
 condition thereof, and subject to the determina- 
 tion of the judge as to whether it was just and 
 reasonable ; and if it were it was not iinreason- 
 ftble. SoivUeu v. Sinmlard Fire /ii.i. C<i. , 5 A. R. 
 
 My a condition in a ixilicy of insurance addi- 
 tional to the statutory conditions, it wa? provi- 
 ded, that " when property insured * * or any 
 ■part thereof shall be alienated, or in cise of any 
 ^raiisfer or change of title to the property in- 
 
 60 
 
 surcd, or any part thereof, or of any interest 
 therein without the consent of this company 
 indorsed hereon, or if the property hereby in- 
 sured, shall be levied upon, or taken into posses- 
 sion or custody under any legal process, or the 
 title be disputed in any proceeding at law or 
 equity, this policy shall cease to be binding upon 
 the company" :— Held, affirming the decree of 
 Prouclfoot, V. C, (2(5 Chy. 115), that such 
 condition was not just or reasonable, and that 
 
 I it was not binding. Saiidx v. Staiulard Int. 
 
 ' Co., 27 Cliy. 1()7.— Chy. D. 
 
 Under the statutory comlitions indorsed on a 
 inntnd fire insurance policy the words, pre- 
 scribed liy seotiou4of R. S. O. (1877), c. 162, ex- 
 cept the heading, "Variations in conditions," 
 vrei-ii ])rinted in ink of a sli;^litlj' different 
 colour, but in the same sized ty))c, and afU 1 
 1 certain conditions varying tho statutory condi- 
 tions, and under tiie heading, "Additional condi- 
 tions," there was the f(dlowing condition in type 
 of the same size and colour, " In case any pro- 
 missory note for a cash premium or for any pre- 
 mium note * * given to the company, or to 
 any officer or agout tlioreof.be not p lid when due, 
 tha policy * * shall be null and void, and the 
 conipiny .shall not bj liable for any loss occur- 
 ring either before or after tho mitnrity of such 
 promissory note." The note in this case, pay- 
 able to dofendants" agent or bearer, for $\-, the 
 first payment on the premium undertaking, 
 ' which wai fen- §15. (ii, fell due on the loth of 
 j A|)ril, 1878, and the loss, exceo ling the amount 
 j insnroil Si50((, ojeurred on the 2.Srd of March. 
 This note w.is not paid, the plaintiff alleging 
 that he omitted to pay it, assuming that the de- 
 fendants would deduct it in settling the loss, 
 which had not been adjusted ; — Hold, that the 
 j Uniform Conditions' Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. I(i2 
 I (excepting section 2), does not ai)ply to mutual 
 I insurance companies ; but tint if it did the con- 
 dition would hvve been clearly void for non- 
 compliance with se.Hion 4 of that Act : — Held, 
 also, reversing the judgment of the Queen's 
 Hencli, 44 Q. R. 70, that the conilition was not 
 just or reasonable, as it was roiiuired to be by 
 the express contract, and by section 35 of the 
 Mutual Insurance Act, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 101 ; 
 and that the plaintilf was entitled to recover. 
 Tlie reasonableness of a condition is to bo tested 
 with relation to tiu? circumstances of each case 
 at the time the policy was issued. But quaire, 
 per Mojs, C. J. A., whether in the ab.stract 
 such a condition could be regarded as reasonable, 
 and per Patterson, J. A., it ccmld not. Per 
 Patterson, .1. .\ , the condition was also un- 
 reasonable, because more stringent than the 
 statutory provisions upon the same subject, 
 section 48 of tho Mutual Act. Qua-re, whether 
 this was a note which the company had power 
 to take, or one within the condition. Ballaijh 
 V. Royal Maliml Fire liis. Co., o A. R. 87. 
 
 The plaintiff applied for an insurance upon 
 his stock-in-trade with the defendant company. 
 Pen<ling the negotiations tho company's agent 
 told the plaintiff he thought the company's con- 
 dition was to allow twenty-five pounds of powilor 
 to be kept, and the plaintiff said he did not 
 keep more than ten pounds. The insurance w ts 
 then effected by an interim receipt, and on the 
 same night the premises were iiurned. Too 
 plaintiff liad more than ton pounds, but les? than 
 
947 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 948: 
 
 919 
 
 
 S>c:;i 
 
 m 
 
 twenty-five pounds of powder in stock when the 
 fire occurred. The statutory condition pro- 
 hibited more timn twouty-five ixiunds being 
 kept in stock without perniiission, and tlie coiu- 
 puny's variation of their condition relieved tiieni 
 from liability if more than ten pounds were 
 "deposited on the premises, unless the same be 
 specially allowed in the body of the policy and 
 suitable extra preminni paid." The case having 
 been dealt with on other grounds, on an appeal 
 to tlie Privy Council, was remitted to this court 
 to try whether the variation of the condition was 
 a just and reasonable one. The judge at the 
 trial found it to be reasonable:— Held, Hagarty, 
 V. J., dissenting, that under the eircumstanees 
 of this case, inasmuch as the company's agent 
 had represented that twenty-live jioundsof g\ui- 
 powder were allowed to be kept in stock, the 
 condition now insisted upon was not a just anil 
 reasonable one to bo set up by the comjjauy, or 
 one which they could have inserted in the 
 policy, and was therefore void, and that the 
 plaintiff should recover. Per Armour, .1. — Tlie - 
 condition being more onerous than the statutory ' 
 condition relating to the same sul)ject matter, 
 was for that rcascm to be deemed not just or 
 reasonable. Per Hagarty, C. .1., and (Jalt, J. — 
 The variation was not necessarily unjust or un- , 
 reasonable. Per Hagarty, ('. .1. — Tlie statutory 
 condition exempting the company from liability i 
 if more than twenty-five pounds of powder were 
 kept without permission, does not preclude or 
 prohibit the insurers fioni bargaining that they 
 will not be liable if more than ten pounds bo 
 kept, except on certain conditions as to extra 
 premiums, etc. ; and as the plaintitV at the trial 
 did not in his evidence mention the representa- 
 tion of the agent, or allege that it influenced 
 him, and it was not relied upon there, it should 
 not now be given effect to. /'(tr.soiix v. Qi'cen 
 Inn. Co., 2 0. R. 45. -Q. H. I). 
 
 Per Armour, .F. — Following Parsons r. 
 Queen lus. Co., 2 <). 1!. 4"), any variation of 
 the statutory condition is prima facie, unjust 
 and unreasonable. Smith v. Ci/y of London Iii/i. 
 Co., 11 <). R. 38. 
 
 Variation of statutory condition as to time 
 within which loss payable. See Siiiilh v. Ci/i/ 
 of London In*. Co., 14 A. R. 328 ; lo S. C. R. ()9, 
 p. 971 ; Pforia Snijar licfininii Co. v. Camida 
 Fire and Marine I nx. C(>.,'l2 A. It. 418, p. 970. 
 
 See Mwi v. Sfnndard Fire Inx. Co., 5 A. R. 
 605, p. 'JH ; Orahnm v. On/nrio Afnnod In^. Co., 
 14 O. R. 3.-)8, pp. n.-.4, 9.-)0 ; l,'fdi/l,i' v. Srwni-n 
 Mutual Inx. Co., 1.") A. R. 3(i3, p. 9.")5 ; I'.ck v. 
 Affricu/lnral Inx. Co., I9 0. R. 494, p. 950. 
 
 11. Desi rip/ion of /'ropcr/y mid /'(t/h/siji. 
 
 The plaintiff, describiug himself in the appli- 
 cation as a grocer, and his store as being used .-.s 
 a grocery, insured with defendants his stock of 
 roceries, etc., therein, and without the know- 
 edge or assent of the defendants habitually re- 
 tailed liquor there; but the jury found that the 
 risk was not thereby increased:— Held, that there 
 was no misrepresentation or concealineut of a 
 materia) fact; that in insuring a "grocery," lefen- 
 «lant8 knew that liquor might be sold there ; and 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Xichol- 
 Mon V. Phimix Inn. Co., 45 Q.B. 359.— Q. B. D. 
 
 fe 
 
 It was provided by one of the conditions in 
 the policy sued on that if any one should insure 
 his building or goods and cause the same to he 
 described otheiwise than they really were, to 
 the prejiulice of the company, or should misrep- 
 resent or omit to connnunicatc any circumstance 
 which was material to be nuule known to the 
 conqiany in order to enable them to judge of the 
 risk, such insurance should be void. The plain- 
 tiff signed a printed form of application in blank 
 for an insui.ince on a block of five buildings, ami 
 told defendant's agent to make bis own measure- 
 ments and description. The agent filled uj) the 
 a])])licati(>n fr( ni an examination and diagram 
 which he had made on a previous occasion, and 
 in answer to the question : "Is there any other 
 fact or circumstance atl'ecting the risk with which 
 it is necessary that the company should be made 
 ac()uaiMted," replied, "No, it is a first-class 
 building in every respect; although one loof 
 covers all, there is a solid brick tire-wall between 
 each store. " The ai)])licati(ni contained an 
 agreement that if the agent of the company 
 filled up the ap])lication, he should, in that case, 
 be the agent of the applicant, and not of the 
 company. There was riOt a solid brick wall be- 
 tween the stores, and the jury foimd that this 
 was a misdescription of a fact mater'al to the 
 risk : — Held, affirming the juilgment of the 
 Queen's Hench, 44 (>). 1?. it5, that the plaintitt 
 could not rejover. Son-den v. Standard Fire. 
 /hx. Co., 5 A. R. 290. 
 
 The first statutory condition endorse<l on a 
 policy provided that if the insured misdescriheil 
 his buildings or goods to the prejudice of the 
 company, or misrepresented, or omitted to com- 
 municate any material circumstance, the insur- 
 ance relating thereto should be void. The second 
 .statutory condition provided that the policy was 
 intended to be in accordance with the applica- 
 tion unless the company should point out the 
 dificrence relieil on, with a variation addeil 
 thereto, that such ajjplication or any survey, 
 plan 01' description of the projierty to be insured 
 should be considered a part of the jjolicy and 
 every part of it a warranty by the insured, but 
 that the company would not dispute the correct- 
 ness of any diagram or plan prejiared by its 
 agent from a personal inspection. The twenti- 
 eth statutory condition as varied, provided tlmt 
 in case any agent of the conqjany took part in 
 the preparation of the application, he should, 
 with the exception above ])rovided in case of a 
 diagram or plan, be regarded in that work as 
 the agent of the applicant. By the application, 
 which was signed, not '.y the insured in person, 
 but through the age'. c of the company, the in- 
 sured was reijui.'^.i to make known the exist- 
 ence of all buildings within 101) feet of the in- 
 sured premises ; and it appeared that the in- 
 snreil liad omitted to mal^e known the exist- 
 ence of a small buihling used for storing coal 
 oil, and nniterial to be made known, within such 
 distance, but of the existence of which the ap- 
 plicaiU was not at the time aware. A diagram 
 was made and filled in by the agent and signed 
 by him in his own name as well as that of the 
 applicant, which contained no reference to this 
 building. The diagram was not made from a 
 personal ins|)ection at the tinio, but from a pre- 
 vious inspeciion and the knowledge thereby ac- 
 (juired, as also an intimate knowledge of the 
 property, which he passed three times each day ; 
 
949 
 
 INSURANOE. 
 
 960 
 
 lulitions ill 
 )uUl insure 
 ame to be 
 y were, to 
 M misiL'p- 
 rciunstance 
 iWii to the 
 lulge of tlie 
 
 The plain- 
 on in l)hi,nk 
 IdingM, iinil 
 •n meiisuie- 
 illed up the 
 lul diagram 
 leasion, ami 
 e any otiier 
 
 with wliioh 
 lid 1)0 made 
 a first-class 
 li one roof 
 ,all between 
 ntained an 
 lu company 
 in that ease, 
 
 not of the 
 •ick M'all he- 
 ld that tliis 
 or'al to the 
 lent of the 
 the plaintiff 
 aiidartl Fire 
 
 idorsed on a 
 luisdescribed 
 judice of the 
 itted to com- 
 •0, the insur- 
 [ Tlie second 
 le policy was 
 
 the applica- 
 oint out the 
 iation aildeil 
 
 any survey, 
 to be insured 
 
 ]K)licy and 
 insureil, hut 
 
 c the correct- 
 pared by its 
 
 Tlie twenti- 
 irovided that 
 
 took part in 
 I, he should, 
 
 1 in case of a 
 ihat work as 
 
 application, 
 •cd ill [lerson, 
 .pany, the in- 
 vn the exist- 
 eet of the in- 
 
 that the in- 
 ivii the exist- 
 
 storing coal 
 
 , within such 
 viiich the ap- 
 A diagram 
 nt and signed 
 18 that ot the 
 crciice to this 
 
 made from ft 
 nt from a pre- 
 gc thereby ac- 
 ivledge of the 
 mes each day ; 
 
 and the agent at the foot of the application i 
 stated that he had made a personal survey of 
 the risk : — Held, reversing the judgment of the ! 
 cimrt below, (31 C. P. 618), that under the con- [ 
 ditions and circumstances above set forth the 
 insured was relieved from the effect of his omis- 
 sion to make known the existence of such coal 
 oil siied ; that the inspection by the agent need 
 not be one made for the purpose of such insur- | 
 ance, provided a personal inspection did take ■ 
 jdaee ; and that under the facts and eircum- 
 stapces appearing in tlie case the comiiany could 
 not ilispute the correctness of the answers given 
 by the insured, whetiier his answers upon tlie 
 application for insurance were to be treated as 
 warranties or representations only. (Jiiiiilan v. ; 
 Union Fire Jim. Co., 8 A. R. 376. 
 
 A tug is not a building within the meaning of 
 clause /of the tenth statutory condition. Mi/- ; 
 (•/('// V. City of London Fire In-^. Co. (Limited), 
 12 0. R. 7(iG.— O'Connor. 
 
 On the argument of theappeal the defendants 
 for the first time set up tliat by the application I 
 the plaintiff had described the building insured 
 as occupied by liiiiiself and his tenants as a 
 dwelling-house, thereby contracting witii the 
 defendants that it was so occupied ; whereas, in 
 fact, it was then vacant, and that there being 
 tinis an entire misdescription of tlie subject mat- 
 ter of the insurance, the risk never attached. 
 On the pleadings and at the trial, tliis misdes- 
 cription was relied njion merely as being a ma- 
 terial misdescription avoiding tlie p(dicy under 
 the first statutory condition. This issue was 
 found in favour of the plaintiff, it being proved 
 that the policy had been issued in substitution of 
 a former policy in the defendant company, the 
 risk on which they had continued after accepting 
 notice tiiat the building had become vacant, and 
 the application for the substituted pcdicy had 
 been tilled np by their general manager, to whom 
 the plaintiff had given all the inlormation he 
 asked for, and had told him that the buihling 
 was then unoccupied -.—Held, that under the 
 circumstances, the knowledge of their general 
 manager was the knowledge of tlie company ; 
 that the misdescription was immaterial, and 
 that the defendants could not be permitted at 
 that stage of the cause to shift their ground, and 
 set it up as a warranty or part of tlie contract. 
 Redd irk v. Sauqecn Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 15 A. 
 R. 363. 
 
 The agent of an insurance company filled in 
 an application for insurance on a building built 
 with lioards, and fixed the premium at the rate 
 demanded on brick buildings, there being no 
 tariff value for board buildings. The word 
 " boards" was so badly written that it was diffi- 
 cult to decipher it, but the character of the 
 building was designated on a diagram on the 
 liaek of the application, which the agents were 
 instructed to mark with red in case of a brick, 
 and bluck in case of a frame building. In this 
 case it was in black. At the head office the 
 word intended for boards was read " brick,'' and 
 the policy issued as on a brick building, A loss 
 having occurred the company, under a clause in 
 the policy, caused an arbitration to be had, but 
 afterwards refused to pay the amount awarded 
 to the insured, elainiing that by reason of the 
 error in the policy there was no existing contract 
 of insurance : — Held, affirming the judgment of 
 
 the courts below (110. R. 38 ; 14 A. R. 328), 
 that as there had lieen no misrepresentation by 
 the assured, and no mutual mistake, the parties 
 were ad idem, and the contract was complete ; 
 and even if it were otherwise, the company 
 could not set up this defence after treating the 
 contract as existing by the reference to arbitra- 
 tion under the policy. City of London Fire Inn. 
 Co. v. .S'//((V/i loS. C. IX. (il). 
 
 1'he defendants issued a p<dicy of insurance 
 against tile, dated 23rd Aprd, ISSii, upon a house 
 ot the plaintiff. The .ipplication signed by the 
 pbiintill', stated that the house was occupied as 
 a residence by the plaintiff's son. A fire took 
 place on the i4th November, 188!>, at which date 
 and for six months previously, the hou.se had 
 been unoccupied. One of the special conditions 
 indorsed upon the p(dicy, was that if a building 
 became vacant or iinoccupieil and so remained 
 for ten days, tlie entire policy should bo void. 
 The plaintiff and his wife swore that when the 
 agent came to him and drew the a)>])lication, ho 
 asked the phiiiitifV if there was any one in the 
 himse at the time, and the plaintiff told him 
 that his son was living there at the time, but 
 wa.i going to leave in about two weeks, and 
 asked if that would make aiij' difl'erciice, and 
 was informed by the agent that it would not. 
 By a clause in the application, the plaintiff 
 agreed that iii> statement made or information 
 given by him prior to issuing the policy to any 
 agent of the defendants, should lie deemed to be 
 made to or binding upon the (Ufendants unless 
 reduced to writing and incoiporated in the ap- 
 plication ; and on the margin of the application 
 ^ tliere was a iif>tice shewing that the powers of 
 agents were limited to receiving proposals, col- 
 lecting premiums, and giving thi; consent of the 
 defendants to assignments of policies :— Held, 
 tliat the special condition referred to was not an 
 unreasonable one, and that the agent had no 
 power to vary it ; and an action to recover the 
 amount of the loss was dismissed. The plain- 
 , tiff at the trial sought to give evidence of cer- 
 ; tain transactions between the agent of the 
 j defendants and a brother of the plaintiff, for 
 I the purpose of shewing that the plaintiff, having 
 become aware of them before the application 
 I made liy him, was justified in believing that the 
 ' defendants did not regard tlie condition as to 
 I occupation as a material one •.--Held, that this 
 ■ evidence was properly rejected. Perl: v. Agri- 
 ctdttiral Ins. Co., 1!) O. R. 494. —(i. B. U. 
 
 r2. Property Corereil. 
 
 In an action on a fire insurance policy, appli- 
 cation was made at the trial to set uj) the first 
 statutory condition as a defence, in that a 
 threshing machine insured as plaintiflTs own 
 property, was partnership property ; and also 
 to set up the fifteenth condition, in that there 
 was fraud and false statement, for the like 
 reason, in the proofs of loss: — Hchl, that the 
 application must be refused, the first condition 
 having no reference to title ; and as to the 
 fifteenth, the statement was not proved to be 
 wilfully false and fraudulent, and the fact that 
 the threshing machine was [lartnershiji pro- 
 perty, was not material, no question as to title 
 having been in the application for insurance 
 asked. As the terms ot the policy limited the 
 
951 
 
 INSUBANOE. 
 
 952 
 
 953 
 
 ■"is: 
 
 |A*J HI 
 
 riglit of the plaintiff to recover to the extent of 
 his own interest only, tlie ilamagu was i-educeil 
 to the extunt of thut interest. The plaintiff 
 liad two barns, Nos. 1 and 2. Tiie threshing 
 machine was insured as " in No. ] JJarn." The 
 machine was in No. 2 barn, though tlie horse 
 power was outside. The plaintiff applied to the 
 company, and an entlorsement was made on the 
 policy stating that the machine shouhl be 
 • covered " whii'! in any one of the outbuildings 
 insured," Barn No. 2 was insured tlioughnotby 
 itlie defendants" company : — Held, tliat the 
 machine was covered by tlie policy, and that the 
 ])laintiff was entitled to recover in respect of it. 
 An objection was also made tjiat a reaper, 
 «lestroyed by the tire, was not covered by tlie 
 policy : — Held, on the evidence, that tlio oli- 
 jection was not tenable. Slilhiinn v. Ai/ririil.- 
 titrallm.Co., ICO. R. Ho.— C. 1". 1). 
 
 13. It'iskx Injnirid—Kxiilon'ires. 
 
 A policy of insurance against fire contained a 
 condition that " tiie company will make good a 
 loss caused by the ex])losioii of coal gas in a 
 building not forming part of gas works, and loss 
 by lire caused liy any other explosion, or by 
 liglitniiig." A loss occurred by tlie dropi)ing 
 
 -of a match into a keg of gunpowder <ni tiie 
 ])remises insured, the <lainage being partly oc- 
 casioned l>y tiie explosion of the gunpowder, ami 
 ))artiy by the gunpowder setting tire to the stock 
 insured. Tlie company admitted tiieir liability 
 for the damage cause<l by lire, but not for tliat 
 caused ))y the explosion: — Held, reversing tlie 
 decision of the Court of Appeal (11 A. I!. 741), 
 whicli affirmed the decision of the (J. P. \). (7 0. 
 15. ();U) and the Q. B. I). (S O. R. .14;{), Tascli- 
 ereau .1. dul>itante, tliat tiie company were not 
 
 -exempt liy tlie condition in tlie policy from lia- 
 bility for damage caused by tiie explosion. 
 Hohln V. Norlhirn Ainuniife Co. ; Ilohbs v. 
 (iiinrillan Fire nud 1/ife AMiirauct Co. of Lun- 
 
 ■don, 12 S. C. R. 631. 
 
 See Mitchtll. v. Cifi/ of Lomlon Fin- Inn. Co. 
 (Lbnittd), 12 0. R. 706, p. OS."). 
 
 14. Valuation of Property, 
 
 In effecting insurances in all to the amount of 
 $5,200, the plaintiff' represented the property as 
 being of the "cash value" of .?"),3,S9 on two 
 occasions, and .?5,i)00 on a third occasion. In 
 an action on the policies the jury found that tiie 
 value was ^,()00 wiien first inoured, and §4,200 
 when the additional insurance was eflteeted ; that 
 the plaintiff had misrepresented the Viilue, but 
 not intentionally or wilfully ; that it was not 
 material that the true value should be made 
 known to the company, and that the company 
 intended that the goods should be insured to 
 theii' full value, and rendered a verdict in favour 
 of the plaintiff' for .S3, 100, which the Divisional 
 Court subsequently refused to set .iside : — Held 
 (in this reversiiiff the judgment of the court 
 below), that under the circumstances and in 
 view of the nature of the goods insured, the 
 over-valuation was such, as under the first 
 statutory condition in the policy, rendered the 
 same void. Moort v. Citizens Fire Ins. Co., 14 
 A. R. .')82. 
 
 15. Titli and Jncnmhrances. 
 
 In answer to the i|UC8tiona, "(t) Are the pre- 
 mises occupied by owner or tenant? (2) If by 
 tenant, give name of owner." A party seeking 
 to effect an insurance against fire answered : (1) 
 Tenant — as bojvrding- house. (2) Applicant." 
 And another i|uestion (the 11th) was: "If the 
 applicant is the owner of tlie said building — state 
 the value of the building and land ;" and he an- 
 SM'ered ii<(K)0. In fact the applicant tlid not own 
 the land, having a lease of it which had only a 
 short time to run, with the right to remove the 
 building the subject of insurance: —Held, that 
 this was such u misrepresentation of the interest 
 of the applicant as rendered the policy void un- 
 der the first of the statutory conditions in the 
 policy. Compton'w Mi-reanfih- Ini. Co., 27 Cliy. 
 334.— Chy.l). 
 
 I Tlie plaintiff' and his brother, being joint 
 owners of land which their father had conveyed 
 [to them, subject to a mortgage to C, gave a 
 mortgage to the father to secure the balance of 
 purchase money, the father covenianting to pay 
 C'.'s mortg.'ige. Under an agreement with his 
 father and brother, the plaintiff, who was a car- 
 penter, at his own expense, built a dwelling- 
 liiHise for his own use, on a ouarter of an acre 
 of the laiiil, the agreement being that, if the 
 brothers shouhl not be able to pay for the land, 
 the plaintiff should have the lionse as his own. 
 The house was placed on blocks of wood, and 
 was held by its own weight on them. The 
 plaintiff, in his a))plication for insurance on the 
 Iiousc and contents, in answer to the question— 
 "Title, belli in fee, or bow ?" answered, "In 
 fee; "and to the (juestion — "Incumbered or not? 
 If yea, to what amount — how much land does 
 incumbrance cover, and for what purpose erect- 
 ed'^" lie answered, "None. " Hut he stated to 
 the agent that there was on the land a mortgage, 
 but nothing against the house, which he held in 
 fee unincumbered. There was a condition on 
 the policy that the incuml)raiice should be dis- 
 closed, and that the failure to do so would avoid 
 the jiolicy. The verdict was for the plaintiff:— 
 Held (Armour, .)., di-ssenting), that the house 
 was not insured as a chattel, l)ut as realty ; find 
 that the failure to disclose the incumbrance was 
 fatal. Per Cameron, .]., that the house was a 
 fixture, and subject to the mortgage. The con- 
 dition was, that in case of any misrepresenta- 
 tion or omission to commimicate any material 
 circumstiincc, the insurance should be of no 
 force "in resjiect to the property in regard to 
 which the misrepresentiition or omission is 
 made." Per Cameron, J. The policy was avoid- 
 ed only as to the insurance on the house. Tlie 
 directors passed a resolution to pay the loss, in 
 ignorance of the fact that the incumbrance ex- 
 isted, and made an assessment to meet it, but 
 on discovery rescinded this resolution : — Held, 
 that the defendants had not by the resolution 
 waived their right to set up the defence. Per 
 Armour, J. The house was a chattel, and there 
 was nothing in the ap|)lication to estop the plain- 
 tiff from asserting that it was not insured a« 
 part of the land. Phillips v. Grand liiivr 
 Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 46 Q. B. 334.- 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 A fire policy contained a condition, in addi- 
 tion to the statutable conditions, to the effect 
 that if the projierty were alienated, or any 
 
 property .. 
 herein had 
 father in t, 
 affection, bi 
 father and 
 on default 
 the use of t 
 immediatelj 
 that urderl 
 to cause the 
 to avoid the 
 was a quest: 
 the misiepri 
 ings and no 
 the fifteen tl 
 that" all fr 
 my of the 
 claim," did 
 title or en CD 
 ticulars con 
 condition, i) 
 whatever to 
 trial having 
 dants, on t^ 
 tion itself a 
 directed. ( 
 Go., 10 0. J 
 0. R. 82, p. 
 
953 
 
 INSURANOE. 
 
 961 
 
 re the pre- 
 (2) If by 
 ■ty seeking 
 wered; II) 
 Applicant." 
 ,8: "If the 
 ling— state 
 
 and lie an- 
 lid not own 
 
 had only a 
 roniovc the 
 -Held, that 
 the interest 
 cy void un- 
 ;ions in the 
 7o.,27Chy. 
 
 Iieing joint 
 id coiivcye«l 
 C, gave a 
 3 balance of 
 ting to pay 
 :nt witli his 
 o wad a cai'- 
 a dwelling- 
 [■ of an acre 
 tiiat, if tiie 
 ;or the land, 
 as his own. 
 f wood, and 
 them. The 
 ranee on the 
 
 (jnestion— 
 swered, "In 
 l)cred or notif 
 h land does 
 irpose eioct- 
 
 he stated to 
 
 1 a mortgage, 
 ;ll he held in 
 condition on 
 lould be dis- 
 
 would avoid 
 e plaintiff:— 
 it the house 
 i realty ; and 
 mbrance was 
 house was a 
 je. The oon- 
 isrepresenta- 
 any niatei'ial 
 Id be of no 
 in regartl to 
 omission is 
 ;y was avoid- 
 house. Tlie 
 ly the loss, in 
 nnibrance ex- 
 meet it, but 
 tion :— Held, 
 ,hc resolution 
 lefence. Per 
 tel, and there 
 top the plain- 
 at insured as 
 Oraiid liim 
 Q. B. 334.- 
 
 tion, in addi- 
 to the effect 
 ated, or any 
 
 transfer or change of title occurred, or if it were 
 incumbered by mortgage, without the consent of 
 the company, or if the jiroperty should be levied 
 upon under process of law, the policy should 
 cease. In answer to the iiuestion whether the 
 property was mortgaged, the nssiired answered 
 "{6,000 to F. L. & S. Co." There were at the 
 time, in fact, two mortgages to that company, 
 on which |6,160 were due. After the policy a 
 mortgage was given to secure endor.seMient8 and 
 was discharged, and another was given by the 
 plaintiff to his partners who retired from the 
 hrm, but the company was not apprised of either. 
 Tlie jury found that the representations as toin- 
 cumbrancpH were false, but not made frandii- 
 lently, ami a verdict was entered for the defen- 
 dants: — Held, that the representation as to in- 
 cumbrances was a violation of the con<lition, 
 and that the verdict was right. Per TIagarty, 
 C.J. Though that part of the condition iia to 
 levying might be unreasonable (5 A. R. C05), 
 the remaintler was not, and the condition was 
 divisible. Wilhy v. Simalaid Iiix. Co., 3 O. R. 
 115.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff effected an insurnnce on build- 
 ings and the chattels therein, specitio amounts 
 being placed on each. By the application in 
 Miswer to questions to that effect, tiic plaintiff 
 stated that the premises were held in fee simple 
 and were unencumbered ; and at the end tiiere- 
 of there was a provision that where property 
 was heavily encumbered, or the vahie of buihl- 
 ings as compared with the amount insured 
 on ordinary contents was .small, the malinger, 
 etc., was authorized to insert the two-third's 
 clause. The application was made part of the 
 policy, which contained the statement that the 
 premises were represented in the application as 
 being held in fee simple and unencumbered. It 
 was also so stated in the proofs of lot,ti. By the 
 first statutory condition, if the insured misrepre- 
 sented or omitted to communicate any cireum- 
 gtance material to be made known to the com- 
 pany to enable them to judge of the risk, the 
 insurance should be of no force as respects the 
 property misrepresented, etc. The property 
 herein had been conveyed to the plaintiff' by his 
 father in consideration of natural love and 
 affection, but subject to a charge to support the 
 father and a brother and to other charges, and 
 on default the plaintiff was to stand seised to 
 the use of the father of the land, which should 
 uninediately revest in him us before : — Held, 
 that urder the first statutory condition, in order 
 to cause the misrepresentation as to the jiroperty 
 to avoid the policy, it must be material, which 
 was a question for the jury to decide ; and that 
 the misrepresentation only applied to the build- 
 ings and not to the chattels: — Held, also, that 
 the fifteenth statutory condition which provides 
 that "all frauds or false swearing in relation to 
 any of the above particulars, shall vitiate the 
 claim," did not apply to the statements as to 
 title or encumbrances, for it referred to the par- 
 ticulars contained in the thirteenth statutory 
 condition, items (a) to (e) which had no relation 
 whatever to such statements. The judge ht the 
 trial having entered a verdict for the defen- 
 dants, on the ground that the misrepresenta- 
 tion itself avoided the policy, a new tiial was 
 directed. Oorinf/ v. London Mutual Fire Ins. 
 Co., 10 0. R. 236.-G. P. 1). See S. C, 11 
 0. R. 82, p. 980. 
 
 In the application for a policy of insiiranco 
 against ffre, it was stated that there was no 
 incumbrance, 'f he application was filled in by 
 the company's agent. The insured informed 
 him of the existence of a mortgage on the pro- 
 perty when the agent told plaintiff that if there 
 was nothing overdue thereon it was not an in- 
 cumbrance, and, under this belief, there being, 
 nothing overdue, the statement was made. A 
 policy was afterwards issued with conditions 
 and variations. The fourteenth variation was, 
 that if any agent, etc., of the company shall 
 have written or tilled u[) any part of the appli- 
 cation, he shall for that purjiose be deemed the 
 agent of the insurer ami not of the company ; 
 and no statement, written or verbal, made to 
 such agent, etc., a.s to any matter to which the 
 eiiijuiries in the application extend should bind 
 the company or affect the coniiiaiiy with notice 
 thereof unless stated in the apjilication. The 
 fifteenth variation was, that aiij' fraudulent 
 misrepresentation contained in the application, 
 or any false statement therein respecting the 
 title or ownersliiji of the applicant or his cir- 
 cumstances, or the concealment ol any incum- 
 brance, or the failure to notify the company of 
 any mortgage or incumbrance upon or other 
 change in the title or ownership of the insured 
 property rendered the policy void :— Held (Gait, 
 J., dissenting), that the defendants were es- 
 topped from setting up the avoidance of the 
 pcdicy. Cliatillon v. Canadian Mutual P^ire Ins. 
 Co., 27 C. P. 450, and Hustings Mutual Fire 
 Ins. Co. V. iShunnon, 2 S. C. R. 394, followed. 
 Per (ialt, J. — That irrcppective of the agent's 
 representation before the issue of the policy, the 
 plaintiff' after the issue thereof should, under 
 the fit'teenth variation, have notified the defen- 
 dants of the mortgage. Per Rose, J. — The four- 
 teenth variation was unjust ami unreasonable 
 on the facts of the case, and possibly generally ; 
 and the fifteenth variation did not apply ; but, 
 even if applicable, it was similar in terms to 
 section 30 of 36 Vict. c. 44 (Ont.), which was 
 considered in Cliatillon i'. Canadian Mutual Fire 
 Ins. Co., 27 C. P. 450. Per Cameron, C. J.— 
 Whether the fourteenth variation was or not 
 just and reasonable need not be considered, for 
 it did not profess to provide that the company 
 should not be bound by the agent's represen- 
 tation as to the meaning and effect of the ques- 
 tions in the application ; and as to the fifteenth 
 variation, it was competent for the parties to 
 detine what they understood was meant by 
 incumbrance. (Iraham v. Ontario Mutual Ins. 
 Co., 14 0. R. 358.— C. P. D. 
 
 The defendants, in the prescribed manner, 
 indorsed upon the plaintiff's policy as an ad- 
 dition to the first statutory condition, a condition 
 providing that any fraudulent misrepresentation 
 in the application, or any false or incorrect 
 statement representing the title or ownership of 
 the applicant, or the concealment of any mort- 
 gage or execution or any incumbrance on the 
 property or on the land on which it was situate, 
 should avoid the policy unless the directors in 
 their discretion should see tit to waive the 
 defect. In his application the plaintiff stated 
 that the land on which the building proposed to 
 be insured was situated was incumbered by a 
 mortgage for $1,500, but omitted to disclose 
 that it was also charged, together with other 
 property, with a small annuity in favour of his 
 
 I'. 
 
955 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 956 
 
 s: 
 
 i; 
 
 fatliur. Tlie (niiiHHiKii wftH not exiilainod, Imt ' 
 it waH not uttriljutt;tl tu niiy fiaiKlult'iit intent. 
 The (Iffenilants iilciuluil tlmt the non-tliacloHure 
 of tlmt cluu'gu avouleil the i)olii.'y under the lirst 
 Btatutory comiition, or tlie ul)ovo mldition tlierc- 
 to. Tlio juiy foiinil tli.it the existence of the 
 nnnuity w.ih not material to be nuule known to 
 the defendants : Held, allirniing the judgment 
 of the t^. K 1). (U (). 1!. TriHi) : (I) That the non- 
 disi'losnre of the annuity was the conueidinent 
 of an ineunihraiK.'e within the meaning of the 
 adde<l condition. (2) That the addeil condition i 
 was not a just and reasonahle one because it was I 
 not limited to such facts or matter as were ; 
 material to bo made known to the company. 
 (3) That the Divisional C'ouit might determine 
 whether the condition M'as a just and reasonable 
 one, and that it was not necessary that it 
 should first have been raised at the trial. JM- 
 ttlrk \. SaiKinu MidiKi/ Fin- Jus, Co., 1.") A. It. 
 303. 
 
 Senible, the first statutory condition apjilies 
 to matters of title or incunibi'ances, or relating 
 to the " moral " as well as the " physical " risk 
 where the j)olicy is based upon an ap])lication in 
 which the insured is interrogated as to such 
 matters. Klein i: The Union Fire Ins. Co., 3 
 O. R. '234, approved and distinguished. Ih. 
 
 Hce Klein V. Union Firr ln.t. Co. , 3 O. R. -234, 
 p. 941 ; Oltawa A(irimltiiral Inn. Co. v. S/uridan, 
 6 8. C. R. 157, V 'J3«- 
 
 16. A-isignment, Alienation, or Incumhranct of 
 the J'rupcrty Inxurtd or of the Policy. 
 
 Held, that the usual covenant to insure con- 1 
 tained in a mortgage executed under the Act re- 
 specting Short Forms of Mortgages, operates 
 as an ecpiitable assignment of the insurance 
 when effected. (Irettx. Cilizinn' Ins. Co. ; II rent 
 V. Royal Ins. Co. .5 A. R. 590 ; '27 Chy. 1'21. 
 
 Held, aflirnnng the juilgment of I'roudfoot, 
 V. C. ("20 Chy. 115) that the fourth statutory 
 condition docs not ai)i)ly to an alienation by 
 way of mortgage, but only to un absolute trans- 
 fer. Saudt V. ,))landard Jns. Co., 27 Chy. 107. — 
 Chy. 1). 
 
 The appellant, being indebted to certain per- 
 sons and desiring to have his stock of goods in- 
 sured, applied to the agents of respondents for 
 insurance to the amount of §2,O0O foi- three 
 montiis, " loss if any to be payable to his credi- 
 tors of whom G. McK. is one and McM. & Co. 
 are second." An interim receipt was i.ssued by 
 the company, dated 19th of November, 1877, 
 which stated the insurance to be subject to the 
 conditions contained in and endorsed upon the 
 printed form of policy in use by the company, 
 one of which conditions (No. 4) stated, that if 
 the property insured should be assigned without 
 a written permission endorsed on the policy by 
 an agent of the company duly authorized for 
 such purpose, the policy should be void. On 
 the 28th November the appellant transferred 
 the insured property to the said G. McK., in 
 trust for his creditors, the balance, if any, to be 
 payable to himself. The agent of the company 
 was notified of this transfer and assented to it, 
 stating that no notice to the company was neces- 
 sary, the policy being made payable to the 
 creditors. The property was destroyed by fire 
 
 on the 15th January, 1878. The policy sued 
 upon was dated the i2th December, 1877, but 
 was not delivered until the morning after thu 
 fire. ISy it the loss was made "payable to(i, 
 McK. and Mc.M. & C .. and others as creditors, 
 as their interests uiuy appear." After the fire 
 the inspector of the company wrote twice to 
 McK. calling for proof of loss : — Helil, revers- 
 ing the judgment of the Court of Appeal for 
 (Ontario (4 A, R. '289), which reversed the judg- 
 ment of the Connntm Pleas (29 C. 1*. 511),— that 
 the notice of the trust assignment to the coni- 
 ])any'8 agent was sufficient, that the company 
 must be considered as having assented to sucli 
 assignment, and to have executed the policy 
 with full knowledge of it ; and that such assign- 
 ment was not one contemplated by the condition 
 on the policy. 2. 'J'hat the words "loss pay- 
 able, if any, to G. McK., "etc., operated toenal)Iu 
 the respondents, in fulfilment of that covenant, 
 to pay the parties named ; but as they had not 
 paid them, and the policy expressly stated the 
 uppullnnt to be the person with whom the con- 
 tract and the respondent's covenant was made, 
 the action for a breach of that covenant, was 
 ])n)purly l)rought by him alone. A/r<Jne<:ii v. 
 I'hiinix Mutual Fire Inn. Co., 4 S. C. R. GOO. 
 
 The fourth statutory condition provides that 
 if the property insured is assigned without the 
 written permission of the company the policy 
 shall be avoided : — Held, affirming the C. 1*. I). 
 (14 O. K. 322) that the ussiginnent meant by this 
 condition is one by which the assignor divests 
 himself of all title and interest. The condition 
 is directed against a chdnge of title, not the crea- 
 tion of an incumbrance, and therefore a mort- 
 gage by the person named is not a breach of the 
 condition : .Sands r. Standard Ins. Co., 20 Chy. 
 131, 27 Chy. 107, approved : — Held, also, that aii 
 agreement for sale by the mortgagees under their 
 power of sale, vhich was never carried out by 
 conveyance, was not within the condition. Jinll 
 V. North Uritinh^C'inail'an Investment Co., 15 A. 
 R. 421. 
 
 Where a policy of insurance against loss or 
 damage by fire contained the following provision: 
 " If the property insured is assigned without the 
 written consent of the company at the head 
 office endorsed hereon, signed by the secretary 
 or assistant secretary of the company, this 
 policy shall thereby become void, and all lia- 
 bility of the company shall thenceforth cease." 
 Held, atHrming the judgment of the court he- 
 low, that a chattel mortgage of the property 
 insured was not an assignment within the meiiu- 
 ing of such condition. Sovereign Fire Ins. Co. 
 V. Peters, 12 8. C. R. 33. 
 
 See May v. Standard Fire Ins, Co., 5 A. R. 
 605, p. 944. 
 
 17. Prior and Suhseqiie.nl Insurance, 
 
 The plaintiff, desiring to effect further insur- 
 ance for two months on certain machinery, ap- 
 plied to defendants' company, through one S., 
 their agent at D., authorized to receive applica- 
 tions, accept premiums and issue interim re- 
 ceipts, valid only for thirty days. He informed 
 S. that there were other insurances on the pro- 
 perty, but not knowing the amount that there 
 was in the Gore Mutual, requested him to ascer- 
 tain it, and signed the application partly in 
 
«67 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 958 
 
 jlicy Hiu^d 
 
 1»77, Imt 
 
 aftur tliu 
 
 iible tu <i, 
 
 cretlitorH, 
 
 er tbo tiro 
 
 3 twice t(i 
 
 iM, revers- 
 
 \ppeal for 
 
 I the juily- 
 
 jll),— tlmt 
 
 o the cDiu- 
 
 rovides tliat 
 without tlie 
 f the policy 
 the C. P. I), 
 leant by tiiis 
 ignor divests 
 "he condition 
 not the crwi- 
 fove a niort- 
 jreacli of the 
 Co.,26Chy. 
 ulso, that iiii 
 s under tlieir 
 iriied out by 
 dition. HiM 
 'lit Co.,\'i A. 
 
 ainst loss or 
 ug provision: 
 1 witliouttlie 
 at the lieiid 
 the secretary 
 )mpany, tlii> 
 
 and all lia- 
 ;forth cease." 
 the court Iwi- 
 the property 
 lin the mean- 
 
 Fire Iw- t'o- 
 
 further insut- 
 achinery, ap- 
 rough one S., 
 ceive appHca- 
 le interim re- 
 He informed 
 es on the pro- 
 mt that there 
 \ him to oscer- 
 ion partly in 
 
 blank, paiil tlio premium and obtained an in- 1 
 terim receipt, valid only for thirty days. S. 
 failed to do wluit Lo promised to do, ami wliat 
 plaintilThail entruMte(l him to do, and forwarded 
 the apidication to the heid otllce at 'I'., making 
 no mention of tiie intiiiraiiuu in thetiore Mutual. 
 The company accepted tlie tIhU, and, in accord- 
 ance with their i)racticc, wlicic thu risk ex- 
 tended only over a short period, instead of a 
 formal policy, tliey issued a certificate, which 
 atateil that tlie plaintitF was insured Hul)jcct to 
 all the conilitions of tlie company's ]i(ilicies, of 
 which he admitteil cogiii/.'Uice, and that in the 
 event of loss it wouhlbe replaced by a policy. 
 The nnichinery was subseiincntly destroyed by 
 tire, after the thirty days, but within the two 
 months, and a policy was thereupon issued, en- 
 dorsed with tile ordinaiy conditions, one of 
 which was that notices of all previous insu- 
 rances slionld be given to the company and en- 
 dorsed on the policy, or otherwise acknowledged 
 bv them in writing, or the policy should be of 
 no effect ; and another was, that all notices for 
 any purpose must be in writing. The insurance 
 in the (iore Mutual was not endorsed on the 
 jiolicy ;— Held, (atlirming 2 A. R. I "jS, which re- 
 versed '24 Chy. i\)\)), that as the apjdicatioii in 
 writing did not contain a full anil trutliful state- I 
 ment of previous insurances, the verbal notice 
 to the agent of the existing policy in the tiore 
 Mutual, without stating the amount, was inoper- 
 ative to binil the company ; the plaintiil' was 
 not entitled to have the policy reformed by the 
 endorsement of the Gore Mutual policy thereon, 
 aod could not recover, liillimjtoii v. ProL'iiiciat 
 Inn. Co. of Canada, 3 8. V. R. 182 ; 2 A. R. 
 158. 
 
 Held, upon the evidence set out in these 
 cases, that the jjolicies were avoided by the 
 non-disclosure of a jirevious insurance. Greet v. 
 Cithenn' Iiti. Co. — Greet v. Royal Int. Co., 5 A. 
 R., 590. 
 
 The plaintiff, who was insured in the dofon- 
 dints' company under a policy containing a coii- 
 d tionthat che "company is not liable * * 
 if any subsequent insurance is effcoted in any 
 other company, unless and until the company 
 assent tlieretu by writing, signed by a duly 
 authorized agent, effected an insurance with the 
 Mercantile Insurance CJompany, which was void 
 at their option on account of a similar condition, 
 the policy with the defendant not having ex- 
 pired as a matter of fact, though the plaintiff 
 was led by the agent of the other company to 
 beheve it had:— Held, affirming the judgment 
 of the Queen's Bench (44 Q. B. 490), that the 
 plaintiff could not recover, for the insurance in 
 the Mercantile Company, being not void, but 
 only voidable, was a subsequent insurance 
 within the me.Tuing of the condition. Gauthier 
 V. Waterloo Mutual Iiix. Co., 6 A. R. 231. 
 
 The appellant sued upon a policy of insurance 
 made by the respondents ou the 2Sth April, 
 1877. On the face of the policy it appeared that 
 there was " further insurance, $3,000," and the 
 policy had endorsed upon it the following con- 
 dition, being statutory condition No. 8, R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 162: "The company is not liable for 
 loss if there is any prior insurance in any other 
 company, unless the company's assent thereto 
 appears herein or is endorsed hereon, nor if any 
 sabsequent insurance is effected in any other 
 
 company, unloss and until the company assent 
 thereto by writing signed by a <luly autliori/.jd 
 agunt. " .-Vmoiig the insurances, wliich t'ormod 
 a portion of tlm " further insuranco " forlJS.OOO 
 meiitioiiiMl 111 tli'i pidicy, was one fiU" .'Ji.OdJ in 
 the West '111 Insurance Company, wliiidi apptd 
 laiit allowed to expire, sulistituting a p diey for 
 tiiu siiiui aiiiimnt in tlie (/iieeii Iiisiirance < 'om- 
 paiiy, witlioiit liaviiig obtained the cunseiit of or 
 notilied tlic icspon<lents :— Held, I'liversing the 
 judgment of tiic; Court of A])pt;al for Out irio, 
 4 A. It. .S-'l), wiiich reversed 43 Q. II. (i03, that 
 tlie condition as to subseipient insuranco must 
 be construed to point to further insurance beyond 
 the amount allowed by the policy, and not to ii 
 policy substituted for one of like amount allowed 
 to lapse, and therefore the policy sued upon wiui 
 not avoided by the non-coinnniiiication of tho 
 S2,000 insurance in the (jueen Insuranco Com- 
 pany. J'arnonn v. SluiiilarU Fire Inn. Co. , 5 S. 
 C. k. 233. 
 
 Held, following Parsons r. Standard Ins. 
 Co. (.") S. ('. R. 2.'{.'{), th it a chaiis,'e in tho com- 
 pany in wliich another insurance lias been effect- 
 ed, not increasing tiiu amount insured, did nob 
 avoid till,' policy. Loiiuon v. Canad'i Farmern' 
 Miitit'U Fin- Ini. Co., G A. R. 512. 
 
 A policy of insurance against loss by fire con- 
 taineil the following conditions: "In case of 
 subsequent assurance on any interest in property 
 assured by this compiny (whether the interest 
 assured be the same as lliat assured by this com- 
 pany or not), notice thereof must be given in 
 writing at once, and such subsequent assurance 
 endorsed on the policy granted by the company, 
 orotlierwisc acknowledged in writing; in default 
 whereof such policy shall thenceforth cease and 
 be of no effect." The insured effected subse- 
 (juent insurance and verbally notified the agent, 
 but thero was no indorsement made on the 
 policy, nor any acknowledgment in writing by 
 the comi>any. A loss having occurred, the (lam- 
 age was adjusted by the inspector of the com- 
 pany, and neither he, nor the agent, made any 
 objection to the loss on the ground of non-com- 
 pliance with the above condition. In a suit to 
 recover the amount of the policy, the company 
 pleaded breach of the condition, in reply to 
 which the plaintiff set up a waiver of the con- 
 dition, and contended that by the act of the 
 agent and inspector the company were estopped 
 from setting it up : — Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the court below, that the insured not 
 having complied with the condition, the policy 
 ceased and became of no effect on the subse- 
 quent insurance being effected, and that neither 
 the agent nor the inspector had power to waive 
 a compliance with its terms. IVcttern Aimir- 
 ance Co. v. Doult, 12 S. C. R. 446. 
 
 To an action on a fire policy in a mutual in- 
 surance company, the defendants set up as a de- 
 fence tho eighth statutory condition, that the 
 company were not to be liable for any loss "if 
 any subsequent insurance be effected in any 
 other company, unless and until the company 
 assents thereto by writing, signed by a duly 
 authorized agent." By 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 28 
 (Out.), the Firo Insurance Policy Act is made 
 applicable to mutual fire companies, except 
 where the provisions of the Mntual Act are in- 
 consistent with, or supplementary, or in addi- 
 tion thereto. Section 39 of the Mutual Act en- 
 
INSURANCE. 
 
 961 
 
 Sn:::ii 
 
 'it iJ 
 
 iii:tii in Miilmtanci', tliiit if a (loii))le iiiHiimnce 
 HiihsiHtH ill ilt'fi'iiiliiiitH' L'oiii|iniiy iiml iinotlu'r 
 <-(ini|miiy, tlm (IftViuliintH' policy Hlmiild \iv void, 
 iiiiluHH Hiicii ilciiliic iiiHuniiicu HulmiHtH uitli tiiu 
 
 'lirCM^tOfH' llHHlMlt ClIllolHecl Oil tiiu jHiliiy, Mij^llClI 
 
 liy tlio seiT<!tary, itc, or (itliciwiHu iitknow- 
 Icilged ill writiiif^; iiiiil Ncctioii 40, tliut « lii'iiuver 
 thi) coiiiiiiiiiy, iciM'ivcH iiotitii-'iition in v\ litiiig of 
 an additioiiii! miiim l)(iii)< nxscHsi'd on tiin Hiiinu 
 pioiM^rty ill aiiotlii'i- ('onipaiiy, tlio huiiio ^Imil lie 
 dcotiiol iiHHt'iiti'd to iiiil(.')'H tlio cdinpuiiy witliiii 
 two weekH after tlio receipt of hucIi notice Big- 
 iiify thoir diosent in writinj{. 'I'lio defeiidantM' 
 jioficy waH efl'eeted on the .'tiMt July, 1884. On 
 4th J'amiaiy, 188(i, the jilaiiitill'ell'ected a further 
 iuHurnnue in another coiii])aiiy for ?1,000. On 
 8th March, 1880, the plaintiff wrote difeiidnntH: 
 "I hereby notify you that I have put a second 
 Insurance on my Htock and farm imiilemcntH." 
 On 10th March the dcfendaiitH replied, inform- 
 ing phiintlir that he had not "given the iniinher 
 of the policy or the aiiiount of the inssuraiice, or 
 the name of the company." The plaiiititl" did 
 not reply to this, liecaiis^e, aa he said, he \vii« 
 away from hfiine. The Ioks occurred on the Kith 
 .March. The jury found that the plaiatitl did 
 not, within a rea»onalile time after elVectiiifr the 
 further iiisuriiiice, notify the <lefeiidanls; hut 
 that the notice was reaaonahly «ullicient as far 
 as he knew: — Held, that under aection .'fO, the 
 inaurnnce mus void; and that under the circum- 
 stances, theie could he no implied assent under 
 Heetion 40; and further, that the notice was not 
 sufficient. I'er (!(dt, J. — The insurance was 
 also avoided under the eighth statutory condi- 
 tion; and if section 40 could he lichl to he sup- 
 plementary thereto, the plaintill' by reason of 
 the defective notice, did not come within it. 
 (I'rahamv. Lov<lon Mutual Fire Inxurunve Co., 
 13 O. R. 132.— C. V. I). 
 
 The fourth variation was, that in no case 
 should the insured he entitled to rr':jvcr more 
 than two-thirds the actual value of any huilding 
 or contents or other property insured; nor in 
 case of further insurance hy the insured or other 
 party more than the ratahle proportion of two- 
 thirds of the actual value without reference to 
 the date of the ditl'erent policies ; that any gen- 
 eral policy on diircrent properties shall be treated 
 as a special p(dicy on each property for the 
 whole amount thereby insured. The insurance 
 was $100 on barn and stables valued at ijil.'JOO, 
 and $900 on contents valued at |1.H,000. l»er 
 Cameron, C. J., and ISose, J. — That as to the 
 latter part of the condition referring to further 
 insurance by the insured or other party, it was 
 unjust and unreasonable ; but as to the former 
 part thereof, as to the payment of not more than 
 two-thirds of the value of the property insured 
 — which meant at the time of loss— it was just 
 and reasonable. Graliamv. Ontario Mnlual In- 
 mrance Co., 14 O. R. 358.— C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff being the owner of a quantity of 
 railway ties and lumber, effected insurance 
 thereon with three companies to the amount of 
 $4,000, and subsequently, with the knowledge 
 and through the agency of H., the person act- 
 ing on behalf of the several companies, effected 
 an additional insurance of $1,20U on the same 
 property in "The Fire Insurance Association." 
 H. acted as agent for that company also, and 
 he made the necessary entries thereof on the 
 
 three first policies. In ooiiHc<iuonco of "Tbu 
 Fire .VsHociation" having ceased to take risks 
 on that kiiiil of propi^rty, II. asked the pluintiti' 
 for the interim re(!eipt of that conqiany which 
 he gave up acconliiigly, and \l, substituted oiiu 
 in the (iore District ('oiiipany for it, he Iteiiig 
 agent for that company also, but omitted to 
 give any notice or make any entry as to the suli- 
 Htitiition of the (inrc insurance for that of "The 
 Fire Association." In an action to recover the 
 amount of the iiiHiiraiicies, after a destruction of 
 the property by lire:— Held (atlirniing the judg- 
 ment ot the court below), that this was not sucli 
 an omission on the part of the plaintilf as invali- 
 dated tlu^ |i<>li>'ii's, in this following I'arsoiis v. 
 Standard Ins. Co., 43 Q. R 003; 4 A. R. 320; 
 .5 .S. ('. 11. 23;i. Moore v. Citheun' Fire Inn. Co., 
 14 A. n. 5S2. 
 
 The plaintiff who was insured against tiro 
 with tlie defendants for 1SI1,(X)0, effected a change 
 of mortgages oil the insured property. The new 
 mortgdgci's refused to accept the defendants' 
 |iolicy, and insuied the jiroperty for the same 
 uinoiiiit with anotlicr company, notifying the 
 plaintilf of the fact by letter. The pluintilf 
 shewed the letter to tlie defendants' secretary- 
 treasurer, asking him to bring the matter before 
 the hoard, aii'1 was then informed by him that 
 it would be all right and that there was nothing 
 further to do. ,Subset|uently the plaintiff' paid 
 an assessment on delendants' policy, which ac- 
 crued after the iiotitication of the double insur- 
 ance, mid which was received by defendants and 
 entered in their books. It did not a]ipeBr that 
 tins payment was on account of losses incurred 
 by defcndanta previous to the double insurance. 
 The jilaintiff'a property was destrovcd by firo 
 the day the "Ontario Insurance Act, 1887," 
 came into force :— Held, that the R. S, O. (1877)f 
 c. 101, in force at the time insurance was effected, 
 applied to the iicdicy :— Held, also, that the 
 showing of the letter to the secretary-treasurer 
 was not a notification in writing as required hy 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 1(51, 8. 40 ; but :— Hehl, that 
 the policy being voidable at the defendants' op- 
 tion, the receipt and entry in their books of the 
 assessment alter the secretary-treasurer was 
 aware of the double insurance, operated as an 
 estoppel upon them. McJiityrev. Fant Wll/ianii 
 Mutual Fire Inn. Co., 18 O. R. 70.— Chy. 1). 
 
 See Khin v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 3 0. R. 234,, 
 p. 941 ; Coiihurii v. Britinh America Assurance. 
 Co., 19 0. li. 245, p. 937. 
 
 18. Alteration of PrenmcM — Increase of Jii«k- 
 Chunije of Occupation. 
 
 The plaintiff's premises being insured as "oc- 
 cupied by a tenant as a grocery store and dwel- 
 ling," were relet to his son-in-law, who used 
 them for dealing in furniture, and had u small 
 room behind the shop in which he had a car- 
 penter's bench antl tools, and did repairing and 
 rough work. \)., the defendant's local agents 
 was notihed of this change, and went on the 
 premises and saw the tenant at work making a 
 desk. He wrote to the head office at plaintiff's 
 request, notifying them of this, and they an- 
 swered that if the policy were sent, with a letter 
 of explanation, they would consent in writing 
 on it, adding, " Is there woodwoik done on the 
 
 premises ' 
 
 The matter was then allowed to 
 
961 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 iliop. 'I'liu poliuy cotituinvd ii r'xulition thnt 
 "liny ('liitiigiMiiiitcriitl to tliu risk m'l witliin tlit< 
 I'liiiti'iil III' kiiowk'il^i! (if the iLSHiiiccI, hIi^iII voiil 
 till' iinlicy iiH I'cguiiU tliii part ulud tlicicliy, 
 iiiilrsr' tliu I'liiii^i! Iki pi'oin|illy iiiitilit'i) in wiit- 
 iiii; III till' I'liiiipiiny (ir itH hiuiil ii^L'iit, iiiul tliu 
 riiiiipiuiy >"i luitilicil may * * i-iiiici'l tin; 
 |i(iliry. • • " 'rill- jury well' iinUijiI wlu'llii'i' 
 llic rliaiig)! wnH niiiliM'ial, ami wlictliii' it wun 
 laiily roiiiiiiunicatcd t(i thi! ilefuiiilantH ; unit 
 tlii'y fiiiinil fur liiu plaiiitill' :— ilrlil, that the 
 vi'iiiii't hIiiiiiIiI nut iliHtiirliiMl. Sunililc, that thu 
 traii^iiiixMiiiii of tlii! |iolioy fur I'liiinrHunii'iit waa 
 mil i:yMi;iiliai. I'erky. /'luinix Miihidl liii. Co., 
 4,-)^. K. tlJ(».-(;. |{. I). 
 
 WliiH'o till' woi'iIh ill II conilitiiin in a pnliuy 
 arc, " if till' risk lii! iiirrcaMiiil iiiijIiaiimMl liy any 
 nil' iim \vhati!vur," tho turin " fliaiif^tr' must lio 
 lii'lil tn III' iiHoil lathi'i' iiM a Hyiumyiii nt "in 
 iTiaso," than an a wiinl of illirmriit Hi^nilii'Mtiiin. 
 ((ttawaCo. i\ liivurpoiil Iiih. Cu., 'J,S {). I'.. 7i'l'l, 
 Hlipi'iivi'il of. '//'// V, CiiikkIii Fire ami M'd'iiir 
 
 /„». Co., I o. K. ;in. Uiiyii. 
 
 'I'lie phkiiititi' iiiivin({ rroatoil a inort^^agi' in 
 faviiur of a hiaii uninpaiiy, wlnjrol)y lie I'dvcnaiil- 
 t'll til iiiHiiri! tiiu liuihiiiigH on tiiu piupi.Tty, failed 
 to iiiHiU'o, liilt HHHontud to an iiiHUraiU'f t: Dec tod 
 liy thu c'oinpany in their own iiaiiiu, and repaid 
 tliein the pi'eininni. 'I'he j)roniiHeH iiiHiiied were 
 (luHerihed us a "two storey Ixiuse, sliingle roofed 
 Imiiding * * owned and oeciipied * * as 
 u Hteaiii liending factory. " Thu prnperty having 
 heen destroyeil liy lire, the itisiirante coiiiiiaiiy 
 jiaid to tlie loan uonipany the amount due to 
 tlieiii, and took an asHigninunt of their inurtgage, 
 wliei'eii]ioii thu plaintill' institiiteil proceedings 
 ngaiiiHt thu iiisui'iincu eunipuny, seeking to ru- 
 ileein the property on payment of what was due 
 on the mortg.igu afUr crediting thu amount of 
 iiiHurance. It was shewn that the premises, 
 instead of being used us a steam bending fae- 
 lory, hud been convurtud into a door and sash 
 fiieroiy ; of which change no notice had lieen 
 given to the insurai'.i'c company :-Held, revers- 
 ing the judgment of the court below (2 (). I'. 8t)), 
 that the special survey set out in the rejiort 
 ill which thu intention to use the premises as a 
 fikutiiry was nu'iitionu.l, did not torm part of thu 
 applicutiiin or policy aiul could nut be construed 
 :ia an assent by the defendants to such occupu- 
 tion : that thu statutory conditinn as to change 
 of occupation or use of thu buildings without 
 iiiiticu to thu insurance coni[iany hud thuiufuru 
 licun broken, thus invalidating the poliuy ; and 
 that the plaintiff was not entitled to uiiy benulit 
 tliereiinder :— Held, also, that the insurance 
 compuiiy were ut liberty to set up this dufenee, 
 though l)ctw'ucn them and thu mortgagees the 
 policy was, by a subrogation clause therein made 
 unoiimlitionul. //oioft-i v. Dominion Fin and 
 Mariiii: Ins. Co., 8 A. R. «44. 
 
 A policy on a building described in the appli- 
 cation for insurance us a spool factory contained 
 the following conditions : " That in case the 
 iilmve de.'sciilied premises shall at any time 
 ihu'ing the continu nice of this insurance, be ap- 
 piopnated or applied to or used for the purpose 
 of carrying on or exercising therein any trade, 
 liusiness ur vocation denomiiiulcd hazardous or 
 extra liuzaiduus, or for the purpose of storing, 
 using or vending therein uny of the goods, urti- 
 L'lvs or merchandise duuuniinated liuzurdoiis or 
 
 (il 
 
 extra liuMti'dnua unlcM nthcrwiac Npecially pro- 
 viiled for, or hereafter agri'i'd to by thedefeU' 
 daiit I'limpaiiy in writing or added tiiori'iiiloised 
 on t his policy, then this |iiilicy shall bicnme Miid. 
 Any change inattriul to the risk, and within the 
 control or knuwlcdgu of the assiiii'd, shall void 
 the policy as to that part aU'ected liieieby, un 
 less the change is pliiiiiptly imtilicd in w liting 
 to the company or its local agent": Held, re 
 vei'sing thu judgnieiit of the court lielnw , that 
 the introduction, u ithoiit notice tu the lumpaiiy, 
 of the manutacliire of excelsior into the insured 
 premises, in addition to the iiianiifactiue of 
 Kiiools, avoided the policy under these ciindi- 
 tions, the evidence establishing clearly and t heru 
 being no evidence to the contrary, that such 
 manufacture in itself was a ha/.aidnus, if nut an 
 e.\tra hazardous business, iiutw ithstanding that 
 on the trial of the action on tin: policy the jury 
 found, in answer to i|uestiiins siilmiittcd to 
 them, that such additional inaniifactilie was less 
 hazai'dous than that of spools and did imt in- 
 crease the risk on the priniises insiiieil. .s'l.)'- 
 iiiiijii Fii-r Ins. Co. v. J/oiV, US. ( '. II. til 'J. 
 
 l!(. I )anyer fvoin /nveniliiiri<m. 
 
 Action on a tire policy, dated lilst .May, 187H, 
 on the ordinary contents of a barn, which was 
 at thu time of the insurance uniply, and on a 
 reaping and threshinj; macliinu. This barn was 
 on the east-half of the lot, the plaintifl's home- 
 stead and home buildings being on the west- 
 half, some distance across the road. It. the ap- 
 plication for thu insuruncu, datud l.'Uh May, 
 1879, plaintiir aiiswerd " No" to the (lucstion, 
 "la there reason to fear incendiarism, or has 
 any threat been made '! " On the same day thu 
 pluintitr hud ohtainud another policy from de- 
 fendants on his dwelling-house and lioine build- 
 ings, thu samu (jucstion and answer being uon- 
 tuined in liia appliuatiun therefor ; und thu 
 thresher and reaper in ((uestion were then in the 
 home buildings. Thu tire occurred on the '28tb 
 October, 1879. At the trial it appeared that 
 one M., the plaintilF's hirerl man, about the 8th 
 of May had threatened to beat the pi lintill', and 
 thu latter, who was a nervous, timid man, be- 
 ing alarmed, had bad the premises insured ; 
 that hu hud sat up and watched for u night, und 
 that he believed the premises had been set on 
 tire. He denied having uny reason for fear, ex- 
 cept us to his home buildings. At the time of 
 thu fire the barn contuined some grain and hay, 
 and the threshing und reaping niachiiic, fur thu 
 loss of which this action was brought. One of 
 the conditions on the policy was, tliut if the 
 assured misrepresented or omitted to conimii- 
 uicuto any circumstances material to be made 
 known to the company, in order to enable them 
 to judge of the risk, the policy would be avoid- 
 ed :— Held, Armour, J., dissenting, that the 
 plaintill' could not recover, for the plaintilf hav- 
 ing admitted his own belief in the danger and 
 acted upon it, his answer to the above ijuestion 
 was untrue. Per Cameron, J.— The question 
 was equivalent to "Have you reason to tear, or 
 do you fear, incendiarism ? " and thuugli the 
 bodily threat did not furnish valid grounds for 
 believing that incendiarism was to be feared 
 from the person threatening, yet, since the in- 
 surance wus efrected on account of such fear, 
 there wus a clear misrepresentation in answer- 
 
963 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 96i 
 
 aR:::» 
 
 csr:: 
 
 ing the question ; and it made no difference 
 that the j)ro|)frty to be covered by the policy 
 ■was not in existence— Per Ariuour, J. The 
 word "iiicendiariani " coinmonly appliea to 
 buihiings only, and shoidd n<it be extended in 
 this case to cover iiersonal property. The ques- 
 tion sliouhl be construt.d strictly with reference 
 to some pjii'ticular ground of fear, otherwise the 
 answer " No," referring to the first part only, 
 viz : " Is there rtason to fear incendiarism " 
 would be in every instance untrue ; for every 
 insurance is eff^M'ted because the assured feors 
 the h:i])peMing of fire by accident, neglect or de- 
 sign. And the evidence in this case showed 
 tlnit there was no sncli reason as, operating on 
 the minds of a majority of priu.cat men, would 
 cause them to fear incendiaris: > ; and therefore 
 tlie (jiicstion was tiuly .inswered. Tiio question 
 ■was abo properly answered as to the property 
 coveri'il by this [mlicy, for the fear extended 
 only to the linnie ])ropcity; and as to the pro- 
 perty iiilended to be covered by tlie policy but 
 not then in existence, sucli as the crops, as to 
 which no fear cunld exist. C'n)i)/ih(tl v. V^icloria 
 MtUiMl Fin- /lis. (;„., 45 Q. ".. 41'2.— Q. ii. 1). 
 
 In answer to the question put by one com- 
 y);niy in an application lor insnr.ince on a mill, 
 " Have you any reason to lieliev(! that your 
 ])r()])erty is in d inger from incendiarism ?" and 
 by another. " Have yon any reason to suppose 
 that your propoity is in dangei- from inueniliar- 
 isni V" the a|iplicai;', H., r('[ilied to each in the 
 negative. It appeared that the mill had been 
 Inirnt some months previously, and that the 
 oriuin of the lire was unknown ; and that 
 thieats had been made to 1*. by one R., an in- 
 temperate man, who wcs accustomed to indulge 
 in threats to which im one paid any attention, 
 to burn down tlie mill. An anonymous letter 
 had also been rcicivod threatening incendiarism. 
 Persons snppoocd to lie tramps had l)een seen 
 about the iH'einises, and B. had waiiied the 
 watclinian to be careful, and nicntioned that lie 
 had received the anonymous letter : — Held, re- 
 versing the d"cr 10 of Spr.igge, t.'. , ("iVt'liy. 121), 
 that the answers were audi a misrepresentation 
 as avoided the policy, (jmt v. <.'iti:(:iii' Jan. Co. — 
 Oreet v. Jioyal /m. Co., 5 A. R. 396. 
 
 The (|iiestiim put l)y the company in this case 
 was, "Is there any incendiary danger threat- 
 ened or apprehended ?" wliich B. answered in 
 tlie negative : — Hehl, affirming the decree of 
 •Spragge, C, (27 Cliy. 121), a misrepresentation, 
 which avoided the pulicy. Greet v. MercaiUite 
 Inx. Co., 5 A. R. 596. 
 
 20. Notice, Account and Proof of Los!^. 
 
 By the policy it was provided that the loss or 
 <lamage shouhl be " estimated according to the 
 actual value of the pio[)iTty insured, that is, 
 w'lii't it could have 'een actually sold for in cash 
 at the time of the loss ;" and tlie condition on 
 the jxdicy requireil th.it the affidavit of loss 
 should state the actual cash value of the pro- 
 perty. In (he printed proofs of loss, which 
 were used, the words, "actual cash value were 
 struck out, and a statement substituted giving 
 the cost of the property in 18S0, ayear previous 
 to the iiisur.'i.ioe lieiiig effected. — Hehl, that 
 this was not a compliance with the policy and 
 cundiliou : — Held, therefore, there could be no 
 
 recovery on the policy. 
 Fire and Marine hi». Co. 
 
 Cameron v. Canndu 
 «0. R. 392.— Osier. 
 
 One of the conditions of a policy of insurance 
 against fire (m ice and packing, contained in an 
 ice house situated in the state of Wisconsin, 
 provided that the proofs of hiss should be de- 
 livered " as soon after the loss as possilile." The 
 fire occurred on the ITtli Sejitember, 1881, and 
 the proofs of loss were not delivereil until the 
 middle of May, 18!S2, when they were objected 
 to and returned to the insured, who redelivered 
 them in the same state in the month of July fol- 
 lowing. The only reason given for not deliver- 
 ing them sooner was, that it was not convenient 
 to do so : — Held, that the condition was not 
 complied with. //). 
 
 Upon a jiolicy issued by a mutual company 
 the statutory conditions were iiidorse<l witli va- 
 riations, one of which was (being the same as 
 section 50 of the Mutual Act, R. (S. O. (1877) c. 
 161), that the ]iioofs. declarations, etc., called 
 for by the statutory conditions should be 
 furnislied to the company in writini^- within 
 thirty days after thi; loss. The loss occurred on 
 the 2nd October, 1S7S, and on the 5th, thephiiii- 
 tifl notified tlie defendants by letter. A few days 
 after the jdaintifT siw one S., an agent of the 
 defendants for obtaining applications, though 
 not for collecting claims, but who had acted for 
 plaintili in settling a previous loss witli defen- 
 dants, and asked him to act for him on this <ic- 
 casioii and do what was jirojier, which S. jiroiii- 
 ised to ilo. On 17th Oetr,l"'r the defendants' 
 president came i.p anil saw plaintilf, who in- 
 formed him of the loss, and «{ all the circum- 
 stances relating thereto, and plaintiff was told 
 ! y him in answer to his eiKpiiry that nothing 
 further need be done. The plaintiff in conse- 
 quence did nothing ; but snbseipiently, on hear- 
 ing that the defendants disputed the claim some 
 correspondence took place, which resulted in 
 the plaiutitt' emjiloying a solicitor, and proofs 
 were thereupon put in, but after the lapse of 
 thirty days :--Hcld, affirming the judgment of 
 the Court of Coinnion I'leas (31 C. P. 562), 
 Burton, .1. , dissenting, thai section 2 of R. S. 0. 
 (1877) e. 162, relieving the insured under certain 
 circumstances from forfeiture for nondelivery of 
 the proofs of claim, applies to Mutual Insuraucii 
 companies, and to the time of delivery as well as 
 to insufiiciency in the proofs : -Held, also. Bur- 
 ton, J., dissenting, under the facts set out in the 
 report, that the omission to deliver the proofs in 
 proper time arose from acci<lent or mistake, 
 within the meaning of that clause. Remarks as 
 to the eoiistrnction and effict of this clause, and 
 the extent of the discretion given by it to the 
 court or judge. liohinn v. Victoria Mutiiiil Fire. 
 Jnx. Co., 6 A. R. 427. 
 
 By the thirteenth statutory condition, " Any 
 person entitled to make a claim under a policy 
 IS * * to <leliver * * as particular ac- 
 count of the loss as the nature of the case per- 
 mits,'' and is also to furnish therewith a 
 statutory declaration declaring: (l)that the 
 said account is just and true ; and by the 
 fifteenth condition : " Any frand or false stiite- 
 nieiit in a statutory ilecliration in relation to 
 any of the above particulars shall vitiate the 
 claim." The plaintiff by a policy of insurance 
 against fire effected an in.surance on buihlingn 
 and contents, by separate uniouuts beirg placed 
 
•S65 
 
 INSUBANOE. 
 
 on each, the amount on contenta being $200. In 
 the proofs of loss, to induce the defenilints to 
 pay the loss, the plaintiff falsely and fraudu- 
 lently stated in the statutory declaration fii.'- 
 nished by her, that she had suffered loss on the 
 contents to the amount of Sl,(i6r).50; whereas 
 the contents were proved to be worth only $150 : 
 Held, that the misstatement vitiated the whole 
 claim, and not merely the claim in respect to 
 tlie pilrticular property as to which it was made. 
 llarrk v. Walerluo Miiliut/ Fire /«<. Co., 10 
 0. R. 718. -C. P. D. 
 
 A. effected insurance on C. 's property, on 
 wliicli he held a mortgage, undei' authority from 
 and in the name of C. , with loss payable to him- 
 self. Daring the continuance of the policy the 
 company notified A. that the insui-ance would 
 be tfrminateil. and a<l vised him to insure else- 
 wlicre. .Such notice also stated that unearned 
 premiums would be returned, ))ut no payment 
 or tender of same was made according to con- 
 ditions of policy. A. took the policy to agent of 
 iiisiiiers, who was also agent of tiie W. Ins. (Jo., 
 and left it with liini, directing him to put the risiv 
 in the latter company. No receipt was given, and 
 the propei'ty was destroye<l by fire innnediately 
 after. The company rtsisteil payment on tiic 
 ground that the policy Wivs surrendered, and eon- 
 tended on the trial, in addition, that C had part- 
 ed with his interest in the property by giving a 
 deed to one B. who had reconveyecl to U. s wife, 
 and that the proper proofs of loss had not been 
 given, claiming in reply to a plea of waiver in 
 regard to such proofs, that such waiver siiould 
 have been in writing, according to a conditicm in 
 tlie policy. They had refused to return tiie policy 
 on demand : — Held, that the company, by wrong- 
 fully withholding the policy, were estop|)ed from 
 claiming that proofs of loss had not been given 
 jiccording to the endorsed conditi(U), and were 
 ctpially estopped from setting up the con<lition 
 rei[uiring waiver of such jjroofs to be in writing | 
 if such condition applied to waiver of proofs of j 
 loss. Per Fournier, .1., <lisscnting, that the 
 sending of the circidar l)y the company that 
 insurance wouhl be termiiuited, an<l com))liance 
 with its terms by the assured in giving ui) the 
 policy to the company's agent, was a surrender 
 of the policy, and phiintitf therefore could not 
 recover. Cnldinll v. Sladai-oiia Fin and Life 
 I11.1. Co., 11 S. C. K. 212. 
 
 Held in this case : 1. That the tug was at the 
 time of the fire at one of the localities pciinitted 
 by the policy. 2. That the proofs of loss fur- 
 nished were a sufficient compliance with the sta- 
 tutory conditicms. (Wilson, C. J., dissenting.) 
 Per Wil.soi C. .J.— -The proofs of h)ss were not 
 sutlicicnt, but the refusal of the defendants to 
 recognize the plaintiff M. in any way, and their 
 retention of the jiolicy were an ansver to the 
 imiierfect compliance with the condition requir- 
 ing full particulars of the loss to be stated. 
 Milchtltv. ('ill/ of London Firt Inn. Co. (Linidid), 
 12 0. I!. TOO.-Q. li. 1). 
 
 A policy of insurance against fire contained 
 the following conditions: — -"The assured must 
 procure a certificate, under the hands of two 
 magistrates most contiguous to the place of fire, 
 and not concernetl or directly or indirectly in- 
 terested in the loss or assurance us creiiitcrs or 
 otherwise, or related to the assured or sufferers, 
 that they are uciiuaintuil with the character and 
 
 circumstances of the assured, and have made 
 diligent inquiry into the facts set forth in the 
 statement and account of the assured, and 
 know, or verily believe, that the assured really, 
 by misfortune and with<nit fraud or evil practice, 
 hath or have sustained by such fire, loss or dam- 
 age to the amount therein mentioned." "No 
 one of the foregoing conditions or stipulations, 
 either in whole or in part, shall be deemed to 
 have been waived by or on the part of the com- 
 pany, unless the waiver be clearly expressed in 
 writing by indorsement upon this policy, signed 
 by the agents of the company at Halifa.x, N.S." 
 The insured premises having been destroyed by 
 fire the assured applied to two magistrates con- 
 tiguous to the place of the fire for the lequired 
 certificate, which they refused, and he finally 
 obtained such certificate from two magistrates 
 residing at a distance from such place. The 
 proofs of loss, accom|janieil by the certificate, 
 were sent to the agent, who subse(jucntly made 
 an offer of payment to compronnse the claim, 
 stating that if sucli offer was not accepted the 
 claim would be contested. The agent, on a sub- 
 sequent occasion told the assured that he ob- 
 jected to the claim, as he "did not think it was 
 a s(|uare loss:'-'— Held, affirming the judgment 
 of the court below, that the non production of 
 the certificate required by the above condition 
 prevented the assured from recovering on the 
 policy : — Held, also, that even if such contlition 
 could be waived without endorsement on the 
 policy, the acts of the agent did not amount to 
 a waiver. Semble, that the condition could not 
 be so waived. Loiian v. Conuncrctal Union In». 
 Co.,13.S. ('. R. 270. 
 
 Action on a policy of insurance against fire on 
 a stock of goods. M., the local agent, through 
 whom the insurance was eft'ected, stated that he 
 had at the time examined the premises, and 
 considered, from the size of the store, the ap- 
 pearance of the goods, and the stock book, there 
 were goods to the amount insured. 'I'he fire 
 occurred on the 20th Octolier, and all the goods 
 on the premises were destroyed. On the same 
 day the defendants' insjiector came and saw 
 ptaintitl', who furnished him with a statement 
 shewing the amount of the stock in May— the 
 insurance having been otrected in June — the 
 sales since then, and the nivoices of gooils pur- 
 cha.sed up to the tiro. The inspector gave plain- 
 tifl' a form from which he was to, and did fill in, 
 the proof papers sent him by the ins|iector; and 
 which plaintiff enclo.sed to defendants in a letter 
 of 27th October, informing them tliat, if not 
 correct, he would nave same made out to their 
 jitisfaetion. On 31st October defendants re- 
 plied that they tliouglit the loss, in place of 
 .$13,00"), the amount claimed by plaint' ff', should 
 be $11,734.00; adding: "This sum, we con- 
 sider, not only reasoualde, but liberal, and which 
 wo are liable for, witlifuit any prejudice to or 
 waiver of, any coiulition of the policy." The 
 plaintiff replied that his claim was a just and hon- 
 est one, but if settled at ice he would accept a 
 deduction of .f4IK). The defendants then wrote 
 that theirs was a fair and liberal offer, anil pointed 
 out what tliey considered ol)jectionable items in 
 plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff then nnide and 
 sent to defendants a statutory declaration of loss 
 I according to the above form. The defendants 
 I then rejuied, stating that without admitting, 
 but denying any liability, they drew a.tention 
 

 967 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 96g. 
 
 ^9 
 
 SR:::ii 
 
 to alleged informalities in not soecifying the 
 items of loss in detail, and in not giving a de- 
 tailed statement of the claim. The jjlaintifl' 
 then furnished defendants with a statutory de- 
 claration, giving such detaileil statement. Noth- 
 ing further was done, luid this action was 
 brought. The defendants set^ up a number of 
 defences, amongst whicli was arson, and impu- 
 ting fraud and misconduct to tlie plaintiff, but no 
 evide.ice was given in support of them : — Held, 
 there was sufhcient evidence ot tlie amount of 
 the goods at the time the insurance was effected ; 
 that tlie goods insured were those destroyed by 
 the file ; and that under section 2 of tlie Fire 
 Insurance Policy Act, R. 8. O. (1877), o. 1(J2, 
 no objection could be raised to the proofs ; and 
 in any event the proofs were sufficient : — Held, 
 also, that the letter of the 31st October, was 
 properly admitted in evidence, for it was not 
 stated to be without prejudice generally, nor 
 was any objection taken to its receptidii at the 
 trial, the defendants by tiie letter merely claim- 
 ing that it should not be deemed a waiver of any 
 condition of the policy, and both parties acted 
 on this view, hniiiin/ v. North lirituih Fire 
 /ns. Co., 13 0. R. 581.— C. i'. D. 
 
 The plaintiff did not in his declaration of loss 
 dischiae the incumbrance in favour of his father. 
 The jury did not find, nor were thty asked to 
 find that there was any fraud or false .statement 
 in the plaintiffs statutory declaration: — Held, 
 that fraud or a wilful false statement should 
 have been proved, and tli:it it was not the 
 place of the court to infer it. Mason r. Agri- 
 cultural his. Co., ISC. P. 19, followed. liiddirl: 
 V. Smigi-tn Mutual Fin lux. Co., 14 O. R. 506. — 
 Q. B. t). ; 15 A. R. 31)3. 
 
 After the loss the insurance company received 
 certain proofs of loss from the mortgiigees. 
 They made no objectiim to tiiem for many 
 months after, and gave no notice that further 
 proof.-, were required. When paying the loss 
 thty alleged that tliey were entitled to be sub- 
 rogated to the rights of tlie mortgagees, and 
 that they objected to recognize any chum by the 
 mortgagor, by reason of non-coiiiplinnce with the 
 Btatutoiy conditions as to proof of loss : — Held, 
 that thiy must be taken to have dealt with the 
 mortgage es as agents of the nioi tgagoi s, and that 
 they had wr.ived further jiroofsof hl^s ; and that 
 the payment enured to the benefit of the latter. 
 liuU\. North Britiuli t'anaf^^^n Juvtstiuent Co., 
 15 A. R. 4-.>l ; 14 O. R. 322. Affirmed by the 
 (Supreme Court. 
 
 See Aiulrrson v. Saui/eiii Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 
 of Mount Forest, 18 O. R. 355, p. 943. 
 
 V. Citi/ of London Fire Ins. Co., 15 0. R. 329, 
 p. 971 ; Loifua v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 
 13 S. C. R.'270, p. ytiU ; Mclniyre. v. Fast Wil- 
 Hams Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 18 O. R. 79, p. 960; 
 Allen v. Merrhauts' Marine Ins. Co., 15 S. V. 
 R. 488, p. 991. 
 
 22. Misrepresentation us to Loss. 
 
 Action to recover from defendant a sum of 
 money paid him in settlement of a loss by lire on 
 a stock of goods, by reason, as was urged, of a 
 misrepresentation as to the value of .such stock, 
 at a ilate prior to the lire. 1 he statement of 
 claim alleged that defendant had falsely ami 
 fraudulently represented his net loss to be the 
 amount so paid, whereby the plaintiffs were 
 induced to pay the same; and that defendant 
 falsely and fraudulently represented that at the 
 date prior to the fire his stock on hand v\as of a 
 ceitain value, whereas it was of a much les.s 
 value ; and that it was on the basis of such value 
 that the calculation was made as to the amount 
 of such net loss ; also setting up the statutory 
 conditiims wliereby, as alleged, the claim was 
 vitiated for fraud and false swearing as to the 
 amount ot the loss : — Hclil, on the issue as 
 raised, the plaintiHs must fail, for the issue was 
 as to the amount of the net loss which tlie evi- 
 dence shewed had been iiiisiepresentLd ; and 
 also that there could be no recovery on the 
 record as framed, for — plaintiffs liaving accepted 
 a surrender of the policy — they had not ottered 
 to, and possibly couhl not, place defendant in 
 his original position ; that no umendmeiit would 
 avail, for to maintain an action ot deceit, not 
 only must there be misrepresentation, but it 
 must be to tlie damage of the plaintitl's. wliicli 
 the evidence failed to shew ; that thestai itory 
 conditions could hardly be invoked, for no pioots 
 of loss had been required ; but, even if invoked 
 they would afford no defence, as there M'as no 
 misrepresentation as to the amount of loss : — 
 Held, also, tliat the misrepresentation, even as 
 urgeil, was immaterial, for it being as to the 
 value of the stock at the named date, tlie fact of 
 its causing an erroneous calculation upon which 
 the amount of the loss was based, would make 
 no difference so long as it was shewn that the 
 i loss itself was within the true amount ; and also 
 ' the plaintiffs were estopped from setting it up, 
 as the evidence shewed tliat they did not rely 
 upon it, but on the knowledge acquired ai> . in- 
 dependent information obtained by tli,. >' lUtifTs' 
 agent in the course of his investigation Seiii- 
 blc, that on the evidence there was ne lisrep- 
 resentation at all. Ruyai Ivs. Co. v. b^ rn, 9 
 0. R. 120.-C. P. D. 
 
 21 . Waiver of Conditions. 
 
 See Watts v. Atlantic Mutual Life Ins. Co. ,31 
 C. P. 53, p 995 ; I'hilli/is v. Orand Ha-er For- 
 oners' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 46 y. IJ. .'134. p. 052 ; 
 Fire Ins. A.isocialion(Limitid) \. tanadn Fire 
 and Marine. Iu.'<. Co., 2 O. R. 481, p. 972, 973; 
 Klein v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 3 O. R. 231, ji. 941 ; 
 .S'j((i7// v. City nf Liivdon Ins. <o., II O. R. 38; 
 15 S. C. R. 69, p. 950 ; Miliritle Mnlval Marine 
 awl Fire Ins. Co. v. UrisrotI, II vS. C. R. 18.3, p. 
 988 ; llarlniij v Norih liritish h.re Ins. Co., 13 
 O. R. 581, supra ; bull v. North ISrilifh ( aniidiun 
 Jnvvslmeiil Co., 16 A. R. 421, svjyra; Cousineau 
 
 23. Liability for Losse^t. 
 
 Held, that the measure of damages recoverable 
 by a tenant for life of the insured premises is the 
 full vahu! of such premises to the extent ot the 
 sum insured. Caldwell \. iStailucona Fire and 
 Li/e Ins. Co., 1 1 S. C. R. 212. 
 
 By by-laws printed on the policy tlie defeii 
 dants' liability was limited to two thirds of the 
 actual loss sustained, and the amount to he 
 taken on one lisk was restricted to $2,00(1. The 
 plaintitl's loss was $2,200, and the other iiisiir- 
 unce company paid the full amount of tlicir 
 
-969 
 
 iNSURANOE. 
 
 9^ 
 
 ired iir . iii- 
 
 >' .ntiffs' 
 
 tio; Siiiii- 
 
 I iiL litirep- 
 
 V. h^ »■•<, 9 
 
 liability, $1,000 :— Held (affirming the judgment 
 of Falconbridge, J.), that the plaintiff was en- 
 titled to recover as damages, two-thirds of the 
 balance of his loss after deducting the amount 
 of the other insurance. Mcliityre v. Eant Wil- 
 liatm Mutual Fire, lii^. Co.. 18 O. R. 79.— 
 Cliy. D. 
 
 See Graham v. Ontario Mutual Ins, Co., 14 
 i). R. 358, p. 954. 
 
 '24. /kim(i(/r. hi/ llcinornl oj lloutU. 
 
 Sec M:-Lareu v. Commercial Union A-s-t. Co., 
 !•_> A It. 279, infra. 
 
 25. Nci/lft to S(irf. Property Insured. 
 
 Seinl)le, that a fire policy, wliich is a contract 
 of indemnity, cirries with it, even irrespective 
 of conditions to that etFect, a provision that the 
 insured shall not, witii tlie fraudideiit intention 
 of tlirowing the loss on the insurer, wilfully 
 ,;ause, or refrain from taking means within his 
 power to prevent, tiie destruction of the insured 
 property. Ihrtin v. Qnc^n Ins. Co., 4{]i). IJ. 
 (ill.-Q. 15. 1). 
 
 •26. Sn/rar/i: 
 
 Held, atiiniiing tlie decision of tlie i). J{. 1)., 
 7 <). R. ()4, that tile plaiiititF was entitled to re- 
 cover under a policy of insurance again.st fire, 
 damages resulting from bonil tide efforts to save 
 the insured proi)erty by removal : — Qua're, 
 whether the fifth statutoiy coiiilition, which 
 declares that in ciise of removal of jiroperty to 
 escape conflagration the company will ratably 
 ■contribute to the loss and expenses attending 
 such act of .salvage, creates an independent obli- 
 gation upon the company to contribute ratably 
 over and above the amount insured as for direct 
 loss. Per Burton, .1. A. -The fifth statutory 
 ooudition does create such obligation. McLaren 
 v. Commercial Union A.ss. Co., 12 A. 1!. 279. 
 
 Hee Berlin v. V""" /"■"• Co., 46(). 15., (ill, 
 '^iiprn. 
 
 27. I'ai/iiiijil iif LosxM. 
 
 (a) Time of Payment. 
 
 Appellants, a mutual insurance company, is- 
 sued in favour of .1. V., a policy of insurance, 
 insuring him against los.s by tire on a general 
 stock of goods in a country store, and under the 
 terms of the policy, the losses were oidy to be 
 paid within three months, after due notice 
 given by the insured, accoidiiig to the provi- 
 sions of';56 Vict. c. 44, s. 52 (Out.) now R. S. O. 
 (1877), c. Mil, 8. 5(i, which provides that, in case 
 of loss or damage the member shall give notice 
 to the secretary fortliwitii, and the jtroofs, de- 
 clarations, evidences and examination called for 
 by or under the policy must be furnisiied to the 
 company within thirty days after said loss, and 
 upon receipt of notice and proof of claim as 
 aforesaid the board of directors shall ascertain 
 and determine the amount of such loss or dam- 
 age, and such anmunt shall be payable in tliree 
 months after receipt by the company of such 
 proofs. A fii'e occurred on the 21 st of May, 
 1877. On the next morning J. F. advised the 
 
 insurance company by telegraph. On tlie 29th 
 June, 1877, the secretary of the company wrote 
 to J. F.'s attorneys, that if he had any claim 
 he had better sentl in the papers, so that they 
 might be submitted to the board. On the Urd 
 July, 1877, J. F. furnished tlie conii)any with 
 the claim papers, or proofs of loss, and on the 
 13th July he was advised that, after an exami- 
 nation of the papers at tiie board meeting, it 
 was resolved that the claim should not be paid. 
 On the 23rd August, 1877, J. I'', brought this 
 action upon the policy. The ajjpellants pleaded 
 inter alia that tiic policy was made and issued 
 subject to a condition that the loss should not 
 be payable until three months after the receipt 
 by tlie defeiidiiiits of tlie jiroofs of such loss, to 
 be furnished liy the plaintiff to the defendants; 
 and averred the delivery of the jiroofs on the 
 I 3rd July, 1877, and that less tiian three months 
 elapsed liefore the eommeneeiiient of tiiis suit: — 
 Held, reversing the juilgineiit of the Court of 
 -Appeal, 4 A. It. 2i»3. tiuit the ajipellaiit company 
 under the policy in this ca.se were entitled to 
 three montlis from the date of the furnishing of 
 claim pa|)ers liefore being subject to an action, 
 anil that therefore res])oiident"s action had been 
 Iirematurely brought. Mutual Fire Jii-inrance 
 Co. of'thi t.'iiuulii (//' W'l/iui/tou v. /';•(■(/, '> H. V. 
 
 n. 82. 
 
 Seinble, jier Hagarty, V. J. O. — A condition 
 that any action on the policy should be barred, 
 "unless commenced with ill tlie term of six months 
 next after the loss or diiiiiage should have oc- 
 curreil "' was an nnieasonable one, as another 
 condition provided tliat the company should 
 have sixty days for i):)yment aftei' tiie comple- 
 tion of proofs of lo.j. I'toria Sw/ar Re.fiuimj 
 Co. v. Canada Fire and Marine Ins, Co., 12 A. 
 15. 418. 
 
 A fire insurance policy containc<l a conditioa 
 that any action uj)on it should be baireil "unless 
 commenced within the term of six months next 
 after the loss or ilaniage shall liave occurred : — 
 Held, aftirming the decision of l!oyd, C, that 
 this condition must be considereil to refer to the 
 date of the destruction l)y lire, and not to the 
 date at wiiich the cause of action arose. Jli. 
 
 It was objected that this action was prema- 
 ture, because, by a condition of the policy sixty 
 days was given for tiie iiiU iiient of a claim, and 
 the action was brought within such period ; but 
 hehl, tiiat as the policy herein was only subject 
 to the statutory conditions by which tiie jierioil 
 is thirty ihiys, the objection could not Ije sus- 
 tained. Ilarluii/ V. Sartli British Fire Inn. Co., 
 13 O. R. .581.— C. 1'. 1). 
 
 The company having icfiiseil jiaynient of the 
 insurance, an action was commenced to recover 
 the amount after a lapse of more than thirty 
 days from com])letion of the jiroofs of loss, but 
 less than sixty days tiieieafter which, liy a 
 variation and addition to the statutory con- 
 ditions, indoise<l on the p<'licy, was stipulated 
 for :— Held, that the sitiiuilation that no action 
 should be lirought until the expiry of sixty days 
 after proof of loss was not a just or reasonable 
 variation of the statutoi-y conditions. Per Bur- 
 ton, ,J. A. — The words of the seventeenth 
 statutory cimdition being that the loss should 
 not be payable until thirty days after complutioa 
 of the proofs of loss created a privilege in favour 
 
■ j - «ra h 1^-' ■" • t . -■• 
 
 971 
 
 INSUBANOE. 
 
 972 
 
 s»;;:ii 
 
 SCI 
 
 •-•il 
 
 of the companies, and tlic statute does not con- 
 template any further extension, but simply that 
 the company shall be entitlc<l to that delay un- 
 less under their charter or by agreement that 
 period is shortened. Smifh v. dili/ of London 
 lux. Co., 11 O. R, 3S; 14 A. R. 328. 
 
 By the seventeenth condition in R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 162, 11 loss is not payable until thirty days 
 after the proof.s of loss are put in unless otiier- 
 wise provided by statute or ugrueincnt of tlie 
 parties :— Held, per liitchiu, (.:..). and Fournier, 
 Henry and Owynnc, .j.f. , that tliis is a privilege 
 accorded to the company, and while the time 
 may be further limited l>y agreonicnt it cannot 
 be extendeil.— Per (Strong, .1.— That a variaticm 
 of the condition by inserting a clause in the 
 policy extending the time to sixty d.iys is not a 
 variation by agruonient of tlie parties, nor is 
 such varied comlition a just or reasonable one. 
 .S'. C., siih vom. i'iti/ iif' LoikIox Fiir Iiis. Co. v. 
 Smith, 15 S. C. K.'W. 
 
 The plaintiit" sued tij>iii\ an insurance policy 
 for a loss occiisioned by a tire, wliich took place 
 on the '28tl> March, l.SS(i. One of the statutory 
 conditions of ti>e policy provided tliat every 
 action tliereunder sliould be absolutely barred 
 unless connnenccd witiiin one year after the h>ss 
 occurred. The action was not commenced till 
 the 11th July, 1887. After tlie plaintiff had 
 put in proof papers in refci'ence to the loss, tiie 
 defendants from time to time up to llti\ May, 
 1887, requested tlie plaintift' to procure and fur- 
 nish, and the plaintiH' did so procure and fur- 
 nish additional particulars concerning the claim, 
 and the claim uas completed more than sixtj' 
 days prior to the conimenceuient of tlie action, 
 as recpiired by one of the conditions in variation 
 of the statutory conditions, which provided tiiat 
 the loss should not be payable until sixty days 
 after the completion of the claim :— Held, per 
 Armour, 0. J., that the conduct of the defen- 
 tlants in requesting the plaintiff to procure and 
 furnish adilitional particulars and thereby ])ut- 
 ting him to loss of time, troulile, and expense, 
 was a waiver of and precludeil the defendants 
 from setting up the statutory condition limiting 
 the time for bringing tiie action. Per Street, 
 J., that in the absence of any agreement not to 
 insist upon the condition, there couhl be no 
 waiver unless the defendauta iiad so acted as to 
 estop themselves from taking advantage of the 
 condition ; there was notiiing in the i;onduct of 
 the defendants e(iuivalent to an assertion on 
 their part that they would not insist upf)U their 
 rights under tlie condition ; and they were, there- 
 fore, entitled to the benefit of it. Cornish r. 
 Abiugton, 4 H. & N. 548, and Thomas i: llrown, 
 1 Q. B. D. 714, discussed. Coiixiiirait v. C'ifi/ of 
 London Fm. Jns. Co., 15 0. R. :i2!».-(^ B. 1). 
 
 8ee Mflnlyre v. National Iim. Co., 5 A. R. 
 580, p. 974; Andcrmn v. Sawjccii Mutual Fire. 
 Im. Co. of Mount Furext, 18 (). R. 355, j). 043. 
 
 (1>) Other Cases. 
 
 Where no place of payment of a policy of in- 
 aiirance ia mentioned in tiic policy it nnist be 
 assumed that the place of payment is where the 
 head office of the insurance company is situated, 
 and this fact may determine the question of the 
 lex loci contractua. Clarke v. Union Fire. Inn. 
 
 Co., lOP.R. 313- 
 See S. C. 6 O. R, 
 
 -Hodgins, Master ■in-Ordbmry. 
 223. 
 
 Payment of money into court by insurance 
 company. See Merchants' Bank v. Montritli- 
 E.V jtarle Standard Life Inn. Co., 10 P. R. 588, p. 
 1004 ; Peoria Su'iar Relinimj Co. v. Canada Fiir 
 and Marine Im.'Co., 12 A. R. 418, p. 070. 
 
 28. Sidiroijation. 
 
 There can be no such tiling as 8ui)rognti<>ii to 
 the right of a ]iarty whose claim is not wholly 
 satisfied. Xationnl Firr Inx. Co. v. Me/.urin, 
 12 0. R. ()82. — l'.oyd. 
 
 In case of partial insurance where a third 
 party is lialile to make good the loss, the as 
 sured is not clothed with the full character nf 
 trustee (juoad the insurance companies until lir 
 has recovered sudicieiit from the wrongdoers ti> 
 fully satisfy all his loss as well as expenses in- 
 curred in such recovery. In other words, wluii 
 the assured is put in as good a position by the 
 recovery from the wrongdoer, as if the daniage 
 insured against had not happened, then for any 
 surplus of money or other advantage recovcicil 
 over and above that, the insurer is entitled to Im 
 subrogated into the right to receive that moiifv 
 or advantage to the extent of the amount (Kiid 
 under the insnranue poliuies. Jit. 
 
 Sec Jfoiir.i V. Dominion Fire and, Marim lim. 
 Co., 2 O. R. 8!» ; 8 A. R. ()44, p. itCI. Clarb v. 
 I'niiin Fire /«,<. Co. — Cluim nl' the Aeirieiillnml 
 Fire Inx. Co. of Wattrton-n, Neir York, O. H. 
 ()40. p. 1000. 
 
 See also Subhead III. 7, p. 930. 
 
 29. Re-lnxuranev. 
 
 The Dominion Insurance Co. insured one II. 
 against loss by tire to the amount of $5,000, and 
 under a contract of re-insurance made between 
 the defendants and the Dominion Con)pany, the 
 latter company re-insured ^•.',.500 with the de- 
 fendants. Subse((uently the Dominion Company 
 entered into an agreement with the Fire Asso- 
 ciation, whereby, after reciting that the Domi- 
 nion Company desired to be relieved from and 
 guaranteed against lo.ss on existing risks, and 
 that the Fire Association had agreed to do so 
 and to re-insure saiil risks, the company trans- 
 ferred all their business and the goodwill there- 
 of to the association, who thereby re-insured all 
 the existing risks, subject to the terms of the 
 policies, etc. ; the association to take and ac- 
 cept all re-insurances made with otlier coiii- 
 panies, with power to use the company's naini'. 
 A loss occurred on H.'s policy which was ad- 
 justed and paid by the association. In an ac- 
 tion against the defendants to recover the 
 amount of the re-insurance: — Held, that the 
 defendants could not escape liabilit,y for either 
 one or the other of the plaintiHs was entitled to 
 recover ; and that there was nothing in an ob- 
 jection raised as to double indemnity :— Held, 
 also, that the statutory conditions eouhl not lie 
 imported into and read with either the agreenient 
 between the ]>laintiifs, or that be tweenthc 
 Dominion Company and the defendants. Fire. 
 Lix. A't-tociatioH {Limited) v. Cancula Fire ami 
 Marine Inx. Co., 2 O. R. 481.— Q. B. D. 
 
973 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 974 
 
 Held, that the defendants' contract nf rc-iii- 
 aiirance did not prevent the plaintiffs from as- 
 senting to any reasonable and proper waiver of 
 conditions made in good fuitli, ami not sliewn to 
 iiiflupnce tiie loss or increase tlie burden of the 
 re-inmirers ; and therefore an assent given by the 
 Diiininion Company to a chati,t.'l mortgage on 
 somo of the insured jjoids, witiiout tlie defen- 
 iliuits' kno\vle<lge and assent, did not release the 
 dofeiulants. Ut. 
 
 Under a state of facts similar to those stated 
 in the preeedin',' c;iHe, except tliat tiie insurance 
 wiis of one C.'s property : — Hehi, tiiat tiie plain- 
 tiffs were entitled to recover, for treating tlie 
 agreement between the ])lainti(ra as a re-iiisur- 
 uiioe, (thongii more properly a transfer of busi- 
 ness with its liabilities and colliti-ral securities), 
 if it was of tlie wliole amount of the l)i)niini<>n 
 ('(iinpany's liability, the association liaviiig jiiiid 
 the wi.ole loss to the company, or wliich was the 
 .same thing, to C, were entitled irrespective of 
 any iissigmnent to contribution from defendants: 
 if, however, it was only of the residue of ('. 's 
 risk the defendants wer(i still liable to the com- 
 pany on tlieir policy, and by the vt.y terms of 
 the agreement it was effectually assigned to the 
 association, wiio ac([uired all their C()-l)laiiitiff''s 
 rights and interest in it :— Held, also, that the 
 statutory conditions were not appliealile to such 
 a contract of re-insurance as in this case. .S'. t'., 
 2 0. R. 495.— C. P. I). 
 
 See Clarke v. Union Fire Inn. Co. — Claim of 
 thf Aiirifiilhiral, Fin' Ins. On. of Walcrloirn, 
 Xiw York; 6 (). R. G40, p. lOOO'; ,V. C— .1/c- 
 I'liei'.', Claim, 11). (135, p. 100"). 
 
 30. Terminal inij Policy. 
 
 A notice liy an 'nsurancc company to termi- 
 nate a fire polic_ under statutory I'oiidition 
 Ko. lit of the Otiti rio In.snranee Act (H. S. O. 
 (ISS7), c. 1()7, s. 114), should be wliolly in wri- 
 ting, and should inform ibi; assured that the 
 poliey will be terminated at the expiration of 
 the prescribed statutory jieriod after tlie service 
 (if the notice ; and when on the cash pi in a rat- 
 al)le proportion of the iireniiuin returiKvl slioulil 
 lie calculated from the termination of the notice. 
 Where, therefore, acompany gavea notiee which 
 was in effect an immediate cancellation with a 
 return of the nnearned premium from the diite 
 of the notice : Held, ((Jalt, (". .1.. dissenting), 
 tliat the policy had not been c incelled. /!tinl.- 
 lit Coninurci- v. lirili.th Ami'rini As.inranci Co., 
 ISO. I!. '234.— ('. I'. 1). 
 
 See Cnlilin II v. Shulwona Fin 
 Co., II S. C. R. 21-.', p. !Ki5. 
 
 an'l l/ifv hi.i. 
 
 ?t\. Hi j'cnnfi' lo Arliil ration. 
 
 The condition by which the defendants sought ] 
 to defea. the actimi provided that all disputes l 
 touching loss or damage, should, after proof , 
 thereof, be submitted to arbitrators to deter- 
 mine the amount, but not the liability, and that 
 an action against the company should not be 
 .sustainable until after an award had been ob- 
 tained fixing the amount, or unless such action 
 slionld be commenced within twelve numtlis 
 after the hiss; and the defendants covenanted, in 
 the body of tlie policy, to pay the loss within 
 
 sixty days after the loss had been ascertained 
 and proved in accordance with the terms of the 
 policy. It appeared tliat the assured had fur- 
 nished the defendants with proof of the loss on 
 tlie /ith of April, to which the defendants made 
 no objection until the I Ith of June following, 
 when they served a written request for an arbi- 
 tration upon the assured, who refused to arbi- 
 trate, and the p'aiiuiff. to whom tlie claim was 
 assigned, brought this action : — Hehl, that even 
 if the condition were available as a defence, it 
 had not been broken, as in the absence of a re- 
 (juest to arbitrate within the sixty days, the 
 loss must be considered as "ascertained and 
 jiroved,"' and the plaintiff therefore, had a right 
 of action on the expiration of that jieriod. Mc- 
 /nli/rc V. Xutionul his. Co,, ,5 A. R. ."i8(t. 
 
 The dofetulants required the plaintiff' to jno- 
 ceed to arbitration to ascertain the amount of 
 loss under a jiolioy issued by the defendants 
 in favour of llie plaintiff, which contained the 
 statutoiy condition as to reference to arbitra- 
 tion. The plaintiff was willing t<i arbitrate as 
 to amount provided the dcfen.lants would ad- 
 mit liability for the loss. This the defendants 
 refused to do;— Held, affirming the order of 
 Armour, J., rcvijising the order of the Master 
 in Chambers, that the defendants were not en- 
 titled to a stay of proceedings until the amount 
 had been ascertained by arbitration. //ni/h(s 
 v. London A.'<suran<v Co., 4 O. U . 29.'{. --(,». 1!. I). 
 
 After an action hail been commenced on a, 
 policy of insurance the defendants gave notice 
 of arbitration under the statutoiy condition, 
 when the court made an order that, on the de- 
 fendants abandoning all defences and admitting 
 their lialjility under the poliity sued on, all pro- 
 ceedings in the action should be .stayed, the 
 plaintitt' to sign tinal juilgment and jiroceed in 
 the a :tion for the ainuuut wliicli might be 
 awarded him, together with the costs of the 
 action, etc. Ami it was further ordered, with- 
 out the consent of the ilcfeiidants. that either 
 party, after the miking of the award, might 
 apply to a judge in ehainbors in res|iect of the 
 payment of the costs of the reference and award. 
 The arbitrators awarded to the jilaintitf the full 
 amount of his claim. On applic itioii to I'ose, J. 
 (7 O. R 4(!,")), an order was made directing the 
 defendants to pay the costs of the reference and 
 award. On appeal to the llivisioual Court, 
 Cameron, C. .1., was of opinion tliit th(; appeal 
 shouM be allowed, there being no jurisiliction 
 over the costs on such a reference, and Oalt, J., 
 th:it it slunild be dismissed. The court being 
 e(|Ually divided, the judgment was atlirmed. 
 itniflK t v. Hand in Hand his. Co., 7 O. I!. 015. — 
 C. i'. D. 
 
 After action the company, under the sixteenth 
 statutory condition, deinanded an arbitration as 
 to the value of the premises destroyed, the 
 result of which was an aw .id finding the value 
 to have been $'2,500, and the loss payable to 
 the plaintiff 81,700; while the jury at the trial 
 of the action found that the plaintiff had truly 
 represented the property as having been worth 
 iJ3,.'i(K), and estimateil his hiss at that amount: — 
 Held, that there having been no misrepresen- 
 tation on the plaintitrs part, no mutual mistake, 
 and the defendants not having proved that they 
 granted the policj' in consequence of any mis- 
 take on their part the parties were ad idem and 
 
975 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 976 
 
 3n:::it 
 
 er:: 
 
 <MS.::| 
 PCil 
 
 I <i 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 »ii il' 
 
 the plaintiff" was entitled to judgment for the 
 amount of the award. Smith v. Oily of Lon- 
 don Ins. Co., 14 A. 11. 328. See 5. C, 11 O. R. 
 38. 
 
 Where in actions upon fire insurance policies 
 the (|iu!8tiona in issue between tlie parties were 
 not confint'd to matters of mere account, but 
 the defenilaiit.^ disputed their liability, and issues 
 of fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of 
 facts wei'e r.-iiaed upon the jdeadings '.—Held, 
 that an order referring all the issues in the action 
 to a I'eferce for in(|uiry and report was impro- 
 perly made, and that the plaiiitifl' was entitled 
 to have a trial in the ordinary way. t'lurry v. 
 lirilii/i .\ III' lira ■' f^inrnnrt' Co., \'2 V. R. 3."i7. — 
 Chy. P. 
 
 A ohiir. 1 iM 1 under a three years' 
 
 policy on .^ \ , (til, 188."), an<l was dc 
 
 .stiriyijd liy lire May Mist, 1 't8S. Tiie insurance 
 company :'iliiiitted tlie Iosm, but r(.'(juii('d the 
 iliUUiigos t.i 1 I; ; ,o' cd. arul n siibiiii»^<ion to ap- 
 priii.SLis was' titcif ' it-()b\ 'rtios. in whii;li 
 
 it was (jrovided that thi' ;nvii;'l n:a<l by them, 
 (the appriisersl or any tuo m tin :i), shall be 
 biniling upon both of said parties as the amount 
 of such damage to said iusinvd proiierty, but 
 shall nut determine any (|neation touching tlie 
 legal lial>ilitj' of said company," etc. Two of 
 the ,i(ipraiseis joineil iii an award giving the in- 
 sured the full amount claimed, ancl ordered the 
 c()m]).iny to pay tlio costs of the reference and 
 award. The company refused to pay any costs 
 over and ul)ove half the arbitrators' fees : — Held, 
 (athrniing the Master in Chambers), that R. S. 
 O. (1887), c. 107, s. 114, was ajiplicable to the 
 policy in (|iiesti(m. and that the legislature in- 
 teniled, by the use of the words, "or otherwise 
 in force in Ontario, with respect to any property 
 tJKM-ein,"' that .section to be a))i)lical)le to all 
 policies existing at the time the .\ct came into 
 force, and that costs were properly awarded un- 
 <ler sub-section 1(5 of that section. lie Sf. 
 Phi/ip't Clinirh, W-ston, mid Ulanqow and 
 Loii'lon //i.v. Co., 17 (>. li. !)5. — Ferguson. 
 
 .See ,1 iii'h'ir Mnrini' Lik. Co. v. Corbett, 9 S. C 
 R. 73, J). !»S4. 
 
 32. Interent on Clam<. 
 
 In an action upon fire insurance policies, a 
 referee was directed to inijuire, ascertain, and 
 report the amount of the loss: — Held, having 
 regard to the provisions of sections 87 and 103 
 of R. S. O. (18S7), c. 44, that the referee had 
 iiuthority to allow interest on the amount of the 
 loss as asL'ertaiiicil by him. Atlorueif-Oenirdl v. 
 .Ktiia /lis. Co., 13 i\ R. 4")}). (ialt. 
 
 33. Pleailini/ in Ac/ion-^ on Policlcn. 
 To a declaration on a policy of insurance miule 
 by defendants, but iu>t averring that it was un- 
 der the corporate .seal, the defendants pleaded 
 non est factum : -Held, j)lea yooil : fur that the 
 declaration set forth a complete instrument, a 
 policy of insuiance ma<le by defendants, a cor- 
 poration, wiiicli ex vi termini, iniporteil a seal : 
 and in any event the plaintiff' could not be eni- 
 barr.issed by the plea, as it must under the 
 O. J. Act. Rules 141 (Con. Rule 413), and 
 493 be treated as a mere denial of the makim.' 
 of the contract of iiisuiMUCc in fact, and not of 
 
 its legality or sufficiency in law. liimii'lt v. 
 UnioH Mutual Fire. Inn. Co., 32 C. P. 134.— 
 Osier. 
 
 Where a right of suit exists in a body of ])er- 
 sons t.j0 numerous to be all made parties, the 
 court will permit one or more of them to sue on 
 behalf of all, subject to the restriction that tlie 
 relief prayed is one in which the parties whnni 
 the plaintifT professes to represent have all of 
 them an interest identical with that of the plain- 
 tiff. Hut where a mutual insurance company 
 had established three distinct branches, in one 
 of which, the waterworks branch, the plaintiff 
 insured, giving liis promissory note or \nidertak- 
 ing to pay Sl(i8, and the company made an 
 assessment on all notes and threatened suit in 
 the Division ("inirt for ]>iyment of such asscss- 
 ' ment, whei'eupon the ])laintiff filed a bill " nn 
 behalf of himself and tlie other ])oliey holders 
 i associated with him as hereinaftirr mentioned,'' 
 ' alleging tlieirompany was about to sue him and 
 the other |)olicy holders in s lid branch, that 
 i large losses had occurnid in the company prior 
 i to tiie time of his effecting his insurance, and in- 
 sisting that he and the other policy holders 
 ; could be propei'ly assessed only in respect of 
 I such losses as had arisen since they entered tlie 
 
 ■ com|)any, and praying that the necessary in- 
 (|niries might be made and accounts taken, 
 
 i alleging that the Division Courts had not the 
 1 machinery necissary for th.it purpose: — Held, 
 j that according to the statements of the bill the 
 i policy-holders in the waterworks branch were 
 not represented in the suit, and a denmrrer on 
 ; that ground filed by the company was allowed 
 i with costs. Tliiimxon v. Virtnria Mii/nnI Fin'. 
 \ Int. Co., 29 Chy. 5<). — Ferguson. 
 
 . li. insureil a tug when navigating the rivers 
 ; .Sydenham, St. Clair, Detroit, and Thames and 
 
 Lake St. Clair, loss, if any, payable to M., as 
 \ his interest might appear. M. at the time of 
 i insurance and <lown to the ha|)pening of thelo.ss 
 t was mortgagee. The tug was libelled in the 
 
 American Admiralty Court, and to avoid the 
 
 ■ claim therecm <J. used the proceedings therein 
 upon a claim for wages to have a fraudulent .sale 
 
 I thereof made to.l. Afterwards O. procured a 
 j renewal of the policy without disclosing the sale, 
 of which, however, defendants were suhse- 
 (piently notified. (!., with defendants' assent, 
 assigned the policy to M., but before that assent 
 was put in writing the tug was burned in tiie 
 Chenail Kcarti, one of the channels of the St. 
 Clair. M. and .1. d(divered proof papers of 
 claim, which were objcclel to. (i. did not de- 
 liver any. At the trial leave was given to add 
 (J. and J. as co-plaintitl's, ami judgment was 
 directed to be entered for the plaintifl's for the 
 full amount of the insurance. The (^. H. D. (12 
 (). R. 70(i): -Held, that the action was properly 
 constituted, and gave judgment in favour of the 
 jilintitr. On appeal that judgment was af- 
 ir ined with co.sts on the ground that the rela- 
 tion of ti iistee anil cestui (pie trust had bieii 
 createtl between (!. .and the plaintill' in re.s))e(t 
 of the policy inoneys. liurlon. J. A., dissenting. 
 I'er Armour d. -The sale of the tug was by 
 operation of law. MitrhiJl v. f.'/O/ of Lomlon 
 .|.«. Co., IT) A. R. 262. 
 
 See lloii-n V. Itiimiiiiiin Fiiv and Miiriiu' Inn. 
 Co., S A. R. (144, p. !»(il ; Royid Jw. Co. v. 
 lii/n-i, '.) (). R. 120, p. !IG8. 
 
S77 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 978 
 
 3/5. Mutual Imurancc Companiex. 
 
 (a) Premium Notes and Atmenimientii. 
 
 The (lefeiiilants, a mutual insurance company, 
 ill existence at tlie time of the passing of the 
 Mutual Companies' Act of 1873, 30 Vict. c. 4i 
 (Ont. ), had divided their business into several 
 brandies, and had also raised a guarantee capi- 
 tal fund, out of which tjic losses in all the 
 branches as they arose were paid. The by-law 
 for raising the guarantee fund, passed on the 
 I'Jth .lanuary, 1874, contained a jirovision that 
 from the surplus profits of the company from 
 year to year, and l)y assessment on ])ri'mium 
 notes, a reserve fund should be created for the 
 purpose of paying ofl' the guarantee capital. In 
 a suit by a creditor to realize the assets of the 
 company, it appeared that tlie amounts to be 
 collected on the preniiuni notes in two branches, 
 would not siillice to jiay tlie losses in those 
 brandies, anil that the anuuiiits to be collected 
 oil such notes in tlie otlier two brandies were 
 surticient for that ))nrpose:--Held, by Prondfoot, 
 V. C , on appeal from the master {'21 C'hy. 3!H), 
 that tlie policy-holders in the solvent bniiiches 
 were liable to be assessed on their preniiuni 
 notes for the jiurpose of paying otl' tlie lialiility 
 due to the guarantee stockholders so far as 
 might be necessary to discharge losses ]iaid in 
 those par:,icuhir branches from the guarantee 
 fund:— llelil, on apju'al to this cimrt, that what- 
 ever might be the power of the diieitors, the 
 Court of ('hancery had no jurisdiction to make 
 the assessment. />////' v. ('aiiiullaii Miifiici/ Inn. 
 (7o.,GA. R. •2:i8. 
 
 Quale, (ler IJuiton, .1. A., as to the effect of 
 section T'l of I!. S. (). (1877), c. 101, and its in- 
 consistency with the clauses of the Act relative 
 to branches and the eNcniption of liie members 
 of one branch from liability for claims on 
 another. Ih. 
 
 Where an application was made to the court 
 to add the iiersons who liad signed preminin 
 notes as parties in the master's ottice, and to <li- 
 reel tlie master to assess the amounts due upon 
 the notes, and to order payment of the same to 
 the receiver from time to time, it was shewn 
 that the directors had not made any assessments 
 upon the notes pursuant to K. S. O. (1877), c. 
 161, s. 4.') et seij. :— -Held, that as the liability 
 attached only upon such assessment by the di- 
 rectors, the court could not add to, or alter the 
 liability of the jiarties who had made the notes 
 by referring it to the master or a receiver to do 
 tnut which the directors only couhl do, clause 
 75 of 3(i Vict. c. 44, which gave power to a re- 
 ceiver to do this, having been omitted from the 
 statute on revision. ///// v. MerchaiitK' and 
 Mannfacturv.rif' Inn. Co., "28 C'hy. iJtiO. — Blake. 
 
 Qiwre, whether the note given for the pre- 
 mium in this ease was negotiable notwithstand- 
 ing tlie special agreement in it, and as to the 
 effect of the defend.mts being described therein 
 as the " Watertowii InsuiaiiceComiiany," while 
 their real name was "The Agricultural Insur- 
 ance t'onipany of Watertowii, N.V." Siart v. 
 A(irinil'urnl Iii.t. Co., .S'2 C. R oSo.— C. V. 1). 
 
 Held, aflirming (.32 C. P. 470), that an .issess- 
 nient for the purpose of paying promissory notes 
 given by a mutual insurance company must be 
 •I'oiifined to t;:.; premium notes or undertakings 
 
 62 
 
 current at the time the loss occurred in respect 
 of or to meet which the company's notes were 
 given. New members cannot be assessed to pay 
 notes given previously to their joining the ccmi- 
 pany. Virtoria ^flltual Fire fiit. Co. of Canada 
 V. tftommii, 9 A. R. 620. 
 
 The directors of the plaintiff company assessed 
 the defendant, a policy ludder, for several sums, 
 one of which was illegal, and they sent one 
 notice to him, claiming the amount of all the 
 assessments, incliuling the illegal one, in one 
 sum : — Held, overruling (32 C. P. 470), that the 
 plaintiffs were not entitled to rei^over any of 
 the assessments. //<. 
 
 The defendants claimed the right, under 
 11. S. <). (1887), c. 107, s. 131, to retain the 
 amount of the preniiuni note given to the nnn't- 
 gagoi' until the time had expired for which the 
 insurance was made to cover any assessments 
 that might lie made thereon : — Held, that, as 
 against the moitgagee, they were not entitled 
 to retain the amount. Ainhrxnn v. Saiiiircu 
 MiiludI Fin /lis. Co. of Moiinl Fuirxf, IS O. R. 
 3.55. -Chy. D. 
 
 Held, tliat .■)3 Vict. c. 44, s. 4 (Out.), substi- 
 tuting a new .section tor H. .•^. (). (1887), c. 107, 
 s. 1.32, is retros|icctive in its opiration, and ap- 
 plies to |)remiiini notes given before its passing 
 as well as to those given afterwards. AV Suii- 
 ijii-ii .Miifiiii/ Fin /n.siiritiiCi; (Jo. — Kiiii'htil'x Oosf, 
 'l9(». R. 417. — Robertson. 
 
 See Aiuhtir 
 S. (•. li, 7.!. p. 
 
 Mav'iiir 
 !)S4. 
 
 Ins. Co. 
 
 Coilitll, fl 
 
 (b) Other Canen. 
 
 Held, that a (lolicy issued by a mutual insnr- 
 aiice conipanv is not subject to the Uniform (Con- 
 ditions Act, K. S. (). (1877), e. I(i2. Ballagh i: 
 Roj-al Mutual Fire Ins. Co. .'» A. R 87, approved 
 of. Milfiiiil Fire Ills. Co. of the (Joiinty of Wd- 
 liiKjIon V. Frcij, 'i .S. {'. R. 82. 
 
 The defendants were authorized by their diar- 
 ter to carry on liotli proprietary and mutual 
 insurance business ; but they were debarred 
 from taking risks which were extra-hazardinis 
 in the mutual liranch. The plaintiffs' property 
 falling within the prohibited class, was insured 
 with the defendants by a policy which was not 
 on its face a mutual one, but an absolute under- 
 taking to jiay the loss, but instead of making a 
 cash payment they gave a prcininm note, upon 
 whioii they paid several assessments. The ap- 
 plication also was headed: "Preniiuni Note 
 System : " — Held, reversing the judgment of the 
 Court of Cliancery, 28 Cliy. 525, that the policy 
 was not a mutual one, there being nothing ex- 
 cept the preniiuni note, which was not conclusive, 
 to indicate that it was a mutual innirance, and 
 the property being of such a nature that it could 
 not be insured in the mutual branch. (^uaMV, 
 per Cameron, .1., whether the risk w.is sulii- 
 eiently shewn to lie one which defendants could 
 not insure in their mutual branch. Loir.ion v. 
 Ciinculd Fanni rs' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., A. R. 
 512. 
 
 Held, (reversing the decision reported 9 P. I!. 
 185, which followed Louut i\ The Canada Farm- 
 ers' Ins. Co., 8 P. R. 4.33, that R. S. O. (1877), 
 e. 101, 8. 61, providing as to mutual insurance 
 
j jj« n.jr'"' ■ ' • 
 
 979 
 
 INSUBANCE. 
 
 980' 
 
 ess 
 
 fit!" 
 
 ?«:•« 
 
 
 conipftnies, that no execution sliall issiie against ' 
 such company upon any judgment until after the 
 expiration of three nionthH from the recovery 
 thereof, does not apply where the judgment has 
 lieen recovered on a policy issued hy the com- 
 pany on the cash principle. .V. C, H A. R. 
 61 ». 
 
 Held, that the directors of a mutual insurance 
 company may, under R. S. (). (1877), c. Uil, s. 
 2fl, borrow money on promissory notes or de- 
 l)enturcs without jiassing a by-law under seal. 
 Victoriii, Mutual Fire Inn, Co. v. TlmmpKou, 'Ai 
 C. P. 476. -Cameron. 
 
 Trusteea being indebted to the plaintifTs ond 
 holding stock in the defendants' company aa- 
 Higne<l the st :)ck to the Litter in consideration of 
 u sum expressed to be paid by them for the ■ 
 trustees to the plaintifl'a. The sum was paid by | 
 the issue of the defenilants' debenture to the 
 plaintiffs : — Held, that the transaction did not ■ 
 constitute a '• loan of money" from tlie plaintiH's j 
 to the defendants within the meaning of '.\\ Vict. ' 
 c. .52, s. 12 (Ont.), and that the issue of the ' 
 debentni'e was therefore ultra vires. /'«/(/.• o/'i 
 Toroiitox. lieAUHir and Toroiiln Mntiinl Iiix. Co., 
 28 Thy. 87.— Spi'agge. 
 
 Held, that the defendants as a mutual insur- 
 ance company, were capable of granting insur- 
 ances in Quebec as well as in Ontario. Dufw 
 Canndion Mutual Fire. hin. Co, 27 C'hy. SOI. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 The claim being one of H. k 1)., for costs after 
 a retainer by a mutual fire insui-ance company, 
 B. assigned his interest in it to D., upon certain 
 trusts in which, however, B. had no interest : — 
 Held, that the assiaunient was absolute, and I), 
 entitled to sue :— Held, that U. having been pre- 
 sident of the company when the costs were in- 
 curred was no objection. .S'. C, 9 ]'. R. 2i)2. — 
 Proudfoot. Hut see S. C. 2 O. R. 5(50, iufm. 
 
 Held, reversing the decision of Prouilfoot, 
 V. C., (9 1'. R. 292), Osier, J., dissenting, that 
 under the Mutual Insurance Act, R. S. O. (1S77) 
 c. 161, the cost of a solicitor for services ren- 
 •lered to a mutual insurance company, ai'c 
 chargeable not against the general assets of the 
 company, but against the respective branches 
 for which the services were in fact rendered, 
 and in case of deficiency of assets of any of the 
 branches the other branches are not liable for 
 the claims thereon. Per Osier, .J. — A creditor 
 of the company, for a del)t incurred as i)art of 
 the necessary expenses of the com]) my, though 
 in relation to the business of sr)me of its branches 
 only, is entitled to be paid out of moneys derived 
 from assessments for losses and expenses on 
 policy holders in other branches. .V. G. , 2 O. R. 
 560.— C. P. D. 
 
 The 28th section of the Mutual Fire Insurance 
 Companies' Act, 1881, makes the Fire Insurance 
 Policy Act applicable thereto, "except whore 
 the provisions of the Act respecting Mutual Fire 
 Insurance Com|)anies are expressly inconsistent 
 with, or supplementary and in addition to the 
 provisions of the said Fire Insurance Policy 
 Act : " — Held, this includes all mutual insurance 
 companies doing business in the province ; and 
 it was not alleged in the pleadings herein, that 
 there was anything in the defendants' Act " ex- 
 pressly inconsistent with " the Fire Insurance 
 Policy Act, but merely that the matters were 
 
 variations of the statutory conditions. Held, 
 also, that the questions so far as raised, were 
 not of a constitutional character so as to recpiire 
 notice to tlie Attorney-! leneral of the Province, 
 and the Minister of .histiee of the Dcmiinion. 
 (I'liriiii/v. Loudon J/ Ktuiil Fire, IiiM. Co., 110. 1!. 
 82. — O'Connor. 
 
 See I'oliliis v. Victoria Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 
 31 ('. P. ■■)(i2; (i A. R. 427, p. UM ; ISallaiih v. 
 lioijal Mutual Jio<. Co., 5 A. R. 87, )). 94(i. 
 
 IV. Makink Insuiianok. 
 
 1. Innurabh IntereM. 
 
 ('. made advances to R. upon a vessel, then in- 
 course of construction, upon the f.iith of a ver- 
 bid agreement with R., tliat after the vessel- 
 should be huinched, she should be jdaeed in his 
 bauds for s:de, iiuil that out of the proceeds the 
 advances so nnide should lie paid. When the 
 vessel was well advanced ( '. disclosed tlie facts 
 and nature of his interest to the agent of the re- 
 spondent's c()in])aiiy, and the <'iin:paiiy issued a 
 liolicy of insurance, against loss by lire, to (". in 
 the sum iif §3,()fl((. The vessel was still untiii- 
 ished, and in P>. 's possession when she was 
 burned : — Held, I'cversing tlie judgment of the 
 court below, tliat ('. 's interest, relating as it 
 did to a specific chattel, was an e(piitable in- 
 terest which was insurable, and therefore C. wag 
 entitled to recover. Clark v. Scott'mh Imperial 
 Im. Co., 4S. C. R. 192. 
 
 The part owner of a vessel may insure the 
 shares of other owners with his own, without 
 disclosing the interest really insured, under a 
 policy issued to himself insuring the vessel " for 
 whom it may concern. " Merehantf' Marine Inx 
 Co. v. liarx.'i, 15 S. C. R. 18,5. 
 
 vSee Merrhaiitu' Marine lun. Co. v. liumsoj, (J- 
 .S. (J. R. 277, p. 9S2 ; Aiielwr Marine Ina. Co. v. 
 Keith, 9 S. C. R. 48.'}, p. 987. 
 
 2. SeairnrthinMx. 
 
 It appeareil that the vessel was driven ashore 
 on the (ith Septend)er, and that the plaiutiflfs 
 got her off and towed her to Detroit, where she 
 was put into dry dock and repaired. The sal- 
 vage charges amounted to .|4,000. On 2<ith 
 September, the owner gave notice of abamlon- 
 ment, and claimed as for a total loss, and the 
 plaintiffs .settled with him for $3,000. On 2i)th 
 September the vessel while lying at the port of 
 Detroit was libelled for seamen's wages and 
 salvage charges, and was subseiiuently sold to 
 pay same. The actual damage <lone to the 
 vessel only amounteil to §17.i. At the time of 
 the accident the vessel had only one anchor, 
 having a short time previously lost a .second one 
 she hail. There was no express warranty of 
 seaworthiness : Held, that the policy being a 
 time policy there was no imjdied warranty of 
 seawoi'thines. Pho'uix Im. Co. v. Anchor lim. 
 Co., 4 O. R. ■")24.— Osier. 
 
 3. Warra:,;^ of Safety. 
 
 ,See A nchor Marine Inx. Co. v. Keith, 9 S. C. 
 R. 483, p. 987. 
 
98a 
 
 981 
 
 mSUBANOE. 
 
 us. Held, 
 ised, were 
 to reiiuire 
 1 Froviiicu, 
 Doiviinioii. 
 ... 110. 1!. 
 
 ■e 1 1)1. Cii., 
 IS(illa<ih V. 
 17, I..' '.U(!. 
 
 (sul, then in 
 til of a ver- 
 
 tlie vi'sspI' 
 laced ill his 
 •roueetla the 
 
 When tlie 
 ot\ the facts 
 nt of the re- 
 my issued a 
 ire, to C. in 
 
 still niitin- 
 en she was 
 ;nient of tlie 
 dating as it 
 quitable in- 
 •efore 0. was 
 ixh Imperial 
 
 { insure the 
 wii, without 
 ed, under a 
 1 vessel ' ' for 
 Marine In*. 
 
 '. Uii nisei/, 
 lie Inn. Cii. v. 
 
 Iriveii ashore 
 the plaintiffs 
 t, where she 
 The sal- 
 on '_>(ith 
 ! of iibandon- 
 loss, and the 
 00. On '-'Oth 
 it the port of 
 t waj^es and 
 lently sold to 
 done to the 
 it the time of 
 (iiie anchor, 
 a, second one 
 warranty of 
 )olicy heinga 
 warranty of 
 Anihor In*- 
 
 KeUli, 9 S. C. 
 
 4. Delay in Proseaiting Voyaijr. 
 
 A vessel insured for a voyage from Charlotte- 
 town to St. Johns, Ntld., left tiie wharf ut 
 Cliarlottetown on Ueoomher 3, with the bonil 
 tide intention of coninieiiuing her voyage. After 
 proceeding a short distance siio was c)l)liged, by 
 stress of weather, to anchor witiiin the limits of 
 the liarbour of Cliarlottetown and remained 
 thereuntil 4th December, when she proceeded 
 on her voyage : — Held, that tliLs was a compli- 
 ance with a warranty in the policy of insurance 
 to sail not later than 3rd December, but a breach 
 of a warranty to sail from the I'ort of Charlotte- j 
 town not later than 3ril December. HohtiindU i 
 V. I'nijfi, 15 S. C. R. 70tt. 
 
 There is an implied condition in a contract of j 
 marine insurance, not only that the voj'age shall >, 
 he accomplished in the ordinary track or course j 
 of navigation but that it shall l)e commenced i 
 and completed with all reasonable and ordinary 
 diligence; any unreasonable orunexcused <lolay, I 
 either in commencing or jirosecuting the voyage, j 
 alters the risk and absolves the unduiwriter from ' 
 liability for subse(|uent lo.ss. S/jinn'i/ v. Orean 
 Muluiil Murine In-t. Co., 17 S. C. R. :Vj(i. 
 
 .'>. Deviation. 
 
 The voyage specified in a marine pcdicy in- 
 cluded "loading port on the westein coast of 
 South America," and payment of a loss under 
 the policy was resisted on the ground of devia- 
 tion, tlie vessel having loaded at Lobos, (me of 
 the (Juano Islands, from twenty-five to forty 
 miles off the coast. Oi< the trial of an action 
 to recover the insurance, evidence was given by 
 shipowners and mariners to the etl'ect that, ac- 
 cording to commercial usage, the description in 
 the policy would include the (iuaiio Islands, and 
 there was evidence tiiat when the insurance was 
 effected a reduction of premium wa.s offered for 
 an undertaking that the vessel would load guano. 
 The jury found, on an express directi(ni by the 
 court, that the island where tlie vessel loarled 
 was on the western coast of .South America 
 within the meaning of the policy : — Hehl, afiirni- 
 ing the judgment of the .Supreme ('ourt of New 
 Bninswick, that the words in the policy must 
 lie taken to have been used in a commercial 
 sense and as understood by shippers, shipowners 
 and underwriters; and the jury having based 
 their verdict on the evidence of what such 
 understanding would be, and the company being 
 aware of a guano freight being contemplated, 
 the finding should not be ilisturbed. Pruvi- 
 ileiire Wa~ihhi(iton Inn. Co. v. Heroic, 17 S. C. 
 R. 387. 
 
 In case of deviation by delay, as in case of 
 ileparturc from the usual course of navigation, 
 it is not necessary to shew that the peril has 
 been enhanced in order to avoid tlie policy. 
 Spinney v. Ocean Mutnal Marine Ins. I'l,., 17 
 S. C. R. 326. 
 
 6. Cooiln Inj<iir<il. 
 
 The respoiidents (plaintiffs), by an arrange- 
 ment with M., who had chartered the schooner 
 Mabel Claire for a trading voyage from Nova 
 Scotia to Labrador and back, wei'e to furnish 
 the greater part of the cargo, and were to have 
 
 complete control of all the goods put on board 
 the vessel until it should return, when the re- 
 turn cargo was to bo disposed of by the plaintiffs, 
 who were to pay themselves for their advance, 
 and pay over any balance remaining to S. and 
 others. In trading on the voyage S. and others 
 were not to diapo.se of any goods on credit, but 
 were to bring back such goods as they could not 
 dispose of, so as to obtain a return cargo in lieu 
 thereof. 'J"he plaintiffs put on board the vessel 
 at Halifax merchandise to an amount exceeding 
 §0,000, and after having done so, and upon the 
 day on whidi the vessel sailed from Halifax, 
 effected with the appellants (defendants), tiio 
 jxdicy sued upon, and an extract from which is 
 us follows: — " Rumsey, Johnson & Co. have 
 this day effected uii insurance to the extent of 
 $2,000 on the undermentioned jiroperty, from 
 Halifax to Labrador, and back to Halifax on 
 trading voyage. Time not to exceed four (4) 
 months, shipped in good order and well con- 
 ditioned on lioard tlic acluioner .Mabel (Jlaire, 
 whereof Mouzar is master, this pi'c.sent voyage. 
 Loss, if any, ])ayable to Runiscy, .)(dinson & Co. 
 Said insurance to be subject to all the forms, 
 conditions, provisions and excejitioiis contained 
 in the jiolicics rif the company, copies of which 
 are printed on the liack hereof. Descripticm of 
 goods insured, merchandise underdeck, amount 
 .'?2,000, I'ate live per cent., premium §1(J0 to 
 return two (2) per cent., if risk emls lat October, 
 and no loss claimed ; additional insurance of 
 §r),OO0, warranted free from capture, seizure 
 and detention, the consecpiences of any attempt 
 thereat," Against the respon<lents' right to 
 recover, it was contended that they were merely 
 uiijiaid vendors and had no insurable interest, 
 and that goods previously put on board at 
 Liverpool, A'.S., were not covered by this policy, 
 and tliat it was not to recover the return cargo : 
 — Held (aftirmiug the judgment of the court 
 below, discharging a rule nisi to set aside a 
 verdict for the plaintiffs), that the policy covered 
 not only goods put o:i board at Halifax, but all 
 the inercliandise under deck shipped in good 
 order on board said vessel during the period 
 mentioned in the policy :— Held, also, that there 
 was sufficient evidence to shew that the plain- 
 tiffs had an insurable interest in all the goods 
 obtained and loaded on the vessel. Me.rchdnts' 
 Marine fns. Co. v. lininsey, ,S. C. R. 577. 
 
 7. Reeoreri/fur Loss of FreiijM. 
 
 The plaintiffs were insurers of a cargo of grain, 
 and the defendants iiisurers of both hull and 
 freight of the vessel, which was owned by M. 
 The vessel sank during the voyage and damaged 
 the grain. Both the owner and the plaintiffs 
 thought it more prudent to take the cargo to 
 Rulfalo, as being more saleable there than in 
 Kingston, its original destination. M. , however, 
 refu.sed to deliver it to the plaintiffs until his 
 freight was )iaid in full, and the pi lintiffa there- 
 upon paid it, and took ai. assignment of his 
 pidicy on the freight, on which tliey now sued 
 the defendants. It was found as a fact at the 
 trial that the cargo might have been taken to its 
 destination in specie, and the freight earned : — 
 Held, aftirming the decision of the Common 
 Pleas, m C. P. 570, that the plaintiffs were nr.t 
 entitled to recover ; for their only rights were 
 those of M., who had suffered no loss for which 
 
jj^^asr^rf^ 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 984 
 
 SKKt 
 
 £3 
 
 tlie (IvfcniluntH were liable, inasniuuh as tlie 
 freight hiul not only nut btcn lo8t by the ncrilti 
 insured aj^ainst, but luul not l>uen lost at all, he 
 having received it in full. Anchor Marint /im. 
 ('(). V. /'hd'iiix Jus. Co., (> A. R, 507. 
 
 8. PerilH of the Sea. 
 
 A vessel on her way to Miramichi, N. B., was 
 fiuntercd for a voyage from Norfolk, Va. , to 
 Liverpool with I'ottoii. She arrived at Miranii- 
 I'hi 111 S.'itli iN'ovciiiln'r, and .sailed for Norfolk 
 on lie 2!lth. Owiii;,' to the lateness of the sea- 
 son, however, she could not get out of the riv(!r, 
 and she reniiiiiied fro/en in the ice all winter, 
 and had to altandoii tlie cotton fi'eight :- Held, 
 reversing the judgnieiit of the Suprinne Court 
 ot New Urunswiek, Henry, ■!., dissenting, 
 that the loss occasioned by the detention from 
 file ie(\ was not a loss l)y " perils of the seas,"' 
 covered by an ordinary marine policy. C'reut 
 Wenlern j'lii. Co. v. Jonhiii, 14 S. C. R. 734. 
 
 See O'Coviinr v. Mirflniiiln' MiiiIik /».<. Co., 
 10 ,s. C. K. ;wi, !>. <»,S<). 
 
 !(. ('oiidilioiix. 
 
 The ajipellauts issued a marine policy of in- 
 surance at Toronto, dated tlie "istli November, 
 IH"."), iiisiiring, in favour of the respdiident, 
 !j.S,0('() u|ion a cargo of wood goods laden on 
 board of tlu! liaripie Immigrant, on a voyage from 
 ♦ Quebec to (iicciiock. The ))olicy contained the 
 following clause: ".). C, as well in his own 
 name as for and in the mime and iianics of all 
 aiul every other person or |)ersons to wh(un the 
 same doth, may, or shall appertain, in pait or 
 in all, doth make insurance and cause three 
 tlxuisaiid ilollars to be insured, lost or not lost, 
 at and from (Quebec to (ireenock, vessel to go 
 out in tow." The vessel was towed fiom her 
 loruling berth in the harbour into the middle of 
 the stie.im near Inilian Cove, which forms part 
 tif the harbour of Quebec, and was abandoned 
 with cari.'o by reason of the ice four days after 
 leaving the harbour and before reaching the 
 Traverse. On an action upon the policy it was : 
 — Held (Fournier and Henry, JJ., dissenting), 
 that the words " from Quebec to (Ireenock, ves- 
 sel to go out ill tow," meant that she was to go 
 out in tow from the limits of the harbour of 
 Quebec on said voyage, and the towing from 
 the loading berth to another part of the harbour 
 was not a compliance with the warranty. Per 
 Ritchie, C. J. The (piestion in this case was 
 not, if the vessel had gone out in tow, how far 
 she sliouhl have been towed in order to comply 
 ■with the warranty, the determination of this 
 Latter question being dependent on several con- 
 siderations, such as the lateness of the season, 
 the direction and force of the wind, and the 
 state of the weather, and possibly the usage and 
 uustom (if the port of Quebec, if any existed in 
 relation thereto. Per Owynne, .1. The cvi- 
 <leiice established the existence of a usage to tow 
 down the river as far as might be deemed 
 necessary, having regard to the state of the 
 wind and weather, sometimes beyond the Tra- 
 verse, but ordinarily at the date of the depar- 
 ture of the plaintiff's vessel, at least as far as 
 the Traverse. Prov\nr.ini Inn. Co. of Caiiwla v. 
 Connolly, 5 S. C. R, 258. 
 
 W. et al. etfeeted in A.|M. Ins. Co. a policy of 
 insurance on n ship. Tho policy, among other 
 clauses, contained the foll''/.ving : " Jn ease the 
 premium, or tho note or other obligation given 
 uir the premium, or any part thereof, should not 
 bo paid when duo, this insurance shall bo void 
 at and fnmi such default ; but tho full amoiiiii 
 of iireiniuni shall be cniiHiderod as earned, and 
 shall bo payable, and tho insurer shall be en- 
 titled to recoviir for loss or diiinage which may 
 have occurred before such default. Should tliu 
 jicrson or any of the persons liable to the com- 
 pany for tlie premium, or on any note or 
 obligation given therefor, or any ]mit thciiMif, 
 fail ill business or bi.'come bankru]it or insolvent 
 before the time for jiayment has arrived, this 
 insurance shall at once become and be v<ii>|, 
 unless and until before loss the premiuin he 
 paid or satisfactorily secured to the company." 
 There was also in the pidicy an arbiiratidii 
 clause, by which arbitrators were to decide any 
 difference which might arise between the cum- 
 pany and the insured "as to the loss or (Liiingi. 
 or any other matter relating to the iiisur- 
 aiioe," in accordance with the terms and coiiili- 
 tions of the policy and the laws of Canada ; and 
 the obtaining of the decision of the arbitiatois 
 was to be a condition precedent to the maiutaiii- 
 , iiig of an action by the insured against the com- 
 I ])any. \V. et al. gave a ))roiiiissoiy note for the 
 premium which was not yet due when they he- 
 ! came insidvent; and C. , the respondent, w.is 
 ; appointed assignee. A guarantee was then given 
 I and accepted by the company as a satisf.ictiiiy 
 I security for tin; premium. The note became due 
 I on the .SOtli September, 1878, and was not paid 
 j but remained overdue and unpaid at the date of 
 I the loss, on the I'itli of October, 1878. .After 
 the loss, the matters in dispute arising out of 
 I the policy were submittcil to three arbitrators, 
 j who awarded !S5,70!).20. An action was then 
 [ brought on the ])olicy, the declaration eontaiuiiij; 
 a count on the award : — Held (afiirming the 
 j judgment of the court below), 1. That the 
 premium having, on the insolvency of tho in- 
 sured, been satisfactorily guaranteed to the com- 
 pany, the policy was thereby kept in full force 
 and effect, and did not become void on non-pay- 
 ment of the premium note at maturity. (Strong, 
 •),, dissenting. ) 2. That the award was binding 
 on the company, the (|uestion as to the payment 
 or default in payment of the premium being & 
 difference "relating to the insurance" within 
 the meaning of the policy, and the awaid not 
 appearing on its face to be bad from any mis- 
 take of law or otherwise. Anchor Marine. In". 
 Co. v. Corbet/, 9 S. C. R. 73. 
 
 Where, by a certiticato of marine insurance, 
 effected in this province on cattle, rojireseiiting 
 and taking the jilace of a policy, it was provid- 
 ed, as the conilition of payment, that all claims 
 should be reported to the M. Insurance Com- 
 pany of Liverpool, as soon as the goods were 
 lamied or the loss known, to be adjusted ac- 
 cording to usages there, and the special condi- 
 tion of the contract of insurance: — Held, that 
 the adjustment by the M. Insurance Company 
 was not a condition precedent to the plaintiffs' 
 right to recover. All tliat was required to be 
 done by the insured was duly to report to that 
 company the claim to be adjusted. Bank of 
 Britixh North A vierira v. Western Amsurance. Co., 
 7 O. R. 106.— Proudfoot. 
 
985 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 Ill un uctinn on a voyage poli(;y coiitainitig 
 this clause, " warranted not to untur or attempt 
 to enter or to use the (!nlf of St. Lawreneo prior 
 
 valued time policy of marine inNuraiii'e, under- 
 written l)y (i., the appellant, and otIierN. The 
 veKHel wiiM stranded and Hold, and T. Iiruuglit 
 
 to the loth day of May, nor after the 30th day l an action against <). to recover as for a total 
 of October (a lino drawn from t'apo North to ; loss. Krom the evidence it apptared that the 
 Cape Hay and across the Strait of C'anso to the vessel strandcil on the (itii .Inly, ls7(!, near I'ort 
 northern entrance thereof shall he considered (jleorge in the county of AntigoniMh, adjoining 
 the bounds of the (}ulf of .St. Lawrence)," the the county of (Suyslioro', N. S. , where the owner 
 evidence was: — The captain says : "The voyage ru.sided. The master cmployi-il surveyors, iiud 
 was from Liverpool to Quebec, and ship sailed on their rccnmnii'udatiori, coidirined by the 
 ou the Und April. Nothing happened until we i judgment of the nuister, the vessel was adver- 
 niet with ice to the southward of Newfoundland, tised for sale on the following day, ami sold on 
 Shortened sail, and dodged about for a few days the I Itli of .Inly fiu- .^ID'i. The ca|)t;iin <lid not 
 trying to work our way around it. Due niglit give any notice of abimdonmi lit and diil not en- 
 ship was hove to under lower main top sail, and deavour to get oil' the vessel. The puichiiseis 
 aliout midnight she drifted into a large lieldof ice. immediately got the vessel oil', ete . had her 
 There was a heavy sea on at the time, and the made tight, ami taken to I'ietou, iind icpiiired, 
 ship sustained damaue. We were in the ice three and they afterwanls used her in tr.idiiig and 
 or lour lioiiis. Laid to all the next day. Could carrying j)ass<'iigeis : Held, oii ap]ieal, that the 
 not get further along on aceount of the ice. In sale by the niiister was imt jiistiliable, and that 
 about twenty-four hours we startei'. '..> work up the evidence failed to shew iiiiy excuse for the 
 towards Quebec." The log-book showed that master not eommiiiiii;,itiiig with his owner so as 
 the ship got into the ice on the 7th of May, and to recjuire him to give notice of altandoiimeiit, 
 ail expert examined at the trial swore that from if he intended to rely iip(]ii tb(^ loss iis total, 
 the entries of the (ith, 7tli, 8lli,and Otli of .May, ' I'er (iwynne, .1., that it is a pipiiit fairly open to 
 the captain was attempting to enter the (ililf of ^ en(|iiiiy in a eourt of appeal, w hetlier or not, as 
 St. Lawrence. A verdict Wiis t.iken for plain- in the present case, the inferences drawn from 
 tills by consent, with leave for defendants t<i the evidence by the jtiilge who tried theea.se 
 move to enter a, nonsuit, or for a new trial, the without a jury, were the lensdiiiible and (iroper 
 court to have power to mould the vcnlict, and ; inlerences to lie drawn from the facts. (,'alla<j/icr 
 also to draw inferences of fact the same as u i v. Tuylor, Tt .S. ('. R, 30S, 
 jury. The Supreme Court of New lirunswick I 
 
 sustaineil the verdict, but on appeal to the <'■ ii» assignee of \V., was iii.xiired upon the 
 Supreme Court of Canada : Hehl, (Henry, .J., ' schofmer.lanie 1!.. to tlie amount of .«;'2.0()0 by a 
 dissenting) that the above clause was applicable voyage policy. On the Utii Febniary, IM7!l,the 
 toa voyage policy, and that there was evidence ''ii'de K., which had been in the liai hour of 
 to go to the jury that the captain was attempt- 'Shelburne .since the 7tli of February, left with a 
 ing to enter the gulf contrary to such clause. *;'ngo "^ potatos to pur.sue the voyage de- 
 Taylor V. Mortm, 11 8. C. IL '.HI. scribed in the policy, but was forced by stress 
 
 ,..,,,. , , of weather to j)ut back to Sbelbiirne, and on 
 
 ^„'^?H ..'.V.i'"„": ^„ iP.";i\7«r:*l''".\.V.''i*.'.!'t.^.".".!' ^'''^ 'n">"i"g <'f the ir.th she went ashore, when 
 
 " ""* '" *" the tide was about its height. On the 17th 
 
 notice of abandonment was eiven to the defen- 
 
 pany should not be lial>le for any loss occur 
 ring while petroleum, rock, earth, or coal oil, 
 burning fluid, naphtha or any liquid proiluct 
 thereof or any of tlieir constituent parts were 
 stored or kept on the property insured : -Held, 
 (atfirming I'J O. 1!. 706), that the fact of there 
 being a small quantity — about a gallon in two 
 small cans — of lubiicaling oil, used for the pur- 
 pose of lubricating the engine, was not such a 
 storing of oil. etc., as was contemplated by the 
 condition. Mkchdl v. Cttij of London ^l-w. Co., 
 15 A. U. '2&1. 
 
 A marine policy insured a ship for a voyage 
 from Melbuurne to \ alparaiso for orders, thence 
 to a loading port on the western coast of South 
 America, ami thence to a port of discharge in the 
 United Kingdom. The ship wcn^ from Valpa- 
 raii.o to Lobos.an island from twenty-live to forty 
 miles ofl" the coast of South America, and was 
 afterwards lost. In an action on the policy : — 
 Hehl, that whether or not Lobos was a loading 
 port on 1 he wi stern co.ist of South America with- 
 in the policy was a question for the jury, and it 
 not having been sulimitted to them a new trial 
 wasordeiel loi misdirection. Provi(knce-Wu*h- 
 iiiijtou />i.s. Co. v. (leroin, 14 S. C. R. 731. 
 
 See Jiuhcrmiii v. Pujii, 15 S. C. U. 70G, p. 981. 
 
 10. Ahmiilonmcnt iiiul Lokh. 
 
 T., respon lent, was the owner of a vessel 
 called the "Sus.iii," insured for .^800 under a 
 
 dants (iippellaiits) and not accepted, and on the 
 ISth. the master, after siiivey, sold her. The 
 next day the purchaser, without inuehdilliculty, 
 with the assistance of an American '-cssel that 
 was in the harliour, and by the uf.c < f casks for 
 floating her (appliances which t\:-i uiuster did 
 not avail himself ol), got her o/l'. There was no 
 evidence whatever of the ve.ss. 1 having been so 
 wrecked as to have been worthless to repair, or 
 to have been so much d imaged that .she would 
 not has'e been worth, .•ifler having been repaired, 
 more than the money ex])eniled for that purpose. 
 The vessel afterwards maile several voyages, 
 and was sold by the purchasers fur .sl,5()(). In 
 an action brought on the jiolicy against the de- 
 fendant company, tried before a judge without 
 a jury, a verdict was given in favour of ]>laintifi' 
 for?jl,913, which verdict was sustained by the 
 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. On appeal to 
 the .Supreme Court of (Canada :--Hcld, reversing 
 the judgment of the courts below-, 1. That the 
 sale by the master was not justified in the ab- 
 sence of all evidence to shew any " stringent 
 necessity " for the sale after the failure of all 
 available means to rescue the vessel. '2. That 
 the undisputed facts di.sclosed no evidence what- 
 ever of an actual tot.d loss and did not c<insti- 
 tute what in law could be pronounced either an 
 absolute ora constructive total lo.ss. Per Strong, 
 .1., that the right to ab.indoii must be tested by 
 the condition of the vessel at the time of action 
 
jgp.^, ,»"•■ ' ■■' IT 
 
 987 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 889 
 
 
 Mil •' 
 
 tMKi 
 CO 
 ••I 
 
 ••11 
 
 liniii^ht, mill not liy tlial wlii<'li cxiNtud when 
 liotici' of iiIkiiiiIiiiiiiiciiI wun j^ivfii. i'riii'iiliiicv 
 Witxliiiiijluii Jill. ('ii. V. Coihill, II S. C. 11. '-'50. 
 
 W'liilu till' b.'iri|iir Oliiirli'y wnH iit ('ocliin, dii 
 III' iilxiiit tli<^ I'itii .\|)nl, \H'U, till! iiiiiHtur c'li- 
 trrril iiitd 11 rliiiiliT p.ilty for ii voyajjo to (jo- 
 loiiilio, iiiiil lliiMicr to Nrw ^'ll|•U liy way of 
 AII|i|H'u. 'riio vessel N.iileil on the 'JJiiil April, 
 187'.', mill iiniveil lit Coloinlio, wliieh (iliiei^ nIiu 
 left on Kith May, anil while on her way to 
 Alippee Hlie Mtiin'U liaril on a reef ami was ilaiii- 
 aneil anil piitliaek to CiiIoiiiImi. Tlie veM.sel waH 
 NO ihuiia^eil that the iniiHttir enlileil to the Hlii|>'H 
 huHliaiiil, at New York on tlii^ '.Mnl of May, and 
 in reply reeeivetl nrileiH to exhaust all availiilile 
 liieaiiH anil lio tin.' Iiext he eoiilil for all eoiieerneit, 
 The ii'itairM necileil were .xteiisive anil it was 
 inipoMHilile to j^et tin III ih lie tliere, .'iihI I'lOiiiliay, 
 l.(K)0 miles iliMtiiiil, \ as the nearest port. 
 After iiroiier HiirvevM anil eaij^.i ilis('har>,'i'il, on 
 the loth .liiiie till! vu.''!»i'l was .stripped and the 
 niaNter snM the materials in lots at aiiution. 
 On till! -Isl May the respondi'iit, a niortj,;,im'i' 
 o'l in the vessel, wliieli lie liad assij;iied lo the 
 hank of Nin.i .Scolia hy eiiiloisnieiil on the 
 inortj^a;.(e, as ii cullateral bceiiiity for a pre 
 existing deht to the liaiik of Nova Si'otia, 
 being aware of the eliai ter from ('iieliin to 
 Mew N'oik, insured his interest with the ap- 
 ]irllant company, the nature of the risk heiiig 
 thus deserilied in the pi'ljey : " I'pon the IhmIv, 
 etc., of the good ship or vt^ssel ealleil tlioliari|ne 
 Charley, lii'ginning llie adventure (the said ves- 
 sel being warranted liy the insured to bo then in 
 safety), at and from Cochin via (,'iiloiiilio and 
 Alippee to New York." 'I'o an action on the 
 policy for a total loss —the ihfeiidants pie ided 
 inter alia ; 1st. That the plaintiif was not inter- 
 ested ; '2nd. That the ship was not lost by the 
 perils insured iiLjainst ; .'hd. Concealment. A 
 consent verdict for i^.'t.'.'Ot! foi' plaiiitilf was taken 
 tmbject to the opinion of the court upon points 
 reserved to lie stated in a rule nisi, and upon the 
 understanding and agreement that cvirythilig 
 which eould be settled liy a jury should, upon 
 the eviilence given, ho presumed to be found for 
 the plaiiitiir : Held, 1st. 'I'liat this was a voy- 
 
 . ago policy, and that the warranty of safety re- 
 ferred entirely to the conimencemcnt of the voy- 
 age and not to the time of the insurance ; 'Jiid. 
 That the fact of the plaintifV having assigned 
 
 ■ Ills interest as a collateral security to a ereililor 
 did not divest him ol all interest so as to disen- 
 title him to recover ; 'Md. That the vessel in 
 this case being so injured that she couhl not be 
 taken to a port at which the necessary repairs 
 could be executed, the mortgagee was entitled 
 to recover for an actual total loss, and no notice 
 of abandonment was necessary. Per Strung, J., 
 that a mortgagee, upon giving due notice of 
 abandonment, is not precluded from recovering 
 for a constructive total loss. Anchor Murinn 
 Ins. Co. V. AViVA.'J S. C. K. 483. 
 
 On a voyage from Porto Rico to New Haven, 
 
 respondents' vessel sustained damage and put 
 into St. Thomas. A survey was held by com- 
 petent persons named by the Fjiitish consul, and 
 according to their report the cost of putting her 
 in good ccmdition, wouM exceed her value. The 
 captain, under instructions from owners to pro- 
 ceed inidcr best advice, advertised and sold ves- 
 sel, and purchaser had her repaired at a cost 
 
 Cllllll' 
 
 Hurem 
 
 till' 
 
 'iilo 
 
 'le 
 
 -ek, 
 
 niiicli less than the report, and sent hor to sea: 
 Held, that there was no ovideneo to ju 
 jury in finding that the vchmuI was i\ t 
 Millnlli' Miiliiiil A/iiriiii' ami Fin ln». <^u. \ 
 
 Ui-Ui-oii, II .s. c. It. ih;i. 
 
 Owners of the vessel gave notice to agent n) 
 underwrili'i's that they would ubandon, wliiili 
 agent refused to accept. Owners telugraphi'd tc, 
 captain that they had abandoned, and lor him 
 to proceed iindiu' the best adviiti^ ; - Held, tlim 
 this act of telegraphing the captain did imt 
 eoiiHtituli! u waiver of the notice of abaiiilun 
 nieiit. ](>. 
 
 On the '28th September, 187"), a steam barge, 
 loaded with sand, sank while at anchor near 
 (;hiiteauguay, in the river .St. Lawrence. The 
 b.irge was raised and Itoaled within a week after 
 tlie disaster. It was shewn that on the star- 
 board side there was an auger bole in the hilgi' 
 I of the barge which had been plugged up with u 
 ' little woollen plug, and that tlie plug had 
 out. The vessel was raised by 1 lie 
 under the salvage elaiise ot the policy. 
 I lirst October there was a formal pro 
 I at the reipiest of the master and ollii 
 barge, setting forth all the details of ii 
 On the (II h December, IS7.">, the insurers were 
 notified that tin; vessel was abandoned, Ihi! 
 notice of abandonment coneluiliiig with tliv 
 words: "It is hardly necessary for mu after 
 your taking possession of the vessel to iiiiiki' 
 any further declaration of abandoniiient, liiit 1 
 now do so in order to put that lact formally of 
 record, and now again give you notice thereof." 
 The vcs.sel was eventually sold by consent of .•\ll 
 parties interested for jSIoO. In an action on tint 
 pnliiy for a total loss;-- Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the court ludow, that there was not siilli- 
 cient evidence to enable plaintilfs to recover an 
 for a total or constructive total loss of the ves- 
 sel. Per l''ournier, .1. — That the notici^ of 
 abandonmeiit was not given in conformity with 
 the Alt. '25M of the Civil ('ode, and not iimde 
 within a reasonable time. Art. '2.")4I I'ivil Coile. 
 Wisti rii A'"<nraiic(' Co. v. S<Miilan, 13 S. C. R. 
 '2(»7. 
 
 A vessel proceeding on a voyage from Areciljo 
 to Aipiim and theiu^e to New York, eneouiitereil 
 heavy weather, was ilismasted and was toweil 
 into Ouantananio. Tlio underwriters of the 
 freight sent an agent to (iuantanamo to look 
 after their interests, and the master of the ves- 
 sel, under advice from the owners, abandoiieil 
 her to such agent, and refused to assist in re- 
 pairing the damage, and complete the voyage. 
 The agent had the vessel repaired and brought 
 her to New York, with the cargo. On an ac- 
 tion to recover the insurance on the freight:— 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, Strong, .)., dissenting, that there being ii 
 constructive total loss of the ship the action of 
 the underwriters, in making the repairs ami 
 earning the freight, would not prevent the as- 
 sured from recovering. Troop v. McrclmnU' 
 Marine Inn. Co., 13 S. C. R. 500. 
 
 An agent effecting insurance under authority 
 for that purpose only, may, in case of loss, give 
 notice of abandonment to the unilerwriters 
 without any other or special authority. Mcr- 
 chanW Marhw Insnrani'e Co. v. liarsx, 15 i^. 
 C. K. 185. 
 
INSURANCE. 
 
 900 
 
 r to tea ; 
 ju 
 
 t 
 'tU, ^u. V. 
 
 to llg<!lll lit 
 
 lion, wliirli 
 .im:H>llril to 
 mil lor liiiii 
 lldil, thikl 
 ,in iliil iiiit 
 if ubaiuliiii 
 
 :uaiii Itarge, 
 iii(;lior iM'iir 
 runoi!. 'rii(! 
 iwiuk aftiT 
 
 III till! «tiu- 
 
 ill till! Iiilgc 
 1 1 11 1> with II 
 ig liHil conic 
 
 /llO '"HIIICIS 
 
 cy. tlif 
 
 ro mil! 
 
 lii 'le 
 
 f iiiu .i:k. 
 iiMiiriirs won' 
 
 lllldllL'll, tlic 
 
 iir willi tiie 
 for iiiii after 
 
 IHL'l to lllllllr 
 
 iiiieiit, lillt 1 
 it formally of 
 tioi! tlioiTiif." 
 LioiiHoiit of nil 
 action oil tlie 
 iiii« the jiiilg- 
 w as not Kiilll- 
 to recover an 
 
 IS of tho VU8- 
 
 ic notice of 
 iforniity with 
 ml not iiiuilt! 
 
 I ivil C'oile. 
 
 13 S. C. R. 
 
 from Arccibo 
 , oiicouiitured 
 il was toweil 
 
 iteiH of tliu 
 laino to Idok 
 ur of the vea- 
 
 I, iiliaiiiUiiii:'! 
 
 assist ill ii;- 
 e the voyayi'. 
 
 anil brought 
 On an iic- 
 the freight :- 
 the court t)e- 
 there being n 
 . the action of 
 u repairs aud 
 ■event the as- 
 MenhwiW 
 
 jder authority 
 e of loss, give 
 
 umlerwriters 
 ,hority. Mt>'- 
 
 BarsK, 15 S. 
 
 A policy of inHiiranuB on si Mlii|i eontaineil the both ship aii'l caruo, but for tho ilulivuMiico of 
 
 folliiwillg claUMi! : — " In caHit of ivpiirs, the the vessel alone ; tlrit the average ImihI Nii^iiuil 
 
 iiaiial ileiliictioii of one-tliinl will nut be niaili^ , <li>l not biiel the ilefemlants to pity inorn than 
 
 until aftiir nix inontliH from the il.ite of lirit they were linhtfnlly liable to piy, anil the ail 
 
 registration, lint after siirli ilale the ileiliution jiistiiieiil was no obstacle to tint ileti^rmiiiatioii 
 
 will be niaiUi. Ami the insurers shall not be of the rnil li ibility ; ainl tli:tt the ilelemlantH 
 
 liable for a consti ii.tivi! total loss of tlie visk»'1 were liable only to pay what tiny woiihl havo 
 
 ill ease of abambiiiment or othirwiHu, unless the jiaiil to rerover the e irgo by tlii'ir own exer- 
 
 eiiHt of repairing the ve^s(•l, iiniler an ailjiiHt 
 
 inent as of partial loss, lu'eonliiig to the teipis 
 
 4if this policy, shall aiiioiiiit to iiinii.' than haU of 
 
 its value, as ileclareil in this policy." '{'he ship 
 
 being "lix'iblcil at sea put into ]iiirt for repairs, 
 
 whin il v\.is fonml that the cost of repairs ami 
 
 fxpiiises wonhl exceeil more than one-half of 
 
 the value ileclareil in the policy if the usual 
 
 ileiliution of one-thiril alloweil in ailjnstiiig a 
 
 partial loss iimlcr the terms of the policy was 
 
 not made, but not if it was iiiiule ; -llehl, 
 
 alliriiiiii;^ the jinlgiiient of the court below, 
 
 I'uttiison, ,1. (Iisseiitiiig, that the " cost of 
 
 repairs " in the policy ineuut the net anioiint 
 
 afii'i .illowing one tliinl of the auliial cost in 
 
 respect of new for old, according to the rule 
 
 usually followed In adjiisling a |iartial loss, and 
 
 'ions. H'/.i^i'/i .l.i.wnaHcc >'ii. v. Ihilnriii ('mil 
 <:■>., lOO. It. 4(;'.'. Hoyd. Amriiied •_•()(). I!. 29r). 
 
 •Sic I'/iiriii.f /in. Co. V. Aiifhnr Ins. Co,, 4 (). 
 Fl. 5l'4, p. !Htl. 
 
 !.'(. /{I'-liiHiirniiri: 
 
 One IS., who was the agent at Montreal, of 
 the pliiintiir and defeiidaiit companies, aecepleil 
 a risk on a vessel of ?S7,7<M) for the ilefeiidailtH, 
 but as the limit prescribed by them on any one 
 ves.sel was .^"(,(11111 Im had to reiimiire for #2,70<» 
 and he imincili > ly directed his ilerk to write 
 a meiiioraiidiiiii uf application ami acceptance in 
 the books of the plaiiiliirs for a leiiisiiraiicu of 
 S-,7011. ttliieb was done; but the clerk whoHU 
 
 mil the estimated ainoimt of the gross costs of ! duty it was to endorse the particulars on till) 
 the repairs lorniing the basis of an aver.ige j i,|h..|i policy issued by the Vlaiiitills, prep.tre tho 
 ailjustment in ease of claim for partial loss, and j oerliti-atei and report the trans lelhin in tho 
 therefore the cost of repairs did not amount to daily ivtinn, uniiitentionally oinittel to do ho, 
 half the declared value. (.'cmii' v. AV/Vm/j { ami" no n .tiee of thi ie-.nsi"iriiiiee was given to 
 
 Amerinin Aniiiinii<r Cii., mid tiirmr v. Royal 
 Vanadinn lii.t. Co., If) S. C. II. .W4. 
 
 See /'hii'iiix liin. Co. v. Anchor Iuk, Co., 4 
 O. R. r)'24, p. DIM ; ltVs^;vi A.h.h. Co. v. OiiUrlo 
 CmU Co., 19 O. K. 4()2 ; '_>0 O. H. 2!)j, p. 900. 
 
 11. ]iarmti'y. 
 
 Held, (Strong, .1., dissenting) that insurance 
 in a marine policy against loss " by perils of the 
 neas," does not cover a loss by barratry. Jt is 
 not necessary that barratry slionld be ex|)ressly 
 excepted in a inarino policy to relieve the iii- 
 surers from liability for such a loss. O'Cuiiuor 
 V. Merchanix' Mariw Iii-i. Co., 1(5 ,S. C. K. :{;n. 
 
 Per Strong, J.— If the proximate cause of 
 the loss is a peril of the seas covered by the 
 policy, the under writer is liable, though the 
 primary cause may have been a barratrous act. 
 lb. 
 
 12. Are.rwjK. 
 
 A vessel loaded with coal str.inded under 
 stress of weather, and was abandoned as a total 
 loss to the underwriters, tho pi lintill's. The 
 owners of tho cargo, the defendants, proposed 
 to unload at their own ox]>enso, but tho plain- 
 tilTs refused to permit this, and would not allow 
 the defendants to get the cargo without sign- 
 ing an average bond. Upon this, the defen- 
 dants signed a bond which was ex facie imper- 
 fect, and the plaintills took steps to save 
 vessel and cargo by one expedition. They 
 failed to rescue the vessel, but saved the 
 larger j)art of the cargo. They now claimed 
 upon adjustment contribution from the ilefeii- 
 ilants for the expenditure incurred, which was 
 ill excess of the value of the salvage :— Held, 
 tbut the vessel and her cargo were not, when 
 stranded, in a common danger, and the cxpen- 
 ■diture was not for the preservation and safety of 
 
 the plaintllls until after the loss ocenrrcd. After 
 they had iiaid the loss, the plaintllls di.scovereil 
 the irrcgul irity, and tiled a bill to recover tho 
 money as paid under a mistake of fact : — Held, 
 atliriiiiiig the decree of lilake, V. C, 2(1 Chy. 
 2(!4, that the plaiiitill's were not entitled to re- 
 cover, as thu ap|ilication and acceptance of tho 
 risk were, under the circumstances, sullieient to 
 constitute a binding contiact of re-insti ranee. 
 CaiKida Fire ami Xlniiin'. /iii. Co. v. Wvsli'rn 
 A.t.iurdiice Co., H A. R. 244. 
 
 On 1st September, 1SH1, the plaiiitifls insureil 
 the vessel .Slary- Merrilt fur .•?(), (HK) for liftuen 
 days, by acceptance of an application made to 
 them by M. the owner. On the same day a 
 memiirauduni was written in the margin of the 
 application and signed by the manager and sec- 
 retary of the deiendant coiiipiny, that they 
 covered one-fourth, subject to survey and ap- 
 proval at first port of arrival, etc. It was iin- 
 derstoiid that there was an allowance of eight 
 per cent, for particular avi-rage. On 4th April, 
 1881, an agreement had boon entered into be- 
 tween the companies, under which defendants 
 were to cover a fourth part of all vessel risks 
 accepted by plaintiffs ; but it was expressly 
 agreed that the risks covered were only on hulls 
 of vessels not classed below B. I. By defendants* 
 Act of Incorporation, 3.3 Vict. c. 103 (IJoin.), 
 all policies, instruments, etc., issued or entered 
 into by defendants, were to be signed by the 
 president or vice-president, and eouutersigned 
 liy the manager and secretary, or as otherwise 
 directed by the rules and regulations of the 
 company in case of their absence, and so signed 
 they should be deemed valid, etc : — Held, that 
 the plaintifl's could not rely on the agreement of 
 the 4th April, as it was limted to vessels not 
 below B. 1, and the vessel insured had not been 
 classed ; but that the contract was contained in 
 the memorandum written in tho margin of tho 
 application, aud that it was so signed us to be 
 ! binding on the defendants, for that, in the ab- 
 
991 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 992 
 
 993 
 
 —is; 
 
 SRCI 
 
 Mcnce of evidence to the contrary, it must be 
 deemed to be sigiieil in accordance with tlie rules 
 and reguliitions of the company :— Hehl, also, 
 (I), defendants aa re-insiirers were not bcund by 
 the plaintifls' settlement with the owner or the 
 acceptance of the notice of abandonment, an<l 
 that as to them there had lieen no total loss and 
 no valid abandonment ; ('_*) defendants were 
 liable as mion a general average for expenses in- 
 curred by I'laintitls as salvors and insureis in 
 saving the ship, after deducting tlie proportion 
 to be borne by the owners of the vessel and 
 cargo, etc. ; (3; there was no {Hirticular average 
 loss for which the plaintiffs were responsible or 
 towards which defendants were liable to contri- 
 bute. The pleadings were directed to be amended 
 according to the findings ; and the costs appor- 
 tioned. I'lutnix litit. (Jo. v. A nehoi- /«■*. Co. , 4 
 0. R. 524.— Osier. 
 
 14. Dutihle Insurance mid Conlribn/ioii. 
 
 Defendants insured for the consignor cattle 
 from Boston to Lcmdon, Kngland, against all 
 risks, except to be free of paiticular average, 
 unless the vessel be stranded, sunk, or l)urne 1, 
 or in collision. The cattle were consigned to F. , 
 and the consignor drew for £1,740 upon V., who 
 accepted the liill and insured the cattle in Eng- 
 land for £o,0W, seventy-five per cent., against 
 all risks, and twenty-live per cent, mortality 
 was not insured against. It was sworn tiiat I"', 
 had been told by tlie consignor to insure in all 
 eases where they had made advances. After 
 the loss F. received £l,r)0O on account of the 
 l^nglish policies, l)ut hearing tliat an insurance 
 had been eticcted in Canada, and assuming that 
 it would have the anti-contribution clause, so 
 that the first insurance alone would be liable, 
 they returned the money pursuant to an under- 
 tikking which tliey h'ld given, but the policies 
 were not cancelled: — Hehl, that there was a 
 double insurance, for the risk, the interest and 
 the subject were the same, ai«l the ilitl'erence 
 l>etween the several policies as to tlie extent 
 of liability did not vary the risk :— Hold, also, 
 that the defendants were liable to the phiin- 
 tiffs for the whole amount insured, leaving 
 them to recover contril>uti<>n from the other 
 insurers, according to the rule in force in Eng- 
 land and here; but that they were entitled 
 to deduct the .t'l,5()0 ])aid, ancl that this sum 
 having been repaid under a mistake of fact and 
 without prejudici', the plaintiffs might have re- 
 course to the underwriters for it. IJaiik of 
 lirilinh North A imrica v. \Vv-'<tirH Ansuraiice 
 Co., 7 O. R. IGK.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 15. Time for Commence rnvni of Actions. 
 
 A condition in a marine policy that all claims 
 under the poli''y shall be void uidess prosecuted 
 within one year from diite of loss, is a valid 
 condition not contrary to article 2184 C (!., 
 and all claims under such a policy will be barreil 
 if not sued on within one year from ♦^'le date of 
 the loss. — The plaintill cannot rely lu appeal on 
 a waiver of the condition, unliias such waiver 
 hua been properly ,:leadoil. — Per Taschereau, 
 J.— The del)tor cannot stipulate to enlarge the 
 day to prescribe, but the creditor nuiy sti|)nlute 
 to shorten that delay. Allvn v. .VeirhaiUii' 
 Marine int. Co., 15 8. V. R. 488. 
 
 A clause in a marine policy required action to 
 I be brought out on it within twelve months from 
 I the date of depositing claim for loss or damage 
 I at the (itiice of the assurers. A protest was 
 deposited accompanied by a demand for the 
 i insurance. The protest was defective and some 
 I months later an amended claim Wiis deposited :— 
 I Held, alKrming the judgment of the court he- 
 low, that an action begun more than twelve 
 ; months after the original, but less than twelve 
 months after the amended claim, was dep.)sited 
 was too late. Robertnon v. I'w/h, 15 S. C. R. 
 700. 
 
 V. LiFK A.SSURA.NCK. 
 
 I. The Policy. 
 
 Policy not under seal. See London fJfr Anvtr- 
 ana: Co. v. U'/ ij/A<, 5 S. U. R. 460, p. 9.33. 
 
 2. Insiirnhle In/ere^/. 
 
 (1. a])plied to respondents' agent at Quebec for 
 an insurance on his life, and having undergone 
 medical examination, and signed and procured 
 the usual j)apers, which were forwarded to the 
 bead office at New York, a policy was returned 
 to the agent at Quebec for delivery. O. w^as 
 unable to pay the premium for some time, but 
 L., at the request of the agent at Quebec, who 
 bad been entrusted with a blank, executed au 
 assignment of the policy, paid the premium ami 
 took the assignment to himself. Subsequently, 
 L. assigned the policy, and the premiums were 
 thenceforth paid by the assignee. Prior to (J.'s 
 death, the general agent of the company en- 
 quired into the circumstances and authorised the 
 agent at Quebec to continue to receive the 
 premiums from the assignee : — Held (Gwynne J., 
 dissenting), that at the time the policy was 
 executed for G., he in' C'ded to effect a bonil 
 fide insurance for his own benefit, and as the 
 contract was valid in its inception, the payment 
 of the premium when made related back to the 
 date of the policy, ami the mere circumstance 
 that tlie assignee, who did not collude with 0. 
 for the issue of the policy, had paid the premium 
 anil obtaineil an assignment, did not ni:ike it a 
 wagering policy. I '<';(«(» v. Xciv York Life Im. 
 Co., OS. v.. R. 30. 
 
 The statute 14 Geo. HI. c. 4S enacts: I. 
 That no insurance shall be made by any person 
 or persons, bodies politic or corporate, on the 
 life or lives of any person or persons, or on any 
 other event or events whatever, wherein the 
 person or persons for whose use or benefit, or on 
 whose account, such policy or policies shall he 
 made, shall have no interest, or by way of gam- 
 ing w wagering ; and that every insurance 
 made contrary to the true intent anil meaning of 
 this Act shall be null and void to all intents and 
 purposes whatsoever. 2. That it shall not he 
 lawful to make any policy or policies on the 
 lives of any person or persons, or other event or 
 events without iihscrting in such policy or poli- 
 cies, the name or names of the |ieraou or per- 
 sons inieiestid theieiu, or for what use, benefit, 
 or on whose account, such policy is so made <ir 
 underHritten. 3. That in all ciises w hen the 
 insured bath an interest in such life or lives, 
 event or events no greater sum shall be re- 
 covered •)r received from the insurer or insurers 
 
993 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 994 
 
 1 action to 
 tilths from 
 )r damage 
 'otuat was 
 il for the 
 I ami some 
 posited :— 
 
 court be- 
 an twelve 
 lan twelve 
 
 dep.isited 
 .5 S. C. R. 
 
 Life Anmr- 
 ). 933. 
 
 ; Que\)cc for 
 ; undergone 
 1(1 procured 
 irded to the 
 as relnnied 
 •y. (J. was 
 le time, but 
 [uebec, who 
 executed an 
 ireniium and 
 ii)sequently, 
 miums were 
 Prior to U.'s 
 joinpany en- 
 ithorized the 
 roceive the 
 (GwynneJ., 
 
 policy was 
 fleet a bona 
 
 and as the 
 the payment 
 back to the 
 circumstance 
 lude with 0. 
 the premium 
 lot ni:ike it a 
 ork Life Ins. 
 
 eiiaots : 1- 
 aiiy person 
 'irate, on the 
 lis, or on any 
 wlioieiii the 
 beuetit, oron 
 icies shalllje 
 way of gam- 
 ■ry insurance 
 iidnieauiiigof 
 11 intents and 
 _ shall not he 
 idicies on tlie 
 )tiier event or 
 i)olioy or poli- 
 Ijersoii or [ler- 
 tuse, beiiitit, 
 is HO lUiide or 
 ises « lien the 
 life or lives, 
 1 shall be rc- 
 icr or insurers 
 
 than the amount or value of the interest of the 
 iusured in such life or lives or other event 
 or events :— Held, affirming the judgment of 
 the court below, that this statute never was 
 intended to prevent a person from etl'ecting a 
 lioiia tide insurance on liis own life, and making 
 the sum insured payable to whom he pleases, 
 Hiicli insurance not being "by way of gaming 
 or wagering" within the meaning of the first 
 section of the Act : — Hehl, also that seutiou 2 
 of the said Act applies only to a policy on the 
 life of another, not to a policy by a man on his 
 own life. North American Life Am. Co. v. 
 Craitjen, 13 S. C. R. 278. 
 
 3. Payment of Premium and Delirery of Policy, 
 J. M. was insured by a life policy, under 
 
 to accept notes in payment of pruniiunis, and 
 there was nothing shewing notice to the assured 
 of any want of such autliority ; that the non- 
 payment of the note in August, 187!*, while the 
 otlier note was current, did not determine the 
 policy ; and the verdict ought not to be dis- 
 turbed. I'er Armour, J. — The defendants in 
 England had become aware by the returns sent 
 )iy S. of the loibearance granted by him, and 
 had ratified it. Per Hagurty, C. J.— Admitting 
 that S. might accept payment after the proper 
 time he couhl not make a binding executory 
 agreement to give further time, extending per- 
 haps beyond the duration of the life. Mojia/t v. 
 He/ianre Mutual Life Attn. Society, 45 (,>. B. 
 561.— Q. B. D. 
 
 which thirty days' grace were allowed for pay- 
 ment of premiums, and a lapsed policy might be 
 renewed within a year upon jiroof of health, 
 payment of arrears, and a 
 resident seci'etary in t'anada 
 
 By a policy of insurance, dated l.Sth April 
 18()5t, for the payment of the annual premium of 
 .1i29.5(), payable quarterly, the defendiints joint- 
 ly assured the lives of the plaintiff' and his wife 
 in $1,000, and engaged to yay the same on the 
 fine. S. was the j death of the assured when the event ])r(ivi(le<l 
 of the defendants, ' for happened, deilucting therefrom all notes for 
 
 with the powers of a general iiiaiiager, and there ! premiums on the '"Hey unpaid as that time, 
 wajf a local board of directors in (.'imada, but 8. j together with any b.lance of the year's I'leminm 
 niaijaged all ni.itters connected with the receipt ' reiiiainiiig unpaid. And in ca&e the assured 
 of premiums, communicated directly w ith the ! should not pay the said premiums on or before 
 hoard in England, took ' is instructions from j the said several days, etc., and the interest on 
 them, and laid before them monthly accounts all notes on account of premiums until the same 
 
 were paid, the company shoultl not be liable for 
 
 from which it could be ascertained whether 
 jireiniums falling due the preceding month were 
 unpaid. The assured, being unable to pay a 
 premium about to fall due, wrote to S. asking 
 him to take a note at three months. S. replied: 
 " I am sorry you reijuire three months' time, 
 Imt I suppose it mnst be done, although it is 
 against our rules. 1 shall have to take the 
 responsibility myself. I enclose you draft for 
 acceptance, which please return early.'" He 
 also wrote that the company were very par- 
 ticular about overdue premiums. From this 
 time S. accommodated the assured liy taking 
 notes, to which interest was added. On the 9th 
 of August, 1879, K., the cashier of defendants, 
 wrote to the assured, acknowledging the receipt 
 of his letter with a bhink iioti which had been 
 sent to iS. to be filled up for the renewal of a 
 note about to fall due, and saying that S. was 
 ulwent from town, and that as the two |)remiuma 
 of Novemlier, 1878, and May, 1879, were so 
 long overdue he slimild have to reler th'; matter 
 to S. on his return, adding, " until these back 
 |irtniiunis are jiaid the society is oil' the risk." 
 The death occurred on the 'J9tli (Xtidier, 1879, 
 at which time there were two notes outcitanding 
 —one for the premium due 30th November, 
 1S7S, dated 7tli February, and due 10th August, 
 187il, which was unpaid, and one dated 2l8t 
 June, 1879, at six months, for the premium 
 which fell due on the 30th May, 1879, which 
 W!i8 still current. After the death the amount 
 of these two notes were tendered to the defcn- 
 tlanta and refused. S. being examined, said he 
 (lid his best to keep the policies alive, and had 
 no doubt at the time of his authority to do so. 
 The jury found that the notes were taken by 
 the (lefcndants' agent fus cash payments ; that 
 the taking of them was within his authority ; and 
 that he had waived pnyinent njion the dates the 
 premiums were due ; and a verdict was entered 
 for plaintiflF:- -Held (Hagarty, C. J., dissent- 
 ing), that the evidence shewed that it was 
 
 any sum, "with the exception that in case this 
 policy is allowed to lapse, alter one full annual 
 I payment has been tna(ie, the insurance will be 
 continued in force for the period which the 
 ecjuitable value of the policy at the time of lapse 
 would purchase." Payments of premiums were 
 made in cash from 13th April, lS(i9, to, but not 
 incltuling 13tli January, 1874, upon which day 
 the policy lapsed, being for four years and three- 
 fourths of a year, which, by the comjiany'.'* 
 tables under the equitable and non-forfeiting 
 system, extended the policy after the lapse for 
 a period beyond the 2nd January, 1877, when 
 the plaintifi's wife died. It appeai'ed that (U» 
 the 28tli January, 1875, the plaintifl' gave de- 
 fendant's agent a so called promissory note for 
 the four instalments due in lh74, being up to, 
 but not including 13th Januaiy, 1870, which 
 note was payable in three months, and provided 
 that if not paid at maturity with inteiest at 
 seven per cent. , the jioliey should be null and 
 void. It also iippeared that on the 8tli April, 
 1875, during the cuirency of the note, the plain- 
 tiff paid, and the company received paj nieiit iu 
 cash of the premium «bieli fell due on the l.'itli 
 January, 1875. In an action by the ])lainlirt" to 
 recover the amount of the policy : — Held, tliat 
 he was entitled to recover; that by the cash 
 payments made u)) to the 13tli January, 1874, 
 there was a right to the benefits of the policy 
 for such extended ])eriod ; that it could not be 
 deemed to be the intention of the jiarties to 
 abridge such rights by the not« of the 28tli Jan- 
 uary, 1875, but that the ell'ect of non-payment 
 thereof was merely to put the parties iu the 
 same position as if the note had not been given. 
 Per (!alt, J. — To work a forfeiture for the non- 
 payment of a promissory note, as the one in this 
 case, the company must demand payment of it 
 on the day it becomes due, and, if not paid, de- 
 
 clare the policy forfeited or void. Semble, jier 
 
 ^ Wilson, 0. J., the company, by receiving tho 
 
 ■within the authority of the resident secretary | premium in cash for a period subseiiuent to that 
 
 U3 
 
D95 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 938 
 
 cssa 
 er;; 
 
 SNKI 
 
 cot 
 
 5ii 11 
 
 li 
 
 I 
 
 for wliich the forfeiture was claiineil, liacl waived 
 such forfeiture, tlioiigli tiie receipt was l)efore 
 the forfeiture lia 1 aeerueil. IVa/ts v. Al/uiiliv 
 Miitwil Lift III". ('<•■, ."H C. J'. 53.— C. P. \). 
 
 Hy a |)(»lic'y of insurance upon tlie life of .J. X., 
 it was atl|)ul ited th:it if any ]ireniiuni slionhl not 
 he piid wlien due, tlie consideration of the eou- 
 tl'act should lie dcemeil to have failed, and liie 
 ttonipaiiy releascil from lialiility. By another 
 <'lausj, if an overdue jireiniuni w;\8 received, it 
 was to he upon the express condition that the 
 assured was in good iiealth, etc., and if the fact 
 were otJK'r.vise, the policy siiould not he put in 
 foice hy such receipt. A ch-jcjue was given for 
 ,1 ((uarterly preniiuni, witli tlie re(|uest to liohl it 
 for a few days, as there were not then funds, 
 wliich was received hy the agent, hut tbe pre- 
 niiuni receipt was not given up. It was after- 
 wards presented liut not accepted. On the "Jlat 
 Octoher, funds were provided, but it heing then 
 after haiiiving hours, theelie<iue was not present- 
 ed. That iiigiit J. N. was killed : — Hehl, atiirni- 
 ing the decision of the court helow, (4.5 y. H. 
 r>!t;{) that tlie policy lapsed tlie day after the 
 preniiuni fell <lue ; that nothing hut ]iayiiient 
 eould then revive the policy, and tliat tlleie was 
 not any evidence of payiiieiit, or of anything 
 dispensing with it. .N'e/W v. Union Mutual Life 
 Ji.x. Co., 7 A. R. 171. 
 
 On an action on a policy, the appellant eoin- 
 paiiy clainied that the |)iilioy vwis never deliver- 
 <mI, and that the ))reiiiiuni h ul never heen paiil, 
 aii<l that it was not a perfected contract liftween 
 the parties. The policy was sent frcuii Toronto 
 to the agefit at Ilalif i.x, to receive the preniiuni 
 and ciiiintersign the policj' and deliver it to the 
 )iarty entitled. The agent never eount'jrsigned 
 the policy, ami on one side of the policy the fol- 
 lowing ineiiio. was printed : " This policy is not 
 
 valid unless couiiteisigned by , agent at 
 
 , countersigned this d;iyof , 
 
 Agent." The agent, in his 
 evidence, said that he delivered the piili<'y to 
 W. O'l). ), (tln'iiarty a.ssuringhiot countersigned 
 in Older that he might read the coinlitioos, and 
 Kwoie the prcmiuiii had not been paid. The 
 |iolii'y WIS found among W. O'D.'s ])ipeis after 
 iiisdcith, not counter-igiicd. The policy was 
 dated 1st October, 1S7'J, and the lirst j.remiuin 
 would have covered tlic^ y<ar up to the 1st 
 Octoher, 1S7.S. W. O'l). <lie.l the lOlli .July, 
 lH7."i. The c isj was tried before .McDonald, ,1., 
 without a jury, and he gave jiidgmeiit in favour 
 of respondent foi' the SS.OOO, :ind this juilginent 
 was coiitirmcd by the Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia. On appeal to the Siijireine Court of 
 Canada, it was ; Held, (Koiirnier and Henry, 
 d.l., dissenting) that the eviih nee established 
 the fact that the policy had not been de- 
 livered to the assureil as a eoiiiplcteil instru- 
 iiielit. and therefore thecompany was not liable. 
 I'er (Iwyiine, .1., that the in.striiment was de- 
 livered as an escrow to the agent, not to be 
 ■ lelivered as a binding pcdiey to \V. O'l). until 
 the )»ieiiiiiim should be paid, and until the 
 agent should in testimony thereof countersign 
 the policy, and that there was no siilticient evi- 
 dence to divest the iiistrunient of its original 
 cliaraeter of an escrow, ami to lioM the defen- 
 diitits bound by the instrument as one completely 
 executed and delivered as their deeil. Uoii/'nl- 
 (/•(iliiiii l.iff Asnocialiott of Canada v. O'DoiiiwIl, 
 10 S. C. il. \i2. 
 
 In an action on u policy of life insurance, 
 which was not couiiteisigned according to the 
 terms of a memoranduin on its margin, the de- 
 fence was that the premium was never paid ami 
 the policy was never delivered. On the trial 
 the judge admitted in evidence an entry in 
 the booKs of his father nude by the ileeeased 
 holder of the policy, sho'viiig a payment to the 
 agent of the company of an amount eipial Ut Mm 
 )>remiuni, which the evidence showed was p.iid 
 iiy money given to deeeaseil hy his father. He 
 also admitted the evidence of the agent, who 
 h id since tiled, taken at a former trial of the 
 cause, to the ell'ect that the piemiiim was not, 
 ]iaid, and that he would not countersign the 
 policy until it was paid, and that the policy 
 was only given to the decensed to enable him 
 to ex.imine it, and not as a duly-excciitcd 
 policy. The jury found a verdict for the plaiii- 
 titf. Out stated, in answer to a (piestioii suh- 
 inilted by the court, that the agent hud hceu 
 instructed not to deliver the policy until it w.iij 
 couiiteisigned. Tlie Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia athrmed the verdict. On appeal to the 
 Supreme Court of Canada :--Held, per Ritchie 
 C. J. and (Jwyiine J., that the policy was only 
 delivered to the agent as .an e-scrow, and as it 
 j w.is never duly executed and delivered the com- 
 pany was not li.dile. Per Strong J. — That the 
 iiiemoraiidiim as to countersigning was not a 
 condition of the policy, and the ]ilauititl' was not 
 I barred by non-comphince with its terms ; hut> 
 j the evidence of the entry in the liooksof the dc- 
 I ceased was improperly admitted, and there 
 I should be a new trial. Per Kournier and Henry 
 ' J.I. — That the jriliey was jiroperly executed and 
 j delivered, and as there was sullicient evidence 
 j to sustain the verdict independent of the evi- 
 I deuce alleged to have been iinpio|)erly mlmitteil 
 at the trial, the appeal should be dismissed. 
 I Per Henry J. — Under the present practice the 
 ! court is houiul to uphold a verdict if there in 
 [ suliicient legal evidence to sustain it indepcu- 
 j deiitly of evidence improperly received, and 
 [ cannot take into consideration the etfect on the 
 jury of such illegal evidence. Strong. J., coiitri. 
 ; The court being thus divided in opinion a new 
 j trial was granted. Opinions expressed in I ho 
 j Coiifederatiiui Life Association r. O'Dniiiiell (10 
 j S. C. 1!., !)•_>), adhered to. .S. U., l.'l S. (.'. 1!. -Jls. 
 
 A {lolicy of life insurance sued on had in the 
 margin the following printed memo. ; " I'liiu 
 
 jioliey is not valid unless emintersigned by • 
 
 agent at . Countersigned tiiis day 
 
 of Agent." Tills memo, was not liiled 
 
 up, a:\d the policy was not, in fact, eoiinier- 
 signed by the agent. Kvideiice was given of 
 the payment of the preniiuni, and rebutting evi- 
 dence by the company that it had never been 
 paid. The jury found that the premium wm 
 paid and the policy delivered to the insured :i.«a 
 completed instrument, and a verdict was eiiteieil 
 for the plaintifV and allirmed by the Supieina 
 Court of Nova Scotia: - Held, aliirining the jm la- 
 ment of the court below (21 N. S. Rep. I (ill), S.r 
 W. .1. Ritchie, C. .)., and (jwyniie, ,)., dissent 
 iiig, that the necessity of eountcrMigning by the 
 agent was not a condition precedent to'llie vali- 
 dity of the policy, and the jury having hiiiml 
 that the preniiuni was paid their verdict should 
 stand, 'i'lie judgment Oii the former apiaals in 
 this case was, on this point, Kiibstantially ail- 
 hered to. S. C, 10 S. C. it. 717. 
 
9dS 
 
 397 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 isurance, 
 ng to tlie 
 , the (lu- 
 paid luiil 
 
 tlic trial 
 
 entry in 
 
 (ieeeasid 
 int tu the 
 ual t<» tlie 
 
 was ii;iul 
 lier. He 
 igeiit, wlio 
 rial of tlie 
 II was not 
 ursigu tlie 
 tlie policy 
 L-nal>le him 
 y-executi'il 
 
 the phiiii- 
 .'stioii siili- 
 t hail lii'eii 
 intil it w.m 
 
 t of NoVil 
 
 peal to the 
 per Kitcbic 
 jy was only 
 •, and as it 
 utl the iMiii- 
 .—That the 
 was not a 
 iititf was not 
 terms ; hut 
 ksof the lie- 
 , and there 
 !r and Henry 
 jxeenteil and 
 ent evidence 
 [ of the evi- 
 ly lulinitted 
 dismissed, 
 jiractiec tlic 
 t if there is 
 it indepcii- 
 ccived, anil 
 iTect on the 
 ir ■!., contr 1. 
 linion a new 
 ssed in I \w 
 Doiinell (lU 
 ,S.C. It.-'l-l- 
 
 in tliti 
 "Tliiii 
 
 had 
 iiio. : ' 
 
 lied hy 
 
 is day 
 
 wasnotlillcd 
 act, eoniilei- 
 was given <|f 
 
 ilmttinj; e\i- 
 
 never Itecii 
 
 jireniinin was 
 
 le insured as a 
 
 ;t waaeiitciTil 
 
 the Sni>r«iiin 
 iiingthejiidj;- 
 Rep. Il)!t),^>'r 
 e, J., dissent 
 ligning hy tlio 
 nt to" the vaU- 
 
 having toiiii<l 
 
 rcrdict slioiild 
 iiier api><aU in 
 l)8tantially a.l- 
 
 Tlie defendant at the request of the local 
 agent of the plaintiff company applied for a 
 policy of insurance on his life and submitted to 
 the usual medical examination, at the same time 
 telling the agent that he was not then prepared 
 to pay the premium. By the application the 
 defendant agreed to accept the policy when 
 issued, and to pay the premium. The com- 
 pany accepted the application and sent the 
 policy to the agent. It contained an express 
 notice that until payment of the premium it 
 would be considered void ; and by tiie rules of 
 the company the agent had no authority to 
 waive this condition. The agent called upon 
 defendant with the policy, when he said he was 
 still unable to pay the premium, but tohl him 
 to let it lie, a'ul he would attend to it in a little 
 wiiile. 'J'hree or four weeks after this and with- 
 out further comniunicatiou with defendant the 
 agent forwarded the policy to him by mail. 
 The dulendant took no notice of it and the 
 piaintill's brought this actio.; to recover the | 
 preniiuiii as due ujinii a couiplcteil contract of ' 
 insnraiice and a ix'licy <luly issued. The jury [ 
 found tiiat the clefeiulaiit signed tlie application 
 not intending it to be used as an application and ' 
 (III the representation by the agent that it 1 
 would nut be usjil without his consent. The ' 
 judge of the County Court set aside the finding J 
 as being against evidence and directed a new [ 
 trial :~-Held, ])er Hagarty, C. .1. (»., tliat there! 
 being ample evidence to sustain the tiiuliiig of 
 the jury and none to shew that the defendant , 
 had tinally assented to or peifecteil the proposed j 
 insurance a new trial should not have been i 
 granted. I'cr Ihirton ami Patterson, J. .1. A., 
 the action failed because it was brought upon '■ 
 an executed contract and there was no coin- | 
 plelcd contract in fact, as it apjiearcd by the 
 pl.iintills' own declaration lui the face of the 
 )iiiiicy that it was not to be opei.itive until Jiiy- ' 
 iiient of the ])rciniuin : and no waiver of that 
 coiiiliti<ui prioi to or contemporaneously with 
 the delivery to the defendant was proveil. 
 .Inilginent of tlie .Judge of County Court of York 
 reversed. Suit L'iJ'k A-ifiiraiire Co. v. J'd'/i', \o 
 s\. K. TOt. 
 
 4. Miinlalitiii /itr* mill iSiiji/nu.ixion of /•'(((■/.< hy 
 A.s.snriil. 
 
 Tlie application ccuitained a nuniliiu- of ipies- 
 tions and answers, and at the foot was a decla- 
 ration, signed by the issured, that to the best 
 of liis knowledge and belief the foregoing state- 
 ments and other iiarticulars were true ; tnat the 
 dvcliiration slumhl form the basis of the coii- 
 tra-t ; I'lid that if any untrue averiiieiit had been 
 int. ntioiially iiiaile therein or in the replies to 
 the eoiiipany's medical adviser in eoniiectioii 
 tlieiewith, the policy shonlii be void. ]5y the 
 policy the declaration and "relative papers" 
 were inade the basis of the contract, with the 
 piiiviM) that if any fraudulent or wilfully untrue 
 in.iterial allegation was contained in said declara- 
 tion; or if it shouhl thereafter appear that any 
 iiiiiterial inforination had lieeii withheld, and 
 any of the matters set forth had not been truly 
 and fairly stated, then the policy should be 
 void. To the (juestions in the a|iplic ition as to 
 tiie name and residence of usual medical atten- 
 dant, and for what serious illness had heatteudcd, 
 the .issured answered "none"; and to the ques- 
 
 tions by the medical adviser as to what other 
 disease or personal injury and fr'im whom htt<l 
 he received professional assistance, etc., the as- 
 sured answered "none." It was found that 
 these answers were wilfully untrue, and that 
 the information was wilfully withheld from and 
 was material to be stated to the company : — 
 Hehl, that these answers constituted a breach 
 of the express contract between the parties, 
 and therefore the policy was void, llnixdl v. 
 Caiimlu Life Aumiraitcc Co., 3'2 C. P. "256.— C. 
 P. I). 
 
 The pleas setting u)) the above defences were 
 added at tiie trial, and after the case had been 
 in progress for some time. The action was 
 commenced before the Ontario Judicature Act 
 came in force, but tlio trial took place there- 
 ivfter : — Held, that, whether under section 8 of 
 the Administration of .Justice Act, or under Rule 
 128 of the Ontario .Judicature Act, the pleas were 
 properly added. /'/. 
 
 A replication to these pleas set up that certain 
 corrcspondenee between the company's general 
 manager and their local agent, but of which the 
 assured had no notice, directinif tl'e agent to 
 make enquiries as to habiCs, etc., of the assured, 
 upon the result of which the agent wa^ to issue 
 the policy, constituted an agreement that the 
 company would rely on the judgment of the 
 agent alone founded on such enquiries : —Held, 
 that the replication could not be supported, 
 either at law or on the facts. Ih. 
 
 I'er Wilson, C. J. — Where the materiality of 
 certain enquiries is obvious, and is assumed at 
 the trial— as e. g. with regard to the temperate 
 habits or otherw ise of the ileceased — there is no 
 need to submit it to the jury. lli. 
 
 The manager of tiie defendant ccmipany en- 
 tertaining doubts as to the propriety of accept- 
 ing A. It.s a|iplicatioii for a risk on his life, 
 caused the local agent of the company to make 
 further eii(]uiries as to A. U.'s habits, etc. On 
 I receiving a satisfactory report from the agent a 
 I jiolicy was issucil: — Held, that the defendants 
 I were not thereby precluded from relying upon 
 ! the written ajiplicatiuii of A. It. and shewing 
 I that it c(U>taiiicd wilfully untrue statements, 
 j the etl'cct of w hicli was by the express stipula- 
 tions thereof sullicicnt to avoid tlie policy. The 
 judgment of the Coniiiion Picas Division (32 
 C. P. 2oi)), ill oilier respects allirmcd. S. C, 8 
 ' A. K. 710. 
 
 .\t the end of qucsticnis in an ap]ilicalion for 
 I insurance, made in December, 188U, and forming 
 part of the application, was an agreement signed 
 by insured stating that he warranted and guaran- 
 teeil that the answers to the said questions were 
 true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and 
 he also agreed that the application should be the 
 b.asis of his contract, and that any mis statement 
 or suppression of facts in the answers to s.aid 
 (juestions, or in his answers to the medical ex- 
 aminer, should render the policj' null and void. 
 The proposals .viid declarations were also made 
 the oasis of the contract. Kndorsed on said 
 ap)dication were answers given to questions by a 
 nieilical examiner, and at the end thereof a cer- 
 tificate, signed by insured, stating that he had 
 made full, true, and complete answers to the 
 (juestions propounded by said examiner, and 
 
it — ' 
 
 999 
 
 INSUBANOE. 
 
 1000 
 
 ■WmJI 
 
 agreed to accept the policy on the terms ineii- 
 tioned in the application. In answer to a (jnes- 
 tion whether he had had any serious illness, local 
 disease, or personal injury, and if so of what na- 
 ture, insured answered, " No, except a broken 
 leg in childhood." There was an answer to a 
 question giving one T."» name as that of his usual 
 medical attendant, and in answer to another 
 (luestion, whether he liad consulted any other 
 medical man, and if so for what and when, in- 
 sured replied " l>r. A., for a cold." Insured 
 had been thrown from a load of hay, and on his 
 examination, in a suit for damages against the 
 nninicipality, he swore he had been five weeks 
 in bed sufi'ering from his chest and was at that 
 time unfit for work of any kind, and had been 
 attended by three doctors. No mention was 
 made of this accident or of the doctors. In re- 
 ply to a question whether his grand-parents, 
 etc., brothers, etc., ever had pulmonary or 
 other constitutional disease, he replied, "No ;" 
 and he also stated, in reply to (questions as to 
 what disense his brother had died from, that he 
 had died from over-growth. It was shewn that 
 iin elder brother had been treated by Dr. A., 
 some years before, for pidmonary affection, and 
 that insured had said that the brother who died 
 had bled at the lungs and had been ill for some 
 months before he died, insured, also, in answer 
 to a question whether any material fact bearing 
 on his physical condition or family history had 
 been omitted, replied "No." Defendants ad- 
 mitted policy, proofs of death, probate, etc., 
 and accepted burden of proof at the trial, and 
 claimed the right to begin which was refused. 
 On motion in term, copies of letters and docu- 
 ments, signed by the insured, sent to the gov- 
 ernment for leave to remain off a homestead in 
 the North-West, and shewing that he had been 
 .suffering from congestion of the lungs imd ill- 
 ness, from the spring of 1883 to the spring of 
 1884, were produced. It was .sliewn that tlie 
 existence of some such documents had been sus- 
 I)cctcd and that thej' had been searched for in 
 the government offices but could not be found, 
 and that defendants received them the day 
 after the trial : — Held, that the plaintiffs had 
 the right to begin, notwithstanding such ad- 
 missions. Wilson, C. J., reserved the considera- 
 tion of the admission of the new evidence. Per 
 Armour, J. — It could not be received, as it was 
 merely corroborative, and its suspected existence 
 would have been ground for asking to have the 
 trial postponed. I'er Wilson, ('. J. — There 
 should be a new trial. There Wiis evidence to 
 go to the jury as to the truth of answer given 
 respecting the health of the deceased brother. 
 The jury should have been asked to say whether 
 the answer as to inquiries was a misrepresenta- 
 tion in fact : that the certificate meant the an- 
 swers were given upon a knowledge of the facts 
 and upon insured's belief in the truth of those 
 facts ; and a statement made « ithout knowledge 
 would not be protected by the formula, " best 
 of knowledge and belief," if insured had no 
 knowledge ; nor would such statements be pro- 
 tected if made regardless of the insured's b'-lief 
 ill the truth of such knowledge as he ha<l. The 
 proposal was a warranty that the answers were 
 true according to the best of his knowledge. 
 Ter Armour .?. , the <lirection to the jury, whether 
 insured had seated to the best of his knowledge 
 and belief the truth in regard to deceased's 
 brother was suflicieut. As to the accident it 
 
 was one which ought to have been mentioned, 
 but it was probably considered of too little im- 
 portance by insured, or else had escaped his 
 niumory at the time of the a])plication, ami it 
 was sufficient for the jury to have found insured 
 did not wilfully withhold the facts, but answered 
 to the best of his knowledge and belief ; and the 
 proposals were not warranties. The court being 
 equally divided the motion for a new trial was 
 <lismissed, with costs. Atillrr v. Coii/ederatioit 
 Li/e Anxnraiici- Co., 11 O. K. 120.-Q. B. D. 
 Affirmed 14 A. R. 218 ; 14 S. C. K. 330. 
 
 On an application for insurance in a mutual 
 assessment insurance society, the applicant de- 
 clared and warranted that if in any of the 
 answers there should be any untruth, evasion 
 or concealment of facts, any liond granted on 
 such application should be null and void. In 
 an action against the company on a bond so 
 issued, it was shown that the insured had niis- 
 stateil the date of his birth, giving the lOtli 
 instead of the '23rd February, 1835, as such 
 date ; that he hail given a slight attack of 
 apoplexy as the only disease with which he had 
 been atiiicted, and the company contended that 
 it was, in fact, a severe attack ; that he had 
 stated that he was in " perfect health" at the 
 date of the application, which was claimed to 
 l)e untrue ; that he had suppressed the fact of 
 his being subject to severe bleeding at the nose, 
 and that the attack of apoplexy which he had 
 admitted, occurred five years before the appli- 
 cation, when the fact was that it had occurred 
 within four years. The trial judge found that 
 the mis-statement as to the date of birth, was 
 immaterial, as it could not have iiicreuseil the 
 nund)cr of years on which the ])renuuins were 
 calculated ; that the attack of apo[ilcxy was a 
 slight, not a severe attack ; that the applicant 
 was in "good" if not "perfect" health whuu 
 the ap[dication was made ; that the bleeding at 
 the nose, to which the iihsured was subject, was 
 not a disease, and not dangerous to his health ; 
 but that the misstatement as to the time of the 
 occurrence of the attack of apoplexy, was ma- 
 terial, and on this last issue he found for the 
 society, and on all the otheis for the plaintitV. 
 1'hc court in banc reversed the decision ami 
 gave judgment for the phiintitl'on ail the issues, 
 holding tiiat as to the issue found by the trial 
 judge foi- the society, tliei'c was a variaiK e be- 
 tween the plea and the ii|)plicatir)n w liieh pie 
 vented the society from taking advantage ni 
 the misstatement. On a|)peal to the Supienie 
 t'ourt of Canada : — Hehl, (iwynne ami I'attei- 
 son, .)J., dissenting, that the decision of the 
 court in banc, (20 \. S. I!ep. 347) was right, 
 and should be afKrnied. Miittml. Itc/ii i Soriiti/ 
 of Nova , Scotia v. Wclmler, Iti S. C. IC 718. 
 
 The bond of membership in an insurance 
 society, insured the member hohling it " in con- 
 sideration of statements made in the application 
 hereof," etc., and in a declaration aoncxed to 
 the application, the insured agreed that the 
 bond shouKl be voi<l if the statements and an- 
 swers to questions in the apjilication were un- 
 true : — Held, that the api>lication was part cif 
 the contract for insurance and ineor|)orated with 
 the bond. The said declaration warranted the 
 tiuth of the answers to the questions and of the 
 statements therein, and iigree<l that if any of 
 them were not true, full and complete, the bond 
 should be null and void. One of the quest iuns 
 
 to 
 
 ( ( nil' 
 
 11 
 
 Miisre 
 terms 
 of se< 
 be re 
 
 such ( 
 
 inent 
 
 sary 
 
 II 
 
 the pt 
 in case 
 paiiy 
 tioii ; 
 tained 
 •viicii a 
 
 .An a I 
 a]tplieai 
 ind an^ 
 tempera 
 the appi 
 ent fron 
 ■epreiei 
 the life 
 and V(ij( 
 the decl 
 plicatioi 
 this pol 
 I'csuect 
 iiiull ani 
 
 
1000 
 
 lOOl 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 1002 
 
 to \m answered was ; " Have you ever li:u1 any 
 of the following diseases ? Answer opposite 
 each, yes, oi" no." The names of the diseases 
 were given in perpendicular columns, and at the 
 head of each column the applicant wrote "no," 
 placing underit, and opposite the diseases named, 
 marks like inverted commas. On the trial of 
 an action to recover the insurance on a bond 
 i8sue<l pursuant to this apjdicaticm, it was found 
 tliattlie applicant had had a disease opposite to 
 which one of these marks was placed : — Held, 
 iitlirniing t'" judgment of the court helow, that 
 whether the a]>piicant intended this mark to 
 mean "no," and tlnis to deny that he had had 
 Nuch disease, or intended it as an evasion of the 
 • .|iie»tion, the bond was void for want of a true 
 answer to tiie tjuestion. J'itzr(iiiilol/>h v. Mutual 
 IMie/Sonily of Xot-a Scotln, 17 S. C. li. 3.S3. 
 
 An unconditional life policy of insurance was 
 issued in favour of a third party, creditor of the 
 iissure<l, "upon the representations, agreements 
 and stipulations" contained in the application 
 f(ir the policy signed by the assured, one of 
 which was that if any misrejjresentation was 
 ina<Ie by the ajjplicant oi' untrue answers given 
 liy him to the medical examiner of the company, 
 then in such a case the premiums ])aid would 
 become forfeiteil and the policy be null and void. 
 Upon the death of the assured the person to 
 whom the jiolicy was made payable 8\ied the 
 company. an<l at the trial it was proved that the 
 answers given by the applicant as to his health 
 were untine, the insurer's own medical atten- 
 dant stating that the insured was a life not insur- 
 able : —Hehl. 1st, that the policy was thereby 
 made void ab initio, au<l the insurer coulil in- 
 voke sncli nullity against the person in whose 
 favrmr the pcdicy was made ])ayable and was not 
 obliged to return any part of the premium paid. 
 \'niii>r v. Sim Lljc //i.s. Co., 17 8. C. II. 3!)4. 
 
 Hehl, tliat the statements constituting the 
 niisrej)resentations being referred to in express 
 tonus in the body of the policy, the provisions 
 of sections 27 and 'JS R. S. C. c. 1;U, eoul.l not 
 be relied on to validate the policy, assuming 
 siicii enactments to be intra vires of the Parlia- 
 ment of t'ana<la, which ])oint it was not neces- 
 sary to decide. //(. 
 
 Held, that the indication by the assured of 
 tlie |)erson to whom the jmlicy should be paid 
 in ease of death, and the consent by the com- 
 pany to pay 8>ich person, did not effect nova- 
 tion; Art. 1174 ('. <)., and the provisions con- 
 tained in Art. IISOC. C are not applicable in 
 such a case. Ih. 
 
 5, A roiiliii<i Policy hi/ fntemperana, 
 
 .\u a)ipIication for life insurance signed by the 
 »|)plicant contained in ad<lition to the ijuestion 
 and answer, viz. : Are your habits sober and 
 tenij)erate V A. Yes, An agreement that should 
 tlie applicant become as to habits so far ditfer- 
 ent from the condition in which he was then 
 rcpre-tented to be as to increa.se the risk on 
 tile life insured, the policy should become ntdl 
 Hud v<iid. TIk' policy stated that "if any of 
 the declarations or statements made in the a])- 
 plication of this j)(diey upon the faith of which 
 this policy is issued shall be fouiul in any 
 I'esuect untrue, in such case the policy shall be 
 mull unil void." On uu action on the policy by 
 
 an assignee", it was )>roved that the insured be- 
 came intemperate during the year preueding his 
 death, but medical opinion was divided as to 
 whether his intemperate habits materially in- 
 creased the risk : -Held on the merits per 
 Ritchie, V. J., and Strong, J., (Fournier and 
 Henry, J.J., contra,) that there was sufficient 
 evidence of a change of habits which in its 
 nature increased the risk on the life insured to 
 avoid the contract. Jioyci' v. Phn'iiix Mutual 
 Llfi: IiiH. Co., 14 8. C. H. 1-23. 
 
 G. Paijincnt in Cast of Total DiHahilUy. 
 
 The plaintiff, who was a farmer, had his life 
 insured by the defendants, and there was a 
 clause in the policy or certiHcate of insurance 
 ' providing that in case of "total disability " of 
 the insured the insurers would pay him one-half 
 \ of the amount of the insurance. About two 
 i years after effecting the insurance the plaintiff 
 ' conveyed his farm to his son, reserving to him- 
 self and wife certain benefits, but continued to 
 work u])on the farm for alxiut a year thereafter, 
 when he was attacked by bronchitis and asthma. 
 ! In an action to recover one-half the amount of 
 ' the insurance the evidence showed that the 
 plaintiff was totally disabled, permanently and 
 for life, from doing manual labour, and th.at the 
 diseases from which he suffered were the proxi- 
 i mate and innncdiate cause of his disability. A 
 I medical witness said that he considered the 
 plaintiff's condition attributable to a consider- 
 : able extent to his advanced years, he being 
 about seventy: Held, that total disability to 
 ' work for a living was what was intended to be 
 ' insured against, an<l disability from old age was 
 not excluded, and the evidence showed that the 
 ])laintitt'came within the terms of the certificate. 
 j The arrangement made by the plaintiff with his 
 son after the certificate was issued could have 
 no effect upon the prior contract of insurance. 
 DoiliU V. Ctiiiailiiiu Mutual Aid Association, 10 
 O. R. 70.— (/.B. I). 
 
 7. AHu'ii/nmeiit of. 
 
 The aiipellant's intei'est in the policy was iis 
 assignee of Uame M. H. B., the wife of one 
 t'harles L., to whom the insured had transferred 
 his interest m the policy on 27th October, 187(i: 
 — Held, per 8trong, Taschereau and Gwynne, 
 •)J., that the appellant had no locus standi, 
 there being no evidence that M. H. B. had been 
 authorized by her husband to accept or transfer 
 said policy, /ioi/cf v. Plufnix Mutual Life lux. 
 Co., 14 8. C. R.'723. 
 
 See Vi'-dna v. N< w York Lije Jni. Co., 6 H. C. 
 1!. 3(J, p. 992. 
 
 8. liectifyinij Miilah- in Policy. 
 
 Action to recover the amount of a policy of 
 insurance issued by the appellants for the sum 
 of .*2,000, payable at the death of the respon- 
 dent, or at the expiration of eight years, if hu 
 slumld live till that time. The ]U'emiuin men 
 tioiied in the policy was the swm of !$l(i3.44, to 
 be ])aid annually, partly in cash and partly by 
 the respcmdenfs notes. The appellants by their 
 plea alleged that the insurance had been effected 
 for $1,00<J only, and that the policy hiul by uiis- 
 
 III 
 

 1003 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 1004 
 
 ■"is; 
 cs:: 
 
 
 s: 
 
 m 
 S 
 
 
 take been iasiied for §2,000 ; tlmt as soon ivs tlie 
 inistiike had beon discoveruil, thoy had offered a 
 pf>licy for $1,000, and that previous to the in- 
 stitution of tlie action, tiioy liad tendered to the 
 respondent the sum of .*S;i'2.!t7, being the amount 
 due, which sum, witli .'S'2"). I.") for costs (wliicii 
 had not been tendered), tlicy brought into court. 
 Since October, 18()!>, when a new policy was 
 iiffereil, the ))reniiums wine paid l)y the rcspoii- 
 4lent and accepted l>y tlie appellants, under an 
 agreement that their rights woulil not tliereby 
 Ik! prejudiced, and that ttiey would abide by tlu^ 
 dtrcision of the courts of justice, to be nbtaincd 
 alter the insurance should have become due and 
 payable. Parol e\ idence was given to slicw how 
 the mistake occurred, and it was established 
 that the premium paid was in accordance with 
 company's rates for a SI, 000 policy : — Held, 
 that the insurance effected was for SI ,000 only, 
 and that the policy had by mistake been issued 
 for $2,000. .Etna Life lii.i. Co. v. livodie, 5 
 S. C. HI. 
 
 See Wrh/ht v. Sun MatitaJ Life Ax-iiirance Co., 
 ■> .\. R. 218 ; 5 S. C. 1!. 4Cti, p! 033. 
 
 9. For Benefit of DV/e and Chi/ilreii. 
 
 In 1808, M. effected a policy on his life for the 
 benefit of his daughter, wlio intermarried with 
 the plaintiff, and jiredeceased her father, having 
 beipieathed her interest in such policy to the 
 plaintiff (her executor) in trust for her only 
 child. M.'s wife died, and in 1877, prior to the 
 mari'iage of his daughter, he mari'icil the defen- 
 dant. In 1884 M. dieil intestate, leaving the 
 defendant, his widow and one child surviving, 
 without making any other disposition of his 
 life policy. In an action by plaintiff against 
 defendant, the widow and administratrix of M., 
 it was:— Held (aftinniiig 10 O. R. 283), that the 
 insurance money formed part of the personal 
 estate of M., and us such was payable to defen- 
 <l.int. Wichteed v. Mnnro, 13 A. R. 480. 
 
 A testator insured his life for the benefit of 
 his wife and children. The policy provided that 
 the money should be payable as mi^iit be direc- 
 ted by will. The testator by will '^pointed 
 executors, and gave his wife the income of his 
 estate for life and after her death, the coi'ims to 
 his son. The executors renounoeil probate, and 
 after revocation of a prior grant to the son, who 
 was then a minor, adniinisti tion was granted 
 to the defendant P. The policy provided that 
 the money might be payable to the executors or 
 administrators. The Act, 47 Vict. c. 20 (Out.), 
 providcfj that such policy moneys to which in- 
 fanta are entitled, shall be jiayable to a ' ' trustee, 
 executor, or guardian.'' P. claimed the moneys 
 as administrator, whereupon the insurance com- 
 pany under section 15 of the Act, and G. O. 107, 
 and Rule 541a 0. J. Act, applieil to the M ister- 
 in-Ordinary in Chambers for leave to p.vy the 
 money into court. The Master held (1) that 
 voluntary applications to pay in money may be 
 made in chambers ; (2) That under Rule .'>41a 
 O. J. Act, he had jurisdiction by virtue of the 
 administratior* proceedings before him, to make 
 the order ; (3, That by the renunciation of the 
 executors, there was no " trustee, executor, or 
 guardian competent to receive the share of the 
 infant ;" (4) 'That the Act excluded the admin- 
 istrator fron^ Any claim tu the fund, and his re- 
 
 ceipt would not be within the protection of the 
 statute ; (5) That the administrator was not a 
 
 I trustee by the will, except as holding surplus 
 assets, after administration with notice of trust ; 
 (6) That the money was no part of the estate 
 
 ' subject to the control of creditors, and when 
 |)aid in, should be " ear marked," and not mixed 
 
 ; with the other funds of the estate. On appeal 
 by the administrators P. , Pioudfoot, J., made 
 an order directing that the money in court be 
 ])aid out to the insurance company. Merrliaiit.i' 
 liduk V. Monto'ilh — Kx parte Slavdmd Life. 
 Assiiranci'. Co., 10 P. R. •588. — Hodgins, .MaMcr. 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 The husband of the defendant, while a bacli- 
 
 ': elor domiciled in this province, had, in the 
 
 i years 1871 and 1870, effected three policies of 
 insurance on his life with companies whose head 
 offices in Canada were at M., in the Province of 
 Quebec, where the insurance moneys were pay- 
 able. After his marriage, while still domiciled 
 in this province, he endorsed declarations on the 
 
 I policies in favour of defend-int, and handed 
 them to her. .After his death the insurance 
 
 I moneys were claimed by the defendant and by 
 the plaintiffs as adniinistrator of his estate, 
 against which there were ereilitors : — Held, 
 
 I that the endorsetnents on the jiolicies were 
 governed by the law of this province. Lee /•. 
 Abdy, 17 Q. R. I). 30!), followed :-Held, how- 
 ever, that as defendant's hiisliand was not a 
 
 , " married man " at the time he effected the 
 policies, he could not (not being within the 
 exception provided in 47 Vict. c. 20, s. 2) witli- 
 
 . draw from the claims of his creditors the benefit 
 of the policies effected before inarringe by en- 
 dorsements or ileclarations after marriage for 
 
 , the benefit of his wife, and the plaintifl's were 
 entitled to the insurance nioncys. Torrnihj 
 (.'till red Trii.'iU Co. v. Siirt/l, 17 O. R. 442.— 
 Ferguson. See 53 Vict. c. 3!). 
 
 ' The "Act to secure to Wives and CliiMreu 
 the JJenefit of Life Insurance," 47 Vict. c. 2(1 
 (Out.), applies to insurances in societies iiicor- 
 
 I |)oratcd uniler the Henevident Societies Act, 
 H. S. O. (1877) c. 107. ReOHeron, II P. H. 
 
 j 422, overruled. .ludgineiit of Proudfoot. .1.. 
 reversed. Burton, ,1. .A., dissenting. Siri/'l v. 
 
 ! /'rnriiirifil I'rnriiliiif /iffifiilioii, 17 A. It. (id. 
 
 ; See 51 Vict. c. 22. 
 
 I VI. Accident Life Assurance. 
 
 I In an accident policy, it was provided that 
 ' the insurance should not extend to .iny bodily 
 
 injury where the death or injury might have 
 
 happened in conseipience of voluntary exposure 
 ' to unnecessary danger, hazard, or ])crilous ad- 
 , venture, or of violating the rules of any coin- 
 ' pany or corporation, etc., or while engaged in, 
 
 or in consequence of any unlawful act ; that the 
 I insured should use all due diligence for personal 
 I safety and protection, etc. ; and that standing 
 1 or walking on a railroad track, were hazards 
 
 not contemulated or covered by the contract. 
 I The insured was killed Ijy being run over by 
 j an engine while, contrary to the rules of the 
 1 Northern Railway Company, and the statute 42 
 I Vict. c. 9, s. 16, snb-88. 5, (! (Dom.), diiving a 
 j horse and buggy on the private grounds of the 
 I railway company at a place where there was a 
 
 network of tracks, and where it was most dan- 
 
1005 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 100» 
 
 porous to bo : — Held, that there coiilil l>e no 
 pToverv, iiiid ii iioii-siiit was entered. Xeill v. 
 Trai-e-li'erx' Im. Co., 31 C. P. 394.-C. P. 1). 
 
 On nppoal tlio decision of tlie Court of Com- 
 moil Pious, Hupra, tlio cimrt lieing eiiually 
 iliviile', wasdisniisscd. witli cimtn. Per Uagiirty. 
 ('. .1., and ('nrueron, J. Tiie evidence nlu'\vcd 
 that tlii^ dcceHHcd h^id voluntarily gone nnnccis- 
 strily into a place of danger. Per Hurton and 
 i'iitter.s n, .(■!. A. In an action upon an acciilent 
 policy t\w |ilaiiitiif having proved a claim |)riiiia 
 fiicie within the policy, it w.is for the delendaiits 
 to shew tliiit the deceased voluntarily exposed 
 liiniself to nil necessary dfinger or one of the 
 otiier defences set up. The nonsuit tliercfoie 
 was improper and a new trial shoidd have hci.'n 
 tjiaiitcd Onc! of the eonilitions of the ])olicy 
 was tliat the in.sured should not stand or walk 
 on .1 radwav track. Per t'luniron, .1., iiiid 
 .«oiiilile j)er Ifagarly, ('. J. Such condition was 
 liroken liy the insured driving on, not simply 
 crossiim, a rail\v;iy track in a lingsjy. Per Ilur- 
 ton, J. A. Such condition was intruded to 
 ajiply to the case, eonimon in Canada, of jiersons 
 using the railway tracks as roadways, and could 
 not he considered as applying in every ('ase of 
 an ;iccidint to the insured wliile on siicli track. 
 •V. C, 7 A. H. STO. AlKnned in the Supreme 
 Court 1'2S. C. R. 55. 
 
 \'l\. ApMI.NISTIiATION (IK I.NSIH.VXCK C'oM- 
 I'ASVV DkI'OSIT. 
 
 .T. M. find K. M., his wife, were jointly in- 
 sured in the defendant's company, whose deposit 
 W1W1 l>eing administered under R. S. <). , ( IS77) c. 
 HiO, SB. 21 , 'tl. On 4th February, J. M. , without 
 the assent of F. M., signc<l and .sent to the 
 receiver a claim for rebate as empowered under 
 that Act. No acknowledgment of tlie receipt 
 of this claim was given l)y the receiver, who. on 
 27tli February, sent J. M. and tiie other policy 
 holder a circular notifying them of an agreement 
 for re-insurance, and that if they objected there- 
 to, and desired to claim for reliate, they were 
 to ilo so befoi-e loth March. On •i4th February 
 i\w. property was! burnt, and .1. M. forthwith 
 claimed for the whole loss : - Held, that neither 
 ,1. M. nor F. M. were hound by the former's 
 claim for rebate. That it A'as not a iclcase, but 
 an invalid attempt by one to exerci.se a joint 
 stitutory power ; or else an attempt to nnvUe a 
 new contract, which was not authori/ed by one 
 of the jinrties, and wiia not acceptcil ))y the 
 receiver before the hiss occurred. (iianting 
 tliat a release by one joint tenant would ex- 
 tinu'iiish the right of both, it does not follow 
 th;it entering into a new agreement by one will 
 jirejudico the right of the other. Clitik' v. 
 Uii'mii /''ire fiix. Co. — Mrl'lli'i's t'/aim,(iO. H. 
 G3."). Prondfoot. 
 
 I'endipg administration of the deposit of the 
 U. Insurance Company under i!. S. (). (1S77) 
 c. KiO, ss. -I, 2"2, antl after the comidetion of 
 the leceiver's schedule ju'escrilied by tin,' Act, a 
 reinsurance was elfecteil with the A Insurance 
 conip.iiiy of all the U. company's risks, in con- 
 sideration of w liicli the U. company gave the 
 A. company its note. This note not l>eing paid 
 at maturity, the A. company sought to be 
 placed on the dividend sheet of the U. company 
 for dividends accrued or to accrue :— Hehl, that 
 
 it was entitled to the relief asked, for properly 
 viewed the subject of the claim existed before 
 the sche<lnle, though in a ditVerent shape, since 
 by the arrangement with the A. company, nnide 
 with the assent of jjcrsons entitled to rebates, 
 the liability of the U. company in respect to 
 rebates was gieitly reduced, .nnd to that extent 
 the A. company should bo taken to he subrogated 
 to tlie position of the policy-holders of the U. 
 conip.iny. darhi' v. I'liimi Fin' liii. Co. — 
 Claim ii/'/hi' Ai/ririil/iirnl Fin lii^. Co. >>j' JIVi^^c- 
 Iku;,, yn,' Yiirk, (i O. H. (i4(). -Prondfoot. 
 
 Canadian policy holders pctitiimed for dis- 
 tribution of the deposit made by the com- 
 ))any, a foreign corporation, with the Minister 
 of Finance under 31 Vict. c. 48 (Dom.) and 'M 
 Vict. c. !) (Dom. ), the company being insolvent : 
 -■ Held, that they were entitled to the lelief 
 asked, not withstaniling that proceedings to wind 
 up the company were pending before the F.ng- 
 lish courts. The above Acts are not ultia virca 
 of the Dominion Parliament. For any balance 
 of their claims not covered by ; he deposit, 
 Canadian policy holders would be entitled to 
 rank upon the general assets of the companj'. 
 AV Uritoii Miilicdl mill, lli'.nfral Lii'f. A-^m. 
 {lAiniti'd) (2).— 12 0. R. 441.-Proudfoot. 
 
 The detinition of " Canadian policy " and 
 "policies in Canada" in 34 Vict. c. !), s. 1 
 (Dom.) is not to be interpreted to mean that 
 the deposit is only for the security of policy- 
 holders whose policies were issuetl after the 
 deposit was made antl license to transact busi- 
 ness in Canada obtained. lb. 
 
 IX. FsTOPrKi, IN Contracts of Insuran(;k. 
 
 See Quinlan v. Union Fire lux. Co., 31 C. P. 
 ()18; 8 A. R. 37(5, p. 949; ll'Wr//(^ v. London Li/'fi 
 .l.s.«. Co., ."1 A. l\. 218, ,5 S. C. It. 4()(!, p. 933 ; 
 .Mrlntijre v. Xntioniil In-t. Co., 5 A. R. .'180, p. 
 974 ; Ovinliini Se.riiritii'i Co. v. ( 'aviiilo Fire. 
 Mntiiid Ins. Co., 1 O. R. 494, p. 940 ; I'hillipt 
 v. (,'iand I'irir Farmers' Miihinl Ins (Jo., 40 Q. H. 
 334, p. 9.')2 ; Fiir /iis. Ass. {L'liiiti'd) v. Caniida 
 Fire find Af urine Ins. Co., 2 O. R. 481, p. 972; 
 I'ns.M'U. V. Canada Life A ■■is, Co., 8 A. R. 716, 
 ]». 998 ; Caldnrll v. Sladnrona Fire iinil Life 
 Ins. Co., II S. C. R. 212, p. 905; L'oi/al Ins. 
 Co. V. /ii/ers, 9 O. R. 120, p. 968 ; XuHonul 
 Fire Ins.' Co. v. McLaien, 12 0. R. 082; (,'/•<(//«)«. 
 V. Oiitnrio MutunI Ins. Co., 14 O. R. 358, p. 954 ; 
 (7)7// of London Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith, 15 S. C. R. 
 09, p. 950: Ciivsiiiean v. Cifi/ of London Fire. 
 Ins. Co., 15 0. R. .329, p. 971 ; Ilorlon v. fro- 
 riniiol Frovidinl Institnlion, lOO. R. 382; 17 O. 
 K. 3()l, p. 153; Wi/iniin v. Imptriid. Ins. Co., 
 Hi S. C. R. 715, p'939; Mrlnti/n- y. East Wil- 
 liams Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 18 0. R. 79, j). 960;. 
 Wells V. Suprenie Court of the /. O. of Foresters, 
 17 O. R. 317, p. l.")2 ; Coekhurn v. British Ameriea 
 Ass. Co., 19 O. R. 245, p. 937. 
 
 X. MiSCKLLANEOU.S CaSES. 
 
 Defendants were a foreign insurance coinjjany 
 doing business in Ontario and having a head 
 ottice for the province in Toronto. The writ of 
 summons was served on the local agent of the 
 defendants' company at Ottawa : — Held, that 
 the service was good. Wilson v. ..Etna Lifr 
 Am. Co., 8 P. R. 131.— Dalton, Q.C. 
 
1007 
 
 INTEREST ON MONET. 
 
 lOOS 
 
 -MS! 
 
 «:» 
 
 MtV 
 
 er;; 
 
 mm 
 
 -< 
 
 Api>niiitinciit of trustee to receive insurance | 
 moneys for infants. fSee lli' Thin, 10 I*. R. 490. I 
 
 Right of <lcfeii(lunts to deduct amount of in- [ 
 surance money from (lamaj,'es assessed in actions 
 of negligence. See Grniitl Tniid' R. W. Co. v. . 
 
 ihckiti, k; s. r. R. 713 ; v^ a. w. 174; 8 O. R. 
 
 601 ; (iniml Tnink- K. IC. Vo. v. Jennimit, 15 A. 
 R. 477 ; 13 App. Cos. %Wi;Bron'n v. MiRae, 17 
 O. R. 712. 
 
 IJask- 
 
 8. 
 
 !). 
 
 10. 
 
 INTEREST ON MONEY. 
 
 J. Itix'ovF.nv OK Intkrkst. 
 
 1. Vciiemtly, 1007. 
 
 2. h'lom W'IhiI Time, lOOS. 
 
 3. Ai W/int Rale, 1000. 
 
 4. Uiiih'r IiiMiilniit A rts — .V(c 
 
 KlI'TCV AND InsOI.VKNCY. 
 
 Ti. On /m/n or Xii/ti—Sii' Bii.i.s ok Kx- 
 
 (•H.\S<)K AND I'HO.MISSOHY IS'oTKS. 
 
 (!. On Insurtinre f'oHviex — .SVc iNsrii- 
 
 ASCK. 
 
 On Cih^/s — Shi t'osTS— .SdUcrroK. 
 On Jndiinii ntx — .SVf Jl'Dii.MKNT. 
 On Moiilfii<l<s — .SVc M0RT(iA(JE. 
 
 On Dchln Bnrr-d hi/ Tiint — Sfe Lm- 
 
 ITATION OK ACIIONS. 
 
 11. On Miiney in Conrt — .S'tc Payment. 
 I'i. On Side of Land — Sk Sale of Land 
 Sale OK Land uy Order ok the 
 
 COIRT. 
 
 13. On Lands Kipropriated hi/ Rnilwaif 
 Coni/ianieK—See. RAILWAYS AND KaIL- 
 
 w AY Companies. 
 
 II. LlAllILlTY OK EXECITORS AND ADMINIS- 
 TRATORS KOR — See. ExECUTOR-s and 
 Administrators. 
 
 III. LiAiuLiTY OF Trustee-s voK—Ste Trusts 
 and Tru.stees. 
 
 I. Rkcovery of Interest. 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 Interest on arrears of annuity. .See Croni, v. 
 Crone, 27 Chy. 425, p. 23 ; Snitrr v. Radtnaih, 
 10 O. R. 131. 
 
 Interest on improvements made under a mis- 
 take in title. See Faiixtfl v. liiirin 11, 27 Chy. 445, 
 p. 896; MunMlii v. Lindsai/, 11 O. R. 520, p. 899. 
 
 The circumstances under which interest on a 
 claim onght to he allowed or refused in the 
 master's office considered and acted on. .See Re 
 Ro-^s, 29 Chy. 385. 
 
 In an action against the sureties of an al>- 
 Bconding assignee in insolvency on the assignee's 
 bond a verdict was entered for $800, subject to a 
 legal ((Ui'Ht ion, which was afterwards decidetl in 
 favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed that in 
 case of such a decision, the verdict should be 
 entered for $700 : - Held, that the verdict was not 
 for a debt or sum certain within R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 50. 8. 2($9, and that it should not carry in- 
 terest frr>m its entry. Woodruff' v. Cannda 
 Omrnidie Co., 8 P. R. 5.32.— Hag'arty. 
 
 It is not usual to allow interest on cluhiix 
 where there is no fraud, or wilful withholding 
 of accounts, oidy a loose mode of dealing Ih;- 
 tween the parties. The discretimi under wliicli 
 a jury may allow interest applies to the uinstcr's 
 otifice. /{f KirkiHtlrirk — Kirkpalrirk v. Slerru- 
 Hon, U) P. 11. 4. — Hodgins, Master in-Ordinari/. 
 
 The plaintilTs were sureties to a bank fur \ 
 debt dni! by a company, and for which the bank 
 held other notes as collaterals. Uniler a special 
 agreement made in a prior suit, the reteiver in 
 such suit deposited the proceeds of such colla- 
 terals ill such bank subject to the ordi'r of this 
 court, riic iil.iintifTs >'lainu!il to apply the pro- 
 ceeds so deposited to reiluce the debt of the 
 cnm])iuiy, but the bank refused so to apply tliciii 
 without an order of court : — Meld, (I) tint the 
 bank was constituted a stakehtdder of sucli 
 moneys, and could not so aitply them without 
 the s Miction of the court : (2) tluit the bank was 
 not cliiirgeable with inteiest on the moneys mi 
 de])ositcd, even though it might have made a 
 profit on such monevs. Ilnllon v. Fiihrnl Itnnl; 
 9 P. R. JCiS.— Hodgins, MiiM'r. 
 
 Held, following Qninlan r. Gordon. 20 Chy. 
 A|i]). 1., that overcharges beyond the lawful 
 rate of int<M-est, if paid, cannot be recovered 
 back, or applied in reduction of a debt claimed 
 to be flue. Ih. 
 
 In a foreclosure suit a decree Mas made in 
 November. 1877, and a final order of foreclosure 
 obtained in .June, 1878. In October, I8S2, a 
 petition was i)resciitcd by the defendants to 
 open the foreclosure, which was dismissed, (2 
 O. It. .S4S. ) The Court of Appeal reversed this 
 decision making an or<lertoopen the foieclosure 
 on the usual terms of jiaying principal, interest 
 and co.sts, including the plaintift's' costs of op- 
 {)osing the petition, (10 A. R. 99) : — Held, atiirni- 
 ing the decision of the nuister-iu-ordiiiary, that 
 the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the 
 whole amount of principal, interest, and co.sts 
 as found by the ilccree of November. 1877 •■-- 
 Held, also, reversing the decision of the master- 
 in-ordinary, that the ])laintitf8 were not entitled 
 to interest on the taxed costs of opposing the 
 petition to open the foredosiu'c. for these costs 
 were not recoverable by force of the order made 
 on the petitiim, which was reversed, but simply 
 owing to the direction of the Court of Appeal. 
 TriHity Culin/i- V. Hill, 8 (». R. 286.-l{oyd. 
 
 Interest .as damages. See Mi nnir v. Li.ilrh, 
 8 O. R. .S97, 1). 47(>. 
 
 A tivxing officer has no authority to uliavge a 
 Sfdicitor with interest upon moneys ni liis hands 
 behmging to his client. Re O^Oonohoi-, A .S'o'i- 
 ri/or, 12 P. R. 012.— Armour. 
 
 Interest on charges on land paid by oi^Mipant 
 under mist.ike of title. .See Mnn^ir- v. Lin'lsny, 
 
 1 1 O. R. 520, i>. 899. 
 
 See Windier ITolil Co. of Mvnirtiil v. ( 'r I'.f, 
 
 12 S. C. R. 024, p. 495. 
 
 2 From What Time. 
 
 Interest allowed from the time when the 
 last call on stock became due. See I'rn.'inr.iiU 
 Ins. Co. v. Citnieroii, 31 C. 1'. 623, p. 2.'..*. 
 
1008 
 
 1009 
 
 INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE 00MPAN7. 
 
 1010 
 
 nn claiiim 
 itiilioltling 
 Billing 1)v- 
 (lui° w liicli 
 u innHtcr's 
 v. .SVeivK- 
 < hdiiiarii. 
 
 ■auk fill- i\ 
 li tlut IkuiU 
 .'X ii special 
 ri'ieiver iii 
 HiKth colla- 
 
 tllT of till! 
 
 ly tlic jMci- 
 vlit of tliu 
 ipply tlH'iii 
 I) til it tU« 
 !!■ of Knell 
 III without 
 e liaiik was 
 liioiify-H ^'t 
 .\i! inaclu a 
 /(■/•(i/ lliiiil; 
 
 111. 20 Cliy. 
 the lawful 
 ; reooviTod 
 flit daiiiii'il 
 
 us made in 
 ' fovt'idosuri! 
 icr, IMS'.', a 
 fuiiilaiits to 
 isiuisseil, (2 
 eviTseil this 
 foreolosuve 
 iivl. interest 
 
 L-osts of 0|l- 
 
 Hulil. affirm- 
 liiiary, that 
 rest on the 
 , and costs 
 1877: - 
 the master- 
 not entitled 
 p)M)8in;; the 
 these costs 
 irder made 
 Imt simply 
 of Appeal. 
 Hoyd. 
 
 V. I.etlrli, 
 
 to cliarjie a 
 II) his hands 
 ilioi', A .S'o'i- 
 
 ly (>i^(Mipaiit 
 V. 1/ni'hiiy, 
 
 till V. Cri't, 
 
 when the 
 J l'fii,-iiu:'i:U 
 2.-».'. 
 
 Interest on legacy. See Tourney v. Tract'i/, 4 
 O. R. 708. 
 
 Where no claim for arrears of interest is 
 specially made by the pleadings, and where 
 there is no covenant to pay interest, only six 
 yrears' arrears can be recovered. Wi/f.i/ v. Led- 
 yard, 10 P. R. 182.— Hodgins, Mmtir-ii,-Ordi- 
 iiarij. 
 
 The bond contained u stipulation that in the 
 event of any sum being found Hne by M. to the 
 hank interest should be jiayable thereon from 
 tlie time an account of the balance due was 
 «lelivered to the parties to the bond by the 
 hank, and judgment was given in the court 
 helow in excess of the penalty :— Held, how- 
 ever, as the law- w<mld not allow a verdict 
 uiiainst the obligors for a greater sum than the 
 penalty, interest couhl not lie computed on that 
 amount until after judgment. Kxi'huiiiif liaiik 
 V. Sprimier ; Krchnii'ii- Hank v. linriicn, 1,3 A. 
 R. 390. 
 
 Held, that the defendants, a guarantee com- 
 pany, were liable for interest for the amount 
 due from them from three months after the 
 proofs of loss were delivered. Cilii of London 
 V. CIli-.eiM' /nx. Co, 13(). R. 713. -Ferguson. 
 
 .3. At ]V/iiif /.'«/-'. 
 
 The rate of interest on certain municipal de- 
 Ixjiitures was seven per cent. : —Held, tiiat 
 section 217 of 2!)-,30 Viet. c. ."il has not been 
 repealed, though markeil ellete in the schedule 
 prefixed to and not reenaetod in .3(i ^■ict. c. 48 
 (Ont. ), an<l that the above rate was therefoi-e 
 lawful. Srot/ish Americnn I must nii ill Co. v. 
 Vilhw. ofEfom, () A. R. 028. 
 
 A pawnbroker, undti »."ou. Stat. ('. c. 01, may 
 legally charge any rate of interest tliat may be 
 agreed upon between him and tlie pledgor. 
 Jii'jlina V. Adams, 8 P. R. 402. —Cameron. 
 
 A note dated 11th .January, 1802, payalile to 
 Mill endorsed by one .S. H., was for .•§;{, 000 with 
 interest at the rate of two per cent, per month 
 till paid. Ry a coveii.ant for payment contained 
 in a niortguge deed of the same date, given by 
 the defendant to the phiintirt" us n, collateral 
 security for the payment of this note, the de- 
 fendant covenanted to p.\v "the saiil sum of 
 |3,0O0 on the 1 1th day of July, 1862, with in- 
 terest thereon at the rate of twenty-four per 
 <;eiit per annum until paid." A judgment was 
 recovered upon the note, but not upon the 
 covenant. The master allowed for interest in 
 respect of this delit six per cent, only from the 
 date of the recovery of the judgment : — Held, 
 that the proper construction of the terms of 
 both the note and covenant us to payment of 
 interest was that interest at the rate oif twenty- 
 four per cent, should be paid up to the J 1th 
 July, IS02, and not that interest should be paid 
 «t that rate after such day if the principal 
 »hould then remain unpaid. Sf. John v. lii/kfrt, 
 10 S. C. R. 278. See (h-nnt v. Peoitlis Loan 
 md Deposit Co., 17 A. R. 8.') ; 18 .S. C. R. 202. 
 
 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT. 
 
 i^ee JUDOMKNT. 
 
 INTERIM ALIMONY. 
 
 Si'.e Husband asd Wifk. 
 
 04 
 
 INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COM- 
 PANY. 
 
 An information alleged that the International 
 Rridge Com])any had constructed and completed 
 the said bridge, and the same was adapted tti 
 the passage of railway trains and foot passen- 
 gers ; but tliat the deteiidints prevented " pcr- 
 sims on foot to cross the said bridge, although 
 willing Olid offering to jiay the lawful tolls pro- 
 vided oy the said Act," and that the ilefenduntH' 
 intention was " to maintain the said bridge as a 
 railway bridge only, uid not as a carriage or 
 foot bridge;'' and pi'ayed an injunction to 
 restrain the defendants " from preventing Her 
 Majesty's subjects from using the footway of 
 the said bridge at their will and pleasure on the 
 payment of lawful tolls," or preventing them 
 from using in the same manner the footpaths 
 thereof. The information also prayeil the re- 
 moval of the bridge in the event of its not 
 being constructed in the manner coiiteinplated 
 in the Act of incorporation. In view of the 
 fact that a large sum of money liad been ex- 
 pended in the construction of the liridge so far 
 as it was built, and which hud beiiii so built in 
 accordance with the provisions of their Act of 
 incorporation, the court (Rlake, Y. (". ) alloweil 
 a demuiier for want of eijuity ; but, in so far ns 
 the information shewed an uulawlul e:xclusion 
 of the public from the use of the footpatiis of 
 the bridge, the demurrer was overruled ; but, 
 under the circumstances, without costs to either 
 party To such an information a railway com- 
 pany who had become lessees of the liridge were 
 held to be proper parties. Atlorne.ji-Ge.neralx. 
 Littriiatiomd lirkliji- Co., 27 Chy. 37. 
 
 The defendants were a conj])any incorporated 
 by the Dominion Parliament for the construction 
 of a bridge from Canada to the United States, 
 across the Niagara river, which was to be as 
 well for the ])assage of persons on foot, and in 
 carriages, and otherwise, as for the passage of 
 railway trains. The company completed the 
 bridge for railway purposes only. The time 
 limited by the ciiarter for the completion of the 
 work having elapsed, an information was iileil 
 seeking to restrain the use of the liridge by a 
 railway company to which the bridge had been 
 leased, until put into condition for ordinary 
 traffic, or for the removal of the bridge as a 
 nuisance, and to compel permission of its use by 
 foot passengers on payment of the statutory 
 tolls. The bridge owing, it is said, to engineer- 
 ing difficulties, could not be adapted to the use 
 of carriages and foot passengers : —Held, revers- 
 ing the judgment of Spragge, C. (28 Chy. 6.5), 
 that the abamlonment of tliat portion of the 
 w.irk relating to foot passengers and carriages 
 was not a public nuisance, and the Act of in- 
 corporation was not a contract with the public, 
 but merely gave conditional powers creating 
 correlative duties, and was permissive ; and that 
 specific performance thereof would not l»e en- 
 forced. Attoruey-Oeneral y. IiUcrnatioHol Bt-vlge 
 Co., 6 A. R. 5.37. 
 
^gm^.wr*- '■ ' ' 
 
 1011 
 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
 
 1012 
 
 9R;:9t 
 
 pile 
 
 o«» 
 
 ;i 
 
 Huld, that the Attonioy-(Joner»l for Ontiirio, 
 as roprcHcnting only a liinitcil portion of the 
 public w'itli wiioiii, if lit nil, Huuh oontruct 
 cxiHtcd, had no locus Htandi, 'I'liu work iicinji; 
 one within tliu jiirlMdiction of tiie parliunicnt of 
 (^an.'idn, tiiat liarlijiiiunt, pieHinnalily with thu 
 knowledge of the .state of tlie bridge, allowed de- - 
 benturcH to lie isHiicd upon it . — Hehl, upon tliia 
 ground also tiie Attorney-Oeueial of Ontario was ] 
 not the proper party to tile the inrorn)atioii. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that aa the bridge extended be- j 
 yond the limits f)f the province, part only being | 
 therein, it would be unavailing for the court to 
 give the publiu tlie right to jiass over tliat piirt 1 
 <if the bridge only which was within its juris- 
 diction; and for this reason also, the court 
 would not interfere. Ih. \ 
 
 Hehl, that the Intel iintinnnl Bridge Company ' 
 wrtE under (.'anadiim Act, 20 Vict. c. 'J'27, s. I(J, ; 
 entruHtcd with a general niid untjualitied jiowcr 
 of making by-hiws and regulations as to tliu use 
 of its bridge and the terms on which it should 
 lie used in jioiiit cit |iaynieiit ; iind that there is 
 nothing in section 2 of the amending Act (2'_' 
 Vict., c. 124), when rciid and constniccl t<igether i 
 with the principal .Act, which cuts down tliat 
 power as to the regulation of the use of the 
 bridge and as to tlie terms on which it nuiy lie 
 used by railway trains. As to the reasonableness 
 of charges, the principle is not what profit it 
 may be reasonalilc for a company to make, but j 
 what it is reasonable to char'ge to the person; 
 who is charged. Cuiimla Soulh'Vii It. IT. Co. v. ; 
 Inlernntumat lirldiiv Co., 8 App. ('as. 723; .V. | 
 C.,7 A. R., 220; 28C'hv. 114. 
 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
 
 I. DoMiciLK— .9ee Domuile. 
 II. FoKKicJN Law— .SV FoKKKiN L.\w. 
 III. KxTR.VMTioN — So KxTUAiirnoN. 
 
 Where the defendants in a suit reside in this 
 country and the principal office of the plaintitVs 
 is in England J\nd a contract is entered into 
 there between the pnrties which is to be executed 
 in New York a suit in respect thereof may be 
 instituted in this province. DireH Cdhle Co. v. 
 Doimnion T<-le;iraph Co., 28 Cliy. 048. —Blake, 
 8 A. it. 416. 
 
 A., 1>eing domiciled and carrying on business 
 in Montreal, in 187"), executed at Toronto, where 
 he was temporarily resident, a deed entered into 
 between B., his wife, of the first part, and him- 
 self and ('. of the second part, whereliy A., B, 
 and C. covenanted that certain Ontario Bank 
 stock, which had been bought with certain 
 moneys received by B. after lier marriage, and 
 which were then held in the name of A. in trust 
 for ii., should be duly transferred into the names 
 of C. and A., and that this stock, as well as a 
 sum of 84,000, which B. had received from her 
 mother at the time of the niurriage, and which 
 had been put into the commercial liusineas of A. 
 in Montreal, should, with $2,000, the value of 
 some furniture received by B. , be held by C. 
 and A. in trust to invest us therein mentioned, 
 and to permit B., during her life, to receive the 
 
 incomo to her own use, and after her death in 
 trust for the chihiren of the marriage, and in 
 default of surviving issue over. In IS77 tiio 
 bank stock was transferreil in Montreal in trust 
 pursuant to the ilced. Tlie head office of tliu 
 Ontario Bank is in Toronto, but they have a 
 stock registry in Montreal for convenicnci' : _ 
 Held, that inasmuch as all the pnipcrty seltlud 
 ajijicared on the evidence to have become, and 
 to liave been "community pro) ■"■ty," and inns- 
 much as, althoiigii the bank stock must be held 
 to have been at the time of the execution oi'tiic 
 deed and of tlie transfer situate in Ontario, yet 
 the deed not purjiorting to be a complete trans- 
 fer of the jiroperty in the stock, but containing 
 only a covenant to transfer, which was coiiHiiin- 
 iiiated afterwards, not in Ontario, but in Men- 
 treal, tiie case fell under the law of the owner's 
 <lomicil, and a]>plying that law, there was not n 
 good transfer by tlie husband of the rigiit of 
 property in the stock ;--lleld, also, as to the 
 iiioiiey, that being at the time of the deed in 
 (Quebec, the validity of the transfer of it iiuKst 
 (le]ieii(l on the law of that province, under wliiili 
 tlie transfer both us to wife and tliecliildreii was 
 void; for even if the wife's signing the deed 
 ainoiiiited, as contended, to an acceptance by the 
 cliililien, it was only the acceptance of a promise 
 and not of a gift ; Held, on the whole ca.se, that 
 no projierty passed into the hanils of the trnstees 
 liy the transactions set forth, lltujhin v. AVu, 
 ■"> O. I!. {STA. — Ferguson. 
 
 When the husband's domicilisin the province 
 of Quebec, and tliere is no ante-nuptial settle- 
 ment, the law there u|)<in marriage makes a 
 settlement <if the |iioperty of the parties, wiier- 
 ever situate, ineluding that acquired subse- 
 (juently, tiiough the ceremony of marriage may 
 take place out <if the province. This is called 
 "community projierty," and it is not in the 
 power of the hnsbanil, during the coverture, tcy 
 make a gift of it, directly or indirectly, to hi* 
 wife, although he is the administrator of it, and 
 may make gilts to the chihiren, if the gifts are 
 properly accepted. III. 
 
 The fact that a suit for the same matter is 
 pending in Quebec cannot be urged asa jdeaiii har 
 to a suit for the same cause in this f.-i-fivince. /'). 
 
 Although in an action on a mortgage of lands 
 situate out of the province juilgment of I'mu- 
 closure will be granted against a defendant 
 residing therein, such judgment merely oiiera- 
 ting in personam as an extinguishment of a 
 personal right, yet the court will not extend the 
 doctrine by onlering a sale of land over which 
 it has not territorial jurisdiction, not lieing alile 
 to supervise <ir deal etfectually with the many 
 matters which are the usual and ordinary in- 
 cidents of a sale. Slram/e v. Radford, b'tO. K. 
 145.— Boyd. 
 
 Defendant, while temporarily in New York, 
 drew a bill of exchange upon a lirm of merchants 
 in Toronto, payable to the order of a New N'ork 
 firm of commission merchants. The domicile of 
 the defendant was, at the time, in Ontario, ami 
 the drawees were also donnciled there. The 
 draft was protested for non-acceptance, and 
 upon the payees suing the defendant, he set np 
 that the draft whs given for a debt due from 
 him in respect to certain gambling transactions 
 on the New York Stock Exchange, and that, as 
 
lOlZ 
 
 1013 
 
 miEBPLEADEB. 
 
 1014 
 
 lor death in 
 ingo, mill ill 
 [ii 1S77 tlio 
 rL>;il ill tnisl 
 
 Ottici! of till) 
 
 tliey liave a 
 vt'iiiuiiri' ; — 
 lUitjl settled 
 •eL'tiiiie, iiiid 
 ," nnd iiiiiH- 
 iiiwt lie licld 
 lutioii of tlie 
 Diitario, yet 
 iplete traiiH- 
 it contiiiiiing 
 ivas eoiisnin- 
 but ill Mdii- ■ 
 
 the owner's 
 ire wnH not u 
 the rigiit of 
 ), 118 to tiie 
 
 the deed in 
 r of it iimst 
 under whifli 
 children was 
 li<( the deed 
 itimcehy the 
 
 of a promise 
 lie case, tli:it 
 F the tnistcc» 
 ijliiH V. I'en, 
 
 the province 
 uptial settle- 
 Lge makes a 
 larties, wlier- 
 uired snhse- 
 larriage may 
 riiis is called 
 
 I not in the 
 ^overture, to 
 •ectly, to hi» 
 tor of it, and 
 ' the gifts are 
 
 me matter is 
 isapleain bar 
 jj'-oviiice. III. 
 
 gage of lands 
 iient of fore- 
 
 a defendant 
 iierely opera- 
 shment of a 
 lot extend the 
 d over which 
 Kit lieing able 
 ith the many 
 
 ordinarv in- 
 ford, 1 .■)(>. K. 
 
 II New York, 
 I of merchants 
 if a New Y<irk 
 he domicile of 
 I Ontario, and 
 I there. The 
 :eptaiicc, and 
 viit, he act up 
 lebt due from 
 g transactions 
 J, and that, a* 
 
 inch, it was iiinler the law of New York, an 
 illegal contract and invalid : — Held, upon a 
 special case directed to decide the point of law, 
 tnat the matter must lie governed by the law of 
 New York, although the <lefendant was doini- 
 oiled in Ontario, mid although the drawees were 
 also domiciled in Ontario ; for the contract of 
 the drawer was to |iay tlie money at the jilace 
 where he eiitercil into the contract, in delaiilt 
 of tlie drawee jmying, and the domicile of the 
 drawer did not aH'eut the rule as Htated. S/un/ 
 V. J/.AX'/, liiO. H. !()!>.- Kalconliridge. 
 
 Held, per Owyune, J., disMcnting, that the 
 enmity of nations does not leiiuire the courts of 
 this country to enforce, in favour of a foreign 
 (•orpoiation, a contract depriving a i ail way 
 company in Canada of the right to permit a 
 domestic corporation, created for the purpose of 
 erecting telcgrajih lines in the Dominion, to 
 erect such a line n])on its land, and depriving it 
 of the right to construct a telegraph line upon 
 its own land, ('nimilinii /'dcijif /•'. ir. Cd, v. 
 }Ye-<l<'iu I'liioii 'J'cldjni/i/i (^o., 17 S. ('. 11. l.'il. 
 
 Held, np(Ui the facts set out in the judgment in 
 this case, that although a testator's original domi- 
 cile was in Ontario, he had changed it to the 
 United .States, wdiicli was his domicile at the 
 time of his death, and his will therefore must be 
 construed according to the laws of Minnesota, 
 U.iS., so far as regards all his personal estate, 
 and his real estate there ; according to the laws 
 of Manitoba as regards his lands there ; and as 
 to the Ontario lands tlu^y devolved on his 
 execntniN. McVonnell v. McCoiinell, 18 O. R, 
 36. — Robertson. 
 
 See Ilanralian v. Hniirohaii, 19 O. H. .SOO, p. 
 90!). 
 
 XIV. DlRKcriMl IsSUK IN An'I.ICATKIN.S TO 
 
 Attach Debts— i'ec Attacii.mknt uif 
 DKnrs. 
 
 I. JUIIISDICTION 
 
 OK CofSTY 
 
 ( 'onirs. 
 
 ANI> DlSTKIOT 
 
 tioii to entertain it, but in this case the judge 
 having disposi'd of tlio matter summarily wit 
 
 I. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 XIII. 
 
 INTERPLEADEB. 
 
 JuniSDICTIO.N OKCor.NTVANI) Dl.STRIC'T 
 
 Cot'KTs, 1014. 
 When Rklikk Okanted. 
 
 1. To Sheriff, 1014. 
 
 2. Other Canex, l(H6. 
 
 Si'MMARY Disi'osrrioN ok Claim, 1018. 
 
 DlIlECTIN(i Is.SUE, 1019. 
 SlIEKIKK'.sClIAKtiES, 1020. 
 
 Liability of Sheuikk, 1020. 
 Practice, 1020. 
 ArrEAL.s. 1022. 
 Costs. 
 
 1. Security for Cottn, 102;i. 
 
 2. Scale of Costs, 102.S. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1025. 
 
 Kfkect ok Jud<:ment, 1026. 
 
 Nf,w Trial in Case.s ov—See New- 
 Trial. 
 
 In Division Courts — See Division 
 Courts. 
 
 Under Crkditoiw' Relief Act — See 
 Execution. 
 
 Held, that iiiterpleider being a proceeding in 
 the ac'tion, a County Court judge under Kulo 
 4'_'2, O. .1. .Act (See Con. Mule 41), has jurisdic- 
 
 j juilgo 
 y witTi- 
 out the consent of the parties, an issue was di- 
 rected. Vuidiuii V. S/tUrn, !) 1'. I!. 491.— Osier. 
 See Strain v. flloddarl, 12 1'. I!. 490, p. 1022. 
 
 The District Court of the Provisional .ludicial 
 I'-striot of 'riiunder Hay has jurisdiction in inter- 
 pleader under R.S.O. ( l«87)c. 91. s. flii ; for it has 
 " the jnrisiliction possessed by County C'ourts," 
 which is by I!. .S. O. (IS77), c. 4i>, s. 19, sub-s. 
 (), "interpleader matters as provided by the 
 Interjileailer .\i\ " ; and such juri.sdictioii is de- 
 terminable in a slicrill's interpleader by the fact 
 whether the |ii(>i.'e.<s under whiidi the goods 
 wer(! seizeil has IssuimI out of the District ('<mrt, 
 and not by the amount for which the recovery 
 was had or the |irocess issued. Inliister v. Siil/i- 
 niii, IGO. R. 418. — (^ R D. 
 
 •See Ilarhr v. /.i>'.snii, 9 P. R. 107, p. .•ii>8 ; 
 lie Aiidrrsuit and linrha; RJ P. R. 21, p. 1018. 
 
 II. WllKN RkI.IEK (lUANTKII. 
 
 I. To Sheriff. 
 
 At the instance of a sheriff, an interpleader 
 order was granted and issues tried to determine 
 the rights of certain claimants to goods seized 
 by him in execution. Previously to the order 
 being granted, the landhird of the premises laid 
 claim to the goods, which claim the sheriff did 
 not inention when apidying for the order : — 
 Held, that after the trial of the issues, the 
 sheriff was not entitled to a second interpleader 
 to test the landlord's claim, as this should have 
 been disposed of (ni the first application. Clarke 
 V. Farrell, 8 P. R. 234. -Dalton, Q.C. 
 
 The sheriff seized the goods in question on the 
 .list ilay of January, 188.S, and on the 1st of 
 February was notified of a claim by an assignee 
 of the judgment ilebtor (the assignee being an 
 officer employed by the sheriff), and on the 
 same day the plaintiff's solicitors directed him 
 to sell. The sale took place on the 12th of 
 February, and on the 13th of February the 
 sheriff received the money arising therefrom. 
 On the 2f)th of February, the sheriff informed 
 the plaintiffs solicitors that the solicitors for 
 the assignee forbade him to pay over the pro- 
 ceeds, and on the 2nd of March the plaintiff 
 received a notice from the assignee's solicitors 
 that they were instructed to sue him. On the 
 oth of March notice was given of the application 
 for an interpleader order. The sheriii retained 
 in his hands the proceeds of the sale, and his 
 affidavit, filed on the interpleader application, 
 referred to a conversation which he had had 
 with the claimant's solicitor, in which the latter 
 told him that the claimant did not propose to 
 claim the goods, or interfere with their sale, 
 but would contest the right of the plaintiff to 
 the money arising from the sale, which was to 
 
 t 
 
"^W" 
 
 1015 
 
 INTERPLEADER. 
 
 1016 
 
 €0>» 
 
 n t 
 
 rciimiii ill the Mlicriirx IiuikIn. TIil' hliciill' iiIhh 
 Mwi)i'(! timt lit' i('liit('<l wliiit the I'liiiiiiiiiitH' 
 Holiirititi'M liiul Hiiiil til till' plaiiitiirH Holioitor. 
 'riic HliiiiilV'B oxiMisc fill' liin ili'lay frmii tlui UUli 
 iif KeliMiiiry to tliii ritli of Miiirli whn, that \w 
 ilid not iiiiilerNlaiiil that it wan liiM iliity to taki3 , 
 till! initiative :- Ili'lii, tliiit tin' Nhcrid' hhIiI with 
 tlio coiiHeiit of liotli |iai'ti('N anil ilid not, tlii'ni' 
 flirt', iiM|iio|)cily uxciciMi' liix own (lisi'iotioii, ho i 
 that till' roiiti'Nt ]ii'0|irily iu'ohi' mh In tile pro- ' 
 (timIb of till' Hail! : - llrld, that tli.^ ilrlay froiii 
 tlin l;itli l'"i'liriia''v to till' fith March, no ii|iiior- 
 tiiiiity of trial iiriii^ loHt, waH not iiiircaHonalilc : 
 Hidil, that till! fjii't of the i'1aiii<niit heiii;; an 
 otiicor ill till' i'iii|iIoyini'nt of tin' sIm rilV iiiaili,' no 
 ilill'i'i-eni'i'. IVr lii'.yil, ('. 'iiir ilispositiDii of 
 the riiiii't is to III' iiiori' lilirriil in nlii'vinn the 
 Hln'iilV now than foiini'i Iv. Ihiilimi y. ('ol/dllim, 
 10 1'. I!. ll»>. -Mr. Will. lu'Htir, Kittiiij; for tlif 
 MiiKii r-iii('hiiiiiUi rt — I'l'dinlfoot. C'liy. I>. 
 
 'I'lir hhi'ritV having noi/ril gooiln of iiinrli 
 greater value than the iinioiiiit of |ilaiiitill's' 
 •execution, which were elaiiiieil liy a third party, 
 received frmn the el.iiniant the anioiint due on 
 the exuciition in ciihIi. and witlnlrew from the 
 Hcizure : -Held, th.it the .sheritl' iiad not theriliy 
 illBciititled liiniHcIf to relief liy interple.ider. 
 I'lirtK MiiiDi/iirhniiiii Cii. v. HV(//.'<, l(» 1'. \{. \\\H. 
 - -Dalton, AhiMu: 
 
 S. plaeod ml excuiition in the Hh(M'ift"H hands 
 <m the llth heeeniln'r, and .-\. one on the I'Jth 
 Deeeinher. On the '2(Mi Deeeiiiliei the lainllonl 
 put in a elaiiii for rent. Tlie sale took plaei! on 
 the 'ilwt, and the «uiii of Si, 7<*7.(l(l was realized. 
 On the -Jltli one 11. notified the sheiill that he 
 eliiiliied all the money in his liaiids, and nut to : 
 pay any over to any one else. On the "JTtli l)e- j 
 euinliur the slierilV (mid 'S. in full, and took a 
 liond of indemnity fri III! him: Meld, that the 
 Hlierillwasnot eiititleil to an interpleader .ngainst 
 H. the landlord. Ailams v. Iil<,<l.-,r, H^ |o I*. 1!. 
 KiS. — Dalton, MuMir. 
 
 A inortgagee, under ii mortgage wliieh, from 
 certain irregularities in it, w.i.s void against siih- 
 Reipielit mortgagees or purchasers in good faith 
 for value, took )ios.seMsion of the chattels men- 
 tioned in it. and secreted them. An execution 
 "was afterwards issued, and the sheriirendeavoiir- 
 ttil hut wa.s uniilile to seize the goods. Jt was 
 itlleged, and not contradicted, thai i.he execution 
 •creditor and defendant were colluiliiij; to defeat 
 the inortgagec's claim : — Held, that the sheritl' 
 was not entitled to an interpleader. Oijih ii v. 
 Cru'm, 10 P. It. ."WS. — Dalton, .l/ff«^/-.— liose. 
 
 Where a sherill' intends to take goods under an 
 execution, the court has jurisdiction to grant 
 him an interpleader, liutthis jiiriadictioii will lie 
 rarely exercised, and never unless it is shewn 
 that the iiropei ty or possession in the goods is 
 in the defendant, lb. 
 
 .Shares of the stock of (in incorporated com- 
 pany may he Bcized and Rold under the Kxecii- 
 tiini Act, R. ,S. O. (1S77). c CO, hy a sherifl" 
 inider a H. fa. goods, and he is entitled to an 
 interjdeader under section 10 of the Interpleader 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), e. TA. where an adverse 
 claim to the stock is advanced. The trial of the 
 issue was, however, stiyed until after the trial 
 of an action hetween the same jLirties attacking 
 itlie conveyance from the judgment debtor. 
 
 Urun-i, V. XflMii, KM*. R, 421. -Dalton, M(tdtr, 
 — Caiiiuron. 
 
 Interyileader oi'ilei's hIuuiIiI lin granteil with 
 extreme caution, and only after Htroiig preHiimp- 
 tive evidence of the gooilH luung the dehtnri, 
 which should ordimirily appear hy his lieinjfin 
 poHHi'HHion, hy an atllilavit of the liidief of tliu 
 sherifr, if he han Much belief, and by a similar 
 atlldiivit of the exei'Ution creditor. Diinriiiiy. 
 T,,s. II v. n. (W. Iti.Hc. 
 
 .•\ slieriir, iliHtrilcted by tiie execution creilitiir 
 \M'nt to the store w liieh lia<l been thedefeiidaiitii, 
 found the claiiiiantN in possi'ssion and I heir iiiumt 
 over the door, and notwithstanding this, anil 
 without further impiiry iiiinb.' a Bei/iii'e. Upon 
 a claim to the goods being made, the sherilf itp- 
 plied for an interpleader order, swearing (iimi 
 tively that the seizure was of goods and eliattcln 
 belonging to the defendant. It was iidmittcil 
 that tlie ili'fendant had niaile an aHsignnient of 
 all his pro]ierty before the Heiziirt! ; — Meld, that 
 an interpleader order hIioiiIiI not have bcvn 
 griinti'il, and an order was made barring the 
 execution creditor. ///. 
 
 'I'Imh order was varied on ajipeiil by the Q. M. I). 
 
 by directing the iiartiesto proceed to the trial of 
 an issue at the next assi/,is,tlie execution ereili- 
 tors to be the plaintill's and the elaimantH to lie 
 defendants, and the ipiestion to be tried to 1m', 
 whether at the time of the seizure the goods in 
 i|Ui'stii'n were exigible under the creditors' ex- 
 ecution, or the execntioii of either of tlieui, ;w 
 against the claimants. .S'. ('., 11 I'. R. '2!«i. 
 
 Sec /'-(/'</». V. (,'lll-:s, II O. 11. ■J7."), ji. 34.1 
 
 2. Olhir Cnsru. 
 
 ((•iiii'ic, whether interpleader is a jirojier rem- 
 edy for trying the right to securities as between 
 co'surelie's. See Tniicr v. Ihirkill, 1 O. K. SO. 
 
 The niiister-in-chainlicrHiiiiide an rdurdiui 
 
 tri between till 
 
 ill 'IS as to till' 
 
 lilt and execii 
 
 .lirected was wai 
 
 S. O. ( I S77), c. .-,4 
 
 h V. M i/litimnoii, 
 
 ing an interiileiider issue ti 
 plaiiitiir and i:ertaiii iitt ' ' 
 validity of the plaint il: 
 tioli :— Held, tiiat the 
 ranted by section 10 ■ 
 (the Interpleader Act). 
 10 I'. I!. -JM. Rose. 
 
 The oriler provided for the trial of the iiucs- 
 tioii.of the validity of the iilaintill's judgment 
 as against creditors generallj', and also provideil 
 that on the trial of the issue it should be open 
 to the attaching creditors to shew that the jilain- 
 ' tin's jiidgnient was void as against the attaehing 
 1 creditors for fraud or as being a )ircfcreiicB: - 
 Held, that these provisions were warranted liy 
 section .% R. S. O. (1877), c. .54. Ih. 
 
 I Held, foUownig Leech i\ \VillianiHoii, 10 1'. 11. 
 , 22(i, that attaching creditois may bo "claim- 
 j ants'' within the meaning of the Interpleailer 
 I .Act. Although Maefie r. I'earson, H O. K. 74,1, 
 
 in effect decides that the execution creditor, who 
 1 has seized before process ag.'iinst the defendant 
 
 as an abseonding debtor has issued, is to be {Ntiil 
 ! in priority, yet that decision having been reii- 
 j dered by consent in a summary way, is not binil- 
 1 ing up.in the claimants in this case, who may 
 I choose to litigate upon issues which can lie car- 
 
1017 
 
 INTEFPLEADER. 
 
 1018 
 
 1016 
 ton, Masttr, 
 
 'niituil with 
 iiK |>rvHiinip- 
 :liu ilulitnri, 
 liJH )M!iii|{iii 
 inliuf of ilit^ 
 liy li Miiiiilar 
 hiinrati v. 
 
 lion (in^ilitor 
 'ilt'ft'iiilaiitii, 
 il llii'ir iianir 
 lii^ tliiN, jukI 
 r.wn'. V\m\\ 
 w. Kli(!ri(r up- 
 voiiriiig |H)»i 
 
 iiiul t'llllttulll 
 I'llH itiliiiiltcil 
 iNi^iinutnt of 
 — Hcl.i, that 
 L tiiivu Ik'cii 
 ) nil' ring tile 
 
 ythcQ.H.I). 
 to tliu triiil (if 
 (Mitioii credi- 
 viniimtH toiic 
 ; tried t(i !«•, 
 tlie gooilH in 
 .•iTclitors' i'\- 
 • of tlieni, M 
 \\ H. 'JiMi. 
 
 :.-), ].. 343. 
 
 l)ro|ier iTiii- 
 
 !H IIH llCtWlH'll 
 
 ', 1 (». I?. SO. 
 
 riler ilii 
 liiitwceiUli"' 
 ' •! '^4 n.s to tliu 
 
 anil rxwn 
 it'll was Will 
 I1H77), c. :.4 
 
 1 1 i/linmnoii, 
 
 of t lie (iiics- 
 :V'm jiiilgiiii'iit 
 ilso jiroviileil 
 mill l)e open 
 liat tlie|ilain- 
 tlie attaehiiiK 
 |iiefei-ence: - 
 nanantcil liy 
 Ih. 
 
 mm, 10 V. \l 
 f lie "elaiin- 
 
 I iiternleailer 
 , S (). k 745, 
 
 cioilitor.who 
 ;lie defendant 
 , is to be ]>uiil 
 ing been ren- 
 y, in not biml- 
 vse, who may 
 can 1)C car- 
 
 riml III a|>|tcnl. Sldmlnvil lii". (\>. v. Hinjlin, 11 
 |>. K. -A'O. — Iloyd. 
 
 Thii plaintiir, il. I'., and onii K, 'I',, Novcritlly 
 
 (I iili 
 iimI 
 
 claimed from tlio deft'iidaiitM iiaynunt of the 
 inoii«yH due iiiidi'i' a certain ccititii'ute of iiieiii- 
 iMindiip iMHiieil by tint di-fi-iidantH to T, I', de- 
 voaavd, the plaintitr rlainiing nn ailiiiiiiixti'ator 
 |ieiiilente litu of T. I',, .1. I*, (daiiiiiii^' that the 
 ctrtilicatu had been tnilorNtd to licr by the de- 
 ccaML'd, and K. 'I', iih ailiiiinintnitor, It a|i|ieareil 
 that a dii|ilieate certilii'ate had iiniiril to 'I'. I', 
 n|iiin hix alle^in^ lliat he had limt the one origin- 
 ally iH8iied. The ilefeiidantM were always will- 
 ing to pay any one who nii^lit be entitled, and 
 u|ioii tliiH aution being brought applied for an 
 interpleader order in rexpeet of the iidverHe 
 olaiiiiH. •!. 1*. dill not appear to answer to the 
 lippliiation, and her elaini whh barred, and the 
 money ordercid to be jiaiil to K. '1". upon eertain 
 tiriiiH, L'pon an appeal by I'!, 'I', from thiM 
 iiiiler it wiiH : Held, that theii; waM a right to 
 interpleader upon a Hiimiiiary appliration, either 
 iiniler Heetion 17, Hiili-Neetiim (I, (). .1. Aet, or 
 iiniler the foriinr piaetiie of the Court of 
 CliiiiH'ery. Ilnle 2, (). .1. Aet, ilne.i not extill- 
 i;iiisli any right to interplead that I'ornially ex- 
 intcil ; it n^gnlatiH the piaetire only, and en- 
 ■Mrn a defenilunt to iibtain relief U|)on a hiiiii- 
 mary aiiplication, where formerly it would have 
 liiTii neeexsary to tile a bill : llelil, alHo, that 
 tlie ilefeiidaiitH were entitled to their ciwtH of 
 the ai'tion and application, and to retain them 
 out of the funilH in their han 1h, and that the 
 liiklniice hIioiiIiI he |iaid to K. T. in.stead of into 
 court, iM the other (claimant had withdrawn, 
 ii|Niii l<). T. indeinnifying the defenilantx against 
 thu prodiii'lion of the original eertilicate, and 
 timl the action hIiouIiI be stayed. Mclilheran 
 V. London Mitsoiiic Miitiint lii'ui/il .txKOi'iation, 
 11 V. \i. lSI.-1'rondfoot. 
 
 Where the pnrchaHcr of land voluntarily paid 
 In the Hhcritl' the ainonnt of an execntion in Iuh 
 ImnilH in a boiiil lido belief that it wna u charge 
 n|ioii the land : — Held, that a party having a lien 
 on Buid land conld not, nnder the Manitoba In- 
 terpleader Act, cliiiin the money no paid to the 
 shcrift' an agaiiixt the execntion creditor, even 
 wlii^re he had reliipiiHlied IiIh title to the land to 
 enalile the owner to carry out the xaiil Hale, and 
 wim to receive a portion of the purchase money. 
 Scmlile, that aw the lands were neither " taken 
 iiur 8i)ld under execution," the cn.se was not 
 within the said Interpleader Act. t'ulind limik 
 iifCuiimlii V. ('iiHtiilUiii ISitiil; of Coinnurcc, 13 S. 
 C. R. 3H 
 
 Rent l"ing due by A. to H., A. was served as 
 garni.shee witli Division Court Mumnionsus by K. 
 anil (1., each claiming part of the rent. A. 
 refusing to pay liiw rent uiiIcsh he was protected 
 fniin tlipsc clainm, he was sned by H. for the 
 full am ;aof the rent in a county court. Be- 
 fore th. iction was begun, (jr. presented to A. 
 annrdir upon him signed by H. for jiart of the 
 rent due. A. applied to a judge of the High 
 Court of .lustice in chambers for an interpleader 
 order. The atlidavits on which hu moved were 
 entitled "In the H. 0. .1., C'hy. l>iv., between 
 A., applicant, and li. and others, claimants:" — 
 Held, that A. was entitled to be relieved by cal- 
 ling on the rival parties to interplead, under the 
 priicedure indie ited by Con. Rules 1141 et seci. ; 
 and an objection to the manner of entitling tne 
 
 atliilavit* was overruled. There waH no juiIh- 
 diction in the County Court to givi- relief by 
 way of interpleadrr in thiMiction broiiu'ht by It.; 
 the jiiriHiliction in that cnurt being limited by 
 Con, Itiile-i I Itl'J et hei|. to procii'dings against 
 ubsronding debtors, and after jiiilgiiiiiit when 
 exei'iition has issued, (i.'s elaim inlglit liavu 
 been litigated in the Counts Court, and would 
 not have bet n the Kiibji'ct of iiitri pleader pro- 
 ceidings ; but the order niaile being for a stay 
 of till' County Court action and paynunl, into 
 I'oiirl by \, of the rent, (i.'h claim hIioiiIiI be 
 the siil)ji'et of iii(|iiiiy in the High Court : 
 Hi^ld, also, that A.'s costH of the application 
 should be borne by V.. and (!., who siibniitted 
 to have their clainm barred, and who had bei^n 
 the cause of the ex|ieiiHe and delay, and that 
 there Hhoilld be no costs to either party of the 
 (-'oillitv Court action. Ifi Amli ikihi nmi Harlirr, 
 13 r. I!. '.M. Itoyil. 
 
 Hy an anteniiiitial Hettleineiit executed 'J.'itli 
 March, INS.', made bctueen ,1. C. of the tilst 
 Jiart, M, II. (the plaint ill) his iiiti'inled wife of 
 the seroiid part, and one M. of the third part, 
 in consiileiation of the intrinliil marriage cer- 
 tain lands and the goods in ipiestioii were con- 
 veyed and iissigiud to .M. to liold to the use of 
 .1. C. until the mairi:ig(?, and thereafter to the 
 use of till! plaintiir, tier heirs, exeeiitors, ad- 
 miiiistrators, and assigns. The niarriage took 
 place on the •_'7tli of Mari'li, and the goods were 
 afterwards seized by the execution creditor of 
 the husband ; the plainliU' claimi'd them and 
 an interpleader issue was directed by the High 
 Court to be tried in the (,'oiinty {,'oiirt. At the 
 t' al it was objected that the trustee should 
 I ave been the claimant, and |ilaintiir in the issue, 
 and on this ground jiiilgment was given for the 
 defendant : Held (reversing the jiiilgment of 
 the eourt below), that the plaintill's lieiieficial 
 interest in and possession of the property was 
 siifticient to enable her to maintain her claim in 
 the issue. Schrn'der r. Harnott, l!H L. T. N. ,S. 
 702 followed. C'iniiK// v. //iiluck; \r> A. K, 518. 
 
 See /friritf v. /Irisf, \ 1 I>. R. 47 ; Sfiiart v. 
 (Irowjli, l.'iO. Jt. ()(>; 15 A. K. 'I'M 
 
 III. .SUMMAKV Dl.Sl'o.srriON l«K t'l.AIM. 
 
 Under an execution issued by the pLiintifl's, 
 the slierifl", whilst such execution was the only 
 one in his hands, Kci/ed certain goods of the 
 delitor which were claimed hy IJ. , whereupon 
 an interpleader suminons was obtained by thu 
 sheiill' which was argued before the chief 
 justice of the Q. I>, Division who made 
 an Older barring the claimant without any 
 i.ssue being directed. This order did not state 
 that the parties consented to a summary dis- 
 posal of the mutter and the facts did not clearly 
 appear. The siierilf proceeded and sold the 
 property and made an entry under the Credi- 
 tors' Relief Act. The appellants and several 
 other creilitors delivered certilicates to the 
 sheriff witliin the proper time, who framed u 
 scheme for the distribution of the money as if 
 no interpleader proceedings had been had. On 
 appeal from him the County Court judge gave 
 the whole fund to the plaintitFs under sub-sec- 
 tion 4, section 3 of the Creditors' Relief Act. 
 On appeal from such order to this court the 
 appeal was dismissed, the court being equally 
 
1019 
 
 INTERPLEADER. 
 
 W« 
 
 divided. Per Burton and Pattei'ton, JJ. A. As j 
 thurc was a contest lietwcon tlu; execution ^ 
 creditor mid claimant und :in .id judication in 
 favour of tlie former the proceedings wliioli took ' 
 place upon tlie iuterplon ler sumuions came | 
 M'ithin sub-section 4, section 3 of the Act, and i 
 entitled the ]>laintitl's to the 'vlude proceeds of 
 the property and tiie order apinided from M'as j 
 correct. Per Hagarty, ('. .1. (). 'l"'ie eircum- ' 
 stances of tlii.s case do not biiiig it witiiiu that 
 section and tlie appeal should lie allowed and 
 the moneys distributed as if no interpleader 
 proceedings lia<l been taken. Per Osier, J. A. 
 The order disposing of the interpleader sum- 
 mons was not a proceeding under the Inter- , 
 pleader Act because it did not shew on its fare 
 the consent of parties to the summary ilispcsi- 
 tion of the claim ; but even if it was an inter- 
 pleailer ]iroceediiig it was not within the niis- 
 ciiii'f of the .Act which intended to proviiie only 
 for the case where an issue has been directeii. 
 liuiih of llnmUtuaw Diirrcll, \f> \. K. TiOO. 
 
 See Coyiiaw L<< , 14 A. R. 503, p. 1021. 
 
 IV. r)IHi:( TINCi IsSfE, 
 
 .An interpleader order hail been made, which 
 diiected the sherilf to pay over to the claimants , 
 $1, ((00 and interest, the prooeeils of the sale of ' 
 goods claimed by them iimlei- a chattel mortgage, | 
 which was not impeached. The order diiected 
 an issue as to a second cliiittel mortgage held by i 
 the claimants, the execution creditors coiitcnil- ; 
 ing that it was fraudulent. A. & Co. obtained 
 judgment in a |)ivision Cinirt against the execu- 
 tion debtors after the ibite of the order, and 
 moved to vary it by directing that the amount i 
 of their executinn should lie retained by the 
 sherifl' out of the $1,000, until f;arnisiiee pro- 1 
 ceedings against the delitor in the ))i vision (\i'i»'t, j 
 in which the sherilf was garnishee, slioiii.. ei 
 disposed of:- Meld, that the moneys in tnci 
 slieriirs hands belonged to tin' claiiiiaiits, the , 
 chattel mortgagees, as on a sale of tlie iiiort- j 
 gaged chattels by them as mortgagees : tiiat there 
 being no want of bona tides in liie mortgage, no 
 want of formalities in it would make it invalid 
 as between the parlies to it, so as to entitle the 
 debtor to claim tiie money seoiiied by it, or to 1 
 entitle A. &('<). to claim it under their execu- j 
 tion. Matjicw /{unto;'.) P. I!. 140. — (,'iinieron. i 
 
 Upon an interjileader application by the 
 sheriff of York ther's were two c.\ei;ution credi- j 
 tors, viz., the Merchants' liank of Canada and I 
 one .laincs Walsh, and tliree claimants, viz., 
 one Clarkson, the assignee of the execution 
 debtor, for the general benefit of creditors, the i 
 Imperial Hank of Canada and the Sta,iiilard [ 
 ^|pnk of Canada, both cl liming under warehouse 
 receipts. The master in chambers directed the i 
 trial of four issues, viz., (I) The .Merchants' 
 Bank and Clarkson, plaintiH's, against the Im- 
 perial Hank, defoiidaiits ; {'2) The .Standard 
 Hank, pl.-iintifTs, against the .Merchants' Hank 
 and Clarkson, diifendants ; (3) The Standanl 
 Hank, plaintiffs, against the Imperial Hank, de- 
 fendants; (4) The .Merchants' Hank, plaintiffs, 
 against James Walsh, defendant (as to priority 
 of execution). Wilson, C. .1.. varied the order 
 of the master by sulistituting for the above first 
 three isisucs a single issue, viz., the Merchants' 
 Bank plaintiff v. the Imperial Bank, Standard 
 
 loao 
 
 MerchanU 
 
 Bank and Clarkson, defendants. 
 Bank v. Jlermii, 10 P. R. 117. 
 
 See Barker v. Leeiiou, 9 P. R. 107, p. infra ; 
 Ltech V. WUlkimKoii, 10 P. R. 226, p. 1016; 
 Standard Im. Co. v. IJniihen, 11 P. R. 220, p 
 1017; Diwcaii v. Ti'e'<, 11 P. R. 66, 296, p. 1016. 
 
 V. ShEIUFF's ClIARdES, 
 
 The gross proceeds of a sale of goods in an 
 interpleader matter, should be paid by the sheriff 
 into court without deducting anything for his 
 expenses. Ontario Bank v. Jievell, 11 P. R. 
 249.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 After an interpleader order is made at the in- 
 stance of a sheritf, the s]iecial jurisdiction of the 
 court linder the Act relating to interpleading 
 arises, by which the writ of execution, us such, 
 ceases to operate, and the sheriff in selling the 
 goods seized thereunder, acts not for the execu- 
 tion creditor but for the court under the inter- 
 pleader order. Where, therefore, a sheriff, 
 under such circumstances, sold goods wliicli 
 were found iiy the event of an interpleader 
 issue not to have been the goods of the execu- 
 tion debtor, but of the claimant, :uid paid the 
 proceeds into court less his charges for posses- 
 sion money and expenses of sale, etc. : — Held, 
 that he was not liable to refund to the claimant 
 the amount deducted for such charges. The 
 claimant's remeily is to recover the amount of 
 such charges from the execution creditor, which 
 he can do in a summary way. The decision of 
 Pioudfoot, .1., 12 P. H.' 246, reversed. Jiddv. 
 Mnrp/iy, 12 P. R. 338.— Chy. D. 
 
 VI. Ll.\BII.ITY OF SlIEHIFF. 
 
 Liability of sheriff to attachment for disohe- 
 dience of interpleader order. See Maclean v. 
 Anllioni/ — S/afir v. Anthony, 6 O. R. 330. 
 
 VI J. Pll.VCTICE. 
 
 Held, that in case of interpleader by a sheriff 
 between two elaiiiiants, one a plaintiff in a Sujie- 
 rior Court suit, the other a ])laiiitifrina('ounty 
 (.'oiirt suit, the ap]ilicatioii for an interpleader 
 order was properly niaile in the Superior Court, 
 although the seizure was made under the County 
 Court writ before the Superior Court writ came 
 into the sheriff's h.iiid. Strani/c v. Toroiih) 
 Td,<imi>h Co., 8 P. R. 1.— Daltcm, Q. C. 
 
 In an interpleader issue the claimant claimed 
 under his purchase from the chattel mortgaj{cc, 
 and the issue was found .igainst him : — Held, 
 that he could not afterwards set up anotlicr 
 title in the same issue, but that this was mat- 
 ter for a substantive application to the court. 
 Barker v. Ltemn, 1 O. li. 114.— Hoyd. 
 
 Where there has been a trial by jury in an 
 interpleader issue directed from the Chaiieery 
 Divisiiiii, an ap)dication for a new trial must lie 
 made to the Divisional ('oiirt, and not to a single 
 judge. CVi'v. Caw/i'xil, 9 P. H. 498.— Hoyii. 
 
 Where, after judgment in an action in the 
 Common Pleas Division, an issue on a garnishee 
 application was directed to be tried under Rule 
 373, O. J. Act (Cou. Rule r 39), by a County 
 
1021 
 
 INTERPLEADER. 
 
 1022 
 
 any order on a failure to 
 V. Mon-ixou, 10 P. IS. (iOO.- 
 
 ■Coiirtjiulgeandjury: — Held, that such judge liail | sent order, for it was an interlocutory order, 
 no jurisdiction to make an order to produce )ie- and tlie variation did not affect third parties. lb. 
 fore trial, and consequently no autliority to make : , , , . , . , i i, , 
 
 produce. Cochrane. . ^ !««'il J"'l«« '^ "'l'?^^ ^?»J'^y *.'»« proceed- 
 
 -Rose '"=* '" '^" '"^*""' ""'' "' which an interpleader 
 
 aro.sc were carried on, and who himself made 
 
 Ssmhle, that if the claimant be in possession tlie interpleader or<ler, has power to make an 
 
 at tiie time of the seizure, the execution creditor interlocutory order in the issue ttiereby directed. 
 
 gliould be plaintiti' in the interpleader issue. Coulsoii >: Spiers, P. li. 491, followed. Swam 
 
 Uiiiirtiii V. Ti'tx, IL p. K. 6(i.— Rose. v. StoMaii, 12 P. R. 4iK).— (ialt. 
 
 An interpleader issue arising out of an action See Cniia'Uan Rank of Conimr'irg v. Talker, 8 
 ill tiie High Court of Justice, was directed to Ije P. R. ,•},")!, p. 1025; liarkrr v. Li'.fxoii, 9 P. R. 
 tried in a County Court pursuant to 4-t Vict. c. j 107, p. 398 ; Duncan v. Tees, 11 P. R. 66, 296, 
 7, s. 1 (Out.): — Held, tl.at a motion tc post- | p. lOlfi ; Coiine/l v. Htckork, 15 A. R. 518, p. 
 pone the trial of the issue "should have been ^ 1018; Ih Amlevson and Jiarber, 1.3 P. R, 21, p. 
 
 Lonilun and Cunn 
 . Morphy, li P. R. 
 
 niiulc in the County Court. 
 d'Mii Loan and Ai/ency Co. v 
 8(i. — Ualton, Munter. 
 
 Remarks by Armour, J. , on the inconvenience 
 of tiie practice of making the execution creditor 
 
 1018. 
 
 VIII. Al-PKAl.:,. 
 
 Appeal to judge in chambers from master's 
 
 tlie jilaiutifT in interpleader wliere tlie goods { decision as to costs. See Clirittie v. Conway, 9 
 
 when seized are in the possession of .,iie claim- | P. R. 529, p. 102.5. 
 
 lint. Winjiddv.Fon-tir, 14 O.K. 102. » • .. i i ■ •■ it 
 
 •' An interiileailer issue -M-isiug <iut of an Jiction 
 
 In an action pending in the High Court, an in tlie l'liaiii;ery Pivi.-ioii of the High Court of 
 interpleader issue and all sn'osecpient proceed- | Justice was sent, to a County Court for trial by 
 inj;8 were transferred under the 44 Vict. c. 7, s. [order m.ule in chambers : — Held, that it was to 
 1 (Oat.), to the county court of Middlesex. By 1 be intemled that the order was made undor 44 
 a subsequent order made on consent, the trial of , Vict. c. 7 (Out-), rather than under the inter- 
 sucli i.ssue was withdrawn from Middlesex, and ' pleader jurisdiction of the <dd Court of Chancery; 
 a special case was agreed on, and the venue i and th it being so, that a Divisional Court of the 
 cliiiiige<l from Middlesex to York, where the ! High Court of Justice had no jurisiliction to 
 special case was argued :— Held, (per Patterson j hear an appeal from the judgment of the County 
 and Osier, J J. A. ), th.it in strictness the appeal j Court on such issue, and that such appeal should 
 sliouM be({Uisheil. The transfei' to the Miil<llo i have been to the Court of Appeal under R. S. 
 sex (bounty Court was tinal, and there w.as no I O. (1877) c. 54, s. 23. Closi' v. Exchange Bank, 
 jurisdiction under the statute or otherwise to | 11 P. H. 186. — Cliy. D. 
 transfer the issue or any part of it, or to cliange 
 tlie v mile to aiij- other County Court. The pro- 
 ceedings in tile County Court of York could 
 therefoi-e only be reganled as a suminary trial 
 liv consent from wliicli no appeal lay. Count v. 
 L.-, 14 .A. R. 503. 
 
 A motion to quash an .appeal to this court 
 from the judgment of Ferguson, .1. (9 O. K. 
 314), upon the trial of an interpleader issue, 
 upon the ground that the dccisiim was inter- 
 locutory, and not iijiiiciilable under section .35, 
 ((. J. Act, was dismissed without costs, the 
 members of the court being divided in opinion. 
 Per Hagarty, (.'. J. O., and Osier, J. A.— The 
 decision in (jut'Stion was an interlocutory order 
 within the meaning of section 35, O. .1. Act, 
 and one from whicli there would have been no re- 
 lief before the passing of the ( ). J. Act by a. direct 
 apjieal to this court ; ^iiid sectiiui 35 precludes 
 such an appeal under the (). .1. Act, though 
 there is the right to have the order reheard by 
 a Divisional Court, and .m ap|icil lies from the 
 order on rehearing, wlii^'li is not less interlocu- 
 tory than the onler at the trial, because an 
 appeal lay in such case before the (). J. Act. 
 I'er Burton and Patterson, .IJ. A. — The decision 
 is a final ailjiidication on the ((uestion of pro- 
 perty, and is only interlocutory in the sense of 
 being a step in the iiuerpleader proceedings 
 which, as a wii(.)e, are interlocutory with rela- 
 tion to the original action. Hut an appeal lay 
 before the .ludicature Act from the decision of 
 
 After delivery of an interpleader issue a jiarty 
 to it may take out a pra'cipe onler for produc- 
 tion by the opposite party. Such order should 
 lie issued and the record passed in the princiiial 
 otlice i>f the court in Toronto, as no locality is 
 lioilited out by the usual proccctlings in inter- 
 (ilt'iider. Jfiiniiiiion S. <(• /. Co. v. Kihny, 12 
 1'. U. 19. -Dalton, Maxi,:,: 
 
 A solicitor ntaiiu'd to collect a ilebt is not 
 entitled to interpliiid wi.hoiit a further retainer 
 for that purpose, but being so retained he has 
 the ordinary rights of solicitors as in other C(ui- 
 tested cases', j/nrblfv. /lihU, 12 P. It. 482.-- 
 Iluyd. 
 
 Where solicitors properly representing the 
 
 chtinunt and the execution ccditors in an 
 
 iiiteipleadir made an arrangi'ineiit by which 
 
 $4-11 of the claim made and |iriivided for in 
 
 the interpleader order was abandoned, and 
 
 the sheriU', by the direction and consent of an iiiter[)lcader issue notwithstanding its iiiter- 
 
 Iwtli the solicitors, in good faith distributed locutory ehariKiter. Therefore, this decision 
 
 ?411 among the creditors entitled, anil paid being the decision of a judge in court is appeal- 
 able under section 37 and is not within fcho 
 restricticm of section .35. Per Curiam.— Rule 
 510 does not give a right of appeal from the 
 ileeision in question, for it is in terms limited 
 to the trial oi acti<m», and cannot be extended 
 to the Iri il of interpleader issues. Qun;ru, per 
 Patterson, J. A., whether the term "iiiter- 
 
 oiily the balance into court, instc.id of the 
 wln)le proceeds of the sale, as directed by the 
 interpleader order, which was not amended: — 
 Held, tliat the solicitors had authority to make 
 such a variation of the <u'der, and the sherill' 
 Was justitied in acting upon it ; and it made no 
 difterencd that the interpleader order was a con- 
 
1023 
 
 INTEBPLEADER. 
 
 1024 
 
 
 2^:: 
 «*,!•:' 
 
 e 
 
 «<<» 
 
 locutory " in section 35 is not iisetl in the same 
 sense us in 4'! Vict. c. B, s. 4 (Out.), us denoting 
 the (^hariicter of the decision, and not tlie stage 
 at whicli it is pronounceil. McAndrew r. Uivr- 
 ker, 7 <;hy. "01, discussed. On iipj)eal to the 
 Supreme C'ourt it was :— Held, that an inter- 
 pleader issue to try the title to property taken ' 
 under execution on a final judgment in tiie suit | 
 in which it is issued is not an interlocutory ; 
 order witliin the meaning of tliut e.\i)rt'ssion in i 
 section 35 «f the .Judicature Act, or if it is it is : 
 such an order as was appcaliihle liefore tlie pas- | 
 sing of that Act and in either case it is appeal- ] 
 aide now. Wliil'mij v. Hovey, 12 A. R. 110 ; .V. , 
 v., Huh tioiH. Horey v. Whilimj^ 14 S. (J. 15. 515. | 
 
 The High Court of .Justice has no jurisdiction, 
 by virtue of R. H. O. (1887) c. »l, s. .Ki, subs. ; 
 2, or otherwise, to entertain a motion against a | 
 verdict or judgment obtained in the |)i.strict' 
 Court in an interpleader issue. Ishin/ir v. i 
 Stillh'an, iO O. U. 418.— Armour. [ 
 
 X. Costs. 
 
 1 . Security for CoMit. 
 
 Held, in an interpleader suit, that a married 
 woman was not a proper sdrcty, and time was 
 given to substitute another surety for her. 
 AftUlin V. Pmcoe, 8 I'. R. 372.— Dalton, (J.f. 
 
 Section 10 of the Interpleader Act, R. .S. 0. 
 (1877) c. .54, does not place a sheriff in a more 
 advantiigcous position tiian an onlinary suitor, 
 and the fact that a claimant is a married woman I 
 and in financial straits, is not a ground for I 
 ordeiing security for the sheiifrs costs. Hivett- 1 
 man v. Mornnon, 10 P. R. 440. — Royd. ' 
 
 Where one of the parties to an issue arising 
 out of garnishment proceedings is out of the juris- 
 diction, there is power under Rule .375 (Con. 
 "Rule 945) to order security for costs but : — 
 Semble, owing to there l>eing no rule in Ontario 
 similar to the Knglish Rule 804 (1883), there is 
 no power to make such an order in an intcr- 
 ]de.i(ler issue. Helniont i'. Aynard, 4 C V. U. 
 .352, and Tomlin.soii v. Land and Finance Cor- 
 ponition, 14 Q. H. I), .i;!!*, discussed. (Juimdkiii 
 Itmik- of Cnmmiicc v. Middhtoii, 12 I'. R. 121.— 
 Dultun, MasUr. But hee next case. 
 
 A |)arty to an interpleader issue may be 
 ordei-cd to give security for costs. Tlie dictum 
 of the nni8ter-in-chand>ers, in Canadian Hank of 
 Commerce I'. Middlctcm, 12 1*. R. 121, not ap- 
 proved. VVilliiims r. Crosling, 3 C. B. O.Mi, 
 followed. Strain v. Sloddurt, 12 P. U. 490.- 
 <]alt. 
 
 In an issue between a judgment creditor and a 
 gurnislieu as to the liability of the latter to the 
 judgment debtor : — Helil, that there was power 
 to order security for crtsts. The refusal of the 
 solicitor for the judgment creditor to disclose 
 his client's place of al)ode was not sullicient evi- 
 dence of his living out of the jurisdiction to 
 support such an or(ier. Kdivavdn v. Edwanln, 
 12 P. R. 583.— Ferguson. 
 
 2. Scode of CoHta. 
 
 Several executions from ditrerent county courts 
 having been placed in the sheriff's hands : — Held, 
 
 on an interpleader application to the superior 
 coiu't, that all costs, including those of the 
 sheriff, should be taxed on the county court 
 scale. Maxurel v. Laimdell, 8 P. R. 57. — Dal- 
 ton, i). C. .See next case. 
 
 In an interpleader m.itter where several writs 
 were placed in the sheriff's hands, one from a 
 county court, the others from the superior 
 courts, a successful claimant was held entitled 
 to superior court costs, as against the county 
 court execution creditor : — Held, also, that where 
 all the writs are from county courts, the sherift' 
 is entitled to county court costs only ; but a 
 successful party to the issue is entitled to supe- 
 rior court costs. Masuret r. Lansdell, 8 P. R, 
 57, remarkeil upon and modified. PhipjM v. 
 limmir, 8 P. R. 181.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 An execution for $105, issued from the Chan- 
 cery Division, and ceitain goods were seized, 
 which the plaintiff' herein claimed, but on an 
 interpleader issue he failed to establish his 
 claim: -Hehl, that costs on the lower scale only 
 should be taxed by the successful [larty to the 
 issue. The effect of Rule 2, O. J. Act, is to ap- 
 ply to all divisions the practice which existed as 
 to interpleader in the former Common Law 
 Courts, plus the special jwwer conferred on these 
 latter courts by 44 Vict. c. 7 (Ont.). And all 
 interjdeader issues involving under §400, in 
 whatever division arising, are now to be dis- 
 posed of by reference to county courts, and 
 costs awarded according to 44 Vict. c. 7, s. 3 
 (Ont.). Tlie judge who settles the (piestion of 
 these interpleatler costs may itirect what scale 
 shall be followed, litaty v. liryee, it 1". I!. 
 320.— Dalton, MoMer. — Boyd. See the two 
 next cases. 
 
 Where execution issued out of the High Coui t 
 of .lustice, C. P. D., and the sheriff under li. 
 S. O. (1877), c. .54, s. 10, obtained an interpleader 
 order, under which an issue between the parties 
 was directed to lie tritd in the County Court, 
 under 44 Vict. c. 7 (Ont.) :— Held, that the 
 sheriff was entitled to his costs under the inter- 
 pleader order to be taxed on the scale of tlie 
 court out of wliicii tin.' process under which he 
 seized the goods issued. Senililc, that the par- 
 ties to the issue shonlil also have their coNts 
 prior to the onler diro<'ting the issue on the su- 
 perior court scale. Beatv v. Brvce, 9 P. H. 
 320, explained. Arkill v. '(/c/j/tc, 9 P. It. ^IX — 
 Cameron. 
 
 Under an execution issued from the (i>iu'en's 
 Bench Division, a sheriff' seized certain gondii, 
 .some of which, valued at $110, were claimed liy 
 the plaintiff'. Tlie inaster-iM-itliaml)ers, on the 
 application <pf the slierdl', directed an inter- 
 pleader issue in the (,>ueen'h Hench Division, re- 
 serving the (|uestion of c(jsts, which he suh.se- 
 (picntly directed to be taxed on the County 
 Court scale following Bcaty i: Bryce, 9 P. I!. 
 .'120: Held, (I) That tin; master's discreliiin, 
 exercised under the jurisdiction derived from 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. :19, s. 29, and Rule 420, O. 
 .]. Act (Con. IJiile 30), is open to re\ lew liy an 
 appeal to a judge in clianibcrs, under Rule 427 
 O. .J. Act (<'on. Rule 8401. (2) That the scale 
 of costs after the issue on an interpleader, 
 must be determined by the scale applicable to 
 the fonim in which the issue has to be tried, 
 and before the issue, on the scale of the court 
 
1024 
 
 INTIMIDATION. 
 
 102S 
 
 to which the sheriff is compelled to resort to 
 .il)tain relief. Beaty v. Bryoe, 9 P. R. 320, not 
 followed. Christie v. Conway, 9 P. R. 529.— 
 ( 'anieron. 
 
 3. Othvr Cow,s. 
 
 A sheriff having made a seizure of goods under 
 ii writ of execution, which seizure the execution 
 I'i'vditor had not specially directed, and aclaini- 
 unt to the goods naving appearetl, the execu- 
 tion creditor refused to allow the sheriff to 
 withdraw. On the return of an interpleader 
 Hunimons obtained by the sheriff, the execution 
 creditor abandoned his claim : — Held, that tlie 
 execution creditor might abandon at that stage 
 of the proceedings without costs, and no order | 
 was made as to the costs of the sheriff. Cana- ; 
 iliait Bank of Commerce \\ Tasker, 8 P. R. .3.">1. — I 
 Osier. ; 
 
 A successful party in an interplea<ler issue 
 moving for an order barring the execution credi- I 
 tors, having given the sheriff notice of tlie n)-"- i 
 tion, was orderetl to ]>ay tlie sheriff's costs of ! 
 appearing on the motion, for such notice is un- 1 
 necessary. O'Brien v. Bull, 9 P. R. 494.— 
 Dalton, Miuter. 
 
 Where a mortgagee claimed all the goods 
 seized by a sheriff under execution, but it ap- 
 peared on the trial of an interpleader issue be- 
 tween the mortgagee and the execution eieditors 
 that some of tlie goods seized amounting to one- 
 .sixth of the total value were not covered by the 
 mortgage : — Semble, although the mortgagee was 
 entitled to the general costs of the issue, a de- 
 duction of one-sixth should be made in respect of 
 the gomls as to which he faileil. Seq^worfh v. 
 Meriden Sitrer Platimi Co., 3 O. R. 413. - 
 ISoyd. 
 
 Held, on the facts stated in the specie', case, 
 that the plaintiff and defendants shou i each 
 pay their own costs of the inter|ileader, aoil each 
 one moiety of the costs of the radway company 
 and of the sheriff. AteLiireii v. Cdiiwla Ventral 
 R. W. Co., 10 I'. R. 328. -Dalton, Master. 
 
 On appeal by a sheriff from the order of the 
 master-in-chanilKTs striking out so much of a 
 fonner order as awarded the sheriff bis costs of 
 appearing on a motion made by the claimant, in 
 uu interpleader for a final order barring the ex- 
 ecution cre<litor for del'ault in giving security for 
 cost's as directed by the order granting the inter- 
 pleader :- Held, that the sheriff was properly 
 served with notice of such motion, and was en- 
 titled to his costs thereof, (irai/ v. Alexander, 
 10 P. R. 358. -Osier. 
 
 When a writ of fi. fa. goods is placed in a 
 shcriti's hands, and special <lircctions are given i 
 to him to seize particular goods, though not in 
 contemplation of an adverse claim, if the execu- 
 tion creditor abandons after interpleader pro- 
 ceedings have been taken, he must ])ay the 
 Khcrift's and claimant's costs. VanStculen v. 
 VanSladeii, 10 P. K. 428.— Osier. 
 
 Where the special directions were sworn toon 
 one side and <lenied on the other, it was : — Held, 
 that the sheritf must be assuineil to have acted 
 o.ily under the writ, without such directions, 
 ami an ai>|ieal from the ni^ister's order refusing 
 eogts to the sheriff was dismissed, but without 
 
 65 
 
 costs, aa the affidavit in denial contained im- 
 pertinent and scandalous matter. lb. 
 
 A sheriff had seized goods under writs of H. 
 fa. in his hands, when the goods were claimed 
 by a chattel mortgagee. An interpleader issue 
 was dii'ected, and an or<ler was made for the 
 sheriff to sell the goods and pay the proceeds into 
 court, which was done : — Held, upon a liberal 
 construction of section 35 of 49 Vict. e. 16 (Ont.), 
 that the execution creditors who contested the 
 chattel mortgagee's claim in the interpleader 
 were entitled to their costs of the interpleader 
 as " costs of the execution " if they failed to 
 recover them from the claimant. Levy v. Davies, 
 12 P. R. 93.— Dalton, Master. But see also 
 Reid V. Gowan.% 13 A. R. 501. 
 
 A banking corporation, one of several execu- 
 tion creditors made parties to an interpleader 
 i.ssuo, did not desire to contest the right of the 
 claimant to its share of the proceeds of the 
 goods seized and sold, but was willing that such 
 share shouhl be paid over to the claimant, in 
 the event of the latter not succeeding in the 
 issue : — Held, that the corporation was not, 
 under these circumstances, liable to contribute 
 to the costs of the issue ; but, nevertheless, was 
 properly made a party to the issue, and would 
 be entitled, if the claimant failed, to its propor- 
 tion of the proceeds arising from the sale of the 
 goods. Dundas v. Darvdl, 12 P. R. .'U?. — C. 
 P. D. 
 
 See MrElheran v. London Masonic Mutual 
 Ben<ifit Association, II P. H. 181, p. 1017; Ander- 
 son and Barber, 13 P. R. 21, p. 1018. 
 
 X. Kffe("T of Judomknt. 
 See Farrow v. Tohin, 10 A. R. 69, p. 1089. 
 
 INTERPBETATION OF WORDS AND 
 TERMS. 
 
 See Words asu Terms. 
 
 INTERROGATORIES. 
 
 See EviDENOK. 
 
 INTESTATE. 
 
 I. Administuation of Estatm ov — See. 
 ExF,crToiw AND Admimsikators. 
 
 II. Statute OF Distiubutioss— See Distri 
 BCITION OP Kmtaie. 
 
 III. Escheat— .S'ee Esche.^t. 
 
 INTIMIDATION. 
 
 See Duress— Pari.iamkntarv Elections. 
 
 Injunction to restrain intimidation of work- 
 men. See Hynea v. Fisher, 4 O. K. 00, 78, p. 921. 
 

 
 
 
 ■''' '. 
 
 •W 
 
 J 
 
 
 - 1. 
 
 >.j. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 . ' 
 
 1027 
 
 INTOXIOATINO LIQUORS. 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 tj 
 
 i 
 
 w 
 
 ' 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 cr;: 
 
 i^i 
 
 INTOXICATINa LIQUORS. 
 
 I. LEiiisi.ATivE AiiTiioRiTV — See Co.vsTi- 
 TUTioNAL Law. 
 
 II. Canada Tempkrance Act. 
 
 1. Opemlionnf Statutes, 1028. 
 
 2. fjiaUilitji of Piirchaner, 1028. 
 
 3. LomliticH Affcted, 1029. 
 
 4. SnbmuMon to Electors. 
 
 (a) Generall,/, 1029. 
 
 (b) Scrnliiiy uf Votes, 10.10. 
 
 5. JurUdictiun of Maiiistrates. 
 (a) Police Mmjistrates, lO.SO. 
 
 (I)) Stipendiary Magistrates, 1032. 
 
 (c) Justices of the Peace, 103.'J. 
 
 6. DisqualiJicdtiijH of Magistrates, 1033. 
 
 7. Informations, 
 
 (a) Amendment of , 10.34. 
 (1)) O^/jo- t'cMci, 1035. 
 
 8. Summons and Serrice, 1036. 
 
 9. Proceedini/ in Absence of Defendant, 
 
 1037. 
 10. Adjournment of Proc.ecdinijs — Sec 
 
 .Jl'STIC'E (IF THE PeaCK. 
 M. Kridenee. 
 
 (a) /'Woe Conrictions, 1039. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 1010. 
 
 12. .Seacc/j irawiH^, 1042. 
 
 1 3. Con virtioujt. 
 
 (a) /'.»•//! oj, 1043. 
 
 (b) Amendment of, 1044. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 1044. 
 
 (d) /";««, 104.-.. 
 
 (e) Dixinss and Imprisonment, 1046. 
 
 (f) t'o.srv, 1047. 
 
 (g) Applkation for llilea^c, 1047. 
 (h) Hemoralhi/ Certiorari, 1047. 
 (i) Quashln;/, 104S. 
 
 (j) Cov/.i ()/■ (Jun^hhir/ Convictions, 
 1049. 
 
 (k) Appeal J rom (Quashing Convictions, 
 1049. 
 
 14. Application of Fines, 1049. 
 
 15. Expenses of Carrijinij out Act, 10.50. 
 III. Liquor License Act. 
 
 1. Application of , \0T\\. 
 
 2. By-laws and Hesolu'ions Relating to 
 
 Tarcrns and Shops. 
 
 (a) Suhmission In E'eetors, 1051. 
 
 (b) O/Zipi- Cases, 10.52. 
 
 3. Petitions Against Isiue if Licenses, 
 
 1053. 
 
 4. Transfer of Licenses, 10.54. 
 
 5. Jurisilictiou of Magistrates, 1054. 
 
 6. Selling Liquor on Prohihited Days. 
 
 (a) On Sunday, 1055. 
 
 (b) On Election Days— See I'ahlia- 
 
 MKNTAKV ElkcTION-S. 
 
 7. Selling Liquor Without a License. 
 
 (a) Persons and Premises Licensed, 
 
 1055. 
 (b; CVh^m, 10.56. 
 (0) »r//y /.i.(/</e, 1056. 
 
 8. Ciinrictions. 
 
 (a) /I mendment 'f, 1056. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 1056. 
 
 (c) Penalty, 1058. 
 
 (d) DittreKS and Imprisonment, 10.58. 
 
 (e) Removal by Certiorari, 10.59. 
 
 (f) Quashing, 10.59. 
 
 9. C/ivV Remedies Against Tavern-keeper/', 
 
 1059. 
 
 10. Restrictions on Sale to Imbriate«, 
 
 1059. 
 
 11. Proceeitimis Against License Comniif- 
 
 sioner'', 1060. 
 
 IV. Sale TO Indians, lOill. 
 
 V. Sale ok Ligniu Neaii Public Works, 
 1002. 
 
 VI. Salh ok LiguoR OR Tiieatin(i at Klkc- 
 TloNS — AVc Parliamkntarv Elei 
 
 TIOX.S. 
 
 II. Canada Temteranoe .\vt, 
 1. Operation of Statutes, 
 
 On an api.licutiuii to qii.isb a conviction under 
 the Tonipci'imou Act, 1878: — Held, tii;it the 
 adoption of tlie .\ct is on llu; day of p.illiiig. 
 Ri'iiiiia V, Jla'piu—R'iiiu'i v. />(///, 12 (). R. 
 330.— (Jalt. 
 
 Tbc information and conviction were ilrawn 
 
 up for an olfence against tbe ( anadi Tenipor- 
 
 ance .Act, 187S, wliilc the Itcvisuil Statutes of 
 
 ('•iuuuhi were in force bcfdiv and at tlie tunc the 
 
 inforniiition and ]»iocceding« tliercon were U:u\, 
 
 An (ill'euce was ])roveil tn li.ive l»ccu connnittcd 
 
 j botli before and aftcjr the revised hlitutcs came 
 
 ! into force : -Held, tliat tlie charge as laid 
 
 land proved must be treated as if under the 
 
 [original Act, which by 49 Vict. c. 4, ». 7 (Duni.), 
 
 ' was not absolutely repelled .so ii.s to aflect any 
 
 I penalty, etc.. incurred bel'ore the linic of such 
 
 I reneil. llegina v. JJiivnl'in, 14 O. K. 672.— 
 
 \N ilsoa. 
 
 The effect of the revislr)n of the Statutes of 
 Canada, brought into fmce i)y Royal Proclium- 
 tion, .March 1st, 18.S7, though in form repealing 
 the .\ct8 consolidated, is re dly to preserve tliciii 
 inunbioken continuity, and the adoption of tlic 
 Canada Tcmiierance Act, 1878, by nninicipalities 
 prior to that revision, has not been changed or 
 intcrfcre<l with l)y it. The alterations ni.ide in 
 the phraseology of the .•\et l)y the revision art- 
 not vital, and do not inateiially (change its rli.u- 
 ftcter or ellVct. Lireiise Ctimini-'sioners for /Von- 
 tenac V. County of Frontenac, 14 O. K. 741.— 
 Hoyd. 
 
 2. Liability of Purchaser, 
 
 The provisions of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 31 (Doni.), 
 apply to the Canaila TenipiTancu Act, I87S, 
 except in so far as the provisions of the latter 
 
 the t 
 being 
 of the 
 was [ 
 f.., 
 pni |io.si 
 the ciiu 
 county 
 ill t\w 
 coMiily 
 po.sc- 
 1). SeJ 
 
 sist of 
 
 thine 
 1S?)0, 
 the .•igi 
 did not 
 on ii'ii. 
 upon 
 
 IIUMIIS 
 
 their i'-. 
 
 eX( TCJHI 
 
 perly In 
 V. ,Sltni- 
 
 "' 
 
 toHii.-hi 
 i)eiiiH 
 Upon th 
 pLiiinoe 
 8. O. (I 
 nieaniiii 
 sliip.s 
 |Hi8sible 
 
1023 
 
 1029 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 
 
 lOSO 
 
 'IVniper- 
 
 Slatutrs of 
 
 10 1 11110 the 
 
 wore li.iil. 
 
 ooiniiiittt'il 
 
 itutos oaiiiL- 
 
 g,! us laid 
 
 \iiiilor tlic 
 
 . 7 (D'lm.), 
 
 atl'oi't, any 
 
 1110 of Hiioli 
 
 K. ()7.'.- 
 
 Statutos of 
 |'l()cl:Ulia- 
 
 111 roiioaliiig 
 ■osoi'vo lliiuil 
 litioii of the 
 iiiiicii)iilitics 
 
 cliaiigoil or 
 on.s iii.iilo ill 
 lovisioii Mv 
 Ilj^O itsi'liiii- 
 
 !•.< for Fill"- 
 
 ). ii. 741. 
 
 Act allow that they were not intended to apply 
 thereto : — HuUl, that a buyer of liquor cannot 
 ill respoct of a sale thereof made to him, be 
 regarded in point of law as an aider, abettor, 
 counsellor, or procurer, so as to come within 
 geotiou ir> of 32 & 3:{ Vict. c. 31 (L)om.), and 
 render that Hectioii applic.ible to an otl'unce 
 under aection !)9 of the Canada remperaiice Act, 
 187S. A conviction of a buyer of liijuor as such 
 aider, etc., was therefore quashed. Iteijina v. 
 HciUh, 13 O. R. 471.— Armour. 
 
 3. Loc<t lilies Afficlcil. 
 
 Defendant was, in the village of Parry Sound, 
 convicted by the stipendiary in tgistrate for the 
 District of I'.irry Simiid for a sale in the town- 
 ship of Humphrey of into.\icatiiig liquor con- 
 trary to the Canada Tempeianco Act, I87S : — 
 Held, that the township of Huinplirey was 
 williin the tciritoriid limits of the county of 
 ijinicoc, and that the Canada Tenipcranco Act 
 being in force in the Coiioty of .liiiicoe, was 
 ill force III lae tonnship of Humphrey, liegina 
 V. Shavele.ir 11 O. K. 727, iii/ra, qualified. 
 Keijiiui V. Monletth, 15 O. K. 'iitO.— Q. 13. D. 
 
 The Canada Temperance Act can have no 
 operation where the Indian Act is in force. A'e 
 MHailJ'i'., 17 O. K. 357.— Boyd. 
 
 Hee Rtyiiia v. J/iyjiim, 18 O. R. 148, p. 1033. 
 
 4. Sithminsion to Ekrtom. 
 (a) Oe.nentlhj. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of having sold 
 intoxicating liquors on liitli |).:cciiil)cr, ISSt, at 
 the t'lWOHliip ot Oakland, in llic county of Hrallt, : 
 beiiii; the day on whicii the vote for the passage 
 of the C. r. Act. 1878, for tlic county ot Hiaiit ; 
 was I Kcn. The towiiship.s ol O.ikland and Bur- 
 foi , in the county of Brant, had beiii lor the ' 
 piljjio.scs of Doiiiiiiinii elui'tiiiiis sii).iratt;d from ' 
 the Liiunty ot Biaiit and anncxcil to the adjoining ' 
 county : -Htdd, that the wold "coui'ty," as useii 
 ill till- Canada Teniperaiicc Act, IHr8, means 
 couiiLy lor iniinicipal and not for electoral pur- ; 
 poses, h'niiiiii v. ,\liiir,li,n\ II (». R. 7l.'7.— Q. B. ! 
 D. ,Sce /{Kjiiin v. Moiitii/li, !."> <). R. -JitO, vi/>rii. ' 
 
 Certain portions of the county of Biant con- 
 sist of Indian lands, ami the s.ile of liquor in 
 tln-.-ic laiuls is legiilati.'d by the Indian Act of 
 ISMt. and aiiieudiiu'iits I hereto : — Held, under 
 the eighth objection to the conviction —that it 
 dill not .ippear that the votes of the electors 
 oiillie Indian lands in the county were taken 
 ujioii the petition for the Act, or tli.it proper 
 nieiins were taken to enable them to exercise 
 their I'r.iiichise, or that they were permitted to 
 cxiiii.se 't -the jiresent |>roceediligs did not pro- 
 \m\\ biiiig the matter before the court. Rfyiiia 
 w.shinlatr, 11 O. K. 727. i). B. 1). 
 
 Held, that Indian electors resident in the 
 township of Tusearora, in the county of Brant, 
 being an linliaii reserve, had no right to vote 
 iip'iM the question of repeal of the C!anada IVin- 
 puiMiice Act in that county. .Senible, that .(. 
 !S. O. (188,"), c. 5, N. 1, is to be intcrprced as 
 meaning that the townships named shall be tow n- 
 8lii|is or municipal purposes, when it becomes 
 {Mjssible to make them such, us e. g. , in bitch a 
 
 ea.se as tlie present, when the Indians become 
 enfrancliised. R. S. C, c. 106, a. 12, refers to 
 white men, but not to Indians. Jie Metcalfe, 17 
 O. R. ;»7.— Boyd. 
 
 (b) ScnUiiit/ of Vule^. 
 
 A judge of the county court, in holding a 
 scrutiny of the votes polled at an election under 
 the C. T. Act, 1878, has only to determine the 
 majority of votes cast, on one sitle or the other, 
 by inspection of the ballots used in the election, 
 and has no power to inquire into ott'ences against 
 the .Act, and allow or reject ballots as a result 
 of such impiiry. (Henry, .1., dubitante). Chap- 
 man \: li:iiul, II S.C. R. 312. 
 
 Held, altirniing the judgment of Rose, J. (9 
 O. U. 1541, that a county court judge will not be 
 compelled by mandamus to inquire, on a scrutiny 
 of ballot papers, under sections, 01, 62, 63, of the 
 Canada I'emperance Act, 1878, (I) as to persona- 
 tion ; (2) bribery ; (.S) the status on the voters' 
 list of persons voting. Re Canada Temperance 
 Act, 12 A. R. 077. 
 
 5. JurMiclion of Ma(jlitraks. 
 
 (a) Police MayixtraiM. 
 
 The defendant was convicted at the town of 
 Perth by the police magistrate for the south 
 riding ot the county of Lanark for selling, in 
 the .said town of Perth, intoxicating liquor con- 
 trary to the Canada Temperance Act, 1878. 
 I'he authority of the police magistrate w^as de- 
 rived fiMiii a commission appointing him for the 
 south riding of Lanark as constituted for pur- 
 poses of rejircseiitation in the Legislative As- 
 sembly of Ontario. The same magistrate had 
 been a few weeks previously by a separate com- 
 mission appointed for the north riding of Lan- 
 ark. The town of Perth was situate wholly 
 within the said south riding: — Held (Armour, 
 .1., dissent iiigl, that said magistrate was not a 
 pcdicc magistrate for the town of I'erth within 
 the meaning of the lU.'Srd section of the Canada 
 Temperance Act, 1878, and that Perth could not 
 by virtue of the said commission ap[ioiiiting a 
 police magistrate for the south riding of the 
 county be licld to !)o a town having a police 
 magistrate. Per Armour, .'. , that Perth was 
 uiiiler tl.o circuinstanecs a town bvviiig a police 
 magistrate, and the said police magistrate had 
 thcicfore in this case jurisdiction to convict. 
 Rtiijina V. Yoiuiij, LS O. R. 108.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The town of Paris is an incorporated town 
 wholly within the county of iir.int. The de- 
 fendant was convicted before a police magistrate, 
 whose comiiiis.sioii was for the county of Brant, 
 exclusive of the city of lirantfoni, for that she 
 did at the town of Paris, in said e(uiiity of Brant, 
 unlawfully sell intoxicating licpior contrary to 
 the C.inaila Temperaiice Act, 1S78:— Held, that 
 said magistrate was not, within the meaning of 
 section 103 of the Canada Tenipcranco Act, 
 1878, a police magistrate for the town of Paris, 
 and that the town of Paris couhl not, by virtue 
 of the s.'iiii commission iipiiointing a police ma- 
 gistrate for the county of Brant, be held to be a 
 town having a pidico magistrate. Regiiia v. 
 Young, 13 O. R. 108, followed. Rtijina v. Brad- 
 ford, 13 0. R. 735.— O'Connor. 
 
 fc 
 
W' 
 
 1031 
 
 INTOXIO^TINa LIQUOBS. 
 
 103^ 
 
 
 ST"' 
 
 9ta 
 
 —•II, 
 
 111 
 
 The magistrate had a comniission an n police 
 magigtrate for the county of Halton iin<l an in- 
 dependent and aubscquent commission for the 
 town of Oakville; and he took the infornmtion 
 and part of the evidence at Oeorgetowii, and 
 then adjourned to Oakville and subsequently 
 from Oakville back to Georgetown, where he 
 adjudicated upon the evidence and made the 
 conviction :— Held, following Regina v. Riley, 
 12 P. R. 98, that the magistrate had jurisdic- 
 tion to sit in Oakville under his commission as 
 police magistrate for the county, and he conse- 
 quently had jurisdiction to adjourn as he did. 
 Begina v. Clark, 15 0. R. 49.— Rose. 
 
 The police magistrate for the county of Brant, 
 whose commission excluded the city of Brant- 
 ford, convicted the defendant of an offence 
 against the 0. T. Act, 1878, committed at a 
 place in the county outside of the city. The 
 informotion was laid, the charge was heard 
 and adjudicated upon, and the conviction was 
 made in the city of Brantford :— Held, that the 
 magistrate had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in 
 the city of Brantfoi d, and that what he did was 
 not authorizetl by 41 Vict. c. 4, s. 9 (Ont.). 
 Begina v. Jietmer, 15 O. R. 266.-Q. B. D. 
 
 An information was laid before K., who de- 
 scribed himself as " one of Her Majesty's police 
 magistrates in and for the county of Oxford ;" 
 and he was similarly described in the summons 
 and conviction. K. 'a commission was issued on 
 the 12th January, and appointed him police 
 magiftrate in and for the county of Oxford. It 
 was urged that Woodstock and IngersoU were 
 two towns in the county, and that each had, at 
 the time of information laid, a population of 
 more than 5,000 inhabitants, so as to have, by 
 law, each a police magistrate, which it must be 
 presumed was the case here , and therefore K. 
 could not be police magistrate for the county 
 which includecl these towns as there coilld not 
 l>emore than one police magistrate fur the same 
 county. On motion to quash the conviction : — 
 Held, that the application must be refused : 
 that there was no judicial knowledge of the fact 
 of such towns containing such population, nnd 
 no knnwKdge of it by ufhdavit or otherwise: 
 that even if there were more than one police 
 magistrate, the other might have been np)j<iinted 
 subsequently to K. ; and the appointment of 
 such other, luid not; K., would be void; and 
 under R. 8. C. c. 106, s. 17, the conviction must 
 bo detnicd si fficient. Reijina v. Atkinxon, 15 
 O. R. 110.- Wilson. 
 
 On ITth November, 1886, U. was appointed 
 by the LieuteiiantOoveinor of Ontario, police 
 magistiute lor the county of Brant, exclusive of 
 the city ol Brantfoi d, duiing pleabuie. On 14th 
 March, 18>'-7, an infoiinntion wiis hiid before 
 him, as t-uch police magistrate, charging that 
 delcndant at the township of >South I)umfrie8, 
 in the coui.ty of Biant, on SIst dny of Jan- 
 uary, 1887. contniry to the C. T. Act, 1878, 
 did unhiwfully sell intoxicaiing liquors, etc., 
 npon which G. itsutd, nt the city of Brantford, 
 a summons lequiiing defendant to appe;ir at his 
 (fl.'s) tflBce, '•('ouit House, Brantford," before 
 him, or such justices of the peace for the said 
 county ai" may then be there, to aiiswer said 
 charge. On im a| jilication for a prohibition to 
 prohibit G. ficm hearii'g the complaint :- Held, 
 that uiidir 41 Vict. c. 4, 8. 9 (Out.), and fcub- 1 
 
 sections, O. had authority to hear, adjudicate anil 
 determine the matter of the complaint at the 
 city of Brantford. Regina v. Lee, 15 O. K. 353.— 
 Robertson-C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that G.'s commission was properly 
 issued durine pleasure ; and that it was not 
 necessary under sub-section /' of section 103 of the 
 Canada Temperance Act, that the town of Parix 
 should be excluded from the operation of the 
 commission ; but qua>re, whether the police 
 magistrate could try an offence arising within 
 the said town. Ih. 
 
 Hehl, that there was nothing in the stat- 
 ute which rec^uired the police magistrate t<»^ 
 exercise the functions of his othce at a police 
 court set apart and appointed by law therefoi-, 
 and under 48 Vict. c. 17, s. 4 (Ont.), G. had the 
 right to occupy the court-room. Ih. 
 
 QuaTe, whether it was intended that G. 
 should hear the complaint, or whether thciv 
 was power to give alternative jurisdiction to il<> 
 so ; but this was not a ground for prohibition. 
 Ih. 
 
 Having regard to the provisions of section 
 103 b. of the Canada Temperance Act, R. S. 
 C c. 106, as interpreted by section '1, an union 
 of counties united for municipal purposes can 
 not be said to have a police magistrate by rea- 
 son of one of the counties so united having one ; 
 and a conviction by a person commissioned us 
 police magistrate for the county of Dundas foi- 
 an offence against the Act, committed in thul 
 county, being one of the united counties of 8tor- 
 mont, Uundas and Glengarry, was quashed for 
 want of jurisdiction. Bfi/iita v. Ahlmtl, 13 O. R. 
 640.- Q. B. U. ; See 51 V. c. 34, s. (L>om.). 
 
 A person having a commission as police magis- 
 trate for the county of H., such commiKsion not 
 excluding the town of W., and also having a 
 sepaiate commission as police magistrate for 
 the town ol W., C, G., and S., respectively, all 
 being in the county of H., convicted the de- 
 fendant at W., of an offence against th^' Canada 
 Timpeiance Act committed at W., but upon an 
 infoiniatiou taken and summons issued by him 
 at the town of C. :- - Held , that having i'e|;ai d to the 
 provisions of section 103 b. of the Canada 'Icni- 
 peiaiice Act, U. S. C. c. 106, and U. S. O. (1887) 
 c. 72, s. 11, the magistrate had jiirisilictioii 
 by virtue of his commission for the county over 
 the oUence committed at W., and had alsojiiri.i- 
 dict on by virtue thereof to take the informa- 
 tion and issue the summons at ('. ; anil the laet 
 th.t he desciibed himself in the iiiforinationand 
 Bomii.oiis OS police magistiate for the tovMi of 
 W. (lid not deprive him of the jurisdiction 
 which he had as police magistrate for the county. 
 Retina v. Young, 13 O. R. I!)8, not tollowed. 
 Reuimi v. Rue, 16 O. R. 1.- (/. B. 1). Nee 51 
 Vict. c. 34, 8. 6 (Dom.). 
 
 See Rignii v. Doyle, 12 0. R. 347, p. 1044; 
 Rei/iiin v. Brovm, 16 O. R. 41 ; Reqina v. Ed- 
 gar, 17 O. K. 188, p. 1039. 
 
 (b) Stipendiary Mntj'idralcK. 
 
 Held, that the township of Humphrey fornuci 
 part I 'f ih< district of Parry >S<)iind lor certain 
 jui.icial I urposcs, and that the stipendiary nut- 
 
 It 
 
1033 
 
 INTOXIOATINa LIQUORS. 
 
 1031 
 
 gistrnto for the district of Parry Sound liad ju- 
 risdiction to try offences against the Canada Tem- 
 perance Act committed in tliat township. Rt- 
 yinav. Monteith, 15 0. R. 290.— Q. B. D. 
 
 (c) JuMiccH of the Peace. 
 
 There being no evidence that any beverage of 
 an intoxicating character had been sohl and 
 therefore no evidence to support a conviction 
 under the Canada Temperance Act, 1878, for 
 selling intoxicating liquors : — Held, that the 
 magistrates had no jurisdiction, and the con- 
 viction was therefore quashed, and, under the 
 circumstances shewn, with costs against the 
 prosecutor. Heijina v. Beard, 13 O. R. 608. — 
 Robertson. 
 
 The words "being within the jurisdiction of 
 such justice " in section 13 of the Summary 
 Convictions' Act, R. S. C. c. 178, are to be read 
 i^ referring to the time when the offence or act 
 wns committed, and not to the time when the 
 infonnation was laid ; and an order nisi to 
 ipiash a conviction for an offence against the 
 second part of the Canada Temperance Act on 
 the ground tliat the defendant not being with- 
 in the territorial jurisdiction of the convicting 
 magistrate at the time the information was laid, 
 having left such jurisdiction after the offence 
 was committed, the magistrate had no jui'is- 
 diction to take sucli information nor to summon 
 the defendant from witliout his jurisdiction, 
 was discharfjed with costs. Hegtita v. Bachelor, 
 15 0. R. 641. -Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant was convictad by two justices 
 of the peace of the district of M., for a breach 
 of the second part of the Canada Temperance 
 Act for selling liquor at the village of B., in the 
 district of M. The Act was in force in tlie ] 
 village of B. only by reason of its being for j 
 municipal purposes within tlie county of V.. | 
 within wliich county the Act was in force, and 
 there was no evidence to sliew that the Act was 
 in force in the district of M. witliin wliich B. was 
 situated :— Held, that the justices of the peace 
 of the M. district had no jurisdiction to convict 
 the defendant, for he could only be convicted by 
 justices of the peace whose commission ran into 
 V. county. Regiua v. Iliijijinn, 18 O. R. 148. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 See Reqina v. RaiJimy, 11 O. R. 210, p. 1037; ! 
 Regina v. Brown, 16 0. R. 41, p. 1040. 
 
 magistrate discussed. Regiiia v. Klemp, 10 O. 
 R. 143. — Wilson. Followed in Regiita v. Eli, 
 10 0. R. 727, p. 1037. 
 
 The c.illing as a witness of a magistrate sitting 
 on the case does not of itself discjualify him from 
 further acting in tlie case. RfgiiM v. Sprotde, 
 14 O. 11. 37.>. -C. P. D. 
 
 Upon a motion to quash a conviction by a 
 police magistrate for a second offence against the 
 Canada Teuiperance Act ; — 1. It was contended 
 that a magistrate had a disqualifying interest in 
 the iirosecution, because he had employed and 
 paid agents to secure convictions under the Act, 
 and because he was a strong temperance advo 
 cate, with an alleged bias in favour of the prose- 
 cution in casc.-i under tlie Act. It was not shewn 
 that tlie niiiglHtrate was interested or engaged in 
 promoting or directing the prosecution of this 
 offence, or defraying the expenses of it, or pay- 
 ing agents for evidence to be given upon it :— 
 Held, that it was not to be inferred from any- 
 thing alleged to have lieeii done by the magis- 
 trate in otiier |>ro3ecutions, tliat the siinie was 
 done by Iiini iu this ; and that the statements 
 were of too loose and vague a character to sup- 
 port a finding that tlie magistrate was disquali- 
 tied from sitting. Regina v. Brown, 16 0. R. 
 41.— Q. B. D. 
 
 At the hearing the defendant attempted to 
 shew by witnesses that the magistrate had a dis- 
 <lu:iIifyiMg interest in the case, but the magis- 
 trate refused to admit such evidence : — Held, 
 that tiie evidence wivs inadmissible, and, even if 
 admissible, the rejection of it would not afford 
 ground for quashing the conviction. Regina r. 
 Sproule,*l4 (). R. 375, not followed, lb. 
 
 6. Dinqualijicaiion of Magistiates. 
 
 It was alleged that the prosecution for offences 
 against the Act were taken before the magistrates 
 in this case because it " was notorious that they 
 were thorough-going Scott- Act men," and that 
 they had said that in no case of conviction would 
 they inflict a less fine than $50. It was also 
 alleged that one of the justices was a member of 
 a local committee for prosecuting offences against 
 the Act, but it appeared he had resigned from 
 the committee before the Act came into force in 
 the county ; — Held, that there was no disqualify- 
 ing interest in the magistrates, nor any real or 
 substantial bias attributable to them, nor any 
 reason why they should not lawfully adjudicate 
 in the case. The cases relating to disqualifica- 
 tion by reason of favour or interest in a judge or 
 
 7. Jn/ormationH. 
 
 (a) ,4 meHilmmt of. 
 
 Held, that an information which includes the 
 three distinct offences of keeping for sale, sell- 
 ing, and bartering, intoxicating liquors, which 
 are jM-ohibited by section 90 of the Canada Tem- 
 perance .Act, 1878, contraveues 32-33 Vict. c. 31, 
 s. 2.5, wiiicli provides tiiat every information 
 shall be for one offence only : — Held, that such 
 information may be amended by striking out all 
 the offences charged except one ; and that such 
 an amendment may be made after the cose has 
 been closed and reserved for decision, Regina 
 1 V, Beiiiielt, 1 0. R. 445. — Cameron. 
 
 An information was laid against the defendant 
 ! on 28th December, for having on 25th December 
 sold intoxicating liquor, in violation of the Can- 
 ada Temperance Act, 1878. Upon a search 
 I made, intoxicating liquor was found on the pre- 
 , miscs on 1st January, 1883, in the bar of the 
 hotel. On this evidence the information was 
 amended at tlie hearing on the 5th January, so 
 ' as to charge the keeping and not the selling. 
 I The defendant was present at the amendment, 
 ! and objected to it, but waived an adjournment 
 and entered upon his defence. The magistrate 
 having found the defendant guilty, drew up a 
 conviction for keeping intoxicating liquor, which 
 was returned to the clerk of the peace, and filed 
 on 17th January, 1883. On the 27th .January, 
 1883, he drew up a second conviction, the same 
 iu all respects as the first, with the exceptioa 
 

 1036 
 
 INTOXIOATINO LIQUOBS. 
 
 1036 
 
 that it was for keeping for sale intoxicating 
 liquor. This wits also rctiiniecl and fileil: — Held, 
 that he had power to draw up and return the 
 second conviction, which was warranted by the 
 evidence set out in the rcjiort of the case : — 
 Held, also, tiiat tliere was no variance between 
 the uviilence and the information to warrant an 
 amendment, but that tlic evidence disclosed a 
 new ofl'cnee, and tlie iimundcd iiifdrniation be- 
 came in fact a new one, iind the dd'endaiit, by 
 his presence and ))y entering on his defence, had 
 waivetl the service of a suminouM upon him :— 
 Held, also, that it was no objection to the con- 
 viction that it was for keeping and selling, 
 while the information charged tlie krcjiing only. 
 Jieiiinn v. neinietl, 3 R. 4.\-Q. 1!. I). 
 
 Held, in this case that there was no v;iriunce 
 between the infoi-niation and conviction because 
 the former used the expression "disjidsid," and 
 the latter "snle," and that if there had been, an 
 amendment of the informntion would havelieen 
 made under sections 110, 11", 1 IS of the Canada 
 Temperance Act, 1JS78. It'd/liia v. JIuili/iii.i, 12 
 O. R. .%7.— Wilson. 
 
 There was an amendment of the original in- 
 formation by changing the date of the oli'cnee 
 from the 10th to the 'JMrd of February, and the 
 parties agreed that the evidence taken sliould 
 stand for the juirposes of the amended cliarge 
 instead of having a needless repetition of it : — 
 Held, that this cour.sc was unol)jecti(inal)le. 
 The defendant's application for a certiorari was 
 refused, with costs. Jici/iiia v. Jin//, 12 P. 1'. 
 142.— Royd.-t^). H. I). 
 
 (1.) Ol/iir Caxe.*. 
 
 Section 91 of the " Liquor License Act, ISSS," 
 46 Vict. c. 30(l)om.), amended by 47 Viet. c. 
 32, s. 10 (Doni.), applies only tip localities in 
 which the C. T. Act, 1878, is not in force. In 
 this case, the information was for selling liijuor, 
 and the conviction was for "selling intoxicating 
 liquor and having hotel appliances in the b.irroom 
 and premises": — Held, that even if a double 
 offence had been charged in the infurniation the 
 magistrate had power to <lrop one and proceed 
 on the other; but tiiat in this case a second 
 offence under section 1 18 of the Canada Temiier- 
 ance Act was not embraced in the words used. 
 Hfiliim V. K/(mp, 1(» O. R. 143. — Wilson. 
 
 An information under the "Scott Act" cnn be 
 laid before one justice, although two must try 
 the case. lb. But see next case. 
 
 It is imperative, under section lOo of tiie 
 Canada Temperance Act, 1878, that an informa- 
 tion thereunder be laid before two justices, and 
 that they both be named in the summons. Itt- 
 ijina V. Ravisay, 11 O. R. 210.--Calt. 
 
 Held, following Regina v, Ramsay, 1 1 (). R. 
 210, that a conviction under the Canada Tem- 
 perance Act, 1878, upon an information l.iid be- 
 fore one magistrate only, was bad, and must be 
 ((uashed. JKeghin v. Johnson, 13 (). K. 1.-^ 
 O'Connor. But see Rfi/'ma v. Ditriiion, 14 O. R. 
 172, p. 1037; Reiji'ia v.' Sproiilr, U O. R. 375, p. 
 1037; Heghta v. ColUiin — Hcyina v. (loii/aix, 14 
 (). R. 613, p. 1037. 
 
 Informations should be drawn with care so as 
 to specify that the ofifence is against the second 
 
 I part of the Canada Temperance Act. Ii<gina 
 j V. Etiijar, 15 O. R. 142.— Rose. 
 
 Quwre, whether the defendant could object to 
 the regularity of the infoimation and summons, 
 
 i he having appeared in obedience to the summons, 
 and pleaded not guilty. Ilnjiiia v. lint, 16 (> 
 
 |R. l.-y. B. 1). 
 
 t An information for an offence against the Can - 
 ! ada Tenqierance Act chargeil that it was com- 
 mitted "within the space of three months last 
 : |)ast," and did not state that the Act was iit 
 force in the place where the defendant was al- 
 leged to have committed the od'ence. No objec- 
 tion to the juri.'^diction was taken before the 
 police magiNtrate who tried the defendant; the 
 defendant appeared, submitted to the jurisdic- 
 tion, was called as a witness fortlic pioseeution, 
 uavc evidence as to the od'ence alleged against 
 liim, and was convicted. The conviction shewed 
 that the Act was in force where the offence Mas 
 alleged ti> have been coniniittrd : — Held, that it 
 was no objection to the information tli;it it did 
 not state the particular date of the oH'ence, or, 
 under the above circumstances, that the Act 
 was in force in the jilacc where it was alleged to 
 have been committed; in any case thcue deftcts 
 in the information were mere irregularities and 
 were cureil 1)V R. S C. c. 178, s. 87. liui'niav 
 Co/litr, 12 1>."R. 31C.-MacMabon. 
 
 See Reri'ma v. Keinudy, 10 O. U. o90, j). 1014. 
 
 8. Summons and Service. 
 
 When the information was amended so as to 
 become. il\ elfect, a new one, the defendant, by 
 a|)]iearing and entering upon liis defence and 
 giving evidence thereby waived the necessity 
 for a .summons. Hi-ijiiin v. BeniatI, 3 ((. R. 45 
 — Q. 1!. 1). 
 
 Defendant was steward of a "social club" in 
 Walkerton. The niimbei-.swcre elected by ballot, 
 and upon paying an entiance fee of !?! an<l sub- 
 scription of .yjn per month, were entitled to use 
 the club-room and buy frcpui the steward spirit- 
 uous litpiois. The nil ndiers were not responsible 
 for gooil.s ordered oi' for any general expens-es. 
 An information was laid against defendant on 
 10th Septcnd)er, 188.'), for an ofl'cnee against the 
 second part of the Canada Temperance Act, 1S7S, 
 and on the 21st Septendicr, 1885, he was, about 
 4 p.m., served with a summons to appear at 8..'i0 
 a.m. next ilay, before two magistrates. On the 
 22nd day of Scptenil)er informations were, in two 
 other cases, laid against him for similar olfenccs, 
 and he was in each, at 8.15 ,i.m., servetl with a 
 summons to appear before the magistrate at !♦ 
 \ a.m., that day. When the magistrates' court met 
 j the first case was ]mrtially gone into, and before 
 it was ch)scd the prosecution asked the magia- 
 I trates to take up the second and third cases. The 
 1 defendant stated that he had not understood 
 j what the summonses meant, and by advice of 
 ' counsel ho refused to plead. The magistrates 
 entered a plea in each case of not guilty, and 
 ! went on with both cases. The evidence in both 
 showed that the offences charged in each case 
 occurred on dates different from those laid in tlie 
 infonnation. The magistrates amended the dates 
 in the information. The defendant and his coun- 
 sel were in court all the time awaiting completion 
 of the evidence in the first, but refused in any 
 
1037 
 
 INTOXIOATINO LIQUORS. 
 
 1038 
 
 way to plead or to tiike fiiirl in the sofiiiil mid 
 tliird 011808, or to ask udjouniiiiont the 'eof. Tlie 
 iimgistratea, after taking ail tlie cvidei.co tliere- 
 in, at ref|iK'8t of defendant, udjoiirneii tlie first 
 case, and in tlie seeond and tliird eases emivicted 
 the defendant of tlie oHeiiees as charged in the 
 amended informations. It was sIkumi hy affi- 
 davits that the magistrates were willing in these 
 eaies, hail defendant jdeaded, to ailjourn after 
 taking the evidcnet? of the witnesses |)reaent. 
 Theie were also allida vits shewing that the magis- 
 trates had heen liefore the "S<'iitt Aet"interostetl 
 ill |)rcinioting |ii(iliilpiti(iii : — Held, that the pro- 
 ceedings were eontrary to n.itiiral jnstiee, as the 
 ..•Miinionses were served almost immediately ho- 
 fori' the sittings of the <'nurt which liefeiidant 
 was ladled to attend. The iiinvietions were 
 tliei'et'ore (luashed, with costs against the eom- 
 plaiiiant. JfniinHV. K>i,lQO. K. 7'27. O't'onnor. 
 
 Wliere a summons stated that an information 
 hail heen laid only before the justice who signed 
 it, and yet called upon the defendant to appi^ar 
 hefore auotiier naimd justice as well : -Held, 
 that the justices had no jurisdiction, ami that the 
 defendant's appearing liefore them did not confer 
 it. It'iiliiri V. /ifims'tii. 1 1 (). H. -ilO. — (iait. See 
 the following case.i. 
 
 The omission of the nanus of the justices from 
 the sununona was held U> he no ohjeetiim as the 
 eoinphiint was tried liefore the justices liefnre 
 whiiiu the inforiniitiou was laid. Kegiiia r. 
 Ramsay, 11 <). R. 'iJO, distiiiLruiwhed. /''i/iiKi 
 V. Sj.roiik, UO. R. 37").— t'. 1'. D. 
 
 A suinnions under the ('. T. Act, 1878, recited 
 theiiiforniatinn.which was taken hy two justices, 
 tn have been "laid before the undeisigiied," who 
 WH3 olio of the justices only, and reijuiTcd the 
 defendant to appear luforo him, or before the 
 justices who should be at the time and iilace 
 named to hear the complaint : — Held, that the 
 nanu' of the justice who was not a pai ty to the 
 summons need not be stated in it l.'rgiiia r. 
 Ranis.iy, 1 1 O. R. 210, not followed on tins point: 
 — Held, also, that although the summons did not 
 conform to the facts, yet, iis the two justices 
 who took the information were bntli piesent at 
 the healing, and the difeiidaut was convicted on 
 the merits, the objection to the Biiiumons was 
 not entitled to prevail iiiidir R. .•>. ('. e. 17S, 
 s, '-">^. Itniiiinv. hiiyiiioii, I4(). lt.(i7'J. — Wilson. 
 
 The summons for an oflenco under the C, 'i'. 
 Act. 1 S78. stated that the il(;fendaiit was cli U'ged 
 witli in oll'eiiee before one justice. The iiifornia- 
 tinn was laid before two justices, one of whom 
 issued the siimnioiis. The .lefeudant a[ip(!areil on 
 the summons, when two justiee.s were jircsent, 
 anilci'oss-exaniiiied the witnesses for the Crown, 
 and called witnesses mi his own beliilf : — Held, 
 that the fact of so is.suing the sumnioiis was a 
 mere irregularity, which was waived by appeai'- 
 ing on the suniiiKins : — Held, also, that the jus- 
 tices before whom the ease was to be tried need 
 not be named on the sumnioiis. ffripiin v. ('o(l'mn 
 —Uojnia V. (Imtliw, U O. R. (113— O'Connor. 
 
 See Rtijina v. Chn-ke. 1!H). It. (iOl, p. 1057. 
 
 9. Prvceediiii/ in A hseiu'c of Def'iiittaiit. 
 
 For the ofleiiee of selling liipior contrary to 
 the provisions of the " Cuuuda Teiiipurance Act 
 
 of 1878," a smnmoim was issued under 32 & 33 
 Vict. e. 31 (Dom.), made a|>pliuable to prosecu- 
 tions for such an oli'eiice, but which was not per- 
 sonally served on the defendant, being merely 
 left at his place of abode. The <lufeiidaiit ilid 
 not appear before the niagiatrate at the time nnd 
 place mentioned in the sunimons, whereupon the 
 magistrate proceeded e.\ ])arte and eoiivieted 
 him:— Held, that the eniivietion must b« 
 ijUashed ; and, as it .appeared that the defendant 
 had attempted to tamper with the iiiformaiit, 
 without costs, liiifma v. Uyun, 10 O. K. 2i54. — 
 Hose. But see iie.xt case. 
 
 A sunimons was issued for selling liquor con- 
 trary to the Canada Temperance .Act, which 
 was served by leaving it with defendant's wife 
 at his hotel. The defendant not ajijiearing at 
 the time and place nienlinned in the sunimuns 
 for the hearing, and on the constable proving on 
 oath the inanner in which the suninioiis had 
 heen served, the Jioliee magistrate liroceeded ex 
 parte to hear and determine the ease and con- 
 victed the defendant of the ofl'eiice charged, jind 
 imposed a tine. At the time of the service of 
 the summons the defendant was absent in the 
 .States as a witness at a trial there, and there 
 was no evidence that his wil'i was iufurnied by 
 the constable of the purport of the summons, 
 while defendant stated that he knew nothing of 
 the matter until four or live days after the con- 
 viction had been made, wlieii he received a letter 
 from his wife stating that some magistrate's pa- 
 pers had been left fur him at the hotel : — Held, 
 that under section .'iOof It. S. ('. c. 178, there 
 must in such cases be evidence before the inagis- 
 ti.ite that a rea.<onable time has elapsed between 
 till' service of the sunimons and the day np- 
 pointel for the hearing, and there being no sutli 
 evidciice here, the magistrate acted without ju- 
 risdiction and the eonvietion must be i|uashed. 
 Itegina I'. Kvaii, 10 O. R. 2.")4, overi'uled. Jiei/ina 
 V. Ma/tce, 17 O. R. 194.— C. P. D. 
 
 The defendant, having been summoned for 
 selling liipior contraiy to the seconil part of tlni 
 Can.ula Tenijieranee Act, appeared with his 
 counsel at the hearing and pleaded not guilty, 
 when evidence was given for the ])rosceutioii 
 justifying a conviction ; but, at the defendant'si 
 re(|uest, an adjournment w.is granted. At the 
 ailjuurned hearing, at which neither the defen- 
 dant or his counsel appeared, evidence was given 
 of the service of the suinnions and of the fads 
 that transpired at the prior hearing, and certifi- 
 cates of two prior convictions were put in, and 
 the identity of the defendant proved. The de- 
 fendant was found guilty and convicted of a. 
 third offence against the said Act : — Held, that 
 the defendant, having once had the op(iortunity 
 to defend, could not, by his failure to appear at 
 the adjourned hearing, defeat the adiiiinistratioii 
 of justice ; and therefore lie was properly found 
 guiltv in his absence. lieijina v. Kennedy, 17 
 O. R'. 15!).— C. p. I). 
 
 The defendant, who was summoned to appear 
 before the police magistrate on I4tli April at F. 
 for unlawfully silling liijuor contrary to the 
 Canada Temperance Act, instructed C. to go to 
 \V. , where the police magistriite resided, to try 
 and arrange the matter by paying such sums as 
 should be demanded by the magistrate. On 
 13th April C. went to \V. and settled the case 
 by paying $5U, anil at the same time C, without 
 
1039 
 
 INTOXIOATINO LIQUORS. 
 
 1040 
 
 ■lli 
 
 
 i 
 
 •iitlKirity and without tin- paper having lieen 
 reitil to him, gigned in dcfundant's iininc, iih hix 
 HKviit. an endorHcinent on the information, which 
 Htatcd that the information had l>cen read over 
 tothcdefemlaiit who pleaded guilty to theHaine. 
 On 14th April the |H)lice ningifitrate at W., with- 
 out holding any court or (tailing any witneascK 
 in Hupport of the charge, and without defendant 
 heing ttrcsent. convicted him of the tiffence 
 charged and fined him S.'iO and costs, drawing uji 
 a formal conviction, which was returned. Siili- 
 neciuently he returned another conviction for the 
 same od'encu. reciting that the conviction was 
 made on Hth April ntV. Iiy defendant admitting 
 thecirirge : -Held, that un<1er the circumstances 
 the conviction could not he gu|)ported, and muxt 
 lie <|UiiHhed. Jtfi/iiKiv, Edi/rtr, 17 O. 1{. 1H8.— 
 <'. I'. I). 
 
 .><(e //f./'"" V. Cfayb', 10 (). R. m\, p. 10.')7. 
 
 II. Kriilciire. 
 
 (a) I'ri'or Conriction^. 
 
 Per Armour, .1. The omission of the niagis- 
 trate to a-k the accused whether lie had iK^en 
 previously convicted did not deprive him of juris- 
 diction to receive pi'oof of the prior conviction. 
 liiijina V. IIV(//rtc.', 4 O. I!. 127. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of having sold 
 intoxicating liquor contrary to the provisions of 
 the Canada Temperance Act. the conviction 
 stating that the defendant wao formerly con- 
 victe<l of a first and seconil otTence against said 
 Act. and that this was the third offence. The 
 certificate produced to prove the jirior con- 
 victions simply stateil that Klias ('lark was 
 convicted as for a first and second offence 
 against the t'anada Tem)iorance Act, 1878, set- 
 ting fort)) the dates of tlie convictions, hut not 
 stating the nature of the offences, or whether 
 .tgainst the first or second part of the Act: — 
 Held, that there is no power to ])nni8h as for a 
 third offence unless there have l)een two prior 
 convictions for offences of the same nature, and 
 as neither the reconl of conviction nor the 
 evidence shewed this, the conviction must be 
 <iua8hed. Heijliiav. C/ar/', 15 0. R. 49. — Rose. 
 
 Semble, th.it if the conviction were well 
 drawn the similarity of name of the persr>u 
 mentiimed in tjie certificate and the defendant 
 would afford proof of identity. Ih. 
 
 Section II.") of the Canada Temperance Act, 
 which provides for the case of a j)revious 
 conviction re<iuire8 that the magistrate "shall 
 in the first instance inquire concerning such sul)- 
 seijuent offence only, and if the accused is found 
 giulty thereof, he shall then, and not before, l>e 
 asked whether he was so previously convicted,"' 
 etc. : — Held, that the language of the section is 
 peremptory ; ami therefore to give a magistrate 
 jurisdiction thereuniler to enquire as to a previ- 
 ous conviction he must first find the accused 
 guilty of the alleged subsequent offence. In 
 this case, which was a conviction for a second 
 offence, this was not done; and the conviction 
 was therefore (juashed. Kegina v. Edgar, \ii O. 
 R. 142.— Rose. 
 
 Ouwre, whether a certificate of a previous 
 conviction is sufficient prima facie evidence of 
 
 identity of the accused with the iwrson of thu 
 same name so previously convicted. ///. 
 
 Held, that section 122, sub-section 2, of the 
 C. T. Act, 1878, does not dispense with strict 
 proof by production of the original reconl or 
 otherwise of previous convictions where it is 
 souuht to impose the increased penalty under 
 section 100, and that the certificate mentioned 
 in the section can only bo admitteil as pron/' of 
 the nninlier of such convictions. /I'c/'"" v, 
 Kiiimily. 10 O. H. 396. —O'Connor. 
 
 Held, that the proof of the former conviction!) 
 I>v t he cortifieates in this I'ase was sulliciciit. Ri- 
 gina /•. Kennedy. 10 O. H. '.VMS. at p. 402, not 
 followed. Itfii'mn V. Kfiiiu'th/, 17 O. It. l.'iK.— 
 < :. I'. 1). 
 
 The defendant was chargeil with selling liquor 
 
 contrary to the provisions of the second part of 
 
 tile Canada Temperance Act, 1878. The in- 
 
 I formatiim charged a jirevious conviction for an 
 
 I offence under the said Act, as follows: '"{"he 
 
 I infornumt says that the said James Kennedy 
 
 1 was jireviously convicted of an offene-' againtt 
 
 the said Act." A certificate by the convictinc 
 
 , magistrate of a prior conviction was put in at 
 
 the trial under s<!ction 122, sub-8(rlion 2, of the 
 
 Act, for the ))urposo of proving such previous 
 
 conviction ; — Held, that proof of the fact sot 
 
 out in the report cimstitnted no eviilence ot any 
 
 offence, and that the police nuigistratc hull 
 
 therefore no jurisdiction, and the right to 
 
 1 certifirari was tlierefore not taken away l)y 
 
 section 1 1 1 of the Act. //(. 
 
 The information specifically charged that the 
 defendant had been previously convicted under 
 the Act, and the affidavit fileil by the defendant 
 did not deny the facts, but only the evidence of 
 it : —Held, that the question whether the defen- 
 dant had been jireviously convicted or not was 
 a matter within the jurisdiction of the magis- 
 trate, and his finding as to it was conclusive :— 
 Held, also, that the provisions of section II.*) of 
 the Canada Temperance Act are directory only. 
 R(giiin v. Hroirn, 16 O. R. 41.— (^ R. I). 
 
 I (b) Other Canes. 
 
 The defendant swore that he did not sell any 
 
 intoxicating li<|Uors r)n the day charged. The 
 
 recipient of some liquor stdd on that day nanieil 
 
 it in his evidence for the defence, but tliere w.^s 
 
 no evidence that it was an intoxicating drink, 
 
 ' the evidence for the CroMii only shewing that it 
 
 ! resendded intoxicating liipior : — Held, that there 
 
 I was no reasonable evidence on whicli to found 
 
 : a conviction for selling intoxicating li(|ti(ir. 
 
 j l{e.<ilHtt V. Heniiett, 1 O. 11. 415. — Cameron. 
 
 Held, that a magistrate cannot take judici:d 
 notice of orders in council or their publication 
 
 j without proof thereof by production of tlie 
 Official Gai^ettc, and therefore that u conviction 
 was Ixid, which was made without such evidence 
 
 I that the Canada Temperance Act, 1878. was in 
 force in the county pursuant to the terms of 
 section 96 thereof. lb. 
 
 The Canada Temperance Act, 1 878, does not 
 per Henuike the selling of intoxicating liquor an 
 offence ; it is only after the second part of the Act, 
 has been brought into force by the proceedings 
 
lOiO 
 
 1041 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 
 
 1(M2 
 
 liidiciiled for that purpoHo in tlie lii'Mt piirt, wliicli 
 prncrutliiigKcvinnot litijiiiliiMiilly noticed liutiiiiiHt 
 be priived, and in the iiltseni'L- »f HUoh proof the 
 inii>,'iHtrat<' nets withonl jnriHiliction ; -Hold, 
 therefore, tliat the convictimiH wure had, for 
 they did not nllv>(u that tlie Act wm in force, 
 nor was it proved otlierwise, anil therefore, iiH 
 the jurisdiction of the niagiHtrute did not ap- 
 pc'nr, tiie writ of certiorari wan not taken away 
 by Hcctioii 111 of the Act. Itiii'ma v. Il'tt/v/t. 
 2 0. R. 'ilMJ. —Cameron. 
 
 Tlie defendant was charged with the otTenee 
 iif kee])ing liipior for sale iiontrary to the pro- 
 visions of the second |>art of the ( '. T. Act, 
 I87S. Kvidence was given of the finding of cer- 
 lain of the appliances niinitioned in section I III : 
 Held, that apart from the presnniption created 
 hy that scctiim npon the finding of such ap)di- 
 nnces. such findini.' was evidence of a keeping 
 for sale, of the weight of wiiich the niagistr.ite 
 was the proper judge. Iinjliia v. Ilrwly, 12 
 O. R. .'J.'tS.— Wilson. 
 
 The fact that the (.'anada Temperance Act, 
 187S, (second j)art) is in force in any comity, etc., 
 HUist Ik! proved like any other fact necessary to 
 give jurisdiction. Re.iihia v. Kl/ioll, I'J (). R. 
 5i4. — Rose. 
 
 Kvidence ohtained undei' a search warrant ille- 
 gally issued. See Uniiii't v. Doyle, \'Z I). R. 347, 
 p. r04L>; Rfi/iiiaw Walker, 13(). R. S.'J, p. 1043. 
 
 Tfeld, that under section 123 of the ('. T. Act, 
 187.S, hy which the accused is nuide a compe- 
 tent ami compellahle witness, he is not hound to 
 <;riniinate himself. Jtcijiiui v. llnlpiii, 12 (). R. 
 ."WO.— (!alt. Hut see next ease. 
 
 Held, that under section 123 of the C. T. Act, 
 1S7S, a defendant is compellahle, when called as 
 tt witness, to answer ipiestions, even though tend- 
 ing to (Timinate himself. Review of legislation 
 on the subject of such evidence. Regina c. Hal- 
 pin, 12 O. R. 330, not followed. Jtajiiia v. Fee, 
 13 0. R. 590. diy. I). 
 
 On a prosecution under the Canada Temper- 
 ance Act, 187S, for selling liquor the information 
 on its face purported to he laid before 1). and A., 
 two justices of the peace, and lM)th signed the 
 aummons. The summons to the tlefendant was 
 to a))])ear before two justices of the peace for 
 the county as may be there to answer tlie infor- 
 mation. The hearing was before l>. and A. It 
 was claimed that O. and M. were members of 
 an association for the enforcement of the Act, 
 and that they were instrumental in laying the 
 charge and in selecting the magistrates ; and 
 that A. was also a member of the association 
 and had been present at a meeting thereof. At 
 the hearing 8., the license inspector who had 
 laid the inlormation, gave evidence in support 
 of the charge. On cross-examination he was 
 asked whether the license commissioners were 
 consulted before laying the charge, whether he 
 laid it of his own accord or had consulted with 
 any person outside of the commissioners ; his 
 reasons for suspecting and believing that Ii(|uor 
 was sold, etc.? Whom did he see before laying 
 the information? Did he see A., C, or M. ? 
 Had 0. and M. anything to do with the selec- 
 tion of the magistrates, etc. ? The magistr.itcs 
 ruled that he was not bound to answer the ques- 
 tions, and he refused to do so. For the de- 
 
 66 
 
 I fence, with alleged view of shewing the interest 
 I of A., he was called us a witness, but he refnsecl 
 to be sworn and give evidenev. The <lefenilaiit 
 ! was convicted : -Held, th it the justices pro|)er- 
 ] ly refused to allow tlii' dischnure of the source 
 I of information on which the i;omplaint wit<t 
 founded, but by their refusal tn allow the cross- 
 I examination of S. in reference to his communi' 
 cation with A. ami tlu' other alleged members 
 of the association, and the refusing to allow A. 
 to bu sworn as a witiicis, the defenilant was de- 
 prived of making a full defence as authorised by 
 section .30 i>f ,32 & 33 Vict. c. 31 (Dom.); and 
 the conviction therefore couM not be iiiaiut<-iincd, 
 and must be (|naslied. /fei/inn v. SproiUi', 14 
 O. R. 37.'> ('. P. I). 
 
 At the trial a lease from defendant to one .1. 
 was put in ami the execution ])roved bya witness, 
 of two rooms in defendant's hotel, being where 
 the bar was kept and liquor sold, hut neither 
 defendant nor ,1. appeared as a witness at the 
 trial, and there was no evidence as to its iMina 
 fides :— Held, that this was a matter for the 
 magistrate, and as he had fimnd against it the 
 court could not interfere. Hetfina v. Alexander, 
 17(). I!. 4.KS.-r. V. h. 
 
 See Reijimi v. Iliffernan, 13 0. R. (JIG, p. 104.3. 
 
 12. Search WnrrnnU. 
 
 Refore any complaint or charge was made 
 against the defendant, a srarch warrant was 
 issued and executed, anil eviilence obtained upon 
 his premises, under wliicli he was convicted:— 
 Held, that a search warrant under the C. T. 
 Act, 187S, is a ))roceediiig to sustain a charge 
 made for an oll'eiice committed against the Act, 
 and not a ]>i'oceeding taken upon which to fouml 
 a charge to be made in case liquor is found on 
 the premises :- Held, however, that although 
 the search warrant was illegally issued the evi- 
 dence obtained undei' it was admissible against 
 the defendant. Jtciiiiia v. Doyle, 12 O. R. 347.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 An iiiformation charging defendant with hav- 
 ing sold intoxicating liquor was laid before two 
 justices of the peace, and immediately afterwards 
 a further information to obtain a search warrant 
 was sworn by the same complainant before the 
 same two justices. Thereupon a warrant to 
 search the premises of defendant was issued 
 under the hand and seal of one only of the two 
 justices. Upon the search being made three 
 bottles were found, each containing intoxicating 
 licjuor, and it was sworn that there were also 
 found in defendant's house other bottles, some 
 decanters and glasses, and a bar or counter. On 
 the day following the search the complainant 
 laid a new information before the same two 
 justices of the peace, charging the defendant 
 with keeping intoxicating liqnor for sale. Upon 
 the hearing the constables who executed the 
 search warrant were the only witnesses exam- 
 ined, and on their evidence the defendant was 
 convicted. Upon motion to quash the search 
 warrant and conviction : — Held, that sections 108 
 and 109 of the Act were intended to provide 
 process in rem for the confiscation and (lestrnc- 
 tion of liquor in respect of which a use pro- 
 hibited by the statute was being made, and not 
 to provide a means of obtaining evidence on 
 
104S 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 
 
 1044 
 
 H-!( 
 
 
 which til riiiiiiil a iii'iwuuutioii or Hiippoi'l oiio I 
 iih-i-iuly litf^iiii: III III, iiIhii, tliiit thu wiiriiiiit in | 
 tlliM i;ikHU wiks illcgiil Ihm'uiihi! JkhuimI liy iMiii jllM- 
 tiv<! of tliu iii'iiui! iiiily. /I'lijiiiii V, \\'<tlli<i; IH 
 O. K. 83. — Ciiintiiiii. j 
 
 Ah it ii|i|ii'iifiMl Hint ill tliU nisio tlu! ki'iuvIi 
 warniiit Imil Kri'ii isHiicil, luiil tint lU'fiiiilaiit'N 
 pri'iMlHrH Hiiiri'lii'il, for tlii' iiii'ii' iiin piiNo nf piiM- 
 Hilily Nrriiiin^' <'\ iilriirc iipnii wiiii'li to liriii)^ ;i 
 proNt'Clltioll, llli' jllHlins of tlic pciiro iiiiil till.', 
 iiiforinaiit wfif iiiiU'iimI to pay tliu ilt'fuinlant'M 
 
 UOHtH. 11). 
 
 Hull], that till' pi'i'Hiiniption of koopiiitf lii|Uor 
 for Halt! iMcatiil Ijy sriaion 1 111 of thu C. V, Act, 
 I87H, iiiiHL'H only wIiith tliu appliaiii^eH for thu 
 salo of liipior, niciilioiii.il in tlio .Miction, to^ietliiT | 
 witli till! liijiior. ai-r foiiiiil ill iiiiiiili'ipalitioK in < 
 whicli a pi'oliiliitory liyl.iw piisMi'il iiinlur tlm ; 
 provLsioiiN of tliii ('.iiiaila 'JViiipfiaiice Aut in in | 
 forof. //;. 
 
 I'enilln^' a proKi'iiitioii agaiiiHt ilefemlaiit for 
 Moiling intoxicating lJi|iior iMuitiiiry to tlio pnivi- 
 siunHof tht'CaiiailaTi iiipcianrc Act, IN7.S, an in- 
 forination wiin laid liy tlio pruscciitor tuolitain a 
 Huarch warrant, ami upon Hcarcli a liaricl of licur 
 connected witli a ln'crpninp, and all the iiMiial 
 upplianccH for nalc of liipiiir, were found on dr- 
 fenihint'H prcniiHcH. An .■inicndiinntof tliccliaigi; 
 was aftcrwardn made alti i iiiji it into an iuionna- 
 tion for unlawfully keeping for wale; a new iii- 
 forinatioii was sworn, .iiiil defendant was con- 
 victed of the latter ofTeiice :- -Meld, that heforc 
 a search warrant can issue under Hcctioii iOS of 
 the Act some otrcnce agaiiiKt the provisioimof 
 tlie Act niuHt IickIiowii to have been coinniitted. 
 .ind that tlie inforination for a Hiarch warrant and 
 the evidence in this case shewed .such a previous 
 ofiTence to have taken place. Jlii/ina v. Iliffernan, 
 13 O. K. «l(>. -Koheitson. 
 
 Held, in this case that the evidence given lie- 
 fore the police magistrate, sliewed a kccfiing for 
 sale, without refcrenee to the special provisions 
 of section 111) of tlic Act. //(. 
 
 The fact that the search warrant was oxecutcil 
 by the informer who was also chief coiistalile 
 was held not to he a ground for quashing the 
 conviction. Ih, 
 
 (1<) AiHf.ndmnit of. 
 
 Where II conviction did not on its face nlmw 
 tli;it the ('. T. Act, ISTH, was in force, the curt 
 on the nieritx allowed the return to lie aniiinli'd 
 so as to slievv jurisdietioii, and for tliiH piiipiiM^ 
 allowed a fiirt her return ol the "(ia»ette" pid. 
 iliieeil as an e\liiliit, hut not tiled. /I'l'/oei \ 
 h:ir„,ll, !•_'(». I!. fi-.M. ItiiHc. 
 
 See A'';/i//<i v. liniiirll, 3 (). 1!. 4."i, p. KCCi. 
 
 13. Convictions. 
 
 (a) Fofm of. 
 
 The magistrate at the close of the cose made 
 a minute of .idjudieation, in which he stated 
 that he found the defendant guilty und imposed 
 a fine of fifty dollars and costs, to lie paid by a 
 date named, and :iwardcd iin))ri.soniiii'nt for 
 thirty days in default of ]iayment. Afterwards 
 when drawing ti|) the formal conviction, the 
 magistrate ado))ted the form I 1, in the schedule 
 to the Summary t/onvictioiis' Act, directing that 
 in default <if payment by the day named, the 
 penalty should be levied by distress and sale, 
 and awardiiu; imprisonment for thirty days in 
 default of sutrii'icnt distress: — Held (1) that the 
 conviction in the form I I was the proper convic- 
 tion to be made under the combined provisions of 
 section 107 of the Canada Temperance Act, 18/8, 
 and sections 42 and 57 of the Summary Convic- 
 tions Act, and not the form I 2, to which form 
 the minute of adjudication apparently pointed, 
 Jtegina v. /irnUij, 12 0. K. 358.— Wilson. 
 
 (c) 0/liir C(I.i<:m. 
 
 Qniere, whether the eoiivii'tions in this ciim- 
 were not open to objeetioii on the ground that Him 
 informatiiiii einbnieed more than one iill'enee, ami 
 whether the nrigistrate li;iviiig. in this respect, 
 disregarded the express direetioiiH of the Ail, 
 ■S2;t3 N'ict. c. 31, H. •_'."), niMile appliealiln by tin- 
 ('anad.i Temiii'ranee Act, IS7S, he might not lie 
 said to have iieted witliimt jiirisdieliiin. /ii'.ijiint 
 V. l(V(/v/(, •_• O. |{. •.'(Ml. -('aineron. 
 
 The eoiivii'tions in tliisc.ise were held bail fm 
 not alleging that the Canaihi Temperanee Ad, 
 l!S7N, w.is ill force within the county. /''. Sec 
 also A'm/nw v. Ilnuiitl. I (). U. •K.'), p. 1010; 
 lliiinin v. Klliutl, 12 (). K. UZA, p. 1041. 
 
 Held, in this case that it was no objection ti> 
 the convietioii that it was for keeping and selliii); 
 while the information ch.irged the keeping only, 
 /.'((///(ft V. Jiiiiiii//, ;{ O. K. 45.— t^ U. I). 
 
 The alleg.ition in the cimviction that tlie 
 oirciii'i! W.IS committed between the .SOtli .liiiic 
 and till! 31st .July, was held a siillicicntly cer- 
 tain statement of the time, /{''(/iiia v. Wallarf, 
 4 0. K. l-27.-(^ B. I). 
 
 Held, that the conviction in this case cniiM 
 not stand, inasmuch as it did not ajipcar by the 
 information on which it was founded what the 
 nature of the previous olleiice was, or where it 
 WHS committed or that it was of a similar natiiie 
 to the fresh oU'ence charged by the information. 
 /tcijind V. h'ciiiK'fli/, 10 <). H. 3!)(i. — O'Connor. 
 
 Held, that the conviction was open to thool)- 
 jeetion th;it it did not concspiiud to the mimitp 
 of the actual adjudication, and, tliereforc, cmilil 
 not be supported for want of jurisdiction in the 
 magistrate to make it. Ko.ijiiia v. lirady, 12 0. 
 R. 358.— Wilson. 
 
 The defend.'int was convicted before the police 
 magi.'^tratc of the town of .S., for unlawfully 
 keeping for sale intoxicating liipior, etc., at the 
 said town contrary to the CJanada Temperance 
 Act, 1S78. 'I'he depositions were to that effect, 
 and the evidence shewed that the liquor wiis 
 found upon the premises of the defendant in the 
 said town: — Held, that the local jurisdiction of 
 the jiolice magistrate sufficiently appeared. 
 llmiiia V. ])o!ik, 12 (). R. 347.- -Wilson. 
 
 Held, that an objection that the conviction did 
 not shew upon its face the absence of either of the 
 justices before whom the inforination was laid, 
 nor the assent of the other of them that another 
 justice should act or take part in the prosecution 
 was one of form merely, against which ss. 117, 
 118 sufficiently provided; and, even without 
 the aid of such sections, it was doubtful whether 
 the objection could prevail. Reifnin v. ColliiUy 
 Neijina v. (Joiilai-i, 14 0. R. 613.— O'Connor. 
 
1044 
 
 !•(', t.ll(! rnlirt 
 
 l>(! aiiicinli'il 
 tlliH |>lll|l(iai; 
 
 liiiK'tt«!" pni 
 lliijhiii \ , 
 
 :., 1>. 1035, 
 
 in tlliH casi' 
 Mlliil that till' 
 I dII'cmi'i,', iiinl 
 tliin r('H|p((t, 
 
 of tilt! Alt, 
 
 i!iil)l(i liy till' 
 iiiigiil iiiil III' 
 iim. /{lyiiiii 
 
 luilil Itail fill 
 peniiiro Aul, 
 V. III. Sit 
 
 |). 1(110: 
 
 ir), 
 
 041 
 
 (>1(j<'i!tii)ii ti> 
 igiiiiii m'iliii;^ 
 itii'iiint; oiiiy. 
 
 11. 1). 
 
 rin that tiie 
 i(! 3()tli .liiiie 
 lioifiitly cer- 
 a V. Wdllwf, 
 
 is eiiso coulil 
 |(|n;iu' liy tile 
 loil wluit tilt 
 , or wiieie it 
 iiiiiiiir iKitiiri' 
 iiifonuatioii. 
 O'Connor. 
 
 len to tlie nli- 
 (I the iiiimitp 
 refons cmilil 
 liotioii ill the 
 JiraU;/, 12 0. 
 
 nro t lie jiniice 
 uiiliiwfiiliy 
 -, etc., lit tlie 
 I Teiii])(;raiicc' 
 ;o that cfleot, 
 10 li(iunr WHS 
 Biiduiit in the 
 uriMiliotion of 
 ly ii]ipeaieil. 
 'ilHon. 
 
 lonviotion did 
 f either of tlie 
 ion was laid, 
 I that another 
 e jiroseuution 
 'hieh ss. 117, 
 iven without 
 btful whether 
 iia V. Collinn, 
 O'Connor. 
 
 1045 
 
 INTOXIOATINO LIQUORS. 
 
 1046 
 
 It is not nopognary to elinix<' that tli<i oireiice 
 Ktu I'otiiMiittcil through the ihHtniiiK iitality of a 
 clerk, Hervant, or iij,'eiit, ;im the ilefemlant In 
 jjiiilty uMiler Kwtii.n KHI ni tlu^ Canaila Triii- 
 piTiini'o Alt (H, S. ('. <•, lOiJ), uiiil liaMe to thf 
 ra'naltics iniposeil, if the otl'eiire is ininniitti'il 
 liy liiiiiHelf or any one within the clanM nf |iei'MiiiiN 
 nliove iiii'iitioneil, llniiini. v. A/i niiKh r, 17 O, 
 H. 4r).S. ('. I*. I>. 
 
 ("imvietioiiM hIioiiM lieilrauii with care mo iiji 
 tii8|H'riry that the oH'cnce Is ii){ailiHt tlie hiioiiiI 
 iiartnf the statute, /t'l/inn v. A'tli/tir, l,") »). It. 
 14l'.-KoHe. 
 
 (<l) Fine. 
 
 Qiiiire, whether upon a cimvirtiiui for a third 
 iill'ciice miller the ( 'lunula 'renipeniiii'e Aet, ISTS, 
 H line of i<H}0 eaiinot also lie iiiipiiMnI in lulilition 
 to iiiiprixoiinient. Jdi/ina v. Dinjli, I'J O. K. 
 347. -Wilm.n. 
 
 The niagiHtrato onlernl the (lefeinlaut to pay 
 Jl fur the use of till! hall for tryilli.' the ease, iillil 
 coiideliineil the defeiiilant, in default of distruM, 
 to iiiiprisiiiinieut : — Held, that in ordering jiay- 
 iiii'iit (if this sum there wasaelear exeess of 
 jiirisdictiiiii, and that ordering distress, ete., was \ 
 II fui'tlier exeess, and that the nialter Mas one of 
 |iiiiiii|ile and not of foriii, and llir riniviclioii 
 was ipiaslieil. Kegina c, Walsh, 2 (). K. 'iO<i, 
 ciiliiliieiitcil on. I'liiiita v. Ellia/I, I'i O, 1!. 
 324.-l!(ise. 
 
 It was (Contended that the magistrate netiiig 
 iiiiiler the ('anadii 'reniperiinee Ait exeiedcil 
 Ilia jurisdietion hy ordeiing the ilefnidaiit to pay 
 $.')as iii^peetor's fee, ijli for an intei|ireter, and. 'SI 
 justiee's eosts : — Held, that the fees to lie paid 
 to witnesses in prosecutions sucli as this are not 
 estftlilishcd hy any law, and sucii are to he 
 allowed, under section ."iM of the Suiiiinary Con- ' 
 victions' .Act, as to tlie justice seems rcasonaldo ; ■ 
 ami an interpreter may projierly Ix' treated as a 
 witness. JiC'/lna v. liron'ii. Hi (). I!. 41. 
 Q. R I). ' 
 
 In any case, however, the award of costs was I 
 within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and i 
 certiorari would not therefore lie (lieing taken , 
 away hy the statute under which the eonvietion ! 
 was made) im the ground of want of jurisdietion ; j 
 and the erroneous allowaiiee of certain items of 
 coats would not warrant the (juashing of the ' 
 conviction. Ih. i 
 
 ! 
 
 Qna're, whether there was jiower under the ' 
 Canada Temperance Act to order defeiiilant to ! 
 pay a sum for two days' attendance of the in- 
 spector and his mileage. Hn/iiia v. Tnckir, Id! 
 0. R. I'27.-C. 1'. D. 
 
 Under the Canada Temperance Act, section I 
 100, convicting justices may intliet a reasoniihle ! 
 penalty ill exeess of .?r)0. Keniarks as to their { 
 discretion in .so doing. A penalty of i^iiO allowed 
 toatand. lie.i/ma v. Vumn-oii, 15 O. R. 11.").— 
 RoBe. 
 
 The words "not leas than S-'iO " and "not loss | 
 than JlOO," in the Canada Temperanee Aet, R. 1 
 S. C. c. 106, 8. 100, should be construed as "850 
 and no less" and "$100 and no less;" and ai 
 summary conviction by a police magistrate for a ! 
 first offence against the Act was (luashed because ■ 
 the penalty imposed, $75, was beyond the juris- 
 
 dietion of the niagistrate : 1''a!riiiilii'iilge, .1., din- 
 seiiting. Uegina c. Cainiion, 15 O. K. 115, not 
 followed; .Simpson, i|ni lam, i\ I'mid, 'J Ciirtii 
 .'>(•-, referird to, and anprov.il. Hi'i'mn \. 
 Smith, IllO. K. ».'i4. I), k H. 
 
 A eonvii'tion fur a breiu h of the mi ml part 
 
 of the Canaila Tcmpeianre .\ct, inipoHid a tine 
 of .'<i|(NI. ami dirertril illstii'SH on mni payment of 
 the line, and in default of siitliiiiiit liistri'sH iiii' 
 prisoiimeiit in the iniiimoii jail for two moiiths 
 iinh.sstlie line and costs, imliidiiig the costs of 
 conimilmi'iit and enineying to jail, weriiHiiuiKi 
 ))aid ; Held, there was no power unilci' the Act 
 to include the coits nf coniinitim'iit and convey 
 ing to jail; and the ronvictioii was thireloi'i) 
 had, mill must lie ijiiaslied. The rea ,niiing in 
 Uegina r. Tucker, lli O. It, I'i7, and Uegimi c. 
 (ioiiil, 170. K. 7'i.''', followed. Ill i/iiitiv. Furii, 
 ISO. |{, 47tl.— C. I'. 0. 
 
 .See ltr,,i,ia\-. //,■.(-///, !•_' ( ». K. ;i.-)S, p. KlKJ ; 
 Itiijlaaw Amtiiwi, jiio. I!, iVil, p. 1047. 
 
 (e) Distil -i.i mill Ini/iiiiiiiiiiifiit, 
 
 Thedifi'iidant was coiiviclid uf >elliiig intoxi- 
 cating lii|iiiii' I'Kiilraiy to tin' ( 'aiiada Tiiniieiam'e 
 A it, I.S7.S, iipnii an inl'oiinatiiMi I'liaiging hiiii w itii 
 keeping, selling, liarliriiig ami ntlni wise unlaw 
 fully ilispoKing of lii|ii<u'. lie was a<ijuilg<M| to 
 pay a line of S.'><), and .■?."). 20 eosts, and in default 
 of payment and of siiHirjent distress, he was 
 adjudged to lie iniprisiiiieil in the comnion gaol 
 at hard laliour. A sei:onil leeord of the eoiivie- 
 lion, liiarilig the simiedale as the lir.st , was tiled, 
 ililliring in sunn,' mini ir points fioiii the I i is t, and 
 omitting the iidjiidiratloii as to hard laliour, and 
 adjudging the piynieiit of .'^5.'.'7 costs. The 
 proceedings having been iitinoved bv eertiiilali : 
 
 Held, thai the lirst convict imi w. 'is bad for want 
 of jiirisiliction to iiiipoM' hard I ilioiir, which wa.t 
 not authorized by tlu' Act, and thai the second 
 was bad in not following the actual adjudication 
 as to costs, which were, as slicwii by the magis- 
 trate's minute. S5.'20, and not if'i.'l'. Iliyiiiii v. 
 W'ttlxh, •_'(). \i. •iOti.-Caineron. 
 
 Held, that when a distress warriint has been 
 issued and returned, the truth of the nilurn i;an- 
 not be tried upon atlidavils. Itujina v. Saiiili r- 
 wii, 12 0. H. 17s. -Osier. 
 
 It was alleged but denied, that the bailill' had 
 refused toreieive the penalty and costs ; Held, 
 however, that his duty was to execute the war- 
 rant of commitnicnl. and that he had no authority 
 to receive sucii [1 lyinent. Ih. 
 
 The warrant of conimitment which was not 
 issued until after the return of the distress war- 
 rant, was dated the 14th .lime, ami the distress 
 warrant w.as not retiuned before tlie 17th June : — 
 Held, that the warrant of coinmitment need not 
 be dated at all if not issued too soon. //(. 
 
 The conviction in this case was for a second 
 otl'ence and iinposed imprisonment in default of 
 payment of the tine and no distress : -Held, that 
 sections 57 and 02 of the Suminary Convictions' 
 Act, which form a part of the Canada Temper- 
 ance Act, 1878, authorized iinpri.sonmeut not 
 exceeding three months in default of sutHeient 
 distress. Be.t/iiiav. J>oi/li,\'2 0. |{. .•{47.— Wilson. 
 See also, Mechiam v. Jluriir, 20 l>. It. 207. 
 
 li 
 
aCs- 
 
 1047 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUOBS. 
 
 IMS 
 
 es:: 
 
 9::':' 
 
 Sit; 
 
 961 
 
 
 if 
 
 Under the Canada Temperance Act there is 
 11(1 power to order iinprisonineiit at liard hibour. 
 JtKOiiia V. Tucker, ICO. R. lL»7.-t'. I*. 1>. 
 
 Hehl, that the conviction in thix case was had 
 and must l>c ijiiasiicd, because in t)ie award of 
 ]>unishment it was directed that eacli of the 
 defenchmts shouUI pay half the tine and costs, 
 and that in default of distress the defendants 
 shouhl be iin])ri8oned, and tinder such award 
 one of the defendants, having ))aid liis lialf of 
 the fine and ousts, niiglit be imprisoned for the 
 other's default ; and this defect was not cured 
 by sections 87 ami S8 of the Summary Con- 
 victions' Act, R. S. ('. c. ITS. Jfi'i/hid V. Am- 
 hiosi', 16(). R. 251.- Q. H. 1). 
 
 The adjudication aiul minute of conviction did 
 not award distress, but provided that in default 
 of payment forthwith of fine and costs, imprison- 
 ment, while the conviction ordered that in de- 
 fault of payment forthwith, distress, .md in 
 <lefault of sufficient distress, imprisonment: — 
 Held, following Hegina v. Ihady, 12 (). H. 358, 
 360-1, that the conviction was bad. Jlcijimi v. 
 Higtiiw, 18 O. R. 148.— C. 1'. D. See, also. 
 Haj'ina v. llctrtley, 20 O. R. 4S1. 
 
 Held, that it was no objection to a warrant 
 of commitment in default of distress that it 
 was issued prior to the expiration of a warrant 
 of remand, provided that it was issued after the 
 return of the distress warrant : — Held, also, that 
 the commitment of tlie defendant to the gaoler 
 of the common gaol of the county in which the 
 defendant was convicted was proj)er. Heijliia v. 
 Collier, 12 1'. R. 31().— MacMahon. 
 
 (f) Cosf<. 
 
 See Jki/iim v. UVi/,*/;, 2 0. R. 20«, p. 104() ; 
 Neijina v. Uroini, 16 O. R. 41, p. 1045; Itc'iiita v. 
 Tucker, 10 (). It. 127, \). 1045. 
 
 (g) Application /or Release . 
 
 A prisoner having been convicted of an offence 
 under tlie Canada Temperance Act, 1878, an ap- 
 plication for her release was made under a habeas 
 corpus, and a wiit of certiorari was also issued ; 
 — Held, that it was not necessary to serve a 
 minute of the conviction on the defendant, as 
 section 52 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 31 (l)om.), only re- 
 ouires such service in case of an order, and that 
 ilefendant must take notice of the conviction at 
 her peril. Jiepinav. Hciinhr-ioii, 12 t). R. 178. — 
 Osier. 
 
 It was alleged that too large a sum had been 
 charged for costs, Imt, held, tiiat the conviction 
 being regular on its face, and not shewing any 
 excess of jurisdiction, sucli an irregularity (even 
 if it existed) could not beimjuiretl into on an ap- 
 ])lication for prisoner's release. The prisoner 
 was thei'efore remanded. Ih. 
 
 (h) liemnval hy Certiorari. 
 
 Quivre, whether section 111 of the Canada 
 Temperance Act^ 1878, takes away the certiorari 
 in all cases, or only in cases coming under section 
 110. Regina v. Wahh, '*. O. R. 206. —Cameron. 
 But, see next case. 
 
 Hehl, Cameron, J., dissenting, that section 
 111 of the Canada Temperance Act, 1878, 4| 
 Vict. c. 1 6 (Dom. ), taking away the riglit to certi- 
 orari, applies to convictions for all ofi'ences agaioit 
 the preceding sections of the Act, and does not 
 relate merely to jffences against section 110 
 Reijina v. Wallace, 4 O. R. 127.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Httgarty, C. J., and Armour, J. An er- 
 roneous finding on the evidence by the magii- 
 trate, which was all that was shewn in this cage, 
 is not such a want of jurisdiction as warrants the 
 issue of a certiorari. lb. 
 
 Per ('ameron, J. There was on the facts tet 
 out in the report of the case no evidence of the 
 commission of the offence charged in this case, 
 and therefoi'e the magistrate acted without juris- 
 diction, and a certiorari would lie. lb. 
 
 Held, that the conviction not having been 
 made bya stipendiary magistrate, etc., uuderaec- 
 tion 1 1 1 (Canada Temperance Act, 1878, was ap- 
 pealable or removable by certiorari. Regina t. 
 A7«!ni/>, 10 O- 15. 143.- Wilson. 
 
 In cases mider the Canada Temperance Act, 
 1878, where a magistrate has jurisdiction, certi- 
 orari is absolutely taken away, but an appeal to 
 the sessions still exists which, however, is itself 
 also taken away by section 1 1 1 of the ('anada 
 Temperance Act, 1878, when the conviction is 
 before the stipendiary magistrate. Rei/iim v. 
 Rammiy, II O. R. 210.— Gait. 
 
 Held, that the operation of section 111 of 
 Canada Temperance Act, 1878, in taking away 
 the right to certiorari, is confined to the case of 
 convictions made by the special otlicials named 
 in the section. Regina v. Walker, 13 O. R. 83.— 
 Cameron. 
 
 A prisoner having been convicted of an ofleiice 
 under the (.'anaila 'remjicrance Act, 1878, an ap- 
 plication for iier release was made under a habeas 
 c>)r|nis, and a writ ii certiorari was also issued; 
 — Held, that the writ of certiorari must be sup- 
 erseded, and following; Regina i;. Wallace, 4 0. 
 It. 127, that such writ cannot issue merely for 
 the pur])oso of examining and weighing the evi- 
 dence taken before the magistrate. Regina v. 
 Samlirsoii, 12 0. R. 178. -Usler. 
 
 Held, that the defendants were not enti- 
 tled to certiorari to remove the conviction on the 
 ground that the Act was not proved to be in force 
 in Peterborough, because (m their application for 
 the (certiorari they did not shew affirmatively 
 that the Act was not in force there. Regina v. 
 Ambrose, Hi O. R. 251.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 See Riiiina v. II a/,i/j, 2 O. R. 206, p. 1041 ; 
 Regina v. Klliott, 12 0. R. 524, p. 1045 ; Regina 
 v. Rrown, 16 O. R. 41, p. 1015; Ref/ina v. 
 Kennedy, 17 O. R.J 159, p. 1040. 
 
 (i) Quufhimj. 
 
 Held, that under sections 1 17 and 1 18 Canada 
 Teiriperance Act, 1878, the court, upon the 
 motion to (juash, might dispose of the case upon 
 the merits upon the material returned witii the 
 certiorari, and that in this case the conviction, 
 lieing warranted by the evidence, ought to be 
 affirmed and the minute of adjudication amended 
 so as to conform to it. Regina v. Jiraili/, 120. 
 R. 358.— Wilson. 
 
lOtt 
 
 1049 
 
 INTOXIOATINO LIQUOBS. 
 
 1050 
 
 that aection 
 Act, 1878, 41 
 
 riglit to certi- 
 S'euceaagaiiut 
 
 ami does not 
 b section 110. 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 IT, J. An er- 
 by the magii- 
 t'li ill thiscaac, 
 kS warrants the 
 
 1 the facts Mt 
 .'ideiice of the 
 1 ill this case, 
 without juris- 
 . lb. 
 
 ; having beeii 
 etc. , unueraec- 
 , 1878, wag ap- 
 .ri. Jiegina v. 
 
 nipcrance Act, 
 sdicilon, certi- 
 It an appeal to 
 wevcr, is itself 
 •>l the (Canada 
 i; conviction is 
 le. Jieijina v. 
 
 9Cction 1)1 uf 
 II taking away 
 I to the case of 
 otlicials named 
 , 13 O. R. 83.- 
 
 ed of an ofleiicc 
 !t, 1878, an ap- 
 under a habew 
 nis also issued: 
 ri must be sup- 
 Wallace, 40, 
 sue merely for 
 igliiug the evi- 
 te. Ktij'ma v. 
 
 ere not cnti- 
 nviction on the 
 III to be ill force 
 application for 
 V atfirniatively 
 5re. Hi'ijina v. 
 
 206, p. 1041; 
 
 1045 ; liegm 
 
 15 ; licijiiia v. 
 
 uul 118 Canada 
 urt, upon the 
 if the case upoii 
 urned with the 
 the conviction, 
 ;e, ought to be 
 cation amended 
 T. Jiraii;/, 12 0. 
 
 The defendants were convicted by the police 
 magiatfato of the town of Peterborough, of sell- 
 ing intoxicating liquor in that town, contrary to 
 the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act. 
 It was contended that only the contract for sale 
 was made in Peter' orouch, but that the actual 
 wie took place in Port Hope ; there was no con- 
 flict of evidence; the magistrate held upon the 
 undisputed facts that the sale was in Peter- 
 Iwrough. Upon a motion to quash the conviction : 
 —Held, that the question where the sale took 
 place was one of fact, and the magistrate having 
 t'ound, as shewn by the conviction, that the de- 
 fendants had sold intoxicating lii^uor in Petcr- 
 Imrough, the court could not review his decision. 
 Rtgim v. Ambrose, 16 O. R. 251.— Q. B. J>. 
 
 See Ren'ma v. Young, 7 O. I?. 88, j. 105V; 
 Regimv. Heffernan, 13 O.K. G16, p. I('43 ; 1{<! 
 ,,wa v. Alexander, 17 O.K. 458, p. 1042. 
 
 (j) CoHta of QuaxhiiKj Conrictioiin. 
 
 Costs against magistrates and prosecutor. 
 See R'ginav. Walkt., ISO. R. 83, p. 1043 ; lit- 
 Tinov. Heard, 13 O. i!. 008, p. 1033; AV./zna v. 
 FM, 13 A. It. 526, infra. 
 
 See Rtijina v. liyan, 10 (). H. 254, p. 1038. 
 
 (k) Appeal Jrom Quashimj Conricliom. 
 
 The defendant who was convicted by two jus- 
 tices under the C. T. Act, 187S, removed the 
 conviction by certiorari, and the same was 
 qnasiied (lOO. R. 727). On appeal to this court : 
 —Held, that there was no jurisdiction in this 
 court to lieir the appeal and the same was 
 therefore quashed with custs to be paid by the 
 infoiniant. Jieyitta v. Eti, 13 A. R. 526. 
 
 See He<ima v. Fee, 13 O. R. 590, p. 856 ; Re- 
 .'.BO V. AlcAtdey, 14 O. R. 643, p. I0(i2. 
 
 On the 15tli November, 1886, a second order-in- 
 council was passed directing that the first should 
 be cancelled, and that all fines, etc., recovered 
 or enforced under the Act within any city or 
 county or any incorporated town 'separated for 
 municipal purposes from the county, should be 
 paid to the treasurer of the city, incorporated 
 town, or county, as the case might be, for thu 
 purposes of the Act. The town of B. was at 
 the time the Act was brought into force an in- 
 corporated town separated from the counties of 
 L. and (i. for municipal purimaes ; and between 
 the dates of the two orders-in-council the police 
 magistrate of the town paid to the treasurer of 
 the counties $750, the amount of lines recovered 
 and enforced by him for violations of the C. 
 T. Act, 1878, within the town:— Held, Street, 
 J., dissenting, that, in the absence of any appli- 
 cation by the treasurer of the counties of the 
 money so paid to him, the town of B. was en- 
 titled to recover it from the counties. The 
 passing of the second order-in-council was a 
 complete revocation of the first, and the second 
 was retroactive in the sense that it provided for 
 the application of all lines, etc., theretofore re- 
 covered or enforced. Per Street, .1. —The first 
 order-in-council operated as a gift from the 
 crown to the municipality, with an intima- 
 tion added as to the purpose to which it was 
 expected the gift would be applied, Init carry- 
 ing' with it no legal obligation that it should be 
 applied in any particular inaiinur. It was a 
 complete gift ; the money was finally at home, 
 so tar as the ciowii was concerned, when the 
 municipality received it, and the ruvociitioii of 
 the order could not revoke a completed trans- 
 action, nor retract that which had been done 
 under it. United Conidien of Lceil< and (Jren- 
 mile v. Town of lirockmlle, 17 O. R. 261.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 15. 
 
 -tes of Carrying out Art. 
 
 14. Application of Finen. 
 
 Semble, that notwithstanding Fitzgerald v. 
 McKinlay, 21 C. L. J. 20!), the informer, under 
 C. T. Act, 1878, may be entitled to half of the 
 fine. Regtna v. Kkinp, 10 O. R. 143.— Wilson. 
 
 The C. T. Act, 1878, came into force in the 
 united counties of L. & (1. on 1st May, 1886. 
 On 3iid June, 1886, the Parliament of Canada 
 passed the Act 49 Vict. c. 48, s. 2 of which 
 provided that the goveinor-in-council might 
 from time to time direct that any fine, etc , 
 which wnuld otherwise belong to the crown for 
 the public uses ot Canada, should be paid " to 
 any provincial, municipal, or local authority 
 which, whd.ly or in part, bore the expenses of 
 administvriiig tlie law under which such line, 
 etc., Wiis eiiliined, or that the same should be 
 applied in any olhi rmannerdeeincd best adapted 
 to attain the objrcta ol siicli law and to secure its 
 dueadiniiiistraLion." On 2!)th September, 1886, 
 an oider-in council was passed directing that all 
 fines, ett., recovered or enforced under the C. T. 
 Act, 18'. s, within any city or county which had 
 adopted the Act, which would otherwise belong 
 to the Clown for the public uses of Canada, should 
 he paid to the lrea>virer of the city or c(ninty, as 
 the case might ije, for the purposes of the Act. 
 
 Hehl, that i;he Ontario legislation, R. S. O. 
 (1877), c. 181, ss. 92,93, 105, 106; 41 Vict. c. 14, 
 ss. 6,8; 44 Vict. c. 27, ss. II, 12, 13, 14, 16; 
 47 Vice. c. .34, s. 34; 50 Vict. o. 33, which 
 represent a body of legislation relating to muni- 
 cipalities brought under the Canada I'emperance 
 Act, by which ways and means are provided for 
 the entorceiiient of the Act by the application 
 of local funds raised by local taxation or other- 
 wise in the county, are not ultra vires the 
 local legislature ; and that the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to recover from the defendants the 
 expenses of carrying out the provisions of the 
 Teniperance Act in the license district of F. 
 foi'ined out of a jiart of the county of K. License 
 ConinuHsionern for Fmnlenac v. (,'uunly of Frnn- 
 tenac, 14 O. R. 741.— Boyd. 
 
 The general law as to prohibition resp 'uting 
 all Canada, which can only be enacted liy the 
 Doininiou, being localized by municipal suffrages, 
 its enforcement becomes also a matter of local 
 impiirtance in the province, within the nieuning 
 of B. N. A. Act, s. 92, item lU, and it may be 
 enfdrced through the medium of provincial offi- 
 cers, to be appointed and paid for accoriling to 
 provincial legislation under B. N. A. Act, s. 92, 
 Item 4. The legislation in ([ucstioii might also 
 f.,11 within the scope of B. N. A. Act, s. 92, 
 item 8, as pertaining to municiiial institutions 
 in the province. License Commissioners of 
 
is»^ 
 
 1051 
 
 INTOXICATINO LIQUORS. 
 
 1053 
 
 ■■I 
 
 Prince Eilward c. County of Prince Edward, 26 
 Cliy. 45^; Lifensc (.'omniissioncrs of tlio Nortli 
 Kiding of tlie county of Norfolk c. 'I'lie Cor- 
 (Miration of Norfolk, 14 O. R. 749, concurred 
 in. Uk 
 
 A portion of the num claimed in this action, 
 was lUegcd to bu a (U^ticit hrouglit I'orttanl from 
 tliu previous year. It appcarcil, iiuwevt'i-, tliat 
 the amount was the whole sum estimated for 
 that year : — Meld, that this was a matter of 
 foini only, as it could lie sued ''ir as a sulmtan 
 tive dbht upon the eatiniates of the former 
 year. //*. 
 
 III. LiyroK LtcESSE Act. 
 
 1. A/)/iliciit{on of. 
 
 Defendant was convicted for selling liijuor 
 witliout a license on |)icUinson'M Island, in l-akc 
 Mt. Francis : - Htdd, on an application lor a cer- 
 tiorari : I. That the island was part of the 
 county of (ilengarry, and tlieretore within the 
 jurisdiitioii of tlie police magistrate ; '2. I hiit 
 the Liijuor l.icen.se Act applies to iiiillan land 
 under lease troni the crown to a private indi- 
 vidual. Ji'tuma V. Ditqiftle, It P. H. lit).— 
 Osier. 
 
 The defendant, a hrewer licensed to manufac- 
 ture ale, etc., at I'alnierston, under a ilomiidon 
 license, li.id ii. cellar or vault at Hiantfoiil, wiiere 
 lie stored sudi ale, etc., and sold it in iinantities 
 not less than alloweil to he sold hy wii(disale :-- 
 Held, that tlie sale was authon/ed under the 
 dominion license, and that a provincial license 
 was not required. Iti'jhia v. Yi>nii{i, S (). H. 
 4"t>.— Hose. See Mul.svii v. I.diiilic, 1.") 8. C. K. 
 '.V.3. 
 
 .\s the Quebec Ijcense Act cloes not interfere 
 with the existing lights and powers of iiicoi|)o- 
 rated cities, a liy law passed hy the corpor.itioii 
 of the city of Three Rivers, on the 'M<\ Ajtiil, 
 ' IS77, in virtue of its cliai ter ('JO \ ict. c. I'J'.I, 
 aii<l ;<S Vict. c. 7'i), imposing a license fee of 
 S'-'DO on the sal< ol iiito.\iiating li(|iiois, is with- 
 in the iioweis of the said coipmauon. Siilhw 
 Ci/j/ 1)/ I'lmc Riarx, 1 1 S. V. K. '2,"). 
 
 .See He Cruonif iniil Ihi City oj lii-aiitj'ord, 
 O. 1!. IHS, p. lO,').'}. 
 
 'J. liy-ldirs (iiid /ii'.i'iliiHoiis liilaliiKj to Tiivrnin 
 mill Sliopx. 
 
 (a) Si(liiiiifi.'iion to A7''(Vn,-,v, 
 
 (iu.'crc, whether several matters, each of which 
 reipiircs the assent of the electors, can lie 
 enacted iii one by-law, or whether there imnil 
 l>e separate by-laws separately siibmitlcil to the 
 electors. /iV Crooiiit tiiid llu ('it;/ oJ Jliiiiitjori/, 
 a 0. 1!. 1S8. — Rose. 
 
 The electors entitled to vote ii|)oii a bylaw 
 tinder tile Li(|Uor License Act, R. .S. (). (I,S,S7/ 
 ^•. 1114, 8. 42, to increase the amount payable for 
 license duty, are those entitled to vote at miini- 
 cipil elections. .Iiidgment of Rose, J. (17 0. It. 
 f)'22), atKrnied on othei grounds. /» re Crojland 
 th'i Town of I'fttrhoromjh, 17 A. R. '21. 
 
 A by-law requiring amounts to bu paid for 
 tavern license fees in excess of f^'JOO, directed, as 
 rwiuired, the votes of the electors to bo taken 
 
 ! thereon. The hj'-law was passed on the 25th of 
 I February, 1SS9, and on 8th Aprd, 1890, a mo- 
 tion was madeto quash it Oii the ground that the 
 i votes of all the duly qualiiied electors had not 
 been taken thereon, but only those of free- 
 hcdders. I>y rea.son of the by-law the number 
 of licenses was decreased, and had the motion 
 been aUowed it would have been too late for the 
 corporation to in.ike any chan;.e, by in.;reasing 
 tiie number (/f licenses so as to make up the dc 
 , ficiencj', or to submit a new bj law. The onl' 
 I evidence in .support of the iintioii w.invr 
 
 j weak and no |)ers()n whose vote h.nl I ti n. 
 
 ■ jected complained. The applicant liiiiisuli was 
 :« tavern-keeper who obtained a license for the 
 j year 18S!), under tiii; liy-law without any ob- 
 I jection, and had applied again for the current 
 I year : - Meld, the Oy-lavv being valiil on its face 
 I the court, under the circumstances, considering 
 the lajisc of time before motion made, in the ex- 
 ercise of its discretion would not interfere. JJaiin 
 v. Hrod-riU,', I'J O. K. 409.— (iait. 
 
 .See I>arii'.<i v. Cili/ of' Toronto, 15 0. R. 33, p. 
 
 9i;i. 
 
 I (b) Other Cases. 
 
 , The commissioners in good faith, intend- 
 ing to act within the scope of their jiowert, 
 jiassel a resolution, " Th it no iiuoxicating 
 liquors shall, under any pretence, bj sold in any 
 tavern, etc., to any person who has the habit of 
 drinking intoxicating liipiors to excess, or the 
 wife, etc., of .such person, or any person con- 
 cerning whom notice had been given to lie land- 
 lord by the husband, etc. , of such person, or 
 any justice of the peace or inspector, that such 
 person is in the habit of driniving," etc. : the 
 licenses were issued to the persons to whom the 
 notices were addressed, subject to the nglit of 
 suspending tlieiii for lircacli of the nsoliilion. 
 The deleiidaiit jiislitied upon information ob- 
 tained respecting the plaiiitill', upon which he 
 followed the terms of the resolution : llolil, 
 that the license cominissioners liad no power to 
 
 I pass the resolution. Iloliirl.t v. Cliinie —Murphjj 
 V. Climii-, 4(i (^). B. '204. -Osier. 
 
 Held, that a by-law passed by a city respect- 
 ing .saloon and sliop licenses did iioi require to 
 state the inimber of iiiliabitants of tin.' eiiy sons 
 to shew on its face that the number of licenses 
 lixed was within the statutory limit. Iti ('nmme 
 i amt < 'ity of /Sntiitionl, (i ( ). R. ISS. Rose. 
 
 A provision in the by-law limited the niimher 
 of licenses " for the ensuing year, beginning on 
 
 i 1st May, 1SS4, or for any tiirtlier license year 
 until this by-law is allered or rejjc.ded :— Held, 
 
 I valid, lb. 
 
 A lurther provision was, being merely a re- 
 enactment of the statute, tliat the liy ' r should 
 ! remain in force until altered or repealed ■ - Held, 
 unobjectioiialdc. //;. 
 
 I An objection tiiat the by-law provided for a 
 
 duty in excess of !>!'2t)0, which, it was urged, 
 
 slioiild have been .submitted to the electors by 
 
 I separate l)y law, was overruled, because iii faot 
 
 I the bylaw contained no sui.li provi.iioii. /''. 
 
 I The by-law did not state whether it was pasSiHl 
 ! under the doiDinion or local legislation : HeU. 
 I that us it stated tui particular power as it.s bams 
 
 nuiiiher 
 iiiterfurei 
 Vict. c. '. 
 li'iai'd of 
 tif <'•/;/ 'i 
 
 Held, 
 
 face no 
 opiratioM, 
 council ol 
 tion else 
 it imist, 
 operative 
 
 Heh 
 
 oppressiv. 
 passed iiii< 
 Ic'isl.Uu 
 
1052 
 
 1053 
 
 INTOXIOATINQ LIQUORS. 
 
 1054 
 
 in the 25th of 
 , 1890, amo- 
 31111(1 that the 
 toi'S had not 
 lose of free- 
 
 tlie nuniher 
 l1 the motion 
 )o late for the 
 )y iii.;reaaing 
 :e up the tie 
 The on!' 
 on <' ■< vi- 
 h.id i>< . n I'e- 
 b hunsulf wae 
 ioeiise for the 
 loiit any ob- 
 
 the current 
 ill oil its face 
 i, uuiisiduring 
 (le, 111 tlie ex- 
 tcrfere. iiam 
 
 ■) O. R. 33, p. 
 
 iaith, inteud- 
 llieir powers, 
 
 iuKixicatinj; 
 bd aiild in any 
 L8 tlic liahit of 
 excess, or tlie 
 y |)i;rs.iii euu- 
 :ii lo iie land- 
 ch perHoii, or 
 lor, ihat such 
 g," etc. ; the 
 I to whom the 
 
 thu n gilt of 
 he nsoliilion. 
 oriiiiilioii ob- 
 
 1111 wliicli he 
 iitioii : Held, 
 I III! power to 
 imie—Miuiihy 
 
 a city respect- 
 iioi rcipiire to 
 f the eiiy seas 
 jer of licenses 
 It. AV ( 'ruonK 
 S. — Hose. 
 
 cd the lumihtr 
 ', iK^giiininj; ou 
 ■r liciiisc veiir 
 oalc.l :-Hchl, 
 
 jjr merely a re- 
 
 )V ' V slioiiM 
 
 tjafeil : -Held, 
 
 proviiied fur » 
 it was iirjicd, 
 Llie cleotois hv 
 lieciiuse 111 lavt 
 ivi.-iioii. y''. 
 
 t!r it was ji:iSSod 
 latiou : Held, 
 wer as its imu 
 
 itmust be judicially regarded as emanating from 
 that power which would authorize its passage. 
 
 Seinhlo, 'f the dominion legislitioii was in 
 force, then, even if pissed under tlie Ontario 
 Ai't, under section 14H of the Dominion Act, 
 wliicii [irovided that all local law-i pa.ssiid for 
 regulating or restraining tlie tr illic in li(iuors 
 Hereto be in force until 1st May, 18S1, it was 
 in force when passed and until repelled by that 
 scv^'tion, anil if so repealed was no loiiLjer in force 
 and couhl not be ipi ished : if however the 
 ( hitario Act was in force then it was valid under 
 thit Act; and the sending; a certified copy of 
 till! by-law to the inspector under section 44, 
 .«iil)-section 2 of tlie Dominion Act did not dis- 
 .'itlethe applicant to invoke the aid of the 
 111, 111 Act ill its support. Ih, 
 
 Another provision was, that "Every person 
 receiving a simp liirense shall 'ontiiK! the busi- 
 ness of his shop solely and i liisively to the 
 keeping and selling of lifpior ;" -Keld, that this 
 was not ultra vires and in restraint of trade. 
 
 It was also objected that section 3,"> of the 
 License Act of I8.S4, 47 Vict. c. .'t,') (Out. ), in 
 eli'cct re|iealeil the bj'-law as it made the 
 duty more than S'.iH), ;iiid the council had 
 not submitted the (iiiestion to the idectnrs : 
 — Held, that if repo iled it could nut be ipiashed ; 
 hut .Seinble, that the effect of the section was to 
 add the inereised duty to the amount already 
 provided for by the l)ylaws previously pissed 
 unless the conn -il saw Kt prior to the l.Tih April, 
 1SS4, to amen t the by-law as to the license duty 
 payable tliereuiider. Ih. 
 
 Held, 'lilt the cimiieil of the corporation of 
 the city of riironto li id the imwer under \i S. 
 0,(1877)1'. lSI,s 17, til pass ,1 by-law limiting the 
 niiiulier of I ivern lice.nses, and thai power is nit 
 iiiti'ifered with or dimi"islicil b, the law ''.W) 
 \'iit. e. 2(» Out.) graiiti>g limited powers to ho 
 h'liii'd iif license eiiiiiiiussiiiners. J'l' /iiii/l,tii i.inl 
 
 ih>:i\i\j(if r«i-'<iiiu. loo. H. i;{.— (,). u. 'd. 
 
 Held, that tlioui,di the by-law cinit lined on its 
 face 11(1 deseiipliiiii of the Im-al limits of its 
 opiriilion, the f let that it was passed by the 
 council of the city and I'ould have ImiI no o()era- 
 tiou elsewbeic than in the city, shewed that 
 it must, by reasonable iiiteinlnicnt, be lield 
 operative there, lit. 
 
 Held, that the by-law was not unrcasonahlc or 
 oppressive, or in restraint of trade, having,' been 
 piisscd under a pnwer expres-ily given by the 
 Ic^iditnre to the city to pass the same. //*. 
 
 .1. Pi'iili))U A'jniiisl Ini>\ii' of Ijii-nsfi. 
 
 The Mqnor License Act R. S. O. (ISS7)c. 104, 
 *. II, sub s. 1 t, provide.-, tliar, " .Vi> license sliall 
 hi! grin ted to any a|i|)lic uir for premises n it 
 tiii-'u nil l(!r license or shall be transfcne! to 
 nudi premises if a majoiity of the p.'rsons duly 
 ||iii!ilied to vote as electors in the siib-ilivisioii 
 at ail eleetioii for a nii nilier of the lci;islitive 
 asseiiihly, petition against it. on the grounds 
 hereinh tore sec forth, or any of such grounds." 
 Mere than oiie-hdfof the electors in a (■[■rtain 
 polling sub-iiivisi.iii jictitioiied the liceh ed com- 
 niissiieiers of the district " against the Lsaiic of 
 
 any license within the bounds of said polling 
 sub-division " * for reasons specihed in 
 ', section 11, sub-section S, of the Liijuor License 
 Act, K. .S. (). (1887), or for one or more of such 
 reasons " — not otherwise specifying any grounds 
 or rcferritig to any applicint or premises. The 
 plaintiir was an applicant for a license for pre- 
 mises not under license situate in the snb- 
 ilivision, and the ipiestinn stated for the opinion 
 of the court was whether under section II, sub- 
 section 14, the presentation of the petition 
 precluded the defend ants, the license coinmis- 
 ' sioners. from certifying for a license to the 
 ' plaintiff" : -Held, that the petition did not con- 
 1 form to the statute, which reipiires that the 
 objection shall be to the granting of a particular 
 , license, and also that some one or more of the 
 I re.isons given in sub-section 8 shall be set 
 j forth, or all of them speeitically alleged ; and, 
 I therefore, the defendants wcm not pr-icluded 
 from certifying for a license. Phev v. Fraser, 
 17 O. R. (53.-..— Q. li. D. 
 
 4. Transfer of Licenses. 
 
 The difcndant and his brother wore carrying 
 on business as Booth !?ros. , and had a license in 
 the iianij of the Him to sell intoxic iting liquors. 
 Hefin-e the nomination of members of the Park- 
 dale council the defendant, with the consent of 
 the license coinniissioners, transferred his inter- 
 est in the license to his brother, in order to 
 (jualify as a cuiir-eillor, but the business continued 
 as before: —Held, atlirmiug the decision of the 
 master-in-ehambers, that a license cannot law- 
 l.illy be trinsfcrred except in the cases men- 
 timied in H. S O. (IS77), c. 181, .s. 2S, none of 
 which bad occnric I here; that the consent of 
 the eomniissioner.s did not validate the transfer, 
 and therefore th.tt the dcfcii lant, who retained 
 his interest in the liceiisj, was not (pialilied to 
 be a couiiedlir. I'er .Vrinonr, ,1. The Act dis- 
 ipialifying a licensee shoiilil he construed strictly, 
 and should not be evteinled to the partner of a, 
 per.soii lawfully holding a lici-nse in his own 
 name, li'i'mn r.r rrl. Hr'nu- v. linolh, 3 O. R. 
 lU. -Q. li. D.; !» I'. U. 4.V.>. ,See also liajina 
 I. ere/. Cliiiii'ij V. CoinC'iii, 4() Q. li. 85. 
 
 o. Jdri^i/irlioH of Ma<ji'<traleii. 
 
 The defendant was cnnvicted by the police 
 magistrate of the city of Toronto for an oifcncc 
 coniinitted at Toronto against the Li(pior License 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 181, s. 3!». Section (iS 
 of that Act m ikes such magistrate the propar 
 tribunal for thi; trial of such ollence; but the 
 inform it ion was taken liefore a single justice of 
 the peace, w-lio was acting for the police magis 
 trate in his absence and at bis recjuest. and upon 
 such inform ition the defendant w,vs brought be- 
 fore two justices of the peace! and reminded till 
 tlie day on which he was convicted : Held, that 
 tlie inforiiiation was properly taken before one 
 justice under the pruvi-iioiis i.f .section of the 
 .Summary Convictions" Act, which is made ap- 
 plicable both !iv II. .S. O. (1H77), c. 181. a. (58, 
 ami H. .*>. O. ('. <7i'), 'i. 74, s I ; .and two justices 
 being Hie t'ibiiial salistitiitcd for the police 
 magistrate in tu:- case of absence,, by 41 Vict. 
 c. 4, 8. 7, the d fen lant w.ii legally convicted. 
 li'Vcia V. Coiihri, l(i O. R. (j4. — t^. B. IX 
 
ffjl^.il. ••> ■ 
 
 1055 
 
 INTOXIOATINa UQUOBS. 
 
 im 
 
 1057 
 
 'ill 
 
 at:ai 
 
 cs;: 
 
 «C;i 
 
 I?' 
 
 i H 
 
 6k tS'ellinff Liquor on Ptvhihifrd Days. 
 
 (a) Sitmlay. 
 
 In proceetlingM for Hulliiij,; liquor on SundayH, 
 it WAS not sliewn that the defuiitlant had a 
 license, or that the piaut; in whicii the Ii(inor was 
 sold waH one where intoxicating li(|Ui)r!i were (>r 
 might be sold l)y wholesalo^rr tail, jmrsuant to 
 section 48 of tliu Liquor License Aot ; — Held, 
 that the conviction was had. It'ei/iiKi v. Ilud- 
 irell, no. R. 186.— Rose. 
 
 Under the authority of the .Xct of the IjCgis- 
 lature of Quebec, 42 & 43 Vict. c. 4, s. 1, a 
 lienal suit was on the 20tli of .January, 1880, 
 instituted against P. in the name of the cor|iora- 
 tion of Q,, before the Recorder's ('ourt of the 
 city of Q., alleging that "on Sunday, the 18th 
 ■ lay of January, 1880, the said defendant had not 
 closed, during the whole of the day, the house 
 or building where he, the said defendant, sells, 
 causes to' be sold, or allows to be sold, spirituous 
 liquors by retu I, in quantity less than three half 
 pints at a time, the said house or building situate 
 etc." P. was convicted. A wiii, of prohihit'on, 
 to have the conviction revised by the Superior 
 i'oHv',, was subsequently issued, and upoii the 
 nierfts was set aside and quashed: — He'd (per 
 l>it<.'hie, C. J., and Strong and Fonrnier, JJ.), 
 thut the provisions of the provincial statute, 42 
 and 4.'? Vict. c. 4, ordering houses in wh.'ch spir- 
 ituous liquors, etc., are sold, to be closed on 
 Sundays, and every day between eleven o'clock 
 of the night until live of the clock of the morn- 
 ing, are police regulations, within the power of 
 the legislature of the Province of Quebec, and 
 as the complaint was clearly within the Act, the 
 recorder could not be interfered with on prohi- 
 bition: — Held, per Henry, Taschcreau, and 
 (■Wynne, JJ., thut the jienalty imposed upon 
 V. by the recoider ^« as not authorized by the 
 statute, even if such statute was intra vires of 
 the provincial legislature, and that the prohi- 
 bition was therefore riiihtly granted. The court 
 l)eing equally divided, the iippeal was dismis.sed 
 without costs. J'oulin v. Corporation oj l^uclxc, 
 !»S. O. R. 18.5. 
 
 Held, that only the holder of a license can be 
 prosecuted under section 4H of R. S. (I. (1877), 
 €. 181, for selling liquor on prohibited days. 
 tieijinav. Duqxi<tt<\ !) 1'. R. '-'!>.— Osier. 
 
 7. ScUintj Liquor Without n Lirciisc 
 (a) PermmH and Prentines Licentwd. 
 
 The defendant was lictnsed to sell '' in and 
 upon the premises known as the Palmer House' 
 The Palmer House stood upon the front part of 
 a deep lot owned by the ilefendant, the rear 
 part of which hail been for m;iny years enclosed 
 and used iia a fair ground, "'mincdi.itely within 
 which enclosure the delcnilant sohl li(pior, for 
 which he was convicted : - Held , that as the 
 fair ground, though part of the lot on which the 
 hotel stood, was not used in cnnnection with or 
 for the enjoyment of the hotel, it w.as not 
 covered by the license, and the conviction w,.s 
 light. J{fi,/i}i>i v. I'almcr, 4(i Q. H. 202. — Osier. 
 
 Under section 12 of R. S. O. (18S7), c. 104, the 
 person receiving a tMV'.'in license is assumed to 
 have aalistied the license coniini.s.sioncrs that he 
 is the true owner, but, notwithstanding, it can 
 
 be shewn that the licensee was nioroly the agent 
 of another who was the real owner of the Imisi- 
 ness. Huffman v. W'ultrrltouHt, 10 O. K. KSti.— 
 C. P. I). 
 
 (b) Cluhi^. 
 
 Held, that the meaning of section 5.1, suit, 
 section .'1, of the Li(|uor License Act (It. S.O. IHS7, 
 c. 1!(4), is that wherein a club or society incorpor- 
 ated under the Henevolcnt Societies' Act, li(|uor 
 is sohl or supplied to members, but such sale nr 
 supplying is not the special or main object of the 
 club, etc., but is merely an incident resulting from 
 its principal object, there is no violation of the 
 License Act, but it is otherwise if the sale or 
 supplying tlie licpior is the main object of the 
 incorporation. The question however is for the 
 decision of the nuigistrate on the evidence, and 
 there being evidence in this case which was that 
 of a club ])urporting to be a gun club, to sn|)port 
 the tinihng of the magistrate that the sale of 
 liquor H.is the special or main object of the club 
 with the intent t» evade the Licpior Licunae 
 Act, the court refused to interfere with the 
 finding, and dismissed a motion to (pnish a 
 conviction nuide by him against defemlant. 
 llei/niav. AhkHh, 17 O. R. 743.— C. P. I). Sec 
 53 Vict. c. o«, 8. 4. 
 
 (c) Who Liahle. 
 
 A married Aonuin was lessee of certain pre- 
 mises in whic. I her husband sold li(|uor without 
 a license, eontiary to the provisions of R. .^. 0. 
 (1877), c. 181 :-~Hehl. that she was liable to lie 
 fined under section S3 of the Act, although the 
 sale of li(|Uor took place in her absence. Jlc.yimi 
 V. CamiMl, 8 P. R. 5.5.— Hagarty. 
 
 The defendant, a servant of one Ward, the 
 keeper of an unlicensed tavern, was convicted 
 of selling liqimr in her master's absence. Cam- 
 eron, J., held the conviction gooil, the ciise being 
 
 I iindistinguiRhable in principle from Regiiia r. 
 
 j Williams, 42 Q. H. 4(12, though he wo\dd other- 
 wise have held the master alone responsible, 
 
 I imiler the Liquor License Act, R. S. O. (IS77), 
 
 |c. 181. h'Kjiiiiiv. Iloirard, 45 (). H. 34(i. 
 
 Sc(! Iti'jina ex ivl. Clnnry v. Cowmiy, 46 Q. 
 B. 85. 
 
 8. Cowiclionii. 
 
 (a) A iittiiilmciit of. 
 
 Ameiidnunt of conviction by striking out the 
 part inqjosing h.ird labour. .See J{n/ina v Alt- 
 hrKjIit, !t P. R. 25. 
 
 .See lifiiimi V. Ahiitin/, I!) O. R. fiOl, pp. 1057, 
 10.58; licijina v. Cmilitioii, PJ O. H. 197, p. 10,")!). 
 
 (b) Other CaHcu. 
 
 .Section 51 of the Li(|Uor License Act, H. S. 
 O. (1877), c. 181, wliicii imposes the ptiiaities, 
 omits all reference to a third (iflence («iiicli 
 was provided for in the euiictments of wliiili it 
 is a consolidation), though su. h an < tlencc is le 
 fcrrrd to in section 7'{, which deals with tin' i>i'i 
 cedure. and in the forms m conviitioii given hy 
 the Act. A conviction fi.r a third oflemcwas 
 therefore quashed, although the penalty iniposeil 
 
1067 
 
 INTOXICATINO LIQUORS- 
 
 1068 
 
 I the aj,'Pi)t 
 
 I the Ihim- 
 
 U. 180.- 
 
 •n 53, su)). 
 
 S.C). iS87, 
 y incorpor- 
 Act, liijuor 
 Hch sale or 
 Kjeot of the 
 ultiiig frnni 
 tion of the 
 the sale or 
 iject of the 
 jr is for the 
 idciiue, ami 
 cli was thiit 
 , to snpiHirt 
 the sale of 
 ; of tlie cUll) 
 nor Lii;eiise 
 •o with the 
 to ()uash ii 
 
 <lei'eii(lant. 
 
 1*. I). Sec 
 
 certain pre- 
 iiior witliout 
 1 of K. s. 0. 
 < liable to he 
 iiltlioti);h the 
 nice. lUyim 
 
 u Ward, the 
 IS coiivietoil 
 iClice. Cam- 
 he ciise hciiig 
 III Ri'gina r. 
 woiihl (ithcr- 
 respoiisihle, 
 S. O. (1S77), 
 
 itray, 4(5 Q. 
 
 iking out the 
 ijiiia V AU- 
 
 <)1, pp. ll),'.7, 
 197, p. io:.!». 
 
 Act, U.S. 
 lie pciMltiei, 
 loiiii! («lii('h 
 H of wliiili it 
 
 tleiKi' is le- 
 witli till' [no- 
 tion giv<ii liy 
 
 .lleiui' W1V.S 
 lalty imposed 
 
 tliereby might have been inflicted for a second 
 offence. Heijina v. Frawlty, 45 (l- B. 227. — < >slt!r. 
 
 Conviction hehl l>ad for not sliewiiig the place 
 where the offence was committed. Ilufnia v. 
 Yomiij, 5 0. R. 184 a. — Hose. 
 
 A conviction under It. S. O. (1877), e. 181, for 
 telling lirpior without a license, puiportingto be 
 made by three magiatrntes, but signed by two 
 only, was returned with a certiorari : - Held, if 
 an objection at all, a ground for .sending bark 
 tiic writ, that the third ni igistratc might si<^n 
 the conviction, but not a ground for i|uashiiigit. 
 lU'jind V. Yoiimj, 7 O. II. S8.— Oler. 
 
 Ky R. S. O. (1877) c. 181, s. 80, where the aot 
 or omission complaiiiiil of isoiic lur which, if tlic 
 defendant were not duly licensed, he would be 
 liable to a penalty under the .\ct, the burden nf 
 pi-oving that he is licensed is on the defeiiihint : 
 liehl, no objection to a conviction that it did not 
 shew defendant was not liccnsc<l. /'•. 
 
 The defendant, being present in eciuit on ,i 
 charge which ;vas disposed of, was, without any 
 suninMiis having been JHsiied, charged with an- 
 other iflence, namely, of selling without a license. 
 The int<~rination was reail over to him, to which 
 ho pleaded not guilty, and evidence for the pro.se 
 cution having been given, he thereupon aski^l for 
 and obtained an enlargement till the next day, 
 when, on his not appearing, he was convicted 
 ill his absence, and lined So<' ami costs, and in 
 default of payment forthwith, without any dis- 
 tress having been dirci.'ted, iiiipri.sonment was 
 .•\warded : — Held, that under the circumstaneen 
 the issuing of a summons was waived. Iir<iiiia 
 v. Clarke, lit t). R. (K)l.— MacMahon. 
 
 The defendant w.is convicted before two jus- 
 tices of the peace for selling litptor without a 
 lieeusc, contrary to section 49 of the Liipior l.i 
 cense .-V ct ( R. S (). 1887, c. 191). Acoiivietioin\as 
 drawn up and tiled with the clerk of the peace 
 in which it was adjudged that the defendant 
 shoulil pay a line and costs, and if they were not 
 paid forthwith, then, inasmuch ns it hid been 
 made to aiipear on the admission of tlie defen- 
 dant that he hail no goods wh-'icon to levy the 
 Hums imposed by <listress, that he should be im- 
 prisoned for three months unless these sniiis and 
 the costs and charges of conveying him to gaol 
 ahould be siHUier paid. An amended conviction 
 was afterwards drawn up and liled, from which 
 the parts relating to distress and the costs of 
 conveying to gaol were omitted. A warrant of 
 wininitment <lireeted the g.ioler to receive the 
 defendant and imprison bini for three months 
 unless the said sever.il sums and the costs of 
 I'onveying him to gaol should be socmer jmid. 
 Upon a motion to (|uash the convictions and 
 Marrant: — Held, that the moile adopted for 
 liringing the defendant before the justices was 
 not a ground for ipiashing the conviction; and 
 i<enil)le, also, that it w.is not improper to arrest 
 liiin instead of merdv sumnioiiing him. Jf-'i/ina 
 V. Maiarij, 19 (>. R.tWI.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the fact that the defendant was 
 renmnrled by only one justice could not affect 
 ilie conviction, /ft. 
 
 Seinble, that the justices had no {Kiwer under 
 K. S. O. (1887), c. 1114, s. 70, to issue a distress 
 warrant or to make the imprisonment im|Msed 
 dependent upon the payment of the fine and 
 
 67 
 
 costs; but as this objection was not taken by 
 the defendant, no effect was given to it. Ih. 
 See AVj/i/ia v. Clark'-, MM). R. (M>l, p. M).".!i. 
 
 Jfeld, that the justices had the right to draw 
 up and return an .amended conviction in c. jiro- 
 per IMS)'. I,'t'</iii(i V. Mmnri/, 19 (). R. t>9l. — 
 g. I!. I>. 
 
 Held, that if the justices were hound to issue 
 a distress warrant, the insertion of the words 
 relating to the .admission of the defendant that 
 he had no goods was proper ; and if tliuy had 
 no powi^r to issu(! a distress warrant, these words 
 wore mens surplusage and did not vitiate the 
 conviction. Ih. 
 
 Held, that if the justices had no power to re- 
 (jiiirc the costs of conveying him to gaol to be 
 |iaid by the defendant, the conviction was 
 amendalde, as anil when it was amended ; for 
 the anii'iidineiit W.IS not of the adjudication of 
 pnnishiiieiit. //>. 
 
 ll'dd, that having regaiil to section lO.'i of [;. 
 .'^. (>. (I.S87), c. 194, and to the evidence iiefoie 
 the justices, the convictions and warrant should 
 Hut be iiuashcd. III. 
 
 (c.) /'mil/ If. 
 
 The defendant was convicted under .section 41 
 of the Liquor License Act, R. fS. (). (1877), c. 
 181, for selling liquor Mitlomt a license, and 
 iiniler .section 4t) for allowing iiijuor sold by him 
 to be consumed on the premises ; ami one penalty 
 was iiiHicted '• for his said ofb;iice : " — Held, 
 bad, in not showing for which offence the 
 penalty tvas iniposeil. Iteij'ma v. Yoiiiiij, 5 0. 
 H. 184 0.— Rose. 
 
 Convictions imposing the incrcneed penalties 
 for second and tliird otl'eiices, under the I..iipior 
 License Act, K. .'^. ().JIS77), c. 181, section ")2, 
 are bad unless proceedings have been taken lor 
 the first otlence. /I'l i/iiui v. h'tnlir.ll, .'> ( ). I!. 
 ISO. - Hose. 
 
 See Reijinn v. /■'rairlii/, 45 (). I'.. 227, p. 1057 ; 
 Reyinav. Yuiui;/, 7 U. H. 88, [i. 1(),".9. 
 
 I (d) Dixlri'is anil Imprixoiimint. 
 
 Defendant was convicted for a third time of 
 I having sold liquor without a license, and was 
 ! sentenced to three montlis' im)irisonment with 
 ; haul labour ; —Held, following Kegina r. Fraw- 
 
 ley, 40 Q. B. 15S, that the magistrate had not 
 i power to im. jcliard l.ibuur,and the conviction 
 
 was therefore invalid, livyina v. AlHiriihi. 9 
 ; 1'. R. 2,5.— Osier. But sec Jlixlijc v. The (Juitu, 
 ;9 App. Cas. 117, p. 311. 
 
 ! .Semble, that in such a case a judge has no 
 power to amend the conviction under R. .S. O. 
 I 0877), c. 181, s. 77, as amended by 44 Vict. c. 
 I 27, by striking out the part imposing hard 
 I labour. Heyiiia v. AUhriijhl, 9 1'. R. 25. — 
 I Osier. 
 
 Held, that the punishment for offences asi.Tinst 
 j .section 43, of R. S. (). (1,877), c. LSI, must he 
 j either inipri.souiiient with hard labour or a tine ; 
 ; and that such imprisonment in the event of 
 1 nonpayment of the tine could not be aw.ird.cd, 
 I but only imprisonment without hard labour. 
 1 Ikijina v. Jloilwell, 5 O. R. 186.— Hose. 
 
^^v 
 
 10B9 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUOBS. 
 
 1060 
 
 I i 
 i 1 
 
 A penalty of tliirtv days' iinpi'isoiiinont in dc- 
 fuiilt of Hiitllcienl (hstrcsa fur t)>u tinu was ini- 
 poseil :— Helil, gf)n(l umlcr 1!. S. O. (IS77), u. 
 IHl, KH. ril anil ")!(. /{n/iiia v. Youmi, 7 O. R. 
 8S.— Osier. 
 
 TJie adjiKlication on a MU(M)nd oircnoe under 
 the " I,i.|ii(.r l.icensf Aot," H. S. (). (1SS7). e. 
 1!)4, without providing for diatrcss, directed 
 immediate impriHonnient in dofaull of the pay- 
 mrnt of the tine and I'tmt.s ; and the conviction 
 <iiawn up under it was in similar terms. After 
 the issue of a writ of certiorari, but before 
 its return, an amended conviction was returu- 
 »•(! iMdvidinj; for distress lieiuj; first made : — 
 Held, that the adjuilicatioM and conviction 
 made miller it were void for not providing 
 for dihlriK.-t; and that the amended convic- 
 tion could not be su)i[iorteil, because it did not 
 fcdlow the adjudie ition. Semble, that hail the 
 Jimendi d eniivietinn been in other respects good, 
 it would not b.ive beiai void under the Liijuor 
 License Act lor incbidiugthc costs of conveying 
 to jail. Hnjiiiii V. (Jdiititlon, I!) O. R. I!»7.~- 
 f. P. \). 
 
 Held, that the conviction in this case in 
 awarding impiisornnent in default of payment, 
 was jjroperly drawn, for by s. 70 of R. S. O. e. 
 104, undei- wiiich the convictiiui was iimde, 
 there is no power to direct distreis. /{ei/iiia v. 
 I'/arkc, I'.M). R. (iOl. -Mac.Mahim. 
 
 See McLillaii v. McKinmui, 1 (». R. 219 ; 
 Regina v. Meiianj, 1!) (). H. (iitl, p. 1058. 
 
 (e) /{ctiiDval 1)1/ Certiorari. 
 
 A certiorari will not lie to remove a convic- 
 tion under the Liipior License Act, R. S. O. 
 (IS77), c. 181, 8 48, wiiich b:vs bien afHrnied 
 and amended on appeal to th<- ne.ssions, for issu- 
 ing a license contrary to the Act, the pro- 
 cedure being regulated by ;i2-.'i.'l Vict. c. 31, s. 
 71 (l)oni.), as amended by ;i;i Viet. c. '27, &. i 
 (l)om. ). Riijiim V. ilr<iiiiija\ 4t> (). U. ISS, — 
 Armour. 
 
 (f) Qtidshinrj. 
 
 The court refused to quiush a conviction under 
 the Liipior License Act allirmed on ap|ieal, on 
 the ground among otheis, that the general ver- 
 dict of guilty was inconsistent with tht answers 
 of the jury to specific <piestions. li^Hjiiia v. 
 araiwjn; 4() t,». H. ;18:>. — (^ I!. 1). 
 
 Hee Ri'iiina v. Muruij, UK). H. 091, \>- lOoS. 
 
 f). Cir'd Kiiimli'^ .[(/ain.it Tarern-keefrri. 
 
 R. S. 0. (1H87), c. 194, s. l-'2, which imposes 
 a liability in certain eventualities on innkeep- 
 ers who give li(|Uar to per.*on> wlio tlieieby be- 
 come intoxicated, is a remedial me Mure and 
 xliould receive a liberal construction Tricp v. 
 /.•o/.,//«);(, 1()(). R. 4:t:{. -Cliy. U. 
 
 10. Ri^>ric(ioii< K/j Sail ^» Iix'hriafi'i. 
 
 The i)laiiitiH', wliose Imsbainl was in the habit 
 of drinking nitoxiijatin^ liijuors to excess, gave 
 notice to the def iidaot, a duly licensed inn- 
 keeper, forbidding him to supply liipior to her 
 
 I husband ; in congcquencc of which the defeii- 
 
 I daiit forbade his barkeeper (his son) furnisbini; 
 
 j li(iuor to the husband, but the l)urkeeper not- 
 witiistanding did serve the plaintiff's husband 
 
 I with liipior in the tavern kept by defendant. 
 R. S. (). (1877), c. 181, s. »0. enacts that if the 
 person so notilieil delivers or suffers to be de- 
 livered any such liipmrs to the person named in 
 the notice, the person giving such notice, inav 
 recover from him not less ^20, nor more than 
 S'.iOO, to be assessed by the court or jury as iluni 
 ages : — Held, that defendant was liable, Hugill 
 c. Merrifielil, 12 (,'. 1'. 204, overruled. Austin 
 V. />((/•/.-, 7 A. K. 478. 
 
 In an action by a niarrie<l woman againxt 
 an innkeeper, under R. S. O. (1877), c. 181, k. 
 1)0, for having sup|)lied li(|uor to her hnsbami, 
 after a notice, as follows : " 1 hereby forbid you 
 or any one in your house, giving my husband 
 William Northeote any liipioi' of any kind from 
 this day." * * the jury found that the hus- 
 band was an habitual drunkard, and that intoxi- 
 <:ating liipior had been furnished to him aftc>' 
 such notice by the defendant, who kne"' ihu 
 hiLsband widl, as also the reason for giving the 
 notice, and rendered a verdict in favour of the 
 plnintill' for 8-0. In the following term the 
 defeiiilant nioved to set aside that verdict, ami 
 to enter a nonsuit or grant a new trial. After 
 argiimeiit, the judge ordered the verdict tobcBct 
 aside and a nonsuit entered which, on appeal to 
 the Court of Appeal, by lea^on of an equal divi- 
 sion of the judges, was .itiii-iiied. I'er Hagarty, 
 (". .1. (). , ;ind (isler, ,1. A., the notice was iii- 
 sutiieienl in omitting to state that the iilaintitrV 
 husband had the li.ibit of drinking to excess. 
 I'er Riirt.'ii and I'.ittersun, .).!.. \. —The niptifc 
 asgi\eii was sulhcienl. Per Kuitoii, I'atter.siiii, 
 and Oslei, •1.1. A. -It was not necessary to for 
 bid the supplying of " intoxicating liquor," the 
 Mords used "' liquor of auy kind," being sulli 
 eient. Snrthrotc v. /Irniih'r, 14 .-V. \l. 'MU. 
 
 The plaintill", a married woman, brought an 
 action under I!. .S. (). (I8S7), e. I!»4, .s. 12.'), to 
 recovi'r from the defendant, an liotel-keepir, 
 ihimagis because of the s.ile by liiin to her lius 
 band of inloxicating liquor after notice not to 
 sell. The notice was signed liy the phiinlill'aiul 
 Served by her agent. I'er llagaity, (.'. .1. (»., 
 and llurto::, .1. A. Tlie right ot action foi 
 ilam.iges depends on the notice being given I)) 
 the person tilling the )niblic posili.iii of iiispot 
 tor, though the liability as far as llie penalties 
 are concerned, will bo 'icurred upon notice 
 being given by the private individual. I'er 
 Osier, and Maileiinan, .Jd. A. The notice iiiiist 
 in all cases be signed by tin (irivale individual, 
 and whether serveil i)y the inspector or not, tli. 
 private individual gives the notice, so that tlir 
 wolds may fairly lie construed to mean " person 
 requiring to (;ive notice," and there is a right n' 
 action whether the notice is served in one w.u 
 or the other. Thunilei/ v. Hdlly, 17 A. R. 'i(H. 
 
 11. I'locniliinjx Aijiillinl /jiceiiHe Coimiimiumry 
 
 A mandamus will not be granted to compel :i 
 board of license commissioners to issue a lireiiw 
 to a person to whom one has been grant' I, hut 
 not issued, by tlu! retiring lommissioiiers, « here 
 thev have not completed their functions, their 
 acts having been reversed by their successors in 
 
1061 
 
 INTOXIOATINO UQUORS. 
 
 1062 
 
 tlic ik'fuii- 
 funiiHhiii;^ 
 ei!])er lull- 
 's husliiinil 
 ilefcntlant. 
 that if thi; 
 3 to 1)1' ik- 
 I) named in 
 lotice, iiiuy 
 iiioi'i; that! 
 iry as daiii 
 )lc. Hugill 
 3(1. A usliit 
 
 iiaii agiiiunt 
 ), c. lSl,s. 
 av Inisbaml, 
 y torl'iil yi'i 
 my IiuhIkuiiI 
 y kind fiiini 
 hat the hus 
 I that intoxi- 
 to him aftc- 
 ,o know ihc 
 jr giving the 
 ivour (if the 
 \g t(!i'ni the 
 
 vurdic't, and 
 trial. After 
 rdict tobcBBl 
 
 on iil)lieal to 
 in i;(iual divi- 
 IVr Hugarty, 
 otice was in- 
 t\w plaintitV'H 
 
 \\\ir to ('XL't'38, 
 
 . —Till' niitice 
 in, I'attcr.sdii, 
 cssary to for- 
 g li(liior," the 
 "n;iiig ><<ltti 
 \. W. :«u. 
 
 \)rouglit an 
 ,14, .-i. r2.'), to 
 liotclket'lR'r, 
 ini til her liiis 
 udtic'i' nut t<i 
 plaiiiull'aiiil 
 lirty, C. .1. ()., 
 ot aftiiin l(ir 
 icing given liy 
 111. Ill lit insiiee- 
 the penalties 
 1 npciii notice 
 ividnal. Per 
 If notice must 
 ale individual, 
 i^tor or not, th. 
 ice, so that the 
 mean ••liersou 
 re i» a riglil "' 
 •ed in one »■!' 
 17 A. K. '204. 
 
 Codi/i'i-'""""'''- 
 
 ,0(1 to compel a 
 I issno a li(cni»> 
 -n grant r.l, but 
 issioners, where 
 functions, their 
 ir sncoes.wra iii 
 
 otiiou. LtfHun V. litHiril of Lici-nxtd (,'ommis- 
 MuiierKoftht VohhUi of Dafftvin, 19 O. R. <J7. - 
 <^hy. D. 
 
 A notice of action iu neceHsary in an au- 
 
 tiiin for tluniagcH against a hoard of license 
 
 viiniinibMionerK acting tinder It. S. (>. (IS87), 
 c. I!»4. lb. 
 
 IV'. .S.\LE TO InKIAN.S. 
 
 A conviction \inder the Indian Act, 1880, for 
 <!iving intoxicating li(|iior to an Indian imposed 
 it tine ami coi^tH. and in defanlt of immediate 
 payment, imprisonment : Held, that tho coii- 
 vi'.'tion was invalid and must lie (puished, for 
 while section 90 provides as punishment for the 
 iitl'cncc, impiisonment or tine, or tine ami ini- 
 prisonmenl, it dous not authorize a tine, and in 
 default of paym.int imprisonment ; and that the 
 defect was not remedied l>y suution !)8, which 
 iinacts, th.it no pnwecution, conviction, etc., 
 under the Act siiall be iiiviilid on account of 
 want of form, so hmg as the same is according 
 to the true meaning of the Act : — Hehl, also, 
 tliat thu conviction was invalid because it did not 
 negative that the li(inor was made use of under 
 thu sanction of a m.tdical man or minister of reli- 
 gion. Hiijinav. MacKt;itzi(',C)0. R. 105. — Rose. 
 
 Tile ofTeuce was selling li(juor to an Indian : — 
 Held, no objection to a conviction under It. S. 
 O. (1377), c. 181, for if so the defendant was 
 guilty of two otrences, one under tho latter 
 Act. and one nnder the Indian Act. Rigina v. 
 Yoiinij, 7 O. II. 88.— Osier. 
 
 'I'lie words "ajipeal brought'' in section 198 of 
 the Indian Act, R. S. C. c. 43, are satislied by 
 the giving of notice and perfecting tl'.e appeal 
 liy I lie giving of the security provided for by 
 the Summary ('onvictions Act; and it is not 
 iKTcssary for an appellant from a conxiction 
 iiii'lcr that Act to bring his' appeal to a hearing 
 wilhiii the time limited liy section 108. In re 
 IliMiicr V. (irilKohs, 7 1'. R. Sti, not folhiwed : — 
 Scnililc, merely giving notice of appeal within 
 
 ity duly appointed,'' and alleged that defendant 
 and Fanny, his wife, or one of them, did on, 
 etc., sell, etc., to the said Indians spirituous 
 liquors contrary to the statute, etc. 'I he sum- 
 mons issued thereon described l>. M. as Indian 
 agent, and shewed it wax issued at Rama towii- 
 j ship. It was directed to the defendant and his 
 ! wife, described as of Rama townshiji, and was 
 I personally served on the wife and a copy left 
 I with her for her husband iit their most usual 
 ! place of abode. This was proved by atlidavit 
 of service. The enipiiry was held at Haiim be- 
 fore D. M. iis Indian agent, and he subscribed 
 the different depositions as "Indian agent of the 
 1 Chippewas of Kama," ex officio justice of the 
 I pe.ice. The conviction was that on, etc. , "at 
 I Haina Indian Reserve, in the township of Rama,'' 
 i the defendant "is convicted before D. M., Iii- 
 j dian ugciit for the Chippewas at Rama, ex ofKeio 
 I justice of the peace for the purpose and under 
 the Indian Act, 1880, for that he did on, etc., 
 at the township of R;iina, unlawfully sell to cer- 
 tain Indians, etc.'' The warrant of commitment 
 recited that the conviction was before D. M., 
 as Indian agent of the county of Ontario. Tho 
 liquor was sold at defendant's hotel, in the 
 township of R una, by the defendant's wife, the 
 husband being away at the time and for some 
 time after ivards. 'I'here was nothing said to D. 
 M. to shew why defendant was not present at 
 the en(|uii'y ; and D. M. had no reason to be- 
 lieve that the ease was other than a neglect or 
 refusal to attend. In support of this applica- 
 tion, defendant stated that he knew nothing of 
 the summons having been issued, or of the pro- 
 ceedings thereon, and never authorized any one 
 to act for him: — Held, per Wil.son, (J. J., that 
 the service Wiis regularly made, and duly proved 
 before the Indian agent, and he was justified in 
 j proceeding to investigate the charge; and that 
 i the act of the wife was in law that of the hus- 
 band, and that he could be convicted therefor. 
 Qua'i'e, whether U. M.'s appointment was as an 
 Indian agent of the Chippewas of Kama, or for 
 the county of Ontario, but tho latter might in- 
 
 , ,. 1 - ,1 , . .-- , I elude the forincrand so give jurisdiction: — Held, 
 tlu' tliirty days would have satished the words i,„wevei', tiie conviction could not lie supported, 
 <,{ the statute. AVi/nm \. AfiUaulcij, 12 P. R. f - ■ n. - • 
 
 I'.-i!) Armour. 
 
 A summary conviction by the police magis- 
 trate of the county of Hraiit. for selling intoxi- 
 tiitiii^ li(|iior to an Indian in the township of 
 Tii-caiiira, contrary to H. .S. ('. c. 4.'1, stated 
 til it this oH'eiice was committed on the '29th 
 JSeptcmbor, 1887, but the information stated and 
 the evidence di.sclosed that the ollcncc was 
 eiiniinittcd on tlie27th Septemlier, 1887 : — Held, 
 tli.it the date was not under the circumstances 
 uiaiirial, there being no suggestion that any 
 wrong or injustice was caused by the mistake, 
 and that section 87 of H. 'S. C. c. 43, operated 
 t'l iiuc this irregularity, as also certain other 
 irrc^iiiaritics complained of, the otl'eiice ha\>iig 
 been cicivrly pri.ved, the jiolice magistrate hav- 
 ing i'xprt-«ts iurisdictioii liy section 96 of the 
 Act. and ilic piinislimcnl im)io.-ic(l being within 
 the power conterrcd upon him. ]'<'<jiiia v. tirem, 
 12 1'. U. :173.-Strect. 
 
 An information for selling li((U(ir to certain 
 iianicd Indians, but without describing them as 
 <if .uiy ))artic.i1;ir tribe or locality, was laid by 
 I!-, iit the township of Rama, before 1). M., 
 described as "an Indian agent by royal author- 
 
 for none of the proceedings shewed that the In- 
 dians to whom the li(iuor was sold were Indians 
 over whom the agent had jurisdiction, as it did 
 not appear that they were Chipjiewa Indians, or 
 Indiiius residing within the township, or even 
 ill the county. The discharge of the defendant 
 was granted, but the Chief ,Justice directed that, 
 so far as necessary, and ho had power to do so, 
 no action should be brought against the Indian 
 agent. A substantive motion was made before 
 Armour, J., to quash the conviction which was 
 granted, he also directing that no action be 
 brought against the Indian agent. On appeal 
 to tlie Divisional Court jigainst so much of the 
 judgments as prevented an action being brought, 
 the appeals were (juashed. Ilajiiin v. MtAuley, 
 14 O. R. 643.-0. P. D. 
 
 See Reijiiiii v. Diiijiielte, 9 P. R. 29, p. 1051 ; 
 Rcjina V. ShareUar, 1 1 (,>. R. 727, p. 1029. 
 
 V. Sai.i-; ok Liquor nk.vr Pttblic Works. 
 
 The defendant C. and others were contractors 
 employed in constructing a portion of the line 
 of the Canadian Pacific Railway ou the north 
 
• ass=*?^ 
 
 '"^ 
 
 csr:r 
 
 Si;; 
 
 1063 
 
 JXTDOMENT. 
 
 1064 
 
 shore of Liike .SuiMrior, fifty niiloH north of the 
 mouth of the Michipicoteu River, where there 
 18 a post of the Hudaoii Buy Conipaiij' and a 
 Hmall collection of houscH and store* known by 
 tlie name of the village of Michipicoten Kiver. 
 At this place the defendant C. and his co-uon- 
 tractors had their hea<)(iuarters, and had con- 
 Mtructed a supply road to the line of the railway 
 where their operations were being carried on. 
 The plaintiff brought to this village in a small 
 sailing vessel a quantity of intoxicating li({Uor8, 
 intending to sell them there. The defendant C. 
 and his co-defendant R. , who were justices of 
 the peace, having jurisdiction in the district of 
 Algoma, assuming to net under R. 8. O. (1877) 
 chapter 32, "An Act llespecting the Sale of In- 
 toxicating Liquor near I'ublic Works," caused 
 the liquors to DC seized aud destroyed, and the 
 plaintiff to be arrested, fined and imprisoned : — 
 Held, that this was a village within the mean- 
 ing of R. S. O. (1877) c. .'«, 8. 1, and therefore 
 the prohibition contained in the Act did not 
 iipply and that the justices had no jurisdiction. 
 The plaintiff was discharged upon a writ of 
 habeas corpus, the justices having returned to 
 the certiorari issued in aid of the habeas corpus, a 
 paper purporting to be the cimviction signed by 
 them but not under their seal. The conviction 
 was not quashed : — Held, that after the return 
 to the cortioruri, a new conviction could not be 
 returned, an<l that as the conviction returned 
 was not sealed, it wah a nullity and need not be 
 quashed before an action was brought. Bond v. 
 Conwiee, 1.5 0. R. 716. — C. P. D. Affirmed 16 
 A. R. 398. 
 
 INVENTION. 
 
 See Patent ov Invention. 
 
 INVESTMENT OF MONET- 
 
 I. Bt Aoknt— .See Principal and Aoent. 
 
 II. By Executors and Adminlstrators— 
 Sc« Trusts and Trusters. 
 
 m. Bv Solicitor— See Solicitor. 
 
 IV, BYTRUSTEES-Se^TRUSTSANDTRUSTEES. 
 
 JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. 
 
 See Ejectment— Pleading. 
 
 JOINDER OF ISSUE. 
 
 See Pleading. 
 
 JOINDER OF PARTIES. 
 
 iS^ee Pleading. 
 
 JOINT STOCK COMPANY. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 JOINT TENANTS. 
 
 See l-iiTATK— Will. 
 
 JUDGE. 
 
 I. Of Hum Court -■.*.>(! HiOH Cocbt nv 
 Justice. 
 
 II. Of County Court— See County Court. 
 
 III. Of Division CouRT-iSre Division Court. 
 
 IV. In Ciiamuers— S«e Practice. 
 
 A judicial officer cannot dclegiite the *iiM- 
 charge of his judicial functions to another unlcsit 
 expressly empowered to do so. In re Queen 
 Citij Kfjinimj Co., 10 P. R. 41.5.— Hodgins, 
 Master-in-Ordinary. 
 
 The cases relating to dis(|ualitication by rcaHon 
 of favourer interest in a judge or magistrate diH- 
 cussed. RKjina v. Klemp, 10 O. R. 143.— Wilson. 
 
 JUDOE S REPORT. 
 
 .SVe Parliamkntarv Klkctions. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 iSETTLiN(i Minutes, IWi.5. 
 
 Sl(lNIN(i AND KnTERINO UP. 
 
 1. (ienerally, 1063. 
 
 2. Nunc pro Tunc, 1066. 
 Motion for Judoment, 1066. 
 
 In Default of Appeakange, 1087- 
 In Default of Defence, 1068. 
 Under Con. Rule 739. 
 
 1. AijainHt Married Women, 1068. 
 
 2. Other Vwtx, 1069. 
 Under Co^ . Rule 744, 1073. 
 Under Con. Rule 755, 1075. 
 Under Con. Rule 756, 1076. 
 Interlocutory Jud((ment8, 1077. 
 Judgment on Demurkek, 1077. 
 Declar.vtory Judoment.s, 1077. 
 Set off of Judgments, 1078. 
 Interest on, 1079. 
 
 Time ok Taking Effect, 1080. 
 
 Assignment of, 1080. 
 
 Right of Surety on A.ssignment or 
 Judgment — See Principal ani> 
 Suhety. 
 
 XVIII. Amendment of, 1081. 
 
 XIX. SriTING A.SIDK. 
 
 1. Delay in Apjili/iwj, 1082. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 1083. 
 
 1065 
 
1065 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1066 
 
 XX. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 XXVI. 
 XXVII. 
 
 XXVIll. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 XXX. 
 
 X.XXI. 
 
 EFFKfT OF JniMlMKNTS. 
 
 I. Eilopptl. 
 
 (a) Ejectment, 108.5. 
 
 (b) Other Judymenlti, 1086. 
 
 Proof or— See Kvidrncr. 
 
 Envokcino Judomknt of Cocrt of 
 Aphkai.— .Ve« Court of Ai-pral. 
 
 AppKAii) FROM Final .luiMiMF.NTH TO 
 ScpRKME Court— .SV .Supkkmk 
 Court. 
 
 Fbaudulknt .Tuuomknt— iSie« Pbaui>- 
 ULENT .Jub<;mf.nt. 
 
 AdAINST ABSroNMNd DKHTOK—.S'ee 
 
 AuHcoNuiNo Debtor. 
 In E.ikctment— .SVf Ejf.ctmknt. 
 Forekin Juuomknts, 
 I. Arl'miiM oil. 
 
 (a) aiiK-rally, 109.3. 
 
 (b) Validity of, 1093. 
 
 Auainst Married Women— See Sub- 
 iiKAO VI. 1, p. I0()8 — Husband 
 AND Wife. 
 
 Transcript ok Judoment— .SVt Di- 
 vision Courts. 
 
 Barred iiv TiME-Src Limitat")N ok 
 .\ctions. 
 
 Revivino .Iudumknts- 
 Facias and Revivor. 
 
 I. Settlini! Minutes. 
 
 Sei; S<;ih« 
 
 The entry of judgment, the minutes of which 
 have been settled by a local rej^isti'iir, does not 
 preclude a party who, at the tmie of such set- 
 tling has given notice tliat he desires the min- 
 utes settled at Toronto, from afterwards obtain- 
 ing a reference under Rule 41ti, O. J. Act (see 
 Con. Rule 22). The court will rather encourage 
 (at all events for some time) tiie settling of 
 judgments such tui are not included in the forms 
 at the head office, because of the well understood 
 phraseology in use by the two officers wlinse 
 function it is to frame the terms of such judg- 
 ments. HoUien v. Smith, 10 P. R. .S69.— Boyd. 
 
 .See Mardonaid v. Worthimjton, 7 A. R, 531. 
 
 II. SiuMNti AND Entering up. 
 1. Qenerally. 
 
 When an action is commenced in aflocal office, 
 judgment for default of appearance or pleading 
 must be entered in the local office. Chamberlain 
 V. ArmMroiifi, 9 F. H. 212.— Boyd. 
 
 An aetin;i was transferred from tlie Cliy. Div. 
 to the C. P. Div. by an order of the judges, but 
 the plaintiff not having notice of tlie transfer, 
 signed judgment in the Chy. Div. An order 
 was made retninsferring the case to the Chy. 
 Div., and allowing the judgment entered to 
 stand and be in force from its entry, witliout 
 costs. Patterson v. Murphij, 9 P. R. .306.— 
 Daltou, Master. 
 
 In 1141 action on a promissory note tlic plain 
 tiffa, in tlieir statement of claim, claimed in- 
 terest at the rate of seven per cent., without 
 shewing any legal right to more than six per 
 oent. j'he statement of defence having been 
 held bad on demurrer, an<l leave to amend not 
 having bi'on asked or granted, the plaintiffs 
 entered judgment for default of defence for the 
 full amount of the princip^d and interest 
 claimed: Meld, that it was the duty of the 
 deputy old k at the office where judgment wax 
 signed not to permit judgment to bo entered for 
 what the plaintiffs were not entitled to, and 
 that there was no objection to the plaintiffs 
 limiting their claim to six per cent, on signing 
 juilgmcnt. /laid' o/' llnmiltou v. Iluroey, 1) 
 P. I!. 14.1. Osier. 
 
 Where, after a verdict, the judge presiding 
 at the trial ilied before giving judgment there- 
 on, it was directed that an order for judgment 
 should be <Irawn up in tlie High Court, before 
 the three judges who composeil the Divisional 
 Court of the Common Pleas Division, as judges 
 of the High Cimrl. \\'tllliaiikn v. Conijir, 12 
 P. K. 354.— C. P. D. 
 
 Although by Rule .527 (/>.) O. .J. Act (see 
 Con. Rules 707, 7<)S), judgment is not to 
 be signed in cases tried by a jury till the time 
 thereby prescribed, yet, when signed, the entry 
 of it, if the Divisional Court pronounces no dif- 
 ferent judgment from that of the trial judge, 
 ought to be dated as of the day on which it was 
 pronounced by the trial judge. Jii-.cketl v. 
 Graiid Trunk R. W. Co., 12 P. K. 377.— Dalton, 
 Matter. — Armour. 
 
 Rule .320 (Con. Rule 764 ; see also Con. Rule 
 765) applies to all cases, whether tried by a judge, 
 jury, or otherwise, in which the judgment is 
 pronounced by the court or a judge in court, 
 and Rule 327 (see Con. Rule 765a) applies to 
 cases in which the judgment h.ts not been pro- 
 nounced by the court or a judge in court. Jb. 
 
 Where the judgment pronounced by the trial 
 judge upon the verdict of a jury was varied 
 liy a Divisional Court : — Held, that judgment 
 should be entered as of the date on which the 
 Divisional Court pronounced judgment. //*. 
 
 .Since the U. ■]. Act damages should he assesseil 
 up to the date of judgment. Stalker v. Toioii- 
 ihij) i>j' lhi.niri,-li, lot). 1!. 342.— Q. B. I). 
 
 2. Xunc pro Tunc. 
 
 Where the losing party in a suit died after 
 verdict and before judgment on a rule for a new- 
 trial, and judgment nunc pi o tunc was entered, 
 by order of a judge, as of a day prior to such 
 death and a suggestion of the death entered on 
 the recoril, the court refused to ({uash an appeal 
 by his executors. Muirhead v. Shirreff, 14 S. 
 C. R. 735. 
 
 See Quiiduu v. Union Fiix Inn. Co., 8 A. R. 
 376, p. 1079 ; MrEwan v. McLeoil, 10 A. U. 96, 
 p. 1079 ; aki.'is v. Cameron, 9 0. R. 712, p. 1082. 
 
 III. Motion kor Jud<;ment. 
 
 Where a defendant does not appear, notice of 
 motion for judgment must nevertheless be 
 
1067 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1068 
 
 I, 'J 
 
 •cn-ed or (lOMtoil in tlic nropor oflioc undor Rulo 
 131, <). .1. Act. (Sen ('on. Kulo 4((l.) Hnrritt 
 V. Mvntofi; » I'. K. I!»l. I'roiuHoot. 
 
 <>. (). t'hy. 418 (sco ('(.n. Hulo fiMT) is coii- 
 trolleil hy llii> rnntlic^tin^' ])i'(iviHi(iiH of Kiilo 
 40(1, O. ,1. Art (n(<! Con. I!iilv474«t Mfci.), Iiunoe 
 two clciir iIiivh' Moticf of motion lor |ii(l){invnt 
 un.lcr Kiilu a-.U, l>. .1. Alt (Con. Knl.i 714), in 
 Bntlicirnt. Mmtnii \. Hinmi, \» V. |{. ;MW. — 
 Hoj-a. 
 
 The coui't may iijion iiiolion t'nter juil^'int'nt 
 upon tin* viM'ilict jijivrn iit (lie trial, wlu'iv tliu 
 trial JMiljjc liiiH not ilono ho. (jMiuti', ulu'tln^r 
 aiu-li motion hIiouM \w to tlio DiviHionjil Court. 
 "The Court," in IJuI.-h .'II."), .T.'I (Con. Knl«« 
 748, 77'>l, nmans the lli);li C<inrt of .luHticc ; 
 whutliur :i.s ili.il inktui.slu'il from itM DiviHionn or 
 not. W'cl/lMihts \. Ciitniir, I'i I*. 11. XA. 
 C. 1'. 1). 
 
 Upon a motion to tlio ronrt i)r jntl^mi^iit on 
 the Htatcmi^nt of claim in dofaull of ilcfcncc, liiu 
 plaiiitilt'H aHkol for an orJcr iliHjiciifiing willi 
 service of notice of the motion upon the defen- 
 ilunt under (-'on. Rule 4(17. It was not Hhewn 
 that tiiu defendant coidd not l>e Hcrved. The 
 order was refu.seil : Held, that the fact tlial 
 the defendant had hcen iierxonaily Mcrvnd witii 
 the >\rit of sinnmonn and statement of claim 
 and had not appeared wa.s not " Kutlicicnt cauHe " 
 within the meaning; of the Uule, Ihimtiiiini Ituiik 
 V. Doildriiliji , 1'2 I'. H. (liVi. — KuhertHon. 
 
 Where the court at the trial of a |mrtner'8hip 
 action, after deiiariii^ that a partiuvrNhip exiHti'd 
 und adjudging that it he di.sHolved and wound 
 up, ordered that all other matters in di.><|iute in 
 the action be referred for intpiiry and report to 
 a master under Hcction 101 of the Judicature 
 Act : - Held, I iiiit the rc|)ort of the miixtcr under 
 sucli reference was* not Huliject to the )irovi!<ions 
 of Con. Rule 848 as to conlirniation liy tiling and 
 hipse of time : hut that any time after it was 
 nuide, a motion for judgment u])on it was in 
 order undor Con. Ituh^ 7ri:<, and upon such motion 
 the court could ado|»t it wholly or in part, and 
 any party dissatislicd with it might hefore or on 
 the return of the motion for jutlgmcnt move to 
 set it aside! or vary it. I'tniiniiiiit v. I.illli , !,'{ 
 P. R. :J(i4.- Kohertson. 
 
 I\'. In Dkk.vi i.t ok Ai'I'kakanci:. 
 
 An action for foreclosure of a mortgage is 
 govcrneil.by Rule 78 (Con. Rule 718), and no 
 order allowing service is neees.sary, and on default 
 of appearance judgment may he entered on 
 pneeipe according to tin- fornu^r practice in 
 chancery. Clwmhi rlnin v. AriiiK/nDii/, !( 1'. R. i 
 •212.— Royd. 
 
 Where the only property the <lefendanl owned 
 was the e<|uity of redemption in certain lands, 
 on motion for judgment for the amount of the 
 plaintiff's chiim aiul for n decree for- sale of the 
 equity of redeni])tion : — Held, on the authority 
 of Kerr v. Styles, SO Chy. .SOit, that the plaintiff 
 could have judgment as asked notwithstanding 
 that in this ca.se there were no ti. fas. in the 
 sherilTs hands. Johumn v. liennrtt, I*. R. 
 ;{;{7. — Ferguson. 
 
 The writ of summons was specially indorsed 
 with a money demand, besides which the in- 
 
 donionient claimed damages for waste, etc. 1!u> 
 plaintiff obtained an ox jiartu order amending 
 the indorsement by striking out tho claim for 
 damages:- Held, that jurlgmcnt by default eoidil 
 not be entered after the amendment without m 
 serving the writ on the defendant. IIuiha \ 
 I'nry, 12 l». It. 4(M).-Mac.Mahon. 
 
 Where a writ of summons is indorsed vtiih 
 the particulars of a liquidated dennind, and 
 also with a claim for unlii|uidaled dnniages, tin- 
 plaintiff may, without an order, sign a<!ond>iniMl 
 final anil interloci\t(H'y judgnu'Ut upon default 
 ofappctarance ; Rides 72 and 7li (Con. Rules 70,'>, 
 708) may be c(unbiiied in a proper case, ami 
 justify such a judgment. Itissett c. .Iiuies, :I2 
 Ch. I ». (W.-i, followed in prefereni'e to Standiml 
 Hank r. Wills, 10 I'. R. l.'iK. Ihiilnmn v. 
 hoiin; 12 P. R. 4!I2. Uoyd. 
 
 ■fudgment may be signed under Con. Itule2s|, 
 for default of appearance where an appearaiict' 
 has been entered after the time limited, if noluc, 
 uhich mvaiiH " notiei^ in writing," has not liccii 
 given as re(|nired by the Rule. Knowledge ol 
 the fact that an appearance has iMieii eiitcicd 
 does not constitute such notice as the Rule rr- 
 (piires. .Sndth r. Dobbin, H Kx. I). X\H, follow 
 cd. Lanark and Drummonil I'lank Road Co. ,; 
 Rothwell, 2 l". C. L. .I.O. .S. 221), not follow., I. 
 llHihni, litiy Co. v. Ilomitlni,, \',\ V. \\. A\i\ 
 Rose, 
 
 See Hnmilt v. M unlock; It P. It. H»l, p. l(Hi7 ; 
 McValliim V. Mi-^nUiim, 11 V. R. Hi, p. 1077. 
 
 \'. I.s Dkkai'i.t ok Dkfkmk. 
 
 In ail action for forecloKure tln^ defcndimt 
 entered ail appearnnce under Rule (18 (I. .1. .Vet 
 (Con. Itiile 200) limiting his defeni^e to one item 
 in the ]iarticulars endorsed on the writ of sum- 
 mons. The appenra ice did not state that the 
 defendant did not require the delivery of a 
 statement of claim : — Held, that after such ap- 
 pearance a statement of claim was unnecexsiiiy 
 and a judgment signed upon it for default of n 
 statement of defence was set aside with costs. 
 /',(/ V. Whit,-, II I*. R. 177. — Dalton, Musin: 
 
 Senible, that where in an action on a guaranty 
 the writ of summons is not specially endorsed, 
 but full particulars are set out in the stateiiiciit 
 of claim, final judgment may he signed upon dc 
 fault of defiiiice. Mnhnn's Rmik v. IHIIalmvili, 
 i:< V. R. .S12. -Boyd. 
 
 See Feiwii-k v. Doitnltue, 8 I'. R. I !(>, p. I(l77. 
 
 V'l. Unokh Con. Rf i.k 73!>. 
 
 I. AijniiiKl Afnrriid Wiimcii. 
 
 •Iiidgment may be obtained against a man icd 
 woman under Con. Rule 73!), but execution 
 thereunder must issue against her se]ia rate cst.itc 
 only. Kimuar v. lihu:, 10 P. R. 4(».'>. — Rose 
 
 Judgment was granted under Con. Rule 7'i'-l. 
 in an action on a promissory note against one 
 of the defendants, a married woman, as in 
 dorser, where the note matured after the pitssing 
 of the Married AVoman's Property Act, 188' (47 
 Vict. c. 19 (Ont.) ), and where there was no al- 
 legation that the married woman was possessed 
 of separate estate. The order provided that the 
 
 Th, 
 the 
 
I 
 
 1069 
 
 JUDOIOINT. 
 
 107O 
 
 jl|il)(lll<'lll nIkiIiIiI )h' IuVJImI (Mil of llK'llcri'llllllllt'M 
 
 Mi|iiimt<' |ii'<i|i('rl,y (if iiny) uliicli sIn' was |tiH- 
 
 •.(•MHtHl of i>r nitltli'il ti) ut tliti til )l' tlic iirtk- 
 
 lug of tli« note, or wliii'li hIdi inav tlii'iiMilii' iir- 
 i|iiiii' "!■ Iiiivc .iriiiiircd, anil wliicli nIi • w.in nut 
 iiwtraiii''il friiiii aiitii'i|iiitiiiv;. I^hnln,- Until' v. 
 /{.ill'oi'l. K' I' '!• <iH'- Miilt'ii, .l/'M/r,- 
 
 ,liiili;iiii'nl was ;.'l'iiiitvil iiiiilcr Con. Iliili' ''M, 
 ill ^111 .ii'lion oil a imlo ii|;ain.sl niii> of tli>' ilrfi'ii- 
 ilaiitH, a iiiarrii'il uoinaii, » licii- tlic iiiariiai;!' 
 iliil till' iiiatiil'ity of till' iioti> ui'i'i' licfiii'i' tile 
 " Miriic.l Woinan's l'io|iiity Art, ISSJ"; lollnw- 
 ili^ Itlll'sill I'. TaillK'l', l:ilj>. I>. I). <illl. ('mill inn 
 V Hiillnrlnnl, l(» I', li. (i'.'O. I»,ilt \tii<h,\ 
 
 lli'lil, tliat tlif "Mirricd Wiiiiiiin-. l'io|(iTly 
 Art, IMSt" In not M'lioi.|i(M'tivc. A iiKiljiii iinili'i- 
 I 'nil. I!iili' 7-l!l. for jiiil;;in('iit ii|ioii a nolr .'i;r,'iiiiHt, 
 a iii.iniril woman was iliNiniNNi'd in Ajiril. I.ss.'t, 
 anil win now rcncwcl, foiiil.'.n nionilis afiiT 
 till' liaHsiiii; (if the Act : Held, Unit the .\.'t 
 iiiadt' MO I'liani^o in tlic law wliicli roiild .i.MxiNt 
 tlir plain tiir, I'Vrii li' tin' inattiT were ri s iiilc^i' i. 
 Tiinilmll i\ l''onnaii. |."> (,». |!. | ). •J:t4. lo||,iw.',|. 
 Sn.llv. M>, II I*. I!. !»;». (CCoi r. 
 
 A |>iiina fii' iti ra-<i' for jiidj,'ini'iil iindi'r 
 Cull. Kiilc ~'.\\\ \MiM ni'idc liy tlio plaint ill' in an 
 artioii npoii twoltilUof cxclian^^c ai'i'i'|ili'd liy a 
 niiiri'ird woman ulio. in lii.'r difciicc, alleged, 
 
 ;iiiiipn;,'.st otiior tliiii;;.'*, that .slie ai pted the 
 
 liillH ax agent of lier hiiHliaiid, Init I In re lieing 
 cviilfiiei! on whieli the jniy might liavi' lueii 
 juHtitied in limliiig that the liiiMiiie.ss, in wliieli 
 8Ui'li ai-'ceptancfK woro given, was hers, I he (•oiiit 
 refused to iiitorffi'e with the diseielion of tin- 
 judge in dilei'ting jlldgliR'Ilt to he eiileied for 
 the plailltUr, the ilefeiidani iiaving deilitied to 
 I'limply with tlii^ eoiidilion of ))ayiiig theanioiint 
 of till' elaim into court to aliide the n suit of a 
 trial. XiUiiii V. Thnniif, II A. H (IKi. Osier. 
 
 I'pon a motion liy the plaiiitill'H for siiiiiinary 
 jiiilgnient ,ig.iiiist a married wom.in under Con. 
 Utile TAW, an otiieer of the plaiiitiIVs swore that 
 till! iimrrieil woin in wan made a [tarty to tlii^ note 
 sued on lieiMiiise he, the deponent, was informed 
 hy her hiislrind and lielii^ved, and had noihiiilit, 
 that she had separate estate of her own, and 
 that there was nodoiilit, so far as she was eoii- 
 eeriied, that she contracted witli respiict to her 
 separate estate when she eiiilor.sed the note. 
 The note was made and inatui'eil and all the 
 material facts iK^'Uired hefore the passing of the 
 Married Woman s I'roperty Act, ISS-I : Held, 
 following Moore ('. ■lackson, l(i A. It. 4I!I, that 
 the plaiiititl's were hound to |)rove the existence 
 of some sejiarattt piopeity at thi^ time of enter- 
 ing into the allegeil contract, ami that this was 
 not shewn hy the attidavit ; and the iiiotioii for 
 judgment was refiised. ('(iituiliiin /liml: nj (.'mil- 
 iiiir-t V. Wdoiliock, \'.\ I'. I!, 242. -l-'ergiison. 
 
 Huld (oil appeal from the limsteriii ehaiuliers 
 
 who oi'dereil judgment), that i\* there wim no 
 
 uvideiice that the difenilaiits had ri'ceived 
 
 notice of dlNhoiiour. and a disliiii'l denial hy 
 
 them of Mtieli notice, the motion should liiivi' 
 
 heeii refnseil. The prolest having lieen pro- 
 
 I dilced after ail eiil.irg'iiieiit : Meld, that lieinu 
 
 j only presumptive evidence of the posting of the 
 
 'notice, it was not Hiillicjent in the fac of the 
 
 i denial. The note Was dated •• I'rincc .\i thin-'s 
 
 Landing, " and siiii.'e the making of the note the 
 
 : plaiMi so called was iiieorporated under the iiaiiii' 
 
 of I'ort Arthur, the limits of the two plaies not 
 
 j exactly corresponding. < >ne of the endorsirs, 
 
 ('. C. !(., rcsiiled at Itowmanvillc : Held, that 
 
 till! snllicieiicy of a notice addressid to ('. C. It, 
 
 at I'ort Arthur, was open to argiinicnt, upon 
 
 I which the defciidant was entitled to have a 
 
 trial, and on this groiniil judgment slmulil not 
 
 ! have liceii ordered. Oiitiirio Itiiiil: v. Itnrh, Hi 
 
 I'. I!, otil. liose. 
 
 2. (Hhet- Uaii:^. 
 
 Ill an uctioii against the maker and cinlor.sers 
 (if a ])i'omi.si)ry note, in answer to a motion 
 under Con. Ilule "I'MK foi' jndgnieiit, the de- 
 fendants, the endorsers of the note, who it 
 was .said were acconiiiiodatioii eiidorsirs. swore 
 that they had reeeiviul no notice of dishonour. 
 The protest of the note was not produced liy 
 the plaintitTa on the first return of the motion : — 
 
 On u motion for judgment under Con. Iliile 
 
 I'M, ill an action on a piiunissoiy note the 
 
 I defendant tiled an atlidavit shewing that he 
 
 I was all aecoinmodation maker ami slating hin 
 
 ' inforiiiatioii and lielief to lie, that the plaintills 
 
 : were aware of the fact that they held the note 
 
 j as collateral Hcciirity, and that they never give. 
 
 'any value for it, and further that sine c ; he 
 
 1 nriking of the note .M., the payee, had Income 
 
 I insolvi-nt and made an assignment, and that 
 
 I tlii^re was litigation pending lietweeii the plain- 
 
 1 tills and his assignee in respect of i ertaiii se,'uri- 
 
 I tit.'K all(!ged to lie held liy the |ilaiiitill's on ;ic- 
 
 I I'oiint of his iiidelitedni'ss. An atlidavit of tln^ 
 
 plaintiff's' niaiiager was liled denying knowledge 
 
 that the note was an accnmniodatioii one, and 
 
 stating that it was diseouuted liy the iitaintiU'H 
 
 and the jiroceeds pl.ieed to .\l.'s credit.: Held. 
 
 not a ease in which judgment could he ordereil. 
 
 lliiijhmii V. Onrdim, l() 1*. It. ."ili."! — Itosc. 
 
 .\t maturity of certain promis.sory notes made 
 by the defendants, and held liy tlie (ilaintills. 
 the defeiidant.s sent the |>laintitl's a proposal for 
 a reiii^wal in part, acoompaiiied liy a cliei|iie tor 
 Jiart of the ainoiint' duo, and two renewal notes 
 for tliti lialance, the total amount including a 
 sum for interest on the renewals. The ]>laiiitill'.'4 
 returned the renewal notes, Init retained the 
 eheipiu, uiid hrought this iietion u)ioii the origi- 
 nal notes, giving credit for the aniount of I he 
 cheipie : — Held, liy Street, .1., in chamheis. re- 
 fusing a mot ion for judgment under ( 'on. liiilc 'WW 
 that although there was noohligalioiion thejiart 
 of the creditors to assent to tliedelitors" |iropo.s!il. 
 jet liy receiving the cheiiue and keeping it they 
 must lie taken to have applied it in the manner 
 in which the delitors when tendering it, stipula- 
 lateil, and as it included interest in advance 
 uiioii the renewals, the creditors were hound to 
 give the dohtors the lienelit of the time for which 
 the lenewals were drawn: •Jlcld,l)y thetj*. U. I), 
 (in appeal, that on the state of facts pre- 
 sented, the ]ilaiiitiirs were not entitled to the 
 iiiilulgence of a speedy judgment and execution. 
 Lninin, v. Martin, 12 l*. K. 49li. 
 
 Where the ilel'endaiit was sued a.s adminis- 
 tratrix of her late husliand upon a promis- 
 sory note maile liy him, and ii]ioii a motion 
 hy the plaintiff' for judgment under Con. Rule ~'X¥ 
 filed an atlidavit in which she did not .'^et up any 
 defence : — Held, nevertheless, that there was no 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 4 
 
 // 
 
 V. 
 
 > 
 
 
 <? 
 
 // ..^IV../^. 
 
 < ^° 
 
 fc 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 /i 
 
 /: 
 
 
 7 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 . .,. 1^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 2£ 
 1.8 
 
 1.25 11.4 11.6 
 
 33 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SR0 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 m 
 
#9^ ////J 
 
 e 
 
ion 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1072 
 
 ST'if 
 SKt 
 
 m 
 
 discretion to refuse her an opportunity of cross- 
 examiniiig the plaintiff; and upon an appeal 
 from the decision of a local judge refusing an 
 enliirgement for such purpose and allowing the 
 plaintiff to sign judgment, a direction was given 
 tliat the plaintiff atten<l at his own expense for 
 cross-examination ; and although upon such 
 iM'oss-examin.ition the defendant could not shew 
 that she had any defence, and the order for 
 ju<lgmeiit was affirmed, she was allowed a por- 
 tion of tlie costs of a successful appeal. Khujx- 
 liyw Dunn, 13 P. \\. 300.— MacMahon. 
 
 Upon a motion for judgment under Con. Rule 
 7!t:{, the defcndantmay satisfy the judge tliat there 
 is a g<]od defence otherwise than by affidavit ; 
 and one means of doing so is by cross-examina- 
 tion of the plaintiff on Iiis affidavit filed in 
 supi)ort of the motion. Ih. 
 
 A writ «as endorsed as follows : — " The ])lain- 
 tirt's claim is for the jirice of goods supplied." 
 'riie following are the particulars: — "S()?1.06 
 for money paya))le by the defendant to the plain- 
 tiff foi' goods bargained and sold, and sold and 
 delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and 
 interest thereon from the 2r>th of July, 188'2": — 
 Held, that the endorsement was not a sufficient 
 special endorsement to entitle the plaintiff to ask 
 for judgment under Con. liule 739. Liicax v. 
 Jint^s, <J 1'. Jt. 251.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 Theendoisement on the writ was as follows: — 
 " The plaintitfs claim $2,000 being the amount 
 <iftiie defendant's overdrawn account witli the 
 plaintitl's'bankon the IStii September, 1S82":— 
 Held KUlticient. Imperia/ Hank v. lirilton, 9 P. 
 i;. 27-1. — Dalton, MaMci: 
 
 The writ was endorsed for the price of land 
 wliich the plaintiff had agreed to sell to the de- 
 fendant. A inoticm for judgment under Con. 
 liule 739 was refused. Sucli a claim cannot be 
 specially endorsed. Hood v. Marlln, 9 P. R. 
 313.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 A writ of summons was specially endorsed 
 under Rule 14, O. J. Act (see (.!on. Rule 245), 
 "The plaintiffs' claim is $1,702.72 for money 
 lent l>y the ])laintitf8 to the defendants, the i 
 same being the amount due to the plaintiffs' 
 branch or agency office at P., and interest there- i 
 on from tlie 1st day of Decendier, 1884, until; 
 judgment." On motion for judgment under j 
 Con. Rule 739: — Held, that it was neces'ary ' 
 for defendant's information to state tl)c date at | 
 •which his account was overdrawn to the amount ; 
 specified, and that this endorsement was there- [ 
 fore insufficient. Ontario Bank v. liurk, 10 P. 
 K. 048.— Dalton, Maitt-r. 
 
 Tlie writ of summons was indorsed as follows : i 
 "The plaintiff's claim is for $213.90, balance ! 
 due for sawing wood by the ,)laintiff for the de- i 
 fendant:" — Held, not a sufficient special indorse- 
 ment to admit of the plaintiff moving for judg- , 
 ment under Con. Rule 739. VUlentura v. Wait, I 
 12 P. R. 505.— Street. 
 
 The power given hy Con. Rule 739, to ai(<n j 
 judgment should be most carefully and spar- | 
 ingly exercised in cases where the defendant ; 
 makes an affidavit of merits, and disputes tlie i 
 claim, and should never be exercised unless it 
 is shewn that tlie plaintiff may bo seriouBly pre- 
 judiceil by the delay in awaiting the ordinary 
 modes of trial, nor in any case in ■which, under 
 
 the old practice, final judgment could not have 
 been signed for want of appearance. On the 
 facts stated in the report, an order of the master- 
 in-chambers, directing the entry of final judg. 
 ment under such rule, was set aside on appeal 
 liarlwrw h'ns.i,//,') P. R. 433.— Dalton, Ma.tler', 
 — Cameron. 
 
 Rule 422 O. J. Act (see Con. Rules 41, ].%). 
 and its sub-section (n) must be read together! 
 anil hence the limitation in the sub-section of 
 the jurisdiction of tlie county judge in certain 
 cases curtails that of local masters in .siinilm. 
 cases. The local master at Haniilton, in tliu 
 county of Weiitwortli, gave leave to sign final 
 judgment under ('cm. I\ule 739, in an action in 
 which the sulicitor for the defeiidaiit hud his 
 place of residence anil office at St. Catharines 
 in tlie county of Lincoln, aiul no office in Hamil- 
 ton :- -Held, that undei Rule 422 O. J. .:\ct (sec 
 Con. Rules 41. 138), the local master had no 
 jurisdiction to make the order. Fred v. Mac- 
 doiiald, 10 P. R. I70.-Hoyd. 
 
 Held, that an order for judgiiient under Con. 
 Rule 739 cannot be made except in an action 
 where the plaintiff merely seeks to recover a debt 
 or li(juidaf I'd demand in money. Standard Bank 
 v. H7//.S, 10 P. R. l.')9.- Ferguson. See Ilnf 
 man v. Do^r. 12 P. R. 492, p. 10(18. 
 
 The pr.ictice of moving under Con. Piule 739, 
 fur leave to enter final judgment after de- 
 livery of a stateuient of claim is not one lo he 
 encouraged, although in cases of necessity it 
 may be allowable. Under lii^, vlicnmstancea of 
 this case, motion for judgment was refused 
 W'oodrnffx. McLiiuiai,,' U P. It. 22. —Rose. 
 
 Where on moving for immediate judgment 
 under Con. Rule 739, the iihiintiff makes out a 
 prima facie case for granting an order therefor, 
 it is not sufficient for the defendant, in oppos- 
 ing the ajiplication, to swear tliat he has a good 
 defence on the merits ; -he must shew the na- 
 ture of his defence, and give some reason for 
 thinking that such defence exists in fact, t'ol- 
 linn V. Hickok, 1 1 A. R. 620. 
 
 Leave was given to sign final judginent under 
 Con. Rule 739, against a company incorporated 
 in Kngland, having its head office there, and in 
 process of li(juidatioii there, but doing business 
 and having assets ,and liabilities in Ontario. 
 Plnmmer \. Lak'' Superior Natirc Copin'r Co., 
 10 P. R. 527.— Rose. 
 
 On an ap|)Iication, which w.is granted under 
 Con, Rule 7."19, for judgment against an Indian liv- 
 ing with his tribe on their reserve, and not being 
 the holder of any real or personal property out- 
 side the reserve :^Held, that since the repeal 
 of C. S. C. c. 9, there is nothing to jnevciit an 
 Indian suing and being sued, altliough liy the 
 Indian Act of 1880, s. 77 (Dom.), the judgment 
 will not bind any property of the Indian except 
 that described in section 75. lin/rc, MvMurriih 
 a- Co. v. Salt, 11 P. R. 112.— Dalton, Ma.il fr. 
 
 There may be two judgnients in one action, 
 I^eave was given to the plaintiff to sign judg- 
 ment under Con. Rule 739, for the amount of a 
 money demand, and to proceed uiion another 
 claim in the same action. Haii v. Johnston, 12 
 P. R. 696. -Boyd. 
 
 Leave to sign judgment under Con, Rule 739 
 should not be granted save where the case is clear 
 
1072 
 
 1073 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1074 
 
 and frea from doubt, and under the circumstances 
 of this case an order for such leave, made by 
 the judge of the District Court of Thunder Bay, 
 was reversed. Bank of Minncxota v. Parje, 14 
 A. R. 347. 
 
 An order foi' leave to sign judgment under Con. 
 Rule 739, is in its nature final and not merely in- 
 terlocutory, and therefore such an order if made 
 in a county court, would be appealable by virtue 
 of 45 Vict. c. 6, 8. 4 (Out.), and is also appeal- 
 able when made in a District Court. Ih. 
 
 Wlicn th(! facts are not clear and free from 
 douhtleave to sign judgment under Con. Rule 739 
 should not be granted, liank of Minnesota i: 
 Page. 14 A. R. .351, followed. Rut wliere a di^^- 
 tinct defence i.s not made out, terms shouM be 
 impose<l upon the defendant upon liis being al- 
 lowed to defend, as a pledge of his boon fides: 
 Hiid in this case the defendant was rwpiired to 
 pay into c(mrt or secure one-lialf of thi^ amount 
 claimed. Sfephciisoii v. Didla^, 13 P. R. 450. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 The order for security for costs under Rule 
 m, 0. .1. Act (Con. Rule 1242), is a stay of pro- 
 ceedings, and a ju<lge lias no power to set it aside 
 when once properly issueil and sign final judg- 
 ment under ("on. Rule 739. /iaiilc af Nora 
 Scotia y. LaRoc.lic, 9 P. R. .")03. — Cameron. 
 
 Since the passing of Con. Hulel'iSl.tlieyiractice 
 sanctioned by Doer i'. Rand, 10 P. It. 105, and 
 Anglo American Casings Co. Limited /•. Kowlin, 
 Ik, 391, is no longer applicable, and where a 
 plaintiff against whom a pra'cipe order for se- 
 curity lor costs had been olitained, moved to 
 set it asiile and for judgment under Con. Rule 
 739, without paying §50 into court under Con. 
 Rule 1251, his motion was dismisse<l. Pai/iti- v. 
 it^eirh-rri/, 13 P. R. .354. - Falconbridge. 
 
 Where the plaintiffs motion for judgment 
 under Con. Rnle739waa dismissed because lie iiad 
 •not observed the practice under Con. Rule 1251 of 
 partly complying with an order upon him for 
 security for costs by paying §,50 into court, and 
 he SHbse(iuently paid the money in and renewed 
 the application upon the same material: — Held, 
 that the ilismissal of his first applii'ation was no 
 bar to tlie second one. Semble, it would have 
 1)66)1 otherwise had the plaintiff failed in liis 
 firs', application by reason of defects in his ma- 
 terial, and made a second one upon new material 
 supplying the defects. I'liyue v. Xiirhrrn/, 
 (No. i>) 13 P. R. 392. -Dalton, Muskr. 
 
 VII. Unijer Con. Rule 744. 
 
 The judge sitting in chambers has no juris- 
 diction to order judgment to be sigi .i under 
 Con. Rule 744, but a motion for judgr .ent there- 
 under must be made to the court. Aforriion v. 
 Taiiloi; 46 Q. B. 492.— Wilson. 
 
 Where it appears that defendant has no de- 
 fence, and has made, or is intending to make a 
 fraudulent disposition of his property, or is so 
 dealing with it as to embarrass the plaintiff in 
 reaching it by execution, the court will, on 
 motion, under Con. Rule 744, upon a proper 
 cage being made, order judgment and immediate 
 execution. In the event of otlier executions 
 bfing obtained against the debtor's property 
 
 before the time at which the plaintiff would be 
 entitled to issue execution as on a judgment in 
 default of appearance, and tlie amount realized 
 being insufficient to satisfy all parties, a rat:ible 
 division should be made. Kiiiloch v. Morton, 
 9 P. R. 38. -Osier. 
 
 Where there were cross-actions, in one of 
 which a sum had been reported due and a claim 
 of set-oft' liad been disallowed, in a subsequent 
 action brought to recover the sum disallowed, 
 tiie plaintiff was held entitled to move for judg- 
 ment under Con. Rule 744. But tlie affidavits 
 filed on tlie motion being conflicting : —Held, the 
 action must be entered for tri:il at the sittings 
 for tlie examination of witnesses, but the amount 
 found due in the first action was ordered to be 
 paid into court, to abide the result of the second 
 action. Fmiicii v. Fraiiii-i, 9 P. R. 209. — Proud - 
 foot. 
 
 In an action for the rectification of a deed and 
 for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled 
 to a right of way, and for an injunction restrain- 
 ing defendant from interfering therewith. The 
 endorsement stated the relief claimed. The de- 
 fendant who did not appear within the time lim- 
 ited, sulisequently entered an appearance, bnt 
 did not serve any notice thereof: — Held, on 
 motion for judgment under Con. Rule 744, that 
 a statement of claim must be filed. Hunter v. 
 Wilcdclxon, 9 P. R. 305.— Ferguson. 
 
 A person of the same luinie as the defendant 
 served by mist.ake with th(! writ in the action 
 was held entitled to his costs of opposing a mo- 
 tion for judgment under Con. Rule 744. Liicati 
 V. Fra-sir, 9 P. R. 319. — Dalton, Mader. 
 
 Leave was given to tlie plaintiff' under Con. 
 Rule 744 to sign final judgment, where the 
 claim was upon a covenant by the defendant 
 with the plaiiititt' upon lands sold by hiin to the 
 defendant, and for indemnity, and where the 
 plaintiff was being sued for payment of four of 
 the mortgages, but had not actually paid them. 
 It was directed that the judgment to be entered 
 should bo for the amount of the four mortgages 
 and interest (to be computed by the registrar), 
 and costs. Leave was reserved to the <lefendant 
 to apply to be relieved from the judgment upon 
 his .satisfying tlie claim of the holder of the mort- 
 gages. Clcnili'iniaii v. Oraiil, 10 P. R. 59.3.— 
 Ho.se. 
 
 During the currency of a promissory note it 
 was agreed between the indorsee and indorser 
 that tlie note should be renewed at maturity, 
 and from time to time on payment of a named 
 sum, "if the renewal notes are continued in the 
 same firm or names as at present." Before the 
 maturity of the note the maker died. After its 
 maturity in an action on the note against the 
 indorser the defendant set up such agreement 
 as u defence, and alleged that he duly offered to 
 perform it so far as lay in his power, by leaving 
 the said note and liability of the maker anil 
 giving his note in renewal as agreed as collateral 
 to the said note, which tender the plaintiff re- 
 fused to accept, and which the defendant is at 
 all times ready and willing to carry out. A 
 motion for immediate judgment under Con. Rule 
 744, was dismissed, the judge refusing to decide, 
 as to tlie legality of the defence on such motion. 
 Federal Bank v. flope, G 0. R. 209.— Rose. 
 
1075 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1075 
 
 1077 
 
 CS':: 
 
 
 Held, that where an order for the sifining of 
 a judgment umler (,'on. Rule 744, was made in 
 uhaniburs instead of in court, it must be taken 
 advantage of l>y a siininiary application, and that 
 its invalidity could not be set up in an action 
 fonndcd on it. Martin v. Eriins, 6 O. It. 238. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 In order to obtain under Con. Hulo 7-14 a 
 speedy jiK'gment before the time for appearance 
 in an action has expired, a ])laintiiF must shew 
 that some injury or inju.stice is likely to happen 
 or to )>e done to him if lie is not awarded im- \ 
 mediate relief, (ircnic v. Wriiihf, 12 P. R. 4'26. 
 — Rose. 
 
 Where the affidavit of a plaintiff stated 
 that he verily Ix.'lieved it was necessary for the 
 plaintitTs to get immediate judgment in order to 
 ))rotec cl iir intciests and prevent any disposi- 
 tion of tiie estate that might be prejudicial to 
 the creditors, but no facts were set out upon 
 which such belief was founded, and the utmost 
 shewn was that the defendant was in financial 
 straits, and had refiise<l to submit his affairs to 
 investigation or to make an assignment : — Held, 
 that a motion under Con. Rule 744 for judg- 
 ment before appearance must be refused. Ih. 
 
 Notice of motion. 
 P. R. .368, p. 1067. 
 
 IX. U.vDEi; Con. Rulk 756. 
 
 See Martens v. liirney, 10 
 
 VIII. Under Con. Rule 735. 
 
 Under Cm. Rule 7.'>5, the court may, upon 
 motion for judgment or for a new trial, if 
 satisfied that it has before it all the materials 
 necessary for finally determining the question in 
 dispute * * give judgment accordingly, but 
 Per Wilson, C. J. — Uriquestionably that power 
 must be most sparingly and cautiously exercised. 
 Stewart v. Bounds, 7 A. R. .515. 
 
 Held, that the business in this case was not 
 one protected by R. 8. O. (1877), c. 125, s. 7 
 (see R. S. O. 1887, c. 132, s. 5) ; that the verdict 
 conld not be sustained ; and under Con. Rule 
 7.55, and R. S. O. (1877), c. 50, s. 283 (see Con. 
 Rule 798), it was set aside and judgment 
 entered for the defendant. Murray v. McCal- 
 lum, 8 A. R 277, referred to and distinguished. 
 Campbell v. Cole, 7 O. R. 127.— Chy. I). 
 
 At the trial the jury answered all the ([ues- 
 tions left to ther.i in favour of the plaintiff and 
 judgment was entered for him, which the County 
 Court judge subsequently set aside, and entered 
 judgment for the defendants :— Held, that under 
 Rule4ftO, O. .1. Act (Con. Rule 12.57), the same 
 power is exteniled to the County Courts as is pos- 
 sessed by the High Court under Con. Rule 755, 
 and that the judge of the County Court «'as 
 right in giving judgment in favour of the 
 defendants instead of .submitting the question 
 to another jury. See, also, on the same point, 
 Stewart r. Rounds. 7 A. R. .575, and Williams 
 r. Crow, 10 A. R. .301. McConiie/l y. Wi/H-iiix, 
 13 A. R. 4.38. 
 
 Semble, if the evidence given will not warrant 
 the granting a mandamus upon motion to the 
 court, and tlie court has before it all the ma- 
 terials necessary for finally detennining the 
 qnestiou in dispute, judgment may be given for 
 tne defendants under Con. Rule 755, 
 
 Tmi>mhip of MciliUimiy, 12 0. R 
 
 Jfixloi) V. 
 7411. -(^B.D. 
 
 The defendant in an action on a judgment oh- 
 tained in Iowa, U. >S. A., pleaded denying tlie 
 recovery of t)ie judgment. Upon a motion foi 
 judgment under ('on. Rule 756, upon the pliNul- 
 ings verified l>y aflidavit, and the production oi' 
 an exemplification of the judgment: — Held, 
 affirming the opinion of tiie master, that judj; 
 ment could not be ordered on these material.^ 
 under Con. Rule 756 the defcnilant having put 
 the judgment distinctly in issue. Ilenctiery v 
 Turner, 2 O. R. 284.— Q. R. D. 
 
 In proceeding under Con. Rule 756 it is not 
 .sufficient to produce a document on which the 
 plaintiff relies, withimt any proof to connect 
 the defendant with it or to sujjjmrt its genuint • 
 ness. Hi. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of land the pl.iin- 
 tift may obtain an order to sign final judgment 
 under Con. Rule 7.56, upon an admission of tliu 
 defendant in his examination. Triiitt and Loan, 
 Co. V. //;//, 9 P. R. 8. Ualton, Master. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of laud the pl;vin- 
 titt's moved under Con. Rule 756, for fin.il 
 judgment upon the pleadings, the depositions of 
 tlie defendant, taken on his examination for dis- 
 covery, and upon an affidavit verifying a lea.se 
 of the land in (juestion to the father and brother 
 of the defendant: — Held, affirming the decision 
 of the master-in-chambers, that much care must 
 be taken in such cases not to take away the right 
 of trial on viva voce evidence; and that as the 
 plaintiff's case was not conclusively nuide (lat, 
 the motion was properly refused. Cook v. 
 Lemieux, 10 P. R. 577. - Daltou, Master. — 
 Rose. 
 
 Quajre, whether the lease in (question was a 
 document that under Con. Rule 756, could lie 
 proved on this motion by an adverse affidavit 
 without cross-examination. Il>. 
 
 The defendant made two mortgages to the 
 plaintiff on the same property. The first mort- 
 gage being ovc.'rdue, the plaintiff brought this 
 action, asking for sale, payment, and possession. 
 After service of the writ of summons, the 
 amount due and costs were tendered by the de- 
 fendant, and also an assignment of the first 
 mortgage to a third person, for execution by tlie 
 plaintiff, under 49 Viet. c. 20, s. 7 (Ont.). The 
 plaintiff refused to execute tliis because of his 
 second mortgage, although he was willing U< 
 execute a discharge; and the ilefeiidants inoveil 
 for a mandamus to compel him to execute iia 
 I assignment. This motion having been dismissed 
 a statement of claim was filed, and a statement 
 of defence in which the first mortgage was ad- 
 t minted, and the tender and the refusal were set 
 j up. The plaintiff then joined issue. There wm 
 I no reference in the pleailings to the second mort- 
 ! gage. On motion for judgment under Ccn. Rule 
 756: — Held, that the admissions in the affidavit 
 of the defendant filed on the former inotinu, 
 ' could be used upon this motion ; and tha; in 
 view f)f what was held upon the former motion, 
 I there must be judgment for the plaintiff upou 
 i the pleadings and affidavit, fioi/ers v. Wilson, 
 > 12 P. R. .322, 545. Rose.— C. of A. 
 
 Held, that a motion under this rule is properly 
 a court motion. Hi. 
 
 give 
 
 .\1 
 
 The plai 
 in 1873, b( 
 they beinji 
 effect that 
 southern \ 
 plaintiff's 
 lowed at a 
 upon payr 
 erection b 
 shortly af 
 agreeci u[ 
 tne aj^eei 
 by C. , so 1 
 uked a ju 
 the rights 
 •greement 
 
1 i. 
 
 1076 
 
 1077 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1078 
 
 
 An application for judgment under Con. Rule 
 756 cannot be made until the right of the party 
 applying for the relief claimed has appeared from 
 the pleadings. McLend v. SexmiM, 12 P. R. 
 600. — Armour. 
 
 An order made under Con. Rule ".TO, before the 
 delivery of any pleading iu the action, based on 
 adiuissions in letters, was set aside. /Ii. 
 
 X. InTKRLOCI'TOKY JrlMiMKNTS. 
 
 Held, that in an action commenced by a writ 
 not specially endorsed, where the defendant 
 does not plead to the declaration, the plaintiff 
 must sign interlocutory judgment against the 
 defendant before he is in a [wsitioii to servo 
 notice of trial and assessment of damages. 
 Fi'iwkk V. Donahue, 8 P. R. IKi.— Dalton, Q.C. 
 
 The endorsement on the writ of summons 
 claimed, in addition to pecuniary damages, an 
 injunction restraining the defendants from dis- 
 posing of certain goods : — Held, that interlocu- 
 tory judgment signe<l by the plaintiff for default 
 of appearance was irregular, and should be set 
 aside. MrCnIliimv. McCallmii, 11 P. R. 16.— 
 Dalton, MnMer. 
 
 See Johmlon v. CJinntii;, 31 (!. P. .'JriS ; Shaw 
 V. >' Louis, 8 S. C. R. 38.5 ; niifinnv v. Dover, 
 12 K R. 492, p. 1068. 
 
 XI. JODfiMENT ON DkMIIRRKK. 
 
 A defendant did not, within ten days after 
 delivery of a demurrer to a paragraph of the 
 statement of defence enter it for argument and 
 give notice, nor serve an order for leave to 
 amend, as required by Rule 195, O. .7. .\et (Con. 
 Rule 530) ; — Held, on an ex parte motion by the 
 plaintifTfor judgment upon his demuri'er, that the 
 proper practice in such a case is to ay)ply to a 
 judge in court, upon notice to the opposite party, 
 for an order to strike out the pleading or part of 
 the pleading demurred ■ j, and for a direction as 
 to payment of costs ; bnt on the return of the 
 motion the ))arty in default will have no right 
 to be heard as to the validity of the pleading. 
 lAviiitistoii v. Trout, 10 P. R. 493.— Rose. 
 
 When a final judgment for the purpose of 
 appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. See 
 Shie/dt v. Peak, 8 S. C. 1!. 579 ; /{ohlin v. 
 Raiik'iti, II S. 0. R. 137. 
 
 XII. DeCLARATOKY .luiXiMKNTS. 
 
 The plaintiff set up a verbal agreement made 
 in 1873, between himself and the defendant C. , 
 they being adjoining proprietors of land, to tiie 
 effect that C. should build a house with its 
 southern wall encroaching nine inches upon the 
 plaintiff's land, and the plaintitf should be al- 
 lowed at any time to use that wall as a party wall 
 upon payment of half the expenses of its original 
 erection by C. ; and the plaintitf alleged that 
 shortly afterwards C. erected his building as 
 agreed upon, and the plaintiff claimed to have 
 the agt-eemeut put into writing, and executed 
 by C. , so as to enable him to register it ; and he 
 asked a judgment declaring him entitled to all 
 the rights and privileges contained in the verbal 
 agreement. C. in his jdeadings coriceded the 
 
 rights and privileges demanded by the p!aintitl' 
 under the agreement : — Held, nevertlioles.-*. 
 affirming the decision of Ferguson, .J., that the 
 action must be dismis.sed, for there is no juris- 
 diction to ascertain and declare rights before a 
 party interested has actually snst.iiiiecl damage. 
 /irooli:.t V. Conlei/, S (). I!. '549- Cliy. D. But 
 see R. S. (). (1887), c. 44, s. .Vi (5). 
 
 XIII. .Skt-oKK ok .h'lXIMKNTS. 
 
 'I'he plaintitf iiad recovered a venlict fo\- !i<6(>t> 
 again.st defendant for malicious prosecution, but 
 judgment had not been signed thereon. At the 
 same assizes the defendant recovered a verdict 
 against the plaintiff for $380 on promissory 
 notes, and signed judgment. The plaintitl" 
 almost immediately after its recovery assigned 
 his verdict to his brother, but the court held 
 this to bo a device to prevent a set-off: — Hehl, 
 thiit the defendant was entitled to have the 
 plaiiitilTs verdict set-off pro tanto by entering 
 satisfaction upon his judgment to the extent of 
 the verdict, and paying the costs of suit ; and it 
 made no difference tliat the judgment had nut 
 been entered 'y tiie ]daintiff. Graiil v. M'- 
 A/pine, 46 Q. !!.' •_'84.— Osier. 
 
 Wiiere judgnieut.s were recovered in the same 
 action by the plaintiff on his claim with general 
 costf f action, and tlie defendant on his counter- 
 cla. ','ith costs tliereof, such claim and counter- 
 clai.. arising out of the same subject matter, 
 the judgment for counter-claim largely exceed- 
 ing the former in amount, a set-off was allowed 
 of so much of tlie money recovere<l by the 
 defendant against the plaintiff on defendants' 
 C(mnter-claim as would cover the costs adjudged 
 to the plaintiff on his recovery of judgment 
 against the defondaiit notwithstanding the claim 
 of the plaintiffs solicitors to a lien on the costs 
 adjudged to the plaintiff :—Qua're, when a judg- 
 ment, as in this case, has been framed without 
 directing a set-off, whether a judge in chambers 
 has power to direct it to the prejudice of the 
 .solicitor, so as to vary the decree of the court, 
 Brown wXeUoii, II P. R. 121 -Dalton, J/ax^cr. 
 Osier. 
 
 The plaintiffs sued for freight for the carriage 
 of timber, and the defendant pleadc' a counter- 
 claim for neglect and delay in the c .ige of the 
 timber. The judgment at the trial was as fol- 
 lows : " The verdict will be for the plaintiffs for 
 .$2,122, and for the defendants upon their coun- 
 ter-claim foi- .SI, 420, and each party will be 
 entitled to costs against the other, as if the 
 statement of claim and counter-claim were 
 separate actions, and I direct that judgment be 
 entered accordingly : "—Held, reversing the de- 
 cision .of the master-in-chambers, that the 
 judgments recovei-ed by the plaintiffs and de- 
 fendants must be treated as judgments in 
 separate actions, and, therefore, that in setting 
 off the judgments the claim for costs of the 
 defendant's solicitors upon the judgment against 
 the plaintiffs shouhl be jirotected. Canadian 
 Parific /{. II' Co. V. Omul, II P. R. 208.— 
 C. P. I). 
 
 The plaintitf recovered judgment against the 
 defendant with costs upon a claim for the value 
 of goods sold under a distress for rent, of which 
 the defendant, the landlord, himself, became 
 
nm 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1080 
 
 1081 
 
 
 9ei 
 
 CO 
 
 •-^ 
 
 the purcliaser ; ainl the ilefendant recovcreil 
 judgment agiiinst the phiintiff with costs upon a 
 counter-chlim for rent and damages to the 
 demised premises. Tlie judgmeiit did not direct 
 any set-off, and the phiintitl's soliuitors liaving 
 asserted a lien upon the judgment for costs 
 against the defendant, the taxing oflicer refused 
 to allow a set-off of the costs awarded to plain- 
 tiff and defendant respectively : — Held, that the 
 claim and counter-claim were 8ej)arate and dis- 
 tinct, and the judgments must lie treated as 
 judgments in separate actions ; and Con. Rule 
 1204 did not apply to enable the taxing officer to 
 deduct or set-oft' costs. Under the circumstances 
 of this case, the court (Rose, J., dissenting), 
 deprived the plaintiff, who was finally success- 
 ful upon the appeals as to costs, of the costs of 
 the appeals. Linh v. Ihi-ifi, 13 V. R. 42r>.— Mac- 
 Mahon.— C. P. D. 
 
 G. and H. brought counter actioi- or breaches 
 of agreement. In March, 1884, obtained a 
 
 verdict with leave to move for increased dam- 
 ages, which were granted, and in .luue, 1885, 
 he signed judgment. In April, 1884, G. assigned 
 to L. all his interest in his suit against H. and 
 
 fave notice of such assignment in May, 1884. 
 n February, 1885, II. signed judgment against 
 G. on confession : — Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the court below (•2.'> N. H. Rep. 451), 
 Strong, J., dissenting, that H. could not set off 
 his judgment against the judgment recovered 
 against him by G. and assigned to L. Oreciie v. 
 Jlaryi", 1(5 S. C. R. 714. 
 
 XIV. Interest ox. 
 
 (See K. S. 0. USS7), c. 44- ■•<■ SS.) 
 
 Section 43 of the Court of Appeal Act, which 
 provides ' ' when on an appeal agninst a judgment 
 in any action personal, the Court of Appeal gives 
 judgment for the respondent, interest shall be 
 allowed by the court for such time as execution 
 has been delayed by the appeal," does not apply 
 to a case where the judgment of the court below 
 is in favour of the defendant, and is reversed on 
 appeal. In such case the court, on I'eversing the 
 judgment, gave liberty to the appellant, the 
 plaintiff in the court below, to move to beat 
 liberty to enter judgment as directed by this 
 court, nunc pro .^anc, whereby he would be en- 
 abled to recover interest on the amount of the 
 verdict rendered in his favour. Quinlau v. 
 Union Fire /«.<. Co., 8 A. R. 376. 
 
 Where an appeal is brought against a judg- 
 ment in any personal action which is affirmed on 
 appeal, interest on the judgment is by force of 
 the statute allowed for such time as execution 
 has been stayed by the appeal : but where the 
 plaintiff refrained from entering up his judgment 
 until after the decision in appeal, this coiirt re- 
 fused to order interest to be allowed on the 
 amount of the verdict ; leaving the plaintiff to 
 apply to the court below for relief by entering 
 the judgment nunc pro tunc. McEwan v. 
 McLeod, 10 A. R. 9t}. 
 
 In endorsing a writ of execution to levy in- 
 terest upon the amount of the judgment, the in- 
 terest is to be computed from the day of pro- 
 nouncing the judgment, not from the day of the 
 formal entry thereof. Rules 326 O. J. Act (see 
 •Con. Rules 764, 765) and 351 O. J. Act, (Con. 
 
 Rule 889) are not inconsistent. Keleher v. Mc- 
 Gibhoii, 10 P. 1{. 89.— Dalton, Mat^ler. 
 
 On the 23rd of January, 1882, the following 
 judgment was pronounced in court by Osier, J. 
 A.: — "I direct judgment to be entered for the 
 plaintiS' against the within named defendants 
 after the fifth day of next Hilary Sittings for 
 $100,000." Hilary Sittings ended on the 25th 
 February, and judgment was formally entered 
 with the clerk of the court oi the 24th March 
 as of the 23rd January -.—Held, that liule 32(i 
 (see Con. I'ule 765) did not apply to this case ; 
 that the judgment should be dated on the day 
 of its entry with the clerk, and from that date 
 only, under Rule 327 (see Con. Rule 765), 
 interest should run. Keleher v. McGibbon, 10 
 P. R. 89 explained. McLarm v. Cuiiuda Cen- 
 tralU. W. Co., 10 P. R. 328.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 Hee Ej-fhniitie Hank v. Springer, 13 A. R. ,390; 
 Bank of Hamilton v. Harvey, 11 P. R. 145, 
 p. 1066'; Dohie v. Lemon, 12 'l'. R. 64, p. 1085. 
 
 XV. Time of Taking Ekfkct. 
 
 C, being in default on his mortgage of realty 
 to the plaintiffs, in April, 1882, gave them a 
 chattel mortgage, in consideration of which they 
 agreed to allow him to remain in possession and 
 take the year's crop. On the 2nd July, 1882, 
 the plaintiffs look formal possession of the land. 
 On the 17th duly, 1882, the defendant, having 
 I obtained judgment against C., placed a fi. fa. in 
 I the hands of tlie sheriff, who seized the growing 
 I crops on the land in question on the same day, 
 and sold t.liem in August. The plaintiffs had 
 commenced ejectment proceedings on the 15th 
 I June, and they signed judgment on the 30th 
 September, in the same year. The plaintiffs 
 claimed the crops, and an interpleader issue was 
 tried: — Held, (afhrming the judgment of the 
 (,'omnion I'leas Division, 5 O. H. 371) that the 
 defendant had the right on the 17th July, hy 
 virtue of the agreement made in April, to seize 
 the crops as C. 's property. The seizure and sale 
 having taken place before the judgment in eject- 
 ment, the I'ulo that the judgment related back 
 to the day of the commencement of the action, 
 so as to make C. himself a trespasser from that 
 j date, could not avail the plaintiffs. J/amilton 
 i Proridbut and Loan Society v. Camphdl, 12 A. 
 R. 250. 
 
 See also previous Subhead. 
 
 XVI. ASSIONMENT OK. 
 
 M. being seized in fee of land mortgaged to the 
 plaintiff, and then sold to D. expressly subject 
 to the mortgage. D. sold to one Maybe in the 
 same manner, and Maybe sold to defendant, who 
 had notice of the title, covenanting against in- 
 cumbrances. The plaintiff proceeded against M. 
 and the defendant and obtained judgment for 
 sale on nonpayment and costs, whereupon de- 
 fendant paid the plaintiff's claim for debt, in- 
 terest and costs, and took an assignment of the 
 judgment and mortgage :— Held, that the defen- 
 dant had no right under such judgment to levy 
 from M. any portion of the costs so paid, for 
 if he were allowed to do so, M. by the effect of 
 the conveyances would have a remedy over for 
 them against the land, defendant's property, and 
 
1081 
 
 JUDOMENT. 
 
 1082 
 
 could then force defendant to pay them back. 
 Kempt V. Macauley, 9 P- R. 582.— Dalton, 
 Ma»ttr. 
 
 Where one having obtained an assignment of a 
 judgmeut against a mortgagor, brought an action 
 in his own name against the mortgagee, who had 
 sold under the power of sale, to make him ac- 
 count for certain surplus moneys left in his hands 
 lifter such sale : — Held, that the plaintiff was en- 
 titled so to sue, and that such assignment was 
 not iu contravention ot the law respecting cham- 
 perty and maintenance. Harper v. Ciithert, !i O. 
 B. 152. — Ferguson. 
 
 Bight of surety against principal upon assign- 
 ment of judgment. See Victoria AJtitiial v. 
 Freel, 10 P. R. 45. 
 
 The plaintiff and defend.int were partners, 
 and judgmeut was recovered against them in 
 1876 by a bank upon certain promissory notes, 
 of which they were respectively maker and in- 
 liorser. The plaintiff paid the judgment imme- 
 diately after its recovery, took an assignment of 
 it, and in 1886 proceeded to enforce it against 
 the defendant, 'i'he partnership accounts were 
 taken by a referee, wliose tinding, approved by 
 the court w<is, that tiie defendant should Lave 
 paid .iic-half of the judgment : — Uehl, that the 
 plaintiff wus entitled to that extent to stand in 
 the place of the original judgment creditor, and 
 cnfortj the judgment against the defendant. 
 I'er Armour, C. J . — The Mercantile Amendment 
 Act, R. S. U. (1887), c. 122, s». 2, 3, 4, applies to 
 the case of partners. fSmall r. Riddel, 31 C. 
 P. 373; Potts V. Leask, 36 Q. B. 376; and 
 Scripture v, Gordon, 7 P. K. 164, not follow..d, 
 in view of tlie opinions expressed in London 
 iind Canailian L. & A. Co. v. Morphy, 14 A. R. 
 .577. noiiKinyer v. Luve, 16 O. R. 170.- Q. B. D. 
 
 See Field v. Galloway, 5 O. R. 502, p. 261. 
 
 XVIII. Amendment of. 
 
 At any time before formal judgment issued by 
 the court the judgment or part of it may be 
 recalled and a tei m imposed or a change made. 
 Canadian Land and iJmiijration Co. v. Munici- 
 jiaiityoj Dymrt, S. O. R. 495, 512.— Ferguson. 
 
 An order was made by the master in cham- 
 liers amending a judgment entered against C. as 
 executrix, to as to make it a judgment against 
 lier peison.illy ; i.nd also amending the writs of 
 li. fa. in the sheriff's h<.nds so as to be conform- 
 able witli the judgment as amended. The order 
 was made nunc pro tunc upon the allegation 
 that all parties interested had consented, and 
 that an cxccuiicin at the suit ot the M. Co. 
 agauist C. per.-<oiiidly had expired. On an 
 application made by tlie M. Co. to set aside the 
 order, on the ground tliat their writ had not 
 expired, but was in full force ; and that the 
 eflect of the amundmunc was to give plaintiff's 
 writ priiiny, the muster made an order setting 
 aside his previuus order, and directing the 
 ameudiiie' ts ma e thcr. under to be struck <mt. 
 On motion by way of appeal to the Divisional 
 court t(i rt-seind the last named order :— Held, 
 Cameron, ('. .1., dissenting, that the motion 
 must be 1 . fuse I ; toi' that though the M. Co. 
 were sti angei s to the actum iu which the amend- 
 ments Were nnwlu, they had a locus standi to 
 
 apply to have the same set aside. Olasa v. 
 Cameron, 9 O. R. 712. -C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiffs signed judgment on default of 
 appearance in an action for a money demand, 
 and the defendant was afterwards, upon appli- 
 cation to a local judge, let iu to defeiul upon the 
 merits, upon certain conditions, one ot which 
 was, "the judgment and execution (fi. fa. 
 goods) now iu force to stand as security to the 
 plaintiffs unless and until the defendant pays 
 into court the amount of the plaintiffs' claim, or 
 gives security therefor." The defeiulant did 
 not pay into court or give security. The action 
 was tried and a verdict given for the plaintiff ; 
 subject to a reference to ascertain tlio proper 
 amount due to the plaintiffs ; and the referee 
 found a less amount due than that for which 
 judgment had originally been entered. After 
 verdict and before the finding of the referee, 
 the plaintiffs issued and delivered to the sheriff 
 a h. fa. against the lands of the defendant on the 
 original judgment. Semble, the original judg- 
 ment could not stand when the case was re- 
 opened, and the defendant let in to defend ; but 
 as the parties had treated the judgment as 
 standing: — Held, that it and the li. fa. goods 
 should be reduced to the sum found by the 
 referee, instead of entering a new judgment ; 
 but that the issue of the writ of fi. fa. lands was 
 quite unwarranted. Ilillyard v. Hwun, 12 P. R. 
 226.— Wilson. 
 
 Where the plaintiff iu a mortgage action ob- 
 tained the usual foreclosure judgment and hadhis 
 account taken thereby without a reference and 
 after final order of foreclosure discovered that a 
 subsequent incunibrance existed, the judgment 
 was amended under Cou. Rules 780, 781, so as 
 to convert it into a judgment under Con. Rule 
 776 with a reference to the master-in-ordinary to 
 add incumbrancers, take the accounts, etc. 
 Wilgren* v. Cravrford, 12 P. R. 658.— Street. 
 
 Amendment of judgment as to costs. See 
 Truax v. Dixon, 13 P. R. 279 ; MarduixU v. 
 Baird, 13 P. R. 331, p. 42 ; Brundage v. How- 
 ard, 13 A. R. 337, p. 248. 
 
 XIX. Setting Asiok. 
 
 1. Delay in Applying. 
 
 Twenty-two months after judgment had been 
 signed in an action on promissory notes for want 
 of a plea and execution issued , and the defendant 
 examined as a judgment debtor, le.ive was re- 
 fused to set aside the judgment, and amend the 
 declaration by charging the defendant with fraud 
 within the meaning of the Insolvent Act of 
 187.5. Lightboinul v. Hilt, 9 P. R. 295.— Dalton, 
 At aster. 
 
 Application to set aside judgment against hus- 
 band and wife upon application of the wife re- 
 fused, owing to long uela^ in making applir*" 
 tion. See McLean v. Smith, 10 P. H. 145. 
 
 An order to set aside proceedings must be 
 served forthM'ith ; otherwise the opposite 
 party may troat it as abandoned. And where 
 final judgnn .it was cut down to interlocutory 
 judgment by order of a master, granted on the 
 9th July, but not issued or served till the 19th 
 November : — Held, that the delay was fatal, and 
 the master was wrong in allowing the stale order 
 
1083 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1084 
 
 1085 
 
 Sis 
 
 90 
 
 — •« 
 
 to be 1180(1 iigikinst the jiidgment as originuUy 
 signed. Ahilnon's Bunk v. /Jillfdrntni/i, 13 P. H. 
 .312. — Boyd. 
 
 See McLean v. Shic/<1^, 9 0. H. ()'J9, p. 1094. 
 
 2. G^Arc CtiKCn. 
 
 VVIiere in 1875 in un action of ejeetnient the 
 parties agreed in writing that a verdict be en- 
 tered for the plaintiff, but not enforced until de- 
 fendant be paid .$50 for costs and the value of 
 Ilia IniprovenientH, said value to be fixed by 
 arbitration; and though the !55() had not been 
 jiaid nor the saitl value so a.scertiiined, pluintitt' 
 ■entered judgment on th(! veriUct and ejected the 
 defenilant, whose devisee now filed this bill 
 claiming possession, <laiiiages or reference r.s to 
 improvements, and an order for the payment of 
 the amount found due and of the liJoO for costs : — 
 Held, that though the judgment could not be set 
 aside and possession g>ven to plaintitl' the plain- 
 tiff' was entitled to a reference as prayed with 
 ■coats. Watson v. Kdrlunii, 2 O. R. 237.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 Semble, the <]ue8tion of the validity of a judg- 
 ment shoultl not be argued upon the return of a 
 garnishee summons, but shonld be raised on an 
 «Ijplication to set aside the execution. Elliot v. 
 Capdi, 9 P. \i. 35.— Dalton, J7«.f<«-.— Osier. 
 
 In an action for dower and damages for deten- 
 tion of dower, defendants appeared under R. 
 S. O. (1877) c. 55, s. 20, and filed acknowledg- 
 ment of tenancy, consent to dower, etc. Plain- 
 tiflCs solicitor thereupon entered jiulgment of 
 seisin, issued writ of assignment of dower, and 
 proceeded for damages. The judgment of seisin 
 was held at the hearing to be final, .md to pre- 
 clude any proceeding for damages, but, leave was 
 given to plaintiff to move in chambers to vficate 
 it. The master-in-chambers made an order 
 vacating the judgment : — Held, on appeal, that 
 the order was one in the discretion of the 
 master, which was properly exeiciscd under llie 
 circumstanci's in the plaintiff's favour, especially 
 as judgment had been signed through mistafce 
 of her solicitor. Ji'i/UH v. Fi.i/i, 9 P. R. 458. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 The plaintiff not appearing at the trial, which 
 took place at the Picton assizes, before Patter- 
 son, J. A., judgment was directed to be entered 
 for the defendant, with costs. Application was 
 subsequently made to the judge at the same 
 assizes to set aside the judgment and reinstate 
 the case on the list. This was refused, the 
 plaintiff not bei.ig then ready to go on. Appli- 
 cation was then made by the plaintiff to the 
 master-in-chambers, under Pule 270 O. .J. Act, 
 (("on. Rule 795) to sot aside the judgment en- 
 tered at the trial. This motion was enlarged 
 before Hose, J., in chand)ers, who : — Held, that 
 Rule 270 O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 795) does not 
 give jurisdiction to the master or a judge in 
 chambers in such cases. JIHlianl v. Arthur, 
 10 P. R. 281.— Rose. Ih. 420.- Q. B ]). 
 
 The judge who presides at the trial, and pro- 
 nounces judgment by default for the defendant 
 in the absence of the plaintiff, has power, under 
 Rule 270 0. J. Act (Con. Rule 795), when after- 
 wards sitting as the court at 'I'oronto, to sei 
 iiside such judgm<!nt. Milliard i'. Arthur, 10 
 
 P. H. 281 distinguished. Romv. Carscalleu, ]] 
 P. H. 104. — Ferguson. 
 
 Where judgment for defendant was given at 
 a trial in eouse(pience of the plaintiff's absenuu, 
 and an application was afterwards made to this 
 judge at the sittings to reinstate the case, wliiuli 
 he refused to entertain : — Held, that the pUiii- 
 tiif might nevertheless apply, under liule 270. 
 O. .1. Act, (Con. Rule 795) to the Divisional Court 
 at its next sittings to set aside the judgniuat, 
 and for a new trial. WiUun v. Irwin, 10 P. R. 
 598.- Chy. \). 
 
 Setting aside judgment in Division Court. 
 See lie Foliyv. Moran, 11 P. R. 316, p. 551. 
 
 An order of the 4th of October, 18S(), ex- 
 tended the time for the delivery of statement of 
 claim till the 12th October, but proviiled if it 
 was not so delivered, the action should stand 
 dismissed, with costs. Upon failure to deliver 
 in time, the defendant signed judgment dis- 
 missing the action : — Held, that notwithstand- 
 ing the dismissal of the action, an order could 
 properly be made under Rule 462 (Con. Uule 
 485) vacating the judgment, and furtlier e»-..iid- 
 ing the time for delivering the statumcnl;, and 
 the master-ia-chainbers had jurisdiction to make 
 such an order. Neuxombe v. McLuhan, 11 P. 
 R. 461. — Wilson. 
 
 The plaintiff claimed $923.13, the balance of 
 an account, and interest thereon, and signed 
 judgment for default of an appearance upon the 
 special indorsement of his writ of suimnons for 
 $1,253. The defendant moved to set aside the 
 judgment, swearing that he had f.'.iled to enter 
 an appearance owing to a inis.ippreheiision, 
 denying positively that he owed biie plaintitl' 
 anything, and alleging that he at one time owed 
 him .j;2.')0, but that it had been satisfied by the 
 plaintiff taking one A. as his debtor instead of 
 the defendant, and further, tnat if the debt hail 
 not been satisfied by A. , it was barred by the 
 Statute of Limitations. No affidavit was filed 
 on behalf of the plaintiff verifying the debt, anil 
 the arrangement as to substituting A. was not 
 denied. A local judge set asiile the judgtnent, 
 but only on the terms that the defendant should 
 give Security for or pay into court the sum of 
 42^tXS : — Held, that if upon an application by the 
 plaintifl", under Rule 80 (Con. Rule 739), oi' 
 Uule 324 (Con Rule 744), for leave to enter 
 judgment, s.icli a defence had been sworu to, 
 and such circr.mstances had appeared, the ap- 
 plication would not have been granted, ami 
 payment into court or security would not have 
 been exacted from the defendant as a condition 
 of his being allowed to defend. There is no sub- 
 stantial difference betwciu the case where ii 
 party seeks the right to defend before judgment 
 signed, and the case where the judgment liiis 
 been signed on account of a slij> or misappre- 
 hension, and the defendant makes out a case 
 giving him the rigiit to defend ; and therefore 
 terms should not have been imposed upon the 
 defendant. The disposal by the defendant of 
 his property liable to execution since the service 
 of the writ of summons upon h' i was not ii 
 matter to disentitle him to relief '.hat otherwise 
 could not properly have been clenied liiui. 
 Runnacles v. Mesquita, 1 Q. B. D. 418, followed. 
 Semble, if the defendant's statements were true, 
 the plaintiff would not been entitled to interest 
 
1085 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1086 
 
 oil tilt; amount of his claim, and the judgment 
 would have been irregular. Dobie y. Lemon, V2 
 V. W. 64.— C. P. D. 
 
 Olijection to application that judgment was 
 obtiimed by consent. See Sweeney v. .Sweeney, 
 m O. R. 92. 
 
 A Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to hear 
 nil iiijpeal direct from the master-in-cluunbers, 
 or n .-substantive motion to set aside a judgment 
 by ilifiiult of appearance. Ball v. Cathcarl. 10 
 i). K. .V.'5.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Sec Townof Dimdasv. ililmour, 2 O. R. 463. 
 
 so recovered estopped the now plaintiff fromi 
 maintaining the present action. Cochrane, v. 
 Hamilton I'romdent Loan Society, 15 0. R. 128 — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Since tlie Ontario Judicature Act, a judg- 
 ment recovered in an acti(m of ejectment by de- 
 fault of appearance will sustain a defence of rea 
 judic:ita to an action subsequently brought by 
 the defendant to try the same question. Coch- 
 rane I". Hamilton Provident and Loan Society, 
 150. H. 123 followed. JMl \: Cathcarl, 16 O 
 R. 52;5.-C. P. D. 
 
 See Mitchell v. St.rathy, 28 Chy. 80, infra ; 
 Adammn v. Adamxon, 28 Chy. 221, p. 1087. 
 
 XX. Epfkct of Jud(!Ments. 
 
 1. Ji'ntoppel. 
 
 (a) Ejectment. 
 
 Wluii; in 1875, in an action of ejectment the 
 jiaities .igreed in writing that a verdict be en- 
 teri'il for the plaintiH', but not enforced till de- 
 fendant lie paid ^0 for costs and the value of 
 hi.-: iiiiiiioveiucnts, said value to be fixed by 
 ailiitiation ; and, though the .$50 had not been 
 p;iiil, nor the said value so ascertained, plaintiff 
 eiilLied jiulgment on tlie verdict, and ejected 
 the difcndaiit, whose devisee now filed this bill, 
 ckiiniiig possession, damages, a reference as to 
 impi'iivciiuaits, and an order for payment of the 
 amount, foiiml due, and of tlie .^50 for costs : — 
 Held, that though the judgment could not be 
 set aside, and possession given to plaiiitiB', the 
 plaintifl' was entitled to a reference as prayed, 
 with i;osts. Watmn v. Ketchnm, 2 0. R. 237. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 It was (^intended that the defendant was 
 estdpiJwl from disputing the plaiiitiU's title by 
 liis admissiims and by reason of the plaintilf 
 having rooovcred a judgment in ejectment 
 against the delendant'a tenants ; but the plain- 
 titl's claiiii w.iK for damages for pnlliiig down 
 fencts and for iiu'sne profits for a period of live 
 or si.N inoiiths prior to the date of the ejectment, 
 and the ailmi.ssion of title did not go further 
 back tliail the ejectment: — Held, that the judg- 
 ment aijainst the tenants was evidence against 
 the defembint, at the date of the writ of eject- 
 ment, but that title was really in (juestion, and 
 iieoess iry to be proved in res))ect of the period 
 for which mesne profits were claimed prior to 
 the ejectment. .Seahrook v. Yoan<i, 14 A. 
 R. !)7. 
 
 Action for breach of an agreement made be- 
 tween plaintitV as mortgagor and defendants as 
 iiioitgagees, whereby in consideration of the 
 plaintiU' having given defendants a chattel 
 mortgage on certain property, defendants agreed 
 to extend the time for payment of the mortgage, 
 etc.. one year from 1st of April, 1882. The de- 
 fence was tiiat on 17th June, 1882, the now de- 
 fendants brought ejectment against the now 
 plaintiff, setting up that by sucli mortgage on 
 default of payment of the mortgage moneys the 
 now defendants siiould be entitled to take pos- 
 session of said lands: alleging default, and by 
 reason thereof the now defendants claimed pos- 
 session; tiiat the now plaintiff did not plead 
 any defence to the .iction ; and for default of any 
 defence on 30th Septemlier, judgment for pos- 
 Bession was recovcret 1 : — Held, that the j udgment 
 
 (b) Other Judgments, 
 
 " Where the cause of action is the same and 
 the plaintiff lias an opportunity in the former 
 suit of recovering that which lie seeks to recover 
 in tlie second, the former recovery is a bar to 
 the latter action. To constitute such a former 
 recovery' a liar however, it must be siiewn that 
 the pldntiff had an opportunity of recovery, 
 and but for his own fault might have recovered 
 in the former suit that which he seeks to recover 
 in the second action." Per VVilles, J., in Nelson 
 V. Couch, 15 C. B. N. S. 108, quoted by Patter- 
 son, J., in Davidion v. BMevilk and North 
 Hastimp R. W. Co., 5 A. R. 315. 
 
 A judgment in favour of the plaintiff in an 
 action for trespass to lands upon pleas (amongst 
 others) of lands not plaintiff's and liberum tene- 
 mentum, is not a complete estoppel, preventing 
 the defendant in another suit from questioning 
 tiie plaintiffs title to any part of the lands. 
 The judgment is only an estoppel with regard 
 to the title of that portion of the land upon 
 which it had been shewn that the defendant 
 had trespassed. Hunter v. Birney, 27 Chy. 204. 
 — Hl:ike. 
 
 S. being the holder of two mortgages, brought 
 ejectment thereon, when the genuineness of the 
 signatures to the instruments was disputed, 
 notwithstanding which he recovered judgment 
 in tliat action, and subsecjuently instituted pro- 
 ceedings in this court seeking to obtain a sale of 
 the mortgaged premises and tiie usual order for 
 deficiency. Owing to the extremely contradic- 
 tory evidence adduced at the hearing, the court 
 (Spragge, C.) refused to make the decree u,8 
 
 (Sp 
 ask 
 
 asked, holding the evidence insufficient to 
 tablish the execution of the mortgages, as the 
 plaintiff was bound to do, and dismissed the 
 bill, with costs, but without prejudice to S. 
 filing another bill if so advised, within twelve 
 months from the date of that decree. After 
 the lapse of more than twelve months the 
 mortgagor tiled a bill seeking to have the mort- 
 gages delivered up to be cancelled :— Held, that 
 if the strict construction of such decree was that 
 the point was res judicata it was erroneous, and 
 the court (Spragge, C.) refusing to enforce it in 
 this proceeding by making a decree in favour of 
 the pl.vintiff, dismissed the bill with costs. 
 Mitchell v. Strathy, 28 Chy. 80. 
 
 A former suit had been instituted by the 
 jtlaintirt" which had been dismissed, as the plain- 
 tiff had not acquired the legal estate until after 
 the bill was filed : —Held, that under such cir- 
 
1087 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 108» 
 
 3HV$ 
 
 esi:; 
 
 6<» 
 
 otiingtances the question wns not rea judicata. 
 Atiamnon v. Admnmii, 28 Chy. 221. — Spragge. 
 
 1)., the jmrclinKcr of land, gave a mortgage 
 thereon to secure ii:irt of the purcluise money, 
 iind 8u))setiuently allowed taxes to acc^umulatv 
 on the ]an<t, which was sold in order to realize 
 such taxes whon 1). bought it and obtained the 
 usual deed to hinisi'lf. \). having nuide default 
 in payment of the mortgage, proceedings at law 
 were instituted thereon, pemling which D. con- 
 veyed this nnil other property to his two sons, 
 who gave a mortgage back securing the support 
 :iud maintenance of D. and his wife, and the 
 plaintiff, after recovering judgment, tiled a bill 
 impeaching the transaction for fraud : — Held, 
 
 ( 1 ) that upon the evidence the transaction was 
 fraudulent and void aa against creditors ; ('->) 
 that although ordinarily the production of the 
 exemplification of a judgment at law is odmis- 
 Mible, and has been generally received as evidence 
 of a debt due the plaintitf against all parties 
 ill suits under the statute of Klizabeth, yet that 
 the judgment sn recovered l>y the plaintiff' against 
 l>. was not evidence against the sons, being res 
 inter alios judicata. A//au v. McTavM, 28 
 Chy. 539.— Spraggc. See S. C, 8 A. R. 440. 
 
 On proceeding with the reference under the 
 decree pronounced on the hearing, as reported 
 28 Chy. 356, the master by his report found that 
 there was due to the plaintiff §1,104.90, which 
 includetl a sum of .?171.32 costs incurred in the 
 .>iuit brought by him to redeem : — Held, on ap- 
 peal, — affirmirg the report of the master — (1) 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to claim the costs 
 so incurred, that proceeiling having been taken 
 in reality in defence of his rights as owner of an 
 equity of redemption with the concurrence of 
 C, through whom the appellant claimed— and, 
 
 (2) that neither of the defendants could dispute 
 the findings in that suit, but were estopped 
 from questioning the amount found due therein 
 to the same extent as Jarvis under whom they 
 claimed woulil have been, the proceeding not 
 being in respect of a mutter collateral to the 
 mortgage in question in that suit, but virtually 
 upon the same instrument, and that therefore 
 the rule as to tstoppel by deed applied. Pierce 
 v. Canatan, 29 Chy. 32. — Ferguson. 
 
 Effect of judgment in appellate court where 
 the judges were equally divided. See In re 
 Hall, 32 C. P. 498 ; 8 A. R. 135 p. 25. 
 
 Under 22 Vict. c. 5, s. 58, consolidated in C. 
 S. L. C. c. 83, s. 53, subs. 2, a judgment may 
 be recovered in the Province of Quebec, on a 
 personal service in Ontario, in an action in 
 which the cause thereof arose in Quebec, so as to 
 render such judgment conclusive on the merits. 
 A note made in Ontario, payable at a particular 
 place in Quebec, is a contract deemed to be 
 made iji Quebp*-. ',he place of performance, and 
 under C. o. C. c. 57, s. 4, is payable at the 
 place named therein, the C. S. U. C. c. 42, re- 
 quiring the use of t'-.e restrictive words, "not 
 otherwise or elsewhere," applying only to notes 
 made and payable in Ontario. The note in this 
 case was made in Toronto, payable at the Mechan- 
 ics' Bank Montreid, and whs sent to Montreal, 
 and there held until maturity, when it was pre- 
 sented for payment and dishonoured : — Held, 
 that the contract being peiformable in Quebec, 
 »nd the breach occurring there, the cause of ac- 
 
 tion arose there, so as to oring the defendant 
 within the operation of 22 Vict. c. 5, s. 68, uml 
 to make a judgment recovered againut him in 
 Quebec, on a personal service in Ontario, con- 
 elusive on the merits ; and the defendant v/aa 
 therefore precluded from setting up a defence 
 on the merits, and was allowed to except to the 
 jurisdiction only. Qiia-re, whether the peiHonid 
 service referrecl to in R. S, O. (1877), c. 50, s. 
 145 refers to peiaonal service in Quebec. Court 
 v. Scnit, 32 (!. V. I48.-C. P. n. 
 
 Where a judgment has been recovered for a 
 debt without fraud being charged ninler section 
 130 of the Insolvent Act of 1875, the plaiutiti'ig 
 barred by such recovery from bringing another 
 action against the debtor charging the fraud, 
 even although the judgment was recovered hy 
 default, for the plaiiititf might have declared, 
 averring such fraud, and had the question tried 
 Liijhtlmiud v. J/ it/, 32 C. P. 249.— Cameron. 
 
 The plaintiff, a Division Court bailiff, having 
 seized a (piantity of wheat under a warrant of 
 execu*,ion against one P. which the defendant 
 olaiiiitid, an interpleader summons is8iu;d, and 
 on its return was adjourned with leave to the 
 defendant to file his claim in fifteen days. 
 Afterwards the case came up for linal hearing, 
 when the judge made this order, " the claimant 
 not having put in his claim or complied with 
 the order above made is barred, and is ordered 
 to pay the costs in fifteen days." 'i'he plaintiff, 
 as such bailiff, thcreupcn brought this action to 
 recover the wheat, which the defendant had ob- 
 tained poNsession of pending the summons :— 
 Held, on appeal, affirming the tlecision of the 
 County Court judge, that the minute so made 
 by the judge in the interpleader issue was 
 e({uivalent to stating that the claim was dis- 
 missed, and was linal and conclusive upon the 
 defendant, and that he could not be heard to 
 say that the bailiff had not seized the wheat. 
 Hunter v. Vamlone, 7 A. R. 750. 
 
 In an action in the Division Court against 
 the now plaintiff", on notes given by him for 
 the price of a machine, the question of the 
 warranty was tried, and decided against the 
 now plaintiff: — Held, that the matter was res 
 judicata, and the judgment in the Division 
 Court was therefore a good defence, by way of 
 estoppel, to the present action. Radford v. 
 Mi-rchants' Bank, 3 O. R., 529.— C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff company having broui,dit an 
 action against I. on a mortgage, and claiming 
 damages ft)r having made a di.stress on l'\, the 
 tenant of the premises, at the request of I., on 
 the reference to ascertain \that damage the com- 
 pany had properly sustained by reason of such 
 distress, the master held that the amount of a 
 judgment recovered by F. against the company 
 was the proper measure, and was conclusive 
 evidence of the amount, although it was proved 
 before him that an offer had been made by I. to 
 the company to furnish witnesses and assist in 
 the defence, and had been declined, and the 
 witnesses when examined shewed that their 
 evidence might materially have affected the 
 verdict : — Held, that the ruling of the master 
 was erroneous, and that the case must go back 
 to him to revise his report. Petm-hunmijli, Jlml 
 EaUitf Iniustment Co. v. Iretoii, 5 0. U. 47.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 P: 
 l<i: 
 
1088 
 
 1089 
 
 JUDOBIENT. 
 
 1090 
 
 )Vuro(l by 
 declared, 
 
 ion cf the 
 
 gainst the 
 
 ter was res 
 
 Division 
 
 l)y way of 
 
 Radford v. 
 
 1). 
 
 Tlio plaintiff in thiu uutiun having u contract i 
 witii u townshi)) corporation for constructing 
 drains, the defendant occiisionally casliod cliecks 
 (ir ordcrn un the corporation for liiin, and was ' 
 idso in the hafiit of supplying Liin with goods, I 
 on account of whicli tiie plaintiff gave him two 1 
 orders. Tlic defendant having sued tlie olaintitf ' 
 on the common counts, the plaintill |ileailed pay- 
 ment, liy the particulars in that action the now l 
 defendant claimed for goods soUl and money lent, t 
 aud gave credit for one item of i*3(IO, received j 
 upon an order for that sum Ho lia<l a verdict | 
 for $920, and the now plaintiff afterwards lirought 
 this action against him to recover back a sum of 
 f3(K), which lie alleged had been received by the 
 defendant on another order, but had not been 
 credited in the former action : - Held, that the 
 pinintill' was estopped by the former judgment. 
 Sedden r. Tutop, (» T. 11. ♦i07; C'hiaholni c. 
 Morse, II C. F. r)8!t, distinguished. Soivnuon 
 V. Smtoi, 5 O. 1{. ()7S.— Osier.— Ferguson. 
 
 A recovery of a verdict in an action for libel 
 against some of several parties concerned in the 
 hhel, and payment of the amount of verdict and 
 ad costs without judgment being entereil, is a 
 bar to an action against others for the same 
 libel. Willcucti v. JJowfM, 8 <>. R. ">7(l.— C. P. I). 
 
 The defendant, a bailiff of a iJivision Court, 
 under an execution against plaintill's father, 
 seized two horses, waggon, etc., which, on an in- 
 terpleader proceeding, were decided to be the 
 goods of the plaintitl, who at the end of three 
 weeks obtained possession of them from the 
 bailiff. In an iiction brought by the plaintiff 
 against the defendiint for damage d<ine to the 
 horses during the time they were in his posses- 
 sion, the jur) under the direction of the judge, 
 found a verdict for the plaintift' and SSO dam- 
 ages, which verdict the judge subsequently re- 
 fused to set aside :~Held, uffirndng the judg- 
 ment of the County Court, that the finding of 
 the judge on the interpleader pioceeding.s formed 
 nogrouiul of dtfence to the suit for diimagcs for 
 the alleged injury to the property. Feu row v. 
 Tvbiii, 10 A. R. 69. 
 
 The letters of administration to an infant as 
 administrator, weie revoked after the judgment 
 against him in an action brought by him to re- 
 cover certain assets of the estate, and new letters 
 were granted to one P., who thereupon obtained 
 an order of revivor in such action, directing the 
 further proeee<ling9 to be carriid on by P. as 
 administrator and phiintiff. Btfia-e P. could 
 move against the judgnunt the order of revivor 
 was rescinded. P. in this adnnnistrution action 
 attacked the validity of the tecurities which the 
 former ttdministiator had impeached in the ac- 
 tion referred to, whereupon the phiintiBs (who 
 had been defendants in that iicti<'n) applied to 
 have it ruled that the jud^nu nt in buch other 
 action was res judicata agaiiistP. in this admin- 
 istration proceeding : — held, that by the dis- 
 charge of the order of revivor in the action, in 
 which the plaintifl by revivor was suing in autre 
 droit, such action was left without a plaintiff, 
 and the judgment recovered was not under the 
 circumstances an estoppel against I'. Menhants' 
 Bank v. A/<mttiih, 10 P. R. 467.— Hodgiua, 
 ManUr-iii Ordihary. 
 
 In on action on a mortgage from defendant S., 
 the defendant H. being in possession, the latter 
 
 69 
 
 chiiinod that plaintiff was bringing the action 
 for the benefit of .S., who was therefore, as well 
 as the plaintiff, bound by a judgment in a former 
 action, in which M., claiming title by possession 
 had succeeded a;,'ainHt .S. in having a leiisc from 
 the latter to him .set .'iMide, the plaintiff, how- 
 ever, not being ii party to the action, ami having 
 ac(|uii'iMl his title prior thereto. S. pleaded that 
 the judgment in i|uestiou was obtained by the 
 l)ei'jury of H., stating the perjury: — Held, on 
 demurrer, good, ^ilnnirl v. tSutton, S O. It. 
 341. — Kose. 
 
 In an action for alimony, held, that a foreign 
 decree of divorce obtained on an untrue state- 
 ment of facts, and for a cause not recognized by 
 our law, c(mld not be set up as a bar to tho 
 wife's claim for alimony. Mayurii v. ^fwJlu•n, 
 II A. K. 178. 
 
 This aclion as originally brought was to take 
 the plaintiffs accounts under a postnuptial set- 
 tlement, in which the plaintifl' and the defen- 
 dant n. J. R. were trustees, but after the hear- 
 ing and before decree, a (piestion was raised by 
 amendment as to the liability of the defendant 
 l>. .1. R., to ])ay certain nuineys alleged to have 
 been advanced by the plaintitf for the mainten- 
 ance of his wife anil chiUlren, and on theargnment 
 of this question, judgment was given directing 
 ii reference as to such claim. liefoio the argu- 
 ment ju<lgment had been rendered in the .Supe- 
 rior Court of Quebec, on the same question in 
 1). J. R.'s favour, aiul on the reference D. J. R. 
 proved this judgment, contending that it con- 
 cluded the matter, as being res judicata, though 
 not pleaded :— Held, reversing the judgment of 
 the master-in-ordinary (10 P. K. 301), that \). J. 
 It. had had no opportunity of pleading such judg- 
 ment, and that it was therefore conclusive when 
 set up in the master's office without being plead- 
 ed. HwjhtKX. /^csO O. R. 198. — Proudfoot. 
 
 The defendant having been paid $50, 000 insur- 
 ance moneys under various policies eHected by 
 him H))on certain lumber, which had been burnt 
 by a spark from an engine of the C. C. H. \V. 
 Co., afterwards brought action against the rail- 
 way company and recovered a verdict of §100,000; 
 the jury finding that that " was the actual value 
 of the lumber destroyed." The insurance com- 
 panies now brought this action against him 
 claiming that he was trustee for them for so 
 much of the SIOO.OOO iis represented the excess 
 of the total moneys reeeived by him over the 
 amount of his loss, contending iliat he was 
 estopped by the verdict fiom asserting his h)ss 
 to be greater than that ainoniit. The defendant, 
 however, contended that his aciu.d loss had ex- 
 ceeded in the>vholegiK)0,0(JO :— Held, that he was 
 not concluded from so contending by the find- 
 ing of the jury in his action against the railway 
 company, and that the utmost right of the 
 plaintiffs was to have the amount recovered as 
 damages from the railwny e<inipany brought into 
 account together with the moneys previously 
 paid by the pbiintitt's for insurance in order to 
 ascertain whether the defendant had been more 
 than fully compensated for his total loss by tire 
 and other loss and outlay connected with tho 
 litigation, and for these purposes the matter was 
 referred to the master Safionai Fire Im. Co. 
 v. McLaren, 12 O. R. 082. -Boyd. 
 
 S. was iin assignee for the benefit of creditors 
 of J. E., and G. was similarly assignee of E. H. 
 
loei 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1002 
 
 mm] < 
 
 
 €ft:: 
 
 STif 
 
 
 V). hi'forc tlic nsHignmr'iits.T. K. win iiurt'ditorof 
 K. }{. K. for nioiiuy lutit, iiml hh lioMur of uur 
 tnili notes. After tim ;iMMi|'niiu'iit H. olttairu'd n 
 juilgmi'iit ngaiiist K, II. 10., I)iit (I. refuHoil to 
 rt'C(igiii/i! S, as a L'reditoron K. H. K.'s ustatu l)y 
 virtuu <if tlu! jiiilgiiiuiit. K. llieii bronglit uii 
 action af^aiimt (!. for an account of (l.'n ilealings 
 with the I'Mtiitc of K. II. K. , and for payment 
 of tilt' judgment. (1. Bet up tlie Statute of 
 LimitatioMN. On an appeal from thu nui^t'i', it 
 was : — Ifeid, tluit tlie judgment recovered 
 aguinst K. 11. K. after Iiih aHMiKiunent iu an 
 action to wliicii 0. was not u party, was not 
 even prima facie evidence against (J. Kcclea r. 
 howry, 'i.'l ("liy. 107, eonsidei'ed. Slnrart v, 
 ilwji', \\\ O. H. 4')8. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 A judgment against an executor upon a deht 
 of the deceasuil, is conclusive evidence of the iu- 
 debtedness to the plaiutili' us against i.'l otlier 
 creditors of tin^ deceiised, and is so in adminis- 
 tration proceedings, tliough the administration 
 is of goods and landf . Tliercforo where a judg- 
 ment had been ol)taiuod against thu executor of 
 H. on curtain promissory notes endorsed liy him 
 and nuituring after his death, and upon H.'s 
 estate afterwards being administered by tlie 
 court, tlie jmlgmont creditor oroiight the judg- 
 ment i)ito the master's oHico and claimed upon 
 it, and other creditors of H., thereupon asked 
 to be allowed to adduce evidence as against the 
 claim on the ground that no proper notice of 
 dishonour had been sent by thu liohler of thu 
 
 EroniisHory notes, upon which the judgment had 
 een obtaiiie<l : — Held, reveising the decision 
 <if the mastiT-in-ordiiiary, tliattliuy could not be 
 permitted to do so :— Semble, that such judgment 
 IS only prima facie evidence as against liuirs-at- 
 law, and devisees of the deceased. Eccl'ic. 
 Lowry, '23 Chy. 167, commented on. Utlhuitie, 
 TrndiW Hank v Murray, 13 O. R. Tzj.- 
 Fergusoii. 
 
 In 1887 the plaintifls sued the council in the 
 Division Court for the surplus rates received by 
 them in 1881, and recovered judgment therefor. 
 They afterwards brought this action in the 
 County Court for the surplus received in the five 
 subsequent years. The defendants contended 
 that the claim was res judicata by reason of the 
 judgment in the iJiviaiim Court: — Held, (revers- 
 ing the judgment of the County Court) (1) That 
 the recovery in the Division Court lietiig for 
 a wholly distinct and sep irate cause of action, 
 and not upon a balance of account under section 
 77, or after abando.iment of the excess under D. 
 C Rule No. 8, was no defence to an action for 
 surplus rates received by the defendants in the 
 subsequent years. Public School TruKle.es of 
 Section No. 9 A'ottawa.iaija v. Township of Not- 
 tawoKaga, 15 A. R. 310. 
 
 In the course of proceedings taken in .Scotland 
 for winding up the plaintiB's' company, an order 
 was made by a Scotch court for delivery by the 
 defendant, as one of the officers of the company, 
 of certain books and papers said to be in his 
 hands, and it was provided that in case of de- 
 fault the li(iiiidator might proceed against the 
 defendant, who lived in Ontario, in any court in 
 Ontario havn^g authority to compel delivery, 
 and upon default this action was brought for 
 that purpose : — Held, that there was and could 
 be no final adjudication of rights by tiie order, 
 for it could only be operative by enforcing it 
 
 against the iierson of tlio defendant by attach 
 mciit for iliHol>i<dieiice, and Huuh enfurceiiient 
 could not be of extra-territorial oHlcacy. 'riieru 
 was no ))ower in a tviiiding-lip proceeding to 
 )iron(Miiice an order equivalent to a final jiidg- 
 nit'iit on the merits, based upon Burvicuof a per 
 son out of the jurisdiction of the .Scottish court. 
 And an order striking out the defence in the 
 action on the ground that it was res judicata liy 
 tlic order of thu Scottisli court was rescinile<l. 
 The Itrilinh CniKiiUnii Ijumheriiiij and Timba- 
 fo. V. (Irani, 12 I'. K. 301.— Boyd. 
 
 I'laintifl' as assignee for the benulit of credi 
 tors uud'ir 48 Vict. c. '2(1 (Out.), brought this ac- 
 tion on behalf of certain creditors under section 
 7, subsection *2 of that Act to set aside as 
 fraudulent a mortgage made by his assignor, 
 while insolvent, to thu defendants. The il' t'cn 
 daiits set up as a defence, inter alia, a judgiueui. 
 tor foieclosuru on the said inortg me to which 
 the plaintiir as assignee was a pai :./ defenduiit. 
 On demurrer to this it was : — Hehl, that the 
 judgment of foreidosure was no bur to tliis ac- 
 tiiiii. The pliiiniiH' acted in u dual capacity us 
 assignee of thu mortgagor's equity of redemp- 
 tion, and also as a trustee for creditors. It wan 
 in the former capacity he was mule defendant 
 ill the foreclosure action, in which he couhl not 
 have set up the fraud of his assignor, nor was 
 he liound to have counter cluinied for his pre- 
 st!iit cause of action; while in this action he was 
 suing as trustee for creditois, and in another 
 right, fi'/iixiv. (I'rant, ItiO. R. '233. —Robertson. 
 
 A tinal judgment setting aside an intervention 
 to a seizure of the dividends of bank shares 
 founded upon an allegation that such dividends 
 formed part of a substitution is not res judicatii 
 as to the corpus of said shares nor as to the di- 
 vidends of other shares claiiiieil under a iliti'ercnt 
 title. Art. 1241 C. C. Alnir v. Carter- Uotiiui 
 V. (Mrter, 16 S. C. K. 473. 
 
 A condition of a contract for the carriage of 
 goods provided that no claim for damage for 
 loss or detention of goods sliouhl be allowed 
 unless notice in writing with particulars was 
 given to the station agent at or nearest to the 
 pliue of delivery within thirty-six hours after 
 delivery of the goods in respect to which the 
 chiim was made : — Held, per Strong, J., that a 
 plea setting up non-compliance with this con- 
 dition having been demurred to and t.ie plain- 
 till' not having appealed against a judgment 
 overruling the denmrrer the (question us to the 
 sufficiency in law of the defence was res judi- 
 cata. Oraml Trunk Ji. W. Co. of Caiuula v. 
 McMillan, 16 S. C. R. 543. 
 
 The Exchange Bank of Canjxda, in an action 
 instituted by them against G., filed a with- 
 drawal of a part of their deiiianil in open court 
 reserving their right to institute a subsequent 
 action for the amount so withdrawn. The court 
 acted on this retraxit, and gave judgment for 
 the balance. This judgment was not appeakil 
 from. In a subsequent action for the amount 
 so reserved :— Hehl, reversing the judgment of 
 the court below, Fournier, J., dissenting, that 
 the provisions of Article 451 C. C. P. are ap- 
 plicable to a withdrawal made outside, and 
 without the interference of, the court and can- 
 not atl'ect the validity of a withdrawal inade in 
 open court and with its perniissiou. '2.— That 
 
1092 
 
 1083 
 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 1091 
 
 it wiM ton lati! in thu Decoud nctiuii to <|ucati(m th>.! foi'i'ign I'oiirt, or a giiltject of that country, 
 till' validity of ttiu rutmxit upon wliieh tliu uourt i luiil that In: was not hltvciI with procuHH in tlio 
 k.iil in till! lirHl uutioii ucitod ami roniiuiuil a juil^- ! action, ami iiail no noticu of it ur op|><>i'tunily of 
 Illicit wbi<;)i was final and ooncluoivu. Exchmnjf | tlufuniling liimHolf. On motion to Ktnkc out Hiioii 
 
 Itiuik of Cnnwln v. (Il/maii, 17 S. ('. R. 108. 
 
 dt'funuu aH falso dofondant adniittud in Iiih uxunii- 
 niition tli;it ho had huaid of Noniu uluiin hcing 
 tnidti hy tiiu plaintifl', through a Ivttur from hii« 
 hrothor living in tho United Statea, that ho wroto 
 to his broUiui' to cnii^oy Hon\u ono to attend to 
 it, and Hunt a Hlatuniunt of tho matter to him, 
 hut tiiat he never heird of the action or trial 
 
 IVr Owynan, .1. -There is no Hound reason' 
 why the <!overnnient of tho Dominion should 
 nut he hound hy the jiulgment of a court of | 
 justice in a Huib to which tiie attorney-general, 
 as rcnrcBonting the government, wiis a party 
 
 ,lefpHUnt,c.|ual!y as any individual « , ' I *«-•.' ....uf a,t„rjudKn.ent, when he was informed of 
 ,f the relief praye.l hy the .nforn.atlon l. .,.ght , j^^ ^,,,j ^^J ,,|; p,.^,'^^,,^^ j,, ^,,^ u,,;^^,, ^^^^^^^ 
 
 had been iittaeiied to pay it. It appeared tliat 
 
 ill the 8ame interest ami upon the same giniinds 
 us were adjudie:ited upon hy the jud),inent in 
 the former auit Foimrn v. Altun '/■Henci i/ of 
 Cnimla, 17 H. C. H. 612. 
 
 See Hank of Montreal v. Ilaffmr, .1 O K. 
 W,\ ; Canaili'in Land tiwl KmUjidlUtr i v. 
 MnniiiiialUi/ of Dymii, O. R. 4!>.') : 12 A. H. 
 HO, p. 09; McUim v. ShidiU, 9 (). It. (JO!), p. 
 1004 ; Van Vdxor v. //wihsoii, !) A. R. .SOO, 
 32; Schroeikr v. Ilooiiey, II A. R. 673, p. SJO ; 
 Paiikyv. Uniitilj/, II I'. K. 202, p. 1004; Wooil- 
 riijfw. McL'-niinii, 14 A. K. 242, p. 109.'); Htani 
 V. Meriier, 14 O. R. 412; Mead v. O'Keife, 15 
 O. R. 84 ; Townnhii> of NotlawdHoga v. I'ininU- 
 ton (tnd North- Westti-n R. W. Co., 16 A. 11. i)2. 
 
 an apM>tiiMnee had he 
 hy ■\ ;irni of lawyers, 
 fiibed. Sihii)8liy c. Wcstenhol/, L, 
 
 entered for him then 
 ic apiiliuation was re- 
 
 K. (i C» B. 
 
 l.W, followed, liviity V. ('/ i,mw, II, P. H. 54/. — 
 Winehciter, Kttiistrtir, — Ariiioiir. 
 
 To an action on a judgment recovered in the 
 Court of Qucen'ti Bench, Manitoha, thu defen- 
 
 XXVII. FOREION .IITDOMKNT.S. 
 
 1. Actions on. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 The plaintiff sued the defendant on a foreign 
 judgment for $240, and specially en<loracd this 
 anuiiint upon the writ of summons. He oh- 
 taiiicd judgment in default of appearance : — 
 Hchl, that the foreign judgment was not alicjui- 
 dated or ascertained amount within the niciining 
 of R. .^. O. '877), c. 50, 8. 15:j, and that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to .Superior Court coats. 
 DaiidifOH v. Cameron, 8 P. R. 61. — Ualton, Q. C. 
 
 To an action on a foreign judgment recovered 
 in tiie .Supreme (Jourt of New York, the di.fen- 
 dai.t set up as a defence that the cause of action 
 accrued more than six years before the com- 
 nieiu'ciiicnt thereof : —Held, on demurrer, agood 
 <lefeiioe, for under our law the foreign judgment 
 is only deemed to constitute a simple contract 
 tlcht, and tlic period of limitation is governed 
 hy tiio lex fori, and not by the lex loci con- 
 tractus. North V. Fiiher, 6 O. R 206. — Rose. 
 
 An action on a foreign judgment was stayed 
 pending an appeal in the foreign state from the 
 judgment snecl on, although no stay of execu- 
 tion upon the original judgment was imposed 
 by tile foreign court. 'J'erms as to diligence in 
 prosecuting the appeal and preservation of the 
 defendant's property in Ontario in statu quo 
 were annexed to the order. Huntiinjlon v. At- 
 trill, 12 P. R. 36.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Court V. Seott, 32 C. P. 148, p. 1088 ; Hene- 
 btrij V. Turner, 2 O. R. 284, p. 1076. 
 
 (b) Validity of. 
 
 To au action on a foreign judgment, the de- 
 fendant pleaded that he was not at the tnne of 
 the coiinnencement of the action or previously 
 resident or domiciled within the jurisdiction of 
 
 P' ' dant set up us a defence that \w was not at or 
 during tiie time proceedings were tukon to re- 
 cover ,'i ' suid alleged judgment, nor had he since 
 been a resident of or domiciled within the .said 
 province of Manitoki, and was not served with 
 any [irociiaa or notice of the said action, nor had 
 he any opportunity of appearing in said action 
 and defending same; and '^ho suid judgment 
 was obtained in his absence and without his 
 knowledge ;--Hehl, foUowiug Schibsby w. Wes- 
 tenholz, L. I!. 6 Q. B. 153, a good defence. 
 McLean v. SliUldx, O. R. 690. —0. P. D. 
 
 The defendant on hearing of tho judgment 
 having been entered against liiin in the court of 
 Queen's Bench of Manitoba, instructed counsel 
 to move to set the same aside ; but thu application 
 was refused on the ground that it was too late : — 
 Held, that this did not preclude defendant from 
 disputing tho validity of the judgment on the 
 action thereon in this province, lb. 
 
 The plaintiff sued upon a foreign judgment, 
 which he had obtained against tlie defendant 
 upon a covenant by the defendant to ndumnify 
 him against a mortgage made by the plaintiff 
 to one (i., who hail foreclosed the mortgage and 
 afterwards obtained judgment against the plain- 
 tiff on the covenant: — licld, that the etlect of 
 (jr. suing on the covenant in the mortgage after 
 forecloiuro was to open the foreclosure, and an 
 allegation that the plaintiff had improperly con- 
 cealed the fact of the foreclosure from the foreign 
 court was no defence to this action : — Held, also, 
 that an allegation that U. had agreed to take the 
 land in full satisfaction of his debt shewed no 
 defence, but a mere verbal agreement without 
 consideration: — Held, also, that an allegation 
 that the plaintiff had sustained no damage by 
 the judgment and execution against him, and 
 that the writs of ti. fa. against him were re- 
 tained in the sheriff's hands under a fraudulent 
 agreement between G. and the plaintiff, in order 
 to sustain the proceedings against the defendant, 
 shewed no fraud, and was no answer to the ac- 
 tion. Per Wilson, C. J. — The defendant was 
 not at liberty to set up in answer to this action 
 matters which could have been pleaded in the 
 original cause. Paisley v. Broddy, 11 P. R. 
 202.— C. P. D. 
 
 In an action upon a foreign judgment, the de- 
 fence was that the same had been recovered by 
 reason of the plaintiff fraudulently misleading 
 
109S 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 10% 
 
 
 
 the court at the trial, by swearing to what he 
 knew to be untrue. The matter in dispute was 
 a claim for extra serviues in hauling logs for 
 a greater distance than required by u written 
 contract, a id the contest was upon the question 
 whether the services were or were not within the 
 terms of that contract. On this question the 
 evidence of the plaintiff and of one of the defen- 
 dants, and of other witnesses, was given at the 
 trial in the foreign court, when the contract and 
 certain letters were put in, and the judge's 
 charge to the jury shewed that the whole evi- 
 dence hod been clearly brought to the attention 
 of the court, and it was now sought to establish 
 the falsehood of the plaintiff's evidence with 
 regaid to the claim for extra services :— Held 
 (affirming the judgment of the Common Pleas 
 Division, Burton, J. A., dissenting), that evi- 
 dence under the defence was properly rejected 
 at the trial ; for what the defendants proposed to 
 do was to try over again the very question which 
 was in issue in the original action. The charge 
 of fraud was superadded, but that charge in- 
 volved th. assertion that a falsehood was know 
 ingly stated, and before the question of scienter 
 was reached, a conclusion of fact adverse to that 
 which had been arrived at by the foreign jurj' 
 would have to be adopted. Per Burton, J. A. 
 In admitting evidence under the defence, the 
 court would not be assuming to retry the issues 
 disposed of in the foreign court. The finding 
 upon those issues being conclusive, cannot be 
 questioned here ; but it can be shewn that the 
 decision arrived at was obtained by fraud prac- 
 tised upon the foreign court, and that right can- 
 not be defeated, because, in order to establish 
 it, it becomes necessary to go into the same evi 
 dence as was used on the former trial to sustain 
 or defeat that issue, 'i'he issues are not the 
 same, for if the facts now discovered could have 
 been sheM'n at the former trial, tluy would have 
 secured a different result. The authority of deci- 
 sions of the Knglish Court of Appeal, and the case 
 of Abouloffr. Oppenheimer, lOQ B. D 297, dis- 
 cussed. Woudruff V. McLennan, 14 A. R. 242. 
 
 The defendant was a shareholder and director 
 in a joint stock company, callctl the " Rockaway 
 Beach Improvement Company," duly incorpo- 
 rated under the laws of the State of New Y' ik, 
 having its head office in that St.ite. The plaintiff, 
 a creditor of the company for money loaned to 
 the company, sued and recovered on ISth June, 
 1886, in the Supreme Court, State of New 
 York, a judgment lor $100,240.03 against de- 
 fendant for iin alleged false certificate given 
 by defendant while such director as to the 
 amount of paid up stock in the company, where- 
 by, under certain stntutes of the said State, 
 defendant became liable by way of penalty to 
 all the debts' of the coinpany. In an acti<in in 
 this province on the judgment :— H< Id, that as 
 the only cause of action which the jilaintiff 
 alleged, was based on an offmee conimitted 
 asainst the laws of the State of New York, and 
 the only sum he sought to recover, v ns the pen- 
 alty imposed by statute of the said state as the 
 punishment for the offence, the jud^mc nt could 
 not be recognized as creating a debt enforceable 
 in this province ; otherwise all that would be 
 necessaiy to give nl'iijuitous i fleet to a ) enal law 
 would be to put it in the shape of a judgment. 
 Huritinydon v. Attrill, 17 O. 1{. 245,— Street ; 
 18 A. B. 136. 
 
 JUDGMENT DEBTOR. 
 
 iS'ee Examination of Judgment Debtor 
 Division Courts. 
 
 JUDGMENT SUMMONS. 
 
 -See Division Courts. 
 
 JURISDICTION. 
 
 Of High Court of Justice— iSee Hioii 
 Court of Justice— Practice. 
 
 II. 
 III. 
 
 Of JuD(iE in Chambers — See Prauth e. 
 
 Or LocAi, Judge— iSee Practice. 
 
 IV. Of Masters — See Pleading— Practioe. 
 
 V. Of Referees — See P.'jactice. 
 
 VI. Of Maoistratks — See Intoxicating 
 Liquors— Justice of the Peace- 
 Police MAGlSTKATtS. 
 
 VII. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Court 
 of Chancery — iS'ee Court of Chan- 
 cery—Trial. 
 
 VIII. Of other Courts— See Their Several 
 Titles. 
 
 JURY. 
 
 I. Selection of — 6'ee Constitutional 
 Law. 
 
 II. In Criminal Cases — See Criminal 
 Law. 
 
 III. In Civil Cases — See Trial — New 
 
 Trial. 
 
 IV. Special Jury— See Trial. 
 
 
 JUSTICE OP THE PEACE. 
 
 I. 
 
 Appointment — See Constitution a i 
 Law. 
 
 11. 
 
 Qualification, 1097. 
 
 III. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 IV, 
 
 1. Territorial Jurisdiction, 1098. 
 
 2. Disqvalilication Iry Reohon of Intereai, 
 1098. 
 
 3. OuHlinij Jurisdiction by Claim of Rviht 
 
 or Title, 1098. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 1099. 
 
 5. Under Canada Temperance Act and 
 
 Liqvyr JAcevse Act, — See Intoxi- 
 cating Liquors. 
 
 Procedure. 
 
 1. Summons, 1100. ' 
 
 2. Evidence, 1100. 
 
 3. Adjournments, 1102. 
 
 4. Proceeding in A hxence of Defendant— 
 
 (See Intoxicating Liquoks. 
 
 5. AppealSfWi^. 
 
1097 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 1098 
 
 V. Warrant of Arbest, 1103. 
 VI. Informations. 
 
 1. OenercUly, 1104. 
 
 2. Certiorari to bring up Informations 
 
 and Commitments— See Certiorari. 
 
 VII. Convictions. 
 
 1. Oehtrally, 1104. 
 
 2. Offences Against Municipal Bi/-lawfi, 
 
 1105. 
 
 3. For Oaminy—Sce amino. 
 
 4. Under Acts Relating to the Sale of 
 
 Intoxicating Liqnors — See Intoxica- 
 TiNf! Liquors. 
 
 5. Offences Against Pitblic Morals and 
 
 Convenience — See Public Moral.s 
 
 AND CONVKNIENCE. 
 
 '6. Other Offences, 1109. 
 
 7. Penalties and Imprisonment, 1110. 
 
 8. Amendment of, 1113. 
 
 9. Return of, 1113. 
 
 10. Quashing. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1113. 
 <b) Recognizance, 1116. 
 (c) Costs, 1116. 
 
 11. Certiorari to bring up Convictions — 
 
 See CERTI0R.4RI. 
 
 12. Appeals from— See Sessions. 
 VIII. Warrant OF Distress, 1117. 
 
 IX. Warrant OF Commitment, 1117. 
 X. Search Warrant, 1118. 
 XI. Prohibition TO, 1118. 
 XII. Actions and Proceedinos Against. 
 
 1. For Not Returning Convictions, 1118. 
 
 2. For Wrongful Acts or Acting Without 
 
 Jurisdiction, 1119. 
 
 3. Notice of Action, 1122. 
 
 4. Venxie, 1123. 
 
 5. Costs, 1123. 
 
 XIII. Mandamus to Sessions — See Man- 
 damus. 
 
 XIV. Police Magistrates — See 
 Magistrates. 
 
 XV. Sessions — See Sessions. 
 
 Police 
 
 II. Qualification. 
 
 Held, that ilif liegislature of the Province of 
 Ontario had power under No. 14 of sectinii 92 
 B. N. A. Act to pass R. S. O. (1877), c. 71, 
 provid'ng for the qualification, and appointment 
 flf justices of the peace. Regina v. Bennett, 1 
 0. R. 445. — Cameron. 
 
 The court refused to quash a conviction under 
 the Canada Temperance Act, 1878, on the 
 
 f round that one of the convicting magistrates 
 ad not the necessary property qualification, the 
 defendant not having negatived the magistrate's 
 being a person within the terms of the exception 
 
 or proviso of section 7, R. S. 0. (1877), c. 71. 
 Regina v. flodgins, 12 O. R. 367.— Wilson. 
 
 III. Jurisdiction. 
 
 I . Territorial Jurisdiction. 
 
 R. S. (). (1877), c. 72, s. 6, does not limit the 
 territorial jurisdiction of county magistrates, but 
 prohibits theiu from acting " in any case for any 
 town or city " — the limitation is as to the cases, 
 not as to place, and is only partial, i. e., for a 
 city where there is a police magistrate, and 
 then only when not requested by such police 
 magistrate to act, or when he is not aosent 
 through illness or otherwise ; and therefore in 
 any case arising in a county, outside of a city, a 
 county justice liaviug jurisdiction to adjudicate 
 while sitting in the county, may adjudicate 
 while sitting in the city. Legislation on the 
 subject reviewed. Owing to changes in the 
 statute law the decisions in Regina r. Row, 14 
 C. P. .S07, and Hunt v. McArthur, 24 Q. B. 
 254, are no longer applicable. Re<iina v. Riley, 
 12 P. R. 98.— Hose. 
 
 See Regina v. C/ar/c, 15 O. R. 49, p. 1031. 
 
 2. Disqualification by Reason of Interest. 
 
 Two of the four convicting justices were 
 licensed auctioneers for the county, and per- 
 sisted in sitting alter objection taken on account 
 of interest, though the case might have been 
 disposed of by one justice :— Held, that they 
 were dis(iualihed, and in (juashing the convic- 
 tion /)u that ground, the court ordered them to 
 pay the costs. Rei/ina v. Chapman, 1 O. R. 
 582.— Osier. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of having un- 
 lawfully assaulted the complainant, who was 
 the daughter of the convicting justice, where 
 the only evidence was, that the defendant had, 
 in company with one Spragge, gone to the com- 
 plainant's house, at about tlie hour of ten o'clock 
 p.m., and .Spragge had knocked at the door and 
 told the complainant that he desired to intro- 
 duce the defendant, whereupon the complainant 
 replied that they had come to insult her, and 
 that she would have them both arrested in the 
 morning : — Held that it was improper for the 
 justice to sit and try the case, the complain- 
 ant being his daughter ; and that this was a 
 good ground for quashing the conviction. Re- 
 gina V. Langford, 15 0. R. 52. — Rose. 
 
 In prosecutions under the Canada Temper- 
 ance Act. See Regina v. Klemp, 10 O. R. 143, 
 p. 1034 ; Rigina v. Eli, lb. ITi, p. 1037 ; Reginu, 
 V. Brown, 16 O. R. 41, p. 10.34. 
 
 3. Ousting Jurisdiction hy Claim of Ri(iht or Title. 
 
 Where the defendants had been convicted, 
 under 32-33 Vict. c. 22, s. 60 (Doni), oftrespasiito 
 land, and it appeared on the evidence before the 
 magistrate, set out in the report of this case, that 
 there was a dispute between the parties as to the 
 ownership : — Held, that it was a case in which 
 the title to land came in question ; and that the 
 defendants had been improperly convicted, even 
 though the magistrate did not believe that the 
 defendant had a title, it not being within hik 
 
1099 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 
 9fS3 
 
 •■*• 1 
 
 province to decide on the title, but merely on 
 the good faith of the parties alleging it. Jieijina 
 V. Davidson, 45 Q. B. 91.— Gait. 
 
 The defendants were convicted of a trespass 
 under C. S. U. C. c. 105, as amended by 25 Vict, 
 c. 22. They appealed to the sessions, which 
 uifirined the conviction. The conviction was 
 then brought into this court, and a motion was 
 made to quash it on the ground of want of juris- 
 diction in the convicting justice, inasmuch as it 
 appeared by the evidence, and by affidavits filed, 
 that the defendants acted under a fair and 
 reasonable supposition that they had the right 
 to do the acts complained of within the meaning 
 of the above statutes : — Held, that that was a 
 fact to be adjudicated upon by the convicting 
 justice upon tlie evidence, and, therefore, that a 
 certiorari would not lie for want of jurisiliction. 
 Reg'ma v. Malcolm, 2 O. R. 511. — Armour. 
 
 S. owned lot 38 in the 8th concession of N. 
 In 18()() he sold the west half of the lot to com- 
 plainant, reserving a strip of thirty feet along 
 the north line thereof as a road for himself antl 
 successors in title to and from the east half of 
 the lot. S. put up a gate at the west limit of the 
 land where it met the highway, wliich gate had 
 been there from 186() until removed by the 
 defendants. Defendants were successors in title 
 to S., and removed the gate in question as an 
 obstruction, and were convicted for unlawfully 
 and maliciously l)reaking and destroying the 
 gate erected at the west end of said road, as the 
 property of tiie complainant : — Held, that de- 
 fendants were acting iu good faith in claiming 
 the right to remove the gate, and under fair and 
 reasonable supposition of right, an<l the con- 
 viction was therefore quashed : — Held, also, that 
 the (juestion of a fair and reasonable supposition 
 of right to do the act compldned of was a fact 
 to lie determined by the justice, and his decision 
 upon a matter of fact would not be reviewed, 
 but that this rule did not apply where, as here, 
 all the facts shewed that the matter or charge 
 itself was one in which such reasonable sup- 
 position existed; that is, where tiie case and 
 the evidence were all one way and in favour of 
 the defendant. Reginar, Malcolm, 2 O. H. 511, 
 distinguished. Qusere, whether a gate across a 
 right of way is an obstruction in law. Held 
 also, that the proviso in 32-33 Vict. c. 22, s. 60 
 (Dom . ), is to be read as applicable to section 29 and 
 to the whole Act. Re<iina v. McDonald, 12 O. 
 R. 381.— Wilson. 
 
 4. Other Cases. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of a common 
 assault, upon the complaint of the prosecutor, 
 who verbally requested the magistrate to pro- 
 ceed summarily : — Held, that the request to 
 proceed summarily need not be in writing. 
 Jieijina v. Smith, 46 Q. R. 442.— Osier. 
 
 As to jurisdiction of magistrates to connct for 
 gambling under 27 Geo. III. c. 1. See Reqinay. 
 Matheson, 4 0. R. 559, p. 832. 
 
 Justices of the peace out of session have no 
 jurisdiction to try misdemeanours in a summary 
 manner, except on special statutory authority ; 
 and it was :— Held, therefore, that a conviction 
 by two J. P.'s, under 46 Vict. c. 15 (Dom.), for 
 assisting in the distilling of spirits contrary to 
 
 uoo 
 
 Regina v. Carter, 
 
 that Act, must!be quashed. 
 5 0. R. 651.— Rose. 
 
 The calling of a magistrate sitting on a case 
 as a witness does not of itself disqualify him 
 from further acting in the case. Reijina v. 
 Sproule, 14 O. R. 375.— C. P. D. 
 
 Jurisdiction of justices of the peace in the 
 absence of the police magistrate. Hee Reginn v. 
 Gordon, 16 0. R. 64 ; Regina v. Lynch, 19 0. K 
 664. 
 
 The word "person" in R. S. C. c. 1, s. 7, 
 8ub-8. 21, includes any corporation "to whom 
 the context can apply according to the law of 
 that part of Canada to which such context ex- 
 tends," but as justices of the peace have not 
 now and never had jurisdiction by the criminal 
 procedure to hear charges of a criminal nature 
 preferred against corporations, such word does 
 not include corporations in cases where a justice 
 of the peace is attempting to exercise such a jur- 
 isdiction. Re Chapman and the City of London 
 and Re Chapman and the Water Commissioners 
 of the City of London, 19 0. R. 33.— Robertson. 
 
 A justice of the peace cannot compel a (!or- 
 poration to appear before him, nor can he bind 
 them over to appear and answer to an indict- 
 ment ; and he has no jurisdiction to bind over 
 the prosecutor or person who intends to present 
 an indictment against them. lb. 
 
 A writ of prohibition may be issued to a justice 
 of the peace to prohil)it him from exercising a 
 jurisdiction which he does not possess. III. 
 
 IV. Procedukk. 
 
 I. S'nnimons. 
 
 The defendant, being present in court on a 
 charge which was disposed of, was, wit'ioutany 
 summons having been issued, charged with 
 another offence, namely, of selling liquor with- 
 out a license. The information was read over 
 to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, .ind 
 evidence for the prosecution having been given, 
 he thereupon asked for and obtained an enlarge- 
 ment till the next day, when, on his not 
 appearing, he was convicted in his absence, and 
 fined $50 and costs, and in default of payment 
 forthwith, without any distress having been 
 directed, imprisonment was awarded :— Held, 
 that under the circumstances the issuing nf a 
 summons was waived, Regina v. Clarh . 19 
 0. R. fiOl.— MacMahon. 
 
 Waiver of summons by appearance and de- 
 fence. >See Regina v. Bennett, 3 O. R. 45, p. 
 1036; Regina V. Roe, 16 O. R. 1, p. 1104. 
 
 2. Evidence. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. — Remarks upon the general 
 right of a person charged before a magistrate 
 with an indictable offence to call witnesses for 
 his defence, and of a person whose extradition 
 is demanded to shew by evidence that what ho 
 is charged with is not an extradition crime, tn 
 Re Phipps, 8 A. R. 77. 
 
 Under .'J2-.33 Vict. c. 2d, s. 25 (Dom.), as amen- 
 ded by 49 Vict. c. 51, s. 1 (Dom.), defen- 
 dant was charged by his wife, before a niagis- 
 
 lie fori 
 object 
 0. R. 
 
 The 
 (if thi 
 Act, 
 amend 
 structi 
 duty, 
 by (list 
 award 
 before 
 ii»n 
 fendar 
 on the 
 which 
 affirnu 
 tile CO 
 ceitioi 
 excess 
 such 
 as th( 
 j'"'isd 
 •lant's 
 such 
 could 
 
1101 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 1102 
 
 trate, with refiisiug to provide necessary cloth- 
 ing and lodgini; for herself and children. At 
 the close of thf; case for the prosecution, defen- 
 dant was tendered as a witness on his own be- 
 lialf. The magistrate refused to hoar his evi- 
 dence not because he was the defendant, but be- 
 cause he did not wish to licar evidence for the 
 defence ; and subsequently without further evi- 
 dence committed hfm for trial :^Held, that tlie 
 defendant's evidence shouhl have been taken for 
 the defence; that a magistrate is bound to accept 
 snch evidence in cases of tiiis kind, and give it 
 sucli weight as he thinks proper, and tiiat the 
 exercise of his discretion to the contrary is open 
 to review : — Held, also, that the amended sec- 
 tion of the Act is intended to enlarge the powers 
 and duties of magistrates in cases of this nature, 
 and that the word "))rosecution" therein in- 
 cludes the proceedings before magistrates as well 
 as before a higher court. Ileijiua w Miner, 11 
 V. It. 477.— Wilson. 
 
 Held, that a defendant is not entitled to re- 
 move proceedings by certiorari to a Sui)ei'ior 
 Court from a police magistrate or a justice of tiie 
 peace after conviction, or at any time, for the 
 purpose of moving for a new trial for the rejec- 
 tion of evidence, or because the conviction is 
 against evidence, the conviction not being before 
 the court and no motion made to quasli it. lie- 
 tjiua V. Rkhnrdton, 8 0. R. 6.51. — (J. B. U. 
 
 Held, that even had the conviction in this 
 case lieen moved to be (piashed, and an order 
 nisi applied for upon the m.'igistrate and pro- 
 secutor for a mandamus to the former to hear 
 further evidence, which he had refu.sed. both 
 motions would have been discharged, the magis- 
 trate appearing to have acted to the best of his 
 judgment and not wrongfully, and liis decision 
 as to the further evidence involving a matter of 
 discretion with which the court would not in- 
 terfere. Ih. 
 
 Where a defendant submits to examination 
 l)efore a magistrate it is too late afterwards to 
 object to its propriety. liet/ina v. Rnmxny, 11 
 0. R. 210.— Gait. 
 
 Compelling accused to testify. See Nei/iiia v. 
 Larkie, 7 O. R. 4.31, p. 1116 ; lieqina v. Mt.^irol, 
 II (». K. 659, p. 1106. 
 
 Tlie defendant was convicted by two justices 
 of the peice under the Weights and Measures 
 Act, 42 Vict. c. 16, s. 14, sub-s. 2 (Dom.), as 
 amended by 47 Vict, c, .36, a. 7 (I'om. ), of ob- 
 structing an inspector in the 4lischarge <»f his 
 duty, and was fined .flOO ami costs, to be levied 
 by ilistress, impriscmment for three montiis being 
 awarded in default of distress. At the hearing 
 before the justices the clefenilant tendered his 
 own evidence, which was excluded. The de- 
 fenibint appealed to the Quarter Sessions, and 
 on the appeal again tandered his own evidence, 
 which was again excluded, and the conviction 
 affirmed. On motion for certiorari: — Held, that 
 the conviction having been affirmed in appeal 
 certiorari was taken away except for want or 
 excess of jurisdiction, and that there was no 
 such want or excess of jurisdiction, inasmuch 
 as the justices and the Quarter Sessions hud 
 j'"'isdiction to determine whether the defcn- 
 ilant's evidence was admissible or not, and that 
 such determination, even if erroneous in law, 
 could not be reviewed by certiorari, Per Ar- 
 
 mour, J. That even if the determination on 
 this point could be revieved the justices were 
 right in excluding the evidence of the defendant, 
 inasmucii as the offence charged was a crime. 
 lieijina v. Dunning, 14 O. K. 52. — Q. B, D. 
 
 On the trial of an offence under a by-law the 
 magistrate cannot refuse to receive tlie <lefen- 
 dan' .1 evidence. Regiiiaw Oraut, ISO. R. 169.-- 
 C. P. D. But see lieijina v. IlnH, 20 O. R. 61 1. 
 
 See Reifmn v. Niwn, 10 P. R. .395, p. IIOS; 
 Jiei/inav. MeNicot, 11 O. R. 659, p. 1106; Ri - 
 i/ina v. Spronle, 14 0. R. .375, p. 1042; Reijina 
 V. Dowslay, 19 O. R. 622, p. 1109. 
 
 3. Adjournments. 
 
 The magistrate, on the 12th November, ad- 
 journed the case, by consent, for one week, for 
 judgment, and against the protest of defendant's 
 counsel, changed the day, and gave judgment on 
 the 18th ; — Held, that the conviction must be 
 quashed. Reijiiia v. JIall, 8 O. R. 407. — Rose. 
 
 Where the magistrate adjourned the hearing 
 of a case under the (J. T. Act, 1878, for more 
 than a week, contrary to the .32 33 Vict. c. 31, 
 s. 46 (Dom.), the conviction was quashed, but 
 without costs :— Semble, the consent of the de- 
 fendant to the adjournment, if proved, would 
 not have given jurisdiction. Reginci v. I'Vench — 
 Reijina v. Rohertsou, 13 O. R. 80. Followed by 
 O Connor J. in liegina v. Hunter, Ih., 82w. 
 
 Held, that where i.. . djournment of the pro- 
 ceedings before the magistrate for more than 
 one week had been made at the request of the 
 defendant, who afterwards attemled on the re- 
 sumed proceedings, taking his chances of secur- 
 ing a dismissal of the prosecution, and urging 
 that on the evidence it ought to be dismissed, 
 defendant had estopped himself from objecting 
 afterwards that such subsequent proceedings on 
 the prosecution were on this ground illegal : — 
 Semble, that the provisions of section 46 of 32- 
 33 Vict. c. 31 (Dom.), that no such adjourn- 
 ment shall be "for more than one week" are 
 directory merely. Regina v. French and Ue- 
 gina ('. Robertson, 13 O. R. 80, <listinguished 
 and not followed. Regina v. Heffernan, 13 O. 
 R. 616.— Robertson. 
 
 .32-.33 Vict. c. 31, s. 46 (Dom.), providjs that 
 the hearing may be adjourned to a certain time 
 and place, but no such ailjournment shall be for 
 more than a week : — Held, that the v.eek must 
 be computed as seven days exclusive of the day 
 of adjournment. Regina v. Coltinn—Rei/ina v. 
 Goiilain, 14 O. R. 613.— O'Connor. 
 
 Upon an information for an offence against the 
 Canada Temperance Act a police magistrate 
 heard all the evidence within the proper time, 
 and at the close of the evidence announced in 
 presence of the parties that judgment would be 
 reserved for two weeks from that day — at which 
 appointed time juds/ment was duly pronounced: — 
 Held, that 32 ami 33 Vict. c. 31, s. 46 (Dom.), 
 which is to be read into the Canada Temperance 
 Act by virtue of section 107, applies only to an 
 ailjournment of the hearing or the further hear- 
 ing of the information or complaint, which is 
 quite a distinct thing from the adjudication or 
 determination of the charge after the hearing is 
 coni])leted. Justices are not obliged to fix the 
 
 m 
 
 
 
9P 
 
 1103 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 UM 
 
 
 
 e<» 
 
 fine or punishment at the instant of conviction, 
 but may take time eitlier for the purpose of in- 
 forming themselves as to the legal penalty or the 
 amount proper to be imposed, or taking advice 
 as to the law applicable to the case. Notwith- 
 standing the adjournment after the close of the 
 hearing for fourteen days in order to consider 
 and (rive judgment, the police magistrate had 
 jurisdiction, and the conduct of the proceedinas 
 was not even irrecular. Regina r. French, l.S 
 <). R. 80, distinguished. H<'<ima v. Hcdl, 12 P. 
 R. 142.— Boyd. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Where at tlie conclusion of the evidence, on a 
 charge of selling liquor contrary to the C. T. 
 Act, the magistrate reserves his judement, 
 for the purpose of reaching a decision or of con- 
 siderinc the amount of the penalty, he is not 
 restricted to the one week mentioned in sec- 
 tion 48 of R. S. 0. c. 178. Reginar. Hall, 12 
 P. R. \A1, followed. Eegina v. Alexander, 17 
 O. R. 458.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Refima v. EH, 10 O. R. 727, p. 1037 ; Re(iina 
 V. Kemmly. 17 O. R. 1{)9, p. 1038; Reaina v. 
 Rtad, 17 0. R. 185. 
 
 5. Apptah, 
 
 Held, that a prosecutor of a complaint cannot 
 appeal from the order of a magistrate dismissing 
 the complaint : as by R. S. 0. (1877), c. 74, s. 4, 
 the practice of appealing in such a case is assimi- 
 lated to that under Dom. '*tat. 33 Vict. c. 47, 
 which confines thp right of api eal to the defen- 
 dant. A pi^)hibition w.is therefo -e ordered, but 
 without costs, as the objection to the jurisdic- 
 tion ha<l not been taken in the court 'oelow. In 
 re Murphy niid Cornell. 8 P. R. 420.— Osier. 
 See 51 Vict. c. 45 s. 7 (Doni.) 
 
 See Regina v. Green, 12 P. R. 373, p. 219. 
 
 V. \Varr.\nt of Akkest. 
 
 The warrant was issued in the united coim- 
 ties ot Northumberland and Durham, and was 
 endorsed by a magistrate in the county of Peter- 
 borough, "This is to certify that I have endorsed 
 this warrant, to be executed in the county of 
 Peterborough," hut there was no proof of the 
 hj,nd writing of the justice who issued the war- 
 rant or recital of such proof as required by 32- 
 .33 Vict. c. .SO, s. 23 (Dom.), sch. K:— Held, 
 that the warrant was defective, and the arrest 
 illegal, for which the defendant w.is liable in 
 trespass. Reid v. Maijbee, 31 C. P. 384.— C. 
 
 P. a 
 
 The prisoner was arrested in Toronto, upon 
 information contained in a telegram from Eng- 
 land, charging him with having committed a 
 felony in that country, and stating that a war- 
 rant had been issued there for his arrest : — Held, 
 that a person cannot, under the Imperial Act, 6 
 & 7 Vict. c. 34, legally be arrested or detained 
 here for an oflFence committed out of Canada, 
 unless up.tn a warrant issued where the offence 
 was committed, and endorsed by a judge of a 
 superior court in this country. Such warrant 
 must disclose a felony according to the law of 
 this country, and Semble, that the expression 
 "felony, to wit, larceny," is insufficient. The 
 
 prisoner was therefore discharged. Regina v, 
 McHolme, 8 P. R. 452. —Cameron. 
 
 See Regim v. Bernard, 4 O. R. 603, p. 1114. 
 
 VI. Informations. 
 
 1. Generalli/. 
 
 Held, that the information in this case was 
 not objectionable for not setting out the false 
 p /etences of which the defendant was convicted, 
 as it was in the form in whicli an indictment 
 might have been framed : and moreover, the 
 ohjection was met by tlie 32-33 Vict. c. .32. s. 1 1 
 fDom.), and by .S2-.33 Vict. c. 31, s. G7 (Dom.). 
 Reglna v. Riehardmn, 8 O R. 651.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The objection tliat defendant has pleaded 
 guilty to a defective information is, under .32-33 
 Vict. c. 31, s. 5 (i')om.), not admissil)le. Reijina 
 I V. McCarthy, 11 O. R. 057.— Gait. 
 
 Qnwre, whether the defendant could object to 
 j the regularity of the information and summons, 
 ' he having .nppeared in obedience to the sum- 
 1 nions, and ple.aded not guilty. Rei/ina v. Roe, 
 I 16 O. R. l.-Q. B. I). 
 
 I See Regiva v. Hall, 12 P. 11. 142, p. 1035. 
 
 VII. Convictions. 
 1. Generally. 
 
 A conviction must be under seal. In re Ri/n 
 and Plown, 46 Q. B. 206.— Osier. Bond v. Con- 
 mee, 15 O. R. 716 ; 16 A. R. 398. 
 
 Held that the fact that the memorandum of 
 conviction differed from the conviction as re- 
 turned, in not providing for imprisonment in 
 default of payment, did not invalidate the con- 
 viction, for it is sufficient if the penalty har 
 been fixed at any time before the conviction is 
 formally drawn up. Reii'ma v. Smith, 4() Q. B. 
 442.— Osier. 
 
 Held, the defendant having had the certiorari 
 directed to the magistrate who had convicted, 
 was estopped from objecting that the conviction 
 was in reality made by tiiree, as appeared from 
 the memorandum of conviction which was signed 
 by them. lb. 
 
 The defendant was convicted before a magis- 
 trate, for that he " did in or about the month 
 of June, 1880, on various occasions," commit the 
 offence charged in tlie information : and a fine 
 was inflicted " for his said offence : " — Held, 
 that the conviction was l)ad, under 32-33 Vict, 
 c. 21, s. 25 (Dom.), as shewing the conimisaion 
 of more than one offence. Reifina v. Cleiman, 
 8 P. R. 418.— Wilson. 
 
 An allegation in a conviction that the offence 
 was committed between the 3((tli .June and 31st 
 July was held a sufficiently certain statement of 
 the time. Regina v. iVoHace, 4 O. R. 127.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Conviction held bad, as there liad been no 
 offence committed against the Act 32-.33 Vict. 
 c. 21, 8. 110 (Dom.), under which the defendant 
 had been convicted , and also in not shewing the 
 time and place of the commission of the offence. 
 Reghta v. Young, 6 O. R. 400.— Boyd. 
 
1105 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 UM 
 
 A conviction under R. S.O. (1877), c. 181, for 
 telling liquor without a license, purporting to be 
 made by three magistrates, but 8igne<l liy two 
 only, was returned with a certiorari : — Held, if 
 an objection at all, a ground for sending Imck 
 the writ, that the third magistrate might sign 
 the conviction, but not a ground for quashing it. 
 Reginav. Young, 7 0. R. 88.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the conviction was open to the 
 objection that it did not correspond to tlie min- 
 ute of the actual adjudication, and, therefore, 
 could not bo supi>orted for want of jurisdiction 
 in the magistrate to make it. Ktii'ina v. liradu, 
 12 0. H. 358. -Wilson. 
 
 Upon a motion on tlie return of ii halicas cor- 
 pus to discharge the prisoner, who was convicted 
 of keeping a house of ill-fame : — Held, that tlie 
 conviction was bad on its face for uncertainty 
 in not naming a place wliere the oflFence was 
 eomniitted : — Hehl, also, that it was defective 
 because it di<l not contain an adjudication of 
 forfeiture of the fine imposed. Rki/ina v. Cijr, 
 12 P. R. 24.— O'Connor. 
 
 Held that the Summary Convictions' Act ap- 
 plied to cure a defect in the form "f a conviction 
 under the Lotteries, Bettinpr and Pool iSelling 
 Act. Rexjina v. Freeman, 18 O. R. 524.— C. P. D. 
 
 2. Offem-ea Anainut Municijial lhj-la\i-n. 
 
 A by-law of a town provided that no one 
 should use any wagcon.etc, upon any of the 
 streets of the town for drawing bricks, stones. 
 «tc., when the weight of the load sliould exceed 
 1,1500 pounds, unless the tires of the wlieels 
 were of a specified width, but tlie by-law was 
 not to apply to any waggon conveying lumber 
 or goods from the mill or manufactory thereof 
 into the town if distant more than two miles 
 from the town limits, nor to any pcr.son passing 
 through the town with vehicles loadcil with the 
 said articles ; - Held, bad, as discriminating 
 against residents of the town in favour of 
 others; — Held, also, that a conviction under 
 such by-law was bad for not shewing that de- 
 fendant was not a jtersoii passing through the 
 town, and for imposing imprisonment with liard 
 labour. Retina v. Pipe, 1 O. R. 43.— Osier. 
 See as to last holding. Rn/ina v. f/oili/e, 7 A. 
 R. 246, p. 311. 
 
 The by-law directed imprisonment onlj' in 
 default of distress. Quiere. Per Cameron, .1., 
 whether the .32-33 Vict. o. 31, s. 39, would ap- 
 ply so as to enable the justice to commit under 
 it in the first instance upon proper evidence. 
 McLellan v. McKinnon, 1 O. R. 219. 
 
 The defendant, who was a traveller for a tea 
 dealer, carried samples with him from bouse to 
 house, and took orders for tea, which orders he 
 forwarded to his employer, who sent the tea to 
 him. The defendant then got the tea which 
 hod been forwarded in packages, and delivered 
 it to his customers, receiving the price on 
 delivery. On this evidence .le was convicted 
 of selling tea as a peillar without a license, con- 
 trary to a by-law which prohibited " hawkers 
 or petty chapmen and other persons carrying on 
 petty trades," from selling goods in the manner 
 pointed out by the Consolidated Municipal Act, 
 1883, s. 495 (3):— Held, that the defendant was 
 
 70 
 
 not a " hawker," nor was the word pedlar used 
 in the Act, and if he was a " petty chapman or 
 person carrying on a petty trade," the convic- 
 tion could not be sn|i|inrted, for he was "not 
 carrying goods for sale." h'criiiia v. Coiltts, 5 O. 
 H. 644.— Rose. 
 
 " The Consolidated Municipal Act, 1883," (4« 
 Vict. c. 18), s. 495, sub-s. S, empowered the 
 councilofanj' county to pass by-laws for licensing, 
 etc., hawkers, etc., going frcmi place to place, etc., 
 with any goods, wares, or merchandise for sale, 
 and by 48 Vict. c. 40, s. I (Ont.), the word 
 " hawkers " shall include all persons who, being 
 agents for non-residents of the county, sell or 
 offer for sale tea, dry goo Is, or jewelry, or carry 
 and expose samples of any snch goods to be after- 
 wards deliveied, etc. : — Held, that electrotype 
 ware was not jewelry wilhin the above enact- 
 ment, aiul a conviction for selling this without 
 license was therefore bad, and was quashed, 
 though tlie fine imposed had been paid: — Held, 
 also, that the words " other goods, wares, and 
 merchandise," in the conviction, were too gen- 
 eral. Rei/ina v. Ghayicr, 11 O. R. 217.— Wilson. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of selling and 
 delivering teas as the agent of P. W., a non- 
 resident of the county, in violation of a by-law 
 of the county of Bruce, the third section of 
 which was a copy of section 1 of 48 Vict. c. 4(( 
 (Ont.). The defendant, against the protest of 
 his counsel, was called as a witness, and swore 
 that he bouglit the tea in (luestion from one W. 
 of the city of Loudon, and tliat he did not sell 
 as the hitter's agent, but on his own account ; 
 that he had formerly sold tea on commission for 
 W. but purchased that in <iue.stion for the 
 purpose of evading the by-law. The conviction 
 alleged that defendant was tlie agent of P. W. , 
 but did not state that he had not the necessary 
 license to entitle him to do the act complained 
 of: —Held, 1. That defendant being, under the 
 evidence, an independent trader, and not an 
 agent, did not come within the Consolidated 
 Municipal Act, 1883, s. 495, snb-s. 3, nor within 
 48 Vict. c. 40 (Ont). 2. That the conviction was 
 defective in not stating that P. W. , was non- 
 resident within the county, .ind that the 
 expression ' ' of the city of London " was not 
 sufficient. 9. That defendant had been im- 
 properlj' compelled to give evidence against 
 himself. 4. That the having a license is a 
 matter of defence, and not of proof by the 
 prosecution. 5. That the intention to evade 
 the liy-law was immaterial so long as the agency 
 did not in fact exist. Reqina v. McNicol, 11 O. 
 U. 659.— Wilson. 
 
 The by-law under which the defendant was 
 convicted, provided that " no transient trader 
 or other person occupying a place of business in 
 the town of M., for a temporary period less 
 than one year, and whose name has not been 
 duly entered on the assessment roll for the 
 cnrrent year, shall * * oflfer goods, wares, and 
 merchandise for sale * * within the limits of 
 the town of M. , without, or until he shall have 
 first duly obtained a license for that purpose." 
 The conviction was for that the defendant, 
 being a transient trader, occupying a place of 
 business in the town of M., did sell certain 
 Koods, wares, and merchandise, contrary to the 
 by-law ; — Held, that the want of an allegation 
 in the conviction that the defendant was a 
 
U07 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 IIOS 
 
 hm 
 
 
 SRif 
 
 SCI 
 
 transient trader whose name had not 1)een duly 
 entered on the assessment roll for the current 
 year, was fatal. Itegina v. Catun, 160. R. 11. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant, a wholesale and retail dtialc.r 
 in teas in the county of W., where ho resided, 
 went to the county of H., .and sold teas by 
 sample to privivte persons there, t.Tkint; their 
 orders therefor, which were forwarded by him 
 to connty of VV., and the packaijes of teas snb- 
 seqnently delivered. All the packages were 
 sent in one p;ircel to H. county, and there dis- 
 tributed. The defendant was convicted under 
 a by-law passtd under statutes which are now 
 
 B. S. O. (1887) c. 184, s. 49.5, snb-s. 3, (.-v) 
 and (b), for c.arryint; on a petty tnide without 
 the necessary license therefor : —Held, tliat the 
 conviction could not be sustained, and must be 
 quashed. Ifeninav. ffenderKOii, IH O. R. 144. — 
 
 C. P. D. 
 
 A by-law required " all hay, etc., sold at the 
 market or elsewhere in the town of Cornwall, 
 which is required to be weighed by the vendor 
 or purchaser, to be weighed with public weigh- 
 scales," etc. A conviction under this by-law 
 was, that defendant in contravention of said by- 
 law brought hay into said town, and had some 
 w^hed on scales other than the public scales : 
 —Held, that the conviction was bad in not stat- 
 ing that the hay was sold in the market or else- 
 where in said town, .and must be ({uashcd ; and 
 with costs to be paid by complainant, the weigh- 
 master, who had instituted the prosecution for 
 his own benefit, after warning, instead of bring- 
 ing an action in the Division Court. Renlna v. 
 Hollister, 8 O. R. 750.— Rose. 
 
 A conviction for violating a by-law was 
 quashed, the by-law having been passed on the 
 27th March, to go into force the ,3rd April fol- 
 lowing, in anticip.ation of an Act, 45 Vict, c, 24 
 (Ont.), passed the lOth March, to go into opera- 
 tion the 2nd April then next ensuing. Sub section 
 2 of section 8 of the Act subjects " such vendors 
 of articles in respect of which a market fee may Ix; 
 now imposed as shall voluntarily use the market 
 place for the purpose of selling such articles," to 
 market fees, whereas the twelfth section of the 
 by-law in question was, " any person or persons 
 who shall voluntarily come upon the said market- 
 place, etc., for the purpose of selling," etc. : — 
 Held, that " Vendors who shall voluntarily use 
 the market-place for the purpose of selHng" 
 was not identical with or equivalent to " any 
 person or persons who shall voluntarily come 
 upon the said market-place for the purpose of 
 selling;" nor was the expression "use the 
 market place for the purpose of selling" the 
 same as " come upon the market-place for tlie 
 purpose of selling ; " and that the conviction 
 was bad on this ground also, lier/iva v. Need, 
 11 0. R. 242. -O'Connor. 
 
 Held, that the conviction was bad, as differ- 
 ring from both statute and by-law, being for 
 refusing to pay the fees on eight quarters of 
 beef "exposed for sale," whereas, the 13th sec- 
 tion of the by-law applied only to cases of 
 butcher's meat exposed for sale. lb. 
 
 47 Vict. c. 32, 8. 13, sub-s. 12 (Ont.), enacts 
 that by-laws may be passed " for regulating or 
 preventing the ringing of bells, blowing of 
 
 horns, shouting and other unusual noises, or 
 noises calculated to disturb the inhabitants," 
 etc. Section 2 of by-law No. 179 of the city of 
 London, passed under that Act, is as follows : 
 " No person shall, iu any of the streets or in 
 the market-place of the city of London, blow 
 any horn, ring any bell, beat any drum, play 
 any Hute, pipe, or other musical instrument, op 
 shout or make, or assist in making, any unusiml 
 noise, or noise calculated to disturb the inhabi- 
 tants of the said city." " Provided always that 
 nothing herein contained shall prevent the play- 
 ing of musical instruments by any military band 
 of Her Majesty's regular army, or any brancli 
 thereof, or of any militia corps lawfully org,in- 
 ized under the laws of Canada." 'I'he prisoner 
 was convicted under the by-law of beating a 
 drum on a public street in the city of London ; 
 —Held that the bylaw so far as it sought to 
 prohibit the beating of drams simply, without 
 
 vidence of the noise being unusual, or calcu. 
 
 ited to disturb was ultra vires, and invalid, 
 *nd tliat the refusal to receive evidence on the 
 prisoner's behalf was a valid ground for her dis- 
 charge :— Held, also, that the above proviso 
 was not an exception that must be negatived in 
 either the commitment or conviction. Jieyiiin v, 
 Xitiw, 10 P. R. .395.— Rose. 
 
 A conviction was, that the defendant did, on 
 the 16th May, 188(!, create a disturbance on the 
 public streets of the village of L., by beating a 
 drum, etc. , contrary to a certain by-law of the 
 village. The information was in like terms ex- 
 cept that the act was laid as done on Sunday. 
 The by-law was passed under 47 Vict. c. ,32, s. 
 13 (Ont.), whereby power was given to pass by- 
 laws (sub-section 12), "for regulating or pre- 
 venting the ringing of bells, blowing of horns, 
 shouting, and other niutsual noise or noises, cal- 
 culated to disturb the inhabitants." The by- 
 law was, "the firing of guns, blowing of horns, 
 beating of drums, and other unusual or tumul- 
 turns noisP" in the public streets of L. , on the 
 8al - ' L.-,y. !'te stricliy prohibited." The 
 i:: . -1, ■.:'•;^r.^e was that given by a person who 
 U' ■ saw'' the defendant "playing the 
 
 I d' ;n. ■• ;tiP streets of L." on the day in ques- 
 tioi! fi.hl, that the conviction was bad in not 
 ailoi, ..; '.hii.t the be.atiiig of the drum was with- 
 out any just or lawful excuse :— Semble, that it 
 could not be inferred from the evidence that the 
 drum made any unusual noise, as the witness 
 did not say he heard any noise, bnt oidy that 
 he saw defendant beating a drum :- -Semble, 
 also, that the words used in the statute that the 
 noise made must be " calculated to disturb the 
 inhabitants," and in the conviction that the 
 defendant "did create a disturbance by * * 
 the beating a drum," were not equivalent 
 terms. /leniiia v. Martin, 12 O. R. 800.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Section 510 of the Municipal Act, 188!1, au- 
 thorizes the licensing of owners of livery stables 
 and of horses, etc., for hire. A by-law passed 
 thereunder required every person owning or 
 keeping a livery stable or letting out horses, 
 etc., for hire to pay a license fee. Defendant 
 was convicted under this by-law, for that "he 
 did keep horses, etc., for hire" without having 
 paid the license fee : -Held, that the conviction 
 was in conformity with both statute and by-law. 
 ! l{e,jiiia v. Swdlu'i'll, 12 O. R. 391.— Wilson. 
 
uos 
 
 1109 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 1110 
 
 i\ noises, or 
 nhabitanta," 
 f the city of 
 as follows; 
 treots or in 
 oiidon, blow 
 drum, play 
 struinent, or 
 any unusiul 
 ) the inhabi- 
 l always that 
 ent tlie play- 
 nilitaryband 
 any branch 
 i^fuUy organ- 
 rhe prisoner 
 of beating a 
 ■ of London : 
 it sought to 
 ply, without 
 al, or calcii- 
 and invalid, 
 lence on the 
 d for her dis- 
 bove proviso 
 negatived in 
 n. Jtet/inn v. 
 
 ndant did, on 
 rbance on tlie 
 
 by beating a 
 by-law of the 
 like terms ex- 
 ! on Sunday. 
 Vict. c. 32, 8. 
 en to pass by- 
 ating or pre- 
 ing of horns, 
 or noises, cal- 
 ts." The by- 
 ang of horns, 
 aal or tumul- 
 of L. , on the 
 ibited." The 
 a person who 
 "playing the 
 e day in ques- 
 Koa bad in not 
 •um was with- 
 lemble, that it 
 dence that the 
 18 the witness 
 but only that 
 uin :--Seml)le, 
 tatute that the 
 to disturb the 
 tion that the 
 nee by * * 
 lot e(iuivalent 
 
 O. K. 800.- 
 
 Act, 1883, an- 
 f livery stables 
 
 by-law passed 
 son owning or 
 ing out horses, 
 ie. Defendant 
 ,', for that " he 
 without having 
 ; the conviction 
 ite and by-law. 
 .—Wilson. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of a breach of a 
 by-law passed under section 436 of R. S. O. 
 (1887), c. 184, which provided that no person 
 shoold, after the passing thereof, without a 
 license therefor, " keep or use for hire any 
 carriage, truck, cart," etc. The defendant was 
 the owner of waggons and horses which, at the 
 date complained of, were employed in hauling 
 coal and gas pipes for a gas company, for whicli 
 defendant was paid by the hour or day. The 
 defendant also engaged carts and horses which 
 he hired out to haul earth, and which were so 
 king used on the day complained of :— Held, 
 that the defendant came within the terms of the 
 by-law, and was therefore properly convicted. 
 Reijim v. Boyd, 18 0. R. 485.-0. l\ D. 
 
 A city by-law prohibited any person licensed 
 thereunder soliciting any person to take or use 
 his express waggon, or employing any runner or 
 other person to assist or act in consort with him 
 in soliciting any passenger or baggage at any of 
 the "stands, railroad stations, steamboat land- 
 ings, or elsewhere in the said city," but persons 
 wishing to use or engage any such express wag- 
 gon or other vehicle should be left to choose 
 without any interference or solicitation. An 
 employee of defendants with the consent of a 
 railway company and under instructions from 
 his employer boarded an arriving i)assenger train 
 lit one of the outlying city stations on its way to 
 the Union station, and went througii the cars 
 calling out " baggage transferred to all parts of 
 the city," and having in his hands a number of 
 the transfer company's checks. No baggage was 
 taken at the time : — Held, that there was no 
 breach of the by-law but merely the carrying 
 out of the defendants' agreement with the com- 
 pany ; and fm-ther, that tlie train did not come 
 within any of the places mentioned in the by- 
 law. Per Rose, J. — If the by-law in terms had 
 covered this case it would have been ultr.i vires. 
 %H)av. Verral, 18 O. R. 117. -C. P. 1). 
 
 On the trial of a charge of being a transient 
 trader without a license contrary to a municipal 
 by-law, no copy thereof certified by the clerk to 
 lie a true copy, and under the corporate seal, as 
 required by section 289 of R. S. O. (1887) c. 184, 
 was given in evidence. A by-law stated by the 
 solicitor for the complainant to be the original 
 by-law, was, however, read to the defendant in 
 court: — Held, that the requirements of section 
 289 not having been complied with, the convic- 
 tion was invalid, and must be quashed. Regina 
 V. bowday, 19 O. R. 622.— Gait. 
 
 See Rtijiim v. Cuthbert, 45 Q. B. 19, p. 1114 ; 
 Regina v. Washint/ton, 46 Q. R 221, p. 1110; 
 ifcLennaH v. McKinmn, 1 O. R. 219, p. 1111 ; 
 Rtg'ma v. Chapman, 1 O. R. 582 ; Rerjiiia v. 
 Oravelle, 10 0. R. 735, p. 1111 ; Rigina v. Flory, 
 17 0. I!. 175, p. 1112; /fe<7ma v. G'mnt, 18 O. R. 
 169, p. 1112. 
 
 6. Other Offencfs. 
 
 The defendants were convicted for unlawfully 
 SMaulting F. V. " by standing in front of the 
 horses and carriage driven by the said V. , in a 
 hostile manner, and thereby forcibly detaining 
 him, the said V., in the public highway against 
 his will": — Held, that the conviction was bad 
 in stating the detention as a conclusion and not 
 M part of the charge, which, as shewn by the 
 
 conviction, was merely standing n front of the 
 horses, and did not amount to an assault. AV- 
 <jina V. McEUigott, 3 O. R. 535.— Wilson. 
 
 On motion to discharge a prisoner on habea.s 
 corpus on conviction before a police magistrate, 
 the conviction charged that the prisoner did 
 "unlawfully and maliciou.sly cut and wound one 
 Mary Kelly, with intent then and there to do 
 her grievous bodily harm" :--Huld, that the ad- 
 dition of the words "witli intent to do grievous 
 bodily harm," did not vitiate the conviction, 
 and that the prisoner might be lawfully con- 
 victed of the statutory misdemeanour of malici- 
 ous wounding: -Held, also, that imprisonment 
 at hard labour for a year was properly awarded 
 under 38 Vict. c. 47 (Dom.). Ueqinu v. lioiirhi i\ 
 8 P. R. 20.— Hagarty. 
 
 The owner of a .sheep killed or injured by a 
 dog can, under R, S. O. (1887;, c. 214, s, 15, re- 
 cover the damage occasioneii thereby without 
 proving that the dog had a propensity to kill or 
 injure sheep ; and the Act applies to a case where 
 the dog has been set upon the sheep. It did not 
 appear upon the face of the conviction in ques- 
 tion that the offence was committed within tin- 
 territorial jurisdiction of the convicting jiustices 
 of the peace, bnt upon the depositions it was 
 clear that it was so committed : — Held, that tlie 
 saving provision of section 87 of R. 8. C c. 178, 
 should be applied ; and the order nisi to quash 
 the conviction was discharged. Regina v. /'< rriii, 
 16 O. R. 446. -Armour. 
 
 A summary conviction under R. S. ('. c. 168, 
 s. .59, alleged, in the words of the statute, that 
 the defendant unlawfully and maliciously com- 
 mitted damage, injury, and spoil to and upon 
 the real and pci'sonal property of the Long Point 
 Company :— Held, that this was not sufficient 
 without its being alleged what the partic:dar 
 act was which was done by the defendant which 
 constituted such damage, etc., and what the 
 particular nature and quality of the property, 
 real and personal, was in and upon which such 
 damage, etc., was conunitted; and the convic- 
 tion was quashed for uncertainty. Kegin'', v. 
 Si)aii), IS O. R. .385.— Q. P.. I). 
 
 7. Penoltlcx dnil Imimsonment. 
 
 The original conviction was for " acting in a 
 disorderly manner by fighting, and breaking tlie 
 
 Eeace, contrary to the by-law and statute in that 
 ehalf ;" imprisonment with hard labour was 
 imposed in default of payment of the Kne, and 
 the costs were made payaljle in the alternative 
 to tlie magistrate or the prosecutor : — Held, bad. 
 Rngina v. Wnshingtuv, 46 Q. B. 221.— Osier. 
 
 A conviction for a connnon assault adjudged 
 payment of a fine and costs, and in default im- 
 prisonment :— Held, good ; and that it was not 
 necessary to order that a distress warrant to 
 compel payment to be issued before imprison- 
 ment. Rrgi^ia v. S7nith, 46 Q. B. 442.— Osier. 
 
 A conviction under the "Ontario Me<lical 
 Act," R. S. O. (1877), c. 142. s. 40, for practi- 
 sing without being registered, was (luashed, be- 
 cause in default of payment of the fine imposed, 
 distress was also awarded : —Held, that section 
 57 of 32-.33 Vict. c. 51(Dom.), does not apply, as 
 by section 46 of the Medical Act provision is 
 
1111 
 
 JUSTIOE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 aRnf 
 
 SKI 
 
 made for enforcing imynient. liegiua v. .S[/Jrtr- 
 Aawi, 8 0. R. 570.— Rose. 
 
 The by-law directed imprisonment only in 
 default of distress. Qiwre, per Cameron, J., 
 whether the 32-33 Vict. c. 31, s. 59, would apply 
 80 as to enable the justice to commit under it in 
 the first instance upon proper evidence. Mc- 
 Leilanv. McKiimon, 1 O. R. 219. 
 
 Per Cameron, J.— Qurere, whether upon the 
 evidence set out in tlie report of the case the 
 finding thiit the plaintiff was not put to hard 
 labour was justified, /ft. 
 
 Held, that the conviction was bad, because, 
 while covering two several and i ' Linet offences 
 Hiuler the same by-law, it imposed only one 
 penalty. Heijina v. Gravtlle, 10 O. R. 735. — 
 O'Connor. 
 
 Held, following Regina v. Brady, 12 0. R. 358, 
 that where imprisonment is directed on non- 
 payment of a penalty, the award of distress of 
 the goods to levy it, and then imprisonment in 
 case the distress prove insufficient, is invalid in 
 law, nnd an excess of jurisdiction. Jfeijina v. 
 Lynch, 12 0. R. 372.— Wilson. 
 
 Held, tliat the punishment being in excess of 
 that which miglit have been lawfully imposed, 
 the defect was not cured by sections 2 and 3 of 
 49 Vict. c. 49(Dom.). Ih. 
 
 The magistrate ordered the defendant to pay 
 ^1 for the use of the hall for trying the case, and 
 condemned the defendant in default of distress 
 to imprisonment :— Held, that in ordering pay- 
 ment of this sum there was a clear excess of 
 jurisdiction, and that ordering distress, etc. , was 
 a further excess, and that the matter was one of 
 principle and not of form, and the conviction 
 was quashed. Regina v. Wallace, 4 O. R. 127, 
 and Kegina ;•. Walsh, 2 O. R. 206, commented 
 on. Hefiina v. Elliott, \2 0. K IJ24.— Rose. 
 
 Held (Armour, J., dissenting) that althou^i 
 irregularly directed imi)risonnient was justified 
 in default of distress by section 62 of 32-33 
 Vict. c. 31 (Uoin.), incorporated in the W^eights 
 and Measures Act by sec. 53 thereof ; but that 
 if such imprisonment were not so justified the 
 whole conviction would be bad, there being no 
 power to amend by striking out the award of 
 imprisonment. Per Armour, J. That the 32- 
 33 Vict. o. 31, g 62 (Dom.), should only be 
 construed as fiMng the duration of the term of 
 imprisonme'.c, wliere the special Act provides 
 specifically for some imprisonment without fix- 
 ing its duration ; and that as no imprisonment 
 is expressly imposed by the Weights and Meas- 
 ures Act for the offence charged here, so much 
 of the conviction as awarded imprisonment was 
 made without jurisdiction, and was therefore 
 bad ; but that it was separable from the rest 
 of the conviction, and should be quashed, leav- 
 ing, however, the rest of the conviction to stand, 
 Regina v. Dunning, 14 O. R. 52. 
 
 Held, that a justice of the peace, on a convic- 
 tion under sections 40 and 46 of R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 142, intituled an Act respecting the profession 
 •of Medicine and Surgery, had no jurisdiction, on 
 default by the defendant of payment of fine and 
 costs, to direct his confinement for the space of 
 one month, unless, in addition to the payment 
 -of the fine and costs, he paid the charges of con- 
 
 IIU 
 
 Rtgina v. Wright, 14 0. R. 
 
 veying him to jail. 
 668.— Rose. 
 
 A conviction for carrying on a noxious and 
 offensive trade contrary to R. S. 0. (1887) c. 
 205, the Publi'; Health Act, imposed in default 
 of sufficient distress to satisfy tlie tine and costs 
 imprisonment in the common jail for fourteen 
 days, unless the fine and coats, including the 
 costs of commitment and conveying to jail weie 
 sooner paid : Held, following Regina v, Wright 
 14 O. R. 61)8, that the imposition of the cobIb 
 of commitment and conveying to jail was un- 
 autliorized, and that section 1 of K. tj. U. (1887) 
 c. 74, not referred to in that case, did not affect 
 the question. Rt'i/ina v, Rowlin, 19 0. R. 199 _ 
 C. P. D. 
 
 The Act 32-33 Vict. c. 31, s. 17, providet 
 that the magistrate may condemn the party 
 accused to pay a fine not exceeding, with the 
 costs in the case, $100 :~Held, that the mean- 
 ing of this is, that the amount of the costs in 
 the case shall be deducted from $100, and that 
 the balance or difference shall be the utmost 
 limit of the fine ; and that the conviction in this 
 case, being to pay the sum of $100 without costs 
 was therefore bad. Regina v. Cyr, 12 P. R 
 24.— O'Connor. 
 
 A conviction under " An Act respecting 
 Gaming Houses," R. S. C. c. 158, s. 6, pro- 
 vided, in addition to fine and imprisonment, 
 for distress in default of payment of the fine ; 
 — Held, that the punishment being in excess of 
 tliat warranted by the statute, tlie conviction 
 must be (juashed : —Held, also, that, as the maxi- 
 mum penalty prescribed for the ofi'ence was im- 
 posed, the defect in the conviction in the provi- 
 sion for distress was not cured under K. ,S. C. c. 
 178, 8. 87 and 88. Regina v. Sparham, 8 0. R. 
 570 approved of. Regina v. Logun, 16 0. R. 
 35.— Chy. D. 
 
 Held, that a provision for distress in the con- 
 viction in defaidt of payment of the fine and 
 costs imposed, did not constitute a part of the 
 penalty or |)unishment imposed by the by-law, 
 but was merely a means of collecting the pen- 
 alty as authorized by ,S9 Vict. c. 33, s. 2, sub-s. 
 14 (Out.), and section 421 of the Municipal Act, 
 R. 8. O. (1887), c. 184. Regina v. Florij, 17 
 O. R. 715.— Rose. 
 
 A by-law of the city of Brantford enacted 
 that any person found drunk on any of the 
 public streets, etc., thereof, should be subject to 
 the penalty thereby imposed, namely to a tine 
 not exceeding $50, inclusive of costs, and in tie- 
 fault of payment forthwith of the fine and costs, 
 distress, and in default of sufficient distress, im- 
 prisonment in the common jail for a term not 
 exceeding six months, etc., unless the fine and 
 costs were sooner paid : — Held, that under sub- 
 section 19 of R. S. O. (1877) c. 184. section 479, 
 there was power to authorize imprisonment for 
 the period mentioned. Rtiiiua v. Grant, 18 0. K. 
 169.— C. P. D. 
 
 A conviction under the by-law directed in de- 
 fault of payment forthwith of the fine and costs 
 and of sufficient distress, imprisonment for ten 
 days in the common jail unless the costs and 
 charges, including the costs of conveying to 
 jail, were sooner paid : — Held, that the con- 
 viction was bad as there was no power to include 
 the costs of conveying to jail. lb. 
 
1112 
 ght, 14 0. R. 
 
 noxious and 
 
 0. (1887), c. 
 Bd in default 
 tine and costa, 
 
 for fourteen 
 Including the 
 ig to jail were 
 iia V. Wright, 
 
 of the coats 
 
 jail wag un- 
 :. S. O. (1887), 
 did not affect 
 ) 0. R. 199.- 
 
 17, provide* 
 iiu the party 
 ing, with the 
 int the mean- 
 f the costa in 
 HOO, and that 
 )e the utmost 
 iviction in thia 
 without coats, 
 •y. 12 P. R. 
 
 ict respecting 
 58, a. G, pro- 
 imprisonment, 
 it of the fine : 
 ig iu excess of 
 the uouviction 
 [it, as the mazi- 
 iffenuc was im- 
 in in the provi- 
 der R. a. C. c. 
 irham, 8 0. R. 
 oyun, 16 0.R. 
 
 ess in the con- 
 >f the fine and 
 ! a part of the 
 by the by-law, 
 jcting the pen- 
 33, 8. 2, sub-a. 
 Municipal Act, 
 ;t V. Flory, 17 
 
 itford enacted 
 on any of the 
 Id be subject to 
 amely to a fine 
 Dsts, and in de- 
 B tine and coate, 
 int distress, im- 
 
 for a term not 
 as the tine and 
 that under sub- 
 
 84. section 479, 
 iprisonnient for 
 
 (Jratil, 18 0. R. 
 
 IT directed in de- 
 le fine and coata 
 Bonment for ten 
 B the costs and 
 if conveying to 
 , that the con- 
 jower to include 
 lb. 
 
 UlS 
 
 JUSnOE OF THE PEAOB. 
 
 By sub-section 2, of section 8, of R. S. C. 
 c 167i any loess, idle, or disorderly person or 
 vagrant, shall upon summary conviction before 
 tfio iustices of the peace be deemet' x«i'ty of » 
 
 two justices 01 tne peace 
 
 misdemeanour, and liable to a tine not exceeding 
 §50, or to imprisonment not exceeding six 
 months, or to both. By section 62 of R. 8 
 
 lUi 
 
 Beiiina v. Culhbert, 45 Q. B. 19. 
 
 made \inder it 
 —Osier. 
 
 Where the ofifence is sufficiently stated, the 
 conviction annot be avoided for matter of 
 form. In re L'nii her, Cnssels' Dig. 180. 
 
 _ _ Held, that a conviction once regularly brought 
 
 "TTs'the justices are authorized to issue a dis- j into, and put upon the files of the court, is there 
 freas warrant for enforcing payment of a tine; for all purposes, and that a defendant may move 
 »nd if issued, to detain the defendant in cusio 
 
 c! 
 
 dy under section 62, until its return; and, it 
 the return is "not sufficient distress," then to 
 imprison for three months. Two justices of the 
 peace for the city of Toronto, in the absence of 
 tbT police magistrate for the city, convicted 
 the defendant for an offence under the Act, and 
 imposed a fine of $50, and, in default of pay- 
 ment forthwith, directed imprisonment for six 
 months unless the fine were sooner paid :— Held, 
 that under the said sub-section the justices had 
 jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter; and 
 that it was not necessary to consider the eftect 
 of an agreement entered into between the police 
 magistrate and one of the justices to assist him 
 inthe trial of oB'encea:— Held, also that the con- 
 viction was bud, for under H. S. C. c. 157, there 
 was no power to award imprisonment as an alter- 
 native remedy for non-payment of the fine; while 
 ander R. S. C. c. 178, imprisonment could only be 
 awarded after a distress has been directed and 
 default therein ; and furthermore the imprison- 
 ment in such case could only be for three mouths. 
 Reginav. Lynch, 190. R. 664.— C. P. D. 
 
 See lieijina v. Smith, AC) Q. B. 442, p. 1104; 
 Rtginay. J'i/'e, 1 O. R. 43, p. 1105; McLellan 
 J. McKiniwn, 1 O. K. 219, p. 1119; Goodman 
 V. Keiiinii. 30. K. 18, p. 447; neijinav. Boachfr, 
 8P.R. 20, p. 1110; Ki'ifma v. Amhrose., 160. R. 
 251, p. 1047 ; Heijina v. Cyr, 12 P. R. 24, p. 
 \m\RHj,nay. Hall, 12 P. R. 142, p. 1103; Re- 
 jina v. Kin,,, 18 O. R. 566, p. 1118. 
 
 See also Public Moeals and Convenience. 
 
 8. Amendmeiil of. 
 
 Held, that an amended conviction cannot be 
 put in alter the return of a certiorari. Regina v. 
 UacKenzie, 6 O. R. 165. — Hose. See also Regina 
 T. Bennett, 3 O. R. 45, p. 1035 ; Rei/ina v. Elliott, 
 120. R. 524, p. nil ; Bond v. Conmee, 16 A. R. 
 398, p. 1063. 
 
 A magistrate may amend his conviction at any 
 time buiore the return of the certiorari, and the 
 court refused to quash because of the previous 
 return of a bad conviction, especially where it 
 had not been liled. Reyina v. McCarthy, 11 O. 
 R. 657.-Galt. 
 
 See McLellan v. McKinnon, 1 O. It. 219, 
 p. 1119; Rtgina v. Dunninij, 140. R. 52, p. 1111. 
 
 9. Retwnof. 
 
 To Clerk of the Peace. See Longway q. t. v. 
 iriw/i, 8 O. R. 357, p. 1119. 
 
 e 
 
 to quash it, however, or at whosoever instance 
 it may have been brought there. Where, there- 
 fore, on an application tor a habeas corpus, under 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 70, a certiorari had issued, 
 and in obedience to it the conviction had been 
 returned, the conviction was quashed on motion, 
 though there had been no notice to the magis- 
 trate, or recognizance. Regina v. Levecque, 30 
 Q. B. 509, distinguished. Regina v. tVehUm, 45 
 Q. B. 396. --Q. B. D, 
 
 In shewing cause to a rule nisi for quashing a 
 conviction, objection may bo taken to the regu- 
 larity of the certiorari, and a separate applica- 
 tion to supersede it, need not be made. Regina 
 V. McAllan, 45 Q. B. 402.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 On an application to quash a conviction brought 
 up upon certiorari, the court will not notice any 
 facts not appearing in the conviction, lor the 
 purpose ot impeaching it on any ground, ex- 
 cept want of jurisdiction ; nor has the court 
 any power to review the decision of the sessions 
 in a matter within their jurisdiction, nor to 
 grant a mandamus to compel them to rehear an 
 appeal. The court, refused, therefore, to quash 
 a conviction under the Liquor License Act, 
 affirmed on appeal, on the ground, among others, 
 that the general verdict of guilty was inconsis- 
 tent with the answers of the jury to specific , 
 questions. Regina v. Grainyer, 46 Q. B. 382. — * 
 Q„ B. D. 
 
 Per Armour, J.— This court has power to 
 quiish a conviction for an illegal adjudication of 
 punishment, although it has been appealed 
 against and affirmed in respect ot such adjudi- 
 cation, and 32-33 Vict. c. 31, s. 71 (Dom.), does 
 not take away the certiorari in such a case. Mc- 
 Lellan V. McKinnon, 1 O. R. 219. 
 
 A warrant was issued by a magistrate for the 
 apprehension of the ilefendant, who was brought 
 before another magistrate thereon, convicted and 
 fined. Subsequently the magistrate who had 
 issued the warrant caused the defendant to be 
 summoned before him for the same offence, .ind 
 again convicted and fined him, after refusing to 
 receive evidence of the prior conviction. The 
 court quashed the second conviction, with 
 Costs: Held, that, even assuming that the 
 first conviction was void by reason of the de- 
 fendant having been brought before a magistrate 
 other than the one who issued the warrant, his 
 appearance and pleading thereto amounted to a 
 waivur, and at any rate the magistrate who 
 convicted the second time could not take advan- 
 tage thereof. Reyina v. Bernard, 4 O. R. 603. — 
 Rose. 
 
 10. Quashin.g. 
 
 (a) Gewrnili,. 
 
 Held, that the v.iliility ol a by-law might be 
 questioned on a motion to quash the conviction 
 
 Where an order quashing a conviction is made 
 upon default of any one appearing to support it, 
 tlie etlect of quashing it not only involving the 
 restoration of the fine paid by the defendant, 
 but exposing the convicting magistrate to an 
 action, tliere is inherent jurisdiction in the court 
 to open up such order so made. The jurisdic- 
 
 
 1,1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 111 
 
 . I] 
 
1U6 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 uu 
 
 ^18 
 
 anil 
 
 c^ 
 
 tion of the full court to rebuar motions to quasli 
 convictions hna not liuun taliun uway by thu 
 fluilicature Act, but still exists in the Uivisional 
 courts, Jieiiina v. Fi:e, 13 O. U. 690.— Chy. D. 
 
 QuiLTC, whether a HJnglc judge has power to 
 hear a motion to quash a conviction. If he has 
 iiowcr his ileuiHion is tinal, and not appealable. 
 If he has no power, then lii»' action is of no 
 avail, oml still una])|<calable. Itctjlua v. Mr- 
 Auley, 14 0. R. 043. -C. 1'. I). 
 
 The jurisiliction to qunsb convictions was at 
 the time of thu pusHing of tlie Ontario Judica- 
 ture Act ill the Courts of Queen's Hcnch and 
 (Common Pleas respuctivcly, and was exercised 
 and exercisable by them respectively sitting in 
 term ; the courts or divisions of the High Court 
 of Justice nientioniMl in .' ub-scction 3 of section 
 3 of the Act can ■ "siiectively exercise all the 
 jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice in the 
 name of the High "ourtof Justice ; the sittings 
 of these respective courts or divisions are 
 analogous to and iiiprcsciit the sittings of the 
 former courts of common law in term, and it is 
 to the sittings of these courts or divisions that 
 applications to quash convictions must now be 
 made, having regard to secti(m 87 and Itule 484 
 of the O. J. Act (Con. Rule I), and of R. S. C. 
 c. 174, 8. 2, sub-s. 1, and section 270. The courts 
 or divisions are not to be uonfounded with the 
 Divisional Courts, which are a distinct organiza- 
 tion under the Jn<licature Act, and invested 
 thereby with special functions. Section 28 of 
 the Act, upon which the supposition that a 
 single judge sitting in court had jurisdiction to 
 quash a conviction was founded, refers to civil 
 actions and prooi-eclings only. And where a 
 single judge sittuij^ in court heard and deter- 
 mined a motion to ipiash a conviction, an appeal 
 to the judges of the Queen's liench Division 
 from his decision, refusing to quash such con- 
 viction, was tre.'ited as a substantive motion to 
 (inash the conviction. Reii'ma v. Bcemer, 15 
 O. R. 260.— Q B. D. 
 
 The juris iction to hear motions for orders 
 nisi in criminal matters vested in the Common 
 I'leas Division of the High Court of Justice for 
 Ontario is the original jurisdiction of the Court 
 of Common Pleas piior to confederation and by 
 virtue of section 5 of C. S. U. C. c. 10, the 
 court "may be holden by any oni' or more of 
 the judges thereof in the absence m the others." 
 On a return of an order nisi to nuash a con- 
 viction the court was composed of two of the 
 judges thereof, the third judge being absent 
 attending to other pressing judicial work; — 
 Held, that the Court was properly constituted 
 to dispose of the order. livijina v. Runchy, 18 
 O. R. 478. -C. P. D. 
 
 Where the proceedings before a magistrate 
 are removed under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 45, the judge 
 is not to sit as a court of appeal from the find- 
 ings of the police magistrate upon the evidence 
 which that officer has taken ; if any fact found 
 by the magistrate is disputed, and he would 
 have no jurisdiction had he not found that fact, 
 then the evidence may be looked at to see 
 whether there was anything to support his find- 
 ing upon it : but it the jurisdiction to try the 
 offence charged does not come in question as a 
 part of the evidence, then the jurisdiction hav- 
 ing attached, his Hading is not reviewable as a 
 
 general rule except upon an appeal. Htyina v 
 Oreeii, 12 P. K. 373.— Street. See also, ^eoino 
 V. Dowting, 17 O. R. 698, p. 219. 
 
 Whether proceedings to quivah a conviction 
 under an Ontario Act should be taken hot'ore a 
 single judge, or a divisional court. Quii're 
 Ne</ina v. >Kat»«, 17 A. R. 221. 
 
 Upon improper reception or rejection of evi- 
 dence by magistrate. iSee IV., 2, p. 1100. 
 
 See McLennan v. McKinnoii, 1 0. R. 219, 
 p. 1119; Reffinav. MncKemif, tt O. R. I()5, p! 
 1061 ; HiiiUtr v. (Hlkkon, 7 O. R. ^35, p. lliO; 
 Reijina v. McCarthy, 11 O. It. 057, p. 1113; 
 Rfijina v. Hoduim, 12 O. R. 307, p. 1098 ; R(. 
 (jiiia V. Elliott, 12 O. H. 524, 531 ; Bond v. Con- 
 mi'f, 16 A. R. 308, p. 1121 ; AVf/wta v. Richard- 
 ion, 13 P. R. 303, infra; Jontn v. Grace, 17 
 O. R. 681, p. 1122. 
 
 (b) Recognizance. 
 
 By section 90 of R. S. C. c. 178, and the Huleof 
 court thereunder, no motion to quash any con- 
 viction brought before any court by certiorari 
 shall be entertained unless the defeiidaut it 
 shewn to have entered into a I'ccoguizance with 
 one or more sulticient sureties : — Helil, that the 
 sutticiency of the suretyship is not shewn by the 
 mere production of the recognizance, but there 
 must be evidence on which the court can say 
 they were sutlicient auruties. Where therefore 
 there was no affidavit of justification to the re- 
 cognizance it was held not to comply with the 
 statute. Rei/ina v. Ricliardnon ; Rcyiiut v. Ad- 
 diHon, 17 O. R. 729.— C. P. D. 
 
 It is only by the indulgence of the court that 
 a second application is permitted or entertained, 
 where thu first application has been refused. 
 And where the defendants' applications for 
 orders nisi to quash convictions were refused 
 upon the ground of non-compliance with the 
 statute and rule requiring a recotjjniz.uice and 
 affidavit of justification to be filed, and the 
 court upon such applications was not favourably 
 impressed by what was urged as to the merits of 
 the applications : — Held, tliat the indulgence of 
 the court ought not to be extended in favour of 
 fresh applications made by the defemlunts upon 
 new material supplying the defects. iS'. C. , 13 P. 
 R. 303.— C. P. D. 
 
 (c) CostH. 
 
 Quiere, whether defendant should not get the 
 costs of quashing a conviction made to test the 
 law. Rngina v. Jamieson, 7 0. R. 149. — llose. 
 
 The fraudulent removal of goods, under 2 Geo. 
 II. c. 19, s. 4, ia a crime, and a conviction there- 
 for was consequently quashed, with costs against 
 the landlord, because the defendant had been 
 compelled to give evidence on the prosecution. 
 Regma v. Lackie, 7 O. R. 431. — liose. 
 
 Where a weighmaster instituted a prosecution 
 for his own benefit, after warning, instead of 
 bringing an action in the Division Court anv \ 
 conviction was quashed, he was ordered to pay 
 the costs. Regina v. Hollister, 8 O. R. 750.— 
 Rose. 
 
 A conviction was quashed without costs where 
 it appeared that the defendant had attempted to 
 
 m 
 
Hegina v. 
 nlso, Jieglm 
 
 1117 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
 
 1118 
 
 H conviction 
 .ken before a 
 irt. QuH-re, 
 
 otion of cvi- 
 1100. 
 
 ^ 0. H. 219, 
 3. K. I(i5, p. 
 Z35, p. 11'20; 
 i57, p. 1113; 
 p. 1098 ; Rf. 
 Bond V. Cm- 
 % V. Rkhard- 
 V. Qrace, 17 
 
 id the Rule of 
 itiah any con- 
 by certiorari 
 tiefeiidaut is 
 ^nizance with 
 lelcl, that the 
 sliewn by the 
 ice, but there 
 lourt can say 
 lere therefore 
 ion to the re- 
 iply with the 
 HdijiiM V. Ad- 
 
 the court that 
 ir unturtatned, 
 been refused, 
 iplications for 
 were refused 
 ince with the 
 (iiijniz.uice and 
 iltid, and the 
 not favourably 
 o tlie merits of 
 •■ indulgence of 
 3(1 in favour of 
 fenilants upon 
 8. S.O.,VAY. 
 
 Lild not get the 
 lade to test the 
 R. 149.— Rose. 
 
 8, under 2 Geo. 
 luviotion there- 
 th costs against 
 ilaiit had been 
 le prosecution, 
 llose. 
 
 d a prosecution 
 ling, instead of 
 1 Court anc "'e 
 ordered to pay 
 8 0. R. 750.- 
 
 out costs where 
 id attempted to 
 
 tamper with the informant. Regina v. Ryan, 10 
 0, K. 2r)4.— Uo80. 
 
 Costs of the application to quash a conviction 
 will lie adjudged uguin.'t n private prosecutor 
 where be layd an informi>*''ou without having 
 ruasoiialde ground for believ. .v; that the charge 
 will lie sustained by proper ev. leuue. Reij'ma v. 
 Ke.imdy, 10 0. R 390.— O'l.',nnor. 
 
 The order to ({Uttsh the conviction was made 
 without costs because tliu delendant bad taken 
 so niiuiy exceptions to the conviction upon 
 which hu bad faded, and because the merits of 
 the coinpliiint were against him. Reijina v. 
 Ijynch, \1 O. R. 372.— Wilson. 
 
 Conviction quashed, with costs against the in- 
 formant, where lie had a pecuniary interest in 
 the prosecution. See Rei/ina v. Stewart, 17 O. 
 
 n. 4. 
 
 Seo It'ei/iMiv. French— ReAjinav. Robertnon, \^ 
 0. R. 80, p. 1102; Riginav. Walker, 13 O. R. 
 83, p. 1043. 
 
 VIII. Warrant of Distres.s. 
 
 When a distixMs warrant, upon a conviction, 
 has been issued and rotiirned, the truth of the 
 return cannot be tried upon affidavits, liejina 
 v. Saiidcrmn, 12 O. R. 178.— Ualer. 
 
 Where a conviction is affirmed on appeal to 
 the sessions the warrant of distress or commit- 
 ment iiuiy be issued by the convicting justice. 
 AncoU v. Lilkj/, 14 A. H. 283. 
 
 See Rojiiui v. Smith, 46 Q. B. 442, p. 1110. 
 
 IX. Warrant OK Commitment. 
 
 IScnible, that the warrant issued in this case 
 after the dismissal of the appeal by the .Sessions, 
 and which followed the original conviction in 
 directing imprisunnient for six months, without 
 making allowance for the two dayij' imprison- 
 ment alrea<ly sntfered, w, is not open to objection. 
 Arxco/t v. Litley, Jl O. R. 153.— Q. B. U. 
 
 A wairant of comniitincnt need not be dated 
 if nut issued too soon. Riyina v. Sanderxon, 12 
 0. R. 178.--U8ler. 
 
 In detcrmiuing, upon a motion to discharge a 
 prisoner, wliether a warrant of uonimitmeut is 
 defective, the Court cannot, in view of the 
 Summary Trials Act, R. tS. C. c. 176, go behind 
 the conviction ; and the proper course where 
 there is a conviction sutiicieiit in law, and a 
 variance between the conviction and warrant of 
 commitment, is to enlarge the motion so as to 
 enable the magistrate to rile a fresh warrant in 
 conformity with the conviction. And where the 
 conviction alleged that the offence was com- 
 mitted in January, 1887, and the commitment 
 in January, 1888, the motion was enlarged ac- 
 cordingly. Reiiimi V. Lariii, 12 R. R. 642.— 
 MacMahon. 
 
 Under section 58 of the Malicious Injuries to 
 Property Act, R. S. 0. c. 168, the offence must 
 he "unlawfully and maliciously" committed, 
 and the damage must exceed ^'^0. The war- 
 rant of commitment charged the offence as 
 havmg been wilfully and maliciously committed, 
 omitting the word "unlawfully : "— Held, that 
 
 thii wag fatal to the commitment : —Held, alsor 
 that the commitinoiit shmild have alleged that 
 the damage exceeded fid. Rejiwt v. Fife, 17 
 O. R. 710.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A warrant of coinmitmont issued by two 
 justices of the peace, for non-payment of a tine 
 and costs imposed on J. D., who had been con- 
 victed for an otfjiice undor the Indian Act, 
 directed the coiHtalilcs of the county of B. to 
 take and ileliver J, D. to tlio keeper of tho 
 common jail of tlie county, to bo kept there for 
 two months, unless the tine ami costs imposed, 
 including the co-its of conveying to tlio jail, 
 should be sooner paid : —Held, that tho justices 
 having had jurisdiction over tlio offence, and 
 the warrant being valid on its faie it afforded a 
 complete protectior to tlie constable executing 
 it, and the defeiitl.int was properly convicted of 
 assaulting the const.ible while attempting to 
 execute the warrant, notwithstanding that tho 
 
 A'ardiug of the punislim.aic m.iy liave been 
 errone>ius, in directing imprisonment for non- 
 payment of the tine and costs, including costs of 
 conveying to jail, as not authori/.ed by the said 
 Act. Reijimi v. Kiuii, 18 O. R. 5(j0.— Q. B. D, 
 
 A commitment for part of the sum adjudged 
 by the conviction to he p lid is not authorized by 
 the Summary Convictions' Act, and is illegal. 
 The plaintiff' was convicted under the Canada 
 Temperance Act and w.is adjudged to pay a fine 
 and costs, to be levied by distress if not paid 
 forthwith, and in default of sufficient distress to 
 L3 imprisoned, etc. He p.iid the costs but not 
 the tine, and a distre'is warrant was issued 
 against him. Nothing being made under the 
 distress a warrant of coin^uitment was issued 
 under which he was imprisoned : —Hold, revers- 
 ing C. i'. D. 17 O. K. 706, that the commitment 
 was bad. Trigorson v. Board of Police of Co- 
 bourg, 6 O. S. 4,)."), ap|)roved and followed. 
 Judgment of C. P. D. atUrmed on other grounds. 
 Sindeii V. Brown, 17 A. R. 173. 
 
 See Jomn v. Grace, 17 O. R. 681, p. 1122, 
 
 X. Search Warrant. 
 
 As it appeared that in this case the search 
 warrant hai been issued, and the defendant's 
 premises searched, for the mere purpose of pos- 
 sibly securing evidence upon which to bring a 
 prosecution, the justices of the peace and the 
 informant were ordered to piy tlie defendant's 
 costs. Reijina v. Walker, 13 O. R. 83. — Cam- 
 eron. 
 
 XI. Prohibition to. 
 
 A writ of prohibition may be issued to a jus- 
 tice of the peace to prohibit him from exercising 
 a jurisdiction which he does not possess. Re 
 Chapman and the City of London ; Chapman and 
 the Water OommimonerH of' the City of London, 
 19 O. R. 33.— Robertson. 
 
 XII. Actions and Proceedings Against. 
 1. For Not Returning Convictions. 
 
 In an action agunst two justices of the peace 
 to recover a penalty for not making an imme- 
 diate return of a conviction under R. S. O. 
 
 a 
 
 
 1 
 
1119 
 
 JUSTIOB or THE PEAOB. 
 
 liar 
 
 III t^^' 
 
 (1877) c. 70 :-H«l(l, that it ia a question for the 
 jury whctlior, uii<l(ir the circuniatanoes of any 
 particular ciihi', t Iid rtitiirn inadu is iinraudiate, 
 and tliat in a ijiii tain action the iurv's tiuding 
 for d''iciiiliint slioiild not bo diHtui-lieil. In this 
 oaae tlitt conviction wiw made on thu3lHt August, 
 and tlio inaKiHtratcH withheld the return until 
 tho 15th Si'])tcinl>er, expecting to receive the line 
 every day, and intending to return it witii the 
 conviction, Tiie jury having lieen directed to 
 find wlietlier this wax not " reasonuhly immedi- 
 ate " returned a verdict for defendants, which 
 was upheld. Lomii'way qui tain v. Aviiion, 8 
 (). R. 357. -Q.H. 1). 
 
 2. For Wronfifut Artn or Actinrj wUhniit Jurin- 
 diction. 
 
 A magistrato acting under 3'2-33 Vict, c. 20, 
 », 37 (I'oni.), convicted four prrHons for creating 
 a disturbance thereunder, and impoHed upon 
 each a fine of $5, but inntcad of severing the 
 costs wiiich he had charged, imposed tlie full 
 amount thereof against each defendant, and re- 
 ceived it fioni eacli : — Held, that under the cir- 
 cumstances, more fully set out in the report of 
 tho case, the overcharge must be deemed to 
 have been wilfully made, so as to render the dc- 
 fendsnt liable to the penalty imposed in such 
 cases by the K, S, (), (1877), c 77, s. 4. I'avHoiiH 
 qui tarn V, Crahhc, 31 O. P. 151.— U, F. U. 
 
 When an appeal was brought from a convic- 
 tion inipoHing imprisonment with hard labour, 
 which the magistrate liad no power to award, 
 and the sessions amended tho record by strik- 
 ing out "hard labour ":- Meld, Cameron. J., 
 dissenting, that their assuming to amend the 
 conviction was not a quashing of a conviction, 
 and therefore trespas:* would not lie agiinst the 
 justice. McLetlan v. McKinnoii, 1 O. R. 219. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The conviction awarded imprisonment with 
 hard labour in ilef.vult of payment of the Hno. 
 The sessions amended the conviction by striking 
 out hard labour and awarding imprisonmentonly 
 in default of distress. The commitment under 
 which plaintiH' was confined directed imprison- 
 ment at hard labour. Per Cameron, J. — The 
 conviction as amended, which was the only one 
 put in evidence, superseded the original convic- 
 tion, and in effect <juashed it so far as regarded 
 the hard labour ; tlelendant was bound to shew 
 an existing cimviction autbori/.ing the commit- 
 ment, ami as he failed to do this, the excess of 
 jurisdiction in awarding hard labour made him 
 liable in trespass ; an<l — Semble, that the award 
 of imprisonment in the first instance under the 
 circumstances in evidence, would also make him 
 so liable. lb. 
 
 In an action against a justice of the peace and 
 constable for having issued a search warrant 
 against the plaintitt', for having and concealing 
 a colt belonj;ing to aiujther : — Held, that the 
 notice of action and statement of claim, being 
 eacli of them founded upon a cause of action 
 arising in a ca^. in which the justice had juris- 
 diction, weri: Infective f<u' want of the allegation 
 that the mi: r,ce acted " maliciously, and with- 
 out reasonable and probable cause ;" and that 
 the statement of claim was defective in not 
 shewing a right to restitution of the property, 
 
 although the plaintiff trai acquitted of nuy 
 wrongful taking, detention, or concealment uf 
 tho same. Howell v, Arinoio; 7 O. R, 3()S, 
 Q. H. U. 
 
 Hehl, that the plaintiff had no ground of 
 action against the magistrate for not restorinif 
 the property to him, because he had been no- 
 (piitted of tlu) larceny, as the magistrate v/m 
 entitled to detain it, if ])roved to have bueu 
 stolen, until the larceny could be tried, or that, 
 for some sulhcient reason, no trial could bo liail, 
 the statement of claim not alleging that the pro- 
 perty had not been stolen, Ih. 
 
 Held, tlnit tho defendant, who was a visitiag 
 snperintcndeut and conunissioner of Indian 
 atiiiirs for the '.Srant and Haldimand reserve, 
 had jurisdiction under tho statutes relating tu 
 Indian atfairs to act as a justice of the peace in 
 the matter of a charge against the plaintiff fur 
 uulawtully trespassing i';;.>ii and removing cord- 
 wood from the Indian reserve in the county of 
 Brant ; — Held, also, that the discharge of tiie 
 plaintitl' from custody (m habeas corpus wan not 
 a quashing of his conviction on the uliove 
 charge ; and that the conviction remaining in 
 force, ami the dctfendant having had jurisdiction, 
 tho action, which was trespass for assault mul 
 imprisonment maliciously and withimt rensnii' 
 able and probal)le cause, could not be main- 
 tained, but the action should have boon so ; but 
 that even if tho form of action was right, there 
 was no evidence of want of reasonable and pro- 
 bable cause. Hunter v. OilkiHon, 7 O. R. 735, — 
 Q. H. D. 
 
 Held that tho 4th section of R. S. O, (1877), o, 
 73, as amended by 41 Vict. c. 8 (Out,), prevents 
 an action being brought for any tiling d(mc under 
 a conviction, whether there was jurisdiction to 
 make tho conviction or not, so long as the con- 
 viction remains unquashed and in force, Ar- 
 Kcott v. Litlci/, no. II. 285.— Q. \i. D.; 14 A, R. 
 283. 
 
 The plaintiff having been arrested, convicted, 
 and imprisoned for hiving liquors for sale near 
 public works, writs of habeas corpus and cer- 
 tiorari were issued and on the return thcreuf he 
 was discharged. Under a writ of certiorari 
 directed to defendants, the convicting magis- 
 trates, tho conviction, which was not under seal, 
 was returned by defendants' solicitor to wiiom 
 all the papers had been delivered by defendants, 
 and who in his athdavit accompanying the return 
 swore that the c(mviction returned was the one 
 made by defemlants : — Held, by Armour, J,, 
 at the trial, in an action against tho magistrates, 
 that not being under seal it was not necessary 
 that the conviction should have been quashed 
 before action brought, Haacko v. Adanison, 
 14 C. P. 201, and McDonald v. Stuckey, 31 Q. 
 B. 677, followed :— Held, also, by the C. P. D„ 
 that the return being made to a writ of certiorari 
 directed to d'feiidants, and not referring to the 
 certiorari directed to the jailor under the habeas 
 corpus, and in face of the solicitor's aflBilavit, a 
 properly sealed conviction whjch however was 
 not produced at the trial could not bo received. 
 Bond V. Connue, 15 O. R. 716 ; 16 A. H. 398. 
 
 From the village of M., where the arrest and 
 conviction took place and the liquors were des- 
 troyed, to the Canadian Pacific Kailway, then 
 in course of construction, over fifty miles dis- 
 
1U» 
 
 U21 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEAOE. 
 
 1122 
 
 tant, thu company hud uonHtructod a coloiii/.ii' 
 tioii supply roiid for tliu uonveyunco of HiippUtiH 
 for tliu railway. No proclamiitioii wuh mhiu'iI 
 under R. H. O. (1877), o, 32, proi;liviiiiinj{ tli's u 
 pul)liu road; Ittit 8ul)Si!((iicntly tliu Donuiiioii 
 Oovornmeiit, by iiroolainiition, ingiiud unilur R. 
 ,S. C 0, IRl, proclaimed tho tun inili's on each 
 hIiIu of the supply road to he in thu vicinity of 
 apuhlio work : — Hold, liy Armour, .J., nud thu C 
 P. I)., MacMtihon, J., doubting, that thi' village 
 of M. was not within three miles of a, public work 
 under H. H. O. (1877), c 3-'. I'er Oalt, (.'. .).— 
 Tho place did not come within either Act, no 
 proclamation having been issued at tho tinm. On 
 application to tho Divisional Court for leave to 
 put in evidence the written order for the destruc- 
 tion of tho liquor, which was not produced at tho 
 trial. I'or (Jalt, C. ,1. — Tho magistrate had no 
 |)owor to make tho order, the authority to do so 
 being based on R. S. (). (1877), c. '.\'2, which was 
 lint ma<lo applicable, ami therefore tho order was 
 not admissible. I'er Rose and MacMahon, .J.J. — 
 Tho order for the destruction of the liiiuor was 
 not (h'peiident on the conviction of the plaintiff, 
 uiul came within R. >S. O. c. 73, and tho destruc- 
 tion was an act under an order thereunder, which 
 order must be quashed to avoid the protection 
 afforded by section 4; but per Rose, J., it should 
 not now be received in evidence. Per MacMahon, 
 •F.—It should be received ; and a now trial granted 
 on this part of the case : — Held, by the Oourt of 
 Appeal that there was no explanation why this 
 order was not produced at the trial, it was too 
 late to produce it now, and a new trial couhl 
 not be granted even assuming that the order 
 contained the adjudication as to the forfeiture 
 of the liquors. 8. C, 15 O. It. 71«; 1« A. R. 
 .198. 
 
 The order for the destruction of the liquors 
 was not produced, but the person who destroyed 
 tbe li(piors stated, without objection, that he 
 had received a written order to destroy the 
 liqnors, signed by both justices, and that he had 
 retunicd the order to them. This order had not 
 been (jnashed : — Held, that the defcmlants were 
 entitled to say that the existence of such an 
 order was proved, but that the order for the 
 destruction and the adjudication of forfeiture 
 were two different things, and that in order to 
 obtain protection, the order or adjudication of 
 forfeiture should have been proved, and that it 
 was not necessary to quash a mere order for de- 
 struction. The order spoken of in R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 7.3, 8. 4, is an order in the nature of a 
 eonviction, i.e., un original ailjudicatiou by the 
 magistrate upon some matter brought before 
 him by charge, complaint, conviction, or other- 
 wise, and not an order for the purpose of carry- 
 ing out or enforcing such adjudication. S. C. 
 16 A. R. 398. 
 
 The plaintiff, who resided in the county of 
 H., was convicted before defendant G. , a police 
 magistrate for the county of B., forgiving in- 
 toxicating liquor to an Indian, and fined with 
 committal to the county gaol of B. on non-pay- 
 ment of the fine. The fine not having been paid, 
 <J. issued a warrant of commitment, directed to 
 all the peace officers of B. to arrest plaintiff, and 
 prepared a form of endorsement to be signed by 
 » justice of the peace of H., authorizing the de- 
 fendant N., a constable, to arrest plaintifif in H. 
 G. handed the warrant to N. telling him plaintiff 
 lived ill H. and he would have to get the warrant 
 
 71 
 
 I endorsed. N. took it to R, a justice of the 
 i peace for H., who signed the endorsement and 
 ; idaiiitilf wuH arrested by N. and taken first 
 iiuforo (>. in H. to sue if ho would accept a iiotu 
 in paymont, and thuii to thu county gaol of H. 
 Tho plaintiff w.is afterwards discharged on 
 habiias corpus, Init tho conviction was not 
 I quashed :—Hidd ((ialt, (/'. .1., diMsenting), that 
 tlio action wiih maintaiiiablo against the dofcii- 
 ' dants < >. and R. : that there wiih no power en- 
 abling It. to endorse the warrant, and that he was 
 f;uilty of trcHiiass in to doing ; and that (>. wag 
 iablo as a joint truspassor, for by his interfor- 
 j once he was responsible, not only for the arrest 
 but for the subsequent detention in the gaol of 
 K. ; i*>id that it was not nucessary to quach the 
 co'iviction before action brought, as the arrest 
 in the county of H. was not anything done 
 under a conviction or order within section 4 of 
 I R. N. O. (1887), <•. 7.3. At trial, the jury 
 
 ' found that tho plaintiff had sl stained no damage 
 as against R. and they assessed tho damages 
 I solely agaiuHt (>. .ludgment was thereupon 
 j entered as against G., and the action dismissed 
 as to R. :^Held, that the finding of the jury as 
 to the damages, was in law permissible ; but had 
 R. been held liable, as plaintiff at most could 
 only have hail a new trial, or elect to retain his 
 judgment as against G. alone, the court would 
 not interfere with the finding. Quiure, whethur 
 the constable N. was protected under 24 (Jeo. 
 II. c. 24. Form of order as to costs of N. 
 given. Jones v. Oracfi, 17 O. R. 081.-C. P. D. 
 
 See Sinden v. Brown, 17 O. 
 173, p. 1118. 
 
 R. 706, 17 A. R. 
 
 3. Notice of Action. 
 
 In an action against justices of the peace for 
 malicious arrest, the notice of action stated that 
 the cause of action arose "in tho month of May 
 last, 1884, at said village of M. and in the town 
 of I*."; and was served at defendant C.'s head 
 office on his agent there, also at his place of 
 residence, and on his solicitors. The statement 
 of claim alleged the service of such notice. The 
 only defence was " not guilty by statute R. S. O. 
 (1877), c. 73, 8. 11," the section requiring notice 
 l)eing aection 10 : — Held, by Armour, J. , and 
 the C. P. Divisional Court, that the statement 
 of time and place as well as the service was suffi- 
 cient. Oliphantv. Leslie, 24 Q. B. .308, followed. 
 Bond V. Conmee, 15 O. R. 716 ; 16 A. R. .398. 
 
 Held, by tho C. P. Divisional Court, that no 
 objection could now be taken to the notice, aa 
 under the O. J. Act and rules, the particular sec- 
 tion of the .statute relied on should have been 
 pleaded. lb. 
 
 Semble, the omission to give notice of action 
 must be pleaded or the section which requires 
 it, referred to in the plea of "not guilty by 
 statute." S. C, 16 A. R. .398. 
 
 Held, in this case, that the magistrate having, 
 in the honest belief that he was acting in the 
 execution of his duty as such, issued the war- 
 rant of commitment after payment of the costs 
 adjudged, was, though acting without jurisdic- 
 tion, entitled to notice of action, and that, no 
 notice having been given, the action failed. Sin- 
 den V. Broton, 17 A. R. 173. 
 
 j! ■1 
 
 
 L 
 
 V;; 
 
 I I 
 
 1" 
 
 : M 
 
1128 
 
 LACHES. 
 
 1124 
 
 cc:: 
 
 U9 
 
 The endorsement on tlio notice of action Wfts 
 that it W118 "/<iven by V. M., of Queen Street, 
 in the city of Hrantfonl, in tlie county of Uraut, 
 solicitor for tiie within imnied James Junes." 
 Within wiM the notice, namely, "I do hereby 
 !i8 Holicitor for and on behalf of ilaniea Jones, of 
 the village of Jarvis, in the county of Haldi- 
 niand, farmer," etc. : — Held, that the notice 
 taken in coiineution witii tlie Interpretation Act, 
 3\ Vict. o. 1, s. l."J(()nt. ), was MUlilcient. Moran 
 4. I'almer, I.S(!. P. .^.SS, not followed as decided 
 l>rior to said Act ; but, Qua're, whctlior any 
 notice of action Wiis necessary. Joiws v. Grace, 
 17 O. U. OS!. -C. 1'. I). 
 
 See l/oiirll v. Annour, 7 0. R. 303, p. 1120. 
 
 4. Venue. 
 
 Held, that the elTect of Rule 254 of the (). J. 
 Act (Con. Rule 053) is to abolish all local venues, 
 as well tho.je made so by statute as at the com- 
 mon law, except actions of ejectment. Leiiaci/ 
 V. /'ilcha; 10 (>. R. (i20.— Q. R D. ; Ireland v. 
 J^itc/ur, II)., 031.— Rose. 
 
 In an action for malicious arrest and for <le- 
 struction of li(|uor under R. S. O. (1877), c. 73 : 
 -Held, following Legacy v. Pitcher, 10 O. R. 
 020, that in sucli an acti in the ven\ie need not 
 be laid where the offence was committed, /laiiil 
 V. Conmi-e, 15 O. R. 710.— C P. IX; 10 A. R. 3!)8. 
 
 The venue in the action was laid at the city of 
 Toronto, anil subsequently, by consent, an order 
 was made, striking out tiie jury notice and 
 directing the trial to take place at Port Arthur ; 
 — Held, that in view of this order, the objection 
 that the venue was improperly laid could not be 
 sustained. *'. C, 10 A. R. 398. 
 
 5. CoslM. 
 
 In an action against justices of the peace for 
 false imprisonment, etc., the divisional court ( 10 
 O. U. 031) ordered judgment to be entered for 
 the plaintili' for $25, the damages assessed by 
 the jury, leaving the costs to be taxed according 
 to such scale au'l with such rights as to set-off 
 as the statute and rules of court might direct. 
 Upon appeal from taxation :— Held, that the 
 action being within the proper competence of 
 the Division Court (unless the defendant objec- 
 ted thereto), the plaintiff should have costs only 
 on the scale applicable to that court, and the 
 defendants should have their proper costs by 
 way of deduction or setoff : — Held, also, Cam- 
 eron, C. J., dubitante, that the effect of R, 8. 0. 
 (1877), c. 73, s. 19, read in connection with sec- 
 tion 12 of that Act, and with R. S. O. (1877), c 
 43, s. 18, sub-section 5, R. S. O. (1877), c. 47, s. 
 .^S, sub-section 7, and R. S. O. (1877), c. 50, s. 
 347, is not to provide that the plaintiff should 
 have costs on the Superior Court scale when his 
 recovery is within the jurisdiction of an inferior 
 court. Per Cameron, C. J. — The case came un- 
 der section 18 rather than section 19 of R. S. O. 
 (1877), c. 73. Ireland V. Pitcher, 11 P. R. 403.— 
 C. P. I). 
 
 The defendant served upon the convicting 
 magistrates notice of a motion by way of appeal 
 from an order of a judge in chambers refusing a 
 -certiorari to remove a, conviction under tlie 
 
 Liipior Liconae Act, returnable before a Divi- 
 sional Court in Michaelmas sittings, bu' ' '. not 
 set the motion down for hearing before the sit- 
 tings, or take any step after serving the notice 
 of motion to bring it to a hearing during the 
 sittings. The court ordered the defendant to 
 pay t<i the magistrates their costs of appearing 
 to shew cause against the motion, lie.ifina v. 
 Ann-slromj, 13 P. R. 300.— C. P. D. 
 
 The provisions of R. S. (3. (1877), c 73, s. 4, 
 jirotect a magistrate from an action for any tiling 
 done under a oonv'jtion so long as the convic- 
 tion remains in f( rce ; not where tlie conviction 
 does not justify what has been done under it. 
 Tlio plaintiff' being in custody on a wanunt 
 issued by the defendant L. on u conviction had 
 before him under the Vagrant Act, applied to 
 bu discharged under the Habeas Corpus Act, 
 the plaintiff electing to remain in custody at 
 London, to attending before the judge in To- 
 ronto, and on the 4tli February an order vvas 
 made on that application for her discharge, 
 which order was duly received by the gaoler on 
 the 0th. Meanwhile, a fresh warrant had been 
 issued by L. on the 4tli and delivered to the 
 gaoler, who, by u.iection of the County (!rown 
 Attorney, detained her for two hours after re- 
 ceipt of the order for her discharge, when an- 
 other warrant was prepared, and slie wa- again 
 arrcKted. In an action brought for such arrest 
 and imprisoninent for two hours, the jury found 
 the plaintiff' was entitled to a verdict, but that 
 she had not sustained any damage which the 
 judge before whom the case was tried, treated 
 as a verdict for the defendants, but refused 
 the justice his costs, (1 1 (). R. 285). On apfieal 
 to this court, the dismissal of the action was 
 atlirnied, but: — Held, reversing the judgment 
 of the court below, (11 O. R. 285), that section 
 19 K. S. O. (1877), c. 73, has not been re- 
 pealed by any of the provisions of the Ontario 
 •ludicature Act ; and therefore the dismissal of 
 tlie .action should be with costs to the magis- 
 trate, as between solicitor and client. Ar.icoU 
 V. Liltey, 14 A. R. 283. 
 
 See Ireland v. Pitcher, 10 (). R. 031 ; Reifma 
 v. Walker, 13 O. R. 83, p. 1043; Joncn v. ilrace, 
 17 O. R. 081, p. 1122. 
 
 LACHES. 
 
 I. Entitlino Surety to l>i.soitARaB— 5m 
 Principal and Surety. 
 
 II. In CARHYINd OUT CONTRACTS— i'ec SPE- 
 CIFIC Pk ".KOHMANCE. 
 
 III. In Mattekh of Practick— .See Prac- 
 
 tice. 
 
 IV. Waiver of DniAY—See Waiver. 
 
 Where mortg.iges or other evidences "f debt 
 are assigned as collateral security by a debtor to 
 his creditor the latter is bound to use due dili- 
 gence in enforcing payment thereof, aiul if 
 through his default or laches the money secured 
 thereliy is lost it will be charged against the 
 creditor and deducted from his demand. Synod 
 V. DeBlaqiiiere, 27 Chy. 5.30. — Proudfoot ; lit. 
 550. -C. of A. 
 
1124 
 
 1125 
 
 LACHES. 
 
 1126 
 
 e a Divi- 
 u' ' '. not 
 re the sit- 
 :he iioticu 
 luriiii; the 
 'eiidnnt to 
 a|ipearii)g 
 lie.ijina v. 
 
 c. 73, 8. 4, 
 
 r anything 
 he convic- 
 uuiiviutiun 
 c under it. 
 a Wiiiiunt 
 miction iiad 
 applied to 
 orpua Act, 
 custody at 
 Jge in To- 
 i (jrder rt'as 
 
 discharge, 
 lu gaoler on 
 it had Itccn 
 ered to the 
 iinty (!rown 
 irs after re- 
 e, when an- 
 e wa~ again 
 
 sucii arrest 
 u juiy found 
 ict, hut that 
 u which the 
 ried, treated 
 but refused 
 On ap|>eal 
 
 action was 
 le judgment 
 
 that section 
 ot been rc- 
 
 thc Ontario 
 
 dismissal of 
 io the inagis- 
 int. ArHcott 
 
 ()S1 ; AV</iHa 
 nex V. (Iract, 
 
 OlIAltllE— iSiM 
 
 yrn—Ste SrE- 
 [—.See I'KAC- 
 
 'AlVKlt. 
 
 ences "f debt 
 by a debtor to 
 use due <Uli- 
 ereof, and if 
 nonoy secured 
 d against the 
 juand. •S'l/"«' 
 ^roudfoot; I'j. 
 
 On an applioatiou to open up procecdiugs by i 
 way of review on the ground of newly discovered 
 evidence, Ferguson, J., refused the relief asked 
 witii coats on the ground amongst others, that 
 the company, had they exercised due diligence in 
 the matter, might have become aware of the 
 prior purchase and payment to which such evi- 
 dence related. Damhle v. Cobouni and Peter- 
 horoiujli H. W. Co., 29 Chy. 1-21. See also 
 Murray V. Gaiuula Ventral 11. \V. Co., 7 A. R. 
 «4(i, p. .SI. 
 
 The fact that an applicant for a mandamus 
 against a municipal corporation to levy a sinking 
 fund has been a ratepayer for years docs not bar 
 him because hu did not apply earlier, as the 
 levying a rate for a sinking fund is an annual 
 broach of duty, and upon any breach a right 
 arises to have it corrected. Clarke v. Town 
 of I'alinerHtoii., O. R. 61(). — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Scinble, that although a motion to quash a by- 
 law cannot be entertained unless made within a 
 year from the passing of tlie by-law, it docs not 
 follow that an application made within the year 
 may not be successfully answered by shewing 
 laches of the applicant, though in this case no 
 sucli ladies existed, lie FeiUun v. County of 
 Simaic, lOO. R. 27. — Wilson : Inre AlcAlpiiie v. 
 Toiriithip of Euphemia, 45 Q. B. 199. 
 
 Semble, where there is sufficient distress on 
 the jiroperty, and the municipality by its own 
 laciici puts it out of its power to distrain, section 
 100 of the Assessment Act does not avail to give 
 the right to collect by action. Carson v. Veitcli, 
 9 O. H. 700. -C. P. D. 
 
 Hciil that the delay (without any excuse) of 
 a pat>,...oc for a period of a little more than a 
 year and nine months, after full kno-.vledge of an 
 inadvertence and mistake in his original patent, 
 and after professional advice on the subject, and 
 aftci- a re-issue of the same patent in the United 
 Stales, founded upon tiie same alleged inadvert- 
 ence or mistake (during which period manu- 
 facture had lieen carried on in the United States 
 under a re-issue there), before the application for 
 a reissue in this country, is fatal to the validity 
 of tiic rc-issuc here. Kidder v. Smart Maiiu/ac- 
 turiiiij Co., 8 O. R. .'J62. — Ferguson. 
 
 Per Spragge, C. J, 0., the sale to the mort- 
 gagee in this case was a frauil on the plaintiffs, 
 and tiiey had not <liscntitled themselves to relief 
 by delay as ior all that appeared the real facts 
 as to the purchase were uuknown to them until 
 just l)efore tlie liluig of the bill. FauUk v. 
 Jlariirr, 9 A. R. i)37. 
 
 McA. filed an a;.<{)licati<)n with the proper 
 govcininent (ilUcial tor a license to cut timber 
 upon two berths, and complied with the usual 
 regulations, one of which was the payment of a 
 cei'Uiin sum for ground rent, and his application 
 was duly forwarded to the commissioner of 
 Crown lands ; but owing to a defective survey it 
 was impossible then to convey the berths. Sub- 
 seqiicialy, tlie survey ditHculty was removed, and 
 Lis application as to one of the berths was ac- 
 cepted in the year 1801, but he having removed 
 tu tlie United States, never receivdl any notice 
 ot such acceptance. In 1881 he first heard of 
 tile acceptance, and in 1884 sold all his luterest 
 *liurcin lor |4,000. IJ. afterwards became en- 
 
 titled by subsequent assignments for value to 
 all McA.'s interest, the assignments being duly 
 filed in the Crown Lands Department. McA. and 
 B., in 1884 joined in a petition of right for the 
 issue of the license, and the Attorney-General 
 demurred to the same :--Held, that there was no 
 laches on the part of McA. in not enforcing a 
 right which he did not know existed, and there 
 was no intention on his part to ab.andon the right 
 when he did become aware of it, as ho treated it 
 as a valuable asset. As between subjects a do- 
 lay of four years would bo probably, under ordi- 
 nary circumstances, a defence to a claim for 
 specific perrormance, but under the facts in this 
 case a vendor would not be allowed to set up 
 such a defence : — Held, also, that as the assign- 
 ments were duly liL'd, and the Crown had the 
 power of forfeiting the claim for non-payment, 
 and did not do so, even were the rule between 
 subjects to apply, it would not be a bar in this 
 case : — Semble, it may be doubted whether the 
 same rule should apply to the Crown, and 
 whether the subject should not have the right 
 to a completion of the purchase at any time 
 before it has been forfeited. Mc Arthur v. The 
 Queen, 10 O. R. 191.— Proudfoot. 
 
 If the individual shareholders in a joint stock 
 company could bring an action against the pro- 
 motel's for damages caused by alleged misrepre- 
 sentation by the latter as to the prospects of the 
 company when formed, a delay of four years, 
 during wLicii they suffered the business of the 
 company to go on with u full knowledge of the 
 alleged misriipresentations would disentitle them 
 to relief. (Strong J., dissenting.) Beatly v. 
 NwUm, 1.3 S. C. K. 1 ; 12 A. R. 50. 
 
 The plaintiff made an arrangement in T. with 
 Y., an employee of a certain company, to dis- 
 count their draft on B. & Co., for $4,989.65, at 
 three months, and in pursuance of this arrange- 
 ment a draft was drawn in H. by Y. in the com- 
 pany's name, on plaintiff, payable on demand to 
 their own order, for .?4,80(), dated 2.3rd July, 
 1883. This draft was taken by Y. to defendants' 
 banking house at H., and there discounted by 
 him, and the proceeds drawn by cheques in the 
 name of the company. The draft was then for- 
 warded by the defendants to their branch in T;, 
 and by them presented to the plaintiff for accept- 
 ance and payment. Plaintiff then discounted the 
 first mentioned draft with the defendants at T., 
 and with the proceeds paid the draft for $4,800. 
 Plaintiff, about 1 Itli September, 188.3, discovered 
 that both drafts had been forged by Y., and im- 
 mediately notified defendants, at the same time 
 dcmaniling payment of the amount of the forged 
 draft for $4,800, which was refused by defen- 
 dants. Plaintiff paid the first mentioned draft 
 at maturity : — Held, that plaintiff had not lost 
 his right of action by his delay in discovering 
 the forgery, there being no actual genuine party 
 on the bill against whom defendants could have 
 recourse, and no remedy having been lost by 
 them by such delay. Jiyanv. Bank of Montreal, 
 12 O. R. 39.— Q. B. D. ; 14 A. U. 53.3. 
 
 The plaintiff, an ignorant man and a foreigner, 
 deposited a sum of money with the defendants 
 on 24th September, 1884, and received from 
 them a non-negotiable deposit receipt for the 
 amount, in which it was stated that the de- 
 fendants would " account to " the plaintiff 
 therefor, etc. At the same time the plaintifTii 
 
 fc " 
 

 U27 
 
 LACHES. 
 
 U2S 
 
 13.- 
 
 signature was left with the defendants for the 
 purpose of identification. The plaintiff left the 
 receipt with one S. 8. for safe keeping, and 
 went away. He returned in April, 1885, when 
 S. S. informed him that he had drawn the money 
 and promised to return it. The defendants had 
 paid the money without proper identification, 
 and without comparison of the signature of S. S. 
 with that of the plaintiff. Ignorant of the 
 method by which the money had been obtained 
 and of his rights against the defendants, the 
 plaintiff did nothing further, and 8. S. left the 
 country in August following, heavily indebted. 
 Subsequently, in December of the same year the 
 plaintiff was informed of his rights, and con- 
 sulted a solicitor, who promised to attend to the 
 matter, but failed to do so. In April, 1886, the 
 plaintiff consulted another solicitor when a de- 
 mand was made on the defendants, and on their 
 refusal this action was brought. This demand 
 was the first intimation to the defendants of the 
 fraud practised on them : — Held (reversing the 
 judgment of Armonr, J., at the trial), that as 
 the plaintiff's delay was not suggestive of col- 
 lusion or of any unfair dealing on his part, his 
 failure to make a demand or sue the defendants, 
 when he first heard his money had been ob- 
 tained by S. S., did not operate against him so 
 long as his claim was not barred by the Statute 
 of Limitations : — Held, also, that no legal duty 
 was cast on the plaintiff to notify the defendants, 
 and thus an essential element of estoppel by con- 
 duct was absent. Merchants' Bank v. Lucas, 13 
 O. R. 520, distinguished. Saderquial v. Ontario 
 Bank, 14 O. R. 586.— Chy. D. ; 15 A. R. 609. 
 
 Upon the death of the testator's widow the 
 three surviving children of tlie deceased nephew 
 (one daughter had died a short time before in- 
 testate and unmarried) entered into possession 
 and enjoyment of the laud in question under 
 the belief that they were tenants in common of 
 one undivided moiety thereof, the surviving 
 nephew being entitled to the other undivided 
 moiety. From time to time leases and sales of 
 portions of the land were made in which all 
 parties joined, the instruments containing reci- 
 tals as to the assumed tenancy in common, and 
 the rents and proceeds of sales being divided 
 among them in the proportion of one-half to the 
 surviving nephew and one-sixth to each of the 
 others. In 1885 a partition deed was executed 
 of part of the unsold portion. In 1886 the 
 eldest son for the .'irst time had brought to his 
 attention the question of his title under the will, 
 and this action was soon afterwards commenced 
 by him, asking that the title might be declared, 
 the partition deed set aside and the rents and 
 proceeds of sales received by the brother and 
 sister repaid to him :— Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of Robertson, J. (160. R. 341), that as all 
 parties had acted under a mistake as to, and in 
 Ignorance of, the true legal construction of the 
 will the plaintiff was not barred by laches or 
 aoquiejjence from recovering any portions of 
 the land unsold at the time his claim was made, 
 and oay mortgages to secure purchase moneys 
 of lard previously sold and held by the defen- 
 dants 8 1 the time his claim was made, and any 
 moneys received by them after that time, but 
 that there could be no recovery back of the 
 moneys actually received by them before notice 
 of the claim. Cooper v. Phibbs, L. K. 2 H. L. 
 148 ; Earl Beauchamp v. Winn, L. R. 6 U. L. 
 
 223; and Rogers v. Ingham, 3 Ch. D, 361, con- 
 sidered and followed. Baldwin v. Kingstme, 
 18 A. R. 63; 16 O. R. 341. Carried to the 
 Privy Council. 
 
 Where promissory notes of third persons were 
 transferred by the defendant without endorse- 
 ment as collateral security for a debt due by 
 him to the plaintiff, who now sued the defen- 
 dant for the amount of the debt, and the de- 
 fendant raised the objection that the plaintiff 
 had been guilty of laclies in proceeding for tiie 
 payment of the collateral notes, and that he liad 
 not notified the defendant of their non-pay- 
 ment : — Held, that if the defendant had licen 
 injured by such laches or want of notice, and to 
 the extent to which he had been injured, lie 
 should be exonerated from payment,. Imt ndt 
 otherwise ; and that the trial Judge had puslicti 
 the law too far against the plaintiff in holding 
 that having found the laclies and want of 
 notice as a matter of fact, it was a conclusion of 
 law that detriment had followed to the defen- 
 dant. Jiyan v. McConnell, 18 0. R. 409.— Cliy. 
 D. 
 
 Motion to set aside award refused on the- 
 ground of delay. See Pardee v. Lloyd, 5 A. R. 
 1, p. 48. 
 
 Held, in this case, that by acquiescing in the 
 sale of land, and by her laches the widow liad 
 waived her right to compensation for the loss of 
 benefits bequeathed to her by her husband. See 
 Riyley v. Ripley, 28 Chy. 610, p. 563. 
 
 Laches on the part of a railway company dis- 
 entitling them to municipal debentures. See Re 
 Grand Junction R. W. Co. v. County of Pi ti-r- 
 borough, 45 Q. B. 302 ; 6 A. R. 339. 
 
 A railway company held not to be in a position 
 to enforce the delivery of debentures by a muni- 
 cipality after the lapse of nine years from tlic 
 passing of the by-law where a total change of 
 circumstances had taken place, and when the 
 period fixed by the plaintifi's' charter for the com- 
 pletion of the railway had expired. See Caiutda 
 Atlantic R. W. Co. v. City of Ottawa, 12'A. K. 
 234. 
 
 Held, in this case that the defendant was not 
 debarred by laches from setting up the defence 
 of false representation in the sale to him of 
 certain land. See Lee v. McMahon, 2 O. R. 
 654; 11 A. R. 5ft5, p. 776. 
 
 In application to cet aside judgment. Ltijht- 
 bound V. Hill, 9 P. R. 295, p. 1082 ; McLean v. 
 Smith, 10 P. R. 145, p. 881. 
 
 Application to open foreclosure refused on 
 account of delay. See Aliku v. Cameron, 9 P. 
 R, 502. 
 
 Application for interim alimony. Delay in 
 proceeding not satisfactorily accounted for. See 
 ThompHon v. Thompnon, 9 P. R. 526, p. 889. 
 
 In applying for injunction. Sec Snnxon v. 
 Northern R. W Co., 29 Chy. 459 p. 926 ; Jkiri'i 
 
 V. City of Two., j, 16 O. R, 
 
 459 p. 
 33, 919. 
 
 In objecting to order amending pleadings. 
 See Court v. Walsh, 9 A. R. 294. 
 
 In application for interpleader order. 
 Darling v. CoUalton, 10 P. R. 110, p. 1015. 
 
 Sfc 
 
1129 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1130 
 
 In inovinc for prohibition to Division Court. 
 See Rt Sollies v. Liltk, 12 P. R. 533, p. 551. 
 
 In presentation of cheque for payment. See 
 Blackky v. McCabe, 16 A. R. 295, p. 137. 
 
 Held, in this case that the situation of the 
 parties not having been changed, the defendant 
 was not bound by laches. See McDonald v. 
 McDonald, 17 A. R. 192. 
 
 In moving to (juash liquor license by-law. See 
 Bann v. Brockville, 19 O. R. 409, p. 1052. 
 
 See Tykt v. Tke Queen, 7 S. C. U. 651; 
 Thompnoii v. Canada Fire and Marine Ins. Co. , 
 €0. K. 291 ; 9 O. R. 284, p. 266 ; Hyde v. Bar- 
 ton, 8 P. R. 205 ; Wheeler and Wilson Manufac- 
 turing Co. V. Wilson, 6 O. R. 421, p. 257 ; Clark 
 V. Eckroi/d, 12 A. R. 425. 
 
 LADING (BILLS OF). 
 
 JSee Bills of Lading and Warehouse Receipts. 
 
 LAND. 
 
 I. Assessment of — See Assessment and 
 Taxes. 
 
 II. Boundaries— 5ee Boundary. 
 
 III. Powers of Companies to Hold— iSee 
 
 Company. 
 
 IV. Clearing Land— /See Fire. 
 
 V. Crown Lands— (See Constitutional 
 Law — Crown Lands. 
 
 VI. Indian Lands— See Indian Lands. 
 
 VII. Dedication ok — See Dedication — 
 Way. 
 
 VIII. Description of Land — See Deed. 
 
 IX. Mineral Lands — See Mineral 
 Lands. 
 
 X. Oil Lands— See Oil Lands. 
 
 XI. Expropriation of — See Crown — 
 Eminent Domain — Municipal 
 Corporations — Railways and 
 Railway Companies. 
 
 Lateral Support —See Lateral Sup- 
 port. 
 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. Improvements on Land— See Im- 
 
 provements ON Land. 
 
 XIV. Conversion of Realty into Person- 
 
 alty— See Conversion. 
 
 XV. Lease of— See LandlordandTenant. 
 
 XVI. Mortgage of — See Mortgage. 
 
 XVII. Sale of— See Sale of Land— Sale 
 OF Land by Order of the Court. 
 
 XVIII. Conveyance of — See Deed. 
 
 XIX. Devise of— See Will. 
 
 XX. Estates in— See Estate— Will. 
 
 XXI. Title to Land. 
 
 1. O'enerally — See Sale of Land. 
 
 2. Jurisdiction of Courts —See CouNTT 
 
 Court — Division Court— Jus- 
 tice of the Peace. 
 
 3. Barred by Statute of Limitations — 
 
 See Limitation of Actions. 
 
 XXII. Covenants in Contracts Relattno 
 TO Land — See Covenant. 
 
 XXIII. Recovery or- See Ejectment. 
 
 XXIV. Execution Against— See Execution. 
 XXV. TfiESPAss-See Trespass. 
 
 XXVI. Ok Infants— See Infant. 
 
 XXVII. Of Married Woman— See Husband 
 and Wife. 
 
 XXVIII. In the Hands of Executors — See 
 Executors and Administrators. 
 
 XXIX. Partition of — See Partition. 
 
 XXX. Survey of— See Survey. 
 
 XXXI. Valuing— Se*' Valuator. 
 
 XXXn. CRors—See Crops. 
 
 XXXIII. Fences — See Fences. 
 
 XXXIV. Fixtures— See Fixtures. 
 XXXV. Roads -Sec Way. 
 
 XXXVI. Waste— See Waste. 
 
 Qu!«re, whether a person who iias laid out land 
 into town or village lots for sale cannot after- 
 wards, if he find he cannot dispose of them as 
 such, or for any other reason, replace his land 
 as it was before. Jn rt Hon. G. W. Allan, 10 
 0. R. 110.— Wilson. 
 
 Action for damages to a farm caused by sow- 
 ing barley purchased from the defendant, which 
 was mixed with weeds. See McMullen v. Free, 
 13 0. R. 57. 
 
 LAND SCRIP. 
 
 See Burns v. Yoim</, 10 A. R. 215, p. 475. 
 
 LAND WARRANT. 
 
 See McKenzie v. Dwight, 11 A. R. .381, p. 772. 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 I. Operation of the Statute of 
 Frauds, 1132. 
 
 II. Lease or License, 1133. 
 
 III. Agreement for Lease, 1133. 
 
 IV. Construction and Operation or 
 
 Leases. 
 
 1. Leases Under Short Forms Act, 
 1133. 
 
««^ 
 
 
 P 
 
 flpl 
 
 
 
 llSl 
 
 LANDLOBD AND TENANT. 
 
 1132: 
 
 
 ss 
 
 2. Commencement and Duration of 
 
 Tenancy, 1134. 
 
 3. Other Cases. 1135. 
 
 4. (7oi'enaH<*t. 
 
 (a) To Pay Sent, 11?G. 
 
 (b) To Pay Taxefi, 1137. 
 
 (c) Not to A-i-iiyn or Sublet, 1138. 
 
 (d) Ajiainut IiinimhranceH and for 
 
 Quiet Enjoyment, 1139. 
 
 (e) To Repair— To Keep up Fences 
 
 — Commisnion of Waste, 1139. 
 
 (f) To Behnild, U4l. 
 
 (g) To Pay for Buildiwjs or Im- 
 
 provments, 1 142. 
 (h) Other Covenants, 1143. 
 (i) Implied Covenants, 1144. 
 (j) Covenants Runnimj with the 
 
 Land, 1144. 
 
 5. Rectifying Leases— See Deed. 
 V. Leases bv Particdlar Persons. 
 
 1. Tenants fo^' Life— See Estate. 
 
 2. Mortgar/ors—See Mortgages. 
 
 3. TmMees— See Trusts and Trus- 
 
 tees. 
 
 VI. Mining Leases— 5ee Mineral Lands. 
 
 VIL Tenant at Will— See Limitation of 
 Actions. 
 
 VIII. Tenant for Life— .S'es Estate-Waste. 
 
 IX. Rent. 
 
 1. Payable hy Improvements, 1144. 
 
 2. Right to Deduct Taxes, 1145. 
 
 3. Apportionment, 1145. 
 
 4. Effect of Asiignmenf, 1146. 
 
 5. Premises Burnt, 1146. 
 
 6. After Expiration of Term, 1 146. 
 
 7. Occupation Rent, 1146. 
 
 8. Rent Service— Rent Seel; 1146. 
 X. Sub-lease, 1146. 
 
 XL Renewal of Lease, 1147. 
 Xn. Assignment OF Lease, 1148. 
 
 XIII. PosTPONiNfi Lease to Mortgage, 
 
 1148. 
 
 XIV. Termination of Lease, 1149. 
 
 XV. Eviction and Surrender of Lease, 
 1150. 
 XVI. Forfeiture of Lease. 
 
 1. By Acts of Lessee, 1151. 
 
 2. Waiver of Forfeiture, 1152. 
 
 XVn. Attornment of Tenant, 1152. 
 
 XVIII. Qualification of Tenants as Voters 
 —See Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 XIX. Other Rights OF Tenants, 1153. 
 
 XX. Rights of Reversioner, 1 153. 
 
 XXI. Notice TO Quit, 1153. 
 
 XXIL Crops— See Crops. 
 
 XXIII. FIXTURE.S— See Fixtures. 
 
 XXIV. Actions and Proceedings by Land- 
 lord. 
 
 1. On Covenants. 
 
 (a) Imperfect Execution oj Lease, 
 
 1153. 
 
 (b) Damages, 1154. 
 
 2. Receipt of Rent ajter Action 
 
 Brought, 1154. 
 
 3. Overholding Tenants, 1154. 
 
 4. Distress — See Distress. 
 
 5. Ejectment or A ction for the Recovery 
 
 oJ Land— See Ejectment. 
 
 6. Landlord's Claim for Rent — .See 
 
 Sheriff. 
 
 XXV. Actions Against Landlord. 
 
 1. Damages Recoverable. 
 
 (a) Ifefusim/ to Give Possession, 
 
 1155." 
 
 (b) Breach of Covenant in Lease, 
 
 1155. 
 
 (c) Oivitiq False Notice of Sale,. 
 
 1155. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 1155. 
 
 XXVI. Disputing Landlord's Title, 1156. 
 
 I. Operation of the Statute of Frauds. 
 
 The plaintiff sued defendant for damages for 
 refusing to give liim possession of premiaea 
 which the plaintiff alleged that defendant had 
 verbally agreed to give him a lease of for six- 
 teen months : — Held, affirming the judgment of 
 the county court, that the evidence did not 
 shew an actual letting, but that even if it did 
 the plaintiff must fail under the fourth section 
 of the statute of frauds, as the action was 
 brought in respect of an agreement for an inter- 
 est in land. Moore v. Kay, 5 A. R. 261. 
 
 The plaintiff was the lessee of certain pi'emises 
 used as a factory, and having become insolvent 
 the lease was forfeited by the lessor, the defen- 
 dant, though at what particular time did not 
 appear. The plaintiff cci: tinned in occupation, 
 ivna an arrangement was encored into, whereby 
 one F. agreed to purchase the machinery on the 
 premises from the official assignee, giving the 
 plaintiff the option to redeem it within two 
 years. The plaintiff further obtained from the 
 defendant an agreement, as follows : — "Toronto, 
 January 27th, 1880. In the event of Thomas 
 Carroll continuing the occupation of building on 
 Hayter street, I promise and agree to give a 
 new lease at a rental of $600 for nve years ; iilso 
 agree to allow, etc., (specifying certain allow- 
 ances). Signed, R. S. Williams." The defen- 
 dant refused to sign a lease of the premises to the 
 plaintiff, and an action being brought for s])eci- 
 nc performance : — Held, dismissing the action, 
 that the agreement was not sufficient to satisfy 
 the statute of frauds, as it did not appear from 
 it with certainty when the term was to begin, 
 nor to whom the lease was to be given. Seml)le, 
 that the official assignee should have been made 
 a party, and that in any event it would have 
 been a case for damages, not for specific perfor- 
 mance. Carrdll v. Trt7/trt»ji, 1 0. R. 150.— 
 Boyd. 
 
1133 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1134 
 
 The defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff $300 
 if he would procure a lease of the prer.iises then 
 occupied by him under lease from one VV., and 
 adjoining the defendant's, with the privilege of 
 making a doorway between the two houses, and 
 assign the lease to him. At the plaintiff's re- 
 quest, the defendant wrote him the following 
 letter : " To Mr. John Bland. Dear Sir, — In 
 reply to youra of to-day, 1 promise to give you 
 |30() provided you can give me a transfer lease, 
 with privilege to make an opening between your 
 premises ana my own. Cash to be paid on com- 
 pletion of transfer lease. 1'his is as I under- 
 stand it. Yours most truly, T. Eaton." The 
 plaintiff procured a lease, and tendered an assign- 
 ment of it to the defendant, who refused to 
 accept it, whereupon the plaintiff sued for the 
 $300: — Held, reversing the <lecision of the 
 County Coiirt, that tlio defendant's letter was 
 a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the re(juire- 
 ments - ' ^tion 4 of the Statute of Frauds, 
 within which the agreement fell as being a con- 
 tract concerning an interest in land ; tliat the 
 premises were described with sufficient certainty, 
 and the omission to specify the terms of the 
 lease was immaterial, they having been left in 
 the plaintiff's discretion. The plaintiff, there- 
 fore, was held entitled to recover. Bland v. 
 Eaton, 6 A. R. 73. 
 
 Rent issuing out of land is a tenement ; it par- 
 takes of the nature of land, and is witliin the 
 fifth section of the Statute of P^ramls, and hence 
 is also within 2.5 Geo. II. c. 0. s. 1. liopkint v. 
 ffopk-in.s, 3 O. R. 223— Chy. D. 
 
 See Mmipc v. Oilmonr, 17 0. 
 R. 27, p. 1135. 
 
 R. C20 ; 17 A, 
 
 II. Le.ase or Licknse. 
 
 Sec S^eymour v. Lynch, 7 O. R. 471 ; 14 A. R. 
 738 ; 15 S. (I R. 341 ; lioanv. Kromhdn, 12 O. 
 R. 197, p. r)88. 
 
 III. AciREEMKNT FOR LeASE. 
 
 The defendant entered into negotiations with 
 a loan company, who were the owners of a farm, 
 for a lease thereof to him. The terms were dis- 
 cussed, and pending a lease to be prepared by 
 the company's solicitors and executed by de- 
 fendant, he was allowed to enter into possession. 
 The defendant admitted that until he executed 
 the lease there was no completed agreement. A 
 lease was accordingly prepared, containing what 
 the company imderstood were the terms, which 
 defendant refused to execute. Tlie company 
 thereupon sold the land to plaintiff arid gave 
 defendant notice to (piit. In an acti<m by 
 plaintiff to recover possession: — Held, that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover ; that as tlie de- 
 fendant was not in possession under any con- i 
 eluded agreement regarding the lease he was 
 merely in as tenant at will to the loan company, 
 which was determined by the notice to quit. 
 Lamox v. Wextwy, 17 O. R. 472.— C. P. 1). 
 
 IV. Construction and Oi'eration ok Leasem. 
 1. Leiixen Under Short Forms Act. 
 
 i^ee Emmelt v. Qiihin,! A. R. .SWi, p. 1142;] 
 Crawford v. Bum;, 12 O. R. 8, p. 1140. [ 
 
 2. Commencement and Duration of Tenanq/. 
 
 In July, 1880, M. conveyed certain lands to 
 plaintiff which were embraced in lands of which 
 the defendant was tenant from year to year of 
 M. under a tenancy since 1868. In December, 
 1880, the plaintiff executed in favour of M. what 
 purported to be a statutory lease of the lands 
 conveyed to him at a yearly rent of twenty cents. 
 The habendum was during the term of the 
 occupancy of the tenant as lessee of George 
 Thompson, the defendant, " of the lands leased 
 to him, the said term to be computed from the 
 2nd July, 1880, and from thencef-jrth next en- 
 suing and to be fully complete and ended as soon 
 as the said G. T. shall vacate tlie said premises 
 or cease to reside thereon." The defendant con- 
 tinued to pay rent to M. , a'.id was never balled 
 upon to attorn or pay rent to the plaintiff, and 
 received no notice to quit from M. prior to action 
 brought, and no demand of possession from 
 plaintiff until about the commencement of this 
 action. M. required an undertaking from plain- 
 tiff not to disturb defendant while he continued 
 her tenant, and informed defendant of this lease, 
 and that he should have undisturbed possession 
 while ho paid rent to her. The defendant claimed 
 title under M., and contended that the convey- 
 ance did not affect his rights under his lease : — 
 Held, that the lease by plaintiff to M. did not 
 operate as a lease for years owing to the un- 
 certainty of the termination thereof ; but would 
 be a tenancy at will until payment of rent when 
 it would be a tenancy from year to year ; and 
 also might be deemed an agreement fixing the 
 annual value of the premises at twenty cents, 
 which M. should collect from the defendant and 
 pay over to the plaintiff : — Held, also, that on 
 the conveyance by M. to plaintiff there was a 
 severance of the reversion, and the rent became 
 apportionable at common law, but the concur- 
 rence of the defendant was necessary, or appor- 
 tionment by a jury ; and that it might not be 
 unfairly assumed that there was such concur- 
 rence, and that defendant paid the twenty cents 
 to M. for plaintiff, becoming thereby tenant from 
 year to year to plaintiff, .and entitled to six 
 months' notice to quit ; or that M. paid the rent 
 to plaintiff and became tenant from year to year 
 to plaintiff ; and she receiving rent as thereto- 
 fore from defendant he was as against or under 
 her entitled co the benefit of such term, and 
 either slie or defendant to the six months' notice. 
 The defendant was therefore held entitled to 
 possession until he received the proper notice to 
 (piit. Beeve v. Thompson, 14 0. R. 499. — Rose. 
 
 The plaintiff's testatrix, who had a life estate 
 in certain lands, made a lease of them for ten 
 years to one of the defendants, who was entitled 
 to the reversion in fee. The reservation of rent in 
 the lease was to the lessor simply, and the cov- 
 enant for payment of rent was ' ' with the lessor, 
 her heirs and assigns," for payment to "the said 
 lessor, her heirs and assigns." The lessor died 
 before the expiration of ten years, and this action 
 was brought by the executrix of her will to re- 
 cover (inter alia) the instalments of rents which 
 became payable, as it was alleged, upon the 
 lease after her death : — Held, that, as the inter- 
 est of the lessor was a freehold interest, the 
 plaintiff could not recover either as being entitl- 
 ed to the reversion of a chattel interest, or as 
 being the person designated by the covenant : — 
 

 Ml 
 
 s 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■'.f*^ 
 
 1135 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1136 
 
 Held, also, that there was no estoppel to pi-event 
 the lessee from shewing that the title of the 
 lessor had come to an end, and that he himself 
 became the owner upon her death. Thatcher v. 
 Bowtnan, 18 O. R. 265.— Street. 
 
 Since the Judicature Act the result of a verbal 
 lease of real property for more than three years, to 
 continueuntil and expire uponaday certain, where 
 the tenant has taken possession, is that he is bound 
 to give up possession at the end of the stipulated 
 period witiiout notice to quit. And where McC. , 
 the tenant for such a term, sublet to the defen- 
 <1ants, butnot forany definite period : — Held, that 
 tlieir term also expired upon the day the original 
 tenancy expired, and when they continued in pos- 
 session thereafter they wereover-holdingtenants. 
 Maiii'e V. Oilmonr, 17 0. R. 620.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff, the landlord, issued a dis- 
 tress warrant for rent of the premises in ques- 
 tion after the expiry of the term and the 
 defendants, without the concurrence of McC, 
 who had tried to dislodge them and refused to 
 receive rent from them after the expiry of the 
 term, paid the rent demanded to the plaintitt''s 
 bailiff, not as being due by themselves, but as 
 being due by McC, to the plaintiff. The war- 
 rant recognized McC. as being tenant on the day 
 of its date, some months after the expiry of the 
 term, but did not recognize the defendants' rights 
 in any way. In an action of ejectment the de- 
 fendants disclaimed being tenants under the 
 plaintiff and insisted that they were still in under 
 McC : — Held, that the payment of the rent did 
 not, under the circumstances, establish a new 
 tenancy between McC. and the defendants, even 
 if McC ever became the tenant of the plaintiff 
 after the expiry of his original term, which was 
 not shewn. The plaintiff after the expiry of the 
 term served on the defendants a written notice 
 to quit, in which they were recognized as his 
 tenants : — Held, that, having disclaimed being 
 tenants to the plaintiff, the defendants were not 
 entitled to notice to quit, and if they were, the 
 one they received was sufficient. Ih. 
 
 On appeal the Court of Appeal dismissed the 
 appeal. The court agreed with the judgment 
 Ijelow, holding that the tenancy, though by oral 
 lease, void under the Statute of Frauds, M'as a 
 tenancy for a term certain and not from year to 
 year ; that the sub-tenancy came to an end with 
 the tenancy, and that the subsequent proceed- 
 ings fully set out .n the report did not operate 
 to create a new term as between the sub-tenan'.s 
 and the plaintiff. .>'. C, 17 A. R. 27. 
 
 See Wihon v. Odmer, 46 Q. B. 54.5, p. 491 ; 
 Lennox v. Westmy, 17 O. R. 472, p. 1133. 
 
 3. Other dim. 
 
 By a lease from one D. to the plaintiff it vras 
 provided that if D. sold the farm the plaintiff 
 should give up possession upon receiving six 
 months' notice befo>'o the Ist of April, and that 
 he should have the privilege of harvesting and 
 threshing the crops of the summer fallow, or the 
 work done on said fallow should be paid for at 
 a reasonable valuation. D. afterwards sold to 
 the defendant, and in August the plaintiff re- 
 ceived the stipulated notice after he had pre- 
 pared the summer fallow but before he had 
 
 sown it. He afterwards sowed it with fall 
 wheat, and gave up possession on the Ist of 
 April. Neither D. nor the defendant elected to 
 pay for the crop, and the defendant converted 
 it to his own use : — Held, affirming 44 Q. B. .lOO, 
 that the true construction of the provision was, 
 that the plaintiff was to have the privilege of 
 harvesting any crops which might have been put 
 in on the summer fallow, unless D. elected to 
 pay for them at a valuation ; that he had never 
 parted with the property in the crop, and that 
 he was therefore entitled to recover in trover 
 against the defendant. Per Patterson, J. A. — 
 If the lessor intended to pay for the work, he 
 was bound to elect to do so when lie gave the 
 notice, or at tlie latest, when he resumed pos- 
 session. HurrUon v. Pinkney, 6 A. R. 225. 
 
 A tenant agreed to pay for certain premises .S6 
 a month and taxes, and for some eighteen years 
 remained in possession, paying the taxes and pay- 
 ing nothing else. The tenant, after the expiration 
 of this period, gave to his landlord an acknow- 
 ledgment of indebtedness for rent for the whole 
 period :— Held, that the payment of taxes was 
 not a payment of rent within the meaning of the 
 Keal Property Limitation Act, and that the 
 tenant, although he hiul always intended to hold 
 merely as tenant, had acquired title by posses- 
 sion, and could not make himself liable as for 
 rent accruing after he had so acquired posses- 
 sion by giving to the landlord an acknowledg- 
 ment of indebtedness in respect of rent. Davis 
 V. McKinnon, 31 Q. B. 564, observed upon. 
 Judgment of the Q. B. D., 16 0. R. 39.3, 
 reversed, and that of Street, J., at the trial 
 restored. Finch v. O'dray, 16 A. R. 484, fol- 
 lowed in Coffin v. North Americun Land Co., 
 21 O. R. 80. ' 
 
 Effect of lease by infant. 
 due, 18 O. R. 575, p. 905. 
 
 See TApsett v. Per- 
 
 4. Covenants. 
 (a) To Pay Rent. 
 
 The plaintiff, by deed of .30th of Deceml)er, 
 1882, created a term for ten years, which l)ecanie 
 vested in the defendants, of "all the mines of 
 ores of iron and iron stone, as well opened as 
 not opened, wln'ch can, shall, or may be wrought, 
 dug, found out, or discovered within, upon, or 
 under ten acres square of the north half of lot 
 number 12 in the 6tli concession of Madoc " : 
 Yielding and paying .$1 per gross ton of the said 
 iron stone or ore for every ton mined and raised 
 from the land and mine, payable quarterly on 
 the 1st days of March, June, September, and 
 December, in each year. The lessees covenanted 
 to dig up, etc., not less than 2,000 tons the first 
 year and not less than 5,000 tons in every sub- 
 sequent year, and " pay quarterly the sum of$l 
 ppr ton for the quantity agreed to be taken during 
 each year : " • * And if the same should exceed 
 the (juantity actually taken, such excess to be 
 applied towards payment of the first quarter 
 thereafter in which more than the stipulated 
 quantity should be taken : " Provided, that if 
 the iron ore or iron stone shall be exhausted and 
 not to be found or obtained there, by proper and 
 reasonable effort, in piying quantities, then the 
 parties of the second part »I;«.ll be at liberty to 
 determine the lease." The defendants entered, 
 
1136 
 
 ^^ed it with fall 
 <n on the Ist of 
 endant elected to 
 3ndant converted 
 ling 44 Q. B. 509, 
 he provision was, 
 ) the privilege of 
 ;ht have been put 
 ess 13. elected to 
 ;hat he had never 
 le crop, and that 
 recover in trover 
 'atterson, J. A.— 
 for the work, he 
 rhen he gave the 
 he resumed pes- 
 6 A. R. 225. 
 
 irtain premises $6 
 irie eighteen years 
 the taxes and pay- 
 Eter the expiration 
 dlord an acknow- 
 ent for the whole 
 lent of taxes was 
 ho meaning of the 
 ct, and that the 
 s intended to hold 
 i title by posses- 
 tiself liable as for 
 > acquired posses- 
 1 an acknowledg- 
 3t of rent. Davis 
 , observed upon. 
 , 16 O. R. 393, 
 , J., at the trial 
 6 A. R. 484, fol- 
 nerican Land Co., 
 
 ee Lipnelt v. Per- 
 
 Ht. 
 
 0th of Decemlier, 
 ars, which became 
 
 ill the mines of 
 IS well opened as 
 r may be wrought, 
 I within, upon, or 
 north half of lot 
 ision of Madoc " : 
 iss ton of the said 
 
 mined and raised 
 able quarterly on 
 September, and 
 lessees covenanted 
 
 ,000 tons the first 
 ons in every sub- 
 ;erlythe sum ol%\ 
 to be taken during 
 same should exceed 
 such excess to be 
 
 the first tiuarter 
 lan the stipulated 
 
 Provided, that if 
 
 I be exhausted and 
 lere, by proper and 
 lantities, then the 
 
 II be at liberty to 
 ifendants entered, 
 
 1137 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1188 
 
 •and proceeded to work the mines until Sep- 
 tember (or December), 1884, when, having 
 taken out about 300 tons, tliey ascertained 
 that the ore could not be obtained in piying 
 quantities, whereupon they notilied the lessor 
 thereof and of their desire to surrender their 
 lease, which surrender the lessor refused to 
 accept, and instituted jjroceedings to recover 
 the amount of two quarters' rent, all prior 
 rents having been regularly i)ai(l. The de- 
 fendants counter-claimed for the rents already 
 paid by reason of failure of cousidei'atiou : — 
 Held, (1) that, in the aijseuce of any specified 
 mode of surrendering the term having been 
 provided for the leivse, the act of the defendants 
 was a sufficient determination thereof ; (2) (in 
 tliis reversing the judgment of Ferguson, J.) 
 that the consideration for the lease had not 
 failed, so as to bring it within the class of cases 
 where the subject matter conhl be treated as 
 non-existent, and by the true construction of 
 the lease the plaintiff was entitled to be paid 
 <(uarterly for the quantity of ore agreed to be got 
 out ; that the defendants were not entitled to 
 recover back any of the rents paid, and that 
 the lessor was entitled to judgment for such rent 
 as accrued due betweei. the 1st of June and the 
 giving of the notice o'. surrender. Wallhrklije 
 V. Oanjof, 14 A. IJ. 4()0, affirmed by Supreme 
 Court MitJ) nom. Pabwr v. WaUbridi/e, 15 S. 
 •C. R. 650. 
 
 (b) To Pay Taxes. 
 
 Breach of covenant to p'vy taxes remedied be- 
 fore statement of claim for recovery of possession 
 filed. See Buckley v. Heinle, 8 O. R. 85, p. 1152, 
 
 Held, that under the woriliug of the covenant 
 to pay "all taxes, rates, duties, and assessments 
 whatsoever, * * now charged or here- 
 after to be charged upon the said demised prem- 
 ises," the defendant was liable for local improve- 
 ment taxes and for the additions made under the 
 Assessment Act year by year to the amount of 
 the taxes in arrear or additions made by the 
 municipality. Hotdtoiiv. Blake, 12 0. R. 532. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 K, and others, on 1st October, 1880, leased to 
 C and another two parcels of land for four years, 
 the lessees co tenanting to pay all taxes, rates, 
 etc., "which now are, or which during the con- 
 tinuance of the term hereby demised, slrdl at 
 anytime be rated," etc. In March, 1881, the 
 lessors mortgaged one of said parcels to H. In 
 December, 1883, part of the mortgaged land waa 
 «old to C. for the arrears of taxes to 31st Decem- 
 ber, 1882, and a conveyance was subsequently 
 made to him by the warden and treasurer. It 
 appeared that the land was sold for the taxes 
 due for the years 1880 and 1882, with interest 
 and costs. In an action brought by the mortga- 
 gee H. to set aside the tax deed as a cloud on 
 the title, or to have the tax purchaser declared 
 a trustee for him : — Held, that the tax pur- 
 chaser could not hold the title so acquired against 
 his lessors and the plaintiff, the lessees Iteing 
 bound under their covenant to pay the taxes for 
 which the land was sold. McNaughtou v. Wigg, 
 35 Q. B. Ill, distinguished. Heyden v. CaHle, 
 ib 0. R. 257.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Finch v. Oilray, 16 A. R. 484, p. 1136. 
 72 
 
 (c) iVb< to AmIqh or Suh-ht. 
 
 The plaintiffs, owners in fee of certain land on 
 the .SOth October, 1866, leased it for twenty -ono 
 years to ono B. by a lease under the Short 
 Forms Act, containing covenants to pay rent 
 and not to assign or sub-let without leave. By 
 a deed of the same date, after reciting the lease, 
 ar.d an agreement of B. to purchase the build- 
 ings on the land for $1,409, the plaintiffs con- 
 v-jyed the said buildings to B. his executors, 
 administrators ami assigns. B. then mortgaged 
 the premises to H., and afterwards assigned his 
 interest to C, who assigned to G. H. ,and G. 
 H. assigned to M. This last assignment was 
 objected to by the plaiutitfs, who brought eject- 
 ment against the defendant D., who was in pos- 
 session of the buildings under a verbal lease from 
 B., for the forfeiture occasioned by such assign- 
 ment, as also for non-payment of rent. While 
 u rule nisi to set aside their verdict was pending 
 the plaintiffs obtained a decree in Ciiancery, by 
 which the conveyance to B. , as far as it conveyed 
 the land on which said buildings stood, was de- 
 clared to be a mistake, and was rectified so as to 
 pass only a chattel interest in said buildings, and 
 no estate in the laud : — Held, that the plaintiffs 
 were entitled to recover for the breach of the 
 covenant not to assign, etc., but that under the 
 circumstances their recovery must be limited to 
 the land alone and not to the buildings thereon, 
 and that therefore they could not enter into the 
 buildings or remove the defendant therefronti. 
 Toronto HoipUal Tnts/een v. Denham, 31 C. P. 
 203.— Wilson. 
 
 On 19th May, 1870, E. made a lease of certain 
 household premises to P. for twenty-one years. 
 On .30th June, 1871, P., with E.'s assent, as- 
 signed to J. B. On 10th April. 1877, E., who 
 was merely a bare trustee for plaintiff, assigned 
 the reversion to her. On 29th December, 1882, 
 .T. B., without plaintiff's knowledge or assent, 
 assigned to C. B., who thereafter was in posses- 
 sion of the property, receiving the rents from 
 sub-tenants and paying the rents under the prin- 
 cipal lease to the plaintiff. The plaintiff^ had 
 also received the rents prior to E. 's assignment 
 to her. The lease was under seal, and was in 
 the ordinary printed form, and purported to be 
 under the Short Forms Act. The statntory 
 covenants were prefaced by the words : — " And 
 the said lessee for liiinself, his heirs and execu- 
 tors, administrators and assigns hereby cove- 
 nants with the said lessor, his heirs and execu- 
 tors, administrators and assigns, in manner and 
 form following, that is to say." Then followed 
 the ordinary statutory covenants, except that 
 after the covenant " to repair " were the words 
 " reasonable wear and tear and accidents by fire 
 and tempest excepted," and after the covenant 
 " not to assign, and sub-let without leave," the 
 additional covenant " and not to carry on any 
 business that shall be deemed a nuisance. " The 
 covenant not to assign was (except as to the 
 additional words) in the language used in cove- 
 nant 7, column 2 of the Short Form of Leases 
 Act :— Held, that the covenant not to assign or 
 sub-let, etc. , did not include assignees, as they 
 could not be held to be named ; and the pre- 
 fatory words to the covenant would have no con- 
 trary effect ; and therefore J. B.'s assignment 
 to C. B. was no breach thereof ; and this was 
 equally so as to sub-letting by using the prem- 
 
1139 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1140 
 
 s 
 
 M 
 
 ises aa a tenement house ; and also from the fact 
 of the user having; been open and notorious both 
 by P. and J. B. for some thirteen years a license 
 to do so must be presumed. Quiere, whether 
 such covenant ran witli the land, the authorities 
 on the point bein^' conflicting ; but tlie county 
 judge, to whom the case had been referred, 
 having found that it did so run, a ju<lge sitting 
 in single court refused to interfere. Cramford v. 
 Binjij, 12 0. R. 8.— McDougall, Co. J.— Rose. 
 
 (d) Ayainst Incumhrancts and Jor Quiel Enjoy- 
 
 ment. 
 
 See Anderwii V, Slercnson, 15 (). R. .WS, p. 
 1149; nnmbcrlinid v. KearriK, 18 O. R. 151 ; 17 
 A. R. 281, p. 4--'S. 
 
 (e) To Repair — To hep up Fcncen — ComnmHion 
 
 of Wante. 
 
 Semblc, that in this country the removal of a 
 fence on a farin from one place to another is not 
 per se, as a matter of law, a breach of a covenant 
 to repair and keep fences in repair ; and whetlier 
 it is so or not would be a ({uestion of fact under 
 the circumstances of each case. When the les- 
 sor accepted rent after such a removal with 
 knowledge of it : — Held, a waiver of the forfeit- 
 ure, if any, and that he could not afterwards 
 claim to re-enter for the continuance of the fence 
 in its altered position as a breach of the cove- 
 nant. Leinhlonv. Medhy, 1 O. R. 207.— Q.B.D. 
 
 On May 19th, 1870, E. made a lease of certain 
 household premises to P. for twenty-one years. 
 On 30th June, 1871, P., with E.'s nssent, as- 
 signed to J. B. On 10th April, 1877, E. who 
 was merely a bare trustee for plaintiff, assigned 
 the reversion to her. On 29th December, 1882, 
 J. B., without plaintiflF's knowledge or assent, 
 assigned to C. B., who thereafter was in posses- 
 sion of the property, receiving the rents from 
 sub-tenants and paying the rents under the prin- 
 cipal lease to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had 
 also received the Tents prior to E.'s assignment 
 to her. The lease was under seal, and was in 
 the ordinary printed form, and purported to be 
 under the Sliort Forms Act. The statixtory 
 covenants were prefaced by the words: "And 
 the said lessee for himself, his heirs and execu- 
 tors, administrators and assigns hereby cove- 
 nants with the .said les.s(>r, his heirs and execu- 
 tors, administrators and assigns in manner and 
 form followiiig, that is to say." Then followed 
 the ordinary statutory covenants, except after 
 the covenant "to repair" were the words "rea- 
 sonable wear and tear and accidents by fire and 
 tempest excepted," and after the covenant 
 "not to assign or sublet without leave," the 
 additional covenant "and not to carry on any 
 business that shall be deemed a nuisance : " — 
 Held, that the covenant to repair, ran with 
 the land ; that J. B. 's liability as assignee 
 of the term cease(i on bis assignment to C. B. ; 
 and he would oidy be liable for tlie breaches, 
 if any, which occurred prior thereto ; and the 
 covenant must be read as subject to the words, 
 "reasonable wear and tear," etc.: — Held, 
 alao, that there could be no liability on defen- 
 dants ns executors of J. B. for breach of 
 implied covenant by themselves and J. B. to use 
 the premises in a tenant-like manner, for there 
 
 being a lease under seal with express covenants, 
 no such implied covenant would arise, Crawjonl 
 V. BiKjij, 12 O. R. 8. — McDougall, Co. J. _ 
 Rose. 
 
 Held, also, that an actioii of waste would lie 
 notwithstanding the express covenant to repair ; 
 but there must l)e what would constitute wiistp. 
 A mere breach of covenant, not amounting to 
 waste, not being sufficient ; but to mnintaiu 
 such action the plaintiff must have a vesteil in- 
 terest in the reversion, at the time waste com- 
 mitted, so that her claim, ii any, must be for 
 waste committed after she acquired tli ; rever- 
 sion and up to J. B. 's assignment ; but there 
 couM be no liability here, for as to J. B., it 
 appe ired his assignment was made more than a 
 year prior to his decease ; and the R.8.O. (IH77) 
 c. 107, s. 9, only applied to breaches committed 
 by testator within six months prior to his de- 
 cease ; and that it was not necessary for the 
 defendant to set this up as a defence, the onu.i 
 being on plaiiitifT to shew that she came within 
 the statute ; and as to the executors it appeared 
 they had no interest in the term and had never 
 intermeddled with the property. lb. 
 
 Held, also, that there was no breach of the 
 covenant by defendant to repair according to 
 notice because the notice was given to J. B. after 
 he had parted with his interest in the teiin. Ih. 
 
 Held, also, that as to many of the alleged 
 breaches they were such as came within the terms 
 " reasonable wear and tear," while as to others 
 the evidence failed to disclosed the date when 
 they occurred and therefore whether prior to 
 the assignment to J. B, lb. 
 
 On December 5th, 1882, plaintiff by lease, 
 made according to an Act respecting " .Short 
 Forms of Leases," R. S. O. (1877) e. 103, demised 
 to defendant certain premises for a grocery ami 
 liquor store, for a term of years. In April, 1S83, 
 defendant made a door through an inner brick 
 wall, to get access from the store to a portion of 
 the premises previously reached only from the 
 outside. Plaintiff at Krst objected to this, but 
 afterwards assented to it. A partition, partly 
 glass and partly wood, in which was a door, 
 separated the office from the store. In April, 
 1885, defendant proceeded to move this partition 
 nearer the centre of the store, substituting wood 
 for the glass, closing up the door and converting 
 a front window into a door, so as to make the 
 office a licjuor store, to comply with the new law 
 requiring a separation of liquors from groceries. 
 Plaintiff claimed an injunction to prevent further 
 waste, and a right to re-enter for breach of the 
 covenant to repair. The judge at the trial found 
 that no damage was done to the premises: — Held 
 
 1. That the breaking through the brick wall, for 
 the purpose of making the door, was a breach of 
 the covenant to repair, but was not a continuing 
 breach, and had been waived by the landlord. 
 
 2. That under the statutory covenant to repair, 
 the tenant was bound to keep in repair not only 
 the demised premises, but also impliedly all 
 fixtures and things erected or made during the 
 term which he had a right to erect or make : that 
 the right to erect such fixtures is to this extent, 
 viz., that they shall not be such as to diminish 
 the value of the demised premises, nor to in- 
 crease the burden upon them as against the 
 landlord, nor to impair the evidence of title. 3. 
 
ii4ir 
 
 1141 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1142 
 
 Bs covenants, 
 le. Crawjonl 
 11, Co. J._ 
 
 ste woulil lie 
 Hit to repair ; 
 ititute wnate, 
 (.mounting to 
 to maintain 
 e ft vested in- 
 e waste corn- 
 must be for 
 3d til : rever- 
 it ; but there 
 1 to J. B., it 
 B more than a 
 R.8.0. (I877> 
 es committed 
 ior to his de- 
 isary for the 
 Mice, the onusi 
 i came within 
 rs it appeared 
 nd had never 
 lb. 
 
 breach of the 
 
 according to 
 
 I to J. B. after 
 
 the tei-m. Ih. 
 
 f the alleged 
 thin the term* 
 e as to others 
 the date when 
 sther prior to 
 
 itiff by lease, 
 scting " .Short 
 !. 103, demised 
 a grocery ami 
 In April, 188,S, 
 m inner brick 
 to a portion of 
 only from the 
 d to this, but 
 irtition, partly 
 [1 was a door, 
 )re. In April, 
 e this partition 
 >stituting wood 
 and converting 
 as to make the 
 th the new law 
 from groceries, 
 irevent further 
 ir breach of the 
 the trial found 
 remises :— Held 
 ) brick wall, for 
 was a breach of 
 lot a continuing 
 ly the landlord, 
 iuant to repair, 
 repair not only 
 > impliedly all 
 lade during the 
 it or make ; that 
 s to this extent, 
 1 as to diminish 
 lises, nor to in- 
 as against the 
 snce of title. 3. 
 
 The plaintiffs reversion not being injured by the 
 acts complained of, there was no waste and no for- 
 feiture. Holdfrnena v. I.amj, 1 1 0. R. 1. — Q. B. D. 
 
 By a notarial lease the respondents (lessees) 
 covenanted to deliver to the appellant (lessor) 
 certain premises in the city of Montreal at the 
 expiration of their lease " in as good order, 
 state, etc. , as the same were at the commence- 
 ment thereof, reasonable wear and tear and 
 accidents by fire excepted." Subsecjuently, the 
 appellant (alleging the fire had been caused by 
 the negligence of the respondents) brought an 
 action against them for the amount of the costs 
 of reconstructing the premises and restoring 
 them in good order and condition, less the 
 amonnt received from insurance :— Held, affirm- 
 ing the judgment of the court of Queen's Bench 
 for Lower Canada (appeal side), Kitchie, C. J., 
 and Taschereau, J., dissenting, that the re- 
 spndents were not responsible for the loss, as 
 the tire in the present case was an accident by 
 fire within the terms of the exception contained 
 in the lease, and therefore articles 1,05.S, 1,627 
 and 1,629 C. C. were not applicable. Ei-aiisv. 
 Skdton, 16 S. C. R. 637. 
 
 See Cook v. Edwauh, 10 O. R. 341, p. 1143 ; 
 ilm/irooev. T^m.'ier, 14 0. R. 551, p. 1143; Hmiston 
 v. McLaren, 14 A. R. 103, p. 1 144 ; CIciidenan v. 
 Rlatchford, 150. R. 285 ; Ferr/u-ion v. Troop, 17 
 S.C. R. 527, p. 1151. 
 
 (f) To Rehuild. 
 
 In a lease, expressed to be made in pursuance 
 of the .'\ct respecting Short Forms of Leases, the 
 covenants, in place of the words "the lessee 
 covenants with the lessor," were commenced 
 with the words " the said party of the second 
 part covenants with the said party of the first 
 part." Then followed covenants representing 
 the statutory short form covenants, and a cove- 
 nant to build a house on the demised premises ; 
 and another covenant to rebuild in the event of 
 the building so erected during the term being 
 destroyed by fire. This last covenant was intro- 
 duced by the words, " and the said party of the 
 second part further covenants with the said 
 party of the first part. " The lessee, with the 
 assent of the lessor, assigned the lease, and the 
 assignee built in pursuance of the covenant, and 
 executed a mortgage to the defendant, and on 
 the buildings being burnt down rebuilt them. 
 Subsequently the defendant, on default of pay- 
 ment, sold, under the power in his mortgage, 
 to one N., who assigned the leasehold interest in 
 the property to the defendant, and thereafter 
 the buildings, during the occupation of the de- 
 fendant, were again destroyed by fire : — Held 
 (1) that the covenant to rebuild derived no aid 
 from the statute, and was to be read, as made 
 by the lessee for himself alone and not for his 
 assigns, and the decree of Blake, V. C. , 27 Chy. 
 420, was reversed ; Spragge, C. J., Burton, and 
 Morrison, JJ.A., holding that the covenant 
 bein^ in respect of something not in esse at the 
 makmg of the lease did not run with the land, 
 and did not bind the defendant : Patterson, J. 
 A., dissenting on the ground that the buildings 
 having been erected, before the assignment to 
 the defendant, the covenant ran with the land 
 and bound him. Held, (2) by Spragge, C. J., 
 Burton, and Morrison, JJ.A., that the covenant 
 
 to build not being one of the statutory cove- 
 nants, must be read as being made by the lessee 
 for himself alone and not for his assigns. Per 
 Patterson, J. A. That the short form words 
 introductory to the covenants should be read as 
 if extended in the long form upon the deed; and 
 therefore the words " for himself, his executors, 
 adniiuistrators, nn'd assigns " applied to the 
 covenant to build, though not to the covenant 
 to rebuild. Per Patterson, .'. A. The use of 
 the words "party of the first part," and " party 
 of the second part," inserted in the introductory 
 part of the covenants was a sufficient compliance 
 with the provision of the statute, in respect to 
 short forms of leases, which says that any name 
 or names may be substituted for the words " les- 
 sor" and "lessee." Remarks on MiiishuUjJ.Oakesi, 
 2 H. & N. 793. Einmelt v. Qiiinn, 7 A. R. 306. 
 
 (g) To Pay for Buildings or Improvements. 
 
 li. demised certain lands to W. by deed of 
 lease, containing an agreement that, "at the 
 expiration of the lease, the lessor, his heirs, or 
 assigns, will pay the said lessee, etc., one half 
 of the then value of any permanent improve- 
 ments he may place upon the said lands," etc. :— 
 Held, that the liability to pay for the said im- 
 provements ran with the land and attached as 
 an equitable lien thereon as against the plaintifl', 
 to whom 15. had conveyed the said land, such 
 lien attaching on the title which B. had at the 
 time of such conveyance to the plaintiff, and 
 that on the expiration of the term, the latter 
 could only recover possession of the said land 
 subject to such lien. Reference to the master 
 ordered to fix the value of such improvements. 
 lierriev. Woods, 12 0. R. 693.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, that a covenant by a lessor (not men- 
 tioning assigns) to pay for buildings to be erect- 
 ed on the lands demised did not run with the 
 land, and that the lessee or his assigns had no 
 claim as against the land or the devisees of the 
 lessor in respect of the value of buildings so 
 erected. McGlary v. Jack-ion, 13 0. 11. 310.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 In 1849 W. F. married A. F. without marri- 
 age settlement. In 1872 W. F. entered into a 
 covenant for himself, his heirs, and assigns, as 
 lessor of certain lands, to pay at the expiration 
 of the lease for a certain malthouse, which the 
 lessee was to have liberty to erect, and did erect 
 upon the demised premises. Pending the term, 
 W. F. conveyed the reversion in such a way that 
 it became vested in himself and VV. as trustee, 
 as to the whole beneficial interest, for A. F. : — 
 Held (affirming the decision of Ferguson, J., re- 
 ported 12 0. R. 459), that the separate estate of 
 A. F. was not bound by the covenant, though 
 she was equitable owner of the reversion as 
 above mentioned at the time of the erection of 
 the malt-house, and until the expiration of the 
 lease. Per Boyd, C. — Whether the covenant 
 was one that ran with the land or not, and 
 whether A. F. or her trustees were assignees 
 within the meaning of 32 Hen. VIII. c. 34 or 
 not, privity of estate is not tantamount to priv- 
 ity of contract so as without more to affect the 
 separate estate of a married woman, as if she 
 had expressly contracted with reference there- 
 to: — Held, also (affirming the decision of Fergu- 
 son, J. ), that a claim on behalf of the said trus- 
 
WP 
 
 1143 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT- 
 
 1144 
 
 tees for rent in arrear, and for duinugeg for non- 
 repair, wua not muttei' of set-ofT against dam- 
 ages recovered against W. F. for bread) -f his 
 tMiid covenant, though he was one of the trustees, 
 they not being matters arising in the same right. 
 Per Boyd, C — Semble, if the amount to be paid 
 for the malthouse had formed a lien on tliis 
 particular land out of which the rent issued, it 
 may be that the claim for set-off in respect of 
 rent in arrear and damages for non-ropuir would 
 have prevailed. Ambroie v. Franer, 14 O. R. 
 f.r)l.— Chy. D. 
 
 Power of trustees to grant lease for twenty- one 
 years with provision for compc laation for im- 
 provement or renewal. See lirookt v. Hvown, 
 19 O. B. 124. 
 
 See Mason v. Macdoiiald, 45 Q. B. 1 13, p. 122. 
 
 (h) Other Covenants. 
 
 A lessee covenanted that during the term he 
 "will cultivate, till, manure, and employ such 
 part of the demised premises as is now, or shall 
 hereafter be brought under cultivation in a good, 
 husband-like, and proper manner, and shall not 
 nor will during the said term cut any standing 
 timber upon the said lands except for rails or 
 buildings on the said demised premises, and also 
 shall and will sufficiently repair and keep re- 
 paired the erections and buildings, fences, and 
 gates erected or to be erected upon the said 
 premises : the said lessor finding or allowing on 
 the premises all rough timber for the same, or 
 allowing the said lessee to cut and fell so many 
 timber trees upon the said premises as shall be 
 requisite. " The lessor having brought an action 
 on the above covenant claiming daniafres agfvinst 
 the leasee on the ground that he had converted 
 certain pasture into arable land, whnh, how- 
 ever, the jury found was an act of propor hus- 
 bandry, thereupon judgment was entered for 
 the defendant. On motion for a new trial : — 
 Held, that the lessee was at liberty under the 
 lease to bring further parts of the demised pre- 
 mises into cultivation without the landlord's 
 assent, and to fence the same without his assent, 
 if it was a reasonable and proper thing to do in 
 the course of good and judicious husbandry, 
 and there was nothing to indicate that the 
 landlord was to control the use of the timber so 
 as that he might limit it to the buildings, 
 fences, and erections existing at the date of tlie 
 lease. Cook v. Edwards, 10 O. R. 341.— 
 (]hy. D. 
 
 The plaintiff had under several leases been in 
 occupation of a farm of the defendant's for about 
 twenty-five years. In consequence of the dwell- 
 ing on the lot having become unfit for occupation 
 by the lessee he notified the lessor of his in- 
 tention to give up the premises at the end of his 
 term. Thereupon it was agreed that the lessor 
 would put up a new house, the plaintiff agreeing 
 to accept a new lease for six years and pay an 
 increase in his rent of $150 a year. Plaintiff 
 also agreed to perform some work in connection 
 with the building in the summer of the first 
 year of the term, and a written lease was 
 executed containing a covenant by the lessor to 
 build a new house "during the said term." 
 The lessor insisted that he had the whole term 
 within which to put up the house : — Held, 
 
 affirming the judgment of the court below, thtt 
 the circumstances attending the execution of the 
 lease as also the corroboratitm afforded by the 
 lease itself warranted the court in admitting 
 parol evidence to shew that the first year of the 
 term was the year in which the house was to be 
 erected : — Held, also, that even if the lease wu 
 meant to be silent as to the year for building, a 
 reasonable time would be intended, and that 
 the covenant of the pluintifl' being to perform 
 certain work on the building during tliv Krtt 
 summer of the term, and the hicreased rent 
 being payable for the whole term then created, 
 the first year must be considered reasonable 
 Jiulmerv. liriimwcll, 13 A. R. 411. 
 
 The lease from the defendant to the plaiutiff 
 contained the usual covenant by the lessee to 
 repair fences, etc., but the lessor agreed "to 
 build the line fence between the premises hereby 
 demised and tiie farm of D. M., should the same 
 be reijuired during the currency of the lease," 
 The evidence shewed that there was no Hue 
 fence between the farms, but that there wai a 
 fence upon D. M.'s land about twenty-four yards 
 south of tiie boundary line. The plamtiff alleged 
 that this fence was out of order ; and that the 
 defendant would not repair it, and that in con- 
 sequence damage had been done to his crops by 
 cattle, and he contended that the stipulation at 
 to the line fence being "required duriiif; the 
 currency of the lease," was fulfilled by the fence 
 on D. M.'s land being out of repair :— Held 
 (affirming the judgment : i the court below), that 
 no liability could accrue under the defendant's 
 covenant until souiething occurred to disturb the 
 state of things existing at the time tiie lease was 
 made, and tnat the covenant was designed to 
 meet such a contingency as D. M. refusing to 
 allow entry on his land to repair the fence, or 
 his requiring the line fence to be built. Per 
 Osier, J. A., the language of the covenant lieing 
 indefinite, evidence was properly admitted to 
 explain it. llomtoH v. McLaren, 14 A. R. 103. 
 
 Damages for breach of covenant to renew. See 
 Aiviersonw. Stevenson, 15 0. R. 563, p. 1149. 
 
 See Lonijhl v. Sancton, 46 Q. B. 446, p. 1152; 
 Coivlinq v. Dkkson, 5 A. R. 549, p. 1155 ; Roan 
 v. Kronsbein, 12 O. R. 197, p. 588 ; McEm 
 V. Dillon, 12 0. R. 411, p. 1155. 
 
 (i) Implied CovenaiUs. 
 See Crawford v. Buud, 12 O. R. 8, p. 1140. 
 
 (j) Covenants Running With the Land. 
 
 See Crawford v. Buf/g, 12 0. R. 8, p. 
 1140; Berrie v. Woods, 12 0. R. 693, p. 1142; 
 Emnietl v. Qitinn, 7 A. R. 306, p. 1142; Mc- 
 Caskill V. McCaskill, 12 O. R. 783, p. 422 ; Mc- 
 Clary v. Jackson, 13 O. K. 310, p. 1142 ; Andxt- 
 son V. Stevenson, 15 0. R. 563, p. 1149; Am- 
 brose V. Fraser, 14 O. R. 561, p. 1143. 
 
 IX. Rent. 
 
 1 . Payable by Improvements. 
 
 See Mitchell v. McDtiffy, 31 C. P. 266, p. 528; 
 Workinan v. Robh, 7 A. R. 389. 
 
1144 
 
 irt bolow, tint 
 xeciitinii of the 
 ffordod by the 
 b in admitting 
 irst y«!ar of the 
 louBe was to be 
 f the lease wu 
 for building, a 
 ided, and that 
 Ing to perform 
 uring tlie tiret 
 increased rent 
 I then created, 
 'ed reasonable. 
 1. 
 
 to tho plaintiff 
 »y the lessee to 
 sor agreed "to 
 iremises hereby 
 diould the same 
 I of the lease." 
 ire was no Hue 
 hat there was a 
 enty-four yards 
 plaintiff alleged 
 r ; and that the 
 nd that in con- 
 to his crops by 
 16 stipulation ai 
 ired during the 
 led by the fence 
 
 repair :— Held 
 turt below), that 
 the defeniiant's 
 :d to disturb the 
 me the lease was 
 was designed to 
 
 M. refusing to 
 Lir the fence, or 
 
 be built. Per 
 i covenant l)eing 
 ly admitted to 
 !(i, 14 A. R. 103. 
 
 it to renew. See 
 563, p. 1149. 
 
 B. 446, p. 1152; 
 
 p. 1155; ftooii 
 
 I. 588 ; McEmm 
 
 niK. 
 R. 8, p. 1140. 
 
 ',h the Land. 
 
 12 0. R. 8, p. 
 R. 693, p. 1142; 
 06, p. 1142; Mc- 
 783, p. 422; Mc- 
 p. lU2;Ander- 
 3, p. 1149; ^w- 
 J. 1143. 
 
 lements. 
 C. P. 266, p. 
 
 1145 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1148 
 
 2. Rii/lH to Deduct Taxev. 
 
 Certain property in tho city of 'I'orontu had 
 b«en owned by K. ,and on his death in 1884, 
 intestate, and without known heirs, defendant 
 ent«re<l and leased tho property to the plaintitl, 
 the defendant agreeing to pay the taxes. In 
 1884, the taxes assessed for 1883 not having been 
 paid, a distress was entered therefor, whun the 
 plaintiff paid them and claimed to deduct thcin 
 from tiie rent. Tho assessment for 1883 was 
 against B, as owner, of which he received notice, 
 and he was similarly assessed and received notice 
 for the two prior years. In the assessm'jnt roll 
 the name of the street and property was given, 
 but not the number of the house or lot, except 
 an arbitrary number adopted by tho assessment 
 department for their convenience, and without 
 iniformation from the department the lot could 
 not be discovered : — Held, that section 21 of the 
 Assessment Act, R. H. O. (1877) c 180, which, 
 in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, 
 authorizes the tenant to deduct the taxes paid by 
 him from his rent, only does so when he could 
 be compelled to pay the same ; and as, following 
 Chamberlain v. Turner, 31 C. P. 490, there ap- 
 pealed to be no valid demand here, there was no 
 right to collect tho taxes, and therefore no right 
 to deduct the same :— Quiere, whether the de- 
 scription in the assessment roll was sutiicient ; 
 but under the circumstances, and in view of the 
 provisions of section 37 validating tho roll as 
 nnally passed by the court of revision, B. pro- 
 bably could not have raised this objection to a 
 distress or suit for the taxes. Carson v. Veitch, 
 90. R. 706.-C. P. D. 
 
 3. Apportionment. 
 
 J. B. leased certain lots, A, B, C, D, E and F, 
 with other lands to the defendant, J. C. also, 
 at the same time, leased lot O and other lands to 
 defendant. J. C. then conveyed his reversion in 
 lot G. to J. B. , and J . B. conveyed away the other 
 lands mentioned in his lease to fS. A. H. Defen- 
 dant assigned all his iuterest in both leases to J. 
 S. McM., with the knowledge that J. S. MoM. 
 indeuded to endeavour to procure a conveyance 
 of the fee for the purpose of laying out the land 
 in building lots, which he failed to do, and J. S. 
 McM. assigned all his interest in lots A, B, C, 
 D, E, F, and G, to 0. Both J. S. McM. and J. 
 G. paid rent to J. B., and alter his death to his 
 executrix the plaintiff. The rent of lots A, B, C, 
 D, E, F and G fell in arrear, and the taxes also 
 were left unpaid. Plaintiff then recovered judg 
 mentinan action of ejectment against C, and 
 took possession of the lots. In an action to re- 
 cover the unpaidVent and taxes accrued on these 
 lots before the recovery in ejectment, in which 
 it was contended that as the action was brought 
 against the original lessee who had assigned the 
 lease, and was one on tlie covenant resting in 
 privity of contract and not in privity of estate, 
 there could not be an apportionment of the rent 
 .18 to these lots. It was : — Held, following The 
 Mayor, etc., of Swansea w. Thomas, 10 Q. B. 0. 
 48, that the rent was apportiouable, and the 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover. Held, also, that 
 there was no eviction of the defendant by the 
 lessor. Held, also, on the evidence, that although 
 defendant might be a surety for the assignee, 
 there was no release of the assignee, and conse- 
 
 quently no discharge of the surety. Held, also, 
 following Barnes v. Bellamy, 44 Q. ]i. 303, that 
 tho rent accrued from day to day, and was ap- 
 portiouable in respect of time accordingly. Boul- 
 tons. Blake, 12 O. R. 532.— Ferguson. 
 
 R. H. O. c. 136, (1877) ss, 2-6, docs not con- 
 template any alteration of the law where tho 
 case remains strictly between landlord and ten- 
 ant, but nuikes u severance where a third interest 
 intervenes. And where a judgment creditor 
 garnished rents accruing due from several ten- 
 ants to the judgment deotors before any of tho 
 gnle days had arrived:— Held, that he was en- 
 titled to payment over upon the gale days of the 
 proportion of tho rents which had accrued duo 
 on the day of service 'of the attaching order. 
 Mannie v. Tiironlu Printiug Co., 12 P. R. 12. — 
 Dalton, Mauler. —Gait. 
 
 8ee Heevev. Thomi>mii, 14 0. R. 499, p. 1134. 
 
 4. Elfecl of Aniii/ntnmt. 
 
 See Graham v. Lang, 10 O. R. 248, p. 526 ; 
 Baker V. Alkimnn, 11 (>. R. 735, p. 527 : Fuchen 
 v. Hamilton Tribune Co., 10 P. R. 409, p. 293 ; 
 Eacrett v. Kent, 15 0. R. 9, p. 113; LiiUon v. 
 Imperial Hotel Co., 16 A. R. 337, p. 527. 
 
 5. Premises Burnt. 
 Sec Agar v. Stokes, 5 A. R. 180, p. 1149. 
 
 6. Ajter Expiration oj Term. 
 
 The evidence in this case showed thatthe plain- 
 tiff allowed the defendants to remain inoccupation 
 for two months after the expiration of their term, 
 and made no demand for an increased rental; but 
 they had notice that if they desired to remain on 
 longer they must pay an increased rental : — Held, 
 that the plaintiff must be deemed to have agreed 
 to allow the defendants to remain fur the two 
 months on the terms of paying the rent reserved 
 by the lease, but thereafter only on paying the 
 increased rent. Hilliard v. Gemmell, 10 O. R. 
 504.— C. P. D. 
 
 7. Occupation Bent. 
 
 No occupation rent should be charged against 
 one who has been in occupation of land under 
 mistake of title, in respect of the increased 
 value thereof arising from improvements which 
 are not allowed him. McOregor v. McGregor, 
 5 0. R. 617.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Shanagan v. Shanagati, 7 0. R. 209, p. 765 ; 
 Mumie v. Lindsay, 10 P. R. 173; 11 O. R. 
 520, p. 899. 
 
 8. Rent Service — Reiit Seek. 
 
 See McCaskill v. McCaskill, 12 O. R. 783, p. 
 422. 
 
 X. Sub-Lease. 
 
 See Magee v. Oilmour, 17 0. R. 620 ; 17 A. 
 R. 27, p. 1135. 
 
1147 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT 
 
 1148 
 
 em 
 
 ■US 
 
 XI. Rknkwal of Lease. 
 
 Tho triiitauH of M., dooeiiHod, wlio hold tho 
 l<'){iil (jHtiito ill land in trust for huIu for tlio pur- 
 poHc of It ivsi'rvoir, hoIiI tooiio Z., in 1854, ii por- 
 tion of lot tun, Niaj^iu'ii KuUh Siirvuy, for tlio 
 piirputiu of 11 ruBi'Pvoir, tiio intention buin^ to run 
 a linu of pipuM (ivrr tliu ruxidue of Muid lot to 
 Niagara halls, wlioru a |iuinp-lii)UHu waH to lie 
 uonatructud for thu piirpoHu of forcing tliu water 
 to thu rusurvoir, and tliunco it was to bo distri- 
 liiitcd by pipes ovct thu town of Niagara I'allH. 
 T. Ii., U8 well as K. H, M,, the acting truntee, 
 agreed to extend tliiH luaHu forever at a rental 
 to be fixed every twenty-one years. The truM- 
 tecH HubHeipieiitly koIiI the land in (pieutiou to 
 !S. B., Hon of T. |{., whose place, it wivs under- 
 stood, S. H. was to take. T. 15. having the 
 right of purchasu under his lease, and having 
 expended large sums in improving the property. 
 .S. B. Hubseipiently mortgaged to a certain com- 
 pany, who solil under foreclosure proceedings to 
 the plaintitr. Thu land tlirough which Hiich 
 pipes were to run hail \mv.\\ devised by one M. 
 to K. B. .VI., his wifu and threu others us trus- 
 tees. In 1854 K. B. .M. alone leased it to T. ii. 
 for fourteen years. In 1854 T. Ii. leased a strip 
 eight feet wide bv 050 feet long to Z., for thu 
 purpose of laying iiis oipes therein, for ten years 
 at a nominal rent, and both T. Ii, and K. Ii. M,, 
 in that year, by separate iiistrunients, covenanted 
 with .S, Ii. that she or T. Ii., if he should pur- 
 cliase the land under a provision in his lease for 
 that purpose, would continue the lease to Z. for 
 twenty-one years, perpetually renewable, at a 
 rent to be fixed by arbitration. Z. constructed 
 the reservoir, etc., and laid down the pipes in 
 1854, and the town hud been supplied by them 
 eversiiico. In 1804 E. B. M. gave a further 
 lease to T. Ii. for seven years, and in 1868 she 
 conveyed tw, 8. Ii. the appointee of T. Ii., his 
 father. S. B. mortgaged to a loan company, 
 who sohl under a decree for sale to the plaintiff, 
 stating in the advertisement that it was subject 
 to the right of tlie defemitnts, who represented 
 Z., to lay their water pipes under the lease from 
 T. Ii. to Z. After the expiration of that lease 
 no further lease h.id been executed, but $12 a 
 year was, by agreement, paid as rent to T. B. 
 and S. B., until the title became vested in the 
 plaintiff, who refused to accept rent or recognize 
 defendants' rights, and brought trespass against 
 them :— Held, 1. That the lease of 1850 by E. 
 B. M. alone, was not bimling on her co-trustees 
 unless they could be shown to have agreed to it. 
 2. That the right of Z. to get a lease from T. B. 
 under the covenant of 18.54, continued as against 
 T. B. under the second lease of 1804. 3. That 
 the defendants having, under the covenants of 
 T. B. and E. B. M., taken possession and con- 
 structed the works, which were of a permanent 
 and expensive character, and for the public 
 benefit, and having paid rent up to the time of 
 the plaintiffs ac(|uiring title, and all parties 
 having had notice, and made no objection, they 
 were entitled to an injunction staying the action, 
 and to a lease for twenty-one years, renewable 
 at a rent to be fixed by arbitration or by the 
 registrar of the court. Davis v. Lewis, 8 O. K. 
 l.-Q. B. D. 
 
 It was provided in a lease that if the lessee 
 should desire a renewal for a further term and 
 give a defined notice, containing the name of 
 
 an arbitrator tho loiiori at the ex[M)ii8e of the 
 lessee, should uxucuto a nuw lease at such in- 
 creaseil yearly rent as might bu dotenniuuil by 
 the award of throe different arbitrators, oriinu- 
 jority of tlinni : -Held, that the costn of the 
 lease were [trovidud for both by law and by the 
 above claiise, and must be borne by thu luaaeo ; 
 but that thu costs of thu arbitration were not 
 lu'ovidod for by tho clause, and each party mint 
 near his own costs of the reference, oneiiiilf of 
 the arbitratcu's' fees, for which the actimi was 
 brought, and one-half of tho plaintitrs costii of 
 the action. Mursuck i>. Webber, H. aiul N. I; 
 In Ke Autothruptic .Steam Boiler CJo., 'Jl y, H. ij, 
 182 referred to. Smith v. Fle.miiui, \1 1'. K. 
 520.— Ferguson. Affirmed lit. 057.' -y. B, I). 
 .See Amkruon v. ,Sleimmon, 15 O, K. 503, p, 1 149. 
 
 XII, AssioNMK.NT or Lkahe. 
 
 D. being indebted to the |ilaintifT for ungti by 
 an instrument not under seal, assigned to him a 
 lease of certain premises niaile by \). to defeiiduut, 
 together with all rent in respect of said leusu aud 
 the term thereby created. In un action to re- 
 cover from defendant the rent which accrued 
 due after the making of the assignment, thu judge 
 charged the jury that while plaintiff remained 
 D.'s solicitor he could not take any security for 
 his benefit, and that he should have <lissovered 
 tho connection between them, and let 1), have 
 independent legal advice : — Held, misdirection, 
 for that the assignment, if not valid in other re- 
 spects, was valid so far as it was a security for 
 costs already incurred: — Held, also, that D, was 
 not a necessary party. Quiere, whether the as- 
 signment should be treated as of thu reversion 
 or of future rent accruing out of the land, and so 
 void as not under sual ; or as an assignment of a 
 chose in action, namely, of the moneys payable 
 under the covenants of tho lease, and so valid. 
 (lalhrailh v. Irriim, 8 O. R. 751.— (J. P. 1). 
 
 See BouUoii v. Blake, 12 0. R. 532, p. 1146. 
 
 XIII. PosTPONiNo Lease to Mortgage. 
 
 A., the owner of certain lands, executed a 
 lease under the Short Forms Act to the plaintiff 
 and two others for twenty years, whicii was 
 registerel. The lesseus covenanted to plant the 
 premises with fruit trees, and keep the premises 
 during the term as an orchard. The lessor cov- 
 iianted fur quiet enjoyment ; and that if during 
 the term the premises were for sale, tho lessees 
 shouhl have the refusal, au^! if the lessees could 
 not on the expiration of tho term get a renewal, 
 they were to be allowed a fair valuation for the 
 orchard and improvements. The lessees went 
 into possession and planted the fruit trees. 
 Afterwards to enable tho lessor to procure a 
 loan from an investment company, tliu lessees 
 entered into an agreement, which was registered, 
 to postpone their lease to a mortgage to the com- 
 pany, so that the mortgage would uu a first and 
 prior incumbrance on said lands, and in det'anlt 
 of the payment of the mortgage money, the 
 lease was to be forfeited and void ; and the 
 company might, without anj' notice, etc., enter 
 and hold said lands freed from the lease, etc. 
 The lessor then executed two other mortgages 
 to different mortgagees on the property, which 
 were past due at the commencement of this ac- 
 
1U9 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1160 
 
 tlOII. 
 
 Tlio lowor Hubseiiuontly and diiriiig the 
 (•Diitiiiii "I u( the luiiMo iiiaifu dufatilt in puy- 
 
 of the 
 iniiiit <il the mortgitgo td thu iM)m|>aiiy, who Mold 
 the liiiid, and after KatiHfying thttir inortgiigo, 
 uikiil tliu halanue of tliu piiruhaHu iiioouy into 
 cutirt ; -Tli'ld, hy ]{oi)ui'tH<in, J., and attirnied 
 by tilt! Diviitional Court ((r.tlt, C •). diHSunting), 
 that liy tliu ugrcuniunt piiHt|Joniiig thu luattc to 
 thu umiipany'H mortgage, tiiu Iushuuh were placed 
 ill iici wiii'Ho poHition tlian if the niortg.igu hud 
 boeii mall) prior thuruto, ho that thu luHseeii 
 merely held Muhjuut to the mortgage, and thu 
 8uli!<vi]Ueiit niortgaguoH to thu luasu ; and that 
 the k'MdeeM wuru untitled to dainuges for hruaeh 
 of tliu covunant for (juiet unjoyuient. Per 
 ltulii:rt'<on, J., also. 'L'tiu lesgees wero entitled 
 to ilaiii:i>,'t'H for l)reacli of the covenant for re- 
 iiew:il ; and, Seinble, huuIi covunant did not run 
 with the land :— Ueld, ako, by the Divisional 
 <Joiirt, ill this revofHiiig the judginuntof lioliurt- 
 i(i>i, j. I'ialt, V. J., diHHunting), that the plain- 
 till having an tistatu in the land had a claim on 
 the fund ill eimrt prior to the subsequent mort- 
 (,'agees, and wat entiblud to a declaration for 
 (jayinunt out of thu value of her interest in thu 
 unexpired term, nainuly, one-third of the net 
 luiinial value en- [uoHt which would havu been 
 derived tlierefidin Imd thu lessees been permit- 
 ted to remain on thu land during thu term, ai d 
 that such value must bo computed with rof«>r' 
 ence to the agrecmc'iit that on non-renewal the 
 lessees were to get the value of thu trees and 
 improvements ; and in such view it was not ne- 
 cessary to consider thu ipiestion of the breach of 
 the covenant to renew, Amlcrxon v. Steven.'ioii, 
 
 15 u. I!, rm.-c. V. I). 
 
 XIV. TKKM I NATION OF LeASE. 
 
 A lease of u mill, and ten acres of land adjoin- 
 ing tor live years at the rent of $500 for the 
 first year and i}r>iiO for eiiuh of the four succeed- 
 jnj5 years, payable halt-yearly in advance, con- 
 tained the usual coven.ints and [irovisions in 
 which was thucovuniiiit to pay runt, without any 
 «xueptiun as to fire, and to keep in rej)air, acci- 
 dents by lire excepted ; and the lease concluded 
 with the following clause : " Should the mill be 
 reuderud incapable by any lire, or tempest, then 
 the portion of runt for the unexpired portion of 
 the term paid for iu advance, to be refunded by 
 the lessor to the lessee," but there was no pro- 
 vision in such event for the cesser of the term : — 
 Held, Burton, J. A., dissenting, reversing the 
 juJginent of the County Court, that the effect of 
 the whole instrument was, that the destruction 
 of the premises by tire, not merely gave a right 
 to a return of a proportionate part ot the current 
 half-year's rent, but put an end to the whole term, 
 and therefore that the lessor was not entitled 
 to recover rent for thu half-yuar succeeding such 
 destruction. Aijar v. .Stokes, r> A. K. 180. See 
 also liroione v. I'onsonmult, .'J S. C'. R. 102, over- 
 ruled by Forleoim v. Jiei/iiur, 13 App. Cas. 120. 
 
 Held, that although a new contract of tenancy 
 may be inferred from the fact of a notice by u 
 mortgagee to pay rent to him, and acquiescence 
 by the tenant by payment of the rent, still as 
 the circumstances, in this case, showed that it 
 was not intended to create such a contract, 
 but rather that the interest being paid, the 
 possession of the mortgagor and liis tenants 
 
 wat to remain undiRturbod, it could not t>o 
 said that the plaintifF's tuiiancy had been iiut 
 an end to by thu iiitervuntion of the first 
 mortgagee, /'ocw v. Soivrern, 14 A. R. 482. 
 
 Hue Lonijhi v. Suimoii, 4(1 (j. H. 44ii, n. {\!»'2 ; 
 Mai/r,: V. i/ilmour, 17 O. \i. «20 ; I" A. H. 27, p. 
 Il;ii'^; Wallhriiliii' v. <Jiiuiol,—l'ahii''r v. IVittl- 
 hridiie., 14 A. K.' 4(Mt; \'t S. C. K. (ir.O, p. 1137; 
 T/iiUchir V. Jiowman, 18 1). 11.205, p. IKlrt. 
 
 XV. EviCTIOX AND SnilllKVDKK OK LEAHK. 
 
 In an action to recover a year's rent on a covo- 
 nant in a lease for three years, it was shown 
 that the defondant had liarveated the eropn on 
 the farm, and that they, together with thu barn 
 and stable, were destroyed by tire before the ex- 
 piration of the year, and that he was paid the 
 insurance money ; whereiipun he left the farm, 
 and the plaintill'unturud, ploughed antl put in u 
 crop, Thu plaintiff afterwards applied on several 
 occasions to the defundaiit for paymunt of the 
 rent, when thu dufundant said he had not any 
 money. It was shewn that a proposition had 
 bauii made to leave the matter to arbitration : — 
 Held (atiirming the judgment of the judge of 
 the County Court of Fuel), that thu acts o7 the 
 plaintiff did not amount to an eviction, that 
 there was not evidence to support a surrender iu 
 law, and that thu plaintilf was entitled to re- 
 cover. Burton and P.itturson, J J. A., dubitante. 
 Nixon V. Mattby, 7 A. R. 371. 
 
 The plaintiffs by their agent, in June, 1881, 
 verbally leased to S. & VV. for three years cer- 
 tain premises in which the latter carried on 
 business in partnership for about a year, when 
 \V. sold out his interest to one U. , who in part- 
 nership with S. carried on the same business for 
 about ten months, when .S. withdrew from the 
 partnership anil sold out his interest to D., who 
 agreed with S. to pay all rent then duo or to 
 become due in respect of the premises which ho 
 continued to occupy and pay rent for. The 
 plaintiff without authority drew for a quarter's 
 rent on S. & U. , who ref useil to accept it ; and 
 a fire having occurred on the premises the plain- 
 tiff expended the insurance money in repairs, 
 with D.'s consent. Default having been made 
 of six months' runt due on the 15th December, 
 1883, the plaintiffs instituted proceedings against 
 S. & W. for the recovery thereof : — Held (re- 
 versing the judgment of the court below), that 
 although the plaintid's were cognizant of the 
 several changes in the partnership and the occu- 
 pation by D. of the premises, these acts were not 
 evidence of a surrender in law, and that they 
 were not estopped from enforcing payment of 
 the overdue rent against S. & W. Patterson, 
 J. A., dubitante. O'ault v. S/iepard, 14 A. R. 
 203. 
 
 The doctrine of surrender by act and opera- 
 tion of law applies as well to a term created by 
 deed as to one created by parol, Lawrence v. 
 Faux, 2 F. & F. 435, distinguished. lb. 
 
 A lease of business premises provided that the 
 lessor could enter upon the premises for the pur- 
 pose of making certain repairs and alterations 
 at any time wittiin two months after the begin- 
 ning of the term, but not after except with the 
 consent of the lessee. An action for rent under 
 
1151 
 
 LANDLOSD AND TENANT. 
 
 1152 
 
 1153 
 
 •liil 
 
 
 the lease was resisted on the ground that the 
 lessor had been in possession o( part of the 
 premises after the specified time without tlie 
 necessary uonseut whereby the tenant liad been 
 deprived of the beneficial use of the property 
 and had been evicted therefrom. On the trial 
 the jury found that no consent had been j{iven 
 by the lessee for such occupation and that the 
 lessee had no beneficial use of the premises 
 while it lasted : — Held, per Taschereau, Gwynne 
 and Patterson, JJ., reversing the judgment of 
 the court below, 1. That the evidence did not 
 justify the finding of no assent; that an express 
 consei it was not required, but it could be inferred 
 from the acts and conduct of the lessee. 2. The 
 two months' limitation in the lease had reference 
 to the entry by the lessor to commence the re- 
 I>airs and not to his subsequent occupation of 
 the premises, and the lessor having entered upon 
 the premises within the prescribed period he 
 had a reasonable time to complete the work and 
 his 8ubse,(ueut occupation was not wrongful. 
 I'er Taschereau and Gwynne, JJ., that assum- 
 ing assent was necessary the evidence clearly 
 shewed that the lessor was on the premises after 
 the 1st of July with the assent of the lessee ; he 
 had a right, therefore, to remain until such assent 
 was revoked, which was never done. Per Pat- 
 terson, J., that interference by a landlord with 
 Ids tenant's enjoyment of demised premises, 
 even to the extent of depriving the tenant of 
 the use of a portion, does not necessarily work 
 an eviction ; a tenant may be deprived of the 
 beneficial occupation of the premises for part of 
 his term, by an act of the landlord, which is 
 wrongful as against him , but unless the act was 
 done with the intention of producing that result 
 it would not work an eviction. Per Ritchie, C. 
 J., and Strong, J. approving the judgment of 
 the court below, that the jury having negatived 
 consent by the lessee, and the evidence shewing 
 that the acts of the landlord were of such a 
 grave and permanent character, as to indicate 
 an intention to deprive the tenant of the bene- 
 ficial enjoyment of a substantial part of the 
 premises, they amounted to an eviction of the 
 tenant which operated as a suspension of the 
 rent. Ferugson v. Troop, \1 H. C. R. 527. 
 
 See Dainty v. Vidal, 13 A. R. 47, p. 337- 
 
 XVI. FOEFBITURE OP LeASE. 
 
 I. Bif Acta of Lensee. 
 
 The defendant leased from the plaintiff tlie 
 "refreshment-room and apartments connected 
 therewith," part of a railway station, and cove- 
 nanted that " no spirits of any kind should be sold 
 or allowed to be sold in the refreshment-room," 
 and that if he " should fiii', refuse, or neglect to 
 carry out the terms of the lease, then that the 
 leasee should, if required by the lessor, quit, 
 leave, and absolutely vacate the premises, and 
 the lease should terminate." The judge of 
 the County Court of York found that by a 
 sale of spirits in the bar room, part of the de- 
 mised premises, the lease had been forfeited, and 
 «>rdered the issue of a writ to put the landlord in 
 possession under the Overholding Tenants' Act, 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 137 :~Held, affirming his 
 decision, thai the sale was a contravention of the 
 lease, that the proviso for the termination of the 
 same extended to negative covenants ; and that 
 
 the lease was therefore forfeited, and a right of 
 entry accrued to the lessor, and that it was a 
 case coming within the Overholding Tenants' 
 Act. Lmiylii v. Sanson, 46 Q. B. 446.— Wilson. 
 
 In actions to re-enter for breach of a covenant 
 in a lease, the court will, since the Judicature 
 Act, dispose of questions in their equitable rather 
 than their legal aspect in all cases where, under 
 the former practice, the Court of Chancery would 
 have relieved against the forfeiture. Tluis in 
 the present case, where the plaintiff claimed to 
 recover possession of certain lands leased ))y her 
 to the defendant on the ground of breach of the 
 covenant for the payment of taxes, which breach 
 the defendant afterwards remedied before state- 
 ment of claim filed : — Held, that the action cnuld 
 not succeed. The above is emphatically one of 
 the instances in which equity would relieve, the 
 breach being no more than the omission of a mere 
 money payment. Buckley v. Beigle, 8 O. R. 85. 
 — Boyd. 
 
 S. and his partners were tenants of D. under 
 a lease which provided that any assignment by 
 the lessees for the general benefit of tlieir creili- 
 tors should forfeit the term. The lessees, at a 
 time when two quarters' rent were overdue and 
 in arrear, made such an assignment to C., who 
 thereupon took possession of the premises and 
 shortly afterwards paid D. the two quarters' 
 arrears of rent. A few weeks later D. served on 
 S. and his partners a demand of possession 
 and notics of application to the judge under the 
 Overholding Tenants' Act, which S. handed to 
 C, and C. appeared before the county judge on 
 the hearing of the application, and hud liimself 
 added as a party to the proceedings. On motion 
 by C. in the High Court to set aside the pro- 
 ceedings : — Held, that the act of the lessees in 
 making the assignment was an act whereby 
 their tenancy was determined within the mean- 
 ing of the second section of the Overholding 
 Tenants' Act, and that C. having intervened in 
 the proceedings could not object that no demand 
 had been served on him: — Held, also, that tiie 
 receipt after the forfeiture of the rent which had 
 become due before the forfeiture tlid not operate 
 as any waiver thereof, and tliat a sufficient de- 
 mand in writing of possession had been made 
 upon C. by the landlord. Dobsoii v. Sootheraii, 
 15 O. R. 15.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Graham v. Lang, JO O. R. 248, p. 526; 
 Baher v. Atkinson, 11 O. R. 735, p. 527. 
 
 2. Waiuer of Forfeiture. 
 
 Leighlon v. Medley, 1 O. R. 207, p. 1139; 
 Holderiiess V. Lang, 11 O. R. I, p. 1141 ; DobKon 
 V. Sootheran, 15 0. R. 15, supra. 
 
 XVII, Attornment op Tenant. 
 
 In replevin, the defendant, who had mortgaged 
 the demised premises to one E., claimed as land- 
 lord, under a lease alleged to have been made 
 by him subsequent to the mortgage, three 
 quarters' rent, which had been paid by the 
 tenant to E. : — Held, that tiie evidence set out 
 in the report, sheweil tliat E. was the orijjinal 
 and actual le^^or, or, at all events that previous 
 to the payment of the rent avowed for, the 
 tenant had attorned to E. with the defcndaut'» 
 
 Sec A'l- 
 ilagee v. 
 1135; /,«' 
 
 XXIV, 
 
1152. 
 
 d a right of 
 at it was a 
 ig Tenants' 
 }. — Wilson. 
 
 ' a covenant 
 Judicature 
 table rather 
 here, under 
 [icery would 
 I. Tims in 
 claimed to 
 sased by her 
 reach of the 
 'hich breach 
 before state- 
 action could 
 cally one of 
 relieve, the 
 on of a mere 
 , 8 0. R. 85. 
 
 of D. undei- 
 signmeul by 
 their creili- 
 lesseea, at a 
 jverdue and 
 ; to C, who 
 iremises and 
 «ro quarters' 
 D. served on 
 f possession 
 ge under the 
 i. handed to 
 ity judge on 
 had himself 
 On motion 
 ide the pro- 
 lie lessees in 
 ict whereby 
 n the mean- 
 Overholding 
 ntervened in 
 t no demand 
 lao, that the 
 it which had 
 I not operate 
 iufticient de- 
 1 been made 
 V. Suutlteran, 
 
 248, p. 526: 
 527. 
 
 07, p. 1139; 
 141 ; Dob.ion 
 
 BNANT. 
 
 ad mortgnged 
 limed as land- 
 e been made 
 •tgage, three 
 paid by the 
 (ience set out 
 \ the original 
 that previous 
 wed for, tlie 
 le defendant's 
 
 1153 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1154 
 
 consent. McLennan v. Haunum, 31 C. P. 2'0.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 See Baiil: of Moiitreai v. Oilchr'uit, 6 A. R. 059, p. 
 1157; Midhollaiid v. Hannan, 60. R. 546, p. 576. 
 
 XIX. Other Rioirrs of Tknants. 
 
 Kigiit of ten.nnt to bore for oil. See Lancey 
 \.Joiinxton, 29Chy.67. 
 
 Rights of tenant in respect to expropriation 
 of land. In lie Wellaiid Vaiml Enlarqement — 
 Fitfh V. McRue, 29 Chy. 139, p. 400. 
 
 Right of tenant to maintain action for injury 
 to lateral support of building. See McCniiii v. 
 Ghidotm, 2 O. 15. 500 p. 1158 ; Bachts v. Smith, 
 5 A. R. 341, p. 1159. 
 
 Right of tenant to redeem mortgage. See 
 Marliii V. il/jVex, 5 O. R. 404. 
 
 Setting aside lease on grounds of improvi- 
 dence. — Compensation for improvements. See 
 Shunaijan v. Shanuijan, 7 O. K. 209, j). 705. 
 
 A tenant who, for the purpose of rendering 
 the land more tit for cultivation, collects tlie 
 stones therefrom, has the property in the stones, 
 and the landlord has no intei'est in them and 
 is liable for their value if he disposes of them. 
 Saunders v. Breakie, 5 O. U. 003, commented on. 
 Lewiii V. Godson, 15 O. R. 252. — Q. B. D. 
 
 Right of tenant to set-oft against rent. See 
 Wallon V. Henry, 18 0. R. 620, p. 528. 
 
 XX. Rights of Reversioner. 
 
 Held, that any act of the tenant without the 
 knowledge or sanction of the landlord could only 
 affect his interest as tenant and could not preju- 
 dice the reversioner. Dixon v. Cross, 4 0. R. 
 465.--l'roudfoot. 
 
 Liability of lessor's wife, assignee of the rever- 
 sion, on covenant of her husband to p.iy for 
 certain premises to be erecte<l by the lessee on 
 the demised premises. See Ami/rose v. Franer, 
 liO. R. 459; 14 0. R. 551, p. 1143. 
 
 XXI. NoTicF. TO Quit. 
 
 See h'i'evev. Thompson, 14 0. R. 499, p. 11.34; 
 Magee v. Oilmour, 17 O. R. 620, 17 A. R. 27, p. 
 1135; Lennox v. If c«<Hey, 17 O. R. 472, p. 1133. 
 
 JvXIV. Actions and PRocEKDiNtis bv Land- 
 lord. 
 
 1. On CoveiMnla. 
 
 (a) Imperfect Execution of Lease. 
 
 The two defendants and one C. being in pos- 
 Ksion of premises as assignees of a covenant 
 from the plaiutift' for a lease, he caused a lease 
 to the three to be drawn, which was executed by 
 the defendants, on the representation that C 
 had executed a counterpart thereof, which was 
 not the case, and the lease was never executul 
 by hira: — Held, attirming the judgnient ot the 
 Court of Common fleas, that the evidence set out 
 in the report, shewed that the intention of both 
 
 73 
 
 the idaintift' and the defendants was, that C 
 should be a party to the le:isc, and that the 
 plaintiff couhl not recover the rent due in an 
 action upon the covenant in the lease. Piper 
 V. Simpson, A. R. 175. 
 
 (b) Damages. 
 
 In an action brought to reform a lease, and 
 claiming damages for breach of a covenant: — 
 Held, that such claim for damages was not a 
 "purely money demand" under section 4 of the 
 A. of J. Act, R. 3. O. (1877), c. 49. (lowanlock 
 V. xMans, 9 P. R. 270.— Dalton, Mmler. 
 
 2 lleceipt of Rent after Action broimht. 
 
 Ill ejectment plaintiff alleged a demise to 
 defendant as a monthly tenant. Defence, a 
 yearly tenancy. After notice to (luit, and after 
 action brought, plaintiff" leceived from det'en- 
 dant a payment on account of rent, whicli he 
 shortly afterwards returned to delcndant : — 
 Held, attirming the judgment of Rose, J., attho 
 trial, that tliere is no distinction in principle 
 between the eti'ect of payment of rent, as such, 
 after action bnmght, upon the determination of 
 the tenancy liy notice to (juit and by forfeiture, 
 and tlierefore the payment of rent after a.,tion 
 brought, ha<l no effect upon this action, either 
 .IS a bar to itor as a waiver of the notice to ((uit : — 
 Held, that the intention with which the rent was 
 received must be considered. Laxlon v. Kosen- 
 ber<j, 1 1 O. R. 199.— Q. B. O. 
 
 3. Overholding Tenants. 
 
 Where a party who has held for a term at a 
 certain rent continues to occupy after the ex- 
 piration of his term, it is presumed, if there is 
 no evidence to the contrary, that he holds at 
 the former rent. Jlilliard v. UummeU, 10 O. R. 
 504. -C. P. D. 
 
 The expression "colour of right" in the Over- 
 holding lenants' Act, R. 8. O. (1887), c. 144, 
 means such semblance or appearance of right as 
 shews that the right is really in dispute. The 
 Act confers no authority upon the county judge 
 to try the question of the tenant's right or title ; 
 anil as soon as it is made to appear that the 
 right is really in dispute, there is then that 
 colour of right which the Act contemplates, and 
 the judge is bound to dismiss the case. (Jilbert 
 V. Doyle, 24 C. P. 60, and Woodbury r. Mar- 
 shall, 19 Q. B. 597, not followed. Upon the 
 proceedings before the county judge being com- 
 inauded to be .sent up, the high c(jurt may stay 
 proceedings upon the writ of possession under the 
 Act. Price v. Ouinane, 10 O. U. 204. —Armour. 
 
 When there was a dispute between landlord 
 and tenant as to the date when the tenancy 
 commenced, and an application was made under 
 the Overholding Tenants' Act at the time when 
 according to tlie tenant's contention his lease 
 had not expired : — Held, th.it there was that 
 " C(dour of right" in the tenant which tlie Act 
 contemplates. Price r. (Juinane, 10 O. I!. 2()4, 
 followed. Bartlitt v. Thuinj/son, 10 O. R. 710. 
 
 See Longhi v. Sanson, 46 Q. B. 440, p. 1152; 
 AlacUregor v. Defoe, 14 O. R. 87, p. 1156; 
 
1155 
 
 Dohno'i 
 
 Mai/ee 
 
 p. ii.T). 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 1156 
 
 V. Sootharnn, 15 O. R. 15, p. 1152; 
 ,•. (Jilmoui; 17 O. R. G20; 17 A. R. -27, 
 
 OS 
 
 e;: 
 
 'Ma 
 
 m 
 
 XXV. AcTKiss Against Landu>ri). 
 
 I. DamiKjax Jiccoveiuhle. 
 
 (a) J{i'/'ii.iiu<j to Oive Posnemiion. 
 
 Action by a toimnt against his 1 iiidloril for re- 
 fusing; to give hitu piissessioii of tiic duniisud 
 fireniisus :— Held (Wilson, C. .1., dissunting), 
 that lliu pnipcr nicasiire of damages in suuh u 
 case is the <liU'ereiu'u hetwuen wiuit the tenant 
 agreed to pay f .r tlie premises and what tln'y 
 were really wortii But it is not open to tlie 
 tenant to sliew that he rented tliu premises for 
 the jmrjKwe of tiiere carrying on a certain busi- 
 ness, of wliicli tlie landlord was aware, that he 
 <:oiild not procure other premises, and to claim 
 the prolits which he might have made in such 
 business if lie had been let into possession. 
 Ward r. iSniitii, 11 Price 19, not followed: 
 Jac(iues ('. Mdlir, 6 Ch. D. 153, commented 
 upon. Man-ill v. Orarer, 8 0. R. 39.— y. B. D. 
 
 (b) Breach of Covenant in Lease. 
 
 In an action by the plaintiff, the lessee of a 
 certain farm, against the deiendant, the lessor, 
 for breach of the covenants contained in the lease, 
 to dig <litches, etc. : — Held (Cauieroii, C. .7., 
 diss.), that the niea.sure of damages was the dill'er- 
 ence between the rentable value of the demised 
 premises wilh the defendant's covenant perfor- 
 med, that is, with the improvements made, and 
 the value without sucii improvements. At the I 
 trial the judge directed that if certain improve- i 
 nients were made, the damages were to be reduced ] 
 thereby. On its being shewn to the court that 
 those improvements hadsubstantially been made, 
 the dam.iges were reduced to §'20O. McEwtil v. 
 J)illoii, ll> (). K. 4I1.-C. P. U. 
 
 (c) tHrluij False Notice of Sah . 
 
 IJy a covenant in a lease of a farm from de- 
 ft. ..lant to the plainlili', it was provided tliat up- 
 on receiving si.v monrlis' notice from the lessor 
 that he had sold the larin, and i\pon receiving 
 compensation for all labour up to the date of the 
 notice, irom which he had derived no return, 
 the lessee would deliver up possession at the end 
 of six months, the eonipen.-<ation being duly paid. 
 iJefendant served the plaintiff with a notice that 
 he had sold the farm, in conso(juence of which 
 the plaintiff desisted from putting in crops, and 
 other work for which he had made preparation, 
 and rented another farm. Upon ascertaining 
 that the notice was untrue, the plaintiff refused 
 to give up jHissession, and sued theiiefendantfor 
 false representation : — Held, reversing 45 Q. B. 
 !>4 that the j)laintiff was entitled to recover the 
 damages sustained by him in coMSe(iucnceof the 
 notice. Cowliiuj v. Dicksun, 5 A. R. 511). 
 
 2. Other Cases. 
 
 The plaintiff having remained in possession 
 and paid rent after the expiry of his term the de- 
 
 fendants levied a distress upon plaintiff's goods 
 in the premises, situate six miles from Toronto, 
 for two months' arrears of rent and removed 
 the goods to Toronto to impound and sell. The 
 plaintiff brought trespass, claiming that he was 
 not defendants' tenant : — Held. — 1. That the re- 
 lationship of landlord and tenant exist, d at the 
 time of tlie distress. 2. That the removal to 
 Toronto, unless unnecessary aud uii reasonable, 
 or malicious, was not a good ground of action. 
 MncOrciior v. Dr/oe, 14 O. it. 87.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Liability of landlord to tenant fov injuries 
 occasioiicd by negligence of employee of the 
 landlord in charge ot an elevator. iSee SIijiIkki 
 V. CIkuishi-, 15 S. O. R. 370. 
 
 See Cowlimj v. Dickson, 5 A. R. 549, p. 115,5, 
 
 XXVI. Disputing Landlord's Title. 
 
 The plaintiff, an illiterate man, held a bond 
 for a deed of certain land on which a halance of 
 purchase money was unpaid, antl had ac(piired 
 a title to the land umler ilie .Statute ol Liiuitd- 
 tioiis but was not a«are of ille effect of liis pos- 
 session. The defendant, who had pui chased the 
 interest ot the heirs ot the original owner ami 
 vendor, and his solicitor, by i'epreseni,ing to 
 pLiintifl" that he had no title, induced hnn to ac- 
 cept a lease of the land from the delendant for 
 two years at a liominal rent, with a covenant to 
 yield (ip possession at the end of the term :— 
 Held, that under the cii cuiiiHtances, the Icane 
 must be Ret aside ; but even if alloweil to stand, 
 it Wdiilil lUt onstitute an acknowledgiiioiit 
 sufficient to displace the plaintiff's title, for its 
 ellect wciLild only be to create an e»top[iel during 
 itscontiiiu;vnce. JJillork w StiHuH,\H). K. 548,- 
 C. P. 1). 
 
 P., being the owner in fee of the land in (jues- 
 tion, died iiilest ite in .September, 18.")3, leaving 
 his wife, the [iresent pldntitl, and two daugh- 
 ters, who resided on the land ior a sliort time 
 alter liis death. 'I'ln; widow m ule several leases 
 of the land, and finally leased it to M. , the de- 
 fondant's devisor, who, at the expiration of hie 
 lease, took a second lease with a covenant to 
 deliver up at the end ol the term. He [iiirchased 
 the inteiest .■( one of the daughters, and anew 
 lease, was l -eupoii made to liim bv the plain- 
 till', the rent iag reduced by one-third, because 
 it was consiil-. -il that the widow and daughters 
 were eaehc.iiiii.-d to a third ot the rents. Pend- 
 ing this lease the tenant pnrchase(l the other 
 daughter s interest, and at the exi)iratii)ii of the 
 term in 1873 he relused to give up possession, 
 alleging that he owned the land, and that the 
 phdntiff's right to dower was barred by lajise of 
 time : — Helii, afhnning the judgment ol Cam- 
 eron, .)., that M., the tenant, having, while 
 owner of one undivideil half of the laud, cove- 
 nanted to give up possession to the plaintiff at 
 the end of the term, ami having got into pos- 
 session under her, the defendants claiming under 
 .\I. were estopped from disputing her riglit, and 
 must restore possession to her before setting up 
 an adverse title : that M., by accepting the 
 lease at a reduction of one-tliird of the rent, on 
 his purchase of the daughters' interest, had 
 acquiesced in the plaintilt s claim as <lowrcs8, 
 and was estopped from setting up the .Statute of 
 
1167 
 
 LATERAL SUPPORT. 
 
 1158 
 
 Limitations against lier, and tiiat slie was en- 
 titled therefore to judgment for oue-tliird of tlie \ 
 laud for lite, and to mesne prolits since the ex- j 
 piration of the lease. Patcersun v. (Smitli, 42 | 
 g H. 1, reniiirked upon. J'l/dtt v. MrKcc, H <>. 
 k! lol.-Q. B. D. 1 
 
 S. being indebted to the plaintilFs, entered into | 
 .in agreement to mortgage to them, amongst 
 other lands, certain land known as the Dominion J 
 Hotel proijerty. A ni rtgage was on the sauie i 
 day executed, but by mistake the Dominion , 
 Hotel property was omitted therefrom, and a lot , 
 owned by H. adjacent thereto inserted. 'I'lie de- ' 
 feudaut had been the tenant of S., and after the ' 
 in(irt"iige, attoiued and paid some n-nt to the | 
 plaiiititls, believing tliem to have a title to the ; 
 lauds. In au action for arrears of rent: — Held, 
 atfirniiiig the judgment ot the Oouuty Court of j 
 York, Uutt after such attornuieiit and |)ayMLent i 
 of rent, the defendant could not be heard to deny j 
 the pl.dutitiis' title, and they l)eing the etiuitable 
 owners of the bind were entitled to recover : — : 
 Held, iil.-io that tlie title U(jt being open to (jui.'^- 
 tion l)y tlie del'endaut, tiie County Court liad i 
 jurisdiction. Bank of Montrail v. lUifhrint, (j 
 A. K. ()u9. 
 
 N., respondent, as assignee in insolvency of 
 H., wlio Ijouglit a lot ot land from the pur- 
 chaser at a slierili's sale for taxes, tiled a bill in 
 Cliauceiy under the Ontario Achninibtration of 
 Justice Act against \V. & O'N. (appellants), 
 who were in pussession, praying inter alia that 
 deleiul. lilts be ordered to deliver up poa^Lssiun 
 of the lands and to accou.it for the vulii of 
 trees, etc , cut dow ii anil removed. W. by his 
 Answer aiiopteil O'N.'s possusaion and elainied 
 niidtr conveyance from tlie (.'ruwn and iiii- 
 pcacliid the validity ol the sale for taxes. O'N. 
 by his answer alleged he was in pussession under 
 W. At the trial it was jiroved tliat II. gave a 
 lease of the hit to one T. fiir b)ur years, ainl that 
 ON. went to T while he was still in possession, 
 and by iiaiidiilent lepreseiitatiiFiis induced T. 
 to leave \\\i'. place and thereby ubtained pos.ses- 
 aioii loi the benelit of W. Tlie Court ot Cliau- 
 ceiy for Ontario (2!) Ciiy. :1S8) held that 
 a|iiiellaiits were <ibli<,'pd to yield up posscssinii 
 to tiu' responiUnl before asserting any title in 
 tlioiiiselvcs. The iJourt of .Appeal for Ontario 
 varied t lie dcciee by declaring that the decree 
 Wiis to he without prejudice to aii_\ proceeding 
 the a|)ii('llaiit \\ . might be advised to t.ike to 
 «stahlish Ins title to the lands in (|iiestion uitliin 
 two months troni the date thereof : — Held, per 
 Ritchie, C. .)., and Strong, Koliriiier, and Heiiiy, 
 .1.1., aliiiiniiig the judgment of the courts below, 
 that tlie appellants, having gone into possession 
 under T., were estopj)ed in tiiis suit fmm dispu- 
 ting their landlord's title, and that the respondent 
 was entitled to an injunction to restrain ap- 
 pellants from cominitting waste and to au ac- 
 count for waste already committed. Per Strong, 
 J.— 'I'lie decree made by the Chancellor would 
 have constituted no bar to a subseipicnt action 
 at law or suit in eijnity by W. to inipc.ich the 
 tax sale, and should not have been varied by the 
 Court of Appeal. Per liwynne, J. — The ease 
 ahuuld have iieen disposed of upon the issue as 
 to the validity of title upon which the plaintiH' 
 had hy his Ihll rested his ease ; and as the 
 appellants had f.uled to prove that the taxes 
 hail been paid before the shenli's sale, the On- 
 
 tario statute, 33 Vict. e. 23, had removed all 
 errors and defects, if any there were, wliich 
 would have enabled the true owner, at the time 
 of the sale, to have avoided it, and pursuant to 
 the provisions of II. S. O. (1877) chapter 40, sec- 
 tion 87 the responilent was entitled to recover 
 possession of the laud in question and to have 
 execution therefor, but not to an order for .an 
 injunction or any direction for an account, the 
 statute authorizing title to real property to be 
 tried in a Court :)f Chancery not justifying a 
 judgment of a more extensive character than 
 would have been pionounced in a court of com- 
 mon law if the action had been brought there. 
 WlitU: V. NtlUs, lis. C. P .)87. 
 
 In an action of ejectment by a landlord against 
 a tenant whose term had expired :— Held, that 
 the defendant was not precluded from setting up 
 that the plaintiU's title expired or was put an 
 enil to during the term ; and to raise such de- 
 fence it was not necessary for the tenant to go 
 out of anil then resume possession. Kelly v. 
 Wolff, 12 P. R. 2.S4.— Daltun, i1/a«<M-.— liose. 
 
 See Miilliolland v. Ilarrnaii, 6 O. R. 546, p. 
 57(i : Mnijct; v. Gibnour, 17 0. R. 620 ; 17 A. R. 
 27, p. 1135. 
 
 LARCENY. 
 
 -S'cc Criminal Law. 
 
 LATERAL SUPPORT. 
 
 The plaintifl' was entitled to the Lateral sup- 
 port of the defendants' land, in which they 
 made exeavatio s for the purposes of a rink, 
 whereby the iilaintiff'a land was damaged : — 
 Held, that in substituting artificial support for 
 the natural support of the soil which had been 
 removed, the defendants might construct it of 
 any material, provided it was a suftioient sup- 
 port fur tlie purpose, and that they continued 
 to maintain the plaintilf's laud in its proper 
 position : — Meld, also, that in estimating the 
 plaintitf's damages, no sum should be allowed 
 tor ilainages to arise in future. The damages 
 were assessed at .'J40, but judgment was given 
 lor the restoration of the plaintifi's Land : — 
 Meld, that the plaintitl' was entitled to full 
 i.osts. Sixirr v. Uraniti' Cnrlituj dud Sknthiif Co. 
 
 1 O. R. 102.— Ferguson. 
 
 Held, that an .action against the proprietor of 
 adjoining land for dimage done to a building by 
 the removal of the lateral support aflbrded by 
 such adjoining laud, may be maintained by the 
 tenant of the budding. McL'aiin v. Chinlwlm, 
 
 2 0. R. 500.- C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff, tenant for years of the defen- 
 dant S. , sued for loss of use of a tenement in 
 conseipienee of the fall of the wall thereof, 
 which was caused by the excavation of the ad- 
 joining lot for a cellar by the defendant H. who 
 owned it. H. had excavated his land in some 
 places to within a few inches of the divuling 
 line, close to which the house in question stood. 
 This house had been built upon oak planks laid 
 about one foot umlortho ground, by S. in 1854, 
 when he had a lease of the lot for ten years , 
 
ue9 
 
 LAW SOOIETT OF UPPER CANADA. 
 
 116a 
 
 
 
 SMSt 
 
 which gave him the right to remove it at the 
 expiration of the term. In 1856, however, 
 he acquired the fee, and in 1870, he also became 
 owner of the lot now owned by H., and held it 
 for a year, when he conveyed it to K. H. from 
 whom H. derived title. There was no evidence 
 to ahew that H knew that the house was re- 
 ceiving more support from his land than it 
 would have required if it had been constructed 
 in the ordinary way: — Held, that owing to the 
 unity of seizin of S., there had not been twenty 
 years' continuous enjoyment of the support as 
 an easement ; luit that even if there had been, 
 no such acquiescence in the use of the servient 
 tenement had been shewn as to justify the pre- 
 sumption that nn easement had been aci^uired 
 by grant: — Held, also, th .t when S. sold H.'s 
 lot, there was no implied reservation of the 
 right of support for the house : — Held, also, 
 reversing the judgment of the Queen's Bench, 
 44 Q. B. 428, that under the circumstiinccs there 
 was no cviilcnce of negligence in fact, and that 
 the plaintiff wos therefore not entitled to re- 
 cover. Back 111 v. Smith, 5 A. R. 341. 
 
 In 1883, M. W. being seized of certain lands, 
 conveyed half thereof to (i. \V. in fee, dcHcribing 
 the same by metes and bounds, and afterwards 
 died having devised the other half to M. There 
 was a house on the lands in question so situate 
 that half of it was on the portion granted to O. 
 W., and half on the portion devised to M. No 
 specific mention of the house was made cither in 
 the deed toG. W. or in the will. M. now com- 
 menced, in defiance of G. W.'s protests, to pull 
 down the half of the house situate on the land 
 devised to her, and G. \V. applied in the present 
 action for an injunction to restrain the same : — 
 Held, that he was entitled to the relief claimed. 
 Wray v. Morrinon, 9 O. R. 180. — Ferguson. 
 
 LAW SOCIETY OF UPPEB CANADA. 
 
 See Bakristek — Solicitor. 
 
 By section 44 of R. S. O. (1887), c 145, " An 
 Act respecting the Law Snciety of Upper 
 Canada," whenever a Imrrister or solicitor Ims 
 been or may be found guilty of professional 
 misconduct by the benchers, " after due en- 
 quiry by a committee of their number or 
 otherwise," it shall be lawful for the benchers 
 in convocation to disbar any such bairister, and, 
 by section 36 of that Act, upon any enquiry by 
 committee the benchers or committee sliall have 
 power to examine witnesses under oath. In 
 calling the committee together, no notice of tlie 
 meeting was sent to the treasurer of the society, 
 an ox officio member thereof, he being in 
 Kurope, and tlie notice to tlie other members 
 did not state the purpose of the meeting. Sub- 
 sequently the committee reported to convocation 
 that tlie complaint had been fully established, 
 and recommended that the plaintiff be dis- 
 barred :— Held, (reversing the decision of the 
 Divisional Court, 17 O. R. 300) that the plain- 
 tiff having appeared before convocation and 
 substantiuTly admitted the charge, and the pro- 
 priety of the report of the conmiittee, could not 
 be permitted to say that the defendants had 
 acted without "due enquiry," ur to set up any 
 
 irregularities there might have been in the pre- 
 liminary proceedings. Per Hagarty, C. J. 0., 
 and Osier, J A. — Notice to the treasurer waa 
 unnecessary. Ilandx v. Law Society of Upper 
 Canada, 17 A. R. 41. 
 
 Upon a charge of professional misconduct, 
 the plaintiff attended before the discipline com- 
 mittee, the standing committee of convocation 
 to whom all charges of such nature are referred, 
 and without objection allowed witnesses to make 
 unsworn statements, and cross-examined them 
 thereon, he also making an unsworn staten^ent 
 himself. Upon the consideration of this report 
 the evidence was read before Convocation, and 
 the plaintiff appeared with counsel and practi- 
 cally adnutted the charge taking no objections to 
 the proceedings, whereupon Convocation j,dopte(l 
 the report and resolved that he be disbarred, etc. 
 An action to have this resolution declared void, 
 and to restrain further proceedings, was dis- 
 missed by Boyd, C, (16 O. R. 625. ) Tliis judg 
 ment was siibseiiuently reversed by the Queen's 
 Bench Divisional Court, (17 0. H. 300), where 
 upon the defendants appealed to tliis court. Per 
 Hagarty, C. J. O., and Osier. .1. A. — The power 
 to take evidence under oath was, unless waived, 
 imperative. Per Burton, J. A. — The power to 
 take evidence under oath was discretionary. 
 Ih. 
 
 Per Boyd, C. — It is not es.iential to the juris- 
 dicti(m of domestic tribunals that they should 
 have the powers of ordinary courts of justice in 
 the trial of litigated matters. It. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 145, 8. 36, is not imperative ; it confers the 
 power to examine witnesses under oath, which 
 may or may not be enqdoyed according to the 
 sound discretion of the particular tribunal, 
 Where there is or is likely to bo any couHiot in 
 the evidence, the witnesses should be sworn. But 
 in this case the salient facts were not controverted 
 by the plaintiff; his counsel having stated in 
 his presence that he did not know that he could 
 differ from the conclusions which tliecotnniiitec 
 had come to; and the evidence derived from 
 admissions of a party unsworn is sufficient to 
 found even a decree of the court. The (d)jection 
 that the di.scipline committee had taken evi- 
 dence without oath, therefore failed. .V. ('. 16 
 0. R. 625. 
 
 Per Q. B. Divisional Court.— That by the pro 
 visions of R. S. O. (1887), c. 145, ». 36, the Legis- 
 lature intended that the evidence in in(iuiriea 
 such as the one in question should be taken upon 
 oath ; audn it to confer upon the defemlaiits a 
 discretion to take it upon oath or without o.ith 
 as they should think proper ; and they could not 
 by ariangement between themselves and thf 
 plaintiff adopt a different mode of nl)taiiiing the 
 facts than that which the legislature prescribed 
 in conferring their authority upon thci.i. >S'. C. 
 17 O. R. 300. 
 
 Per Boyd, C— The intervention of the Law 
 Society upon the solicitation of the piison ag- 
 grieved was quite warrantable, notwithstanding 
 that such person had brought an acii(m for 
 pecuniary redress. S. C, 16 0. R. 6l'5. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the law society shonld 
 not be less than that of the court; and the latter 
 is exercised not merely in cases arising out of 
 purely professional employment, but whenever 
 the transaction is so connected with the profes- 
 
1161 
 
 LEASE. 
 
 1162 
 
 sional character of the solicitor as to afford a 
 presumption that that character formed aground 
 and reason of the employment. It is for the 
 benchers to determine and adjudge what is ami 
 what iH nut becoming conduct in a member of 
 tlie society, under R. S. O. (1887), c. 145, s. 44; 
 and any act of any member that will seriously 
 compromise the body of the profession in public 
 estimation is within the province of this law. 
 Any misconduct which would prevent a person 
 from being admitted to the society justifies his 
 removal; and the conduct which unfits a nuin to 
 be a solicitor should a fortiori preclude iiis being 
 a b irrister. The plaintiff, according to his own 
 statements before the committee, was acting as a 
 solicitor in the transactions complained of; and 
 the objection that be was not engaged in that 
 capacity, or in the capacity of barrister, failed. 
 lb. 
 
 The fact tliat the plaintiff prior to the resolu- 
 tion of the benchers had made restitution to the 
 complainant did not oust tlie jurisdiction to dis- 
 pliue. lb. 
 
 Held affirming the judgment of the Chy. Div. 
 17 0. K. 104, that a judge of a superior court of 
 tlie province of Ontario, wlio, after his voluntary 
 resignation of liis office, before he has become 
 entitled to a retiring allowance, has been ac- 
 cepted, resumes the practice of hin profession, is 
 a "retired juilge" within the meaning of H. S. 0. 
 (1877), c. 138, s. 4, and as such an ex officio 
 benelier of the Law Society of Upper Canada. 
 Burton, J. A., dissenting. Macdnudlw Blake, 
 17 A. li. 312. 
 
 LAW STAMPS. 
 
 Where an examination of parties pursuant to 
 R. S. (). (1877), c. 50, 8. 161, takes place l>efore 
 a deputy clei'ii of tfic crown, tiiough not ilcsig- 
 nated in tlie order as acting in lii.s official 
 ■capacity, tlie fees for such examination are pay- 
 able in stamps, and not in money. Dinmnrk y. 
 MrCoiinnhy, S P. R. i;5(). -Osier. 
 
 LEASE. 
 
 1. Of CiiAiTELS, 1161. 
 11. Ok Fishkrv, 1162. 
 
 III. Ok Lani>. 
 
 1. Weill ml/y—Sc LANDi.oRn ano Tkn- 
 
 ANT. 
 
 2. MiiiiiHi LaiuUSffi .Minkrai. Lands. 
 
 IV. Ok Tolls —Vee Way. 
 
 V. MORTOAUE OK I.K\SE, 1162. 
 
 1. Ok C'haitkls. 
 
 By a verbal agreement, entered into in June, 
 1876, the plaintiff leased to his son, M., who 
 was residing with him, the farm occupied by 
 them, for five years, at an annual rent of $100, 
 M. agreeing also to support the plaintiff and the 
 other members of his family. By the terms of 
 ithe agreement M. was to have the use and 
 enjoyment of the stock and implements on the 
 
 premises, estimated to be worth $1,010. It WiW 
 also stijtulated that M. should have power to 
 sell or otherwise dispose of such portions of the 
 stock and iinpleinents as he might think desir- 
 able, but at the conclusion or sooner determina- 
 tion of the term, he was to leave others of equal 
 value, any surplus above that amount to be his 
 own. Kither party was to be at liberty to 
 determine the lease at any time he thought fit 
 to do HO. In January, 1879, M. having become 
 financially embarrassed, and finding he was 
 losing by the farm, expressed his determination 
 to try some other mode of life, and said that 
 the plaintiff might have tlie place and the stock, 
 etc., thereon, if he, the plaintiff, would dis- 
 charge him from any claim in respect of the rent, 
 no piirtioii of which had been paid. M. did 
 accordingly abandon the place, and the plaintiff 
 thereupon assumed the management and control 
 thereof, ami took possession of the stock, etc. 
 M. subseciucntly returned to his father's and 
 continued to reside and work on the farm for 
 his father. In .March following M. executed a 
 surrender to the plaintiff of all his right and 
 interest in or to the farm and the crops upon it. 
 In the month of April, for the expressed con- 
 sideration of §340, which it was alleged his 
 father had lent him, he also executed a memo- 
 randum assigning to the plaintiff all his interest 
 in the stock and farming implements, etc., on 
 the place, which included, it was said, a buggy, 
 cutter, and harness, which had been purchased 
 by M. for his own use. In October, 1879, the 
 defendant sued out execution against M. under 
 which the sheriff seized the farm stock and 
 implements, together with the said buggy, 
 cutter, and harness. In an interpleader pro- 
 ceeding by the father, in which a verdict was 
 rendered for the plaintiff, on appeal from a rule 
 refusing to set the verdict aside:— Held, (revers- 
 ing 32 C. P. 90) that the lease from the father 
 to his son had the effect of vesting the chattel 
 property in the latter ; and quiere, whether it 
 was afterwards revested in the father by the 
 writings executed by M. ; but as the question 
 whether there had been a delivery and change 
 of posses.^ion sufficient under the. Bills of Sale 
 Act had not been passed upon by the jury, and 
 as sfunc doubt existed in respect of the buggy, 
 cutter, and harness, a new trial was ordered ; 
 costs to abide the result. Oliver v. Newhoiuie, 
 8 A. R. 122. 
 
 Held, per Osier, J., the identical articles 
 were not necessarily to be returned but only 
 in the same kind and value, and therefore the 
 transaction constituted a sale, and the pro- 
 perty became vested in the son, and liable to be 
 seized in an execution against him. .S\ C, .32 
 (;. P. 90. 
 
 See Bkkford v. Canada Southern R. W. Co., 
 14 S. C. R. 74.3, p. 1147. 
 
 II. Ok Fishery. 
 
 See HeijiiM v. Boliertsoii, 6 S. C. R. 52, p. 
 308. 
 
 V. MoRTtiAOE OK Lease. 
 
 See Kelly v. Im/ierial Loan it Inveslment Co., 
 11 A. R. 526. 
 
lies 
 
 LIEN. 
 
 1164 
 
 aii^ 
 
 W ,1; 
 
 LEOAOT. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 J. B. being the owner of certain land, by his j 
 will, gave his son, M. H., a leuacy of $150 and | 
 charged it on the land, which he devised to his 1 
 son W. B., an infar t : with a provision that his j 
 son .1. B. should occupy it during the minority i 
 of VV. B. and pay the legacy. The land was so 
 occupied and the legacy paid, and a i-eceipt for ; 
 its payment taken. W. B. subseiiuently .sold ; 
 the land to T. B., and T. B. sold it to J. C, who | 
 retained $150 of the purchase money because the 
 1 gacy was not released ; but by an agreement I 
 agreed to pay T. B. the $150 as .soon us he should 
 furnish a release duly executed by M. 15. The | 
 -i/-'-^ to receive the §150 under this agieenient 
 i.,i ^i,y right he had to obtain this release was as- 
 "A)l\)ru by " . B. to M K. M. K. having tendered 
 a reh ■'se loi execution to T. B. wlio declined to 
 execute it, brought a suit to compel him .so to 
 do :— Held, that although tlie plaintiff" was en- 
 til led to a judgment declaring that the legacy was 
 paid, which might be registered, still as the defen- 
 dant had done no wrong, and had given a receipt 
 for the legacy when it was paid, he was not com- 
 pellable to sign anything else, and shoulil not be 
 punished by being ordered to pay tiie costs for 
 not doing that which he was not bound in law 
 to do. The purcha.ser should not have objected 
 to the title on account of the legacy if there Wiis 
 proof of its being paid. Kainer v. lioyiilon, 7 
 O. R. 143. -Boyd. 
 
 LICENSE. 
 
 I. 
 
 Lkase ok Licen.se- 
 Tenant. 
 
 -iS'ee Landlord and 
 
 Interest on Legacy. 
 4 O. K. 708 ; MuHni'': v, 
 p. 899. 
 
 Hee Toomry v. 
 fAndnaji, 1 1 (). 
 
 Trnii'ii, 
 H. ,520, 
 
 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. ^ 
 
 I. Powers ov—See Constitutionai. Law. 
 
 II. Elections to — <S>e Parliamentary | 
 Elections. 
 
 LETTERS. 
 
 I. Of Adminlstration — Sve Exki itors 
 
 ANI) ADMIMSTKATOlts. 
 
 II. Contracts nv — iic< Contract. 
 
 III. In Evidence — See Evuience. 
 
 rV. Defamatory I.'^ttkk.s — See Defama- 
 tion. 
 
 V. Patent. 
 
 1. For LaiuU—See Crown Lands. 
 
 2. For Invention— See Patent for In- 
 
 \ENTI0N. 
 
 VI. Rogatory— 5ec Evidence. 
 
 LIBEL 
 
 Set Criminal Law— Deeamatiok, 
 
 II. Ok Ferries —»S'e« Ferry. 
 
 III. For .'"'ale ok Liyi'OR.s— .SerlNToxicATiNu 
 
 LlQrORS. 
 
 IV. MuNUii-AL Lh'ense.s— ;S'fie Mumcii'Ai. 
 
 CoHl'O RATIONS. 
 
 V. Timber Licenses— See Crown Lands. 
 
 The plaintiff, by a lease undei' seal, leased to 
 the defendant a shop, save and except the bottom 
 portion of the east window, and save and except 
 a portion of the shop described by metes anil 
 bounds. Tlie defendant alleged that prior tn 
 iii.s accepting the lea.se, and entering into tin; 
 consider.-ition for such acceptance, an independent 
 and collateral parol agreement, separate and dis- 
 tinct from and not part of tlie lease, was entered 
 into, whercliy th(! defendant was to have per 
 mission or liceii.se to remove certain rough shelv- 
 ing, etc., and to tit up the shop, includin;^ tlits 
 portion reserved by the plaintiff, with handsome 
 and ornamental show cases, during the continu- 
 ance of the term, so as to give the shoj) a nnifonn 
 appearance for the defendaiifs benefit, and that 
 in iiursuanceof such agreement, and with i>lain- 
 tifTs consent, the show cases were put in : — Held, 
 that the evidence of such agreement w^is not ad- 
 missible, as it would add to the written agrec- 
 inent, and was not collateral thereto; butevon 
 if admissible, if it amounted to an easement or 
 grant of an incorporeal right, it should have been 
 under seal, and not being under seal, the license 
 was a parol license, not incidental to a v.ilid 
 grant, and was revocable, and the fact that it 
 was for consideration and for a term certain 
 could make no dit>'ereiHe. It was held also that 
 the evidence failed to establish the alleged agree- 
 ment, and that the plaintiff was not estopped 
 from denying it. JfcKi'inie v. McO/awihlin, S 
 (). R. Hi.— C. P. D. 
 
 iSemble, the dominion parliament has power 
 to enact that a license from the crown shall not 
 be necessary to enable corporations to hold lands 
 within the dominion ; and a Dominion Act en- 
 abling a Quebec corporation to hohl lands in 
 Ontario would ojierate as a license. McDUir- 
 mid V. //Kf///".", l(i O. R. ."O.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Of Calls. .See /.V;/?'»n \ . Hti-n», I O. R. 490. 
 
 From minister of marine and tisheries. See 
 Rfijina v. Rohtrt.soti, (i S. C. R. 52, p. .308. 
 
 Revocable license to a right of way. See 
 Dtmcav v. Roijir-^ 15 0. R. 6!»» ; 16 A. R. .3. 
 
 LICENSE COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 See Intoxicating Liquors. 
 
 LIEN. 
 
 I. Generally, 116.5. 
 II. On Land. 
 
 1. Equitable Liens, 116S. 
 
1185 
 
 LIEN. 
 
 116S 
 
 NDLORD ANIi 
 
 I O. R. 490. 
 
 2. Mechamcs Lima. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1166. 
 
 (b) Mortijaijed Prope.rtu, 1 169. 
 
 (c) Exenil'ion Crrditorx, 1171. 
 
 (d) KeiiislrntUm . 1172. 
 
 (e) AflioiiH fiti, II7'1. 
 
 (f) rvwAv, 1174. 
 
 ;i. Vfiiilors' //nil — Sec 8ai.k or Land. 
 4. T'tx Piiir/iiinrr's Liev—ftfi Asskss- 
 
 MKNT AND TaXKS. 
 
 "). Other LiciiK, 1175. 
 
 III. Ok Innkkki'ek, 1175. 
 
 IV. For Cost.s— .S'cf Costs— Sdi.iriToK. 
 
 1. Gf.nkkai.lv. 
 
 Lien of secured crcilitor under K. S. (). ( I,S77) 
 <• 107, «. :f<>. Sec (Jhamberlen V. Chirk. I O. II. 
 i:?5 ; 1) A. K. 273. 
 
 Hold, tliat tlie settlement of a cliiiiu under ii 
 iu)j,'otiivi)te .security without the security lieing 
 delivered \x\i .sul).jected tlie defendant to such 
 cliavges as were a specific lien tliereon of whicii 
 tliev had notice, or semble, even without notice, 
 //a// V. (hHJilh, 5 O. J{. 478.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Lieu of Crown for customs duties. — I'reference 
 (if Crown over the subject. See Clarkmm v. 
 Atfnriiey-Oiiicrol of Canada, 15 O. R. 632 ; 16 
 A. l\. 202, p. 1 10. 
 
 Three persons occupying a fiduciary position 
 towards a bank, became partners in a firm, 
 agreeing to pay for their interest a certain sum 
 of money in liquidation of creditors' claims. 
 Tiiey did pay this sum but out of the moneys of 
 the bank wrongfully appropriated by them. 
 Subsc()uently the firm was formed into a joint- 
 stock company, anil the assets of the partnership 
 were assigned by the partners to the company. 
 The company soon afterwards failed, and a wind- 
 ing-up order was made, the original assets, upon 
 which the bank claimed a lien, to a considerable 
 extent coming into the possession of the liqui- 
 dator : — Held, that the original partners were 
 iiotaflFected with constructive notice of the mean^ 
 by which tiie incoming partners obtained the 
 moneys brought in, and that no actual notice to 
 tiiemor to the company being shown the bank 
 had no lien. Judgment of the County (/'ourt of 
 York reversed. In re, Ilerr Piano Company, 
 17 A. R. 3.3.^ 
 
 See Troop v. Hart, 7 S. C. R. 512 ; (,'mnt v. 
 fja Bnnqite Nationale, 9 O. !^ 411, p. 1.39; Hall 
 V. Collhu Bay Itajtinij inif/ Forward'mq Cii., 12 
 A. R. 65, p. 182 ; McDonald v. McCall, 12 A. 
 R.503, p. 822; Foster v. Riisseh, 12 O. R. 136 ; 
 Sandernoii v. McKercher, 13 A. R. 5()1 : Bi/er-i 
 v. McMillan, 16 S. C. R. 194, p. 661 ; irUcher 
 V. Cnnnila Permanent Loan and Sn»inii'< Go. , 18 
 0. R. 273, p. 1175. 
 
 n. On Land. 
 
 1. Eipiitable Liena. 
 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. — It "an equitable lien, 
 charge, or interest " be created by deed or by 
 »ny writing capable of being registered, actual 
 notice of such deed or interest will, under the 
 
 67th section of the Registry Act, 31 Vict. c. 20 
 (Ont.), prevent the effect of priority of registra- 
 tion. But as to equitable liens, etc., evidenced 
 by parol only, amongst others a vendnr's lien for 
 unpaid purcliaso money, they have by that Act 
 been prevented from affecting a duly registered 
 title. In the disposition of real property, unless 
 in cases of actual moral fraud, the string<:nt ob- 
 servance of the Registry Law is the wiise.st rule 
 to adopt. Pilf'i-kin v. McFarlane, 9 A. 1!. 429. 
 
 Under a judgment for r('dem|)tion obtained by 
 an execution creditor of the nicirtgagor, the 
 mortgagee who held the title under a deed 
 absolute in form, brouglit into tiie master's 
 otiico with his account ceitain orders, signed by 
 the mortgauor, directing him to pay the parties 
 named in them any surplus moneys in his hands 
 after paying his mortgage. The mortgagee did 
 not accept them, but entered them in his real 
 estate ledger, and tiiey were not reyisttired : — 
 Held, (I) that such mortgagee could not claint 
 to bo allowed these orders in addition to his 
 mnrtgage, not having accepted or jiaid them; 
 nor could he be looked u])on as a trustee holding 
 the lands in trust for the holdeis of such orders. 
 (2) That the orders operated as equitable charges 
 or liens on the mortgagor's interest in the lands 
 prior to the receipt l)y the sheriff of the ])lain- 
 tifl's' fi. fa. lands, and that siich lien-holders 
 should be made parties in the master's office, 
 and prove thoir claims in their own right. 
 Canailian limib of ('ommerce v. Forlien, 10 P. R. 
 442. — Hodgins, Master ■in-Ordinary. 
 
 I 2. Mechanicx' Lievj<. 
 
 I (a) Generall;/. 
 
 The plaintiff furnished materials to 0. for a 
 
 j building which G. had contracted to 'erect for 
 
 ; the defendants. .After the defendants had paid 
 
 i G. all there was due to him, and after (i. had 
 
 1 abandoned his contract tlie plaintiff notified the 
 
 defendants of his unpaiil account against G. for 
 
 such materials ; and filed a bill to enforce his 
 
 lien more than ninety days after the nuiterials 
 
 had been furnished. A demurrer for want of 
 
 equity was allowed, with costs ; and Semble, 
 
 that even if the bill had been filed in time, there 
 
 would not have been any lien, liemirks upon 
 
 the various provisions of the Mechanics' Lieu 
 
 Act, Briijiis V. Lee, 27 Chy. 4(i4.— Spragge. 
 
 In a building contract for the erection of a 
 church, the contractor agreed with the building 
 conmiittee to settle with all other persons doing 
 work upon or furnishing materials tor the con- 
 struction thereof, and stipulated that neiLner he 
 nor they should have any lien upon the building 
 for their work or materials : -Held, binding on 
 the sub-contractors, though made without their 
 knowledge or assent. Forhaii v. Lalonde, 27 
 Chy. 600.— Blake. 
 
 It was also stipulated that twenty per cent, of 
 the contract price should not be payable until 
 thirty days after the architect should have 
 accepted the work, and that the balance of the 
 contract price so to be retained should not be 
 payable until all sub-contractors were fully paid 
 and settled with:— Held, (1) *!>»* "o trust was 
 thereby created in favour of the sub-contractors 
 as to the sum agreed to be retained ; and the 
 contractor having assigned his interest in the 
 
1187 
 
 LIEN. 
 
 1168 
 
 MR.m 
 
 9« 
 
 conti'dct to II third party, and the committee ' 
 having waived tiieir right to insist that the sub- ! 
 contractors sliotild be paid : — Held, (2) that the 
 assignee was entitled to receive twenty per cent, 
 to tlie exclusion of tiie sub-contractors. Ih. 
 
 M. having bargained in .lanunry with R. & E. 
 to do certain work, and supply certain machinery 
 in tlicir mill, the last of the work being done, 
 .ind tiio last of the machinery supplied on the 
 28tii -Inly, filed his lien<ni the !2;'>th August, and 
 coinnienceil his action tJnd October. On the 
 24tli July, !!. it E. iiad sold and conveyed the 
 mill to I'., who, not being aware of this claim, 
 registerccl his conveyance on 20th .July. Tlie 
 lien ri'gi.stun'(l made no mention of 1'. as 
 "o.vnci-," and M. had drawn a dnift for part 
 of till' nioncy at three month-s, dated '28tii July, 
 which had liecn I'.cceptrd by R. & E. : — Held, 
 that M. was entitled to his lien notwithstanding 
 the sale to 1'. Tli;it the omission of P. as owner 
 <lid nut invalid ite the lieu, and that the drawing 
 of the draft did not operate as a waiver of the 
 lien. Ma/.iiii v. Jiohiiison, (i O. R. 1. — Ferguson. 
 
 W. entered into a contract with M. to do cer- 
 tain carpenter work on buildings for a contract 
 ])rice of .*'2,(i!M», which was afterwards, after 
 taking an account of the extras to and omissions 
 from the contract, increased to §2,781.8.'). He 
 proceeded with the contract, and <lid work to 
 the value of .S2,S,M), and received on account 
 .'$2,1-."), when he failed ami notified W. that he 
 could not proceed with the contract. W. then 
 entered into a contract witli C, who was M.'s 
 surety, to linish the work, wliich he did at an 
 «xpenso of ,S-")2."). 88. Certain sub-contractors 
 and employees of M. filed liens, and W. moved 
 to have them vacated on the ground that he was 
 entitled to ai)i)ly the ten per cent, drawback in 
 completing the contract :~Held, reversing in 
 ])art the oi'<ler of I'roudfoot, J., who dissented, 
 that the amount upon which the ten per cent. 
 <lrawl)ack was to be calculated was not the 
 whole amount of the contract price, but the 
 amount of the work done by the contractor 
 when he failed and abandoned the work. /iV 
 €oriMi, 6 0. R. 2,59. -Chy. D. 
 
 The defendant H. conti'acted with the defen- 
 <lant C for the building of a house. A clause 
 in the agreement gave H. a right to dismiss C, 
 and employ others to finish the work, in the 
 «vent of C.'s failure to carry out the contract. 
 H. acting thereunder dismisseil C. and agreed 
 verbally with the respective plaintiffs P. &. (J., 
 who had sub-contracts under C. , that if they 
 wouhl pi'oceed with their respective i)ortions of 
 the work, and finish the same, he (H.) would 
 pay them :— Held, affirming the judgment of 
 Boyd, C, (2 O. R. 233), that the agreement with 
 P. & a. was a new and indepemlent contract, 
 not a pnmiise to ])ay the debt of another, and 
 that P. k (i. were entitled to liens for all work 
 done under such agreement with H. as con- 
 tractors. Pelrie V. Htinti'T ; OumI v. fJuu/er, 
 10 A. K. 127. 
 
 The plaintiffs contracted with one C. for tl ; 
 execution of the stone work upon certiiin build 
 ing which C. had contracted to build. C. never 
 completed the work, but during the progress 
 thereof was paid in good faith the full value of 
 the work actually done by him on the building 
 before he abandoned the contract : — Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of the County Court, that 
 
 a sub-contractor with C. could not enforce pay. 
 ment of his claim to the extent of ten per cent, 
 of the contract price under the Act R. 8. (). (IS77) 
 c. 120, 8. II, as amended by 41 Vict. e. 17. s. I ; — 
 Qui-ere, as to the meaning and effect of iluit 
 clause, (jixidurd v. (.'oulnon, 10 A. 11. 1. 
 
 The last of the materials in respect of wiijch 
 the plaintiffs, as sub contractors, claimed a lieu 
 under the Mechanics" Lien Act upon the estate 
 of the landowner, were deliveieil on the llitii 
 September, 1887, and the claim of lien was Udt 
 registered nor was notice in writing given until 
 the 11th October, 1887. and this action to (>||. 
 force the lien was not brought till 2!ltii Ocldliui-, 
 lS87:--HeM, that under sections !) and 10 i,f 
 R. S. O. (1887). c. I2(J, the lien claimcil diil imi 
 attach so as to make the owner liable to ;i jiriatcr 
 sum than the sum payable l)y the owner to the 
 .contractor, (lodd.ird c. C'oulson, 10.\. R. 1. ful- 
 lowed. TriKi.iy. l>l.i()H,\~ (). I!. .SliO. - (,'. II. |). 
 
 When in an action to enforce a mecliaiiio's 
 lien the pbiintiff j)uipnrtiHl to set out on liiit 
 
 ' stiltement of claim the registered liiii vcrl)atiin, 
 anil the same as so set out, ili<l not show tliiit tliu 
 work was done and the material furiiisheil, witliiii 
 thii'ty days from thi! I'cgisti-ation of the lien, n(ir 
 
 ■ the amount (hie : -Held, on demurrer, b:iil, hut 
 leave given to amend. IMxrfi v. Mi-hniKtld, 
 
 I 1.") O. R. 8(». - I'roudfoot. .See next case. 
 
 I Section 10 of R. S. O. (I8S7), c. 12(i, re.iuiies 
 , that the claim of litMi shall state the time or perioil 
 'within which the materials were fmiiislicil. 
 
 The claim registered in this case di<l not state 
 i the year, but only the iuonths and da,\sof the 
 
 months. It stateil, however, that the materials 
 I were furnishe<l on or before the I7tli Sej)tcniljcr, 
 I 1887; and in this and all respects it followeil 
 ' Form 1 in the schedule to the Act; and sub- 
 I section 2 of section 1(5 provides that the claim 
 i may be in one of the forms given in the sclie- 
 i dule to the Act :— Held, that the statement that 
 I the materials were furnished on or befm-e a 
 I named day was a sufficient statement of the 
 : time or period within which they were furnished, 
 i according to the true intent and meaning of sec- 
 ' tion 16. Roberts r. .McDonahl, !,") O. R. 80. ovcr- 
 
 i ruled. Tiiinxv. Dixmi, 17 O. R. .300. -O. 15. 1). 
 
 I 
 
 I a. supplied bricks to VV., who had leased 
 ( certain land from H. with an option of purchase. 
 I The contract for the supply of tlie bricks was 
 made between (i. and W. , and on W.'s credit, 
 although H. w.is aware that they were lieiiig 
 ' supplied, and that buildings were being erected 
 I on the land. These buildings were la ing erected 
 j by W. under a verbal ngreenieut to that ctlcct 
 between W. and H. subsecpient to the lease, ami 
 by which agreement H. had agreeil to lend part 
 of the money required for the buihlings to \V., 
 advancing the same as the work progressed on 
 the security of the property. \V. did not exer- 
 cise his right of purchase under the lease, and 
 G. filed his lien against both W. and H., and 
 brought this action to establish the same ag.iinst 
 the interest of both of them :— Held, afHniiing 
 the decision of Boyd, C, (8 O. R. 478), that the 
 interest of H. in the property was not charged. 
 It requires something more than mere knowledge 
 of the work being done to bind the owiiei' under 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 120, s. 2, subs. 3. The 
 privity and assent must l)e in pursuance of an 
 agreement. H. could in no sense be looked 
 upon as a ])rior mortgagee and it is only iigaiuHt 
 
LIEN. 
 
 1170 
 
 such that R. S. O. (1877) c. 120, s. 7, gives 
 priority to the lien-holder. Graham v. tVil- 
 ham", 9 0. R. 458.-Chy. D. 
 
 Held, following Breeze v. The Midland R. W. 
 Co., 20 Chy. 225 (Proudfoot, J., dissenting), 
 that a mechanic's lien docs not uttuch upon an 
 cngine-lioiise and turntable built fur a railway 
 company, nnd confessedly necessary for the pro- 
 per worljing of the railway ; and that such eu- 
 giiie-bouse and turntable, and tlio land whereon 
 tiiey niu erected, cannot be 8(>ld under a pro- 
 ceeding for tlie purpose of enforcing payment 
 <if II mechanic's lien. Kiiii/ v. Alj'ord, !) O. R. 
 (I4S.— Chy. I). 
 
 Thoru is mitliing in tiic Mechanics' Lieu Act 
 to indicate that it was intuiiiled to be operative 
 t) a greater extent than as giving a statutory 
 lien, issuing in process of execution of etticacy 
 •e(lii!'.l to, but not greater than, that possessed 
 by tiie ordinary writs of execution. A mechanic's 
 lien is not analogous to a vendor's lien. Per 
 I'roudfoot, ,J. The Meciianics' Lien Act was 
 intended to place mechanics on a more favoural)le 
 footing than otlier creditors, and their right 
 ought not to be nieasui'ed by what could bo 
 realized upon an execution. There seems no 
 <listinction in principle between tlieir position 
 and that of au unpaid vendor of land. Hi. 
 
 8. was tlie owner of a lot upou which he was 
 huilding four houses and W. was his plumbing 
 contractor doing the work on all at a speciKed 
 sum for each lionse. He eommeueed his worii 
 in September, 1887, ami finished about May, 
 1888. V. was the conti'actor for the brickwork 
 and as such was on the premises from time to 
 time, as the work was going on and was not paid 
 by S. V. inirchased one of the houses, wiiieh 
 was conveyed to him by S. by deed, dated 1st 
 December, 1887, and registered 20th February, 
 1888. On 24tli Feiiruary. 1888, \V. registered 
 his lien on the whole property. Roth V. and 
 \V. allejjed that they knew nothing of the 
 other's transaction. On an appeal from Robert- 
 son, J., who held (affirming the master in 
 chambers) that V. had notice of W.'s claim, and 
 that his summary application to have W.'s lien 
 discharged must be dismissed with costs, the 
 court were evenly divided. Per Proudfoot, J. 
 A lien should be registered against any one whose 
 rights are acquired during the progress of the 
 work, and if not so registered it becomes abso- 
 lutely void, unless proceedings are taken to 
 realize within thirty days : no proceedings were 
 taken within that time ))y W. and the lien not 
 being registered against the subseijuent owner 
 ceased to be a lien at all. Hynes r. Smith, 27 
 Chy. 150, and McVean ,: Tiffin, 13 A. R. 1, fol- 
 lowed. Per Ferguson, J. The real question is 
 not whether there was a valid registration of the 
 lieu, but whether the judgment of Hobei'tson, >J. 
 ■affirming the refusal of the master to discharge 
 the lien on a summary application was right. 
 The master was justified in so refusing. Wanty 
 r. Robins, 15 (). R. 474, referred to. Re Wallin 
 ■and Vokes, 18 O. R. 8. -Chy. D. 
 
 See Gmnlw Dunn, 3 O. R. 276, p. 1172. 
 
 (b) Mortgaged Properti/. 
 
 A mortgagee filed a bill for sale, making cer- 
 tain lien-noTders under the Act parties defen- 
 
 74 
 
 danta therein, alleging that the work, by virtue 
 of which their lieDH arose, was commenced after 
 the registration of his mortgage : — Hold, that 
 the lieu-holders should have been made p irties 
 in the master's otiice ; and plaintiff's costs of 
 making them defendants by bill were disallowed 
 on revision of taxation. Jiick<on v. Hammond, 
 8 P. R. 157. -Thorn, Taxing Officer. 
 
 In order to preserve the lien which the Mech- 
 anics' Lien Act creates in favour of a contractor 
 performing work on a house or other building 
 for the owner, it is necessary to register the 
 same during the progress of the work, and as 
 soon as the claim arises, or it may l)e postponed 
 to a mortgage created sul)HiMjucritly, but regis- 
 tered prior to sucli lien. Proudfoot, V. C, dis- 
 senting. Ilywn V. Sinit/i, 27 Chy. 150.— Chy. 
 1).; 8 P. R. 73. 
 
 The ))laintifl's instituted proceeilings to enforce 
 a mechanic's lien as.signed to them, which ha<l 
 been duly registered, and a suit thereon prose- 
 cuted. The i>laintifl's claimed to be entitled to 
 j)riority in respect of such lien over the cl.iiin of 
 a mortgagee — whose mortgage was prior to the 
 contract uniler which the lien arose— for the 
 amount by which the selling value of the pre- 
 mises had been increased by the work and ma- 
 terials placed thereon. The assignee of the 
 mortgagee demurred, on the ground that he was 
 an owner of the land, within tlie meaning of the 
 Act, R. S O. (1877), c. 120. s. 2, and that pro- 
 ceedings ha<l not been taken against him within 
 the time specified by the Act : —Held, that he 
 was not such an owner, not being a person upon 
 whose recjuest or upon the credit of whom, etc., 
 the work had been done. Bunk of Montreal v. 
 Haffner, 29 Chy. 319.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The period of ninety days, limited by the 2l8t 
 section of the Mechanic's Lien Act(R. S. O. 1877, 
 1 c. 120), for the commencement of proceedings to 
 I enforce the lien, applies to an action or proceed- 
 ! ing against a mortgagee or other j)erson claim- 
 I ing an interest in the lands, and that, whether 
 I proceedings have or have not been previously 
 ' taken against the owner within the ninety days. 
 i Hank of ilnntixul v. Ilaifner, 10 A. U. 592. 
 
 The plaintiffs, assignees of a mechanic's lien, 
 brought an action against the owner nnd a prior 
 mortgagee, but their action was dirnissed as 
 against the mortgagee for want of prosecution. 
 Having succeeded in obtaining a judgment 
 establishing their lien against the owner they 
 brought this action after the lapse of more than 
 ninety days from filing their lien, to obtain a 
 declaration of priority over the prior mortgagee 
 to the extent that the work increased the sell- 
 ing value of the land : — Held, reversing the 
 judgment of Ferguson, J. (3 0. R. 183), that the 
 lien had ceascl to exist as against the mort- 
 gagee. //(. 
 
 Each lieu under the Mechanics' Lien .Act 
 stands on its own footing, every lien-holder being 
 entitled to security upon the enhanced value 
 arising by reason of the work ami materials. .V. 
 C, 3 0. R. 183.— Ferguson. 
 
 In an action to enforce a mechanic's lieu under 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 120, a reference in the usual 
 form was directed to the local master at Chat- 
 ham, to inquire whether any person besides the 
 plaintiffs, other than prior mortgagees, had any 
 
1171 
 
 LIEN. 
 
 im 
 
 
 ■■■i\'. A 
 
 csss 
 
 en 
 
 2'" 
 'wis 
 
 00 
 
 incumbrapce, etc., upon the preminea in ques- 
 tion. In proceeding under this reference, the 
 matiter made a number of persons, including the 
 appellants, parties in his office, nnd caiixed them 
 to 1)0 servcff with notice "T," which erroneous- 
 ly recited the judgiricnt as directing iin inquiry 
 as to incund>i'ancea generally. The uppeliunts 
 thereupon petitioned to discharge tliu master's 
 order upon tlio ground that they were juior 
 mortgagees, and hence not necoMsary or ])rnper 
 parties to the iiction. It nppeared that the a))- 
 pellants registenjd their mortgage hefcire any of 
 the work was done or materials supplied for 
 which the plaintiHa claimed, and had advanced 
 the full amount of the mortgage money some 
 months bofoni tiie plaintiffs' lien was registered, 
 though a portion was advanced after they hail 
 commenced work or supplied materials. 'l"he 
 mortgagees had no notice of the plaintiff's 
 lien :— Held, reversing the jndgnient of the 
 court below, that the appellants claim was prior 
 to that of the plaintids and that they were not 
 proper parties to tlie action, being excejjted by 
 the terms of the judgment, nor was the master 
 ■warranted in entering upon any iiu|uiry as to 
 the amount advanced by them siil)se(|nent to 
 the commencement of the work. Hicliards r. 
 Chamberlain, 25 Chy. 402, and llynes r. Sniitli, 
 27 Chy. 150, referred to. ,1/c !'-((» v. Tiflin, VA A. 
 E. 1. See McNiimara v. Kirkluml, 1 S A. R. 27 1 . 
 
 The plaintiEF worked on a barn belonging to 
 the d( f> ndant up to 9th Aujjnst, 1887, and did 
 some further work on 25th October, following. 
 The defendant mortgnge'd hi.s land to A. S., by 
 mortgage dated 21»t October, and registered 
 24th October. Plaintiff registered his lien 
 25th October, and having brought his action 
 against defendant only, obtained the usual judg- 
 ment with a reference to the master, who made 
 A. S. a party to the suit in his office, and A. S. 
 thereupon petitioned to jiave the master's order 
 set aside. Held, following McVean »•. Tiffin, I.S 
 A. B. I, that the mortgage wasimt asubse(]nent 
 but a prior mortgage as regaided tiio ])laintilf 's 
 lien, and that A. !S. sl.onld not have been added 
 as a party. Jlcinhart v. Shutf, 15 O. 11. H25.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Where there is a registered prior mortgage 
 affecting land and buildings, and a mechanic's 
 lien for subsequent work thereon, the mortgage 
 retains its priority only to the extent of the j 
 value of the security before the work began, 
 in respect of which the lien attaches, and the 
 lien has priority only to the extent of the 
 additional value given by the subsequent im- 
 provements. And where the owner of a mill 
 subject to a mortgage, intending to have certain 
 improvements effected, which altlumgh as re- 
 gards the work of a lieu-holder were fully carried 
 out, wei'e otherwise only partially complete and 
 left the mill in an unfinished state : — Held, that 
 the lien-holder was not entitled to i>rioritj' for 
 the work done, it not clearly a])pearing that the 
 selling value of the property had been increased 
 thereby. Kennedy v. Haddow, 19 O. R. 240.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 See Graham v. Willianix, 9 O. R. 458, p. 1169. 
 
 (c) Execution Credilorx. 
 See Cole v. Hall, 12 P. E. 584 : l.S P. E. 100, 
 
 p. 1174. 
 
 (d) Reg'utration. 
 
 The ]>laintiff8 delivered and set up for the de- 
 fendant a boiler and engine, supplied by them- 
 selves, in September, 1878, upon certain tcrrnH 
 of credit, which expired on the 25tli April, 187!(. 
 Registration of the lien was effected on the 2.3r(l 
 l)ecend)er, 1878, and a bill to enforce tlie lien 
 w.is filed on the Hist May, 1879 : -Hehl, that 
 the effect of the delay in the registration of the 
 lien was, that the lion under the Act had ceased 
 to exist, notwithstanding the plaintiffs had dom^ 
 some innnaterial work ufion the macliinery late 
 in I)ecend)er, 1878 ; the thirty days within wiiiuh 
 the registration was to be eifected l)eing to Iks 
 computed not fnin the time such alteratioD.'t 
 were made, or tiiu defects in the machinery were 
 remedied, but from the time when it was sup. 
 plied and placed, i. e. , in September, 1878. Ndll 
 V. Cnrrol/, 28 Chy. 30.- Spragge. Affirmed on 
 rehearing. //*. 339. -Chy. 1). 
 
 Qua're, as to the effect of the .Act when the 
 credit does not expire until after tliirty days 
 from the com|iletioM of the work, and there has 
 been no registration of lien. ///. 
 
 Wliere ('•. claimed, under the Mechanics' Lien 
 Act, a lien in re.Hpect of materials furnislM'd, by 
 virtue of an ass-i^iiinient from the original fnr- 
 nislier thercdf :-- Held,G. had n riulit to register 
 a claim for the same under the said Act, but the 
 affidavit of veriiication required by see. 4, suh-s. 
 2, must be made by himself, and not Ijy the na- 
 h.ignor. Oraiit v. Dunn, 3 O, E. 376.— Proud- 
 loot.-Chy. 1). 
 
 The master in chambers has jurisdiction to 
 entertain a motion under E. S. O. (1877) c. 120 
 8. 23, to annul the registry of a mechanic's lien 
 when the amount in question is over $200. Re 
 Cornish, 6 O. R. 259 followed, lie Aloorchoune 
 and L<ak, 13 0. E. 290.- Chy. D. 
 
 When a contractor working for several owners 
 has but a single contract for the supply of ma- 
 terials with the material-nian, tlic time of filing 
 a lien by tlie latter against an owner is nut to be 
 measured with reference to the duration of de- 
 liveries under the contract between the mateiial- 
 man and the contractor, but by the completion 
 of the work by the contractor for the several 
 owners. III. 
 
 The law that a lien which arises by virtue of 
 being employed and doing work on land is, if 
 not registered, liable to be defeated by the 
 owner conveying to a suUsequent purchaser who- 
 registers bis conveyance, must 1" restticted to 
 an innocent purchaser who is entitled to the 
 protection of the Registry Act, i. e., one who- 
 has not actual notice of the prior lien before he 
 pays his money and registers his deed. Wanly 
 V. Robins, 15 6. R. 474.- Chy. D. 
 
 The land upon which the lien was claimed was 
 in the county of Wellington, but the affidavit of 
 the plaintiffs verifying the claim of lien registered 
 was made in the countj' of Bruce, and before a 
 commissioner for taking affidavits in that county : 
 — Held, that the affidavit satisfied section 16, 
 sub-section 2, of the Act. Trtiax v. Dixon, 17 
 O. R. .366. 
 
 See Hi/nex v. Smith, 27 Chy. 150, p. 1 170 ; Sff- 
 Phf.rxon'v. aedii,;40. E. 246, p. 1 173; Re U'offM 
 and Vokex, 18 0. R. 8 p. 1169; Trimxv. Pixon, 
 17 0. R. .366, p. 1168. 
 
im 
 
 1173 
 
 LISN. 
 
 1174 
 
 p for the dc- 
 eil l>y tlium- 
 :ert;iin tcnnN 
 I April, 1S7!». 
 1 on tlu! 23r(l 
 orco tliu lien 
 
 Hfid, that 
 :riitioii (if the 
 ct hml censed 
 tin's had dom^ 
 ai;liiiii;ry lute 
 within wliioh 
 I lniini» to Ix! 
 h alti.'nitioQ.'t 
 ichiiu'ry were 
 n it \v;i8 Niip- 
 •, IS7.S. Nfitl 
 
 Afiiiined on 
 
 \ct wiien the 
 
 tliirty dfty» 
 
 md thurchiw 
 
 c'hiuiifs' Lien 
 fiirnixhcd, by 
 oiigin.il fur- 
 i;iit to register 
 1 Act, but the 
 sue. 4, suh-s. 
 not by tlie as- 
 37<j.— Pioud- 
 
 nrisdiction to 
 . (1877) c. 120 
 lechiinic's lien 
 i-er §200. Re 
 'te Moorrhorw 
 
 ii'vural owners 
 supply of niii- 
 ! time of filing 
 ler is not to be 
 uration of de- 
 II the niatei ial- 
 lie coinjiletion 
 31' the several 
 
 8 hy virtue of 
 on land is, if 
 eated by the 
 purcluiser who- 
 ' rcstrieted to 
 ntitled to the 
 i. e., one who- 
 lien before he 
 deed. Wanly 
 
 IS claimed wa» 
 he affida\'it of 
 lien registered 
 B, and before a 
 in that county, 
 ed section 1(J, 
 V V. Dixoii, 17 
 
 >, p. 1170; Mr- 
 173; Re Walliit 
 max V. nixov. 
 
 (e) ActimiH On. the lion, and lie was improperly aildud as a sub- 
 
 aeqncnt incunihranccr in the niuHtor'H otiice. 
 Section 29 of the Act provides that the lien 
 may bo roali/.ed in tho High Court according to 
 the orilinaiy procednre of tliat court : Held, 
 tliat the effect of sections 2.1 and 'Jit is that the 
 lien shall cease after ninety d lys unless in the 
 nieantiino proceedings arc instituted in the High 
 (/'onrt according to its ordinary procedure, to 
 realize tliu claiin ; the jiracticc or pro(UMliirc of 
 A number of umegisterod licn-liolders brought \ tl"-' oourt is as much the law of tlit^ laml as any 
 
 " other part of the law; and the nuking the ap 
 
 l.ell .... 
 
 Under section 15 of the Mechanics' liien Act, 
 R. S, (). (1877), c. 120, suits brinight by a lien- 
 holder shall be taken to be brought on behalf of 
 all lien-holders of tho same class ; and in case 
 of the plaintiff's <lcatli, or his refusal or neglect 
 to lirococd, the suit may, by leave of tho court, 
 be proseciiteil by any iien-liolder of the same 
 class. Mct'he.,-A„]i v. (}ed<,«,\0. Ii.24t!. - V. P. \). 
 
 an iietiou under the Act to enforce their liens 
 against one (i., wiiich [ir'oeecdcd to the close of 1 
 
 the pie iding-s. and was then dismissed with the 
 plaintitl's' assent. I'., the assignee of a regis- 
 tered lien-hiiider, i dying on the action, took no . 
 steps to enforce his lien or to registti' a ccrtili- ; 
 cate within the ninety days, under section 21. 1 
 On being informed of the disniissiil of the action ; 
 lie applied to bu allowed to intervene as plaintilV 
 and to prosecute the suit on bis own behalf : — j 
 Held, (ialt, . I., dissenting, reversing the .judg- ! 
 ment of liagarty, 0. .1., which affirmed tlie [ 
 judgment of the master in-chaiidiers, that the '\ 
 ap|ilieaut siiould be alioweil to intervene and I 
 prosecute the action ; iuul that the ap|>licant j 
 was of the same class as the plaiiitili's, in that' 
 they all contrai^ted with or were employed by { 
 (!. Lien-ludders "of tlie same class" are these 
 wiio have contrai.'ted with the same persini, i 
 whether their liens are regi.stered or not. Per i 
 
 (ialt, .1. The applicant wa.s not of tho «anic I j;,^ t|,^,'J;l:^j,Ytf,l•\,7,;;.;.;.V|,;^t'the^ 
 class as the iilaintilis, for he was a registered i ^\^^^, f,.,,,,, ti,^ „^y„^.,. t„ j.],,, oonlractor. Toir„sf<-,, 
 
 lilt a party to the |)roceeilings in the master's 
 otficu was a regular sti'p in the a<:ti)n, author 
 i/.ed anil prescribed by the practice anil ju'o- 
 cednrc of the court for nearly thirty years, of 
 which the appellant could not complain, the 
 action hiiving been regulaily commenced within 
 till! ninety days. White r. Heasley, 2 (./'hy. (idO ; 
 Mollatt c. -Mai-ch, .'H'liy. Hi:* ; and .lackson c. 
 Hammiind, S P. H. I.", referred to. .luson /•. 
 • laidincr, II Cliy. 2:t ; Sliaw c. 1,'niiningham, 12 
 Chv. 101 : McDonald r. Wriu'ht, U fhy. 2M; 
 and Hank of Montreal c. HiilVner, 10 A. \l. r,'.)-2, 
 distinguished. |)ciision of Kergii-smi, .1., 12 I*. 
 i{. .-.SI. allirnieil. ('(>/,■ v. Hull, \'.\ P. I!. 10(».— 
 C. of A. 
 
 Held, upon dcinnrrer to a stateiiKMit of claim 
 in an action to enforce a mechanic's lien brought 
 by a sulicoiitractor against the owner of the 
 lands and the contractor, that it was necessary 
 
 v. linliltrn,, 18 O. R. 4(i:i. -P.oyd. 
 
 Where, in a consent judgment in the usual 
 form in lien cases, a reference was nndc to a 
 local registrar of the court : — Held, that an 
 ajipeal lay from his report, it appearing from 
 the whole judgment that the reference was to 
 him as master. K'uunili/ v. Jfaildow, 19 O. R. 
 240.-Boyd. 
 
 Lrr, 27 Chy. 4(J4, p. 1166; 
 'In ri- Vhirkc, 16 S. C. 1!. 721. 
 
 Sec Bfi'i'i'i V. 
 Virftie V. flaycs 
 
 (f) CoxU 
 
 Where the plaintiff's claim in an action to en- 
 force a mechanic's lien was only SI 42, but at the 
 time the action was begun the aggregate amount 
 
 lieu-holder and came within section 21, whereas 
 they were unregistered and came within section 
 20; and the ninety days having expired the 
 applicant's lien was gone, so that even if the 
 plaintiffs' suit were still pending the applicant 
 could not have become a party to it. fh. 
 
 The (pication whether an issue as to a me- 
 chanic's lien should be summarily tried or not 
 rests largely, if not entirely in the discretion of 
 the judge. AV Moorehoiixe and Link, 13 O. R. 
 290. -Chy. D. 
 
 Four mechanics worked with a contractor for 
 wages upon two buildings, owned by different 
 persons, and each registered a lien for his ser- 
 vices on both the buildings, against the con- 
 tractor and against both the properties on which 
 they worked and .against both the owners, each 
 
 lien being for the amount of the whole wages j of the liens (the plaintiff" .s and another) regis- 
 claimed in respect of services as to both pro- tered against the propiaty was over ^200 : — 
 perties. All four joined in one action against HeM, that the action was properly Vu-ought in 
 the cortractor and the two owners to enforce 1 the Iligh Court of J nstice. and the co.sts shouhl 
 their liens. Upon a summary application by ] be on the scale of that court, and it made no 
 the contractor, the mechanics' liens and writ of j difference that the other lien-holder failed to 
 summons were set aside. Oldliihl v. Hnrhovv, \ sub.stantiate his claim. Hall v. /'//•.,. 1 1 P. R. 
 12 P. R. 554.— Dttlton, Master'. 44!).— Wilson. 
 
 The appellant's execution against lands was | The plaintiffs, sub-contractors, in an action 
 pla.:ed in the sheriff's hands shortly after the brought in the High Court to enforce a niechanic'.'i 
 registration of u mechanic's lien by tlie ))laintitf, lien, claimed against the contractor .S245.29, and 
 who began his action to enforce such lien and 
 registereil his lis pendens within the ninety 
 days prescribed by section 23 of the Mechanics' 
 Lien Act, R. S. O. (1887), c. 126, but did not 
 cause the appellant to be added as a party till 
 the case had been brought into the master's 
 ofiBce, which was after the e.xpirj- of the ninety 
 days. The appellant contended that as against 
 him proceedings to realize the plaintiff's lien had 
 not been instituted within the proper time, and 
 therefore his execution had gained priority over 
 
 recovered §284.54. They claimed a lien (m the 
 land for the amount due them, but upon the in- 
 vestigation of accounts to the extent of upwards 
 of ^1,700 between the contractor and the land- 
 owner, it was found that the latter owed only 
 §63.79, and the plaintiffs' lien was limited to this 
 amount :— Held, upon an appeal from taxation 
 of costs, that the contractor could not have sued 
 the landowner in the Division Court tv recover 
 the balance of $63.79, but must have proceeded in 
 the County Court, and the plaintiffs, suing upon 
 
1176 
 
 LIGHT. 
 
 1178 
 
 111 
 
 OS 
 sua 
 
 en 
 
 ««;: 
 
 thuMiiiiiu claim, wuro thuiuforuuiititltMl to County 
 ('oiirt (H)HtH ; iiiiil IU4 tho plaintiH'M' (^laiiii waMuUo 
 liuyoiiil tint jurisdiction of tliv DiviMioii Court, 
 upon liny conittruction of tliu nicnning of Huction 
 128 of tho Mechanics' Lien Act, It. H. (). (IHS7), 
 I'. I'.'li, tiio plaintill'Hcouhl not huv(< l)rought their 
 action in tiie Division Court, and wuro tltcrefore 
 entitled to tax thuir costs upon the County I'ourt 
 scale. TriMxv. Dixon, 13 P. H. 271).— Gait. - 
 (/. 11. I). 
 
 Held, that, as the plaintitt'a could not have 
 hoped to cNtahllsli a case wliicli would have eu 
 titled thetn to Iiiiil Couit costs, the defendant 
 landholder Hhenid lie allowed a Hct-oll of thi; ex- 
 cess of his costs incurred in tiie High Court over 
 what he would havt^ incurred in the Couuty 
 (!onrt: Imt as tlu? action was tried without a 
 jury, uud C'on. Kulo 1172 did not apply, the tax- 
 inj^ otiicer had no power to allow this set-oil' with- 
 nut the direction of the court ; and tho judgment 
 of the court was anicmlcil so as to meet the case. 
 
 n,. 
 
 ")■ Othi'.r t/tcns. 
 
 The Halifax (!ity -Aasi^ssment Act, 18S8, nuule 
 the taxes assessed on real estate in said city a 
 first, lico thereon except as against the crown: — 
 Held, alilrniing the judgment of the court he- 
 low, that Buc^i lien attached on a lot assessed 
 under the Act in preference to a mortgage made 
 l)efore the Act was jiassed. O' liricii v. ('iij/mrell, 
 ITS. C. H. 420. 
 
 Certain lands were subject to a first mortgage, 
 n charge I'cgisterod by an engine company in 
 respect to the price of an enj-ine supplied by 
 them, and a mortgage to the jilaintiff registered 
 subsequently to tlie saiil charge; and the lauds 
 having been sold under the power of sale in the 
 first mortgage, a contest arose in this action in 
 respect to the surplus left after satisfaction of 
 the first mortgage. The engine company had 
 resumeil pos.session of the engine, and sold it, 
 and claimeil the balance of the price under the 
 charge out of the said surplus in priority to the 
 plaintiff •.—Held, that they were entitled to 
 make that claim, and that having sold the en- 
 gine without notice to the plaintitt' the latter 
 was entitled to impeach that sale by shewing 
 that a greater sum could have been realized, if 
 it had been properly sold after proper notice. 
 But: — Held, also, that the plaintiH was alone 
 entitled to the value of the interest of the 
 wife of the owner of the eijuity of redemp- 
 tion in the land as inchoate dowress ; inas- 
 much as she had barred her dower in his favour, 
 whereas she had not done so in connection with 
 the charge of the engine company. In the ab- 
 sence of arrangement, the value of this interest 
 must be ascertained and retained in court to be 
 paid out to the plaintiff if the right of dower 
 attached by the wife surviving her husband and 
 to the engine company if it did not attach, 
 ilemarks upon the position of holders of hire 
 receipts after resuming possession of the chattels 
 covered thereby. Dincfu-r v. Caimda perma- 
 nent Loan and Harimja Co., 180. H. 273. — Boyd. 
 
 III. Of Innkeepkh. 
 
 J. and his wife took rooms in premises kept 
 by defendant, R. A., called the " Shandon 
 
 nishiiiu them, and ngrcoinii 
 iMonth for rooms and hoard. 
 
 House," pa 
 
 to pay Sf-'M) , iMontli for rooms and lioardT 
 Subsctiuently, they rented from pi lintitf apiano. 
 Thoy left the ".Shandon House" in debt (or 
 board anil lodging to K. A., who thereupoa (l« 
 tained the piano, wliich was claimed by the 
 nl.tintitl';- Held, th.tt tho relation between do- 
 tendant, U. A. and J., was not that of iuukuuper 
 and K<)cst, but of boarding-house keeper and 
 boariU"r:~Held, also, that iis the piano was not 
 the proiierty of .1. iiiul his wife, that deliiidimt 
 \\a,i\ no lien on it lor board and lodgirin umlcr K. 
 S. (). (IS77), c. 147. yuiiMc, whether the lumsu 
 kept by defendant K. A. was an "inn" within 
 the meaning of H. S. (• (1H77). c. 147, h. |. 
 Ni-nxonihi: v. Andfrion, II (». K. OfJS,- <,) H |), 
 
 An innkeeper, claiming to act under R. S. (). 
 (1887), c. 1.54, sold by ]iublic auction a stallinn 
 belonging to the plaintiff, a boardci' at the inn, 
 to onl(M-ee a lien thereon for the keep and accom- 
 modation the of :-' Held, that the lien existed 
 
 IS authori/ed. After tho lien 
 utiff removed the stallion and 
 '.jht it liack to the inn : — Held, 
 iVed on tlie return of the stal- 
 lion. Hiifl'mdn V. WalUi-hoiiHf, I'Ml. 1!. 1S«.- 
 C. P. 1). 
 
 and the sal 
 accrued tl 
 subseciuen 
 that tlKi lien 
 
 LIFE ASSURANCE. 
 
 Sic Insi:iian('K. 
 
 LIFE ESTATE. 
 
 iSVt KSTATK— Wll-L. 
 
 LIGHT. 
 
 [.SV(! /.'. .■?. O. ISS7, c. HI, H. S9.] 
 
 Where a person has enjoyed an caaenicut by 
 having windows overlooking the lands of an 
 adjoining proj)i-ietoi' for any period, even one 
 day, over nineteen years, he cannot be deprived 
 thereof unless he subsecjuently submits to aii 
 interruption of such easement for a perio<l of 
 twelve months. The projiriety of such a rule in 
 the towns of this province remarked upon and 
 (luestioncd. The case of Flight v. Thomas, II 
 A. & K. (188 ; 8 (;i. & F. 231, considered and 
 followed, liiirnham v. i/arvc.y, 27 Chy. 80.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 The plaintitf was the'owner of lot eight, and 
 the defendant of the adjacent lot (9). .U the 
 time the plaintiiFs lot was conveyed to him it 
 had tt house upon it with windows looking over 
 lot nine, which was then vacant, and was also 
 the property of the iilaintifTs grantors, subject 
 to a mortgage. The etjuity of redemption in 
 lot nine was afterwards conveyed to one through 
 whom the defendant acquired title ; and G.,toe 
 immediate predecessor in title of the defendant, 
 satisfied the mortgage, and obtained and regis- 
 tered a discharge of it. Buildings were erected 
 on lot nine by the defendant and his predeces- 
 sors, and the plaintifiT complained of tiie inter- 
 ference by such erections with the access of 
 light to his house on lot eight, contending for 
 
im 
 
 LIMITATION OF AOTIONS. 
 
 U7»^ 
 
 sii oxprvHi or iiiiplioil gniiit of tight ovur lot i 
 nine, ivntl invoking thu piiiiciplu that a grantor | 
 cannot deroguto from hiH grunt : Hulil, ruvurH- { 
 iiig the jiiilginunt of tho Coninion I'Ilmih Diviiion ; 
 |l?0. K. .'{.'tl) thnt liy (myniLMit of tho mortgngu j 
 mill rugiHtrutioii of tiiu (liMchiirgu, (!. did not 
 ucuuiru a now ami iiidopendoiit xHtatc rucIi um 
 wouitl liavo thu otfuut III fiial)lin'< him to dero- 
 gatt! from tiie grant of gU, if iiny, mado to tho 
 plaiiititr hy thuir common ;M'antorH. liooth ''. 
 Alcocl<, L. R. S Ch. (iti.'l, ami Lawlor r. Uiwlor, 
 1(1 S.C. K. 104, dimtinguiHhfMl. 'I'ho jury wt^ro 
 iMtkfd : "Did tho dcfuiidant'H liouse inti'i-fero 
 injiirioiiHly with thu liglit of tho plaintilfH 
 housu?" They answorod, " Vcb, hut not in- 
 iurionaly : " — Hoi 1, that in otrnct a (|uuHti(m of 
 law hud boon Hulimittud to tho jury and that 
 the tiiiding was t<«) uncertain to Hiipport a judg- 
 ment for tho dofondant. IVr OHior, J. A., 
 (liRHCMting, that tho finding of tho jurv plainly 
 wai4, tli'^t tho dofenduut'H Iiouho did i I inter- 
 fere iiiJiu'ioUHly with the light, and hail uauHud 
 no Huhntantiid dimiuution of thu liglit nuuoHHary 
 for tiiu unjoyincnt r>f tlio plaintifTrt houHo. \ 
 Under all tho cirouniBtanccH, no objection having , 
 l)eeii made on thu ground of nilHdircction the I 
 justice of tho CiiHo ilid not iti|uiii' that a now; 
 trial Hiinuhl bo granted : llrld. iIho, pci I'at- ' 
 tcnton, il. A., ancl Forgusfin, .1., tliat tiien; was 
 an exproHH grant to tho plalntitl' by the convey- ' 
 ance to him of lot eight, wiiich wiih, under the 
 ".Short Forms Act," of all light used and 
 enjoyeil with tho Iiouho ; but )>er I'attorHon, 
 J. A., that upon tho ovidoncu tho defendant'B 
 house intercepted no light to which the plaintiff 
 was entitled. I'er Burton, and Osier, .1.1. A., 
 that the grant of liglit waH nn implied one, the 
 conveyance of tho house carrying with it all 
 those incidents necessary to its enjoyment, 
 which it » as in the power of the vendors to 
 grunt ; and the general words in tho conveyance 
 did not enlarge or limit tho grant. I'er liurtoii, 
 J. A., that umicr tho conveyance to hini the 
 plaintiff l)ecanio entitled to tho enjoyment of 
 the right to tho light from the vacant land to 
 the same extent as enjoyed by his grantors at 
 the time of tlio ounvoyance : — Hehl, also, per 
 Patterson, .1. A., that tho conveyance to the 
 plaintiff was, as regards lot nine, unregistered, 
 and in tlie event of the plaintiff proceeding to 
 another trial tho defendant should bo allowed to 
 set up tho registry laws as a defence. Carter v. 
 Qraxtlt, 14 A. U. 085. lUit see Ixrael v. heith, 
 20O. K. .161. 
 
 I, 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 Claim to Rbalt\'. 
 
 1. O Iteration of ttie Statute, 1178. 
 
 2. When the Statute Begins to Run, 1178. 
 
 3. Nature and Proof of PoHwmon , 1180. 
 
 4. Alt Agaitint the Crmon, 1183. 
 6. T<wHt^al »K««, 1183. 
 
 6. TeiiantH for Life, nS5. 
 
 7. Dower — See Dowrr. 
 
 8. Teiiantji m Common, l\S5. 
 
 9. Poisewnoii By or A (jainst Infanta, 1 1 85. 
 
 10. Land in Trwt, 1 186. 
 
 11. Equitable Estates, 1188. 
 
 \i. Mmifiiiijor and .\fortgwffr., 1188. 
 I.'t. Iloiiitiliinen. 11(11. 
 
 14. Eitmmi'Hts. 
 
 (a) tlni-rnllii, \W1. 
 
 (b) Walvr HiijhlH—Svr Watkk ani> 
 
 Wathkcoi-ksks. 
 !.■>. Fmud, II «3. 
 Itt. Servant or Can taker, IhM. 
 17. Artual and, foimlnitlir' J'i»iMSninn, 
 
 1HI5. 
 
 In. Ailrirni:Poi.Hi'iiHii)n, 1195. 
 
 ID. EiTlnniri' Possi /i^ion — I'omo' union By or 
 Ainiiiiji Hilntirts, lli(,'», 
 
 'JO. Entri/or Claim, ll!»7. 
 
 21. DincnnlinMincc, 1109. 
 
 '22. Afknnwiciliimrnt of Title or Pmjmeut 
 
 of Hint, 1200. 
 23. Ai'oidiiurc liy Iji'ijiil I'roccn/inni, 1201. 
 
 n. PkKSONAI, AcTtON.H. 
 
 1. A'-ronnlH, 1201. 
 
 2. Breach of Promiti' if Marriaijr, i'103. 
 
 3. Intend, 1203. 
 
 4. J mill mint K, 1203. 
 
 5. fAltel anil MalirioxH Pronccution, 1204. 
 (). Money Charged Upon Land, 1204. 
 
 7. Monty Had and Beceived, 1205. 
 
 H. Extcntorn and TrnHleen, 1205. 
 
 9. Married Women, 120f». 
 
 10. Infants, 1200. 
 
 11. Ack-nowtedumcnt, 1207. 
 
 12. Puyment on Account, 120H. 
 
 13. /"Jlject of Legal Proceedings, 1209. 
 
 14. Particular Stat ntis, 1209. 
 
 15. Ag'iinut Insurnnce Companies — See 
 
 1nhukan(!k. 
 
 III. Rkiiit ok Crown to Plkad PiiKSfmip- 
 
 TION, 1200. 
 
 IV. Actions lMi'EAciiiN(i Tax Sale— .Sfee 
 
 ASSKSSMENT AND TAXES. 
 
 V. Actions Acjainst Railway Companies 
 —See Railways and 1!aii.way Cum- 
 
 I'ANIKS. 
 
 I. Claim to Realty. 
 
 1. Operation of the Statute. 
 
 Where a riglit to relief in respect of lands 
 arises during tho progress of a cause, and more 
 than ten years are allowed to elapse before act- 
 ing thereon, such right will be barred by " Tho 
 Real Property Limitation Act," R. ,S. O. (1887), 
 0. 108. Buss V. Pomeroy, 28 Chy. 435.— Spragge. 
 
 2. When the Statute Begins to Run. 
 
 Hugh O'Hare purchased the land in question,^ 
 and took a deed dated .30th April, 1870. His 
 brother .lames, the defendant, paid a small por- 
 tion of the money, and immediately went into 
 possessioiL Hugh occasionally visited the place. 
 On the ,30th November, 1»74, Hugh mortgaged 
 to the plaintiff, who issued his writ on the 25th 
 February, 1881. Defendant claimed title by 
 
1179 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1180 
 
 
 u» 
 
 llii 
 
 |K>saesaion: — Held, that in anj' event the statute 
 woiild not cotninenue to run in defendant's fa- 
 vour untd a year from his entry, and that he 
 therefore had acquired no title. OraiU v. 
 O'Han, 4« Q. B. •.:77.— Q. B. D. 
 
 By a deed to trustees in 1S37 two lota of land 
 were conveyed in trust for K. A. for her life, i 
 with reniainiler iis follows: — Lot No. '2 to O. A. \ 
 and lot No. 1 to A. A. to the use of them, their i 
 heirs and assigns, hh joint tenants and not as j 
 tenants in common. K. A., the tenant for life, | 
 entered into possession of lot No. 2, and in 1863 ! 
 put her son, tlie husband of the defendant, into | 
 possession without exacting any i-eiit. The sou I 
 <licd a few montlH after, and the defendant, iiis ; 
 widow, continued in possession of tiio lot. and 
 was in possessimi in 187."), wiieii the tenant for 
 life died. In 1878 A. A., tlie plaintill, olitaincd j 
 a deed of the legal estate in tiie two lots from I 
 the executors of tiie surviving trustee ((i. A, | 
 having died a numl)er of yeirs before) ami 
 brouglit an action against the defendant for the 
 recovery of the said lot No. 2: — Hold, th:it as 
 there was no time |)?ii>r to the <leath of the ten- 
 ant fur life when cither the trustee or the re- 
 mainderman could have interfered with the 
 possession of tiio said lot, the Statute of Limi- 
 tations did not Ijegin to run against the re- 
 mainderman until the death of the tenant for 
 life in 187r», and he was therefore entitled to re- 
 cover:- He!d, ;d.so, th it foi' the purpose of tlie 
 said action it was imm.iterial whether the plain- 
 tiff was entitled to the whole lot by survivor- 
 ship on the termination of the joint-tenancy by 
 the death of his brother, or only to his portion 
 of the lot as one of his ludthi'i's heirs. Adam- 
 non v. Adnnisuii, 12 S. C. R. .OCiS. 
 
 A testator devised land subject to a lease, to 
 .1. H. in fee, and as to the rent direiited half to 
 be paid to •). H., and half to tlie executor in 
 trust for .1. H. I he executor, assuming the de- 
 vise to be valid, paid all the rent to .1. ll. The 
 latter executed a deed of the land to C. H., to 
 whom he afterwards paid the rent with tlie 
 privity of the executor, as soon as he receiveil 
 it from him. C. H went into possession of the 
 land after the cxpi ation of the lease, and h .d 
 been so receiving rent or in pussession for mure 
 than ten years be ore action comineiiccd. .1. H. 
 was a witness to the will: — Held, aflirming the 
 decision of I'roudfoot, J , that the diivise ot rent 
 was void under 2.5 (!eo. II. c. (>, s 1, as .1. H. was 
 the beneficial devisee of the whole of it. Kent 
 issuing out of land is a tenement; it part ikes of 
 the nature of land, and is within the ijth section 
 of the Statute of Fr.iuds, and hence is also witliin 
 2.5 Oeo; IL c. (i, s 1: — Held, further (also aHiriii- 
 ing Proudfoot, J. ), that the perception of the 
 rent by the executorwas from the outset "wrong- 
 ful" within R. S. (). (1877), c. 108, s. f>, sub-sec. 
 .5, and C. H. had acquired a good title by posses- 
 sion. Hopkiiiiv. Jio/tl:ins,iiO. it. 223. — (Jhy. 1). 
 
 The Stat"te of Limitations docs not begin to 
 run againsw a tax purchaser until the period of 
 redemption has expired. Sniilh v. Midland li. 
 W. Co., 4 0. R. 4<.»+.— Hoyd. 
 
 A husband and wife were married in 1841. In 
 1865 the wife acquired three adjoining lots of 
 land by conveyance from a stranger. The de- 
 fendant was |)Ut ill possession of the lands in 
 1869 by the huvbaud, and in 1870 one of the lots 
 
 was conveyed by them to him. In 1881 the 
 husband and wife mortgaged the unconveyed 
 lots which were afterwards purchased by thv 
 plaintiff at a sale under the power of sale in the 
 mortgage. The defendant remained in poascsaiou 
 of all the lots until 1888. In an acticm of tres- 
 pass : — Held (in this affirming the ju'lgiuentof 
 Rose, J. ), that the wife's disability of coverture 
 having been re'noved in 1876 by 38 Vict. c. 16, 
 ss. 1 and 5 (R. S. O. 1887, c. Ill, as. 4 and 4,3), 
 the Statute of Limit itiona ran agiinat her from 
 that time, and that the defend iiit had acquired 
 a good title by posseaaion againat her : — Held, 
 however, that a new right of entry accrued to 
 the mortg .gee, and that the atatiite did not com- 
 mence to ' iin agiinst him until (as the earliest 
 possible p 'riod) t)ie time of the execution of the 
 mortgage, less than ten years before action, and 
 that the plaintiff claiming under him was entitled 
 to sucoed : — Semble, per t'erguson, J. The 
 plaintiff, as purchaser, under the power of sale, 
 in the mortgage acquired a "new title" at the 
 time of such sale at which tune the statute 
 beg in to run against him. Canuron v. ]Valhr, 
 19 O. R. 212. -Chy. D. 
 
 In case of tenancies at will. See Cooper v. 
 Hamdloii, 45 Q. P. .Wi, p. II 84 ; fimilh v. K-om, 
 4(iQ. B. 163,p. 1184; /?c/>e/oe, 20. 1{.(i23,p 1185. 
 
 See Youmj v. Midland R. W. Co., 16 O. R. 738. 
 
 3. Nature and Proof of Pomesxion. 
 
 Where a ven<lor was not in possession of lands, 
 the fact that for upwards of ten years he had 
 piid the fa\es cm the property is not sucli .i (ion- 
 session as is vi quired to bar the rii^htof the owner 
 under the Statute of Limitations. In vi: Jarrin 
 V. CooL; 29 Cliy. 30.3. -Spragge. 
 
 In an action of trespass (jnare clausum fregit 
 for the purpose of trying the title to curtain land 
 adjoining the city of Uelleville, tlu! defendants 
 pleailed notgudty ; and 2ud, that at the time of 
 tlie alleged trespass the said land was the fre hold 
 of the liefciidanLs. .\1. E. .\lc(J. and J. L. McC, 
 and they justifieil breaking and entering tlie said 
 close in their own right, and the other defendants 
 as tlieir servants, and by their coinniand. The 
 case was tried by Armour, J., wilhont a jury, 
 and he retnleieil a verdict for pi dnlitf with §.'10 
 dania.;es. The judgment was set aside by the 
 Court of Common Pleas, and they entered a 
 verdict for the defendants in pursuance of R. S. 
 0. (1877) c. r)0, 8. 287. On appeal the Court of 
 Appeal reversed this judgment, and restored the 
 verdict as ori>iinally found by Armour, .J. The 
 defendants thereupon appealed to the Supreme 
 Court : — Held, that the appelluits (defendants), 
 on whom the onus lay of proving their plea of 
 liberum tenementuin, hid not proved a valid 
 dooumeiitary title, or possesion for twenty 
 yetrs of that actual, continuous, mhI visible 
 character necessary to give tliem a title under 
 the Statute of Limitations ; therefore plaintiff 
 was entitled tohia verdict (Henry .1., dissenting.) 
 Mctoiavjhy v. JJciiiiuirk, 4 S. C. R. 609. 
 
 C. R. died intestate in 1864, seized in fee sim- 
 ple of the luul in question, leaving his widow 
 and several heirs-at-law. The widow remained 
 in |)o.s cssion from the time of his death until her 
 own decease in 1881, and cultivated the farm. 
 There wag some evidence of her declarations that 
 
 a 
 
1180 
 
 In 1881 the 
 e unoonveyed 
 ;haMO<l by the 
 ' of sale in the 
 (I ill posscsaiou 
 action of tres- 
 e juilginent of 
 y of coverture 
 38 Vict. c. 16, 
 88. 4 and 43), 
 linst liur from 
 t had acquired 
 t her:— Held, 
 ;ry accnied to 
 e did not com- 
 |as the earliest 
 tectitioii of the 
 jre action, and 
 m was entitled 
 ison, J. The 
 power of sale, 
 w title" at the 
 lie the statute 
 roil V. Wathr, 
 
 See ('ooper v. 
 milk V. Ki-mm, 
 ,U.(i23,p 1185. 
 
 .,16 0. U. 738. 
 
 mnesH%on. 
 
 es'iion of lands, 
 I years he had 
 not such apos- 
 lit of tho owner 
 in Ji: Jarm 
 
 clausum fregit 
 
 to certain laud 
 tlie defendants 
 ; ■,\t the time of 
 t'asthe f re 'hold 
 ml J. L. McC, 
 iiteringtliesaid 
 ther defendants 
 oniinaiid. The 
 without a jury, 
 iinim\vitii$;iO 
 ;t aside hy the 
 hoy entered a 
 siiance of H. >S. 
 !al the Court of 
 ui I restored the 
 •mour, J. The 
 ;o the Supreme 
 ts(defcnitants), 
 ig their plea of 
 proved a valid 
 )n fi <r twenty 
 .18, ; nd visible 
 n a title under 
 ■refore plaintiff 
 
 J., diasiiuting.) 
 
 R. ()09. 
 
 iized in fee sim- 
 viiig his widow 
 vidow remained 
 ! death untd her 
 ■ated the farm, 
 eclaratious that 
 
 1181 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1182 
 
 she kept possession witii the consent of the heirs 
 for tliein, claiming only her dower, but no evi- 
 dence of a written iiukniwlcdgment of tlieir title. 
 She devised the land m the plaintiff: — Held, tiiat 
 the po.ssea.sion of the widow was not a possession 
 <iua dowress even of one-third ot tlie land, and 
 that the title of the lieiis-at-law to the whole 
 hud bctn therel)y barred. Johnston v. Olirer, 3 
 0. K -li.-li. B. D. 
 
 In 1853 M., the owner of the land in ()ues- 
 tioii, Conveyed it to 1'. t>., who in IH.'i!) conveyed 
 it to i>. IJ. Neitiier P. 1). nor L. 1). ever 
 entuiod into occupation of the bit, which was a 
 vacant one. In iftju tlu defendant, who was a 
 builder, with tlie knowledge and consent of I'. 
 I)., used tlie lot lor deiiositing his building 
 materials on, and had continued to do so ever 
 since, liut v\ith the like knowledge and assent 
 of L. U. alter bis pnicbuse. In IS7t) L. 1>. 
 fenced the bit, leaving a gate lor defendant's 
 couvenience ; be also planteil a small portion of 
 it, and allowed soil to bo taken from it to level 
 it. Ill 18/7 l^ D. Was tleclared insolvent, and 
 S., the ass gnee in insolvency, tiled a bill in 
 chancel y to set aside the deed of 18j!) from 1'. 
 1). to i>. 1>. , as having been made in frailil of 
 creditors. In 187!) dcendant contracted to 
 puicliase the lot Iroin L. 1). for .'52,400, on which 
 lie paid .^;iOO. in 18a0 a decree was obtained 
 setting aside tlie deed of 18,59, which was 
 atliiiiu.'d on iclicaring. 'I'bis wa.s attirnicd on 
 appeal, defendant be.iig surety for L. I', tor the 
 coals ol the appeal, lie h.ul never paid any 
 taxes on tlie loo. In 16SU nine fi:et ot the lot 
 were sold lor taxes, and defendant became the 
 purchaser ; but it was redeemed :--Hcld, under | 
 these circuinstances the defendant's posses.sion 
 was not siicn as to give liiin a title under the 
 Statute of Limitations : that the pl,Liiititt' was 
 not shewn to bave been dispo.ssesscd, or to have 
 disconlinueil tlie possession : tnat tlieagrevjineiit 
 by defciulant to pniciiase w..s evidence to pre- 
 clude liini from t.etting mi a title by pos-icssioii 
 against the plaintitl, as was the fact of bis 
 hi. «iiig beciiine seci rily for L, I), m supporting 
 his, L. l\'s, title, JJoiwrau v, I/i litui, 4 0. K. 
 (;,')o. C. r. D. 
 
 In ISlill L. married (1., his deceased wife's 
 sister. (!., having bad a huh \>y L., ilicd in 
 IbTl, seized of certain lands of which L. I'e- 
 iiiaiiie.l in contionous [lossession until 1883, the 
 tunc of action broiiglit : Held, that L. 's occu- 
 pation w.is to be atliibuteil t > bis rightful char- 
 acter, winch was that of tenant liy the curtesy, 
 so as not to work tortiously against the heirsat- 
 law of the wife. Jie Mitrra;/ Canal — Lairson v. 
 I'uinrs, O. R. (j8j. —Boyd'. 
 
 In ejectment it appeared tirat the lot in ques- 
 tion ha, I bi'en granted in I8I'2, with other lots, 
 to M. A. P., M., and 1'. In order to prove the 
 alleged conveyance of tlie 13th Kebrnary, ISlO, 
 by M, t', to \V., which bad l)cen lost, the plaiii- 
 titf put in a memorial tliereof, registered Ultli 
 December, 1820, signed by the grantee, including 
 an undivided inoieiy in all the land in the patent 
 With otiier lands. it was shewn aiso that W., 
 in 18J7, had mortgaged all the lands in this nit- 
 morial witu other lands, to a buik, which, in 
 1829, reconveyeil them to the trustees under 
 W. 'swill: that in 1833, R. took a conveyance 
 from the duvisee of \V. of three of the lotsnien- 
 tioneil in the meniurial, not including the lot in 
 
 question ; and that in 1834, proceedings were 
 taken in partition on the petition oi the devisee 
 of W'., under whicli tlu.s lot was assigned to W. 
 Fosscaaion had been held of this lot, not in ac- 
 cordance with the alleged lost deed, but by per- 
 sons claiming under R. : but the court hclil that 
 the evidence tailed to prove such possession for 
 forty ye irs, or that it was taken with the know- 
 ledge of W. or his devisee. The plaintitl' claimed 
 nnilcr a deed from such devisee executed in 
 187.3 : — Held, tiuit the plaintiff's claiming under 
 \V, were protected under C .S. U. (J. e. M, s. 3, 
 as againsc the possession of li. , bis co-tenant, 
 for less than forty years. I 'an VeUor v. /lui/hiio7i, 
 45 t^. IS. -202.— Q. B. 1).; 9 A. R. 3.J0. 
 
 In 1868 B. being the owner and occupant of 
 the ea.-.t li.ilf of Tot one in the village of Oil 
 Springs, took po.ssi.ssion of the garden, etc, on 
 the west half of sui h lot on wliicii there was a 
 drtelling-bonse occupied l)y a tenant and en- 
 closed the land l)y a leiice with his own lot ; 
 and in 1872 the house having been deserted by 
 the tenant or occupant took possession of that 
 also, repaired it aiul used it as a workshop. In 
 the same year A. who was at one time the 
 ortiier of such west half removed the doors and 
 windows of the dwelling, and never afterwards 
 leturiicd to the premises. Thenceforward B. 
 remained in undisturbed possession of the house 
 and land, repairing and cultivating the same, 
 and also paying the taxes levied tiiercon untiliu 
 ()ctol)er, l.'SS+, he sold the property to the de- 
 fendant : Held, that H. by virtue of such pos- 
 i session and tlirough IV's conveyance to him, the 
 I defeiiilant, had acijnired a good title under the 
 I I'eal Property Limitation Act. iSeale v. John- 
 I .s<OH, 13 A. R. 349. 
 
 The fact of there being no conveyances be- 
 tween suecessive occupants of land does not 
 prevent a possessory title being acquired by 
 virtue of their combined periods of pos essiou, 
 provided the possession has been of a continu- 
 ous cliaiMcti-r against the true OAiiei, and pro- 
 vided that the successive occupants claimed 
 under each otlnr in some suffijicnt way as iu 
 this case Ijy virtue of a sale for value. The 
 .statute of l.iinitations speaks of possession 
 without reference to conveyances. Siiumuiui v. 
 Hhi/wKin, \r>0. K. ;}01. -(Jhy. U. 
 
 IJy an arrangement made within ten years 
 beioie an action of ejcctiiient was begun, the 
 laiiil in question wms conveyed by the owners of 
 the legal est.ite to 1)., throngii wlioin tlie plain- 
 till idaimed. One ot the terms of the conveyance 
 and a part of the consideration was that I). 
 siiould, and he did thereby, release a debt 
 which he held against the defendant and others. 
 The deiendant did not execute the conveyance, 
 but he was an assenting [larty to the whole 
 transaction, and was aware that the conveyance 
 was being executed, and tliat I), was releasing 
 his liability : Helil, that be was estojiped from 
 setting lip a prior adveise possession m himself 
 as eliectually as it be had been a convoying 
 pirty. Per Armour, (.'. J. — At all events, upon 
 the evidence, the possession of the defendant at 
 the date of the conveyance, ii any, was as ten- 
 ant at will to the owners of the legal estate ; 
 and there was also evidence of an entry by D. 
 sutficicnt to prevent the setting up by the de- 
 fondant of any possession prior thereto. Mr- 
 IHarmid v. JJwjhes, 16 O. R. 570.- 1^. B. 1). 
 
118S 
 
 LimTATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1184 
 
 cna 
 
 SK!: 
 
 
 A lessee of a lot had for more than twenty 
 years exercised acts of ownership over part of a 
 Jot adjoining, and now claimed to have acquired 
 title from his lanillord by possession to the said 
 part, and brought this action of trespass against 
 the present owner of the rest of the said adjoin- 
 ing lot : — Held, that his action must be dia- 
 Tnissed, for although a tenant taking in land 
 adjacent to his own by encroachment, must, as 
 between liimself and his landlord, be deemed 
 prima facie to take it as part of the demised 
 land, yet that presumption will not prevail for 
 the landlord's benefit agiinst third persons. 
 Jiruneav. Ncse, 10 O. R. -IS.S. — MacMahon. 
 
 See Griffith v. lirowii, 5 A. R. .303, p. 110" ; 
 Sleern v. .Shaw, 1 O. R. 26, p. 1192; Wulton 
 
 Woodstock Gits Co., 1 O. R. 630, p 1199; MiU''r 
 V. Hamlin, 2 O. R. 103, p. 1190; Re. Defoe., 2 
 O. R. 623, p. 1185 ; Fmdd» v. Ildriier, 11 S. C. 
 K. 6.39, p. 1191 ; Adaiiixon v. Adainnon, 12 S. C. 
 R. 5(i4, p. 1179; Sherre.n v. Pmrxon, 14 8. C. 
 
 R. 581, p. 1198. 
 
 4. A'* Aiiainxt the Crown. 
 
 The Statute of Limitations was held not to 
 be a bar to an action tiiough brought by the 
 crown in iu capacity as trustee of the land in 
 question in the suit. Kegina v. Williams, 19 
 Q. B. .397, followed. Attorney -Genera I v. Mid- 
 land R. W. Co., 3 O. R. 511.-Chy. 1). 
 
 The plaintiff set up that ho liad a right by 
 prescription to keep and use a boathouse in 
 front of his lot on the bank of the Ottawa river 
 without being interfered with : — Hehl, that any 
 structure on tlie water even if existing for 
 twenty years, would be an interference w ith the 
 the freeuse of the river reserved by the crownand 
 the right to so interfere could not be ac(iuired 
 by lapse of time. The action was therefore dis- 
 missed. Warin v. London, etc.. Loan and 
 Agency Co., 7 O. I{. 706, distinguished. Ralti' 
 V. Booth, 10 •'. R. 351.— I'roudfoot. See S. C, 
 Mub tiom. Booth v. Ratt<', 15 App. Cas. 188. 
 
 See McQueen v. The Qwen, 16 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 5. Tcnantx at Will. 
 
 The plaintiff's father,'who lived in the town- 
 ship of T., owned a block of 400 acres of land, 
 consisting respectively of lots 1 in the 1.3th ami 
 14th concessions of the tov\n!<hip of W. The 
 father had allowed the plaii tiff to occupy 100 
 acres of the 400 acres, and he was to look after 
 the whole and to pay the taxes ..'pon them, to 
 take what timber he required for his own use, 
 or to help him pay the tuxes, but not to give 
 any timber to anyone else, or allow any one 
 else to take it. He settled in 1849 upon the 
 south half <'i lot 1 in the 13th concession. Hav- 
 ing got a deed for the same in November, 1864, 
 he sold these 100 acres to one M. K. In Decem- 
 ber following he moved to the noith half of this 
 lot No. 1, and he remaine<l there ever since. 
 The father died in January, 1877, devising the 
 north half of the north half, the land in dispute, 
 to the defendant, and the south half of the north 
 half to the plaiiitiif. The defendant, claiming 
 the north fifty acres of the lot by the father s 
 -will, entered upon it, whereupon the plaintiff 
 brought trespass, claiming title thereto by 
 
 possession. The judge at the trial found that 
 the plaintiff entered into possession and so 
 continued merely as his father's caretakei' and 
 agent, and he entered a verdict for the defen- 
 dant. There was evidence that within the last 
 seven years, before the trial, the defendant as 
 agent for the father was sent up to remove plain- 
 tiflF off the land, because he had allowed timber 
 to be taken off the land, and that plaintiff under- 
 took to cut no more and to pay the taxes and to 
 give up possession whenever required to do so 
 by his father : — Held, reversing the Court of 
 Appeal, 4 A. li. 563, which hail I'eversed the 
 Court of Common Fleas (29 C. P. 449), that 
 the evidence established tlie creation of a new 
 tenancy at will within ten years. Per (jiwyitus, 
 J. : That there was also abundant eviileiice 
 from which the juilge might fairly conclude as he 
 did, that the relationship of servant, agent, or 
 caretaker, in virtue of which the respondent 
 fir-st acijuired the ])osscssion. continued through- 
 out. Ilijiiii V. Itijiiii, 5 S. (". R. 387. See //.. 
 ward V, O'JJoimlm, 18 A. R. 529. 
 
 •John C. being owner in fee of the land in 
 question, sometime after 1854 placed his brother 
 .lames C. in possession, rent free. In 1867 lie- 
 fcndant having mari'ied a daughter of James ('., 
 went to live with the latter and occupied p.irt 
 of the hou.sc, at the instance of John C, who 
 wished his niece to remain in the bouse and take 
 care of her infirm mother. John C. died 2mi 
 September, 1874, having devised the land to the 
 plaintiff. .James C. died in 1873 or 1874, and 
 ids wife iibout a year later, and the defcndiint 
 and wife continued in possession. In 1875 one 
 G. went to the house with the plaintiffs Iius- 
 band, with the view of renting it, when defen- 
 <lant shewed them over the house, and said if 
 it was going to bo rented he would rent it him- 
 self and pay as much for it as any one, and he 
 spoke of buying it. The plairrtitf having brought 
 tins ejectment in March, 1879: — Held, that plain- 
 tiff was entitled to recover as against defendant, 
 who set up the Statute of Limitation.^. Per 
 Hagarty, C. J. — The defendant was never tenant 
 to John C. during the lifetime of James C. and 
 his widow ; and the statute did not begin to run 
 in his favour till a year after the death of the 
 latter. Per Armour, .1. — The enti'y of the defen- 
 dant in 1867 by J(din (.'.'s authority deteririined 
 the tenancy at will of Janies C., theretofure 
 existing, and a new teirancy at will by <lefendarrt 
 arrd James C. thereupon began, which was deter- 
 mincil Iry the death of James C.'s widow, when 
 defcirilant became terrant at sull'erance to the 
 plaintiff, aird her entry, by her husbaird, with 
 («., acquiesceil in by the defendant, was asutli- 
 cient entry to create a new tenancy at will and 
 stop the nrrrnirrg of the statrrto. Cooper v, 
 llamilum, 45 Q. li. 502.— Q. H. D. 
 
 An entry upon land under assertion of right, 
 and verbal subnussiim by the occupant, and con- 
 sent to remain iw tenant for the owner, creite a 
 new terrarrey at will, rr ' ^-'vn a fr-esh point of 
 departure uniler the Statute. Where the atten- 
 tion of the jur'y had not been sulliciently called 
 to the question whether this took place orr the 
 premises, a new trial was granted, Hmtlh v. 
 Keowii, 46 Q. K 163.— Q. B. U. 
 
 Whenever a new tenancy at will is created, 
 this forms a frenh startmg point for the runnirrg 
 of the Statute of Linutations. Therefore where 
 
1185 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1186 
 
 A, was let into possesaioii of certain lands as 
 tenant at will to B. , in 1870, and B. died in 1 878, 
 having devised the liuids to trustees in trust for 
 A. for life, and then in trust for C, which devise 
 A. in noway refused, but continued in possession 
 ostensibly as before, and now claimed title l)y 
 length of possession against the said trustees and 
 C.:— Hehl, tliat A. must he presumed to have 
 acceptvil the devise, and his retention of posses- 
 sion nuist be attributed to his rightful title under 
 the devise ; an.l therefore even if A. could be 
 considered as tenant at will to his trustees, and 
 capable of iiccjuiring title by possession as against 
 them and C, which under 15. S. O. (1877), c. 
 108, 8. 5, sub-ss. 7, 8, he could not, yet on the 
 death of B. a new tenancy at will was created, 
 and a new period comn)ence<l for the running of 
 the statute, which had not at the time of action 
 brought, continued long enough to give the plain- 
 tiff t.1,1^ by possession, lie Defoe, '2 O. R. 0'J3. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 See Worhimii v. nohh, 7 A. H. ;J80 : 28 Chy. 
 243, p. 1198; Fiurxoii v. M iilholhind, 17 O. if. 
 502, r)14 ; McDariiiid v. Hmihex, 10 (). K. ruO, 
 p. 1182. 
 
 t). TenanU for Life. 
 
 See AdaniKon v. Adamson, 7 A. R. 592 ; 12 
 S. C K. 5t).'i, p. 1188 ; Ruan v. Kroiinheiii, 12 O. 
 R. 197, p. 588 ; Young v. Midland A'. (»'. Co., 
 16 U. R. 738. 
 
 8. TenaiUn in Common. 
 
 Where one of several tenants in common en- 
 ters and dis[josscsse8 a trespasser he is, as re- 
 gards his co-tenants, in possession simply as any 
 stranger would be ; and such possession does nut 
 enure to the benetit of his co-tenants. Per 
 CanitTon, J. — The act of one co-tenant in so 
 taking possession would be by virtue of his 
 legal estate, and his so doing would enure to the 
 benetit of his co-tenants; thus giving a fresh 
 starting point for the statute to begin to run 
 against tiiem. Sheplicrilson v. McCullough, 46 
 Q. B. 573, p. 432, remarked upon, and as a)>plied 
 to the facts of this case, approved, llarrii v. 
 Mudif, 7 A. It. 414; HO C. R 484. 
 
 See Kennedy v. Balemiin,27 Chy. 380, p. 1194; 
 Heimrd v. O'Doiiohoe, 18 A. K. 529. 
 
 9. Possemon By or Against Infants. 
 
 Where a person enters upon the lands ol in- 
 fants, not btiiig a fathiT or guardian, or standing 
 in any fiduciary relation to the owner, and re- 
 maiiia ill possession for the statutable period, the 
 rights of the infants will be barred. Quinton 
 V. Fiith, ir. R. 2 Eq. 415, considered and not 
 followed. In re Taylor, 28 thy. 640.— Chy. D., 
 reversing A'. V., 8 P. R. 207. 
 
 Truateus, under a will executed by a woman 
 who afterwards married, received on behalf of 
 an infant devisee the rent of certain lands from 
 the teuinit. WIilu the uifant came of age the 
 tenant paid the rent to her. Subsequently and 
 after nio.ij than ten years had expired, since the 
 trustees first i eceived the rent, the heir-ut-law 
 of the testatrix claimed the laud, ou the grounds 
 75 
 
 that the will was revoked by the subsequent 
 inter- marriage of the testatrix and that thu 
 Statute of Limitations did not run for or against 
 an infant: — Held (without deciding as to the 
 revocation of the will), that the possession of 
 the trustees was the possession of the infant, 
 and she thus acquired a good statutory title to 
 the land. Be. Ooi/; 8 P. R. 92.— Stephens, Bef- 
 tree. — Proudf oot. 
 
 See Hu</hea v. Hwjhes, 6 A. R. 373, p. 436, p. 
 1207 ; Faulds v. Harper, 9 A. R. 537, p. 1190 ; 
 S. C, 11 S. C. R. G39, p. 1191. 
 
 10. Land in Trwtt. 
 
 The defendant in consideration that his father 
 would convey to him certain lands in the town- 
 ship of Caledoii, undertook and agreed to convey 
 to the plaintiff, a younger brother, 100 acres of 
 land in the township of Artemesia. The father 
 conveyed the land to the defendant, but instead 
 of his conveying to the brother as he had agreed, 
 he sold U'e property more than twelve years be- 
 tore bill tiled, the |ilaintitf being then at least 
 twenty-one y^ars of age : — Held, that under 
 these circumstances the defendant was merely a 
 constructive trustee, and that the plaintiff's 
 I ight to call for a conveyance was barred by the 
 Statute of liinutations ; but the defendant having 
 denied the agreement to convey, which, how- 
 ever, was clearly established by his own evi- 
 dence, the court ; Blake, V. 0.), on dismissing 
 the bill, refused to give defendant his costs. 
 Ferijunou v. Ftrgumn, 28 Chy. 380. 
 
 J. by his will devised to H., his wife, all his 
 real estate in L. "during her natural life, for the 
 use and support of herself and family, and in 
 case H. should at any time think iiropcr to sell 
 my said estate, it shall be the duty of my execu- 
 tors to sell the same with her consent, and the 
 proceeds thereof to be distributed as follows," 
 etc. : " But if H. should not think pro|iei- to sell 
 my said estate, then the same sh:ill be divided 
 amongst my children, their heirs and assigns. 
 after the death of H. , share and share alike." 
 He then nominated P. executor of his will, 
 "with full power and authority to act in the 
 same." J. died in 1838, leaving H. and three 
 chililren him surviving. P. took out probate. 
 In 1841), H. by deed conveyed her estate in the 
 lands for £ 150 to P. Under this deed P. obtained 
 possession, which was retained till his death in 
 1882, when he devised the land to K. in tiust 
 for the purposes of his will, of whieh he made 
 K. executor. H. died in 1872, and this action 
 was commenced in 1883, by one of . I. 's children, 
 claiming an account against K. of the profits of 
 the lands, and to have the saiiio sold, and the 
 proceeds distril'Uted according to J.'s will : — 
 Held atiirming the decision of Osier, .). A., that, 
 P. could not be said to have been an express 
 trustee within R. S. O. (1877) c 108, s. 30, and 
 that being so, the plaintiifs action was barred 
 by the Statute of Limitations. Jvhnnlon v. 
 Kramer, 8 O. R. 193. -Chy. D. 
 
 Held, that J. L. having been appointed by the 
 Surrogate Court, guardian of her son, T. L.. she 
 thereby became an express truhtee during his 
 : minority, so that she could not acquire title 
 against him by possession of his lands, yet that 
 the guardianship ended and the trust ceased with 
 
1187 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1188 
 
 ca> 
 
 fit** 
 
 . MKiH 
 
 T. L.'h minority, and as after that J. L. dealt 
 with tliu luiid ill question as her own for some 
 twenty-two years, she h id acquired a good title 
 to it by ponsudsiciii asi against T. L. :— !Hel(l, also, 
 that ']'. L. Iiaving in Uia pleadings set up that J. 
 L. h;id bu.n in (jo-i^e-isioii for the saiil twenty-two 
 years as his tenant, could not now obtain a new 
 trial on the ground that lie could Khow by evi- 
 dence that she ha I been in aa caretaker for him. 
 Seinble, per Prou'lfoot, J., that if J. L. had, after 
 the iiiiiioi ity of 1'. L continued to man^ige the 
 property foi' his benelit, she would then liave 
 been a constructive trustee for him, not an ex- 
 press one. JJieke/i v. Stovir, 11 O. it. lOJ. — 
 Chy. D., ioUowid in V/urk v. Macdone.tl, 20 O. 
 R. u(U, but not followed in Kent v. Kent, '20 O. 
 R. 44r). 
 
 On 2.5th July, I8a.S, J. M., by marriage set- 
 tlement, conveyed certain property, including 
 an hotel, to ti ustces to permit him to receive 
 the rents for his life except ng a, life annuity to 
 his wife, an>l on his death, su ijcct to such an- 
 nuity, to piy aniiuiiies (o each of his two 
 daughters, S. M. .n I (J. A. M, and subject 
 thereto to divi<le th« ba'ance of the rents an- 
 nually into three equal shares, a id to apply one 
 share to ihe aiipp>i i ami education of the child- 
 ren of a ileouasod son, W. M. .\1 ; another share 
 to a son, R. 1>. M.,and the third shire to his 
 daughter, l'\ r). (,'., wit i liniitatiuns over. On 
 27th March. ISGO, liy a decree in chinuery, W. 
 and O. were . appointed trustees in the jilace of 
 
 B. and I'., and the trust e-tate was vested in 
 them. .1. M. die 1 on the lith of March, IS70. 
 W. M. M.'schil.livnall died in J. M.'s lifitime, 
 and their siiil one-tliinl share Iiaving thereby 
 reverted to .). M., In disp >sed of the same by 
 his will. On lOtlj .VI ly, I8S2, judgment of the 
 High (-'ouro was prorionncjd. ilincting the re- 
 moval ot \V., the surviving trustee, that an 
 account be tiki'ii, /uiil appiiiting It, L). M.and 
 R. 0. tru->tee.i; and a's i dir.cting tliat all lands, 
 etc., and all oth r assets, botii real und per- 
 sonal, now vest -d in \V. as such trustee, be 
 vested in It. 1). .VI. an I II. C. upon the several 
 trusts ill the said settlement, and will. On the 
 death of .1. M., It.. D. .\l. ha I entered into pos- 
 session of the hot d iin I c mtiuucil in such 
 possession, receiving tlio rents to his own use 
 without any (picstio i after the said ju Igineiit, 
 and up to his death on 17th April, 188/. By 
 his will and c id.eil, date! resp.ctively '.27lh 
 April, 1880, and 2.>tii October, 1881, lie devised 
 to his executors Ills real estate, consisting of the 
 said hotel properly, upon trust to pay tiie rents 
 to his wife for lile, anil aft r h r de.ith to clivide 
 the same e (iially among his eliildren. In 18^<8, 
 an action was brought liy three of his children to 
 have it declared tnat the hotel was vested in R. 
 
 C, the surviving trustee, under the trusts of 
 the settlement, etc. : — Hehl, that the action 
 could not be niaint lined, for th it when R D. 
 M. took pos.ses~ion of the hotel in 1870, he did 
 not go in under the trustees, but .idveraely to 
 them, and continued to so hold till his death, 
 and the judgment of May, 1882. whereby It, D, 
 M. Mas appointed one oi the trustees, and the 
 trust estate vested in them, could not be extend- 
 ed beyond its ordinary me niiig so as to take 
 away a property of which he had become the 
 absolute owner, and put it back into the trust 
 estate. Murchuon v. Murchison, 17 O. R. 
 iJM.- Street. 
 
 Sv*i AUorneij-Geiieral v. MuUnnd li. W.Co< 
 3 O. II,, oil, p. 118.1 ; Re Oof, 8 P. I!., 92, 
 p. 118(j; J<'auld'< v. //ar/,cr, 11 S. C. R, (}39, 
 p. 1101 ; AduiuHtin v. Ai/ammm, 1 A. 1{. .')92, 
 tit/'nt : 12 .S. C R. r>(iS ; Jiaiik of Alunlreal v. 
 Shn-nit, 14 O. R. 482. 
 
 11. Eijul/ahle Edafcx, 
 
 Held (attirmiiig the judgment of Spragge, C, 
 28 Cliy. 221), upon the facts there staleil, that 
 the tenant of an e(|uitable tenant for life, in set- 
 ting uj) the Statute of Liniitaiioiis ag linst tliB 
 cquitalile remainderman, could nut be allowed 
 to compute the time during whicli he had liecii 
 in pofsjssinn prior to the <le ,th ol the tenant for 
 life. Per lUirton, J. A, — Tiie owner of an equi- 
 table estate cannot, notwitlist aiding the Judj. 
 catuie Act, proceed against a trespasser in his 
 own name. He is still bound to sue in the name 
 of the trustee. Tne |)rovisioiis of the .Statut« 
 of Limititions as regards equitaide estates con- 
 sidered. Per I'atier.son, J. A. Under the cir- 
 euni.stanecs appealing in this case the plnintifT 
 was entitled to re over in respect of the equit- 
 able estate. Adaiiuuii. v. Adaiii^oii, 7 A. 11. 1592. 
 See also, S. C, 12 S, C. U. oojl. 
 
 12. Mortijdijor mid Morli/ni/te. 
 
 The plaintill's, the administrator and hcirs-at- 
 law (if a inortgigee, liled their bill against the 
 iiiortga^or on or before the 20th Octooer, ISW. 
 .After service, anion the loili November, 1864, 
 an agreement was entered into between the par- 
 ties, wheic .y the plaintitl' took notes for the 
 mortiiage money, tiie lirsl pay.ilile 1st June, 1866, 
 and the ntheis in tiie six following years, where- 
 upon procee. lings on the mortgage were sns- 
 )icndeil. The di fend iiit ma le a p .ymcnt in .June, 
 18ii7, and died in KSiiW. The notes were not 
 paid. The suit on -Mb h Au,;ust, I87'.», was re- 
 vived again.st the iiilant heirof thenmngagor:— 
 Held, that the claim wis barred by K, S. 0. 
 (1877) c. lO.S, s. 'J.'l ; but in ctise of the plaiiitilft 
 dosirini; to obtain the fruits of a judgment re- 
 covered ag iii>t the original dcfenilaiit, the hill 
 was ret lined lor a year as against the infant de- 
 fendant, as he would be a proper party in apro- 
 ecediiig again t tie personal lepreseiitativo of 
 his ancestor to enforce th : judgment. Vi'ojmv. 
 Pomirai/, 2S Chy. 4;{.j.— .>pra^gj. 
 
 The possessio i of a str uiger which has not 
 ripened into a title .u agaii st the owner of laud, 
 will not enure to the benefit ol him so in pos- 
 session as against the mnt-agee, so long as hi« 
 interest is regularly p dd by tne owner. Cham- 
 bf.rlain v. Clark, 28 Cny. 4;)4. — Spiagge. 
 
 When the right of a 'tion for entry or fore- 
 closure is taken aw.iy by virtue of R. 8. 0. 
 (1877) c. 108, 8. 15. the title itself of the mort- 
 gagees is extinguished, and the right of action 
 wholly (bsippears. t'uiirt v. Wnlnh, 1 0. R 
 107. -Boyd. 
 
 A mortgagee who h is sufTered the statute to 
 ran before \h\ assert s his right of entry cannot, 
 by afterw'trdH gettin^j posse.ssion of the property, 
 revive bis title to it, but ho is in as a mere tres- 
 passer. Ik 
 
1189 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1190 
 
 Held, afBrming the judgment cif the Ctiancery 
 Division (I O. I{. 167), Spr.igge, C. J. O., diss., 
 that iin ivHsignnient undur tiie Insolvent Act, 
 187<'), hy ii» insolvent mortgagor dous not stop 
 the running of the Statute of Liinitutions so as 
 to kt-'cp alivu the claim of the mortgagee against 
 the land. S. C'.,<J A. R. U!)4. 
 
 Tlie remedy by way of foreclosure or sale in 
 inortyage suits is a proceeding to recover lands 
 witbiu the meaning of R. S. O. (1877) c. 108, s. 
 4. Theiefore when a suit to foreclose a mnrt- 
 gage waHcoiiimenced ten years and eight months 
 after tlie <lale of the default in p lyment, and 
 the plaintiff claimed payment of the mortgige 
 debt, possession and foreclosure :— Held, that 
 the only relief to which the plaintili' was en- 
 titled, was judgment upon tlie covenant for 
 payment. FletcUer v. Hodden, 1 O. U. 155.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Where niortg.'igees in fee in possessioncxeciited 
 a deed purporting to "convey, assign, release, 
 and quit claim" to the grantees, "their he rs 
 and iissigns forever, all and singular," tlie mort- 
 ga<;ud land, habendum, "as and for all the 
 estate and interest " of the grantors "in and to 
 the baine " :— Ht^ld, sullicieiit to pass the fee to 
 the grantees : --Held, also, the benefit of the 
 possession hel<l by the mortgagees, without any 
 wriltuu ackiiinvlt'd^ment of the title of the 
 mortgagor, passed by tlie iibove ileed to the 
 grantees, and coupled with llieir own subsequent 
 poasession fur the necessary period conferred on 
 them au absolute title to the land by virtue of 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. lOS, ss. 15, 1!). Jiri.jht v. 
 McMnrmy, 1 U. R. 17'2.— Boyd. 
 
 C, being the locateo of the orovn, in ISfiO, 
 mortgageit ihe north half and the south half of 
 the liuid by two mortg iges to McM. In 1865 
 he died. In 1870 .aid 187-1. McM. assigned the 
 mortgages respectively to D In 1875 the 
 patent of the iioitK halt issued to one ('ampbell, 
 who paid the purchase money due to the crown 
 on the whole lot, at the request of M. and A., 
 the widow and sou of ( !., and the p.itents of the 
 east and west halves of th : south half, issued to 
 M. iiMil A. respejtively, without any intention 
 (as sliiiwn by the memorandum in the Crown 
 Lands Dopaitment) to cut out the right, if any, 
 of I), under his mortgage. In 1876, D. , uuder 
 the power in his mor gages, sold to L., who, in 
 1870, made a mortgage to the plaintitf, on which 
 this suit was brought M. and A. had, in the 
 meantime, ahv lys occupied the 1 ind without 
 paying principal or interest, and they claimed 
 title by possession :— Held, affirining the judg- 
 ment of the Court of Oiiaiicery, (27 Chy. 25.S). 
 thiit M. and A. had, under tiie Statute of 
 Lhnitations, acquired a title by possession. 
 Walwii v. lAinUaij, 6 A. R. 609. 
 
 H., being seized of land subject to a raortgag;o 
 to L, dated 14th October, 186?., and to one M,, 
 dated 12th .lanuary, 1864, made an assign iient 
 to \V. (Ill 22nd November, 186 !, uniler the Insol- 
 vent Act of 1864. On 2Sth January, 1868, he 
 obtaiiicil his discharge. On 27th January, I860, 
 heobt.iincd from M. an assignment of M.'s mort- 
 gage ; iind on ;lrd May, 1869, he made a convey- 
 ance under the power of sale in this mortgage to 
 F. H. to the use of his, the grantor's wife, his 
 co-defendant, the consideration mentioned bein,' 
 1250, which was cicdite 1 on the mortgage. On 
 12f;h April, 1869, L. assigned his mortgage to M. 
 
 k 1$., who, on 28th March, 1873, assigned it to 
 \V. Ill 1879, H., hiving procured assignments 
 to himself of most of the claims against his insol- 
 vent estate, presented a petition signed by him- 
 self to compel VV. to wind it up. He alleged that 
 M. & B held the L. mortgage in trust for the 
 estate, and asked to have the estate realized and 
 distributed among the creditors. A sale was 
 accordingly had on 20th April, 1880, of all the 
 right, title, and interest of the insolvent in the 
 land ; and the advertisement fuither stated that 
 the purchaser would acquire only such title as 
 the vendor h id as nssignee. H. attended at the 
 sale, and objected to the sale of the land, and 
 bid for the same ; but the plaintiff became the 
 purchaser, and took a conveyance from W. on 
 4th February, 1881. Mostof the purchase money 
 went to H., as assignee, for the elaiois against 
 his estate. H. and his wife had remained in un- 
 disturbed possession since his tlisuharge in insol- 
 vency : —Held, reversing the decision of Osier, 
 J., that upon the evidence, set out in the report 
 of the casi', the possession of H, and his wife 
 must be considere I to have been the possjssion, 
 ol H. ; th it the title of the first mortgagee was not 
 exMnguished, and that defendants were estopped 
 by their conduct from di-^puting the plaintiff's 
 title. Milkr v. Humlin, 2 O. R. 103. — y. B. D. 
 
 The rule tint the only person whose payment 
 on account will prevent foreclosure from being 
 barred is the mortga.;or. or his privy in estate, 
 or the agent of either of them must be qualified 
 so as to include iny person w''o by the terms of 
 the mirtgi'ie contr.tct is entitled to imiko pay- 
 ments. Where H. and W. each mortg iged some 
 property to the obligee of their joint ana several 
 bond, to secure the amount of the oblig ition, the 
 latter as between the debtors being security only, 
 H. being bound to pay principal and interest, 
 and expressly naineil as a p.'.rson entitled to re- 
 deem both mortgages, W. never having m ide 
 .•iny piymeiit at .ill : -Held, in a, suit for fore- 
 closure, that the period of limitation prescribed 
 by section .30 of chapter 84, of the Consolidated 
 .Stitutes of Ne»v Brunswick, ran in respect of 
 bnth mortgage J from the d ite of the lastpiy- 
 ment of interest by K, Judgment of Supreme 
 Court, 9 S. C. R. 6'I7, reversed. Lewin v. Wil- 
 soH, 1 1 App. Cas. 631). 
 
 The equity of redemption is an entire whole, 
 and so long as the right of redemption exists in 
 any portion of the estate, or in any of the per- 
 sons e itiiled to it. it enures for the benefit of 
 all, <ind the mortgagee must submit to redemp- 
 tion as to the wh >le mortgage. Hence in a re- 
 demption suit, where the mortgagor <lied intes- 
 tite in 1858, leaving children, the plaintiffs 
 therein, some of whom, if alone, wouhl have 
 been birred as to redemption by R. S. U. (1877) 
 c. 103, S3. 19, 20 : — Heltl, since some of thechil* 
 dren had not been adult for five years preceding 
 the filing of the bill, none of the plaintiffs were 
 barred i)y the statute. R. S. 0. (1877) c. 108, 
 s. 43, apidies to mortgage cases as well as other 
 cises. Hall v. Caldwell, 8 U. C. U J. 93 fol- 
 lowed. Forstor v. Patterson, 17 Ch. D. 132 and 
 Kinsman d. Rouse, 17 Oh, 1>. 104 not followed. 
 Fniddsy. Harper, 9 A. R. 537 ; 2 O. R. 405.— 
 Chy. D. But see S. C, infra. 
 
 In a foreclosure suit against the heirs of a de- 
 ceased mortgag >r, who were all infants, a decree 
 was made ordering a sale ; the lands were sold 
 
1191 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1192 
 
 9>K 
 
 MEaM 
 
 9vi 
 S5 
 
 Ml 
 
 Mi 
 
 li- 
 
 pursuant to the decree and puruliaaed by iJ. H., 
 acting for and in collusion with the iiinrtgagee ; 
 J, H., immediately after receiving his deed, con- 
 veyed to the mortgagee, who thereupon took 
 possession of the lands and thenceforth dealt with 
 them as the absolute owner thereof ; by subse- 
 quent devises and conveyances the lands became 
 vested in the defendant M. H. , who sold them 
 to L., one of the defendants to the suit, a bond 
 fide purchaser, without notice, taking a mortgage 
 for the jiurchiise money. In a suit to redeem 
 the said lands brought by tlie heirs of tlie mort- 
 gagor some eighteen years after the sale and 
 more than five years after some of the heirs had 
 become of age : — Held, reversing the judgment 
 of the Court of Appeal (9 A. R. 537), that the 
 suit being one impeaching a purchase by a trus- 
 tee for sale the IStatute of Limitations had no 
 application, and that, as the defendants and 
 those under whom they claimed had never been 
 in possession in the character of mortgagees, the 
 plaintiffs were not barred by the provisions of 
 R. 8. O. (1877) c. 108, s. 19, and that the plain- 
 tiffs were consequently entitled to a lieu upon 
 the mortgage for purchase money given by L. 
 Held, also, that as it appeared that the plain- 
 tiffs were not aware of the fraudulent character 
 of the sale until just before commencing their 
 suit, they could not be said to acquiesce in the 
 
 r session of the defendants. S. C, II 8. C. 
 639. 
 
 Ter Burton, J. A. — An action to redeem r. 
 mortgage is not an action to recover land , within 
 the meaning of the Real Property Limitation 
 Act. S. C.,9A.R.5XJ. 
 
 See Hooker v. Morrinon, 28 Cliy. 369, p. 1200 ; 
 Miller v. Brown, 3 O. R. 210, p. 1200 ; Donovan 
 T. Herbert, 9 O. K. 89; 12 A. R. 298, p. 122; 
 McDonald V. Elliott, 12 O. R. 98, p. 1205; Came- 
 ron V. Walker, 19 O. K. 212, p. 1180. 
 
 13. Boundaries. 
 
 The plaintiff owned the east three-quarters and 
 the d'^fuudant the west quarter of lot 25, in 
 the II til concession of Euphrasia. Sixteen years 
 before suit, L., a surveyor, was employed by 
 both plaintiff and defendant to ascertain the 
 true division line between their lauds. The 
 parties cleared up to the line run by L. on each 
 side of it and a fence was gradually built along 
 the line as the clearing proceeded, but did nut 
 extend through the lot, and had not all existe>l 
 for more than ten years. The plaintiff had 
 notifie<l defendant that, if any of his timber fell 
 into the plaintiff's clearing, the defendant must 
 remove it. Two years before suit another sur- 
 vey was ma 1e, at the plaintiff's instance, throw- 
 ing the dividon line two chains tun links further 
 west than li.'sline. On this line the plaintiff 
 erected a fence which the defendant took down, 
 and the plaintiff brought trespass: — Held, 
 Armour, J., dissenting, that there was ample 
 evidence of the defendant's possession of the 
 land bounded by the line run by L., so as to 
 entitle him to claim according to th it line pro- 
 duced from front to rear of the lot, and a verdict 
 in his favour was upheld :— Per Armour, J., ad- 
 joining proprietors cannot be bound l>ya liii>! run 
 between them, which is not the true line, exei pt 
 by such a contract as a court of e(iuity would 
 decree apecitic performance of : here there was 
 
 no evidence of any c(<nvract or intention to abide 
 by L. 's line, whether it was a true line or not ; 
 and in such a case the statute will give a title 
 only to such land as has been substantially en- 
 closed for the whole of the statutory period. 
 Per Hacarty, C.J., that apart from the statute, 
 the evidence did not shew with siitficient clear- 
 ness, as a matter of survey, that defendant had 
 trespassed on his land. Shepherdson v. Mr. 
 Ctillouyh, 46 Q. B. 573.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Thirty or forty years before action a blazed 
 line hacl been run lietween the lots of pliiiutiff 
 and defendant by S., a surveyor, along part of 
 which a fence had been erected. Tlie parties 
 respectively cut timber and exercised acta of 
 ownership on tiic lands on each side of an<l up 
 to the blazed line. The plaintiff swore that 
 although he and his fatiier hud been governed 
 by this line and never claimed or went beyond 
 it, it was always their intention to dispute it 
 when tiiey siiould be able to establish the true 
 line. The judge at the trial found that there 
 was sutKcient evidence of defundant's occupa- 
 tion of the land up to the blazed lino to extir 
 guish the plaintiff's title : — Held, Armour, J., 
 dissenting, that the verdict was right. Title by 
 pos-^essioii to wild land can be made out other- 
 wise than by actual enclosure. Sleerii v. iShaw, 
 1 O. K. 26.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff and M., his next adjoining neigh- 
 bour, in 1868, employed a surveyor to run the 
 line l>ctweun his land and that of M. Tlie line 
 drawn ran through a wood. For more tlian ten 
 years the plaintiff was in the habit of cutting 
 timl>er up to the said line, and Im and the owners 
 of the adjoining land recognized it as the divi- 
 sion line : — Held, that this was sufficient nccu- 
 Cation by the plaintiff to give him a, good title 
 y possession up to the said line, whether it was 
 the correct line or not. Harris v. Mudie, 7 A. 
 R. 414, distin<4uishe(l. McUreijor v. Keiller, J 
 0. 1{. 677.— Proudfoot. 
 
 In an action for dimages by trespass by McI. 
 on M.'s land and by closing ancient liglita de- 
 fendant claimed title in himself iind ple.ided 
 a conventional line between his lot and the 
 pbiintitTs had been agreed to by a predecessor 
 of the plaintiff in title. On the trial the parties 
 agreed to strike out the |)lcndings in reference to 
 lights and <lrains, and to try the (picstiuii of 
 boundary only : — Held, athrming the judg- 
 ment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, 
 Ritchie, C.J., and Gwynne, J., dissenting, that 
 indopenilently of the conventional boundary 
 claicni'd by the defendant, the weight of evidence 
 was in favour of establishing a title to the land 
 in question in the defendant, and the pLiintiff 
 could not recover, and that by the agncinentat 
 the trial the plaintiff could not cl.iini to recover 
 by virtue of a user of the land for over twenty 
 years. Semble. that if it was open to him such 
 user was not proved. Moouei/ v. Mcliiloith, U 
 S. C. B. 740. 
 
 See Cain v. Junkin, 6 O. B. 532 ; 13 A. R. 
 525, p. 486, 
 
 14. Easement*. 
 
 (a) Ofiieraliy. 
 
 Held, Armour, J., dissenting, that the On- 
 tario Act (R. S. O., 1877, c. 108), reducing the 
 
1193 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 UM 
 
 :. 532 ; 13 A. R 
 
 period of limitation to ten years, docs not apply 
 to the interruption of an casement, audi as a 
 right to a way in alieno solo, in this case a lane, 
 which the defendant had occupied and obstruct- 
 ed for ten years, but which the plaintilT had 
 used prior to such obstruction. Mi/kel v. Doyle, 
 45 Q. B. (55.— Q. B. D. See McKay v. Bruce, 
 20 0. R. 709. 
 
 VVliere a person has enjoyed an easement by 
 having windows overlooking the lands of an ad- 
 joining |)roprietor for any ]}crioil, even one day, 
 over nineteen years, he cannot bo deprived 
 thereof unless he Hub8e(|uently submits to an 
 iiiterrii()tii)n of sueli ensunient for a period of 
 twelve months. The propriety of such a rule in 
 the towns of this province reniarlied upon ah<l 
 <iue8tioncd. Tlie case of Flight v. Thomas, 1 1 
 A. & K. «88 ; 8 C\. & F. '.'SI, uoinmented on and 
 followed, liiirnham v. Onriry, 27 Chy. 80. — 
 Spragge. But see R. S. O. (1887), c. 111,8. 3(). 
 
 Tiie plaintiff, tenant for years of tiie ilefen- 
 (lantfS., sued for loss of use of a tenement incon- 
 sequence of the fall of the wall thereof, which 
 was caused by til's excavation of tlie adjoining lot 
 for a celhvr l)y the defendant H. who owned it. 
 H. had excavated his land in some places to 
 within a few inches of the dividing line, close to 
 whicli tiie house in question stood. Tliis hr)use 
 had iiecn built upon oak planks laid about one 
 foot under tlie ground by S. in 18r)4, when lie 
 had a lease of the lot for ten years, wliicli gave 
 him the riglit to remove it at the expiration of 
 the term. In ISnli, liowever, he acquired the 
 fee, and in 1870 he also became owner of the lot 
 now owned l)y H., and held it foi' a year, wlien 
 he conveyed it to E. H., from whom H. derived 
 title. There was no evidence to shew that H. 
 knew that the house was receiving more sup 
 port from his land tlian it would liave required 
 if it had been constructed in tlie ordinary way : 
 —Held, that owing to the unity of seizin of ,S., 
 there had not been twenty years continuous en- 
 joyment of tlie suppoi't as an easement ; but 
 that even if tliere had been, no sucli accpiies- 
 cence in the use of tiie servient tenement liad 
 been sliewn as to justify the piesuniption tliat 
 an easement had been acquired by grant. 
 liarhis V. Smi/h, o A. R. 341. 
 
 A right to an easement previously enjoyed 
 vannot lie a<;quired by the lapse of time during 
 which the owner of tlie dominant tenement has 
 a lease of the land over which the right would 
 extend. During such unity of possession the 
 running of the Statute of Limitations is sus- 
 pended. Sluthar/ v. Jltl/inrd, 1!) O. R. i54'2.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Right of way. Sec Mawihan v. Caxct, 5 O. 
 R. .518 : Ihiiicaii v. Rof/tr-'t, 15 O. R. 099 ; 1(5 A. 
 R. .3. 
 
 Party walls. See Janux v. Clemmt, 13 (). R. 
 115, p. 209. 
 
 See Wi'llx V. Northurn It. 11'. Co., 14 O. R. 
 594. 
 
 15. FixiiuL 
 
 !!TThe defendant, husband of r»ne of several ten- 
 ants in common, being in possession of the joint 
 estate, purchased the same at sheriff's sale, of 
 which fact the co-tenants were aware, but took 
 
 no steps to impeach the transaction until after 
 such a lapse of time as that under the statute 
 the defendant ac(iuired title by possession. The 
 court, on a iiiil tiled by the other tenants in 
 common asking to set aside the sheriff's sale and 
 deed on the ground of fraud and collusion be- 
 tween the defendant and execution creditor, 
 negatived such charges, and dismissed the bill, 
 witli costs. Whether the sale under execution 
 was operative or not, the defendant having held 
 possession ever since, claiming the premises as 
 absolute owner, tiie title liy virtue of the Sta- 
 tute of Limitations ripened into a title in hia 
 fav(mr. Ktniiedi/ v. liateman, 27 Chy. 380. — 
 Blake. 
 
 One G. ill IS73 made a conveyance in fee of 
 certain lands. The liolder of an unsatistied 
 judgment lor a delit incurred jirior t«» the con- 
 veyance, liniiigiit this action to have the said 
 conveyanci" declared voluntary and void as 
 against liiin. It was pleaded in defence that 
 the right to have tlie relief asked had become 
 extinguished, for that the .Statute of Limitations 
 had rendered the deed of 1873, under which 
 possession was t.iken, indefeasible by credit- 
 ors:— Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the 
 relief asked. A fraudulent deed remains so to 
 the end of time, though it may not be effectively 
 impeachable because of purchasers for value 
 without notice having intervened, or because of 
 the claims of all creditors having been barred 
 or extinguished liy lapse of years, lioyer v. 
 ilaffidd, 11 O. R. 571.— Boyd. 
 
 A subsetiuent creditor cannot uphold an action 
 to set aside a voluntary conveyance under 13 
 Eliz. c. 5, merely on the ground that a debt of 
 prior date to the conveyance is still unpaid, if 
 such prior debt has become baiTed by lapse of 
 time. Strulherx v. Gknnk, 14 O. R. 726.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 See McGregor v. McGre<ior, 27 Chy. 470, p. 
 119(5; /•'riH/rf.t v. Harper, ll"S. C. R. 639, p. 1191. 
 
 1(5. Si-rraiit or Caretaker. 
 
 I>. ciitei'cd into possession of a small portion of 
 a lot ot land which he liad fenced and cultivated, 
 the lot being in a state of nature, and upon the 
 agent of the owner iliscovering B. to be so in 
 possession suffered B. to remain there, he agree- 
 ing to look after the property in order to 
 protect the timber ; and B. subsequently as- 
 sumed to sell the whole to one J., his grandson. 
 On a bill filed by the owner, the court held 
 that under the circumstances the Statute of 
 Limitations did not run in favour of B. so as to 
 give him a title by possession, and that J. was 
 not entitled to the lienefit of the defence of 
 " purchase for value without notice," he having 
 omitted to allege that B. was seized ; that J. be- 
 lieved he was seized : that B. was in possession, 
 and that the consideration for the transfer by B. 
 to himself had been paid. Subsequently, and in 
 1878, the plaintiff's agent again visited the pro- 
 perty, and obtained IJ. 's signature to a memo- 
 randum agreeing to hold possession and look 
 after the property for the plaintiff: — Held, a 
 sufficient recognition of tlie title of the plaintifi', 
 and that the defendants could not put him to 
 proof thereof. GrcemhkldH v. Brudford, 28 
 Chy. 299.— Spragge. 
 
1105 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 im 
 
 9tSt 
 
 CSS 
 
 SS 
 
 
 See Ryan v. ffj/an, 6 S. C. R. 387, p. 1184; 
 Ilewarda v. O'Dofolioe, 18 A. R. 529; /yic/rey v. 
 Stover, 11 O. R. 106, p. 1185. 
 
 17. Actual or Covstructivt PoHwxdon. 
 
 The judgment of tlie (/'ourt of Common Pleas 
 (30 C. P. 484) affirmed as rcganl.s the right of 
 the defeiid^iiit under the Statute of Limitations 
 to that portion of tlie land of which actual pos- 
 session had been shewn for forty years; Imt 
 varied by entering judgment for the pliiintiH' for 
 the rest of the land sued for. Tiic doctrine of 
 constructive possession has no application in the 
 ease of % more trespasser having no colour of 
 title, and he acquires title under the Statute of 
 Limitations only to such land as he hax lm<l ac- 
 tual and visible possession of, i)y fencing or cul- 
 tivating, for the requisite period. (Cameron,,)., 
 (lissenting. ) Harrinv. Mudiv,! A. R. 414. 
 
 In 1811 P. the owner of certain land, .sold it 
 to I), who went into posscHsion and occupied till 
 1827 or 1828, when he was turned out by the 
 sherifif under legal proceedings, ttiken by Dufait, 
 who was put in possession, anil remained in pos- 
 sessiiHi until I8(i4, when he conveyed to O. 
 through whom the plaintiff claimed. D.'s actual 
 possession had been only of about ten acres :-- 
 Held, that D.'s possession was of the whole land ; 
 and that ho could not be treated as a Hi|uatter 
 so as to enable him only to acquire a title to the 
 ten acres actually occupied. The plaintitl' ob- 
 jected that the evidence of the recovery by legal 
 proceedings was inadmissible, bcuau.se no judg- 
 ment was proved; and not being proved was ni> 
 evidence against him but :— Held, that though 
 this might be so if the plaintiff's title wei'o l>e- 
 ing inquired into, it was admissible for the de 
 fendant in respect of his possessory title. Itnlnrt- 
 »on V. Daley, II 0. R. 352.-C. P. D. 
 
 » See Steerit v. Shaw, 1 O. R. •_'(!, p. 1 192 ; Caiu 
 V. Juiikin, 6 O. R. 532 ; 13 A. R. .'525, \^. 4S() ; 
 Pearson v. MulhoUaml, 17 O. R. 502. 
 
 18. AdrcrsK. Punitcunioii. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of land it aj) 
 peared that the land was granted by the itowu 
 in 1838 to plaintill's mother, who wus then a 
 married woman, and who had by Ikt husband 
 issue born alive and capable of inheriting the 
 estate. The patentee died in IS5G; her hus- 
 band lived till 1883. ^Neither of them, nor any 
 of their heirs-at-law, were ever in possession. 
 Defendant claimed by possession, which began 
 in 1853, and had ccmtinued tlieneefoi'ward with- 
 out interruption :- -Held, following Ooe Corbyn 
 w. Rramston, 3 Ad. & El. 63, that the j)atentee 
 having been tlispos.sessed within the terms of 
 the statute, 1!. S. O. (1S77) e. 108. s. .'), in 1S53, 
 more than twenty years before this suit waseoin- 
 menced, the action was barred by section 44 of 
 that Act, notwithstanding the continuation until 
 188.3 of the estate by the curtesy <if ])laintit}''s 
 father. Hicksv. limiJHs, 150. lf.22S.-(^B.l). 
 
 1». 
 
 liy or 
 
 ExcliMiw Pon/iessioH — PoinesnioH 
 Amoilif Relatives. 
 
 Sometime before 1863 the defendant M. at the 
 aoUcitatiou of his fathei- and mother went into 
 
 possession of 30O acres of land, 100 aeres of 
 which were the estate of the mother, and culti- 
 vated the same relying on the promise and 
 agreement of his parents to give him u convey- 
 ance. In 1806 the mother (Tied without having 
 executed any deed of her 100 acres, and in 
 October of that year the father, in the belief 
 that ho was heir to his wife, executed a convey- 
 ance to M. of the whole 300 acres, and wliicli 
 M. executed as grantee. The father ditd in 
 1873, and M. contined to reside on the pro|iti'ty 
 with the knowleilge of his several brothers iuid 
 sisters until 1877, when, owing to olijedion 
 raised by a I'ailway company who desired to 
 obtain a deed of a portion of the 10(1 acres, it 
 was discovered that the deed of 1800 had not 
 effectually conveyed that poition beli)nging to 
 the mother, and thereu|>(m the defendant ob- 
 tained a deed of (luit (daini from the siveral 
 heirs. In 187H a bill was tiled by tlu; lit'int 
 impeaching this deed as having lieen nbtaineil 
 by fraud, and the c<Mirt being satistied that the 
 same had been obtained inipropeiiy set it aside 
 with costs; but ordered M. to bu allowiil for 
 his improvements, as having been made ninler 
 a bouil tide mistake of title, he accounting for 
 rents and profits since the death of the father; 
 and : — Held, that under the circumstances M. 
 could not avail himself of the statutf, as np to 
 the death of hi.s father in 1873, he was rightfully 
 in possession under the deed fioni the father 
 which stopped thcnniningot the statute ajjainst 
 the heirs of the niothci' , .id which, though void 
 as a deed in fee, was etfectual to convoy the 
 father's interest as tenant bj' the curtesy. .Wr 
 tlrnjor v. Mctlreijor, 27 ('by. 470.— Sjnagge. 
 
 I In 1851 the defendant's father bought for de- 
 fendant the land in (|Uestion, and in pursuance 
 i of his instructions, to prevent the defendant (lis- 
 I posing of the land, the deed, which was regiH- 
 I tered, was made to defendant's son W., then 
 j about twelve years old. The defen<lant and his 
 ' family thereupon took (lossession, and lived there 
 ■ up to the present time, the defend nt licing 
 i assessed and jiaying the taxes. The family resi- 
 dence, with the ganleii and orchard, which was 
 j fenced off from the rest of the land, and com- 
 prised from two to four acres, was always 
 1 deemed to be the defendant's sjiecial property, 
 j and he had always exclusive po.ssession thereof, 
 with the con.scnt of the others. W. resided 
 I with his father for several years, and then went 
 • to the United States, but returned in 18()!(,when 
 he conveyed by deed in fee siuijile, which was 
 i registered, to one H., his step-brother, who had 
 ' full knowledge of all the facts and circunistan- 
 \ ces, aiul who had been working the land on 
 sliares with the defendant and another. Dcfcn- 
 j dant comphtined to him of the sale and denied 
 ' W.'s right to sell, whereupon it was arranged 
 [ that things were to go on as before, am', de/cn- 
 dant was to have his share. H. , in 1870, and 
 : again in 1874, without the defendant's know- 
 ledge, mortgaged the land, by mortgages duly 
 registered, to the plaintiffs, who had no notice 
 i or knowledge of any of the circumstances, or of 
 ! the defendant's possession. In February, 1S8I, 
 I ejectment was brought by the plaintiff's ; Held, 
 j that the plaintiffs, being purclmseis for v.ilue 
 without notice, claiming under the registered 
 paper title, were untler R. ,S. O. (1877) e. Ill,s. 
 81, entitled to recover, except as to the liouae 
 and plot, to which the defendant by his cxcla- 
 
 •if- 
 
1197 
 
 LIMITATION OF AOTIONS- 
 
 1198 
 
 Hive possession hnd acquired n title iindur the 
 Statute of Limitations. Cannrla I'ermmx'iit 
 /,. („nl S. Co. V. McKay, 32 C. P. 51. -C. V. I) 
 
 [ii 1870, the (lefondiint, undiT aiirceiiieiit 
 tlici'ofor with his f.itlior, tht; owner of ii farm, 
 went into possession of iicirtiiin portion tiif-reof, 
 iiiul remiiinetl in possession sixteen ycat-.s. 'I'iu! 
 exact niitnre of tho iiKreement did noi appcMir. 
 Iiut It pointed to the ownersliip in dt'fendiuit of 
 the portion occupied. In 1S7(), the f.itlier exe 
 oiited a niortt^age of the wlioje of tlio farm to 
 the L. & C Loan Co.. wiiicli was wiMiessed liy 
 ilefenihint, wlio maile the athdavit of execution 
 on which the mortgaiie was reijistered. Tlie de- 
 fendant swore thnt he was nota«are of the con- 
 tents of tlie mortfj.ige, nor tiint it included tiin 
 portion of which he was in possession. In ISS'J 
 the fitlier made a mortgage to the phiintiffsalso 
 <pf tlie wliole lot, and on def lult the )ilaintil!'s 
 liroiiL'ht nn action to recover possession of tlic 
 liortion occupied by defendant :— Held, that the 
 evidence shewed th.it the defendant hail lieen in 
 exchisive possession of the land occuiiicd hy him 
 for the statntory period so !is t" acfpiin! a title 
 thereto by possession ; .nnd the fact f)f his heinp 
 ,1 witness to the mortcrage to the L. & C. C'o. , and 
 its .'iuhseqitent re'.'istntion, under the circum- 
 stances, did not liy virtue of section 78 H. S. O. 
 (IS7")c. 1 1 1 .<"veate an estoppel. Wislirii. Omiada 
 ho<iii Co. V. GarriHnn, 16 O. R. SI.— ('.P. O. 
 
 20. Entry or Claim. 
 
 Where tlie true owner of hind in exerci.sc of 
 his rijiht enters upon any portion of tliu land 
 which is not in the actual possession of aiu)tlu;r 
 the entry is deemed to refer to the wlude land.s, 
 (hint WeMern R. W. Co. v. Lutz, 32 C. P. Kili. - 
 ('. 1'. D. 
 
 In order to gain convenient access to the up- 
 per roiims of their house the plaintifl's construct- 
 ed a wooden platform, stairway and liin<liiig, mi 
 the outside of the house on the defendant's hind. 
 The structure was composed of planks l.dd upon 
 hhicks or scantling resting upon the ground, hut 
 the head of the stairs was supported upon posts 
 wliicli rested upon the ground. The platform 
 and stairway were ojieu to every one, including 
 the defen<lant, and there was no bar m g;itc to 
 prevent defendant from entering on his property. 
 The defendant took no proceedings against the 
 plaiutill's until the expiration of ten years ; - 
 Held, reversing the <lccrcc of Spragge, t'.. (2(5 
 Chy. .'>0,S), that the plaintitt's had not sucli posses- 
 sion of the land covered by the structure as by 
 force of the Statute of Linntations to vest in 
 them a title in fee simple ; but that even if the 
 statute had commenced to run it was stopped 
 by the fact, as stated in the evidence, that dur 
 ingthe ten years the defendant had teinpoi'arily 
 taken uj) the platform, ami used the laiul for 
 his own purposes. It was held on the evidence 
 that this was not shewn to have been done by 
 tlie plaintitfs' permission ; but (^ua're, per 
 Patterson, J. A., whether if it had been it w<mld 
 not still have interrnpted the operation of the 
 stiitute. Griffith V. Brown, 5 A. R. 303. 
 
 It., in 1867) permitted the defendant L. to 
 occupy certain lands upon an alleged agreement 
 that ill lieu of rent he should make improve- 
 ments such as wore required for L.'s trade, but 
 
 not detinod as to extent or value, of which H. 
 WDuliI obtain the benefit, and that L. wouhl 
 give up possession when R. requiieil it -there 
 lieing no agreement for any term. H., between 
 ISU7 and 1879, went occasi(mally on ihe place 
 and spoke to L. about the improvements, telling 
 him to make such improveihcnls as he those. 
 In 1879, after L. had become tinanci.dly invol- 
 ved, he restored the possession of the premises to 
 R. : — Held (Hurton, J. A., ilisscnlingl, that I.. 
 could not liave set up a title umh r the Statute 
 of Limitations; nor coiihl the plaiutill's, his cre- 
 ditors, claim the bind as having bi en so acquired 
 by him. Per Spragge, C .1., and Osier, .1. — The 
 entries of R. in going upon the hind, were sufti- 
 cieiit to prevent the statut*' from running : and 
 per Spragge, C. J., II. niiglit be siid to have been 
 in recejit of the " prolits " of thi' 1 nd, through 
 its increase in value by reason of the in.piove- 
 meiits. Per Tattcrson, J. A.— The evidence 
 shewc<l tliat by the successive improvements 
 iiiaile iis they were, the relation of landlord and 
 tenant wa.s continued or cicated aiuw, even 
 though the improvements to be made were not 
 strictly in lieu of rent, nor ciiuhl be tre.itcd as 
 prolits of the land. Per Burton, J. A.-- I- upon 
 the evidence entered as teimnt at will ; there 
 was no receipt of " prolits" within tlie meaning 
 of the statute ; and no entry iiico?isist<-nt with 
 the lessee's title ; and L. having iicqnireda title 
 by po.sscssion the land was liai)le for his debts. 
 If L. had acquired a title under tlii' statute, his 
 giving up possession again to It. Would not re- 
 vest the estate. Workinmi v. /{(.lib, 7 A. R. 
 3S!) ; 2S Chy. 243. 
 
 Actual occupation of 'and is not cs.scntial to 
 
 give a right to maintain tresp iss by one who has 
 
 the legal title. It hisnihcicnt that he enter upon 
 
 the land so as to piU himself in legal ixissession 
 
 of it : — Hehl. that puttiu'.; up boanls on the land 
 
 stating tliiit the land wa:^ fur sale, wiis a sutlicieiit 
 
 ' entry upon Ilia jiart to vest the leg.il possession 
 
 I in him to eiiahle him to maintain trespass. Duno- 
 
 \ ran v. Herbert, 4 O. R. «3r>. — W ilson. 
 
 Is, dated acts of trespass, coniniitted on wild 
 lands from year to year, will not give the tics- 
 jiasser a title under the Stitutc of Limitations, 
 and there was no misdirection in the judge at 
 the trial of an action for trespass on such land 
 refusing to leave to the jury for their considera- 
 tion such isolated acts of trcsiiiss as evidencing 
 possession under the statute. To ac(piire such 
 title there must be open, visible and continuouH 
 possession known, or which might have Iwen 
 known to the owner, not a possession etjuivocal, 
 occasional or for a special ortemjioiary ))iirp(ise. 
 Doe d. Des Banes v. White ( 1 Ken N. H. r>!)5). 
 approved. The judgment of the court below 
 attirmed, Gwynne, J., dissenting on the ground 
 that the finding of the jury on the (piestion sub- 
 mitted to them was against evidence, and fur- 
 ther that the acts done by the defend int were 
 not mere isolated acts of tresiiass, but acts done 
 in assertion of ownership during a period ex- 
 eeeding thirty-five years, and the evidence of .such 
 acts should have been submitted to the jury and 
 the jury told that if they believed this evidence 
 they shouhl find for the defendant. .S/»cc)'. n v. 
 Peurxon, 14 8. C. R. 581. 
 
 In I860 D. M., the then owner of certain 
 lands, conveyed to A., who in 1861 conveyed to 
 N., through whom plaintiff claimed. I). M. 
 
1199 
 
 UMITATION OF A0TIOM8. 
 
 1200 
 
 P< 
 
 tsr. 
 
 -ft! 
 
 tn 
 
 continucil in iMssession, and, at his remicst, his 
 sister M. H. eaine and resided with him, and 
 toolt clmrgc of the iiouse and their sister H. M., 
 who wns Ruhject to fits, which to some degree 
 airecteil her mind. In 1862 D. M. died, the two 
 sisters remaining in possession. M. B. takin>{ 
 charge and control. In 18()8 defendant, the sis- 
 tors' nephew, came to reside with them, M. B. 
 giving him charge of the place, upon which he 
 suhsecjncntly erected huildings. In I87.''» N. 
 went upon tlie land in assertion of his title as 
 owner, having previously threatened to hring 
 ejectment, and w.is induced to execnte a life 
 lease in favour of M. IJ. and S. .M., which was 
 accepted liy S. M., who executed the le;>se, but 
 not hy M. H., who refused to do so; S. M., M. 
 li., and defendant still continuing to reside on 
 the pi'emises. M. B. died in 1879 and S. M. in 
 188(i. The defendant continued to reside tiiere- 
 on. In 1887 the plaintiff brought ejectment 
 against defendant, who claimed a title by pos- 
 session :— Held, that N. having entereil and 
 taken possession, and placed S. M. in possession 
 as his tenant under him, her possession was his 
 and his successors in title; and, therefore, plain- 
 tiff was entitled to recover. Jnio/d v. Ciirnmitr, 
 15 O. R. .S82.-C. P. D. 
 
 See Hooker v. 3/o)twoh, 28 Chy. 309, p. 1200; 
 i^ooper V. //nmilt<»i,A5 Q. B. .')02, p. 1184; Wnl- 
 le.n V. Wooihtock Gas Co., I (). H. 630, nifm ; 
 M'-Dianiiid v. Hiuiheit, ICO. R. .570. 
 
 21. Dhcont'tiiiiriiicfi. 
 
 On 8th April, 1854, the plaintiff acquired by 
 conveyance the fee simple of a vacant piece of 
 land, but did not enter. Shortly after a rail- 
 way company surveyed and staked outapnrti(m 
 of it, with otiier land reiiuired for their railway, 
 and the sum to be paid oy them to the plaintiff 
 was settled by arbitration under the statute, 
 but the company never paid or tookjposseasion. 
 On .SIst December, 1857, the plaintiff recovered 
 judgment against the railway company, and 
 nnder proceedings in Chancery sold tlieir inter- 
 est in the laud to the defendant P. , who did not 
 take actual jjossession, though he went npon the 
 land prior to 18(50, and examined the clay to 
 see whether it was fit for brick making. He 
 did not fence or cultivate it. though it was 
 fenced on two sides by the adjoining proprietors. 
 He also put up a board on it with an advertise- 
 ment th't the lot was for sale, signed by him, 
 but when was not shewn, and it was knocked 
 down and not replaced. In 187fi P. sold the 
 land to the defendant company, who immedi- 
 ately went into possession ami made valuable 
 improvements. The railway company and the 
 defendants paid the taxes from 1853:— Held 
 (Cameron, .1., dissenting), that neither the rail- 
 way company nor P. liad such a possession of the 
 lanil as extinguished the title of the plaintiff, 
 who was therefore entitled to recover the land. 
 Per Cameron, .7. — There had been a discontinu- 
 ance by the plaintiff, and sufficient evidence of an 
 adverse claim to defeat the plaintiff's title. I^n^ 
 toH\: WoixUtock- Oos Co., I O. R. 630.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See rfoobT v. MorrUoii, 28 Chy. 369, p. 1200 ; 
 Oritfith V. firowii, 5 A. R. 303, p. 1197; Jimitp 
 V. Grand rriink R. W. Co., 28 Chy. 583 ; 7 A. 
 R. 128 ; Workman v. Rohb, 7 A. R. 389; 28 Chy. 
 243, p. 1198. 
 
 22. Arknowkdgment of Title or Paymem of 
 Rent. 
 
 The father of the defendant was in wrongful 
 possessiim of land from 1844 to 1862, when P. 
 the owner mortgaged to A., who assiijnud to the 
 plaintiff, and interest was regularly paid there- 
 on by the mortgagor until two years before the 
 rnstit'-'-ion of this suit. In 1865 the defendant 
 wrote to P. concerning a purcimse of some tim- 
 ber on the lands, and P.'s agent went over and 
 measured tlio timber cut, wliich was sold to the 
 defendant; and in 1866 P. sold timl)er on tlie 
 land to strangers :— Held, (l)thatsuc]i entries 
 upon tlie lanil, whicli were siilKcicnt to inn- 
 stitntc tresjiasK if unlawful, interrupted tiie 
 running of the statute in favour of t\n: defen- 
 dant, wlio was tenant at will ; and tliat tlie 
 written a])plication of the defenilant to 1*. was 
 a suHicient acknowledgment of title t<) prevent 
 the running of the statute as against P., and (2) 
 that the possession of tlie defendant lieforo tlie 
 creation of the mortgage which was insiifHoieiit 
 at that time to bar the mortgagor, did not run 
 against the plaintiff. Jlookrr v. MorriMDti, 28 
 Chy. 3fi9. — Spragge. 
 
 An acknowledgment of title by a person in 
 possession of land, given to a mortgagor, is 
 sufficient to prevent theoccupant.aci|niring title 
 unilor the statute, so as to bar the rights of the 
 persons entitled. F(n' this pnrposii it is nut 
 necessary that the mortgagor should be acting 
 as agent of the mortgagee ; the niortgagoi- fcir 
 such purpose is a jierson entitled under the 
 statute. Ih. 
 
 A., in 18.35, went into possession of land upon 
 the invitation of P., who promised to give him a 
 deed, l)ut subsetiuently I'efnsed to do ho. A. 
 thereupon determined to remain npon, and suc- 
 ceeded in making a living from the land. P. 
 died three years afterwanls, having devised the 
 laud to A. and his wife for their joint lives, 
 with remainder to .1., one of the contestants. 
 A. occupieil the land until 1877, when he 
 executed a conveyance thereof in fee to the 
 petitioner : — Held, on appeal, affirming tlie de- 
 cision of the referee of titles allowing the claim 
 1 of tlie contestants, that A. by his entry had 
 I become tenant at sulferance to P., and that us 
 j A. was aware of the devise to himself, and 
 I never did any act shewinu; a <letermination not 
 I to take the estate so given to him, the estate 
 I for life had vested in him, and that he or his 
 j grantee could not claim the fee by virtue of A.'s 
 I possession. Some thirty years after .4. 's entry 
 he granted part of the land to one B., and .J. 
 j joined in the convcy.vr.ee :— Held, a suffioient 
 i admission of the title of ,1. as a remainderinaii, 
 I anil so an admission that the will was operative 
 ! on the land ; J. having no claim to the land 
 ! otherwise than under the will. Id' Dunham, 29 
 Chy. 258.— Proudfoot. 
 
 I Where a mortgagee in possession wrote, in 
 j 1871, to the holder of the equity of redemption 
 as follows : " The amount due me in November, 
 1853, on your mortgages was as follows " (stat- 
 ing the amounts). '"No part of that sum has 
 j since been paid to nie, but the rents I have re- 
 , ceived have nearly kept down the interest : "— 
 ' Held, a sufficient acknowledgment of title to 
 give a new starting point to the statute from the 
 date of the letter. Miller v. Brown, 3 0. R. 
 210.— Prondfoot. 
 
1201 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1202 
 
 A tenant agreed to pay for certain preiniges 
 gix iloUars u month and taxes, and for some 
 eighteen years remained in possession paying tlie 
 taxes to the municipality and paying notliing 
 else. The tenant after the expiration of this 
 period gave to his landlord an ackiiowlodgmont 
 of indehtedness for rent for the whole jieriod :— 
 Hclil that the |)avment of taxes was not a pay- 
 ment of rent within the meaning of the Rial 
 FroiMivty Limitation Act, and that the tenant, 
 although lie had always intended to hold merely 
 US tenant, lind acquired title by possession, and 
 fonlil not niiike himself liable as for rent accru- 
 iiiL' after hv hiidHoao(|iiired possesKion by givini,' 
 t(i the landloidan acknowledgment of imlcbted- 
 iit'SH in respect of reni-. Oavis r. McKinnon, 31 
 Q. 1?. r)(>4. olmnrveil upon. .Indameiit of the 
 Queen's IJench Division, Ki O, R. .103, reversed, 
 and that of Street..!., at the trial, restored. 
 Piiirh V. (Iilrny, *!() A. R. 484. Followed in 
 Vofiit V. Xnrlh Amerkmi Land Co., 21 O. R. SO. 
 
 ,See <li<'<iixhiil<ls v. lirailfonl, 28 CLy. 20!), p. 
 IIOS. 
 
 23. A roidanci: by Lfii/al Proeci'diiii/s. 
 
 .\lthnugh according to the ruling in Atlamaon 
 r. Adanison, 2.") (..'hy. .l.'iO, a jdaiutilF will not be 
 allowed to amend so ns to set up a title acijuired 
 after the filing of the bill, yet where by error in 
 the conveyance the west instead of the east half 
 of the lot was conveyed, it would seem, (per 
 Proudfoot, V. C^) that it would not be any in- 
 fringement of that rule to allow an amendment 
 setting up the fact that since the tiling of the 
 hill tlie error had been corrected by a new con- 
 veyance, and making the necessary amendments 
 in the bill in accordance therewith. Hut the bill 
 having been amended in tme part of it in this re- 
 spect, leaving the erroneous description of the 
 land in the earlier part of it, the court on rehear- 
 ing held that the suit had not been instituted 
 with regard to the east half so as to prevent the 
 defence of the Statute of Limitations being set up, 
 and affirmed the decree of Hlake, V. C, 25 Chv. 
 552. Diimbk v. Larnsh, 27 Chy. 187.— Cliy. 1). 
 
 II. Personal Actions. 
 
 1. Arroiints. 
 
 Where A., one of two residuary legatees and 
 executors, left the collection of the ou standing 
 assets of the deceased entirely to B., the other 
 residuary legatee .and executor, under an agree- 
 ment between them, by which R. was to remit a 
 moiety when a certain specified amount was col- 
 lected, and it appeared that the residue was 
 ascertfiined or could have been ascertained within 
 a year from the testator's death :— Held, that 
 A. 8 claim to what was so c(dlected more than 
 ten years before action brought was barred by 
 the Statute of Limitations, but as to what was got 
 inbyH. afterwards A. was entitled to recover : — 
 Held, also, that the fact of the fund in B.'s hands 
 having been from time to time drawn upon to 
 make good deficiencies in the general legacies, 
 80 that the residue was not precisely and for all 
 purposes ascertained, did not prevent the bar of 
 the statute; neither was there any fiduciary rela- 
 tionship between A. and B., such as to have that 
 effect. Quaere, whether, if the money collected 
 by B. could have been specifically traced and fol- 
 
 76 
 
 lowed, the cf>urt woidd allow this to Iw done, 
 notwithstanding the lapse of ten years :— Held, 
 lastly, that the bar of tlie statute applied not 
 only to assets distributed by B. but also to 
 assets retained by him. /»'<; Kirk/intrltl: —Kirk- 
 ixtlrkk V. SliiviiMim, 3 (). K. 3(11.— Chy. I>. 
 
 One of two executors iind co-rcaiduary lega- 
 tees got in portions of iho residuary estate, and 
 as to such his estate wiis hold lialde as for a 
 legacy to the other residuary legatee (IOC. L.>]. 
 05). Some of the moneys so got in were rein- 
 vested, and afterwards came again into the hands 
 of such co-residuary legatct- in administering the 
 estate : field, as to the hitter moneys, therelu- 
 tionsbipof debtor and <'reditor a|)plied, but that 
 by reason of the Statiitc of Limitations the ac- 
 count could not extend further back than six 
 years. Some of the resiiluary estate consisted of 
 lands, which the cn-rcsiduary legatee as tenant 
 in common occujjieil, or got in the rent and jn-o- 
 fits of : -Helil, (I) that the account extended 
 only to whatever had been paiil or given by ten- 
 ants o)' occupants of the joint property more than 
 the CO tenant's just share or pronortion. (2) That 
 such co-tenant was not liable tor the profits or 
 produce taken by him from the conuuon property, 
 nor for his eujoynietit of such property when 
 there was no exclusion or ouster. (3) That the 
 six year.s' bar of the Statute of Limitations ap- 
 plied to such claim. AV Kirkpatrkk—Kirkiia- 
 trirk V. .SV.'c. ».soH, 1(» P. H. 4— Hodgins, Atrnter 
 ill Ordinary. 
 
 Where in an action for a partnership account 
 on a contract for woi'k done on a canal, it ap- 
 i)eareil tliat the business liad been closed, the 
 books made up, a final estimate obtained, and 
 the plant sold, more tliau six years befoi'c the 
 commencement of the action : — Held, that the 
 plaintifl'was barreil by theStatute of Limitations, 
 and the fact that within the six years, a certain 
 sum had been paid over to the plaintiff's solici- 
 tors, but witliout his knowledge, as the full 
 amount of the partnership jirotits due to the 
 plaintiff, could not operate ti i take the case out 
 of the statute. ( 'uHon v. Mit,-hi'/(, 3 O. R. 421. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 S. was an assignee for the benefit of creditors 
 of .J. K. and >i. was similarly assignee of E. H. 
 K. Before the assignments .L K, was a creditor 
 of K. H. K. for money lent and as a holder of 
 certain notes. After the assignments 8. obtained 
 a judgment against K. H. E., but G. refused to 
 recognize S. as a creditor on E. H. E.'s estate 
 by virtue of the judgment. 8. then brou'.;ht an 
 action against <i. for an account of G.'s dealings 
 with the estate of E. H. E. , and for payment of 
 the judgment, (i. set np the Statute of Limi- 
 tations. On a reference to a Master he fcmnd : 
 (1) That the judgment was an answer to the de- 
 fence of the Statute of Limitations: (2) That 
 there had been a balancing of accounts between 
 J. E. and E. H. K. as to the account before E. 
 H. E.'s iissignnicnt .and as to the notes after K. 
 H. E.'s assignment, and that each balancing of 
 accounts was such a balancing as prevented the 
 operation of the Statute of Limitations ; (3) 
 "Tliat before the assignments and within six years 
 of action brought E. H. E. paid several sums to 
 J. E. on genei-al account, and that such pay- 
 ments as tar as the general account outside of 
 the notes was concerned prevented the operation 
 of the Statute of Limitations ; (4) That R. H. 
 
 i,m 
 
1203 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 12M 
 
 fSPI 
 
 K. ikgri^tttl to pay lutcrunl t<i <1 K., iiml hu i 
 allowed it to him ; (!\) Tliiit ho ilinallow* tl «omu . 
 of th<' items of till- jii(I>,'iiiiiit an not hnviii>( liecii ' 
 |)l'ovi'() ontsido of the JiiiI^ilk lit ; ((I) 'I'liiit lie 
 (liKulhiwecl certain kiiiiim of mimey oinitteil from 
 the iilaintiirH elaiiii -iillhoii^h iiroveil to liiH 
 Hutihfaelion, as oiitr<i<lo the hcojieof the refeienee. 
 (Ill a|i|iiiil from the tniiHter it wuh : Held, tiiat 
 the jilil;{iii< lit II eiiS'eieil ii^iiiiiHt I'!. Tl. K. after 
 hiH axKiKiimeiil in mii iiition to uhiih <• wiih not 
 u (lUl'ty was lint even |iiiiii,'i fat:ie evideiute ti^ain>t 
 (J., KeeU'H r. l.owiy, •JII ( 'hy. 1(>7, eoiiNJdernd. 
 'I'hal tliiM>alaiieiii^ of anounts, hefoio the as- 
 si){linieiit>', upon t lie geiieiid aeeount, iinri also' 
 the ]iuyiiieiits on in eoiint were snilieieiit to pre- | 
 vent th(^ operation of the statute, That the I 
 hulaiieiii;; of aeeoiints, after the as>i){iini(!lils, as i 
 lo the notes diil nut pieveiit the operation of the 
 statute. 'I'hat liy reason of the payments made 
 on jjeneral accniint hein^; np|iropriated to the i 
 nvcoiint of the w hole indelitednes» ineliidiiij,; the j 
 notes, the latter wert^ not harredhy the statute. ■ 
 'I'liat th(! interest was piopeily allowuil as it was' 
 innlilded in the lialane'iii; of aeeniints and the > 
 notes were piyalilo with interest. Sh irar/ v. 
 </ttii<; i;U). I!. 4.')8. -IVouilfoot. 
 
 2. /{reach oj' /'roiiiini- i</ }fiiriifiiii\ 
 
 Soo rnslollo V. Ifinit-r, 12 <>. It, :w:{, p. ,S(it ; 
 Ormil V. Curnork, Hi O. li. 4(Mi -. Id A. I!. .-..•(■.>, 
 p. 804. 
 
 ;{. Iitliri'ni. \ 
 
 'riiouyli the remedy of a ereditr)r to reinver a j 
 <Icht li(! Iiarred hy the Statute of Liinitatimis, he | 
 muy hold the (.'ollateral securities for such deht 1 
 until paid. Where no claim for arrears of interest : 
 is specially made hy the |»leadinf,'s, and where 
 there is no covenant to pav interest, only six j 
 yciirs'arrears can ho recovered. Wili'jix Lnhinrd, \ 
 10 P. It. IM2. Ilodgins, Mnstir in Oriliiiurii. 
 
 See rroii,' v. Croiir, 27 < 'hy. I2r>, p. 1207. 
 
 4. .1 iiil'inii III*. 
 
 To an action on a foreij^n judL'iinnt itteoverod 
 ill the Supremi; (Jourt in New ^'(>l■ls, the defen- 
 dant set lip as a defence that the cause of action 
 iiucrued inoic than six years liefore the coin- 
 nienceinent thereof :--Held on demurrer, a good 
 defence, for under our law the foreign judgment 
 Ih only deemed to constitute a simple contract 
 d«l>t, and the perioil of limitation is governed hy 
 the lex f(ni. and not hy the lex loci contractus. 
 Xorlh V. Fixhtr, 6 O. H. 200.- Hose. 
 
 Judgment was recovered in 1851!. < )n the 23nl 
 of October, IStiO, an order was made hy a judge 
 in ehainliers to revive hy entering a suggestion 
 on the roll under the C. \,. I*. Act, and the sug- 
 gestion was entered on the 22nd January, I87(), 
 Itiit no execution issued after that date. On the 
 Cth Deceniher, 1884, an order was made under 
 Rule 355, O. J. Act, (Con IJule 8S5) for leave to 
 the plaintiff to issue execution : — Tlehl, that the 
 entry of a suggestion under the ('. L. 1*. Act was 
 a judgment <it the court und gave a new start- 
 ing point for the Statute of T^iiinitations to run 
 from, and that the period of limitation in the 
 case of judgments in personal actions is twenty 
 
 years iiiiiler It. S. (). c. (M, and not ten yeiim 
 under It. S, O. c. 128, which lolateH t'l jiidjf. 
 nu'iits (IS liiitiH on land. Allan r. MeTii-, isli, if 
 A. It. 278. and Wuwr i\ O Lomie, :t A. It (17. 
 eommented niiaiid followed : (^iiiere. per l'i»i', 
 .1., whether there is any period lixed hy tliu 
 statute heyoiid which (he court may not liavir 
 power to allow execntiell to he iMSueil. MrCiil- 
 
 liwiili V. Siibs, 1 1 I'. It. :i;i7. Daltoii, Mn-si,,:- 
 Itose, 
 
 The plaint ill' recovered judgment ugaiiisl i||,, 
 defendants mi the ,'hd of Novemher, IMIIII, and 
 the last execution issueil thiM'eon Was leturiiud 
 in Septeinher, ISlI,"). .Mor<i than twenty \ciirM 
 afterwards the plaintilf moved fur leivtr tn i!<su(( 
 execution against the surviving dcfeii<lant, hut 
 no eviih lice was given of any part payiiicni nii 
 nccoiint of the jiidgineiit or Jicknow leili^iiicnt of 
 liahilily thereon within that period : Ihdd, 
 that if the miition was inces-iary it had hccn 
 rightly leliised ; (^inere, wiiether it was iiecus 
 sary lo iditain !<• ive to issue execution upon, or 
 to revive the jiidgiiKiiit, execiilioii hiving heon 
 inflict issiufd and return' d >\illiiii six yiars I'mia 
 its recovery. Allan i: McTavi>.li, 2 ,\. K, 27S; 
 Itoiee /'. O'Loane. .'i A K. KiT, I'ommeiited .iii. 
 MfMtiliim V. S/iilini; I,'} A. I!. 4i;0. 
 
 TIk! father of the plaintill' ohiained jiidgnicnt 
 iLgainst L. and It. in an action ii|ioii a proniig. 
 sory note on the 2(!tli Ortulier, 18(18, and the 
 plaintill In gin tliis action a.'iiinst L. and R, 
 upon the jiiilgnieiit on tlic 22nd Octoher, ISS8. 
 At that time the )ilaint ill's father w;is dead and 
 no personal ritpreMentativc of h\^ estate had hocn 
 appointed. On the 4tli Novemher, ISHit, Ictturn 
 of administration to his fathers estate wore 
 grantiMl to the |)laintiir, lln^ widow reiidiuicing 
 proliati! on the same day. Sulw(!(piently to that 
 the statement of claim was delivered, and the 
 action CDiitinned against It. ahmc. !!. hy hii 
 statement of defence put the plaintill' lo the 
 ))i'oof of Imh I iiion and title to sue on the 
 jiidgmen and ,i. aim iigst oilur dcfeiicea, 
 
 t St' le of Limitations, It. S. O. (lS,S7)c. 60, 
 rlild. that tie- widow w.is the person 
 'minister, and Jis she Imd 
 c action was hcgiiii, the 
 lime no status ; ami as 
 of l.iinit.itions that no 
 s ri'.ditiy hegiin within the period of 
 ii-itixed hv the statute as that within 
 
 lily entitled to 
 I, renounced win 
 dailitid' had at th.u 
 ..^liiist lie Statute 
 action V 
 twenty 
 
 which an action upon a hoiid or otler s|icciiilty 
 shall lie eoinnieiiced ; and tlierefic 'he action 
 failed: -,Seinhle, also, that an ohjc > i .n rai.'iedat 
 the ti'ial that L, was not before the ( 'oiirt was a 
 valid one ; for an action on a joint judgment is 
 not diH'ercnt in principle from ;in action on a con- 
 tract against joint contractors, (hniil \. Rat, 
 ISO. It. 371.' Ilnyd. 
 
 ,See .S7ur(()7 V. (In'jc. ISO. I!. , >, p. I20H. 
 
 ' .">. ////"/ anil, Mnlirioux I'rosrnilloii. 
 
 i See Mai/or of AfonlrettI v. IM/, 12 S. C. II. 74. 
 
 I 
 
 (i. Money Chanjfd Upon Land. 
 
 Held, that an action on a covenant in a mort- 
 gage for payment of the mortgage money, doe* 
 not come within R. S. O. (1877) c. 108, s. 23. 
 limiting suits for the purpose therein mentioned 
 
1106 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 
 
 1208 
 
 to ten yt'lirB. Alliin v. Mu'l'iiviiili, 'J A. II. 27^, 
 folliiwi'd ill prcfurfiiiiu to Sutton c Hiittmi, 2'2 
 I'll. I>. Till, iind Ki'iiriisiiltt r. Kliiil, li'J Cliy. 
 riTlt. Mr/Joiialtl V. MinN, \2 (). It. )»S. Kon"ii. 
 
 HwOi-iiiir V. Crime, '27 Chy. •»'-».'), p. l'207;.Si;»«;i. 
 „.// V. rorhel/, T) <>. K. .'<77 ; Kt A. I!. :W, \>. 7'27 ; 
 ,w;r./ir// V. Uiillaiul, Hi .s. ('. K. (W7, j.. I'2(i(l. 
 
 7. Mmifii Uiiil mill III riiifil, 
 
 S(« lluhhniu v. Kiii<i>.l<>iii, l(i (). K. :M1 ; IS A. 
 K. 03, l>. WW. 
 
 8. Kxir.uloi-r, ■■•III Tfiisli'iJ<. 
 
 WIrM'u t)i(i L-Htiitu of III (luuonHuil |iurHoii jm iii- 
 milvo'it, tlic! provmioiiH of tlio Act ru.^pcittiiig 
 IruitltM'x (li-iplacu any ri^lit on i\w part of tlie 
 execiit'ii' lo retain in full ; ami ^\^ au'uiii.'it an itx- 
 ouiitor c'l.uiiiing ax urnlitor, any otlutr i.'ieilitur 
 muy Hctiip tiiu Statiiloof Liinitatioiix. AV Itims, 
 •29('iiy. :1H."..- Hoyil. 
 
 Ill an nction liy tint ]ilaiiitiir a;,'ain.sl tlu! ilr- 
 fenilanl hh a<lniiiiiHirator of iiis iIcit'iiHcil linitlii'i' 
 W. (i ''» to <'>n .■iniiiiiiit of iJHtM) wlrcii tiii; plain- 
 tiff allrjjcMl that W. (J. rccciveil for lii'i' from 
 lUiotlicr lirotlier, .S. (i., alHo dc'i'ii' I, the cvi- 
 (leiii^e Hhi^wed that S. (J. at thu tiiiK^ of Imh 
 (Icuth (lirt!itt)(l W. <i., to whom lie left the r(nt 
 of his iir'iporty, to pay the phiintill' the IjsSdO, 
 anil \V. (1., i.ftcr .S. (J.'s ileatli, Inroniieil tlio 
 plaiiitiir that ho was takin;{ eliar^'e of the 
 money for iior :— Meld, that \V. (1. was a triis- 
 tcu for the piaintitf nniler an express trii.st, and 
 tlienfiiie. that under the <) il. Aut, h. 17, hii1>h. 
 2, the Statute nf Liinitatioim would not consti- 
 tute a har to tlio claim. Cimk v. (Iioiil , W'l C 
 
 P. nil. V. P. I). 
 
 A teHtutipr direotcd a Huin of money to ho in- 
 vented, the intorosl wlioreof was to he einployiMJ 
 iji eiuieavonriiig to diHeover iii.s lirothi!!'. to 
 whom the money was to lie |mid if diseovercd 
 within live yearH from tho death of the testator, 
 iind if not hu found tho amount to he paid to 
 M. ('. The exoeutors took the hond of tho |icr- 
 BOUH liiihle to p.'iy tho amount to t ho estate, and 
 .sulisi (|iieiitly un iiiHtalnienl p:iyalilo under ancli 
 Imiid was rouovei'od liy the oxoeutorH and paid 
 over to M. C. Afterwards the halanee was re- 
 covered hy one of the cxeeutors, who invested it 
 in his husinoss, and sought to ilofoat a suit to 
 compel payment of tho amount at the instance 
 of the personal representative of M. C, hy set- 
 ting up the .Statute of l.iniitatioiis ; inoru than 
 ten years having elapsed since M. (/'. had lic- 
 come entitled to the heciiiest : — Held (aftirming 
 the decree of the court helow, 27 Chy. 307), 
 that the conduct of the executors constituted 
 them trustees, and that tho right to recover tho 
 money was not harred, and that ( '. , into whose 
 handa the money had come, was churgcalde with 
 interest from tho time of its receipt liy him. 
 Canwron v. Campbell, 7 A. R. ,1(tl. 
 
 In 1S77, ilefendant H., who was engaged in a 
 mneral husiness collecting and investing money, 
 having become aware that plaintitf held some 
 promissory notes of one F. for whom H. was 
 effecting a loan, suggested that plaintiff' should 
 hand over the notes to him as money was going 
 through his hands for F. and that he would col- 
 
 lect them and save thn amount for herself and 
 childrenl I'l lint ill' having a<:tod on Hindi sug 
 geMtldii and the money having heeii roi:(.'ived hy 
 It. ill that year was rotainod liy him until INHII 
 when he lieiMine insolvent and m:ide an assign 
 inent nndur the Ai!t to tnislees, wlio in distrihiil - 
 in^' the iissiits refnsitd to leeognise the phiintill s 
 elaiiii, and pieadcMl the Statute of I. imitations to 
 an iii.'ticiii InoMght lo eiiforeo payment: - Meld, 
 reversing the jiidgmonto tluM/'hy. Div,, (l.'IO, It. 
 I7'l) that thelnilisaetion was sueh as ereated tho 
 relation of trustee and itettiii que trust lietweeli 
 the plain till' .nil I H. , and that the riL;ht to locnver 
 froni 11. 's estate was not harr< il liy the lapse of 
 time. Coijiii v. Ilro'lily, l.'i A. II. \M. 
 
 v. If. (the respondent) uh trustiui for certain 
 creilitoi's of the linn of K. .M. and sons, sued .1. 
 M. iM. (tlii^ appellant), a momluM- of tho linn, 
 for .*!4,7'2(), aliej^iiig ; I. A register. i| notarial 
 transfer from one .1. It. ,M. to him, as trustee, 
 of a similar siiiii with all rigliU, mortgages, etc., 
 tlioreunto appertaiiiiii',', due liy the said a|ipel 
 hint to ,1. K. ,M. for tho pri<'o of certain real 
 estate in .Monti eal ; '2. A transfer of (-ertain 
 pnniiissory notes sigiu^d hy the appi llaiit for the 
 s:inio .'imouiit and iipri^senting tlii! price of sale 
 of said |>roperty, l>ii which were to he in pay 
 iiKMit thereof only if paiil at matiiiity. 'I'ho 
 appidl.'int was a jiarty aii<l int^'rvened to tho 
 deed of transfer and declared himself satisfied 
 and sniijeet to its eoiiilitioiis. The appidlant 
 pleaded that the respondent had im ai.'lion as 
 trustee under aitielc l!> ('. ('. I'., and that the 
 price had hei'ii paid liy the two promissory notes 
 which were now pre.serihed : Hild. I. Alhrin- 
 iiig the judgment of the court Ixdow, that 
 article I!) ('. (!. I', was not applic ililo. 'I'lu^ 
 appellant having lioconie ii party to the regis 
 terod traiislor, which gave the respondent as 
 trustee all mortgagee's rights, was estopped 
 from denying the ellicacy of such deed or of the 
 right of the phiintitl' to sno thiTcunder in his 
 ipiality of trustee, liiirhiinl i'. .MolF.itt, 11 S. (/'. 
 K. 7I», and Ih'owno e. I'iii.siineiinlt, 'i S. (!. Ft. 
 lO;), distinguished. '2. That the notes in rjues- 
 tioii having lieeii given as collateral for tho price 
 of salo of the property, and the property not 
 having been paid for, the plea of prescription as 
 to the notes could not av.ii! against an action for 
 the price. Mllrlicll v. llolliiud, 10 S. C. K. 087. 
 
 Fn-ijiisiw V. Finjiixou, 28 Chy. :W0. p. 1186; 
 lii: Kivkpatrick — Kirki>iilrick v. SliviiiKnu, 3 (). 
 K. 3<il, p. 1202; Ailrimmn v. Ai/fimnini, 7 A. 
 R. 502, p. 1188. 
 
 0. Maniril Wowrn. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the county 
 court that notwithstaniing It. S. (). (1877), c. 
 125, 8. 20, a married woman is still entitled 
 under 21 .lac. 1, c. 16, to bring an action in 
 respect of llc^ separate property within six years 
 after becoming discovert. Carroll v. FUzijrrald, 
 5 A. R. .■122. 
 
 See Re Lairx- 
 882. 
 
 -l^aiiK v. Law*, 28 (Uiy. 382, p. 
 
 10. InfanU, 
 
 The plaintiff filed his bill against his two bro- 
 thers seeking administration of his father's es- 
 
 I 
 
 
1207 
 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 
 
 1208 
 
 
 I: 
 
 
 tate, of which he alleged they had posaessed 
 themselves on his death in 1848. It appeared 
 that the plaintiff attained his majority in 1867, 
 and it was not proved that any fraud or conceal- 
 ment had been practised upon him : — Held, that 
 the plaintiff was barred by the Statute of Limi- 
 tations, and bv the release executed by him. 
 llwih'x V. Hmj/iex, 6 A. K. 373. 
 
 11. Acknowlcili/nu'nt. 
 
 On tiic l'!tli Dctober, 18()G, the owner of real 
 ••state {,'riiiited aii annuity thereout of $40, with 
 power of distress incase of default. Only one 
 year's annuity was jKiid, and in October, 1877, 
 the grantor, by writing, acknowledged the 
 amount tlien due. On a bill tiled by tlie annu- 
 itant, claiming ten years' arrears, with interest 
 thereon :--Held, tliat the jmwcr of distress was 
 not such a penalty as took the case out of the 
 general rule that interest will not be allowed on 
 arrears of aii annuity ; and that notwithstand- 
 ing tiie written admission by the grantor of the 
 amount due under the deed, the annuitant could 
 recover only six years' ari'ears without interest, 
 as against a puisne incumbrancer who had iluly 
 registered his conveyance. Crone v. (.'row, 27 
 ("by. 4'2"».— Prouilfoot. 
 
 'I'be |)laintifFs testator was chief engineer of 
 the defendant company from its inception until 
 arrangements made by the company witli one B. 
 for the completion of the road by 15. , he paying 
 all ex penscs, etc. , including tiie engineer's salary. 
 In 1881 the testator wrote a letter to the solici- 
 tor for tiie Grand Trunk Railway Company, 
 which coni))any was about to resume control of 
 the defendant's railway, claiming for services 
 render'i'' the ilefendant company up to tiie mid- 
 dle of 187.1. The!'' 'on was ctmimenced in Feb- 
 ruary, 1882, for s'. locs rendered fiom 1871 to 
 I87.'>. At the trial an amendment was made al- 
 lowing tlie plaintiff to claim for services render- 
 ed up to 1880. It appeared that the testator 
 wits to liave had a salary, but the amount was 
 never fixed. During the jieriod from 1875 to 
 1880 or 1881 he performed services as engineer 
 for the defenilaiit company, ceitifyi;ig to work 
 done, that the company might o)>tain bonuses, 
 attending meetings and deputations. He also 
 approved of plans of a bridge submitted to him, 
 and in 1878 signed tlie specifications appended 
 to the contract between the company and H. : — 
 Held, Hagnrty. C. .1., dissenting, that there was 
 evidence to go to the jury of a continuing em- 
 ployment of the testator subsecjuent to I87">, and 
 of services rendered as chief engineer within the 
 six years preceding action, notwithstanding the 
 letter written by tiie testator cLiming for ser- 
 vices lip to I87"> only ; and that any inference to 
 lie drawn from the writing of the letter was f<ir 
 the jury and not for the judge to draw ; and a 
 nonsuit was set aside. Per Hsgarty, C. .1. The 
 evidence shewed that the testator, though nomi- 
 nally chief engineer of the defendant company 
 Hubsequuiit to the contract with H., was in fact 
 working for H. to whom he looked for payment. 
 The effect of letters written by the company's 
 president after the original claim had been bar- 
 red, and of reports made to the company of 
 claims against them in which the plaintiff's claim 
 was included, discussed as to their sufficiency to 
 revive the claim. Shanlyw firnnd JiiiicHon H. 
 W. Co., A O. R. 15«. Q. H. I). 
 
 In an action for a debt, to which the defen- 
 dant pleaded the Statute of Limitations, the 
 plaintiff gave in evidence, as constituting ac- 
 knowledgments, (1) a lei/i>er frnn' '.he defendant 
 in which he said : "lam of the opinion that 
 it will be impossible for me to pay you anything 
 until my son's estate is wound up ;' (2) portions 
 of the examination of the defendant, signed by 
 him and taken in a certain other action brongjit 
 for the administration of the son's estate, hav- 
 ing reference to a claim set up by the defendant 
 against the estate, in which he admitted tlie re- 
 ceipt of the money for which the present actirin 
 was brought, ami stated that he was responsilile 
 to the testator of the present idaintifl", who w.ig 
 an executor for it. There was evidence, also, 
 that the son's estate was wound up, and that the 
 defendant received more than siifiiciciit to pay 
 the plaintiff's claim : — Held, affirming the de- 
 cision of Falconbridge, .1., th.it the letter was a 
 suificient aekiiowle<lgment under the statute, 
 and meant that on the son's estate being wound 
 up, the dufendant would pay, and the estate 
 having been wound up, anything conditional in 
 the letter had been iiscertained : — Held, also, 
 that the statute was satisfied by nn acknowludg- 
 ment made and signed as in thetestimimy of the 
 defendant in the administration .tction. Smith 
 r. Foide, 12 Sim. 17, followed. JMiliii v. 
 McMnhoit, IS O. H. 21!».— Chy. I). 
 
 An acknowledgment of a debt, not being a 
 debt by .specialty, to be sufficient under the 
 Statute of [.imitations, must be made to the 
 creditor or t<i hi.s agent. A general acknowledg- 
 ment of liability or an .icknowliMlgment to a 
 third person, is not sufficient. .Judgment of the 
 County Court of Weiitworth aftiriiied. (Innd- 
 manv. /{hi/i.m, 17 A. H. ."i28. 
 
 12. I'aijmi.nt oh Account. 
 
 A promissory note made by the purchaser, and 
 endorsed by his son. w.s given as security for the 
 payment of land sold to the defendant, on wiiich 
 note a payment had been made by the eiuloisers; 
 — Hehl, that such payment was properly appli- 
 cable to reduce the amount remaining due upon 
 the purchase money, and was sufficient to pie- 
 vent the running of the statute. •Shtlcr v. }fai- 
 tirovf, 29Cliy. 3'J2.— lioyd. 
 
 To make a (lart payment take a debt cuu of 
 the bar raised by the Statute of Limitations, it 
 is sufficient if the payment lie made in respect 
 of a larger ilebt which is tlia one sued on. The 
 payment of part is an act from which the iiifcr- 
 erce may be drawn that the debtor intended to 
 pay the balance though no special refeienoc is 
 made thereto at the time <if sucti part payment. 
 JioiiKbn: v. liiirb, !> O. R. 80. -C. P. 1). 
 
 In an action to recover the balance of nn al- 
 leged debt to which the statute Mas pleaded as 
 a oar, the debt was proved as also that several 
 payments were made by the defendants there- 
 on : — Held, that an implied promise to pay the 
 balance might be inferred ; and therefore the 
 statute did not apply. //'. 
 
 Application of unappropriated payments the 
 effei ♦ of which is to take the debts out of the 
 statute. Sec. »'i7.-o» v. Hyirrt, 14 0. R. 
 188. 
 
1^09 
 
 LOAN OF MONET. 
 
 1210 
 
 After the death of one maker of a joint and | 
 several promissory note signed by two, the de- | 
 ceased being a surety only, a payment upon it 
 out of his own moneys and on his own account 
 was made by the surviving maker who wrs the 
 gole executor of his deceased co-maker : — Held, 
 that such payment did not take the debt out of 
 the Statute of Limitations as regards the estate 
 of the latter. Paxton v. Smith, 18 O. R. 17**.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 See SI. John v. Jiykert, 10 8. C. U. 278. 
 
 iS. ilffect of Legal Proceedbuju. 
 
 Held, that a decree in an administration suit, 
 although it may enure to the benelit of all 
 creditors of an estate, does not prevent the I 
 Statute of Limitations from ' running against | 
 debtors to the estate. Archer v. Severn, 12 O. i 
 K. 615.— Proudtoot. I 
 
 0. brought in a claim in certain administra- | 
 tion proceedings on promissory noteii asaijf'ied j 
 to him by H. & Co., under an agreement be- j 
 tweun tliem, which, liowever, was held void for | 
 champerty, and O.'s claim on the notes dis- 
 allowed : (13 O. K, p. 70). O. thereupon, re- 
 delivered the notes to H. & Co. The si.x years 
 allowed by the ^Statute of Limitations had 
 expired before the notes were thus delivered 
 to H. & Co., but not before the date of tlie 
 administration order, nor liefore O. tried to 
 prove ou them in the administration proceed- 
 ings:— Hehl, that the order for adiiunistitition 
 prevented the bar of the Statute of Limitations : 
 — Held, also, that H. & Co. might now assert 
 their title to the notes, and prove on them not- 
 withstanding the former champertous agreement 
 Willi O. He I iiiinon— Oaten v. Caiinim (2) 13 O. 
 R. 705.— Proudfoot. 
 
 14. Particular Statutes. 
 
 The period for bringing an action against a 
 clerk ot a municipality for omitting names from 
 the ciilleutor's roll is not limited to two years 
 under R. tS. U. (1877) c. 61, s. 1. Tuivn of 
 Peterlionnujh v. Edwardx, 31 C. P. 231. — (jalt. 
 
 To a declaration charging negligence in the 
 construction and maintenance i if drains, in order 
 to drain tiie streets of a town, whercliy the 
 drains were choked and the sewage matter over- 
 flowed into plaintiff's premises, defendants 
 pleaded that the cause of action did not a :crue 
 wii.hiu three months : — Held, bad, as sec. 491 of 
 the Municipal Act, B. 8. O. (1877) c 174, did 
 not ajjply. .Sullivan v. Toum of Bariie, 45 tj!. 
 B. 12.— Usler. 
 
 III. Right of Crown to Plead FufiscunTioN. 
 
 Held, that the Statute of limitations is pro- 
 mt ly (tieadable under seution 7 of the Dominion 
 Pet tiouof Kiijht Act, 1876. Tyleev. The Queen, 
 7 SO. R. 051. 
 
 See Charier v. The Queen, 4 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 LIQUIDATOBS. 
 
 See Company. 
 
 S<'e I.NTOXIl!ATIS<! 
 
 LIQUOR 
 
 LiyiOKs- 
 
 LEOTIONS. 
 
 •Paki.iamkntauv 
 
 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 
 
 See Penalty by Conteact. 
 
 LIS PENDENS. 
 
 '' 'li? pendens should not be vacated unless it 
 ii\.' -ars from tlie endorsement on tlie writ or tiie 
 pli .'dings that tlie claim upon the land is not an 
 appropriate remedy. The''e should be clear and 
 almost demoiLstiative proof that the writ is an 
 abuse of the process of the court. Jameson r. 
 Lang, 7 P. Pi. 404, approved of. Shepi>ard v. 
 Ki'imfdy, 10 P. K. 24-i.— Boyd. 
 
 When a plaintiff seeks to register a lis pendens 
 he should l)c more precise in respect to the 
 endorsement on his writ than in ordinary cases, 
 and should define generally the grouud.s of his 
 ol.dniiiig an interest in tla^ lands, lb. 
 
 Action by a creditor of M. to set aside a con- 
 veyance by M. to his wife, as fraiululent : — Held, 
 a proper case in winch to register a certificate of 
 lis pendens, and that pending the action no order 
 could be made to vacate it. Foster v. Mume 
 11 P. R. 447.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where a certificate of lis pendens purporting 
 to be issued in this action was, by an error of 
 an officer of the court, issued before the action 
 was begun, an order was made in the action so 
 declaring and directing that iD be set aside on 
 that ground. iSV. Loiiif v. O'Callugltan, 13 P. 
 R. 322.— Street. 
 
 See M-Tagyart v. Toothe, 10 P. R. 261. 
 
 LIVERY STABLES. 
 
 See MuNicii'AL Cokpokations. 
 
 LOAN COMPANY. 
 
 See Bi:iLDiN(i Societiks. 
 
 LOAN OF MONEY. 
 
 Loans by municipalities to mauufp"turing 
 companies. See Scottiih Amrrkau hwestment 
 Co. V. VilUige of flora, 6 A. R. 628. 
 
 Quivre, whether the power to give would not 
 include power to lend. Ih. 
 
 Where money is lent to be repaid when the 
 borrower is able, his ability may be shewn by a 
 slight amount of evidence, such on is open to 
 public observation, of a ffourishing condition of 
 ids att'aiis, and it is not necess.iry to shew that 
 the borrower is in a position to discharge the 
 debt without inconvenience. Jie Uoss, 2tt Chy. 
 385.— Boyd. 
 
1211 
 
 LUNATIC. 
 
 1212 
 
 LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH. 
 
 .SV«! Publk; Hkalth. 
 
 LOCAL IMPHOVEMENTS. 
 
 Si'r AsalMSMKNT AM) 'I'AXKS. 
 
 LOCAL JUDGE OF HIGH COURT. 
 
 See Pbactick. 
 
 9S» 
 
 LOCAL MASTER. 
 
 See I'UACTICE. 
 
 Held, that the local masters who are paid by 
 fees instead of sal iry, aie eiititlud to cluii'ge one 
 doll.kr per hour in inoiiuy under L-hanuery tarlU', 
 of 2.3rd Murcli, 1875, wiiuu taxing costs. Jlc- 
 Gannon v. Clarke, *J P. U. 555.— Boyd. 
 
 
 t35 
 
 LODGING HOUSE. 
 
 See BoARDiNO Hodse. 
 
 LORD'S DAY. 
 
 jSee Sunday. 
 
 LOST DOCUMENTS. 
 
 See EVIDENCK. 
 
 LOTTERY. 
 
 See U AMINO. 
 
 y : I 
 
 LUGGAGE. 
 
 See Carrikrs— Raiiavays and Railway Com- 
 
 i>ANIKS. 
 
 LUNATIC. 
 
 I. APl'blCATION FOR DkCI.ARATION OF LO- 
 NACV, 1 2 12. 
 
 II. API'OINTMKNT OF GUARDIA.N, 1212. 
 
 III. Maintknance, 1212. 
 
 IV. CoNTRAfllS AND ItKAI.INtlS WITH, 1212. 
 
 V. Actions and PiiocuKDiNd.s by and 
 AoAiNST, I2i:i. 
 
 VI. Mi'.NTAI. Im'AI'AOIIY — V'S FUArO AND 
 M I8RK.I'RK.SEiNTATI0N - - \V ILL. 
 
 I. Applk.'ation for Declaration of Lunact. 
 
 An application was made by petition to de- 
 clare R a lunatic, and the petitioner failing to 
 produce suHicient medical testimony, asked for 
 an order dismissing the petition. Proudfoot, 
 V. C, declined to make such order, but made 
 an order declaring that the court did not see fit 
 to make any order on the application. Jie Ran- 
 dall, 8 P. R. 202. 
 
 See I{e DumbriU, 10 P. R. 216, infra. 
 
 11. Appointment of Guardian. 
 
 On an application under Rule 60, O. .1. Act, 
 (Con. Rule XWa) for an order appointing the 
 oHicial guardian the guardian of one of tim de- 
 fendants, a person of unsound mind, not so 
 found : — HeM, that the motion shoulil be made 
 before the master in chaniliei's. Gnvwford ▼. 
 Vniwloid, P. R. 178.— Proudfoot. 
 
 8ee Waruuck v. Prieur, 12 P, R. 264, p. 12ia 
 
 III. Maintenance. 
 
 A petition was presented by the husband of 
 D. to declare his wife a lunatic, which was op- 
 posed by her. Pending the hearing of tiic pe- 
 tition 1). assigned her separate estatu fur the 
 benefit of her creditors. Tlie court disniisaed 
 the petition. D.'s solicitor presented a petition 
 for taxation of D.'s costs, and for payment by 
 the assignee in priority to the claims ol the 
 creditors : -Held, that the costs of o|iposing the 
 petition might be classed as necess cries which 
 tlie wife is liable to pay out of iiur separate 
 estate, and for which th it estate is liable in the 
 hands of her assignee, but that tliey could not 
 be put <m the footing of maintenance. Such 
 costs should be paid ratibly out of the assctt, 
 and cO:it3 subsequent to the assignment slinuld 
 not rank in competition with creditors befure 
 the assignment. Re DumbriU, 10 P. U. 216.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Money in court to the credit of a lunatic 
 though not so found was directed to be pai4 out 
 in annual sums for maintenance. Re Hindu— 
 HimU V. Jliiidi, 11 P. R. 5. — Ferguson. 
 
 IV. Contracts and Dealinos with. 
 
 The plaintilfs made certain necess iry repaint 
 upon the defeudmt's vess d. At ilie tune the 
 agreement for the repairs was made, one of the 
 plaintiH's knew that the defe idmt was subject 
 to insane delusions, believing that ptople were 
 cons[)irin,ti against him to do him some injury. 
 He, liowevei', superintended the repair.s, and 
 talked intelligently to the wmknicn ein{>liiyed 
 ahout the vessel ; but, soni ' months alter he 
 became violent, and was eoiiKned in an n.sylum 
 for the insane :— Held, that the plaintitis uere 
 entitled to recover for the work done. Rubert- 
 noH V. Kelly, 2 O. U. lu.S.— 0«ler. 
 
 .1., an inf.mt, gave to M. a promissory note 
 for the purchase iminey of a buggy, euiloi'sed 
 by his father, who was of nnaouMil mind, and 
 unable to understand what he Mas doing. The 
 father received no eonsider.aion, ;in<l M. wu 
 not aware of his condition :— Held, on appeal 
 
1213 
 
 MALICIOUS ABBEST AND PBOSEGUTION. 
 
 1214 
 
 « OF LUNACT. 
 
 from the master at Woodstock, aiiiriniug his 
 decisiiin, tliiit the fatlier's estate was iiut liable. 
 RcJamen, DP. R. 8tJ.-Boyd. 
 
 MAQISTBATE. 
 
 See. 
 
 \. 264, p. 12ia 
 
 INGS WITH. 
 
 .Justice of the 
 
 TKATE- 
 
 Peack — PoucK Maqis- 
 
 -Skssions. 
 
 V. Actions and Pboceedisos bv and A(iainst. 
 
 Where a person of unsound mind sues ))y a ; 
 next friend the usual praecipe order that the j 
 plaintiff do produce is proper and is suffieiently j 
 obBved l>y the iilli<lavit of the next friend. 
 rrari*^ v. Bell, 8 P. R. 550.— Boyd. ] 
 
 The coinmiin law right as to the priority of 
 an execution creditor of a lunatic, who h;is an 
 Mecutiou m tliu handa of the sheriff before the 
 lunatic hiis been declared such, will not be in- 
 terfered with by injunction restraining him 
 from realizing under liis writ. la n (Irani, 28 
 Chy. 4.>7. -^pragge. 
 
 In a mortgage action for foreclosure a local 
 master appcnnicd the official guardian to repre- 
 sent a lunatic dcfBudaiit as gunntian ad litem 
 without notice being served, as dincted l)y liule 
 69, 0. J. A., ((\)u. Rule 33()a). The guardian 
 made full inrpiiries, coniuiunicated with the 
 relatives of the lunatic, and put in the usual 
 formal (lelence on beh.df of the lunatic ; and a 
 jmlgment of foreclosure was obtained in chani- 
 l)crs against all the defendants, including in- 
 fants and the lunatic defendant : — Held, that 
 the order appoiutnig the gnardian was an erro- 
 neous one, toi- which there was no pr<^per foun- 
 dation, not a mere irregularity which could be 
 waived by the siibseipient steps t;iken to protect 
 the lunatic's rights. Waini'ck v. Prieur, 12 P. 
 R. 204, Dalton, Manttr.—liQyd. 
 
 Held, also, that the term "adult," in G. O. 
 (Jhy. ()45, ((on. Rule 717). does nut include a 
 lunatic or |ie nuof unbound mind; and therefore 
 that a judg.M'^i^t ag diist a lunatic could not be 
 obtuineil in chamliL-rs under ({. O. Chy. 434, 
 (Con. liule 717). Ih. 
 
 Wheie a delendant in an action becomes of 
 nusdund mind after judgment, it is not proper 
 to notify the otHcial guardian to intervene with- 
 outserving tlie defendant aiul obtaining an order 
 ef the court, by proce lureanalugnus to that pro- 
 vided by Coil. Rules 3.'J.'> to MSS. Rut where a 
 [lerooii has been loniid by the court to be of un- 
 sound mind, the otlioiil guardian may be served 
 witliiiut Older or noiice to the lunatic. Section 
 32 of R. «. O. (1887) c. 44 must be limited to 
 oases mentioned in the marginal note thereto, 
 which ciirri'etly delines the scope of the enact- 
 ment. Wiilff \. 0<iilnj-Jle JJayar, 12 P. R. 
 645.- Hoy d. 
 
 The rule that the solicitor for a party will not 
 be accepted by the court as a bondsman for such 
 party is still in force. The rule was ap|died to 
 the case of the conimitteo ot the person and 
 estate of a lunatic giving a bond for the due per- 
 formance ot her diuies us such coininittee and 
 offering lier two solicitors us sureties. litOib»on, 
 13P.R. 359.— Robertson. 
 
 See A'« Colthart, 9 P. R. 350, p. 911. 
 
 MA.OHINEBY. 
 
 See FlXTfRKS. 
 
 MAINTENANCE. 
 
 I. Ok 1nfant,s — See Infant. 
 II. Of Lunatics — See, Lunatic. 
 
 III. Ok Suits— 6'cc CiiAMPi-BrT. 
 
 IV. Of Wife— See Husband and Wife. 
 
 V. AflKEEMKNTS BETWEEN- PARENT AND 
 
 Child— .SVe Pakknt and Child. 
 
 VI. PkOVISION FOI! FN WiLLS— jScfi VVlLI>. 
 
 MALICIOUS ABBEST, PROSECUTION 
 AND OIHtIB PJ,OC££DIiVaS. 
 
 1. Malicious Arkest. 
 
 1. When Acli n Lies, 1214. 
 
 2. rieadiuii, 1215. 
 
 3. Proof of Malice and Want of Recumn- 
 
 (ihleanl Probable Caiixe, 1215. 
 
 4. Co^U, 12IG. 
 
 II. Malicious Criminal Puoueedinos. 
 
 1. Whi'ii Action Lies, Vl\l, 
 
 2. Pleading, 1218. 
 
 3. Erideiice, 1219. 
 
 4. IteaHO'iahlc and Probable Caime, 1220. 
 
 5. Quesiioii In he left by Judije to the 
 
 J urn, 12J2. 
 ti. Damnijex, 1223. 
 
 III. Othek Malicious Proceedings. 
 
 1 . Proc-'tdini/n in Bankruptcy, 1223. 
 
 2. Imuinij Execution, 1224. 
 
 3. Ixnuing Injunction, 1224. 
 
 4. Ketmiral of Arbitrator, 1225. 
 
 IV. Actions against Magistrates- (Sfee 
 Justice ok the Peace. 
 
 V. Nf.w Trials in (^ases of— See New 
 Tkials. 
 
 I. Malicious Arrest. 
 
 I. When Action Lien. 
 
 It is not essential to the maintenance of an 
 action for maliciously |irocuriiig a judge's order 
 to hold to bail, that the order for ciie arrest 
 should be set aside, or th it the plaintiif should 
 priiciire himself to be discharged outof eustoily. 
 (Burton, .J. A., dissenting ) Such an order if 
 obtained regularly and on sufficient material 
 cannot (save in very rare and exci-ptlonal cikses) 
 be rescinded or set a>ide on the merits. Erick- 
 MOHV. Braiul, 14 A. R. (il4. 
 
 A corporation may be liable for false imprison- 
 ment uiiiler an order of its agent acting within 
 the scope of his authority. Lydtii v. McQee, 
 1«0. R. 105.— C. P. I). 
 
1215 
 
 MALICIOUS ARREST AND PROSECUTION. 
 
 121& 
 
 2. Pleadhuj. 
 
 MS 
 
 en 
 
 ^ IfBP 
 
 -II: 
 
 In an autioiu'ormaliciouH arrest the jury found 
 a general verdict for the phiiiititf, with 82U0 
 damages. They also specially found, in answer 
 to a question put to tliem, " that the defen- 
 dant honestly believed that hia duty as con- 
 stable called upon liini to make the arrest. " The 
 judge thereupon entered a nonsuit, holding that 
 the defendant should have received notice of 
 action. The general issue by statute R. S. 0. 
 (1877), c. 73, was not pleaded, and the statement 
 of defence was not framed so us to enable the de- 
 fendant to avail himself of it ; and the court were 
 of opinion under the facts, set out in the report, 
 that there was no evidence on which the special 
 finding of the jury could be supported :— Held, 
 that the nonsuit must be set aside, and judgment 
 entered for the plaintiff, with $200 dama^^es as 
 assessed. If the statute has not been pleaded 
 honest lielief is no defence, if there existed no 
 reasonable ground for such belief. McKay v. 
 Cnmminijs, 6 O. R. 400.— C. P. D. 
 
 In an action for malicious arrest the state- 
 ment of defence sut up that there was a war- 
 rant in the hands of a constable for the appre- 
 hension of the plaiutitl' on a charge of niisde- 
 meunour ; tint tlie plaintitl' was avoiding arrest ; 
 that the defendants therefore watched him and 
 when he endeavoured to escape detaineil him 
 until the arrival of tlie constable, and then gave 
 him into custody ; and that the defendants djd 
 this in the bonil fide belief that they were justi- 
 fied in thus aiding the arrest: — Held, that al- 
 though these facts did not constitute an answer 
 to the action, yet they could be given in evi- 
 dence in mitigation of dania<;e3, and therefore 
 it was proper that they should appear upon the 
 record. Fur-tley v. BeHnelt, IIP. 1{. 64. — Rose. 
 
 Y. issued a capias before judgment against V. 
 and had him arrest, d. After the arrest V. ten- 
 dered $80 in full of Y.'s claim, whicli was re- 
 fused as not being sufficient. Y. then pro- 
 ceeded witii his action, but failed to obtain a 
 judgment for more than $9U. In an action by 
 V. against Y.. claiming (htinages for wrongful 
 arrest, in which no in lice was alleged : — Held, 
 on demurrer, that malice woidil not be inferred, 
 because so far as a|>|icired from the pleadings 
 Y. had reasonable and probable cause for think- 
 ing that V. (iwetl liiin more than $90, and as 
 malice was not allege i, the demurrer must be 
 allowed with costs. Vaudervoort v. Yuuker, 13 
 O. R. 417.— Ferguson. 
 
 3. Proof of Malice, inid Want of Reasonable and 
 Probable Cauw. 
 
 S., a debtor resi'lent in Ontario, being on the 
 eve of departure for a trip to Kuroi)c, p:i8sed 
 through the city oi M<intreal, and while there 
 refused to make a settlement of an overdue debt 
 with his creilitors, McK. etal., who had in»ti- 
 tuted legal procectUngs in Ontario to recover 
 their debt, wliich proceedings were still pending. 
 MoK. etal. ther' upon caused him to be arrested 
 and 8. paid the <li-lit. >ulisequently S. claimed 
 damages from M K. ct al. for the malicious is- 
 sue ami execution of the writ of capias. McK. 
 ot al.. tlie respondents, on appeal, relied on a 
 plea of ju8tifiuati<m, allei^ing that when they ar- 
 reated the appeU..ut, they acted with reasouable 
 
 and probable cause. In his aihdavit the rensoiia 
 given by the deponent McK., one of the dtfeii- 
 dants, for his belief that the appellant woti 
 about to leave the Province of (!anada, were ii» 
 follows: — "That Mr. P., the deponent's partner, 
 was informed last night in Toronto by one H,^ 
 a broker, that the said VV. J. 8. was leaviii" 
 immediately the Dominion of Canada, to crosn 
 over the sea for Knrope or parts unknown, and 
 defendant was himself informed, this day, by 
 J. II., broker, of the said \V. J. S.'s departure 
 for Europe and other places." The appellant 
 S. was carrying on business as a wholesale gro- 
 cer at Toronto, and was leaving with his son for 
 the Paris exhibititm, and there was evidence 
 that he was in the habit of crossing almost every 
 year, and that his banker and all his biisinesa 
 friends knew that he was only leaving for a 
 trip ; and there was no evidence that the depo- 
 nent had been informed that appellant was leav- 
 ing with intent to defrautl. There was also evi- 
 dence given by McK., that after the issue of the 
 capias, but before its execution, the deponent 
 asked plaintiff for the payment of what was 
 due to him, and that plaintiff answered him 
 "that S. would not pay him, that he might get 
 his money the best way he could" :- Held, tliat 
 the affidavit was defective, there being no sulK- 
 cient reasonable and probable cause stated for 
 believing that the debtor was leaving with in- 
 tent to (Tefraud his creditors ; and that the evi- 
 dence shewed the resp<mdent had no rea.soiiable 
 and probable cause for issuing the writ of capias 
 in question. Shaw v. McKenzie, (i S. C R. 181. 
 
 The defendant in his application for the order 
 to hold to bail by his affidavit made out a prima 
 facie case, but certain facts and oircuinstaiices 
 were omitted therefrom, which, it was con- 
 tended, might, if stated, have satisfied the judge 
 granting the order, that, although the plaiiititf 
 was about to depart from the province, it was 
 not with intent to defraud, etc. At the trial 
 the plaintiff was nonsuited, the judge holding 
 that he had failed to shew a want of rea.'sonalile 
 and probable cause. The Divisional Court set 
 aside the nonsuit and gianted a new trial:— 
 Held, upon the evidence, affirming this juilg- 
 ment (Patterson, J. A., dubitante), the facts 
 upon which the ej^isteiicu of reasonable ami pro- 
 bable cause depended being in di-pute, the judge 
 was not ill a position to decide that ({Uestion 
 until the jury had found upon the facts, trem- 
 ble, per Patterson, J. A., the eviilonce sulii- 
 ciently shewed that there was no want of reasim- 
 able and probable cause ; and that the omitted 
 facts were not material to have been stated in 
 the alHilavit. Erkkion v. Brand, 14 A, R. 014. 
 
 4. Costs. 
 
 Defendant was arrested and held to bail for a 
 debt alleged by plaintiff to bo $704, but the 
 plaintiff recovered only $489. As to $80 which 
 the plaintill' failed to recover, it was hehl on the 
 facts stated in the report of the case that he had 
 no reasonable groiiml for believing defrndant to 
 be liable and he abandoned it at the trial, but as 
 to the other portion for which he failed he had 
 reasonable ground :— Held, the defendant was 
 entitled to tax his costs of defence ag.unst the 
 plaintiff under R. S. (>. (1877), c. M, s. 343. 
 Porritt v. Fra.>er, 8 1'. R. 43U.— Osier. 
 
1217 
 
 MALICIOUS ARREST AND PROSECUTION. 
 
 1218 
 
 t the reasons 
 jf the (leferi- 
 jpeUunt was 
 lada, Were m 
 int's partner, 
 D by (luu H., 
 was leavini; 
 ada, to cross 
 iikiiuwii, and 
 this day, l)y 
 .'a <leparture 
 he appellant 
 'hulcsule gro- 
 bh his son for 
 ivas evidence 
 almost every 
 Ids bnsinuss 
 leaving for a 
 lat the depo- 
 lant was leav- 
 ' was also evi- 
 ic issue ot the 
 the deponent 
 of wh;it was 
 Liisvvureil him 
 . he nught get 
 :- Held, that 
 being no sutfi- 
 ise staled for 
 iviiig with in- 
 
 I that tlie evi- 
 no reasonable 
 writ of uapias 
 i S. C. R. 181. 
 
 II for the order 
 le out a prima 
 uircunistcinces 
 
 it was con- 
 iHcd the judge 
 1 the plaiiitilf 
 •ovince, it was 
 
 At the trial 
 
 judge liolding 
 
 of l■ea^souallle 
 
 uial Court set 
 
 new trial :— 
 mg tliis judg- 
 ite), the facts 
 nable and pro- 
 )ule, ilu; judge 
 
 that (luostion 
 
 facts. >em- 
 jvidence sutB- 
 vantnt reasiin- 
 ut the oudtted 
 )eeii stated in 
 
 14 A. B. 014. 
 
 Id to bail for a 
 $701, but the 
 8 to $80 wliich 
 ms liehl on the 
 ise that he had 
 g defi iidant to 
 Ate trial, but aa 
 
 f.iiled he had 
 defnulant »a8 
 uue against the 
 
 c. M, a. 343. 
 Jsler. 
 
 II. Malicious Criminai. I'kockkiuncs. 
 
 1, When Action IJi-i. 
 
 Tlie deoliiration alleged that the defendant 
 laid an infoniiiition that certain harne:js had l>een 
 stolen by the plaintitl', whereas the informution 
 proved was tiualitied l)y the addition of tlie 
 words " as he supposed : " — Held, alKnning the 
 judgment of the County Court, no varianee. It 
 was sliewn that the information was laid by the 
 defendant on the advice of the magistrate, and 
 that he did not interfere in the issue of the 
 warrant for the plaintiff's arrest, but it was 
 proved that the information contained the sub- 
 stance of the statements made by thedefen<]ant, 
 which justified the warrant :--Held, there being 
 an absence of reasonable and probable cause, 
 that the defendant was liable, t'dlln rl v. Hhkx, 
 5 A. R. oTl. 
 
 In duly, 1S78, on returning with the defen- 
 dant from cashing a draft whieli the plaintitl'had 
 received from Scotlan<l, tiie pliiintitt' l)oasted to 
 defendant that he was going to get very niucli 
 larger remittances in May, KSTll, and ISSO, l)ut 
 there was nothing to shew that the stateiiient 
 was made with a view to obtaining credit. 
 Nearly the wlnde of the proceeds of the draft, 
 after i)aying defendant an account then due for 
 goods obtained, was deposited witli the defen- 
 dant, the plaintid' continuing to deal with him 
 until not only the whole <pf the sum was ab- 
 sorlied, but a further indeltediicss had been 
 incurred. The defendant cai sed a warrant to 
 be issneil to arrest the pla'ntiP. for obtaining 
 goods under false pretenci s, tiiough with the 
 real object of obtaining a settlement of his 
 account. .-Xfter the plaintiff was arrested and 
 brought Ijcfore the magistrate be was allowed to 
 go on his own recognizance to appear next day, 
 hut being unwell he ctnild not appear, ami the 
 charge not being pressed by the difendant. and 
 the magistrate not thinking there was sutlicient 
 evidence to connnit, the matter was allowed to 
 drop:— Held, that though the evidence shewed 
 that the ebarite was not legally sustainable, yet 
 if the defendant acted bona tide, wliich was a 
 matter for the jury, he would bi' jiistilied in 
 prosecuting: — Held, also, that it siilliciently 
 up|ieared that the prosecution had terminated. 
 The warrant was issued In tho united counties 
 of N'orthumberland and Durham and was en- 
 dorsed by the ningistrate in the county of 
 Peterborough, "This is to certify that I have 
 endorsed this warrant, to be executed in the 
 county of IVterbonmgh," hut there was noiiroof 
 of the handwriting of the justice who issued the 
 warrant, or recital of such proof, as reijuired by 
 :H:{;»Vict. e. ;«), s. 2:1 (Dom.), Sched. K. :- 
 Htlil, that tlie warrant w,is t'lerefoic defective 
 and the arrest illegal, for which defendant was 
 liable in trespass. Under the eircumstances, a 
 verdict having been entered f<u' the defendant, 
 a new tiial was ordered, livid v. Mai/lii'c, 31 
 ('. I'. 384.- C. P. 1). 
 
 In an action for malicious imiseeution, the iu- 
 forination and wariant of conunitmeiit merely 
 (liscloseil a civil tresjiass. The ])laiiitill' was non- 
 mitcd at the trial. It appeai'e4l. however, that 
 the (iefeinlants bad not disclosetl tle> whole 
 facts to the magistrate, and that, at the hearing, 
 on the iilaintilTs s(dieitoi' cdijeeting that no 
 criminal idlence was charged, one of the defen- 
 
 77 
 
 dants said that in order to have the ease investi- 
 gated he would charge the plaintitl' with stealing 
 the oats. The statement of claim alleged that 
 the defendants had charged the plaintiff with 
 , felony. The court set aside the nonsuit, and 
 granted a new trial, with leave to the plaintiff to 
 amend the statement of claim necoriling to the 
 facts. Per Wilson, C. J. Sendde that the facts 
 I stated above were evidence that tlie defendants 
 I were putting tho criminal law in motion; and 
 I the information and warrant being invalid, they 
 were liable as trespassers. Per Osier, J. Qua>re, 
 as to this, and whether an action for malicious 
 prosecution will lie for making a false and mali- 
 cious statement to a magistrate, shewing nothing 
 which conferred jurisdiction on him, but on 
 which, nevertheless, he acts by issuing a war- 
 rant. Macdonuld v. lieu wood, 32 C. P. 433. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Hehl, that an action for malicious jiro.secution 
 will lie for issuing a search warrant without rea- 
 sonable and probable cause. Abratli r. North 
 Kasterii R. \V. Co., 11 Q. B. 1). 7!», 440. com- 
 mented on. Yoaiii/ V. Nicho/, !1 (). IS. 347. — 
 C. P. I). 
 
 In an action for falsely anil maliciously charg- 
 ing the plaintiff with obtaining money from the 
 defendant by false pretences, and for arresting 
 and luosecuting liiiii therefor befure the police 
 magistrate of Helleville, appointed by the (iov- 
 ernment of the Province of Ontario, and who, it 
 was alleged, had no jurisdiction to act, it being 
 contended that such appointment properly lay 
 with the Dominion (Jovernnient : — Heht, that a 
 person could not be considered a trespasser 
 merely by laying an information before a police 
 magistrate so appointed, charging another with 
 a crime, and praying therein that a warrant 
 might be issued for his arrest. /{irhardsDii v. 
 llaii^oDi, 10 O. R. 387.— Q. R. D. 
 
 Where a party pays under ))rotest a jieiialty 
 imposed upon him liy a justice of the peace in 
 proceediiiiis taken ayainst liim under the luovi- 
 sions of chapter '2'2 of the Consididated Statutes of 
 Lower Canada, " An act respecting good order 
 in and near places of public worship," and such 
 party afterwards brings an action in damages 
 against the person, whom lie alleged had niali 
 cioHsly instigated such proceedings, and at a trial 
 before a jury there is no evidence of the favour- 
 able termination of the prosecution against him, 
 the court were equally divided as to the right of 
 such l>arty to maintain his action. Sir W. 
 J. Ritchie, C. d., and Strong and Ta.sebereau, 
 .IJ., were of opinion that the action could not bo 
 inaiiitained under such circumstances, ami Foiir- 
 nier, Henry and (iwynne J.J. contra. The a|i- 
 peal was in eonsequence dismissed without costs. 
 I'oilms v. LcBeaii, 14 S. C. R. 742. 
 
 See Wii,/ie/d v. Kmn, 1 O. R. 103. p. 1'2'22 ; 
 Lijdcn v. kcO'<e, 16 O. R. 103, p. 1223. 
 
 2. Plendiuij. 
 
 In an action for malicious jirosecution, a jiart 
 
 of the statement of claim setting ont.the ob.«er- 
 
 j vatioiis of the judge before whom the plaintiff 
 
 I was tried upon the criminal charge out of w liicli 
 
 the action arose, was struck out ; but a part 
 
 I stating damage to the plaintiff from puldication 
 
 of such charge in newspapers and otherwise by 
 
 ll 
 
 
MS 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 1219 
 
 MALICIOUS ARREST AND PROSECUTION. 
 
 1220 
 
 defuiul.mts, was allowed to stnnil. Morrow v. 
 Cheyiic, 12 P. K. -iST.— Daltuii, Manter. 
 
 See M(i cdonald v Hen n-ooil, 32 C P. 433, p . 1 2 1 8 . 
 
 actiny, consulted the comity uttnniey, whicii was 
 rejected : — Held, that tlie rejeotion was proper. 
 
 3. Eridencc 
 
 In an action for malicious prosecution, on the 
 opening of the defence the defendant was calleil, 
 and stated that he had learned some facts f i om 
 certain persons upon whicii lie had caused the 
 plaintiff to be arrested ; but on pniceuding to 
 state what he hail heard, the judge ruled that 
 this was inadmissible, and that the persons 
 who had told him these facts should first l)e 
 called. They were then called and examined, 
 and afterwards the defendant gave his evidence 
 as to what they had told him. The jury found 
 a verilict for plaintifT with .?500 (hunages : - 
 Held, that the evidence was improperly lejircted 
 when offered; but, Armour, J., dissenting, that 
 as it had afterwards been received, no .sul)atan- 
 tial wrong or miscarriage having been occasioned 
 by the ruling, and the verdict being satisiactory. 
 a new trial should be refused under section 2S!> 
 of the C. L. P. Act. Bernard v. CotUelUer, 4") 
 Q. B. 453. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Action for malicious prosecution and slander. 
 The inaiiciouM prosecution arose out of a ch.iigc 
 before a magistrate anilasulise<|ueiit indictment 
 preferred at the cpiarter sessioiii-. In proof ot 
 the termination of the criminal pi'ocei'ilings, tiie 
 pliiintilf produced in evidence, which w.is ad- 
 mitted subject to objection, the original indict- 
 ment endorsed '• no bill : " Held, that this w is 
 not sulHcient, but that a record should have 
 been regularly drawn up and an examined copy 
 produced : — Held, also, that eviilence of the 
 motives which induced the defend.int to lay the 
 charge before the magistrate was properly re- 
 ceivable, and should not have been rejected as 
 was done here. McUaiin v. I'reiieoeau, 10 O. R. 
 673. -C. P. D. 
 
 In an action for malicious prosecution, it ap- 
 peared that the plaintiffs father sold a buggy to 
 H. for §115, to be made in two payments of $.")S 
 and §.")7 respectively, and until paid the title and 
 right of property were to remain in the vendor. 
 B;f"re the purchase money was paid R. sold the 
 buggy *o defendant, a livery stable keeper. The 
 plaintifTs father, on hearing of this, directed the 
 plaintiff to go and take it from defendant, which 
 he did, informing those at defendant's place that 
 plaintiff could be seen at an hotel named. The 
 defendant, on his return, went and saw the 
 plaintiff, who told him he was acting under in- 
 structions from his father, who claimed to be the 
 owier of the buggy, but, notwithstanding, the 
 defendant caused the plaintiff to be arrested for 
 larceny, and he was committed for trial, and was 
 8ubse(|uently tried and acipiitted. The jury 
 found for the plaintiff: — Hehl, on the evidence, 
 the verdict could not be interfered with. Scowjiill 
 V. Stapklon, 12 O. R. 20«.--C. P. D. 
 
 The defenilant set up that before causing the 
 arrest h« consulted a lawyer, but the jury found 
 that the plaintiff did not give a full and true ac- 
 count of tne case : — He'd, that this ground failed. 
 76. 
 
 Evidence was offered that the magistrato, 
 against whom there was no charge, had, before 
 
 I rejcc 
 \lb. 
 
 In an action for damages for falsely and mali- 
 ciously and without reasonable and probable 
 cause i>reforring a cliaige of perjury, and also 
 a charge of obtaining a valuable security by 
 false pretences, the defendant averred that the 
 plaintiff and one J. conspired together to obtain 
 two jironiissory notes from the defendant by 
 false pretences ; that the pl;iintiff lirst visited 
 the defendant, and by fiaiul and falsehooil in- 
 duced him to ent r into a contract to purchase 
 hayforks, and that .1. followed him in course of 
 time, in pursuance of their fraudulent scheme, 
 and by fraud and falseliooil and false prett-nccn 
 obtained the notes : — Held, that upon examina- 
 tion of the plaintiff for disciverv the defendant 
 should be permitted to intpiire into tins cb^alingn 
 between the plaintitl and .J., fully and freely to 
 ascertain whether J. and the pliintilf were act- 
 ing in concert, and whether any talse pretence 
 made W J. was in fact a false pretence by the 
 pi dntiff, and for this imrpose might investigate 
 all sales of forks nnide by the ]il.iintitror J., or 
 either of them under any aui'eement or ai range- 
 ment, and the history of all notes received in 
 carrying out such sales, and all entries in the 
 plaiiitirt's bill books and all other books relating 
 to such transactions. Colter v. Mel'licrmn, 12 
 P. H. (130. -Rose. 
 
 In an .ictioii for false arrest and malicions 
 prosecution arising out of a false iniorniatioii 
 laid by defendant, a certified copy of the infoi- 
 nuition having been put in ami objected to at the 
 trial, leave was given underC'on. Riile<)70, to put 
 in the original afterwards, as also an exeiiiplificv 
 tion of the jiulgment of aciputtal, it apiieaiing 
 that the merits were not with the defendant, 
 Hamilton v. liniatch — lirodtrirk v. Jiniatch, 17 
 O. R. 079. —Rose. 
 
 In an action for malicious prosecution the claim 
 which was put in i.s8ue was that defendant did 
 on a certain d.iy charge plaintiff with having on 
 two or three occasions conunitted wilful per- 
 jury. The judge at the trial ruled that the 
 detendant could not go into evdence to contra- 
 dict plaintiff on his statement as to the perjury, 
 or to establish the truth of the faets ilesircd to 
 be set up :— Hehl, that the ruling without quali- 
 lication was too broad ; for though a defendant 
 in an action for malicious prosecution is not 
 bound to prove the plaintiff's guilt as charged in 
 the criminal proceedings, still he is at liiierty to do 
 so if it be necessary to establish reasonable and 
 probable cause :— Quiere, as to the onus being on 
 the plaintiff to establish his innocence. Watty. 
 Clark; 18 U. R. GOi.—C. P. U. 
 
 See Youmj v. Xichol, 9 O. R. 347, p. 1223. 
 
 4. Reasonahk and Probable Catue. 
 
 The plaintiff at IJrantford having corresponded 
 with the defendant at Hamilton, as to purchas- 
 ing ice. defendant on 7th Septeml)er, notified 
 plaintiff by telegram that the ice would not be 
 sent unless plaintiff telegianhe I money to cover 
 freight and ice, to which pi intiff answered that 
 the money was paid to the express company, and 
 to send a full car, whicli was done. No money 
 had, Iiowever, been paid to the express com- 
 
 1-4^- 
 
1221 
 
 MALICIOUS ARREST AND PROSEOUTION. 
 
 1222 
 
 ■y, which was 
 
 II was proper. 
 
 ely iviul maU- 
 luid jirobable 
 ury, aiicl also 
 i seounty by 
 ;rreil tliat the 
 iher to obtain 
 (lifeii(hiiit by 
 If lirsl visited 
 falHi'llooil in- 
 L't to imichaae 
 
 III in uoiii'su ui 
 luleiil sclicme, 
 tiilsi; pretinccD 
 upon cxamina- 
 
 the (k'ffiiilant 
 to tiut (li^alingii 
 y iunl freely to 
 iiitill' wire act- 
 
 liilse pretence 
 n'eti'iico by tile 
 iglit iiivt'stigate 
 
 lint ill' c.r J., or 
 lent or arrange- 
 iti's received in 
 ,1 (jiitneM in tlie 
 r hooks* relating 
 
 MePlurmit, \i 
 
 t auil nialicinns 
 ilae iiilorinatioH 
 ipy of tile nifor- 
 l)jeete(ltoattlie 
 Rule (i70, to put 
 p ,111 exeiiiplifica- 
 tal, it ainiearing 
 the defendant. 
 k V. lirtiMch, 17 
 
 edition the claipi 
 it defendant did 
 1' witli having on 
 tted wilful per- 
 1 luled lliat the 
 
 ileiiee to eontra- 
 IS to the perjury, 
 ; fii>t8 ilesired to 
 iig without quali- 
 iiigh a defendant 
 •osecution is not 
 uilt as charged in 
 ; is at liberty to do 
 ,h reasmahle and 
 
 the onus being on 
 ioceiice. Watt v. 
 
 347, p. 1223. 
 
 )able Catise. 
 .ving corresponded 
 nil, M to pnrchM- 
 spteinher, notified 
 . ice would not be 
 13,1 money to cover 
 iitiff answered that 
 
 iress coinpiiny, and 
 done. No money 
 the express com- 
 
 pany. On 9th September, defendant telegraphed 
 plaintitf asking what he meant. Tiie plaintitl' 
 replied that he hud paid the hank the day lie- 
 f((ie, and to send a car for Monday morning. 
 Tlie defendant, relying on this representation, 
 
 ghippeil same to pl.iiiititl'on the following day 
 The iilaiiititf had, oil 9tli .Septemlier, depositci 
 |;<0 with a hank in Hrantford to defendant's 
 credit, snpjiosingit would lie tr.msinitted to de- 
 fendant, wliich was not done. Oil 1st October 
 defendant wrote plaintit! that unless he sent the 
 full amount of aeeount defendant would have to 
 take criminal proceedings. On7tli October, the 
 defendant not having received a re|dy from the 
 plaintiff, consulted his solicitor, wlio, defendant 
 said, advised that plaiiititf was guilty <if a crimi- 
 nal olfence, and to have him arrested. 'I'iie de- 
 fendant accordingly went to ]Jrantford, laid in- 
 formation before the police magistrate, who 
 issued a warrant under which plaintiff was ar- 
 rested. On the case coming before the police 
 magistrate, tlic plaintitf's statement as to the 
 deposit of the money in the bank, was proved to 
 be true, whereupon the magistrate stateil that 
 there was no gnuind for tlie arrest and dis- 
 missed tiie case. In an action for malicious ar- 
 rest, the jury found that the defendant hi;lieved 
 the plaintiff had not deposited the money with 
 the t'.\i)ress company or with the bank, but thathe | 
 had not reasonable gnmiids for so believing, and 
 did not t.ike reasonable means to prove the truth 
 of the plaintiff" .•* statement ; and also that it was 
 dimbtful wlicther defendant truly represented 
 the facts to his solicitor, and that he did not do 
 go to the police magistrate: — Held, (reversing 
 the judgment of Cameron, C. J., at the trial), 
 under tlie circumstances, there was a want of 
 reason ilde and probable cause ; ami the plaintiff 
 was untitled to recover. Mch'ill v. Walton, 15 
 0. R. 380. -C. V. D. 
 
 riaintilf who was in occupation of a house on 
 a farm of the defendant's cut off' the ends of 
 some bigs used in the construction of a small 
 building, which logs were so old and rotten that 
 they bad fallen out of their places in the build- 
 ing and the ends restud on the ground. Defen- 
 dant had pbiiiitilf arrested and imprisoned on a 
 charge of " unlawful and malicious injury to 
 to bis property," but tli'i m igistrate dismissed 
 the case. In an action for malicious prosecution 
 the jury found in answer to questions submitted 
 by the judge that the defendant had not reascm- 
 ablegrounii for believing tliat plaintiff had un- 
 lawfully and maliciously injured the property 
 and did not take care to inform himself as to the 
 facts, and was actuated by other motives than 
 the vindication of the law in laying the informa- 
 tion, and assessed the damages at $IUO. On 
 motion to Set .aside the verilict the application 
 was ilisniissed. Per IJoyd, C It was open to 
 the jury to find that the wood was of no value, 
 and that the injury was of too trifling a character 
 to justify tlie defendant in setting the criminal 
 law in motion, and that was evidently the mean- 
 ing of their answers to the questions. If there 
 was no actual p^isitive damage proved, the 
 plaintilf was not chargeable under R. S. C. 168 
 69. Held, also that it Wiis proper to leave the 
 whole case to tlie jury, and the questions were 
 sufficient for that purpose, and the jury having 
 foaiid a want of reason ible care on the part of 
 defendant to inform himself of the true state of 
 the cikse was a sutficieat justificatioa for holding 
 
 that there was a want of reasonable and probable 
 cause. I'er Ferguson, J. — 'I'lie jury virtually 
 found that the property said to be injured was 
 of no appreciable value, and that being the ciuse 
 such facts and circumstances diil not exist as 
 were necessary to constitute reasonable and pro- 
 bable cause for the prosecution. Webher v. 
 McLtoil, 18 O. R. 009. -Chy. D. 
 
 See Reid v. Mai/hee, 31 C. P. liSt, p. 1217 ; 
 Famcett v. Winter^, 12 P. H. 232. 
 
 5. (JiientioH to he !<■// hi/ Jiidije to the Jury. 
 
 In an action for malicious prosecution the 
 want of reasonable and probable cause does not 
 necessarily establish that malice uhicli is requi- 
 site to maintain the action, 'riicjefore where 
 the jury were directed, in the course of the 
 charge, that if a pcrsim makes a charge against 
 another for the purpose of his being arraigned 
 upon it without being justified in point of law, 
 then he does it maliciously : th.it they need not 
 trouble themselves with a question of malice 
 except as it might be inferred from w.iiit of 
 reisonable and probable cause, and that if the 
 information li.id been laid witiiout proper cause 
 the result would be that it w.is laid maliciously ; 
 and the plaintiff obtained a verdict of i|$500 : — 
 Held, misdirection, for which a new trial sliould 
 be granted. Per Hagirty, C. J., dissenting. — 
 Tliougii the directions standing alonu might be 
 open to criticism, the charge must be re.id as a 
 whole ; but as the jury were afterwards told 
 repeatedly that they sliould find for ilefendant 
 if they thought th.tt he believed the matters 
 sworn tu in his information, there was no mis- 
 direction which would warrant interference with 
 the plaintiff's verdict. Where the damages are 
 laige, and to a great extent sentimental, this 
 may well be considered in deciding whether 
 tliere has been a substantial wrong caused l>y a 
 clear misdirection. Wiiijivld v. Keaii, 1 O. R. 
 193.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A rolibery having been committed at the de- 
 fendant's store a bill of an account due by the 
 plaintiff to the defendant, wliich it was alleged 
 bad been rendered some time previously, was 
 I found lying near by, which from its crumped 
 appearan e indicated that it had been carried 
 about for some time in a person's pocket. From 
 this the defendant said be suspjcted some one iu 
 the plaintitf's house, ami he went to a magis- 
 trate and laid an in'orination, up>m which a 
 search warrant was issued, and tlie plaintiff's 
 house Si^arohed, but none of the stolen goods 
 were found tlierein and no arrest w.is made. It 
 appeared that the account which was found had 
 never been sent to the plaintilf but a similar one 
 had, the defendant stating that when he c.iused 
 the search warrant to be issued, he was un ler 
 the belief that the account had been sent, having 
 forgotten the fact that it had not been. In un 
 action for malicious prosecution, the learned 
 judge entered a verdict for the defendant, hold- 
 ing ttiat tlie plaintilf had failed to show that the 
 delendaiit acted without reasonable arid probable 
 cause :— Held, tliere must be a new trial ; that 
 it should have been submitted to the jury to 
 say : 1. Wnether the account was seat to the 
 plaintiff ; 2. W is it found as alleged ; 3. If not 
 sent, did the defendant believe it had biien so 
 sent ; and, 4. If defendant did so believe, were 
 
 I 
 
1223 
 
 MALICIOUS ARBEST AND PROSEOUTION. 
 
 1224 
 
 9a» 
 
 the ciruuiiistaiictii such ua to wiuniiit a i'uuhoii- 
 able man of ordiiiaiy piiuleiicu in fdriuing such 
 belief ; mid, {ler Rose, J., it might lie nt'cessivry 
 also tosuhinit to tiie jury tlie i|iiL'Htioii, whether 
 it wuii u prudent and I'easunahle thing for the 
 defendant to lelv on his nieniory. yonii<i v. 
 Nichol, 9 0. 1{. 347.— C. P. 1). 
 
 Action of tresjiass for false iniprisoument. 
 The phiintiti' MiiH arrested, as alleged, by direc- 
 tion of the defendantH' agent, the treasurer of 
 the defendant asi-oujatioii. On being lirought 
 before the police magistrate, the defendants ilid 
 not appear to prosecute, wiien the ])()lice niiigis- 
 tratc I'tiiianded pluintilt, and subsequently dis- 
 missed the charge, and discharged the plaintitf. 
 At the trial the judge charged the jury that it 
 was not necessary to encpiire whether or not the 
 plaintitr was guilty of the crime charged against 
 him, for by his ac(juiltal he must be taken to 
 have been not guilty, and the fact that M. 
 believed him guilty was no excuse. If G. had 
 laid an information, it would have been difl'er- 
 ent, but not having done so, the only (piestion 
 was whether he gave plaintiff into cusndy : — 
 Held, niisdirectiim ; fdr tlie defendant M. was 
 justitied in ordering the plaintiti's arrest if a 
 felony was conimitlcd, and he had reasonable 
 and probable cause to suspect that plaintiU com- 
 mitted the felony : — Held, also, that the ilefen- 
 <lants could only be liable tor the damage pro- 
 ceeding tiiiui the arrest, and not for the subs-c- 
 (juent pioceediiigs. Lijilen v. Mrilce., IG O. K. 
 105. -C. P. 1). 
 
 Where a man has been prosecuted for an as- 
 sault, and brings an action for malicious prose- 
 cution, the finding that there was in fact an 
 assault is not decisi\e ot the (picstion whether 
 there was reasonable and probable cause for the 
 pn>aecutioii ; the plaintilt' is entitled to have the 
 circumstances relied on as justitication for the 
 assault submitted to tbe jury, and to have their 
 tindiiig as to whether the defendant was consci- 
 ous when he laid the infoimution that he hud 
 iK'cn ill the wrong. A new trial granted on the 
 ground of misdirection, hiiiton v. Heather, 14 
 M. & W. 131, lolldwed. >Suttoii v. Johnstone, 
 1 T. R. 4'J3, tlistinguished. lioutlmr v. Ale- 
 Lanrin, ISO. R. llL'.— Q. B. I). 
 
 (i. Damaijeit. 
 See Lydtn v. McUtf, 10 O. R. 105, nupra, 
 
 III. Other Malicious Pk(k;eei)in(!.s. 
 
 1. Proceedingn in Bankruptcy. 
 
 Held, that an action will lie by a debtor 
 against a creditor to recover damages for falsely 
 and maliciou^ly making a demand lor an assign- 
 ment, under the fourth section of the Insolvent 
 Act of 1875 and amending Acts, ai:'l that his 
 remedy is not conhned to the imposition of treble 
 costs under section 5. Nuijit v. Tinimiun, 31 C. 
 P. 221.-(Jalt. 
 
 To such action, the defendants' third plea, 
 after setting up u variety of dealings between 
 the parties shewing that the plaintitl had trom 
 time to time failed to meet his engagements 
 
 with defendants, concluded, that the plaiiitiD" 
 being indebted to the defendants in the sum of 
 ij|Sl,400, and being unable to pay the same or to 
 meet liis eiigageinents, and the ])laiiititl' being 
 also, to the knowledge of the defendantH, in- 
 debted in large sums to divert, other persoiiH, 
 creditors of the |ilaintitr, the ilefeiidants bonu 
 title believing the plaintitl' to be insolvent within 
 the meaning of the Insolvent Act ot IS75, and 
 amending Acts, and having reasonable ami 
 probable cause for so believing, anil witliout 
 malice, made a demand on the ;daiiititl':- Helil, 
 a good plea, although it was n t expresHly 
 averred, in the words ot' section 4, tiiat tlie 
 plaintitl' had ceased to meet his liabilities gen 
 erally as they became due. t^ua-re, wlietlici- 
 that expression means his liabilities to the [lur- 
 ticular creditor, or to his creditors generally. 
 III. 
 
 2. iK-iiiiiii/ Kii'nilioii. 
 
 The defendant liuviiig reco\ered a judgnunt 
 against the plaintitl in the Uivisioii Cciint at. 
 Toronto, a transcript was ordeied to be .sent tn 
 another l)ivision Court at Unioiiville, l>iit !))■ 
 some mistake in the division Ciiiirt olliee it wan 
 n(>t sent until after the debt had been paid, uiul 
 the clerk of the Toronto court endorsed on it a 
 directiiiii to the clerk of the other court to i.s.sui- 
 execution and remit the money to liini wlien 
 made. The plaintiir's goods having been .seizeil 
 under this execution, he sued tlie (kfeiiclant foi- 
 having wrongfully and maliciously and without 
 reasonable or probable cali.-e caused tlie same tn 
 be issued and the pl.iintitr's goods to be sei/.iil 
 thereunder. The defendant had never inter 
 ferc'l or given any diiections beyond instl iictiii;; 
 the suit to be brought: — Held, that the plaiiitili 
 could not recover ; that it was his duty tn pi" 
 tect hiniselt' by seeing that t..e clerk of the 
 Division Court was notitied of payment of tiu' 
 debt, and there was therefore no inalfeas.Miceni 
 omission on defendant's part : - Held, also, that 
 the deiendant was not liable in tres]lMs^. for he 
 had not aiithori/.ed the direction, liv the elerk 
 to issue execution, wliicli was no jiaii, ul the 
 clerk s iluty ; and i—Seinble, that iieilliei eotllil 
 he have been responsible if Ins attorney li.nl 
 directed it, alter the suit had been settkil. 
 TiirLrl/ v. A'(i/.i», (i (). K. 4vS().— (". 1'. I). 
 
 Qua'ie, luider H. S. O. (IS77, e. 47, s. 100. 
 whether a person whose goods iiave Imhii .seized 
 under Division Court process, can liave any 
 
 fiirtlier relief than the restoration ol iiisy Is;— 
 
 Held, that the daiuages given were, iiiidei' the 
 facts set out in the report, grossly excessive. 
 Ik 
 
 3. Iniiiiiii'j IiijtMCtioii. 
 
 Where a registered shareholder of a eoiiiiKUiy 
 finding the annual re|iorts ot the c>ini|iaiiv inii- 
 leadiiig applies alter notice for a writ "i injunc- 
 tion to restrain thecinnpany iroin pacing ailivi- 
 dend, and u|)on such applieation the eiini]miiy 
 do not ileiiy even generally the staleiin nts ami 
 clia'iges contained in the plaintitis' alliilavit ami 
 petition there is suflicienl probable eause forthe 
 issue ot such writ, and conseiiiieiiily the defen- 
 dant, who u|ion the merits has succeeueii in get- 
 ting the injunction dissolved, has no ri^liC of 
 action for damages resulting from the issUc of 
 
1225 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 1226 
 
 the iiijiinctioii. Moiilnal Slmt /.'. Co. v. 
 HUchk, 1« 8. U. R. «22. 
 
 4. Jiemoral of A rbilmlor. 
 
 On the 14th April, 1868, S. and two others, K. 
 iiiid M., were named joint uoinniissioners to 
 name the amount whiuh should lie accorded for 
 expr()J)riation of property required for widening 
 one of the streets in the city of Montreal. On 
 the Ttii Auf,'iist, 1808, the nppellants, in eonse- 
 i|iit'm'c of an award made l»y S. in reference to 
 Huiil propel ty, passed a res(dution cliarging iiini 
 witli fraud an<l ])artiality, and nn a|iplicnti()n 
 wax niaile on their Ixdialf to the iSuperior ('oiirt 
 til have him removed from the otKce of conuuis- 
 sioner. On tiie l"th Septendicr, 1870, tlie con - 
 ilusioiis of tile ]ietitioii were granted on the 
 L'rouiid that tlie eommi.s>sioners liad committed 
 an error of judgment in tlic execution of tlieir 
 duty as conimissionerH, and had proceeded on o. 
 wroiij; jirinciple in estimating the amount jmy- 
 iililc for tin; expropriation. Tlie ciiarges of 
 fraud and partiality were held unfoundcit. On 
 the "JOtli of September, 1873, the Court of 
 (Queen's IJench for Lower Canada (ap))eal side) 
 reinstated the said .S. and 15. in their ])osit.ion 
 iis coiiimissioiiers. On the 4th Novenilier, 1876, 
 this jiKlgiueiit was cmitirmed by the I'rivy 
 Council. In .May, 1871, S. brought an action 
 iigaiii.st the defciiihiuts for damages which he 
 alleged he liad suirereil in consei|Uciice of his 
 having been unjustly removed liy the appcllcnts 
 from tlie position of coiMiiiissioiier. The re- 
 sponilfiits, widow and daiigliti'i of the late S. , 
 iiecanif plaiutiH's jiar lepiisc d' iiistancc. The 
 iippoilaiits ph'acb'd that tlieattjoii \\,is barred 
 under Arts. •2'J(iJ and •.'•_'(i7, C. C. U'- <,'•) The 
 superior court dismjs.-ed the action on the IJlst 
 May, IS.SO, but tin- Court of <,>iu'cii's I'lcncli 
 (appeal side) reversed the jiiduiiiciit and allowed 
 .■^Ji.OOO ilamages to the i'cs|)oiiilclits:- Ifi^ld, on 
 appeal to the Supi'iiic Court of Camilla, atiirm 
 ing till' jiiilniiieiit of 1 he Court of <,>uceii's lieiicli, 
 Kiminiei . .)., dissenting, that the action was not 
 an action merely for the libel coutaiiied in the 
 icsolutioii of the 7tli .\ugu.Ht, IMtiS. but for a 
 malicious prosecution in following up that reso- 
 lution liy proceedings instituted in the courts 
 inalieiously and without any just cau.so. and 
 lii'csciiption did not l)egin to run until the 
 tcrininatioii of such proceedings. The action, 
 therefore, and judgment for damages Hliould be 
 mistaiiieil, no objection having been raised that 
 the action was prtMiiaturely brought. Per Strong, 
 .1.— Following the practice adofitcd in the (/"ourt 
 of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, where they 
 either increase or lessen the amount of damages 
 iicconling to their appreciation of the facts, the 
 damages in this case should be increased to 
 S10,(K)(». ^fnyur of Montr, al v. Hall, VI S. C. 
 R. 74. 
 
 MALPRACTICE. 
 
 *•(; MkDICAI, PHAirriTIONKRS. 
 
 MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY. 
 
 Hw Ckiminai. Law. 
 
 MALICIOUS WOUNDING 
 
 Stt. Criminal Law. 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 L PowEii or CoiiiTH TO Ckant, PiSB. 
 
 II. WllKN IT LIES. 
 
 1. Mlvri Ihcri m Anothi-.r liemcdji, 1226. 
 
 2, To Exirci"! J)incrctionary or Judicial 
 
 Fiiiiiiioii'', 1227. 
 
 III. Ti I Coi-NTV J UI)( ; KS AS 11 OTHRIl 0KFIC£KH, 
 
 1227. 
 IV. To Skssioxs, 1228. 
 V. To .MrsiciPAL CoKi'OKArioNs. 
 
 1. t.'ninrally, 1228. 
 
 2. TiipiiM /i!/-laii:i or Jx-'iie Di'heiUure/i in 
 
 . I /'/ <//■ /tni/irays—Sei- RAILWAYS AM) 
 It All.U AV CoMl'AMH>. 
 
 VI. To IIaII.W AY CoMI'AMES. 
 
 I . Ill ;/l^tr(l/)Oil of' IfoiuU — Sue HaILWAYS 
 \NI> KaII.WW CoMl'AMKS. 
 
 VII. To Otiikii I'kusons, 1230. 
 VIII. AlI'KAL, 12.31. 
 IX. I'UACTICK, 1232. 
 
 X. Costs, 12.32. 
 XI. E.NKOK<iNii, 12.33. 
 
 I. PoW KH OK ColKTS TO (jiliANT. 
 
 Ciiiler R. S. O. (1877)c. 40, s. S(l, c. 49, s. 21, 
 and c. .")2, H. 4, ct sei(., the Court of Chancery 
 c<iulil exercise the powers of a couit of law in 
 any ]>i<iceeding, and the powers of the Common 
 Law Courts to grant madamus u))on motion not 
 being l>y the latter Act restricted, the Court of 
 Cliaiieery might also have granted a mandamus 
 upon miitiiiii : amr under the .Judicature Act, 
 notliing a)i|iLailrig to restrict the juns<liction, 
 the Chancery Division of the High Court of 
 .lusticu lia.s the same jnrisdictioii. J,'c. Hoard of 
 Kilncdtioii (1/ Nnimiifi: unit /lie 'J'tnruo/'Xnpanee, 
 29 Chy. 395.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Sec Wardoi, iic., of the 'J'oini of DurtmotUh 
 V. 77i^ Qu,<n, <t S. C. R. .-i09, p. 1227 ; /« re. the. 
 'i'oiriishij) of Moll/loll (did Canhdrowik and the 
 Coiiiili/of /faldiiiinml, 12 A. R. .-)03,'p. 12.30. 
 
 II. WllKX IT LiKS. 
 
 1. ]Vherc thin: m Another Jltmedy. 
 
 An ottieer of a municipal corjioration applied 
 
 for a nuiudanius to compel the mayor to aigii 
 
 warrants for the applicant's salary, which the 
 
 j mayor had been called ui)on to do by a resoln- 
 
 ! tion of the nuiidcipal council: — Heltl, that tho 
 
 I applicant cnuld maintain an action against the 
 
 I corporaticni for his salary, and, as he had that 
 
 • remedy, a mandamus would not be granted at 
 
 j his instance. AV Whitukcr and Mown, 180. K. 
 
 63.— (Salt. 
 
^^^ 
 
 1227 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 1228 
 
 m 
 
 Ifeld, that it was the duty of the Court of 
 Itevisioii uiuKr R. S. 0. (18»7) c. 193, s. «il, to 
 try the coiuulaint in regard to perHons wrong- 
 fully omittcil from tlio votera' list ; under the 
 Manhood SuflTcrage Act, and thut if no other 
 complete, appropriate and convenient remedy 
 had existed, a mandamna to compel the court to 
 perform its duty wouM liavo i«Hm'ii ; but as the 
 legislature by section tiS lia<i giveu a Mjit'iilic 
 remedy for tliis very breach of (hity, by appeal 
 to the county judge, the applicant was not en- 
 titled to a mandamus. Jit re. A/arttr and llii' 
 Court of Jhr'MDii of thi: Town oj llrartiihnrHl, 
 18 O. R. 243.-Q. B. D. 
 
 See Oraml Junction U. W. Co. v. Coiiiiti/ of 
 Pcle.rhnrovijh, 8 S. ('. R. 7(5 ; /" ''-' Toinmhip at' 
 MouUoii ami CauhorniKih iiiiil lli< C"»iilii of 
 Jlalilbiiaml, 12 A. R. tm, p. I'i.SO ; QitillinaH v. 
 Canada Southern H, H'. Co., O. R. 507. 
 
 2. To Exercue Dincretinnary or Judicial Finir- 
 tionx. 
 
 A mandamus was applic<l for at the instance 
 of the sessions for the county of Halifax, to 
 compel the warden and council of tijc town of 
 Dartmouth to assess, on tlio property of the 
 town liable for assessment, the sum of $10,!t70 
 for its proportion of tlie county school rates for 
 the years 1873-78, under section o'J ot the Kdu- 
 cational Act, K. S. N. !S. c. ;S8. The Supreme 
 Court of Nova iScotia, without determining 
 whether the required assessment was possilile 
 and was obligatory when the writ was issued, 
 made the rule nisi for u mundauius absolute, 
 leaving these questions to be determined on the 
 return of the writ. On appeal to the Supreme 
 Court of Canada, it was: — Held (.Strong and 
 Gwynne, .IJ., dissenting), that the granting of 
 the writ in this case was in the discretion 
 of the court below, and the exercise of that dis- 
 cretion cannot at present be questioned. War- 
 den, etc., of the Toion of Dartmouth v. The Queen, 
 9 S. C. R. 309. 
 
 See In re Ryer and Plows, 46 Q. B. 206, p. 
 1228 ; Hcgina v. Graim/er, ^6 Q. B. 382, p. 
 1228; lie O'Brien, 3 O. R. 326, p. 1228; ilir/ina 
 V. liichardnon, 8 0. R. 651, p. 217 ; Reijina <x rel 
 Oraiit V. Coleman, 7 A. B. 619; Wihon v. Wain- 
 fleet, 10 P. R. 147, p. 1230; Jie White v. tlat- 
 hraith, 12 P. R. 513, p. 651. 
 
 III. To County Judoes and Other Officers. 
 
 Where a County Court judge improperly re- 
 fuses to hear the argument of a rule nisi, man- 
 damus is the proper remedy ; and where the 
 refusal to hear had been caused by an unmcritiiri- 
 ous objection deliberately taken and insisted 
 upon by defendant, he was ordered to pay the 
 costs of the applicatiou fur mandamus. Jn re 
 Dean v. Chamber lin, 8 P. B. 303. -Osier. 
 
 To County Court clerk to enter up judgment. 
 See Re Great Wextern AdvertiximjCo. v. Uuiner, 
 9 P. R. 494, p. 401. 
 
 The appointment of a creditor as administrator 
 is not as of right, but rests in the discretion 
 of the judge who appoints, and that cannot be 
 interfered with by any peremptory writ ; and 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 46, ss. 32, 36, do not better 
 
 the claim of a creditor. Re O'Brien 3. 0. I!. 
 326.— Boyd. 
 
 Mandamus lo County Court judge to try an 
 appeal from the court of revision. Sec la re 
 Allan, 10 0. I!. 110, p. b«. 
 
 On appeal the judgment of Rose, J. (9 (). It. 
 154), that a County Court judge will not he 
 compelled by mandamus to inquire on a sciutiny 
 of baHot papers under sections 61, 62, and li.'f of 
 the Canada Temperance Act of 1878 as to per- 
 sonation, liribery, or the status r)n the voters' list 
 ot the parties voting, wusattirmed iiy this court, 
 it appearing that thi' point was covereil by a 
 jndgujent of the Suiircnic Court of Caiiaila ia 
 Chapman r. iiand, II S. ('. H. 312, in which 
 the judgment appealed fl'inn in this case was 
 cited and approved of. Re Canada Tempeniiice 
 Act, 12 A. U. 677. 
 
 A mandatmis was directed to issue to compel 
 the judge ol the Surrogate ('ourt of the county 
 of Wellington, to grunt administration witii the 
 will annexed of a certain testator to (J. D., one 
 of the next of kin (who had tiled the nece«.sary 
 puperji), notwithstanding that on an issue direct- 
 eil out of the Suirdgate Court a jury had found 
 against the will, it appearing that the present 
 applicant was no party to that issue, and that 
 since the trial of it this court had held in favuur 
 of the will. Diikwn v. Munltilh, 14 0. B. 719. 
 — Proud loot. 
 
 The discretion of a judge in the Division Court 
 to permit the plainlitf'to anienil his claim cannot 
 be interfered witii by mamlanius. Re While v. 
 Giilhrail/i, 12 P. R. 513. — Armour. 
 
 See Reijina cm vd. Grant v. Coleman, 7 A. K. 
 619. 
 
 IV. To Sessions. 
 
 A minute of conviction signed by the justice, 
 but not sealed, was returned to the sessions upon 
 the entering of an appeal therefrom by the de- 
 fendants. The jury fmind the defenilunt guilty 
 of the ofi'ence of which he had been convicted, 
 but on motion for jiulgment he objected tiiat the 
 conviction was not seided. The chairman re- 
 served judgment, and during the adjournnieot 
 the justice returned and tiled a conviction under 
 seal. The chairman thru declined to receive it, 
 or to give judgment, holding that there was no 
 conviction upon which to found the appeal, 
 which had been heard :— Held, that the prose- 
 cutor was not entitled to a mandanms to compel 
 him to deliver judgment ; for the reception of 
 the conviction in evidence at that period was in 
 the chairman's discretion which could not he re- 
 viewed. In re Rijcr and Flown, 46 Q. B. 206.— 
 Osier. 
 
 The Court of Queen's Bench has no power to 
 grant a mandamus to compel the sessions to re- 
 liear an appeal. Reyina v. Grainger, 46 Q. B. 
 382. -y. B. D. 
 
 V. To Municipal Corporations. 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 The defendants in 1865 passed a by-law for 
 the construction of a, drain which went through 
 the plaintifTs land, and for assessing certain 
 lauds, including the plaintiff's therefor. The 
 
1229 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 1230 
 
 leman, 7 A. 11. 
 
 )RATI0N9. 
 
 drain was romiiicnocd in ISOO and C(mij)li'tt'il. ' 
 III 1S73 tlu'y imxHod aiiolhcrliylaw fiii' widening 
 anil ilt'i'iKMiiii;; tlii' clraiii, wiiii'ii was ai'i'(ii'diii;;ly 
 (loiif. Ill IMS), tlicy coiiRtructt.'d aimtlirr dniln 
 niiiiiiii)^ into tlio tii'Mt lielow tho |)Iiiiiitit)"M land. 
 Till! liist dniin having' licconu^ out <if ii-piiii- and 
 fliolii'd nil, till! plaiiitifl'M land."* wvw titsoiiic cv- 
 tbiit liixidcd in till! M|iriii;{ and antiiinii, and tlif 
 water lay longer tli.iii if tlic ilrain had Imtii ki'i^i 
 iiinpiTly clear ; -Held, alliriiiin^' the jiidgniiiit 
 (if FfaL'arty, ('. .1. (('aniernn, J. dixHeiitinni that 
 the plaintiir waw entitled to leeover against the 
 (lefeiid.intH for their Iireaeli of duty in not kee])- 
 jng the drain in repair under It. S. (). (IS77|i'. ' 
 174. H. 'iV.\. and that a inandaniiis should isxiie 
 toeiiinptd the ilefendantH to make tin? neeessiiry 
 repnivH. Per ('.inieion, .).- An action i.s ex- 
 jiiessly given hy section ."i4'J for injury done liv 
 KiU'li neglect, where the drain serve.'* two iiinni- 
 cipaiiticH ; luit in a case like the (ireseiit, though 
 under section !Si'A the inunicipality may lie com- 
 pelled liy nianilaimiH to repair the drain at the 
 expense of the lands lieiieliteil ; no action lies 
 for injury caused liy non-repair. H7i(V( v. '/'oirn- 
 Mi> of Uo^iiUI, 2"(). H., •J87.— <^ i». I).; 10 A, I 
 I!, .'iji). I 
 
 Mand.iniUH to inuiiicipal corporation to li vy , 
 scliiiol ratcH. ,Sce in /■<■ llhjh Si-lmo/ Jiixiril Xn. 
 4, iif Ihr U. ('. of Slnrmoiil, Diiinlas iiiul <ll'ii- 
 iiarrii iiiitl lln /oiriix/ii/) nf Wiinliiitir, 4") Q. IJ. 
 4(>(l ; l\'(iriliii, <ir., iifihi Toir/i fif Diifiiniiiiili v. 
 Till Qui III, 9 .S. C. K, .-)(l!), p. l-_'-->7 ; JJur/monlh 
 V. '77/. Qiuiii, 14 .S. C. R. 4C. \ 
 
 Where a municipal corporation iasueil delieii- 
 tnies under authority of certain liy-laws whiidi 
 rfc|uiied a sinking fund to lie raised each year 
 to provide (or jiaynicnt of the principal at ina- 
 tmily, hut tliecor|.or;itioii omitted to raise .such 
 sinkiiij' fund :— Held, that they should lie com- 
 pelleil liy inaudanins, on the application of a dt!- 
 Iieiiture holder, to raise the .sinking fund for the 
 current year, and that proceedings were projierly 
 taken against the coipoiation, and not the cleik 
 uf the inunicipality, notwitli^itandiiig H. S. (). , 
 (1877) c. IKO, 8. 88. l''o;- lliat enactment must 
 betaken in connection with 4() Vict. e. IS. s. ; 
 ■359, and the clerk is not to insert in the collec- : 
 tor's roll any sums which the council has not di- 
 rected to lie levied. Held, however, that the 
 iimud.iinns could not include the levy of the rate 
 for a sinking fund in future ye.iis, nor senildo 
 the lew of ariens. The not levying a rate for ! 
 tlio sinking fund is an animal lircacli of duty, j 
 and upon any hrcucli a right arises to have it : 
 corrected. Clarke v. 7'oi('ii of Puhmrstoii, (JO. | 
 R. (il(i.— rioudfoot. j 
 
 An ap|)eal from the judgment of Rose, J. | 
 (not rejiorted), dismissing nn aiijilication under i 
 4fi Vict. c. 18, 8. ."i.SA (Out.), for a niandainus to 
 compel the repair liy the county of Haldinnind ; 
 of an existing bridge or the construction of a | 
 new one over the Osw^-go ("reek, where it crosses i 
 the lioundary line hetween the townships of ! 
 Moulton and Haldiniaiid, l>y reason of the | 
 judges of this court being divided in opinion, | 
 was dismissed. Per Hagarty, C. J. O., and I 
 Osier, J. A.— Inilictnient wa.s the approjiriate | 
 remedy. The court below had the right to I 
 grant the writ in its discretion, which was, how- | 
 ever, j)ro]icrly exercised in refusing it. Per : 
 Burton and I'atterson, J.I. A. — The duty under ; 
 the statute is not the general obligation to keep i 
 
 highways and bridges in repair, Imt is a speeitic 
 duty like that cast upon railway ciunp ,iiies by 
 their charters with respect to the rotor ition of 
 ro.ids or the bnililingot luidges. The exi-teiice 
 of liability to indielnieiit does not of necessity 
 exempt from conipiilsion bs' niand.iinus any 
 party ehatgcd by slatiilc witli a spciilic duty. 
 Iiiilirtment would in this ease be neither a spe- 
 cific nor an adi ijuate remedy, and a iiiaiidamns 
 should have been L;iaiited. /" n I'luni^lii/i uf 
 M'tiilliiii and ('(tiiliiiiiiiii/li mill < miiitii uf llnlili- 
 iiiniiil, !•-» A. I!. Tiim. 
 
 It is discretionary with and not obligatory 
 upon a muniidpal eimncil to open a road allow- 
 aiii'e, and the tact that a by law has be. ii passed 
 ilocs iioieicate such an obligation, and a iiianda- 
 niiiM was refused. AV Wilnoii v. Wainllul, 10 
 P. R. l47.-l;oMe. 
 
 The courts of Ontnrio have no jnrisilii:tion to 
 coiiipil a municipality at the suit of a private 
 individual to open an original road allowance 
 and make it tit for public travel, //iilo/i v. 
 Ti'ini.<h'/>of Ati'd'il'in-iii/. 17 S. ('. R. 47!). .See 
 S. C, l-.'O. R. 74!t! 1.-/A. R (is7. 
 
 IMaintitr entered into an agreement in writing 
 with di'fiiidants to do certain work under a pro- 
 visional by-law, anil which agiecmcnt eontainecl 
 tliisclau.se: " Xotwitlistanding anything heie- 
 iiibefore contained to the contrary this agree- 
 ment * * is inailc subject to the tiic.l pass- 
 ing of the said by law * " and in tlie event 
 of the said by-law not I'ciiig )iasHcil * * then 
 this .igrceiiient shall be null and void * * ." 
 The by-law was never linally jiassc d and the 
 .•igrcemeiit was proiluced at the trial by defen- 
 dants to |iicvent the plaintill' recovering as on 
 a (lU.intum meruit: — Ilild (reversing l''crgnson, 
 • I., who retained his opinion!, that the defcn- 
 dant.s Were bound by the contract, and that tho 
 idaintitl' mi shewing the ajiproval of the engi- 
 neer, as provided by the agreement, wascntitleil 
 to a mandamus to the defendants to raise tho 
 money. The stipulation as to the filial jiassing 
 of the byhiw should receive a reasonalle con- 
 struction and could only be invoked when the 
 work w.is not prnpeilv perfornicd. (^iininlaiin; 
 v. Toirn-'hipof lloifiihl, 18 U. K. 05. -Cliy. 1). 
 
 VI r. To Othkii Pkusoss. 
 
 To Hoard of Audit in eases relating to fees of 
 county attorneys. .See In re Fiiilmi mnl the 
 li'Ktrd uf Aiiilitfor the CoHiihl of Ymk, .Tl ( '. P. 
 31 J). 40."> ; //( r< Slaiitoii niiil llie /limrd of Audit 
 of the. Count y of Elgin, 3 O. 1!. 8(5 p. 40."). 
 
 To jiolicc magistrate to hear further evidence. 
 .Sec Htifnia V. Hie hard. to I,, 8 ( •. R. ()">1, p. 
 217. 
 
 To school trustees to admit pujiils. .Sec Dunn 
 V. lionril of h'diteii/ioii of Wiuil.tor, (1 O. R. 125 ; 
 fn Ite Mini /er i:f Edvration mid Melnliire, v. 
 Tlie I'lihlir Sriioid Trntlem of Seeliun .s, in the 
 ToH-nKhip of nianihard. \ 1 O." R. 4S0. 
 
 Held, that mandamus to the Provincial Secre- 
 tary is the proper mode for enforcing the issuo 
 of a notice under 27-28 Vict. e. 2.S, s. ."i, suh-s. 
 18 (Can.), stating that a by-law increasing the 
 capital stock of a company lu\d been passed, and 
 declaring the number and amount of shares of 
 
1231 
 
 MANDAMUS. 
 
 1232 
 
 MS 
 
 § 
 
 Ifli; 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ;i 
 
 
 1 
 
 the new Htock, otu. See AV Mainly Manufw- 
 liiriii; Co., II (). It. 444; IS A. It. 4t(>. Hut 
 Meo 411 Viet. e. It), h. .S2 (Out.) | 
 
 To eiiiiiiiel levJHiiig (illiuur tn hold a Hittiligs 
 iiiid mljiulu'iito U|>iiii II (M)iii]ilaint to hnveii niiiiie i 
 Mti'iiek <>n the Voters' list. Sue Siminoiii nnit < 
 JJalliiii, IL'O. K. 505. 
 
 Hy owner of land taken by railway to settlo , 
 the iinionnt of conipenHation. See Jhmonul v. 
 Miilhuiil It. \V. o/Coniiila, 10 I'. It. I'.i, p. I'-'.'W. 
 
 I'er .Sti'oni,', J.-Manilannis will never, under, 
 any cirenniHtanccH, lie >;ranted where dir»'et re- 
 lief in Hiiii^'lit at^ainut the erown. Mc>Jiii<ii v. 
 Till (Jlfrll, l(i S.V. H. I. I 
 
 To mayor of a corporation to sign warrants! 
 for applicant'n salary. AV Whilnki'r uml Mn-oni, 
 18 (t. It. 0:t, p. Vilil 
 
 Section 4!)of tlie Puhlic Health Aet, H. S. ()• 
 (IHSTle. '-'(»."), ]irovi<Ie8 that " 'J'he Ireawnrer o' 
 the nnniiei))ality hIiuII forthwith upon demand 
 nay out of any moneyxof tlie miniiuipality in hix 
 hands tlie amount of any order given liy the 
 meinlieiM of tlie loeiil hoard, or any two of them, 
 foi' .ser\ ices perfmined undei' their direction l»y 
 virtue of this A(^t. " A )ihysieian recovered 
 judgMient in a Division f'ourt ajjainst a townsliip 
 local hoard of health, .sued .is a corjioration. for 
 Hei'viccs ])(!ifonned in a sni.illpox ej)ideniic. It 
 appeared tiiat the physician had lieen appointeil 
 medical !ie:iltli odicci' of the municipality hy the 
 conncil, lii'.t that heforc suinji the hoard he had 
 liroujiht an action against the municipal corpora- 
 tion for his si-rvices, in wliieh he failed. Upon 
 motion liy the iiliysician for a mandamus under 
 section 4!) to comjiel the iiiemhers of the hoard 
 to sign an ordiu' upon the treasurer of the muni- 
 cipality for tile amount of the judgment re- 
 <;overed :~-Held, that, although it might he 
 «lilHcult to conclude that a hoard of healtlj is 
 constituted a corporation hy the Aet, yet the 
 judgment of the I )i vision Court practically 
 decided that this iMiard might he sued as such, 
 and. not being in any way impeached, it could 
 not be treated as a nullity. As there appeared 
 to be no other remedy, the ap])licant was 
 entitled to the inandamns. Hi: Dnrhii ami Ih'' 
 Local Ikntrd ol' II niJ III of South I'/diilai/iiiil, 19 
 O. R. 51.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A mandamus will not he granted to compel a 
 board of license commissioners to issue a license 
 to a person to whom one has hern granted, but 
 not issued, by the retiring commi.ssioners, where 
 they have not completed their functicms, their 
 acts having been reversed by their successors in 
 office. Li'ii-^oii V. Lirciixe CoinmimiioHern of Diif- 
 firin, 1!) O. R. 67.— Chy. I). 
 
 See (Hiiiplin v. Public School lioartl of the 
 Town of W'oodilock, 16 O. R. 728, p. 923." 
 
 See Wiii'ihii, ili\, of the Ton'ii of Darlmmiih 
 v. The QiKni, (I S. I'.R. 501), p. 1227. 
 
 IX. I'RAOTICK. 
 
 There having been a niisnomer in the iiaiiivg 
 of the applicants, per Armour and <"anicrnn, 
 .(.)., such misnomer not havinu' been objccti'il to 
 on the argument below might he amended. I'd- 
 Kagarty, ('. .1., in sindi a c isu no ainciidnii'iit 
 should be gi'.inted as a matter of discretioii. lit 
 
 III' 
 
 lliijh Si-hool 11,1(11 il Xo. .1, nf Ihc If. (', 
 
 VIII. Appeal. 
 
 Held, that the appeal in cases of mandamus 
 under section 23 of the Supreme and Kxecheiiuer 
 Court Act is restricted by the application of 
 section 1 1 to decisions of " the highest court of 
 final resort" in the province, and that an appeal 
 will not lie from any court of the province of 
 Quebec bnt the Court of Queen's Bench. Four- 
 iiier and Henry, JJ., dissenting. Daujon v. 
 MarquiH, 3 S. C. R. 251. 
 
 Sfornioiif, hiiiiiliin mill liliiiij/iri'i) iiiiil the Tutrn- 
 .ihl/iiif WiiiiliiHlir, 45 (^ H'. 460. -<^ II. 1>. 
 
 The owner of laml taken hy a railway is en. 
 titleil to I'ompensation, and the company must 
 pronged to stittle the amount thereof umicr R. 
 S. (). (IS77)c. 165, H. 20. if they do not, the 
 projier course is to a|)ply for a nianflamus. On 
 siu'h application a formal title in the absi'iui! of 
 jiroof to the contrary need not be provcil. it in 
 Nutlicicnt if the applicant swi-ar that he is the 
 owner of the land taken. Di iiiiin'nl v. Miil/.m,!, 
 It. ]V. Co. of Ciniadii, 10 1*. It. 73. —Cameron. 
 
 'J'he notice of motion was addressed to ilm 
 .Midland Itail way Company, and theiir.iiid.liiMi'. 
 tion Kailway Comiiany, and to the iiri'sidnits 
 and direct ors of (■aeli, and asked for ndief a'.MiiiHt 
 all or either :- Held, that section 17 of K. S. O. 
 (1877) >'. 52, contemplates tlie calling uiioii any 
 party who may bi^ aflected by the writ if issiieil 
 to shew cause why it should not issue, m\\ 
 therefore the notice Mas not objectionable aa 
 being in the alternative. ///. 
 
 Seinble, if the evidence given will not warriim 
 I the coui't in granting a nnndamus upon niotiiiii 
 ! totheciiurt, and the court his liefore it all the 
 i mati'rials necessary for finally determining the 
 i ipiestioii in dispute, judgment may be given for 
 the <lef(Midants under Rule .'{21 of thcliidicatiire 
 I Act, (Con. linle 755). ffix/D/t v. Toininliip i,f 
 ■Mrllillinnij, 12 (». R. 74!).— 1^». I!. I). 
 
 The demand made in this case upon theeniiiity 
 council to repair the bridge previous to tlie ap- 
 plicatiim was snthinent ; — I'er Osier. .1. A.-- The 
 demanil was insultieient. In re thf Tinniihiiu 
 of Moiil/oii. and Caidmroiitih and County oj Hal- 
 dhiiatid. 12 A. R. .'i03. 
 
 Section 17, sub-section 8, of the (). J. Act ap- 
 plies to motions for mandamus, etc, where an 
 action is pending; bnt II. S. O. (1877) <'. 5'-'. «. 
 17, specially authori/.es a summary applicatimi 
 for a mandamus in chambers. Kiiu'aid r. Kiii- 
 caid, 12 \\ It. 462, distinguished, lie lliont 
 Jifld and thr Tnixtui of I'ldilic School Siiiion 
 No. 1.' of lilt Township of lirooh, 12 1*. R. 
 485. — Hoyd. 
 
 See DimoriM v. Midland li. W. Co., 10 P. R. 
 82, p. 1233. 
 
 X. Costs. 
 
 Where a summary applicatitni foi' a inaiidu- 
 mns was made to the court, costs of a cliainher 
 application only were allowed to the applicant, 
 where the circumstances did not justify the im- 
 position of a larger amount of costs than wag 
 sufficient to indicate that the respondents were 
 in the wrong. He BrookfieUl and the Trmlem of 
 
1232 
 
 1233 
 
 MARRIAOE SETTLEUENT 
 
 12S4 
 
 
 in tlio ii.'iiiius 
 ml ('iiiiHTon, 
 'n olijcctcl to 
 
 IIKMIlli'd. |>(.|' 
 
 > iiincniliriiiit 
 lim'ii^tidii. //( 
 
 '/('■ //. ''. .)/• 
 mil Ihf Tiiirn- 
 
 (.». II. I>. 
 
 ulway is I'li- 
 iiiii|»aiiy iiiiiat 
 ••i>f iiMiIrr R. 
 lid not, tliB 
 iiilainus. On 
 111' al)Hciiit! of 
 |ir<ivcil, it is 
 that lie is the 
 I'"/ V. Mill/. 111,1, 
 ■.'{. — ("iinicrciii. 
 
 Ii-i'MHed til till! 
 KM ir.iiiil.liinc- 
 I lie jiri'Miilnitu 
 r rrlicf ii'.'aiiiKt 
 17 of K. S. (I. 
 illmu upon jiny 
 I' writ if issiiril 
 
 Hit i.SSIIC, illlll 
 
 >ji'iti(Mia)>I(' as 
 
 I'll! not wariiim 
 IH npon motion 
 I'fiiro it all the 
 I'tcnnininj^ the 
 ly lie nivcn for 
 tlii'.lnilii'atiire 
 V. '/'oini.ililii ,,f 
 U. I). 
 
 il»on tht'rimnty 
 ioiiM to the ap- 
 h'.r. .1. A.- The 
 III'' Tnirnihiju 
 Couiilij iij l/iil- 
 
 e (). J. Act ap- 
 etc., wlicrc an 
 (1877) <■. .•••-•. «. 
 iry ap|)liialiiin 
 vincaiil i: Kin- 
 Mi. Ill- limnk 
 Sriiiiol Sii'lion 
 iioki', VI V. R. 
 
 Co., 10 1'. K. 
 
 I for a nianilu- 
 3 of a clianiher 
 I the applicant, 
 justify the im- 
 L-osta than was 
 i]>on(lents were 
 ' the Tniiletn of 
 
 Piililir Sfhiinl Sirllou A'l). / .', of the. Towimhip of 
 Hro,k-, VI I*. II. 4H,^.-H.,y.l. 
 
 Sif In i-f. Dkuu v. Ch'iiiilinliit, 8 I'. R. ;«)3, 
 
 1' 
 
 vir, 
 
 W, Knkukcimi. 
 
 Attarhnient not H('i(iit!Htra(ion \n tlio proper 
 ifincilv fur ilinoliMyiny u inaiiilaniiiti. Ih iii'inil 
 
 V. Miii/iiint II. ir. Co., 10 1'. u. 82.--\ViUiMi. : 
 
 A wii( of nnuiilaniiiM wan iiir<!(;tcil to tin- Miil- i 
 hinil Itiiilwiiy ( 'onipany, ami wax Mvrveil on the | 
 lircxiili'Mt. Attai'hmeiit against the presiilcnt foi' 
 ilisolirilii'Mre to tile writ WHM refnHeiJ, heraiiMe it 
 appi'ai'i'ii that lie eouhl not Ity liiiUMcdf ami U'itli- 
 iint a ni i jority of the lioanl of dirertors pi-rfoini j 
 theail ifipiiicil hy the writ, ami the otln r ilireu- 
 iDi's hail not heen Merveil : Init llelil, that the; I 
 inamlaniirs was pro|ierly (lire(!t<^(l to the com- I 
 pany. /'<. 
 
 MANSLAUGHTER. 
 
 ■S'"- CUIMINAI, l,V\V. 
 
 MANUFAOTORIES. 
 
 I. KxKMi'TioN imiM Taxation— .SVe Mitni- 
 
 ril'AI, (.'OUI'OIIATIONS. 
 
 II. lillNf.S IIV WAV (IK All) To— *e Mr.NICl- 
 
 J'AI. CllUI'ilUArioNS. 
 
 .Art to provide a^jainnt frauds in the Hiip|ilv- 
 ing milk to cheeHe or butter nianufautoriii.s. See 
 Hiijiii'i V. H'liHoii, 17 A. H. 'J-.'l, p. 2I(»; lliiiiiia 
 V. Du.rliiii/, 17 O. H. (IKS, p. -.M!). 
 
 MARINE INSURANCE. 
 
 Sifi. iNSrUANCK. 
 
 MARITIME COURT. 
 
 Where a disputed fact involving nautical 
 i|iitHtioiis is raiseil hy aw appeal from the judg- 
 ment of the Maritime tJourt of Ontario, as in 
 the ease of a collision, the Supreme Court will 
 not reverse the decree of the judge of the court 
 Idow merely ujtoii a balance of testimony. The 
 Piitim—AfrCiiaiij v. Kiilli, 4 S. C. R. (H8. 
 
 Hehl, that 40 Vict. c. 21, establishing a court 
 ^if maritime jurisdiction for the province of 
 Ontario, is intra vires of the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment. II). 
 
 The appellant's child, a minor, was killed in a 
 collision lietween two vessels by the negligence 
 of the officers in charge of one of them (" The 
 Oarland "). Petition against ' ' The Garland "— 
 Iiklled under the Maritime Court Act at the 
 port of Windsor— on l)ehalf of the appellant 
 ■claiming $2,000 damages suffered by her, owing 
 78 
 
 to the death of her son and servant, eanaud by 
 the negliKeneo of the ollieei'H in charge of the 
 said "(larland." The reHpondent intervened, 
 and doinurred on the k>''>uiiiI 'hat tht! |Httition 
 did not set forth a cans.' of uetion agaiiiMt "The 
 (Jarland " within the jurisdietioii of the eourt; — 
 Held iFournii'r and Tasehereau, .M., disHent- 
 ing), that the .Maritime Court of Ontario has no 
 jurisdiction apart from It. .S. (). (IN77le. I2H 
 (ru-enaetiiiK in that province Lord CampbeirM 
 Act, * 10 Viet. e. Oil), in au action for per- 
 Honal injury resultin;,' in death, ami therefiire 
 the appellant had no locus Htandi, iio^; having 
 hroiiuht her action an the iKU'sonal rcpresentii 
 tive of the child. I'er Kiiurnier, Taseliereau, 
 lleiiry and < ! wy nnc, .1.1. (reversinj; the judgment 
 of th(! Maritime Court of Ontario), that Vice- 
 Admiralty CiiiirtH in iSrItisli poMscssions ami the 
 Maritime Court of Ontario, have whatever 
 jiiriMilietion the High Court of Admiralty has 
 over " any claim for dam iges done by any ship, 
 whether to person or to property." Per Four 
 nier and T.isidiereaii, 'I'l. , dissenting, that apirt 
 from and imhtpi'iideiitly of 11. S. (). (l.S77)e. 
 I'.'S, the .Maritime Court of Ontario had juris- 
 diction ill a proeeeding in rem against a foreign 
 vessel for the recovery of dannges for injiirieH 
 resulting in death ; that the appellant, cither in 
 the capacity of |iiirent or of iiilstreHS, was en- 
 titled to claim damai.'cs for the loss of her son 
 or servant. In n 'I'ln linrlniiil—Monmilum v. 
 Ifoni, 7 S. C. I!. 400. 
 
 Rule 2t)ilof the rules of the Maritime (Jourfcof 
 Ontario re(|Hires notice of ajipeal from a decision 
 of that court to the Supreme Court of ( 'anadii 
 to Ite given within tiftei-n days from the pro- 
 nouncing of such decision. A judgment of the 
 Maritime ('ourt was haniled liy the Surrogate 
 to the Registrar, but not in open court, on ^^Ist 
 August, and was not drawn up and entered 
 by the registrar for some time after : -Held, 
 Taschereau, .1., dubit;inte, that notice of ap- 
 peal within tifteen days from the entry of 
 such judgment was siillieient under the said 
 rule, (/mere, is such Rule 20!) intra vires the 
 Maritime Court? The St. Afai/nuH—HolifrinoH 
 V. irjy«. 15 ^- <-'• I^ 214. 
 
 MARKETS. 
 
 .SVc Mt'MCIPAI. CoKI'OUATIONH, 
 
 MARRIAOE. 
 
 I. BkEACII OK I'ROMISK OK MakRIAOK — 
 Sff. Hu.SllAM) AM) WlKK. 
 
 II. BiHAMY — See Ckiminal Law. 
 
 III. Validity of— See Husband and Wipk. 
 
 IV. DivoRCK —See Hdsiiand and Wifk. 
 
 MARRIAOE SETTLEMENT. 
 
 See Fracdi'lent CoNVEVANoas— Husband and 
 
 WlKE 
 
 1 ill 
 
 r- 
 
1235 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 123S 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 See Hl'SnAND AND WlFE. 
 
 CSJS 
 
 air. 
 
 U» 
 
 MARSHALLINa OF ASSETS. 
 
 There can be no nmiwlialling of assets in favour 
 of ft charity, tfchn- v. niiarc, 8 O. 1{. 328.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 See C'larkf v. Hoi/'tr/, 27 thy. 400. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 I. CoSrHACT OK HiKINO. 
 
 1. ]Yithiv ihr Stiilul< of FrauiU, Va'K 
 
 2. IMwK}, liflnlwus,V:^Q. 
 
 3. Jftmitmrd/iiiti or Suliiry, 12.S6. 
 
 4. Ti'rniinn/inii, 1237. 
 
 5. Olhtr Caxex, 1237. 
 
 II. RiciiTs OK ]Mastkh a.nd Servant. 
 
 1. Wauex, 1237. 
 
 2. nUmixm!, 1238. 
 
 III. LiAniiJiy OK Ma.stkr. 
 
 1. For AiiH of Sfiratil ill Ciiiirne of Em 
 lihjimiiit, 1241. 
 
 '?. /'(()• /iijiii 1/ In Si riant in Coiirm' oj 
 Kiii/iloi/viiv/. 
 
 (a) (JemriiUy, VIVX 
 
 (b) Serriiiiln own Xi'tjlii/iiiri' or Know- 
 
 ledijr of Viiiiijir, 1244. 
 
 (c) For Artsof Filliiv- Siiraiits, 1244. 
 
 (d) ]yorkiiii}i'x Cimiinixatioii fur In- 
 
 juries Act, 124.'). 
 
 (e) Factorii's Alt, 1249. 
 
 (f ) Liahi/i/i/ nf /I'fii/irdi/ Com] anils — 
 Sri' Haii.ways and Kaii.way 
 Com VAN IKS. 
 
 I. CoNTllAcr OK riiuiNo. 
 
 1. Wifliin thi' S/ii/iilr if Friiiiils. 
 
 In nn action on a veilxil aiireenient made in 
 November, for the iiiiing of i)liiinti(r liy defen- 
 dant for n year from the 1st nf UecendK r then 
 next: -Held, th .t tli( re enidd be no recovery 
 for wrongful dismissal, tlie a-^reenicnt being one 
 not to be ])erformed witliin a year ; and that 
 there being an ex])ress agieement in fact, no 
 other agreement for a monthly hii'ing could be 
 implied. I/arjier v. Davits, 4,5 Q. B. 442.— O. 
 B. D. 
 
 Held (reversing the judgment of tiie County 
 Court of York), that a coiitrai t of hiiing for a 
 year or more defeasible within the year, is with- 
 in the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds. 
 The agreement, as alleged by tlie plaintitl', was 
 made in February. 18S0, whereby the defendant 
 was to pay hi'n for his services v iiile he should 
 ••einain in defendant's employment, at the rate 
 of ^ijOO a year, for one year, and thereafter at 
 such salary as miglit be agreed upon ; the plain- 
 tiff to enter upon his duties, and his salary to 
 
 commence on the 3rd of March th3n next, and 
 defendant was to be at liberty to determine the 
 tniploynicnt at the expiration of a month nunicd, 
 otherw ise the agreement to remnin in full force 
 for a year, and lor such longi ' I'Criod as might 
 be agreed upon :- Htld, clearly within the sta- 
 tute. JJoolli v. Prittic, C A. R. 680. 
 
 2. Ihtweni lielationn. 
 
 Per Froudfoot, J. — A son working at home 
 upon his father's jdaee would not be entitleil to 
 recover for work and labour in the absence of 
 an agreement to that tftict. Cam/iittl v. Mc- 
 Kftrir/in: (! O. R. 85. 
 
 Where brothers, or sisters, or other near rela- 
 tives, live together as a family, no ))romise arises 
 by iniplicatifm to pay for the services remlered 
 or bent tits which, as between strangers, would 
 alVord eviilcnce of such a j)roniise ; and tiiere- 
 fore in an action between relatives so living to- 
 gether for boa-'', wages, or the like, an express 
 prnniisi^ nuist be jjrnved by the party making 
 the claim. Itedmond r. Retlmond, 27 Q. B. 220, 
 follow ed and approved of. J/er v. Ikr, 9 0. It. 
 
 .551.-C. r. I). 
 
 Where a contract on the part of a testator, 
 fouiuled upon a vabuddc and suHicient con>iilcr- 
 ation, that he will le:ive by his will to the other 
 contracting party a sum of money as a Icgiicy, 
 is clearly mailc out, the representatives of tiie 
 testator may bo compelled to make gnod liis ob- 
 ligation, lint where the testator, tlie grand- 
 father of the plaintiff, pronnsing to make the 
 same provision for her by will as he shouM make 
 for his owTi daughters, took her from the home 
 of her parents ac the age of twelve, adupted 
 her, and maintained her, while she workeii for 
 him for nine years, but, although he made his 
 daughters residuary tlcvisees, left the |)liiintiH' 
 nothing by his will, and jiaid her nothing for 
 her services, and she sneil his exfjutors lur spe- 
 cific performance of the contract oi- promise and 
 in the alti rnative for wages: Held, that the 
 ease did not fall within the rule; the jironiise 
 made and the consideration for it being lioth of 
 too luicertain a character to entitle the ]il.iiiitiff 
 to come to the court for specific jierforinnnce; 
 but that tlie cii'cumstances gave rise to an ini- 
 ]ilied contract for the jiaynient of wages, and 
 tnok the case out of the ordiiuiry lule tliat chil- 
 dren are not to look for wages from their par- 
 ents, or those in loco parentis, in the absence of 
 sjiecial contract, while they form part of the 
 household. Decision of Proudfoot, .1., varied. 
 n'alkery. Iloiiijhiiir, 18 O. R. 448.- (^ 11. I). 
 
 ' See Peckliam v. Di/iolfi/, 17 A. R. 273, p. 
 1237. 
 
 3. Remnncratiitn or Salary. 
 
 Where a by-law of a munici])ality ajipointed a 
 health ollicer hut did not fix his salaiy ; - Held, 
 that the law would fix his salary at a reasunahle 
 sum, regard being had to the services perfurnied. 
 /imjiirt v. Township of Stymow, 10 O. R. 322. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 See Shanty v. Grand Junction R. W. Cn., 4. 
 ■ O. I!. 150, p. 1207 ; Ellis v. Midland li. I( . Co., 
 I 7 A. 1{. 464, p. 12.37. 
 
12% 
 
 1237 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 1238 
 
 li ;ii next, and 
 (Ifterniiiic the 
 nidntli n.inied, 
 I) ill full fiirce 
 find as iniglit 
 rithiii tliu iita- 
 ■10. 
 
 •king at linme 
 
 lie fiititli'tl to 
 
 ;lie ftlisciKX' of 
 
 imiibt/l V. Mc- 
 
 tlier mar rcla- 
 )iroiiii.so arises 
 vices rc'iiilfcied 
 aiigfi's, wouk) 
 e ; and tliere- 
 M s(i living to- 
 ke, an ex|iie88 
 party making 
 1, 27 Q. K 220, 
 V. Ikr, 9 0. R. 
 
 t of a testator, 
 cicnt eoii>i(ler- 
 ill to the other 
 L'V as a Icijiicy, 
 tatives of the 
 ke good his ob- 
 or, tile grind- 
 i to make the 
 lie sliduM iiinke 
 from thr home 
 welvo, adopted 
 Hlie worked for 
 li lie made his 
 ft the i)l;untitl' 
 ler nothing for 
 ijutors for spe- 
 or promise and 
 Held, that the 
 c; the iiromise 
 it being hoth of 
 itle the plaintiff 
 ie )ierforni:mce; 
 e rise to an im- 
 ; of wages, and 
 i' iiile tliat ehil- 
 from their par- 
 1 the alisence of 
 rni part of the 
 out, .)., varied. 
 48.-(,). IS. I). 
 
 A. R. 273, p. 
 
 atari/. 
 
 lity 'ijppointed a 
 salary :- Held, 
 ,' at a reasi ■liable 
 k'icesperfiirMied. 
 10 O. R. 3-22.- 
 
 I R. W. Co., 4. 
 huidll. U.Co., 
 
 4. Termination. 
 
 Municipal officei's appointed by the council 
 hold office during the pleasure of the council, 
 and may he removed without notice and without 
 cause. WillKon v. York; 40 Q. B. 289.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Held that a contract of hiring entered into 
 with a firm by a commercial traveller is put an 
 tnd to liy the death of one of the paitners. 
 Burnet v. IJope, 9 0. R. 10.— C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff, who sued for wrongful dismissal, 
 having received a letter from the hrm in March, 
 1882, dispensing with his services from the 1st 
 January, 1883, afterwards signed a receipt for 
 his wages for Oec"?mlier, adding " and I am now 
 leaving tlie'r employment : "—Held, that this 
 was evidence for the jury of acquiescence in the 
 termination of his engagement, more especially 
 ivs he had made no claim for future wages. Jh. 
 See Ellix V. Midland A'. W. Co., 7 A. K. 404, 
 infra. 
 
 5. Oilier Cane/i. 
 
 Where the plaintift" was engaged by the defen- 
 dants for " the season,' i.e., from early in May 
 till some time in November, as master to man- 
 age the steamer " I.lyl-Wyld " for .«;1000, and he 
 uoiitiiiued so emiiloyed until .September, when 
 the steamer was burnt ; — Held, that the iilaintifF 
 was not entitled to more than the jiroportioiuite 
 share of the salary agreed upon, for the contract 
 was subject to the continued existence of tlie 
 vessel, and performance was excused by its de- 
 stiuctioii without thedefaultof the defendants : — 
 Senible, that such a contract made verbally with 
 the president of the defendants' company nri'lit 
 he binding. Ellisw Midland li. ]Y. Vo.,", A. 
 R. 464. 
 
 A medical health ollicer is n'^t .; •<' rvant of a 
 iminiei|ial corporation within the meaning of 1!. 
 8. 0. (IS77) c. 47, s. 125. .See Mwjie v. Hntrhi- 
 son, 12 P. R. 107. .See, also, Fiir.syth v. Canniff. 
 20 0. R. 478. 
 
 The plaintiff, while a child of very tender 
 years, had been placed by her father with the 
 defendant, who was not a relation, to remain 
 with him until she attained eighteen years of 
 age. he agreeing to support herdiiring that time, 
 to send her to schoid, to supjily her with elutli- 
 ing, and to give to her certain articles when she 
 reached the age of eiirhteen. 8he leniained 
 with the defendant until she was nc.irly twenty 
 years of age, being in all respects treated as a 
 member of the family, and doing such work as 
 a nieniber of the family would naturally do : - 
 Held, that the plaintiff had no implied right to 
 remuneration for services remlereil after she at- 
 tained the age of eighteen, and that in the ab- 
 sence of any express agreement tor p.iyment of 
 wages, she couhl not recover. Judgment of the 
 County Court of Elgin reversed. Pvckham v, 
 Depotty, 17 A. It. 273. 
 
 n. Rk.ht.s ok M.vster ami .Servant. 
 
 1. ICai/cs. 
 
 Right to investigate accounts, etc., where 
 emphiyee has a share in the profits in lieu of re- 
 muneration. R. S. O. (1877). c. UV,i, 8. 3. See 
 Boiji-r.1 V. Ullmann, 27 Chy. 137. 
 
 To an action by a commercial traveller for 
 wages (lefend.ints pleaded a dischai-ge in in.sol- 
 vency, the plaintiff replied that tlie claim was 
 privileged : — Hehl, reversing the judgment of 
 the Q. B., (4.5 Q. H. 18S), that privih.'ged claims 
 are not within the class of delits mentioned in 
 section 03 of the Insolvent Act, lS7i'i, to which 
 I a discharge does not apply without the consent 
 ■ of the creditor. Fryer v. Sliirld.s, A. R. 57. 
 
 j .See h'e liolf and Iron Co, — Livini/Htok's Casf.. 
 14 0. R. 211, p. 12(i7. 
 
 2. Di-iniisMd. 
 
 This action was brought by G. against the A. 
 K. S. .S. (,'o. to recover damages for an alleged 
 breach of contract. The plaintifl' was master of 
 the .SS. (ieorge Shattuck, trading between Hali- 
 fax and .">t. Pierre and other points in tlie Domi- 
 nion. .She was owned by defendant company, the 
 plaintiff being one of tiie largest shareholdeis of 
 the coni]iany. Plaintifrs contract was that he 
 was to supply the sliip with men and provisions 
 for the passengers and crew, ami .sail lier as com- 
 m.inder for §!MM) a month, afteiwards increased to 
 jj!)50. The sliij) had beiii originally accustomed 
 to remain at .St. Pierre forty-eight hours, but the 
 time was afterwards lergthened to sixty hours 
 by the company, yet the iilaiiitiff insisted on re- 
 maining only forty-iight hours, against the ex- 
 press directions of the company's agenis at .St. 
 Pierre, and was otherwise disobedient to the 
 agents, in consequence of wliicii he was, on the 
 22nd of .May, without prior notice, dismissed 
 from tlie .service of the company. The ease was 
 tried before .Sir Wm. Vouiig, t". J., without a 
 jury, who, considering that the plaintiff was not 
 a master in the ordinaiy sense, held that he had 
 been wrongfully disniis.sed and found a verdict 
 in his favour fen'. *2. 000. A rule nisi was made 
 absolute by the full court for a new trial. On 
 appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada it 
 was:— Held, ist. That even if the dismissal had 
 been wrongful, the damages were excessive, and 
 the case should go back for a new trial on this 
 ground. 2iid. Per Ritciiie, C. ,T., and Kournier 
 and (i Wynne, .11., That tlie fact of the master 
 lieing a shareliolder in the corporation owning 
 the vessel hail no bearing on the case, and tliat 
 it was proper to giant a new trial to have the 
 question as to wli.'ther the plaintiff so acted as 
 to jiL^^tify his ilisniis.sal by the owners .submitted 
 to a jury, or a ju<lge, if the case ]n: tried with- 
 out a jury. Wiiildf'onl v. Amilu-Freiich S. S. 
 Cvinpany, 9 .S. C. 1!. .'W3. 
 
 ! The plaintiff agreed with the defendant to 
 I serve him as a manager of a tannery for six 
 j years, the agreement reciting that he was to 
 ! manage the works wiiile the defendant was to 
 furnish the capital. He also agreed to disclose 
 to the defendant a secret process of tanning, 
 which defendanf w a.s not to use after the agree- 
 ment, except in connection with the plaintiff, 
 and to manufacture tlie leatheraccording to such 
 process. The deieiidant discharged the plain- 
 tiff after aiiout sevvii months, alleging, among 
 other things, that he was not a practical tanner, 
 and that he was not using the s ;ci„i/ process, 
 and had not disclosed it to the defeiulmt : — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Proudfoot, 
 V. C., 27 Chy. 8(i, that I he plaintiff was a prac- 
 tical tanner within tlu^ meaning of the agree- 
 
1239 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 
 1240 
 
 iiicnt ; nnil that the inanufiicturo of leather was 
 lieiiig carried on iicuordiiig to a secret proecss, 
 1111(1 tliat as no time was limited for disclosing 
 such jirocesH, the defendant, who had nes'er 
 asked for the disclosure, had no ri>;ht to dismiss 
 the ])hiiiitifl'for its :on-disclosiire. A reference 
 was thercfiire directed as to the daiiia;{es sus- 
 tained liy the failure of the defendant to perl'orin 
 his part of tiie agreement, and for the clismissal. 
 lidtb . Kirh-imhirh; (i A. K. 212. 
 
 The plaint iff renewed his engagenifnt for a 
 year with the defeiidaiit conipany at Haniiltoii 
 to serve tiuiii in the capacity of liooiilviu'per. 
 I'icfiiie tlie expiry ot the time agreed lor, I'., one 
 of the iiiaingers of that Inaiich of tlie company, 
 icnioxcil tlu' hooks fr<-iii tlie posscssiiui of llie 
 lilaiiitiir, placiii;.' another in ciuirge thereof and 
 telling the |ilaintitl' that he did not any longer 
 require liis .si;i\ icus, hut that if W., auotlur 
 otliccr of the company, had anything for liim to 
 do outside he would he very glad, adding, " Hut 
 1 have no fuithcr .service for you in the ollice, in 
 tact I do Mot want you in tiie ollice.' Tlie plaiii- 
 tid' rctu.sed to recogni/.c tlie right of P. to tiiils 
 remove liini, and it was arraiigcrl )n-twecn iilain- 
 tifl', \\'. and P., tiuit plaintili slioiild remain (»:- 
 cupping his time with other woik until it was 
 ascertained from tlie head ollice if 1'. had the 
 authority iic asserted ; and on ohtaining infoi- 
 matinii in the allirmative, plaintili' left : — Held, 
 alliiniiiig llie judgnu'iit of tiie court liciow, that 
 the action of the defendants was a di.smissal of 
 the plaintitr. lAifli v. Mtrhhii liritdiiiiUt Co., 
 S A. l;. (iSd. 
 
 The liglit of ))ul)lic scliool trustees to dismiss 
 for good cau.se a teaciicr eiig.igcd hy them, iie- 
 its.sarily exists from the relation of the iiarties. 
 HI Vict", c. 4!l (Out), ss. 105, 1()8, provides a 
 proceeding hy which the status or i|Ualilicatioii 
 of tlic teacher !i;iy he clctermimd ; and the re- 
 sult of sucii proceeding may he in etlcct the 
 same as dismissal ; hut such eiiactiiiciit docs not 
 deprive the employers of the inherent riglit to 
 dismiss, /{(ii/iiiciiil v. Siluiol Trii'^lK'n of C'ardi- 
 iinl, 11 .\. I!.' .->(•>•' 
 
 Tlie dcfcndaijts carried on the liusiness of a 
 comnieri'ial agency, of which the )ilaintitr was 
 general manager, having oversight over the 
 employees, and command of a large amount of 
 money passing through his hands. By the 
 tci'iiis of his eiigagciiiciit pi liiitill' was to he paid 
 a salary of ,■?.">, (MM I, ami was to devote his whole 
 time, inthu'iice, and talents to the successful 
 prosecution of the liusiness. I Ik' failure of either 
 jiarly to keep the agi-cement rendering it void. 
 The plaintili' h.iviiig engageil in speculating in 
 margins in the stock ami grain exchange, through 
 hr<ikers and 'hiickct shojis,' had sunk all his 
 private means, and hail hecoiiie iiidehted to a 
 liirge extent Ix'vond his ahility to jiay. It ap- 
 peared also that he had engaged in such 
 speculations with various merchants, whose ra- 
 tings he had not altered, although in his judg- 
 ment transactions of that nature, materiuUy 
 affected the credit of those engaging in them. 
 Having heen reipiested hy defendants to give 
 iij) speculating, he refused to do so stating that 
 if his so doing was a eoiiditioii of his remaining 
 he would dissolve the 4:oniiection — whereupon 
 he was disminsed: -Held, tliiit his disniisiial was 
 justitiahle. /'c/V'-./ //,"(;/ v. /irii(ts!rii/, ];"> (>. R. 
 ri.W.- C. I'. I>. 
 
 The plaiiitifif, who was the inventor of a 
 certain inaehine and had assigned certain )iat- 
 ei.ts therefor to the defendant, agreed to ohtaiu 
 {intents for certain improvements made by lum 
 thereon, and to assign them to the defendant 
 as soon as ohtained, who in consideration thereof 
 agreed to employ the phiintitl' for two years, 
 from the date of the agreement for the purposo 
 of (ieii'onstrating and i ' leing the patents on the 
 marked and to pay hw certain sum for s.d.irv 
 and also hi-. )ii'i >.-, and the ]ilaiiitill' anil 
 def'.iidaiit Well to sli.ire the protits in certain 
 proiiortions. The tenth clause of the agreement 
 was as follows ; -" It is furthei ■■igreeil that the 
 )iarty of the lirst jiart (the ilefendaiit I is lo he 
 the alisolutc judge as to tic m inner in wliioh 
 the party of tlie second , .irl itlie plaiiititl) 
 lierfoi'iiis his duties uniler tins agreement ainl 
 shall have the right at any time to dismiss liini 
 for incajiacity or breach of duty, in which event 
 the )iarty of the second jiart shall only lie 
 entitled to la' paid his • ■! 'vv up to the time el' 
 suidi dismissal and s' ',-. t .i ■ no claim what- 
 ever against the part; :'. 'H lirst part." Tlie 
 dcl'eiidant clismissed thi, |;!. 'ntill' within three 
 months of theihite of the agreement fur allegcil 
 disobedience and incapacity, without coniimuii- 
 citing til the ]ilaiiitifi' his reasons for .so actiii^j 
 or calling u|i<)ii him for any ex|)lauations :- 
 Held, iillirmiiig the judgment of the <,». 11. I). 
 (1(! (). H. 4!t."i). (Ifagarty, (". J. (>., ilisseiitiiig) 
 that the plaiiitiiriiaviiigccrtaiii rights of (iropcrty 
 under the agreement the jiartics to it did not 
 occupy merely the relation of master and servant, 
 and that under the tenth clause the defcinlanl 
 occupied a i|uasi jin'.ii'ial position and liail no 
 right arbitrarily to dismiss the plaint'H'but was 
 bound to act in good faith ami to eiii(uiie into 
 the circumstances u|ioii which he based liis 
 determination to dismiss, this necessarily invol- 
 ving notice to the plaintili' and o]iport unity of 
 being heard. liussill r. Russell, 14('li. 11.471, 
 distinguished. Mar-hull v. Mfltac, 17 .\. 11. 
 V.V.). 
 
 Held, also in tlie <,t. P.. I ). that the work to 
 be performed imt being the only consideration 
 for the w;iges to be paid, i.'Xcept for the telitli 
 clause tli<' i! ■I'eiideiit would hav<^ liad no riglil to 
 dismiss the plaintili' at all, but would have lueii 
 left to his remedy upnii the plaintitl's covenant. 
 "The business of tlie defendant " meant tlic 
 business for which the plaintiff was enijiloyoil, 
 and the (lefcndant had no legal right to dismiss 
 the plaintili for alleged breach of duty in ■ mi- 
 nection with work not within the terms ot liis 
 eiii|>loymeut ; and e\eii if such work was within 
 the terms of hiseinployincnt, thedefendaut had, 
 u|Mn the evidence, no reasunable grounds for 
 dismissiim tlie plaintili. .s'. ( '. !(>(>. I!. 4!t.'i.- 
 f.». P.. I>. 
 
 I nan acti< 
 tried wi^'. ■ 
 w'hether tin 
 warrant a i 
 
 whether the alleged facts 
 satisfaction. .U- /nh/i', v. Ilin'kin, Hi .\. U 
 4!t«. 
 
 If good cause fi^r disniisHal exists it. is im- 
 material that at tl'.e timeof ilisniissal the nirtster 
 did not act or rely upon it, or did not know of it, 
 and acted upon some other cause in itself in- 
 1 sutheieiit. Ih. 
 
 . lor damages for wrongful di.siiiiiss,il 
 
 jury, it IS for the judge to say 
 
 alleged acts are sufficient in law to 
 
 ismissal. and for the jury to say 
 
 ire proved to their 
 
1241 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT- 
 
 1242 
 
 Wluii the master has full knowledge of tiie; belonging to ilufuntlants' city coniniiHsioiier, iiiiil 
 imtiiro iiiiil extent of miscondiKit on tlie luut of tlierewitli run plaiiititl' down, ciiusing tiie injury 
 his servant sultieient to justify disniismd, lie co'iiplaiiUMl ot 
 
 -H'-ld that dufeii'laiits were not 
 
 cannot retain liini in his employment, and after- 
 wards at any distant time, turn him away 
 fur that fault, without anything new ; but this 
 foiidoiiatiou is subject to the implied condition 
 of future good conduct, and whenever any new 
 iiiiscoiiduct occurs the old otleiiee may be in- 
 voked and may be put in the scale against the 
 ott'eudcr as cause for dismissal. Condonation is 
 
 lialde 
 139.- 
 
 Slnllon 
 (i. B. I). 
 
 V. Villi «/' Toniiilo, i;i O. K. 
 
 On the 13th April, 1H83, (!., an arcliitect, who 
 had iiis ottice on the third tlat of a Imildiim in 
 the city o!' Montreal, in which tlie liindlord had 
 placed an elevator for liie use ot the tenant.s, 
 desiiini; to go to his itKce went toward the door 
 tile elevator and seeiiii' it oiicii 
 
 i t I. s .. ti... ;.,...- if i>, 1 1,., f.iuiiii.n adiiilllinj' to the elevator 
 auuestionot tact tor the jury 11 m tlie oiiinion i Y ^ ..i i ^ ,. i ■ ti i . ii 
 
 '',1 , . , »i . ;„..,,., ,.„i,i„,„.., ,,f it- (■,, 1„. entered, but tile elevator not heinntliiic, III- tell 
 (if the ludiie there is any eviilence ot it to oe ' i - i i 
 
 11 UK- J" b J liito the cellar and was seriously injured. Jnan 
 
 lai.l beioie them. Ih. ^^ .^^^^^^^^ brought by V. against H.. the landl.,rd. 
 
 See II ilUon v. York, 4(5 Q. H. "JSit, \t. 1237 ; clainiiiig damages for the injury sutl'eifil, it was 
 lUiniil v. Uopt, 9 O. K. 10, p. 1-37, : proved at the trial that the boy, an employee ot 
 
 R-, in charge of the elevator, at the tiiue of the 
 
 accident had left the elevator with the door 
 III. hlABlLITY ov Mastek. open to go to his lunch leaving no substitute in 
 
 I ch.uge. It was shown also that ('. had siilli-red 
 
 1. t\,r Acts of Serrmil in Course of hmpluymcul. j sjj;,.i„„sly from a fracture to his skull, had bi-en 
 
 .^, , ,- r: I -lit,, „f ; oblii'cd to follow for many nioiitli.-< ail expensive 
 
 Selling l-qnor without license. -L.ai I tyf , ^^o^^^, treatment and had becm.c almo.t in- 
 
 masier and servant. See Hvijni'i v. Jloii-ai<l,\ 
 
 4-') (^ l'>- 340, p. K*')'.). 
 
 The plaintill who had purchased a special ex- 1 
 (Uision ticket from 'J'oronto to Niagara and re ' 
 tuin on the same day by a steamer of the de- 
 feiul-.nts, and which had been taken up by the 
 liiii>e 
 
 capacitated b)r the exerei.se of his |irofi-ssiiiii. 
 (". hail been in the habit of using the elevator 
 during the absence of the boy. I he trial judge 
 awarded C. .'?.">, 000 danlan<^s, and on appeal to 
 the Court of <j>ueeii's ISeiuh (ajipe.il .side;, I' J).. 
 that amount was r(;duced to ?<3,()0U on the 
 
 on that (lay, claimed the right to return ] fri-ouml that C. was not entitled to vindictive 
 liyit on ti.e loUowing day under an alleged agree- 1 (liiiiiages. t)n appeal to the Supnnie Court of 
 meiit wilh the purser, which the la'ter ilenied. '■ ( anaila : — Held, atlirming the judi;iiKiit of the 
 (hi tliL- puiser demanding the plaiiitill's fare, and I coui't below, that K. was liable lor the fault, 
 
 the laltLi reusing to i)ay it, the porter by the 
 inuhcr's <iiie>;tion, lai.l hold of a valise which the 
 plaintill was carrying, and attempted to take it 
 and hold .t for ti.e tare, whereupon a scnllle eii- 
 aueil, aii<l the plaintiff was injured :— Meld, Us- 
 kr, J., .U.s.-Lnting, that the purser was not act- 
 ing w. thill tlie scope of his duty in thus forcibly 
 atteii.ptiiig to tiike possession of the valise, and 
 the (kfeiulaiiis were not liable for his act. 
 KiiD-rnoii v. Aiaiura Xarujalioii Co., 2 U. H. 
 528.-1 . 1'. D. 
 It appeared that the purser had been sum 
 
 nigligeiice and carelessness of his employee and 
 that the amotint awarded was not uiiiiason- 
 able: — Held, also, th.it the sum of S!r),0()0 award- 
 ed bj' the Superior Court was not an iiiircison- 
 able amount and could not be said to include 
 viiidiilive damages, but as no cross appeal had 
 been t ken the judgment of the Su[)eiiiir Court 
 could not be restored. ,SI<i>lieiis v. (Jlnrnst/, 15 
 ,S. C. K. 379. 
 
 Under a hire receipt of an oigiu sild by 
 det'eiidaiit ]{., to iilaintitrs sou, and signed by 
 the latter, the deleiidant 11. was aiithon/jd on 
 
 nimied liy the plaintiff before a magistrate lor j ([(.f-mit o, j,ayiii>'iit to resume po!■.^esslOl) .>l the 
 
 the a.-satiU, aiul a tine imposed, which he paid. 
 Per \Vil:..in, C. J. This under 32-:j3 Vict. c. 20, 
 ^ 4j (Woui.), though a release to the purser, 
 (lid not ci.ii.>titute any bar to the present action 
 agaiii.ll the cuinpany. Ih. 
 
 Held, als.i, that the alleged iuipri.soiimeiit of 
 tlie iilaoiLltf oy ihe purser ill his ollice for iioil- 
 iwyiiieiip ol id's laie, not being an act which the 
 ililiu ants theinselves could legally have done, 
 the d. i.ii.iaiiis were not liable for it. //'. 
 
 Liability of municipal corporati<m for act of 
 fiillectipi. Kespondeat superior. See McSorhy 
 V. Miiyor 
 631. 
 
 if crown for negligence of its ser 
 licijimi V. McFiu-Iiiik; 7 -S. C. U. 
 
 organ, anil lit; and his agent were given full 
 rigid ami liberty to enter any house or premises 
 where the oigaii might be, with luuhority to 
 reniHVe the same, without resort iiii,' to any legal 
 [irocess. Default having beuii made in payment 
 of certain instalnientsdiu- under the hire receipt, 
 defeiiilaiit H. sent his bookkeeper, the other 
 defendant, and two assistants, wu'i instructions 
 to get the organ. The bookkei-per taking the 
 hire reeeiiit as his authority, went to pliintill's 
 house, where the organ was, o|iencd the house 
 doiir and entered the h;ill. but on his attempting 
 to oiieii the door of the room in whii^li the organ 
 Ic, of till Cltii'ofSt. John, S. C. K. i was. the plaintiffs wite (the iiiaintilV and the 
 
 1 son buing absent) resisted his entrance, when a 
 seiilile ensued, and the plainlilfs wile was in- 
 jured :— Held, that K. was ics|iiin.siblc for the 
 acts of his servant, the bookkeeper, for they 
 weie done by him in the iliscliai\u(! of what he 
 In .in action for damages for injury caused by ' believed to he his duty, and wire wiliiin the 
 neglig- 11, driving it apiieared tliiit a servant ol general scope of his autlioi il.y. Held, also, 
 (lefcu.i Ids Oh his way for .-i wrench, for which ' that the judgment against both H. ^ind the book- 
 lii' had I).; 1 .-, nt fnr the purpose of shutting olf kecpir was miiintaiiiiibk', for it was ii covered 
 the w le, oiuastreethydrant which had burst, I against them as joint wroiig-doeis. Murphy 
 without , lie Ku.-wledge or consent of delendants r. City of Ottawa, 13_0. I!. 3:U_. distiiii^uishcd. 
 wron^iu ly .ook possession of ahorse and buggy : Ftnjiixoi) \. hohliii, 17 O. It. I()7. -0. I'. D. 
 
 Liability 
 vaiits. ."^ije 
 2IU. 
 
'jjjS&i^" ' '"' 
 
 1243 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 1244 
 
 est 
 mm 
 
 B 
 
 2. /•'(!»' Injury to Strrniil in Course of Employment. 
 (a) Ofiitral/i/. 
 
 The stiiteiiimt of claim alleged that the plain- 
 tiff' «iis uniployeil Ity the tUfenilaiUa to work at 
 tr.iuk liiyiii^ : that while so employed the defen- 
 dants directed and reipiired hini to assist in 
 biingiii.if railway .Mipiilies to the pi ice where \ 
 they were lieing used : that they also directed 
 and reijuired him to h- lairiicl, as part of his 
 employment, on the ilefendaiits' trains : that 
 accordingly he was received l>y the defendants 
 "to lie safely carried '" on a tiam, and tliat 
 owing to tlie defendants' negligence ho was, 
 while so travelling, throwri oli the train and in- 
 jnred : — Held. I. That if the plaiutiti' accepted 
 a different employment fiom that origin dly con- 
 templated, lie liecamo the defcndunts' workman 
 in that new employment, just as lie had lieen in 
 his former einployiiient. •_'. That the statement 
 tha*^ the plaintitt was received on the train "to 
 be salely carriei " did not imply that a special 
 iMirgain was ninde " to safely carry,' Init only 
 that the plair.titl' was to lie safely carried as 
 one ol their workmen in the cunrse of his em- 
 ployment ; and that there wax no cause of action. 
 Mai/ V. OiUirio and Qutliec A'. iV. Co., 10 O. H. 
 70, --Wilson. 
 
 Negligence on the part of a manager or fore- 
 man is not nnstructive negligence on the part 
 of the master. Actnal personal neg igence of tlie 
 master must be estaldislicd as a f'lrcinaii is but a 
 fellow servant, though it may be of a higher 
 grade. J{mld v. Bell, 13 O, K, 47.— Chy. U. 
 
 The corporation of the city of Ottawa con- 
 tracted with the defendant lioyle to lay down 
 sewer pipes on certain streets in the city of 
 Ottawa, and by their engineer and inspector the 
 corporation exercised superintendence over the 
 work as it progressed. iJoyle employed one 
 McCallnm to engage workmen and oversee the 
 Work : Mct'allum engaged Murphy, the husband 
 of the plaiutiti'. During the progress of the 
 work the sides of the sewer caved in through 
 the faulty and negligent shoring of the walls 
 thereof, thereby causing the death of Murphy : 
 — Held, that under the evidence, the corpora- 
 tion were not lialde ; that no recovery ought to 
 have been had against either of tliu defendants, 
 as tliere was no evidence from which it couhl 
 liave been reasonaldy inferred that the deceased 
 was ignorant of the dangerous character of tlie 
 work he was engaged in, of which he had quite 
 r.s much knowledge and means of knowledge as 
 his master, and with the knowledge of which he 
 voluntarily eng.'iged in it : but, as defendant 
 Doyle had not moved against the verdict fonnd 
 against him, it was the re allowed to stand : 
 — Held, also, that the corporation by their in- 
 spector had not so interfered with the conduct 
 of the work by the deceased as to assume per- 
 sonal control over the deceased within Stephen 
 r. The Commissioner of Police of Thurso, 3 
 Court of Sessioi. Cases, 4th .Scries, ^3'), per 
 Gifford, L. J. : — Held, also, that the action being 
 founded on the relationship of master and ser- 
 vant, both defendants could not be held liable, 
 and that the plaintiH', iiy retaining her judgment 
 against Doyle, had elected to treat the wrongful 
 act or omission as his, and Imd therefore no re- 
 course against the corporation. Murphy v. C'Uy 
 of Ottawa, 13 O. It. 334.— Q. B. D. 
 
 (b) Servant's Own Ni-gli'ji'nce or KnowUdije of 
 Danijcr. 
 
 Held, in an action by a servant for an injury 
 sustuined, in coiiseijuence of the guard heint; 
 out of place in working a circular saw wliiuli he 
 had to attend, that it was not sufficitrnt lo siiew 
 that the master knew the saw was not giianleil' 
 hut it must also appear that the acivaiit wan 
 iunorant of that fact, and as the servant was 
 skilled in the use of the saw, and did not luuk tu 
 see whether tlie guard «as on or off, as it was 
 his duty to have done, he could not, thciefore, 
 make the master responsible to him for the con- 
 sequences of his own neglect of duty. MUkr 
 v. Re.id, 10 O R. 410.— (^ 15. U. 
 
 The plaintiff having had years of experience 
 in running iron work machines and having l)een 
 previously employed by the defendants iii tiieir 
 wood working manufactory, hired a second time 
 and was injured in working a jointer which he 
 was told otiier men had lieen injureil at ]i; 
 an action against the employcirs : Hi'ld, that 
 plaintiff knew from his own inspe. tioii and ex- 
 perience that the machine was dai ,;eroiis, that 
 it needed caution and firmness in operating ; that 
 the risks were open to his ohservatioii ami that 
 his opportunities and means of judging of tho 
 dinger were at least as good as those of Ins em 
 ployers, and a motion to set aside a nonsuit was 
 dismissed. IluUd v. Btll, 13 O. R 47.— Chy. 1). 
 
 The defendants were the owners of a tannery 
 for use in which a lioist had been built for tliem 
 by a contractor, and one of them w.is, with the 
 plaintitf, one of the defendants' servant.s, aiding 
 the ccmtractor in putting the hoist in pi ice ami 
 testing "t. Owing to a defect in the mechanism, 
 of whicli the plaintiff and defendants were 
 ignorant, the hoist fell and the plaintiff was 
 Severely injured, iioth p.irtieswere awiie that 
 no safety catches had been put in the hoist. 
 The presence of these might have stopped the 
 fall, but their absence had nothing to do with 
 the occurrence of the accident : -Held, that the 
 defendants were not liable, .hidgnient of the 
 Queen s Heiich Division directing a new trial 
 set aside, and judgment of Falconhridge, .i.,at 
 the trial restored. Hoks v, 1'roHs, 17 \. H. 'B. 
 
 See McFarlnni- v. Gilmnnr, .5 (). R. 'MM, p. 
 I'.>45; Murpliy V. Ci/y of OiKiira, 130. l!.;j:U,p. 
 1243; Can.'idaSoiUhtni It. IC. Co. v. Jactioit,!! 
 S. C. R. 310. 
 
 (c) For Acta of Fellow .'^e.rranf.i. 
 
 The plaintiff, being engaged in the service of 
 the defendants in repairing a liridge, was injiireil 
 by the fall of tlie hamiiier of a pilu-drivei, 
 caused, as was found liy the negligeiiee of one 
 M. The work was being performed in IJ.'s sec- 
 tion, R. being a councillor, and M., wliowas the 
 reeve of the municipality, was em[)loyed at day 
 wages by R. as loreman : — Held, that M., 
 though reeve, was not acting in that ca|).icity, 
 but as a hired fellow servant with the plaintiff; 
 that there was nothing to so identify tlie tle- 
 fendaiits with him in the work, as tiieir chief 
 officer, as to take the case out of the ordinary 
 rule governing the relation of fellow servants; 
 and that the plaintiff therefore could not recov- 
 er. Drew V. Toini'^Jup of h'a.it Whitby, 4(j Q. 
 B. 107.— Q. B. D. 
 
1241 
 
 1245 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 1246 
 
 Knowled(je of 
 
 it for an injury 
 le gUiinl heiiig 
 ,r saw which he 
 ffioitint to shew 
 as not^iiiuileil; 
 le servimt was 
 he servant was 
 
 dill not luiik to 
 r otV, as it was 
 
 not, therefore, 
 liirn for tiiuoun- 
 ( duty. Milkr 
 K 
 
 •8 of experience 
 md luivinj,' been 
 jiidaiitM in tiieir 
 id 11 second time 
 ointer which he 
 iiijnrud at hi 
 rs ; -Hi;lil, tkit 
 pe. tion and ex- 
 dai .herons, that 
 operating ; that 
 rvatiun and that 
 ■ jndging of the 
 those ot Ills em 
 lie a nonsuit was 
 R 47.— Ciiy.D. 
 
 icrs of a tannery 
 211 built for them 
 ni was, with the 
 servanl.s, aiding 
 iiist in pi ice ami 
 n the niecliaiiism, 
 lefendanta were 
 the plaintiff was 
 iwere aw iie that 
 lit in tlie hoist. 
 lave stopped the 
 tiling til do witli 
 :-Hehl, that the 
 .hidgnicnt of the 
 ting a new trial 
 leoiiliridgc, .i., at 
 •o.<s, 17 A. H. 29. 
 
 5 O. R. 302, p, 
 a, 13 O. I!. .•«l,p, 
 (.'o. V. Jaclaon, \'i 
 
 Servants. 
 
 1 in the service of 
 riilge, wasiiijiireil 
 of a pilo-ilrivei, 
 negligence of oue 
 oriiii.'d in II. 's sec- 
 d M., who was the 
 s eni|)loyed at day 
 -Held, that M., 
 ; ill that cap.icity, 
 with the plaintilf ; 
 ) identity tlie tie- 
 irk, as tlieir chief 
 at of the ordinary 
 fellow servants; 
 •e could not recov- 
 lit Whitby, 4(5 Q. 
 
 The defendants, the proprietors of extensive 
 mills, constiuoted a tramway to carry lumber 
 from line end of their yard to the other, the i; irs 
 used being dawn by a steam engine. There 
 was no |)asseii,'er car, liut the oinpUiyees were 
 permuted to be carried on tiie road. The track 
 was laid on tii'S pl.iccdon wet ground, very little 
 ballasting was done, and none where the acci- 
 dent happened, and there wa.s other evidein-e of 
 faulty coiistruution. The plaintirt' was going to 
 his work on one of the cars, wlimi it was thrown 
 off the track by reason of a misplaced r lil, caused 
 by t!!e defective construction. The defendants 
 ein|ili>yed a competent fc .eiiian, who delegated 
 the duty of keeping the track in repair to one 
 B., a fellow servant of the plaintiff, and it was 
 shewn that 15. neglected to replace the rail, 
 thdugh be w.is aware of its being displaced : — 
 Hel'i, that the accident having been caused by 
 the negiigenie of a fellow servant, the defen- 
 dants were not liable :— yiuere, apart from this, 
 whether tiie plaintiff could have recovered, he 
 hein^ iiware tint the road was without liallast. 
 the defects in construetion being patent, .ind 
 such 'lainways being known imt to be substaii- 
 tiii'.iy bv.nt or of a j)eriiiaiient ehar.icter. Mc- 
 r'arliiiie v. Uilmiur, 5 I). R. 3U2. -C. I'. I). 
 
 Ill an .action for damages by the administra- 
 trix oi .M., an employee of the defendant cum- 
 p.aiiy, who was killea by an explosion of defeii- 
 dauls powder nulls, c.iiised by a portion of the 
 
 Oox V. Hamillon Sewer Pipe Co... 14 O. R. 300.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 Per Proudfoot, J., a notice of action under 
 the Worknieiis Compensation for Injuries Act 
 does not require to be signed or to be on behalf 
 of any one. Manjii v. Bertram, ■? O. R. 1. 
 
 Othi'r Cii.K'.t.- -In defendants dyehouse a num- 
 ber of vats were used for boiling cuttou. In the 
 I course of his einploynieut, as li dyer, in defen- 
 1 dants' factory in wliicli he had been employed at 
 the same work for about three ye;irs, it was neces- 
 sary for plain+i'f to stand on the top of one of these 
 vats, the cover provided for which consisted of 
 several boards, whose average diameter w.is live 
 feet six inches by ten inches, the vat being five 
 feet. About 3ril December, 188(5, plaintitl com- 
 plained todefeiiibints' foreman that these boards 
 were insufficient in number to cover the vat 
 completely, but d fendaiits lid not remedy the 
 defect ; and on the (itli of same month, while at 
 work standing on them, one of the boardH 
 slipped siileways, precipitating plaiiniff ini^.i the 
 boiling liquid. Defendants thereaiter remedied 
 the delect. A similar ac ndent had occurred in 
 the f.ictory two ye irs before. Held setting aside 
 a non-suit, in an action brought by plaintilf lor 
 damages, that there wis sultieient evidence of 
 negligence on defend ints' p 1 1, wi not iiivinghad 
 the vat "securely guiiri',ii. in c.iinpiiance with 
 the Ontario Factory .Vet, 1884 (47 Vict. c. 39, s. 
 
 luaeliinery being out of rep.dr, it wasshewnthat ! Ij"), sub-s, 1), to have justified a jury in finding 
 W., a director of ti,.e company, bad some time ! for plaintiff. Per Wilson, C. .J. The plaintiff 
 bef.ire the explosion, when the works were idle, could not recover umier tlu WurUnun's Com- 
 
 given tlireetions to C , the superintendent and 
 head of the works, to have the defective por- 
 tions of the macbinery repaired before recom- 
 meiieing operations, but C. no^lectcd to attend 
 to It, and tlie repairs were not nude. It was 
 not shewn that \V. in ,iiiy way assiiiiied to direct 
 the I'lactical working of the mills, or that he 
 had any sp.ei d knowledg • or ability to do .so, j 
 and tlieie «as no suggestmn that C. wms an iii- 
 coinpetent or improper person to employ : — | 
 Hell, reversing the judgment of the Queen's i 
 Bench Division, 12 0. li. ."iS, that the interven- i 
 tion of \V. had not taken the Mse outot the. gen- j 
 eral rule of law, that the defendants were not] 
 respiin^ible for an accident due to tiie negligence 
 of a fellow servant, which C. was. Matth'Ws v. 
 HamilUM I'uwihr Co., 14 A. R. 200. 
 
 .See Co.r, v. Hamillon Si-Wfr Pipe Co., 14 0. R, 
 300, p. 1240; Riuld v. Bdl, 13 O M. 47, p. 1244. 
 
 {d) WorkmeiiK Compensation for Injtmes Act. 
 
 Nulire of .4c/ iort.— Solicitors for the plaintiff 
 before action wrote as follows to the ilefen- 
 danls; — " We have been consulteil by .\lr. J. 
 Oox eoncerniug injuries sustained by him wliile 
 iu yimr employ by which he lost his left hand. 
 We have received instructions to commence an 
 action against you fordamages unless tlie matter 
 is sitisfactorily .settleil witlumt <lelay. If you 
 intend contesting this suit, kindly let us have 
 theadilress of your solicitors who will accept 
 service of process on your behalf. " H^dd, revers- 
 ing the decision of Cameron, C. J., that this was 
 sutfieient notice of action to satisfy the require- 
 ments of 49 Vict. c. 28, s. 7, and section 10 
 (Out.). Stone v. Hyde, 9 y. b. D., 70 followed. 
 
 pensatioii for Injuries Act (49 Vict. c. 28), 
 because he was barred by theriaxim volenti iiou 
 fit injuria, under I'honias c. Quarteiiniine, 18 Q. 
 H. 1). (i8.-). Per .\rmmir, .J., tiiat indepenilently 
 of the Factory Act there was evidence of negli- 
 gen'e on defeiidaiits' part to entitle plaintilf to 
 sue under sub section 1 c)f section 3 of the 
 Workmen's ConipensaLion for Injuries Act, and 
 that the m ixim volenti iiou tit injuriihad no 
 apiilieation to the facts of this case. Thomas 
 c. yuarterm line, supr.i, considered and distiii- 
 giiished. IJiait v. Oiit(u-io Cuttou Mills Co., 14 
 O. It. 119.— Q. U. D. 
 
 Held, that the evidence in this case, in which 
 the plaintitl', while at work in the sweat box of 
 a sewer pipe comp my and eiii^a^ed in placing 
 the clay in the press, w.is, ajcording to his wit- 
 nesses, injured by reason of S. who was in ehaigo 
 of the press, causing the plunger to come down 
 before the plaintiff had given the word, and 
 while his h iiid was in the press, prima facie 
 lu-ought it within .section 3, sun-section 3, of the 
 Act, and the nonsuit must lie set aside and a new 
 trial bad. Co.r v. Hamilton Sewer Pipe Co., 14 
 O. R, 300.— Chy. D. 
 
 Per Boyd, C. — If, while in obedience to orders, 
 injury arises through the negligenc.; of one giv- 
 ing the orders, it is sutiicieiit under this sub-sec- 
 tion and it is not necessary that an order negli- 
 gent per se should h.ive been given, nor is any 
 specific order necessary, general prior orders 
 being sutiieieut. lb. 
 
 B,, the plaintitf's son, was employed as tire- 
 man on a locomotive engine which was in charge 
 of a driver named R. , H. being under his orders. 
 K vas se\i-r. ",y si; dde 1 by the bur.sting of the 
 i.'jiier, frofu which death resulted. The acci- 
 
1M7 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 1218 
 
 en 
 
 a- 
 
 s 
 
 (k'litA^'UH uppiUTiitly ciiiiKi'it l>y tliL- HU(1(lf.'i) influx 1 woi'k», iniicliincry or plant connuctctl uitli or 
 of cohl wuliT into tiie itoiliT, wliicli liitil been imuil in tlie husineHx of the employer, the work- 
 allowed to run liio liiw. There was no evidence ] man shidl have the .sumo riglit of compensation 
 toHhew to whom tlie negligence witHattriliutiiltle; uml reniedieH ug.iinst the employer aa it lie )m,| 
 but it wan piovetl that, thougli the company not lieen engaged in his work : — Hehl, tliiit tlie 
 held the driver rcHponBible aHregardM the engine, want of a guard to u saw was not a defect within 
 it was the duty of the fireman, for which he the meaning of tliin provision. Such a i\vUxt 
 also was respimsilile to the company, to attend must be an inliereiit delect, a deficiency in sonit. 
 to the supply of water, which was ])art of his thing essential to the proper use of the niacliinr. 
 education to fit him for the superior position of And where a workman in a sawmill was iiijiiruil 
 driver, and that from his position he had greater by being thrown against an unguartled saw, a. il 
 facilities for opining the valve than those pos- it was shewn that a guard would have prcveiitwl 
 Heased by the driver; and from a report put in ■ the injury : — Held, that an aotio," fornegligemx. 
 by one of the defentlants" officials it appeared was not niaintaimible against the owners at coin- 
 that H. had charge of the water at the time of nion law, nor by virtue of either of the alxnc 
 the accident. In an action against defendants I ineiitioiied statutes. Jliimi/ton v. (Ifocshiui, \9 
 for damages under "The Workmen's (Jompensa- (*. It. 70. — (^. B. I). Affirmed by Vuun of 
 
 tion for Injuries Act," 49 Vict. e. 'JS, s. ,'i, sub- 
 section 5 (Unt. ):— -Held, that the delendants 
 were not liable, liriniill v. CaiKidUtn I'dcilic 
 
 H. W. Co., ir. o. It. 37r>.-(;. v. D, 
 
 Appeal, 18 A. R. 4:f7. 
 
 A<'tion by plaintiff to recover damages for the 
 death of her husb'\ail by reason of. as wiis 
 alleged, adefee'i.e brake on a ear on defcmlant's 
 
 The jdaintifFs son who had just come of age railway on which deceased was eniploycil as ,i 
 was killed by an accident in the defendaiit's brakeinan : — Held, tliat there could lie no re- 
 
 liiauhinu shop, where he had been teinporarily 
 employed. I'or about two years previously he 
 hud, while attending school, workctl on his 
 father's fuim, as farmer's suns usually do, with 
 out wages, and it was intended that he slioiild 
 study medicine, at an expense to his father of 
 about ;fl,0(H), the course lasting three or four 
 years, and in the vac.itioiis, while so engaged in 
 acquiring his intended profession, it wa.s e\- 
 
 })ected that he would Work at home as usual. 
 n un action by liis father as a<lministralor to 
 recover dam.igcs for the death of his son : 
 Held, thit he could have no reasonable expecta- 
 tion \>f pecuiiiniy <a' material bciutit fioiii the 
 sow's life, and a nonsuit was ordt'icd to be 
 entered. Aia.'ioii v. Hniratn. 1)S (). H. I. - 
 Thy. 1). 
 
 'I'hc defendant;^ an iron works company, used 
 in their busmess, a pair of shears for cutting up 
 boiler plate and scrap iron piior to its being 
 ]daeed m the liirnace to lie melted. It was the 
 
 ilnty of the |ilaintdl' and anotlui wiirkmaii to catch used upon tli 
 put the iron into the shears. While .i large iron 
 gate was, by the sin)erintcndi nl's orders, biiiig 
 put into tile shears to be cut up, by reason of 
 the improper iiist ructions given liy the siipeiin 
 ten<lent to tli>' |)laintill, the latter, in tin; course 
 of his duty was injund. The plaintill. though 
 apprehensive o' danger, v,is not aware ot the 
 nature or extent of the risk, and obc^cil through 
 fear of ilisini.>*sa',. In an action against defen- 
 dants under the VVorknien's t'omptusation for 
 Injuries Act ior the daoiiige sustcincil by the 
 ulaintifl':^ Held, that defendants were liable. 
 mmldni v. Ihtiuilttiu Inm F" /iiit/ Co., ISO.K. 
 
 an. c. V. 1) 
 
 covcry, for the evidence failed to shew how the 
 lU'cideiit happened, the contention that it wu.^ 
 the defective brake being mere eonjei'tiire ; anil, 
 even had it been the cause, it would have heen 
 no gifuind of li.ibility, for under tln^ defendant's 
 rules it was the deceased's duty to examiiic am! 
 see that the brakes were in proper working 
 <irder and icjiort any defitct to the eondintor; 
 and if he made the cx.iminatiou he apparcntiv 
 discovered no defect as he made no report, u 
 latent defect being no evidein.e of negligence; 
 and if he omitted to make such ex.iiniiiition, 
 etc., then the accident would be atlribiitahlu to 
 his own iiegligiMice. /la(l</i ron- v. (Iiuud Trnid 
 :,'. I)'. Co., I!)(). R. 191.— C. P. 1). 
 
 IJy section l.'i of I lie Factories Act, R. S. O. 
 {I8>>7) c. '2m. it, IS provided that all belting, shaft- 
 ing, gearing, llywhcils, driiiiiH and otlo I mov- 
 ing Jiarts ol the iiiachinery shall be guarded : 
 Held, that the word " moving ' is lused in its 
 transitive sense, and signilics '• pr<ipelling," and 
 that no duty is imposed by file section upon 
 owners of s.-iwinills to guaid the .>^a«s wliii li aic 
 projielled by the moving parts <if the inachiiiel y, 
 lij' sei lion 3 of the Workmen's ( 'oiiipc iisahon 
 for Injuries Act, R S. (.>. (IHS7)c. 141, where 
 }>crsonal injury is caused to a workman by reason 
 of any defect iu the conditiou of the ways, ^ 
 
 In an action by a workman against lii> em- 
 ployer.'' to recover damages for injuries siistainpil 
 owing to the falling of the cage of an elevator in 
 the defendants' factory, the ncgligcocc cli irgeil 
 was in the manner in w hieh the iieails of the 
 bolts were held, and ill the nature of the safetv 
 ige. Tlieie was im c^vi- 
 <UMice to shew that the ilt^fclidaiits were or siioiiM 
 have liccnawaiv that the bolts were iniprii|i(ily 
 sustained. They li.nl employed a coiii|icttnt 
 contractor to do this wink lor tlieiii only a few 
 weeks before, and it was not shewn thai the 
 alleged defeit might readily have been ilis- 
 covercd : Held, that the dcfeiidilils wire not 
 li.ible ii)ion this head; Murphy c. riiilli|.s, 3,1 
 I.. P. \, S, 477. distinyiiislied. The .siiotv 
 catch was made for ilie delendants by c>iiipitcnt 
 persons, and there was no evidence to. it it was 
 not one which was ordinarily used : HcM, that 
 the defendants weri' not liable upon tins luail 
 unless there was a want of reasonable caio on 
 their part in using the appliance wIim h tl'jy 
 used ; and it was no evidence of su> » want of 
 reasonable care merely to shew tliat a safety 
 catch of a di'b lent ]iattern was in use ten ycar.^ 
 previously by others, or even that it was .it 
 present in use, and that a witness tiioii^lit it 
 might have jiieveiitcd the aceideoi ; and as no 
 negligence was shewn, the defend mts w.renot 
 liable either at eoiiiiiion law or under lie \\ Hrk 
 nicli's Uolii|ieilsatioii fur In Junes .Act, lihuk\. 
 Oiilario H'/n// Co., 19 O. R. .'uH. -(}.. B. I). 
 
 'I'he lower blade of a pair of steam shears was 
 attacheil by a bolt tu an iron block, c.dlcd the 
 
 ■h. 
 
1249 
 
 HEOHANIOS' UEN. 
 
 1250 
 
 bed-plate, some eight inches tliiuk, upon which 
 the iron to be cut waa put, an<l alonj; the fuce 
 thereof, whore the workman stood, was a guard, 
 three inches hiuh, under which the iron was 
 placed and puslied forward to tlie shears, the 
 iiDly danger being when tlie iron Iwcanie too 
 short to alloH' tlie guard to be any protection. 
 The bolt was too long, projecting out about four 
 and a-half inches, which it was urged was a de- 
 fect in the machine, making it dangerous, and 
 the cause of the accident to the phiintitf, but the 
 evidence failed to shew it was insufficient for 
 the purpose for which it was used, or likely to 
 cause injury by reason of its length. The 
 plaintiff, who had previously seen others work- 
 ing at the machine, was put to work at it him- 
 jtelf, and had worked several times at it prior to 
 the accident without injury or fear of any, the 
 ,'tccident being caused by the piece of iron ho 
 was holding becoming too short to hold outside 
 of the guard, and in attempting to bold it down 
 with another piece his fingers got jammed and 
 crushed. Evidence was given tiiat the accident 
 coa\d have been avoided by the uav. of tongs. 
 \o instructions were given plaintiff except u 
 warning not to let his fingers get too close to 
 the shears : — Held, that tlie defendants were 
 not liable for the accident, there beinj/ no evi- 
 ilence that the bolt was insufficient for the pur- 
 |i08c for which it was used to bolt the under 
 Hide of the shears to the bed-plate, or that from 
 its length it was likely to injure a person work- 
 ing at the machine. Quoire, whether there was 
 evidence of contributory negligence on the plain- 
 tifTs part. Bridijen v. Ontano UoUhnj Mills Co. , 
 19 0. R. 731.— MacMahon. 
 
 i^o Canada Soulfiern II. II'. Co. v. Jaclsoii, 17 
 S.C.R.316. 
 
 (e) Farlories Act. 
 
 Ky section 15, sub-section 4, of the Factories 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 208, "All elevator cabs 
 (ir cars, whether used for freight or passengers, 
 ithall be provided with some suitable mechanical 
 ilevice, to be approved by the inspector, where- 
 liy the cab or cur will be securely hehl in the 
 event of accident." The negligence charged 
 was the manner in which th<! heads of the bolts 
 were held and the naturj of the safety catch 
 iised upon the cage of an elevator. There was 
 no evidence to shew whether this particular 
 safety catch had been ai .proved by the in- 
 spector : — Held, that the onus was upon the 
 plaintiff to prove that the catch had not been 
 approved and if it had neither been approved 
 nor disapproved the question still was whether 
 the catch used was of such a character and pat- 
 tern as to make the use of it unreasonable. Black 
 y. Ontario Wheel Co., 19 0. R. 578.— Q.B.D. 
 
 See Dean v. Omario Cotton Mills Co. , 14 O. R. 
 119, p. 1246 J Uamillon v. Groesbeck, 19 0. R. 76, 
 p. 1248. 
 
 MASTER IN CHAMBERS. 
 
 See Practick. 
 
 MASTER IN ORDINARY. 
 
 See Peactick 
 79 
 
 MASTER OF SHIP. 
 
 See Ship. 
 
 MASTERS OF THE COURT. 
 
 See Fracticb. 
 
 MAXIMS. 
 
 The rule that " he who comes for equity must 
 do equity " considered and applied. Ctemow v. 
 Booth, 27 Chy. 15 ; Archer v. Severn, 14 A. R. 
 723 ; Joiieii v. Dale, 16 O. R. 717. 
 
 Cossante ratione cessat lex. See In re HUjh 
 School Board of the U. C. of Stormoitt, DuiidiiH 
 anddlewjai-ryaiul TownHhip of Winchester, 45 Q. 
 B. 400. 
 
 The maxim that the Crown can do no wrong 
 applies to alleged tortious acts of the officers of 
 a public department of Ontario. Muskoka Mill 
 Co. V. The Queen, 28 Chy. 503.— Spragge. 
 
 Where a widow who had married again filed 
 a bill alleging that she had accepted the provi- 
 sions and bequests given to her by will in ignor- 
 ance of her right to dower, had she elected to 
 take dower ; and in her evidence she swore that 
 she had been ignorant of such right until ad- 
 vised in respect thereof in 1880, shortly befortt 
 her second marriage, and she now sought to 
 have dower assigned to her : — Held, that the 
 rule " Ignorantia juris neminem excusat" ap- 
 plied, and the bill was dismissed with costs. 
 Gillam v. Oillam, 29 Chy. .376.— Sprajrge. 
 
 The maxim " respondeat superior " applied in 
 an action against a municipal corporation for 
 act of collector. See McSorley v. Mayor, etc., 
 of the City of St. John, 6 S. C. R. 531. 
 
 " Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit." See 
 The Stevens, Turner and Bums Foundry and 
 Oenerol Manufacturini] Co., Limited, v. Barfoot, 
 9 O. R. 692 ; 13 A. R.' 366. 
 
 " De minimis non curat lex." See Claxton v. 
 Shihley, 9 0. R. 451 ; 10 O. R. 295. 
 
 "Injuria non excusat injuriain." See Ratl^. 
 V. Booth, 11 O. R. 491. 
 
 Volenti non fit injuria. See Dean v. Ontario 
 Cotton Mills Co., 14 0. R. 119, p. 1246 ; Le May 
 V. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 18 0. R. 314. 
 
 "Caveat emptor." See Borthivkk v. Young, 
 12 A. R. 671 ; Mooers v. Oooderham <fc Wort* 
 (LimUed), 14 O. R. 451. 
 
 " Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum." 
 See Potl» V. Bovine, 16 O. R. 152 ; 16 A. R. 
 191. 
 
 " Actio personalis moritur cum persona. " See 
 White V. Parker, 16 S. C. R. 699. 
 
 MECHANICS LIEN. 
 
 8te LiKN. 
 

 1231 
 
 MEDOIAL PBAOTITIONERS. 
 
 12tt 
 
 ma 
 
 csn 
 
 c 
 
 
 MBDIOAL PRAOTITIONERS. 
 
 I. Unlawfully PR\cTi8tNU, 1251. 
 II. Nkmlioence AND Malpractiuk, 12r>2. 
 
 I. UVLAWFULLY PRACTISrNd. 
 
 A mciliciil pnutitinnor rugigtorutl in (>rcut 
 Rritiiiii, to crititlu liinisulf to prauti.su in tliii 
 Proviiiuu, must hu ru^ixtureil imilurR. .S. <). (1877) 
 c, 112, t). 21. In this nuHu tlio plaiiitiiF, a prac- 
 titioner rufjisteruil in Great liritain, liiit not in 
 tluH I'lfivinco, claiming to l>u entitled topractiHu 
 here, lirougiit an action agaiiiHt the defenilant 
 for slaniluring liiin in bin pmfeHHion liy Htating 
 that lie WAH a (|ua<-k, clu. :— Held, that the 
 action was not niaintiiinalilc. iSkirviHi/ v. lioHit, 
 
 ;n c. I'. 423.— c. 1'. I). 
 
 Where defendant, in partnership with two rv- 
 gistcrc<I pr.'ietitionerH, re!4iile<l in an establi.sh- 
 incnt over tiie door of which waH a lanligiit c in- 
 laining the names of Iho rogiitured pi'actition- 
 crs. with the addition "M.D., M.C.I'. & S., 
 Ont. ", anil the n.imu of the dufunilant with onl\ 
 the addition " M. I>.":— Held, that the use of 
 the simple lett'TS ".\I. I).," in oontradistimition 
 to the full titles of the ))artnurs of defendant 
 np[iearing on the Haiiie fanlii^ht, wa^ not the n^e 
 of a title "calculated to luad people to infer" 
 registr.ition, anil the defemlint therefore coulil 
 not he convict 'd under .section 42 of tlie Ontario 
 Medical Act. U. S. O. (1877) e. 142. A'-'/wt v. 
 Te:rt,4.oi.},. B. 144.-(Jalt. 
 
 Tiio defendant, who w.is agent for a dealer in 
 intisic.il in-^truinents, undertook to cure one \'. 
 of c;inc,;r by friction and application of a certain 
 oil, receiving as remuneration 311 a visit, which 
 he stated w.is for the medicine, being its actu.al 
 eo.st. Ke admitted h ivingpr.iutisudin (jermany, 
 and that he iniiiorted tiie specitic in (piustion by 
 the gruss. It also appeared that lie prescribed 
 other nij Heine for tiie pitient beside tile oil : — 
 Held, that this w.is practisin;' inediciue, and 
 thit tir; defen liint was rigiitly convicted of 
 (loin.; H ) for gain or hope of reward witlinut -j- 
 gistrition iin ler the Medical Act. AV'/ut'i v. 
 Hall, SO. I{. 407.— Rose, 
 
 The defendant attended a couple of sick 
 persons for winch he received payment, but ho 
 neither pri;scril>ed nor administered ;iny medi- 
 cine, nor give any advice, his treatment con- 
 sisting of ni trely sitting still and lixing his eyes 
 on the patient : — Held, that this was not a 
 practising of medicine, contrary to the provisions 
 of l{. .S. O. (1887) c. 148, B. 45, and a convic- 
 tion therefor was consequently quashed, with 
 costs against the private prosecutor, as it ap- 
 pe.arcd that he had a pecuniary interest in the 
 conviction. Regiiia v. Hall, 8 O. R. 407, clistin- 
 guished. R>'(jina v. Stewurt, 17 O. R. 4. — C. 
 P. I). 
 
 A conviction under the " Ontario Medical 
 Act," (U. S. O. 1877, c. 142, s. 40), for practi- 
 sing without being registered, was quaslied, be- 
 cause in default of payment of the line imposed, 
 distress was also awarded ; and, held, that sec- 
 tion 57 of 32-3.3 Vict. c. 31 (l)om.), does not 
 apply as by section 46 of the Medical Act pro- 
 vision is made for enforcing payment. Held, 
 also, that section 40 applies to any person whose 
 
 I name bos been erased from the register, tiiough 
 he may have practised after having been tiral 
 
 registered. Ufijimv v. S/Mrham, 8 0. R. 570 
 
 Rose. 
 
 Semble, that on a prosecution under the Act 
 the defendant may show that as a matter of law 
 his name was on the register, though by accident 
 or design improperly removed or erased there- 
 from. Ih. 
 
 Field, that a justice of the peace, on a con- 
 viction under sections 40 and 4tiof chapter 142 
 K. S. U. (I877)i intituled an Act respecting the 
 profession of medicine and surgery, had no juris- 
 diction, on default by the defendant of payment 
 of tine and costs, to direct his continemont for 
 the space of one month, unless, in addition to 
 the payment of the tine and costs, ho be paid 
 the charges of conveying hint to jail. Jtrgiitti v. 
 Wiii/hl, 14 O. R. «U».— Rose. 
 
 II. NkgLKIICNOE and MALI'KAOnOK. 
 
 I 
 
 I In an action against the defendant, as a sur- 
 geon, for negligence, the jury found for the 
 
 ' plaintiff, but added to their verdict the lol.ow- 
 
 ! ing : " We are of opinion that the defendant 
 made a mistake; in notc.dling in skilful assist- 
 ane>s but not wilfully or through inattention:" - 
 Held, .a mere expression of opinion, and that it 
 did not nullify or affect the verdict. Shc.riil.im 
 
 ! V. I'i'ii'.oii, KM). R. 03.'. -(l H. I». 
 
 I Actiiin against a me licat man for m.alpr.actice. 
 The alleged inilpr.ictjce consist^-d in applying 
 what was called the primary bmdage to a frac- 
 ture of the forearm ; anl, if tiiis w,is good sur- 
 gery, then there was neglect an I want of proper 
 I care, in applying tiic bandage toi) tightly, and 
 i in not placing the arm in |)rop'jr position, 
 I whereby the arm became jiaralyzed and por- 
 I maiiently useless. The defendant admitted the 
 I use of the primary buidage, and justified ita 
 I use as )>riiper, and denied that there had been 
 i any neglect, etc. The jury found for the dc- 
 I fendant : -Held, on the evidence the verdict 
 ! could not be interfercil with. VauMe.re v. 
 \ F.treuK//, 12 O. R. 28,-|.— (X P. l>. 
 
 A medical man called by the defendant stated, 
 I from the evidence given by the dofundant, and 
 the evidence given throughout the case, he could 
 not say the defendant's troatmen*. was bad sur- 
 ! gery. The plaini.iir proposed to i all ovidcncu in 
 reply to shew from what defendaiit stated at the 
 trial tiie treatment was bad surgery :— Held, 
 inadmissible. lb. 
 
 In an action against a medic.il practitioner 
 for malpractice the pl.aintill must prove not only 
 that there was nc,dis{ence or w.mtof skill on the 
 part of the defendant, hut also tiat the plaintiff 
 was injured thereby. McQuat/ v. Ulaatmood, 12 
 0. R. 402.— C. P. L>. 
 
 In this case, which was for negligence ,anil 
 want of skill in the treatment of the plaintilfiii 
 her confinement, the jury found that the de- 
 fendant was guilty of snch negligence, in that he 
 was remiss in giving instructions to the nurse, 
 and in not seeing that hii instructions were 
 properly carried out ;— Held, that the incon- 
 sistency in the finding would not entitle the 
 defendant to judgment dismissing the action, 
 but at most to a new trial if there was evidence 
 
 
1263 
 
 MILLS AND MILL OWNERS. 
 
 1864 
 
 to go to the jury thereon :— Held, liowover, 
 thiit tliuru was no uviduiiuu from wliicli it coiihl 
 raasoniiblybo infurrcdthiitthu injury cornpliiineil 
 of l>y tliu iilninlilT wuh iittrilnttiiblu to either 
 want of HJidl or care, or ne^'Iigunue by dofen- 
 4iant ; and jiidj^nient wuh therefore diruutud to 
 l)u unlurud <liHniiriMing the action. //>. 
 
 Sue Slretlon v. HolnVH, l!» (). U. 280. 
 
 MEMORIALS. 
 
 I'liooK OK Debd ok Wii.i.h uy— iS«e Kvidenoe. 
 
 MENTAL INOAPAOITT. 
 
 AV« Fbauk and MiHKEi'iiKSKNTATioN— Lunatic 
 
 Incapacity to understand the nature and obli- 
 ){ntion of un oath. .See Udy v. Stewart, 10 O. 
 K. 01)1. 
 
 MERCANTILE AMENDMENT ACT. 
 
 'I'lie Mi!rc;intili! Atnendnient Act (K. S. O. 
 1HS7. c. 122, H3. 2, .'{, and 4), applies to the case 
 of piirtncrN. ^in.dl c. Uiddel, 81 V, V. 373; 
 I'littH r. lioa^tk, 3(i If. 15. 47<); and Scripture 
 r. (i.inlon, 7 I'. H. I(U, not foUowcil ; in view 
 of tile opinion expressed in London and Cana- 
 dian L. & A. Co. ,'. Morpliv, 14 A. K. .'■.77. 
 UumiiigKr v. Lore, 10 O. K. iVo.— Q. 1{. D. 
 
 MERCHANTS' SHIPPING ACT. 
 
 Held, in tluH case, that the provisions of the 
 Mercliants' .Shipping .Act did not prevent the 
 property in the .siiip pa.ssinf^ to the at<Hignee 
 inicliM- the Insolvent .Act. Joncn v. Kinney, II 
 «. V. 11. 70S. 
 
 MERGER. 
 
 See MoHTdAiiE. 
 
 The owner of certain land devised it to his 
 two .sons, cliarged with an annuity to iiis widow, 
 and also with certain legacies. After iiis death 
 ill March, 1879, tiie aon'H dev'secs niortgagei' 
 the land to one C. Tiiis niort^.^^jo >vac not re- 
 
 fistered till .January, l^'SO, though the widow 
 new of it. They then raised money from the 
 plaintiff in Novenihjr, 1879, by a mortgage 
 wh oil was registe'cd in the same month, the 
 plaintiil' having no k-iowledge of C.'s mortgage, 
 and, tiierclore, gair.ng priority. In this mort- 
 gage to the plaintiff the widow joined, barring 
 her dower and releasing her annuity for the 
 benefit of the plaintiff. The plaintitf sold the 
 land under his mortgage, and there was a con- 
 siderable surplus, and the question was whether 
 the widow aa dowress and annuitant had pri- 
 ority over C. :— Held, that the fact that the 
 
 I widow had uccopted a conveyance of a moioty 
 
 of the lan<l from one of the sons did not cauie 
 
 hei annuity to uiei'ge in whole or in part, the 
 
 I mortgage toC. intervening ; and it not beinit to 
 
 i her interest to hold that a merger had taKon 
 
 j place. The <|uesti<ui of intereat governs merger 
 
 I in tlie absence of express intention. MacUnnan 
 
 v. < I rail, 10 (). U. .321. — lioyd. Sec .V. G. 16 
 
 I 10 A. K. 224 ; .S'. C. stih num. (Iran v. Coughlin, 18 
 
 I S. V. 11. 5.').3. 
 
 t)f Kasement.s. 
 R. 42.5, J). 57.3. 
 
 See Allrilt v. Platl, 10 S. C. 
 
 MESNE PROFITS. 
 
 See I'Ijkctment. 
 
 Right to mesne ])rofits in action of Dower. See 
 Ryan v. /'«/*, 4 O. R. 335, p. 669. 
 
 MILITIA. 
 
 The ActSl Viet. c. 40, s. 27 (Dom.), as amended 
 by .30 Vict. c. 46 and 42 Vict. c. .35 (Dom.), re- 
 tpiii'cs that a rc(|uisitiou calling out the militia in 
 aid of the civil power to assist in suppressing a 
 riot, etc., shall l>e signed by three magistrates, 
 of whom the warden or other head officer of the 
 municipality sh.dl be one ; .tnd that it shall ex- 
 press on its face " the actual occurrence of a riot, 
 disturbance or emergency, or the anticipation 
 thereof re(puring such service :" — Held, that a 
 re<|uisition in the following form is sullicient : — 
 Charles W. Hill, Ksq., Captain No. 5 Company, 
 (.'ape Breton Militia. Sir, — We, in compliance 
 with chapter 40 section 27 Dominion Acts of 
 1873, it having been represented to us that a 
 disturbance having oceurreil and is still antici- 
 pated at Lingan beyond the power of the civil 
 ((ower to suppress. You are therefore hereby 
 ordered to proceed with your militia company 
 immediately to Lingan, with their arms and 
 anununition, to aid the civil power in protecting 
 life and property and restoring peace and order, 
 and to remain until further instructed. A. J. 
 McDonald, warden ; R. McDonald, J. P. ; J. 
 McVarish, J. P.; Angus McNeill, J. 1'.— The 
 statutes also provides that the municipality shall 
 pay all expenses of the service of the militia 
 when so called out, and in case of refusal that an 
 action may be brought by the officer command- 
 ing the corps, in his own name, to recover the 
 amount of such expenses: — Held, Strong J., 
 dissenting, that where the commanding officer 
 died pending such action the proceedings could 
 be continued by his )ierional represent.-itive. 
 Crtwe-Ktad v. County of Cape Breton, 14 S. C. 
 R. 8. 
 
 MILLS AND MILL OWNERS. 
 
 Set FixTUBES— Water and Water-coubsbs. 
 
 Mill machinery passing under the description 
 of land in deed. See Winfield v. Fowlie, 14 O. 
 
 it 102, p. 1266. 
 
IW 
 
 MUTEBAL LAUDS. 
 
 1268 
 
 OS 
 
 m 
 
 
 (' '.. 
 
 MINERAL LANDS. 
 
 I. MiNiNti Landh, 1255. 
 II. Mining Lkahkh, 1260. 
 
 I. MiNINO I^NDH. 
 
 Right of railway to expropriate-. Huo Jridinn 
 V. Cetitrai Onlartu 11. W. Co., 4 O. R. filW, p. 
 U20. 
 
 Rights of Doniiiiion und I'rovinuiul govern- 
 iMOUtB ill pruuiuua inutulH upon IuiuIh uoiivuyetl 
 by the guvuniment of Kritish Columhia to fur- 
 ther the conatruutioii uf the Canudiun Fuuiliu 
 Railway, upon that province being udniittod into 
 confodoratiun. See Attmiici/iU.unal of liriluh 
 Colv-nbia V, Atlonirii-ditmal. of Cunaita, 14 H. 
 C. K. 345 ; 14 A pp. Cos. '.'95. 
 
 Held, affirining the judgment of the Supreme 
 (.'ourt of Nuvu Scotia, that in a Huit for a share 
 of the protitii of a gold ndne, where the plaiiititl' 
 relied on an ngreement bv the defendant ior a 
 transfer of a portion of the luttcr'ii interest in 
 such mine for valuable consideration, the evi- 
 dence was not sutficiint to establish a partner- 
 ship between the parties in the working of the 
 mine and the suit was disinissod. iStnart v. 
 Mott. 148. C. R. 734. 
 
 See Ontario Natural (•a^ Co, v. Smart, 19 O. 
 R. 591. 
 
 II. MiNINO Lkascs. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the court 
 below, that whero a mining lease is obtained 
 over private lands in Kova Scotia the Icbhcch 
 must obtain from the owners of the laud per 
 mission to enter either by special agreement or 
 in accordance with the provisions of the Mining 
 Act. — Mining leases may bo granted in all dis- 
 tricts whether proclaimed or unproclaimed. — A 
 mining lense is not invalid because it includes a 
 greater numbei' of areas than is provided by the 
 statute, such provision being only directory to 
 the commissioiicr. — The issue of a lease cures 
 any irregularities in the application for a license 
 or in the license itself in the absence of fraud of 
 the licensee. Fielding v. JUoU, 14 S. C. K. 254. 
 
 In an indenture describing the parties as lessor 
 and leesees respectively the granting part was 
 OS follows : " Doth give, giant, demise and 
 lease unto the said (leasees) the exclusive right, 
 liberty and privilege of entering at all times for 
 and during the term of ten years from 1st Jan- 
 uary, 1879, in and upon (describing the land) 
 and wi<^h agents, labourers and teams to search 
 for, dig, excavate, niine and carry away the 
 iron ores in, upon or under said pr"niise8, and of 
 making all necessary roads, etc., also the right, 
 liberty and privilege to erect on the said pre- 
 mises the buildings, machinery and dwelling- 
 houses required in the business of mining and 
 shipping the said iron ires, and to deposit on 
 said premises all refuse material taken out in 
 mining said ores." There was a covenant by 
 the grantees not to du unnccesBiiiy dnningc and 
 a provision for taking awiiy the erections made 
 and for the use of timber on the premises and 
 such use of the surface as ini^ht be needed. 
 The grantees agreed to pay twenty-five cents 
 
 for every ton of ore mined, in i|uartcrly imy 
 inents on certain fixed days, and it was providril 
 how the quantity should Imi ascertained. Umiis 
 also agreed that the royalty should not l*e It -ih 
 than a certain sum in any your. The grantccH 
 I also agreed to pay all taxes and not to allow 
 intoxicating drinks to bo manufactured on tin 
 
 {ireniiHeH or carry on any business that iniglit 
 le deemed a nuisance. There were provisioiiH 
 for terminating the lease before the expiratinu 
 of the term und covenant by the lossc.-r for (jiiict 
 enjoyment. In an interpleatler issue, where llic 
 lessor claimed a lien on the goods of the lesMti'H 
 for a year's rent due under the said iiiilentiii)! 
 by virtue of 8 Anno e. 14, s. I, I'atterHon, J. A., 
 at the trial gave judgment in favour i>f the ilc 
 foiidantH, on the ground that the instrument 
 was a license merely and not a lease. 'IhiH 
 judgment was reversed by the i). It. ll. (7 (1. l!. 
 471) and un appeal to the C'ourt of Appeal omIh^ 
 to an equal division of the Judges, whs diNniirsiil 
 with costs. I'er ilugarty, C!. .1, U.,aiid Ituitou, 
 J. A., the instrument was a lieeiiHe. PerOsIci'. 
 tl. A., and Ferguson, . I., it was a lease ( 14 A. It. 
 7HH). On appeal to the .Su|ii'cnie ('ourt : 
 Held, per Ritchie, ('. •!., and Meniy and Tan 
 cherenu, .1.1., that this instrument was luit n 
 lease but u mere license to the grantee to mine 
 Kud ship the iron ores, and the grantor had lu^ 
 lien for rent under the .statute. Strong, Konr 
 iiier and (iwynno, J.I., contra. Lym-h v. .So/ 
 mow; 15 S. C. H. 341. 
 
 In a lease of mining lands the reddendum wilh 
 as follows : "Yielding and paying therefor unto 
 the party of the first part one dollar per gmsK 
 ton of twenty-two hundred and forty pouiids of 
 the said iron stone or ore for every ton iniiicil 
 and raised from the said lands and mine payable 
 ((uarterly on the first days of March, .luiie, Sup 
 tembet, and December in each year." The lease 
 contained, also, the following covenants by the 
 lessee : ' ' The parties of the second part for 
 themselves, their executors, etc., covenant and 
 agree to and with the party of the fii>t part, 
 her heirs, etc., that they will dig up and niiiiv 
 and carry away in each an<l every year during 
 the said term a quantity of not less than two 
 thousand tons of such stone or iron ore for the 
 first year, and a (juantity of not less tlinn five 
 thousand tons a year in every siibseiiuenl year 
 of the said term, and that they will pay (|uarterly 
 the sum of one dollar per ton as aforesaid for 
 the quantity agreed to be taken during each 
 year for the teim afoicwiid." "And the mid 
 parties of the scccjnd part covenant and agree to 
 and with the porty of the first part that tlicy 
 will pay the said quarterly rent or lojalty in 
 each year, and if the same shall then cxeee(l the 
 quantity actually taken, such excess shall be 
 applied towards payment of the first quarter 
 thereafter, in which more than thcsai<l quantity 
 shall be taken, and that they will protect sueb 
 openings as they shall make so as to insure the 
 same against accident, and will indemnify the 
 party of the firet part in the event of the sniiie 
 happening and against nil costs of prosecution 
 and defence thereof." There was a ]>roviKion 
 that the lessor sl.onld be at liberty to terminate 
 the lease in case of nonpayment of rent for a 
 certain period, and if the iron ore or iion stone 
 should be exhausted, and not to be found or ob- 
 tained by proper and reasonable efl'ort in paying 
 quantities, then the lessee should beat liberty t» 
 
1257 
 
 MI8TAKE. 
 
 ilvtorminu tli« loaao:— Held, affirming the juilg- 
 iiioiitof thouourt ImiIow, 14 A. K. 460, aub noiii. 
 \V«ll>ri(lga )'. Ciiujot, Kitchio, (J. J., and Foui- 
 nier, J., disiuiiiting, timt thm loaao uontainud an 
 abiioliite covenant hy tho Iumhuo to pay the ront 
 iu any ovont, and not tiaving terminated the 
 luoae under the above proviso he woa not relieved 
 from aiioh imyment in uonHe(|uence of ore not 
 l)oing fnunil in paying (|iiantitieB. Palmi r v. 
 mtUbriiltff, 15 S. 0. H. (150. 
 
 See McArlhnr v. Itrown, 17 8. C. R. «l, p. flOO. 
 
 MISDIRECTION. 
 
 .SV( Nkw Tkiai.. 
 
 MISJOINDER. 
 
 />'(»■ I'l.KAIIINC. 
 
 MISNOMER. 
 
 Quirrc 118 to tliu uHoct nf thedct'cnilitiitB being 
 ileBcribod in the note in <|iieHti(m in tliiH enm; lut 
 ttie " \Vatert«>wn InRurunei! Coiiipaiiy,'' wliilu 
 tlic real name was "Tho A^rieiiltiiral niHiiranco 
 (Niinpany of Watertown, N. Y." Sinr.t \. Ai/ri- 
 .■dmml Inn. Co., .'W C. I'. SSri. -C. I». U. 
 
 'riiere having l>eon a misnomer in tho namuH 
 <if the applicantH for mandamuH, per AniKiur 
 and Cameron, Jtl., siieh minnomer not having 
 iHion objected to on tho argnment below might 
 l)c amended. Per Hagarty, C. ■]., in Huchacaso 
 IK) amendment slumld l>e granted aH a matlcr of 
 discretion. In re Hi<ik School Hoard Xo. 40/ Iht- 
 U. C. 0/ Slormont, /htiulas, and (llciKjami, and 
 Tuitmship of WincheMlfr, 45Q. n.4(}0.'— (/ 11. I). 
 
 The deed to the defendant company descrilied 
 il by its original name of the V. H. L. & It. H. 
 (^o. , wlien in fact its name ha<l been changed : — 
 Held, a sufticient deacriptio pei'Hona', to enable 
 the company to take, thongli it might not be 
 Miitiicicnt to suo in. Grand Jandion Jt. M'. f.'o. 
 ■V. MiiUmul R. W. Co., 7 A. R. 681. 
 
 MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 See FkAUI) and MiSRK.I'RKSENTATrON. 
 
 MISTAKE. 
 
 I. In DKscRirTioN or Land — See Deed— 
 
 Survey— Will. 
 
 II. Mistaken Boundaries— .^ce Limitation 
 
 OF Actions. 
 
 III. Ok Title — See Improvements on Land. 
 
 IV. In Assessment Roli-s and Voters' 
 
 Lists— /See Assessment and Taxes — 
 Parliamentary Elections. 
 
 V. Reotifyinc! Writings — .9€c Deed — 
 Evidence— 1 «itrance. 
 
 VI. Money Paid Under Mihtakb - Ste 
 MoNRv Paid. 
 
 Vll. In Nameh— .SVe Minnomek. 
 
 MlNtako in computation of amount duo on 
 morlgagti. .See Stark v. Shiphe.rd, '2fi Chy. 316. 
 
 Krriir iu date in deed of tianafor. See Pilon 
 V. Itrm,,!, 5 S. (.". K. .118. 
 
 Sale of .securiticH Error in Nchedule. See 
 l{i:ul I'Ulnlf liirinlm*Hl<'o v. AfefropolilnnliuiUi- 
 inifSnciily, ;H». U. 47(i, p. I'JUM*. 
 
 IteisHue of imteiit of invention owing to inia- 
 take iu HimeititMition and description. 8ee With 
 ruir V. .\/iil.i)/„i, (iO. 1!. i'2. 
 
 Iteutil'yliig niistjike in acuoiintH. Sec Tnytor 
 V. Mnijinth, 100. R. ««!». 
 
 Payment of uumey into court to credit of 
 wrong cause. See JohiiKtuii v. Johnxlon, 9 T". R. 
 25», p. 13011. 
 
 Delivery by carrier at wrong destination. See 
 Monttilh V. ,!/< rrhdiiis' /hH/infrh anil Tmiwpor- 
 tatiun Co., 1 (). H. 47 ; It A. H. 282, p. 214. 
 
 Non-compliance witii a eouditiun in an inaur- 
 ance policy to put in tiie proof within thirty 
 days. See IMtiim v. VieUtna Mitluat Fire In$. 
 r'«.,(i A. It. 427, p. !MU. 
 
 1m statemiMit and return of deputy rctuming- 
 odiccr. See Ciiniiroii v.'VHfa*, 1) P. R, 406. 
 
 A party caimot lie released from an offer, de- 
 liberately made to and accepted by the opposite 
 party, on the grountl that his offer turns out to 
 have some tlitlcrent cHei^t from what he supposed 
 it would have!. OoiiMiinim v. (Jiti/ 0/ London Fire 
 liiH. Co., 12 P. H. 512.— Aiiiiou'r. 
 
 The plaintiH' advanced money to the owner of 
 real estate to pay off existing mortgages thereon, 
 and took and regixtered a mortgage on the pro- 
 perty for the amount, paid off tho prior mortga- 
 ges and registered discharges of them, the defen- 
 dant having .'ill the time an execution against 
 the laiid^ of the mortgagor in the hands of the 
 shi.'i'iir of tlie comity iu which the lands were 
 situate, of which the plaiutiti was ignorant, his 
 Kolicitors having neglected to search: — Held, 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to be subrogated 
 to the rights of the original mortgagees, and to 
 priority over the defendant's execution, to thr; 
 amount paid to discharge the prior mortgages, 
 upon the ground of mistake, he having done so 
 under the belief that he was obtaining a first 
 charge ; and that he was not disentitled to relief, 
 because by using ordinary care he might have 
 discovered the mistake, the defendant not hav- 
 ing been prejudiced thereby. Brown v. McLean, 
 18 0. R. 533.— Street. 
 
 The plaintiff registered a lien against certain 
 lands. On the day before such registration the 
 defendant, an intending purchaser, had searched 
 the registry and found only two incumbrances re- 
 gistered against the property. Shortly after the 
 defendant completed his purchase, and having 
 paid off the two incumbrances, registered dis- 
 charges thereof with his deed of purchase, but aa 
 he did not make a further search, he did not dis- 
 cover the plaintifTs lien: — Held, affirming the 
 decision of Falconbridge, J. that the defendant 
 
^. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 5, 
 
 A 
 
 
 /. 
 
 ^ 
 
 2^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 '- ■- 
 
 1.8 
 
 I.I 
 
 11.25 11.4 11.6 
 
 ^ 
 
 /. 
 
 
 
 HiotDgraphic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. M580 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 '^ 
 

 f/j 
 
1259 
 
 MONEY PAID. 
 
 m» 
 
 er. 
 
 2":; 
 
 9a 
 
 s: 
 
 was entitled to stand in the place of tlie incum- 
 brancers whom he had paid off, and to priority 
 over the plaintiffs lien. The Registry Act does 
 not preclude inquiry as to whetiicr there '^as 
 knowledge in fact ; and the court was not uoni- 
 pclled as a conclusion of law to say that the de- 
 fendant had notice of what he was doing, and so 
 could not plead mistake. Brown v. McLean, 18 
 O. R. .533, specially considered. Alxllv. Morri- 
 ton, 19 O. R. (JfiO.— Chy. D. 
 
 In affidavit of l)ona fides in chattel mortgage. 
 See lioldrkk v. ii,,aH, 17 A. R. 253, p. 183. 
 
 Error and i^n.vidonce in i.ssue of Crown 
 Lands Patent. Ijoe Foimcra v. Allorney (•'eiieral 
 vf Canada, 17 S. ( '. K. iil-2, p. 4(18. 
 
 . rEY. 
 
 I. DeI'OSIT OB- — <^- ': B.VNKS. 
 
 II. In Court— 6"ee P.wment. 
 
 III. Following Monhv — S(h FuLi.owiNd 
 Monk I ok Skuiiutiks — Thists and 
 Trustees. 
 
 "heir-at-law" of his father. In an action for 
 the construction of the will and recovery back 
 of the moneys paid over, and the partitioned 
 J \nds remaining unsold, and the proceeds of 
 those sold, and for a declaration that the plain 
 titl'was solely entitled to the unpartitioncd land. 
 It was: — Held, that the moneys paid over 
 more than six years before action, could not Ik; 
 I'ccovercd ; and following Rogers /'. Ingiuin, ,'t 
 Cli. I). 351, that as to tlie moneys paid over 
 witliin six years, an action for money iiad and 
 received, wouhl not lie for moneys paid by <iiit' 
 party to another under a iiiistaku of law com- 
 nion to l)()th, when bi.lli had a full knowle(ij,'c 
 of all the facts, liiililiriii v. Kiininloiic, l(i 0. li 
 341.— Ciiy. IJ. ; bS A. R. 03. 
 
 MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED. 
 
 An "action for money Iiad and received will 
 lie whenever a certain amount of money belong- 
 ing to one person has improperly come to the 
 hands of another." Therefore where a railway 
 company paid to the executors .)f a tenant for 
 life the sum payable for the fee simple of lands 
 taken by the company for the purposes of their 
 road, and subsequently the remainderman lileil 
 a bill against the company and the representa- 
 tives of the tenant for life, seeking to obtain 
 payment from the company of the )n'oi)()rtion of 
 purchase money payable to the remainderman: - 
 Held, that the executors weie properly nuule 
 parties with a view to tlie company obtaining 
 relief over against them in the event of the 
 compimy being compelled to make good the 
 money in the first instance, and a demurrer by 
 the executors was overruled with costs, on the 
 ground that the company were entitled to a 
 remedy over against them for the amount o\er- 
 paid them, and on the additional ground that 
 the bill alleged all facts U'icessary to entitle the 
 plaintifiTa to a direct decree against them, al- 
 though the bill was not framed with a view to a 
 direct remedy against the executors; for "the 
 payment being made by the company to the 
 executors * * * of money to a proportion 
 of which the plaintifTs were entitled, and the pay- 
 ment being made without the authority of the 
 plaintiffs it became money had and received by 
 the executors to the use of the plaintiffs. " Owston 
 V. Grand Trunk R. W. tV.,28Chy.431.— Spragge. 
 
 On the death of the testator's widow two sons 
 and a surviving daughter entered into possession, 
 collected repts, sold parts thereof, dividing the 
 proceeds in equal snares amongst themselves 
 and partitioned part of the unsold balance there- 
 of by deed, dated January Slat, 1885, and in all 
 respects dealt with the lands and the proceeds 
 ther«of 08 if they were all equally interested 
 therein. In May, 1886, the plaintiff, the eldest 
 aon WM advised he was entitled to the whole as 
 
 V 
 
 MONEY PAID. 
 
 Right to recover liack money jiaid out of court 
 on judge's order pt'iiiliiig appeal. >>cv t'itr.rin' 
 /ii.<. Co. v. rarsoii", 32 C. 1". 492, p. 412. 
 
 Greene, Duckett, 11 Q. 15. 1). 275, followed, 
 as to the right to recover moneys paid miiier 
 protest. McKai/v. //oward,(i0.li. 135.— lioyd. 
 
 On the 31st May, 1875, under the authority 
 of 37 Viet. c. 51, s. li(2 (V. Q.). the city council 
 of the city of Montreal by a resolution adopted 
 a report from their road committee prepared oa 
 the ."lOtli April previous, as amended l)ya report 
 of tlieir finance committee of 27tli May, lS7!t, 
 lecoiiimendiiig the construction of peniiatieiit 
 I .sidewalks in the following streets (inter alia) 
 Dorchester and St. Catharine. On tiie adoption 
 of these reports with which an estimate iiidiea- 
 tiiig tiie quantity of flagstone re(iuired for caeli 
 street, and the approxinuite cost of the work to 
 be made in each street had been submitted, the 
 city surveyor caused the sidewalks in the said 
 streets to be made, and asscs.sed the costs of these 
 sidewalks according to the front of the real 
 estate owned by the proprietors on each side of 
 the same, and prepared a statement of the same, 
 which ho deposited with the treasurer for collec- 
 tion. D. A. H. possessed real estate on Dor- 
 chester and St. Catharine streets, and did not 
 object to the construction of the new sidewalk. 
 On the 3id December, 1877, a few days after re- 
 ceiving a notice from the city treasurer to pay 
 within fifteen days certain sums, in default 
 whereof execution would issue, 1). A. 15. paid, 
 without protest, §94<> 25; and on the 29tli Oc- 
 tober, 1878, paitl a further sum of $438.90, and 
 on the 14th November, 1878, without having re- 
 ceived any notice, paid 8700 on account of 1877 
 assessment. In an action by 1). A. 15. against 
 the city of Montreal, to recover the said sums of 
 money which she alleged to have paid in error, 
 believing the assessment valid :■ -Heldjaflirmiiig 
 the judgment of the court below, 2 Dorion's Q, 
 B. R. 221 (Henry and Gwynne.JJ., dissenting), 
 that D. A. B. had failed both in allegation and 
 proof, to make out a case for the recovery of the 
 assessment paid by her, either as o voluntary 
 payment made in ignorance of its illegality, or 
 as a constrained payment of an illegal tax, and 
 that mere irregularities in the mode of proceed- 
 ing to the assessment, although they might in a 
 proper proceeding, have entitled the ratepayer* 
 to have had the assessment quashed, did not 
 now entitle her to recover the amount back, as a 
 
'i"'!'EKTY ^'^ 
 
 1260 
 
 n an action for 
 I recovery back 
 the partitioned 
 lie proceeds of 
 that the plain 
 artitioiied liiiid. 
 leys paid over 
 n, could not lie 
 •s r. ingran), ;i 
 ncys paid over 
 money had and 
 ys paid by one 
 ke of law cimi- 
 
 fllll kn()Hll!(|;r(. 
 
 /stone, 1() 0. i; 
 
 1261 
 
 MONET PAID. 
 
 1262 
 
 aid out of ooiirt 
 iSee CUizeiit' 
 p. 412. 
 
 27"), followed, 
 eys paid under 
 R. 13r).-lJoyd. 
 
 • the authority 
 the city couned 
 
 lutioii adojjted 
 bee prei)ared on 
 
 led Ijy a report 
 :7tb May, 1S7!», 
 
 of permanent 
 ets (inter alia) 
 Jn the a<loptiou 
 L'stiirnite iiidiea- 
 ;(]uired for eaeli 
 ; of the work to 
 
 submitted, tlie 
 Iks ill the said 
 he costs of these 
 lit of the real 
 on each side of 
 LMit of th'-' same, 
 surer foreollec- 
 estate on Dor- 
 :s, and did not 
 ! new sidewalk. 
 IV days after ro- 
 reasurer to pay 
 ms, in default 
 
 1). A. H. paid. 
 n the 29th Oc 
 of $438.1)0, anil 
 hout having ro- 
 iccount of 18(7 
 >. A. B. against 
 ;he said sums of 
 e paid in error, 
 Held,aiHriniiig 
 r, 2 Dorion'g Q, 
 J., dissenting), 
 I allegation and 
 recovery of tlie 
 as a voluntary 
 ts illegality, or 
 illegal tax, and 
 jde of proceed- 
 .hey might in a 
 
 the ratepayers 
 laahed, did not 
 lount back u a 
 
 payip .'nt of a void assessment illegally extorted. 
 2. That the city council in laying pavements in 
 part;) of the city only, the cost of which was to 
 be liaitl by assessment according to the frontage 
 of tlie respective properties, and not in propor- 
 tion to the cost of the part laid opposite each 
 property, were acting within the scope of the 
 power conferred upon them by 37 Vict. c. 51, s. 
 1!)2. 3. That the objection foumled on the in- 
 validity of the assessment for want of notice, 
 not having been allege<1 nor relied on at the 
 trial of the case, was irrelevant on this appeal. 
 Ittiin v. Citi/ of Montreal, 8 S. C. R. 252. 
 
 Liability of legatees over-paid to refund. See 
 Andermi v. Bdl, 8 A. R. 531. 
 
 15. leased certain premises to Y., who assigned 
 the lease to P. , and sold to him the goods on tlie 
 premises subject to a chattel mortgage to the 
 plaintiff and others. P. gave a chattel mortgage 
 to the plaintifF and others upon these goods to 
 .secure to them the purchase money thereof. On 
 the 1st February the defendant took possession 
 of the premises under a verbal agreement with 
 i'., that the latter slumhl assign the lease to him, 
 and it was so assijiued on 41 h tlune following. 
 There was no evidence as to what bargain there 
 was between P. and the defendant as to the 
 goods, but the goods remained on the i)reniises 
 >.:*''"v.t the request of the defendant. The [ 
 plaintirt' and his co-mortgagees sul).se((ueiitly i 
 took possession of the goods under their chattel 
 mortgage ; but on the same day, before they 
 were removed, the landlord sei7.e<l them for rent, , 
 a portion of which was due before defendant 
 lof)k possession. Upon the promise of the plain- 
 till' to pay the rent the landlord withdrew. The 
 plaintiff having refused to keep his promise by 
 paying the rent, the landlord brought an action 
 against him and compelled pityment. The plain- 
 tiff now sued the defendant to recover the j 
 amount so paid :- Held, that, there being no 
 privity of contract or estate between the defeii- [ 
 dant and the plaintitf, and the goods not having J 
 lieen originally placed in the jircnii.ses at the 
 tenant's reipiest, and having in fact been in the ; 
 possession of the plaintiff when sci'.ed, the de- j 
 fendant was not bound to jiroteet 1 hem against 
 seizure torrent, wbicli hi' was not si (-wn to have 
 lieen liable for: that the plaintiff's jiayiiient 
 therefor was voluntary, .so far as concerned llie 
 defendant, and he could not recover. Ilcriiii;/ 
 V. Wilson, 4 0. R. 607. -Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiffs ordercdgoods from the dcfeiidont 
 in Montreal to be shipped 1o them in Toronto, 
 and threj several consignments were made, one 
 of which having been addressed to "J. H. C 
 A Co.," instead of " H. K. C. & Co.," never 
 reached the plaintiffs, but was, after remaining 
 eighteen months in possession of the carriers, in 
 due course sold for payment of the charges 
 thereon. The plaintiffs in ignorance of the non- 
 receipt of the third consignment accepted and 
 paid the defendant's draft for the amount of the 
 invoices of the three consignments. Subsequently 
 they discovered their error and demanded a re- 
 turn ot the amount paid which the defendant 
 refused : — Held, that although the plaintiffs had 
 had the means within reach during all this time 
 of ascertaining the true position of matters, 
 there was no duty cast on them in relation to 
 the defendant which made their delay in dis- 
 covering the mistake laches on their part, and 
 
 that they were entitled to recover back tho 
 amount paid as money paid under a mistake of 
 fact: — Semble, a demand of repayment or notice 
 t" payee of the mistake was necessary before 
 action. Clark v. Ecboyd, I'J A. K. 425. 
 
 The plaintiff at the request of V., the business 
 manager of the Hamilton Cotton t'ompany, re- 
 ceived fioin him a draft in the name of the com- 
 pany on a New York firm for S4,9S!(.()5, at three 
 months, which plaintiff' discounted at the Toronto 
 agency of the defendants, and in pursuance of 
 an arrangement to that eft'ect, Y. drew on tho 
 plaintiff' in the name of the ("otton Company, 
 payable to their own order for .iJ4.8t)0, whicli 
 plaintiff' paid on presentment out of the proceed.H 
 of the New York draft. About seven weeks 
 afterwards plaintiff discovered that the signa- 
 tures to, and indorsements on both these draft.s 
 had been forged by Y., and immediately com- 
 municated such information to the defendants, 
 and demanded from them a return of the amount 
 paid by bini to retire the §4,800 draft which was 
 refused. Plaintiff, however, paid the draft on 
 New York at maturity. In an action brought 
 to recover the money paiil to retire the if4,800 
 draft, the Q. 1?. D. held, 12 O. R. 3(1, tli.it the 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover. An appeal from 
 this judgment was disniiasod, the judges of this 
 ccmrt being equally ilivided. Ilynu v. Hunk of 
 Mnntnal, 12 0. R. 39 ; 14 A. R. 533. 
 
 The defendants, under assumption of a lawful 
 distress for rent, part of wliicli was in ai rear, 
 and the other part of whicb was claimed in ad- 
 vance, entered and seized goods which had been 
 assigned to the plaintiff 15. in trust for the bene- 
 fit of creditors, Threo executions were shortly 
 after placed in the sheritl's hands, and the 
 solicitor for the plaintiffs under the first and 
 third executions, relying ujioii being repaid from 
 the proceeds of the goods, and with full know- 
 ledge of all the facts, and to get the distress out 
 of the way and let in the executions paid the 
 rent claimed to prevent the ."ah^ of the goods, 
 though not admitting defendant's right to it. 
 The sheriff afterwarils sold for less than the exe- 
 cutions, and re])aid the solicitor. 15. did not act 
 under the assigiinieiit, and in no way asserted his 
 rights against the execution creditors : — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the (.). B. 1'. (II (). 
 R. 735), that the money .so paid coiilil not bo 
 recovered back either by the execution creditors 
 on whose behalf it was paid, or by 15. as assig- 
 nee. Baker v. Atkliiaoi,, 14 A. R. 409. 
 
 The plaintiff' in 1875 endorsed a proiiii.ssory 
 note for the acconin odation of the defendant 
 N., and the latter d -'lered it as cidlateral se- 
 curity to mortgap' ,s of bis freehold. The 
 mortgagees procured the defendant 15. to enter 
 into partnership with N. and threw off §1,000 
 of their mortgage debt, releasing their original 
 securities and taking a new mortgage from ooth 
 defendants for $1,000 less than the amount of 
 their claim. This was in 1870. In 1879, when 
 the note fell due, the plaintiff' paid the amount 
 to the mortgagees, who applied it in reduction 
 of their mortgage d !bt. At the time the plain- 
 tiff paid he did not know of 15. 's connection 
 with the matter. Held, that the phiintiffwas 
 entitled to recover against both defendants for 
 the amount paid, as money paid at their reiiueat. 
 Pnrilomv. Nkhol, 16 0. R. 699.-Q. 15. U.; 15 
 A. R. 244 ; 15 S. C. R. 610. 
 
1263 
 
 MOBTOAOE. 
 
 'Br*' 
 90 
 
 
 MORTOAOE. 
 
 I. Parties. 
 
 1. Exfi.nitorfi ami Adminiatratorx — Se.e 
 
 Tkusts and Trustees. 
 
 2. Trustecu — See. Trusts and Trustees. 
 
 II. Contracts of Mortoaoe. 
 
 1. Form of Generally, 1265. 
 
 2. Short Formn A ct. 
 
 (a) Power of Sale, 1265. 
 
 (b) Diftrenit Clause — See Distress. 
 (e) TiiHuranre Cloitxe, 1265. 
 
 (.1) O/her Cases, 1266. 
 
 3. Mortiiaije or I'lircliase, 1267 
 
 4. Kertifyinii and Varying — St !Jked — 
 
 KVIDENCK. 
 
 T). Pmnneiit of Mortqoge Monei/ to Agent, 
 
 1-J68. 
 «. Of her Cams, 1268. 
 
 7. liUerest—See Subhead V. 11 (b), p. 
 1282. 
 
 5. Frnwlnl>')it-—Se.e Fraudulent Con- 
 
 veyances. 
 9. Fixtures— See Fixtures. 
 
 10. Corenmit -See Covenant. 
 
 11. 0/ floods— S"e Bills of Sale and 
 
 Chattel Mortoaoes. 
 
 12. Of Stuck- -See Company. 
 1.^. Of Ships— See Ship. 
 
 14. To Riiilithig Societies— See BuiLDiKfi 
 Society. 
 
 l."). Sale of Land Suhject to Mortgage — Set 
 Sale of Land. 
 
 III. Rkgistbation or— See Registry Laws. 
 
 IV. Payment, Satisfaction, Dischaiw!E 
 
 AND Meuoeh. 
 
 1. Payment to Attorney or Agent, 1269. 
 
 2. Presumption of Payment, 1270. 
 
 3. Merger of Mortgage Debt, 1270. 
 
 4. Pight of Subrogation, 1273. 
 .■). Discharge and Certificate. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1273. 
 
 (b) By Executors and Administrators 
 
 — See KXF.CUTOBH AND ADMIN- 
 ISTRATORS. 
 
 V. Rl(iHTS AND LlADILITIES OF PARTIES 
 
 AND Thome Claiminci Under Them. 
 
 ). Piiht of Mortgagor to Maintain Ac- 
 tions, 1275. 
 
 2. /tight of Mortgagee to Maintain Ac- 
 
 tions, 1276. 
 
 3. Linbility of Morfijagor on his Corenant, 
 
 1277. 
 
 4. Lease by Mortgagor, 1278. 
 
 5. Mortgagee in Possession, 1278. 
 
 6. Purchase or Releajie of Part of Pro- 
 
 perty, 1279. 
 
 7. Agreement to Release in Portions, 
 
 1280. 
 
 8. Postponing Lease to Mortgage, 1 280. 
 
 1264 
 
 9. Bights and Liabilities of I'lirchitsics 
 
 of Equity of Redemption, 1280. 
 
 10. Ejectment— Ste EjEcri'MENT. 
 
 11. Recorery of Mortgage Money. 
 (a) When Action vnl! lie, 1281. 
 (!*) Interest, 1282. 
 
 (c) Distress— See Distkess. 
 
 12. Cutting Timber, 1285. 
 
 13. Right to Growing Crops, 1285. 
 
 14. Application of Insurance Mdinii, 
 
 1285. 
 
 15. Mortgagee Piirehasjug at Sal" nf 
 
 Mortgngi'd Premises, 1287. 
 
 16. Dower— See Doweh. 
 
 17. Insurance lii/ or for Mortgagee — IHnhi 
 
 of Subrogiition—See Insiiran<:|.;. 
 
 18. As Aifected hy Mechanics' IJcu fit, 
 
 LiKN. 
 
 19. Barred by Time— See Limitation ov 
 
 Actions. 
 
 VI. Asskjnmrnt and Transfer. 
 
 1. Form of, 1287. 
 
 2. Rights of Parties after Assvpimeul, 
 
 1288. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1290. 
 VIJ. Several Mortoaoes. 
 
 1. Priority. 
 
 (a) Generalh/, 1293. 
 
 (b) As Affected by Registration—Set- 
 
 Reoistky Lanvs. 
 
 2. Consolidation, 1294. 
 
 3. Agreement to Postpone, 1295. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 1295. 
 
 VIII. EjECT.MENT by MoRTO AliEES— .S'«' K.I KCT- 
 M KNT. 
 
 IX. Sale of Equity of Redkmition inhkk 
 Execution, 1290. 
 
 X. Sale Under Power ok Sale. - 
 
 1. Notice, 1296. 
 
 2. (Msis, 1299. 
 
 3. Disposition of Surplus, 1299. 
 
 4. Sakat Under Value, 1300. 
 
 5. Other Ca-tes, 130O. 
 
 XL Redemption of MouTcAiiEs. 
 
 1. Ilight. to Redeem, 1302. 
 
 2. Terms of Redemption, i;J06. 
 
 3. Costs, 1307. 
 
 4. Opening Foreclosure — See Suiiiikah 
 
 XIL'3, p. 1309. 
 .5. By Wife— See Husband and Wikk. 
 
 XII. FoiiECLOSURE. 
 
 1. Parties. 
 
 (a) Wife, 1307. 
 
 (li) Adding Parlies, VSiiH. 
 
 2. Final Order, 1308. 
 
 3. Opening Foreclosure, 1309. 
 
 4. Costs, 1311. 
 
 5. Other Cases, )3II. 
 
12M 
 
 of Pnrehuiifn 
 niim, 1280. 
 
 MEN'I'. 
 
 Money, 
 w, 1281. 
 
 I'HESS. 
 
 M, 1285. 
 
 urance. Mimi,;/, 
 
 in fit. Sill" of 
 t, 1287. 
 
 (irl(faijee—llhihl 
 Insuranck. 
 
 rnir.n' hicii -.V 
 
 LtMITATU)N (111 
 IKER. 
 
 'ter Asxiijiiiiifitl, 
 
 1265 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 1266 
 
 {e<}iiit ra tioit—Set' 
 
 s. 
 
 e, 1295. 
 EES— iSeeK.iBCT- 
 
 • KMmONl'NDKR 
 
 ■ Sale. 
 
 t, 1299. 
 1300. 
 
 VCES. 
 
 2. 
 1300. 
 
 — See SiUiiiKAii 
 
 ,NI» AMI WlKK. 
 
 308. 
 1309. 
 
 XIII. Sale. 
 
 1. When Directed, 1311. 
 
 2. Partie.'< to Bill, 1312. 
 
 3. Decree, 1312. 
 
 4. Coitti*, 1312. * 
 
 5. Other Casen, 1313. 
 
 6. Conduct of Sale—See Sale ok Land 
 
 BY Order of the Court. 
 
 XIV, Proceedings in Mort«aoe Actions. 
 
 1. Taking AceonntH, n\S. 
 
 2. MuUiplivitji of ActioiiH, 1316. 
 ,3. Coxtx, 1317. 
 
 4. Other Cow«, 1319. 
 
 5. Appointment of IteceJrer. — See Re- 
 
 ceiver. 
 
 XV. Miscellaneous Cases, 1320. 
 
 II. Contracts of Mortcacje. 
 
 1. Form of Otmerallij. 
 
 W. H. conveyed his fiirni to his son, and took 
 hack from him a niortgiige on it, with a proviso 
 for redemption on payment of §4,C J, witliout 
 interest, in manner following : To pay \V. H. 
 and A. H., his wife, during tlieir joint lives, 
 ^300 a year, and to continue to make the said 
 payments to the survivor during his or her life ; 
 and one year after the death of both to pay liis 
 brothers and sisters .§300 each at the times 
 therein mentioned, which words were inserted 
 in writing, the rest of the instrument being in 
 print. W. H. and A. H. died, and their ad- 
 ministratrix brought this action to recover 
 arrears, R. H. contending that in any event he 
 was not to pay more than ^4,000, which he had 
 fully paid : — Held, that it being impossible to 
 give literal effect to all the parts of the mort- 
 gage, the defeazance clause upon payment of 
 14,000, without interest, being quite irrecon- 
 cilable with the particulars regarding the pay- 
 ments, the court must regard the general scope 
 and intent of the deed, and that evidently being 
 to arrange the terms of an annuity for the joint 
 lives of the father and mother, and of the sur- 
 vivor, the deed must be so construed, and that 
 R. H., therefore, could not succeed in his pre- 
 sent contention, that he was not in any event 
 to pay more than $4,000. Coleman v. Hill, 10 
 0. R. 172.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Short Forms Act. 
 
 (a) Power of Sale. 
 
 See O'Donohoe v. Whitiy, 2 O. R. 424, p. 1297; 
 BeOilchnd and hlaml, 11 O. R. 537, p. 1298; 
 Barry v. Anderson, 18 A. R. 247 p. 1298 ; Re 
 Oilmour and White, 14 O. R. 694, p. 1298 ; Ee 
 Green and Artkin, 14 O. R. 697, p. 1298; Re 
 British Canadian Loan and Investment Go. and 
 Bay, 16 0. R. 15, p. 1302 ; Clark v. Harvey, 16 
 0. R. 159, p. 1298. 
 
 (c) Insurance Clause. 
 
 See Oreet v. Citizens' Lu. Co.— Greet v. Royal 
 Im. Co., 5 A. R. 696, p. 942. 
 
 80 
 
 (d) Other Cases. 
 
 M. gave a mortgage to T. of certain land:. 
 The mortgage was in the statutory short form, 
 except that immediately after the printed cove- 
 nant for payment, tjio following words were in- 
 serted in writing • "It being understood, how- 
 ever, that the said lands ordy shall in any event 
 be liable for the payment of the mortgage." The 
 distress clause remained unerased in its nbual 
 place, viz.. after the covenants. T. assigned thi! 
 mortgage to H., who, on an instalment of in- 
 terest falling due, distrained for it. M. now 
 brought this action for a wrongful distress :— 
 Held, that M. wiis entitled to recover the amount 
 distrained for with interest and costs, for tlie 
 earlier provision contifdled the subsequent one, 
 both because it was first in the deed, and be- 
 cause it was in writing, and the words super- 
 added in writing, were entitled to have greater 
 effect attributed to tliem than the printed 
 c'auaes. McKay v. Howard, 6 O. R. 135. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 In 1875, A. K. and H. K. entered into part- 
 nership as sliingle makers fur a term of years on 
 equnl terms, and for the purposes of the partner- 
 ship purchased in A. K.'s name a piece of land 
 about 200 feet distant from the Georgian Bay, 
 wliich was conveyed to him on Ist Sentember. 
 1875. In the waters of the bay a f' gle mill 
 was erected which was connected wi ^he land 
 so purcliased by a tramway which as filled 
 frf)m time to time with saw dust, etc. The mill 
 was so erected for tl)o convenience of floating 
 logs to it. H. K. adviuioed the money to pay 
 for tlie mill and ma'diinpry. The partnership 
 was never formally dis-iolved, although H. K. 
 ceased to interest himself in it subsequent to 
 June, 1876. In .June. 1876, A. K. mortgaged 
 the said land to .1. K. by a mortgage in the 
 statutory form to secure a sum of money ad- 
 vanced by the mortgagee to him, and H. K. 
 to securr the said loan, also executed a mort- 
 gage o; liis individual interest as partner in the 
 said land. This last mortgage recited the part- 
 nership, and was given at the request of the 
 mortgagee, who was aware of the existence of 
 the partnersliip. The mill was in operation 
 until tlie end of 1882. having been run by diflfer- 
 ent persons in the interval. The land in the 
 mortgages contained, was sold under the power 
 of sale therein, and, with the intention of get- 
 ting the machinery, was purchased by defen- 
 dant, who, imder authorization removed the 
 machinery. The land was conveyed by the 
 same description to defendant by J. K., by deed 
 made pursuant to the Short Form of Convey- 
 ances Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 102. H. K. sn^i- 
 sequently executed a release of the land to the 
 defendant. Under an execution against A. K. 
 the machinery was seized by the sheriff after 
 having been loaded on the cars for defendant. 
 In an interpleader issue it was held (O'Connor, 
 J., dissenting), that the mill and machinery com- 
 posing the articles in question, became part of 
 the realty in such a manner as to pass under the 
 mortgage of the land from A. K. and H. K. to 
 J. K. by virtue of section 4 R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 104 ; and, by the deed from J. K. to thn 
 defendant under section 4, of R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 102. Winfield v. Foxalie, 14 O. R. 102.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 See AfeDermoH v. Keenan, 14 O. R. 687, p. 1 284, 
 
1887 
 
 MORTQAOE. 
 
 128S 
 
 3. Mortijagt or Purchase. 
 
 ani: 
 m 
 
 CO 
 
 Transfer of covennnt Iiy absolute assign- ! 
 mcnt — Contemporaneous agreement to re-assign, j 
 Whether intended as a security for money or a 
 sale with a right of repurcliase. See LiriiniHtun 
 V. Wood, 27 Chy. 515, p. 424. 
 
 Where the plaintiff brought an action to re- 
 deem a certain property conveyed hy him in a 
 deed absolute in form, and it appeared that the 
 deed in question which he now sought to cut 
 down to a mortgage, had indeed been execute<l 
 by him for the purpose of securing a debt due to 
 the grartee, but that the main object of the 
 transaction was to jjrotect the piojjcrty from the 
 results of an anticipated action for breach of 
 contract : — Held, that under these circumstances, 
 evidence was not admissible to rectify the form 
 of the instrument, for this court never assists a 
 person who has placed hi& property in the name 
 of another to defraud his creditor; nor docs it 
 signify whether any creditor has been actually 
 defeated or delayed. The dec'idcd weiglit of 
 authority is that after the property passes, 
 whether by the execution of a written instru- 
 ment or by other means sutlicicnt in \a\v, it is 
 not open for the fraudulent gr.mtor to undo the 
 matter either out of court or Ity tlio aid of tlie 
 court. Symes v. Ifnghes, Ti. R. 9 K(|. 407, com- 
 mented upon. Mumkllx. Tiiikis, (i O. U. (i25. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 In August, 1866, the])laintifrin consideiation 
 of $500, which she asserte<l was liy way of loiin, 
 conveyed to M. 100 a';res of land by a deed ab- 
 solute in form. The jdaintiff alleged that M. 
 agreed that if the money was repaitl during his 
 lifetime, ho would accept the same and reconvey 
 the land. The plaintiff' in 1871 ajiplied to M., 
 to accept the amount of princii)al and interest 
 remaining due (she alleging that she had paid 
 SI on account tliercdf), and reconvey the land 
 to her, which r('(|ucst M. refused to comjily 
 with. Subseciuently, and in June of that year, 
 M. sold and conveyed the land to I{. k McK., 
 for Sl,200, and the'v in ,Iune, 1872, sold and con- 
 veyed to B., for $2,000 alleged to be its full 
 value, taking a mnrttrage for part of the conside- 
 ration money, \\ liich tiiey transferred for value 
 to one W. — not a party to the suit. l)uring the 
 time R. & McK. held the ])roperty, they (with 
 knowledge of B. ) had cut and disposed of large 
 quantities of wood and timber growing thereon, 
 without any attempt on the part of the plaintiti' 
 to restrain the ni. In November, 1873, the plain- 
 tiff instituted proceedings in Chancery seeking 
 to redeem, alleging that the deed she gave was 
 intended as a security merely, and a decree was 
 pronounced in her favour, Spragge, C, being of 
 opinion that the transaction was in reality one 
 of mortgage and that on the pleadings set out 
 in the report, the defendants R. & McK. and B., 
 had distinctly admitted the allegations of the bill 
 in this respect. On appeal, this court being 
 equally divided the appeal was dismissed, and 
 the decree for the plaintiff stood afTirmed. Per 
 Hagarty, C. J., and Burton, J. A.— At most the 
 transaction was one of purchase by M., with a 
 verbal undertaking on his part to resell on pay- 
 ment of what should be found due. Patterson, 
 J. A. — While entertaining grave doubts of the 
 plaintiff's right to recover, thought that the evi- 
 dence did not establish the fact of B. having 
 purchased without notice of the plaintiff's al- 
 
 leged right to redeem ; and in view of the fact 
 that Spragge, ('., who heard the evidence con- 
 sidered tliat the fact of notice was fully estal)- 
 lished, thought the decree should be ailirrned. 
 Per Proudfdot, J. — The transaction was in real- 
 ity a security oidy for the advance of moiiey^ 
 and Ji. bought with actual notice of the plain- 
 tiff's claim, and therefore she was entitled to 
 redeem. I'cti'rk'm v. McFailanc, 9 A. R. 429. 
 See .S'. C Kuh nam., Hose v. Pcli'r/cin, 13 S. C 
 R. 677. 
 
 See Ihiilil v. Frrnik, 17 O. R. 7.K8, p. 61G; 
 Ktock V Chaviberliii, 15 8. C. R. 32"), p. 877. 
 
 5. PaymaU of Morlijcuje Monty to Agent. 
 
 M. desiring to • j,ise money upon moitgago (jf 
 his hinds, part ' ereof was to go to pay oil' cer- 
 tain existing .. ;umbrances thereon, arranged 
 with a certain solicitor tiiat the latter should get 
 him tlie money, and he and his wife executed a 
 mortgage for the amount, and left it in tlie 
 hands of the solicitor. The latter received the 
 mortgage money from the mortgagee and ab- 
 sconded. M. now sued the mortgagee, claiming 
 the money oi' a discharge of the mortgage :- 
 Held, that leaving the mortgage with the 
 s(dicitor diil not prove that the latter was M.'s 
 agent to receive the money, and the defendant 
 had not satisfieil the oiiu.s resting ujion him of 
 proving this fact, and therefore M. Mas entitled 
 to judgment as claimed. McMullen v. Polky, 
 12 O. R. 702.-Proudfoot. 
 
 Sec also Subhead IV. 1, p. 1269. 
 
 6. Other Case.i. 
 
 The court below (26 Chy. 618) held that the 
 mortgagee of the realty had in this case no right 
 to look to the machinerj' as security for his 
 claim. On rehearing the court varied this de- 
 cree by declaring the plaintiff entitled to restrain 
 the removal of tiie machinery in question, i)y 
 virtue of a mortgage prior to that in favour of the 
 plaintiff' upon the machinery, and w liii li prior 
 mortgage had been, beloro the institution of this 
 -uit, assigned to the plaintiff ; leaving the rights 
 of the parties in respect of the subsequent chargos 
 on the property to be disposed of cither on appeal 
 or on further directions, or on leave reserved. 
 Jkwar v. Mallory, 27 Chy. .10.3. -Blake. 
 
 Qua?re, whether a conveyance absolute in form, 
 though a mortgage in fact, comes within the Act 
 11 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 11, so as to authorize the 
 mortgagee to give notice and receive attornment 
 from a tenant. McLevnan v. Hannwn, 31 C. 
 P. 210.-C. P. D. 
 
 The relation of landlord and tenant may he 
 created by proper words between mortgagee and 
 mortgagor for the bona fide puipose of further 
 securing the debt, without being either a fraud 
 upon creditors or an evasion of the Chattel Mort- 
 gage Act. Trust ami Loan Co. v. Laiorason, 6 
 A. R. 286. 
 
 The R. S. 0. (1877) c. 25, s. 26, declares that 
 
 I any mortgage or lien created by the nominee of 
 
 the Crown on lands for which the patent has not 
 
 issued, shall in law and equity nave the »ame 
 
MORTGAGE. 
 
 1270 
 
 force and effect, and no other, as if letters patent 
 had before the exeeutiou of such instrument, 
 l)een issued in favour of the grantor: — Held, 
 that under this provision a mortgagor and mort- 
 gagee had all the rights and lialiilities as be- 
 tween themselves that they would have had, 
 had the freehold been actually vested in the 
 mortgi"'or. tVatnoii v. Lindiay, 27 Chy. '253.-— 
 Chy. . See also S. C, (i A. R. (iOO. 
 
 J. and R., living .it I'., had dealings extend- 
 ing over several years with D. who lived at K., 
 and borrowed money from him from time to time. 
 To secure the money borrowed tiiey executed a 
 mortgage to D., purporting to bo for !?4,000, but 
 really intended as security for wiuitever should 
 be due to them from time to time on the loan 
 account. On taking the account in the nuvster's 
 office some years afterwards, and after J. and R. 
 hail made .in assignment in insolvency, it ap- 
 peared that shortly after executing tiiis niort- 
 L'age, and before so much as $4,000 had bec-n ad- 
 vanced by D., J. and K. <lrew on I). for.$l,.">00 : — 
 Held, tluit uuder these circumstances, the prc- 
 sumjition that \). owed .J. and R. the §1,500 
 drawn for, was rclmttcd, the draft being the 
 natural mode in which J. and R. wouUi procure 
 an advance on the security of the nip 'gage to 
 D. It api>eared, also, that during the pendency 
 of these tran.sactions 1). gave J. and It. a mort- 
 gage, held by him, to collect, and that,), and 
 i*. collected what was due on this uiortg.age, 
 and retained tile same : — Held, that tlie money 
 80 collected and retained was covered by the 
 mortgage from J. and R. to I). Court v. lloi- 
 laml, 4 O. K. 68S.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Contracts by infants. .See Fohi/ v. Canada 
 Permanent Loan and Savhujii Co, 4 O. R. 38, 
 p. 905. 
 
 IV. Payment, Sati.-^faction, Oisiiiauue and 
 Mkrukr. 
 
 1. Payment to Attorney or Agent. 
 
 Held, that the custody of a mortgage gives no 
 right to the custodian whether he be the solici- 
 tor of the mortgagee or not, to receive any part 
 of the principal or interest secured. A mort- 
 gage not only secures money, but it affects the 
 land, aiul so for it.t effectual discharge not only 
 payment but ro-conveyance is essential, and for 
 this reason the law does not infer a right to re- 
 ceive the money from the mere possession of 
 this kind of security'. Gillen v. Roman Catholic 
 Episcofial Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston 
 7 0. i\. 146. -Boyd. 
 
 G., a mortgagee, left her mortgage in tlie 
 office of M., her solicitor. F., the mortgagor, 
 paid the interest and $3,000 on account of prin- 
 cipal to M., who paid over the interest, but re- 
 tiiined the $3,000, of which the mortgagee knew 
 nothing. F. subsequently paid a further sum 
 cf $1,500 on account of principal, and other 
 sums of interest, all of which were paid over to 
 <J. :-— Held, that there was no implied authority 
 to receive the principal, and that the adoption of 
 a later payment of principal could not of itself 
 be held to ratify the prior unknown payment. 
 
 L, being the holder of a mortgage upon which 
 an iMtalment of interest was due, instructed 
 
 his attorneys " to take legal proceedings on the 
 securities uidcss the interest was paid on the 
 12th April." The mortgr.gor called on the Pith 
 April, and t(dd the attorneys that he intended 
 to pay off the mortgage shortly, and hoped no 
 costs would be incurred. On the 15th April the 
 attf)rnoys issued a writ of ejectment, and pre- 
 jiared notice of sale, and served them on the 
 mortgagor on 2.'ir(l April, when he called to pay 
 off the mortgage. They also refused to take the 
 principal money : — Held, that the attorneys had 
 no authority to collect the principal, and that 
 tiiey were entitled to the costs of the ejectment 
 suit, but to no other costs whatever. In re 
 Flint and Jdlett, 8 P. R. 301.— Wilson. 
 
 2. Premmption of Payment. 
 
 Ill examining a title the purchaser found a 
 mortgage which matured over eighty years pre- 
 viously, apparently outstanding, and required 
 the vendors to produce tlie discharge of it, which 
 they declined to do : — Held, that under all tho 
 eiicunistaiiccs, the mortgage must be presumed 
 to have been (laid. Jw/ierial, Haul: of Canada 
 v. Metcidfe, 11 O. R. 407.— Ferguson. 
 
 Upon a .sale of land the abstract of title set out 
 a mortgage given to a building society in 1850, 
 tlie mortgagor being a shareholder liy sub- 
 scription. The proviso was for repayment at 
 the times appointed in tlie company's rules, by 
 monthly suliscriiitions, to be continued until the 
 objects of the society should ' c attained. The 
 mortgage was produced, .ukI had endorsed upon 
 it a meiiioraiidum, without date, purporting to 
 be signed by tho secretary treasurer, of the 
 society, that it was paid and settled in full, but 
 the signature was not prove<l. In conveyances 
 made in 1850 and 1874, this mortgage was 
 treated as a subsisting incumbrance : — Held, 
 that tliis mortgage sliouhl not, in favour of the 
 vendor, be presumed to have been satisfied ; noi', 
 having regard to the provisions of Chy. G. O. 394 
 (Con. Rule 112) and .'WO (Con. Rule 114), should 
 the question be disposed of upon a presumption 
 of law. The vendor should shew that some por- 
 tion of the purchase money did not become pay- 
 able under the rules of the society within the 
 period of ten years before the contract, or that 
 this could not be a.scertained ; or that the re- 
 cords of the society could not be referred to ; 
 or that there was difficulty in proving the fact 
 set forth in the indorsement on the mortgage, 
 that it had been paid in full. Mcintosh v. 
 Rogers, 12 P. R. 389. -Street. 
 
 8. Merger of Mortgage Deht. 
 
 In response to a notice from the plaintiffs (tho 
 mortgagees), of an instalment being due on tho 
 defendant's mortgage, the defendant's solicitor 
 wrote that as defendant was unable to pay tho 
 claim, or redeem, and to save plaintiffs' costs, be 
 wouUl give them a conveyance of his equity ,)f 
 redemption. The plaintiffs thereupon conferred 
 with H., their local agent and valuator, whi 
 advised them to take a deed, which they agreed 
 to do, but only to enable them to sell the pro- 
 perty, and defendant was to have any surplus 
 over tho mortgage debt, but that they would 
 not release him from his covenant. An ordinarj 
 deed in fee simple was thereupon sent to defen- 
 
1271 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 1272 
 
 9r:s 
 
 ■Mki 
 
 ■It;: 
 
 m 
 
 tlant, and executed by liini ami liis wife, H. at 
 the time informing him that ho was to have 
 eucli surplus ; and also then informed liiiu aa 
 well as after the transaction had been closed, 
 wrote to liim, that the plaiutiUti would send a 
 diBcharge, though without any authority from 
 the plaintifl's to do bo ; and ilefendant stated 
 that he siuned on this understanding : — Held 
 (Gait, J., dissenting), that tliere was no merger 
 of the mortgage debt, but the defendant still 
 j-emaincd liable therefor, the equity of redemp- 
 tion having been released oidy to enable the 
 plaintiffs more conveniently to sell. Per Wil- 
 «on, C. J. — The accountability for the surplus 
 of the j)roceed3 of tlie sale, shewed the true 
 nature of tlie transaction. Per Osier, J. — The 
 merger of the mortgage was a qiiestion of inten- 
 tion, sucii intention being a matter of fact. Per 
 (lalt, .). — When tlie plaintiffs accepted from de- 
 fendant a release of liis equity of redemption 
 without any reference to or mentii n of the 
 mortgage debt, they thereby discharged the de- 
 fendant and the charge became merged. North 
 vf Seollaml Mortijaijt Co. v. Oermnn, 31 C. P. 
 349.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The owner of lands cieated two mortgages 
 thereon, and subsequently released his e(|uity to 
 the mortgagee wlio was entitled to priority, 
 wiio afterwards bought the interest of tlie mort- 
 gagor at sheriff's sale, and subse(juently sold 
 tlie premises to several purcliasers, who bought 
 without notice of tlie second mortgage : — Hel<l, 
 tliat this had not the effect of merging the 
 mortgagee's cliarge in tlie ecjuity of redemption ; 
 and tliat in a ))rooeeding by parties claiming 
 under tlie second mortgage, their only right was 
 to redeem as puisne incumbrancers, and tliat 
 the purchasers were entitled to an enquiry as to 
 the enhanced value of the property Viy reason of 
 their improvements. Weaver v. Vamlmai — 
 Wilh V. Aijerman, 27 Chy. 477.— Spragge. 
 
 The plaintiffs held a mortgage made by the 
 defendant, who covenanted to pay the mortgage 
 money and interest. Defendant conveyed his 
 e<iuity of redemption to A., who subsecjuently 
 released to the plaintiff for a nominal considera- 
 tion, after striving for a substantial one. The 
 defendant, as part of the arrangement, gave the 
 plaintiffs his note for some interest. The plain- 
 tiffs having sued on the covenant for payment, 
 the jury were directed that if the release and 
 note were taken by the plaintiffs in satisfaction 
 of the liability on the covenant, to find for the 
 defendant; if taken under a stipulation that it 
 should not have that effect, to lind for the plain- 
 tiffs ; and that in the absence of evidence upon 
 the points the inference would be that it was 
 taken in satisfaction of plaintiffs' claim, the 
 charge being thereby merged. The jury found 
 for the defendant : — Held, that there was no 
 misdirection, the onus of proving that there is 
 no merger being upon the plaintiff in such a 
 case ; and the verdict was sustained. North of 
 Scotland Mortgage Co. v. Udell, 46 Q. B. 511.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 The dofendant executed a mortgage on certain 
 land to the plaintiffs, dated 5th Noveml)er, 188], 
 to secure $2,200, and interest, and on 8th May, 
 1882, conveyed the land to L. subject to the 
 mortgage. On 12th May, 1883, L. conveyed to 
 the plamtiffs. Afterwards the plaintiffs entered 
 into an agreement with C. for the pale of the 
 
 land to him for a sum less than the amount due 
 them, which was followed by a conveyance to 
 him. Subse(|uently t)ie plaintiffs brought an 
 action against defendant on the covenant in \m 
 mortgage to them to recover the deficiency 
 thereon, contending that the agreement made 
 with L, when they took the conveyance from 
 her was that defendant should not be discharged 
 thereby, as was evidenced by certain corres- 
 pondence put in by them : — Held, that whctiier 
 there was .such an agreement or not it would 
 not be binding on defendant, for he having sold 
 to L. subject to tiie mortgage, it was L.'h duty 
 to indemnify him against it, and plaintiff took 
 with knowledge of tliisand never commuiiioftted 
 with him ; uiul, moreovir, by their SHbHcqueiit 
 sale to C. they put it out of the defendant's 
 power to redeem. North of Scotland i\b)rtBaKf 
 Co. V. Udell 46 Q. B. 511, and North of Soot 
 land Mortgage Co. /'. (icrman, 31 C. P. 349, 
 commented on. British and Canadian Loan 
 and Investmnut Co. v. WiUiama, 15 0. 1{. 3G6.— 
 Robertson. 
 
 The defendant having mortgaged certain 
 landsj conveyed them to one P., and I'.fterwards, 
 becoming insolvent, he included tiiis in IiIk 
 scliedule as an indirect liability. The convey- 
 ance was silent as to whether it was a sale of 
 the equity of redemption merely, or of tbii; 
 whole estate, the payment of the mortgage lieing 
 part of the consideration, but from the eviden'-i; 
 the court inferred tho latter. The mortgagee, 
 wlio had been no party to the arrangement, 
 afterwards obtained from P. the e()uity of re 
 demption wliich he caused to be assigned to his 
 wife, in order, as lie said, to prevent a merger ; 
 and he then sued the defendant on the covenant 
 for the mortgage money : — Held, tiiat tiiercwas 
 no merger, and that the plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover. Macdonald v. Jiullivaiit, 10 A. K. 
 582. 
 
 In an action on the covenant for payment in 
 a mortgage for the amount of the dcliciency 
 after the exercise of a power of sale, defendant 
 set up the sale under the power to one W. and 
 a retransfer by W. on the same day toplaintill, 
 by which plaintiff became the owner of tlw 
 land : — Held, on demurrei', no defence, /'ffi 
 V. Hohxon, 14 O. R. 272.— Koyd. 
 
 A. C. , owner of certain lands, mortgaged them 
 to .1 loan company, and afterwards executed tvm 
 successive mortgages to one H. Afterwards, in 
 1887, A. C. sowed a quantity of fall wheat, and 
 in January, 1888, made a chattel mortgage of 
 this wheat to G. , which chattel mortgage was 
 properly registered. On April 4th, 1888, before 
 the harvest, under pressure from H., A. C con- 
 veyed to H. the lands for a consideration equal 
 to what was due on the three mortgages, and ii 
 small additional unsecured debt due from huii 
 to H. On the 5th April, 1888, H. leased the 
 property to A. J. C. for a year. When the fall 
 wheat was ripe, A. J. C. cut and harvested it, but 
 G. sent and seized it under'his chattel mortgage, 
 and A. J. C. now brought this action to recover 
 it value :— Held, that on his taki. the convey- 
 ance from A. C, the rights of H., as mortgagee, 
 were merged, for the evidence pointed strongly 
 against an intention on his pa^t that the mort- 
 gage debts should remain, and therefore O.'s 
 " ^it as chattel mortgagee became prior in point 
 
 ng 
 
 of time to the title 
 
 •tgagee 
 
 and the action must 
 
1278 
 
 MORTOAOE. 
 
 1274 
 
 lie dismissed. An mortgagee, H. would no 
 doubt have liad the right to take possession of 
 the crops ub part of his security. Citmcrun v. 
 Oilmi, 17 O. R. '-'33.— Street. 
 
 4. Rinhl of Suhro'jatloii. 
 
 The plaintiff advanced money to the owner of 
 real estate to pay off existing mortgages thereon, 
 and took and registered a mortgage on the pro- 
 perty for the amount, paiil off the prior mort- 
 irages and regiatorecl discharges of them, the 
 defendant having all the time an execution 
 against the land.s of the mortgagor in the hands 
 of the sheriff of the county in which the lands 
 were situate, of which the plaintiff' was igno- 
 rant, his solicitors having neglecterl to search : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff' was entitled to be sub- 
 rogated to the rights of the original mortgagees, 
 and to priority over the defendant's execution, 
 to the amount paid to discharge the prior mort- 
 gages, upon the ground of mistake, he having 
 (lone so under the bel' f tliat he was obtaining a 
 first tiiarge ; and that he was not disentitled to 
 relief, because by usii'g ordinary care he might 
 have discovered the mistake, the defendant not 
 having been prejudiced thereby. Brown v. 
 McLtan, 18 0. R.'o33.— Street. 
 
 In matters of Insurance. See Insukanck. 
 
 See Jack v. Jack; 12 A. 11. 476, p. 75() ; Cour- 
 mllM V. Fookex, 16 O. K. 691, p. 827 ; Mac- 
 Immn v. ara.y, 16 A. K. 224 ; 18 S. C. It., 
 553, p. 561 ; I'urdow v Skhol, 10 (). R. 699; 
 15A. K. 244; lo S. C. R. 610. 
 
 5. Dmhar<ie and C'erti/icate. 
 (a) (tcnerally. 
 
 The registration of a certificate given by the 
 survivor of several mortgagees, upon payment 
 in money of the mortgage debt, effectually dis- 
 charges the mortgage and revests the legal 
 estate. D'lke v. Umiijlux, 5 A. R. 63. 
 
 C. executed two mortgages in favour of M. B. 
 and her two 8i.sters, for moneys advanced by 
 them, which were duly registered. He alter- 
 wardssuld portions of the land toD. undE., 
 giving them his covenant against incumbrances. 
 Subsequently, and after the deuih of the two 
 sisters, C. procured JVl. B. to execute discharges 
 of these mortgages, giving her instead a mort- 
 gage on other lands of ample value, by way 
 ofsecnrity, and after tiie registration of these 
 liiscbargcs he sold the rest of the land comprised 
 m the oiif^inal mortgages to others. These (jur- 
 chasers took in good faith for vulue, having no 
 actual notice of the two original mcrtgnges. G. 
 afterwards induced M. H. to accept iu lieu of 
 this mortgage which she discharged, a mortgug-* 
 upon other lands which proved almost worthless, 
 lipon the death of M. H., the personal represen- 
 tatives of herself and sisters hied a bill seeking 
 to charge the 'ind embraced in the original 
 mortgages with the amount remaining due there- 
 on :— held, reversing the decree of Blake, V.C, 
 (28Chy, 99,) that the discharges by M. B. were 
 valid and effectual, so far as the purchasers, after 
 they had been registered, were concerned, as 
 when tlivy received their conveyances and paid 
 the cousideration therefor, a discharge by M.B., 
 
 tlie person entitled by law to receive the money 
 was registered, and they were not bound to en- 
 (piire whether payment in money had been ac 
 tually made ; but that the discliurgcs were in- 
 operative in favour of C. and 1). and E., who 
 f>urcha8cd from him with notice of the mortgage 
 )y reason of the registry, to extinguish the in- 
 terest of the deceased sisters other than M. B., 
 as she could only discharge the mortgages upon 
 payment of the debt, and not by the acceptance 
 of another security. Ih. 
 
 The plaintiffs, the Trust and Loan Co., ad- 
 vanced $2,000 on certain lands on ccmdition 
 that three encumbrances against it should be dis- 
 charged I. ut of the proceeds of their loan and 
 otherwise. The first and third encumbrancers 
 were paid off, and the former executed a statu- 
 tory discharge of their mortgage, which was 
 never registered. Subsequently the second en- 
 cund>rancer, who had not been paid, claimed pri- 
 ority over the plaintiffs. They then obtained an 
 assignment of the first mortgage :— Held, that 
 the discharge not having been registered, oper- 
 ated only as a receipt, and the amount paid the 
 first encumbrancer being paid by the Trust and 
 Loan Co., and not by the original mortgagor, 
 tliat the plaintiffs were entitled to priority to 
 the extent of the first mortgage. Tnist and Loan 
 Co. V. Gallwjhc.r, 8 P. R. 97. —Taylor, Master. 
 
 A certificate of discharge is of no effect to re- 
 vest tlie legal estate until registered. J{e Moore, 
 sr. R. 471.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where a certificate of discharge was lost be- 
 fore registration : — -Held that the disclaimer of 
 the mortgagees, who were trustees, and the con- 
 sent of their solicitors was not sufficient to en- 
 able the court to declare the petitioner entitled 
 to the legal estate in fee simple. lb. 
 
 A mortgagor or other party entitled to the 
 e([uity of redemption has a riglit to obtain at his 
 own expense from the mortgagee u reconveyance 
 of the mortgage premises, including a covenant 
 against incumbrances. He is not obliged to ac- 
 cept the simple discharge of mortgage prescribed 
 by the statute. The purchaser of a mortgaged 
 estate paid tite amount due on the mortgage to 
 the mortgagee, who executed a statutory dis- 
 charge of the incumbrance, which recited that 
 the money due upon the mortgage had been paid 
 by the mortgagor, and refused either to sign a 
 discharge sta cing correctly tlie name of the plain- 
 tiff as the person paying, or to execute a recon- 
 veyance in his favour, the plaintiff offering to 
 furnish satisfactory proof, if desired, that he was 
 the owner of the equity of redemption. The- 
 court, on a bill filed for that purpose, ordered 
 the mortgagee to execute the reconveyance, and 
 pay the costs of the suit. McLennan v. McLean, 
 27"Chy. 54.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A mortgagee executed a statutory discharge 
 which was incorrectly dated, and his agent la 
 good faith and in order to make the instrument 
 cimform to the intention of the mortgagee altered 
 the date, which alteration was, under the cir- 
 cumstances, immaterial, and, as altered, the 
 document stated correctly what was intended 
 by the parties to it. Under these circumstances, 
 a bill impeaching the validity of such discharge 
 was dismissed with costs. Sayles v. Brown, 2S. 
 Chy. 10.— Blake. 
 
1276 
 
 MOBTOAaE. 
 
 me 
 
 pi«1 
 
 90 
 
 Held, reversing tho judgment of the Court of 1 
 Appeal, A. K. -M'l (Henry, J.), <liss., lliat the ' 
 txeeution and registnition in acconlanee witli 
 tlie Uevised Statutes of Ontario, (IH77) e. HI, h. 
 ()7, of a (liseharge of a inortgage in fee simjjle 
 made by a tenant in tail reeonveys tho land to 
 the mortgagor barred of tlie entail. Lawlur v. 
 Lnivlor, I OS. C. R. 194. 
 
 In rcspeet to discharges of mortgages, what 
 tlie Registry Act makes tantamount to a recon- 
 veyance is the certificate of discharge and tlie 
 registration of it, not the execution of the certi- 
 ficate merely, /n re. Mtinic Hall Jiloik — Dumhle 
 V. Afcln/osh, S O. K. 225.— Fergusuu. 
 
 The c([uity of redemption in the deed con- 
 veyed was subject to a mortgage, a discharge 
 of which was registered on 21»t.July, 1875, the 
 same day as the deed : —Held, that the deed 
 must be assumed to have been delivered i>efore 
 it was registered, and tho discharge of tho mort- 
 gage on registration operated as a reconveyance 
 to iJ. , who was the assignee of the mortgagor 
 within the meaning of the Act respecting the 
 elFect of registering a discharge. Iikjx rittl Hunk 
 of Canada v. Metcalfe, 11 O. R. 467. — Ferguson. 
 
 A discharge of mortgage executed by an 
 assigneetheteof contained these words, "anil that 
 such mortgage has been assigned to me," with- 
 out giving tlie particulars of the dates of and 
 parties to the assign inent, was: — Held, sufficient. 
 Jie Mara, Hit), li. 301. — Ferguson. 
 
 A diacliarge of mortgage referred to the mort- 
 gage as 5704, whereas it was regisltred as 5761 
 (J. W. : — Held, that it was nevertheless a valid 
 discharge properly registered. The Registry Act, 
 though requiring every instrument to be num- 
 bered, says nothing about addiiig letters, which 
 appear to be only arbitrary marks adopted by 
 the officials for convenience of reference. Re 
 (Jlarkc. and Chamberlain, 18 0. R. 270.— IJoyd. 
 
 A discharge of mortgage wassigiiedby "Eliza" 
 Switzer, wliere;is tho mortgage purporting to be 
 discharged was made to " Elizabeth" Switzer : — 
 Held, on a vendor and purchaser application, 
 that there was no valid objection to tho dis- 
 charge, for the identity of the person signing 
 was established by affidavit to the satisfaction 
 of the registrar, and as a matter of family us ige 
 the names are synonymous and interchangeable. 
 lb. 
 
 EfFectof discharge in determining an easement. 
 See Carter v. Orasett, 14 A. R. 685, p. 1177. 
 
 V. Rights and Liabilities of Parties and 
 Those Claiming U.ndek Them. 
 
 1. Right of Mort(ja(/or to Maintain Actions. 
 
 Held, that O. J. Act, s. 17, sub-sec. 5, enables 
 a mortgagor, entitled to the possession of I"r.d, as 
 to which the mortgagee has given no notice of 
 his intention to tiike possession, to sue to pre- 
 vent or recover damages in respect of any tres- 
 pass or other wrong relative thereto in his own 
 name only, and that the objection that the mort- 
 gagees shouM be parties ought not to prevail. 
 Piatt V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. of Canada, 12 
 O. R. 119.— Proudfoot. 
 
 In an action against defendant to recover 
 ilamages for depreciation in the value of a 
 
 tei 
 
 farm for selling plaintiff barley seed mixed with 
 weed, it was conti.'nded that as tho farm wu 
 mortgaged tho plaintill' (mortgagor) duUI not 
 maintain tho action: — Held, that in CMjuity the 
 mortgagor is the owner in a case like tlii.s where 
 the land is worth considerably more tiiim the 
 mortgage, and it is for tho judge to direct the 
 mortgagee to bo added as a jiarty or to direct the 
 sum recovered to be paid into court for lii.s pro- 
 tection if it appear that his interestH arc hoing 
 atlected prejudicially by tho litigation, liiit it is 
 no reason for dismissing the action, and a now 
 trial was ordered. McMulkn v. Fra , \;\ (). R 
 57.— Chy. 1). 
 
 2. Riijht of Murlijaijce to Maintain Anions. 
 
 Although a mortgagee has no right to com- 
 plain of. any 8iiV)so(pient dealing with the estate 
 by tho mortgagor, tliei-o is nothing to prevent 
 him, if his claim is left unsatisfied, from siiiiii; 
 on the covenant in the mortgage, and prouceilini' 
 to a sale under execution or applying to this 
 court to remove any subsequent fra iduknt con- 
 veyance which iiitoi feres with the realization of 
 his claim. I'arr v. Montgomery, 27 Chy. .lai.— 
 .Spragge. 
 
 Qiiicre, whether tho appellant whose only in- 
 .^rest was that of mortgagee of .S.'s interest, had 
 .any locus standi to bring a suit for partition or 
 to appeal without his coplaintifT. Lai^lnutew 
 S'camen, S A. 1!. 557. 
 
 Held, — Rose, .!., expressing no opinion on the 
 point — ^that where an a.s.'tignmeiit of a mortgage 
 on land was absolute in form, though as a 
 matter of fact the assignor retained a right to 
 part of the money, an action on the covenant in 
 the mortgage must be brought in the name of the 
 assignee. iVavdv. ILkjIics, 8 0. R. 138. -C. P. 
 D. 
 
 B., the owner of a mill, subject to a first mort- 
 gage for .154, 000, held by one K., gave a .second 
 mortgage to iilaintill's. (Subsequently U , being 
 desirous of having the mill converted fioin the 
 "Stone'" to the "Rolbr" system, applieil to 
 M., manager of the Ontario Loan and .Savings 
 Co., for an advance of .S7,3U(), to enable him to 
 pay off the mortgage and leave a surplus to he 
 applied in ])art payment of the cost of recon- 
 .struction, which advance tho company ag''cedto 
 make, and a mortgage for that amount was duly 
 executed by B. in favour of the company. B. 
 thereupon entered into an agreement with de- 
 fendants under which delendaiits were to recon- 
 struct the mill for ?i;4,800, ?j'-',000 to be paid on 
 completion of mill and balance in three equal 
 annual payments, secured by a second mortgage 
 on the property, and it was one of the terms of 
 the said agreement that defendants should be 
 furnished with a letter from M. agreeing to pay 
 iihe $2,000 on completion of the mill. Defendants, 
 without communicaiing with M., commenced 
 work and did not ask him for such letter until 
 af*^^er the work had progressed for several weeks. 
 When applied to for such letter, M. informed 
 plaintiffs that he did not agree with B. to give 
 a letter for any specific sum, but only for what- 
 ever balance there might be left out of said sum 
 of $7,300, after paying off prior incumbrances, 
 and that after allowing for the amount of such 
 prior incumbrances there only remained about 
 |l,200, which latter aoa'^'mt he was willing to 
 
1276 
 
 need mixfd with 
 lis thu fiinii wu 
 i;ii.g(iv) duld not 
 lilt ill i'(iiiity the 
 u liiiu tiiin where 
 1 mdie tliun the 
 Ige to ilirtct the 
 ty or ti) direct the 
 uimrt tor iiis pro- 
 t uresis lire lieiiig 
 tigiitidii, Ijiit it iH 
 otioii, 1111(1 11 new 
 V. /Vh, 1:{ 0. R. 
 
 aiiUuiii Arlions. 
 
 no right tn com- 
 ig with the estate 
 jtiiiiig to luevent 
 isficd, from suing 
 ;o, and pioueeding 
 applying to this 
 it f ririduk'iit con- 
 the re:ili/,:itiiin of 
 !/, 27 Chy. W.- 
 
 ,nt whose only in- 
 f S. 's interest, had 
 it for partition or 
 itiflf. LaplinUe v. 
 
 ; no opinion on the 
 cut of a mortgage 
 )rin, thoiigli as a 
 itiiincd a right to 
 II tlic covenant in 
 in the name of the 
 O. R. 13H.-C.P. 
 
 act to a first mort- 
 gave a second 
 (lucntly IJ , lieiiig 
 Miveited fidin the 
 stem, ajiplied to 
 joan and Savings 
 , to enable liiin to 
 ^e II surplus to be 
 the cost of recon- 
 ;oinpaiiy ag'eedto 
 iiinount was duly 
 ■lie company. B. 
 reenient with de- 
 nts were to rccon- 
 
 000 to he paid on 
 ce in three equal 
 
 1 second min'tgage 
 le of the terms of 
 ndants should be 
 
 agreeing to pay 
 mill. Defendants, 
 M., commenced 
 such letter until 
 for several weeks, 
 tter, M. informed 
 e with B. to give 
 >ut only for what- 
 ft out of said sum 
 ior incumbrances, 
 e Hmouut of such 
 
 K remained about 
 e was willing to 
 
 1277 
 
 MOBTaAQE. 
 
 1278 
 
 undertake to pay on the mill being completed. 
 Defendants, in the eour.se of reconstruction, hail 
 taken out most of the old inauhinery and put in ' 
 new and ina<lo considcnible alterations, and 
 upon M. declining to undertake to pay 3i-,000, 
 they removed tlie new machinery put in and left 
 the mill in a disinantled uondilion. At the time 
 defondaiils commenced work thu amount ilno on 
 plaintilfs mortgage was about 131,700. 'I'iic mill 
 whilst in such dismantled state, was sold under 
 power of sale in K.'s mortgage and only realized 
 enough to satisfy it, and plaintili's contending 
 that defendanta by their acts had dlminislied 
 the value of their security, and that B., tlio 
 mortgagor, was insolvent, brouglit this action to 
 recover damages to the extent to which their 
 necurity was impaireil. It appeared in evidence 
 that M., besides being manager for the loan 
 lompany, was also plaiiitiU's in inager, and that 
 he was aware that B. had maile a contract with 
 defendants for remodelling the mill, although 
 he did nut know the preoisc terms of such con- 
 tract, and that lie saw the work in progress 
 and raised no objection. At the trial the 
 Ohicf Justiijc dismissed the action, lidding (fol- 
 lowing Baker i>. Mills, II O. H. '2.")3) that plain- 
 tilfs, second mortgagees, not having the legal 
 estate, an 1 not being in possession, or entitled 
 to possession, could not m lintain any action : — 
 Held, per Wilson, (J. J., and Arm-mr, J., that 
 pliuntiU's must fail, not on the ground upon 
 which the Chief .lusticc at the trial dismissed 
 their aotiniis, i)ut upon the grounii that tiiey 
 had by their conduct and acijuiesci.nce pre- 
 cluded thoiiiselves from bringing it. Per ()'(/on- 
 nor, J., that plaintitl'siiiiistfiiil on both grounds. 
 WmUvii liaik of (Jan id I v. (Ircey, 12 O. K. 
 (i8.-Q. B. IJ. 
 
 See Lovdarc v. IIarr'mjton,'21 Cliy. 178, p. 91.">. 
 
 3. LiMlitij of Morlj'ir/or on /c's Gori nant. \ 
 
 The defendant mirtg iged certain land to the 
 plaintill's, covenanting to pay the mortgage ^ 
 money, and then sold to S., who assumed pay- i 
 raent of the mortgage as part of the purchase 
 money. .S., then g ive a second mortgage to the 
 plaintilfs, and then further mortgaged the land. 
 Default having been made, the plaintiffs sued 
 defendant to recover the amount of his mort- 
 gjge, and prayo I for judgment for tlie whole 
 amount unpaid ; but neither sale nor foreclo.siiro 
 was asked: — Held, that the plaintiffs were en- 
 titled to judgment on the covenant against de- 
 fendant for the amount of his mortgage ; but 
 that defenilant was entitled to a lien on the land 
 for the amount of the mortgage, which, as be- 
 tween him andS., S. had bound himself to pay ; 
 and leave was given to defendant to amend, and 
 bring the proper parties before the court so as 
 to enforce his lien. Hamilton Provident Loan 
 and Inoedment Co. v. Smith, 17 O. R. 1. — Rose. 
 
 See North of Scotland Mortijatje Co. v. Udell, 
 46 Q. B. 514, p. 1271 ; Macdonald v. Bidlimnt, 
 10 A. R. 582, p. 1272 ; North of Scotland Mort- 
 gage Co. v. German, 31 C. P. 349, p. 1271 ; Pegg 
 V. H'ibson, 14 O. R. 272, p. 1272 ; Campbell v. 
 Robinson, 27 Chy. 634, p. 1280 ; British and Can- 
 nilian Luan and Investment Co. v. Williama, 15 
 0. R. 3C«?, p. 1272 ; Beatty v. O'Connor, 6 O. R. 
 731, p. 1301 ; Paisley v. Broddy, 11 P. R. 202, 
 p. 1094. 
 
 4. Leaxe hy Aforlijngor. 
 
 In replevin the defendant, who had mort- 
 gaged the demised premises to one K., claimed 
 as landlord, under a lease alleged to have been 
 nude by him subsetjueiit to the niortgage, three 
 (|uarters' rent, which had been udd by the ten- 
 ant t() K. ; -Hold, that the eviclence, set out in 
 the report of the case, shewed that K. was the 
 original and actual lessor, or, at all events, that 
 previous to the payment of the rent avowed for, 
 the tenant had attorned to K, with the defen- 
 dant's consent. McLnnuau v. Haninini, 31 C. 
 I'. 210.— C. P. 1>. 
 
 M. being possessed of certain lauds subject to 
 a inortg ige, made a lease thereof for a term of 
 years to the plaintiff, which provided, amongst 
 other things, that ^lo should i>e exiiendcd in 
 the first year of the term in procuring nanuro 
 for till! purposes of the farm. Afterwards ho 
 created a mortgage in favour of the defendant, 
 and assigned to him tile lease as collateral secur- 
 ity. The defendant distrained for rent claimed 
 to be due, and plaintilf replevied the goods 
 seized, claiming there was no rent duo ; and 
 proved tlio payment of certain minoys to the 
 llrst mortg igee, and claimed also credit for 5fl5 
 a ye ir in respect of manure furnished and ex- 
 pended ill each year on the pr.!mi»es, which, at 
 tlie trial, was jiroved to have been the true 
 agreement between the landlord anil tenant, 
 tlioiigh not so expressed in the lease, and the 
 lease was ordered to be reformed accordingly : — 
 Held, that the lease should not have been re- 
 formed as against <lefenilant, ho being u bonil 
 tide purchiiser for value -yithout notice of the 
 facts on which tlio plaintiff's equity rested : — 
 Held, also, that, although a now contract of 
 : tenancy may lie inferred from the fact of a 
 notice by a mortgagee to pay rent to him, and 
 aci|iiiescence by the tenant by piymeiit of the 
 I rent, still, as the circumstances showed that it 
 I was not intended to create such a contract, but 
 rather that the interest being paid, the posses- 
 sion of the mortgagor and his tenants was to 
 I rem lin undisturbed, it could not be said that 
 the plaintiff's tenancy had been put an end to 
 by the intervention of the first mortgagee. Forae 
 1 V. Sovereen, 14 A. R. 482. 
 
 5. Mortgagee in Possession. 
 
 As between mortgagor and mortgagee, there \a 
 nothing to prevent the mortgagee taking posses- 
 sion at a fair and reasonable rent agreed upon 
 between them. In such a case the mortgagee is 
 not a "mortgagee in possession" in the tech- 
 nical sense of the term. In such a case, how- 
 ever, a subsequent incumbrancer— prior to the 
 first mortgagee entering into possession — is not 
 bound by such an agreement ; and the master 
 may charge the first mortgagee with a fair occu- 
 pation rent, although it exceeds that stipulated 
 for. Court v. Holland, 29 Chy. 19.— Boyd. 
 
 Where mortgagees in fee in possession execu- 
 ted a deed purporting to "convey, assign, re- 
 lease, and quit claim" to the grantees, "their 
 heirs and assigns forever, all and singular," the 
 mortgaged land, habendum "as and for all the 
 estate and interest" of the grantors "in and to 
 the same"; — Held, sufScient to pass the fee to 
 the grantees. Bright v. McMurray, 1 O. B. 
 172.— Boyd. 
 
1279 
 
 MORTOAQE. 
 
 tSi! 
 
 
 :a^^san 
 
 ij' 
 
 1^1 
 
 i'^ 
 
 v^^l^H 
 
 
 4^^H 
 
 
 fi^^H 
 
 HPi 
 
 ;||^^H 
 
 R ' 
 
 :^^B 
 
 aBB 
 
 -^i^H^^I 
 
 I 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 ■1 
 
 :V 
 
 HII 
 
 JLi 
 
 
 afterwords Imujjht up tho o(iuity of rodfiinptioti 
 I', tho pliiiiititl, Hulwenuontly purehaHwl lot I) 
 for which ho puiil tho full viJuo uml ubtuiiied » 
 ooiivoyaiico uontuining Htatatory covenants for 
 title and poBSL'Ssion. J. suliHoquontly Hold lotK. 
 to a 1)0114 title purchaaor, who conveyed to the 
 appellant :— Held, nttirming the judgment of th« 
 court hclow (iiS Chy. 356), that I". wa> entitled 
 to 1)0 indcmniHed out of lot K to tho full extent 
 of tlie value thereof ugainat the amount duo on 
 the mortgage. PUvx ■/. Canavau, 7 A. R. la? 
 .SVe.V. C, 2»Chy. 32. 
 
 See Core v. Onfurio Loan awl JhlHuhirt Co 90 
 U. 230; FroMer v. Xayle, Id O. U. 241, p. I29r), 
 
 ('., owner of the preniiscB in qucHtion, mort- 
 uuged them on (itii I'i'hruarv, IHtiU, to the C 1*. 
 L & H. Co. Vn 17tli March, 1883, C. inado a 
 Hccdiid mortgugo to L who aBiiigned to plaintitf. 
 On 5th October, 1883, C. leased the proniitieH to 
 defendant for ten yearn from Ist April, 1884, at 
 #175 for the tirnt year, and ^Xti't for Hubscquont 
 years, payable in advance on 27tli Octol)er in 
 eai'li year. 'J'he lease contained a clauxe that 
 rent Hhouhl be paid to H., or sent to the mort- 
 gagees " as payments of interest on loan made 
 by the lessor." H. was tho local agent of tlie 
 first mortgagees. Tho clause referred to was 
 inserted in the lease at defendant's re(|ue8t. 1'ho 
 >-ent payable on 27th October, 1883, 1884, and 
 IH85, was paid by defendant to H., wlio remitted 
 the money to the company. H. gave defendant 
 receipts for tho rent as agents for C The com- 
 pany sent H. receipts for the money forwarded 
 by him, expressing that the money was received 
 III) account of advances made to<'. H. had no 
 autliority to receive money for tho company, 
 The company were not made aware of tho exis- 
 tence of the lease, or of its provisions. Tho 
 plaintitf brought this action to ucover posses- 
 sion of the niort^iaged preniises, his mortgage 
 being in default. The ('efcndant set up tiie leusa 
 an<1 the clause referred to, tho payment of rent 
 to the company, and that ho was tenant to tho 
 •company, whose mortgage was in default :■ - 
 Held, reversing the. decision of Boyd, C, that, 
 as tho company received tho money .sent them , 
 by H. not as rent of the mortgagetl lands, but proportionately. C/arh. v. Fnihald Loan and 
 
 7. AijreemeiU to lie/cane in PorliouH. 
 A mortgage on five stores, and expressed to 
 bo for $10,51)0, contained a provision that on 
 payment of S'2,500, tiie mortgagees would re- 
 lease the easterly store mortgaged, aM<l any one 
 or more of the other four stores on payment of 
 .?2,000 each at any time, on receiving a bonus of 
 three .months' inteiest on tho sum so paid :— 
 Held, that the bonelit of this clause passed to 
 the assignee of the equity of redemption, who 
 was entitled to enforce it. It appeared thatthe 
 whole $10,600 had not been advanced. :— Held, 
 that the amount required to be paid to entitle 
 the assignee of the equity of redemption to ob- 
 tain a release of any of the stores must beal)ttted 
 
 on account of advances made to C, they could 
 not under the evidence be held to bo mortgagees 
 in possession, and that defendant was not their 
 tenant : — Held, also, that even if tho company 
 had been aware of the provision in the lease and 
 liad received the money with such knowledge, 
 they would not have been mortgagees in posses- 
 sion with defendant as their tenant, as the 
 money under the very terms of the provision 
 would not have been received us rent, but " as 
 payments of interest on a loan made by tho les- 
 sor." The plaintiff was therefore held entitled to 
 recover. Frost v. Hmes, 12 O. R. 669. - Q. B. D. 
 
 See McDowell \. Phippen, 1 O. R. 143, p. 1285. 
 
 6. Purchase or Release of Part of Properly. 
 
 AVhcre a purchaser of pnrtof an estate subject 
 to mortgage gave a covenant to pay a proportion 
 of the mortgiige money, and a bill was tiled by 
 the vendor's assignee to compel payment by the 
 purchaser, the court, refused to give such relief, 
 except upon the terms of the vendor's share of 
 the mortgage debt being paid at the same time, 
 although there was no covenant on the part of 
 the vendor that he would pay. But the court 
 refused to include a direction that the payment 
 by the purchaser of his share should be condi- 
 tional on the payment by other and independent 
 purchasers of other parts of the estate of their 
 shares of the sum due. In such a case, however, 
 it would seem that any of .?uch purchasers paying 
 the amounts properly payable by others would 
 be entitled to use the name of the plaintiff in 
 proceedings against such defaulting purchasers, 
 upon indemnifying him against costs. Clfmow 
 V. Booth, 27 Chy. 15. — Spragge. 
 
 B. owned lots D. and E, and mortgaged them, 
 
 Savimjn Co., 16 O. R, 598. — Robertson. 
 
 8. Podponiwj Leant to Morlywje. 
 See Andemon v. Stevenson, 150. R. 563,p. 1149. 
 
 9. R'tijhtii and Liabilities of Pnrrhaner.i of Equity 
 of Jicdf.i/tption. 
 
 When a mortgagor who has covenantee! for 
 payment of the mortgage debt, sells his equitj 
 of redemption subject to such mortgage, lie be- 
 comes surety of the purchaser for tlie payment 
 of such debt, and if the same is allowed to run 
 into default he will bo entitled to call upon his 
 assignee to pay such debt. Campbell v. Jiolm- 
 non, 27 Chy. 634. -Spragge. 
 
 Where a debtor at the express iudtunee and 
 under the advice ond with the assent of a credi- 
 tor who holds, to secure post and future ad- 
 vances, a mortgage upon certain of the debtor's 
 land, makes a voluntary conveyance of his 
 e<)uity of redemption in that land to his wife, 
 that creditor cannot afterwards contend that 
 the conveyance is voluntary and void as against 
 him. Such a mortgagee cannot charge against 
 the land under his mortgage any advances made 
 after notice of the conveyance. Hopkinsonv. 
 Rolt, 9 H. L. C. 514, and similar cases, consid- 
 ered and applied, lilacklev v. Kenny, 16 A. R. 
 522. 
 
 One of the defendants, who was the husband 
 of another of the defendants, mortgaged certain 
 lauds to the plaintiff, a member of a mercantile 
 tirm, to secure an existing indebtedness to the 
 firm and future advances. Subsequently the 
 husband, by tlie advice of the plaintiff, conveyed 
 his equity of redemption in tho lands to his 
 
 the mortgagee (J.) assigned the security and | wife, subject to the mortgage. At the time of 
 
 I 
 
1280 
 
 <f of redemntion. 
 :)uruhuHU(l lot 1), 
 I iinil obtained a 
 ry c'ovfimnts for 
 lontly 80I1I lot K. 
 uoiiveyml to the 
 1 jiul^iiiuntofthe 
 
 i*. WHS entitled 
 :> tlio full extent 
 
 amount diiu on 
 mi, 7 A. R. 187. 
 
 OehnlurcCo.W. 
 
 11. i>4i,p. \m. 
 
 n PoHious. 
 
 luul exprcsHed to 
 jrovisiim tliivt on 
 LjagecH would re- 
 lied, and any one 
 •L'H oi« payment ot 
 jciviij^ a bonus of 
 ! an in 80 paid ;— 
 \ clause passed to 
 redumption, who 
 appeared that the 
 dvanced. :— Held, 
 be paid to entitle 
 redemption to oh- 
 es muHt be abated 
 'rifhiM Loan and 
 sbertsoii. 
 
 Mortijaije. 
 iO.R.503,p. 1149. 
 
 rchanern 0/ Equity 
 u 
 
 18 covenanted for 
 t, eells Ilia equity 
 mortgage, he be- 
 r tor tlie payment 
 is allowed to run 
 [1 to call upon his 
 lampbell v. y^'iin- 
 
 rcBS iudtance and 
 3 assent of a crcdi- 
 st and future ad- 
 in of the debtor's 
 onveyauce of his 
 
 land to his wife, 
 rds contend that 
 nd void as against 
 lot cliarge against 
 iiy advances made 
 3e. Hopkinaon v. 
 lilar cases, consid- 
 
 Kenny, 16 A. R. 
 
 was the husband 
 mortgaged certain 
 er of a mercantile 
 debtedness to the 
 Subsequently the 
 plalntitt", conveyed 
 tho liinds to hi» 
 . At the time of 
 
 1281 
 
 MORTOAOL. 
 
 1282 
 
 thi» conveyance, the debt due the idivintitlN' firm 
 tta» lepremnted l>y niitcM under di«ioiinl wbicb, 
 ■M they felt duo, were ri.'tireil liy tbc lirui, tlie 
 hiiKbiiud making part payments tlierfiiii, ppi- 
 riiriiiLt flesh gooilH from the tlini, giving icnew- 
 iiln fill' the balaneeH and getting ilelivcry up of 
 the original notes, the wife nut brin.; ciin.Miiltecl 
 a.., to these dealings, and rigiits ngaiiist her nut 
 being reserved. 'Hio husl)an(l siibseiiuently niaib^ 
 an ttssignuient under li. .S. (), (1SH7) c. \'i\. In 
 all action for that purpose the conveyance to the 
 wife was declared fraudulent and void as against 
 cicditors, but not as against tlie creditors' assig- 
 nee, it having been made l)efoie the Assignnienl 
 and Preference Act: (I'Vrgiison c. Keniiey, It) 
 A. H. '27<1. ) Jn the present action on the plaiii- 
 tilV's mortgage, it was held by the Court of Ap- 
 peal that the Jplniiitlt was estopped from dis 
 |iiitiiig the valiiiU> i.i the conveyance to the 
 wife, and that the mortgaged la"ds were not 
 uhargea ■ with advances made after notice of 
 n\w\i conveyance, and the action was referred 
 hack to an olhcial referee (llj A. K. .Vi^). On a 
 second appeal from the referee's report; -Held, 
 that the course of dealing of pbiintitl's firm diil 
 not operate as a payment of the original notes 
 or debt: Dominion IJank v. Oliver, 17 O. R. 
 4;t'2, followed. Hut:— Held, that the wife, at 
 the time of the conveyance to her, became a 
 fiurety in respect of the lands, and that the re- 
 newal of the notes by the plaintiff's firm dis- 
 charged the lands from liability : — Held, also, 
 fohowiiig tli(^ judgiiK'iitin Hlackley r. Keiiney, 10 
 A. U. iV2'2, that the inortg.igc was not a security 
 I'oi advances made after the conveyance to the 
 wife, iior could the pbiintitf 's firm claim as simple 
 contract creditors against the lands, nor could 
 the creditors' assignee, who was a defendant in 
 this action, claim on belialf of the other credi- 
 tors, whether execution creditors or otherwise, 
 they not being parties to this action. Jllackli'i/ 
 V. Kcutiiy, 1!) (>. It. 1G!>.— Itobertson. But see 
 .v. V. in appeal, 18 A. 1!. 135. 
 
 A pureliaser of an ecpiity of redemption is 
 liound as lietwoen himself and his ven<lor to pay 
 (iff the incumbrances, and this ((uite irrespective 
 of the frame of the contract between the parties. 
 Where therefore lands were exchan^red between 
 the plaintiff and defendant which were subject 
 to certain mortgages, the defendant was held 
 iHMiud to pay off those on the lands conveyed to 
 Idin, and to pro^.eet the plaintiff from liability 
 thereon. Bond v. Johiiuton, 19 O. R. 598. — 
 Itoyd. 
 
 See Wilkim v. AfcLcan, 10 O. R. 58; 13 A. 
 it. 407; 14 8. O. R. 22, p. 1305; Urithh ami 
 Canadian Loan and Invislmenl Co. v. IVilliamn, 
 15 0. K. .3(36, p. 1272. 
 
 1 1 . Recovery of Mortgage Money. 
 
 (a) When Action will lie. 
 
 Held, that a mortgage which contain? an ac- 
 knowleilgment of receipt of the mortgage money, 
 hut no covenant for repayment of money, does 
 not of itself afford conclusive evidence of a debt, 
 so that the mortgagee or his assigns can main- 
 tain an action for its recovery. In this case it 
 was shewn that m).money was ever advanced by 
 the mortgagee to defendant, the mortgagor, but 
 that the mortgage wag given for a debt due by 
 
 81 
 
 defendant to one C, who in consideration of 
 getting it agreed to relieve defeinlant from all 
 persiinal liability ; and the plaintill's, assignres 
 of the niuitgage, were held not entitled to ri-- 
 cover. (^uieie, whether section I, subsection 
 4, and section 2 of the Vendors and I'uiebaHers' 
 Act. |{. S. (». (Ih77), c. HMt, apply to such an 
 action as this, or only to actions where the title 
 to hind is in i|uestion. Loii'/nn Luiin Co. v. 
 
 Siiinfh, 32 (J. 1'. r>-M. - (.'. P. I). 
 
 A writ was in the haiid.i > '' tho slierifl'iit the 
 suit of the plaintill's against I., at the time of the 
 dismissal ot a bill llled by I,, to ridei'in the 
 plaintill's, and at the time of the sale to M., 
 which dismissal In be elluot of a 1 ^w■ee of 
 foieclosiiro against 1. : -Held, iiotn 'Llistanding 
 that the plaintill's might procd to recover their 
 debt against 1., they beill^ 11 ,1 ])iisitioii to re- 
 convey the mortg.iged i)iiiiii-,eH. /laid' 0/ 'J'"- 
 niiilov. /(■?/'(';», 28 ('by. ;^!I7 Spragge. 
 
 If a person borrows money from an innocent 
 lender, and employs it in pn^teri iiif; a creditor, 
 the lender is not debarred ironi siiiiii,' f(H' ii.. .1 - 
 payment ; and if he holds security, such as the 
 moitgage from J. r.nd H. to I)., in tiiia case, he 
 can chaigo the money ao hianed on such security. 
 Coiir/ V. Holland, 4 0. I!. (588.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 (b) Intercut. 
 
 ! A mortgage was to be void on |iaynicnt of 
 
 I S2,()()0, at eight per cent., in five years from tho 
 
 j d:ite thereof, with "interest in meantime half- 
 
 I yearly on, etc., in each and every year of said 
 
 j term of five years : and also uimn payment of 
 
 I interest at and after the rate aforesaid upon all 
 
 I such interest money as shall be iiermitted or 
 
 j suH'ered to be in arrear and uii)iaiil after any of 
 
 ' those days and times herc'iibefure limited ;ind 
 
 -ppointed for payment tlieroof " : --Held, that 
 
 the contract between the parties w.issim[dy one 
 
 for payment of interest on any interest which 
 
 might be in arrear before, but not after, the 
 
 expiry of the mortgage. WUhoii v. Caiiiplnll, S 
 
 I'. R. 154.— Hlake. 
 
 Interest on a mortgage was payable half-year- 
 ly in advance on the 1st of Apiil and October. 
 The mortgageo tiled a bill for sale, and the 
 registrar on taking the account (in the latter 
 part of January) fixed a day in .hily following 
 for pa,yment, and allowed the pl.iintiff interest 
 to that date, but refused to allow him the half 
 year's interest payable in advance on the 1st of 
 April. On appeal Proudfoot, V. ('., upheld 
 this ruling. Tr11.1t and Lotin Co. v. Kirk, 8 P. R. 
 '203. — Holmested, Rcgidrar. — Proudfoot. 
 
 Where no rate of interest is fixed by a mort- 
 gage to be paid after maturity, the rate of in- 
 terest mentioned in the mortgage is chargeable 
 prima facie, but the person seeking to reduce it 
 may shew that it is more than the ordinary value 
 of money. Simoiiton v. Oruluim, 8 P. R. 495. — 
 Blake. 
 
 Where no interest is reserved by a mortgage 
 none is recoverable until after the day appointed 
 for payment of the princinal. Ili-iil v. Wilson, 
 9 P. R. 166.— Holmested, Registrar. 
 
 Quajre, as to the effect of a proviso in a mort- 
 gai;e for payment of the amount secured ' ' with- 
 out interest if paid when due." lb. 
 
1283 
 
 MORTOAOE. 
 
 1281 
 
 
 
 Where a mortgage to secure the repayment 
 of money with interest at tea per cent, provided 
 that, "should default be made in payment of 
 tlie principal money or interest, or any part 
 thereof respectively then the amount so jverdue 
 and unpaid to hear interest at the rate of twenty 
 per cent, per annum until paid ; " — HeUl, the 
 said proviso was not invalid, or relievable 
 against on the ground of forfeiture. JJoioney v. 
 Pariidl, 2 0. R. 82.— Ferguson. 
 
 A parol agreement to pay a higher rate of 
 interest than that reserved in the mortgage, 
 is ineffectual to charge the land. Totten /". 
 Watson, 17 Chy. 2,S5, and Matson v. Swift, .T 
 .lur. (>45, followed. Re, IJoiiaton — Houston v. 
 Jlomton, 2 O. R. 84. — Proudfoot. 
 
 A note datcil Uth January, 1862, payable to 
 and endorsed by one S. H. , was for ^3,000, with 
 interest at the rate of two per cent, per month 
 until paid. By a covenant for payment con- 
 tained in a mortgage deed of the same d:itu, 
 given by the defendant to the plaintiff as a col- 
 lateral security for i.he payment of this note, the 
 defendant covena^ited to pay " the said sum of 
 $3,000 on the 11th day of July, 1862, with in- 
 terest thereon at the rate of twenty-four per 
 cent, per annum until paid." A judgment was 
 recovered upon the note, but not upon the cove- 
 nant. The master allowed for interest in re- 
 spect of this debt si.x per cent, only from the 
 date of the recovery of the judgment :— Held, 
 that the proper construction of the terms of both 
 the note and the covenant as to payment of 
 interest was, that interest at the rate of twenty- 
 four per cent, should be paid up to the 11th 
 July, 1862, and not that interest should be paid 
 at that rate after such day if the prii oipal 
 should then remain unpaid. St. John v. Rykert, 
 10 S. C. R. 278. 
 
 On an api)cal from a report of a master who 
 had allowed more than six years of arrears of 
 interest in t.iking an account of what was due 
 on a mortgage containing a covenant to pay in- 
 terest ; — Hehl, tliat in a foreclosure suit, inter- 
 est when due for more than six years should bo 
 allowed in taking the mortgage account instead 
 of allowing it for six years only, and compelling 
 the plaintiff to bring another action on the cov- 
 enant to recover the balance : — Held, also, that 
 more than ten years' arrtar, of interest had been 
 rightly allowed. Howeren r. Bradburn, 22 Chy. 
 96, commented on ; Allan v. McTavish, 2 A. R. 
 278, followed . Macdonald v. McDonald, 1 1 O. 
 R. 187.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The covenant provided for payment of interest 
 at nine per cent, up to the end of a year from 
 the date of the mortgage :— Held, that there 
 being no evidence why such rate of interest was 
 provided for, and it being matter of common 
 knowledge that nine per cent, was not conside- 
 red excessive for advances in the year 1866, when 
 the mortgage was maile, and for some years 
 following, the same rate of interest should be 
 allowed for the years subsequent to the expiry 
 of the first year. McDonald v. Elliott, 12 O. R. 
 98.— Rose. 
 
 By the terms of a mortgage in which the 
 principal was payable by instalments, interest 
 was reserved at the rate of eight per cent, per 
 annum "until payment in full": — Held, 
 (affirming the judgment of Proudfoot, J., 12 O. 
 
 R. 492), that these words related to the period 
 fixed for the payment of principal and that in- 
 terest was only recoverable after that time as 
 damages and not by the terms of the contract, 
 and that there was nothing in the circumstances 
 of the case to justify the allowance of a greater 
 rate than legal interest :— So>mble, Per Osier, 
 J. A. — (1) Prima facie the rate stipulated for 
 in the conLtitct up to the time certain may be 
 adopted as a reasonable rate to be awarded as 
 damages : (2) there is no distinction in principle 
 in ascertaining interest to be awarded as redemp- 
 tion money, and interest to be awarded as dam- 
 ages. Powell V. Peck, 15 A. R. 138. 
 
 During the progress of the action money had 
 been paid into court by the defendants which 
 remained there on deposit for upwards of seven 
 years : —Held (also affirming the judgment lie- 
 low), that on taking the account between the 
 parties the defendanl-s were liable to pay in res- 
 pect of this sum the rate allowed upon the re- 
 sidue of the principal, and were not limited to 
 the rate allowed by the court. II). 
 
 In proceedings to foreclose a mortgage on 
 which the principal money had become due by 
 default being made in the payment of interest, 
 although the time for which the mortgage was 
 made had not arrived : — Held, that the rate of 
 interest for the six months allowed to redeem 
 should be computed at the same rate as the 
 mortgage provided for, which in this cse seemed 
 a reasonable rate. MHUleburi/ v. Slcvi-ni, 13 0, 
 R. 29.— Boyd. 
 
 The mortgage was on a printed statutory 
 form, the provision was for payment of the §800, 
 the printed words" with interest," being .struck 
 out; but the mortgagor covenanted to "pay 
 the mortgage money and interest and observe 
 the above proviso ; " and there were the usual 
 provisos as to distress for arrears of interest, 
 principal becoming due on nonpayment of in- 
 terest, etc. : — Held, that no interest was pay- 
 able until after default in the payment of each 
 instalment of principal ivs it became due. Mc- 
 DermoUv. Keenan, 14 0. R. 687.— Wilson. 
 
 This was an action for redemption, and the 
 chief ({uestion involved in the appeal was the 
 construction of the following proviso for payment 
 contained in the mortgage in respect of which 
 the action was brought: "Provided this mort- 
 gage to bo void on payment * * of $7,500 * * 
 on or before the 1st day of June, 1884, with in- 
 terest thereon at the rate of ten per cent, per 
 annum, until such principal money and interest 
 shall be fully paid and satisfied." The defen- 
 dants were allowed by the referee interest after 
 the 1st of June, 1884, as damages, at the rate of 
 six percent., and this ruling w.is atfirmed by 
 (Jalt, C. J. The Court of Appeal were of 
 opinion that the case was not distinguishable 
 from Powell v. Peck, 15 A. R. 138, and St. John 
 0. Rykert, 10 S. C. R. 278. Oranl v. People'H 
 Loan and Depodl Co., 17 A. R. 85, Affirmed. 
 See .S", C, ««6 nom. People'n Loan and Deponit 
 Co. V, Grant, 18 S, C, R. 262, 
 
 Interest can be claimed by mortgagees only 
 from the time the money is actually paid out 
 by them, EdmondH v, Hamilton ProvuteiU and 
 Loan Societi/, 19 O. R. 677.— Q. B. D. Affirmed, 
 18 A. R. 347. 
 
128C 
 
 MOBTQAGE. 
 
 1886 
 
 See Gordon v. Gordon, 11 O. R. 611; Triwtij 
 Collene V. Hill, 8 O. U. 2S6, p. 1310; Archbold 
 V jiiiildiiui and Loan Asn'n, 15 0. R. 237 ; 16 
 A. R. 1. 1307. 
 
 12. Gntliwj Timber. 
 
 The first of tliree mortgagees having filed a 
 bill for sale, the other two proved their claims 
 in the suit. No one redeemed by the day 
 appointed, but a final order for sale was not 
 taken out, because one V. , who had purchased 
 the equity of redemption, was negotiating with 
 S., the third mortgagee. During these negotia- 
 tions V. cnt and sold a larce (piantity of the 
 timber on the land to G., whereupon S. filed a 
 bill praying payment by (i. , of the price of the 
 timber which had not yet been paid over : — Held, 
 affirming the master's ruling, that the first mort- 
 
 <ai'ee was entitled to it. Scott v. Vonbury, 8 
 
 ■•°R. 336.— Proudfoot. 
 
 B. I). Affirmed, 
 
 The remedy of a mortgagee against a, mort- 
 gagor in [jossession or any one claiming under 
 him who cuts staniling timber on the mortgaged 
 premises, whore such cutting will render the 
 security insnflicient, is not limited to a mere 
 prevention of the mischief by injunction. And 
 where a second mortgagee in possession had cut 
 down timber and sold it, and subsequently in an 
 action on the first mortgage a sale of the 
 property proved insufficient to satisfy the amount 
 thereof. It was: — Hold, that the second mort- 
 gagee was bound to account for the value of the 
 timber cut and removed by liim prior to the 
 action. McLeod x. Avey, 160. R. 365.^Boyd. 
 
 13. Jitghl to Grotoing Crops. 
 
 Upon default made in payment of a mortgage 
 the mortgagee has the unquestionalile right to 
 take possesaitm of the property in the state in 
 wliich it then is as to crops, and to liold the 
 whole us his security. Therefore, when land 
 was sold in July under a decree made in a niort- 
 gaije suit, without any reservation of crop'i : — 
 Helil, th;it. the purchaser took all that the mort- 
 gagee could beneficially hold possession of, an<l 
 was entitled to the unsecured growing crops, 
 mature and immature, McDoireUx. Phippm, 1 
 0. R. 143.— Chv. ]). 
 
 See Cameron v. Gibson, 17 O. R. 233, p. 1273. 
 
 14. Application of In/turancc Money. 
 
 A mortgage was made by T. H. C. and B. H. 
 €. to D. of certain lands which contained a cove- 
 nant to insure in a sum named. A second mort- 
 gage was made by the same parties to a bank to 
 secure an indebtedness which also contained a 
 covenant to insure without specifying any 
 amount. At the date of the first mortgiage 
 there was an insurance for .$1,400, which was 
 allowed to lapse. On 'he bank manager dis- 
 covering this, he procure' I T. H. C. to effect an 
 insurance, advancing the money to pay the pre- 
 mium, charging T. H. C'.'s apnouiic tiicr'^with, 
 and discounted a note maile by T. H. C. and en- 
 dorsed by B. H. C. to cover the same. The policy 
 was to T. H. C. alone, and was, on sawmill, 
 ilOO ; on fixed and movable machinery, shaft- 
 ing, gearing, eto., J1,000 ; on boiler and connec- 
 
 tions, $100, and on engine and connections, $500. 
 Loss, if any, payable to the bank. On a fire 
 occurring and the property being burnt, D. re- 
 quired the insurance company to expend the 
 moneys so far as they would go in rebuilding 
 the insured premises : — Held (Cameron, C J., 
 doubting), following Stinsoii c. Penuock, 14Chy. 
 604, that the 14 (ieo. III. c. 78, s. 83. is not 
 merely of local application, but extends to this 
 province and applies to a case like the present. 
 Held, also (Cameron, C. .1., dissenting), that as 
 between mortgagor and first and second mort- 
 gagees, the fixed and movable machinery, etc., 
 boiler, and boiler connections, etc. , were inclu- 
 ded under the word " building," in the said sec- 
 tion, so as to entitle D. to the benefit of the 
 insurance thereon, for as between the parties 
 they were treated as part of the freehold and 
 passed as such. Per Cameron, C. J. — The opera- 
 tion of the statute should not be exteiuled be- 
 yond its express words, and they limit its opera- 
 tions to an insurance upon a house or building 
 as such, and do not extend to a distinct insur- 
 ance of fixtures or machinery as such. Per 
 Cameron, C. J., also. Apart from the claim of 
 the bank or their assignees, D., as mortgagee on 
 a mortgage with a covenant to insure, would in 
 equity be entHlcd to the insurance money if the 
 insurance had been efl'octcd by both mortgagors, 
 and the provisions contained in section 12 of R, 
 S. O. (1877), c. 136, are merely a legislative 
 affirmance of such right. Carrv. Fire Asa. Co., 
 14 0. R. 487. -C. P. D. 
 
 The defendant held a mortgage ur n the plain- 
 tiflf's lands to secure S.IOO with ii..,erest, to be 
 paid yearly, together with an instalment of 
 principal money not less than 350, the first in- 
 stalment of principal and interest to fall due on 
 16th December, 1888. On June 29th, 1888, a 
 fire occurred, and the defendant received $195, 
 insurance money ; without communicating with 
 the plaintiff, he thereupou assumed to apply 
 this as follows : he reckoned the interest up to 
 the receipt of the money, and deducting that 
 credited the balance on the whole sum advanced ; 
 and no payment of the first instalment l>eing 
 made by the mortgagor on December 16th, 1888, 
 he proceeded to exercise his ])()wer of sale : — 
 Held, on motion for an injunction to restrain the 
 sale, that the rules as to appropriation of pay- 
 ments did not apply, the insurance money not 
 constituting a payment in the ordinary sense of 
 that word, and the mortgagor having had no op- 
 portunity of first directing its appropriation : — 
 held, also, that though the nu)rtgagee had the 
 right as declared by l{. .S. O. (1887), c. 102. a. 4, 
 to apply the insurance money in satisfaction of 
 the money that ought to be paid under the mort- 
 "age, it was not competent to him to accelerate 
 
 le times cf payment, nor to alter in any respect 
 th J terms of the instrument without the consent 
 of the mortgagor. The insurance money must 
 be applied from time to time as payments fell 
 due under the mortgage, unless otherwise ar- 
 ranged between the parties. Corham v. King- 
 Klon, 17 O. R. 432.— Boyd. See Barber v, Clark, 
 20 O. R. 522. 
 
 Upon a motion for an interim injunction the 
 defendants filed an affidavit an 1 statement shew- 
 ing that they had applied insurance moneys 
 received by them, in respect of loss by fire of 
 buildings upon land mortgaged to them by the 
 
1287 
 
 MORTQAaE. 
 
 im 
 
 CS9 
 
 
 plaintitTa, upun overdue in8talnient» uF principul, 
 and an insurance premium paid by them ; and 
 in tiieir Htatement of defence tliey aiBo Htated 
 their position in u way inconsistent with that 
 whicli they afterwards took, viz., that the in- 
 surance nu)ney was applicable upon the whole 
 principal, which, by virtue of an acceleration 
 clause in the mortgage, had become due : — 
 Held, that tli^j defendants had nuide their elec- 
 tion, so far an the effect of the default and the 
 iipplication of the insurance money was con- 
 cerned, not to claim the whole principal as 
 having become due by reason of the default ; 
 and that they must apply the insurance money, 
 as re(iuiredby R. f>«. (). (1887) c. 102, s. 4, sub-s. 
 '2, upon arrears of principal and interest. Cor- 
 bam V. Kingston, 17 O. R. 432, approved and 
 followed. Eihixmdn v. Hamilton t'roridciit mid 
 Loan Socitty, 1!» (). R. 677. -Q. K. D. But see 
 S. V. 18 A. R. 347. 
 
 I"). Mortgagee Purchasing at Safe of Afor/gai/ed 
 PrcmweH. 
 
 P. created three several mortgages on separate 
 portions of his estate, in all about 140 acres, es- 
 timated as worth $($,000, sul.'jeet to iucninbran- 
 ces amounting to $3,500, and interest. One of 
 the mort.'^ages was in favour of defendant M., 
 who subsequently actpiired the interests of the 
 other two mortgagees. After the creation of 
 these mortgages P. executed a deed of trust of 
 the wliole property in order to defeat a claim of 
 title set up to t'.Ti acres by one S. Default was 
 made in payment of M.'s mortgage, who insti- 
 tuted proceedings at law and recovered judg- 
 ment, on which he sued out execution and under 
 it the sberifT (after the defendant M. had so ac- 
 (luii'ed the other mortgages) proceeded to a sale 
 of the property, which he offered in three dis- 
 tinct parcels, and M. bid for and became the 
 purchaser of all at sums amounting in the whole 
 to f'20. The cestui que trust thereupon filed a 
 bill to redeiin, alleging that the sale to M. had 
 been at a gro!?s undervalue, and praying to have 
 the same set asiue ; the court however refused 
 the relief a.-ked with costs, being of the opinion 
 that the deed of trust was fraudulent, and that 
 the price realized was large considering that it 
 was a sheriff's sale. Parr v. Montgomery, 27 
 Chy. 521.— Blake. 
 
 See Rider v. Eicker, 7 A. R. 282; Ingallx v. 
 McLavriv, 1 1 O. R. 380, p. 1304; Peyg v. Hobson, 
 14 O. R. 272, p. 1272. 
 
 VI. Assignment and Transfer. 
 
 1. I'orni of. 
 
 In an application under the Vendor and Pur- 
 eliasers' Act, K. 8. O. (1887) c. 112, it appeared 
 that a registered memorial of a deed poll or in- 
 dorsement executed by the party assigning made 
 on the back of a mortgage (describing it) naben- 
 <lum "to have and to hold the said mortgaged 
 premises unto (assignee) his heirs and assigns, 
 etc., * * subject to the jirovisos and condi- 
 tions in said moitgage, which said deed poll or 
 iiulorisementby way of assignment, is witnessed," 
 etc. , was offered as evidence of the assignment: — 
 Held, sufficient. Jie Mara 16 O. R. 391.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 2. Rights of Parties after Ansignmtnt. 
 
 Where mortgages or other evidences of diOit 
 are assigned as collateral security by a dehtcir 
 to his creditor, the latter is bound to use diie 
 diligence in enforcing payment thereof ; and if 
 through his default or laches the money securoil 
 thereby is lost, it will be charged against the 
 creditor, aad <leducted from his demand. Siimtil 
 v. DelUaqukre, 27 Chy. 53(i. — Proudfoot. Af- 
 firmed on appeal, .30th .June, 1880. 
 
 A mortgagor paid off a mortgage aftei tiic 
 mortgagee had assigned it, and also a second 
 mortgage obtained by fraud from the same 
 mortgagor to the plaintiffs, who did not indcme 
 the mortgagor to join in the assignment of eitlici-, 
 or notify him thereof : — Held, tliat the iissiguee 
 took the mortgages subject to the equities lie 
 tween the original parties thereto; and as tlit: 
 original mortgagee could not, if plaiiitifV, hiuc 
 recovered upon the one mortgage because j),iid, 
 nor upon the other, because invalid, so ni:itliei 
 could his assignee. Wilton v. Kyle, 28 ('liy. 
 104. — Spraggc. 
 
 A mortgagor and mortgagee dealt together for 
 some years without having had any settlement 
 of accounts, ai d the former became iiisolvcut. 
 At the date ol the insolvency there existed a 
 right of set-off, in favour of the mortgaj^oi' for 
 the balance due him on their general dealings:— 
 Held, atiirming the finding of the master, tiiiit 
 such a right of set-off passed to the oflieial as 
 signee of the mortgagor, and that a transferee 
 of the security took it subject to the e(|iiity. 
 Court V. Holland, 2i)Vhy. lit.— Boyd. 
 
 H., being seized in fee of certain lands, mni't 
 gaged them to W., and subsequently sold tiie 
 minerals thereon, with the rigliL to mine, to tlic 
 defendant. The mortgage being oveiihu^, \V. 
 recovered judgment in ejeutuunt and issued a 
 writ of hab. fac. poss. Defendant hearing nf 
 this wrote to H. that the mortgage must lie 
 paid, and that he must give him an order to 
 pay it and deduct the money so paid from the 
 l)urchase money of the mii\erals. Thereupon a 
 memorandum was drawn up that the defendant 
 should either pay the niortgagein full discharge 
 thereof, or take an ai'signment of it as a suli.so- 
 quent encumbrance, for the purpo.se of saving 
 the interest of defendant, as also of said H. in 
 the said lands, the amount .so paid to be credited 
 and allowed to defendant upon his purchase 
 money of the minerals. Defendant paid the 
 amount due on the mortgage, though his pur- 
 chase money was not due to H. Afterwaids H. 
 put the plaintiff in possession of the land to farm 
 at a rental, and the defendant having (ditained an 
 assignment of the VV. mortgage and judgment, 
 evicted the plaintiff': — Held, Armour, .)., dis- 
 senting, that the payment by defendant wa.s in 
 effect a payment by H. , whereby the mortgage 
 was satisfied, and as that payment was made fur 
 the purpose of saving H. 's interest as well as his 
 own, the defendant would not have bien justi- 
 fied in equity ;.. enforcing the mortgage against 
 H., or his assignee, the plaintiff; and that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to damages for the tres- 
 pass. Per Armiiur, J. The defendant was en- 
 titled either to pay the mortgage in (lischnrgc 
 thereof, or to toke an assignment of it as u sub- 
 sequent eucundjrancer ; lie did the latter ; 
 though he was to have been credited with this 
 
MORTGAGE. 
 
 1290 
 
 payment, his own payment to H. was not due, 
 uml tlie credit liad not in fact been made ; and 
 ho therefore had tlio riglit to enforce the mort- 
 L'age. The nlaiutiff claimed 5500. The jury 
 assessed the damages at $1,500, and the judge 
 at the trial amended the statement of the claim 
 accordingly :— Held, that the damages were ex- 
 cessive, and a new trial was granted. Rohinsoii 
 V. HalU 1 0. R. 26(5.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A mortgage was made by T. to \V. , wlio as- 
 signed it to iM. No money was actually advanced 
 oil tlie mortgage l)y W., but before the as- 
 si'Mimeiit to M,, a yjiirol agreement was come to 
 ))etweeu M. and T. that M. should hold the 
 nioitgagc as security tor a debt which T. owed 
 to M. on a promissory note : — Held, that M. was 
 entitled to liold the mortgage as security for the 
 amount due him from T. Mrlnh/rc v. Thomii- 
 son, ti O. R. 710.-l'rou(lfoot. 
 
 The inle that a iimrtgage for a specific sum 
 maybe shewn to be for other purposes by parol 
 evidence, is not confined to cases where the per- 
 son having the legal estate is tlie original niort- 
 gngee whose claim lias been paid ofl', and witli 
 wlioiii the new agreement for security has been 
 made. Tlie same principle must apjily when- 
 ever the legal estate becomes vested in tlie cre- 
 ditor by the ugreement of the mortgagor as here. 
 
 The jdaintiflf, who was mortgagee of ceitaiii 
 lamia, alleged that L. , the present liohlei' of the 
 mortgage, purcha.seil itfiomC. with knowledge 
 of the tact that C. had purchased it from the 
 original mortgagee as trustee for the plaintitl', 
 who was to be allowed to redeem on paying 
 whatever ('. should pay for the mortgage, and a 
 cei'tiiin additional sum for C.s services; ami 
 sought to redeem on payment of what was due 
 under the said agreement with C. : — Held, that 
 the above agreement fell within the statute of 
 frauds, and shouhl be evideneeil in writing; — 
 Held, also, that even if this were not so, L. 
 ooiild not be aflectcd by such agreement, having 
 inircliased without notice of it. Wrii/h/ v. Li'i/s, 
 8 0. R. 88.— Chy. I). 
 
 Y. being the owner of certiiin land, mortgaged 
 it with other lands to the M. I*. B. Society by 
 mortgage, dated 12th July, 187.S, registered 1 4tli 
 July, 1S73. Subse(|ueiitly being desirous of sel- 
 ling part and p.aying off the mortgage and get- 
 ting a new loan, he oy an agreement in writing, 
 arranged with the society to leave the mortgage 
 standing, take a further loan of S'OO, and have 
 certain of the lands (of which the lot in question 
 was jiart) released by the society. A second 
 mortgage for the !?70() advance was prepai'ed and 
 executed, dated 1st February, 187*), registered 
 11th February, 1875, which by mistake as was 
 alleged, included all the lauds in the fii'st mort- 
 gage : and a release dated 9th February, 1875, 
 was duly executed by the society releasing the 
 lotin (piestion from the operation of the mort- 
 gage of 12th July, 187.'1, and was after warils 
 registered 20th March, 1876. B., the plaintiff 
 being aware of the ngn^ement, but unaware that 
 the second mortgage nieluded the lo ; in ({uestion 
 which should have been omitted, loaned Y. cer- 
 tain moneys, and took a mortgage dated 21st 
 May, 1877, rejzistercd 6th June, 1877, to secure 
 the payment thereof. The society assigned the 
 second mortgage and all moneys secured there- 
 
 by to defendants by assignment dated 1st March, 
 1880, registered 17tli January, 1881, and by 
 deed dated 1st March, 1882, registered 2nd June, 
 1883, Y. conveyed his equity of redemption to 
 B. In an action liy B. to correct the mistake 
 by compelling the defendants to conv y the lot 
 in (juestion to B; it was:— Held, atiirming the 
 judgment of Ferguson, .1., that the combined 
 operation of K. S. 0. (1877) e. HI, s. 81, andR. 
 S. O. (1877) c. 95, s. 8, formed a complete 
 defence, and that the defendants as assignees 
 of the mortgage for value, having the legal 
 estate, might defend as a ]HU'chaser for value 
 without notice, and claim also the protection of 
 the Registry Act, as against the plaintiff a 
 subserpient purchaser or mortgagee from tho 
 oiiginalinoi'tgiigor: — Seinble that even as against 
 the mortgagor the <lefendants w .dild also be 
 entitled to [ireNail. Jiriilf/cs v. Ilitil hsta/t Loan, 
 ami Ihliiiitiu-L Co., 8 O. R'. 493.— Chy. 1). 
 
 See Tnid and Loau Co. v. (ialkKihi r, 8 P. R. 
 97, p. 1274 ; Hfrdumr v. EUiott, 14 O. R. 714, 
 p. 781. 
 
 :l. Othir C'((.v(.v. 
 
 The plaintiffs negotiated for the purclia.se from 
 the defendants of certain mortgage securities 
 and other assets of the defendants on the Iwisis 
 of an eight jier cent, investment, and a .schedule 
 was preiiared by the defemlants" manager ex- 
 liiliitiiig eaeji security, amongst wliicli there was 
 stated to be a mortgage by F. for .'S4, 700 ; where- 
 as in fact there was no such mortgage, but instead 
 two mortgages on the instalment principle, which 
 as an eight per cent, investment v'ere worth 
 (uily .'J3,92(), making a deficiency of S780. This 
 was causeil by F. before the schedule was drawn 
 11)1, intiinating his intention of paying off' the 
 mortgages, .*4,700, being the amount agreed 
 upon between F. and (lofcndants, which he 
 would have to ])ay and which defendants' iiiaii- 
 ag<!r therefore in good faith, ))ut into the sche- 
 dule. Suljsequently and while the schedule 
 was in the plaintill's' solicit"r's hands to prepar'c 
 and settlr. the deed of assigiiineiit, F. decided 
 not to ; ay off the mortgages, but to go on with 
 the regular |iay.nent of tlie same, and defen(lant.s' 
 niiinagir then corrected the schedule by inserting 
 the two mortgages. There was a difference be- 
 tween the plaintill's and defcnd.ints as to the 
 value of the securities, and finally a lump sum 
 was agreed on and paid by plaintiffs, and the 
 assignment executed :-^ -Held, by Osier, J., that, 
 on tlie evidence, set out in the report, the plain- 
 tiff's' solicitor must he deemed to have had notice 
 of the error and altei.ation in the schedule before 
 the execution of the conveyance or completion 
 of the tran.saction, ami that this was notice to 
 the )daintirt's : — Senible, per Osier, J., that, al- 
 though the evidence shewed that there was no 
 intention to deceive on the part of the defen- . 
 dants' manager, still there was such a misstate 
 ment of a material fact, as, but for the notice, 
 would render the defendants liable for the dam- 
 age sustained thereby. l{(.aj EMale Iiii'tdmeiil 
 Co. V. Mitropolltun liinliliim Soi:u.tij, 3 O. R. 
 476. 
 
 On appeal to the Divisional Court : — Held, as 
 to the claim for the $780, there could be no 
 recovery, for that the true construction of the 
 transaction was that the lump sum was to cover 
 
'ill 
 
 1291 
 
 MOBTaAOE. 
 
 1292 
 
 as 
 
 er 
 
 Its 
 90 
 
 all ileficiencies in value as also errors and mis- 
 takes, at all events to not an unreasonable 
 amount, wiiicli $780 could not be said to be ; 
 and wliere, us lit>re, there was no fraud, con- 
 cealment, or niisrepresontation. In other re- 
 spects the judgment was affirmed. S, C, II). — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 The defendants in the deed of aasignment 
 covenanted tliat the mortgages were good and 
 valid ciiarges on tlie lands, and that the defen- 
 dants had not done or permitted any act, etc., 
 wlierel)y tlic mortgages had become loluased or 
 discliargcil in part or in entirety. It aii])eared 
 that certain of tlio lands conipi'ised in U\ese 
 mortgages iiad l)i;eii sold for taxes : -IIolil, per 
 Osier, .]., tliat tlie covenant was not ultra vires 
 the company or tiio directors ; and tliat the 
 plaintiffs were entitled thereunder to recover 
 the value of the lands so sold. lb. 
 
 Arrears of taxes due on the mortgaged lands 
 were paid by the plaintitl's. Thotaxes were ilue 
 by tlie mortgagors ; there was no covenant in 
 the assignment against incunilnances, and no 
 evidence of any rcijiicst by defendants to ])ay 
 tlieni : — Hcdd, that the plaintitt's were not en- 
 titled to recover the amounts so paid. Il>. 
 
 The pl.iintifTs also claimed to recover a sum 
 of money paid to the defendants' solicitors for 
 costs duo them : — Held, under the ciicunistances 
 not recoverable, as it was a voluntary payment. 
 
 A bank held a mortgage on certain lands of a 
 customer to secure a current discount account, 
 some of the paper of which consisted of notes j 
 made merely for the customer's accommodation. 
 The plaintiff had a second mortgage on the lands, 
 and tcnilcred the bank (who were threatening 
 to sell under their power of sale), together with 
 the amount they claimed as due, a simple as- 
 signment to the plaiiititf of the mortgage debt 
 and lands containing a coveiuint that the amount 
 claimed was due. The bank refused to accept 
 the tender as made. The plaintiff then brought 
 this action to compel the execution of the assign- 1 
 ment as tendered, or any valid assignment with 
 a covenant that the mortgage moneys were un- 
 paid, and the mortgage a subsisting security for 
 the amount tendered or for an account. On a 
 motion to restrain the bank from dealing with 
 the securities until the trial: — ITeld, that the 
 plaintiff could not insist on the execution <if the 
 assignment as tendered, nor was he entitled to 
 any covenant save the usual trustee covenant 
 against incumbrances: — Held, also, that the 
 bank was entitled to have the assignment shew 
 the exact position of the parties, and also to 
 have the collateral notes specified therein. Al- 
 though perhaps not essential, it was not unrea- 
 sonable that the transfer shouhl also shew the 
 nature of the collateral securities held by the 
 bank : — Held, lastly, in settling the minutes of 
 judgment, that the plaintiff might pay the 
 amount claimed into court, but there was no 
 reason why it should remain there pending the 
 taking of the account and the judgment should 
 provide that it might at once be paid out to the 
 'jank. Gooderhani v. Trader^'' Bank, 10 O. R. 
 438.— Boyd. 
 
 The defendant made two mortgages to the 
 plaintiff on the same property. The first mort- 
 gage being overdue, the plaintiff brought thii 
 
 action, asking for sale, payment and possession. 
 After service of the writ of summons, the amount 
 due and coats were tendered by the defendant, 
 and also an assignment of the first mortgage to 
 a third person, for execution by the plaintiff, 
 under 49 Vict. c. 20, s. 7 (Ont.). The plaintiff 
 refused to execute this assignment on the ground 
 that he held a subsecpient mortgage on the same 
 land from the mortgagor, and although he was 
 willing to execute a discharge of the mortgnge 
 he was unwilling to assign it to a third party, 
 and the defendants moved for a mandamus i>ee 
 7 C. L. T. .399) to compel him to execute the as- 
 signment :— Held, that the plaintiff was justiiied, 
 notwitlistanding the above enactment, in refus- 
 ing to execute the assignment, h'or/crx v. Wit- 
 son, 12 P. R. 322.— Rose. Jl>. 545.— C. of A. 
 
 A. M. died in 1S3S and by his will left cur- 
 tain real estate to his wife, M. M., for her life, 
 and after her death to their children. At the 
 time of his death there weie two small nioit- 
 gages on the said real est:ite to one H. P. T., 
 which were subsequently forecloseil, but no sale 
 was made under tlie dcercc in such foreelosure 
 suit. In 1841 the mortgages and the interest of 
 the mortgagee in the foreclosure suit were as- 
 signed to one J. 15. U. who, in 1849, assigned 
 and released the same to M. M. In 1841 M. M,, 
 the administrator, with the will annexed of the 
 said A. M., filed a bill in chanceiy under the 
 Imperial Statute 5 Oeo. II. c. 7, for the purpine 
 of having this real estate sold to jiay the delits 
 of the estate, she having previously applied to 
 the ( !overnor-in-Council, under a statute of the 
 province, for leave to sell the same, which was 
 refused. A decree was made in this suit and 
 the lands s(dd, the said M. M. becoming the 
 purchaser. She afterwanls conveyed saiil lanils 
 to the commissioners of the lunatic asylum, and 
 the title therein passed, by various Acts of the 
 Legislature of Nova Scotia, to the present de- 
 fendants. M. K. , devisee under the will of A. 
 M., brought an action of ejt;ctment for the re- 
 covery of the said lands, and in the course of 
 the trial contended that the sale under the 
 decree in the chancery suit was void, inasmuch 
 as the only way in which land of a deceased 
 person can bo sohl in IS' ova Scotia is by petition 
 to the (lOvcrnor-in-C'ouncil. The validity of the 
 mortgages and of the proceedings in the' fore- 
 closure sale were also attacked. The action 
 was tried before a judge without a jury anil a 
 verdict was found for the defendants, which 
 verdict the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia re- 
 fused to disturb. On appeal to the Supreme 
 Court of Canada : — Held, aHirniing the judg- 
 ment of the court below, that even if the sale 
 under the decree in the chancery suit was in- 
 valid, the title to the land would be outstanding 
 in the mortgagee or those claiming under her, 
 the assignment of the mortgages being merely a 
 rele:ise of the debts and not passing the real 
 estate, and the plaintiff, therefore, could not 
 recover in an action of ejectment. Semblc, that 
 such sale was not invalid but passed a good 
 title, the Statute 5 Geo. II. c. 7 being in force in 
 the province. Henry, J., dubitante :— Held, 
 also, that the statute chapter 36, section 47 It- 
 S. 4th series (N. S. ) vested the said land in the 
 defendants if they had not a title to the same 
 before. Henry, J., dubitante. Kearney v. 
 Crcelman, 14 S. C. R. 33. Leave to appeal to 
 Privy Council refused. 
 
vm. 
 
 129S 
 
 MOBTQAOE. 
 
 1294 
 
 i and possession, 
 ions, the amount 
 the defendiint, 
 rst mortgage to 
 ly the plaintiff, 
 I. The plaintiff 
 nton thegrouml 
 age on the same 
 ilthough he was 
 nf the mortgage 
 ) a third pai ty, 
 . mandamus isee 
 ) execute the ;is- 
 tiffwasjustiiii'd, 
 tment, in refus- 
 h'oi/crs V. 11 '(7- 
 )45.— C. of A. 
 
 is will left (XT- 
 VI., for her life, 
 lihtren. At the 
 wo small nioit- 
 
 one H. P. T., 
 )sed, hut no sale 
 such fiireclosine 
 d the interest of 
 I'e suit were us- 
 
 1 1849, assigned 
 InlS41M. M,, 
 
 I amiexed of the 
 icery under the 
 , for the purpose 
 ;o [lay the debts 
 )usly applied to 
 
 a statute of the 
 iame, which was 
 in this suit and 
 I. hecoming the 
 veyed said lands 
 itic asyhun, and 
 ions Acts of the 
 
 the present de- 
 r the will of A. 
 neut for the re- 
 n the course of 
 
 sale under the 
 I void, iuasnnich 
 d of a deceased 
 ;ia is hy petition 
 le validity of the 
 ngs in the' fore- 
 5(1. The action 
 it a jury and a 
 fondants, which 
 Nova Scotia re- 
 to the Supremo 
 rming the jndg- 
 . even if the .sale 
 ery suit was in- 
 il he outst;inding 
 iiing under her, 
 s being merely a 
 passing the real 
 jfore, could not 
 t. Semble, that 
 ; passed a good 
 being in force in 
 ibitante :— Held, 
 6, section 47 K. 
 
 said land in the 
 itle to the same 
 B. Kearney v. 
 ve to appeal to 
 
 VII. Several Mortgages. 
 
 1. Pricnty. 
 
 (a) OenercUly, 
 
 There were two mortgages registered against 
 property, the first mortgagees were pressing the 
 mortgagor for payment, and about to sell out his 
 chattels, and A. at the request of the mortgagor, 
 and to stop such sale, advanced $1,000 to them, 
 and took a mortgage to seeine himself from the 
 mortgagor, but with no understanding with the 
 first incumbrancers : — Held, that A., though he 
 thus reduced the first mortgage by $1,000, and 
 so bettered the position of the second mortgagee 
 by that amount, could not claim piiority for his 
 advance over the second mortgagee. Imperial 
 Loan and Investmeut Co. v. O'Siitliiaii, 8 P. E. 
 162.— Spragge. 
 
 C. being the equitable owner of the land con- 
 tracted by writing (registered) to sell to the de- 
 fendant on 13th of Feljruary, 1S77. Part of the 
 purchase money w-as paid down. C. ol)tained 
 an Older on 17th April, 1S78, vesting the land 
 in him— there were two niortgaf:es on the regis- 
 try piior to one in favour of the loan company. 
 On the 17th May the defendant gave an order 
 on the ban c( mpany to pay the proceeds on a 
 loan to their local agent, who was infoimed by 
 one J., a solicitor who had control of the two 
 prior mcrtg.iges, that they were paid ofiand that 
 he would get them discharged. Thereupon the 
 agent paid C. the lalnnie of his unpaid purchase 
 money, and C. on the 25th May, 1S78, conveyed 
 to the defendant. The loan company's niort- | 
 gage was elated ISth May, anel registered the I 
 25th May : — Held, on appeal from the master j 
 (affirming his report) that the loan company | 
 could not stand in C. 's place and claim priority | 
 in respect of his lien for unpaid purchase money j 
 over the prior mortgages, fedlowing Impel ial L. I 
 & I. Co. V. O'Sullivan, 8 P. R. 102. Waf.son v. j 
 Dowser, 28 Chy. 478.— Spragge. 
 
 The loan company's mortgage contained this 
 clause " that in the event of the money hereby 
 advanced, or any part thereof, being applied to 
 the payment eif any charge or incumbr.ance, the 
 company shall stand in the position .and bo en- 
 titled to all the equities of the person or poisons 
 so paid off " : — Held, that this provision could 
 not affect prior mortgagees who were no parties 
 to it ; anil Quaere, whether it would apply to the 
 discharge of unpaid purchase money, which does 
 not constitute a charge or incumbrance in the 
 proper me.aning of those terms, lb. 
 
 The original owner of land createel a mortgage 
 thereon in favour of one M. and died without 
 redeeming, and the equity of redemption in the 
 premises descended to C. F., his heir-at-law, who 
 with her husband P. F. joined in a conveyance 
 thereof to trustees charged with the support 
 and maintenance of the plaintifl's, subject to 
 which and the mortgage in favour of M. the 
 premises were limited to P. F. in fee, who subse- 
 quently in September, 187'), out of \V. F.'s 
 moneys paiel the amount due on M.'s mortg.nge, 
 but which was not actually discharged. In 
 December following, P. F. solel to W. F., con- 
 veyed to him the equity of redemption and pro- 
 cured M. to assign his mortgage anel convey to 
 him the legal estate. In March, 1877, W. F. 
 mor tgagcd the land to a loan company, but did 
 
 not assign the M. mortgage, and subsequently 
 the plaintiffs filed a bdl seeking to have the 
 charge for their maintenance enforced against 
 the mortgage estate :— Held, (reversing the find- 
 ing of the Master at Hamilton) that the loan 
 cermpany were, under the circumstances, enti- 
 tled to priority over the plaintiffs to the extent 
 of the amount secured by M. 's mortgage. Fram r 
 V. Gunn, 29 Chy. 13.— Boyd. 
 
 See Tnid and Loan Co. v. Gallnyher, 8 P. R. 
 97, p. 1274 ; Edwards v. Morrison, 3 O. R. 428, 
 p. 802 ; Maclennan v. Grai/, 16 O. R. 321 ; Hi 
 A. R. 224 ; 18 S. C. R. 553, p. 501. 
 
 2. Consolidation. 
 
 The rule that a mortgagee shall not be reelecm- 
 ed in respect of one mortgage, without being re- 
 dcemeel also as to another moitgage createel by 
 the same mortgageir, applies as well in a suit to 
 foreclose as to redeem. In such a case the pro- 
 perty enibraceel in one moitt:age realizeel more 
 j thiin sufficient to discharge it. The plaintiff, 
 ; an execution creditor of the nioitgagor, obtaineel 
 j a security rn the lands ce)niiirised in such mort- 
 gage which was registered alter it, but without 
 j notice thereof. On a side e)f the hinds e nibraced 
 j in another moiti:nge a h ss was sustained by the 
 ; mortgagee :— Held, (1) that the defendant, the 
 mortgagee, had not the right as against the plain- 
 tiff to consedidate his mortgages and make good 
 the loss on the one out of the .'-uridus on the other 
 sale, the policy of the Registry Act being to 
 I give no tflcct to hidden equities. (2) That by 
 I taking a mortgage, and thus giving time to the 
 mortgagor, the plaintiff' was a holder of hi.i 
 mortgage for value. Johnston v. Reid, 29 Chy. 
 293.— Spragge. 
 
 Whore two mortgages on different properties 
 by the same mortgagor came into C. 's hanel be- 
 fore the Re'gistry Act of 1865, and the mortga- 
 gor, after the passing of the said Act, assigned 
 the eijuity of redemption to M. by a registereel 
 instrument: — Held, on M.'s suing for redemp- 
 tion, that the registered conveyance to M. pre- 
 vailed, uneler section GO of the Act, over C'.'s 
 equitalde right to consolidate the two mort- 
 I'agcs. Miller v. Broini, 3 O. R. 210.— Proud- 
 feiot. 
 
 Two mortgages of a lot of land were made at 
 different periods for different sums by the owner 
 thereof, who afterwards conveyed the eejuity of 
 redemption in thirty-six feet of the lot to one of 
 the defendants, with a covenant against incum- 
 brances which was partially carried out by tho 
 discharge from the second mortgage of the lanel 
 conve>yed. Subsequently the mortgagor con- 
 veyed the eciuity of redemption in the remainder 
 of the lot to another of the defendants. The 
 plaintiff was the assignee of lioth mortgages, 
 but acijuircd the second after the discharge 
 therefrom of the thirty -six feet, and now seiught 
 payment of the amount due on both mortgages 
 or foreclosu'i ; — Helil, that she was not entitled 
 to consolidate her securities against the owner 
 of the thirty-six feet, who however hael the right 
 as against the eiwiier of the residue of the land 
 to east the whole burden of the incumbrances 
 on it, but had no sucl: right against the plain- 
 tiff ; that the whole of the land, if not redeemed, 
 should be sold charged with the first mortgage. 
 
1296 
 
 MOBTQAaE. 
 
 1296 
 
 •Mtl 
 
 99 
 
 which should be apportioned between the two 
 paruels ucuonling to their respective values. On 
 the owner of the thirty-six feet payinc the 
 amount of the first mortgage, the remainder of 
 the land only should be sohl and the proceeds 
 divided anicingst the parties interested, including 
 the plaintiff as second mortgagee. Fraser v. 
 Naijli; IGO. R. 241. -Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiffs who were the mortgagees under 
 three mortgages from the same mortgagors on 
 different lands, were held entitled only to con- 
 solidate in respect of the mortgages in default 
 when action was brought to enforce tbeni, and 
 as the .iniDUiit duo on one of the mortgages had 
 l)ccn tlien ])aid. and there was then no default 
 as to it, the riyiit to consolidate it was refused. 
 Sro/tis/i Amiricitii /iiivKi.meiU Co. v. Tennaiit, 19 
 <). R. 20:{.— MacMalion. 
 
 See Smllli v. Siiii/h, 18 O. K. 205. 
 
 .S. Ai)re()iieiif to PotI pone.. 
 
 In 18(51, W. M., the owner of real estate crea- 
 ted a nK>rtgai.,'e tliereoii in favour of J. T. for 
 84,000. In 180.S he executed a subserjuent mort- 
 gage in favour of .1. M., the appellant, to secure 
 the payment of .'?20,0()0 and interest, which was 
 <luly reaisteved on the day of its execution. In 
 1800, W. M. executed another mortgage to the 
 i-espondent C, for the sum of §4,000, which was 
 intended to be substituted for the prior mort- 
 gage of tliat amount, and the money obtained 
 thereon was applied towards the payment there- 
 of, and .1. M. executed an agreement under 
 
 seal a deeil ])()11— consenting and agreeing 
 
 that the proposed mortgage to respondent C. 
 should have priority over his. In ISTfl, J. M. 
 assigned his mortgage for .$20,000 to the Quebec 
 Hank, without notice to the bank of his agree- 
 ment, to secure acceptances on wiiich he was 
 liable, M'liich assignment was registered, and 
 superseded tiieagrecment, whichC. had neglected 
 to regi-ster. C. tiled his bill against the executors 
 of W. M., aiul against J. M. and the bank. 
 The Court of Chancery held that the respondent 
 was not entitled to relief upon the facts as shewn, 
 and dismissed the bill. The Court of Appeal 
 uffirmcd tiie decree as to all the defendants, ex- 
 cept as to. I. M., who was ordered to pay off the 
 respondent's fpl,iintitt"'s) mortgage, principal and 
 intei-est, but witlu)ut costs. J. M. thereupon 
 appealed to the Supremo Court of Canada : — 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal, ■> A. R. 503, reversing 26 Chy. 280, 
 (Strong, .1., dissenting), that as appellant could 
 not justify the breach of his agreement in favour 
 of C. , he was bound both at law and in equity to 
 indemnify C. for any loss he sustained by reason 
 of such breach. Mc/Joiniall v. Campbell, 6 S. 
 C. R. 502. 
 
 4. Other Ga/ie'i. 
 
 Several parcels of land were embraced in one 
 mortgage. Subsequently the mortgagor further 
 mortgaged some of them to the plaintiffs with 
 the usual mortgagor's covenants. He afterwards 
 conveyed another parcel to S., who, when he 
 took his conveyance, was not aware of the plain- 
 tiffs' mortgage, but it was registered against the 
 parcels embraced in it, though not against the 
 other parcels :— Held, (1) That the plaintiffs 
 
 were entitled to require as between them and S. 
 that the parcel conveyed to the latter should lie 
 resorted to for satisfaction of tlio prior mort- 
 gage before recourse should be had to the parcels 
 embraced in the plaintiffs' mortgage. (2) That 
 the registration of the prior mcu-tgage agnlnst 
 the parcel bought by S. was notice to him of 
 the right of persons who purchased other pavoels 
 before he purchased to throw the mortgage ui)oi> 
 his parcel, and that S. was affected with nntioe 
 of the plaintiffs' mortgage, and the right it con- 
 ferred. Clark v. liotjart, 27 Chy. 450.— Hlake. 
 
 The bill was filed by a second mortgagee tlu! 
 first mortgagee not being made a party. At a 
 sale under the decree, M. purchased the land, 
 and afterwards paid the purchase money int(i 
 court ; he then mortgaged the land, then .con- 
 veyed his equity of redemption, and then took 
 out a vesting order, (inint, a subseciuent mort- 
 gagee, claimed payment of his cl: m out of the 
 moneys in court. On the ajiplica )n of M. the 
 referee made an order, directing paynicut to the 
 assignee of the first mortgagee of his claim oiitof 
 the purchase money in court. It apjieared tiiat 
 M. thought he was purchasing free from incum- 
 brances, and was ignorant of the first mortgago. 
 On appeal, Pnnidfoot, V. C, uphold the re- 
 feree's order. Fkmiwi v. MrDoinjall, 8 1*. 11. 
 200. 
 
 See Edwardi v. Morriaon, 3 O. R. 428, p. S02; 
 r!:(,irskl v.ll'iit;/, 8 P. R. 146, p. 1313 ; <irn,if\: 
 Im lianqup Nn/iotia/i; 9 O. R. 411, )). 139 ; Mai'- 
 Ifuiiaii V. Gray, l(i A. 1{. 224 ; 18 S. C. R. .")5;i, 
 ]). 5(!1 ; Dische.r v. Canada Permanent Loan and 
 Saviwj'i Co., 18 0. R. 275, p. 1300. 
 
 IX. Salk of EyniTV of RKiiF-Mi-noN iNm.R 
 
 E.KKCUTION. 
 
 Plaintiff claimed a debt of $200 from the de- 
 fendant. Defendant did not appear to ti>"i wiit. 
 The only property the defendant (■■•,vn^■' '" ..v, 
 e(|uity of redemption in certain la uU :. , ;■■:!. 
 there were two mortgages, one held h; ' m 
 
 tiff, the other outstanding in othti l:,' c.i': ''::\ 
 application of plaintiff' for judgment i i '.?' ■.!. 1 
 interest, and for a decree for sale of t'li ity 
 of redemption: — Held, on the authority ol Kciv 
 V. Styles, 20 Chy. 309, that the plaintiff could 
 have judgment as asked, notwithstanding tlml 
 in this case there were no fi. fas in the slicritr.s 
 hands. Johmon v. Beimel/, 9 P. R. 337. -Kir- 
 guson. 
 
 Mortgagee purchasing at sale. Sec Pmr v. 
 Monlijomanj, 27 Chy. 521, p. 1287. 
 
 See Rumokr v. Marx, 3 0. R. 167, p. 09."). 
 
 X. Sale Under Power of Sale. 
 
 1. Xotirr. 
 
 A power of s.ilc in a mortg.ige required imlioe 
 upon default to bo given to the mortgagor, "liis 
 heirs, executors, or administrators," or left for 
 him or them at his or their last or usual place 
 of abode, before exercising the power — Held, 
 tiiat a notice which was served upon the widow, 
 who was also the administratrix of the deceased 
 mortgagor, and addressed to her as such widow, 
 was insufficient, because not served also upon 
 
1296 
 
 1297 
 
 MORTOAGE. 
 
 1298 
 
 len them and S. 
 utter should lie 
 ;lio prior mnrt- 
 d to tlie pareelg 
 ;age. (-J) 'J'hat 
 )rtgage ngninsi 
 jtit'o to liip) of 
 ed other piivocls 
 1 mortgage iipon 
 ted witli ncitioe 
 lie right it eon- 
 y. 450.-l{lak(!. 
 
 mortgagee tlm 
 a ])arty. At a 
 haseil the land, 
 ase money into 
 and, then .;on- 
 
 and then tiioii 
 il)se(juent niort- 
 d: ni out of the 
 a )ii of M. tilt' 
 payment to llie 
 his claim out of 
 t appeared tiiat 
 fee from ineiiiu- 
 
 first mortgagi;. 
 upheld the lo- 
 youijall, 8 1'. 1!. 
 
 . R. 428, p Si»2; 
 13l;{ ; <!rniit\. 
 l,p. l.Slt ; ,1/a.'- 
 8 S. G. R. ."i5;{, 
 aiteiit Loan (iiid 
 W. 
 
 IMPTION fNlir.R 
 
 )0 from the de- 
 tear to the wiit. 
 
 a i(i'-. ., , ;■■,:). 
 
 id )■•■, ' ':i 
 
 ili:rK': ■ !» 
 
 eiit :'.)•$• '.v.! 
 
 e of t'li ity 
 
 thority ot tvoir 
 plaintiff' ooulil 
 
 ihstanding tliiit 
 in the »iieriir» 
 R. 337. -lM!r- 
 
 See Purr v. 
 f7. 
 
 167, p. <)!).-). 
 ov Salk. 
 
 re(iuired notice 
 ortgagor, "his 
 rs," or left for 
 or usual place 
 power — Held, 
 poll the widcixv, 
 of the deceiwed 
 as such wi<lo\v, 
 •vcd also upon 
 
 the heir-at-law of the mortgagor, although only 
 an infant about threo years of age, and that the 
 gale under the powei- was therefore void. Hurl- 
 lett V. Jul/, 28 Chy. 140. --Spragge. 
 
 The notice stated only that unless payment 
 was made proceeilings would be instituted to 
 obtain possession : —Held, that on this ground 
 the i'jCico was insulHcieut to support a sale. 
 lb. 
 
 One of the stipulations of a mortgage was, 
 that "intere<t should be jiayable half-yearly on 
 ♦ * provideil that the niortgagee.s, on default 
 of payment for three months, may enter on and 
 lease or sell the said lands without notice : " 
 "And the mortgagees covenant with the mort- 
 gagors that no .sale or lease of the said lands 
 shall be made <n' granted by them until such 
 time as one monlirs notice in writing shall have 
 Iwen given to tlie niortg.agors :" — Held (per 
 Vroudifoot, V.O. ), that the mortga'^'ees could 
 sell at .any time, without notice, after default 
 for three months, .and that the purchaser would 
 take a good titK; ; and in any event, a notice 
 served at any time after default was sulficieitt, 
 and the mortgagees were not bound to wait 
 until default liad been made for three months to 
 give such notice : in other words, that the 
 month's notice and the threo monljis' <lefa\dt 
 might be concurrent, (innit, v. Canaita Life 
 ,4..<. Co., 29(.;hy. 2,")(). 
 
 Where F., a .solicitor, on behalf of his client, 
 served a notice of sale under a .nortgago made 
 pursuant to the Act I'espccting short forms, R. 
 S. 0. (1877), c. 104, ui)on what lie believed, after 
 diligent enciuiry, was the last l)l.ice of residence 
 of the mortgagor in tiiis province, and <liil so on 
 the instructions of bis client, who was fully ad- 
 vised as to the saiil en(|uirie(; and their result, 
 .md bona tide deeming such service sufficient : — 
 Held, til it F. was entitleil, as against his client, 
 to tax the costs of the proceedings under the 
 liflwe; of sile, although it appeared the mortga- 
 gor eally was at the time of such service witliin 
 this province. I!. S. (). (1S77), c. 104, permits 
 substitutional service at the residence, though 
 the mortgagor may be witliin the juri.sdictiou. 
 But even if siicli is not the proper construction 
 of the statute, it is a matter so doubtful that 
 the solicitor who bona tide acted on that view of 
 the statute should not lose his costs of so effect- 
 ingservice. O'Doiiohoe v. Whillu, 2 O. R. 424.-- 
 Chy. 1). 
 
 A mortgage deed, purporting to be made 
 pursuant to the Short l<'orms Act contained the 
 following : ' ' Provided tli.at the said mortgagee 
 on default of payment for two months, may, 
 without giving any notice, enter on and lease or 
 sell the said lands. " The mortgage was assigned 
 to (}. and K. , who assumed to sell under the above 
 power : — Held, that they could not confer a good 
 title upon the purchaser, for that in construing 
 the above power resort could not be had to the 
 long form in the .\ct, inasmuch as notice was 
 dispensed with, which, was not a mere exception 
 from nor qualification of the short form given in 
 the Act, but an abolition of one of its most iin- 
 prtant terms ; and the power thus being left to 
 its own force, no one but the persona designata, 
 the original mortgagee, could exercise it. A 
 transfer of the estate does not involve the trans- 
 fer of trusts or powers necessarily as inseparable 
 82 
 
 Re OilchriHt and Idatul, 
 .See Barri) v. Amlersoii, 
 
 incidents of the estate. 
 11 O. R. 537.— Boyd. 
 ISA. R. 247. 
 
 The R. S. O. (1877) c. 107, s. 3, provides that 
 every new trustee shall have the same powers, 
 authorities, and discretions, and shall in all 
 respects act as if he had originally been iiomi- 
 uated a trustee by the deed, w'\\\, or other iii- 
 Mtrumcnt creating the trust. Where a mortgage 
 made in favour of two trustees of a marriage 
 settlement, and which contained a power of sale 
 exercisable liy them, but not by the assignee of 
 the mortgage, not lieiiig in conformity with the 
 Short Form of Mortgaijje Act, was together 
 with the lands therein, on the resignation of the 
 trustees, assigned to a new trustee appointC{l in 
 their place ;— Held, that the new trustee stood 
 in the place of the former trustees, and could 
 exercise the power of .sale, not as an assignee of 
 the estate, but as if appointed a trustee by tlie 
 deed creating the trust. lieOilmouraiid Whit'', 
 14 (). R. 694. -Proudfoot. 
 
 (i. was assignee of a mortgage made pursuant 
 to the Act resjiectiiig Short Koims of Mortgages, 
 and which eonlained a power of sale in tlie 
 words " provided that the said mortgagee on 
 default of |).iynieiit for one month may on giving 
 notice in writing eiitio' on and lease or sell the 
 said lands." In an application under the Ven- 
 dors and Purchasers' ActR. .S. O. (1877)c. 10!):— 
 Held, the substitution of " one month " for " — 
 months" was not a niiterial variation in the 
 form, .and that (i. could make a good title. AV: 
 Oreen and Arfklii-, 14 O. R. 697. — Ferguson. 
 
 The power of sale contained in a mortgage, 
 purporting to be under the .Short Poims Act, 
 was : " Provided tliat the mortgagee on default 
 for one day may. without .my notice, enter on 
 ami lease or sell said lauds" : — Held, per Gait, 
 C. J., at the trial, that this case was di.stinguish- 
 ablefnnn(jilclirist and Island, 11 O. R. 537,astlie 
 sale there was by an assignee of the mortgagee, 
 and not as here by the inortg.igee himself : and 
 that under the power entry on the land was not 
 necessary prior to sale. On appeal to the Di- 
 visional Court. Per Rose, J. The power was 
 operative under the Short Forms Act; and there- 
 fore the point as to entry was immaterial. 
 Gilchrist and Island dissented from. Per Street, 
 J. The form was not operative ; and the words 
 therefore must be confined to their actual mean- 
 ing apart from the statute ; and that under its 
 terms the power did not arise, or at all events 
 could not be exercised until entry made on the 
 huKl. Chirk V. Havnij, 16 O. R. 159. — ('. 
 P. 1). 
 
 A power of sale in a mortgage authorized a 
 sale without any notice. Default having been 
 made in payment of the mortgage moneys no- 
 tice of sale was given exercisable forthwith. 
 Shortly afterwards an action was brought by the 
 mortgagees for the possession of the mortgaged 
 premises without the leave of a judge, as re- 
 quired by section 30, of R. S. O. (1887), c. 102, 
 having been first obtained: — Held, that the Act 
 did not apply, there being no proviso for notice 
 in the mortgage. Canada Permanent Bmldimj 
 Society v. Teeter, 19 O. R. 156.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Re British Canadian Loan and Investment 
 Co. V. Ray, 16 0. R. 15, p. 1302. 
 
1299 
 
 MOBTQAQE. 
 
 1309 
 
 2. Coxts. 
 
 Where a first mortgagee sells Hiidcr tlie power 
 of sale contained in his mortgage, n subsequent 
 mortgagee is entitled to an order to tax the first 
 mortgagee's cohIs of exercising the power of sale, 
 such costs to be taxed as between solicitor and 
 client. Jie Crerar ami Midi; 8 P. R. 56. — 
 Dalton, Q. C. But see two next cases. 
 
 First mortgagees sold under u power in their 
 mortgage, and paid their solictors costs of sale. 
 A subsequent encumbrancer obtained from the 
 referee, on motion, an order for the taxation of 
 the mortgagees' costs. This order was reversed 
 on appeal, on the ground that the mortgagees 
 could not tax the Ijill, and the mortgagor st(]od 
 in their place. An objection that the order 
 should have been obtained on petition, not 
 notice, was disregarded. /?c Me Donald , Mc- 
 Donald <t- J»/«r.i/(, 8 P. R. 88. — Stephens, !{('/■ 
 eree. — Proudfoot. 
 
 First mortgagees sold under power of sale, 
 and paid their attorneys' costs. A second mort- 
 gagee was hi'M not to be entitled to the rigiit of 
 taxing these cnsts. Re Mciionald, Mchonald & 
 Marsh, 8 P. R. 88, a])proved. A'c ('rnni/ii, Keir 
 tfc Jietta, Attoriifi/s, 8 P. R. 372.— Q. R. 1). 
 
 See O'DonoJioi v. Whif/y, ? 0. R. 424, p. 1207. 
 
 3. DUpoxilion of Siivplus. 
 
 Quaere, whether tlie claim of a second mort- 
 gagee for the surplus jiroceeds of the sale after 
 satisfaction of the prior mortgage is a purely 
 money demand. Oro'ii v. HamUlon Provident 
 Loan Co., 31 C. P. 574.-0. P. D. 
 
 Where a mortgagee, who had sold under the 
 power in the mortgage, paid over the surplus on 
 the order of 1. ■!., tlie apparent owner of the 
 equity of redemption : — Held, tiiat even if tlie 
 deed under whicii I. J. , claimed was voidable, 
 nevertiieless the mortgagee was entitled to act 
 on her order, especially as he had served a notice 
 of sale on those wlio now inipeaclied his con- 
 duct, while tiicy had done notliing to assert 
 their claim until after tlie surplus was so paid 
 over, and as also a suit which iiad been thereto- 
 fore commenced to set aside the deed from I. J., 
 as void had been abandoned. JIarperv. Culhert, 
 5 0. R. 152.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where one mortgaged certain lands in fee, Viia 
 wife joining to bar dower, and subsequently in 
 his life time conveyed awaj' his ecpiity of re- 
 demption, and the mortgagees afterwards sold 
 under the power of sale and had a surplus in 
 their hands, which they desired to pay into 
 court under R. S. O. (1887) c. 133, s. 6 :— 
 Held, reversing the decision of the master in 
 chambers, that they should be allowed to do so, 
 in view of the conflict of opinion and decision as 
 to sections 5 and 8 of R. S. 0. (1887), c. 133, 
 entitled an Act Respecting Dower. There is a 
 sharp distinction made in those sections between 
 the wife's dower in the legal estate which she 
 has barred in a mortgage for her husband's bene- 
 fit, and as to which her rights accrue, or rather 
 enlarge to their original extent the moment a 
 sale is had for the purpose of satisfying the 
 mortgage, and the dower which is given by sec- 
 tion 1 in respect of a mere equitable estate ; for 
 
 j by that section such equitable dower arises and 
 attaches at the time of the husband's death, and 
 not before, and non constat that the widow hitd 
 no claim to the surplus moneys in this case, 
 Smart v. Sorenson, 9 O. R, 640, considered, ftj 
 
 ! CroKkfi-ij, 16 O. 1!. 207.-Boyd. 
 
 I Certain lands were subject to a first mortg.we 
 a charge registered by an engine company in 
 
 I respect to the price of an engine supplied by 
 them, and a mortgage to the plaintif! registered 
 subsetjuently to the said charge ; and the lands 
 
 I iiaving been sold under the jiower of sale in the 
 first mortgage, a contest arose in this action in 
 respect to the ' 'plus left after satisfaction of 
 the first mortgage. The engine company had 
 resumed possession of the engine, and sold it 
 and claimed the balance of the price under the 
 charge out of the said surplus in jiriority to the 
 phvintiff :— Held, that tliey were entitled to make 
 tiiat claim, and that having sold the engine 
 without notice to the plaintiff', the latter was 
 entitled to iinpeacli that sale by showing that a 
 greater sum could have been realized, if it had 
 lu'cii projicrly sold after proper notice. But:— 
 Held, also, tiiat the plaintiff was alone entitled 
 to tlio value of the interest of tlie wife of tlie 
 owner of the c(juity of redemjition in the land 
 as inchoate dowrcss ; inasmuch us she iiad barred 
 hcrdowcr in his favour, whereas she had not done 
 so ill connection witli the charge of the engine 
 company. In the alisence of arraiigcnient, tiie 
 value of tliis interest must be ascertained and 
 retained in court to bo paid out to the ])laiiitiff 
 if the right of dower attaclied by the wife sur- 
 viving her husband, and the engine company if 
 it did not attach. Dither v. Canada Perma- 
 nent Loan and Sarinyn Co., 18 O. R. 273.— Boyd. 
 
 See lie Kiw/sland, 8 P. R. 77, p. 1312 ; BoiiHon 
 V. Rowland, 4 (). R, 720, ji. 1318 ; Mach'iumn v. 
 Oral/, 16 A. R. 224; ISS. C. R., p. 561. 
 
 ! 4. Said at Under Value. 
 
 L. F. I), being tlio owner of certain valualile 
 property, mortgaged it for .S700, became of un- 
 sound iiiiiid and was confined in an asylum. 
 During his coiifiiii'iiieiit M. A. D., his sccor.1 
 wife, procured S., the holder of the mortgage, 
 to sell under the ))owcrof sale, and tlio property 
 I was sold for §900 to E. R., sister of M. A. D. 
 T,vo years after E. R. sold the property to M. 
 E, B, for §5,0fX), and a mortgage for S4,000 un- 
 paid purchase money was taken to M. A. D. In 
 I an action by L. F. D. , by L. D. his next friend, 
 ! to set aside the sale or for an account, it was :— 
 I Held, on the evidence, that the property was 
 i sold at a great undervalue under the power of 
 sale, and tliat E. R. was the agent of M. A. 1)., 
 ; but that as iVI. E. B. was a purchaser for value 
 \ without notice, the sale must stand, but an ac- 
 I count of the proceeds was ordered against M. 
 ' A. D. Dtifreme v. Dufresne, 10 O. II. 773.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 Sec Parrv. Montgomery, 27 Chy. 521, p. 1287; 
 Prentice v. Consolidated Bank, 13 A. R. 269, p. 
 140. 
 
 5. Other Casf.s. 
 
 In proceeding to impeach a conveyance exe- 
 cuted in pursuance of a sale, under power of 
 
1309 
 
 flower arises and 
 baiul'a death, and 
 it tlio widow had 
 eys in this cage. 
 >, considered. Rt 
 
 ) a first mortgage, 
 gine company in 
 gine supplied by 
 laiiititV iigistered 
 
 ; and the lands 
 rt'er of sale in the 
 
 in thi.s action in 
 ter satisfaction of 
 ino company had 
 ij'ine, and sold it, 
 c price under the 
 in jiriority to tlie 
 c entitled to maiie 
 .sold tlio engine 
 ff, tile latter was 
 jy sliewing tliat a 
 •ealized, if it had 
 V notice. But :— 
 ,va.s alone entitled 
 if the wife of the 
 ption in the land 
 as she had haired 
 3 she had not done 
 rge of the engine 
 anaiigement, the 
 [J ascertained and 
 ut to the ])liiintiff 
 
 1 liy the wife sur- 
 sngino conipaiij' if 
 . t'niiaJa I'tnm- 
 ). R. 273. -Boyd. 
 
 p. 1312; Bonllon 
 18 ; Jfiiclt'iiiian v. 
 '.., p. 'Ml. 
 
 'aim. 
 
 certain valuaWe 
 )0, hecanie of un- 
 iii an asylum. 
 I)., his secoi'l 
 ">i the mortgage, 
 and the property 
 ister of M. A. h. 
 e property to M. 
 go for §4,000 un- 
 n to M. A. D. Ill 
 his next frieiul, 
 icoount, it was:— 
 he property was 
 :i<lor the |)ower of 
 gi'iil of M. A. 1)., 
 nchaser for value 
 stand, but an ac- 
 dcred against M. 
 10 0. K. 773.- 
 
 ::hy. 521,p. 1287; 
 13 A. R. 269, p. 
 
 1301 
 
 MOBTGAQE. 
 
 d 
 
 conveyance exe- 
 , under power of 
 
 gale, the purchaser, or those claiming under 
 him, must shew a due exercise of the power of 
 sale ; the onus of impeaching it is not upon 
 the party alleging the invalicTity of the deed. 
 Bartktt V. /m//, 28Cliy. 140.— Spragge. 
 
 After default made in a mortgage, the mort- 
 gagee took proceedings under the power of sale 
 and brought enaction of ejectment and an action 
 on the covenant. He died during the progress 
 of these proceedings. In the two actions judg- 
 ments were recovered against the mortgagor and 
 the lands were sold under the power of siile ; the 
 purchase money lieing paid partly in cash and 
 partly by a mortgage for the balance. This mort- 
 gage was subse(i(ieiitly turned into cash at a less 
 amount than its face value, and in addition soli- 
 citors costs for doing so were charged. In an 
 action for an account by the mortgagor against 
 the mortgagee's executors, who had continued 
 the ' oceedings. It was: — Held, reversing the 
 judj, lent of I'roudfoot, J., that the defendants 
 were entitled to sell and give time for payment 
 of part of the puiuliase money without the con- 
 sent of the mortgagor ; l>iit that they must ac- 
 count for the purchase money as cash at the time 
 of the sale, and that they could not charge the 
 mortgagor with the discount on the mortgage or 
 the costs of turning it into c;isli ; and that tliey 
 were entitled to all three sets of costs ; those of 
 the two actions being given to them by the judg- 
 ments they had olitained ; .ind those of exercis- 
 ing the power of sale under the statutory form 
 of mortgage as a matter of contract, they 
 being made a Hist charge upon the proceeds of 
 the sale, R. S. O. (1877) c. 10.3. Ikathj \. 
 O'Connor, 5 0. R. 731.— Chy. 1). 
 
 Sale of land on credit by agent nnder power 
 of attorney not authorizing a sale on credit. See 
 Rodhurn v. Siriiiney, 1(> S. C. R. 297. 
 
 K. gave a mortgage of leasehold premises to 
 the Imperial Loan and Investiiient Co., with a 
 covenant authorizing the company to sell the 
 premises on default, with or without notice to 
 mortgagor, and either at piililie or private sale. 
 The inortgage conveyed the unexpired portion 
 of the current term, and " every renewed term." 
 K., shortly after giving the mortgage, conveyed 
 theeipiity of redemptiem in the mortgaged pre- 
 mises to one O'S. for a nominal consideration, 
 and in trust to carry out certain negotiations 
 forK., who then left the country and was absent 
 for several year.-. During liia absence the lease 
 of the ground mortgaged to the company ex- 
 pired, and was renewed in the name of O'S. 
 Default having been made in the payment of 
 interest under the mortgage, a suit was brought 
 against O'S. for foreclosure, the mortgagees 
 having knowledge of his want of interest in the 
 premises. Prior to such suit, O'S. fearing that 
 such proceedings would be taken against him, 
 had executed a deed of re-conveyance of the 
 equity of redemption to K., but such deed was 
 never delivered. O'S. then filed an answer and 
 a disclaimer of interest in such suit, but he was 
 afterwards persuaded by the mortgagees to with- 
 draw the same and consent t'' a decree, and a, 
 final order of foi'eclosure was made against him. 
 Pursuant to this order the company sul)senuently 
 sold the mortgaged premises to the defendant D. 
 for a sum less than the amount due under the 
 mortgage ; the deed to D. recited the proceed- 
 ings in foreclosure, and purported to be made 
 
 pursuant to the ^*:nal order of foreclosure. K. 
 brought a suit against the company, and l\ to 
 have the decree reopened and cunuelled, ii. d 
 the deed to D. sot aside, and prayed to be allow- 
 ed to come in and redeem the premises : — Held, 
 affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal, 
 II A. R. 026, (Strong and Henry, JJ., dissent- 
 ing), that oven if the decree of foreclosure was 
 improperly obtained, and consequently void, yet 
 the sale and conveyance to l>. were a sutiicioitt 
 execution of the power of sale in the mortgage, 
 and passed the renewed term conveyed by the 
 inortgage. Ktl/y v. Imptrial Loan and Invett- 
 ment Co. of Canada, 11 S.C. R. .TIC. 
 
 The vendors were selling lauds under the fol- 
 lowing power of sale contained in a mortgage 
 made under the Short Forms Act : ' ' Provided 
 that the company (the mortgagees) on default of 
 payment for two iiKjnths may, without any 
 notice, enter on and lease or sell the said lands. ' 
 After more than two nionths" default the mort- 
 gagees entered, and after having done so made 
 the contract for sale, and served notice of exer- 
 cising the power of .sale on some of the subso- 
 (juent incumbranrers personally, and upon the 
 solicitors of others : — Held, tiiat if the Act were 
 applicable, the power of sale was properly exer- 
 cised ; if the Act were not apidicable, then, 
 taking the words in their strictest sense, the 
 vcndois had done all that the power reipiired ; 
 and the fact that they did give notice to some of 
 the subse(|iieut incumbrancers did not oblige 
 them to give notice to all : — ^yuicic, whether tlie 
 variations in the power from the statutory form 
 prevented the Short Forms Act from applying. 
 A'e liritUh Canwliaii Loan and Investment Com- 
 panyand liaij, 10 0. K. 15. — Street. 
 
 In an action for wrongful proceedings under 
 power of sale in a mortgage, illegal <listress upon 
 chattels, and coiisecpieiiL wrongs : — Held, tliat 
 the plaiiitirt'a were entitled to recover more than 
 their mere money loss. Edninnds v. Ilamillon 
 /'rorident and Loan Socltli/, 19 O. R. 077.— 
 Q. B. U. Hut see S. C. 18 A. It. 347. 
 
 Sec Campion v. liraikenridiie, 2S Chy. 201, p. 
 95; InqalUw McLaiirin, 11 (). R. .380, p. 1304; 
 Rf Giimoiirand Whit,', 14 O. R. 094, p. 1298; 
 /?e Ormi and Arlkin, 14 (). R. 097, p. 1298; 
 Locking v. Hahtiid, 10 O. R. 32; A'e Oikhvist 
 and Island, 11 O. R. 537, p. 1298; Clark v. 
 llarvry, 10 0. R. 159, p. 1299. 
 
 XI. Redemption of MoRTQAfiKS. 
 1. Ifight to Itcdeem. 
 
 Four persons joined in executing a mortgage 
 of their joint estate, and subsequently the in- 
 terest of three of them was sold under executions 
 at law :— Held, that the sale was inoperative ; 
 that the owner of the equity of redemiition had 
 a right to redeem ; and that tiie purchaser at 
 sberitt"s sale, who was also the mortgagee, hav- 
 ing gone into possession of the mortgage estate, 
 was bound to account for the rents and profits. 
 Cronn v. Chamberlin, 27 Chy. 551.— Spragge. 
 
 In a suit to redeem, the plaintifif was a judg- 
 ment creditor with execution in the hands of the 
 sherifif against the lands of the defendant S., 
 which lands were subject to a inortgage to L., 
 whose executors were also defendants. At the 
 
1303 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 130( 
 
 ess 
 m 
 
 -SM9 
 ft<9 
 
 lioariiig tlie i;(i\ift (SpragftCi C) declared tlio 
 pliiiiititl' entitled to the Haiiic relief as upon iv 
 i)ill by u puittnu ineurnbruncer against a prior 
 mortgagee and the mortgagor, and that not- 
 withstanding H. S. O. (1877) c. 49, s. 5, inas- 
 much as he could not eutabliah his right in the 
 county court in which he had recovered his 
 judgment, so as to obtain as effectual a remedy 
 as that nought in the redemption suit, he miglit 
 resort to equity to obtain relief. The executors 
 of H. were also liable ujion the judgment re- 
 covered by the plaintiff, 15. having been a de- 
 fendant in the action, and by tlieir answer set 
 up that they were liable only as sureties for tlie 
 defendant S. All parties interested were repre- 
 ■ented in the suit, and no one objecting thereto, 
 u reference was granted at the instance of U.'s 
 executors, in order that they might establish 
 the fact of suretyship, in which ease tliey would 
 be entitled to the same relief as was granted in 
 Canijibell v. Hobinson, 27 Chv. 034. Chamlieiiin 
 V. Sovals, 28 Chy. 404. 
 
 Held (overruling the decision of Wilson, C. 
 J. (..'. P.), that the right of a tenant for years to 
 redeem a mortgage is absolute, and tlie court 
 has no discretion to grant or refuse redeni[)tion. 
 Mai tin V. jVIIcs, T) O. R. 4(»4.— (Jhy. D. 
 
 Where a tenant fir years under a demise 
 made subseijuently to a mortgnge, sought to 
 redeen; the lands in the hands of the mortgagee, 
 who had obtained an order for foreclosure in a 
 suit to which the present plaintiff' was not a 
 party :— Hehl, the ))laintiff had a right to i-e- 
 (leem in the event of the mortgagee refusing to 
 accept him as a tenant. //). 
 
 Held, that although the jdaintiff had at one 
 time, before commencing this action, offered 
 to give up possession on payment of $40, yet 
 inasmuch as this offer had not been accepted by 
 the defendiint or acted upon at any time, the 
 phiintifF had done nothing to waive or prejudice 
 Ills right of redemption as such lessee by such 
 offer. lb. 
 
 After action brought, however, the defendant 
 offered to confirm and adopt the plaintiff's lease, 
 tliough before action she had I'cfused to do so, 
 and had, indeed, sold the property to a pur- 
 chaser without maliing the sale subject to the 
 lease, of which, nevertheless, the purchaser had 
 full notice : — Held, per Wilson, C. J. C P., that 
 the lateness of the defendant's assent to athrm 
 the lease only affected the costs ; she had done 
 nothing that debarred her from now confirming 
 the lease of wliich the plaintiff was still claiming 
 the benefit, and accepting the plaintiff as ten- 
 ant, on behalf of herself and as representing the 
 purchaser, and as she was willing now so to do, 
 the plaintiff could not redeem. lb. 
 
 Per Wilson, C. J. C. P. — It may be said as a 
 rule that everyone having an interest from the 
 mortgagor in the land can redeem the mortgage. 
 lb. 
 
 Plaintiff, being the wife of A. W. C. who 
 mortgaged his lands, she joining therein for the 
 purpose of barring her dower, brought an action 
 to be allowed to redeem the mortgaged premises 
 after foreclosure by the mortgagee against the 
 husband, but during the husband's lifetime. A 
 demurrer to the plaintiff's statement of claim, 
 on the ground that the plaintiff had no interest 
 
 in the lands, and that her pleadings alliimeii 
 that her husband's interest had been forecloHed 
 was allowed. Casncr v. HuUjIU, O. U. 4r)l,-i 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 T. , being the owner of certain property, mort- 
 gaged to McL., who sold under the power of 
 sale in the mortgage to (!., wiio attendeil tht 
 sale under instructions from McI,., and pur- 
 chased as his agent. McL. deeded tlic projiorty 
 to G., and O. rcconveyed it to McL. I. was not 
 aware that <i. was Mclj.'s agent. McL, lieinL' 
 aware tliat the sale miglit not be valiil milise- 
 <|Uently bargained with L for the piirilmse nf 
 two other lots, and made it a condition timt the 
 deed should cover the two lots and tlic iiKirl 
 gaged ])roperty, and thatL's wile should join in 
 it, whicli she had not done in tlie mortgage. 
 .'''.'1^. swore that the bargain was timt liu was 
 t(. get a clear deed of the mortgaged jiiDpurty. 
 I. swore tiial nothing was said alxmt a dear 
 deed. Before the deed was delivered I. ascui 
 tained that O. was .McL.'s agent at tiie siiio, anil 
 he refused to deliver it, and brought an action 
 for redemption : — Held, tiiat the plaiutitl' was 
 entitled to redeem. Per Hoyd, (.!. — If the ilu- 
 fendant did know, as a matter of fact, the legal 
 effect of (i.'s action in buying the ])ropcit;', h,. 
 should have disclosed it to the plaintiff liefoVe lie 
 sougiit to acquire the equity of redeiiiption tVoin 
 him by means of a conveyance of wliicii tilt 
 obvious intent was only to procure his wife's 
 dower to bo barred : if ho did not know tliu 
 effect of it the eijuity of redemption was nut in 
 iiis conleinplation as a projwrty to lie aciiiiircd 
 from the plaiutitl'. IminlUw uUcLtiitriii, 110. 
 R. 380.— Cliy. I). 
 
 Per Cameron, C. .1. C. P. — Though it may bo 
 that a mortgagee is not, sti'ictly sjicaking, a 
 trustee foi' the mortgagor, but is entitled to en- 
 force his security for his own benelit to satisfy 
 the mortgage money, the right of the mortgagoi- 
 to rcileem is a very pronounced and deoideil 
 right, and one that he cannot be de|irived of by 
 any dealing between him and the inoitgagoi; 
 that is not carried out in a full spirit of fairness 
 without undue pressure, influence, or conceal- 
 ment of anything of which he should lie inform 
 ed by the mortgiigee. //;. 
 
 In 185(1 R. mortgaged certain lands to J. i). 
 C. to secure ilSoO, payable on 1st Jauuaiy, 1803. 
 In 1857 J. T>. C. died, having appointed the de- 
 fendant and another his executors, who duly 
 proved the will. In 1864, after the death of 
 defendant's co-executor, the mortgage was de- 
 posited with H. as security for an advance of 
 .|401 , as set out in McLean v. Hime, I'T t'. 1'. 
 195, whereby H. was declared entitled to hold 
 the mortgage as collateral security for the said 
 sum. In 1856 R. sold the equity of rcdeniptioii 
 to Z. In 1877 H., by representing that he con- 
 trolled the mortgage,' procured the executors of 
 Z., for a nominal consideration, to give a con- 
 veyance of the equity of redemption to A. B. 
 H. as bare trustee for him; and in 187S obtained 
 conveyances from other parties interested tliere- 
 in. In 1879 H. sold the equity of redemption 
 to M. for $5,000. In 1880 S. C., a beneficiary 
 under J. D. C's will, having made a claim on 
 defendant for her share of the estate, a settle- 
 ment was effected by defendant agreeing to jiay 
 $2,050, and assigning the mortgage to her as 
 collateral security, S. C. commenced foreclosure 
 
1801 
 
 eadingH utlirmed 
 
 heiiii foii'closed, 
 
 I, « O. II, 4.11.- 
 
 i property, iiKirt- 
 U'.v tho powi-r of 
 v\w attumlcd the 
 Moli., and [lur- 
 •(ltd the iiropeity 
 McL. I. was not 
 Jilt. Mt'l^. Iieinj; 
 t 1)0 valid .siiliiii.'. 
 the pniilmso of 
 inndition tliut the 
 its and tlic mciil 
 nie shonld join in 
 
 1306 
 
 MOBTOAOE. 
 
 1306 
 
 ill the inort; 
 
 ^;igo, 
 
 was tliat hu was 
 tgaged |p|o|n'ity. 
 xiil ahdut a clear 
 leliveved I. ascer 
 lilt at tiio sale, anil 
 lirought an iictioii 
 
 the plaiiitill' was 
 d, (!. — If the de- 
 r of fact, the legal 
 i; the i)i'(i|)iMt;-, In- 
 iplaintifl'tieforelie 
 f ledeniptiiin from 
 iu;o of wliieh the 
 proeure liis wife's 
 lid not kiiiiw the 
 nptioii wa.s not in 
 ■ty to he ue(|iiired 
 
 McLaiiiiii, 11 0. 
 
 IriKmgh it may be 
 ictly speaking. ;i 
 is entitled tocn- 
 lenelit to satisfy 
 of the iniirtgagor 
 eed and deoided 
 )o <lei)rived of hy 
 1 the mortgagee 
 spirit of fairness 
 ueiice, or conceal- 
 should he inform 
 
 liii lands to J. I). 
 1st .January, 18t).'i. 
 appointed tiiede- 
 icutors, wlu) duly 
 iter the death of 
 mortgage was de- 
 "or an advance of 
 . Hime, -.'T C. !'• 
 . entitled to hold 
 icurity for the said 
 iiity of redemption 
 nting that he con- 
 d the executors of 
 Dn, to give a c"n- 
 lemption to A. 15. 
 idinl87Sohtained 
 3 interested there- 
 ity of redemption 
 , C., a beneficiary 
 made a claim on 
 lie estate, a settlc- 
 nt agreeing to pay 
 ortgage to her i»s 
 ,enced foreclosure 
 
 proccedingH thoreon, H. and M. being made 
 parties, when a settlement was offeetod by H, 
 paying S, C. lifSOO, and procuring an assignment 
 ^ thd mortgage to be made to plaintilf as bare 
 trustee for him. The plaintiff commenced pro- 
 ceedings against defendant claiming tlio $2,0.')0 
 secured hy the agreement made between .S, C 
 and defendant and in default of payment fore- 
 closure:— Held, reversing the judgment of Fer- 
 guson, .1,, that H. by representing liimself to be 
 mortgagee obtained the conveyance of thee(piity 
 (if redemption and must tliorefore account to 
 defendant for the amount realized on the sale 
 thereof to M. 'i ho plaintiff's claim was there- 
 fore dismissed, and ji'dgment entered for the 
 difference lietween the $5,(KK) with interest and 
 the $401 with interest, together with the amount 
 payahle to .S. U. under the agreement. Wilkitut 
 \.McL<(iii, 10 <^. It. .')'S.-C. P. I). Ueversed 
 S, V. 13 A. K. 407. But the judgment of the 
 C P. D. was restoreil by the Supreme Court, 
 14 S. C. R, 22. 
 
 Held, uflirniing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, where the right of redemption stipulated 
 hy the seller entitled liini to take back the pro- 
 perty s<dd within three months from the day 
 tiie purchaser shouhl have finished a comideted 
 house in course of coiisti uction on the property 
 sold, it was the duty of the purchaser to notify 
 the vendor of the completion of the house, and 
 in default of such notice, the right of redemp- 
 tion ndght be exercised after the expiration of 
 the three moiitlis. There was no cliose jugce 
 betwten the parties by the dismi8.sal of a prior 
 action on the ground that the time to exercise 
 the right of redemption had not arrived, and 
 the conditions stipulated had not been coniplieil 
 with. Lcijtr w . Fonrnicr, 14 .S. C. R. 314, 
 
 Where an undivided interest in land is mort 
 
 2. Termi* of lietlemplhn. 
 
 A circular was issued, with the knowledge of 
 the direct'irs of the defendants' company, which, 
 amongst otii r things, set out that " loans oan 
 be paid at av.y time and a discharge of the mort- 
 gage will be I.; en, the rule of the society being, 
 when thi> p'lvilege is taken advantage of, to 
 charge tlf^^u months' additional interest at the 
 s.uiie iT.te at which the loan was made," 'I'lie 
 plaintiff saw the circular exposed in the otlice of 
 an appraiser of the company through whom the 
 loan was elfected, and was thereby induced to 
 mortgage his laml for twenty years, the loan to 
 be repayable on the instalment plan : — Hold 
 (affirming tiie decree of the court below), that 
 the plaintiff couhl insist on redeeming his mort- 
 gage according to the terms set forth in the cir- 
 cumr, such right being sustainable either on the 
 footing of the contract evidenced hv the mort- 
 g ge, the effect of which was to incorporate tho 
 rules of the society, while tho evidence shewed 
 that what was put forward in the circular as tho 
 rule of the society, was one of the rules referred 
 to ill the mortgage ; or on the footing of a col- 
 lateral and indepeiKlent contract. Iluitijinn v, 
 Ontario Loaii ami JMInnitiirc Co., 7 A, R, 202. 
 
 Held, al.so, that, although the mortgage re- 
 cited that the mortgagor was a member of the 
 society, having subscribed for eighty-eight 
 shares of the stock, which tho society agreed to 
 pay him in advance on receiving that security 
 therefor, etc., yet without express stipulation to 
 that effect, the mortgagor could not be affected 
 by rules made subsecpiently to the execution of 
 the inoi'tgaHC, even if he could under the system 
 under which the operations of the society were 
 carrieil on l)e considered a member wlicn he had 
 received the amount of Ids shares; but that at 
 all events his liability could not be extended 
 
 'aged hy the owner thereof, a co-owner has no beyond the clear words of his contract, which did 
 
 riglit of redemption. A simple contract credi- 
 tor of a mortgagee, as such, has no right to re- 
 deem, iMcliolv. Alknbi/, 17 O, R. 275,— Robert- 
 son. 
 
 In im action for redemption and possession 
 against a mortgagee by the tenant by the cur- 
 tesy and the heirs of a deceased mortgagor who 
 were infants when possession w as taken by the 
 mortgagee, it appeared that the right of tho 
 tenant by the curtesy had been barred by the 
 
 lb. 
 
 not point to any but the then existing rules. 
 
 Held, that in an action of redemption, if ten- 
 der is made after action coininenced, it must be 
 enough to cover the costs of the plaintiff already 
 incurred ; and if it be so, the plaintiff is bound 
 to accept it, and any litigation afterwards must 
 be at his expense. Martin v. Milcn, .'5 O. It. 
 404. -Chy. I). 
 
 T. borrowed money from the defendants and 
 , , - .^ 1 i 11 i. -f ii Jtave a mortgage over certain lands as security, 
 
 statute as against the mortgagee, but that of the fej^,^ other securities as collateral, giving a 
 heirs had not :-Held that the heirs were enti- I ^^^,^,j ,„„rtgage over the same lands to the 
 tied to re. eem subject to the right ot the mort- ,^^j„tirt- Both mortgages being in default, the 
 gagee and those claiming under him, to l>ol'l 1 Jjefendants agreed in writing with the plaintiff, 
 liossession during the lite of the tenant by the ^^,^^ ^ foreclosure procee.lings, that if he 
 
 eurtesy whose estate had by virtue of the sta 
 tute become vested in the mortgagee. Proper 
 judgment, where in such eircumstiuices the heirs- 
 »t-law take proceedings for redemption of the 
 lands during the life of the tenant by the cur 
 teay. Andtrwn v. Hanna, 19 O. R. 58. — Rob- 
 ertson. 
 
 See Re Davis, 27 Chy. 199 : Parr v. Motit- 
 (jomery, 27 Chy. 521, p. 1287 ; Weaver v. Viin- 
 dusen— Wills v. Agerman. 27 Chy. 477, p. 1271 ; 
 Slevemon v. Steven-son, 28 I^hy. 2.32 ; Fauldn v, 
 Hari)er,.2 0. R. 405; 9 A. R. 537; 11 S. C. 
 R, 639, pp, 1190, 1191 ; Peterkin v. McFarlam, 
 9 A. R. 429 ; 13 S. C. R. «77, p. 12«8 ; Wriijht v. 
 Lty», 8 0. I!. 88. p. 1289; Harvey v. McAeil, 
 12 P. K. 3()2, p. 1311 ; Monk v. Benjamin, 13 P. 
 R. 356, p. 1308 
 
 oht.iiiied a final order subject to their claim, 
 they would accept from him a new mortgage 
 over the same property for $15,000, payable in 
 five ye.irs from the date of the order, with inter- 
 est at eight per cent., and that he was " to have 
 the privilege of paying any part of principal at 
 any time." Upon payment as aforesaid the 
 defenilants were to assign to the plaintiff their 
 moit^a.'e from T. and all collaterals. The 
 pi intiff obtained a final order and gave the 
 defe-idants a mortgage dated 8th January, 1881, 
 for the aliove amount, payable at the expiration 
 of five years, with interest at eight per cent, 
 half yearly, "until fully paid and satisfied." 
 The mortgage provided, after payment, for 
 assignment to the plaintiff of the original secu- 
 rities, and had a clause that " the mortgagor 
 
1807 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 1301 
 
 C9 
 909 
 
 t/$ 
 
 may at any time pny off the whole or any jmrt 
 of thu J||tl5,U0(), Ix^foru the oxpiration of thi.' Haiti 
 term of tive yeiuH, and Baiil iiiortgagoeH shall 
 aceept payment of any xuiii thrt may l)u paid to 
 them hy itaid inortuagor on a(c<aintof prineipal, 
 and intereHC Hhall tlienueforth ceaHc tu urow due 
 upon the HUni ho paid " After the expiration of 
 live yearH the plaiiititl' paid interest at the speei- 
 tied rate, until the Iht January, 1887, and on the 
 2'2nd Mareh following, tendered the defendantH 
 the prineipal and interoHt at that rate up to that 
 (lay, and demanded an aHHignment of tlie origi- 
 nal mortgage and Heeuritii'8. The defendants 
 refused to accept, eluindng that they were enti- 
 tled to six months' notice of the mortgagor's in- 
 tention to pay, or to six months' intereHt in 
 advance: — Hehl, Armour, V. .J., dissenting, 
 Ist. That the rule followe<l by Courts of K(Hiity 
 in Kngland that a mortgagor must, after default 
 hy him in payment of the principal money ac- 
 cording to the proviso in tlie mortgage deed, 
 give the mortgagee six calendar months' notice 
 of his intention to pay oil the mortgage unless the 
 mortgagee hiis demanded or taken any steps to 
 cnnipul payment, has the force of law in Ontario. 
 'J. '1 hat there were no circumstances in the j)rcs- 
 I'nt case to do away with its etl'ects, the proviso 
 for payment of the princi])al heing limited to the 
 five years within wliich tlie plaintiff had coven- 
 anted to [lay the same. .S. That after the expira- 
 tion of five years from the date of the mortgage, 
 there was no contract in force for the payment of 
 interest, and the <lefendants could only claim as 
 damages compensation for nonpayment of pi'inci- 
 pal at the time stated, and that the measure <if 
 ilamages shonlil he the ordinary value of money 
 while it was withheld, and during the currency 
 of the six months' notice. 4. That in this case 
 the defendants were entitled to the six months' 
 notice, and the tender on 22ud March, 1887, 
 was insufHcicnt, and as no evidence was given 
 by the defendants as to the rate of interest after 
 default, and evidence offered by the plaintiff on 
 the point was refused at the trial, the legal rate 
 of six per cent, should he taken as the measure 
 of damages. Archbolil v. Buildiiuj and Loan 
 Ay'<(icialtun, 15 0. R. 237. — Q. H. I>. — Reversed 
 10 A, 11. 1. See 51 Vict. c. 15. Ont. 
 
 3. Cosls. 
 
 In proceeding under a consent decree to re- 
 deem, the defendant being in the position of a 
 mortgagee brought in an account claiming $005 
 to be due, while the master found the balance to 
 be only $1.32 :— Held, that as the defendant 
 had advanced his claim honestly, and under a 
 reasonable belief that the sum claimed was just- 
 ly due, he was entitled, notwithstanding the in- 
 significant sum remaining unpaid, to the benefit 
 of the rule that a mortgagor coming to redeem 
 is liable for the costs of suit where a balance is 
 found in favour of the defendant. Little v. 
 lirunker, 28 Chy. 191.— Spragge. 
 
 See Lh'iiKjdOH v. Wood, '21 Chy. 515, p. 424. 
 
 XII. Foreclosure. 
 
 , 1. Parties, 
 
 (a) Wife. 
 
 Where the wife of a mortgagor is a party to 
 and bars her dower by the mortgage, she is not 
 
 improperly made a party defendant to a hill for 
 foreclosure under the mortgage nince the coiiiinB 
 into force of 4'2 Vict. c. 2'2 (Ont. ). lUiildimj ,„»/ 
 Lonn Axioeidlion v. Cnrtm-cll, 8 P. K. 7H,— 
 Spragge. 
 
 The wife of a perHon to whom the inortHugnr 
 conveys his ecjuity of redemption is not a pruMr 
 party to an action by the mortgagee for fure- 
 closure. Seniblc, if such pernon died after judg- 
 ment but before tinal order of forccloHuro, Inn 
 widow would have a right to redeem ainl iiii^jit 
 be made a party. Munk v. lUnjumin, \'i I'. R. 
 350. — K.)bert8oM, 
 
 (b) Aildimj Parties. 
 
 In a foreclosure suit, after final judgiuont, ftn 
 order was obtained ex parte adding two paition 
 as defendants, who had preilente lite and liefcjre 
 judgment become iuleiested in the equity of 
 reilcmption, aiicl directing that they be Imund 
 by the judgment unless, within fourteen iliiyg, 
 they should nii>ve against the order. On a|)|)li. 
 cation by the added defendants this order was 
 rescinded; ami :"-Held, that they should ii(jI 
 have been made jiarties after judgment. Ahdl 
 v. Parr, 9 P. 11. 504.— Dalton, Ma-sln: 
 
 C. recovered judgment against L. in 1882, niid 
 placed a li. fa. lands in the sheriff's hands, which 
 had ever since b len regularly renewed ; in IS83 
 L. bought laml from the plaintiff, giving Imuk a 
 mortgage for the purchase money. Under a 
 judgmeut for foreclosure recovered upon that 
 mortgage, C. was added as a siibse((Uent incum- 
 brancer in the master's office, and appealt'd. 
 Held, that C. was not properly ailded as a party 
 in the master's olfice ; that the plaiiitill' was 
 only entitled to have the claim to postpone the 
 execution to the mortgage tried at the hearing. 
 Hut the plaintiff was allowed, following (llass r. 
 Freckleton, 10 Chy. 470, to set aside liia judg- 
 ment, add C. as a party, and amend so a) to 
 raise the <piestion of priority. Lalli/ v. Lowj- 
 hnrnt, 12 P. R. 510.— Street. 
 
 There is no authority in a mortgage action for 
 foreclosure to make a reference by interlocutory 
 order to a master to add parties with the object 
 of allowing them to redeem or having them 
 foreclosed. WUijrt«/i v. Vrairford, 12 P. R. 
 058. --Street. 
 
 Where the plaintiff in a mortgage action ob- 
 tained the usual foreclosure judgment and had 
 his account taken thereby without a reference, 
 and after final order of foreclosure discovered 
 that a subsequent incumbrance existed, tliejiidg- 
 ment was amended under Con. Rules 780 and 
 781 so as to convert it into a judgment under 
 Con. Rule 770, with a reference to the master- 
 in-ordinary to add incumbrancers, take the 
 accounts, etc. lb. 
 
 2. Final Order. 
 
 This suit became abated between the date of 
 the report and the time fixed by it for payment 
 by subsequent encumbrancers. On an applica- 
 tion for a final order for foreclosure, it was re- 
 fused, and a new day was appointed, allowing 
 the encumbrancers an additional time for pay- 
 ment, equal to the time the suit remained 
 abated, liigijar v. Way, 8 P. R. 158.— Wake. 
 
1301 
 
 lant to n l)i|| for 
 
 Hincc thu coininjr 
 
 ). /liiililiiKi and 
 
 8 P. K. TA.~ 
 
 III tlio iiKirtgiiffnr 
 III in not II |ii'(i|)«r 
 rtuagui! for fore- 
 II liinl after jiidg. 
 
 f folt'L'losUIV, 1)18 
 
 Jilcuiii and iiiij^lit 
 iijamiii, 13 I'. R, 
 
 tittl judgment, nn 
 (ling two iHirtien 
 tu lite iind litfcjre 
 in tliu iMiuity of 
 t they lio lidund 
 II fouitiiun (liiyg, 
 )nl(!r. On a|ij)li- 
 H tliJH (iidtT was 
 tlii^y slioiilil not 
 judgiiifiit. Ahell 
 , Mdsli r. 
 
 8t L. in 1882, mid 
 •iff's iiaii(i8,wliicli 
 •eiit'wed ; in 1S83 
 if!', giving hiwkn 
 iioney. Under a 
 iverod upon tiiat 
 ibsciiueiit inciini- 
 B, ftiid appeiiled. 
 ' uddud as u party 
 the iilaintiil' was 
 
 to poBtpiiiie tiie 
 1 at the hearing, 
 oUowing (Jlass c. 
 t aside his jiidg- 
 
 amend so m to 
 Lalli/ V. Lmiij- 
 
 irtgage action for 
 by interiooiitory 
 s with tiie object 
 or having them 
 •ford, Vi P. R, 
 
 rtgage action ol)- 
 idgiuent and had 
 hout a reference, 
 losure discovered 
 existed, tiiejmlg- 
 1. Rules 780 and 
 judgment under 
 ce to the master- 
 iineera, take the 
 
 tween the date of 
 by it for payment 
 
 On an applica- 
 losure, it was re- 
 pointed, allowing 
 nal time for pay- 
 e suit remained 
 
 R. 158.— Blake. 
 
 1309 
 
 MOBTQAGE. 
 
 ISIO 
 
 A filial order of foreclosure should reiorvo a j 
 day fof infant dofundants tu sliow uause. — i 
 Suraggi', C, wan of opinion that tho practice | 
 ahuulir hi! cliaiigijil fur thu sake of putting an 
 end to litigation, and to thu evil of hiving 
 e^taten tioil up for perhaps many years, liut 
 refuiiud to change thu pr.iuticu in thu present 
 ase. lioiidnn and (.'itaalliui Loan and Agency 
 C. v. A'iv;W«, 8 P. K. 481). 
 
 ^aSlniwji V. Radford, 1.5 0. R. 145, p. 131'2. 
 
 3. Opening Forndosure, 
 
 On a motion to open foreclosure, tho debt and 
 costs amininted to about $;i,0()l), and thu pro- 
 perty was worth :jJ7,000. Tho master under thu 
 circiiinstancci set out in tho report rcifusdl the 
 miition, thu plaintilf liaviii,' buun forbuariiii,', and 
 the (lufciiilant negligent thronglioiit. .l///ew v. 
 C'lWit/'oii, 9 P. R. 602.— Dalton, Maslei: 
 
 The decree declared tliat the defendant was a 
 ti'iistco of the premises in ijuestion for tho plain- 
 tilf, and that the plaintiti' was entitled to redeem 
 on payment of what the master should tiiid due, 
 within six months after report, etc., and in de- 
 fault of piymunt, the plaintiti' was to bu foru- 
 closed. 'I'liu ruport wasdatud 4tli March, 188'2, 
 anil appointed 18th April, 1882, for payment. 
 The money was paid into the Bank of (Joininercu 
 on that day, but by mistake to the credit of a 
 suit of iJohnston v. A. Jolinston. On tho 22nd 
 April, 1882, tho defendant's solicitor, on the 
 usual affidavit of nonpayment and certificate of 
 hank manager, obtained an order ox parte dis- 
 missing the 1)111 with costs. On the 25th April, 
 the defendant's solicitor became aware that the 
 money had been paid in tu thu credit of the 
 wrong suit, but on tho 20tli April, he had been 
 aware that the money was paicl, tliough not 
 aware of tho exact nature of the mistake. On 
 the 27th April, tho defendant sold the pre- 
 mises : -Held, that the defendant must be con- 
 sidered identilied with his solicitor as to all the 
 information the solicitor had : that the order 
 made dismissing the bill instead of foreclosing 
 the plaintiff, and that the master's report giving 
 six weeks instead of six months for payment as 
 reciuircd by the decree, were irregularities, suffi- 
 cient to notify the purchaser of something un- 
 usual in the proceedings, and therefore that he 
 could not rely on tho final order dismissing the 
 bill alone ; that even if the order had been for 
 foreclosure, under the facts of this case, it would 
 be a proper exercise of the discretion of the 
 court to open it up ; and that a suit commenced 
 by the plaiutitF to set aside the sale, did not estop 
 him from obtaining relief under the motion. 
 Gunn V. Doble, 15 Chy. 655, distinguished, 
 Mmlon V. Johnston, 9 P. R. 259.— Dal ton. 
 JfcMfer.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Proceedings were instituted, in 1876, against 
 two persons interested in a mortgage estate, one 
 of whom was resident out of the jurisdiction, 
 and the usual decree and account was made and 
 taken. The application to make such decree 
 absolute was not made until May, 1882, and in 
 the early part of the month following a petition 
 was presented praying that the defendants 
 might be allowed to redeem, alleging the icnor 
 ance of the absent defendant of the proceedings 
 
 until his return to tho vountry, a few days be- 
 fore signing the petition, and t.he ignorau"u of 
 both dufeiniants of any proceedings siiliiu(|uunt 
 tuthu tiling of thu bill; and that tlie dufundant 
 upon whom thu bill was served w.is about ninety 
 years old, of fuublu intellect, and uiililtud tu 
 transact biisini!ss. It w.is shewn that in March, 
 18S2, biifori) tho order making thu d'jcroo abso- 
 lute, the plaintifTs hail soM to ono (irattan, who 
 bought, relying on the plaintilfs' titlu under tho 
 linal order of foreclosure, which, on its face, 
 was expre^sod to be siilijoct tu tho (iuneral Or- 
 ders of Cliani-ery 114-5-6. Under the ciroum- 
 cumstances the court (reversing tho order of 
 Boyd, C, 2 0. R, ;14«), niido an order \'., open 
 the foreclusuro on the usual terms ot ptyiiig 
 prihidpal, interest, ami costs of plaintiti-i, and 
 of the |iurchaser (not including any costs of tho 
 appeal, of which each party shoulil bisar their 
 own), together with any costs incurred by tho 
 purchaser in connection with his purchase of 
 tho property, and in def.iult of payment on or 
 before tho day ap|)oiiitcd for paymunt the ap- 
 peal to bu dismissud, with costs. Trinity GoUegn 
 V. //ill, 10 A. R. 99. 
 
 In a foreclosure suit ii decree was made in No- 
 vember, 1877, and a linal order of forjclosuro 
 obtained in June, 1878. In October, 1882, a 
 petition was presented by the dufeiidants to 
 open the foreulosure, which was dismissed : (2 
 O. R. .'148.) The Court of Appeal reversed this 
 decision, making an order to open the foreclosuro 
 on the usual terms of paying principal, interest 
 and costs, including the plaintilTs' costs of op- 
 posing the petition (10 A. R. 99): — Held, affirm- 
 ing the decision of the master in ordinary, that 
 tile plaintiffs were entitled to interest on tho 
 whole amount of principal, interest, and costs 
 as found by the decree of November, 1877 : — 
 Held, also, reversing the decision of the inastor- 
 in-ordinaiy, that the plaintiiTs wore not entitled 
 to interest on the taxed costs of opposing tho 
 petition to open the foreclosure, for these costs 
 were not recoverable by force of the order made 
 on the petition, which was reversed, but simply 
 owing to thu direction of the Court of Appeal: — 
 Held, 'also, reversing the decision of the master- 
 in-ordinary, that the plaintiffs were not entitled 
 to the costs of a writ of execution issued by 
 them to recover their costs taxed under the 
 order dismissing the petition, for the vacating 
 of that order levelled the writ of execution, 
 which was not part of tho taxed costs of tho 
 petition but incurred subsequently. Trinity 
 College v. Hilt, 8 O. R. 286. -Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff sued upon a foreign judgment, 
 which he had obtiviiied against the defendant 
 upon a covenant by the defendant to indemnify 
 him against a mortgage made by the plaintiff to 
 one G., who had foreclosed the mortgage and 
 afterwards obtained judgment against tlie plain- 
 tiff on the covenant: — Held, that the effect of 
 G. suing on the covenant in the mortgage after 
 foreclosure was to open the foreclosure, and 
 ail allegation that the plaintiff had improperly 
 concealed the fact of the foreclosure from the 
 foreign court was no defence to this action. 
 Painlei/ V. Broddy, 11 P. R. 202.— Wilson.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 See Kdly v. Imperial Loan and Investment Co. 
 of Canada, 11 S. C. R. 516, p. 1302; Wamock 
 v. Prieur, 12 P. R. 264, p. 1213. 
 
 '^ '^9 
 
 1 
 
 v;|i| 
 
 IHI 
 
 ■■." ft 
 
 E 
 
■j^^jff^^s"^' ' 
 
 ■ -ff 
 
 18U 
 
 MORTaAGE. 
 
 1312 
 
 en 
 
 ■(ft* 
 
 4. CoxU. 
 See Trinity College v. Hill, SO. R.286,p. 1310. 
 
 5. Other Casi's. 
 
 Ill an action df foreclosure upon a mortgage 
 which contains a clause by which the principal 
 falls due upon default made in payment of any 
 inutalnient of interest, if the plaintiff claims the 
 benefit of the clause, and calls in the whole mort- 
 gage debt, he is bound l)y his election and must 
 accept principal, interest, and costs, whenever 
 tendered, although he does not pray for a per- 
 gonal order for immediate payment. Druinmond 
 r. Ouickard, cited in Green v. Adams, 2 Chy. 
 I'hamb. 124 overruled. Crvxo v. Bond, 1 O. ii. 
 :!84.— Chy. D. Reversing S. C, 9 P. R. 111. 
 
 An action for foreclosure of a mortgage is gov- 
 erned by Rule 78 O. J. Act (see Con. Rule 718) 
 and no order allowiiig service is necess ry and 
 on default of appearance judgment may be 
 entered on pracipe according to the former 
 practice in chancery. Cham her lain v. Aitn- 
 siromj, 9 P. R. 212.— Boyd. 
 
 On motion ex parte for a directioi: to the 
 registrar to insert in a precipe judgment of 
 foi-eclosure in a nKutgnge suit, an order for im- 
 mediate payniint of the amount due by the de- 
 fendant, under his covenant, up to judgment, 
 (the rcgiftmr to take the account,) where a 
 reference to the master as to substquent encum- 
 brances was also sought : — Held, that the usual 
 course must be followed, and that the defendant 
 siiould be ordered to jiay the amount found due 
 forthwith after the master should have made his 
 report. North ol iSivtlavd ( mwdian Moi-tqage 
 Co. V. Betird. 9 P. R. 546.— Boyd. 
 
 An action by a mortgagee for foreclosure, pay- 
 ment, and posttssii n of the mortgaged premises 
 is not an action of ejectment within the meaning 
 of the exception in Rule 254, O. J. Act, and the 
 venue need not therefore in such an action be 
 laid in the countv w here the lands lie. Seymour 
 \. DeMar h, 1 1 P. R. 472.— Dalton, Masltr. 
 
 Lunatic defendant— Appointment of guardian. 
 See Wanwck v. Prieur, 12 P. R. 2C4, p. 1213. 
 
 The Creditors' Helief Act applies to execution 
 creditors against lands in question in a mort- 
 g.ige action for foreclosure or sale, and all such 
 creilitors must share latably in the proceeds 
 of sale after payment of the mortgage debt, in- 
 terest and costs. Harvey v. McNeil, 12 P. R. 
 .%2.— Boyd. 
 
 Semble, in the case of foreclosure the old 
 form of decree giving execution creditors as 
 subsequent incumDiancers liberty to redeem ac- 
 cording to their priorities is no longer applicable. 
 Ih. 
 
 See Crvso v. r/ose, 8 P. R. 33, p. 1313; Gzmvshi 
 v. Bmiy, 8 P. R. 146, p. 1313. 
 
 XIII. Sale. 
 
 1. H/ien Directed, 
 
 Although by the general rule and course of 
 proceeding in mortgage cases the mortgagor is 
 entitled to six Inonth^ to redeem, before a sale 
 is ordered, the court will, under special circum- 
 
 stances, direct an immediate sale of the property 
 even as against the infant heirs of the mortgagor' 
 Swi/l V. Mnter, 27 Chy. 217.— Blake. 
 
 In an action of ejectment by mortgagees, on 
 the application of the infant defendants, an 
 order for immediate possession and sale of the 
 mortgaged premises was made, with a reference 
 to the nnister to take the usual accounts ; but 
 ?80 'vas ordered to be paid into court to meet 
 the expenses of sale. Wenteni Canada Loan 
 and Satriiign Co. v. Dunn, 9 P. R. 587.— Armour; 
 reversing S. C. lb. 490. 
 
 Although in an action on a mortgage of lands 
 situate out of the province judgment of fore- 
 closure will be granted against a defendant re- 
 siding therein, such judgment merely operating 
 in personam as an extinguishment of a personal 
 right, yet the court will not extend the doctrine 
 by ordering a sale of land over which it has not 
 territorial jurisdiction, not being able to super- 
 vise or deal efl'ectually with the many matters 
 which are the usual and ordinary incidents of a 
 sale. Slranj/e v. h'adford, 15 O. R. 145. — Boyd. 
 
 2. Pnrtie-f to BUI. 
 
 A mortgagee tiled a bill for sale making cer- 
 tain lien holders under the Mechanics' Lien 
 Act parties defendant, therein alleging that the 
 work, by virtue of which their liens arose, was 
 cr)n)inenced after the registration of his mort- 
 gage : — Held, that the lien-liolders should have 
 been made parties in the master's office after 
 decree by notice, and the plaintifF's costs of 
 making them defendants by bill were disallowed 
 on revision of taxation. Jack-ton v. Hammond, 
 8 P. R. 157.— Thorn, Taxing Officer. 
 
 3. Decree. 
 
 Although a decree for sale should direct the 
 same to take place with the approbation of the 
 master, the omission of such direction is no 
 ground for moving to set aside the sale under 
 the decree, where the same really took place 
 with such approbation, even in a case where 
 infants are interested. Bicker v. Bicker, 27 Chy. 
 576. — Proudfoot. 
 
 4. Coxtx. 
 
 The costs of proceedings to obtain a sale of 
 mortgaged premises are such a charge ujionthe 
 estate as will entitle the mortgagee to proceed to 
 a sale of the property in the event of nonpay- 
 ment. ThovipHon V. Jlolman, 28 Chy. 35.- 
 Spragge. 
 
 Where mortgagees had a surplus in their 
 hands after a sale under their mortgage, and S. 
 claimed the surplus, but refused to give such 
 proof as the riortgagees requiu'^d of his title 
 thereto :— Held, tlial as the mo.-tgagees had 
 acted reasonably in requiring prorer proof, and 
 failing to get it, had paid the surplus into court, 
 they were entitled to their costs of so doing, 
 and to tlieir costs of appearing on S.'s applica- 
 tion to have the money paid out to him. fie 
 Kingxlamf, 8 P. R. 77. — Spragge. 
 
 See Jackson V. Hammond, HP. R. 157, wpra; 
 Gardner v. Burgess, 13 P. R. 250, p. 1319. 
 
1312 
 
 1313 
 
 MORTGAGE. 
 
 1314 
 
 ,e of the property, 
 of the niortgaaor 
 -Blake. 
 
 y mortgagees, on 
 t defendants, an 
 1 and sale of the 
 , witli a reference 
 lal accounts ; but 
 ito court to meet 
 ni Canaild Loan 
 R. 587.— Armour; 
 
 mortgage of lands 
 udgnient of fore- 
 t a defendant re- 
 merely operating 
 iient of a personal 
 ttend the doctrine 
 r which it has not 
 ing able to super- 
 the many matters 
 lary incidents of iv 
 O. R. 145. -Boyd. 
 
 UU. 
 
 r sale making ccr- 
 I Mechanics' Lien 
 n alleging that tlic 
 iir liens arose, was 
 ation of his mort- 
 olders should have 
 aster's oilice after 
 plaintiff's costs of 
 >ill were disallowed 
 /tsoji V. Hammmd, 
 Officer. 
 
 should direct tlie 
 
 pprobation of the 
 
 direction is no 
 
 de the sale under 
 
 really took place 
 
 in a case where 
 
 V. likker, 27 Chy. 
 
 to obtain a sale of 
 a charge upon the 
 
 [jagee to proceed to 
 event of nonpay- 
 n, 28 Chy. 35.- 
 
 surphis in their 
 r mortgage, and S. 
 fused to give such 
 quii.-'d of his title 
 e mo.-tgagees had 
 ; proier proof, and 
 surplus into court, 
 costs of so doing, 
 ing on S.'sapplica- 
 " out to him. We 
 gge. 
 
 , P. R. 157, "«?'■«•■ 
 250, p. 1319. 
 
 5. Other Cases. 
 
 Where a defendint by bill in a foreclosure suit 
 demanded a sale and paid $80 into court as a 
 depsit :— Hehl, that although the costs of tiie 
 gale wiiuld exceed that amount, the defendant 
 could not be ortlered to increase it, the amount 
 l)eiiig lixed l)y schedule S. endorsed on the office 
 fopy <>t the bill under (). O. Ciiy. 4,'J(). Criixo v. 
 Cliisi; 8 P. R. 33.— Taylor, y^/'crer.- Proud- 
 foot. ' 
 
 In a foreclosure suit tiie official assignee of an 
 insolvent defeuilant paid .^liJO into court to pro- 
 cure a sale. The proceeds derived from the sale 
 were much more than sufficient to pay the plain- 
 tiff's claim in full, but were insufficient to pay 
 the subsequent incumbrancers :— Held, tlmt the 
 deposit .sliould be a]iplicd in reduction of the 
 second mortgagee's claim. Ozownkl v. liialy, 8 
 I'. K. UO.— IJlake 
 
 Wliere a mortgagee comes ,'n under a decree 
 for parti bi>n or s.ile, and p' oves liis claim and 
 consents to a sale, he is not entitled to six 
 montlis' interest, oi' six months' notice. /^' 
 lioiiMmi —iloiishiii v. Iloaxlon, 2 O. R. 81. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 ,VIV. I'ROt'EKDi.stiS IS Moi!i(i.\(;i; .Actions. 
 
 1. Takimj Accounts, 
 
 The plaintiff company having brought an ac- 
 tion against I., on a mortgage, and claiming 
 damages for having made a distress on V., the 
 tenant of the premises at the reijuest of I., on 
 the reference to asccitain what damage the com- 
 pany had properly sustained by reason < :ch 
 distress, the master held that the amount of a 
 judgment recovered by F. agaii.st the company 
 was the proper measure, and was conclusive evi- 
 deuce of the amount, altlntugh it was proved be- 
 fore him tluit an offer had been made by I. to 
 the ciimpa;>y to furnish witnesses and assist in 
 the defence, ai;d had been declined, and the wit- 
 nesses when examined shewed that their evi- 
 dence might materially h( ve affected the ver- 
 dict: — Held, that the ruling of the master was 
 erroneous, and that the case must go back to 
 him to revise Ids report. /'flerhuroui/h Heal 
 Estate Investment Go. v. Ireton, 5 O R. 47. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 The special endorsement on a bill claimed a 
 certain a.uount to be due under the mortgage 
 (which contained the usual covenant to insure). 
 After the service of the bill the plaintiff' paid 
 certain premiums of insurance. Blake, V.C, 
 directed notice of settling decree and taking ac- 
 counts to be served, and the plaintiff's claim to 
 he allowed on proof of the payments being pro- 
 duced. Emilish ami Scottish Incestment Co. v. 
 dray, 8 P. R. 199. 
 
 A decree for redemption was made, which 
 directed an account to be taken of the amount 
 due by the plaintilF, representing the mort- 
 gagor, to the defendants. The defendants, on 
 proving their claim in the master's office, pro- 
 duced their mortgages, and filed an affidavit 
 verifying their claim, and stating that §20,309.- 
 88 was duo them for moneys advanced by them 
 to the mortgagor and secured by the said mort- 
 gages ;--nel(l, by the master in ordinary, and 
 »ffiriiied by Blake, V. C, that their claim was 
 
 83 
 
 primjl facie proven, and the onus of reducing 
 the amount of it rested on the plaintiff'. Court 
 V. Holland -Kx parte Doraii, 8 P. R. 213. 
 
 Where an amendment in a matter of account, 
 as stated in the pleading i, would be allowed bo- 
 fore decree, a similar amendment should also be 
 allowed, if asked for, in respect of the accounts 
 filed after decree, in the master's office. Court 
 V. Holland, 4 O. R. (j88.— Chy. D. 
 
 There should be no alteration in the amount 
 found due by tiie master when such amount hae 
 not been appealed against : I'roudfoot, .1. , 11 O. 
 R. Gil upheld in other respects. Gordon v. Gor- 
 don, 12 0. R. 593.— Chy. D. 
 
 On a reference to t.ike accounts in a mortgage 
 case it is not open to the defendants to contend 
 that the original loan was ultra vires ; nor can 
 , any defence be raised in the master's office 
 which, if allowed, might result in determining 
 that the court had made a nugatory order of 
 reference. Wilfij v. Li'di/ard, 10 P. R. 182. — 
 Hodgins, Mashr-in-Oriliiianj. 
 
 The plaintiff, asmnrtg igcc of the defendants, by 
 an instrument dated 3()tli .lanuary, 1883, purport- 
 ing to be duly executed by the plaintiff, commen- 
 cetl an action for the sale of the mortgaged proper- 
 ty. The writ issued duly indor.sed under Kule 17 
 O. .J. Act, (Con. I{ule248) and default being made, 
 judgment was obtained under Rule 78 O. J. A-i. 
 (Con. Rule 718) referring it to the master at Lind- 
 say to make and take the enquiries and accounts 
 asprescribedby G.O. Chy. 441 (Con.Rule776and 
 l'"orin 182). The master gave certain execution 
 creditors, who had been made parties in his office 
 and proved their claims, priority over the plain- 
 tiff on the ground that the instrument in ques- 
 tion was invalid; the tjrms of secticm 85 ot the 
 ('anaila Joint Stock Compmys' Act of 1877, 
 which requires the sanction of a two-thirds vote 
 ' of the shareholders, rot having been complied 
 j with : — Held, that under the decree the nuister 
 ! had no power to adjudicate upon the validity of 
 the instrument in question as a mortgage, and 
 I thoexecution creditors not having moved against 
 the judgment by virtue of wliich they were made 
 - parties were also bound by the decree. Mc- 
 1 Doui/all V. Liudmiy Paper Mill Co., 10 P. R. 
 247.— Boyd. 
 
 Under a judgment for redemption obtained by 
 an execution creditor of the mortgagor, the 
 mortgagee who held the title under a deed ab- 
 solute in form, brought into the master's office 
 with his account certain orders signed by the 
 mortgagor, directing him to pay to the parties 
 named in them, any surplus moneys in his hands 
 after paying his mortgage. The mortgagee did 
 not accept them, but entered them in his real 
 estate ledger, and they were not registered : — 
 Held (1), That such mortgagee could not claim 
 to be allowed these onlers in addition to his 
 mortgage, not having accepted or paid them ; 
 nor could he be looked upon as a trustee hold- 
 ing the lands in trust for the holders of such 
 orders. (2) That the orders operated as etiuit- 
 able charges or liens on the mortgagor's interest 
 in the lands, prior to the receipt by the sheriff 
 of the plaintiffs' ti. fa. lands, and that such lien- 
 holders should be made parties in the master's 
 office, and prove their claims in their own right. 
 Canadi'in Bank of Commerce v. Forbes, 10 P, R. 
 442. — Hodgins, Master-iii-Ordinary. 
 
1315 
 
 MORiaAQE. 
 
 131S 
 
 en 
 
 8:2? 
 
 SO 
 
 The '1". & L. Co. , being mortgagees of land in 
 Oiitiirio, lielil a collateral mortgage on lands in 
 Kansas. Default occurring they sold the lands 
 in Ontario, through one W., a land agent, wlio 
 hid iicted also under a power of attorney for (J. 
 the mortgagor, who had agreed to a commission 
 being allowed to him for selling. \V. did not, 
 however, actually sell until after C.'a death, 
 when theT. & L. Co. paid him his commission : — 
 Held, on an action for an account brought by an 
 execution creditor, who had ol)tained iiis exec- 
 tion after the power of attorney had l)i.'en given 
 to W., and iiftci' tile said agreement as to coni- 
 lnis^si(ln, that the commission was a proper item 
 to allow the 'I', it L. (,"o. , in their account. IVelln 
 V. Trutt ,(• Loan Co. of Caaatln, 9 O. R. 170. — 
 Hoyd. 
 
 After the mortgage on the Kansas lands had 
 been executed, the mortgagees discovered that 
 the lands comprised in it liad been sold for taxes, 
 »nd that there were also several executions 
 against them, and they incurred expenses in 
 attempting to stay the executions, and set aside 
 the tax sales. The mortgagor C. , had approved 
 of tliese proceedings being taken : — Held, that 
 these expenses ought to be allowed to the T. & 
 L. Co. in their accounts, for whatever bound 
 the mortgagor in taking the accounts bound the 
 plaintiff to the same extent. Ih. 
 
 The T. & L. Co. further incurred expenses in 
 prosecuting unsuccessful litigation arising out of 
 a claim made by them as landlords under the dis- 
 tress clause in their mortgage, to certain goods 
 of V. seized by the sheriff under executions 
 against him. C. did not sanction this litiga- 
 tion : -Held, that this expenditure could not be 
 allowed to the T. & L. Co. in taking the accounts, 
 but that as they made a certain sum by this liti- 
 gation, the costs up to that point should be 
 allowed to them. The general rule is, that a 
 mortgagee is not allowed to add to his mortgage 
 debt the costs of unsuccessful proceedings at law 
 instituted by himself, and not undertaken with 
 the approval of the mortgagor, lb. 
 
 A judgment directed that the master should 
 take the usual accounts for redemption or fore- 
 closure of tiie mortgaged premises, and should 
 also take the accounts in respect to certain other 
 matters set out in the pleadings. Under this 
 the defendant contended that the master should 
 take into account a certain sale by the plaintift, 
 as mortgagee, to a person who, it appeared, had 
 not paid his purchase money. There was no 
 specific mention of this sale in the pleadings or 
 judgment :— Held, that the proposed inquiry 
 was not within the scope of the pleadings or the 
 judgment, or of Con. Rules 56 and 57 ; and the 
 <piestions which it would raise, were questions 
 which ought to have l)een raised by the plead- 
 ings and determined by the court, and not dele- 
 gated to the master. Bickford v. Grand Junc- 
 tion R. W. Co., 1 S. C. R. at p. 725 ; McDougall 
 V. Lindsay Paper Mill Co., 10 P. R. 247 ; Wiley 
 1). F^edyard, 10 P. R. 182, referred to. liowlanil 
 V. Burwell, 12 P. R. 607.— Armour. 
 
 This action was brought to recover the prin- 
 cipil and interest due upon a mortgage, and 
 also upon certain other claims. The interest 
 was alleged to be overdue, and the principal to 
 have become due by virtue of an acceleration 
 clause. The defendant pleaded payment of the 
 
 interest. A reference was directed to a master 
 and upon such reference the plaintiff proved his 
 mortgage, and it appeared therein that certain 
 instalments of interest were overdue : — Held 
 that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie 
 case and could not be called on to prove tliu 
 nonpavment of interest. Alurklc v. U,m y\ 
 I P. R. "13.-). -Rose. 
 
 j Methoil of taking mortgage account slmwii. 
 See Eitiiioiiils v. Ilamiltim J'rorideiit dml Jmih 
 Sorklji, li) (). R. (577. , , ^. 
 
 ^VAi Ciiitrt \. Jfitllaiid —Ex parte Ilollnml and 
 I Walsh, H P. R. -.'I!), p. (i47 ; .i/orloii v. /lamilt.m 
 : Prnridi'iit and Loan Sorkti/, 10 P. R, (i;j(;, i, 
 
 131S ; Afacli'Miinn v. Gray, 12 P. R. 4.SI ; Siql'. 
 i ricr Loan and Sarlni/'t Co. v. Lncax, 1,") ,\ ]{ 
 
 748, p. 4i»7. 
 
 ' Sue also Subhead V. li (b), ji. I-.',S-.>. 
 
 2. MtilliptUily of ArtiotiK 
 
 .\ mortgagee proceeded on the same day to 
 foreclose the i)roperty of the mortgagor and his 
 sureties by several bills upon their respective 
 niortgagoH, and to sue at law in diffrreiit actions 
 the same parties on notes held by the plaintifl's, 
 to which the mortgages were collateral ; — Held, 
 that only one suit in equity was necessary, iis 
 all parties might have been brought before the 
 court therein, all remedies given which might 
 have been obtained at law, and all rights more 
 conveniently adjuste<l between tlie parties in 
 one than in several suits, and the court would 
 not be deterred from granting the relief by this 
 circumstances of the decree being complieated. 
 There were consent minutes between the parties 
 except as to costs at law and in this court. 
 Spragge,C., ordered the plaintiffs to pay the costs 
 of the argument l)efore him, unless they were 
 included ill the mi'.tters the subject of tlie con- 
 sent minutes. MerchantH Hank v. Spark's,':.^ 
 Chy. 108. 
 
 A mortgagee proceeded in ejectment against a 
 mortgagor, and afterwards filed a bill in chan- 
 cery against him for a sale : — Held, that as tlu! 
 mortgagee could, since the Administration nf 
 Justice Act, obtain in the chancery suit all the 
 remedies he could obtain in the ejectment si'it, 
 the latter should be stayed for-uver. Hay v. 
 McArthur, 8 P. R. 321.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 In an action for an account by a mortgagor, 
 against the executors of a mortgagee who hixl 
 sold the mortgaged premises under the power of 
 sale in the mortgage, and who had also taken 
 proceedings at law, a small balance of $10 w«s 
 found in his favour. Plaintiff" having made 
 charges which he failed to substantiate, and not 
 having proved that an account was demanded 
 and withheld from him and certain special mat 
 ter pleaded by the defendants being found against 
 them: — Held, neither party entitled to costs. 
 Beatty v. O'Connor, 5 O. R. 747.— Chy. I). 
 
 The plaintiff gave to the defendant a noti. 
 of sale under the power of sale in a certain 
 mortgage, and also began an action against the 
 defendant upon the covenant for payment con- 
 tained in the same mortgage. The notice of sale 
 was dated 2iid May, the writ was issued on tho 
 3rd May, and both were served on tho defen- 
 dant on tho 3rd May. No order was obtained 
 
131ft 
 
 1317 
 
 MOBTGAOE. 
 
 1318 
 
 iteil to a master, 
 lintiff proved his 
 rein that certain 
 overdue :— Held, 
 it a prima facie 
 on to prove tlie 
 trklu V. lidHx, IS 
 
 account shewn. 
 oi'klunt mill Lonn 
 
 •irtf llollnilil ami 
 orloii V. llnmUl'iii. 
 10 W \\. 03(i, I). 
 l>. IJ. 4S1 ; .Sk;,.- 
 LiiciiM, 1,") A, R. 
 
 1)), J). 1-.'.S'.>. 
 
 Artionx 
 
 the same day ti) 
 uortgagor and his 
 11 their respective 
 n (litlcroiit actions 
 I l)y tiie phiintifl's, 
 collateral :— Held, 
 was necessary, lis 
 brought before the 
 ;iven wiiich niigiit 
 iicl all rights more 
 ien the parties in 
 1(1 the court would 
 l; the relief hy thii 
 Ijeing complicateil. 
 )et\voeu the parties 
 md in this court, 
 .ittsto pay the costs 
 , unless they were 
 lul'ject of the con- 
 ink V. SparkeK, -S 
 
 jectnicnt against a 
 led a bill in chan- 
 -Held, that as the 
 Administration cif 
 ancery suit all thi; 
 the ejectment si'it. , 
 forever. Hay v. 
 ton, Q. C. 
 
 t hy a mortgagor, 
 lortgageo who had 
 under the power of 
 ho had also taken 
 )alance of $10 was 
 itiff having made 
 bstantiate, and not 
 jnt was demande<l 
 iertain special mat 
 )eing found against 
 entitled to costs. 
 747. -Chy. D. 
 
 lefcndant a noti. 
 sale in a certain 
 action against the 
 it for payment con- 
 , Tho notice of sale 
 t waa issued on tho 
 ved on the defen- 
 order was obtained 
 
 permitting the action to be coinmeiiced. Upon 
 motion to set aside the service of the writ aa 
 contrary to the provisions of the Ontario Mort- 
 gage Act, 1884, 47 Vict. o. IB (Ont.) :— Held, 
 that the object of the statute is to prevent all 
 other proceedings while the notice of sale is run- 
 ning, and it is not necess;iry under the statute 
 to fulfil the very words of it, that one of the 
 acts should be prior to the other. (Service of 
 writ set aside with costs. Pernj v. Perry, 10 
 V. R. 275.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 See III re Flint and Jellett, 8 P. R. 361, p. 
 1270 ; Bealt;/ v. O'Connor, 5 O. R. 731, p. 1301. 
 
 3. Costx. 
 
 (I. the owner of real estate executed a niort- 
 ^ ige to the plaintift", and subse(iueiitly created a 
 .•ieeond mortgage in favour of one li. which he 
 transferred to the plaintitF. Afterwards G. mort- 
 gaged the same lands to R. and D. ; and subse- 
 ijuently assigned the etjuity of redemption to 
 tliem in which assignment the mortgage to the 
 plaintiff and that to K. and D. were recited, but 
 the intermediate one to H. wa.s not, though the 
 amount stated as due to the plaintiff was about 
 the sum secured by both mortgages held by 
 him. Default having been made, a bill was filed 
 against G. upon his covenants and against his 
 assignees R. and D., as the owners of the equity 
 of redemption and entitled to redeem: — Held, 
 that under these circumstances G. having claimed 
 such relief by his answer was entitled as against 
 his co-defendants to an order for them to pay 
 such sum as might be found due the plaintiff 
 under his securities, and the suit having been 
 rendered necessary by reason of the default of 
 R. and D. in not paying the plaintiff, they were 
 also bound to pay G. liis costs. Oaniphdl v. 
 Hobimon, 27 Chy. 634. 
 
 On proceeding with the reference under the 
 decree pronounced on the hearing, as reported 28 
 Cliy. 356, the master by his report found that 
 there was due to the plaintiff $1,104.99, which 
 included a sum of .'$171.32 costs incurred in the 
 suit brought by liim to redeem : — Hold, on 
 a))peal— (affirming the report of the master), — ( 1 ) 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to claim the costs 
 so incurred, that proceeding having been taken 
 in reality in defence of his rights as owner of an 
 erjuity of redemption with the concurrence of C, 
 tlirough whom the appellant claimed — and, (2) 
 that neither of the defend mts could dispute the 
 findings in that suit, but were estopped from 
 •iiueationing the amount found due therein to the 
 same extent as Jarvis under whom they claimed 
 would have been, the proceeding being not in 
 respect of a matter collateral to the mortgage in 
 question in that suit, but virtually upon the same 
 Instrument, and that therefore the rules as to 
 estoppel by deed applied. Pierce v. Ganaran, 
 2!» Chy. 32.— Ferguson. 
 
 42 Vict. c. 20, 8. 11 (Ont.), authorizing the 
 taxation of a mortgagee's costs by any party 
 interested, without any order to tax, applies to 
 mortgages executed before the passing of the 
 Act. FenjiiHon v. English and Scottish Invest- 
 m:iU Go., 8 P. R. 404.— Taylor, Master. 
 
 Whore a mortgagee sold under a power of sale 
 in his mortgage, and the mortgagor afterwards 
 brought action against him for un account, and 
 
 payment over to him, of the surplus which he 
 alleged was in tho mortgagee's hands, and on 
 taking the account it was found a balance of 
 $136 was payable to the mortgagor: — Held, 
 that the mortgagee must pay to the mortgagor 
 his full costs of suit. lioullon v. Rowland, 4 O. 
 R., 720.— Ferguson. 
 
 A reference in a mortgage suit was directed 
 to take accounts and to inquire whether a sale 
 or foreclosure would be more beneficial. There 
 were no incumbrancers. The defendants claimed 
 credit for payments endorsed on the back jf the 
 mortgage, which were in the deceased mortga- 
 gee's liandwriting, but for all of which the de- 
 fendants did not hold receipts. The plaintiffs 
 disputed the payments not covered by the re- 
 ceipts. On revision the taxing officer disallowed 
 the costs of the reference as the master had 
 founil in favourof the defendants' contention: — 
 Held, on appeal, that under G. O. Chy. 312 
 (Oon. Rule 1209), tho revising officer might refer 
 to the papers before the master, and determine 
 from them whether the proceedings were un- 
 necessarily taken and that so much of the refer- 
 ence as related to the question whether fore- 
 closure or sale was most beneficial ought to 
 be allowed: — Held, also, tiiat if the credits 
 endorsed on the mortgage were made by the 
 mortgagee or signed by liim, the plaintiff, his 
 executor, ought not to have questioned the 
 amount, and so much of the costs of the refer- 
 ence caused by taking the account should not be 
 allowed. Pardy v. Parks, 9 P. R. 424.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Mortgagees after the exercise of the power of 
 sale in tlieir mortgage claimed that $182.61 was 
 still due to them, but on an account being taken 
 $20.07 was found due to the mortgagor : — Held, 
 that laying aside the (juestiou of the whole 
 amount of the mortgage money (.?6,705) the 
 amount involved was $202.63, and therefore the 
 case was not within Rule 515 0. .J. Act (C. S. U. 
 C. c. 15. s. 34, subs. 8), (see Con. Rule 1219), 
 and the costs were properly taxed on the higher 
 scale. The claim of a mortgagor against a mort- 
 gagee for an account in such a case is not a legal 
 one as for a money demand, but a proper subject 
 for equitable relief. Morton v. Hamilton Provi- 
 dent and Loan Societi/, 10 P. R. 636. — Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 The practice of bringing an action for an 
 amount |due on a mortgage within the proper 
 competence of tho Division Court in the High 
 Court by making a claim for possession of the 
 land, is one that must be carefully guarded ; and, 
 except in cases clear^.y indicating the necessity 
 for proceeding in tho High Court, no costs will 
 be given to the plaintiff. In this case where the 
 amount claimed under a mortgage was within 
 the proper competence of the Division Court, 
 but the suit was brought in the High Court, 
 and there were no circumstances shewing the 
 necessity for bringing it therein, no costs were 
 allowed the plaintiff. Vamlewaters v. Horton, 
 9 0. R. 548. -C. P. 1). 
 
 Where actions were brought by mortgagees 
 without the leave of the court for sale of mort- 
 gaged premises after appointment of a receiver 
 to receive the rents and profits of such premises, 
 an order was made, upon tho patition of the 
 mortgagees, allowing the proceedings in the ao- 
 
'3l5BP!!!I>^^' 
 
 1319 
 
 MOBTMAIN. 
 
 im 
 
 aw 
 
 Si 
 
 tions to stand, und ivllowing the putitioiicrs to 
 proceed with the actiona uotwitli»tan(1iiig the 
 appointment of the receiver. 1'he leceivei' vus 
 served with notice of the presentation of the 
 petition and appeared thereon by counsel. The 
 petition, besides praying for the relief which 
 was granted, nsked in the alternative that the 
 receiver might be dis-chargtd, or that he might 
 be ordered to pay the petitioners the arrears of 
 principal and interest due on their mortgages 
 and the costs of the actions and the petition : — 
 Held, that if the petitioners wished to protect 
 themselves from paying costs thoy should have 
 proceeded under Con. Rule 11 93 and tendered the 
 receiver $5 with the petition ; and this not hav- 
 ing been done, and the relief asked in the alter- 
 native prayers being such as justified the ap- 
 pearance of the receiver, the receiver was en- 
 titled to be paid his costs by the petitioners ; 
 and the petitioners were allowed to add the sum 
 so paid and their own costs to the mortgage 
 debt. Gardner v. BunjcHx, 13 P. H. '250. — Boyil. 
 
 See Deatty v. O'Connor, T) O. R. 731, p. 1301 ; 
 Hyde v. Barton, 8 P. H. 205, p. 560 ; Kempt v. 
 Macautey, 9 P. R. 582, p. 1081 ; Trinity College 
 V. Hill, 8 O. R. 286, p. 131(t; WelU v. Trvst and 
 Loan Co. of Canada, 9 O. K. 170, p. 1315 ; Smith 
 V. Smith, 18 O. R. 205. 
 
 See also previous Subhead. 
 
 4. Other Cases. 
 
 In an action by ccstuis qui trustent against 
 executors and trustees of a certain will, a decree 
 had been made for the general administration of 
 the testator's estate real and personal, a portion 
 of the real estate being at the time under mort- 
 gage made by the executors. The conduct of 
 the proceedings having been given to certain 
 creditors, a receiver was, at their instance, ap- 
 pointed to collect the rents of the real estate. 
 Afterwards the mortgagees commenced an action 
 upon their mortgage {see 8 O. R. 539), making 
 the executors and trustees and the tenants of the 
 mortgaged property defendants, asking payment, 
 possession and foreclosure, when finding the re- 
 ceiver in possession, they, after some delay, ap- 
 plied for and obtained leave to proceed with 
 their action, a defence, however, being made 
 thereto, at the instance of the receiver, contest- 
 ing the validity of the mortgage. The mortga- 
 gees having succeeded in establishing their mort- 
 gage and their right to possession, then applied 
 to oe added as parties to the reference in the 
 administration proceedings, claiming to be en- 
 titled to all rents collected by the receiver be- 
 tween the commencement of the action on their 
 mortgage, and their obtaining possession from 
 him. They were accordingly added as parties 
 in the master's office, who subsequently made 
 his report, finding them entitled to the rents as 
 claimed : — Held, on appeal, that the mortgagees 
 were only entitled to the rents from the date of 
 the application for the order allowing them to 
 proceed with their action, notwitlistanding the 
 appointment of the receiver. Wallace v. Wal- 
 lace, 110. R. 574. -Boyd. 
 
 Held, that the term, " adult," in G. O. Chy. 
 646 (See Con. Rule 717), does not include a lun- 
 atic or person of uuaouud mind ; and therefore 
 
 that a judgment against a lunatic could not be 
 obtained in chambeis under G. O. Chy. 434 
 (See Con. Rule 717). Waniork v. Prieiir, 12 P 
 R. 264.— Dalton, Manter.—hoyd. 
 
 Clenww V. Booth, 27 Chy. 15, p. 1279; Mil- 
 ehell V. Struthy, 28 Chy. 80, p. 1086 ; JJi/de v. 
 Barton, 8 P. K. 205, p. 5()0 ; Hamilton I'rindttil 
 and Loan Society v. Campbell, VI A. I!. 'J50 
 p. 1080 ; Wlliircss v. Crair/ord, 12 P. I{. (ius' 
 pp. 1308; Hamilton I'rvridint Loan ami hi- 
 rcitmtnt Co. v. Smith, 17 O. K. I, p. 1277. 
 
 XV. .MiSCKLLANEOL'S C.ASHS. 
 
 Suit by creditors of mortgiigceto attach mort- 
 gage debt. See Mtn'.ien v. Oijilrie, 27 Cliy. 430 
 p. 90. 
 
 Held, that the giving of a mortgage by a de- 
 visee was not a violation of a restraint against 
 alienation. See Smith v. Fainjht, 45 (^. li. 484, 
 
 A mortgage is a "contract" within the mean- 
 ing of the Insolvent Act of 1875, s. 130. Smith 
 V. JJarrinijton, 29 Chy. 502. — Spragge. 
 
 Fiduciary lelations between mortgagor and 
 mortgagee. See Thompnou v. Hoi man, 28 Cliy. 
 35; Kilbourn v. Arnold, A. 11. 158. 
 
 Held, that the statute 42 Vict. c. 22, (Ont.)i 
 "An Act to Amend the Law of Dower" does not 
 apply to mortgages made before it was passed. 
 Marlindale v. Ctarkson, 6 A. R. 1. 
 
 Forfeiture of extended teinis of payment.— 
 Relief against forfeiture. See Graham v. Rom, 
 6 0. K. 154, p. 425. 
 
 Right of municipal corporation to take mort- 
 gage from a manufacturer securing j)crformance 
 of conditions on which bonus was grauteil. See 
 ViUui/e 0/ Brussels v. Bonald, 14 O. R. 1; 11 A, 
 R. 605. 
 
 Rights of parties, when mortgage paid by 
 moneys fraudulently obtained. See Jack v. Jack, 
 12 A. R. 476, p. 756. 
 
 Liability of universal legatee for hypothec on 
 immovables bequeathed to a particular legatee. 
 See Harrington v. Corse, 9 S. C. R. 411. 
 
 Specific bequest of mortgage to mortgagor. 
 Right of executors to insist on payment uf otiier 
 claims against mortgagor. See A rchcr v. Secern, 
 12 O. R. 615 ; 14 A. R. 723, p. 715. 
 
 Quiere, whether the rents could be garnished 
 against a mortgagee of the landlord. Sec Mamt 
 v. Toronto Printing Co., 12 P. R. 12. 
 
 Prior mortgage set aside by execution credi- 
 tor. Rights as against subsequent bona fide 
 mortgagee. See Conrsolles v. i'ookcs, 16 0. R. 
 691, p. 827. 
 
 MORTMAIN. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 See London and Canadian Loan and Anenty 
 Co. V. Graham, 16 O. R. 329, p. 273; Mt- 
 Diarmid v. Hughes, 16 O. R. 570, p. 273. 
 
1321 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1322 
 
 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. 
 
 ^ee Judgment. 
 
 MULTIPLICITY OP PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 See C08TS — MoRTOAOE. 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 I. Lehihi.ative Authority — See Consti- 
 tution a 1, Law. 
 
 ii. extknsion and separation of muni- 
 palities. 
 
 1. Takimj /he Cemm, 1323. 
 
 2. Debts ami Linhilifies, 1,323. 
 
 ?. Voters in Added Territory, 13-2,5. 
 
 fll. Voters' Lists — See Parliamentary 
 Elections. 
 
 IV. Members of Councils. 
 
 1. Property Qiuilification, 1325. 
 
 2. Disqualification. 
 
 (a) As Member oj Council, 1.326. 
 
 (b) From Voting in Certain Cases, 
 
 132t). 
 
 3. Vacating Office by Non- Attendance, 
 
 1327. 
 
 V. Controverted Elections. 
 
 1. Corrupt Practices, 1327. 
 
 2. Practice. 
 
 (a) Who may be Relator, L328. 
 (1)) Time for Muring, 1328. 
 
 (c) Disclaimer, 1328. 
 
 (d) Pollers of Master in Chambers, 
 
 1329. 
 
 (e) Powers of Gonnty Judge, 1329. 
 
 (f) Costs, 1,330. 
 
 (g) Other Cases, 13.30. 
 
 A'l. Action for Penalties Against Clerk 
 AND Deputy Returning - Officers 
 Under R. S. O. c. 184, s. 168, 1331. 
 
 VII. Ac^ceptance and Declaration of Of- 
 fice, 1331. 
 
 VIII. Mketinos of Council and Conduct 
 OF Business, 1332. 
 
 IX. Officers of the Corporation. 
 
 1. Tenure oJ Office, I3:i2. 
 
 2. Treasurer and his Sureties, 1332. 
 
 3. Collection of Taxes—See Assessment 
 
 AND Ta.XKS. 
 
 4. Other Cases, 1,333. 
 .\. By-Laws. 
 
 L Sii/ningyind Sealing, 13,34. 
 2. Creating Debts. 
 
 (a) Promulgation and Submission to 
 
 Electors, 13.34. 
 
 (b) Pegisf ration, 1335. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 1336. 
 
 .3. Submission ol' Matters (lenertUli/ <« 
 
 Electors, 1,338. 
 4. Discriminating By-Laws, 1339. 
 .5, Not for the Benefit of the Oeneral 
 
 Public, 1339. 
 
 6. Other Cases, 1342. 
 
 7. Por Particular Purposes — See Sub- 
 
 head XL, infra. 
 X. (Quashing. 
 
 (ii) Generally, 1.342. 
 
 (b) Who may More, l.'i43. 
 
 (c) Time Jor Moving, 1344. 
 (cl) Costs, 1345. 
 
 (e) Other Cases of Practice, 1,345. 
 *.). Cnncirtions Under — .See Justice ok 
 THE Peace. 
 
 10. Other Proceedings Relative to Ity. 
 Lairs, 1346. 
 
 XI. Okneral Powers and Duties. 
 
 1 , Aid to Railirays — See Railways and 
 
 Railway Co.mpanies. 
 
 2. Appointment lu Office— See Subhead 
 
 IX. p. 1332. 
 
 Animals Running at large, 1346. 
 
 Assessment and Ta.res. See Assess- 
 ment AND Taxes. 
 
 Assi:e of Bread, 1347. 
 Auctinns, 1,347. 
 
 3. 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 0. 
 7. 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
 1.3. 
 14. 
 
 15. 
 16. 
 17. 
 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 23. 
 24. 
 25. 
 26. 
 
 Bonuses to Manufacturing Companies, 
 
 1348. 
 _ Bridges. — See Way. 
 Buildings and Fire Limits, 1349. 
 Cab Stands, L3o(). 
 Carls Used for Hire, 1350. 
 Chisiug Shops, 1350. 
 Delegation of Poirers, 1351. 
 Drainage of Land. 
 (a) Petition, 1,35). 
 
 ill) Drains Extending through Seri ral 
 Mu n ic ij mlilies, 1352. 
 
 (0) Xolice and Publication oj By-law, 
 1353. 
 
 (d) Assessment, 1354. 
 
 (e) Other Cases, 1,358. 
 
 (f ) Liability of Municipalities — See 
 
 Water and Water-coursrs. 
 
 Exemption Jrom Taxation, 1.361. 
 
 Expropriation of Land, 1363. 
 
 Fences, 13(55. 
 
 Ferries, 1365. 
 
 Fines and Penalties, 1365. 
 
 (H ranting to Raihrays Lands Expressly 
 
 Appropriated for Public Purpose*, 
 
 1366. 
 Hawkers, Pedlars and Transient 
 
 Traders, 1,366. 
 Hospital.^ 1368. 
 Lirery Stables, 1369. 
 Markets and Sale of Meat, 1369. 
 Nuisancen, 1371. 
 Pounds— See Suhhead XL 3, sujnn. 
 
ff 
 
 1323 
 
 MUNICIPAL OOBPOBATIONS. 
 
 lS2t 
 
 909 
 
 Si: 
 
 s 
 
 .^■■mKj 
 
 \ 
 
 in^^B^^i 
 
 jl 
 
 t 
 
 ■1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 27. Puhlic Health, 1372. 
 
 28. Public Morals, 1373. 
 
 29. Purchane of Lands, 1373. 
 
 30. liocuh—See Way. 
 
 31. Schooli— See Vvm.icScuoohs. 
 
 32. Sewern. 
 
 (a) In Cities and Towu-^, 137.3. 
 
 (b) Extension of iutu Adjoining Muni- 
 cii)alitien, 137o. 
 
 (c) Liabilities of M^mieijiaHlicx — See 
 
 Water anu WATKK-t'otiiwKs. 
 
 33. SoUc'itiwj PoKwiujers, 1375. 
 
 34. Street Railways — See Sti!i:kt Rail- 
 
 ways. 
 
 35. Taverns and Shops—See Intoxioa- 
 
 TiNC Liquors. 
 
 36. Voters' Lixis—See Parliamentary 
 
 Elections. 
 
 37. Width of Tires, 137.'). 
 
 XII, CoNTRACl'S Bv AN D WiTII, 137.5. 
 
 XIII. AcTjONS and I'UOCKEDINdS Bv AND 
 
 AOAINST. 
 
 1. Generally, 1.378. 
 
 2. Ne(jli(jence. 
 
 (a) Oeneralhj—Ste Neolihence. 
 
 (b) For Injuries on Roads — See Wav. 
 
 (c) For Injuries fiom Drainn or &!«- 
 
 o'.s'—.S'ec Water AND Water- 
 
 OOUKSKS. 
 
 3. Injimetion — See In.iunction. 
 
 4. Mandamus— See Mandamus. 
 
 XIV. Arbitrations under the Municipal 
 
 Act. 
 
 (a) ileneralhj, 1,37!). 
 
 (b) Draiiiai/e, Mutters — See SuiillRAD 
 
 XI, 14, p. 1351, 
 
 XV. iNVESTKiATION OE MuNICIVAL MATTERS 
 
 REFOKE (Bounty Judcie, 1.384. 
 
 XVI. Audit of County Crown Attokneys' 
 Accounts, 1385, 
 
 r Extension and Separation ok Munici- 
 palities. 
 
 1. Takimj the Census. 
 
 Semble, tlmt the by-law incorporating the 
 Village was not neot'saarily illegal by reason of 
 the mere fact that the census was in reality 
 taken before the l)y-law authorizing the enume- 
 ration of the people had been passed by the 
 county council. But where the census was 
 shewn to be wholly unreliable, and untrue in 
 fact, effect was given to this objection. Re 
 Fentonand the County of Siwcoc, 10 O, 11, 27. — 
 Wilson. 
 
 2. Debts and Liabililieit. 
 
 The bill alleged that the municipal councils of 
 the respective corporations had adopted and 
 sanctioned certain terms and conditions for 
 dividing and settling the several liabilities and 
 assets of the corporations upon their separating, 
 
 and that both parties accepted such settlements 
 as a final settlement between them, and acted 
 thereupon : — Held, on demurrer, tliat it was 
 not necessary to allege that such acceptance wa» 
 by by-law ; although Semble that at the hearing 
 it might be necessary to establish that such was 
 the fact, Villa<ie of Gravenhursl v. Townnhih 
 ofMnskoka, 29 Chy. 439,— Boyd. 
 
 The township of E., the present plaintitl'tj, in 
 1873, passed a by-law for issuing debentures td 
 raise $6,000, for the purposes of a certain school 
 section, in part comprised in it, and in part in 
 the township of G, , and providing for payment 
 of interest, and creation of a sinking fund, ami 
 levying of Ihe necessary special rate on the pro- 
 perty of the school section. In 1874 the vill.ijje 
 of I*, was incorporated out of a portion of tiie 
 township of E., being a portion of the said school 
 section, and during the currency of the deben- 
 tures the corporation of P, collected their share 
 of the moneys, on the reijuisition of the secre- 
 tary-treasurer of the school board, and paid over 
 the same to that official, instead of to the trea- 
 surer of the township of E., which township 
 never made any requisition on the village of 1', 
 to collect the moneys, and itself paid over the 
 moneys collected by it to the secretary-treasurer 
 of the school board. In 1883 the said secretary- 
 treasurer died, and it was found that he had con- 
 verted the sinking fund money to his own uses 
 and had left no assets wherefrom it might he 
 made good. In the same year the debentures 
 fell duo, and the townf hip of E. paid them ami 
 now sued the village of P. for its pro rata share 
 thereof : — Held, that having regard to 36 Viet. 
 c, 48, s, 56 (Ont.) (R, fS. O, 1877, c 174, s, 5f)), 
 the plaintift's were entitled to judgment, exce]>t 
 as to sums levied and received by the defendants 
 more than six years before action brought, for 
 the defendants should have paid the moneys 
 over to the treasurer of the plaintiffs' corpora- 
 tion ; and even if there had been a positive 
 agreement by and with the township of E. that 
 the money should be paid to the secretary- 
 treasurer of the sciiool board, this would have 
 made no difference ; for such an agreement 
 would have been ultra vires the township of Y... 
 and void as contrary to the statute law, while 
 the sections of .3(i \'ict. chapter 48, relating to- 
 arbitrations in cases of se)>arations of incor- 
 porated villages from townships, did not apply 
 in Ihis case, so as to prevent the action lying ; - 
 Held, also, that even if It was impossible to 
 maki the judgment productive on the grounii! 
 that the defendants could not now levy and 
 collect the money, this was no reason why the 
 jilaintifl's should not obtain judgment. County 
 of Frontenae r. City of Kinj^ston, 30 Q. B. 584, 
 distinguished. Toimiship of EldernUe v. Villoijc 
 of Paislb'j. 8 0. K. 270.— Ferguson. 
 
 On the erection of two vilLngc municipalities 
 f)nt of a township : —Held, that the moneys 
 derived from "the Ontario Municipalities Fund," 
 which had some years previously been appro- 
 priated by by-law to the school purposes of the 
 township were assets property devisible between 
 the township and the new village municipalities. 
 Re Township of Albermarle and the United 
 Towns of Eastnor, Lindsay and St. Ednunids, 
 45 Q. B. 133, distinguished. Villai/e of Eaul 
 Toronto v. Township of York, 16 0, R. .566.- 
 Boyd. 
 
1325 
 
 MUNIOIPAL OORPOBATIONS. 
 
 1326 
 
 See Towiin/iij> of Albeinmif, anil United Town- 
 thipo oj Eautnor, Lhulsay and St. Edmund'-'^, 45 
 Q. B. 133, p. 1370; In' re Arbitration Between 
 the City of St. Ctitliarine.i cml the Counti/ of 
 Liii<-oln, 46 Q. B. 425, p. 1380; In re Township 
 of Snniia and the Tnwn oJ S<trniii, 1 O. H. 411, 
 p. 1381 ; In re TownKhip nf MuKkoka and I'illtuje 
 (i/(7ravenhiir.st, G O. It. 352, p. 1381. 
 
 3. Voter.^ in Added Territoiij. 
 
 Where a city iiimlo ndditions to its territory, 
 and thereby iiichidud within its corporate limits 
 n portion of an outlying townshij) : — Held, 
 that, regard being liad to the jirovisions of the 
 Municipal Act, Ft. S. (). (1887), o. 184, ss. 84, 
 89, persons who, liut for such uetioii on tlie 
 part of tlie city, would have been entitled to 
 vote in the township, Mere thereby del)arred 
 from voting at the township nninicipal election 
 next ensuing, notwithstanding that the nomina- 
 tion of candi<lates for such electit>n took place 
 liefore sucii addition. Itii/iiia e.c nl. '/'artrnir 
 V, Willson, 1'2 P. 11. 5^(!. — Kose. 
 
 IV. MKMiiKiis (IK {'orscii.s. 
 
 1. I'roperty Qna/ijicdtian. 
 
 The defendant was not assessed tor tiie year 
 1880, but in tliat year was assos.sod, on tlie 3r(l 
 of September, for tiie year 1881, upon niiinjum 
 liered leasehold properly of tlie valuta of .S4, 100. 
 Byhydaw of the city of Ottawa tiiis assessment 
 was revised liefore tiie 14th November, and re- 
 turned before the 31st Ueceniber as and for tlie 
 ikssessnient roll fertile year 1881. No appeal 
 was had therefnnu. The nomination took place 
 o» the '27th December, ISSO, ami the defendant 
 was elected Mayor of (ittawa on the 3rd .laiiuary, 
 1881 : — Held, that tiio election commenced on 
 the nomination day ; and tlic Jissessnieiit roll 
 mentioned, wliich was to take etiect in 1881, and 
 not before, was not the last reviscil assessment 
 at that time, within the meaning of the liy-law 
 ami I!. 8. 0. (1877), c 180, s. 44, and the .iefcn- 
 (limt could not ([ualify thereon. Iteipiia t.r id. 
 Cliincji V. Melntosh, 40 Q. 13. 98.— Q'. B. D. 
 
 E. P. being the lessee of certain premises, lie 
 assigned his interest to H. P. after the assess- 
 ment roll for that year had been returned, witli 
 E. P. assessed for the propeitj'. No notice of 
 appeal against the assessment was served until 
 several days after the time limited for so doing 
 had expired. The court of revision, on appeal, 
 substituted H. P. for E. P. on the roll. On an 
 application to set aside the election of H. P. as 
 an alderman, on the ground that the defen- 
 dant was not rated on the roll when it was made 
 out, and that he was not autticiently qualified : - 
 Held, that the assess-inent roll was absolutely 
 Innding ; and that its correctness could not be 
 tried upon such an application ; and that the 
 want of notice was cured by R. S. (). (1877). c. 
 180, 8. 5,'l. lieqina ex rrl Hamil'on v. Pipir. 8 
 V. It. 225.— Diilton, Q. C— Armour. 
 
 Held, under 43 Vict, c. 24, s. 3 (Ont.), that in 
 estimating the defendant's property (jualitica- 
 tion, the amount of the mortgages upon the pro- 
 perty must be deducted from the assessment, 
 and not from the real value. Iteijbm ex rel Kelly 
 V. /on, 8P. R. 432.— Osier. 
 
 On the books of the registry office the respon- 
 dent's freehold property appeared incumbered 
 to nearly its assessed value. It was shewn that 
 the mortgages had btten reduced, so as to leave 
 the property worth, according to the assessed 
 volue, $963 over and above incumbrances: — 
 Held, that the property qualifiotion was suffi- 
 cient, lieipno. I'X rel. Urine v. Booth, 9 P. II. 
 452. — Dal ton, Manter. 
 
 The respondent was ratcii on mi assessment 
 roll in resipect of a lensohold property, sufficient 
 in value to qualify him for otHce, but the pro- 
 perty of his wife, to whom he was married in 
 1872, and who acquired the property in 1884 : — 
 Held, that the respondent had no estate or in- 
 terest ill the property, and tlierefore was not 
 qualified for office under section 73 of the Muni- 
 cipal Act, 1883 (Ont.) Ileijina e.c rel. Fililz v. 
 Howliind, 11 P. R 204.— Dalton, Maslrr. But 
 see it. S. O. 1887 c. 184, s. 73. 
 
 2. Diiqnalijicatlon. 
 
 (a) An Member of Council. 
 
 A iiiUnicipality passed a by-law to exempt 
 from taxation, for a term of years, a mill to be 
 built within its limits by a tiiin of which defen- 
 dant was a niemlier: — Held, that there was a 
 contract subsisting between defendant and the 
 munici|iality, and that he was therefore disqual- 
 ified from holding the office of retve. lieijina 
 ex ril. Lie v. (lihnoiir, 8 P. K. 514. —Osier. 
 
 An unlicensed person who, under the colour 
 of a license to his son, whether in collusion 
 with the latter or on his own responsibility, sella 
 li<|Uor by retail, is not disqualified under section 
 74 of the Municipal Act (1877) from holding the 
 office of alderman, though he may have rendered 
 himself liable to penalties for broach of the 
 Li<luor License Acts. Reifma ex rel. < 'Uiney v. 
 Conway, 40 Q. B. 85. — Cameron. 
 
 The defendant and his brother were carrying 
 on business as Booth Bros., and had a license in 
 the name of the linn to sell intiixicatiiig liquors. 
 Before the noiiiiiiation of niembers.of the Park- 
 dale council the defendant, with the consent of 
 the licence comiiii.ssi(inei's, transferred his inter- 
 est in the license to his brother, in order to 
 qualify as a councillor, but the business continued 
 as before:— Hehl, affirming the decision of the 
 master in chambers, 9 P. R. 452, that a license 
 cannot lawfully be transferred except in the 
 eases mentioned in R. !S. O. (1877), e. 181, a. 28, 
 none of which had occurred here ; that the con- 
 sent of the comniissioiicrs did not validate the 
 transfer, and therefore that the defendant, who 
 retained his interest in the license, was not 
 ((ualified to be a councillor. lieijina ex rel. Brine 
 V. Booth, 3 O. K. 144.— Q. B. I). 
 
 Per Armour, J. The Act disqualifying a 
 licensee should be construed strictly, and should 
 not be extended to the partner of a person law- 
 fully holding a license in his own name. //». 
 
 (b) From Voting in Certain Gaws. 
 
 It was alleged that one member of the council 
 was largely interested in the property to \» 
 
1327 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1328 
 
 GS: 
 
 00 
 
 drained by tho bylaw, but :— Held, that no in- 
 terest, whioh aprinj^s solely from his being a 
 ratepayer, can disquiilify a councillor or a mem- 
 ber of a Court of Kevision from performing his 
 duties as such. Jle McLean and the Toiciish'p 
 of 0/>K, 4.1 Q. B. 325. 
 
 .S. Vacatiiiij Office by Non- Attendance.. 
 
 Tlie plaintiff and others, councillors of the 
 town of I'etrolia, attended a meeting of the 
 council on the .5th April. They were absent at 
 th(! next meeting called for and held on tlio 31st 
 May and tiienceloiwjird, without authorization, 
 till the 7tli of .luly, when, at a meeting of the 
 council, a resolution declaring tlieir scats vacant 
 and or<lciiiig a new election was put, and an 
 jiinendmcnt to refer the matter to the town soli- 
 citor wjis lost ; whereupon the dissentients .eft 
 the room, in consc([uence of wliicli there was no 
 (piorum, when the original motion was ])ut and 
 c irricd : — Held, ( 1 ) that the three months sliould 
 be ci>untcd fr'om the .Slst May, being the tirst 
 meeting that the |ilaintiffs had not .attended ; 
 and that tlie resolution was therefore void, as 
 well as on the ground that there was no (|Uorum 
 ])resent when it was passed ; ('2) that the court 
 had jurisdiction to entertain a nu)ti<)n for an in- 
 junction I'estraining the defendants from inter- 
 fering with tlie plaintifl's in tlie exercise of their 
 otiicial duties, and that the injunction might be 
 awarded uiion an interlocut(U'y ap))lii;ation. 
 Ar>'ar„.'< V. Toirii of PctroUn, 28 Cliy. OS. — Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 V. ("oNTliOVKHTKll Kl>KOTI()NS. 
 
 1. Corrupt Prac/iccs. 
 
 A candidate for a municipal office, tiiougii not 
 required by law to make his payments througli 
 a special agent, is not absolved from keeping a 
 vigilant watch upon his expenditure ; and a can- 
 didate who, on the eve of a hotly c(mtested 
 election, places a considerable sum of money in 
 the hands of an agent capable of keeping pait of 
 it for himself, and spending tiie rest imj)roperly 
 or corruptly, who never asks for an account of 
 it, gives no<lirections as to it, and exercises no 
 control over it, must be held personally respon- 
 sible if it is impro|)erly expended. And where 
 money given to agents by the candidate was in 
 fact used in bribery :— Held, that the ])rc,suuip- 
 tion that the candidate intended the money in 
 be used as it was used became conclusive in the 
 absence of denial on his ])art. Hcijiiia e.v rel.. 
 Johim v. SIcirar/, H! (). I!. 58.3. -Street. 
 
 Gifts by a candidate to one who is at the time 
 exerting his influence in the candidate's iiehalf 
 are naturally and properly open to suspicion ; 
 and in the absence of .any explanation, such 
 gifts must be regarded as havini; been made for 
 the purpose of securing or making more secure 
 the friendship and influence of the donee. Jh. 
 
 In the election in question every member of 
 certain committees was yiaid a uniforni sum of 
 $2, nominally for his services as a cinvasser, but 
 apparently without regiird to the time ho de- 
 voted to the work, and without inijniry as to 
 ■whether he had in fact canvassed at all : Held, 
 that these payments were corruptly made and 
 constitutcil the offence of bribery as detincd by 
 
 sub-section 2 of section 209 of the Municipal 
 Act. Under the circumstances above referred 
 to and other ciicumstances of tho case, the de- 
 fendant was found personally guilty of acts of 
 bribery, and to have forfeited his seat as mayor 
 of the city of Ottawa. Ih, 
 
 2. Practice. 
 (a) l)7(o inn)/ he lliliilor. 
 
 '^eld, that an alderman's right to the ollice on 
 the ground of an insufficient declaration of (jiiali- 
 ticatiiiii and for the want of (pi.dilication at tliu 
 time of his election, might be ipic-'ioiied by n 
 ([uo warranto at the instance of a ratepayer iwit 
 ii, voter of or resident in the ward, and who 
 therefore could not be a relator under the Muni- 
 cipal Act. licLiina ex id. White i\ Koneh, IS 
 (J. 15. 22ji, and Kelly ,: Macarow, 14 C. P. 4.-i;, 
 distiiniuishcd. Ki'ijhiii i.r. nl Ctaiinj v. St. Jrun, 
 4(i V- !*• '"• -t'aineron. 
 
 (b) Time fur .Morimj. 
 
 Held, tliat the relator in tiiis ease was not too 
 late, having applieil in the next teini after tlie 
 election, anil only iww. day afti'r the time lur 
 moving under the statute. I'eijiiiacx rel, Clancii 
 V. .'St. ./ran, 4() (). B. 77. — Cameriin. 
 
 A summons issued within a mcmth after the 
 
 foiiiiiil aeceptiUKic of office by taking the statn- 
 
 tory declarations of qualilication ami office is in 
 
 time, notwithstanding that it issued more than 
 
 ' six weeks after the election, and more than » 
 
 month .after a speech acieptiiiL; othcc made by the 
 
 resiiondent at a meeting of electors, and ccrtiin 
 
 ' other acts of a similar ehanicter, less formal thin 
 
 ■ the statutory declarations. Ili-iiiiiit ex rel. Ff.Hlz 
 
 jv. If(,ir/(,ii<l, II P. R. 2()4.— Daitoii, Ma.ster. 
 
 .See Peifhiii e.v ret. Clancy v. Mrlntuah, 46 i). li. 
 !)S. ]). 1331. 
 
 I (c) Disclaimer. 
 
 Defendant was elected to the office of coumil- 
 I hir for a town, and accepted the office. Sulmi'- 
 I (lucntly and befcu'e the i.ssue r Ihe writ of i|iio 
 I warranto, tho defendant knowing that his elec- 
 ' tiou was to be contested, sent the following in- 
 ! sti-umcnt to the council : " Palinerston, Fcli- 
 I riiary 7th, 18S1. To the mayor and council of 
 
 the town of Palmerstfui : (jlentleiiien, I beg to 
 ! disclaim my seat at the council board. (Sigiieil) 
 
 (!. S. Davidson :" -Held, that the above ilis- 
 
 claimer, not being in the form jjresMibeil by K. 
 i .S, O. (1877), c. 174, s. 1!)4, was not sufficient to 
 
 relieve tlic defendant from coats. Hcii'ma e.f rtl. 
 
 Mitcli<ll \. Daridmn, 8 P. R. 434.- -(tsler. 
 
 Section 195 R. S. (). (1877) c. 174 provides that 
 
 ! the ett'ect of a Jiai'ty disclaiming the office to 
 
 i which he has been elected, shall lie to give the 
 
 same to the candidate having the next higlic.'it 
 
 number of votes : — Held, that this meant the 
 
 candidate having such number of votes who hiis 
 
 lint been elccteil to the council. Therefore, 
 
 where the [daintifT was the candidate who wiis 
 
 j fourth in that order, the three hiirhest on the list 
 
 having been declared elected, and one at the head 
 
 of the indl resifriicil bis seat, an injunction was 
 
 graiit> 1 to restrain the r<ie\e and councillors of 
 
1S28 
 
 if the Municipal 
 ;8 above referred 
 the case, the tic- 
 guilty of acta of 
 lii» seat ay mayor 
 
 vlillOV. 
 
 ;lit to the olliee ini 
 ■chifation nf (inali- 
 u.ilificatiim at the 
 • ((lies' iiiiiud by a 
 >f a iMtepayer not 
 ! wanl, anil «lio 
 r unilerthe Mniii- 
 bite /•. Iloiioh, IS 
 ow, 14 C. P. 4-.:, 
 
 .'laiiry v. St. Jrun, 
 
 riiiij. 
 
 is eawe was not tm 
 xt term aftt'rtlie 
 fti'r the time lor 
 ijiiia fx )■(/. ( 'Intiiij 
 luriiii. 
 
 a itiontii after the 
 ,' taking the statu- 
 ion ami otfite is in 
 ; issued more than 
 
 ami more tiian u 
 olliee inaili'liy the 
 jetiirs, and eert.iiii 
 r, less formal tlian 
 ici/liitt ex rrl. Fe.lilz 
 
 ilton, MaMer. 
 
 Wriiilosh, 4(; y. I!. 
 
 p olbceof council- 
 ■ otliee. Sulisc- 
 llie writ of i|iio 
 ving tlnit his elee- 
 
 tlie following ill- 
 I'almerston, I'cli- 
 i'(ir and ooi.noil of 
 itleiiK'ii, 1 beg to 
 i board. (Signed) 
 it tlie above ills- 
 
 ])ri^8 'ribeil by It. 
 IS iiotsniiicient to 
 ts. litii'iiKi ex I'll. 
 4;U. -('isler. 
 
 1 74 provides that 
 ling the otlicc to 
 all l)e to give the 
 
 the next iiigiic'it 
 ,t this meant the 
 if votes who hiw 
 iiicil. 'riieiefore, 
 iiididate wlio W!i8 
 liiilhest on the list 
 lid one at the head 
 in injunction Wivs 
 and councillors of 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1330 
 
 the village from preventing the plaintiff entering 
 upon and discharging th<j duties of such otfiee. 
 'Ae notice of the party resigning the office 
 st-tfcd tliat he resigned his "seat'' in the coun- 
 cil ;— Held, sufficient ; and that tiie ])laintifFwa3 
 entitled to his costs, although the Act requires 
 notice of a resignation of the "office" to be given, 
 Hmilh V. Pelernvill)', 28 Cliy. 509. — Proudfoot. 
 
 (d) Poivem of Mauler in Chamherx. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the master in chambers to 
 yraiit a quo warranto summons uiidei- tlie ^luni- 
 (lipal Act, I8S:{, (Out.), is established by tlie 
 13tli section of the (). .J. .Act, I.SSr). J'li/iwt ex 
 nlFrtin v. Iloir/aiitl, II P. R. 'J«4. -Dalton, 
 Maskr. 
 
 Tlie master in ciianibers is not, in any sense, 
 by delegation or otiierwise. a judge of tlio Higli 
 Court of Justice to whom power is given by the 
 Municipal Act, 1883, to try anil determine cases 
 of controverted municipal elections ; nor can 
 such power be given him by the acquiescence of 
 the parties. Iteijiiiii ex rel. M'/Vso/i v. Diincdii. 
 II P. R. 370.— O'Connor. 
 
 Section 212 of Die Municiiial Act, R. S. (). 
 (IS87), c. 184, has not been all'ecteil by the Con 
 soliilated Itules, and iiiider it a lefi'ieiice may 
 1)6 directed to a County Coiiit judge to take 
 evidence where in a quo warranto a])i>licatioii a 
 violation of section 200 or 210 is i-liarged ; and, 
 ashy Con. Rule ;>0 the master in chambers liasin 
 (|tio warranto matters the jurisdiction of a judge 
 of the High Court, he has power to direct a 
 reference under section 212 to a County Court 
 jiulge. lieijiua ex re/. Whijie v. MrClny, 111 P. 
 R, 96.— Street. 
 
 (e) Powerx of Cnnnly Judge. 
 
 A County Court judge has jiower to grant a fiat 
 in term time for the issue of a writ of quo war- 
 ranto to try a contested municipal election; — 
 Held, that Itule 1, ^^. T. 14 Vict., has become in- 
 operative by the effect of subsequent statutoiy 
 enactments, to whieii it is repugnant. Riijina 
 ex rel. McDonald v, Anderxoii, 8 P. R. 241. — 
 Osier. 
 
 A writ of summons in the nature of a quo war- 
 ranto having been issued, under R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 174, 8. 170, on the fiat of a County Court judge, 
 returnable before himself, to try the validity of 
 the election of an alderman of one of the wards 
 of a city, the County Court judge, before ap- 
 pearance entered, made an order setting aside 
 Ills fiat and the writ with costs for irregularity 
 in the proceedings. On appeal from the deci- 
 sion of the chief justice of the C'ourt of Queen's 
 Bench (8 P. |{. 497) discharging a summons to 
 set aside such order : Per Wilson, (J. J., the 
 County Court judge had the power to make the 
 order. Per Osier, J. , he had no such power, his 
 power being limited to trying the validity of the 
 election. Tlie court being equally divided the 
 appeal dropped. liegina ex rel. O'Dwyer v. 
 ieuiM, 32 C. P. 104.— C. P. D. 
 
 The judge of the County Court ordered a writ 
 of quo warranto to test the validity of the elec- 
 tion of an ahlerman ; and subsequently, before 
 Appearance entered to the writ, set aside all pro- 
 84 
 
 ceedings in the matter for irregularity. The 
 relator thereupon applied in chambers for a man- 
 damus to compel the county judge to try the 
 case, when the presiding judge (Hagarty, C .1.) 
 refused the writ (8 P. R. 407) and on motion in 
 banc, the court affirmed his ruling (4(»'i. IJ. I7r>). 
 On appeal from this judgment, the appeal was 
 dismissed on the ground that the order of the 
 county judge, if he had authority to make it, 
 was not subject to review ; and if it could be re- 
 viewed the application should have been to the 
 court, not to a judge in chambers, as here ; anil 
 under all the circumstances the ajipeal was dis- 
 missed, but without costs. The writ of quo 
 warranto having been issued and served, the 
 County C'ourt judge had in it power to set it aside. 
 Reijhia ex rel. Vrniit v. < 'ol'iiiaii. 7 A. R. 019. 
 
 Notwithstanding the jirovisions of R. 8. < >. 
 (1887) c. 184, ss. 187 to 208, a county judge has 
 now no authfu'ity, as such, to give leave under 
 C<m. Rule 1038 to serve a notice of motion to initi- 
 ate quo warranto proceedings under the Munici- 
 pal Act ; and he has no authority at all to act in 
 proceedings of that nature as a local judge of 
 the High Court, that power being expressly ex- 
 cepted from the powers conferred upon him as a 
 local judge by Con. Rule 41. A comity judge 
 assumed to act in such ju'occi'diiigs, which were 
 styled iiithe High Court of Justice : — Held, that 
 he must be taken to have acted in his capacity 
 as local judge of the High Court, and objeetioii 
 to the proceedings was )ii()]u'i'ly taken by motion 
 to set them aside, /'eijiiiii rx rel. Dowjherty v. 
 McClaij, 13 P. R. ."•(). -Street. 
 
 See liiii'iim ex 
 00, )). 1320. 
 
 rel. Wliyle. v. McClay, 13 P. R. 
 
 (f) Coxlu. 
 
 A municipal election set aside, but without 
 costs to the relator, on the ground that he was a 
 confiilentiabofficer (auditor), of the corporation, 
 following Rogina ex rel. McMillan r. iJcLisle, 8 
 ] II. C;. L. J. 220. lleijiiin ex rel. Brine v. lioolh, 
 9 P. R. 452. —Dalton, Master. 
 
 I See Heqinn ex rel. Mitehell v. Duridmn, 8 P. 
 iR. 4.34, p. l.'«8; Smith v. Pelersvitle, 28 Cby. 
 509, p. 1320. 
 
 ' (g) Other Ca/ieii. 
 
 Upon an a|)plication for a fiat for the issue of 
 ; a summons in the nature of a ipio warranto 
 I under the Municipal Act of 1883, to try the 
 ' validity of the respondent's election as a munici- 
 pal councillor, the statement of the i-elator did 
 j not shew that he was a candidate or an elector 
 I who voted or who tendered his vote at the elec- 
 ! tion, as required by section 185 of the Act ; and 
 I the recognizance filed by the relator was not 
 [ entered into before a judge or commissioner for 
 I taking affidavits, nor allowed by a judge, in the 
 j manner prescribed by see. 180, nor was it eon- 
 I ditioned to prosecute the writ with eflfeet : and 
 the affidavit of the relator in support of the apjdi- 
 cation did not set out fully and in detail the facts 
 and circumstances alleged in the statement, as re- 
 quired by ltule2 M. T. 14Vict. : — Held, that these 
 were defects in the material necessary to founil 
 the application, not mere irregularities which 
 could be amended at a later stage, and the fiat, 
 the writ, and all proceedings were set aside, with 
 
1331 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1332 
 
 
 v% 
 
 costs, llegina ex rel. C'hauncey v. Billingn, 12 1*. 
 R. 404.-MttcMahon. 
 
 All pi'ocoediiigs tnken to contest the validity 
 of any election mentioned in Hcction 187 of the 
 Municipal Act, R. S. O. (1877) c 184, wiiethor 
 for briliery, corrupt pi'uctioes, or any other 
 vaiige, should be commenced by writ of summons 
 in the nature of a quo warranto, as provided by 
 section 188, anil not l)y information in tlio nature 
 of a quo warranto, or otiierwise, lieqina rx rel. 
 Johm V. Stctmrl, 16 O. K. T).- Q. U.'lX 
 
 VI. Actions fok Penalties against Clerk and 
 
 Deputy Rkthknino-Okkiceus rNDEii 
 
 R. S. O. c. 184, s. 108. 
 
 The plaintiff was a ratepayer of the townsldp 
 and a candidate for tlie ofiice of reeve but wua 
 not elected. He l)ro«glit tiiis action under sec- 
 tion 107 of the Consolidated Municipal Act, 
 188.S, against a deputy returning-otHcer, wlio was 
 also clerit of the townsliip, to recover tlie penalty 
 for a contravention of sections 154, 142, and 24") 
 of the Act. There was no allegation tliat the 
 plaintiff lost his election, or any votes, or suHered 
 any personal grievance by the nets complained 
 of : — Held, on demurrer to tlie statement of 
 claim, tliat tlie plaintili' was not, by reason only 
 of his being a candidate, a " person aggrieved '' 
 within section 107, and that he was tliereupon 
 not entitled to recover :— Held, also, that an 
 action for llie penalty under that section litis 
 only forabreacli of sections 1 18 to IO(i, inclusive, 
 of the Act. AtLiihi v. /'lokiiu/, 'i O. H. .'KiO.— 
 Rose. 
 
 VII. Acc'ei'taxck and Dk(!i,aratio\of Office. 
 
 The declaration required by the Municipal Act 
 II. S. O. (1877), c. 174,8. 20."), from every person 
 elected under the Act to any ofiice recpiiring a 
 property qnalification, is a prere{|uisite to tlie 
 discharge of tlie diitits of suelv office. Where 
 an alderman elect did not state in liis ileclara- 
 tion the nature of his estate in, or tlie value of 
 the land, but declared tiiat liis property was 
 sufficient to (jualify liim "according to the true 
 intent and meaning of tiie Municipal Laws of 
 Upper Canada": — Helil, that the declaration 
 was insufficient. lti<iiiia ex r(l. Clanry v. .S7. 
 i/eaH,40Q. B. 77. — Cameron. 
 
 The acceptance of office by a mayor elect, re- 
 ferred to in R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, s. 180, within 
 a montli from wliich a writ of quo warranto to 
 try the validity of his election must issue, is a 
 formal acceptance by the statutory declaration 
 of qualification and office, an<l not a mere verbal 
 acceptance by gpeecli to the electors, or such 
 like. Regina ex rel. Linton r. Jackson, 2 
 Ohamb. R. 18, dissented from. I'eqbin ex rel. 
 Clancy v. Mc/nlosh, 46 Q. B. 98.- Q. H. 1). 
 
 The declaration of qualification not liaving 
 been made, leave was given to tlie defendant to 
 make the same within ten days, otherwise leave 
 was granted to file an information on the ground 
 that the <lefendant illegally exercised the fran- 
 chises of the otficc. Heijina ex rel. Clancy v. 
 Conway, 46 Q. B. 83. — Cameron. 
 
 VIII. Meetino.s op Council and Conduct or 
 Business. 
 
 .See Meariix v. 
 p. IH27. 
 
 Toirii .^ l\trolla, 28 Chy, 1)8, 
 
 See Refi'nm ex rel. Fdil~ v, 
 264, p. 1328. 
 
 Tloiijlaiid, 11 P. P. 
 
 I.\. Officers ok thf, Cohtoration. 
 
 1. Tmure of Office. 
 
 Municipal officers appointed by tiie council 
 liold office during the pleasure of tlie council 
 and may bo removed without notice and without 
 cause. ' Willxun v. Yuik, 40 Q. B. 281).— t^. B. 1». 
 
 (See 15. S. O. (1887), c. 184, s. 279.) 
 
 2. TreciHureraml hin Snrelien. 
 
 Whore a township treasurer was by his honil, 
 dated 6th October, 1874, bound to duly account 
 for all moneys coining into his hands and appli- 
 calile to the general uses of the municipality : 
 Held, that clergy reserve moneys and money 
 derived from the distril)ution of the provincial 
 surplus which had by by-law been specifically 
 appropi iated to educational purposes, were not 
 within the condition of the bond, ami tliut the 
 operation of this lionil was not extenileil ti) 
 school moneys ))y the R. .S. O. (1877), c. ISO, s. 
 21.S, and R. S. O. (1877), e. 204, s. 221. Tmni- 
 ship «f Oak-laml v. Prop<.r, 1 O. R. 330.— Boyd. 
 
 A treasurer was a))poiiited by the plaintifl's 
 under R. .S. O. (1877), c. 174, by "s. 274 of whicli 
 all officers ap]>ointed by a council shall hold 
 office until removed by such council, lie fur- 
 nished a bond dated the 1st of November, 188(1, 
 conditioned that if he should " well and truly 
 discharge the iluties o.' township treasurer so 
 long as he shall remain in the said ofiice, ainl 
 shall render just and true ;iccor.nts of all inontn s, 
 etc., as shall come ami have come into his hands 
 during his continuance in said office, and liiuid 
 the same promptly into the hands of Ills succes- 
 sor in office, then, <!tc. " He was rei])p(diited 
 annually for several years : — Held, tiio reap 
 pointiiients were not ((juivalent to removals and 
 reappointments but were rather a ntention in 
 office of the same treasurer, and that the sureties 
 were not in coiise(|uence thereof disidiarged. 
 Toiviislii/j o/Ailjala v. MrKlioi/, 9 O. R. 5S0.- 
 Boyd. 
 
 To determine a man's office as treasurer under 
 the statute, there should be some positive act of 
 removal by which ho is displaced and another ap- 
 pointed, or by which the office, though continu- 
 ed in the same person, becomes different in some 
 material point. Mere implication arising from 
 formal reappointment should not be ileeiiiod 
 ecjuivalent to such act of removal. /''. 
 
 The treasurer having failed to account for large 
 sums, the council of the plaintiffs caused a letter 
 to be written to him on the 27th of Felmiary, 
 1882, requiring hint to settle all claims by a 
 certain day otherwise a special meeting would 
 be called to consider his case. He failed to 
 settle, and the council did not carry out their 
 threat. In 1883 the council again becoming dis- 
 satisfied with the treasurer, passed a resolution 
 that no further payment should be made to him, 
 but all moneys should be paid into a certain 
 bank. In 1884, the council for that year 
 
133S 
 
 MUNICIPAL OOBPORATIONS. 
 
 lS3i 
 
 rescinded this resolution ami pormitted tlie 
 treasurer to receive the acuumuluted funds. No 
 notice of any kind was given to the sureties: — 
 Held, timt the plaintiiTs hud failed to perform 
 tiieir duty by retaining the treasurer in office 
 after tiicy iuid become aware of his defalcations 
 and coiitniued default ; and that their failure to 
 (lo 80 wan a breach of duty towards the sureties, 
 wiiicli released the latter from all liability after 
 the 27th of February, 1882. A reference was 
 granted at tlio plaintiff's election to take an 
 account of the amount due under the bond to 
 that ilato, and in default of such election, the 
 action was dismissed, with coHts. Ih. See also, 
 Tom oj Meajbrd v. Lamj, 20 (). It. 42, 541. 
 
 ByK. S. O. (1877) c. 180, h. 10, as amended by 
 44 Vict. c. 2.5 8. 12 (Ont.), no assessor or collec- 
 tor shall hold the office of clerk or treasurer. 
 The treasurer of plaintiffs, who was also clerk, 
 was in that capacity permitted by resolution of 
 the council to retain the collector's roll for tiireo 
 months and he was granted a percentage on 
 money received by him for taxes. In an action 
 against liiin and Iiis surety : — Held, that that 
 temporary function was not of such a nature as 
 to turniinate his duties as treasui'er by necessary 
 implication, and that wiien tiie money came to 
 his hands with which he charged himself as 
 treasurer, the responsibility of the surety began, 
 but that the latter should not be charged witli 
 any sums whicli did not appear in the books of 
 the former as treasurer andwhicii were referable 
 to tn>.'s otiierwise received by iiim. Vitlid/e of 
 WeMon V. Conroii, 15 O. U. 51)5. — Boyd. 
 
 See Village of Qananoqne v. Stwideii, 1 O. 
 R. I, p. 779. 
 
 4. Other C'lixex. 
 
 A declaration, after setting out the defendant's 
 duty as town clerk, under the Assessment Act, 
 R. S. 0. (1877) c. 180, in the preparation of the 
 collector's roll, alleged that he omitted and 
 neglected in certain years, to set down in saicl 
 collector's rolls for the said years a large num- 
 ber of persons who appeared by the assess- 
 ment rolls liable to asses.smont, etc. A further 
 breach was that the defendant, in breach of 
 his said ^duty, did not in said collector's rolls, 
 etc., set down the assessed value of all pro- 
 perty liable to assessment of a large number 
 of persons whose names were set down in 
 said rolls, whereby the plaintiffs lost large sums 
 of money, payable to them as ta.xes. and they 
 claimed $2,000 :— Held, declaration bad ; for 
 that the first breach did not aver that the omis- 
 sion was made negligently, falsely, or dishonestly, 
 but merely by mistake which would not render 
 defendant civilly liable ; while the second breach 
 did not contain any allegation of negligence, bad 
 faith, or even carelessness :— Held, also, that the 
 period for bringing the action was not limited to 
 two years under K. S. O. (1877) c. 61, s. 1. 
 Quiere, whether the defendant is only liable to 
 conviction under section 189 of the Assessment 
 Act, at the suit or upon complaint of the crown, 
 or to a civil action by the plaintiffs as well. 
 Town of Peterborotigh v. Edwards, 31 C. P. 2.31. 
 —Gait. 
 
 Liability of corporation for fraudulent act of 
 its clerk and treasurer acting within the scope 
 of his authority, the corporation having received 
 
 the benefit of the fraud. See Molnon'n Bank v. 
 Town of Drockvilli; .11 C. P. 174. 
 
 In December, 1884, H. was by by-law appoint- 
 ed health officer of the township of Seymour, 
 but the by-law did not fix any salary as might 
 have been done under 47 Vict. c. 38, s. 20 (Ont.) r 
 — Held, on action brought by B. for remunera- 
 tion, that the law would tix the salary at a 
 reasonable sum, regard being had to the services 
 performed, and to Le performed by the plaintiff. 
 liotiart v. Townihip of Seymour, 10 O. R. 322.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 A pathmasteris " an officer or person fulfilling 
 a public duty " within the meaning of R. 8. (>. 
 (1877), c. 73, 8. 1, and for anything dime by him 
 in the performance of such public duty he is en- 
 titled to the protection of the statute ; but where 
 professing to act as a public officer, he seeks to 
 promote his private interest by some act, he dis- 
 entitles himself to the protection of the statute, 
 and may bo proceeded against for such act as if 
 he were a private individual, and when a path- 
 master of a township in the course of his em- 
 ployment so acted as to disentitle himself to the 
 l)rotection of the statute and thereby caused 
 damage to the plaintiff:— Held, that the town- 
 ship corporation as well as the pathmaster was 
 liable ; and even if not originally so the corpora- 
 tion made itself liable by sanctioning what was 
 ilone and refusing to amend it after notice. 
 Stalker v. Tovnxhip oJ Dimwkh, 15 O. 1!. 342. — 
 Q. R. 1). 
 
 Exemption of salary from attachment. See 
 lie Murjie v. Hutchimoti, 12 P. R. 1C7, p. 543. 
 
 A medical health officer is not an employee of 
 the municipal corporation within the meanins; 
 of R. H. O. (1877) c. 47 s. 125. lb. See Forsyth, 
 V. City oJ Toronto, 20 (). R. 478. 
 
 See lie (lodmn v. CiV// of Toronto, 10 0. H. 
 275, p. 1.385. 
 
 X. Bv-Law.s. 
 
 1. Sif/nlng and Scaling. 
 
 1 Municipality estopped from denying the vali- 
 I dity of a by-law, which through inadvertence 
 was not scaled or signed, for purchasing a road, 
 which they dealt with as their own property, 
 I and subsequently passed a by-law divesting 
 [ themselves of the roail. See lioi'ina v. Count'/ 
 ' of Perth, 6 O. R. 195. 
 
 No seal in this case was affixed to the by-law, 
 i but an impressiim of the seal was nuide there - 
 j on :— Held, sufficient. lie Croomc and City of 
 I Branlford G O. R. 188.- Rose. 
 
 I See Canada Atlantic li. 11'. Co. v. City of Otta- 
 wa, 12 A. R. 234, p. 13.36. 
 
 2. Creating Debts. 
 
 (a) Promulgation and Submission to Electors. 
 
 The by-law voted on by the council was to 
 take effect and come into operation on the .30th 
 December, 1873, while the copy published, 
 stated the 13th December, 1873, to be the day. 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. O. — A variance between the 
 proposed by-law and the copy submitted to the 
 ratepayers to vote upon, aa to the day upon 
 
JfMIHH 
 
 1336 
 
 MUNICIPAL OORPOBATIONS. 
 
 13S6 
 
 1 
 
 
 90 
 ft<9 
 
 which it yinh to fiiko cfTfct was fatal to tiiti 
 by-law. Camilla A llniilk II. W. Cii. v. Cihj uf 
 Ottawa, V2 A. K. 2.14 ; 12 S. C. It. '.m. 
 
 Iri 1H80 (l)tf()re tho paHHing of 4fl Viot. c. IH 
 (Out.),) IV iniiiiiuipal untiiicil, with tlio viow of 
 grantiiiu a Ikiiiuh to u railway oi>iii[)aiiy, uaiised 
 to lio Hm>tnittu(l to tliu vuto of thtt ratupayurH a 
 by-law to raJHu nioiicy for that purpose. At the 
 voting tliureoii the votes for aiitl against it wore 
 equal, and the clerk of the niiinieipality, who 
 also acted as returning olliccr, verl)ally gave a 
 • lasting vr)to in favour of tlie hy-law : -HcM, 
 (reversing tiie judgnn'utof tlieC. I*. I)., II (). K. 
 ;i92) that section l;V_>of the Municipal Act, R, 
 S. O. (IS77), e. 174, is not apidioahle to the case 
 of voting on a liy-liiw, and therefore the casting 
 veto of tlie clerk was a nullity, and the by-law 
 did not rei:eive the assent of the electors of the 
 niunii:ipality within the meaning of It. S. (). 
 (IS77) c. 174, s. ,'117, as such a defect could not 
 i)e cured hy promulgation of the hy-law. Cnnnihi. \ 
 Attniilir It. ir. ''o. V. Toirnsliiji 0/ t'limhriili/'', \ 
 14 A. R. 'iOO; ins. C. R. '219. 
 
 Held, following Canada Atlantic R. \V. < 'o. c. 
 Ottawa,12A. R. 234, and .V. C. 1*2 S.C. R.,p.377, 
 that the hy-law was bad for iion-coinplianco with 
 section .330 of the Municipal Act, R. S. O (1877), 
 c. 174, the section corresponding with section 
 248 of 3() Vict. c. 48. I'er Burton, .1. A.— The 
 provisions of section 248 of the Municipal Act 
 of 1873 (30 Vict. e. 48), do not apply to by-laws 
 for I'ranting bonuses to railw.ays, and the judg 
 mentof the Supreme (!ourt of ('aiiadain Canada 
 Atlantic R. VV.Co, r. Ottawa, 12 S. V. R.,p. 377, 
 does not so decide. //'. 
 
 Held, in this case, that the by-lftw created a 
 future indefinite and contingent liability, and if 
 such a by-law was valid at all, it ought to have 
 been submitted to the vote of the ratepry^rs. 
 In re Carpcutir and Tuicnxhip of liarton, Mi O. 
 R. 55. — Rose. 
 
 The city derived income from certain sources 
 independent of taxes, but this income with the 
 taxes levied left a (lelieiency which ha<l been 
 met by borrowing money, which was still unpaid, 
 and no appropriation had been made for the 
 payment of $5,000 :— Held, that this did not 
 validate the by-law without submission to the 
 people, lb. 
 
 Semble, that it was a fatal objection to the 
 by-law that the day fixed by it for taking the 
 votes of the electfirs thereon was more than five 
 weeks after the first publication, contrary to 
 section 293, sub-section I, of the Municipal Act 
 R. 8. O. (1887), c. 184. lie Arimtrowj and the 
 TowiiKhip of Tofimto, 17 0. R. 7(i6. — Falcon- 
 bridge. 
 
 See Re 0»lroiii v. Townnhip of Sidney, 15 0. 
 R. 43; 15 A. R. .372, p. 1341. 
 
 (b) Reiftstration. 
 
 Section 351 of R. S. O. (1887), e. 184, which 
 requires a by-law creating a debt by the issu- 
 ing of debentures for a longer term than one 
 year to be registered within a fortnight from 
 the final passing thereof, is merely directory. 
 Rt Farliwjer and Village of Morrisburg, 16 0, 
 R. 722.— Street. 
 
 Held, that any objections to the bylaw in 
 this case were cured by its registration under 
 44 Vict. c. 24, H. 28 (Out.), no action or suit to 
 set it aside having been made or instituti'd with- 
 in three nioutliN, and tliat the statute ajiplivil 
 although the debentures had not been isHiied 
 liifkfordv.Chalhitm, I4A. R..32; ICS. C. R.2,^'5! 
 
 Hee Ifardinij v. ToiiuiHhip of Cardiff, 2 0, R 
 .329, p. 1.344. 
 
 (c) Olhn- CiiHi'M. 
 
 Refusal of (unincil to finally pass a bylaw tin: 
 votes of the elet'tors for passing tlie sauK' liavin" 
 been [(roouriMl by bribery. See fit re Luiiiiilnii 
 mid /'In Arthur ,/uiiiiiiin It. II'. Co. nnd thr 
 Towimhip of Arthni; 45 Q. H. 47. 
 
 Semble, that the functions of a miininipality 
 in considering a by-law after it has been vottil 
 on by the latepayers are not ministeri;d onlylmt 
 the by-law can be confirmed or ntjected irre8|i(ic 
 tiveof a favcmrable vote. Cniiaila Atlnntic II, \\', 
 Co. v, Cili/ofOttaim, 12 S. ('. R. .3(1"). 
 
 A by-law of the defendant corporation, pro- 
 viding for the delivery of debentiM'es to a raibviiv 
 represented by the plaintitl's as a bonus touiil 
 them in constructing their railway, havin;j been 
 adopted by a vote of the ratepayers on ( )ctolMT 
 Kith, 1873, was read a second aiul third tinioumi 
 j)assed by the council on Octolier 20th, hut wiii 
 neither signed nor sealed, because a month hiul 
 not elapsed from its lirst publication, the notici; 
 re(iuirod by .3() Vict. c. 48, s. 231, sidi-s. I!, 
 to be a]>pended to the copy of the bylaw ,19 
 published, having stated that the by-law woiilil 
 lie taken into consideration after a montli. (In 
 Novendier 5th, 1873, amotion made in the coun- 
 cil to read the by-law a second and third time 
 and pass it, was lost. On April 7th, 1874, after 
 the election of a new council, it was finally 
 passed, signed, and sealed. I'er I'atter.siin, .1. 
 A. — The acts of signing and sealing a by-law arc 
 formalities which section 248 makes essential tn 
 a l)y-law for contracting a debt, and those iiits 
 should be done at the meeting at which thR liy- 
 law has been passed, or at all events during the 
 tenure of ortice of the member of the council wliii 
 presides. S. C, 12 A. R. 2.34. 
 
 The direction in section 23fi, that a by-liw 
 carried by a majority of voters si. .11, witliin sii 
 weeks thereafter, be passed by the council wliich 
 submitted the same, refers to the council of tiie 
 year in which the by-law was submitted, and 
 not merely to the council of the same nuniioi 
 pality ; it is not intended by section 2.3(i that 
 the pas.sing by the council should be a inciT 
 formality, such as would be satisfied by the ii- 
 regular ]>as.sing on Octol)er 20th, 1873. S. ''., 
 12 S. C. R. 3ti.->. Hut see R. S. O. (1887), i. 
 184, 8. 284. 
 
 Per Hagarty, V. .1. C, and Patterson, J. A. - 
 The by-law was not legally passed, and did nut 
 acquire a legal existence until April 7th, 1874. 
 It was subject to the provisions of 36 Vict. c. 48, 
 s. 248(Ont.), and was invalid under that section, 
 because it did not name a day in the financial 
 year in which it was passed on which it was to 
 take effect, lb. 
 
 By section 1 of the Municipal Amendment 
 Act, 1888 (51 Vict. c. 28), that statute came 
 
1336 
 
 to tho l)y law in 
 icgiHtratii.ii under 
 ) action or Huii to 
 oriiiHtituli'ilwith. 
 I) Htatiiti! iipplitMl 
 not l)ui'ii isHued 
 ;J2; 10IS.{Ml.2;w. 
 
 / Cardiff, 2 0. H. 
 
 jmss IV l)y-liiw till! 
 g tiio n\nw lmvin:{ 
 
 •U III rr Lilliilllini 
 
 ir. (,'i). iiiui III, 
 47. 
 
 of II inuiiioipftlity 
 it liax liceii voted 
 liiiiHtGi'iiil oiilyliiit 
 ■ ittjucttMl irri!8|ici ■ 
 i(/fi AllinUuli. IC 
 
 . It. .'jor.. 
 
 oorporiitii)ii, pro- 
 itiirt'H to a iiiilwnv 
 as a boniiM to uiil 
 Iway, iiaviii;,' been 
 )ay(!r8 on OctoW 
 .ml tiiiril tiiiiciuiil 
 licr 20tli, Init wiii 
 .'uiao a inontb liud 
 iuation, tlie notiii! 
 
 8. '231, Hiili-H. ;;, 
 of tlic hyluw as 
 tiio l)y-law would 
 rtur a iriontli. (hi 
 inatlo ill the conn- 
 111 and tliiril tiniv 
 -ilTth, 1874, after 
 :il, it was finally 
 I'er I'attcraon, .1. 
 aling aliy-lawiue 
 innkt'H cssL'utinl to 
 )t, and those arts 
 
 at wliioli tliR iiy- 
 events during the 
 )f the uuuiicil who 
 
 SO, that a by-law 
 i b)..<1I, witliin six 
 
 theuouiicil which 
 theuoiincil of tlie 
 IS submitted, niid 
 the same niunici 
 
 section '231! timt 
 hoiild be a mere 
 [itisficd by the ir 
 Oth, 1873. .S. r., 
 
 S. O. (1887), c. 
 
 I'atteraon, J. A.- 
 issod, and did imt 
 I April 7th, 1874. 
 8 of 36 Vict. 0. 48, 
 inder that section, 
 y in the financial 
 n which it was to 
 
 :ipal Amendment 
 hat statute came 
 
 13S7 
 
 MUNIOIPAI. CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1338 
 
 into force on lut August, 1888, except sect .. 
 16 thtrt'of, which was not to take ctlect until 
 lit November, 1888, and by Hub-scction Ti of 
 lectioii 1(1 the latter section was not to all'ect 
 any by law theretofore adopteil or paHHcd, the 
 vote taken, or debentures issued or to be issued 
 in piirsuaiicu thereof. A by law granting a 
 Imiius to a manufacturing industry was passed 
 by tlic municipal council of a village on the "JDtli 
 October, 1888, after having been submitted to 
 and approved by tho electors. It provided on 
 its face that it should take cH'ect on Ist Decem- 
 ber, 1888. For this and siinilai' by-laws an 
 annual levy was reijuired of an amount exceed- 
 ing tun per cent, of the total annual municipal 
 taxation of the village, contrary to tho pro- 
 visions of sub-section 4 of section 1(! of 48 V' ict. 
 c. 'J8 (Out,) : — Held, that although tho by-law 
 was ill contravention of sub-section 4 of section 
 16, yet, having regard to the provisions of sec- 
 tion 1, mid by the operation of section Ki, sub- 
 jection fi, of that Act, the by law was withdrawn 
 from the elleet of sub-section. Held also that 
 tlieobjcct of sub-section 1 of section ;i4*2of H. S. 
 0. (1887), c. 184 is to prevent the burthen of the 
 debt incurred by borrowing money to pay the 
 Umus from being irregularly distributed or un- 
 duly postponed to later years ; and that the by- 
 law in ipiestion, which provided for the raising 
 of 8'-'5,()(JO by the issue of twenty debentures for 
 $'.',00(i. 10 to fall due one in each year for twenty 
 years, "it being estimated that the sale of such 
 debentures will realize the said sum of $25,000," 
 and lor levying *'2,000. 10 in each year by a 
 special rate, substantially conqilied with the 
 sub-section. /iV Furliiiijir nnU I'HIiiiik of Mor- 
 ritburn, 10 O. K. 7'22.— '.Street. 
 
 The by-law instead of, as required by section 
 340 of the Municipal Act (1887), directing speci- 
 tic 811 li'j i ') be raised each year for the payment of 
 the debt and interest to be so raised in each year 
 by a special rate sulKcient therefor, leaving the 
 amount of the rate to be determined in each 
 year, directed that during the currency of the 
 debentures a special rati! of so much on the 
 dollar, specifying it, over and above all other 
 rates, should be levied and collected in each 
 year ;— Held, this rendereil the by-law bad. 
 Re Pick and the Toivimhiji of Aiiieliafibtirg, 17 
 0. R. 54. -Street. 
 
 Section .340 of the Municipal Act, H. S. 0. 
 (1887), e. 184, which authorizes tnuiiieipal coun- 
 cils to pass by-laws for contracting debts, etc. , 
 provides, sub-section 2, that the whole of the 
 debt and the obligations to bo issued therefor, 
 shall be made payable in twenty years at fur- 
 thest, from the day on which such by-law takes 
 effect. A by-law of a municipality to raise by 
 way of loan $3,000 to aid in repairing harbour 
 works, provided that the debentures should be 
 made payable annually, tho first payment to be 
 made on the 15th day of December in the year 
 next succeeding the year in which the " repairs 
 will have been completed:"— Held, that, as the 
 time of repayment was uncertain, the by-law 
 was not ill accordance with section 340, sub-sec- 
 tion 2, and was therefore illegal and should be 
 quashed. /iV ArnistrDiiq and the Towimhip of 
 Toronto, 17 O. R. 760.— Falcoubridge. 
 
 A by-law to raise a sum of money by way of 
 bonus to aid an industry in a village, after being 
 voted on by the electors, was finally passed on 
 
 3rd June, 1880, was promulgated on 20th .Tunc, 
 and registereil on 14th August following. It 
 stated lui its face that it was to come into force 
 on 2nd .Inly, 1880, and provided that the ilelien- 
 lures to be issued thereunder slioiild be payable 
 in twenty years from the date ot llicir issue, the 
 1st of October following: llidd, that, as tlir 
 period of payment exceeded twenty years from 
 the taking cU'ect of the by law, it was in eon- 
 travcntion of section 340, sub-section 2, of the 
 Municipal Act, K. S. (). (I8S7), c. 184, and 
 should be ((naslied. Hi- dunki' and tin' Villni/eol 
 Norwich, 18 0, K. 72. (iait. 
 
 See Parinh of St. Cimain' v. McFarlanc, 14 S. 
 C. U. 7.38, p. 481. 
 
 3. SiibmiHHWH of Matters (Jeiurally to EkctorK. 
 
 Quiere, whether several matters, each of which 
 requires the assent of the electors, can be enacted 
 ill one by-law, or » liether there must be separ 
 ate by-laws separately submitted to the elector^. 
 lie Criiiimi mill tin t'iiij if limiitford, {\0. It. 
 188.— Rose. 
 
 Tho defendants' council passed through two 
 readings by-laws for the limitation of the num- 
 ber of tavern and shop licence ., under K. >S. ((. 
 (1877), e. 181, ss. 17 and 24. IJef'or, the thii.l 
 reading the council pas.scd a resolution author 
 izing tlie subinission to the electors, contempo- 
 raneously with the general municipal elections, 
 of the question whether such limitation was de- 
 sirable or not, reserving, however, to the council, 
 the final decision upon the propriety of passing 
 the bylaws. The council also passed a subse- 
 quent resolution authorizing the expenditure of 
 S>300 out of municipal funds in advertising the 
 vote so to be taken. After the expenditure of 
 the greater portion of the sum so voted, an ac- 
 tion was brought by the plaiiititl', on behalf of 
 himself and all other ratepiiycis except the in- 
 dividual defendants, against the corporation and 
 against the individual members of a sub-com- 
 mittee appointed by the council to superintend 
 the advertising of the vote, and an interim in- 
 junction was moved for to restrain the defen- 
 dants from submitting the question to the elec- 
 tors and from printing ballot papers, advertising 
 the Vote, or otherwise expending municipal 
 moneys for the purposes contemiiTati^d by the 
 resolutions :— Held, 1. That in so far as the ap- 
 plication depeiideii upon the expenditure of 
 municipal funds for an improper purpose, it wiis 
 too late, the greater portion of tbe funds voted 
 having already been expended, and tb'it the 
 plaintiff should be left to obtain such order for 
 repayment to the city by the other defc iidants 
 as he might appear entitled to at the tr al. 2. 
 That the taking of a vote without leg.'slative 
 authority upon a matter over which, without 
 the electoral assent, the council had coinpleto 
 jurisdiction, should not lie restrained, therj being 
 no express legislative prohibition, and the coun- 
 cil having acted boiiii fide, unless some good rea- 
 son were shown for the conclusion tliat the re- 
 sult would bo injurious or unjust <o the corpo- 
 ration or some of its members, whicli was not 
 shewn in this case : — Senible, that if the resolu- 
 tion had proposed to give to the result of the 
 proposed vote a final and binding effect, thus 
 substituting the direct decision of the electors for 
 that of the council, the submission of the by-law 
 
1339 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1340 
 
 en 
 
 c/$ 
 
 to the vote of the electors would have been 
 illugiil and ultra viros, and would have been re- 
 strained. Helm I'. I'ort Hope, '22Chy. 273, dis- 
 tinguisl'cd. Dav'iM v. Vily of Toronto, 15 O. R. 
 33.— Street. 
 
 Under 52 Vict. c. 7:5, s. 14 (Out.), tlie Cor- 
 poration of the City of Toronto, " iniiy l)y by- 
 law entrust the nianaj'eincnt and control of tlie 
 *'i'ecti(>n and coniijlction of the proposed new 
 combined courthouse and city-hall, * * to 
 41 commission consisting of tlircc members who 
 shall be appointed by by-law." Th( touncil pre- 
 vious to the submission to tiie vol i of tlie elec- 
 tors of a by-law for the raising of money tf erect 
 such courthouse, published a pamplilct whicii 
 contained under the heading, ' ' Some of the 
 reasons why the buildings should be erected," 
 this clause ' In order that the buildings may be 
 orected in accordance with the plans and speci- 
 lications, * * legi.slation has been (obtained, 
 authorizing the appointment of three commis- 
 sioners, to whom will be entrusted tlio super- 
 vision of the work." After tlio by-law was ap- 
 proved of an<l piiHsod, tlic council decided not to 
 jippoint commissioners. In an action l)y a rate- 
 payer to enjoin the corj)oration from proceeding 
 with the work, ))ending tlie ap|)()intment of such 
 commissioners, or for a mandamus ordering the 
 «ouncil to make such aj/pDintment. It was : — 
 Held, that as there was no person or class of per- 
 sons for whose benctit the power under 52 Vict. 
 •c. 73, 8. 14 (Ont.), was conferred, or \ipon whom 
 a ripht was conferred to have it exercised, such 
 power was not obligatory but only permissive : — 
 Held, also, that as the representation contained 
 in the pamphlet formed no part of the by-law, 
 and was not a representation of an existing fact, 
 but a mere statement of intention and formed 
 no part of a binding bargain between the cor- 
 {)oration and the ratepaycr.s, there was nothing 
 to bind the former to adhere to it, and they 
 ■were at liberty to revoke or disclaim that inten- 
 tion and take another course, and that tiie ac- 
 
 n should be dimissed ; but as tlie conduct of 
 I !• i corporation was so tliscrcditable in the mat- 
 ter, tiieir c( sts were refused. Darhy v. G'dij 
 of Toronto, 17 O. R. 554.— Osier. 
 
 Remarks upon tlie practice of taking a plebis- 
 cite upon asnl)ject wholly within tiic discretion 
 of the corporation. Ih. 
 
 Relating to ' ilo of liriuoi'. Sn lNT<)\i('.\riN(; 
 
 LlQUOH-S. 
 
 Sec Srotl V. Corporal ion <f Tilsonhurii, 13 A. 
 R. 23:i, p. 1303; Canada Atlanlk K. II'. Co. v. 
 <:il!/ of Ottawa, 12 S. C. R. 3G5, p. 13.30. 
 
 4. Dixcrhninat'uuj By-lawH. 
 
 HwJonax V. Gillxrl, 5 S. C. R. 350, p. 1307; 
 lieqina v. Pipe. 1 O. R. 43, ]). 1.175 ; Pcopli's'' 
 Milling Co. v. The Conn -U of Mcaford, 10 O. R. 
 405, p. 1 302 ; In re. Clarke, v. TownMp of Howard, 
 14 O. R. 598 ; 10 A. R. 72, p. 1357 ; Regina v. 
 Flory, 17 O. R. 715, p. 1351. 
 
 5. Not fur the Beuffit of the General Public. 
 
 A by-law tor closing up a square dedicated to 
 the public and disposing of part thereof to a 
 ■church contained a provision that the trustees of 
 the church should pay all expenses in connection 
 
 with the by-law, and that it should not take 
 effect till the municipality had been iudeiiiiiified 
 against loss by reason of passing it and of my 
 proceedings to (ju.isli it :— Held, bad on its face, 
 for it was plainly not passed in the public interest' 
 but for the bencKt of a particular class, /« rl 
 Peck and the Town of Gait, 46 Q. B. 211.— Osier. 
 
 In 1850, the owner of lot live registered a plan 
 shewing a subdivision of it into six lots with a 
 lane running through the centre, wliicli was in- 
 tended for the use of the occupants of the lots 
 adjoining it. Ho afterwards aold some of the 
 lots, but they were all reconvcyod to him. The 
 lots were always fenced in as one property till 
 1870, when he sold all the lots and the lane to a 
 bank, by whom a Ijuilding was elected, the 
 fences remained as they hail been until riiinoved 
 when the building was in progress, and being 
 afterwards replaced by a new closed fenoc. In 
 1880, at the instance of one M., the owiierof the 
 a<1joining lot four, who had recently, at his own 
 ex|)ense, laid out a lane across his lot, in i;on- 
 linuation of the lane in lot live, and ciniveyed it 
 to the corporation, a by-law was passed hy the 
 council opening the lane on lot five. It was 
 shewn that M. was the only person interested in 
 having the lane ojiened. Osier, J. , quashed the 
 by-law ()n the ground that it had not been passed 
 in the interest of the public, but simply to sub- 
 serve the interests of an individual :— Held, dis- 
 missing the appeal, that the registration of a 
 plan oT a subdivision of a town lot and sales 
 made in accordance with it does not constitute a 
 dedication of the lands thereon to the public, 
 and the council had, therefore, exceeded their 
 powers in passing the by-law in (puistion:- 
 Held, also, that the by-law, being passed in the 
 interest of a particular individual, was properly 
 quashed. In re Morton and the City of St 
 Thomas, (i A. H. 323. 
 
 A road, originally a trespass road, running 
 from Ottawa to Pembroke, through more than 
 one county, f<dlowing the course of the Ottawa 
 River, had been used for upwardsof forty years, 
 and had become a public highway. The roaci 
 in its course intersected diagonally lots I and 2. 
 owned respectively by the a)>plicant and I). In 
 Octfdier, 1882, I)., who was then, and had been 
 for the throe previous years, a meiiiber of the 
 township council, ])etitii)iied the council Id pan 
 a by-law closing up this portion of the road, and 
 procureil K. and .M ., two of the coiincil, to 
 pledge themselves to support the by-l.iw, in the 
 tielief that it was for tlie public benefit— I), 
 agreeing to spend JjilOO on the side line, and on 
 which it was voted to have the bulk of the 
 statute labour performed — but on their di.scov- 
 vering chat it was against the public interest, 
 they asked D. to release them from their pledge, 
 which he refused to do. He, liowevcr, pre 
 tended that ho was not anxious for the passage 
 of the by-law, and petitioned the council repre 
 senting that his land might lie injuriously 
 affected thereby, and asked to ho heard hy coun- 
 sel ; but as he wished, as he said, "to he let 
 down easy," ho arranged that K. should support 
 the by-law, which 1). said would he defeated. 
 E. accordingly voted for it, as also did M., and 
 another councillor, 1). being absent, and tb ' 
 reeve not voting, and in consequence the by-law 
 was carried. D. 's counsel, who was also counsel 
 for the township, attended the council meeting 
 
1340 
 
 it should not take 
 A been imleinnified 
 isiiig it and of mv 
 dd, bad on its face, 
 tlie publiu interest, 
 culiir class. In rr 
 IQ.B.U 11. -Osier. 
 
 ^e i-egiHtcrcd a plan 
 iito six lota with a 
 itre, wliicii was in- 
 cupants of the lots 
 3 aold some of the 
 oycd to liini. The 
 3 ono inoperty till 
 ,8 and tiie lane to a 
 ; was erected, thu 
 jeen until removed 
 irogruss, and being 
 V closed fence. In 
 I., the owner of the 
 eccntly, at his own 
 )S3 his lot, in i;on 
 e, an<l conveyed it 
 was passed hy the 
 1 lot five. It was 
 )erson interested in 
 Icr, J. , quashed the 
 liad not been passed 
 
 but simply to sub- 
 .ridiuil :— Held, dis 
 ! registration of a 
 town lot and sale.s 
 oes not constitute a 
 ■con to the public, 
 re, exceeded their 
 uv in question ;- 
 ^eing passed in the 
 
 1 uaT, was properly 
 d the City of St. 
 
 rAss roail, running 
 .h rough more than 
 nrse of the Ottawa 
 aids of forty years, 
 ghway. The road 
 )iially lots I and i. 
 tplicant and I). In 
 hen, anil had been 
 I nicniber of the 
 thu council to pa« 
 \in\ of tlieroail, and 
 
 if the uonncil, to 
 
 the l)y-law, in the 
 public benefit— I), 
 e Hide line, and on 
 ! the bulk of the 
 it on their di.scov- 
 tho pni)lic interest, 
 I from tlieir [iledge, 
 -le, however, pre 
 )us for the passage 
 
 the council repre- 
 ht lie injuriously 
 
 bo heard by coun- 
 said, "to be let 
 ; K. should support 
 vould be defeated. 
 LB also did M., and 
 g absent, and th 
 B(iucnce the by-law 
 liu was also counaei 
 lie council meeting 
 
 1341 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 IStt 
 
 «nd spoke in favour of the by-law. It appearcil , 
 that U. ha<l gnaratiteed the council against all 
 expense in the matter. 1 1 also appeared that I 
 the applicants had some buiblings on his lot ad- \ 
 joining the road, which were used by farmers i 
 and others, the approach to which would be cut 
 off by the closing of the road : —Held, under the 
 <;ircuin3tanees, the by-law niuat bo qimshed with 
 <io8t8. He\iHnou V. Totinisluj) of I'eiiihrdke, (i (). 
 K. 170.— Hose. 
 
 The municipal council of the lownship of 
 Sydney passed bylaw No. 279, to open a road 
 «ast anil west acr<)s.s four farm lots in the first 
 eoncession of the township. A travelled roail 
 was already open from Helleville westward to 
 the cast end of the roiid to l)c opened under tlie 
 hv-law, at which point a side road ran mirth and 
 soutli through tlie town.ship. After crossing 
 three lots, the proposed new road would inter.scct 
 another north and south side road and, crossing 
 this side road, it would extend westward across 
 one more lot as a cul-de-sac. The applicant eon- 
 tended that this by-law was prissed, not in the 
 public interest, but to serve the jn'ivatu con- i 
 venienee of two landowners of the locality. It 
 was, in answer, sworti by the members of the 
 township council t'lat they intended to complete 
 the road as soon as possible across live more lots 
 to the westward, till it would reich the next I 
 north and south sideroad through the township. ' 
 This explanation was accepted by the court as ' 
 answering any apparent ]>resunipti(Mi that the \ 
 bylaw was not passed in the public interest, as 
 in this case none of tiie other circumstances were 
 present which in other cases have led to the 
 belief that private interests only were being con- 
 sidered in passing the by-law. Jic OMrom and 
 the Township of Sidiiny, 15 O. II. 43. - -Street. ' 
 Kit see ,S'. C, 15 A. K. 372. ! 
 
 P. owned a small piece of land at the south | 
 end of a lane or street called Johnson street, | 
 twenty-six feet wide, in the city of Toronto, ; 
 leading from Adelaide itreci to King street, ex- ; 
 tending nearly to the line between these streets, I 
 and continued to King street by an irregular 
 private footway. M. and T. owned the adjoin- | 
 iiig h)ts on King street, extending back to the 
 eentre line, and 1'. had refused to sell his iiiece 
 of land to them. They then, with other owners 
 purporting to be owneir .)f adjacent land, peti- 
 tioned the city council under the local improve- 
 ment clauses of the Municipal Act, reciting that 
 they "were desirous f securing communicaticm 
 between King and Adelaide streets for vehicles 
 by means of the above street, and certain lanes 
 to the south thereof," and asking that said strei c 
 might be opened up of the full width of twenty 
 six feet from Adelaide street to the centre line 
 of the block between King and Adelaide streets 
 *t the expense of the property benefited. The 
 sub-committee of thu council, to w horn this peti- 
 tion was referred, and before whom the plaintitt' 
 had appeared to oppose it, said that nothing 
 further should be d(me without notifying him, 
 but nlH)ut eight months afterwards, without any 
 further notice to him, they passed a by-law 
 opening up the lano to the centre of the block as 
 prayed, but making no provision for uxtcndinK 
 it to King street. It was shewn that M. and 
 T., through whose land such extension would 
 pass, had refused to give a right of way for 
 vehicles, ivs expressed in the petition, and had 
 
 agreed to pay all costs of opening the lane:- - 
 Held, that the by-law had been ))asscd impro- 
 perly, not in the public interest, but in that of 
 M. and T. ; and the corporation, un the applica- 
 tion of v., was enjoined fnmi proceeding under 
 it. /VYs v. nosiref/, H O. U. 680.— Hoyd. 
 
 A by-law passed by the council of the town- 
 ship of Mersea providing for the drainage of 
 lands in Mersea and Romney. I'er linrtoii, 
 il. A. — I'lion the evidence the corporation in- 
 tended by the by-law to remedy a private griev- 
 ance, ami upon th it grnninl the by-law was btid. 
 A'e Tdioiisliii) of lldiiiiii y v. Township of Mrrscii, 
 II A. I!. 712. 
 
 See Ontario Natural (las Co. v. Smart, HI 
 (). R. 250. 
 
 0. Olhvr ('a.ics. 
 
 A bylaw must be rea.sonably clear and unequi- 
 vocal in its language in order to vary or alter 
 thu common law or statutable rights, ('roirp, v. 
 ■Stwix'i; W i). |{. 87. -Q. B. D. 
 
 Semblo, that It. H. O. (1877) c 174, s. 277, 
 enacting that tin; powers of tnwiiship councils 
 shall 1)1! cxcrcLscd by liy-law — must l)e construed 
 as refcriiiig only to tiie cxorcisu of powers of 
 the council under the Municipal Act, and not 
 to powers which may bo exercised under a special 
 Act passed for other purposes or by another 
 legislature. Tmrnship of Ptunhroke v. Canada 
 Central R. W. Co., 3 O. 11. 503.— Osier. 
 
 A by-law which varies from the provisions of 
 a statute in matters alTccting the rights of pro- 
 perty and of taxation is invalid. In re. Clark ami 
 the Tiinmshii) of Howard, O. R. 570. — 0'(^)nn(ir. 
 
 By-law held bad as opposed to public policy 
 and morality in directing the assessors from 
 time to time to limit their assessment. See In re 
 J)enni and Town of Peterborowih, 10 0. R. 767, 
 J). 1362. 
 
 A conviction for violating a by-law was 
 (pi:vshed, the by-law having been passed on 27tli 
 March, lo go into force the 3ril April following, 
 in anticipation of an Act, 45 Vict. c. 24 (Ont.), 
 passed the lOt.'i .March, to go into operation the 
 2iid April then next ensuing. Jfeijina, v. I{e.p.d, 
 II O. R. 242.— O'Connor. 
 
 Held in this ease that even if not ultra vires 
 the by-law would have been objectionable in 
 requiring as a condition precedent to the grant- 
 ing of a licence that an applicant shouhl pro- 
 cure the consent of a number of persons in the 
 neighbourhood. liiKei/i/, 130. R. 451.— Wilson. 
 See a.\tMl{,ijlna v. Weli.iier, U5 0. R. 187, p. 1340. 
 
 A by-law should state its purpose on its face. 
 Jones v. Town of Port Arthur, 1« O. R. 474.— 
 l'\;rguson. 
 
 See also Subhead, XI. p. 1346. 
 
 8. Quashlnif. 
 
 (a) (lewrally. 
 
 Where the plaintill" filed his bill seeking to 
 quash acortain municipal by-law, passed to open 
 a road, and also an award made thereunder : — 
 Held, that there was nothing inconsistent iii 
 
1343 
 
 MUNICIPAL GOBFORATIONS. 
 
 1314 
 
 so 
 
 this, and the phiintiff was not bound to elect 
 between attacking the by-hiw and attacking the 
 award. Wliere, liowever, under such cifcum- 
 »tances, the phiintifT, l)eing called on by the 
 court to elect, had elected to attack the award, 
 .aid consented to a decree setting it aside, and 
 ordering :i new arbitration, whicli arbitration he 
 had prosecuted until anotlier award was made, 
 which he liad not moved against within tlie time 
 allowed therefor :— Held, he could not after- 
 wards complain of having been forced to elect 
 at the hearing. JJardiiii/ v. Towimhip of Cttr- 
 tliff, 2 U. R. 329.— Chy. I). 
 
 Refusal to rpiash bydaw where inconvenience 
 was likely to ensue. See Jiei/i/ v. Township of 
 Sotilhwold, 6 O. 15. 184, p. 1359. 
 
 The quashing of a bydaw'iis not imperative, 
 l)ut discretionary, lie Ati/loii and the Towimhip \ 
 oj Onotida(ja, GO. 1{. 573. - -Rose. I 
 
 On an application to quash a bydaw incorpo- ■ 
 rating a portion of township territory as a vil- 
 lage : — Held, that the power of the court to 
 ijuasli an illegal liydaw is not limited to cases 
 where illegality appears upon the face of the 
 by-law, but exten<ls to eases wdiere the illegality '■ 
 shewn is entirely extraneous, lie Feiitoii v. 
 County of Simeoe , 10 O. R. "27. — Wilson. 
 
 See lieijiua v. Ciithhert, 45 Q. 15. 19, p. 1345 ; : 
 Colhorne v. Toirii oJ Xiui/ara Falls, 9 O. R. 168, 
 p. 1350; ReO'Meara v. ' City of Otioira, 11 t>. I 
 R. 603 ; 15 A. R. 75 ; 14 S. C.'R. 742. p. 1371 ; 
 Scott V. Corpuriition oJ Tilsuii(iin-<j, 13 A. R. 233, 
 p. 13(j3 ; //( re Clark v. Towuxhip of Howard, 14 
 O. R. 598; Hi A. R. 72, p. 1357 ; In re Robert- 
 mn V. Towimhip of North East hope, 16 A. R. 
 214, p. 1352. 
 
 (b) Who May Move. 
 
 Held, that the applicant in this case was not 
 precluded from moving against the bydaw by 
 reason of his having expressed an opinion in its 
 favour before its passage. In re Peek and the 
 Town of Gait, 4t) Q. B. 211.— Osier. 
 
 The applicants in this case had all voted at the 
 niiuiicipal elections holden for tlie village as in- 
 corporated by the by-law in qin'stiou ; one of 
 them had been a candidate for the otlice of reeve, 
 and another liad been elected to the school board, 
 but none of them had in any way promoted the 
 passing of the by-law or had any part in the 
 ticking of the census objected to : — Hehl, that 
 the a])plicants were not estopped from moving 
 to quash the by-law. He Feiitoii v. The County 
 of Hirncoe, 10 O. R. 27. — Wilson. 
 
 Held, that the apjdieant had not by voting 
 against the by-law disentitled himself to apply 
 to the court to (juash it, or to the costs of his 
 motion. He, A rinstronij and the Toirnship of 
 Toronto, 17 O. R. 70G. — Falconbridge. 
 
 Held, that a muiueipal drainage by-law, 
 whether for the ctmstruetion of an original work 
 or the improvenienl of an old one, and whether 
 the proceedings are taken under section ,583, 
 585, or 580 of the Municipal Act, R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 184, is subject to the provisions of sectioius 
 f)71 and 572 requiring notice in writing to be 
 given within ten days by any one intending to 
 apply to have the by-law quiished, of his inten- 
 tion to so apply. And where such notice was 
 
 I given by a solicitor and signed by him as solicitui- 
 I for two named persons, stating that the applica- 
 tion would bo made on behalf of them and 
 I " others," and an application to quash was after 
 I wards made to the court by persona other than 
 ; those named:^Held, that the application was not 
 ' made to the court by any person who had given 
 . the notice required by sections 571 and .")72 ; that 
 another ratepayer could not take advaiitai'e of 
 the notice by adopting it as his own; and, the 
 application of which notice had been given not 
 I having been made, the by-law became a valid 
 I one at the expiration of six weeks from its final 
 I passing ; and the motion to quash it was dig. 
 ] missed with costs, lie McCorinick and the 
 Township of Jloirard, 18 0. R. 260.— Street. 
 
 See In re Funston awl the Township of Tilbuni 
 East, 11 0. R. 74, p. 1357. 
 
 (c) Time for Moving. 
 
 The by-law dissolving a union of school sec- 
 tions was passed on the 7th April, and the 
 application to quash was not made until Decem- 
 ber following ; — Send)le, that the delay, unex- 
 plained, would have been an answer to the 
 application, which may be too late, although 
 within the year fixed by the Act as the extreme 
 : limit. In re. Me Alpine and the Toicnship oj 
 Eiiphemia, 45 Q. B. 199.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that a by-law passed to open a road 
 
 I and also an award thereumler not being void on 
 
 j its face, nor ultra vires, and the plaintift' not 
 
 ; having attacked it for more than a year i ftti- its 
 
 \ passing, but having on the contrary appointed an 
 
 ■ arbitrator to assess compensation thereunder, it 
 
 i had now become absolute and incontrovertible. 
 
 j Held, also, although such a by-law may not 
 
 ; become eflfectual in law till registration thereof, 
 
 nevertheless non-registration does not prolong 
 
 ' the time allowed by R. S. O. (1877), c 174, s. 
 
 323, within which it may be quashed, and such 
 
 time does not count from tlie registration. Hard- 
 
 in;/ v. Township of Cardiff, 2 O. R. 329.— Chy. D. 
 
 The cases in which an amending by-law may 
 
 be moved against after the expiry of a year from 
 
 the jiassing of the original by-law considered. 
 
 He MiUoji and the Ton-nship of Onondiuia, 6 0. P 
 
 I 573. — Rose. 
 
 I Semble, that although a motion to quash 
 
 I by-law cannot be entertained unless made with 
 
 j in a year from the passing of the by-law, it dues 
 
 not follow that an application made witiiiri the 
 
 year may not be successfully answered by shew- 
 
 ' ing laches of the applicant, though in this case 
 
 no such laches existed. He Fentun v. Cimntij of 
 
 Ksimcoc, 10 O. R. 27.— Wilson. 
 I 
 
 Held, that a by-law to raise a sum of money by 
 way of bonus to aid an industry was not one by 
 which a rate was imposed under section XU R. 
 i 8. O. (1887), c. 184, recpiiring an ajiplication to 
 i quash within three months from promulgation, 
 ' l)ut was a by-law for contracting a deht under 
 i sections 351 and 352, and that an niiplication to 
 I quash within three months of its regi.stration 
 I was ill time. He Cooke and the VilUuje of Nor- 
 
 wich, 18 O. J{. 
 
 -Oalt. 
 
 The meaning of section 572 of R. S. 0, (I8S7), 
 c, 184, is that in case ti.e application to quash 
 is not made within the six weeks prescribed by 
 
134« 
 
 1345 
 
 MUNICIPAL OOBPOBATIONS. 
 
 1346 
 
 f him as solicitor 
 tliat the applica- 
 If of them Riul 
 quash was aftei- 
 •aims otlier than 
 plication was not 
 II wlio had given 
 71 and r)72 ; tliat 
 ke advantage of 
 s own ; and, the 
 1 been given not 
 
 became a vahd 
 iks from its final 
 uash it was dis- 
 'orinick and thf 
 
 260.— Street. 
 
 wHuhip of Tilbwij 
 
 'infi. 
 
 on of school sec- 
 1 April, and the 
 lade until Oecem- 
 the delay, uuex- 
 n answer to the 
 lo late, altliough 
 ict as the extreme 
 the Toioimhip oj 
 er. 
 
 d to open a road 
 not being void on 
 
 the plamtift' not 
 lan a year iditv its 
 trary appointed an 
 ,ion therennder, it 
 . incontrovertihle. 
 
 by-law may not 
 gistration thereof, 
 
 "oes not prolong 
 
 (1877), c. 174, 8, 
 ished, and such 
 igistration. 7/arrf- 
 
 R.,S29.-Chy.D. 
 
 nding by daw may 
 ry of a year from 
 -law considered. 
 
 l>ii(in<liiiia,iiO. P 
 
 lotion to qnaah 
 nlcss made with 
 ho by-law, it dues. 
 made witliin the 
 inswired by shew- 
 lough in this case 
 " iituii v. County of 
 
 I sum of money hy 
 ry was not one hy 
 dor section 'AM R. 
 
 an ai)plication to 
 oni pronudgation, 
 ;ting a deht under 
 
 , an a))plication to 
 
 i)f its registration 
 
 ViltdW- of -V'"- 
 
 of R. S. 0. (18S7), 
 )licfttion to qnash 
 ieks prescribed by 
 
 section 571, the by-law shall be valid. Service 
 of a notice of motion to quash a drainage by- 
 law, under R. S. O. (1887), c. 184, ss. 571 and 
 572, and tiling the allldavits in support of such 
 motion within six weeks next ensuing the final 
 passing of tiiu by-law, is a sufficient making of 
 the application, although such motion is not 
 made returnable until after tlie expiry of that 
 period, lie Sweetman anil the Toifn-^hlp of (}on- 
 _n«W, l.S r. B. 293— Street. 
 
 See likkfon, v. Chitthain, 14 A. R. 32; 16 S. 
 C R. 2;«1, p. 1330; AV McCoriiiick and the Town- 
 Mpo/JJjward, 18 (). R. 2U0, p. 1344. 
 
 (d) Costs. 
 
 Costs were not asked for in the rule, though 
 they were at bar : — Held, tiiat as costs are in 
 the discretion of the court under the Judicature 
 Act, tills was no oljjcction. /ii re I'lck and thf 
 Town of Gait, 46 Q. IJ. 21 1.— Osier. 
 
 Sec In re Workman and the Town of lAwhay, 
 7 0. R. 425, p. 1374. 
 
 (e) Other Casen of Practlc. 
 
 The validity of a by-law may be (piestioueJ 
 on a motion to quash a conviction made under 
 it. lle'jina v. Cuthhai, 4.") Q. B. ll». -Oslor. 
 
 An application to qnasli a njunicipal l>y-law 
 must be by rule nisi, and not i>y notice of mo- 
 tion ■.—{lewimin v. Townxhip of Pcnihroki; 6 O. 
 R. 170.— Rose. 
 
 Encpiiry may in every case 1)C had upon affi- 
 davits as to tlie existence of the facts constitu- 
 ting tiie statutoi-y conditions precedent to the 
 passing of the by-law, and as to any illegality 
 ill the manner of its being passed. AV Ffiilon v. 
 The Count 1/ of Simroe, 10 O. R. 27.— Wilson. 
 
 The applicants to quash the by-law, having 
 followed in their application the notice given by 
 the council under section 572 to intending appli- 
 cants, should not be prejudiced because that 
 notice was incorrect ; the council must be held 
 to their own notice, /n re liohertsun ami the 
 Toa-nship of Xurth Easthope, 15 O. R. 423.— 
 btreet. 
 
 The authority to proceed by rule or order nisi in 
 quashing a by-law, conferred by R. S. O. (1887), 
 c. 184, s. 3H2, is inconsistent with Con. Rule 
 526, and must therefore l)e taken to be repealed ; 
 for by 51 Vict. c. 2, s. 4, (Out.), it is declared 
 that all enactments in tlie Itevised .Statutes in- 
 consistent with the Rules are repealed. It ia 
 therefore not now proper to proceed by order 
 nisi. Re I'eck and Amcliasburg, 12 1'. 11. ()64, 
 followed. Hewison c. Pembroke, 6 O. R. 170, 
 distinguisliod. ViV Colrniitf awl Toirii.<liip of 
 CoUhfxttr North, 13 \\ R. 2,J3.~Strcet. 
 
 10. Othar Procfidlii(j.s 1,'r/atirc to liijlaia. 
 
 See 
 R. 22, 
 33, p. 
 554, p- 
 
 Ah'xandi'r v. Toirimhip of Iloii'iird, 14 (). 
 I. "160; /hirlrtv. City oJ Toronto, 15 O. R. 
 1339 ; Darby v. Cilif uf Toronto, 17 O. 
 i;i3!J. 
 
 R. 
 
 XI. 
 
 In nwving to (|uash a by-law, the practice 
 havhig been adopted of applying to a judge sit- 
 ting alone, an objection that the application 
 should have been to the Divisional Court was 
 not entertained : but such an application, if re- 
 quired to 1)0 made to the Divisional Court, must 
 he to the Common Law Divisional Courts, and 
 not to the Cliancery Divisional Court. In re 
 Fun4on and The Towniship of Tilbury Eaut, 11 
 O.R. 74. -O'Connor. 
 
 The Divisional Court ought not to entertain 
 applications to <iuash by-laws, which should lie 
 made to a single judge. Landry v. Citii of Ot- 
 tawa, 11 1'. R. 442.— C. P. D. 
 
 Seetirin 332 of the Municipal Act, R. S. 
 0. (1S87), c. 184, which requires four days' no- 
 tice of an application to quash, is still in force ; 
 and the notice of motion given in this case, 
 being only a two days' notice, was held insuffi- 
 cient, lie Peck and l^ownahip of Anidiasbnni, 
 12 P. R. 664.— Street. 
 
 The proceeding by rule nisi to quash a by-law 
 i» no longer in force, and tiie proceeding by 
 motion is sulistituteil for it. lb. 
 
 There is no power under Con. Rule 485 to 
 shorten tlie four days' not ice rcc£uiredl)y R. S. (). 
 (1887) c. 184, 8. 332, as modilicd by Con. Rule 
 f)26. to he given of a motion to (piash a munici- 
 pal l)vlaw. ■" 
 Woj/i't/f/, 13 
 
 85 
 
 (Jenekai. Poweus ,vnd Duties. 
 
 3. Aninial't Ilunninij ( t Lnr<je. 
 
 A municipal c )uncil by by-law ])as.seil pur- 
 suant to the Municipal Act, enacted that cer- 
 tain descriptions of animals (naming them), and 
 all four-foote<l animals known to be breachy, 
 should not be allowed to run at largo in the 
 township ; and provided for fixing the height of 
 fences. Tlie plaintitl's cattle strayed from the 
 highway into the lands of defendant Williams, 
 wliose fences were nut of the heiglit iei|uiied by 
 the by-law. He distrained them and I hey were 
 impounded, defendant Steeper being the piiuinl- 
 keeper. In an action of replevin: -Held, that 
 aa the by-law did not aflirinatively authorize 
 these cattle to run at large by negatively pro- 
 viding that certain other clas.-.es of animals 
 .should not be allowed to do so, the plaiiititV was 
 liable at common law, and under R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 105, for the damage doiu^, irrespective of any 
 question as to the height of the defendant's 
 fences. Croire v. iStvip'r, 46 i.). H. 87. — *■)■ 
 15. I). 
 
 By-law No. 84, l)assed by the town-^hip of 
 Onondaga on 2!)tli May, 1SS2, pi<ihil)ited certain 
 animals therein named running at large ; and 
 jirovided that, ctcipt hdircintht' IDlh Slaii and 
 the l.-it Dccimliir in anii ytur, it should not bo 
 lawful for the owners of any other aniniids not 
 theretofore mentioned or indicated, to allow or 
 permit the same to run at large. A line or pi'ii- 
 alty not exceeding 5<5 was imposed for every 
 ofTence, but the animals were not Ihereliy to be 
 relieved from the (qieiation of any bylaw relat- 
 ing to pounds or poiindkcepcis, or for any ties- 
 pass or damage committed or done by them 
 through their being permitted to run at large. 
 The I'ecovery of lines and penalfies (not adding 
 the worila "and costs),'' was direc^ted to be un- 
 der section 421, et s"q., of the .Summary Coii- 
 lle Swi'ftman and the Toirnxhiji of' victions Act, with imprisonment, in the event of 
 P. R. 203. —Street. | no distress, unless the line or penalty and costs. 
 
mr 
 
 MUNICIPAL GORFOBATIONS. 
 
 1348 
 
 CS9 
 9K> 
 
 Its 
 
 including costs of committal, be sooner paid. 
 Bylaw No. 97, passed on 9tli July, 1883, after 
 recitint' *;liat the object was to prevent all ani- 
 mals of any age or description running at large 
 at all se isons of tiie year, amended by-law No. 
 84, by striking out the words in italics : — Held, 
 that the by-law was not oppressive or unreason- 
 able as extending to all seasons of the year, in 
 that it was no wider than the statute under 
 whicli it was passed, Municipal Act, 1883, 8. 
 49-', sub-s. 2. J{<' Milloy ami the, Tuwnahip of 
 OnniHla'jn, (i 0. R. -573.— Rose. 
 
 It wiis objected that the provisions in by-law 
 <S4 as to tfie levying tines wei'e ultra vires, because 
 sectimi -192, tiubsection 2, of the Municipal Act 
 provided a mode of recovery, i. e., by sale of the 
 anim;ds impounded, and hence that .section 421, 
 et 8e<| , did not apply; Hut:— Held, that the 
 objection was taken under a misconception of 
 fait, in tliat the by-law was not and did not 
 jirofcss to be a pound l)y-law ; and it was by no 
 means clear tliab these sections would not apply 
 to a pound by-law : -Quiere, as to the effect of 
 the omission of the words " and costs " in the 
 clause of the by-law providing for the penalty ; 
 but as this was not taken in the rule it was not 
 considered. Ih. 
 
 It was also objected that the by-law should 
 have been limited in its provisions so as not to 
 extend to Indian lands within the township, but 
 tile judge refused to quash on this grouml : (I) 
 because the quashing a by-law is not imperative 
 but discretionary ; (2) and if it were (juashed 
 the original bylaw would remain ; (3) it could 
 only be (plashed as to Indians and Indian lands; 
 (4) the a[)plicant was not prejudiced, and this 
 was not a substantial objection ; and (5) the 
 Indians who were alone affected, were not com- 
 plaining, lb. 
 
 Sheep grazing on private unenclosed property 
 in charge of a boy : — Held, not to be " running 
 at large." IhhotlHon v. Henry, 8 O. R. 625.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 See also Distress. 
 
 5. Assize of Dread. 
 
 By-law 1128 of the city of Toronto declared 
 what the weight of loaves should be, and 
 enacted that the weight of each loaf sold or 
 offered for sale should be stamped thereon, and 
 that all bread offered for sale of any less weight 
 than the weight fixed by the by-law should be 
 seized and forfeited : — Held, that the by-law 
 was intra vires and not unreasonable. In re 
 Nasmilh and the City of Toronto, 2 0. R. 192.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 6. Auctions, 
 
 The defendant having sold land by auction 
 under adecreee of the Chancery Division of the 
 High Court of Justice, was convicte<l of a 
 breach of the by-law of the county of Huron, 
 passed pursuant to the Municipal Act, R. S. O. 
 (1877), e. 174, s. 465, sub-s. 2, providing that it 
 shoulii not be lawful for any person to sell by 
 public auction any wares, goods or merchandise 
 of any kind without a license :^Held, that the 
 conviction was clearly bad, for the by-law did 
 
 not refer to lands ; nor would the statute liave 
 authoi-ized such a by-law. Rcgina v. Chapman 
 1 O. R. 582.— Q. B. D. 
 
 7. /iointses to Mmmfiicturinij Compnuies. 
 
 Held, allirming the judgment of Proudfoot, 
 V. C, that a municipality, iinder 36 Vict. e. 4S, 
 s. 372, sub-s. 5 (Ont. ), has power to lend iiiomy 
 for the encouragement of a nuinufacturiiig estab- 
 lishment, notwithstanding the use of the word 
 "bonus" tl-erein, which docs not necessarily 
 import a gift ; ami they are therefore liable oii 
 debentures issued for the purpose of raising 
 money to be so lent. The rate of interest on tlie 
 debentures was seven per cent. : — HeM, tliatstu- 
 tion 217 of 29 & 30 Vict. c. 51, has not been 
 repealed, though marked effete in the schedule 
 prefixed to, and not re-enacted in, 30 Vict. e. 48 
 (Ont.), and that the above rate was therefore 
 liwful :— Quiore, whether the power to give 
 would not include power to lend. If there hud 
 been no jiower to lend, and the mortgage taken 
 by the nuinicii>ality to secure repayment of the 
 money lent was invalid :— Quwre, whether this 
 would afford any defence to the debentures :— 
 Qua're, whether the municipalitj- having le- 
 ceived the consideration stijiulated for, the de- 
 benture holders might not have some remedy 
 against the municipality, though not by direct 
 suit on the debenturi's >iciittiih A mcrimuland- 
 mtnt Co. v. Vi/lai/e of Elura, (i A. R. 628. 
 
 The plaintiffs under a by-law granted the de- 
 fendant a bonus of $20,000 to aid him in the 
 manufacture of steam fire engines and agricul- 
 tural implements, subject to a condition in the 
 by-law that he should give a mortgage on tlie 
 factory premises for $10,000, and a hond for 
 $10,000, to be conditioned : (1) for the carrying 
 on of such manufactures for twenty years ; i2| 
 during that period to keep $30,000 invested in 
 the factory ; and (3) to insure the buildings ami 
 plant in plaintiffs' favour for $10,000. The de- 
 fendant gave the bond and mortgage, the latter 
 containing a covenant for insurance, an<l he in- 
 vested the §30,000 as stipulated for. He also 
 made a further mortgage on the premises to the 
 plaintiffs for $3,000 not mentioned in the by-law. 
 The factory was one in which oigiitccnortwenty- 
 five men might have been employed, and whicii 
 could have turned out one hundred mowers ina 
 year. In the course of two years only twenty 
 mowers were constructed, and the number of 
 persons employed dwindled down from eighteen 
 to twenty to two or three : — Held, afiirniing the 
 judgment of Proudfoot, J., (4 C). R. I) that the 
 performance contemplated by the parties, of the 
 contract to carry on manufactures was one 
 reasonably commensurate with the capabilities 
 of the factory ; and that, upon the evidence, the 
 defendant had failed in the perfornuincc:— Held, 
 also, that the $10,000 mortgage was given as a 
 security for any damages the plaintiffs might 
 sustain by the defendant's default, to an extent 
 not greater than $10,000, and not as a charge 
 for that specific sum : — Held, also, that as the 
 $3,000 mortgage was not authorized by the by- 
 law, as to it the plaintiffs were not entitled to 
 any relief. Remarks upon elements to be con- 
 sidered by the master in assessing plaintiffs' 
 damages. Village of Brussels v. Ronald, 11 A. 
 R. 605. 
 
1349 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1350 
 
 e statute have 
 la V. Chapman, 
 
 Compniiin. 
 
 t of Proudfoot, 
 r SO Vict. 0. 4S, 
 [■ to lend moiiiy 
 ifivcturing estal)- 
 ise of till! woiil 
 
 not nt'ccasaiily 
 Lireforc lialile on 
 ■[)osi! of raising 
 )f interest (in the 
 —Held, that sec- 
 1, has not lieun 
 
 in the schedule 
 in, ;U) Vict. c. ^IS 
 te was therefore 
 
 power to give 
 d. If tliere had 
 ! mortgage taken 
 epaynient of the 
 ire, whether this 
 iie debentures :— 
 ality having re- 
 latetl for, the de- 
 ive some remedy 
 gli not by direct 
 I Anuricanlnnd- 
 
 A. R. 028. 
 
 V granted the de- 
 ) aid iiiin in the 
 gine.s and agricul- 
 I condition in the 
 , mortgage on tlie 
 and a bond for 
 ) for the carrying 
 twenty years ; \i) 
 S(»,0()0 invested in 
 the buildings and 
 $10,000. The de- 
 jrtKage, the latter 
 irance, and he in- 
 ted for. He also 
 tie premises to the 
 nod in the by-law. 
 iglitcen ortwenty- 
 doyed, anil which 
 ulred mowers in » 
 years only twenty 
 nd the number of 
 )wn from eighteen 
 leld, affirming the 
 (). R. 1) that the 
 llie parties, of the 
 factures was one 
 \ the capabilities 
 > the evidence, the 
 •formance:— Held, 
 age was given as a 
 o plaintilTs might 
 fault, to an extent 
 not as a charge 
 _.., also, that as the 
 horized by the by- 
 ;re not entitled to 
 dements to be con- 
 issossing jdaintiffs 
 V. liunald, U A. 
 
 See Re Cooke and the Village oj Xorielch, 18 0. 
 B 72, pp. 1338, 1344 ; Parink oj St. Cemire v. 
 MeFarlme, 14 S. C. R. 738, p. 481 ; Re FarUuijer 
 •and Village of Af or nsburg, 16 0. R. 722, p. 1337. 
 
 See, also, Subhead XI. 1,5, p. 1301. 
 
 :h 
 
 9. Ritihlhif/s awl Fire Limitn. 
 
 A city corporation passed a by-law under R. j 
 S. 0. (1877), c. 174, s. 407, sub-s. 6, which de- j 
 fined fire limits, within which buildings were to \ 
 be of incoml)Ustible material ; the roofs to be of 1 
 certain metals, or slate, or shingles laitl in 
 mortar not less tlmn balf-an-ineh thick, and no 
 roof of any bu!iding already erected within the 
 tire limits to be relaid or recovered except with 
 one of the enumerated materials. The defen- 
 ilant was convicted for having laid new shingles , 
 on his wooden house without laying them in \ 
 mortar. The house had been standing formally j 
 years before the by-law was passed : — Held, 
 that the bylaw was ultra vires, in so far as it 
 referred to existing buildings or ordinary repairs 
 ■or changes thereof, not being additions tliereto. 
 Rtijina V. Howard, 4 O. R. 377.--Hagarty. 
 
 The corporation of the town of P. passed a 
 by-law to "Regulate or Prevent the Carrying 
 on of Manufactures or Trades Dangerous in 
 Causing or Promoting Fire," whereby it was 
 provided that no such manufacture or trade 
 should be allowed to be carried on witliin .300 
 feet of any other building, and a fine of from $5 
 to $20 was imposed for each day that a violation 
 of the law continued, with distress on default 
 of payment, and imprisonment in default of 
 sufficient distress. Afterwards they passed 
 another amending by-law, providing that the 
 restriction should not exist if the owners of 
 such buildings within 300 feet consented in 
 writing, the said consent, however, to be sub- 
 mitted for approval by the chairman of the 
 board of works:-— Held, that the by-law as 
 amended was invalid within the principles laid 
 down in Ke Kiely, 13 0. R.. at p. 4.57, and in 
 Re Nasli and McCraken, 33 Q. B. 181, be- 
 cause, by requiring the consent of the owners 
 <if the adjoining buildings to lie obtained it con- 
 stituted these persons the judges of the riglit 
 asked for, and divested the council of the [lower 
 they should personally exercise, and by requiring 
 the approval of the chairman of the board of 
 works it permitted favouritism, and all persons 
 who desired to follow the sane trade were not 
 placed on the same footing It was also bad 
 Fiecauae it delegated in pare the exercise of the 
 judgment and disomtiou \,\\a,t sliould be exercised 
 bvthe enacting body alone under H. S. O. (1887) 
 (1887), c. 184, s.-'Oe, 8ub-s. 14. Reyinav. iVeh- 
 ster, 16 0. R. 187.-Chy. D. 
 
 The council also passed another by-l.<vw making 
 it unlawful to erect a steam-engine, etc., within 
 the village limits without the leave of the coun- 
 cil;— Held, that this by-law was also bad, and 
 unauthorized liy R. S. O. (1887), s. 4!)0, sub-s. 
 M, since it applied to all cases whether there 
 wag danger in causing or promoting fire or not. 
 lb. 
 
 The lOth sub-section of section 496 of the 
 Municipal Act, K. S. O. (1887). c. 184, as regards 
 walls of existing buildings, only applies to ex- 
 ternal walls thereof and not to internal walls, 
 
 and therefore municipal councils have no power 
 to prescribe of what materials or of what thick- 
 ness such internal walls should be. Sub-section 
 18 relating to party walls does not apply to 
 internal walls separating buildings belonging to 
 the same owner, for to constitute party walls 
 they should separate the adjoining properties of 
 different owners. Wliere, therefore, a by-law 
 was passed by the corporation of the city of H. 
 prescribing the materials and thickness of the 
 internal walls of every building, which, there- 
 fore, included existing buildings, and the defen- 
 dant was convicted thereunder, by reason of, in 
 till.' cour.se of dividing a building erected before 
 tlie passing of the by-law, and owned by him, 
 into tliree separate shops, making the dividing 
 walls of loss thickness than that prescribed by 
 the by-law, the by-law was held bad, and a con- 
 viction made thereunder was quashed. Rryiiia 
 \ v. Copp, 17 0. H. 738. -C. P. i). 
 
 10. Cab Staiid.1. 
 
 Wherej it was a<iiiiilted that a by-law was 
 within the power of a municipal council under 
 sub-section 46, s. 496 of the Municipal Act, 1883, 
 "for authorizing and for assigning stands for 
 vehicles kept for hire on the pulilic streets and 
 places," etc, the court refused to quash the by- 
 law on the ground, alleged by the applicant, 
 that the stand interfered with the view of the 
 falls from the hotel in question ; that the manure 
 on the stand was offensive, and the noise of the 
 hacknien a nuisance, these being matters of 
 municipal regulation, and the aid of the court if 
 successfully invoked, being an interference with 
 the discretion of the municipal council, and 
 especially so as the stand in question had been 
 there for twelve years, and maintained under 
 successive by-laws. Calbornev. Town oJ Niagara 
 Falh, 9 O. R. 168.— Rose. 
 
 11. GartK Used for Hire. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of a breach of a 
 by-law passed under section 4.36 ol R. S. O. 
 (1887) c. 184, which provided that no person 
 should, after the passing thereof, without a 
 license therefor, " keep or use for hire any 
 carriage, truck, cart," etc. The defendant was 
 the owner of waggons and horses which, at the 
 date complained of, were employed in hauling 
 coal and gas pipes for a gas company, for which 
 defendant w.is paid by the hour or day. The 
 defendant also engaged carts and horses which 
 he hired out to h.'ul earth, and which were so 
 being used on the day complained of : -Held, 
 that the defendant came within the terms of the 
 by-law, and was therefore properly convicted 
 thereunder. Rfglna v. Boyd, 18 O. R. 485. — 
 C. P. 1). 
 
 12. Closing Shopn. 
 
 A by-law passed by the town of A. under 
 section 2, sub-section 2 of the Ontario Shops 
 Regulation Act, fil Vict. c. .33 (Out.) provided, 
 section 1. That all shops, etc., where goods were 
 exposed or oflFered for sale by retail in the town, 
 should be closed at seven p.m. on each day of 
 the week, excepting Saturday, from the 15th 
 January to the loth September, etc. Section 3 
 provided that it should not be deemed an in- 
 
assvi" ' 
 
 1351 
 
 MUNICIPAL OORPOBATIONS. 
 
 1352 
 
 €sr. 
 
 fraction of the by-law for any sli(>[)keeper or i 
 dealer to supply any article after seven p.m., to 
 niarinera, owners or others of steanilioats or | 
 vessels calling or staying at the port of A. : — i 
 Held, that the hy-law was bad, for tliiit section ' 
 3 was illegal in disuriniiiiating lietwecn diQerent 
 classes of buyers, and dili'erent classes of trades- ' 
 men, and was in contravention of sub-section !) 
 of said section 2 of the Act. A conviction of 
 the defendant under the bylaw was therefore ! 
 quashed. Jieghia v. hlori/, 1" O. R. 715. — i 
 C. P. U. Hep 52 Vi, t4, s. 3 (Unt.) 
 
 13. D 
 
 Pover*. 
 
 See In re Macke.nzle and the Cit / of lirantjoid, 
 4 O. R. 381.'; p. IS'S ; Heijiiia w' Wcbiter, IC O. 
 R. R. 187, p. 13^'.:. 
 
 14. Draiiiaije of Lc.ndi. i 
 
 (a) Pd'Uioii. 
 
 A petition wna presented under section 529 of 
 the Municipal Act of 1877 for tiie draining of 
 certain lands, by constructing a diain in a cer- 
 tain direction and deepening a stream. The 
 petition was signed by eighteen persons, being a 
 majority of those shewn by the assessment roll to 
 be beuctited by tlie work, viz., thirty -three. A 
 resolution of the council was passed under which 
 surveys and estimates were made. Subseciuently 
 five of the petitionei's withdrew, some by peti- 
 tioning for a aimple clearing of the bed of the 
 stream and some by informing the council that 
 they would dig their own drains themselves. 
 By a subsequent petition three more desired to 
 do the work themselves. By another petition 
 seven interested persons desired to add their 
 names to those who were in favour of the work. 
 The names of the six of the original petitioners 
 remaining were not in the schedule to the by- 
 law of those to be Ijenelited. This left the num- 
 ber of petitioners at eleven. The council hav- 
 ing procured a second estimate, skewing that by 
 diverting the direction of the drain the work 
 could be done at less expense, passed a by-law 
 reciting that a nuijority of those to be benetit"d 
 had petitioned, and providing for the construc- 
 tion of the work according to the altered j>lans. 
 No debentures had been issued, nor contracts 
 let, when a nu)tion was made to quash the by- 
 law : — Held, that the by-law should be quashed : 
 for (1) the council had no power to authorize 
 the undertaking of any work other than that 
 petitioned for, and if that was impracticable or 
 too costly they should have refused the petition ; 
 (2) the petitioners had the right to withdraw at 
 any time after subscribing the petition, and be- 
 fore the contracts were let or the debentures 
 negotiated, while the council had control of the 
 matters, the preliminary surveys and estimates 
 being as much for the information of the peti- 
 tioners as of the council ; (3) a sufficient nundier 
 of petitioners having withdrawn to reduce the 
 number below the majority of those so to be bene- 
 fited, the by-law untruly recited that a majority, 
 etc., had petitioned. lieAlhtner v. Tovnrjhip 
 oj Waivjl<el, 46 Q. B. 457.— Wilson. 
 
 A petition for a drainage by-law was signed 
 by a mojority of the owners of the land desig- 
 nated in the petition, but the applicant was not 
 one of the petitioners, nor was his laud part, 
 
 nor did he reside on any part of the land des- 
 cribed in the petition, but the surveyor wljo 
 made the examination aud prepared the esti- 
 mates reported that his lands would be Ijcne- 
 fited by the works, and he was accordingly 
 assessed, and the by-law was finally passed :— 
 Held, that tlie by-law was valid. In re iVhili 
 and the. Townihip of Sandwich East, 1 0. li. 
 530.- -Cameron. 
 
 A by-law was passed by tho township of Mer- 
 sea, providing for tlie drainage of lauds in Mersea 
 ami Ronuiey, and assessing property owneis iu 
 both townsliips : — Hold, tliat the l)y-law was 
 invalid because the petition therefor did not de- 
 scribe the property to be benefited, and the 
 by-luw itself, which did shew tlie property to lie 
 benefited, disclosed that the petitioners were 
 not the majority of the owners of such projierty. 
 He Tuini-ihip ofliomney and Ton-nshqi oJ Mersea, 
 11 A. It. 712. 
 
 A petition of land owners under 46 Vict. c. 
 18, s. 570 (l{. S. (). (1887), c. 184, s. 56'J|, fortlie 
 construction of drainage works must include a, 
 niajiirity of all the persons found by tin; eiigi- 
 neer to i)e benefited by the proposed works and 
 not merely a majority of the persons mcntiuiieil 
 in the petition itself as being beuefiteil. Uiileaa 
 the petition is signed by snch majority the 
 council have no jurisdiction and a by-law found- 
 ed on a jietition not so signed is void and eannnt 
 be upheld even though valid on its face. If tlie pe- 
 tition is not signed by such majority the oppon- 
 ents of the bj'-law are not restricted tutliu mode 
 of objection given by sections 292 and '2'Xi of the 
 Act of 1883, (R. S. O. (1887), c. 184, ss. --'Ol, 'iOi), 
 but are entitled to attack the validity of liic liy- 
 law on this ground l>y an application to (]iiash 
 even after an unsuccessful appeal to the cuuneil. 
 Where a council know that a majority have not 
 signed though no evidence to prove this fact is 
 given by the opponents of the ljy-law, it is just 
 as much their duty not to pass the bj -law as if 
 its insufficiency had been proved after tlie most 
 elaborate investigation at the instance of jieisons 
 opposed to it and they have no right tu impose 
 upon the oi)ponents of the by-law as a term for 
 refusing to pass it, any condition as to payment 
 of expenses theretofore incurred Decision of 
 Street, J., (15 O. R. 423), reversed, in re Hub- 
 ertnon and the Toivn,ikiji uf' North Eatlliojie, IG 
 A. R. 214. 
 
 See Ber/i/ v. Towiinhip of Honthn'old, 6 (). li. 
 184, p. 1359; 7Vw».s/ii;) of West A'i.«oHri v. 
 ToirnMp of North Dorchester, 14 (). R. 494, 
 p. 1353; Township of Chatham v. 'J'uwnshiii of 
 Dover, 12 8. C. R. 321, p. 1356. 
 
 (b) Drains Extending through Several Mitnl'i- 
 paiUies. 
 
 The township of N., on the petition of seven 
 out of ten property owners, passed a by law 
 under 46 Vict, c. 18, sec. 570 (Out.), for con- 
 struction of a drain which was to extend through 
 the adjoining township of 1)., forming one entire 
 scheme of drainage through both townsliips. The 
 property owners directly aflfected by the work 
 were thirty-nine in D. and ten in N., and the 
 ratable ilivision of the cost of tiie work was 
 ?1,345 to be paid by N., and $5,725 by D. This 
 action was brought by Is', to compel I', to pass 
 a by-law under 46 Vict. c. 18, s. 581, to raise 
 
1352 
 
 }f the land dea- 
 3 surveyor who 
 jparcd the esti- 
 would be bene- 
 vas accordingly 
 inally passed ;— 
 I. In rt' White 
 I Eait, 1 0. 1!. 
 
 ownship of Mer- 
 E lauds in Mersea 
 iperty owners m 
 the by-law was 
 lefor dill not de- 
 netited, and the 
 lie property to be 
 petitioners were 
 uf 8U(,h property. 
 ciiship oj Mersfti, 
 
 mder 46 Vict. c. 
 14, s. oG'J), forthe 
 1 must include a 
 nd l)y the eugi- 
 poseil works ami 
 arsons nuiilioiied 
 Liuefited. Unless 
 oh majority the 
 I a bydaw found- 
 a void and cannot 
 its face. Iftliepe- 
 jority the oppon- 
 •icted to the mode 
 :l)2 anil 2m (if the 
 184, ss. •-'!)!, -.'yj), 
 •alidity of the by- 
 )lication to (piash 
 ;al to the cuuncil. 
 najority have not 
 prove thi.s fact is 
 Ijy-law, it is just 
 the by-law as if 
 ed after the most 
 istance of pui'sons 
 [) rigiit to impose 
 law as a term for 
 on as to payment 
 red decision of 
 irsed. in re lii'b- 
 ortli h'iistliojii', 16 
 
 onthii'old, t) 0. R. 
 
 K'c.s^ A'i«o«ri V. 
 
 , 14 C). K. 494,. 
 m V. Tuwiisliip of 
 
 Semal ^fl^ni■^■ 
 
 petition of sevcu 
 
 passed a by law 
 . (Out.), for con- 
 to extend through 
 forming one entire 
 thtown.-iliips. The 
 cted by the work 
 ;n in X., nud the 
 
 of the work was 
 f-), 725 by l>. This 
 
 (impel l>. til pass 
 8, s. 581, to raise 
 
 1353 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1354 
 
 its portion of the fund, which it refused to do : — 
 Held, (affirming the judgment of (ialt, J.), that 
 the case was not one contemplated by section 
 570 and following sections, but fell within sec- 
 tion 598, and the county council was the proper 
 authority to pass a by-law for the construction 
 of such a drain as that proposed : — Semble, that, 
 even under section 570, in cases where the drain- 
 age work extends beyond the limits of one town- 
 ship, a petition by the majority in number of the 
 persons to be benefited in part of the townships 
 is reipiired, the parts of both townships being 
 considered for the purpose of the Act as forming 
 a (piasi-uiuicipality for the projicr ilriiinage of 
 the particular locality, so that a majority of ,t11 
 tiiat section formed by the combined parts of the 
 two munieiijalitios may ask for, and if the coui - 
 ill of the uriginating towiishiii tiiinks proper, 
 (il)tain the needful relief. Corporation of l>ovti- 
 ,•. Cnrporation of ("hatliam, 12 S. C. R. ;i2l, 
 coniiuented on. Toinishi)) nf Went yis.s( iiri v. 
 Tuiniship of Xuiih Dotrlic.ita; 14 (>. R. 294.— 
 Cliy. D. 
 
 See Toirti.sliip (if Chiilhiim v. T(iii:if<ln/i of 
 Doni; 11 (). R. 248, p. I.S56; Towiixliii> of /Inr- 
 /oh v. Ci/i/ <if' JIamilloii, 17 A. R. 34(i, p. 1375. 
 
 (c) Ndtice and Publication of By-law. 
 
 The omission of the words "during the term 
 next ensuing the iinal passing of the by-law," 
 from the notice with regard to a drainage by- 
 law, under R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, s. 5.S1, does 
 not render the by-la,w invalid. /iV Mrljian and 
 the Tuwifhij) oj Op.i, 45 Q. H. 325. — Armour. 
 
 Where a by-law finally passed iliflers from 
 that published only in respect of changes made 
 in the asse.s.sment by the fourt of Revision and ^ 
 county judge, it is not necessary to )iiiblish sueii 
 hy law again after such changes. Hi. ' 
 
 A piiiposoil bj'-law of the township of Roches- ! 
 tei, ill the county of Essex, relating to drainage, 
 was puljlished in a newspaper in Windsor, a j 
 lari,'e town, and lor all other than judicial and ' 
 mniiicipal business, practically the coiintj" town, 
 and situate two miles from Sandwich, the county ; 
 town. 'I'liero was no newsi)a])er pulilished either i 
 in llochestei- or in Sandwich, or in the no.xt ad- 1 
 joining municipality; but there weie papers 
 pulilished in several small villages, somewhat 
 marer the township of Rocliester than Windsor, ! 
 but their circulation was much smaller in 
 Rochester than that of the Windsor paper: — ' 
 H< Id, that the publication was sufKcient; since ' 
 if the words "adjoining local municipality,'' as 1 
 used in 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 27, were construed 
 "next ailjiiining, etc," it would be impossible to 
 publish the by-law as directed by the Act; and 
 it did not form sufKcient ground of objection 
 thereto, that there were <ither papers a few 
 miles nearer to Rochester than Windsor was. 
 Re (lallcrno and the Township of Rochester, 40 
 Q. B. 279.— Wilson. 
 
 It was objected that no copies of the by-law 
 or notices attached were posted up as reijuired, 
 but the applicant knew of the by-law before it 
 passed, and appealed from his assessment to the 
 Court of Revision :^Held, that the olijection 
 should not be given effect to. In re White 
 and Township of Samlwirh t'a.it, 1 O. R. 530. — 
 Cameron. 
 
 See In re liohertmn and the Tommhlp of Xtirlh 
 Eaxthope, 15 O. R. 423, p. 1346. 
 
 (d) AmtHsment. 
 
 Where the engineer who made the asseMment 
 under a drainage by-law was not notified, and 
 was not present at ti ' Court of Revision, but 
 was present on the appeals therefronj to the 
 county judge, which were taken by all who ap- 
 pealed to the Court of Revision : — Held, no 
 ground fill' setting aside the by-law. lit Mr- 
 Li(m mill Ih" Tmruxhip of Ojii, 45 (^). R. 325. — 
 Armour. 
 
 The engineer is the jiropcr ])aity to make the 
 assessment. The principle on which the assess- 
 ments were iiiiide, of assessing against a whole 
 lot or a jiart of a lot owned by one person, when 
 only some of its acreage was benefited, the value 
 of such benetit : —Held, not erroneous ; and this 
 would at all events have formed no ground for 
 quashing the by-law, as this was a matter of 
 which complaint might have been made to the 
 Court of Revision. III. 
 
 On appeal to the rounty judge he rednced the 
 assessment on one lot by only half, the owner 
 F. ecmsenting, although according to the evi- 
 dence it shonld have been further reduced. In 
 distributing the amounts struck oil' among the 
 other properties assessed he added nothing to 
 the asses'snient of this lot, so fixed by consent, 
 but he certilied that the other owners were as- 
 sessed for less than they would have been but 
 for F.'s consent :~Held", that R. S. O. (1877), c. 
 174, s. 530, subs. 13, had been practically com- 
 plied with. Ill, 
 
 The arbitrators appointed by the idaintiflTand 
 defindant municipalities, on an appeal by the 
 dcfi'iidaiits from the re()ort of the survcyiT, 
 niailc an award pursuant to the Municipal Art, 
 whereby they adjudged that the deepening of a 
 creek, etc., Iienelited lands in the defendant 
 niuiiiiipality, and that the latter should p.iy 
 therefor $',\M ; but the award did not specify 
 the lands which in tiieir oiiiidoii were so brne- 
 lited, nor charge such lands with a just proimr- 
 tion of the cost of the works : — Meld, that for 
 this reason the award was invalid. Toirn"liip 
 of Thiirluirv. Tuirnthip of Sidney, 1 0. R. 249. — 
 Cameron. 
 
 Held, that the (piestion whether the lands are 
 in fact benefited is one for the court of revision, 
 or the 'judge of the County Court on ap|ieul 
 theiefrom. In re Wliile and the Tuwnitltip nf 
 .Siiiidii}irh F'^al, 1 0. R. 530.— Cameron. 
 
 Underthe drainage clauses of the^Iuiiicipal Act 
 a by-law was passed by the township of Chatham 
 founded on the report, plans and specifications 
 of a surveyor, made with a view to the drainage 
 of certain lands in that township. The by-law, 
 after setting out the fact of a petition for snch 
 work having been signed by a majority of the 
 ratepayers of the township to be benefited by 
 the work, vociteil the report of the surveyor, by 
 which it appeared that in order to obtain a suffi- 
 cient fall it was necessary to continue the drain 
 into the adjoining township of Dover. The 
 surveyor assessed certain lotsand roads in Dover, 
 and also the town line between Dover and 
 Chatham, for part of the cost as for benefit to 
 be derived by the said lots and roads therefrom 
 
1355 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 135S 
 
 CSS 
 
 ess 
 
 »:: 
 
 ■W..-II 
 
 90 
 09 
 
 The township of Dover appealed from this re- ] ally tliffer from the memoramhini signed at the 
 port, under section 583 of 40 Vict. c. 18, on the last meeting of the arbitrators. Essex r. Itoches- 
 grounds, inter alia, that a majority of the own- tcr, 42 Q. B. oSS, and Thurlow r. ^'idiicy, 1 0. 
 crs of proi)erty to bo benefited by the proposed ! H. 240, commented on. Held, also, in tlic Court 
 dniiiiiigc works had not petitioned for the eon- of Appeal, that the report of the surveyor, in- 
 struction of such work as rc(iuired by the stat- 
 
 tute ; tliat no proper reports, j)liinH, si)ecitica 
 tions, ussessnients and cstcuiiites of said pro])Oscd 
 work had been made and served as riM|iiiied 
 by law ; that the council of Chatiiam, oi- the 
 siiiveyor, had lui power to assess or charge 
 the lands in l)ovcr for the puri)oscs stated in 
 
 corporated in the by-law, sufficiently shewed the 
 termini of the proposed work, and that uiidei- 
 the circumstances it was not open to the objec- 
 tions that it did not expressly state that the 
 work was to be constructed at the expense nf 
 both townships and in what ])r()portioiis, and 
 that it deteiinined, in apparent disregard of sec 
 
 the said report and by law : and tiiat tlu^ re- tion ."I'll, that the work was to be kept in repair 
 port did not specify any facts tn show that liy t'hatliam at the jointexpensc of Ciiatliani and 
 the council of Chatham, or their surveyor, had { T)<ivi;r. Osier, . I. A., dissenting. On appeal to thi' 
 any authority to assess the lots (jr roads in Supreme Court of Canada : — Held, Kiteliie C. .1. 
 Dover for any part of tlie cost of tlie juoposed , dissenting, that the awai'd should have lieeu sci 
 woik ; that the assessment upon lots and roads asi(UMi|)iin tlu; grouiul that it was not shown thiit 
 in Dover was much too higli in jjroportion to ! a petition for tlie projiosed work was sigiitd liv 
 imy benefit to be derived from tlie |)ro|)<)sed a majority of the owners of the property tn liV 
 work, and that no assessment whatevri' should ; benelited thereby, so as to give to the corjioni- 
 
 be ina<le on the lands or roads in Dover, as the 
 work would, in fact, be an injury thereto, and 
 that the report did not sullicuently sjiecify 
 the beginning ami end of the work, nor the 
 manner in which Dover was to be benefited. 
 Three arbitratois weie appointed under the 
 provisions of the Act, and at their last meeting 
 they all agreed that the township of Dover 
 would be beneliteil l)y the work, but R. V., one 
 of the arbitrators, thought !?.")()() should be taken 
 olf the town line, and W. I)., another of the 
 arbitrators, held that while the bulk sum 
 jissesscd was not too great, the asscssiueut on 
 the respective lands and roads, and parts, 
 thereof, should be varied, but that this was a 
 matter for the Court of Uevision. A memo- 
 randum to this eflTecl was signed by \V. D. ami 
 A. K., the third arbitrator, at the foot of 
 which 1! 
 dissented 
 
 adjourned meeting to sign the award, " if | and expressed their intention to li" to siihniit 
 Ml accordance with the .^bove menuiianda." i that to the Court of licvisiou. — That the ailii- 
 Later on the same day, W. D. and .A. Iv nu^t ■ trators should havi^ allowed the appeal to tlitiii 
 and signed an award iletermining th.it the j against the surveyor's assessment, and that tlnii 
 the hull 
 
 tion of Chatham jurisdiction to enter the town 
 ship of Dover and do any work therein. -That 
 the arbitrators should have adjudicated, nimn 
 the merits of the appeal, against the ..several 
 assessments on thi^ lots and roads assessed, as 
 their award was, by sections 400 and 40H of 4(1 
 Vict. c. 18, maile final, subject to appeal enlv 
 to the High Court of Justice, aiul it was not a 
 matter for the Court of Revision to deal « itii at 
 all as held liy one of the arbitrators. -That the 
 award shonlil have been set aside because it did, 
 in point of fact, as it stood, profess to be a final 
 adjudication ag.inst the Township of Dover updii 
 all the grounds of appeal stated in the notice of 
 ajipeal, and <'id in ]ioiut of fact charge every one 
 of the lots and roads so assessed with the preoisu 
 amount assessed upon them respectively, al- 
 though, by a minute of the proceedings of the ai 
 V. signed a memorandum that he : bitrat(us who signed the award, it appeared that 
 ind declined to be present at the ; they refused to render any award upon such (mint 
 
 H and roads in Dover, 
 made by the sui vey<ii'. 
 
 assessment on 
 and on the town line 
 
 should be sustained .-ind couliiincd, and that tiie 
 appeal shoidd be dismissed, and that the .several 
 grounds mentioned in the notice of appeal had 
 not been sustained. The (,>ueen"s Bench Divi- 
 sion set aside this award on the two grounds, 
 namely, of want of coucuning minds in the 
 arbitrators, and of defect in the surveyor's re- 
 port in not showing s|)ecitically the beginning 
 of and end of the work. (■> (). R. 32.').) The 
 juilgnieiit of Cameron. C. .).,w,is sustaineil l^y the 
 Court of Appeal. 1 1 A. K. '-HS. I'er Hagarty, 
 C. J. O., and Osier, .J. that the award was bad 
 (a) asforniallysanctioningand coiilirming the par- 
 ticularassessineuts on lands and roads and the town 
 line, instead of the aggregate amount assessed, 
 the latter being the only awanl conteiii)iIated at 
 the last meeting, at which all three arbitrators 
 were present: (b) because one of the arbitrators 
 
 had recorded his dissent from the adjustment or 
 
 scheme of assessment, and yet by the award 
 
 purported to sanction or affirm it. Per Burton 
 
 and P.atterson, iT.I. A., contra, that the duty of 
 
 the arbitrators was eonlined to ascertaining the j and alterations made, but the by-law was not 
 
 correctness of the proportions payable by eaidi ! amended before being fluiilly passed so as to 
 
 i award should also have been set aside on tlie 
 
 merits, liccause tin; evidence not only failed tip 
 
 show any beuelit which the lots or roads in 
 
 Dover, which weii! assessed, would receive frum 
 
 the |)roposeil work, but the evidence of the sin- 
 
 I veyor himself showed that he ilid not assess 
 
 ; them foi any benefit the work would confer iiiimi 
 
 I them, but for reasons of his own which were 
 
 I not sudieient under the statute and did not war 
 
 ' rant them to be assessed. '/'oiriishi/> nf Clialhtm 
 
 V. Toinifhipof Dorcr, 12 S. C. It. .'J21. 
 
 I Held, u))on the true conatructioii of the 
 
 \ drainage sections of the Municipal .Act, that 
 
 [when drainage works are extended and contin- 
 
 j ued into an adjoining townshii) beyond the limits 
 
 j of the township in which they arc coiiiinenccil, 
 
 the roads in the former township and the town 
 
 line are liable to be assessed in jiroportiontotlio 
 
 benelits derived by them therefrom Osier, d. 
 
 A., dissenting. S. V.,\\ A. ' >. '.'48. 
 
 In a drainage by-law the assessments as made 
 by the engineer, contained in the schedule to the 
 by-law, were revised by the court of revision. 
 
 township ; that all other objections as to t 
 amounts of the assessment were for the court of 
 revision, and that the award did not substanti- 
 
 correspond with such alterations as required hy 
 section 57 1, sub-section 2, of the Municipal Act 
 of 1S83, and it was impossible to discover from 
 
1357 
 
 MUNICIPAL OOBPORATIONS. 
 
 1358 
 
 the alterations a8 made, the amount of the 
 "total special rate" against each lot or part of 
 lot, aii<l therefore the amount to he annually 
 levied, to hu ascertained l>y dividing «uoh total 
 special rate hy the number of years thebylaw 
 has to run, wliich in this case was fifteen years : 
 .-Held, tl'.at the defect was fatal to the hy-hiw. 
 The locus standi of the a|ip1icant herein was oh- 
 jceted to, but on the evidence, the fibjcctiou 
 was overruled. In re Fuvxton ami the Towiishii> 
 of Tilhnrtj Eait, 11 (), R. 74.— O'Connor. 
 
 The allowance in the engineer's report of a 
 lump sum as "chargeable to municipality for 
 roads'" wassufficiently definite, there l)e,.,g )fdy 
 one munici|)ality concerned. He Kascx and 
 Rochester, 42 Q. B. 523, distinguisheil. Tlie 
 engineer, having himself made an inspection 
 of each lot and cstimatiid how much each wouM 
 be l)enetited by the drain, might jirojjerly dele- 
 gate to an assistant the duty of malviug a calcu- 
 lation upon the basis establislicd by him. In re 
 llnhfr/ioii find Township of North KdKllwji' , I.") 
 0. R. 4'J!.1.— Street. 
 
 On the 21st September, 1H6S, a by-law was 
 passed by the township council under tln^ i)ro- 
 visions of tiie Municipal Aot of lS(l(i -2!» and .SO 
 Vict. c. ol , ss. 2H I an<l 2S2 -for the const I'lict ion of 
 (among other drains) ttie M. drain, and the drain 
 was thereupon constructed. On the lUh Dcceni- 
 l)cr, 1883, the township council pas.sed a l)y-Iaw 
 for repairing and cleaning tliis chain, and directed 
 that the amount rccpiired for this purpose should 
 be assessed and Itjvied on the lands assessed for 
 the original construction of the drain. On tlie 
 2l8t September, 1886, another by-law was passed 
 to change, in accordance with the report of an 
 engineer, the assessment ma<le for the original 
 construction of the M. drain so as to enable the 
 assessment for repairing anil idcaning the drain 
 to be made more equitably, and a new assessment 
 for repairing the drain was adopted. This assess- 
 ment for re)iairing ami cleaning the drain was 
 limited to the lands assessed for the orii^iual 
 construction of tlie drain, although the engineer 
 in his report pointed out that large tracts of laud 
 not assessed for the original Cfmstruction of tlio 
 drain were now benefited by it : — Hidd, that tiui 
 provisions of the Act of 186',>, — ,32 Vict. c. 43, s. 
 17,— as to maintenance and repair, (now R. S. (). 
 1887 c. 184, 8. ,^83 {!),) are not 'ctroactive, and 
 do not a))ply to drains constructed before tlu! 
 date of that enactment ; and that therefore the 
 township council had no power to pass the by- 
 law in question. Per Ilagarty, C. J. O. — Tiio 
 by-law was also bad because the assessment for 
 repairs was limited to the lots assessed for the 
 original construction of the drain, and did not 
 embrace the lots subsequently benefited. I'er 
 Burton, .J. A. — .Assuming the case to come within 
 the Act of 1800, the assessment was properly 
 limited to the lota assessed for the original con- 
 struction of the drain. Decision of liobertson, .1. 
 (14 0. I!. 598), afhrmed on other grounds. In 
 re. Clark and the Township of Howard, 10 A. R. 
 
 In 1886, an application was ma<le to the Chan- 
 cery Division to quash the by-law passed in 
 1883, which was heard in Decendier, 1886, and 
 judgment delivered in February, 1887, declar- 
 ing the by-law to be a void proceeding. The 
 by-law in question was passed on 21st Septem- 
 ber, 1886 : — Quoire, whether this by-law was 
 
 thereby rendered invalid. .S". C, It 0. R. 51)3. - 
 Robertson. 
 
 The owner of certain lands in the defendant'* 
 township thnnigh wliich a drain luid been niadi! 
 by them under the drainage sections of the 
 Municipal Act, made a claim for damages, upon 
 which an arl)itration was had and coni|ieMsatiou 
 awarded him, it being shewn tluit it would be 
 necessary to construct a bri<lge to cross bis 
 farm ; to put u)) and maintain flood gates ; and 
 that he was deprived of about three and a-half 
 acres of laud ; — Held, that the case ciime within 
 sections 5(11-2 of the Mnincipal Aitt, I8S7, under 
 which he was entitled to the coiiipciisation 
 awarded, which must be assessed on the land* 
 lial)le to assessment for the drainage work. /" 
 re /ii/rni'. and Toirnxhip of Itnchislir, 17 O. K. 
 354.— ('. l\ I). 
 
 See liiijij v. 'I onmsh'ip oj Sonihwuld, (i (). li. 
 184, 1). l;i.")!) ; 111 ri; Clark v. Toirnshiji o/' How- 
 ard, '.) (). R. .570. p. 1300; Atixandn- v. Toini- 
 ■shi/> o)' l/oiriin/, U (). R. 22, p. i:!0(); />:'/on v. 
 TowiiMp of l!al< iqh, 13 A. H. .".3; 14 S. ('. K. 
 739, J). I.'r>9. 
 
 (e) Othi-r Co-te.-:. 
 
 Where, on the petition of tlie plaintitl' and 
 
 other ratei)ayer.-i, a township corpoiation had 
 
 passed a by-law for the construction oi the B 
 
 drain, and the assessment of the lauds to be 
 
 beuelit'id thereby, ))art of whicli the jdaintilV 
 
 owned, but the dr.dn had not been coiuplcted, 
 
 thongii a rcasoiuvble time had elip<ecl, and a 
 
 portion of the moneys assessed had been apj)lied 
 
 upon a certain other drain, not mentioned in the 
 
 petition, the report of tiie public land surveyor 
 
 made pursuant to R. S. O. (1877), e. 174, s. 529, 
 
 or in the said bylaw, and of no value to the 
 
 said petitioners ; — Held, that the plaintill' was 
 
 entitled to an order coniiiclling the corjiDration 
 
 1 to com|)lete tlu; B drain at^cording to the by-law, 
 
 ; to an injunction to restrain fuitlior mi.sapplica- 
 
 S tion of the moneys assessed, .and to an account 
 
 I thereof, for that the by-law created a trust 
 
 wdiich had been violated : — Held, also, that the 
 
 ! plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action 
 
 I without the attorney-general. Held, also, that 
 
 ] the fact tliat tlu: moneys so assessed, were so 
 
 1 diverted pui'suant to a resolution of the couueil, 
 
 ! j)assed in accordance with a proun.'<e made to 
 
 certain of the petitioners for the B. ilraiii. who 
 
 I signed such petition and submitted to assessment 
 
 I on the faith of such promise, w.as no justification 
 
 I of such diversion: — Held, lastly, that this was 
 
 not a case for arbitration, or, at all events, not 
 
 a case in which the i)laiutitl' was bonuil to pro- 
 
 i ceed in that numner. Sniilh v. 'J'on-nnliip of 
 
 ! Ii'aleiij/i, 3 O. R. 405.— Chy. 1». 
 
 ' A by-law passed for raising the unpaid por- 
 
 I tion of the expense of cleaning out and repairing 
 
 I a dr.ain, otherwise good on its face, was object- 
 
 • ed to on the ground that while the resolution 
 
 I and by-l.aw authorizing the work to be done 
 
 : were for such cleaning and repairing only, the 
 
 work actually done included ileepening, which 
 
 it was contended could only be done by petition 
 
 therefor uiulcr section 570 of the Municipal Act. 
 
 It appeared that the drain, if deepened, which 
 
 was not free from doubt, was done accidentally, 
 
 and not by design. Under the circumstances, 
 
 the objection being without merits, and as much 
 
1359 
 
 MUNIOIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1380 
 
 est 
 
 ».X 
 
 u» 
 
 inconvenience would ensue if the by-law wns 
 (|ii.isiii'il, nn !i|iiiiit'ation tiieivfor w.ih refused ; 
 lint apart from tliis :— Quaere, wliether under 
 Hci'tions 570, 589, of the Municipal Act, 188,3, 
 and 45 Vict. c. 2(i, 17 (Ont. ), tiie municipality 
 had not pow<!r without petition to do such work, 
 incluiling deepening, as might be inuidcntul to 
 maintaining tlie drain in an efficient state. A 
 furtiier objection that the assessment was alter- 
 ed without notice, and witiiout affording an op- 
 ]]ortuiiity to appeal was disallowed, the evidence 
 laiiing to establisli any sucli alteration. Hiu/i/ v. 
 Toiviithijt of SiiKthfuld, (JO. R. 184. — Uose!' 
 
 On the )i;tition of the idaintinfand other rate- 
 piyers in the towiisliip of IJahigh, the municii)al 
 ciiiiii'il piissi'd a by-l;iw for the construction of 
 tlu^ Kersey diain and tile assessment of tlie lands 
 which wiiulil be benctited thereby, amongst 
 others tlinsc (if the ))lidntilf; and in pursuance 
 (if su'h by law the amount estimited to be re- 
 ((iiisitc for the execution of i\\r work «as raised 
 liysucli assessment. After the drain had licen 
 (■o}istiuct(!il und accepted by t\w council from 
 til" contractors .is ciim|ileted, a lialance remained 
 in the handsof tin! inniucipality of alxmt .^'JiOOd, 
 which, in c.impliance with a iictition presiMit('(l 
 by th(! plaintilTand other contril)utories to the 
 fund, w.is rcfundiMl ratably to tlnin. The |)l.iin- 
 tiffhad hiniself been allotted a section of the 
 Work for construction, and had been \)aid there- 
 for, althongli he iiad not fully curried ont his 
 cimtract. Subse(pii'ntly, and after the defen- 
 dants had .so dislinrsed tlie full amount of such 
 as<i's<iiicnt, (he |)laiiiti(r claimed to have discov- 
 ered that the di'ain liad not been ])ropcrly con- 
 structed according to the plans, specitications, 
 and proliles of the engineer employed to lay ont 
 the same, and sought on behalf of liimself and 
 other ratepayers to compel the inuiiicii)ality to 
 eomiilcte the drain ac(.'ording to such iilans, 
 etc. : -Held, reversing tlu,' judgment of Ferguson. 
 J., tint the plaintitT bi'ing himself a defaulter in 
 the pcifdiniance of his contract and having licon 
 a ]iarty to |)roiuriiign distribution of the sur|ilus 
 of the fund «hich otherwise might have been 
 devoted to att lining the object sought by him, 
 could not re(|Mire the council to execnt(! work 
 wliicii they had not the means to pay for. 
 Dillon V. Toinixhlj, „/ IMelqh, 13 A. R. 53. See 
 .S", C, 14 ,S. C. R. 73!». 
 
 Sections .■)70, 574, 584, 5H7, 5S9, 502 of the 
 Municipal Act 4() Vict. c. 18 (Ont.), relating to 
 the powers of Municipal councils as to drainage, 
 etc., considered and exidained. X. C, 13 A. H. 
 53. 
 
 A by-L-nv which varies from the iirovisions of 
 a statute in matters affecting the riglits of jiro- 
 perty and of taxation is invalid. A by-law 
 therefore defining the duties of insjiectors of 
 drains and enacting ( 1 ) Tiiat obstructions wilfully 
 jilaced in drains should be removed by the jiarties 
 placing them there or at their ex|ieuse, witliont 
 regai'd to whether such jiarties owned the lands 
 through or between which such drains were 
 situate ; (-) That if such obstructions were re- 
 moved by tiie council the cost should, on com- 
 pletion of the work, be ))aid by tiie council, 
 instead of enacting that it should be so paid only 
 in the event of the party chargeable with the 
 obstruction failing to do so ; (.3) That if paid by 
 the council the amount of such cost should be 
 charged on the collector s roll against the lands 
 
 of the party chargeable, instead of only against 
 the party liimself ; (4) Because no appeal' was 
 provided for against such charging of such coat 
 upon the collector's roll, was (piashed with costs. 
 In rf Clark mill the Toivii^lii/) of Hoii'ard, QQ 
 R. 570.— (J'Connor. 
 
 Section "iS9 of the Cons(didated Municipal 
 Act. 1883, 4(5 Vict. c. 18 (Out.), does not iintlinr- 
 i/.e the passing of a by-law for cleaning outer 
 improving a drain without the due obscrvanitu 
 
 j of the formalities nienti(med or referred to in 
 se(!tion 584. It must lie read in conjuiictidii 
 
 j with the respective sections mentioned in it, 
 Alr.fdiiili'f v. '/'iiii'ii>'li!/i of lliiii''iril. —Citlliiiiithw 
 'J'oiriiiliii/ (ij Jfanrif/i, 14 O. I!. '-''J. — Feigu^on, 
 
 Where, the defendants purixirted to im^s 
 and act upon a bylaw for the chaniu'.,' out 
 or improvement of the .\Ic(l. diviiii, ami tli.> 
 assessment of certain persons for the iiei'(.s.sary 
 costs, and this without any petition licint! Pfc- 
 ' sented therefor, or any assessment of an engi- 
 neer, or any stateuuMit by an engiucei' of tlie 
 proiioition of beutlit to be derived fniin tin; 
 1 work by any lot or ])ai'L of n lot of land, and 
 without )iubli.shing the by-law or assessment, or 
 the holding of any court of revision to which 
 appeals from the proposed assessment might he 
 made :-^- Held, that such by-law was imautlior- 
 ized and illegal, and that b(;iiig a void ]iinceeil- 
 iiig an attack njion it was not prevented hy 
 ; sees. 333. 335. or 340 of 4(1 \'ict. c. 18 (Ont.) :i's 
 to (piasliing by-laws ; and also that though tlie 
 ])laintitfs in this action were not nioviuL' tiKniash 
 ' the by law or suing for damages under it, lint 
 , onlv asking (or a declar.ition that it Wiis illeg.il, 
 ' and an order restraining the defembints from 
 i collecting from them the assessment thercnndcr, 
 ' anil com|ielliiig tliein to remove the charge thern- 
 i under upon tlu^ jilaintitl's' lands, they were eii- 
 , titled to have it de(dar(!d (hat they were not 
 I liable to pay the assessments against them iiiuler 
 the by-law in ()nestioii, on the ground that the 
 same was illegal and a void proceeding. Ih. 
 
 I The pl.iintiffs brought this action as land- 
 I owners injuriously affected by certain drainage 
 ] works of the defendants and the assessments 
 I made under by-laws ndating to the same, seek- 
 ! ing damages and other ndief : -Held, that there 
 j was no misjoinder of plaintiffs, nor was it iiioniii- 
 ! bent on the plaintiffs to su(^ on behalf of any 
 I others, and also that the plaintiffs had the right 
 thus to proceed by way of action and not of arhi- 
 
 I tration. Ih. 
 
 I 
 
 A by-law, founded on the usual petition, was 
 passed by defendants for the drainage of certain 
 lands in the township, .and a contract tlierefer, 
 under defendants' corporate seal, entered into 
 
 ] with iilaintiff for the construction of the drain. 
 The depths re([uired were marked on the pro- 
 files forming jiart of the contract. I5etween 
 certain points where the deepest excavation was 
 
 I re(iuired, the drain was to be tiled and covereil. 
 .-\fter the plaintiff had proceeded some distance 
 
 ; between these points, the defendants' engineer, 
 under who.se (lersonal direction the work was 
 being done, discovered that the depths were 
 
 ', inaccurately given and that the drain was not 
 deep enough betwen the said points, and he di- 
 
 ' lected the drains to be deo|iened and the tiles, 
 so far as laid, to be taken up and relaid at the 
 
 I increased depth, thereby occasioning to the 
 
1360 
 
 1361 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1362 
 
 I of only atjainst 
 J MO appeal was 
 ling of Hiicli cost 
 asliL'il with costs. 
 of //oirani, 9 U. 
 
 lilted Municiprtl 
 idoasiiotiuithor- 
 ' I'leiiiiiii),' out or 
 ■ line "Iwii-vaiUT 
 )!■ rfforcfcl toil! 
 1 ill c'oiijiiuctidii 
 lU'iitioiuMl in it. 
 r(l.—(lnll,i(,ith\\ 
 --• — i'V'igiwon. 
 
 I'portcd to pi«s 
 
 lii^ c'liiiiiin;' out 
 
 ilriiii, iinil tli.> 
 
 'or the ncccssiii'y 
 
 tition hfini; pro- 
 
 iiiont of xiu t'ligi- 
 
 (■iii,'iiii,'fr of the 
 
 I'livi'd from tile 
 
 lot of liuid, anil 
 
 (1- iiHSfssiiiLMit, or 
 
 oviNioii to wliieh 
 
 ^siiiunt might he 
 
 iv was niiautiioi-- 
 
 11 void ))mi'ce(l- 
 
 it prcvciifcd Ijy 
 
 .. c. IM (()nt,):i's 
 
 that thoiigli the 
 
 nioviiii.' to (plash 
 
 I's uiidci- it, lint 
 
 at it wa.s illeg.il, 
 
 defend lilts from 
 
 lent thoi'eiiiulcr, 
 
 the ehargii tiieri!- 
 
 they Were eii- 
 
 thoy were not 
 
 linst them inuler 
 
 ground that the 
 
 eoding. //). 
 
 iictiou as land- 
 eertaiu dr.ainage 
 the asse.ssinents 
 
 I the .same, seck- 
 llcld, that there 
 lor was it iiienin- 
 
 II l>ehalf of any 
 tl's had tiie right 
 I and not of arhi- 
 
 ml petition, was 
 linage of certain 
 iiitraet therefor, 
 ■ill, entered into 
 on of the drain, 
 ked on tiie pro- 
 lilct. Ik'tweell 
 ; excavation was 
 eil jind covereil. 
 d .some distance 
 uits' engineer, 
 1 the work was 
 ho dei)ths were 
 e drain was not 
 ints, and he di- 
 id and the tiles, 
 ml relaid at the 
 sioning to the 
 
 plaintiff conaiderftble work beyond that pro- 
 vided for by the eoiitraut. lly ainendnicut>< to 
 the Municipal Acta, couneilH, in the cane of 
 drainage works, are anthori/.od to make an 
 assessment npon the property of those benefited 
 when the nieans jirovided are not BUtliciont ; 
 iiiid any damages recovered in proceeding.s ro- 
 snecting such works are to be charged against 
 the lands beneiited. It was i)r()ved that the 
 work done was absolutely neees.sary, for with- 
 out it tiie drain would have been nselcHS. No 
 formal resolution of the council was |iaHscd 
 Huthoii/ing thi.s work to bo done, nor was tiicrn 
 :iuy contract therefoi' under the eori>orati! sisal, 
 ill an action against defendants to recos er the 
 value of such wink: -Ueld, by tlieC. I'. I). (loO. 
 I!, soil), that the defendants were liable th(!refor. 
 .\il appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed, 
 witii costs, tiie court lieiiig of o)iinioii that the 
 work in ipiestiou was work that tlie |)laiiiliir was 
 hound to ])crform under tile contract itself: — 
 (jtua're, whether the work in (|Ucstion was in any 
 event "necessary" in siicli a scn.se as to impose 
 iiiiliiiity for payment therefor upon a inuniciiial 
 corporation witliout an express contract. The 
 decision of the C. I'. I), upon tliis point doul)ted. 
 <lrem v. Tou-iixliip o/' UrI'urd, 10 A. 11. 4. 
 
 .See III )•!• liriirl; niid lli< Citji of Turnntd, 45 
 (^. li. .")3, II 1.'174 ; //( )'r l(7ii/r itud ilv Toiruih!/) 
 of SuiiihnrI, AVwr, 1 (). H. oTO, ](. i:!,V_»: V,ni 
 himoiid V. 'I'oini of Sdifiiflh, (i (). I!. .">!!!) : 'I'oini- 
 4ij)of lliir/oii V. Citjinf lluiiiilh,}!, ISO. R. lOK, 
 |i. 1375; III- Mi'Citnii'vh riiiil Tiiirii-i/ii/i iil lloir- 
 on/, ISO. I!. •-'00, p. I:i44. 
 
 15. E.i:enij>/ioii Jrom Tfuatlnii. 
 
 C. applieil to the corporation of the town of 
 .Meaford for a lease of a certain lot of laud owned 
 by the corporation, alleging that he and others 
 proposed to erect thereon a mill and other build- 
 ings for the purpose of carrying on the business 
 of allouraml grist mill, and a general grain Imsi- 
 ness; tliey jjetitioned also for exemption from 
 ta.vation upon tlic mill for ten years. Under a 
 by-law passed the 4th of March, ISSo, a lease to 
 the applicants was executed by the corpor.ition 
 of the lot in (jue.stion for twenty-one years, re- 
 serving a nominal rent, and containing covenants 
 on the jjart of the lessees in reference to the 
 nature of the building.s to be erected, to pay 
 taxes and other provisions. Another by-law w;is 
 subsequently passed exemiiting the " manufactur- 
 ing establisli-ient of C. and others (naming tlie;n), 
 established for the piir|)osc of carrying on the 
 milling and grain merchant business, including 
 the lands leased, etc., and the mill and all Imild- 
 ings and property to be erected and placed npon 
 the said land for the purpose of the said busi- 
 ness," subject to the performance by the lessees 
 of the stiimlations in the le.ase as to maintaining 
 and working the mill. Upon the faith of this 
 by-law and lease, C. and others, the lessees, pur- 
 chased a large amount of material, and entered 
 into building contracts for the purpose of erect- : 
 ingthe proposed mill, and proceeded to erect the 
 same, and further contracted for the purchase 
 of machinery, the whole involving an outlay, as 
 was alleged, of some $17,000. Upon the 20th of 
 July following the council by by-law I'epealed 
 the by-law exempting from taxation. Upon an 
 application by C. and others, to quash the repeal- 
 ing by-law, upon the ground that the same was | 
 
 I a fraud upon the applicants and a breauh of con- 
 tract, it appeared that thoie were other tax- 
 p:iyers of tiie same town eiigagiMl in the same 
 business, and having large amounts of capital 
 invested therein, whose interests weri' injuriously 
 alFected by thu repealed liy-lavv : llehi (1) that 
 inasmuch as tiie applicants were treated in the 
 lease and l)y-law as carrying on two distinct 
 kinds of business, viz. : tlie manufacturing or 
 milling business, and tlie general grain merchant 
 
 \ liusiness, tlie lirst only of which tlie lonncil had 
 power to exempt from taxation, the by-law ex- 
 empting from taxation was bad; {'2) that the by- 
 law was also bad in exem|iMiig all t he land leased, 
 and not the mill only, from taxation, as other 
 buildings, suitable aloin.' for the grain business, 
 might be erected thereon; (IM the fact that other 
 largi! milling estaldisliments within the same 
 miiiiici|iality were (liscriminated against also 
 made the by-l,iw illegal ami bad (4) tlie repealed 
 liy-hiw being tlioi'efore illeg.il, the council had a 
 right to repeal, or to go through the form of re- 
 pealing it in order to pn^vent trouble and <!X- 
 pense. I'cujilc'.t MiHimi Cii. mrl ('uiiiicit i>j' Mtn- 
 
 font, lOO. R. -K»5.-tn'onnor. 
 
 The Muuiciiial Act of IMS.?, section .3(18, as 
 amended by 47 Vict. c. H;?, s. >S (Out.), anthorizi'S 
 a municipal council to exempt ",iiiy manufactur- 
 ing estal)lishm('nt, in whole or in |iarl, from taxa- 
 tion for any period not longer than ten years." 
 .A liy-law of the town of P. iveited that a com- 
 [lany had ac(|uircd several water jirivileges on 
 the river ()., and iiitiiiided iUv(doping same by 
 erecting thereon factorii s of dilfcrent ilescrip- 
 tions ; and it was advisabl • in the int(!rests of 
 the town that the privilegi's, immunities and 
 exemptions thereinafter miMitioncd .should be 
 granted. It further recited that the total assess- 
 ment of the said water ))i'ivileges and the lands 
 in connection therewith amounted to IJ.'iO.OdO. 
 The by-law then enacted that the aggregate 
 assessment of the said properties should bo and 
 remain for ten years at .'?5lt,000 ; and tl e 
 assessors from time to time were rciinirod i > 
 assess the .same at said sum, notwithstanding 
 the erection of any buildings thereon :— Held, 
 not a by-law within the said section as amend- 
 ed ; and also that it w.is opposed to (lublic policy 
 and morality in directing the .assessors from time 
 to time to limit their assessment. In re Detiiie 
 ami Ih' Town oj rcfi'rhorouijh, 10 O. R. 767.— 
 O'Connor. 
 
 A by-law valid on its face was passed by a 
 municipal corporation with the prescribed for- 
 malities under 47 Vict. e. .3'2, s. S (Ont.), for 
 exempting tlic manufacturing establishments of 
 one T. for the |) M-iod of ton years. At the time 
 of its passing some negotiations had taken place 
 between the Canada Southern Railway and the 
 authorities of the corporation for the constrne- 
 tion of a spur or switch from their railway into 
 the town. It was proposed on the part of the 
 railway that the town sliould furnish the right 
 of way and contribute 81,800 towards the con- 
 struction, involving, as it was stated, an expen- 
 diture of over .SH.OOO. The council being un- 
 willing to submit a by-law to the people, 'I',, 
 the largest ratepayer in the town, suggested 
 that if his manufacturing establishments were 
 exempted from taxation for ten years, the tax^is 
 thereon amounting to about iJ'iSO a year, he 
 would himself furnish the right of way and con- 
 
^^fflEPi"'^ 
 
 1383 
 
 MUNICIPAL OORPORATIONS. 
 
 1 
 
 919 
 
 en 
 
 9t> 
 
 struct tlie switch, Tho by-law wum accordingly 
 pasHiMl upon tliiM undurHtiindiiig, u,iid T. pro- 
 ceudud with uiid coiiiplotcd tiic uork : - Hold, 
 aHirining tho jiidgiiDiit of the court Ixdow (10 
 (). 11. 11!)), liiirtoii, d. A., (liMscnting, timt the 
 hy-ittw wiiH an oviision of tho Ntatuli', and thciu 
 foro illegal and void : I'cr Ihiiton, d. A.- That 
 the huihiing of tiio Hwitch in <|m'Mtion wuh an 
 uxtunaion or iniprovenient of the nianula(.'tnrhig 
 tj8tuhlii*hnient.s of T,, not diHMiniilui- in prinii|iie 
 from that winch in UNnidiy looked for (where 
 oxuinptionx of thia kind are granted), vi/. , tiie 
 expenditure of the taxes in tlie inereane of tlie 
 iiianufaetory, difUring only in tliiM, that the 
 benefit was not eontineil to his own cHtalilisli- 
 ineiitH ; that at) the exciii|ition ndglit liave l)een 
 granted niero inotii of tlio coum il, the mure 
 uircuniHtanco that tlie nianufaituier agreed to 
 make an iniprov(Mnent, wliich was a public aH 
 well as an individual bcnelit to himself and IiIh 
 own manufactories, could not invalidate it ; tlial 
 the case was not l)rouj,'lit within the .sections 
 giving power to the courts suniniariiy to (|uash ; 
 and that even if tlie courts had [lower to deal 
 with the question sumnuirily it was a case in 
 which in the exercise of disiMition it should not 
 bo Bxercisi'd after the work had been coniplclcd ; 
 mid- Qna're, whether tlie iiroper couisc would 
 not have been to aiiply for an iiijuuctiiui. Sivll 
 V. Curjiordlioii of TUsuxliniij, \',\ .\. li. 'l'X,\. 
 
 l(i Kx/iiopiiii/ioii ('/ LiiikI. 
 
 A liy-hiw passed by a nniuiripal coi'iinratiou 
 eiinnot have the cli'cct of taking any lands of 
 the crown in addition to those appropriated by 
 the crown for the purpose of highways in ordir 
 to the opening up of the countrv. /iV<(; v. Trim, 
 •27Chy. :m."Hlake. 
 
 There ia a distinction between the rights con- 
 ferred upon municijial corpor.itions and r.iilway 
 uoinpanics resjiectively to expropriate property, 
 the former existing for the jiublic good, the lat- 
 ter being comnierciid enterprises only. The 
 charters of the latter are therefore more ligiiUy 
 construed than are the jiowors of a inniiicip.d 
 corporation. Ifardimi v. Toiriiihl/i of CUivdiii', 
 '29Chy. 30S. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Upon a construction of sections ST."? and 4.")(i 
 of the Municipal Act, (K. S. (). (1S77), c. 174), 
 a municipal corporation has power to entei' upon 
 and take lands for the purposes permitted by the 
 Act without first making compensation to the 
 owner who is not entitled to insist upon pay- 
 ment as a condition precedent to the entry of 
 the corporation. Where a municipal cor)poration 
 had so entered, an<l a bill to set aside an award 
 for improper conduct of the arbitrators and in- 
 adequacy of compensation failed, the court 
 (Froudfool, d.), ou dismissing the bill, ordered 
 the plaintill' to pay all costs, as the corporati(ui 
 had properly exercised their statutory rights. 
 The question invtdved being of a public nature, 
 the fact that the award was for an amount which 
 in other cases would be beneath the dignity of 
 the court, was not any reason why the court 
 shouhl not entertain the suit. III. 
 
 Upon the petition of the corporation of the city 
 of Toronto, under the "Consolidated Municipal 
 Act, 1883," 8. 488, to be allowed to pay into court 
 money awarded to the estate of H. for the ex- 
 
 propriation of certain land» of auUl estatu fur \ 
 court-house site, on the ground that the oxi.^,,. 
 Irix and trustee could not under tlu! will appoint 
 iiig her, sell the property until her sou was nf 
 iigc, or died, or she lursilf married u^iijn, .iii,| 
 therefore had not the absolute estate; ami ul,,, 
 that one .M. had a rciitcbaige oraiiiinit\ cliHri(i.t| 
 on t\w laiiil for her life ; payable to one .S.;^ 
 Iltdd, that tln^ Act dues not cxpresslv uiitliorizB 
 the payment into i (airtof the amcamt awanlod- 
 th.it the .section in i|Ui'stion is impeiMtivc, ainj 
 makes it oliliuatory on the corporation in iisccr 
 tain wlictlicr the persun in c|Uestiiin was al)soliiti' 
 owner or not, and if not that the cor|Miratiiiii 
 was a statutory trustee of the money, ami liaMi' 
 to pay six per cent, int'iest until the party cii 
 titled to the piiin i|ial claimed the same: -HeM, 
 also, that it was not intended the court slieiilil 
 iiitei f( le at the instance of the coriioratioii, liut 
 .it that of the I'laiinant of the money or part ■ 
 it; but; Seiiible, that the court might ilo f 
 the instance of tlie(!oi'poiatiou. Tlu: facts] 
 however, did not shew sullicient ground f 
 /// re liickflt (iiid lite d/i/ n/ Turoiil", 10 0. H. 
 lOli. — ('aineron. 
 
 The apiiellants, the owners of a bloik oflaiiil, 
 laid it out in biiihliiiL; lots, dedicating ivs ,i 
 stre(!t, callcil 1). street, a porticm of the hunl 
 running through it from a street on the ea.st In 
 within oiu^ foot of its west limit, the one fout 
 being reserveil because at that time, W., the 
 owner of the liiid adjfiiniiig on the west, it 
 fuscMl to ddlicatc any portion of it for the (iin- 
 ])os(! of carrying 1). street through to the iic\t 
 stri/ct to the west. Siibseijuently the owner of 
 the laud adjoining l;\id (Uit his property in 
 building lots, dedicating as a street, also oallcl 
 !). street, a ]MU'tion of it running (in the saiin' 
 line as the jiortion dedieatcil by the appLllaiits , 
 through it from the street on the west li 
 within one foot of its east limit, the <iiic fnet r, 
 served by bini iuinu'diately abutting on tliostiip 
 reserved by tlu' appellants. ■Subsei|nciitly tlu' 
 appellants sold all tluir land except the oiir 
 foot strip anil aft<n'wards the corporation e\ 
 proiuiatcil the two strips to make I), street,; 
 thorou'^hf.ire, and the appellants in an arliitra 
 tion under the Municipal Act Were allowi'l 
 merely nominal damages foi' their sti'ip ; ~HcM 
 (Burton, d. A., dis.'<cntiiigl, that this w:is riylit. 
 there being no evidence that the properly liail 
 .■my market value in the bauds of the owners ni 
 was worth anything except for the jiarpose ot 
 opening tin? strin't or that it w.is c.ipalile of 
 being [lut to any other use whitcver. Tlie 
 higher price that the appellants might have 
 obtaineil for their lots if the stieet liad lieou 
 made a thoroughfare before the lots were siilil, 
 or the price that tlu^ residents on the street 
 might be willing to give to have the ohstriictioii 
 removed, could not be considered as element^ 
 in lixing the damages. Per ().slcr, .1. .\.— The 
 appellants" foot of laud was usidess for the imr- 
 pose of extending the street so long as W. s 
 reserve stooil in the way ; and the contingency 
 of \V. selling it, depending, as it ilid, uimn the 
 volition of a person over whom the aiipellants 
 had no control, was too uncertain to l)e takeii 
 into account as an element of value. Per Osier, 
 J. A., also -Where works arc done under the 
 local improvement cliuises of the Municipal Act, 
 conipens.-vtion for property expropriated is to be 
 ascertained in the same manner, and by the 
 
1 
 
 i>f dilUl CHtatu fur n 
 ml tlmt llie exi.^,,. 
 Ill tim will appoint 
 iitil her Nciii was ni 
 marrifil u^iiin, ami 
 tu CMlatf ; anil nU„ 
 ' i(r;miiiiit\ oliurgtd 
 iyal)lu 111 one !S,;.- 
 ix|ircH.slv authorize 
 f .imniiiit awai'ilcil ; 
 I in impeiMtivi', an,] 
 ()i-))Mratiiii\ tiiascfr 
 iH'.stiim wa.s al)Nolii|i. 
 Hit tlid corpnratliiii 
 If iiimu'y, anil liaUi' 
 until till! party eii 
 mI tlic sanio: HeM, 
 'il i\w I'liurt hIiiihIiI 
 tlif rorpnratiiin, l.iit 
 U! ininu'v or part i 
 ■oiirt niigiit ill) r 
 ni. 'I'lic farts 1 
 I'icnt griiMiiil f 
 /■ Toroii/n, 10 0. K. 
 
 •8 of 11 lilock (pf land, 
 ts, ili'ilicating aa \ 
 piM'tiou of till' land 
 ti't.'ct on tlic east 111 
 ; limit, tin' one font 
 that tinu', \V., tl.r 
 ig on tin; west, n 
 in of it fill- tiiti pin- 
 liroii;.'li to the next 
 niitly tliL' owner nl 
 nt liis pi'upei'ty in 
 a st ri'ot. also calii'l 
 inning (in the saiiK' 
 I liy tliii apptllant;! . 
 t on the wist li 
 mit, till' oni' flint !•.■ 
 limiting on tli('^ti;|i 
 ,Sul'.-ii'i|ni'iitly thi- 
 mil rxi'i'pt tlie nin 
 tin' cm iioratinii t\ 
 o niakr I), street .. 
 Hants ill an arliitr.i 
 
 Al't wrri'. allowrd 
 
 thi'ir strip : -HiM 
 tliiit tliis was rii;lit. 
 lit tht' pi'opiTty liad 
 lis of thr owners m 
 ; for till' inirpnse nt 
 
 it w.is capaMe oi 
 isi! wlriti'vrr. Till' 
 cllants might haw 
 :,l\ii stri'iit hail heon 
 
 thti lots were siilil. 
 lents on the street 
 lave the ob.striictinu 
 siiUreil as elemcnt^ 
 I- Dsli'i', .1. A.-Tho 
 
 useless fur the pur- 
 et HO long as W.'s 
 :inil the contingency 
 , as it iliil, upon tlio 
 'horn the ajiiiellanti 
 certain to he t;ike.i 
 if value. Per Osier, 
 arc done under tiir 
 f the Municipal Act, 
 jxpropriateil is to be 
 uannt'i', and hy the 
 
 1366 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 136& 
 
 applieittion of the same piincipliH, an in cntieB 
 where the corporation arc not actin({ uiuler 
 those clauses, iind tliiM whither the corporation 
 initiatu the procreiliug.s or they are put in 
 motiiin hy the petition of the partns who ilcBin; 
 theiinproveinontH to he niaile. There is nothing 
 to justify the notion that in the latter easu 
 more is to he piiiil for the work than if the cost 
 hail to he Imrne Us the lorporatiiin, Orilcr of 
 Boyil, ('., KiO. I;. ;J7'J, allirmeil, who apjiroveil 
 of the ilecision in Stehhing r. Metropolitan Hoanl 
 of Workn L. I!. () <■). li. .'17. //( ir llarinj and 
 Ike Town uf I'afhhili . lii A. I!. KiN. 
 
 Uniler the anthmity of 49 Vict. o. 00 (Out.), 
 the city of Toronto expropriatcil the lands of 
 private persons near the river Don, for the |>ur- 
 piises of the " I'mi fniprovcnient Scheme." liy 
 the Act the rily eouneil were to nnike a survey 
 and jilan of the 400 feit on eaidi siile of ii ei'rtaiii 
 linn called the "centre line," shewing the landn 
 taken hy thcni, and weie to ap[iortioii to each 
 lot shewn upon the |ilan a due share of the 
 whole cost of the land, works, and improve- 
 ments; and hy section 4, suh section M, the 
 lands not taken within the 400 feet were to he 
 specially as.sesseil in respect of such improve- 
 ments, hut no such special assessment was to 
 exceed the actual value of the lienctit derived 
 from the imj)rovenient. The appelhiiils ownei 
 lands extending from the centre line to a dis 
 tanee exceeding 400 feet, and the city took from 
 such hinds a strip narrower than the 400 feet : — 
 Hehl, that in iiwarding ciiin)ieiisiitioii to the 
 appellants under the Munieiiial .Act for the 
 p,artsof their lands taken, the arhitrators should 
 allow for any henelit to the parts not taken, 
 Imt in estimating that henefit they should take 
 into aiTiiiint, as liest thi'y could, the fact that 
 the laud owners were liahle to he idiargcd hy 
 the city to the extent of the henefit they re- 
 ceived, hy a rate as for a local iin|n'oveinent 
 under section 4, suh-section .'t. AV h'irlianlnoii 
 umt TheCili/of 'J'uroiilti — AV Hoijiiliil Tniil diid 
 TheCili/o/Turoiifo, 17 O. R. 401. -Street. 
 
 Where the land itself upon which a trade is 
 carried on, is expropriated, damage to the good- 
 will may he a projiei' suhject of conipcu-sation. 
 Ricket's C'a.se, L. It. 2 H. L. 17'), distinguished. 
 Re McCtiiilei/ anil Vili/ uf Toioulo, IS O. 11. 
 416.-15oyil.' 
 
 See A'c Bmly luul f'ih/ of Tnrmilo, lU 1'. R. 
 316, p. i;«;i; AV SmUh inii'l Cilij oi' Toronli), VA 
 P. IS. 479, p. i;W4. 
 
 17. /'Vui'c.'j, 
 Sec Crowe v. Sicipn; 40 Q. 15. 87, p. lIMti. 
 
 18. Ferrie.'i. 
 
 Hca Amle.rso7i v. Jellel, 9 S. C. R. 1, p. 747 ; 
 City of St. John v. Macdonahl, \\ S. C. It. 1 ; 
 LongucuU Navvjalion Co. v. City oj Montreal, 
 15 S. C. R. 566, p. 317. 
 
 19. Fines and Penaltieti. 
 
 Held, that a provision for distress in de- 
 fault of payment of the fine and costs imposed, 
 did not constitute a part of the penalty or 
 punishment imposed by the bylaw, but was 
 
 merely ii means of eollceiing the penalty as 
 anthori/.ed hy section •.', snl) section 14 of 'M 
 Viet. c. 33 (Out.), end section 4lM of the Muni 
 cipal Act, It. S. <), (I8H7>, c 184. Jteginii s: 
 Flury, \', U. R. 7 1. '».—('. I'. D. 
 
 A bylaw of the city of llrantford enaetcd that 
 any ))ergon f')und drunk on any of the public 
 streets, etc. , thereof, should he subject to the |ii'n- 
 alty thereby imposed, nanu'ly to a tine not exceed- 
 ing §,")0, inilusivi of costs, and in default of pay- 
 ment fortliwith of the line and costs, distress, 
 and in default of siilliiient distiess, im])rison 
 ment in the common jail for a teini not exceed 
 ing six nniliths, etc., unless the tine and costs 
 were sooner paid; Held, that under sub seetioii 
 10 of section 470, K*. S. (). (1H,S7), c. ISI, there 
 was jiower to authori/i iinprisonment for the 
 period nientioneil. A' n \. (iniiit, \H O. I<. 
 109. ('. I'. I). 
 
 Sue ,V('A'//f(;/ v. .MiKiiiiiiiii, I (). II. i219 ; p. 
 110.'"); A'c Milldi/ mid tin 'i',iiriislii/i o/'Oiii)ndii;iii, 
 (). I!. .')7;!, |i.'l:i47 ; lliii'ma \. drunlli, 10(». 
 II. 73.), p. 1371 
 
 'JO. I.lr'iiitiiiij III 1,'iiiliriij/s Land I'J.rfirisnli/ Ap/iro 
 priid' il Jiir I'lihl'iv /'iir/nKrx. 
 
 I . See //( ;■(' Hiiiiimiii and City o/Olliiira, 1 O. It. 
 
 41.1, 
 
 I'ldliir-i, luid. 'J'ritnsiiut Trader*. 
 
 •_'l. Iliiirl;, 
 
 Where goods are con-igued to bo sold on com- 
 mission, and they are sold in the shop or \)n:- 
 miscs of the consigin.e, and by him or on his 
 behalf, the owner ' the goods or his manager 
 is not an ociupant oi siuh premises, nor a tian 
 sient trader within the .Muiueiiial Act, (It. S. (). 
 (1S77), c. 171, s. 400, subs. .■)3, as amended by 
 4"-' \'iet. c. 31, s. '22), merely because he accom- 
 panies the goods and assists in their.sale. litijinn 
 V. r/i/Zi/y /V, 45 Q. IJ. 10. -Osier. 
 
 >l. brought nu action against (!., the police 
 magistrate of the city of St. .lohu, for wrong- 
 fully causing the ])laintill', a ommereial travel- 
 ler, to be arri'steil and imprisoned on a warrant 
 issued on a convictinn by the police magistrati . 
 for violation of a bylaw made by the common 
 council of the city of .St. .lohn, under an alleged 
 authority conferred on that body hy 33 X'ict. <•. 
 4, jjassed by the legislature of New Ihunswick. 
 Section 3 of the .-Xct authorized the mayor of 
 the city of St. .lohn to license persons to use any 
 art, trade, etc., within the city of St. .lohn, on 
 payment of smdi sum or sums as may from time 
 to time he fixed and determined by the common 
 council of St. .lohn, etc. ; and si'ction 4 em- 
 powered the nuvyor, etc., by any by-law or ordi- 
 nance to fix and deterniino what sum or sums of 
 money should be from time to time paid for 
 license to use any art, trade, occupation, etc. : 
 and to declare how fees should be recoverable ; 
 and to impose penalties for any breach of the 
 same, etc. The by-la w or ordinance in (piestion 
 discriminated between resident and non-resident 
 merchants, traders, etc., by imposing a license 
 tax of §20 on the former, and $40 on the lat- 
 ter : — Held, that assuming the Act 33 Vict. c. 
 4, to be intra vires of the lej;islature of New 
 Brunswick, the by-law made underit was invalid, 
 because the Act in question gave no power to 
 
1367 
 
 MUNICIPAL OOBPORATIONS. 
 
 1368 
 
 90 
 
 
 V» 
 
 the cnninion council of St. Jolin, of (liscriniina- 
 tion between residents and non-residents, such 
 as they liad exercised in this hy-hiw. Joniin v. 
 Oilbtrt, r> S. C. R. 3r)6. 
 
 The defendant, who was a traveller for a tea 
 dealer, carried samples with him from house to 
 house, and took orders for tea, .vliicli orders he 
 forwarded to his employer, who sent the tea to 
 liim. The defendant then got the tea which had 
 been forwarded in packages, and delivered it to 
 Ills customers, receiving tlie price on delivery. 
 ( )n this evidence lie was convicted of selling tea 
 as a pedlar witiiout a licensi', contraiy to a by- 
 law wliich pniliibited "Jiawkeis or petty chap- 
 men and otlier pel-sons larryiiigon petty trades, " 
 from selling goods in the manner pointed out by 
 the Consolidated .Municipal Act (1.S83), s. 4'J'> 
 (3):— Held, that the defendant was not a "haw- 
 ker," nor was the word pedlar used in tlie Act, 
 and if lie was a "petty cliapman or person e:ir- 
 rying on a petty trade," the conviction could 
 nrt be supported, for lie wa.s "not carrying 
 goods for sale." Ilfijiiia v. Coii'ts, 't U. R. 044. — 
 Rose. 
 
 Held, that a municipality cannot pass a by- 
 law prohiliiting unlicensed traders from sending 
 out agents to take orders from private persons 
 for goods, and subsequently delivering tlie goods, 
 ordered. lb. 
 
 "Tlie f;on.solidated Municipal Act, 18S.S," (40 
 Vict. e. IS), s. A\)'), sub-see. 3, empowered the 
 council of any county to pass bylaws for licen- 
 sing, etc., hawkers, etc., going from place to 
 place, etc., with any gooils, wares, or merchan- 
 dise for sale, and by 48 Viet. c. 40, s. ] (Ont.), 
 the word "hawkcus" shall include all persons 
 who, being agents for nonresidents of the 
 county, sell or olfer for sale tea, dry goods or jew- 
 ellery, or carry and expose samples of any such 
 goods to be afterwards delivered, etc. '. — Held, 
 that electrotype ware was not jewellery witiiin 
 the above enactment, and a conviction for selling 
 this witliout license was therefore bad, and in 
 this ea.se was ipiaslied, thougii the fine imposed 
 had lieen paid; -Held, also, that the words 
 "otliei' goods, wares, and merchandise," in the 
 conviction, were too general. Jfii/iiin v. Cliayler, 
 11 O. K. -JIT.— Wilson. 
 
 The defendant was convicted of selling and 
 delivering teas as the agent of V. W., a non- 
 resident of the county, in violation of a by-law 
 of the county of Hruce, the third section of 
 which was a copy of section I of 48 Vict. c. 40 
 (Ont.). Tiie defendant, against the protest of 
 his counsel, was called as a witness and swore 
 that he bought tlie tea in (juestion from one W. 
 of the city of l^ondon, and that he did not sell 
 as the latter's agent, but on his own account : 
 that he had formerly sold tea on eommission for 
 AV., but purchased that in question for the pur- 
 pose of evading the by-law. '''he conviction al- 
 leged that defendant was the agent of P. W but 
 did not state that he had not the -lecessary license 
 to entitle him to do the act complained of : — 
 Held, I. That defendant being, under the evi- 
 dence, an independent trader, and not an aecnt, 
 did not come within the Consolidated Muni- 
 cipal Act, 1883, 8. 495, sub-s. 3. nor within 48 
 Vict, c. 40 (Ont.). 2. That the conviction was 
 defective in not stating that P. \V. was non- 
 resident within the coimty, and that the ex- 
 
 pression " of the city of London" was not suffi- 
 cient. 3. That defendant had been improperly 
 compelled to give evidence against himself. 4 
 That the having a license is a matter of defence 
 and not of proof by the prosecution. 5. That 
 the intention to evade the by law was imma- 
 terial so long as the agency did not in fact exist 
 h^ilina V. MfXkol, 11 O. K. 059.— Wilson. 
 
 Held, that uniler 48 Vict. c. 40, s. 1 (Ont.) 
 amending sub-s. 3 of sec. 495 of the Consolidated 
 Municipal Act, 1883, it is no offence to expose 
 Baniples of cloth and solicit orders for clothing 
 to be afterwards manufactured from such cloth 
 and to be then delivered to the persona (ivjnj; 
 such orders: — Held, also, that the term "dry 
 goods," in the amended Act does not include 
 clothing ordered to be manufactured from cloths, 
 samples of which are exposed with a view to 
 solicit orders for such clothing. Hci/ina v. Bat- 
 .s,:lt, 12 O. R. 51.— Gait. 
 
 Held, that under 48 Vict. c. 40, s. 1 (Ont.), 
 amending sub-s. 3 of s. 495, of the Consolidated 
 Municipal Act, ISS3, a member of a lirni carry- 
 ing and exposing samples, or making sales of tea, 
 etc., is not within the restriction preventing 
 "agents for persons not resident witiiin the 
 county " from so doing, and is not such .in agent. 
 Reuina v. Marshall, 12 0. R, 55. -Gait. 
 
 The by-law under which the defendant was 
 convicted, jmivided that "no transient trader 
 or other person occupying a place of business in 
 the town of M., for a tem))orary period less than 
 one year, and whoso name has not been duly 
 entered on the assessment roll for the current 
 year, shall * * oiler goods, wares, and mer- 
 chandize for sale * ' within the limits of the 
 town of M., without, or until he shall have litst 
 iluly obtained a license for that purjiose." The 
 conviction was for that the defendant, being ,1 
 traiLsient trader, occupying a place of business 
 in the town of M., did sell certain floods, wares, 
 and merchandize, ccmtrary to the liy-law ; - 
 Held, that the by-law w.as sufficiently witiiin 
 the powers given by 42 Vict. c. 31, s. 22, to 
 warrant the conviction ; and that tlie words in 
 the by-law, " less than one year," were but a 
 limitation of the words " temporary periods," 
 usoil in the statute, and did not vitiate the liy- 
 law. Jieuiiia v. Catou, 10 O. K. 1 1.— Q. 1?. I). 
 
 The defenilant a wholesale and retail dealer 
 in teas in the county of W., where he residcil, 
 went to the county of H., and sohl teas liy 
 sample to private persons there, taking their 
 orders therefor, which were forwarded by him 
 to the county of W., and the packages of te.is 
 subseipiently <lelivercd. All the packages were 
 sent in one parcel to H. county, and there dis- 
 tributed. The defendant was convicted under 
 a by-law jiasscd under statutes which are new 
 It. S. O. (1887), e. 1S4, s. 495, sub sec. 3, |o) 
 and {>)), for carrying on a petty trade without 
 the necessary license therefor ;— Held, that the 
 conviction could not be sustained, and must 
 be quashed. I{eijiiiit v. Henderson, 18 0. R. 
 144.— C. P. 1). 
 
 22. HoHpitah. 
 
 Held, that under 45 Vict. c. 29, s. 12 (Ont.), 
 the corporation of one municipality cannot erect 
 or establish a smallpox hospital within the 
 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 187(1 
 
 limits of another, either of a temporarj- or a per- 
 DUient cliaracter, without the sanction of the 
 corporation of the latter, and an injunction was 
 granted to resti'ain the same. fowiiihip of 
 tilizabelhlown v. Town of Brockrille, 10 O. R. 
 371-Boyd. 
 
 23. Livery Stahlcn. 
 
 The board of police coniinissioners in cities is 
 tiie body which alone has the power, under 49 
 Vict. c. 37, 8. 9 (Ont.) to regulate and license 
 livery stables, and this power includes the 
 
 power 
 
 to declare in what localities such stables 
 
 shall bfi allowed ; therefore, a by-law passed by 
 the corporation of the city of Toronto, a city 
 having a police board, assuming to declare it 
 unlawful for any person to estal)lish or keep 
 such stiblcs unless he shall have procured the 
 consent of the majority of owners and lessees of 
 property situate within the area of 500 feet of 
 such stable, was held ultra vires. Even if not 
 ultra vires tlie by-law .vould have been objec- 
 tionable in requiring, as a condition precedent to 
 the granting uf the license, that an applicant 
 should procure the consent of a number of per- 
 sona in the neighbourhood. J{h Kie/i/, 13 O. 1{. 
 451. —Wilson. iSee 52 Vict. c. 3G, s. 15. 
 
 Sec ne.gina v. Switlirell, 12 O. I{. 391, p. 1108. 
 
 24. Murketx and Sa/n of Meat. 
 
 The municipal council of the city of Hamilton 
 passed a by-law that no person should, upon oi" 
 after sale thereof, deliver any stove w(jod in or 
 from any waggon, etc., otlierwi.se than in or from 
 awaggon of a certain capacity, the sides of which 
 ahouUl be constructed of slats of a certain width 
 and a certain distance apart from each other. 
 The defendant was convicted of a breach of the 
 by-law -.— Held, that the by-law was ultra vires, 
 for though the council liad the right under the 
 Municipal Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, s. 4()G, to 
 provide fur the weighing or measuring of wood, 
 they had no power to enforce delivery, upon or 
 after sale, in a particular kind of waggon, lit- 
 jina V. Smith, 4 O. R. 401. — Hagarty. 
 
 A bylaw of the city of Ottawa set apart cer- 
 tain sections of the city, six in number, as 
 markets oV market-places. Kour of these sec- 
 tious were called meat, produce, and tish mar- 
 kets, though in the enumeration of the articles 
 for the sale of which the markets were establish- 
 ed, fish were not named. Section 5 of Art. IV. 
 declared that all produce, provisions, or articles 
 of any kind brought to any of the meat, lish, and 
 produce markets and exposed for sale, should be 
 pUced in boxes and exposed in carts or other 
 vehicles, which should be placed upon said nuvr- 
 kets under the direction of the market inspector. 
 Any person refusing to comply therewith, or to 
 remove snoh articles, vehicles, or boxes after 
 selling tludr contents, should be subject to the 
 penalty inijwsed by the by-law, and liable to 
 expuldinn from the market. Section 1 of Art. 
 IX. declared that no person sliould sell any fresh 
 Hah elsewhire than in svicb places as should be 
 allotted and designated by the standing coni- 
 mittte on markets, in any of the aforesaid mar- 
 kets. Section 1 of Art. X. declared that the 
 vendors of any articles in respect of which a 
 
 nmrket fee might, under the Municipal Act, be 
 imposed, might lawfully without paying market 
 fees, offer for sale r.ny such articles at any |)laco 
 within the city excepting the marke' places 
 thereof. The by-law was a consolidation of pre- 
 viously existing by-laws passed from tinie Uy 
 time. It appeared that many years ago certain 
 stalls in each market were set apart as tish mar- 
 kets ; that no application was ever made for 
 standing room for carts or other vehicles from 
 which to sell fish ; and no provision made by tho 
 council for so bringing fresh fish to the market :. 
 — Held, that section 3 of Art. IV., though wide 
 enough to cover fresh fish, would appear not ti» 
 have been framed with reference to it ; and that 
 reading section 1 of Art. IX. and section 1 of 
 Art. X., together, they could be reconciled ))y 
 construing them as providing that fresh fisli 
 might be sold in stalls and nowhere else in the 
 markets, but outside of the markets no restric- 
 tion should be placed on selling. Jte limihwicL- 
 and the. City of Ottawa, 9 0. R. 114. -Hose. 
 
 Sub-section 2 of section 8 of 45 Vict. o. 2t 
 (Ont.), subjects "such vendors of articles in res- 
 pect of which a market fee may be now imposed 
 as shall voluntarily use the inarl^et place for the 
 purpose of selling such articles,'' whereas the 
 twelfth section ot the by-law in question was, 
 "any person or persons who shall voluntarily 
 come upon the said market-place, etc., for tlie 
 purpose of selling," etc. :— Held, that " V^eudors, 
 who shall voluntarily use the mai'ket-place for 
 the purpose of selling" was not identical with 
 or equivalent to "'any person or persons who 
 sluill voluntarily come upon the said market- 
 place tor the purpose of selling;" nor was the 
 j expression "use the market-place for the pur- 
 1 pose of selling'' the same as "come upon the 
 market-place for the purpose of selling;" and 
 that the conviction was bad on this ground also. 
 lieiiinu V. Reed, 11 O. K. 242.— O'Connor. 
 
 Held, that the conviction was bad, as differ- 
 ing from both statute and by-law, being for re- 
 fusing to pay the fees on eight quarters of beef 
 " exposeil for sale," whereas the 13th section of 
 the by-law applied only to cases of butchers' 
 meat exposed for sale. Il>. 
 
 Held, that a by-law passed pursuant to sub- 
 sct'tion 6 of section 503 of the Consolidated 
 ; Municipal Act, 1883, for granting licenses and 
 j regulating the sale of fresh meat in (inautitic* 
 1 less than by the (juarter carcase, and the convic- 
 tion thereunder, were not bad because the by- 
 j law did not embody or refer to the exceptional 
 I proviso as to time mentioned in section 500 ; 
 I for that section 500 did not refer to the subject 
 I of sub-section (i of section 503 ; and that apart 
 ^ from that, section 500 was expressly limited to 
 municipalities wherein no nuirket fees were 
 imposed or charged, whereas hero a by-law 
 was in existence imposing such fees and charges : 
 —Held, also, that the by-law was not ultra 
 vires, express power being given by section 
 503 to pass a by-law respecting the matter.>j 
 mentioned in sub-section 6 ; and that as the 
 reasonable or unreasonable exercise of the power 
 could only be considered on a motion to quaali 
 the by-law, tiie objection was not open on 
 this motion, which was to quash the conviction. 
 But: — Held, that the conviction was bad, 
 because, while covering two several and distinct 
 offences under the same by-law, it imposed only 
 
n . 
 
 n 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 lifigina v. aranelte, 10 O. R. 735. 
 
 
 1371 
 
 one penalti'. 
 — O'Connor. 
 
 Seotioii '}0'\, Bub-section 5 of the Municipal 
 Act of 1S83, empowers the council of a munioi- 
 I)ality to regulate the place and manner of selling 
 uicat, subject to the restrictions in the live next 
 preceding sections. Section 497 authorizes tlie 
 s lie alter certain liours at places other than the 
 market of any commodity which has been offered 
 lor sale in the market : — Held, affirming the 
 judgment of the Court of Appeal, 15 A. R. 75, 
 wliich allirmed the judgment of Wilson, C. J., 
 11 O. R. 60;}, .Strong and Taschoreau, J J. , dis- 
 senting, that by-law No. 629 of the city of Ottawa 
 requiring everybody offering fresh meat for sale 
 in tlie city to take out a license, and providing 
 that no meat should be sold in any place except 
 in the stalls of tlie different city markets, was a 
 valid by-law and within the power of the city j 
 council to pass : — Held, per Strong and Tasch- 1 
 ereau, JJ., that those portions of the by-law | 
 tixing the places at wiiich fresh meat should be 
 sold and proliibiting its sale elsewhere, were ultra 
 vires tlie city council under the said sections 
 of the Municipal Act, 1883. The Ontario Act 
 50 Vict. c. 'JO, s. 29, passed since this decision 
 has now settled the law on this subject, 
 O'Mearu v. CUy of Ottawa, 14 S. O. R. 742. 
 
 Senible. tliat the court might quash a by-law 
 of this description when plainly insufficient 
 accommodation is furnished, unless in the alter- 
 native the municipality should provide reason- 
 ably tit and lull accommodation ; but as a rule 
 the municipality is tlie judge of its own business 
 and affairs, and it is pr<il)ably an extreme case 
 in which the court would interfere. .S'. C, 11 
 O. R. 603. 
 
 By section 503, sub-section of the Municipal 
 Act of 1883, a corporation has power, by by-law 
 to prevent the sale of fresh meat in quantities 
 less than a quarter carcase except by a person 
 holding a license and in such place as the coun- 
 cil may specify, and :— Seinble, per Osier, J. A. 
 —The same construction wouhl have been placed 
 on the statute law as it stood before the Con- 
 solidated Act of 1883. .V. C, 15 A. R. 75. See 
 S. a. 14 S. C. R. 742. 
 
 See L'djiiM v. /lollinlcr, H O. R. 750, p. 1 107 ; 
 J'i'ivon V. /t'lciDdrr'-i Court and the Cityo/ Mtn't- 
 r<kl, 17 S. C. R. 495, p. 314. 
 
 25. I^iiiiancex. 
 
 The defendants passed a by-law pursuant to 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, s. 4G6, sub-s. 17, as 
 amended by 44 Vict. c. 24, s. 12, which by-law, 
 by section 2 provided that "No person shall 
 keep, nor shall there be kept within the city of 
 Toronto any pig or swine or any piggery " : — 
 Held, that the by-law was ultra vires, as being 
 a general prohibition against the keeping of 
 pigs, and not restricted to cases that might 
 prove to be nuiaaiiccs. McKnujhl v. City of 
 Toronto, 3 O. R. 284.— Wilson. 
 
 By section 3, subsection 2, the by-law pro- 
 vided that no cow should be kept in any stable, 
 etc., situate at a less distance than forty feet 
 from the nearest dwelling-house, and where two 
 cows were kept that the stable should not be 
 less than eighty tect from the nearest dwelling- 
 
 1372 
 
 house :-— Held, that it was unnecessary to de- 
 clare expressly that the keeping of cows within 
 such distances was or 'night be a nuisance, but 
 that the prohibition was in effect such a declara- 
 tion, that the distances prescribed were reason- 
 able, and that the by-law as to that was unob- 
 jectionable :— Semble, that it was not bad in 
 being so generally expressed that it would re- 
 strict the owner from keeping cows within the 
 prescribed distances of his own dwelliiig-houae: 
 and Held, that this objection not being clear 
 should not at any rate be allowed to prevail in 
 favour of the appellant, whose case was not 
 shewn to be within the terms of the objection. lb. 
 
 47 Vict. c. 32, s. 1.3, sub-s. 12 (Ont.) enacts that 
 by-laws may be passed "for regulating or pre- 
 venting the ringing of bells, blowing cf horns, 
 shouting and otiier unusual noises, or noises cal- 
 culated to disturb the inhabitants," etc. Section 
 2 of by-law No. 179 of the city of London, passed 
 under that Act. is as follows: " No per-on shall, 
 in any of the streets, or in the market-place of 
 the city of Loudon, blow any horn, ring any bell, 
 beat any drum, play any flute, pipe, or other 
 musieial instrument, or shout or make, or assist 
 i in making any unusual noise, or noise calculated 
 I to disturb the inhabitants of the said city. 
 ! Provided always, that nothing herein contained 
 I shall prevent the jjlaying of musical instruments 
 by any millitary band of Her Majesty's regular 
 army, or any branch thereof, or of any miUtia 
 corps lawfully organized under the laws of Can- 
 ada. " The prisoner was convicted under the by- 
 law of beating a drum on a public street in the 
 : city of London :— Held, that the by-law so far 
 j as it sought to prohibit the beating of drums 
 ; simply, without evidence of the noise being un- 
 j usual, or calculated to disturb was ultra vires, 
 1 and invalid, and that the refusal to receive evi- 
 < dence on the prisoner's behalf was a valid ground 
 ; for her discharge : — Held, also, that the above 
 1 proviso was not an exception that must be 
 I negatived in either the commitment or convic- 
 tion. Rtujiiia v. Xunu, 10 1'. R. 395.— Rose. 
 
 See Colhoriie. v. Town of Niai/ara Falln, 9 0. 
 R. li;8, p. 1.350 ; Jlejiiia v. Martin, 12 0. R. 800, 
 p. 1108. 
 
 27. Public Health. 
 
 The mei'ibers of the council of any nuinici- 
 pality are health ollicers of the municipality by 
 virtue of the i\'blio Health Act, R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. lOiJ, and as .si.cli they may enforce the pro- 
 visions of sections 3 to 7 of that Act without 
 by-law ; but if they delegate their powers to a 
 committee, they mu.st do so by a municipal by- 
 law. They cannot, however, delegate any powers 
 except those which they exercise under the 
 Public Health Act. A by-law was passed by 
 the municipal council of the city of Urantfonl 
 regulating the cleaning of privy-vaults, and im- 
 posing a hne of not less tlian $1, nor more than 
 ^50 for a breach of its provisions : — Held, valid, 
 as the by-law was one under the Municipal Act, 
 and not under the Public Health Act, which 
 restricts the penalty to $20. The by-law, as 
 set out in the report, was objectionable, as dele- 
 gating to jiersons not members of the council, 
 the board of health, the powers which, as muni- 
 cipal matters, belonged exclusively to the coun- 
 
1373 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1374 
 
 cil. In re. Mackenzie ami the City of liruiilfunl , 
 4 6. R. 382.— Wilson. 
 
 Where B. brought action ngainst the township 
 of S. to recover remuneration for medical ser- 
 vices performed on the instructions of tlie cor- ' 
 poratiou and of the board of health, and it was I 
 objected tiiat the by-law ])rofessing to appoint ! 
 the board of health was invalid by I'ciison of the j 
 fact that it merely purported to appoint three ; 
 nersons to l)e a board of health, ))iit did not \ 
 make any mention of the oliicer.s who, by 47 
 Vict . c. 3S, s. 12, sul)-s. 2, are made ex otticio 
 memhers of the board of hualth, and because it j 
 (lid not specitically state tiie tliree in<lividiial« [ 
 named to bo ratepayers : — Held, tiial looking 
 at the provisions of the said statute, and con- ' 
 sidering that the attack now made upon the by- 
 law was not by motion to cjuash it or of a like , 
 c!iar.icter, the objections could not be allowed to 
 prevail, lioijart \. Towiishi/i a/' i-icymuiir, 10 O. 
 R. 322.— Ferguson. | 
 
 Injunction granted to restrain a municipality ' 
 from erecting a small^iox hospital within another 
 municipality. See 'J'oiniihi/t of Eliuihtihlowiiw 
 Toini of Brocknlk, 10 O. H. 3?2, p. 1.3G9. 
 
 See In re Workiiuin ami Tomi of Ijimhaij, 7 O. 
 R.42.'), p. 1.374; A'e Drrhi/aiid Hit Lociil /Smtrdo/' 
 llmlth for South Planla'uaiitt, 19 O. K. 51, p. 123. 
 
 28. rnhlic Morals. 
 
 The conviction was under a by-law, for writing 
 aiid potiting up an iiKleceut placard, and tiie 
 placard was a criminal libel, tjuiere, per Cam- 
 eron, .J., whether the municipality could thus 
 make a new offence, and award a new or addi- 
 tional |)unishnient for what was already a crimi- 
 nal offence. McLelkia v. McKiniion, I O. R. 
 219.-Q. B. D. 
 
 See ileijina v. Mathenon, 4 O. It. .5.59, p. 832. 
 
 29. Purchoie of Land. 
 
 Held, that a municipal corporation lias no 
 power to pass u by-law for the purchase of land 
 to be presented to the dominion (iovernmont as 
 a site for a post-office and custoni-houae. " For 
 the use of the corporation" in R. S. 0. (1887), 
 «. 184, 8. 479, (1) does not mean merely "for 
 the beuelit of. " ./oumv. Town of Par', .■\rthur, 
 16 0. 1{. 474. — Ferguson. 
 
 32. SewerK. 
 
 (a) In Citiex and Townn. 
 
 Section 404, sub-section 2, of 3(5 Vict. c. 48, 
 «nact8 that tlie council of every city, town, and 
 incorporated village, shall have power to pass 
 by-laws for assessmg upon the real property to 
 be immediately bcnelitcd by the making, etc., 
 of any connnou sewer, etc., "on the petition of 
 at least two-thirds in number and one-half itk 
 value of the owners of such real property, a 
 special rate," etc. The sub-section is amended, 
 «o far as the same relates to the city of Toronto, 
 by 40 Vict. c. .39, b. 2, by inserting after the 
 words "owners of such real property" the words 
 "or where the same is in the opinion of the 
 said council necessary for sanitary or drainage 
 purposes." 40 Vict, o. 6, respecting the revised 
 
 statutes, passed in the same session, repealed 36 
 Vict. c. 48 ; and R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, s. .551, 
 sub-s. 2, corresponds with the repealed s. 464, 
 sub-s. 2 :— Held, Armour, J., doubting, and 
 C'ameron, ■)., disscntiiig, 1. That uiuler 40 Vict. 
 c. (i, s. 10, the 1{. .S. O. (1877), was substituted 
 for the repealed Acts and the ameniling Act a])- 
 pliod to the it. fS. O. (1877), c. 174. 2. The 
 amendment in 40 Vict. c. 39, was a reference in 
 a former Act remaining in force to an enact- 
 ment rcpe;dfd, and so a reference to the enact- 
 ment in the revised statutes, corresponding to 
 the section 404, sub-section 2, within section 1 1 
 of 40 Vict. c. (). 3. That the city of Toronto, 
 therefore, could pass a by-law in 1879 to con- 
 struct a sewer, when necessary in their opinion 
 for sanitary or drainage purposes, without any 
 petition therefor. //( n- liruck and fht' City of 
 Torunfo, 4.". Q. B. 53.— 1.>. B. I). 
 
 A municipal corporation passed a by-law for 
 the construction of a sewer without limiting the 
 purposes for which it was to be used, and subse- 
 tpiently passed another by-law re^.;ulating hov/ 
 it might be tapped for drainage |)urposes, and 
 enacting that no one should drain into it without 
 permission from the municipal council lirst ob- 
 tained, and specifying a certain rate of payment 
 for the use of it when so permitted. The appli- 
 cant got no leave from tlie council or any com- 
 mittee thereof to use the sewer, but several 
 members of the council gave him permission to 
 connect some water-closets w'thitoii condition 
 of his paying, whenever called upon, whatever 
 was reasonable for the privilege: — Held, that 
 the sower w.xs constructed for gener.il drainage 
 purposes, including that of water-closets ; but 
 that the permission given to the applicant so to 
 use it did not bind the council, which could 
 compel him to cut oft" the connection, as he had 
 not obtained their consent to make the same, 
 nor paid the rate fixed by the by-law ; and that 
 the fact of his having enjoyed the privilege for 
 several years did not place him in any Better 
 position than be was at the first: — Semble, that 
 even if he had the legal right to use the sewer, 
 either the corporation or the local board of 
 health could, upon tlie facts stated in the report, 
 under 47 Vict. c. 32, s. 13, and c. 38, s. 12, nave 
 passed a by-law compelling him to cut off his 
 connection: — (^butre, whether after the forma- 
 tion of the local boar4l of health the by-laws 
 provided for by 47 Vict. c. 32, s. 13, should be 
 passed by the corporation or by the board of 
 health under chapter 38, section 12. Tlio mo- 
 tion to tjuasli the by-law was therefore refused, 
 but w itliout costs, as the ajiplicant had been 
 led into his position by the indiscretion of cer- 
 tain members of the corporation. ' /n re Work- 
 man and the Town of Lindsay, 7 O. R. 425. — 
 Rose. 
 
 .Sewer rates ch.irged under the by-l.aw 468 of 
 the city of Toronto prior to the coming into force 
 of 42 Vict. c. 31, 8. 25 (Ont.), March 11th, 1879, 
 form a jiersonal charge i.iily, the said enactment 
 not being retrospective. lie Armstrong, 12 O. 
 R. 457.— Boyd. 
 
 The " territory " of the municipality referred 
 to in R. S. O. (1887), c. 184, s. 492, sub.-s. 2, is 
 the land comprised within the bounds, .ind 
 nnder the jurisdictitm of, the municipality, and 
 is not limited to lands that are the property of 
 the municipality. One municipality cannot 
 
1375 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 137S 
 
 ess 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 thfircforc cxtciitl a sewer through lands within 
 the bounds of a contiguous municipality, with- 
 out the consent of the latter, or without taking 
 the statutory steps, even altiiough the lands 
 through which tlie sewer is to run have been 
 purchased l)y the former municipality from the 
 private owners. Judgment of the Ciiancery Divi- 
 sion, 18 O. I!. 19!), artirmed, Burton, J. A., (Hs- 
 senting. 'roirnahip of Barton \. City of Hamil- 
 ton, 17 A. R. 34G. 
 
 (b) ExtcHHion oj into Adjoinimj Munkipa/llien, 
 
 See Toivm/i!}) of We.it Ninsimri v. Townnhtp oJ 
 North iJorclmler, 14 O. R. 294, p. 1353 ; Toivn- 
 shipof BartoHv. City of Ilumiltoii, 18 O. R. 199; 
 17 A. R. 340, mqira. 
 
 33. Solicitimj Passengers. 
 
 A city by-law prohil)ited any person lioensed 
 thereunder soliciting any person to take or use 
 Ilia express waggon, or employing any runner or 
 other person to assist or act in concert with iiim 
 in soliciting any passenger or baggage at any of 
 the "stands, railroa<l stations, steamboat land- 
 ings, or elsewhere in the said city,'' but persons 
 wishing to use or engage any such express waggon 
 or other vehicle should be left to choose witliout 
 any interference or solicitation. An employee 
 of defendants with the consent of a railway com- 
 pany and under instructions from his employer 
 boarded an arriving passenger train at one of tiie 
 outlying city stations on its way to the union sta- 
 tion, and went through tliu cars calling out " bag- 
 gage transferred to all parts of the city," and 
 having in his hands a number of the transfer 
 company's checks. No baggage was taken at the 
 time : — Held, that there was no breach of the 
 by-law but merely the carrying out of the defen- 
 dants' agreement with the railroail company ; 
 and further that the railroad train did not come 
 within any of the places mentioned in tiic by- 
 law. Per Rose, J. — If the by-law in terms had 
 covered this case it would have been ultra vires. 
 Nfgina v. Venal, 18 O. R. 117.-C. P. 1). 
 
 37. Width oj Tiret. 
 
 A by-law of a town provided tiiat no one 
 should useany waggon, etc. , upon any of thestreels 
 of the town for drawing brick, stones, etc., when 
 the weight of the load should exceed 1 ,^0 
 pound8,unless the tires of tlie wheels were of a 
 specified width ; but tlie bylaw was not to apply 
 to any waggon conveying lumber or goods fiom 
 the mill or manufactory thereof intu the town if 
 distant more than two miles from the town limits, 
 nor to any person passing tlirough the town with 
 vehicles loaded with the said articles ; — Held, 
 l>ad, 08 discriminating as against residents of the 
 town in favour of otiiers ; — Held, also, tiuit a 
 conviction under such by-law was bad, for not 
 shewing that defendant was not a person passing 
 through the town, and for imposing imprison- 
 ment with Irvi-d laljour. liegina v. Pipe, 1 0. 11. 
 43.— Osier. 
 
 XII. Contracts By and With. 
 
 The defendant agreed, subject to certain tests 
 and apj)roval, to purchase from the plaintiH's a 
 ■team tire engine, which it appeared it was de- 
 
 sirable the municipality should possess ; but on 
 submitting a by-law for that purpose to the rate- 
 payers for approval, the same was rejected, a|. 
 though an informal by-law had been previously 
 approved of by them. Meanwhile the engine 
 had been received by the defendants, and by 
 them subjected to the necessary tests, which be- 
 ing satisfactory they, by a minute in council, 
 agreed to acce]it the engine, and the same wu 
 placed in tiieir engine-house, subject to the cus- 
 toms duties thereon. A few days after, on aa- 
 certaiuing the result of the voting, the defen- 
 dants communicated the same to the plaintiffs, 
 rescinded the resolution, and re((uested them to 
 remove the engine, which the plaintiH's declined 
 to do, and sued for the price of the engine :— 
 Held (affirming the judgment of the court be- 
 low, 31 (J. P. 301) that the plaintiH's were not 
 entitled to recover ; the contract for the pur- 
 chase of the engine not having been under seal, 
 .■ind there having been no formal acceptance of 
 it under seal ; and the purchase thereof not 
 being a matter of such minor imporauceor daily 
 occurrence as should be binding on the corpora- 
 tion without the formality of a seal. SiMiif v. 
 Viltanc of Dwmrilli', 8 A. R. iiU. 
 
 Qua'rc, whether the defendants would neces- 
 sarily be liable upon a contrai;t not under seal 
 even where the beuetit of it had been actually 
 enjoyed, unless in cases where the thing onlereil 
 was actually and urgently reiiuircd, or "for 
 work which if the cor|)oration had not ordered, 
 they would not have (loiio their duly." I'ini r. 
 The Municipal Council of Ontario, 9 C. P. 304, 
 remarked upon. III. 
 
 The financial affairs of a mimicipal corjwratioii 
 being in disorder a commissioner was appointed 
 by the Goverinncnt to investigate them, and the 
 plaintifl's professional accountants, were cin- 
 jdoyeil by the ccmncil to examine and arrange 
 the accounts. Resolutions were passed, not 
 under seal, recognizing tliat the work was being 
 done by the plaintiH's, who reported to, and were 
 in communicati<m with the council. Their re- 
 port, as the judge found at the tiial, was be- 
 fore the commissioner, and in a by-law one ot 
 the plaintifl's was referred to as "having re- 
 written the books " : Held, Wilson, ('. .)., dis- 
 senting, that the ])laintill's could recover, tliouuh 
 there was no by-law directing the woik to be 
 done, or ap{iointing the plaintifl's to do it. Siis- 
 by V. The Village of Dunnville, 8 \. K. 5.'4, 
 and Young r. The Corporation of Leamington, 8 
 Api). Cas. r)77, distinguished, liuhin-i v. lirud- 
 ton. 7 O. U. 481. -il IJ. I). 
 
 .\ municipal corporation is liable on an exe- 
 cuted contrict for work done by its order, on its 
 behalf and for its benefit, tlHUigh tliurclieuo 
 agreement under seal, if the thing d<ino were 
 urgently recpiired for the purposes of the cor- 
 |)oration, and especially so where the [irice to lie 
 paid is not of a large amount. Robins i; Brook- 
 ton, 7 O. R. 481, referred to. Lnirnii'-ev. Vil- 
 laije of Liick-iioir. 13 O. R. 4L'I.— Chy. D. 
 
 Agreement Ity town council with cliief of police 
 to pay over to them fees received by liini from 
 the county for services perforimvl by him as 
 county constable. .See Town of Stratford v. 
 IVilmu, 8 O. R. 104. 
 
 A special statute in Ontario (45 Viet. c. "W) 
 authorized the munici[ialities of the city of 
 
lid possess ; but on 
 purpose to the rate- 
 10 was rejected, al- 
 mil been previously 
 imwhilo the engine 
 lefendants, and by 
 ary tests, wliich be- 
 miiiutu in cnunoil, 
 and the same wat 
 subject to the cus- 
 ■ days after, on as- 
 voting, the defcn- 
 le to the i)laintiff8, 
 I re([uested them to 
 e plaintitl's deehued 
 le of the engine :— 
 lit of the court be- 
 plaintiti's were not 
 utract for the pur- 
 [ig been under seal, 
 irinal acceptance of 
 rchaso thereof not 
 : iinporance or daily 
 ling on the corpora- 
 if a seal. SiMn/ v, 
 524. 
 
 dants would neces- 
 ract not under seal 
 , luid Ijeeii actually 
 re the thing ordered 
 recjuircd, or "for 
 m had not ordered, 
 heir duty." I'ini r. 
 ntario, !J C. P. 304, 
 
 unicipal corporation 
 nncr was appointeil 
 tigate them, and the 
 untantf, were em- 
 fanunc and arrange 
 1 were jjassed, not 
 the work was being 
 sported to, and were 
 council. Their re- 
 , the trial, was be- 
 in a by-law one ot 
 to as " having re- 
 Wilson, ('. .1., dia- 
 ould recover, tliougii 
 ing the woik to l)€ 
 iititVs to do it. Sils- 
 iviUo, 8 A. R. 5i4, 
 on of Leamington, 8 
 1. livhiiin V. Brock- 
 
 is lialilc on an exe- 
 le by its order, on its 
 
 though there lie no 
 he thing done were 
 imposes of the cor- 
 vhere tlic price to l)e 
 t. Hid)iMH i\ Brock- 
 ;o. Lnirri'iiyev. Vil- 
 21.— Chy. I). 
 
 ilwith oliief of police 
 !C(!ived liy liini from 
 jrfornnvl l>y him as 
 ''ou-n of SliatJ'ord v. 
 
 tario (45 Vict. c. W) 
 tie.s of the city of 
 
 1377 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS- 
 
 1378 
 
 Toronto and the vilUigc of I'arkdale jointly oi- 
 separately, and the railway coniiianie.s whoso 
 luies of railway ran into the city of 'I'oronto, to 
 agiee together for tlic construction of railway 
 subways : jirovisicm was made in the .\ct fur the 
 issue of debentures to [irovidc for the cost of the 
 work, and the by-law f(n- the i.ssuc of .such deben- 
 tures was not ruiiuiric' to l)e .submitted to the 
 ratepayeis ; there wa.i also pi'ovision for com- 
 pensation to the owners of properly injuriou.sly 
 affected by such work, such compen.sation to be 
 determined by arbitration under the Municipal 
 Actii not mutually agreed upon. 'I'lie muni- 
 cipalities not being able to agree, the village of 
 Parkilale and the railway companies entered 
 into an agreement to havis a subway constructed 
 at their joint expense, but under the direction 
 of the nuinicipality and its engineer, and on the 
 application of the village of I'arktiale and the 
 railway companies to the I'rivy (Council of 
 Canada purporting to be maib; uiuler 4(i Vict. c. 
 24(l)oni.) an order <d' the I'rivy Comicil was 
 obtained authorizing the work to lie done accord- 
 ing to the terms of such agreement. The muni- 
 cipality of Parkdalc then contracted with one 
 (i. for the construction of the sultway, and a 
 l)y-la\v providing for the raismg of I'arkdale's 
 share of the cost of construction was submitted 
 toand approved of by the latepayers of the muni- 
 cipality. In an action by the owner of pi-o- 
 perty injured I)y the work:— Held, reversing the 
 t.'ourt of Appeal, 12 A. K. .Sit.'?, and aliirniing 
 the decision of the Chy. D., SO. H. 5!t. whi-h U|)- 
 heldthi' judgnuMit (jf Wilson, V. .1., 7 <). H. 570. 
 Per Hitcliie, ('. .1., Fournier and Henry, ,),)., 
 that the work was not done by the municipality 
 under the special Act, nor nieiely as agent of 
 the railway companies, and the municipality was , 
 therefore liable as a wrongdoer. l'er(iwynno, 
 J.— That the work should be considered as liav- j 
 ing been done under the special Act, and the | 
 plaintiffs were entitled to com|iensation there- | 
 under. Per Tasehereau, .1.- That the work was 
 done by the nuinicipality as agent of the rail- 
 way cdiiipaiiies, and it was therefore not liable. 
 I»V,<M-. /'nih/a/e, I'J S. ('. R. 'J.-.O. Adirnied ! 
 by the Privy Council, 12 App. t'us. (102. 
 
 I 
 Agreeinent by railway company to erect 
 station, etc., on cfuidition of receiving bonus. 
 See liiikfuril v. Town ol Cliatham, 10 O. R. 257; ' 
 14 A. 1!. :t2; Ki.S. ('. U. 2:«i. j 
 
 Plaintid' entered into an agreement in writing 
 with the defendants to do eortnin work under a ' 
 provisional by-law, and wliieli agreement con- 
 tained this clause, "Notwithstanding anything , 
 hereinbefore contained to the contrary thisagree- 
 ment * * is made subject to tiie final jiassing 
 of the sai<l by-law * * and in the event of the 
 Si.id by-law not being passed * * then this i 
 "gretnienlshalllie null and voiil • * .'' The j 
 by-law was never finally passed and the agree- 
 ment was produced at the trial by defendants to j 
 prevent the )ilaintill' from recovering as on u , 
 •juautnni meruit :— Held, (reversing Kergiisoii, 
 J., who retained his opinion), that the defen- 
 dants were bouiiil by the eontiact, and that the 
 plaintiil on shewing the approval of the engineer, 
 M provided by the agreement, was entitled to a 
 mandanuis to the defendants to rai.se the money. 
 The stipulation as to the final passing of the 
 by-law should receive a reasonable construction 
 »na could onlv be invoked when the work was 
 
 87 
 
 not properly performecl. (^hciinl'iin- ■ \ 
 ■s/ilji of Hoirnril, ISO. K. <!.'>.- -( 'liy. I >. 
 
 .\1II. .VcriONS .\M> Pitor'Kr.lilNcs i;V AM) 
 .Vli.MN.ST. 
 
 1. (IcHinvhj. 
 
 Action by two rateiiayeis on behalf of them 
 ■ selves and all other ratepayers of A. against all 
 the members of the municipal cniincil of A., 
 charging that the defendants" acting fraudulently 
 and ill collusion with the treasurer of .\., coii- 
 timicd him in oflice after it had come to their 
 knowledge that he was a defaulter, and allowed 
 him to receive further iiioiieys, causing loss to 
 tlieniunici|iality : — Held, that the law attache.- 
 the liability of trustees to municipal I'ouneil 
 lor.s, iind that it was sullicient to charge them as 
 such without using the word •' triiste< s ;" that 
 the action was (Uie in the former exclusive juris- 
 diction of the Court of Chancery, anil a jury 
 notice was therefore improper : — .Sembli'. the 
 iniiiiici])al cor|Joration slKUihi have been inade a 
 jiarty to the action, and the actiiui .shoulil have 
 been on behalf of all ratepayers, except the de- 
 fendants. Morrow v. Connor, 11 P, H. 423. — 
 Prouilfoot. 
 
 A iate[iayer of a niuiiicipnlity cannot maintain 
 an action, on behalf of liims(df and the other 
 rate|iayers, against the muniei]iality for the im- 
 proper c(uistriiction of a drain authoiized by by- 
 law when such racpayer has himself been a 
 contractor for a portion of the work and has 
 received his share of the money voted for the 
 work in excess of the amount expended, dudg- 
 
 i nieiit of the Court of Apjjeal for (liitario, 13 A. 
 H. 5;{ allirmed. JJillun v. 'J'oiraxliip o/' Jiii/iii/li, 
 
 j 14 ,S. C. R. 73!). 
 
 An officer of a municipal corporation ajiplied 
 for a mandamus to compel the mayor to sign 
 warrants for the applicant's salary, which the 
 mayor had been called upon to do by a resolu- 
 tion of the municipal council : — Hehl, that the 
 ' applicant could maintain an action against the 
 i corporation for his salary, and, as he liad that 
 remedy, a maiidainus would not 1 e grant* d at 
 his instance. J>'f Whildhr and Muxi.n, IS (). 
 K. (i3.— (ialt. 
 
 A justice of the peace cannot compel a corpo- 
 ration to appear before hiiii, nor can he bind them 
 over to appear and answer to an indictment ; and 
 he has no jurisdicticui to bind over the piofccu- 
 tor or person who intends to present an indict- 
 ment against them. Ji'i Chtijunini itnil the Cily 
 of London, and lie Cluqimiin and /lie IViiter 
 Coinrnix.iioner.s of Ike Cily of London, 19 O. R. 33. 
 —Robertson. 
 
 Against surveyor for negligence in making 
 inijiroper survey. See Township of Slo ford v. 
 Belt, (i A. R. 273. 
 
 Compelling railway to repair liighw ays. Frame 
 of suit. Sec I'Vnolon F(dln v. Viclorin 11. W. Co., 
 29 Chy. 4, p. 920. 
 
 •a ■ , 
 
 Action for false impri.'^onment. Void assess- 
 ment. See McSorlin \. Mayor, eU:, of the Cily 
 of St. John, S. C. K. 531. 
 
 Writ of prohibition to municipal corporation. 
 See Cotdw Munjan, 7 S. C. 11. 1. 
 
 
1379 
 
 MU^OIFAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 ea 
 
 ft.'! 
 
 BBi'tN 
 
 m 
 
 09 
 
 Liability for iiociiloiits occurring prior to 
 organization of niiiiiicipality. Sec Simpnuii v. 
 Villti;/,' of JLinlsri//,', r.iO. k. 101. 
 
 Liability for injury to workmen cuii)loye(l by 
 city contractor in work over whicli a corporation 
 orticcr excrciscil Muperintcn(l(Micc. Sec Miir]iliy 
 V. Vltji uf Ollaira, ISO. R. 3:U, p. rJ4;{. 
 
 Liability for libel. Sec McLay v. County of 
 Br Hit, 14" O. R. SOS, p. 508. 
 
 See MoUon'n Bank v. Toirii of Brockville, 31 (;. 
 P. 174 ; Scot/i.sh Americiin Iiircitimiit ('it. v. 
 VilliKjc of EInvii, (i A. R. ()28, p. 1.S4S ;/>'(>- 
 iinrl V. Toirif/iii) iif' Sei/iiioiir, 10 < >. 11. 3'22, p. 
 1373; Ali.iiutilff V. Tmciiship of Ifiticnril, J4 
 U. R. 2l.', p. l.S(iO'; Slatbrw Toiniilii/i of Dun- 
 
 wh-h, 15 O. R. 34-i. p. i:m; 
 
 (I'rcfH V, Town 
 
 .v/t/> ((/■ Oc/o*v/, 15 O. It. 50(i 
 
 K) A. R. 4, p 
 
 13(il. 
 
 
 XIV. Arbitrations under the Municipal 
 Act. 
 
 (a) Oencrally. 
 
 The court has power to enlarged the time for 
 making an award, although the .same has not 
 been nuidc " witliin the nu)utli after the a))point- 
 mcnt of the third arbitrator," a.s reipiiicd by 
 .section 377 of R, S. (). (1887), c 174. In ni tli" 
 City of Toronto and Scolt, 8 P. R. 318. — Wilson. 
 
 The general enactments relating to arbitration 
 apply to awards under the Municipal Act. ///. 
 
 In extending the time in this case the nuitters 
 referred were remitted to such |)er.sons as the 
 court should appoint under the Alunicipal Act, 
 section 385. lit. 
 
 Held, tiiat the arbitrators on the sei)aration of 
 the united Lownsliips, under li. S. (). (1877), c. 
 174, s. 28, sliould not take into consideration 
 moneys re^-^ived by the union, under 30 Vict. c. 
 47 (Out.), from the government on account of 
 the Municipal Loan Kund, and appro|)riatcd by 
 the union to the purposes authorized by that 
 Act ; but tliat they migiit apportion any part 
 of it rctnainiug unappro[)riated, and in doing so 
 need n.)t be goveined by the population of the 
 several townships accoidiiig to the census of 
 1871, as provided for the distribution by the 
 governmenf under that Act. The duty of aujh 
 arbitrator! is to ascertain the assets of the union, 
 real and personal ; dispose of the personal pro- 
 peity as may be just ; make proper allowance 
 for the real estate to the townsiiip deprived of 
 it l)y the separation, and for the |)crsonal jro- 
 perty assigned to either nuiuicipality in ex ( ess 
 of its share ; and ascertain aiul apportiou the 
 liabilities. They should consider the value of 
 the real property of the tniion in each township 
 as an asset, and what allowance, if any; should 
 be made l)y the township retaining it under the 
 statute to the • oarating township. Toinn-ship 
 of AUtcrmarle III .i United Tonntshipfi of EnMnor, 
 Liii'Uay, iind.it. EdinuniU,A^i(l. 15. 1,33. — Cam- 
 eron. 
 
 The provisions of .section 383 of the Munici- 
 pal Act (1877) reipiiring arbitrators to trtke and 
 tile for the inform ition of the court full notes 
 of the evidence, or a statement that they pro- 
 ceeded upon skill or knowledge possessed by 
 
 themselves, or upon a view, in making their 
 award, arc imperative, and the omission to com- 
 ply with them is fatal to the award, lit re 
 AlbciiKirle and EaMnor, 40 Q. B. 183. — Armour. 
 
 From reading the award made in this matter 
 and the evidence and <locu:ncnts tiled, it was 
 impossible for the court to ascertain the reason 
 for the award, and so impossible to consiiiur the 
 matter u])on the merits as required by .section 
 385 ; and the evidence and documcnt.s which 
 were lited appeared not to support tiie award 
 which was therefoi'c set aside. III. 
 
 The arbitrators having made two i)roviou8 
 awards, which had both been referred liack to 
 them, and great expense incurred, tlie onurt 
 refused to refer the matter back to tlicni, but 
 ordered that it be remitted to the judge of the 
 County Court, unless counsel could agree upon 
 such facts as would enable the court to deal with 
 the matters in dispute, lb. 
 
 .Senible. that the combincil effect of sootiors 
 377 and .380 of the Municipal Act, 18S7 is to en- 
 altle the arbitrators in cases coming within these 
 sections to extend the time for makini; tlicir 
 award beyond the month. Tturnxhip of Tkur- 
 loivv. Townshijt of Sidney, 2!) Cliy. 4!)7. — I'roiid. 
 foot. 
 
 The plaintitT municipality sued upon an award 
 whereby the defendant municipality was ordered 
 to pay tlieir portion of the cost of a drain con- 
 structed by the idaintifFs. It was slicwu that 
 the arbitrators met frequently and adjourned 
 from time to time, counsel for the dcfcndunt.'i 
 appiaring before the arbitrators and raising no 
 objection to such adjournments, or that the 
 nu)nth from the date of the ap|)ointmeut of the 
 third arbitrator, as prescribed by section 337 o( 
 the Municipal Act had elapsed without any 
 award having been made : — Held, that an award 
 made after the expiry of the month was valid. 
 Ih. 
 
 In proceedings upon arbitration between a city 
 and county under sections 22, 445, 446, and 447 of 
 the Municipal Act (1877), the quest ions submitted 
 aie largely in the discretion of the arbitrators, 
 no principle or rule being laid down by the 
 statute. Where, therefore, arbitrators, in form- 
 ing estimates of the proportion of expenditure 
 to be borne by the city and county uiulcr these 
 sections, took population as a basis instead of 
 the assessment rolls : —Held, that this was no 
 ground for interference. The court refusedalsti 
 to interfere with the compensation awarded for 
 care and nuiintenance of prisoners. The arbi- 
 trators having awarded as to the macadamized 
 road lying in the county and city, a matter not 
 submitteil to them, the clause was struck outof 
 the awanl with costs, which were fixed at .JIO. 
 In re the Arltitration between, the C'lti/ of SI. 
 CitthnrinM and County of Lincoln, 40 Q. 15. 425. 
 —Osier. 
 
 A portion of the township of Sarnia was.iddcd 
 to tlie town of Sarnia by proclamation of the 
 Lienteuant-(ioveniour. The former nnmiciiialty 
 was indebted to the province for certain draiu- 
 ago works under the provisions of R. S. 0. ( 1877) 
 c. 33, in respect of roads benefited by tluMlrains. 
 Tiie arbitrators in settling the matters in dispute 
 between the two corporations, refused to con- 
 
1380 
 
 1381 
 
 MUNICIPAL OORPOEATIONS. 
 
 1382 
 
 ', in making their 
 lie omission to com- 
 tlie award. ]ii re 
 , B. 183. — Aiinour. 
 
 lade in this matter, 
 monts tileil, it was 
 scertnin tlie leason 
 iil)lo to consiclfr the 
 roiinircil l>y aui'tion 
 1 (loL'uinciit.s which 
 support till' award, 
 le. Jh. 
 
 iimilc two iHcvious 
 en referred liack to 
 incurred, tlie court 
 ■ back to tiieni, but 
 to the .jud;_'e of the 
 al coul(i agree upon 
 lie court to deal with 
 
 3d effect of sectiors 
 il Act, 1887 is to en- 
 coming within tliese 
 le for makini,' their 
 7'.<?c/i.i/ii/> "/ Thnr- 
 
 9 Chy. 4U7.— I'roml- 
 
 r sued upon an aw^ril 
 icipality was (inlcretl 
 cost of a drain con- 
 It was shewn that 
 nitly and a<tjouriie<l 
 for the defonilunts 
 Ators and raising no 
 nients, or tliat the 
 I appointment of the 
 >ed by section 3S7 ol 
 ilapsed without any 
 -Held, that an awani 
 
 10 month was valid. 
 
 .ration between a city 
 2, 4411,446, and 447 of 
 eqnestions snhmitteil 
 n of the arbitrators, 
 ; laid down liy the 
 , arbitrators, inform- 
 rtion of expenditure 
 1 county under these 
 \8 H basis instead of 
 Id, that this waa no 
 L'lio court refused also 
 unsation awarded for 
 )risoners. The arhi- 
 to the niaeadamizcd 
 id city, a matter not 
 use waa struck out of 
 ill were fixed at §10. 
 vei'ii. Ihc, Cili/ of SI. 
 Lincoln, 40 Q. 15. 425. 
 
 ip of Sarnia was added 
 proclamation of the 
 he former munioipalty 
 ICO for certain drain- 
 ions of R. S. 0. (187') 
 eiictitedby thclraii* 
 tho matters in dispute 
 tions, refused to con- 
 
 siller the indebtedness, and made their award 
 without adjudicatinj; tliereon : — Held, that the 
 award was invalid, for the liability in respect of 
 the roads was an ordinary debt payable out of 
 the general funds of the township, to which the 
 town should contribute. I\'i' Toii'nxhiii of Sar- 
 niaand Town oj Sarnia, 1 C). K. 411. — ( 'amerou. 
 
 The award directed the township to |)ay a cer- 
 tain sum to tiie town : — Held, bad ; for the Muni- 
 cipal Act, R. S. (). (IS77) c. 174, s. M, only pri>- 
 vidcs for the payment by the town to the town- 
 ship. In re the village of Point Kdward and 
 the township of Sarnia, 44 (,>. H. 4(il, di.itin- 
 guishcd. II). 
 
 (^uiere, whether an award made by arbitrators 
 pursuant to the Municipal Act, R. S. (). (IH77) o. 
 174, is invalid though made more than a month ^ 
 aftei' the appointment of the third arbitrator, 
 notwitlistanding section 377 of the Act. //( re 
 ArliitniJiiju httiveen the Toii-iixldjiof Mtiil'akaawl ! 
 Ih yUtd'jt of O'niivnliiif.^/, (i O. I!. 3.')2.— ' 
 C'aiiicron. 
 
 liy section .378 no member, odicer, or person in 
 the employment of a corporation interested in 
 any arbitration, nor any person so interested, 
 shall act as an arbitrator under the Act : — 
 Semblu, that a ratepayer was dis(jualified, and I 
 that the objection would not be waived by mere 
 accjuiescence. Ih. Sec R. S. O. 1887, c. 184, s. 
 390 (2). I 
 
 By section 383 the arbitrators are to file with i 
 the clerk of the council the notes of the evidence 
 taken. There being two councils interested in ' 
 the arbitration, the arbitrators did not know ' 
 with which clerk to file the evidence, and did . 
 not file it :— Held, that the award was not there- j 
 by invalidated. ///. | 
 
 The award having been directed to be made 
 within a year by an order of the C^liancery Divi- 
 sion, where the parties were litigating coneerii- 
 ing it : — Held, that the motion to set it aside or 
 refer back on the above grounds, or on the 
 merits, should have lieen made in that division, 
 and slionld be transferred. //>. 
 
 A portion of a drain constructed by a township 
 corporation having been dug on tho plaintiff's 
 laud, an arbitration was had under the Municipal 
 Act to ascertain the ctmipensation plaintitf was 
 entitled to by reason of the damage alleged to 
 have been sustained by him : (1) for land taken 
 for the ilrain ; (2) for the throwing of earth on 
 the land on the site of the drain ; (3) the build- 
 ing of bridges by the plaintiff to cross the drain ; 
 and (4) the backing of water into the plaintirt''s 
 cellar. The arbitrators found that the plaintiff" 
 had not sustained any damage, and they made 
 an award against him imposing on him a large 
 portion of the costs :— Held, that the evidence 
 sustained all the grounds of damage e.vcept the 
 last, as to which tho evidence was not very 
 satisfactory. The judge was therefore of opinion 
 that he could not ascertain the compensation 
 himself, but set aside the award, and intimated 
 that unless the parties wouhl agree on now arbi- 
 trators, he was disposed to direct a reference to 
 the county judge. In re llod<iwn ami the Toivn- 
 *hip of Jl„sunqii,;t, 11 O. K. 589.— Camoron. 
 
 A township by-law after reciting that there 
 was a ditiiculty with S. " from alleged damages 
 from water (lowing from local drains known as 
 
 the H. anil S. drains," enacted that F. was ap- 
 pointed arbitrator for the township. The notice 
 given by the reeve to S. was that " the corpora- 
 tion had elected that tho claims made by you 
 for damages to the east li.'vlf of lot 1 l,"etc. , " on 
 account of the construction of the drain from V. 
 to the S. drain, or coiisequent thereon, shall bo 
 referred to arbitration." Heforothe parties had 
 been hoard on tho merit'!, the plaiiitilf's arbitra- 
 tor withdrew from tho arbitration and refused 
 to act ; but the other two arbitrators notwith- 
 standing proceeded with the reference and made 
 an award : -Held, that the reference was wholly 
 informal, the subject thereof not Iteing pro|icrly 
 iletined ; and though the notice given by the 
 reeve to .S. woiiM make llie matter sufhciontly 
 clear it could not .•iff'ect S. for he never entered 
 upon the arbitration, but rt'pudiatdd the arbitra- 
 tor's authority at the lirst meeting of which be 
 had notice ; but oven if the reference were suffi- 
 cient, tho award was bad by reason of the two 
 arbitrators proceeding alone, the Municipal Act 
 requiring (in the absence of a special agreement 
 to refer) that there shall be three arbitrators 
 continuing to act from the time of appointment 
 until the award has been made, ami enabling 
 the County (,'ourt juilgo to appoint another 
 arbitrator in the ))lace of one rolusing or neglect- 
 ing to act. In ri' Smith ((ml the Township of 
 niiimpton, 12 0. R. 20.— Cameron. 
 
 (i)uirre, whotlier it was in tho power of cither 
 party to the reference to revoke tho authority 
 of the arbitrators. Ih. 
 
 Semble, that tho provisions in tho statute that 
 the arbitrators must hold their first mooting 
 within twenty days from tho appointment of the 
 last arbitrator is not imperative, but directory, 
 niorcly ; and therefore an omission to hold such 
 meeting within such time wijuld not invalidate 
 an awaril made within tho month as required 
 l)y the Act. Ih. 
 
 .Semble, also, that the county judge may ap- 
 point the third arbitrator ox parte although this 
 is not desirable ; and that the ))ower to appoint 
 does not depend on tho disagreement of the two 
 arbitrators, but on their failure to agree within 
 tho seven days limited therefor. Ih. 
 
 It was objected that the arbitrators had not 
 taken the oath reijuired by the statute ; but : — 
 .Semldc, this objection was not tenable, as the 
 oath they took was substantially the same us 
 that recpiircd. /'(. 
 
 In tho case of an arbitration under the Muni- 
 cipal Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 184, a municipal by- 
 law and appointments in writing by tho parties 
 of tho arbitrators constitute such a submission 
 to arbitration by consent as may be made a rule 
 of court under section 13of R. S. O. (1877) c 53. 
 R. S. O. (1887) e. 184, s. 404, provides that 
 every award made thereunder shall bo subject to 
 the jurisdiction of the High Court as if made on 
 a, submission by a bond containing an agreement 
 for making tho submission a rule or order of 
 such court:— Held, upon tho language of this 
 section, that the submission should be made a 
 rule of court before tho award is moved upon : — 
 Hehl, also, that any party to tho submission has 
 prima facie a right to have it made a rule of 
 court ; and according to the practice existing 
 when the Oon.solidated Rules came into force, no 
 person other than the applicant was entitled to 
 
.-:,<Y' 
 
 1383 
 
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
 
 1384 
 
 CSh 
 
 Si: 
 
 a 
 
 ■< 
 
 e 
 
 
 lie lieanl nptin ii moticin for kiuIi an oitier ; ninl , 
 tliureforo by Con. Rule oM tliciv is no nii'twsity ■ 
 for serving noticu of motion, unil iin onU r can bo 
 made ex piiite. Siiili im ordir is iniu'ly ii ne- 
 cessiiiy form in order to j;ive the ti mi jiirisdic- [ 
 tioii over tlie award ; it )>indM nu one and con- \ 
 cedes notiiing ; the grunting of it i« compulsory 
 on the court u|)on the iiiiHluction of the jirdpei' , 
 aifiihivits ; and tlie court can iiiouire into and 
 adjudicate U|)(ui ail matters of s\ilisfanci' when 
 the award itself is sought to he attacked or en- 
 forced. Therefore, it was inwnaterial that upon 
 an ex parte application for such an order it was 
 not disclosed that theic were certain matters in 
 eontroveisy between tlie paities as to enlarge- , 
 inents of the time for nuiking the award. YiV 
 City of Toroii/o Lead<r Lane Arbitration, 13 P. 1 
 R. 16().-(^ K. I). ; 
 
 Section 3!)!) of the Municipal Act, K. S. O. 
 (1887) c. 184, provides with regard to arbitra- 
 tions under the Act, that tiie arbitrators shall ] 
 have power to award the iiaynujut by any of 
 the partie" to the other of the costs of the arbi- 
 tration, and nuiy either 'direct the jiayment of a 
 lixed sum or that the costs shall lie taxeil on 
 either the scale c' the High Court, or of the ' 
 County Courts in which ease the costs shall bo ; 
 taxed by the ollicerof the proper court. Arbitra- 
 tors directed that costs of certain landowners of 
 arbitration proceedings to ascertain the compen- 
 sation to be j)aid by a municipality for land 
 expropriated should be ta.ved on the scale of the 
 High Court "as between solicitor and client" : 
 — Held, that the judicial discretion of the arbi- 
 trators was exercised and expentled when costs 
 were adjudged according to a certain scale ; and 
 that the arbitrators had no power to give costs 
 "between solicitor and client;" aiul, as the 
 error appeared on the face of the award, the 
 municipality was not driven to appeal therci- 
 froni, but was entitled to claim the btnelit of 
 the excess of jurisdiction uiion the taxation of 
 the costs. The ruling ol the taxing olhcer that 
 the costs should be taxed as between party and 
 ivirty was alljrnieil. ViV Haili/ anil tin- Cili/ oJ'\ 
 Toronto, 13 P. K. SlO.^Hoyd." 
 
 Hy 35 Viet. e. ?!•, the water-w orks c(jmuiis- 1 
 sioners of the city of Toronto weie authorized ; 
 to expropriate lands for the purpose of water- i 
 works, and in case of disagreement to have the 1 
 value ascertained by arbitration ; and by 41 ! 
 Viet. c. 41, all the jiowers of the commissioners 
 were vested in the city corjoration. The city 
 corporation, desiring to expropriate certain land 
 for water-works purp(jses, passed a by-law re- 
 citing the above enactments and authorizing the 
 expropriation, and afterwards served a notice 
 offering to pay the landowiur $2o,C00, and, in 
 the event of his not accepting, requiring him 
 "pursuant to section ,"593 of the Municipal Act" 
 to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrators ap- 
 pointed took the oath prescribed by theMunici]ial 
 Act, which was diflcrent in substance from that 
 \ .scribed by 35 Vict. c. 70:— Held (reversing 
 the judgment of (lalt, C. J.), that section 483 
 of the Municipal Act, 1!. ,S. O. (1887) e. 184, 
 liad the efl'cct of superseding the procedure for 
 arbitration provided by 45 Vict. e. 79, and of 
 substituting therefor the procedure for arbitra- 
 tion provided by the Muiucipal Act ; and that 
 the city corporation, having adopted and taken 
 advantage of the procedure provided by the 
 
 Municipal Act, could not escape the consequen- 
 ces ; and therefore the arbitrators had power 
 under section .'W'J of the ^lunicijal Act to award 
 costs to the landowner, there being no rower to 
 do sounder 35 Vict. c. 79:— Held, also, that 
 the arbitrators having awarded costs, and their 
 award not having been moved against, it wivs 
 the duty of the taxing ollicer to tax the costs 
 ll< Siiittli and the City of Toronto, 13 P. R. 479 - 
 
 Held, that under the oircumstauces of this 
 matter, the omission to tile the evidence taken 
 by the arl)iti-atois, was not irremediable. [!(. 
 Muskoka and (iravenhurst, (i O. R. at p. ,S57, 
 ajjproved of. The appointment of the arbitrator 
 by the corporation was not under seal, lint tin- 
 court declined to set aside the awanl on that 
 ground, as the objection, if valid, could be taken 
 in any proceeding to enforce the award. Re 
 Kldon and Ferguson, (i U. C. L. J. 'JOT, fol- 
 lowed, lir llarrcij and I'avkdnic, Hi (), It 
 372.-Hoyd. 
 
 iSce llardiiuj v. Toirn.'<lii/> of (Jnrdiff, 'Ji) t'hy. 
 308, J). 131)3; Sinilli v. J'lurnshiiJ iif llaliiiih, 
 3 U. K. 4t)."), ).. 13.-.S; Jfurdinij'y. Tnlm- 
 xhip (</■ Cariliii, -J (). it. .3-29, pp. ' ll'43, 1244: 
 In re the Tonit of /ni/ir/-o(l and Currull, I 
 (). II. 488. In rr. I^aiilnuli ami fhi- 'I'mrn of 
 I'lti rtioioiKjh, ') (). R. (i34 ; MtArthnr k. Ton 
 0/ CdllinijiriKid, 9 O.K. 3(iS ; I'rtxtnn v. Curpor- 
 (ition of (annhn, 14 A. R. 85; T<Jii:ii-<hiii of 
 Chatham v. Toii'nfhi/i of Donr, VI S. (.'. R. 
 3-.'l, p. 1350. 
 
 XV. ISVKSTro.VTlOS OF MUNICIIUI, M.VTTKKS 
 RkR)1;K CofNTV .lUIHiK. 
 
 The cor])oration of the city of T. ))asse(l a 
 resolution whereby, alter reciting that oiu' of 
 their olliceis had been guilty of misconduct in 
 relation to his duties as inspector of materials 
 furnished and woik done by contrauliis in cer- 
 tain specitied resiiects, and ann^ngst others, in 
 perndtting a certain contractor to furiiisli in- 
 ferioi' material to the cor))oration, and in receiv- 
 ing from such contractor bribes, and wrun^^fiilly 
 conveying to him infiuination to facilitate liiin 
 in securing contracts ; they refened it to the 
 county judge "to investigate and encpMre into 
 the seveial matters ami things therein icferreil 
 to, and every matter and thing conmcied there- 
 with, and with the relations which may have 
 existed, or do exist, between the i-aid W. L, 
 (the oilicer in (|uestion) and any contracti r hav 
 ing, or having had, contracts with the city of 
 'J\, in order that the truth or falsity of the al- 
 legeil charges oi malfeasance, breach of trnst, 
 gross negligence, and other misconduct made 
 against the said W. I;, nuiy be asceitained ;' — 
 Held, by Robertson, J., that under R. S. ().(ISS"), 
 c. 184, s. 477, the corporation had jjowi r to piiss 
 the said resolution, specitically refeiring, as it 
 did, totbeotliccr, andthecounty jmlge had | ower 
 to make the necessary enquiries, and lor that 
 purpose to summon witnesses, etc., and in dimig 
 so, to ])roceed with enquiries against other indi- 
 viduals, besides the contractor, so far and so far 
 only, as it nnght be necessary to the enquiry 
 against such i.flicer ; but the judge was not 
 authorizcil to branch otl' into matters between 
 the contractor and the corporation, in which 
 
1385 
 
 N£ EXEAT REONO. 
 
 1386 
 
 jio the conaequen- 
 lators had power 
 i;iial Ai;t Id award 
 lit'iiig no lower to 
 -Held, silsd, that 
 :(1 costH, and their 
 ;d against, it wns 
 to tax tilt' costs. 
 lo, V.i I'. R. 479— 
 
 unistaiK'i's of this 
 ,ho evideiicu taken 
 mMii('iii;il)li'. l!(! 
 «». R. at p. 357, 
 lit of the ail)itrator 
 iiider SL'al, Init the 
 the award on that 
 lid, could bo taken 
 i\ tlu! award. Re 
 L!. L. .). •J07, fol- 
 idilnir, l(i O. I!. 
 
 if Cardiff, 'J!) I'hy. 
 •I'lishiii (ij llntijjih, 
 Idrdimi v. V'oini- 
 ;), pp.'l-_'4;{, 1244: 
 )// anil CiirruU, I 
 awl thf Tijirn o/ 
 Mr A ithur V. Toim 
 I'xxl'iii V. Oi/'/wr- 
 8") ; Toii:ii-<hiii of 
 )or<r, 12 S. t'. R. 
 
 NlCir.VL M.VTTKUS 
 
 ity of T. pas-SLil a 
 ■citing that one (if 
 y of inisciiiuhift in 
 pcotor of nuUfii.ils 
 contracli r.s in cer- 
 aiuuiigst others, in 
 ctor to furi]i.sh in- 
 atioii, and in recciv- 
 l)cs, and wronyfiilly 
 )ii to facilitate him 
 
 lofcried it to the 
 te anil cn(|iiiro into 
 ig.s therein leterrcd 
 ing coniKcleil there- 
 ii« wiiieli may hiivc 
 _'eli the taid W. L 
 any eontiacti r liuv 
 ■U witii the I ity of 
 or falsity of the .li- 
 ce, breach of I rust, 
 ;r misconduct iiiaile 
 be ai-cei tamed ;' — 
 under R..S.O.(ISS7), 
 111 had j)owi r to pass 
 ally referring, as it 
 
 ity judge had | ower 
 .lilies, and lor that 
 .•8, etc,, anil in doing 
 is against other iudi- 
 tor, 80 far and s" far 
 sary to the enquiry 
 
 the .judge was not 
 matters between 
 •ation, in which 
 
 1" 
 
 ito 
 
 Buch otiicer was in no niaiiiier concerned ; and 
 en the authority of Re .Sijuier, 46 y. B. 474, 
 the contractor was entitled to a writ of prohibi- 
 tion to prevent such investigation as to any 
 future proceedings therein, but as to past pro- 
 fceding.>i, he having appeared and taken part, 
 couhl not now coinpluin os to them. The cor- 
 poration, under authority of the some Act, also 
 referred it to the said judge by three resolutions 
 to enquire generally into the relations between 
 the corporation, its oflicials and contractors, 
 tending to undue influence in favour of contrac- 
 tors, and as to whether contractors or other per- 
 sons wrongfully obtained money from the cor- 
 poration by fraudulent means, and as to the 
 whole system of tendering, awarding, fulfilling 
 and inspecting contracts: — Held, that these 
 resolutions were altogether of too general a 
 character to authorize the judge to proceed with 
 any enquiry in reference to tiie said contractor 
 in the subjects referred to, and that he was in 
 like manner entitled to a writ of prohibition to 
 prevent such eiuiuiry. The statute does not 
 mean, or contemplate, that the corporation shall 
 authorize in such general and undefined terms 
 an investigation and inquiry into corporation 
 affairs wiiich implicate individuals generally 
 without naming the person or persons implica- 
 ted, and without much greater particularity in 
 specifying the nature of the misconduct to be 
 investigated : — Held, that in holding an investi- 
 gation under the statute, the judge was acting 
 m a judicial capacity and not as a mere investi- 
 gator or commissiuuer. .Seinble, that if the 
 county judge in the course of such investigations 
 proceeded to the United States *o take evidence, 
 any oath administered by h... in the United 
 States would have no legal significance, and any 
 false statement made by a person sworn before 
 him under such circuinstances would not have 
 attached to it the con8e(|uences of perjury. He 
 (lodioii (iiitl Ihf City of Toronto, 16 O. R. "275. 
 
 But on appeal the Court of Appeal :■— Held, 
 Where the County Court judge is making an 
 investigation pursuant to the resolution of a 
 council under R. S. O. (1S77), c 184, s. 477, 
 he is acting a persona designata, and not in a 
 judicial capacity, and is not subject to control 
 by a writ of proliibition. That writ is not to be 
 applied to any proceeding of an}' person or body 
 of persona, whether they be popularly called a 
 court or by any other name, on whom the law 
 confers no power of pronouncing any judgment 
 or order imposing any legal duty or obligation 
 on any individual. Re S(|uier, 46 Q. B. 474, 
 considered. .V. C. , 16 A. R. 452. 
 
 XVI. Audit ok County Crown Attorney'.s 
 
 Atror.NT.s. 
 
 See In re Feiitou ami the Board of Avdit of the 
 County of York, SI C. P. .'11, p. 405; InreHtan- 
 toil and till' Board oj Audit of the County ofElijin, 
 ;i 0. R. 8(i, p. 405. 
 
 MURDER. 
 
 See Criminai, L.vw. 
 
 MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES. 
 
 See Insurance. 
 
 irponi 
 
 MUNICIPAL LOAN FUND. 
 
 See In re thi> Township of Albemarle and the 
 I'liilecl Townnliijni of Eaitnor, Lindsay, and St. 
 IHmmida, 45 Q. B. 133, p. 1379. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 I. Ok Ciimpanies — See Companv. 
 II. As Trade Mark— 5*06 Trahe Marks. 
 III. Misnomer— Set' Misnomer. 
 
 Remarks as to the serious consequences likely 
 to arise from the constant changes in the names 
 of the streets in the city of Toronto. Van- 
 Kovnlinel v. Ihnixon, 11 A. R. 6!)0.— See 1!. .S. 
 O. (1877), c. 184, 8. 406, subs. 31. 
 
 A discharge of mortgage was signed by " p^liza" 
 Swit/.cr, whereas the mortgage purporting to be 
 discharged was made to "Elizabeth" Swiizer : — 
 Held, on a vendor and purchaser application, 
 that there was no valid objection to the dis- 
 charge, for the identity of tlie person signing 
 was established by affidavit to the satisfaction 
 of the registrar, and as a matter of family usage 
 the names are synonymous and interchangeable. 
 lie Clarke and Chumhirlain, 18 0. 1!. '270.— Boyd. 
 
 A promissory note made payable to John 
 .Souther & iSon was sued on by .lolin Souther & 
 Co. :— Held, that it being clear by the evidence 
 that the plaintiffs were the persons designated 
 as payees they could recover. Wallace v. Souther, 
 16 S. C. R. 717. 
 
 NATURALIZATION. 
 
 See Parliamentarv Elections. 
 
 NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE 
 WATERS. 
 
 See Ship — Water anu AVater-Courses. 
 
 NE EXEAT REGNO. 
 
 The sureties on a statutory bail bond under a 
 writ of ne exeat Provincia have no power to sur- 
 render their principal as at coniiiKHi law. An ap- 
 plication by sureties for discharge from a bond 
 for repayment of the money paid to the sherid' as 
 collateral security was refusetl. Iiichardifou v. 
 liichardson, 8 P. R. 274. — Proud foot — Spragge. 
 
 Where a party is entitled to an assignment of 
 a bond and to realize for his own beiielit, his rights 
 are the same in regard to money deposited and 
 where, in an alimony suit, the statutory bond 
 under a writ of ne exeat has been given the 
 plaintiff is entitled to have the moneys deposited 
 as collateral security therefor paid into court and 
 applied in discharging arrears of aliniuny. lb. 
 
1387 
 
 NSOLIOENOE. 
 
 1383 
 
 NEOOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 See Bills ok Ex('han(ik and Piiomissory 
 
 NoTKS. 
 
 Premium notes. See Seam v. Agricultural 
 liimrance Co., 32 C. P. 585, p. 977. 
 
 Deposit receipts. See Re Central Bank — 
 Morton and Jilock'n claiinx, 17 O. R. 574, p. 
 135. 
 
 CRf 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 NEQLIOENOE. 
 
 1. Na'it'kk (IK Act. 
 
 1. Generally, 1388. 
 
 2. Proof of Nrligenre, 1390. 
 
 3. Contributory Neijliijence. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1391. 
 
 (b) Of Serranl or Employee — See 
 
 AIastkk and Skkva.nt. 
 
 (c) In Accidents by liailways—See 
 
 Railways and Railway Com- 
 panies. 
 
 4. Proximate Caune of Injury, 1391. 
 6. Delay Generally — See Laches, 
 
 6. Presentment of B'dla or Notes — ^ee 
 
 Bills ok Excuanqb and Pkomis- 
 SOKY Notes. 
 
 7. Erection of Buildings and Bemovnl of 
 
 Lateral Support — .Vee Buildings — 
 
 LaTKUAL .SUi'J'ORT. 
 
 8. Clearing Land — See Firb. 
 
 9. Neglect to Save Property Insured— See 
 
 Insuuanck. 
 
 II. Parties Liablk. 
 
 1. The Crown, 1392. 
 
 2. Hmhandand Wije, 1392. 
 
 3. Municipalities. 
 
 (ft) Generally, 1392. 
 
 (b) Injuries by Drains — See Water 
 
 AND WaTKR-COURSES. 
 
 (c) Injuries on Ilighwiiys — See Way. 
 
 4. Master for Acts of Servants — See 
 
 Master and Servant. 
 
 6. Medical Practitioners — See Medical 
 Practitioners. 
 
 6. Hail ways— See Railways and Rail- 
 
 way Companies. 
 
 7. Registrars— See Rkoistry Law.s. 
 
 8. Solicitors — See Solicitors. 
 
 9. Sureties— See Principal and Surety. 
 
 10. Trustees— See Trusts and Trustees. 
 
 11, Valuators— See Valuator. 
 
 III. Abatement of Action, 1393. 
 
 IV. Pleadings in Actions foe, 1393, 
 
 V. Damages Recoverable. 
 
 1. Actions by Representatives of Persons 
 Killed by Negligence, 1394. 
 
 2, Right to Deduct Insura nee Money, 1 390, 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1.197. 
 
 VI. New Trial in Actions kor.— .?ee New 
 Trial. 
 
 I. Nature of Act. 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 Action against banlt fur negligence in not giv- 
 ing notice to endorser. See Stvinhoff c. Mti-. 
 chants' Bank, 46 Q. B. 25, p. 1(J0. 
 
 Alteration of note— Negligence of maker. Sti« 
 Swaisland v. Davidson, 3 t). K. 320, p. 158. 
 
 Action against a clerk of a inunicipulity {i,r 
 omitting mimes from the collectors' roll.— Non- 
 averment of negligence. See Town of Peter- 
 borough V. Edwards, 31 C. P. 231, p. 1333, 
 
 Negligence in investing money. See Carter v 
 Hatch, 31 C. P. 293, p. 1093 ; Thompson v 
 Robinson, 15 O. R. G62 ; I(j A. R. 175, p. 1938. 
 
 The uefendants were the owners of a building 
 on the street. A pipe, connected with the eave 
 troughs, conducted the water from the roof 
 down the side of the building, and by means of 
 a spout discharged it upon tlie sidew.ilk, where 
 in the winter it was formed into a ridge of ice, 
 upon which the female plaintiff slipped and fell 
 while walking on the street, and injured herself. 
 The jury fouml that the <lefendants did not know 
 of the accumulation of ice, and that they ought 
 not reasonably to have known it: — Held, Ar- 
 mour, J., dissenting, that the delendants were 
 not liable. Per Hagarty, C. J., the currying of 
 the water to the sidewalk was a harmless act; 
 the action of the weather was the proximate 
 cause of the accident, and the deleuilauts not 
 having knowingly allowed ice to accumulate 
 were not responsible. Per Armour, J., thecoii- 
 ducting of water to the sidewalk was a wrongful 
 act, of which the formation of icu on the side- 
 walk in winter was the natural, certain and well 
 known result, and defendants were reap'insible. 
 Skelton v. Thompson, 3 O. R. 11.— Q. B. D. 
 
 In an action for damages (<ustained by the 
 plaintiff by reason of ice and snow fjilling from 
 the roof of the defendant's house and injuring 
 him while he was walking on the highway, evi- 
 dence was given to shew that about half-au-liour 
 before the accident happened the det'endaut was 
 notified of the dangerous character of the roof, 
 but took no precaution to guard u^'uinst acci- 
 dents, and a by-law of the municipality wu 
 proved requiring the citizens to keep thtir roofs 
 clear of ice and snow : — Held, that there was 
 evidence to go to the jury of negligence in the 
 defendant. A nonsuit entered at the trial, was 
 therefore set aside, and a new trial granted. 
 Lazarus v. Corporation of Toronto, 19 y. R 9 
 commented on and distinguished. Landnvdk 
 V. Oouin, 6 O. R. 455. -C. P. D. 
 
 A surveyor in making a survey is under no 
 statutory obligation to perforin the duty, bnt 
 undertakes it as a mattei' of contract and is only 
 liable for want of reasonable skill or gross negh- 
 gence. Township of Stajford v. Belt, G A. R 
 273. 
 
 The defendants' premises abutted on Clarence 
 street in the city of Toronto. The defendanU' 
 
1389 
 
 NEaLIOENCE. 
 
 1300 
 
 placed ft benin ftt tlie hcifjlit of iiliio mid a-lialf 
 feet rt'oin tlu! j^round along tliu north limit of 
 C'Inri'iifO street, ii atreut twenty-nini' I'uut in 
 width, and hung a gate thurefioni, and |»iit u]) 
 aiintJHT gato across said street aliout twiMjty- 
 seven feet further south, tile two gates not lieing 
 cxnctly opposite to each other, nor of the sauie 
 wiiUU. A lane nm north from Clarence street. 
 There was an aeeumulation of ruliliisli with ice 
 and snow uniler the lioani, which raised up tiu,' 
 front wheels, and the plaiiitill', whili' driviuir 
 along Clarence sti'eet was injined liy heini; 
 crushed heUvei'U the lieam and the load U)ion 
 wliioli he was seated. He siiiil he knew of the 
 beam, having drivtMi there often, liut that his 
 attention was calleil from it by having to steer 
 his way earelnlly betwi'cn the two gates. Clar- 
 ence street had notl)eeu ailopted as a highway 
 by l)y-Iaw : - Held, that although by 4'! Vict. c. 
 18, s. ")4"> (Out.), tlio council is ))roiiibited from 
 laying out a road or street of less than sixty-six 
 feet in width, they may consent to the owner of 
 lands l.iying oniMUit less in width, and that prior 
 to the Act of 187.'{, theowiicr w.is not prohibited 
 from laying out a road of any particular wiilth ; 
 and that as Clarence street had been laid out 
 and used as a public street for many years, 
 having .several large business establishments 
 fronting \\\un\ it, or with a rear access to it, and 
 public conveyances hail us(mI it for busine.ss 
 puritoses in all res|)"ets as a highway, it might 
 in an action of this kind, lictween a person using 
 it in the way of business, as it bail so long been 
 used, and one who was charged with obstructing 
 it, he found to be a public liiyliway : Held, 
 also, that the beam was the jiroximate ca>i-e 
 of the injury, not the ice and snow oidy, and 
 that defendants were liable though the person 
 who allowed the rubbish to thus accumulate 
 might be liable also : — Held, also, that there 
 was no contribntorv neglii,'enco on the |)art of 
 theplaintiir. Jl/.s.-,\-. /,'(„ i/.//, SO. I!, -t.^.l.— Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 Negligence in towing a ship. 
 Brithli Colinnhiii 'I'liirlmi tuid 
 Co.,^M^. C. R. ")-'7, p. I'.iw. 
 
 Liability for negli!.'ence in the use of hired 
 chattels. See /{(i/iinltl-i v. I'u.rhui-(ili, 10 O. It. 
 649, p. SCO. 
 
 Although an ai'i hitect , em|)loyed by the ownei' 
 for reward to superintend the construction of a 
 house may, as between the latter and the con- 
 tractor by the terms of their own agreement be 
 in the position of an arbitrator, and his decision 
 as between them nninipeachable except for fraud 
 or dishonesty, yet ns between himself and his 
 employer he is answerable for either negligence 
 or unskilfulncss in the performance of his duty 
 as architect. Irving i: Morrison, '27 C. P. 242, 
 approved. liwhjhy v. J)ick:ioii, 13 A. R. 494. 
 
 The statute 14 Geo. IIF. c. 78, s. 8(i, which is 
 an extension of 6 Anne c. .SI, ss. (i, 7, is in force 
 in the province of Ontario as part of the law of 
 England, introduced by the Constitutional Act, 
 31 Geo. III. c. 31, but has no application to 
 protect a party from legal liability aa a con- 
 sequence of negligence. Canada Southern H. 
 W. Co. V. Phelps, 14 S. C. R. 132. 
 
 The defendant, who was mortgagee of certain 
 shares in a company, sold them by auction. The 
 plaintiff, who was entitled to the shares subject 
 
 .See Si, nil v. 
 'rrnii-ijtorldlioii 
 
 to the defendant's claim, knew of and ratilieil 
 the sale. The purchaser refused upon various 
 gi'onnds to carry out the sale, and no attempt 
 was made by the defendant to cduijicI cnmple 
 tion of the contract, .'>ubsei|iii'nlly the shales 
 fill very nnich in valiU' : -Held (Hurlun, .1. A.. 
 dissenting), that there was no duty cast upon 
 the defendant to take proceedings against the 
 purchaser to comi)el cnmiplctiiin, and th.it he was 
 not liable to accinnit for the shares at the ])rice 
 tint would have bei'u realized had the sale been 
 conipliited. The plaintill' could have p.iid the 
 defendant's claim and then hiivi^ herself taken 
 pniceeiili.^s ag.aiust the purchaser, and not 
 liaviiig done so, was not entitled to eouiphvin. 
 .ludguient of Kosi', .)., afliruied. Daii'ult v. 
 Noxon, 17 A. 11. 20(i. 
 
 Neglect to seari'h for executions against moit- 
 gagor. ,See llioirn v. MrL(aii, ISO. It. r)3.'t, p. 
 1273. 
 
 A jdiysician wrote a presci-iption for the plain- 
 titr and directed that it should be charged to 
 him by the druggist who compounded it, which 
 was done. His fee including the charge fur 
 making \\\t the prescription, was paid by the 
 plaintill'. The druggist's clerk by mistake put 
 pru^.sii; acid in the mixture, and the p'aintitl' in 
 consenncuce sufl'ircd injury: -Held, that the 
 diuugist was liable to the plaiiititl' for negligence 
 but the jih\ sician was nut. Under the circum- 
 stances of the CISC no costs wiie awarded to or 
 ;ig:iinst anv of the p.irties. Sin Hon v. Jlolimx, 
 inO. It. iSi;.— Rose. 
 
 Usintr machinerv on highways. See Lnwunii 
 v. Allisluii, 1!I0. it. O.Vi. 
 
 See O'lh/riie v. Cniiiphrll, lo 0. It. 330, p. 
 13!)2; Siiih'r<ini.'<t v. Oii/iirio /Imil.; l.T A. R. (!(!!», 
 p. 13G ; Slwir V. Mcfnanj, 1!) (). R. .3!), p. 8S0. 
 
 2. Proiif (if NiijUijcmr. 
 
 I'laintifl" while standing on the ])lntfonn at 
 one of defendants' stations, had his ey injured 
 by the explosion of a fng signal, which had been 
 placed ou the track. Tlie only evidence given 
 wa.s, that certain servants of defendants had 
 these fog signals in their j)o3.«ession for lawful 
 purposes, but that no one to the knowledge of 
 several of the defend.uits' employees who were 
 called aswitnes.ses for the plaintill', placed this 
 one on the track, and that it was wholly unne- 
 cessary for defendants' purjioses; and it ajjpeared 
 not impossible that it might have been obtained 
 from defendants' servants by some third party, 
 or might have been put there by a servant of 
 defendants for a frolic : — Held, that a nonsuit 
 was properly dii'eoted. Jonca v. Grand Trunk 
 li. ir. Co., 4,> Q. R. 193. -Q. B. D. 
 
 While a ear of the defendants in charge of 
 another servant of the company, the driver hav- 
 ing temporarily gone to the rear of the car, was 
 proceeding westerly at a slow rate along a street 
 in the city of T., on which they had the right of 
 way, the plaintiff whose carraige was waiting at 
 the kerb stone, without observing the near 
 approach of the car got into and drove her 
 cairiage for a short distance in the same direc- 
 tion as the car, when she suddenly turned north 
 intending to cross, but in such close proximity 
 to the car that, but for the prompt action of th« 
 
f^H" 
 
 1391 
 
 NEOLIOENOE. 
 
 driver in clmr>;i' in tiiriiiiig his liorso off ttic 
 triu;l«. tiio lidrni! wmilil liavu coUideil witii tlic 
 l)lftliititf 'm fiiiTiagi' ; an it was notwitlistiiiKlitii,' 
 tliu l)raltn was applied tutlic oar, tlic wliilllctrci^ 
 Htnic'l« till) will il of till! I'arriaKo, wliicii was 
 iilisut, and tilt! plaiiitiir tlirowii to thu k<''»><"I, 
 Hliil lior K'g was fracturi'd. In an action for 
 daiiiagiis till! jury fcmnd i" favour of the )ilaintiir, 
 which verdict thu Divisional Court refused to 
 disturb. On aiipeal this court (Uslcr, J, A., dis- 
 sentiiij,'), ))eiiij,' of opinion that there wa.-( no 
 evidence of negligence on the part of the defen- 
 dants, r'.'verscd the judgment of the (.hicen's 
 Jiench, anil ilismissed the actinn with costs. 
 Folht V. Toronto SI reit It. Co., \:> A. I!. .'Ud. 
 
 Tliu jilaintill' while walking on a sicle\N'alk, 
 was knockeil down anil injured hy a runaway 
 horse (if the defendant. At the time of the 
 accident the horse was harnessed to a sleigh, hut 
 no )ierson or driver was in the sleigh, and all 
 that was proved was that the horse was seen 
 running away ; that the sleigh ujiset, the 
 occupants were thrown out, and that the horse 
 ran on the sidewalk and the accident occurred : — 
 Held, that this was sutiicicnt to make out a 
 prima facie ease of negligence, and that the oiuis 
 of disproving that case and explaining the cause 
 of the runaway lay upon the defendant. Manzoni 
 V. Douglas. {). \\. v. 14."), discussed. Judg- 
 ment of the (jueen's Hench Division nflirniea. 
 Cmirjhnl V. Upiin; l(i A. R. 440. 
 
 1. Coittf'ihulonj Xi'(jli<j()ici', 
 
 (a) Otncrally. 
 
 Knowledge is not per se contributory negli- 
 gence, (lonlon V. City of Btl/evillc, 1.5 O. R. 
 2(i.-Q. 15. D. 
 
 Liability of Accident Assurance Company, 
 SeeA'i-;// V. Tnirc/kr^' /h.h. Co., M C. P. 394 ; 7 
 A. 1!. .uO ; I'J.S, C. R. T)"), p. 1005. 
 
 In piling lumber too near railway track, or by 
 allowing sawdust to remain on it, or by not 
 having sullicient ap|iliances to extinguish fire. 
 .See Mcl.avH v. Canada Central U. W. C»., 32 
 C. P. 324, p. 1 785. 
 
 .Submitting (]uestions of contributory negli- 
 gence to jury. See liamilt v. Grand Trunk li. 
 W. Co.. 7 A. R. 470, p. 1775 ; Main v. Towiinhip.t 
 of Kimi and Alhion, 8 A. H. 248. p. 2144 ; Edijar 
 V. Northern 11. W. Co., 4 O. R. 201, p. 1782; 
 Klein V. Union Fire /;i,y. Co., 3 O. R. 234, p. 941. 
 
 See Townnhip of St a ford v. Hell, G A. R. 
 273, p. 201 1 ; McCallum v. Odette— In re " The 
 M. C. Upper," 7 S. C. R. 3G, p. 1931 ; Jiliix v. 
 Boerlh, 8 O. R. 451, p. IS89; Miller v. Jieid, 10 
 O. R. 419, p. 1244 ; Copelaml v. ViUai/e of Blen- 
 heim, 9 (). R. 19, p. 2143 ; Toxim of Portland v. 
 (Iriffillui, 11 «. C. R. 333, p. 2143 ; Oity of Saint 
 John V. Maedonald, 14 8. C. K. 1, p. 1392; 
 Folkt v. Toronto Street Jiailway Go., 15 A. R, 
 346, Kupra; Doan v. MichUjan Central R. W. Co., 
 17 A. H. 481, p. 1016; La'wuon v. AllUton, 19 0. 
 R. 655, p. 2144. 
 
 4. Proximate Cawte of Injury. 
 
 After the time fixed by an award under the 
 Ditches and Water-courses Act, 1883 (46 Vict. 
 •c. 27), for the completion of certain drainage 
 
 work by neighbnnring limdownnrR, tlie pi linlitr 
 who was one of the j)iirties, iiiteresti'ij in th,'. 
 award, in writing rccpiired thu ilefciiduia, as 
 township engineer, toinsnuet the work, with the 
 object of having it coinpletcil accoidiic^' Vt thu 
 awai'cl, but as the pliiintiir alleged, the defen- 
 dant neglected to inspect the work or (unseittn 
 be completed according to the award, ami tlieiv 
 by I lie provisions of the award were not ciini,.,) 
 out, and the ]ilaintit)' in fonseipieini' siilfiTi'il 
 damiigc liy reason of water remainin;,' on Ijjh 
 land; -Held, that the ))i'oviKions of sccticm l;i 
 of the above Act as to the inspection by tlie 
 engineer is imperative, and an action woiilil lie 
 for breaih of his duty ; but even it tlie evidenet! 
 had shewn such a breach, the damages cliiiincil 
 were not the proximate, necessary, or natural re- 
 sult tlieieof. The other provisions of sectieii l;{ 
 ai'c merely permissive, and no aiitioii would lie 
 for their non-|>crforniaiice; nor wen^ il otlierwise, 
 could it be held that the damages chiimcil were 
 the ])roximate result of such noiipeifoniiancT. 
 Those who, by the terms of the iiward, on){ht 
 to have done thu work, were the pcrsinis pmxi- 
 matcly responsible for the daimigcs. (t'/ti/nu- 
 v. Camphrll, 15 0, R. ;W9.-Q. P.. 1». 
 
 Sco Shitim V. Thompxon, 3 0. I!. 11, )). l.'tSS- 
 ////.•(.•< v. Itofclh, 8 0. R. 451, p. KiSO; Ihtrk v.' 
 City of Toronto, 5 O. K. 29.), p. 2111. 
 
 II. 
 
 P.AUriKS LlAIU.K. 
 
 1. The Crown. 
 
 A petition of right does not lie to recover coni- 
 pensution from the Cirown for damages occa- 
 sioncd by the negligence of its servant to the 
 ])roi)erty of an individual using a public work. 
 J'ri/lna V. MrFarlane, 7 S. C. li. 2l(i. 
 
 'J'he Crown is not liable for injuries resnl' i^ 
 from the nonfeasance or niisfea.san w es, 
 negligence or omissions of dutv ,„.(i. 
 
 nate olticers or agents employ piiliiio 
 
 service on a railway owned 1 Dperatuil 
 
 under the management of thu g. iiient. Sec 
 
 Iteijina V. McLeod, 8 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 The Crown is not liable .as a common ci: r 
 for the safety ,ind security of )ias.scngcra ii-iiii; 
 such railways. Jl>. 
 
 2. HuKband and Wife. 
 .See Shatr v. MeCreary, 19 O. R. 39, p. 880. 
 
 3. Municipal itien. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 The ticket issued to M., a traveller by rail 
 from Boston Mass., to St. John, N. H. entitled 
 hinj to cross the .St. John harbour by ferry, and 
 a coupon attached to the ticket was accepted in 
 payment of his fare. The fei'ry was under the 
 control and management of the corporation of 
 .St. John : — Held, that an action would He 
 against the corporation for injuries to M. caused 
 by the negligence of the officers of the boat dur- 
 ing the passage. City of Saint John v. Mm- 
 Donald, 14 S. C. R. 1. 
 
 The approaches of the fen-y to the wharf were 
 guarded by a chain extending from side to side 
 
r 
 
 Utt 
 
 •», tin- |.l lintiff, 
 iti'i'cHt.Ml in thi' 
 
 ! llffilllliilit, iM 
 
 work, with tht! 
 iconliiii; tci tlio 
 'Hi'il, tlic ili'fcn- 
 Ilk or niiiscitto 
 
 .illll, llllll llnMV 
 
 I'lifc not c'liniwl 
 i|H('ti'i' Miilfcml 
 limiinn;,' on IiJh 
 
 IH of SCOtidll lU 
 
 ^pci'ti'in liy tlio 
 
 ictioll M<ll||(l Ijo 
 
 1 il till? t'viilciu'o 
 iiiimni's cliiiiiieil 
 •y. or n.ituml re- 
 urn of auction IH 
 iiclioii would lio 
 iM'i! il otiicrwiHe, 
 i:s clainu'il weru 
 on pei'foi'iniincT. 
 
 I' ilWlUll, •<»jt}A 
 (' |)i'l'.soiiH pidxi- 
 
 II. I). -^ 
 
 It. 11, i>. i;tS8; 
 . i:!S!); Diiek v. 
 
 •-•in. 
 
 I.K. 
 
 i- to rooovt'i' com- 
 ' iliiiiia;L;L's occu- 
 ;s sei'vmit to the 
 .; a ])iil)liu wdik. 
 •21(1. 
 
 iijiii'ii's i-("<\r 
 
 is:ii " .'<, 
 
 pnliliu 
 operated 
 
 IIIL'Ut. Sll' 
 
 ooininoii cai ■ r 
 passengers hmii); 
 
 yi/<: 
 
 11. .39, p. 880. 
 
 traveller by rail 
 n, N. H. entitled 
 3ur by ferry, ami 
 was accepted in 
 yr was under tlie 
 le corporation of 
 ,ction would lie 
 rics to M. caused 
 I of the boat dnr- 
 nt John V. Mac- 
 
 ;o the wharf were 
 from side to side 
 
 1393 
 
 NEOLIOENOC. 
 
 1394 
 
 of the boat at a iliMtanoo of about one and a-half 
 feet from the end. < )n apprnachini; the whiirf the 
 man whose duty it was to inoorthu boat uuloosed 
 the cliaiu at one Hide, and when near enon^'li 
 juiiiped on the tloatH to lirin;^ the mooring chain 
 aboard. A number of the pa»«en^orH rushed to- 
 wards the floats, and M. 8uein<{ the chain down 
 and thinking it safe to lainl, followed tlieni and 
 fell tlu'iiUKh a space between the boat and the 
 wharf ami was injured. When this happeneil 
 the boat was not moored ; — Held, ullirniing the 
 judgment of the court below, that the cin'i>ora- 
 tiou of the city were liable to M. for the injuries 
 Miistaineil by the negligent ii'innur of UKHU'iiig 
 the boat, and that he was not guilty of such 
 eontrihutin'v negligence as would avoid that 
 liability. Ih. 
 
 0. was moving a bouse twenty-five feet high 
 along one of the streets in a city, having obtained 
 the autiiority of the city engineer to do so, when 
 liynnHon of its coming in c(mtact with a wile, 
 of the existence of which (). was fully aware, 
 stretched by a telephone company, without any 
 autinnity from the city, across the street, the 
 wire licing nineteen and ahalf feet from the 
 ground, though the company's Act of incorpora- 
 tion re(|nired it to boat least twenty-two feet, 
 the wire was torn from its fastenings, loosening 
 siiuK! bricks, which fell (ui the plaintiH' severely 
 injuring him : — Held, that no liability attached 
 eitlier to the city or the telephone couipauy, and 
 that (). was aloue liablu for thu damage sustaineil 
 by the plaintifl'. Decision of Street, J., at tiie 
 trial, vaiied. Ilotmtrd v, Cili/ of St. Thoimn, 
 1!»0. R. 710.— C. P. 1). 
 
 See I'rfn/oii V. Corporation of Cmnilcn, 14 A. 
 R. 85, p. ill.-). 
 
 III. AnATK.MKNT of AcTfON. 
 
 1'. i)rought an acti<m against a conductor of 
 the 1. C. K. for injuries received in attempting 
 to board a train, and alleged to bo caused l)y 
 the negligence of the conductoi in not bringing 
 tlie train to a stand still. On thu trial, I', was 
 nonsuited, auil on motion to the full court the 
 nonsuit was set aside and a new trial ordered. 
 Uetwccn the verdict and the judgment ordering 
 a WW trial, V. died, and a suggestion of his 
 death was ei cd on tlie record. On appeal to 
 the .Snpreiin- oiirt of Canada from the order of 
 the fnll court : —Hold, that under Lord Camj)- 
 hell'sAct, or the e(|uivalent statute in New liruus- 
 wick ({'.111. Stat. N. ]{. c. 8(5), an entirely new 
 cause of action nrose on the death of 1*., and the 
 original .iction was entirely gone, and could not 
 be revived I'liere being no cause before the 
 Court of Ai |.eal, the appeal was ijuashcd with- 
 out costs. ]\'hitt'. V. Parker, Hi S. C. U. (J9!). 
 
 IV. PlKADIN'OS IX AOTIONS FOR. 
 
 Statement of claim claiming damages for an 
 accident to the plaintiff by hia stepping upon 
 the covering or lid of a manhole in tiio siilewalk 
 alleged to be defective, etc., through defendant's 
 negligence. By the first paragraph of the state- 
 ment of defence defendants denied the correct- 
 ness of the statements contained in the statement 
 of claim ; and by the second paragraph set up 
 that defendants had no notice or knowledge of 
 the defect :— Held, on demurrer to the second 
 88 
 
 paragraph, that thu whole stnti'inent of defence 
 inuHt be I'i'ad together ; and that tlic second para 
 graph taken with the first coiiHtituted u good 
 ilcftMicu or was inim tterial ; tliat il coulil not 
 embarrass the plaiiititf. for it be pioveil action 
 able uegligciico he miist prove eillnir ai:tual or 
 prosuiiiptive notice, liintlfi/ v. '.'/'// of Ilainil- 
 Urn, !)0. K. 1 1. ".--Rose. 
 
 In an action for ilamagi's for negligence a coun- 
 ter-claim for libel was excdnded. See Afr/^i-aii 
 V. llnmiliuii Strut li. W. Co., II I'. U. DCJ, p. 
 Kill. 
 
 Held, reversing the ('. 1'. 1). (ISO. It. 48'.>), 
 that evidence of contributory negligence is pro- 
 perly a(liiiissibl(> under the defence of "not 
 guilty by statute " without any special plea of 
 contributory negligence. /Joan v. Mwhiiiuii 
 ^ Centinl. It. W. Co., 17 A. II. 481. 
 
 See Tiiii'iiiif Pittrltorniiifh v. Kdirardt, 111 ('. 
 
 , I'. •J31, p. i;m. 
 
 i V. DaMACES I'KC'OVKIIAIII.K. 
 
 I. Artioiii l)ij lit'/ir< II iitiitirr.i of I'lrwiis Killnl 
 
 The appellant's child, a minor, was killed in 
 a collision between two vessels liy the negligence 
 of the otiicers iu charge of one of tiiem ('"The 
 "arland "). Petition against " The (iarlaiitl " — 
 libelled under the .Maritime Court Act at the 
 port of Windsor — on behiilf of the appellant 
 j claiming §2,00() damages Nutlcred by her, owing 
 I to the death of lic'r son and servant, caused by 
 the negligence of the otiicers in charge of the 
 said "(iarland." The respondent intervened, 
 land demurred on the ground tliat the petition 
 I did not set fortli a cause of action against "The 
 j (iarland '' witiiin tiie jurisdiction of tlieCourt: — 
 Held (Kouriiier aiidTaseliereiu. .F.I., dissenting), 
 I that the Maritime ( 'oiirt of Ontiirio liasno juris- 
 diction apart from Jl. S. (). (1877), e. I'2S (re- 
 ; enacting iu this province l.oril (lanipbeira Act, 
 !) it 10 Vict. c. y.'l), in an ai:tioii for personal 
 ■ injury resulting in death, and therefore the ap- 
 i pellaiit bad no locus standi, not having brought 
 ' iier action as tlie personal representative of thu 
 I child. IVr l'"ouinier, Taschereau, Henry and 
 (Jwyiine, .1.1. (reversing the judgment of tlii^ 
 .Maritime Court of Ontario), that Vice- Admi- 
 ralty Courts in British ]mssessious and thu Mari- 
 time Court of Ontario, have whatever jurisdic- 
 tion the High Court of Admiralty liasover"any 
 claim for ilamages done by any ship, whether 
 to ])crson or to property." I'er Kournier and 
 Taschereau, J.J., dissenting, that apart from and 
 independently of R. S. O. (1877), c. 128, the 
 Maritime Court of Ontiirio had jurisdiction in a 
 Iirocceding in rem .against a foreign vessel for 
 the recovery of damages for injuries resulting 
 in death : that the appellant cither, in the capa- 
 city of parent or of mistress, was entitled to 
 claim damages for tho lo.-'3 of her son or servant. 
 Ill re The. tlarland — Monw/han v. Horn, 7 S. C 
 R. 409. 
 
 Held, alhrming the decision of tho Court of 
 Appeal (II A. R. 1), which reversed the dcuision 
 of the Q. H. D. (I O. R. 545), that although on 
 thu death of a wife, causud by nugligcncu of a 
 -ailway company, tho husband cannot recover 
 da:nages of a sentimental character, yet the loss 
 of household services accustomed to be perform- 
 
 I! 
 
1395 
 
 NEQLiaENCE 
 
 139S 
 
 9a 
 
 
 C(l by Ill's wife, which would hftve to ])e replaced ] 
 l»y hired scrvicuii, is a siihstiiiitiiil loss for which 
 • lainaj^cs may he recovered, ns is iilso the loss to 
 th«! children of the care luid moral tiiiiniiij,' of 
 their jiiotlier. ('rascliereaii and (Jwyiine, .1.1., 
 •lissentiiig. ) St. hiirniicc and O/lciira I,'. I)'. Cu. 
 V. Ltit, 11 ,S. C. R. 422. j 
 
 In an action 'if damatros hroiifiht for tlie death 
 of a person hy the consort and relations under 
 article Ktiid V. (".. Mhi<'h is a re-enactment and 
 reproduction o'. the Con. Stat. 1,. ('. c. 7>S, 
 damages iiy tin- way of solatium for thcliiicavc- 
 mciit suffered cannot he ivcnvercd. .ludgnieiit 
 f»f the Court hclow reversed aiul new trial 
 «>rdercd. t''iiiii<lin'i i'uci/ii- />', IT. Co. v. Huhin- 
 xm, 14 S. C. i;. 10.1. 
 
 The plaintiff, as 'idininistr.itiix. sued the de- 
 fendants, under -14 \wt. e. '12, s. 7 (<'iit. ), lor the 
 death of her ilh yitiuial.' son, a Inakesiiian on 
 the derendaiits' railway, wlio w.'is killed liy heiii^ 
 carried a{j;ainst a In idi.'c not of t he heijiiit rc<(nirni 
 liy that Act, while on one of their trains passiiij^ 
 underneath it. The liridjic lielonged to another 
 railw.iy company, wliicti had the riiilit to crriss 
 the defen<laiits' lincMii that May, and tlioii>^li tlie 
 time allowed liy the tatute for raising; tln^ liridgc 
 ha<l expired, they had not done s(.. The jury 
 found that the defeudants had lieeii yuilty of 
 negligeiiet^ in not raisin^', or piocuiinj; to lie 
 raised, the liridi;i' : — IK Id, that as the Act was 
 inten<lcd tn f;ive no v'^atir rii;lit to ieco\ er than 
 Lord (,'anii)lnirs Act, tlierefnK; the ]ilaintin"s 
 rolalionship to the dineascd (iievcMitcil her n- 
 covery. (lili^on v. Mllland II. IT. Co.. "J < i. K. 
 «i58.— Q. 1!. I). 
 
 In nn action for damages hroiiglit against the 
 corporation of the city of Montreal hy '/,. \.. et 
 al., the descendant relations ol L. who was kilK d 
 while tlriving dnwn .^t. Sulpiee street, alleged U> 
 liave heen at the time of the accident in a liad 
 state of reiiair.liy lieiiig t'irown from the slei^dl on 
 which he was seatid against the wall of a Imild- 
 iilg, the judge li> fuie whom the case was tried 
 without a jury gr mted /. I,, et al •I'l.OOM ilain- 
 ligcs oil the gnniad that they were (entitled to 
 Slid sum liy way <il sulatiiini for the liere.ivemeiit 
 KulTered on account of the pii'inatiire death of 
 their father : —Held, reversing the jiidginent of 
 the C'oiiit of <,hie(ii's liciiili fnr Lower Canada, 
 appeal side, that the jiidginent could nut he 
 ufiinned on the gidiiml of solatium, and as the 
 respondents had not tiled a cinss ap]ieal to 
 sustain the verdict on the ground that there was 
 sufficient evidence of .-i peeuniai y loss for which 
 conipeusation could he clainud, 'A. L. et al.'s 
 action must la; dismissed with costs. Cilij of 
 Atoiihaly. I.ulnllr, 14 S. V. W. 741. 
 
 The deceased had eflected a jioliey of insurance 
 on his life «hieli was in force at the time of his 
 death. At the tiial the jury was dineted to de- 
 tluct the ainoiint of tiie [lolicy from the verdict, 
 which amount wasaftcrwardsaddcd hy the l>ivi 
 sional Court (.S(». H.fiOll. (hi appeal the court 
 l>eiug ei|nally divided in opinidii on this hraiich of 
 the case, the aiipe.d was disiujs.^ed with costs. 
 Hiignrty, C. .1. <)., ami Osier, .1. .\,, were of 
 opiuion that the actual loss or injury resulting 
 from the death, can aloiu^ he recoveiid in sucli 
 u case, and if a huge increase of fortune occiirH 
 to the parties as a result of such death, or pro- 
 jierty, or money falls to them as a like result 
 
 whether under a settlement or in the shape of a 
 life insurance effected for their benefit, that must 
 lie taken into consideration in estimating the 
 loss sustained, liiiitoii, J. A., was of o|iiiiion 
 that under the eiicuinstances the llivisionn) 
 C'(airt were right in increasing the verdict by 
 the amount of the insiiiance money, I'er Pal 
 tersoii, J. A, — T.ie receipt of the insHiaiiec 
 inoney is a jiroper matter for the consideratidii 
 of a court or a jury in estimating the iliun- 
 ages, and n:ight ail'ord giinnid for making .sonic 
 reduction from a gi'o.ss a.ssessment, hut in tlir 
 pieseiit case there was nothing shewn to war 
 rant any reduction. Micks c. Xewpdit, etc., 
 R. \V. Co., ill note. 4 15. it S., at p. 4o;i, com- 
 ineiiteil on. Unhi it v. (,'riiiiil Trnulc A'. H'. ('„ 
 13 A. R. 174; Ki.S. C. I!. 7ia. 
 
 Tlu^ right conferred by Lord Campbeirs Act, 
 adopted li}' Rc\ibeil Statutes of Ontario, c. 
 l.'J.'i, s-i, "J and '.\, to recover dam.iges in respect 
 of de.itli occasioinMl liy wr(nigtnl act, neglect or 
 default is restiicted to the actual ]ieciiiiiaiy loss 
 sustained by the idaintilV. Wliere the widow 
 of deceased is plaintill' and her liiishaiid liail 
 made jirovisioii for lur by a policy en his own 
 life in her favour, the uniniint of such policy is 
 not to Ik' deducted liom the .iinount of daiii.i;;p.< 
 , previously assessed irrespective of such con- 
 \ siileiatioii. .She is beiielitcd only by the ac- 
 celerated receipt of the amount of the jiolicy, 
 and that luiutit being repiescnttd by the in 
 terest of the money during the jieiiod of ac- 
 celeration, ma^' he compeiisaled by deihictiiiL.' 
 future ]ircmiuiiis from the estimated future earn- 
 ilii;s of the ilece:i,se<l. Hicks r. Newport, etc.. 
 1 \K. \V. Co. (4 11, *: S. 40:{, n.), .ipiiiovcl. (l,;i)„l 
 I ''' '"/.• /'. ir. C.'o. o,'' ('(iiinilti V. ./< iiii''ii'i<, lit Ap|c 
 ''.\ . SOO. .ludgiiunl ill 1.") A. \\. 477, allirmed. 
 
 An action for damages, liy reason of Ihedeatli 
 of a iierson, ''.iii be iiiaintMiicd under It. S, 0. 
 e. I.'l."i. s. 7, by the person beiulically eiititU'il. 
 though brought within six calendar niontlb 
 from the death, unless there be at the time an 
 I executor or adinin'strator of the deceaseil. 
 /.iiiiijinKiii V. 'roiri,.tlili> of lliiiii^hoi-oiiiih, 17 U. 
 
 : It. I'.tl.-C 1'. 1). 
 
 The plaintill's sou, who hail just eoine of age. 
 
 was kilhd by accident in the difcndaiit's ni.i 
 
 I chine shop, where he li;id been tenipo'arily em- 
 
 I ployed. For about two years previously he 
 
 iiad, while attiiidiiig school, workeil on his 
 
 father's farm, as farmers' sons usually do, with 
 
 out wages, and it was intended that he shoiilii 
 
 study medicine, at an expense to his father 
 
 . of aixilit >!|,(XI(), the coiir.se histini; three or four 
 
 I yens, and in the vacations, while so engagciliii 
 
 aci|iliiiiig his inti'iided |irofessioii, it was ex 
 
 jiected that he would work at home as usnal. 
 
 In an action ly his father as admiiiistiator tnrc 
 
 cover danuiges for the death of his son : -Hchl, 
 
 that he could have no reasonable expcctatinii of 
 
 liecuniary or material benefit from the siin'.s 
 
 life, and a nonsuit w.is ordered to be eiitcrcil. 
 
 Mn.-<on V, /1>, 1, 11 III, ISO. R. l.-Chy. D. 
 
 2. filijlif lo Deduct /iisiirdiici Mniiiij. 
 
 I See Btrhll v. (hand Tnink It. II . C".. ISA. 
 R. 174; Hi S. v.. R. 7i;i. ■'<iipi-n ; liviiiid Trunk 
 ! /(". ir. Co. V. Ji.niiimi.t, V.\ App. Ciis, SOO, .•<»/)rn; 
 i Hnmn v. M<-li<i<; 17 O. R. 712, i). 1397. 
 
139S 
 
 in the slmpe of a 
 benefit, that must 
 ill estimating the 
 ., was t)t' opinion 
 s tlie Hi visional 
 j^ llic vciiliLt by 
 money. I'er Pat 
 >f the insuranep 
 lliu eonsidenitiou 
 matin;; the duni- 
 I for making .some 
 iUient, l)\it in tiic 
 ig wiiewn to war- 
 ('. Xewport, etc., 
 at p. 40H, com- 
 
 ., at p. 4( 
 
 il ( 'aniiihell".s Att, 
 L's of Ontario, e. 
 inni^^es in respect 
 Inl act. ni'gU'ut or 
 ual ])ec\iniary loss 
 iVliere tlie widow 
 
 Iter iinKl)anil liad 
 poliey in his own 
 t of sncii |)oUcy is 
 mount of damages 
 :ive i>i sucli con- 
 I only liy tlie ai- 
 lint of the lioHcy, 
 isoiili il liy the in 
 
 the (iiMioil of ac 
 lied liy dediictiiiL' 
 mated future earn- 
 i r. Newport, etc.. 
 , approved, divml 
 . .Il iiilhi'l^, 111 .Api'. 
 H. 477, aHirnied. 
 
 eason of tliu death 
 I'll under 1!. S. 0. 
 nelieally entitled, 
 
 caleiidiir nioiitlb 
 lie at tlie time an 
 
 f the deceased. 
 niifhuioiiijll, 17 U. 
 
 1 jn--t come of age. 
 ch■fl■ndallt'^^ nia 
 ■11 teiiilMi'arily em 
 ars prrvioiisly he 
 d, worked on his 
 s nsn.iUy do, with 
 Ifil that' he should 
 iiisc- to his father 
 istiiiii three or four 
 while so I'ligagedin 
 fcssioii. it was ex 
 iit home as usual, 
 idministrator tore 
 
 of his son : -Held, 
 laldc expeetatiouof 
 lit from the son's 
 rt'il to he entered. 
 
 l.-n.y. I). 
 
 Ill-llllCf Mdiiiij. 
 
 .kit. II. To. 1.1 A. 
 I,rn ; (Ira ml Trunk 
 pp. fas. SOO, .iH/M-ii; 
 
 tV2, p. i:w7. 
 
 1397 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 1388 
 
 3. Other CaaeM. 
 
 Negliger^^e of carriers in delivery of goods — 
 fall in market price — Measure of daniuges. See 
 Moiil'ilh V. Merchantu' Despatch Co., 1 O. R, 47 ; 
 «A. R. 283, p. 214. 
 
 Vindictive damages in action against landlord 
 for accident occasioned by negligence of persons 
 in charge of an elevator. See Stephens v. Vhaunse, 
 15 a. C. R. 379, p. 12*2. 
 
 In an action by plaintiff to recover ;l:n>iage8 
 for the destruction of his dwelling-house ami a 
 ■<|uantity of chattel property caused by sparks 
 emitted from defendant s steam tng through de- 
 fendant's negligence :— Held, t'.iat the defendant 
 was not entitled to deduct from the amount of 
 damages fouml to have been sustained by the 
 nlair.tiff, an amount paid to the plaintitf by an 
 insurance company under an insurance on the 
 pnMierty. Brown v. Mcllac, 17 O. R. 712.— C. 
 r. 1). 
 
 NEW HEARING. 
 
 See Pkactice. 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 I. Is What Cases. 
 
 1. Coiilrorertcd Electionn, 1398. 
 
 2. Defamation, 1398. 
 
 3. Interpleader, 1398. 
 
 4. M(ilicwu.i Am si and Proiieciition, 
 
 1398. 
 .-). NeijIUjence, 1.398. 
 «. Seduetion, 1399. 
 
 7. New Trinl ax to Some Cmaits and 
 
 Xoiixuil at to Others, 1.399. 
 
 8. In Criminal Cases — See Chimin ai. 
 
 Law. 
 
 11. FoK What Cau.sb. 
 
 1. Ihdinij as to Eight to Beijin, 1399. 
 
 2. Kxcessivi' Damages, 1,399. 
 
 3. Surprise at Trial, 1400. 
 
 4. IHscoverji of Nev Eride.nre, 1400. 
 
 6. To Produce Further liridence, 1400. 
 <i. Improper Admission of Eridencr, 1401. 
 
 7. Improper Rejection of Eridenre, 1402. 
 
 8. Contradictory Eridence, 1403. 
 
 9. Misdirection of Judge. 
 
 (a.) Gene rally, ^WQX 
 
 (h) /rt ActidH for Malicious Proxicii- 
 tion — See Malicious Akkkst, 
 
 PhoSKCUTION AM) OTHKH 1'RO 
 C'KKDINd.'S. 
 
 10. Non-direction of Judge, 1405. 
 
 11. When Verdict is Against Evidence or 
 
 the Weight (f Eridence. 
 (a) Whiu, Verdict does Substantial 
 
 Jnstice, 1405. 
 (h) Other Cases, 1405. 
 Ju7^. 
 (a) Inconsistent findings, 1407. 
 
 (b) Improperly Injlueneiiig, 1407. 
 
 (c) Other Cases, 1407. 
 
 13. To Amt7id Pleadings, 1408. 
 
 14. Other Cases, 1409. 
 HI. I'HACTICK, 1409. 
 
 IV. Uktkrmi.mni; Question in Di.sputk on 
 Motion for New Trial, 1410. 
 
 V. Appeals on Applications for New 
 Trial. 
 
 1. Generally, UIO. 
 
 2. From County Courts— See County 
 
 Courts. 
 
 3. To Supreme Court — .SVe Suprem k 
 
 Court of Canada. 
 
 VI. Mi.scELLANKoi's Cases, 1410. 
 
 VII. In Division Courts - See Division 
 Courts. 
 
 I. In What Case.s. 
 
 1. Coulrorerlcd Elections. 
 
 See Peel Electinu (Ont.)~Hurst v. Chisholm 
 H. E. C. 48.-). 
 
 Defamation. 
 
 In actions of libel new trials are not granted 
 merely on the ground that the verdict is against 
 evidence and the weight of evidence. It is for 
 the jury to say whether alleged defamatory 
 matter published is a libel or not, and the widest 
 latitude is given to them in dealing with it. 
 iri7/,s V. Carman, l,'> A. R. 09.5. 
 
 See Lott v, Drury, 1 O. I!. 577, p. 506; Brad- 
 ley V. Mcintosh, 5 O. R. 277. p. 017; Wilcocts v. 
 Howell, .■) (). K. 300, p. .'m-, Ilnlnr v. Crookall, 
 10 O. R. 47.5, p. '^y.\; Miissie v. Toronto Print 
 ingCo., 11 O. R. 302, p. r)10; Dominion Ttli- 
 ifraph Co. v. Sitrir, 10 8. C. R. 2.38, p. rMl ■ 
 
 Wells V. Lind<,p, 13 O. R. 4.34, p. ■)()4 ; .S. C 14 
 O. R. 27.-); I.-) A. R. 09.-), p. 14u3; Farquhar v. 
 Roliirtsiiu. 13 I'. K. |-)(), p. 379; Iliiigius v. 
 
 Walkem, 17 S. C. R. 22."), p. 510; Graham v. 
 McKimm, 19 O. R. 475, p. ,-)01. 
 
 3. Interpleader. 
 
 Where there has been a trial by jury in un 
 interpleader issue directe.l from tlie Chancery 
 Division an application for a now trial must \ns 
 made to the Idvisional Court and not to a singlu 
 judge. Cole v. CamphtU, 9 P. R. 498. — Boy.l. 
 
 4. Malicious Arre.il and Prosecution, 
 
 12. 
 
 O. R. 347, p. 1223; Lydtn v. McGee, 10 O. K. 
 105, p. 1223; Routhier v. McLaurin, 18 O. K 
 112, p. 122.3. 
 
 5. Negligence. 
 
 See Nolle v. Cilji of Toronto, 46 Q. IJ. fill) ; 
 Clarke V. /{ama 'Timber Transjiort Co., p. 2111. 
 
'kA.-:.". ' 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 140O 
 
 M 
 
 !)0. 11. 68, p. 2107; Toim of Portland v. Grif- 
 filhx, 1 1 ,S. C. R. XV.\, p. "iUS ; Jieniielt v. Oraiid 
 Trunk 11. W. Co., 7 A. R. 470, p. 177') ; O'Snlli- 
 wmv. Luke, 15 U. R. .')44; 15 A. K. 711, p. 1404. 
 
 6. Seduction. 
 
 A (lefeiulant in seduction is not to be preju- 
 ilicud in an application tor a new trial because 
 Ills counsel has exaniiiied liim as to his means, 
 after having endeavoured to exclude such evi- 
 dence. Fi-njutou V. Veiteh, 4o Q. B. 160.-Q.B.1). 
 
 See Adair v. Wade, O. R. 15, p. 2045; Udij 
 V. Stewart, 10 O. R. 591, p. IJtOo. 
 
 I For wrongful dismissal. See Gnildfurd \. 
 
 I Amjlo-French Sleamithip Co., 9 S. C. R. SOS n 
 
 1238. "■ 
 
 In action for libel. See Mannie v. Tumuli, 
 Prrntimj Co., 11 O. R. .S62, p. 516; Hi,,,,in» ^ 
 Watkim, 17 S. C. R. 225, p. 510; JJumiiiioi, 
 Telegraph Co. v. i,i/rer, 10 S. C. R. 238, p. 507. 
 
 See Ttickett v. Eaton, 6 O. R. 486, p. 1224. 
 
 7. 2few Trial an to Some Counts and Nonmiit a» 
 to Others. 
 
 Where there were common counts, on wliich 
 there was evidence for the jury, but the verdict 
 ceitainly inchided some damages upon the 
 Hpicial counts, a new trial was granted on the 
 common counts, and a nonsuit <is to the others. 
 Harper v. Dariex, 45 Q. B. 442.— Q. B. D. 
 
 3. Sm-prixe at Trial. 
 
 Held, that the abstaining of a party fium 
 proof under the idea that tlie opposite parly lias 
 no real intention of putting him to such procif, 
 and l)eing tliereby taken by surprise, is iKit 
 ground for granting a new trial. Aiidrtir \. 
 Stuart, 6 A. K. 495. 
 
 ' New hearing on ground of surprise. Si'e 
 j Shc.rritI v. litaltie, 27 Ciiy. 492, p. lt)78. 
 
 j See McMillan v. Grand Trunk It 11'. Co., 12 
 ' O. R. 103. 
 
 II. For What Causk. 
 
 1. Rultwj ax lo Riijht to liiijin. 
 
 See Milli'r v. < oufediratioH Life Assurance Co., 
 1 1 O. R. 120, p. I(iu0. 
 
 2. L'xcexxire Damaijex. 
 
 Breach of warranty on sale of piano. See 
 McMidlin V. Williunix, 5 A. R. 51S, p. 2096. 
 
 Where the damage consisted in cutting down 
 some ten or twelve ornamental and sluule trees 
 growing on tliu highway oiniosite to tiie plain- 
 Ci(l'"s land, for whicii lie was awarded !5l.">0: — 
 Held, not excessive. Douijlax v. /W, 31 C. P. 
 140.— C. 1". IJ. 
 
 In an action of ire- pass to a certain lot of 
 land and expulsion of tlie plaintiti' tlierelrom, 
 the plaintiti' claimed .'i.'")00, the jury assessed the 
 dama<;es at §l,.">oO aliil the judge at the trial 
 aminded the slalemeiit of claim accordingly : — 
 Held, that the tiamages were exees-sive und a 
 new trial was granted, liohinxon v. JJall, \ O. 
 R. 266. -y. B. i>. 
 
 Where the dam.iges are large, and to a great 
 extent sentimental, this may well be eonsiilered 
 in deciding whether there has been a substantial 
 wrong caused by a clear mifdireetion. Wiiijield 
 v.Kean, 1 O. R. 193. -Q. B. I). 
 
 Where in an action for damages against a rail- 
 way company, one of the parties to whom dam- 
 ages were awarded, who was an infant, died 
 alter verdict and litfore judgment, and the ver- 
 4lict was now movi^d against, on the ground of 
 excessive damages :- Held, that the court to 
 prevent injustice had power to grant a new trial, 
 which was ordered unless the damages given to 
 the deciuised child were reduced to a sum com- 
 mensurate with the exiiense caused to the 
 mothei's estate by its illness and maintenance. 
 Sihlmld V. Grand Trunk It. \V. Co. — Triniaynr 
 V. Grand Trunk II. II'. Co., 19 O. R. 164.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 4. Dincovo-y of New Evidence, 
 
 A cause had been cai'ried down to trial in 
 1879, when it was postponed at the instaiiuc of 
 defendants, and a trial took place in 18S0, wliui 
 a verdict was lendered in favour of the plain- 
 tills, which the Court of Queen's Bench leiusfil 
 ' to set aside. The defendants thereujiiiii up- 
 pealed to this court, and when the appeal caiin' 
 on to be heard (in 1882) an application wa.s iiiadc 
 by the defendants to be allowed to adduce evi- 
 dence alleged to have been recently discovered, 
 tending to relieve the (lefcndants trom liability, 
 ! which evidence it appeared, consisted mainly of 
 ' entries in the books of the defendants, J'liu 
 I court being of opinion that proper diligence Imd 
 not been used by the defendants, as in such caae 
 they must have discovered the evidence at a 
 I much earlier date, refused the application witii 
 i costs. Murray v. Canada Central It. 11'. t\i., 
 '■ 7 A. R. ti4(). 
 
 Held, that the discovery of new evidena' 
 
 whicii was merely corroborative of cviileiice 
 
 given at the foi iiier trial was no ground for a new 
 
 j trial. (liagarty, C. J. O. , liesitantc. ) Millirw 
 
 : ('tiii/'idiralioit Lij'i Inx. Co., 14 .A. K. 218; II 
 
 O. R. 120. 
 
 See Dunilili v. Culiounj and i'f/< rlxiromjli It. 
 II'. Co., 29 c:iiy. 121, p. 1125; Snu.d v. Ih 
 /llaipiiin-, 10 1*. 1!. 11, p. 1409; hank oj llrilUi 
 Surih Ant' rira v. 11 (-veiH ^l-i-s. ('o. , II 1'. H. 
 434 p. 1409; McMillan v. Grand Trunk It. 11. 
 Co., 12 0. R. 103. 
 
 5. To Produce Furthr Eridence. 
 
 An action against the endorser of jiroinissdry 
 note.s, who alleged that his endorsement iiad 
 been forged, was tried twice. Un the llist tiiul 
 the jury disagreeil, and on the second they touiid 
 for till' plailititr. iSo expert evidence was olleieil 
 at either trial, though the defence intended was 
 fully known. The court refused a new trial 
 moved for on allidavits of an expert giving lii» 
 opinion founded on a comparison and ciilioal 
 analysis of the defendant's handwriting, with 
 the endorsements. Moxer v. Snarr, 45 (J. li- 
 428.— Q. B. L>. 
 
1400 
 
 ee Onihlfurd v. 
 S. C. R. .■0:{, p. 
 
 (M«ie V. Toroiitii 
 
 516; Hiij(jim v, 
 
 310 ; Doiiiiuioii 
 
 ). K. 238, p. 507. 
 
 , 486, p. 1224. 
 
 iaL 
 
 oi a party from 
 pposite piu'ty li,is 
 iin to such pronf, 
 surprise, is iicit 
 rial. Amlrtif v. 
 
 f surprise. See 
 , p. 1()78. 
 
 •,nk II. \V. Co., 12 
 
 'incidence. 
 
 down to triiil iu 
 ,t tliu iiistaiiue of 
 ace iu ISSO, wiii'ii 
 our of the plain- 
 u's Ik'nuh reiusfil 
 ts thereupon n\t- 
 
 the appeal came 
 liealiou was iiiaiU' 
 ed to iidduce evi- 
 dently discovered, 
 iits troiu liability, 
 
 nsisted mainly of 
 dofendunts. The 
 .)per diligence iiuil 
 ts, as in siieh ease 
 he evidcnee at a 
 ipplieatioii with 
 f'lilntt It. W. (.'(/., 
 
 of new evidence 
 live of evidence 
 ) ground for anew 
 tanle.) Miilnw 
 1 .v. K. 21S; 11 
 
 I'flivhiirouijh 11. 
 25; SijimI v. I)t 
 
 ; hank nj /i(/Vi«/l 
 I.S.S. Co., II 1'. K. 
 ami Trunk 7i. II. 
 
 Ih-idnnce. 
 
 •ser of promissory 
 endorsement iiail 
 
 Un tlie lii St trial 
 second they louiid 
 idence. was ollereil 
 jiice intended was 
 used a new trial 
 expert giving hi-s 
 nson and eiiiicai 
 umdw riling, with 
 
 li/iu/r, •!;> (i- I'- 
 
 1401 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 1402 
 
 Held, that T. L. having in his pleadings set 
 up that J. L. had been in possession for twenty- 
 two years as his tenant, could not ohtain a new 
 trial on tiie ground that lie could shew by evi- 
 dence that she had been in as a caretaker for 
 him. Jlickey V. Sluri i; II O. H. 100.— C'iiy. D. 
 
 At the trial of a case witli a jury, tlie judge of 
 the County Court at the eoiiclu>^ion of the plain- 
 tiff's evidence, and without healing any evidence 
 on the part of the defeiidauls, nonsuited the 
 plikintill. In tiie fidlowiiig term the judge set 
 the nonsuit aside and entered jiulgmeiit for the 
 plaintitl', claiming a right under the circumstan- 
 ces to do so. On appeal this court, while satis- 
 fied with the ruling of the judge on the legal 
 liabiHty of the defendant.s, set the nonsuit aside 
 ami ordered a new trial u]ioii the facts, so as to 
 afford the defendants an oi)portuiiity of a<lduc- 
 ing evidence; but, uiiiler tlic ciiciinistaiices, re- 
 fused them any costs of the appeal, liules ."ill, 
 312, :ilSI, and 321 of O. J. Act, (Con. Hulcs 7!»1, 
 "92, 754, 755) discussed, Jliikirv. '/'Ik Urainl 
 Tnink H. W. Co., 11 A. R. 08. 
 
 Her Bond v. Coiimce, 15 (). It. 710, p. 1121 ; 
 llnnly v. Fitiahan/f, 17 !S. C. K. 202. 
 
 ture was given for, that it was not given to 
 secure him against such indorsement ; and 
 therefore evidence of the existence <if an indebt- 
 edness from 1. to K. upon an open account was 
 receivable to support the proof that it was given 
 to secure such indebteilne.ss. I. was asked 
 whether K. did noi, say to him when he askfii 
 him to indorse one of the series of notes of which 
 the one in (|uestioii was a renewal, that he, I''., 
 never " backed anybody's note.": — Held, that 
 the (luestioi: was irrelevant, and I.'s aiiswi i to 
 it conclusive ; and evidence contradicting such 
 answer was inadmissible : -Held, also, that hav- 
 ing regard to the whole case ami the charge of 
 the trial judge adverting to the evidence .so ini 
 properly received and t<> its importaiu'c, sub- 
 stantial injury and miscarriam; were thereby oe- 
 casioned and there was sutlicieiit ground for 
 granting a new trial, liankol' lliiinillon v. Isntits, 
 Hit). H. 4.50.— (^ |{. I). 
 
 See Jlriidl(>/\-. MrJiilos/i, 5 0. K. 227, p. tll7; 
 MfJ)i>iiit!d v." Miirmif, 5 (>. R. 5511; Klli^ v. 
 AIkII, 111 a. R. 220, p. O.'i.S;; /',W., v. Wyhl. II 
 
 0. Imjiropif Admit.s'ion nf KiUUnrc. 
 
 The plaintiir claiiiieil to recover against the 
 defendant, as administrator of his deceased )>ro- 
 thcr \V. (J., two sums, one <if .'!«S0(l, which she 
 alleged \V. (J. received for her from another 
 brother, S. (i., also deceased; and the other of 
 ?1,.'500, which she alleged \V. (1. promised to 
 leave her in consideration of Imr remaining with 
 him, taking care of, and mamiging his house as 
 long as he lived. It was objected that evidenci 
 was admitted of statements made by S. (!. o: 
 the amount he intended leaving the plaintilV. 
 The objection was tirst taken during the exami- 
 nation of a witness, C, after the plaiiitil! had 
 been examined and cross-examined as to such 
 stJiteinents without objection: — Held, that no 
 Bobstantial wrong or nii.sc:irriagc was occasioned 
 by the admission of C.'s evidence; and therefore 
 under the U. J. Act, Rule 311, (Con. Rule 701) 
 it was not a ground for a new trial. Couk v. 
 Grant, 32 C. 1'. 511. -C. 1'. \). 
 
 Iu seduction. i<ti(i Ftn/nxon v. r()V(7/,45 if. 
 B. lliO, p. 1390; Udy v. '.Sinnirl, 10 (). R. 501. 
 
 Per Henry,.!. —Under the present practice the 
 Supreme Court is bound to uplioM a verdict if 
 there is suliicient legal evidence to sustain it 
 independently of evidence im[>r(iperly leceivtd, 
 and cannot take into coiisideratioii tlie ellect on 
 the jury of such illegal evidence, .Strong, .!., 
 contra. ( 'im/i <h ralinn J.i/'e A .^sdcitillon ofCttnada 
 v. O'Dountll, 13 S. C. R. 2 IS. 
 
 I.; the maker, and F., the iiidor.ser, of a [ironi- 
 issory note were sued upon it, and V. denied his 
 indorsement. At the trial an indenture of con- 
 veyance of land from I. to K. was putin without 
 objection, and 1. testilied that it was given to 
 •ecuie V. against his iudoisenient of certain 
 notes of \vhicli tlio one sued on was a renewal. 
 There was nothing in the indenture to sht'W that 
 it was given for anything hut the expressed con- 
 sideration of $l,.'^iOO, and it was not pretended 
 that such consideration was paid : — llehl, that 
 it was competent for V. to shew what the imlen- 
 
 ' (). R. 422, p. 012; DmiiiiiiiDi TtUijrtiiih L'n. v. 
 Silr>r, 10 S. C. R. 238, p. .")07. 
 
 ' 7. liiijiii>/ii r /!iJ(ctiou iij' Erii/i'iiii , 
 
 llehl, that to an action by an assignee of an 
 account for the price of liimlier and staves deliv- 
 ered by the assignor to the defendant under two 
 certain contiacts therefor, the ilefendant, under 
 R. S. O. (IH77) c. 110, ss. 7, 10, and the Judica- 
 ture Act, .ss. 12, 10, and llule 127 (Con. Rule 
 373), can set u)) as a defence a cliiim for damage 
 for the non-delivery by the assignoi' to the delen- 
 daiit of certain other timber and staves specified 
 in the contracts, ami for tlie inferior (piality of 
 liiose delivt'ied. I'erOsler, .1. The right lo<lo 
 so dcpeiide<l wholly ujion R. S. t). (1877) c. I 10, 
 s. 10. In this case the judge refuseil to entertain 
 the former evidence, and ;i new trial w as ordered. 
 A>(/(,(H./-- iiinik V. Wi/Lso//, 32 C. I'. 1.58.— 
 ('. I'. I). 
 
 I In an action on a bond against two sureties, 
 ; the defendant I!, set up the defence and gave 
 I evidcMice that his signature to the bond had been 
 obtained by fr:uid. The evidenct^ of his co-de- 
 fendant ("., was tendei-iid for the purpose of shew- 
 ing that C.'s signature to the bond had also been 
 so obtained, w liieh was rejected as inadmissible : 
 — Held, that the evidence of C. was admissible as 
 shewing a fraud practised on him, with respect 
 to the same instruineiit by the same jicrson, and 
 at or about the same time as the alleged fr.uid on 
 It,, and because it was contirmatoiy of U.'s evi- 
 deiu'c ; and a new trial was ordered. Wafirlao 
 \ Miilmi/ Jii.i. Co. V. li'obin.ioii, 4 O. R. 295.— 
 ii. R. I>. 
 
 The testimony of ,i witness, since dece.iscd, 
 ' taken on a former trial, was rejected by tho 
 judge at the trial herein : — Held, tli:it although 
 j improperly rejected, yet other evidence to tho 
 I same eflect having been received, it could not bo 
 j said that the result would have been varied by 
 I the admission, and a new trial was accordingly 
 . refused. (Joinlond. v. Vdtwn' of lilcnhdm, }> 
 it). R. 19.~C. V. I). 
 
 I Of evidence of witnesses ordered out of court. 
 j .See Mulmini v. Miicdon'!/. 9 O. R. 13", p. 047 ; 
 lilick V. ««'«.•»', 12 O. R. 522, p. 047. 
 
 
140S 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 14M 
 
 «9 
 
 a;; 
 
 90 
 
 
 See n<'ninril v. CoiiteMkr, 45 Q. B. 453, p. | 
 1219; Hiiii,r v. Crookall, 10 O. R. 475, p. 513; 
 /ti'i/aii V. Wiifnv, 10 A. K. 85, p. 670; McDonald 
 V. Johimlon, 10 A. It. 430, p. 778. 
 
 8. Conlradklory Evidence. 
 
 See (Iricfc v. Molnon'n Bank, 8 0, R. lti'2, p. 
 1405. 
 
 !). MUdircxlioH oj'Judijc, 1 
 
 (a) Qeucridly. I 
 
 In an action i)f trover or conversion against 
 appellant, high .shuritl'of tlie county of Cunilier- 
 laml, N. S., to recover daniaj^cs fur an alleged 
 conversion l)y the ajipuUant of certain personal \ 
 pn)|)erty found in thi^ po.sscssion of the execii- ^ 
 tiondehtor, but claimed by tiie re-^iionilent, the 
 pleas were a denial of the conversion, no pro- ! 
 perty in plaintid', no possession or right of pos- 
 session in plaintiir and justilication under a 
 writ of execution against the execution debtor. ] 
 The judge at tiic trial told the jury that lie 
 "tliought it was incumbent on the dijfendant to 
 have gone further tlian merely j)roducing and 
 proving hi.s execution, and that if a transfer had 
 taken place to tiie i)hiintitF, and the articles j 
 taken and sold, delVndant should have shewn 
 the judgment on which tlie execution issued to ■ 
 enable him to justify llie taking and enable him 
 to sustain his defence :" — Helil, thit tiie siieiiff 
 was entitled undi'r his pleas to iiave it left to the 
 jury to say wiiether the plaintilF iiad shewn title 
 or rigiit of possession to tlie goods in tjuestion, 
 and therefore there was misdirection. McLean 
 V. Uanniin, 3 S. (.'. R. 70(;. 
 
 In an actinn for slander where the defence 
 was that if the ilefendant had spoken the words \ 
 (which he denied), the occasion was a privileged j 
 one, there had been two trials, each resulting in I 
 n verdict for the plaintiff. The deleudant inoved I 
 for a new trial foi' misdirection liy the judge in 
 (among other respects) not fully explaining to 
 the jury that unless the plaintitV proved that the | 
 words were sjioken with actual malice, he wa.s j 
 not entitled to recover: — Held (allirming the 
 judgment of theC'hy. I). 14 O. H. '275), that tak- 
 ing the charge as a whole, and witliiuit laying 
 undue stress upon isolated expressions, the jury 
 had snbstMiitially been told that the occ.isiou 
 was privileged ; and that unless they were sat- 
 istied that tlie defendant had abused the privilege 
 and availed himself of it to make the statement 
 nialieiously, they should lind f<u' the defendant. 
 WdU V. Limlop, 15 A. R. 095. 
 
 Ill conniilering an objection for misdirection, 
 the ipiestiou is nut wiiether every ex|)iv.s»ion in 
 a charge is perfectly accurate, but whether there 
 is any reason to believe thit a verdict, which is 
 warranted liy the evidence, li.-is been caused or 
 induced by an erroneous enunciation of the law 
 by the court. Ih. 
 
 Per I'attorson, •!. A. --The ease was cme for 
 the application of Itule 311 (Con. Rule 791) as, 
 if there weieany misdirection, it did not appear 
 that substantial wrung or miscarriage had been 
 caused by it. //'. 
 
 The defeiidiint I..., who was a ))riifessional 
 valuator, was employed by plaintilf to personally 
 
 investigate the security offered for a loan on 
 real estate, and to ehecK the valuation of a local 
 valuator. The saiil defendant visited the pro- 
 perty and reported, in etl'ect agreeing with the 
 local valuator, that the property .was worth 
 considerably more than the amount proposed 
 to be lent, and that the loan could be safely 
 made for the sum pioposed, for which report he 
 charged and was paid a fee. The loan was 
 effected, and ilcfaiilt having occurred in its re- 
 {layment, the jiroperty was olFered for sale, when 
 it was found iiii]iossible to sell for anything like 
 the mortgage money. In an action for negli- 
 gence in valuing the property the jury found for 
 the plaintilf. The judge at the trial (lirccted the 
 jury that the fact tli.it the defendant did not 
 obtain the opinion of other persons as to the 
 value of land in the neighliouriiood was evidence 
 of negligence : — Held ((!alt, (.'.. I., dissenting), 
 this was mi.sdirection. It apjieared from the 
 evidence that the mortgagor had endeavoured to 
 procure a loan for a similar amount on the same 
 projierty from a company in which the defen- 
 dant L. was a ilirector, and that the loan was 
 not etfected, having been abandoned liy the 
 mortgagor. The judge at the trial, although he 
 directecl the jury that there was no evidence 
 that the defendant had acted with intentional 
 dishonesty, pressed upon their notice, with other 
 observations, the encpiiry : " Why was not the 
 original traii.saction carried out? ":— Held, per 
 Rose and Mac.Mahon, •],]., that the.se observa- 
 tions tended to create a prejn<licc in tlie mind 
 of the jury which was not warranted liy tiie 
 facts. K., a respectalile man living in the 
 neighbourhood of the property, in his evidence 
 Viilued the land at from .'#200 to §300 per acre, 
 but the juilge told the jury that K. was not in 
 the land business, and had no knowledge of the 
 value of the property, j'er I !ose, .1. 'Die ob- 
 servation as to K. was a practical withdrawal (if 
 his evidence fnun the jury. I'er <jlalt, C. J.— 
 Tlii're w.is evidence of negligence to go to the 
 jury, particularly in defendant L. not making 
 empiiries of others in the neiglibrnirhood as to 
 the value of the land. A new trial was there- 
 fore directed. O'Siitlivan v. Lake, 15 U. R. 
 544. -C. P. \). 
 
 On ajipeal the Court of Appeal held that there 
 was no misdirection in the charge of tlie trial 
 juilge, but under the circumstances of atiidavits 
 lileil in the court below as to certain .matters 
 which defendant pressed ujion the Court, re- 
 (juired explanation beyond what had appeared 
 at the trial, the ccuirt would not interfere with 
 the order of the court below. S. ('. 15 A. U. 
 711. The .Supreme (.'oiirt ijuashed an apjieal on 
 the gnuind that tlie new trial had been granted 
 as a matter of discretion. ///. 
 
 When no objection is made at the trial to the 
 judge's charge, the ground of misdirectitm is 
 untenable on a motion for a new trial. H'V/s v. 
 Ciivnian, 17 O. R. •i"_'3. -i). IJ. I>. 
 
 .See Mi/li r v. Goiijnlimt'iiin Lijr AxsurainiCu., 
 1 1 (». R. I'20 ; 14 A. R. -218. p. 1000 ; Fiirhiuj v, 
 /{'■id, 12 (>. R. 007, p. 075. Sromjall v. SInjilt- 
 Inn, I2(). R. 2(l(i, p. 1219; ('nilidSlnli-* luprm 
 Co. V. Ihiiiiihor, 14 (). R. 333, p. tiSO ; I'londimrt 
 Wnxliintilnn Lin. Co. v. (Iirow, 14 IS. ('. 1!. 731, 
 p. 985; Car/'sr v. (,'rns<tl 14 A. R. <i85, p. 
 1177. 
 
14M 
 
 1405 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 1406 
 
 I for a loan on 
 Illation of a local 
 visited the pro- 
 grecing with the 
 erty .was worth 
 amount iiriiposed 
 (;()iil(l 1)L' safely 
 which report he 
 The loan was 
 c'curreil ii\ its re- 
 ■u(l for sale, when 
 for auythiiij,' like 
 aolion for negli- 
 liu jury found for 
 trial (ti rooted the 
 L'fuiidiuit (lid not 
 ersous as to the 
 <K)(1 was evidence 
 '. .]., dissenting), 
 peared from the 
 ,d endeavoured to 
 loiint on the same 
 whicii tliedefen- 
 iiat the loan was 
 landoned hy the 
 trial, altlioiij^li he 
 was no evidence 
 with intentional 
 notieo, with other 
 Wiiy was not the 
 itV " :— Held, per 
 it these cil)scrva- 
 dice in the inind 
 varranted l)y the 
 m living in the 
 r, in his evidence 
 to $'M>0 per acre, 
 lat K. was not in 
 knowledge of the 
 Itose, J. Tiieob- 
 lal withdrawal of 
 ■or (iall, C. J.— 
 ;ence to go to the 
 It L. not making 
 ^hlxmrliood as to 
 trial was tlicre- 
 Lah; 1') t). R. 
 
 lalhehl that there 
 liarge of tlie trial 
 anoes of atlidavits 
 
 ) certain niatters 
 )n the ("ourl, re- 
 
 lat ha<l ai)iiearcil 
 not interfere with 
 S. ('. 1". A. 11. 
 ished an ajipeal on 
 
 had been granted 
 
 at the trial to the 
 of misdirection in 
 :w trial. Il''/fcv. 
 I). 
 
 lAjc A>"iitf<iii<'iCo., 
 . 1000 ; l-'ii riling v. 
 SriiiKjiill V. Slujit- 
 iihd'Slnh^ F..n»-t»* 
 p. liSO ; I'innilciift. 
 14 S. ('. i;. 731, 
 14 A. H. Ii«5. I'- 
 
 10. Non- Direct ion of Jmhje. \ verdict being again.st the weight of evidence : — 
 
 , , . . ,^. . . , r, i. Held, that although the Court of Queen's I5ench 
 
 notice of motion to a Divisional Court would have had power to enter this verdict in 
 
 power 
 
 tice in a proper case; Imt it declme.l to assist ,,iai„iiiV and direct a verdict to be entered for 
 the defendant by doing so wiicre the non-direc- ,|,^, .i,.f^,„i,i„t j,, .ij^^t opposition to tiie linding 
 tion was not material in view of other facts an.l „f j,,^ j,„ „„ ,^ ,„^u,,i,,i i^^ue. Under 8S Vict. 
 
 findings, and tiie rule of law iiivokeil by the 
 defendant would have op. rated against a iiieii- 
 torioiis claim of the plaiiititl'. ricKVcr r. Mid- 
 land K. \V. Co., IS q. I!. I). •_>4;}, followed. 
 FnrloiKj v. IMd, Vl V. H. •JOI.— Chy. \). 
 
 'AwSmilh V. Keoicii, 4(> (J, li. lO.S, ]i. IIS4 ; 
 ||'iH«VW V. KcMii, I (». I!. l!i:l, p. l'.>-_>'.>; (Vt»v<- 
 6c// v. J'rini>\ 5 A. K. ;i:!l>, Infra. 
 
 . 11 (l)oni.), the Supreme Court has power to 
 make any order or to givi- any judgment which 
 the court below might, or ought to have given, 
 and amongst other things to order a new trial on 
 the ground either of misilirccti<ui or the verilict 
 being against tiie weight of evidence ; and that 
 power is not taken away by section '22 in this 
 ease, in which the courl below did not exercise 
 any di.scretiou as to the ijucstioii of a new trial, 
 and where tliea))peal from tiieir judgment did not 
 relate to that suliject. i'oiiin'rtiritt Mii/iial Life, 
 Int. Co. of Ifari/'ord v. Moore, App. Cas. G44; 
 (i S. C. 1!. ():{4 ; '.S A. R. 2.S0. 
 
 Although the I'rivy Council have the right, 
 if they tliiiik tit, to order a new trial on any 
 ground, that [lower will not be exercised merely 
 where the verdict is not altogether satisfactory, 
 but only where tiie evidence so strongly prepon- 
 derates against it as to lead to the conclusion 
 that the jury have either wilfully disregarded 
 the evidence or failed to understand or appre- 
 ciate it. //'. 
 
 I'cpleviii fo,' a piano delivered to the defendant 
 as allegiMl by plaintilfs under an agreement that 
 the piano was received by the defendant on hire 
 for six inoiiihs at 85 a mouth, with right of 
 piireliase at 8"i().">, $1.5 cash, and the balance by 
 instalments, and until purchase money paid the 
 )iiaiio to remain the plaintitl's projierty ; that 
 default was made in the ])ayineiits, and that the 
 plaintitl's were entitled to take po.ssession of the 
 same. The defendant stated that she purchased 
 the piano, no mention being niailc at tlxj time of 
 the agreement, which was subsequently signed 
 without defendant's authority by her daughter. 
 The <lefondant was unable to read or write, 
 though of fair business capacity. The evidence, 
 as urged bv the plaintitl's, shewed authority from 
 the defendant to sign, and also r^ititication by 
 her. The jury found for the defendant. The 
 court, not being aatistied with the finding, di- 
 
 a new trial, as the evidence ^^trongly prepoiider- reeled a new trial with costs to the successful 
 
 atcd in blie defendant's favour and there was rea- 1 party in the cau.se. //( iiit:man v. Graham, 15 
 
 son to believe the jury had been misled by the I o. li. \'M.—C I'. D. 
 
 charge. Vaiiiphtll v. I'rinee, ,'5 A. H. .'l.SO. 
 
 11. Whiii Vin/ict in Aiitiliiit ErUlenn- or lliv 
 Wtiijht of h'ritli lice. 
 
 (a) When VeriUet Does Suhnlanthd Jiixiice,' 
 
 Oil applicatiim for a new trial upon the weight 
 of evidence, where there has been no miscarriage 
 in law, the ((uestion is, does the verdict in the 
 opinion of the court do substantial justice : and, 
 if not, is the evi<leiice in their opinion siillicient 
 to warrant interference. In this case where the 
 verdict rested entirely upon the plaintill's testi- 
 mony as opposed to that of two witnesses not 
 interested, the court wt^re of o])inion that the 
 verdict did not dosul)stantial justice, and a new 
 trial was granted. Griere v. .MalKont Hank, S 
 O.K. I (!•_'. —C. P. I). 
 
 See lleriinril v. CoulelUer, 4.'3 (i. IJ. 4.'i;{, 
 p. 1210; AfeDoiiald v. Murrmj, 5 0. R. .';.")!»; 
 Uniteil Sla/e.t E-vpreM Co. v. Donohoe, 14 (). II. 
 ,U3, p. (ISO; Carter w <lra-<,ll, 14 .-V. U. CS.'), !». 
 1177 ; liiiiik of llaiiiilloii V. lianes. Hi (). R, 400 ; 
 ll'eWs V. IJiidop, 1.-) A. R. (i!»5, p. 1403. 
 
 (b) Other Caxes.\ 
 
 Tiiis case being an action for an assault against 
 a puhlie olHcer, in which tiie jury had found a 
 verdict for .^100 and a new trial asked for on 
 the grounil tli.it the venlict was against evi- 
 dence was refused, the Court of Appeal granted 
 
 Upon a rule nisi calling niion the plaiiitill' in 
 an action upon a pidiey of life insurance to shew 
 cause why a veidict (ditiiined by her should 
 not he set aside and a. nonsuit or verdict entered 
 for tlie ilefendant pursuant to the Law Reform 
 Act, or a new trial had between the parties, said 
 verdict being contrary to law and evidence, and 
 
 The father of the plaintiflT applied to th(! de- 
 fendant company for a loan of S-iji'iOO secured 
 by land valiieil by the company's appraiser at 
 S.'t,.')!)!). In answer to certain ipiestions put to 
 the applicant, in a printed form of a])plieation 
 for loan, he stated himself to be the owner of 
 certain horses, cows, sheep, and other stouk. 
 The plaiiititl' was present with his father at the 
 
 the tinding virtually for the defomlant ; and for time of making the application, but swore that 
 
 misdirection in that the jury had not been ili- 
 rected on the uvideiieo to find for the defen- 
 dant ; the Court of tiueen's Heiich, 41 (^ R. 107, 
 ordered the verdict for the plaintill' to be set 
 aside and the same to be entered for the ilefen- 
 dant, while the .Supreme (Joint eventually re- 
 versed tills order and rostiired the verdict for 
 
 he was not aware of the answers given by him 
 as to bis pei'.scnial etl'ects. The defendants sued 
 and (d)tained execution against the father, under 
 which they seized some of the stock in the pos- 
 session of the son, who h vl been resi<ling apart 
 from his father, and from whom, prior to the 
 ibovc ajiplication, he had purchased it. In an 
 
 the plaintill', being of (>pini<ni that they hail no ! interpleader issue between the son and the corn- 
 power to direet a new trial on the ground of the pany the jury found in favour of the claim of the 
 
m 
 
 1407 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 1408 
 
 former, which venlict the judge of the County i 
 (Jourt refuseil to set iistide. On iij'pcal tliis court, 
 .-ilthougli they t(>ll^^idl■rell tliut ii verdict for the 
 tlufenduiits would iiave liceu more siitiMfiietory, | 
 refused to disturli tlie judgment, tlie (pK'stion 
 heing one projier for tlie decision of tlio jury. ' 
 Mnlivhii»iiu V. Jfnmi/loii rrorideul and Loan A'o- 
 ricly, 10 A. II. (ilO. 
 
 See HhUHv v. J)kkKou, M\ Q. 11. 1(17, \k '**' i 
 Mitni V. Coj, (i (.). H. -AM, p. i;02 ; Ciiii/MI v. 
 C'l/r, 7 O. 1!. I'27, p. HTS: Ilin-Uind v. Thomp- 
 son, !) (). H. 37li, p. 774. Titini of I'urlliind v. | 
 (Iriffilhs. 11 ,S. (.;. K. ;aS; Wills \. Ciinnan, 17 
 (». K. 'J'j;{; Sun Life Axk. Co. v. Pw/c, lo .\. 
 H. 704, p. »97. 
 
 12. Jury. 
 
 (a) Incjii.ti.s/i nl FuulbiriK. 
 
 See McQnoi/ v. East wood, !•_' O. R. 402, p. | 
 1252. 
 
 (b) Iin/iropi rli! Jnffiiinclnp. 
 
 The defendiints olijectcd tliat by rea.son of j 
 frequent interruptions and reading of text booivH i 
 by plaintilFH coun.-iel during tlie deliveiy of the 
 judge's charge injustice was done defendants, 
 ami the jury impiopeily inlluenced theieby: — ! 
 Held, that tliis was a matter f<ir the judj;e at the 
 trial, and it would have to be a very strung case 
 for the court to inteifcre, and the judge had 
 made no c(im]>liiint. Mi'Donalil v. Murruy, "> 
 (). 1!. 5,J!».— C. r. 1). 
 
 The defendant, in (onversation with one of j 
 the jury ) anel, but not one of the jury called to 
 try the case, said he hoped the jury would givc^ 
 the defendant the 1 enetit of any <loubl : — Held, 
 not BiiHicient to justify the court in inteifering 
 with the verdict. Voiiintn \. Farnrtll, 12 0. 
 R. 'J85.-C. P. ]). ' 
 
 At the trial of an action the defendant's coun- 
 sel cliallenged a juryman for cause. On the 
 trial judge st:iting that he did not think any 
 cause was shewn, and that the counsel hail bettor 
 challenge peremptorily, the counsel diil not 
 claim the right to try the sutliciency of any cause 
 against the impartiality of the juryman, but 
 accepted the opinion of the judge, and tlie jury- 
 man r<;maine(l on the jury : — Hehl, that on a 
 motion fm- a new trial an objection to the jury- 
 man could not be entertained. tVoud \: J/f. 
 I'luiwn, 17 O. U. io;j.— C. P. 1). 
 
 The action was tried at Urantfoid, and a new 
 trial wasmo\cd for at a place other than Hnnt- 
 ford, because the jury there were biassed against 
 defendant ;- Mold, that thi.s formed no ground 
 for a new trial. Jli. 
 
 The court will not grant a new trial because 
 one of the jurms has not been sworn, where no 
 injustice is done thereliy. (looxt v. (tianil Tniuk 
 A', ir. Co. 17 O. K. T21.—V. P. I). 
 
 See I''ay<iuhar i: 
 :il'J. 
 
 ItobcrtHon, 13 P. I!. l.-)(), 1 
 
 J. 3. To Ainind I'leadimjs. 
 
 A part of the claim in this case extended lie 
 yond six years, but no ajuilication was niiidcit 
 the trial lor le.ive to plead the Statute of Linii 
 tatii'Us as to this. Tlie court, under the cinnnn- 
 stances, refused to giant a new trial to eiuilile 
 this defence to be set up. Coo/: v. (Imiit, ,'t'2 
 
 c. P. i-)ii.~c. p. o. 
 
 See Undid Slrdex Ujpnss Co. v. Don/ hoe, 14 
 O. It. ;i:«, p. (ISO; O'Siilliian v. L>Ur, 15 O. It. 
 544, p. 1404. 
 
 (c) Olhrr Casts. 
 
 At the trial it a))])(ared fliat the counsel for 
 P. hud left the court before the judge's ch.-irge, 
 having authorized F., ccumsel for two otl., r de- 
 fendants, to take on his I eliaif any objections he 
 might think jirnper to the charge. 'I he jury, 
 after hearing the judgct's chiiri.e, were allowed 
 to separate and be at large trom ."Saturday till 
 Monday, before giving tliiir verdict, which was 
 against the<lefendants I', and II. : — lleld, reveis- 
 ing the decision of the Queen's Iknch J)ivision, 7 
 O. R. 355, that such a proceeding could not be 
 upheld except upcin clear aliiiniative evidence of 
 consent exjnosly and knowingly giviii ; and 
 theretoie. where counsel for the defend: nl P. 
 had left the court before the judge's charge, ami 
 it did not appear that he had authorized ai.y one 
 to represent him or his client, or that any one 
 had conEcnted or assumed to consent on 1 elialf 
 of P. to the jury separating, a new trial as to I', 
 was directed : — Per Osier, J. A. — Had K. as.--um- 
 cd to rcjirescnt the counsel for P. in as-senting to 
 a separation of the jury, P. would have been 
 bound to the same extent as if his (<wii counsel 
 had taken a similar course, contraiy to instruc- 
 tions. StillwtU V. liamk, 11 A. It. 724. 
 
 'I he iilaiiitill' couHigned gooils to parties in 
 Kngland and sliipi ed them by dcfciidaiil C(jui 
 ]iaiiies on bills of lading, describing tliem us 
 
 shipjicd by the plaintill to be delivered to , 
 
 order, or his assigns, he or they paying fici^'lit. 
 i The jilaintiU'endorseil the bills of lading to vari- 
 ous parties in Knglaiiil to whom he had sold the 
 goods, the consignees paid the drafts dlUHii 
 upon them for the price and the f;o()ds haviuj; 
 been sei iously damaged in transit they maile 
 i claim n[ion the plaintiff' for the loss. The plain- 
 i tift' now sued for the dam iges and was nonsuited 
 ' on the grcjund that he had not siitlicient interest, 
 or was not the proper Jieison to sue. The court, 
 without deciding as to the plaintifl' having no 
 right of action, or the eflect of It. S. O. (1S77), 
 e. ll(i, a. 5, set aside the nonsuit and directed 
 a new trial, with leave to the plaintitls to add 
 as eo-plaintills, any or all of tin; consignees, or 
 endorsees of the bills of lading, the evidence 
 aliea<ly given to stand, with an.\ addition.^ the 
 parties might desire, reserving all costs. The 
 validity of It. S. O. (KS77), c. 110, s. 5, was di.'!- 
 puted on the ground that it was ultra vires a.^ 
 interfering with trade anil eommeice, bni the 
 court refuseil to decide the point without notice 
 to the attorney-general and minister of justice 
 under 40 Viet. e. 0, a. (Out.), which would 
 involve great delay, and adoiiteil the above 
 course as being the speediest and least expensive. 
 Jhihlii V. AJvnlKuits' J)(sji<drh Co., 2 O. li. '.Wo.- 
 Q. 15. b. 
 
 A new trial was granted in this case, there 
 being circunistancts reijnii ing further considira- 
 tion, with leave to so amend the ple;idiiigs iind 
 add such parlies as might be necessary. II '•ii' 
 V. liwjhts, 8 O. It. 138. -C. P. U. 
 
1409 
 
 NEW TRIAL. 
 
 1410 
 
 ». 13 I'. 1!. i:)ti, (1. 
 
 Sec Caller v. <.'ni.<iHt, 14 A. H. OS."), -•.>2 ; 
 licl>oii(M V. Johnston, IG A. R. 4:iil, p. 7'S. 
 
 14. O/Ac <• Ca.il. H. I 
 
 The jury havinj,' found no danmges, iiu order I 
 nisi obtained by the iiliiintitl for a new trial 
 wa9 iliscli.-irged, without costs. Li'iiiay v. Cham- ! 
 Worn, 10 O. R. 038.-Q. K I). j 
 
 Tiie ol>j'!ution that the judge at tiie trial i 
 should liaveiiinisylf decided the issue as to fail- ! 
 urc of consideration, instead of <lirecting an ■ 
 inquiry before the master, is not one tiiat the 
 court will entertain. Ftather.itunv v. VaiiAllai, ! 
 12 A. K. 133. 
 
 See Chirh' v. /iaiwt 
 (lAmitcd), 9 O. R. (iS. 
 
 Tiinhcr Traniiioi-I Co, 
 
 III. rRACTIt'K. 
 
 Where an indictment for ol)stru(:ting a iiigh- 
 w»y had been removed )>y certiorari, .it the in- 
 stance of the private prosecutor, into this court, 
 and defendant had been accjuitted : — Helil, tliat 
 there was no power to impose payment of costs 
 on such prosecutor. Tlic court, however, has 
 mwcr to make payment of costs a condition of 
 any indulgence granted in such a case ; such as j 
 the postponement of the trial, or a new trial, i 
 %mov. Ilmt, 45 ti. B. I. -Q. H. D. \ 
 
 The plaintilV was permitted to proceed with ' 
 anew trial pending an appeal where he showed i 
 that he had already been inconvenienced by de- 
 lay, tliat further delay would prejudice Iiini ' 
 tiuaneially, and that l)y it he mij^lit lose impor- ' 
 Unt oral evidence. McJ)iiii(ilil v. Miiridj/, P. 
 R. 404. -Winchester, ll<<ji-<l rav V- /'• 1> — 
 Hagarty. 
 
 Held, that a defendant is not entitled to re- 
 move jHoceedings by certiorari to a Superior 
 Court from a ])oli<'e magistrate, or a justice of 
 the peace, after conviction oi- at any time, for the 
 purpose of moving for a new trial for the rejec- 
 tion of evidence, or because tlie conviction is 
 against evidence, the conviction not l)eing lielore 
 the court, and no nu)tion mailo to cjuasli it. He- 
 'pmv. Ilicliardioit, 8 (). R. (mI.— Q. li. I). I 
 
 A petition by the plaiutitl's for leave to pro- 
 duce newly discovered evidence, and to reopen 
 the ca.se for its aihnission after the judgment of 
 IheConrl of Chancery in favour of the dt^t'en 
 ilants iiad been atlirnied by the Court of Appeal 
 and the Supreme Court ot Canada, was brought 
 iMi for healing before I'rondloot, J., in court: -, 
 Held, that as the a])plication niiglit, befoie the i 
 (). .1. Act, have been made to a single juilge, and i 
 as there is no provision in that Act specially ap- ! 
 plicalde to the subject, the original practice of 
 the court remains, and the ap|)licatioii was i)ro- 
 |)erly made to a single judge. Synod v. Ih'lila- 
 nmm, 10 1*. R. 11. I 
 
 An application to oncn the case and put in j 
 further eviilence, and for a new trial upon fresh 
 evidence, or for leave to bring a new action upon 
 apart of the original claim founded upon such, 
 tvideiice, is properly made to the judge who! 
 heard the original cause. Il<tnk of liriliih North 
 Amirim v. WMttrn As^. Co.. 11 V. H. 434.— 
 t'roudfoot. 
 
 K9 
 
 In moving against the ruling of the juilgd at 
 the trial with respect to the reception oi' rejec- 
 tion of evi<lence, or on the ground that he ha.s 
 misdirected the jury, it is sldl neces.sary to .state 
 the grounds in the nolice of motion oi rule. 
 .Scott V. Crerar, II (». It. .")4I. ('. r. |i. 
 
 Death of plaintill' between venlict and giving 
 jutlgment on an application for a new trial. See 
 White V. Parker, 10 S. C. II. 0!Ht, p. 17. 
 
 See Cola v. Campl„ll, •) 1>. i{. 49S, p. 1(C_»0 ; 
 Norton v. MvCalie, 12 1'. R. jlOO, p 401 ; /■'«(- 
 qnhi.tr V. Jioherimn, 13 P. K. luti, p. 37!). 
 
 IV. nKTKKMININd (^i ICsriON IN DlSl'UTK ON 
 
 Motion' fou Nkw Tkiai,. 
 
 Under Rule .321, O. .J. Act, (Con. Rule 7.')5), 
 the court may, upon motion for judgment or 
 for a new trial, if .satislii:il tliat it has before it 
 all the materials necessary for finally deti^rmin- 
 ing tile iiuestioii in dis[iute *' * give judg- 
 ment aceoriliiigly ; but per Wilson, (!. .1., un- 
 ijuestionably that power must be most sparingly 
 and cautiously exerciseil. iStenuirf v, /lonnil.^, 7 
 A. H. .-)|-.. 
 
 v. Ai-i'EAi.s ON Arn.icATioNs fok Xew Trial. 
 
 1. (iini'i-alli/. 
 
 In an action for negligence in not keeping a 
 roa<l in repair, the jury found for the plaintiff. 
 A rule nisi having been ■,ub.>'e(piently obtained to 
 enter a nonsuit, or for a new trial, the C. P. D. 
 made it absolute to enter a nonsuit. On appeal 
 this judgment was reversed (0 A.R. IS I), but tlie 
 C. of A. made iioorder as to that portion of the rule 
 nisi in which a new trial was asked, leaving it to 
 bedis|)oscdof by this court :-- Held, that the rule 
 nisi was completely ami tinally disposeil of, si> 
 far as this court was concerned, by the rule to 
 enter a nonsuit, which the defendants, by taking 
 it without asking for any resei'vation so far as 
 regarded the new trial had acc|uiesced in :-- 
 Held, also, Wilson, C. .1., dissenting, that the 
 Court of Appeal have no power, under section 
 '23 of the Ciuirt of Appeal Act, R. S. (». (1S77), 
 o. 3S, to tlirect this court to reopen the rule or 
 reconsider the (piestioii whether, in their discre- 
 tion, a new trial should be granteil. Walton v. 
 Counlii of York, 32 V. P. 35.— C. P. I). 
 
 The plaintill" being in possession of land as 
 tenant of II. was evicted by the clefendant, wlm 
 claimed uniler an overdue mortgage. A nonsuit 
 w.is entered at the trial, on the gi-onnd that the 
 defeiulant was at law entitled to possession, 
 evidence of e([uitablo right to possession in the 
 plaintiff having been refused. The Court of 
 Queen's Hench in its discretion granted a new- 
 trial. On appeal to the Court of Appeal : — 
 Held, that the court couhl not interfere, llohin 
 lion V. Jlntl, A. R. 534. 
 
 See Mnrray v. Cnnniln Central /'. W. Co., 7 
 A. R. Mii •,'lieiilna v. Citi/ o/' I.oialon, 15 A. I!. 
 414, p. 4.54; O'Sullirnn v. Lake, 15 A. R. 711, 
 p. 1404. 
 
 VI. Mi.sc'Ki.L.vsEous Cases. 
 
 The court below dismissed a bill filed to en- 
 force a claim for dannigcs sustuine<l by an 
 
1411 
 
 NOTIOR 
 
 1412 
 
 9a 
 
 es 
 
 mmm 
 
 M 
 
 excessivi; valuation of laiul ]>y the lii'otlior and 
 partntT of tlie paid valuator duly a))iiointud Ijy 
 thu plaintitls, on tin; ground that it was not 
 uliewn that thf valuation « an made fiauduluntly. 
 The court, while dill'erinjL! from auch view, dc- 
 clinud to rcviive tlie diMice and ordered a new 
 trial, at wliieh the evidence of one of the de- 
 fendants already tak-ii ini;,dit he used, in the 
 event of his I lien hein^' out of tile jurisdiction ; 
 lint ordered the definilants to |)ay the costs of 
 the apiie.d ; the newtiial to he without costs in 
 the court hclow. i'luniila Laiiihd Crnli't Co. v. 
 fhoiniimii, 8 A. U. C!)(!. 
 
 A cnnveyaiicc direct from hushand to wife is 
 not necessarily void to all intents and puriKiaos ; 
 in e(iuity it may he void. Tlierefore, in this 
 action, in which the plaintifT elaitiied j)ossession 
 of the lands against J M., who, in ISS4, had 
 conveyed to S. M., his wife, for an e.\))ressed 
 eonsiiler.ition of sKK), S. M having, in IMS", 
 conveyed to the |)Iaiiitiir, and in which .1. M. 
 now contended his died to S. M. was void, and 
 the judge at the li'ial on tliit ground iionsuiteil 
 the plaintiir at tlie opening of the case : — Held, 
 that there must he a new trial, especially as it 
 was stated hy eoun-el that the legal (estate was 
 outstanding in a mortgagee, at the tinie of the 
 conveyance from •). M. to S. M. .fiuiix v. J/c- 
 (.'mill, 1") (). J!. ISll. — Chy. I). 
 
 See V, Cnwjhloii v. ChUlhk, 7 .S. C. It. 34S. 
 p. Ill ■,C<)ini(iiinil Miiliiat iJfi lux. Co. of Ibrl- 
 ford V. Maori', (5 Aiip. Cas. (i44, p. 14(Hi. 
 
 NEXT FRIEND. 
 
 .SVe Jlf.SliANI) ANl) WiFK— Im ANT. 
 
 NIAGARA FALLS PARK. 
 KxruopBiATioN OF Land i-ou--,S''r ("uowx. 
 
 NISI PRIUS. 
 
 See CouuT of Assize. 
 
 NON-RESIDENT LANDS. 
 
 Set Assessment and Taxes. 
 
 NONSUIT. 
 
 New Tuiai, as to .Some Counts and Nonsuit 
 AS to OriiEKs— .bVr New Tkial. 
 
 The verdict licrein was set aside by the County 
 Court, and a nonsuit entered upon a ground not 
 taken as a defence at thu trial or in the rule 
 nisi :— Hehl, reversing the judgment that the 
 judge erred in giving effect to the objection, 
 which, if taken at the trial, would have been 
 met by an amendment. As the evidence shewed 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed upon 
 
 the merits, the appeal was allowed and the riilu 
 in the court below discharged. Clarke v. Bur 
 roil, (i A. 1{. .'lO'J. 
 
 In an action on a life policy trieil before it 
 judge and a jury, in accordance with tliu pro- 
 visions of 37 Vict. c. 7, s. .S2 (Ont.), the judge 
 in place of requiring the jury to lender a jjeii- 
 eial verdict, directed them to answer certuin 
 (piestions, and the jury having answered all the 
 (|Uesti(nis in favour of the jilaiutiir, the juiljje 
 entered a verdict for the plaiiitid'. Upoiiiirule 
 nisi to shew cause why this verdict should nnt 
 be set aside and a nonsuit or a verdict eiiteriil 
 for defendants pursuant to the f^aw Ivefonn Act, 
 or a new trial had lietweeii the )):irties, saici 
 verdict being contrary to law ami (ivideiicc, uiiil 
 the tinding virtually foi' the defendant", tint 
 Court of Queen"s Bench (41 (}. 15. 4!)7) made the 
 rule absolute to enter a verdict for the ilefeii 
 dants. The ajipellant then appealed to tlie 
 Court of A])peal for. Ontario, and the emiit 
 being ecpially divided, the; ajjpeal was disinissiil 
 (3 A. 11. ."Wl). Per (i Wynne, .J., that the plain 
 till' never could have been nou.siiited in virtue 
 of .37 Vict. c. 7, 8. 33 (Out.), as it is only where 
 it can be said that there is not any eviihucc in 
 support of the iilaiiitill's case, that a iiniiauit 
 can be entered ; and that in this case, the pi-o- 
 per verdict which the law letiuireil to l>c eiitereil 
 upon the answi^s of the jury was one in favour 
 of the idaintilf. Mnurf v. Coiiiiii-liciit Mulml 
 Liji Ins. Co. of Hiii-n'ord. (> ,S. C. II. (i34. See 
 .V. C. G App. Cas. (il4, p. 14()(i. 
 
 Where in a jury case the judge at the trial 
 enters a nonsuit, a notice of inoLion, and notau 
 order nisi, is the ])roper mode of moving against 
 it. Clarksun v. Siiidir, 10 O. K. .)G1. -C. P. D. 
 
 At the trial of a case with a jury the judge of 
 the ("(Uinty Court at the conclusi(ui of the plain- 
 titrs evidence and without hearing any evidence 
 on the part of the <lefeiidants nonsuited the 
 ))laiiitiir. I:i the following term the judge set 
 the muisuit aside and entereil judguient for the 
 plaint itf claiming a right under the circuuistaueej 
 to do so. On ajipeal this court while satisfieil 
 with the ruling of the judge on the legal liability 
 of the defendants set the nonsuit aside ami 
 ordered a new trial upon the facts so as toaffonl 
 the defendants an opjOTrtunitj' of adducing evi- 
 dence, but under the circumstances refused tliciii 
 any costs of the appeal. Rules 311, 'M'l, 319aiiil 
 321 O. .1. Act (Con. Rules 7i)l, 7!l-', 7.')4, 755), 
 discussed, liakc.r v. (I rand Trunk II. W.Co.of 
 Canada, 11 A. R. 08. 
 
 See liyan v. Canada Southern R. )V. Co., 10 
 O. R. 745. 
 
 NOT GUILTY BY STATUTE. 
 
 See Pleading. 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 I. Matters of Rractice. 
 
 1. Of Action— See Action 
 
 2. OfAppml 
 
 3. 
 
 See CoL-KT OF Ai-pkal- 
 Sii'KE.ME Court of Canada. 
 To Produce— See Evidence. 
 
iii2 
 
 iweil and the rule 
 , Clai-kr V. Bur 
 
 cy tried liefore a 
 110,0 with the pro- 
 (Oiit.), the judge 
 
 to riMidt'r a j;i'ii- 
 M answer certain 
 ' answered all the 
 hiintiff, the juilge 
 itilV. U|ionarule 
 •ordiet shoulil not 
 a vurdiet enlcreil 
 ; liUW Ueffirm Act, 
 
 the ]):\rtie», saiil 
 and evidence, iiml 
 e defendiuit", tile 
 I. B. 407) niailetlie 
 liot f(ir tile defeii- 
 1 aiijiealeil tn tile 
 id, and the court 
 |Kal was ilisiiiisseil 
 
 J., that the plain- 
 lonsnited in virtue 
 as it is only wliere 
 not any evidence in 
 ise, tliat a nimsuit 
 
 this ease, tlie |mi- 
 jnireil l(i lie enteral 
 / was one in favour 
 CodiKclinil Miitml 
 I S. C. U. (134. See 
 
 : judge at the trial 
 
 inoiiiin, and notaii 
 
 le of moving agaimt 
 
 ). K. .-,01. -C. P. D. 
 
 a jury the judged 
 
 clnsion of the lilaiii- 
 
 earing any evidence 
 
 lants nonsuited the 
 
 term the judge set 
 
 ed jiulgment for the 
 
 er the eireunistanees 
 
 )urt while salisficil 
 
 i)n the legal liability 
 
 nonsuit aside ami 
 
 facts so as to alforil 
 
 ity of adducing evi- 
 
 itanoes refused them 
 
 les:iU, 31-2, 319 anil 
 
 7!)1, 7!»2, 7r)4, 7551, 
 
 Trunk II. W. Co. of 
 
 them n. W. Co., 10 
 
 STATUTE. 
 
 [NG. 
 
 ICE. 
 
 Motion. 
 
 Court of Ai'i-kal- 
 
 iiT OK Canada. 
 
 ; EVIUKNCE. 
 
 141S 
 
 NOVATION. 
 
 1414 
 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 6. 
 
 7. 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 10. 
 
 0/ Taxution—See Co.sTs. 
 Of Trial—See Trial. 
 Term's Xotke—See 1'ractioe. 
 Diipuliwi Jur'mliction—Sce Division 
 
 (JotJRTO. 
 
 Of Motion— Sec .JirDKMENT— I'rac- 
 ■ncK. i 
 
 Jury Notice— SeeTiHAL. 
 Oj K.cceptionn—Sce Pl^KADlSd. 
 
 II. OriiiiR NoTicKS. 
 
 1. A<lr(rli.icmciit--S>:e Advkrtiskment. 
 
 2. 0/ C/dimi—Si'i- Bankiutitcy ani> 
 
 Lnsoi.vency. 
 .3. 0/ Dtsliiinuiir — Sk' Bii.i.s oi' Kx- 
 
 OUANllE AND I'KO.MISSOIIY NoTKS. 
 
 4. 0/ Desi^tmnt — See. Kahavays anM) 
 
 liAir.wAV Companies. 
 
 5. Oj'Allotm'ntg awl Cuds on Stork —Sec 
 
 Company. 
 To Eli-ctors — .SVc Parmamentauy 
 
 KiiEonoNs. 
 Under I'olii-ies-Se.c Inscuvnce. 
 yotiee to (Jnil—See LANDLOKi) 
 Tenant. 
 9. In Proceediniji on Mort<jaijes 
 Mortoaoe. 
 
 10. Of Cloxini/ Hooflf—See Way. 
 
 11. Puhlieation and Notice of Bij-laws— 
 See MiiNiciPAi, Corporations. 
 
 ]•_•. lieifmlration fts Notiee—Sec ReiUSTRV 
 
 IjAW.s. 
 13. OfTnitti -Sex TiiiTSTS and Tbustkeh. 
 
 Melropolitan Bnildimi Socleti/, 3 O. 
 l'J90. 
 
 Notice of loss or non-delivery in contract for 
 cirriage of goods. See Steele v. (IrainL Tnink 
 R. W. Co., 31 C. I'. •2l)t); tir.uid Truul: It. 
 C>. V. .UcMillan, in S. C. R. r)43. 
 
 Purchase of laml with notice of will destroyed, 
 tut not regist.M-ed. ,Soo lie Dnris, il ("hy. l!l!». 
 
 menl Co. v. 
 R. 47H, p. 
 
 Held, that the defendant in this case having 
 notice of an actual travelled way aero.s.s his land 
 was all'eetedalso witli notice of the origin as well 
 as the existence of the right. Dixon v. Cro.t.t, 
 4 0. R. 46,').— Chy. 1). 
 
 To accountant of Supreme Court of Judicature. 
 Hoa Cottiwjhumw Voliiinjhum, II O. R. '2\)\. 
 
 To voter and revising oHiejr. .Sou Simmont 
 V. Dniton, 12 O. I!. .■)(».-., \). 14J9. 
 
 The (juohec Street Railwiy Company wore 
 authorized umler a liy-law [lassed liy the cur- 
 j)or;itioii of the city of <iiiel)eo and an agreement 
 executed in purainiuce thereiif to construct anil 
 o|)orate in certain streets of the city a street 
 railway for a period of fortj' years, but it was 
 also provided that at the expii'itioii of twenty 
 years (from tlie !)Lh Feoruary, ISii.")), the eor- 
 poratiou might, alter notice of six monllis to the 
 said conipuiy, to he given witidii the twelve 
 uiontlis imm Mlialely preceding the ex|iiriition 
 of the .saiil twenty jvars, assume the ownership 
 of Slid railway ujion piynniuc of its value, to ho 
 dotermin d Uy arbitration, together with ten 
 per cent, a Iditioiial : -Hidd, reveising the judg- 
 ments of the com ts helo.v, KouriiLT, .1., dissent- 
 ing, that the compviiy were entitled to a full six 
 months' nutici; jjrior to the 9di February, 188.5, 
 to be given vvitliin the tw Ivc inontiis preceding 
 the Och Kebruaiy. KS.S.'), and tiieieforo a notice 
 given in N iveinli r, 1SS4. to tlie c imp my that 
 the corpiratiou adiiM tike pissessioa of the 
 railway in six inoiitlis tliereafter was had. Per 
 Strong and Henry, J ). — That the court hid no 
 power to appoint an arbi rator or valuator to 
 in ike the valuation provid d for by the agree- 
 ment after the leiusd by the company to ap- 
 point their ari)itiitor. l-'onrnier, J., contra. 
 Qw.lii- Xleeet It \y. Co. v. Hit'/ o4^el)ec, 15 S. 
 ir. C. R. 104. "■' 
 
 AND 
 
 -See 
 
 Three persons occupying a fiduciary position 
 towards a bank, Ijejinie [urtners in a tirin, 
 agreeing to pay fir their interest a certiin sum 
 of money m liquid ition of ere I i tors' claims. 
 Tlioydid|)iy this sum but out of the moneys 
 of the b ink wrongfully i))|)r.,itii.ited by them. 
 Subseepiently tlie diin wa-i f iraiod into a joiut- 
 stock coMipany. an I the a-tsets of the piirtuer- 
 ship were assigned by thi p.ntuers to the com- 
 pany, The coinp my soon al'terw irds failed, 
 and a winding-up onlor was ma le, the original 
 assets, upon which the bmk claime I alien, to 
 Tlie notice of the party resigning the office ! ^i (.onsiderible extent comiii.; iiit) the possession 
 of rouneillor for a village to which he had been ! of the liquidator :— Hold, that tlio original part- 
 elected, stateil that he resigned his "seat" in the | ^ors were not aU'ectel with constructive notice 
 
 In case of |iroposol expulsion of inenibers of 
 a coriior.itiou. Sec Cannon v. Turmto Corn 
 Efliaiijr, ,-, A. R. 208, p. 271 ; Marik v. Huron 
 Colhje, 27 < 'li \ . IM'j, p. 209 ; L Uni m St. Joxeph 
 d' Montr, n' v. Lipierre, 4 S. C. R. lOt, p. loO. 
 
 Of meeting of directors of company. See | 
 MtLinn v. Fixk-en, 28 Cliy. 352, p. 203. 
 
 council :— Held, suHicient ; and that the plaintitf 
 »",i3 entitled to his costs, although tlio Muuicipal 
 Aet requires notice of a resign ition of the "office" 
 to he given. Smith v. Peter-srille, 28 Chy. 599. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 Notice to Attorneys-Gener.al of constitutional 
 queatioiis arising in cases before the courts. See 
 Ifatel,/ V. Merclinntt' D.<.y>atch C-i., 2 0. V.. 385 ; 
 (loriwi v. London Miitnnt Inn. Co., 11 0. R. 82, 
 p. 980. 
 
 Of alteration in promissory note. See StvaLi- 
 laid V. Davidson, 3 O. R. 320, p. 158. 
 
 Notice to solicitor — notice to client. See Brown 
 y. Sweet, 7 A. R. 725, p. 805 ; Real Ettate Invexl- 
 
 of the means by which the inco niiig partners 
 obtained the moneys brought in, and that no 
 actiiil notice to them or to the co npiny being 
 shown the bmk hidnilin ludgm ^nt of the 
 County Court of York reversed. In re Herr 
 Piano Company, 17 A. K. 33.1. 
 
 Notice to p irtuer to leave the firm. See 
 O'Keefe v. Carran, 17 S. C. il. 590, p. 839. 
 
 NOVATION. 
 
 See Purdom v. Niehot, 15 A. R. 244 ; 15 S. C. 
 R. 610; 16 O. R. 099 ; Sutherland v. Vojc, 15 A. 
 
1415 
 
 OFFICE AND PUBLIO OFFIOER. 
 
 1418 
 
 R. 541, p. "iO.J ; llo.nderwn v. Killeji, 17 A. H. 460 ; 
 Vf.umr V. Sun L\{f. /hw. Co., 17 S. C. K. 394, p. 
 KXU ; Canadian Bank of Commi rcr v. Marks, 19 
 O. R. 450. 
 
 69 
 
 Ml 
 
 NUISANCE. 
 
 I. Rkhtkaininii— iSVe In.mjnctio.n. 
 
 II. 1'OWKK.S AMI DuriK.S OK MCNKIPAMTIKS 
 Sif. MiJNK:I1'AL C'OKI'OKATIOXM. 
 
 III. W.vrKR — .SV Watkh and Watek- 
 
 COUKSKS. 
 
 Railways on liiglnvay.s — AuijuieHfenco of Muni- ' 
 cipal Council. See Tomui/iip of I'cmhroki v. 
 Canada Caitml H. W. Co., ;< O. li. 5(W ; Feiic- 
 tun Fallx V. Viitoria II. 11'. Co. 29 thy. 4. 
 
 Held, that l)url)e(l wire fences constructed ))y a 
 railway upon an ordinary country road could 
 not 1)0 treated as a nuisance, .'^ce /lilli/artl v. 
 Craud Trunk A*. II'. Co., S O. R. .")S3. 
 
 •See Attorncy-flineral v. In'ernalional liridijc 
 
 Co., 6 A. It. r>:ii, p. iiu(». 
 
 OATH 
 
 I. Affidavits— .Vee Affidavit. 
 
 II. Of Ai.lkgianck— .SVe Pakliamf.ntakv 
 
 KLKtrnoNs. 
 
 OCCUPATION RENT. 
 
 See Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 OFFICE AND PUBLIC OFFICER. 
 
 I. I'KKSIJMI'TIONS Aul.SlNti FKOM OFFICIAL 
 Ari'OlNT.MENTS— i'cc lOvlDKNCE. 
 
 II. l)Ki.K(iATii)N OF Powers— .S'ee Delfuia- 
 
 TioN— MrNunpAi. Corporations. ! 
 
 I 
 
 III. DiscLAiMEK— *;e MrNioii'Ai, Cokpoua- I 
 
 TIONS. I 
 
 IV. Amotion r— 5<'(; Municipal Corpora- j 
 
 TIONS— Quo Wahkanto. i 
 
 V. PciiLic Officeiih. 
 
 t 
 
 1. Notice of Atliim lo— Sec. Action. [ 
 
 2. Prohilntion — See Prohibition. | 
 
 3. Maijistraie-t — See Justice of the i 
 
 crown to any contract or expenditure not apeci- 
 ally authori/.ed by the oxprees terms of contruct 
 duly entered into between the crown ami thi? 
 contractor, according to law, and then only in 
 the spceitic manner provided by the cxprcxx 
 terms of the oontract. 0'lirie.n v. The Quea, 
 4 H. (;. R. 5'29. 
 
 Held, that It. H. <). (IH77) c. IM!I, wliiili for 
 bids the profanation of the Lord's day l)y ikm 
 sons carrying on tiieir ordinary busincsti docs 
 not apply to persons in the public service of Hci 
 Majesty, and therefore a conviction of a gdvern 
 inent locktender on the Welhiiid Canal, for 
 locking a vessel through the canal on iSuiiduy, in 
 obedience to the orders of Ids supfrior, wus 
 (juashed. It'fyina v. Iterriman, 4 O. K. 'JS2.- 
 
 y. H. I). 
 
 Purchase by townshi]) clerk of lamls ;it tax 
 sale. See licrhlt v. .lohiislou, WIC. V. .'iOI, i ;; 
 
 Action for assault against a public nlliuer.- 
 Ncw trial. See Cnmpliett v. I'rinee, ,'i A. 1!. XKi 
 p. 140.-.. 
 
 Action for slander against pulilic (illltvr.- 
 Privileged coininunication. See J)nri \. \y,ii,r 
 Imnj, i) S. C. R. 14:1. p. 499. 
 
 The plaintitl's appointed the defendant diiuf of 
 police of the town of Stratford, at a namtu 
 salary, but Ktipulated tliat he should act as a 
 eouitty constable within the town only, ami 
 account for and pay over to the plaiiitill's ull fic- 
 rcceived by him from the county as a iiwanl foi 
 services performed by him us county cdustalilu;- 
 Held, that under 5 and (i Kdw. VI. c. Hi, anJ 
 49 Oeo. III. c. 1'2(), tlu^ agreement to account foi 
 fees was invalid. QuaTc, whether tiic |il;iiiitifl's, 
 or the Board of Police C/'onnnisfioncis liail tin- 
 power to appoint the defendant ; and wliutlier. 
 apart from the statutes mentioned, it was nut 
 ultra vires the plaintill's to bargain with thf 
 defendant for the accounting to tlicm for the 
 fees of another ofliee not umler tlnir control. 
 TownofSlnilfordw ini'<ou,SO. R. 104. -Host. 
 
 Peacf;. 
 
 4. JUunici/ial 0//icec.v— See Municipal 
 
 Corporations. 
 
 5. Otli(r Officers— See The Several 
 
 Titles. 
 
 Per Ritchie, C. .1. Neither the engineer nor 
 the clerk of the works, nor any subordinate 
 ofticer in charge of any of the works of the Do- 
 minion of Canada have any power or authority, 
 express or itnplied, under the law to bind the 
 
 An atlidavit cannot bo re()uired from a public 
 otliccr as to the [)ropcr discharge "f his dutj. 
 lie Morton and Lot Xo. II on I'Inii S'o. 'iSO h' 
 the Cowdy of York, 1 O. R. .")9. — Proud foot. 
 
 Per <Janieron, C. .1. Quaere, wlictlier tlii> 
 court has the right to interfere with election 
 otlicers except when the express statutory power 
 to do so is given. In re the 1,'irisioii nf ih' 
 Vot<r.i' Lis/ for the CitiiofSI. Thomax fur ISSd- 
 J{e Alexander lloi/es, \:i O. R. '.i. 
 
 Official acting as persona desiguata. See 
 Johnsons Vote. Lineotn Elielion.—I'airliiiij v. 
 /{i/kf-rt, H. K. C, 500, p. 14:111; AV I'unimiie, II 
 P.' U. 403, p. 321 : lie tlodmn and ilir City of 
 Toronto, 16 O. II. 275, p. 1385. 
 
 An assignment for the benelit of creditors inaile 
 to a sheriff" under R. S. O. (I«S7), c. 124, is made 
 to him as a public functionary, and on his death 
 the care and administration of the estate assijpieil 
 devolves upon his deputy, and thercaficr upon 
 his successor in office. It is not competent to 
 the sheriff to disclaim or decline to act as such 
 assignee. Brown v. Urove, 18 O. I!. 311.— 
 Chy. 1>. 
 
 A pathmaater is ' ' an officer or person fulfilling 
 a public duty " within the meaning of R. S. 0. 
 
 I ' ; 
 
1417 
 
 PARENT AND CHILD. 
 
 1418 
 
 (1887)) i-'. 73, 8. 1, niul for iinytliing tloiiv hyliiiii 
 in the pi'iformancc of such pulilio iliitjy lio jh en- 
 titled to tliu protection of thu Mtatutu ; fnit wlicrc, 
 professiiiu to act aa a pul)lio otHcer, he HeekH to 
 uroirH)te IiIh private intoreHt by some act, lie (li!i- 
 entitlca hiiimclf to the protection of the Htatiitc, 
 and niiy l>e proceeileil agtiiuHt for such act as if 
 h(! were a private individual. And where a 
 pAthnmster of a township in the courne of his 
 employment so acted as to disentitle himself to 
 the protection of the statute, and thertdiy eauNed 
 ilnniugc to the plaintiff :— Held, that the town- 
 ship eoiporat inn as well as the |iathiiiast('r wuh 
 liiililu: and even if not originally so, the corpora- 
 tion iniide it8(df lialde by sanctioning what was 
 ilone, and refiisinjj to amend it after notice. 
 Mki^r y. Toirimhip of Ditiurich, 15 O. U. 342. — 
 
 q. V,. I). 
 
 Sec 77/1' '/'iiiriiuhl/) nf Ail Jala v. At'Eh'oi/, !t (). 
 
 ORDERS. 
 
 I. Ok .hincR— 5«f. Ph.mtice, 
 
 II. 'J"o I'KoliUCE— .Vo' KviDK.NCK. 
 
 III. KoU K.\ *MIN.\TloN — .NVf KVIDKNOK — 
 IvXA.MINATKlN OK .Jl'lM.MKNT DkIITOK. 
 
 I\'. <)| ItKrKKKNCK -Sri AltlllTKATION AMi 
 AWAIlli.- 
 
 OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Sec KviUKNCK. 
 
 OFFICIAL GUARDIAN. 
 
 .SVe I.NFANT — Ll'NATIf. 
 
 OIL LANDS 
 
 Kighl of tenant to bore for oil. Scv. JjUiiiri/ 
 \.Johnnlon, 'J9 Chy. t)7. 
 
 See Ontario Xnliiral (/iix Co. v. Smart — On- 
 tario Xuliiral (I'as (Jo. null, Townnhip of Gonfifld 
 .S'ohM, 19 0. R. ."lOl. 
 
 ONTARIO FACTORY ACT. 
 
 Ste Ma.stkk AM) Skrvant. 
 
 ONUS PROBANDI. 
 
 Utt EVIIIKNCK. 
 
 OPENING FORECLOSURE. 
 
 See. MoRTOAiiK. 
 
 OPENING PUBLICATION. 
 
 Held, that upon the discovery of material evi- 
 dence publication may be opened even after judg- 
 ment affirmed by the two courts above. The 
 judge here considered that what was proposed 
 to be introduced as new evidence was not mate- 
 rial, and dismissed the petition, with costs. 
 Symd V. DeBlaquiere, 10 I'. R. 11.— Proudfoot. 
 See alto Bank of British North America v. Weif- 
 ttrnAmirance Co., 11 P. R. 434. 
 
 ORDERS IN COUNCIL. 
 
 A niayiHtralc cannot tukf jtidie'al notirc of 
 Ortlcrs in Council or their p\i)dii'atiiiii without 
 prrHif tiicri'iit liy proiliictiiiiiot tlicOtKcial<ia/ettu. 
 See ItfjiiiH V. 'liiiiioll, lO. H. 44.5, )>. Oil. 
 
 ORDNANCE LANDS. 
 
 .SV'' HiitKAf Canai.. 
 
 Kights of Nortiiiiii Railway over ordiiaiico 
 landH in the vicinity of Toionto, See (I'liiiid 
 Trunk- I!. II'. Co. V. Cntlil Valtnj It. H. Co., 
 27 Chy. 2;{2. 
 
 OTTAWA (CITY OF). 
 
 Kastcrly l)oiindary of. Svc /i(</iua v. Counli/ 
 of Uar/i'l'oii, lO. H. 277. 
 
 OVERHOLDING TENANT. 
 
 .>>V( LANill.oltli ASK TkNANT. 
 
 OYER AND TERMINER. 
 
 ,S'if Col UT OK AsSl/.K, 
 
 PARENT AND CHILD. 
 
 I. Thansactions Hktwkkn. 
 
 1. Aijreemeiitii for Mainttnauct, 1419. 
 
 2. Chiim for WaijtH — See. Mastkr anu 
 
 •Skrvant. 
 
 ;{. Other TnmmctioiiK, 1421. 
 
 4. Undw Iiijluenec—Sic Fraud and Mis- 
 representation. 
 
 11. LiAiui.iTY OF Parent for Sipport or 
 Dkiits OF Child, 1422. 
 
 III. CcsTOiiY OK Child— 5cc Infant. 
 
 IV. Action by Parent for Death of Child 
 
 FROM NEIiLIOENCK — See NbOLIOKNOK. 
 
 V. Seduction of Child — See Sedvction. 
 VI, Infant— iS« Infant. 
 VII. iLLEiiiriMATK Chii.d— 6'(« Bastard. 
 
1419 
 
 PARENT AND CHILD 
 
 \m 
 
 e9 
 
 
 I. TllANS.Vc TIONS Ill'.TWKKN. l 
 
 I. A<ireiiiii Ills fur Mti!iili iiiiin-i-, 
 
 (I. Iiiul riM'iivt'ird II jnil^iiicrit a>(iiiii.st liis 
 f.tlllur for I'OHtN ill all Hi'tioll illNtilllti'il liv the 
 latter, ami iiinlt'r tliu (ixriiitinii inKiictl tlit'riMin 
 Hni/uil a liiii'Hc iiH tilt! iniipcily cil' the I'atlicr in 
 tllf |ioHHeHsi<iii of till) liiaiiitlll A., alKitlii'l' Noll, 
 It waH hIii;\vii tliat Hint'i'al yi'iiix Ixfori! Ilii' 
 t'lktliiir liail agri'i'il to coiivi'y lirs I'ariii to A. ami 
 uiiollirr lirotlit'r \V., Iiotli of \\ lioin mssummiI pon 
 HCHHioii ami control of tliu |iro|ii'i'ty I m fori' any ; 
 rimvcyam't' was itxi riiti'il, anil so ( mitiniU'il in 
 liosHOMHJoii, till! fatlirr continuing' lo iLsiilc on llic 
 )ilauu with tilt' two SOI I M, part ol tin' < un-^iiliialion 
 for the fonvcyaiii^c lii'ing I hat tiny .^lionhl -iiip 
 port liiiii. 'I'lit! HiiiiH al.Ho liiiiij^'lit till' I'hatti'l 
 proptTty from their father, the horse in cpiestioii 
 liiiviiij^ been piirclmseil liy A. for S.'iO, ami this 
 he kept upon tilt! iiremistis, as hail al\\a>s lieen 
 iloile, using him in the work of the faini, ami 
 oiicasioiially wurkiiij^ for others witli him for 
 liiri!, the father Hiiinetimes iixing him for his own 
 purposes. On this sl.ite of facts the jmlj;!! of 
 the County Court of llastin^'s in an iiilerpleailei 
 issue, left the ipiestion of |)idptrty |i' the jury, 
 who foiiml a verdict for A. The court lieiiij; ot 
 opinion that the claim of (I. having arisen loiig 
 alter the alleged sale of ehaltels, it \Miiild le- 
 i|uire a prcpnMderamii of evlilemt' in f;iMiiii' of 
 <J., to induce the coiirl to interfere with the 
 tintliiigof the jury (lait which did not exist) re- 
 fused to distuili the coniliisioii of the judge as to 
 the lindiiig rif the jury, and dismissed an appeal 
 with costs. JJitii/nrd v. Ihiiilmtl, H A. li. .il.S. 
 
 H. S. by deed dated N'ovtiiiher 4, lS(i,S, granted 
 his farm and uoine chatleis to his son T, S. in 
 i-'Onsiileralioii of fi'M){\, " snlijeet to lie defeated 
 anil I'emlereil null ami void upon the noiip( i for- 
 niance by the said party of the .sei!ond part of 
 the following condition, or any part thereof, vi/., 
 the said ]>arty of the sicoiid jiart covenanis to 
 feci], clothe, Hii]iportaiiil maiiitaiii the said |iaity 
 of the tii'st part * * during the term of Ins 
 natural life ' " ." T. S. having fiillilled 
 the eontlition during his lift!time. died on Oilo- 
 lier .'), ISO.'"), leaving 11 widow .'ind one child, 'i'he 
 widow removed from the farm, )nit oU'eied to 
 take H. S. with her to her father's lioiise, ami 
 have him provided for there, or to allow him to 
 gi> to her brother's house in the same way, both 
 of wliicli oilers were deirliiied, aiitl as no main 
 tenanee was provided for him by ht!rat the farm 
 he treatetl the condition as broken, and broiiL'ht 
 an action of ejectment, and recovered judgmeiit, 
 anil conveyed the farm away by tlt!i!d, anil the 
 defenilant became the owner by snbseiiuent con- 
 veyance. H. IS. was siibyciineutly supliorted, 
 part of the time on the farm, by the detendant, 
 anil died in 1S80. In an action of ejectment by 
 the infant daughter of T. S., claiming iiniler the 
 deed to her father again.stthe defendant, itw as : — 
 Held, atiirming the judgment of Arniour, il., 
 I'roiulfoot, .!., dissenting, that the gr.intor was 
 not bound to accept the oilers made, and that 
 the conditions of the ilced were broken aiitl the 
 land forfeited. Per Armour, J., (at the trial), 
 the deed must be construed as licing made upon 
 condition and as beingdefeated and reinlered void 
 by the nonperformance of the covenant. The ef- 
 fect of the covenant is, that H. S. was to be main- 
 tained wherever he might choose to live, but he 
 was not bound to go to any place the covenantor 
 
 or IiIh reprt!sentalives might rei|uire hjiu tou, 
 and he wiih justilied In refusing to a( i < pt tli« 
 Hirers madi!. I'i!r i'oyd, ('. , the iiarent wlmfnr 
 value piircbaHeN the right to Miipporl from liiHKun 
 has, if the wiilteii iiistnimeiit is silent cm ||„, 
 point, tilt! (iiHt and controlling elioice ns to lint 
 place of abode. I f the fat lier's wishes :i i i cumhh 
 able, having regard to his age and stall' n in Ijf,. 
 the court ought to respect IIu'Iii in prcli i'( m'u (,, 
 the eoiiiiter propositions of those who are to hiiii 
 ply I he niaintciiance. There was here no • apriri', 
 no nil warrant able obstinacy in the hit lier's icHohe 
 to cling to the homeste.'id, such as should indiic,. 
 the eoiiit to disregard the gemral ride, 'I'l,,. 
 result is, that thi! londitions of the dnd \m^.|,. 
 broken and the laml forfeited. I'er riiMulfiiol, 
 .1., the life inlerest of II. .S. was not rescrvcil oiil 
 of I he land, it rested .solely on the cond it |(iM, with 
 probably an eipiitabli' ehai'Me on the I,, ml. Tlii' 
 conililion is to maintain without specilicitlon ni 
 place; it imposes no personal obligatioii nii tln' 
 grantee, it ma_> be fiillilled by any one liaviii;^r,,|| 
 interest in the properly, and may be |m rfunnnl 
 w herever I he grant I'c or his leprcsentallu' niij'hi 
 reasonably oiler. I'er l''ergiisoii, .)., it MaHacoii 
 dition annexed to the estate granted, llie piii|iii' 
 I'll'eet of which was that if broken the I ii |e uijiij.j 
 go to the grantor, or those claiming from liim tlu' 
 overs ion in the lands; the gran I or was iiol lii.iiiiii 
 toacicpt the othr that was made, and tin le mils ;i 
 brcacli ot till! coiiilition, iheelleetof wliieli uu'< 
 to revest the estate. Millilli \. Snlniiiriii, 1211 
 II. '-'IS. Chy. I). 
 
 Till' |ilaiiitiir coiixeyeil his fiirm to liis sun. 
 snlijeet lo the payment of .m annuity nf •'r'liUii 
 year ; and the plaintiirs " mainteiiaiiee in luanl, 
 w.'isliing and keep out of the farm," or to " rr- 
 ceive in cash an amount siiHieiint to pay fur tlir 
 siime yearly. " There was also a bnml nf saiiii' 
 diite wherebv defendant covenanted to fnniiuli 
 such mainlcn.'ince. or pay such sum. Tlieili' 
 feiidant sold the farm and w cut to resiili! elfci:- 
 
 . where. The |ilaintitl wtiit and lived witli him 
 on the new farm for some years, leceiviiig Ins 
 
 ; maintenance, etc., but beioming ilissaliiilii'ii 
 left : Held, that the pl.-iiiitilt w:is not lidiinil to 
 reside with the delendant whercM r lie niiglil 
 choose to go ; ami under the eireunistaiiees w.tk 
 entitled to lie jiaid a reasonable sum fur his 
 maiiitenaiiee, payable at the end of eaili yiiii. 
 At the trial, the defendant's counsel r.iiseil the 
 objection that the amount, if any, wasouiypay 
 able at the end of the year. The trial juilgf 
 overruled the objection, and decreed that plain- 
 till' was i!ntitled to receive Jiji'^aweck, piiyiilili' 
 
 ' wi'ckly. The ilefen. hint's counsel then askt'il to 
 have the amount payable monthly, to which the 
 judgeaccetleil,anil gave judgment iiceonlingly:- 
 Meld, that the judgniont could not be dii'iiicil tii 
 be by consent, so as to preclude the defeml.mt 
 from afterwards moving ag.iinst it. Sir(:rnnj\. 
 Siricmij, Hi (>. 1!. !t2. — C. I'. I». 
 
 In couRideration of a conveyance to liim of a 
 certain farm, the jictitianer agreed with his 
 mother that he woulil, iluriiig her life, provide 
 lier with a house on the farm, and with ncce.i- 
 saries, and support his brothci's and sisters 
 thereon, until they reached si.xteen years of age, 
 so long as they remained at home on the said 
 farm, and assisted him so far as they w ere able 
 in the management of it : — Held, that the mother 
 ' had no right or power to release the petitioner 
 
1420 
 
 ii'iiuiro him to({ii, 
 miiiK to iicr.iit the 
 the iiiiniit Willi fur 
 
 «ll|i|in|t froiilllisKiii 
 
 111 i.s sill-Ill ,,„ (III, 
 Inj,' rliiiicc ns to III,. 
 
 'n wixllCHill 1CU»(,|| 
 
 ■ ami Mtali. II in lif,. 
 
 Mill ill |lll Irliluuti, 
 
 liiisi; wild iii|. tiiHUii 
 wiiH lic'ic nil. ii|ni|.|,_ 
 1 1 lie I'iillici'sicHdK,. 
 nil lis sIkiiiIiI iiidn,.,. 
 
 Ki'iwnil nil,.. i|„. 
 
 I of till' ilriil \ui|. 
 
 il. I'd- riiiiiilfiiol, 
 
 rtilS llllt 11X,.|VI,.|| IMit 
 
 1 till' run, lilioii, «jtli 
 
 !• nil tlll^ I I, Till- 
 
 llollt H|iicilii:itioil III 
 
 nil iililii{atiiiii nil till' 
 
 ly iiiiy iiiii' liaviiijjiiii 
 
 I may In' luifnniii'il 
 
 i'|iii'Nt'iitaliM' iiii)j|ii 
 
 Moii, .)., il WiiMaudii 
 
 Hi-aiiti'il, I 111' |ii,i|iii 
 
 mlii'ii till' III II' Hdiilil 
 
 aiiiiin^ friiiii liim tlie 
 
 aiilcir «an imt liuiimi 
 
 iiaili', ami tlini'nu.s;! 
 
 I'lli'i't 111' whirli via.' 
 
 'i V. S'lliuih-hi, I'.'d. 
 
 his fanii lo Ills sun, 
 .111 annuity nt li-'tiUa 
 luinti iiaiii'r ill luanl, 
 «' tai'iii," III' til " ri'- 
 
 Hii'irlit Id pay fur tlir 
 
 IiIhiI il lllJllll 111 Klllllt' 
 
 dVt'iiaiitcil til I'lil'liiiili 
 Hlicli .sum. Till- lit 
 
 I Wrill Id ll'silll! I'lsc- 
 
 t ami livi'il with him 
 
 II yt'iir.s, it'ci'iviiii,' his 
 K'l'dmin.i,' ilissatinlii'ii 
 itilt wa.s not liijiiiiil to 
 
 wlii.'ii'M I' III' iiiighl 
 ic I'iii'iimstaiircs w.-w 
 siiiialilc .Slim fi>r his 
 111' uml dt lai'li year. 
 L'.s I'liiiiisul i-.iisi'd the 
 if liny, wa.sdiily pay 
 ir. 'I'lii' tiial jii(l|,'c' 
 (1 lU'i'i'L'cil that plain- 
 ly .S~ Il wci'k, piiyiihK' 
 i'iiiiii.s('l llii'ii .'Lski'd t" 
 idiitlily, td wliii'h till' 
 ^iiU'iitiu'Cdi'iliiigly:- 
 mlil not 111- ilrriiicd tii 
 I'C'liiilf till' ikfemhilit 
 iaiii.st it. Sircfimjs. 
 I*. 1). 
 
 iivoyaiU'C to liim of a 
 nor agi'L't'd with hi.i 
 ring Ikt life, provide 
 Farm, anil with nece.i- 
 brothers anil sisters 
 I Hixteen years of age, 
 at homo iin the laiil 
 far as tlicy were able 
 Held, that the mother 
 release the petitioner 
 
 1421 
 
 PARLIAMENT 
 
 1422 
 
 fniiii till' iili!i){iiti(inH iiiiilort.tkcii liy liim with 
 rofureiii'i' tii hin IiioIIii'I'h iiml Histi'i-H iimlir llir 
 uIhim' a^'rrrmriit, an. I if tlm rliiMiiii ili.l tlnii 
 part tlii'y riiilM Imlil llnii' lirntlirr to jiin pin- 
 iiiisi', tlidiiuli till' aj;ii'i'iiii'iit was imt in trrms 
 liiaili' "i'h tlirlii .IM piirlii'.H. It'' Mi-Millnn, 17 
 1). It. .III. lioyil. 
 
 >'l. Olln r 'I'riniKiirliiiiiM. 
 
 Till' ili'fi'Milant ill IH7I wrntr tn lli^< Kdll. wllil 
 hail lift lidiiii' III wiii'U liir liiiiisi'If. that if lir 
 woiihl II turn lii' WdiiM yivi' him tifty arii's nf 
 his f.inii ami a sliari' of tin- r.ittli' :iiiil shri'p 
 wlii'ii till' phiiiiliir ^dt iiiaii'ii'il. Iml if hi' sluyi'il 
 iiWiiy 111' "iiuhl M.u'iilii'i' his nwii iiinl his lalln'r's 
 iiiti'ii'sls. I'pnii ni','ipt i.f till' li'ttrr till' plain 
 tiH'ii'tiirncil mill rrin.iinril mi thr f.iriii wi rkiiii,' 
 it with his filliiT, rxii'pt, ill rt'itain tiims « In ii 
 hi' wriif away lo work fur W'.i>,'i's for himsi'lf. It 
 wiwi pi'iivril thai till' fatlirr had pninti'd mil tln' 
 tifty arii's whirli hi' iiit.iiiliil to >,'ivi' his siin, 
 ami thr son riitrit'il and rri'rti'd il liiui-i' thrrrnn 
 with his latlii'r'.s appinv 1, mid nri'iipii'd it with 
 his family, lir havinj,' inanii'd in |.S7!l .- •Ilrld, 
 that till' pliiiitiir was riititli'd to spci'ilii' pi-r- 
 forniaiH'i' of this ii'/rrrmriit. ii'iir^nii v. <!iir"'ii. 
 
 SO. i:. i.Tii. ('. I'. i>. 
 
 As td \\ li.it arts of pal t pi'ifdi'iiiiun'i' air siilli 
 I'ieilt til pidi'iii'i' spii'ilii' pri'fHi'iiiiiiii'i' of :iiiiilli'..'i'il 
 wiiitiart liasi'd mi pidiiiisi's to h'avi' pidpiiiy 
 liy will. Si-v Ciiiiiplii/I \\ Mrl\( irlrli-r, it (). I!. 
 K,-); Wiilkifv. /tovjiiiiii; 18(). K. 4I,S, p. I'.':!li. 
 
 I). II. and \V. I). H. wi'rn piirtinis in :i ri-r- 
 tain .liiiiit ."^toik Sivinjj.s Uiink, iiiidrr ailirh's 
 which piiiviili'il that llii' p.irtnrrship .should last 
 iliiriii;; tliiir jnint livrs. iiml tliiil tliry slioiilil 
 shiirr till' piolits and I'xpi'iisi'M. |(. I!, dird ill 
 April, IS7I, li'iivim; a will, wlirri'liv ln' ln'- 
 i|iii'atl.i'il to W. .S. I!,, till, son of W. I >. W . tin' 
 li'siilur df his pi'o|iii'ty , ini'liiiliii;; his iiitrli'st in 
 thil lialik, and appoinlrd L. his I'Mriitor In 
 May, IS7I, I,, u'lvi' \V. I». If. a ..-I'linal pnwi r 
 lif attiHiii'y to ai't fur him. In .Inly. I.S7'.I. W. 
 S. |{. I'iiiiio of agi', iUld soon after ili'liiaiidi'd of 
 W. |). I!, an ai'i'diiiit of tlio iissils of thr part- 
 iiersliip and .'i si'llli'ini'iit with him: and in 
 Xovonihcr. I.S.sn, W. I). li. travi'tln' plaiiititl ii 
 I'hi'ipii' tor .'ftS, 00(1. hiuidiiiL; him iit thc.s.imi' timr 
 a iloiaiiiii'iil for .siyiiatiiri', wliii'h jiiirpiiili'd In 
 Iw ft iTi'i'ipt of till' said Slim in full of all rl liiii.s 
 nil the i;statii of I ». I'., and W. S. I!. sii;iiiil it. 
 \V. S. li. now l)roiij;lit this iietion iiLjiiiiist W. I >. 
 H. and N., allef^ing tliiit after the dintli of I). 1!., 
 W. \). 15., with L.'s I'diiniviiiii'i', innde lert.iiii 
 airanjii'iiicnta for the winding up of the partner- 
 H'lip, and thill large portioiiH of the assets of I). 
 U. and lif the liiink had lieiMi reiili/ed, and piolits 
 niiiile, and eonverted liy W. I >. |(. to his own 
 use, anil eliiiiiiing to have the s:iii| reliiise ile- 
 darcil vdid, iintl Jiii aeeonnt of the estate of I). 
 B., and of the partnership, and to have the Siiim" 
 wound up, and payment of the sliiire to w hieli 
 he was entitled : lli-ld, that as to the alleged 
 nettlement of Novemlier. IS.SI), W. S. U. ,-ind his 
 father coiild not lie said to liiive liecii on eipial 
 tcriiiH, and the doeuinent in (piestion was not 
 hiliiling upon the former ; that it wiis eleiirly 
 the duty of his father, liefore m ikiiit; any settle- 
 ment with him, to give him the fullest jioasilile 
 information regarding the estate and his deal- 
 ings with it, ev'jn if then, under the eireuni- 
 
 HtillieeR, a settleiiit'iit liilidillg oil the plaiiililT 
 I dilld have lii'i'ii III I'll' : lli'ld. on the whole 
 ease, tli.it the plaint ill' was entitled to the ae 
 I'diint asked, an ! that as rryiided the imrease 
 or prntits in the ili'.iliii'.^s with the e.ipital of tin 
 I'-iliite, these shiiiiM lie pi.-piii I ioni-il in iieeord 
 iiiii'i' with the anidiiiil of sin-h e.ipil.il nwiied re 
 spei'tively liy the ti itatm- and the di-lend.iiit . 
 \V. I). I!., iiml the ilefenilanl W. D. It. 'dinilln 
 he alldwed II hill I'll i emiiiier ili.-n fi'l' his e\er 
 tioiis, eiile, time, and lionlile in the iiiaiiai:i'liii'ii' 
 df the est lie, Mliirli app. lied td have ln-i-ll skll 
 fill anil suii'i'ssful. /liiiii V, Itiiiii, S (). It. ■.';{7. 
 I'erglisoii, 
 
 II. IjAiiii.iiv 111- I'viii-.r Mill ,Si I'i'oiii on 
 l)i-;lils III ( 11 11.11. 
 
 I'liintiir, ii|ii'ii Ihi'ii iirdi r fiiiiiisheil tn.-eveiiil 
 of ili-li-mliuit's SUMS, w ho M ell- at the tiliii.' livili;; 
 Milli their f.illier, eert lin artiel.M nf wearing 
 ap|iai'i'l, ehiirgilig the sime to def.lid Hit, iillil 
 deliveriiiL; t 111 III at his linii.s.'. I'r. \ inii-'ly to this 
 del'i-ndanl had eaiised to he iliHi-rted oiiee in one 
 ■ if the ihiily papi-is piilili-^lieil ill the plare, and 
 taken ill liy the person hy whom pliinlill' wiis 
 employed, il liiiliei' to the etl'eel thill he Would 
 not lie reyplilisllile for any delit eolltraeted ill 
 Ids ii'inie friiiii lliiit dati' wilheiit his wrilti.-n 
 older : llllt iifter till' yoiid-i ill i)iiesliiiii had liei II 
 fiiinished td his sdiis, he wi'dle to the pliiiitill 
 staling that hi' would imt in any Wiiy lie re 
 spoiisilile for iiiiy di hi ineiiiri d hy any of his 
 sons from and after that diile iiiihss under his 
 uiilleii Older: Held, that in the aliseiiee of 
 evidi'liee repel ling the presiimpt ion of ih-feiidiint s 
 aiilhiirity to his soiis to eontriirt the liiiliility in 
 his iiiiiiu', the fuel of tin' ilelivery of the iirtieles 
 ill the ilel'i'iiilaiitH house for his sons, and the 
 laiiLiiageof his letter loplainlill' h i I e ipiite siilli 
 eieiil to jiiMlify the jury ill lilnlilig defilidiilll 
 liiilile, iiiiil til it it Miisiidl iiei.'ess.iry td gii further 
 mill prove the iiifain-v of his sons. l/ni/niini v. 
 
 Ih.nnii. i.s c. I'. :t.-);(. 
 
 Where a fat her whose i-hildren iiie mainl.iiiu d 
 liy iiiidther, and who eoiild liiive olitained pos 
 si-ssion of their persmis hy h ilii-as i-orpiis, iillows 
 llielii to lie sd niiiiiitained. he is lialile fur their 
 sii]iport i'lid niiiinteiiiiiiee, to the person in whose 
 liire siieli eliildreli are. l/ii'i/u s v. /,')'•'. 10 I'. 
 If. 'Mi. — ModyiiiM, Mash r-iiithilimii'ii. 
 
 PARLIAMENT. 
 
 I. I'llWKliS OK .S'./' ClINSriTfTlONAI. LaW. 
 
 II. Ki,i-;rrioNS — S'c' r.vui.l \mi:nt.\i;v Ki.Ke- 
 
 TIONS. 
 
 .\ eonspiraey to hrihe memlier.s of the [.egis- 
 liitive .Asseinhiy is a niisilemeniidr at c^oininon 
 liivi . and as siieh is indietiilde. See Hcijina v. 
 /liiiillii,/, 7 (). 1!. .">•_> 1, p. 4:i4. 
 
 When a tender for parlianieiitiiry ]irinting had 
 lieeii aoeepted hy hotli houses of parliiiment. 
 and I contract oxeented hetwein the snpplients 
 and the eli'ik of the joint eoiiimittee of hoth 
 hiuiHes on jirinting, it was:— Held, tliiit such a 
 eontrneteould iiotheenforeed against the crown. 
 See Heifimi v. Mwhuii, 8 ,S. (,'. H. "JIO. 
 
 ^l/mmmJL 
 
^JjJJ,-^ •"' ' ■ 
 
 1488 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1421 
 
 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 I. Law «i()VKiisi.s(j Ki.ki'tions, 1425. 
 
 II. VOTKRH. 
 
 1, Aimn'oiiiii/ I'll// ami Voterx' Lint. 
 (n) (Idicrallji, 14'2."i. 
 
 (1)) Rcrmaq OfliO'rnnil yotice of Com- 
 
 )<lahit, 1428. 
 (c) Court of Revmon and County 
 
 Jiiiliir — Co/nplainliand Appeals, 
 1423. 
 (<l) Property Qiinlijication, 1431. 
 
 2. /ii Uiiorijaiir.'il Toirimhipn, 1435. 
 .S. Ineoiiie. Qwilijiratinn, 1435. 
 
 4. Xntnriilkfd Siilijerl.t mid AlieuK, 1435, 
 ."). Disqiudifiratioii, 14.1(5. 
 III. Candidatkh. 
 
 1. Proju'rlii (fiinlijicniioii, 1437. 
 
 2. />lifiii(diJir(t/ioii. 
 
 (ii) Ojlicr or Cimtract, 1437. 
 (1)) /)'(/ Iti-nton of Corrupt Practicen — 
 .SV' Si iiMKAii VII. 16 (a), p. 1497. 
 ((•) ^V()^". o/lo EkclorK, 1438. 
 
 3. Xomiiialioii, 14.38. 
 
 W. VnllNC. 
 
 1. Opniin;/ Poll, 14.30. 
 
 2. Ihchtnil'ioii of Si-crcri/ hi/ hetiirning 
 
 OpU-i'r mid Others, 14.39. 
 .3. Miirk'iiiii litilliit.-<. 
 
 (a) //// Voterx, 1439. 
 
 (1>) Miirkx III/ Deputy Returning Offi- 
 cers, 1441. 
 (o) //Hl'iiite Voters, 144.3. 
 
 4. Htdldt Piipir Iiindrerttiitly Torn, 
 
 1444. 
 ."». Refusal to 'Pale Oath, 1444. 
 (!. Rej'usiiie) liallot Paper, 1444. 
 
 7. Teiiilered /ia'hits, 1444. 
 
 8. Secrerij in Vulimj, 1445. 
 
 V. liKcorM' ANT) ScRuriNV, 1445. 
 
 VI. A<!KS<Y. 
 
 1. denerally, 1446. 
 
 2. Povtrsof Aijent, 1447. 
 
 3. What Constitutes. 
 
 (iv) Members of Politieal AasociatioThi, 
 1447. 
 
 (b) Memhers of Com initleM, IH9. 
 
 (c) Other Acts or Appointments, 1450. 
 
 4. Sub-Aijents, 1456. 
 
 VII. Bkibkry and Corrupt Practices. 
 
 1. Generally, 14.97. 
 
 2. Proof of, 1459. 
 
 3. Hrilitry. 
 
 (a) O nerul/i/, 1463. 
 
 (b) /f.v Cahdidates, 1464. 
 (c) tf// .,4f/e//^s, 1468. 
 
 4. Payiiiij Canvassers, 1472. 
 
 5. Ilirinr/ Rooms, 1473. 
 
 6. /HriiKj Conreyances, 1473. 
 
 7. Payinij Trnrellin'i Expanses, 147,"i. 
 
 8. /f.7r;w</, 1476. 
 
 9. Intimidation, 1477. 
 
 10. f7H(/«c Influence, 1478. 
 
 11. Fraudulent Device, 1479. 
 
 12. Trealintf. 
 
 (a) (leneruUy, 1479. 
 
 (b) /^i/ Candidates, 1480. 
 
 (c) /?// yli/CM*.'*, 1481. 
 
 (d) /iy 0/Acr Persons, 1482. 
 
 (c) y!^ Meetinr/s, 1482. 
 
 (f) Selllnij Li'/uor or Treatli,:/ ,„j 
 PoWh.*; /)ay, 1485. 
 
 1.3. Sidiseriptlons to Churches and Clmri- 
 ties, 1491. 
 
 14. 0/Afr Corrupt Practices, 1492. 
 
 15. Acts of Triflinij Xature not AtJuiUi.j 
 
 Result of the' Election, \A9^. 
 
 16. Disfinalifcation hy Reason of i'linii/ii 
 
 Priiclices. 
 
 (a) O/" Candidates, 1497. 
 
 (b) Of Other Persons, 1499. 
 
 VIII. Il!RK(iri.Al!ITIKS IN TAKING TIIKriil.l, 
 1499. 
 
 IX. AcCOl NTS OK Kxi'KNMITtlKK, l5(Kt. 
 
 X. Actions kor 1'knai,tik.s. 
 
 1. y' /a lust Persons Convicted of Brilii m, 
 
 1501. 
 
 2. For niei/ally Votini/, 1501. 
 
 3. Aijiiiiist Retuniini/ Officers ai,d Dijintij 
 
 Ret u mini/ Officers. 
 
 (a) Refusimj Votes, 1502. 
 
 (b) Returns, 1502. 
 
 4. Appeal, 1.503. 
 
 XI. Triai, ok (\)Ntrovertki> Elections. 
 
 1. Court for Trial, 1503. 
 
 2. Petition. 
 
 (a) Petitioners, 1504. 
 
 (b) Mahinrj Agent a Party, I50ti. 
 
 (c) /'or/ii o/, 1506. 
 
 (d) Filimj, 1507. 
 
 (e) Service, 1507. 
 
 (f) Amendment of, 1508. 
 
 (g) Preliminary Objections, loOS. 
 
 3. Security, 1509. 
 
 4. Particulars. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1510. 
 
 (b) Amendment of , 1510. 
 
 .5. Respondent's Answer, 1511. 
 
 6. Recriminatory Chari/c.%, 1511. 
 
 7. O-o.t.s Petition, 1512. 
 
 5. Time for Trial, 1513. 
 J. Evidence. 
 
 (a) Adnissions, 1515. 
 
 (b) OM^r Crt,sps, 1516. 
 
 10. Withdrawal of Charge or Pd'il'm, 
 
 1517. 
 
 11. Reserrimj Sjyecial Caie, 1517 
 
1424 
 
 1425 
 
 PARLIAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1426 
 
 . 1473. 
 
 'Sxpenurs, \-V]',, 
 
 78. 
 1479. 
 
 1480. 
 I. 
 ;m, 1482. 
 
 82. 
 
 or Trfniiiri mi 
 USf). 
 
 urche-^ and Clmri- 
 
 'Ikes, 1492. 
 iture not All'nUioi 
 ion, 14!)4. 
 
 Kcason of ( Vic/n;// 
 
 1497. 
 HS 1499. 
 
 I'aKINO TlIK I'liM, 
 
 ITUKK, \'M). 
 
 K.S. 
 
 mv'ieted of Brtln rij, 
 
 ;i, 1501. 
 
 Officers aiiil D'liiilij 
 I. 
 1502. 
 
 FKI) ElKOTIONS. 
 
 03. 
 
 4. 
 
 a Parly, \m>. 
 
 1508. 
 
 Ejection f, loOS. 
 
 I. 
 
 1510. 
 er, 1511. 
 rijnf, 1511. 
 2. 
 13. 
 
 15. 
 10. 
 
 hanjf or PeOl'ion, 
 
 7ase, 1517 
 
 12. CoHts, 1518. 
 
 13. Judge'x Re/jorf, 1521. 
 
 i4. Claimimj S,al by Respondent, 1522. 
 15. Appealx. 
 
 (a) When Appeal Lies, 1522. 
 
 (b) Practice in Appeal, 1524. 
 l(i. yew Trial, 1526. 
 
 17. Other Cases. 1526 
 
 XII. Al'I'KAI- IN Si:MM.\UY TuIAI-S KOI! Il- 
 
 LKOAi, Acts, 1,527. 
 
 Mil. Actions for Costs Against l'Riv.4fE 
 PnosKcrrnK, 1.527. 
 
 I. Law Oovkuninc Ki.kctions. 
 
 Tlie coninioii law of Kiijilaml feinting to p.ir- 
 li iiiiontary elections is in force in Ontario, and 
 apfilies to elections for the House of Connnons. 
 I'ltriivall Election ( Dom. )—/iertfin v. .)fiic- 
 i/oH((W, H. E. ('. .547.— Spragge. 
 
 The Dominion Elections' Act fif 1874 does not 
 affect the rights of ))arties in pending jjroceed- ! tl>e final 
 inss, wiiich nuist he decided according to the law ' *" vote, 
 iis it existed before tlie ))a8sing of that Act ; — sec- 
 tion 20 of that Act referring to candiilates at 
 some future electiim. yorlh Viclnria Khclimi 
 
 The name of the voter being on the poll-book 
 is primd facie evidence of bis right to vote. The 
 party attacking the vote in.ay either call tlie 
 voter, or ofTer any other evidence he has on the 
 subject. III. 
 
 A voter being duly qualitied in other respects, 
 and having his name on tlic roll and list, but by 
 mistake entered as tenant instead of owner or 
 occupant, or vice versa : —Held, not disfran 
 chised merely because his name was entereil 
 under one head instead of anotlier. //(. 
 
 The only question as to the qualification of a. 
 voter settled by the court of revision under the 
 Assessment Act, is the one of value.— .SVc/rn/Y'.v 
 vote. Ih. 
 
 Being rated as tenant instead of owner: — 
 Held, not to afTect tlie vote. Jilair's mlt. II,. 
 
 Where tlie voter had only received a deed of 
 the property on which he voted on tiie Kith Au- 
 gust, 1870, but previous to that date had been 
 assessed for and paid taxes on the place, but hail 
 not owned it : -Held, tliat not possessing the 
 t qualitication at the time lie was assessed, or at 
 
 iDnm.)^Caini'roii v 
 Richards. — Spragge 
 
 H. 
 
 M,icl,-„iinii, H. K. r. ,584. 
 — Hagarty. 
 
 See Caidinll Kkctinu ( Ihim. ) —Fluritt v. Citm- 
 " E. V. !i44, p. 14.37. 
 
 II. V0TKR.S. 
 
 1. Asuexsment /{oil and Voters' List. 
 
 (a) Heiicrally. 
 
 Held, (1, That the proper list of voters to be 
 used at an election is "the last list of voters 
 made, certified, and delivered to tiie clerk of the 
 peace at least one mouth before the date of tiie 
 writ to hold such election." (2) Thatan irregu- 
 lar voters' list hiid lieen used in one of the town- 
 Rhips ill the electoral division ; but that the 
 result of the election had not been affected 
 t hereby, and that the election was not avoided. 
 Monck Election (Oiit.)—Colliar v. JfctV.ltuni, 
 If. E. C. 154. -Gait. 
 
 revision of the roll, he was not entitled 
 -' (thci/'s rote. lb. 
 
 Wliere a voter properly assessed, who was ac- 
 cidentally omitted from tlie voters' list for poll- 
 ing sub-division No. 1, wliere his property lay, 
 and entered on the voters' list for polling divi- 
 sion No. 2 voted in No. 1, though not on the list, 
 his vote was hold good. — Lillle's rote, lirorkcllle 
 Eleelinn {Oiil.)~FI\iit v. FUziiiinnons. H. K. C. 
 129.— Hagarty. 
 
 A."s name appeared on the assessment roll and 
 voters' list as ow.v . . ' -'t no property ajipcaied 
 opposite his nan,^ u st below .A.'s name, tho 
 name of 15. was enti^rcd as teiniit, with certain 
 projierty following it, but 15. 's name was not 
 bracketed witli A.'s. Evidence was admitted to 
 shew that A. owned the jn'operty next below his 
 name, for whicli 15. his tenant was assessed as 
 tenant, and A.'s vote was lield good. — llaker't 
 rote. Ih. 
 
 The mistake of the iiuniher of the lot in the 
 assessment roll does not come under the s.anie 
 rule as the mistake of a name, as the latter is 
 provideil for in the statute and the voter's oath. 
 Place's rote. South (jre.nrille Election (Out.) — 
 Ellis V. Fraser, H. E. C. I(i3.— Mowat. 
 
 Parol evidence is inadmissible im a scrutiny to 
 alter the value assessed against property in the 
 
 Held, following the last case, that the list of 1 
 voters to be used at an election must be the list I .„^^, „„„ ,.„,.^ ,„o^„o^,. 
 made, certified and delivered to the clerk of the | assessment n)Tl.'-°9re'H-0)7»i'7oJe 
 jieace at least one month before the date of the i 
 writ to liolil such election. Prince Edward I 
 aeelion (2) ((>nf.)—J)urland v. McCnaig, H. E. i 
 r. 160.— Morrison. I 
 
 The list of voters used at the election in the ! 
 township of Hillier was not filed until the 28th ! 
 Noveuilier, 1871, and the writ of election was ! 
 <lated 9th December, 1871 : — Held, that the! 
 
 Where a voter was assessed for property whicii 
 he sold on the 27th February, 1871, before the 
 revision of the a'^sessment roll, and was not as- 
 sessed for other property of which he was in 
 possession as owner or tenant, he was held not 
 entitled to rote. — Place's rote. Ih. 
 
 , I A person assessed for laud he does not own, 
 
 list of voters of 1871 should not have been I though receiving rent for it from a tenant, is not 
 used, and the seat was thereupon awarded to 1 tiualitied to vote. — Clark's rote. — Lincoln Eler- 
 the other candidate, he having obtained on a tion (2) (Ont.)--I'aii'lbui v. Rykert, H. E. C. .500. 
 scrutiny a majority of the votes, lb. —Patterson. 
 
 Special report, an<l observations on making the ' .A voter was assessed in two wards of a town ; 
 
 revised lists of voters final, except as to matters i he parted with his property qualific.ition in one 
 
 subsequent to the revision. See Stormont ICtec- ' of the wards, but voted in such ward : -Held, 
 
 (ion (<h,i.\-/iefhnne v. Colquhoun, H. E. C. 21. ' that the vote might be supported on the qualifi- 
 
 Oi) 
 
■^ ^j^ffy;!*!*-*^ 
 
 1427 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 im 
 
 9» 
 
 m 
 
 
 c 
 8 
 
 cation in the otlior wanl, wliicli, if tlic voter luul ' 
 voted on it, would li.ive niado it ni'ccHsaiy for 
 him t" v"te in iiMothtr iMilliiij^ division. '■'('(- 
 loii'-i rote. 11). 
 
 I'artionlais foi- a scrutiny of votes were deliv- 
 ered l)y the respondent olijeetinj,' to certain vo- 
 ters, as (l)ali. lis; Cj) niinois ; (,"i) not (JWiiers, 
 tenants oroecuoants of the proficrty asssesscd to 
 tiiein: and (4) farimrs' sonn not resirlmL; with 
 their fatheis upon the fain, as r('i|iiired Ky law. 
 On a motion to strike out sneh particulars: — 
 Held, that under the " Voters' Lists I-'iualitv 
 .\ct" (41 Viet. c. 21, s. 3), the legality of the 
 votes so olijcctcd to could not lie iii<|iiiied into, 
 and that the p irticulars should lie stiaick out : - 
 Held, fui'thi r, tli:tt Ih.' cH'ccI of tile said .-Net was 
 to reiKler the voters' li.'-its Ihi.d and conclusive of 
 the rij;ht of all persons n:inic(l therein to vote, 
 except where' there had heen a suhseipicnt change 
 of position or status, hy tlu^ voter h;i\ iiiij; parted 
 with the interest v liich he had (or hy the assess 
 iiicnt roll a|)peared to have) in the jirojierty. and 
 lieconiilii:^ also a iiounsident of the electoral di- 
 vision. Soiifh Wiiilii'Drlh Klrrliitii {On/.) Ohn- 
 slforl v. Carpctilri-, H. li. C. i)31. — Moss (!alt. 
 
 Th(! asses.snient roll is eonelusivo as to the 
 amount of the assessniciif : hut the mere f.ict of 
 the name of a person heiim on the r(dl is not con- 
 clusive as to his riu'lit to vote. The rcturiiinj;- 
 ollicer is IkuiikI to recoid the vole if the person 
 t d;cs the o;itli, hut (hat is not conclusive. Xartli 
 Vlrl Drill I'J/irtioiil /Joni.) ( 'nni'roii v. Mfuli ininii, 
 H. K. C. 584. Richards - Spragire- Hagarty 
 
 Mistakes in eopyini^ the v<iters' lists should 
 not dciuiv •■ li g.dl}' (pialilicd votei s of their votes 
 any more than the naincH of uii(|ualiticd voKms 
 111 ine; on the list would uin c them a right to Vote, 
 r.ut the niero tact that the lists were not correct 
 alphabetical li-ls, or hail not the coiicct iiumlier 
 of the Int. or wiri' not propeily ciititicd, or the 
 omittiiij; to do some .ict as to which the statute 
 is directory, is no i.'round for settiii;; .isiile an 
 election, unless some injustice resulted fiom the 
 omission, or unless the result of the elect ion wa- 
 atl'eeted hy the mistake. ///. 
 
 The court will not go liehind the voters' list to 
 iiii|uirc whethera voter's uaiiie wasentered uiion 
 the assessment roll in a forni.il manner or not. 
 X'n'fh !^iiiiriji' h'i- ■■tiiiii. ( Driiii. ) /'Jiliriirilx v. 
 Cn,,/.-. H. K. ('. ()I7. Itichards - Spragge- 
 llagarty. 
 
 The naiiuis of certain |iersriiis who \\cre ipiali- 
 tied to vote at the I'lection, appealed on the last 
 revised a.sscssmont roll of tlie miinieipidity, hut 
 were omitted from the voters' list furnished to 
 t lie deputy returning ollicer, and used at the elec- 
 tion. They tendered tluir votes at the loll, hut 
 their votes were not re(x>ived ; aiida majority of 
 them stated to the deputy returning-ofhcei that 
 they desircil to vote for the ]ietiti^)ner. The 
 petitioner had a majority without these votes : - 
 Held, hy the Court of (,)ueen's iiench (aflirming 
 Wilson, J.), no ground for .sotting aside the elec- 
 tion, liitrth Virtcria Klerlioii.ii) (Diim.) Cniii- 
 iron V. Mnctfiivan, H. K. <'. (171. 
 
 Tlic respondeni was elected hy four votes. At 
 the election the names of twelve persons who 
 were entered on the assessment roll as " fiee- 
 holders," appeared on the voters' lists, owing to 
 a printer's mistake, as "farmers' nons, " Tlieir 
 
 votes were challenged at the jioM, .and thev 
 were rcipiired hy the |)etitioiier'» seriitiiieer.s tii 
 take the farmers" sous' oath, which they re- 
 fused. SuliseipU'Utly they ofl'ered again to vote 
 and to take the owner's o.ith, and ihe di.piitv 
 returiiing-otHcer, who was also elerl; of tin- 
 munici|pality, knowing them, gave them hallot 
 papers and allowed them to vote : Held, 1 1) 
 that having heen rightly entered on tl. ■ ji.ssi ~-. 
 nieiit roll, the mistaki' as to their (pia'irir.it 
 on the voters' list did not disfr.iiicliise tliun, 
 CJ) That their refusal tcrtake the farmers' S(lll.^ 
 oath was not a refusal to take the oath re(|iiiie(l 
 hy-law. .-\ refusal to .swear is where a voter le 
 fuses to take the oath a|ipropriate to his prii|iir 
 description. (■"{) That having a right to vntr, 
 although they voted in a wiong eajiacity, their 
 votes could not he struck otl': Semhle. th.ittlic 
 provisions of the law as to how voters are to he 
 inteiad on the Miters' list in respect to tliiii- 
 property, and as to the manner in which tlu v 
 are to vote, are directory. I'lrxrolt K/nilnii 
 llhiiii )--]I(i!i(ir V. /.'nii/fii^ r. 11. K. C. 7>iO- 
 .\rii.oui> 
 
 .Any one of the three voters' lists reguhuly 
 prepared, and eertilied to hy the t'ounty f'onit 
 .ludee under the Voters' Lists Acts, " is the jiin- 
 ]Hr list to he used," and in case of irregulaiity 
 in, loss or destruction of, or other aceiileiit to. 
 the other or others, may ho resorted to lor tin 
 )airpose of the election. ('o//iiii v. ('ninplnll. 
 h'a-l hiirhrii,, Khu'tloii {<hil.), 1 K. ( '. 4S!). -Miir- 
 Icnuan— Kahoiihridge. 
 
 \\ here ,ill the rei|nisi(e jireliiniuaries in tlio 
 prep.ir.itioii of voters" lists under the .Ait liail 
 lieeii duly ohseivi'd, hut in one of the liriiitui 
 copies delivered to the County Court judge, ami 
 eertilieil to hy him. two jiages eontainiiig voters 
 names, were accidentally omitti^d, and this ile 
 fective copy was sent h\ the judee to the clerk 
 of the peace, who from such copy eertilieil t" 
 the returniug-otiicer similarly defective list-. 
 whii'h were used at the election : Held, tli;' 
 the voters whose names were so omitted weii 
 not disfrauchised :— Held, also, that those vn 
 ters so omitted, were entitled to vote hy "ten 
 ilered hallot," audtheirvot.es should he count' 'i 
 on a scrutiny, lli. 
 
 Semhle -The etlect of sections 7'2 and KL'^nt 
 the "Ontario KKi'tions" .Act," (1SN7) is tirii 
 where a person who has a right to vote is omittcii 
 from the list he may vote hy lendeied hallot. /'■. 
 
 (h^ Krv'f'iiiiJ Ofliei r (111(1 Niilifi' ']/' (''iiii/ilditlt. 
 
 .\ revising ollicer under Ihe I'.leetoral Fran 
 chise Act, 4S lit \'iit. c. 40 (Dom.). having il.' 
 idiiied to entertain the a))i)liealiou of S. to liiiv 
 the name of U. sti lick otf tin; voters' list on t..- 
 ground that the notice to I), jirovided fori 
 section '2(i of the Ad was not proved, am' '.lul 
 
 [ the notice to the revising ollicer provided lorhv 
 snine section was not duly served on or giver '" 
 him in tiim^: on an apiilication for a maiidanii^ 
 to the revisinu otli^er. althoiiLdi it ajipeareil ii" 
 
 '■ eojiy of the notice to l>. was kept, and no natin' 
 to prodiici' the original was served, it was shewn 
 hy two witnesses that a notice to I), tilled up "H 
 a printed form with his name, address, and tin 
 ohjeelioii to his vote iiad lieen mailed to Iiiiii h; 
 a pre|)ai.l icyistered letter on '.^litli .inne. f jrth> 
 
 I .Hittings of the revising otli<;er on l'2tli .hdy fei 
 
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 
 
 1430 
 
 lowing, and the coititicnto of registration was | 
 nroihiced, although the witnessis had no (lis- , 
 tinct individual knowledge of the ])artic.'idar no- I 
 ticc to I)., and that such evidence had heeu given | 
 licfore the revising otiieer:— Held, that in the! 
 al)3( nee of evidence to the contrary such |jroot ' 
 was >iifHeient. ^iV Himitinn.-i ami Iktitoti, 12 O. I 
 II. ."id,'). — I'roudfoot. 
 
 The notice to the revising ollicei' was left, with ' 
 his clerk at his oliicu during the al)seucc from \ 
 town of the revising oflicer, on Monday, "JSth 
 ilune, and on his return on the afternoon of tliat 
 ilay lie was told what had hecii done, and tiiat \ 
 if li- lii^l not consider that siillicient the notice 
 won \ i" I roeured again and nerved on him ])ei- 
 siiually, hut lie said what was done was .--ulli- 
 eieut ; -Held, that the last day for service for the 
 sittings for tlu' final revisidu tn lie Ip M I'Jth -luly 
 was Sunday, -7tli June, Imt that innler section 
 'J. suliscetiou 'J of the Act, the time was ex- 
 iiiit'c. i, and S. hail all the next il.iy, ami that 
 \\\f \ 'iice was well given on Monday. //-. 
 
 tiild, that the service oi the notice i>u the 
 elcrk of the revising ollicer was. uml ■!• .■sec- 
 tions lOaml 'J(i, a.sulUcitut '• dc|io.sitiiit; with" 
 the revising ollicer to satisfy the statute, and 
 the eonduitt of the revising ollicer amounted to 
 an ado)ilion of the action of the clerk, and was 
 KHiivaieiit to jjorsonal service it such were re- 
 i|uired hy the statute. Hi. 
 
 Held, that the revising ollicer ei red in iii>int ^j 
 (.f law in assunnng that the notice to him 
 rci|iurcd jiersonal service, ami that it was too 
 late, and in holding that notiie to produce the 
 notice to 1). should have heen given which were 
 not limlings of fact, and such mistakes or errors 
 are not such decisions as prevent the ''rantiM;,' 
 ol' the wiit of inajidamu'<. If he had f iiml as a 
 mutter of factt th.it notice was not ;.;iveii to 1)., 
 there uiiiihl have lieen some ditlicidty in inter 
 I'eriiig with his conclll^io^. The t'eiitre W'cl- 
 lingtuii Case, 14 <,>. 1!. l."!'.', lelcried to and dis- 
 tinguished. ///. 
 
 ing the appeal, after it has Iicen received ai\d 
 entered in the list of api)eala, the clerk who ro- 
 ccivea and enters it having \w judicial diit\ to 
 perform, lb. 
 
 The assessment roll of a. municipality was 
 finally revised and corrected hy the court of re- 
 vision on the .'tlst May, ISS-J. Tiu' clerk of the 
 municipality prepared the voters' list theretidin. 
 and on the Tth .Se|)tcmlier, iSS'J, posteil a copy 
 thereof in hisollice as i('i|uiied hy R S. O. ( IS77), 
 e. !l, s. .'{. He transmitted eo])ies of the list to 
 .■»ouie, hut not to all the pcrs<iiis entitled to re- 
 ceive them under sections ,"! and 4, anil no com 
 jilaints having lieen received hy him up to the 
 ;i()th Octohcr, he on that day signed the eertiti- 
 late and report ineiitlumil in section II of the 
 .Act, and ohtaini'd the ccrtilicate of the de|inty 
 judge oi theCouiity Court on three copies of the 
 list as lieiiig the revised list of voters for the 
 miinicipiility. I he judge ol the (dainty Court 
 lound tli.ii the clerk's e.rtilic.ite was fal.se, and 
 made with intent to deceive the deputy judge, 
 ami that the elcik had designedly w ithheld the 
 lists: and he tlierefore set aside, the eh rk's 
 ccrtilicate and the ccrtilicate of the deiuily 
 ju<lge : -Held, that as soon as the list is posted 
 up In the eleik's olliei! the time tor m d\ing com- 
 ))l.iints in re.^peet ot it hegins to run : that such 
 tiim^ lieing liy sl^ction !l expressly limited to 
 thirty days from the posting up of the list, ami 
 no complaint having lieen m.ide «jlhiu it. the 
 
 epntv judge was liuund to certify ; that thi' 
 omissiiiu to traiisinit the eojiies, wln'ther negli- 
 gent or wilful, not heing essinlial to the legal 
 revision or authentication of the list, could not 
 authoii/c an extension of tli<' time, and that the 
 ileputy judge's eertitieate was linal, and could 
 not lie set aside. In )•• th< Volirs //mf of Ikf 
 
 'il/mi,- 1)/' L'iii-'niiKil. Ill i-i Jiihii.-iuii. !» r. K. 
 ■1lV>.' Osier. 
 
 It was contended that the revising ollicer was 
 an appointiiient .if the ilomininn goveriimeni, 
 and that his sittings were sittings oi n Court ot 
 heciird, and that then' was no jurisdiction in a 
 |«'ovincial <'ouit to issue a mandamus to him : 
 Held, that the <lominion parli.iiiient had. Iiy the 
 Klectiiral f'lanchise .\et, inteifeml with civil 
 rights in this province, and having made no pro 
 vision for a court to superinteml the conduct of 
 the <illicials, and following V'alin e. Lunglois, 3 
 S. C. H. I, that until such ,i court is created 
 the ludvincial cuurts hy virtue of their inhennt 
 jurisdiction have a ri^ht to siiiicrintcnd the dis- 
 charge ot their duties hy any interior ollicer or 
 tiihnn.il. III. 
 
 (e) Court of lievi^iou anil I'niinli/ .hiihji' — CuDi- 
 /ilaiii/i mill Ap)i'ii/^. 
 
 Held, that the notice re(|iiired hy K. S. (>. 
 (IS77), c. !), s. !•, of ii coiii|)hiint of any error or 
 oini.ssion in the voters' list must he signed hy 
 the voter giving the same or his agent. The 
 name in the heginning is not a aiiilieieiit sign.i- 
 liirn. lu ri' Simiisoii ami thi Coiin/y Jinli/i jf 
 l.mmrk; !) 1'. 11. ;158. Osier. 
 
 t-enihlc, that the ((uestion of the v.i'Mity of 
 the notice can be raised heforo the judge heai'- 
 
 The voters' lists for the city of St. Thomas 
 were po>-teil up in the ollice of the city elerk, on 
 ■j;!rd Oetoher. ISStl. On the I'.tth Noveniher, 
 three days hefore the time for giving, by a voter, 
 notice of any ciim|ilaiiit agaiii->l the list, hail 
 expired, the clerk made a report to the county 
 judgi' ill the form No. 7 in the schedule to tlie 
 \'oters' lasts Act, U. S. O. (1.S77), e. !l ; and 
 tile said judge thereupon, on said l!)th Xovcni- 
 her, made an order appniiitiiig the 'MtU Novein 
 her, liSSli, for the holding of a court to hear 
 cninplaints of errors and omissions in the said 
 voters" list, and notice of the time and place 
 tlureof was duly puhlislied in a newspaper piih 
 li>heil in said city. Previous to th.' HItli No- 
 veniher, notici' or a niiniher of coin|>laints of 
 errors and omissions in the list was given to the 
 elcrk. On an ap|ilication for a writ of prohibi- 
 tion to prohihit the ciiiiuty judge rroiri holding 
 the court, on the ground that he had no juris 
 diction to niaki^ the oiilei'. inasniuch as tli" 
 thirty days for tilinu appeals li.id not then c.x- 
 pii'ed ; -Held, that tlie < 'oiiiity Court judge had 
 jurisdiciion to make the lU'der ; and tlu' a[ipli- 
 cutioii wa.s therefore refused with costs. I'er 
 Cameron, C. d. 'I'lur aiipeal or complaint niiide 
 ! within the thirty days after the clerk has posted 
 ' the voters' list would he in tinii, ..mi slionld lie 
 ■ dispo.sed of, whether made after the order for 
 I holding the cour'; or not : hut (pia^ro. whether 
 the juilge could deid with such appeals at the 
 . Hdtli Novendier t'oiirt. I'er C'anierou, V. ,K 
 
1431 
 
 PABLIAMENTART ELECTIONS. 
 
 1432 
 
 l4 
 
 
 as 
 m 
 
 t^uicre, wiiether tliis coiii't Ims the right to in- 
 terfere with tileotinn othcers, exci'pt where ex- 
 press Btatutory power to do so i'' given. I'er 
 Kosc, J. — Under tlie Voters' Lists Act, tiic 
 judge is not confined by tlic rejioi t of the clerk, 
 i)ut may and siiould hear all nppeais. In n: 
 lifrixioti of Ihr Volcrx' [/ml for the City of St. 
 Thotiuw. hi re lioyis, 13 0. R. 3.- C. V. D. 
 
 By section 13, siih-seetion 1, of "The Man- 
 liood SuH'rnge Act,".'>l Vict. c. 4 ((hit.), it is 
 provided tliat complaints of persons not liaving 
 l)een entered on the roll as (jualified to he voters 
 wiio shonld have l)een so entered, may, l>y any I 
 ))er.son entitled to lie a voter or to l)e entered on [ 
 the voters' list, he made to tiie Court of Revision 
 as in tlie ease of assessments, or tiie complaints , 
 may he made to the county judge under tlie , 
 \'oters' Lists Act. Ky section (il of the .Assess- ■ 
 ment Act, H, S. (), (.S77), c. 1!I3, it is provided I 
 that the Court of Revision of each nut. -cipality I 
 shall meet anil try all complaints in regard to , 
 persons wvoiigfully omitted from the loll ; and ; 
 l)y section (iS, subsection 1, that an appeal to ^ 
 the e(ninty judge : hii'l lie, not only again.st a; 
 decision oi the Court of Revision on an ap])ef,l ! 
 to that court, i)Ut also against the omission, n<v ! 
 gleet, or refusal of saiil court to hear or ilecic'e ' 
 an a])pcal. The (."ourt of Revision of a niunici- ' 
 pidity refused to hear oi- adjudicate upon a com- ! 
 ))laint made by M. innler section 13 of "The | 
 Manhood .Suffrage Act,"' that the names of cer- 
 tain ])ersons had been wrongfully ondtted from 
 the assessment roll : — Held, that it wius the duty 
 of the Court of Revision under section (11 to try 
 tlie complaint made by ^L; and that if no other 
 complete, ajiprojiriate, anil convenient remedy 
 had existed, M. would have been entitled to a 
 iiiandamus to eoni))el the court to ))erform its 
 duty; but as the legislature by section (i8 had 
 given a sjiecific remedy for this very breach of 
 duty, by a])peal to the county judge, M. was not 
 entitled to a mandamus. The right which .M. 
 was seeking to enforce was to have the names of 
 <ertain i)ers(ms placed on the assessment roll ; 
 not, as Avas contended, to have his complaint 
 disposed of by the Court of Revision; the coni- 
 l)laint to the Court of Revision was a means of 
 <'iiforeing his right, not the right itself. Dcei- 
 ..<ion of MacMahon, J., reversed. In re Marlir 
 <tnd the Conrl iif Hi-risioii nf the Toini of (J raven- 
 hurst, IHO. R.'243.-(^ H. 1). 
 
 (d) I'lopirty <Ji .a/ijlrntion, 
 
 Ifiixtiaiid mill Wift,] — Where the i wner died 
 intestate, and the husband of one of his daugh- 
 ters leased the property and received the rents, , 
 such husband was held not entitled I'l vote. — ] 
 Lenlir.'n rott. Jirovlril/e Kd'rtion (Out.)— Flint ' 
 V. Fitzsimmons, H. K. C. 129.— Hagarty. ' 
 
 Where a husband had possession of a lot for 
 whic.i he was as.ses.sed as occnjiant and his wife 
 as owner, but wliicli belonged to tiie wife's : 
 daughters by a former husband his vote was i 
 held good. — Wliahtfn rote. Hi. i 
 
 Parent and Son.]—W\\c.ve a father was by a] 
 verbal agreement "to have his living ofl' the' 
 place," the .son beinp owner and in occupation i 
 with the father, the father waaheld not entitled : 
 to vote.— ]Viltni-'s rote. Hi. j 
 
 Where it was proved that an agreement existed 
 (verbal or otherwise) that the son ahouhl have 
 a share in the crops as his own, and such agree- 
 ment was bona fide acted on, the son being duly 
 assessed, his vote was held good ; the ordinary 
 test being : had the voter an actual existing in- 
 terest in the crojis growing and grown ? t'nM. 
 veil, Moore ami Smitli'n rotm. lb. 
 
 Where it was proved that for some time past 
 the owner had given np the whole nianagement 
 of the farm to his son, i-etaining his right to iie 
 supiiorted from the )iroduct of the place, the son 
 dealing with the crops as his own, and disposing 
 of theni to his own use, the son's vote was held 
 good. III. 
 
 Hut where sudi crop.s could not be seized foi- 
 the son's debt, the son was held not entitled Ui 
 vote. — Frriiiri'' rote. III. 
 
 Where the agreement did not shew what .share 
 in the crops the son was to have with his father, 
 and it a))|ieared to be in the father's discretion 
 to determine the share, such son was held not 
 entitled to vote, -.loliiisou'x rote. lb. 
 
 The widow of an intestate owner continuing 
 to live on the projierty with her child len, who 
 own the estate and work and manage it, slioiild 
 not, till her dower is issigtied, l)e assessed jointly 
 with the joint teiiaii ;s, nor should any interest 
 of hers be dedurtec from the whole assessed 
 value. Where, therefore, four joint tenants and 
 such dowress occupied jiroperty assessed for 
 .$!)()((, the joint tenants were held entitled to the 
 qualification of \'olvr». - tlilruifi note. Jb. 
 
 Where the father had made a will in hi., son's 
 favour, and told the son if he would work the 
 place and support the family he would giveitto 
 liim, and tlie entire management remained in 
 the son's hands from that time, the property 
 being assessed in both names, the profits to lie 
 applied to ))ay the debt dueontlic}daee : - Held, 
 that as the niuh'rstanding was that the son 
 worked the place for the support of the family, 
 and beyond that for the benefit of the estate, 
 which he exjiected to possess under his fatlicr's 
 will that he did not hold immediately to his own 
 use and benefit, and was not entitled to vote. 
 Wfort'x rote. .Slonnont Flection, [Out. ) -lielhune 
 V. Cohinlioiiii, H. K. C. '21. — Richai'ds. 
 
 Where the objection taken was, that the voter 
 was not at the time of the final revision of the 
 assessment roll the bona fide owner, occupant, 
 or ten.ant of the ))ro|ierty in respect of which he 
 voted ; and the evidence shewed a joint occii- 
 paney on the part of the voter and his father on 
 land rated i«^. ^'240 : -Hehl, that the notice given 
 did not pi. to the objection Ih.it if the jiarties 
 were joint occupants, they were insufficiently 
 rated, and as the objection to the vote was not 
 ]iro|)erly taken, the vote was held good. The 
 C'hief Justice intimated that if the objection 
 had been properly taken, or if the counsel for 
 jietitioiier (whose interest it was to sustain the 
 vote) had stated that he was not prejudiced by 
 the form of the objection, he wou'd have held 
 the vote bad. — Iiaker\^ rote. lb. 
 
 Where a certain occupancy was proved on the 
 
 fiart of the son distinct from that of the father, 
 )Ut no agreement to entitle the son to a sliarcof 
 the profits, and the son merely worked with the 
 rest of the family for their common benefit :— 
 
1432 
 
 K'S 
 
 PARLIAMENTAHY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1434 
 
 ecmentcxiHted 
 1 should have 
 nd such a<;rt!c- 
 son ))eiii}; (hdy 
 ; the ordinary 
 uvl cxiatiiig in- 
 grown ? ' 'did- 
 b. 
 
 oine tiiiH- paHt 
 lu niaiiuguinvnt 
 liiH right to ix! 
 
 U ])hlCt3, tllLKOll 
 
 I, und disposing 
 I vote was held 
 
 ot he seized fur 
 not untitled t^t 
 
 shew what sliare 
 with his fatlier, 
 her's discretion 
 )n was iii:iil not 
 
 vnor continuing 
 ir chihlri'u, who 
 anagc it, slionld 
 ! assessed jointly 
 id<l any interest 
 whole assessed 
 joint tenants and 
 •ty assessed for 
 d entitled to the 
 .1 note.. Ih. 
 
 I will in hi., ton's 
 woulil work the 
 > would give it to 
 icnt roniained in 
 ne, the property 
 
 the profits to l)c 
 ho place : - Held, 
 lis that the son 
 
 •t of the family, 
 •lit of the estate, 
 niler his fatiier's 
 liately tohisown 
 
 entitled to vote. 
 ,(Oiil.) Iklhune 
 ichards. 
 
 as, that the voter 
 1 revision of the 
 iwncr, occupant, 
 spcct of which he 
 ved a joint occu- 
 and his father on 
 t the notice given 
 li.it if the ])artie8 
 cro insufiiciently 
 the vote was not 
 held good, 'rhe 
 
 if the ohjection 
 f the counsel for 
 .as to sustain the 
 lot prejudii«d by 
 
 wouhl have held 
 b. 
 
 was proved on the 
 "lat of the father, 
 
 son to a share of 
 
 worked witli the 
 mmon benefit :— 
 
 Hekl, that, although the son was not merely i 
 ttssfssed for the real but the personal property 
 ou tiie place (his title to the latter being on the [ 
 sunie footing as the former), he was not entitled ' 
 to vote. —llaney'K volt. lb. \ 
 
 Where the voter and his .son leased certain 
 property, and the lease was cirawn in the son'.s 
 imnio alone, and wiien the cnijis were reajied 
 the son claimed they belonged to him .solely, tiie 
 voter owning other pr<)])erty, but being asses.sed 
 for tiiis only and voting on it -. — Held, that, 
 altiiough he was on the roll ami had the neces- 
 gary qualitication, but was nut assessed for it, 
 be was not entitled to vote. Hill's role. Ih. 
 
 Wiiere father and .son li\e together on the 
 father's farm, and tiie father is in fact the prin- 
 cipal to whom money is paid, and win i distributes 
 it as he thinks proper, and the son has noagree- 
 nicnt binding on t!ie fatlier to compel him to 
 give the sor a share of tlii^ proceeds of the farm, 
 or to cultiv,,te a share of the land, but merely 
 receives what the father's sense of jui;tice dic- 
 tates : — Held, the .son lias no vote. — KdiiKiii'x 
 role. ll>. 
 
 In a milling busines.s wheii' the agreement 
 lictween the father and .sou was, that if the son 
 would take charge of the mill, and manage the 
 business, he should have a sliaic of the protits, 
 and the son, in fact, solely nianagcil the liu.siues.s, 
 keeping possession of the mill, ami applying a 
 portion of the proceeds to iiis own use : — Held, 
 that the son had such an interest in the business, 
 luid while the business lasted, such an interest 
 in the land, as entitled him to vote. — linlloik't 
 wti , lb. 
 
 Wliere the voter was the e(|uitable owner, tlie 
 deed being taken in the fatiier's name, but the 
 son furnishing the money, tlie father in occupa- 
 tion with the assent of his son, and the proceeils 
 not divided: — Held, that being the e(|iiit;'ble 
 owner, notwithstanding the need to the father, 
 lie had the right to vote. — lilitir's role. lb. 
 
 Where the voter had been originally, before 
 18(1;') or 18(i0, put upon the as.sessinent roll merely 
 to give him a vote, but by a3ubse(iueiit arrange- 
 ment with his father, made in ISti.l or ISOti, lie 
 was to support the father, ami apply the rest of 
 tlie proceeds to his own support : -Held, that 
 if he liad been put on originally merely for the 
 jiurpo.se of giving a vole, and that was the vote 
 ((iicstioned, it would have been bad ; but being | 
 foiitinucd HI veral jears iifter he really became 
 tlie occii|iant for his own benefit, he was entitled 
 to vote, though originally the assessment began 
 in Ills name merely to (|iialify him. — Uore'a cole. 
 
 Wliere a verbal agreement was made between 
 the voter and his father in ■lannaiv , 1870, aiid 
 (HI this agreement the voter from that time had 
 tixerciscd control, and took the jiiocccds to his 
 own use, although the deed was not executed 
 mitil September following :~llcld, he was en- 
 titled to vote. — (.lolliiiiji rs role. Ih. 
 
 Where a father had made a will of a hit to his 
 ■Hdn who was assessed for it, and the sou took 
 the crops except what was used by the father, 
 who resided on the lot with his wife, the son re- 
 siding and working on another farm :— Held, 
 that tlie son had not such a benelicial interest 
 ill the lotas would entitle him to vote. — MuUin's 
 
 vote. South (Irenrille Kltction (Out.) -Elin v. 
 Fmner, H. E. C. ItW.— Mowat. 
 
 Where '. ho owner of a lot, told his son 
 that he might have the lot, and advi.sed him 
 to get a deed drawn, and the lot had been as- 
 sessed to the son for three or lour yi ais, and was 
 rented to a tenant by the i.ither with the assent 
 of the .son, who paid to the father his wages 
 but the father collected the rent : — lield, that 
 as there was nothing Ijiit a voluntary gift from 
 the father to the son, without po.ssession, the 
 soil's vote was bad. — LuikIij'k rote. lb. 
 
 Where the owne. of mortgaged projierty died 
 intestate, leaving a widow and sons and (laugh- 
 ters, and the pi<i|(erty was S(dd under the mort- 
 gage, ami the deeil made to the widow, but 
 three of the sons furnished .some of the purchase 
 money and all remained in po.ssession, and the 
 eldest son was assesseil as occupant: — Held, 
 that as the eldest son di<l not shew that the 
 property was purcliase<l for him, and the pii'- 
 suiiiptioii from the evidence being that it was 
 bought for the mother, such eldest son had no 
 right to vote. — .yorrmr's roti\ lb. 
 
 I'liiliii r-i (mil ./iiiiil Oinit r.^.] — Where a scui 
 was assessed at !?7(tl) for a farm ill xs hich he and 
 his father were iiariiieis, in the proportimi of 
 threefourths of tlie prolits to the father and 
 one-fourth to the son, and the objection to the 
 voter was iioii-ownership : — Held, that the part- 
 liersliip was established by the evidence, and in 
 view of the objection taken, the vote was sus- 
 tained. — Siiialii' roll . lb. 
 
 Where two partners in business occupied ju'e- 
 mlses, tliu freehold of which was vested in one 
 of them, and the assessment of liie picinises was 
 sullieieiit to givi' a i(iialiliiatiiiii to each, both 
 partners were held (|ualitied In vote. — Filzijef- 
 alil'x roll . //*. 
 
 j Where ';;;o ot tw- joint owners was assessed 
 
 for property at .S'JtXi : Held, that neither of 
 
 I such joint owners was entitled to vote. — tSti ir- 
 
 [(((7'.-.' role. lb. 
 
 Tni^lii-i.] — .\ trustee under a will having no 
 present benelicial interest in the re.il [iioperty 
 ! assessed to him, was iichl not entitled to vote. - 
 Jones' vole. Ih. 
 
 1 Where A., who .sided out of the riding, had 
 I m.ide a contra-t in writing to sell to i>. the pro- 
 perty assessed to him as owner, but Iwnl not at 
 the time of the election executed the deed, IJ. 
 having been in possession of the property foi 
 several years under agreenicnts with A. : — Hehl, 
 that A. was a mere trustee for the ))nrchaser, 
 and had therefore no right to vote. — llotdm'ti 
 1 roll. lb. 
 
 'I'l iiriiilx. I — Where the voter was the tenant of 
 certain iironerty lielonging to his father in-hiw, 
 and before the expiration of his tenancy the 
 ' lather-in-liw, with the consent of the voter (the 
 latter being a witness to the lease), leased the 
 property to ;iiiotlier, the voter's lea^e not expi- 
 ring until November, and the new lease being 
 made on the 'JSth March, i87l> ;— Held, that 
 after the surrender liy the lease, to wh h hewa? 
 a subscribing witness, he cea.sed to '> a te umt 
 on the I'Htli of March, IS70, and that U' ■ i:title 
 him to vote he must have the qualification at the 
 

 1435 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1436 
 
 
 time of the liiml revision of the asscssnient roll, 
 thoiigii not necexHiirily at the time he voted, ho 
 long us he was Nlill a resident of the electoral 
 diviHioii. — liiiitiiCurolf. Stormoiil EtfClio)i.[Oiit.) 
 — Ilcthuiie v. Colnuhoun, H. K. C.Ul. — Itiehurda. 
 
 A tenant from year to year cannot create a 
 sub-tenancy nor create a right to vote l)y giving 
 auothi-r a sliiire iii the crops raised on the leased 
 property. — iJanhaniK rolt. Brnrk-ritlr EhclidU 
 {Out. t— Flint V. Fil:nimi)i(j)i», W. K. ('. I'iit.— 
 Hagarty. 
 
 NVhere a man occupied a house as toll collector, 
 and not in any oilier rigiil, he was not <|ualilied 
 to vole. —McA rt'tui '.« tote. lb. 
 
 Where a vendor before the revision of the as- 
 sessment roil had conveyed and given jiossession 
 of the proiiertv to a jjiircliasei', and such pur- 
 chaser liad alfcrwanls ^ucn him ,i license to 
 occupy a small portion of the property, such 
 vendoi' was he'd not entitled to vote. — Solilin'i 
 rote. South tiniirilk Eliclinn {(Jut.) — EltiK v. 
 y'Vn.>i(;-, Jf. K. ('. Hi:{. Mowat. 
 
 '•!. //( I'lionidiii-c'l 'J'i)U'ushijis. 
 
 Held, by ratterson, .J. A., and Kcrgiison, .1., 
 that (I) a puisoii, the owner of real estate of the 
 value of ^200 or upwards, anywhere within the 
 clectoial district, has the right to vote at any 
 polling pi ice in the unoiganized townships in 
 the elict'iiiil di-.tiict whore ho may happen to 
 be on polling day; (-) That where the real 
 estate on which such pcisuii relics as his ((ualili- 
 cation to vote is situate in one of the iinoig u» 
 ized towi.hhips his i iglit is to vole in any ot Uic 
 unorganized tovMiships witliotil liiiiig ivy.Mcled 
 to the townsiiip where his luoperty nia_\ l>e situ- 
 ate; (;{) 'I'll, it to entitle a por.s.m to vote in the 
 unoigaiiizeil townsli ps (Ui tlu' (pialilication of 
 housclioldor, he must, bo a ii iiiscliolder i. e. 
 have hi.s (jil dili atini as such within tlic limits 
 of the uaorgani/. ;il townshii>. Mu<biL<i ant 
 Parni •'iouul EUiliou (Out.) I'tn/el r. t'tiuqakr. 
 1 E. 'C. I'J7. 
 
 ,3. lufAiim- Qii.ilifi''atit)n. i 
 
 A voter whose ipialilic^atioii is succcs.sfully at- 
 tached may sliew a light to vote on income; but 
 in such CISC lie must [irove thai he has cuiniiliod 
 with all the rc(piir<'iiiiMits of tli" .A 't whicli are 
 essential to cpialify him to vote on income. — 
 (//■ ii/'.i rote. Linrota I'jh- turn (-) [Out. ) —I'awlinij 
 V. liykvrl, H. K. C. .')0t>. -Patteriim. 
 
 I 
 ■t. \'iitarali:.".il Suhjerin and Alitui. 
 
 Where the voter was born in the Unitetl 
 States, hiH , .itents being Bi ilisli-buin subjects, 
 bis 1'alh.l' ami giandlallici being I'. 1>]. Loyal- 
 ists, ami the voccr residing ncarl\ ill his life in 
 Canada ; -Hc'l, entitled Co vole. I'lace's rotr. 
 ISloriuoiit Kii-.noa {On/.) liEthuw, v. Coli/ulioiin, i 
 H. K. V. Jl.— HiehanU. 
 
 An alien who came to < 'anida in ISoO, ami 
 had tiikeii the oiitli of allegiance in bSUI, but li.id 
 taken no proiccdings to oOtain a ceititicatc of 
 naturali/alion from the Court of (jfuarter Sts- 
 siouH, was held not ((ualilied to vote.- Jiacon'K 
 
 rote, lirockrilli E/i.c/iou {Out.) — Flint v. Filz- 
 simmoiix, H. K. C. 129. — Hagarty. 
 
 An alien, whose father had taken the oath of 
 allegiance mi obtaining tlie patent for his land 
 under it (ieo. ]V., c. 'Jl : -Held, not qualitioil to 
 vote. Ifriilci/'-i riilr. Jh. 
 
 The evidence that the parents of a voter had 
 stated to such voter that he was born in the 
 United States, but that his father was burn in 
 Canada, received, and the vote held good.— 
 W'riijht's rotr. Hi. 
 
 \Vliere evidence was given of jiarol admis- 
 sions made by certain voters, some years before 
 the election, that they had been born in u 
 foreigi. country, and also evidence that since the 
 parol avlmission the voters had voted at par- 
 liamcntLiry elections, and had taken the voter's 
 oath as to being British subjects by birth or 
 naturali/ation : — Held, (1) That the oath at the 
 polls could not be treated as testimony, not 
 having been given in any judicial ])roeu(Mliiig. 
 (■J) Tliit by swearing at the jioUs he was a 
 British subject by birth or naturali/ation, tlio 
 voter only slali'd the legal result of certain facts, 
 (.'i) That there was therefore no presumption of 
 uatiindiy. itioii siifliciently strong to relmt the 
 |uesuniption of the continuance of the original 
 status ( if alienage. — .Slirurk's vote. Liiirulii Eke- 
 tinu (•-•) {(>nl.)--Pnwliwi v. liykcrl, H. K. C. 
 500. — I'.itUr.son. 
 
 VVhoiH? a voter, in support of his own vote, 
 swiuv that he was born in the Unitcil .States 
 lull that his parents were British subjects: — 
 
 II Id, that the whole st;iteineiit of the loter 
 must be taken, and thai it ainoiinteil to this: 
 " I was born in the I'nited States o'' British 
 parents. '"-.V'//*vii)MH".-i rotr. lb. 
 
 Certrkim Jtliens hud taken the oaths of allc- 
 giaiice, vie, before a juslic'e of the ]H'ace of a 
 town, wliicli oaths wcie administered to them 
 
 III a lownship, but witliiii the same county :— 
 Held, that uiidur the Alien Act, .'U Vict. c. 'li, 
 s. 2 (Doiii.), the justice of the ))ciace, in admin- 
 uteiing the o.itlis, was acting ministerially ami 
 not judicially ; and that the o.iths were properly 
 administered. — Jokiixuu'.s role. lb. 
 
 See //riiiiiltou Elirtioii {Out .) —Padcrnon v. 
 .StrtsoH, ! l-;. C. i!»!», p. 11!).!. 
 
 ."). l)i-ijit(i,lijiriition. 
 
 Vy order in I'ou'.icilthe defendant wasappoint 
 ed agent for llir location and sale of lauds iiiuler 
 the l''rce ( Jraiits and Homesteads' .Act, II. S. 0. 
 (1877), c. "24. By letter from the crown limils 
 dep.irtuieiit. the defendant was iiistriicteil t<( 
 cull'!' upon his duties lespccling the location of 
 tree grants, but not to sell lamls or receive money 
 until he hid given the usual si'mnly. By H. h. 
 (). (1H77), c. 10, s. I air-'agenls for the sale of 
 crown lands, " amongst other persons, ,iie dis- 
 (jnalitied from voting at elections for the lc"is- 
 laliire, under a |icnally. The dcfeuihiiit liefoie 
 lie had given the neccss.ii y scmirity, voted ataii 
 election lor the legishituu : Held, that he wm 
 an agent for the sale of crown lands within the 
 nicaning of the Act, H. S. O. (1877). c. 10. s. 4, 
 and therefore liable to the penalty iiiiposeil. 
 Whether or not the defendant was such an agent 
 
1436 
 
 7i;i« V. Fitz- 
 
 I the oath iif 
 for liiH land 
 t (iiialitiod to 
 
 f a votur liail 
 l)(>ni ill the 
 was liorii ill 
 
 iield godil.— 
 
 jiarul ailinis- 
 ! years before 
 in iiorn in u 
 tliat sinee the 
 voted at par- 
 eii tlie voter's 
 ii t)y hirth or 
 lu oatli at the 
 jstiinouy, not 
 il proceeding, 
 dls lie \vai a 
 nili/alion. tlie 
 if certain facts, 
 iresiiiiiption of 
 
 ti) relmt the 
 L)f tlic original 
 
 Lincoln Klec- 
 3»•^ H. K. c. 
 
 his own vote, 
 Uniti'd States 
 sli subjects : — 
 t of tlic voter 
 Hinted to this: 
 [ates o' British 
 
 oaths of allc- 
 
 the peace of a 
 
 stered to them 
 
 line county :— 
 
 ;il Vict. c. •22, 
 
 ice, in admin- 
 
 iiisterially ami 
 
 s were properly 
 
 )—l\itl('i:-,on V. 
 
 vut was appoint 
 oof lauds under 
 ,s' .Act, K. S. 0. 
 he crown lands 
 s instructed ti> 
 r tlie location ol 
 )r receive money 
 .,,ly 15y K. >• 
 s lor the .sale of 
 icrsons, are dis- 
 HIS for the legis- 
 IcfeiKhint before 
 rity, voted atan 
 eld, that he wa-s 
 lands within the 
 ,877). c. 10. s. 4, 
 cnalty iinpoaed. 
 i-as such an agent 
 
 1437 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 im 
 
 is a (pieHlioii of law and not a ((Ue.stion for 
 the jury. Sriyleij v. Taijloi; V, O. K. 10S.-~ 
 C. P. !>• 
 
 By reason of corrupt practices. .See Hub- 
 head VII. Hi, (b), p. 14<)7. 
 
 1. 
 
 III. C".\NI>ll)ATKS. 
 
 I'ropeiij/ Qiiali/ii'iilioii. 
 
 Held, as in the N(Utli \ietoria Election 
 V'auienui r. .Macleuiian, H. 1'.. (\ .')S+, that the 
 Doliiinion Klcctioiis' Act of IS74 not beiiij,' re- 
 trospe(;tive, the «|iiestioii of luoiierty iplilllica- 
 tion of eaii'lidale.s at elections held before the 
 passii'^ of the l''dections" .\ct of lfS7.S. could still 
 lie lai.sed in pending cases. Canhrrll Elirlion 
 ( D'tiii.) -U' ii-ill v. Caiil'Kiii, H. K. t'. (U4. 
 I!i(diaids -Spiagge- II ig.u-ty. 
 
 Held, that it is not neces.-.aiy for an elector, 
 deniaiidiiig the property (|iiali(icati.iii of a candi- 
 date, to tender tlie uecessaiy declaration for the 
 candidate to make ; the iiileiition of tiie statutes 
 beiii" tli.it the oaudidate niusl preiiarc his own 
 •leelaratioii. lli. 
 
 2. IJuiiiMlijiculioii, 
 
 (a) Office or Coulrad. 
 
 By coiuinission or iiistruineiit under the liaiul 
 and seal <d' the liicutenant-governor of I*. K. I., 
 one K. C. was constituted and appointed ferry- 
 man at and for a certain ferry for the term of 
 three years, pursuant to the Acts relating to 
 ferries, and it was by the commission jirovided 
 that K. O. should be p.iici a subsidy ol §'.(5 for 
 each year of said term. I). ('. had given to the 
 government a bond with two sureties for the 
 lierforin nice of liis contract. By articles ui 
 agreement lietweeii K. ('. and S. K. I*, (the re- 
 spondent), K. ('. for valuable consideration as- 
 signed to S. V. P. one-lonrlb part or interest in 
 the ferry contract, and it was agreed that one- 
 fourth part of tile net proceeds or profits of sa; 1 
 eoiitiacl should be paid over by the said E. C 
 to the sai I S. !•". 1'. or his assigns. At the time 
 tile agreement was entered into S. V. V. was a 
 ineiiiliL'r of the house of assembly of I'. K. I., 
 having been elected at the general election held 
 ou tlie.SOLh .luiie, ISSO. .Siibsec|uently S. I'. I>. 
 ttius returned as a member elect for the Mouse 
 of (.'ominous for the electoral ilislrict of I'riiic ; 
 <!ouiity, I'. K. I., and upon his return being 
 contested : — Held, allirming tlie judgment of the 
 court below, 'rascliereiUi, .1 , dissenting, that, by 
 the agreement with K. C, F. S. I', became a 
 liersou lioliling and eiij'.ying within the iiieaniiig 
 of set lion 4 of ;{:' Vict. e. ,T, (!', \\. I.) a contract 
 oragreeinent w itii Her Majesty, wliii h disipiali- 
 lied lii(u and rendered him iindigible loitdection 
 to the House of Assembly or to sit or vote in 
 tile same, and by section S of the said Act, to 
 he read with action 4, his seat in the Assembly 
 became vacated : and be was therefore eligible 
 for election as a meiiiljcr of the House of Coni- 
 in >iis, r,iii,;' V(iiiiili/[/'. K. I.) E/i:ctioii (Duiii.), 
 IliH-hltw I'n-rif. 14 .S. ('. I!. '2(1.-). 
 
 See WttI Yurk /■J/n-llnii {Out.), (•'rahdme v. 
 I'atteri'on, H. K. V. 15li, p. 1438. 
 
 (c) A'o^'cc oj to I'^rclors. 
 
 The reHpondont a po.stmaster in the service of 
 tlie Dominion of Canada, bec.inie a candidate at 
 an tdectioii In Id on the 14th anil '21st March, 
 1S71, and was electiMl. On the lltli March he 
 resigned his otlice of postm.isler, which was ac- 
 cepteil by the postiniistergeiieral on tlu! 1.1th 
 March. His aceounts with the postollieo de- 
 partnieiit were (dosed ;inil his snceessor appoint- 
 ed after the election. ICvidence of the notoriety 
 of the alleged disi|ualitic:ition of the ri-spondeiit 
 was given. whi(li was tint sucli alhge I disquali- 
 lieation was a nutter of t ilk, and that all the 
 Jicople .it the nueting for the noiniii ition of oun- 
 didates were supposed to b(! aware of the snp- 
 Jiosed ililliciilty as to sir-h di.si|iMlillc:itioii : - 
 lleid, lleiteveu if the respondent w.is (lis(|uali- 
 tied for (de<'tiou, the judgi> could imt on such 
 evidence decl.ire that the cli' "tors voting for the 
 resp<indeiit had voti^l perversely, and had there- 
 fore thrown ,iway their votes, so as to entitle the 
 petitioner to claim the seat. H'r.si' York /■J/ictioii 
 (Oiif.) -ilriiliiniii v. I'dllcrmii, If. \). C. luti. - 
 H.igarty. 
 
 .\t the nomination a protest was handed to the 
 returning olliccr, signed by the (h'leated c iiidi- 
 
 I date and three electors, claiming that respoinleiit 
 was disi|iialilied, and that (he o|i|iosing eandi- 
 
 j date was entitled to the se it. Notice thereof 
 w,is posted at some of the polls, and s niie elec- 
 tors were told of it ; Helil, on the evidence, the 
 trial jinlges having refused to award the se.vt to 
 
 I the defeated candidate, the court in appeal would 
 
 I not interfere. South h'l'.ni'rcw KLclimi, (Ont.)-- 
 Jlarni/ v. Doirlunj, 1 E. C. liuit. --C. of A. 
 
 3. Xoiniiuillon. 
 
 The nomination paper of B., one of the can- 
 didates at the election eoinpl.iined of, was signed 
 by twenty-five jier.sons, and h id the allidavit of 
 the attesting witness duly sworn to as re(|uire(i 
 by the .statute. The election clerk found that 
 one of the twenty-live persons was not entered 
 on the voters" lists, and theieupon the returning 
 officer and election clerk compareil the names 
 on t'. J nomination paper with the eertilied voters' 
 lists in his possession, and on finding that only 
 twenty-four of the persons who had so signed 
 were duly (pialilied electors, he rejected B.'s 
 noniinatiou paper, and returned the res[iondcnt 
 as member elect :- -Held, (1) 'I'hat as the policy 
 of the law is to have no scrutiny, or as little ,as 
 |)ossible, in election eases, Miid to give the peo- 
 i pie a full voice in chooiing their representatives, 
 ] the defei.t in the nomination paper was one to 
 I which the returning-ollicer should not have 
 I yiehled. ("2) That if the election had gone on 
 1 the defect in the. nomination paper would not, 
 I according to .S7 Vict. c. 1), s. 8(), have att'eeted 
 the result of the election. South Jitn/reir Elec- 
 tion (2) (Dom.) -McKay v. McDonjatl, H. E. 
 ('. 70.'). — Wilson. 
 
 Semble, that the returning officer is both a 
 ministerial and a judicial oHicer; and that he 
 might decline to receive the nomination of per- 
 sons di.s(pialiHed by status or oilice, and also 
 nomination papers signed by unqualiHed persons 
 if he had good reasons for so doing, lb. 
 
 Under section .S3 of R. S. O. (1877) o. 10, the 
 returning officer is to fix the place and time of 
 

 1439 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1440 
 
 
 nomination, siKih time to l)0 between eleven n.in., i 
 an<l two p.m., of the tliiy li.xod theiefor. 'I'lio 
 returning oHioer, wii" lived at H. , owinj; to in- 
 evitable iieeideiit aiiHiiig from the train being | 
 Mocked with Hnow, did not reach (). the place 
 of nomination till two p.m. and the hiiHtiii<:s i 
 until ten minutes afterwards. The two candi- i 
 dates who contested the constituency were then 
 nominated in the jiresence of a large number of 
 electors, including the petitioner, who made nii i 
 protest. It did not appear that any injury had i 
 been caused thereby. Per Hoyd, C. The re- ' 
 ({uircment was merely directory or regulative : [ 
 that iu)ncompliance therewith might or not bo j 
 fatal, and so avoid the election, according to 
 circumstances ; and that as no one was preju- 
 diced, it could have no fatal etl'ect. In any 
 event the petitioner, under the circumstances, 
 was estopped from raising the objection ; and : 
 — Sendile, he was also precluded from raising 
 the objcctitm by reason of, as it appealed, his 
 claiming the seat for the defeated candidate, 
 thus ratifying and adopting what was done at : 
 the election. I'er Cameron, J. The reciuirenicnt 
 was imperative, and noncompliance therewith 
 avoided the election ; and the petitioner was not 
 estopped from raising the objection. On a^ipcal j 
 to the Court of Ap])eal, the judgment proceeded 
 on another ground. I'er Burton, J. A. The 
 point was now covered by scctiim 48 of 47 Vict, 
 c. 4 (Ont.). Per Patterson, J. A. — (^uaTc, 
 whether section 48 was intended to apply to 
 this point, this being a matter specially dealt 
 with by section 15 of K. S. O. (1877) c. 10. 
 fJan/. Siiiicoe Election {Out.) — RiUlx. Dnin/, 1 
 !•;. C. 291. 
 
 See also Subhead III. 2. (c), p. 1438. 
 
 IV. VOTINO. 
 
 1. Opening Poll. 
 
 See E(Mt Simcoe Election {Ont. ), IMd v. Driirij, 
 1 E. C. 291, p. 1500. 
 
 2. Declaration of Serreri/ by /tefiirnin;) Officer 
 and Otiitrii. 
 
 Hue East. Simcoe Election {Ont.), I'e.idy. J)riiri/, 
 1 E. C. 291, p. 1500. 
 
 3. Marking Ballo/.'i. 
 
 (a) liy Voteri. 
 
 The Election Act in its eiiacting i)art requires 
 ballots to be marke<l with a cross on any place 
 within the division which contains the name of 
 the candidate. Ballots marked with a straight 
 line within the division, or with a cross on the 
 back, were ■ ejected. Observations on the dif- 
 ference bet veen the P^nglish and Ontario sta- 
 tutes in thii respect. tSonth Wcnticorth Election 
 (OtU.)—Olm.^ie<x.d V. Carpenter, H. E. C. 531.— 
 Moss — Gait. 
 
 The following ballots were held invalid :(1) 
 IJallots with a single stroke ; (2) ballots with 
 the candidate's name written thereon in addi- 
 tion tj the cross ; (3) ballots with marks in ad- 
 dition to the cross, by which the voter might be 
 identified, although not put there by the voter 
 in order that he might be identified ; (4) bal- 
 
 lots marked with a number of lines ; (■')) bal- 
 lots with a <;ros8 for each candi<latc. North 
 Victoria Elerlion (2) {Dnm.)~Cameroii v. J/ac- 
 lenuan, H. E. C. 071.— Wilson.— Q. B. 1). 
 
 (^uiere, whether ballots with a cross to the 
 left of the canilidate's name slinuld be rejuuled, 
 as the de|iuty returning otlicer is not bound to 
 reject suili ballots under section 55 of tlie Do- 
 minion Elections' Act, 1874. //*. 
 
 The following irregularities in the nindo of 
 marking ballot papei's, held to be fatal : (1) 
 Making a single stroke instead of a cross ; (2) 
 any mark which contains in itself a menus of 
 identifying the voter, such as his initials or 
 some mark known as being one used by lijm ; 
 (3) crosses mad(! at left ot name, or not to the 
 right of the name ; (4) two single strokiis not 
 crossing. Monek Election (Dum.) — t/ritnt v. 
 .UcCailnm. H. E. C. 725. -Blake. 
 
 The following ballots were held invalid : (1) 
 ballots with a cross in the right ])lace on the 
 back of the ballot paper instead of on the print- 
 ed siile ; (2) baUots nuirked with an x instcail 
 of a cross. (Jinenn Connti/ Election (Uom.)— 
 Jenkinsw Ilrecken, 7 H. V. I!. 247. 
 
 The following ballots were held valid: (1) 
 Ballots with a cross to the right just after tiie 
 candidate's name, but in the same coluian,nn(l 
 not in the column on the right-hand side of the 
 name ; (2) baUots with an ill-formeil cross, or 
 with snuiU lines at the ends of the cross, or with 
 a lino across the centre or one of the liird)8 of 
 tile cross, or with a curved line like the blades 
 of an anchor. Morth Virtorin Eli'ction (2)(/>om.) 
 Cameron v. Maelennaii, H. E. C. 071. — Wil- 
 son.— Q. B. I). 
 
 The following irregularities held not to be 
 fatal: (1) An irregular mark in the figure of a 
 cross, so long as it does not lose the fiiriii of a 
 cross. (2) A cross not in the proper coiiiikirt- 
 incnt of the ballot paper, but still to the right 
 of the candidate's name. (3) A cross with a 
 line before it. (4) A cross lightly placeil with 
 two additional ciossos, one across the other can- 
 didate's name, and the other to the left. (5) A 
 cross in tiie right place on the back of the bal- 
 lot |)ajKr. (0) A double cross or two crosses. 
 
 (7) Inadvertent marks in addition to the cross. 
 
 (8) Cross made with pen and ink instead of a 
 pencil. Motuk Election {J)om.)- -Grant v. Mc- 
 Cnlluin, II. K. C. 725. -Blake. 
 
 In ballot paiiers containing the names of four 
 Candida AS tlie following ballots were held valid: 
 (1) Ballots containing two cro.«ses, one on the 
 line above the lirst name, and one on the line 
 above the second name valid for the two first- 
 named candidates. (2) Ballots containing twn 
 crosses, one on the line above the first iiaiiie, 
 and one on the line dividing the second ami 
 third compartments valid for the tirst-uamed 
 candidate. (3) Ballots contiiiniiig piojierly 
 made crosses in two of the conipartnienis of the 
 ballot paper with a slight lead pencil stroke in 
 another coni[)artniciit. (4) Ballots marked in 
 the proper coinpartments thus X . Qnem'.t Ci.nutij 
 Election (Dom.)— Jenkins v. lirecken, 7 J^. ('• R' 
 247. 
 
 Certain ballot papers were objected to as hav- 
 ing been imperfectly niaiked with a cmss, or 
 having more than one cross, or having an inver- 
 
1440 
 
 les ; (it) bal- 
 ate. North 
 eroii V. Mac- 
 . |{. I). 
 
 crogH to the 
 1 bo rejt'cleil, 
 not bduiul to 
 55 of tlie Do- 
 
 the mode of 
 bo fatal : (1) 
 f a cross ; (2) 
 If a moans of 
 iiis initials or 
 used by liim ; 
 I, (tr not to the 
 le strokes not 
 ti.)— dm lit V. 
 
 Id invalid : (I) 
 , pliiee oi\ the 
 >{ on the print- 
 li an X instcail 
 ciion (Uoiii.) — 
 
 bold valiil: (I) 
 t just after the 
 lie odlnnin, anil 
 land side of the 
 [>rnied cross, nr 
 10 cross, or with 
 of tbc limbs of 
 like the blades 
 'action [•l)(P'iin-) 
 . V. G71. -Wil- 
 
 heltl not to be 
 the tigiire of a 
 Hi tlio form of a 
 proper comiKirt- 
 till to the right 
 A cross with a 
 btly placed with 
 SK tbo other can- 
 tbc left. (5) A 
 back of the bal- 
 or two crosses, 
 tion to the cross. 
 ink instead of a 
 draiil V. He- 
 
 be names of four 
 iwere held valid: 
 )ssos, one on the 
 (1 (inc on the Hue 
 idi the two first- 
 s containing tw> 
 tbo tirst name, 
 tbc second and 
 tbo tirsl named 
 tiiinii.g ])roperly 
 iipartnieiiis of the 
 I pencil xlioke m 
 ;;\ll()t» niarkid ni 
 , . (^iirril's C:illil!l 
 
 rccb-n, 7 S. ('. R- 
 
 ,l)joctedtoashav- 
 
 witb a cross, or 
 
 ir liaving an inver- 
 
 1441 
 
 PABLIAMENTART ELEOTIONS. 
 
 1441 
 
 ted V, or becftUBc the cross was imt directly op- 1 
 iKJsite the name of the candidate, tiieru being 
 oidy two names on the l)allot paper and a line 
 drawn dividing the paper in the middle -. — Held, 
 alHrming the rnling of the judge iit the trial, 
 tliat these ballotii wero valid. Per Ititchie, 
 (".J., I'cmrnier, Hc'nry, and (iwyniie, .1.1., con- 
 cmring. —Whenever tbo mark evick'iices an at- 
 tempt or intention to mak(! a cross, tbongh 
 the cro.ss nniy bo in sonu! respects imperfect, 
 the ballot should bo coiinteil, unless from tlie 
 peculiarity of the mark made it can be reason- 
 ably inferred that there was not an honest do- 
 sign simply to make a cnjss, but that tliero was 
 also an intention so to mark the piper tiiat it 
 could bo identilied, in which case the ballot 
 should be rejected. Hut if the mark made indi- 
 cates no design of complying with the law, but 
 on the contrary a clear intent not to mark with 
 a cross as the law ilirects, as, fur instance, by 
 making a straight lino or round (>, then siicli 
 li(mcomi)liauce with the lawieudt.., tlii^ ballot 
 null, liolhirvtl K/((/iiiii (Ihiui.) /Iiiirl.lns v. 
 Smith, 8 S. C. H. «7(i. 
 
 On this ap)>cal, certain ballot jiapers being 
 ohjected to : — Held, that it will reipiire a clear 
 case to reverse the decision of the trial judge 
 who has found as a ipiestion of fact Mhether 
 there was or was not (evidence that tbo slight 
 pi'iicil marks or dots objected to had been m.ulo 
 ilesignedly by tlie voter. Also, thai where the 
 ■ is not unmistakably above m- briow the line 
 separating the niniies of tlu^ candidates, the 
 liallot is 1 ad. l/d/dhniniil Kln-lUni Ca-ic {Dum.'t 
 -Walsh V. Atuntayiie, l.") S. C. 11. 4\K> ; I K c! 1 
 529. 
 
 (b) Marks hij DepxUy llnluniiiii/ <i[liirr.i. 
 
 On a recount before the County Cimrt judge, 
 .1., the appellant, who had a minority of votes 
 according to the return of the retiiiiiiiig otiicer, 
 was declared elected, all the ballot.s cast, at three 
 liolling districts, in wiiich the appellant had 
 polled only i;{l votes, and the rt-.-spoudeut, B., 
 ;145, having been struck out on the ground that 
 the deputy returning ollicer bad neglected to 
 place his initials upon the back of the ballot. 
 On appeal to the Supreme Court of I'. I''. Ishmd, 
 it was proved that the deputy returning ollicer 
 had placed bis initials on the coiiutirfoil before 
 giving the ballot paper to the voter, anil after- 
 wards, lucvions to his initling the ballot in the 
 liallot bo.x, bad detached and de^tioyi d the coun- 
 teifoil, and that the ballots u.sed were the same 
 as those ho bad supplied to the voters, and Mr. 
 •lustice I'otors held that the ballots of the said 
 three polls ought to bo counted, and did count 
 them. Thereupon J. appealed to tli.- .Su|iienio 
 Court of (Canada, and it was : lUhl. atlirming 
 the judgment ot Mr. .Iii.slice Peters, that in the 
 lireseut ease the deputy ritiiiiiiiig ollicei liaving 
 had the means of idoutil'yiiig the liallot papers as 
 htiiig those supplied by bim to the voters, and 
 the neglect of the dc|iuty returning oliicera to 
 put their initials on the back of llieso ballot 
 papers, not having atlected the result of the 
 tlection, or caused substantial injustice, did not 
 iivnlidato tbo election. 'I'he decision in the 
 Monck Klection Case II. K. C. 7-"), commonted 
 jn and approved of. Qiicoi'i Count i/ Election 
 [Dom.]— Jenkins v. Btccken, 7 8. G. 1{, 247. 
 91 
 
 III a polling division, \o. 3 Dawn, there was no 
 statement of voti's either signeil or nnsigneil in 
 tbo ballot bo.x, and the deputy retuining olticor 
 bad endorsed on each ballot paper the nniuber 
 of the Voter on the votirs" list. 'I'liesc vntisi 
 wore not inclndod eitherin the count licl'oie the 
 returning ollicer, the re sinnming up of the votes 
 by the judge of the ('ounty Coiiit, nor in the 
 recount before the judge who tried the election 
 petition : — Ifeld, aHirming the decision of the 
 court below, that the ballots wero properly 
 rejected, liothwdl Klrrtiun ( Doni. )—IIaifkitut 
 V. ,S';/(iV/t, 8 S. C. l\. U7(i. 
 
 Division No. I, Sonibra — During the progress 
 of the voting, at the reijuest of one of the agents, 
 who thought the ballot papers wero not being 
 properly marked, the deputy returning ollicer, 
 who bad been putting his initials and the num- 
 bers on tbc counterfoil, not on the ballot papers, 
 initialled and numbered aliout twelve of llio 
 ballot jiiipirs, but lindiiig he was wrong, at the 
 close of the poll, he, in good faith ami with an 
 anxious desire to do bis duty, and in such a way 
 as not to allow any [(ei.soii to see the front of the 
 ballot pa[ier, and with the assent of the agi nts 
 of lioth |),irties, took these ballots out of the bo.\ 
 and obiiterateil the marks be bad jiut upon 
 them: — Held, (jwynno and Henry, .l.f., dis- 
 senting, that the irregularities complained of 
 not having infringed upon the .secrecy of the 
 ballot, and the ballots being uinpiostionably 
 those given by the deputy returning ollicer to 
 the voters, these baUots should be hold good, 
 and that said irregularities came within the 
 saving provisions of section SO of the Dominion 
 Elections' Act, 1874. (,)ueen"s County Klection 
 (Dom,) Jenkins v. Hrecken, 7 S. (.'. H. '-'47, fol- 
 lowed. Per Henry, .1., that although the bal- 
 lots should be considereil bad, the present ap- 
 pellant having acted u])im the return and taken 
 his seat, was nut in a position to claim that the 
 elect ion was void. lb. 
 
 Tbo petitioner had received a majority of the 
 ballots cast at the electicin ; but on a recount 
 before the county judge, certain ballots, with 
 other marks on the b.ick than the initials of the 
 dejuity returning ollicers, wero rejected by the 
 county judge, thereby giving a majority to the 
 rcsjiimdent. Kvideiice was given on the hearing 
 of the petition that the ileputy returning ollicers 
 had, from a mistaken idea of their duty, placed 
 the numbers of the voters, as marked in the 
 voters" list, on the backs of the ballots : Held, 
 that under 4'2 A'ict. c. 4, s. IS (Out.), the marks 
 .so made did not avoid the ballots, and that such 
 ballots should now be counted : — Scmble, that 
 tbo county judge, acting ministerially on the 
 recount of ballots, couhl not Inive investigated 
 by wlioin or for what motive such marks had 
 been made on tbo ballots. linsxeJI Election (•!) 
 (Out.)— Baker \. Mttfjan, H. E. C. 519.— Moss. 
 —Blake. 
 
 Certain deputy returning oiricers, before giv- 
 ing out ballot papers to the voters at the elec- 
 tion ill question, placed numbers on the ballots 
 corresponding with the numbers attached to th< 
 names of such voters on the voters' lists ;- 
 Held, (I) Th.at the deputy returning ollicers had 
 acted contrary to law in numbering the ballots, 
 and that the ballots so numbered should be 
 rejected as tending to tlie iilentilication of the 
 voters, (2) That such conduct of the deputy 
 
^Vf*.' 
 
 1443 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1444 
 
 s 
 
 'TO 
 
 
 letuniinjjnllii'iTN Imviiix Imil the ollert cif uliiini,'- 
 iii^ till; roiilt (if (lie t'li'ctioii, II iR'W ('k'c'tioii 
 sliDiilil 1)0 (inUrt.'il. /'Jii^l //mHii'in Klii'lion 
 {/torn.) A ijt,si,;,rth v. Whilv, \\. V,. C. 704. - 
 .\i'iiiiitir. 
 
 'I'lii' nt'fjli'ct or iri'i'^ularitiu!) <if ji ilt'|mt,v ru- 
 tiii'iiiii^' iillli'i'i' ill liJH iliitii'H iiinlur tilt) l>i)iiiiiii<iii 
 ICIiM'tions' Am, IS74, will not iiiviiliil.itc an I'lco- 
 lion, iinli'HH tlicy liave iidci.'tuil tlii^ iiMult of the 
 <li;ctii)ii or iiiiiHi'c! kohu; xiiliMtiiiitial iiijuHlicio: — 
 Held, tlii'ii'fcire, that the ncgloL't of a ilt'piity 
 K-'tiiniiiig iilliccr til initial tliu liallot paporM, anil 
 tho pi'iiviiliii;;' yii'n anil ink iiitituail of a itt-ncil to 
 mark tjivni, wuuM not avoiil thu election, 
 Miiiick l.licthm (l)iim.) — (/rant v. MrCnlhim, 
 II. !•;. ('. 71.V). I'.lake. 
 
 See SuiildinitK Election (l)oni.) — Vliiihflc v. 
 /{iiiii. IKS. V. H. «iV2, p. 14!U; I're.xrnlt Klidlou 
 {"lit,)— Ciinnitujham v. Jlai/iir, I K. C. 88, p. 
 1444. 
 
 Seu uIho next iSuliliuad. 
 
 (c) lUileviUe. Voters. 
 
 I'.., a voter who could neither road nor 
 oanu! into a polling booth, and in the 
 
 One 
 write, 
 
 pii'sence of the deiiuty returning ollicer aHked 
 for one (.'. who was not prcHont to give him in- 
 structions how to mark his ballot. The deputy 
 returning ollicer gave the voter a ballot paper, 
 who then stated he wished to vote for the re- 
 spondent. One W., an agent of the respon- 
 dent, in tlie polling booth, took the ]iencil and 
 marked the ballot as the voter wished, and the 
 voter then hamleil it to the deputy returning 
 oliicer. No declaration of inability to read or 
 write was made by tiie voter ; — Held, that no 
 one but the dejmty returning oiliccr was author- 
 ized to mark a voter's ballot, or to interfere with 
 or (|Heitiim a voter as to his vote ; and the 
 deputy returning ofiicer permitting the agent of 
 a candidate to become acijuainted witli the 
 name of the candidate for whom the voter de- 
 sired to vote, violatcil the duty imposed on him 
 to conceal from all persons the mode of voting, 
 and to niiiintain the secrecy of the proceedings. 
 Hdlloii KIcclhii {Oiil.) — /iiis>ie/t v. Jiarber, H. 
 E. C. '28:i— Draper. 
 
 The deputy returning ofiicer in polling the 
 votes of Humu li'^v illiterate voters, instead of 
 taking from each illiterate voter a declaration 
 " that he was unable to read," asked each if he 
 was able to rcid or write, and having received 
 /an answer in the m^gative, roquested him to put 
 his mark to the declaration of illiteracy explain- 
 ing what he conceived to be its effect thus "you 
 hereby sign that you are unable to read or write 
 KuHiciently to mark >our ballot paper." He 
 then openly marked the ballot paper as instruct- 
 vd by the votci' in the ]iresence of both candi- 
 dates, their agents and the poll clerk, all of 
 whom had taken the usual declaration of secrecy. 
 ( hie witness also said the constable was in the 
 room : — Held, (at the trial before Patterson and 
 Kerguson, .f.J., and by the Court of Appeal) that 
 substantially there was no violation of the prin- 
 ciple of secret voting laid down in the Act R. 
 S. O. (IS77), e. 10, and that the votes were not 
 iiniiroperiy taken. Per Osier, J. A. — There is 
 aiotliing in the Act which makes it necessary 
 that the deputy returning officer should with 
 
 draw with the agontii of the eundidatuH ami the 
 . voter to atiotlier room, or which forbids thu iKtll 
 clerk or other perHoiis lawfully present in the 
 ; polling booth from remaining there while thu 
 j voter annimnceH for whom he wishes to vote. 
 [ I'er Spragge, (,'. ,]. O. -The illiterate vottim 
 I Were not miHleil, but the conduct of the deputy 
 returning ollicer was perverse. The nianifcHt 
 policy of the Act is that the voting shall he in 
 I all eases as secret as under the circuniHtuiieuH it 
 I can be. It was not neci^ssary that mure tliaii 
 the three persons named in the Act besiiles the 
 I voter himself hIiouIiI be present : the ilupiity 
 returning otiieer and one representative of uuefi 
 , candidate. The presence of any otlieis was not 
 ' in neuordunce with the spirit and policy of t|,c 
 i Act and should not have been permitted by the 
 deputy returning odicer. Per ISnrtoii, .1. A.— 
 \ Beyond the slight mistake made by the deputy 
 I returning odicer in explaining the declaration, 
 I there appears nothing in the course pursiieij 
 which was not warranted by the Act, there wag 
 no one present except the deputy returning offi- 
 cer, the candidates and their ai^cnts and the 
 poll clerk, all of whom had taken the oath nf 
 secrecy except the constable, who was in an- 
 other part of the mom. /'rri'iitt Kkclion (OiU.) 
 — Cuiiniiiijhnm v. llaijar, 1 K. C. 88. 
 
 4. lialloi Paper ItKulverti-ntly Torn. 
 
 A voter who had inadvertently torn his ballot 
 and whose ballot was rejected on the counting 
 of votes, was allowed his vote, the evidence 
 proving tliat no trick w.is intended for the 
 purpose of shewing how he inteiidcil to vote. 
 South Wt' III worth h'Irrlioii (Out.) - Oliimleail v. 
 Carixnler, H. K. <!. r)3l. —Moss -(Salt. Sccalsn 
 Mdiiik hicclion (Dom.) — Uriint v. McCatlum, H. 
 K. C. 1-25. 
 
 5. Reftual to take Oath. 
 
 Freehohlers who aiipeared on the voters' lista, 
 owing to a printer's mistake, as farmers' sons, 
 being challenged at the poll refused to take the 
 farmers' aims' oath : — Held, that their refusal t<> 
 take such oath was not a refusal to take the 
 oath retpiired by law. A refusal to swear is 
 where a voter refuses to take the oath appropri- 
 ate to his jiroper description. I'rtucoll Election 
 (Dom.)—naijar v. Houlhiei; H. K. C. 780.^ 
 Armour. 
 
 0. liefimnij Ballot Paper. 
 
 An elector duly qualilicd, who has been re- 
 fused a ballot paper by the deputy returning 
 officer, cannot be deiirived of his vote; other- 
 wise it would follow that because the deputy 
 returning officer had wrongfully refused to give 
 such elector a bailot paper, his vote would not 
 be good in fact or in law. North Victoria Elec- 
 tion (2) (Dom.)— Cameron v. Aladennan, H. K. 
 C. 67 1.— Wilson. 
 
 7. Tendered Ballots. 
 
 HeeEa.it Durham Election {Ont.)—CollinK y. 
 Campbell, 1 E. C. 489, p. 14'28 ; SeeorU'x rote, 
 Lincoln Election (2) {Out.)— Pawling v. Rykert, 
 H. E. C. 500, p. 1445. 
 
PARLIAMENTART ELEOTIONS. 
 
 1446 
 
 8. Seereey in Votiwj, 
 
 Wliere a votur ofTuruil ti) vutu nt a pull, hut 
 dill not usk for or put in n tcnduruil liallnt pa- 
 por; —Hull), that Iho llallot Act nMjuiroil the 
 vote t<) ho uivun Mourotly, and that thu iiaml ilu- 
 cUralioii of tho voter as t<i liis vote uoulil not ho 
 receive! ill onliT to aihl it to thu pull, Sicortl'ii 
 volf. hiiirolH JiHerHoii (2) (0«^) rawVui'i v, Ity- 
 kerl, ir, K, (;. r»0(). — ratttTHou, 
 
 Suurooy of thit liallot in an al)Miilutu rulo of 
 
 Snhliu policy, nml it cannot ho waivcil. .Sue H. 
 . ('. c, 0, H. 71. llnliUmitiid Khctinn (l)itm.)— 
 W(il.th V. Moiilii'iui:, I K. (', 52!t, 
 
 Si'inhlc, per Wilson, .J,, That thonirh tho 
 only nio.ie of voting is l»y ballot, if it liucainc 
 necessary to ileciilu tho uloetion hy ileterniinin),' 
 the ri^lit toadil those voles, it shonlil ho ileter- 
 mineil in th it nianiiur most consistent witli tlie 
 old law, and which would havu saved the dis- 
 f ranch JHoment of doctors, and tho necessity of a 
 new election. If the right of voting can only l>u 
 preserve 1 hy divulging from nucuBsity for whom 
 the elo'.'tor intonded to vote, tho ncuessity justi- 
 fies the declaration tho elector is forced to make 
 as there is nothing in tiie Act whicli prevents 
 tho elector from saying for wiiom ho intends to 
 vote. North Victoria Ktirtion (2) (Dom.) — 
 Cami-ron v. Maclonnmi, fl, E. C, 671. 
 
 See also Subhead IV. .S, p. 1439. 
 
 V, UkC OIINT AND SCKOTINV. 
 
 On a scrutiny the practice is for the person in 
 ft miiioi-ity to first place himself in a majority, 
 and then for tho person thus placed in a minority 
 to strike o(T his opponent's votes. StDrmoiit 
 EleHioH {OiU.) — IMhiinr. v, Col(]nli(>uii, H. K. 
 C. 2 1. -Richards. 
 
 On a scrutiny an objection that 'the persons 
 objected to wore not owners, tenants, or occu- 
 pants within section .I of 32 Vict, c. 21, excluded 
 an olijection as to the value of thu as^essoil 
 proiK'rty. Aforrow'svotc, South Orciirillf Ki'C- 
 till! [Out.)— Ellin V, FruH'ir, H. K. C!. 103.-- 
 Miiw.it. 
 
 Where a petition claims the seat a scrutiny of 
 votes may be ordered to ho taken in each muni- 
 cipality by tho registrar acting for tho judge on 
 the rota. During tho scrutiny of votes the re- 
 !i|)i)iident .aban loned the seat to his opponent, 
 alter liis o[)ponent had secured a majority of 
 eight votes, and agreed that such should stand 
 •as \m o|)ponoiit's majority, and that the court 
 should declare such opponent duly elected ; and 
 the s unc w is ordered by tlie court. Wi'nt Elgin 
 Eti'cliou {()nt.) — Gascadeii v. Munroi', H. E. C. 
 227. — Spragge. 
 
 A petitioner claiming the seat on a scrutiny 
 may shew, as to votes polled for his opponent : 
 (1) that tho voter was not twenty-one years of 
 age ; (2) that he was not a subject of Her 
 Maje4y by birth or naturalization ; (3) that he 
 was otherwise by law prevented from voting; 
 and (4) that he was not actually and bonil fide 
 the owner, tenant, or occupant of the real pro- 
 perty in respect o( which he is assessed. North 
 Victoria Election ( Dom. ) — Cameron v. Madennan, 
 H, E. C. 584. — Richards— Spragge—Hagarty. 
 
 I Quivre, whether tho county judge can object 
 
 ' to the validity of a Iwillot )iaper when no objeo- 
 
 , tioii has been miiile to the Niitne by the candidate 
 
 ] or his agent, or an elector, in aceordance with 
 
 I the provisions of 37 Vict. c. 10 s. Ml, at the time 
 
 of till.' counting of the votes by the deputy 
 
 returning-otlicer. (Jm i n's ( 'oiiiiti/ Elietiim ( horn. ) 
 
 — Jeiikiifi V. Ihurki It, ' ,S, ('. K, 247. 
 
 I'er .Strong, ■!, 'I'liiit reiding Hoction 41 in 
 conjunction with Nci'tion 4.') sub-section 2, and 
 the oath T in si'hediile .\ of l{. ,S, (;. )'ha|)tcr H in 
 an enijuiry on a scrutiny as to the i|ualilication of 
 a farmer's son at the tiini' of voting is admissible, 
 and if it is shown that a larger numlier of nn- 
 i|ualilied fariiier.s' sons' votes than tho majority 
 were admitted llie election will \w void, ('rasch- 
 ere.iii, J,, iMintra. ) JfulilinKniil Eliction\l)om.) 
 W'dtihw Moiiiiniii,, I K. (', i")2',>, 
 
 SiM' /i'liHsctl Eliriiui, (2) (Out A- Hiikir v. Mor- 
 tjtii, II, K. ('. .".HI, p. 1412; llut/iwill Election 
 (/)om.) -Hawkint v. Snuth, « S, C, 1{, «76, p. 
 1441. 
 
 VI. AllKNCY. 
 
 I. (Icntrally. 
 
 To sustain the relation of agency, the peti- 
 tioner must shew some recognition by tho can- 
 didate of a vcduntary agent's services. The 
 Westminster case, (I U'M. k II. HO) us to agency 
 followed, Witland Election (UHl.) — Beally v. 
 ('iirrif, H, E, (', 47, — Strong, 
 
 Observations on tho reasons why candidates 
 should be held liable for acts done by their 
 agents. The Taunton ease (I O'M. & II. 184), 
 approved. Went Toronto Election (Ont.) — Arm- 
 xtronj V. Crookn, H. E. C. 97.— Richards. 
 
 Agency in election matters is a result of law 
 to bo drawn from the facts of tho case, and the 
 acts of the individuals. East I 'rterborou(jh Elec- 
 tion {,Oiil.)—Stratton v. O'Sulliran, H. E. C. 
 245. — Draper. 
 
 Act of agency and tho decisions bearing there- 
 on discussed. North Ontario Election (Ont.), 
 MrC'askitl V. Paxlon, H. E. C. 304. -C. of A. 
 
 The law of election agency is not capable of 
 precise definition, but is a shifting elastic law, 
 capable of being moulded from time to time to 
 meet thu inventions of those who in election 
 matters seek to get rid of the consequences of 
 their acts. North Ontario Election (Doin.) Qibhs 
 V, Whtler, H, E, C, 785.— Armour. 
 
 Per Gwynne, J. That if an act, made a cor- 
 rupt practice by statute, is done by an agent of 
 a candidate, but not in pursuit of the object of 
 the agency or the interest of the candidate, or in 
 any way in relation to the election, but solely 
 for tho purpose, interest, or gratification of the 
 agent, such act, not being done by such agent 
 qua agent, is not within the penalties of 36 Vict, 
 c. 2, s, 3, Lincoln Election {Ont.) — Rykert v. 
 Nedon, H. E. 0. 391. 
 
 Allegation, that the government of the Pro- 
 vince of Ontario, in tho interest and on behalf of 
 the respondent, used undue influence to secure 
 his return. Objection, that no agency was 
 alleged, and becausu no such agency, if alleged, 
 could in law exist :— Held, that this objection 
 should be left to be disposed of by the judge at 
 
^ 
 
 ^^. 
 
 ^.^5. ^ 
 
 .0^. \^^^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 A 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
 A 
 
 A^ .. % 
 
 i. <L«' lit? 
 
 ^J 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 L25 ill u 11.6 
 
 71 
 
 ^V 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 >v 
 
 c?;i 
 
 /^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) •72-4503 
 
 '9>'- 
 

 '^y 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 ^ 
 
1447 
 
 PABLIAMENTABY ELECTIONS. 
 
 144S 
 
 the trial ; and : — Seiuble, that evidence of agency 
 could be given under the allegation. In re Wc^t 
 Huron ElcLtion (J)om.) — Mitchell v. Cataeron, 1 
 0. R. 433.- Cameron. 
 
 The parliamentary law of agency is a especial 
 law, and is difierent from the ordinary law of 
 agency. In parliamentary elections the princi- 
 pal is liable for all acts of his agent, even where 
 such acts are done contrary to the express in- 
 8truction.s df .such principal. Cormmll EloHion 
 (Dom.)—B(r<jin v. Mdcdomhl, H. E. C. 547. — 
 Spragge. 
 
 No formal appointment or any particular 
 words are necessary to constitute agency, and 
 less positive evidence of appointment m- recog- 
 iiition and adoption of a delegate to a party con- 
 vention as an agent is required than in tiie case 
 of one not a delegate. West liimcoc E/iclivn 
 {Ont.)—n,(lford V. /'/(e//,«, 1 E. C. 128.— Pat- 
 terson — Ferguson. — C. of A. 
 
 2. Poirrrs of Agent. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A. — It is only for those acts 
 of the agent which are doue by him whilst act- 
 ing or professing to act witliin the scope of iiis 
 duties, that the candidate is responsible. It is 
 contrary to all principle to hold any person 
 afi'ected by the act of an agent, unless it was 
 slicwn that the act was done in the course of 
 the employment, and within the scope of the 
 authority, although it may be in abuse of it. 
 Went Himeoe Eleeliov \Ont.) — Bedford v. Phtl^jn, 
 1 E. C. 128.— Patterson— Ferguson.— C. of A. 
 
 Agency in election cases difl'ers from agency 
 in ordinary commercial or other transactions of 
 business, inasmuch as in the case of an election 
 the agent, constituted by whatever acts are 
 sufficient for the purpose, may bind his princi- 
 pal by acts which are not only outside the scope 
 of any autho!ity expressly given to him, but 
 which may be directly contrary to tlie express 
 directions of the j)er.son w hose agent lie is held 
 to be. JUunkoka and Parry Sound Election (Out.), 
 — I'agel v. FaiK/iiitr, 1 E. t'. 197.— Patterson — 
 Ferguson- C. of A, 
 
 Held, that an ageut who is not a general 
 agent, but an agent witl\ powers expressly lim- 
 ited, cannot bind the candidate \)y anything 
 done beyond the scope of his authority. Ber- 
 thier Election (Dom.) — Gcnereux v. Culhbert, 9 
 S. C. R. 102. 
 
 Effect of acts done by sci-utineer who was 
 also an agent. See Sonth Ontario Election (Out.) \ 
 —Farvell v. Brown, H. E. C. 420, p. 1487 ; 
 Haldimaml Election (Dom.) — ]Val.^h v. Mon- 
 tayup, 15 S. C. R. 495, p. 1492. 
 
 See North Ontario Election (Ont.) — Trealeaven 
 V. Gould, IE. C. I, p. 1471. 
 
 3. What Connlituteg. 
 
 (a) Members of Political Associatioiu. 
 
 The delegates to a political convention assem- 
 bled for the purpose of selecting a candidate, 
 who never had intercourse with the candidate ( 
 selected, and who never canvassed in his behalf, 
 cannot be considered ae agents for such candi- 
 
 date. Wetland Election (Ont.) — Btichner v 
 Carrie, H. E. C. 187.— Gwynne. 
 
 Where a political organization, after nomi- 
 nating their candidate, divided into committees 
 1 " to look after voters in the particular wards in 
 I which they resided : " and the respondent had 
 not given authority to any meml)er of sucii 
 committees, nor to any canvasser, to cuiivass 
 generally: — Held, that one K., wlio was a 
 member of the committee for ward No. •_', uiid 
 who w;is alleged to have committed an act ot 
 briberj in ward No. 0, having no authoiily to 
 canvass in the latter ward, was an agent with 
 limited authority to canvass in ward Nij. 2 
 i only, and therefore the respondent could not 
 ■ be made liable for his alleged acts. London 
 Election (Ont.)—Jarman v. Meredith, H. E. C. 
 1214. — Spragge. 
 
 One M. was a member of a townshi]) commit- 
 tee, organized by direction of tlie odnvention 
 wliicli nominated the respondent, anil tlie work 
 of the election was put into tiie iiaiuls of tlitsfc 
 township committees. M. canvassed his sciiool 
 ' section, and had a voters" list, which was taken 
 from l'"ii by the committee on tiie ullegation 
 that he was not doing much. Tlie rcspoiuleut 
 never asked M. to work for him, Init M. asked 
 the respondent what success he had. Tlio re- 
 spondent had 110 one acting for liiiii except these 
 committees and some volunteers, and lie never 
 olijcctcd to the aid they were giving liini, nor 
 did he repudiate their s"rviceN : — Held, on the 
 evidence, that the respondent wa.s responsible 
 j for tlie committees, and that M., as a member 
 I of one of such eonimittecs, was an agent of the 
 ' respondent. North Ontario E/ictioii iOtit.)-- 
 : MeCud-ill V. Paxton, H. E. C. 304.— Wilson,- 
 : V. of A. 
 
 The fact of a political association putting for- 
 ward and supporting a particular candidate does 
 not make every nKiiiber of the ass-dciation his 
 agent; lint the candidate may so avail himself 
 of their services in canvassing for liiin and [iio- 
 nioting his election, as to make tliciii bis agents. 
 North tiny Eh el ion (Ont.)- Boardmun v. SeM, 
 H. E. C. .%2.-(;\vynne.-C. of A. 
 
 By the constitution of a reform association, 
 eacli delegate to tiie convention was actively to 
 promote the election of the candidate aiipointed 
 by the convention. The respondent bad himself 
 been for six years a member of the association, 
 and was familiar witli its objects and constitu- 
 tion. He had also a.s a ildcgati' aetid and can- 
 vassed for other candidates in the iiiomotion of 
 their elections, and expected the like assistance 
 from the jiresent iiimibcis of the assneiation, 
 and to the perfection of that systi'iii as an elec- 
 tioneering agency, the respondent owid his elec- 
 tion :— Held, that the delegates to the associa- 
 tion, acting as such in promoting the i lection of 
 the resjioiulent, were his agents, for whose acts 
 he was responsible ; and that an act of bribery 
 committed by one R., a delegate, and wiio can- 
 vassed and otherwise acted lor t lie ios|iondcnt, 
 avoided the election. Ea.'^t NorlhioiihirlamI 
 Election (Ont.) — Casey v. Ferris, H. E. C. 387.- 
 Gwynne. 
 
 The respondent was nominated l-y a conserva- 
 tive association, and he accepted the nomination. 
 The delegates to the association were to do all 
 they could to secure his election. A committee 
 
li4S 
 
 — Buchner v. 
 
 n, after nomi- 
 iito committees 
 ioular wards in 
 respondent had 
 eml)er of such 
 aer, to canvass 
 wlio was a 
 vanl Xo. •_', and 
 liltod an act ol 
 no autiiority to 
 
 an agent with 
 111 ward No. 2 
 dent couUl nut 
 
 acts. Lundun 
 rtdilh, H. E. C. 
 
 iwnshii) commit- 
 
 the convention 
 
 it, and tile woriv 
 
 liaiids of these 
 
 .•assed liis school 
 
 whicli was talien 
 
 I tile allegation 
 
 The respondent 
 
 ni, Imt M. asked 
 
 i: had. The re- 
 
 liini except these 
 
 s, and he never 
 
 giving him, nor 
 
 : — Held, on the 
 
 was rcspoiisihle 
 
 M., as a member 
 
 s an agent of the 
 
 EliCtioii [Ont.]- 
 
 . 304.— Wilson.— 
 
 iatidu putting for- 
 lar candidate dots 
 he association his 
 y so avail himself 
 ; for him and pro- 
 c them his agents. 
 ioardmnn v, Srolt, 
 r.f A. 
 
 cforni associatiou, 
 ion was actively to 
 iiulidatc appointed 
 indent hail himself 
 of Ihc association, 
 cct.-^ and constitu- 
 ;att' actcil an(l can- 
 11 the jiromotion of 
 the like assistance 
 )f the association, 
 system as an elec- 
 (lent owed his elec- 
 tcH to the associa- 
 ting the election of 
 ints, for whose acts 
 . an act of bribery 
 igatc, and who can- 
 tor the respondent, 
 .il Xorlhiinih'rlawl 
 m, H. K. C. 387.- 
 
 latcd l-yaconserva- 
 ited the'nomination. 
 xtion weic to do all 
 tiou, A committee 
 
 1449 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1450 
 
 was appointed in O. to canvass the town^ an<l a i 
 committee-room was engaged and paid for by the 
 association, voters' lists were proenred and used I 
 as canvassing iiooks, and nicnibers were appoint- | 
 edto canvass parts of the town, and reiiorts were 
 made to the committee of the result of the can- 
 vassing. 'I'he respondent, who resided at W., 
 did not attend t'"; meetings, but knew they were 
 canvassing for him, and gave thcni blank appoint- j 
 meats of scrutineers to fill up, which they did, 
 but the respondent did not know who i;oniposed 
 the committee :— Held, per Wilson, J., that the 
 respondent, by authorizing such committee at ■ 
 0. to ajipoint scrutineers, made them his special ' 
 ai'cnts for that particular matter and for that 
 occasion only, and did not adopt them as his 
 I'eneral agents for all the purposes of the election. 
 'kouth Ontario Eltction (Out.) — Farwcllv. Brown, 
 H. K. C. 4-20. 
 
 One T. , a inembei- of .such committee, canvassed '. 
 actively for the respondent and to his knowledge, I 
 and on the nomination day attended a meeting [ 
 of the respondent's friends in W., at which the i 
 respondent was present, and at which arrange- ' 
 nient.s were made about canvassing and getting j 
 out votes, and generally about the election : — 1 
 Held, by the Court of Appeal, Wilson, J., dubi- j 
 tante, that T. was an agent of the respondent ! 
 for the pni'poscs of the election. Ih. \ 
 
 One G., a member of the same committee, had 
 a voters' list, and canvassed for the respondent, ' 
 ami statcil he had no doubt the respondent ex- 
 pected him to vote and work for him : — Held, 
 per \Vils(jn, J., thai (i. was not an agent of the ■ 
 respondent. Ih. 
 
 The committee of the town of W., having lieen ; 
 recognized and attended by the respondent, were 
 hehl to be his agents. lb. 
 
 (b) Mdiibers of Committus. 
 
 About a dozen of the electors met some time 
 before the election anil nominated the respon- 
 dent as tlie candidate who should contest the 
 election in the interest of the political party to 
 which they belonged. The respondent accepted 
 and acted upon the nomination. They met oc- 
 casionally for the purpose of promoting the re- 
 spoudcMl's election, procured voters" lists, can- 
 vassed voters, and got reports on whicli they 
 estinnited their chances of success:— Held, that 
 if they did not style tliem.selves a committee, 
 they had assumed the functions which usually 
 devolve upon such bodies. North Wcntwortli 
 Ekctioii (Ont.)—('lin-fi<f v. Stork, H. K. C. 343. 
 —Draper. — C. of A. 
 
 If a meeting of electors assemble :iud has the 
 sanction of the candidate, such cai .idate is re- 
 apouaible for its acts and the acts A the agents 
 appointed by it. But where the meeting is 
 large, then all present cannot be considered as 
 agents ; only those to whom certiiin duties, either 
 as a committee or as individual canvassers, are 
 assigned. Cornwall Election {IJom.)—Berijin v. 
 Macdonald, H. i'l (.!. 547 — Spragge. 
 
 The respondent nominated no committees to 
 promote his election ; but he was aware that 
 committees were acting for him \u each munici- 
 pality. On one occasion he went to the door of 
 one of the committee rooms, and left some print- 
 
 ed bills to be distributed. One P. who attended 
 the meeting of this committee, and who said he 
 was considered on the committee, committed an 
 act of bribery :— Held, that the committee were 
 agents of the 'cspondent, that F. was a member 
 of the comniittce ; and xi\ act of bribery having 
 been committed by him, the election was avoid- 
 ed. Eaxt Nortliumherlaiul Election IDmn.) — 
 Gibnon V. Bujijar, H. E. C. oil. — Hagarty. 
 
 Certain supporters of the respondent met in a 
 room over a tavern to promote the election of 
 the respondent. Their meetings were presided 
 over by an agent of the respondent, and the re- 
 spondent attended at least one of such meet- 
 ings : — Held, that the persons who attendeil 
 such meetings were agents of the respondent. 
 y^orih Ontario Election (Doni. ) — Uihlin v. WkeUr, 
 H. E. C. 785. -Armour. 
 
 See also Subhead VI. 3 (a), p. 1447 
 
 (c) Other Ai'tf. or Appointment-^. 
 
 When a camlidate puts money into the hand* 
 of his agent, and exercises no supervision over 
 the way in which the agent is spending that 
 money, but accredits and trusts him, and leaves 
 him the power of spending the money, although 
 he may have given directions that none of the 
 money should be improperly spent, there is such 
 ail agency established that the candidate is liable 
 to the fullest extent not only for what that agent 
 may do, but also for what all those whom that 
 agent eniplf)ys may do. Smith Oreij Election 
 {()iit.)—/fnnter v. Louder, H. E. "C. 52.— 
 Mowat. 
 
 Evidence was given to shew that certain par- 
 ties had attended meetings with the respondent 
 and canvassed for him, and had performed other 
 acts of alleged agency, as set out in the evi- 
 dence :— Held, that the acts of alleged agency 
 relied on in the evidence were not sufficient to 
 constitute such parties the agents of the respon- 
 dent. The petition, neverthless, was dismissed 
 without costs. North Vork Election (Ont.) — 
 Uorhnm v. /itiiilthee, H. E. C. 62. -Ualt. 
 
 A voter w ho had a claim of iJ3 from a former 
 election of respondent, when canvassed to vote, 
 said he did not think lie should vote, evidently 
 liutting forth the §3 that was due to him as a 
 grievance. The cleik of an agent of the respon- 
 dent promised to pay it to hiin, and he voted, 
 and the money was paid after the election, and 
 charged by the clerk in the agent's accounts as 
 " paid J. Landy 83," but without the knowledge 
 of such agent. Another agent of the respon- 
 dent (McD. ), who was treasurer of the ward, and 
 was aware of the claim, and had told the voter 
 it would be made right, paid the first agent's 
 account, but did not then take particular notice 
 of the payment, and it was not explained to him. 
 The clerk had been reijuested by his employer, 
 (the agent first mentioned) to canvass a particu- 
 lar voter, but was not employed as a canvasser 
 generally by anyone -.—Held (1), that such clerk 
 was not an agent or sub-agent of the respon- 
 dent ; (2) that the payment of the account by 
 the agent (McU.) was not under the circumstan- 
 ces a ratification by him after the act, so as to 
 affect the election. Weil Toronto Election {Out.) 
 Armstrong v. Croo1;% H. E. C. 97.— Richards. 
 
1451 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1452 
 
 G9 
 
 9a 
 
 ess 
 
 ■•kill 
 
 09 
 
 One C. accompanied the rcapoiulcnt when 
 going to a public meeting, and canviiasod at some 
 houses. On the journey, the resp(in<U'nt cau- 
 tioned {". not to treat noi' do anytliing to coinpro- 
 iiiise him or avoid tiie election. Tiie resiiouilent's 
 election agent ppid for C.'s nuals at the place 
 where tiie meeting was hehl : — Held, that the 
 evidence shewed tliat the rcsi)ondent liad avail- 
 ed himself of C.'s servicen, anti was therefore 
 responi'ihle for his acts. Eaal Prttrliorowjh Eli.c- 
 tion{Ont.)—Slranon v. O'Sulliaiii, H. K. C. 245. 
 
 A witness stated that he iiad asked the people 
 in his neighbourhood to vote for tiie respondent, 
 had attended ameetingoftiierc'spdndcnt's friends 
 and made arrangements for bringing up voters on 
 |iolling day, and had a team out on polling day : 
 — Held, that the evidence of his being an agent 
 of the respondent was not sufKcient. //;. 
 
 O .e ',., who desired nomination as a candidate 
 by u i-eform convei\tion, was not nominated, and 
 thereupon, from hostility to the convention and 
 its nominee, opposed the candidate of tiie con- 
 vention, which therel)y iia<l the efl'ect of sup- 
 porting the respondent. At the close of tlie 
 poll, the respondent publicly thanked S. for Ijcing 
 instrumental in l)ringing about his election. K. 
 owned a shop and tavern, but the license for the 
 latter was in his clerk's name ; and during the 
 polling hours on polling day spirituous liquors 
 were sold and given in the sliop and tavern : — 
 Held, that wiiat was done by S. at the election 
 was in pursuance of a liostilc feeling again.st tlie 
 conventio'i and its candidate, and did not con- 
 stitute him an agent of tiie respondent. Card- 
 well Election (Out.) — (yCallcijhnn v, Fli'.-<hcr, 
 H. E. C. 2(50.— Draper. 
 
 One M., the reeve of a township, exerted him- 
 self strongly in favour of tlie respondent, to 
 whom he was politically oiiposed, and against 
 the other candidate, and rttended meetings 
 where the res])on<lent was, and spoke in his 
 favour. The reason for his supporting the re- 
 spondent and opposing the other (ministerial) 
 candidate, witli wliom he was politically in 
 accord, was, tliat tliu ministry of tlie day had 
 separated the township of whicli he was reeve 
 from the riding. He was annoyed and indig- 
 nant at this separation, and announced his in- 
 tention of using all his iiitluenee a:,'ainst the 
 ministerial candidate. Tiie respondent asked 
 M. to attend a pulilic meeting, wliicli lie did ; 
 and at another meeting which he attended, M. 
 stated (but not in the respondent's hearing) tiiat 
 he WPS acting there on tiie respondent's behalf. 
 M. was once in the respondent's committee-room, 
 and signed and circulated circulars issued by 
 the respondent's friends : — Held, that the (pies- 
 tion of agency being one of intent, the respon- 
 dent, under the circumstances, never conferred 
 upon M. the autliority, nor did Al. accept tlie 
 delegation of an agent for tlie puipo.se of the 
 election. North Ctriy Election (Out.)— Hoard- 
 man V. Scott, H. K. C. 362.— G Wynne -('. of A. 
 
 Mere canvassing of itself does not pro ve agency , 
 but it tends to prove it. A number of acta, no 
 one of which might in itself be conclusive proof 
 of agency, may, when taken together, nniuunt 
 to proof of such agency. Persons who canvassed 
 and went to meetings with the respondent, and 
 attended meetings to promote the election, at 
 which meetings the respondent attended ; and 
 
 persons who canvassed with and introdiued 
 voters to the respondent, called meetings and 
 appointed canvassers, and did other acts to fur- 
 ther the election, and examined the results of the 
 canvass, were held to lie agents of tlio restioii- 
 dent ; and corrupt practices committed l>y theiu 
 and by sub-agents ap)]ointed l)y t hem, avoided 
 the election. Cornirail Elertion (Dom .)~Ber(iin 
 v. Macdonald, H. K. C 547. — ^pragge. 
 
 A year before the election the respondent paid 
 I part of the charges of a lawyer retained Ijy one 
 O. to attend the revision of the assessment rolls. 
 O. at the time of tlie election attended one of 
 the respondent's meetings at which he stated 
 that his own mind was not made up, but lie 
 urged that the respomlent ought to have tlu> 
 support of the voters, he being a local man ; and 
 in three or four instances (). asked voters to vote 
 for the respondent. The respondent and liig 
 friends distrusted ()., and in no way recognized 
 him as acting with them : — Held, that (). was 
 not an agent of the respondent for the purposes 
 of the election, //niton Eleetinii {Dom,)—<'nm.i 
 V. A/cCraneij, H. E. C. 730.— Patterson — C.of A. 
 
 One C. c.invassed for the respondent, and told 
 
 the respondent he was going to support him, and 
 
 the respondent exi.ectcd and understood that he 
 
 would do everything he could for liini legiti- 
 
 I inately. C. did not altend any meetings of the 
 
 respondent's committees, and made no returns 
 
 ! of hi.s canvassing: — Held, on the evidence set 
 
 ' out in the judgment, that ('. was an agent of 
 
 . the respondent for the purjio.sos of the election. 
 
 Coniwall Election (3) ( /Join. j—Mw leiman v. /lir- 
 
 lain, H. K. C. 803. -Armour. 
 
 One P., a tavern-keeper, took the petitioner's 
 ! side at the election and at a meeting called liy 
 ! the petitioner, at which he wa.s appointed chair- 
 ! man. Notices of tliis meeting were sent l)y the 
 . petitioner to P. to distiil)utc, some of wiiieli 1'. 
 put up at his liiiusc and some he .sent to other 
 places. On polling ilaj* P. desired to give a free 
 dinner to some of the petitioner's voters, and 
 asked the petitioner if lie miglit do so. The pe- 
 titioner did not approve of it in case it should 
 iiiterfere with his election, and warned P. that 
 although ho was not his (petitioner's) agent, lie 
 would rather he should not do it. P. notwith- 
 standing this, paid for free dinners to forty of the 
 petitioner's voters: - Held, by the Court of 
 Queen's Bench (affirming Wilson, .1.), that 1'. 
 was not an agent of the petitioner, ^fortll \"ir- 
 toria I'Uicthiii (1) (/)om.) — I'aiwroii v. Maeleu- 
 nan, H. K. C. ()71. 
 
 Semble, if a candidate in good faitii iimler- 
 j takes the duties which his agent might under- 
 take, the acts of a few zealous political friends 
 in canvassing for him, introducing him to elee- 
 tors, attending public meetings and advocating 
 his election, or bringing voters to the poll, 
 would not make such candidate responsible for 
 prohibited acts contrary to his publicly deelared 
 will and wishes, and without his knowledge and 
 consent. South Sorfol/c Election (Doin.)— /)tcow 
 V. Wallace, H. K. C 660. — Draper. 
 
 The respondent in his evidence stated thai he 
 objected to committees; that he knew certain 
 persons were his supporters, and l»lieved they 
 did their best for him, but he did not personally 
 know that they acted for him. Other evidence 
 shewed that these persons took part in the elcc- 
 
1452 
 
 1453 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1454 
 
 aiul iutrodiued 
 nieetinj^B iintl 
 thcr acts to fur- 
 
 the results of the 
 8 of the rcsjiDii. 
 iniitted l.y thtm, 
 )■ thoni, iivci(k'(i 
 (l)oi,i.)~Berinn 
 priiggc. 
 
 respDiident pnid 
 
 rotuinod by (me 
 
 assessment rolls. 
 
 attended one of 
 
 which he stutod 
 
 lade up, but lie 
 
 ght to have the 
 
 •X local man ; and 
 
 It'll voters to Vdte 
 
 pondc'Ot and his 
 
 way recognized 
 
 eld, that (). WHS 
 
 for the purposes 
 
 nil (Dom.)~('rii!<t 
 
 tterson — G. of A. 
 
 [)ondent, and told 
 
 support him, and 
 
 lulerstood that lie 
 
 il for him leyiti- 
 
 y meetings of tiie 
 
 made no returns 
 
 the evidence set 
 
 was an agent of 
 
 ^s (if the election. 
 
 Muileiiiian v, Ikr- 
 
 k the petitioner's 
 meeting called hy 
 s appointed ehair- 
 ; were sent liy the 
 some of which 1', 
 e he sent to other 
 ired to give a free 
 Diior's voters, and 
 it do so. 'I'iio pe- 
 
 ill case it should 
 ul warned ['. that 
 tioiicr's) agent, he 
 ) it. I', notwitii 
 lers to forty of the 
 
 hy the ( 'ourt of 
 Isoii, ,1.), that 1'. 
 oner. jVoW/i I'/c- 
 •ii'TOii V. Mmieii- 
 
 {ood faith iiiider- 
 ;ent might under- 
 s political friends 
 ciiig him to elec- 
 gs and advocating 
 tera to the poll, 
 te responsible for 
 publicly declared 
 lis knowledge and 
 m {/)om.)—l)ecow 
 •aper. 
 
 lice atatcil thai he 
 he knew certain 
 \,m\ Iwlieved they 
 lid not personally 
 . Otlier evidence 
 k part in the elec- 
 
 tion on behalf of the respondent; some spoke 
 for him at one of his meetings ; and one of them 
 stated that he and some of the others canvassed 
 for the respondent, and that he gave the respon- 
 dent to uiiilerstand he was taking part in the 
 election for him: — Hehl, that as it did not ap- 
 iicar that any one of these persons was autlior- 
 ized by the respondent to represent him, and as 
 they did not claim to have any sucli authority 
 from him, but supported tlu! respondent as the 
 candidate of their party, the said pei'sons were 
 not agents of the respondent for the purposes of 
 the election, fh. 
 
 llcmarks on the cvi<lence of agency : Senilde, 
 that if a candidate who had appointed no agents 
 was aware that some of his supporters were sy.s- 
 tematically working for him, and by any act, or 
 forbearance, could be fairl.v ilccmed to recognize 
 and adopt their |)riiceedings, he would make 
 them his agents. //;. 
 
 L. lieiiig a mnnicip.il councillor, and as siidi a 
 member of an association which liad l)roui;btont 
 the respondent as a candidate for elcitioii, bad 
 a personal clisigroement witii tlie respDniliiit. 
 and refused to attend the meeting of tlio nomi- 
 nating committee when the respondent received 
 the nomination, and wlun askeil by tlie respuii- 
 dent to support him refused so to do, saying tliat 
 he now hail an opportunity of getting ivuii with 
 '•im ; Init without tlie knowledge of the respon- 
 ilent he took an interest in thi; election and 
 bribed a voter : — Held, that he was not an agent 
 of the respondent, and that there was evidence 
 tending to shew that he was acting treacher- 
 ously towards him. Liniinx J<J/irlinii {Oiil. )— 
 Mile.tv. Hoe, 1 E. C. 41. -Galt-Osler.-C. of A 
 
 S., who was a political friend and supporter 
 of the resiiondent, treated a meeting of electors 
 with tile knowledge, though not with the direct 
 assent, of the respondent. It w,is proved .it the 
 trial tliit S. w.is a noisy, talkative man, em- 
 ployed as a travelling agent tliroiigli the coun- 
 try; he had a bet or liets on the election ; the 
 respondent saw him at the meeting, and liad 
 some conversation w'tli liim in tlic crowd. Some 
 time during the con. est, and later than liie date 
 of the meeting, he went to resjiondent's otfice to 
 make some suggestions, and asked iiis opinion 
 as to the result, as he said some men wantc'il to 
 bet with him. While there he .saw .sunn' " cam- 
 paign literature " on the table, ,iiid took some 
 of it away witli him, with the assent of tiie 
 respondent. No evidence was given that he 
 eauvassed voters, and the respondent swore that 
 lie never gave him express authority to canv.iss 
 or to do any thing for him, and that he was not 
 a man he would employ as an agent : — Held, at 
 the trial, before Patterson and Ferguson. .T.J., 
 and by the Court of Apjieal, that at the time of 
 the meetings, was nothing more tliaiia volunteer, 
 for whose acts the candidate was not res]»i)iisilile. 
 I'rfwdl ElfCtioH {Oiif.)—Ciiiiiiiiiiihaiii v. //in/ar, 
 I K. C. 88. 
 
 The petition in this case charged that one 
 H.. as agent of the respondent in violation of 
 R. .S. 0. (1877). 0. 10, s. 157, mdd or gave drink 
 at his tavern within the limits of a polling sub- 
 division on polling day, wdiicli by R. S. (). (1877), 
 I'.ll, a. 2, 8ub-s. 6, is made a "corrupt prae 
 ticc." It appeared that H. was present, and 
 had acted as a delegate at the convention of 
 
 representative reformers, whereat the respon- 
 dent was nominated. The latter did not under- 
 take a poraon.al canvass, or appoint any particular 
 ])ersons or associ.ation of persons his agents for 
 the purpo.so of carrying on the contest, but at 
 the said convention lie made a speech intimating 
 that he expected his friends to work for him : - 
 Held, at the trial and by the Court of .Appeal 
 i (l)Urton, .7. A., dissenting), that this constituted 
 an appointment liy him of every one of those 
 I who constituted the convention as his agent for 
 the purpose of the contest, and no proof of acts 
 j done liy the jiersons thus adilressed and recog 
 , iiized ))y the candidate, was necessary to establish 
 I the agency, and as H. undoubtedly did sell the 
 , liipior as alleged, and as this corrupt act was not 
 shewn to l)e of such trifling nature and extent as 
 : to eimie within R. S. O. (1877), c 10, .s. lo!), Uw 
 ' election must be declared void under s. 1;")S. 
 ' Per Patterson, .1. A., and Fergu.son, .T., (at the 
 i trial) the ipiestion of agency is one of fact, and 
 ' must be decided in every case upon the circum- 
 stances immediately in (|uestion. HVs7 Si)ncn'' 
 Hhrr,on {(>)it.)~ ll'ilford V. riie/p>', 1 E. C. 
 : P-'S. — Patterson — Ferguson. — C. of A. 
 
 ; Per Hurton, J. A. — Even if H.'s agency gen - 
 i orally for canvassing and assisting in the elec- 
 ' tions were established in this case, ho did not 
 stand in the relation of agent in respect of the 
 i niMtter complained of. The only evidence was 
 lli'it he sold li(|uor for his own jmrpose under a 
 mistaken idea that he had a right to do so. and 
 re was nothing whatever to shew that it was 
 ,e in connection with his character as agent, 
 r. : in fact the worils spoken by the respondent 
 at the convention to the delegates, did not consti- 
 tute them his agents. lb. 
 
 It appeared that when the candidate accepted 
 the nomination of the convention of the party 
 he intimated to those present, among whom was 
 X.. that he looked for their active exertions in 
 carrying on the contpst : -Held, per Patterson. 
 .1. .v.. and Ferguson, .J., that this anionnted ti) 
 an authorization of those present, including N., 
 to canv.iss and thus to act as jigent, for the aii- 
 tlinrization to canvass covers agency, and even 
 without any sncli express declaration the agency 
 of those persons who were actually attendinir 
 and taking part in the convention was established 
 ill the absence of anything shewing a repudiation 
 or rejection of the offer of services which is ini- 
 ])lied by the very fact of their -ttending and 
 making the nomination. Mus , ami Parrij 
 Hitniul Etcclioii{Oiit.)—PafiH v. Fauquier, 1 E. 
 ('. 197. 
 
 One A. had hired teams and taken voters to 
 the ))olls contrary to R. S. O. (1877) c. 10. a. \M. 
 and it was proved that the canilidate being in 
 tlie village otG., was told that A. was there for 
 the above purposes, and that ho w'ent to see A. 
 in his hotel and discussed the election and the 
 jKobable results, with lists of voters, etc. : — Held 
 ])er Kerguaon, J., that this wassulficient to prove 
 the agency of A. in the matter : — Held, per 
 Patterson, J. A., that this, and other circuni- 
 stances of the ca.se, established such agency. Il>. 
 
 The charge w.aa th.it F. , a licens m1 ho'xd-keeper 
 about four o'clock on the polling day served 
 II. and a voter with drinks in the barroom. 
 I'', was a member of the reform association, and 
 generally took part in elections. Ho attended 
 
I 
 
 ld55 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELEOTICNS. 
 
 1456 
 
 ess 
 
 
 the meeting calleil for the nnininutioii of the 
 respondent, but ho took no active part in it. 
 On tlie election day livj drove electors to the 
 poll, hut it did not appear on which side lie was 
 voting. Tiie president of the reform iLSSociation 
 said ho did not think that V. worked for the 
 respondent, and understood he was a friend of 
 tiie defeated candidate ; and H. said he thougiit 
 he was working for the respondent. Per Boyd, 
 C. — The evidence fail 1(1 to shew that F. was an 
 agent of the respondent. I'or Cameron, J., that 
 it was sufficient to estahlish such agency. On ap- 
 peal. Osier, J. A., concurred with lioyd, C. The 
 other judges did not consider the point. Ea-il 
 Siiiirw Election {Oiif.)—R<id\'. Dnin/, 1 E.G. 291. 
 
 A reform association existed in the constitu- 
 ency ns an organize<l body for bringing forward 
 candidates and doing everything in their power 
 to elect their nominees. 15. was present at 
 meetings of the association, and one witness 
 swore " he took as much part as any of us."' It 
 was not shewn that tlic orgai ation was well 
 defined, or what was ncces' to constitute 
 
 membership. A committee ami sub-committee 
 were appointed for the township in which U. 
 resided, but he was not on them, or any com- 
 mittee for election ])urposes. Committee meet- 
 ings were held at his hotel at which he was 
 ])resent, but it was not sIich n that he did any 
 more at the meetings thnn any owner of a hotel 
 would do at a meeting held in his house. H. 
 swore that, with the exception of one man, he 
 did no canvassing outside his own lionse ; lie did 
 not report to the committee meetings in his 
 house, because he had been doing nothing, but 
 that he gave the respondent the name of one per- 
 son who wished to see him. It was not shewn 
 that he had any authority from the respondent, 
 or any committee, or that the respondent 
 expected his assistance, or gave him any instruc- 
 tions, or recognized any act done by him. At 
 the trial, it was proved tliat H. had been guilty 
 of a corru|)t pr.ietice, without the knowledge or 
 consent of the respondent : — Held, following the 
 North Ontario Case, II. 11. C. at p. H'iS, that B. 
 was not an agent of the respondent. Wclland 
 Eln-tioii {Oi».)~ Jlohwn y. Moriii, I E. C. 383.— 
 Patterson. — Ferguson. 
 
 D. heard of a meeting, went there, and found 
 about half-a-dozen people present going over a 
 voters' list, in which he did not take part. It 
 was not shewn that he had any authority from 
 the respondent, or any committee or association, 
 or any one on his behalf, or that any act he did 
 was recognized. D. was found to have been 
 guilty of corrupt practices without the knowledge 
 or consent of the respondent : — Held, following 
 the North Ontario Case, H. E. C. at p. 317, that 
 he was not an agent. lb. 
 
 T!ie respondent was nominated by a conven- 
 tion of the Conservative party, composed of 
 fifty or seventy-Hve persons, among whom was 
 R. , who was well known as a prominent mem- 
 ber of the party, and was on intimate terms with 
 the respondent, both of them being physicians. 
 R. was one of the persons nominated at the con- 
 vention, but the choice fell on the respondent, 
 who then made a speech of acceptance in which 
 he said he expected his friends to take an interest 
 in the election and to work for him. R. made 
 no systematic canvass, but he asked several 
 people for their votes, was at various informal 
 
 ' meetings of voters held in the interest of tliu 
 ' respondent, and with the rosponileiu visited the 
 houses of .several voters : — Hold, that R, was nn 
 agent of tlie respondent. En.it Norlhitiuherluml 
 Elcf/ioii (Out.) — Richmond \. l\'illou(ihliij \ y 
 C. 4.S4.— Boyd. -Osier. 
 
 F. 1). was at the convention which nomi- 
 nated the respondent, and ho and W. 1). were 
 among the supporters of the respondent in a imr- 
 ticular locality who held meetings at whiclitiie 
 voters' lists wore discussei' and arrani'cmeiit.s 
 i were made for looking u, doubtful voters : — 
 ' Holil, that those men wore both to bo rcanluil 
 as agents of the respondent, /h. 
 
 I A scrutineer appointed for a polling phico at 
 an election under the written authority of a 
 candidate is an agent for whose illegal aots at 
 the polling place the candidate will be answcT- 
 able. Haldimand Election {Dam.) — Wid^h v 
 Monta;/ue, 1 E. C. 5'29.-S. C. C. 
 
 At the election in question there was mi fur- 
 mal organization of the party snjiporting tiie 
 appellant. The county reform association had 
 boon disbanded an<l the minutes, regularly kept 
 since 18S2, destroyed, as were the rough niiimten 
 of every meeting of a convention of tlio party 
 ■ hold since that date. In lieu of local coniinit- 
 tees vice-presidents wore ajipointed for tlie 
 respective townships, and on the n])|)roach nf a 
 , contest the vice-presiilents called a meeting of 
 ; the county a.s.sociatioii, composed of all refoniiers 
 in the riding, to go over the lists and <lo all the 
 necessary work of the election. The evidence 
 of H.'s agency relied on by tlio petitioner was, 
 that ho had always l)een a reformer, had been 
 active for two elections, had attended one im- 
 portant committee meeting and lieen reengiiized 
 by the vice-])rosidcnt of the townsiiip as an aetive 
 I supporter of the appellant, and that he acted .i.s 
 scrutineer at the polls in the election in question. 
 ' The trial judge held that all these elements com- 
 bined, in view of the state of affairs regarding 
 I organization, constituted H. an agent of the ap- 
 I pel Ian t : — Held, Ritchie, C..T., dissenting, and 
 1 Taschereau, J., hesitating, that tlio circunistan- 
 COS proved justified the trial judge in holding 
 the agency of H. established. Haldimand Eli-c- 
 tion {Doni)— Colter v. Ol'mn, 1 E. C. 572. 
 
 See South Ontario EleHion. {Onl.)—Farii-ill \. 
 Broimi, I H. E. ('. 420, p. 1449; Ruitcll Election 
 (Ont.)—0<iilrir v. liakcr, H. E. C. 190, p. 1487; 
 North Ontario Election (Dam.) — (}ihh-< v. Wlmler, 
 H. E. C. 785, p. 1474 ; Ilalton Elediim {Dnm.)- 
 Grons v. McCrancij, H. E. C. 73(), p. 1 474 ; .Vorf// 
 Ontario Election (Ont.)—Treleaven v. doiilil, 1 
 E. C. 1, p. 1471 ; Went Northumberland Eleclim 
 (Dom.)—Hendtr>ion v. Ouillet, 10 S. C. 11. fi3."i, 
 p. 1471. 
 
 4. Sul- Agents. 
 
 On a charge of bribery against one T. , and one 
 A., upon which this appeal was decided, the 
 judge who tried the petition found as a fact that 
 A. had been directed by T. , an admitted agent 
 of the respondent, to employ a number of \\vx- 
 sons to act as policemen at one of the polling 
 places in the parish of Bay St. Paul, on the poll- 
 ing day, and had bribed four voters previously 
 known to be supporters of the appellart, by 
 giving themi $2 each, but :— Held, that A. wm 
 
1457 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1458 
 
 not agent of the lesnondent, and, therefore, liia 
 acts couhl not void the election : — Held, on 
 appeal, that as tliere was no excuse or justifica- 
 tion for employing these voters, their employ- 
 ment was merely colourable, and these voters 
 having changed their votes in consequence of the 
 moneys so paid to tliem, and the sitting mem- 
 ber heing resi)onsible alike for the acts of A. , 
 tlie sub-agent, as for the acta of T., the agent, 
 and they liaving lieen guilty of corrupt practices, 
 tlie election was void. (Taschcreiui andOwynne, 
 J.I., holding that A., the sub-agent alone, had 
 been gnilty of bribery.) f'hurlemix Election 
 {Ihm,}—Cii)ioii V. Perraidl, 5 8. C. R. 133. 
 
 The respondent gave to one H. some canvas- 
 siiif hooks, with directions to ]mt them into 
 i;ood hands to be selected by liini for canvassing. 
 11. gave one of the books to 15., a tavern-keeper, 
 and B. canvasMod for the resi)ondent. 15. was 
 found gnilty of a corrupt practice in keeping 
 tiiat part of his tavern wlicrein liijuors were 
 kept in store so open that persons could and 
 dill enter tlie storeroom and drink spirituous 
 liqiinrs there during polling hours : — Held, that 
 H. was specially authorized l)y the respondent 
 to appoint sub-agents, and had under such 
 authority appointed B. as sub-;igent, and tlic 
 corrupt practices conniiittcd by 15. avoided the 
 viection. WoUaiiil KItctiov (2) [Ont.)~-liwhncf 
 V, Curric, H. E. O. 1 87. — < 1 wynne. 
 
 Hold, tliat the persons anioiigst whom the re- 
 s|'Ondcnt's moneys had been (listri))uted by W., 
 H'\ilpersonsactingunderthem, were sub agents of 
 respondent, and that their corrupt acts avoided 
 tiie election. Semblo, tliat no limit can l)e placed 
 to the number of i)arti<;s through whom tlie sub- 
 agency may extend. Auu/ura EkrIioH { Duin.) — 
 niackv. I'litmb, H. E. C.'.' .")09.— Hagarty. 
 
 See Sonlh dreij Elcclion (Out,) — /hiiiter v. 
 Lauder, H. K. C. ")2, p. 1450 ; Corn trail Election 
 {Dom.)—lii'r'fni V. Mociluunld, H. E. C. 547, p. 
 1452; WeKl'Tiirniito Eli'rtion{Onf.) — Arinnfrnnt/ v. 
 Crooh, H. K. 0. 97, p. 1450 ; Xirifjam Eltctinn 
 {Dom.)—lilnckv. Plnmh, H. E. C. 5(i8, p. 14G1. 
 
 Vn. RRiBr?KY AND Corrupt Pr.ictices. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 The resjioii'lent entrusted about 8700 to an 
 agent for election purposes without having super- 
 vised the expenditure : — Held, that this did not 
 make him personally a party within -^4 Vict. c. 
 3, 3. 46, to every illegal application of the money 
 liy the agent, or bj' those who received money 
 from him. Hut if a very excessive sum had been 
 so entrusted to the agent, the presumption of a 
 corrupt purpose might have been reasonable. 
 tsQiUh drey El'Clion (Out.)— Hunter v. Lauder, 
 H. E. C. 52.— Mowat. 
 
 The ]ilain and reasonable meaning of the sta- 
 tute, 32 Vict. e. '21 (Out.) is, that when the pro- 
 hibited things are (lone in order to induce an- 
 other to procure, or to endeavour to procure, 
 the return of any person to serve in parliament, 
 or the vote of any voter at any election, the 
 lierson so doing is guilty of bribery. East To- 
 ronto Election (Ont.)~Kennick v. Cameron, H. 
 E. C. 70. — Hichards. 
 
 The difFerence between the Imperial statute 
 U718 Vict. c. 102, 8. 2, sub-s. 3, proviso), and 
 92 
 
 the Ontario statute (32 Vict., c. 21, u. 67, siili-s. 
 3, proviso), as to "legal expenses " in elections, 
 pointed out. Ih. 
 
 Held, that " illegal and prohibited acts relat- 
 ing to elections," in the (Ictiiiition of corrupt 
 practices in the (Ontario Controverted Elections' 
 Act, 1871, were conlined to liriljcry, hiiiug of 
 teams, and undue influence, iis detined by sec- 
 tions 67 to 74 of the Election Act of 18US. North 
 York Eliction {Ont.)—(lorh(iiii v. Bonllli'c, \\. 
 E. C. «2.— (jalt. 
 
 The words "illegal and prohibited acts in re- 
 ference to elections," used in 34 Vict. c. 3, s. 3 
 (Ont.),moan such acts done in (■inincction with, 
 or to aflcct, or in reference to election ; not all 
 acts which are illegal and (iroliibitcd under the 
 election law. lirofkriUc Elcctinn iOnl.) — Flint 
 V. Fitznmmons, H. E. C. 139.— Q. 15. 
 
 QuiL're, whether the word " employ n-.ent" 
 used in the bribery clauses of 3'2 Vict. c. 21 
 (Ont. ), refers to Jan indctinite hiring, or would 
 include a mere casual hiring. Hi si /'iii rlmroniih 
 Election (Out.) -Scott v. ('o:c, H. E. (,'. 274. — 
 Hraper. 
 
 The detiiiition of "corrujil practices" in 
 section 3 of tlic DoniiMinii Cc introverted Elec- 
 tions' Act, 1873, considered. Sec Sorth Victoria 
 Election (i)om.) — Cuini-ron v. Macltnnan, H. E. 
 V. .584. 
 
 The Imperial and Doniininn election laws, as 
 to corrupt practices and tlnir conseciuences, 
 conipareil and considered. Kinqaton Election 
 (l)<>m.)Stcwarl v. Macdowihl, H. E. C. 625. 
 — Richards. 
 
 Where corrupt ]iracticcs by agents, and others 
 in the interest of the respondent, affected less 
 votes than the majority obtaine<l by the res- 
 pondent at the election : —Held, under 39 Viet, 
 c. 10, s. .37 (Ont.), that such corrupt practices 
 did not extend beyond the votes atl'ected there- 
 by, .and did not avoid the election. Lincoln 
 (2) Election {Ont.)—Pnn'lin;i v. liyke,', H. E. C. 
 489. —Patterson —Blake. 
 
 Where a candidate in good faith intended that 
 his election should be conducted legally, and had 
 printed and circulated throughout the consti- 
 tuency a synopsis of the new law as to corrupt 
 practices, and had caused an editorial article to 
 be printed in a new.spaper, and had taken trouble 
 to have the law explained to the electors : — 
 Held, that although many of the acts done dur- 
 ing the election created doubt and hesitation in 
 the judge, yet as the return of a member ought 
 not to be lightly set aside, the judge ought to be 
 satisfied that the acts done were done to in- 
 fluence the electors and so done corruptly, and 
 this election was upheld. West Toronto Elec- 
 tion {Ont.)—Ann!ifron'jv. Crooks, H. E. C. 97. — 
 Richards. 
 
 Semble, that the term "wilful," .as used in 
 section 98 of 37 Viet. c. 9 (l)oni. ), cannot be con- 
 strued in a narrower sense that the term "cor- 
 ruptly" in section 92, sub-section I; and that 
 the terr. "corruptly" does not mean wickedly, 
 or iran orally, or dishonestly, but doing that 
 which vhd legislature pl.ainly meant to forbid; 
 as an ac done by a man knowing that he is <loing 
 what is wrong, and doing it with an evil object. 
 Halton Election (Dom.)—CroKfi v. McCraney, 
 H, E. C. 736.— Patterson— C. of A. 
 
1489 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS- 
 
 1460 
 
 CSS 
 9KS 
 
 csr 
 
 t/» 
 
 Per Richards, C. J. Tiio intention of the 
 legislature wiis, that votes should be given ficiin 
 the couviutiiin in tlie mind of the voter tiiat the 
 candidate voted for was the l)est person for the 
 situation, and that tiio puhlio interiist wouhl be 
 best served by electing him, and the evil to b(! cor- 
 rected was supporting a candidate for causa lucri, 
 or for personal gain in money or money's worth 
 to the voter. llaUoii Ekctiun(<)nt.) — Biixsdl v. 
 Barber, H. E. C. 283. 
 
 Semble, where a corrupt act is committed dur- 
 ing an election contest by an agent witli the 
 knowledge of the candidate and it turns out 
 that the person committing it was in fact or in 
 contemplation of the election law the agent of 
 the candidate, it is not necessary that the can- 
 didate should at the time have knowledge that 
 tile person committing the act is his agent or 
 even that he should kn'.)w such person inilividu- 
 ully. The Londonderry Case, 1 O'M. k II. 278, 
 and the Dungannon Case, 3 O'M. & H. 101, re- 
 ferred to and followed. Prescott Eli'Ction (Out. ) — 
 Cunii'mijham v. hwjar, 1 E. C. 88.— Patterson. 
 — Ferguson. — C. of A. 
 
 Per Spragge, C. J. O. — When we find these 
 two things concur, an act that comes within the 
 designation "corrupt practice," and that the 
 doer of the act is an agent for the candidate, we 
 are not at liberty to say that the act was done in 
 order to promote the oI)jects of the agent, and 
 not in order to promote the interest of the can- 
 didate, that, tliounh true it is the act of the 
 agent, it is not the act of the agent, ijua agent. 
 It being an act which is prolitable to the doer 
 of the act, nnd the making of the prolit l)eing 
 assumed to be the motive of the doer of the act, 
 cannot dissociate the act from tlie election. The 
 Lincoln Case, H. E. C. 391, coniniented on ; 
 The Harwich Case, 3 O'M. & H. Gi), distin- 
 guished. Went SimcoR h'lccfioii {Out.) — Ikdford 
 v. Phelps, 1 E. C. 128. 
 
 Eleld, aftirming the judgment of the court 
 below, when an agent of a candidate receives 
 and spends for election purposes large sums of 
 money, and does not render an account of sucii 
 expenditure, it will create a presumption that 
 corrupt practices have been resorted to. LcrU 
 EleclioK (Dom.)- Belleau \. Dn^»aalt, 11 S. C. 
 R. LS3. 
 
 The suggestion of names and recommendation 
 of deputy returning officers by political associa- 
 tions commented on and disapproved of. North 
 Ontario Election (Ont.)—TreleaveH v. Gould, 1 
 E. C. 1.— Burton-Osier. 
 
 See Munkoka Election (Ont. ) — Sfarratl v. Mil- 
 ler, H. E. C. 458, p. 1460 ; Wexl HaHtw/s Elec- 
 tion (Ont.)—tVe.'<lpy v. Wills, H. E. C. 211, p. 
 l.">00; Halton Election (Ont.) — BxixHellw Barber, 
 H. ?:. C. 283, p. 1525. 
 
 2. Proof of. 
 
 Per Moss, C. J. — Prima facie corrupt prac- 
 tices avoid an election : and the onus of proof 
 that they are not sufficient to affect the majority 
 of votes rests upon the respondent. We.'<t Had- 
 imjs Election (2) (Ont.) — Holden v. liobertwr , 
 H. E. C. 539. 
 
 Where a charge of bribery is only the unac- 
 cepted offer of a bribe, the evidence must be 
 
 I more exact than that required to prove a briU 
 I actually given or accepted. Soii/li ^')v,/ £/,,.. 
 \llon {Out.)— 1 1 till I ir V. Lmuler, FT. E. C. 52. - 
 .Mowat. 
 
 Wliere the evidence as to bribery consiats (if 
 ofl'ors or proposals to bribe, the evidence should 
 be stronger than with respect to actual hribeiv 
 Where three voters swore to throe separute 
 offers of l>ribery made to each of them separate- 
 ly' by an agent of tlie respondent, wliicli such 
 agci'.t swore were never nuide by him : -Held 
 tliat tlic evidence was not sufficient to justify 
 the setting usiile of the elccti(m. The lanuuai'e 
 of Martin, 1'.., in the Wigan ease 1 O'M. & if,, 
 l!)2, adopted as a general rule applicable to 
 this ca.se. East 7'oroii/o Election (Oiil.)~-lieun'iek 
 V, Cameron, M. E. C. 70.— Richards. 
 
 Where the evidence as to the offer of hrilict 
 was contradictory, and the parties making 
 charges of bribery ajipiared to have borne inilif- 
 ferent characters :— Held, that the offer of brilies 
 was not satisfactorily established. II'e//(i)i./ 
 Election (2) (()iit.)—Bnchner v. Carrie, H. E. (l 
 187.— Gwynne. 
 
 Where one i).irty affirmed and the other party 
 denied a corrujjt offer between them as to votin"' 
 for the respondent : — Held, tliat the otl'er was 
 not sutiiciently proved. Dinidan Election (Onl.) 
 — Cook V. Broder, H K. C, 205. — ISpragge. 
 
 Where in evi<lence of offers of bribery, an as- 
 sertion on one side is met by a contradiction on 
 tlie other, lie uncorroborated assertion is iwt suf- 
 ficient to sustain the charge. We^it Pelerhoromih 
 Election (Out.)— Scott v. Cox, H. E. C. 274.- 
 Draper. — C. of A. 
 
 A charge of bribery aj^.tinst the respondent, 
 where the evidence was un-<alisfact()ry ami ic 
 ])ugnant in itself, and rested more on suspicimi 
 thin (ui clear i)ositive proof, whm held n"t 
 ])roven. Xorth Onlitrio Elerlion (Out.)— Mi- 
 Casklll V. /'axton, H. K. C. 304.-Wilson.-(:. 
 of A. 
 
 T'he respondent was charged with several acts 
 of corrupt practice. Each separate chaige w;w 
 supported by the evidence of one witness, and 
 was denied or explained by the respondent. 
 The judge trying the petition :— Held, th.it 
 if each case stood by itself, oath against oath, 
 and each witness equally credible, and tfieir 
 being no collateral circumstances either way, he 
 would have found that each case was not proved ; 
 but as each charge was proved by a credible 
 witness, the united weight of their testimony 
 overcame the effect of the respondent's denial ; 
 and on the combined testimony of all tlie wit- 
 nesses, he held the separate charges proved 
 against the respondent : — Held, by the Court of 
 Appeal (reversing Wilson, J.), that in election 
 cases, each charge constitutes in effect a separate 
 indictment, and if a judge on the evidence in 
 one case dismisses the charge, the respondent 
 cannot be placed in a worse position because a 
 number of charges are ailvanced, in each of 
 which the judge arrives at a similar conclusion, 
 and therefore the separate char is above referred 
 
 to were held not sustained. 
 (OtU.) — Slarratt v. Miller, H. 
 
 Muskoka Election 
 E. C. 458. 
 
 Where evidence of an act of keeping open hiii 
 tavern on polling days and selling liquor therein 
 
1461 
 
 FABLIAMENTABY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1462 
 
 usual, by P. . an agent of the petitioner, canio 
 out on crossexamination, and during the argu- 
 ment the evidence was objected to because the 
 charge was not in the particularH, the case was 
 not considered. The evidence respecting a charge 
 of bribery, by payment of a disputed debt, was 
 held insufBcient to sustain the charge. North 
 Victoria Election {Ont.)—McHae v. Smith, H. E. 
 L'. 252. —Draper. 
 
 Ou a charge that one O. liribed u voter by 
 promising him to procure a. deed of his land for 
 him if he would procure votes for tlie respon- 
 dent ;— Held, on the evidence, that though the 
 voter had so represented, the procuring of the 
 deed had nothing to dci with tlie elect! .)n : — 
 .•^enible, that O. was not an agent for vhoseacts 
 the respondent was responsible. North Midil/t- 
 tex Election {Out.) — Cameron v. McDoiijull, H. 
 !•;. C. 370.— Spraggc. 
 
 A witness stated that ho had received a letter 
 from a voter, asking for the fulfilment of an offer 
 113 to his vote, but the letter was not produced : — 
 Held, that it was not proved that the letter in 
 question was written by the voter referred to. 
 lb. 
 
 One S., an alleged agent of the respondent, 
 made offers of sheepskins to two voters as to 
 their votes at tiie election, but ho swore the 
 otfers were made in jest ; but as the evidence 
 (lid not shew that S. was an agent of the respon- 
 dent at the time of the alleged offers, no effect 
 was given to the charge. Ih. 
 
 A statement that an ofifer to bribe was made 
 in jest should be received with great susi)icion ; 
 ■A l>rii)er may make an offer which he intends 
 should he taken seriously, and then, if not ac- 
 cepted, he may assert it was made in jest. Il>. 
 
 A promise to work for a voter, made without 
 ii;fercnce to the election tind as a. joke, not evi- 
 dence of bribery. Halton Election ( Doiii. ) — ^'/-o.ts 
 V. McCraney, H. E. C. 736. — Patterson.— (J. 
 
 of A. 
 
 The respondent, in a (M)nstitueucy where ()4'J 
 persons voted, received XHi votes, and his election 
 expenses were about $'2,(K)0. The money was 
 entrusted by him to one G. , with a cauticm 
 to see that it was used for lawful purposes only. 
 About ijl ,;iOO of this money was given by G. to one 
 \V, , who distributed it to several persona in sums 
 of 840, §U)(), §200 and $250. No instructions as 
 to e.xpenditure were given by (i. to \V. , or by W. 
 to the persons amongst whom he distributed the 
 money ; and by the lattjr several acts of bribery 
 were committed. The respondent publicly and 
 privately disclaimed aiiy intention of sanctioning 
 my illegal expenditure ; but made no inquiries 
 lifter the election as to how the money had been 
 spent until a week or two before the election 
 trial. He denied any act of bribery, direct or 
 indirect, or any knowledge thereof ; and no proof 
 was giv<?n of a personal knowledge on his part 
 of any of the specific wrongful acts or payments 
 proved to have been committed by persons 
 amongst whom his money had been distributed : 
 —Held, that under the peculiar circumstances 
 of the respondent's canvass, and on a review of 
 the whole evidence, the respondent's emphatic 
 denial of any corrupt motive or intention should 
 be accepted. Niagara Election {Bom.)— Black 
 V, Plumb, H. E. C. 568. — Hagarty. 
 
 Evidence of corrupt practices committed by 
 persons in the interest of both candidates at the 
 previous election, may be given at the trial of 
 the second petition, with the view of striking otV 
 the votes of any such persons who may liavo 
 voted at the second election. Cornwall Ehcticn 
 (2) (Dovi.) — lienjin v. MacdonalU, H. E. C. 
 ()47. — Spragge. 
 
 The respondent canvassed a voter, who at the 
 trial swore that after he had agreed to vote 
 for him, the respondent promised to give the 
 voter some work ; the respondent denied Uy^ 
 promi.se : — Held, although tiie voter appeared 
 1)0 a, truthful witness and was not shaken on 
 cross-examination, that tho promise of employ- 
 ment was not made out beyond all roasoiialdo 
 doul t. North Ontario Election (Dom.) — (lilibK 
 V. ]yhcler H. E. (". 785.— Armour. 
 
 A charge that the respondent promised to give 
 a voter certain work to do if he voted for him, 
 was disproved by the evidence of the respondent 
 and another, and by the admissions of the voter 
 made to other i)arties. /fallen Elcctiuii (Dom.) 
 — CroHs V. McCraney, H. E. (". 730. --Patter- 
 son— C. of A. 
 
 The charge against the respondent and one 1!., 
 of an offer of money to, and to j)rocure an ajj- 
 pointment as justice of the peace for, a voter in 
 consideration of his voting for the respondent, 
 was supported by tlie evidence of the voter who 
 shewed hitter hostility to H. ; but the charge 
 was denied by the respondent. The evidence 
 shewing the statement to be improbable, and 
 that the election contest was carried on by the 
 respondent with a scrupulous and honest en- 
 deavour to avoid any violation of tho lav against 
 corrupt practices, the charge was dismissed. Ih, 
 
 A charge against an agent of the respondent, 
 that he had promised to procure the office of 
 police magistrate for one W. , was denied by the 
 agent and the respondent ; and it further appear- 
 ing that \V. had acted on the committee of, and 
 voted, for the opposing candidate, the charge 
 was dismissed. Charges against the respondent, 
 that he had promised an office to the son of a 
 voter, and a contract to the voter himself, were 
 contradicted by other evidence and dismissed. 
 South Ontario Election (Dom.) —McKai/ v. O'len, 
 H. E. C. 7">l.-(;alt. 
 
 The respondent was charged with corrupt 
 practices, in that, when canvassing one C, a 
 voter who said he would not vote unless he was 
 paid, resi)ondent said he was not in a position to 
 l)ay him anything, but that if C. would support 
 iiim, one of his (the respondent's) friends would 
 come and see about it. The respondent as he was 
 leaving the voter's house, met one K. , a supporter, 
 who, after someconversation, went into O.'s house 
 iiiul gave him $5 to vote for the respondent. The 
 charge depended upon the evidence of the voter 
 (/'. and bis wife. The respondent denied making 
 such a promise ; and he was sustained by K. as 
 to a conversation outside O.'s house, in which 
 the respondent cautioned K. not to give or pro- 
 mise C. any money. Hagarty, C. J., on the 
 evidence found that the respondent was not per- 
 sonally implicated in the bribery of the voter C. 
 by K. Centre Welliwiton Election (Dom.) — Iron- 
 side V. Orton, H. E. C. 579. 
 
 Before an election judge finds a respondent or 
 any other person guilty of a corrupt practice 
 
1463 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELEOTIONS. 
 
 1464 
 
 €ST. 
 
 pa 
 e<9 
 
 involviiij,' a personal (li»iil)ility, ho ought to be 
 free from rcasonahlo doubt. lb. 
 
 A iiuinberof separate charges of corrupt prac- 
 tices ngaitiHt ai'. agent of the respoiKlent, baHed 
 upon f)ire,H or promiscH, and not upon any act of 
 such agent, each of wliich depended upon the 
 oatli (if a witness to the oH'er or promise, l)ut 
 each one of winch such agent directly contra- 
 dicted, or gave a difl'erent colour to tlie langu- 
 age, or a difl'erent turn to the expressions used, 
 whicii (|uite altered the meaning of the conversa- 
 tions, detailed or constituted in ellect a complete 
 or substantial denial of the charges attempted to 
 be proved against such agent; — Held, I. That 
 although in acting on such contlieting testimony, 
 where there was a scjiarate o))posing witness in 
 each case to the testimony of tiie witness sup- 
 ])orting the charge, tlie election judge might be 
 obliged to hold each charge as answered and 
 repelled by the counter evidence, he could not 
 give the like ellect to the testimony of the same 
 witness in each of the cases where the only op- 
 posing witness is confronted liy the adverse tes- 
 timony of a numl)er of witnesses, who, though 
 tiieydo not corrobnrate one another by speaking 
 to the same matter, arc contradicted in eacli case 
 by the one witness. "2. That the more frequently 
 :i witness is contradicted by others, although 
 each opjiosing witness contradicts him on a 
 single point, tiic more is conlidenco in such wit- 
 ness aneetcd, until, by a number of contradict- 
 ing witnesses, he maj' be disbelieved altogether. 
 3. That acting on the .above and on a consider- 
 ation whether the story told by the witness in 
 support of the cluvrge is reasonable or probable 
 in itself, the charges of corrupt practices against 
 the agent of the respondent, set out in the judg- 
 ment, were proved. Xorth Ittiifreif EUction 
 {Dom.)- While v. Murmij, H. K. C. 710.— Wil- 
 son.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Went Toronto Election (Ont.) — Annnlrong 
 V. Crookn, 1 H. E. C. 97, pp. 1458, 1510; »>/- 
 /<ind Election (2) (Ont.) — Biirhner v. Ciirric, H. 
 K. C. 187, p. 1497. 
 
 3. Bribery. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 Bribery is not confined to the actual giving of 
 money. Where a grossly excessive price has 
 been pa'd for work or for an article, it is clearly 
 bribery. Cornicnll Election (Doni.) — Btrijin v. 
 MacdonalJ, H. E. C. 547. — Spragge. 
 
 Where money was paid to voters for services 
 agreed to be renilered but such services were not 
 rendered owing to the misconduct of the voters, 
 such payment was not bribery. West Toronto 
 EUction (Ont.) — Armstromj v. Crooks, H. E. C. 
 97.— Richards. 
 
 Whei-c liaif a cord of wood was given to a 
 vuuer in poor circumstances during the election, 
 and the giver swore that it was given out of 
 charity : — Hel '., not an act of bribery. London 
 Election (Ont.) — Jarman v. Meredith, H. E. C. 
 214. — Spragge. 
 
 Where a voter was bailed out of gaol on the 
 day of polling by a friend, but according to the 
 evidence without reference to the election : — 
 Held, not an act of bribery. lb. 
 
 The giver of a bribe as well as the receiver 
 may be indicted for bribery. A'^orlh \'idoriii 
 E/ecHun (Doni.) — Cameron v. Maeltfuait, H, E 
 C. 584. — Richards— Spragge— Hagarly. 
 
 The first principle of parliamentary law jg 
 that elections must be free ; and, tliurufore 
 without referring to statutory provisions if 
 treating was carried rm to such an extent as tn 
 amount to bri))ery, and undue inlluence Wiw of 
 a character to allect the election, the ckctiiin 
 would be void. //;. 
 
 See London Election (Ont.) — Jarman \ ^firt 
 dith. \\. E. v.. '214, p. 1468 ; WeM Northnmh,r- 
 land. Election (JJoin.)— Henderson v. (Inilld^ 10 
 S. 0. R. (ia.-), p. 1471 ; ll<dlon Election (l)um.)~ 
 Cronn v. McVraneij, Ji. K. C. 730, j), 1474, 
 
 (b) By Candidate. 
 
 The respondent after announcing himself as ;i 
 candidate, gave iiJilO in two .1*5 bills to a child of 
 a voter, then three or four years old, wiiicli iiud 
 been named after him. He had two years pre 
 viously intimated that he would make tlu' ehiM 
 a present : — Held, that the gift, under such cir 
 cumstances, was not bribery. (Ih-mjun-y Ekr 
 lion (Ont.) — McLennan v. Vnii<j, H. K. C. 8.— 
 llagarty. 
 
 The respondent while canvassing had refresh- 
 ment for his man and two iioraes at a tavern for 
 part of a day and nigiit, for which he p:ii<l the 
 tavern-keeper $t"), and next day .*!.") more, in all 
 §10, without asking for a bill. The hill would 
 have amounted to about $3. Tlie respondent 
 stated that the tavern-keeper was an old friend 
 of his, and was just starting in business, ami 
 that lie thought it right to pay him as it were a 
 compliment on his hrst visit to his tavern, and 
 that he believed he w(nild have done the same 
 thing if it was not election time ; — Held, that 
 being an isolated case in an election contest, 
 free from profuse expenditure, and this being » 
 quasi-criminal trial, involving grievous results 
 to the respondent if found a corrupt practice, 
 such payment was not -after the explanations 
 of the respondent— an act of bribery. Ih. 
 
 At a late hour on the day preceding the elec- 
 tion some agents of the respondent determined 
 to resort to bribery, and they carried ont such 
 determination at an early hour on the momine 
 of the polling day. There was no evidence of 
 the respondent's knowledge of, or consent to, 
 this act of his agents : — Held (reversing Owyniie, 
 .J.), that the shortness of the interval l)etween 
 the resolve and the execution of the bribery, 
 which was carried out at a place several miles 
 away from where the respondent lived, rendered 
 improbable the fact of the respondent's actual 
 knowledge of such bribery. Lincoln Election 
 (Onl.)-~l{yk(.rt v. Neelon, H. E. 0. 391.-C. 
 of A. 
 
 The wife of one S. , a voter, had been injured 
 some years Ijefore the election by the horses of 
 the respondent, and in 1872 the respondent gave 
 S. compensation for the injury partly by cancel- 
 ling a debt and partly in cash, for which S. 
 signed a receipt "in full of all accounts and 
 claims whatsoever." The respondent canvassed 
 S. during the election, saying: "I would like 
 to have you with me at the election," but S. de- 
 
1466 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 
 
 1466 
 
 clincil, expressing (HssatiBfaction with the com- j 
 peuiiitioii made for the injury to iiis wife, to \ 
 which the res|ion(lont replied that he was al)lo i 
 to do, and cmdd do, wliat was right. After- | 
 H'orda tiie respondent sent his sulesniun to tlie | 
 wife of S., who told her that the respondent I 
 was still able to do justiec, to whiuli she replied I 
 ihe would write a letter, which she did, and in I 
 which she referreil to her husband's vote. After | 
 the electir)n the respondent gave .S. §.S0 partly \ 
 by canoellinj,' a debt and partly in cash. 'I'he I 
 rtspoiident denied that he gave S. to understand 
 that he would give him anything to induce him j 
 to vote for him at the election : — Held, by the 
 Court of Appeal, ntlirming (iwynne, J., that the i 
 evidence sliewed that an indirect oiler of money j 
 01 other valuable consideration was made by the 
 respondent to S. , to induce him to vote for the 
 respondent. Jh. ' 
 
 The evidence shewed that extensive bribery 
 was practised by the agents of the respondent , 
 and by a large number of persons in his interest, j 
 but no acts of j)ersonal bribery were proved ' 
 against him, and he denied all knowledge of such 
 acts. It w;is in evidence that he had warned i 
 his fricud.s, during the canvass, not to spend 
 money illegally. The judge (duljitante) held 
 that uo corrupt practice had been connnitted 
 with the rcspomlent's knowledge or consent, 
 ami avoided the election for corrupt practices 
 by the respondent's agents. Un appeal to the 
 Court of Comnuin Fleas, it was ; — lield, 1. That 
 the circumstantial evidence in this case was 
 sutlicicnt to shew that corrupt jiracticcs had 
 been committed by the rcspomlent's agents with 
 his knowledge and consent. 2. That wilful in- 
 tentionul ignorance is the same as actual know- ] 
 ledge. :t. That the assent of a candidate to the 
 ooirnpt acts of his agents may be assumed from 
 his non-interference or non-t)bjection when he 
 has the opportunity. And such candidate's 
 knowledge of and assent to the corrupt acts of 
 his agents, may be established without conneot- 
 mg him with any particular act of bribery. 
 London K/cc/ion {Dom.)— I'ritdiurd \. Walktr, 
 H. E. C. 500. 
 
 A single bribed vote brought home to a candi- 
 date would throw doubt on his whole majority, 
 and would therefore annul his return. Xurth 
 Vuioria Elect i(i7i {JJovi. ) — Camnonv. Maclcumtii, 
 H. K. V. 584. — Richards— Spragge — Hagarty. 
 
 Held, that the settlement by payment of a 
 just debt by a candidate to an elector without 
 any reference to the election is not a corrupt act 
 of bribery, and esjiccially so when the candidate 
 distinctly swears he never asked the elector's 
 support, and the elector says he never promised 
 it and never gave it. iSoiitli Ontario Ekftiim 
 {l>m.)—AtcKuy v. O'len, 11. K. C. 751 ; S. V. 
 R.641. 
 
 One P., some years before the election, claimed 
 that the respondent was indebted to him, but 
 the respondent denied nil liability, and tlie dia- 
 put,e caused a coolness between them. One H., 
 four months before the election, was employed 
 l)y P. to collect another account from the re- 
 spondent, and did so. H. stated to P. that as 
 the respondent was in a good humour, it would be 
 agood opportunity to get theold account settled, 
 and asked P. if he would support the respondent 
 111 case the old account was settled. P. replied 
 
 that ho might jiromise what ho liked. H. thtu 
 took the accuuiit to the respondent, who looked 
 it over and gave his note for it. II. and the re- 
 spondent never referred to the election, nor to 
 the settlement as allccting the election ;— Held, 
 that the responilcnl had not been guilty of briliery 
 in this transaction. Tatichercau and (iwynni.', 
 J,J., doubting whether the transactions |)i(i>ed 
 were not within the prohibitory provisicjiisuf the 
 Act. lb. 
 
 The respondent owed one M. a debt, wliirb 
 had been due for some time. He was sued for it 
 about lli(^ time of the election, and was informed 
 that his opponents were using the nonpayment 
 of it against him in the election. Tlie respon- 
 dent stated lie would not pay it until after the 
 election as it might atlect bis election ;— Held, 
 that the promise to pay the debt was not mado 
 to procure votes, but to silence the hostile ciiti- 
 cism, and was therefore not bribery. Xorth 
 Oiitu,,:-' I'JIfftwH (J)uiii.) — (lihlis V. Wilder, H. 
 
 E. C. 785.— Armour. 
 
 The respondent had in 187'i compromised with 
 his creditors for lifty cents on the .S, and then 
 promised to pay allhi.s creditors in full. About 
 the time of the elfctioii lie paid one S., who bad 
 at the two previous eleitioiis supported the op- 
 posing caiiilidale, a portion of the promised 
 amount : — Held, under the circumstances, the 
 payment was not bribery. Duuiku, Ehxtinn 
 (Out.)— Conks- . lindi-r, H. K. C. 205.— Spragge. 
 
 The charge was that the respondent bribed 
 one J. F. (J., by the payiiicnl of a jiromissory 
 note for §S!). The evidence shewed that J. 
 ¥. (i. had been ciiuvassing for respondent a 
 
 j long time before the note fell due, and bad 
 
 ■ always supported him. He was on his May 
 to retire his note, which was overdue or 
 
 , falling due that day, when respondent asked 
 him to canvass that day, and promised to send 
 
 ; into town and have the note arranged for him. 
 At the same time J. V. (). was negotiating for a 
 loan on a mortgage to respi indent, and it was at 
 first stipulated that the amount of this note 
 
 ' should be taken out of the mortgage money. 
 
 ' The agent of the respondent, after the election, 
 
 I at the re(|iiest of ,1. F. (.'., paid the mortgage 
 money in full and allowed the matter of the note 
 to stand until <). K. (J. could .see rcsjiondcnt. J. 
 
 F. (i. stated that neither the note nor the mort- 
 I gage transaction inllucnced him in any way, ami 
 ! that ho had to pay the note and did not expect 
 ; resjiondent to make him a present of it : — Held, 
 
 that the evidence did not shev/ that the advance 
 of money was made in order to induce J. F. (i. 
 to procure, or endeavour to prncuie the return 
 of the rcspoiuleiit, and was not tluicfore bribery 
 within the nieaniug of sub-.section ,'{ of section 
 9'2 of the Dominion Flections' Act, 1874. Selkiik 
 Ekctioii (Dom.) — Yuunr/ v. Siiiit/i. 4 .S. C. R. 494. 
 
 One Mireau, a blacksmith, who was a neigh- 
 bour of the respondent, had in his possession 
 for two years, several jjieces of broken saws 
 which the respondent bad left with him for the 
 jiurposc of making scrapers out of them on 
 shares. A few days piior to noiiiination the re- 
 spondent went into Alircau's shop with a scraper 
 he wanted to be sharjiened, and in return for 
 sharpening the scraper told him to keep the old 
 pieces of saw which he might still have. Mireau 
 in his evidence answered as follows: — "Q. He 
 
1467 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY SLEOTIONS. 
 
 1M8 
 
 ea 
 
 CSR< 
 
 sr;r 
 
 <1j(1 lint Hpcnk iif ymir vote? A. No. Q. What 
 huH lie Niiiil? A. IIo Kiiid thut Mr. Miigiiaii waa 
 comiiiijlikcintiHtaril aftttr (liiiiK^r. (.). M. Diiuas 
 «li(l not ask you for whom you were? A. No. 
 * * Q. Do you Bweur on t ho oath you havo 
 taken tluit M. Du^aH loft with you thtMo two 
 jticocH of Haw in (luualion with tiic itituut to liuy 
 (lirilif) you? A. 1 think ho, I uaniiot Hay tliat 
 it in Hurc, I tlon't know hiri mind (hou idco). It 
 in all 1 can swear. Q. It haH not changed your 
 opinion? A. No. Q. For whom were yon in the 
 last tdoction ? A. Kor ,M, Magiian." I'lic scrap- 
 ers were worth in all aliotit two dollars, and 
 were of no uso to tlio respondent, a'ul no other 
 conversation took place afterwards hetweon the 
 parties. The judge who tried the case found 
 that there was no intention on the part of the 
 respondent to corrupt Mireau, which decision 
 M'as upheld hy the Sujirerne Court. Montcalm 
 HUcliun—MuijiMii v. Dmjax, OS. C. R. 9H. 
 
 llcfore setting out on a canvassing tour, the 
 appellant, the sitting member, placed in the 
 liands of one H. , who was not his financial agent, 
 SlOO to he used for the purpose of the election. 
 While visiting a part of the county with which 
 the appellant was not much accjuainted, but with 
 which ]i. was well acquainted, they paid an 
 eleciioneering visit to one K. , a loading man in 
 that locality, who indicated to B. his dissatis- 
 faction with the candidate of his party, and 
 stated that, although he would vote for the lib- 
 eral party, he would not exert him.sclf as much 
 as in the former elections. The appellant tlicn 
 went outside, and B. asked his host : " Do you 
 want any money for your church ?" And hav- 
 ing received a negative reply, added, "Do you 
 want any money for anything?'' K. then an- 
 swered : "If you have any money to spare there 
 is plenty of things we want it for. We are build- 
 ing a town hall, and wc are scarce of inonoy."' 
 IJ, then said : " Will §25 do?" K. an.swcrcd : 
 " whatever you like, it is nothing to nie. " The 
 money was left on the tabic. Then, when bidding 
 the appellant and 15. good-bye, K. said : "(jen- 
 tlenicn, remember that this money has no influ- 
 ence as far aa I am concerned, with regard to 
 the election." Tlie appellant did not at the 
 time, nor at any subsequent time, repudiate 
 the act of B. This amount of .$25 was not in- 
 cluded in any account rciiderod by the apiiellant 
 or his financial agent, and lai'ge sums wire ad- 
 mittedly corruptly expended in tlie election by 
 the agcntof the appellant : — Held, afKriningthc 
 judgment of the court below, that the giving of 
 the $2^1 by B. to K. was not an act of liberality 
 or charity, but a gift out of appellant's money, 
 with a view to influence a voter favourably to 
 the appellant's candidature, and that although 
 the money was not given in the appellant's pres- 
 ence, yet it was given with his knowledge, and 
 therefore that the appellant had been personally 
 guilty of a corrni)t practice. Mni/niitic Election 
 (Dom.)—Gote v. Goidet, 9 S. C. K'. *279. 
 
 See Hallon Election (Onl.)—DmseU v. Bnrber, 
 H. E. C. 283, p. 1525 ; North Ontario Election 
 (Dom.)— Wilder v.Oihh.i, H. E. C. 785, p. 1473; 
 Bellechusse Election (Dom.) — Lurne v. Deskui- 
 »7e)-s, 5 S. C. R. 9I,p. 1525; Nia'tara Election 
 (Dom.)— Black V. Plumh, H. E. V,! I4(il ; /w«r/- 
 ston Election {Dom.)—Steic(irt v. Manlnnatil, H. 
 E. C 6'i5, p. 1470; Reqina ex rel, Johin v. 
 Stewart, 16 O. R. 583, p. 1327. 
 
 (o) Bij A genu. 
 
 One M,, a uurter, who votod for renpondent 
 at the request of P., the reapondeiit's agent, c»r' 
 riod a vottir five or six miles to the polling place 
 saying that he would do go without charge 
 Some days after the election P., the agent, gave 
 .M. !J2, intending it aa compensation for the con- 
 veyance of such voter to the poll, Jxit M 
 thought it was in payment for work which he 
 had done for 1*. as a carter. The ciuiiliilatt 
 knew nothing of the matter;— Held, that there 
 was propcily no jiiyment by 1'. to .M, for any 
 purpose, the nuniey being given for one purpose 
 and received for another ; out that if there had 
 been, it was made after I'.'s agency had ceased 
 and there was no jircvious hiring or promise to 
 pay, to which it could relate liack. If (ud, 
 ]iaymenthad boon established as a corrupt pr.ic- 
 tice, it would have avoided I'.'s vote, but not 
 M.'s; and it wnuM not havo defeat)"! tli. 'ilec- 
 tion, for it was not found to h.avu Uct.i com- 
 mitted with the knowledge or consent of the 
 candidate, but the contrary iiroc.kriU^ EkHion 
 (Ont.)— Flint v. I'itziiminonx, H. E. U. 139. -Q 
 B. D. 
 
 An agent of the reapondent, whilo canvassing 
 a voter, gave $8 to the widowed sister of the 
 voter, an old friend of his, who was tlion in re- 
 duceil circumstances. The agent stated that 
 this was not the first money so given, and that 
 it was in no way connected with the election:— 
 Held, under the circumstances, not an act of 
 bribery. North Victoria Election (Ont.)— McBcu 
 V. Smith, H. E. C. 252. — Draper. 
 
 An ofTor by an agent of the respondent when 
 canvassing a voter, that he " would see him 
 another time and things would bo made right," 
 is not an oflfer of bribery. lb. 
 
 An elector when asked to vote for respondent 
 said that it would be a day lost if ho went to 
 vote, which would cost him $1. To which the 
 canvasser replied : " Comu out, and your $1 will 
 be all right " : — Held, not sufficient to establish a 
 charge of bribery. Afonck Election (Ont.)— Vol- 
 liar V. McCalliim, H. E. C. 154.— Oalt. 
 
 K., an agent, while canvassing a voter in ward 
 No. (5, gave him money to get beer, for which 
 the voter paid a lesser sum, and as the voter was 
 poor, told him to keep the change :— Held, un- 
 <ler the circumstances, not an act of bribery. 
 London Elction (Ont.) — Jarman v. Meredith, 
 H. E. C. 2!4.-Spragge. 
 
 One M., the financial agent cf the petitioner, 
 agreed with a voter who had a difTerence with 
 the petitioner about a right to cut timber on tiie 
 voter's lanil, to settle the matter— the voter 
 when canvassed to vote for the petitioner refer- 
 red to this dit?'erenco. M. signed an agreement 
 in the p jtitioner's name, whereby he surrender- 
 ed any claim to cut timber except as tiierein 
 mentioned: — Held, 1. That a surrender of the 
 right to cut timber on the lands of another was 
 a " valuable consideration," within tho meaning 
 of the briliery clauses of 32 Vict., c. 21, (Ont.) 
 2. That the agci.C M. was guilty of an act of 
 bribery. North Victoria Election (Ont.)—iIcRat 
 V. Sm'ith, H. E. 0. 252.-- Draper. 
 
 One H., a voter, held a claim against the re- 
 spondent, and M. , a member of a township 
 committee, and another, for five years, which 
 
1469 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1470 
 
 he had lieen cmlG;i"ouring to procuni pay- 
 ont <)f Wlion canviVBScd at tho time of the 
 Sion.' I'O stiitud that if ho .lid n.it ^ot it 
 •ettlcd ho would not votu for tho roHpoiideiit. 
 « imhicfid tho r.'Hpoudi^nt to give hiii promi»- 
 ' ' noto to If. for tlio dolit, hutclid not give 
 ItMit to \mdorstiiii(l (liic(!tly or iti- 
 
 " with 
 
 Bory 
 
 the rt'spnii 
 
 miiHt havo l<nowii tiiat soino portion of it would 
 l)u UHcil for corrupt purpoHi'S :-Hoi(l, that look- 
 ing at tho whcilo oiiHo, and at this hratioh of it, 
 aH a penal prouoi'ding, tlio roxpondont Hhould not 
 ho lield perHonally ro.iponsihio for tiio oorriipt 
 praotiouH (if liin ai^cnts. Kiiiiistuii Klaliiiii ( l)om. ) 
 —Stfirarfv. Mnrilonalil, H. K. (/'. l)'2r>. — Uioimrds. 
 
 Tho avojiiani'o of an olootion for an aot of 
 i)iil>ci'y i'oinniitt(Ml hy tho iigont of a oandidato 
 iH a civil proi'i'i'iling, ami '\» not lirongiit ahout to 
 |)uniHli I lie 0,'uiillilato, hut to Hoouro an unhiiuiuil 
 oluotlon. //'. 
 
 Whuro N. who appealed to havo l)oou agent 
 of a ('andiilati' oallotl upon M., an olootor, and, 
 I witiiont direetly asking him to vote, li inilod liiin 
 ! one of tho eanclidato's oarils, iind ntatcil tliat ho 
 1 was ).'"'iig tog^vfo M.'s wife 1 present, lint that ho 
 oonl , not give M, a prescMit, hceaii .o it waselee- 
 tion time, and that M. louid g(^t a present for 
 his wife any day he was in |J, (ono of tho places 
 uf rc8|)mident'.s , invaMsoia, thiit ho tlu.iiglil L. ] wiioro voting wa to taky pliico) ; ami M. wont 
 couM get .$18 or $20 from P., if ho won!. I Ht.iy ' to I?, tlio night of tho eloetion and got tiio pro- 
 »t honio during tho olootion. L. oxpccto.l that sent, wliioli was tea and sugar, oto., worth ahout 
 the money would ho spent at his tavern, .ui.l J^'i; -Hold, (at the trial) )(or Patterson. J. A., 
 
 airectly that the noto had anything to do 
 the election; — Hold, I. That it is always open 
 toemiiiii'e, under statutes sinii.ar to tho Kloetion 
 Acta whether tho doht was ])aid in aceordanoo 
 with' the legal ohiigation to pay it, or in order 
 to in(hii'e the voter to vot • or refrain from 
 voting. -. (allirining Wil nn, .1.) TliaL .; tho 
 fviileiice, tluf motive whieh indnoed M. va hat 
 of preeuring tlu^ voter H. to vote at tho elect inn, 
 1,11(1 tliiit therohy an aot of hriliory w,"s tom- 
 initteil hy M. as such agent, whiih \ onled ♦he 
 tlcetien. korlli Onlnrhi Eltrlio )iil..)—Mc- 
 Caskilly. I'lixlon, H. K. (J. '.m.—V. of A. 
 Olio L., a tavern-koepor, was told hy II. 
 
 1 was no p.etual otror 
 l'J/i'cUo)i (l)oiii.) — 
 K. C. GI2.— Mor- 
 
 (hewod that he did nut know what was in 
 
 tended. Neither II. nor 1'. were examined :- 
 
 Held, on the ovid.'iioe, there 
 
 ti hrihe. North Virlnrid 
 
 Cameron v. Macknwni, II. 
 
 riaon. 
 
 A large sum of money, averaging .$3 per 
 head, had been spent hy two of tlie agents 
 of th(! respondent, and money had ))een given 
 by them to parties without any instructions : — 
 Held, that where such money had been ai)plied 
 improiicrly, it must he considered that it was 
 intended to be so applied. Cnrinuall Election 
 {Dom.)—lkrgin v. Alacdoiidld, H. E. C. 547. 
 -Spragge. 
 
 The .agent C. employed ono W. to go with him 
 on tho ever iig before thi! olection to sevor.al 
 «lectors, fro.ii whom bnth i'. and W. made 
 colourahlo (lurcliases, but with tho corrupt in- 
 tention of iiulueiiig the persons from whom tho 
 purchases were made to vote or refrain from 
 voting at the election :— Held, that C and VV. 
 were guilty of bribery, and that the eleetion 
 was avoided in oonseqiienco of their corrupt 
 acts. Cornwall Kleelion (3) (Dom.)—MacknnaH 
 V. Btrijin, H. E. C. 803.— Armour. 
 
 Money had been contributed b.y the respon- 
 dent and by his friends for tho purposes of the 
 election, which had been placed in tho hands of 
 one C, a personal and iiolitical friend of respon- 
 dent, who gave it without any instructions or 
 warnings to such committee-men as applied for 
 it. A great deal of tho money was spent iu 
 corrupt purposes, in bribery, and in treating to 
 the extent of avoiding the election. The respon- 
 dent in his evidence stated that he did not, 
 directly or indirectly, authorize or approve of or 
 sanction the expemMture of any money for brib- 
 ery, or a promise of any for such purjjose, nor 
 did he sanction or authorize the keeping of any 
 open house, and that he was not aware that any 
 open houses had been kept, and that he always 
 impressed on everybody that they must not vio- 
 late the law. There was no affirmative evidence 
 to shew that the money which the respondent 
 knew had been raised for the purposes of the 
 election was so large that as a reasonable man he 
 
 and Koigusiin, J., that this o ime within the acts 
 spoken .n in II. S. O. (I,S77), c. 10, s. 149, ((() 
 and that the goods hiving boon given to M. 
 under the id(!a that lit had voted, it was imma- 
 terial whether it was proved that M . had actually 
 voted or not. Mnxk'okn anil I'airy Sound Elcc- 
 liiin (Ont.) -I'dijet v. Fuuquic , 1 E. C. 107. 
 
 1'. , an agent of the resiiondent, on the morning 
 of tho olootion, called on the wife of one K., anil 
 asked her to use her influenoo with her husband 
 to induce him to vote lor the respondent, say- 
 ing : " 1 will make it all right." .She told her 
 husb.and, who laughed, and replied that ho in- 
 tended to vote for the respondent anv way, or 
 that hi would do as ho liked, and he did vote. 
 After tho election tho wife called at P.'s store, 
 and having reminded him of his promise, she went 
 into the grocery department and got goods t(» 
 the value of §4.49. Subsoquontly an account 
 was rendered including this $1.4!), and tho huh- 
 band objected to pay it. She then told a clerk 
 of P.'h that that jiart of the account was "set- 
 tled otr election time," and a now account was 
 subsequently rendered by the attorney of the 
 estate, as P. had failed in the meantime, with 
 that item omitted. Per Burton, J. A. — Tho 
 words of the promise iu themselves alono did 
 not amount to " an oiler or promise of money or 
 other valuable consideration," but being followed 
 after the olection by the present of goods, the 
 gift was made in piir.suanoe of the promise, and 
 therefore corruptly ; but that as P.'s agency had 
 terminated with the election, it was not such a 
 corrupt praetieo as to ati'ect the candidate unless 
 done with his privity and assent. Per Osier, 
 ,1. A. — P. intended to convey and did convey to 
 the wife tho idea that if .she procured or would 
 induce her husband to vote as he wished, she 
 would receive something of value ; the giving of 
 the groceries aftet tho -'ec|ion was an act of 
 bribery, and if it stood atone J: would have been 
 necessary to cai'ry the evidence of agency further, 
 but following the promise it showed what both 
 parties understood, and to that extent the res- 
 pondent was affected by what was done after the 
 election :— Held, also, under all the circum- 
 stances, that this being the single corrupt act 
 proved the case was a proper one for the appli- 
 
1471 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 Hii 
 
 9a 
 
 
 cation of section 150, though tlic majority was 
 only twenty, iiiiil the eluclioii shoiilil udI be 
 avoided. Nurth Ontario Elec'lon (Oiif.) — Tre- 
 /earen v. Gould, IE C. 1. 
 
 D., an ayont of respondent, brihed M., a vo- 
 ttr, by payment of money. The same l>. gave 
 one Fj., after lie had voted, §1, which lioth |). and 
 L. said was a loan and not a gift :--Helil, as to 
 the Hrst payment, per Hoyd, (I., and Cameron, 
 C J., a corrupt practioj ; as to tlie latter pay- 
 ment, per Boyd, C, not a corrupt practice, the 
 evidence not connecting tlie payment with tlie 
 vote given. Per Cameron, . I., that it did. Ensi 
 Middlciex Election (Out.) — Rhoder v. McKvnxie, 
 1 K. C. 2J(). I 
 
 H., a voter, was paid .$4 by an agent of respon- 
 dent for one day's work posting bills : — ^Held, ' 
 per Hoyd, C, not a corrupt practice ; per Cam- 
 eron, C. J., an unreasonably large jjayment for 
 the work done, though not sufficient, if it were 
 the only charge, to avoid the election. Il>. 
 
 The following acts were relied on as sufficient 
 to have the election set aside. H., a conserva- i 
 dvo, ])i'ior to the election, canv.as.sed iu company | 
 with the respondent, one 15. On election day H. i 
 was selected by the assistant secretary of the | 
 association (an acknowledged agent of the re- j 
 spondent) to represent the respondent at the 
 IJuridey poll, ancl obtained from him a certificate 
 nnder section 42 of th'! Dominion Klections' .Act, 
 entitling him to vote at the IJurnley poll. He '. 
 there met 15. and treated him by giving liim a 
 glass of wliiskey, and after 15. had voted, he 
 yave him .$'2, and sub-sefjuently sent him §50. 
 The treating, according to 15. 's evidence, was 
 nothing more than an act of good fellowship ; 
 and according to H.'s account, tliat 15. was not 
 fee'ing well, and the whiskey ivas given in con- 
 .se()uence. B. negatived that the %i were paid 
 him for his vote, and H. said that he supposed 
 it was a dollar bill, anil toul 15. to "go and treat 
 the boys" with it, and that it was not given on 
 account of any previous promise or for his having 
 voted. Per Cameron, C. J. Thatnoneofthe.se 
 acts constituted corrupt acts so as to avoid the 
 election. On appeal to the Siiiirenie Court of 
 (Canada :— Held, ])er Kitchic, C. J., and Henry 
 and Taschereau, iTJ., There was sufficient evi- 
 dence of H.'s agency, but it wiis not necessary 
 to decide this point. Per Strong, J. There was 
 no proof of H. 's agency. Agency was not to l)ei)re- 
 sumed from the fact that the respondent permit- 
 ted H. to ea'ivuss 15. in his presence, and there was 
 an entire absences of proof of any sufficicntarthor- 
 ity to H. to binil the respondent by his acts at 
 the polling place in the matters of treating and 
 the |)ayment of the .S'2. Per rournier, .T. , that 
 the ti'cating of 15. on pcdiing day, both Ijcfore 
 .•ind after he had voted, by H., an agent, and 
 the giving of the sum of .?2 immediately after 
 he hud voted, were corrupt acts sullicient to avoid 
 the election. ]\'<xt Korthiniihirlaiid Election 
 {lhnn.)—ntiid(r.wii v. (.'iiillrt, 10 S. C. R. (i;55. 
 
 The payment by an agent of a sum of $147 to 
 a votei' claiming the same to be due for expenses 
 at a previous election, and who refuses to vote 
 until the amount is paid, is a corrupt practice, 
 //ci'/.v Eli'ction (Dom. ) — liillciui v. Dumault, 11 .S. 
 C. I{. VAX 
 
 A payment of SIO was made to P. H. to go 
 BOinc miles for voters, although another messen- 
 
 ger was sent and paid by ar.other agent for the 
 same purjiose, who failed to get through on 
 account of the roads, and returned the niuiiey •_ 
 Held, that there was no reason to suppose that 
 the money was paid colourably. North OiUario 
 EkclioH fOiit.J — Treleareii v. Oould, 1 JJ. q 
 1.— Burton — Osier. 
 
 An election petition charged that H. an 
 agent of the candidate whose election was at- 
 tacked, corruptly offered and paid $5 to induce 
 a voter to refi'ain from voting. The evidence 
 showed that H. was in the habit of assisting 
 this particular voter, and that being told by 
 the voter that he contemplated going away from 
 home on a visit a few days before the election 
 and being away on election day, li. iironiised 
 him .?,") towards paying his expenses. Shortly 
 after the voter went to the house of H. to 
 borrow a coat for his journey, and H.'s brother 
 gave him !?."!. He went away and was al)sentan 
 election day : — Held, that the otter and payment 
 of the §5 formed one transaction and consti- 
 tuted a corrupt pr'.ctice under the Election 
 Act. Haldiiiiaiid Elfclion (l)oiii.) — Colter y 
 (limn, 1 K. C. r)72 ; 17 >S. C. R. 170. 
 
 See WiHt Sinicoc Eln-tioii (Ont.)— Bedford v 
 Phtliix, 1 E. C. 128, p. 1401 ; PrMn.it Election 
 {(hit.)'~Citniii}ii/hnm v. lliujar, 1 K. C. 88, p. 
 14.")9 ; Jfi'i/<nilic El'ction (Doiii.) — Coli' v. (loulet 
 9.S. f. R. 270, p. 1407 ; n'e.'<t Toronto Ehxtim 
 (Out.) -Arnistmiiii v. CrooL-i, IT. E. (!. 07, infra: 
 /{iniislon Election ( Doni.) — •'^trirnrt v. Macdoimld, 
 H. Fj. C. 02"), 1). USD ; East Simcoc Kli'iHon (On/ ) 
 —h'cidv. Dnmj, 1 E. C. ::.)1, p. 140,"). 
 
 4. Paying Canmnsers. 
 
 A candidate may if there is no intent thereby 
 to intluence voters or to induce others to pro- 
 cure his return, em|)Ioy men to act as canvassers 
 to distribute cards and placards, and to ptrfoni 
 similar services in connection with tlie election. 
 Eaxt Toronto Eli'ctinn (Out.) — lieniiirk v. Came- 
 ron, H. E. C. 70. —Richards. 
 
 The friends of the caiiilidale formed them- 
 selves into committees, and some of tiieni vol- 
 initarily distributed cards and canvassed ditfer- 
 ent localities, with book., containing lists of 
 voters, noting several particulars as to promises, 
 etc. These canva.ssers often met in public-houses, 
 and while tiiere, according to custom treated 
 those whom they found there, and tiius spent 
 their money as well as their time. Oil this being 
 re])resentc(l to those who had (Oiarge - ' the 
 money for election (expenses, the latter, in sev- 
 eral cases, reimbursed the canvassers:— Held, 
 these gencr.al payments, if not exceeding what 
 would be jiaid to a person for working the same 
 time in otIuM' employments, would not be such 
 evidence of bribciy as to set aside an election. 
 lb. 
 
 The bona fide employment and ))aynicnt of a 
 voter to canvass voters belonging to a particular 
 religious denomination, or to the i^anie tr.ide or 
 business, or to the same rank in life, or to can- 
 vass voters who only understand the French or 
 Celtic languages, is not illeg.il. The fact that 
 such a voter has skill or knowledge iiiid capacity 
 to canvass would not iinike his employiiiont ille- 
 gill. \\'<st Toronto Election (Oiit.)-'Arindrow) 
 v. Crooks, H. E. C. 97.— Kiehards. 
 
other agent for the 
 to get through on 
 urnerl the niuney ;_ 
 son to suppose that 
 jly. North Ontario 
 V. Ouuld, 1 E. C. 
 
 ■wged that H., an 
 
 )3e election was at- 
 
 I paid S5 to induce 
 
 ting. The evidence 
 
 e haliit of assisting 
 
 tliat l)eing told by 
 
 ted going away from 
 
 before the election, 
 
 1 day, H. iiromised 
 
 expenses. Shortly 
 
 the house of H. to 
 
 ey, and 11. 'a brother 
 
 ay and was absent on 
 
 ho offer and payment 
 
 usaution and consti- 
 
 nnder the Election 
 
 (Do III.) — Colter v. 
 
 ;. K. 170. 
 
 ) (Out.)— Bedford v. 
 !)1 ; Pre-iriitt Ekctm 
 uijnr, 1 v.. V. 88, p. 
 )oiii.) — CoU' V. (Soukt, 
 VcM Toronto Eh'cim 
 ([>•, II. E. <;. '.)7,iii/ra: 
 SHcirart V. Maaloiiald, 
 ' Simcoe Eli'Hion [Ont.] 
 »1, p. 14!).-). 
 
 [iiraisers. 
 
 •c is no intent thereby 
 induee otiicrs to pro- 
 en to act as eanviiasers 
 icards, ami to ptrfori.' 
 tion with the election. 
 \t.)—I{eiiiilrlc V. Came- 
 ra. 
 
 idiilatc formed them- 
 .nd some of them vol- 
 ■i and canvassed iliffer- 
 i.. containing lists of 
 lieulars as to promises, 
 HUnetin public-houses, 
 ing to custom treated 
 there, and thus spent 
 cir time. On tliis being 
 lio had cliarge 'I tin; 
 !ses, the latter, in sev- 
 lie canvassers : — Held, 
 if not exi'ceding what 
 II for working the same 
 nts, would not be .such 
 ) set aside an election. 
 
 ment and |)aynientof a 
 elongiiig to a particular 
 or to tlio same trade or 
 
 rank in life, or to can- 
 ilerstand the Trench or 
 
 illeg;il. The fact that 
 knowledge and capacity 
 die his employment ille- 
 ■lion ((hit.)- Arimtrowj 
 -Uichards. 
 
 1473 
 
 FARLIAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1474 
 
 Money was paid by an agent of the respon- 
 dent ($7 each) to certain voters for canvassing, 
 they oliserving that "a little money in (dection 
 time was allowed for knocking around," which 
 observation the agent considered was "going 
 about to solicit votes." The a;jent denied it was 
 paid with any corrupt intent , although his evi- 
 dence was not satisfactory. The voters swore 
 the money was paid to their wives, and the 
 agent was not recalled to explain it: -Held, 
 that altliougb such payments might be open to 
 unfavourable interpretation, it was not, accord- 
 ing to the evidence, inconsistent with being 
 made without any improper motive', /h. 
 
 The respondent and one M. empl-,>yed one H. , 
 alawyerand ()rofissional public s[)eaker, to ad- 
 dress meetings in the resiiondeot'a interest, and 
 promised to jiay Jl.'s trav(dlin),' expenses, if it 
 were legal to ilo so: — Hold (t)y the .'Supreme 
 Court), 'lascbereauand (j Wynne, .1,1., dissenting, 
 reversijig Armour, .].), tliat such a promise was 
 not bribery. North Ontario Klcrtioii ( Dniii. ) — 
 llMsv. Whr/(r, II. i'!. C. 7iS,-i ; .S'. ('., snli uom. 
 Sorlh Oiiliirio l.lirlioH (Doiii.i - ^Vhvlcr v. 
 6'iWm, 4 S. C. K. 4:{(). 
 
 Held, per Armour, .)., that the hiring of ora- 
 tors and cam assers at an election is bribery. ,S'. 
 t'. H. K. C. 7Sr). 
 
 Per Fournier, .1., candidates may legally em 
 ploy and pay for tli<! expenses and services of 
 canvassers ami speakers, provided the agree- 
 ment be not a cobitnablc one iut'Mided to e\ ade 
 the brdnry ehuises of the Act. I'er Taseherean 
 and Gwyune, J.J. such ii ]):iyment would be 
 illegal. S. a. 4IS. (J. 11. 4 SI. 
 
 Certain jiartics were paid as eanv.isserson be- 
 half of the respondent :— Held not a coirupt 
 piactice. I.iiiiinj- hlntion ((int.) — Milts v. Ji'oc, 
 I E. C. -11.- -(Jalt -Osier. -G. of A. 
 
 See liiiiina ex nl. Johns v. Stewart, \V> t). R. 
 :m, p. 13-27. 
 
 5. Iliriii/j Rooms. 
 
 The candidate is not restricted to his purely 
 persona', expenses, but nuiy (if there is no intent 
 thereby to iidlueiiee voters or to induee others 
 to procure bis return) hire -oums for committees 
 and nieetiiiga in connection \\itli the election. 
 Ead Tiiidiito JCtritioii \Ont.)-^R('niiirk v. Cum- 
 mm, H. E. V. 70.— lliohards. 
 
 ('). J/iriiiij ('onfcyanas. 
 
 The evidence shewed that M. 's team was hired 
 some days liefoie the o) cuing of the poll by ('., 
 anagentiif the nspoiuknt, fur the purpose of 
 bringing two • oti rs to the piiUs. M. went for 
 the voters, r^vurned the (lay pie\ ions to the 
 polling day with.mt the voters, and was paid 
 tiftccn dollars :-- II ehl, that the term "six pre- 
 ceding sictious," in section !)8 uf " The Dominion 
 Klections' Act, 1 874," means the six sections im- 
 mediately preceding the DHtli, and tlierelore the 
 hiring lit a team to convey voters to the polls, 
 probib.led by section !)tj was a enriuiit prac- 
 tice within the meaning of section OS, Henry, 
 J., disjiiitiiig. Silkirk Elcvtiun (l)oin.)—Younij 
 V. Smith, 4 S. C. U. 494. 
 
 9.3 
 
 Cabs and carriages wore hired for the use of 
 committee-men ami canvassers dnring the elec- 
 tiim and on the day of (joUing, with instructions 
 to the drivers that they were not to convey vo- 
 ters to and from the poll. ( )o(' e.ib was how ever 
 used for that purpose for the greiler part <if the 
 day, but witiiout the asse.it of the ayent of the 
 respondent, who had charge of the cab : — Held, 
 that as the evidence did nnt shew that the cabs 
 and carriages were ccdonrably hired for the pur- 
 pose ol bribery or conveying voters to the poll, 
 or that the one cab was so used with the assent 
 of the agent of respimdent, the hiring was not 
 an illegal act within ',V1 Viet. c. 21, s, 71, (Ont). 
 Wcit Toronto Eli-ction (Out.) ~ Annatruvii v. 
 Croohx, H. H. C. 97. — liichards. 
 
 On polling day, one W. asked two voters to 
 go with him and vote fnr the respondent, and 
 ho would bring thi-in back, and they could feed 
 their horses and have dinner. W. sent one of 
 his hordes (in some of his own business, and 
 hired fi-din om; of his voters a hurse, for which 
 \V. i)aid liim fifty cents, and then drove with 
 the two voters to the p(dl : — Held, not a hiring 
 of a horse, etc., to carry voters to the pull with- 
 in ',]'! \"\rt. c. '21, s. 71, nor a furnisliiiig ni en- 
 tertainment to induee voters to vote for the 
 respondent, within sectiin (il of tlie Ontario 
 lOlection Law ot ISUS. Xorth Victuria I'JIictioK 
 (()Ht.)~Mr.i:ac V. Smith, 11. E. C. 2M.— Draper, 
 
 Where the amounts ])aid for Inring teams 
 were lair and reasoiialde, such hiring «as not 
 biiliery imiler the Dominion C'outroverted I'.lec- 
 tioiis' Art, 1873. Nortli Viiloria KIcition 
 (horn.) -CiiiiirroH v. Macli nnan, II. K. C. 012. 
 — Morrison. 
 
 \' .M'o a canvasser for the respondent re- 
 ceived money for hiring teams, ami bind from 
 those indebt( (1 to him, and agreed with them 
 to give them credit for the resjiective .inmunts 
 to be paid for the teams, such an arr.angement 
 was not evidence of corrupt practices, /ft. 
 
 Moiu^y given to a person to hire a team ;ind to 
 go round canvassing, held, on the evidence, not 
 bribery, /h. 
 
 One I.., a voter, hired a horse and cutter on 
 the day of the (lecliini, and with .M., a tcrnti- 
 neer for the respondent, drove to the jioll and 
 \(ited. The day after the pnlliiig L. and A), 
 returned to their homes, and on the way M. 
 gave L. !$A to pay for the borse and cutter: — 
 jleld, I. That the payment of §^4 having been 
 made after the election, and not having been 
 made e()iin])tly to iiillneme the voter to vote 
 for the respondent, was not a corrupt practic(^ 
 or a wilful viid.ition of .S7 Viet., c. !t, s. 0() 
 (Dom.) 2. That M.'s iigeney was a limited one, 
 and had ci used befon! the payment in (]U(stion. 
 Iliilti.n k'/iitioii (I)oiii.) — t'ciMs V. McCranvy, 
 11. K. C. 7:i(i.— ratterson.— I . of A. 
 
 A room was procured nt which private meet- 
 ings were held of the friends of the respondent 
 to [iKimote his election, siuiie of w bieli meetings 
 he attended. One \V. attended the-e nuetiigs, 
 and w.is ap])ointed to proeuie the vote of a e,:a- 
 t.aiu voter who « as absent fnuii the riding. \\'. 
 hired a vehicle to convey the vot( r to the poll ; 
 -Meld, that W. w.-is an agi^iit of tl.j rispon- 
 deiit, and tliat his hiring .'-ucli a vehicle was a 
 corrupt prjietice. jXorlh. Oiitnrin Etritioii ( Dom.) 
 —Gibbs V. Wilder, II. E. C. 785.— Armour. 
 
1475 
 
 PABLIAMENTABY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1476 
 
 ea 
 
 8n^ 
 
 ««9 
 
 Held, by Putteraon, J. A. , and Ferguson, J. , 
 that what ia r.ifurred to inR. S. O. (1877), c. 10, 
 H. 154, is hiring vehicles to convey persons with 
 the intention of their voting, and the qualifica- 
 tion of 8uch per.soni, or their rij,'lit to voto, is 
 immaterial, whureaa section 153 re(jiiirc3 persona 
 therein referred to to l>j voters. Mutkiikci and 
 Parry Sowil EU'clioii(OiU.) — Pu<iit v. Fauquier, 
 I E. C. 197. 
 
 The hiring and paying of carters by an iigent 
 to convey voters who ai'o known to lie supporters 
 of the agciut's candidate ia a corrupt practice. 
 Selkirk Klection (Doni.)— Young w. Smith, 4 S. 
 C. H. 494, followed. Levis Election (Dom.)— 
 Jklleau V. Dmsault, 11 S. C. R. 133. 
 
 W. , an agent of the respondent, was in part- 
 nership as a livery-stable keeper with (J. Under 
 jin agreement between them if either partner 
 took out carriages for his own use he waa to pay 
 his co-))artnor half hire for them. On election 
 day W. took out carriages of the partnership 
 and conveyed voters to the poll, and afterwards, 
 after the election, duly accounted to (i. for half 
 hire for the same : — Held, that tins constituted 
 a corrupt practice under R. 8. c. 8, ss. 88, 91, 
 being a liiring of carriages to carry voters to the 
 jioU, and that the election of the respondent was 
 void. West ili(l(U,,iex Election (Dom.) — McNeil 
 v. Hooitic, 1 E. C. 4C').— Fal''.'Mibridge. 
 
 7. Paying Travelling Expenses. 
 
 Held, that hiring by an agent of the res- 
 IKindeiit of a railway train to convey voters to 
 and from |)laces along the line of railway where 
 they could vote, was a payment of the travelling 
 expenses of voters in goinf to and from the 
 election, within the moaning of 32 Vict. c. 21, 
 s. 71 (Out.), and was a corrupt practice, and 
 avoided the election. North Simcue Election 
 (Onl .) — Sissons v. Ardagh, H. E. C. 50.— 
 .Strong. 
 
 The payment of a voter's expenses ingoing to 
 the poll is illegal, as such, and a corrupt prac- 
 tice, even though the payment may not iiave 
 been intended as a bribe. Sotdh Orey Elec- 
 tion (Ont.)— Hunter v. Lauder, H. E. C. 52.— 
 Mowat. 
 
 The court declined, in the present state of the 
 Law, to exclude inquiry as to the payment of 
 travelling expenses of persons going to and re- 
 turning from the poll, inasmuch as such pay- 
 ment might amount to bribery. North Victoria 
 Eli^clion (Dotn.) — Cameron v. Maclennaii, H. E. 
 C 584. — Richards— Spragge — Hagarty. 
 
 In appeal, four charges of liribery were relied 
 upon, three of which were dismissed in the 
 court below, because there was not sufficient 
 evidence that the electors had been .)ribed by 
 an agent of the candidate ; and the fourth 
 charge was known as the Lamarche case. The 
 facts were as follows: One L., the agent of C, 
 the resp;)ndent, g ive to certain electors employ- 
 ed on certain steamboats, ♦' kets over the North 
 Shore Raihoad, to enable them to go without 
 paying any fjire from Montreal to Berthier, to 
 V()te at the llerthier election, the voters having 
 accepted the tickets without any promise being 
 exacted from or given by them. The tickets 
 8iiewed ou their &ce that they had been paid 
 
 for, but there was evidence L. had received 
 them gratuitously from one of the officers of the 
 company. The learned judge who tried the 
 case found as a fact that the tickets had not been 
 paid for, and were given uneonditionally, and 
 therefore held it was not a corrupt act :— Held' 
 
 1. (Fournierand Henry, .JJ., dissentii.g). That 
 the taking unconditionally and gratuitously of 
 a voter to the poll by a railway eouipany or an 
 individual, whatever his occupation may be, or 
 giving a voter a free pass over a railway, or by 
 boat, or other conveyance, if unaeeom|ianicd by 
 any conditions or stipulations that shall affect 
 the voter's action in reterenee to the vote to be 
 given, is not prohibited by 39 Vict. c. 9 (Dom.) 
 
 2. That if a ticket, although given mionndition- 
 ally to a voter by i\n agent of the candidate has 
 been paid for, then such a practice would be nn- 
 lawful under section 9li, and liy virtue of section 
 98 a corrupt practice, and would avoid the elec- 
 tion, lierthier Eli'dmn (Dom.) — Oenereux v 
 Cnthhert, 9 S. C. R. 102. 
 
 Tlie oy)taining by an agent of a candidate 
 from the president of a railway company, six 
 passes, for which notliiiig had been or was ever 
 intended to be paid, three of whieii were used 
 in l)ringing as many voters to tlie poll is not a 
 corrupt practice witliin the meaning of the 
 Election Act, sectimi 104. The mischievous 
 effects that might arise from such a practice on 
 the part of railways remarked upon. Houth 
 t'icloria Election (Ont.) — Hodden v. Mclntyrt, 
 IE. C. 182.— Patterson -Ferguson. -C. of A. 
 
 S., an agent of the respondent, with his own 
 conveyance, brought a voter from N. to his own 
 house, where he remained as a guest until after 
 the polling ilay : — Held, not witlim cither sec- 
 tions 153 or 154 of the Act. North Ontario 
 Election (Out.) — Treleuven v. Gould, 1 E. C. I. 
 
 When the agent of a candidate asked a voter 
 if he intended to vote, and the voter said be did 
 not think so, as he could not spare the money to 
 go, but that if he went he would not vote for 
 the opposing candidate, and the agent thereupon 
 lent him the cost of a return ticket ; and the 
 evidence shewed that the transaction was a 
 bona fide loan and not a gift, and waa not made 
 with the intention of influencing the voter in 
 favour of the principal, and that the money was 
 repaid shortly after the election without any 
 demand made therefor :— Held, that the above 
 did not constitute a corrupt practice under B. 
 S. 0. (1877), c. 8, 8. 84, sub-section ((/) or sec- 
 tion 88. The voter had the will to go aud vote 
 for the agent's principal, but he liad not the 
 mo.ana to enable him to do so, and tiipse were 
 furnished to him by the agent, but as a bona 
 tide loan, not as a gift. Thus he waa not in- 
 duced but merely enalded to vote bya temporary 
 loan, aud no breach of the law cimtained in the 
 above sections w;is comnutted. East Elijin Elec- 
 tion (I)om.)—Merritt v. Wilson, 1 E. C. 475.- 
 Strcet. 
 
 See SoiUh Renfrew Election (Onl.)~Harvey v. 
 Dowting,lE. C. 359, p. 1522. 
 
 8. Dettimj. 
 
 Where in addition to other corruj)t acts, huts 
 were mode by agents of the respondent and 
 others, with a number of voters who were sui)- 
 
1471 
 
 m 
 
 PABLIAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1478 
 
 1. had received 
 16 officui's of the 
 who tried the 
 cts hail not been 
 iditionuUy, anil, 
 ipt act :— Held, 
 isaontii.g). That 
 [ giiituitously of 
 Y ooiupany or an 
 itiou may be, or 
 a railwiiy, or by 
 laceomiiauicd l)y 
 that sliall atrect 
 to the vote to be 
 Viut. c. 9 (Uom.) 
 veil imuondition- 
 ;he caiididate has 
 tioe would be nn- 
 ' virtuu of section 
 hi avoid the elec- 
 n.)—Oenereux v. 
 
 t of a candidate 
 
 ,vay company, six 
 
 L been oi- was ever 
 
 whicii were used 
 
 till! poll is not a 
 
 meaning of the 
 
 The mischievous 
 
 iiicli a practice on 
 
 ked upon. South 
 
 Idc.ii V. Mdnlyrt, 
 
 rguson. -C. of A. 
 
 lent, with his own 
 
 Eroii) N. to his own 
 
 a guest until after 
 
 within either sec- 
 
 t. N'x-th Ontario 
 
 Gould, I E. C. 1. 
 
 idate asked a voter 
 10 vot'rsaid he did 
 spare the money to 
 would not vote for 
 he agent thereupon 
 irn ticket ; and the 
 transaction was a 
 and was not made 
 jncing the voter in 
 that the money was 
 eetion without any 
 [eld, that the above 
 ; practice under B. 
 b-section (d) or sec- 
 will to go and vote 
 )Ut ho had not the 
 80, and tlipse were 
 gent, but as a bona 
 I'hus he was not iii- 
 I vote by a temporary 
 law contained in the 
 jd. EaM lilnin AV- 
 ilson, 1 E. G. 475.- 
 
 m (Ont.)-Hai-vey v. 
 2. 
 
 V- 
 
 lier ' 
 
 Her oorruiit acts, bets 
 the respondent ami 
 roterswbo wereauii- 
 
 porters of N., the opposing candidate, the effect 
 of the bets being that in order to win the bets, 
 the voters must vote for the respondent : — Held, 
 that these beta were for the purpose of getting 
 votes for the respondent, and were corrupt 
 practices ; and that in connection with the other 
 corrupt acta proved, they att'eoted the result of 
 the election ; and that the election was therefore 
 avoided. Lincoln Election (2) (Out.) —I'awlimj v. 
 Rijktrl, H. E. C. 489.— Patterson— Blake. 
 
 Money was given to certain voters to make 
 bets with others on the result of the election, but 
 as there was no evidence of a previous undcr- 
 staniiiiig as to the votes, such bets were not 
 brilicrv. South Norfolk lijkclioii [Dom. ) — Dfcuw 
 V. Wiilla'c, H. \L C. 661).— Draper. 
 
 Tlie practice of making bets on an election con- 
 demned as like a device to commit bribery. lb. 
 
 One Pi ingle, an acknowledged agent of the 
 respondent and the president of the conservative 
 association, whose candidate the respondent was, 
 made a bet ol $5 with one Parker, a liberal, that 
 he woulil Vote against thecDiiservative party, and 
 depositc I with the stakeholder the .$.'), wiiich, 
 after the election, was paid over to Parker. At 
 the trial l^riiigle denied that ho was actuated by 
 any intention to intlucnce the conduct of the 
 voter, and alleged that the bet wat made as a 
 sporting hot on the spur of the moment, and with 
 the expectation that, as he said, Parker would 
 warm up and vote ; but he also admitted in evi- 
 dence tiiat it passed through his mind tints >me 
 one on tlij V. iter's side would make the money 
 good if he voted. I'arker s.iid he had foiuud 
 the resolution not to vote before he made Ins het 
 but the evidence shewed that he did not think 
 lightly of the sum which he was to receive for Ins 
 not voting, his answer to one question puttohini 
 being : " Oh ! I don't know that $j would be an 
 insult to .my one not to vote:" — Held, reversing 
 the judgment of the court below (1 K. (',. 'M) 
 that the bt-t ill question was colourable bribery 
 within the enactments of uub section 1 of section 
 92, of the Doiniiiion Elections' Act, 1874, and a 
 corrupt practice which avoided the election. 
 
 Went yoiilmiiihciianil Elirtim (Dom.) — Ilendtr- 
 
 son V. Uuilkl, 10 S. C. R. 635. 
 
 9. Jntimidaiion. 
 
 The respondent was charged with intimidating 
 guveriiniuiit servants during his speech at the 
 uumiu.ition of candidates, by threatening to pro 
 cure the removal of all government aerv ants « ho 
 should not vote for hun, or who should vote 
 agaiust him. The evidence shewed that, though 
 ui tlie heat of debate, and when irritateil by one 
 U., he used strong language, there was no foun- 
 <lation for tlie corrupt charge ; and as it should 
 nut have been made, the costs in respect of the 
 «ame were given to the respondent against the 
 petitioner. T'hi respondent was ordered to pay 
 the coats of the petition and trial, except tlie 
 costs of certain issues found iii favour oi the re- 
 spoiiileiit, part of which costs were to lie paid by 
 pititioiier to the respondent ; and as to pan, 
 each party was ordered to bear his own. iVel- 
 land hie'tion (2) (OiU.)—Bitchner v C'urrie, H. 
 II (J. 187.— Gwynuo. 
 
 One W., a voter, who was in arrears to the 
 crowu for the purchase money of a lot of laud, 
 
 was canvassed by B., an alleged agent of the 
 respondent, who told him that the government 
 would look sharply after those in arrears for their 
 land who diil not vote for the supporters of the 
 government : —Held (reversing Wilson, J.), that 
 what occurred was at most a brutum fulmen, 
 if intended as a threat at all, and only an ex- 
 pre--'ou of opinion upon a subject on which 
 every one was competent to form his own judg- 
 ment. North Ontario Election (Oni.) — McVaskiU 
 V. Fitxtun, a. E. C. 304.— C. of A. 
 
 C. occupied as a boarding-house, a house of a 
 lumber company rent free, and was paid for 
 boarding the men by the men themselves, but 
 tlirough the company retaining the amount 
 thereof out of their wages. C. acted as scruti- 
 neer for the defeated candidate, and while so 
 acting, but after ho had voted, was sent for by 
 P. the company's manager, an agent of the re- 
 spoiidjiit, and given to understand that his 
 so acting was not satisfactory to the company 
 and agiin-it their interest. No threat of any 
 kind was m ido. U. returned to the polling 
 plicu and continued to act, but on reflection, 
 about twelve o'clock, he ceased to do so. C. had 
 canvassed the men at the boarding-house for the 
 defe.ited c mdidate, for whom some had pro- 
 mised to vote, and a good many of the men had 
 voted before he left. It did not appear that what 
 P. had said to C. w is coinniunioated to any voter, 
 or that any voter was iiiduenced thereby : — 
 Held, that a ch irge of intimidation was not 
 proved. E'lsl Simcoe Election (Ont.) — Reid v. 
 Priini, 1 E. C. 2t - Boyd. — Cameron. — 
 C. of' A. 
 
 After the election G. received notice of dis- 
 missal from the company, and was informed by 
 P. that it was for talking too much in the elec- 
 tion about one of the hands having been sent 
 away to prevent his voting. It was charged 
 that C. was dismissed on account of his having 
 voted at the election : — Held, that the charge 
 was not proved, lb. 
 
 See Hallon Election (Ont.) — Bussell v. Barber, 
 H E C. 2(S3, j»//'a; Voit/a/i'/es Election {Dom.) — 
 ( ■holrtic V. liain, 10 S. C. R. 652, p. 1494 ; Mua- 
 koka Election (Unt.) — Slarratt v. Miller, H. E. 
 C. 458, p. 1479. 
 
 10. Undue Influence. 
 
 A candidate's appeal to his business, or to his 
 employment of capital in promoting the pros- 
 perity of I constituency, if honestly m ide, is not 
 prohihited by law. \Ved Peterborough Election 
 ((>«<■)— .S'luMv. Gox, H. E. 0. 274.— Draper. 
 
 One B. claimed the right to vote in respect of 
 his w.fe's property, and was told by W., an 
 agent of the respondent, that he could not vote 
 unless he could swear the property was his own. 
 The voter's o ith was read to him, and the agent 
 repeated his statement, and said he would Took 
 after the voter if he took the oath. The voter 
 appe ired to be doubtful of his right to vote, and 
 withdrew : -Held, that the agent was not guilty 
 of uii'lue influence. Quaere, whether the act of 
 the agent as al>ove set out was undue influence 
 under 32 Vict., o. 21, s. 72. Hallon Election, 
 (ijiu.} -Bussell V. Barber, H. E. C. 283.— Draper 
 — U. of A. 
 
1479 
 
 PARLIAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1480 
 
 fa 
 
 csi: 
 
 69 
 
 «|t| 
 
 ml 
 
 'I 
 
 ■V !i 
 
 I 
 
 fe,' 
 
 
 iHt 
 
 ,1 % ^ 
 
 
 |pi| 
 
 The respondent stated <it a public meeting of 
 the electors with reference to an alleged local 
 grievance, that he understood it to be the con- 
 stitutional practice, here and in Knglund, for the 
 ministry to dispense as far as practicable the 
 patronage of tlie constituency on the recomnien- 
 datiun of the person who contested the consti- 
 tuency on the government side ; and tliat he be- 
 ing a supporter of the government would iiave 
 the patronage in respect of appropriations and 
 appointments whetiicr electtd or not ; - Hold, 
 1. That the respondent by such vordsdidnot 
 offer or promise directly or indirectly any place 
 or employment, to or for any voter, or any other 
 person in induce such voter to vote, t)r refrain 
 from voting. 2. (reversing Wilson, J.) Tliat 
 the respondent was not gnilty of undue iiiHuencc 
 as defined by section 72 of the Ontario Kkction 
 Law of 1868, nor as recognized by the conmion 
 law of the Parliament of Kngland. 3. That to 
 sustain such a general churge of undue influence, 
 it would be necessary to prove that the intimi- 
 dation was so general and extensive in its o[)er- 
 ation that the freedom of election had ceaseil 
 in consequence. Miiskoka Jilccfiou (Unl.) — 
 Starratt v. Millar, H. K. (!. 458. -C\ of A. 
 
 Observations on the impropriety of Division 
 Court bailiffs canvassing voters during an elec- 
 tion. North Victoria Llection (Dom.) — Cameron 
 v. Machnnan, H. K. C. (il2. — Moirison. 
 
 Two agents of the rcspcmdcnt gave a voter M. 
 some whiskey on polling day, and took him in a 
 boat to an island, wliero they .stayed for some 
 time. One of the agents tliou left, and tlic other 
 sent M. to another part of the island for their 
 coats. During M.'s absence the latter agent left 
 the island with the boat, but M. got back in 
 time to vote, being sent for by the oj)[)osite 
 party : — Held, tliat the two agents were guilty 
 of undue influence. — North Ontario Elcctiuii 
 (Dom.)—aibbs v. WheMr, H. ¥.. C. 785.— 
 Armour. 
 
 See North Victoria Election {Dnm.)— Cameron 
 V. Alacleiimm, H. E. C. 584, p. 1464. 
 
 11. Fraudulent Device. 
 
 Shortly before polling d;iy the respondenfs 
 agents issued a circular, the snljstnnce of which 
 was that they had ascertained upon undoubted 
 authority that W., an independent cimilidate, 
 despairing of election himself, was procuring liis 
 friends to vote for V., the opposition eandidate. 
 W. denied the tiuth of this rcpoit : — Held, that 
 this was not a " fraudulent device," within the 
 meaning of 32 Vict. e. 21, s. ;<2 (Out.), to inter- 
 fere with the fiee exeieisc of the ftanehise of 
 voters. Eant Kortlrimheylaiid L'lcrtkm {Out.)— 
 Casey v. Ferris, H. E. C. 3S7. — (> Wynne. 
 
 See Coriiviall Election (3) (Dom.) — Alaclennan 
 V. Berain, H. E. C. 80,!, p. 1401). 
 
 12. Treating. 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 Treating at an election, in order to be criminal, 
 must be dune conuptly, and for the pur| ose ot 
 corrupily iidluenciiig tlio voter. Hoiiili Norfolk 
 Election {Dom.)—JJecovi v. H'ullacc, H. E. C 
 660. — Draper. 
 
 Treating is not per se a corrupt act, except 
 when so made by statute ; but the intent of the 
 jiarty treating may make it so, and the intent 
 must be judged by all the circumstances by 
 which it is attended. North Middlesex Election 
 {Ont.)— Cameron \. McBowjall, H. E. C. 376.— 
 Spnigge. 
 
 Where a charge of a corrupt intent in treating 
 is made, the evidence must satisfy the jiidge, 
 beyond reasonable doubt, that the treating whs 
 intended directly to influence the election, and 
 to produeeaneflect upon the eleetois.anii wasso 
 dune with a corrupt intent. Oknijarri/ Eleiliuu 
 (0)K.)--;l/f//c7i7io?iv. C'jwf/, H. E.C.'s.— Ilagarty. 
 
 Treating, when done in compliance with a 
 custom prevalent in the county and w ithout any 
 corrupt intent, will not avoid an election. Wet- 
 land Election (Onl.)—/ieatlyv.Currie, U.K. C 
 37. — Strong. 
 
 The general practice which prevails here of 
 persons drinking in a friendly way «hcn they 
 meet, would i cquire strong evidence of the pro- 
 fuse expenditure of money in drinking, to induce 
 a judge to say it was conuptly done, so as to 
 make it bribery or treating at eominon hiw. 
 Kiiiijsion Election ( Dom. )— Stewart v. Maaloimld, 
 II. E. C. (i25.--i;iehaids. 
 
 See North Victoria Election {Ont.) -Mcllae v. 
 Smith, H. K. C. LTii, p. 14()8; North \i,lom 
 Election (Dom.)— Cameron v. Maclevnan, H. K. 
 C. 584, p. I4'j4. 
 
 (b) IJi/ Candidates. 
 
 The treating of persons by the eandidate at a 
 tavern during liis canvass :— Held, under the evi- 
 dence, not to be a treating of eleclois with cor- 
 lupt motives. London Election (</iil.)—JuruiaH 
 v. Meredith, H. E. (J. 214.— Spragge. 
 
 About an hour after a meeting of a few friends 
 of tlie respondent at a tavern, one of their num- 
 ber was sent some distance to liuy oysters for 
 their own refreshment, of which the parties and 
 others partook. 'I he following day a fi lend of 
 the respondent treated at a tavern, and iidt liav- 
 ing change, the respondent gave hiui twenty- 
 live cents to pay for the treat :-- II oil, not to 
 be corru[)t treating, nor a vicdation of H(i Vict, 
 c. 2, s. 2 (Ont.). iVelland Election (2) (Oiit.)- 
 linclnier v. Curric, H. E. 0. 187.— (jwyiine. 
 
 Semble, where treating is done by a candidate 
 in order to make for himself a rciiutatiou for 
 good lellowship and hospitality, and tlierehy to 
 iiillnence electors to vote for liini, it is a species 
 of bribery which would avoid his election at 
 common law. North MiiUllcsex Election [i)iil.)— 
 Cameron \. McDomjall, H. E. C 37i). -Spiagge. 
 
 When the rospdndent who, in tin; course of 
 his business as a drover, had LeiMi m the hiiliit 
 of treating at taverns, treated during his c:in- 
 vass, but to a less extent than was Ins lial)it,aiul 
 not apparently for the purpose of ingratiating 
 himself with the electors : — Held, under tlietir- 
 cuinstanecs, that such treating was not coirui>t, 
 and his election was not avoided. Jl>. 
 
 A respondent during his canvass and on tho 
 same evening that a public meeting was hclil fur 
 the purposes of proinoling the election treatu' a 
 number of persons, many of whom were voters 
 
1481 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1482 
 
 C. 8. — llagarty. 
 
 collected in a barroom. It wua shewn that it 
 was not the respondent's general habit to treat, 
 anil all persons wera invited to drink, and that 
 lie had not treated more than twice or perhaps 
 three times during the canvass :--Held, not a 
 corrupt practice, and that in view of the ordi- 
 nary custom of treating in the country it miglit 
 Lc regarded more as an expression of good feel- 
 ing to those who were supporting him. North 
 Ontario Election (Out.) — Trekavtu v. Ooiild, ] 
 K. C. l.—Bu"tou— Osier. 
 
 See tllenij'irry Eli-fiioii (Out.) — McLctmati v. 
 0(1(7, H. 'K. C. 8, p. 1482; Diindns E/i'Hion 
 ^OnD-Conk V. Hrodcr, H. K. C. 'JO"., p. 1483; 
 Xniili Ontario Elictioii (()nt.)—Trel<aveii v. 
 (loiild, I K. C. 1, 1). 14S4 ; Miixkoku and /'nrri/ 
 Soiinil. Election iOnt.) — Panet v. Eniii/iiicr, 1 K. C 
 1!)7, p. 1485; East Middhm-x Election (Out.) — 
 lilwdirv. McKiiizic, I K. V,. 2o0, pp. 1485, 1495. 
 
 (c) By Agents. 
 
 The furnishing of rcfreshnioit to voters hy an 
 agent of a canilidatc, witiiout tlie knowledge or 
 consent of the candidate and against his will, 
 will not be sufKcient ground to set aside an 
 ekvtion, unless done corruptly or with intent to 
 influence voters. Einl Toronto Election (Ont.) — 
 Jiciniiiky. Camiron, H. V,. (J. 70. — liiehards. 
 
 Where the object of an agent in treating m to 
 gain popularity for himself, and not with any 
 view of advancing the interest of his employers, 
 sueli treating is not bribery. Ih. 
 
 One R, an agent of the respondent, on the day 
 of the nomination of candidates to contest the 
 election, and while the speaking was going on, 
 triNited a large number of persons at a tavern 
 across the street from the place of ti.e iiomina- 
 liim, for which he ])aid 87 oi' .§8 : — Held, a cor- 
 rupt practice by an agent of the respondent, 
 wliii;h avoided the election. Dundait Election 
 (Ont,) — C'iok V. Brnder, H. K. C. 205. — S[iragge. 
 
 Oiiel)., wiiohad been a candidate for various 
 offices for twenty years prior to the election in 
 question, and had freely employed treating as an 
 element in his canvassing, became an agent of 
 the res])ondent, and treated extensively, as was 
 his connnon practice, during the election. The 
 respondent was aware of D.'s ))raetices, and once 
 in the early part of the canvass, cautioned 0. as 
 to Ills treating, but never i'ci)U(liated him as his 
 agent : — Held, on the evidence, that as I), did 
 no more in the way of treating during the elec- 
 tion than he had done on former occasions, and 
 had employed treating as he ordinarily did as 
 his argument, and had not used it as a means of 
 corruptly influencing the electors, be was not 
 guilty of a eorj-upt practice. Eait Eliiin Eliction 
 (Dom.)—Blw\. Arbll, IF. K. C. 76!).— Blake. 
 
 Semble, the treating proved in this case, if 
 practised by one not theretofore given to such 
 practice would have been suflicient to have 
 avoided the election. lb. 
 
 Observation on the law as it now stands, as 
 huldinu out inducemenlv to candidates to employ 
 men who are habitual drinkers to canvass by 
 systematic treating, and thus cause electioneering 
 to depend upon popularity aroused by treating, 
 rather than the merits of the candidates, or the 
 mcisures they advocate. lb. 
 
 See East Toronto Election, (Ont.) — Rtnnick v. 
 Cameron, H. K. C. 70, p. 1472; Went Northum- 
 berland Election (Dum.) — llendermn v. Ouillel, 
 10 S. C. U. (!.•(.-), p. 1471 ; North Ontario Elec- 
 tion (Oiit.)—Trcleavan v. Gould, 1 E. C. 1, p. 
 1490; London Election (OiU.) — Jarmanv. Mere- 
 dith, H. E. V,. 214, p. 1408. 
 
 Treating on day of polling. See Subhead 
 VII. 12(/) p. 1485. 
 
 'J'reating at meetings. See Subhead VII. 12 
 
 (e) infra. 
 
 (d) liy Other Perwns. 
 
 The giving of free dinners to a number of elec- 
 tors who had come a long distance in severe win- 
 ter weatlier, in tiie abaence of evidence that it 
 was done for the purpose of influencing the elec- 
 tion either by voting or not voting, or that such 
 electors voted: — Held, not a corrupt act. North 
 Victoria Election (2j (Dom. )- Cameron v. Macien- 
 nan, H. E. C. G71. -Wilson— Q. B. 
 
 I Certain voters met at a tavern on polling day, 
 j and one B. said he did not know how to mark 
 I liis l)allot. One of the voters, after shewing B. 
 i how to mark his ballot, according to the eandi- 
 ; date he desired to vote for, treated : — Held, that 
 j the treating was not a violation of section 94 of 
 j the dominion Elections' Act, 1874, nor a corrupt 
 i practice under section 98 of the Act. North 
 i Ontario Eleclion (Dom.)- Oibbs v. Wlicler, H. 
 ] E. C. 785. — Armour. 
 
 ' See North Ontario Election (Ont.) — McCaskill 
 V. fajlon, H. I-;. V. 304, p. 1484. 
 
 (e) At Mcctinijs. 
 
 Reasonable refreshmentg furnished bona tide 
 to connuittees promoting the election are not 
 illegal. South Orcii Election (Ont.) — Hunter v. 
 Lniidir, H. E. C. 52.-~Mowat. 
 
 Itefreshments provided at a meeting of elec- 
 tors, all of one political party, or at a meeting of 
 a cominitteu to aid in returning a candidate, by 
 and at the cNpensc of one or more of their num- 
 ber, unless in some extreme ease cannot be 
 deemed a breach of the i)rovisions of the statute 
 against treating. Halton Election (Ont.)—Bwi- 
 Mll\. Harbor, H. E. C. 283. -Drapei.— C. of A. 
 
 The respondent who was then representing the 
 county in the legislature, on two several oc- 
 casions at the close of public meetings of electors 
 called by him to explain his coniluet as such 
 member, treated all present to liquor at taverns. 
 He bad not at the ti'ne made up his mind to be 
 a candidate at the then coming election, but 
 tiddthe electors that "if they gave him their 
 support he would expect it"':— Held, under the 
 ciicumstances, that such treating was not done 
 with a corru])t intent. Qua're, whether such 
 treating was in any ease a corrupt practice, 
 under 32 V^ict. , c. 21, s. 61 (Ont.); or other 
 than an illegal act which subjected the party 
 to a penalty of §100 under section 65— the 
 statute pointedly omitting all mention of treat- 
 ing. — Obnqarry Election (Ont.) —McLennan v. 
 Craig, H. E. C. 8.— Hagarty. 
 
 V^iohitions of the Ontario Controverted Elec- 
 tion Act, 1871, s. 61 (treating at meetings). 
 
 * - 
 
1483 
 
 PABUAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 148< 
 
 ««. 
 
 is not B oorrnpt practice within the meaning of 
 that Act ana ot the Election Act of 1868, 
 anle88 committed in order to influence voters 
 at the election complained of. North York 
 Election (Ont.)—0orham v. Boiillbee, H. E. C. 
 62.— Gait. 
 
 One F., an agent of the respondent, brought a 
 jar of whiskey to a meeting of electors assembled 
 for the purpose of promoting the election, and 
 gave drinks from the same to the electors pre- 
 sent, which was he'd a corrupt practice, and a 
 violation of the Ontario Election Act of 1868, 
 as amended by the Election Act of 187.S, so that 
 the election was avoided tlierol)y. Wcyt [Vfl- 
 lington Election {Ont.) — Moore \. MeOovan, H. 
 B.'C. 231.— Gwynne. 
 
 A meeting of the electors was held in a town 
 hall, and C. (an agent of respondent) and a num- 
 ber of electors went from the meeting to a tavern, 
 where they were treated by C. :— Held, 1. That 
 this was a meeting of electors assembW for t' s 
 purpose of promoting the election : and, 2. Th t 
 the treating by C. was a corrupt practice, ani. a 
 breach of the 32 Vict. c. 21, s. 61, as amended by 
 36 Vict. c. 2, 8. 2. East Peterbnroufjli Election 
 {Ont.)—Slrattonv. O'Snllivan, H. E. C. 245.— 
 Draper. 
 
 After a meeting of electors in a town iiail, 
 some friends of the respondent remained together 
 consulting about tlie election, and afterwards 
 went to a tavern, where some of them boarded, 
 and had an oyster supper : — Held, that tlie evi- 
 dence was not sufficient to sustain the charge tliat 
 this was an entertainment furnished to a meet- 
 ing of electors under 32 Vict. c. 21, s. 01 (Out.), 
 as amended by 36 Vict. c. 2, s. 2. North Vic- 
 toria Election (Oiil. )—McR(ie v. Smitfi, H. E. 
 C. 252.— Draper. 
 
 The respondent, who was a member of a tem- 
 perance organization, held an election meeting in 
 a locality within the electoral division, and about 
 an hour after the meeting had dispersed, weut 
 to a tavern where he met about ten or iifteon 
 persons in the barroom, to whom he made tiie 
 remark, "Boys, will you have something:' 
 Nothing was then taken ; but one E. , a siipportc ; 
 of the respondent, said he would treat, and h*- 
 did treat the persons present, and the respondeni; 
 gave him the money to pay for the treat : — Held , 
 I. That as the meeting for promoting the elec- 
 tion had dispersed an hour before the respondent 
 weut to the tavern, this was not a meeting of 
 electors. 2. That the treating not having been 
 done with a corrupt intent, was not an offence 
 under 32 Vict. c. 21, s. 61, as amended by .36 
 Vict. c. 2, s. 2, nor at common law : Qua;re, 
 whether the Treating Act, 7 Will. 111., c. 4, is 
 in force in this province. Dundas Election (Out. ) 
 — Cook V. Broder, H. E. C. 205. — .Spraggc. 
 
 A meeting of the electors w.as held at a tavern, 
 at which both candidates were present. A dis- 
 pute arose, and the meeting broke up and the 
 parties left the room as a disorderly crowd, and 
 began pulling off their coats and talked of fight- 
 ing. A treat was proposed to quiet the people, 
 and one F. (held by Wilson, J., to be an agent 
 of the respondent), treated, and the crowd 
 quieted down and dwindled away : — Held (per 
 Wilson, J.), that the treating under the circum- 
 stances, was not furnishing drink to a meeting of 
 electors assembled for the purpose of promoting 
 
 the election. On appeal the court, without gx- 
 pressing any opinion a6 to the treating, held, on 
 the evidence, thatF. was on agent of the reBpon- 
 dent at the time of the alleged treating. Norlh 
 Ontario Election (Ont.) — McCuskill v. PaxtMi 
 H. E. C. 304. -C. of A. 
 
 One W. , a member of a i)olitical association 
 treated the members of the associatimi present 
 at a meeting in a tavern : — Held, that the mem- 
 bers so present were electors assembli'd to pro. 
 mote the election of the respondent witliin s. (il 
 of the Election Law of 1868, and that such treat- 
 ing was a corrupt practice by W. Nurtk dn.u 
 Election (On(.)—Jionr(lman v. Scolt, H. K (' 
 362.- Gwynne.— C. of A. 
 
 After the nomination of candidates od the 
 nomination day, .ind on another (jccasion, iifup 
 a ' ' meeting assi^nblcd for the purpose of pro- 
 moting the election," and after the business Icir 
 which the electors had assembled was over, the 
 electors left the building in which tliu meetiiiL» 
 was held and dispersed to various taverns, at 
 which their vehicles had been put up, and then 
 before leaving for liome treated ea'di other; and 
 at one of tlie taverns the respondent hinisolf pa. 
 took of a treat : — Held, 1. Not furnishing drinis 
 or other entertainment to meetings of electors 
 within section 61 of the Ontario Election Act of 
 1868. 2. That tlie meeting of doctors for the 
 nomination of candidates, is a "nieelini; assem- 
 bled for the purpose of promoting the election.' 
 Xortli MUId("8ex Election (Ont.)—C'awiron v. 
 AfcDougtill, H. E. C. 376. — Spragge. 
 
 An association formed " for the greater dif- 
 fusion of lil>eral principles and the social and 
 intellectual improvement of its members," being 
 prevented by an accident from meeting at the 
 town liall, held ii meeting in a tavern, and was 
 treated by the respondent : — Hehl, not a meet- 
 ing of electors within section 151 of the Act. 
 Xorlli Ontario Elcition {Onl.)—Tnleartn v, 
 Gottld, 1 E. C. 1.— Burton -Osier. 
 
 • '■ ...pi,<»p.red tint on 15th February, the re- 
 .■'• -.1.: v.'aa chosen by :i convention of his 
 .•. tiieir candidate. On 23rd Feliiiwry, a 
 p; '"■■:: meetir;g was I'cid by him in a room in a 
 h' , which meeting was composed of about 
 s -n persons, sonic belonging to the o|ipo8ite 
 political party. A chairman was appointed and 
 the rcspoiident addres.scd the meeting, as did 
 others also. As soon as the proceedings closed, 
 i.e., when the speaking was over, nearly all 
 present crossed the hall, and went into the bar- 
 room. The respondent followed, first inviting 
 the few who remained to join them, and then in 
 the barroom invited them to drink, which they 
 did, he paying for the liquor. On 27th Febru- 
 ary the nomination twik place, and the polling 
 on 13th March :--Held, at the trial by Putter- 
 son, J. A., and Ferguson, J., and by the Court 
 of Appeal, Gait, J., dissenting, that this was 
 a violation of R. S. O. (1877), c. 10, s. 151. Per 
 Hagarty, C. .). O., and Burton, J. A.— 11. 8. 
 O. (1877), c. W, s. 151, refers clearly to a meet- 
 ing of electors, whether the formalities of ap- 
 pointing a chairman or secretary are observed or 
 not: — Held, also. Gait, J., dissenting, that 
 though the act of treating appeared to have been 
 committed in ignorance that it was a violation 
 of the statute, it did not appear to have been 
 in an ignorance which was involuntary or 
 
148( 
 
 1485 
 
 PARLIAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1486 
 
 court, without ej. 
 treating, held, on 
 igent of the respon. 
 <l treating. Korih 
 •Caxkill V. Pazliiii, 
 
 )olitical aasociation, 
 association ]ireseiit 
 leld, that the metn- 
 asseinbli'd to pro. 
 ondent within s. (il 
 and that such treat- 
 y W. North (!,■,„ 
 V. Scolt, H. K. ('• 
 
 candidates on the 
 
 ther occasion, ufUr 
 
 the purpose of pro- 
 
 ftcr the busintsa Icir 
 
 nildcd was over, the 
 
 which the meeting 
 
 various tiiverns, at 
 
 en put up, and then 
 
 ited ea-.'h other ; and 
 
 pondcnt himself pai- 
 
 Not furnishing drink 
 
 meetings of electors 
 
 tario Eluction Act of 
 
 of electors for the 
 8 a "nicetini^iissem- 
 noting the election.' 
 (UiU.j — Camiron v. 
 -Spragge. 
 
 for the greater dif- 
 'i and the social and 
 f its members," being 
 from meeting at the 
 in a tavern, and was 
 : — Hehl, not a meet 
 Lion 151 of the Act. 
 1 Out. ) — Tnkann v. 
 —Osier. 
 
 ,h February, the re- 
 a convention of his 
 On 23r(l reluu.iry, a 
 )y him in n room in a 
 
 composed of (d)out 
 nging to the opposite 
 m was appointed and 
 the meeting, as did 
 e proceedings closed, 
 was over, nearly all 
 ul went into the bar- 
 llowed, first inviting 
 )in them, and then in 
 to drink, which they 
 ar. On '27th Febru- 
 lace, and the polling 
 
 the trial by Patter- 
 J. , and by the Court 
 nting, that this was 
 7), c. 10, s. 151. Per 
 Jnrton, J. A. -11. S. 
 ers clearly to a meet- 
 he formalities of ap- 
 •etary are observed or 
 J., dissenting, that 
 ippeared to have been 
 lat it was a violation 
 appear to have been 
 was involuntary or 
 
 excusable. Mttxkoka and Parry Sound Election 
 {OiU.)-!'a(ttt V. Faufjuier, 1 E. C. 197. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A., under the present enact- 
 ment in R. S. O. (1877), c. 10, s. 151, it need not 
 lie shewn that the meeting in question was 
 assembled for promoting the election of the 
 candidate furnishing the entertainment, but the 
 meeting referred to is a meeting assembled for \ 
 the purpose of promoting the election of a repre- j 
 sentative of the electoral district. Per (ialt, 
 .1.- Refre.xhment was not furnished to the meet- 
 ing MJiile it was assembled, and therefore there 
 was no offence under R. S. O. (1.S77), c. 10, s. 
 151. The meeting was to all intents and luir- 
 poses at an end, and moreover, even conceding 
 the corrupt act, il was done in ignorance, which 
 was involuntary and excusable. //(. 
 
 Ondifferent occasionsa few members of one of 
 respondent's local committees met together at 
 difl'ercnt taverns, to go over voters' lists and ar- 
 range as to dimbtful votes, and on eatdi occasion 
 liquor was furnished to the committee men thus 
 engajied, at the expense of difrercnt agents of re- 
 sjwndent :- Held, per Poyd, C, that such com- 
 mittee meetings were not "meetings of electors"' 
 within the nil aning of .section 151 of It.S.O. (I.STT) 
 c. 10;p('r(^anieron. C-. J., that section 151 was 
 speciallydirccted again.«t the ti'eating of such com- 
 mittee meetings. ( )n appeal : — Held by the court. 
 Patterson, J. A., dissenting, that such meetiiiL's 
 were within the nu'aning of the section : — Held, 
 at the trial, per Boyd, ('., and Canuron, ('. J., 
 that particulars and evidenco shewing the fur- 
 nishing of liquor to such meetings of committees, 
 were adndssilile under the general allegation of 
 the petition, that res)wmdent by himself anil his 
 agents had been guilty of "treating." Ktvl 
 \fiddlesi\c fHi'ctioii, {Out.) — Rhoderw MeKiii-ie, 
 1 E. 0. •J5(). 
 
 A nieetint; of sonic thirty-live f)r forty electin-s 
 hud assembled for the ])Urpose of promoting the 
 election. During the meeting an agent of the re- 
 spondent went into an adjoining room with four 
 or five friends and treated and was treated by 
 them :--lleld, by the Court of .Apjieal, not to be 
 a furnishing of entertainment " to a meeting of 
 electors assembled," etc., under section 151, 
 R. S.(». (IS77)c. 10. Per Osier, J. A. The 
 iiuestioii must always be, whether the enter- 
 tainment has been furnished to the general body 
 of the electors composing such meeting, whether 
 before, durinix, or after the business of the iiicct- 
 iiig, ami while as a liody such electors remain 
 toj^ether at the place of meeting or elsewhere. 
 I're..icnll Elitli'tn(Oiil.)—(,'im)i'wijhom v. Ilaqar, 
 I E. ('. S8. 
 
 (f) Sflliiit/ Lhiiiiir or 'I'n'dtiiiij on Pollbxj l)n./. 
 
 The distribution of sjiirituous liquors on the 
 polling day, with tiie object of promoting the 
 election of a candidate, will make his election 
 void. iS'o»/// (irci/ Election (Oiit.)-^I[iinlir v. 
 Lixdir, H. K. C. »'2. — Mowat. 
 
 Held, that the violaticui of section (i(i of 3*2 
 Vict., c. '21 (giving or selling liquor at taverns 
 on polling day), is not a ciu'rnpt praeti(;c within 
 the meaning of the Ontario Controverted Elec- 
 tions" Act, 1871, or the Elections' Act of 18(j8. 
 unless committed in order to influence voters at 
 the election complained of. Xorffi York Elfc- 
 
 lion {Onl. )- 
 Gait. 
 
 ■Gorham v. Boultbee, H. E. C. 62.— 
 
 Upon questions reserved by tho rota judge 
 under the Ontario Controverted Elections' Ace 
 of 1871. it .apiieared that H. and B. vrited for 
 respondent. H. kept a saloon, wliich was closed 
 on the polling day ; but upstairs, in bis privati^ 
 residence, he gave beer and whiskey without 
 charge to several of his friends, among whom 
 were friends of both candidates. B., who had 
 no license to sell liquor, sold it at a place near 
 one of the polls to all persons indilb'rently. 
 This was not done by H. or B. in the interest of 
 either candidate, or to influence the election, II. 
 acting simply for the jiurpose of gain : and tho 
 candidates did not know of or sanction their pro- 
 ceedings : — Held (though with some dmibt as to 
 B.l. that neither H. noi' B. bad committeil any 
 corrupt practice within .S4 Vict. c. .'j, s. 47, and 
 therefore had not forfeited their votes ; for 
 they had not been guilty of bribery or undue 
 influence, and their acts, if illegal and prohibit- 
 <.'d, were not done "in I'cferenee to" the elec- 
 tion, which, under .S4 Vict. c. 3, s. 47, is requi- 
 site in order to avoid a vote, lirochrilh Election 
 (Oiit.)—F/iiit V. Fitzwnmonx, H. E. C. 1.S9.— Q.B. 
 
 Section CO of ,'}'2 Vict. c. "21 (Ontario Election 
 Liw of 1808), provides that "no spirituous or 
 fermented liijuors or drinks shall be sold or 
 given toany )ierson "during theday appidntedfor 
 polling in the wards or niunicipalilios in which 
 the polls are held; and by 'Mi Vict. c. '2, s. 1, 
 "corrupt practice" means "any vi(dation of 
 secti(m 0() of the Election Law of 1808 during 
 the hours appointed for polling; "and by section 
 3 of the latter Act any corrupt practice "com- 
 mitted by any candidate at an election, or by 
 his agent, whether with or without the actual 
 knowledge or consent of such camliilate," avoids 
 the election. On the day of the (dcction in 
 c|Uestion, and during tho hours ajipointed fcr 
 jii'liing, one M., an agent of the rcsjioiideut for 
 tile purposes of the election, was otVcrcd by ;i 
 person unknown to liiin siiirituous lic|Uor (whis- 
 key) in a bottle, which such agent, .-liter lemmi- 
 slrating with such ))er.son. accepted and drank 
 at the polling place where i^uch agent then w;is. 
 The unknown person also g.ive spirit. .ous li(|uor 
 from the same bottle to other persons then pre 
 S(Mit : — Held, that as the legislature bad, by the 
 lu'ovisions as to the selling or giving of licjuor 
 during the hours of polling, provided for the 
 (uinishment of one particular class, which was 
 (bflned to be the seller or giver, it did not in- 
 tend to include the other class, the jiurchaser or 
 receiver, to which no reference was made, ex- 
 cept inferentially, and that therefore such agent, 
 as the receiver of spirituous liquor during such 
 p(dling hours, was not guilty of a corrupt prac- 
 tice. ]VM Toronto Eh'vtioti (1)(0nt.)—Adam- 
 xiiii V. Bfll, H. E. C. 179. -Draper. 
 
 One P., a tavern-kee|icr, was given $5 by the 
 resiiondent, and requested to appoint a scruti- 
 I iieei' to net for the resjiondeiit at the poll on 
 \ polling day. F. kept bis tavern open on polling 
 tlav. and various persons treated there during 
 ]iolling hours. Counsel for the respondent, after 
 the evidence of the above facts had boon given, 
 admitted that F. was an agent of the respon- 
 dent, and that bis acts were sufficient to avoid 
 the election : — Held, that although the court 
 did not adjudicate that the respondent, |by 
 
m^ 
 
 1487 
 
 FABLIAMENTAB7 ELECTIONS. 
 
 ea 
 
 es 
 
 Si 
 
 B 
 
 
 t;iviii{^ tliu Sit !ui<l ii ijia -liii},' V. to appoint a 
 scrutiinjcr, liiiil coM.flil!iti!il liiiii ;iii ai,'tiit fur all 
 jiurpo.-c.s, it was tlie puaiic' of tliiicnuit to tiiku 
 till! a'liiii.s-iiiii of t;oiiii.--i'l in place of proof of 
 .•vgtjiiuy, ami tlicrefoiu tlit; .ulmission of counsel 
 im to K. 's agency was sullicicnt. HcM, furtliur, 
 that v., as siicli ii;^iMt. Ii ul licon guilty of a 
 corrupt practice in keeping hia tavern open on 
 polling (lay, ami that such corrupt practice 
 avoided the election. /lUisell Elation {Oitl.) — 
 (hjiteic V. JUikar, H. K. C. 199.— Spragge. 
 
 Where a inemher of the respondent's commit- 
 tee, on the day of election, invited some of his 
 friends to his house, which was opposite the 
 polling booth, and gave 1 hem beer, etc., during 
 or i^oon after ]>olling hours:- " ,dd, not a con- 
 travention of ;W ViiL. c. '21 , 8. 6(1 iOnt. ) Lainlon 
 /■ynilnii (Oni.)- Jiirman v. Mi-ndUh, IT. K. C. 
 yi4.- (Spr.iggo. 
 
 Twoagenta of the respondent went for a voter, 
 hi\ inc; a Mask of brandy in their conveyance. 
 'Vht' voter iiaving said he was nnwell was asked 
 if ii(! would have a drink, which the trial jndgcs 
 held meant .•( drink from the flask, and which he 
 <leelined : - Held, that this offer did not fall 
 within the ])ro\ isions of section I.").") 1!. S. (). 
 (ISS7) e. {I, as there was no "giving or causing 
 to 1)0 given ": - Held, also, th.it it (lid not come 
 within SPctinn 151, snb-'^ection (fi) a drink not 
 beinga valuable con^idei -.ition. llamJltun Eh'c- 
 tinn iOiif.) --I'allcrsoK v. S/iiimii, 1 E. V. 499 — 
 Pergiisoii — Mae Malum. 
 
 One M. ciinvassed a voler on polling day, and 
 urged him to vote for the respondent, and while 
 <;anvassiug treated the voter f(Uir times ; the 
 voter then went and voted :"-]-leld, that the 
 treating was for tin^ jmrpose of corruptly in- 
 fluencing tie! voter to vote or refrain from voting 
 at the elect ion. Xnr/Ji Oii/iirlo Eli'ctio)! (Doui.) — 
 <,'if)l,.s \. Wlic.hr, H. H. C 785.— Armour. 
 
 .\ serulineer for the resp(mdent had some 
 whiskey with hini on polling day, and treated 
 the depnty returning officei', poll clerk, and 
 .another in the ])olling station : — Held, not a 
 <'orrupt practice. Ih. 
 
 One 15. w.is a member of the committee atW. 
 for the respondent's election, canvassed for him, 
 .•iiid mot him at the eomniittee-roonis once or 
 twice. 15. was also appointed in writing by the 
 respondent to act as scrutineer for him on the 
 polling d ly. and during polling hours gave whis- 
 key to tin-, denuty returning-ollicer in the jioUing 
 booth :— Hold, per Wilson, .T., that 15., while act- 
 ing .-IS such scrutineer, was not acting in his for- 
 mer capacity as committee-man or agent of the 
 respondent, and that his appointment as scruti- 
 neer did not empower him to do an act of treat- 
 ing so as to make the respondent answerable for 
 it. fsoHth Ontario Election (Ont.) — Farwell v. 
 lirown, H. K. C. 4-2(). 
 
 The rcsi)ondent, on polling day and during 
 polling hours, went to a tavern at W., and par- 
 took therein of spirituous or fermented liquor, 
 for which be did not then pay : — Held, pervVil- 
 Hon, .(., that he did not "sell or give" spirituous 
 liquors within the meaning of section 66 of the 
 Ontario Election Law of 1868. lb. 
 
 One C, a member of respondent's committee 
 at W., partook of whiskey in the kitchen of a 
 tavern at W. during polling hours, and also, 
 
 when bringing a voter from the town of 0. totlio 
 town of W. within the same eh^ctoral diviHipn) 
 to vote at W., treated himself and the voter in 
 O. : Held, (Draper, ('. J. A., disiuntientc) that 
 (". was not guilty of corrupt pructieea within litc- 
 tion ()(i of the Ontario Election Law of I8C8 ,V 
 
 c, //>. r. of A. ■ ■ 
 
 On the day of the election, and during the 
 hours of polling, one W., an agent of the respon- 
 dent, was olTered a treat in a tavern within oui; of 
 the polling divisions, of which . ncli agent and 
 others then jiartook : —Held, that giving a treat 
 in a tavern during polling hours was a coirupt 
 practice, and being an act participated in by uii 
 agent of the respondent, the election was avoiilcil. 
 Noulh Esxcx Election (Out.) — Mcdi.e v. ]\',i,i,' 
 H. I']. C. 2.S5. -Spraggc. ' ' 
 
 One M., an agent of the respondent, treatel 
 at a tavern during polling hours on i)olling day. 
 The evidence was, that decanters were iiiit 
 down, and people helped themselves, but there 
 was no evidence that spirituous li(piors were 
 used. The evidence was objected to at the time 
 as the charge was not mentioned in the particu- 
 lars, but admitted subject to the objection:— 
 Held, 1. That the nature of the treat in the 
 barroom of a country tavern r.iised the pre- 
 sumption that the treat was of spirituijus li(pi()r8, 
 and was a corrupt practice, which avoided the 
 (decti(m. '2. That had an application beenm.ide 
 in legular form to add a particular cndtnieiiig 
 the charge, it w(mld have been granted. A'ortA 
 Vii-toria Eti'i-tion (()iit.)—Afc/,'uc v. iSmitli, H 
 E. C. 252. -Draper. 
 
 The resiiondent, during polling hours on the 
 polling day, met one V., asuppoiterof th" op- 
 [losing candidate, ami told him he would like a 
 drink ; and both of them, not thinking it ille- 
 gal, went to a tavern, and the bar being closed, 
 P. treated the respondent in the hall of the 
 tavein :— Held, by the Court of Ap))eal (revem- 
 ini; Gwynne, .L, H. E. C. 34.3), that the receiving 
 of a treat by the respondent during the hoiusof 
 polling, was a corrupt practice ami avoided the 
 election. Sendilc, per (Jwy one, .L, that as to the 
 seller or giver of the treat, the only person lialde 
 to the penalty of §100 woi.ld bo the tavern-keeper, 
 as the statute does not authorize two penalties 
 for the same act. North Oni/ L'/ection (Out.)— 
 noardniaii v. Scott, 1 H. K. C. ;)62. 
 
 One L., an alleged agent of the respondent, 
 went into thetavernof one I), during pollinglioura 
 on polling day, and purchased spirituous li(iuor, 
 with v.-I.''..l. he treated himself and several pcrams 
 there prespnt: — Held, |ier Gwynne, J., at the 
 trial that the penalties provided by sec. 60 of the 
 Election Law of 18(!8 (Ont.) apply only to the 
 tavern-keeper, who as such is able to cnntnd 
 what is done on his own premises in violation of 
 the Act, and that the treating by L. was not a 
 corrupt practice. Per Draper, ('. .J. A.— (1) 
 That section 66 must bo construed distributivc- 
 ly. (2) That under the first part of the section 
 the tavern-keeper is the only person who i»n 
 incur the penalty, for not keeping his tavern 
 closed during the prescribed time. (3) Thai 
 under the second part of the section the persom 
 who incur the penalty are (1) the tavern-keeper 
 who sells liquor in vi(dation of the statute, ,iiid 
 (2) the purchaser who gives the liquor purchased 
 by him to persons in the tavern. Lincoln Etee- 
 lion (Ont.)-Rijkerl v. Ne.elon, H. E. C. 391. 
 
1489 
 
 PARLIAMENTART j^LEOTIONS 
 
 1490 
 
 hctowuof 0. tothe 
 
 ! elcctDral (livisii)n) 
 
 :lf and tlio voter in 
 
 , (lissiutiimte) that 
 
 racticus within 8CC- 
 
 n r.a\v of 18G8. ,V. 
 
 The decision of (Jwynne, J., in the Lincoln 
 Klcction('"S«. H. K (/. 391, that tavern-keepers 
 alone are iialjlo for the violation of 32 Viot. c. 21 , 
 8. 66 (Ont), as aniendud by 'V Viet. c. 'i, s. I, 
 not approved of. North Wentworth liler.lim 
 -.Christie v. Slock, H. K. C. 313.— Dra- 
 
 {Oiit 
 
 |ier.-0. of A. 
 
 On the polling day, and during the hours of 
 pollinff, tlie respondent drove up to a tavern at 
 C. where he met one S. , a nieinher of his eom- 
 luittei', and addressing him or the asseinhlod 
 npople, snid, " Hoys, this is the first time I came 
 fnC. when I diirc not treat, and soniu one will 
 liiive to treat mo." S. replied that he would 
 tioat. .Tnd, with tlie respondent anil a nnnihor 
 of persons variously (^stinintcd at from thirty 
 In fifty wont into tJK! t;iveni, wlioro S. trcati-d 
 some of tiie people, and tho respondent drank 
 with the rest: —Held, tluit going into tlie tavern 
 fur the piirpo.ses of the treat, when the law di- 
 ivctcd that snoli tavern shouM Ik; kept olosed, 
 ;iii(i joining in and aoot'iitiiig such treat, was a 
 literal as well as a substantial violation of the 
 |:iw, and a corrupt pr.ietieo : tiiat the oonenr- 
 iviice of the respondi'nt in the <;oTMniiasion of 
 such corni|)t praetii:e made liim liable to the dis- 
 iHialification imposed by the stafiit^' for "a cor- 
 rupt prnetioe committed with the actual know- 
 Iciige and consent of acindi late." /h. 
 
 Keld, by the Oourt of Appeal (Draper, t". .1. 
 A., dissenting), that section (id of the Ontario 
 Kleetion Law of 1808,32 Vict. e. 21, as ami!ndc<l 
 liy 36 Vict. c. 2, ai)plii's only to shop, hotel and 
 lavern-kccpers, who alone are liable to the ))en- 
 ;ilties for keeping open the tavern, etc., and for 
 .selling or giving spirituous liquors during the 
 inohilnted iiours. Soidh Ontniio Ktcctioii {Out.) 
 -Fartwdl. v. liroimi, H. E. C. 4'2(). 
 
 Held, by the Court of A|)peal, reversing Wii 
 son, J., that the prohil)ition in such section ((ii;' 
 iis to opening taverns and gi vin',' or selling Hcinor 
 "in the municipalities in which the polls are 
 held," applies to all the municipalities within 
 the constituency, irrespective of the place whei-e 
 the vote is given, or to be given, /h. 
 
 By .-^O Vict. c. 10. s. 3 (Ont.), which is substi- 
 tuted for section CO of the election law of 1808, 
 tjwernkeepera or persons acting in that capacity 
 for the time, who sell or give liipior at taverns 
 on polling day and witiiin the hours of polling, 
 are guilty of corrupt practices ; but persons who 
 treat or are treated at such tavei'iis are not 
 .iffected by the statute. --/^Vcf/'.-! rnlc. lAncohi 
 Election {'2) (Oiil.)-P,iwliiiii \. ni/bil, H. K. 
 ('.500. -Patterson. 
 
 One IJ. was appointed, in writing, by the re- 
 spondent to act as his agent foi- polling day. 
 During the diy he went to a tavern and asked 
 for and was given a glass of beer :— Held, that 
 B. trc.ited himself, and neither gave nor sold, 
 and was not therefore guilty of a corrupt prac- 
 tice. East Pitcrhoron III Electinii. (Out.) -Slnil- 
 lonv. O'Sitlliran, H. E. C. 24.').— Draper. 
 
 The m.ajority of the rosimndcnt was 337 ; but 
 it appeared in evidence that two agents of the 
 respondent had bribed between forty and fifty 
 voters; that in close proximity to the polls 
 spirituous liquor was sold and" given at two 
 tavcnis during polling hours, and that one of 
 «uch agents took part in furnishing such liquor; 
 04 
 
 and that such agent had previous to the election 
 furnished drink or other entertainment to a 
 meeting of electors hold for the purpose of pro- 
 moting the (dection : —Held, that the result of 
 the eloi tion 1 ad been affected thereby, and tliat 
 tiio elecii ■>i' was void. Wi st /faslinijs Klof.tion 
 (2) {<>nt.) — /ful(i,nv. Robert. so fi, H. K V. o.Sa ^ 
 Moss -Gait. 
 
 Section 157 of l{. S. O. (1877), c 10, forbids 
 the selling or giving of liquor at anytime cluring 
 the ])olling da;>, under a penalty of fine or im- 
 prLsonmeut, .and the same Act provides that any 
 violation of tint sectir)n during the lumrs ap- 
 pointed for polling, is a corrupt practice ; -Held, 
 at the tri il, that a viol ition of the section dur- 
 ing the polling hours by an agent of the candi- 
 date, must be conelnsivcly piesumed to have 
 been intended corruptly to iidlncncu the elec- 
 tion. J'rpsriilt ]'j'(.rtion(Oiit.)—Ciii)iiiniih(tin v. 
 Ifwiar, I K. (;. 88. - Patterson — Ferguson. — (/. 
 of A. 
 
 On the morning of the polling day, S. met 
 McN. in an hotel, ami asked hiu> to vote for the 
 respondi'nt, to which he agrc/il ; he then took 
 him to (S.'s) house, .•mil afterwards to a tavern 
 wheri! he tre ited him, and then to a poll where 
 he voted. S. was a mm who .ilways took an 
 active i)irt in every election on the reform side, 
 and during this election he had, on one occasion, 
 attended a meeting of the local political organi- 
 zation, or eominitteo foi' whose acts in tlie man- 
 agement of the election tlio respondent would 
 be answerable, when some election work was 
 done, but it was not shewn that he had ean- 
 v,is?!eil exe'i'pt in this partieulir case, or that he 
 was a member of tho committee, .anil he swore 
 tint ho was iu)t risked to do any work. On the 
 I)olling day he was ai'tively cng iged in driving 
 voters to the polls in his own conveyaneo. which 
 he s ud he did as a mere volunteer : — Held, that 
 the treating was a corrupt act, but that S.'s 
 aireucy was not proved. North Ontnrio Eliirliim 
 {Oiit.)~rn'harfii\: Could, I E. C. 1.— Burton - 
 O.-ilcr. 
 
 S. being an agent of the respondent, on the 
 election (lay brought some whiskey to a black- 
 smith shop near a iioll, being a place where the 
 neighbours were in the habit of congregating 
 to warm themselves, etc., theic being no taverr 
 or public-house in the neighbourhood, and tre:i 
 ed those present (most of them being vote, 
 without roferouee to their voting, and without 
 distinction as to which side they supported : — 
 Held, not :i eorruj)t practice. Le.niio.r, I'J/e.ctioii 
 {Out.)— Mil,:-, V. Roc, I K. (.' 41.— Gall— Osier. 
 C. of A. 
 
 It appeared in the evidence that at the place 
 of ])olling the res))oiuleu(,'s firm had a house in 
 connection with tlicir mills, where their work- 
 men were boarded, and where the lespondent 
 himself had rooms. A short time before the 
 election, Mrs. B., who had formerly been house- 
 keeper of the hou.se, had become tenant of 
 it, or was allowed to occupy it, and have the use 
 of the furniture, and was paid a certain sum per 
 week or month for each man boarding there, and 
 a sum per day for casual boarders, and she was 
 in this position at the time of the election. On 
 polling day, H., a nephew and partner of the 
 respondent, who spent the day at tlie polling 
 place, told voters that if they went to the said 
 
1491 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 14tZ 
 
 90 
 
 boardiiighouRO thoy could warm thcmaolvea and 
 would find dinner if they wisheil ,itt ami moat 
 and drink was a<!(:ordingly caused to l>u given to 
 the voters at the ho^irdiiig-honsu by H., wlio was 
 clearly the respondent's ngent thmnghout : - 
 Held, at the trial, that the voters having come 
 to the nliico for the purpose of voting, and that 
 being tneir errand there, nnd the election being 
 the oucnnidn on which tlie ()roviHion was niiule 
 and the hospitality extended to them, tlie act in 
 (juestion was done on account of eacii man so 
 entertained " having voted or being almut to 
 vote," and inasmuch as it was impossible to say 
 that the result may not have been atFected by 
 the altove ofTor of hospitality, R. S. O. (1877), 
 e. 10, 8. I.IO, the election would have been voiil 
 by reason tliercof under section 158, had the 
 matter been properly chargeil in the petition : — 
 Held, however, that the evidence did not sliow 
 that the corrupt act was comniitted witli the 
 actual knowli"I;oand consinitof the respcmdent, 
 and therel'oi'e he had not incurred tlic penal con- 
 sequences of R. 8. O. (1877). c 10, a. 101. Wist 
 Sivicoe E/eclloii (Onl). — Bedford v. Plttlj).i, 1 K. 
 (/. 128.— Patterson— Ferguson— C. of A. 
 
 See South Oxford Election (Out.) — Hopkhix v. 
 Oli„er,H K. C.'2«, p. 1516; Welland Kkcti.,n('l) 
 {Out.)—livchn<r v. Currie, H. K. C. 187, p. 
 1457; Went Nnrtliumlierland Election (Dom.) — 
 Heudemo,, v. anilh.t, 10 S. C. R. 6.15, p. 1471 ; 
 Kant Simcoe Election. (Out.) — lieid v. Drnnj, 1 
 K. C. 291, p. 1455. 
 
 1.3. SvhscriplionK to Chiirchfn and Charifie.n. 
 
 The re9|)()ndent was charged with using means 
 of corruption at his election (1) by giving uj) a 
 promissory note and also .$'.'0 to one M., on con- 
 dition of !M. and his sons voting for liim ; tlie 
 charge depended upon tlie contradictory oatlis of 
 M. and the re.spondent ; (2) by giving a lame 
 subscription to an election fund, sonic of which 
 was expended for illegal purposes ; an<l (3) by 
 subscriptions to churches. The respondent de- 
 nied a'-v corrupt motive in these snbscrii)tions. 
 The el ,ction judge, on the evidence, found that 
 the respondent was not personally guilty of cor- 
 rupt practices, but he avoided the election on 
 tiie ground of bribery by agents. South ffiiron 
 Election {Dom.) — Hitrhie v. CiniicroH, H. K. C. 
 576.— C. P. 
 
 Per Hagarty, C. .T. — Candidates and agents 
 should select le.sa suspicious seasons than elec- 
 tion times for exorcising their liberality towards 
 charitable and religious objects, /b. 
 
 Held, that if gifts and subscriptions for chari- 
 t ible purposes, made by a candidate who is in 
 the haoit of subscribing liberally to charitable 
 purposes, are not proved to have been offered or 
 made as an inducement to, or on condition that. 
 any body of men, or any individual, should vote 
 or act in any way at an election, or on .any ex- 
 press or implied promises or undertaking that 
 such body of men, or individual, would, in con- 
 8(!(juence of such gift or subscription, vote or act 
 in respect to any future election, then such gifts 
 or subscriptions are not a corrupt practice, within 
 the meaning of that expression as defined by the 
 Dominion Klection and Controverted Elections' 
 Acts, 1874. South Ontario Election {Dom.)— 
 McKay v. Glen, H. E. C. 751 ; 3 S. C. R. 641. 
 
 14. Other Coirnpt Praclicen. 
 
 'One T., who was on the roll as an t^lcctor, ami 
 had sold his property in .Funo, IS74, before the 
 final revision ol the assessment mil by the 
 count}' judge, was, with the knowledge of tho 
 respondent— who was aware a <liiulit existed as 
 to r.'s right to vote -given an appnintment to 
 act as scrutineer at a (listant polling pluco, ami 
 also a certificate from the returning-officorundir 
 ;J8 Vict. c. 3, s. •_'8 (Out.), to enable T. to vote 
 at the place where ho was to act as simh scriui 
 neer, at which place T. voted without takinij 
 the voter's oatlis and returned without eiitcrini; 
 upon tho duties of scriitiiu'er. On a(pi('Btion(if 
 law reserved on tho aliove facts for the Court of 
 Appeal : — Held, that tho act complaiiieil of wm 
 not a corrupt practice undiT the Htat'..te ; l)ut 
 under the cireumstanees, tho court gave the re 
 Hpoiident no costs in aiipeal. Weit I'l-trrlmrowih 
 Kliclinii {Out.) — Sriill V. Cox, H. K. {'. 274.'- 
 Drapcr — C. of A. 
 
 Meetings for promoting tho r;'S|iiiii(lent'8 dec 
 tion were heM at public houses with tho ohjiTt 
 of inducing the owneis to support the rcipnti 
 dent at the ehsction, and because the weather 
 was cold a!id meetings could not be heM in tlw 
 open air. No evideneo was given hy the peti- 
 tioner th.at equally conveuient places, and such 
 as were more propter to be us(m1 for that purpose, 
 could be obtained :— Held, that as the respon- 
 dent and his friends hail a legitimate motive fur 
 holding tlicir meetings at such houses, although 
 their other motives might not bo legitimate, no 
 corrupt act had been committed. Kingston 
 Election {Dom.) — Stewart v. Macdonald, H. R 
 C. 625.— Richards. 
 
 The appointment of a voter as an agent so as 
 to allow him to vote in a division other than hi< 
 own, and near where he was eniplnyi^d, i.< not \ 
 corrupt practice. North Ontario Elerlvtii (OuK) 
 — Tnleiiixnv. Oonld, 1 K. C — Burtnu-Osler. 
 
 The iusi.sting by a si;rutiuoor upon the taking 
 of tlie fanners' son's oath T, by a hesitating voter 
 whose vote is objected to and who is registered 
 on tlie list as a farmer's son and not as owner. 
 when, as a matter of fact, the voter's father hii4 
 died previous to tho final revision of the list 
 leaving the son owner of the property, is 11 wil- 
 ful inducing or endeavouring to indium the voter 
 to take a false oath so as to amount to a corrupt 
 practice within sections 90 and 91 of R. S. C. 
 c. 8, and such corrupt practice will avoid the 
 election under section 93. Strong and Gwynne, 
 ,J.T., dissenting, ffaldimand Eleclion {Dom.)- 
 Wahh V. Monta'jue, 1 E. C. .529.— S. C. C. 
 
 A number (.100) of forms of oaths of residence 
 and allegiance were printed and paiil for by the 
 association supporting the respondent as part of 
 the election expenses, and some of the reapon' 
 dent's agents actively canvassed a number of 
 foreigners, who were aliens ; and by getting' 
 them to swear to these affidavits, and iiy con- 
 veroations induced them to believe that they 
 were thus naturalized, and had the right to vote. 
 and several of them did vote. The evidence 
 did not shew how many were sworn, hut Zli 
 unused forms were produced, and the •^raaining 
 sixty-five were not accounted for :— Held, that 
 the procuring of the affidavits just before the 
 polling day when the agents knew that no court 
 would sit in time to complete the naturaliation 
 
m 
 
 Praetient. 
 
 1)11 as an cli't'tor, ami 
 \w, IH74, Ixforetlie 
 ssniuiit idli liy the 
 11! kiiowli'dge of tiio 
 ■u n (loulit t'xiatcdaii 
 1 mi iiiipiiiiiiment to 
 it jioUiiij,' tiluce, and 
 ■tuniiiiKDlficcrundir 
 to cimiilc '!'. to vote 
 Lo net iia Hiu^h scruti. 
 otiMl without takini; 
 nod witliriutt'iiterinn 
 or. On ii(|ni'8tioii(if 
 facts for tlu! Court of 
 ct coinplainnd of wai 
 lor thn Htati.te ; Imt 
 liu court nave the re- 
 Wi'M I'l-ln-hnnwih 
 >x, H. K. 0. 274.'- 
 
 tlio n'spoiiiUMit's cico 
 DUsos witii the ohjcri 
 
 support tlio respnii. 
 
 booauHo tlio weatliiT 
 lid not 1)0 hold inthi; 
 m given hy the pcti- 
 iiont plaooa, luid such 
 
 used tor that purponp, 
 1, that as the resjvm. 
 , legitimate motive Ut 
 
 sucli hoiiHOs, although 
 t not 1)0 legitimate, no 
 ioinniittod. Kiiiqalon 
 
 V. Macdoiuild, H. K. 
 
 voter as an agent bo as 
 division other than hi* 
 Vivs oniployi^il, i.s not x 
 Oiiinrio klrciinii [Oiii.] 
 <:. (". — Burton-Osier. 
 
 iitinocr upon thetakinj; 
 
 T, 1).V a llo.sitating voter 
 ) ami who in registered 
 ion and not as owner. 
 ,, the voter'.s father Iwl 
 lal revision of the list 
 
 the property, is a wil- 
 iring to induce the voter 
 
 to amount to a corrupt 
 
 90 and 91 of R. S. C. 
 practice will avoid the 
 1. Strong and Gwynne, 
 naiiil Elpr.lhii (Dom,)- 
 . C. 529. -S. C. C. 
 
 ms of oath.s of residence 
 ted and paid for by the 
 de respondent as part of 
 ,nd some of the respon- 
 canvassed a number of 
 aliens; and by getting 
 aflSdavits, and hy con- 
 m to believe that they 
 md had the right to vote, 
 [id vote. The evidence 
 y were sworn, but 215.) 
 luced, and the ^raaining 
 wnted for :-Held, that 
 fidavits just before the 
 ;ent8 knew that no court 
 iplcte the naturalintion 
 
 1403 
 
 PABLIAMENTAR7 ELECTIONS. 
 
 1494 
 
 proceedings by that day, was a plan, dosign, 
 ,,,henie to induce aliens to vote for the respr 
 
 or 
 acbeme to induce aliens lo voic lor mo reapon- 
 ilent : that the knowledge, referred to in section 
 160 R. ^- ^- ("*77)t!' U, is not a knowledge of 
 the statute, but a knowledge of the facts dis- 
 etttitliiig the person to vote ; that although that 
 section contains a penu'^y of $100, still it is 
 partly P«'"''' '""* partly u'liedial : that in en- 
 torcing the penalty, tbo p'.'.-son against whom 
 it is inllioted is the on'y person eoiieeriied, 
 ami it should be strict!;^ oonstrue<l ; but in as- 
 leitaining whether ;. corrupt practice has been 
 coiuniitted the whole constituency has conconi, 
 uud only the remedial part of the section is in- 
 voked : that on the evidence an agent had the 
 knowledge that one uf the aliens had no right to 
 vote at the lime he induced him to vote. JIaiiiil- 
 Ion Eltclioii {Out.) — /'alltrxon v. Sliimoii, 1 K. 
 ^■ 4!)i).— Kcrguson — MacMahon. 
 
 Before the trial notice was given that if the evi- 
 dence failed to .shew that the money received by 
 the persons namod in charge No. 8 for the ptirposi^ 
 of intlucnciiig voters as therein stated, an ajipli- 
 catiou foran ainondnient would be inaile substi- 
 tiiting ii charge under sections No. II and 13 <if 
 the petition, that those persons were paid for 
 their services, and so were guilty of corrujit 
 nracticos in voting for the respondent, knowing 
 that they had no right to vote : — Hehl, that two 
 agents of the respondent who were paid for their 
 services, knowing the facts and being presumed 
 to have known the law, were each guilty of a 
 corrupt practice when they voted for him ; and 
 that the amendment as to them should be 
 allowed, as it was really giving particulars under 
 paragraph thirteen of the petition, and could be 
 made without any amendment of the petition, 
 and that the evidence sustained it, and as notice 
 had been given the respondent was not preju- 
 diced. III. 
 
 Held, that the acts of the two paid agents 
 in voting, had thoy stood alone, not being part 
 of any comprehensive scheme, the court would 
 have hesitated before deciding that they did 
 not fall within section 103, in which ease the 
 election would not have been avoided : but fol- 
 lowing the East Sinieoe Oase, 1 K. C 291, that 
 the inducing the aliens to vote was an overt act, 
 partof an arranged system of operations, and was 
 such a corrupt practice as could not be consid- 
 ered "of such trifling nature," or "of such 
 trifling extent," that the result could not be 
 supposed to be affected by it. Had the coirupt 
 practice imlicated above not been sufticient of 
 Itself to avoid the election, the two other cor- 
 rupt practices proved, togethei' with certain 
 other illegal practices committed by a person 
 not nn agent of the respondent, the evidence 
 as to whicli was uncontradicted, would have 
 sufficed. II). 
 
 In an election petition it was charged that the 
 respondent personally, as well as acting by C. 
 A. C, D. F. and others, his agents, did under- 
 take and conspire to impede, prevent, and other- 
 wise interfere with the free exercise of the fran- 
 chise of certain voters, and that, in furtherance of 
 apremeditated scheme, which the respondent and 
 his agents wellknew to bo illegal, they did, infact 
 so impede, prevent, and interfere with the exer- 
 cise of the franchise of certain voters, by getting 
 their ballots marked, rendered identifiable, and 
 consequently void, whereby the franchise of 
 
 thcBo voters was unjustifiably interfered with. 
 At a previous election the respondent had bcoii 
 defeated by a majority of three votes, and the 
 election having been contested, was set a.'-ido, 
 and certain voters were reported by thi; jiidgo aa 
 having been guilty of corrupt jiracticos, but had 
 not been foiunl guilty of such corrupt praitiooi 
 under section 104 of the Dominion Kloctions Act, 
 ( 1874. ) At a public mooting before the tdectinn, 
 ('. A. C, the rospondont's agent, to intimidate 
 those persons and prevent them from voting, in a 
 speech made by him, throatened them with pun- 
 iaiiment if they voted ; and siibsennontiy printed 
 notices to the sanieefToct worosi'iittotiiese voters. 
 On the jioUingday 1). 1'. , who had been appointed 
 do|)uty returning ollieer, on the distinct under- 
 standing with, and promise nia<lo to. the return- 
 ing officer that ho would not mark the ballots of 
 these voters, coii.<ultod wilhC. A. C, and on his 
 advice and in collusion with him, marked the 
 ballots of certain of these voters: — Mold, that 
 the election was void by r(^aso"i of thoattenijited 
 intimidation practised by C. .\. ( '., ami by reason 
 also of the conspiracy botweon the s.iid agent 
 and the deputy returning oflicortointorfore with 
 the free exercise of the franohiso of voters, 
 violations of section 95 of the Dominion Kloc- 
 tions' Act, 1874, and corrupt practices undor 
 section 98 of the said Act. St>iilnii<ii-s hhetiuit 
 (l)om.)—(:holHte v. Uaiii, 10 S. C. R. ().52. 
 
 See Wenl Hunllniis h'Irr/ioii (Out.) — Wenlfi) v. 
 IliVAsH. K. C. 211, p. 1500; A'd-s/ Nonhnmher- 
 Ininl /'J/cctioii (Out.)— Itkhmond v. W'UloiujMiy, 
 I K. C. 434, p. 149(). 
 
 15. /I (7.1 of Trijiiiiij Naturi' not Affecting the 
 lienuU of till' Election, 
 
 Per Spragge, C. J. 0. — The power of saving 
 an election under R. S. <). (1877), c. 10, s. 159, 
 should bo exercised very eautiouslj , and a for- 
 tiori by the judges of the Appellate Court where 
 the rota judges have deemed the case to be not 
 proper for the a])plication of the power given by 
 this section of the Act. Wfd Siiiivdc Election 
 (Out.)- Ildlfonf V. Phclpx, 1 E. C. 128. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A., and Ferguson, J., the 
 object and purpose of K. S. O. (1877), c. 10, s. 
 159, do not require anything in the sliape of an 
 attempt to estimate the number of votes which 
 can bo shewn or surinisod to have been affected 
 by the corrupt act in (juostion, aiul to balance 
 that act against the actual majority. Although, 
 no doubt, the word " trifling" must be construed 
 in each case with some reference to the majority, 
 particularly when consiilcring the extent of the 
 corrupt acts, the court is not called upon to 
 enter into a quasi scrutiny for the purpo.sos of 
 thi.s section. Ih. 
 
 Although the irregularit-es of the deputy re- 
 turning otHcer could not, »/j themselves, be said 
 to have affected the election : — Quajre, whether 
 in conjunction with another corrupt act which 
 was found to have been committed by an agent 
 of the candidate, they could under H. 8. O. (1877) 
 c. 10, s. 159, conjointly be said to have done so: — 
 Held, at the trial, that the irregularities were not 
 "illegal practices," as mentioned in that section, 
 but were rather defaults than acts or practices, 
 and entirely unconnected with corrupt practices. 
 What is referred to in section 159, is systematic 
 
1496 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 14M 
 
 C9 
 
 fa 
 
 
 illogulity, whotlicr nmniinting to corruptidii or 
 falliii({ Hlioit of it, to Hiifli iiri cxti^nt that Ihu 
 pui'tiuiilur iictH wliicli arc provud, iniiy Ixi ruuiiun- 
 ul)ly uoiiMJili riid iiicrcly to liu inHtimcuM in uon- 
 iiuctiori witli tlio guiiirul Hydtuia (if corruption or 
 illc;,'ality >t liich Iiuh Iiccii piuvulciit during tlic 
 contuat. I'liicott I'Uiclion [Out.)- -Uuniiiiiyliarn 
 V. J/iK/fir, 1 K. C. 88, -I'atturtion - KergUHon — 
 V. of A. 
 
 Mold, per Itoyd, ('., that hut onu currupt 
 practice wan proved in this cane, and that in 
 view of tli<! proviaionn of fieetion IT)!) of the Act 
 that one WHS not Hulheient to avoid tile return. 
 h'nsf. MiiltlliMX ICItiiidu (Out.),- Itli(idr.r y. Mc- 
 Kenxie, I V,. (!. 'iriO. 
 
 Held, |)ui' Moyd, i'., timt inahnniicli aH icHpoii- 
 di nt'H perMdiial cxpeiixeM liiid not unioiiMted to 
 $I(K), and UH, dining' tiie caiivasH, aitliou;^li lie 
 liad treated frieiulM, lie had not <lone xo to any 
 ^ neuter exli'iittiian liad pievioiiNly lieeii liisiialjit, 
 neither liiH |>ei»oh:d eonduet during tlie cieetinn 
 nor tlie almiMice Iroin tlie trial of one of his eiiitf 
 iij^ontB, aj;aiiist wlioni coiiHiilerahle HUK|iiiion wan 
 raised \>\ t lie evidence, ou),dit to |irevent tlieeourt 
 from applying the proiiHions of It. .S. (). (IH77) <J. 
 10, s. 10!Jto the eii'CUtiiBtaiieeMoftiii.s case: -Held, 
 per Canieriin,<'.,\, that altlioiigh nothing eori'ii| it 
 oruiiiiHual was proved as toreHpondent'aexpen.scB 
 ov treating, he had not properly returned his per- 
 Hoiial expeiiHCH, and this eireiinistaiieu, eoujiied 
 with tlie Keeping out of the; way at the time of the 
 trial of one of his chief agents, should pritvent re- 
 Bpondeiitieioiving the henelit of section l.'illof the 
 Act, and the elect'on should he avoided. On 
 appeal :- Held, Osier, .I.A., dissenting, that 
 upon the evidence the election was saveil under 
 the jirovisions of section l.TJ. Jh. 
 
 H. was a prominent supporter and agent of 
 tlio respondent, secretary of the reform associa- 
 tion of the riding, delegate to the convention 
 which nominated respondent, and an active or- 
 ganizer and nianagcr of the election contest. I!. 
 a voter, well known to H., as what he calle<l a 
 " loose fi^h," and helonging to a family reputed 
 to sell their votes, came to >!., and asked for 
 money for his vote; not succeeding, he returned 
 next day and made a similar request. Finally 
 he asked for §,'>, hecause, he said, he was sick 
 and hard up, and wanted to pay his taxes. 
 AVhcreupon H. gave him .?5, hut on fl. pledging 
 his word that it had nothing to do with liis vote. 
 R. told 'r., another voter, that if he wanted ^4 
 or .^.5 now was his time, and introduced him to 
 H., T. asked if any money was going, and ottered 
 his own vote for iJIO, and his lather and three 
 brothers for $20. 11. gave him .'?4, calling it a 
 loan, and on T. 's word of hoiKtur that it would 
 not influence him in the election. H. also hired 
 the team of a man named (!. for the election day. 
 The election was very close, over '2,700 votes 
 being polled, and respondent's majority about 
 twenty-three: — Held, that these were clearly 
 corrupt acts. I'er Hoyd, (J., that though thesev- 
 eralactsof the agent in this case were clearly cor- 
 rupt acts, they did not avoid the election as they 
 came within the protection of It. >S. O. (1877) c. 
 10, a IL'); and per Cameron, .J., that they did 
 8'. mi the election, as they were not within the 
 sai a protection. Per Boyd, O. — The scope of the 
 'action was that an election should not be set 
 aside for two or three illegal acts of a trifling na- 
 ture or extent, where the majority is consider- 
 
 ably more than the votes afTcctud, unlcw theie 
 illegal acts and practices prevailed, ami were no 
 iiilliiential, extensive and insidious as to Jnilutc 
 the probable an<l reasonable beliif tlmt Imt for 
 Huoh acts and pra<'tices the result might have 
 been difrorcnt, while here, after Htrikiiifjoff the 
 coiriipt votes, the respondent wnuld still have 
 a majority. I'er rameron, .).— Thu extent o( 
 the iiitlueiiee of the corrupt acts is not to hi, 
 measured or estimate<l merely by the iiuinlKir 
 of eoirnpt votea, but in eonnectinii with the 
 iiilliienee of the party proved to ho guilty ,,1 
 its cnmmisHiiin, and by I lie oppdrtiinitioH henay 
 hav(! had of resorting to like jiractices in othw 
 cases. On appeal to tlie ('ourt of Appeftl; 
 Held, alliriiiing tin; limliiigof (Jamnnin, .1, (liiir 
 ton, .1. A., dissi^nfing), that the corrupt acta in 
 this ease did not come within the pnitcction i,| 
 section !,')!», and therefore the election via 
 avoided. hJunt Simror Klvrlion (Onl.)—Rti,l^ 
 Drimj, 1 K. (\ L'OI. 
 
 Irregularities at nomination and at iwlliiiL' 
 See .S'. r.'., //,.. pp. N;1<I, l.'iOO. .'<ee also .l/o,it 
 Ehclion (Out.) (Miir v. McCalhtm, H. E (' 
 1.54, p. \A'lr,. 
 
 K. eommitted two clearly proved acts of bri 
 bery. K. U. and \V, IJ. entered into a scheme for 
 violating the secrecy of the election liy inducioi' 
 voters to exhibit their ballots, alter tlicy were 
 marked, at a window ; and the evidence (level 
 oped at least two other acts of lirihery, tliougk 
 not by agents, and some auspicious ciiciimstdii 
 eea ; but all tlieao were without the knowledge 
 or consent of the lespondent. The vote polled 
 was about 4,.')00, out of which there wv.s a ma 
 jnrity of (iffy-one for the respuinleiit:— Held, 
 that the election waa void hecause of tliecornipt 
 acts (jf II.; and in view of the conduct amide- 
 tails of the contest, the saving provisions of 
 section 159 of the Klection Act, R. S. 0. (18":), 
 c. 10, could not be applied. I'er Curium.— The 
 scheme for violating the secrecy of thu liallol 
 was an illegal act under aection 141), and had 
 no little significance when taken in connection 
 with the piovcd acts of bribery. In estimating 
 the application of aection 1,59 it was impossible 
 to leave out of sight the illegal practices under 
 section 14(i. The West Simcoe Case, 1 K. C. 
 LOU, referred to and followed. Kaxl Northnn^ 
 liiuit Eledidii {(hit.) — Richmond V. Willoughbn, 
 1 K. C. 434. lioyd -Osier. 
 
 At the trial of the petition one corrupt act, 
 namely, the payment of the traV'lliug cxpengei 
 of a voter Al. by 1'"., an agent of the resjioiident 
 was proved ; it was also found that V. D. was 
 guilty of bribery, in giving a dollar to each oi 
 two voters and oll'ering money to another, but 
 no agency was provt^l, and that L. H. gave liquor 
 at his tavern during ])olling hours, hut he was 
 not ])roved to be an agent. It was contended 
 that these latter acts, and the evidence as to the 
 actji and conduct of three other parties in con- 
 nection with other charges which were not 
 proved, should all be taken into consideration 
 with the proved corrupt act, in order totakethe 
 case out of section I. '39 of the Election Act, R. 
 S. O. (1877), c. 10, and prevent the respondent 
 from saving his scat under the provisions of that 
 section :— Held, that the election was not avoid- 
 ed. Welland Election (Out. )—Hob.mn v. Morin. 
 1 E. C aS.S. Patterson -Ferguson. 
 
im 
 
 PA&UAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1488 
 
 affected, unlcM theie 
 prevailed, nml were no 
 iiixidious lui to imlatc 
 Itlu boliif tliiit hut for 
 the result might have 
 , after Htrikin^ „f! the 
 ideiit Wdiilil Htill have 
 )ii, .).— Thu extent ol 
 nipt acts is not to hs 
 lurely l)y the nninber 
 
 I contieeliiiii with the 
 Moved t(» be guilty ol 
 leopjjortunitii'Hhomay 
 
 lilte prautiees in other 
 
 II (!mirt of Appeal;- 
 n(,'<)f (Iiiineidii, ,]. (Bo, 
 liiit till' CDiTupt actj ill 
 vitliin tlie protpction of 
 foio tlu! eiection was 
 •Jlirtiou (Oiil.]—Rtid\. 
 
 iimtion and at polling 
 , inOO. See also .Voiit 
 V. MrCnt/iim, H. E.C 
 
 uiy proved acts of bri 
 itured into a scheme for 
 tlie election liy inducing 
 liiillotH, after they were 
 hikI the eviilenoe (level 
 aets of hrihery, though 
 1 Huspicious eiioumstin 
 witliout the itnowlodge 
 iidiMit. Tliu vote polled 
 which there Wi'.s a ma 
 the rcspumlent:— Held, 
 id Ijecauscof thccornipt 
 of the ooiiduet anddc- 
 ;he waving pruviaiona of 
 tion Act, R. S. 0. (18";|, 
 lied. I'er Curiam.— The 
 he secrecy of the hallol 
 iler section 140, and had 
 hen taken in cunnection 
 ' bribery, in estimating 
 ion 1.5<J it waa impossible 
 lie illegal practices under 
 St Sinicoc (Jase, 1 E. C. 
 lowed. J'Jaxt Nnrtlmmkr- 
 liirhmoiitl V. Willoughbj. 
 Isler. 
 
 )etitioii one corrupt act, 
 if the trav' llini; expenses 
 
 agent of the respondent. 
 so found that V. D. wai 
 iving a dollar to each ol 
 g money to another, but 
 and that L. H. j;ave liqnor 
 lolling hours, hut he was 
 igenL. It was contended 
 ind the evidence iia to the 
 iree other parties in con- 
 iliargea which were not 
 
 taken into con.siileration 
 )t act, in order totakethe 
 I of tlio Election Act, R. 
 I prevent the respondent 
 idcr the provisions of that 
 lie election was not avoid- 
 (Ont.)—Holmn v. Moni- 
 n -Ferguson. 
 
 Per I'attflrson, J. A. -Tho " result" referred 
 to in act'tioii ITiU ia thu result which toiicliis tlie 
 fijjbt to tlie seat which in being contested, i. o., 
 the majority of legal and huiicst voles. The 
 petitiouir could not insist on giving uvitluiice of 
 auy corrupt practice which he has not cliai^^!il 
 -and for this purpose illej,'al acts are corrupt 
 nrsctices- but whither the evidence given U|ioii 
 jny charge is sullieient to establish it, or i.ills 
 ihurt of (tiling ""i ""y facts or any course of con- 
 iluct shewn by that cvidento may be properly 
 amsideied in connection with any other corrupt 
 iir illegal practice which has been proved, and 
 the nature or probable extent of which it may 
 lervo to elucidate ; but on coiisideratmn of all 
 the facts ill this case this election should be held 
 good and the respondent duly clocted. ih. 
 
 Per Ferguson, J. --The words ''other illegal 
 practices ut the election," at the cud of seetluli 
 159, must hu illegal practices tho existence ol 
 which is auc(.rtaiiiu(l and known, and the way 
 their existence becoincs known is by thu evi- 
 dence. 1 his cannot rest in coiijectiiie, it inunt 
 lie proved. Whenever, in giving evidence to 
 prove a corrupt [iractice charged as having I cea 
 c(iiiiniiiti\l by an agent, il appears tliat illegal 
 practices took place, though tlie evidence laii to 
 prove the .igeiicy, these; illegal practices aie com- 
 prehciided in the nicaiiiiig of thu words " other 
 illegal practices at thu election," and must be 
 taken ill cuiiiiectioii with the corrupt act of the 
 agent. Uii thu whole case, the coirupt act 
 proved was so tiilling that the result c.innot 
 have lievii allucted by it, either alone or in eon 
 nectioii with the otlior illegal piaetict-s at the 
 election ; the election sliouht not bu avoided. Jl>. 
 
 Sec Wed llaKtinijH Election (2) (Ont)--IIohhii 
 i.HobuUuii, K. K C OSy, p. Uj'J; iJujjcrdi 
 Elrdiiiu i,Uni.)—i!ilei(/liihotm V. JJdir, il. k. (,'. 
 530, p. 1515; Lincoln EUxlion ('Z) {Oiii,)—/'iiu;- 
 liiitj v. liyktrl, H. E. C. 489, p. 145S ; A'o/Y/i 
 Ontaiio Lltclwii (Onl.) — 'Jreud aven v. (iuiild, 1 
 E. U. 1, p. 1471; Hamilton EUtlion [int.) — 
 PaUemuii v. blrnnon, 1 V.. C. 41(U, p. 14U3. 
 
 16. Binqualijicalion by Heamn 0/ Corrupt 
 Praclice$ 
 
 (a) OJ Candida tt. 
 
 Before subjecting a candidate to tho penalty 
 of disqualilicutioii, tho judge should leel well 
 assured, lje}oiidaIl possiliility of mistake, tliiit 
 theolleiice charged is estalilishcd. If tliLru is 
 au liouijst coiiUici. of testimony as to the otkiice 
 charged, or it acts or language are nasiiiiably 
 8uaie^.lible of twu iiitcipretatlona, one iiiiioci.lu 
 aud tlieoiher culj.able, the judge is to take c.ie 
 notto adopt the culpable interpretation uuKbs, 
 after the moat c.irclul consiileration, he is con- 
 vinced that m view of all the eircumst.inces it is 
 the only one which thu evidence wai rants Ins 
 adopting as the true one. WtUand EliUmu (lij 
 {Onl.i— jiuchiier v. Currie, H. K. C. 187.— 
 Uwynne. 
 
 i'er Burton aud Patterson, JJ. A.— Tho 2ud 
 sub-sectiuii of section a of 3ti Vict., c. 2 (tJiu.), 
 applies equally to the elected aud defeated caa.ii- 
 daieaaiaiiekcion ; aud, if found aksemingpai 
 ties to any piautice ikclarcd by tho statuic to bu 
 corrupt, each i.f thoni is liable to ihedisqualiu- 
 catious mentioned iii the statute. AoivA h tnl- 
 
 iiHirtk EUr.lUiii (Oiit.)~Uliriilif v, Stoik, il. K. 
 
 It is a gunerul rule that no man can bi* treated 
 as a criminal, or mulct in peiial actions fur 
 iillcnci'H which III' did nut connive at ; and it is 
 settled law that cnactmciits aie iint to be given 
 a penal cllect beyond the nece.tsaiy import of thu 
 tiriiis used, Ihit the election laws aie nut to be 
 so liiiiitinlly construed by an clLclidii judge ; and 
 lor civil purposes they arc nmri^ coinpn llell.^ive, 
 and reach a eaiidl(lat(.' whise agciil.s luibe in liiit 
 behalf, with or without his aullimity. VVIieru 
 till) (liH(|iialitii ation of acandiiiatc Is sought thuy 
 aie to be eonstiiied as any oJicr pi^nal statlltcH, 
 and thu candidate iiiiist be prove;! guilty by thu 
 same kind of evidence asaj plii s to ptMul proceed 
 ings. Eimjsloii ICIiilioii (IhtiK.) Stiiinrl. v. 
 Mii,;'.,i,n/a', I H. K C. O-J.'i. - KichardK. 
 
 An election was held in .lunuaiy, IH74, iindur 
 the Act of IS7.'I, at w hich the iietiiioiicr and thu 
 icspoiid..'nt were caiiiliilales i at which thu 
 le.siioiiilent was elected. 'this elci-tii)ii was 
 avoided on tlii^ ground of corrupt [ir.ictices by 
 agents ol the respondent, cumiiiitLed without 
 his knowledge or coiLsent, (II. I'., ('. 547.) Anew 
 election was belli, undir llic Act of 187-1, at which 
 ill! {K-liliiiiier mill the i (-Npoiiileiit wire again 
 caliiliilatcs, when the rcsponneiiL was again elect- 
 ed, l herciipcn anollier peliliiiii was presented, 
 cli.irgiiig that the le.spiindent was guilty of cor- 
 rupt prueiiccs at this last (dt^clion : lliat he was 
 ineligible by rea.son of the coiriijit acts of hta 
 agents at, the furmer election ; that persons ro- 
 poitcd guilty of corrupt piactiecs at the former 
 election trial had iiiiprii(ieily voted at the last 
 election ; aud claiming the siialfor thcpetitiimcr: 
 -ll(d(l, on the iireliiiiin.iiy (ibjeetloiis, (I) That 
 the two tdi etii ns were one in law ; and it was 
 not inateri-il that they had been lii-lit under dif- 
 ferent Actaof I'arliiincnt ; ('2) That the respon- 
 dent was not ineligible for re election, as tho 
 corrupt practices of his agents at the former 
 (dectioii had been committeil witlnait his kiiow- 
 ledee or consent. < 'oniwiill /iicctioii [2) ( Da'ti.) — 
 HiT(liH V. Mardouald, II. |i]. C. 047. Hut see 
 U. .S. C. c. 8, a. 1)5. 
 
 It appearing that a number of persons visited 
 the district, and that thu object of their visit 
 was to iidliieiice the oleclors by cm rupt means, 
 and thai there was an orgaiii/cd and systema- 
 tized plan to employ corrupt means to inliuence 
 and c.irry the election in vaiious ways, and that 
 I he trial judges, I'atteihon, •!. A. and leiguson, 
 J., were not satisfied that the ris[i()iidcnt was 
 Ignorant that such pr.ictices were liUely to be 
 ciiininitted by persons acting in his beiialf in 
 the coniliict ol the election, ami found that 
 corrupt practices prevailod at the election and 
 ilccliiieu *o relievo the respondent under sec- 
 tion 102, (>f the penalties incurred by him 
 under section liil, the Court of Appeal now 
 ilccliiicd to inteifere ((Jalt, J., di.'^suntiiig.) Per 
 Hagarty, C. J. O., when a corrupt pr.ictice is 
 proved the onus is at once shilted to the respon- 
 dent to bring Iiiniself within the saving clauae 
 R. S. U. (1877) c. 10, 8. I(J'2. The I'lescott 
 lOlcctioii, 1 K. Cj. 88, followed. A/ihsbikii and 
 I'diry Hitiniil Ekdiau (Out.) — I'atjct v. Fauquier, 
 1 K. O. 197. 
 
 Sec \oith Wenlworlh Elect iim {Oiit.)~C/irititie 
 v. aiock, U. K. U. 343, p. 1489 ; Centre tVdling- 
 
1499 
 
 PABLIAMENTABY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1509 
 
 'i.:l 
 
 ton Election {Dom.) — Ironnide v. Orton, H. E. 
 O. 576, p. 1462; North Orey Election (Out.)— 
 Boardman v. Scott, H. K. C. 362, p. 1488 ; Lon- 
 don Election (Dom.) — Pritchnrd v. WaJke.r, H. 
 E. C. 560, p. 1465 ; South Renfrew Election 
 (Ont.)—H(iricy v. Dowling, 1 E. C. 359, p. 1522; 
 East Middli'sex Election (Ont.) — lihoikr v. Mc- 
 Kenzie, 1 E. C. 250, p. 1485. 
 
 (b) Of Other Persons. 
 
 Qucere, whether tlie judge presiding at the 
 trial should not direct uotiue to be given to tlic 
 parties who, from the evidence, were apparently 
 guilty of corrupt practices, so that he miglit 
 decide upon their liabihty to disqualiticutiou, 
 and report them under the statute. Frescott 
 Election {Ont.) — Ate Kenzie v. Hamilton, H. E. 
 O. 1.— Riciiards. 
 
 The election having been declared void on 
 Hccount of the corru[)t practices of an agent of 
 the respondent, the judges acting as a court for 
 the' "ialof illegal acts couiniitted at the election, 
 after notice to such agent, granted an order for 
 the punishment of such agent by fine and dia- 
 qualitication. Slvrmonl Election (2) (Ont.) -- 
 Empey v. Kerr, H. E. C. 537. — Moss- -lilake. 
 
 The right to vote is not to be taken away or 
 the vote forfeited by the act of the voter uuless 
 under a plain and express enactment, for it is a 
 matter in which others besides tiie voter are in- 
 terested, liiockville Eliclion (Ont.) — Flint v. 
 FitMimmom, H. E. C. 139.— Q. B. 
 
 Held, the fact of persons having been reported 
 by the judge as guilty of corrupt practices at a 
 former clectidu, had not the eU'ect of disiiuali- 
 fying them from voting at a second election. 
 The report of the judge is not as to them au 
 adjudication, for voters are not, in a proper 
 judicial sense, parties to the proceedings at an 
 election trial. I'ornwall Election (2) (Dom.) — 
 Beryin v. Macdunald, H. E. C. 647. — Spragge. 
 
 See North Simcoe Election (Doin.)—Edirurd,'< 
 V. Cook, H. E. C. 617, p. 1505. 
 
 VIII. Irregularities in Takincj the Poll. 
 
 At a polling subdivision, through a scries 
 of miachances, and without any wilful default of 
 the otlicials the poll was not opened till l>etu een 
 half-past one antl two, whereby it was ciharged 
 a number of electors were deprived of voting. 
 The petitioner failed to prove the cliarge, while, 
 if the emus of doing so were on the respondent, 
 he shewed there was ample time to poll .ill the 
 votes at that subdivision, and that all who desired 
 to vote could have done so ; the supply of ballot 
 papers at a pulling subdivision, through a I)1um- 
 der of the officials, ran out, and, while waiting 
 for instructions the poll was clobcd for half an 
 hour, whereby, it was charged, some seventeen 
 voters were prevented froni voting; but as a 
 matter of fact none of these voters were jireju- 
 diced thereby ; the deputy returning officer and 
 subordinate olKcers at a polling subdivision, 
 through improvidence, but not mala fide, did 
 not make the declaration of secrecy required by 
 section 147 of R. S. (). (1877), c. 10; but the 
 result was not affected thereby :— Held, by the 
 trial judges, Boyd, C, and Cameron, J., that as 
 
 these grounds of irregularity did not per se aflect 
 the result, they came within the protection of 
 section 197, and did not avoid the elr 'jtion, Em 
 Simcoe Election (Ont.) —Reid v. Dr.inj, 1 E.C.29I. 
 
 See Bothwell Election (Dom.) — IlnwIciM v 
 
 Smith, 8S. O. ~ """ ~ 
 
 (Oiit.) — Cunii 
 
 C. R. 676, p. 1442; Prcscoll Elettvm 
 ningham v. Hagar, 1 E.G. 88, p. 1444. 
 
 See Subhead II. 1 (a), 
 
 In use of voters' list, 
 p. 1425. 
 
 IX. Accounts OF ExPENDiTDKE. 
 
 When all the accounts and records of an elec- 
 tion are ii.tentionally destroyed by the respon- 
 dent's age it, even if tlie case be strinpcd of all 
 other circumstances, the strongest conclusion 
 will be drawn against the reapondentiand every 
 presumption will be made against the legality of 
 the acts concealed by such coniUict. SimihGm 
 Election (Oi.t.)— Hunter v. Lauder, H. E. C. 
 52. — Mowat. 
 
 A candidate in good faith intended that his 
 election should be conducted in accorduuce both 
 with the letter and the spirit of tlie luw ; and he 
 suhscribeil and paid no money, except lor print- 
 ing. Mor "y, however, was given by irieiulsof 
 the candidate to difl'eient persons for election 
 purposes, wiio kept no accounts or vouchers of 
 what they paid : — Held, that bribcy would not 
 be inferred as against the candidate, who neither 
 knew nor desired such a state of thiug-f, from 
 the omission of the subordinate agunts to keep 
 an account of their expenditure, especially ai 
 the law was new, and contained no provision 
 similar to the Imperial statute, which requires 
 a detailed statement of expenditure to ho furn- 
 ished to the returning officer. But it is always 
 more satisfactory to have the expenditure shewn 
 by proper vouchers; and if money is paid to 
 voters for distributing cards, or for teams, or 
 for refreshment, these will be open to attack, 
 and judges will be less inclined, us the law be- 
 comes known, to take a favourable view of con- 
 <Uict that may bear tvo constructions, one 
 favourable to the candidate and tlie otiier un- 
 favourable. Ea.it Toronto Elecii in (Out.)— Ren- 
 nick V. Cameron, H. E. C 70. — Richards. 
 
 The Act 36 Vict. c. 2, ss. 7-12 (Ont), requires 
 all election expenses of candidates shall be paid 
 through an election agent; and the Act .38 Vict, 
 c. 3, 8. 6, requires the nieniber-eltct to swear 
 that he had not paid and will not pay election 
 expenses except through an agent, iuid that he 
 " has not been guilty of n.iy other corrupt prac- 
 tice in respect of the said election." Certain 
 payments were made by the respondent person- 
 ally, and not through an election agent :— Held, 
 tiiat such pr ymeiits were not corrupt practices:— 
 Held, that the words "other corrupt practices" 
 in the member's oath meant "any corrupt prac- 
 tice. " West Hastings Election (Ont. )— Wenley v. 
 Wills, H. E. C. 211.— Spragge. 
 
 Per Taschereau, J.— That the personal ex- 
 penses of the candidate should be included in 
 the statement of election expenses required to 
 be furnished to the returning oliicer under 37 
 Vict. c. 9, s. 123. liellechassc Election (Doin.)- 
 Larue v. Deslauriers, 5 S. C. R. 91. 
 
 See East Middlesex Election (Ont.)—Rhoders. 
 McKenzie, 1 E. C. 250, p. 1495. 
 
ISOI 
 
 PABUAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1502 
 
 ee Subhead II. 1 (a), 
 
 iXPENDlTDKK. 
 
 X. Actions for Penalties. 
 
 1. Aqamt Persons Convicted of Bribery. 
 
 Held, that 18 Klizabeth chapter 5, which 
 enacts that an informer shall sue either in per- 
 soD or by attorney, is in force in this province, 
 and therefiire the plaintiff, an infant suing by 
 his next friend, could not maintain an actiun for 
 a penalty under the Election Act. The appel- 
 lant havh))^ omitted to take this objectidu iu the 
 court liulow, this court in allowing the appeal 
 on that giounil, refused him his costs of appeal. 
 Oarrell v, Uolia-ls, 10 A. K. (i.'iO. 
 
 A perion wiio sues for a penalty given by the 
 Election Act is a common informer. lb. 
 
 The acts of bri!)ery complained of were com- 
 mitted lietwecii the lUth and "JSnl of .lune, 1882. 
 The writ wis issued on the I'ith June, 18H.'l, ;in<l 
 was served on tiie defendant on the '27 ih No- 
 vember tlierealter. The defendant on the SOth 
 Kovenibor, moved to dismiss the action for wd- 
 lul delay in prosecution under 31) Viet. c. !) 
 (Ont. ). The plaiutiirs s(dieitor swore that he 
 was also solicitor for the petitioner in the Len- 
 nox election petition, at whieh election the 
 acts of bribery eoiniilained of were alleged to 
 have been committed, and in order not to en- 
 dMiger the success of that i)etition it was doeme<l 
 ..i.lvisable not to serve the writ until tliat petition 
 was disposed of, which, on account of objections 
 to the juris liction, was nut tried till the lOtli 
 October, 188U. lie also dciiosed that at the 
 trial of the election petition an application was 
 made for a summons against the dcfen<lant un 
 der 39 Viet. c. !), to have the penalties for 
 bribery iuiposed upon him ; and that the applica- 
 tion was not disposed of till the '23rd November, 
 at which date the judge tleclincd to interfere : — 
 Held, that such delay as would not expose an 
 urdi' suit to dismissal may be fatal to an 
 action under this Act, under the special provi- 
 sion that such an action shall be carried on with- 
 out wilful delay : — Held, also, there nad been wil- 
 ful dehy not to be excused by the explatiitions 
 given, and that the plaintiff was entitled as of 
 right to have the action perpetually stayed or dis- 
 missed. The order was made, dismissing the 
 action without costs, for the reason thata prima 
 facie c.(sc of bribery was established against the 
 (lefunduut which he ha<l not attempted to eontra- 
 <lict. Miks V, Roe, 10 P. R. '218. —Boyd. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Provincial liCgislature 
 over "property and civil rights" <Iocs not pre- 
 clude the I'.irliument of Canada from giving to 
 an informer the right to recover, by a civil ac- 
 tion, a penalty imposed as a punishment for bri- 
 bery at an election. The Dominion Election Act, 
 1S74, by section 106, provides that all penalties 
 and forieitures (other than fines in cases of mis- 
 demeanour) imposed by the Act shall be recover- 
 able, with full costs of suit, by any porsim who 
 will sue for the same, by action of debt or infor- 
 matiuu, in any of Her Majesty's Courts in the 
 Province in which the cause of action arose, hav- 
 ing competent jurisdiction :— Held, that the en- 
 actment was valid. Doyle v. Bell, 11 A. U. 326 
 3"^ C. P. «3'2. 
 
 2. For Illegally Voting. 
 
 In an notion under R. 8. O, (1877) c 10, s. 
 182, against an agent for the sale of crown lauds 
 
 to recover a penalty alleged to have been in- 
 curred by voting at an election of a member to 
 the legislative assembly, contrary to section 4 
 of the Act : —Held, overruling a demurrer to the 
 statement of claim, that, though forfeitures and 
 penalties belong' to the crown unless otherwise 
 disposed of, the sum declared to be forfeited by 
 section 4 of the Act for a breu.h thereof is a 
 [leiialty within the meaning of section 182, sub- 
 section 1, for which an action may be main- 
 tained by anv l>erson who will sue for the same. 
 SlirljIeM V. Taylor, A O. It. ;}1)(}.— liose. 8eo 
 also S. C. sill) nam. Sriijky v. Taylor, 6 O. R. 
 108, p. 1437. 
 
 3. Aijaiii.:! Reliirninn Ojliceri and Deputy 
 JidurniiKj djHcki-s. 
 
 (a) Refimnij Vnies. 
 
 At the election of a member of the legislative 
 assembly for Algoma, six p ^rs >us tendered their 
 votes and offered to take tlie necessary oaths 
 required l)y R. S. (). (1877) c. 1', to entitle 
 tliem to vole, 'i'he deputy leturning officer re- 
 fused tiie vote of one bci;iuse he coidd not pro- 
 duce bis title deeds, and ol the others because 
 they bad no houses on thiiii- Ian l.s. Four of 
 those rejected oU'ereil to t iki: the oith prescribed 
 and described the property on which they 
 cbumed to vote. In an action for penalties for 
 refusing the votes: — Held, tint the duties of a 
 deputy returning officer in taking the votes are 
 ministerial, (save where he suspects personation 
 want of oualification, etc. ; in which case he 
 should exci'cisc his judgment as to administering 
 the oath), and that h iving refused the tendered 
 votes of those who had sutlieiently shewn their 
 right to vote, he had refused to perform an obli- 
 gation or formality, required of him within 
 .section 180, and was liable to the penalties 
 pn.'scribed by the Act. Walton v. A/tjohii, 5 
 O. R. (Jj-Q. B. I). 
 
 One Anderson, when tendering bis voce, was 
 not able to describe his bind accurately, but 
 8tate<l that it was in one of three townships which 
 he named. His vote was refused on the grounil 
 that he had no house on his land : — Held, 
 Hagarty, C. J., doubting, that the <leputy re- 
 turning olHcer was liable for the penalty for 
 refusing this vote : -Held, also, that the point 
 as to whether the poUmg di ision in question 
 was withiik Ontario or not. could not be raised 
 by the deputy returnin,' officer acting under a 
 writ for an election in Ont.irio :— Held, also, 
 that notice of action was not nceessary, nor was 
 it necessary to aver or prove notice. lb. 
 
 (b) Returns. 
 
 An action to recover the penalty of $200 im- 
 posed by 37 Vict. o. 9, s. 108 (L)oin.). The sixth 
 para'j;raph of the statera-jntof cliiin alle.;ed that 
 the defendant as deputy returning officer ne- 
 glected to make out the statement required by 
 sectimt 57, and enclose it in the b diot box. The 
 seventh paragraph alleged that defendant pre- 
 tended thathe did make up the statement iuques- 
 tion, but that he inclosed it by mistake in the en- 
 velope contaiuiug the ballot pipers ; and charged 
 that the doing so was a neglect of duty, within 
 the meaning of the s'ltute. I'lm defence denied 
 the statement of claim, and alleged, (2) that the 
 
1503 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 mn 
 
 cx> 
 
 nonpetforniance of any formality was uninten- 
 tional on tlie |jai't of tiiu ilffundant, and was not 
 the result of a guilty mind. On a mution to 
 strike out the secmid paragraph of tlic defence, 
 Cameron, J., gave leave to the plaintiifto take 
 exception to that jiaragraph by demurror. 
 And : — Siinlilo, that the i)aiagraph slitwod no 
 valid ground of detence, and that if the ilefen- 
 dant made the alUged mistake, no cause of 
 action (.■xistid under .section 57. Cunu.roii v. 
 Clucas, » I'. R. 40r).— Cameron. 
 
 Action by the pl.iintilF, a defeated candidate 
 at an election for the local Iccisiature, ag.iiiist 
 the defendant, tiie returning officer for wilfully 
 contravening the provisions of R. S. (). (IS77) e. 
 10,8. 12.5, in not del.'ying the return after receiv- 
 ing notice from the county judge of a recount of 
 the ballots. The cuunty judge had niaileil a 
 notice to the d( feiulant, which it was not contro- 
 verted had reached him in time, and adu) licate 
 of it was left at his residence with his wife : — 
 Held, affniiiiiig the judnnieut of \V'il.son, ('. J., 
 at the trial, Camciou, C. J., duhitante, that the 
 evidence set out in the report, did not shew tliat 
 the notice came to defendant's knowledge l)ef(n'c 
 he made his return, and therefore lie did not 
 contravene the section, so that there could be no 
 recovery: —Cameron, C. J., douljting, on the 
 ground that the defendant had not aflirnicd by 
 his oath that the fact of a recount did not come 
 to his knowledge before he made his return. 
 Held, per \\ il.soii, C. J., that the plaintiff was 
 a *'pers(]n aggrieved" witlnn section 181 of the 
 Act ; and that the dcfen<lant could not ques- 
 tion the power of the county judge to {;ive the 
 appointment or i.-sne the notice on the material 
 before him, becau.'^e the pmcets of the court or 
 judge must be obeyed while it stands when, as 
 here, there was jiiriadiction. Hays v. Arm- 
 ulrong, 7 O. R. 021— C. P. U. 
 
 4. Appeal. 
 See Chagnon v. Noiinand, IG S. C. R. 661. 
 
 XI. TrI.1L of CoNTROVKUTEI) KLtXTIONS. 
 
 1. Court fur Trial. 
 
 The Court of Queen's Bench is an existing 
 court for the iirc-entation and tiial of Dominion 
 controverted (■lecli( n eases, notwithstanding the 
 (). J. Act,lSSl. The petition in this case was 
 intitulcil, "In the Queen's Hench, High Court 
 of Justice, Quceua IJencli Division," and was 
 delivered, without any special instructions to 
 him, to an ofiicer (if, ami in the office of the 
 Queen's lUnch l)i\ision, with whom and in 
 which the business of the Court of Queen's Bench 
 had formerly been transacted, and the ollicer 
 entered it in the proceilure book of the Queen's 
 Hench Division : — Held, that the words " High 
 Court of Justice, Queen'H Bench Division, "added 
 in intituling the ] cfition might be rejected as 
 surplusage, and that the petition had been pio- 
 perly iiiesented in the Queen's IJeneh :-Held, 
 also, that the act, <if the (fficer in entering it in 
 a wrong book ^llo^lld not prejudicially affect the 
 petition. /7i re liii-^nfll ElfxlUtn (Dom.) — //aider 
 Honv. Dul.eii-dii, 1 (). I!. 4;i9. Cameron. Hut 
 see the next two following cases. 
 
 A petition against the return of a member for 
 the house of commons, was filed in the Hioh 
 Court of Justice, Common Pleas Division, con- 
 stituted by the U. J. Act ; and the required 
 secuiity was furnished by the deposit thereof 
 being made in a bank under a direction obtiiined 
 therefor from the accountant of the said High 
 Court, appointed under the said Act :— Held, by 
 Cameron, .)., that the Common I'leas Divisio'nof 
 the said High (,'ourt was not one and the same 
 court as the Court of Common Pleas as constitu- 
 ted prior to the passing of the Judicature Act- 
 that ihc Slid ( 'ourt of Common I'leas still existed' 
 and wa.s cap:d)le of receiving and trying the said 
 jietitions, and tlicrefore, the said ComnionPltaa 
 Division hud no jurisdiction to entertain the 
 Sime: — Held, also, that the question was pro 
 perly raised by way of pieliininary ohjeclion, as 
 was also the question as to the security furnish 
 ed : — Held, also, tliat the onus of proving the 
 preliminary objections rested on the rcspnnclent 
 who raised them. The question as to jurisdic- 
 tion being impoitant, and open to reasonable 
 doubt, no costs were allowed. A'c Norlh Ywk 
 Kle<'liiiii(Dow.) — J'lilanon v. i1/i(/o</;,32C.P. 458. 
 Overruled. iSee the next ciise. 
 
 The election petition against the election and 
 return of the respondent, was entitled in the 
 High Court of .Justice, Queen's Bcncli liivision, 
 and was presi nted to the official in chirge of the 
 oihco of the Queen's Bcncli Division, and filed 
 and entered in the books of that oliice. A pre- 
 liminaiy objection was taken tljal the high 
 Court of Justice liad no jurisdiction ; -Held, 
 (Henry and Tasohere.iu .IJ., dissiiiting), revers- 
 ing the judgment of Cameron, J., (I (.). R. 433) 
 and Re Noith York I'.lection case, Pitter-oa v. 
 Mulock, a2(;. P. 458, that the Ontario .liidica- 
 tureAct, 1881, makes tlie High Court of Justice 
 and its divisions a continuation of the former 
 courts merged in it, and that those courts still 
 exist under new names ; and that the petition 
 had not been irregularly entitled ami filed. 
 Wt'-st //won Election — Mitc/icU v. Vuiiicrun, 8S. 
 C. R. 126. 
 
 See /ie Niagara Election (Dum.) —/'/iimbv. 
 //wj/iefi, 29 C'. I'. 261 ; Sonf/i. Ontariu /■Jlcdim 
 (l)oiii.) — McKay v. Gin; He II W JJaHlinDu 
 El.clion {Ont.)—\ValWrid!ie v. Jiow, /h.^'llO; 
 .\/ ontmurency Ele.i linn (Duin.) — Valin\. /Aing- 
 lois, 5 A[)p. Cas. 115; 3 8. C. 1{. 1, p. aOfi. 
 
 2. Petition. 
 
 (a) PetitionerK. 
 
 The respondent attacked the qttalification of 
 one of the petitioners on the giounds that he 
 was an alien, and that he had no jnoperty 
 (pialilication, having made an assignniciit in 
 insolvency before the election. The judge ad- 
 mitted the evidence, but:— Held, (1) That the 
 evidence as to the petitioner having lived in the 
 United states without shewing that his jiarcutg 
 were American citizens, was not sullicient to 
 establish the charge of alienage!. (2) That the 
 Onlaric Klection Act of 18tH, by the term 
 " ownii, ' gives to the husband wlio?e wi;c has 
 an estate h» life or a greater estate, the ligiitto 
 vote in respect of his Mifc's properly ; ;in<l that 
 the petitioner liaving that qiialiMcatiun, and 
 being iu possession of his wife's estate, «m 
 
1505 
 
 PARLIAMENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 1506 
 
 entitled to petition. Prencotl, Election {(hit.)-- 
 MeKenzii' V. Jlainillot), H. E. C. 1. — Iticlmnls. 
 
 The respondent, on the opening of the case, 
 charged that tlie petitioner wiis a caudidate at 
 theelectiiiM, and as such candidate was gudty 
 of corrupt practices, and tiiereforu diH(|iiiililie(l 
 to be a petitioner. The ciiief justice, witliout 
 deciding wlietiier the respondent iiad tiic right 
 to attacii the qnaliiication of the petitioner, 
 allowed the evidence to he given, hut lit Id tiie 
 same to l)e insnrticient. I'rhiri- Eilir.ird h'/iicliou 
 miit_)—Aiitlcrsoii v. ■Striker, H. E. ('. 45. See 
 next case. 
 
 A jietitioner in an election petition who has 
 been guilty of coiTiipt practices at the election 
 complained of, docs not thereli\' lose lii.s status ' 
 ttSiipetitiiiuer. Oiilferiii L'/i rtiuii (Oiit.ySlehjIU- ! 
 holm V. Burr, H. K. C. SJil ; 4 .\. It. 4-J(». \ 
 
 Kxcept where there are leiM-iniinatory chai'ges 
 against the uiisnccessful cindidite, or for the 
 nuqiose of declaring the pctitiout^r's vote void 
 on a scrutiny, the cond\ict of a pititioner at an 
 election cannot he iiKpiired into. And in tliis 
 case there is no distinction between a cainlidatc- 1 
 [letitidMer, and a voter-petitioner, lli. j 
 
 Stuihle, that if the petitioner in this case was ' 
 proved iit the tiial of the election petition to ■ 
 have heen guilty of corrn|)t practices at the ' 
 election complained of, the petition could not 
 be dismissed, lb. 
 
 A candidate may he a petitioner althouj;h his 
 property nualilieatiim he defective, if it « as not! 
 demanded of him at the time (jf his election. ]f | 
 he claims the seat, his want of (pialilication may j 
 be uriicd against his being .seated, but he may 
 still shew that the respondent was not duly 
 elected, if he so charge in his jjctition. Ndrili 
 
 ViflariCt Kleeliull i/>iilll.) -(..'illlHI'OII. V. Mlir/eil- 
 
 tKW, 11. K. C. 584. — Richards. — Spragge. — 
 llagarty. 
 
 A duly i|Ualitic(l voter is not dis(|unlilieil from 
 lieiiiga petitioner on the ground that he has been 
 guilty of biibery. treating or undue inlhience, 
 liliring the electitJii. Soiili .SiiiKOi' Election 
 {Di>m.)~ Eihritrds v. CooL; H. E. C. 017. — 
 llichards. Sj)ragge.— -Hagarty. 
 
 Dis(|ualitkations from corrupt practices on the 
 part (if a voter or candidate arise after he has 
 liein found guilty, there is no iclation Ijack. 
 Ik 
 
 In oriler to disijualify the petitioner acting as 
 such, the respondent oH'cred to prove (l)that 
 the petitioner had been repotted by tiie judge 
 trying a former electi(r_i jictitlon as guilty of 
 (.'orrupt practices. (2) That the petitioner had 
 ill fact hieii guilty of corrupt practices at such 
 election ; and (,'{) that he had been guilty of cor- 
 rupt ]iractices at the election in (luestiou: — 
 Held, that, such evidence, if oll'ered, svoiild not 
 disqualify the petitioner as such. Cornicall Elic- 
 'iW (;)) {l)um.)—Macl,ini(iii v. Herein, H. E. C. 
 S03.— Armour. 
 
 Held, that as the jietitioncr did not on the 
 Iietition claim the seat, evidence could not be 
 gone into for the purpose of peisonally disqunli- 
 fjing liini. Ifi. 
 
 See I'eel Elect W7I. (Out.)-- Ilnrxt v. ChUwhii, 
 H. E. C. 485, p. 1517 ; Mcyaulic E(ecUon(Doin.) — 
 05 
 
 Frechette v. Ooulet, 8 S. C. R. 160, p. 1509 ; 
 Meiiniitic Election (Dom.) — Cote v. Oouitt, 9 S. 
 C. R. 279, p. 15 It). 
 
 (b) Makimj Aijenta Parti/. 
 
 The petition, besides charging the respondent 
 with various corrupt ivcts, charged one of his 
 agents with similar acts, and claimed that the 
 agent was .subject to tlie same distpialifieationti 
 and [jenalties as a candidate. The [irayer of the 
 petition asked that this agent might he made a 
 party to the petition, and that he might be sub- 
 jecteil to such disijualitications and peiiidties : — 
 Held, (1) That there is no authority in the Elec- 
 tion A>.t or elsewhere, for making an agent of a 
 candidate a respondent in a petition on a charge 
 of per.soual iniseonduet on his part. {'2) T'here 
 is no authority given to the election court or the 
 judge on the rota to subject a person "other 
 than a candidate,'' to such disiiuahtications. 
 SuKth Ox/iiid Election {Out.) — //o/iliins v. Olictr, 
 IT. K. C. 2:iS.- Draper. 
 
 (e) Form oj. 
 
 An allegation in the ])etition " that the rea- 
 pinident was by himself, etc., guilty of corrupt 
 piractices as defined by the Controverted Elec- 
 tions Act of Ontario " sufficiently charges the 
 commission of corrujit jiractiees under sections 
 152 and 15.S of the Election Act, K. S. O. (1877) 
 0. 10. Sorth Ontario Election (Onl.) — Treleaven 
 V. Gohlil, 1 E. C. 1. — Burton — Osier. 
 
 The jietitioner, in his particulars delivered 
 herein, charged the respondent with giving or 
 causing to be given meat, drink, and refreshment 
 to voters on jxdling day on account of their hav- 
 ing voted or being about to vote, lieinga corrupt 
 ■ practice under I!. .S. t). (1877) c. 10, s. 15.'{. The 
 petition itself, however, niercly charged that the 
 res)ioiident " before, during, at, and after the 
 said election, was by his ai;eiits and by other 
 perxilis on his belialf guilty of corrupt jiractiees 
 as detined by the Controverted Elections' Act of 
 ; Ontario, 1!. S. O. (1877) c. II, s. 2 : '- Held, at 
 the trial, that this form of j)ctition was objection- 
 able, being hardly rcconcilalilc with tlie inten- 
 tion (if the legislature in rc(|uiriiig petitioners to 
 lile an atlidavit with the petition stating that 
 they have reason to believe and do lielieve the 
 statements contained in the petition to be true 
 in substance and in fact, and. moreover, the 
 charge I eing only by referenee to a statute, the 
 allidavit in such case could only be iiiiclligeiitly 
 ! and honestly made by one who had iiifornied 
 himself of the provisions of the statute and ap- 
 j jilied to them sonic definite eonstinetion, and in 
 I any event the deponent would only be sweuring 
 j to his own construction of the statute, without 
 stating what that construclion was: — Held, 
 I further, that inasmuch as "corrupit jiractiees," 
 j so far as defined at all by R. S. O. (1877) c. II, 
 1 were declared to mean " brihery. treating and 
 undue influence, or any of such ofleiices, as de- 
 fined by this or any other Act of the legi-lature, 
 I or recognized by the common law of the Parlia- 
 ment of England," and also the violation of cer- 
 tain specific sections of R. 8. O. (1877) c. 10, 
 among which section 15.S was not included, and 
 inasmuch as acts jirohibited by section 153 were 
 clearly not corrupt practices under the common 
 
1507 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1508 
 
 law of l\irliaiiiuiit, nor is tliere any definition of 
 " truiitiny" in any of tlie Acts of our li.-gislii- 
 tnre, and tliercforu nntliiiig to siiow tliat it 
 overs oU'ences under section 15.'?, ami tlu'refore 
 inasniucli as there ini^lit l)u extended upon the 
 face of tlie petition every oU'encc covered l>y tlie 
 description or deliuition of corrupt practices 
 contained in the C'ontioverteil lOicctions' Act of 
 Ontario, and yet tliere would not l)0 auiongst 
 tlieni any cliarge under section li)lt; tiiereloie, 
 the ]ietitioiier could not succeed in avoiding the 
 election upon any charge under section 1.')^, as 
 lie sought to do here, unless allowed to adil it 
 by way of mnendment to iiis petition. On the 
 cross a|ipeal of the pet iiioner on this point no 
 judgment w is givi ii, the disposition of the 
 respondenfs apjieal rendering it niineeessiry to 
 do so : -llild, fuither at the trial, tliat sucli 
 aincnihncnt eiudd not hi,' allowed, for H. S. O. 
 (lS77j c. II, s. !(, sulliciently shews that the 
 court lias no jui isdiction to allow such an 
 aniendnieiit notwilhstaiuliiig section '2, sul)-sec- 
 tion I, and section 43, of that Act, as does aUo 
 the reiinirenicnl of an aliidiivit under section 11. 
 Maude r. Lowiey, !.. II. !) < '. I'. Hi.'., foUowe.l ; 
 lie .Monek Kleetion, H. K. C. I."i4, .S2 Q. 15. 117, 
 distinguished. Weil Siiiiroe h'lirtioii (Oiil.) — 
 livdfuril v. /•/('■//«. I H. C. 128. — Patterson.— 
 Ferguson. ('. of A. 
 
 The (ith g iirial rule in election cases dots not 
 preclude the statement of evidence in the peti- 
 tion, it reiideis it umiecrssary, and is inteinled 
 to discourage siieli pleading. SaiilhOrfiird Elex-- 
 turn (Oiit.)'-/Ji,p/:iii.s V. (itirer, II. E.'C. 2;kS.— 
 Dra[ier. 
 
 An <decticin petition need not shew the time at 
 wliieh the return of the respondent was puli- 
 lished in the Oazattc. fa re /I'us.se^/ Eerlioii 
 {l>iini.) — llvnd(rwii v. Dhkcnuoii, 1 O. I!. 4:9.— 
 Cameron. 
 
 See Lhirnhi Elecliun (2) (()id.) — /'itwliii'/ v. 
 Ifyb-rt, H K. V. 48<J, p. 1511. 
 
 (d) Fdiwj. 
 
 Held, that under :i7 Vict. c. ]0( Doin.) the '1 iig 
 of an election jietition in the lic.il r gistrii's 
 m ' ' '" ' ' "' "" "- ~ ' ■ I of tlie 
 
 The service of an election petition made in the 
 Province of (,juchee, at tiio defend.int'u law 
 otiice, situated on the ground lloor ol lug lesi- 
 deuce and having a separate entrance, hy de- 
 livering a copy tliereof to the deiend Hit's hw 
 partner who was not a nicmliLr of, iinr resilient 
 with, the deteinlaut's laiiidv is not a survice 
 within section 1 1 , chapter !) K. S. ( '.. and article 
 .")7 ('. ('. 1'. .and a preliminaiy ohjectioa settin}; 
 up such defective service was maiiitaiiiuil anil 
 tlie flection petition dismissed, (i i »y 11110, ,]. 
 dissenting.) Mniilniaijiiy J'J/crlini: (.'use [Dum.) 
 Chr)(]iii'/f<i v. Laherije, 15 S. C. It. 1. 
 
 There is no jiower in the court or a judL'e 
 
 under section 10 of the I 'oininion Cuitrov rted 
 
 KIcctioiis' Act (I!. .S. ( !. chapter!)), to make an 
 
 order within the first five ilays .after an election 
 
 ' petition is tiled allowing .service of siii:li petitiiin 
 
 I in any manner other than tint inti'nd'.d l)y the 
 
 final part 01 the .'•ectimi. iSut wlieru under an 
 
 order made within the live days a piticioii was 
 
 directed to lie served, among oilier iiimles, uiiiin 
 
 j the wife of the respondent at hisiloniit.ilu at the 
 
 j village of 1). ;--lleld, that as sei 'i.ie on thu 
 
 I respondent "either |)ers(nially, or .it his domi- 
 
 j cile," was good sers ice, within the iiieining of 
 
 ! the section no order was noce-saiy, and I lie fact 
 
 tlial the .-ervice in tliis case was iiiaile inideiaii 
 
 [ order did not make it any the hss a good sei-- 
 
 ' vice. J/iililiiiiiiiid lilict'uiii [J)oiii.)~iy,iUh v. 
 
 Mouldijw, 1 ]'). t'. 480.-— Armour— iStreet. 
 
 (f) Anil iidineid of. 
 
 Tlie judge trying an election jietitioii ha« 
 power to aiiund the ]ietitioii liy allowing the 
 insertion of any ohjectioii to the votiis' li^t used 
 at the election. Munck E crlini (Oiil.) —VMiar 
 V. Mcialluiii, II. E. V. 151. -(Jalt 
 
 On a preliminary olijectioii to a ))ctitioii claim- 
 ing the seat on a scrutiny, tlie court de liiiml to 
 strike out a clause in the petition which claimed 
 that the votes of persoiisgiiilty of i)rihi rv, treat- 
 ing and undue influence, slimihl lie struck otl the 
 poll. Xorlh Viclorii Elecliou (//om.) -('umeroH 
 V. Afacleniian, II. E. O. 581. - Kiohaids. — 
 Spiagge. — Hagarty. 
 
 See IVflut Siinn:' Etrction (Od.) -/Inl/urd \. 
 I'licZ/iH, 1 E. C. 128, ;i. I5l>7 ; llamiUnii 'E eclm 
 (Old.) -I'atUrsoii v. .Sliii.v.ii, I E. (.;.4!l!), p. I49;i. 
 
 9 P. It. 481.— Hagarty. 
 
 Time for tiling cross petition. Sec Moid mo 
 reiifi/ E'lflioii { Doiit.) — Viiliii V. Lull lluli, ^ ,S. 
 C. K. 00, p. 15i:!. 
 
 (e) Strrice. 
 
 Au order extending time for service of an 
 tleetion petition tiled at llalifix from live d.iys 
 to fifteen days, on the ground tlat the respon- 
 dent was at Ottaw.i. is a proper order for the 
 judge to make in the exercise of his discretion 
 under section 10 of R. S. C cap '.' : -.Seinlde, 
 per Ritchie, (J. J., and Henry, •!.. th it the court 
 lielow had power to make rules for the service 
 of an election petition out of rlie jurisdiction. 
 SkeUiitrnr E/<-rliou (Ou/it.j -liolicr.soii v. Lairrte, 
 14 S. (.'. R. 258. 
 
 (g) Preliminary Ohjtrliun-!. 
 
 i As the Ontario Act, I!. S. O. (1877), c. 11, 
 ' makes no provision simiiai' to that 111 tliu 
 I Dominion (.'ontroverted 1 lections' Act, 1874, 
 1(37 \ iet. c. 10), liniiliiig the time within «hioh 
 I preliminary olijections to a.i election peti- 
 I tion sliouhl lie taken, the siiecial (MrcninstaiKes 
 i of each ease must determine wheilivr the |ire 
 I liininary ohjeetions have luen taken wiili siitli 
 I cieiit promptitude. Diilfriii Ekrf on {ihil.) 
 S/iiiihl/iolni. V. Jian; U. E. V,. 52:» ; 4 A. K. 
 ' 420."- Moss. 
 
 An olijection to the status of a petitioner c&ii- 
 i not he taken liy preliminary objection. Huffeiiii 
 ' E/i'clion (Ont.i—SlnnilUholm \. lUii-i; H. K. C 
 52!t ; 4 A. It. 420. 
 
 A charge that the petition was not signed Iiy 
 the petitioner bona fide, but that his natne »m 
 
1609 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 mo 
 
 im (O-l.) lirdfnrds. 
 )iJ7 ; llumiUuii Keclm 
 „n, 1 K. t;.4!)!Mi.l*9:t- 
 
 7/ Ohju-lioii". 
 
 K. S. (). (1X77), c. II, 
 luiiiii- to liiiit '» tji*^ 
 
 r loclioiis' Act, 1874, 
 tho tunc «itliin »lik''n 
 
 to a, I tktaioii peti- 
 u HiiULiivl circuiiistances 
 
 I. K. C. W'.i ; 4 A. li 
 
 ;atua of a iictilioner can 
 nary objcctinii. IniffM^^ 
 holm \. t>'i>'i'< II' •■'■''• 
 
 used mala fi'le by other persons, ia a matter of 
 fad to lit! tried, an I cannot be r.iiseil by prelimi- 
 nary olijt'Ulion. North Simcoe Elfvlioii (Doni.) — 
 gtwai-(.U \. Ciok, H. E. O. 617. — Kiclianls— 
 Spraggo- llagarty. 
 
 Prcliniiiiaiy objections to an election petition 
 under •'*" ^ ''=''■ « l*^- Uo'ii,), tliougli presented 
 altor till! expiialioii of live days from the service 
 of tne |ictiti,in, arc not vcid l)nr. at most irrigii- 
 jiir iiii'l wliilc lliey remain on tiie liles if tlie i 
 court the p.'t.tiini is not iit issni", and there can j 
 Jie IK) I'X iiiim ition of the pirtics. lie lioihwi-U. . 
 Ekclion I'eJilioa (Doiii.)—V P. II. 48-). -O.-sler. | 
 
 Till! ulectidii petition in tliis c vse complained j 
 (if til' ictiirii of llie res I'.inient .is mi'inuer elect 
 for llio couiily of .Migantic, (P. t^.) for the | 
 House of (loinnioiis. Tlie petition wis met l>y j 
 pivliiiiiiiliry objections, in wliicli llie sitting ^ 
 iiK-mliei' alleged, inter alia, tliat the pjtitiinuia 
 wiiie . ■ 'eotors, nor ipialilied to vole at the ' 
 
 election in qiiesti etc. A day having been 
 
 fixeil lor the nearing of these pieliinin iry ol)jec- 
 tioiK, no evi Unco w.is given upon ihein. and ' 
 til y w re disiaisied by I'l imon Ion, ,J., wlio ' 
 held, lolloping tne paiitice adopted liy the 
 ,Sii|kTior Court of C^Mi .'oec, silting as an election j 
 court in tlie l/lalet case, Dnval c. Cngiu n, 19^ 
 L, ('. .Jiir. Hi, that tiie onus probiiili was on ' 
 tliJ rospia lout to siioport such olij ■et:oin. '^':i i 
 iip^ieu to the Siipi.in : Court of C ,n.i 1 1, lAiiir- | 
 ni r, lljiiiy and .i^vynic, .JJ., were of opinion 
 tiiat tile onus prioaiidi was oi the a[ipoll ant, 
 wlie by his |irelnniii ary obje tions li id aliirmo 1 
 tlieilisipuaiieitioii of the petitioner. Contra, 
 liiicli.e, C. .)., and Stroig and rasciiereau, JJ. 
 Till.' oiiirt being i(pially ilivi. led, tho julgment 
 oftliueouit lie.ow stooil alHiine I with costs. 
 Mel)Uitir l-:i,:clioii (l)o„i.)-Fn'r)uUi'. V. Uoll'lt, 
 8S' (.'. I!. 10'.». 
 
 PiirSirong.J.- Anextremidystiongcaseshoiild 
 liusluwii to induce the ciiurt to allow an a[i|ieal 
 fiiini die j nLin in, of the court oelow on pre 
 liiniii . ••■ oojectous. Sh Iburin. K in'ion (1) ,m.) 
 —H'lh.ii-iOii V. Laiirit, 14 S. C. R. '2,')H. 
 
 Sue It'Xoilh Ox Old Klerliou (Dom.) ~8 I>. It. 
 .VJU, p. l.'ill ; /iV North York Eer/ion (I).)iii.) — 
 I'liii'.rmii \ . M'lloc.'.-, :i'2 C P. 4i)S, j) ir)i)4 ; In rr 
 HW ilar.iii I'JI'i-tioii [Dom.) —Ml hll \. Ciim- 
 tm, 1 U. H. 4:i.S; 8 8. C. U. r2o, p lOOi. 
 
 3. Scriirity. 
 
 A iJciinin on note lor .'jl.OCO w.is dllVred as 
 at'cuiiiy in this ca^e to the i-L'^istiai' of the Coui t 
 <if 1 li lie ly. WHO stated to the petitioner's .-^oli- 
 titois mat he could not receive it, lint diuc ed 
 tlitiiii to III, ike |ia,>iiKnt of it through the ac- 
 cuii .taut ol ihc e urt in the .-aiiie m liner ,is 
 iiMiey^ were usually |iaid into court. The 
 suliciioi's then |iai i i ne nioney into the bank to 
 tliii ui'edit of til ■ mat cr of the petition .uuoi'd- 
 iny to ilie usual practice ol the Ciu.t ol Chan- 
 ce, y ; -Held, tJMt the deposit ol tile seem it, , 
 iia iciuii'.'d liy the .\ci, li, \'ict. e. 1(1 (Dum.i, 
 vii'! |ii..|iui ly given. North York r^'ccti m ( //om. ) 
 -ii.utr V. .Sirnii.jc, 11 K, C'. 74:». I. like. 
 
 The d posit of .51 ,(),l() was given lo the clerk 
 .itthi' time of the pie..,enliiig the pet tion, but it 
 vusaficrrtar.ls | aid into a b .nn under the mree- 
 tiuii lit tile acciiunt.int of the iSupieme Court : — 
 
 Held, that having been properly paid to the 
 clerk, the siibseijiient disposition of it coulil not 
 ati'eet the petitioner. hi re RusaulL Election 
 [/)(tm.)—IJeiuleriiuu v. Dickeimoii, 1 O. R. 439. — 
 Cameron. 
 
 4. Partkulara. 
 (a) Gcneralh/. 
 
 When the petition claimed the scat for the 
 unsuccessful c indidate on the grounds that (1) 
 illegal votes and (2) improperly marked ballots 
 were received in lavour of the successful candi- 
 date; that (H) goiid votes and (4) properly in irk- 
 ed ballots for the unsuccessful caiulidate were 
 impropjrly reiused ; and that (.")) the successful 
 eandiilate and his agents were guilty of corrupt 
 piaetiees, and particulars of all such votes and 
 I) dlots an I ciu'iupt piaeti(!es were asked from 
 the jietitiouer ; — riehl.(l) .As to the illegal votes, 
 th it the 7th general rule preserihed the particu- 
 lars of objeeti.'d votes to be given, and the time 
 of filing and delivering the same, and a special 
 ortler was not therefore necessary, (1) Aatothe 
 iiiijiroperly m irked ballots and improperly re- 
 jected ballots, th 1 petitioner not having informa- 
 tion re.ipec:iiig them, could not be ordered to 
 deliver pirticiilir.-; of the same. (3) Particulars 
 were ordered of the uaine,s, addresses, abode and 
 a Iditi on of p 'i-sous having good votes, whose 
 Vot'iswere iin|iro[)erly rejected at the polls; and 
 particulars of the corrupt pr.ictiees charged by 
 the p tiLioncr ag.iiiist the res|ioiident, and his 
 igents, Beal c. .Smith, L. H. 4C. I*. 145lWeat- 
 niinstcr easel, followed. Wmt Elijiii Election 
 (i>nt.) -Casauldt V. Munroe, H. E. C. 223,— 
 Dra[ier. 
 
 Where particulars were delivered after the 
 time limited by the order for |) irticulirs, and 
 not returned, an ap|ilieatioii made at the tri.dto 
 set them aside was refused such appliuation 
 should h ive been made ill chambeis before the 
 trill. North Vitoiia Etrct'oii {Out j — Mcliar. 
 V, Siiiitli, H. K. C, 252,— Draper. 
 
 P.irtieul irs of recriminatory charges. See 6'. 
 C. Ih., p, 1.J12. 
 
 The particulars not having been properly pre- 
 pared, the petitioner, while obt lining the costs of 
 tlie proceedings, was disallowed the costs of the 
 particulars. Enxi NiirthniiilierlaiidEit.ttioii{Dom. ) 
 — Oibnun V. iJirji/ar, H, E, C. u77.— Hagarty. 
 
 fiea S(ritfh OiUario /-.'Itc/ioii {Out.) — Farwell v. 
 lirowii, II. E C. 4-.'0, p. lo24 ; Soulh WentwuHh 
 Eltch II ('hit. )—Olm^l(a I v. ' arpMler, H. E. V. 
 .").■{], p. 14-J7 ; ll''.s' Sinirue Ekctxni (Out.) -Bed- 
 ford V, l'h,l,,H, 1 E. c;. 128, p. 1507. 
 
 (h\ Ammilincnt of. 
 
 Where a question is raised as to the sufficiency 
 of the notice of objection to voters, the judge 
 may amend the pirtieulais; giving thne to the 
 party ill'ected by the amendment to make in- 
 ipiines. Siormoiit Election (Uiit.) — licthuiie t. 
 iotijuhoiw, H. Iv C. 21. — liic .ards. 
 
 At the trial of the petition, an amendment of 
 the particulars as to corrupt practices will be 
 allowed ; and il the respondent is prejudiced by 
 tne sui prise, terms may be imposed, iViUtuid 
 E/tct.oii {,Oiil.)—iJe,itl!/ V. Ciirrii; 11. E. C. 47.— 
 .■>trong. 
 
1511 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1512 
 
 '^•T Kiit"^' ^' 
 
 The respondent was elccteil liy ;i nmjoi'ity of 
 twenty-three, and oit the triiil of lui eleetion 
 {letitiou, tiled to set aside )iih eleL'tioa for cor- 
 rupt praetiees and illegal votes, evidenee was 
 given by botii sides on a cliiuge not properly set 
 out in the petitioners' particulars of corrupt 
 practices. At the close of the evidence tlie 
 respondent ol)jcctcd that tlie charge was not in 
 the particulars, and tiiat it was not verilied hy 
 the ufiidavit of the petitioners :— Held, (1) That 
 the petitioners might amend tlieir particulars, 
 and that the charges in the petition were wide 
 enougli to cover the cliarge. (-) That as to 
 this charge, the parties had in fact gone into 
 evidence without particulars, and tliat the 
 petitioners' affidavit verifying the particulars 
 was not necessary. Liiiiolii Elfclion (2) (Oiil.) — 
 PuwliiKj v. ]{yk(ii-t, H. K. C. 489. — Blake. 
 
 On an ai)plication by the petitioner to amend 
 the particulars by adding charges of l)ril)ery 
 against the respondent personally, and his 
 agents, his attorney made alhdavit thatditi'erent 
 persons had been employed to collect infmnia- 
 tion ; that the new particulars only came to his 
 knowledge three days l)efore the application ; 
 and tliat ho Ijelieved they were material to the 
 issues joined : — Held, that as it was not shewn 
 that the petitioner or the pernins eni|)loyed 
 could not have given the attorney the iut'orma- 
 tion long prior to the application, and as it was 
 not sworn that tiie charges were believed to be 
 true, nor were they otlierwise confirmed, and as 
 the amendment might iiave been moved for 
 earlier, the application sliould lie refused. Sovth 
 Norfolk likdiou I /)om.)—JJerow v. fVallucc, H. 
 K. G. GGO.^ Draper. 
 
 The evidence in support of tlie oli'er of a pre- 
 sent, or something nice, to tiie wife of a voter 
 to induce the voter to refrain from voting shew- 
 ing that it had reference to a ditl'erent election 
 than the one in question, an amendment of the 
 particulars was refused and tiie charge dis- 
 missed. I fa/ton Kledion (Dam.) — C'/'o.<.s v. Mc- 
 Craiiei/, H. E. C. 73(i. — C. of A. 
 
 See A^o///i Victoria Kliction (Oiil.)—Mvliac v. 
 Smith, H. !<;.< '. •.*5'2, ]i. 14S,S ; South Victoria Klcctiaii 
 {OiU.) — Uottden V. Mcliilijrc, 1 E. C. at p. 19."i. 
 
 5. lti'!>pon(ltnt's Aiisirer. 
 
 AVhere a r.-spondent had tiled certain pre- 
 liminary objections to tiie petition, whicli were 
 overrnlid, he was not allowed to insert similar 
 objections in hit answer, and tiie clause contain- 
 ing them was .'.truck out. /{c, Xortli O.i/oiil 
 Election (Dom.) S P. R. 526.— Hagarty. 
 
 The resiioiident cannot, in his answer, set up 
 that the petitioner was by himself ami his 
 agent, guilty of corrupt practices, whereby he 
 became disqualified to be a cai'didate. lli. 
 
 The court or a judge luis power on a summary 
 application to strike out any allegations in an 
 answer which are not an answer in law, and 
 might be embarrassing at the trial to the peti- 
 tioner, lb. 
 
 "'■ G. Recriminatorii Chartfen, 
 
 Where a charge of corrupt practices by way 
 of a rcorimiuatury case is alleged by a respon- 
 
 dent against a petitioner, it may be reserved 
 until tlie conclusion of the petitioner's case 
 North Simcut Election (0)it.]—tiiss(»i>i v. Ardunii 
 H. E. C. .TO. -Strong. 
 
 Recriminatory charges are permitted in tbe 
 interest of electors, in order to prevent u suc- 
 cessful petitioner obtaining the vacated seat if 
 he has violated any provision of the cltctiun 
 law. North Victoria Election {(>nt.)-~Mcl!nf\ 
 Smith, U. E. V. '2"c'.— Draper. 
 
 Particulars of recriminatory charges dolivertd 
 were allowed, but the petitioner was allowed tn 
 apply for time to answer the charges tlierciii 
 and was given such costs as had been (iccasi(jneil 
 by the granting of the application. /Ii, 
 
 J., the appellant, claimed under ;t7 N'iet, c. 
 10, s. (Mi (l)oiii.), that if he was not entitled to 
 the seat the election should be decl.ueil void, 
 (111 the ground of irregularites in the coiuluutof 
 the election generally, and tiled no counter peti- 
 tion, and did not otherwise comply v.itji the 
 provisions of M7 \ ict. c. 10: — Held, tliat section 
 Oti only applies to cases of rcci iniiiiiitory cliiiiges 
 and not to a case where neither of the parties or 
 their agents are charged with doing any wrong. 
 fill act. (Queen's Cuuiity Election (iMnn.) -Jtii- 
 kinn V. Breckeii, 7 S. C K. 247. 
 
 In an election jietition elainiing the seat for 
 the defeated candidate, recriminatory charges 
 were brought against the defeated candidate, 
 and the trial judge, after having found that the 
 electiiiii of the sitting member should be set aside 
 for coirii|)t practices, fixed a day foi' the evi- 
 dence uiH)ii the recriminatory charges. There- 
 upon the petitioners withdrew the claim to the 
 scat and the judge gave judgment avoiding the 
 election : — Held, that section 42 of clia|)ter 9 R. 
 S. C. no longer applied and the judge was right 
 in refusing to proceed niion the rccriniiiiatory 
 charges. Per Gwynne, .J.-— That it would have 
 been competent for the trial judge to have re- 
 ceived eviilcnce on the recriminatory charges 
 but hi.s refusal to do so was not a siiflieiciit 
 grouiul for reversing tiie judgment avoiding the 
 election. Joliette Ekction Case {/)u)ii.)—Ouil- 
 hanlt V. Dexxert, 15 S. C I!. 45S. 
 
 7. Cr(»i< I'etiiitin. 
 
 [ii .a Dominion (Controverted I'llection ca-se, a 
 sitting iniinber can tile a cross pctitinn only 
 against a camliilate wiio is not a pctiliimer. lif 
 .\orth Ox/'onI Election (Pom.), S I'. II. .V2t!,- 
 Hagarty. 
 
 v. (the appellant), the sitting meinlier, against 
 whom an election petition had been lilLMi liy L 
 (the respondent) an unsuccesstnl candidate, pre- 
 sented a cross-petition under the eighth section 
 sub-section 2 of the Dominion (loiitniveited 
 Elections' Act, 1874, alleging that I/, was guilty, 
 as well by hiiiiselt as l>y his agents, with his 
 knowdedge and consent, of corrupt practices at 
 the said election. This cross-iietitinii was not 
 liled within thirty days after the iniblieatioii in 
 the (!,inida (iazette of the return to the writ of 
 election by the Clcik of thelJrownin Chancery, 
 but within the delay mentioned in the last i:art 
 of said sub-section 2 section 8, viz. : fifteen days. 
 after the service of the petition upon V. com- 
 
1612 
 
 , it may 1)0 reserved 
 ;hc petitioui'r's case. 
 .)— iS'i'.fWd.sv. Anlmjh, 
 
 iiru periiiiltt'd in the 
 I'tler to prtvfiit u sue- 
 ig the viifutuil sent if 
 vision of tlio liicctidii 
 ■Hull (Ollt.)-McltMy. 
 mier. 
 
 itory cliargis ileliverul 
 itiimei- wiis allowtil to 
 r the (.'liarj^is tliereiu 
 as liHil lii'i'u (iccasicjned 
 pliuatioii. III. 
 
 ucil iiuik'i' H7 N'ict. c. 
 he was not entitled tn 
 )ul(l he (leclaieil void, 
 rites iu the coiiductof 
 
 I tiled no emniter peti- 
 wise comply v.i*ii the 
 : — Held, that section 
 i reciiniinatory I'liaigcs 
 leither of the laities or 
 witii doing any wrong- 
 
 lilivtioii (Diiiii.) -Jtit- 
 
 . '247. 
 
 tdainiing the sent for 
 recriminatory charges 
 he defeated candidate, 
 • having found that the 
 inher should he set aside 
 xed a day for the evi- 
 latory charges. There- 
 tlidrew the claim to the 
 judgment iivdiding the 
 etion 42 of chapter 9 R. 
 md the judge was right 
 npon the ri;eriiiiiuat»ry 
 .J. —That it would have 
 trial judge to have re- 
 u recrindnatory charge* 
 so was not a siitlicient 
 J judgment avoiduig the 
 hill C'o.w (/)i)ni.]—Ouil- 
 . I!. 458. 
 
 /'(■I it lull. 
 
 overted Election case, a 
 
 e 11 eroi-s pclitinn only 
 
 ) is not a pet il inner. AV 
 
 (Doiii.), H I', li' •'>''2l''^- 
 
 e sitting meinhcr, against 
 tion had been tiled liy L 
 successful candiilatc, pre- 
 under the eighth stction 
 
 Dominion (loutrovertcd 
 leging that L. was guilty, 
 
 liy liis agents, with his 
 it, of corrupt practices lit 
 is eross-pelitiMii was not 
 s after the piihlieatioii iii 
 
 the return to the writ of 
 ,f the Crown ill t-'hanccry, 
 iientioncil in the last i*rt 
 ictionS, vi/..: fifteen days. 
 le petition upon V. com- 
 
 1513 
 
 PARLIAIIENTABT ELECTIONS. 
 
 mi 
 
 iilaining "' •'■' election and return. The cross- 
 lotitinn was met by a preliminary objection, 
 maintaiued by Meredith, C. J., alleging that it 
 W.18 tiled too late ;— Held, on appeal, that the 
 sitting ineniber cannot tile a oross-petition. with- 
 in thcilehiyf fifteen days mentioned in the last 
 mit lif Kiicl sub-section U of section 8, against a 
 person wlio was a candidate and is a petitioner. 
 PerFou'"'^'''''''^'*"'"*''*'''"'"' and(iwynne,.I.I.,lI.:;t 
 the said extra delay of fifteen d lys is given only 
 when a iictition has been filed against the si'ting 
 ineinher, alleging corrupc practices after the re 
 turn. ( Henry .1 , dissenting). Mi>iitii>:,i-iiii'ii iui'r- 
 Cm\l)(i,n.)'- Vol'tit V. LniKj'uii, :< S. C. R. i)0. 
 
 8. Time/or Tiiul. 
 
 An order may l)e made oxtending the time for 
 the trial of an election petition under 38 Viet. 
 <- 10 H. '2 (I'oni ), notwithstanding that six 
 months have elapsed since the presentation of 
 the petition, and though the application for such 
 extension is not made within tlie six montiis. 
 /,',. HV.<^ Miililli'ox K/i'ition (Oii/.)—H'a/L-er v. 
 Kos", 10 P. K. '27.— Armour. 
 
 Scnible, if the trial be not commenced within 
 the six months tlie respondent should move to 
 dismiss tlie petition. //'. 
 
 Held, that the decision of a judge at the 
 trial of an election petition overruling an 
 objection taken by respondent to the jurisdic- 
 tion of the judge to go on with the trial on the 
 ground that more than six months bad elapsed 
 since the date of the iiresentation of the peti- 
 tion, is appealable to the Supreme CJourt of 
 Canada under section .")() (/*), It. S. C, c. fl, 
 (iwyiine, .!., <lissentiiig. Gltniian-y Elfftimi 
 {lhiii.)—l'iiir<U\. Kiiineili/, 14 S. < '. H. 4.5.S. 
 
 In computing the time within which the trial 
 of an election ))etition shall be commenced the 
 time of a session of parliament shall not be ex- 
 cluded unless the court or jinlge has ordered that 
 the respondent's presence at the trial is neces- 
 sary. ((J Wynne, J., dissenting. ) III. 
 
 The time within which the trial of an election 
 petition must be commenced cannot be enlarged 
 hcyoiid the six nnmths from the presentation of 
 the petition, unless an order has been obtained on 
 application made within .said six months. An 
 order granted on an application made after ex- 
 piration of the said six months is an invalid order 
 and can give no jurisiliction to try the merits of 
 the petition which is then out of court. (Ritchie, 
 C. J., and (iwyiine, J., dissenting). //'. 
 
 The time for the eommeneeinent of the trial 
 may be enlarged under section .33, R. S. C. e. 9, 
 Motwitlistandingthe expiration of the six months ; 
 hut it had not been established in this case tliat 
 the re<iuiremen ts of justice rendered such enlarge- 
 ment necessary ; and the court refused to appoint 
 a time and place for trial or to enlarge tlie time. 
 Alijoma Election (l)om.)—Bnrk\. Dnvxon, 1 E. 
 C. 448.-0. of A. 
 
 An order in a controverted election case made 
 by the court below or a judge thereof not sitting 
 .It the time for the trial of the petition, and 
 jjranting or rejecting an application to dismiss 
 the petition on the ground that the trial had not 
 been commenced within six months from the 
 
 time of its presentation, is not an order from 
 which an appeal will lie to the Supreme t'ourt 
 of C^anada under section .lO of R. S. C. c. !). 
 Fourniei' and Henry, .JJ., dissenting. Ij'Ah- 
 noiii/Uiiiii Khiiidii [horn.), (idii/hiir v. Xonnuu- 
 dinii ; (Jiiil)ir Ciiiiii/i/ KUxtioii — O'/iricii. v. Cm on, 
 14S. ('. R. f2<). 
 
 Where the |)rocecdiiigs for the coitiinenco- 
 meiit of the trial have been stayed during u 
 session of parliament by an order of a judge, 
 and a day has been fixed for the trial within the 
 statutory period of six iiiiuiths as so extended, 
 oil which d.iy the petitioners proceeded with 
 tlieii- emiiietc and exiiniiiieil two witnesses after 
 I which tile lii;ariiig was adjonincd to a day be- 
 I yoiid the statutory period as so extended t<» 
 allow the jietitioiiei-s to tile another bill of par- 
 ticulars, those a I really tiled being ileclared insufTi- 
 cieiit : Held, ilieie was a sntlicieiit commence- 
 ment of the trial within the proper time and 
 the future piocccilings wei'o valid under sec- 
 tion .'12 R. S. C. c. !). Jii/iitti- Elirliim Cohk 
 {Doni.)—<!i(i/liaiilf v. Jhx.inf, I,") S. (J. R. 458. 
 
 The )ietition was presented on the Gth May, 
 1887, duringa session of parliament which cndeil 
 on 23rd .Inne, ami issue was joined on 3rd 
 June ; no ajiplication was niaile or steps taken 
 after that until the (ith December, 1887, when 
 the petitioner applied to have a time and place 
 appointed for trial and to have the time for the 
 eommeneeinent of the trial enlarged. The first 
 part of section 32 of the C.'oiitroverted Elections' 
 Act, R. S. (!. c. !), is as fidiows : "The trial of 
 eacli election petition shall be commenced within 
 six months iroif L'.ic ''ine when such petition has 
 been jireaented and shall be proceeded with from 
 day to day until such trial is over ; but if at any 
 time it apjicars to the court or judge that the 
 res])ondent"8 presence at the trial is necessary, 
 such trial shall not be eomincnced during any 
 session of parliament ; and iu computation 
 of any time or delay allowed for any steps or 
 liroceeiling in respect of any such trial, or for 
 cominenceinent thereof as aforesaid, the time 
 occupied by such session of parliament shall not 
 be inchuled '' : — Held, Patterson, J. A., dis- 
 senting, that the exception in the last clause is 
 confined to a case in which the court is satisfied 
 that the respondent's presence is necessary ; 
 " such trial '" refers to a trial at whicii the re- 
 spondent's |iieseiice has been declared to be 
 necessary ; and no such declaration having been 
 made in this case, the time of the session of par- 
 j liament was not to be excluded from the six 
 ! months within which the trial was to be coni- 
 I menced. It was not incumbent upon the respon- 
 : dent to move to dismiss the petition for default. 
 I The court could not nunc pro tunc declare that 
 the respondent's presence at the trial was ne- 
 cessary. Ali/niiin /■J/fclion (J)oiii.) — Burk\.Daw- 
 xoii, I E. C.'44S.-C. of A. 
 
 Held, that an order fixing the time for the trial 
 of the petition in this case might be made by the 
 three judges of a Divisional Court, sitting to- 
 gether, or by any one of them sitting alone, and 
 that it was iu their discretion to dispense with 
 notice of the application under the circumstances 
 in this case. .Semble, a judge making snch an 
 order neeil not necessarily be sitting formally in 
 single court. Ifaldimand Election (Dom.) — 
 Walsh V. Montafjue, 1 E. C'. 480.— Armonr — 
 Street. 
 
* 'til 
 
 1515 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS- 
 
 151S 
 
 9. Efidince. 
 
 (a) AdmiKnionv. 
 
 Of Counsel. ] — Tlio atliiiissioii of oouiiael in 
 open court— tlmt the giving of S'2 to a voter hy 
 iin ugent of tlie responiUnt, nfter suoii voter 
 liad voted, such voter mlniitting tlmt he did nut 
 know why tlio §2 Wiis given to liini, was bri- 
 bery — acted upon, and tlie election avoided. 
 Cark'ttm Eli-rtion (Oiil.) — Lyon v. Muiik, H. K. 
 C. 6.— Mowat. 
 
 A voter who had been friMniently Kned for 
 drunkenness was canvassed by V,. to vote for the 
 respondent, and was asked by lilni "how inneh 
 of that niDiK^y" (p;dd in tines) "he would take 
 back and leave town until the eleition was 
 over." Counsel for the respondent admitted 
 that C. was an agent of the nspondi'nt, and that 
 the evidence was sufficient to avoid the election: 
 — Held, that the election was void on account 
 of corrupt practices by an Jii^ent of the respon- 
 dent. Voniwnll EluclUm {()nl.) — Sitt(~'inijer v. 
 .Wfilnti/re, H. K. C. '20.'?.— Spr.iggo. 
 
 On the admission of the respondent's counsel 
 the election was avoided, on the ground that 
 agents of the respondent had, during the elec- 
 tion hired and ])aid for teams to convej- voters 
 to the polls. Priiirr Eilimril E/rflioii (Oiil.) — 
 Andermin v. Striker, H. K. C. 45. — Richards. 
 
 The respondent was elected by a majority of 
 261, and at the trial counsel for the respondent 
 admitted that there was eviilence ca| alile of l)e- 
 iiig produced which woidd have the efl'eet of 
 avoiding the election under R. S. O. (1877)e. 10, 
 8. 159 ; and tlie court on such admission declared 
 the election void. DuJfiria Elecliim {Onl. ) — 
 SleUjhthiil.ni V. l>an; H. JC, (J. 510. —Moss. — 
 Armour. 
 
 ^oc Pn8<ell Election (<hit.) — O/filrie v. Hakir, 
 H. E. C. 199, p. 1487. 
 
 Other Admission.] — ^ Evidence of admissions 
 made by an agent after his agency has ex|)ired, 
 is inadmissible. Il't-/ Peti rliordin/li Elerdon 
 {Out.) -Scott V. Cox, U. E. V. 274. 
 
 The respondent, a week before the trial, 
 served a notice on the jjutiticner admitting 
 bribery by one of his agents, and notifying the 
 petitioner not to incur further costs. At the 
 trial the respondent, pursuant to the notice, 
 gave evidence of bribery by an agent, which the 
 court lield sufficient to avoid the election. The 
 petitioner then contended that he had a right 
 to shew that corrupt practices h.id extensively 
 prevailed, and that the respondent had been 
 personally guilty of corrn[it practices : —Held, 
 that the functhjus of the court were judicial and 
 not inquisitorial, and that no further evidence 
 should be received on the issue as to the avoid- 
 ance of the election on account of bribery liy 
 agents. But if incidentally it should appear, in 
 the inquiry as to the personal charges against 
 the respondeat, that corrupt practices exten- 
 sively prevailed, the same wotild be certified in 
 the report to the speaker. Wext Xnrthnmtter- 
 laiul Election [Ont.) — liurnham v. Kevr, H. E. 
 (■. 562.— Spragge. 
 
 Before the trial the respondent served a no- 
 tice upon the petitioner, admitting that the elec- 
 tion must be avoided on the ground of bribery 
 
 by an agent without his knowledge or consent 
 such admission was acted upon at the trial and 
 the election avoided accordingly. Norih Nivnw 
 Eleeiioii (JJoni.) — Edwurdu v. Cook, II. K. C 
 624. — Gwynne. 
 
 '!ino South Jfenjvew Election (Oom.)-lianwr- 
 man v. McDoxiijall, H. E. C. 550, p. 1520. 
 
 (b) Othe}- Catn.i. 
 
 The court ordered the agent of a telei'r;ii)|| 
 company to produce all telegrams sent hy (I,,. 
 respondent and his alleged agent diirihn tliu 
 electi(m reserving to th(! responilent the riJht to 
 move the Court of Ap|)eal on the point ; the re- 
 sponsibility as to coiise(|uences, if it were wnmi; 
 so to order, to rest on the petitioner. .Vo»(// Ojv 
 fdi-d Electiiin (OiU.)-llopkiu.^ v. OUcir H !• 
 C. 243. Draper. ' ' ' 
 
 A witness called on a charge in the iiarticiiliirs 
 of giving spirituous licpiors in a cerl.iin t;ivirii 
 on polling day, during polling hours, cannot liu 
 asked if he got liijuor during pulling hours in 
 other taverns. 1>>. 
 
 The attorney for the respondent in;iy he 
 ordered out of court when a witnis-s is bcinj; 
 examined on a charge of a corrupt bargnin Ut 
 his withdrawal from the election contest, wlieii 
 the evidence of such witness may refer to the 
 sayings and doings of such attoi iiey in resiiwt 
 of such withdrawal. lb. 
 
 Held, tint the writ of election and return iwid 
 not be produced or [iroved before any evideiitf 
 of the election is given. Slormi.iil Ele.elii » (Out,) 
 — liethnne v. Colf/nlionn, H. E. v'. 21. llichaids. 
 
 Whore in ordinary cases there is evidence ti> 
 go to a jury, but on which th(! jndL,'e, if sitting 
 'as a jiinn-, wouM find for tlie dcfeinlaiit; in 
 similar eases in election tiials he ought to liml 
 against the charge ol bribery. H'ci/ Tunulo 
 Election {Ont.) — Armxlronij v. Crooks, H. E. C. 
 97. — Richards. 
 
 At the trial of tlie petition, th(! returning. 
 oflicer, who was also the registrar of the county 
 of Megantic, and secretary of the municiiahty 
 of Inverness, was called as a witness, ami pio- 
 duced in court in Iiis official cajiacity tlic oiigi- 
 nal list of electors for the townsiiipol Inverne.ss, 
 and ju'oved that the name L. Mc.M., one of the 
 petitioners whom he jiersonally knew, was on 
 the list. The original <locument was retiined 
 by the witness, and as neither of the parties re- 
 (luesttd that the list should be filed, the judge 
 made no onler to that efrect. The status of tlic 
 other petitioners was prove<l in the same way: 
 — Held, that there was sufficient evidence that 
 the petitioners were persons who had a riglitto 
 vote at the election to which the petition related 
 under .'17 Vict. c. 10, s. 7 (I)om.) MfJiaulir 
 Election (Dow.)— Colli v. Goulel, 9 S. ('. K. 279. 
 
 The shorthand notes of the shorthand writer 
 employed by the court to take down the evi 
 deuce were not extended in his handwriting, 
 but were signed by him:-- -Hold, that the uoteJ 
 of evidence could not be objected to. //'. 
 
 A candidate when examined as a witness at 
 an election trial, may be asked his expenditure 
 at former provincial and dominion elections at 
 which he was a candidate. North Simcoe EUc- 
 
151t 
 
 owledgc or consent, 
 
 1011 at tlio trial, aud 
 
 gly. A'o///i simm 
 
 V. Cook, 11. E, C. 
 
 on {Dom.) -lianmr- 
 550, p. 1520. 
 
 im'iit (if 11 tt'lcgni^i 
 
 IrnnilllS SCMlt liy th^. 
 
 'I iigt'iit chiriiiir Ilia 
 Hponilcnt till! rij-litdi 
 oil tho point ; the le- 
 wv.vn, if it wi'i-e wrung 
 letitioiiiT'. .So»(// Oj: 
 kins V. Otict-r, H. I'.. 
 
 ar^i! ill the pivrticuliiis 
 in a ccit.iin tavira 
 Hiil; liiiiir.s, cannot lie 
 riiiy pulling hours iii 
 
 I'cspondi'iit mny Ije 
 11 a witiKMs is lieiiij; 
 
 a, corrupt Imignin i(r 
 'cutioii ooiittst, wlieii 
 
 less may rcfiT to the 
 1 attorney in rusjuct 
 
 I'ctioii iiiul rotnrii iiouil 
 
 1 lioforu any uviileiite 
 
 \:/nniii:iil Elerlim [lj„i,) 
 
 i. K. v. 21. Hiulianis. 
 
 •.s tin ru is oviileiicc to 
 li till! jiiti.m', if sitting 
 for tho (k'li'iKlaiit ; in 
 ;i iiils ho (luglit to liiul 
 iriliery. Wtat Tunnio 
 ti(j \. ( 'ivutf, H. E. C. 
 
 otilion, till! rctiiniiiig- 
 royistiar of the comity 
 ry of tho iiiuiiici|iaiity 
 as a witness, iiikI |mi- 
 cial cajiacity the oiigi- 
 I township ol Inveriii.'.s8, 
 le L. McSl., one of tlic 
 rsoiially knew, was on 
 locuiiiiMit was rct.iiiii'd 
 L'itlii r of tho parties re- 
 ulil lie (ilcil, the jiiilgc 
 lout. The status of tlie 
 aveil in tho .sinie way: 
 Buificient oviileiice that 
 !Oii8 w ho had a right to 
 liioli the petition related 
 8. 7 (I)oni.) Mfjjaiilk 
 Ouulet, 9 S. ('. R. 279. 
 
 if the sliorthanil writer 
 to take down the cvi 
 L'd in his handwriting, 
 :— Held, that the notes 
 ) ol>jecteJ to. //'. 
 
 :amined as a witness at 
 ! asked his expenditure 
 nl dominion elections at 
 ite. Xortfi Simm EUc- 
 
 1617 
 
 PABLIAMENTART ELECTIONS. 
 
 161S 
 
 -Edwards v. Cook, H. K. C. 024.- 
 
 lim>(Doiii.) 
 (!wyiin.'. 
 
 AcnmmisHion to examine witnesses in a foreign 
 oiiiintrv nniy ho issued in the ease of tlie trial of 
 un ek'ctii'ii petition. Ci'Viiinil/ K/cr/iiin (3) 
 i/tom.l -''/'"''''"'"*"■ v- iifijiii, H. K. C 80,3; 
 S P. R. 04.— Armour. 
 
 Allcpit ion, that forty persons whosenatnes were 
 nut on the xoters' list and who were not entitled 
 hv law to vote, did vote anil voted for tho rp- 
 ipniitUiit. Olijeetiiin, that tho imittors alleged 
 were nut availalile. lacaiise the seat was not 
 clflinied for tho defeiited candidate, and lie- 
 cause it ciiiilil lie shewn that the forty votes 
 were cast for the respomleiit: — Held, though 
 this ohji'ctioii c.inii' within the Kiist Elgin Ciim-, 
 4 A. H- 4I'-' there apiieared to lie too much 
 douht ahout the f(Ui'stioii to strike out the iille- 
 iration ; for, senilde, that a person who has 
 voted without a light to do so is not entitled to 
 the pioteetioii of the statute as to secret voting, 
 and that 1111 elector sliouM not lie prevented from 
 shewing that tho elected memlier olitiiiiieil his 
 mnjnrity tlirougli had votes. In rr W'fxt Ihiiim 
 Ulnii'iii i/)oiii.) — Mitchell V. Camrri'ii, 1 (). 11. 
 433. -Ci'iniron. 
 
 Evidence to estahlisli preliminary olijeetions. 
 See Miiinnlir /'JltrHoii (Dom.) — Frtrhcttc v. (lou- 
 W, 8S.'C. K. Kii). 
 
 Of hriliery and corrupt jiraetices. See ,Suli- 
 head VII. I', p. 1459. 
 
 See Wist Nortliiiiiihi'vlawl K/rctioii {/hmi.) — 
 Buriilmni v. K<rr, H. K. C. 5(i2, p. 1515; /v'.s/ 
 Midlktir Klfctioii (Out.) — Rkoder v. MrKciiJc, 
 I E. C. 250, p. 1485. 
 
 10. Withdrawal of ChKri/r or Prtitinii. 
 
 The court recoinmonded tho iietitioner to 
 withdraw his jictition in this c isc ; and on an 
 application for that purpose, another elector 
 having applied to lie siilistitutcd iisa petitioner : 
 — Holii, per Hiirton, J. A., that as the (Joint of 
 Appeal Iiad lieeii placed in pos.ses.sion of all the 
 lihaigos iigainst the respondent, and of the evi- 
 dence in support of them, and had rccoinmendeil 
 the withdrawal of the petition, and no sutliciciit 
 aililitional grounds having lieeii shew n for such 
 nuhstitutinii of petitioner, the order for the with- 
 drawal of the jiotitioii should he j.'riiiited. Pfel 
 RIei-lion {Oiit.)—Hur.it v, Chinhohn, H. K. C. 
 485. 
 
 Scnilde, if evidence shewed that corrupt prac- 
 tices had been committed by a respondent, it 
 would he tho duty of the court so to adjudicate 
 whether the petitioner was willing to withdraw 
 the charge or not. .S''.«.'/i Reiijriiiv KU-dion 
 {Diim.)'-Hauiicrmaii v. McDoinjidl, H. K. C. 
 556.— Spraggo. 
 
 1 1 . Rextrvivg Special Canf. 
 
 A special case may be reserved for the opinion 
 of the Court of Queen's Hencli only when the 
 judge presiding at the election trial has a serious 
 tlonlit as to what the law is ; or believes that 
 the ciinrt might entertain a different opinion 
 from that of the election judge. Xorlh York 
 Kleclion(Ont.)—aorham v. liouUhee, H. E. C. 
 62.-Galt. 
 
 Qun-re, whether, under .34 Vict. c. 3, g. 20, 
 tho rota judge has power, before the dose of the 
 case to reserve (piestions for tho court, lirock- . 
 rille El fct'wn (Out. ) — Flint V. Eit'-^immdns, 1 II. 
 E. C. 130.— Q. B. 
 
 Where a class of persons afTected by the de- 
 cision of a case is nuiiierous, and the i|Uestioii 
 in.volveil is one of general importance, the judgo 
 may reserve a sjiecial case for the opinion of the 
 Court of Queen's Bench and the judgo hero 
 decideil to take that course. Tlie petitioner, 
 after such special case had been reserved, ap- 
 peared before the judge trying tho election 
 lietition, and consented to abancloiiniciit of tho 
 sjiecial case and the dismissal of the jictition, 
 with costs, and it was so ordered. West York 
 El'-rtinu ((>nt.)~arah([me v. I'altir.ion, H. E. 
 C. 1.50.-Hagaity. 
 
 See .'\fovck Ekc/inn (Out.)- Colltar y. McCal- 
 linn, H. E. C. 154, p. 1519, 
 
 12. Gostn. 
 
 The petition was dismissed, but owing to the 
 unwise and imprudent acts of the respondent, 
 he was allowed only one half of the taxalile 
 costs. (ileiKjarri/ Elrction (Out.) --Vvl.innitn v. 
 CriiUj, H. E. C. 8.-Hagarty. 
 
 Where bribery by an agent is proved, costs 
 folhuv tho event, even though jiersoiial charges 
 made against the respondent have not been 
 proved, there having been no additioniil expense 
 occasioned to the respondent liy such personal 
 charges. South Orcji Eli.rtion {/Join. }— Hunter 
 V. Lander, H. E. C. .52.— Mowat. 
 
 The petitioner having been warranted in con- 
 tinuing till! eni|uiry as to the personal eoniplicity 
 of the rcs|ioiidcnt with the illcgil acts of his 
 agents, w.is held entitled to the full co>ts of the 
 trial. Kimislnn Eliilimi (Dutii. ) — Slmrarl v. .l/«c- 
 doiHild, H. E. C. 025. -Richards. 
 
 There being no grounds for clniging the re- 
 s]iondent personally with coiru|it ]iractii'cs, and 
 tlio scrutiny having been abandoned, the costs 
 of those parts of the case were ordered to be 
 paid by the petitioner. But with ri'spcct to the 
 other costs, though the respondent was success- 
 ful, the matters were proper to be ini|uired into 
 in the public interest, and each party was left to 
 pay his own costs. East Toronto Eli cl ion {()nt.\ 
 — lieinvick V. Cameron, H. E. C. 70. — Richards. 
 
 The election was sustained, but it being in 
 the public interest that the matters brought for- 
 ward should have been inquired into, and as the 
 responilent h.id not exercised supervision over 
 the expenditure in connection with the election, 
 the petition was dismissed without costs. Went 
 Toronto Election (Onl.) — Arnistrom/ v. Vrook$, 
 H. E. O. 97.-Richards. 
 
 When the judge reserved a special case for the 
 Queen's Beiicli as to his power to amend the 
 petition at the trial by allowing the insertion of 
 an objection to a voters' list used at the election 
 and thedourt of (Queen's Bench held that the 
 judge had power so to .ameiiil the petition and 
 on the reassembling of the Election Court the 
 petitioners abandoned tho scrutiny. The peti- 
 tioners were ordered to pay the costs of the 
 respondent up to the meeting of the Election 
 
1519 
 
 PARLIAMENTART ELECTIONS. 
 
 vm 
 
 Court., ami tlie cfnts of the Bpooial case ; hut 
 iiH 111 till- ciHtx of tlio trial, ciicli luirty wiix 
 onlcrtMl to iiiiv lii« own cimts. ^f(lllrk /'Jlniioii 
 (Oiif ) -riil/iar V. McCnIliiii,, II. K. C. \t>4. ~ 
 
 <iiilt. 
 
 Tlio unnts of invcwtifiiitinj,' cliiirgos of lirihory 
 nj{iiiistthe I'oxiiondeiit'H oluotioii aj^LMit, tliouKli 
 iKit I'stiililishfii, wore iiwiinUid a>,'aiiiHt tlio re- 
 Hpiiiiili'iit, ow'iii',' til tli« (>(|uivoL'al luiiiihiot of liis 
 aj<riit in ihi' iiiatti'rs wliicli luil tii the cluirKes ; 
 iiLsi) till! fiist iif othor c'liai'goa of hrihery which 
 worij not t'.stalilishoil, anil the costs of proving 
 thatwevi'Pal tavem-kefpurs, for their own ])r(,tit, 
 h^iil vinlateil Ki'ction (l(t of the Kh-ctiiiii Law of 
 IHIiS. antliH « ilnt'swN wlio gavi- evidence of these 
 matti rs al«o give evidenee oi otlier niatter.s, as 
 to w hirh it was reusonalilo they shonlil he suh- 
 Jiii'liaed. Hi si Wriruniliiii Kttiiiint (Oiil.)~Moor>' 
 V. Mrdnintii, U. K. C. '-'.SI. 
 
 The ))i'tltiniier was declared entitled to the 
 ^enenil costs ol the imniiry, and the costs of the 
 evidence iiiciirrcd in proof of the facts upon 
 ■which tlic election was avoided ; hut the coats 
 incurred in respect of charges which the peti- 
 tioner failed to prnvc were disallowed. Soiil/i 
 K.^sr.r /C'lrtioi, [Onl.) -Mcdir V. IIV;//.', H. K. (J. 
 I'.Ti. -Spr.igge. 
 
 During the progress of a scrutiny of votes, 
 certain h:illiit pajiers, counterl'oils, and a voters" 
 list were .'stolen from the court, which had the 
 eircct of rendering the proceedings in the scru- 
 tiny useless. And in disiiosing of the costs the 
 court iiidercd the respondent to j)iy the costs 
 up to \\w. date the election was avoided, hut 
 that, under tlie circumstances, each party nmst 
 bear his own costs of the scrutiny, Liiirohi 
 KUri;,,,, CJl (Oiil.)—l',iirliiiij v. Jlyb'rt, H. K. (J. 
 4.S!>. I'atterson. -Ulake. 
 
 When the petition has lieen rendered neces- 
 8:iry liy the mistakes of tlie deputy returning 
 officers, for which neither the petitioner nor re- 
 Bponihuit was lesponsihle : Held, each party 
 should hear his own costs. Jt'iism/l Eleclinn (2) 
 {Ont.) — /liil.ii- V. Monjaii, H. K. C. ol!). — 
 Mo{<s. — Blake. 
 
 The returning ofhcer having acted honestly 
 and fairly in rejecting the nomination paper, 
 «aeh party to the petition was left to hear hi.«i 
 own costs. Stiii/li Iti'iiJ'rrir /Ccrlioii {'2) (l)oiii.) — 
 McKnii V. Mi'Domjalt, H. K. C. TO't.- Wilson. 
 
 Various ai'ts of hrihery and of colourable 
 chai'ity having been ju'oved against the agents 
 and suhagcnts of this respondent, the election 
 was set aside, with costs, including the costs of 
 the evidence on the personal cliarges against the 
 respondent. Cnniirall KIci-tion (Doiii.) — licrti'm 
 V. Mavi/oiiuld, H. E. (J, M'. -Spragge, 
 
 The respoinlent sought to establish, on an in- 
 fjuiry under a j)reliniinary objection, that the 
 petitioner (the opposing candidate) had been 
 j^uilty of bribery, and was therefore disqualilied 
 as such. The inquiry was not concluded, iis 
 during its pendency the Knglish Kleotiou t'ourts 
 held th;it hribci'y would not disqualify a jieti- 
 tioner : hut so fai as the evidence went, while 
 itdisclosi'd such a large expenditure of money 
 by the i)etitiiiner and his agents as to lead to the 
 suspicion it was not all expended for the legiti- 
 ni lie purpises of the election, it did not shew 
 bribery by the petitioner, I'he respondent then 
 
 consented to lias election being avoiilod on the 
 grouiul of hrihery by one of his agniits witlioAt 
 his knowledge or consent : — Held, timt the um. 
 i^ral rule as to costs should prevail, ami tliiit the 
 respiindent should pay the costs of tiic iuiniirv 
 as well as the general costs of the cause. Suuih 
 li'i'ii/ivir Klfilitiii {/)<>in.)—Hainicrm(ta v. Ale- 
 JhiiKjiill, li, K, C. Cifi. -Spragge, 
 
 excejit 
 
 The election was set aside with costs, 
 as to the irosts of certain charges wliitli wcie un- 
 warranted, A party, though siicccs.sful, is not 
 entitled to the costs of the witnesses he nmy 
 subpu'ua, nor is the fact of them lieing called or 
 not called the test of such costs being taxiililc 
 NiiKjiivii h'/icliiiii {pom.) — /Unci: v. I'/uinli II 
 K. (". otiS. Hagaity. 
 
 The petitioners, after a notice fioni the re 
 spiiudcnt admitting bribery by oneiif lilsagi'iitu 
 examined witnesses on the personal ohiirircg' 
 which were not proved, and in (leteiiiiiuiiig tin' 
 (|uestion of costs, it was held, that as tiie peti- 
 tioners might have come to tlie court on the 
 notice served by the respondent, and iiive iisked 
 to have tiie election set aside, and as they hail 
 attempted, but had failed to cstnlilisli the per- 
 sonal charges, the respondent shoiiM oidy pay 
 such costs as he would have had to pay hart 
 the iictitioners accepted the notice served npon 
 them before the trial. ]V<n/. Xntiliinnliirlaiul 
 E/crlioii (Diiiii.) —/tiinih'on v. Km; II. K, (j_ 
 oO'.'.— Sitragge. 
 
 From the judgment on the persoiial charges 
 the petitioner ap])calcd ; hut the court, nii are- 
 view of of the evidence, declined to set aside the 
 finding of the election judge. Tiie ajipeal wa.t 
 dismissed without costs, as the petitimier had 
 strong grounds for presenting it. Soiilli lliirm 
 Elei-lion (l)om.) — Itilchit v. Citiiieruii, H. K. C 
 576.— (ialt. 
 
 Costs of particulars. See East Xiniliumhci- 
 /and Elictioii {Dom.) — Oihsoii v. Jiiijjiar, H. E. 
 C. T)"?. Hagarty. 
 
 The petitioner was held entitled to the general 
 costs of the petition, except as to the cases of 
 the voters wliose names were not on the voters' 
 lists, and as to the scrutiny of ballots. North 
 Vielorid Ehflhni (i) (Dom.) — Cumeroii v. Mm- 
 lennan, H. K. C. 071.— Wilson,— Q. B. 1). 
 
 It is not a chanipertoua transaction that an 
 association of persons, with which the petitioner 
 was politically allied, agreed to jiay the costs of 
 the petition. Kven if the agreement were cham- 
 pertous, that would not be a sntficieiit reason to 
 stay the ])roccedings on the petition. North 
 iSinicoi' Eh'ctiim (Dum.) — EdnmnU v. Cook, H. 
 E. C. 017, - Richards. — Spragge. — Hagarty, 
 
 The petitioner was held entitled to costs of 
 the charges on which he succeeded, and the re- 
 spondent to the costs of the charges on which 
 the petitioner failed. North Jtenl'rew Klcctimi 
 (Dom.) -White V. Murray, H, E, C, 710.- 
 Wilson,— Q, B, D. 
 
 Where there had been excessive treating liy 
 an agent but not used as a means of ciirruptly 
 influencing the voters, the petition was dis- 
 missed without costs, following the rule laid 
 down in the Carrickfergus Case (1 O'M. & H. 
 204,) Earn Elii'iii Election (Dom,)— Hliie v. Ar- 
 ktll, H, E. C. 769.— Blake, 
 
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 1522 
 
 3 EaM Xarlliuiulifi- 
 II V. lii'jiiar, H. E. 
 
 The petitioner was allowed his conts, but not 
 the costs iif the clmrijeH whioli ho faileil to en- 
 tttbligli. CiiniiniiU KhfUoii {l).im.)—Maclc}iiiiiii 
 V. Ihnjii', H. K. C. ho;}. Armour. 
 
 Helil, tiiat ftltiimiyii the ruHpoiidcnt wiis duly 
 elected, tiio coHts did not f(dlow the event, Imt, 
 miller Bcction 1(10 of R. .S. (). (1S77) c. 10, iih if 
 the event imd been the Retting aside of the eluu- | 
 tioii; tlie respondent paying the general eostH, ; 
 including fidl costs, wliicli wonld have been ! 
 tiixiihle. if f't' ""'y <'l'''"'fii''» '"'■d lu'en those <in 
 which the petiti<iner had siicueeded, the hitter 1 
 liciiig deprived of eosts in respeet to the charges 
 oil wiiieii lie failed, th<! responilent bearing his 
 (ivvii costs of tliose eiiarges. W'ethniil, h'lirliuii , 
 (Oil'.)-//"'"'"" V. Mnriii, 1 K. < '. SHU. —ratter- | 
 Mill. Ferguson. | 
 
 A petition under the (bilario Controverted i 
 KlectioiLs' Act, H. S. (). (IH77), e. II, was tils- 
 missed, with eosts : — Held, on appeal, reversing 
 tiie decision of <ine of tlui t.ixing oHiccirs, that 
 (imler sections !t7 and 100, I!. S. (). (1H77), e. 
 II, the respondent was not entitltMl to tax 
 iidiiiist the petitioners the eosts of intervi<!wiiig 
 JH'fore the trial, p'jr.soiis named in the jietition- 
 vx'i l)ill of partieul.'irs as liriliers and bribees. 
 /,', Wrul MMU'^cx I'JIcftion—Jiihiimnw Idinx, 10 
 P. R. 50!). -Rose. 
 
 See yayth York /'J/iictloii (()iit.)~(lnrhiiiii v. 
 IMlliri; H. K. G. (!■-', p. UriO ; MV.w' l'il,r- 
 Immnih Eliclioil. (Out.) —Scot I v. Cox, H. K. ('. 
 •274, p. 14!»-J; W<U,iiid Eli'-fhii ('J) {Oii'.)~/!iirh- 
 wr V. Ciirrii', H. K. C;. 187, p. 1477 ; I'nt.-oU 
 Hleelioii, :i'2Q. H. 'Mi ; \oith Virion,, Kh-liou — 
 Cnmcroiiy. MarlciiiKiii. .S!) (^. 15. 147 ; (larnll v. 
 ItobertK, 10 A. R. O.">0, p. 1501. 
 
 1,1. Jiid'/ft'n Report. 
 
 The judge's report to the speaker as to those 
 persons " other than tlio candidate,"' who li.ive 
 been proved guilty of corrupt iiraetii^es, is not 
 conclnsive, so as to bring them within M Vict., 
 c. ;{, 8. 49 (Out.) and so render tliem liable to 
 penal consecjiiences. SSmith Ox/'ord Kiel ion 
 {Onl.i-/loi)kiiis v. Olirir, II. K. C. 'iHS. - 
 Draper. 
 
 The detiuition of "corrupt practices " in 
 section .'1, and the elf'ect of section 20 of the Con- 
 troverted Elections' Act, IH7S, as to the re])ort 
 of election judges ti> the s|)eaker, considered. 
 Xortk Vii'lorid Kliflioii {l>iini.)-'('iiineroii v. 
 Macli'ininii, I H. K. V. '>HA. — Richards. 
 Spragge. -Ibigarty. 
 
 A proviuciid election trial was held in 18S,S, 
 before (Janieron, J., and Hoyd, C, wlio made 
 separate reports agreeing in avoiding the elec- 
 tion under R. >S. O. (1877), c. 10, s. Kil, by 
 leiwon of respondent paying or consenting to 
 the payment of the travelling expenses of certain 
 voters to convey them to the poll ; but ditrering 
 in their judgments as to whether the respondent 
 was guilty tiiereby of a corrupt practice under 
 .siiid section 161. Clameron, ,]., reported that 
 respondent was proved guilty of said corrui)t 
 practice; and Boyd, C, reported that the said 
 respondent committed an illegal act under sec- 
 tion 154 in sanctioning snoh payment, but with- 
 out any corrupt intent, and in ignorance, which 
 was involuntary and exeusable, under a belief 
 96 
 
 that as long a« he did not personally boaroritay 
 the saiil cxpensc^H it was not illeg.il, and nndct' 
 the fullest bi'lief that the said voters were boitntl 
 or well! willing to rcp.iy the said exp-Mises or 
 allow them to lie deilnctcd froMi their wages. A 
 snbse<|uent election took pliire on iHth ilamiary, 
 1SS4, when respondent was clt'clcd. A petition 
 was fiieil attacking his eli'itioii mi the groiuxlof 
 the prior disiiualiliiMtioii of the respondent :- 
 Hehl (Patterson,.!. .\., dissenting), uiilrmingtiii! 
 judgment of thi' tiinl jiidi,'is. Ihirtoii, .1. A., ami 
 (ialt, il,, that the liiniiiig tinit the respondent 
 was guilty of a I'oriiipt practice was correct; 
 and that he was tlicrcfore personally disipiali- 
 t\o.t\ ; and as theii! «iis not a concuricnt linding 
 that he csune within the relieving clause of He<v 
 tion l))'2 the disi|ii:dilic;itioii wiis not removed ; 
 and that tiie amending .\ct 47 Vict. c. 4, s. 4S 
 (Out.), whicli was piKsed on 'J.-itii March, 1884. 
 did not apply to this case. Soiilli Hi iifii'iv Klf.r- 
 lion (Onl.) -II<nny v. Dnivliiiil, i K. (". .•J."!). 
 See 48 Vict. c. L', s' 18. 
 
 On appeal from the decision of the trial judges 
 in this ease (1 K. ('. 70.) IVrOsler. .1. A. (hn; 
 joint report of the tli il juil.'cs under thi! hands 
 of both is not (isseiitial ; but there may be two 
 separate reports each under tlic hand of one of 
 the judges ; but ; •'(,)nierc, whether the certifi- 
 cate under R. S. (). ( 1877) c. 1 1 s. .'),") of the result 
 of the trial shoiiKl be joint; but tlnit this was 
 not now o)ieii to the respondent, for liy his be- 
 coming a candidate at the suhse(iiiciit election 
 he iniist lio takt^ii to ailinit tlia^ the former elec- 
 tion was on .some gioiiiid or other regularly set 
 asiile. Smith I'riii'rrir Elii-I'mii {Out.) -Ilarvcy 
 V. Jhiir/iiH/, 1 ]']. ('. ;J5!).— C. of A. 
 
 14. Clniiiiiii'j Si'rtl hij Hifpoiuhiit. 
 
 (Candidate elaiiiiiiii; scat piccluded from ob- 
 jecting to irregularity at nomination. Hunt 
 Sliiinn KlirHoii ((>iit.) — ltiiil\. J)n:n/, I K. C. 
 
 •joi, p. i4;{'.t. 
 
 See also Sulihea.l III. 2 (c) p. 14.38, 
 
 ].■). Appetilt. 
 
 (a) W'licii A/ipi'iil L'us. 
 
 Tlie original petition in this case was tried by 
 the judge on the met its. suhjeiit to an ohjectiou 
 to his jurisilictioii. The judge having taken 
 the c;ise en dclilierc, arrived at the conclusion 
 tliat 11" had no jurisdiction, declared the objec- 
 tion to ids jurisdiction well founded, and " in 
 conse(|Uenee the olijection was maintained, and 
 the jietition of the petitioner was rejected and 
 dismissed." 'I'liis judgmcMt was ajjpealed from, 
 anil the now respondent, under section 48 of the 
 .Supreme Court Act, limited his appeal to the 
 question of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court 
 held that the judge had juriadiiition, and it was 
 ordered tliat the record be transmitted to tho 
 proper oHicer of the lower court, to have the 
 cause proceedcil with according to law. Tho 
 record was accordingly sent to tlie prothonotary 
 of the Superior Court at Montmagny. The judge 
 after having oll'ered the counsel of each of the 
 parties a rehearing of tiie case, proceeded to ren- 
 der his ju<lgment on the merits aild declared the 
 election void. The i-espondent then appealed 
 to the Supremo (yourt, and contended that the 
 
1523 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 m 
 
 mm 
 
 jiiilgu lind 110 jiii'iadiction to |irnu('(!il with tlui 
 i:aNO : - Ifrlil, tlmt tlio Hiipr< tiio (iiirt nii tlic 
 lil'Ht np|ilS'il iiiiull Mot, t^Vrli it' llii' n|>|)i';il ll.'lil lliit. 
 Iiiirii liiiiitoil to till! i|iii'Mli(iii iif Jiir isilictii)ii, 
 liavii ^ivi'ii II ili'ciHJoii on tliu iiiiiit'i, ami llmt 
 llii! Older ot' tliiit (Miiii'l ri'iiiittiiig tlie mmoi'iI to 
 tim JirnptT oflircl' of till' cnlll t 11 nuo ti> Iki pio- 
 ilmmIi'iI with luroriliii^' tn law, ^ ivii jiirixilii'tinii 
 lo tlic jii(l>;(! to pi'Oi'i'cil witli till' iMHO ciri llic 
 iiU'l'itH, mill tn |ir'iiiiiiiiiii'i' a jiiil^iiiiiit on siicli 
 iiiuritM, wliirli laltii' jiiilj,'iiii lit WMs pinpi'ily 
 Hlipcaialilu iiiiili r Mitiim AH of tins .Sii|iriiiiL' 
 4/oiii't A(:t (l''oiii'iii('i' ami llriiiy, 4M., iliM.sL'iit- 
 
 h'Iciiifiii (l)iim.) - Liiiiit- V. 
 
 U. 1)1. 
 
 111)^1. Ill /liclldisc. 
 
 DchIuiiiU I'n, Ti S. (' 
 
 A ]ictitinii WMH iluly (ilnl ami prcsniitcd liy 
 iirppt'liaiit on tli(< otii of Aii'.'iiHt. IHS!I, iimliT tin' 
 " l>oiiiiiiioii CoiitroviMti'il KIcctioiis' Ait, I.S74," 
 M^ulnat tlio letiii'ii of i'i'-<p(imliMit. I'lrlliniiiaiy 
 olijt'ctioim Weill tiled liy leMpoiiiliiit. (iml lieloie 
 lliu Maine eaiiie on fur iieaiiii;; the atloi'iiey ami 
 agi-nt of reH|ioii<l('iit olitaliieil, (;ii the llith Oe- 
 toher from the jiidHe, an order aiitlmri/iiii,' the 
 withdrawal of the depoHit money and reimi\alol 
 tho petiliiiii ofT the lileM. 'rill! iiiunoy waw with- 
 driiwii. hilt NJiorlly afterwaiilH, in .lannary, INH.'t, 
 I III! appellant, alle^iii); lie had had no kiinwleil^'e 
 I'f thu proceedings taken liy his aj^eiitaiid attor- 
 ney, olitained, upon HiiniiiioliH, a Koeonil order 
 from the jtidj^e reseindiiig his prinr orderof l.'lth 
 October, ISS'i, anil direi'tiiig that upon the ap- 
 pellant repaying; to the ideik of tho eoiirt the 
 iitnoiiiit of the SI oiirity, the iietition ho reitured, 
 and that tlui appellant he at liherty to proeeod. 
 Against this orcler of .January, ISS.I, the ris)iiiii- 
 dent appcded to the Siiprenie (Imirt of New 
 lirnnswic'k, and the court ;{avo jndyiiient, re- 
 Hoinding it. 'riieromion petitimiei- appealed to 
 tho .Suiireiiie Coilit of Canada: If. Id, that the 
 judgment apiiealud from was not a jiidgnient mi 
 a preliminary ohjection within the meaning of 
 42 Vict. 0. .'(!>, H. I()(tlie Supreme Court Aiiiend- 
 ment Act, I87!*)i "."d therefore not appe.dahle. 
 King's County Ji'dection (Doni.)^ — Uickie c, 
 VVoodsworth, 8 S. C. It. 192, followed. Cimuhj 
 of Oloui-inltr /'Jlccllnn {Doiii.) — Comiiieau v, 
 «Mnij(, 8 8. C. R. i!04. 
 
 The right of H()poal given under section 0,3 
 and following sections of the Controverted Klee- 
 tions' Act, li. S. (>. (IH77). e. II, does not extend 
 to decisions either of the judge or judges for the 
 trial of the petitions or other Judges sitting as a 
 court for the trial of corrupt ))raetices under 
 Hoctions 174 and 175 of the Klectioii Act, K. S. 
 O. (1877), c. 10 and Hiiiendment. < (liservations 
 upon anomalieaand dilliculliesiii the procedure. 
 Lennox Election (Oii/.)~Re Hamilton v. Thoiiip- 
 .vm, 1 E. C. 422.— C. of A. 
 
 All appeal was allowed by the Su]treme Court 
 of Canada by consent of parties. The following 
 is a note of the proceedings in that court on the 
 hearing :— October 25th, 1887, McCJartliy, Q.C., 
 for the appellant. (No counsel appears for the re- 
 spondent.) This is an appeal from a judgment 
 of Mr. Justice Osier overruling preliminary 
 objections to an election petition. 1 have a con- 
 sent from the petitinnor's agents and solicitors 
 that the appeal should be allowed, and the peti- 
 tion be dismissed, but without costs, and the 
 result will be that the preliminary objections 
 are to stand, (Consent read.) Tnschcreau, J. — 
 Ja this court we have done so before, but in the 
 
 I'roviui'd of Quebeo wo hiivo ahvavs rifnw,] („ 
 allinv api eals upon eonseiil. Mel ' ,|,t||y _| 
 the North N'ork eane the appeal was allimiilj,, 
 the limit liy i.'oiiHeiit, and the jiidgnnMit, nf ii 
 eotirt liiliiw upon preliminary ohject imm win r,, 
 veiMid. Strung, .1. All we can d>i is to nil,, « 
 llie ;ippi il, but withniit eiists ; ami tlmt oiilv 
 dispdse-i nf the iireliniinary olijei'lioiiM, liidiij! 
 C .1 Till' iiidnrinnst ho ina'le tint npim 11,1,1 
 ing the w ritt •II I'oiiMeiitof the attmnev iiiiila^ii,( 
 of the pel itiiiliir, the prtdiiiiin iry nhj' elidim nii. 
 Hiistaiiied, and the appeal is allowed, hut viitli 
 out costs. lAiifi'lii mill Xiiti'iiii h'lirtitm 
 
 {(till.) I'lill'iKon V. I!yhit, I v.. V. .('JS, A?tl 
 
 Appe il 
 
 lilirm: I'M I 
 
 on preliminary ohjoitioiis. Sco ,S'/i/ 
 ■/lull {l)i>iii.) Utiliiitxtiil V, Lniirif II 
 S. C. I!. 2."iH, 11. l.-i(l!l; I/ .\xso,„,,r,„ii l:/,,ii,„ 
 (Itiiiil) (I'liiilliir V. S'liritKiiiili'iiii • Oil. I,,, 
 I '111111'!/ h'li'liiiii (/liiiii.) O'lhifii V. Cdi-oii, 14, s 
 C. I!.'l2!l, p. l.">14 ; f.7('»;;((/ /•>//•./'■'''■"" l//i», ) 
 /'iirni/ V. Kniiinhj, 14 S. C. K. 4."i;t, p. jril.'l! 
 
 .*<ee S'oilli Oiiliirio /■Jltrlioil (/>')/(/.)— H'/df/,,- 
 
 V. tHUi.H, ;{ S. ('. 11. :t74 : Moiiiiiihi, /•;■,,•/;.,/, 
 Miojiiiii, V. /hnj'is. !) S, C. It. ();(, p. |,V2,-): Itr, 
 lliitr I'jliiiion- (I'fiii n iix v. Ciillihv.ii, () S (: U 
 102, p. I.V.Vi. 
 
 (h) Piiiclicc ill Apfteiil. 
 
 The petitioner was not allowed to urge liefom 
 the Coiiit of .Ajipeal a (iliaige of eiirni|it ]imc 
 tices against the respimdoiit |)CiMiiiiiil|y, wliioh 
 had not liei'ii Npecilied in the partiriiliir-i, 01 
 adjudieati'd iipiin at the trial. Simtli (tnUirhi 
 /■''I'-liuu {Out.)--' Foiivill V. JlioiDii, l{. K. {'. 
 420. 
 
 In pen.il statnti.'M, (|iiestioMS of dmilit arc tn Iw 
 eiHistilied favnuralily to thu aeciiseil, aiulMlier" 
 the ciiiirt of first instance in a (piasi criininnl 
 trial lias acipiittid the re-<]ioiideiit, the apjiellntr 
 court will not reverse his lindiiig. Xmllt On 
 /mill L'liciioit (Out.) — A/cCiinkiU v. I'axUm, H. 
 K. C. :W4. -Wilson.— C. of A. 
 
 Charges of corrupt practices, coiisistin;' of 
 proinisis of niniiey and of emjiloyiiieiit, wir.^ 
 made against the respondent and one ,\l,, his 
 agent. IJotli tho respondent and his n^'ciil 
 denied making any promises of money, Imt k'ft 
 the jnoniises of employinent nniiiiswcri'il ; nml 
 the judge trying the petition (Drajier, (!. J. A.i 
 so fiiuiid. and avoided the election. Tliereupoii 
 the reHpiiiident a))pcaled to the Court of Appial, 
 aiidumhr ;<8 Vict. c. .3, s. 4, ollered further evi- 
 dence by. ■illiilavit,speci lically denying any olFer or 
 jiroinise, directly or indirectly, of einpliiyiiii'nt. 
 Draper, (!. J. \., who tried the petition, having 
 intimated to the court that had the rcHpoiiileiit 
 and Ilia agent m:ide the explicit denial asti> 
 ofl'ers of iiioney or einphiynient which it a)i 
 peared they had intended making, he woulil 
 have found for the respondent :— Helil, iiiulpr 
 these circumataices, that the finding of the 
 election court should be set aside, and that a 
 new trial should be held before another judge on 
 the rota. ( )hservation8 on the difference be- 
 tween an election trial and a trial at nisi priiis. 
 Pid Klcrtion (Out.)— Hurst v. C'hishobn, U.K. 
 C. 485. 
 
 On a charge that the respondent offered to 
 bribe the wife of a voter by a " nice prcBent," if 
 she would do what she could to prevent her but- 
 
PARLIAMENTART ELECTIONS. 
 
 1626 
 
 alwavH rcfiiK'tl t„ 
 Mi:('iPtliy,_||, 
 
 I Appeal, 
 
 ll.iwfd to urf^e liefon> 
 Mif^c of ciirniiit |irac 
 out pciHofially, wliicli 
 tlio piii'tii'iiliirs, 01 
 ■i.il. Siiiilh OiiUiriii 
 V. Jliuwii, H. R ('. 
 
 Undfi""' voting, three witiioMm^tcsliHed to tho i 
 tiffur ; till! iOM|ioiiil('iit ilcnic'il, utiti iinotlitT uit- ! 
 ni'«i wlio wi . "i.'HL'iit IhiikI iiiitliiii^{ of tln'oH'ci'. j 
 On tliiti itviili'iiuo, ami tlicrij lii'in;{ no |ii'o>if timt i 
 tho witiit'SHi'H ill Hup|iort. of tin- rliiirKc wrri! act- I 
 iiiif fnini iii'i'i'^i'""* niotivc'H or I'liniipt cxprcta- ! 
 tioii, Mi'i' ""y t-'vidiMU'd iiiipcarliiiij,' tlirir vt'- 
 
 iMcity, tlll^ cllillgti W'.IH lll'lll ploVCcl. 'I'll!' ICHpoll- 
 
 (lent appialfd to tlif Coiiil of Apin'ul on the 
 tiildillH of the L'liicf jll>tiir on tlif iilpo\n i'll.ilK<! 
 i,f personal l)iil)iT\. Held, I. 'I'liat an appidlatt' i 
 ooiirt will iii't, »'x<'iiit iiiiilci- upci'id ririiini.staii- 
 ecu, iiiti'iftiio with lliu liiidin^,' oi tlio roiirt ol 
 first intitaiioi' on ipio«tioiiM of fact dcpriidiiiK "ii : 
 tliu venicity of witiiOMNCs ami ('oiillictin;^ t\ idi ikt. 
 '.>, Tli:it as liii^ jiidyt! tiyiii^' the pililioii liad 
 fouiiil that till! n'H|ioiiiU'lit liad iiiadi' lln' ollir to 
 tliewiff of till- voti T ill till' iiiaiiiiri' aliovi' Htatiil, 
 such nil olt'iT was u pioiiiiMi of a " valiialilo ion 
 BiiluiMtloii, ' within till' niiMiiinu; of tliu luilioiy 
 cliiiisui' of .TJ Vict. c. •-'!. l/iiil<iii /■:/i<-lioii (Out.) \ 
 -Itimell V. Il(irhi:i; II. K. ('. 'JS,'}. 
 
 Tho <.liar;,'(! upon wliicli thin iippral was priii- 
 cipidly lU'uided was that of the ifsponik'nt's 
 kilifry of one David Assclin. Tin; jiid^ii' wlm 
 trii'il tho riiHU found, as ii niattiT of fact, that 
 thu appi'llaiit had iindcrliamli'illy slippt-d into 
 Asselin's pm.'kct thu ^'i for a ini'tcndi'ii purpose, 
 th:it was not cvon ini'iitioiird to the ruuipiont ; 
 thiittliis aiiiount was not iin'ludi'd in tli t liuli- 
 iislieil return of his t'Xiicii<o as rcipiii d liy 
 the Klcction Act, ami this p.iyiiniit w ;i» In iliciy ; 
 -lll'lll, that an appulliitu court in election cases 
 iiiinhtiiot to reversi! <;m imire inattcrs of fact, tliu 
 tiiiiliiij;H of tliu jui'.^u who has tiied the petition, 
 iinh'S8 the eouri, is eonvinceil licyoml doiilit that 
 Ills C(iiieliisio:iS are urroneous, and tli it the evi- 
 ileiR'e in tlii) ca80 warranted the limlinj^ of tlii; 
 iDiU't heloM , that appellant had liceii j,'nilly of 
 IJiTBimal lir liery. lirlliflniMi /•Jhclinii (/)oin,) - 
 Larue v. /)' nl<iiirin:i, ;"> S. ('. K. 91. 
 
 Hold, tlia"' the Supreme Court, on appeal, will 
 not love isu (,'i mere matters of fu't lliu Judy- 
 iiiciit of the ji"lgu w'lo tries an ('lection petition, 
 iinli'RS tho niatier of tho evideneo in of aiieh a 
 nature as to convoy an irresistihle eonviotion 
 that the judgment is not only wronj;, Imt is 
 irroncous, and that the evidi iieu in support of 
 the eharj^o of liriliint; one M., as well jis of tlie 
 other charges nf liriliery and tieatiiij,', wiih not 
 .-iich ns would justify an appellate Couit in 
 ilrawing tho infuruiice that the respondent in- 
 tended to corrupt the voters. Moiilra/m Etcc- 
 im(Dom.) — Mwjnan v. Uinjan, 9 S. C R. 93. 
 
 Tho judgment of the court. below will not be 
 ruversed unless oleurly wr(>ni,'. JScrthier Elcc- 
 lm(Dom.)—(Jene.r'uxv. CiUi'ibert, !)S. C. II. 102. 
 
 At the trial it was found on a review of the 
 evidence that an offer to bribe, which had not 
 been carried out, was not proved ; -Held, on 
 appeal, that the finding of the trial judges should 
 not be disturbed unless the court above was con- 
 vinced that it wus wrong, und that if no more 
 could be said than that the evidence might have 
 warranted a dilTurent coneluaion, it should not 
 be interfered with. Prescott E/cction { Out. } — 
 Cimningham v. Hagar, 1 E. C. 88.— C. of A. 
 
 Per Osier, J. A. — Where the trial judges have 
 certified that they disagree, the wlude case is 
 before the Court of Appeal on the evidence, and 
 ought to be disposed of in all respects as on an 
 
 appeal from tho trial jud;{t'ii. Knul .S'imi'oc A,7<c* 
 tioii (()„/.) Ui'i'l v. /h;tri/, I K. C. 2!»l. 
 
 Sm'. I'cfl K/iiH,„i i,()nl.) -Ihirxl V. Cliiiliifliii, 
 It. K. C, 4S.">, p. l.'ilT : A'i'W/i (hihirio Ehrii,,,, 
 {Dom.) Will (In- V. CMk, W H. V. W. ;»74 ; A'." 
 iiiihl V. Itinillnrnilp, I \>), (', 19.'); Iliidlimiinil 
 Elii'liiiii {hiDii.) W'lihlt V. .i/iiiiliiijiii-, lijiS. t'. 
 It. 4»il, p. 1411. 
 
 Hi. Xii" Ti-itii. 
 
 Set! /'■■il h'Jirliiiii iOiil.) Iliirnl V. ChUftvliii, 
 II. K. C. 4«r), p. I.V.'l. 
 
 17. Oilur (.'(i/ii,i. 
 
 U'lien I Kiih' of (wiurt has liuen Issued umler 
 the ( ontiovci ted Mlcel ions' .All, appointing u 
 place for the trial not within the coiistltiiem.'y 
 tllJ olecliun for which is in ipiestion, the judge 
 liy wlioin the petition is being tried, has no 
 power to ailjourn, for thu fuithei' hearing of the 
 e.iuse, Iriiin thu place named in the Uiiluol court 
 to II plaie williin such constituency. SdiiUi Uri ;/ 
 Elfriioii (iiiil.) Iltiiiliv V. Luniln; II. !■!. ( '. 
 i>'2 - .Mowat. 
 
 The ell', ct of s. 'M) of .'U Vict. c. '.i ((Int.), is 
 that the jiicli,'e is to act on the principles U[ioii 
 which election coinmitteus in Knglaiid liuvo 
 .ictcil where liu has niill;4lit from tin; rules which 
 his own |iiiil'essioiial 
 with ; and he is in a I 
 
 expuiieiiie supplies liliii 
 ilitioii to liu bonml hv the 
 
 dreisious of the rota judges in Kn;^land trying 
 elections under Acts siinihir to our own, in thu 
 same v\ay as tho courts fuel bound by their 
 judicial (leeiwioiis in other lei,'al matters. W'l si 
 Tiirmili) Efi'.cliiiii (Oiil.) AriiDitfiiiiij v. Cruiihe, 
 II. !•;. C. 97. - Kichards. 
 
 The day ajipointed for the trial of an election 
 jietitioii may be altered to an uarliel' day by oon- 
 seiit of the parties, and by an order of thu judge. 
 Will Elijiii Lli'limi {()iil.)—lJu!iciiilen v. Muiiru, 
 If. K. C.'l-ll. Spiaggi,. 
 
 .•\ftcrtho trial of an election petition ha.s been 
 comnienced the trial judge may adjourn the ease 
 from time to time, as to him seems convenient. 
 JiA'ieXle. EliilUiii (!ase (Duiii.) - (I'liilhaidt v. 
 Jhs^irt, 15 S. C. R, 4i")S. 
 
 Where the right of the petitioner to claim 
 the scat is deeidud advursely in onu ease, it is no 
 prejudice to the respondent's case that other 
 charges against the petitioner are not pronounced 
 
 I upon. North Vi'toria Etcrtion {Out.) — Mch'ae 
 
 ! V. Smith, 11. K. C. -J ")2.— Draper. 
 
 ! The court cannot grant an interim certificate 
 declaring an election void, as thu statute con- 
 
 I templates only one eertilicate to the speaker, 
 certifying the result of the election tri;il. Lin- 
 
 \rnlii (2) (<)iit.)—Pawli,iij v. Jii/kert, H. E. C. 
 
 i 489. — Patterson. — Ulako. 
 
 After an election petition had been filed, two 
 clerks of the Toronto agents of the solicitor for 
 the petitioner were allowed to compare it with 
 an engrossed copy, and finding that the two 
 were different, they altered the tiled petition so 
 as to correspond with the copy, adding in one 
 place the word "treating," which had the effect 
 of introducing a charge of a corrupt practice 
 not in tho original. The copy served upon tho 
 respondent after this alteration corresponded 
 

 1827 
 
 PARTICULARS. 
 
 1528 
 
 with tlu.' i)utitiuii as altered. It was not shewn 
 niid it was denieil that the petitioner knew 
 of tlie alteiation : Held, that tiie addition of 
 tiic wonl "ti'oating" M.as iiu alteration in a ma- 
 terial pait; l)ut that tlie clerks in doing what 
 they did wero not the agents of the respondent 
 or Ilia solicitor. As the ducnnient was in tlie 
 possession of tlie court, such an alteration, made 
 l)y i)ersons wlio were mere strangers or spoliators 
 liad not the etlect of destroying it. Tiie service 
 of the petition in its altered condition could not, 
 in the absence of knowledge of tiie alteration, 
 he treated as a ratitication liy the res])ondent. 
 Jt was ordoi'ed that tiie jjctition sliould he re- 
 st' r.'d to its original state, and that the copy 
 s'rvcd should he amended to conform with the 
 pecilion ns it was when liled. Lincoln iinil Xi- 
 tviam Ktirlion (IJont.) I'ullitiin v. ItijLirt, 1 E. 
 C. 428.- Osier. 
 
 Semble, that R. S. (". c. (t, s. n.S, subs. 2 <loes 
 not jirevent a judge jn'oceeding with the trial of 
 an election ))etition pending tiie sitting of tiie 
 Divisional Court of wiiich he is a member. West 
 Middlesex Kbctkm (Doni.) -McNiU v. Jiuomc, 
 I K. C. 465.— Falconbridge. 
 
 Decision of the County Court of the county of 
 Lincoln reversed. Mai/ v. JMd, 10 A. R. 150. 
 
 ;'',»;j,. 
 
 PAROL CONTRACT. 
 
 See Co.NTUACT. 
 
 PAROL EVIDENCE. 
 
 Si:(. KviItHNCE. 
 
 XII. AlTE.VL 
 
 N Summary Tkial iok Ii 
 
 Acts. 
 
 r.KdAii 
 
 The right of appeal given under section 63 
 and following sections of the Controverted 
 Elections' Act, 11. S. O. (1S77) c 11, does not 
 extenil to decisions eit'icr of the judge or judges 
 for the trial of the petitions or the other judges 
 sitting as a court for the trial of corrujit prac- 
 tices under sections 174 and 175 of the Election 
 Act R. S. O. (1877), c. 10 and amendment. 
 ( (bservations upon anomalies and difficulties in 
 tlie ]irocedure. Lenno.r Eli'rtion (Out.) — Hamil- 
 ton V. Tlion,/>.ion, 1 E. C. 422. C. of A. 
 
 XIII. Actions kok (,'osts Acjainst 1'kivatk 
 
 PltOSKCl'TdH. 
 
 The jdaintiffs were tried for bribery at an 
 election at the Haidimaiid assi/es in tlie spring 
 of 1S87 and acquitted. The information upon 
 whicli the indictment was su))iiosed to have been 
 founded was lai<l against them by the dofeii 
 
 PARTICULARLY. 
 
 In Pi.i;Ai>iN(i— Sec I'lkadini! 
 
 PARTICULARS. 
 
 I. Actions (Jknerallv, 0000. 
 II. In I'akticui.au Actions. 
 
 1. Alimomj — .9(6 Husiiand and Wikk. 
 
 2. Lilnl ami Ulamlar- Sue Dkkamation. 
 
 3. Palenli for /nivnlionScn Patents 
 
 FOK Invkntion. 
 
 III. In ELKivrioN Trials— .SV« Paki.iamex- 
 
 TARV I'll.KClIONS. 
 
 1. Actions (iknkrai.ly. 
 
 Particulars are not jiart of the rocoid. See 
 Paridxon v. /irl/irill and Xoiih llaxlimi^ II, 
 II'. Co., ") A. I!. .Sir), p. KiS. 
 
 Tlie jiarticuhirs of claim upon a writ nf suiii- 
 nioiis sjiccially endorsed to wiiicii the defendant 
 a])])ears, do not bind the iilaiiititf as iiarticularn 
 under a declaration on the conmion counts, anil, 
 in sucli a case, lie must comply with a (Icmaiid 
 for particulars ma<le by the defendant. //ic/f/iiM 
 V. dni'lph liarril Co., S P. R. 170. Dalton, 
 
 daiit and he was exaiiiincd as a witness before , . .«■ i. t .i i 
 
 the grand jury. At the conclusion of the trial I Wliere the piaintilT was not aware of lie de- 
 the presidiiig'judge, at the rcMiiest of the .•<uin- 1 fence intended, iiuabhed particulars ot a de .lice 
 sel for the accused, indorsed on the indictment 1 of not guilty by statute were()rdered. ./. /i/<iYn-. 
 tiie stat.Jiiieiit tliat it was pn.ved tliat the <lefen- drand TrnnL- Ii. II . Co., 11 I . H. .{00. Dalton. 
 
 (lant was the private jnosccutor. Tiie plaintiU's 
 taxed their costs of the pro.secution and brought 
 tliis action to recover jiaymeiit of tlicse ('osts 
 from the defendant. Tlie information and in- 
 dictment (t licre being no evideni^e connecting the 
 latter with tlie former) with tin," endoisement 
 and the fact that tlio dcfeiiilant was examined 
 as a witness before the grand jury were the only 
 evidence that the defendant was the private 
 prosecutor : - Held, that the endorsement on the 
 iiidietment lia<i no force as a judgment or find- 
 ing of fact and could not be accepted as proof 
 of the defendant's position : Held, also, that 
 th3 facts that the inforination was laid by the 
 4lefendant, and th.it he was examined as a wit- 
 ness before the grand jury were not sufficient 
 ■<!viilcnce that he was the private prosecutor. 
 
 Tlie defendant contested the valiilit., of a will 
 propounded by the plaintiU's, and idso pi (i|imindcd 
 two earlier wills, under which, in tlic event of 
 tlit^ last in date being invalidate<l he cliiinied: 
 Held, that a general defence of fraud wan ad 
 missible in such a case ; but under tliat dofpiiw 
 the def(;ndant was re(piired to give iiaiticnlars 
 immediately after the cxamin.ition of tlio plain 
 till". Apjilcman v. Apptemav, 12 P. 1!. 138.— 
 Royd. 
 
 The practict! in ordering particulars depends 
 in this province on the inherent jurisdiction of 
 the court to prevent injustice being done; the 
 rules in foi'ce in England not having bet'ii adopted 
 here. Qi.cni. Victoria Niaijara Falh Park Com- 
 minKioiifrx V. Howard, 13 P. R. 14. -Hnyil. 
 
1529 
 
 PARTITION. 
 
 153a 
 
 I'l.KADIXd. 
 
 In an action of trespass to land the defen- 1 
 (lanta pleniled a lease Irom the Dominion (ii,"- 
 crnnieiiti and tliat the lands had been vested ; 
 in tiie gi'vennnent as ordnance lands. This was | 
 ulcaileil ill an unexceptionaljle manner, and no 
 attidavit was filed by the plaintills to shew that 
 they were unable to reply without further dis- 
 closure. An order was made by the master in 
 
 one-sixth interest in the lands, had any locuit 
 stiUidi to bring a suit for partition or to appeal 
 without his cd-plaintitr. L(i/ilaute v. iScamai, 8- 
 A. 1!. 557. 
 
 J, v. died in 1S()7, Having by Ids will i)ro- 
 vided as follows : " And whereas trouble * * 
 may arise amon,' my fanuly witii regartl to tlm 
 property * * on account of its l)eing put out 
 
 /.liimlipra for particulars of tlie facts and means ^ ^i <• ,. ■. i. n r- ~ c 
 
 cli.uiiDLis nil i«»'"^ I • 1 »i 1 II ; (if tlio i)ower of my trustees to sell or (lisi)osc of 
 
 hywliicli and the tune at which the lands became ' ■ . . •' . . .. 1, . .. 
 
 •V , , T,. 1- 1 i it i »i 1 the iiroperty, 1 bei('l)y order, direct, and tully 
 
 ..■•ilii'iiice lands. It dul not appear tliat tlie de- , 11 ■ ' : 1 ci. ,. i. n. 
 
 iirdii.uiti. i.iiuio. .w 11 authorize at ami after twenty years after my 
 
 foiiiliiiita had any special means or information , ., . . » . j. '1 1 .. 1 n 
 
 tciia.iiun '""' "■ J I i it 1 • (leatn, my trustees ' * toabsolutely sell an 
 
 la (11 tie matter of title, not open to the plain- ! ,• f •- - - 
 
 ,i» 1(1 ini' '""•"''^^ ,. ii 1 ' • V i dispose of my sai 
 
 titfs; -Held, that the order was wrong m lorm, 
 and should not have been made in this case ; for 
 .1 party is not obliged to disclose upon what evi- 
 (Iciifc he relies, or by what means he is going to 
 ve his contention. Hi. 
 
 prove I 
 
 PARTIES. 
 
 Sie Pi.i:AiMN(i. 
 
 II. 
 III. 
 
 PARTITION. 
 
 WllKN AwAKIiHI). 
 
 1. deiicrulh/, ITiiO. 
 
 2. To Down .■<.■<, lo.'iO. 
 
 I'liACTICK, \'t:U. 
 
 t'osTs ANi> Commission, \.~t',V2. 
 
 IV. EKh'ECTOKjlIDliMKNT IN I'AILTITION, I'l'.V^. 
 
 I. WlIKN AWAIUIF.I). 
 
 1. (leiiKriiUil, 
 
 The plaintiff, being a trustee for sale, was held 
 not to 1)0 in a iidsitioii to ask f(U' partition. 
 Ktafir V. MfKiiy, 2!) C'hy. KJ'i. Kerguson. 
 
 An aiiplicati(m for partition or sale of land by 
 the pliiiiititl'asone of several heirs was dismissed 
 with costs where the ])laintiir before making it 
 kn(;w lliat a delendant was in pos>ession claim- 
 ing title to the exclusion of the plaintill'and his 
 co-hoiia. lloiikiua v. Jlo/ikint, !t 1*. K. 71. — 
 lloyd. 
 
 A tenant f()r life is entitled to a partition, and 
 whore tliere is ii right to a partition there may 
 lieariglit to a sale as the Court may di'teriiiiiie. 
 Lttlor V. I.uliir, !J I'. K. 45'k — I'roudfoot. 
 
 The crown, by letters patent, granted laml to 
 V. B. for life, witli remainder to her children, 
 the petitioners, as tenants in common in fee 
 »impiu. Cn a petition |)iesented to thi^ judge of 
 theCuntj Court, under K. S. <). (IS77) c. Kll, 
 forpaititionor sale, a sale was ordered. A mo- 
 tion for a prohibition was made on behalf of K. 
 B., the tenant for life : llidd. Armour, .1., dis- 
 nciiting, that the ease did not come within the 
 I'aititidii Acts, and that there was no power to 
 compel a sale of tin" lands as against tlu; tenant 
 for life. A prohibition was therefore ordered. 
 Murmi- \. /{oifuu, r) O. R. 104. -(^. I'.. I). 
 
 QuaTo whether the appellant in this case, 
 whose only interest was tliat of mortgagee of 
 the iutcrest of one S. the owner of an undivided 
 
 ()ose ot my said property in T. to the best- 
 i advantage, (u-ovided only that it be the wish of 
 ! a niaj(trity of my heirs who may then be living, 
 j to do so and not otherwise, etc." In 1887, a 
 meeting of a large majority of tli()S(i interested 
 was held, aiiil it was decided to sell by jiublic 
 auction. On an ap|)licatiou by the plaintills 
 who were trustees for one of the heirs and 
 represciiteil only a (Uie-sixth share of the pro- 
 ))erty for the usual order for iiartition and sale, 
 wldch was resisted by a majority of the heirs. 
 It was : — Held, that the land in ({uestion was 
 vested in the trustees on the express trust to- 
 sell at tli(^ end of twenty years from tiie testator's 
 death, liroviiieil a majority of tlie heirs were in 
 favour of a sale, which was proved, and that the 
 jurisdiction to |iartition was ousti'd. Uc Denui.t 
 —Doiniici/ y. Ihniiis, 14 O. 1!. 207. — 15oyd. 
 
 See (,'niiif v. (Imnt, 9 I'. U. 211, p. \'Va2. 
 
 2. To Diiicrcs.s; 
 
 A person entitled only to dower, unassigncd, 
 out of land is entitled to apply for partition. 
 Koily 1: Uody, 1 C. I,. T. 140. (I'verniled. Hut 
 where one only of sevi.'ral is desirous of parti- 
 tion, all that that one is entith^d to is to have 
 his or her (lortion set aside, h!aviiig the others, 
 to hold jointly or in coniiiion, as before. Hob- 
 son r. Sherwood, 4 IJeav. 184, followed. JJcir- 
 ri'iix- Y. Ki'drii.s, II 1'. K. 4.")2. — Ferguson. 
 
 Where the dowress applie(l for partition or 
 sale, coiifesseidy with the object of obtaining 
 tlii^ latter, and all tlie otiicr parties opjxised it, 
 and it ap|)eaicd that the applicant had by an- 
 (itlier proceeding obtained the right to have her 
 (lower assigned dufc of the lands, the application 
 was rel'nsed, with costs. Il>. 
 
 .AlthouL'h .some expressions in the Partition 
 Act, R. S. (). (1877), c. 101, antliorize a per.soi» 
 entitled to dower not assigned to apply for par- 
 tition or sale of the lands in w liich she is inter- 
 ested, yet tli(! court may, in its discretion, re- 
 fuse tlu^ ajiplicatioii and leave the dowress to- 
 proceed under the Doiver I'rociMlnre Act, I!. S. 
 (). (1877), c. o."), or otherwise, to have her dower 
 assigned. The provisions of the two A(!ts must 
 beliarmoni.'.eil. Frumv. Friiin, 12 I'. R. 185. — 
 Kohertson -Chy. I>. 
 
 TIh! a))pIicatioii of a dowress for partition or 
 sale of two parcels of land owned by the defen- 
 dants ill severalty, subject to tlu^ right of dower, 
 was refused w here the defendants opposed the 
 a]tplicati(>ii and tli(^ pmjHised pidceedings were 
 for the beiK^fit of the applicant only. Devereux 
 1: Keariis, II I'. R. 4.")2, discussed. //). 
 
 Kd'ect of partition on iiicho;itc right of 
 dower. .See 7.V J/uwIi, 17 O, R. 404, p. 571. 
 
1 ;■"'"*■ '7^ 
 
 15S1 
 
 PARTITION. 
 
 1632 
 
 II. Pkactice. 
 
 ea 
 
 ess 
 
 
 
 Under 0. O. «-l(» (Con. Rule 980), where spe- 
 cial ciruunistances are shown on an appliuation 
 for p:irtiti(iii or sale of lands, a lefennce to a 
 master other than the niastrr in tlie county town 
 of the Cduuty wliere tlie lands are situate will 
 be direeted. 'i'he ap|ilication under the order ' 
 should he made to a judge in eh inihers. lie. 
 AiiioU-iJIaittcrloii v. Chathrdm, 8 1'. li. 39. - 
 I'roudtdot. 
 
 .Vltcr an oi'iler for jiartition of lands in the 
 county of J'eel liad lieeii gi'anted hy a ma.ster 
 under (i. O. (ill (Con. Rule Dllli), an oider wa.s : 
 made by a judge in chaiubers to include in said '■ 
 ordei- lands ui anothcM' county, though such lands 
 \(cre known of at the time the [lartition order 
 was made. The costs ot' the aiiplicition were 
 allowed, ( .xilusi\e oi I lie usiial comniission un- 
 der (!. (). Ii4:{ (Com. Rule I 187). fl(t,-l: v. Cluvl:, 
 8 I'. R. I.")!!. SpragL^e. 
 
 .A niitiee <ii motion for partition having been 
 served, the plainlill moved lor an injunction 
 1 est laming tlie delendaut Irom collecting rents, 
 and for a receiver. It ap|ieaied that the defeli- 
 tlaiit wa.f a stranger, whose I'ight to lie in pos- 
 ses iun ^^as denied : llelu, tliat uo I'llief could 
 be had against him without hill lilcvl. Young 
 V. Wrijla, 8 1'. R. 19S. -JUaUu. 
 
 'J'he juiis<iietion created by tl. (). (iJO (Con. 
 Rule '.)S!)) is intended to be exercised in siiii])le 
 cases only where tlieie is no dis|iutc. Where 
 (|Ucstiiiiis are raised ot title, or the like, a bill 
 must be Hied. JJni(l"iiill v. Mcdiliis, 8. 1'. R. 
 339.— Blake. 
 
 The fact that an intestate whose estate is be- 
 ing partitioned, has been ileatl lor forty-tive 
 years, does not warrant the niastei in disjiensing 
 with the usual .Klverliscnieiit for cieditois. JJtij- 
 ijiir V. liiu'j'n; 8 1'. R. 483. — IJIake. 
 
 The defendant who occupied the property in 
 i|Uestii>n, in a ji.u tilion suit, clainied an alisoliile 
 title by [io.-,-!e.~si(in under the Statute ot limita- 
 tions. The niasa r, iiolw itlist.iiid.iii;, coiiiiiiiicd 
 the impiiry, and jiroeeed to t.dvc evileiue. 
 Spraggc, r. , (lii\eled llie plaintill to tile a bill 
 within two Weeks, an." iie parties to go to a 
 hearing at the then next ensuing sittings at Corn- 
 wall, costs to lie costs in the cause, tic Mi-MJ- 
 lan—J'u'rr-^'.H v. McMili'in, 8 R. I!. r)4(). 
 
 A (hcreu lor partition issikmI by a local mas 
 ter at the mslance ol a puieliaser at slurili's 
 sale under un cprdir made hy a County Court 
 jutlge where the mleie^t wliii;h had been sold, 
 was tliat of one of lour tenants in eoiniiiDn in an 
 equity <if redemption in land, wliieh was subject 
 to two niorfg iges in diHerent hands, was on ap- 
 peal ruveised With costs. \\'iit,iL v. l/iiil, "JS 
 Chy. Uti. - I'liudfMot. 
 
 Jn a \)artilion suit, an oi'der allowing siibsti- 
 ttitional service of the bill, on the olliiial giiar- 
 ilian ot tin infant defkiidaiit, lesiileiit without 
 the juii-^ilielioii of the court, was granted on the 
 ground that the s:iare ot the inf mt in the lands 
 111 (piestion anioimtc il to only J<fO, and substitu- 
 tional sei vice wdiild be ine\|ieusive. Wciilhir- 
 lieail v. Winilicrliriid, \) I'. 1!. iHi, Stephens, 
 llij'trie.. 
 
 An order for partition of the realty was re- 
 fused, when the application was made within 
 
 I si.\ months of the death of the person whose 
 ' estate was sought to he partitioned. The rule 
 , laid down l)y the Partition Act, U. B. (>, (IJJ77) 
 ; c. 101, s. (i, lield aiiplieable. Oniiil v. Vruni i 
 P. It. :>ll.-Hoyd. 
 
 Whore in a partition suit commenced hy sum- 
 ' mary application under O. O. Chy. 040 (Con 
 Rule 98.)), the infants interested in tiie estate 
 had been joined as plaintiffs, and a sale of the 
 land had taken place by public aiioliuii :— field 
 that the iniants were iiiipro|jerly joimd as plain- 
 tills ; tliiit they should liave been deleinlimtsaud 
 reliresented by the otiieial guardian ; and a refer- 
 i eiiee was directed to the master t'l lix llie irtiar- 
 dian's commission as if he had been eiigiig^d ju 
 the suit from the beginning. On consent nf the 
 ' giiaiiliaii, it was or.iered tliat the piDceciliimn 
 taUiMi tor s lie, if tin-y iiioved to he rivular 
 should stand ; but this was not to he a piece- 
 dent. Hidirn V. liruirii, 9 P. li. "Jh"). — I'luud- 
 loot. 
 
 Oil an iqiplication for the sale of inf ints' estate 
 wiirth about •:'4I)0, under R. M. O. (1^77;, c. 40 
 an order was made dispensing With tlieixaiiii- 
 nation of two of tlie infants who Weieoiitof 
 the jiirisdiulioii. /i< Laiif,'J I', li. 'J.il. — iiuyd. 
 
 An application to consolidate two iiMlii.ns for 
 
 ailiiiinisiration and partition peiniiiig nilore a 
 
 I local master, should ne made to liiin ,iiid not to 
 
 ' a judge in ehainbcrs. Ltimhiir v. i.iiinbkr !) 
 
 !'■ R. 4'.'L'. IJoyd. 
 
 Sales l-y the court of real estate held in co- 
 ' teiiaiii-y aie governed liy the piovis.oiis ot ih/ 
 I Partition Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. lul ; mv\ 
 masters should not, without any speeilie or .Miffi- 
 cieiit r asv-ns, disjiiiise with en(]iiu ii s airl ;id- 
 vertisciiieiits for creditors holding spe ilic or 
 general liens upon tlie w hole cu' ,iny iimlividid 
 share of the estate, dow 11 10 the time ol sak-. and 
 noL merely at the time wlu'ii the order iiii.Krli. 
 «». Chy. ()4I) is made. Uiih.tiiH v. ItUi-iuii, 101'. 
 R. 324.-- Iloyd. 
 
 Power of master on a ref(!reiicc for partition nr 
 .sale 01 lands to try the validity ot a lra.-,e, or a 
 tiatiduleiit alteration in ase.deil iiisliuiiient. See 
 /.'(• /■'»,/'-/■.•. -/.'n;/ry.s V. /,'i,ij,r.f, 11 P. R. 90. 
 
 In the course of a refe.cnee to nuke a |iiirti- 
 tii'U of lands, a iiiasti'i'.ippointed iw.i smIikI |.ei'- 
 sons to e\. Inline the |,r..pcity ainl |)u|iaie a 
 scheioe .ri pailition, and on tlnir evidence hi' 
 adoptfil le selielne |iri!paii(l ; -ikI.I, tinil tiU' 
 course a ■;;i.ed by the master Wis a re ..-oiialilu 
 one; thai, e hail llie (oner Under li. () thy. 
 'J4(.) (Coil. Kiiie 73) to take' such einiise.aiul that 
 the lees pant to the skilled per.^niis ny tiiu ne- 
 teinlaiit shmild be taxed to lii.n. Slihaij v. 
 Kc'-/ii; \2 P. R. l-'oO. -{'erriiisoii. 
 
 \\ here lands are situate in dillcro it eouiities, 
 a loc il mister has im jiii isdietioii to 111, kc an 
 order for the j) .rtltnni or sale thtleui, ami .siii:h 
 an older ami the pioeeed.iigs ilu leiiiider, iveii 
 as to lands within the louniy in wniuli he is 
 master, are wholly void. Rej,ina c. .smith, 7 P. 
 R 4.:9 foUowed. Str/iot \. Ailuihy, i; U. R. 
 -la. lioboitson. 
 
 JIl. IdST.S AM) COMMISSIO.N. 
 
 An order for jiartition or sale was in de under 
 O. O. 040, (Con. l;ulc 9s9) by the master at 
 
1533 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 15S4 
 
 the person whose 
 titioiied. The rule 
 Lct, U.S. 0. (1877), 
 
 iJntiit V. CiVu«(, 9 
 
 Lomloii, of tiie estate of one M., deceiisoil. In 
 nrocce liiiU ""'''■■'■ ihttC oidur the master lulver- 
 iised lor on diiors, iinil Al. & M. sunt in a olaun 
 foi' obiaiiiing letura nf adniinistiation, and for 
 (icfciidiiig ail action in the I'ouit of Conunon 
 fleis l)i.iiiyliC hy \V. M., a defendant in this 
 suit an 1 enLitlud to u sli .le ol the estate ayamst 
 tlio ailininisti'.itiix. The master allowe.l the 
 il.iiiu ana W. Al. ajipealud, on tUu ground tliat 
 laitiier tlic ileciascil nor his tslale were in- 
 ilebtod to .M. & .M , and tliat tlicy weie not enti- 
 tliil lo pruve us ereilitois m tins cause : — Held, 
 lliat tlio ailiniiii.it. atiix was ju^tilied in de- 
 f u-iin ' tiie .iii.t, .Hid tlie appjal was di,sini.ssed. 
 Mcku.i V. Milvuy, a l*. R. Mi. — I'loudfuot. 
 
 The H'lin all itted to the guardian (if infants 
 fur CHiiini^'iou m partition suits shoull n it lie 
 uiuiisiiivd uaiy liy tue vvorU dune in tiie iii.ister's 
 ciilicii. ' (I'li'iiiii V. Li'Vdux, \i. ]'. U. ;i04. — 
 
 )'l'0ll>lf''Ol- 
 
 Soli it ir's costs. See Mxecl'tous ask An- 
 ,Mi.M3i'a.vioii.>s Vi. u (a), p. 7;i-. 
 
 S.;^ Hr-iiuii V. tivM-ii, '.) r. K. '215, p \:tWl. 
 
 IV. llriKCT OK Jlihimi;nt in I'.Mtrnios. 
 
 Wiie.i p.Doee. lings fin' a paitition in a L.'nuiity 
 VjMW lia. e I) en urnil.ialea \>y an onier eunUrin- 
 111^ Sii .11 |.aii/iLu>ii, ill) 1 notliiiig leinnns t<> li.; 
 (iu.ie ny .. .ty of e.if.ii'oing the jiiil^'inent, sucii 
 jiiil;^ licit e.iiuiou a.terw mis he imp acli jil o,i the 
 ^roiiii 1 of l.au 1 ..r vloeeption on Lne enurt otliei- 
 »is.:>..iin 111 luu .ii.ig an aolioii in wlihU it is re- 
 li.il u,i,o.' l)y hi igi.i^ an aelion for the exp"''-s 
 pu:|ji).iO il .<joOnij^ a aside. Jtiikiiij v. JiiiKhk/, 
 11 A. K. l)-'. 
 
 S.;u lu/i Viln'ir V. Jlujlisoii, 9 A. R. 390, \). 
 
 m>. 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 I. l'via'.>.i..ii.sun" L'o.N'riiAor.-i, lo.ll. 
 
 II. I'l.O K OK I'AliTNUKSHU', l.J.'fS. 
 
 IL. liitiirr, AND LiAuiLii'iKs ok rAKr.srus 
 i»i.i'.v'..t; . iUi,.iiSi'.L.vi.s. 
 
 1. liUi>u.^al of IikHoHwiI Iiilo-cil ;/i 
 l\iil,ii'rihi/i l'ii>i>Rilii, l,");jiS. 
 
 M. Afliiin and I'rucisudimjs to Taku 
 l^arr uer'i/iii> Aicoitulu, 
 
 (i) Um raUj, ioM. 
 ( i) i.\,..u, loll!). 
 :!. ouinr I tt<f.<, 1540. 
 
 IV. LlAUIl.Iiy OK rAHTNlilW TO TillUI) l*Al!- 
 
 I. .Iv^o ilUI-^, Notisand C/uqiii'n, 1541. 
 - h:r Ca-i s 1 5 1,'{. 
 
 V. l)IS<OI,l!Tlil.N, 1515. 
 
 VI. DicvnioK I'Aur.NKK, 154(i. 
 
 VIi. aOi'lil.N.S A.NU I'UOOKEUI.N'dS lU' ANI> 
 .All VI.SSI. 
 
 I. Oiif.rUly, l."4(i. 
 
 '1. Fi'f S iii-liiijintnUwH iif I'arliiershi/i, 
 I.i4/. 
 
 3. In fiisolvi'iiri/ ProreeilirKjx—See^AftK- 
 
 iiVPTCY AND Insolvency. 
 
 4. Parliin lo ..clioim — .S'ec I'leadino. 
 
 3. Exectitiuiix Aijuiiint Paitiurithip Pro- 
 ptity — See l.,\i;cUTloN. 
 
 VIII. Mi.scELLAXKoiTj Cases, 1547. 
 
 I.\. HniUT OF DoWKU IN Tahtnership 
 
 LaNUS— See DiiWUK. 
 X. QUAI.IKU'ATION AS V^OTEHS IS P.IUHT OK 
 
 I'Aia'NEKSiiii' I'lioi'EiirY — See Par- 
 
 LIA.MEN 1 AKY lOl.ECrio.NS. 
 
 I. pAUrSKltSllIf (.'oSTKACT.S. 
 
 Eight per.-ons, who liau previously heen en- 
 gaged in the e.ittle trade, held a meeting in the 
 niontli of Dctolier, ISSO, and passi d a .series of 
 lesiiiutidiis, prefaed ny tliedeelaiation that they 
 and tour oth is, wno.se naiiies were nniitioneil, 
 projjose I to toim a eittie dealers' .syiidio.ue for 
 llie |ini'[)cise of e.\[ioiliiig catle, to eoinmeuce 
 Willi tile o|ieiiiiig ol n Lvualiiiii, innn l^jrtlaiid. 
 Tlio re.soliiiioiis pnivided tlial e leh nieinlier of 
 the .syadieite -hould niiiiie a deposit of .>5,0UO to 
 I he ereilit of tli<; lepn sriilalne ot each com- 
 pany : 'I'liat no niuinber nt " this lii'in ' siiouM 
 do any hnsiii ss oiusi le of the syndic, ite in ex- 
 j)ort e.ittie except for the beiielit "of the eoni- 
 p iiiy :'' Tliat no mu iilur of the syndic ite should 
 .i|)j)ointaiiy p^rs ui lo hiiy eai.tle e scept a|iproveil 
 or Ijy tile majoiity of the ineiniiers : Tii.it each 
 nii'ininr slio.ihl take the position assigned him 
 by the m joiity ol tiie .syndicate : That the 
 syiiil.e ites.ioiil.l lie divided iiiio two eompanies, 
 ea h to Consist of si\ iiieinbcrs (wliose iiameii 
 were ni.'niioncdi : Tiiat no nieiiilier should be 
 ailinitted to tiie syndic ite withoiu tne approval 
 of all the nu'inheis: That none of the cattle 
 spa .e winch was tlu-n taken should he sublet 
 wuliout tliu a)i|ir.iv.il of the .syndicate : Tiiat 
 the prolit and lo-s sho.dd he eipially divided, 
 sh.iiv .nd snare alike, between all the members 
 of tne syiid.Cite. All tiie eoiitein[)l.ited meni- 
 bcrs 1)1 the proiio.sed syndicate ixce|it one signed 
 tiie resoluti.iiis. One ot the lirms was already 
 in exisleiKx', the other was lo be tlieio after 
 I foiined. Tile one die .dy exisiiiig comprised six 
 I inem.iers ot the liropo.id .syn.deate, and wai 
 ! oille.l Tnoaipson iV. Co., the oilier suoseciueutly 
 I form d w.is coin[)osed of live memoers of the pro- 
 j [losed .syndicate, and was called Cr.iig & Co. 
 ilie.se two hrnis procctded lo b.iy and export 
 c.itlle ; e leli o,ieiied s.'|iiirate bank accounts. The 
 iirin ol ihaig & i^'o., dealt with the plaintitl's ami 
 ob.aine I aovaiices. l''ioii the i vidence it ap- 
 peared that tne plaintitl's had kiMwledge of the 
 l•e^l)llltlolls above leurred to, but opened the 
 .iccoaiit s ijely with the liiiii oi Cr.iig \, Co., ami 
 til ' iiiein lei's ot tiiat linn, troni whom alone they 
 to.ik security ; an I it app arc I by the evidence 
 th t noLwitlistaiiding the foriii of the resolu- 
 t oils, theai'i inm'in nC laniteiiiplated thereby was 
 treated by the putn s as si ill ojicn and as a mat- 
 ter of negoli u ion to be eo.nplete I by .some future 
 ,igre inc t between the |i.irties, and to perfect 
 Ahijh nieciiiigs Were irom time to time held; 
 a Id aiuTWards, at a siib.soi(iient meeting of some 
 of tiie inemiies ol the linn of (laig & Co., and 
 Th iiniison & Co , on 20tli April, IH.SI, a formal 
 agreemeiu w.is drawn up, purporting to be 
 made between tlie iiidiviilu.ds composing the 
 
1535 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 1636- 
 
 
 firm of TIioiii|iHoii & Co., of tlio first part, and r 
 tlie iiKliviilimls coinposiiig the tiini of Criiig & 
 (^>. , of the at'coiiil i)iirt, which provided for tlie 
 twofiriiia carryiiiLi <>" tlieir l)iisinL'>-.sof ealtlo ex- 
 porters in co-dperiitioii witli eacii other, and for 
 <lividing between tlie two linns tiio net profits 
 and losses of tiie two tirnis respectively, from 
 8th Deeenilier, ISSO, and containing a declara- 
 tion that neitiier ciinn>any slioul<l l)e liahle for 
 any debts or liabilities of the other company, 
 and that nothing therein contained should create 
 a partnership between the two conij)anies. This 
 agreement was signed by all the ])arties except 
 two of the niendRis of 'Ihompson & Co., whore- 
 fused to sign it. The two tirms continued to 
 carry on business as cattle exporters, each on its 
 own account. A paper ])urpoiting to be a copy 
 of the agreement was furnislied to the idaintitls 
 l>y Craig & Co., thereby it ai'i)iaied to lie 
 signed by all the parties to it. I!ut tiie phiintill's 
 were subseipiently int'ornu'd of the refusal of the 
 two to sign it, and theieafter made further ad- 
 vances to the llrm of Craig it Co. - HcM, (1) that 
 the refusid of two of the mi inbcrs of the lirm of 
 'i'honi])son it Co. to si^'u the agreement of •Jdtli 
 April, IJ>.S I, rendered it iiioi erative not oidy as 
 to those lefusing to sign it, luit also as to those 
 who had .signed it, ami tiiat until all had signed 
 it was not a completed agricnunt : — (-) that 
 those who actually signed tlie agreement could 
 not tlieiehy liind their co-partners who did not 
 sign it: — (.S) tlnit even it the agreement had 
 been conij)let(d it did luit constitute a partner- 
 ship betwi in the two tirms, so as to enable one 
 lirm to ])leilge the other linn's credit, tor ad- 
 vances in carrying on the t lade :— (-11 that the 
 provision lor sharing prolits and los.-es, which in 
 an ordinary trading association where there is a 
 eomniunity of capital and stoik-intrade, and a 
 common nmlertaking, is comlusive evidence of 
 a partnerslii]), is nevertlu^less not a conclusive 
 test of pal tiiei'ship « here there is an extraordi- 
 nary adventure betweiii two partneishi])s prl^ 
 .senting a well deliiied and will known separa- 
 tinn of interests and owmrsiiips :—(")) that the 
 way in which the profits aii^ to be ));ii tici])ated 
 in is the essence of the matter, and that wiieii 
 the right to call for a pinpoition ot tlii! i)iotits 
 arises by virtue of an express conttact to that 
 efTeet, wliii h would not olluiwise How from the 
 relations of the parties, the right exists qua 
 debt, and not by virtue of jiartnership : (d) 
 that even assuming that the agieemcntof 'Jdtb 
 April, constituted a iiaitmiship lietween tlu! 
 two tirms. yit that the jilii in tills with knowh dge 
 of all the f:icts, by electing to give eiedit to 
 Craig &, ( o. alone, weic precluded fioin there- 
 after resorting to 'I hnni|isiin it Co. Mirrlxnds 
 Hank V. I'luiiiipaijii — Mallvn v. dniii/, .'1 O. R. , 
 -j41.— Boyd. 
 
 Where one M. was inducei'i to bi come.n niem- 
 lior of a liini, on the taith of ri jni f-entalions 
 nmde to liim that the previous losses i f the firm 
 only unKMinted to irlS.t.bO, bnt it siil .se(|uently 
 turned cait that such losses an ounted to abiut 
 S;'22,()C0 or 4LM,0C(>:-lleld, that M. by lea.sm 
 4if such niisrepiesenlation was i ntitled to be 
 relieveil from such agreement, and to be indem- 
 nified by the other mendiers of the liini against 
 all liabilitiis incurred by him as such partner 
 prior to the discovery of the untruth of the ro 
 prcscntatiun made as to the looses uf the lirm. 
 lb. 
 
 Held, also, that M. having become a partner 
 also on the faith that the lirm in (piestiou intend- 
 ed to form a syndicate arrangement with another 
 lirm, which arrangement failed to be cairiwl nut 
 for want of the concurrence of aoinu of the 
 members of such other linn, ho was on that ac- 
 count also entitled to be relieved from hia agree- 
 ment to become a partner. lb. 
 
 The rcsponilents having on hand large con- 
 tracts to fulfil, entered into partiier.slii|) with 
 the appellant under the stylo of ,T. \V, &('o. 
 The respondent A. P. M. subsequently lilei'i a hill 
 in chancery against \V., the appellant aiul hu 
 two sons coj)artners, asking for a decree dtclar- 
 ing him and his two sons entitled to receive cieilit 
 to the amount of .§40,000, the estiinateil value 
 of certain j)lant, etc., used in the coiistnietidii 
 of the works done by the partne.shi]i. '\'[-f. 
 article in the deed of partnership exeeiited lit- 
 fore a notary i)ublio in the province of (jiieliei', 
 under which the respondent claimed to he eii' 
 titled to credit of. «;4O,0O0, was as follows : "'j'liu 
 stock of the s.iid partnership consists of the 
 whole of the plant, tools, horses ami appliancis 
 now used for the construction of said wnikshy 
 the said parties of the lirst part, A. 1'. M. ,v 
 .Sons; also all ipiarries, steam tugs, scows; mul 
 also all the rights in said ipiarries that , ire held 
 by tiie said parties of the first jiart, or any ot 
 them, the whide of which is vabieil ;it the siun 
 of .';<40.000, ami is contained in an iiiveiitnrv 
 thereof hereunto annexed lor reference af'tir 
 having been signed for identification by the said 
 ])aitiis and notary ; bnt whereas thes aid [.hmt, 
 folds, horses, appliances, steam fugs, seows, 
 (piarries and other items had been lieietofnii' 
 sold by the said faity of the lirst part to tlic 
 liini of M. it \V., of the city of Mnntieal, liard- 
 ware merchanla, to secme them certain claims 
 which they had against the said A. I'. .M. (!t Co., 
 fr)r moneys used in the construetion of the works 
 referied to, to the extent and sum of atiiiiit 
 !*'J4,0(lO and interest; .-ind whereas the said J. 
 W. has paid said amount of .S-4,(II)U, and iv- 
 
 . deemed said ])lant, toids, horses, ami appliances, 
 and quarries, steam tugs, and scows, etc., and 
 now stands the jiroprietor of the same under ii 
 derd of conveyance ; it is hereby Will agrenl 
 and understood that the .said plant, tools, horses, 
 and appliances that are or may he pnt cm 
 the s:iid work, shall lie and eoiiliniie to lie 
 the entire ])ropeitv of the said .1. \V. nntil 
 such time as he shall have realized and received 
 out of the business and prolits id' tlic ])i'eseiit 
 
 ' ]):irtneisliip a sum sullieient to reiinlnirse liiiii nf 
 the s.iiil sum of .'5''J4,()O0 and interist soadvanco! 
 by him as aforesaid, as also any other sum e 
 advances and interest which shall or may !■. 
 ]iaid or advanced to the jjresent linn or jinvfmr- 
 shiip, iifter whicii *'ine and event the whole of 
 the said stf)ik shall become the property nf the 
 said firm of .1. \V. it Co., that is to say : Tliiit 
 oiieli,-df thereof shall revert to and liidong to the 
 parties of the first jiart, and the otlur half tii 
 the said party of the second part, as the said 
 .1. W. has a full half interest in this eniitiael 
 and all its prolits, losses and liabilities, and the 
 .-aid .v. I'. iM., W. !<;. M., ami !!. M., iiailiesof 
 the liist part, jointly and severally, the other 
 half interest in the same." There was evidenee 
 that the plant had cost originally .^oT.OOO, and 
 that it wiks valued in the inventory at SIO.IHM) 
 at the request of the appellant ; it was ttlsi> 
 
1637 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 1538 
 
 shewn ami admitlcd tliat the profits of the busi- 
 ness were siifticiont to reiinburso the appellant 
 the sum of S'.'4,00() anil other moneys advanced, 
 and tluit tlieie was still a large l)alance to the 
 credit of the partnership :— Held, varying the 
 iudg'iieiit (it t lie court below, (7 A. K.r)31)Henry 
 luuldwviine, il.l., dissenting, that the plant, etc. 
 furnished by the respondents having been in- 
 vcntiiiitd and valued in the articles of partner- 
 shil) at c!iO,000, the respondents Iiad thereby 
 become creditors of the partnersliip for the said 
 sum of ^40,000, but as it appeared by the said 
 articles of partnership that the said plant was 
 subject at the time to a lien of $24,000, and that 
 said lien had been paid oil witli the partnership 
 moueys', the resijondents were only entitled to 
 be credited as creditors of the partnership, with 
 the sum of .SKiiOOO, being the dilTcrence between 
 the sum jiaid by the jjartnerslup to redeem the 
 plant and the value at which it had been esti- 
 mated by both parties in the ailicles of partner- 
 ship. iVorlhiiiijtou V. Mm\kiiiulil, '.) S. C. R. 327. 
 
 Held, i.'iirniing the judguicnt of the Supreme 
 Court of Nova Scotia, that in a suit for a 
 share of the jirotits of a gold mine wliere the I 
 plaintiff relied on an agreement by the defen- 
 dant for a transfer of a portion of the hitter's 
 interest in sucl\ mine for valuable consideration, 
 the evidence was not suflicient to establish a 
 partnership between the j)arties in the working 
 of the mine and the suit was dismissed. Stuart 
 V. Mott, 14 S. C. R. 734. 
 
 The defeiulauts (other than ('.) and others 
 signed a certificate of tlieir intention to become 
 incorporated as a co-opeiativc association under 
 R. S. 0. (1877), c. 158. They failed, however, 
 to fulfil the rei|uireinents of the .Vet, and never 
 actually became^ a corporation under it. In the 
 meanwhile the plaintitl" supplied the defendants 
 and other intended members of the association 
 with certain goods, and now sued the former 
 for tiie balance due in respect thereof : — Held 
 (affirniing tlie decision of Hoyd, C), that he 
 was entitled to judgment against the defendants 
 as partners ; but as to C. who came into tlie 
 arrangement at a later date than the others, 
 only us to goods supplied .ifter such later date. 
 .S'eijfrt V. Irriwj, ITi (). R. 173.— C.'iiy. D. 
 
 The plaintiffs bued (J. and W. for the price of 
 goodssold to tlie lirm of P. W. (i. & Co., and the 
 principal ipiestion in the action was, whether 
 W. was an actual partner in the firm, the evi- 
 dence failing to shew that he was an ostensible 
 partner, and as such, liable to third persons : — 
 Held, that tlie true test to be applied to ascer- 
 tain whet her a partnersliip existed, was to de- 
 termine wliether there w as a joint business, or 
 whether tlie jiartics were carry'ug on business as 
 principals and agents for eacli otiier. (!. and 
 W, did not intend to create a |)aitneiship be- 
 tween them. (I. was carrying on business in 
 the name of 1". \V. (J. Si. ("'o.. as a dealer in 
 pianos and organs, and. being in want of money, 
 applied to \V, for a loan ; he did not ask \V. to 
 become his partner, nor did W. suggest it, but 
 0. proposed to give W. half tiie prolits of his 
 business if \V. would lend iiim !?."i00. The 
 money was advanced anil the lollowing receipt 
 was given by (;, :- 'loronto, 13th February, 
 1888. Received from \V. the sum of §."iOO to be 
 used for carrying on the business of dealers in 
 pianos and organs, in return fur which 1 hereby 
 97 
 
 agree to give the said W. one-half of the profits 
 of the said business, after all expenses have 
 been paid, including the sum of ?J10 a week, 
 which is to be charged as wages to G., this ar- 
 rangement to continue until the 1st day of Jan- 
 uary, 18S!t, and to be continued thereafter if 
 desired by Mr. W. The said \V. reserving a 
 claim upon instruments in the store to the value 
 of §500, and he can also at any time demand the 
 said sum upon giving one month's notice, in 
 which case this agreement would be at an end." 
 W. made a subseiiuent advance of §500 to G., 
 and on the I4th April, 1888, a receipt was given 
 for such advance containing an agreement to 
 pay " over and above the agreement of the 13th 
 of February, interest at tiie rate of eight per 
 cent, per annum." This receipt was at the re- 
 quest of \V., signed " 1*. W. (!. & Co., p. R W. 
 G., sole partner of said firm" : —Held, that these 
 docHiiieiits did not establish that the business 
 was the joint business of G. and W., or that 
 they were carrying it on as principals or agents 
 for each other ; but that they did establish that 
 the true relation was tliat of debtor and credi- 
 tor ; and VV. was therefore not liable to the 
 plaintiff's. Meiidi'lsKohii Piano Co. v. (Jraham 
 19 O. R. 83 -Q. H. 1). ; 17 A. R. 378. 
 
 II. Proof of Paktneuship. 
 
 The representation of an agent that his prin- 
 cipals are a firm in a distant province, and that 
 such firm is composed of A. and B., coupled 
 with evidence of receipt by the person to whom 
 the representation is made of letters from one of 
 the alleged members of the firm, written on 
 paper on which the names of such members are 
 printed, in answer to letters from such person, 
 is prima facie evidence that A. and B. consti- 
 tute the said firm. McDonald v. Gilbert, 16 S, 
 C. R. 700. 
 
 III. Rights and LiAniUTiKs of Partners 
 
 BeTWEKN Tllli.MSKI.VES. 
 
 1. Ditiposal of Individtiiil Inttrext in Partnership 
 Property. 
 
 M. and (i. met and agreed to jointly purchase 
 150 acres of land and to sell it in lots, or perhaps 
 en bloc, to a syndicate, if one could be got up. 
 Uotli parties knew that others were interested 
 under each of the two principals. M. had one- 
 third interest and G. had two-thirds. No syn- 
 dicate was got uj) to take the whole, and G. 
 telegraphed M. that he was going to arrange a 
 syndicate for two-thirds, and he formed a syndi- 
 cate of eight persons, of whom he was one, to 
 purchase his two-thirds' interest, and obtained a 
 large profit thereon. This arrangement was 
 made in writing, and recited that (i. was seised 
 in fee of the lands, and had executed a declara- 
 tion of trust of one-third in favour of M., and 
 "executes this declaration as to the remaining 
 two-thirds." A quit claim deed was afterwards 
 executed by M. in favour of G., and adeclara- 
 tion of trust as to one-third in favour of M., 
 was signed by (i. In an action by M. for a 
 share of (i.'s prolit, it was: — Held, that tlicre 
 was no sale of any of tiie hits that belonged to 
 M. The two-thirds had not lieen disposed of 
 so as to pass out of the partnership, though as 
 to them there might be a sub-partnership; there 
 
1539 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 1540 
 
 CS9 
 
 ; i" 
 
 .>.■ 
 
 had been no dealing with the joint property of i 
 the partn«r8hip, but only of tlio imliviiluul ' 
 interest of one partner ; lie had soM Boiiie por- 
 tion of hi.s individual share and no injury iiad ! 
 resulted to his partner, and even if any had it i 
 would be no more than one of the inevitiiWe 
 coneoniitants attendant upon the right ot' one 
 member to deal as he pleases with his share of 
 the partnorshi)) coneern. Tiie action was there- 
 fore dismissed, with coats. Milrhtil v. Uvriiilcy, j 
 9 0. R. 13'J.— Boyd ; 14 A. R. Cm. 
 
 2. AclloiiK and I'roreediiiijK to Take Partnership 
 Accounts, 
 
 (a) Gcncndlij. 
 
 Action iigainst executor and surviving partner 
 seeking to set aside a release ;ind for an account. 
 Jae Hiini v. Biun, S O. li. 237, p. 142-_'. 
 
 Ii. .June 1874, the plaintiff and defendant by ! 
 writing entered into an iigreement for supplying 
 together the iron for the (Jrand Junction Rail- 1 
 way, and providing for the division of the surplus 
 or profits. No division of the pmiits was made 
 and the defendant went on investing the receipts 
 from that entirprisu in other contracts, and the 
 plaiiititi' cliiiniLid a like interest in them also, 
 which the defendant denied his right to : — Helil, 
 that the onus of negtitiving siicli riglit of the 
 plaintiff rested on the defendant, and having 
 failed to negative his right to such sliare, the 
 couit declared liini entitled thereto, and directed 
 a reference to take the accounts between the par- 
 ties, ('uniiroii V. Bkkj'ord, 11 A. R. 52. This 
 case was reversed by Privy Council. Not re- 
 ported. 
 
 The f.K't that the plaintilf who had for some 
 years acted as legal adviser of the defendant, 
 was ap[)ointed one of the directors of the railway 
 com]iaiiy at the s.imo time that he claimed to 
 beinteri'.ste<l with the defendant in tlie contract 
 for tli(! construction of the road formed no ground 
 for the defendant r(!fusing to account to the 
 plaintilf for his share of the profits of the enter- 
 prise. Ih. 
 
 Barred by the Statute of Limitations. See 
 Cotton V. M'itchdl, 3 O. R. 421, p. 1202. 
 
 See Neil v. Park, 10 P. R. 476. 
 
 (b) CoHts. 
 
 Where, on the dissolution of a partnership be- 
 tween the ijlaintid'and defendant, it was agreed 
 that the defendant should wind up the concern, 
 and the plaintiir having demanded a statement 
 of account, the \^fendaiit rendered an untrue 
 and innK'rfect .ine, whereupon the jdiintilf 
 brought this action for a winding-up, claiming 
 that the defendant was indebted to him on ac- 
 count of partnership assets received, which the 
 defendant denied, an<l the plaintitt'succeeded : — 
 Held, that the defendant nnist pay the costs of 
 the .suit. Carntic/iad v. Sharp, 1 O. 14. 3S1. — 
 FergusoTi. 
 
 On a reference to take an account of partner- 
 ship clealings the report found that the plain- 
 tilf had contributed to the iiartnership capital 
 S87..S9, and the defendant $2:13.89, and that 
 there was due from the defendant to the plain- 
 
 tiff $43.74. The taxing officer taxed the plain- 
 tilFs c'psta under the lower scale, on the griiund 
 that the case came witliin C. S. U. C. c. 15 
 
 34, .sub s. I. On ippeal, Cameron, . I., reversed 
 the taxing oliicer's ruling. JJ/amu v. McUrmh 
 9 P. I!. 417. ■ 
 
 3. Other C'ascH. 
 
 Fraud or misrepresentation in formation of 
 partnership. See Merc hunts' Hanky. Tlmmpmir 
 Mallon V. fralij, 3 O. R. 041, p. I.^'tj ; Muy. 
 rison v. A'nr/--, ."> (). R. 434, p. 773. 
 
 A firm consisting of two persons (ILssnU-cd 
 partnership, the retiring partner roueiving a 
 nnml)er of ])i()missoi'y notes in payiuuiit of Jiij 
 share in the l)usiness, whi(!h notes lie cndorseil 
 to the jilaiatifr. The continuing paitner of the 
 firm nfterwar.ls entered into a J)artiii'r.slii|( with 
 O. the defend lilt, and transferred to the new 
 firm all the assets of his business, his liahilitieii 
 includiug the above mentioned promissdry notes 
 being assumed by the co-piirtiiersliip and 
 charged again-t him. The new lirni paid two 
 of the notes and interest on others, and niadeii 
 proposal for an e.\len.si(m of time to jjay the 
 wh(de, which was not eiitertaincil:-Hcld, 
 Fournier, J., di.ssiiiting, that the agieement 
 between the contiiniing ])artner and tlio defen 
 daiit did not make the defeudunt a IrusteL'oftht 
 former's proinrty foi- the payment of lii« liabili. 
 ties, ami the act of the defendant in payini; 
 .some of the notes did not amount to a novutiou. 
 as it was proved the plaintiff had olilainedanil 
 still held a judgment against the maker ami 
 endorser of the notes in an action tlu'ieun, anil 
 there was no ciiusideration for such novation. 
 (Miorne v. Jlindirsoii, 18 S. C. R. (ills ; revere- 
 iug S. C. snh noni. Ilendcmon v. /\il/''i/, n & 
 U. 4:iU; 14 O. R. 137. 
 
 A certain linn was indebted to the plaintiffs. 
 Another linn beaiiug the same name, l)ut com- 
 piised of ditieieut individuals, assimieil its lia- 
 liilities, as between itself and the funiior tirm, 
 and continued the business, and nude certain 
 payments to the [d.iintitl's, and also asked for 
 time to [lay the balance. There w.is no evidence 
 of any assets of the first firm being taken over 
 by the second : -llelil, that the aliove was not 
 sulficientto create a new ol)lig.itioii as hctweeu 
 the idaintiffs and the new firm. O.slmrne r. 
 Henderson, IS S. ('. R. tj'M), citcil and relied on, 
 Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Marks, 19 0. 
 R. 450.— Boyd. 
 
 Riglit of partner paying a judgment .igainst 
 the firm to enforce it for liis own beiietit. iSee 
 London and ('(inndiaa Loan Co. v. Morjihij, 14 
 A. R. r)77, p. 701. 
 
 The idainlifF and defendant were partners, 
 and judgment was recovered against them in 
 I.S7li by a bank upon certain promissory notes, 
 of which they Were res|)(!etively in.iker ami 
 indorser. The plaintill' paid the judgment im- 
 mediately after its recovery, took an assignment 
 of it, anil in ISSti proceeded to enforce it against 
 the defendant. The partnership aiconnts were 
 taken by a referee, wliose finding, approved by 
 the Court, was, that the defendant should have 
 )iai<l one-half of the judgment : -Held, that the 
 plaintill' was entitled to that extent to stand in 
 the place of the original judgment creditor, and 
 
1510 
 
 1611 
 
 PABTNEBSHIP. 
 
 IBil 
 
 ficer taxed the plain- 
 scale, oil tht gidund 
 C. S. U. C. c. 15, 8. 
 iimuroii, .1., reversed 
 likiiK'tj V. MctlrcUh, 
 
 itiou ill foriiiivtion of 
 
 ■s' Jiaiik V. TliiJinpnoH ; 
 
 r)41. )). I.'):tj ; J/ur- 
 
 p. 77:i. 
 
 wo ])uis(iiis ilissiilvcd 
 jiartiier rooeiving » 
 tus ill payiiKiit of his 
 cli noted !u' eiidorseii 
 iiuiiiii,' ii.irtiier of the 
 to a i)artiu'r.shi|i with 
 aiisfurred to the new 
 ii»iiu:ss, ills liabilities, 
 )iitMl ))i'oiiiiss(iry notes, 
 
 co-]Kirtiiuislii|i ami 
 liL" now linn paid twd 
 on olliers, anil inade^i 
 II of timi' til pay tht 
 
 unlcrtaincd :— Held, 
 
 that tile agreement 
 
 ii'tnor iiiiil the defen- 
 
 fendant a trustee of thi' 
 
 liaynuint of his liahili 
 
 (lufcnclant in payinj; 
 anionnt to a novation, 
 iiititr luul obtained and 
 igaiiist tlio niaker and 
 an action llu'reiin, ami 
 ion for such novation. 
 S S. C. li. IIIW ; revcrs 
 demon v. Ai"'';/, 17 A. 
 
 ubteil to the jdaintiffs. 
 ! s.iiiic iiaini', l)iit com- 
 ihiiils, a.ssunidd its Ha- 
 lf anci tiic foniiur firm, 
 ness, iiiiil m ide certain 
 iir.t, mill also a«ked for 
 'riiorc was no evidence 
 lirni bcin^' taken over 
 hat the above was not 
 : obli|.;ation as between 
 now lirm. O.sboriie r. 
 G!)!), citcil and relied on. 
 uiicrce V. ^fnrk^s, 19 0. 
 
 iiig a judgnieiit against 
 r hi.s own beiiclit. See 
 Lo<tn Co. V. MoriihiJ, U 
 
 ifcndant wore partners, 
 ovcrod against them iii 
 iitaiii proniissiiry notes, 
 •csijcctivcly niaker ami 
 ■ paid tlu^ judgmLUtim- 
 very, took an as.signment 
 udod to onforce it against 
 irtiiersliip accounts were 
 )se lindinj,', approved by 
 
 defondaiit should have 
 gnieiit : -Held, th.it the 
 [) that extent to stand in 
 
 1 judgiiient creditor, and 
 
 enforce the judgment against the defendant. 
 Per Armour, C. J.— The Mercantile Amend- 
 ment Act, R. S. O. (1887), c. 122, ss. 2, 3, 4, 
 nnlies to the case of partners. Small v. Riddel, 
 31 C. P. 373 ; Potts v. l-eask, 36 Q. B. 476 ; 
 iind Scripture r. (Jordon, 7 P. R. 164, not fol- 
 lowed, in view of the opinions expressed in 
 L,ondoii and Canadian L. & A. Co. c Morpliy, 
 14 A l'<- 577. Iloimuijer v. Love, 10 O. R. 
 170.-Q. B- 1>- 
 
 Arbitrators upon a reference to settle disputes 
 between parties, found the balance due from the 
 tinu to one of the partners, and declared in the 
 award tliat the balance was a lien upon the assets 
 to be paid out of them specifically :— Held, that 
 ihey had the power to give this directi(m, and 
 the partner in (jucstion had power to sell to 
 satisfy tiic lieu out of the specific property 
 ipidicable of which he was joint owner. Ikdick 
 \..ikelloii, ISO. R. 100.— Hoyd. 
 
 See Tapper v. Aitiiaiid, l(i S. C. R. 71S, p* 
 •{■'4; Miiiiilvha Miirliliii/r Co. v. liailk of Mall- 
 'I'cal, 17 S. C. R. md, p. ir.43 ; O' Keeje v. Ciii- 
 rm, 17S. C. K. r)!)(!, p. ir)40. 
 
 IV. Liability of Partners to Third Parties. 
 
 1. -Is to iJllk, Xoti'.s and Cheques. 
 
 A promissory note for §C,'200, made by the 
 president and secretary of a syndicate formed 
 loi completing the Hamilton and Duiidas .Street 
 radway, in favour of O. , S. and the defendants, 
 was eiubiiseil l)y them to the Rank of Coinmerce 
 or order. t)ii the day the note fell due O. and 
 .S. respectively paid the same, O. paying S'2,000, 
 luid 8. >^ 1,-00, the ronuiiiiing sum duo thereon, 
 S. at the time directing the bank agent to en- 
 ilorse it to the plaiiitill', who it ajipeared gave 
 no value for it. 'I'lie agent endorsed it as fol- 
 lows: "Pay to J. S." the plaintiil' "or order. 
 1). Hughes Charles, Manager."' The plaintitF 
 thereupon sued the defendants as endorsers ; — 
 Held, that the plaintiil' could not recover, for 
 the evidence showed that S. by his payment in- 
 tiiided to .satisfy the note, which being made 
 lor a purpose directly relating to and not col- 
 lateral to the partnership of which S. a;ul dofeii- 
 Aints Were iiartners, iS. could not recover 
 igaiii.st defiiidanta tlioreoii, and as the plaintiil' 
 «iis found to iiave only the same right as S., 
 iititlier could he recover. Small v. Jiidilel, 31 
 1 . 1'. 37;{. -C. P. \). Hut see /Jon.nw/er v. Lore, 
 KiO. K. 170, ■•iiipra. 
 
 Held, that a third person holding a note for the 
 lieuelitof Olio joint endorser, cannot maintain a 
 j'iintacti(Miag.viiist the co-endorsers under R. S. 
 0. (1S77), c. IKi fis. •_». 3. as endorsers for the 
 lull amount of the note, liut must sue each sep- 
 arately in a special action for his share of the 
 ciilitiibution : -Held, also, that the Act does 
 iKit refer to partnership transactions. Qiuere, 
 whether the endorsement as made by the man- 
 ■iger, was snilicient. lb. 
 
 The [daintilV, knowing that the defendants 
 were a linn of solicitors, advanced to one A. 
 iiiimey upon a joint note signed by him and by 
 "IK" of the dcfoiulants in the finn's name, with- 
 out tile knowledge or consent of his partner. 
 No usage or general mutual authority to sign 
 notes in the name of the firm was proved, and it 
 was admitted that the plaintiff liad no know- 
 
 ledge of the transactions relied upon to shew 
 such authority. A verdict was given for defen- 
 dants in the County Court, and a rule nisi to 
 set it aside refused : — Held, that the jilaintifl" 
 could not recover against both defendants, but 
 that the defendant who signed the note was 
 liable ; and the court, having no )jowcr on an 
 appeal from the County Court to amend the re- 
 cord, allowed the appeal on payment of costs by 
 the ap))ellant, so far as to direct the issue of a 
 rule nisi, upon the return of which in the court 
 below, the necessary amendment could be made. 
 Seinble, per Rurton, J. A., that even in the 
 case of a trading partnership, a partner has no 
 implied power to give the partnership name to 
 secure the debt of a third person. Wi/.soii v. 
 liroini, (i A. R. 411. 
 
 The plaiiititVs discounted a note for .F. N., the 
 maker, payable to and endorsed by a lirm in the 
 partnership name by one of the j'artners, the 
 plaintifl's knowing that it was so endorsed as 
 security for J. N., and having no reason to sup- 
 pose that it was in connection with the partner- 
 ship business : — Held, that the other ])artncr8 
 were not liable. Federid /lank v. Xorlhwood, 7 
 R. 389.- Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant W. acted as agent for his co- 
 defendants under a written iiirreemcnt that no 
 partnership sho.ild be created between them, or 
 ■' the parties held to be jiartners.'' To all ap- 
 pearance, however, \V. acted as a partner and 
 as such etrei;ied a sale to the plaintiil' of a (juan- 
 tity of wine, etc.. at ninety days' credit. 8ub- 
 sociuently he apjilied to plaintiff for a loan of 
 money for the purpose, as be stated, of retiring 
 notes of customers of the fiini, but which he 
 told the jdaintill' he was desirous of concealing 
 from the other defendants, his so-called part- 
 ners, and for the amount so borrowed he gave 
 the )M(jiiiis.sory note of the tirin : - Held, affirin- 
 iiiU' the judument of the court below, that what 
 I traiisidred between W. and the plaintifl' when 
 lending the money, was sutlieieiit to shew that 
 t the advances hail not been for iiartnersliip pur- 
 I poses, and therefore that the other defendants 
 I were not liable. McConnell v. U'ilkin.'i, 13 A. 
 I 1!. 43S. 
 
 ! J. K. 1)unham carried (ui business at Montreal 
 from Fein nary, lS8(i, to 1st Se|)tenibcr, 1886, 
 ! under the style of .J. E. Dniiham it Co. The 
 : same J. K. Hunbani, with W. W. Park carried 
 on business at Toronto from Ist May, 18S(J, to 
 1st August, I88t!, under the s.uiie style, .1. E. 
 Dunham it Co. By the articles of partnership 
 between Dunham and Park it was agreed that 
 Dunham should not sign the lirm name to bills 
 or notes. The di.ssolution of the jiartn^rship 
 between Dunham and Park was not advertised 
 until the '20th August, ISSO. Dunham, for 
 purposes of his own, and without the knowledge 
 of Park, u])on the lltli of August, 188(i, signed 
 a series of notes amounting to .s'21,000 with the 
 firm name of .1. K. Dunbaiii it Co., and gave 
 them to one Isaacs. The note in (lucstion in 
 this action was one of that series, but antedated 
 uptm the 30tii duly. 'I'lio plaintillH who had no 
 knowledge of Park being a ir inbiM' of J. E. 
 Dunham & Co., took this note without notice 
 of any iiilirmity, and to sccnrc a pre-existing 
 debt which was overdue. The judge at the 
 trial charged the jury that the idaiiitill's had a 
 right to resort to either lirm for payment :— 
 
1643 
 
 PARTNEBSHIP. 
 
 1514 
 
 S3 
 
 ^1; 
 
 Held, a misdirection, and that tiieru was no 
 such right of election ; that it wna for the 
 creditor to prove who his dohtor wos oiid not 
 for the defendants to prove that they were not 
 the debtors : — Held, also, that if this note had 
 been given l)cforo tlie 1st of August, the judge 
 iit the trial should have left it to the jury to say 
 which firm Dunliam intended to bind ; but that 
 as the note was not given during the jiartner- 
 ship, and as the plaintifls had no knowledge of 
 the firm, or of l\irk being a member of it, the 
 question was not material : — Held, also, that 
 as tlie plaintiffs knew nothing of the firm of J. 
 E. Dunnam & Co., or the members of it, and 
 had had no dealings with it, the defendant 
 Park was not liable upon the note signed after 
 the 1st of August, when the dissolution actually 
 took place, although before the 20th of August, 
 when publication of the same was made. As 
 the facts were all before the court, instead of 
 ordering a new trial, judgment M'as given for 
 the defendant Park, with costs. Stanilard Batik 
 V. Dunham, 14 O. R. G7.— Q. 1?. D. 
 
 When a partnertiliip is entered into for the 
 purpose of buying and selling lands, the lands 
 .vcquired in the business of such jjartncrship arc, 
 in equity, considered as personalty, and may bo 
 dealt with by one partner as freely as if they 
 constituted the stock-in-trade of a commercial 
 partnership. The active partner in such busi- 
 ness has an implied authority to borrow money 
 on the security of mortgages acrjuiicd by the 
 wale of partnership lands. An amount so bor- 
 rowed was paid by a cheque made payable to 
 the order of all the partners by name. The 
 active paitner had autliority, by power of attor- 
 ney, to sign his partners' names to all deeds and 
 conveyances necessary for carrying on the busi- 
 ness, but had no express authority to endorse 
 cheques : — Held, that having authority toefiect 
 the loan and receive the amount in cash he could 
 endorse his partners' names on the cheque, and 
 the drawees had a right to assume that he did it 
 for partnership purposes and were justified in 
 paying it on sucli endorsement :— Held, also, 
 that if the payment by the drawees was not 
 warranted, the drawers having, for two years 
 after, received monthly statements of their ac- 
 count with the drawees, and given receipts 
 acknowledging the correctness of the same, they 
 must be held to have acquiesced in the pay- 
 ment. Manitoba Mortijaije Co. v. Bank of Alon- 
 treat, 17 S. C. R. 692. 
 
 Where a non-negotiable promissory note, given 
 for money lent to a firm, is made bj' one member 
 thereof and endorsed by the otlier, the character 
 in which the endorsement is made, will be im- 
 plied from the purposes for which the note is 
 given, the endorsement obtained, and the parti- 
 cular circumstances of the case, which were here 
 held to make such indorser liable as guarantor. 
 McPhee v. McJ'hec, 19 O. R. 603.— MacMahon. 
 
 See Onborne. v. Henderson, 18 S. C. R. 698, p. 
 \540 ; Purdoni v. Nirhcl, 16 O. R. 699 ; 15 A. 
 R. 244 ; 15 S. C. R. 610, p. 1262. 
 
 2. Other Cases. 
 
 H. & M. were carrying on business in co-part- 
 nership, and H. becoming dissatisfied with tlie 
 manner iu which the business was conducted, 
 
 a dissolution was agreed upon, in October, 1876 
 with the knowledge and approval of the plain! 
 tifTs, one of them having assisted in arraiigini; it 
 H. retiring and assigning to M. hi.s interest in 
 the partnership assets, in consideration of $) ."jj^o 
 for which M. gave his promissory noti sat tl'irce' 
 six, nine, and twelve months, and b(jmid liinisel'f 
 to i)ay all the debts of the co-partnersliip. M_ 
 continued to carry on the busines.i, and in (loiuij 
 so had several transactions witii tlic iilaintifl's 
 from whom he continued to reeeive goods on 
 credit, giving promissory notes for tiie price an 
 well as to cover the firm's indebtedness, (lurinir 
 which time the plaintifi's rendered periodical 
 statements to M., iiinoring apparently tlie exist- 
 ence of H., in which the liabilities of tlic firm 
 and M. were embraced ; although exjiressed "M 
 and H. Liability," giving the items, and "J, M. 
 Liability," also detailing the items. M,, by 
 means of contra accounts against II., |ia(l re- 
 duced the hitter's claim to about );AU{>. In 
 November or T)ecend)cr, 1870, the plaiiitilla ap- 
 plied to H. to renew the partneislii]) notes, but 
 this he declined to do on the ground that he was 
 not liable, n<itwithstanding which the pluiutills 
 continued to deal with M. until he bteiinie insol- 
 vent in January, 18S0, v hen they instituted 
 proceedings against both j artners to recover 
 their claim:— Held, Patterson, .1. A., dissmtin)! 
 reversing the finding of Cuniercin, d. (HI C. P. 
 4;^0), tliat the eUect of the dealings between H 
 and M. was not to constitute H. a smety forM., 
 and that he and M. remained liable to tliu plain 
 tills for the partnership debts. JUrkilt v. 
 McCuirc, 7 A. R. 53. 
 
 Where S. a partner, had contracted in writing 
 in the partnership name, to sell certain tinilxr 
 limits, property of the partncrshi]). but standing 
 in his name only, and M., his eo-paitiur, viLin 
 informed thereof, had not dissented, hut had 
 shortly afterwards furnished infoiniation to the 
 purchaser, which he was only entitled to ask for 
 as such purchaser : — Held, having regard to all 
 these circumstances, .S. had assented to the said 
 contract, and was bound thereby. It appeared 
 also, that S. , who was the managing ])artiier, and 
 the purchaser sulwcqucntly put an end to the 
 terms of credit, and agreed to a cash j)aynientof 
 $15,500, part of the purchase money :— Held, it 
 was competent for them so to do, and within the 
 power of S., so far as his co-partner was con- 
 cerned, lieid V. Smith, 2 O. R. 6!).-^Uoy(l. 
 
 Liability of solicitor for fraudulent conduct of 
 partner. Sec A'e McCawihey and IViilsh, Solici- 
 tors 3 O. R. 425. 
 
 Liability of solicitor for negligence of part- 
 ner in making investments. Sec Thom/mn v. 
 liohinson, 16 A. R. 175. 
 
 Where one mendier of a partner.sliii) borrows 
 money upon his own credit by giving his own 
 promissory note for the sum so borrowed, and he 
 afterwards uses the proceeds of the note in the 
 partnership business of his own free will with- 
 out being under any obligation to, or contract 
 with, the lender so to do, the partnership is not 
 liable for said loan, under Art. 1S(J7 ('.('■ Ma- 
 guire V. Scntt, 7 L. C. It. 451, distinguished. 
 Hhaw v. Ciidwcll, 17 S. C. R. 357. 
 
 The plaintiffs received from their travclleran 
 order for goods from the firm of C. Bros., hotel- 
 keepers. Before they delivered the goods they 
 
1514 
 
 1646 
 
 PABTNERSHIP. 
 
 1548 
 
 i.inOcloher, 1876, 
 I'oval of the plain- 
 iteil ill uniingiiig it, 
 
 M. his intoicBt in 
 8i(lcniti()iiof$l,3S2, 
 ■isoryiiotc Silt three, 
 S 1111(1 1)111111(1 himself 
 ■o-liaitiicrsliip. M. 
 rtiiK.ss, and in dning 
 •with the iilaintiffs, 
 Lo receive g(0(l» on 
 )tes for the price ns 
 lulchtcdiiess, diiiing 
 rendered licriodicul 
 ippaiently the exist 
 aldlilicH (if the firm 
 High expressed "M 
 c iteniH, and 'M.M. 
 the items. M., by 
 against II., iiail re 
 to about H-iM). In 
 70, tiie plaintilla ap 
 u'tneislii]) notes, hui 
 legronnd thatiiuwas 
 ; whieli the iduintitls 
 until he liecanieinsol- 
 ilieii tliey iiistitulid 
 1 urineis to recover 
 icii, J. A., di!rs(.ntinj.' 
 'uiiieren, J. (1)1 C. P. 
 dealings lietween H 
 iteH. a surety for M., 
 led liable to the plain 
 
 debts. Biihtt v. 
 
 contracted in writing 
 ;o sell certain tinitxr 
 tneri-tiii). but standing 
 
 his co-pai tiler, wbiu 
 ot dissented, hut had 
 icd iiifoiniatidu to the 
 only entitled to ask for 
 1, having regard to all 
 id aesented to the said 
 thereby. It appeared 
 managing jiartner, and 
 :lj' put un end to the 
 (1 to a cash payment of 
 lase money :— Held, it 
 otodd, and within the 
 1 co-partner was con- 
 O. R. C!).-l!oyd. 
 
 • fraudulent conduct oi 
 ]hey ami Wnlsh, Solid- 
 
 'or negligence of part- 
 ts. See Thompmn v. 
 
 a partnership borrows 
 lit by giving Ids own 
 inisobdiriiwed, aiulhe 
 eds of tiie note in the 
 is own free will with- 
 igation to, or odiitract 
 , the partnership is not 
 p Art. IS(i7 ('■('. Ma- 
 ]{. 'I'll, distingnislied. 
 
 . R. :«7. 
 
 from their traveller an 
 tirnioi C. Iiros.,liotel- 
 •livered the goods they 
 
 lieijame aware by means of a nioroantilo agency 
 that a partnership had existed under the name 
 ofC. Bros., and that S. L. C. was ono of the 
 iiiemheis of it, and they were at the aaino time 
 informed that the partiicr.ship still existed. 
 They shipi)cd and charged the goods, and also 
 000(13 subsequently ordered, to (;. Bros. As a 
 matter of fact, however, the iiartiiership did 
 not exist at the time the lir.st oiwler was given, 
 S L. C. having retired from the business, and 
 the plaiiitills had had no dealings with tliu tirni 
 while it was in existence. No public notice was 
 itjven of the dissolution ; S. L. ('. continued to 
 live at the hotil e.xeept when he was ab.sent 
 (in his own business ; the lamp with the 
 name of ('. Bros, continued at the door ; the 
 liijuor license in the name of ('. Bros, continued 
 t(i hail" in the bar room ; and letter-paper with 
 the heading "C lii'o?. , V)i"'>I"'i''tors " continued 
 to be handed to customers ; — Held, that where a 
 known ineniber of a Hrm retires from it, and 
 credit is afterwards given to the lirm by a iier- 
 sdii who has liad no previous dealings with it, 
 Imt has heeonic aware as one of the public that 
 it existed, and lias not bocnnic aware of his re- 
 tirement, the retiring member of the firm is 
 liable unless he shews that bo has given reason- 
 able public notice of his retirement; and, as 
 such notice was not given hero, S. L. C. was 
 liable, not only for the goods first, but for those 
 subscr|iicntly, ordered, no notice of the retire- 
 ment having ever been given. C. /*. Rc'nl <{■ Co. 
 V. Coleman livother.s 19 0. K. 93. -Q. IJ. D. 
 
 Sec M< rrhniilx' liaid- v. Thomp<iim, 3 (). I!. M\ , 
 p, 15;i") ; .*>>?//;■)■< v. IrviiKj, 15 O. R. 137, p. 1537. 
 
 V. Dissolution. 
 
 Partnership articles for a linn of three ])er- 
 soiis provided that if any partner should violate 
 certain conditions of the terms of partnership 
 the others could compel him to retire by giving 
 three months' notice of their intention so to do, 
 and a partner so retiring should forfeit his claim 
 to a share of the goodwill of the business. One 
 of the partners having broken such conditions 
 of partnership the others verbally notitied him 
 that ho iniist leave the tirm and to avoid pub- 
 licity he consented to an immediate dissolution 
 which was advertised as " a dissolution by 
 mutual consent." After the dissolution the 
 retiring partner made an assignment of his 
 goodwill and interest in the business and the 
 assignee brought an action against the remain- 
 ing partners for the value of the same: — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the C P. \). Mead r. 
 O'Keefe, 15 Oi. R. 84, and the Court of Appeal, 
 15 A. R. 103, Fournier, J., dissenting, that the 
 action of the defendants in advertising that the 
 dissolution was "by mutual consent did not 
 prechule them from shewing that it took place 
 in consequence of the misconduct of the retiring 
 partner ; that tlie forfeiture of tlie goodwill was 
 caused by the improper conduct which led to 
 the expulsion of the partner in fault and not by 
 the mode in which srch expulsion was effected ; 
 and, therefore, the want of notice of intention 
 to expel required by the articles could not be 
 reliecl on as taking the retirement out of that 
 provision of the articles by which the goodwill 
 was forfeited :— Held, also, that if it was a 
 diMolution by one partner voluntarily retiring 
 
 no claim could bo made by the retiring partner 
 in respect to goodwill, as the account to be 
 taken under the p.irtncrship articles in such 
 cases does not provide therefor : — Scniblo, that 
 the goodwill consisted wholly of tin; trade name 
 of the linn. oKni't- v. Citrmii, 17 S. C. K. 596. 
 
 Agreement by new tirm to pay debts of old 
 lirm. Right of eii'ditors to eiifoiec. See Oxbomr 
 V. J/cio/rr.-'n,,, IS S. C. R. Oils, p. \-}W. 
 
 The defendants contracted to deliver lumber 
 to a firm of three jiartiiers. Befoic delivery the 
 lirm was dissolved, and th(^ defendants refused 
 to carry out their c(Mitiact. In an action brmight 
 in the individual names of t\u; three iiartncrs, 
 f()r damages i'nr non-delivery :— Held, that the 
 dissolution of the lirm was no Jiistitication in law 
 for the ilefeiidants' refusal to carry out their 
 contract. McC-anni v. McCovl, 19 O. H. 470 - 
 <^ B. D. ; ISA. K. '217. 
 
 See /,V U'li/h-rr an Iwo/rciil, A. R. 169, p. 
 !20; nirhi/ v. Mfdiurr, 31 ('. P. 430; 7 A. K. 
 "i3, ]). _l''44 ; Wihon v. /.'();/(■/•, Mrhi;/ ,0 Co., 10 
 I*. K. 3.")."), iii/'ni; Mdliuiinii; v. City of Toronto, 
 13 1". R. 340, p. 3SS ; ( '. /'. Held <t Co. v. Cok- 
 ,111(11 AVov., iiJt). K. <j;), J,. 154,-,. 
 
 VI. DkaTJI (It I'AltTNEIt. 
 
 Upon the death of one member of the firm 
 and the subse(juent insolvency of the surviving 
 partners the joint estate passes to their assignee 
 in insolvency, i'mii Durid^on v. l'ai)pH,28 Ch\. 
 91, p. 118. 
 
 Held, that a contract of hiring entered into 
 with a firm by a commercial traveller is put an 
 end to by the death of one of the partners. 
 Jliiriir/ V. I/ojK, 9 O. It. 10.— C. P. D. 
 
 VII. Actions and Puockkdixos By and 
 
 A(; A I N.ST. 
 
 1. Gtnarnlly. 
 
 lilakeslcc, Brown & {^o. carried on business in 
 partiier.sliip, under the name of Blakeslee & Co. 
 Blakcslcc absconded on the 19th .September, and 
 the business continued. O. .assigned his interest 
 to Brown, and after such assignment, but before 
 it had been made public, the plaintiff served his 
 writ of summons .against the tirm on 0. : — Held, 
 that the service was good. Hank of Hamilton v. 
 lilakimkr, 9 P. R. 130.— Dalton, AUacr. 
 
 The cause of action arose before, and the writ 
 of summons was issued after the dissolution of 
 defendant's lirm : — Held, that the defendants 
 were properly sued in their firm's name. Wilson 
 V. l!o(jer, McUiy d- Co., 10 P. R. 355.— Dal- 
 ton. —Mailer. — Osier. 
 
 The statement of one partner on his examina- 
 tion in a suit against the tirm as to transactions 
 which occurred during the partnership, binds 
 all the partners, unless they seek, by an exami- 
 nation of somo of themselves, to contradict or 
 qualify the statements of the partner whose 
 evidence they object to. Taylor v. Cook, 11 P. 
 R. 60.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 Examination as judgment debtors of parties 
 under Division Court Act, R. S. O. (1887), c. 51, 
 s. 108, subs. 4, 5, 6. See Re Youtuj v. Parker 
 d-Co., 12 P. R. 646, p. 549. 
 
Wf 
 
 PATENT FOB INVENTION. 
 
 154S 
 
 •4 
 
 s 
 
 
 Hee Morrison v. A'to-At, 5 0. R. 434, p. 773 ; 
 London and Canailian Loan and Ai/e/icy Com- 
 pany V. Morphy, 14 A. R. 577, p. 701 ; Miller 
 V. White, 16 S. C. R. 44r), p. 6()8 ; ;Vrt/7 Printing 
 Co. V. />(•/;», 17 (). I{. 1">, p. 324. 
 
 2. For Xon-Ifi'ijiifrnlion of Partnership. 
 
 Ill an action by scvcnil plaintitfa (|ui tam 
 agiiinat two defeudnnts for pfiiiilticH for not re- 
 giatcring their partnership under R. S. (). (1877), 
 c. 123, of which section 11 gives the riglit of 
 action to " any person" who may sue : — Held, 
 reversing tlie judgment of the court holow : (1) 
 That under the above section ;ind tlic Tnteriire- 
 tation Act, any ol)jection to tiie action l)elng 
 brought in the name of more than one person, 
 coulfl not prevail ; (2) Tliiit tlie circumstance 
 that the plaintiflfs, resided out of the jurisdic- 
 tion could not defeat tlieir nctioii ; (.S) 'I'liat tlie 
 joinder of two defendants for several penalties 
 was not aground of denmi-rer ; and jter Osier, 
 J. A. — There was no inc<invenience or impro- 
 priety in joining tliese two defendants in one 
 action. Chajnit v. lloherl, 14 A. R. 354. 
 
 VIII. Miscellaneous Cases. 
 
 The assignment for tlic benefit of creditors 
 was executed by one partner, at the reiiuest of 
 his co-partner, in the i)artnership name, and was 
 made at the request of several creditors : — Held, 
 that the assignment was properly executed, and 
 that there was sufficient assent of the creditors. 
 Nolan v. Donnelly. 4 O. R. 440. -C. P. D. 
 
 Execution of chattel mortgage and assignment 
 for creditors by infant ]mrtner. .See Powell v. 
 Calder, 8 O. R. AOS, p. 80(i. 
 
 Chattel mortgage taken in the individual 
 name of a partner, the moneys advanced ))y tlu; 
 firm. — Validity as against creditors. See J/ohfi.i' 
 Hardware Co. v. Kilclitn, 17 O. R. 303, p. 17!l ; 
 JioHH V. Dunn, 16 A. R. 552, p. 192. 
 
 Sale of goodwill of business. See O'Kec/e v. 
 Cun-an, 17 S. C. K. 596, p. 1546. 
 
 PARTY WALLS. 
 
 See BuiLDiNcs. 
 
 PASSENGERS. 
 
 See Carriers— Railways and Railway Com- 
 TANiEs — Ship. 
 
 Soliciting Passengers. See Regina v. Verrall, 
 18 0. R. 117, p. 1375. 
 
 PATENT FOR INVENTION. 
 
 I. First Inventor, 1548. 
 II. Dklivkry of Model, 1548. 
 
 III. Combination and Novelty, 1548. . 
 
 IV. Prior Use, 15.52. 
 
 V. Re-Ishuk ok Patent, 1552. 
 
 VI. AssKiNMKNT ANH RoVALTY, bloS. 
 
 VII. Notes Given for Puiujhask ok Patkst 
 RidiiTs, 1556. 
 
 VIII. JuitlMlHt'TION l)V Ml.NISTKU (IK AclilCl.l.- 
 TUHE, 1.556. 
 
 IX. Actions for Inkiiinckmunt. 
 
 1. Vennt, I5.")7. 
 
 2. Particnlarx, 155S. 
 
 3. Evidence, 1558. 
 
 4. DanuKjfn, 15."i8. 
 
 5. Other Caiex, 15.'i9. 
 
 X. TuAiiK Mauks -.Vcc TuAllK Maisks. 
 
 I. First Isvkntok. 
 
 To be entitled to a patent in Canada, the pa- 
 tentee must be the first inventor in Canada or 
 elsewhere. A prior patent to a person who is 
 not the true inventor is no defence against an 
 action liy the true inventor under a patent issued 
 to him subaeijuently, and does not require to lie 
 cancelled or repealed by scire facias, whether it 
 is vested in the defendant or in a person not a 
 party to the suit. S'milh v. Uolilie, 9 .S. C. R. 4G. 
 
 II. Delivkky ok Model. 
 
 Held, that 35 Vict. c. 2(;(l)om,), does not re- 
 quire delivery of a model ])rior to the issue of a 
 patent of invention. In tliis case, afterthe grant- 
 ing of the iiatent the commissioner wrote to the 
 applicant tliat tile ))atent had been granted, and 
 tliat it woidd be forwarded on recei]it of tlie 
 model, which was sent, and the jiatent was thtii 
 forwarded :— Semlile, thatdelivery of the model 
 jirior to the grant of the patent was dispensed 
 with, merely requiring it to be sent before the 
 patent would be forwarded. Rtgina v. Smith,. 
 7 0. R. 440.— Rose. 
 
 III. COMIIINATION AND NoVELTY. 
 
 In November, 1879, the plaintiff obtained a 
 
 Eatent for a new and useful improvement in 
 akers' ovens, which was expressed to be "In 
 combination with a baker's oven, a furnace, ' T).' 
 set within the oven but below the sole, ' A.' ' 
 This patent he surrendered, and anew one issu- 
 ued in August, 1880, on the ground that the first 
 was inoperative by reason of the insufficiency of 
 the description. The new patent was for the 
 unexpired portion of the five years covered liy 
 the first patent. The claim of invention, as set 
 forth in the specification, was: "(1) In a fire- 
 
 f)ot or furnace placed within a baker's oven be- 
 ow the sole thereof, and provided with a door 
 situated above the grate ; (2) In a firepot or 
 furnace placed within a baker's oven, provided 
 with a door above the level of the sole of the 
 oven, and connected with the said furnace by 
 an inclined guide. (3) In a flue, ' H.' leading 
 from below the grate, 'B.' to the flue, 'E.' 
 (4) In a baker's oven provided with a circular 
 
154S 
 
 , 1548. 
 
 ITmS. 
 ■<K OK Patent 
 
 "I- Adiiici; 
 
 ;i.- 
 
 ii: .Mai!Ks 
 
 iiiulii, the pa- 
 'n (.'iinadii or 
 i)fr8oii who is 
 ce against an 
 I patent isaued 
 ; require to l)o 
 ias, wiiether it 
 person not a 
 ,'J.S. C.R.4G. 
 
 Kf,. 
 
 .), does not re- 
 • tiio issue of a 
 lifter tile grant- 
 or wrote to tlie 
 11 granted, and 
 receipt of the 
 atent w:is then 
 •y of tile model 
 was (li.speuseil 
 )nt before tlie 
 gina v. Umith,. 
 
 DVELTV. 
 
 tiflf obtained a 
 iprovement iii 
 ed to be "in 
 I furnace, ' T).' 
 he sole, ' A.' ' 
 Hiew one iggii- 
 d that tlie first 
 nsufficiency of 
 It was for tlie 
 trs covered by 
 ^'ention, as set 
 '(1) In afire- 
 iker's oven he- 
 ld with a door 
 1 a firepot or 
 iven, provided 
 the sole of the 
 id furnace by 
 'H.' leading 
 he flue, 'E.' 
 ith a circular 
 
 1519 
 
 PATENT FOB INVENTION. 
 
 1660 
 
 tilting grate situated below the sole of the oven, 
 and provided with a door. (5) In u cinder 
 grate, 'F.' placed beneath the firegrate, 'B,' 
 in conibinationH with a flue, ' H.' " The plain- 
 tiff, ill his speeifleations, claimed all these as his 
 inventions ; in his eviileiiee he claimed each of 
 thi! eoinbiiiation to be the subject of his 
 iKitcnt ; — Held (I), if the plaintiff was correct 
 ill the latter view, that the last four conibiiia- 
 tiniis l>eing new, the first patent could not have 
 liccii iiiop<^rative as to thcni ; and the second 
 patent in respect of these must be construed as 
 all inilependciit one, issuing for the tirst time on 
 its ilate, and as all other than the first conibina- 
 tioii had been used for upwards of a year prior 
 to the patent, he was not entitled to a patent 
 therefor; (2) tliat tlie .Ith coiiibinatioii of pre- 
 viously known articles, as applied to a baker's 
 oven, wiiich was productive of n'sults which 
 were iKiW and useful to the trade, was a suliject 
 of a patent. Jfiiii/er v. Cdrrirk, 2H Cliv. 4S!t. 
 I'rou.lfoot. Reversed, 10 A. I!. 44!);"ll S. ('. 
 
 I!. ;«)o. 
 
 Some of the devices were in use before tlie 
 patent, but numerous witnesses engaged in bak- 
 ing testified tliat they never knew of the eoiiii)i- 
 nation before the jilaintifTs invention : — Held, 
 t hat tlie defence for want of novelty failed. Jli. 
 
 Held, also, that the tirst eoinbiiiation in the 
 patent of 1880 was sucli an ainendnient us is con- 
 templated by the Act, 35 Vict. e. I'O, s. lit. //-. 
 
 The defeiidant'a oven was c<niipleted early in 
 July, ISSO, and before the re-issue of the plain- 
 titl's jiateiit ; slie had in use the tirst and fourth 
 combinations, and continued to use tliem after 
 sucli re-issue : — Ifeld, that there was not any 
 remedy for the intermediate user, as the patent 
 was then inoperative ; but as to any subseijucut 
 infringement, (lie user under the defective patent 
 eonhl not opeiatc as a defence. ///. 
 
 The plnintiiV t Iiiiiiied as liis invention, for tiu' 
 purpose ot imiitying tlour during its niiinufae- 
 tiire, a bcdting clolii or sieve, tjiroii.^li wliieh a 
 current of air was forced upwards li;- means of 
 an air chamber and a fan, or sub.st''riii e therefiu', 
 Hiid, in Older to kecj) such sieve f 1^;,. 'leconiing 
 clogged, a brush, or a number of brushes, ar- 
 ranged in such a manner as to traverse the under 
 service. Tiie air cdiamber and the fan condiined 
 with the bolt or sieve were admittedly old ; and 
 it appeared that one 15. had jiatented a machine 
 which was in use in the ni.anufactnre of semolina, 
 in which a similar brush arrangement was in use 
 fertile purpose of keeping open the meshes of 
 the sieve when u.seil ;— Held (atHrniing the judg- 
 ment of Spragge, ('.), that the jilaintitl's inven- 
 tion was not patentable. Sini/h v. OoliHe, 7 A. 
 |{. (il'S. Atliriiiecl in the Supreme Court, !l S. 
 C. H. 4(!, Strong .1. di.ss. Special leave to ap- 
 peal to Her Niajesty in Council in this ease 
 was refused. 
 
 C obtained a patent for an allegeil invention 
 styled "Tlie Paragon Black Leaf Chei|ue Hook," 
 and in his specitication claimed as liis invention. 
 " In a black leaf cheque book of double leaves 
 (one-half which are bound together while the 
 other luvlf fold in as fly-leaves, both being per- 
 forated across so that they can be readily torn 
 out, the combination of the black leaf bound 
 into the hook next the cover an<l provided with 
 
 I tajie across its ends, the s id black leaf having 
 the transferring composition on one of its siiles 
 1 only." A half interest in this patent was assigned 
 I to the defendant, with whom C. was in partner- 
 ship, ami on the di.4-iolution of sindi partnersliip 
 said half interest was reassigned to ('., wlio 
 afterwards a»si'_'iied the wlioh^ interest to the 
 ]ilaintit1's. Prior to the said dissolution tin- ile- 
 fendant obtained a Jiateut for what he called 
 " Ihittertield's Imprnveil Panigon Cheque IJook," 
 claiming as his invention the following improve- 
 iiients on (dieipie books jireviousiy in use ; ( I ) .X 
 kind of type. ("J) The niembraue hinge for a 
 black leaf, the wlude bound by an elastic band 
 to the ends or sides of the lower cover. (.')) A 
 totalling sheet. After the dissolution he pro- 
 ceeded to inanilfacture cheque books under his 
 patent. Tlie plaintifl's instituted pimee lings to 
 restrain such nianutiu'tiiic, claiming that tlieir 
 patent was thereby infringed, and on tlu' hear- 
 ing before the Chancellor, olitailied the relief 
 prayed for. The Courtof Appeal, III A. K. 145) 
 reversed this judgment, holding that although 
 the )ilaintin's' patent was jiifiinged by tlie ad of 
 the defendant, yet, that tiie jjatent itself was 
 void for want of novelty, and could not be pro- 
 , teeted. On appeal to tiie Snpreiiie (^l|||■t of 
 I Canada :— Held, that the patent of the plaintitl" 
 under which they elaiini'd was a valid patent, 
 and, as there was no doubt that it was iniringed 
 by the manufaetnre and .sale of the defendaiit'.s 
 ' books, the judgment of the Court rif .Appeal 
 should be reversed and that of the Chaiicelhir 
 restored, (/rl/) I'riiiliini nml PiihlUh'imj Co. of 
 Toronto V. nul/rrJicM, 11 S. ('. 1!. •Jill. ' 
 
 In a suit for the infringement of a patent the 
 alleged invention was the substitution in the 
 inanufactnie of corsets of coiled wire s[)riiigs, 
 .arranged in groups and in continuous lengths, 
 for india-rubljcr springs inevioiisly so used. 
 The advantage claimed liy the siibstitiitioii 
 was that the metal was more duralile. and was 
 free from the incouvenieiice arising from the 
 use of india-rubber caused by the heat from the 
 wearer's body ; — Helil, allirming the jiidgnielit 
 of Proudfoot, J., {'.) O. I!. '2-2H) and the Court of 
 .■\ppcal (12 A. It. T.'W) Pouniier and Henry, d. I., 
 dissenting, that this was merely the substitution 
 ()f one well known material, metal, for another 
 equally well known material, india-rnblier, to 
 
 i iiroduce the same result on the same principle 
 in a more agreeable and I'.-^ef : niaiiner. or a 
 mere mechanical eijuivalent for the use of india- 
 rubber, and it was, consequently, void of in- 
 vention and not the subject of a patent. Unit 
 
 \ V. Cromptou Cornel Co., L") S. C. I!. 4()!l. 
 
 j Where in an action to restrain iiifringeinent 
 I of a patent, brought against C. and 11. who had 
 been employed as a workman by C . it appeared 
 that the only portion of the defend mts' coiiibi- 
 natii/H, which was not identical with the plaiii- 
 tills patented machine was a mere viiriaticui in 
 , arrangement, or a niechiiiiical ei|uivalent of a 
 , corre8])onding iwrtion of the plaintilTs machine 
 ' - -a ilevice containing no element of invimtion,. 
 but etVecting the same purpose by a slightly dif- 
 ferent method :— Held, that the plaintitl' waa 
 entitled to judgment for an injunction against 
 j both defendants, but to a reference as to dania- 
 ; ges only as against C: — Quiere, whether it is 
 correct to say that there can be no infriugemenb 
 of a combination unless the whole be pirated. 
 
W^fr- 
 
 PATENT FOR INVENTION. 
 
 1552 
 
 s 
 
 % 
 
 I 
 
 H'oo/hvdv/ v. Cl'iuni/, 10 (>. I!. .'US, I'n.i' 
 
 loo*. 
 
 A )iiit''iil for a liiH'HH-riikn, tlio -iicoiiiijfitinii of 
 wliii'li (U'scrilii'il lis |iiirt of the iiui'iitiini ' tlic 
 ccmHtriictioii ami novel iirninnciiiciit of ii (li\ idnl 
 axle, uitli wIkiIh liinil.v liintciuMl thiMooir, a 
 fi'iotioii Kiip'' for cii^iijiinj; willi tlin cli\ iiK'il 
 axil!," oti.'.; till! (li'Hi'i'iplion of (in' i-oiiHliin^tioii 
 ami opunitlon statin;; tliat " tliu axli- liiinj; 
 (liviilocl inlii two pirtH, permits llii' u lifiln to 
 turn in oippositc (liri'ctionH ; a picci' of iron or 
 8tui!l uirt!, or (!(iril, oi' chain, is coiled round 
 eivell li ilf of tll(! axle, (prie end of eaeli I'od litiiii; 
 HO Mired (ii'iiily t.i tlie rake lliiad, wliiie lieor.liei- 
 t'llds of tlie eoll aie seeiirecl to a fm.t ti('a<lli!, " 
 t'tu.: -Held, not to lie infriM;;eil liy a rake 
 woi'Ued liy a strap passeil I vni!e or ofteiier 
 round til • inner put of the liiili of the \vh(!el 
 elonu'atiil for the mirpmi! of reeeiviuL; it, one 
 end of the slr.ip lieini,' attaejie I to I lie axle, and 
 the other eonneird with tin' Ireadlo : Held, 
 also, iliat tile imme of nsin;; tin' cord was n 
 liovtd, lieiiiif essentially the hanie deserili'd 
 an eirlier pileiif as eoiisiHtiie,; of "lie 
 inetallie stiMps v, liieli eiieirelii till! inner e' 
 nion of tile iiulis, one end of each Klrap lielii}^ 
 atl leiiud to a lixel hearing seeiired to tile a.xlu, 
 and the otiier to tlie siiort end of a lever,' ele. : 
 
 •Senilile, that neither tile eiiele nor tin! eoil 
 was the siilijeet of either invention, hut only 
 modes of UMiiiLt II frietion liand in eoniieetinii 
 witii aiiotlier ilevice wliieh was tiie patented ilil- 
 jiroveiiient. I'er lla^farty. ('. .1. () It was not 
 patentahle. Sylfi'iti r v. Afa-iMin, ]- .\. K. .'?;{"). 
 
 In IS77 ('., a candle nianiifaetilier, olitained 
 ft patent for new and iisefiii iiii|irovenients in 
 eaiidle niakiiij; a))p;iratUH. in I.S7!( (',, wiiowas 
 also eiiLjaiieil in tlie sinie trade, oiitained a patent 
 for a maeiiine to iiiike candles. L. eljiined liiat 
 C's piteiit was a fraudulent imitation of his 
 
 {latent and prayed that C. he coinh'tiined lo |iiy 1 
 lim >>l.'),'J(M(as li(!iim thcaniimntof prolitsalle;;cd | 
 to li.ive lieeii reaii/.ed hy ('. in niakin,<; and sel- 
 lilij,' eandleswitli Ilis jiati'iited machine, and ;ilso 
 810,(1(10 nxeniplary damaijes. ('. contended his I 
 Jiateiit was valid as a emnhination iiateiit of oM 
 elements ; that theri! could lie no action for in- i 
 friiinement of L.'s )iatent until C's patent wa^ 
 repealed hy scire facias; and also tiiat L. 's ! 
 patent was not a new iiivcntioii. At the trial 
 there was evidence tiiat there were other ma : 
 chines known and in ii.sci for inakin;,; candles, 
 lull there was no evidence as to the cost of iiiak- | 
 in;; candles wil'.i siieii ni uhiiiiM. or what would 
 have lieen a f.iir royalty to pay L. for tlie use of 
 Ilis patent. And it was proved also tiiat L "s 
 trade had lieen iriere.isin^. 'I'ln; Snpi'l'ior Court 
 on the eviilence found that ('. s iiatcnt was a 
 fraudulent imit.Ttion of L.'s patent, and e;raiited 
 an injiinction and eondemned C. to Jiay L. .S(!0() 
 (laiiia','e.s for the protits he had made on selliii'^ 
 candles made hy the patented iiiaehine. This 
 judi;meiit was aliirined liy the Court of (Jueen's 
 Bench (apiieil side). On ajijieal to the Supreme i 
 Court of Canada it was: -Held, allirininy the 
 judj^mcut of tiie courts lielow, Henry, .1., dis- 
 BOiitiii;^. that C's machine was a mere colour.ihle 
 imitation of r,.'s,haseil upon the same princi- 
 ples, composed of the same elements, and dill'ir- 
 iiig from it only in the arrangement of those 
 elements, and produciiii; no results materially 
 different ; therefore L.'s patent had heeii iii- 
 
 '•i>;t!d, and there was no necessity in order to 
 over damages for iiifi iii.;enient that (I.'h 
 pateiil slnmtd llrst he set asidi- hy scire facias ; 
 Held, also, reversiii'.; tiie jud;;ineiit of liie enint 
 lielow. that in this ca-<e tiie profits niinle hy tii,. 
 defendants was not a proper measure of liaiii 
 ayes; that the ovideiiee flu nislKid no means of 
 aceiiiMlidy rstimatiiii; the damages, luit siih- 
 Htiinlial justice woiil 1 1 done hy awaidin;; .•■lOit. 
 Collpt/,' V. hn^nier, l.SS. C. H, TMX 
 
 V. O, nhtained a patent for an iiii|irovi'iiieiit in 
 the eolistriiction of (Ml 1 i i;;es liy tile eonihiii itiim 
 of a foldiii;,' seetioiial |o if j'lined to tlie caniam' 
 posts, in siieii a way and hy siieii an ariaii^^e 
 nieiit of si'i!tions of t lie iiiiif and of the earria};.' 
 posts that the whole eani i^e top eoiilil lie niade 
 entirely in Hections oi wood or otl.ei riyiil 
 material with j^lass sisiies all round, ami the 
 carria;;e lie opened in tile centre into two prin. 
 cipil parts and .-it once converted into an open 
 iineovercd carriau". In .an aelion lor infiinjrc 
 nieiit of tliis patent : -Ih^ld. leversiiii.' tile jinle. 
 melit of tiiet^oiirt of (,»ueeil's lleiieh for Lower 
 'anadii (appeal side), and restorin); the jnilj.' 
 eiit of till! Siip(!rior <'oiirt. Hitiiiiie, C. .1. .nul 
 ti Wynne .1. dissentiim. tliat tlic ctoinliination was 
 not previously in use and was a patentahie in 
 veiitioii. /Jailicreiinw Iti'llniiiif-. Ki.s. ('. |;, |so. 
 
 Sec^^(v//.<v. 7V(//^-/\ •_':) Chv. 'JMI, p. I.'i.'il. 
 
 IV. i'liiii; IsK. 
 
 It is not ille;;al to niaiinf.ictiire and sell an 
 article in this country which lias iieeii pateuteil 
 in till' L'niteil States, and put upon it a stiite- 
 nieiit tiial it is so patented, as ;i recomniendatioii 
 of it, so Ion;; as there is no infiiiin;ement of a 
 valid e\istin;L; patent in this eountiy. A'/'AAcv. 
 Simir/ ; K'ritlir v. Siiim-I Miiinil'urlih-liui (!ii,, 
 llrwL-n/f" (IJiiil/al), Si). U. .'tli-J.' Ferfe'iisoii. 
 
 The plaintilfs were the patentees of a certain 
 invention in the United States, and iieini; de. 
 sii'ous of liaviii;; the .irtiele witii some improve 
 inent pateiiti^d in Can.ida, one of tiieni cmplnyeil 
 one of the defendaiilM, a meclianic, to make a 
 model, and under thi' |iled;;c of scereev plaeeil 
 tile United States patent in his ii.inds and ini- 
 liarted to him his ideas as to the impiovenients. 
 It was afterwards diseovered that the (h.'fendaiit 
 so eni]iloyed li.id, during iiis I'lnploynieiit, taken 
 out a patent for asiiiiilararl ieie, under whieii lie 
 and the other defendants were inaiuifaet niiiig. 
 In an action hrought to set aside this p.iteiitaiid 
 for an injniietion restraiiiiii.i; the inaniifaetnri! hy 
 tile dcfi iidants of tlic artiile, it was coiitendeil 
 on tiie hitter's liehall, tliat tlie article w,is not 
 protected in ' 'anada liy the Uiiiteil States patent, 
 ;ind in fact that the ide.i was piiidic projiertv : 
 Held, following MorriNon r. .Mnat, !) lla.L'-ll .'tliat 
 the plaintitl's had tiie rigiit to sneeeed as lo tlie 
 iiijunction, and that their title was good .-is 
 against tiie defendanls, even tiioiigii tlicy niiglit 
 not have a good title ag.iinst tlie puhlic. Ijiiin 
 V. Ilnstiiii, 8 O. J{. ■'ilJI. — Kergiison. 
 
 See Smith v. <,'ulilic,<) S. C. \l. 4(i, p. l.")4!l. 
 
 V. ISk-Isstk ok I'.\tknt. 
 
 Where to an action to restrain certain alleged 
 ii'friiigements of u re-i.ssued patent, it was 
 
1582 
 
 ty ill 1)1(1). !■ tri 
 ■111 lll.it C.'h 
 «i'ili' I'liriiin ; 
 it (pf llic (.(iiiit 
 1 nmdi. liy ill,, 
 '•^lliv of iliuri 
 no llli.aiiH (if 
 ,!,"'«. lull sill). 
 
 "iiriliiiK.'MOO 
 
 ;t. 
 
 'I'lOV, .1111.1,(1, 1 
 
 1 1'iiritio,! 
 
 to till, r 
 
 irriiiifc. 
 
 II HI, ;i,-iii„jre 
 it till, ciii I'iay,. 
 
 ■oiiM 1„. |||i,,|„ 
 oil 'i.^iil 
 
 mill, .111.1 III,. 
 
 Illo two |,|.{||. 
 
 into 111, i>|ii.,i 
 lor ii,tVi,,if(. 
 
 'ill-' till. jlK?;' 
 
 '■ti tor i.Dwcr 
 riiiu till. iiiilj<- 
 '■liii', ('. .1. ;iii<l 
 )iiil)ii,;itioi, was 
 I |i.'iti.nl,ili|i. In 
 lli."^<. ('. IMSO, 
 -MO. p. I.m4. 
 
 III. ami M'll an 
 
 liiHii piUi.iited 
 
 I'lii it, ii slate- 
 
 <'oiiiiiii.|i<l.'itiiiii 
 
 tViiigitiiii.iit of a 
 
 try. A'/.A/.cv. 
 
 ii/iKiiiriiii/ (,'i),, 
 
 !. l'V'i'i,'US()ii. 
 
 L'L'.s of a I'crtain 
 , anil lii'liii,' i|,.. 
 
 some iiii|)rov(' 
 tliriii ciiiiiloyuil 
 nit', to iiiaki! a 
 
 secrecy lilaceil 
 i liaiiils aiiil iiii- 
 
 im|iroveiiici,ts. 
 t tile il|.f('iirlaiit 
 ioyiiiciit, taken 
 iinilcr \vliii.|i h{. 
 iiaiiiifaciiij.iiij;. 
 tills iiatciitaml 
 iiaiiiifiictiiri'liy 
 w.is loiitcihleil 
 .iiticlc was not 
 1 States patent, 
 lie propertv :- - 
 
 !>Ha.-.'4l.'tIi;it 
 •ceeil as to the 
 ' was ;^o()(l lis 
 iL'li tliey niii,'lit 
 pilMle. /.((Ill 
 111. 
 
 4li, l>. 1.->4!I. 
 
 NT. 
 
 certain nllogoil 
 
 itent, it was 
 
 1553 
 
 PATENT FOR INVENTION 
 
 objected liy way <•( ileftnec that th(i rc-isHiied 
 imtcnt coiitaiiieil a eoinlijiiatiiin not in the oriyi 
 mil iiatenl or the ii|)|)lieation therefor, iinil was 
 therefore invalid; ami it iippe:iru<l that the eoin- 
 hiiiation in iinestion was inanifeHted in thedraw- 
 iiigH and Hpecilicatioiis of tlu^ i)riniiiiit patent, 
 hut hy mistake and iiiadvcitence was not sepa- 
 ,ii,d from the other parts of the desi.ription, 
 ai il made the Hiilijn.t of a distinct elaini, ho a i 
 to lie jirotecti d l)y the ori;;iiia! patent: lli.|d, ! 
 per lio,* d, ('. (aHiriiiln;^ the decision of l''i.rf,'iisoii, ! 
 ,).), thai the reissued jialiiit wan neveitiieless j 
 valid, riomlf. ,of, .(., ilissentii.iito. I'er lioyil, | 
 ('. What 'oiild have lain elaimeil lis part of 
 the iiivcntioii iiiidi r the specilic.atiinis ,ii,d de- 
 scriptions accoiiip iliyiii;,' the oiij^iiial patent, hut 
 was not liy riasni of eiior, mistake or inidver- i 
 teiice, may lie ilaiiiied on a re-issiie if there has' 
 been no laches. Xot what the patentci. claims 
 as his invention. Imt what is for the llrsi time: 
 disclosed to the p 'lilie on his application, is the ! 
 measure of his li Ills on a re-issiie. Williiunf v, I 
 Md/roliii, (!(). l:. IL'. Chy. I). 
 
 I'er I'loiidfoot, .1. A reissued |).ltellt must lie 
 for the saiiii! invention as that eiiiljiai.cd and se- 
 r.iired ill tli. oiij,'iiial patent, it is a miscoii- 
 striietioii of the I'ateiit .\ct of IST'i to say it 
 luitliori/cs II rc-issii.. " with liroiidcr and more 
 comprehensivi; claims." if liy that \>v mi.ant tli.it 
 it authorizes a rc-issii(. \vilh a claim not in the 
 orij;iiial patent at all: neither is it enoui^h to 
 justify a ieissii(. that all the eh. mints of the new 
 claim may l)it found in the specilications of th<. 
 ()rij;iiial patent: hut if the cliiini is so imper- 
 fectly desciil)(.il, throiiiih error or mistake, us 
 not to cover the iiiveiition. then a reissue may 
 ho had. ///. 
 
 I'er I'roiidfoot. .1. -'I'lie earlier decisions in 
 the United .States are more in coiiforiiiity with 
 the laii^uaye ;ind intention of oiir Tatoiit Acts 
 than the latei dccisimi.s, which seem to rccoj;- 
 nizc the rij^lit in the reissue to liroadeii the cl aims 
 in u iniinner which the law docs not appear to 
 justify. //). 
 
 Held, that the delay (without any excuse) of 
 a patentee for a |ieriod of a little more than a 
 year and nine months, after full kiiowleil;^e of 
 an inadvertence and mistake in his orii^inal 
 patent, and after protcHsioiial advice on thcsuli- 
 ject, and after a re-issue of the same patent in 
 the United .States, founded upon tlic same 
 alleged iiiadvi.rtencc or mistake (diirini,' which 
 period imuinfactiire had lieeii carried on in the 
 United .States under a re-issue there), before the 
 application for a re-issue in this eountry, is 
 fatal to the validity of the re-issue lieri.. 
 Kidder v. SiiKirl ; Kidder v. Sunn/ Mitiinfm-ln- 
 riiiij Co., lirochriUi: (Limited), S (). 1!. :)()•_'.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 Vr. Assignment asd Royalty. 
 
 The mere attacliing of the support of the 
 handle of a pump higher or lower in position than 
 that formerly in use, in not the subject of a 
 patent ; but P. having obtained a patent there- 
 for, which he assigned to the pUiintiff, who again 
 assigned to t'le defendant subject to certain 
 royalties : — Held, that notwithstanding the in- 
 validity of the patent he was entitled to recover 
 the amounts payable to liim under the agreement 
 
 98 
 
 dnrinn the currency thereof. Oirn\x\\ TntUor, 
 •-•!»( 'hy.-.' 10. I'roiidfiiot. 
 
 Ill Is;."). I. II. otitaiiicd letters patent for iiii. 
 proveniciits ill " h.irvesl rs," iind .s.dd and as 
 sigllcl to the pliiiitid's the t.\e|uMVe right to 
 maiiufacture and sell tli(. saim', and to sell such 
 ri;^lil to other persons. Ill (he Millie year tlio 
 plaiiitills execnii.d adeed to the dcfeii.l.int, as- 
 signiiii,' to the .leiViidaiit the ex(.|usive right to 
 liialiiit ictiire iiiid sell such " li.irvestei.» " in 
 certiin coiintiis, he paying .'i'lO royalty on eiudi 
 one to be iiiiiiiiila.l iircd by him. It was then 
 coveiianled by an. I on tie' pail of llie plaint ill's 
 that the oriLiinil pati.ntec, .1. I!., would war 
 r.iiit an. I defend the ilcl'i inliit in the pussi.ssion 
 of the s.iid patent wiiiiin tli>. territ.iry thereby 
 1,'iaiite.l. ami further a.^oeed that if .1, I!, neglee- 
 ted.or refn.^cd to priiteet and di.fiiid him in his 
 peaceable piisses«n)li of the said patent, then the 
 royalty a>.'iced to be p.iid by him shoiiM eeiise. 
 I'er ll'av'artv, ( '. .1. (»., and .Morrison. ,1. A., 
 the plaiiitilN iimlcr this iiivciiant were liiil)le 
 only |.) the defemlant in (. • .1. 1!. neL,dectcd to 
 defend liini a;,'aiiist all )ii.rsiins having a right 
 to iniiiiufacliiii. and sell t!ie maihines, not as 
 aLfaiii t III 'ic wrongdoers. I'er Ihirton iind 
 I'attiisoii. .1.1, A., tlic-teims of the covenant 
 bound •). II. to protc(.t till, difemlaiit against all 
 iiilring-rs, the rule of (MHisiriict ion of coveiiiiiits 
 to '•uarrant and defend." as applied to lands, 
 not having any applicilion in cases like the 
 presi.iit. '//•..» V, ll'r(/,..», 111 .\. I!. 11:!; -JO. 
 11. (IL'T. 
 
 S(.mlili., if there had been a bn.acli of the cove- 
 nant by (i,. thi^ defendant woiiM not liavi; been 
 liabl(. tojiay the royalty under t lie above iigree- 
 iiient. tlioiigli hi. hail eoiitinii'd to inanuf.ictui'i! 
 the patented article. S. I\, '.» ( ». I!. tWT. 
 Chy. I». 
 
 On Ist.liiiie, 1877, (". I'., the owner of a pa- 
 tent for a II improved iiiiuip wliii.h Irid only about 
 a inontli to run. Imt was nni.wabli. for two fur- 
 ther terms of live years e.icli. agreed to sell to 
 
 I', et al.. bis pin,,]) patent for livi unties, and 
 
 by deed of same ibile he ^lantiil, sold and set 
 over to 1'. (.t 111., ''all the ri.dit, titl(., interest 
 which I have in the said invention as secured by 
 me by said letters patent for. to and in the said 
 limits of the counties of," etc. The babendinn 
 ill thedi.ed was " to the full end of the term for 
 which the letters |)at(.nt are granted," The con- 
 sideration was SI, .")()(), of which Sl,.-i()0 was paid 
 down, and inortLjages given on the land on which 
 the biisim.ss was carried on, and on llie chattels 
 for tlic residue. 'I'lic patent expired on the I'.ltli 
 .Filly, 1S77, and ('. I', renewcil it in his own 
 name for the fiiiiher term of live yi.ars. ,iiid I'. 
 et al. having iiia.l.. d.. fault in.luiie, IM7,S, C. I'. 
 lileil his bill asking for payment of the balance 
 nf purchase money, or in default for sale of tliu 
 land. Almost at the same time 1'. et al. , brought 
 a suit against ('. I', toeiifone s])ecilic ])erforiii- 
 anee of the agreement for sale of the patent right 
 for the full jioriod to which C I', was entitled 
 to renew the same under the patent laws : — 
 Held, in the suit Peck r. Powell, n^veising thu 
 judgment of the Court of Appeal, that under llm 
 agreement and assignment plaintiffs were en- 
 titled to the extension as well as the current 
 term. And in the suit Powell r. Peck, .S A. R. 
 498, alTirming the judgment of the (lourt of Ap- 
 peal, that C. 1'. was entitled to a decree for the 
 
PATENT FOR INVENTION. 
 
 15S(. 
 
 s 
 
 redemption or foreclosure of the itiortgaged pre- 
 mises with costs. Per Henry and (Jwynne, J.I., 
 that the decrees in tiio (Joiirt of Cliancery siiouKl 
 he consohd.ited and tliu decree for sale in default 
 of payment in tlie suit of I'owell i'. Peck ilela>ed 
 until P. had assigned the renewal term, /'fck 
 V. Pow,/l, 11 S. C. It. 494. See S. (.'., 20 Chy. 
 325 ; 8 A. R. 498. 
 
 The plaintifl's heing the patentees of a certain : 
 article, by nuini riinduni in writing, under m-.d, 
 reciting that tiiey wi le tlie inventors of the 
 article in question, assigned all tlieir intciest in 
 the patent to the defendant for a ceitain district j 
 or territory in consideration of certain royalties j 
 and sums of money therein agreed to he ]iiMd l)y ; 
 him. In an action to recover the eonside atiun : 
 in which tlie iviilence of the defendant went to 
 shew that he Knew l)efore the first year after tlie ! 
 making of the contract had exiiiied tliat others ! 
 were manufacturing the jiatented article, lint he 
 did not eoiiiplainor repudiate the tr'ansaction, or • 
 refuse to pay, or oiler to reassigji, or reijuire the ! 
 ivllege<l infringers to desist, or call u|)on tlie 
 patentees to vindicate their [latent, and tliat lie 
 had a profitahle user of the invention to a snli- 
 .stantial extent : — Held, that in the ahsence of 
 fraud, or warranty, or represeiitatinn which in- ^ 
 dueed the hargaiii and was falsified in tlie result ' 
 such a contract was simiily for the purchase of 
 an interest in an existing patent. No assiiniii- 
 don arises, and no implication is to 'oe made 
 that the jiatent is indefeasihle. Tiie [ihiintiti's 
 were therefore held entitled to juilgment. Smith ■ 
 r. Neale, '2 V. W N. S. (IT, ami Hall i\ Coiider, j 
 2 C. H. N. S. 22, eoniuiented on ; Hayne r. ! 
 Maltby, ^ T. R. 438, aiul Saxtou i: Dodge, :>7 
 Karl). (N. Y.) SI, distinguisiied. I'crinl/i/Ki v. i 
 Cuimiff, 12 0. J{. 104. — lloyd. 
 
 ! 
 
 Action to recover royalties ^'llcgecl to he pay- 1 
 uble on threshing machines maniifactuie<l by : 
 defendant, under an indenture made between ' 
 ])l;iintifi' U. and defendant, whereby the plaiiitilf 
 H. sold and transferred to the defindant the right 
 to manufacture and use acertaiu invention known 
 as'l{eanrs'riiiesher';a!id in consideration there- 
 of the <lefenflant agreed to pay a named royalty , 
 on all niaehiues manufacture<l " uiion or after ' 
 the principle of the invention. The jdaiiitiff H. | 
 sub.sequently assigned to his co-plaintifl' V. one- 1 
 half share or interest in the invention, ami also 
 one-half nf the moneys then, and to grow, due 
 under the indenture. The pluintitt' s patent was 
 for a combination, part only of which was used , 
 by ilefendant. The machines in (|uestion were I 
 manufactured after the assignment to K. 'I'lie ! 
 defendant objected that the patent was invalid 
 on the ground of want of novelty in the inven- 
 tion, and that it was not the subject of a patent; 
 and also that the machine was not manuf.ietured 
 on the principle of the plaintiff 's patent. Parol 
 evidence was admitted, subject to objection, that 
 the plaintiff agreed to prevent any infringement 
 of the patent, and, if he failed to do so, he 
 shcnild not be entitled to any royalties. The 
 agreement contained no such stipulation: — Held, 
 ( ] ) that the tiefendant having used the plaintiff's 
 invention, could not raise the objection to the 
 validity of the patent. (2) That whether the 
 machines were or not manufactured "upon or 
 after " the principle of the plaintiffs patent, was 
 a question for the jury on the evidence, and they 
 having found, aa they were warranted by the 
 
 evidence in doing, that they were bo manu- 
 factured, the finding could not be interfered with, 
 (3) That the parol evidence was not adniissilile 
 to vary the deed, following McXeely v. Mi;. 
 Williams, Ki A. U. 324 ; and also that by ajiriiir 
 judgment of the (j>. H. 1). ,tlie matter was les judi- 
 cata, and the fact that the judgment was between 
 15. alone and defeiulant. eouhl make no ditVer- 
 enee. liiom v. M>rncr, 14 0. R. 412.— C, V. \i. 
 
 In an action under a similar agreement, the 
 defendant jiai tially manufaeturcd a nuinbet of 
 iiiachir.es, and then S(dd out his establislmuiit 
 to a tiriii M. D. it Co., who completed tin- 
 machines, anil labelled them ;is required by tiie 
 contract. Afterwards the defendant took .M.V 
 place in the firm, and the firm manufaetuied ,i 
 number of machines iqion and after the principh; 
 of the [ilaintifrs jiatent which they labclloil 
 with another name iiom that re(|iiii-ed liy tlie 
 contract. The plaintill's sued for the royalties, 
 and for not lalielliiig as rei|uii'ed : — Held, tliiit 
 tlie jilaintitl's were eiititleil to recover as for a 
 manufacture and sale by defendent, for they 
 nd^i;lit assume that the c1 ■feiidant was maUiiii' 
 the maehines under the coiitr.ict, and that the 
 tirni wen.' but agents working fur him. lb. 
 
 VII. NoTKS (ilVKN Vtni Pl'KCllA.SI'; ()K I'ATKNT 
 
 ItniHTS. 
 
 The statute 1!. S. C. c. 123, ss. 12-14, which 
 requires notes given for tin; purchase of a jiateiit 
 right, befiu'e being issued to have the words 
 "given for a [latent right," written or printed 
 tliere<in, [irovides that the endorsee or transferee 
 of a note vitli such words thereon shall have 
 tile same defence as would have existed lie- 
 tween the original parties, and subjects to in- 
 dictment, any one issuing, selling or tiaiisferi in;; 
 such notes without such words written tlieiec ii. 
 One of the plaintill's gave two notes to the 
 defendant for the [mrehase money in the assiun- 
 nieiit f)f a [latent right on « liicli the required 
 words were written. These notes were aulise- 
 quently cancelled, and in lieu thereof the notis 
 iiKiuestion were given, made by both [daiutill's 
 without having the said words tliereon : -Held, 
 that the notes were enf<ireeable by defeinlaift, 
 these words not being rer|nircd as between 
 maker aii<l [layee, and, even if they were, the 
 makers had the right to and did waive having 
 the same thereiui. (linin v. lUtrke, 19 O. K. 
 204 C. P. D. 
 
 VIII. JUUISDICI'IO.N OK MlNI.STKli OK AuRIOll,- 
 
 Tl'KK. 
 
 Heltl, that the minister of agriculture or hi.'* 
 deputy has exclusive jurisdiction over([ue.stioiis 
 of forfeiture under the 28th section of the Patent 
 Act, 1872, and a defence on the ground that a 
 patent has become forfeited for breach of tlie 
 contlitions in the said 28th section cannot be 
 suppoi'ted after a decision of the nunister of 
 agriculture or his deputy declaring it not void 
 by reason of such breach : — Per Henry J. — The 
 jurisdiction of the minister is administrative 
 rather than judicial, and he may look at tlie 
 motive and cH'ect of an act of importation, and a 
 single act, such as the importation of a sanqile 
 tending to introduce the invention, is not neces- 
 sarily a breach of the spirit of the conditions o( 
 
i55r 
 
 ere ao inanu. 
 terferedwitli, 
 ot adiiiissililo 
 ^eely r. Mc. 
 li;itl)y ajiilDr 
 rwasi-csjudi- 
 t was l)ftwocii 
 ake no diller- 
 " -C. 1'. !,. 
 
 ^rocmpiit, tlic 
 
 a iiumliei cf 
 
 cstalilisliiiuiit 
 
 •oiiiploted tlic 
 
 qiiir.id liy tla 
 
 ant took M.', 
 
 innfacturcd a 
 
 rtlio j)iinci|)|(r 
 
 tlii'y laliellod 
 
 liiiicd I)y tllL. 
 
 till! niyaltifs, 
 
 :-Hcld. that 
 
 •(•over as for n 
 
 '■lit. for they 
 
 It was niukiiil; 
 
 and tliat tlie 
 
 liiiH. //(. 
 
 SK (iK I'.VTKVT 
 1. I'-'lt, whirl, 
 
 use of a |)at(iit 
 
 VC tll(! WOllls 
 
 en or i)rintod 
 
 V. or traiihferuo 
 [eon shall liiive 
 I'u i-xisted lic- 
 
 siilijc'cts to iii- 
 or transferring 
 rittcn tlu-ii( II. 
 
 notes to the 
 )■ '>ii the as-sitn- 
 1 the re<|nii(il 
 -'s wero ouh.^c. 
 ^reof the noti's 
 liotli i)laintill's 
 ereon : Held, 
 liy defendant, 
 'A as Itotweiii 
 hey were, the 
 
 wiiivo having 
 trke, 19 O. l;. 
 
 t OK A(micri.- 
 
 iculture or his 
 overiiue.stioii.s 
 II of the I'ateiit 
 gronnd that a 
 breach of the 
 ion cannot he 
 e minister of 
 iig it not void 
 enry J.— The 
 idininistrntivr 
 y look at the 
 irtation, and a 
 )n of a gam pic 
 I, is not neces- 
 I conditions of 
 
 1587 
 
 PATENT FOR INVENTION. 
 
 155S 
 
 the 28th section. Smith v. Ooldie, 9 S. C. R. 
 46 ; 7 A. K. 628. 
 
 Section 28 of the Patent Act of 1872, after 
 specifying certain cases in which patents are to 
 be null and void, provided that in case disputes 
 shall arise under this section tis to whether a 
 patent hasor hasnot lieconie void, such disputes 
 shall lie settled liy the minister of agriculture or 
 his deputy, whose decision shall he final : — Held, 
 that a court or judicial tribunal for the deter- 
 mination of tlie matters referred to in the section 
 was constituted by the Act ; that tiie constitu- 
 tion of such a court wiis not ultra vires the 
 Dominion Parliament as infringing Provincial 
 legislation ; and that it was competent for the 
 minister to decide as to tlie existence of disputes 
 arising for his decision. Prohibition tlierefore 
 was refused. In re tin- Hell 'J'llc/ihoiie Co. mid 
 the Telephone Mmmfacttirhiij Co. umlthf MiiiUtir 
 of AiiricuUure, 7 (). R. 605!— Osier. 
 
 On a motion for a writ of certiorari to bring 
 up into this court all the proceedings, etc., be- 
 fore the minister of agriculture, inchuling his 
 decision tliorein, on an application made before 
 him to have a patent declared void for non-com- 
 pliance with the provisions of section 28 of tlie 
 Patent Act of 1872 : — Held, tiiat the minister of 
 agriculture, or his deputy, had jurisdiction 
 under section 28 to decide any dispute as to 
 whether a patent had become void for non-ob- 
 servance or violation of the provisions of that 
 section. In re Bell Telephone Co., 9 O. R, 3.39.— 
 C. P. D. 
 
 Semble, that the minister's duties are minis- 
 terial, and therefore cannot be reversed or re- 
 viewed in a court of law ; but, even if judicial, 
 this court cannot intei-ferc on the ground of a 
 total want of jurisdiction on tiie minister's part 
 to make the inipiiry, for, so far .at least as tliis 
 court was I'oneeined, this must be considered 
 res judicata by tiie decisions of Smith r, (ioldie, 
 9 8. ('. I!. 46, and Re IJell Tdeplione Co. and 
 Minister of Agricullure, 7 0. It. (i05 ; nor was 
 there a partial want of jurisdiction, liy reason 
 of the neglect of the minister to examine wit- 
 nesses on oath or liis refusal to issue summonses 
 for witnesses to attend before him, because 
 under seeticn 28 this was nf)t rcijuired. Quiere, 
 whether also, if judicial, the Provincial Courts 
 have j.irisdiction to interfere with such a tnbu 
 nal, it ijeing, on this assumption, a Dominion 
 court. A writ of certiorari was therefore re- 
 fused, lb, 
 
 Semble, that on an application to question a 
 patent under the statute the intervention of the 
 Attorney-General is not essential. lb. 
 
 IX. Actions for I.sKRiNnEMENT. 
 
 1. Venue. 
 
 In an action for the infringement of a patent, 
 plaintiff laid the venue in Hamilton, while the 
 defendant was a resident of Toronto :— Held, 
 that regarding the language of section 24 of the 
 Patent Act, 1872, the venue should be laid in the 
 county where the defendant resit' ed ; and an 
 order was made under Rule 254 (Con. Rule 653) 
 to change the place of trial to Toronto. Gold- 
 milh V. Walton, 9 P. R. 10.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the word "m.iy " in3.j Vict. c. 26, 
 s. 24 ( L)om. ), was obligatory and not merely per- 
 missive, and that the venue in an action to re- 
 strain the infringentcnt of u patent, must belaid 
 at the place of sittings of tlie court in which llic 
 action is brouglit, nearest to tiic place of resi- 
 dence or business of the defendant ; Held, also 
 tliat section 24 was not ultra vires the Domi- 
 nion parliament. Aitrl,i:ion v. Maun, 9 1'. R. 
 473.— Q. B. I). AlHrming.V. C, lb. 253.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Pitrliciilarn. 
 
 In an action for infringement of a patent the 
 defenilants denied (4) tlie novelty of the inven- 
 tion, and (G) that the plaintifl' was tiie tirst ainl 
 true inventor:— Held, Hoyd, C, dissenting, that 
 the defendants shouhl deliver particulars under 
 these defences, shewing in what respects liie 
 defendants deny that the plaintills' patent v.as 
 for any new machine, etc., and the <lates and 
 occasions wlien, and also the names of the per- 
 sons liy w luiiii the prior user was li.id. Per Boyd, 
 C.---in the absence of any legislation or rules of 
 court upon the subject, the jiidgc has no power 
 or right to piesciibc so minutely what shall be 
 disclosed in the particulars. The statute 3r» 
 Vict. c. 26, s. i!4 (Dom.), goes no further than 
 to justify such general order for particulars as ik 
 usual in other cases. Mills t'. Scott, 5 Q. IJ. 
 .■JOO, discussed. Stnitli v. (Ireeii, 11 P. R. 169.- 
 Chy. U. 
 
 3 Evidence. 
 
 In an action to restrahi the infringement of a 
 patent in which the defence set up that the su|)- 
 posed invention h^.d liecn previously patented in 
 the United States and I'lnglaiul, copies of 
 American patents material !o the defendanl s 
 ease were procured liy his solicitors of their own 
 motion for tiie puriioses of the action : — Held, 
 that such documents were privilegcil from pro- 
 duction, (laeljth C. Co. v. Wlikeliead, 9 P. K. 
 5(t9.— l»alton, Miutcr. 
 
 The general law applicalile to discovery gov- 
 erns in patent cases. A defendant may be pro- 
 perly interrogated as to the ground of his at- 
 tacking a plaintiti''s patent, and there should be 
 a fair and full disclosure of the particular iine.'i 
 of attack which are contemplated, but no sucli 
 individualizing of the persona who are alleged to 
 be prior users as would enable the plaintiff to 
 fix upon the defendant's witnesses. Smith v. 
 (Jreey, 10 P. R. 482. -Boyd. 
 
 See Beam v. Mvrner, 14 O. R. 412, p. 1556. 
 
 4. Damages. 
 
 In a patent action the judgment of the Su- 
 preme Cfourt of Canada declared that the plain- 
 tiffs were entitled to an inquiry and to be paid 
 the amount found due upon such inquiry for 
 damages sustained from the making, construct- 
 ing, using, selling, or vending to others to be 
 used, by the defendants, and by the persons to 
 whom they have sold, given, or let the same of 
 any of the machines, etc. The judgment gave 
 relief beyond what the plaintiffs asked by tlicir 
 bill of complaint : — Held, that where the Ian 
 guage of the decree is unambiguous, the allega- 
 
1559 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 
 1560 
 
 tions in the pleadings should not be taken into 
 account in the inquiry as to damages, and there- 
 fore the master was wrong in excluding evidence 
 of damages to the plaintiffs by the use of ma- 
 chines by persons who had bought them from 
 tlie defendants. Smith v. Qoldie, 11 P. It. 24. — 
 Proudfoot, Jtaster.—Dalton. 
 
 See Ledie v. Calriii, 9 0. Pv. ilO?, infra ; 
 CoUelte V. Laxnkr, 13 S. C. R. 503, p. 1552. 
 
 5. OtU>tr Cane.t. 
 
 An action for the infringonient of a patent 
 sliould not ordinarily be tried by a jury. Vir- 
 milyca V. Outhrlc, 9 P. R. 207. — Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff sued the executors of I). 1). (.'. 
 for an account of all prolit auciued to the estate 
 of I>. 1). C, by reasim of the user by him of a 
 certain machine made by him in alleged infringe- 
 ment of the plaintilf's jiatent, whicli ])rotit con- 
 sisted in the saving of expense t(. D. I). C : — 
 Held, on denmrrci' to the statement of claim, 
 tliat the plaintiff had no remedy against the 
 executors of 1). D. O. in respect of such profit 
 accrued to liim prior to iiis deatii. Phillips r. 
 Honifray, 24 Cli. U. 43!), discussed, and re- 
 garded as decisive in the present case: — Send)lc, 
 tliat if the statement of claim couhl be read to 
 mean that by reason of the wronuful act com- 
 plained of, property of a tangil)le character, 
 ])as.sod from tjie plaintiff's estate to that of D. 
 I>. C, as distinct from the saving of expense, 
 the conclusion miglit lie (litfcrent. Leslie v. 
 C'lilriii, !) O. li. 207.— Fergu.son. 
 
 See Jicam v. Mitriier, 14 (). R. 412, p. 155G. 
 
 PATENT FOR LAND. 
 
 Sec VvMWS Lands. 
 
 PATHMASTER. 
 
 See Sliilkcr v. Toirii-^lii/i of /)iiiiirirli, 15 (). 
 i;. 342, p. 1417. 
 
 PAWNBROKER. 
 
 Rcmark< u|)on tlie law relating to pawnbro- 
 kers, h'ti/'iia V. Ailaiii", 8 P. K. 402. - ("ameron. 
 
 A ])awnbrokc"- under (.'. S. ('.. c. 01, may legal- 
 ly charge any ratoof interest tiiat may lie agreed 
 upon between liiin and the pledgor. Ih. 
 
 iii&ii:' 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 
 I. Til ('liKliITllKS. 
 
 1. U'IkiI AmoiniU l<>, I5()(). 
 
 2. Tciidcr — St'f Tkndku. 
 
 3. Aiiproprinttni, of I'ai/iiinil'', l.")01. 
 
 4. Jiy ami Id U'lioni. 
 
 (a) Aiji'iiU—Sie MoKT(!A(iK— PitiNCi- 
 
 I'AI. AND AliKNT. 
 
 (b) Garnishees — See Attachment of 
 
 Debts. 
 
 (c) TruMees—Sce Trusts and Trcs- 
 
 TEKS. 
 
 (d) Solkitors — See Solicitor. 
 5. BijGhfqxie, 1502. 
 
 0. Plea of Payment, 1563. 
 
 7. Avcord and Satis fad lun — See Accord 
 
 AND Satisfaction. 
 
 8. 0/ Bills and Notes— Si e IJii.i.s ok Kx- 
 
 CHAXCi: AND PliOMISSOliV XoTE.S. 
 
 9. Of Guarantees — Sec OrAitANTF.E and 
 
 Indkmmtv. 
 
 10. Of Rent — See LAi^DLOUDAND Tknant. 
 
 11. Of Mortijaijes — See, Mortcack. 
 
 12. Of Insurance, Premiums and Los^ics - 
 
 Sri; iNsrHANCE. 
 
 13. On Conlraets Jar Sale of Goods— .-iie 
 
 Sale OK (Joods. 
 
 14. 'Po Sa re the Stat ale — See Limitation 
 
 OF Actions. 
 
 II. Actions to Rwovek Hack Monkv 
 Paid -.SVi^ Money Paid. 
 
 III. Time civen i-or Paymeni- See Hues 
 
 (if ex(han(ie and promissory xotes 
 —Principal and Surety. 
 
 IV. Power of Arbitrators to Dhukt 
 
 Manner OF Pay.ment — See Auditma- 
 TioN AND Award. 
 
 V. Payment rv Insolvent Companies - 
 Sec Company. 
 
 VI. Payment of Money Into Court. 
 
 1. Vohtnlarij Payments, 1503. 
 
 2. In Aetions. 
 
 (a) Generalhi, 1503. 
 
 (b) Kfert of— As an Admission, l.'i(i4. 
 
 (c) Kifeel eif^-As to Costs, 1505. 
 
 (d) //( Dirisinn Court Suits — .Vw 
 
 Division Courts. 
 
 3. On Srde of Land by Order of the 
 
 Court—See Sale of Land uy 
 OitiiEit OF THE Court. 
 
 4. //) Otiirr Cases, 1500. 
 
 5. Interisi Allowed, 1500. 
 
 6. Attachniinl of Money in Coiir', I.'i(i7. 
 
 7. Jiy K.reeniors — See Kxecutors and 
 
 Administhators. 
 
 VII. I'av.ment of Monf.v Out ok Couut. 
 
 1. //( Aelinns /'endivij Appeal. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1507. 
 
 (b) ^1-1 Security for Costs — .Sec Costs. 
 
 2. In Other Cases, 1508. 
 
 3. Slo/i Order, l.")G!». 
 
 I. To Creditors. 
 
 1. What Amounts to. 
 
 In a mechanic's lien action tlie owner of the 
 property had an old account agaiu8t the con- 
 
1560 
 
 \CiniENT OF 
 
 rs AND Trus- 
 cnoK. 
 
 — -SVe Accord 
 
 l>ll,I.S (IK Kx- 
 SSdliV XoTKS. 
 AltANTKK AMI 
 
 iandTknant. 
 
 KTCACK. 
 
 and Lo.-itcH - 
 
 'vc Limitation 
 
 Hack Moni,y 
 I). 
 
 NT .V'V 1!|1I.S 
 MISSOltV XoTKS 
 TV. 
 
 IS TO UlliWT 
 
 -Sec Arbitka- 
 
 C'oMPAMKS - 
 ) Co CUT. 
 
 ir)(i3. 
 
 [dmissioH, \.')M. 
 bsts, 15C5. 
 
 i.rt Sllili — Se.K 
 
 Order of lln: 
 OK Land iiy 
 
 URT. 
 
 ill Coin-', I.")(i7. 
 
 IXKCUTOUS AMI 
 ' OK Col'RT. 
 
 Plienl. 
 
 null — <?<■(■ Costs. 
 
 1561 
 
 PATMENT. 
 
 156? 
 
 to. 
 
 le owner of t-.he 
 gainst the con- 
 
 tractor for bread supplied, which account, with 
 interest, ho charged against the sums due to the 
 contractor under the contract : — Held, npon tlie 
 evidence, that the account and interest should be 
 treated, not as a matter of set-off, but as a pay- 
 ment of so much of the contract price. Truax 
 V. Dixon, 17 O. R. 366. -Q. B. I). 
 
 See Blackky v. Kenneij, 19 O. R. 169, p. 
 1281. 
 
 3. Appropriation of Paymentn. 
 
 By a decree of the Court of Chancery it was 
 directed that an account should be taken of all 
 dealings between St. J., the plaintiff, and R., 
 the defendant. The master found that $453.20 
 was due to the defendant by the plaintiff. The 
 master disallowed to tlie plaintiff the amount of 
 a note for §510, and interest thereon as barred 
 by the Statiite of Limitati'ins ; and reduced the 
 interest on a sum of §3,000 advanced from 
 twenty-four per cent, to six per cent, after 
 judgment had been recovered. j'he note of 
 $510 was dated 18th November, 1801, and was 
 i)ayable witli interest at llio rate of §10 per i 
 week from the 23rd November. 18',;!. On the | 
 Oth Marcli, I8(i7, tlie defon<lant, who ha(. been' 
 sued by the jilaintiff for certain other c'aims, ' 
 entered into agreement witli liini in order to re- 1 
 lieve him from the pressure of execution debts, j 
 paid him §'2,000 on account of his indebtedness, I 
 and got time for the balance. The plaiutitf 
 made no demand at the time to be paid this 
 note, and did not instruct his attorney who act- 
 ed for him to scelc payment of it until 1870 : — 
 Held, that the evidence sliowed an appropria- 
 tion by respondent of the §2,000 on account of 
 the debts for wiiich he was being pressed, and 
 as the note for §510 was not included in sucli 
 debts, the master was riglit in treating it as 
 barred by the Statute of Limitations. St. John 
 v. Rijkert, 10 8. C. R. 278. 
 
 B. was a defaulter to tlie plaintiffs. 8oon 
 after his defalcations were discovereil he died, 
 and after liis death his executrix liaiided over 
 certain of his property to a trustee, wlio was 
 also an oliicer of the plaintiffs to realize and 
 apply the money theretiom towards satisfying 
 B.'s defalcations, but witliout indicating to 
 what part of such defalcations it siiould be 
 applied. The trustee applied it towards satis- 
 faction of tlie earlier of li.'s liabilities, in res- 
 pect to which tile defendants, a guarantee com- 
 pany, were not liable, since by a conditidii of 
 their policy tliey were not to be liable except for 
 losses occurring \vithin a year before notice of 
 claim made to them:— Ilohl, that the case was 
 similar to jiaynu'iit made by a del)tor to a 
 creditor williout express appropriation, in wliicii 
 case the creditor c((uld apiiropriate it, and the 
 defendants hail no riglit to complain of the 
 appropriation made in this case. Vily of London 
 V. CitizeiLi' /».s. («., 13 0. R. 713.— Ferguson. 
 
 Appropriation of |)ayiiients are to be made 
 
 (1) as tile delilor' (liiecls at tlio time of payment. 
 
 (2) When thin' is no direction by tlie debtor, 
 as the creilitor iliiects. (3) When neither 
 makes any diriTtion, then the law will apply it 
 to the iiider d> lit. or as may be just. The 
 defendant wa-; mil. litid to the plaintiff and gave 
 him several pi(niii.s>ory notes in payment, which 
 foil due in 1871. I'he interest was paid up to 
 
 August, 1878. The defendant thereafter paid 
 in 1882, §50, §40 and §100, and in 1883, §100. 
 The first two payments were specially appro- 
 priated by the defendant to the interest, and 
 the others were unappropriated : — Held, that 
 the payments must bo applied to the interest 
 due on all the notes, the ellect of which was to 
 take them out of the Statute of Limitations. 
 Wilton V. jiykert, 14 O. It. 188.— C. I'. 1). 
 
 At maturity of certain promissory notes made 
 by the defendants, and held by the plaiiitilfs, the 
 defendants sent the plaintifl's a proposal for a 
 renewal in part, accompanied by a che(jue for 
 part of the amount due and two rciuewal notes 
 for the balance, the total amount including ''a 
 sum for interest on the renewals. The plaintiffs 
 returned the renewal notes, but retained the 
 cheque, and brought this action upon the origi- 
 nal notes, giving credit for the amount of the 
 cheque : — Held, by Street, .1 . , that although there 
 was no obligation on the ])art of the creditors 
 to assent to the debtors' proposal, yet by re- 
 ceiving the cheiiue and keeping it they must be 
 taken to have applied it in the manner in which 
 the debtors when tendering it stipulated, and 
 as it included interest in advance upon the re- 
 newals, till) creditors were bound to give the 
 debtors the benelit of the time for wiiieh the re- 
 newals were drawn. Lowden v. .]/iirtin, 12 P. 
 U. 496. 
 
 Payment of insurance moneys by mortgagor. 
 
 17 0. M. 432, p. 1286 ; 
 'rorldriit anil Loan So- 
 
 See Corham v. KimjMon, 
 Kdmondx v. Ilamillon /' 
 ci(ty, 18 A. R. 347. 
 
 See liirkM v. McOnin-, 31 0. P. 430; 7 A. 
 W. 53, p. 1544 ; Baihy v. Ji'lhtt, !) A. R. 187, p. 
 134; Tayhr v. Maumth, 10 (). R. 669; Spitrr 
 V. Albert Mimiiij Co., S. C. R. .35. 
 
 5. liji Cheque. 
 
 A cheque of the plaintitrs when produced at 
 the hearing, had written on it, " in full of all his 
 (the defendant's) claims for notes or otherwise," 
 and which words the plaiutitf swore were on the 
 cliecpie when sent to the defendant, which he 
 denied, however. Four crosses were on the face 
 of the cheiiue, and some initiid letters in the 
 margin, and these the jilaiiititt' st.ited were the 
 initials of the clerk in the liank, whom he had 
 reipiested to initial the words so introduced. 
 The court (Spragge, C.) refnseil to receive this 
 as evidence of a recei|)t in full, in the absence of 
 the bank clerk, who should have been called aa 
 a witness. Lirini/slon v. Wood, 27 ('liy. 515. 
 
 Of premium on life policy. See Ncill v. Union 
 Mutual Lije fiis. Co., 7 A. U. 171, p. 995. 
 
 The jiayees of a elieipie took it to th<' bank on 
 whicli it was drawn on the afternoon of the day 
 on which they received it from the drawer and 
 got it marked "good," the amount being 
 charged to the drawer's account. They then 
 took it away without demaniling iiaynicnt. The 
 bank, on the evening of the sunn d ly, sus- 
 pended payment, and on the following day, on 
 iiresentatioii of theche(pie|i,iyiiieiit was refused: 
 -Held, that the drawer of the cliei|ue Was dis- 
 eharm'd from all liability thereon. Affirming 
 the judgment of Street, J. lioyd v. Nasmith, 
 17 0. R. 40. -C. P. U. 
 
1663 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 
 1564 
 
 6. Plea of Payrrunt. 
 
 See Montreal Cili/ and Dixtrict Sariwjs 
 ▼. County of Perth', 32 C. P. 18, p. 47'J. 
 
 Bank 
 
 i 
 
 VI. Payment ov Money into Court. 
 
 1. Voluntari) Payments. 
 
 Payment of money into court of amount 
 awarded for oompensution of land exproi)riatud 
 by a municipality for a court-house site. See 
 In rt Beckett and the. City of Toronto, 10 0. R. 
 IOC, p. 1304. 
 
 A testator insured his lite for the benelit of 
 liis wife and children. The policy provided that 
 the money should be payable as might be di- 
 rected by will. The testator by will appointed 
 executors, and gave his wife the income of his 
 estate for life and after death the corpus to his 
 son. Tlie executors renounced probate, and 
 after revocation of a prior grant to the son, who 
 was then a minor, administration was granted 
 to the defendant 1'. The jjolicy provided that 
 the money might l)e j)ayabie to the executors or 
 administrators. The Act 47 Viet. c. 'J()(Ont.), 
 provides that such policy moneys to wliich in- 
 fants are entitletl siiall be payable to a " trustee, 
 executor, or guardian.'' 1'. claimed the moneys 
 as administrator, whereupon the Insurance 
 ('omj)any under section lo i>f the Act, and (i. (). 
 li)7, and Rule ;")41 ((() C). J. Act, applied to the 
 master in ordinary in chandlers for leave to pay 
 tiie moneys into court. 'J he master held (1) 
 that v()lunt;iry applications to pay in money 
 may be made in ciuunbers. ('!) 'i'liat under rule 
 .'i4I (a) O. J. Act, (Con. Rule SS) he had juris 
 diction, l)y virtue of the administration proceed- 
 ings before him, to make tlic order. (.'>) That 
 the monej' was no part of the estate sul)ject to 
 the control of creditors, and when ])aid in should 
 be "ear niaiked,"' and not mixed with the other 
 funds of the estate. On apjieal by the admin- 
 istratnr, 1'., I'rouilfoot, J., made an order dirict- 
 ing that the iM.uu-y in court be paid out to the 
 Insurance ('omijany. Mtrehanti' Bank v. Man- 
 tcilli — Ex, iHirte Stdudiird Lift Asfiurtuice Co., 10 
 P. R. 588. 
 
 2. fn Actionf!. 
 
 (a) flenerally. 
 
 Where a jjarty is entith d to an assignment of 
 u bond, and to leali/e it for liis own benelit, his 
 rights are the same in regard touKiney deposited; 
 and where in an alimony suit the statutory boiul 
 under a writ of ne exeat has been givtii, the 
 plaintill' is entitled to h ive the moneys de|iosited 
 as collateral s-eiiiiity theiefor, paid into court, 
 and aiiplied in discharging arrears of alimony. 
 Richaril.siDi v. HiehanLiun, S P. it. -74. - Proud- 
 foot— Spragge. 
 
 Where there were cross-actions, in one of 
 which a sum had lieen reported due and a claim 
 of set-olf had been disallowed, in a subseipunt 
 action Ijrouglit to recover the sum disallowed, 
 the plaintill was held entitled to move for judg- 
 ment, undei- Rule 324 (Con. liide 744). iint; the 
 atlidavits tiled on the nintKin being conllicting: — 
 Held, the action must be entered for trial at the 
 
 sittings for the examination of witnesses, but the 
 amount found due in the first action was ordered 
 to be paid into court, to abide the result of the 
 second action. Francin v. Francin, 9 P. R. 
 209.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Payment into bank to credit of wrong cause. 
 See Johnston v. Johnnton, 9 P. It. 259, p. 1309, 
 
 Where the plaintiff' in an alimony suit ob- 
 tains a writ of arrest and the defeiulant gives 
 bail and a breach of the I.'-mI is conanitted, the 
 plaintill' is entitled to have the amount for which 
 the writ was marked, paid into court, to be ap- 
 plied from time to time in payment of the ali- 
 mony and costs : — Semble, u^ion such payment 
 the sureties are entitled to be discharged from 
 their bond. Ncedham v. Netdham, 29 Cby. 
 117.— IJoyd. 
 
 See Gooderham v. Traders' Bank, 16 O, K. 
 438, p. 1291. 
 
 (b; Ejlecl fif—A-i an Admission. 
 
 1'hc defendant stated in his defence that in 
 case the court should be of opinion that he was 
 liable for the payment of the balance, etc., he, 
 the defendant, brought into court the sum of 
 §4,300, saying that the same was suflicient U> 
 pay in full all claims of the plaintill' in respect 
 of the balance, etc.; and paid into court under 
 his defence the said sum of .*4,30O, which was 
 withdrawn by the jdaintiir after issue and befoic 
 trial. Ferguson, J., although ho he'd that the 
 plaintiff was not entitled to recover, lefiisod tu 
 order him to refund the §4, .300. An appeal 
 from such refusal was dismissed witli costs, ;is 
 the result of a division of opinion. Per Hag 
 arty, C. .). O., and Osier, J. A. —There was only 
 one way in which this money coidd have been 
 paid into court, unless under a special order, 
 viz., under Order -XXVI. O. .1. .Vet; the money 
 was not paid in conditiimally, but .ibsoltitely in 
 satisfaction and as an alternative defence ; and, 
 therefore, it was jiroperly withdrawn l>y the 
 plaintill'. Per Hurtun and Patter.son, J.I. A.— 
 The defence of payment into court set up, was 
 not striitly pleadable, but was a iidtice to the 
 plaintill' that the money was in court to answer 
 his demand, if he established it. IVloney paiil 
 into court under a defence is not inevitably to 
 be regarded as paid in under Order X.W'l. (). J. 
 Act. The inferen<e that payment into court is 
 made for innni iliale sati.'-faelinn. must yield to a 
 direct notice, that it is not made lor that i)urpoae; 
 anil such notice sulliciently ap|iearing from the 
 pleading, the money was iini)ro|ieiiy withdrawn 
 by tlu^ plaintill' :— Held, by the .Supreme Court, 
 Strong, J., ilissenting, that tin' payment was a 
 payment into court in satisfaction which ti.r 
 |ilaintiir had a right to letain, notwithstanding 
 his actiiin was dismissed at the hearing :--Hel(l, 
 ])er .Strong, .1., that this plea only recognized 
 the plaintili's right to the money in the event 
 of the court deciding th.vt the del'eiidant was 
 not discharge<l from his liability, but that ou 
 the facts presented the plaintill' was entitled to 
 jiulgment for the same anuuint as the sum paid 
 into court, /li.lf v. /VrtM r, 12 A. P.. I ; .V. ('., 
 ltd) nnni. Frasrr v. /iill, 13 S. ('. R. olO. 
 
 The plaintili's sueil for work ami l.diour as 
 contractors, claiming a balance ot ^oll. 'I'he 
 defemlant by his Btatemcnt of defence denied all 
 
1564 
 
 lesses, but the 
 >n was ordered 
 e result of the 
 '<(S 9 P. R. 
 
 wrong cause. 
 259, p. 1309. 
 
 iiony suit ob- 
 fendant gives 
 oinniitted, thci 
 uiit fi irwhicli 
 mit, to 1)0 ap- 
 nt of tlic ali- 
 sucli payment 
 scliarged from 
 liam, 29 Chy. 
 
 auk, 16 O. K. 
 
 lefeiicc tliat in 
 on that lie was 
 lanuo, etu., hu, 
 irt tlic sum of 
 as sullicieut to 
 itiff in respect 
 ito court under 
 iOO, wiiidi was 
 ssuo and l)ef(irr 
 1 luM that the 
 iver, I (.'fused to 
 0. An a|)|)eal 
 
 with costs, as 
 ion. IVr Hag- 
 There was only 
 uhl liavt^ hcfii 
 
 special onk'i', 
 U't; the money 
 it al)>^()lutely in 
 
 ilefence ; and, 
 idrawn l)y tlie 
 ■r.son, J. I. A.— 
 jrt ^it up, was 
 I iKitiee to the 
 •ourt to answer 
 ;. Money Jiaid 
 it inivitalily to 
 ir XWl.O.J. 
 it into conrt is 
 iiiust yiehl to a 
 ir that purpose; 
 arini; from the 
 irly witlidiawn 
 ui|irciMe Court, 
 iiaynuiit was a 
 ion which ti.r 
 Dtwithstanding 
 •aring : - llehi, 
 nly recognized 
 !y in tlu' t'vent 
 dctcndauL was 
 y, liut tliat (m 
 wan entitled to 
 s the NUin paid 
 
 \.]\. I ; .y. v., 
 
 \i. 540. 
 
 and laliour as 
 ot §511. 'I'he 
 'ence denied all 
 
 1665 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 
 1566 
 
 the allegations in the statement of ulaini, and 
 also said that $30U was suilicient to satisfy the 
 plaintiffs' whole claim, and he paid that sum into 
 court in satisfaction of such claim. Con. Rule 
 6'.Vi provides that " tiic payment of money into 
 court shall not lie deenieil an admission of the 
 cause of action in respect of which it is so 
 paid": — Held, that the plaintitt's were not en- 
 titled, before the determination of the suit, to 
 take out the money paid into court, unless they 
 tooit it ill full Hilisfaction of their claim. Kunt 
 T. Mitchell, 13 P. 11. 118. -Dalton, Maslcr. 
 
 (c) l-Jlle'-l of— As lo Costs. 
 
 The defendant brought into court with his ^ 
 di fence a .sum which he pleaded was sullicienc 
 1(1 answer the ]ilaiiitiir's claim, and the judge at i 
 the trial liniliiig that it was sutliciciit, directed 
 jii tgment Lo be entered tor the defendant, with 
 cents: — Held, that the jiulge at the trial had a, 
 (hscivtiou to deal with theijiiestion (if costs, and j 
 having exercised it, the taxing otiicer had mi ! 
 alternative but to ta.\ to the defendant his full 
 cdsts iiicurreil, as well before as after the pay- 
 iiieiit into court. Simdl v. I.ynn, 10 P. K. -'■_';!. 
 
 Cameron. 
 
 The statement of defence set up that the 
 .issault ccimiilaiiH'il (if was in self-ilcfeuce, and, 
 as an alternative defence, that, while the delen- : 
 daiit did not adiiiiL his liability for damages, 
 lie brought into court i;\M and said that tlie 
 .-aiiie was.-sutKcieiit, etc. : -Held, that the money 
 [laid into court under this defence could not be 
 retained there to aiisu'cr the defendant's c(^sts, 
 if he HUCCi'cded, unless a proper case was made ^ 
 for ordering security for co.sts. J'n'jer.-t v. Aoo.s, 
 il P. II. 1 IS. Kiiigsmill, Locrt/ uA((t/|/(; - IJoyd. ' 
 
 Per Ariiiiiiir, .1. -The rule as to costs before 
 ■lie .ludicaturc Act w.is, that if money was paid 
 into court in respect of the whole cause of action, 
 and the plaintilf refused to acce|it it in sitis- ; 
 liction, and recovered no more at the tri d, the ; 
 lielendant was entilled to jiiilgincnt and his 
 (lists of the suit, and there is nothing in the 
 • liidicature Act to alter this rule. Tulnii v. M<- 
 <Ullit, ll.' P. R. (iO. 
 
 The iilaintill's claimed in this action .S3, 'J40.3li, 
 ■amount of defalcation of .) " and .•jUU.."i."> for 
 ■.rrtain expenses coniKcled tlier( with, in all 
 ^•3, 339,91. T'he defendants paid into coiirl 
 ^.■t,"_'73, claiming by their notice of payioeiit 
 in, that it was sutlieieiit to satist'y thi! plaiiitid's" 
 claim. Tiiere was no specilic aiiplication of the 
 money paid in lo any pirt of the rlaim. I'lie 
 plaiiitills did iini deliver a statement of claim, 
 ami, upon notice of a motion under Kiile -d.'i 
 (Con. Rule li4(i) to di iniiss the a'.'tioii being 
 Served by the defend nits, the plainlill's gave a 
 notice under Rule 170 (Con. Rules (i-ll, (il'J) of 
 withdrawal of the balance of their claim : — 
 Held, that the plaiiitid's had no power under 
 Rule 170 (Coll. liiiles (111, (II'J) to withdraw ; the 
 portion of that Ruh' relating to the withdr.iwal 
 ot part of the idlcged cause of the complaint is 
 ap[ilieablc only wiutre the jiart smight to be 
 \\ illi.lrawii can be severed fniiii the rest of the 
 claini ; and an ordir disniissiiig the :utiiin was 
 luoper : Scmlilc. that the plaiiitid's, not having 
 under Rule -\H (sue C^on. Rules 032 et seip) ac- 
 cepted the money in full satisfaction of their 
 
 claim, were liable to pay the whole costs of the 
 action ; but the disposition of costs by the local 
 judge who made the order was not interfered 
 with on appeal. Jlank of London v. (1 narantvi. 
 Co. of Xorlh America, 12 P. R. 499.— Roae. 
 
 4. //( Ulhw ('a■^e■^. 
 
 The referee in chambers has no jurisdiction 
 lo make an order for payment into court by an 
 e.\ecut(U- or administrator of amounts admitted 
 by him to be in his hands. h'r Cum/ — Wruilil 
 V. <:urry ; Curry v. Curry, S P. R. 340. 
 
 Payment into court Ity surety of anuiunt of 
 bond given for security for costs, See Kdly v. 
 Imiia-ial Loan Co., 10 P. R. 4",)!), p. 3U2. 
 
 Defence of tender without payment into court 
 in an action to recover money as compensation 
 for land expropriated 
 
 V. 
 
 Mid 
 
 Sec Dcniori-.il 
 land a. ir. Co., 10 P. R. (j40. 
 
 The gross proceeds of a sale of goods in an 
 interpleader inatler should be jiaid by the 
 shcrid' into court witliniil dcdiicting anything 
 for his expenses. Oiilnrhi liaiik v. llvi'M, II 
 P. R. 210. — iJalton, Mu.'<lir. 
 
 An ajipliealiun for an order sanctioning the 
 paynienl of a beiiuest in favour of infants to their 
 lather, who with the infants resided in a foreign 
 state, and had there been appointed guardian by 
 a .Surrogate Court, was refused, and the execu- 
 tors were ordered to pay the amount of the be- 
 (piest into court. Re Andrews, 1 1 P. R. 199 dis- 
 tinguishes.. ViV I'arr, 11 P. R. ,301.— Boyd. 
 
 Where the lilaintiifs solicitor made default in 
 ])aymeiit into court of the ten jier cent, paid to 
 liini at the time ot sale, under the conditions of 
 sale : — Held, tl.al the other parties entitled to 
 the jnirciiase mo. ley should not sutler thereby, 
 but that the iilai'ititl's share should be ehargetl 
 with the deli, ieiiey. Midkiiii \. Clark'', IIP. 
 R. 3dO.~Pr(niillo('it. 
 
 A solieilor in an action had olitained an order 
 for the jiayineiit out to him of certain moneys 
 in court, and upon such order obtained the 
 ] moneys. Subsei|iienlly an order was obtained 
 I rescinding tlie above order and directing the 
 s ilieitor to I'oithwith repay the said moneys into 
 ccuirt, audio ])ay the costs of llie a[ii)lieation. 
 Oil his non-conipli.uice tin lewith a motion was 
 made for his eoniinittal : -Held, that the order 
 for committal should l;o, for w hat was sought by 
 the motion was the piinishnuiit of the solieit(U' 
 lor bis contempt in disobeying the order of the 
 court ; and that Con. Rule S(i7 had no applica- 
 tion, /'rilrli'ird v. I'rilchard, IS U. li. 173, 
 l7S.--MacMalioii. 
 
 5. IiUercxt Allowed. 
 
 Under 31 Viet. c. 12, and 37 Viet. c. 1,3, the 
 Minister of Public A'orks of the Dominion of 
 Canada appropriated l.o the use of the Dominion 
 certain lands in N'arinoulh county, known as 
 '• IJunker Island.' In ac 'oidance with said 
 .•\cts, on till' 2nd April, lS7o, he paid into the 
 hands of W., prothonotary at Halifax, the sum 
 of .*'li, ISO as coiniiensation and interest, as pro- 
 vided by those Acts, to be thereafti^r appro- 
 priated among the owners of the said island. 
 
1567 
 
 PAYMENT. 
 
 1568 
 
 s&'^i 
 
 This sum was paid at several times, by order of 
 the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, to one A., 
 as owner, to one (J., us nioitgagee, iiiiil toothers 
 entitled, less Ion dollars. As the money had 
 remained in tlio hands of W. , the prothonotary 
 (if the court, for some time, H., attorney for ()., 
 applied to the Supreme t/'ourt for an order of 
 the court calling upon \V., the prothonotary, to 
 pay over the interest upon (i.'a proportion of 
 the moneys, which interest (M. was informed) 
 had been received by the prothonotary from the 
 bank where he had placed the amount on de- 
 posit. W. resisted the application on the ground 
 that he was not answerable to the proprietor of 
 the principal, or to the court, for interest, but 
 did not deny that interest had been received by 
 liim. A rule nisi was granted by the court and 
 made absolute, ordeiing the prothonotary to pay 
 whatever rate of interest he received on the 
 amount : — Held, that the prothonotary was not 
 entitled to any interest whieli tlie amount de- 
 posited earned while under the control of the 
 court. That in ordering the prothonotary to 
 pay over the interest received by him, the court 
 was simply exercising tin; Nunnnary jurisdiction 
 which each of thesii])erior courts has overall its 
 immediate oiheers. (Kuurnier and Henry, JJ., 
 dissenting.) H7//,t;(.v v. (!<<hh.% ;j S. C. H. SO:!. 
 
 During the progress of this action money had 
 been paiil into court by the defendants which 
 remained there on deposit for upwards of seven 
 years : — Held, aflirming the judgment of Proud- 
 foot, J. (12 O. R. -lil^) tiiat on taking the account 
 between the parties the defendants were liable 
 to pay in respect of this sum the rate allowed 
 upon the residue of the ])rincipal, and was not 
 limited to the rate allowed liy the court. I'oirtll 
 V. Fed; 15 A. R. 138. 
 
 See lie Gionif. Tmjhr antVThe Ontario ami 
 Quebec li. W. 'Co., II P. R. 371 : lie I'liilbiirk 
 and The Ontario and Quebec li. W. Co., 11 P. 
 R. 373. 
 
 6. Attachment of Moneij in Court. 
 See Macphemon v. Tiadale, 11 P. R. 261, 
 
 cause, there to abide the further order of the 
 court. The injunction was afterwards refused ■ 
 — Held, on appeal from the referee, orduriu" 
 payment out, that the payment out of the fun?! 
 was discretionary with the court, and that pend- 
 ing the appeal to the Court of Ap[)cal the saiiiv 
 should remain in court, but tnight bo paid out on 
 proper security being given : -Hcl<l, also, n,, 
 objection that the order refusing the injunction, 
 and the order for payment out had not been 
 entered. Kidi) v. Duncan, !) P. R. (jl. — Fe 
 son. 
 
 L< ergii 
 
 p. 89. 
 
 VII. Pavmknt of Monev Oi;t ok Court. 
 
 1. In Actions Pending Appeal. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 About $40,000 was jiaid into court during the 
 progress of the suit. 'I'he decree dismissed the 
 bill, and ordered payment of tlie mcney in court 
 to defendant. The plaintifl' ajipeuled, and ]iuid 
 $400 into court as security for costs. Subse- 
 quently an order was made by the referee stay- 
 ing payment out to the defendant, pending the 
 appeal, u]ion the plaint ill' giving additional se- 
 curity to the amount of $200 for the ditl'erence 
 between the legal interest and that allowed by 
 the court : — Held, on appeal, that such oriler was 
 not ultra vires nor unreasonable. McDonald v. 
 Worihington, 8 P. R. ^nA. — Ferguson. 
 
 The plaintiO's having moved for an injunction 
 to restrain the sale of Loods under execution, the 
 motion was enlarged and the sale permitted to 
 proceed, the money arii-ing tlierefrom being di- 
 rected to be paid into court to the uredit of the 
 
 On the Kith November, ISSl, an order was 
 made directing D. to pay a certain sum of inoney 
 into court. I>. appealed from this order to tiir 
 Court of Appeal, and for the puriioso of stayin;,' 
 execution, insteail of giving security, as recpiireil 
 by R. S. O. (IS77) c. ;1S, s. 4, be ])aid this sum 
 into court, being authorized so to do by an order 
 in chambers. On the 27th Oct(d)er, ISS.'l, the 
 (y'ourt of Apjieal reversed the order of KJth 
 Novcndier, ISSI. The respondents then gavf 
 notice of ap|ieal to the Supreme, Cunrt of Can 
 a<la :— Held, that the money paid in by I), nuw 
 be taken to have been so ])aid in lieu of tlie honil 
 required by the statute ; that when the deciaion 
 in appeal was given in I). 's favour, the money 
 had served the purpose for which it was paid : 
 and that it ought to be repaid, lie Ikmtvan^ 
 Wihonw Bcntly, 10 P. 1{. 71.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The defendants succec<led at the trial, iu the 
 Divisional Court, and in the Court of Appeal. 
 Pending an appeal by the plaintifl's to tliu 
 Supreme Court of Canada, the defendants a|i- 
 l)lied for payment out of court to them of a sum 
 paid in by the plaintill's i-epresenting the whele 
 sid)jcct matter of the litigation : — Held, that tlie 
 application was iu the discretion of the court : 
 that that discretion shouhl be exorcised in the 
 same way as upon an ajijical to the ( ourt of A]!- 
 peal ; and that the application should therefore 
 be refused, following King r. Duncan, 9 P. K. 
 (il. Canadian Land ami Emiijrtilion Co. v. 
 Totrnxhip of I )y. sari, 11 P. R. 51. — Ferguson. 
 
 Sec Citizens' fns. Co. v. Parsons, .'i2 C. 1'. 
 492, p. 412 ; McLaren v. Caldicell, 9 P. R. 118. 
 p. 412. 
 
 2. In Other Cases. 
 
 Where money is paid into court under an 
 order giving leave to "apply at (!;iiambera" for 
 its payment the referee has jurisdiction to make 
 the order for paj'ment out. In re iSilby, 8 P. \\. 
 .'142.— Stephens, lief tree. 
 
 ] An order was nuide in this matter by the 
 referee in chambers before the passing of the (). 
 J. Act directing certain ascertained sliares then 
 in court to be paid out to certain infants as they 
 respectively came of ago :- Held, that theshares 
 
 might be j)aid out without any further order, 
 
 1 notwithstanding Rule 424, O. .J. Act (see Con. 
 
 ! Rule 41). AV Cameron Infants, 9 P. R. 77. - 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 As to jurisdiction of nuister in cluunbers. Sue 
 lie Deri'tt, 9 P. I!. 110. 
 
 Money in court to the credit of a lunatic, 
 though not so found, was dii'ccted to bo Jiaid out 
 in anniuil sums for maintemiuce. lie Hinds, 
 Ilinda v. Hindu, II P. R. 5. — Ferguson. 
 
1568 
 
 r order of tlie 
 wardn rufiiseil : 
 forou, orduriiir 
 )Ut (if the fui,rt 
 and that pend- 
 Ppfiil the saiiio 
 
 1)13 paid out (HI 
 Held, ulsii, 111, 
 tlu; iiijiinutioii, 
 
 liad not beiii 
 H- 01.— Fergii 
 
 ail order was 
 n. sum of inoney 
 liiN order to tlio 
 •jioae of stayiiijr 
 •ity, as i-LMiuireM 
 (J paid this sum 
 D do l>yaiior(l(i 
 
 ;<'l)or, iss;), till' 
 
 order of IGtli 
 eiits thtii gavi' 
 
 Cimrt of Can- 
 (1 ill liy I). inu>l 
 lieu of the bond 
 licii the deeiaidii 
 our, the money 
 ;li it was paid': 
 
 Ri'. J)i)ii)ran - 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 the trial, ia tlm 
 -ourt of Appciil. 
 laiiitids to the 
 defendants ap- 
 ;o them of a sum 
 ntiiig the wIkjIc 
 — Ifeld, thatthe 
 on of tile court : 
 exeieised in the 
 the Court of Ap- 
 hIiouUI therefore 
 Duncan, 9 P. K. 
 liijnilioii Co, V. 
 )!. — Ferguson. 
 
 )'.WHs, :{2 C. 1". 
 >elt,<3 V. R. 118. 
 
 court under an 
 ; (/haiiihers" for 
 .sdiction to make 
 
 n- SMy, 8 I'. K. 
 
 i matter by tlie 
 )assiiig of the 0. 
 ined siiares then 
 n infant.s as they 
 1, that the shares 
 y further order, 
 iJ. Act (see C'oii. 
 ", !) I', ii. 77.- 
 
 cliambers. See 
 
 it of a lunatic, 
 ■d to 1)0 paid out 
 ce. lie. Hinds, 
 ergiisoii. 
 
 1669 
 
 PENAL ACTIONS AND PENALTIES. 
 
 1570 
 
 Lien of solicitor on fund in court. Sec AV 
 y.Vm, U I'. I!. l-'7; lV»/<» \. Juhn^im,, \\ \\ 
 K. '2:ii. 
 
 A sum of iiioney left liy Md). in bis will to 
 his daughter, who predeceased him was paid into 
 court by .Mcl>.'s executois, 'I'lie daughter by 
 her will had di.'^poBeil of the moneys width she 
 expected from her father's estate, braving part 
 tu her hiisliiind and part to her iiitaiit children, 
 iiumiiig her linsband executor, and diiecting him 
 to invest the infants' shares and expend the in- 
 terest for tiieir niaiiit(Uiancc. It v.as admitted 
 )iy th(! otlicial guardian on behidf oi the infants 
 that there was no reason to anticipate danger to 
 the inmiey if paid out to the ixecutur :-- Held, 
 that the will of tiu^ testatrix sliiuild be re- 
 Miectcd, and the infants" mniiev paid mit to the 
 executor. /.V M,-I)„ii,i.ill f,-'isi.<, II |>. |!. 
 4!(4. l''erguson. 
 
 On an njiplication by a ti ustei! eomiiany, and 
 a party who was entitled for bl'e to tl,e ineoiiie 
 of a fund in court, which was the [nciccc ds of 
 the sale of certain settled estates, for the pay- 
 ment out of the fund for the purpose of invest- 
 ment by the coiiiiiany as trustees (they hav- 
 ing been appointed the trustees under the will 
 which devised tilts settled estatesi, which ;ip|di- 
 oation was opposed by the ollici \\ guardian on 
 behalf of the remaindernian : Held, that the 
 practice and eiirriiit of authority were against 
 what was asked by tln^ petitioners, and that 
 they were not entitled to it as a matter of right, ; 
 and that tins .ipplic.ition niii.sc be dismissed. A'l; 
 ,/. T. tiinUh'-< rrit.sl.-i, Xi>. .', IS (). It. :;-J7. - 
 ]5oyd. 
 
 Held, ])er Ititchie, (I. .)., Strong and 'rasclie- 
 reau .lil., atiirming the judgment of tlie Court of 
 Queen's lleiich, Montreal, that where miuievs 
 have been voluntarily deposited by a gainislice 
 in tli(^ hands of th(!))i'otli()notary, and thcattacii- 
 iiieiit of Hiicli moneys is snbseipiently (|uashed 
 by a tiiial judgment of the cnurt, there being 
 then no longer any moneys subject to a distri- 
 bution or colldcatioii. such iii(mcy.s canniil be 
 claimed by an opposition en sons cn-drc. I'oiiiiiier 
 and (iwynnc .bl. dissenting, on tlie gidiind that 
 us the moneys were still subject to the coiitnd of 
 the court at tlit' time the opposition en sous ordre 
 was (iled, such opposition was not too late. 
 llaniard v. Mn/.viii, lo S. ('. It. 7U». 
 
 Money ill court will not lie paid out to the 
 next of kin of deceased jiarties without a jicr- 
 sonal representative having been appointed and 
 in.ade a Jiarty by revivor, except in simple ca>es, 
 where the sum in court i.s .small, and the circum- 
 stances are such that the court can see that it is 
 safe to dispense with administr.itioii or revivor 
 or both, in order to save costs. Miilor/: v. 
 Oaipl/ini, \',i V. K. 4.53.— Maeleiiiian. 
 
 See ('tiii.s'iii''(iii V. Ci/i/ of Lniiilmi Fin' lii.i. Co., 
 13 1'. R. :W. p. :«)0; k,iii>' v. MUrh.ll, \:\ \\ R. 
 118, p. loO"). 
 
 X stop Oi:l,'i: 
 
 H. M. (.'. being entitled to certain moneys in 
 court, obtained certain advances from A. II. and 
 gave him a jiower of attorney to endorse any 
 chetpies issued to liim by the court and repay 
 himself. Sul)»e(iueiitly It. M. (.'. obtained an- 
 
 90 
 
 other advance from W. II. and assigned all his 
 interest in the funds in court to II., which as- 
 siirunu lit . Was duly tiled in the accountants 
 ollice and entered in the accountant's books and 
 arted on lor three years. W. II. had no notice 
 of A. Il.'s ))(iwer of attorney. A. II, recovered 
 a jiidgaieiit a-aiiist II. M , " ( '. for tlie amount 
 due liim in lleccmbcr, ISS!!, and obtained a stop 
 order in October, ISS,"). On a moti(Mi lor pay- 
 ment cuil to A. 11., which was resisted by \V. 
 II., who claimed all the moneys under his as- 
 signment, it was: -Held, that tlu^ court is the 
 custodian of the fund and not the accountant, 
 and that notice to the accountant of an assigii- 
 iiieiit of funds ill court is not tantamonnt to 
 notice of the assignmeiit of a trust fund to a 
 private trustee, and that a stop order is the 
 liropir way of ])erfectiiig such a security. Per 
 lloycl, ('. — It was not necessary for A. If. to 
 recover a judi'lnent in order to entitle him to a 
 stcip order, rayiaent.s alr( ady made to \V. H. 
 under the assi;;nm. nt slioiiM not be interfered 
 with, as tlie lodging of the assigmiu lit with the 
 accountant was siillicieiit under the iiractice to 
 justify payments out in the aliseiicc of any 
 claim by A. II. under the lirst assignment. Per 
 Fergusiui, J. —A. II. having the earlier assign- 
 ment was lirst in ))oint uf time, and prima facio 
 wiiiild be lueferii il in law, and having oljtained 
 a stop order, wliicli has been held to be the 
 Jiropfr way of giving notice to the court, he 
 thereliv Jierfccted his assignment. ('uIIIikjImiii 
 V. (■uiiiiiulitim, 11 O. K. :i!»-'t.-Chy 1). 
 
 Since the coming into force of the "Creditors' 
 Kciief Actof lSS0,'"-2r)tli March, IS84, execution 
 creditors who obtain stop orders on funds in 
 court do not olitain any piiority thereby, but 
 all must share ratably. As some of the pro- 
 visions of the statute are to enable simple eon- 
 tract creditors to come in and obtain the posi- 
 tion of execution creditors, they must have tlm 
 .same rinht with ngard to funds in court as they 
 Would have with regard to funds in the sheritf'.s 
 hands, and in any case w here an execution credi- 
 tor obtains a stnp oriler there must be a refer- 
 ence to • 'J inasttir to ascertain if any other 
 creditors desin^ to ask a share of the fund. 
 Daivfiiii V. Mo<J\Ui, 11 (). K. 484.- (by. D. 
 
 PEDIGREE. 
 
 See EviDi-.NCi',. 
 
 PENAL ACTIONS AND PENALTIES. 
 
 I. Li;iiisi.\TivK .IiKisnicnoN— .Vcc Cos- 
 sTii'i I iDNAi. Law. 
 
 II. U.NDKU Ei.KCTioN Acts — .Vci' Pakiia- 
 
 MKNTAUY ELlil^TUtNS. 
 
 III. Unof.ii I'y-i.aws— .SVe MrMcii-Ai. Cmi- 
 
 roUATIONS. 
 1\'. Co.NVlCTIONS— .Vcc .lisricis ol- TUB 
 I'KAfK — I.STO.MCATIM: I.HilOitS. 
 
 In penal .statutes (iuestio.i.s of doubt arc to be 
 construed favourably to the accused, and where 
 
^IpiflF'^''. 
 
 •: 
 
 
 
 /Si 
 
 10 
 
 ,l 
 
 9* 
 
 
 <^'i 
 
 ■ 
 
 r ^ 
 
 
 IV< 
 
 { 
 
 
 -,] 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 y$ 
 
 .-4 
 
 •M* 
 
 
 »J 
 
 ,! 
 
 •( 
 
 ;* 
 
 E 
 
 
 * 
 
 ■ 
 
 1571 
 
 PE!i"AL'lY EY CONTRACT. 
 
 1572 
 
 tlic court of lii'.-it iiiHtimce in a quasi criminal i 
 triiil has :u'(|iiitti'il tlio rcsiioiidriiit, tli<!a])|)ollatu I 
 court will not rcviMHi' liis liiuiinj,'. Nur'kOitln- \ 
 r!n K/cr/loi [<hil,)-Mi-Viii<k(ll V. PiMloii, H. K. I 
 C. ;k'4.-C'. of A. I 
 
 Actions for jicMaltics ajjainst municipal clerk , 
 ftnd ruturniuL,' ollicfis uiiilcr tlu; Munici|)iil Act, i 
 
 iss;{, H. i(i7. s.'c .i//.-;».s V. I't.iitiiiij, ,-) (). i;. .siio, 
 ].. i:wi. ! 
 
 1I('1<1. tliat tlu' IS i;ii/. c. ">, wliicli enacts tliat ] 
 !ui infoinur hIiiiII sui.' litliur in person or l>y at- 
 torney, is in foi'cc in tliis pr.jvincc, and tlicre- 
 foip llie ])l;iintill', an infant, suin;,' l)y liis next 
 frii'iid could not niainlain an action for a penalty 
 MM irr the l''.lcc(,i(in Act. Tlio appellant liavinj,' 
 omitted to taketliis olijeetion in the court lielow 
 tliis court oil nllowiiig tlie aiipcal on that ground, 
 ri'fused liiiii lii.s costs of ap|)eal. A piMHon who 
 sues for a penalty given l)y the Kleetion Act is 
 a eoniinon infornior. (larri/t v. Jiohcrl.-t, JO A. 
 I!. (i.'iO. 
 
 Security for costs in penal actions. See Mnr- 1 
 till I/. I. V. ( •oiisoliihiiul li<iiiL\ 45 (i. V,. in.S, p. ;{U0; 
 Bmbrorth v. A't//, 10 1'. K. :t[\. p. 3(iO. 
 
 Action forpoialty under 31 Car. II. c. 2, s. G. 
 See Arxcit v. IJIlii/, IK). K. 15;}; 14 A. I!. 'IT,, 
 p. SoO. 
 
 In an action by several plaintUrs (pii tain 
 against two defendants for ])enaltios for not ro- 
 gisttiring tlieir partnership under II. S. (). (IS77) 
 c. 1-3, of whieli section 11 gives tlu; right of 
 notion to "any ixrson" who may sue :- Hclil, 
 reviM-sing the jn<lgu;eiit of the court helow : (I) 
 'I'hat und r the aliove section and the ]nter]uc- 
 tation Act. any olijietioii to the action lieing 
 Ijrouglit in the name of more than one per.son 
 could not prevail : (2) That the eireunistanee 
 that tlu; plaintifl's ivsiiled out of the jurisdiction 
 could not defeat their action : (3) Th.-it the join- 
 der of two <lefeud lilts for several |ieualties was 
 not a ground of denuirrer ; and pei()slcr, .I.A. — 
 Theic w.iM no inconvenience or iinpropi'iety in 
 joining these two dereudaiits in one action. 
 Vhaitiit V. /,V»r'(7, 14 A. I!. 3r)4. 
 
 The courts of this provinee will not indirectly 
 cnf<uce the penal laws of a foreign country liy 
 eutcrlaining an action founded on a judgnu;ut 
 ohtaiued in that foreign country in a jieiial ac- 
 tion. 'I he ('ourt of .\ppeal lieing divided in 
 <»])inion, hoth as to the ])enal nature of the judg- 
 ment sued on and as to whether the law appli- 
 cahle to E-ueli (piestion was that of the foreign 
 country or of this province, the appeal was dis- 
 niisseil. /fiiiiiiii'il'Hi. v. Attrill, 17 O. R. 245.— 
 Strut; IS A. 11. 130. 
 
 PENALTY BY CONTRACT. 
 
 The dcfciidaiit, who had trcsp.assed on the 
 plaintifl's land by placing stones and commene- 
 in'4 to liuil I a stoiu; fence thereon, enterc<l into 
 an agreem nt to reuH)Vi; the san)e before the loth 
 of ])eecnd)er, unless, ui)on a resurvey, which he 
 hid the privilege of having made before the 
 IStli November, it was fumd that the line run 
 by one S., a surveyor, was not the correct line, 
 or unless d{;l'eudant should fail to have such re- 
 survey : and lie agreeil " to pay to the plaintitT 
 the sum of $2U0 as liquidated damages if the said 
 
 stones and stone fence aie not removed, as liere- 
 inbefore agreed, at the times mentioned in this 
 agreement:'" -Held, atliiiuiiig the judiinient of 
 the County Court, that thi: siiiii mentiuned was 
 not a peiidty, but li(|nidated ilaiuiiges for the 
 omission to pcrfiu'in a specific act, vi/., the re- 
 moval of the ston(;s anil stone fence, ('iiui/v 
 Dillon, W A. K. IK). 
 
 The plaintiirs under a by I iw granted the de- 
 fendant a bonus of .■<2l).IMI() to aid him in the 
 maiiufactuic ot steam tire enginc.s wnX ai;rieii|. 
 tural iuipleineiits, subject to a eonditioii in the 
 by-law tli.it he should give ji mortgage on the 
 factory lucmiscs for .'?|0,()()0 and a bond fur 
 .i< I (),()( ill, to be conditioned : (I) for tlu; carrying 
 on of such manufaelnres for twenty years ; (2) 
 during that period to keep S:il>,l)(ll) invested iu 
 the faetoiy ; and (3) to insure the biiililing and 
 plant in p'liilititis favour for .SKl.OKt). The de- 
 fendant gave the liiiiid and mortgage, the latter 
 containing a covenant for insurance, .mil he in- 
 vested tlie .S3(),()()() as stipulated for. lie also 
 made a further mortgage on the premises to the 
 jilaintills for .'?3,0()(), not mentioned in the by-law. 
 The factory wasoiu' in which eighteen to t weuty- 
 tive men might have been employi-d, .ind which 
 eonid have turned out 100 mowers in a year. 
 In the eoiiise of two years only twenty mowers 
 wei\! constineted, and the iininlK'r ol jiersous 
 employed dwindled down from eighteen or 
 twenty to two or three : Held, that the ])erfor- 
 mance contemplated by the p.irties to the con- 
 tract to carry on muniifa-tiires w is one reason- 
 ably comnicnsniatc with the c.ipabilities of thi; 
 factory ; and that, upon the evidence, the defen- 
 dant had failed in the performanee : Held, also, 
 that the.'<IO,0()Oninilgage was given as a seeiirity 
 for any d imiges the plaintiU's mig , sustain hy 
 tlu; dcfmid lilt's default, to an extent not gre.iter 
 than i^lO.tiUl), and not as a eliaige for that S|ieci- 
 lie sum; Held, also, that, as the ■•;<;!, 0(10 mort- 
 gage was not authorized by the by-law, as to it 
 the )ilaiiititl's ware not entitled to any relief. 
 Itemarks upon elements to be emisidered by the 
 master in a.ssessing the damages. VilUvje oj 
 Jiriin.^(U V. lioimlil, 1 1 A. \i. tiOo. 
 
 To an action for the balance dm; iindera buiM- 
 
 ing colli raet, the clefeiidant S't up as a defence 
 
 that by the contract the |ilaintill was to build 
 
 the lious,; and have the same com|dctely lini.shed 
 
 and ready for the defeiidaiil's ocLMipilion by a 
 
 named date, " under a penalty of .S'l per day," 
 
 to be paid by the plaintitl' to the ihfeiidaut for 
 
 each and every day the work on the said house 
 
 remained untinished after the said dale ; .alleging 
 
 that the work remained unlinished after' the said 
 
 date for a certain number of days, making an 
 
 amount which the defendant claimed to deduct 
 
 ! from the contract ju'lce : Held, on demurrer, 
 
 j defence good : that the .So, though called a peii- 
 
 I alty, was in fact lii|uidateil damages :"t4>ua're, 
 
 • whether a di'iiinrrer was tin; ]jroper mode of 
 
 ! raising tin; ipiestioii as some damages would be 
 
 ; recoverable, t'/i<i//' rfoii v, Crothtrn, U O. K. 
 
 ()S3.— Rose. 
 
 On 27th May, ISS"), certain individuals foriii- 
 ing a cigar manulacturers' association, amongst 
 whom was the defendant, considering them- 
 selves aggrieved by the members of the cigar 
 makers" union, who refused to lower th(;|)rieuof 
 making a particular kind of cigar, entered into 
 an agreement in writing between themselves of 
 
 
1572 
 
 i^il, as lierc- 
 >iii''l in tliiH 
 
 U'liilMCIlt of 
 
 itiiiiiiid was 
 L!«s for tliu 
 vi/., till! re- 
 
 itcil l|l(> (Ic. 
 
 Ililll ill tilt: 
 
 iiiil ii^iicui- 
 
 itiiiii ill till! 
 
 L!ii,i,'o on tliu 
 
 a 1)1)11(1 for 
 
 ill' I'lirryiii!,' 
 
 vcirs ; [•>) 
 
 iiivcsttil ill 
 
 iiiililiiii,' ami 
 
 •II. 'I'liu <lu. 
 
 I', tlie iattiT 
 
 111(1 lie iii- 
 
 r. Ilo also 
 
 iiiiscs to tlie 
 
 ill tlic hylaw. 
 
 (11 tot wcnty- 
 
 (1, and \vliii;li 
 
 rs in a yuar. 
 
 ii'iity niowt'ia 
 
 ■r ol persons 
 
 ciyliteeii or 
 
 at tlie |ierf(n- 
 
 s to tliu COII- 
 
 s OIK! ivasoii- 
 
 liilities of till! 
 
 K'C, the (lefeii- 
 
 : -Held, also, 
 
 II as a seenrity 
 
 : . sustain l)y 
 
 'lit not f,'i'e,iter 
 
 for tliat speci- 
 
 j •^It.OIIO niort- 
 
 ly-law, as to it 
 
 to any relief. 
 
 sidered Ity the 
 
 s. I'illaije 0/ 
 
 I undura Imild- 
 1 as a defence 
 1' was to liiiild 
 di'ti'ly linisilied 
 'oiip itioii liy a 
 .S"> P'l' day," 
 
 defendant for 
 [he said house 
 
 (late ; allegiiijf 
 d after tlie saiil 
 ys, making an 
 lied to dednet 
 on deniurrer, 
 li ealled a peii- 
 aj,'es : -tjUia'ie, 
 'oper mode of 
 laj^os would 1)0 
 'hei-f, <J O. K. 
 
 lividuals foriii- 
 iition, amongst 
 sidcring them- 
 's of the cigar 
 iver the priee of 
 r, entered into 
 I themselves of 
 
 1573 
 
 PETITION OF RIGHT. 
 
 1874 
 
 llu! lii'st Jiai't and S. of the .second p.irt, as fol- ' 
 |i)W8 : " Whereas for the inntiial .idvaiit.ige mid i 
 nroteetion of the parties hereto * * it Ins 
 hceii agreed that the parties of thelirst part shall 
 JK'L'iini'' severally liouiid to .S. iiitliesnni of .t?."i(MI, 
 liipiidated (lainages in ease any of them shall at 
 iiny time during tlie eontiiiiianee of this iigne- 
 iiieiit, either diiti'tly or iiidiiettly, liiiy or sell 
 any eigais marked * * with the lahels of the 
 <-iL,'ar makers' union, or shall use * * in 
 (•o:iiieeti()i> with the iinniit'actiire of eigais hy 
 Ililll any cigar iiiakcr.-.' niiioii lahel, * * or ' 
 sli.ill [lermit * ' any cigar maker.s" union, or ', 
 any union or set of men to compel him to hire 
 or employ union men only, or to dismiss ••my I 
 eiii[iloyee. Xow, tlicii'fore, * * the ]iarties 
 Ici'cto of the lir.st (i.-irt severally covenant with 
 S. cac^li lor himself that lie will, in ease he 
 shall at any time lieieafler \ iolate any of the 
 foregoing stipulations (netting them out) iiii- 
 iii.diitely jiay to S. the sum of .iJ.'iOl) : the in- 
 tention lieiiig that in ease iti a violation of all or 
 ;iiiy of the stipulations * * aforesaid hy any 
 of the parties hereto of the liist part, he, the , 
 said party so oll'ending, shall iminiMliately forfeit i 
 and pay to S. the full sum of .S'ldll, * * be- i 
 c;ui'^e of his so otlending, as li(|uidated and a.scer- 
 taiiictl damages (and not as a penalty) to he liy 
 S. applied, etc. * * The intention, also, lieiiig 1 
 that the entire sum of .^fiOO shall be the ainounl j 
 ot the ascertained and litjiiidated damages for any 
 violation or breach whatever, of any of tliestiini- 
 lilioiis * * aforesaid on the part of any one of 
 the parties of the lirst part." 'riiedefemlant hav- ! 
 iiig broken the above agii^ement in all n^speets, 
 S. Iirought this act ion against him to recover S"»"' 
 as lii|uidated damages : Held, that the siini of 
 $'M) was licpiidateil damages and not a penalty. : 
 S'lir.idcrv. Lith\ 10 (>. li. .TiS.-- i'rondfoot. i 
 
 Where a contract contains a condition for piy- ; 
 nieiit of a sum of money as liiniiditi'd damages 
 for the breicli of stipulations of varied import ■ 
 aiiee, nolle of which is for piyniciit of an ascer- 
 tained sum of money, the general rule is. that 
 the sum named is not to be treated as a ]ienalty, 
 hilt as liquidated damages. The stipulations 
 ill this ea-^e resolved tTiemselves into oiie- 
 viz., that the defendant would not siibmil 
 to the dictation of the cigar makers in eairying 
 on his business. It was im])ossil)le to calculate 
 the (hlin.ige to the other nieinbers of the manu- 
 facturers' association by noii-conipliance with the 
 agreement. The case would therefore seem to 
 come within the rule that when the agreement 
 is fur the performaiiee of one act, and there is no 
 adeipiate means of ascertaining the daiiiai;es 
 from a violation and the jiarties agree u]ioii a 
 sum as li(piidated damages, it will not be treated 
 as a penalty. III. 
 
 A bond contained a stipulation that in the 
 event of any sum being found due by M. to the 
 bank, interest should be payable thereon from the 
 time an account of the balance due was delivered 
 to the parties to the bond by the bank, and 
 jndgnient was given in the court below in excess 
 of the penalty : — Held, however, as the law 
 would not allow a verdict against the obligors 
 for a greater sum than tlie penalty, interest 
 could not be computed on that amount until 
 after judgment. Kxchamje Bank v. Sjiriiii/cr ; 
 ErchaiKje Bank v. Banicx, 13 A. R. 390. 
 
 See Janet v. The Qiieai, 7 S. C. R. 570, p. 1576. 
 
 PERJURY. 
 
 Sit ClilMINAI, l.,\W, 
 
 .Vctinii on a judgment. |)efeiice that the judg- 
 meiit was obtained by pei jury, stating tin- per- 
 jury : - Held, good. SUiriirt v. .Vid.u.., S (>. It. 
 .'tn'. -llo.se. 
 
 PERPETUITY. 
 
 .V.c Wll.l,. 
 
 PETITION OF RIGHT. 
 
 I. In Casi;-; or ('oNTn\("r, I.''i74. 
 
 II. In Oiiii;,; Casks, l,-.SO. 
 HI. 1'i.i:aiijn.;, ITiS-I. 
 I\'. ( 'osTs, 15S."). 
 
 y. .•\i'I'i;ai,s, \')H'i. 
 
 1. In Casi;s ok C'oNTiiAirr. 
 
 The .suppliant engaged by eontraet under seal, 
 (laled 4tli December, lt>7'i, with the Minister of 
 S'ablic Works, to coiisti'ict,tiuisli, and complete, 
 for i\ hiiiip sum of .■<7S,(llK), a dce|) sea wharf at 
 jiiehnioii.i .station at llalifa.^c, X. tS., agreeably 
 to the plans in the engineer's otliec and speeiH- 
 eations, and witli sucli directions as should be 
 gi\eui)y the engineer in charge during the pro- 
 'jress of the v.dik. liy the 7th clause ot the cou- 
 tract no extra Work could be performed, uiilesa 
 "■n-dered in writing by the engineer in charge 
 1 *i .: ) (-1... II t- " Ilv Ii.l.f.t.i' 
 
 belort! the execution ot the woik." Uy letter, 
 dated -Jtilii August, lS7;i, Hie Minister of Public 
 Works authori/.cd the snpiili int to make an ad- 
 dition to the wharf by the erection of a super- 
 striietuie to be used as a co il lloor, for the addi- 
 tional sum of .SKS,100. Inirtlur extra work 
 which amounted to.'>l2,7Sl, was performed under 
 ; another letter fioiii the public works depart- 
 iiieiil. The w.nk was coinplett.'d, and im the 
 final ceililic:ite of the goverument engineer in 
 charge of the works, the sum of .•:?'.l,(iHI, as the 
 balance due, was paid to tie- sui.pliant, who 
 gave the following receipt, dated HUtli April, 
 Ts7.'>: "Heccived iroiii the Iiitcic(doiiial Kail- 
 way, in full, for all amounts against the govern- 
 ment for works under contract, as follows:— 
 • Uichiiioiid deep water wharf works for storage 
 of coals, work for bracing wharf, rebuilding two 
 stone cribs, the sum of .•?!I,()S1."" The suppliant 
 I sued for extra work, which he alleged was not 
 I covered by the payment made on the :JOth April, 
 ! l)S7.->; and also f()r (himages cau.sed to liiniby 
 ; deliciency in and irregularity of payments. The 
 petition "was dismissed with costs ; and a rule 
 \ nisi for a new trial was subseipiently moved tor 
 i and discharged -.-Held, atlirming the judgment 
 ' of the court below, that all the work performed 
 by the suppliant for the government, was either 
 contract work within the plans or speeihcutiows, 
 or extra work within the meaning of the 7li» 
 clause of the contriict, and that he was i>a:d in 
 full the contract price, and also the price of all 
 extra work for which he could pr..luee nritten 
 
■-jjj35»" 
 
 1S75 
 
 PETITION OF RIOHT. 
 
 1576- 
 
 authority, and timt the writfoii ;iiithoiity <>f tlie 
 engineer iind the CHtinmtu of the Viiliic of tlie 
 work were condilidMS precedciil t<> tlic liglitof 
 the suppliant to recover jiaynn lit for any other 
 extra work. (Henry, .1., dinsenting.) O'JIrlen 
 V. TheQKetii, 4 S. ('. H. Mi). 
 
 I'er Kiteliie, ('. .1., that neither tile enj-inecr, 
 nor tlie elerk of the works nor any .siilionllnatu 
 olfieer in eliarge of any of tlio works of tlii^ 
 Dominion of Canada, have any jioweror author- 
 ity, exjiresa or inipliid, under the law to hind 
 the Crown to any eoiitract or exju'iidittirt^ not 
 speuirtUy authori/.ed liy the express terms of con- 
 tract duly entered into between the Crown and 
 the contractor according to law, and then only 
 in the speciKe manner provided for hy the ex- 
 presii terms of tlie contract, /h. 
 
 On the '-Tith May, 1.S70, .T. and S. , eiuitractors, 
 entered into a contract with the Intennlonial 
 Railway Conimissioner.s (anthoii/.ed liy ',i\ \'ict. 
 e. 13) to construct and c()iii])leto section No. 7 
 of the said Intercoloiiiid liailway for the Domi- 
 nion of Canada, for a Imlk sum of )i'ut~,~M. 
 During the progress of the work, eliaiiges of 
 various kinds were made. 'I'lie works were 
 sutiiciently completed to admit of rails lieing 
 laid, and the line o])eiied for tiallic on tlio I Itli 
 Novemher, 1>S7l'. Tiie total iimount ]iaid (jii the 
 lOth Vehruary, 1!S7.'{, was ?>.").")7,7')0, the amount 
 of the contract. 'i'lie cunlractors thei'eiipon 
 presented a claim to the coinniissioiiera amount- 
 ing to §116,4G3.H,'} for extra work, etc., beyond 
 what was included in their contract. The coni- 
 missoncrs, after ohtaining a report from the 
 chief engineer, reeommemled that an additional 
 sum of ii!.Sl,(H»I.Sr) (less a sum of .^S.rtdO tor 
 timber bridging not executeil, and .':<l(»,.Sr)4.-4 
 for under drain take:> oil' contraelor's haiids) be 
 paid to the contractors u))on receiving a ftdl 
 discharge of all claims of every kind or descrii)- 
 tion under the contract. The balance was ten- 
 dered to su]>pliants and refused. Tlie contraetors 
 thereupon, by ])etition of right, claimed .'?l"_'4, - 
 (k)3.3.S, as due from the Crown to them for extra 
 work done by them outside of and beyond the 
 written contract, alleging that by orders of the 
 chief engineer additional work ami alterations 
 were re(piiied, but these orders were carried out 
 only on the understanding that such additional 
 work and altoratinns should be paid for extra ; 
 and alleging, further tliat tliey were put to large 
 expense and comi)elleil to do much extra work 
 which they were entitled to he paid for, in con- 
 .sequence of misrepresentations in plans and bill 
 of works exliibited at the time of letting. On 
 the profile plan it was stated tiiat the best infor- 
 mation in possession of the chief engineer re- 
 specting the prob.'ible (piantities of the several 
 kinds of work would be found in the schedules 
 acconi|)anying the jilan "but contractors must 
 understand that these quantities are not giiaian- 
 tced;" and in the bill of works, which purported 
 to be an abstract of all infurm.ition in possession 
 of the commissioners and chief engineer with 
 regard to the quantities, it was stated, "the 
 quantities herein given as ascertained from the 
 best data obtained arc, as far as known, ap])rox- 
 imately accurate, lint at the s.ime time they are 
 not warranted as accurate, and no claim of any 
 kind will be allowed, though they may jirove to 
 be inaccurate." The contract provided inter alia, 
 that it should be distinctly understocjd, intended 
 
 and agreed that the said price or consideration 
 
 j of S'.'").')7,7r)() should bo the price of, and he held 
 
 to be full compensation for all the works em- 
 
 I braced in, or contemplated by the said eontraol. 
 
 I or which might be re(|iiiied in virtue of any nt 
 
 its provisions, or by law, and that the coiitrac 
 
 tors should not upon any jiretext whatever, hi; 
 
 entitled by reason of any change, alter.itinii in- 
 
 addition, made in or to such works, or in tln^ 
 
 said plans and speeilicatinns, or by reason of Hie 
 
 exercise of any of the powers vested in the ( luv 
 
 ernor-in-CouiK.'il by tlie said Act, intifiileil "An 
 
 1 .Alt respecting the eoiistrilctioii of tlie liiteieoin- 
 
 I nial Railway," or in the cninniissioncrs op 
 
 ' engineer, by the said contract or by law, Ui 
 
 claim or demand any further or additional sinii 
 
 [ for extra work, or as damages or otherwise, the 
 
 contractors thereby expressly waiving and 
 
 I abandoning all ami any sucii claim or pictiii 
 
 ; sion, to all intents and piir])oses whatsoivi r, 
 
 except as provided in the fourth sectiim of the 
 
 said contract, relating to alterations in the 
 
 grade or line of locations, and thai the suiil 
 
 I contrai.t and the said specilicalions shunld lie in 
 
 all respects subject to the provisions of the .\ci 
 
 ^ lir.st cited in the said contrart, intituled ••.\ii 
 
 I Act respecting thi' i-onstiiktion of the Intii- 
 
 i colonial Railway," 'M \'iet. c. j.'t, and also, in 
 
 \ as far as they migiit be apjilicable, to the iJio- 
 
 visions of "The Railway ,\ct of IStJS. ' 'I'Ik 
 
 1 ISlli section of ,'!1 \'ict. c. I,S, enacts " that im 
 
 money shall be paid to any contractor until 
 
 the cliief engineer shall have certilied tliat tiic 
 
 work, for or on account of which the same shall 
 
 be claimed, has been duly txecuted, nor until 
 
 silcli certilicate shall havi' lieeli approved of by 
 
 the commissioners." N'o certilicate was given 
 
 I by the chief engineer of the exeeiitioii of the 
 
 work : -Held, that the contract rii|iiiriiig that 
 
 I iiny work done on the road must be eeitilied to 
 
 j by the chief (iigineer, until he so certiheil and 
 
 I such certilicate «as a]ipioved of by the cmii- 
 
 missioiiers, the contractors weie not eiilitleil to 
 
 I be paid inything. That if the work in question 
 
 ; was extra Work, the contractors had by the con- 
 
 J tract waived ;dl claim for payment for any siicli 
 
 j work. If such extra work was of a chaiaetrr 
 
 I so |)eculiar and unex[iected as to lie coiisiih iid 
 
 I dehors the contract, then there was no such 
 
 contract with the commissioners as would give 
 
 the contractors any legal claim against the 
 
 Crown ; the conimissiouers alone lieing able In 
 
 bind the (Jrown, and they only as authorized hy 
 
 statute. That there was no guarantee, express 
 
 or imiilied, as to the (juantities, nor any mis- 
 
 re]ireseiitations respecting !liem. Rut even if 
 
 i there bad been, a jietition ot right will not lie 
 
 against the Crown for tort, or for a claim hasiil 
 
 on an alleged fraud, imputing to the Crown the 
 
 fraudulent misconduct of its .servants. Juiitu v. 
 
 The (Jiicni, 7 S. C. I!, i"i70. 
 
 In the contract it was provided that if the 
 contraetors failed to perform tin; works Hilli- 
 in the time agreed upon in and by (.he said con- 
 tract, to wit, 1st July, lS7i, tlie contractors 
 should forfeit all money then due .•iiid owing to 
 them under the terms of the contract, and also 
 the further sum of §'_',<)(I0 per week for all the 
 time during which said works remaiiieil incoiii- 
 jilete after the said 1st, Inly, ISTl, by way of 
 liijuidated damages for such default. The coii- 
 I tract was not completed till the end of August, 
 ] IS72 : — Held, that if the Crown insisted on 
 
1576 
 
 !oimiilerutioii 
 iinil ho liu|,i 
 
 U MOikH nil. 
 
 aid fDiitract, 
 •ID of any (i| 
 tliti fciiitliK; 
 iVlllltcViT, Ik: 
 llltflMtioii 111 
 kH, or ill t|„. 
 
 VIlNOIl of III,. 
 
 ill the (iiiv 
 titiilcd "An 
 Ik' liitiirolij. 
 
 '••^sioiU'l'H ()|- 
 
 ,''.V law, to 
 litioiml Hiiiii 
 
 llt-l'WJHf, the 
 
 iiiviiii,' mill 
 III or |irLl(ii 
 
 wil.ltsoi'Vl'l', 
 
 •tioii of the 
 
 OILS ill the 
 
 it tlir .siiiij 
 
 loiilil In. ii, 
 
 lis of ||l|. ..\cl 
 
 ititiili'd •• All 
 
 't tJR' llltlT. 
 
 . mill td.so. ill 
 , to thu pill. 
 iNliS. ' Till' 
 
 H.-tH •• lliat Mil 
 
 tr.irtor until 
 ilifd tliiit tliii 
 
 he .siiliic .-iimll 
 I'd, nor until 
 
 IjiriiVllI iif |,y 
 
 Ltf was ;;ivfii 
 ■iiitioii of tliu 
 •ii|iiiliii^' that 
 liu i-citilicd to 
 I ourtiliud anil 
 
 l)y tin: ciiin- 
 ot tntitlcil to 
 vk in(|iic.-itiiin 
 id liy tlio con- 
 I for any Mich 
 f a uliarauter 
 l)u consiilcrcil 
 \vas nil siicli 
 iis wiiiild yivt! 
 i ayainst the 
 licing alilc to 
 luthorizL'd by 
 iiiteo, express 
 nor an^' nii.s- 
 
 lint even if 
 t will nut liu 
 I olaiin lia.<!('d 
 le C'row n the 
 
 its. f/oiKS V. 
 
 1 that if liiu 
 Winks with. 
 Ihu .said con- 
 ; ciintiac'tors 
 ami iiw ing to 
 u't, and uUi) 
 k fur all the 
 aincd intoni- 
 I, liy w.iy of 
 t. Tlu.' L'on- 
 l of August, 
 ilisi:itud on 
 
 1577 
 
 PETITION OF RIGHT. 
 
 1578 
 
 riM|uirihg a deiToi! for tho j)i'ii:iltii's, tiiiio ln'iiig 
 drdarcd tlit' osMcni'i' of III" ooiitr.n't, tlii' 
 dam igcs attai'liPil, and the ( "mwri was I'litillcd 
 til a sum of .'^-.OOD |ii'r wi'i'k fioni liu: Isl .Inly. 
 IH7I, till till-on 1 iif AngiHt, IH7-', for liiinidatod 
 ilain igi!<. 'riii'Ciowii snl)sc'i|iit;iitly waiving tlio 
 forfeiture, jiidgni'iit was ri'iidcrod in fnv ni!' of 
 till- sniipliants fur tlio sum of !?l'2,4!tli. 1 1, being 
 the amoniit ten lereil by the respinileiit, les.s the 
 ciist.s of the Crown in the e is • to be taxed and 
 (loducted fr<nii the said amnniit. Ih. 
 
 In .laniiai V. IST'i, the ei)iiiiiiissii(iiers of the 
 Intereoliiniil Kailway gave pnblii; noliee I hut 
 they were prepared to reerive tenders fur the 
 "•rcetioii inter alia of eertaiii engine. Iiunsi's ae. 
 eoiiiing to plans and speeilieations depositi'd at 
 the olliee of the eliief engineer at Ollawa. .1. I. 
 teiiilerud for the ereelimi of an engine limise at 
 Metapedi.'u-, and in Oololii'r following lie was 
 instriti'ted by the eommissioiieis to proercd in 
 the exe,;utioii of the Work, aeeording to his ae- 
 lepteil tender, the jniee being .'*JI.!)S!». The 
 work was loinpleted and delivered In I he ..'overn- 
 iiieiit in Oitobrr, 1SS4. The speeilj at ions pro- 
 vided as follows : '■ The niinmissioni'is will ]irii- 
 vide and lay r.dlw.iy inni. an 1 will iilio pnivii',.' 
 and lix east iron eolninns, iron girders, .and other 
 iron work reipiired for supporting roof.'' In 
 .■^I'lileinber, IS7.'!, .1. I. w.is unable to proei'ed 
 till tiler with the exeentioii of bis work, in eoiise- 
 (picneo of tile iiegleit of the eoniniissioners to 
 supply the iron girders, ete., until .M.ireli follow- 
 ing, owing to whieli diday bo snll'ercd loss 
 and damage. During the execution of the work, 
 .1. I. wasilistrneted and direeted by the eonimis- 
 xiimcrs or theirengiiieers to perform, and did per- 
 form, oertuiu extra works not ineludid in his 
 aeecpteil tender, .and not aeeording to the plans, 
 drawilig.s and speeilieations. I5y liis ]ietition of 
 right, .r. I. elaimed .*>.'<, "'.•■">.7."> dama','es in emise- 
 <pienco of the lUday on the part of the eomniis- 
 siouers to |)rovide, the east iron eolnmus, ete., 
 iind .*IS,.")0."). 10 for extra works. The Crown 
 diinurred and also traversed the alle'.'ation of 
 negligence and ibday, und adiiiilted exir.i work 
 to the iiinount of .$.">, (t.")(i.()() and set up the ISlh 
 section of 31 Viet. e. \'.i. wliieh I'eipiired the eerti- 
 lioatc of the eugiiieer-inebii-f as a eonditiou 
 precedent to the payment of any sum of money 
 for work done on the Intereolonial li.iilway. IJy 
 37 Viet., c. I."), on the Ist.luue, 1S74, the Inter- 
 eiiloni.al Itailway was declared to be a public 
 wiirk vested in Hi'r Majesty ami under the eon. 
 trol iuid mauiigcinent of the Minister of Public 
 Works, and ;dl the (lowers and duties of the 
 eonimissioners were tiansferred to the Minister 
 of I'nblic Works, iind .section 3 of 31 Vict. e. 13, 
 was rupoaled, with so much of any other jiart of 
 the said Act as might be in any way ineonsistent 
 Willi 37 Viet. e. 1.") :— Held, that the tender and 
 its acceptance by the commissioners constituted , 
 a valid contract between the Crown and .1. I.. 
 and that the delay and neglect on the jiart of 
 the eoniniissioners acting for the Crown to pro- 
 vide and fix the cast iron columns, etc., which 
 Were, by the specifications, to be pi'ovided and 
 fixed by tlieni, was a bre.ieh of the .said contract, 
 und that the Crown was liable for the damages 
 resnltiny from such breach. That the extra 
 work claimed for, being for a suiii less than §10- 
 001), the comniissioners had power to order the 
 Knmc under the statute 31 Vict. e. 13, s. Hi, and 
 ■J. I. could recover by petition of right, for suuli 
 
 l>.irl of the extra work claimed as he ha 1 b.M'n 
 directed In pcrf.irm. That the ISlh Hc'tami m 
 31 N'ict. e. i:t, not having been eiiibidlcil in the 
 agrecincnt wit'i .1. I., us u cnndilioii pncdent 
 to the pi\ 111 ■lit of ,iny Slim for work exc.aited, 
 
 I lie ('row iild not, now rdy on th.it section 
 
 of the St ilnte for work done and acci»)ited and 
 reeelv.'d by the govenimeiit. That the ell'ecl.of 
 37 N'ict. c. I.'>, Was to all ilisli the olliee of ehiel 
 eiigiieer of the Intercoloniid llailw.iy, and for 
 work perforin"d and received on and after Ist, 
 .liinc, 1S7I, to dispense with the neceisity of 
 obt lining, in a condition prece lent to the pay- 
 ment for the .same, the cci tilicate of said engi 
 iicer in-chief, in accord nice witli section IS of , "11 
 Vict. e. 13. /I'nsfrr V. '/'/(' 0/^v;,, 7 .S, C. U. (iillj. 
 
 Actiiiii against the Crown for cuiinsel fee.>t.- 
 lietainer. See Itf'iiun v. Duitln , .S. C. K. 
 34'.'; !l App. Ciu. 74.->, p. I4S. 
 
 The suppliants agreed by contracts under 
 .seal, dated 'IMU May, I.S76, with the Inter 
 colonial Itiilway ('oiiniiis^ioners (authorized by 
 31 \'iet. c, 13) to binld, coiislrnct .m I couiplete 
 sections three .ind six of the railw.iy for a lump 
 sum lor sect ion thr.Miof .■< I(i'.',4l I, ,iiid for section 
 si>; of .^l Vl,illi;.4'!. The coiiliMct provided, inter 
 alia, that it slioiild be distinctly understood, 
 intended, and agreed that the said lump sum 
 shiiiild be till! price of, and be held to be full 
 eonipensation for, all works embraced in or 
 eonteiiiplaled by the said cmitraet, or which 
 might be reipiired in virtue of any of its provi- 
 sions or bylaws, and the contractors should not, 
 upon any pretext whatever, bo entitled, by 
 reason of any change, alteration or addition 
 made in or to such works, or in the said plans 
 or s[iceiticalions, or by reason of the exercise of 
 any of the powers vested in the (Joveriior in 
 Ciimieil by the said Act intitule I " An Act n;- 
 specting the eonstrnetion of the Intercolonial 
 Kailway," or in the commissioners or engineers 
 by the said cuntraet or by l.iw, to claim or 
 demaiiil any further sum for extra work, or as 
 damiges or otherwise, the contractors thereby 
 expressly waiving and ali.indoning all and every 
 sie h claim or pretension, to all intents and pur 
 poses whatsoever, except as provided in the 
 fourth .section of the contract relating to altera- 
 tion in the grade or line of location ; and that 
 the said contract and the said specilication 
 should be in all respects subject to the (irovi- 
 sionsof3l N'ict. c. 13; that the works embraced 
 in the contracts should be in all rcsjiects subject 
 to the iirovisions of 31 Vict. c. 13, that the 
 works embraced in the colltract^ should be fully 
 and entirely complete in every p.irticular and 
 given U|) under tinal certilicates and to the satis- 
 f.iition of the engineerson the 1st of July, 1H7I 
 (time being declared to be material and of the 
 essence of the contract), and in default of such 
 completion contractors should forfeit all right, 
 claim, etc., to money due or percentage agreed 
 to be retained, and to pay as liipiidated damagcH 
 .*2,(I0I) for each and every week for the time the 
 work might remain uncompleted ; that the com- 
 missioners upon giving seven clear days' notice, 
 if the works were not progressing so as to ensure 
 their completion within the time stipulated or in 
 accordance with the contract, had power to take 
 the works out of the hands of the contr.ictors und 
 complete the works .at their expense ; in such 
 case the contractors were to forfeit all right to 
 
1679 
 
 PETITION OF RIGHT. 
 
 1580 
 
 iiioiii'V iliU' nil till' wiiikM ami to tlic ixrci'iitiigi- 
 rotiiiiicil, 'I'lit^ uiiik HUM taki'ii nut nl tlio IiiukIh 
 
 l>f tll(! Clint lill tnlH fill IHlt llil\ill^; 111'! II H.ltiMllll'- 
 
 toiilypi'iiri'i ili'il willi : lli'M.iillii iiiiii;^ tlic jihIk- 
 
 llH'Ilt III till' K\i'lMi|llrl' Ciillll, nil a |irlilinll nf 
 
 riglit lilcil liy rDiitraeliii'.s l''iiiiiiiii'i iiinl llniiy, 
 •I.I., ilihhciilinj;. list. 'I'liiil li\ tlirir cniiliarts 
 tlir Hii|i|illaiils liail waivi'il all ilaiiii fur |iayiii('nt 
 (if CXtlH Willi.. iJllil. i lilt tin' iniit|-ailni-( lint 
 liiiviiii,' |ir(.'viiiiisly nlitaiinil, nr luiii intiilril ti>. 
 a <.'t!iti(ii'at(i frniii the iliii'l' tiiHimir, as innvjilfil 
 by .'U \ ill. c. l.'t, K. Is, fur m mi .Mimiiit nl ilic j 
 nioiicy wliiiili they claiiiu'il, tlic |irt ilh ii nf tln' 
 HU|i|iliaiitH was |iin|iiily ilisiiiissi ■!. .'inl. riiilcr ] 
 tho t( TIllN nf tlie iiilitraft, till' \\ii:kiint li!i\iii;.' 
 Iiorll rnliililctril witllill tllli tiliii- -it i|>lllalri|, nl 
 in iU'L'oiilami! with tlif cniitiait, tlic rnnunis- 
 Hioiioi'H hail till' |inwor to tiki^ tln' iniitiai't mil 
 of the hands nf tlio cniitractnl'.i anil i'har;4C tlirlii , 
 with till! I'xtni cost of ciiiii|ili lini;' tin' same,! 
 tint that ill iii:ikiM;{ up that ainnnnt the emu t 
 liolow shoiilil have ilciliii'lcil tliiaiiimint awarilcil ; 
 for the. valiH! of the plant ami mateiials taken 
 iivur from the cniitia tnis liy the coiiiniissinncis. 
 liirlinijHii v. Till (,hir.',i, IIS'S. ( '. II, 'Jii, | 
 
 I 
 ISy his petition (if riylit.W., a sculptor, iillcu'ed 
 that lit) was cinplnyiil liy the DmniniiMi (invern- 
 inoiit to pie|iare plans, ninilels, s)iecitiialinns ami 
 (IcsiuiiH, for tlic layiiiL; out, impioveim nt ami i 
 oatahlishliicnt of the I'ailiaiiient Sipiare, at the [ 
 city of Ottawa : that he had ilmic so, anil supii- 
 intended the wnrkand eiiiiHtnictinn d', said iiii- , 
 provenicnts fur six nidiiths. lleelaiiiied .'r^JO.OdO 
 lor the value of his work. 'M \'ict. c. P2, s. 7, 
 provides that, when exccutnry emitiacts are in j 
 writing they shall have certain reipiisltcs, siieli 
 as signing, sealing and cimnlersigniiig to lie 
 binding; and liy section 1.") provides that licfore ', 
 any expenditure is incurred there shall have | 
 been ii previous sani'tioii of ]);iilianieiit, except 
 for such icpairs and alterations as the piil'lji .> : 
 vice deniamls ; and section L'" ivipr s that 
 
 I'jit in 
 ii'iii the 
 |icilitiously 
 nliiiers and 
 Id, i, til t the 
 
 I! 
 
 tenders shall be invited lor a 
 cases of pressing emergency 
 nature of the work it could I 
 and eeonoinically ixecuted 
 servants of the dopartinent . 
 Crown in the Domininii cannot l,e held '.spon- 
 sible under a petition of right on an e iitory 
 contract entered into liy tluMlcpartnicnt > i |iililic 
 works for the performance nf certain wmks 
 plaued bylaw under the cnlitiol of the depart- 
 ment when the agreement tlieiefor was not 
 made in conformity with the above Ttli section of i 
 31 Vict. e. \'2, H. 2. That iimler scctimi I") nf 
 said Act, if parliament has not sancliuned the 
 expenditure, a petition nf right will not lie fur 
 work done for and at the reipiest ol the de|)art- | 
 mcnt of public works, unless it be for work done 
 in connection with repairs and alterations wliich 
 the necessities of the public service demanded. 
 3. That in this case, if parliament has made 
 appropriations for these works and so sanelioned 
 the expenditure, and if the work done w.is of 
 the kind that might properly be executed by the 
 officers and servants of the department under 
 section 20 of said Act, then no written contract 
 would bo necessary to bind the department, and 
 suppliant should recover for work so (lone. 
 Wood V. The Queen, 7 S. C. R. G:14. 
 
 H., in his capacity of " clerk of the joint eoin- 
 mittee of both liouscs on printing," advertised 
 
 for tenders for the printing, furnished the print- 
 ing paper, and the binding iiipiircd Ini the par- 
 liament of the Dominion of Camilla. 'Ihe tcmlir 
 of the suppliants was aei'i'iiti'd by the jnintcnni- 
 liiittee and by liolh Imiises nt pal llaniiiil hy ailnii. 
 tinn nf the eoliiliiittei^'s ri'piill, aiiil a enntiait 
 was exei llted between the Hiipplialits and ||. m 
 his said I ipacity. The suppliants, by tin ir pr 
 t itinii, cniitendeil t liat the teinler and iniiptaiii r 
 cniistitntcd a eontract between tlnm and Ibi 
 .Maji'sty, and that they were entitled lu ilo tlir 
 whole of the printing reipiin d for llic pailia- 
 liient of Caiiaila, but had not been given IIm! 
 same, ami tiny ilainied cmiipi nsatinii by w.iy nf 
 diimages: — Ibid, leverNing the jiiil;;meiit ,,f 
 I It'll ly, .1., in Ihe lOxcheipier ( 'mil I, that the pu- 
 liaineiitary printing w as a matti r eniinecti'i) w illi 
 the intrrii.'il ei'onomy of tli< Senate and IIoiim, 
 of ( 'oiiinimis over which the exei'iil ive ;;ovi'ih- 
 iiieiit had no control; and that, the ( 'row ii was 
 no party to the eontract w itii the .Mippliaiits and 
 coiild lint lie held icsponsililc for a lireaeli of it. 
 I.'iijid'i \. Morl.iiin, ,S ,S. ('. 1!. L'll). 
 
 It is settled law that a inlilinii of right will 
 lie for damages resulting fioiii a breach of cmi. 
 tiact by the ( 'I'owil. Thnllias <■. The (,tiiecii, I,. 
 K. Ill (,». l;. :il, and l-'eather -•. Theism en, I'l I'.. 
 iV .'^. •_'!',■!, appi'iived. It is immaterial whetlur 
 the biiiirh is occasioned by tlii^ ads or by Ihu 
 miiissiniis nt the ('rown nllici.ils. W nnls'ir ii'nl 
 AiiiKij/ii/ii 11. ]V. ill. V. Till' V" I", II App. Ci.s. 
 ii()7. 
 
 .Sec i;,,iimt V. Siiiilli, 10 ,S. C. H. I, p. ;!(l; 
 liii/liia V, Slarri, 17 S. V. K. IKS, p. W>. 
 
 II. In' Otiiki! Cxsks. 
 
 In ni'iler to establiih a right to damages , is 
 
 against the Crown for having, as alleged, eli- 
 
 'mtcd the How of water to the mills o!' ilie 
 
 I jdiants, it is incumbent on the siippliant.-i to 
 shew that less than the natural volume of water 
 foi'iiiing the si ream reaches the mill on account 
 of ■•h alleged obstruction ; therelorc, where it 
 a\ .ireil uiion the evidence that certain wiiluia 
 alleged to have been iienned back by a (l.iiii, 
 would never have reached the mills of the Mip- 
 pliaiits, and the extreme and nnpreccdeiitcd dry- 
 ness of the season had had an appncialile elleet 
 n])on the .-iipjily '•*' water :— -llehl, that the evi- 
 ilcnc(.'iliil not sill- I the ])etition, which alli god 
 that the suppli. its sustaimd damage by the 
 ereetiiin of a dam aciiiss the river, aliove their 
 mill. Miidi.ha .MillCo.v. Tin V""'", '28 Cliy. 
 .'ili;!.- Spragge. 
 
 The maxim that he frown can do no wri'ii?, 
 apiilies to alleg ortious acts of the oHicei.s of 
 a public ilc]iarti nt of Ontario, and a petitinn 
 of right will not lie for such alleged wrongful 
 acts under .S,") \ict. i:. 13, (Out.), which ere itt'S 
 no new right in the subject against the (Jrowii, 
 but relates rather to jirocediire only. The re- 
 dress of a subject suli'ering damage from siieli 
 acts, if unautliori/ed by statute, would lie against 
 th(! subject who eoniniitted the wrong, and not 
 against the Crown. Ih. 
 
 Held that a petition of right docs not lie to 
 recover compensation from the Crown fordain.igo 
 occasioned Ity the negligence of its servants to 
 the property of an individual using a. public 
 work. Jieyina v. MvFarlaiie, 7 S. C 11. 210. 
 
158a 
 
 |i»lii''l till! print- 
 
 ■'••'I l"l- tilu |.;w. 
 
 |1''' 'lilt; kii,|,.r 
 
 |V Hll'ioilltcDIII. 
 
 ^■>IIICMtl,y,.„|„|,. 
 Ji'll'l il l-i>lltla,(, 
 
 li^iiitM aud II. |„ 
 ('■^ I'.v tlhir |i,. 
 
 •"I'liiivc.pt.iiH,. 
 
 ■Ii'iii iiiiil II,., 
 |i'l'''l l'> do tl„. 
 
 J/'"' tlH' |,|„l,.v 
 
 I'"'' II Kiv.ii tl„,. 
 jilimi l.y way ,,f 
 jiiil-iiiiiit' .,f 
 III. tliiit tlu'iMi-. 
 
 llOllll.vfcl „|,|| 
 
 (i.'itc ,111,1 Hon.,,, 
 
 ■Illi\c ;;()VC|||. 
 
 I till' ( 'lllWIl \\;,s 
 ■""llpli.llltH ,H|,| 
 
 ' ■■' 'ircu'li of it 
 .'10. 
 
 II "I' li-lit Mill 
 
 l'l''iU-|| ,,f ,.,,„. 
 'I'll'' '.•uccll, I,. 
 
 I'lii't^iivip, (1 I;. 
 
 'Ill'liill \vll(!tlllT 
 iuls or' liy ||,u 
 
 ". II App. (a.s. 
 
 '• H. I. ji. ;il!; 
 S, p. lU-J. 
 
 L to iliiiim<.'u.s nn 
 .'IS allc;;c,|, i,|i. 
 till! iiiill.s o.'' the 
 III' i^lijipliaiits to 
 ■ oliiiiiu (if water 
 mill (111 lujcoiint 
 I'ol'iiri;, whficit 
 t I'lrt.'iiii wjiltrs 
 iiick liy .1 (liini, 
 
 illn of tllL" Mip- 
 
 ii;<'i'(li.'iiti'i!(liy- 
 'pri'dalilo tH'nrt 
 'I, that tin; evi- 
 1, which allij,'c(l 
 liuii,iL;(; liy ihu 
 "T, aliovu tliuir 
 V""«, "ii) tliy. 
 
 I ill) no wriifig, 
 ' the ridlcei.s (if 
 iiml a j)(.'tili(in 
 If^'t'd wrmiu'ful 
 which crcites 
 ist the (.'niwii, 
 "Illy. The lu- 
 ge from .s 11 ell 
 Hild lieagiiiiist 
 iTonj;, and not 
 
 does not lit' to 
 wn for damage 
 its servunt.s to 
 sing a piihlic 
 . C. K. 21 G. 
 
 1581 
 
 PETITION OP RIQHT. 
 
 1582 
 
 Iftid, that an exprcHg or iniplii'd contrai't ia 
 not created with the Crown liecailM' an hidivi- 
 dual pii\H tollH iiiipoNed |jy Htatlllc foi' the nse 
 of u pnldic work, Hneh a.s Hiide iImim for pasrin^ 
 Iu'n lo).'H tlirollL'li );ovei finieiil xlidiM, In .iiiili a 
 eaHC Mer MajiHty cannot lie held lialde ux a 
 common carrier. //«. 
 
 N, ('. , the suppliant, hy liin petition of rij.'lit, 
 claimed, aw re>-pi ctinj; tile hens of I*. W. ,lr., 
 certain parcels of land oiiKiniilly ;;raiited hy 
 letters patent fnini the Crown, dated .'itli .liinii' 
 aiy, \HIW, t(i r. W. Sr., tojjethcr with a sum of 
 $'200,()0(» foitlie rents, issues and profits derived 
 tlicn^fidiii liy the government since l he ill, ■j.jal 
 (letenlion thireof. As to the inei its di fi ndant 
 pleaded : Ist. liy preemptory e.vccption, set- 
 ting lip title and possession in llir Majesty 
 under divers deeds of sale and docuiiiciils; 
 '?nd. I'resciiplioii liy thirty, twenty and ten 
 yiNUH. All e.\ce|iiion was also tiled, sett inj,' up 
 that these transfers to [ii^litionei' liy the heirs of 
 I'. \V. .Ir. \veri! made without valid coiisidcra- 
 tiiin, and that the ri;.;hts alleged to have liecii 
 ncipiired were dispiitalile (ilrnl/i /llii/ii lu). 
 'riiu general issue and a supplementary (ilea 
 cliiiming value of inipi'iveiuents were al.-.o liled. 
 To the lir.-it of these exceptions the petitioner 
 answered that the Jiarties to fin; deeds of sale 
 relied upon had no right of properly in the land 
 sold, and denied the legality and validity of the ' 
 other doeiinieiits relied upon, and inserilicd en 
 fiiiix against a jiidu'uiciit of ralilicat ion of lilh; to 
 a part of the property reiideied Ky tin.' Superior 
 Court for the district of .\ylniei', I'. (^». To tin; . 
 cxeeptionof prescription the petilioneraiiswered, I 
 denying the allegations thereof, aiul more parti- 
 oularly the good faith of the defendant. To the 
 Hiipiileniciit.iry pica, tin; petitioner .'illegcd had 
 faitli on the part of the defendant. There' were 
 also general answers to all the pleas. On Ihi; is- 
 sues thus raised, | lie parties « cnl to pinof liy an 
 enipii'le 111 fore a conimissioiicr under autho- 
 rity of the court, gr mted on iiiiilinii, in accord- 
 ance with the I iw of flu; |>roviiice of (^ueliei'. 
 The cast; was argued in the Kxclieipier Court he- 
 fore .1. T. Tascliereaii, .1., and lie di:iniisscd the 
 Hll]ipli.iiit's petition of right with costs. Wherc- 
 lipon thesnppliant appealid to thc.'^upi'eniet 'ouit 
 oi(,'anada : Held ( l'"(Uii'nier and lleiiry, .l.).,dis- : 
 .senting). I. That liefore the code, and .dso iiii- 
 dor the code (.Art. •_''JI1) the Cioun had, under 
 the laws in force in the |irovince of (^ueliec, the 
 right to invoke prescription iigiiiist a suliject, 
 which the latter could have interrupted liy peti- 
 tion of right. "J. That in tin's case t he ( 'niwn had 
 purchased ill good faith with translatorv titles 
 and had, liy ten years' pcacealile, open and unin- 
 terrupted |io.'<session. acipiired an unimpeachalile 
 title. ,S. That in relation to the insciiiitioii en 
 faux, the Art, 47.S of the code of ]ii'oeediire is not 
 8(1 imperative asto render the .judgment attacked i 
 an ali.siiliite nullity, it heiiig legistered in the re- 
 gister of the court. 4. That the )ietitioner was 
 bound to have j)rodnecd the minute, or draft of 
 judgment atta(;ked, but having only produced a 
 certified eo]iy of the .judgment, the inscription ■ 
 against the judgment fell to the ground. .5. 1'hat ; 
 even if S. O.'s title wa.s ini li/rr jiri'ailvc, the ^ 
 heirs b.v their own nets ceded and iiliandoned to , 
 L. all their right i and pretensions to the land in i 
 dispute, and that the petitioner C. was bound \ 
 by their acts : — Hefd, also, that the impeiiien i 
 ofaimed by the incidental deinamk of the Crown \ 
 
 wcro payable by the petitioner, even if he had 
 Hlleceeded ill liiit action, t hi ri it r v, 77,c Uio i ii 
 4 S. C. U. I. 
 
 Mcf,,, the suppliant, purchahed, in IHSO, ,i 
 I lirst class railway passenger t icket lo travel from 
 CImilottcloHu to Siiinis on the I'liu, c Kdwiiid 
 Island railway, owned by the llonuiiiipu of • ,ni. 
 ada, aiel o|ieiat. d Ulider'tlie nianageineiit of the 
 .Minister of Kailways and Canals, and while on 
 said jniirmy siislanied serious injuncs, the result- 
 
 of ini accident Ici the train, liy pelili f rij^hl, 
 
 the suppliant ,dli -ed that tlie'iadway wasiiegli- 
 geiilly aiid uiiskilfidly cunilucti d, managed and 
 , liiaiiilaiiicd by Her .Majesty ; that llcr .Majisty, 
 disngardiiig her duty in 'that I" half, anil hi r 
 I proniise, did not cany safely and securely sup 
 pliant oil said r.iilway iind that he was yreatly 
 I and periiiauciitly injured in ho'ly and hcaltii, 
 and claimed .■<."i(),0(M). The .Mtoi my •( leiii ral 
 pleaded that Her .Majesty Was not liouiid to 
 carry safely and securely, and was not answer- 
 able by ]iclitioii of ri^ht. for the iieglig, me 
 (if her servants. Tlie judge at the tli.d found 
 that the road was in .'i most unsafe state from 
 the lotteniieKs of the ties, and that tin; safety 
 of life had been recklessly jenpardi/ed li.y iiin- 
 liiiig trains over it with passcii-crs, ami that 
 there had been a lucacli of a contract to cari-y 
 the suppliant sal'ely and securely, and award(;d 
 .■ii.'lti.'KM*. On appc.il lo the ."^iipri me Court of 
 Canada: -Held ( l'''iuriiier and lleiiiy, .1.1., dis- 
 senting), that the estalilishuient of ( lovcriiiui lit 
 railways in Canada, of wliicli the .Minister of 
 Itailways and ( 'anals has the iiiaiiagciueut, di- 
 rection and control, under statutory provisions, 
 for the benelitand advantage of the |iiililic, is a 
 liranch of the piililic; polici; created hy stalut(; 
 for iiurpo.si;s of public convenience, and not en 
 t.'i'ed upon or to be treated as a privati; and 
 mercantile speculation, and lh.it .i petition of 
 right does not Hi; against the Crown for iiijiiri. s 
 resulting from the nonfeasance or misfe isaiice. 
 wrongs, negligences, or omi.ssions of duty of 
 siiliordiiiate otiicers or agents eiiiployi d in tie' 
 luiblic service on said i;dlwa_\s. Tliat tin; 
 Crown is not liable as a common carrier for tlic 
 safety and security of |iasseiigeis using said 
 railways, lln/iiia v. Mel. 'oil, M.S. C, It. I. 
 
 I'rior to confederation on.; T. was cutting 
 limber (111 territory in dispute In t ween the old 
 I'rovinci; of C.iuada and the I'rovince of New 
 IJruiiswick, the forimr having granted him a 
 license for the purpose. In order to ntili;'.e the 
 timber so cut, he li.id to send it down the St. 
 .lolin River, and it was seized by tin; authorities 
 of New Ihunswick and only released upon pay- 
 ment of lines. T. continued the biisiness for 
 two or thr(;e years, )iaying Hues to the I'nivinci; 
 of New lirunswick eacli ye.ir, until he was linally 
 coni|ielled to abaiiduii it. The two provinces 
 subse(|Uently entered into negotiations in regard 
 to the territory in dispute, which resulted in the 
 estalilishment of a boundaiy line, and a coiii- 
 luission was ajipointed to determine the state of 
 accounts between them in rispect to sucli terri- 
 tory, ('no member of the commissioii only re- 
 ported finding New IJruiiswick to be indebted to 
 Canada in the sum of $'20,000 and upwards, and 
 in 1871 these figures were veriiied by the Do- 
 niinion Auditor. Hotli before and after Coii- 
 federatinu T. fre(juently urged the collection of 
 this amount from New Brunswick with the ob- 
 
1088 
 
 PETITION OF RIGHT. 
 
 1584 
 
 
 s 
 
 19 
 
 g 
 
 r 1 
 > I 
 
 ■f! 
 
 jcct of Iiiiviiiu'lt applied to iiidi'iiuiify tlie piirtira 
 who liiul suiroruil by the H:iiil dispute wiiilc 
 tiijiagcti in cnttiii!,' tiinlxT, and finally l>y an 
 OrdiT in Cnuncil of the l>()i>iii\ion government 
 (to wlioni it wa.s claimed tlie indelitedness of \e\v 
 ISninswielv was transferred liy tl:e I!. X. A. Act), 
 it Wiis dii'larcd that a eertaiii amount was due to 
 T., whiih wouhl lie paid on his ohtaining the 
 consent of tiie governments of Ontario and (,>iie- 
 liee therefor. Sueh eonsciil was ohtained and 
 payments on aeei ant wore made hy tlu^ Dominion 
 government first to T. and afterwards to tin; 
 KU|)plianr. to whom 'I', liad assii;ned tlie elaim. 
 Finally tlu' suppliant not lieing ahle to olitain 
 payment of the halancedue hy tlie order in Coun- 
 cil, ])i()ii'(i|cd to reeover it liy Jietition of rigiil 
 to whieli petition tlie d'fiMidant cleiiiiiired on 
 the ground that the elaini was not founded 
 upon a eontiaet and was not properly a sulijeet 
 for ]ietitioii of right. Foui'idei, . I., sitting in the 
 Court oi K\ihe(|uer, overruled the demurrer and 
 gave judgiueiit for the suppliant. On appeil to 
 the SuipremeCoiiit ol Caiiaila : — Held, reversing 
 the jndginent of l'"oiiriiiei , .1. (l''(Miiiiier and 
 Henry, d.l., dissontiugl, that there lieiu'.' no 
 ])revious iudelitednes.s shewn to 'I', either from 
 the I'rovinre ol New IJriinswieic, the I'roviueeof 
 (/'inaila, <u'tlie Dominion ( oivernmeiit, tiie Order 
 in Coiineil did not ereate any delit lietweeii 'I'. 
 Jind the Dominion (ioveiiiiiient wliieh eouM lu 
 enf(H'eeil hv petition of riiriit. Hniiiiii v. hiiiiii, 
 11 S. C. \{. ;k->. 
 
 I5y ail airreement entered into lietween the 
 Winilsor k .\niia|)olis K. \V. Co. and the 
 governiMciit appro\ 1(1 and lalilied liy tl e (lov- 
 ernour in Couneil, "JJiid Septemlier, I.S",1, the 
 Windsor I'laneh X. S., together wi'li cer- 
 tain riimiiiiL,' powers over the trunk line of the 
 lutereolonial wa.s leaseil to the suppliants for 
 *" ■ period of twenty-one years from 1st .lanu- 
 .;;\, 1S7-. Tliu suppliants under the agree- 
 ment went into possession of the Wiinlsor 
 IJraneh ami on.jrateil the same thereunder up 
 to the 1st A, .gust, IS77, oil which date ( '. .1. 1!. 
 lieing and acting as superintendent of I'adw.iys 
 as authoti/ed liy tin,' gover'rinient (w iio claimed 
 to have authority) uu ler ItT Vict. c. l(i (Doin.), 
 passed with I'efc.eiice to the Windsor Uraiieh to 
 transfer the same to the Western Count ies I*. W. 
 Co.. otherwise than sulijeet to the rights of tlii! 
 Windsor it .\iiiia|)oIis K. W. l.'o., ejeeteil sup- 
 pliants from and preverrted them fidin using 
 said Windsor Urarreh, and from passing over 
 the said trunk line ; and four or tive weeks 
 afterwards saiil goveriinront gave over the 
 possessioji (if .said W'imlsoi' lir.inch to .said 
 \Vestern Comities K. \V. Co., who took ;iiid 
 letaiiicil iiossession thereof. In a suit hriuight 
 by the Wiiulsoi' it Annapolis Ti. 'V. Co. against 
 the Western Counties H. W. Co. for recover'y 
 of |io«sessioii, etc., the .Indicial Committee of 
 the Privy Couneil: Held, that UT Vict. e. Hi 
 (Dom.), did not extirrguish the right and in- 
 terest which the ^Vimlsor it Ariria]iolis 1'. W. 
 Co. had in the Windsor' iSranch under the 
 agreeiiicrit of the '22nd .September, 1H7'2. On a 
 petition of riglit being filed by su|)pliants claini- 
 iiig indemnity for the damage sustained by the 
 breach and failui'e on the ])art of the < 'rown to 
 porforni the said agreement of the 2l2rid Sej)- 
 tembcr, 1S71, the Kxclie(|Uer (^ourt (Owyriue, 
 J., jiresidiiig) : — Held, that the takii ; possession 
 of the road by an oHiccr of the Ci'own under 
 
 the assumed authority of an Act of I'arlianicn 
 was a tortious act for whicii a petition of rigli 
 did not lie : -Held, on appeal to the .Supi'ein 
 Court of Canada (Str-orig ami <!wynne, .1.1., di^ 
 
 the assumed authority of an Act of I'arlianicnt 
 
 ■ '■ ' 'H 
 
 •erne 
 
 „ , . iis- 
 
 senting), the Vown, by the answer ol' the 
 
 ! Attorney-! leiieral, did not set up any tortious 
 
 ; act for w liich the ( 'rown elairniMl not to he liable, 
 
 liut alleged that it had a r'iglit to put an cikI 
 
 [ to the contract and dill so, and that the action 
 
 I of the Ci-own and its olliccrs being lawful ami 
 
 ' not tortious they wei'e justified. Itut as tiii' 
 
 agr'eement, was still a continuous, valid anil 
 
 binding agr'cement to which they ha 1 no riglit 
 
 to put an end this defence failed, i'l^refere 
 
 the Cnnvri by its otirccr h ivirig acted on a iiiis- 
 
 concc|itioii ot or misinformation as to the rights 
 
 iif tlu^ Crown and wr'ongfully because contrary 
 
 to the express ami iin|ilied stipula' ions of their 
 
 iigreemeiit, but not tort oiisly in law evicted tin; 
 
 sn]i|iliants, and so though unconscious of tin; 
 
 wrong liy such breach lieeome possessed of the 
 
 siijipliants" pid|ierty, the petition of right 
 
 would lie for' the I'estitiition of such property 
 
 and tor d.-iinat'cs. WimiiDr tl' Aiinitiinlis I!. W. 
 
 : Co. V. Tli< (jtinii, l(» ,s. c. I;. :t;!,"i 
 
 Cas. (507. 
 
 .\pp. 
 
 i'rior- to the tiling of the petition of right the 
 su]iplianls siieil the Western Counties jiailway 
 for the recovery of the possession of the \\ iiiil 
 .sor lir.incii. and also by way of damages for 
 inoneys received by tiie W'l stern Counties liail 
 way for- the frciylit or p.isseiigerson said r.iilway 
 , silicic tile same came into their possession, aii. I 
 I obtained judgiueiit for' the same tliat were no!. 
 paid. Till' jiid^mcnt in ipiestiori was not |ileai| 
 ed by the Crown luit was proved on the hearing 
 j by tile record in the .SupiciiK- t'ourt of Can.'iila. 
 to which court an appe.d in said cause hinl bei'ii 
 taken, and wliii-h alliriued the Jinigmeiit of the 
 .Supreme Court of X'ova Scotia: Held, per 
 Kiti'liie ( '. .1., anil 'ra«chei'caii .)., that the sup 
 liliants could rrot recover agaiii:-.t the Crown .is 
 damages for breaeli of contract what tliey 
 claiiiied :ind had judgment for' as damages for :i 
 tort ■ommittcil by the WestiM'nt 'oiiiitics' Itailway 
 and in this case there w.is no necessity to plead 
 tlii^ judgment. I'er Koiiruier ami Henry .).!., 
 that the suppliants wei'e entitled to daiiiages 
 for the time 1 hey wei'i^ by the advice of the 
 (ioverniiient deprived of the po-session and ii.se 
 of the load to the date of their liliug thiir peli 
 tion of right. //). 
 
 1 PerSti'ong. .1., A petition of right is an appro 
 priate remedy for' the assertion of the suppliant 
 of any title to relief under section 'J'.l, of 7 Vietr. 
 c. 11, and M here it is in the power of a jiarty 
 having a chiiiii against the Crown of such :v 
 nature .is in this case to resort to a petition of 
 right a rri indaiiiiis will not lie, and a iriaiidauiiis 
 will never under any cir-cumstances be gr'aiited 
 where direct relief is sou'.dit against the Crown. 
 .lA'V""/' V. yVnV""". ••>''^- I'- H. I. 
 
 1 See .loiiii V. 77(1 V"" ". "> ^- * '• H. .')7(», p. 1 r)7(! : 
 '/'(//" V. Th< V""'", 7 S. C;. K. (!."•!, p. I20!»; 
 .Urijiiiiiiv. Till Qiifiii, 10 S. C. K. I. 
 
 III. i'l.KADlNli. 
 
 ! 
 
 ! X'. ('., the suppliant, by his petition of right 
 I elainu'd, as representing the heir of P. V., jr., 
 I certain parcels of land originally granted by let- 
 
1584 
 
 f I'.iilianiciit 
 ititioii of ri^iit 
 tliu Siiproiiii! 
 yiiiif, .1.1., din. 
 m.-iWia- of tUr 
 \> any toitio\is 
 lot Co l)e lialih', 
 
 to |Mlt .III (.11,1 
 
 l<:it tile .•u;ti,in 
 
 11,' lawful and 
 
 I Silt ,i,t till' 
 
 DiiH, valid and 
 
 V lia 1 no rij^lit 
 
 •'1. i'l-r.foiv 
 
 I'ti'il on n iiMH- 
 
 s to tilt.' rights 
 
 caiisf i-onii;u-y 
 
 ions (if tlii'iV 
 
 aw cN iftcil tliii 
 
 isoioiis of tllll 
 
 sst'ssi'd of tlic 
 
 ion of ii;,dii 
 
 such |iro|icrly 
 
 llll/ni/is II, IC 
 
 .T{.-): II App. 
 
 Ill of ii;,'lit llic 
 lilt it's jiailway 
 
 I of tlic Wiiiii 
 >f claiii.ii;t's for 
 
 Coiintii's |{,iil 
 
 on .said r.iilway 
 
 piisscssioii, ll||,l 
 
 tliat Wiii^ iiol, 
 
 was not iiifiid 
 
 on tile Inariiij,' 
 
 Inirt of ( 'anad.i, 
 
 I'ailsi' iiad liL'cii 
 
 idgini'iil of till' 
 
 ia : Held, )M'r 
 
 , tliat the slip 
 
 t till' ( 'I'OWll ilS 
 
 let wli.it tiny 
 dainaj/cs for ,'i 
 unities' I! lilway 
 ■cssily to pica.l 
 11(1 llriiry .1.1., 
 'il to damages 
 : advici' of the 
 ii'.ssioii and iisi; 
 liiij,' their puti 
 
 ;;lit is an .ippiii 
 f the .suppliant 
 
 II '.'".I, of 7 Vict, 
 wer of ,-1 party 
 own of such a 
 lo a petition (if 
 1(1 a niandainns 
 I'es lie (,'raiiteil 
 list the Crown. 
 it. I. 
 
 {.r>:(>, p. ir.7(i; 
 
 <mI, p. l-iU!); 
 
 I{. 1. 
 
 titioii of right 
 of I', v., jr., 
 granted by Ict- 
 
 1585 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1586 
 
 tiis patent from the {'rowii, dated .">tii .January, 
 l.Sdli. to I'. W., s(Mir. , tog(^tli"i' with a .siiiii of 
 S'.'()0,(ltl(l for the rents, issues and prolita derived 
 fhcrefroiii liy the j,'OVcrmneiit since the illej,'al 
 licteiition tlier(!of. The Crown pleaded to this , 
 |i.titii)n of right— 1st, liy deinurrer, defense au 
 funds en droit, allegini; that the descMiptioii of 
 the limits and jMisilion of the property elaimed 
 was iiisutiicieiit in law ; L'lid, that the eonelusions 
 (if tlu^ petition were insntlieieiit and vague ; Urd, 
 tlial in so far as respects the rents, issues and 
 iiiolits, there had lieen no signilication to the ' 
 ^'.'Vcninunt of the gifts or ir.iiisl'ers made liy the i 
 liiiis to the suppliants. These (U'inurrers were ^ 
 <li-nii-ised l>y .Strdiig, .1.. and it was Held, that 
 llii'olijeetion taken shinild liavt .'ii pleaded liy 
 ( \cc|)tion a 1 1 forme, pursuant ; \rt. 1 Ki C. C. 
 1',. .iiiil as the demurrer was to .ill the rents, 
 is'snis and jirolits as well tlios(! Iiefore as ihosi; 
 since the transfer, it was too large and should 
 111- ilisniissed, eviui supposing notilieatioii of the 
 transfer necessary with respect to rents, issues 
 .nil jirotits aecnied ))rev'-tus to the sale to him 
 \\ the heirs of I'. \V , j"-. Clujrriir v. V'/.i (Jki'ii, ' 
 4S,C. H. I. I 
 
 IV. Costs. | 
 
 In dealing with the (juestion of costs iqion a j 
 |i(titi(in of right, the same rule will he .iiiplieil i 
 !(< if the iniestion was one lietweeii siilijcct and 
 falijcct ; therefore, whereon .-i |ietition of right 
 the Crown, instead of diiiiuriing, went to a hear- 
 iPL', the court (.Spragge, C ), on dismissing the 
 pilition, allowed to the Ci'ow u such costs only 
 as would have liciii taxed li.id the lialiility of 
 tile Crown lieiii raised hy diniiirrcr. M ii-thnhd 
 Mill Go. V. 77/'' V""". -■'^ Chy, .-)().•!. 
 
 Security for costs in l';xclu'(pier Court. See 
 Wmid v. 'ihc (Jio-.ii, 7 .s. C. i;. (i;!l, p. (is!». 
 
 y. .\i'im;.\i.s. 
 
 The ]irovisinMS of the Supreme and V'.xclie- 
 (pior Courts Acts relating to a|)peals fidin the 
 I'rovinci! of (iMiehec. apply to c ises arising un- 
 der (he Petition of liiiiht .\('t of that province, 
 4() Vict. c. 27. Mrdrrmi v. Tli'' V"'"', US. C. 
 
 ii. 7:{'». 
 
 titled under section S to lie registered as licen- 
 tiate of a l)liarii;;ioy. I/AsHiKiathm I'hurina- 
 cmti i/itril' la I'lvrincc ik Quebec v. liniiid, 14 !S. 
 
 c. H. 7;is. 
 
 PHYSICIANS. 
 
 S((- Mkdjcm, I'i;uiiri()NKi;s. 
 
 PLANS. 
 I. In Kviiir.Nii: .S'.!- Hvidknck. 
 
 II. .S.M.K Ol' I.ANIl .AcCOIilllNC Til l'(,\NS 
 Sin Sm.K ok I.AM). 
 
 in. I!i;i:isti;atiiin--,S'i;(; Ri;(;isri;v Laws. 
 
 <,>iiare, whether a person who Ins 1 lid out 
 laud into town or vill ige lots for sal(\ cannot 
 afterwards, if he linds that he cannot dispose of 
 them as such, or fur .any other reason, replace 
 his land as it was lnfore. In re Allan, l(» O. I!. 
 11(1. -Wilson. 
 
 PETTY CHAPMEN. 
 
 •S'fc .MiMl'll'AI. CdlU'oKATKlNS. 
 
 PHARMACY. 
 
 Held, nflirmiiig the judgincut of the Court of 
 yiieen's Heneli for Lower Canada that .sec- 
 tion 8 of 4H Vict., e. .'Ki ((jMie. ) which says that 
 all persons who, during li'e years hefore the 
 ciiiMing into force of the Act, were )iractisiiig 
 lis chemists and ilruggists in ])artncrsliip with 
 any other person so practising, are entitled (o 
 he registered as licentiates of pharnnwy, ap])lies 
 til respondent who had, during more than five 
 years before the coniing into force of the said 
 Act, practised as chemist and druggist in part- 
 nership with his brother and in his brother's 
 niaiiie, and therefore he (respcmdenl) was cn- 
 
 100 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 I. .AllMlssloNS I'.V I'l.KAIllSd .SVi- Kvi- 
 
 IlKM'K. 
 
 II. Dsl'OI'I'l.l. IIV I'l.KU'lNC— .S'c I'lsrolMM-;!.. 
 
 III. I V ( 'ill NT\ ( 'oI1;T.'\("IIoNS S'li (^irNTV 
 
 ColllT. 
 
 IV. In I'auik I i.Ai; AcrioN.'^— .VicTiii; Skv- 
 
 i;ii\i. TiTi.Ks. 
 
 V. In Af'TIONS liVlli! .VCAINST I'aHTK TI.AIt 
 
 I'kksons -.Sii: TiiK Skvi:i!AI. Titi.ks. 
 
 (Since the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 
 I. (iKNIlUAl.l.V, I.'iSS. 
 
 ]I. Vr.MK Ol! I'l.Aci: or 'I'uiAi,. 
 
 1. a, III ml' ij, 1,'iSli. 
 
 2. CliniiijiiKj. 
 
 (a) l'ivii',iiilrriii\i-(. «/' i'oiirenieiif.r, 
 
 |.VS'.». 
 (Ill Itii Dnlrr iii'./ii'l:n iiirl Miixicr— 
 
 A PI" til"- I5!)l2. 
 (c) /// Coiiiih/ <'iiiirl CfUfx, I. ■)!•:{. 
 (il) oil,,, -('as V, l.-)04. 
 
 III. I'AitTii:-. 
 
 1. t:,ii riilli/, l.")!M. 
 
 •J. Ci-stiii r/iif. Tntxl. I.")9(i. 
 
 3. K.i;,-iii,,i-!f-S,'i' I';.\K.('ir(ii;.s Ar.ii Ad- 
 
 mini ;tkatohs. 
 
 4. JU^haiid iiifl IVi/i', I5!)(l. 
 .'■>. Mini laijtix, l.V.H). 
 
 U. I'liiiiiirn, 15'.t7. 
 
 7. Olbir I't-Kiiiix, Um. 
 
 H. Third Purlieu, I'lilO. 
 
1587 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1588 
 
 ^inl 
 
 if 
 
 9. Adding and Slrikivg oiit Partita, 
 
 (a) Generally, 1601. 
 
 (b) In Maker's Office, 1006. 
 
 (c) EJeclmeut — Hce Kjectment. 
 
 (d) Injunction — See Isjitxctios. 
 
 (e) Mortijdiji' Suits — See MouniAOH. 
 
 10. Actions for Specific I'erjorniinice — 
 
 See .SrEcii'ic Pekfoiimance. 
 
 11. Actions to Set Aside Fraiulnlenl 
 
 Conrii/ancet — See Fraudulent 
 
 CONVEVANCES. 
 
 12. Waiver of Objections to Xon-Joiu'ler, 
 1C06. 
 
 IV. Statement of Claim. 
 
 1. GeneraUji, lOOii. 
 
 2. Joinder of CauseH of Action, 1007. 
 
 3. Filinij and Delivery, 1007- 
 V. Statement ok Defence. 
 
 1. Generally, 1608. 
 
 2. Filing and Delivfry, IGOO. 
 
 VI. Set-off and C'ountkii Ci.mm. 
 
 1. Gem rally, 1000. 
 
 2. Striking Out or Kxchulih'j, Itill. 
 
 3. Coats— Sec (.'(ISIS. 
 
 4. In Kjictni'id — ■>><! Ivif.ctmknt. 
 VII. Rei'I.v, 10 1;!. 
 
 VIII. JoiNDKi; (IF Issi-i:. Kil.'i. 
 IX. Otiiei; Cases OF ri.KAiuNd, 1014. 
 X. PAUTn:ur,M!s— .S'cc I'uiticui.ars. 
 XI. Si'Ei'iAi.i.v I'l.EAniM! A Statute, 101"). 
 XII. NoT(!rii,TV iiv Stiu'ii:, 1015. 
 XIII. Dkmukkkks, lOK!. 
 XIV. Waivkk iiv I'l.KADiN.;, 1018. 
 XV. Notice OK Kxcki'TIuns, 1018. 
 XVI. Amkniiini; and .Stiiikim: out I'i.f.ah- 
 
 INOS. 
 
 1. In <%imhers, lOlS. 
 
 2. At the Triid, lO'Jo. 
 
 3. //( Must, !■'.-< Ojlir,-, 1022. 
 
 4. Otlier Caii-s, 10l'2. 
 
 5. On Aji/iial — Ser SuriiKME CoUKT 
 
 (IF Canada. 
 
 6. Xew Trial — S><- .S'kw Tkiai.. 
 
 XVII. Co.STS, 1622. 
 XVIII. Venihe UK Novo, 102.1. 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 PLKADlNf! AT LAW. 
 1. Grnerai.i.v. 
 
 1. Kndiarrns.sing I'l'adinijs, 162i'?. 
 
 2. Dei>artnre, 102.". 
 
 S, Certainty and Particularity, 162.1. 
 II. Declaration. 
 
 1. Vemie, 1624. 
 
 2. Changing KeMKc, 1024. 
 
 3. Time for Declaring, 162.5. 
 
 4. Form of, 1023. 
 
 III. Pleas in Abatement, 1625. 
 
 IV. Time for Pleadino to New A^sI(:^•. 
 
 ment, 1()2,"). 
 
 V. Pleas in Hai: and Sudsequent I'm aii. 
 
 IN(iS. 
 
 1. Similiter, 1025. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 1626. 
 
 VI. K(juiTAi)LE Pleas, 1026. 
 VII. Costs, 1627. 
 VIII. Amendment ok Pleadings. 
 
 1. Parlies, 1027. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 1628. 
 
 IX. Waiver OF OiuRCTioNs, 1628. 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 PLIOADIXG IN EQUITY. 
 
 I. P.I LIS. 
 
 1. Form of. 
 
 (a) Multifirioiis.Ks.^, 1628. 
 
 (li) t'irlaiiily and Parlieulnrily, ll'.-.N. 
 
 ((•) Prayrr for General litlief, liy;). 
 
 2. Cross mil, 1030. 
 II. Pautif.s. 
 
 1. Misnomer if Parties, lliSO. 
 
 2. /'ir-'oiii Siiiioi on lUhidf of a ('■'>', 
 
 UVM). 
 ;!. IlitJidinl anil Wil'i. I(i31. 
 4. Olhir I'rrsnns, 1031. 
 r>. Altiirni y ■ Giinral -- Ste Att<ii;'-k\. 
 
 (1i.m;i; SI.. 
 
 (). AddliHi /''irliis in Masfiy's "p,v, 
 
 1(;:!2. 
 7. //* I'lirli'/i'in Suits — See I'autiTIon. 
 
 III. SlI'l'I.EMKST.M, .\nS\VKU, 103:!. 
 
 IV. DEMI'liUEU. 
 
 1. ,'■'()/• Waul of Ki/nlly, 1034. 
 
 2. Oilier t'a.«.v, 1034. 
 
 V. I'Iffkct of .Aii.MissiiiNs, 16,1."). 
 VI. Amfsiimkni', lO.'iO. 
 
 (Since th9 Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 
 PMIADINC. 
 
 I. Cenkkallv. 
 
 ITiiilcr tlie systini (if pleading in the Ilii'li 
 Court of .Iiistioo .Tiid in County Courts unilcr 
 the .Inilic.itiiiv Act, IJiilcs I2S, HO, 147. I4f(, 
 240 iCdii. iiiilcs .3:i!» iiiid 44!l, 401, 40-'. 4(l,U 
 wlii'io I iiiatciiiil fact is !i11oj,'(mI in a iiicaii- 
 intr, lu.Hl tho jilcNidiiii; of tlio o|i|io»ite ]iavty is 
 silent with respect thereto, the fact niust he con- 
 sidercd as in issue. Waterloo Mutual Kire Ins. 
 Co. V. Itoliinsdii, 4 (). I*. 2!(5, approved of. •'ifit- 
 brook V, Young, 14 A. U. 07. 
 
1588 
 
 1625. 
 
 1025. 
 
 ro Nkw A.-sk.n 
 
 I'.SKQUKM I'll.u. 
 
 6. 
 
 DINQS. 
 
 ••s, 1628. 
 
 Act, 1881.) 
 JUITY. 
 
 -, 102S. 
 
 (ir/icufiirily. IK.N', 
 leral h'tliof, ICcJ'.l. 
 
 K lii.SO. 
 
 Hih'ilf of It C''if', 
 
 . Ki.'U. 
 
 I. 
 
 --.Vie Attoi:' Kv- 
 
 7/ M(t.'<fl'r's Of'i-e, 
 
 -Sip PahtitIu.v. 
 •i:k, wax 
 
 tu, i(i:u. 
 
 ss, I ().•).">. 
 
 Act. 1881.) 
 
 ling ill tlic lliuli 
 mty Courts uiidcr 
 •in, I4(i, 147, 118, 
 V.\ 401, 40-J, 4li:!), 
 logoil ill a iili'iiii- 
 I opposite ]ijuty ij 
 u fact must lie con- 
 r> Miitu.tl Kire Ins. 
 approved of. '^Vci- 
 
 1589 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1590 
 
 When a pleailing contains an answer to alle- I fair trial from a jury at I'emlirokc, owing to llio 
 gatinns in the opjiosito plea<liiig, which is iiisen- jintluonce of the ilufiMiiliint in that county:— 
 sihle if not read as. ■idiiiitting certain Htatcmuuts, | Held, on ajiiical, revelling tlie dcii.si.m of the 
 
 those statements must ho taken as adniitted 
 Kii-hai-ihoH V. JtiiLhi, 10 P. U. 2<,)2.— C. 1'. D. 
 
 When upon the argument of an appeal, the 
 responileiit oiiiitted to ))uint out in wiiat respect 
 the replieatiops ol the plaiiitilV were <lemurial)lc, 
 the court relu.sed to waih^ thronj.'li the mass of 
 pU; iding wiiieii had heeii tiled in the court helow, 
 to tin<l it out for themselves ; and heing of opi- 
 nion, in th^i ahseiice of argument, that the Jjlcad- 
 iiig was i,'ood, aliirmcd liic judgment of the court 
 
 local judge at I'cmhroke, that the defeinlant 
 should not .succeed in having the iilacc of trial 
 changed from Kingston to I'emlinike, as upon 
 the uttidavits tiled he did not shew .such a jne- 
 pondeiance of convenieiico in favour of I'em- 
 lirokc, as to warrant depriving plaintitl' of hi.s 
 rigiit to ehoose the venue. Ihirl-i v. .Uurrm/, 'J 
 I'. I!. 222. -Cameron. 
 
 A formal verdict was entered at the t)ttawa 
 assizes, snliject to a reference, whii;ii failed 
 
 helow nium sncii ideadings. The unnecessary through the omission of tlie aiKitrators to cn- 
 aii<l improper length of the phadiiigs remarked larLje the time. A judge in sin^de court .set 
 
 ii])on. (Jitiii/mi V. Union Fii 
 370. 
 
 ///-•. Co. . S A. U. 
 
 11. \'i:nih (lU ri..\(i', oi.- TniAi,. 
 
 1. (I'l'iicral/i/. 
 
 In actions for infringement of patent. .See 
 GiMiiiiit/i V. ir«//o;(, !l I'. H. 10, p. 1557 ; Ailchfi- 
 son V. Mniiii, U 1'. R. 25.'J, p. 1558. 
 
 aside the venlict, andgianted a new trial. 'I'lu! 
 plaintill's r<'sided in -Slontreal, and lU.'fendant's 
 otHcers at l'ic:ton, and [ilaintill's had some wit- 
 nesses resident in Toronto. It ap])cared that 
 Toronto was as easily iKU'cssilile as ( tttiwa, and 
 th.-it no inconveji'encc would he oc<'asioned liy iv 
 change of veiiui! to Toronto. Under these cir- 
 ' cnnistanccs th(3 change was direetcil. Coniirr v. 
 Cai/ral Oiilano I!. 11'. do., -I O. K., 2S(). -itose. 
 -C. V. I). 
 
 In an action wherein a sheriff is plaintifl' or .... 
 
 defendant, the opposite partv, if he so <lcsire, ^ ''« plamtill hveil and carried on husmess in 
 may have the action trieil in the county a<ljoin- ' <""nto, the detendants in I'aikhill, near I.on- 
 iiigthat in which the shcrifl resides, nmin.en , ''"»• '''''^ action was l.rought upon a contract 
 
 V Jurria 8 1*. 1!. .■i22. (lalt. I '" l'"i'i'hase certain goods ohlaim.'d oy an agent 
 
 ' of the |ilaiiitill', who .scdicited the order in I'ark- 
 An acti(m hy a mortgagee for foreclosure, pay- | l,ill, „-|„,,.i, iho fontract was signed. The go.nls 
 liient and possession of the mortgaged premises j „erc toheilclivcied hy the plaintitl' to thcCrand 
 is not an action of ejectment within the meaning Trunk Railway Comimny in Toronto. The de- 
 of the excejition in Rule 254, (). .). Act. (Con. i fi.nce set up "fraud in ohtaining the contract. 
 Rule 05,S) and the venue need not therefore in i The iilaintitf iiroiiosed to have the action tried 
 such an action he laid in the C(Uinty .vheie the ;it Toronto. I'he defendants swore that they 
 lands lie. .Su/moiir \-. DfMiir.th, II 1'. 11.472.— ' intended to call six witnesses : that the cause of 
 Ualton, Mttdci: ! actiim arose in i'arkhill : and that the expen.so 
 
 Per Armour, C. .l.-An action .should he tried ' "/ "■ ^"''l "' i''"'""^,',', "'""•'! I'.c; greater l.y.-<:!0 
 in the county where the cause .,f action arose, i *'';"' =)t ''."""'",','• . "'.•: l'l'>l"t>« ,««•.'"•« that ho 
 ami/ v. iSiildn//, 12 P. R. 557. 
 
 Held, that the clfcct of Rule 2.54 of the (). J 
 Act (Con. Rule ii'i'A) is to aholish all local venues 
 as well those made so hy st.itute as at the common 
 law, except actions of ejectment. /ji'inn/ v. 
 Pitrfia; 10 O. U. (i20.-ti. IS, l>. See also" /re- 
 lamt V. Pilih, r, II). O.'fl. 
 
 In an action against magistrates for malicious 
 and illegal arrest and imiirisoiiimnt : - Hihl, 
 foMowing L<'gacy r. Pitcher, 10 (). R. 020, that 
 the venue need not he hii<l wlieri' the olVeiiee was 
 committed. Huml, v. Coiniuc, 15 (). R. 710. — 
 C. P. 1). 
 
 The venue in this action was laid in the city 
 of Toronto, and '^uliseipiently an order was made 
 striking out the jury notice and directing the 
 trial to take place at I'ort Arthur : — llelci that 
 in view of this oriler the ohjection that the venue 
 was improperly laid could not he sustained. 
 S. C, 16 A. H. 3!)8. 
 
 (,a) /' 
 
 2. Cliauijiiiij. 
 oponili'rani'o of Conrniii nre. 
 
 intended to call six witnesses and give evidence 
 
 i himself ; that f<iur of the six lived in Toronto, 
 
 one east of Toronto and one in I'arkhill :and that 
 
 the extra expenses of a trial at London would 
 
 beahout. .S25 : — Held, that the cause of action 
 
 .irose in Toronto, and that there was no such 
 
 preponderance of convenience in favour of Lon- 
 
 I don as wiuild justify a change in the ])lace of 
 
 Srial, following' Xo'ad i: X'oad, I'. I!. 4S ; 
 
 Davis i: Murray, !t P. U. 222, and It.iliertson r. 
 
 D.iganeaii, l!t('. L. .). 19. .Viipeal allowed, and 
 
 place of trial restored to Tonmto. U'altini v. 
 
 , W'idrmrui, 10 P. R. 228. -Rose. 
 
 I The plvintifl' in a county court action laid his 
 ' venue at Tonuito. The niaster-inchamhers 
 changed it On appeal, ISoyil, ('., ilischarged 
 the masters onhu' (Ui the undertaking of the 
 plaintill'to pay the extra expense (.■<25 to i^'.iU) of 
 a trial at 'rnronto. liviijhniii v. McKiir.ii, 10 
 P. It. 400. 
 
 ! \ motion to elangc the place of trial in a 
 ! county court action from London to Toronto 
 was refused under the f(dlowing eircuinstances : 
 i The action was on a promissory note made and 
 I liayahic at Toronto. The plaint i" 
 
 resiilcil in 
 
 I pa;, 
 
 ! Nhnitreat, and his sidicitorin I,onilon. The sole 
 Where the ean.se of action arose, and the de- defence was. that the defendant was discharj;ed 
 fcndant resiiled at Pembroke, and the writ in the from liability under tin.. Insolvent Act. Tho 
 action was issued at I'enibroke, but the plaint ill' (li'feiidant resided in Toronto, and swore that 
 advisedly proposed to have the action tried at i he intended to call two witnesses, the clerk of 
 King8t<m, alleging that he eouhl not obtain a i the county court at Toronto, and the assignee 
 
 |":m 
 
1591 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1592 
 
 ]<> 
 
 of tlio (li'fciidant who also lived tlicre. Tlie 
 plaiiitifi' tilt'd uo aliidavit on tlic niotion. Slater 
 V. I'ltnin, 10 1'. n. G04.— Rose. 
 
 In an action liy a liusliand against his wife to 
 eiiforci; a ohaij^e on land, tin.' cause of action 
 arose at lIaMiilti>n, wiiiic also the parties and 
 tlieir respective solicitois and all the witnesses 
 rcsiiled, hut tlic plaintid' proiiosed to have the 
 action tried at 'roronto. 'I'lie increase in ex- 
 pense of a trial at Toronto ovei' one al Hamil- 
 ton, was estimated liy the defendant at between 
 SriOaiid S?7'i. aiidliy I'lic [ilaintiltat alioiit .*;!() ;-- 
 Held, tliattiiire was an exceeding iJi'eponder- 
 ance of iiniveiiiciice in favour of Hamilton, and 
 it was ordered that tlic place of tiial should lie 
 cliaugcd. uidcsstlic plaintiil' at nnti: paid into 
 court 840 to meet tlie defendant's additional 
 expense. .s'(vvo.< v. Si ri'os, II 1'. !'. l.'i,"). — 
 Uoyd. 
 
 Where cioss-acti(nis with diti'erent veinies, 
 arc riin-olidatc<l, the )daco of trial will be 
 ordered as the balance of convenience rcMpiires. 
 Com cw l.'ilrh, II 1'. H. L'.m. — Dalton, Masler, 
 
 Circumstances constituting a preponderance of 
 convenience. Shrodei- r. .Myers, ,'U W. H. '2('t\, 
 followid. and dist ini;uislied. See A'k.i.s v. Ciiiki- 
 ,li,iu I'm-ilic n. ))'. Co., VI I'. l:. -J-'O. SiclwUi^i 
 
 V. i/nitun, ii; P. i;.'_>2;t.-i!o.se. 
 
 It is too late when the assi/.es have begun to 
 {•onsidcr the (|iiestion of the balance of conveni- 
 ent ; and therefore, w hile the court did not sec 
 lit under' the circutnstanccs to restore the venue 
 to iSarnia. they varied the order of .Armour, il., 
 by making the costs of the day at Sarnia, and of 
 the scvrral motions to change the veinu' costs to 
 (he plaintjii in any event. Suriiia Aijiiniiliiriil 
 lMif>!i till III Miniiil'iiiliiiiini Cii. V. I'lrilin, II 1'. 
 i;. -2124. I'. I'. I). ' 
 
 The Venue was changed from Whitby to To- 
 ronto in an action of alimony upon the applica- 
 tion ol tlic defendant, when; there was not snili- 
 eicnt diireiencc in expense to warrant the change 
 in an orcliniiry case, because r)f the rule in alimony 
 (•ascswldeli imposes on thi' difendant the bur- 
 d( 11 of advaiic ing and p:iyiiig all the disburse- 
 nieiitson both sides in any event. The circum- 
 stances that two of the defclidaiil s witnesses, 
 who resided ill Tor<intci. were public olliccrs, and 
 that their absence Would be a public inconve- 
 nience, was also considc red in detcruiining the 
 piepoiiderance of convenience. Fui/i/ v. lOi/il, 
 12 I". I!. 'J-»!l. Ferguson. 
 
 The jilaintiir lived in .Montreal ami the defen- 
 dant ill Toronto; the plaintiil had twenty-six 
 w itnesses in Montreal, and the defendant twenty- 
 eight in or near Tiironto. (hi a niotion to 
 change the venue from Cornwall to T< iron to, the 
 master in chambers directed the parties to put 
 in atlidavits disclosing the names ami the nature 
 of the evidence of the witnesses, and upon these 
 determined that the evidence of some of the 
 Montii'al w itnesses would be irrelevant to the 
 issues, while all the Toronto witnesses might be 
 ini]iortaiit, anil changed the venue to Toronto, 
 Upon a))penl ;-Held, that the conclusion of tho 
 master as to the evidence was correct, and his 
 order for change of venue proper upon tlie alli- 
 davits before htm ; but: iSemlile, tlie direction 
 to disclose the names and evidence of witnesses 
 was improper ; not having been appealed against, 
 
 however, and having been complied with, it 
 could not lie disturbed. Arpin v. (I'liinaue 12 
 v. ii. 304. -Boyd. 
 
 Tho question for decision on an applicatiim to 
 change the place of trial is, where cm the .if- 
 tion most conveniently be tried? And wlieru 
 in an action on a promissory note for the con- 
 tract price of work done by the plaintiil' in re- 
 fitting a mill in the county of Middlcsox, u 
 which the defence was that the contract liail 
 never been carried out, the |ilaintilV had eiglit 
 witnesses in Tovonto or east of Toronto, iind tin' 
 defendant eight in .Middlesex or west of Midillo- 
 scx, upon the ilefciidant's ap|ilication to cli;ui"e 
 the place of trial from Toronto to Lonilon, it 
 was; — Held, that IjOiiilini was the; most eoiivi;- 
 nieiit ])lacc for trial, and the venue was eliaie'eil 
 accorilinglv. (/rui/ v. ShIiIhH, \-i \\ It. ."i,")7 _ 
 (,). I!. I). ' 
 
 Upon motion to change the venue from To. 
 ronto to Napanee in a county court a'tioii 
 brought to recover .SIOO damages for brcinli of a 
 contract by the defendaiil to sell a horsi! to the 
 plaintiil', it appeared that the defendant rcsiiled 
 ill the county of Lennox and .\ddinglon ami the 
 plaintiil' in Toronto, and that all the witnesses 
 on both sides resided in Lennox and .Addiiijjton 
 except the plaintiil' himself and one otlicr in 
 Toronto. The defendant swore that he rciiuiieil 
 eleven witnesses at the trial. It was not clear 
 w here the cause of action arose, but the lueaoli 
 was probably where the ilcfi'iidant resided. The 
 master in chambers refused to change the 
 venue: Held, that there was a very giwit 
 pre|ioiideranie of eonveiiieiice in favour of 
 iiaving the action tried at Napanei;, and the 
 venue was accordingly eliinged. MiUi'inn v. 
 
 .V///.S i:{ I'. H. :i,V). -Rose.--y. li. i). 
 
 See Mdhoii v. NU-IidIU, :H V. V. 122, )i. I().'.-|. 
 
 (Il) />'// Orikr iij' Jmlij' ami Master — Apiwit.t. 
 
 The action came on for trial at the Toronto 
 .•\ssi/es, biitthe trial was postiioned. and .\riiioiir, 
 .1., endorsed on the record ; " Upon my nwii 
 motion, I order that the place of trial in this 
 (•ause be changod to the town of Hcllcvillc, anil 
 that this cause be tried al the next, assizes there 
 by a jury." Hose, .1., sitting in ehaml'crs, hail 
 previously refused to change the place of trial to 
 Uelleville : — Held, that the ipiestion of place of 
 trial was res judicata : -Held, also, notwith- 
 standing section '2S, subsections "J and I), <•. tl. 
 Act, that tlii^ Itivisional Court had jurisdiction 
 to hear an appeal from the order of .Armour. .1., 
 having regard to the language of Rule "J."!!, (b.I. 
 .Act, (("on. Kule ^i'^'^) and of the order itself. 
 Unit V. Xorlh linl'shCiiiutdiaii Lomi iimt liirist- 
 iiHut Co., (l/nnUid), II 1'. H. «:{. -t". I'. I), 
 .SVc Uon. Rule l-_'(iO. 
 
 Semblc, Itule '2'A (Con. Rule O'lI), docs not 
 give a judge a right to interfere with the |iro- 
 cedure in the action except at the instance of a 
 party. III. 
 
 Mr. Winchester, ollicial referee, sitting for 
 the master in ehainherH, refused an application 
 by tho defendant to change the place of trial 
 from .Sarnia to Stratford, but gave leave to bring 
 on an appeal from his order, or a substantive 
 
1593 
 
 PLEADINQ. 
 
 1594 
 
 tai/cr — .\pi>cal<. 
 
 motion to change the i)hice of trial hufoiu 
 Armour, J., ** the Sariiiii Assizt-f. Aniuiuf, .)., 
 cntcrtiiiiioil tlie motion, wliich was niadu aooord- 
 iug to the leave given, anil made tiie order 
 changing the venue to Stratford. 'I'iie order 
 was drawn up as made by a judge at the assi/.es, 
 anil was signed by the local registrar at Sarnia : 
 Held, that, having regard to Uulu ■2.14, O. .). Act, 
 (Con. Kule 053), and to tlie leave given and the 
 ciiaracter of the motion, tlie onler of Arnumr, 
 ,J., was to be regarde<l as thai of a juclgc and 
 not of the High Court, and could therefore lie 
 reviewed by the Divisional Court. SnviiUi A'j- 
 riculliirat Iiiiph.mml Maiiiijhcluriinj C'c v. I'tr- 
 ,/,„., 11 P. R. •-'•-M.-C. P. L>. I 
 
 There is nothing to prevent a judge sitting at 
 the assizes hearing a eliamlier motion, if he is 
 disioseil for tlie inirpose to treat the eoiirt-room 
 as his eliainbers. Suih an aiipliiatioii as this, 
 however, siiould not lie made at tlii! trial on ' 
 account of the ineonveiiience and delriiiient to 
 the inildic interest arising from tlie delay of 
 other liusiiie.-s ajiiiropi iate to the assizes, and on 
 accdiint of the injustice to parties to the cause 
 who have pre|Kired for trial. 11/. 
 
 lu an action of ejectiiKiit the plaee of trial 
 may lie clianged by order of a judge. If tie 
 power to change is not given by Kule L'.'i4, (t. .1. 
 Act, (Coll. Rule 0,').'!), it is not taken aw.iy tliere- 
 hy, anil it previously existetl under K. .S. (). 
 (1877). e. ;■)!, .s. "JH. (.See Con. Kule ()."):{ a.) 
 Canadian J'miiic I'. IT. Co. v. Maiiiuii, II P. K. 
 247.- I'roudfoot.— Chy. I). 
 
 (e) /// Coitlili/ Ciiiirf ('iisi:i. 
 
 Seiiible, the master in ehaiiibers has not juris- 
 diction to change a venue under It. S. ( ), (l,S77l, 
 c. ,")((, s. I."i."), as the rule of court passed 1st l''eb. 
 ruary, IS7'.*, under the authority of ;{;{ X'ict. c. 
 11, delegates to the master only the jurisdiction 
 the judges of the .Superior Courts then jmsses- 
 sed 111 certain matters, and it was not till the 
 jKissiiig of o.'i Viet. c. 10, (IS7-M, that Sii|)erior 
 Court iludges hail juris<lietioii in siu'li niatteis in 
 County Ciui t actions. Nor has the niasti'r in 
 chambers power under lliile4"J0, O. .1. .Vet, (Con. i 
 Rule ;'.()), as that is limited to " actions and mat- 
 ters ' in the High Court, and a motion of this 
 ki'id is neither " matter "' i:or "proceeding" (s. 
 yi,0. J. Act) in the High Court. I'tiii'iltniit v. 
 McKdiJc, 10 P. R. 400, iJoyd. I!ut see now 
 Con. Kule IL'UO. 
 
 Held, that the venue in any action of leideviii 
 ill a county court, except for goods distrained, 
 may be changed to any other county umKr sec- 
 tion 155 of K. S. (). (1877) c. .50. O'D'niiull v. 
 Dwhihaiilt, 14 (.). K. 1.— OX'tuinor. Si'c now 
 Con. Kule PJOO. 
 
 In an action [lending in the High Court, an 
 interpleader issue and all siibsecpienl proceed- 
 ings were transterri^d umler the 4 4 \'iet. c. 7, 
 8. 1 (Out.) to the county court id' Middlesex. 
 By a subscipieiit order iiia<le on consent, the 
 trill of such issue was witlulrawn from .Middle- 
 sex, and a special case was agreed on, and the 
 venue changed from Middlesex to York, where 
 the special case was argued :-- llehl (Per Pat- 
 teisi.n and Osier, ,JJ.A.), that in strictness the 
 appeal sliouhl be iiuashed, 'I'lie transfer to the 
 
 .Middlesex cuiiiity court was tinal, and there 
 was no jurisdietioii under the statute or other- 
 wise to transfei- the issue or any part of it, or 
 to change the venue to any other eoiiiity court. 
 The proecediims in tlij county court of Vork 
 could therefore only b.' regarded as a suiiiinary 
 trial by louseiit from whiili no appeal lay. 
 Coijif v. /,.', 14 A. K. ."ilK!. 
 
 Held, by Kosc, ,1., that an appeal lay to a 
 judge in chambers from an onler of the master 
 111 chanibers under Con. KuU' I'JilO, and .in 
 apjiral to the (.,». I!. I). :— Held, that the venue 
 In this case was iiropcrly changed to Naiianee ; 
 ami tliat, even if an appeal did not lie' from the 
 master in chambers to a judge in ehaiolKis, the 
 latter I'.ad the right as upon a substantive ap- 
 plication to make the order wliicli the m.-ister 
 refused. As the ajuieal to the division. il Court 
 V, as dismissed njion the merits, !i<i o|iiiiion was 
 ' expiv.'ssiil as to whether siieh appeal lay. Mil- 
 li>liu, V. Siils, \:\ p. I!. .-l.-iO. 
 
 See Miihui, V. .Xkllo/!.; 'M C. I'. ■_''.■. [i. Ili'.'5. 
 
 (d) OllfrCasr.. 
 
 .\ii order was made by the master in chambers 
 
 ehangilig tile veiiuc from the assizes at .Simcne, 
 
 . for which notice had been given, to tlie cliaii- 
 
 cei-y sittings at London. The jmlirc presiding 
 
 ! at those sittings, having refused to take the ease 
 
 I as it lielonged to :i eoiiiinon law clivisioii : ~ Helil, 
 
 '. without determining whether tln^ iiia>tei'sordL'r 
 
 ■ was a |)ropi;r one, that the plaint ill' wi.s justilied 
 
 in acting on it, ami his costs oceasiniied by tin; 
 
 1 abortive attempt at trial, were allowed to him. 
 
 \Scliiroli v. Mcdloii'jldiii, !» 1'. R. 475. -Cameroi . 
 
 j Leave to aiipeal to the Court of .-\)ipeal Mas 
 asked by the plainlilf because it was ol import- 
 ' .anci' to him in other litigation to have the ((ues- 
 , tion of venue decidod, and was i,'ranted upon his 
 I iindi'i t iking to pay the costs of both parties of 
 j the appeal, d'/v.// v. •SiU'htl/, |-_' P. K. 5,57.— 
 |t,>. P.. I». 
 
 \ 'I'lic |il aintill h iving in his st iteiiient of claim 
 i named I'oronto as the )ilacc of trial, afterwards 
 anieiided it on |ii;viipe under Kule I7'.l, <>. d. 
 I Act (Coll. Kule 4-4), naming I'.ellevill.; as the 
 phee of trial :-- Held, oil appeal, atiii ining the 
 decision of the ma-ter in chambers, and follow- 
 ing {•'rietsch i: Winkhr, ."{ Chy. Cliainb. 100 
 (decided under Chy. (i. O. SI, which is substan- 
 tially the same as the said Itule), that lU) 
 change of the place of trial could be niade by 
 anuiidniiiit of the st.itement of claim. llidl 
 v. Xmlli l>nli<lt ('inKidlnit Iwf.ttiHi.id Co. ( Li- 
 mil.dj, 10 P. R. 0-''.'.-Ro.sc. 
 
 'j'he .odioii Mas tried at P.rantfor.l and a new 
 trial was moved for at a place other tlioi Uraiit- 
 foi'd, liecause the jury there were biassed against 
 the 'defndaiit ; Ibid, that this formed no 
 ground for a new tiid. Wood v. Mvl'hifson, 
 17(). K. Hi.'i. -»'• I'- '•• 
 
 HI. IVu;rn:s. 
 
 1. (Itiu.ralhj. 
 
 ThepldntilV shipiied gooils from St. .Tohns, 
 ()ucbec, to I )iiiidas", Ontario, to b.; carried from 
 St. Johns to Toronto by the ( Iran I Trunk Ky. 
 
 e: 
 
1595 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 159G 
 
 4i,l 
 
 1,1 
 
 (,'i)., who (U'liviied tlicni to tlic (lii'at Wosturii 
 Ky. Co., who carrioil till) wiinu to l»iinihis, wliere 
 tin: goods arrival in a ilamayt'il !<tiitf. 'l'\w plain- 
 till' oeinj; ill iloulit an to whicli (.(iiuiiaiiy was 
 lial)le, tlicru having lieuri a scjiaratt: cmitiart 
 wiili each, joiiii'd l)oth as cUfciidaiits ; -Hi'ld, 
 nllii'ining thu onlor ot I'roiidtoot, .)., who had 
 nllii'iiit'd tho i.rdur ol tlio iii!i>tt'r in chaiiiln'is 
 (!t I'. R. 8(1), that the caho oaiiie within Itiile !(l 
 of the Judiiatnio Ai^t (Con. Itiih! .'{(tS), and that 
 till! idaiiu ill' had a ri;_dil to tnakc lidth coniiiaiiits 
 jiartieH. Iliiri'ii/v. Uraiiil Trnnl: I!. IT. Co., 7 
 A. I!. 710. 
 
 Held, 111 tiiis case that the eoniiiany were 
 proiierly made jiailies to an action to restrain a 
 Jorfeituro of stock niaile under a resolution of ' 
 tlie direutor.s, it heilij,' allegi^l that the iiuniher 
 of direetor.s had heeii illegally reduced, as the 
 reduction of the <linclorale was the act of the 
 company. ( '/(/iWo/'/uc v. Xoxmi, 4 O. K. (J7-- 
 -I'roudioot. [ 
 
 I'laiiitilFsued ih'fendant for Hooding his land 
 by means of a mill cl.un, after the determination 
 of a lieeine to do .so. The (Ire.it Western 
 Railway hi'. I turned the waters of the stream 
 into another channel, which was notileep enough 
 to carry iiH'all the water if the dc:iendant's dam 
 were removed, so tli.it hy the act of the I'ailway 
 company the pl.iintill could not ohtain comjilete | 
 relief hy succeeding against defeiidanls :- Held, 
 that the plaintill should have lihertv under Rules ' 
 91, 103 (Con. liules .'{Ol, WIX), to add the railway 
 company as defendants. JItiul v. JiuiciiHui, D 
 r. R. l-l'. — Dalton, Mushr. 1 
 
 Since a way of necessity can only pass with : 
 the grant of the soil, the owner of the legal est.-ite j 
 in the land a;; to which it is claimed, slKJuld ho 
 a party to an action claiming such way and \ 
 where an c([uitalile owner of the land sued, he was 
 permitted to make the owner a co-plaintiH' l)y 
 amendment at the hearing. Smjlur v. Voojiur, 
 
 '2 O. H. Mils.— I'roudfoot. I 
 
 I 
 '{'he ])laintiir, the owm^r of a ^^ater-lot and [ 
 lidallioiise :dmtting on the (Hlawa river, wlio ! 
 carried on the hnsiness of letting lioats fur hire, I 
 lirought an action against four siwmill ow ners, 
 alleging that they heing each the owner of a saw- 
 mill situ il<'d liighm- uj) on the river than the 
 plaintill s lot, had each lieeii in the hahit of 
 throwing sawdust, slahs, etc., into the river, 
 and that this waste matter lloating down had 
 lodged upon and in front of the iilaintitl's water- 
 lot, and had there formed into a soliil mavs : — 
 Held, that the four .sawmill owners were Jiro- 
 iierlv joined as <lefendaiits in one action. Ji'nlli' 
 V. Jloolh, 10 I'. R. ti4'.t.-15oy<l.-Cliy. I). 
 
 In an action of ejectment wlieie the plaiiilid' 
 claimed title iindora conveyance from the father 
 of the defendant in ISS."), and the dcfemhint 
 claimed hy virtue of possession since 1874, under 
 a verhal agreenient to purchase made with his 
 father, and the ilcfendant saiil on his examina- 
 tion that he had (laid hi.s father money on 
 account of the purchase, which he had entered 
 in his father's hooks : — Held, hy the master in 
 c'hanihers, that the father might have heeii made 
 a i»arty under Rule lOit, (Con. Rule .•J.'Ul) on the 
 ground of his having hcen a party to a fniml in 
 conveying land to the plaintill's after he had 
 made un agreement with his son. Mf.][(i.-<lir v. 
 Mwioii, I'M'. R. 278.— Dalton, Miu(ti:—<J,n\i. 
 
 '2. C'nliii (jiK Truxt. 
 
 The ]ilainti(r was the surviving trustee under 
 the will of one J. 1!., of certain land, on wliiuh 
 was ereeteil a two storey liriek house, the wes- 
 terly wall of which formed the homidary of oho 
 L.'s land, immediately adjoining the I'l.iintiirs 
 on the West. L. le.ised to I'"., who elt.'cteil thereon 
 a large hrick liuilding, using the plaintill 's wes- 
 terly wall as a p:irty wall, inserting joints tlieie- 
 in, and Imilding thereon ."^o as to raise it two 
 storeys higher, therehy weakening the [ilaiiitilfa 
 wall. F. mortgaged to a Imilding sueiety. who 
 on default, sold to the clefcndani : -Held, that 
 the plaintill' under the (). .1. Act, llule 95, (Con. 
 Rule HO'J), wa;' entitle.! to maintain an action u» 
 representing the trstate, without making the 
 eestuis (jue trusteiit parties. UnmLiw McLiaii 
 3U. R. 200.— C. 1'. i). 
 
 4. llHslmnd and Wife. 
 
 Under the practice in Nova .Scotia, when the 
 wil'e is improperly joined as t'o-plaintill' with the 
 hiisliand the suit iloes not ahate, Imt the wife's 
 name must he struck out of the reeor<l and the 
 CISC deteiniined as if itronght hy the lui.shand 
 alone. I'dhtiriU v. .Siadin-iina Fiit ami Lift 
 ///-. Co. 11 S. C. U. -.'I-J. 
 
 The inchoate right of dower at law ohtaiiicd 
 hy a wife in land conveyed to her luisl)and makes 
 her a proper party defendant to a suit to set 
 aside a conveyance made to her hushand hy fraud 
 in which the wife is alleged to have assisted, 
 McFarland v. .McFki-IuiiI, {) V. R. 7.'{. — lioyd. 
 
 Action to remove a cloud from the title to 
 certain laud of the plantitl, a m irrieMl woiiiiui, 
 whose hushand when in eml)airassed eircam- 
 stances h,id liought the land and taken a con- 
 veyance in her name. The plaintill' had no 
 sei>arate estate, and her hushand was not a per- 
 son of suhstance. There was no trust hetweeu 
 tl'.e hushand and wife : — Held, I'rondfoot, .1., 
 dissenting, that, although suing alone and with- 
 out separate estate, a m irried Wdin in is not re- 
 (|niredto give security for costs, '{'he only per- 
 son who could lie jilainliir on the title wms the 
 wife, and her hnshanil could not he joined as a 
 lUMcssarv Ol- even a jiropi r [larty. McKny v. 
 liah,; I'i I'. K. .-^I. (hy, 1), 
 
 Hehl, under R. S, (), (IS77) c 12",, that in an 
 action for a tort committed hy a wife during 
 coverture the husliand is not a propel' jiartv, hut 
 the wife mii.st he sued alone. Aimr v, A'<«/(r.i, 
 ;{1 C. I'. \\K>. -Osier. Sec J.,,- v. //r,y,/,/«',-, -JO 
 O. R. (ilili. 
 
 A married woman n.ay hring .-i.i action of 
 lihel in licr own name without joining her hus- 
 hand as plaintill'. The omission of the words 
 "either in contract, or in tort or otherwise," 
 found ill section "2 (2) of the .Married Woman's 
 Property Act, 1884, from section .'! (2), I!. 8. 
 U. (I88'7), c. 1.S2, does not limit the legal etfoct 
 and operation of that section. S/m/irw Jitnn, IS 
 O. i!. 70.— Royd. 
 
 See Fa-ris v. Furix, n 1'. R, 44.'), p. 1G02. 
 
 T). Moilijnijri ■■<. 
 
 The land in respect of which the claim was 
 made in this aution was mortgaged ; —Held, that 
 
159G 
 
 1&97 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1598 
 
 « trustee under 
 land, nil wliich 
 
 ">11SC, lilt! \vt8- 
 
 "miidjiiy ,if „„^, 
 ,' till! I'laiiitiirs 
 on;cttiltliuieon 
 |«l,iiiiti(l 'h wua- 
 
 "Igjlii-ts tllLTC- 
 
 to i.ii.M' it two 
 
 «tlif phuiitill's 
 
 ii;; KccKity. mIio, 
 
 lit: -Held, tlmt 
 
 Itule ',).-), (Cim. 
 
 tllill ill! JH:tiu|l in 
 
 ut )ii;d<iiig the 
 ■iiu/:c V. McLhul 
 
 ' 'Je- 
 •'iti-i, vhcii the 
 hiiiitiU'witlithe 
 •, I'lit tliu wife's 
 ' ii'coiil and the 
 liy tliu luihliiiml 
 ri J'irc and Lift 
 
 at law olitiiiiied 
 'I' husband makes 
 to a suit to set 
 luisliandl.y fraud 
 ti) liavu assistud. 
 li. 7;i.--lioyd. 
 I'lMi the title to 
 111 irricd wuiiiaii, 
 lariiifisud ciicinn- 
 iiid takrii a cou- 
 plaiiitill' liail no 
 lid wa.s not a pur- 
 no trust liutweeu 
 1, I'riiiidfoot, ,)., 
 galoiir and witli- 
 wimiiii is not ru- 
 S. 'I'lu; only jiiT- 
 
 tlio tirk; w.is the 
 ot liL' joined as a 
 n'ty. McKiiy v. 
 
 !-•• i-"i, thai in an 
 •y a wife 1 1 II ling 
 |'ic.|(ir party, hut 
 Aimr V. /I'lnurs, 
 
 ■' V. ll,,l,l.iii; -JO 
 
 ill;,' a.i ai;tioii of 
 joining lar hiis- 
 111 of thu words 
 ■t or otIuTwise," 
 larricd Woman's 
 ;i"n •■! CJ), I!. S. 
 t tiiu legal effect 
 >'/"///(• V. Jlcnii, 18 
 
 44;i, J). KiO:;. 
 
 1 tlio (daim was 
 ;ea : -Held, that 
 
 the mortgagee was not a necessary iiaity, the 
 proceedings not Ituiug for coin))ensati(>ii for land 
 taken, luit as a defence of and iirotection to pro- 
 perty. As, however, his security ini^lit lie pre- 
 judiced or diminished liy the washing away of 
 the land, and he might lie al>le to assert .some 
 ri(dit to the compensation, there could lie no oli- 
 jcclion to his licing joined ; Imt as the conipen- 
 giition was only some .S."iO, the court would not 
 rt'oiiire him to he made a jiarty. //( /•«; Xii'k/e 
 ,ml llie Toini of Walkuioii, 11 (). K. 4;J3.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 It was contended in thi.s case on the part of 
 the defendants that the mortgagees of the )m-o- 
 perty should ho nnule p.iities :— Held, th.il O. 
 ,1. Act, s. 17, suh-s. i"), enaldes a mortgagor en- 
 titleil to i\\v possession of land, as to which the 
 ninrtgagou has given no notice of his intention 
 to take possession, to sue to pievent or recover 
 d.ainaiics in respect of any trespass or otiier 
 wrong relative thereto in liis own name only, 
 anil that the objection for want of jiarties ought 
 not to prevail. Plttft v. dniiiil. I'niiik It. IT. 
 Co. of CanoAlii, I'i O. I!. 119. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 In an action for arrears of an annuity ami to 
 (leclaie the same a charge on land, mortgagees 
 fif the land whoso mortgage was subiseinient to 
 llio will creating the charge ;iiid siilijeet to the 
 tcriii.s of it were made defendants liy the writ of 
 sunin.ons : but on their own a[iplicatinn iiiime- 
 iHalely after delivery of slatcnieiit of claim, 
 their name was .struck out with costs. Sil.-iuit 
 \.Cochr(iiic, i:{ J'. H. TC.-^Calt. 
 
 See I'd/ynii v. Dii/irr. ]-2 (). It, '27.".. ]). IIH ; 
 M'ird'iiKihl V. Mri ;'<!!, I'J .A. K..-)',l.{. p. s-1-1: .)/,■- 
 Mitllui V. /';•(■'-, i:t (). K. .■.7, i'. 1-J7ti; .I/cI'm'/i v. 
 Tiffin, 13 A. 1!. !, p. 1171. 
 
 C. /'((i/iier.i. 
 
 I>. I>. and W. I). 11. were )iartiiers in a cor 
 tain .biint Slotdi .Savings I'.ank, under aitieles 
 which provideil that the [lartnership should lust 
 during their joint lives, and thai they should 
 share the prolits and exjieiiscs. 1 •. II. died in 
 April, 11S74. leaving; a will, wheieby he be- 
 iiueathed to W. S. li., the .s.mof \V. l'». l!., the 
 ivsidiie of his |)ropeiiy, iiududing his iiilcrcsl in 
 the bank, and appoiiitiil L. his executor. In 
 .M ly, 1S74, li. gave \V. I>. IJ. a general jiower 
 <il attorney to act for him. In .Inly, lS7!t, W. 
 .•s. I!, came of age, and soon .after dem.iinled of 
 \V. 1). I!, an account of the assets of tln' p irl- 
 nurship and a settleineiit willi iiim : and in 
 November, ISfSO, \V. I), li. gave the plaiiitlH' a 
 cliei(uc for .S8,0()0, handing him at the .same time 
 a document for signature, which purported to 
 he a recci])t of tlii^ said sum in full of .ill claims 
 on the estate of I). I>. , ,ind \V. S. H. signed it. 
 W. .S. H. now brought this .action ag.iiiit \V. 1). 
 H. and L., alleging that after the death of I). 15 , 
 W. D. B., with L.'s connivi'.nce, made certain 
 arrangements for the winding up of the jiartncr- 
 sliip, and that large portions of the assets of I). 
 I!, and of the bank hail l)cen realized, and |)r..itits 
 made, and converted by \V. I). 1!. to bis own 
 use, and claiming to h.ive thi.' said release de- 
 clared void, and an acc(Uiiit of the estat(! of l>. 
 B., and of the partnership, and to have the 
 same wound up, and payment of the share to 
 which he was entitled : — Held, that the suit in 
 
 Its ))re.sent .shape was iiiaint linable as brought, 
 f<U' though tile geiicr.il rule is, tli it pcr.siuis who 
 have possessed Ihemselves of the property of the 
 deceased, or are deblors to tlie estate generally, 
 camiot be made partiiM to a suit against the 
 executor, yel this rule is relaxed in the case of 
 surviving partners of tli" ileeascd, whom it is 
 allowed to make jiaities wilh the executor in 
 order that the plaintill may have an account of 
 the personal estate entire. At all evi^its, such 
 I an action may be supported in all cases where 
 I the ivkitionship between the executors and the 
 surviying partners is such as to present a sub- 
 stantial impidiiiieiit in the prosecution by the 
 , executors ol tile riglils of the parties interested 
 [ in the estate against llu' surviving (lartners, as 
 seemeil the case here, altlioiigh it I'li.l not ajipear 
 thai there had been actual eollusioii between I., 
 .and W. I!. I). J!nrii v. Jlar„,HO. I!. •.'.•{7.— 
 I Ferguson. 
 
 'I'lie cause of action arose before, and the writ 
 I of .summons was i^-^iicd after, the di.s.s<diition of 
 the defendants' lirm : Held, that the defendants 
 Were ]Mopeily sued ill their linn name. Wiliiiu 
 V. y.'o;/M- Mrhl;/dCv., 10 I'. 11. .•(.Vi. — Dal toll, 
 .l/„«V(c.— Osier. 
 
 .See /{'i/iiirr v. Ihtrri.i'ni, U'S Cliy. '22, p. ICW. 
 
 . .V.I2. 
 
 ii: 
 
 7. Otiiiii' I'tsouh. 
 
 Misjoinder of |iailiis since tho .Judicature 
 .\cl. is no longer a urouml of demurrer. Young 
 V. JMniLiuii, '2 0. li. 4:{4.— Boyd. 
 
 Partii's to ail action fin- the removal of an in- 
 striiinciit Irom the register where the registra- 
 tion of .such instruinent is not authorized by the 
 Registry Act. See Onlarhi Indni/ridi Loan 
 mill Iiinnliiii III Cu. V. I.iiid.iiij, 3 O. U. 0(i. 
 
 I'arlies lo action to enforce mechanics' lien. 
 /.•'(;(/,■ .,/• .l/o/(/,v .// V. lliiTiicr. .T O. K. 183 ; 10 A. 
 '■ -\-l'.Y. Wli); 0!'//i''<l V. /liirboiir, 12 I'. U. 5.')4, 
 73: Mri'iiin V. 77///", 13 A. II. l,p. 1171. 
 
 In an action for the cancellation of a tax deed : 
 Held, that the fact that llic defendants might 
 have a remedy <iver against the municipal cor- 
 jioration which had sold the Land for taxes, did 
 not 111 ikc the corporation a necessary party to 
 the action. Charlton \. ll'tiMoH, 4 O. R. 480.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 Action by two latep.iyeis on behalf of them- 
 selves and all other ratepayers of A. against all 
 the members of the iinnii'.:ipal council of A., 
 charging that the <lcfenilanls, acting fr.audulent- 
 ly and in collusion with the treasurer of A., 
 continued him in olilce after it had come to their 
 knowledge that he was a defaulter, and allowed 
 him to receive further moneys, causing loss to 
 Ihe municipality: — Held, that tho law attaches 
 the liability of trustees to municipal councillors, 
 and that it was sullicieiit to charge them as such 
 without using the word ''trustees"; that the 
 action was one in the former exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion <if the Court of Chancery, and a jury notice 
 was therefore imiiropcr :— Semble, the municipal 
 corporation should have been made a party to 
 the acti(Ui, and the action should have been on 
 behalf of all ratepayers, except the defendants. 
 Morivic V. Connor, 11 P. U. 423.— Hroudfoot. 
 
".^jSJW^" 
 
 1599 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 160Q 
 
 s 
 g 
 
 Inaii action todcclaro the seats of eci'tuiii tniB- 1 
 tees of a sc'hdol imiU'd vacant and for an injnnu- ' 
 tion restraining tiifni from fintluT acting as 
 nicinliL-rs of the lioard. See ('hijilin v. I'lililiv 
 Si-hoot liuaril of WomUlock, l(i (). W. 7'-'S, y. It'i.S. 
 
 The ijliiintills hnmght tills action as land 
 owners injuritnisly iificctcd l>.v certain draina.Lje 
 woi'ks of tile d< finiluiits and tlie iiHsc.ssnicnt.i 
 inudo nnilcr liy-laws relating to the same, secli- 
 ing (hiniagcM and otjier relict : — Held, tliat there 
 was no uiisjoinder of jilaiiitill's, nor was It in- 
 euni))ent un the ]>laintin's to sue on behalf of 
 any otliers, and tlio plaintifi's had the riylit 
 tiuis to i)n>cecd l)y way of action and not of 
 arbitration, A/ijuiiilir v. 'J'oirii.ihi/Kij' //oinml, 
 Oulhniitli V. 'J'(iiriii/ii/i 11/ I/anriili, 14 (). 1!. '_'•_'. 
 — Ferguson. 
 
 Ill an acticn l>y several |ilaintills ipii tani 
 against two difcmlants for penalties foi' not 
 registering their iiartncrsliip undci' I!. S. ( •. 
 (1877), c. l'_':l, ol which section II gives the 
 right of action to "any person"' who may sue : 
 ' Held, revi rsing the judgnjenl of the conil 
 holow, (I) That under till' .iliovc section and till- 
 InterpretatiuM Act any olijn tion to the action 
 hciiig hriiuglit ill the name of more th.in one 
 person eiiiild not pn^vail. i"_'l Th.it the circnm 
 stance that the plaiiitiU's nsidcd oiil of tlir 
 jurisdiction coiiM not defeat their action. (■'!) 
 That the joinder of two dcfciidinits for sev- 
 eral penalties was not a ground of dcniiirrer, 
 and per Osier. .). 'riicre was no inconvenience 
 or impropriety in joining tlic^e two defendants 
 in one action. C/iii/tiit v. /Idliiil, 14 A. K. 3.")4. 
 
 Held, that since the Devolution of Estates 
 Act, K. S. (). (IS77), c. KIS. s. 4, devisees are 
 not necessary paities to an action for dower. 
 Maloiie V. Muloui:. 17 t). I!. 101. Kohert.son. 
 
 Sec dallirailh v. Irrim/, S (). I!. 7.">1. p. 114.S ; 
 Milcht'tl. V. fill/ of Loiii/iiii Fir'' Ini. Co. I'J 
 O. It. 7<M>, ])."',»7il: liidlhi V. Xi'/oii, I'J A. 
 R. 50, p. LMO: Midiiii, v. Fnti.,. \:i (). U. (i!t!l. 
 |). l()Or>; SiiitI/ v. Hr'itixlt Co/iiiiiliiit '/'tiiriii;i iiiitl 
 TranHporlalioii Co., S. ('. H. ^fSi ; I iiti rinilioiiol 
 WreckiiKj Co. v. .Miirplnj, VI I'. It. 4'.':i, p. l!7S ; 
 Thotnp.Hoii y. Afo/smi's Hank, \i\'^. ('. It. G(i4, p. 
 145; ntdckte.!/ v. /Juol,;/, ISO. U. .'fSI, p. .•t4.-:. 
 
 8. Third Piirllci. 
 
 Under Hule 111'. (Con. Ilnle ;(:!.'{) where in an 
 action the jilaintitl' is entitled to recover against 
 the defendant, against whom the action is 
 brought, the d( iciKlant is prccliidcil from trying 
 questions arising lietweeii himself and a third 
 party ud<led at his instigation under Itule 108, 
 (Con. Uulu .'$29) in the trial of which the plain- 
 tiiT has no interest,, and « liiih Ins the ell'eet of 
 delaying the plaintilV in his recovery. Tmin of 
 Jhimlu.f V. aUinoiir, •_> O. I{. 463. -C. \\ l». 
 
 Defendants, sued by the jilaintifls for the 
 amount due under .-i least,' of a lollgate, brought 
 in \V. as a defcmlaiit, allcL'ing that an agree- 
 ment to coniniute tolls, iiayalde by \\'., had 
 ))ccn ina<le by the plaintills, and claiming as a 
 set-oli'the dili'ereiice lielween such commutation 
 and tlu! tolls otherwise jiay;ible by \\. This 
 agreement Iniviiig been disjiroved, the parties 
 procecilcd to try the ([uestion as to the liability 
 of W. to the original defendants, in which the 
 
 plaintitrs hail no interest, and judgineut was 
 given in favour of the original defendants :— 
 Held, that such judgment must be set aside 
 
 The action was upon promissory notes iiiuilc 
 by the defendants to the order of the I!. ('. |^ 
 Co., anil liy them endors(^d to the plaiiitill'Co. 
 The defend lilts eliiinied inilemnity against tlie 
 It, ('. \.. Co.. and at the trial that cmnpunv, 
 against the protest of the plaintills, was inai'li- 
 a third jiarty defendant, and jiidginent was 
 dirc'cled to '<c entered against them in favour of 
 the defendant.- to indemnify the defemlants 
 against the judgment recovered against tliem at 
 tli<^ suit of the plaintills ;— Meld, ri'Veisnig tin- 
 ordiT MiaUing tlic company a tliiid parly, ami 
 the juilgnient .'igailist tlielii, that lliiiil piutii'.s 
 should lie jiiined only before trial: tli.ilinaiu 
 ea>c tiny laii be joined only for tin- purpiisvcii 
 biiiiling them by the juilgnient against the iirjoj 
 mil ilelciiil.'iiit ; and that ill onler that tin- 
 original defendant may obt.iin indeiiiniiy aL;aiiis;, 
 a tliinl party he iiiiisi, bring a separate autioii. 
 /.«.7,/i v. '!'<' II nil i(/. ■',{). K. .V_'. l,> I!. I). 
 
 In an action for the iion-dcliv(M'v of coal, niu- 
 of the delcnd.ilils L'avc iiotii(^ to S. I't .M., iinilui- 
 the lirst part of liulc I(l7 (t'nii. I'nle ."[JS) ami 
 Itule KIS. (Con. Ullle :<-J!)) of the aitluli, ami 
 that he claimed coiitribiiiion from tliein tn the 
 i-xtcnt of one half of any sum rci.'oveied against 
 him on the gioiind lli.it they wen; co pa it la is in 
 tli(! tiaiis lelion, etc. ."'J, it M. appcainl to this 
 notice, and the master in clianibi'rssubsei|iieiitlv 
 made an order giving tliciii leave to appeal, anil 
 directing tli.it tliey should lie bound by any jinlg- 
 nieiit against the said defendant : -llelil, on 
 apjieal from the order of Osier, .1. A., setting 
 aside the older of the master, that the latter 
 Older li.id been ]iropcrle iiiaile. Mr/.iirm v. 
 .I/1///W, 10 I*. It. 4.^)1. —(i. I!. I». 
 
 The plaintill' and I', both claimed to he eii- 
 titleil by assigniiient to a moitgagi^ made liy the 
 defendant. The defeiiilalit paid 1*. one gale ol 
 intcicst and received iiiilemnity for the aiiKiiiiit 
 p.iid against any claim on the part of the jilaiii- 
 till'. The plaintill' then broiiL;ht this aeiioii 
 el.aimiiig the intcicst which had been paid to 
 I'., and also the |ii'iiieipal for dcf.iiilt in |>.iyiiieiit 
 1 of interest. The ilefcndant applied to have I', 
 added as a co ih leiidant : lleld, not a proper 
 case for adding I', as a party under Kiile 10."! 
 (ill, (Con. Kiilc ,S'J4 ill] ) but rather mic in wliieli 
 a notice liiiLiht be served upon I*, bv tliedefell- 
 d.ilit undei-lliilc ION, O. .1. Act; (Con'. P>ille :C.",I). 
 (,)iia'ie, per the master in chambers, whet her the 
 defendant had not a remedy bv inlcipleaikr. 
 Iliirittw l/iisi, II 1'. P..47. — Dalton, J/f'</'r.- 
 Osler. 
 
 In an action for the price of goods soldC.to 
 whom the defendant had paid the price of the 
 goods, believing him and not the plaintitf to 
 
 1 have the title thereto, and .1. C. F. and A. 1''., 
 who wcr(! charged by C. with having fiauilii- 
 leiitly obtained possession of the goods ami 
 made a pretended sale of them to the |ilaiiitill', 
 were added as iletemlants under Kule l()!l, (). .1. 
 Act (Co;:. Uulc :tHO), with a direction that ('. 
 should, in his pleading, state his case against .1. 
 »!. I'\ and A. I'., .mil that they should he at 
 liberty to reply. Jtruiiii v. Coii.iinfiiii.L', 11 1'. 
 
 , U. 3(1:). — Daltun, J/((,</(r. -I'ruudfoot. 
 
160Q 
 
 1601 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1602 
 
 .judKiiicnt was 
 ll ilcfeliiliint.s ; — 
 at liu sui asidf. 
 
 soiy notes inml,. 
 • <>t the I!. ('. I,, 
 the pliiiiititl'Cci. 
 nity ajiiiiii.st tlir 
 
 ll tllllt LMIIIipilllV, 
 IlliHH, «ilH IlliKil' 
 
 ll juilj,'liiriil WiiH 
 
 ;liL'iii ill favoiii' of 
 
 till! (IcIVinlaiits 
 
 I iiKiiiiisl tlioiii at 
 
 M, ll'\(l'.sl|li< tile 
 
 thinl p.iily, ami 
 hilt thiid paitius 
 rial : that in aii\ 
 
 r till' piii'|M>,si> (It 
 ii.u'ainst the cirij;!. 
 
 (iidir Dial tiic 
 inliiniiily a;;aiiis:, 
 
 I sipaialc action. 
 
 (,» i;. I). 
 
 ivci-v iif iiial, mil' 
 
 oS. A M., iiii,i,,|. 
 
 11. liiih' ."■JSjaiid 
 
 till' ac-timi, ami 
 
 friiiii tliciii til till' 
 
 I'l'iMivcrcil ajiain.sl 
 
 L'lti I'D |i:irtiui'siii 
 
 appraiTil to this 
 
 l>('r.s siili.M'i|ii(.'iitlv 
 
 vu to appi'iii'. ami 
 
 omul liy any jiiilg- 
 
 laiit : -llclil, uii 
 
 IT. .1. A., setting 
 
 r, that the latter 
 
 ilu. Mrl.iinn v. 
 
 I». 
 
 .'laiiued to lie en- 
 j^iii^f iiiailu liy tlie 
 lid I', one ;,'aK,' el 
 ty tor the uiiKiiiiit 
 part of tlio plaiii- 
 p||;^lit this ai'liim 
 had lieeii paid to 
 k'taiilt ill iiayiiHiit 
 liplied to have I'. 
 leld, not a proper 
 y iiiidei' Kiile lO.'t 
 .tlier one in wliicli 
 
 II r. hv thedefen- 
 t (foil". Kule;fJ!l). 
 ilieis. « hetlier tile 
 ■ liy interpleader. 
 Italton, Miitii r.— 
 
 if f(0()drt soIdC. , to 
 
 I tlio price of the 
 t the ])laiiitill to 
 , V. V. and A. I"., 
 
 II haviiif,' fiaiuhi- 
 if the ;;ood.s and 
 '111 to the plaintill, 
 ler link' mil, ()..l. 
 diieetioli that ('. 
 his ease ai.'aiiist .1. 
 Iiey should he at 
 Cuiiniiiniux, 11 r. 
 •oudfiiot. 
 
 Koord-r Is nt-i'essiiry ti eiiahle ii defendant iioiniiial rent, w liieh was refused. 'I 
 
 to plead a elaiiii lor indeninity against his eo- 
 (U'fi'iidant, lint siieli a ihiiiii will not lie tried 
 ^»itlioiit an oi'ihr providiii',' fir the deterinina- 
 tioii of the (piestioii so raised. I". Iiorrowed 
 iiiiiney fioiii the plaintill' and then Went into 
 iiiirtmi -hip with N. ; I*, and N. Mttirwardsscdd 
 the hiisiiiessto \i. The pliintill' hiviiij; jildj;- 
 iiieiit .iL'ainst 1'., liron>,'lit this lu'tion against I'., 
 X. and It. to set aside the sale to l>. as fraudii- 
 lent. !'• alleecd in his defence that X. iij,'ieed 
 to pay half liisdelits, inelndiii|.,' that to the plaiii- 
 titi and that I'l. aereed to pay the lialiilities of 1'. i 
 1111(1 N. a|ipearinj; on their hooks, which the 
 liidiility to the pliiintiD' did, and he elaiined 
 iiideinnity ii^'iinst .\. and IJ. : iji Id, (reveihiiif,' 
 the decision nf the master in ehaiiilieis) that the 
 trial of the (pii!sl ion whether or not the sale to 
 Ii. was fiainiiileiit as auaiiisl the plaintill' wiaild 
 involve an iiKpiiry as to the terms upon which 
 1). purchased from the other defi'iidants. and 
 that the whole matter WMs one that iiiiuhl he 
 advaiita;4eoiislv disposed of at one hearing. 
 Lurk' V. I'illmiiii, 12 I'. 11. ()<i2.-. Street. 
 
 . l.iintiir 
 eharjicd tliit the defendant had falsely and 
 fraiidiili'iitly repnseiitiil that the division line 
 lietWeell till! two lots ranhelwcill the two l.lliUl- 
 ings, and l)idiii;lit an action therefor, praying for 
 a !( sci-simi of tin. sale, for an acmiint of iin- 
 proveiiients, and for damages. 'Ilii^ deed was 
 drawn after the alle:;ed niisrepii seiitatioii, and 
 after the plaintill knew- of the eiicrniichini lit, 
 and nothing was then said aliont the line. 'I'he 
 judge at the trial found that there was no false 
 representation, hut he added defendant's hiotlier 
 as ii party, and diricted hiiii to coiiviy to the 
 plainlilV the land eiieroaehed upon ; Held, that 
 under Ihecireiinistaiiccs, more fully >tated in the 
 report, till! lii'other should not have hei n added ; 
 and the plaintill', having hased lieractioli on the 
 ground of fraud, should not he allowed to lely 
 upon an entirely ilill'erent ground. JJiiiihttr v. 
 .l/.t/', .Ti C. P. 'lli.-..-~C. I'. 1). 
 
 Action Iiy pi lintitls for .'iiKiO, as a-sigiiecs un- 
 der an iissigiiinciit from the a.ssigiiee in insid- 
 veney of the e-late of \V. it A. At the trial 
 the judge held tli.it, niiih^r the eiicniiislance.s 
 
 The plaintill' sued ft municipal corporation and I si^^t ""' i" the report, the amoiint did not 
 ,1 railway eoinp.iny for damages ; the corpora- 1'/"^'^ ''.' *'":' plaint ill- 
 
 tiiiii ill their statement of defeii 'e chiinicd in- 
 (Ifiniiity or relief over against the company, hut 
 tie- e(iiii[iaiiy did not answer the pleading, and 
 no order was made or applied for liefoie or at 
 the trial to have the (|Ucstiip|i iletii iiiined ; 
 judgment was given for the |ilaintill' against 
 the cm poration, lint nothing was decided either 
 ill f.iwiiir of or against the I'onipany. After the ; 
 juilgment had lieeii atlii iiied liy n Divisional ] 
 Court the coi])oratioii applied to the trial judge ; 
 foraii order iiiidcrCoii. linle^i'-'S to have thcipies- ! ''"'' 
 
 miller the assignment to 
 tliciii, hilt he n fused to add the insolvents as 
 CO plailitill's, hcciusc! t he defendant was not in iX 
 jiositicii to know whether lie had a defenee as 
 against 'hem. During the following sittings of 
 the court, the defeiidanl having had sullicielit 
 time to aseci'taiii his rights, and shewing no de- 
 fence, the court under the (). .1. Ait, liule \M 
 (Coll. Iliile t4."i), dinctid the insolvents to hu 
 addeil, and jiidginent to he entered lor the plain- 
 tills for the aniiiunt claimed, hut, under the 
 iri'iinistances, without costs. Wdotlirard v. 
 
 tioii hetwceii tliciii and t he company deteriiiiiicd, 
 (,liia'ic. whether tin re was jiower under tlie 
 Itiilcs to make the order ; and : — Hchl, that, if 
 lliore w.isiiower, it would not he ii wise e.xeicise 
 of discretion to make it ; for new pleadings and 
 iiliew trial would he necessary, and it would lie 
 better that a fresh action si mii Id he hronght than 
 that the plaintill' should he kept helore the 
 court wliili' the defendants settled their dis)uite. 
 Mnld V. Ti'ini.^liip (,/ Elnliln.h, \:\ I'. 1!. ;Ul.— 
 Hose. 
 
 !^ee Tiirratici: v. Lirliiii^hiii, 10 I', ll. 2'.), p. 
 1010; '/'tiiii/iiiwii V. XortiK rit Ii. 11. Co. ojVuikuIii, 
 11 I'. \i. 41!), p. l(i'J2. 
 
 9. Adiliiiij anil SIriLiiKj out I'arlic-i. 
 (a) (ll IK mill/. 
 
 The defendant and his hrother partitioned 
 their lands, defendant taking the west-half of a 
 lot, on wliicli was an hotel, and the lirother the 
 east- half, on which a stori! was erected, each 
 supposing that the division line ran lictween t 
 two Iniihlings. 
 the ]ilaiiitil), w h 
 
 years, the land heiiig descriheii as the west-haif aiiplici 
 according to a plan. The hotel encroached upon 
 the eiisthalt at the rear end of the huilding 
 ahout thirty-four inches, the value of the land 
 encroached upon lieiiig very trilling. It ap- 
 peared that the hotel could lie moved for ahout 
 ^0 ; and that defendant had ollereil to procure 
 u lease of the portion encroached upon at a | J/a.v<cc. — Ferguson 
 
 101 
 
 .Slil'lil.-<,:i'>^\ V. •J8-_'.— C. I'. D. 
 
 One ('., a liractising harrister, de.ilt largely in 
 land transactions, hut it was not slieuii that he 
 de)iended thereon for his living, lici'iiining in- 
 solvent, proceciliiigs under the Insolvent .\ct of 
 I.S".") were taken against him. The plaintill' was 
 assign, e of a mortgage made hy (',, and hronght 
 an action thereon against H., the assi-iiee in in- 
 solvi iiry of ('., and D. and others, the owners of 
 parts of the mortgaged lands. It wa-i ohjccted 
 liy D. that ('. shiiiilil have heen made a party : — 
 lield, that ('. was not a trader w itliiii the mean- 
 ing of the Insolvent Act and that nothing passed 
 to the assignee in till! insolveiiey proceedings. 
 V. was therefore declared to lie a necessary 
 jiarty, and leave was given to add him as a de- 
 fendant. ./0S/7//1 V. lluffiiir, 'J!) C'hy. I'Jl.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 The action was lironglit hy one l'\ and his 
 wif<', against .Arehihahl h'., to recover nine years' 
 arrears, niider an annuity deed made hy the 
 defendant to secure .'Jl'20 a year to the plailitill's 
 during their lives. .Janet K. , the defendant's 
 wife, had joimd in the annuity deid to har her 
 Snhseipienlly the defeiichiiit -VicliihaUl 
 
 (lower 
 
 defendant sold his portion to I'"., ahandonid his wife and ah.-conded. .Janet 
 
 lad lived opposite formally I'., then hidiight an action for aliiin iiy, and now 
 
 ' ' '' ■' '"■' apidicd to he let in to defend this aelii 11, on the 
 
 ground that it was coUusively lnoiiglit for the 
 
 purpose of defeating her suit for aim oiiy, and 
 
 to deprive lierof her dower in the lands : - Held, 
 
 nplioliiing tlie order of the master in i In nihers, 
 
 that .Janet F., was entitled to he ailmitted to 
 
 defend. Finis v. Firris, 9 1'. K. •14.1- Dalton, 
 
1603 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1604 
 
 g 
 
 1 ' 
 
 
 The (Icfuii'Iaut (.'larkNon, ns a)i8i({iiue of thtt 
 dcfcndttiit Hiuk»4 for tliu lieni'titof oroditorH, liiul 
 taken |»>.sst'.s.siiiii (if til'! ^(><i(U in (|ia.stiiiii. oii 
 wliioli tiio iil.iiiiliir claiiii'cl a lien iiiiilci' iin iiu- 
 rej^isii'iud ajji'i-'umunt in tlie natuiu (if a cliattul 
 ni(iit;,'ii^e. On inotiiin (if ccitain iifditdrs lliey 
 wure made (lartii's to tiie action, nnder ilulc IDlt 
 O. .J. A(.'t, (Cnn, Uiilf :V>1} on tlic gionnd tliat 
 tlioy liad a snlntanti.il intl'|•^^st in tlie sulijuct 
 matter of tlie action. Kitihiii'j v. H'uk-^, '.) 1'. K. 
 fil8, — \VincliL'st(.'r, lU'jixliiii-. 
 
 Tlie iilaiMtiir conHigncil jtoodw to piirtics in 
 Kngiaiid, and K]ii|i|>eil them liy tiie ilefen(hint 
 cnnip inii'fl on iiilU uf lading, dcsciiliing them as 
 
 Mlii|i|i> il liy the plaiiitllV, to lie delivereil to 
 
 ordci- or lii-^ as>i;;ns, lu^ or they paying freight. 
 'I'lic plaitititV endorsed the liill.tof lading to vari 
 OUM ]iartie.s in Kngland, tti whom he had xild the 
 goods. 'I'lie consignees paid the drafts drawn 
 mion them for the price, and the goods having 
 lieen seriously daniai^ed in transit, the) made 
 claim ii[)on the plaintilV for the loss. Tlie plain- 
 titr now sued for the damage, ami was nonsuited 
 on the ground tliat he had not sullicient interest, 
 or was not the proper person to sue. Tlie court 
 without deciiling as to the plaiiitill' having no 
 right of action, or the ell'cct of H. S. (). (Ih77), 
 c. lltt, 8. ,'), set aside the nonsuit, and directed 
 a new trial with leave to the plaiiitill' to add as 
 co-plaintills any or all of the consignees or en- 
 <lor.4ei's o! the hills of lading, the evidence already 
 given to stand with any additions the parties 
 might desire, reserving all costs. Ilnlilii v, 
 Mtn-hniiW /t(s/„il,li Ci,.,-i O. It. .SS."). - (,>. 11. I). 
 
 The plainlill's took a chattel mortgage from \V., 
 who the next (lay ns^igued to the detendaiit in 
 trust for the hciictit ot his creditors. The defen- 
 dant was nut a crc(lit(pr, and hefore any creditor 
 had lieeii informed of the assignment of the 
 plaintill's, who had omitted to register their 
 mortgage, demanded of the defendants tlie 
 goods contained in it, which was refused, where- 
 upon this action was lirought. Upon the appli- 
 cation of the defendant, with the consent of M., 
 a creditor of W ., the master in cliamlicis ov- 
 «lered M. to he added as a Jiarty defendani, in 
 order to test the validity of the plaintill's niort 
 gage : -Held, allirming the order of (Jalt, J., 
 who rescinded the master's ordir, that the de- 
 fendant w.is not entitled to the order, for when 
 the plaiiitill' demanded the goods the creditors 
 had no right, and they could not hy a suliscipient 
 assent make good their claim under the assign- 
 ment. JJymiiii V. JJiiunie, T) O. K. 430. — C. I'. 1>. 
 
 A cliecpie had lieen drawn upon the plaintilf.s, 
 payable to the Hamilton Tool Company, and 
 uiioii an endorsement, purporting to be that of 
 the Tool Company, the (lefcndanta cashed the 
 clRMpie, and upon |ireseiitation hy them to the 
 plainlill's, were rejiaid the amount. The Tool 
 Company repudiated the endorsement. The 
 defendant's sidicitor swore that he had good 
 reason to helieve, and did believe, that a tliird 
 party was the beii'licial jdaintill", and that there 
 were eciuities which would attach as against the 
 present ]ihdntif1s. Leave to add such third 
 party was refused, but leave was given to the 
 dcfemhints to amend by alleging that the third 
 party was the beneficial plaintitl', and to set up 
 unj' defence that might be open to them on that 
 uround. J!<tiik of Coninurce v. Hank uj iiritish 
 Aoith Aiiiirlcd, io P. H. ITiS.— Dalton, AfttsUr. 
 
 I An objection was taken in the hiviNiomtl 
 
 Court, that the act ion should have been hroiight 
 
 by 1 he consignee, dames, because, as was alleged 
 
 j the evidence shewi^d that the propeitv liiiil 
 
 . passed to him. The objection was not t ikcn ut 
 
 the trial or in the (ihadings, otheiHise it «.jid.| 
 
 have lieen shewn thai the iiiii|ierly Has still m 
 
 the plaiiitill'; and in any event the coiisi;;ii, i, 
 
 d.'inies consented to he added as a iioplainlill : 
 
 llelil, that the olije>ti>'ii could not imw ]»■ 
 
 ', raised ; and, even if there weri' anything in it, 
 
 {thcconit ^\onld allow dames to be added as a 
 
 ' coplaiiilitr. I>i/iiiii(l V. Adiihiiii innl Xnrl/i 
 
 I i\\.iii,ii I!. If. Cm., II (). i:. ;ti:{. c. i'. i>. 
 
 .\ddiiig .Attorncy-t lem r.il. Svr /,'< 'I'lnil V.it 
 I II II ('(tiiiil: III •' Wiihr Sli-i'l" iii.il till /I'liiiil III 
 I thr U/iiiiJ, II (). H. (iS7. 
 
 I This action was brought to rescind ,i coninat 
 
 i for the sale ot a vessel liy the lilaintlll's to tlii^ 
 
 dt'fi'iidani, on the ground that the dcfeiid.int hud 
 
 taili.'d to perform his part (d the contract, and fur 
 
 j damages for breach of the contract and iur 
 
 injnriis to the vessel, which had been delivend 
 
 I to the iletcndant, and to icstiain the dcfiiidant 
 
 from dealing with it, and lor didivciy up there- 
 
 I of. The defendant ajiplied to fidd as a cii- 
 
 j defiiidant one \V., on \\ li(is(! bidialf, as well as 
 
 I his own the defendant had made the contract in 
 
 ipiestioii, and who with knowledge of it liml 
 
 ratilied and a(lo|ited it, but who was not loi inally 
 
 a iiarty to it :- Held, following Ki ndallc Ham- 
 
 ilton, -t A)ip. ('as. at p. 'il.'i et scip, that llic 
 
 ; defend. nit had no right to loice \\ . upun lla: 
 
 j plaiiitill' as a defendant, in the character of a 
 
 1 jipint cniitractor. (I'liarc, whether \\'. would 
 
 have a right to be brought in as a defendant ini 
 
 his ow n motion. 'J'oinii'ii mid llniiiiltnn .Vioi 
 
 (/((//..)/ Co. v. Silroj; I'J I'. I!. Ci'iL'. Daltoii, 
 
 '.l^t^^/•.— (ialt. 
 
 I'lider an inciiliiplete agreement with the 
 |ihiiiitill', the deli^ndant and one It. went iiitn 
 possession of thi^ jilaintiir 's shop, intending tii 
 carry on business as pirtners. I hi' agncnieiil 
 never ..as (iinipleted, the defendant and I!, weic 
 put out of the shop, and the |il.iiiitill' hroiiglit 
 this acliiin to recover the auiount received liy 
 tli(! defiiidant from sales of gooils while in pii<- 
 session of the shop. Thedeleii'l.int asserted tli.il 
 the contract w.as a joint one on I lie p irt of hiin- 
 selt and II., but the pi lintill aii'l It. denied this: 
 Held, that an or(l( r under (on. liiile ll'.M Ml 
 coinpclhiig the plaintitl' to a'ld K. as a parly dc- 
 feiidant. Ill the character ot a joint contractor, 
 was under the eireumstances a proper ordci. 
 /,'„/</< v. Miin-iiy, I3(). K. ;«t7. -I'alton. 
 
 A receiver has no right to sue in hisowniiaiin 
 for a debt due to the pcrs'iii or eorpdialii'ii 
 whosi! assets he has been appointed to receive; 
 nor can that right be conferred on him hy onUr. 
 lint where by an c.\ parte order made in the 
 action in which the plaintitl' was a)ipiiintiil 
 receivir, ho was authori/ed to bring actions in 
 his own name for the collection of debts due to a 
 certain Crange, and brought this action |)iirsiiaiil 
 j thereto, it was: -Held, that an anieiidnieiil 
 should be made adding the (irange as co plain 
 j titl's without aeeiirity being given for their 
 I costs, they being insolvent. If there were im 
 person in whose naiiii! the action cmild he 
 brought, there would perhaps bt; jurisdiction to 
 direct it to be brought in the name of the 
 
■.i. 
 
 1604 
 
 tlio l)iviHiiinit| 
 ■f liL'i'ii limuglit 
 
 , lis «llHllllc;Jf(l, 
 
 |ini|)(.||_\ h,i,| 
 
 ;it not I lUi II at, 
 
 C'lWISI' it M, Pill. I 
 
 riy WiiM nIiII II, 
 t tlu^ i'iiii>ii;iiu: 
 iicii.|ilaiiili|| : 
 l<l not iiuw lilt 
 
 iiiiytliiii;^ ill it, 
 I 1»' uildiil a.s ii 
 
 /■/( iiiiil Xiiilli 
 t', I'. |». 
 
 ■/,''' Tniil \:,l. 
 
 .sriiiil a ciiiitr.icl, 
 liUintiU'x III tlii^ 
 
 ic ilrfniilaiiHiiiil 
 riijitnui, mill fur 
 iiiiti'iii't aiiij 1(11' 
 
 I IlllLll lIcllVlTiil 
 
 II till' ilcfi ihlaiit 
 I'livi ry ii|i tJKiv- 
 " iuid as Ii rii- 
 
 H'lialf, as wtll an 
 I' tlit^ i-iiiitiaci ill 
 iicilm' (if it liail 
 
 1 was lint loniially 
 Kiiiilallc. Ham- 
 
 ft sri|., that the 
 CI' \\ . ii|iiiii llir 
 f i-hlUMOtri- (if a 
 
 oilier W. wdiiM 
 
 » il (U'filiilaiil (III 
 
 lldlililliiii .Villi- 
 
 l;. Ii'.'-'. Daltiiii, 
 
 ■I'tlU'llt willi iIk; 
 me I!. Weill iiitii 
 lii|i. inteliiliii;.' Ill 
 I lie a^'i'i iineiit 
 claiit ami II. wcic 
 
 jiiaintiir lii'iin<;lit 
 mint receivi'i! Iiy 
 oils u liilc ill |)ii-- 
 iaiit assi'i'tcil tli.il 
 
 the pirr (if linn- 
 
 I I!, (leiiieil tlli.-: 
 oil. Kille :\-l\ (./) 
 
 R. us a jiarty ilc 
 joint contrat'tor, 
 a |iro|)(i' oiilif. 
 — iJaltoi;. 
 
 c ill iiiso\niiiaiiii 
 
 II or corjioiatidii 
 illteil to leieivi ; 
 I (III him liy onlti'. 
 ■iler iiiaiU; in the 
 r was aii|iuiiiliil 
 I Iti'ing iiutiiiiis ill 
 1 of debts due to a 
 is action ])iirsiiaiil 
 t an ainendiiu'iit 
 ■aiige as co plain- 
 given for their 
 If there Wert' im 
 
 aotion oiiuld he 
 lie juri.silietioii to 
 tliu name of tlu' 
 
 1805 PLEADING 
 
 1606 
 
 Mccivur. Mdlain v. Fnll^, I.T (). I!. (iO!». 
 
 'I'ho firm of Ii. k Co., uoiisiMting of tiiree 
 iiiriiiliei'H, >«npplieil goods to the defeiidaiits, ami 
 HiilHcipit'ntly one of the iiieinlicis retired, and 
 iraiislerred his interest in tlie assets of the linn 
 til the reinainiii^,' paiiiiers. who eontiiiiied to 
 cany on liiiHiiuxs mid' r tlie Name liiiii name, I 
 and iifterwiirdH made an assignineiit to I')., iiinh r ! 
 4« Vict. c. "JK (Out.), for the lieiielit of tinir 
 cieditoiB. K., IIM iissignee. sohl lo the plaiiitill 
 the ilcdit Hiipposi'd to lie due Iroiii I he di fend ants 
 to K. iV Co. tor the price of the ^;oiids siipiilied, 
 and also the mlerest of I!, fi. Co. in any ;;oiidH 
 Hiippiit^d and eliarged to anyone, ii iiiaiiini;,' nil- 
 Kild, and the plaiiitilV Iniiili^lit this aetimi to 
 recover the same. The goods in ipiestioii. how- 
 ever, were not pnrcliased liy dclindints, Imt 
 vivw eoiiHigned to them for sah- hy II. A: Co., liy 
 wiiose inslrmtions the proceeds of tile goods 
 ai'tiialiy sold were reiniltcd to II, it < 'o., to wlioiii 
 they liiid jieen aRsigiMMl liy I!, fi Co. At the 
 trial it appeared fnun the ('vidciice that the 
 (Icleiicc was nndertaken and conducted for the 
 (lefe'idaiits liy II. it ( 'o. The .Indite foiinil that 
 no dclit had <n'er exisl(Ml from the deleiid ints to 
 K. A Co. , and dismissed tin? action reliit-ing to 
 add II. it Co. as parties. TIk,' plaint ill' moved hy 
 way of a|)pl^'ll from this jiidgmcnt, Hccking to 
 make l[. it Co. and 11. parties, and to charge the 
 lU'findants in the (diaraeter of bailees of the resi- 
 due, rt'iiiaiiiing unsold, of the goods consigned 
 to them by 1{. it Co., in which he claimed an 
 interest, subject to the right of If. k ("o., if tin; 
 transfer to them should be upheld, or absolutely 
 if tliat transfer should bo set aside as a fraudu- 
 lent piefereiicf.':— Held, I. That these (piestiiins 
 were "(inestions involved in the aetioii" within 
 the meaning of Rule 10.1 (< 'on. Rule ,■{■.'(), having 
 re^iard to tlie manner in which the dcfcnei^ was 
 Cdiidueted, and to the f let that the traiisler lo 
 II, k Co. WIS set up in the defence, and that the 
 plaintilV should bealloncd to amend under that 
 Killc, but the ameiidiiielit must be coiiliiiiil to 
 the plaintill'.s possible rights, 'J, That by 
 section 7 of -bS Vict, e. "Jli, K. was the only 
 peisiin entitled to enlnree the right o! the ciedi- 
 tor.s of It. it Co. to set aside the transfer to II. 
 & Co, but that transfer was not made by tin; 
 saiiie linn of R. it Co who as^igni'd to Iv ; that 
 the two c-tates wei'i distinct, ,iiid the creditors 
 of the original linn, not the ereilitors of the new 
 linn, were those only against whom a fiaiidiilciit 
 preference by the original lirm could be declared 
 Vdiil : that the pi lintill' cnuld have no higher 
 right than K. through wh.uii In! claiiiu^l, and 
 Cdulil not tiierefore attack the asKignmeiit to II. 
 & (.'(). 'I'he plaintid' was granted leave to amend 
 by adding It. & Co. as defendants, his claim 
 against them to be limited to an aceount of their 
 <lebtaiulof payments on account thereof, and, 
 ns against the original defendants, to obtain the 
 unsold goods as soon as the didit due H. it Co. 
 should be satislied ; and by adding H. as a 
 jilaintiUnpon liliiig his eoMSent, payment by the 
 lilaiutill' of the defendants' whole costs to be a 
 condition priH'i'dent. Falcoiibridgt', .1., dubi- 
 taiite, as to disiiosition of costs. Adamx v. 
 
 HV/iVc, 4 I). H.(i(i;tp. 119; //•■iilw lioirmiin, II I'. 
 R. 1-J, p, I.".!!,"); (tS„/lirii„ v. l.rtii. I'.' I'. It. .').'>(), 
 p, I HM : .I/cl/irs^ ,• v. Miiiiiii, I'J I', i;. '.'TH, p. 
 li.TJ : H'lY./c, <i V. (.'riiirinn/, I'J I'. 11. ('..".H, p. i;«)8; 
 St. /.niiii V. (yCillii,/),,!,!, \:{\'. R. :!■.'•_•, mlhi ■, 
 lliiiili,n-t V. Sliiill, l,">U. Ii. ;t-j,-i, p. 1171; lliimit 
 Inn I'loii'Uitl l.onii itii'l I II f 1.^1 no nt Co, v, Siitilli, 
 I7(>. U. I, p. I-J77. 
 
 (b) III Miisl.f's Offirc 
 
 - I!<iiikiu-I V. .S7(i///, l."> (). I!. :{•.'."., p. 1171 
 
 ImIIij v. i.oiiiiiiiii:^/, I'J I'. 11. r.io, p. i;tosj Hi 
 
 i/nvi v. Ciiii'r/uril, i'J I*. R. ti,")8, p, l.'HiS. 
 
 ;/■ 
 
 II ii'io« Miiiiiii'arhiriiui do,, (Liiiiileil)^ 1,5 O. 
 K. 'J18. -y. R. I).; It) A. R. 2. 
 
 See Faukk v. Iluriiir, '2 (). R. 405, p. 1G3.S ; 
 *(///()»• V. ( '(iot>ei; 2 O. R. 398 p. 1505; Clark-ion v. 
 
 I'J. 11 Ki'i'f;' (</" Oliji ctiiiwi In Xiiiiliiiudir, 
 
 It is too late to raise an olijeetion for the (list 
 time in the argiiiiiciit liefoii^ the .Siipn nie ( oui I 
 that the legal representatives of tlie .issiired were 
 not made parties to the caUMc. Viiiiifi- v. Sim 
 Life A.s.iiir<iii<-e Co., 17 S. C. R. 3'J4. 
 
 IV. Statkmknt 01' Claim. 
 
 I. G'timriiUi/. 
 
 The plaintilT in his Htateinent of claim claimed 
 damiges from the defendants for "unlawfully, 
 negligently and wrongfully," depressing certain 
 streets in a town and thereby making it incon- 
 venient and almost impossible for persons to ap- 
 proach the plaintilf's store for business : also for 
 in like manner, blocking them up, and rendering 
 j them aliniist iinpass ible in the neighbourhood of 
 I tln^ plaintiir's store, and thereby "negligently, 
 ; unlawfully, and wrongfully," preventing cus- 
 j tonieis or others CDining thereto, and almost 
 ' enlin ly destroying the plaintilf's liusiiuHs. The 
 ! stateineiit further claimed that if the deine.ssing 
 and bloiJiing up sliould be found to be lawful, a 
 ' iiiaiiilamiis should be granted re lUiring the de 
 fciidaiits to ))rocced to arbitrate lo ascertain the 
 compeiisitiou payable to plaintill': or that it be 
 , n^fciivd to the priiper ollicer to ascertain and 
 slate hueh coin|iens iliini; - Held, on demurrer, 
 I that the staleiiieiil of claim w.is sidlicient; for it 
 ■ allegeil that the work was ne-ligeiitly done, and 
 I thisuavc a cause of action, even though the work 
 I itself might be lawful. (Juitliiuiii v. (Janada 
 KSoiillii'i-ii /!. II'. Cu., (i t). R. ."((17. -Uose. 
 
 i Held, that the nieiition of the date of issue of 
 
 ' a w lit in a stiiteiiieiit of claim was essential, hut 
 
 leave was given to amend on [laynn^iit of costs. 
 
 Scull V. Vrviijklim, ".t 1'. R. 'i'^i. — Halton, 
 
 Md-ittr. 
 
 In an .action for malicious prosecution, a part 
 of the statement of claim setting out the obser- 
 vations ot the judge before whom the plaintill' 
 was tried upon the criminal charge out ol wliicli 
 the action arose, was struck out ; but a part 
 slating damage to the plaintill from publi(jation 
 of siK^Ti charge in newspapers and oiherwiso by 
 defendants, was allowed to stand. Morrow v. 
 Clicijii-, I'J I'. It. 487.- Walton, ^fu■■<ier. 
 
 Where a new dofeiidaiit w.is added in I8S9 to 
 an action begun in 188li : — Held, that tlie state 
 meiit of claim should shew on its lace the date 
 at which such defendant was made a party, and 
 ail amendment was ordered. SI. LouU v. 
 O'Callauluin, 13 1'. R. 3'J'J. -Street. 
 
1607 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1608 
 
 9 
 
 i 
 
 M ^ 
 
 ^i: 
 
 
 Hulil, iipon iluiiitnrur to ii Htatciiii^it of uliiiin 
 in Kii acliiiii to iiiiliii'i'u H iiH'i'liaiiii'H lirii lirniif^lit 
 l)y Ii Huli-L'oiiti'iii'toi' u^iiiiist ill)' itwiiri of tliu 
 IuikIh, ami tlm coiiti'aclor, that it waH iiiucHHary 
 fol' tliti plaiiitill' to avtr tliat tliitiu wuh Moiiictliiiig 
 iliiu from tlxi owiuM' to llir coiitiartor. 'I'oiraa- 
 % V. lldldii'in, ISO. It. 40;t. Itoyil. 
 
 2. Joiiiilir of < 'anm < i>f' A flimt. 
 
 (jIuiliiH on hclialf of a wifit for alimony ami to 
 Hot aHJdo a {.•oiivi^yaiii'c of tlir luiMltaml's |no|icity 
 iU4 framliiluiit hIioiiM lie Joiiii'il in out' aitlion. 
 Snider v. Sni,l,r -Siiidir v. On; II I'. U. 110. 
 Boyd. 
 
 Action liy tlii^ plaintinT on liili.'ilf of liliiiHcIf 
 unit all other cruditoiH of tlir ili'finilant L. axk- 
 ing for jtiilgmcnt again.tt L. iipon two ovcnliH' 
 promiuHory nott'H ami Hi'ckinj^ to obtain ixu- 
 cution for nucIi claim, ami alHo a previou.sly lu- 
 uoveroil jml^mcnt, n^^ainNt two Hovtral iiiiiTtlii 
 of laml, allt'^t'il to luivc Ikmmi framhilcntly con- 
 veyt'd tr) tilt; ollitT two ilifcntlant.s ic.-i|i( (lively. 
 A motion waH maili; to Ktrike ont llir name of 
 onu or other of the alleged fianduleiit gianlics 
 UH im|irii|)erly joined in the Name a<'ti<in : Held, 
 that it waH iximhIIiIo under the present |ii art icii 
 to uondiine two Hneh cinncs of action, w liiih, if 
 well founded, had a common root in the fiainlu- 
 luat trauHfer, and that here tlnru would lie no 
 pructical inconvenii^nce in trying hoth on the 
 iiAine record. The motion was, therefore, lu- 
 fus(Ml. Chapiitc. Roliert, It A. K. '.M, remarkH 
 of (Jbler, J. A,, at pp. .'{(II, .'!(!•_', Mpeeially refer- 
 rtj to. Jli<i/on V. Mi-Killiii; l.'J I'. I!. SI. - 
 Hoy.l. 
 
 As to joining other causes of iiction with 
 actions for the recovery of land. .See (liiriini v. 
 Cameron, 10 1'. U. 4<)(i, p. TM) \ C<iii,/>h,/'t v. 
 ./amen, II I'. R. -Ml, \>. Kil'.t; H'hilr v. /{miisnn, 
 12 I'. Ii. ()•_'«, p. .WO ; I'rUekard v. J'rUchurd, 
 17 O. K .^O, p. f)80. 
 
 3. Filinij anil Delivery. 
 
 An order allowing further time to lile a state- 
 meat of claim should not he made ex parte. 
 Wiijk V. JIarrix, i» i'. U. 'JTG.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 If u Btatcment of claim Ih (lied after the time 
 limited l.y Rule \h% (a) (Cen. Rule \m>a) (three 
 montliH from ajipearaiice entered), the action 
 will not he disniissed for its non-delivery, hut 
 the statement is irregular and may he stru<d< 
 out. In this case, under the circumstances, the 
 time for delivery was ext<'nded upon j).iynieiit 
 of costs of the motion. V/nrke v. MeKwimi, 'J 
 P. R. 281.— Dalton, Muster 
 
 An order of the 4th October, I8H0, extended 
 the time for the delivery of the statement of claim 
 till tlu! 12th October, but pioviiled if it was not 
 HO delivered, the action should stand dismissed, 
 with costs. Upon failure to deliver in time, the 
 defenihint signed judgment dismissing the action: 
 — Held, that notwithstanding the dismissal of 
 the Jietion, an ordereonld propei ly be made under 
 Rule 4(i'2, (( 'on. Rule 48.'i) vacating the judgnu!nt, 
 and furtherextending the time for delivering the 
 statement, and the master in chanibera had 
 jurisdiction to make such an order. Newcomb 
 V. JUcLuhan, 11 P. R. 4til.— Wilson. 
 
 Upon the defendant's application to disnim, 
 the actii>n for want of prosecution, un oicler wut 
 nnide on the tith .May, that upon payment by i||, 
 |ilaintill' of $20 costs within eighteen dayn, an.l 
 upon his delivering hih statement of I'laim, willim 
 the same time the defemlanl's application m,,. 
 dismissed. On the 2litli .May, altir the ux|iii\ 
 of the eighteen days, the plaintill' tiled his vt.u,' 
 nienl of I'laini and ilelivered a i iipy to IIkj di I'ih 
 dallt'rt ''lloI'M. ami telideli'il till III .':>'.'0, uliiri, 
 llli:_V leliised to ai'eept. 'I'hey ajfto decliiei^l 1,, 
 
 adioil hervi f the state nient of eliiiin, lnil i. 
 
 t.iiiied it in tlieli poHM's-,h.n. On the .'lid ,|ini>' an 
 order was iiiaile exteniling InroniMVeek IIkMiih.' 
 fill' liling and delivering the stalement ol ilami 
 and paying the .yJO. 'IIiin order did imt |<r<i\i(|>' 
 that the statinient of el.iim already deli\er..| 
 sli on Id slam I. Within the week the phiini j|||i.ij,; 
 the !^'H>, and nine da)» allerwiirds nigneil {iid;; 
 mentagaillNl tliedefelidaiit tol default of ijefriMi . 
 llp'HI the Ntiiti liieni of elaiin ilellVereil on tin- 
 'Jtitli .May : lli hi, alliiniiiig the deeinion <>t tin 
 niii'ler in elKUiibei's, thai altlioiigli the pi liuUH 
 was wiong in liliiig and serving his slalemiiil ni 
 el.'liln before piiyiiig llii' eii-.th, tlliw ill egidiil it\ 
 W.'IS u;iived and tlie service lieeaille ellertn' 
 when I lie eo.-,ts were afterwards neeived, tlie) 
 being paid under the onler of the '.Uii .liiin' 
 /'{<n; V. I'li/wir, I -J 1'. R. -.'T.".. halloii, .l/nv,,- 
 
 lloy.l. 
 
 See /.iiiilldin v. Aslil>ui(i/li, !l I'. U. ti, p. TiTll 
 
 \'. StATKMI.NT OK |)KltNi'K. 
 
 1. (iiiic rally. 
 
 'I liougli e:ieli pal igrapli of a statemenl o[ tlii» 
 defence hhiinid, under Rule I2.S, (see (on. link' 
 440) as Ileal ly as may be, jont.iin a scpaiali! allc- 
 gatiiiii, it need not enntaiii a S' jiaiale di feiiiu. 
 riiiiiii /'i/v /lit. I'll. v. /.yiiKiii, l(i 1,1. I>. l.iH. 
 Wil.'joii. 
 
 Stiitemeiit of el;iim elainiiiig damages for an 
 accident to the plaint ill by Ins stepping iipmi 
 the cuveiing or lid ot :i manlnih^ in tlie sidewalk 
 alleged to beileti itivi-, ete., I hrdligh defi ndaiits' 
 negligence. I!y tin' lirsl par.igiiipn of the .state- 
 llieiil of lU^fi'liee defemlants denied the coriccl' 
 iiess of the stateineiils eontaiiied in the state- 
 ment of claim ; and by the seeond par.igr.nili set 
 up that def(tiidants had no notice or knowledge 
 of the defect: Held, on demurrer to the seciiinl 
 paragraph, that the whole slatcmeiit of defence 
 must be ri'ad together ; and that the second [lal.i 
 graph tak(!n with the lirst constituted a giKul 
 defence or was immateiial ; that it eoiild not 
 embarriiss Ihi' ]ilaintitl', for if he proved aetimi 
 abh^ negligi'iice he must prove either actual or 
 presnmiitive notice. limMiy v. <'i>yi>J Jl'iinH- 
 Ion. O. R. 112. — Rose. 
 
 In an action for inalicioiis arrest the stateiiieiit 
 of deleiie(^ set up that there was a waiianl in 
 the hands of a constable for the a|i|iieoeiisioii <it 
 the plaiiitiU'on a cliargt^ of niisdcmeanoiir : that 
 the phiintitl' was avoiding aire.-,t; lli;it the ile 
 feiidants therefore watciied linn and w hen lie 
 emieavouied to esca|ie detained him until the 
 arriv.il of the constable, and then ga\i: hiiiiiiitu 
 custody ; and that the «leleiidanls did this in the 
 hiiiia tide belief that thty were justilied in thus 
 
 aiding the arrest: Held, that although these 
 
 fuets did uot cuustituto an auawer to the autiuu, 
 
1608 
 
 1609 
 
 PLEADTNO 
 
 1610 
 
 tioii to iliHiiiiai 
 III, uii orili-i' wui 
 liiiyiii.iill.ylli, 
 iluuii (luy«, ail, I 
 ili'litiiii, Hillan 
 
 |>|llil'lltlOII H,,< 
 iltrr tile ()X)lll\ 
 
 I.V 111 tlliMllfrli 
 I' III ■'<'.'ll, Hill. 1, 
 llwi llcc|ilii;i| ;,, 
 I I'laiiii, liiil I, 
 III- .'Inl .1 mil' an 
 
 ■ Wri'k tlu! tllii,. 
 
 1 innit 111 rlaiiH 
 
 Inl lint |i|'ii\i,|,. 
 
 I'. Illy lifJiMivii 
 
 II' |ii''iiiitiir|Mi,i 
 
 M hi;;iii'il jiiil^' 
 
 iiill lit ili'li'iii'i 
 
 Iivci'iiil oil till' 
 
 ilrri.-^loli III' III, 
 
 li tlio |il iliilil! 
 
 ill sUUilin'iit 1,1 
 
 lii'i iiri';,'iiliiiil\ 
 
 I'liilili.' <llirli\. 
 
 I Irrcivcil, tlli'^ 
 
 I lll^ Jll'll .IlllM'. 
 
 '.tlliill, Minitr. 
 
 r. i:. (i, 1). oT!). 
 
 ItUtUIIIUIll III tllR 
 I, (Hl'd Coll. iJllli' 
 
 II iiMJiiaiali' allc- 
 i'|iilliiti' ililuiu'i;. 
 
 i(j ^1. i;. •».■).•). 
 
 iliiliKi;4('S fill- an 
 i sU'iipiii;; iipiiii 
 
 ill tin: .MJdi'Walk 
 High iK't'i riilaiit.i' 
 iipli iif till' stall'- 
 
 it'll till! Clll'ICCt- 
 
 I'll ill tliir .slatii- 
 
 III |iar,i;,'ia[ill set 
 i:c or kiiowlt'dj,'!' 
 i!l' to the Niicontl 
 meiil of ili'foiii.'e 
 llifsc'coiiil para 
 Htilill(!(i a giiml 
 at it riiiilil lint 
 ; piovi'il arliiiii- 
 either ai'liial (ir 
 
 ' ''.'/ "J lloiit'l- 
 
 »t the Mlatcliii'lit 
 a.s H waiiaiit in 
 appielieii.-sloli of 
 eiiuaiiDiir ; that 
 t ; that the iln- 
 II ami » hell hi' 
 [ him until the 
 !ii ga\e liliii iiitii 
 H (lid thi» ill the 
 jiistilied ill tiiiis 
 iiltiiuugh theM- 
 iir to tlio uutiuu, 
 
 yet tliny cniiM lie ^ivt'ii in ovjilunou In niiti^'i- 
 tjon "f iliiniiif^eH, itiiil therefiirii it wan proper 
 that tliev mIioiiIiI iippear ilpmi the reeoi'il, I'iii'h- 
 l.ij V. li'viiiKlt, II p. K. «4. -l{one. 
 
 2. Fil'imj mill Ihlii-irti. 
 
 A KtalPliient of ilefmee, deliviTiMl aftirr the 
 priijier time and mi tin: .same day on uhicli the 
 plaintiir net the aetioii down, to he heanl on 
 iiiiitiiiii for jiid;4m<'nl, was: Ijiid irre^^iilar, and 
 the I'liiirt ordi'le'l that it i^hiiiild lie MtriieK nut , 
 and iili1){melit ur.inled for the plaint ill :im prayed 
 hy the ilatement of ilaim, iiiih'SH the defnidant 
 iiiiid the eii.st.s of :iettiii'_' down thi' aelioiiaiid 
 of the mot ion for jnil^'iiietit within a liniilid 
 time, Siiiilcrw Siiiihr, II I'. K. 'M. Itoyd. 
 
 The last of the ei^^ht ilayn within wliieli tie' 
 defeliilaiits should liiive delivered t lirir xtaleinenl 
 (if defeii 'e, iiH rei(niir'l liy ('nii. Itiile ,'{71, was 
 a Saturday, and on III it day at twenty li\'e 
 iiiimites past two in the afteninon, no statements 
 
 of defi'liee liavill;.' then 1 II llled. (ir served oil 
 
 the plaiiitiU's' Molii iti.r, t le' olUcei' entered a note 
 that the pleadill^^s wile elosi i| ; Hihl, that 
 the onTiiM'i' h id no power to elosi' the pie idini,''; 
 until the (lid of the day. wliieli Would he three 
 ii'i'loek ; and therefore the note was ii reL;iilar 
 iilid shonlil lie s(!t aside. Cull. I' illes 7, •tll.'t, .'1!)S, 
 •tHO.eoiiHiilerpil. IJinjil v. \Viiril,\'.\ V. It. '2.'K — 
 Cull. 
 
 \'f. MKTiirr ANII (Nil'NTKM-Cl.MM. 
 
 1. Oi iiirdlli/, 
 
 III an act ion on a promissory note, one mem- 
 ber of .1 syiidie.ite eaiinot ask to li.'ive ,'ieoiilraet 
 si't aside liy reason of misre|ireseiitatioii, the 
 (illiiT meniliers not askiii'_' lor a reseissi.in : his 
 rinndy must lie hy eross-aetion or eounterelaim 
 h.r deeeit. .See \fiirrimii v. Enr/i, T) O. I!. I!!!. 
 
 The plaint ill' sued ilefeiidaiit on an aeeonnt 
 iissij,'iied to him liy mut V. Defendant, liy his 
 (■iiiiiiter-claim, ;dle.,'ed a setoll' aj,'ainst I''., and 
 adiling K. iiM a ilefeiidant (daiined jiid},'meiit 
 HUaiust him for ii lialanee due: - Hidd, that the 
 eiiimtor-el.'iiin as against I'", mustr he disallowed, 
 the ilefiHidant having no right in this suit to 
 raise an issue liel ween himself and a tliir.l party, 
 with wliieh the plaiiilill' was not eoneerned. 
 Itiiiiiaiiii V. liriiihii-lit -liroilrfi'htw l''irk\ !) 1'. 
 1!. 2. Daltoii, ;l/(fi/(r. 
 
 Ifelil, that to nil .aetioii hy an assignee ol an 
 aeeoiiiit for the i)riee of luinher and staves de 
 livered hy the assignor to tin- defendant under 
 two etirtuin eontr.U'ts therefor, the defeniliint, 
 under R. S. O. (lfS77)e. I Hi, hs. 7, HI, iind the 
 Juilifatnre Act, ss. II, If!, and Itiile 127, can 
 setup as a (Icfeiiee a elaiiii for damage for the 
 nondelivery hy the assignor to the (lel'endaiit 
 of eertnin other tiinher and staves specilieil in 
 the contruct.s, and for the inferior (piality of 
 those delivered. Per Osier, .1., his right to do 
 so depended wholly upon R. S. (). (IH77) e. 1 Hi, 
 H. 10. In this case the judge, at the trial, 
 having refused to entertain the former defcnee, 
 H new trial was ordered. Kxrhninje Hank v. 
 SihiKon, 32 V. P. 158.— C. P. 1). 
 
 A promissory note made hy the defendant had 
 l)ecn held by the (Jonsolidated Hank, and after 
 
 I lU maturity the defendant tranitferred eertain 
 tiinher limit-. I . tiie hank as eollateial Hcnrity 
 
 for the p.iyiiH'Ml of the note, wliieh I Is the 
 
 hank sold. I li<' plainl ill's liecaine holders ot tha 
 I imte for v.ilii.' aUer dishoiioiir and alter thu 
 I timher hiiiilN tiaiisiiel Ion and In ..light this aetioli 
 ' iilinii the Hole. A eoiiiit ir elaiin against the 
 ■ plaintills and the hank hy the defendant setting 
 , up that the 1,,'iiik ha. I s.ild the timher liniitN 
 without .'inlh.iriiy and lor an iiisiillieieiil price, 
 and wer.' tlerehy guilty of ahica.h of iriisl, and 
 I elaimiiig that the defeMdanl sliouhl he p.'rmitted 
 to set oil' so nin.'h of Ins elaim t heritor anainnt 
 till.' hilik as would satisfy the lialanee elaliiKMl 
 iipiiii the n.ite was held had and slriiek out iM 
 Hot heilig properly a eoiinteri'laim. Per t :,im- 
 eriill, .1., Clihss reipiire.l hy the idear legal 
 ii','liis of the del'eiid ml foi' his pr..t('. timi 
 agaiii-t. the pliiiiliirs aetioii, eounter elaiiiis are 
 not to he lavoiii'.'il. <',iiiiiiliiiii SiniriliiK i!<i. v. 
 I'rnilii;, '.) P. |{. .T.'4. Daltoii, ,l/(/.sV( r -Cam- 
 eron. 
 
 Ileld, per Kergiison, . I. .that thi^ (). .1. Act, 
 Knie 17 (Inn. Hide •JI.Sj .iiid C. O. Cliy. (U7, 
 (ell. te) do not appiv to eoiiiitiM' ilaiins. Kkiu 
 V. (j'liliiii I'lri ti'-->. Co., .'I O. K. •>:U. 
 
 In ail aetioii liy the plaint ill's as em I m sees of a 
 hill of I'Ni'liaii'^e, the ilefemlaiit (the aeeeptor) set 
 Up th.it the hill w.is pill of th(. price of goods 
 I hoii'.;lil hy theiii troiii II. fi Ii., till! dr.iwiH's, and 
 I tiled a eounler-claiin against thtqilalnl ill's, and il. 
 it II., as defemlaiits hy coiinturclaiin, claiming 
 ' thalthehill w.is ti.iiisfei reil tothe pl.'iintiU's after 
 ! iiialiirily, willi full noli.'e and kiiowliMlge of th« 
 I l.'iets, and elaimliig .stlD.OOOd linages Irnm II. ti 
 II. for hreach of contract in respiutof the goods, 
 I and asking for t\n: (hdivery up and cancellation 
 I of the hill, and other hills in tin.' sanii! transac- 
 tion. Upon till- application of II. iVII. the mas- 
 ter in chamliers struck out the counter claim, and 
 the naines of |[. it II. as defendants: Si'inhli!, 
 thai as agiinsl tin: plaintills, the defince should 
 lia\c heeii pleaded as a defenee to the claim on 
 the hill. Tm-miiri V. Lii-illlJsloM, 10 P. R. 29.— 
 hiill.iii, Mii^lir. 
 
 .\ii aclioii against the defendant on his hond 
 as Miiety for ll. it McT. for the amoniil due the 
 pl.iiiilills hy II. it .McT. on their hanking ai'ciiiint 
 with the pl.iiiitill's. I 'oiinlcr claim hy the defen- 
 dant agiiiisl the plaintiffs ,'inil 11.^ .McT. , .dleg- 
 illg that the d.'feiidant is li.'ilile only as hikSi 
 surety, ainl I hat the plaintills ought to resort to 
 II. it McT. to enforce payiiKuit from them, and 
 tli.'it II. it .McT. should lie ordered to pay the 
 amount, and iudeinnify the defendant. As the 
 connler-claim was not rested upon any particular 
 I agreement, hut was set up as arising from the 
 position of the parties as ureditors, principal 
 ; dehtor, ami surety, it was held had, and ordered 
 J to he struck out. Full ml liitiik v. JJarriwn, 
 10 P. K. 271. -l)alt(ni, Mii.^tii:- Rose. 
 
 I Till! .ludieature Act has not ehangod the law 
 I so as to allow of a elaim arising since the com- 
 nieneement of the action heing pleaded .is a set- 
 olT although it may he made the suhject of 
 cminter-elaim. Therefore, where a defence of 
 money due to defeinlants hy the plaintiirs, jMirt 
 of which accrued h(!fore and part after action 
 hrought, was pleaded as a set-ofT, the order of a 
 local judge directing the defendants to amend 
 hy confining their plea of set-ofT, to those debta 
 

 1611 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1612 
 
 which accrued hefure the coininencbinent of the j 
 action, was athrnicd. ChamlicrUiin v. Chamher- 
 tin, 11 P. It. r>01. — Kerguson | 
 
 The dcfciidiint couto.sti'd tiio validity of a j 
 will propomuU'il hy tin; plaintiH', and also jiro- 
 pounded two earlier wilU under wiiicli in the | 
 event of the last in date Iteing invididatod lie i 
 claimed : — Held, that thi.s was a proper sulijeet ' 
 of counter-claini. Applciiiaii v. A /)///■ ni'in, l'2 I 
 V. H. 1.38. -Hoy d. ! 
 
 The plaintiff in iiiis statement of el.iim al'e;4ed i 
 certain transactions hetween him and tlie liefen- 
 dant, in the whole coinpreliending ovt'r .'jil.OIK), j 
 and claimed a balance of .*l(J!>.7:i and iiiteiest 
 from the 1st January, 18SS. The defi luiiint liy 
 his statement of detenee ileniecl that he was in- 
 debted to the ])laintiH' in any sum, and aile^'cd 
 tliat the plaintiff was indebted to iiini for goods 
 supplied and on certain tironiissory niJtes in liie \ 
 .sum of .^1,;V25."4, for wliich lie counter-ilaini- ; 
 ed: — Held, that the matter of (lie counter-claim 
 Wius really a set-off, and even if it were not im- 
 proper to call it a <'ouiitcr-(Iaim, liavint; regard 
 to Con. Itule 37.3, this could not cii;ingc its real 
 character. Cutler i: Morse, l'_' 1'. I*. .")!t4, refer- 
 red to. n,-nii>-n V. ii7/(V.', i;{ i*. it. ii<».— 
 
 Ferguson. 
 
 A counter-claini must be a ilcfence in the ac- 
 tion in which it is pleaded, and it is as much a 
 part of the defence as any of the other pleas. 
 And therefore where the plaintiti' took issue on 
 the defence, not mentioning the counter-claim :-- 
 Held, that the plcadiugs were closed, and a 
 notice of trial served thereafter was regular. 
 Marara v. Siior, V2 V. R. UKi. — Dalton, .l/nx/, /■. 
 
 A countcr-claiiiiingdefen<iaiit is not a plaintiir 
 in an action ; nor is a ••ounter-claim ;in action. 
 Irwin V. nrmru, I'J V. li. (i8!).- Dallon, .\fiisln: 
 
 The defendant having distrained for icut in 
 arrear, the plaintiff claimed that the defiuiiiint 
 was indebted to him in <laniages for birach of 
 the covenant in the lease to repair, and to lc:ise 
 to plaintiff an adjoining piece of bind, and oli- 
 tained ex jjartcan interim injunction rest raining 
 proceedings under the ilisti'css wliicii was dis- 
 solved on the ground of coiu'calnient of facts: 
 Held, that the danuigcs claimed by the plaintiff 
 were in)t a " debt ' witiiin section .'i of ."i(> \'iet. 
 c. '2.3 (Out.), so as to constitute a set-oil a:4ainst 
 the rent ; and although imdor the ( ). .1. Ai i 
 they might be the subject of cnuiitei-elaiiii tlii'V 
 would not justify an injunction as against a dis 
 tress levied as here. Widhm v. ffi iin/, 18 O. K. 
 (!20.— MacMahon. 
 
 '2. S/rlkiii;/ Out iir /■'.ri-/iii/in</. 
 
 A defendant asking relief against his co-de- 
 fendant will not be ordered to give security for 
 costs on the ground of resilience out of the juris- 
 diction : — Semble, such relief should not bo 
 asked by way of counter-claim. Withntley v. 
 ariffith,'\\ \\ 11. KID.— Dalton, Miist'i: 
 
 In an .action for damages for negligence, a 
 counter-claim for libel was ("xcluded, on the 
 ground of the inconvetuence which «(Mdd arise 
 in trying the two causes of Jiction together, but 
 leave to bring an inde])eiulent action was given. 
 Mr Lean v. llamiltoH Street li. W. Co. , 1 1 1'. R. 
 193.— O'Connor. 
 
 To an action on a proniiasory note the defen- 
 dant L., the endorser, pleaded that by an 
 arrangement made with the plaintiffs, who had 
 disctumted the note, it was to be renewed from 
 time to time, and paid out ol the proceeds ot a 
 certain ag";ncy business, in which the defendau't 
 (). , the nuiker of the note, and the det'euilaut L. 
 were engaged as partners ; that the defiMuiiiul. 
 (). had absconded, and that afterwarus the 
 plaintitl's had, by libel and slander of the defen- 
 dant L., prevented him from securing the cou- 
 tinnance of the agency business tor himself 
 whereby he was unable to carry out the arrange- 
 ment ; and he also pleaded a counti:relanu 
 against theplaintiti's for the alleged libel ai'd .slan- 
 der. The court (Rose, .1., <lissenting) struck out 
 the counterclaim, upon an ap[)licati(Mi under 
 Kule 1-27 (/'), (>. .1. .Act (Con. Rule :t7.3). Per 
 Cameron, C. .1. — There is a wide range of dis- 
 cretion under Rules 1'27 (/'). H>H, an<l 178 (Con. 
 Rules .37.3. .371, 4'2.3). In actions wheic malice 
 is an essential clcmenl and the damages are 
 sentimental without any legal rule to guide in 
 their measurement, there is much more mjury 
 likely to arise to the cause of justice by allow- 
 ing such a counterclaim than can possibly 
 spring from the dercinlanls being forced to 
 
 bring an indc^pendent action. I'er Rose, .1. 
 
 The charge ol libel arises out of the circum- 
 stances giving rise to the claim and defence. If 
 I the facts set up by L. <lo not constitute a valid 
 answer in law to the claiin. the ))laiuliirs may 
 recover juilgnuMit ag.iinst liim, when pciadveii- 
 tnn^ he is in law and justice entitled to damages 
 against them, exceeding the amount of such 
 claim : but if the facts constitute a defenci^ to 
 the claim, they must be allowed to be shewn in 
 evidenee, and no good will be achieved by not 
 allowing the counter-claim to stand. Cfulrnl 
 lidid- <>/ ('(ninth v. 0-<hurnf., 12 I'. R. Kid.— C. 
 1'. 1). 
 
 Where, in an action by the assignee of C. for 
 the benelit of hi. creilitors, undei' 48 \'ict. c. "Jd 
 (Out.), stated to be biouglit for the lum tit of oua 
 of such creditors, the I'". Hank, to set aside a mort- 
 gage nuidc to the dcf('ndauts, as fraudulent and 
 preferential, a judgnuuit for foreclosuiv of the 
 mortgage obtained ajainst the plaintill' was 
 |)leaded as a bar to the action, and a counter- 
 claim was asserted for payment by the V. hank 
 of certain moneys .illcged to be due to the defi'U- 
 daiits. a tnntioM to strikeout sueli defence and 
 iiiuutcr-il.iiin w;is refusecl. and the plaintill «as 
 left to demur : Semlile, tiiat tin- counter-c'aiui 
 was no"^ inaduussiblc. (.'/aw v. diniil, 12 1'. R, 
 -180. Hoy d. 
 
 A counter-claim for damages by reason of lalso 
 and depreciatory statements with regard to the 
 value of the mortg.iged prendses having been set 
 up by the defendants in an ordinary nu)rti: age 
 aeiion, ,in order stiiking it out under Con. Kulo 
 .37-1 wasallirnu'd, as well on thegrouinlof incon- 
 venience in trying the action and countcr-elaiui 
 together, as on the ground that the eonjiler- 
 I claim was iilcd for delay. McLean v, llamiitou 
 Street H. \V. Co., II 1'. R. 1<J3 ; ami Central 
 IJaidi V. O-bonie, 1'2 1'. R. KiO, followed. (hUll 
 v. lUiintlt, 1.3 P. R. 10.- Robertson. 
 
 .Sce/ViW V. (uilloiray, 5 0. R. 502, p. -Jiil ; 
 Amirn^si V. Fraxtr, 140. R. .")51, p. 1143; OuviKr 
 V. Tntie., 1-2 P. R. "280, p. ltJ13 ; Iriiinw Bruin,, 
 12 P. R. U39, p. 1613. 
 
 I 
 
 j''t 
 
1612 
 
 1613 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 iei4 
 
 -e tliedefen- 
 that hy an 
 Us, who had 
 Jiiewed from 
 niceods ot a 
 lie di^fundiiiit 
 •t-'t'ciiduiit L. 
 lu diifciidunt. 
 erwiiidN tliu 
 of till; dtlVii- 
 
 ng tliO L'dM- 
 
 lor himself, 
 
 till' iiriaiigo- 
 
 •'miitiTol.iim 
 
 'hi:l;iiMl,sliiM- 
 
 ig) struck nut 
 
 i;iition uiiijir 
 
 ••tT.S). IVr 
 
 riingi' of djs. 
 
 ind ITS ({'(,11. 
 
 wliuio iiiiiliL-e 
 
 daiiiiigc-a arc 
 
 til guide ill 
 
 iiiorf iiijurv 
 
 ii.'(! hy allnw. 
 
 can |i(issilily 
 
 iig foi-ciid to 
 
 il' ilosi!, ,J. — 
 
 tho circiim- 
 I defence. If 
 ititiite a vali(i 
 iunlill's may 
 un peiaclvi'ii. 
 i'<l to damages 
 • luiit of such 
 a (h'feneo to 
 
 hi! shewn in 
 hieved hy not 
 and. I 'initial 
 '. K. KKt.-C. 
 
 giiee of C. fur 
 4S \'ict. c. 'Jli 
 hinilit of one 
 t aside a iiiort- 
 I'audidi'iit and 
 •losiu'e of the 
 plaint iir was 
 lid a couiitcr- 
 
 ■ the !•■. I lank 
 .' til the defeii- 
 
 1 ili'l'iiice and 
 
 ■ plaintitl H.m 
 eiiunter-c'aiiu 
 ""', 1-' I'. R. 
 
 reason of lalse 
 regard to ilie 
 ivinglieeii set 
 ary niort:.Mge 
 ler Con. Hide 
 mild of iiK nil- 
 jouiiter-claiiii 
 the coiiiiicr- 
 1 V. llamillon 
 ; ami Cenlral 
 owed. Oi/'ll 
 11. 
 
 502, p. •:(;! ; 
 1143; (junmr 
 nn V. Brmni, 
 
 VII. Rkim.v. 
 
 The defendants liy eountcr-olaini delivered a 
 reply, which contained more than a mere join- 
 der of issue, to the stateiiient of defence and 
 coiinter-elaiin of the original defendants. No 
 siili3e<|neiit (ileading having lietn delivered, the 
 dcfeiidanlH liy (•onnter-chiiiii, after the lapse of 
 four days, served notice of trial: Held, (hat 
 the pleadings were not closed, and the notice ot 
 trial was therefore irregular. The iilaintills hy 
 counter ( laini, were entitled under liiile ISO 
 (Clin. I.'iile 4'J."iK to twenty-eight days from the 
 dtdivery of the ilefence and connter-elaim in 
 which to amend, (•'iirini- v. '/'iim , I'J I". I!. "iSO. 
 
 Halt 1/f/W, )■. (ialt. 
 
 The defence of the jilaintitl' to a counter claim 
 is technically the pl.iinlitl's reply, notw ithstaiid- 
 iiig Con. l-tiile .'{T'.l. and I here can, without leave, 
 he no further ideadiiig liy the defendant, hut a 
 joinder of i.ssiie. /iiroi v. Btnirii, I'J |'. I{. (;.'}•). 
 -Dalton, Miishr. 
 
 To a couiiter-i laim against the plaiiitill', who 
 lived out of Ontario, seeking the riT'overy of ,i 
 delit contracted out of (hitario, the plaiiitill'i 
 pleadeil that the court had no jurisdiction, and 
 the defendant replied, without olitaiiiiiig leave, j 
 that the plaintitl' had assets in Ontario to the , 
 value of S'.'tIO: - Held, that this reply, even if I 
 leave were olitained. w as liad, liecaUHc siili see. | 
 (e) of Huh; 4.">. O. .1. .\., has not lieen incorpor- | 
 ated ill llie ( 'onsolidatecl Kllles. |Sei;('on. P.ille \ 
 
 '271.) II,. 
 
 Con. IJiile ."is I provides that " A plaint ill'shall ' 
 deliver his replv. if any, within three wei'ks after 
 t\w defena' or the last of thedi'fcnces shall have 
 hi'en delivered, niih -:s \]..'. time shall lie extended ' 
 hy the c 'iirt or a judge : " .and f 'on l^uh' .'lltL' pro- 
 vide-i that .•;■.' ' he expiry of the tliiie Weeks the 
 lile.idiiiL'^ .^1 1.; he chued:- Ilelil, tliat wli 'le. 
 upon a mot Kill to set aside a reply lielivereil 
 after the three Weeks, iiotliing else appears than 
 the fact that the time In.s expireil. the jilcadiiig 
 should not he set asiije; and even if there is the \ 
 right to move, the proper order to make u)ion 
 such a motion would he iiiie extending the time ] 
 for delivery of the reply, and the moving party ; 
 should have no costs : ■ -Held, also, that upon 
 sneli a motion no grounds of irregularity excejit i 
 those t iken in the notice can he considered : re- | 
 ferring to Con. l!nle ").'U. Wri'jlil v. WrLilil. 
 V,\ V. K. '-'(iS.-no.se. 
 
 .See .SVnc/,/- v. >/,„/, (1 |>. I!. S.'?. 
 
 \\\ 1. dolNIlK.li OK ISSI'K. 
 
 A cause is at issue where a joimler of is.siie 
 Ins lieeii delivered, or where three weeks have 
 cl ipsed after statement of defence has lieen de- 
 livered. Srhii'ldn- V. Proctor, !) I'. 1!. II.- 
 Dalton, .Vd^/ir. 
 
 Semlile, the joinilerof issue referred to in Rule 
 i;i; O. .1. Act (Con. Rule :V.)-2), i.s not a simple 
 denial of a pre\ iniis pleading. Wil/ir v. I'ruf- 
 lor, U) R. R. .'{l':{.- ^Dalton, Mnsln: 
 
 The )ilaintiflF delivered a reply which was a 
 simple joinder of issue upon the statement of 
 defence and counter (daini : Held, that this 
 clo.sed the pleadings. I/arc v. Cairfhrope, 11 P. 
 R. r)3. -C. I'. I). 
 
 See GaniPrv. Time, p.' 1'. R. 280, p. 1013: 
 Mariira v. ,S'»<,i/', 12 R. |!. tjlt;, ,,. k;)) ; /, n.,„ 
 V. Hroirii, 12 V. R. G3i), p. I(il3. 
 
 l.\. OriiKK Casks OK I'l.KAiirNii. 
 
 In an action for calls ilefemlants ]i|eaded that 
 lilailit ills' licciiM- had heeu suspemled : Held, 
 on demurrer, that the defence should have alleg- 
 ed notice in the dii-jf/f of the suspension of the 
 liiense, pursuant to R. S. O. (1.S77) c. Kit), s. 34, 
 and 42 N'ict. c. 2.'), ». 3, suh-s. 7, hut an amend- 
 nienl was allowed, this point not having heeu 
 taken. I'liioii p'lri- Ins, Co. v. I.i/innii, 40 (i>. 1!. 
 471. — Wilson. 
 
 Per Strong and (iwynne, .1.1. - It is douhtfid 
 whethir the strict rules applied in Knghind to 
 e(|uitalile defences pleaded iiinler the C. L. Rro- 
 cedure Act should he adopted with reference ti> 
 such pleas in Xova Scotia, where hotli legal and 
 I'iplitahle remedies are administered liy the 
 same court and in the same forms of procedure. 
 Sniilh V. lUuik nf Xoni S,-olin, 8 ,S. C. R. floS. 
 
 Tho fact that a suit for the same matter is 
 pending in (^liiehoc, cannot he ui'L'ed as a plea iu 
 liar to a suit for the s.iine c inse in this Rrovince. 
 Iliiijhi.i V. Ji'i'tm, 5 0. R. Ii,"i4. — Kergiison. 
 
 I'lcading foreign judgment. .See llmihen v. 
 AV'S 10 I'. R. 301 ;!) t). R. I9S, p. lOUO. 
 
 This action was to recover money as compen- 
 sation for land expropriated, and for other relief. 
 Del'endants pleaded a defence in denial, and also 
 a teiiiler of .S400 and interest, Imt did not pay 
 the amount into court : -Held, that the defence 
 of tender without iiayment into court was a 
 good defence under the (). .1. Act, and a motion 
 to strike out the defence, or to compel payment 
 into court, or for judijiiient for the ainonnt, 
 with leave to proceed for a fill tlier amount was 
 refused. Diiiwri st v. Mlilhiid R. W. Co., 10 
 I'. 1!. ti40. -Dalton, Ma.<l,r. 
 
 D. Ill ought an action to compel a railway com 
 paiiy to arhitrate to ascertain the value of certain 
 land taken for the purposes ot the railway eoni- 
 liany, and after the service of the writ the coiii- 
 ]i,iny served a notice to arhitrate, and after arhi- 
 tration an award was ni.ide hy two of the arhi- 
 trators, hut was siilisciniently set aside liy the 
 court as invalid. D. tiieii proceeded with his 
 action, and the railway company pleaded that 
 the arhitrators had fixed a time for the iiiakin ; 
 of the aw.ird, hut did not make any within 
 the time limited, and did not enlarge the time, 
 and that therefore the sum of S4(M) otl'ered 
 hy the railway company hefore proceedings 
 taken had hecoine the amount of the coiii|ien- 
 sation. The judge found on the evidence that 
 no time had heeii tixeil hy tin' arhitrators for 
 making the award : Hehl, that as the parties 
 hy their pleadings hail placed themselves njion 
 an issue as to whether the arhitrators had fixed 
 a time or not, and as that issue was found in 
 favour of the jilaintitl' the sum of .S400 otlered 
 had not liecome the comiiensation to he paid,' 
 and a reference hack was ordered. Hnuori.'il v. 
 (.-niiKl Jiiiu-lioii R. ir. Co., 10 0. R. 515.— 
 I'Y'rguson. 
 
 I'leas of fraud to actions on former judgments, 
 ,Sce Sh'imrt v. Sulfoii, 8 (). R. 341. p. lO'JO ; 
 Harcey v. Ilaivey, 9 A. R. 91, p. 831. 
 
SiP'^' 
 
 m 
 
 1615 
 
 PLEADINa. 
 
 1616 
 
 Qii.i'io, i)or Ferjiiison, J., wlietliiT it is not I Held, ic'Vfr.sinj,'tlicC. P. I). (18 0. R. 48'.') tlint 
 necessary, iiiuler tlie presi'iit system of i)leailin<,', j evidenoe iif coiitrilmtory iicgllKtiice is pmperly 
 to set ii)! Npi'cially a deftiH'o arising from the [ admissilile under a defiiice of "not miijty hy 
 maxim, •' \'ol. titi non fit injniia," See Li May \ statute" without any siiceial plea of eoiitrihii- 
 V. Cuiiad'nin J'dcijic li. W. Co., 'HO. K. :{I4. I tory negli<j;ence, and at any rate in this case, 
 , ' , ■ . 1 even if strirtlv speukint,' tlie eviden<,'(' wvre not 
 
 Kftect of plea of payment int(. eourt. See , .iclmissihle as "the ph;adings stood, still, it hav- 
 /,fi.«'r V. /Ml, 13 S. C. R. 51(1, p. irm. \ [^.^ |,p,,„ .Jy^.,^ without ol.jeetion, tin,' plaintitV 
 
 coidd not altcrwards eoinplain. Domi v. Mhhi- 
 iiaii C'Hli-ifl /'. ir. C'l., IS (). K. IS'_> ; 17 A. R. 
 4SI 
 
 Kmli.irrassing ))lea. Sei^ Siril'.cr v. Lnhhnan, 
 1,S (». !!. 4'J(), )). ol') ; Siiiiirr v. Siii {tr—Siiiih r 
 V. On; 11 1". U. 140, p. l(il!». 
 
 XIII. DkMI HIIEKS. 
 
 Qua're, whether hvpothetical dcf'.'iices can !■■ 
 pleaded. Siiii/li \. /'(//•, 14 < ). I!. 7-'!». — I'loud- 
 
 foot. ! In an artji'ii to si't aside a conveyance of land 
 
 See /m/. V. ll,v,lorrnnr, l-:,l,r„nt M,i,.!, 11 -''< '^ fr.iu.lulent p efcrenc'c. the non-ayenncnt 
 
 « /• 1. '.I,;-. ,. i-(! , that tlie p'lii' IN sued on hehalf ol ad other 
 
 j ereilitors, ■ h L^ronml tor ilemurrer, lint a 
 n\eie infornialit\ t^ he ih'.dt with inidcr (), .1. 
 
 I .\ct, ituics ii);i', lui, (Con. Rules -.m, :v2:)). 
 
 M. ScKciAi.i.v 1'i.i;ai>ini: .\ SrvTiri;. tScnin v. J)iiil:ii/, :U). I!. .'ITO. -Uoyil. 
 
 The stiitemcnt of <daim allcL^cil a iMrtncrship Tn an .ai'tion liy a .solicitor to recover the 
 
 between the iilaintill' and dcf. ndant, Imt ilid not anif i;h . i a hill of costs, the fact th.it he dofs 
 
 avei' whether the agreeir.ent was in writ in;.' or ""t ii> i'>= tatenient of claim, alle.!;c tliat the 
 
 not. The (ht'enee set ui> a special agreement l,v '''" *< ' ' :'Vered a month hefore action hronglit 
 
 whidi the defendant was to he r<iiinnerated hv '■* ""t ""« - ■'".V re than hefor.' tiieO. .1, 
 
 a share of the prolits ill lieu of wages or salarv, •^^'^ ground for demurrer, Imt only for de- 
 but did not expressly refer to the iV. S, ( >. (ISTT), fence. //,. 
 
 c. i:t:?. It was'admilted that sometliing wa> due Jn an action hv the .\ttornev( leiieral, upon 
 
 to def.ndant, and a refcrcnee was ordered. I he (1^, ,.,,p,tj„„ „f the hnrsar of Toronto rnua.rsity. 
 
 Master in Ordinary hehl, f.dlowing the remarks ,„ ,.i,,.„ver jiosscsion of certain lands .lainie 1 to 
 
 ot I'rondtnot, ,1.. Ill Kouers ,-, Lllliian. Ill Cliy. l„. veste.l in Her Majestv for the li.nelit of the 
 
 l.Sit, that as the delend.mt had not pleaded K. N ,|„ivei>itv. the .lefeiidanis plea.lcd that the said 
 
 ().(I.S7,).c. i:W, .soastoncgativ..the planitKl s p„„j., |, ,;| i„.,,„ „ ith the a.ssent of t he nniver- 
 
 nllegation of a partnership, lu' could not claoii ^itvau I l.ursar, taken possession of livthciii for 
 
 Ihelien.'lit of that stjitule to support us acauit, the purposes of their railway under tiieir .statu- 
 
 but to euahle him to properly raise the .|Uesti.,n ,,„,^. ,,„„i.rs, and that they had since retaine.l, 
 
 on appeal, permitted an alhdavit to he lilcl .,,„) ,|„.|, „.^.,,. j,, ,,„^sL'ssion thenaif. and they 
 
 shewing that there was an agreciiu'iit under tin 
 statute : Held, on a|i|ical. that the e,\se did not 
 come within tlie terms of llule 141, (». .1. .\cl, 
 (t^iiii. liule 4l:t), and that it was not necess.iry, 
 more specilicallv to jihadthe statuttv .V^ /' v. 
 J'arl.; 10 1'. H, 4'70. i'.oy.l. 
 
 ilso pleaded the statute of limitations: -Held, 
 on denim rcr. that it was not nee.ssarv to set oi.t 
 specilicallv the slatntis alhwhal lo, in the v.irii.us 
 procceilings eoiiiiec-t' cl with tin; expropriation of 
 thelaml, and the deleiice was not ohjectionahle, 
 upon clemurrei', on I he ground ol want of cer 
 
 The.'staiuteof JMMuds not liavin.4heeii pleaded tainty. Iiy re a. son ot its merely eeneral .illeg.i 
 nor anyohje tioii properly taken to the siilli. tioii of coinpliama' with the statutory rei|iiir.'. 
 eieiioy "of the d.livery of the g<iods either at the ments : - -Held, also, that the mere alle-alion 
 trial .".r in the order nisi, the court without .le- ll>"t the .lefeiidants wi re in possession allonled 
 ohling that there had heen a Millieieiit delivMV , >^ «<""l defence in law in such an .action, and put 
 held that the ohjecliou was not ojien to the <le- ' the iil.iiiitiH' to the pro .f of his cause of iiction, 
 fendant and refused to iiermit an .imendmeut. under l;nlc l41(<oii. liule 4l(i.i Aihinini-dni- 
 €lr<'.-,ii.>,i v. Iliirii<, l;l A. I'v. 4SI. my(/ v. .U/./Ai/e/ /,'. II'. ' „., :! (). It. ,M I. lioyd. 
 
 See Atfnnin/-(;,iin-'il v. Miilhiwl I!. II'. Co.. i In e.iseof a partialdcmui rei- toai-leadingunder 
 3 O. R. r.ll. p. Kilt; ; l\i<f<r V. i;ont\ S (». I!. (!!» ' Rules ISO (Cai. liule :is4 . if any om; m- more 
 il/cA'fi// V. r»/(i/,);/(;/v, (i ()." R. 400. p. I'il."): Ilniul paragraphs he dciiiui red to. the < emit will look 
 
 at any other p iragi.iph or p.aragraphs hearing on 
 the same mutter ol defeiiee. .-ind ii the whole 
 taken toir<'thi>r. disclose ,i sullh leiit defence, the 
 dcmiiricr iniist he ov<ti nled. //). 
 
 V. Cwi,,... !.".(). R. 710; 111 A. l;. :10S. p. ||'J2. 
 
 .MI. .\oT (;i ii/rv i.v ST.\TrTi:. 
 
 "Not guilty hy statute'" cannot he ph 
 to an action for sp'aitii' |ii'rforinaiice nf a 
 
 When a pleading is amhiL'Uons or niieertaiii, 
 the ]iroper remedy is to ap|ily in chanihei'S (o 
 .strike out or amend tin' <li'fi etive matter, and a 
 
 tract; and the defence of "not guiltv iires- demurreron that gronml will not lie Ih. 
 
 peetivi! of statutory authority is not admissible 
 under the .Indic.ature .Act. Toini ,,/' l\l,r- 
 h>m,>i,ih V. .Mli/lini'/ I,', ir. Co., 12 I'. R. 127.-- 
 Daitini, Mn^ltr. 
 
 The ilefend.ant having tiled his stat<'iuent of 
 defence, the plaintill' lep'ieil thereto by amend- 
 ing his chum, adding to tin; statiMiieiit two new 
 paragr.a])lis which wiiuld have been deiniirrahle 
 Semlile. the omission to give notice of action, if pleaded as .a reply. 'Iln^ matters thereby set 
 must he jilea Ie.| or the seeitioii which la ipdics ' ui>, when sepaiateel from the rest of the state 
 it referred to in the plea of "not guilty by ineut, di<l not disclose any distiiiefc ciiiso of 
 •tatiitc. ■■ lloiiiiw Coiimt", 16 A. K. ."iOS. i action. Theieiipon the ilefeinlaiit nerved tin 
 
 >msj 
 
1616 
 
 <). n.4S'.')th;a 
 !'■<; is pi-o[)(,Tlv 
 ' not, guilty liy 
 G.i <if coiitriliii- 
 iii this iMw, 
 tlciK'i' Were not 
 ''. «till, it liiiv- 
 '•- till' plaiiiHtr 
 /'""/( V. Mir/li- 
 
 IS'J; i: A. Fl. 
 
 'vaiicf of Iii|„| 
 
 ll"MUVc|-l||rllt 
 
 ilf "I all (itliei- 
 iiiiiiicr, liiit 11 
 111 iniilci' (). ,1. 
 
 'I'-''' •■*•-'(, .'iLV.) 
 
 V.ny.l. 
 
 ti> recover the 
 
 •1 lll.lt ll(' (l(l«s 
 
 :ill'',!4'' tlKit the 
 
 :i''lioii ln'oiiglit 
 
 loir thf (). .). 
 
 only for (If. 
 
 ■' ii-iicriil, iijioii 
 ito I'liiv (M-sity, 
 IM'Iscl.liliU' 1 to 
 • li liclit of the 
 'I tliiit tlic said 
 of t III' iiiiivcr- 
 of liy til. 'Ill foi- 
 Ilt tlifir statu- 
 sillri; ictaillcil, 
 fcof, ami tlicy 
 ilioiis : -Helii, 
 ssary to stit di.t 
 >, ill till' vaiii.iis 
 x|ii'o|)iiatioii (if 
 olijoftioiiiilile, 
 i want of cur 
 i.'1'nci-al allcga 
 iitui-y rii|uiri'- 
 icrc alienation 
 cssiou allorilcil 
 ictioii. and put 
 
 UISC .if lU'tioll, 
 
 "ill. li'oyil. 
 
 plca.liimiiii.iei- 
 i on.' or iiioii' 
 
 I'olll't will lo.ik 
 
 pli.s iiciriiij; on 
 1 if the wliol.' 
 It .lofciu'c, the 
 
 < or nil ■crtiiiii. 
 
 I cliaiiilicrs (o 
 ni.it t.r, aii.l a 
 
 li.' II: 
 
 .st itciiii'ilt of 
 to hy aiiK'ii.l- 
 ncnt two new 
 
 II ili'iMiimlile 
 I'.s llii'i'diy set. 
 
 of till! state 
 iiict cause of 
 lit NCI veil nil 
 
 1617 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1618 
 
 amended statement of defence, and demurred to' 
 the two i)ara(;raplis wliicli had lieeii so added. 
 Ill view of the tact that the jiaragraph-s which 
 liail lieen so added did not disclose any scjiarate 
 or sulistiintial eaii.se of action, aii.l tiiat tlie dc- 
 .....'.'■■'■; '>'>w"ver decide.!, coul.l not a.lvanc,! 
 the cause, the onrt (l{oyd,C^) overruled the 
 ileninrrer without costs, as it was tliu first 
 (u'cision the point lia.l arisen under the dudica- 
 tiire Act. Knmolir \. M(n-x,'19 V\\y. \~\). 
 
 The projiriety of jiaitial demurrers wliicli do 
 iKitliriiig uptlic w lioleoreven a sul.'staiitial .pies- 
 ti.iu liidweeii the litigants, tlins t. nding to in- 
 cii'asi' costs, consi.leieil iili.l rciiuirlvc.l U[)oii. Hi, 
 
 Where the allcLiations iji a, liill of .'oiiipl.iiiit 
 wrre of an ainliii.'iioiis ch.iract.'r, hovering li.'- 
 tui'cii two iiii'iiii.sistciit alt.'riiiitives, n.'itli.'r of 
 whi.li sii]»port.'.l til. I c.iiicliisioii siigg.'sti'd liy 
 ill.' |ilea.lcr, a .l.'iiiiiir.'r f.ir want of ..jiiity was 
 ii|ih.'lil. 'I'll.' .'.mrt will regar.l the intiiitiis with 
 wliieh the ullcgali.iiis in a liill of complaint are 
 iii.ide. aii.l will not allow the pr.iyer for g.neral 
 nll.'f jo .■oiitrol tli.^ olivious fr.iinc of the r.'cor.l. 
 Til.; primary olijccl of the liill was to enfoici' a 
 .■..atract of sale of laii.l lictween X. an insol- 
 viiit, <if whom the jilaiiitill' was assignee, and 
 (iiie ( '. N. was iii.'i.le a )iarty lie.'.aiise, as the liill 
 iill.'ge.l. sai.l t'. X. ])rctcli.ie.l that one L. who 
 h 1.1 a.lvane.'.l money to X. on tlu' security of 
 the pr.iperty. lia.l .■oiiveyel his interest, to ('.. 
 while til.' pl.iiiitill' eliarg.-'il the contrary, an. I 
 .ill.g.'il that if si'ili ciiiiveyaiiee was nia.l.' yet it 
 VMS without value, and iim.le to d.f.'.it X.'s ami 
 I., s . reilit.irs. A demiirr.r l.y ('. N. uas al- 
 i.Aveil, on the groiiiiils aliov.' iiii'iiti.in.'d, ainl 
 h.'.aiisc the liill was miiltilaiious. (iiniii v. 
 This/ aii'l Loan Co., 2 (). K. ."ill::. I'.ny.l. 
 
 Where a .leniurrer is r.iise.l to a statement of 
 ilaini f.ir .'^pecilie performance on the groiiiid of 
 iiu siidi.i. lit agreemeiit, it is en. ii'.;li it in any 
 iis|ie.'t of the case, th.e plaitititl may lie entitle.l 
 to s.ime relief. In this case it was licl.l, on the 
 statement of claim set out in the report, that a 
 .■iinelii.leil cfiiitraet w.is shewn, aiiil that ilefeii- 
 dint was lialile. Yviiihi v. J,'iili< r/.^aii, 'JO. 11. 
 4:i4.- P.oyd. 
 
 .Mi.sjoiniler of j.arti.'s is. siiic.> the .lu.licaturc 
 Act, no longer a ground for .lenuirrcr. /'«. 
 
 A def(!ii.liiiit .liil not, within ten .l.iys after 
 <1. livery of a d. iniirrcr to a jiaragiapli of the 
 stiitemeiit of d.'fiii.'e enter it fur argument ami 
 1,'ive notice, nor s.rve an or.ler lor leave to aiiien.l, 
 :isre.piir.'.l liy Itiile I!l.". (a) (). .1. A.'t (("on. Ttiile 
 .Villi; IlcM, on an ex (larte iiiotioii liy the |ilaiii- 
 till for ju.L'ineiit upon his .leniurrer, that the 
 liinper jirai'tiee in such ii case is to ap)ily to a 
 jiiilg!' ill . .lurt, u]ioii iiotiei' t.> the opp.isit.' pirty, 
 for an or.ler to strike out the plea.liiigor jiart of ; 
 tile jilcailiiig .leiniirre.l to, ami for a dircetion 
 as t.i p lynicnt of e.i~ts ; liiit on tilt' return of the 
 motion the [larty in ilefaiilt will have no right 
 ti li.' licaril as to the vali.lity of lilt iilca.ling. 
 /.im»;/.n/o» v. •/V'l»^ 10 I'. T{. 49.1 -Ko.so. 
 
 .\ demurrer to a stateni.nt of clain>. itlIsciI the 
 .|iii'.'-ti.»!i whether in an action against a share- 
 lioMer living in Ontario, in a C^tueliee Joint .Stock 
 I'lmiiianv incoipiiiiited un.ler the Dominion. loint 
 
 shown in Ontario :— ITcl.l, that the demurrer w;is 
 not frivolous. Jlrln- v. Mnin;), 10 P. R. .'i4S.— 
 Dalton, .U((.'<^/-. — Rose. 
 
 .Seinhle, the jurisdiction as to setting .laidede- 
 ninrrers as frivolous, should rarely he' exercised 
 wlier.. the |)oint is a new one, ami i- apparently 
 raised in good faith to oUtain the opinion of the 
 court. III. 
 
 Hclil, that whore a party si'.'ks e.^iiit;il)le re- 
 lief to which he is not cntitl.-.l, the ojjposite 
 ])irty shoiill, unless in a v.'i-y .'l.-ar •■,is.', .lennu', 
 instea.l of attacking the |il..a.ling iinlirectly liy 
 askiic' to have a jury. Miiigham r. Warner, 10 
 
 1*. R. (I'Jl, .•oinniellted nil. /Va.s'.r v. ./nllllx/dll, 
 
 \2 V. K. U.S. -liuy.l. 
 
 .\ puty wlios.' jileading is ili'iiiiirre 1 to in.iy 
 still s.rve a noti.'c .if eX'-e|ition to tli' |ili;,'diiig 
 of th.'.ipposit.' ti.irtv. ()' /hiiiiK llv. />i(ckti:i'iUl, 
 14 (). I!. !. o'C.iniior. 
 
 HeM, p'r .Strong, .1., tint a pliva setting up 
 non-coiiipli.in.-.' with ;i ..iii.lition in a contract 
 li.ivai,' Ill-Ill .lemurre.l to, ami the pliiiitill' not 
 having Mpjii.aled agiinsta jiidginiint .iv..rriiling 
 til.' dcniiirrer tli" .piestion as to the snllicitiiicv 
 in law of the .leieiii'C was r..s jii.licat.i. draiid 
 Trnid- I!. \V. Co. v. MrMil.'ui,', Hi S. ('.. K. -,V.\. 
 
 X.I other or greater cists were allow.'.l to de- 
 fendants in this eas'.' thin if they had siu'c-ssf iilly 
 .leinurre.l instea.l of ilet'emling an 1 going .l.iwn 
 to trial. Ili}ili:iv)i v. Tim-ii^liiii nf Or/'ant, I'J 
 (). R. .IS.-). — (,>. 11. 1). 
 
 See SI,;, II-- V. /'.'(/■, S S ('. U. ."H, 1>. ll>'2(>; 
 niinllrrli,,, V. (V/i'/i'Ts !t l». It. (iS:{. )). l,->7"2; 
 '.7,(s,v. Hmnl. !•_> P. I! 4S't, pp. Kljj, Itl-iO; 
 C/i'i/iiif V. !,'■■',. ri. 14 .\. R. :\r,i, p. !.-);)!». 
 
 \ ' \'. W MVf.i: I'.v l'i.i:\i>iN.:. 
 
 Where a party does not pie i.l a prinr ju.lginent 
 in liar hy way .>f estoppel lietniv tli.- entry of a 
 jiidgincnt direeting a reference to tin mister, he 
 waives it, and leaves the whole m.ittcr at large 
 to lie empliled into on he .viilciu'c. //h;//imv. 
 /,'m.v, 10 P. R. :!0l. - ifo.lgins. M,i~i,r.i,i-Ordi- 
 iinrii. l!ut see .S'. C. -^ (). i;. lilS, p. I0!)0. 
 
 llel.l, in this case, that a clause in the answer 
 of W. .S. cxiiressiii'.' his willingness tlia.t the will 
 should lie const riie.l liy the eotirt an 1 the rights 
 of the parti. 's thcreiiiider dctennii.ed lia.l not 
 the cll'cct of w.iixing .any riudit tint might have 
 aeerU"ii to him .liiriii:: the progress ot the suit. 
 .4n'/i'r V. ,S'. .<,•», l'J(). R. i;|.-|. -I'l-.iii.lfoot. 
 
 See /,'"•/.■ 
 
 /!,<lilia V. Sfrirarl, S P. R. 
 
 To'l'l. S P. R. i;(l, |i. Ki'.'S ; 
 
 p. 1 1 lis. 
 
 M.i.^k {, 
 Kir 
 
 oinpaiiics 
 
 Act, 1S7 
 
 it is sutficient to 
 
 W. Xotn T, or I'ArKi'TioNs. 
 See "7>o»»< // V. Ihirlf iiaiili, I4().R. I. s/f/yc.r. 
 
 X\'[. AMI.NUIM^ .\M> STKIKIMI OIT Pl.KAlUSli-i. 
 
 I. Ill ( h'.unli' >•■■'. 
 All. ling plea of promissory imtes lieing in- 
 sullieicnth stamped. —S.'c i;,i,,ili,ll v. Clnrki-, 'A 
 O. K. -JliO; p. ITiti; .V. ( : !) P. R, .171, p. lo."., I.^)H. 
 
 iw a 
 
 imsatislic.i in l,>ueljcc, 
 10-2 
 
 ;es for detention of 
 ther this must he ■ dower, ilofendants pleade.l (1) that the lands in 
 
 jii.lgmeiitaii.l exc. iition till rcon returneil I In an action for .1 
 
.i0i^^ 
 
 1619 
 
 PLEADINa 
 
 162a 
 
 S 
 
 question were wild, nnd plainfifr was not entitled ] 
 to the sum clainied for diiniiiges, if anj': ci) tliiit 
 )daintifl' liad asisigned her claim for (himiigos: 
 (I!) Hi't-iiir for nioueyH expended in lespi^ut of 
 N.iicl lands; (1) that they did not detain, lint 
 were always williiig, ete. On a motion in cham- 
 liei'S, after issue joineil, fur an ordei- dircetin;; 
 a reference as to the (laiiiaf,'es un<lt'r s. 47 O. •). 
 Act, and upon evidence hy atlidavil hoth for 
 and ajjainst the truth of the ))leas, thi; master 
 niad'i an order striking out the "inil and .'ird 
 pli'as, ami directing a reference: H'jd, tliat 
 the master had no jurisdiction to make the order, 
 and that tin? issues raise(l ipr'stifin'! tliit were 
 projierly trialile only at the hearing. Uiimi v. 
 /•V.s7i, l(i 1'. H. I.S7.— Daltoii. Masii c- rrcudfool. 
 
 The ])laintifT imlorsed his writ of summons 
 and tiled his statiment of claim tn reeovir pi^s- 
 session of the hind in dispute, as lieing tlu' 
 assignee o'" a lease made hy him to the defen- 
 dants, who assignerl to a third inrty, who 
 assigned and sui Ki.il.ied to the plaint iff. The 
 <lefencu was that X\w lease was in cllcct a mort- 
 gage, and frauti and want of cunsidi ration were 
 iillegeil : — Held, that the |ilaiiitill' could not 
 nniend his statement of claim, and a.-^k a I'ori-- 
 elosure of the hind as mortg.igce. .Uil/lini'i' i/ 
 V. McCliinns, !) I'. H. 157.— Wilson. 
 
 Claims on lichalf of a wife fcir atiinony and to 
 set asiile a cduve ancc cif the husli.i nil's pi op' rty 
 as fr.indnhfit si, )uld lie joim il in I'lic action 
 Sepaiate actions were lirou;;ht fur su -h claims. 
 the live dcfcndaiils appearing hy tin' sanji' soli 
 eitnrs, and tiliiis.' scpaiate stalcmcnts ofdefeuce. 
 A paragraj.h of I'.odi ol the defences snlmiitted 
 that ''the plaintiff had made omI no case i n- 
 titliu'i her to relief." This was struct unl l>y a 
 local nuister, liy live si'|)arate orders to the sami' 
 offi'ct : - Held, that the ])arai;r.i|i|i was ni'ither 
 scandalous, nnr prejinlicial. uir eudi iirassiiig 
 under l!ule I7S. (('on. Kule 4'J:() lait was a mere 
 n.'fcitiKte toseilidu 44orthe.liidic,!t\ire .\i't. ami 
 shonld not h.ivi! liecn struck out .icd the costs 
 of only one order were' allowed. Smd' r v. 
 {■iliiilii; Ftiiil )• v. 0,T, 11 I'. K. no. I'.c,\<l. 
 
 Where the writ of sMmnmns was iichir-eil 
 with a claim for tin; reeuvery cif land and for 
 mesne prolits. Init the statcniiMit of claim asked 
 specilic peifiirmaiiee of the conliMct t)_s the ile- 
 fcMidant to liiiy the latel from the plaintitV, .and 
 in the event of s]>ciitic jjci fni'iiiance not lieiie.; 
 decreed, ]iossession. etc . and no order had hcen 
 olitained for have to join iuiothcr cause of ac- 
 tion with a claim for the reco\eiy of land, as 
 rc<|uired liy l^de IH1,()..I. .\ct(Ci>ii. Itnle.'ill). 
 and a motion was made to set aside the writ of 
 simiinons and statement of claim, or one of 
 them, 'leld, that the can is of .action were 
 impropeily joined in the statement of claim 
 without leave, hut il! ismueli as the two causes 
 of action could not conveniently he jirosecuted 
 separately, h?ave was given to .iniend the writ 
 liy adding a cl.iiiu for specilic |ierl'orm.ince, or 
 the statement of claim hy striking out such 
 claim, at the plaiiitilf's option, ('fiiupliell Y. 
 ./•niie.i, II I'. 1!. 347. Dalton, Mntf'): 
 
 A defence which is wholly iiiapi)liealile may 
 he struck out, uidess amended, althontth it is 
 neither scanilalous nor tending to piejinliee, 
 einb.arrass, or delay. ('Iiamh rlnin v. i'liniiihi'r- 
 lin, II P. R. .^Ol. -Ferguson. 
 
 Ah a general rule pleadings sUnnld not he s^t 
 aside on summary applications unless so pi .inly 
 frivolous or iiidefensilih? .as to invite excisioii. 
 Where a matter is douhtful or dillieull it is hii- 
 ter to leave the olijecting party to demur ; ind 
 even it the ])leailing appears to he demurr ihle. 
 that is not a sullicient reason for expurii,'iiMf it 
 fiom the rec.ird. <:Ihs.s v. Oniiif, 12 I'. 11, -isd 
 
 Hoyd, 
 
 .•^ee Aitiiniiy-di'iirrdl \ . MuUnnil A". If. r,i.,3 
 (>. U. r)ll, p. Hill!: 'I'iDiitiii'e V, l.iri)i<iMloiii'. In 
 I', li. 'J'.l, \<. KilO; Ihinh i^t'Cnwwarr. v. Iliml; ,if 
 lirili^li Sorth Anin-iiii, 10 ]'. U. 158, p. Icici'; 
 Liiii</>r V. Cuni'i; 10 I'. R. 012, j). 5(iS. 
 
 2. M I hi Trial. 
 
 Action on a life )ioli(!y. The application .'..ii. 
 tained a nunilierof (piestionsand .answers, and iit 
 the foot was adeclai'aticn, signed liy the assiui i|, 
 that to the hcst of his knowledge ,ind lielief th,. 
 foregoini; slati'iiicnls and other pai'licul.iis » ere 
 true : that the 'eclaralion slmuld form the ha.i'e 
 of the contract . and th.it it any untiue avei- 
 uient had lieen inientionally m ide therein m- in 
 the replies to the coni|>any's medical advisei- la 
 connection tlu'rcwith the jiolicy should Ik^ miJiI. 
 \\y the policy the declaration ,ind "relative 
 papers" were moleihe I lasis of the contract, uitli 
 a proviso that if any fraudulent or wilfully aii- 
 true mateii.il alhgalion w,:s contained in s c I 
 dec 1,1 r. it ion : oi' if it should t he icii tier appear tlmi 
 any ni.iterid iiifoi uialion had hceii withhehl. .mil 
 ;iny of the niatteis set forth li.id not heeii liiilv 
 and fiurly St ited, then the poliiy should he vniil. 
 To t he I pi est ions in the application :is to the ii.-iinc 
 and residence of usii,al nicilic.il .ittendant, an>l lei 
 w hat serious illness had heatteiiiled, the assuiiil 
 answered "iioiii''"; ami to the ipie-^tions hy 'lie 
 medical adviser as to what other di.sease or pii- 
 .oii,d injury ami from whom had he receive.l 
 profession,! 1 .issistaiU'c. etc.. the as>nred answer- 
 ed "none. ' Ir was found that these answn^ 
 Were wilfully uiitiue, and that the inforuia'icM 
 was wilfully withheld from and was miteri:il tn 
 he stated to the I'onip.iny : - Held, that tlioe 
 iinswers constituted a iirea.'h of the I'Xpre.ss c .11 
 tiiutt 1 let ween the pai i ies .ind thcrid'ore tlie|Miliry 
 was voiil. The )ilea- setting up these deteiices 
 were added at the tri d. ami aftei' the ease linl 
 lieen in pro;,'ress lor some time. The action hus 
 comiiieiicid licfore the duilicature .Act came in 
 force, lint the trial took place ihercifter : 
 llt'ld, that, whetiier under section S of the .\. 
 ,1. Act, or under Rule 12.S of the (). .1. Act 
 (Con. liule ."illlli, the pleas were ii;op,rly aldcil. 
 .\ I'cjdic.ition to these pleas set up that ci r 
 tiiin <orrespiindenee lietween the eonipaiiy'-' 
 general manager and their local agent, hut ef 
 which the assnied hat no notice, ilireciiii:; 
 the agent to make enquiries as to the liaMts. 
 
 \ etc., of the assured, U|ion the ri\sult of wliicli 
 the .igent was to issiu' thi' policy, constituted an 
 agrecmc'it that tin- eomp.iny would rely on the 
 
 I jndgmeut of the .i^eiit alone founded on sinli 
 
 I eni|uiries : -Ilehl, that tiie replicntion could ii'l 
 lie siniported, cither at law or on the fai't^-. 
 
 [ /i'//sm// V. Ciiiwla I. ill' Assiiiiiiii-r Co., ;t2 C. I'. 
 
 J2.M).- C. 1'. 1). ; S A". R. 71<!. 
 
 ' The judgment of the court lielow (112 C. !'. 
 
 1;{I) overruled the demurrer on the ii.saumptioji 
 
 j that the plea had been amended according to 
 
1620 
 
 loiild iKit |]|. sft 
 
 unless HO pi lilily 
 
 invitt' cxiisiDii. 
 ilillifull it i^ III i. 
 
 y til (llllUir ; ;l||,| 
 
 ) )>(• ili'iiiiii-nlil,.. 
 t'cir ex|niii!,'iiM' it 
 III, !•-• I'. II. Tso. 
 
 (twi It. \y. <■.,., 3 
 
 Lirhii/.-iloii''. Ill 
 lliriTK V. /Ill III,- 1,1' 
 
 It. l."S, II. l(i():i': 
 2, |). 5t)S. 
 
 ii|>|)licatii)ii inn- 
 1 •■inswers, ainl la 
 il liy the iissuii il, 
 
 gC .111(1 liilicf lllr 
 
 jKirliciilius Wire 
 
 111 foiiii the liasis 
 
 Miy iiiitiuf iivci 
 
 itilf tlieri-in m- in 
 
 H'lliciil ;iilvis(r ju 
 
 y .sliiiiiM lii^ Mijil. 
 
 tl ,\liil "illative 
 
 tlii'cinitriict, with 
 
 It (ir wilfully iiii- 
 
 riititiiiricil ill >ii:l 
 
 alter !ii)|)('iir tli.il 
 
 en witlllleM. :iiiil 
 
 111 iKit liecii tinlv 
 
 ry .sliouM lie viiiil. 
 
 ion iisli) the iiiinic 
 
 itt<'iiiliUit, aiiil till 
 
 •iideil, the as.siiml 
 
 ' i|U<'stiiiiis hy tile 
 
 ler ili.sea.se nr |ii r- 
 
 liiicl lie reeiivi'.l 
 
 le as>lil'eil aii.swei 
 
 lilt tii»!se iiiisHfK 
 
 t tile infiiriiiati,,;i 
 
 il wji.s ni:iteii:il t.i 
 
 IM.I. that till..' 
 
 it I lie expre.s.se Mi 
 
 lerefiiie tlie|iiilii y 
 
 Up tlie«e ileieines 
 
 it'ler the ease linl 
 
 'I'lio lU'linii «as 
 
 tille Act came in 
 
 ;ue tlieieafter : 
 
 it ion .S of the .\. 
 
 if the O. .1. Alt 
 
 (' p: op.rly aMiil. 
 
 set up tliat nr- 
 
 I the ciiiiipiuiy < 
 
 i( -il agent, Imt I'f 
 
 notice, (lilerliii:; 
 
 as to the hal'its. 
 
 ; n!.sult 111 wlileli 
 
 ey, constituted an 
 
 woilM rely on the 
 
 foiinileil oil siirli 
 
 ilieation cniilil n-il, 
 
 or on the f.ii'f.^. 
 
 iiirr. Co., ;(•-'('. I'. 
 
 l.elow (.'?•-• ('. i*. 
 m the assiiiiiptinii 
 iileil .icconling to 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1622 
 
 leave given, but tlio apjieiil hook iliil not shew I 
 the anienilnient to have been made, and the de- 
 fence UK .set out in the printed ea.se was held I 
 had on demurrer, and the appeal by the jilaintitT | 
 nlliiwed witli ooHta. Cumiion, J., diss, who | 
 thniiL'ht hat under the eiicumstances the plea , 
 shi'iild be treated as amended piirsii.uit to leave 
 iriaiited by the court below, and that the jiidg- 
 iiieiit of the court below, which was in the opi- 
 nidi of this court rii;ht as it as given, should not 
 he reversed. lltixwiU v. SuIIk ilamt, 8 A. K. 'J.'W. 
 
 (). was a member of ('ourt Mapli! of the de- 
 fiiiilaiits' order, and was insured un ler the en- 
 (liiwiiieiit provisions thereof for ?i>l,0(H). I Ilia 
 ciMiit left the order in a liody and jiiined another | 
 (iiiler of Forestei's, and il was in eonseiiuenoe 
 suspended. On joining the new onler it was 
 arranged that ()., who was in ill heatt ii, and had 
 wine to California for change, should lie taken 
 and insured with the others, liy the rules of 
 defendants' order meinbeis of suspended courts 
 in good standing at suspension weie, on appli- 
 eution within thirty days, to the siipinne secre- 
 tiUV, and payment of a fee of .':l>l, to receive a 
 eaid of membership and be entitled to the en- 
 (linvnient, provided they paid all assessments an 
 they fell due, and alliliated with another 'odgo 
 of the order; but, if after thirty days they 
 iiinst pass a medical ex.iniination. On his re- 
 tiiin from C.'aliforni.i, O. on asccit.iining that the 
 (iinit Maple had been siisiiended, within the 
 lliirty days, being then in go.id standing, applied 
 t(i the defendants' supreme secretary for hisiard j 
 iif iiiendiershil), tendering §1 and assessments | 
 (hie, which was refused on the ground that a i 
 ineilical certilicate was necessary. ()., liy reason 
 of his not having the card, was |ircveiited from 
 alliliating, though he endeavoured to do so, with i 
 aniither court. 15.V the eiidowiiiont certilicate i 
 tlie??l,(IOO was pi.y.ciiie , ' the widow, orphans, ! 
 iir legal heirs of (). , and by endoiseineiit ihere- 
 iiii O. directed the aininint to be paid to the , 
 |il;iiiitill', the widow . At the trial an aiiiendiiient ^ 
 was .isUed, to set up a forfeitiu'e of the policy by | 
 lea.son of O. having gone to California without 
 a ]ierinit, which was refused by the judge : — 
 Held, iindtir the circumstances the refusal was 
 limper. (,)iia;ie, wlietliir the way. Ciiiise, and 
 manner in and tor which O. and the other niem- 
 lier.s of Court Maple left it and joineil in a bndy 
 another iiiiler might n<it, if piiipci!\ pleaded, 
 have rcjiiircil some consideration. The frame 
 and eirect of the pleading in this ease consid- 
 ered. Oiili'- ■-. Si./irrwi i'liiii-l (il'flii- Iiiilijii nib at 
 Onler of rnjr^li-rf, -1 O. I!, ."ir..- ( '. I'. I>. 
 
 See 0(»;//ii'/,' V. Chid-i, .3 O. 11. Ctii), p. 1515; 
 Tnilil V. Diti, W'iniaii ((• Co., l,") A. U. 8."i, p. ."iH; 
 Mcl'liirwi) V. W'lltoii, I.") A. It. 'J!t4, \). O.'iT. 
 
 ;j. /" ,)fa.ilir'i Ojlirr. 
 The master 'as no jiirisdiitioii to make amend 
 nieiits to the pleadings after judgment ; nor could 
 he 
 
 i"t 
 
 ings. Ilmjlii 1 V. It 
 Mtislir ill Oiiliiiiinj, 
 
 See <'QH,-t V. llolldiiil, 4 O. R. (!S8, p. Iti(;;i. 
 
 ive Ic.ivc to tile astaieuient in liisollice rais- 
 idcfeiue which ought to .appear in the plead- 
 
 Hodgins, 
 
 1(1 r. H. .'iOI. 
 
 4. Other Caiin. 
 New trial granted in action for malicious 
 prosecution with leave to jilaintitrto amend the 
 statement of claim. See Manluiidlil v. lliim-und, 
 WH'. \\ 4Xi, p. I -J IS. 
 
 In this case whiili was an action for the 
 rescission of a contract for the sale of land : - 
 Held, th.it inasmuch ; s all the evidence that 
 could throw light iipoi, the case had admittedly 
 been given, the fact that the issue of iiiipro- 
 vidence was not raised on the pleadings was 
 immaterial. In such a ease it is a mere matter 
 of form to adapt the pleadings to the mat* 'r* 
 proved, ilijinjh v. lii lu-h, (> O. R. G'.M). Cliy. .). 
 
 .Vmenilmcnt of pleadings by changing a breach 
 of contract not proved into an action for breach 
 of warranty. See Ein>i v. Abrll, 10 A. R. iVJti. 
 
 See (Ireeiiiiai v. Ilin-iii, 13 A. U. 4S1, •>. ,3!)"). 
 
 I'er Itagarty, C. .1. ().— This court is allowed 
 and reiiuired )iy law to give jiidguieiit "accord- 
 ing to the very right and justii.'c of the case.'' 
 and up to the hint moiiient has the right to 
 make any amendment proper for the att.iiiiment 
 (if that end. Then fore wlieie the dcleiidants 
 had by theii answers admitted the truth of 
 certain paragraphs of the bill which charged 
 that they had .seveially |iiircli,iscil with notice 
 (if the claim of the plaiiitiH'; but siibse(|Uciitly 
 they swore that tln^y did not intend to make 
 such admission ; that in fact they had not had 
 such notice, and the adiiiissioii wa,s made in 
 ignorance of its eiVect ; the defendants up to the 
 I.ist stage of the |)roceedings should be at liberty 
 t(i set up the facts as a means of defence. Peter- 
 kin V. McFarloMf, 9 A. R. 42'.'. 
 
 XVI I. Costs. 
 
 Where the original iilaintill's iiiaii action were 
 not entitled to any relief but by amendment, and 
 a ])arty was added to whom relief was granted : — 
 Held, that the defcndaiit.s were entitled to costs 
 of the action up to the date of the amendment. 
 CAi//>v;)» V. ll7(i/«, 4 0. R. G03.-^-Chy. D. 
 
 The defendants, being sued as carriers for the 
 
 loss of goods in transit under a contract between 
 
 the plaiiitill's and dcfeudai.ts, gave notice under 
 
 i Rules 107 and lOS (('..n. Rules IWS, .Hl'O). to the 
 
 third parties that they elaiined indemnity from 
 
 tliciii under a, coiitr.ict to which the plaint ill's 
 
 were strangers; the third parlies ajiiieared, and 
 
 ' an older was made that they should be at liluity 
 
 I to assist in defending the action and should be 
 
 I bound l>y the result as regard> the li diility of the 
 
 defendants to the plaintilFs. The jilaint ill's were 
 
 nonsuited at the trial ; Held, tliat the plaintitl's 
 
 were not liable for tlic costs of the third paities, 
 
 ; or for the costs oei^isioned by joining them; nor 
 
 ' were the defendants liable for such costs. Tom- 
 
 .(ill-son \-. Xovthi 111 It. W. I "o. of Canada, l\ V. 
 
 R. 419. — Armour. 
 
 Where the deiiiiiirer is partly successful and 
 partly unsuccessful neither party should get 
 costs. Atlnrnti/O'vniiul \. Midlanil Jt. W. Co., 
 ;< O. It. .-ill.— IJoyd. 
 Costs of counter-claim. See Costs. 
 \Vherc part y succeeds only in part . See Costi. 
 See Itninnlir v. Mur.i: '-'9 Chy. 179. p. Ifil7 ; 
 Uooilimnl v. .</!. /./.s, .32 C. 1'. 2S2, i), 1()02 : 
 S.-iiii V. Cnilni/iiu, 9 v. R. 2.-.3, p. ItiOC; ClarLn 
 V. J/.-A'"-,".,./, 9 P. R. 281, p. 11)07; Srhwoh y. 
 Mcaioiiiihlln, 9 I'. It. 475, l'. b"'94. 
 
"*f*^ 
 
 1623 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1624 
 
 XVIII. Vkniiik dkXovo. | 
 
 Seo II'iVAv V. Cariimn, 14 A. R. Cofi, p. 378. 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act. 1881) 
 l'LEAl)IN(t AT J.AW. 
 
 1. (iKNEM.M.I.V. 
 
 1. L'nilxti'rtintiinii I'/i(iilhi;/fi. 
 
 The ])liiiiitiir Jillcgcil in diie (;(iuut in triiMT 
 tliat till; il(_'fcii(l:iiit I'uiivcitiil tn liis own ii.su, nr 
 wroiitrfiilly ili'|)i'iveil the iiiiiiiitill, etc. : -liilil, 
 (ivfrniliiiL; liiiiii r, McKiiy, 5 I'. H. 471. tiuit tli<' 
 count Wiis not cniliiiiiassinj.'. Titiilar v. Ailum, 
 8 P. R. GO.— Diilton, (/. «'. 
 
 The C. L. P. Aot, (R. S. (). 1,S77, c. .■)(•), .s. 
 120, ('ni]io\\(is till' ('"lilt or a iiiiluo to stiikc 
 out i)U,'as not iiii'itly wlicio tliuy iiri' cniliiii'iMs- 
 sinj;, Ikhmusc ('(iiifiisol in tciins .iiiil ko ilitlit-ult 
 ti) mult r.staiiil, Imt wliuro tliry uoiuliino scvoimI 
 (leftMRcs in dill' plia, or arc rr|>i'titii)ns nf a ilc- 
 feni'i! ulri'Mily ])li ailcil. ami may tliiis lii' I'lnh.ir- 
 rassiii;.'. or iiri'jii'lioii a fair trial. In tlii.s casi", 
 Iioinjj; an ai'timi on iiKiinissury note.-:, the lU'lVii- 
 daiit IiaviiiL,' iilcaili'il total failiiru of coii.siiliiM- 
 tion, aiMi'il otlii'r jilra-* ri'pi'atiiii,' that ilefi'ini'. 
 anil setting up licsidos aiiotlui' a!.;ri'i'iiR'iit, nut 
 iit'i'i'ssarily I'oniH'rtod with tlii' notes, anil so 
 stateil as to leave it nneertaiii whether it was 
 iiitiiuUd as a separate ilefeiiee or ii^ .xiijiportini,' 
 the other ilefeiiee : -llelil, a(tirniin<: the jlld;;- 
 inent of ("aiiieron, .1.. th.it siieh |>le.is were ]iro 
 )ierlv .stnicU out. Ah. II v. Mrl.„,-ii. .'U C. I'. 
 51 7." V. P. 1). 
 
 (lefemlants, whoreof defeuilauts had notice in 
 writing, and at the time of and after .said as.sign- 
 nient, and after .s.iid notice, and Itcfore action, 
 defendants were indebted to 1). in nioiiev .siifli. 
 cient to pay t ho .sum so a.s.sij;neil to plaiiitilT, etc. ; 
 — Held, on demurrer, Iiail, as not .•lettiiii,' fortli 
 any fact from which the existence of and pro- 
 mise to pay a delit would lie implied Ky linv 
 .Mitchell (•."(loodall, 44 Q. li. H!)S, and liiicc /■'. 
 liannister, .S ^i. 15. 1). "id!!. distinf,'uiHlied. Smith 
 V. Aiicasliv Tdinixhi/), 4."i i,>. H. S(!. — (>.,ier. 
 
 To an actio.', for maliciously iiiakiiii,' deniaiid 
 foi an assigmnint under the Insolvent Act the 
 defendant's third lilei after setting up a variety 
 of dealings hetween the parties, .^hewing thai 
 tin; |)laintitr had from time to time f.iileil to meet 
 hiseligagenieiits w itli defeiidanls, coMeluded that 
 the (ilaintifl' lieiiiL' indelited to the defeiidaiit.s in 
 the sum of .':<1,4(I0, and heiiig iiii.dile to pay the 
 same or to meet his engagements, ami the plain- 
 till' I leing also to the knew led ue of the di-fiudanta 
 indelitcil in huge sums to divi'is other persons, 
 creditors of tlie jilaintill', the defendaiits hmii'i 
 lide lielieviiig the plaint ill' to lie insolvent within 
 the loeaiiing of the Inxilveiit .Act of lS7."i, ami 
 aiiiemlim,' .\cts, and having reasiui.ilile ami pin- 
 liahlc cause for so lielie\in:;, and witlioul malice 
 made a ileinind on the plaintitl', etc, : Held, a 
 good jilca although it was not expressly avcnvd 
 in the words of sei;. 4 th.it the iilaintilThad ccaseil 
 to meet his lialiilities Lremrally as tliey heiNinic 
 due. (,lua>rc. whether t li.it ixpres>i(pn means hi.s 
 li.iliilities to the particular cn-diriir or to liiscre- 
 ditois L'euerallv. A'"'//' \. /'hiiiiiin^, HI C. 1'. 
 •_"JI.— (ialt. 
 
 See '/'oirii nf /', li flicr 
 V. '-Ml, p. -27, p. KW.'i. 
 
 '://( V. /Jl'riirds. HI (', 
 
 2. Ihi,mh,,-r. 
 
 To the ]ile,'i (if "mm est factum." tln' plain I ill' 
 TX'ldied on ei|uitalile grounds, allei;iiig that the 
 defeiid.ints acci'iited the ileceased's application 
 for iiisur.ance, and that the |iolicy \\,is issued and 
 acted U]iou liy all parties as ,i vali.l iiolicy, hut 
 that the se.il was iiiadverleiitly omitled to he 
 alfixed, and claiming tli.it the d'fcndaiits should 
 lie estoppel! from setting ilptlie alisonc'of the 
 seal or ordered to alli\ it ; Held, a good repli- 
 cation and not .a de]iarliire irom the de ■laratiou. 
 Wriijht V. I.niidnii IJ/r /,.,■. Co., .•) A. R. -JIS, 
 
 Action on .i delunture, Iiy which the defen- 
 ilaiit agreed to pay to the hearer i'JOOstg. at the 
 oflici! of a n.inied hank, .and on .i named day, 
 ii])on presentation and surrender there of the 
 delieiiliire. Averment of iierforiiianec of all 
 eoiiilition.s precedent. Hreacli iioii-p.aymcnt of 
 the princip.il sum :- Held, hy Osier, .1., and 
 airirineil hy the (". P. 1)., that the [jrescntatiim 
 and surrender of the delientuie at such place 
 and date were conditions iirecedent, and the 
 performance of such conditions having lieeii 
 averred in the declaration, a ie|)Iication alhv'og 
 presentation on a later day was a departure. 
 Moiilnal > 'ih/ <tii(f l>i-<trifl Sitrii,(/.i liiuikv. Ctninli/ 
 >■/ Pe.i-tli, .Tie, P. 18. 
 
 3. Cti ituiili/ (11/(1 Pto'/icitlarili/. 
 
 Declaration, that 1)., liy writing, for valuable 
 consideration, duly assigned to plaintiff the sum 
 of !j,")()(l, money due and to become due to 1). by 
 
 II. l)i;rrM;.vTioN. 
 1. ]'(inii. 
 
 In an action for damages caused liy the iion- 
 ie|iair of a highway in the eoMiity of ^■olk the 
 \eiiuc was laid in I'eel. Imt the declaraliou diil 
 not state in what I'ounty the highway w;is situ- 
 ate. The venue being admitted to be wmiig, 
 lilaintill' was .allowed to amend his declaratinii. 
 nniirii V. r,„i,ih/(;l' Yo,!:. S V. I!. l.Sil. ■ Daltoii, 
 (>».('. 
 
 Ill .111 i'.ctioii wherein the sherilV is plaintitl' or 
 defendant, the opposite Jiirty, if he so desires, 
 may have the action iried in the enunty .adjoiii- 
 ins,' tli.it ill which the slierilf resides. Hraiiiiin 
 
 \.' Jnrru, s I'. !;. :{•_'•_>. (;,dt. 
 
 "2. Cliad'jiiiii !'( iiiir. 
 
 Held, that there - no appeal t" the full court 
 
 in term from ,in orit> i- of the clerk of the Crown 
 
 and Pleas, made on an a)iplicatioii to change the 
 
 venue in I '(Uiiity Court cases under R. S.O. (1S77), 
 
 c. ."lit, s. l"),"!, 'out the only apjieal in such casi sis 
 
 to a judge in chaiiibers under seel ion .'51 of the 
 
 I Act :- Meld, however, that if an appeal did lie 
 
 [ to the full court, it uiigiit he made direct theicto 
 
 I without lirst going Iietoie a judge in chnnbers. 
 
 ' Semble, in such eases ihe pro]ier course is to 
 
 follow, as laid down in the Act, the ptactice in 
 
 i force iu the Superior Courts, and that the mere 
 
 ' fact of the cause of action having arisen in the 
 
 « 
 
1624 
 
 its had notice in 
 lifter saiil assign. 
 11(1 l)i:fore action, 
 •. in nionciv siifli- 
 tDplaiiitilT, etc, ; 
 not Nottini,' foitli 
 ■nco of and ym,. 
 implied liv l,vw. 
 :«IS, and liiice r. 
 inKuisiieil. Smitli 
 
 MiakinL; driii.'in.l 
 iisoivent Aet the 
 ting up a v.iriety 
 es. sliewiii;.^ tliat 
 ime failed to meet 
 Is, eiinelnileil that 
 tile defendants in 
 Mnahle to pay tliu 
 ts, and tlic plain- 
 of tlie defendants 
 IN ot lier peisiiMS, 
 defendants Imiifi 
 ' insohcnt witliin 
 Aet iif ls7,"i. ,inil 
 isiinalile ami pr.i- 
 id withiint malice 
 tl'. etc. : llel.l.ii 
 
 xpressly aveni'ii 
 lain! iffliad ceased 
 y as tliey lucaine 
 nession means liis 
 litnr or to hiseie- 
 tnniiiit^, \\\ ('. 1'. 
 
 PLEADINQ. 
 
 1626 
 
 ansoil liy tlie non- 
 tinty of ^ oik the 
 lie deelaralioii did 
 liii'liway was sitii- 
 ted to lie u roiiif, 
 d his dcelaratioil. 
 , K. Kilt. Dalton, 
 
 erilV is plaintiU'or 
 
 ,", if lie so desires, 
 ho eoiiiity adjoin, 
 resides, liniiiiiin 
 
 \\ to the full eonrt 
 ■lerk of the Crown 
 tioii to change the 
 iderH.S.().(lS77), 
 eal in siieli easesis 
 section .'11 of tl;c 
 an aji'ical did lie 
 lade direct thereto 
 \u\HQ in ch: niheri?. 
 roller course is to 
 it, the piactice in 
 and that the mere 
 ving arisen in the 
 
 couuty to which it is sougiit toclianyc the vcnnc 
 ia not, of itsulf, suHicieut to ontweigli any actual 
 prepondeniiicu of convenience ari.siiig from other 
 causet in favour of retaiiiiiij; the venue where 
 the plaintiir liad laid it. Malwn v. .Vie/i.,//<, .U 
 C. r. '22,— Osier. 
 
 3. Time. /or Jhdiirimj. 
 
 A plaintiff must declare within one year after 
 the writ of summons, inclusive of tlie ilay ol 
 service. M lurhisou v. ('((»(«/« Faniuii //(<• 
 fo., S P. !!• 451.— iJalton, tj. C. 
 
 4. Form '»/*. 
 
 Remarks as to the proper form of declaration 
 in an action for ncjjligeiicc in mvisting iieauy 
 where the del'eiulant was not paid li.\ the lender 
 but hy the lioridwer. Curler v, llalrh, 111 C 1'. 
 293. -C. L'. 1). 
 
 was unnecessary, and must, togothcr with the 
 jury notice, lie strinU out as had. IlijiU v, 
 ('(isiiifi, si', l;. liiT. -Dalton, ^». t;. 
 
 2. Dllii r Ci-ici, 
 
 I IVr (iwyiiue, d., that as the plea deniurreil 
 to ill this ease confessed the clelit for which 
 the action was liruu;;lit, and that such debt 
 uas incurred under circuiiist,iiices of fraud, and 
 ollVied no matter whatever ot avoidance or in 
 liar of the action it was had. <V/(it-/i/.i v. i'tok, 
 
 I 8 8. C. K. :.7!). 
 
 TIeld, that it was no olijection to a replication 
 thai it shewed tor the lirst time that interest only 
 ■ ' ' iiiendy an accessory 
 
 III. I't.tAS IN 
 
 ,^IlAr^.MK^ r. 
 
 for damages 
 
 The plaintill' hrouyht his aclioi 
 caused lpy the non-repair ot a lii_li\\ay iii tlic 
 county ol York, and laid the venue in I'eel, hut 
 the declaiation diil not stale in what county the 
 highway was situate. Defeiidanl pleaaeil not 
 guilty ; and (2) thai the court oiiglit not to 
 have further eoMiii/.ince of the action, hecause 
 the cause of action was local, and aro>e in tlie 
 county of York and not in tiic county ol I'ccI : 
 Held, that this was properly a deteiiee in l)ai, 
 and not in ahatenienl : — il< Id, that whether a 
 plea in ahaleiin lit or to the jnrisdielion, it could 
 not lie pleaded with a [ilea in har. lirmrit v. 
 CowUyol' Y(>rk,>M\\{. l;(<.l. — Dalton. tj. C. 
 
 The defeiulant pleaded to an action in a Supe- 
 rior Court, on a « rit s[iecially endorsed for s-UO, 
 that there was a suit pending iiial ounty Court, 
 brought liy the plaintitl's against the detendant, 
 for the same cause of action: — Meld, that the 
 plea should aver that the cause of actiou in the 
 tirst suit was within the jurisdiction oi the 
 County Court. Murijtui v. Aull, S 1'. K. 4'_"J. — 
 Ualton, t^. C. 
 
 IV. Time for Plkadi.mj to New A^^siioNMENr* 
 
 A defendant had four days only ti> [>lead to a 
 new assignment. McDunaUlw MrKiuiu.t, ti I'. 
 R. i;i.- Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 V. 1'lkas IN Bak AND .SuiisKyuENT 1'ij;ai>inus. 
 
 1. •SiiiiUller. 
 
 Witii his joinder of issue, the plaintill' served 
 notice of trial lor the chancery sittings. De- 
 fendant afterwards served a similiter and jury 
 notice ; — Held, that the similiter and jury no- 
 tice were good, and that the notice of trial must 
 be set aside. McLurcii v. Mri^naiij, S i'. U. 
 54.— Dalton. Ij. i 
 
 was claimed, for that liein_ 
 
 to the principal, iieeil not lie claimed as damageB. 
 Moiiir-'il Vi/y mid lUMriil Sariif/^ Hani: v. 
 Cuinilii vj l'irlh,:VlV. \\ IS.— C). 1'. D. 
 
 Held, that a plea which, after traversing the 
 pleseiitation of the deljcllture llioilo i:t foi nia, 
 alleged it « as aflerw al'ds paid and was then duly 
 surrendered to the (hfeiidants, was a good plea, 
 as the plaiiitills, hy exceiiting to it, admitted 
 |iayiiHiit ot the principal sum, which would in- 
 clude the iiMiuinal damages, it any, alone reeov- 
 eiahle for its detention, while the surrender of 
 the clehentliie Would slieu that tlu^ [layiiieiit was 
 ill sitisfaetion and dis.haige of the delit, if not 
 ot the damages also; that it was no answer to 
 the plea to say that the surrender hefore the 
 damages were paid was liy lucre oversight and 
 ill olverteii. e so long as it a|ipeareil to he inten- 
 tional ; hut that it would he a gooil answer to 
 say that such delivery was on the express agree- 
 nii lit that tin,' right to damages \ias reserved :- - 
 Held, also, that after f.iihire to make a due pre- 
 sent itioii, there could he no recovery until a de- 
 mand was made for payment, which must he 
 inaile on the defendants, tlshorne r. I'reston Ac 
 I'.erlin K. W. t'o,,!IC. l*. '-Ml and I'cilows r. 
 Ottawa ( las Co., ID C. I'. 174, coniiiieiit.cil upon. 
 Ih. 
 
 The declaration alleged that the defendant 
 laid an inforiiialion that certain h iriiess had heeu 
 stolen hy the plaint itV, whereas the informa- 
 tion proved was ijualilied hy th'.: addition of the 
 wolds "as he supposed" : -Held, no variance. 
 („//„, 7 V. //»■/>■, ;-) A. R. r.71. 
 
 The plaintill' lent I', a sum of money, for se- 
 curing the repayment of which I', gave a chat- 
 tel mortgage on goods which 1'. w:;s to retain 
 possession of, and the defendant executed a hond, 
 comlitioiii'd that in ilefault of payment the goods 
 should he fcutln'omiiig for the [mriM^e of seizure 
 and sale under the niorlgage. llv lore the day of 
 payment arrived the goods were destroyed liy 
 lire, and aiiaction having hceii couiiiu'iiced against 
 the defendant on his houd, he pleaded the fact 
 of such di'stiiietion without any default on his 
 [•art: — Hi'ld, had on demurrer, f-r not negati- 
 ving any default on the part of I'. iCaiiicron, J., 
 ■ disscuting.) iJuMnll v. Sathnliind, S A. It. 2.S3. 
 
 The jilaiiitiir joined issue upon defeiulaiifs 
 pleas, and at the same time tiled a siii.ililer, 
 without a jury notice, for the defendant. After- , 
 wards the detendant tiled a seeoiul similiter, and i 
 with it a jury notice : -Held, tint ilefend.ilit , 
 should have liled a jury notice with his pleas; ; 
 that the lirst similiter was good, that the seeoml 
 
 Set! Crci'/hloH v. Chillick; J S. C. U. .'IIS, p. 1 17 ; 
 Hrvirii v. 'CuKiiIti nf y„rt, S I'. 1!. loii. p. 11125. 
 
 VI. I'a^l ITAlll.ti I'l.KA. 
 
 Declaration upon a promissory note. Third 
 plea, " that the defeiulant made the said uote 
 
4687 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1628 
 
 CS 
 
 m 
 
 8 
 
 Willi ami for tlie (ici'diiiiiKMlation (if oiu) \V. »!., 
 at the ri'(|ui'»t c)t till! |il,iiiiti(lr<, in n'.s|ifct of n 
 jiM^ fxistiiii,' dilil., ihcn iliut to tlic iiliiiiitiU'M, \>y 
 the Niiid W. ('. uiuiic, ami the sai.l iioU: wa'.-* 
 (Irawii pajalik' mi ili'iiiaiiil, witli iiit<i<Nt at ti.'ii 
 JUT cent., and <xii'|)l as aforcttaiil IIrtc was 
 iii'MT any value or cipiinidtiatioii for the iiiakiii;,' 
 or |iayiilelit of the .said iic.lci liy tin' di;ft:iidaiif. ' 
 l''oiiitli ])l('a, on fiiiiitalili' j^roiiiids, that tlie iji,'- 
 fnilaiit made tlie note jointly ami scviially with 
 W. ('. for liis accoinmodalion, and as his siirety 
 only, to sceiire a dcht due to I he plaiiitills, anil 
 tlial after tlie note Ipeemne due the |ilailitill's ).;ave 
 \\ . t'. an extension of time for the iiayineiit of 
 the note: Held, iluit the third plea was good, 
 tor it shewed that no extension of time hail heeii 
 ^;iven, and therelore that there was no uoliside- 
 ration, and that the fourth was not an e(|uitalilu 
 plea, and must hi' ameiidecl hy striking out the 
 Words " upon e((iiilal)le grounds," ami the jury 
 notice, seiv ed with it allowed to stanil. ,!/</•- 
 rliai(ts' Hunk v. /lolniiiiiii, H I'. 11. 117. Daltoii, 
 
 y.c. 
 
 VII. Cos IS. 
 
 A count having lieeii drawn so as to invito a 
 (leTiinrrer the demurrer was overruled without 
 costs. Siiiiih V. Aiiranlir Towiisln'ii, 4.'> Q. I>. 8(i. 
 -Osier. 
 
 Vlll. AmI.ND.MUNT OK 1'|,KAI>1N(JH. 
 
 1. /'iirt!i.s. 
 
 In ejectment the plaintiir olitiiined a verdict, 
 but as the defendant had made iniproveliieiils on 
 the land under iv lioiia fide helief that the land 
 was his own ho was held entitled to the relief 
 given by R. S. (). (IS77) o. <»">, h. 4, and the 
 niastij' in eliaiK'eiy at Ottawa was directed to 
 asciMtain the value of mich iniprovi'ineiits and 
 report thenoii which be did. A rule nisi hav- 
 ing been obtaiiie<l to refer back the report for 
 the roasoiis stali'd, it appeared that after the re- 
 port the di feiidant died intestate, and that no 
 ))ers()nal re|«resc ntative bad been appointei', 
 leaving a widow who was residing on the land 
 in ipiestioii and a son by a former wife hut ;io 
 children by the .second wife, and also tli.it de- 
 feiid.int had .is-iigned all hi.s interest in the sum 
 to be found due for iiii|iroveiueiits to a I ..in so- 
 ciety. The court peiniittcd the pl.iiiitill' to 
 amend his rule nisi by e.illing on the widow or 
 son of the denascd, and on the loan society 
 to shew cause why they should not be ni.ide 
 piicties to tli(! suit and why the fornu^r should 
 mt be appointed under A. .1. Act, 8. !), to 
 repcjsciit tile estate of the defemlant for the 
 purposes of this motion ami all subse<pient pro- 
 ceeuinga in the reference, and why in that 
 event the relief asked by the rule should not bo 
 granted. The rule to lie returnable on fourteen 
 <lay.s' notice before a single judge. McCarthy v. 
 Arhwkle, 'M ( '. 1'. 48.- Osier. 
 
 Leave was granted to amend a declaration 
 where "the ('ominissioners <if the CobourgTown 
 Trust'' wore sued as a corporation. Iiy siilistit.u- 
 tiiii.' the names of the coniiiiissinners. McShnn-i/ 
 v. Ci)iiniii-^t<ioiin->< of the Coliouni 'J'oirn Truxt, 45 
 (,». M. '24(1. y. 15. I>. 
 
 After issue joineil one of two plaintiirs gave 
 to the defendant a release under seal of all ac- 
 
 tions and demiindH. The defendant thcreupnn 
 niovt'd to Ht.iy all proceedings in the suit ; — Held 
 that the drfendant should pleacl tlio release, and 
 that III,' was not entitled to a Htay of pioceeil- 
 ings, and the remaining plaintiir w.is allowed lo 
 strike out the name of the other plaintid". .I/,.. 
 .{(iiiiii V. Ciirlliii/, H I'. K. 17 1. -Osier. 
 
 '2. Othi r CnscK. 
 
 'I'lio plaiiitills applied at the trial to amend 
 their declaration by striking out a term of the 
 bargain therein allegi.'il, but not provecl, that the 
 plaiiitills woiihl sell as muirli of the te.i an tin... 
 could: Meld, an ameiiilinent which wasinipcra- 
 tivo under H, S. O. (1.S77;, e. .'lO, h. '270. Liiiii.s- 
 din V. MfCM, M\(). H. I. (^ 15. I). 
 
 Adding ple.t of fraud, in action against surety, 
 at .second trial. See Villmjr. of (idiiitnoiiiic v 
 SliimUii, I (». K. I, p. 77'.>. 
 
 l'oW(3r of Snpicme ( 'oiirt to allow ainendinent. 
 Suv Smith W'st /Ilium r'o.v. McMillun, ,'{ .S. ( '. 
 U. 7tM); Miioii V. (tiiiiiiclinit Maliuil lAfi. Int 
 Co. of lliiitioid, (i S. ('. H. 0;54. 
 
 I.\. Waivkk ok OnjHcrioNs. 
 
 The obtaining of an ordijr for time to reply 
 waives an objection that no notice to reply wan 
 aervc'd, and takes the plweof such notice. Ijock 
 v. Todd, 8 i'. R. (iO. Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 H<dd, that in this case the did'endant was pre- 
 cluded by having ucc(|)ticl Horvice of the writ 
 with knowledge of certain irriigiilaritics, ;uid de 
 layed moving after the lime for pleading hail 
 o.x'pircil. /iV;/i(irtv. St,iruit,H V. \l. 2!)7. Osier. 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 I'LKADINt; IN K(iUlTY. 
 
 I. lill.l.S. 
 
 1. I'onn of. 
 (a) Mnltifiiruni-iiieH.'^. 
 
 The owner of real estate ilied intestate, and 
 /\., the biisliand of one of his sistcr.H, took pes 
 session of the )iin|ieily and apjiropi iaied to his 
 own use the rents and jnolits theriMil, wlerc- 
 iipoii some of the snr\ iving brothers ami sisters 
 of the intestate lil-il a l>ill agaill^t A., to which 
 they niiule all the next of kin of the intcslate 
 parlii s, calling upon .A. for an account ol rents 
 reeeivid, .■md seeking to restr.iin him fniin 
 further interuieddling tliermvith. The court 
 Spr.igge, ('. , on deinurier by A. liehl the, hill 
 W.IS not multifarious. Yuiimi v. U'lii/ht, '21 
 Chy. :{'24. 
 
 Sec Canijilii'll v. Citiii/iliell, 2!) ('liy. '2'>'2, p. 
 l(i:)l ; (iiiuH V. 7'ni'<t (did Loan Co., '2 O. K. U'J.'i, 
 p. IGI7. 
 
 (b) Certninty and I'arliinilaritij. 
 
 \\\ a liill seeking to obtain tliebonelit of as.ilo 
 of land freed from the dower of the widow "f 
 the deceased owner, it was alleged that he had 
 died at such a time as would, if true, har the 
 widow's right to dower, and snlimilted "' that 
 
 
1628 
 
 1629 
 
 PLEADINQ. 
 
 1630 
 
 P 
 
 tlicr(Mi|)on 
 it:-Hil(l, 
 f lunm;, iiiiil 
 if )Pl(ii;et!il- 
 ivllowoil to 
 iiliir. .l/r- 
 •r. 
 
 to anu^iiil 
 
 II 111 of Ihl! 
 I'll, lllUt tilt! 
 
 I as tlicy 
 wiiH iiiipcrii- 
 -70. LiiiiiK- 
 
 iuiml surety, 
 
 (tlKtllOlllIt' V. 
 
 iinunilim tit. 
 
 I III, :i s. ('. 
 
 Kil Lifi: Int. 
 
 iino to reply 
 to reply was 
 iiotioi). Lo(k 
 
 (laut WHS pre- 
 of tlio writ 
 rilies, anil litv 
 pleailin^j liuil 
 •2l)7.-0.slcr. 
 
 , 1881.) 
 TY. 
 
 intestate, anil 
 tiT.<, took pos 
 i|iriateil to his 
 liereof, wliire- 
 leis anil sisters 
 I A., to wliich 
 f the intestate 
 eoiint of rents 
 aiii him from 
 I. Tin.' eoiirt 
 lieM tlio hill 
 V. W'i'i'.llil, '-'" 
 
 I Chy. -JV:, p. 
 
 >.,2a R. ;j'j;i, 
 
 ulaviiij. 
 
 honelit of a sale 
 f the willow iif 
 oil that he hail 
 I true, liar the 
 iljliiitteii -'that 
 
 the ildfeiiilant I''. II. (llio wiilow) iH not uiititluil the pliiintill' to tho ileeeaseil, anil applii'il liyliini 
 
 to (l()W«!r " : Ht'lil, a Hutliuicnt iilIe;;ation that to the support of his ehihlien, anil that the I'xc- 
 
 the (Icfcnilant's ri^^lit to ilowitr was liarrcil liy eutors might lie ix'straiiieil from p.-iyinj^ over tlii; 
 
 tlii^ statute, tho\|i;li it oinitteil to static that this money. Iiliike, V. ('., iivernileil a ileiniirrer 
 
 was the legal r'esiilt of any partiiiilar statute. ■ Iheretii, iinil umler tins prayer for geiieial leliei 
 
 /{(lilts V. //(//'no//, 27 Cliy. ;M'_'. — Spragge. tfrantcl ailniinistratioM ; llihl, revirsing this 
 
 , I 11 ,.i I , , • . i. (lueision, that miller the lii'i'iiinslanies the plain 
 
 In a III I lileil liv II mortLML'or ai'aiiist Ins Hon, i ,„. „ , , .-ti. i, ,i i. : . . i ._ 
 
 ,.,, ... • , , " "., ■ c ^, 1 .• till wiis not eiititlcil lo tiM iuliniMislriitiiin lUicrise. 
 
 a miller at this sale liy annln-r of the deliin- ,, . „ .,. ,. !• v i^ n- 
 , ^ , -^i 1 • 1 1 II .1 (Itiiii h'lii V. .S/iiir/ii. i) A. K.4I(. 
 
 (1. lilts, a loan eoiiipany, to whieli lull the eoiii- ^ 
 
 paiiy anil one ji. were also ilefenilants, it was; .See '<»//» v. 7'/h<' (/«'/ /yi/au T'o., 'J O. 11. .'HI.'J, 
 aliegi'il tint it hail lieeii agreeil lietweeii the son ■ p. I(il7 ; •/i-"<ii/i v. (Irainl Tnuik II. \V. Co., 1 
 anil l>. tint in eonsiileratioji of tho son seriiring A. I!. I'-'H. 
 
 to 15. a ilelil of the plaintilV, I!, would ailv.meu l 
 
 the deposit noeessary to eiialile the son to Imy 
 
 the land at the salt! ; that the son slioiiM attoinl 
 and liiiy in the land wliieh he aeeordin^ly did ; 
 tliat in eonseipie . e ol r>."» rel'nsil to m.iUi^ the 
 jiioini.'^ed advaiiie tile sun was unalilo to o.irry 
 out the sale; that the liiildin;,' of the son de- 
 terred others present from liiddin;.;, and that li. 
 afterwards privately hoiiglit the land at a yre.it 
 iinilur valuta to the loss of the plaintill: Held, 
 
 2. (.'miH IHll. 
 
 'I'lie oUji.'ct of II oriiss liill ordinarily was tool) 
 tain diseovery on the part of the plaintill' in the 
 cross eaiise to lie used in the original eaiist- ; or 
 ill order to olitain full relief in respeet of the 
 sniijeet matter of litiL^atiiii in the original iMiise. 
 'I'lieiefore, where a hill wa-. tiled to restrain iirlii 
 tiatoi's, on the gioiiiiil of irregularity in Iheir 
 oii (leniiirrer that the liill siiljii'ienlly, thoili;li I appuintnient, from ailing in respeet of matters 
 in irtitioially alleged that liy reason of It.'sagiee- i in dispute lietueen the |ilaintill and defendant 
 iiieiit and refusal to make the advanee ai^reed | eiimpaiiies, and the defiiiilant eoiiip.iny liy their 
 iipiin, \w had oeeasiomd an aliorlivi- sale and answer asked that if the eoiirt entertained the 
 pioliteil therehy to the loss and dam igi> of the j ease it should ali'ord them relief in re.--|ieet of the 
 |ilaiiitill'. ('(iiii/iliiii V. /Iriif/: iiiiili/r, '2S ( 'hy. i matters in dispute lietweeii tin; eoiiipanies : — 
 
 •_'0l. Sprajjge 
 
 The Mil statod tint the pi lintill' was grand- 
 hiili of L., w ho li III died intestate: lleld. that 
 this did not siilliiieiillv st.ale the title of the 
 plaintill'. Liirlu v. \y,iH-r, U'S Chy. 'JKl. - 
 
 Spraggo. 
 
 .\ railway eompaiiy paid to tenants for life the 
 full pi'ieo of the land iiinviyed liy them to the 
 coiniMiny for their line of railway, aiiii on the 
 cesser of th's life-estate the parties entitled in 
 remainder tiled a liill slating tliat the railway 
 eiiinpany assumed to purchase the lands for the 
 right of way; that the company alleged that 
 they had ]iaid tin; full ciinsiileiMtiuii for the land 
 til the tiMianIs for life ; siilimilting that if tlu' 
 oiiinpany did make sncii payment they did so in 
 their own wrong, and askinj; for payment of the 
 plaintill's share of the |iiiicliase money ; Held, 
 (l)tliat the word "assumed" was a sullicieiit 
 allog.ition of the fa't of sale and i;on\ ey.inre. 
 I'liil ('J), that the stat.nient that the eompany 
 "allogiMl" that the pinch ise money was all paid 
 to the vendors was not such a positive slatcinent 
 of llio fact of payment to the tenants foi- life as 
 to make them jiropcr parties to the hill, and a 
 deimirror was allowed on this ground. Oir.iitiu. 
 V. (.'rami Trunk- I!. 11'. Co., 'J.S Chy. 4-JS.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 ((•) I'yrn/ir/or Giiicrnl JMief, 
 
 If tlio allegations in a liill statoaoaao entitling 
 a party to i\ lief, ho may iiuilci- thegcniMal prayer 
 have it, though his Hpecitie prayer may have lieeii 
 for other riilief ; Init a pl.iintitl' cmnot take .id- 
 vanl;ige of the amliigiiity of his own pleidiug 
 80 as to claim upon i'.iets stated in tlio hill alio 
 intuitu, a relief entirely foreign to llio sci)|)e of the Division (Jourt for payment of suoli asses.s 
 
 lleld. that this was not the proper otiict! of ji 
 cross hill, and therefore could not ho sot up as a. 
 snliject of cross relief hy the answer. Direct, 
 CiOilf Co. V. Ddiiiiiiloii J'( lii/nijili, Co., '2S Oliy. 
 l)4«. - I Hake. 
 
 II. PAliriKS. 
 
 I. MisiiDiiiir of J'urtitf,t. 
 
 See Cmiid ./niidinii I'. II'. Co. v. MUl/aiiU Jl. 
 \y. Co., 7 A. U. OSl, |i. |-J,-i7. 
 
 '2. I'lr-'iiiii ■Siiiiiij (III liilialf of (I CIhuh. 
 
 Where a suit is institiitod by a judgmont 
 cri'ililor. who h.is not jilacod an oxoeution against, 
 lands in the hands of the sliorill', in ordor to Hot 
 iisiih' a deed as fraudulent, ho must, .sue on bo- 
 half of nil oreditors of the defend int, and this 
 fact that the deed was made by a thi.'d party in 
 cimsideration of iiionoy paid hy the debtor iloea 
 mil alter the rule of pleading in this respect. 
 .Moriihij \-. ITfAvoH, •■'7 Chy. 1.— Spraggo. 
 
 Where a right of suit exists in a body of jier- 
 soiis too nuiiicrous to be all made parties, tho 
 court will permit one or nioro of them to suo oil 
 behalf of all, subject to the restriction that the 
 relief [irayoil is one in which tho [liiitios whom 
 the plaiiilitV jirofossos to roiireseiit Invo all of 
 them an interest iilontioal « Uli that of tlio plain- 
 till'. I'.ut where a mutual iiisuruneo ci)m[)any 
 had establisbod tliroo distiiiet branchos, in one 
 of which, the water- works branch, the plaintill' 
 injured, giving his promisso'y note or undor- 
 takiic III [lay S^UiS, and the ooinpany mado an 
 assossinont on all note:) and threatened suit iu 
 
 the bill. Tho bill, w hicli w as I'ded against the 
 cxeimtorsof (".,S., his widow and eliildrttn, pr.iyod 
 that tho proeeods of an insuranco policy which 
 had beon cU'eotod by the doccasod for bis wife 
 and children should bo subjected iu the bands of 
 the executors, to tho payment of nioiioys lout by 
 
 mcut, whercuiion the pliinliU' tiled a bill "on 
 behalf of liiniself and tho other polioy-holdors 
 associated with liiiu as hereinafter moutionod," 
 alleging the eoiupaiiy was about to suo luni ami 
 the otTicr piilicy-hoklor.s in said branch, that 
 largo losses had occurred iu the company prior 
 
 t| 
 
1631 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1632 
 
 88 
 
 8!; 
 
 < 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 to till! time I'f liin <(r»'ctiiif< liirt iiiMiiiiiiicc, and] 
 iiiHJKtiii^ lliut III' anil tlio otliiT pnlicy IihIiIiih 
 <;(ililil Ik; projirrly hhho-hi'iI tinly in irHprct nf 
 Hiirli liiKsrs .'iH hail iiriHcn niiwo tlii'y cntciiil llir 
 (■i)ni|iiiny. iin>l |iraying tliiit the neerHKaiy ini|Ui- 
 rieis ini^lil lie niaile luii! iircoiintH taken, .illigin^' 
 that the IMvision CinirtH hail not the niacliiniiy 
 fur that plli|iiiHe : Held, that aeeniding to the 
 Htatenient.s of the hill, the poliey hiihleri in the 
 water-works luiuieh were not ^epre^entell in the , 
 unit, anil a deninrrer on that ;;roMn<l tiled liy the 
 eoinpany was allowed with eostM. 'I'/huh-oii v. 
 Viftoria Miiliiiit Fin- Jiii'. Co., 'JO Chy. .")((.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 'I'he plaint ill' tiled her hill for alimony, alle^^ln;; 
 that a i!oiiHp|rai y had heen entered into hetNM-en 
 livr hnsliaiid and the other defendant to prevent 
 her reali/iri'.' any alimony that mij^dit he awardeil 
 her, ami that for that purpose her husliand 
 frandnlently lenviyid all his laniU to tlu^ eo- 
 defendant, and the hill prayed to have sneli I'on- 
 veyanee diilaied frandnleiil. The >;rantee in 
 the iinpearhi d eon veyaiiee ileinni reil I'or niidti- 
 farioiisnes.s, lor want of ei|iMty, and want of 
 piirtit'H. 'I'lie I unit (Itoyd, ('. ) ovrrrideil tlie 
 ilonnirrer on tlie tir.st two ^loiimls, liut allowid 
 tliu deinnrrer for want of parties; the |)laintill 
 not havin;^ recovered jiidynn'nt .■mil exeentinn, 
 eoiild only sue in a. representative e.i|iaiity 
 that is on liehalf of her.-elf and all other ereiii- 
 tors. Lonireway r. Mitelnll, 17 <'hy. |!)l) ; 
 Turner r. .Smith, 'J(i ( 'hy. I'.tS ; ( 'nlver <■. .Sway/e, 
 •-'(i Chy. :«».■., and Morphy r. Wilson, -JT L'hy. I, 
 eonsidered and followed. Cdiiij'liiJl v. ('niiijilif U, 
 •Jfl ('hy. 2.V2. 
 
 See Ci/i/ Liijlil and lltatiinj Co. v. Marjie, 'JS 
 Chy. 3«3,' p. lOa-i. 
 
 .'). lluxhartl iiitii Wife. 
 
 In a bill the style of cniiso named several | 
 females as beinj; severally wives of their resjiee- 
 tive husbands, hut the stating part of the lidl 
 did not allej^e that they were married; a do- i 
 niurrer on the f^round that their husbands wore i 
 not named as paities was overruled with costs. ; 
 Weh>itti-\. h'lix. 'JS Chy. 4/1. — I'roudfoot. i 
 
 In aj)plii."ition for injunction in respect of 
 wife's property. See Jlalhairai/ v. JJoiij, A. 
 R. 264, y. <J24. 
 
 4. Other PernouK. 
 
 To an information alleging that the liridgc 
 erected by the International IJriilge Company 
 constituted a nuisance, .a railway company who 
 had become lessees of the bridge were held to 
 be proper parties. Atlorniy-fi) iiiirl v. Inlcriui- 
 lional Jhidi/i Co., 27 Chy. 'M. — ISlake. 
 
 The lessees of a railway having been made 
 parties to the bill, the court under the facts 
 statetl in the report of this case refused relief 
 against them with costs to be paid by the lessor 
 company. Cmiitri'ii v. \Vifliiiijli>ii Cny and 
 lirmc J!. W. Co., 27 Cliy. 95.— rroudfoot. 
 
 The rule of cfpiily is that if any person not 
 made a party to the suit be a necessary jiarty in 
 respect of any part of the relief iirayed by the 
 bill, it is ground of demurrer. Where, there- 
 fore, a bill was tiled against the Domiuiou Tele- 
 
 graph Co., seeking to n^strain that eoinpany 
 fioni carrying out an agreement for tin' tranxfi'i 
 of tele;;raphie messages to the Ainirieuii InioM 
 Telegiaph Company, on the grouinl that hikIi 
 agieement was in lontrinention of an ai,'reenieiit 
 |)ri'v i'lusly entered mlo between the plamtiir .ind 
 defemlant companies fur nnitual exclusive cum- 
 met ions and exchange of telegraphic liusinesM, 
 without maUiiig the .American Union ( 'ompanv 
 a party, a demurrer for want of p.irlies on lliai 
 account was allowed, with costs. Allunlif iiml 
 I'diijii- '/'( /ii/iiiji/i Co. V. hominivu TetiyniphCi)., 
 27 tiiy. ')!'•-'. Spragge. 
 
 A deiiinricr to a bill tiled by HhareholdcrH of 
 an inenrpor ited company on behalf of thiiii. 
 Selves and all other sliaieholders except the de- 
 fendants, in which lliceiimpany were joined ,is 
 CD- plaint ill's, at tack i Ml,' a t ransacljon whcrchy all 
 the shareholders, including someof those wlioin 
 the jilaintill's a-suuicd to represent, reeiivcil 
 sharc-i in the transaction sought to he impeached. 
 «as allowed. I'l/i/ l/njlil lunl /t'.iliih/ (J.i, ,,/ 
 I. Olid. Ill v. .Miii-li' , -S < hy. ;>ii;i. - lilake. 
 
 To ji bill by a rural school section corporal ion 
 to compel tlic iMunicip ility to make gi>i,i| nioni'\ 
 |iaid by the muiiicipalily to a pci'soii allcgcil uul 
 to be the duly appointed otiicer of tlie corpora- 
 tiiin, the treasurer of the municipaliiy is nut a 
 propel' part V. .N'c/c"// '/'/'»>7m .<(//' //(.■ I'uicmliiji 
 nf' //"iiid/oii V. A'-//, 2.S Chy. 4(KS. I'roinlfoei. 
 
 In a suit to set aside the noiiiiu itinii by the 
 dcfcnd.'Uits of ail arbitrator on hclialf of the 
 plaintitls for irrcgiilaiily in such noiidiiation:— 
 Held, that the arliitraloi's being ncccssiiy pai- 
 tiis and the defendants resident in tliiscountiy, 
 the ai'biti'.'ilois, though resident out of the jiiris- 
 dietioii, were properly niaile defendants tii the 
 bill. Diiurl Cidilr di. \. I luiiiiiiiiiii 'J'cli'irdiili 
 
 Co., 2SChy. (J48. ~l!lak<'. 
 
 Where proceedings wryi: taken agaiint sure- 
 ties without joining their principal : Ibid, that 
 the plaint ill's cnulil not proceed against the sure- 
 ties alone if they reiiuired the joinder of the 
 principal in order that they might have their 
 remedy over against him. A'.er/iKy/;/' Hunk v. 
 .S/iriiii/i r ; .Sinin- ^'l(lilllil^■^ v. liiiniis, 2!) t.'liy. 270. 
 -Chy. 1). 
 
 When; a bill was liled by v creditor to vacate 
 a deed of eoinpo>ition and discharge, where the 
 di.seliarge had been obtained by a Iraudulent 
 concealment of assets : — Held, that the assignee 
 ill insolvency «as not a necessary party. .Mi(!n' 
 V. Cuiiijihrl/', 2t). K. im -Chy.'l). 
 
 See Oir^tuii V. (li-ttiid Tiinih II. 11'. Co.. 2S 
 Chy. 42S, p. lO'J'.l; Mi-l.i-on v. />'(•»'•(■, 2!) Chy. 
 007, p. ItilM. 
 
 G. Addlnij Piir/ir.s in J/af/ir's' Ojlirr. 
 
 Certain machinery was placed in a factory on 
 the premises in i|Uestion, some before and some 
 after the execution ol the mortgage to t he lilaiii- 
 tills ill 1S74. The mortgagiu', the defendant, 
 had no interest lo any ol tlie machiiieiy at the 
 date of the mortgage to the ]iliuiitiir, liavini,' pn'- 
 viously sold out to one Abel, but afterwards he 
 became solely entitled to all of it, ami he then 
 executed a chattel mortgage of the .same to the 
 I'arry Sound Liiiiiber Comiiany. On the refer- 
 ence under the decree obtained by the plaiiitilia 
 
 ■ I 
 
1632 
 
 ri)in|iaiiy 
 !!• Iriiiisfci 
 I'lili I'liioii 
 tliat HiH'li 
 ni.'i(^i'iiiciit 
 uiiitiU'iuKl 
 
 hiMlVl) riiii 
 IpllsilK-ld, 
 
 I I 'iim|i,uiy 
 
 (Ml tlllll 
 IhniHr milt 
 'Ji-'ijili C'..., 
 
 •clldlilc'IS 111 
 
 f 111 lllclll 
 •|M till! llf- 
 jllllll'il ,'I.S 
 
 will riliy, 'ill 
 llip~r » linlll 
 
 ITlJliVdl 
 
 iii|ii'ai'lu!il, 
 ''■/(■/ C". 11/ 
 
 riii'|lonilli)li 
 
 iillr;;iMl uo'l 
 .111' ciprpuni- 
 liiy 11 imt a 
 '(' l'uirii<liiji 
 
 I'lOllllfoill. 
 
 itiim liy tliu 
 
 ll'ilHlf lit tllL' 
 
 )iiiiii.itii)ii; — 
 'ci's.s.iiy |iar- 
 Itliisi'ipiiiiti-y, 
 , of till! jiiris- 
 (huiU Id l\w 
 in Teliiji'iijili 
 
 ngiiiiHt Hurc- 
 : llrlil.thut 
 iiist llic stiie- 
 liiiilci- ot till' 
 t liiivi! liiuir 
 
 lll/r llilllk V. 
 
 ,-i!)(-:iiy. --'70. 
 
 itor ti> vacate 
 l;i.', wlii'i'd tlie 
 a Iraiiiluloiit 
 I tlic assi^'iiee 
 ,)aily. Midie 
 
 {. W. f.'o., 28 
 ntce, 'I'J C;iiy. 
 
 ,-'.1 0//(.v. 
 
 1 a factory ou 
 fiifc and somo 
 ■y. to till' jilain- 
 lie ilffciiilaiit, 
 cliiiiiiy at tiie 
 II', liaviiiL!liic- 
 aftiiwaril.s lai 
 ;, anil lie then 
 If sanio to tlif. 
 On tlie refur- 
 ' the jihiintitlii 
 
 1633 
 
 PLEADING. 
 
 1634 
 
 the iniiMler tiiiuli; thd liniilx'i' <'iini|iaiiy ('aitli'tuM 
 hiiliHi'iineiit eneuinltnuiceiH : ilchl |a>Mniiiiiig 
 tilt' Mliirhillt'iy oi' HoMie iHiilimiM (it It to lie tnule 
 lixtlll'i'H li'MioViilile iiH lietweeii liuiilloiil ami teii- 
 alitl, til it the iiiarhiuriy or hihIi |)'ii'tiiinN afore 
 huiii will II iu'i|iiil'<'<l liy the liioi t;^agiir, woiiM ^o 
 to inl'^l'a^e the iihiintill'iH xeiiirily ami that tlieie 
 fore till' master wiih i'i;;lit In inakiii^ the liiinlnr 
 eoni|>iiiiy partieH hh HiiliHei|nent eiieiiniliruneeiH. 
 I^iiinliiii itiiil (-'(iiiiiilidii l.iiiiii ili\ I'll. V. I'lilj'ord, 
 H I'. K. l.")0. I'roiiilfoot. 
 
 Ill |>i'(ieee(Uii){ upon a reference tiniler a iluerue, 
 tiie iiiaHter I'liiinot iinih r tlie (ieiieral OnlerH 'J 1 1, 
 '24.'>, (Coll. KiileM 4ti, 47) orilera prr.-ion to lie niaile 
 a party to the suit n^aiiiKt n liom any relief Ik 
 xoii){ht ; ami w liere in proi'iciliiiir niiiler a ilei ree 
 fur t he iiiliiiiniNtrat ion of a tentatorxi Mtale, the 
 niaxti'i' ilirerti'il one I)., \\ ho hail lieeii ill pai'lner- 
 >.\\'\\> with the te.it iti>r up to the time of lii.s ihalli, 
 to lie iiiaiie a party, ami n'i|iiii iiii.' him \\ itii the 
 exeentor.s to lirin'4 in iimh r oath an iireniint of 
 the partni'iHiiip iIi'.iIIiil!-., aL,'aiiiMt whiili I), .ip 
 pealeil, the eoiirt (I'romlfoot. \ . ('. ) : llelil, 
 the oliject of inakiii'.^ I >. a party u'a.s for the piir- 
 piwe I'ither of reliil or iliseovery, anil in eilln r 
 vieu the plailitill eoiihl not olitain it in tliii 
 mode of jiioceeding, as I)., solar as iliseoveiy 
 was eomerned, eoiilil only he le^ardi'd as a wit- 
 ness, lliijiiiir V. lliii risiiii, 'JH I'iiy. '2'2. 
 
 ISefoi'u a ledeinption suit one of tlie liiortga- 
 fftv'n Hiii'viviii;^ ehiliiren died an infant and int> h- 
 tilte :- Held, that this suit elinnd to the lieiielit 
 (if those entitled to hir share, ineliiilin<; her 
 mother as tenant for life, ninlei K. .S. ( (. (IS77), 
 c. lU.'i, H. 'J7, and Held, also, that the mother 
 HJioiihl lie diieeted to lie made a party in the 
 master's ollii.'e under (i. (). A'M (('on. Rule .'!<l(i), 
 siliee the prisseiit ease did not fall under the 
 .hidi'-atiire Aet. Si inhle, if nndir that .\et the 
 Haine might have In i n ilireited nniler lliile S\\ 
 (Coll. Unle ;J0()). /■'inilil.i v. //,u/iii\ '_» ( ). II. 
 40"). C'hy. 1). 
 
 See //(// V. Ml )t/iiiiiIs' imil, Mniiiijai/iiriri' 
 his. dii., '2iS Cliy. ;')(>(), p. i)77 ; Dufw Cmiudiitn 
 Mutual Ins. Co., G .\. I!. •-'.•!S, p. i)77. 
 
 III. Sfl'IM.K.MKNT.M. AnSWKI!. 
 
 The hill alleged that defendant liad given the 
 plailitill' eertain notes on aeeonntof the purchase 
 money of a ves.sel, and a niurtgage on the vessel 
 as eollateral seeiinty. I lefeiidant's answer tiled 
 ill NoveiiiKer, adinitlid this allegation, which 
 wa.M denied hy his eo-defendaiit. In .March he 
 applied for liavt: to lile a siH)|ih mental answer, 
 withdiaw iiig his admission, and setting np tliat 
 the liot'S Were given for [ilaiiitill's acciiinnioda- 
 tion, and denying tin. alleg.itinn as to the mort- 
 gage. His altidavit stated that he had foigot- 
 leii the facts, which iKjeiiried solium yens .since, 
 when he swore to his aiiswi'i', and he only le- 
 liieiiiliered them on lia\ iiig a conversation with 
 his eo defendant. The ap|ilicat ion was refused. 
 liiiilil V. Wiin, t> 1'. i!. ;i'JO -^tepllells, Hijc.rec — 
 lUake. 
 
 A decree which had hecii made against several 
 ilofeiidaiits, one of them. A., being ailministr.itor 
 ad litem of a defendant who h.id died liefoie 
 answer was\aeated as to defendant 1!. and leave 
 given him to lile a siippleineiital answer and 
 
 103 
 
 have a new hearing of the i aiLse. Siilmi'i|ii( ntly 
 ('. who had siiici. the decree and hefoir lli.. ap 
 peal III en appointnl a<liiilliiHtrator ill place of A. 
 who dill! alli r (hcie(., appliol tor le.ue to lile 
 an aiiswei setting up defences wlinh his preile 
 ceHMir had omitted. It Was hlicu n thai he had 
 lieeii iippoinlf'.l pro forma to represent the estate ; 
 that no proecciiings in ajipi al had liceii served 
 upon him, and that no further reliel wan soiight 
 llgaiiist the estate. '1 he referee granted the have 
 nuked : Held, atlil'iniiig t he oiilerof rroiidfont, 
 V. ('., thai the \acation of the deen !• against II. 
 dill not, under the circiimslaiues, open ii|i the 
 decree as against the deceased defendant's estate, 
 and that the referee had, ihi'ielore, no power li> 
 allow ('. to lile a snppleiiu ntal answer. I'llii 
 Un V, Ml fill 'am, (i A. H. -.'.J. 
 
 IN'. I)i;mi i;ki;ii. 
 I. /•''<;■ W'nul (if I'l'inily. 
 
 Where eerlaiii sharehoidei's ill a eompaiiy 
 jiiined with the eonipany as plaint ills as a pre- 
 eaiilioiiaiy imasiire ineiily in case it sliuuhl 
 transpire that their eoplaintills, the eoinpany, 
 weie not entitled or were unwilling to HUe, tlio 
 eourt (I'dake, V'.C), iefll>ed to allow a ilelliurier 
 for Want of eipiity, us the ohjection was purely 
 of a formal nature. ('(/// /.iij/it niul Hia/iiii/ Ci>. 
 iij' Lnnilon v. Mitijif, 'JS t hy. .'{li.'J. -IJoyd. 
 
 The plaiiitilVs A. and .1. tiled a hill for the pur- 
 pose ot having a deed iii.ide to the ilefeiidant liy 
 .). declared void, as having hem olitained hy 
 frau<l and misre|)resrntalioii. The hill alleged 
 tliat.l. had siilisi ijiiently made a deed of the same 
 property to .\., for the purpose of remedying, uh 
 far as he could, the wrong hi' lind done hy con- 
 veying to the deteiiilaiit, the hill alUgingtliat 
 such deed to ,\. was made to him "as Irnstiefor 
 the heirs of A. M., " who had died seized. Tho 
 hill in no plaei' alleged that A. was triiste'', hut 
 ill the lollowing |iaragiapli it wiih stated that 
 " hifore the exceiitioii ni sncli last mentioned 
 deed the lieirs of the siid A. .M., who are the 
 rightful owners of the said land, ' ete. : Held, 
 that iiotw ilhstanding the aliseine of finy express 
 uUcgation of .\. lieing smh trustee, siillicient was 
 stated to shew that he had aceeptel the oliieeof 
 trustee, and as such was entitled to litigate the 
 snhject matters of the lull, and a dciiiiirier for 
 want of cipiity w.is overruled with costs. A 
 deiiiuirer ore tentis for iiii--ioindcr of plainlill's, 
 it a|i[uaring hy the hill tint. I. had no iiitiivst 
 in the (|Uestioii r.iiscd, was allowed, without 
 costs. Koclie i\ .Jordan, "JO Chv. o7.'i, loll. .wed. 
 Mcl.iiin v. Hruir, -Ji) thy. .")07.- - lilake. 
 
 Sec Allnniiii-ilaii fill v. /ntrrnutionul Hiidiji- 
 
 Co., •-•7 (hy. ;t;, p. 1010. 
 
 •2. C'hir f'dsr.v. 
 
 On the argiinieiit ol a d- mm rei':in> document, 
 refi ru d to iiuist he taken to lie truly st.iled, and 
 e.innot 
 
 ' e.innot he Linked at to contiadict or alter tho 
 aViiinenls in the pleading, even tlinugii there is 
 a lelereiice to the iiistrunienl for gr, ater eer- 
 t liiity as to its eoiileiils. Jjuiiiiliiiul v. .Sliililis, 
 •_'7 Chy. .SS7.— Piomlfoot. 
 
 The liiU alleged that the miiiiici|al rouncils 
 of the rusiieelivc eoipoiations had adopted and 
 

 4^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 j's 
 \ 
 
 vV 
 
 ^ 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 f/. 
 
 
 2e 
 
 1.0 !f ia I 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.5 
 
 •^ 1^ ill 2.2 
 
 H: 1^ 12.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 L25 |U 1.6 
 
 
 < 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STReiT 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 \ 
 
 iV 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 ^ X. <5^K\ 
 
 

 f/. 
 
 J 
 
1635 
 
 PLEDGE. 
 
 1699 
 
 a: 
 I 
 
 sanctioned certain terms and conditions for divi- j 
 ding and settling tiie several liabilities and assets ! 
 of the cor|]oniUon, upon tlieir separating, and ' 
 that both parties accepted such settlement as a 
 final settlement between tliem, and acted there- 
 upon:— Held, on demurrer, tliat it was not ne- 
 cessary to allege that such acceptance was by 
 by-law; altliongli :— Sendjle, that at the hearing 
 it might be necessary to establish that such was : 
 the fact. The Villain' of Granoihurst v. The\ 
 Toii'ii^liil, of MnxkohW, -"J "Chy. 4?!).— Boyd. | 
 
 A bill alleged that a mortgage was executed 
 by VV. to the defendant in con; i' r.^fionof ii^-luO ; 
 that the defendant .ndvaiiced o • $i'0 thereon, 
 and W. being eutitkil to recc.vj the balance, 
 assigned such right and conveyed his e((uity of 
 red.'mption to tlie piainti'I's, that ',';e \:ieiulant 
 ri'fu-sed to pay the lialaiu'C, and clai' ed ' > hold 
 the mortgage as so^ iirity for !»i50 ' " .i"uyer 
 was for specific ))Lrfornhin''e oi' ill U: . rnative 
 a declaratiui; of the above facts am' 'c ,'jueral 
 relief. At the hearing the judge a;l a/ed a 
 demurrei' ore tenus on tlie ground that an agree- 
 ment to len<l money could not be siieeitically 
 performeil : — Held, reversing this judgment tluit 
 upon the facts alleged in the bil', namely, that 
 the mortgage was being held for more tlum iiad 
 been advanced tliereon, and therefore to that 
 extent formed a cloud on th" title, the plaintiU' 
 would be entitled to a declaration to that effect 
 and apiuopriate relief, aiul as the demurrer j 
 admitted the truth of the allegation, it should 
 have been overruled. CulveH v. liariihinn, (i 
 A. H. \i-10. I 
 
 'riie defendants set up by way of defence and 
 as a ground of demurrer to the plaintiffs' bill, 
 to restrain proceedings by the alleged arliitra- 
 tors, the ]iendency of another action in New 
 York for the same purpose ; but : — Held, that '. 
 this could only form iv ground for application to i 
 stay ]ii'oceedings, f>r to compel the plaintitl's to 
 elect between the two tribunals ; and, .Semble, 
 that under the circuinstanoes set out in the 
 report of the case, it oonld not be taken advan- 
 tage of in any way. Dirrcl Uiiilnl Shiti:--<Valilt 
 Co. ( l/iiiiil'' I ) V. J>ominliin T'lei/raph Co. of, 
 Ciii.iida, 8 A. U. 4I() ; 28 C'hy. (148. ; 
 
 See Siirwrii/hf v. Laj^, 28 Chy. 498, p. 72!l ; 
 Atlantic mill I'lirilic 'J'llnjraiih Co. v. Dominhm 
 ■l\' n.-''r.h. Co., 27 Chy. i)!i2, \). W.M : City l.hjht \ 
 and // '-liini Co. of Lomlou v. Mwji'', 28 Chy. 
 3();i, p. 1 i.32. j 
 
 V. Effect of Admissions. 
 
 K. carrying on the trade or calling of a dealer 
 in pictures and photographic business, sold out 
 such business to W., and by the agreement 
 covenanted "not to open or start a retail and 
 ])hotograi)liic business of a similar character " in 
 the city of Toronto for live years. V>y a subse- 
 quent agreement the first was modilied, so as to 
 allow K. to sell in any manner to persons reaid- 
 in" <mt of Toronto, and to sell retail in Toronto, 
 on allowing W. a. percentage on the prices 
 roalizeil. W. tiled a bill alleging that E. bad, 
 prior to such second agroement, sold goods in 
 contravention of the first agreement, and had 
 8ul)se(iuently sold to a large amount, and prayed 
 an account and payment of his percentage. The 
 court (Sprag^^e, C.) being of opinion that such 
 
 second agreement had been executed for a valu- 
 able consideration, granted the decree as asked 
 and directed the acccniiit to be taken by the 
 master, although the answer professed to state 
 the actual amount of sales, and on the motion 
 for decree had been read as evidence for the 
 lilaintiff. Wtiliamton v. Ewimj, 27 Chy. o'Jtl.— 
 iSpraggc. 
 
 VI. Amendment. 
 
 Although according to the ruling in Adanison 
 r. Adamson, 2.') Chy. r>o2, a plaintiff will not be 
 allowed to amend so as to set U]) a title acquired 
 after the liling of the bill, yet where by error in 
 the conveyance the west instead of the east half 
 of the lot was conveyed, it would seem (per 
 I'roudl'oot, V. C. ) that it would not be any 
 infringement of that iide to allow an amei'.d- 
 ment setting up the fact that since the liling of 
 the bill the error had been corrected by ;i new 
 conveyance, ami making the necessary ainend- 
 ments in the bill in accordance therewith. 
 Duiiililr V. Ijaviish, '21 Chy. 187. 
 
 The i)roposed amendments of the bill were set 
 out substantially in the order for the injunction 
 which was served : — Held, that, as the defen- 
 dant hail thcrcliy notice of the proposed amend- 
 ments, the objection that the amended bill had 
 not been served was not entitled to prevail. 
 Toylor v. JIiill, 20 Chy. 101.- Ferguson. 
 
 PLEDGE. 
 
 1. Ok SrorK -.SV« 15rokeii. 
 
 II. Coi.i.ArKK.M, .Skcubitv — i'ee Collat- 
 r.UAi. Seiiiiitv. 
 
 The plaintitf transferreil a covetiant for the 
 payment of S4,()()0, executed by fmir persons in 
 ids favour to the defendant by an absolute assign- 
 ment, as sei'urity for .':r2,(IO0 ; the defendantgiv- 
 iuL; to the iilainliir a sepaiate agiecment, to '" re- 
 assign" on imynn.'iit of the loan and interest. 
 On a bill to obtain a reassignment alleging that 
 KUih loan hail been repaid, the com t iSpragge, 
 C. 1 made a ilecree for redemption in favour of the 
 ])laintill' with costs ; thedelendant having setup 
 a claim to be entitled to hold the security as ah- 
 s<dute purchaser thereof. Liriujstoii v. Wooit, 
 27 ('hy. 51").— Si)iagge. 
 
 H. , who was the principal owner of the .South 
 Eastern ItaiKvay Company, was in the habit ot 
 mingling the nujneys of the com])any with his 
 own. He bought locomotives which were deliv- 
 ered to, and used openly and i)ublicly by, the 
 railway comiiany as their own pro[ierty for sev- 
 eral years. In. January and ^lay, ISS.'l, I!., hy 
 documents .soici "chiil /irivij, sold with the con- 
 dition to deliver on demand, ten of these hico- 
 molive engines to K. et al., the appellants, to 
 guarantee them against an endorsement of his 
 notes for !?.")(),000, but reserved the right on pay- 
 ment of said notes or any renewals thereof to 
 have saiil locomotives redelivereil to him. B. 
 having become insolvent, V. et al. , by then' 
 action directed against H., the South Eastern 
 R. W. Co. and ii. et al,, trustees of the com- 
 
 ^9 
 
1636 
 
 ted for a valu- 
 icree aa asked, 
 taken l)y tlio 
 eased to state 
 i)U the motion 
 ideiiee for tlie 
 27 Chy. 5'JG. — 
 
 ig in Adunisoii 
 tiir will not l)e 
 I title acquired 
 ere by error in 
 if the east half 
 nlil soeni (|ier 
 I not l)e any 
 )W an anie'ul- 
 i:e the tiling of 
 i;ted l)y a new 
 ;essary amend - 
 lee therewith. 
 
 lie liill were set 
 theinjunetion 
 as tlie defen- 
 ii]i(ised atnend- 
 ■nded bill ha.l 
 ill to prevail, 
 jrguson. 
 
 -See. CoLLAT- 
 
 b'cnant for the 
 nr persons in 
 )solnteassign- 
 lefendantgiv- 
 mcnt, to '■ re- 
 and interest. 
 t allej^ing that 
 inrt (Spragge, 
 n favour ot the 
 t having set up 
 .security as ah- 
 
 ■■ilOll V. WdOtl, 
 
 V of the Soutli 
 11 the habit oi 
 laiiy with his 
 ic:h were deliv- 
 bliely by, the 
 iperty for sev- 
 ■, l,S(i;!, li., by 
 with the eon- 
 of these loco- 
 appellants, to 
 seinent of his 
 i right on pay- 
 als thereof to 
 d to him. li. 
 al., by their 
 South Kasteru 
 3 of the com- 
 
 1637 
 
 POLICE MAGISTRATE. 
 
 tm 
 
 paiiy under 43-44 '''ict., chap. -19 (Que.), asked 
 lor the delivery of the locomotives which were 
 at the time in the open possession of the South 
 Kasteru Kail way Company, unless the defen- 
 dants paid the amount of their debt. B. did not 
 plead. The Soutli Kastern Railway Company 
 and R. et al. , as trustees, pleaded a general 
 denial, and during the proceedings O'H. tiled 
 an intervention, alleging he was a judgment cre- 
 ditor of H. , notoriously insolvent at the time of 
 making the alleged sale to K. : — Held, atiirming 
 llid judgment of the court below, that the traiis- 
 aetion with 15. only amounted to a pledge not 
 accompanied by delivery, aiul, therefoie, F. et 
 al. were not entitled to the possession of the 
 locomotives as against eieditorsof the company, 
 ami that in any case they were not entitled to 
 the property as against O'li., a judgment cre- 
 ditor ot B., an insulvciit. Fdirbaiiks V. Barloir, 
 14 S. C. U. '217. 
 HeeJiiish v. Fry, 15 (). U. 122, p. 745. 
 
 POLICE. 
 
 I. COM.MISSIONEKS OF I'OLIOK, 1637. 
 11. C0NSTABLE-~6\e CoNSTAULK. 
 
 I. COM.MISSIONEIW OK POLICE. 
 
 Powers of commissioners of police of a town 
 to appoint chief of police with a stipulation that 
 he should act as county constable and a further 
 stipulation as to fees. See Town of iSlratJ'urd, 
 v. WiUoii, 8 (). R. 104, p. 2!)8. 
 
 Power of commissioners as to regulating and 
 licensing owners of cabs. See liegiua v. Heeves, 
 1 0. U. 4U0, p. 211. 
 
 POLICE MAGISTRATE. 
 
 1. Arl'OtNT.MKNT, 1637. 
 1 1. J URISDICTIO.V AN U Tin ALS BkFOUI!. 
 
 1. (leiiefdlly, 1038. 
 
 2. Under IlicCiiuiida Teiiiiniraiicc Aet. - 
 
 See InTO.XIOATI.M! LlQlIllUS. 
 
 111. J tlSTlOE Ol' Ttil£ PEACK--/(5'(;c' JUSTIUK Of 
 lllE PliACK. 
 
 I. AlTOINTMENT. 
 
 The court declined to hear discussed the 
 cpii'stion whether the police magistrate in this 
 case, if appointeil only by the Ontario govern- 
 ment, was legally or valiilly appointed, as his 
 appointUK'iit should have been by the Dominion, 
 the patent bj the Ontario government oily 
 being produced, and it not appearing that no 
 c'oniuiissioii by the Dominion had issued to him, 
 nor that any search or enquiry h:id been made 
 at the proper otlicc as to tlie fact, the only other 
 eviilenee as to the aiq-oiii'inent, besides the 
 mere production of the Ontario patent, being 
 the defendant's allidavit stating that the magis- 
 trate had no autlioi ity or apnoiiitment from the 
 Crown or tiovernoi-tJeneral of the Dominion, 
 
 and that he knew this "of common and 
 notorious report." Reijiim v. Richardson, 8 O. 
 H. (i.-.l.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Wilson, C. J., the pov/er to appoint 
 police magistrates rests with the Ontario gov- 
 ernment. Uichardsnn v. limixom, 10 O. I!. 
 387. 
 
 Held, that the appointment of police magis- 
 trates is not ultra vires the legislature of Ontario. 
 Regina r. Bennett, 1 0. 15. 445, followed. Ke<iina 
 V. he,; 1;-. O. R. 353.— C. P. D. See also Rajina 
 v. liinih, 15 t). W. 398, p. 315. 
 
 ■■^eealso, iNTO.MCATi.sa Li(jt:ons, II. 5 (a) p. 
 1030. 
 
 II. .lUKISDICTION AND TrIALS BliKORB. 
 
 1. (jLiierulli/. 
 
 The defendant sold to C. , amongst other things, 
 a horse-power and belt, jiart of liis stock in the 
 trade of a butcher, in which he also sold a half- 
 interest to U. The horsepower had been hired 
 from one M., and at the time of the sale the 
 term of liiring had not expired. At its expiry. 
 M. demanded it, and C. claimed that he had 
 purchased it from defendant. The defendant 
 then employed a man to take it out of the pre- 
 mises where it was kept and deliver it toiM., 
 which he did. The defendant was summarily 
 tried before a police magistrate and convicted of 
 an otfence against 32-33 Vict. c. 21, s. 110 
 (Dom.) : — Held, that the conviction was bad, 
 there being no offence against that section, anil 
 no jurisdiction in the police magistrate to try 
 summarily. Regina v. Young, 5 O. R. 400. — 
 Rose. 
 
 Held, that 38 Vict. c. 47 (Doin.), giving power 
 to police and .stijieiidiary magistrates to try in ti 
 suuiiiiary manner felonies and misdemeanours 
 was intra vires the Dominion Parliament. Inre 
 Bo'di'htr, Gassels' Dig. 180. 
 
 Held, that a police magistrate cannot reserve 
 a case lor the opinion of a superior court under 
 Con. Stat. U. C. c. 112, as he is not within the 
 te ins of that Act. liei/inii \. Rieliard-Mm, 8 0. 
 K 051. -g. B. 1). 
 
 The defendant was tried at Belleville before 
 the police niagistiate of the county of Hastings 
 aii'l loiivicted, for, amongst other things, sup- 
 plying milk from which the cream or strippings 
 had been taken or kept back. The factory was 
 in Hastings, but the defendant resided and the, 
 milk was supplied in the county of Le, iiox and 
 Aildiiigton : — Held, that the police n i^lstrate 
 of Hastings had no jurisdiction to try t e offence 
 and the conviction must be qiiashe t ; — Held , 
 also, that certiorari has not been taken away in 
 such cases ; but, oven if it had, the court would 
 not bi' justilied in refusing to examine the evi- 
 dence to see if the magistrate had jurisdiction. 
 Rojinav. Dowlimj, 17 O. R. 098.— C. P. D. 
 
 diiiisdictimi of justices of the )ieace in absence 
 of (lolico magistrate. See lieiftmi v. Gordon, 10 
 O. R. 04, p. 1054 : /.'.7(»<i v. Liineli, 19 O. It. 
 (!(i4, p. 1113. 
 
 See lieginu v. Rourher, 8 1'. R. 20, p. 1110; 
 IfeilliM v. IHhy, 12 I'. R. 98, p. I(t98 ; liemna. 
 V. 'Lee, 15 0. R. 353, 449, p. 1032. 
 
 i4 
 
 M 
 
' 'itfWW*'Ti^'i'?'"'''.' T'T^*^ ■ 
 
 1639 
 
 PRAOTICE. 
 
 164a 
 
 W 
 
 POLICY. 
 
 See Insijbanok. 
 
 POST NUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. 
 
 iSi«e Fraudulent Conveyances, 
 
 POST OPnOE. 
 
 The condition of a bond given by the defen- 
 dants, as sureties for a postmaster, to the Post- 
 master-General, was, that the postmaster "do 
 not and shall not commit any theft, larceny, 
 robbery or embezzlement of, or lose or destroy, 
 or commit any malfeasance, misfeasance, or 
 neglect of duty, from which may arise any tlief t, 
 larceny, robbery, or embezzlement, loss or de- 
 struction of, any money, goods, chattels, valu- 
 ables, or effects, or of any letter or parcel con- 
 taining the same wliicli may come into iiis cus- 
 tody or possession, as such postmaster," etc. 
 The postmaster opened several letters which 
 came into his possession us such postmaster, and 
 having taken therefrom certain clieciues, foiged 
 the payees' names as endorsers tliei'eof, and got 
 them cashed by a l)ank upon guaranteeing the 
 genuineness of such endorsements. The drawers 
 refused to recognize these che(|ue8, but issued 
 duplicates to the payees and paid them, so that 
 the bank lost the money. In an action by tlie 
 Postmaster-deneral on the bfjud, on ))eiialf of the 
 bank, to recover from defendants, as such sure- 
 ties, the loss so incurred:— Held, referring to 
 sections 37 and 7S of tlie Post OIHce Act IS?.'), 
 that defendants were not lial)le, for that the 
 forgery and the postmaster's guarantee, and not 
 the larceny, were tlie proximate causes of the 
 loss, and the contents of the hitters did not be- 
 long to the bank. Ifenmrks as to form of the 
 condition. PvxImasler-UenefcU v. McColt, 31 C. 
 P. 364. -C. P. L). 
 
 POUNDAGE. 
 
 See. iSiiEKiKf'-. 
 
 POUNDS AND POUND-KEEPERS. 
 
 Sec Ul.'iTBE.SS — iVIUNIOIl'AL C'ORPOKATION.S. 
 
 POWER OF APPOINTMENT. 
 
 Sif VVii.i.. 
 
 POWER or ATTORNEY. 
 
 See Phincii'ai. and Agent. 
 
 POWER OF SALE. 
 
 In MoKTdAdUH— iS'ee Moktoaob, 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 I. InCounty Coukts— .SVrC'ountvCourts 
 II. In Division Coukt.s — .S'ee Uivisios 
 
 COURT.S. 
 
 III. In Particular Actions or Procked 
 (Ntw— -S'pp The Several Titles. 
 
 (Since the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 
 I. (iENER\LLV, I(i4.'t. 
 
 [I. Writs. 
 
 1. Endorsi'Miiiit. 
 
 (a) actiardll!/, I(i43. 
 
 (1)) Siipiiiiji Jmliimeiii.—Si'c .Jt'in. 
 
 MKNT. 
 
 2. Itiiiewal, 1044. 
 
 3. St-mo'. 
 
 (a) Siiliislitii/iniio/ Sfrriir, lt)44. 
 (b; Si'rriiiAbriiail Uinlirlli/miluf 
 h'liky/o, 1044. 
 
 (c) O/licr <■■««.», 1640. 
 
 (d) Of SnIijjii'iin—iSee Eviohnce. 
 
 III. Api'eahan(;ic, I(i40. 
 
 IV. Particitlar.-*— .SV;c Pautici;lai!.s. 
 
 V. M L-LTI I'LICITV ok ACTIONS -.Vcc MoRI 
 OAGK. 
 
 VI. Cho.ss Actions — A'cc Aci ion, 
 
 VII. Consolidation or AiTioNs, 1040. 
 
 VIII. CiRcrirv OK Action— iSVf Ai'TioN. " 
 
 IX. Ahatkmkntok Actions— .Sw Altion. 
 
 X. Co.Mi'RoMi.siNii andSettlino .\(TI0NS 
 — Sev Action. 
 
 XI. Suspension ok Aitkjn in Casks ok 
 Felony — Suk Action. 
 
 XII. Discontinuance or Witiiokawai., 
 104H. 
 
 XIII. Dis.MissiNii Actions. 
 
 1. H7/(» liromiht W'ilhinil Aiilhonhi, 
 
 1049. 
 
 2. For Want of Proxpfitliiiii, IQM). 
 
 3. For Noiiroinplidiifi- iril/i OiiLr /or 
 
 Dixctivt ry or In ft rroijatoriis — Sir 
 KviiiENci:. 
 
 -KIV. Transkerrinii Causes kiki.m one 1): 
 
 VISION OK THE IIlOH CoUHT TO An 
 
 other, 1052. 
 
 .XV. .Jurisdiction ok Hkui Coiht— Di- 
 visions AND Divisional (.'oihts 
 
 . AND SiNllLE .)l I](;K — Sce HlOIl 
 (loCRT OK .Jl'.STICE. 
 
 XVI. JuDfJE IN ClIAMnKRS — I.OCAI, .JlIilM': 
 — MasTIR iiR liKKKHEE IN ClIAM 
 
 IIER.S-- Local Master. 
 I. JuriKiliiliim. 
 
 (a) Jii'li/i , lO.VJ. 
 
 (b) Lor.iil Jmliia, 1054. 
 
 (e) Jilasler in Cliamhcrx, 1655. 
 
 ^ 
 
164Q; 
 
 untyCourts 
 ke UlVlSKis 
 
 OR Prockeii 
 . Titles. 
 
 1881.) 
 
 Ill.—l^Cf .luiii: 
 
 rvice, 1644. 
 Under III jti'iHiil 
 
 G. 
 
 tti EVIUHNCK. 
 
 HTK;i:iiAI!S. 
 UNS -ils'ci' MOKI 
 
 Ution. 
 
 TIONS, 1(14(1. 
 
 iVcc Action. 
 <s — .See Action. 
 yn'i.iNii -VcTKiNs 
 
 N IN ('.\SKS OK 
 IN. 
 \VlTIII)UA\VAl., 
 
 tliiiiil AnilionI]!, 
 
 iitidii, ICoO. 
 r ii-ifh Oidtr/oi 
 rruijittoriix — '^i<' 
 
 r.s i'i;oM om; I'l 
 11 Ciu'UT TO An 
 
 CM CoUKT— 1)1- 
 ISKlNM. CoruTs 
 KiK — .V" Hllill 
 
 I.IICAI, .JriicH 
 |.|,iu;k in Cham 
 
 IKK. 
 
 i(jr)4. 
 
 iiiiiiKi-s, i(5r)r>. 
 
 1641 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 1642 
 
 (d) Local Mmttr, 1656. 
 
 (e) Proccedinij-iAyainsf A hurondhig 
 Dfhlor — Sr.e Alis(;oNi)iN(! 
 Dkbtok. 
 
 {f ) In Quo Warranto Proceedings — 
 See Municipal CoRrouA- 
 
 TIONS. 
 
 (g) Under Windbuj-up A elf — See 
 Company. 
 2. AppealK From. 
 
 (a) Jiidge, 1657. 
 
 (b) Lornl Jndiie or Loral Muster, 
 1657. 
 
 (c) Mailer or Referee in Chambers, 
 KmS. 
 
 XVII. Refkkkncks TO Mastkr IN Ordinary 
 Local Mastkhs and Rkfkiieks. 
 
 1. JuriKdleliiin to Order lieference, 
 16,-)0. 
 
 2. What nun/ lie Ri-j'erriil, 1659. 
 
 3. Chiriiiiinij Jiefereiire, I(i61. 
 
 4. Jiiriiidietion of Meiiler on lieferenre, 
 1661. 
 
 5. An Arbitrators — Sf:e Akiutkatio.n 
 AND Awahd. 
 
 6. fn Administialion Suits — See 
 Kxkcutoks and Administka- 
 
 T0K.S. 
 
 i 7. Under Windin<i-up Art — See Com- 
 
 pany. 
 S. ProceedhiijH on Referenec. 
 
 (a) Taking Aceoiints, 1663. 
 
 (b) Other Cases, 1663. 
 
 (c) Exaininiition of Parlies and 
 Witnesses — See Evidence. 
 
 9. (Confirming Report, 1664. 
 10. Appeals From. 
 
 (a) From Master, 1665. 
 
 (b) From. Referee, 1666. 
 
 XVIII. RE(iisrHAKs ok Divisions ok Hioh 
 Coitut, 1667. 
 
 .XIX. Notice ok Motion, 1668. 
 
 XX. Motion? and Orders, 1669. 
 
 XXI. Vakyino M1NUTE.S, 1669. 
 
 XXII. Tkrm's Notice, 16G9. 
 
 XXIII. Service ok Papers. 
 
 1. (Unerally, l()(i9. 
 
 2. Of Appointment for E.rai,iinalion — 
 .Sec Evidence— Kxamination of 
 JunoMENT Debtor. 
 
 3. Notice of Tnat—See Trial. 
 
 XXIV. Stayinc! and Settin<! Aside Pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 1. Till Coals of Former Proceedimjn 
 are Paid, 1670. 
 
 2. Pending Appeal — See Appeal. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1671. 
 
 XXV. Waiver of Irreoularitibs, 1672. 
 
 • 
 
 -M 
 
 XXVI. Ski'ond .Vi'I'i.ications, 1673. 
 
 X.XVII. CoMlMTATKlN UK Tl,>fE— .VeC TlMK. 
 XXVIII. XclTICK OK TkIAL— ,SV;<; TrIAL. 
 
 XXIX. Trial— .SV, Trial. 
 
 XXX. JCDCMKNT— .S'ee JUDCiMENT. 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 PRACTICE AT LAW. 
 
 I. Writ OK SuM.MoN.s. 
 
 1. .Serrice. 
 (a) On Foreign Corporations, 1674. 
 (1)) Aliseonding J)efendants, 1674. 
 (i;) Serrire Abroad, 1674. 
 
 2. Special Endorsement, 1674. 
 
 3. Snhslitiitional Serrice, 1674. 
 II. Ci.EitK OK TiiK Crown and Pleas. 
 
 1. .Inrisdirliun, 1(174. 
 
 2. Apprnlfrom, 1674. 
 
 III. Rkkkurks Appeals From, 1675. 
 
 IV. Hulks AND Orders, 1675. 
 V. Service OK Pa PEiis, 1675. 
 
 VI. Tehm's Notice, 1676. 
 VII. Staying and Seitinc Aside Procked- 
 
 INC.S. 
 
 1. Delay in Moring, 1676. 
 
 2. Slaying Proceedings on Equitable, 
 
 Qrounds, 1676. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1676. 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 PRACTIC •: IN EQUITY. 
 
 1. Hills. 
 
 1. Sir rice of. 
 
 (a) Absconding Defendants, 1677. 
 
 (b) Strrio! Abroad, 1677. 
 
 (c) By Publication, 1677. 
 
 (d) Oh Infants, 1677. 
 
 2. Dismissing for Want of Prosecution, 
 
 1677. 
 
 3. Undertaking to Speed, 1678. 
 
 II. New HEARiN(i, 1678. 
 
 III. Decree. 
 
 1. Amendment of, 1678. 
 
 2. Review of, on New Eridence, 1679, 
 .3. Other Cases, 1679. 
 
 IV. Master. 
 
 1. References To, and When Ordered, 
 
 1680. 
 
 2. Proceedings in Master's Office, 1680. 
 
 3. Report. 
 
 (a) Confirming, 1680. 
 
 (b) Other Gases, 1681. 
 
 4. Appeal from, 1681. 
 

 1643 
 
 FRAOTIOE. 
 
 1644 
 
 V. Jurisdiction or Jihokor ISkfkuk.kin 
 Chambers, 11)82. 
 
 VI. ACCEPTANX'E OK SfHVICK, 16S2. 
 Vn. STAYINC I'ROCKKDINliS, lOS.S. 
 
 VIII. Abatement of .Suit— -SVr Action. 
 
 (Since the Judicature Act, 1881 ) 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 I. ("iHNFUALLY. 
 
 Although the decree was pronmincfd liefore 
 the Judicature Act, aiul might liave liccii relieard 
 under the former practice, yet tliu cause not 
 having been set down to lie rclicard before tlie 
 coining into forcf of tiie Act, it could not under 
 the provisions 'f the Act respecting pending 
 business, be reheard. Trade v. Phimix his. Co., 
 29Chy. 426.— Boyd.— Chy. I). 
 
 Where in matters of practice there was a con- 
 flict between common law and equity as to mat- 
 ters not provided for by the Judicature Act, the 
 practice which is most convenient is to be fol- 
 lowed. Section I'J, bub-section 10 relates to 
 matters of substantive law, not of mere practice. 
 Friendly v. Carter; 9 P. R. 41. — Daltou, Man- 
 ter. — Osier. 
 
 The policy of the Ontario Judicature Act is 
 to decentralize business, and send local matters 
 to local masters. Aitkcii v. Wilsuti, 9 P. R. 
 75.— Boyd. 
 
 II. Writs. 
 
 1. Endorsement. 
 
 (a) (•'(•tiern/li/. 
 
 When a plaintiff seeUs to register alls pendens 
 he should be more precise in respect to the en- 
 dorsement on his writ than in ordinary cases, 
 and should define generally the grounds of his 
 claiming an interest in the lands. .Shejiintrd v. 
 Kennedy, 10 P. R. 242. — Hoyd. 
 
 A writ of summons not endorsed with a state- 
 ment of the plaintitT's residence as set out in 
 Form 1 O. J. Act ((/"on. Rules, Form 11, is irre- 
 gular. .Shencood v. (l(,ldmnn, 11 P. R. 4.S.S.— 
 Dalton, Master. 
 
 'ITie writ of summons was issued against three 
 defendants, ' O. , A. and R. The endoi-sement 
 claimed to have set aside a deed from A. to O. , 
 and a deed from O. to A. >fo claim whatever 
 was made against R. and he was not mentioned 
 in the endorsement : — Held, that the endorse- 
 ment was sufficient, and a motion by R. to set 
 aside the service upon him was refused, ilil- 
 more v. Toienship of Or/ord, 11 P. R. 437. — 
 Dalton, Master. 
 
 The writ of summons was specially endorsed 
 with a money demand, besides which the en- 
 dorsement claimed damages for waste, etc. The 
 plaintiff obtained an e.v parte order amending 
 the endorsement by striking out the claim for 
 damages : — Held, that jutlgment by default 
 could not be entered after the amendment with- 
 out reserving the writ on the defendant. Ouess 
 V. Ptrry, 12 P. R. 460.— MacMahon. 
 
 2. Renviral. 
 
 A writ of summons, dated the 17th April, 
 1 870, was, after several renewals, finally renewed 
 on the (ith April, 1881, and served on the 27th 
 I>eeend)er, 1881 :— Held, that no declaration 
 having been delivered, tiie case was governed by 
 Rule 493, (). J. Act, and that by Rule 31, (Con. 
 Rule 238), the writ continued in force for one 
 year from the date of the last renewal, and ser- 
 vice on the 27th December, 1881, was godd. 
 Mackekan v. Becket, !) P. R. 289.- Dalton, 
 Master. 
 
 Held, that a local judge li.is jurisdiction by 
 the combined effect of Con. liuUs 238 and 485 to 
 make an order for the reneMal of a writ of sum- 
 mons, even at a time when such a writ has ac- 
 tually expired. lie Jones, Kyre r. Cox, 46 fj. 
 J. N. S Ch. 31(i, followed. .S7. / -lis v. 0\al- 
 tai/kuii, 13 P. K. 322.- Street. 
 
 Where a local judge in 1S87 ano again in 188!( 
 made orders renewing a writ of sunniKms issued 
 
 I in 188(i, and such orders were not ajipcalcd 
 against: — Held, that the writ nuist be treated 
 
 I as having been properly renewed by such orders. 
 
 ! /h. 
 
 3. Serrice. 
 (a) Siiljf/ilntional Serrire. 
 
 The plaintiff had some years previously in an 
 action of ejectment against these defendants 
 served them personally, and they had defended 
 by the same solicitor. It was shewn that one 
 defendant, the father of the other two who re- 
 sided in the U. S. A. corresponded with them. 
 An application under Ride 4, (). .1. Act, for an 
 order permitting substitutional service on the 
 father for the other two defendants, was re- 
 fused, it not being shewn that prompt personal 
 service could not be effected. Robertson v. Mero, 
 9 P. K. 510. — Dalton, J/.rsVr/-.— Boyd. 
 
 See Dohsonv. MarslmU, 9 P. R. 1, p. I()70; 
 Wcatherhead v. W<alh<vh,wl, 9 P. R. 96, j). 907; 
 Locomotive Enqinr Co. v. Copelavd, 10 P. R. 
 572, p. I()54. 
 
 (1)) Si'rvke Ahruml under Rtjxa/ed llule Jffj. 
 
 [.9''(' noir I '(III, Hiiie J'il H seq.^ 
 
 Where a defendant has been served out of the 
 jurisdiction, and tiie service is allowed, but the 
 defendant does not appear, no order to proceed 
 is necessary. Division (e). Rule 45 is not to he 
 extended to all the cases under the rule. Mniiin 
 V. Laffvrty, 9 I*. K. 300. — Dalton, Master.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Service of process on infant out of jurisdictinn. 
 See Hew v. Anthonij, 9 P. R. 545, p. 906. 
 
 In an action for clainages for hrcach of contract 
 by the defendants, a corporation in Liverjxiol, 
 Kngland, in not delivering certain machinery at 
 the railway station nearest to Ottawa, the writ 
 and statement of claim were served on the de- 
 fendants' agent in Montreal, and under Rule 48, 
 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 274), the plaintiffs now 
 applied for an order allowing the service, on the 
 
 f round that the case was one within Rule 45. 
 he affidavit made and filed by the plaintiff's soli- 
 citor set out. "2. The paper writing shown to 
 
 Q 
 
1644 
 
 1645 
 
 PBAOTIOE 
 
 im 
 
 the 17th April, 
 Is, finally renewed 
 erved on the 27tli 
 it no declaration 
 e was governed by 
 by Kule3l, (Con. 
 
 in force for one 
 renewal, and sei- 
 
 ISSl, waa godil. 
 R. 289.-I)alton, 
 
 lis jnrisdiction bv 
 I Us 2;« and 485 t'o 
 of a writ of sum- 
 iich a writ has ao- 
 lyre r. Cox, 4G L. 
 !l. I .(/.s V. O'Cat- 
 
 and again in 188i» 
 if summons issued 
 are not appealed 
 t must be treated 
 'd by such orders. 
 
 'ernce. 
 
 s previously in an 
 these defendants 
 hey had defended 
 IS shewn that one 
 ather two who re- 
 mded with them. 
 (). .1. Act, for an 
 al service on the 
 endants, was re- 
 ; prompt personal 
 'ioherlson v. Mero, 
 —Boyd. 
 
 P. R. 1, p. IfiTO; 
 »P. R. 96, I). 907; 
 pelavd, 10 R R. 
 
 jHa/ed Hult 4->. 
 
 1 H .w/. ] 
 
 I served out of the 
 allowed, but the 
 order to proceed 
 lie 45 is not to he 
 ithe rule. Martin 
 )alton. Master.— 
 
 utof jurisdiction. 
 i4;5, p. 906. 
 
 I)reach of contract 
 ion in Liverpool, 
 tain machinery at 
 Ottawa, the writ 
 erved on the i le- 
 nd under Rule 48, 
 he plaintiffs now 
 lie service, on the 
 3 within Rule 45. 
 the plaintiff's soli- 
 writing shown to 
 
 o 
 
 me, marked Exhibit A. is a true copy of the state- 
 ment of claim delivered in this action. 3. This 
 action is brought to recover damages for breach 
 of contract on the part of the defendants in not 
 delivering the inachineiy, in the statement of 
 claim mentioned, at the railway station nearest 
 til Ott.iwa under the terms of the contract." 
 Hut the aftidavi ilid not state that the depo- 
 nent knew the fact, either of his own knowledge 
 or on information and belief, nor that the de- 
 fendants over entered into a contract with the 
 plaintiff, and undertook to deliver the machinery 
 at the railway station nearest to Ottawa. The 
 bill of lading containing the contract in <iuestion 
 provided inter alia, "that the machinery in 
 (piestion is to be delivered at the port of 
 Montreal unto the O. T. R. (!o. , by them to lie 
 forwarded upon the conditions above and here- 
 inafter expiesRcd, thence per railway to tlio 
 station nearest to Ottawa, and at the aforesaid 
 station delivered to order * * freight * * 
 to be ])aid by the consignees." " That the goods 
 are to be delivered from the ship's deck, when the 
 shipowner's responsibility shall cease. Through 
 goods sent forward by mail are deliverable at the 
 railway .station ner-rest to the place named here- 
 inafter.'' " That any loss, damage, or detention 
 of goods on this through bill of lading for which 
 the carrier is liable must be claimed against the 
 party only in whose possession the goods were 
 when the loss, damage, or detention occurred" : — 
 Hehl(l), that the atKdavit did not afford the 
 proof re(|inred under Rule 48 ; (2i, that the bill 
 of lading shewed no contract on the part of the 
 defcndiints to deliver at Ottawa, or the nearest 
 station tf> Ottawa ; nor any contract, the breach 
 of which was made in Ontario, because if there 
 was such a contract in the bill, force an<l effect 
 could not be given to the stipulations in it that 
 the shipowner's responsibility should cease when 
 the gonds were delivered from the shi|)'.s deck, 
 etc., and bonce, though leave would be given to 
 KIo further affidavits; snob leave was there- 
 fore unnecessary. And, again, if there was a 
 eontrait, and its terms expressly exempted the 
 defendants from any and all liability for damage 
 for any loss, etc., arising beyond their line, no 
 damage for abre leli in this province would result 
 to the iilaintiff, and though technically within 
 Rule 45, sub-s. (o)discretion should (if any exist), 
 be exercised in refusing to allow the service. 
 In eases of this kind an order allowing service 
 should not be made on an undertaking of the 
 plaintiff's solicitor to prove a cause of action, 
 etc., within the jurisdiction as it shifts the onus 
 of proof to the plaintiff and requires him to con- 
 duct possibly a long and expensive litigation to 
 )irocure a decision on a point propei'ly raised at 
 the commencement of the action. Perkins v. 
 }fi.<i.i!s.<tippi ami Dominion StfamMfi Go. ( f/im- 
 ile.d), 10 P. W. I9S.— Rose. 
 
 Debts owing to the defendant from persons 
 living in Ontario are aasets in Ontario which may 
 lie rendered liable to the judgment within the 
 meaning of Rule 45 (<:) O. J. Act. Purvcn v. 
 Slater, 11 P. R. 507. —Rose. 
 
 Waiver of objections as to sufficiency of ser- 
 vice. See Bart v. Citizeim' Innirance Co., 11 P. 
 R. 5 1.3, p. 1672. 
 
 See Wamtr Lamp Go. v. Wood*. 13P. R. 511, 
 p. 557. 
 
 (o) Other Cuxes. 
 
 Blakeslee, Brown & O. carried on business in 
 partnership under the name of Blakeslee & Co., 
 Mlakeslee absconded on the 19th September, and 
 the business continued. O. assigned his interest 
 to Uiown, and after such as.signment, but before 
 it had been made public, the i)laintill' served his 
 writ of summons against the firm on O. :— Held, 
 th.'.t the service was good, /iaiik of llam'dlon 
 V. B/akeilee, 9 P. R. 1;50. — Dalton, ^fnxler. 
 
 Service rtviuisite to make judgment recovered 
 in Quebec conclusive under R. S. O. (1877), c. 
 50, s. 145. See Court v. Scott, 32 C. P. 148, p. 
 1088. 
 
 A person of the same name as the defendant 
 served by mistake with the writ was:— Held, 
 entitled to his costs of opposing a motion for judg- 
 ment under Rule 324, O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 744). 
 Lucas V. Fraxer, 9 P. R. 319.— Dalton, Ma-iltr. 
 
 III. Ari'KARANCE. 
 
 The plaintiff issued a writ of summons, and 
 icgistered a certificate of his lis pendens upon 
 flie land of the defendant Toothe. The defen- 
 deiit iiot having been promptly served with the 
 V, ;it, and being anxious to get rid of the suit en- 
 tered an appearance gratis. The master at Lon- 
 don maile an order in chambers upon the appli- 
 cation of the plaintiff striking out the appear- 
 ance :— Held, upon appeal, that there is nothing 
 in the Judicature Act or rules which interferes 
 with the well recoguized practice that a defen- 
 dant has a right to appear voluntarily, and to 
 anticipate the service of actually issueil process. 
 Kspecially should his privilege to appear gratis 
 be preserved in a case where his property i.t 
 directly and prejudicially affected by the com- 
 mencement of the action and the registi'ati(m of 
 its pendency. Appeal allowed, with costs in 
 the cause to the defendant in any event. Mt- 
 Tit'M/arl v. Tuothe, 10 P. R. 201.- Boyd. 
 
 In an action of ejectment. See dnriini v. Cam- 
 eron, 10 P. R. 496, p. 578. 
 
 In an action for foreclosure the defendant en- 
 tered an appe. .-ance under Rule 68, O. J. Act, 
 (Con. Rule 299), limiting his defence to one item 
 in the particulars indorsed on the writ of sum- 
 mons. The appearance did not state that the 
 defendant did not require the delivery of a state- 
 ment of claim : — Hold, that after such appear- 
 ance a statement of claim was unnecessary, and 
 a judgment signed upon it, foi' default of a 
 statement of defence, was set aside, with costs. 
 Ped V. Whit'', 11 P. R. 177.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 VII. Consolidation of Actions. 
 
 The defendant applied to have this action con- 
 solidated with an action brought by the defendant 
 in the Chancery Division against these plaintiffs, 
 on the ground that the plaintiffs' counter claim 
 in the Chancery Division action disclosed the 
 same cause of action as shewn in the statemeiit 
 of claim in this action. The action in the Chan- 
 cery Division was commenced on the 17th May, 
 1882, and this action on the 10th June, 1882 : — 
 Held, that though the case presented was not 
 technically within the terms of Rule 395, O. J. 
 Act, (Con. Rule 652) there is an inherent right 
 
1647 
 
 PRAOTIOE- 
 
 IMt 
 
 I 
 
 ill thecoui I. to prevent an unduo usu of its process, 
 and tliis action was stayeil until that in the Chan- 
 cery Division was (leteiinincil, no special reason 
 to "tile contrary lieiiij} shcv.n l>y the plaintitFs. 
 Taylor v. Bradford, 9 P. R. 350. —Cameron. 
 
 An application to consolidate two motions for 
 adniiaistnition and partition pending before a 
 local master should he iniido to him and not to a 
 judge in chambers. Lanihkr v. Lamhier, 9 P. R, 
 422. -Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiffs in their first action claimed from 
 tlie defendants a sum of §'2(10,000 as the balance 
 due \ipon a construction contract, and in this 
 action, begun soinn time after tlio first, they 
 claimed from the same defendants a sum of !*3, • 
 000, the amount of an account for goods sold and 
 delivered. 'J'he cause of actiim herein arose be- 
 fore the coinn.encement of the previous action. 
 The first action was practically consolidated witii 
 an action of the defendants against the plaiutids 
 in tlie Chani'cry Uivision :--Helil, tliat the two 
 claims should have been maile in the one action, 
 and that it was a i)roper exercise of discretion to 
 leave tlie cbiim In this action to be tried witli the 
 claim to which it shouM originally have been 
 joined, Cotimrf- v. (kinn'linn Pdcific l{. W. On. 
 {No. .'), 11 1". R, 222. ~C, P. 1). 
 
 The master in ordinary lias no jurisdiction to 
 consoKihite actions in which judgments have been 
 entered, and in which references are i)ending in 
 his oflice. Boxwell v. draiil, 11 P. R. 37(i.— 
 O'Connor. 
 
 The jiliiintiffsbronuhtfouractions, each against 
 a different jiersoii, alleging th;it the defendant in 
 each eas(! entered into a separate agreement with 
 the plaintift's to purchase and pay for certain 
 grajjc vines and to allow the plaintiffs certain 
 future benefits to be derived from the possession 
 and cultivation of the vines, and claiming ])ay- 
 meiit, nil account, ami damages. The state- 
 ments of <lefence were practically the same in 
 all the actions, tlie defendants setting up 
 among their <lefences that by the fraud of the 
 plaintiffs certain promises and warranties on 
 their part were omitted from the written agree- 
 ment, and that the defendants were induced to 
 enter into the agreement by fraud and misrepre- 
 sentation on the part of the plaintiffs, and claim- 
 ing rectification and damages. The sales to the 
 several defendants were entirely separate and 
 distinct transactions made at different times and 
 under different circunistances, but the form of 
 agreement made use of with each defendant was 
 the same. An order was made in chambers under 
 Con, Rule ()V2, on tlie application of the defen- 
 dants in all tlie actions, staying proceedings in 
 all but one, which was to be treated as a test 
 action, the defendants agreeing to be bound )>y 
 the result of it, but the plaintiffs being allowed 
 to proceed to trial in the other actions after the 
 trial of the test action, if they deemed proper ; - 
 Held, that actions will only be stayed where the 
 questions in dispute are substantially the same ; 
 and ill this instance they were not the same, 
 because the <|uestioii8 raised by the defendants 
 upon their defences of fraud and misrepresenta- 
 tion would necessarily be different in each ease, 
 the negotiations for each agreement being dis- 
 tinct ; and the order was set aside. Nitii/ard 
 Grape Co. v. Ndlk, 13 P. R. 179.— Q. li. I). 
 
 An order to consolidate, strictly so called, is 
 a matter of discretion, and is made as a favour 
 to and for the benefit of the dcfemlaiits, the 
 object being that a single trial may decide tliat 
 which is in fact only a single (piestion, and 
 thus save costs and expense. No such order 
 ought to be made unless the rpiestions in each 
 case are substantially t he siime, and the evidence 
 woulil be substantially the same it' they were all 
 tried. I.cave to appeal from the order of the 
 Q. P.. 1>., 13 P. P.. 17!), was refusc.l. .V. C, ///. 
 258. -C. of A. 
 
 In determining which party is to have the 
 conduct of a con.solid.ation of two cross-actions 
 the main indicia to be regarded .in? : Which ac 
 tion was first begun? Upon whom docs the chief 
 burden of ])roof lie '! \Vhi(di action is the more 
 comiirchensive in its si'ope? And where (!. fir.«t 
 sued I!, for cancellation and delivery up of four 
 promissory notes made by (J. and .*<, jointly to 
 1?., and also for cancellation of an agreement in 
 relation to wliieh the notes were given ; nnd l>, 
 afterwards sued (1, and S, upon three of the 
 four notes in (luestinn ; and substiintially tlie 
 same issues were raised in both actions, the 
 making of the notes being admitted by (!. and 
 S. ill the pleadiiiirs, the actions were consolidated 
 and (1. w.i.s allowed to proceed with his action, 
 S. being added as a party to it, Oirrlii v. 
 Riirkx-lhirl-f. V. (Imun, 13 P. R. 21(5.— Boyd, 
 
 Twelve actions brought by a niuniciijality 
 ag,iinst the different sureties of the municipid 
 treasurer, to recover amounts alleged to have 
 been received by the treasurer and not accounted 
 for, were consolidated and proceedings in them 
 were stayed jiending the determination of .-m 
 action against the treasurer himself to recovei- 
 the same amounts. Coiiiih/nf Ex'ie.r v. Wrii/hl, 
 13 P. I{. 474.-Ualt.-C. P'. 1). 
 
 See Miller v. Coiifeilerolinn Life. Aiioc'intioH — 
 Cnnfi'diration lAO' AxmciitHnv v. Milh'r, 11 P. 
 R. 241. p. Ifi71. ' 
 
 XII. DlSCONTINU.'^NCE OR VVlTHDRAW.M.. 
 
 The plaintiffs claimed in this action .S3,249.3r>, 
 "amount of defalcation of .l,,"and .*-90,.") fur 
 certain expenses connected therewith, in all 
 $3,3.39, 9 1 . The defendant paid into court S!3,273. 
 claiming by their notice of payment in, that it 
 was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. 
 There was no specific application of the money 
 paid in to any part of the claim. The plaintiffs 
 did not ilcliver a statement of claim, .and, upon 
 notice of a motion under Rule 203 (Con. Rule 
 ()4f)), to dismiss the action being served by th<? 
 defendants, the plaintiffs g.ave notice under Rule 
 170 (Con. Rules ($41, (i42). of withdrawal of the 
 balance of their claim : — Held, that the plaintilfs 
 had no (lower under Rule 170 (Con. Rules 641, 
 ()42), to withdraw : the portion of Rule 170 
 (Con. I!ules(!4l, (J42), relating to the witlidrawal 
 of part of the alleged cause of complaint is appli- 
 cable only whei'e the part sought to be withdrawn 
 can be severed from the rest of the claim ; and 
 an order ilismissing the action was proper: - 
 Semble, that the plaintiffs not having under 
 Rule 218 O. .1. Act accepted the money in full 
 satisfaction of their claim, wore liable to pay 
 the whole costs of the action ; but the disposi- 
 tion of costs by the iach.l judge who made t\w 
 order was not interfered with on appeal. Bank 
 
 ■4. > 
 
 
1648 
 
 tly so called, is 
 lado as a favour 
 tlcfeiidaiita, the 
 may <leci<lo that 
 '. <|ucstioii, ami 
 
 Xo suuli order 
 iications in vnuh 
 md the evideiu't! 
 
 if they were all 
 lie order of the 
 iHcd. S. a, II,. 
 
 is to have thr 
 
 ivo cross-actions 
 .ire : Which ;\c 
 itii does the iliicf 
 Ion Ih the more 
 id where (!. first 
 very iil> of four 
 mil S. jointly (n 
 in agrceiiieni in 
 e given ; nml li. 
 mn three of the 
 d)stiiiitially the 
 )th actions, the 
 itted by (i. ami 
 erecnnsolidateil 
 with his action, 
 
 it. Oirrhi v. 
 
 R. -iKi.— lioyd. 
 
 a niunicijiality 
 f the nuniiei|iid 
 alleged to have 
 il not aceounteil 
 L^cdings in them 
 mination of an 
 iself to recover 
 
 W.r v. Wriijhl, 
 
 fr- A ■nocia I ion — 
 ^fill^■r, 11 I'. 
 
 ITHDRAWAI.. 
 
 ction ,«;3,'24n.3(;. 
 and .SOO..") for 
 rewith, in all 
 to court .«3,27;*. 
 nent in, that it 
 aintifF's claim, 
 n of the money 
 
 The plaintiffs 
 aim, and, upon 
 203 (Con. Rule 
 
 served by the 
 tice under Rule 
 hdrawal of the 
 lat the plaintiffs 
 -on. Rules 04 1, 
 n of Rule 170 
 the withdrawal 
 nplaint isappli- 
 o he withdr iwn 
 the claim ; and 
 was proper : - 
 
 having under 
 i money in full 
 B liable to p;iy 
 ut the (lisposi- 
 wlio made the 
 appeal. Hank 
 
 ». 
 
 
 1649 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 1650 
 
 nl' London v. (luaiuintee Go. of North A mcriea, 
 V2 V. K. 499.— Rose. 
 
 The object of ("on. Rule 670 is to enable aclcfen- 
 dant to insist upon the trial of a ease entered 
 by the plaintiff being proceeded with, unless the 
 court should give the plaintilF leave to withdraw 
 it ; and where, before a case entered for the 
 assi/es on the non-jury list was reached, the so- 
 licitors, without the assent of the court, agreed 
 that the trial should be put off until the follow- 
 ing assizes, and the clerk of the assize struck tlie 
 ease oil' the list, it was :— Held, that what had 
 taken place was not a withdrawal within tlie 
 nie uiiug of the Rule, and that the action re- 
 iniiiieil fortrial, and under Con. Rule (171 might 
 111' set, down for trial on notice, for any sul)sei|ne,it 
 court without payintnt of any further fee. liiDi- 
 hiirij V. Miiiui)'(ichtrirs''liixiiriiiiCfCo., 13 1'. R. 
 .")H. (j. B. O. See now amended Rule (1"1. 
 
 'I'he Kxcliuige Uank of ("Jaiuida, in an action 
 instituted by tliein against (J., f'.^.l a withdrawal 
 of a part of tlieir demand in open court, reserv- 
 ing' tiieir right to institute a .subscipient action 
 fur the amount so withdrawn. The court acted 
 III! this retraxit, and gave judgment for the bal- 
 ance. This judgment was not appc.dcd from. 
 In a subseriHcut action for th<^ amount so re- 
 served : — Meld, reversing the judgment of the 
 eonrt below, iMiurnier, .1., dissenting, that the 
 |) ovisions of Art. 4")!, ('. C. I'., are applicable 
 to a witlnlrawal made outside, and without the 
 interference of, the court and cannot ali'ect the 
 validity of a withdrawal maile in opi'U court 
 and with its permission. '1. That it was too 
 late in the second action to ipiestion the validity 
 of the retraxit upon which the court had in the 
 Hist action acted aiul rendered a juilgment 
 which was final and conclusive. /•,>(7ift«;/c liiink 
 <^l Canaila v. (lUmnn, 17 S. C. K. 108. 
 
 XIII. 1)ISMISSIN(! AcrioNS. 
 1. ll'lieu lironijhl Wilhont Aiithori/y. 
 
 An action was brought on behalf of the plain- 
 tiffs and all other creditors of V. to obtain from 
 the defenilant, the assignee of V. for the benefit 
 of creditors, an acccmnt of all moneys received 
 by him from the estate of V., and for payment 
 of what might be found due. .ludgment was 
 ])ronouiiced in favour of the plaintiffs, directing 
 a reference to take the accounts anil reserving 
 furtherdireetions and costs. The judgment was 
 nut issued, and after it was prouonuced the de- 
 feiulaut and the plaintiffs' solicitor both died. 
 The executrix of the defendant obtained fnmi a 
 local judge a suimnons to compel the plaintiffs 
 to revive the action, or to dismiss it with costs. 
 On the return of the summons counsel for tiie 
 plaintiffs stated that they would consent to an 
 order dismissing the action without costs, but if 
 that were not agreed to, that they desired an 
 enlargement to shew that the plaintiff's had 
 never authorized the bringing of the action and 
 that thoy had no knowlc" 50 of it until the ser- 
 vice upon them of the summons now in question. 
 The local judge, however, made an order ilis- 
 missing the action with costs : — Held, on appeal 
 that the local judge would have been justified in 
 dismissing the action without costs if it had been 
 shewn to him that it was brought without the 
 •authority of the plaintiffs, an<l that he should 
 104 
 
 have granted an enlargement for that purpose, 
 and if he had after the enlariiement been satisfied 
 of the truth of the plaintiffs' statements, he 
 should have discharged the summons ; for u 
 party should not be ref|uircd against his will to 
 continue in his name an action which he never 
 atithorized to be begun. Miii-kny v. Afai/arl^nr, 
 12 I'. R. 149. — Robertson. 
 
 The old Chancery rule that an action can be 
 dismissed, on the application of a pl.iiiitilV who 
 has not authorized his name to be nsc!, only 
 on |)aymcnt of costs, is not now in force, but the 
 plaintiff' is now cnti'led to an order to stay the 
 proceedings without payineiit of costs, lievnolds 
 r. Ilowill, L. 1!. S (,). 1!. ;«),S, and Nnisc r.'Diirn- 
 fonl, 13 Ch. I) 711 f, followed. //(. 
 
 Helil, also, tlnit an action of this kind shoidd 
 not have bueu dismissed after judgment pro- 
 nounced, for tlie criditors other than the plain- 
 tiff's should not have been deprived of the Ixnic- 
 lit of the judgment. Ih 
 
 Sec Siii-iil'i .\iiiicnltnritl Iinplnnml .Mminfar- 
 Inriic; Cn. (I.iiiiiltil) v. //iilc/nH-iuii, 17 O. R. 
 ()7(i, p. 27il. 
 
 /■'.< 
 
 (int ()/' I'romcntioii. 
 
 Issue wa.s juined on the Kith December, I8S(), 
 and on the 2i.'iid the cause was tried, and a ncm- 
 suit entered, which by consent was set a.side, 
 and the case again entered for trial at the sittings 
 held in March, ISSl, but remained over until dIic 
 following sittings, when it was struck out by 
 consent. After the Jinlicitiire Act came into 
 force, a motion to dismiss fur want of in'osecutiou 
 was made, and the Jilaintifl's' solicitors, llniugh 
 alleging that they ilid not intend to proceed, 
 would not consent to the dismissal of the action. 
 The master in chambers dismissed the action 
 with costs, and this order was revc'rsed by 
 Cameron, .1. : -Held, on a])pcal to the Common 
 Pleas Division, re versing the order of Cameron, il., 
 that the master's order was right ; that the words 
 in I!ule2,')5 (Con. Rules ()47. (io4) "for the next 
 sittings of the coiirt,'' were not conlimsd to the 
 lirst sitting after issue joined ; and that the fact 
 that the plaintiff had alreuly taken the cause 
 down to trial did not))revent the defendant from 
 nmving to dismiss for not going to trial again. 
 Chapmanw SmUli, 32 C. 1\ iiHi). 
 
 An undertaking to speed the action is not in 
 all cases a sufficient auf.wcr to a motion to dis- 
 miss under Rule 2.').">, <). .1. Act (C<mi. Uules ()47, 
 O.J4). By (i. 0. Chy. 27(5 (see Con. liules (UO et 
 sell ) '•' J^'Vy" '""^ iliscretioii miderall the circum- 
 stances of the cause to dismiss or not and the 
 practice not being inteifercd with remains as be- 
 fore the 0. .1. Act, by ss. 12aiid ,")2 of that .A.ct. 
 Uiuler the circumstances of this case an order to 
 dismiss \<a» rescinded, /iitrkf. v. Mnrrny, 9 P. 
 R. 495.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that the tiling of a statement of claim 
 and an undertaking to speed is not a sufficient 
 answer to a motion to dismi.ss. The delay must 
 be sufficiently explained. In this case, being an 
 action for a large claim against sureties, the 
 plaintiffs not having in the opinion of the court 
 sufficiently explained, offered excuse for a delay 
 of nearly two years, or shewn a probability of 
 proceeding speedily, the action was dismissed 
 
1661 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 165£ 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 as 
 
 IS 
 
 s 
 
 - ',i 
 ,'■ .'•'5 
 
 H 
 
 ■"■'J. 
 
 fe- 
 
 with costi. Napnvff, TamvoHh a^ul Qiiehfr 
 
 n. w. Co. V. MtDoMii, 10 r. 1!. r)2r).— Hoso. 
 
 In notion to recover pennltitH iinilcr llio Con- 
 troverted Elections' Act. Seo Mihn v. Itoe, 10 
 I'. R. 'J18, p. liiOl. 
 
 If tlio iilnintiff witlioiit good cxoiiso noj;lcct 
 to proct'cd with thu action, tlio Court will not, 
 iiH of course, on liisi nicn^ undcrtiikinji; ti> s|ict!(l 
 the notion and payinj' llie costs, refuse to ilihUiiss 
 lint where defendant s solicitor had refused to 
 neiept notice of trial a few houis late, iiu order 
 refusing to dismiss and permit tinj^ the plaintifT 
 to proceed, was aflirmed. Carlrvv. /tmlfr, II 
 I'. I!. 1. -Hose. 
 
 An order made ii,t chnmlKMs under Rule 'J')."), 
 O. .1. Act, (Con. Rules 047, (I.")!) dismissing tlie 
 action for want of prosecution when; is-ue had 
 heen joined, but tlio case had not lieiii set down 
 for trial nor notice of trial given, was : ll<dd, 
 not a dismissal on the merits, and not a har to a 
 sulK^equeiit action for the same cause. /iohciH 
 V. /.iicnx, II 1'. H. 3. -Rose. 
 
 On the 5th November, ISS'i, an order was 
 made requiring tlie plaintitT to give security 
 for costs witliin four weeks, and in defaidt llial 
 the action should be dismissed witli co^ts, un- 
 less the court or jiulge on special a])|ilii ation 
 for that purpose should otherwise older. With- 
 in the four weeks the plaintill o)itiiiii(d a siini- 
 nions. with a stay of pioL-etdinj^'s, l<ir "further 
 time to perfect security fi;r costs, " and on the 
 loth December, l8.Sf), an order was made ex- 
 tending the time till the 2.')rd December, 18.S."i, 
 but not providim; that the dismissal of the 
 action should be the result of noii compliance 
 with its terms. .Security was not furnislKid 
 within the time .«o extended, and it was con- 
 tended that after that the action was ilead, and 
 there was no jurisdiction to make an order in 
 it: — Held, th:it, the action never became dis- 
 missed under either of these orders, and that a 
 motion to di-^miss was regular and neces.-<ary. 
 Whistler i\ Hancock, ."J (,». 15. I >. S3; King r. 
 Davenport, 4 Q. IJ. 1). 40J, disti?ii;iilshed. /Siiiil: 
 of Minuesota v. I'wje, 14 A. H. 347. 
 
 A motion by two of the defemlants to dismiss 
 the action as against them tor the ])IaintilT's de- 
 fault in not proceeding to trial was refused, 
 where it appeared that one of the defendants, a 
 necessary party, liad for apparently sufficient 
 rea.sons not been served with a writ of sunnuons, 
 while the action had proceeded against theotlier 
 defendants, and as ajj.ainst them was ripe for 
 trial: — Semble, that it is the duty of an applicant 
 to applj" to the plaiiititV's solicitor for information 
 as to the state of the cause in legard to the other 
 defendants before making such a motion. Foleii 
 V. Lee, 12 P. R. 371. — Dalton, Miutei: 
 
 The plaintiflf sued for damages for false testi- 
 mony, alleging that he had failed in a prior action 
 by re.ison of such testimony given therein by the 
 ju-esent defendant : — Helil, that the action would 
 not lie, and the (ilaintitf being in default by 
 reason of not having given notice of trial the ac- 
 tion was dismissed. Cliirke v. Vre.iijhton, 13 P. 
 R. 113.— Dalton, i)fo.<^er.—Onlt. 
 
 Where the plaintiff fails to enter the action for 
 trial at a sittings for which he has given notice 
 of trial, the action cannot be ili8mis8e<l for want 
 of prosecution under Con. Rule 647 ; the defen- 
 
 dant's remedy is to enter the action himnclf nn 
 der Con. Rule 6(!.T ('rick c. Hewlett, '.'7 CU 
 D. 3r),'>, distinginslied. Mrlhmiiild v. Thoii'Mm 
 13 I'. H. -Jod,- Street. 
 
 Where the plaintitr was in default for not 
 giving notice of trial for the autiinm assizes, but 
 the di'fendant did not move to dismiss tln^ action, 
 and the plaintitlgave notice of trial foi' the win- 
 ter assizes, but neither party entered the action 
 for trial : — Held, that the action ccmld not he 
 dismissed for want of pros(^cution imder ('cii. 
 Rule C47. McDougald r. Thomson, 13 1*. K, 
 200, followed. Simiiwn v. Murray, 13 1'. It, 
 418.— Dalton, Mauler. — MacMahon. 
 
 XIV. TltANSKKIlKINd CaI'SKM FROM ONR DI- 
 VISION or TIIH HiCII COIKT TO A>f0TIIKI:. 
 
 Where a plaintill' brings an action in theCInn 
 eery I )ivision w hieli is proper to bo brought there, 
 he will not be allowed to transfer either on the 
 ground that he wishes it tried by a jury, or t hit 
 a transfer would exjiedite the trial. Veiini/i/''ii 
 V. Utilhrie, 9 I*. II. 207.- I Soy d. 
 
 The action was transferred from the ChanciM y 
 Division to the Common Pleas Division of the 
 High (,'ourt by an order of the judges, but the 
 pi lintill' not having notice of tlie transfer signed 
 juilgment ill the Chanceiy Division. An oiiirr 
 w.is iiiaile ritiaiislerriiig the c.isc to the Chan 
 eery Division, ami allouing the judgment en 
 tered to stand and be in force from its eiiti y, 
 without costs. J'lil/ers'iii v. Mitr/ihi/, 9 P. 1{. 
 ;«)(). — Dalton, MoMer. 
 
 Since Rule .'54.'), O. J. Act (See Con. Rule •.'2(i), 
 an action is not to bo transferred from one divi- 
 sion of the High Court of Justice to another, 
 except on very strong grounds. Mnsne v. jl/nv-c, 
 10 P. R. .")74. — Hoyd. Hut see next case. 
 
 HeM, that Rule.'>4">, O. ,f. Act (.See Con. Itnle 
 22!i), was not intended to and <loes not iuterlVie 
 with the ]iower of tiaiisfcrriiig actions from one 
 division of the High Court to another. Pairifiit 
 V. Merch'tnt.'i' lUaik "f ('(inndd, II I'. R. 72. -C. 
 of A. ; Ifirriiiij v. lironk^. Hi. \'). — I'^erguson. 
 
 XVI. .D'lvjK IV (;ii.\MnF.Hs — LopAT, .luniiK- 
 Mastkr ok IIkkkrf.k in Chambkks 
 l.ocAi. .Mastku. 
 
 I. JiiiMklion. 
 
 (a) •fiidije. 
 
 A judge sitting in chambers has no jurisdiction 
 to order judgment to be signed under Rule 324 
 (a) (Con. Knle 744), but a motion for judgiinMit 
 thereunder must be maile to the court. .Ui>r- 
 ruon V. Taylor. -'C Q. B. 492. — Wilson. 
 
 In an action brought to set aside a conveyance 
 it was: — Held that while under the Act respect- 
 ing the Court of Chancery (R. S. <». IS77, e. 
 40, 8. 99) the court might direct an action to 
 be tried by a jury upiui notice and for good 
 cause, yet this could only be done by the court, 
 and not by a judge or master in chambers. 
 Thurlow V. Heck, 9 P. I!. 268.— Patterson. 
 
 Quaere, when a judgment, as in this c ise has 
 been framed without directing a set-off, whether 
 
 
 
 
1652 
 
 1663 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 1664 
 
 ;ioii liimacit' mi 
 cwlutt, '.'" ('!>. 
 tiM V, Thuiii^,!,, 
 
 lefmilt for not 
 mill iissizoM, liiit 
 
 llliHH tlltlllCtidll, 
 
 iivl for tlu! will 
 oreil till) iu:lii)ii 
 1 coiilil not lie 
 on under ('(.n. 
 "Son, 13 V. !!. 
 iray, 13 p. |; 
 on. 
 
 MIOM ONK l»i 
 () Anotiiki:. 
 
 on ill theCli.in 
 !l)iouglittlii'ru. 
 
 !■ I'itlit'i- (111 \\w. 
 
 'I jury, oi- tli.it 
 ill. Vn-mi/i/m 
 
 II the Clianrciv 
 Division of lli'c 
 judges, l)ul the 
 transfer signoil 
 ion. All oi.lci 
 R to tlic f'li;iii 
 judgment 111 
 roiii its entiv, 
 iii-i>hi/, 9 1'. k. 
 
 :'oii. Rule '.".Jli), 
 from one divi- 
 ioo to iinotlici'. 
 
 /iixsc V. J/lK.r, 
 
 !xt case. 
 
 (Sue Con. linlf 
 i's not iiiti'i Icii' 
 ;tions from one 
 tlier. /'air.itiit 
 I I'.R. 72. -r. 
 — Ferguson. 
 
 lOAr, JuDdK- 
 
 Chambkks 
 
 nil jurisdiction 
 iiider Hull) ,T.'4 
 1 for jiidgnii^iit 
 I court. .\/iir- 
 Vilsoii. 
 
 e a convcyiiiice 
 le Aot rcspcet- 
 S. (). 1,S77, c. 
 : 111) action to 
 
 and for good 
 J by the court, 
 
 in chamliurs. 
 attcrson. 
 
 I this c ISO has 
 it-off, whether 
 
 t t 
 
 
 a jiiiigo in chambers has power to direct it to 
 the prejudice of the solicitor, ho iih to vary the 
 ilecree of the court. Hvoirn v. Stiioii, 1 1 1*. K. 
 I'Jl.- Dalton, Mnnter. Osier. 
 
 I'liwers of judge in clmnilieis w itii reference 
 to writs of habeas corpus. .Sec /iii/iiinv. Ar-i- 
 oil, !l O. 1!. 541 ; In re S/irunli, 12 S. C. 1!. 110, 
 p. «47. 
 
 .Jurisdiction to grant administration orders. 
 See III re Muiinie, 10 i". K. \)H, p. 7'JH. 
 
 A judge ill chambers lias no power to rescind 
 his own order for a writ of cii. sa. or to discharge 
 tlie defendant from custoily after the order has 
 been iicted ujuin. MvXahh v. ll/i/ifiilK iiiiei; 11 
 r. 1!. -214. -Ko,se. 
 
 All olllcial referee, sitting for the muster in 
 chambeis, refused an ajiplication by the ilefeii- 
 daiit to cliaiigc the place of trial from .Sariiia 
 to .Stiatlord, but gave leave to luing on an 
 nppeiil from liis ordei', or a substantive motion 
 to ciiange the place of trial before Armour, 
 .!., ,it the fiarnia assizes. Armour, J., enter- 
 tiiiiied tlie motion, which was made uccoiiling 
 to tlie leave given, and made the order chang- 
 ing the venue to (Stratford. The order was 
 diawii up as made by a judge at the assizes, and 
 was signed by the local registrar at Sariiia : — 
 Held, that, having regard to Rule L'M, U. J. Act, 
 (< 'on. Rule lio'ti), and to the leave given and the 
 character of the motion, the order of Armour, 
 .1., was to be regarded as that of a judge and 
 not of the High Court, and could therefore be 
 reviewed by the Divisional Court. S<iriiia Aijii- 
 ciilhirnl /iiiplemeiU Mauufactiii-iini Co. v. I'trdue, 
 11 I*. R. '224. -C. P. D. 
 
 There is nothing to prevent a judge sitting at 
 the iLssizes hearing a chamber motion, if he is 
 disposed for the purpose to treat the court-room 
 as his chambers. Such an ajiplicatiou as this, 
 however, should not be made at the trial on 
 account of the inconvenience and detriment to 
 the public interest arising from the delay of 
 other business appropriate to the assizes, and on 
 account of the injustice to parties to the cause 
 who have prepared for trial ; and it is too late 
 when the assizes have begun to consider the 
 question of the balance of coiivenieuco ; and 
 therefore, while the cimrt ilid not .see tit under 
 the circumstances to restore the venue to .Sarnia, 
 they varied the order of Armour, J., by making 
 the costs of the day at Sarnia, and of the several 
 motions to change the venue costs to the plain- 
 tiff in any event, lb. 
 
 A motion made to the master in chambers on 
 the 27th October, 188(», to rescind his own ex 
 jiarte order of 13tli October, I.S80, aHowing the 
 executrix of the plaintiflfto issue execution for the 
 costs of a motion for prohibition, was referred to 
 a judge in chambers. The motion was made 
 after execution had been issued and placed in the 
 8herift''3 hands :— Held, that neither the master 
 nor the judge in chambers had the power to 
 rescind the order ; and the motion was too late 
 to he treated as an appeal. McNabb c. Opi>en- 
 heinier, 11 P. R. 214, followed; Staniorc. Evans, 
 W. N. December 2ti, 188.") p. 210, considered. 
 lie Doyle v. Hmderxou, 12 P. R. 38. -Rose. 
 
 A motion to extend the time for moving be- 
 fore a Divisional Court against the judgment of 
 the trial judge should not be made to a judge in 
 
 ichanibors, but to the Divisional Court itself, 
 t Imim-iitl Ltmn Co. v. linhy, 13 P. R. 5U.— Fer- 
 ' gusoii. 
 
 To give leave to appeal from report of referee. 
 See A'e Diuiiman an, I Hull, 13 P. It. -IWl, p. 
 1007. 
 
 I See (Iviiiit V. <lmnl, 10 P. K. 40, ; IliUUivd 
 
 1 V. Ai-lliiir, 10 P. R. -281 ;.V. r., //,. -i-JO, p. Kl.JO; 
 
 I'liill V. I.'nnid TiHiih H. W. C,,., P2 P. I!. 380, 
 
 n. 411 ! /t'j/dii V. CaiKida Hoiilln'iii !{. IT. Co., H> 
 
 P. R. Mf), iii/m. 
 
 (1') J.' 
 
 'id Juiliji", 
 
 i The plaintiff's solicitors lived at Siindwieh, 
 and the defendant's solicitors at Toronto. 'I'lie 
 local judge at Sandwich in November, 1884, 
 made an ex parte order for leave to the plaintiU' 
 to amend the writ of sunimoiis before service, 
 and subseipiently set aside his own order on the 
 dcfcndaiil's application, on notice to the plaintiff 
 i and after argument by counsel on behalf of both 
 j parties. The plaintiU' aiipealed from the second 
 j order to ajudgein chambers at 'J'oronto: Meld, 
 \ that the local judge had no power to make the 
 I rescinding order under Itnle 422, O. .J. Act. (see 
 ;Con. Rules 41, 138). Subseiiuently the defen- 
 dants made a substantive motimi before the same 
 judge ill chambers at Toronto, to set aside the 
 j origin.il order of the local judge ; -Held, that 
 save as excepted, a local judge of the High 
 Court in proceedings in the High Court having 
 the same power in chambers as a judge of the 
 High Court in chambers as to the matters re- 
 ferred to in the Judicature Aot Rules, he is a 
 judge of co-ordinate jurisilictiou with a judge of 
 the High Court in chambers. A judge of the 
 High Court has, therefore, no power to review 
 the decision of a local judge, save by way of 
 appeal in the manner provided by the Judicature 
 Act Rules ; and that this motion coulil not be 
 treated as an appeal as it was too late under 
 liule 427, O. J. Aot, (Con. Rule 340). Jii/an v. 
 Vnnuda Southern li. W. Co., 10 P. 0.535.— 
 Rose. -C. P. D. But see Jamifnon v. Prince 
 Albert Colouhation Co., 11 P. R. 115, p. 1057. 
 
 Two of the defendants lived in Chicago, 111., 
 and had no solicitor in the county where the 
 action was begun : -Held, that the local judge 
 of the county in which the action was begun had 
 no jurisdiction under Rule 422, O. J. Act, (^«e 
 Con. Rules 41, 138) to make an order for substi- 
 tutional service of process on these defendants. 
 Locomotive Ewjine Co. v. CopcUind, 10 P. R. 572. 
 —Rose. 
 
 Held, following the former chancery practice, 
 that a local judge may make an ex parte onler 
 for the examination of a witness de bene esse, 
 on the ground that he is dangerously ill, and 
 not likely to recover. Baler v. Jaeksoii, 10 P. 
 R. (i24.--l!ose. 
 
 A local judge of the High Court has no power 
 to order the discharge of a defendant held in 
 custody under a ca. sa. issue<l (uit of the High 
 Courtof Justice. Cochrane Manufacturing Co., 
 V. Lamon, 11 P. R. 351.- (jalt. 
 
 The judge of a county court has no power 
 either as such judge or as a local judge of the 
 High Court to order the issue of a ca. sa. in an 
 action in the High Court. Cochrane Manufac- 
 
1655 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 turinu Co. r. Lniiion, II P. R. H<*1, follnwuil. i for tlio dureniliiiit, witli (.'ustH. Apjilicntinii way 
 A juilgo of tilt' Hiyli {'(luit Hitting; in " Sinj^lo HuliHt'(|uoiitly iiiiulc to tli« juilj^o iit tlu> Ham.' 
 Court, " lias piiwur to Mil iinidc hucIi an oidur. asNi/.cs to Hut asiilo the jiid^'niiMit ami roinHtati- 
 
 V. McVnuli, \'2 I'. R. «7tl. — 
 
 
 H'alerhoUHi' 
 Armour. 
 
 To onler a ri'feriMicc. .'>cu U'hltr v. Ili'eiiii'i , 
 10 P. I!. 5:tl, p. Ki.MI; L^iiliiii l.nnii ttiid Siir- 
 iiigx Co. V. Jluomcr, 10 P. H. I'M, p. 1051). 
 
 To renew writ of Hiiinmons. .See til. LuiiU 
 V. O'Cal/injhnii, 13 P. H. S'i'J, p. 1044. 
 
 See /'/•<./ V. MiKiliimUl, 10 P. 1!. 170, p. 
 1050. 
 
 (ei Mill/frill CIi'idiIk vs. 
 
 On H uiiition l>y iictition for the sale of an 
 infant'8 est;itt' umhi' the Chancery Act ami for 
 the apjilic^'tion amlilisliiliution of the |>roi;eccl» 
 the referee in ehamli. rs jiranteil the order and 
 <lireet(Ml the api)lication and diHtrilpution ol the 
 inomy.s to Ijc realized liy the s.dc, Nuliject to the 
 ordei' lieiiig eontirnied liy a jndgt! in ehaiiiljers 
 NO far ax it exceeded his jiiriMdiution. rroud- 
 foot, •!., hehl that tlie nnuxter in ehanilier.s or 
 thi^ referee Bitting for iiini .slumld continue to 
 e.xerciMc the jurisdiction lornicrly vested in the 
 referee in cliancery chandlers in siicli matters, 
 subject only, to the conlirniation of so iniicli of 
 the order as directed the distiihution and pay- 
 ment out of court of the moneys to he leali/cd, 
 ;iU(l made the eonlirining order. A'' JJiiiff,'.) P. 
 H. 110. Sue Con. Kule .StI. , 
 
 On motion for an or.lur for the v'omndttal of a I 
 defendant for noii-])roductionof d<icinnents inider 
 Rule 420, (). .). Act, (Con. Rule .'lO) which 
 vests in the master in chambers the powers <if the 
 refeiec in cliandjcrs, (pf the Ci'Urt of Chancery ; 
 Held tliat matters rdatiiig to the liberty of the 
 subject having been execpled from the juiisdie- } 
 tion of the clerk of tht^ crow n and pleas undei' 
 the former iiiactice. are still beyon<l his juris- i 
 diction by Rule 4'2(l O. .1. Act (('<m. Rule .SO). | 
 K'i'fr v. lIVuv/, il I". R. -J-iK.- Dalton, .)/((.>-! 
 In:' j 
 
 The nnister in ihambcrshasno jurisdiction to ' 
 entertain an ap|)lic,ilioii for costs under Rule '2(14. 
 O. .1. Act (Con. Rule 0(i5). /lojikiiis v. .Sinllli. 
 9 P. R. 285. ~ iJalton , Afu^trr. 
 
 The master's discretion exercised under R. iS. 
 O. (1877), c. 30, ,s. 20 and Rule 420, O. .J. Act, 
 (Con. Rule 30) is open to review by an appeal to 
 a judge in chambers under Rule 427, O. J. Act, 
 (Con. Rule84(i). .'^ee ChrUlli v. Coiiinn/, OP. 
 R. 529, p. 1025. 
 
 .lurisdictiou to grant adnnnistration oiders. 
 See 111 ri- .Miuisi,-, 10 P. R. OS, p. 72S. 
 
 After judgment has been entereil against an 
 absuonding debttu- pursuant to the finding of a 
 County Court judge on a i-efereuee mider I!. S. O. 
 (1877), c. 08,8. 0, the master in chambers has no 
 jurisdiction to set aside the judgment at the in- 
 stance of another creditor who wishes to be let 
 in to defend. llV/As v. Carroll, 10 P. R. 142.— 
 Chy. I). 
 
 The plaintiff not appearing at the trial, which 
 took place at the Picton Assizes, before Patter- 
 son, J. A., judgment was directed to be entered 
 
 the case on tlu^ list. This was rcf\ised, the plam 
 till' not being then ready to go on. AppliiMition 
 was then nnide by the iilaintitl' to the muster in 
 chambers undei' Uule 270, O. .1. Act, ((Jon. Rule 
 705) to set aside the judgment entered '.t the 
 trial. This motion was enlarged before Rose, 
 J., in chambers, who: -llelil, that Rulj 270 
 O. .1. Act (Con. Rule 705) dues not give juris- 
 diction to the mastei' or a judge in chaiidicrs 
 in such cases. l/illiiiril v. Arthur, 10 P. R. 
 281: S.C, ///.,420.— (.1. R. I>. 
 
 \h to changing venue. .See llii'ihditi v. .l/c 
 AV/r.(('. 10 P. R. 400, p. 150 1. MillUiiiH v. ,s;//.,, i;{ 
 P. R. .350, p. 1504. 
 
 The master in chandicis has jurisdiclinn to 
 entertain a motion undei' R. S. O. e. I'2(>, s. '2.'!, 
 
 to aiuud till' registry of a mechanic's lien when 
 the amount in ipicstion isover.'S200. Re Cornish, 
 O. 11. 2.50, followed. II, M„„i;li„ii.i,- ami L,,il;, 
 i:iO. R. 200. t'hy. I). 
 
 .Vmending and striking out pleadings. See 
 I'i.i;aiiim:. 
 
 Sec (I'idii'l Tniid' It. IT. ('n. v. Oiilririn uml 
 l,>wl„r /!. II'. Co., P. R. 4'20,p. 1(158; Tliiirlmr 
 V. I!n-k\ P. R. 20M, p l(i,V2 ; X,,r,;,whi- v. Mi- 
 Liiliiiii. II P. R. 401. p. Iti07 ; llni,!.- uj Ihimil- 
 1(111 V. Iliiliir. 12 I'. R. 4IS, infra. 
 
 (d) l.ii'dl Mashr. 
 
 Rule 422, (•. .1. .\ct and its snbsecti<in (a) 
 (See Con. Rule.i 41, l,Ss| must be read together, 
 and hence the limitation in the 8u))Hectiou of the 
 jurisdiction of the c<iunty judge in certain eases 
 curtails that of local masters in similar eases. 
 The local nnialer at Hamilton in the <:ounty of 
 Weiitworth gave leave to sign timil judgment 
 under Rule 80 O. d. Act (Con. Rule 7.'W), in an 
 action in which the solicitor for the defendant 
 had his place of residence and otHce at St. Cath- 
 arines, in the county of Lincoln, .'iml no oHice 
 in Hamilton : -Held, that under Rule 4'22, O. .1. 
 Act (See Con. Rules 41, I.S8), the local master 
 had no jurisdiction to make the onler. /''/■«•/ v. 
 Macdoiialil, 10 P. R. 170.— P.oyd. 
 
 Local masters and ( 'ounty Court judges acting 
 under Rule 422, O. .1. Act (sue Con. Rules 41, 
 138), have no jurisdiction, under sections 47 
 and4S(). .J. Act, to order references in 0])pose(l 
 eases. While v. Iii<-mi:r, 10 P. R. 531.— Royd. 
 
 Local masters have no greater powers in mat- 
 ters coming before them in chambers ui'der the 
 jurisdiction given thein bv the Ontario Judica- 
 ture Act and 48 Vict. c."l3, s. 21 (Out.), than 
 those conferred upon the master in chambers, 
 and from these powers the power of referring 
 causes under the Common Law Procedure ,Vct 
 is excepted. A local master has, therefore, no 
 power to make an order to proceed against an 
 absconding tlebtor, upon default, after service 
 of the writ of attachment, where such order 
 contains a chi'.'.se directing a reference under 
 section 107 of the Connnon Liw Procedure Act. 
 Bank of Hamilton v. /iainc, 12 P. R. 418.— 
 Street. 
 
 o 
 
 "f-] 
 
 (v^t* :-' - 
 
piiliciitioii Wiiy 
 o lit tlio nam.' 
 ; mill I'ciiiHtati' 
 iiaud, till! |il:uii 
 . Aiiiili(!iiti()ii 
 ) tliu iiiiiHtcr ill 
 Vut, (('oil. Rule 
 untuiuil .'.t tlu^ 
 (I liefoiij Uimo, 
 thiit Rub 270 
 not givu juriN- 
 (' in I'hitnilins 
 lhiii\ 10 I'. I!. 
 
 Ili'llllllll V. Mr- 
 /i(J(lll V. Sill.:, I.'t 
 
 jiiriHilictiiin to 
 ). c. I'.'O, H, •.':!, 
 nil's lii'ii « lull 
 10. RoCiiniisli, 
 'iDitxi' anil I.I (il:, 
 
 ilcailings. Scu 
 
 V. Oiifririii mill 
 
 1058; '/'Inirliiir 
 
 ' irrniillii' v. Mr- 
 
 'Iniil,- of l/iiiiiil 
 
 sulist'Otliiii (a) 
 
 ! rc'iiil tiigtllur. 
 
 il)sectic)n (if till' 
 
 ,11 certain cast's 
 
 similar oaccs. 
 
 the coiiiity of 
 
 mil jiiiignicnt 
 
 iile TM), in an 
 
 tlio (lofenilant 
 
 ce at St. Cath- 
 
 anil nil oHice 
 
 Knk'4'J'2, (). .1. 
 
 e local niiistrr 
 
 rilor. /■'/•('(/ V. 
 
 ■t jmlges acting 
 Jon. Uulcs 41, 
 suctions 47 
 ICL'H in 0|)piiseil 
 ;. Ml.-Hoy.l. 
 
 jiowors in mat- 
 lei's ni'der tlio 
 )ntaiio Jndica- 
 21 (Out.), than 
 r in chambers, 
 'or of referring 
 I'rocednre Act 
 therefore, no 
 :ee(l against au 
 , lifter service 
 re such onler 
 eference under 
 'rocedure Act. 
 : P. R. 418. - 
 
 <9 
 
 1667 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 165S 
 
 It is intended by HectloiiN H iiiid iil' the .\li- i I'c jiravd on Moiidiiv, the 'JOth .\i)iil, which wu» 
 
 Hconiiing Puhtors' Act that only one ordiT nIiiiII 
 he niiidu under which the |>laiiitill iniiy imuci'iiI 
 to judgment, iind therefoic, w lieri' iiti order ol 
 reference is necessary the oidiM' to iirocci'd niiist 
 lie made liy u judge who lias juriNdiction to reter 
 causes. //». 
 
 The expression "the referring of canscM under 
 the Common Law I'roi^^dure Act" is not re 
 stricted to causes wliicii liim' liein licgnii liy 
 writ of summons. //>. 
 
 Held, tliat a local master has no jurisdiction 
 to nuikcan onler under Con. Rule IIm7 allowing 
 the parties to an action ur proceeding for iidniinis- 
 tration and partition taxed costs instead of the 
 conimission provided for hv t'" i'.ule, •'unless 
 otherwise ordered liy the conn, or a jmlgc." 
 This was an action in which a judgnient for pai 
 titioii and adinini L.tioli was pronounced by 
 Uoyd, C. : — Hehl, that more especially in this 
 case a local master had no power to iiilei fire, 
 for by ordering taxed costs instead of coiuinis- 
 sion he was varying the jnilgment. II' mli-n kx 
 V. lliiidniL:i, Vi I'. R. I'X - iioyd. 
 
 Where lands are situate in dill'eiiint counties, 
 a local master has no jniisdiclion to make an 
 order for the partition or sale thereof, an.l such 
 an order and the proceedings tlieieundir, even 
 as to lands within the county in which he is 
 
 Kaster Monday, II dies lion. The appeal was put 
 on tlui paper for the following Monday ; Held, 
 Hint tins course was pro|iei' and convenient, and 
 also that the proper liioili: o| objecting to the 
 appial was by a motion to .sliiUe it ctl the list 
 as iiiipidpcily set down. .!/,( Vkc v. I'oiilon. 11 
 I'. I!. .'t'.VS. r.oyd, 
 
 l-iave was given to the defendants t' cad 
 new allidav its n|ion their appeal from an oi'ler 
 of a local master obt.iined cx parte by the plain- 
 till'. Tnijliir \. Siihrx oiC limit ij of iJIUiwa, 11 
 I*. R. 4',Hi.— l''ei'gn8on. 
 
 Christmas vacation is not to I,, excluded in 
 icckoning the eight dajs wiiliin which an ;'|)- 
 pcal fioiil the master or local judge or .in: .f 
 in cliambcis is t i be br()Ui;hl on undrr I. ile 1^7, 
 (». .1. A. (tloii. Ilnle StO). As sncii appeal: aro 
 not heard in vacation, the tinii! for a|ipealing 
 will be extended as a matter of course upon an 
 ex jiaile ii|)plical inn. .Siiuu'il, n v. 1 1 untiiiillon, 
 VI V. l;. I. l''ergUM,n. 
 
 I See Ujinii v. Canntlii SoiiHieni ]{. W. Co., 
 P. R. ."i.'l."), p. I(i,"i4 ; LncDniiilirr Emiihi Co. 
 Coiii-lmiil, II) I'. |{. ,-,:•.', p. KmI; WuUihuiinr 
 
 . .i/( ru';,7i, I'.' I', i;. 1)70, p. i(i,vi. 
 
 10 
 v. 
 
 v. 
 
 master, are wholly void. 
 R. 4'2!) followed, yiihiil 
 275. — Rubertaon. 
 
 See Lamhier V. Lmiiliii r. 
 
 iegina 
 
 V 
 
 nith, 7 I' 
 17 (). U. 
 
 Ilenlii/, 
 ) I'. i;.4'.''J, p. 1017 
 
 •2. Aj)j>irili Fioiii. 
 
 (a) .liidiji'. 
 
 The decision appealed from was given on the 
 14tli, ami the notice of appeal on the '20tli 
 November, the first day of Michaelmas Sittings 
 being tlie 17th >ioven;ber :— .Seinble, that this 
 was an appeal from a judge, am) not a substan- 
 tive nuitioii to rescind his order, and if .so, and 
 Rule 414, (see Con. Rule S47) was to govern, the 
 appeal was too late; but:--Held, even so, that 
 the court would extend the time, as the merits 
 were with the appellant. MrLaini v. Mitrl.x, 
 10 I'. R. 4.J1.— y. R. D. 
 
 ,See ^aniid Aiiticidlurul bnpltinent Manu/nc- 
 luviini Co. V. I'erdiii', II P. R. 2l.'4, p. lOo.'l ; 
 /'i'eic<; V. rahner, 12 P. R. :{()«, p. I(i7.'{. 
 
 (b) Local Jiidije or Loral Maxtir. 
 
 Auex parte order for the production of 
 ments was made by the local nia.stcr at lid 
 
 (c| Afiixli r or Jti'/iiir in Cltmiih rn. 
 
 The eight days for appealing from an order of 
 the referee under Kulc 4J7 (c), of the (). J. Act, 
 (Con. Rule S4(i) count fiom tiie making of the 
 decision, not fioiii the entry of the order, as 
 foi'iiieily. W'lnie the plaintili's solicitors, owing 
 to a misapprcliension on this iioint, allowed the 
 eight da.Ns to elapse, Pioiidfoot, .1., granted 
 further time, hmjir v. Itulintxnn, \i P. R. 7S. 
 
 Held, tluu a])peals from tln^ miistcr in cham- 
 bers arc governed by Iviile 427, (Con. Rule 840) 
 and not ijy Rule 414, t). J. Act, (see Cuii. Rule 
 S47) which applies to a[iiieals to a l.iivisioiml 
 Court. Loinxoii V. Canada Fanm i .i Jitx. Co., 9 
 P. R. bSd. — Royd. 
 
 Where a stay was granted on an ex parte ap- 
 plication, it was held that an appeal might be 
 li;id direct to a judg'' in clianibri s, without ap- 
 plying to the 111 ister to rescind his ;.rdcr. (,'raud 
 rriiiik I!, ir. Co. V. Oii'ario and Qutbtr 1{. IT. 
 Co., P. I!. 42(1. Proudfoot. 
 
 A writ was endorfcd specially lor §910, the 
 amount (d' a bill of excbimge, and also asked to 
 have cirt:iin conveyances, ct'., set asule as 
 fraudulent. The ma.-itcr in clianibcrs made an 
 order lor judgment under Kule SI), O.J. Act, 
 ((.'on. Rule 7'ii') on .January lllli. I romlfoot, 
 on the 17tli August, 1,S8.-), and an order was in:ule ! •''. "" '"> '^^^ parte appli. ation of the dcfcnd;int 
 by the same ollicer on Hie ilth September, INS.-), j '"V '^''iv^' t.'> '":'i'.-,' '"i ■"' ''I'l"^"' »''""' .•••■'= "'•i-^t'''- ^ 
 
 diicil- i 
 eville 
 
 refusing to residnd his former order. The defen- ] 
 (hints appealed from tie; latter order ;- -Held, 
 that the a|>pe d was, in ellect, an a))iieal from the 
 original oiaer as the result, if the appeal were 
 successful, would be to rescind that order, and 
 the appe.d was therefore dismissed as too late, 
 under tiule -127, O. .1. Act ((_'on. Rule S40). 
 Jamkxijii V. I'liiict A/hrrt (■otoiii'.atioii Co., 11 
 P. R. 11.'). — Ferguson. 
 
 Au appeal friuii unorder made by a local mas- 
 ter on Saturday, the 17tli April, was setdowu to 
 
 (U'der on the 17lli .laniruy, directed llie appeal 
 to be set down for -Momlay, .Jaiiu.ay 21»t : 
 Held, that the appeal was propcrlv brought. 
 .■^lamlard Bank \. HV v, 10 P. R. I.V.I. —pergu - 
 son. 
 
 >fo objection to his jurisdiition was taken 
 before the master : Ib.lil, that the aj:idication 
 li:iving been entert:iined, an .li'peal to a judge 
 in ch.anbcis of the Ch.uieery liiv.sion, instead 
 ot to a jiiilge of thoC. 1'. or i). 1!. Divisious, was 
 proiicr uuiler l{. S. O. (lS77j (!. 30, s. ol, and 
 
 fi. 
 
1659 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 1660 
 
 Kill.! 427, O. .1. Act (Con. Kiilu 846), the etrout ! 
 cif tlie O. J. Ai'l being tn aliolisli all distiiiftidiis 
 liutweeu Sujierior Courts of law iiiid eiiuily. 
 liiUjImm V. McKiirJt, 10 P. K. 40(i. — hoyd. , 
 
 Appeals fioiii tliu master in clianil)eis luiiy be ' 
 liiuuglit on for liiaiing before a judge of the 
 lligli Court ."itting in ilianiliers without refer- 
 ence to the division in which the action is coin- 
 iniiiccd. Liiiilliiir Mii'iufdclnrinii Co. \. M'lllrr, 
 11 1'. U. .TW. -Armour. ' 1 
 
 An appeal lies to a judge in <jliand)era frnni 
 tlic decision ot the master in chambers, under 
 Rule 544, O. J. Act ((.'on. Rule So4), upon ap- 
 peal from a pending taxation. A'e Mouttith--'^ 
 Mnxhaiil-< lt<iiih- v. Moiitut/i, 11 1'. K. .SOI.— ' 
 Hoyd. 
 
 .A Divisional Co\n't has no jurisdiction to hear 
 an appeal direct frDin tlie master in ehand)ers, 
 or a subst.mtivc motion to set aside a judgment 
 by default of appearance. JJull v. Cathcail, Iti 
 
 0. It. 525. -C. 1'. I). 
 
 See Chrixtk v. Coinvay, 9 P. H. 529, p. 1025 ; I 
 riiiim Loan iiiid Savhujn Co. v. Boomti; 10 I'. ' 
 R. 630, infra ; Snomloi v. llHiit'mijtoii, 12 1'. H. 
 
 1, ]). KI.IH; MHIii/an v. .Vi7/.s, 13 1'. K. ;J50, p. 
 
 \rm. 
 
 XVIII. References to Master in Ordinary, 
 Local Masters and Refer i;es. 
 
 1. JurMktion to Order RcJ'eruice. 
 
 Tlic master in chandjers, and local masters 
 and county judges, acting under Rule 422 O. J. 
 Act (See Con. Rules 41, ISS), have no jurisdic- 
 tion under sections 47 and 4S, O. J. Act to order 
 references in oppf)3ed eases. White v. Btomr, 
 10 P. R. 531.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, following White r. Beenicr, 10 P. li. 
 531, that the master in chambers has no juri.s- 
 diction to order a reference under sec. 47 O. ,1. 
 Act. An appeal from the master's order direct- 
 ing a reference was treated as a sul)stantive mo- 
 tion, and a reference was directed, under Rule 
 323 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 323). Union Loan ami 
 Havingn Co. v. Iloomer, 10 P. R. (i.'lO. — Rose. 
 
 A judge has j\irisdictiiin undei- section 4S O. 
 J. A. to make a eonipuUory order rcfoiring not 
 onlycjueslions of account, but also all the issues 
 of fact in any action to an otiicial referee. Ward 
 c. PiUy, 5 Q. H. 1). 427, foliowed. .Sliidd.s v. 
 MucDonald, 14 A. R. 118. 
 
 A judicial officer cannot delegate the discharge 
 of his judicial finictions to anotlier unless ex- 
 pressly empowei'cd so to do. The various kin<ls 
 of references to judicial otlieers under tlu' 
 Ontario Judicature Act commented upon. Jn 
 n- (Jiiceu Cilji He/ininij Co., 10 P. R. 415.— 
 Hodgins, Hauler in Ordhiary. 
 
 2. Whai May be lii-fcrrtd. 
 
 Reference directed to determine tlie amount of 
 damages sustained by the plaintiff under an 
 agreement to serve defendant, as manager of a 
 tannery, for six years, the agreement reciting 
 that plaintiff was to nuinage the works and the 
 defcnilant w.'is to furnisii tlie capital, for failure 
 of the defendant to perform his part of the agree- 
 
 ment, and for the dismissal of the plaintiff. 
 lilak^ V. Kirk/i,(lrirk, 6 A. R. 212. 
 
 The plaintiff sued for .illeged breach of a con- 
 tract to sell and deliver a quantity of hay to he 
 inspected. The plaintiff gave evidence of short- 
 age and defective (juality, and askoil for a refer- 
 ence as to damages ; but the judge who tried 
 the ease refuseil the reference, and gave judg- 
 ment for the defendant : — Held, tiiat the malteis 
 in (jnesticui were proper for trial by a judge, 
 and tliat the phiintili' was not entitUid to give 
 piimii facie evidence of a breach of euntiact 
 anil tlien liave a reference as to daniagos. Cuiil: 
 V. /'allt7-son, 10 A. I!. ()45. 
 
 The defendant, having delivered ties to a rail- 
 way company, in excess of his contract, as he 
 alleged, arranged that such ties should be re- 
 turned as received by the company on ii contrait 
 willi the jilaintiff'. In anticipation of such re- 
 turns, and of |),aynient therefor, the plaintiff 
 paid t'le defendant §1,000, and brought this uj- 
 tion to recover the same, alleging that he never 
 was alile to procure returns or iiayniont from tlie 
 railw.iy company, an<l that tlie consideration for 
 the SI.OOO h.'id therefore failed. Jt was shewn 
 in evidence that the ])laiiitiff had, in a claim 
 against the railway company for 19,883 ties, in- 
 cluded 3,200 delivered by the defendant, and 
 that, the railway company disputing such claim, 
 a settlement had been ellccted, the plaintiff ac- 
 cepting 4il,000 in full of his claim, and giving 
 tlie company a formal release of all demands : — 
 Hehl, that, to the extent to which tlie ties were 
 delivered by the (hfeiidanton plaintiff's account, 
 the latter could not, in view of the circumstan- 
 ces, allege 'ailure of consideration ; but that he 
 was not bound by the settlement to pay for tics 
 that were not delivered, and therefore that the 
 determination of the action depended upon the 
 result of the inquiry directed as to the number 
 of ties delivered by defendant ; and an appeal 
 from the judgment directing such inquiry was 
 accordingly dismissed. The objection, that the 
 judge at the trial should have himself decided 
 the issue as to failure of consideration, iiisteail 
 of directing an iiKiuiiy before the master, is not 
 one that the coui c will entertain. Feal/itmlonr 
 V. VanA/lin, 12 A. R. 133. 
 
 A judgment directed that the master should 
 take the usual accounts for redemption or fuie- 
 closiire of mortgaged premises and should also 
 take the accounts in respect to certain otiici' 
 matters set out in the pleadings. Under tins 
 the defendant contcndL'd that the master slmuld 
 take into account a certain sale by the plaintitf, 
 as mortgagee, to a person who, it apiiearcd, had 
 not paid his purchase money. There was no 
 specific mention of this sale in the lilcailings or 
 judgment: — Held, that the proposed inquiry 
 was not within the sco[ie of the pleadings or the 
 judgment or of Con. Rules .50 and 57 ; and the 
 questions which it would raise were questions 
 which ought to have liecn raised by the plead- 
 ings and determined by the court, and not dele- 
 gated to the master. Bickfoid i'. (irand .lunc- 
 tioii R. W. Co., 1 S. C. I!, at p. 725; McDoii- 
 gall >: Lindsay Paper Mdl Co., 20 U. C. L. J. 
 N. S. 133: Wiley l: I^edyard, /!>., 142, referred 
 to. liovlaud V. Unnrrtl, \'2 P. R. 007.— Armour. 
 
 The plaintiff's claim was upon a verbal agiee- 
 ment entitling him to onehaU of certain coin- 
 
1660 
 
 )f the plaintiir. 
 12. 
 
 breach of a uoii- 
 ;ity of hay to lie 
 viiieiicu (if short- 
 isked for a lefer- 
 udge wlio tried 
 , ami gave jiiilg- 
 
 tiiat the mattvis 
 rial by a judge, 
 
 iiiititU'.d to give 
 jach of contiiict 
 
 d^images. ' 'uoh 
 
 red ties to a rail- 
 contract, as lie 
 IS shouhl be re- 
 iny oil 11 contract 
 itioii of sucli re- 
 :or, the plaiutifl" 
 l)ronght this ;n:- 
 !ig tliat ho never 
 a\ ment from tliu 
 L'onsideriitioii for 
 . It was slii'wii 
 liad, ill a claim 
 ir 19,883 ties, iii- 
 I defendant, and 
 iting such claim, 
 the plaiiitill' ac- 
 ilaini, and giving 
 f all demands : — 
 ich the ties were 
 aintiff's account, 
 the circuinstan- 
 ion ; but that he 
 it to pay for tics 
 lereforc that the 
 peiided upon the 
 to tiie number 
 and an ai^ieal 
 uch inquiij was 
 jeotion, thai the 
 himself decideil 
 leration, instead 
 master, is not 
 n. Fealhcrnloitr 
 
 U! master should 
 
 emptioii or fuix- 
 
 llld should also 
 
 to certain other 
 
 gs. Under this 
 
 le luastei- shmild 
 
 y the ]ilaintiir, 
 
 it appeared, had 
 
 There was no 
 
 the pleadings or 
 
 roposeil inipiiry 
 
 pleatliiigs (M- the 
 
 lid 57 ; and the 
 
 were cpicstions 
 
 I by the plead- 
 
 •t, and not dele- 
 
 V. Oranil Junc- 
 
 ). 7'2.) ; McUou- 
 
 .>0 V. C. L. J. 
 
 h., 142, referred 
 
 007.— Armour. 
 
 a verbal agiee- 
 of certain com- 
 
 1661 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 1662 
 
 
 mission received by the defendant ; and his ease 
 depended upon his being able to prove the agree- 
 ment, and to shew that he periormod the ser- 
 vices wliich were to form the consideration for 
 it; if the plaintiif succeeded in establishing the 
 agreement and the performance, the taking of an 
 account would necessarily follow. The tlefen- 
 daiit tiled u counter claim, as to which there 
 was no (piestion that it would be proper to direct 
 a reference either to arbitration or to an ollicial 
 referee. Two days after the action was com- 
 menced, the defendant's solicitor wrote suggest- 
 ing that all accounts between the parties slioiild 
 be settled by arbitration. The plaintitl' subse- 
 quently made a motion to refer to an otiicial re- 
 feree under section 48, O. J. Act, and the defen- 
 dant moved to refer to a named arbitrator, or to 
 some other arbitrator to be named by the court. 
 The affidavit tiled in suiiport of the defendant's 
 motion, stated the lielief of the deponent that 
 the whole matter could be settled by aret'eience 
 to an arbitrator to be appointed by the court, 
 who would have authority to decide as to the 
 validity of the alleged agreement ; tiie court 
 being of opinion that the real contest was as to 
 the person to whom the rel'erenoe should be 
 made, refused to interfere with the dise?ctii)ii 
 exercised by Wilson, C. .J., in referring the ac- 
 tion to the referee, though made without the 
 tonsent of the defendant. Cihidd-sv. MacUonaUl, 
 14 A. U. 118. 
 
 lu an action against a municipal treasurer a 
 reference was directed to ascertain whit was 
 due from him, and an order was made peiinitting 
 the sureties to ajipear upon the ret'erence ami 
 contest the claims of tlie nmiiicipality. This 
 <irder was varied liy making |)rovision tor awanl- 
 iiig costs as lietween the nmnicipality and the 
 sureties. Coiialy oj E-iii:r, v. Wrii/IU- -Ootiili/ oj 1 
 E^^ex v. Biiji; VA I'. I!. 474.-t;alt.— C. 1'. i-)'. 
 
 See Iii/iriialioiKi/ /iridi/i; Co. v, Cmiaila 
 .Snulhrm I!, ir. r,,., 7 A. 'l!. 22(i ; 7 App. tJas. 
 J'J.'i, p. KiSO ; //( re .I/»H.s(e, 10 R 1!. !)S, p. 10112. 
 
 3. Chamjir-i I'tfcri'ita;. 
 
 Where the business of the partnership in cpies- 
 lion in this suit had been carried on in tiie county 
 <if iSimcoe, ami tlie parties resided therk-, and it , 
 was found tlie master in ordinary could not pin- 
 ceed with the reference diiected lor two months 
 from the date of this application, the lefcrencc 
 was changed to liarrie Ailkin v. H'ilsoii, 'J I'. 
 K. 7o,— Boyd. 
 
 4. Jurindlrlioit of Mauler on Rejerence. 
 
 Where an application fir a commission to ex- 
 amine a witness in New York, was made betore 
 an odicial referee, and referred by him to a 
 judge, it was : — Held, that matters coining 
 within the jurisdiction of any ollicer of the 
 court should lieclisposed of by liim in the usual 
 way, and the parties might tlieii ajipeal from 
 such decision. Jliit/hei v. Uici, 9 1'. it. 80.-- 
 15.,yd. 
 
 A decision of the Supremo Court of Nova 
 Scotia conlirming the report of a master on a 
 reference reverseil, on the ground that the master 
 had exceeded his authority and reported on 
 
 matters not referred to him. Dou/l v. J/c/lreith, 
 14 S. C. R. 73'J. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the master's oHice is not 
 co-extensive with that oi the court in eii(|uiriiig 
 into and adjudicating n|)on the validity of docu- 
 ments ; and there is no authority to support 
 any implied or assiiuu'd delegation of the lunc- 
 tious of the court tt the m istjr. Xor is there 
 any practice in the master'.s olHee which allow.s 
 parties to obtain a reference to the master so as 
 to evade the ordinary judicial functions ol the 
 court, and then invoke those judicial functions 
 in a tribunal of delegated and sub udiiiate juris- 
 diction, hire Mmi4c, 10 K K. itS. -Hodgins, 
 Master in OnliiKiri/. 
 
 I'ho jilaintill's, when taking accounts liefore 
 the master under the ordinary chambjr order 
 for the administration of jiersoiial estate, s niglit 
 to have it declared thai a bequest to I!., wlio 
 was one of the witnesses to the will, was \ alid : — 
 ilehl, 1. That the master had im jiiiisdictioii, 
 under such order and on ural pleadings, to ad- 
 judicate upon the validity of tlie will : 2. That 
 even if there was such jurisdiction it could nut 
 be exercised in the absence of a pei'soiial re|pre 
 sentative of R.'s estate. //». 
 
 The plainlifF, as murfgagee of the defendaiils, 
 by an inslriiment dated .'iUlli Jaiuiaiy, ISSJf, imi- 
 porting to be duly executed by the plaintiif, 
 commenced an action for the sale of the morl- 
 ga.;eil property. The writ issued duly endorsed 
 under Rule 17 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 248), and 
 default being made, judgment was obtained 
 under Rule 78, (). J. Act (Oon. liule 718 /<aWi, 
 referring it to the master at Lindsay to make 
 and take the enquiries and accounts as prescribed 
 by t;. (). (;hy. 441 (Con. Rule 77(i. and Koriii 
 lUS). The master gave certain execution credi- 
 tors, who had been iiiaile paities in hisollice and 
 proved their claims, priority over the ])lainti!l' 
 on the ground that the instrument in qii' ition 
 was invalid, the terms of section 8.j of tin ('an- 
 ,ida .loiiit Stock (Company's Act of 1877, which 
 requires the sanction of a two-thinls vote of the 
 sharehold IS, not having been complied with : — 
 Held, that under the di;cree the master had no 
 power to ailjud'cate uiion the validity of the in- 
 strument ill question as a mortgage, and the ex- 
 ecutinii creditiu's not having moved against the 
 jnlginent by virtue of which they were made 
 parties were also bound bv the ilecree. Me- 
 Doii'inll V. LiniUay I'ap.r 'Mill Co., 10 1'. H. 
 247. -Roy 1. 
 
 As to power o' master in ordinary to order 
 payment ol insurance money intii court in a case 
 where the administration of the testatm^'a estate 
 had been referreil to him. See Mi rehants Hank 
 \. MoiUeilh ; E.I- jiarl.' Sliiiiilnrd lAl'e IiiKiiraiice. 
 Co., 10 1'. 1!. ;").>■ • p. 1004. 
 
 Held, that on a jliambor reference for parti- 
 tion or .-.ale of lands made by the master in 
 chambers, the master in ordinary has no juris- 
 diction to try the question of the validity of a 
 lease uiuler seal troiii the intestate, set up as ii 
 ten years' lease by one of the liciis-at-law, who 
 claimed thit the lands shouhl be sold subject to 
 his lease, some of the other heirs-at-law disputing 
 the validity of the lease, anil alleging that it was 
 cither a live years' lease, or that there had been 
 a fraudulent alteration of the sealed instrument, 
 there being an alteration in a material part ap- 
 
 i; 
 
1068 
 
 PBAOTIOE- 
 
 1664 
 
 rvi 
 
 ]iur(;nt on tlie face. The reference was adjourned 
 till iiftiT the trial of the (juestion raised, and an 
 issue WHS directtd by a judge in chanihers under 
 Itule 2.16, O. J. Act (Con. Ilule C")")), to he tried 
 at the ne.xt sittings for the trial of actions in the 
 ClianceryDivision ; the lessee to))e plaintiff in the 
 issue. /iV Itiiijifs — Hosiers \. Jx'onem, \\ I*. K. 
 !10. — Hodgins, Master ir Ord'niari/. — Ferguson. 
 
 Sec In re Mnvxie, 10 P. R. 98, p. 728 ; hi re 
 Qmtii Villi li'/iiiimi Co., 10 P. R. 415, p. 200 ; 
 C/arke v. LaiK/liy, 10 P. R. 208, p. 16t)4 ; Ihnihes 
 V. /,'e.is, 10 I'. R. 301, p. 1622 ; BvfiweU v. araiit, 
 1 1 P. R. 37(i, p. 1647 ; Bank of llamiltou v. 
 liaim; 12 P. R. 418, p. IGSe. 
 
 8. Proccdinrjii on Heferevre. 
 
 (a) Takinij Accuiudx. 
 
 The circuuistancos under which interest on a 
 (daim ouglil to l)e allowed or refused in theniaa- 
 tor's office, considcreil and acted on. A'e A'o.sv, 
 2nCli>. 3Sr).-l!oyd. 
 
 The master lias authority to take the account 
 with rests, uudir the ordinary reference, as 
 against an executor liut where he declines to 
 charge the executor in this way, if it is intended 
 to a))peal he should be rciinired to report the 
 facts to enable tliii court to <leterininc on tiie 
 propriety of liis decision. Quaere, whether it is 
 not the more proper course to bring the matter 
 up on further directions witli all the materials 
 for consideration spread out on the report, rather 
 than to apjjcal in such a ca: e Sievewriijht v. 
 Leys, 1 O. R. 375.— Proudfo'.it. 
 
 Where an amendment in a matter of account, 
 us stated in the pleadings, would be allowed be- 
 fore decree, a similar amendment should also be 
 allowed, if asked for, in respect jf the accounts 
 filed after decree, in the master's office. Court 
 V. Holland, 4 0. R. 688.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Manner of taking accounts in fixing an occu- 
 pation rent to be charged against one who had 
 occupied land under mistake of title. See Mim- 
 siev. Lindmy, II O. IJ. 520. 
 
 See Cariirijk v. Federal Honk of Canada, 8 O. 
 R. 75, p. 1664; In re Muime, 10 P. R. 98, pp. 
 728, 1662. 
 
 (b) Other Couch. 
 
 Adding parties in the nuister's ofliee for the 
 jnirpoae of discovery. See Iloppir v. IlarrUim, 
 28 ('hy. 22, p. I(i80. 
 
 In his pleadings, in an action for an account 
 the plaintiff set iij) that on 'JSrd April, 1878, he 
 transferred to the defendant 160 shares of a I'cr- 
 tain baid{, ns a security for a loan, and that 
 pending tlio loan the defendants had soM tlie 
 said stock and realizrd more tlum the indebted- 
 ness, whereof he claiuicd an accoinit, and the 
 parties went to trial on admissions that the bank 
 stock was in t!ic defeiidaiits" hands at the saiil 
 dale. In the nuister's office the |ilaintifF smight 
 to raise an i^sul' as to whether the defendants 
 act\i:dly did hold the bank stock on that date, 
 or whether, having held it jircviously as security 
 for another loan, they had not parted with it 
 before the s;iid date, and falsely represented to 
 tins plaiiitiir that they still held it, and whether 
 thoy wore not liable to be charged with ita mar- 
 
 ket value as of that date: — Held, affirming the 
 decision of the master in ordinary, that tlie 
 plaintiff could not be allowed thus to set up a 
 different state of facts and cause of action from 
 that spi'cad upon the record. Cariieijie v. Fed- 
 eral Hank of Cnnadn, 8 O. R. 75. — Boyd. 
 
 Admissions made before the master in the 
 course of a reference should be put into writing 
 and signed by the party making the same. 
 Foster V. Allison, 11 P. R. 233.— Royd. 
 
 By an agreement for the sale of certain land, 
 the vendor was to give a good marketable title, 
 of which the purchaser was to satisfy himself at 
 his own expense, and was not to call for any ab- 
 stract of title, deeds, or evidences of title other 
 than those in the vendor's possession. iSuhse- 
 fluently, on n reference in a suit by the vender 
 for specific performance, the defend.mt filed three 
 objections to the title having reference to a 
 ! small iiortion of the land, which were answeioil 
 i by the plaintiff, and the reference was |)rocee(l- 
 ' ing when the defendant apidied and obtaintil 
 I from the master leave to tile other objections. 
 I On appeal, Proiidfnot, .1.: — Held, that the inas- 
 I ter in ordinary had no jurisdiction to grant such 
 leave, but on a subsequent ap|)licati()n to the 
 court he gave the leave rei|uired on terms. 
 Clarke v. Ldiii/hi/. 10 1'. R. 2( ^. 
 
 The master has no jurisdiction to make amend- 
 ments to the jileadings after judgment; nor 
 could he give leave to file a slatenient in lii.s 
 office raising a defence which ought to apjieaiiii 
 the pleadings. Jlnijhts v. Ilei-s, 10 I'. R. 301.— 
 Hodgins, Mastir in Ordinary. 
 
 In a mortgage action there \vas a i-eference to 
 a master for sale, etc, After sale and satisfac- 
 tion of the plaintiff's claim out of the proceeds, 
 a balance remained in court, which R. (J. ai)))licd 
 to the master to have paid out to her. Upon 
 such application R. O. was examined before the 
 master, who refused the apidication. An order 
 was afterwards made by a judge referring to 
 the master to ascertain who was entitled to the 
 fund, and to settle priorities. Ujiiin sucii refer- 
 ence the master ruleil that the de|iositionsof K. 
 (J. taken upon the former aiiplication could be 
 read : — Hehl, reversing the decision of Robert- 
 son, J., in chambers, tliat the depositions could 
 be read suliject to the right of A., an o]iposiiig 
 claimant of the fund *^o cross examine R. (J. 
 upon them ; H. (J. to attend fur such crnss- 
 examination upon payment of conduct money 
 by A. Mac/eniian v. (trai/, 12 1'. R. 431.— 
 Chy. I). 
 
 Sec /;) re. Miuisie, 10 P. R. 98, p. 728 ; Itn /I'n./.rs 
 —/{oi/ersv. lloijers, II V. R. 90, p. 1 0,13. 
 
 9. Coiijirniiiiij /'ejmrl. 
 
 A certificate given by a nnister that certain 
 accounts filed under his order »vr. not siilliciert 
 in substance and fnrm, ionics within (1. < '. IH"- 
 (See (,'(in. Rule 8-19), and canimt be eiit'orcc'd liy 
 attaelimciit until eoiiliiiucd I y i;,' la|se of a 
 month. Fosfer \. Monlni, '.) f' li. Vll. -Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 A decree directed a reference to a local master 
 to ascertain s\ich sums as would be siillicieut to 
 satisfy the damages eoniplained of, awarded 
 costs and directed payment to be made forth- 
 
 1^ 
 
1664 
 
 1665 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 166& 
 
 [eld, aflirming tlio 
 rdinary, that tin: 
 I tlins to set up a 
 use of action froiu 
 ('anieyie v. Fed- 
 7o.— Hoyd. 
 
 lie master in the 
 e put into writiiy 
 aking tlie sunie. 
 }.— Uoyil. 
 
 le of certain laud, 
 nuii'itetable title, 
 ) satisfy himself at 
 to call fur any iiU- 
 incew of title otlur 
 ossessiou. .Subse- 
 luit hy tlie vendor 
 ifend.mt tiled tliiee 
 ly reference to ii 
 ieii weic answcied 
 ■ence was jjrocced- 
 lied and obtaintil 
 ) otiier objections, 
 eld, tliat tlie nius- 
 ition 1(1 yrant such 
 ipplication to the 
 (luired on terms. 
 
 on to make anu'iid 
 !r judgment; niir 
 statement in his 
 ought to ap))eariu 
 M, 10 I', n. .SOI.— 
 
 was a reference to 
 
 sale and satisfac- 
 
 it of the procecils, 
 
 hich l{. (!. api)lied 
 
 mt to her. Upon 
 
 amined before the 
 
 cati<m. An order 
 
 udge referrirg to 
 
 vas entitled to the 
 
 U])i)n such refer- 
 
 J de|ii)sitionsof K. 
 
 plication could lie 
 
 ecisiiin of Rohert- 
 
 dcpdsitions could 
 
 f A., an opposing 
 
 ss examine R. 0. 
 
 d for such cross- 
 
 if conduct money 
 
 1-2 I'. K. -i:tl.- 
 
 p. TlJS; AV: /,'<>!in:-! 
 0, p. llio:f. 
 
 ])oyl. 
 
 aster that certiiiu 
 al'c not sulliciei;t 
 within (!. O. M'X 
 lit 1": eut'iirccd liy 
 1 y i;,- lai se ot ;i 
 I' II. VO.- I'roud- 
 
 •c to a local ma.stir 
 lid lie sullicicul to 
 iiicd of, aw.iiiUd 
 to he made fortli- 
 
 witli after the making of the report : — Hold, 
 that the report did not require coiiHrmation, and 
 tliereforc that the executions issued under it by 
 the plaintill' were valid ; l>ut pending an appeal 
 from the report the executions were stayed in 
 the slierifl's hands. Ijcinn v. Tall/ut St. (/ravel 
 Itoad Co., WW It. 15.— Osier. 
 
 Unless by consent a report cannot l)e con- 
 (irmed until after the lapse of the time limited 
 by Con. Rule 848. It is an undesirable practice 
 for an oHicer to make an order confirming his 
 own report. PattiTxon v. (lilhirl, 12 I". R. 
 052. — Rose. 
 
 10. Appeals From. 
 
 (a) From Master. 
 
 An appeal was not made within tlie timi^ re- 
 quired by Rule 4(!1, O. J. Act (Con. Rule -184), ! 
 as it was supposed that Ciiristmas vacation did 
 not count. On the facts stated in the judgment 
 leave was given to appeal on payment of costs. 
 Skve.wrUjht v. Lri/.i, 9 1'. R. 2U0. — Dalton, A/at- 
 ler. 
 
 The report in an action for dower was filed fui 
 tJlltli May, during the Easter sittings of the 
 court. A motion was made against it within 
 the first four days of the Michaelmas sittings : — 
 Held, that the motion was t(jo late, for it should 
 have been made to a vacation judge under Rules 
 482 and 48.3 (('on. Rule 215). (.'i/cs v. Morrow, 
 4 0. R. (i4',».— Q. R. ]). 
 
 The solicitors for the defendants (except L.) 
 had given due notice of appeal, but through in- 
 ailvertence set down the ap))cal on behalf of tlie 
 defendants the gravel road company only. 
 Under the circumstances stated in tlie juilg- 
 meiit the other defendant? were allowed to set 
 down their ajipeal. Lcvlsy. Talhot SI. (/ran I 
 llond Co., 10 I'. R. 15.— Osier. 
 
 '.Vliero, after the argument in chambers of an 
 ap|)eal from the master's report, counsel for one 
 of the )),\rties asked that the appeal might be 
 treated us though argued in eiuirt, and any oi'der 
 made thercim issue a.s a court ordi i ; o:, at all 
 events, that costs sliouhl be allowed as of a colli t 
 motion : — Held, that although tlie appeal wdidd, 
 on account of its nature, have been adjourned 
 into court, if such adjoniiimciit had been asked 
 before the argument of it, the present application 
 was too late, and the court had no power to grant 
 it. lie Fli-mivij, 11 V. H. 272. — Kergusou. 
 
 Tlicie should be no alteration in the amount 
 found due by the master when siicli amount has 
 not been appealed against. Judgment of I'roud- 
 foot J.. 11 (). R. (ill, iiplichl in part, (/urdoii 
 v.dordi.ii, 12 O. R. ■■)!);!.- (hy. D. 
 
 Having regard to llic (uovisions of 44 Vict. e. 
 .'i, s(!etion 2."i(<). .1. A.) the .setting down of an 
 .ippeal from a report in an action in theCl'.ancery 
 i)ivision, to be heard at a sittings of chambers 
 in aiiotlicr division, is a nullity. //<' C/irislli— 
 Chrhlii' V. ( hrixliv, 12 P. R. 15. Ferguson. 
 
 All ap))cal from the ruling of a master in the 
 course of u reference shiiiild be brought on 
 within a nimitli from the date of the ruling, 
 irres])cctive of the date "f the certitieatc of sucli 
 ruling. Maclnnian v. (/ray, 12 1*. R. 4;il.— 
 Cliy. 1>. 
 
 105 
 
 Held, also, that A. was cstoppcil from ap- 
 pealing from the master's ruling by reason of 
 his not having ol)jectcd to tlie evidence being 
 referred to at a certain stage of the luojce lings. 
 Ih. 
 
 (J. O. Chy. (il2 provided for an a|ipeal to a 
 judge in chambers against any decree, oriler, 
 repiu't, ruling, or otlier determination of any 
 muster; but this (U'der has been abrogated, and 
 the provisions for .appeals from masters and 
 referees are now eoiitaincil in Con. RnleiS4S-8,")0, 
 in which there is nojirovision fur an appeal from 
 a ruling or ctitilicate, but from a ri-port only. 
 Markic V. /'os<, 1,S I'. R. 1;15. — Hose. 
 
 Held, that a party to any reference has a right 
 to come to the court, at any stage with any well 
 founded coiuphiint against the conduct of the 
 referee, either personal inisconduct or error in 
 receiving or jejecting evidence, or otherwise ; and 
 Con. Rule ."{!) shews the intention to permit inter- 
 locutory rulings to be considered ; but :\ judge 
 in chamliers has no longer any jurisilictioir, and 
 llie ajipeal must be to a judge in eouif. ( 'onmee 
 r. Canadian Pacific Ii. \V. (,'o.. Kit). 1!. at jip. 
 (i41, 042, and cases cited at p. (i.")7, referred to. 
 Ih. 
 
 Quale, whether upon a reference to a local 
 master, qua master, an appeal iroin an inter- 
 locutory onlerwouhi lie under Con. I!ule84(>. lb. 
 
 Where the court at the trial of a partnership 
 action, after declaring that a ]jartncrohip existed 
 and adjudging that it be (li-s(dved and wound 
 up, ordered tlial :ill nther matters in (li.i|)utc in 
 tl'.e action be rtfcrivd for iiKpiiry and leport to 
 .". master under section 101 of the Judicature 
 Act; — Held, ihat the report of the iiiasler under 
 such refeienee was not sulijcct to the provisions 
 of (^on. Iiule 848 as to conlirniatiiiii by tiling and 
 lapse of time ; iuit that any time after ii was made, 
 a motion lor jiulgnu lit upon it w.is in order under 
 Con. Ilule75.'{, and upon such motion the court 
 could adopt it whidly or in [lart, .-iml any Jiarty 
 dissatislied with it might liefnie or on the leturn 
 of the motion for jiidgniei t move to set it aside 
 
 or vary it. Iliinjiiiiiiitl v. l.itlUr 
 Robertson. 
 
 See Siiriirri'jlit v. '-',V'. 1 '^• 
 (Itii- V. Ilniilitiijliiii, 12 r. 11. 1 ; 
 i:a»i'ij v. (/ahunric, 12 1'. W. -■>-, 
 
 \:\ V. K. :>(i4.— 
 
 R. ;!7.") ; Snow- 
 llf Halioiirii- — 
 p. :iO. 
 
 (b) Frow llc/rrci: 
 
 .\n order extending the time for apjieiling 
 from a re])oil of an olliii.d n-ferci; nndir (). .1. 
 Act, section 47, should not lie made ex jiarte. 
 llumiltnn V. Twtid, \) I'. I!. 448. -I'roudfoot. 
 
 At tiio trial of this action a eoiniiulsory order 
 of reference was made, referring "all (|nestioiis 
 arising upon the pleadings of this action betw ecu 
 the parties, including all ipustioiis of account, 
 (if any)," to an otiicial referee •' foieiKpiiry and 
 report" :— Held, that this was a refeiencc under 
 section 47 of tlie Judicature Act, ami not one 
 under section 48, and the ri'leree having made 
 a general tiiiding liy his repoi t (^et oud in the 
 statement), the case was refernd liack to him 
 'o eive specific findings. Lum y v. E^xeri/, 10 
 i . R. 28,-). -Rose. 
 
 Held, that objections to sjiecial findings in a 
 report must bo raised by notice of niutiun. lb. 
 
1667 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 1668 
 
 
 Hold, tliivt . a siiij;lo judgo sitting as tlie court 
 has ])i)\vur to reviuw tliu liiiiliiigs of an otHcial 
 I'ofuiuu upon a n^fuiviicu iimlcii' auiaioii 48 O. J. 
 Act. inn V. Xurtlt'iii I'lvilie Jiim 'ion II. IK. 
 Co., 11 !'. It. 10.1— Keigiis.iii. 
 
 In ail action for wages, tlioro was a (li.spute as 
 to the Tiatiii'c of tliu agieuniuiit foi' liiring ; there 
 was eviiliMieu at the trial wliieh woulil )iave 
 supported a tiudiug for eithei- )) irty. Tlic (p'es 
 tion was wlioUy one ot' fact, and of the credi- 
 hility of witnesses. 'rh(; juiy found in favou," 
 of the ]>laintiir; liut the judge set it aside, and 
 .Mcnt tlie case to a n^fercM', who f(uind suhstanti- 
 ally as the jury lia I done, liimn motion the 
 judge made an order seuiling tln! ease l)aek to 
 tlie refeieo with iMslruilious lo tind against tlic 
 plaintitl'on one braneli of tlie ease ; — Held, that 
 the ease was oni; speeially proper for the do- 
 <;ision of a jury, and tliat neitlier tlie verdict nor 
 the finding of tlie rcifcree shouM have Ixieu in- 
 terfered with, /v');/;/ V. Elliruwl, 14 A. 11. 4915. 
 
 The report of a referee is eipiivalent to the 
 verdict of a jury. It should state the referee's 
 coiielusioiis ; and he need not give tlie reasons 
 for his liiiilings. Fair.xtt v. WinlLr.s, 12 1*. Jt. 
 •232.— O't'oniior. 
 
 The referee, who was a barrister, found that 
 there was a w.int of leasoiiahle and jiroliahle 
 cause for tlie defi'iidaiit jiroeei'ding eriniinally 
 against the plaintill'. It was olijected tliat this 
 was a liudirig of law and not of fact: — Held, 
 that this was ((piivahMit to a verdict for tlio 
 iilaintilf rendered liy a jury iinchr instrnctions 
 liy a juilg'' of wli it winilil he evidence of want 
 of reason ihle and proliahle eaine ; and on the 
 evidence the lindings could not be interfered 
 with. It). 
 
 Held, that after the report of a referee has 
 liocoine aluohitc and a jud^'iu 'lit on fiirtlier di- 
 roctiiMis founded tlieri'on li.as b.'cn pronounced, 
 drawn up. .in 1 entu'cd.a jnd-'e in clianiliers has 
 no jurisdiction to cntntLin an application for 
 leave to appeal ; nm- (■onhl any appeal be enter- 
 tained unless the jiidgiiient on fuitlier directions 
 were s.!t aside; and thit loiild not be done even 
 by a judge in eonrl, but only by the proper ap- 
 jiellato tribunal. AV hhi'iman and 11 til, l;{ 1'. 
 H. 232.— lioyd. 
 
 Wliere, in a consent jn Igni 'lit in the usual 
 form in lien cases, a r<fcren(;e was made to iv 
 local registr.ir of tlic c.nirt; — Held, that an ap- 
 peal lay from his report, it appearing from the 
 whole judgiii lit that the reference was to him 
 as master. Kiiiii'ili/ \. Ilnildijir, 1!) O. 11.240. — 
 lioyd. 
 
 XVIII. Rp.disTTiAiis OF Division's OK TUB Hion 
 
 Col'IIT. 
 
 The registrar of a Division tif tlii.' Ifigli Court 
 has power to iei;eive evidence by allidavit to 
 shew that an order of e mrt has not been objyed, 
 and to enforce the order by sh'ilcing out para- 
 gi'a])lis of the did'c'iice. Ilnmi/lon. Itoad Co. v. 
 'Flail, 10 P. R. TiSl. -Dillon, .l/.rs7-;r. 
 
 Where an action in tlio Queen's Bench or 
 (■oinnion Plea Division of the Hi'.;h C<iurt ot 
 Justice is, under Kiile .">!((> (Con. Ilule G(i(i), set 
 down for trial at a sittings for tri.il of actions 
 ill the Chancery Division, any order made iii 
 
 such action by the juilge presiding at such sit- 
 tings should be signed by tlio officer who acts as 
 registrar at such sittings, and not by the regis- 
 trar of the Division to which the action belongs. 
 Wa<ihorii v. Ihwkins 12 I'. U. 145.— C. V. D. 
 
 XI.\. NoTioK 01' Motion. 
 
 Irregularities n lied on, need not bo stated in 
 a notice of motion if they are set <nit in allidavitj, 
 tiled on the motion, and niterrod to in the notice. 
 lilam V. litaiii, !) 1'. II. 2(i!).— Dalton, Ma^U'r. 
 
 A notice of motion for irngularity shouhl 
 show or refer to atlid.ivits shewing what the 
 irregularity is. Dnininioii S<iniii /i and Iiiri'-ilmaiU 
 Co.v. Kilroti, 12 I'. R. 1'.).-- D.dton, Master. 
 
 All objection that a notice of motion given for 
 a sittings of llio Divisicnial t'onrt, and served in 
 time to be set down dnriiig that sittings, coulil 
 not be set down in tlie following sittings was 
 overruled, liiw-o-.rl v. Mch'ivn, JOO. R. 17!).— 
 C. I'. I). 
 
 Where the defendant's solicitor was served 
 with a short noiice of motion which was admit- 
 ted to he defective : -Held, that the defendant 
 was not entitle! ti; the costs of counsel attending 
 on the motion merely to .show that the notice 
 was irregular. HVf//. >• v. Clarl.-.; 11 1'. R. 1.10.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 Where a defendant, npou being sued in the 
 First Division Court in the cnuuty of .Middlesex, 
 tiled a iioUeedispu ting t he jiU'isdict ion and served 
 a notice of motion leturnalih' before a juilge in 
 chambers, for an order diiieiing the issue of a 
 writ of prohibition to the sail Division Court, 
 to jirohibit till', judge theieof aii 1 the pl.iintill' 
 from piocee ling with the suit in that Division 
 Court on the ground of want of jurisdiction in 
 that court to hear and ileterinine tlic same, but 
 did not entitle his notice of motion, nor the 
 allidavit llled in support of tin; illation, in any 
 Division of the High ('ouit of Justice: — Held, 
 allirmiiig the order of O'l'oiinor, .J., in "Iniuibers, 
 gr.iuting the writ, not a fat.il objection, but one 
 wliiel; could and sliuild be aineiiile 1 under Rule 
 474, (). J. Act, (Con. Rule 441). AV Otmdnad 
 v. /Crrinulon, 11 I'. R. 3i;ti.— f^. 15. >). 
 
 No order of any moment should be nude ox 
 parte, e.\cept in a case of enn'i-geiicy. Tlionuti 
 .'. Storey, 11 V. R. 417.— Rose. 
 
 A notice ot motion to a Divisional Court 
 against the verdict and judgment at the trial, 
 on the ground of non-direction, should .shew how 
 and ill what matter there wa-s iiou-diroction. 
 The court may allow an amendment of the no- 
 tice in a ]>ropcr casi; ; but it declined to as.sist 
 the defendant by doing so where tlie non-direc- 
 tion was not miterial in view of otiier facts and 
 liii lings, and the rule of law invoked by the de- 
 fend iiit would have opiu'ated ag:iinst a nieritori- 
 ou-i (daini of the iilaintill'. I'feill'er r. Midland 
 l{. W. Co.. I.St,), li. I). 2i:t, followed. Fiu-lou'i 
 V. Il.id, 12 1'. R. 201. -Chy. 1). 
 
 l>is|K'iisiug ivitli servii.'eof noticeof motion for 
 jud.;m('iit. Sec D.iiiiiiiion llaiit; v. Doililrhlijn, Vi 
 V. R. (i.'io, p. 10li7. 
 
 Upon the proper constrnetion of Con. ItuleSM) 
 a notice of motion to a Divisional Court must be 
 made returnable on tlie tirst day of the sittings. 
 
 I 
 
1668 
 
 liiling at such sit- 
 ffiuur wlio acts as 
 
 not by tliu rugis- 
 lio action Ijuloiigs, 
 
 115.— C. P. D. 
 
 [OTION. 
 
 1 not t)G stated in 
 't out in allidavitj, 
 'il to ill tliu notioe. 
 Diiltoii, Maxtcr. 
 
 iigularity should 
 hewing wliat tlio 
 if/.f aiiilliiri'-itmeiit 
 »,dtoii, .ffaiter. 
 
 f motion given for 
 urt, and siTved in 
 at sittings, could 
 kving sittings was 
 ■n, 10 0. It. 179.— 
 
 icitor was served 
 which was adinit- 
 lat tlic dofolidaiit 
 counsel attending 
 V tliat the notice 
 
 •.V, 11 r. u. i.so.— 
 
 (eiiig sued in the 
 
 iiity of -Middlesex, 
 
 i.lictiou aiidsoc'ved 
 
 Ijefore a judge in 
 
 ing tlie issue of a 
 
 i Division Court, 
 
 III I tliu phiintlir 
 
 iii that Division 
 
 )f jiiii-idicLioii in 
 
 1110 the same, but 
 
 inotinn, nor the 
 
 motion, in any 
 
 .Insticu : -Held, 
 
 .1.. in "liaiiihers, 
 
 )l)iectioii. but one 
 
 nde 1 under Rule 
 
 I). //-; Oim^iiad 
 
 .). 15. D. 
 
 oiild be 111 ido e\ 
 rg.'ucy. Tliomin 
 
 Divisional Court 
 Hunt at the trial, 
 should shew how 
 a-i non-direction, 
 Inient of the no- 
 Ic'lined to a'^sist 
 M'c I'.ie non-diiec- 
 f other facts and 
 ivokod by the de- 
 ,'.iin.st a ineritori- 
 fcitl'cr r. Midland 
 llowed. Fiiiiijii:/ 
 ». 
 
 lice of motion for 
 • V. Ihihlrlliin, \i 
 
 of Con. Ilule 8)0 
 lal Court must be 
 ly of the sittings. 
 
 1669 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 1670 
 
 Hut where, although the notice of motion had 
 lieeii made returnable (Ui the liftli day of the 
 sittings, it aiipeared tli;it there hail been a bona 
 tide intention to move ten days before the sit- 
 ting.s, when the notes of evidence were ordered, 
 je ive was giv(!ii to set the nioiion down, costs 
 being given against the |)arty moving. Skrichu 
 V. H'oudmck; I'S 1'. 1!. '2(J0.— C. I'. 1). 
 
 XX. Motions and Orpkk.s. 
 
 Ileiiiaiks u|)oii the multiplication of orders and 
 suiiJinonses ill actions. Siiiilrrv. ,Sii!(l< r ; Niiitler 
 v. ()',; 11 1'. 1!. 14(1.— IJoyd. 
 
 Where a party obtains an enlargement of a 
 ninlion for the purpose of procnring further 
 allidiivits, but docs luit ecmiply with the terms 
 on widcli the enlargement was granteil, he is 
 not eiititl(Ml to read tlie allidavits. (MiiljihrU v. 
 Miirtiii, 11 1'. U. 50!). — Ferguson. 
 
 IJIH)ii an interlocutory applieati(Mi the court 
 will not hear more than one counsel fur any 
 nirtv. J.iiii'i/oii V. l!ohi:rlni)ii, l'2 P. I!. l:W. - 
 0. of A. 
 
 Con. Rule oil provides that all orders made 
 by a judgi! of the High C^ourt in chambers shall 
 bi! signed by the clerk in chambers : -Held, 
 that an order foi' the arrest of the defendant 
 sig.icil by the judge who made it, and not by 
 the clerk, was not properly issiii'd. SI. Cruii' 
 V. McljoMlii, l;{ 1". I!. 4.S8. -Ferguson. 
 
 'The defendant served upon the eonvicliiig 
 magistr.ites notice of .i motion by way of appeal 
 from an order of a judge in ehambers refusing a 
 certiorari to n^niove his eonviction, returnaljle 
 before a Divisional ("ourt in Michaelmas sittings, 
 but ilid not set the motion down for hearing 
 before the sittings or take any steps after serving 
 the notice ot motion to bring it to a hearing 
 during the sittings. The court ordered the 
 defendant to pay to the magistrates their costs of 
 ai)[iearing to shew can.se aL'ainst ;lie motion. 
 JUjiimw Annslmiiij, VA \\ R..'l()().-C. V. D. 
 
 XXI. Varvinc Mim.tks. ! 
 
 On a motion to vary minutes, nothing can be J 
 done at v.iriance with the order as granted, but 
 additions or variations may be ni.ide so as to 
 <;aaiy out the intention of the <'ourt in pro- 
 nDUiuing it. Ihudrk v. Ji'al/i/, 29 Cliy. 42.1. — 
 Chy. J). 
 
 XXII. Tkum's Notick. 
 
 Where neither party has taken any proceed- 
 ings ill a suit for a year a term's notice to pro- 
 ei!ed, wliieli was reipiired iindiir the Conimon 
 Law prictice, is not necessary under the O. J. 
 Act. Jlearer v. linanlman, 9 1'. R. 239.— 
 Daltoii, Madcr. — Armour. 
 
 XX III. .Skkvkjk ok Papeus. 
 
 1. Generally. 
 
 Where a judgment debtor had absconded, and 
 Ilia placi! of abode could not be ascertained, sub- 
 stitution d service upon him of a suniinons to 
 Set asido fraudulent conveyances made by him, 
 
 wa.', allowed. l)oh.son v. Marshall, 9 P. R. 1. — 
 Osier. 
 
 Service of papers on a Toronto agent foi- an 
 outside solicitiM- is not good, niikss aceompaniod 
 with a stutemeiit of the name of the solicitor for 
 whom the agent is served. I'ntiic v. Lhidiiu; 
 11 P. R. .Sl;i. — Dalton, M.iiln: 
 
 Service of jiapers on a solicitor as agent for 
 another solicitor is not good service unless the 
 solicitor served is the booked agent of the other, 
 even though he has acted as agent in the same 
 suit, lltjliii.xim V. Ji'ii/iinsoii, i;i v. It. 51. — Mac- 
 Malion. 
 
 .\.\IV. StAVIM: ami SKTTIXti ASIDK PkO- 
 
 (■i;i;uiN(is. 
 I. '/'('// Ciix/.i of Furimr /'roctuliiKjn arc Paid. 
 Ill 1S79, tliedrand dnneliou ltailw;'.y obtained 
 from the (yourt of (.(ueen's lieucli a rule for a 
 manilainus to enforce the delivery of bonds by 
 the defendants to the amount of §75,000, pur- 
 suant to a by-law of the dct'endants to aid in the 
 (vnistiiietion of the ))laiiitill''s road. On appeal 
 to the Court of .'\])peal this .iile was di.seliarged, 
 ami on iipjieal to the Supreme (/"oiirt of Canada, 
 the Court of Appeal's judgment was afiirmed, 
 witli eost,s against the plaintill's. Since then the 
 road had been completed, but the costs of the 
 above |)roceediiigs had not been paid. This 
 action was bicnight in the name of the Grand 
 ■luiiclioii liailway and tlie Midland Railway to 
 recover the aforesaid sum of .':J75,()00 in money. 
 Upon motion to stay all proeeL'diiigs in this 
 action till the costs of the former proceedings 
 should have been paid ; — Held, notwitliptaud- 
 iug thit new eircumstancus had arisen, and 
 the proceeding not being the same as the first 
 proeeeding nor grounded upon exactly the same 
 facts, and notwithstanding that the Midland 
 Railway Company were now joined as plaintifTs, 
 the attLMiijit to procee<l ill this action without 
 lirst paying the costs of the toiiner action was 
 vexatious, and the order asked for must be 
 made ; following (!obbett i\ Warner, L. R. 2 
 Q. I?. I OS. (Imiid Jam-lion It. I)'. ('». v. ('uinUy 
 uf I'tlirlioroii'jli, H) P. R. 107.— Daltoii, Master. 
 
 In ecpiity, if interlocutniy costs payable by 
 the iilaintill reinained iiiipaiil, the court might, 
 but was not bound to, stay proceedings, and 
 would not if it were not e(|uitable to do so. At 
 eoniniou law, while lum-payincut of such costs 
 tt-as not a ground for staying proceedings, yet if 
 it ajipeared eipiitable to stay proceedings until 
 they were paid, the court in the exercise of its 
 inlua-ent jurisdiction might direct a stay. The 
 cuimiion law practice is the more convenient 
 one, and should now be followed. Stewart v. 
 Snlliraii, II P. R. .529. — C. P. D. 
 
 Where the plaintilF served in succession four 
 notices of trial for the same assizes, all of which 
 were sot aside as irregular, with costs against 
 him, and he was in default for non-payment of 
 such costs, the action was stayed until they 
 should be paid. //;. 
 
 Where the plaintilF is acting in good faith his 
 action should not be stayed for non-payment of 
 interlocutory costs ; and an action of trespass is 
 in that respect in no way diH'erent from any 
 other. Stevart r. Sullivan, II P. R. 529, fol- 
 lowed. Wrijhl V. n'ri'jhl, 12 P. R. 42.— Rose. 
 
■:i),t,^^ 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 n 
 & 
 
 I 
 
 vi 
 
 r: 
 
 1671 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 1672 
 
 T 
 
 3, Other Caiten. 
 
 tponc 
 
 Ab to effect of obtaining onlcr to po! 
 trial. See Allen v. Mulliirn, 9 P. 1!. 477. 
 
 Held, that a pni'cipe order for sixiiiity for 
 costs Ib a stay of proceedings « liilu it exists, 
 and a motion for judgment iiuule ^sinlultaneou!jly 
 with the motion to set iiside the |)necipe order 
 for security for costs was refused. J)uer v. /'(tiid, 
 10 P. R. IGf).— Dfilton, J/((>7(C. (iiilt. See 
 Hank of Nova Sro/ki v. LiiJtoi/ii, <J P. K. CMi, 
 p. 358. 
 
 An action against llie sureties upon a Imud 
 given by tiic <lefeiulauts in tlie action of Mc- 
 l..aren i'. Canada Central I!. W. Co., upon the 
 appeal of the defendants to tlie Court of Apjieal 
 iu that case. The defiudants in McLaren r. 
 Canada Central aj)pealed from the Court of Ap- 
 peal to Her Majesty in Council, and in that ap- 
 peal security had been given and allowed, in- 
 cluding security for the wlioli^ amount recovered, 
 and execution had been stayed in consiMiueiice:— 
 Held, that proceedings must also be stayed in 
 this action. MrLarin v. Sfi /i/rni, 10 1'. U. 
 S8.— Dalton, Mnxlir. 
 
 On the 4th February, ISS."(. the Confcdt ration 
 Life Association conjiuenced an acli(/n iu the 
 Chancery Division to set aside a policy of insur- 
 ance. On the i;Hh May, KSS."), Miller ct al. 
 brought an action to recover tht; nnioiiut of the 
 policy, and on the U.Srd May moved to sliy |)ro- 
 ccedings in the former action : — Held, following 
 the rule laid down in Thoni.'-on r. South Kasteru 
 R. W. Co., 9 Q. 1?. 1). S'-'O, that there is no hard 
 iind fast rule in cises of cro.«H actions, that the 
 one commenced last should lie .stayed. The conit 
 should take the circumstances into consideration, 
 and exercise its discretion as to what i.s the fair- 
 est mode of settling the dispute, and give the 
 conduct of the litigation to the party ujion whom 
 the substantial burden of proof rests. On appeal 
 Rose, J., declined to make any order. Sulisc- 
 quently, on the 27th June, 188.'), the defcn<lants 
 in the first action moved for a stay of piocccd- 
 ings in it, and the master made an order accord- 
 ingly. On appeal, on 'Jl-'nd October, IJoyd, C., 
 declined to interfere at jircsent, as the action ot 
 Miller v. Conft deration Life had been tiie<l and 
 a verdict given for the plaintdls, but reserved 
 leave to renew the motion if the; verdict sluudd 
 be set aside, and varied the order of the n.aster 
 by consolidating the two actions. M'lllir v. Von- 
 federation Lift Anno(i<iliiin—Con/c:l(r(UioH Lift 
 Associalion V. Miller, 11 ]'. R. '241. 
 
 The trial of the action was .stayed pending an 
 appeal to theSuprenuM 'ourt t)f Canada from the 
 judgment of tlie Court of Appeal U|)(in a ((uestimi 
 arising iu the action as to tlie method of trial of 
 the issues in this and a cross action, (hitimfe v. 
 Canadian Pacj/ic h'. 11'. Co., 11 P. U. .'iriO.— 
 Dalton, Master —(.iiih. 
 
 Upon failure of the plaintiff to attend for ex- 
 amination the action slionld not be stayed until 
 he does attend ; it is sufficient to impose a stay 
 for a definite time. Comslock v. Ilarrix, 12 P. 
 R. 17.— Hoyd. 
 
 The order of the master in chambers (9 P. R. 
 229) staying proceedings on the ground that this 
 action had been settled by the plaintiff's solici- 
 tor was reversed because the eviden.'e shewed 
 that the settlement was a provisional one, and 
 
 that the plaintiff himself had not adopted it. 
 MfDonald v. Field, 12 1'. R. 213.-C. P. D. 
 
 Where counter claim filed in a mortgage ac- 
 tion for the purpose of delay. See O' Dell v. 
 Bennett, 13 P. 1!. 10, p. 1612. 
 
 An order to set aside proceedings must be 
 served forthwith ; otherwise the opposite party 
 may treat it as almmloned. Where tinal judg 
 nient was cut ilown to interlocutory judgment 
 by Older of a master, granted on the ilth .luly, 
 but n(jt issued or served till the litth of Novcni 
 her :- Held, that the delay was fatal, and the 
 master was wrong in allow ing the stale order to 
 he used again.st the judgment as originally 
 signed. MoIkoii'x Hank v. Dillaliawih, 13 P. R. 
 ;tlL'. — lioyd. 
 
 See Taylor v. Bradfwil, 9 P. R. SnO, p. 11)47 : 
 (I'nniil Trvnk A*. I)', i'o. v. Ontariu anil (Jinliii 
 n. W. Co., 9 P. 1!. 420, p. 30 ; //«?//«.•< v. Ilitnd 
 in- 1 land In--:. Co., 7 O. R. 01. "J, p. 974; iVwo/.trr* 
 f/rai>e Co. v. Aetlix, 13 P. R. 179, p. 1()47. 
 
 .\XV. \V.\ivi-.u 01' liiKKdfi.AKrriKs. 
 
 Hehl, that the objection to the jurisilietior- 
 would liave pievailcd if properly taken, as the 
 parlies to the submis^sion hail agreed 11)1011 tlicii 
 foniiii ; but the defendant having submitted 
 to the juiisdietion by his answer, and hiiiiselt 
 aski d tlie intervention of the court could not now 
 I be heard to object. Moore v. Jiuvkntr, 1:8 Cliy. 
 (iOC — Spiaggc. 
 
 i Held, that when a foreign c(ininii.''sion had 
 
 ' been ojieiicd btfore trial for the convenience of 
 
 J artics it was too late at the trial to object to 
 
 the mode ol its execution. Walton v. A/'/dliii, .'"1 
 
 O. 1!. tio.-Q. 15. I). 
 
 leave was given to the plaintiff to amend b) 
 setting u)) the Matiite of Limitations u|ion pay- 
 ment o( costs, which were paid to and accepted 
 by the deft mlaiil. Upwards of a year aftci wards 
 the defciiihint objected that such oidir liadhcen 
 imiiropeily made :— Held, that it was tliiii too 
 late to object that the older had been made in 
 error. Court v. Walsh, 9 A. 1!. 294. 
 
 Held, that tlies-erviee of the writ in thisactioir 
 on the station master of the defendants at liow- 
 nianville was void, but the deleiidants having 
 appeared at the trial and after their objection to 
 the jiirisdietiiin had been overruled having pro- 
 ceeded with the defence and cross exainintd 
 witiKsses. etc. :— Held, that they had thereby 
 prtcluded themselves from objecting to the 
 jurisdiction. Ln re (luy v. Crund Trnnk li. 11'. 
 Co., 10 P. U. ,372.- Usler. 
 
 The defendants apjieared to the writ of .siini- 
 mons, and set U]) in their statement of defence 
 that the High (,'ourt of Justice had no jiirisilie- 
 tion ; that the cause of action aro.se in \Viiiiii|ieg, 
 the defendants' head oftice was at Montreal, ami 
 the service of process was on their agent for local 
 jiurposes at London :— Held, that there was 
 nothing in those facts to .shew want of jiirisdic 
 tion ; and that the appearance had precluded all 
 (juestion as to the sufticieney of the service. 
 hart V. Citizenn' Iiinurance Co., 11 P. R. 513. — 
 Dalton, Mauler. 
 
1672 
 
 ndontcd it. 
 
 0. r. D. 
 
 mortgage ac 
 00 O'Utll V. 
 
 iigs must lie 
 [jpdsitf imity 
 re tiiml jiulg 
 iry judgment 
 lie !llli.liily, 
 til <ii NdVeiu 
 iitiil, and the 
 stale (ivder to 
 as originiilly 
 uijh, ia r. K. 
 
 ;ir)0, 1). I()47 : 
 
 'ni (Hid, Qiii'hti- 
 fhts V. Ilaiid- 
 )74 ; jVirii/.trn 
 ), p. 1047. 
 
 \c JHiisdictior- 
 taken, as tin- 
 
 .L(l iijicn tlicir 
 iig s-nlniittod 
 , and hiuiselt 
 ciiultl not now 
 ■Liitr, 1:8 Cliy. 
 
 ininiisticin litiii 
 convenience of 
 il to olijeet to 
 oil V. A/'JiiIni, C< 
 
 f to amend by 
 ions U])on puy- 
 i) and iiecepled 
 ^ear afterwards 
 
 oidir liadlieei! 
 1, was then loo 
 
 heen made in 
 2'.I4. 
 
 rit in this action 
 ndants at liow- 
 nidants having 
 it'ir objection to 
 led having lii'o- 
 cross exaniuied 
 jy had therehy 
 ijecting to tlie 
 
 id Tiiiiik It. ir. 
 
 le writ of siini- 
 lent of defence 
 mil no jurisdic- 
 isein Wiiinilie^', 
 ,t Montreal, and 
 ,r agent for local 
 that there was 
 ■ant of jurisdic 
 ad precluded all 
 
 of tlie SCI vice. 
 
 11 1'. R. 513.- 
 
 1673 
 
 PBAOTIOE. 
 
 1674 
 
 Hy an order of Boyd, C. ( 12 P. R. 275), a motion 
 by the defendant to set aside a judgment for 
 irregiilurity was refused, but the defendant was 
 let in to defend upon paying into court or 
 securing $700 within a month. The defendant 
 moved for and obtained an order extending the 
 time for piying the nioiuiy in, and then aj)- 
 pealed from the ])arl of the order refusing to 
 set aside the judgment for irregularity : — Hehi, 
 that the defendant liad waived his right of , 
 apiieal from the order by obtaining an enlarge- ; 
 ment of the time for complying with it. J'ifirc 
 V. rcUniHi; I'J V. R. 308.— Chy. I). 
 
 Waiver in pleading. S(!C HikjIk'k v. Ile.i'x, 10 
 1'. H. 301, p. lUlS. 
 
 Laches in moving against notice of trial. .See 
 W'hUiKiij v. Sitark, 13 I'. R. 1 •_>!). 
 
 See Cochran" j\faiiiij'iirliiniiif Co. v. Ijiiiiioii, 
 
 11 I'. R. 102, p. !»!); li,- MirrhaiiW Hank v. 
 Van Atl-.ii, 10 P. 1{., 348., p. r»4!) ; //wr/AM v. 
 lirilUh America Iim. Co., and Hiiijlic.x v. Lon- 
 don Asxitniiin: Co., 7 0. R. 4(55, p.';i82 ; /ii Iti: 
 Mnmk, 10 I'. R. 98, p. 7'28 ; MaHuiiian v. 
 Uraii, VI v. It. 431, p. I6G0 ; lie timarl IiiJniiU, 
 
 12 P. R. 0.35, p. 848. 
 
 .XXVI. Sk(M)NI) Apri.icATioNs. 
 
 Second ap))lieation for writ of attachment. 
 See liaid- of HamUloii v. liaiiw (2), 12 P. R. 
 43!>, p. 3. 
 
 Upon a motion to (;ominit the <lefendant the 
 court refused to allow the jjlaintill's to read afli- 
 davits liled upon a previous apiilieation, the date 
 of their tiling not having been stattKl in the 
 notice of motion ; and also ri^fused to allow the 
 plaintitl's to read an atlldavit tiled after the ser- 
 vice of the notice. Mackcir.ii' v. Ciuiir, 12 P. R. 
 544. — Falconbridge. 
 
 It is only by the indulgence of the court that 
 i. ??<;con<l .".pplicafion is permitted or entertained, 
 "' .'icre the (irf.t application has been refused, 
 .^;ni where the defendants' applicatiosis for 
 orders, nisi to ((Uash convictions were refused on 
 the ground ol non-compliance with the statute 
 .'md Rule reipiiring a recogni/auce and allidavit 
 ^if justilication to be filed, ami the court upon 
 such apullcations was not fav<mrably iin])rc.sseil 
 by what was urged as to the merits of the applica- 
 tions : — Heltl, that the indulgence of the court 
 ought not to be extended in favour of fresh appli- 
 cati<ms made by the defendants upon new material 
 sup])lying the defects. Ii'ri/ina v. Hirhnriiioii — 
 Keijinas. Addison, 13 P. R.' 303.— C. P. U. 
 
 Where the plaiutifTs motion for judgment un- 
 der (/On. Rule 739 was dismissed because he had 
 not observed the j)raetice under Con. Rule 1251 
 •of partly compljdng with an order upon him for 
 security for costs by paying $50 into court, and 
 he sul)8e<]uently paid the money in and renewed 
 the application upon the same material : — Held, 
 that the dismissal of his first ajjplication was no 
 bar to the second one. Senible, it would have 
 been otherwise had the plaintiff failed in his 
 first application by reason of defects in his 
 material, and made a second one upon new 
 material supplying the defects. Payne v. New- 
 herry (No. 2), 13 P. R. 392.--Dalton, Manter. 
 
 See Hilliard v. Arthur, 10 P. R. 426, p. 1656 ; 
 Maclennanv. Gray, 12 P. R. 431, p. 1664. 
 
 pa 
 Ilea 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881 ) 
 I'RAGTICE AT LAW. 
 
 I. WkIT Ol- Su.1IM(IN.S. 
 
 I. Serrire. 
 
 (a) On Forui/n Curporatiopn. 
 
 The defcmlants were a foreign insurance coin- 
 any doing business in Ontario and having u 
 e,i(l ollicf for this province at Toronto, 'i'he 
 writ <if summons was served on the local agent 
 of the defendants' eomjiany at Ottawa: -Held, 
 that the service was good. H'iliou v. .^Edia 
 Life In.',. Co., 8 1'. I!. l'3i. Daltoii, Q. C. 
 
 (b) Alismiidiii'/ DeftndanlK, 
 
 The writ nf sumnions in ejectment was served 
 upon the defendant's wife after he had left the 
 country. An order to sign judgment against 
 the husband was granted in default of appear- 
 ance. Trir<t and Loan Co. v. Jones, 8 P. R 
 05. — Daltoii, (,». ('. 
 
 (c) Si-ffkc Ahmad. 
 
 A copy of a writ of sunmions, instead of a 
 notice tlien^of, had been served upon a defen- 
 dant, not a Rritish siiliject, outside of Ontario: — 
 Held, that this was an irregularity which could 
 not be amended, and that the copy and service 
 of the writ .should be set aside. Jlendernou v. 
 Ilal/, S P. It. -.Ui. t'anicion. 
 
 2. Spteiul EiidorfcineiU. 
 
 The particulars of claim upon a writ of suin- 
 UKJiis specially eiidorseil to which the defendant 
 apjiears do not bind the plaintill' as particulars 
 under a declaration on the common counts, ami 
 in such a case, he must eoin|)ly with a demand 
 for particulars made by the defendant. Hui/ijinM 
 V. (juelphliarrelCo.,S P. it. 1 70. - Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 .'!. .SniixtitiiHonul Siruicf. 
 
 A w lit of summons in ejectment wiis servotl 
 upon defeiidanl's wife after he had left tho 
 country. An order to sign judgment against 
 the husband was granted in default of appear- 
 ance. Trns/ and Loan l!o. v. Jouen, 8 P. R. 
 65.--haIton, Q. C. 
 
 II. Ci.KiiK OK Tin; I'Kow.N andPi.eas. 
 1. Juriiiliclion. 
 
 Hehl, that it is within the power of the Clerk 
 of the Crown in chambers to make an order for 
 the payment of a weekly allowance to a debtor, 
 under the Indigent Debtors' Act (R. S. O. 1877, 
 c. 69), where it can legally be made, WhtaUy 
 v. Sharp, 8 P. R. 189.— Cameron. 
 
 2. Appeal Jivm, 
 
 Semble, that a judge has power to extend the 
 time for appealing against the order of the Clerk 
 of the Crown in chambers on an a)iplication for 
 an allowance under the Indigent Debtors' Act 
 
1675 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 167B 
 
 a 
 
 ID 
 M 
 
 I 
 
 (K. S. O. 1877, c. 00), made after four duyH from 
 tho making of tlio order. Whimtly v. Sharp, 
 8 P. K. 18!).— Cameron. 
 
 Held, that there is no ajjpeal to tlie full court 
 in term from an order of thi^ Clerk of the Crown 
 mid I'leas, made on an ai)]>lieatioii to eliange the 
 venue in county court cases under K. S. (). 
 (1877) c. ,50, s. 1 ")5 ; Ijut the only a|)iical in siuh 
 cases is to a judj;e in chaiiilieis, uuiUt siution 
 .31 of tile Act : — H( Id, lioweviM', that if an ap- 
 peal did lie to tlie full court, it niiglit hi' made 
 direct thereto, without tirst going hcfoi'c a .iu<lgc 
 in chanibcrs, Ma/iuii v. .N'/t/io//--, ,')1 ('. 1". '.J^. - 
 C. P. D. 
 
 lowing Monday. Sam v. Hewitt, 8 P. R. 70.— 
 
 q. u. 1). 
 
 I'laintitTs and defendant's attorneys had an 
 nrrangementbetwcenthenisolvesby which papers 
 in tho suit should ho sent hy mail. The notice 
 of trial was posted the day before the last for 
 giving notice, but reached defendant's attorney 
 one day too late. It was shewn that the prac- 
 tice of both attorneys had been to admit service 
 as of tho day of reciMjit : — Held, that tlie notice 
 of trial must be set aside. Robsou /'. Arbutliiiot, 
 ;< 1*. H. :W,i, distinguished. /i luvoiojii v. 
 Alison, <J P. R. 4.— Daltoii, Ma.ilet: 
 
 III. RKKKRKNCKK — A|'1'|:AI,S KllOM. 
 
 In ejectment it was onlcrcd in Hilary teiiii, 
 1879, that a verdict should bo entered for tlic 
 plaintiff, but no c\ccuti(ui to issue until tlie 
 value of the iniiirovemciits was asccrtuiued and 
 the amount tlicieof ])iid to tli defendant, and 
 that it be referred to the master in chancery at i 
 Ottawa, to ascertain such value. 'I'lic master 
 made his report on tho .'iOtli of Octoljer, ]S7!I, 
 merely finding the value of the im])roveiuent' , 
 without making any allowance for tlic riiiitsand 
 protits. In Kastcr Term, ISSO, tlie pl.untift' 
 moved to refer back the re|)ort to the master to 
 make such allowance :- Held, reversing the de- 
 cision of Gait, J. (.SI C. P. '.'•27), tiiat the refer- 
 ence w.as to the master as an otiicer of the court, ' 
 and that there was nothing in any of the sections ' 
 of the C. L. P. Act (I!. S. (). 1877 c .^O), relat- 
 ing to arbitrations, which interfered with the 
 right of the court, under the circumstances, to i 
 review the act of their oflicer, and to send the j 
 matter back for his reconsideration. The matter 
 was therefore referred back to the master to 
 make such allowance. McCarthy v. Arhuckle, 
 31 C. P. 405.-C. P. D. 
 
 IV. Rules and Orders. 
 
 Leave was granted, notwithstanding the lapse 
 of two terms, to rehear a rule made absolute 
 setting aside a by-law, on no cause being shewn. 
 Re Chamherlain and the. United Counties of 
 Storniont, Dundan, and Glengarry, 45 Q. B. 26. 
 -Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, where an order ilireeting a reference to 
 the master has been made in chambers to deter- 
 mine the amount due from an attorney to his 
 client, and the reference completed under it, an 
 application for relief thorefroni must be made to 
 thecourt. /nreAn Attorney, HF.R. 102. — Osier. 
 — C. P. D. 
 
 See McCarthy v. Arhnckle, .31 C. P. 48, p. 
 578. 
 
 V. Servick of Papeu-s. 
 
 Held, that service on the defendant's attorney 
 at hia house at 9.30 p.m. on Saturday of an order 
 and appointment to examine the defendant at 2 
 p.m. on the following Tuesday, was irregular, [ 
 the notice not being sutficient : — Held, also, that : 
 Rule of court 1.35, applies to the service of orders I 
 aitd appointments to examine, and that this 
 service must be treated as if made on the fol- 
 
 ■ Vl. Tkhm's Notkm;. 
 
 Where no proceeding has been taken in tho 
 cause fora year wub.se(|uciit to issue being joiiK^d, 
 tlie plaintiil' must give a term's notice of his in- 
 tention to serve notice of trial. MeCteai i/ v. 
 Monow, 8 P. R. !■_'. — Dalton, i). V. 
 
 Where a summons was enlaiged sine die by 
 the consent of counsel and 'nothing fui'thcr was 
 done in the suit for nioro than a year:— Held, 
 that a term's notice of the ])laintill"s iutentii.n 
 to proceed was necessary, before he could make 
 any motion in tho cause. Jliinl: of Monlre.ut v. 
 Fijiihh, 8 P. !!. 1S2. — Dalton, i). V. 
 
 Issuing a side-bar rule to discontinue the action 
 is not a )n'oceediiig within the meaning of the 
 rule which re()uires a term's notice of plaintill's 
 intentinn to proceed whore no proceeding has 
 been taken in the cause for a year. S. ('., Il>. 
 2.30.— Osier. 
 
 VII. .Stavino andSettini! Aside Proceedinos. 
 
 1. Delay in Mochiif. 
 
 Defendant precluded both by delay and ac- 
 ceptance of service of the writ from moving to 
 set aside proceedings. See litii'ma v. Sttwiirt, 
 8 P. R. 297, p. 4. 
 
 2. Staying Proceedings on Eqnitahle Orotmdn. 
 See BatcK v. Mackey, 1 O. R. 34. 
 
 .3. Other CascK. 
 
 A summons to dismiss an action for breach of 
 an order to examine, generally implies a stay of 
 proceedings; but where the judge who granted 
 the summons struck out the part relating to u 
 stay, and the summons was afterwards enlarged 
 without any mention of a stay, a notice of trial 
 served while the summons was pending, was 
 held to be regular. Merchantu' Hank v. Piernon, 
 8 P. R. 129.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 After issue joined one of two plaintiffs gave to 
 the <lefendant a release undijr seal of all actions 
 and doniands. Tho defendant thereu]ion moved 
 to stay all proceedings in the suit : — Held, that 
 the (.efendant should plead the release, anil that 
 he was not entitled to a stay of proceedings, and 
 the remaining plaintiH' was allowed to strike out 
 the name of the other plaintitl. McAlpiw, v. 
 Carlhig,»l\ R. 171.— Osier. 
 
 •tl \ 
 
 m 
 
167B 
 
 t7«,SP. R. 70.— 
 
 attorncya had an 
 L'Hbywliicli pit|>cr8 
 mail. 'J'hc iiotico 
 efoi'O tlio last for 
 midaiit's attorney 
 vn that tliu ]>i'ao- 
 1 to admit Ki'ivico 
 il, tiiat the iiotioe 
 will ('. Ailnitliiiot, 
 It luiioii'ih V. 
 
 ICK. 
 
 ii'cn taken in tlie 
 i.ssui' ln'iiig joiiu'd, 
 ".s notice ot liis in- 
 ial. McVlmni v. 
 
 ii),'cd sine (lie hy 
 tliJMi^ further was 
 111 a y(!ar :— Held, 
 aintiir's intent inu 
 )re he eoiild make 
 »/• of Montreal v. 
 Q.C. 
 
 continue theaetion 
 le nieaniiig of the 
 otice of plaintiirs 
 10 iiroeeediiig \v.\s 
 year. S. ('., Ih. 
 
 «DK Pkocekdiniis. 
 
 fin;/, 
 
 hy dcL-vy and ac- 
 it from moving to 
 'hijhta V. Steirart, 
 
 liiitahle Orowuln. 
 1 O. R. 34. 
 
 ction for breaeli of 
 f iniiilies a stay of 
 adge wiio granted 
 part rehiting to u 
 terwards eidarged 
 U a notiee of trial 
 wan pending, was 
 .' ISauk V. Pkrxun, 
 
 plaintilFs gave to 
 seal of all aetions 
 . therenjion nioved 
 suit : — Held, that 
 t>. release, and that 
 f proeeedings, and 
 owed to strike out 
 ifl'. Mc Alpine v. 
 
 1677 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 1678 
 
 ! 
 
 ' 
 
 (Before the Judicature Act, 1881.) 
 
 PRACTICK IN EQUITY. 
 
 I. T?ii.i,s. 
 
 1. Sirriiv of, 
 
 (a) AhicoiiUh'^i Defi iiilaiiti. 
 
 Where a liill had hoeii tiled for fmeelosure, 
 anil the defendant, the cilHiMal assignee of tlie 
 mortgagor, ahsoondeil liefoi'e the hill was seiveil 
 an order wiis granted allowing siihstitntioniil 
 service' on one of the two ins|ieetiirs of tlie insol- 
 vent's estate. I^omlnii awl ('iniiiiliau l.onii ami 
 Aiji'iiri/ Co. V. 'l'/ioiiiii'iiii,HV. R. ill. — Stephens, 
 Ri'frri.e.. — Proud foot. 
 
 Where the defeiid.int in a suit had ahscoiided 
 to the United states h.fore the tiling of the l.ill. 
 ami two months after the tiling of the hill an 
 aasiunce in ins ilveney w.is appointed hy the 
 creditors of the defenihint. and the assignee was 
 served with the hill, hut not within the time 
 limited hy th( 
 ehamhers iiiadt 
 
 good, though made foiirteiMi nioiiths after tin 
 hill was filed ; -Held, on appeal, alliiinhig the 
 referee's order, that the defendant having ah- 
 seoiide<l wasasnilieient reason for not jiroceeding 
 with greater diligence, (laili rifh v. I'liid'u , S 
 I'. R. 4S(i. - I'.lake. 
 
 which the cause might have hcen heard : — Held, 
 that the delay was not excused, and the bill 
 should htMlismissed : Held also, that the fail- 
 ure of the (U'feiidant to comply with an order to 
 inodnee di<l not, under the eircuinstanees of tlie 
 ease, deprive him of the right to move to dis- 
 miss, Kllioll V. Hiiriliii r, S P, R. -10!) - .Steplit ns, 
 Iti/iiiv, — rroildfoot. 
 
 Semlile, that a plaintill'i annot, in answer to a 
 motion to dismiss, ask to h.ive the hill dismisseil 
 w itiioiit costs, hilt must make a siihstantive mo- 
 tion for that piiriiosc. //). 
 
 (leneral Orders, the referee in 
 an order allowing the service as 
 
 (h) Sirrirf Aliriiail. 
 
 See Exchaii'ie Bank v. Spriinjrr, 'JO (iiy. '270, 
 p. 600. 
 
 3. I'ikI' lIlll.ilHI lo S/lllll. 
 
 'I'he plaintilV iindcrtooU, niioii a motion to dis- 
 miss his hill, to bring the e.iiise dow n to tlie then 
 I next sittings at (iiielph. l''roin some eiirrespon- 
 j ileiiee it appeared that if the plaintilV had set the 
 ' cause down for tlietlien liixt (iucl|ih sittings, a 
 postpoiienieiit woiilil have been asked lor and 
 I granted, on the gronnil of the attendance at the 
 I House of Commons of a inemlier w ho was a de- 
 I feiidaiit. 'I'he [ilaiiitill ollcicd to bring the cause 
 I down to the then next sittings .at 'I'oniiito, to 
 which a conditional eonseiit was given : but the 
 cause was not set down. The reicric dismissed 
 the bill: Held, on ajipcal, reversing the referee's 
 I decision, that under the ciicunist.aiiccs, more 
 I fully set out in the report, the plaintill' was re- 
 I licved from his undertaking to bring the cause 
 down toduelph, and that he was under no obli- 
 gation to bring the cause dow n to Toronto ; and 
 as no intentional delay was shewn on the jiart of 
 the )daintitl', the bill was restored. I'llrir v. 
 (iiicljik Liiinhir Co., 9 P. R. iV2.— l<'ergiis(>n. 
 
 (e) /}// Piililicalioii, 
 
 Where a defeiidiiit is served by piihlication 
 under (i. <>. 100. in order that a jira'cijie decree 
 may lie obtained, the notice should contain the 
 special endorsement in schedule (i. to Order 4.'!(l, 
 otherwise the cause must ho set down to be 
 heard pro eonfesso. I'lxrvill v. Forlirx, S I*. R. 
 408. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 (d) Oh liifu)il<. 
 
 Service of hill in partition suit on infant. .See 
 Wctttlierhmdw ]\'eiilhirlie(iil,[)V. It. 00, p. I.").'!!. 
 
 2. Diniiii.i/iini/ for Waul ol' /'iO'"'iiliiiii. \ 
 
 In a suit to set aside a conveyance of tlie 
 equity of redemption in certain lands as fraudn- 
 hint as against creditors, one sitting of the enuit , 
 
 having been lost, a ih'feiidant, the graiitt f the 
 
 equity of redemiitioii, moved to dismiss the bill ' 
 for want of pro.s('eution. More than two weeks ! 
 before the sittings conimenccd, the |)laiiilill"s 
 solicitors were notilied to tile a i-e))licatioii and 
 proceed to a heiriiig. but did not do so. The J 
 exi^nses offered by the )ilaintitl' were, that the, 
 defendant was a material witness, and was .ab- ■ 
 sent prior to tlu! he.iring, and that the iiroperly j 
 had been sold under a \)ower of sale contained in : 
 one of the mortgages, and little or nosnrpliis re- ' 
 mained after paying the mortgages. It a)ipeared | 
 that no etl'ort had been made to liiid the defen- 
 dant in order to sub]iiena him as a witness at the J 
 hearing, and that the sale of the laud did not! 
 take pl.acc until ii month after the sittings at | 
 
 II. Xi;w TiKAiiiNd. 
 
 .\ defenilant knew preiiisely thecpiestioii to bo 
 tried at the hearing, but took no steps to adduce 
 any evidence on his liehalf, and a witness, whom 
 he would have called was called by the [ilaintill", 
 and gave evidence which the defendant swore 
 was diU'erent from what he had anticipated he 
 would give ;- Held, that this was not such a 
 case of siii'inise, as entitled the defendant to 
 have the cau.se reiqieiied, in order that there 
 might be a new hearing, and a motion made for 
 that |)iii|iose was refused with costs, although 
 the ilefendant swore tiiat the evidence given by 
 the w itne.HS had taken him by surprise, and that 
 the same was incorrect, and would be contra- 
 dicted bv the wife and son of the defendant, 
 .s'/o (•/■;» V. Ili/f/Hi, "27 Chy. 402. Proinlfoot. 
 
 III. Di-.cuki-. 
 
 I. Ami ml mint of. 
 
 P.v the decree all assignment of a bond was 
 declared to have been by way of security only ; 
 and liirthcr, that the iiIaintifT was entitled to 
 certain credits, and referricl it to the master to 
 take the aironnts. In proceeding with the ae- 
 connts the defendant was hampered by this 
 declaration in the decree, as the master felt 
 bound liy it, whereupon the defendant moved 
 upon (letition to amend the decree so as to make 
 it einiforni to the judgment :-- Ferguson, •'., be- 
 fore whom the motion was heard, being of opi- 
 nicni that the judgment wasj directed solely totne 
 
WK. 
 
 'I f ' ni 
 
 i679 
 
 PRAOTIOE. 
 
 1680 
 
 m 
 
 i \ 
 
 faut that tlu) Ixind wiin iiNHigned uh a Huciii'ity 
 only, ami that tlm view taken us to tho crcditH 
 wafl a Ki'oiinil for ho liohliii^, and wau not a hiiIi- 
 Htaiitivu part of the judgment, and therefore 
 that till! ihelaiatioii au to tlie credits waH uii- 
 uiitiiori/ed, ordered tliu same to he Htnick out of 
 the decree npoii ))ayriient of costs of the api)li- 
 luitioii and of all additional eosts inunrred or to 
 bo irieurred in the niiiHter's odieo, caused by tho 
 decree not having been properly drawn in the 
 first inst.ince. Lirliiiinton \. lV(iO(l,'2[) Chy. 157. 
 — Forgiisdn. 
 
 'J. /i'< /■/( III of, on .Yew Kmdence. 
 
 In applicatiip .s to <i])pn up proceedings by way 
 of review, on the ground of newly discovered 
 evidejKte, it is necessary for the ))arty applying to 
 establish, (I) that tlie evidence is such that if it 
 had heen liroM;;iit forward at the ])r<)per time, it 
 niiyht |)rolialily have ehange<l the result; ("2) 
 that at the time Ik; might have soused it neitlier swer, 
 he nor his agents liad knowledge of it ; ('A) tliat 
 itcoulil not witli riasonable diligcnco have been j 
 discdvereil in time to Inivc been so used ; and (4) I 
 the applicant must have used reasonable clili- | 
 gcnce after the dirtcoveryof the new evidence. | 
 Diuiilili'. V. Cohdurii mill l\U:rlioroii<ih /'. W. Co., 
 !•!) Chy. 121. Keiguson. 
 
 Where a r.iilway company in the eonstrnc- 
 tion of their road took possession of and built 
 tlu^r road acrr>ss a plot of land of the plain- 
 tit!', who instituted i)roceedings to compel pay- 
 ment tiierefor, and under the decree a sum of 
 §1,800 was found to bo the value of such plot, 
 which sum, together with interest and costs, was 
 |)aid liy tho company in order to prevent tlie 
 land being |iurchased by a I'ival company ; and 
 tliree years afterwards they a]ipliod on petition 
 to have a portion of such jiurclwise money refun- 
 ded, on the ground that another railway com- 
 {)any, whose riglits liad been assigned to them, 
 lad i)reviously paid a |)iior owner of tlie land 
 for ajiortion tiicreof ; the court (Ferguson, •].), 
 refused tho relief asked with costs, on the 
 ground, aiiKiUgst otliers. that the company, had 
 they exercised due diligonco in the matter, 
 miglit have become awaic of such prior pur- 
 chase and payment. ///. 
 
 A decree which had been made agaiuBt several 
 defendants, one of them A., being adininistratoi- 
 a<l litem of a defendant who had died before 
 answer, was vacated as to the defendant B., and 
 leave given to him to tile a supplemental answer 
 alid have a new hearing of the cause. .Subse- 
 (picntly ('., who had, since the ilecrecand before 
 the appeal been apjiointed adnnnistrator in place! 
 of A., who died after decree, applied for leave to 
 tile an answer setting up defences which his pre 
 decessor had omitted. It was siiown that he 
 liJid bectn ap|)oint(Ml pro forma to re|iriscnt thi' 
 estate ; that no proi.'ccidings in appeal had been 
 served upon him, and that no further relief was 
 sought ag.iinst the estate. Tin,' refmeo granted 
 till! leave asked ; -Held, allirming thi! ordtM' oi 
 I'rmidfoot, V. ('., tliat tlu! vacating of the dccre(! 
 as against I!., did not, under the eircumstances. 
 open up Ihcilecree as ajjainst thedeceascid defiMi 
 dant's estate, and tliat thi! referee had, therefore, 
 no power to allow ('., to lilo .-i supplemental an 
 Pilri-hiii V. Mi-Farldiir, (i A. I!. •J")4. 
 
 I. 
 
 ]V. Mastkk. 
 
 Hifiri'iiCf To, mill Whrii Ordi're.il. 
 
 Where a iiucs 
 ))leadings, anil is distinctly presentiMl tothoeonri, 
 for its decision, anil evidence has been givmi 
 upon it in order to obtain the judgment of tlic 
 court it will not be referred to the master for his 
 decision. Iiifi'riialioiidl /liidtii' Cn, v. Ciiiiinht 
 Siiiillirrii l(. W.Co., iiiiil Caniiilii Soiilliifii It. 11'. 
 Co. v. /iilc.riKitioniilltriiliiP.Cii., 7 A. It. 2211 ; see 
 .V. ('. 8 App. ('as. 7'-'.S, p.' 1011. 
 
 Tfold. in this case that it was not proper to 
 refer to the master theempiiry as to the reason 
 ablencss of the tolls charged by tho Intornatioual 
 Hriilgc Co. /h. 
 
 See Williamxon v. Kwiwj, 27 ('liy. TiOti, p. 327. 
 
 2. /'( •ei'dini/.s in Ma-il('r\'i Ojlici-. 
 
 .S. Olhi r (^asi'.s. 
 
 The coiiil will not assist in carrying on or 
 perpetual inu crior, by enforcins! an erroneous 
 <leorec. MMiel/. v. Stmllnj, 28 Chy. 80. 
 Spragge. 
 
 A decree had been made on consent, referring 
 
 In proceeding upon a reference iindei' a decree, 
 tho master i^annot under the (leneral Orders 244, 
 24.') (Con. Rules 4(>, 47), order a person to he 
 made a party to the suit against whom any 
 relief is sought, and where in |)roceeding 
 under a decree for the administration of a 
 testator's estate, tho master directed one I),, 
 who had been in partnership with the testa- 
 tor 11]) to the time of his death, to be niado 
 a party, and rc(|uiring him with tho execu- 
 tors to bring in under oath an account of the 
 partnership dealings, against which I). a|p- 
 
 to the master the question whether or not tho I'^ivled, the court (I'roudfoot, V. C): - Held, th 
 defendant had performed certain work for the ! ob,ject of making 11. a party was for the pur- 
 plaintitl' at a specitiod rate, who reported that ' r'.»sc cither of relief oiMliscovery, iind in either 
 he had not. On aiipeal, tho court (Blake, V.C. '^'" "' '" ' "' ' ' "^ ' 
 
 considering that this was a ipicstion that should 
 have been dispo.scd of by tho court, set aside the 
 reiiort ;ind directed a trial to be had upon that 
 issue reserving tho costs of the proceedings be- 
 fore the niastor and of the appeal : — Held, on 
 further directions, that these costs having been 
 incurred in a tiroeeeding consent^:! to under a 
 common mistake of parties as to the proper tri- 
 bunal to decide the ijucstion, each party should 
 pay bis own costs. Dathy v. Hell, 29 Chy. .S3(i. 
 — Proudfoot. 
 
 view tho jilaintiff could not obtain it in this 
 mode of proceeding, as I)., so far as discovery 
 was eoncei'iied, could only be reaarded as a wit- 
 ness. Hopper V. Hnrr'mm, 28 Chy. 22. 
 
 3. Report . 
 
 (a) Confinuimj. 
 
 A report rctpiiring contirmatioii does not be- 
 come absolute until thirty days from the mak- 
 ing, and fourteen days from the tiling thereof 
 
 i 
 
1680 
 
 ivilu agaiiiBt Hevoi'iil 
 cin^'niliniiiiHtniloi' 
 i> liail ilit'd lif'foir 
 (lufoiidaiit H. , mill 
 |i|pl(iii('ntal aiiHwi r 
 lit! caiiHc. JSiihsc 
 I! ilecfuu and Ix-furo 
 iiiriistrator in place 
 i|i|ilied for U'avc tn 
 it'LX wliiuli liin|)rc 
 as Nliu«n tliat lie 
 
 I to IVpiCStMlt tile 
 
 I appeal liad heni 
 fiirllier relief wm 
 li(^ refcrei! ^'niiited 
 niiiij,' tile order oi 
 .'aliMj,'of tlie deeret^ 
 lie eiiviiniHtanees. 
 lie deceased defeii 
 !!<■(' had, therefiirc, 
 I .siippicnioiital an 
 , A. It. 2r.4. 
 
 'Ac;/ Onlirivl. 
 
 •tly raised liy the 
 stinted to tlieeoiMt, 
 •c lias l)eeii L'ivi'ii 
 c .jil(l,i,'iiient of the 
 • the master f(n-|iis 
 !<• Cn. V. Cdiiiiil:!. 
 (Ill Snii/lii rii It. ir. 
 ., 7 A. I!. '.'L'Ci ; see 
 
 as not proper to 
 as to tlie reason- 
 tlie International 
 
 Chy. 590, p. 3l'7. 
 
 vr'-s Office. 
 
 cc under a decree, 
 eiii!ral()rdors'J44, 
 !!■ a person to lie 
 ainst wlioin any 
 in proeeedinjr 
 ninistration of a 
 lir<'eted one I)., 
 > with the testa- 
 atli, to lie made 
 with the oxuLMi- 
 n account of the 
 f which I). a|i- 
 ^C.):-)^ehl,tllc 
 was for the par- 
 ry, and ill cither 
 nlitaiii it in this 
 far as discovery 
 euanlcd as a wit- 
 t'hy. 22. 
 
 ion does not Iie- 
 s from tliu niak- 
 hc tiling thereof 
 
 1681 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 1682 
 
 have elapHcd. Hi- Union llyn-iv. Wooillinrii, H 
 v. K. 2«!). Illakc. 
 
 Where a decree ordoroil p;vyinciit forthwith 
 after the making of a report, an execution is- 
 sued liefoie the report had been tiled, was set 
 aaide with costs. .Soinldi', the report did not 
 reipiire eonlirniatioii, under the wording of the 
 decree. Jelli'tt v. Andirsoii, H V. It. :tS7.— 
 Stephens, Jh/'ciri'. 
 
 (1)) O/hir Cii'^i-t. 
 
 A iinster'a report made during loiij,' vai'atiou 
 in coiitravcntion of (1. < >. -I'.J.'i, is as iiLtaiiist a 
 defendant having no notice of the proceedings 
 <pn which the report is founded, eiilirciv null and 
 void. Fiil/ir V. Mch-aii, S I'. K. ."liit. — ISiiyd. 
 
 After the closing of his repnrt, a niastir should 
 not certify as to any matters liefori^ him in the 
 course of the inquiry upon which lii^ has re- 
 ported, \inless called uiioii to do so l>y the court. 
 After report, any c(!rtilicatc, unless called for 
 by the couit, is irregular and iiiipropur. AVwc 
 hakh V. I'mru, 27 IJhy. I!):t. Sp|•agg(^ 
 
 The master, at the icipiest of the defend int, 
 reported sjiecially in his favour as to niiiiy mat- 
 ters not particularly referred to liiui, but which 
 formed th<' snbjectt of clmrgcs of fraud made in 
 the hill of complaint: —Held, that the master 
 had power to report Hjiecially any matters he 
 decuicd projicr for the information of the court, 
 and that it was his duty to so report any matter 
 beiriugon tlie(|Uestioii of costs. l/iii/"< v. Ilaiji*, 
 29Chy. 01).— KergiLson. 
 
 4. A ppeul, I'rniH. 
 Where a masttu- in his discretion fixes the 
 conuiiission to bo allowed to parties under (i. O. 
 043 (Oou. Itulc 1187), anil settles the disburse- 
 ments in the .suit, there is an appeal to a judge 
 in chandlers from his tinding. The disburse- 
 ments should still be submitted to the master 
 in ordinary for revision, like other bills of costs. 
 Camphell v. Campbelf, 8 V. it. l.-i<). —Blake. 
 
 A report must bo filed before a notice of ap- 
 pe.ll from it is given. Semblc, that seven clear i 
 days' notice of a^ipeal is necessary, //aycn v. i 
 Ifai/e-i, 8 1'. R. Ml). — P.lake. 
 
 On a (|ncstioii of rent, there was a conflict of 
 ovidence as to the amount thereof. On aiipeal 
 from the master's finding : -Held, that the wit- ; 
 ncsses having been examined before the master, 
 he was a better judge than the court as to the 
 weight to be given to the testimony of the re- ; 
 spective witnesses ; and the question as to the 
 proper sum to be allowed for rent, was one with ^ 
 which the master was quite as competent to j 
 deal, as the court couhl be. I.inlc v. /!nndv>; i 
 28 Chy. 191.— Spragge. 
 
 Held, that as the matter in (piestion in this 
 case had been referred to the master by the de- 
 cree, which was for specitio performance, it 
 should have been disposed of in his , fiee under 
 a. 0. 221) (Con. Rule 62). Stammers v. O'Don- 
 oAoe,29Chy.64.-Boyd. 
 
 The defendant was the assignee of a policy of 
 assurance on his brother's life, in trust to pay 
 himself certain moneys and expend the residue 
 
 106 
 
 in the support and mtiuten ince of the asKiircd s 
 finiily, and liaviiiL; mi'" further advauces on 
 tilt! advice of his brother, who was a practising 
 barrister, he touk a sec ^mi a-<si^'iimeiit of the 
 policy absolute in form, i;,! the deitliof the 
 assured, the defi'iidaiit, a sertiiig a right to ob- 
 tain payment of the ;.olicy, went to the head 
 olHce of the ciimpany in the I'liited .States, in 
 order to hasten the |)ayiiient, pending a dispute 
 with the pl.iintiUs the family of tlie aisured 
 as to his lights. In t lUiiig theaci'aiiiits lietween 
 the pirties, the mister fMiind that the defiuidiint 
 acted bona tide in so lining', and allo\Ve>l his ex- 
 peiisi's, although the e.iiii|iiiiy, lit the iiistiiieti 
 of the plaintill-i, refused tu p.iy him, and sent, 
 the iiroi'ceds of the policy ti their solicitors in 
 Toioiit.i, to be paid over t i the pirty ent'tl.'d : 
 -Held, mi ap|ieal I'rnm the iinsler (atli, miiig his 
 rulingi, that as the defcndan* •■. .is iiiidi^r either 
 assignment entitled to |i'Hscssioii of tln^ fund 
 either as trustee or individually —and as the 
 masti'r under all the cii^jiiiiistaiK^es, thought lit 
 to alhiw such expenses, and it diil not appisir 
 clear to the court 1 hat such allowance was wrong 
 the item should lii^ alloweil: -Held, also, that 
 the masti^r had properly allowi'il to the defen- 
 dant in his accounts a fee of SKl paiil by him to 
 counsel for advice as to his action in respect of 
 the two assii;iinicnts. l/'U/'i v. /Ini/i^, 2!) 
 ( 'hy. 90. — I'Vrguson. 
 
 On an ap])e:d from the ni isler on a ipiestion 
 of the weiglit of evidence, the court, though not 
 satislied as to what was tli ■ actual truth of thi: 
 case, could not siy tint tln^ iii ister w.is wrong, 
 and therefore dismissed the apjieal, with costs ; 
 liberty being given to the appelhint, however, to 
 examine tlii! witnesses aj^aiii at the, next sittings 
 before the judge who liear,l the appeal so as to 
 enable him to disjiosc of the matter witli greater 
 satisfaction to himself, in which ease costs 
 wouhl be reserved. Afc Arthur v. I'rittii', 2!) 
 Chy. ,-)()() -IJlakc. 
 
 V. .Iiiiisinn'ioN Of JiiDCK oii IiKkkkek in 
 
 ClIAMHKltS. 
 
 A motion uniler R. S. O. (1877) e. 4!), s, 
 9, to appoint an administrator ad litem of 
 the estate of a deceased person, may be made 
 before the referee, as that section merely ex- 
 tends a jurisili(!tion already possessed by him 
 under < !. O. .')li. I'olln r v. Smay:ir, 8 P. R. 42. — 
 .Stephens, A'c/iivc. --Spragge. 
 
 The referee has no jurisdiction to strike out 
 interrogatories for impertiiicnee. W^illldms v. 
 Gorhy, 8 1". It. 83. —.Stephens, ffc/crc.— I'roiid 
 foot. 
 
 The referee in cliambers has no jurisdiction to 
 make an order for iiayment into court by an 
 executor or administrator of amounts admitted 
 by him to be in his hands. J{e Curry — Wriijhi 
 V. GiDTji, ('iirry v. Curry, 8 P. R. 340.— Ste- 
 phens, Jlefcrce. 
 
 See III re Selhy, 8 P. R. 342, p. 1568; Petfirkin 
 V. MrFnrlnm', 6 A. H. 254, p. 1680. 
 
 VI. Acceptance of Service. 
 
 Notice of examination and hearing was served 
 at a few minutes past four, on the lost day for 
 
1683 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AOENT. 
 
 1684 
 
 •4 
 
 S 
 
 m 
 
 giving notice, oiiRdlifitorHof onudi'fciiiliiiit, who 
 iiilinittoil Hoi'vicv, liiit oil tlK'Hiiinc <liiy, iIImcovit- 
 ing that thu notice hiii' liccn ni'ivciI too lute. 
 they wrote to the |ihiiiiti(l"MM(pli( iloiM n'|)ii(liiiliiij.' 
 their niliiiiHHion, iiiiil H.iyiii^ tliitt they wmilil 
 move to Net iiHiile tlu^ notice. On ii niotion it 
 wiiH not nhuwii that there «iim noollii r Hcivice or 
 iiotieu than uh aliovi! nieiitinni'ii, uimI tlic ii|>|ili- 
 cation waH tliereiipmi icfiLsicI : .Smtt r. riiini- 
 hani, 3 (Jhy. Clianili. JO'.', followeil Siiiilile, 
 that the acec^|itaiice of hcrvice would not lie 
 hinilin^, Imvin^ liecii ho soon rc|Micliatiil. 
 tVriiili/ V. lI'dM, 8 r. II. ;fJS. Sti phcii.M, l!if<n,. 
 -Illake. j 
 
 V\\. Hi'AYi.Nd l'iio(i:i:i(iM.s. 
 
 Where a decree had liceii made declarini,' the I 
 plaintifr to he entitled to inHin.iiicc iiioncyx, mid ' 
 direutiiij,' a reference to a.Hiertiiiii the iinioiuit .ind 
 payment forthwith tifti'r the iimUim; of llic re- 
 port, an order Hlavin(,'iiroccediii>{M in the nm.stii'M 
 ollico was* rcfiiKcd |iciiiliiiK an a|i|ical from the 
 decreo. Hiil/e.r v. Sliniiliinl rivr hit. ('i>., S 1'. 
 U. 41. — Htcphens, llijatv. 
 
 PBEOEDENOE AT THE BAB. 
 
 See Lenoir v. I'ik-hir, '^ S. C. R. flTri, i). H". 
 
 PREFERENTIAL ASSIGNMENTS 
 Set Bankrim'tcv and Insoi.vkncy— Fraudu- 
 
 LKNT C'()NV|;YANCK.S. 
 
 PREFERENTIAL STOCK. 
 
 Sve Company. 
 
 PREMIUM NOTES. 
 
 See In.-<i:uani:k. 
 
 PRESCRIPTION. 
 
 See Limitation ok Actions. 
 
 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 See KviDKNfK, 
 
 Of payment of mortg.nge. See Impmal linvk 
 ofCaiiadtiv. Mclca/f, II O. R. 407, p. 1270; 
 Mcintosh V. no!ie)i>,'V2 P. R. 280, p. 1270. 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 
 I. Appointment. 
 
 1. Evidence of Agency, 1684. 
 
 U. li'iiliiiciilliin nf Atiinrii, 1086. 
 ;». //// ('nmixniirn- See (JoMPANV. 
 
 II. l'o\M II AMI .\rTlllllin'Y OK AllKNT. 
 
 1. All' III" of Ciiriiornlioiis mill Cmni'ii- 
 
 II if". 
 (a) tliiii ral/ii, KIN,', 
 (h) or ttiiiiti Sir IUnks. 
 
 (c) Of liiiiiriiiiie ('oiiijiiiiiii 1 Sir Is- 
 
 siiiANci:. 
 
 (d) <>/ lliiilirnii" - Srr lUll.WAV.S AN|» 
 
 Railway Comi'amk.s. 
 
 2. i;.iirii/li)il nf llnih, KiSll. 
 .'1. rniniiiiiii'!/ .Wifin, 1(187. 
 4. Siilr of <.',,i,ils, |(1H7. 
 
 fi. Sii/r 11/' I. mill 1, |(IH7. 
 (I. Iliriiriiiil I'djiiiiiiil. 
 
 (a) tlriirrii/li/, l(i8S. 
 
 (Ii) Oil Miirtililiji ■< Sir .MllKTIiACK. 
 7, l>i liiiii/ioii iif .\iil/i'iilhi. Kiss. 
 H. Olllir ('il.ir>:, IliSS. 
 
 III. lii'VdixTiiiv OK Ai'TiiiPiirrv ro Aciat, 
 ItiS!). 
 
 IX. Riciirr.s iiK .\i;KS'r acainst I'iuncipai,. 
 
 1. Ill iiiiiiii riilinn mill Comiiiix.iloii, l(iS9. 
 
 2. (Ill ll/iijiil Ci)iilmiii, 1C!»2. 
 
 \'. LlAllll.lTV OK .AliKNTTO i'ltlNfl I'AI,. 
 
 1. Ai/i III l'Hychiii''iiiii I'nijii lii/ iij I'riiiri- 
 pill, 10112. 
 
 2. Inn nlment of Money, \Wi. 
 
 VI. ItllMIT.S OK T'KINCII'AI. AOAINST TllIifD 
 
 I'AuriKs, Ili'W. 
 
 VII. LlAlllI.ITV OK rUINCIPAl. TO TlllHI) I'AH- 
 
 Tirs. 
 1. For Frmiil of .Ij/riil, I(!fl4. 
 
 2. othiv Casrs, \mr>. 
 
 VIII. PAI'.TICIM.AII AcKNTS— tSVc TIIK Skvkuai. 
 
 Trn.KS. 
 
 I. .\rrolNTMKNT. 
 
 1. h'riiliiiirr nf Aijcnv!/, 
 
 Olio C. entered into agrcementH with several 
 parties to carry fruightM for them at certain 
 named prices to lie paid to the defendant, not 
 mentioning any particular vewscls in which tlia 
 same were to he carried, and then agreed with 
 the defendant as part owner and master of ves- 
 sels in whiiih the jilaintifls had an interest, at 
 ri'tes consideiahly below the sums .iHiced iipmi. 
 The defendant and (". both .swore *hat the ar- 
 rangement had not been made by C. as agent of 
 the defendant, but for his own bciielit ; — Jlelil, 
 that the fact of the defendant having rendered 
 an account in his own name and also sued for a 
 portion of the freight, though aided by the other 
 circunistaii'i s Mentioned in the judgment, was 
 not suff^. Uiit to countervail the positive denials 
 of the ('.c'enilantsand C, that the contracts had 
 not h' ■ II made in behalf of and as agent for the 
 defendant, freight being, prima facie, payable to 
 the master of a vessel, and the cargo need nut 
 
1681 
 (Ifnri/, 1085. 
 
 SiCC ("(IMI'ANY, 
 HITV OK AllKNT. 
 
 tirifioim and Cwn/in- 
 
 S,">. 
 
 ((■ Hanks, 
 ('ihii/iniiiii- See In- 
 
 - .S'lf lUri.wAva Avi» 
 
 ( 'OMI'AMKS. 
 
 7.S, lOSd. 
 X, 1(187. 
 
 iS7. 
 
 iS7. 
 
 11/. 
 
 NS. 
 
 1- S'n- MoiiT(iA(:i;. 
 
 Ilinr'ihi, loss. 
 
 t. 
 
 I'llcilili'V TO Ai;i \T, 
 
 cAiNsr I'liiNcirAi,. 
 
 il Comininniov, l(iS9. 
 (c/i, 1C!»2. 
 
 I' TO i'lllNCII'AI.. 
 
 / /'rajKiij/ oj /'rliifi- 
 III!/, \m'.!. 
 
 I'M. AdAINST TlllilD 
 ITAI, TO TllIHI) I'AK- 
 
 (lit, l()94. 
 
 >. 
 
 i—Sec TIIK Skvkkai. 
 
 lENT. 
 
 Ajiciicy. 
 
 Miit'iitH with several 
 or tliuiii at certain 
 ) tlie defendant, not 
 vessel.s in which tlio 
 id tluMi agreed witii 
 ■ and master of ves- 
 had an interest, tit 
 a sums agreed npoii. 
 
 swore ♦hat tiie ar- 
 de by C. as agent of 
 jwn lienelit : — HeM, 
 int liaving ren(h'ie(l 
 
 and also sned for a 
 ;h aided by theotlier 
 1 the judgment, was 
 
 the positive denials 
 lat the contracts had 
 and iiB agent for the 
 ima facie, payable t» 
 
 the cargo need not 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT 
 
 168» 
 
 he delivered by him until the freight {h paid, 
 HitlKiiigh in any other traiiHaction hiicIi eondiiet 
 wnul<l havebtien Htroiig evidence^ that the dt^fiii- 
 dunt as the |>rineipal (Mintractor. Mi ir/iuiili' 
 Haiik V. (Iniliitiii, 'St l!hy. .VJ4, I'roudfoot, 
 
 I'pon the inHiilveney of .1, II., mIio carried on 
 hUNiiie»s iinilir tlie name ol li. Ik. Co,, his wile 
 purchiiNcd tlifcMtiilc IriiMi his assigiicc, tiu! IhihI 
 ncHH waM ei)niinn(Hl nnilir the »ami! mime, ami 
 was entirely mniiiiged and conl rolled by ,1. |l, 
 anil his wife, wlio aiitliorlzcil liim by jiowi r ol 
 attorney to manage the Hame, and to make pro- 
 niinsory notes in and about her said lnisiniM.i. 
 Iteing pressed for payment <if notes which he 
 had given for a debt due before his insulvem'y, 
 he gave his cri'ilitor notes signed per pro. IS. i\ 
 l!o. .), It. Siilisc(puMitly he was sued on these 
 notes, when hi' 'iwon^ they were; his file's notes, 
 and made with her authority, ulureiipon the 
 holdi'r sued the wife. In the aclioii against her 
 she swore that she had Mejiarate islal(^ and th.it 
 she had puichascd her hii.sliand's estate with it ; 
 hut on the advice of her counsel, she declined to 
 giviMiny inliirnnition concerning it. .She mwoki 
 that .1, 1!, had no authority to give tlie noti s 
 in (|Ucstion, but it appeared that he fi'ei(uently 
 di.suussiMl his own affairs with \\i'\\ and he woidil 
 not swear that he did not tell her th.it h(^ had 
 given these mites : Held, alliiniiiig tlie jiiilg- 
 nient of the CJounty (Jourt, tliat miLwithstaud- 
 ing 'lie power of attorney, the real scope of ,1. 
 |{. 8 agency could be ascertained from any ad- 
 niissihle evidence, and that there was .siillicient 
 to justify the linding of the judge that; . I. IS. had 
 authority to sign the notes. — Cuojii r v. liliu-L- 
 lock, 5 A. K. 5.S5. 
 
 In an action for the non-delivery of certain 
 groceries sold : — Held, that upon the evidence 
 set out in the report K,, by whom the sale was 
 made, was shown to bo the defendants' agent 
 uuthori/.cd to sell on their behalf, Ockliy v. 
 MasHon, 6 A. R. 108. 
 
 See WilliainH v. Corhey, .5 A. li. 026 ; 7 S. C. 
 R. 470 ; KMitn v. Dolan, O. H. 43l', p. 053. 
 
 2. lialification of Aiienry. 
 
 >Sce Alhcrl Che.e.ne Co. v. Lrniiimi, 31 C. 
 272, p. 1G8C; Vamlirlip v. Siniilh, 32 (!. 
 
 60; 
 1687 
 
 1G8C ; 
 Cameron 
 
 Tate, 
 
 V. 
 
 15 
 
 S. C. li. 022. p. 
 
 II. POWKR AND AtlTIIOKITY OK A(JKNT. 
 
 1. Arjenta of Corporations and CovipanicH. 
 
 (a) Oenerally. 
 
 The plaintifTs were a company incorporated 
 under C. S. C. c. 63, and 24 Vict. c. 19, for the 
 manufacture nnd sale of cheese, etc. On the 10th 
 of August, 1873, a written agreement was entered 
 into between one C, the plaintitfs' secretary and 
 salesman, and one M., on behalf, as was stated, 
 of the plaintifTs and defendants respectively, and 
 which was signed by C. and M., for the sale of 
 the whole of the plaintiffs' July cheese, as also 
 of their August, September, and October cheese, 
 at prices named : — Held, that npon the evidence 
 set out in the case, C, in entering into the con- 
 tract for the plaintiffs, was acting within the 
 
 Hen|i(i of his emplnyiiieiit M\A dutius ; and t'uit 
 the defendants could not deuy M.'.h authority to 
 act for them, liir tliry li id iidiiptcd and ratilicd 
 the agreement. A/fml ('Imw I 'u. v, l.uiiiiiil, 
 31 C. r. 27-'. (', 1'. |i. 
 
 Held, that, if a pei.suii ails uotcrinnsly as tlio 
 nllirer of ,1 eorpiiliitiiill, lUld \H n r(i'_;ni/ed by it 
 iis Hucli nlljccr, a regular a|i|"iiiiliiii'iit will Ihi 
 presumed, ;inil hisaits will liiud tlie iiii poiatioil, 
 althi>ii,L{li nil wrilteii pnml' is or can be, adducctl 
 of his a|ip{iiutiiii lit, .s'i'IiiidI Tni-iln.-i n/'/lir Tiiii'ii- 
 "hill 1./ Ilii,i,;il„ii v. A'l i/, 2S Cliy. 4tis. I'loud- 
 
 lont. 
 
 'I'lie giiieral iiiaiiagerof .a cdiupany had .luthority 
 to do arts w liiel. oerasiiiiially riijuired legal ad- 
 vice ; Held, that lie had iiiipliid luithorily to 
 nlaiii a .siilicitor wlic'iiever in his jiidgiiieiit it 
 Has pnideiil to ilo mi, but that siieli ailtlioiily 
 ceaNrd oil the suspeiisii 111 of the company. C/nrkr 
 
 V. (Jllillll Fil-r llislli-ll.liri' Co -CllHtOll's ClLHI, 10 
 
 I', li. 33!l. - Hodgiii.<, MiiMi r ill Oiitiiiiiiy. 
 
 \ siilieilur fur a eoiiipany is entitled to charge 
 such <'i)nipiiiiy for spni.il work and juuriiey.s 
 niidcrtaUeu at the ii i|iii nt ol iiidu idiial diriitors 
 and the gemral iii;iuager. //). 
 
 .Seiiililc, that even if a general manager of a 
 cmiipaiiy positively agreed llial any w . uliiigup 
 ■■"■'iiig thiit should be necessary slmuld bu 
 
 nit III* ui iftnv Ill-Ill nil l4, 
 
 O. li. 478.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 .Sec NiinmUh V. Manniii-i, fl A. I!. 126, p. 213. 
 
 2. Execution of Dcedn, 
 
 To an action by I,, against A., the dcfencu was 
 release by deed. On the trial it was proved 
 that A. had executed an assigmneiit for beiietit 
 of creditors, and received authority by tclei;ram 
 to sign the same for L. The deed was dated 
 8th Octolier, 1881, and afterwards, with know- 
 ledge of it, li. continned to send goods to A., 
 ami on ,'ith November, I8S1, he wrote to .X. aa 
 follows: "1 have done as you desired by tele- 
 graphing you to sign ilcid for nic, and 1 feel 
 contident that you will see that I am protected, 
 and not lose one cent by you. After you get 
 matters adjusted, I would like vou to send mo a 
 clie(piefor$800." * * In April, 188,'), A. wrote 
 a letter to L. , in which, ho said : " In one year 
 more 1 will try again for myself, and I hope to 
 pay you in full." In November, ISSti, the ac- 
 count sued npon was stated :— Held, reversing 
 the judgment of the Court below, Taschereau 
 and Patterson, J,I., dissenting, that the execu- 
 tion of the deed on his behalf being made with- 
 out aiifficient authority, f<, was not bound by 
 the release contained therein, and never having 
 snbse(juently assented to the deed, orrccoani/ed 
 or acted under it, he was not estopped from 
 denying that he had executed it : —Held, per 
 Taschereau and Patterson, .1,1., that though A. 
 had no sufficient authority to sign the deed, yet 
 there was an agreement to compound which was 
 binding on L. . and the understanding that L. 
 was to be paid in full, would be a fraud upon 
 
B^JWJ*^ " 
 
 1687 
 
 PBINOIPAL AND AGENT. 
 
 the other creditors of A., whocoiiUlonly I'ccc 
 the (lividcixls realized l)y the estate. Lawrc 
 V. Anderson, 17 S. C. K. 34!). 
 
 eceivo 
 iiri; 
 
 
 m^:■ 
 
 I 
 
 3. Prommorij Xolin. 
 Sec Cooper v. litacklo'-h, 5 A. H. 535, p. 1085. 
 
 4. .S'((/(: of (iondi. 
 
 Tlie iilaintilV Hiied tlio defendant, a piano- 
 maker, for lireaeh of a w.irranty j^iven \>y liis 
 Hak'Hniiui on tlie sale of a piano tiiat tiic inHtru- 
 nient was tlicu smirul ami in good order:— Held, 
 that tlu! salesman had anthority logivellie war- 
 ranty. McMiilUii V. irdYfVtHiH, .■) A. 11. 51S. 
 
 'I'he plaintill's delivered to one R. some culti- 
 vators for the purpose of selling, as their agent, 
 for cash or good notes. Tiiree of these ho ex- 
 changed with the defendant, who was aware of 
 the fact of agency, foi- a buggy, which he .soiil 
 and retained the proceeds. It was shewn that 
 on a previous occasion K. had traded a cultiva- 
 tor with one M. fov a horse, which he sold and 
 gave tlio plaintill's a forged note puiporting to 
 be that of tlie purchaser ; and on the same day 
 ho traded another cultivator with one 1)., for a 
 watch and /$!, but for tliis also it was said he 
 returned a note to the plaintill's. It was not 
 shewn that defendant knew ;)f eitlM^' transaction, 
 and the plaintill's had prosecuted U. for the for- 
 gery. In an action of replevin the jury gave a 
 verdict in favour of the defendant, but the 
 county judge in term set it aside, and directed 
 judgiuent to be entered for the plaiutiirs, whicli 
 on ap|)eal was alii lined, with costs. SleiiinH v. 
 llouiiiU, 7 \. H. 515. 
 
 An agent of two iudei)endent and uncon- 
 nected principals has no authority to bind his 
 princijials or eitlier of tlieni by the sale of the 
 goods of both in one lot, when the articles in- 
 cluded in such sale arc difTcrent in kind am' are 
 sold for a single lump price not susceptible of 
 a ratable apportionment except l)y tlie mere 
 aibitrary will of the age' t.— There can be no 
 ratification of such a contract unless the parties 
 whom it issouglit to bind have, either expressly 
 or im])lie(lly by conduct, w ith a full know'ledge 
 of all the terms of tlie agreement come to by 
 the agent, asseiiteil to the same terms ami 
 agreed to be bound by the contract undertaken 
 on their behalf. Cameron v. Tale, 15 .S. 0. l{. 
 (i22. 
 
 See liti.-'h v. Fry, 15 (). 1!. \'1% p. 745. 
 
 5. Sale of ImiuU. 
 
 C U. iS. being tlie owner of certain leasehohl 
 property, wrote to K. K. !<., a land agent a letter 
 in these words, "Please call on .). .1. Jt. He 
 keeps a small shop ' *. He resides in my 
 house on 1'. street, and has been wanting to 
 purchase it for some time. Tell him if he gives 
 liie .>2.S5, cash at once I will send the papers to 
 you for him, and he can pay over the money to 
 yon. Please write me by return mail." On the 
 following daj' K. E. K., wrote J. J. R. as 
 follows : " Mr. S. of Meaford wishes me to ta,y 
 that if you desire to purchase some property he 
 owns on P. street, that if you give him $235 cash 
 
 he will send the deeds to inc and deliver them 
 to you. Your reply early will very mucli oblige." 
 About a month after an acceptaneo was endorsed 
 ill the latter letter in these words, " I hereby 
 accept the above on the understanding tiiat I 
 pay no expenses," and it was signcil by .1. ,J. R. 
 Upon an action being brought for speeilic per- 
 formance by J. .1. R., againstC. R. S. It was: — 
 Held, that the letter from C. R. S. , did not con- 
 tain autliority to K. K. K., to enter into a eon- 
 tiact for the sale of the property. Ryan v. SUnj, 
 7 (). R. 'idti. — Ferguson. 
 
 A power of attorney by mortgagees authorized 
 their agent to enter and take possession of the 
 mortgaged land.i and sell the same at public or 
 private sale, and for the best price that could he 
 got for them, and to execute .all necessary re- 
 ceipts, etc., which receipts "should ell'cctually 
 exonerate every purchaser or other person taking 
 the .same from any liability of seeing to tlie ap- 
 plication of the money therein mcntioneil to be 
 received and from being responsible for the loss, 
 misapplication or non-application thereof." The 
 agent took possession and sold the land, receiv- 
 ing part of the pureiiase money in cash and the 
 biilanc.' ill a jironiissory note of the purchaser 
 payable to himself, which he caused to be dis- 
 counted, and appropriated the proceeds, '{'he 
 purcluiscr |iai<l the note to the liolders at matur- 
 ity : — HoliI, allirming the judgment of the court 
 below, that the power of attorney did not autlio 
 rizo a sale upon credit, and the s.ale by the 
 agent was, therefore, invalid, and the purcliiiser 
 was not relieved by tlie above clause from .seeing 
 that the authority of the agent was rightly exer 
 eised. The sale being invalid the subsequent 
 payment of the note by the purchaser could not 
 make it good. Iloilhiirn. v. Swiniie.y, Hi ,S. C. R. 
 2i»7. 
 
 Held, n^vcrsiiig the decision of the Common 
 Pleas Division (19 (). R. 739), that the power of 
 attorney to the husband of the married woman, 
 defendant, authorizing him to sell her lands, did 
 not authorize him to exchange such lauds for 
 others, or to bind her to assume payment of a 
 mortgr.ge on the land given in exchange, and 
 that on the evidence she was not bound thereby. 
 McMiel,ar/y. Wilkh , IS A. K. 402. 
 
 (). Hejx'winii Payment. 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 An agcntr instructed to receive payment for 
 his principal, cannot as a general rule accept 
 anything but money. See Fraxer v. Gore l)is- 
 trirt MiUiiat Fire Inx. Co., 2 (). R. 41(), p. 9,35. 
 
 7. De.teijation of AulhorUy. 
 
 See Sunmiers v. Comme.rkal Union Ais. Co., 
 6 S. C. R. 19, p. 9.35. 
 
 8. Other Cases. 
 
 Power of 'J'oronto agent to change destination 
 of goods or vary the terms of a bill of lading 
 placed in the hands of an agent of a forwarding 
 company at Waterford, Out., for carriage to 
 liiverpool. See Mimteith v. Merchants' Dispatch 
 and Tramportaliou Co., 9 A. R. 282, p. 214. 
 
1688 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT 
 
 1690. 
 
 anil deliver them 
 k'ory much oliligc." 
 ,anco was endorsed 
 vords, " 1 hereby 
 erHtiinding that I 
 Hij^ned hy J. J. H. 
 it lor speeitio j)er- 
 '. K. S. It W'lB: — 
 R. S., did not eon- 
 1 enter into a coii- 
 ty. Ryan v. Himj, 
 
 •tya;^ecs antliorizod 
 i ])()ssL'SHi()n of tlie 
 Manic at pnhlio or 
 priee tliut could be 
 ; all neces.saiy re- 
 should ell'iHitiially 
 ;)llier person tidiing 
 f seeing to tiie ap- 
 n mentioned to be 
 nnsilde fertile loss, 
 tion thereof." The; 
 Id the land, reoeiv- 
 ey in cash uid the 
 a of the jjurchaser 
 ! eau8C<l to he dis- 
 ;he proceeds. The 
 le liolders at niatiir- 
 Iginent of the court 
 rney did not autlio 
 id tlio sale hy the 
 , and the purchaser 
 e clause from seeing 
 ut was rightly exer 
 ilid the subsequent 
 purchaser could not 
 iwinney, 10 S. C. R. 
 
 on of tlic Connnon 
 ), that the power of 
 he nuirried woman, 
 o sell her lands, did 
 nge such lauds for 
 lume payment of a 
 in exchange, and 
 not bound tlicreby. 
 II. 4(i2. 
 
 vyment. 
 
 ly- 
 
 •eecive payment for 
 
 general r'ule accept 
 
 Fraii'v V. Oore Du- 
 
 <). K. 4I(), p. !):15. 
 
 Atdhorily. 
 
 •at Union Ass. Co., 
 
 o change destination 
 of a bill of lading 
 {ont of a forwarding 
 nt., for carriage to 
 Mi-rchaiits" Dispatch 
 \. R. 282, p. 214. 
 
 Where the principals negotiate, and either 
 perfect a contract or put an end to proposals lor 
 one before the delegated power to their agents 
 has been fully exercised, tlie acts of the prinui- 
 puls are the binding acts, anil the subseipient 
 acts of the agents are of no avail as against 
 their principals. In tliis ease, upon the lett'.is 
 and evidence, sot out in the report, it was hehl 
 that tlie defendant iiad not witliilrawn his prior 
 pi'opos'.ls and abandoned the negotiations lielure 
 a tinui arrangement had been come to l)y the 
 respci tive solicitors. Var(hii. v. Vaiilon, (i O. 
 U. 711/.— Wilson.— Chy. I). 
 
 Authority of agent to give notice of abandon- 
 ment to underwriters. See McrrhaiiU' Mariitr 
 Ins. Vv. V. Uaiss, 15 (S. C. R. 185, p. !KSS. 
 
 See Uush v. Fry, 15 (). R. 122, p. 745. 
 
 III. Revocation ok .'* utuouitv to Atir.Nr. 
 
 Vardoii V. Vardov, (). R. 711), sn/ira; 
 Adaiv^n v. Ycaijc.r, 10 A. li. 477, iii/ra. 
 
 IV. Rl(JllT.S Olf A<iENT AdAlNST I'ltlNCIPAI.. 
 
 1. licmiiiKrutiuit and Ci>iiiniis.-<iuii. 
 
 The defendant at the instance of the pliiiiitills 
 placed his, the deleiidant's, farm in his hand, 
 for sale, subject to the jiaynieiit ol' a certain 
 eoimnissioii in ease the farm should be dispo.siMl 
 of through him, and if the defeiid;int hiniself 
 sold without the aid of the pliiiutilt', the eoin- 
 iiiissioii should be only oiu'-half. The iKleiidaiit 
 alleged that it was a term of the ariaiigeiiiint 
 that if the land remained iinsoid at the ciiil of 
 two years the agieemeiit should erase : -ilelil, 
 that if parol evidence as to the liiiiit.it ion of 
 time, was not admissible, the law would infer 
 its eoiitinuanee for a reasonalde time old}', and 
 that 111 deciding what was .; reasonable time the 
 time spoken of by the pal■tie^ which was two 
 years, might be coiisideied. Wv Ihn'oi and 
 Patterson, .1.1. A., such j)arol eviikiu„ was 
 admissible : — Held, .also, that the defendant 
 having refused to sell to a piiiiiosed pnieliaNer 
 found by the plaintill', the (ilaiiitill' was not 
 entitled to recover his full eommission as on a 
 sale, but the value of his servieis as on a (|iian- 
 tu;.. meruit or damages for the defendant's 
 wrongful refusal. Ailan-sini v. Yiai/ir, 10 A. 
 I{. 477. 
 
 The plaintill', a land agent, was employed by 
 defendants tu sell certain land at a .stipulated 
 priee, and '.n the eouise of his <'niployni(nt, and 
 after negotiating with an intending purchaNer, 
 an exchange was etlected by certain of his lands 
 being taken in part satisfaction of the defen- 
 danls' price, and the plaintill demanded com- 
 missiiin from the pni chaser for ed'ueting such ex- 
 ehiinge, which the purchaser, without acl>no\v- 
 leclgiug the plaintill s light to niike it, acceded 
 tu, ami p.iid a, sum of money to the plaintill'. 
 The plaintill said tiiat such sum was [laid not 
 as eomiuk-sion, but as a gratuity : — Held, that 
 such a sum, « hether received as a CDinniission 
 strictly so called, or aH a gratuity, was a prolit 
 dirci-lly made in the uourse of and in eonneetioii 
 with the pluihtilf's employment, and would, 
 therefore, belong to hia employers, the defen- 
 
 dants; but as it appeared that the defendants 
 were fully aware of the plaintill having received 
 such sum, and made im objeetion to his retain- 
 ing it, but with full knowledge thereof negoti- 
 ated with him for a settluinent of his remune- 
 ration, they ciiuld not afterwards, in an action by 
 the |)laintifr for such remuneiation, set fill' such 
 sum. t'lili'trwfU v. Ocmiiloii, .SI (;. l*. ,"542. -('. 
 1'. I). 
 
 I and agents Iiavi? no rij;lit to accept commis- 
 siiiu from parties with whom they dual without 
 the Inllest notice to their employers that they 
 hold themselves at liberty to do .so, and a.ssciit 
 on the hitter's jiart to such right ; but neither 
 express notice or assent is necessary, it is sutli- 
 <:ient if from the nature of the eiiciimstanccs the 
 principal must liavi; been aware of the fact, and 
 by making no active ohjeetioii must be deemed 
 to intend to make none ; and in the absence of 
 specilic agreement to the eoiitiaiy comniission 
 must be estimated on the whole value of the 
 property without regard to incumbrances. Ciil- 
 rcrin-d V. lUriiKy, 1 1 O. R. 205. - U. I'. L). 
 
 The plaintiff had been employed by the 
 
 defendants to procure offors for the purchase or 
 
 exchange of threes blocks of land owned by 
 
 llu'in, and Ik; ai;cordingly proiiired from one It. 
 
 an oiler at an estimated iniee of ■■jil", 000 which 
 
 he siiliniilted to the deleiidaiits, .ind which 
 
 tlii'j, on the loth .September, I.SK4, accepted 
 
 conditionally that I!, wmilil .igiee to a variation 
 
 of till! teiiiis of his oiler, it. being then absent 
 
 from the eoiuitry, the plainlill', withinit any 
 
 iiistnictlons, agreed on behalf ol l{. to the pro- 
 
 ])iimmI variation. K. n^tiiriicd shortly after- 
 
 I wards. ■ ' on the ISIIi Sepli-iiili(!r, signed a 
 
 I fiiriiial laiiliiatloii ol the {rlaiiiliU 's act, but it 
 
 was not sheuii that this was ever eommiiiiieated 
 
 to thi^ dc feinlaiits. Meanwhile the d' iendants 
 
 being press d for money by a mortgagee of one 
 
 of the pro|iertiL'S had arranged a s:ilc of that 
 
 I pio[ierty to one ,S., at a price .SS.OUO less than 
 
 it was valued at in the oiler of II., part of the 
 
 j consideration given by S. being some of the 
 
 same l.iiiils oU'ered by li. in exchange, of which 
 
 it apijcarcd lliat S. and not li. had the control ; 
 
 1 and by a siil)sci|iieiit arrangiMiieiit the defen- 
 
 d;iiit.s' other two pro|iirlies were sold to 1{. 
 
 ! 'I'he defendants and .S. were brought together 
 
 daring the iiegolidions arising oul of H.'sofl'er: 
 
 — Held (reviMsiiig the judgment of the C. 1'. 
 
 ' I). I! (». II. 2i).">J, that as between R. and the 
 
 ; defiMid. lilts, the matter had lu.ver passed beyond 
 
 I the stage of negoti.itlon ; R.'s oll'er was not one 
 
 j that he could carry out, and therefore the 
 
 phiiiitiir was not i!iititled to eomiiiission upon 
 
 ' the oll'er of I!., or alleged conlract of sale made 
 
 ; Willi him; mother w. is lie entitled to anything 
 
 either on the fo'iting oi his agreement or cpiail- 
 
 tuni meruit by way of e.iniUiis.sinii on the sales 
 
 that were actually made. S. C, 14 .V. li. 2()G. 
 
 MeK. etal. the ap|iell;iiits, rod estate brokers 
 at Winiii|)eg, received verbal instriietioiis from 
 the res|)oii(leiits to sell certain lands of their's 
 at a certain price and terms of payment. McK. 
 et al. .sold the land at the price named, receiv- 
 ing from the purchasers tlie sum of .*."), 000 as 
 a deposit on acciiuut of the pur<di.ise money, 
 and giving therefor a receipt. I'rior to the 
 expiration of the delay within wliiidi the bal- 
 ance of the purch.i.se money was to be paid, 
 the purchasers refused to complete their pur- 
 
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT 
 
 1692 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 m 
 
 K 
 
 -•* 
 
 8 
 
 U 
 
 1 ' 
 
 i 
 
 cha&e for want of title in tlio rosiiondents to 
 a certiiiii portion of the liiiid, iiiiil coiituiuloil 
 tliiit from tliu iiljsence of writing Higiieil by 
 tlieui they ciml<l not lie compelled to do so. 
 I'lio apiielliints tlieu brought an action for com- 
 inissiun npim the entire purchase money. The 
 ie>pondents set up tlie defence that the appcl- 
 laiit.s jjroinised to .sell the lands and to com- 
 plete such s:de by prejiariug the neeessai'y 
 agreement in writing to make a binding con- 
 tiMct with tlie purchasers. 'I'he case came on 
 for trial before a jury who followed the charge of 
 the(;hief .1 ustice. and found a verdict in favour of 
 the ai)pellants for the full i\niount of their claim, 
 thereliy giving them two an<l a-half per cent, 
 upon the entire purchase money of both parcels 
 of land. 'I'lie jury were not asked by the judge 
 to i)iononncc uirui tlie nature of tlie terms upon 
 which appellants were employed, n])on the ques- 
 tion whether the sale went oil' through the 
 neglect of the a])pelluits to take a writing 
 binding the i)ureliasers, or whether it went oil' 
 by reason of the veii<lors iu)t being able to com- 
 plete the title, (ir because they were unwilling to 
 <loso. In review bi fore the full eiuirta judgnjent 
 was rendered directing that the verdict should be 
 reduced to .S12."), being eonnuission at the rate 
 of two and a-half per cent, on the ^.-iiOUO 
 actually paid, or, in the alternative, that tliei'c 
 should be u new trial : --Held, aliirming the 
 judgment of the eoni't below, Strong ,1. dis- 
 senting, tli.it tlu re h.id been a mistrial, and 
 therefore the order for a new trial should be 
 affirmed, apj)ellnits to hive the alternative of 
 reducing his verdict to >i-\-~>. I'er Hciiry, d.-'- 
 lt was the duty of the appellants to take lioni 
 the purcliMS 'rs a bidding agreement umlei' the 
 statute, and h iving ik glecteil to do so, tiny 
 ■were not entitled to ,'iny com]iensition. Mac- 
 Keiizie v. Ch<ini/4>i,, 12 S. C. K. (il!). 
 
 The defendants, type founders in lOdinbiirgh, 
 employed plaintilV's father as their .-igent in 
 Cmada to be juiid by a eomniission "on tin: 
 receipts, i.e.. in cash, bills, ,niil value of old 
 metal reciivod." lie also had a .•<inall guaran- 
 teed s:ilary. It was understMul th ;t as soon as 
 the father gol t.io nl I to m;in ige the bu>iness, tin,' 
 jilaintitV was to siiec' cd hini ; and in ISSO this 
 ■was cflected. In JSS'i the plaintilF was dismis- 
 sed, lie wrote ecunplaiuiiig th reof, but said 
 the sting was taken out of it by ri ason of a 
 yearly all w.incc to the father of Jjl.^.")!) for 
 whieii lie w,is i;r,iteful. In ,lanuary, liSS-l. the 
 defe id.ants annoyed at a \n<H nevasioned by 
 plaintili's brother, threatened that the father's 
 iillowance would be stopped ; and tlie father 
 wrote plaint ill' tli.U. he could make any claim he 
 wished. The plaiiitilF then made a el.iiiu on dii- 
 fendants, beint; for eomniission on sales, made 
 before, but th'' aniouiit thereof was received 
 after )ilaiutill' liad left clef"ndants' em|iloynieiit. 
 (In defeinlanls notifying the iil.iintili' that if tlu^ 
 claim were jire-s. d the f ithci s allowance wiuild 
 be discoiitinned, nothing fiirtlier was done by 
 plaintiff until aitirliis fatliei's death, when the 
 claim was ])r''ssrd and tlii-i a lion comnieneed. 
 Itai)i)eared that had th ■ rl dm bren ju-essed the 
 allowance would have been ^topped ; and that 
 defendants paid the al'icnv, I uc:c under the belii'f 
 that the claim would n 't bo pi-essed : — Hebl, 
 that the ])lainlilf was no;, entitled to recover. 
 I'er Rose, J. Tie pi. until! wis e(jnitably estop- 
 ped from uiaintaining the action. I'er L'anieron, 
 
 C. J. — The plaintiff by the express terms of the 
 contract was only entitled to conmiission on 
 moneys received during his employment, and not 
 afterwaids. J'ulmc.r v. Millar, 13 0. K. 507. — 
 
 u. r. D. 
 
 2. On Jlle.ijal CoiUracls. 
 
 Liability of principals to brokers for moneys 
 a'lvanced for the purpo.so of buying and selling 
 griin on margin. fSce lliue v. (luiiii, 4 O. R. 
 o7t), p. S32. 
 
 V. LlAnil.ITV OF AotlXT TO PHIN'OIPAL. 
 
 1. AijEul /'iircluixing Property 0/ Principal. 
 
 'J'hc rule of equity which prevents an agent 
 acquiring a benelit for himself in any dealings 
 Willi the ost.ite of the agency, acted upon where 
 an .igciit had been emidoyed to sell or exchange 
 cert.iin lauds of the principal, which, however, 
 the agent had been unable to effect, and tliepro- 
 ])erty was shortly after offered for sale l)y auction 
 under a power of sale in a mortgage, when the 
 ag.-nt bid, and became the purchaser. The 
 court ("^piagge, U.), in a suit impeaching the 
 ])urdiase, declared the agent a trustee for the 
 princip'il ; but as the )ilaintilF made sevonil 
 unfouinlcd charges of fraud and other miscon- 
 duct, the relief asked was given, without coats. 
 'I'lioiiijinoii V. Ilolmaii, 2.S C'hy. ."5. 
 
 Till' <lefeiidant had for some years acted for 
 the jilaiiitili'in looking after his lauds, and pay- 
 ing the taxes; but in IS7-f, they had some ililfi- 
 euliy. aii'l from that time the plaintiiree;iscd to 
 correspond with the defendant, and cmphiycd 
 one II. to pay tlie taxes, and look after the pro- 
 pel ty. H., without any instructions froiu the 
 phiintifT, on one occasion wrote to tin; <lefeiidant 
 rcpiestiiiL' him to ascertain the amount of the 
 ta\es. and to draw on him tlnrefor, with which 
 i\ quest till! defendant complied, but nnthiiig 
 fiiither OL-curred to cliiinge the relative pnsitiim 
 of till' parties before the sale : — Held, per liur- 
 t'ln .1. A., that uiilcr these circumstances the 
 eonlidential relations which hid previously cx- 
 isleil inu-it, be Inld to have Cias^'d, and that the 
 deieii'lant was not pi'ccluded from puiehasing 
 the |ilaintiH"s land at a sale fur taxes. I'er 
 I'roudfoot, .1., that what took plaee could not 
 have the eH'uct of determining the tidui'iary re- 
 lationship between them, and the delenilant 
 could not ])urc!.a-:e the pliiiililT s land to his 
 prejudice. Fl'iiiiiiii v. MrX'thh, 8 .\. It. li.")!!. 
 
 .Sale to agent of lainl bought by him in con- 
 teiiqilation of a sale at an advanceil price to par- 
 t'es whom he misrepresented to the principals as 
 having witlidrawn from the position of purchas- 
 ers. ,See Wadiinky v. 0'ri[lilli, 10 .\. I!. ;i27, p 770. 
 
 Tureliase of nnn'tgaL'od premises sold nniler 
 power of .sale bv a^eut of inortgaLree. See Imjalls 
 V. MrLaiirin, 11 O. K. 3S0, p. b'SUl. 
 
 Sec Cidi-erwdl v. Camtiluii, 31 C. 1". 342, p. 
 lUilO. 
 
 See also, Tur.sTs and TnusrEKS. 
 
 2. Iiirmfmciil of Mmipy. 
 Held, that it is a breach of duty in a person 
 entrusted w itli money to invest on i\al t state to 
 
1692 
 
 press terms of the 
 o comniissiou on 
 [jloyiniiiit, and not 
 r, 13 O. K. 507.— 
 
 U-acln. 
 
 rokors for moneys 
 Ijuying anil selling 
 V. Oiiiiii, 4 O. R. 
 
 ro Principal. 
 
 Hy of Principal. 
 
 ircvunts an agent 
 It' in any dealings 
 acted npoii where 
 sell or exohange 
 
 whioli, liowever, 
 ifTect, and the pro- 
 for Side l)y auction 
 51'tgage, when tlie 
 
 puicliascr. The 
 t impeaching the 
 
 a trustee f(ir the 
 tiir made several 
 md other niisoim- 
 en, without costs. 
 
 ic years acted for 
 
 is lanils, and pay- 
 
 ey liad some ditii- 
 
 plainliir ceased to 
 
 ut, and emphiyed 
 
 Dok lifter tlie pro- 
 
 ructions t'niin the 
 
 e to the (Ufundunt 
 
 le amount ol the 
 
 nfor. will) which 
 
 lied, Ijiit nothing 
 
 relative position 
 
 -Held, per IJur- 
 
 i;ireuin>lances the 
 
 previously cx- 
 
 vs 'd, and th.it the 
 
 fmm purchasing 
 
 for taxes. I'er 
 
 place coidd not 
 
 the liduinary re- 
 
 |iid the delenilant 
 
 il.iir s land to his 
 
 ///j, S .\. K. ().')li. 
 
 lit liy him in con- 
 incc'l price to p:ir- 
 to the principals as 
 Dsitioii of ])urchas- 
 
 0.\. li. ;i'J7,p 770. 
 
 eunses snld under 
 ^'ai.'er. See liujaUs 
 ). VMW. 
 
 .•U C. I". 342, p. 
 TnusrKKS. 
 
 duty ill a person 
 at on ruil < state to 
 
 1693 
 
 PBINOIPAL AND AGENT. 
 
 1694 
 
 invest on the security of a second mortgage, 
 unless with tlie sanction of tiie lender, which 
 such person must prove, and which the evidence 
 ill tills case failed toestablisii. The value of tlio 
 property liereiii was ahont §1,000; the first 
 innitgage being for .?32."). ami the second for 
 SlOO, taken to the iilaiiitiff. The borrower was 
 a respectable mccli iiiic in receiptof good wages, 
 occujiying the property himself, which was sit- 
 uated in the place where all the parties resided 
 and carried on business. 'I'lie judge at the trial 
 found that the defendant was not guilty of neg- 
 lig'.'uce so far as the value was concerned, and 
 the court refused to interfere, lieniiiks as to 
 the proper form of declaration in such a case, 
 where the defendant was nd jiaid by the lender 
 but by the borrower. Upon the eonllicting 
 evidence, sot out in the easi?, the .judge at the 
 trial found that the pliiiitilt' had not been in- 
 formed of the first mortgage, under which the 
 property was sold, Iciviiig only about.-jOO ajjidi- 
 cable to the second mortgige. Tlie court refused 
 to set aside this lindiiig, and sust line I the ver- 
 dict for the plaintilf. (.'drier v. Halch, 31 C. 1'. 
 293. -C. V I). 
 
 An agent employeil to pnndiase lands is not 
 authori/.ed to purch ise lainls which are subject 
 to mortgage. Where, howjvcr, the priiicijial 
 was nude aware of tli ! incumliranec and still 
 agreed to ajcepfc two lot< out of ten lois alleged 
 by the agent to have ba n b mglit for himself 
 ami his [irin ;ip il, this was de.:mc I a waiver of 
 the obje;tion to the act of the agent and to tlu 
 right of the princi|nl to demaud a return of the 
 money phued in his agent's hands. IJiit the 
 principd hiving asc yrtaine I tli it the two lots 
 offered to liiin fell sliort in (|U lutity, of whicli 
 fact the agent wis aw ire when o!l'eiing them : — 
 Held, under tliesj eirciimstincos, that the 
 priucipil's right of action rcvivi! 1, an 1 that he 
 was entitlcil to enforce piyoieut from the .igeut 
 of till! piiiicipil money aid interest, liiillcr- 
 worth v. Sh'tit'ioii, 11 A. R. St). 
 
 ! Ill an action by the Canada .Shipping Co. to 
 : recover .$3,038.4.3, the pi ice of 810 tons r> cwt. 
 ' of steam coal sold by their agents '{"hompsoii, 
 , .Murray* Co., through T. S. Noad, broker, as 
 ; per following note : '• .Montreal 13th Aug., I87!». 
 j Messrs. Thompson, Murray it Co.: I have this 
 i day Sold for your account to arrive to the V. 
 ' Hudon C'otten ,Mdl ( 'o. the 810 tons 5 ewt. 
 I best South Wales blaek vein steam coal per bill 
 of lading pw ' l.ike Ontario' at $;{.7.'> Jier ton of 
 2210 pounds dr.ty pail ex ship, ship to have 
 prompt despatch. Terms net cash on delivery 
 <)r thirty days, adding interest buyer's option. 
 ! Brokerage payable by ymi ; buyer to have |)rivi- 
 { lege of taking liilluf Lading nr reweighing at sellers 
 lexiieuse." Tlie defi.iidints pleadeil'l, 'i'liat 
 j the contract was with 1 lioiii|).son, .Murray &Co. 
 ; personally, that the pi lintill's had no .action, and, 
 2. T'liat the cargo eontaiue 1 only I't'i tons, iiSO 
 jibs., the price of which was .*!J,8(iS.72, which 
 they oH'ereil riionipsoii, Murray & Co., together 
 with the price of ten tuns more to avoid litiga- 
 tion, in all .S2,8i):).7-, which they brought into 
 court without their ajkii'uvledging their liability 
 to plaintilFs, and pr.iycd that the action bo dis- 
 missed as to any further orgKatorsiim : — Held, 
 \H)v llitchie V. •!., and T.iscliereaii and (iwyniie, 
 .1.1. that it was unii'ccssiry to dcjide the ijues- 
 tiou as to whether the actimi could bo br(night 
 by the iindiselos ^1 |)iin'ipil, foi' by their plea 
 of tender and payment into court the defendants 
 had acknowledg id their liability to plaintiffs, 
 although such tend.jr and dep isit h.ul been 
 mide " without aekii'iwledging their liability." 
 Fournicr and Henry .J.I dissenting. Per Strong 
 •1. that the action by the respondents (undis- 
 closed princip.ils) was inaiiitiinable. I'er l'\jurnier 
 and Henry .J.J. that the action by respondents 
 wis not m lint linibhs .and th.it lii ; appellants 
 were not pr.vdu Id fron setting up their defeiici! 
 by their pie i of ten ler and p.iyuunt into court. 
 V. /[ii'loi doHaii Co. V. Ciiiiiil'i .'</il/>j>iiiii U I. 
 13 S. C. 11. -Wl. 
 
 VI. llMilllS (). 
 
 Pitiviui'.vi, .\i;AiNsr Tiiii!!) 
 
 I'.MiriKS. 
 
 .See Sli-marl v. Ii)iui'/-, 7 A. 
 \V,i'm>l-:i V. (IriiJVh, 10 .\. 
 
 R. 
 
 .-)1.5, p. 1G87; 
 .•!27, p. 77i). 
 
 W sigiiel and .sedc:d a deed of conveyance of 
 certain land to (!., who su|);( ised him to be the 
 owner of the land, as he proi'esse I himself to 
 be, where IS he was really only ai^tiiig as agent 
 for M. tlie owner. M. now brought this action 
 agiiust '). for speeilic pirforniiice of, as he 
 .ilkgol, a coiitr.ict on ( J.'s part to purch ise the 
 laud. There wis no note or memnindum of 
 the allege 1 cont-act, other than tli i said tlecil, 
 which was signed anl .ieale 1 by (J., and was in 
 the ordni iry sh irt form, ,vn I aekuowlelgcd the 
 receipt aiiil ])iynient of the purchase m nicy, 
 though the evidence shewed tliat only ten per 
 cunt, of it had been acLnallv pdd. It diil not 
 .appear th it the deed hid ever bjcii delivered: — 
 Held, tint the d;c.l, though incomplete as a 
 convey inee, was evid nice of a e nitr.i et of s lie, 
 witli ■■.'lit to sitisfy the Stitiite of Krauils: — 
 Held, also, th it though W. iirofessed at the 
 tim ! ' " Mie contr ict to Oe tlio owner of the land, 
 yet, as .11 ivilily he wis acting as agent for .M., 
 M. eouM aviil him;elf of the eoiitrict, and was 
 entitle I to judgment. .}f'"ni-/li'/ v. (\)-)/>'r, 8 
 0. It. 3H}.— Kerguion. AlKrmHl, 12 A, It. 
 234. 
 
 Vll. Liviiii.rrv ov I'itiNcii'.VL to Tiiikd 
 j l'.i.ia'iK.s. 
 
 1 1. i'or Frait'l of Aijuiit, 
 
 I On the 22iid August. 187!), the defendants' 
 account at the I? ink uf .Montreal, where the 
 corporation ace luut was k pt, was overdrawn 
 •S1,I.'>7.()1. A resolntiou of the council was 
 thereupon passed, aiitli ori/.ing the mayor to bor- 
 row from some bulking insti.ntion a sum not 
 exceeding .$2,0 (3, to meet the current liabilities 
 until the t ixes were aviililde, and authorizing 
 
 ' him and the town clerk to sign the necessary 
 doeum 'iits therefor, and to MW the corporation 
 soil. O.i 2n 1 September, a promissory note, in 
 
 'aeordiuce witli this resolution, was nvido, and 
 
 ' wis discounted at the Hiiik of .Montreal, and 
 the proceeds placed to the defendants' credit. 
 
 ! On .")tli September, a siui I ir note was m.vle and 
 discouuteil at the plaintilFs' bank, where the de- 
 fend nits hid kept an account, but which was 
 virtu illy closed, though there was a small bal- 
 
 J an ;e stdl rem lining to their credit. The last 
 note w.is in faet fraudulently procured to be 
 
 I m Vile an 1 disc lunte 1 by one 1'., who was the 
 defendants' clerk and treasurer, and who was Lii 
 
1095 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 
 
 169S 
 
 J I 
 
 default, to cover up liis defalcations, but of this 
 the plaintiffs knew nothing. T., as such ti t5!isu- 
 rer, tlieii, chequed out of plaintill's' haiiii Sl,(i.')(i 
 of this amount, which lie (hjiositcd to tlic de- 
 fendants' credit at the JS.inii of Montreal, and 
 then paid it out on corporation c1ic(|Uch for 
 authorised corpoiation purposes ; — Held, in an 
 action for money had and received, tliat the 
 plaintiff's woie entitled to recover the .SI, ''.">(!, 
 for tliat T,, though acting fraudulently, lia(l 
 acted in a matter within the scope of his 
 authority, and the defendants had received the 
 Itenefit of the fraud. Muhoii's linvk v. Toiru 
 of lirod-vdli', 31 C. P. 174.— C. I'. T). 
 
 In consideration that the plaintifT would act 
 as agent for the defendant in the jiurehase ami 
 consignment of furs to the defendimt, and as- 
 sume one-third of tlio los.scs to the extent of 
 .^3,0(10, all losses abo\X! that amount to he borne 
 by the defendant, he agreed to pay jdaintiH' 
 one-half tlie net profits of e.ieh year's transac- 
 tions. The jilaintill' impugned the bona fides of 
 a settlement whieh lie had been induced to make 
 with the defendant, acting through an agent, 
 and the court being satislied tliat tlic settlement 
 had been secureil by the fraudulent misrepre- 
 sentations of such agent :~Held, the plaintiff 
 entitled to an aceoiint of the transactions and 
 an iuH|iection of the boolis of the defendant, 
 notwithstanding the provisions of the statute 
 •MS Vict. c. LT), s. 1 (R. S. O. KS77, c. 133, s. 3). 
 lioijcrs V. Ullmdini, 'Si Cliy. 137. — rrnudfoot. 
 
 The plaintifT. T\ lio ajjplied lo the defendants, 
 throngli one W., their agi iit, fur a loan. rei|Uest- 
 ed them by his .ijiiilication to send the nioiuy 
 "by ehctjne, :i(lili-es.«ed to \V," Jn aceordauee 
 Mithtlicir enstoni to make tlieir eh((|U(S pay- 
 able to their agmt and flic borrower, to insuic 
 the receipt of the nuney by the latter, tliey sent 
 W. a cheque, payable to the order of himself 
 aiul the plaintifl. W. obtained the phiintiirs 
 endorsement to the ehc(|U(', drew the monej', aiid 
 absconded. 'I he jlaintill'sv. ore tliatliedid not 
 know that the ]'a| ei' lie signed was a cliKiiie, 
 and there was no evidem e to sIk w that he liad 
 dealt with W. in any oilier eliaraeler than as 
 the defendants' agent, tlimugh whose hands he 
 expected to receive the money ;— Held, afliim- 
 ing the decree of I'roudfiot, \'. ('., restraining 
 proceedings en the moitgage which the plain- 
 tifl' had given to defendanis fi^r the loan, .'ind 
 directing a reconveyance, that it was W.'s <lnty 
 to endorse the cli(<|iie to tlie plaintiff or to see 
 that he received tlie moricy, and that the 4lc- 
 fendnnts, who li.id pi t it in his ]io«er to commit 
 the fraud, must In ar the lo.'-s. Finn v. Jhniiiiiioii 
 Saviviixavd Iwifiiiiotl Socitly, (i A. R. 20. 
 
 C, freight agint of n spoiidents at (,iiatliam, 
 and a partner in the firm of IJ. & Co., caused 
 printed recei[its or shipping notes in the form 
 commonly used by the railway conqiany to be 
 signed by his name us the company's agent, in 
 favour of R, k Co., for fli'ur which liad never in 
 fact been delivered lo the lailway company. 
 The receij)tsacknowleilged that the company hail 
 received frtm R. & Co. the flour addressed to 
 the appellants, and were attached to drafts drawn 
 by J5. & Co., iind aceepted by appellants. C. 
 received the picceccls of the dialts and abscon- 
 <led. In an action to recover the amount of the 
 drafts :■ — Held, (lournier and Ileniy, J,J., dis- 
 senting), that the act of C. in issuing a fake and 
 
 I fraudulent receipt for goods never delivered to 
 I the company, was not an act done within the 
 j 8co))e of his authority as the company's agent, 
 
 and the latter were therefore not liable. Krh v. 
 'drvul \V,:-<l<ri, I,'. »'. Co.ofCaiinth,rtH.C.K. 
 
 17!) : 3 A. R. 44(i ; 42 Q. R. !I0 ; Olinr v. Gnat 
 
 Wrsinn J,', ir. ro.,28C. P. 143. 
 
 The plaintiir, assignee of an insolvent estate, 
 claimeil from the defendant, a creditor of the 
 estate, an aeicinit as to his dealings with timber 
 ; linnts assigned to him as security, and payment 
 ; ot any balance. Part of the tind)er had been 
 , placed in the hands of K. &Co. for sale : — Held, 
 j upon the facts stated in the report of the case, 
 jaflimiing Ferguson, .1., that the defendant was 
 j not liable for a loss occasioned by K. & Co.'s 
 i failure to pay over j art of the price of the tim- 
 i her sold by them. JMl v. /Vn.sei-, 12 A. R. 1. 
 
 The fraudulent act of an agent docs not bind 
 I the jirincipal unless it is done for the benefit of 
 ' the piinci|'al, or unle.'-s lie knows of or assents 
 : to it, ov takes an advantage of it. Cililiovs v. 
 ! Wiltoii, 17 0. R. 200.- Chy. 1). 
 
 2. Ofhir CascK. 
 
 The plaintifT, who had purchased a special cx- 
 ciirsion ticket from Toronto to Niagara and re- 
 turn on the same day by a steamer of the defen- 
 dants, and which had been taken up by the 
 liurser on that day, claimed the right to return 
 by it on the following day under an alleged 
 agrceiiunt with the purser, which the latter 
 (linied. On the purser demanding the iilaintifrs 
 fare, and the latter refused to pay it, the porter 
 by the iiuiser's direction, laid hold of a valise 
 w liich the iilaintilV was carrying and attempted 
 to take it and hold it for the fare, whereupon a 
 .seiiflle ensued, and the plaintiff was injured, 
 Held -—Osier, J., dissenting, that the iiurscr 
 was not acting within the scope of his duty in 
 thus forcibly attempting to take jioi-session of the 
 valise, and the delendants were not liable for 
 his act. It appeared that the iiurscr had been 
 summoned by the jilaiiiliff befoie a magistrate 
 for the assault, and a fine imposed, wiiich lie 
 paid. J'er Wilson, ('. .1. This under ;!2-3;i 
 Vict., c. 20, s. 40 (Dim.), though a release to the 
 purser, did not constitute any bar tr) the iircseiit 
 aetioi. against the company. Held, also, tliat 
 the alleged im]irisonmcnt of the plaintiff liy the 
 puiser in his ( flice for nonpayiiient of his fare, 
 not being an act whl<li the defeiidanls them- 
 selves could legally have done, the defeiiiliints 
 were not liable for it. Knursoii v. Simjiira 
 XmiuntU.n Co., 2 O. R., 528.- C. P. 1). 
 
 Action against a bank to recover amount paid 
 on forged endorsements. Negligence of agent— 
 Kstoppel. .See AiiriciillKial Siiriiiiis (ind L<ia\\ 
 /{■■<.iori(itioH\: Fi(hiat liniik, A. R. 1!12, \\ 13(f. 
 
 A petition of right does not lie to recover 
 compensatiim from the Crown for damages 
 occasioned by the ncgligince of its servants 
 to the iiro|icrty of an individual using a pulilic 
 work. Ji'i'iiiid v. Mel'arlnv< ,"1 S. ('. H. 210. 
 !<(e al.«o jilii.4ol.(i Mil/x Co. v. 77ic (,""■". 28 
 Ch.y. ri(i3, ji. I,''.80; J!<iihui v. Mcl.iotl, 8 S. C. 
 R. 1, p. I.'i82. 
 
 Liability of a municipal corporation for tlio 
 act of its servants. — "Respondeat superior." 
 
169S 
 
 Is never delivered to 
 act ddiie within tlie 
 lie comimiiy's iigeiit, 
 re not lialile. hrh v. 
 ,fCoii(nh, SS. C.H. 
 . !I0; Olirtr v. O'ldit 
 '. 14S. 
 
 nn inHolvent cstatt, 
 mt, a creditor of tlie 
 (lualingH with timher 
 ■t;urity, and imyiucnt 
 the timber had lieen 
 ;Co. for Biile : — Held, 
 he report of the case, 
 ut the defendant was 
 iioned hy K. & Cn.'s 
 
 the price of the tim- 
 . Fra-ser, 12 A. 1!. 1. 
 
 11 agent does not bind 
 one for the henelit of 
 • knows r)f or assents 
 go of it. Oililifivs V. 
 
 y. I). 
 
 ;asrx. 
 
 lurcliascd a special cx- 
 
 o to Miagani and re- 
 
 , steamer ol thedefen- 
 
 Lun taken up hy the 
 
 ■d the right to return 
 
 lay under an alleged 
 
 ser, which the hitter 
 
 nandiiig the plaintiffs 
 
 il to (i.iy it, the porter 
 
 "aid hold of a valise 
 
 rrying and attempted 
 
 lie fare, whereupon a 
 
 lUiintiir was injured, 
 
 ting, that the purser 
 
 scope of his duty in 
 
 take possesf-ion (it the 
 
 s were not liahlc for 
 
 the iiurser had lieen 
 
 1' hifoie a magistrate 
 
 imposed, which lie 
 
 'Jliis under :!l!-3;i 
 
 hongii a nhase to the 
 
 uny liar to thejircsent 
 
 iiy. Held, also, that 
 
 of the idaintilVliy the 
 
 npaymcut of his fare, 
 
 the (Uftudanls them- 
 
 done, the dcfeiulants 
 
 Kinnfoii V. yiii'idra 
 
 . C. !■. I>. 
 So recover anuMint paid 
 Negligence of agent— 
 al iSiiniifiK (iiiil /'"I" 
 /■, A. H'. li)-2, p. I.lli. 
 
 lies not lie to recover 
 Crown for damages 
 gince of its scr\ants 
 ividnal using a pulilic 
 /nv<,l S. ('. H. -'16. 
 Co. V. y/ic Qvn„,'2i 
 1 V. Mel. cod, S S. (;. 
 
 il corporation for the 
 {cspomleat sujieriiir." 
 
 ' 
 
 1697 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 1698 
 
 8ee McSorley v. Mayor, etc., oj the City of St. 
 John, OS. O. R. 531. 
 
 In torts the principle of ageneydoes not ajiply ; 
 each wrong door is a principal. Onlnrio Iiiiliis- 
 trial Lmni and Invi'Mment Cu. v. Lindii'y, 4 O. 
 K.,47.3.-Cby. D.. 
 
 Action for damages cansed hy ill-usage upon 
 the occasion of initiation into a secret ."fociety — 
 Liability of lodge for acta of mendiers during 
 the ceremony. See Knirer v. Phu-iiix Ludije 
 1.0. 0. F.,10. R. 377, p. 27i). 
 
 Where one brought an action against the re- 
 gistered owners of a certain vessel for the value 
 of goods supplied before they became such own- 
 ers, not on the order of the defendants but on 
 the order of one (i. ('., between whom and the 
 defendant.'' no relation of agency was proved : — 
 Held, that the plain tiif'could not recover : — Held, 
 also, that it was oiieii to the defendants to shew 
 that their real interest was that of mortgagees, 
 though ostensibly registered owners. The fact 
 that the vessel got the benefit of the supplies and 
 necessaries did not make the registered owner 
 liable. Xihnn v. II Vc, 8 (). R. Si.— Boyd. 
 
 See Mild rrliitiwi Co. v. D<i-thi, 17 0. W. 1.').— 
 p, 324. 
 
 Ill 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 I. CONTHAUT OF .SlrRKTYSHU'. 
 
 1. dciieralh/, 1093. 
 
 2. Bill.'i ami Xnle.tSee Bills ok Rx- 
 
 CIIA.S(iK AND I'UDiMISSOKY NoriiS. 
 
 3. Guaraiilcen—See (itlARASTEK and In- 
 
 DE.MNITY. 
 
 II. Liability of Surety. 
 
 1. For Fidelity aiid Ilonetty oJ Pertom, 
 
 1099. 
 
 2. Other Cosc.*, 1702. 
 
 3. Bail— See Bail. 
 Discharge and Rkleask or Surety. 
 
 1. La^Ui's or Ner/lect ofOhliijee, 1703. 
 
 2. Alteration of Principal'^ Position, 
 
 1704. 
 
 3. Course of Dealini/, 1705. 
 
 4. Time given to Principal — See Bills of 
 
 KXCIIANOEAND 1'ROMISSORY NoTES. 
 
 5. Death of Surety, 1700. 
 
 6. Other Cases, 1700. 
 IV. RiQiiTS OP Sureties. 
 
 1. To As.iiijnment of Securities. 
 
 (a) Judgment!*, 1707. 
 
 (b) Other Securitii:^, 1707. 
 
 2. To Contribution from 
 
 1708. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1708. 
 
 V. Actions acjainst Sureties. 
 
 1. Pleading, 1709. 
 
 2. Proof hy Entries — See Evidence. 
 
 3. Other Cases, 1709. 
 VI. Mlscei.lankous Cases, 1710. 
 
 107 
 
 Co-Surcties, 
 
 1. Contract OF SuKETVsiiip, 
 
 1. (jenerulhj. 
 
 \Vliei'e a mortgagor who has covenanted for 
 Jiayment of the mortg.ige debt sells his equity of 
 reilinipti<in subject to such mortgage he becomes 
 surety for tlie purchaser for the payment of 
 such debt, and if the same is allow ed to run into 
 default he will be entitled to call upon his as- 
 signee to iiay such debt. Camjjhill v. Ilodinson, 
 27 Chy. (i34.-Spragge. 
 
 Effect of innocent misrepresentation as to 
 state of accounts between principal and obligee 
 before obligation entered into by surety. See 
 Villai/e of (I'tinannque v. Sluniliii, 1 <). it. 1, p. 
 779. 
 
 Where an alteration is made in the contract 
 of suretysliip, then, unless it is without eiKjuiry 
 self-evidunt tliat the alteration is uiisulistantial, 
 or one which cannot be jirejudicial to the surety, 
 the court will not go into an inipiiry or permit 
 the (juestion to lie submitted to the jury, but 
 will hold that the surety nnist be tlie .sole judga 
 as to whether he will remain liable, notwith- 
 standing the alteration. CiU'-cnn' Iniurnuct Co. 
 v. Cluxlou, 13 O. l;. 382.— C. I'. 1). 
 
 A bond, intended to be joint and several, was 
 drawn up, to be executed by (j., who was plain- 
 tiffs' treasurer, and by L. and A. as his sureties. 
 A. executed the bond on the IGth December, 
 18S(), on the sup))osition and understanding that 
 it should not be binding on him until executed 
 by the others. On 27th December, to enable 
 him to run as a councillor, A. requested the 
 council to release him from the bond, which was 
 agreed to, and on the 17th January, 1887, a 
 formal resolution was passed accepting H. aa 
 surety in bis place, and stating that a new bond 
 bad been executed by (i., Ij. , and H. On the 
 same du the first bond, which had not been 
 executed liy (i. or L. , was then executed by 
 them. In an action against A. on the first 
 bond : — Held, that he was not liable thereon. 
 Tou-n<hip of Oxford v. (.lair, 15 O. H. 302. — 
 Robertson. 
 
 In an action by the Crown against C. on a 
 bond of suretyship for the faithful discharge by 
 a government otlicial of his duties as such, the 
 defendant, under a plea of non est factum, swore 
 that he signed the liond in blank; that he made 
 no affidavit of justification ; and that the certifi- 
 cate of the magistrate of the execution (rf the 
 bond, as re(iuired by the statute, was irregular 
 and unauthori/ed. The attesting witness to C's 
 execution of the bond, and the magistrate, each 
 swore to the correctness of his own action, and 
 that 0. must have properly executed the bond 
 or the atKdavit would not have been made or 
 the ecrtili<tate given : — Held, per Ritchie C. il., 
 Strong, Fournier and (iwynne.l.l., reversing the 
 judgment of the court below, that the weight of 
 evidence was in favour of the due execution of 
 the bond by C. Per Patterson .)., that (',. was 
 estopped from denying that he had executed tlio 
 bond :— Held also, per I'atlerson J., reversing 
 the judgment of tlie court below, that the exe- 
 cution of the bond, and not the ceitifi.ate of 
 tiio magistrate, was the proximate, or real causa 
 of its acceptance by the Crown. The Queen v. 
 Chcslcy, 10 S. C. K., .300. 
 
'§ 
 
 ;!ii 
 
 ?. 
 
 w 
 
 1699 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 1700 
 
 iSoe Kixhnnqe liatikv. Sprtiiipi: — Same Pla'm- 
 tlfv. /liiiini,'-2'.)Chy. '270, p. 1709; Liihihoniid 
 V. Warnock, 4 O. H. 187, |). 841 ; liii-lctlt v. .V.'- 
 (lairv, 7 A. I!. 'iX j). loU ; WickeiiH v. .I/c- 
 J/te/,7(/, loO. n. 40H, p. 1701. 
 
 II. LtMiii.irv OF SuKEiy. 
 
 I. Fill' Fidelihi iiicl IToiiciIji <i/ PerKO)i,i. 
 
 'riic cDiiditiiiii of ii IjoikI givL'ii l)y tlio dcfen- 
 <Liiit.s, as sureties for a p.iMtiiiisloi', to tlie post- 
 iii;istoi-j,'(^Monil, w.is tli.-it the imstinasler " do 
 not luid shall not conuiiit any tlicffc, larcony, 
 rolibi'i'y (>!■ cndii z/li'iiii'iil of, oi-losc (jr destroy, or ( 
 eoiliiiiit ;uiy ni d^■asallc•(^ niisfi'iisaiicL', or neglect 
 of duty fiMni whicli uiay arise any theft lar- 
 eeny, loliin-ry, or einbe/zleinent, In.s-ior de^tiuo- 
 tion of, any nriiiry, goods, eh ittels, valuables, 
 or elleets, or of any letter' or parcel containing } 
 the same which may coiik^ iiitip his custody or ! 
 ])ossessiip|i, as surli pnstiirister," etc 'riie post- 1 
 master opened sevei'al letters wlneh came into ; 
 liis (jossession as such pustiiiastcr, and having 
 taken therefrom eerta'in cheipies, forged the 
 payees" n.imesa.scnidor.seis tlier<-of, and got them 
 eished by a iiank up.in gu:ir uitcein^ the genu- 
 ineness of such endorscMients The drawers . 
 refused to rccngiiiz; tliese eliei(ues, but issued 
 duplicities to till' piyees and paid tlieui, so that 
 the bank lost the money. In an action by the ' 
 postm ister-geueral on the bond, on behalf of the 
 bank, to recover from defendants, as such sme- 
 ties, the loss sn incurred ; — Held, referring to 
 seotions .'{7 and 78 of the I'oslOliiee .\ct of 187'), '■ 
 that defendants were not liable, for that the foi'- ! 
 yery and the poaturistei's gu irautee. and not the 
 larceny were the pr.iximate causes of the loss, ! 
 and the contents of the letters ilid not belong to ; 
 the bank, lieniarks as to form of the eomlition. ' 
 l'osliii<tstci--afitti;tl\. MrCoH, HI U. 1'. :W4.— C\ 
 i». ]). 
 
 TliJ testator by his will left nn)ney to his 
 children, whieli was 1 1 be jjiid to them on their 
 coining of a:;e, and to be dep isited by the execu- 
 tors ii 
 ill- 
 
 I do (. I 
 
 !)1 
 
 as:ivin,'s bink in thi' meantime. Que of j 
 ■'.itors appropriiti'd and set a])art certain 
 •■( tii^. testator to answer the trusts of 
 1 ■ill. !i ;no iiys were afterwards paiil by 
 I ^ :Iicitor of the gnirdi in of the in- 
 . !i'i 'f- a(e (L'fault in paynient over of the ' 
 1. •' imount never re:iched the hands 
 
 ■■i-\ m :— Held, that the moneys by the 
 
 net ol sji;i';^ apart had bcL'ome, in the hands of 
 the executor, iinpres od with the trusts of the 
 will, anil he could not properly pay the same to 
 the guardian, nor could the guardian |)ro|)erly 
 receive the amount; ami, although the fund never 
 reached the hands of the guardian so as to render 
 her surety liable to make good the amount, yet , 
 under the cireurnstiiic s the guardian was ])er- ; 
 sonally responsible for the money so paid to her j 
 solicitor, and a dei;rce to that effeet was pro- 
 nounced, with costs; t!ii)u..'h as against the surety 
 the bill w.is dismiss;;d, with costs. OaVirallh v. 
 Duncom'ie, 28 Uhy. ■_>7. - IMake. 
 
 A municipal corporation passed a by-law for 
 raising a loan to liquidate a debt to be incurred 
 in enlarging the H'lhool house in ii public school 
 section, and providing for the issue of debentures 
 for that purpose, and for levying a special rate 
 
 to pay the interest thereon, and to create a sink- 
 ing fund for i)ayiucnt of the principal ; and the 
 nniuicipul authorities paid the moneys so raised 
 by the said special rate to the secretary-treasurer 
 of the school board of the said seel ion. A., the 
 secretary-treasurer ot the school board, and B., 
 as his surety, gave a bond of olliee, reciting that 
 A. had been a])pointed such secretary-treasurer, 
 and that " it was reijuired that security shouhl 
 be given for the due and faithful perforinauce of 
 any and all theduties pertaining to such olliee," 
 and conditioned to " correctly and safely keep 
 any and all moneys and {;apcrs belonging to the 
 said Kchord board, and to faithfully and honestly 
 deliver up, account for, and pay over any moneys 
 which at any time thereafter might iconic into 
 his hands and possession as such secret. u-y-trea- 
 snier," and A. received and made default in res- 
 pect of certain moneys ini|)rii|ierly ])aid to him 
 as such secretary- tieasurer: -lleld, that the cmi- 
 ilition must be read with reference to the recital, 
 and its sro])e might be thereby resti'icted, and 
 reading the two togcthei' JJ. was not liable fur 
 the money.s so rcieived by .-\., which were out- 
 side the duties jierlaining to his otliee, and should 
 have been retained by the municipal corporation. 
 I), having been informid by the school board 
 that A. was in ilefault, but not in lespect of 
 what moneys tlie ilefault was made, as to which 
 he made no en(]uiri 's, and having at the reipU'st 
 of the school board given a mortgage to secure 
 the liability which he was informed he had, by 
 reas'in of such def.uilt, incurred a< siu'ety under 
 the above bund, and having sub.seipiently .ascer- 
 tained that the def lult was p irtly in rcijiect of 
 moneys inipro|ierly paid to A.: -llidd, that H. 
 was entitled to rcileem ou payment of the bal- 
 ance only of the niineys for which he was hclil 
 liable as surety, the mortgage having bcuii 
 executed under a mistake. Kiilh v. Fciidnu 
 /•VV.< Uiii'iii Schiiol S>-clHiii,'A O. n. 1!)4.--Fur- 
 
 gllSOU. 
 
 The defendant M. was appointed an ins|)i'cti)r 
 under the (Joneral Insp action .Act, 1S74, 'M Vict, 
 e. 4.") (l)iin.). l{vse;ti)n Ii each ins|)Lictor autl 
 dcpiity-inspcetor is required to give security hy 
 bond to the Ci own for the due perform nice of 
 the duties of his olli :e, and such bond shall avail 
 to the Crown and to all persons aggrieved by any 
 breach of the conditioiH thereof. IJy section 7 
 the inspectors at '3 to aiipoint the deputy-inspec- 
 tors, who are to bj tlh; deputies of the inspector 
 for all the duties cf his olliee, and their ollicial 
 acts shall be held to bo his acts, and he is to he 
 responsible therefo • as if done by himself. A 
 l.'ond W.IS given by '-he insjieetor, and the other 
 defendants, as sureties for the faithful discharge 
 of the duties of the said office, and for duly ac- 
 counting for all moneys I'lid pro])crty. A simi- 
 lar bond was given by the dei.'uty-inspector. 
 The deputy-inspeetor made a faulty inspection, 
 and the plaintilfs purchased, relying thereon, and 
 were daninilied; — Held, under the statute ami 
 the bond given thereunder, the inspector .M.'s 
 sureties were liable for the default of the de|Hi- 
 ty; and tlmt the f.ict of the plaintilF having n 
 remedy also ou the deputy-inspector's bond w;is 
 no answer to the claim against M.'s sureties:— 
 Held, also, that the plaiutilFs wore " pjrsons 
 aggrieved" within the meaning of the statute: - 
 Qna;re, whether the defendants were entitled to 
 notice of action, but the question was not de- 
 cided, as want of notice was not pleaded. Sec- 
 
1700 
 
 111 to create a siuk- 
 )riii(;i|)al ; iiml the 
 ! inuueys so ruiHud 
 iucietury-triiasurer 
 I section. A., tlie 
 ool hoard, iiuil B., 
 jllioo, reciting tliat 
 Buretiiry-treasurei', 
 at Hcuiirity slioiild 
 if ul purformaDce of 
 iiig to such ollicu," 
 ly and safely keep 
 IS 1)1 loiiyiiig to the 
 lifullyaiidiioiiestly 
 ay over any moneys 
 r might eonie into 
 uch seeretary-trea- 
 iiade <lefiiult in res- 
 dpeily paid to liini 
 
 llulil, that the eon- 
 runce to the recital, 
 iliy restrieted, and 
 
 was not lialde fi)r 
 ., which were out- 
 lis olliee, and should 
 nii'i|>alenrporation. 
 y the si:hoi>l hoard 
 , not in I'e.spect of 
 s made, as to whieli 
 iving at the re(ini-st 
 
 mortgage to secure 
 if.irmcd he had, l)y 
 •led Hi surety under 
 sul).se(iuently a.sccr- 
 
 paitly in iesi)ect of 
 
 A.: -Held, that K. 
 
 ayineiit of the hal- 
 
 whicli lie was held 
 
 ,ga^e liaving heeii 
 
 Kfilh V. FcixUm 
 
 ;i (». it. l'.)4.--Fcr- 
 
 )()iiiteil i\n insiicctor 
 n Act, 187V, :17 Vict, 
 each iiispiiclor and 
 to give security hy 
 due perfiirm nice of 
 iucli lioiid shall avail 
 nis aggrieved l>y any 
 crcof. liy section 7 
 t the deputydnspec- 
 ties of the inspector 
 , and their otlicial 
 acts, and he is to he 
 j)ne liy himself. A 
 eclor, and the otiier 
 le faitliful disclii\rge 
 ;e, and for duly ac- 
 property. A siiiii- 
 j uei.'utydnspcctor. 
 a faulty inspection, 
 relying thereon, and 
 ler"^ the statute and 
 , tlie inspect(U- .M.'s 
 lefault of the dc|ni- 
 a plaintilf having a 
 inspector's bond Wivs 
 nst M.'s sureties:— 
 tiirs wore " pjr.sons 
 ing of thestalntc: - 
 mts were entitled to 
 uestion was not de- 
 s not pleaded. Sec- 
 
 1701 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY- 
 
 1702 
 
 tion 11 provided that disputes between the in- 
 sjieotor and the do[)uty-inspectors and owners, 
 etc., of articles inspected througli or relating in 
 any respect to the same, were to be settled hy 
 tlie board of trade, or where there was lu) .such 
 build, l)y certain specified persons : — Ifeld, that 
 the claim in tiiis action was not a dispute within 
 this sectiim. Vtrratt v. McAulaii, ') U. K. 
 
 •m.-f. 1'. D- 
 
 Hcld, that where an otlieial assignee in insol- 
 vency had given a bond as such with sureties, 
 pmsuant to the insolvent Act of 187">. and 
 aiu'iiling Acts, and thf! creditors had duly ap- 
 piiintcd the saniit individual to be creditors' as- 
 signee, undi'r sectidii "JK ii:' lliat Act, but had 
 not reijuired liim to give secnrily .-is such ciedi- 
 tors' assignee, the snivties under tlie bond given 
 by him as ollicial assiitnec- rein.aine I liable for 
 liis dealings with thi^ estate, and were not dis- 
 charged by reason nf such appointment as credi- 
 tors' assignee. Afiifilro.i;/ v. Fur.ili.r, (). K. 
 I'Ji). — Troudfoot. 
 
 M. having lioen employed by the jilaintiffas a 
 subagent in the eolleetion of money, etc., the 
 ili-fcndants gave the ]ilaiiifiii' a bond to secure 
 iiiiii against loss thi'DU.'h M. 'I'lie buid i-e.-ited 
 the app'iintmeiit of M., and was eonditioneil 
 that if .M. should, from time to time, and at all 
 tiiii'S thereafter, account and (lay to tlie pliiii- 
 till', etc., and at all times during such period as 
 he should act as agi^it. etc., pay all sums re- 
 ceived, etc., to the plaintilf, then the obligation 
 to be voiil. M.'s a[)pointmeiit was made befiire 
 the ilate of the boml, and was cnily till the Hist 
 December, 1SS4, but the defendants were not 
 .awai(! when they executeil the bond, nor at any 
 time al'terwirds till the trial of this action, that 
 M.'s aiipointineut w.is for a limited time. M., 
 hy snb-^eijuciit arrangement, ciuitiiuicd to act as 
 .agent after the year 1SS4, and the only defalca- 
 tions coniniitted liy him were in Xoveniber and 
 De.eaiber, ISSli : -llidd, iiulwitli^t uidiiig the 
 want iif knowledge on the part of the sureties, 
 that the appiiintment recited in the bond must 
 bo laUcu ti) have referreil to the app liiitm.-iit 
 inide before its date ; and that tiie creditor and ; 
 the principal could not, by an arrangjinent 
 nude after the li ibility of the snreli'S was 
 created, be allowed to extend that lialiility be- ■ 
 yiind the period which originally formed its 
 limit. The words found in the eondition which 
 would a|i|)ly to the extended iieriod, did not 
 justify the position that the sureties must have 
 contracted with a view to a subseijuunt exten- 
 sion. A letter was written by one of the sure- 
 ties to the plaintiir on 17th Ojceniber, ISSd, in 
 which he notitiod the plaintilf that from tliat 
 date he withdrew fr.iin his suretyship : — H dd, 
 that this could not estop the surety from deny- 
 ing his liability ; and even if it was to be read 
 as shewing that the surety assented to the con- 
 tiiuiation of the employment of M., it was im- 
 material. Kitson r. .Julion, 4 K. & R. 8r>4, and 
 Siiiderson r. Aston, L. U. 8 Ex. 73, followed. 
 Wicknin V. McMckhi, K") O. R. 408. --.Street. 
 
 Liability of sureties of county registrars Sec 
 Coiiiily of Middtexex v. Smallinan, 19 O. It. 
 34!). 
 
 See .If (( mi!/ v. r/i'Wii, 28 Chy. 12, p. 1708; 
 Erchaiiije, Bank v. Spriwier, 29 Cliy. 270 ; p. 
 1709; Town of Welland v. Brown, 4 O. R. 217, 
 
 ]). 72: Tdinishi/) of Oxfurd v. Oair, 15 O. II. 
 ;{(i2, p. Kills. 
 
 .See also Subhead 111. p. 170,3. 
 
 2. (Hhii- Ciui:^. 
 
 The bond contained a stipulation tliat in tins 
 event of any sum being found due by M. to the 
 bank, interest should be iiayablc thereon from 
 the time an acconiit of the balance due was de- 
 li vereil to the [larties to the bond by the bank, 
 .iiid juilgment was given in the court below in 
 excess of (he iienalty :— Held, however, as the 
 law woul.l net allow a verdict against the obli- 
 gors for a greater .sum than the penalty, interest 
 conhl not lie enmputed on that amount until 
 after jinlgiiK'iil. Errlminji lUiuk \. S/iriiii/cr ; 
 Hxrluiii,!. llaiiL- V. Itani'-t', l.'t \. \i. .'tOO. 
 
 Tiie plaiiitilfs were sureties to ii bank for a, 
 debt due by a company and for which the bank 
 held other notes as collaterals. Under a special 
 agreement made in a irior suit the receiver in 
 such suit de|iosited the projceils of such colla- 
 ttn-als in such bank snbjeet to the order of the 
 court. The plaintitfs claimed to apply the pro- 
 ceeds so deposited to reduce the debt of the 
 coni|)aiiy, but the bank refused to apply them 
 without an order of court: -Held, that the bank 
 was eoustituted a stdie-hoMer i>f such moneys 
 and could not so apply them unless with the 
 sanction of the (.'ourt. The debt to the bank 
 carried nine percent., and in taking the accounta 
 the plaiiitilfs (dainied a refund of the interest 
 beyond the lawful rate of seven per cent, on the 
 ground that tlie agrt'cmeiit to pay nine percent, 
 was ultra vires:— Held, (1) that as there was 
 nothing in the plea lings or julgnieut impeach- 
 ing the agivenient, the master had no jurisdic- 
 tion to adjudicate upon such claims ; 2, that 
 overcharges bjyond the lawtul rite of interest 
 if (laiil caiinut be recover '1 back or applied in re- 
 duction of the debt claim d to be due. l/iUInn 
 v. /■>./.(•,(/ J!.t,d; <» 1'. U. r.tiS-Hoilgins, Maxter- 
 iii-Onitnary. 
 
 ! One of the cb^fendauts, who was the husband 
 : of aniither of the defendants, mortgaged certain 
 : lands to the plaintill', a member ot a mercantile 
 I firm, to secure an existing indebtedness to the 
 linn, anil future advances. Subsequently the 
 husband, by the advice of the jdaiiititt', conveyed 
 his eipiity of redemption in the lands ti) his wife, 
 subject to the mortgage. At the time of tlihs 
 ', coiiveyanc.;, the debt due the plaintiffs' firm 
 was reiiresented by notes under discount which, 
 as they fell due, were retired by the firm, the 
 husbiiid 111 iking part |)ayiiients thereon, pro- 
 curing fresh g. Mills from the linn, giving renewals 
 for the balances and getting delivery up of the 
 original notes, tlie wife not being consulted as 
 to these dealings, and rights against her not 
 being reserved. The husband subsequently 
 ni.ade !\n assignment under R. S. (). (1877) c. 
 124. In an action for that purpose the convey- 
 ance to the wife was declared fraudulent and 
 void as against creditors, but not as against the 
 creditors' assignee, it having been made before 
 the Assignment and Preferences' Act : Ferguson 
 r. Kenny, 16 A. \\. 270. In this action on the 
 |)laintiff's mortgage, it was held in appeal that 
 the plaintiff was estopped from disputing the 
 validity of the conveyance to the wife, ami that 
 
Crar^ ' -=3 
 
 170S 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETT- 
 
 1704 
 
 the mortgaged liinda wore not chftigcablo with ail- 
 vaiicea made after notice of hulIi t'onvcyance, 
 and thcuctionwas referred haclt for iiiiOHicial Re- 
 feree's report, Blackloy r. Kenny, 10 A. R.5'2'2; — 
 Held, that the course of deahng of phiintilf's tirm 
 did not operate as a payment of tiie original uotea 
 or debt ; Dominion 15ank r. Oliver, 17 O. R. 
 402, followed. But :— Held, that the wife, at the 
 time of the conveyance to her, became a surety 
 in respect of the lands, and that the renewal of 
 the notes hy the plaintlH's firm dischargetl the 
 lands from liability : — Held, also, following the 
 judgment in HIackley r. Kenny, supra, that the 
 mortgage was not u security for advances made 
 after the conveyance to the wife, nor could the 
 plaintiffs claim as simple contract creditors 
 against the lauds, nor could the creditors' as- 
 signee, who was a defendant in this action, claim 
 ou behalf of the other creditors, whether execu- 
 tion creditors or otherwise, they not being par- 
 ties to this action. The Couitof Appeal allowed 
 an appeal with costs upon the ground not taken 
 in the court below, that as there was no evidence 
 whatever of the jdaintiU's knowledge of the 
 covenant under which the alleged suretyship 
 arose, and as he had no reason to think that the 
 relation of jirincipal and surety existttl, his 
 dealing with the del)tor did not work a release, 
 assuming that that relation.'^hii) did not exist. 
 Per Hagarty, C. J. ()., and Osier, ,I.A., the 
 defendant, as a volunteer, could not set up the 
 rights of a suri.-ty under the covenant of the 
 mortgagor, the grantor of the ecpiity of redemp- 
 tion against the plaintiff, the creditor of the 
 mortgagor. Northwood c. Keating, 18 Chy. (i43. 
 referred to. Jilackiei/ v. Kciinei/, 1!) O. R. 109; 
 18 A. R. 135. 
 
 III. DiSCHAKUE AND ReI.EASK OF SfKKTV. 
 
 I. Ijaclie< or Xcijhvt of Ohliijte.. 
 
 In an action against the sureties under a boiul 
 guaranteeing the honesty of one M. as cashier of 
 the plaintiffs' bank, charging misappropriation 
 of funds hy M., the derendants set up, as a bar 
 to recovery, neglect of the directors of the bank 
 in not examining the books, so as to detect any 
 malversation on M.'s part : — Held, that to sus- 
 tain this defence the sureties must shew conni- 
 vance between the plaintiffs and M., or a very 
 strong case of negligence, which they had not 
 done in the present case. The chief reliance of 
 the surety, in such a case, ought to be, in the 
 honesty of the man whose honesty he has guar- 
 anteed. Kxi-hawjc Hank of' Cmuida v. Spiiiiij-r, 
 Kxchanije Bank ol Canada v. Bariicn, 7 O. R. 309. 
 —Ferguson. 13 A. R. 390 ; 14 S. C. R. 710. 
 
 K. and Co. were customers of the plaintiffs and 
 gradually accumulated a liability of about $2ti,- 
 000, to secure w hich the defendants gave a mort- 
 gage containing a recital that tiie plaintiffs had 
 agreed to make further advances to K. & Co. on 
 receiving security for the then present indebted- 
 ness, and a ledemption clause providing f'orjiay- 
 ment of all bills, notes and paper upon which 
 K. & Co. were then liable, together with all sub- 
 stitutions and alterations thereof, and all indebt- 
 edness in respect thereof, the sime being a con- 
 tinuing security. The bank did business with K. 
 & Co. in two different w ays, one by discounting 
 K. & Co. 'a customers' notes, in which case their 
 rule was to notify the customers that they held 
 
 their notes, and another by discounting K. & 
 C'o.'s own notes and taking their customers' 
 notes as collateral, in which case they always 
 got the collateral notes to an amount exceeding 
 the advance, but did not notify the customers. 
 At the time the mortgage was given all the notes 
 I held by the bank were believed to be genuine, 
 I and the discount of the customers' pajier very 
 j largely exceeded the discount of K. & Co. 's notes. 
 K. & Co. suspended two years later. At the 
 ' time of the suspension it was discovered that by 
 I renewals and substitutions nearly all the notes 
 1 at the date of the mortgage had been replaced 
 by K. & Co., in renewals and substitutions by 
 forgeries, and that the amount of the discounts of 
 K. & Co. 's notes secured by the collaterals very 
 largely exceeded the discounts of the cnstdiiiers' 
 notes. In an action by the bank to foreclnse the 
 mortgage, the mortgagors claimed that they, as 
 sureties, were discharged by the bank's action : — 
 Held, that the bank parted with genuine and 
 received fabricated securities, and through its 
 laches or default necessurily worked prejiidiee 
 njHin the rights of the sureties ; tliatoftwo inno- 
 cent parties of whom one must suffer on account 
 of the fraud or crime of a third, the one most to 
 blame by enabling the wrong to be connnitted 
 should bear the loss, and tlie defendants wcie 
 exonerated from liability in so far as they w ere 
 (n-ejudiced by the conduct of the bank. I'linia 
 facie the bank were liable to the extent of the 
 face value of the securities surrendered, but tiiey 
 were at liberty to reduce such amount by evidcjico 
 as they might be advised. Minhatil't liniiLof 
 Canada v. McKay, 12 O. It. 498— Chy. D. ; 15 
 S. C. R. 072. 
 
 Itetontion of nnniicipal treasurer in office after 
 knowledge of default — Release of surety from 
 liability for subsequent defalcations. Ton-n^ldp 
 0/ Adjala v. iVcI'J/rcy, 9 O. R. 580, p. 1 ;!:!,'). 
 .See also Toirn o/Miafunl v. Law/, 20 O. 1!. 42. 
 
 2. Alteration of Principal's Poiilion. 
 
 The annual reappointment of a municipal 
 treasurer : — Held not to discharge his sureties 
 Totcnxhip of Adjala V. MrElroi/, !) O. It. .'iSO, o. 
 1333. 
 
 A bond nuide by defendants as sureties, and 
 B. as principal, to the idaintiffs, to secure the 
 faithful and diligent performance of B.'s duties, 
 including the payment over of moneys, recited 
 that U. had been ai)pointcd agent for the plain- 
 tiffs for the province of Ontario, and as such 
 was to discharge certain duties, and to receive 
 certain moneys, as defined in the instrument 
 appiiinting him, and as to which the jiartics 
 thereby declared they bad due and snilicient 
 communication. The condition of the bond 
 was for the performance of such duties, and the 
 payment over of such moneys. The boiul also 
 e(mtained the following clause: — "The said 
 sureties, in consideration of the prciniscs, here- 
 by agree to "* ■* renounce to (sic) the benefits 
 of division, discussion and all other benefits of 
 sureties, consenting to be bound as fully in all 
 respects as the said principal party." The in- 
 strument of appointment provided that B. shnuld 
 be general agent for the province, slmuld have 
 control over all h>cal agents, except some six, 
 including those of Hamilton and Gait, ajid his 
 compensation should be a commission of thirty- 
 
 4l 
 
^ 
 
 1704 
 
 (liscounting K. & 
 g tht'ir cuBtomcrs' 
 li case tliey iilwiiys 
 \ nmniint uxceoding 
 tify the oHstoiiiurs. 
 .sgivfiiall the notes 
 eved to lie gemiinc, 
 itoitiers' piiiier very 
 t(if K. &Co,'8iioti'.s. 
 ears later. At tlie 
 i ilisL'ovtied that Ijy 
 nearly all the iicitcs 
 I had 1)0(11 rc|ilaci(l 
 nd substitntioiiB by 
 it of the discounts of 
 the collaterals very 
 its of the eustonieib' 
 ank to foreclose the 
 lainied that they, as 
 the hank's action; — 
 1 with genuine and 
 es, and through its 
 y worked jirejudice 
 !s ; that (if two iniio- 
 1st sullur on account 
 ird, the one most to 
 ng to lie conunittcd 
 he defendants were 
 so far as they were 
 if the hank. I'riina 
 to the extent of the 
 irrendered, lint they 
 1 amount liy evidence 
 
 MirchauU' Jiaiil: nf 
 I. 498— Chy. U. ; 15 
 
 easurer in office after 
 ease of surety from 
 Ications. Toir)i.iliip 
 
 K. 5S0, p. 1 :!;!:). 
 
 Lai,ii,-20O. I!. 42. 
 
 ipar-s Pofilioii. 
 
 lit of a municipal 
 'eliarg(! his sureties 
 h-o)/, 9 O. I!. ."iSO, 0. 
 
 nts as sureties, ami 
 intiffs, to secure the 
 nance of 13. "s duties, 
 r of moneys, recited 
 
 agent for the plnin- 
 iitaiio, and as such 
 itics, and to receive 
 
 in the iustruincnt 
 which the jiarties 
 
 due and sullicieiit 
 lition of the bond 
 such duties, and the 
 
 ys. The Imnd alsu 
 ;ianse:— "The said 
 
 the premises, here- 
 3 to (sic) thchtnelits 
 all other lieuclits of 
 lounil as fully in all 
 lal paity." The in- 
 ividedth.itl!. .slmiild 
 ■evince, should have 
 s, except some six, 
 1 and (ialt, and his 
 [iinmiasion of thirty- 
 
 1705 
 
 PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 1^ 
 
 ( 
 
 live per cent, on all liusiiiess obtained )iy 
 hiuLself or the said agents under his eontrol 
 he to pay the agents theremit, and on re- 
 newals thirty per cent. ; and also to have a 
 •salary of .^7") a month, which was to include 
 travelling expenses. The plaintilFs afterwards 
 added Hamilton and(<alt to his agencies. ,Suli- 
 seiiucntly IJ.'s business was contined to 'J'oronto, 
 and he agreed to relinquish 'us ooininission on 
 the outside agencies ; ami it was intimated to 
 him that at the close of the year his salary would 
 have to be rearranged :^Hel('., that the taking 
 away of the outside agencies was such a change 
 in li.'s jiosition as could not be said to be, witii- , 
 out eni|uiry, evidently nnsubstaiitial and not 
 prcjudical to tin; sureties, and would of itself 
 disi liarge them ; but as to (ialt and Hamilton it 
 <'ould not be said, <ni the evidence, to have that 
 elVcet : — Held, also, that the etrect of the reniin- 
 ci.ition clause was to place the principal and 
 sureties in the position of joint contractors : tliat 
 the agicementcontining H.'s businessto Toronto 
 aniounted to a new contract : and that the 
 sureties would only be liable as principals for 
 d( fault up to the date thereof and not thereafter, 
 (■l/::ni.^' Iiix. Co. V. Cluxloii, i;{ O. K. 382.— C. 
 P. I>. 
 
 Tein|iorary em|doynient of municipal treasurer 
 who was also clerk of the municipality as collec- 
 tcir. Liability of surety for tlie performance of 
 his otiice as treasurer, for moneys received by 
 him in either capacity. Sec I'll/m/f qj Wt^tiiit v. 
 
 ■Coin-oil, 1") (). It. ri9r), p. i:<;i:i. 
 
 Tile sureties of an absconding bank cashier arc 
 not relieved from lia1>ility by showing that tlie 
 hank emiiloyed their princijial in transacting 
 what was not pi(i|)erly banking business, in the 
 course of which he ajipropriated the bank tiiiids 
 to his own use, the claim against sureties being 
 fertile nii'iieys so approjiriated by the princi])al, 
 and not for losses occasioned by such illegal ' 
 transactions. S/iriinid- v. Kxclminji Haul; of, 
 (JiiiKiild — lidiiliK v. Kj'i'liinnir liiiiiil iif Cruiiiiln, I 
 14 S. ('. R. 710 ; 7 <». 1!. :f09 ; i:{ A. H. ;W0. 
 
 See Miirnin v. (lihsoii, 2S Chy. 12, p. 1708. 
 
 li/.ed, and he on his |)art guaranteed that tho 
 court had jurisdiction. This was subscipicntly 
 varied by giving to the clerk fifty cents in addi- 
 tion to the disbnrsenients in such suits. Peri- 
 odical statements were made from time to time 
 according to tin' agreement, and a eheipie given 
 f(ii' the balance thus shewn. It was afterwards 
 discovered that the statements were incorrect, 
 and that moneys collected by the clerk had not 
 been paid over : -Held, that'tlie special arrange- 
 nient made with the clerk discharged the sure- 
 ties :— Held, also, that the periodiial statements 
 \vere not conclusive as against the iilaintill's. 
 I Virloi-ki M III iial Fire Ins. Co. v. /hu-l(/>i,ii, 3(). 
 K. .TH. - Jhirt.m. 
 
 See Itniliir v. Mo,-tui,', A. 1!. 114, p. 17l»; Mol- 
 ^oi,\ Ijiiiil: V. Tiiilrii, S (). K. •J9;i, p. 7.S() ; Toini- 
 "hi/io/'Ailja/o, V. Mch'ln,;/, 9 (). H. ,'iS(», \i. i;W3; 
 , lioiiltoii V. Il/iib, 12 (). 'h. ,-i.T-', p. Il4(i; Mir- 
 (■liiiiil.i' ItiiiiL- V. MiKiiii, 12 (). I.'. 49S; l."( S. C 
 1!. 072, J). 1704. 
 
 r>. I>i,ilh III' Sun 1 1/. 
 
 Wlieic the engagement of a surety is a con- 
 trai't and not a bme authority, it is not usually 
 revoked by his death and his estate remains 
 liable to the same extent, as he would have been 
 if he had liveil. A'.iv/c/i;/' Jinn/: ul' Camilla v. 
 Siiriiiiji'i-; /■yrliiiiiiif lliml,- ,,)' Cumnla v. Jianien, 
 7 O. i;. .•i()9 ; 1.-! A. I!. ;!ll(l. 
 
 '^. Couf'<c of De.aliiii/. 
 
 Where sureties for a debt gave to the creditor 
 a second mortgage on land as an additional se- 
 curity, and foreclosure proceedings were taken 
 hy the tirst mortgagee : — Held, that the creditor, 
 on being notified thereof, should either make 
 himself a party to tho suit and |)rove his cliiim, 
 or notify the sureties to enable them to [irove it, 
 if they so desired ; but : — Held that the eviilence, 
 in this case shewed that the sureties had notice, 
 at all events some three months before the day J 
 of redemption, which was sutlicient. Held, j 
 also, that the fact of two co-dobtois changing ' 
 their position so as to make one of them as be- : 
 tween themselves a surety, would not afl'ect the 
 creditor without his consent. Jones v. JJiiiihai; 
 32 C. P. 130.— C. ]». IX 
 
 After the defendants had become sureties for 
 • Division Court clerk, a special arrangement 
 Was made between the plaintiff's and the clerk, 
 under which the latter was to receive no costs 
 ibut disbursements only in all suits entered with 
 him by the plaintifTs in which nothing was rea- 
 
 ti. Ollnr Ca.^i.i. 
 
 Semble, that one who brings an action against 
 an ollicial assignee in insolvency for default in 
 dealing with a c^crtain estate. u|miii his bon<l given 
 as sccuiity against sudi ilcfaults, is not bound 
 to ascertain if the assignee is in default as to 
 other estates ; and the sureties to the boiul are 
 discharged by payment to any one who recovers 
 judgment agaiii.st them. Ai-nixlriiini v. Forster, 
 OO. I{. 129.--l'ioudfont. 
 
 The (". company and 1). by separate indepen- 
 dent contracts guarantied to the plaintifi's the 
 good conduct ill ollicc of li. their city chamber- 
 lain, who aftcrwanls was guilty of misconduct 
 within the guarantees. The guarantee of the 
 ('. cumpany contained a proviso that as against 
 evei'v pii.soii then being or thereafter becoming 
 security or surety for tlie said IS. as aforesaid, 
 the t'. comiiaiiy shonhl have ami jKLSsess the 
 right of ratable contrilmtion and all other the 
 rights and remeilics, botli legal and ei|uitable of 
 co-sureties. Tlie scope of D.'s guarantee inclu- 
 ded, and was more extensive than that of the 
 guarantee of the ('. company. The plaintiff's 
 now sued the ('. company on their guarantee, 
 who, as a defence, set np that the plaintiffs had 
 dischargeil 1). from liability under his policy, 
 and that this also discharged them :— Hold, that 
 oven if the ]daintiirs had so discharged D., this 
 operated only to release the ('. company to the 
 extent to which they would have had a right of 
 contribution from ■>., and that they would have 
 boon discharged to this extent as a matter of 
 eipiity, independently of their contract. The 
 C. company and D. could not be considered in 
 any sense joint contractors or joint sureties. 
 Ward i\ The National Hank of New Zealand, 
 
1707 
 
 PBINOIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 1708 
 
 is* ■ 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 m 
 
 8 App. Ca«. 7B5 followed. C'llj/ of London v. 
 (.'itktnn Iiixurdncn Co., ISO. R. 713. — Ferguson. 
 
 Tho (leffiidaiitH fxccutud a, lioiid as suretii'H 
 for one K., wliicli rrcited Ilia n|ipointinuiit bh 
 ugent for the |)laintitl'H. 'I'lie lion<l miih Hunt, 
 executed, to the lieiid ollico of the pkiintiHi), lint 
 no appointment wiim, in lact, made l)y tiiem for 
 u >'«iir iind a-hulf afterwanlH, when K. whh noti- 
 fied of his appointment, ))Ut of thin tlie defen- 
 danta were not informed. About three niontha 
 uftcr the e.\eoution of the Ixjnd, tho defendantH, 
 or one of them, wrote to plaintitl'H head ofliee 
 repudiating the Buretys^hip, hut received no 
 reply :— Held, that whethei' tlu^ j)laintitla were 
 notified hy one or hotli difendiints, tlie hitter 
 were diseluirg.il. I'er Rose, .). No appoint- 
 ment having hcen made in fact when the lioiid 
 was executed, tlie defendants could not be held 
 liable for defaults occurring month.s afterw ards, 
 for their contract was in respect of a present, 
 not a future engagenieut. Sorth liritish Mer- 
 cantile Ins, Co. V. Kcaii, Ui (). U. 117. — C. P. IJ. 
 
 IV'. UldllTS or Sl'Eil'.TIKS. 
 
 1. To AMhjiivii'ut of fiiciir\ti(x, 
 
 (a) Jll(lll>lll:)l/.1. 
 
 Where one brought action against a maker of 
 .1 note and .'in endorser thereon, ami recovered 
 judgment, with costs, which the endorser paid 
 and took an assignment of the judgment: - 
 Held, that the latter was entitled umkr H. S. 
 O. (1S77) o. I l(i, s. .'), to recover from the princi- 
 pal debtor tlu; whole of tlie jiulgii.eiit, including 
 the costs. J/<(ijiir V. CnUiirl, 't (>. K. I.V2. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 Judgment for a debt wius obtained l)y the 
 plaintiff's against the defendants, who »too<l to- 
 wards one another in the relation of principal 
 and surety. The surety paid the plaintiH'a the 
 amount of their debt an<l costs, took an assign- 
 ment of the judgment, and then proceeded to 
 enforce it against his ])riiicipal: — Held, that the 
 costs as well as the debt were recoverable by the 
 surety, as against his principal. Viflorin, Mii- 
 tualv. Fivil, 10 1'. I!. 4.'). Dalton, Muxlcr. 
 
 (b) Olhir !^i'fiiritU:<. 
 
 The plaintiff .sold twenty-four shares in a ves- 
 sel to li. & Co., who, not being able to jiay cash, 
 proewred O. to make a note in the plaintiff's 
 favour, which was endorsed by him and 1!. In 
 order to secure himself, O. took a bill of sale to 
 himself of the shares. 'I'he plaintiff discounted 
 the note at the bank, and after several renewals 
 was obliged to pay it. In an interpleader issue 
 between the plaintiff and the execution credi- 
 tor of O., to try the right to the shares: — Held, 
 Armour, J., dissenting, that the effect of this 
 arrangement, which is more fully stated in the 
 report of the case, was properly held at the trial 
 to be, to make 15. the principal debtor to the 
 bank for the amount of the note, and the plain- 
 tiff and O. his co-sureties therefor; and upon 
 payment thereof, that the plaintiff was equit- 
 ably entitled to the twenty-four shares held by 
 O., his co-surety, as security against his liability 
 on the note : — Quaere, whether interpleader is a 
 
 proper remedy in such a case, and whether tho 
 shares could bo seized and sold hy tho sheriff, 
 i'er Hiignrty, C. J. Some proceeding to which 
 (). Ik. li. were parties, in which the title to the 
 shares could be cleared up, wouhl be a better 
 remedy. I'er Armour, ■!. The (luestion raised 
 c<iuld not be properly adjudicated upon without 
 (). & I!, being parties. The plaintiff and (). 
 were not sureties, but the plaintiff was tlio 
 creditor, 15. the principal debtor, and (). the 
 surety ; and on default the phiint'tf was entitled 
 to compel O. to realize the security which ho 
 held, anil ajiply it towards payment of the debt. 
 Tntkc V. IhidcU, 1 (). 11. SU.-Q. li. U. 
 
 'i. To Contribution from I'o-SurMcK. 
 
 A loan and savings society aiipointed (!. Ilicir 
 treasurer, and the plaintills and defendant by 
 two separate bonds became sureties for the diiu 
 discharge of the duties of such ofiicer. liy sovci id 
 Acts of the legislature the society was incoipe- 
 rated, and its powers materially increased, ami (J. 
 appointed its iiiauager, the duties of which it was 
 shewn were similar to those of treasurer, tliu 
 name of "niannger'' being given simply as oniief 
 honour, and did not involve any adilitldiial 
 duties. <•. made default in his otiice, anil a suit 
 was instituted by the society against all tho 
 sureties which was compromised by the plaiu- 
 titl's paying about one-half of the sum claimed 
 by the society : — Held, that tho ilcfeiidant was 
 bdiiiid to ciiiitribute liis share of tlie money so 
 paid, and that the change in the name of the 
 oliioer iilVoriled no defence to the claim of the 
 plaintilfs : -Held, also, that in such a ease tho 
 entries of (J. in the books of the society wore 
 not evidence against the sureties during the life- 
 time of (i. Miirmij v. Uih.ioii, "28 Cliy. !'.'.- 
 •Spragge. 
 
 .See Small v. niihiti, .31 <'. P. 37.'i, p. 1.'41; 
 Cilij of l.omloii v. Cili:<ii-i' Ini. Co., I'J O. U, 713, 
 p. 1707. 
 
 :i. Ol/irr C(is<.-: 
 
 V. lent N. an acconiniodation note which N. 
 deposited with R. as cidlateial security for a 
 nuirtgage debt. X. it li. afteiwards went into 
 partnership, and a new nioitg/itreoii partiicisliip 
 property was given to 1!. for X.'sdebt, the note 
 l)eing still left w ith R. The partnership being 
 ilissolveil, li. agreed to pay all debts of the firm 
 including the mortgage and on settling the ac- 
 counts between himself and the luortgiigees 
 li. was given credit for tho amount of the note 
 which 1*. had paid to the mortgagees, I', sought 
 to recover from B. the amount so paid : — Held, 
 revei'sing the judgment of the Court of Appeal 
 (li) A. R. "244), which reversed the judgment of 
 the Q. li. 1). (10 O. R. 099) Ritchie C. J., and 
 Fournier .1. dissenting, that N. having authority 
 to deal with the note as he pleased and having 
 given it as a collateral security for the joint debt 
 of himself and B., on such security having been 
 realized by the mortgagees and the amount credit- 
 ed on the joint debt, P. the surety could recover 
 it from either of the debtors : — Semble assuming 
 P. not to have been liable to pay the note to the 
 mortgagees and that it was a voluntary pay- 
 ment it having been credited on the mortgage 
 
 * 
 
 jL 
 
1708 
 
 1709 
 
 PRINOIPAL AND SURETY. 
 
 1710 
 
 B, and whether the 
 !ohl by tho shuiff. 
 rocet'iliiig to which 
 L'h the title to tlic 
 wouhl l>i> a lii'tliT 
 rho (lucatioii rai.M'd 
 jatrd upon witlumt 
 10 phuntitl' and (>. 
 
 phiintitr was tlio 
 lebtor, and (). the 
 laintill' was entitled 
 
 Hocuiity whieli ho 
 lynient of the dcltt. 
 ib.-Q. I!. U. 
 
 i» Vo-Siu'ilii". 
 
 aiipoiiited (1. tlieir 
 I and defendant by 
 luretie.s for the due 
 1 ollicer. IJy stvtnd 
 neiety was incoi |i(]- 
 lly incieased.und (J. 
 utiesof which it Wiis 
 e of treasurer, lliu 
 ven simply as oni' (if 
 Ivu any additi<iiial 
 his olHee, and a Huit 
 ety against all tliu 
 nised by the pluiu- 
 iif the sum claimed 
 
 the defendant was 
 ire of tlu) money so 
 in the name of the 
 to the claim of the 
 
 in such a ease tho 
 of the society were 
 eties during the life- 
 bxoH, "JH Chy. !■-•.- 
 
 '. P. 37M, p. l.'4l: 
 
 (•«.,iao. K. 7i;), 
 
 ition note wliieh N. 
 teral security for a 
 Iterwards went into 
 tyaue on partnership 
 r X.'sdebt, the note 
 le iiartnership being 
 all del)t8 of the tirm 
 on settling the ac- 
 md the mortgagees 
 amoiuit of the note 
 lortgagees, P. sought 
 mt so paid :— Held, 
 the Court of Appeal 
 sed the judgment of 
 ) Ritchie C. J., and 
 ; N. having authority 
 pleased and having 
 ■ity for the joint debt 
 security having been 
 n<l the amount credit- 
 surety could recover 
 1 :— Semble assuming 
 .0 pay the note to the 
 as a voluntary pay 
 ;ed on the mortgage 
 
 debt and U. having adopted tho payment on tho I claim ;- Held, clearly no dofonco. Jom^ v. 
 settlement of thu aecountH butwei^n him nnd the i Diiiihar, ;i'J (". P. l.'Ki.- -(', P. I). 
 mortgagees hu was liable to repay it. I'liidtiiii ' 
 
 V. Xiihot ITiH. (/. H. 010. i , -^ inortyagee prncecded on the sime clay to 
 
 I'orecltwe the |ii'o| eitv id' the mortgagor and his 
 In an iietion against a munh'ipiil treasurer a siiidieM by nev.ial bills ujion tlnir respective 
 reference was directed to ascert;iin wlint was due nMMt;;ages, ami to sue at law in dilbnnt actions 
 from hiiri.andan order was made jiermittiirg the the same ]i:Mties on notes In M bv the pl.iint ill's, 
 sureties to appear upon the rcl'erencc nml con- I,, »lii,li tlie mortgag.s were collateial ; Hehl, 
 test the claims of the ninni<!i|iality. I he or<ler | that oidy one .suit in cipiitv was nei'c.sMiiv as all 
 was varied by making provision for awarding pu tics mi;;iit have been brought before the court 
 costs as between the municipality anil the sure- j thi rein, all remedies given wliich iiiii^ht have 
 
 tics. Coiiiiti/ of Knxex V. Wrii/lif, nin/ Caniili/ nl 
 Em:rv. Duff, 13 I*. H. 474 (!alt I'. P. I)'. 
 
 V, Actions AriAissr Siiuktikh. 
 
 1. I 'lead ill! I. 
 
 One M., and the defendants as his Hiiieties, 
 executed a bond conditioned for the gcxid be- 
 havimir of M., a clerk of the |il.iintill's' at Mon- 
 treal. 'I'he bond was executed at Ifaiiiiltnii by 
 the defendants wlm were resident there M. 
 made default at Montru'il and aliseondeil. Pro- 
 ceedings were taken against thesuietiis, Mith- 
 nut joining M : — Held (allirming the oidcr of 
 Proudfoot, V. ('. ), that the |duintill's eonld not 
 proceed against the sureties alone, if Ihcy ic- 
 (piircil the joinder of the principal in order that 
 they might have their renicily over against him. 
 Per Spraggo, C. Though the breach occuri'ed 
 in Montreal, and there was no cause of action 
 till defaidt, yet there was a potential ci|uity in 
 the defendants, euoval with tho execution of 
 the bond, wdiich beeanio a right of suit on the 
 default of M.; and there was also an imiilied 
 contract on the part of M., upon execution of 
 the bond, to repay to his sureties any money 
 that they might h.ave to pay by reason nf his 
 default. ExcIkiikii' Hunk v. Sjniinici- — Smiir 
 riahiliffi V. lUtriKK, 'JO Chy. 270 -Chy. I>. 
 
 An action against the defendant on his bond 
 as surety for II. & Mel", for the ainmint due the 
 plttintiir by H. & McT. on their banking accmint 
 with the plaintiffs. (>)unter-clii,im by tlii^ de- 
 fendant against the plaintifl' and If. k Mc'l"., 
 alleging that the defendant is liable only as such 
 surety, and that the plaintiff ought to resort to 
 H. & .McT. to enforce payment from them, and 
 that H. k McT. shonld be ordered to pay the 
 amount, and indemnify the defendant. As the 
 counter-claim was not rested upon any particular 
 agreement, but was set up as arising from the 
 position of the parties as creditors, principal 
 debtor, and surety, it was held bad, and ordereil 
 to be struck out. Fi'ih.rat Hunk v. Ifarri-^dii, 10 
 P. R. 271.— Dalton, Afanlfr—Hosc—CUy. I). 
 
 See Villaiii' of Gananoque v. Stitmlfn, 1 ((, B. 
 1, p. 779; II'k^oVoo MnliitU Inn. Co. v. Uabinton, 
 4 0. R. 295, \\ 782. 
 
 3. Other CaHen. 
 
 One of the defendants herein set up as a de- 
 fence that he was surety for part of the claim 
 and principal debtor as to the residue, anil as to 
 the latter admitted his liability, but claimed 
 that he could only be called upon to pay it on 
 the execution of a proper release by the plaintiff 
 of all liability against him in respect of the said 
 
 I been iibtaini d at law, and all i ights moic con- 
 veiiiinlly adjusted between the jiaities in one 
 than ill several suits ; and the cniut would not 
 be dcleind finm granting relict by the lir- 
 eiimstance of a diicne being coniplic;iteil. Mir- 
 I'llitHin' Hank V. Spiirkin, 2M Chy. 108. SpraL'ge. 
 
 I'efcnce of l''iaud. Sire ]\iilirhio Muliial In- 
 I iiruiicc C'li. V. lliiliiiimii 4 (). R. .'ll)."). Ji. 782; 
 Mi'i'i-liiiiil.*' Hunk I'f' Ciiiifiilii V. Miiil'iiii, .") <). 
 I!. 2: II S. C. I!.' 1(1, 1). 771; 'Ion,,,/; Hirw- 
 iiHi (iiiil Millliml Cti. V. Il'i-it/, l;> (». I!. Oi, |t. 
 781. 
 
 Ilcfelice thai when biiiid was exeeillcd it had 
 unseals. ,Sc(. .\liii:iliiill v. Miin cijiiilih/ uj' Slirl- 
 liiirnv, 14 S. ('. l!. 7.'!7, p. Ii7r>. 
 
 See UlKinihcr/iii v. .SVjiYtM.'.'S Chy. 404, p. i;!03: 
 Cochmiii: V. JtoiirlKf, 3 O. R. -KiJ, p. I!l7. 
 
 VI. MisiT.i.i.ANKot's Casks. 
 
 When a claim again.'-t an estate of a ilecea.sed 
 person is one arising out of a contract of surety- 
 ship, the court will not, unless by eon.sent of all 
 parties, make an administration decree except 
 on a liill lilod. AV CitlUm -Fi-^hfi- v. Cnl/on, H 
 P. I!. ,-)42. -Pn.uilfoot. 
 
 The principal and surety being here the plain- 
 tiff and defeiiilaiit respectively. He (,'oUon. 8 P. 
 R. .")42, wliich decides 111 it in a case iif principal 
 and surety a sumiiiary applie itimi to .•uliiiinister 
 under (!."o. Cliy. t;:!,S (Con. Kiile '.1721 is iinpro- 
 i)er, was held nut to ajijilv. I'f AUtin -I'ocock 
 v. Allan, 9 P. I!. 277. Chy. 1). 
 
 Sunn after li.'s defalcations were disdivered 
 he died, and after hisdeatli his executrix handed 
 over certain of his property to a trustee, who 
 w.as also an officer of the plaintiffs, to re.di/e 
 and a))ply the money therefiom towards satisfy 
 iiig H.'s defalcations, but without indicating to 
 wiiat part of such defalcations it should be ap- 
 plied. The trustee a])[died it towards satisfac- 
 tion of the earlier of P>.'s liabilities, in respect 
 to which the defeiidnnts were not liable, since 
 by a condition of their (inlicy they were not lia- 
 ble except for losses occurring within a year be- 
 fore notice of claim made to them : Tleld, that 
 the case was similar to payment niide by a 
 debtor to a creditor without express appropria- 
 tion, in which ease the creditor could appro- 
 priate it, and the defend.ants had no riglit to 
 complain of the aiijiropriation made in this case. 
 Ci/y of London v. Cilhtn-H' tn-i. Co., Ui O. U. 
 713. —Ferguson. 
 
 Held, also, that the defendants should pay 
 interest on the amount due from them, from 
 three months after the proofs of loss were do 
 livercd. lb. 
 
1711 
 
 FBINTINO. 
 
 PRIVY OOUNOIL 1712 
 
 PRIVILEGED OOMMUNIOATIONS. 
 
 II''' 
 
 r,v ^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 '0. 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 u 
 
 h 
 
 I'oiiifv iiF Incikanck— .Vcc Inniuamk, 
 
 I'iirlhuiioiitiiry contnu't. Soc Itniinii v. .}f(ir- 
 Lean, 8 8. C. H. '210, p. inso. 
 
 Si'f DkFAMATION — KVIDKNOK. 
 
 PRIORITY. 
 
 I. (>K KXKI TTIONN— .SV*" KxKCtlTlON. 
 
 II. Ok MdurcAiJKs SVc MoRTciAtiK. 
 III. Ki'Ficr OK Ukci.stkatio.n— tS'rt Rkijistky 
 
 l-AWS. 
 
 PRISON. 
 
 .Scu llumiUoii V. Miiisl,; 18 (>. 11. 5«l, i>. •2\r,. 
 
 PRISONER. 
 
 I. ClIAIKilM^ IN KXKITTION, 1711. 
 II. DlSCIlAlKIK OK— iS'ff HaHKAS ColM'lIS. 
 
 III. K.xtisadition Ok— Sec K.\Tii\i)rnoN. 
 
 I. ClIAKIII.N<i I.N Kxiccu'rioN. 
 
 Tile ilufeiidiiiit wivH iinestcd under a cii. sa. mid 
 afterwards admitted to bail. Tlie trial was in 
 the vacation before MiehaclninH term, and the 
 render in the vacation after that term. The 
 jilaiiitift'liuvinj^ omitted to charge the defendant 
 in execution during Hilary term ; -Held, on an 
 application for a aupei'8cdeas, that the render in 
 MichaelmaH vacation related back to the preced- 
 ing term, which should count as one of the two 
 terms within which tlie iilaintiff must charge the 
 defendant in execution, under I{eg. (len. H. T. 
 25 (Jeo. III. The defendant was therefore dis- 
 charged. (Itilitliiii V. Mwkii , 8 I*. K. 'J,'17. —Osier. 
 
 .Tndgment was signed against defendant in 
 Mich.iclnias term, and he was rendered in dis- 
 charge of his bail in tiie vacation following: — 
 Held, on applic.ition for u supersedeas, that, 
 the render related back so as to include Michael- 
 mas as one of the two terms within which the 
 plaintiff must charge the defundaut in execution; 
 and that not having been charged in exccutiim 
 until Kaster term he was entitled to his dis- 
 charge. Whrallcy V. Shitrpe, 8 P. K. .S()7.— Osier. 
 
 Where a person is once supcrsedcable for want 
 of being charged in execution, he always con- 
 tinues so, even though ho is afterwards charged 
 in execution, before the application for a super- 
 sedeas, lb. 
 
 An application for a supersedeas was enter- 
 tained, although a similar application in the same 
 case had already been disinissod. Ih. 
 
 PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. 
 
 Stt Criminal Law — Parliamentary Elec- 
 tions. 
 
 PRIVY OOUNOIL. 
 
 I. Al'I'KAI. TO. 
 
 1. lltiiiil ami Scciir!/]/, 11\2. 
 
 2. Wlifii Alloweil, 171'-'. 
 II. IlKiiiT TO Okkk.k Nkw Tkiai., 171.1. 
 
 III. KnKoKi ISd .h'lXlMKNT (IP I'llIVV ColJS- 
 
 ni., 17I.'J. 
 
 1. .-XlTKAL TO. 
 
 1. Iliiiiil mill Sei'urily. 
 
 On a motion to disallow a bond filed by the 
 defcndantM (appcllantK) (lending an appeal to 
 I the I'livy Coniicil. whiili was in the fdiin givi'ii 
 : in O. .). Act, s. IW, with soiiii' further iccitaN, 
 I it was objected that the Cdtiditinn of the obliga- 
 tion <inglit to read "do and shall etrecttially ]iro- 
 secute Hucli appeal, and pay," etc. , instead of 
 "or pay," as given ill the form; and also that 
 the ciiiidition slioiiM be to pay "what had linn 
 found due by the court iippeali'd from," instead 
 of "such (^osts and damages as shall be award- 
 ed:" — Held, that "or" was the correct word to 
 use, and that "effectually piosei-iite" meant 
 "successfully prosecute," but the boml was dis- 
 allowed on the second objection, it being held 
 that the proper conditinn must be drawn based 
 upon the language in R. .S. O. (1877), e. ."JH, b. 
 '27, subs. 4. /nieriiiilional liridiii' Cu, v. Ciiii- 
 mill Southern II. \V. Co., 9 P. I{. '2.50. -IJurlon. 
 
 An action .tgainst the sureties upon a bond 
 given by the defendants in the action of .Mc- 
 Laren I'. Caiiaila (Central li. \V. ('o., upon the 
 appeal of the defendants to the (/'ourt of Appeal 
 in that cause. The defendants in McLaren /'. 
 Canada Centr.il, appealed from the ('ourt of 
 Appeal to Her Majesty in Council, and in that 
 appeal security had been given and allowed, in- 
 cluding security for the whole anioMiit recovered, 
 and execution had been stayed in consc(iuciicc: 
 Held, that proccelings must also be stayed in 
 this action. MrLiiren v. Stiphent, 10 P. K. 
 88.— Dalton, .Ma^M: 
 
 See CUizfiin' Itin. Co. v. Pamonn, 32 C. ]'. 4!)2, 
 p. 412. 
 
 j 2. Whi'ii Allowed. 
 
 40 Vict. c. 41, s. '28 (l)om.), providing th.it the 
 ] judgment of the Court of Appeal in matters of 
 j insolvency should bo fin.al is within tlie cumpe- 
 tence of the Dominion Parliament and does not 
 infringe the exclusive powers given to the pro- 
 vincial legislatures by section !(2 <if the Imperial 
 Statute ; nor does it infringe the Queen's prero- 
 gative, for it only limits the right of appeal as 
 given by the Code. The section acciirding to 
 the true construction of the word "final" there- 
 in, excludes appeals to Her Majesty, but con- 
 tains no words which purport to derogate from 
 the prerogative of the Queen to allow such ap- 
 peals 08 an act of gr.-ice. It, therefore, does not 
 interfere with the prerogative of the Crown; 
 and, quoere, what powers may be possessed by 
 
1712 
 
 [CATIONS. 
 
 DKNOK. 
 
 -12. 
 
 'KIAL, 1713. 
 
 IP I'lllVV COUN- 
 
 011(1 lilii<l 1).V t'"i 
 i; an iippcal to 
 
 I the Inriii ^ivfii 
 fiii'tlior iccit.iN, 
 (III of t\\v (ilili;;a- 
 
 II en'octiially pni- 
 ' (jtc, iiistt'ail <if 
 I ; and alnci tliat 
 " what liiid lii'in 
 ■d from," iiiHti ail 
 
 sliall 1)L' awanl- 
 1 corri'ct word to 
 
 IO80(MltC " iniN'Ult 
 
 lie liiiiid was diH- 
 nii, it licing liild 
 , lii' drawn liasod 
 I. (1877), c. 3H, 8. 
 vVii/c Co. V. Can- 
 U.'250. — JJurton. 
 
 iiis upon a bond 
 le action of Mc- 
 V. ('o., upon the 
 I (Jourt of Appeal 
 ta in MoLaren r. 
 ni the ("ourfc of 
 iieil, and in th.it 
 and alhittod, in- 
 mount recovKiod, 
 in conscqiiciiti': 
 dso be stayed in 
 ■phenx, 10 1*. K. 
 
 om, 32 C. P. 4!)-', 
 
 erf. 
 
 providing tliat the 
 )eal in matters of 
 lithin tlie eompe- 
 lent and does not 
 given to the pro- 
 !»2 of the Imperial 
 /lie Queen's prero- 
 •iglit of appeal as 
 tion according to 
 orcl "final" there- 
 ilajeaty, hnt con- 
 to derogate from 
 to allow such ap- 
 herefore, does not 
 ■e of the Crown; 
 y be possessed by 
 
 1713 
 
 PROHIBITION. 
 
 1714 
 
 the Parliament of (lanuda ho to do, Cuvillier i: 
 Aylwiii (2 Knapp'o P. ('. (). 72) reviewed. Ciixh- 
 iiiij V. Dii/iiii/, "i A pp. ('ai4. 401(. 
 
 Tlii'ir lordHliipH will not adviHe Her .Majesty 
 to admit an appeal from the Hu[iiemc' ( 'oiirt of 
 the Ihimiiiion wave where tlic ease is of gravity, 
 involving miittii' of piiblii' iiitcri^Ht, or Nome im- 
 portant (piestioii of law, or iiirei'liiia property 
 of coiiHiileraiilo amount, or wliere the ease in 
 otherwise! of somo public! iminirtance, or of a 
 very snliHt.intial ohanieter. /'riiin v. ti'niiiiiin, 
 8 App. Cas. I(»3. 
 
 Petition for Hpeciul hvive to a|ipe,il refiLscd 
 tlie eaHi' depending,' on a iliMpiiled niattei' of fart 
 whether tlirre lia>l been a gift or nale ot ci'itaiii 
 goods of the value of ti.lHK*. ///. 
 
 Petition fnr Hperial leave to aiipcal in a ease 
 involving oidv an i.'^sue of faet rcfiwed. ('finmln 
 Ceiilrti/ II. ir. Co. V. Miiiiiiii, 8 App. C.ih. .")7). 
 
 .Such petition must si ite fully but suiciiiotly 
 the grounds U|ioii whirh it is based; tin-' reeoid 
 not being before their lor<lships until forwarded 
 by the proper authorities. Ih. 
 
 The rule of the .ludieial Conimittee is not to 
 grant leave to apiieal in miiiiiual eases, except 
 «heii some clear depaitnie from the reipiilc- 
 inonts of justice is alleged to have tiikeii place. 
 liiit V. 77(1- ijiiiiii, U) .'Xpp. (^as. (i7ri. 
 
 See Vdliii V. Lrtiii/loiK, H Ajip. ('as. I I.T, \> IWt ; 
 
 IT. RldilT To OiiiiKii Nkw 'I'ltlAI,. 
 
 Although the Privy (louneil have the right, 
 if they think tit, to order a new trial on any 
 ground, that power will not lie e.xercisiMl merely 
 where the verdict is not altogether satisfactory, 
 but only wheri! the evidence .so strongly pre- 
 ponderates against it as to lead to the conclusion 
 that the jury have cither wilfully disregarded 
 tile evidence, or failed to understand or appreci- 
 ate it. Coinieiiinif Miilnal /,//!■ Iiii. Co. oj 
 Hartford v. Moore, (i A])p. ('as. 044. 
 
 111. K.NFOKCINli .JuDfi.MENT OK PrIVV CoUNCU,. 
 
 Where the jmlgment of the Supreme Court of 
 ■Canada has been evcrsed by the Privy Council 
 the proper manm r of enforcing the judgment of i 
 the Privy Council is to obtain an order niak- ! 
 ing it a rule of tie .Supreme Court of Canada, i 
 Leioin v. Iloire, 14 S. C. R. 722. I 
 
 Where such judgment of the Privy Council 
 Was made a rule of court the court ordered the 
 rejiayment by one of the parties of costs re- 
 ceived pursuant to the judgment so reversed. 
 
 PROHIBITION. 
 
 PROBATE. 
 
 See Executors and Administrators. 
 
 PRODUOTION OF DOOUBIENTS. 
 
 See EviDKNCE. 
 lOS 
 
 To .liiic i;s ^t^• Division Codhth — See Divihidn 
 CoriiTs. 
 
 Held, that the prosemlor of a complaint can- 
 not appe.il from the onler of a magistrate dis- 
 missing the eoniplaiiit, as by K. S. (). (lS77)c, 
 74, s. 4, till' prartiee of appealing in siii'li a ciiso 
 is as>iniilatid to that ninler Doiii. .Sl;it. .'IH Vii't. 
 e. 47, whiili eoiiliiies the light of appe d to tlio 
 d( feiiilant A proliihiiioM was tlierefoif ordered, 
 but witlmut costs, as the objertioii tr the juris- 
 dii'tioii li el not lieeii tukeii ill the cu irt lielow. 
 /<; ,1 Miir/ilii/ rtiiil I'uriii-ih, M I'. K. \'\). -Osier. 
 Sue .'ij N'iet.'e. 4.-| s, 7 (Doin, 1. 
 
 The allilavil on uhieli to olit liii an attaching 
 ordef may b" male liy the attorney of the judg- 
 ment eieilitor, or liy a p irtner iil the attorney, 
 .^ciiible. that piiiee.'iliiigs on such order could not 
 III! pidhiliited on the groiiiid that it was founded 
 on a del'ei'livc allidivit, that b'iiig a mere mat- 
 ter of pivietiee. In ,> S.lh, v. Ilnhhanl, 8 P. I!. 
 4I.'>. Osier. 
 
 The municipal eorpoiatioii of the comity of 
 II. ill the province of (^iiebee, made an assesH- 
 liieiit roll aeeording to law, in IST'i. In IS7.'> a 
 tiienuial assi ssnient roll was niadi', and the pro- 
 perty subject to a-ses.siient w.is assessed at 
 ■<l,74.-|,.'i,SS..'iS. Ill IS7(i, witlKiut declaring that 
 it was an ameiidnient of the roll of 1870, the 
 coriioration made another assessment in which 
 the [11 opei ty was assessed at .S3, 1 ,SH,,"i."iO. Among 
 the iMoprities that eoiitrilmtcd towards tliin 
 augliieiitatioii were tho-c of appellants who, by 
 their petition, or rei)iiete lihellee, addressed to 
 till! Superior ( 'oiut of (Quebec, alleged that the 
 secietary-treasurer of the county of H. wa.s 
 about selling their real estate for taxes under 
 the ))rovi«ioiis of the innniciiial code for the 
 province of (j)uebic, :f4 Vict. c. (iS, s. ititS et scq., 
 and prayed to have the asHessmeiit roll of 1870, 
 in virtue of which the ollicor of the niuiiici- 
 pality Was pro'eeiliiig to sell, declared invalid 
 and null and void, and that a writ of prohibi- 
 tion should issue to prevent the respondeutB 
 from proceeding to sell. The Superior Court 
 directed the is.siu! of the writ restraining the 
 defendants as prayeil, but upon the merits, held 
 the roll of 1870 valid as an aniendnient of the 
 roll of 1S7."). The Court of (Queen's Bcncli 
 reversed this judgment on the merits, and held 
 the roll of 187() to be substantially a new roll, 
 and therefore null and void : — Held, per Henry, 
 Taschereau and (iwyiine, .J.f., alttrining the 
 judgment of the Court of (Jueen's Bench, that 
 the roll of 1870 not being a triennial assessment 
 roll, or an amendment ofsuch a roll, was illegal 
 and null, and that respondents were entitled to 
 an order from the Superior Court as prayed for 
 to restrain the municipal corporation from sell- 
 ing their property, and the writ which issued, 
 whether correctly styled " writ of prohibition " 
 or not,,wa8 properly issued, and should be main- 
 tained.' Per Ritchie, C.J., Strong and Fournier, 
 JJ. , that a writ of prohibition issued under art. 
 1031, as was the writ issued in this case, will 
 only lie to an inferior tribunal, and not to a muni- 
 cipal officer. The court being equally divided, 
 the judgment appealed from was confirmed, bub 
 without costs. Cote v. Morgan, 7 S. C. R. I. 
 
1715 
 
 PROVINCIAL LAND SURVEYOR. 
 
 1716 
 
 To reatrnin partition pioceoiliiigs. Seo .l/»/cf(.- 1 Hy R. H. <). (1S77) c. 't'2, s. 2, a successful 
 /yo/<(>M, 5 0. R. 1G4, p. ir)-J!». 
 
 SHi 
 
 n 
 
 V, 
 
 To Miiiiater of Aciionltiire to fosti^iin cnqniiy 
 iilKler t.ii! I'litiiit Act, 1872. S(c /» ir lU'l 
 '/'eJe/jfioiK' i'o mid llif '/'< l< /ilioiir Miiiiiijii'liirhni 
 Co. tiiiil till'. Minixlcr of Aiirhitlliiii ,~ (). I!. (iO."), 
 
 p. isw. 
 
 Hold, reversing the jii(l;;iiii'iit of I'lOiKUunt, 
 .1., (!) (). R. 274,) that tlie.statii.s of ('., aa a [icr- 
 Boii, or t'lo assijiiiei! of a i)crsoii, who rcj^istcicil 
 u plan, was a iiiication of law anil f:u't ci niliiiicd 
 for the county judge to dutciniino u])i)n ('.'a ap- 
 plication to liini, under 1!. S. (). (KS77) c. 1 1 1, a. 
 84, to aniunil the plan, anil that his dcciaion wiis 
 not exaininahle in proliiliition. /ii rii CIMinlm 
 awtTt>iritofOakrUli;l2A. R. •.'•.>5. 
 
 A judge of a County ('o'n t, acting niidcr the 
 authority of 4!S Vict. c. 'J(i, .''. (J (Out.), n innved 
 anasaignec furcrcditors anilsnhstit\iteil iUiothci- i 
 assignee. The first assigntc, aa alleged, rct'iiaed ; 
 to deliver over the keys of the |ilace of laiainesa ; 
 of the insolvent to the seconil assignee, anil the | 
 judge nniile an oi-der for tlie is^ue of a writ of ! 
 uttachnient against the lii.at assignee for con- j 
 tempt : — Held, that the judge, in acting under i 
 the statute, was not exercising the power of tlie 
 County Court, hut an independent statntmy 
 jurisdiction as per.«ona designata, and had cln;ie- 
 fore no power to direct tlie issue of a writ of 
 attachment ; and prohihition waa ordered. Ill 
 PcLcqutlle, II P. R. 4();i.- -Wilson. 
 
 The inspector of licenses for tlie revenue 
 district of Montreal charged R., a drayman in 
 the employ of .f. H. R. .M. & iiros., duly licensed 
 brewers under the Dominion statute 4H Vict. 
 c. 19, before the court of special seasiona of the 
 peace at .Montreal, with having snid beer out- 
 side the husiiieas premises of J. H. It. .M. k 
 Bros., but within the said revenue district in 
 contravention of the (,)uel)ec License .Act, 1.S7S, 
 ami its amendments, and asked a condemnation 
 of ^95 and coats againat R. for sail I otl'ence. 
 Thereupon J. 1 '!. M. & Itrns. and 1!., claim- 
 ing inter alia tl.t ')eing licensed brewers under 
 the Dominion stii. lite, they had a right of aelling 
 beer by and thi'ongh their emiiloyeea .•mil dray- 
 men without a provincial license, and that 41 
 Vict. c. 3 (<^ue. ) and its ainendinents were ultra 
 vires, and if constitutional did not authorize his 
 complaint against R. , caused a writ of prohibition 
 to be issued out of the Superior Court eiijnining 
 the court fur a]ieeial sessions of the peace from 
 further proceedings with the ci)ni])laint agniiist 
 R.: — Held, per Ritchie, ( '..F., .iinl Strung. lAmr- 
 nier and Henry, J.I. , tliat the (Quebec License 
 Act and its aniendinents were intra virea, and 
 that the court of special sessions of the \M'ace 
 of Montreal having jurisdiction to try the alleged 
 oflTence iinil lieing the luoper tribunal to decide 
 the questions of tact and of law involved, a writ 
 of prohibition <lid not lie. Per Taschereau and 
 (Jwynne, J.I., that the case w.is one which it 
 was proper for the Superior Court to deal with 
 by proceedings on prohibition. I'erOwynne. .!., 
 the (Quebec License .Act of IS7S impoaea no 
 obligation uprn brewers to take out a provincial 
 license to en.ibie them to sell their beer, and 
 therefore the e.iurt of special sesai.ms of the 
 peace had no jurisdiction and proliiliition should 
 issue absolutely. Motunii v. I.amlie, 15 S. C. R. 
 263. 
 
 party on an a|i|)licatiiiii for a writ of prohibition 
 is entitled to and slinuld be awarded costs unless 
 the ciiurt ill the |)roper exeicise of a wise di.-.- 
 cietion can see goud cause for depriving audi 
 ]iarty of tlieiii; and such parly sbonlil not be 
 liepriveil of ousts unleaa theie ajipear impropri- 
 ety of .conduct which iii'liucd tile litigation, or 
 iinpro|niety in the conduct iheieuf. Under the 
 circumstances of this ease reiiortcd 12 I'. K. 4.')0, 
 the defendant was allowed costs of a sucessfiil 
 mot ion for prohibition to a hivision Court. AV 
 Mr/.,,,,/ v. h'liiSiili, (2) 12 1'. l;. -Mi. v. V. 1). 
 
 »Vlii;re the County C'ourt judge is making an 
 investigation pursuant to the reaoliition of a 
 council under R. S. ( ». (1S,S7), c. 1,S4, s. 477, he 
 is acting as per.sona designata and not in a judi- 
 cial capacity, and is not subjeit to control by a 
 writ of prohibition. That writ is not to be ap- 
 |ilieil to any jirocccdings of any per.son or boijy 
 of inraons, whether they be ])iipularly called a 
 court or by any other name, on •vvhom the law 
 confers no power of inonouncing any judgment 
 or older imposing any legal duty or obligatioir 
 on any individual, lie Siiuier, 40 (.), K. 474, 
 considered. Decision of l!oliert.soii, .L, Hi O. R. 
 27o, re\eiscd. I'l'. tlodion mill /hi' Cili/ of Tur- 
 oiilo, 1() A. R. 4.V2. 
 
 .\ writ of prohil.ition may be issued to a jus- 
 tice of the peace to ))roliibit him from exercising 
 a jurisdiction which he does not possess. Iti- 
 CliKjiiniiii mill /III' Cily of Lniiiloii, ami lie Clwp- 
 iiimi and ilu' Wall)- C'oiiii>ihi-iioiir-ri oj >lie Ci'ly vi' 
 Loiiitiiii, l!)l). R. ;(;). — Robertson. 
 
 Prohibition will not iie to a Division Court 
 merely because the judge has erred in his con- 
 struction of a statute, where he does not by this 
 error in construction give himself jurisdiction 
 he does not in law possess. //( iv fjomj Point 
 Co. V. Aiidcr.'ioii, IS A R. 401 ; .sec N. C, 19 (). H. 
 487, reversed, ISA. I!. 401. 
 
 See III ri' H'itxoii v. Miiliiin' , 2 O. R. IIS, p. 
 :!05; /,'. irihiiii, .•{(•. R. ;12(), p. 709 ; XiiM V. 
 (•iirl-iiii'n/e, 4 O. R. :(17, p. :t99; Jtiijiiiii v. Ui'. 
 lo (). R. :}.").•{, p. Kt.TJ. 
 
 PROMISSORY NOTES. 
 
 Sci Ranks— ISii.i.s ok Kxi'iiaxhk and Pko.mis- 
 
 SOKV NoTKS. 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 Ok Hii.i.s or Notks -See Uii.i.s ok Kxchanuk 
 
 AND I'miMTSSOHY NoTK«. 
 
 Rv master of vessel. See Itohertaon v. Pvijh, 
 15 s". C, R. 70(1, p. 992. 
 
 PROVIDENT SOCIETY. 
 
 See Renkvoi.ent Societiks. 
 
 PROVINCIAL LAND SURVEYOR. 
 
 See SuRVKY. 
 
 i. 
 
1716 
 
 , s. 2, II successful 
 I writ of i>ioliil)iti(m 
 n\ iirdud costs unless 
 icisc of a wise di.,. 
 lor dciniviiii,' Huili 
 iiity sliould not \>v 
 ic ii)>|>uai- iinpropii- 
 I'd tile litiKation, or 
 Lliciciif. Under tin; 
 liortcd 12 I'. K. 4.')0. 
 costs of a succssful 
 I'ivisiou Couit. AV 
 
 i:. r)0;4. -c. p. d. 
 
 judge is nialviiig an 
 the resolution of a 
 1), c. 184, s. 477, he 
 ta and not in a jndi- 
 ject to control liy a 
 n rit is not to lie ap- 
 any person or liody 
 e popular'ly called a 
 ', on 'vvlioni the law 
 iicing any judgment 
 . ilutj- or obligation 
 ulei-, 40 g. P.. 474, 
 .eitson, .1., lOO. R. 
 tiiid llir (Jill) of Tor- 
 
 V be issued to a jus- 
 him from cxeieisiiig 
 les not possess. Hi- 
 )m/oii, and Ite, ('Imp- 
 iiioiifi:-< (;/ Ihe Cily of 
 ;rtson. 
 
 to a IJivisioii Court 
 las erred in his con- 
 L- he does not by this 
 
 liiniself jurisdiction 
 III re ftOiHi Point 
 
 l;see.S'. C, 1110. H. 
 
 h'/v, 1 (). K. lis, p. 
 !(i, p. 70!»; Xfiililv. 
 linsi; Ji'iijiiiti V. Afc, 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 [ANCK ANI> PKO.MIS- 
 
 KS. 
 
 T. 
 
 1)11. l.S OK K.\CM.\N(1K 
 r NOTK.S. 
 
 RobertHon v. Pugh,. 
 
 OCIETY. 
 
 Societies. 
 
 D SURVEYOR. 
 
 KY. 
 
 1717 
 
 PUBLIC MORALS AND CONVENIENCE. 
 
 m» 
 
 , 
 
 PUBLIC COMPANY. 
 
 ,Stf. C'OMI'ANY. 
 
 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Utr KVIDK.MK. 
 
 PUBLIC HEALTH. 
 
 See. MtiNlcil'Al. I'oKi'ciKAl loss. 
 
 A medical health officer is not an '' employee" 
 within the meaning of Pi. S. (». (1877), o. 47, s. 
 125. See lli- Mnrjii'. v. IliiUhiiixon, — C'lVy oj 
 Loiiiloii Oariiuhcis, 12 P. U. M)7— Kosu. — (,). 
 1<. D., p. 54.S. 
 
 Section 4!) of the Public Health Act, It. S. O. 
 (1887) c. 20'), provides that " The treasurer of 
 the nninicipality shall forthwith upon demand 
 payout of any moneys of the municipality in his 
 liaiuls the amount of any order given by the 
 members of the local lioard, or any two of them, 
 for services performed under their direction by 
 virtueofthis .Act."' A ])hysician recovered juclg- 
 ment in a Division Court against a townsni|> 
 local board of health, sued as a corporation, for 
 services pi^rformed in a sniallpo\ e]iideiuie. It 
 appeared that the physician had been ap[)oiuted 
 medical health oflicer of the muni(i|jality by the 
 council, Imt that licfore suing the board he had 
 brought an action against the nnmieipal corpora- 
 tion for his services, in which he failed. Uimn 
 motion by the physician for a mandamus under 
 section 49 to compel the mendiers of the board 
 to sign an order upon the treasurer of the nnini- 
 cipality for the amount of the judgment re- 
 covered ; — Held, that, altlumgh it might be 
 dittioult to conclude that a board of health is 
 constituted a corjxiration by tlie Act, yet the 
 judgment of the Division Court practically de- 
 cided tliat this board might be sued as such, 
 and, not being in any way impeached, it could 
 not he treated as a nullity. As there appeared 
 to be no other remedy, the applicant was entitbd 
 to the mandamus. AV Deiliy and Ihf Local 
 Hoard of Heidi hot' South P'aiifniieiiel, 19 0. 1!. 
 51. -Q. P.. I). 
 
 By the si.xth clause of a city by-law passed 
 under the " I'ublic Health Act, " " S. (). (1887) 
 c. 205, it was provided that be re proceeding 
 to con.struct, reconstruct, or alter any portion of 
 the drainage, ventilation, or water system of a 
 dwelling-house, etc., "the owner or his agent 
 constructing the same " sliouhl tile in the engi- 
 neer's office an application for a permit therefor, 
 which should be accom|)anied with a specification 
 or abstract thereof, etc. ; and by the eleventh 
 clause, that after the approval of such plan or 
 specification no alteration or deviation therefrom 
 would be allowed, except on the application of 
 the " owner or of the agent of the owner " to the 
 city engineer. By section 22 of the "Public 
 Health Act," owner is defined as meaning the 
 person for the time being, receiviuj^ the rents 
 of the lands on his own account, or as an agent 
 or 'rustee of any such person who would so re- 
 ceive the Bame if such lands and preniisea were 
 
 lot ;— Hehl. that the agent intended by the Act 
 and eonuug within the terms of tiie by-law, 
 meant a person .-ictiug for the owner as trustee, 
 or in some such (.'ainci'y, etc., and did not. 
 includi^ a plumber employnl by the owni r to 
 leciuistniet the plumliiug in his dwelliug-li.iuse. 
 Hi'jiiiii V. l^^^o)^ 19 (). I!. (M(i.— C. P. D. 
 
 See li'''<iwii. V. l,'oii-l!ii, 19 (). 1!. 199, p. 1112. 
 
 PUBLIC MORALS AND CONVENI 
 ENCE. 
 
 1. lliPisKs c)i. Im.-Fa.mi;, 1718. 
 
 II. Vai. HANTS, 1719. 
 
 III. Sr.DicTioN', 1721. 
 
 IV. (IaMISC St'c (lAMINIi. 
 
 V. l!v-i.AWs iii;i.ATiN(: TO. See MuNlCir'AL. 
 
 ColMMJllATlONS. 
 
 I. Hoi'siis OK Ii.l-Famk. 
 
 Hehl, that a conviction under ,'{2-,'!:i Vict. e. 
 :t2, s. 2, subs. () (l)iim.), for being an unlawful 
 (instead of an habitual) I'reijuenter of a house of 
 ill-fame, and which adjudged the payment of 
 costs which is unauthorized by the statute, must 
 bo i|U.ished. That si'ction makes the being such 
 habit ual frei|UeMler a sub.-tantial ull'ence, punish- 
 able as in section 17, and does not merely create a 
 prf)cedurc for trial and punishment, /'cjlua v. 
 C/rirl:, 2 (). 1!. 52;i. Armour. 
 
 On an ajiplicatioii to the Divisional Court to 
 ipiash a conviction made by the police magis- 
 trate of the city of 'roronto, against the defen- 
 ihiiit for keeping a house of ill-fame, there being 
 evidence, as set out in the report of the case, 
 upon which the magistrate could convict, the 
 court refused to interlere. In the conviction the 
 olfcnce was staled to be ag.iinst the statute in 
 such case made and provided; — Held, that if not 
 constituted an otrenee under 32-3.3 Vict. c. 32 
 (Dom.), the reference to the statute might bo 
 treated as surplusage, and the conviction sus- 
 tained under the common law ; but that the refer- 
 ence to the statute might be .supported, because 
 section 17 imposes a punishmenl in some respects 
 diU'ercnl from the common law. Ile'/ina v. Flint, 
 4 0. n. 214.— C. p. D. 
 
 A ccinviction under 32-33 Vict. c. 28 (Dom.), 
 for kceiiing a house of ill-fame, ordered payment 
 of a liiK! and costs, to be collected by distress, 
 I and in liefanl' of distress ordered imprisonment : 
 Held, i.'ood. 1,'i'jiiia v. Walker, 1 O. R. 180.-- 
 Iiose. 
 
 A conviction, for keeping a disorderly house 
 and house of ill-fame, was :— Held, l)ad for award- 
 ing, after the .idjudieation of a penalty by fine 
 and imprisonment, further imprisonment in de- 
 fault of sullicient distress or of nonpayment of 
 the fine ; and : -Held, also, that this was not a 
 mere formal defect within section 30 of .32 & 33 
 Vict. c. .32 (Dom.):— Held, also, that the etfeot of 
 section 28 was not to take away the writ of certio- 
 rari, lietjiiia V. liklmnhon, 11 P. K. 95.— Osier. 
 
 The defendant was convicted under the pro- 
 ceedings taken under 32 & 33 Vict. c. 32 (Dom.)» 
 
 \ 
 
1719 
 
 PUBLIC MORALS AND CONVENIENCE. 
 
 1720 
 
 iiof. 32 4. 33 Vict. c. 28 (Dom.), for keeping a house 
 of illfiinie. The conviction merely " ordered" 
 but (lid not " adjudge" any imprisonment or any 
 forfeiture of the fine imposed :--Held, bad, as 
 Bul)8tituting the personal order of the magistrate 
 for a condemnation of adjudication. Ittghia v. 
 Kiwton, 11 r. R. 98.— O'Connor. 
 
 'J'iie conviction and wai'rant of commitment 
 urdered the defendant to he impri.soned foi- six 
 months, and to pay witliin the said period to ! 
 said magistrate the .sum of i?100 without co.sts to 
 he applied according to law, and in defuidt of 
 payment hefore tlie terminaticm of .saiil juMJod, 
 further imjirisonment for six months: — Helil, 
 had, for uncertainty in rei|uirinj; tlie fine to he 
 paid to tlie magi.itiate per.sonally instead of to 
 the gaolei'. ///. 
 
 Tiic conviction and warrants cliai'ged tliat 
 plaiutiflT " di<l unlawfully keep a certain l)awdy 
 house and house of ill-fame f(n- tlio resort of pros- 
 titutes, and is a vagrant within the meaning of 
 the statute," etc., not alleging that she did not 
 give a satisfactory .account of herself : — Held, 
 sufficient. Regina c. Arscott, !) O. K. TA\, dis- 
 sented from. Arsrntt v. Lilli-ii, II O. U. 153.— 
 Q. v.. 1). 
 
 Ui)on a motion on the return of a haheas cor- 
 pus to discharge the prisoi\er, who was convicted 
 of keeping a liouse of ill-fame : Held, that the 
 conviction was had on its face for uncertainty in 
 not naniinir a place where tlie offence was com- 
 mitted :— Held, also, tliat it was defective he- 
 cause it did not contain an adjudication of foi- 
 feiture of the tine inipo.seil. Ilnihin v. Ci/r, 12 
 P. R. 24.— O'Connor. 
 
 The Act 32 k 33 Vict. c. .32, s. 17, jirovides 
 that the magistrate may condenni tlie ]>arty ac- 
 cused to pay a fine not exceeding, with the co.sts 
 in the case, 8100: -Held, that the meaning of 
 this is, that the aintmnt of the costs in tlie case 
 shall he deducted fr(mi.?H)0, and tliat tliehalance 
 or clifference shall he the utmost limit of the 
 fine ; and tliat the conviction in this case, being 
 to pay the sum nf 8100 witliimt costs, was there- 
 fore bad. //(. 
 
 Upon a charge against an inmate of a house 
 of ill-fame under sub-section (j.) of section 8, of 
 R. S. ('. c. 157, it ia not necessary to shew tliat 
 the accused was called upon to account for her 
 presence in the house before aircst ; the con- 
 cluding words of tli(! sub section, " not giving a 
 satisfactory acc(nint of themselves," are to be 
 read as applying only to fieiiuenters, and not to 
 keepers or inmates. Regina r. Levec(ine, 30 
 Q. IJ. oOO, distinguished, liiijiiin v. Bemoii, 10 
 O. R. .WO.— iMacMahon. 
 
 There may be a joint conviction against hus- 
 band anil wife for keeping a house of ill-fame : 
 the keeping has nothing to do with the owner- 
 ship of the liouse. but with the nianagemcnt of 
 it. Regina r. Williams, 10 Mod. 03, and Itex v, 
 Dixon, ih. ,33."), followed. Uxjinnx. Wiirnii, 10 
 O. \X. .590.-MacMalion. 
 
 See lietjina v. Arscott, 9 O. R. o-ll, p. 1720. 
 
 II. Vaurants. 
 
 The Vagrant Act, .32 k 33 Vict. c. 28 
 {Dom.), declares ceitain persons or classes of 
 
 persons to be vagrants, amongst others, " all 
 common iirostitutes or night walkers wandering 
 in the fields, public streets, highways, lanes, or 
 places of public meeting, or gatliering of people, 
 not giving a satisfactory account of themselves, 
 all keepers of bawdy houses and houses of ill- 
 fame, or houses for the resort of prostitutes, 
 and persons in the habit of frec|uenting .sneh 
 houses, not giving a satisfactory account of them- 
 selves ;" and tliat they "shall upon conviction be 
 guilty of a misdeineanour, and punisha))le," et<'. : 
 — Held, that the Act does not, on its true con- 
 struction, dechvrc that being a prostitute, etc., 
 makes such person liable to |ninislimeiit as such; 
 liut <mly tliose who when found at the pl.iocs 
 mentioned, under circumstances suggesting ini- 
 pro])riety of purpose, on re(juest or demand are 
 unable to give a satisfactory account of them- 
 selves, liifijiiia V. Arxcotl, !M). R. 541. — Ros(.'. 
 Hut .see >'l csco^ v. I.ilky, II O. R. 153, p. 171!l. 
 
 Tiic defendant registercMl his name and .ad- 
 dress at the American Hotel, Toronto, and on 
 the same day was arrested at the Union Railway 
 Station, having been pointed out to the police 
 by some of the railway oHicials as a suspicions 
 cliaracter. On his person were found two 
 ehe(jues, one for §700 the other for .8900, which 
 were sworn to be such as are used by "confi- 
 dence men," a mileage ticket lu^arly used up 
 in favour of .another per.son, and 88 in cash. He 
 offered no explanation of the clieijues or the 
 ticket, and gave no information iibout himself; — 
 Held, that the Vagrant Act did not warrant 
 his arrest, much less his conviction. J{i'<iiiia v. 
 liaxsKlt, 10 r. I!. :!8(i.-08ler. 
 
 Before a ]ierson can be convicted of being a 
 vagrantof llic first class named in the Act ("all 
 idle persons who, not h:i\ing visible means o( 
 m.aintaining themselves, live without employ- 
 ment") he must have ac(|uircd in some degree a 
 character wliicli brings him witliin it as an iille 
 person, who liaving no visible means of maintain- 
 ing liims'lf, i.e., not " paying his way," (U' being 
 app;irciitly able to <lo .so, yet lives without 
 em|)loynient. /b. 
 
 The defendant was summarily convicted under 
 32 & Xi Vict. c. 28, s. 1 (l)oin.), as "a per.son 
 uiio, having no peaceable profession or calling 
 to ni.iintain himself by, but who does, for the 
 most part, support himself by crime, and then 
 was a vagrant," etc. The evidence shewed that 
 the defendant did not support himself by any 
 peaceable profession or calling, and that he 
 consorted with thieves and reputed thieves ; 
 but the witnesses diil not jiositively s.ay that he 
 supported himself by crime : — Held, that itwiW 
 not to be inferred that the defendant supported 
 himself by crime ; that to sustain the conviction 
 there should have been .statements that wit- 
 nesses believed he got his living by thieving, or 
 l)y aiding and acting with thieves, or by sueli 
 other acts and means .as showed he was pursuing 
 crime. Hcijiim v. Orijaii, II I*. R. 497. - 
 Wilson. 
 
 The Act, R. .S. C. c. 157, s. 8, (f.), provides 
 that " all persons who cause a disturbance in 
 any street or highway by acreaming, swearing, 
 or singing, or by being drunk, or by impeding 
 or incommoding peaceable passengers * * are 
 loose, idle, or disorderly persons within the 
 meaning of this section. The defendant was 
 convicted and committed for that he " unlaw 
 
 I 
 
1720 
 
 igst others, " all 
 ■aikera wantlcring 
 ghways, lanes, or 
 tlieriiig of people, 
 lit of theinselvea, 
 111(1 houses of ill- 
 rt of prostitutes, 
 frciiuciiting such 
 y account of tlicin- 
 iipon conviction he 
 punislial)le," etc. : 
 it, on its true con- 
 a prostitute, etc., 
 nislinieiit as sucli; 
 ind at tlie places 
 ics suggesting ini- 
 :?st or (leniancl are 
 ■ account of thcni- 
 (). R. r)41.— Hose. 
 ). U. 15,S, p. 171!l. 
 
 his name and ail- 
 , Toronto, and on 
 the Union Itailway 
 out to the police 
 als as a suspicious 
 were found two 
 icr for §900, which 
 e used l)y " conti- 
 et ucMirly used up 
 11(1 .*S in casli. He 
 lu cluMpii;s or the 
 m about iiiinsclf : — 
 t did not warrant 
 action, lli'ijiiia v. 
 
 iivicted of being a 
 od in the Act ("all 
 g visible means of 
 without employ- 
 I ill some degree a 
 ivitliin it as an idle 
 means of niaintaiii- 
 his way," or being 
 yet lives witliout 
 
 ily convicted under 
 im.), as "a per.son 
 ofession or calling 
 
 who does, for tlie 
 ly crime, and then 
 idence shewed that 
 ort hinisilf by any 
 ling, and that he 
 
 reputed thieves ; 
 litively say that he 
 -Hehl, that it was 
 
 fcudant supported 
 tain the conviction 
 tcments tliat wil- 
 ing by thieving, or 
 ;hieves, or by sucli 
 'ed he was pursuing 
 
 11 r. R. 497. - 
 
 8. S, (f.), provides 
 ! a disturbance in 
 reaming, swearing, 
 k, or by impeding 
 sseiigers * * are 
 ersons within the 
 
 he defendant was 
 that he " unlaw 
 
 1721 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 1722 
 
 i 
 
 fully did cause a disturbance in a public street 
 • * by being drunk, and then was a vagrant, 
 loose, idle, and disorderly person within the 
 meaning of the Act respecting vagrants." The 
 evidence disclosed that the defendant was 
 drunk, and that he was guilty of impeding and 
 incommoding peaceable passengers, but it nega- 
 tived his causing a disturbance in the street by 
 being drunk : — Held, tiiat 'lo oilence of the 
 nature described in the conviction and commit- 
 ment was committed l)y the dctendant, and an 
 order was niude for hi-; di.scharge. UniiiKi v. 
 Daly, 12 P. H. 411.— .MacMalion. 
 
 By sub-section 2 of section S of the R. S. C. 
 c. 157, any loose, idle, or disorderly person, or 
 vagrant, shall npon summary conviction liefore 
 two justiccfi of the peace be deemed guilty of a 
 misdemeanour, and liable to a tine not exceeding 
 iJ.'iO, or to iniprisoiiiiient not exceeding six 
 months, or to both. |{y section Ii2 of 11. .'^. C. 
 c. I7S tile justices are authoiized to is.siic a dis- 
 tress warrant for eiifoicing payincut of a fine ; 
 and, if issued, to detain tlu; ilclendant in eus 
 tody, under section iVl, until its return; and, if 
 tlie return is "not ."uthcicnt distress," then to 
 imprison for three months. Two justices of the 
 peace for the city of T(Mdnto, in the absence of 
 the police magistrate for the said city, eoiivictcd 
 the defciidant for an otreiice under said Act, and 
 imposed a tine of JJoO, and, in default of pay- 
 ment forthwith, directed iin]irisoiinunt for six 
 months unless the fine were sooner paid : — Held, 
 that under the said sub-section tlie justices hail 
 i irisdiclion to adjudicate in the matter; and 
 that it ^vas not iieee.«.sary to consider the ell'ect 
 of an agieement entered into between the p(dice 
 magistrate and one of the justices to assist him 
 in the trial of oll'ences: — Held, ahso, that the 
 conviction was bad, for under R. .•<. ('. c. lii" there 
 was no power to award imprisonment as an al- 
 ternative remedy for nonpayment of the fine ; 
 while under R. !S. C. c. 17S, iinprisoninent could 
 only he awarded after a distress has been directed 
 anil default therein; and fiirtheniiore the im- i 
 prisonnient in such ease could only be for three 
 months. Itegina v. Li/inh, I!) O. It. tit)4. — C. 
 P. U. 1 
 
 III. .Seduction. 
 
 prisoner was convicted under R. S. ('. c. 
 162, -4, the Act relating to " oU'eiices against 
 the \, son," for luilawfiilly taking an uninar- 
 riec' gii I cinder the age of sixteen years out of 
 the possession and against the will of her father. 
 On the same day the jii ismier was again tried 
 and convicted, under R. S. C. e. lo", s. ;i, the 
 Act relatingto "olTenees against public morals," 
 for the seiluetion of the said girl, being previ- 
 ously of chaste eharactcr, and between the ages 
 of twelve and sixteen years of age : — Held, that 
 the otrcnces were several and distinct, and that 
 a conviction on the lirst indictment did not pre- 
 clude a conviction mi the second one. lieijina 
 V. Smith, 11) O. R, 714.-C. P. \). 
 
 See also Sr.DtiOTios. 
 
 PUBLIC OFFICER. 
 
 Sco Office anu 1'liilic Officer. 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 I. Trusteks. 
 
 1. Ekilioii. of, 1722. 
 
 2. Di«iiHalijiratiuu o/. 
 
 (a) Coiitrarl.'< irilh liunrd of Trnstre^. 
 
 1722. 
 
 (b) l)i clariwi Si att on Hoard l'nriiiit„ 
 
 I72:i. 
 
 II. KVIDKNCK OK FOUMATION- OK SciIOOl, 
 
 .Sections, 1724. 
 
 III. DissoLiTioN OK Union .School Skction.s, 
 
 1724. 
 
 IV. Dissolution okTownsiiii- Boarhs, 1724. 
 V. Scuodi. Sites. 
 
 1. Applii-alioii /o Miinici/Hil Councils /or 
 
 Fundu, 172.5. 
 
 2. /lorrowini/ Mom ij for, 1 72."). 
 .'1. t'haiKjc of, I72.'i. 
 
 VI. Assessment, 172(). 
 \'ll. SECl;ETAKV-TUE.\sll!Elt, 1728. 
 VIII. Teai iiEKs, 1720. 
 
 l.\. l{l(illT OK AIJ.MI.SSION AS I'lI'II., 1"29. 
 
 .\'. KxiMi.sioN ANi> Suspension ok Pupils, 
 1720. 
 
 .\l. Hiiiii Schools. 
 
 1. DislrkLi, 1730. 
 
 2. Aiipolntnicnt of HUfh ScIkkU l}oard.i, 
 
 I7;l2. 
 
 .'5. Apiilienlion in Mniiirijial Councili fur 
 fundi. 
 
 (a) For Bmldini/i, I7.'{;i. 
 
 (b) For School Maiidcnaiice, 17.3.3. 
 
 XII. Miscellaneous Cases, 17;}.'). 
 
 I. TliUSTEES. 
 
 I. EkrIimiOf. 
 
 Where certain persons were elected school 
 trustees, and, at a meeting of the board held 
 snbse(|Uently to the election, were declared duly 
 elected, but, proceedings having In eii meaiiwhilo 
 conimcnced to (|nesti(>ii the validity of IIk; elec- 
 tion, at a snbseipieiit iiiccting of the board, they 
 aecpliesced ill the cuiiclnsinii of tin.' board to hohl 
 a new election, and became candidates again, and 
 canvassed as such, until the twenty days allowed 
 for disputing the lirsl election had elapsed (the 
 |iroceediiigs formerly coniiiieneed for that pur- 
 pose having been nieaiiwhile droppeil), and were 
 not electeil at the second clectimi : — Held, they 
 could not afterwards niaiiitain a suit to have it 
 declared they weri! the duly elected trustees. 
 FuMtr v. Slokcf, 2 O. R. ."lOO. --Ferguson. 
 
 2. Di^qxalijiitiliou Of. 
 
 (a) Contracts iriih llonrd of Truntets. 
 
 Held, Osier, .1., doubting, on a special case 
 stated for tin.' opinion of tin; Court of (Jhancery, 
 and transferred to this cniirl, that the fact of the 
 public sclioid board of the city of Toronto en- 
 tering into an agrecinent with and iiurchasing 
 
1723 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 1724 
 
 their stationery and Bchool supplies from a pub- 
 lishing company, and having obtained gas from 
 a gas company, and insured tlicir projierty in 
 certain insurance coniijanius, of which said coin- 
 juinies the plaintili' was ii sliarclioMer, diil nut 
 discpialify liim from acting as a trustee of the 
 scliool board, or render Ills seat vacant, under 44 
 Vict. c. 30, 8. 10, (Out.). Ur v. I'niilk, SchmL 
 Hoard of Ihn Cily of Toroitto, Wl C. 1'. 78.— ('. 
 1". I). 
 
 Qna-re, ])cr Osier, .1., whetlier tlie case couhl 
 properly Ite cntei taincd, no fact being discloseil 
 l)y which juriH<liction could be exeici.sed undei' 
 the Act relating to maudanuis and injunction, 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. M, s. 30, no wrongful act 
 having been actually done by the school board, 
 but nu'rcly an injury fo the ])laintiM"s rights 
 threatened, it being alleged that the Ijoard in- 
 tended to declare tlic seat vacant. Ih. 
 
 Where a school trustee, who was a medical 
 practilionci', acted in his jirofcssloual ca])acity 
 under engagi nuut by the board for examining 
 the pupils attending the srhoiil as to the pre- 
 valence of an infectious disease, -.wvX made a 
 charj^eof Sl."> th(Mvfor, which the board ordeied 
 to be paid, but he afterwards ilcclined to aecc[it 
 payment : — Held, thai this dis(|ualiticd him as 
 trustee, and ii'nh'ivd his scat v.icant, under 44 
 Vict. c. 30, s. 13 ((Intl. Hci/liia ex rcl. iSleivnrt 
 V. Stnwiish, (). U 4(»8.-d J". D. 
 
 See Cli(ij'/iii v. Piili/ir iS'cAo"/ Hoard of thr 
 Toint of W'liijihliiil;, 1() O. I!. 7-S, infra. 
 
 (b) Di'.clnritxj fS((ils oil Hoard Varaitl. 
 
 In nn action lirought by a ratepayer against 
 a school board, thi'ic of the persons elected :is 
 trustees, ami one (I., the statement of claim 
 alleged that the three deftiid.int trustees had 
 by reason of lluiii' being interested in certain 
 contracts with tiic board ipso facto vacated 
 their seats, by virtue of sccliou '-'47 of the 
 Public .Schonls' Act, P.. S. (). (ISH7), c. •-•■.Ti; 
 that they ncveitlnh ss continued to sit ami vote, 
 und had voted in f.ivcjnr of cerlaui res Jutions 
 which Were passed, whereby the j)iinci|)al of 
 the school was disndsscd ami the defendant (». 
 appointed in his |)lacc; and that but for the 
 votes of the llii'cc defendant trustees the result 
 would have been dill'erent. The jirayer was 
 that the .seats of the three should be declared 
 vacant, and the votes and resolution declared 
 void, and tor an injunction restraining the 
 defendants, the trustees, fmni further acting as 
 nieinhers of the board :- Held, upon demurrei', 
 following llaidwick r. Brown, I,. K., S ('. P. 
 40(i, that the seat of a trustee does not under 
 section "247 aeiu dly become vacant until the 
 other mendiers of the boanl have dccl ired it to 
 have become vacant ; and in this ease, no action 
 luiving been taken by the I'einainmg mendieis 
 of the board, that the seats ot the three defen- 
 dant trustees weie full; and being full, that the 
 court would not interlere by injnnction to re- 
 strain the occupants <if them from acting as 
 trustees. 2. 'J'h.it ipU) warranto [iriHieedings 
 were the only means by which the seats could 
 be declared v.icant by the court ; that the duty 
 
 parties to the action and wore not made parties 
 by the fact that the school corporation was a 
 party defendant, llegiiui r. Mayor of Hereford, 
 •1 Walk. 701; l!ex c. Smith, 2 M. & S. 58.3, re- 
 ferred to. 3. 'I'liat the defendant (J. was an 
 unnecessar;.' an<l improper party to the .action. 
 i'kiip/iii. V. J'idiltr School Hoard of the Town of 
 Wuodstocl, KJO. P.. 728.^-Street. 
 
 : II. ICviDKNcK or Formation or Sciiooi. Skc- 
 
 I TIO.NS. 
 
 As evideiiee of the formation of school sec- 
 tions ill a townshi]) by the inuniciiial council 
 ! thereof a rough ske'leh or map designated 
 i "school section map township of Ii," but with- 
 out signature, seal, (U' date, liaving the ajijiear- 
 aiice of being very (dd and there being no other 
 ; map to be fomid, was |iroduced from the [iroper 
 custody. Ill ISSS, before this action was cniii- 
 I nicnccd, but after the beginning of the agitation 
 which gave rise thereto, the municipal council 
 ))assed a by-law " to make .'dterations in school 
 ! section map," ami authorized the elci'k to cor- 
 ; rcct the map, etc.; and when any diliieiilty 
 i arose as to boniniaries of school suctions re- 
 course was had. at least in some instances, to 
 this map : llcdil, that the map must be as- 
 sumed to he drawn in pursuance of section II 
 of the "Public .Schools Act," and therefore 
 atlbrilcd evi<lenec of the original division of the 
 township into scho(d sect ions by the township 
 council. 'J'ni.ttcis for Si-Jiooi Sictioii Ao. ,.'.'f 6/ 
 till 'J'oirii.iliii> of lliirforil v. Tuwiiship of liur- 
 ford, Is U. R. ."»4(). — Ferguson. 
 
 III. IJis.soi.uTioK OK U.N ION School Skctions. 
 
 On application to quash a by-law dissolving .a 
 union school section : -Held, that the council 
 were not hound to go behind the assessiiiciit roll 
 to ascertain whether the |)etition for such disso- 
 lllti(m was signed by a majority of the assessed 
 Irceholdcrs and hoiiselioldeis, as required by .sec- 
 tion UOof the Public School.s' Act, li.SO. (IS77) 
 c;. "JOt. 'I'lie petition was, that the section might 
 be dissolved, "when,'' it wa> adiled, "a new 
 section may be formed, ami a fi.'W lots from 
 Sections 2, 7, and 8, might be annexed to eipializc 
 the area with other secliuns" : -Held, that this 
 addition being a mere sug.;estion, formed no 
 objection. Ill re MrA//iiiu.aiidtU'- Toii'iidiipuf 
 /■:ii]ih"mia,4r>i). 15. HID.-Oskr. 
 
 The by-law provided that the dissolution 
 slnuihl take ell'cct " from and after." instead of 
 on " the 1st .lanuary, ISSO' :— Held, no oljjeo- 
 tiou. III. 
 
 The by-law was jiasscd on the 7tli April, ami 
 this motion was not iiiidc until Uoceinlicr fol- 
 lowing : — Senibic, that this delay, nnexpl.dned, 
 Would have been an answer to the appbc itloii, 
 which maybe too late, althoiij^li within the year 
 Hxed by tlie Act as the extreme limit. JIk 
 
 IV. Dissoi.iTioN OK Township Boaud-*. 
 In a ease submitted by the Minister of ICduca- 
 
 of declaring them v.icuit, if the facts charged tarn umler section 237 of tho Public .Scho.ils 
 were established, devolved upon the remaining Act : — Held, that the plain meaning ofseitloii 
 individual members of the board, who were not (13 of the Public Schools Act, K. S. U. (18S7), c 
 
1724 
 
 1725 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 1726 
 
 re not made parties 
 corporation was a 
 Mayor of Hereford, 
 2 M. & S. 583, rc- 
 x'liduut (J. was aa 
 jarty to tlie action. 
 nrd of the 'J'uwii of 
 treet. 
 
 )N OK Si'iiooi, Skc- 
 
 ition of school scc- 
 i inuiiiciiml council 
 "IV map designated 
 lip of JJ," Imt with- 
 
 liaving the ap|ioar- 
 LluTO ))cing no other 
 iced from the proper 
 llii:i action was com- 
 ning of the agitation 
 lie muoicip:il council 
 alterations in school 
 cd the clerk to cor- 
 wheii any dillicnlty 
 
 (icliool .sections re- 
 i sonic instances, to 
 e map must be lus- 
 rsuaiice ol section II 
 Act," and tliereforc 
 iginal division of the 
 ons by llic township 
 )o( Sicliiin iVo. ;.',( of 
 V. 'J'uioiifihtp of liitr- 
 iison. 
 
 IN School Sk(tions. 
 
 a bydaw dissolviu;; a 
 Id, that the council 
 d the assessment roll 
 tilion for such disso- 
 ority of the assessed 
 rs, as required by .see- 
 .s' Act, i;.S,t). (I«T7) 
 liat the section might 
 wa^ a<lded, "a new 
 and a tew lots from 
 )e annexed to ecpialize 
 is" ; -Held, that tins 
 ig.;estioii, formed no 
 c and Ih'- Toirii<lilpof 
 Osier. 
 
 that the dissolution 
 vnd after," instead of 
 J' :-lIeld, no ohjee- 
 
 )n the 7th April, and 
 uiitd Dcoemi)er tol- 
 ls delay, niiixpl. lined, 
 er to llic ap|ilie ition, 
 
 iou>;h within the year 
 treme limit. /''. 
 
 'oWNSlIlr lioAllDS. 
 
 ,he Minister of IMiica- 
 ,f iho I'nldio Sclioila 
 III meaning of seetiim 
 ct, 11. «. O. (IHST), «• 
 
 225, is that after the townahi[) public school ' der section 32 of the statute, which led to hia 
 boaril has existed for five years at least, the sub- nuking attempts to have an amicable adjust- 
 mission of a bydaw for tlie repeal of the bydaw mciit of the ditlioulty, tlie oi.tcomeof which was 
 under wliich that board was established, may that two of the trustees gave notice of a subsc- 
 be reijuired at any time upon the pi-esentatimi (pieiit m 'etin^ tor the purjjose of changing and 
 of a properly signed petition therefor. The by- ' selecting a school site, at which meeting a unani- 
 liiw establishing the township board may be at- mous vole was bad in favour of a third site, called 
 tacked with a view to its repeal ag lin and again, 
 so long as the agitation against it snbdsts. Itr 
 Public School Hiiaril of Ih" Toirnthi/i <// Tin'h-ir- 
 mllh, 10 O. R. (i(»4.~'('liv. 1). 
 
 A". Scilonl. SlTK-^. 
 1. AiiIiIii'iiI'kiii I(> Mlliiiri/ril Coiiiirl/.i /or I'liii l.i, 
 
 A niunieipal eoiporatioii has n> iliseretion in 
 .accepting or rejecting the re(|ni-iitioii of sclio d 
 trustees lor funds for a si-hooi site, (except by a 
 two thirds vote. .Xii adverse vote by a smaller 
 majority is a virtual acee])taiice, and the reipii- 
 sition must tlierefore be ciuiiplied with. A'' 
 liiitird of h'll Ileal i'ln of Xa/inni'r and Ihi; 'J'oicii uf 
 X(il,au<i', '.'it (..'hy. :iitrj. — I'loiidfo .t. 
 
 See /!( lioiiril of Kdiiculioit ol' Ih'' Villn;!'' <''' 
 Morri-iliiii^ih and Iho. 'I'lurnshi/) of \\'iiii-h(.sli r, ,S 
 A. K. liii>'. p. 17;{1. 
 
 :.'. /lorroii'iii'i M'Hi 'U for. , 
 
 It appeared from the atli livitof the secr.!tary 
 and treisnrer of a school s'ction, that at two 
 regularly called meetings of tlie duly qualilied 
 electors of a school section at whi' h a cliairniaii 
 was appiinted, pro[iosals to jmrchase a site,' 
 liaild a seli(i(d house, and borroNV in iiiey there- 
 for, were put by way of motion and cirried, 
 Hi»m wliieli a by-law was pissed, authniizing 
 the issue of debentures to raise m ni y for the 
 above purposes ; — Held, that under Vi Viet. i:. ."U, 
 s. 2i(, subs, ,"{ (Out,), this was a siillicient snbinis- 
 siou to and aiipioval of the prop i.sal by the duly 
 <iualjtied sclmcd electors of the seetion, and a 
 rule to (|uasli the by law was diseliarged. In 
 re, McC'innkk uirl Ihr. I'oirn^hij) of V'jlch'isler 
 South, 4(i Q. H. (!."). — AruKnir. 
 
 See III /■ Oahiv lod friijh Scliood linnrd and Ihn 
 TowiLshi/i oj Mitrijio^i, i() \. 1!. S7, p. 17.'{'(. 
 
 3. Chiii.jc of. 
 
 Held, allirming the decree of I'roudfoot, V'.C, 
 (20('liy, ollO) that the Imardof e In 'ation foraaid 
 hy the union of high school and [uililic sc;io(d 
 trustees, bad power to change the site tor a 
 school, and purchase another wiLh.nic a by-law 
 or resoluti m of ih" county council, or the ap- 
 proval of the Lieiit-naiit-tlovei lor in Council, 
 iiuil that the plaintilF wasentitleil lospecilic per- 
 forinance of an igieeinenl by the board to pur- 
 eliase laud U>r such pur|) <w. Molfilt v. Hoard 
 ofEliicalimol Carldon Pta'-p, 5 A. U. 19". 
 
 A new rur.il school section being formeil, it 
 
 the C site. In an action by the other trustee 
 and some ratepayers to have it declared that 
 the last meeting w.is illegal, and to restrain 
 building on the ( ', site, in which it appeared 
 tlial lifly out of the sixty seven ratepayers ap- 
 proved of the Utter site, it was ; —llelil, that 
 the nei.-essary prei('i|nisite, umler section tU of 
 the statute, of taking th,: oiunicm of the ratu- 
 )>ayi!rs hail IxaMi comidied With, and the selec- 
 tion nia le was the T. site : that no ehango of a 
 sclioid site slioiihl be made without the consent 
 of the majority of ratepayers |)resent at a spe- 
 cial 111 'eting called for that ]iiir|iiise, and that 
 under the eireiliiistanee* of this c ise the school 
 site had been aseertaiiie I an I lixe I by the Krat 
 ini'eting, but it \ias eo:ii;ieteiit for the second 
 nie.;t iig to change the s.te with the consent of 
 the nee ssai'y inijority. W ill ir v. linrd of 
 I'li'i'l ■ S-linol Trii-<l'i X fir Union. Srh'iol Si'dioii 
 Xnin'ii r Xin'' of Ih" 'J'oirit-'hij) of Loli-i, 11 O. K. 
 (MS. — lioyd. 
 
 Where it a)i|ieaied t'.at at a meeting of rate- 
 payers, cdliil, piirsu lilt to section (i-t of 11. S. 
 <>, (ISS7), c. 2-'."), to provide for a cb inge of the 
 sclioil site, a res dutioii for that purpose, and 
 also an ameuilincnt thereto, were submitted, 
 b )th of which, in a<lditiou to the main (piestion 
 as to change of site, embraced matters collateral 
 thereto, the former of which was carried : — 
 Held, that the res diition w.is invalid, and that 
 certain ileeilscif cimvey.inee, executeil pursu- 
 ant thereto, must ho. set aside. It is essential 
 tliat th" vital matter voted on should be so laid 
 liel'oie the nie "ting that a fair vote thereon can 
 b ! given, niuiiuivoeally in Heating the mind of 
 the majority on the particular point: — Held, 
 however, that as the plaiiitill's were present at 
 the meeting, and it was their business to li.ave 
 then olijectcd to the w.iy in which the ipiestion 
 I was lieing submitted, and complained to the 
 insp :ctor under section 32 of the said Act, they 
 should not have their costs of action. Mcfiiujan 
 V. S'-hoii/ luri.ril of Son'hiruld, Scclioii No. 7, 
 17 O. R. 4JS.-15oyd. 
 
 VI, .\sSKSSMKNr. 
 
 Per Ritchie, ('. .],— 'I'bat the town of Dart- 
 mouth is not, but that the city oi Halifax is, 
 exempted by eha])ter 32, It, S. "V. ,S. from con- 
 tribution to th ■ c luuty sdiool rates. Town of 
 Dirtinoidh v. 7Vi ■ Qii'xn, !) .S, (J, H. 50!). 
 
 Held, Ritchie, C. J., dissenting, that the town 
 of Dartm luth is not liable to contribute to the 
 assessiu ait for the sui^iort of schools in the 
 municipality of the e miity of Hilifix :— Held, 
 
 became necessary for the then trustees to provide also, that if so liable a writ of maud unus could 
 a school site, etc. A public meeting of the rate- ii it issue to enforce the p lyinent of such con- 
 
 piyers was callc I pursuant to 4S \'ict. c, 4!), s. 
 'i4 (Out.), which nearly all the ratei)ayers at- 
 tended, when the T, site was chosen by amijor- 
 ily vote of both the ratepiyers and trustees as 
 agiiiist the d. c;. site, A eomplaiiit against this 
 result was lodged with the sjhool inspector nii- 
 
 tributiim as the amount of the siiiie would be 
 nneerlainand dilli nit to be ascertained : — Held, 
 also that the r.itepayers of ISSli cimld not be 
 assessed for school rates leviable in previous 
 years : -Held, per Ritchie. 0, ,J., dissenting, 
 "thatiudythccityof Halifax is exempt from such 
 
«, ' , fr. ' 
 
 IT?/. 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 172» 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 hi 
 
 contribution, unu the town of Dnrtnioiith is 
 liable. Dartmouth v. The Queen, 14 !^. C. R. 45. 
 
 In each of the years 1881 to 1880 inclnsivo, 
 the defendants levied a rate to raise the sums 
 recjHired by the ])laintifrs for school piirixisrs. 
 The rate was imposed in good faith as lieinjj the 
 nearest which could be struck in order to insure 
 the collection of the sum deiiKiiided wi'h tlie 
 necessary expenses, but in eat li )" ■ >Mall 
 surplus was produced by it, \. 'li'.'h .. >il 
 
 refused to pay over to the truate. <, ■,•'. • 
 
 that they were entitled to retain n , ' 
 
 towards payment of any sum wliicli migjil bo 
 demanded by tlie trustees in a fulnre year, as in 
 the case of an excess ciillectcd on ; M'-nt of a 
 special municipal tax for a local olijcct ''der 
 section .Sti.'i of tlic Municipal Act:— lli^ld (ail., i..- 
 ing the judgment of the County < 'ourt), tluit 
 this section did not ai'ply, iiuil tliat the money 
 having been ccjjlected for school pui'iioses the 
 council was re((uired by tlui statute to pay it 
 over to the trustees in each year. It was not 
 inteiuled by the Cunsolidatcd l'ubli(^ Schiiols' Act 
 of 1885, 48 Viet. e. 4(1 ; I!. S. (). (1887), c. '_'•-'"'. 
 to alter the law in this res))ect. I'uli/ic Sr/i<inl 
 Tnisf((n of Si'cliiiii So. '.I, S'otldiratii'id v. VVc 
 Tuiciis/iip of Null(iva>-itija, 15 A. I!. .310. 
 
 The tliflerence between the j)owevs of jmblic 
 school trustees and of tlie Rinnan Catholic 
 separate school trustees to levy school rates by 
 their own authority observed ujion. Ih. 
 
 Held, that if the assessor is satisfied with the 
 prima facie evidence of the statements made by 
 or on behalf of any ratepayer, that he is a 
 Roman Catholic pursuant to R. S. O. (1887) c. 
 225, s. 120, sub-s. 2, and thereupon (asking and 
 having no other iiifurniati(in) places such person 
 upon the assessment roll as a separate school 
 supporter, this ratepayer, though he may not, by 
 himself or his agent, give notice in writing pur- 
 suant to H. S. O. (1887) c. 227, s. 40, nuiy be 
 entitled to exemption from the payment of rates 
 for public school purposes, he being in the case 
 supposed assessed as a sujiporter of l!onuin 
 Catholic separate schools. In re lloiiiaii Cath- 
 olic Separate .Vf/.oo/s 18 O. R. (iOG.— Chy. I). 
 
 Held, that the Court of Revision has jurisdic- 
 tion, umler R. S. (). (1S87) c. 2-'5, s. 120, sub-a. 
 3, on application of the person assessed, or 
 of any municipal elector (or ratepayer, as 
 under R. S. (). (1887) c. 227, s. 48, subs. 3), 
 to hear and determine eoiu])laints, (o) in re- 
 gard to the religion of the (lerson placed on 
 the roll as Protestant or Human CatlKilic, and 
 (Ij) as to whether such |)erson is or is not a sup- 
 porter of public or separate schools within the 
 meaning of theprovisidus of law in that behalf, 
 and (r), which a])]>ears to be involveil in (//), 
 where such pi rson has been ]ilaced in the wrong 
 column of the assessment roll fur the purposes 
 of the school tax. Jh. 
 
 It is competent for the (,'ourt of Revision 
 to determine w hcther the name of any person 
 wrongfully on}itti'd from the jiruper column of 
 the assessment roll, should be inserted therein 
 upon the complaint of the person himself, or 
 of any elector-, or ratepayer. Ih. 
 
 Held, that the asses.sor is not bound to 
 accept the statements of, or nuide on behalf of, 
 *ny ratepayer under R. S. O. (1887) c. 225, s. 
 
 120, sub-s. 2, in case ho is made aware, or ascer- 
 tains before completing his roll, that such rate- 
 payer is not a Roman Catholic, or has not given 
 the notice required by section 40 of R. S. (». 
 (1 887) e. 227, or is for any reason not entitled 
 to exemption from public school rates. lb. 
 
 Held, that a ratepayer, not a Homan Catholic, 
 being wrongfidly as.ieased as a Roman Catlioliu 
 and su|)|)ortcr of separate schools, who through 
 iiuidvertcnoe or other cause does not appeal 
 therefrom, is not estopped (nor are other ratc- 
 I payers) from claiming with reference to the 
 as.iessment of the following or future years, thai 
 he is not a Roman Catholic. lb. 
 
 Held, that a ratepayer, beinga Roman Catholic, 
 a ' I oeariug in the assessment roll as such and 
 ai- a sHoporier of .separate schools, who has not 
 ;'i\"i\ 111. ,);iee rec|uiied by U.S. O. (1887) c 
 •-'27, s. 40, is not (nor are other ratepayers) 
 estop|)cd from claiming, in the following or 
 I future yeai'. that he shoidd not be placed as a 
 supporter of sejiarate schools with reference to 
 the assessment of such year, although lie ii.is 
 not given notice of withdrawal mentioned in H. 
 .S. t). (1887) c. 227, 3. 4". lb. 
 
 I'laintilfs complained that for the years ISS.'l 
 to 1887 certain lots which formed part of tlieir 
 section had not been so assessed, but had licea 
 assessed as part of school section 23, and tlic 
 taxes thereon levied and paid over to section 2.'i, 
 and that plaintifls were entitled to be paid their 
 taxes either by the township or by section '23. 
 In each of thi!se years, so far as regards this 
 matter, the rolls were finally passed by the Court 
 of Revision and certified by the clerk, etc. :-- 
 Held, that the plaintiffs could not now maintain 
 such claim, for they were bound by section ,57 of 
 K. S. O. (1877) c. 180, under which the rolls as 
 fiiuilly passed by the Court of Revision, etc. 
 were valid ami binding on "nil parties con- 
 cerned," the plaiutiH's coming within the desig- 
 nation, but apparently they were not entitled to 
 the notice provided for by section 41 of that Act. 
 TnisleeK/or School Seeiinn ',ii o) the Toiviiship of 
 Harford v. Towmhip of Harford, 18 0. K. 
 540. — Ferguson. 
 
 VII. Secrktary-Treasurkr. 
 
 One T., who acted in the capacity of secre- 
 tary-treasurer of the plaintifls, who had not been 
 a|ipointcd in writing, and had not given security 
 as required by the .statute in that behalf, ab- 
 sconded with certain moneys which had been 
 received by him, as such seeictary-treasurer, 
 from the defendants. The plaintifls had recog- 
 nized T. as their secretary-treasurer by entrust- 
 ing him with the custody of their books and 
 papers, by allowing him to receive nu)neys for 
 tliem, by auditing his accounts and receiving 
 and approving of the auditor's reports: — Held, 
 that I!. S. (). (1877), c. 204, s. !)!), which pro- 
 vides that, in the ease of a rural school section 
 corporation, the rcsidution, action or proceeding 
 of at least two of the trustees shall be ncces-sary 
 in order lawfully to bind such corporation, docs 
 m>t apply to acts of duty of the sccretary-trcii- 
 surer; and that payment by the municipality of 
 school numeys to T. was binding on the tius- 
 tees: — Held, also, that if a person acts noturi- 
 ously as the otlicer of a corporation, and is re- 
 cognized by it as such otticer, a rcgidar appoint- 
 
^ 
 
 172S 
 
 ware, or ascei- 
 hat such ratc- 
 
 • has not given 
 
 10 of R. SO. 
 
 11 nut entitU'il 
 rates. lb. 
 
 onian Catholic, 
 oman Catholic 
 , who through 
 )es not appeal 
 ire other rate- 
 ference to tlie 
 ture years, UkiI 
 
 lomau Catholic, 
 roll as such ami 
 )1», who has not 
 . S. O. (lSS7)c. 
 her ratc\)ayci .■<) 
 lie following (II- 
 l)e placed as ii 
 itli reference to 
 [il though he liiis 
 meiitioneil in K. 
 
 r the years 18S.1 
 icd part of tlieir 
 (1, but had been 
 tiou '23, and tlic 
 ver to section '211, 
 d to be paid their 
 or by section '2.3. 
 
 • as regards this 
 isseil by the Court 
 ,\ic clerk, etc. :— 
 not now maintain 
 id by section (>! of 
 A-hieh the rolls as 
 of Kevision, etc. 
 ' all p;\rtiea con- 
 within the desig- 
 ere not entitled to 
 ion 41 of that Act. 
 (,/ the Toirii.-hili of 
 wfonl, IS 0. R. 
 
 EASUBER. 
 
 capacity of secrc- 
 , who had not been 
 not given security 
 n that l)eliall, ah- 
 s whicli had been 
 ce.etary-tieasuier, 
 luintifl's had rccog- 
 ■asurer by entrust- 
 ,f their books and 
 
 eceive moneys for 
 onts and receiving 
 r's rep<nts:-Held, 
 
 s. '.)1>, wl"'-''' l',™' 
 ,ural school section 
 ,ction or proceeding 
 8 shall be necessary 
 h corporation, docs 
 the seeret^iry-trci>_ 
 the inunicipuhly fi 
 luling on the tius- 
 person acts iiotori- 
 juration, and is rc- 
 •, a regular apponit- 
 
 1729 
 
 PUBLIO SCHOOLS. 
 
 1730 
 
 inent will bo presumed, and liis acts will bind i 
 liie eoriwration, altliou.;h no written ]iroof is. ! 
 (ir can be, adduced of his appointment. Sfliool I 
 'I'limlKei iij'thi Tdiviiihii) of lliiinUlun v. XiH, -S 
 Chy. 408. — I'roud foot. 
 
 S(;o Kc.ilh V. Ft'iieloii Fiillx Union Si'linol Sec- 
 fwii, 3 (). R. l'J4, !>. 1700. 
 
 VIII. Teauhbrs. 
 
 In an action by a school tcaclier to recover 
 damages as for a wrongful dismissal, it was siiewn 
 that tlie agreement to employ the plaiutill' was 
 iiuilo in writing, under seal and signed by tsvo, ' 
 of tlio three school trustees, but not at the same 
 time or at any meeting of the trustees called for 
 tlic purpose of transacting school business: - 
 Held, ivveisiug tlie judgment of tiie County 
 (Jourt (Hahlimaiid), that the agreement was void 
 under section '.17 ot the I'lililic .Scliools' .Act, winch 
 provides tliat " no act or piueeeding ut ii .-ioiioid 
 corporatiiui whicli is not adopted at a icguhir or 
 Hpecial meeting of the trustees shall be valid or 
 binding ou any party all'eeteil thereby." Iaiih- 
 liicir V. .School Tni-'tecx of Sec'ioii Xo. Three, 
 South Caijtiija, 1 A. R. JOG. 
 
 The right of public school trustees to dismiss 
 for good cause a teacher engaged by them, ne- 
 cessarily exists from the relation of the parties. 
 4!t Vict", c. 4!M0nt.), s.s. I(i5, KiS, piovidesa pro- 
 ceeding by which the status or ([ualitication of 
 the teacher may be dctermine<l ; and the result 
 of such proceeding may be in efl'ect the same as 
 dismissal ; but such enactment docs not deinive 
 the employer of the inherent right to dismiss. 
 Ramnond v. Aehool Truntiea of ( 'unHniil, 14 A. 
 R.'5(i2. 
 
 ,See .Subhead X., infra. 
 
 IX. RiiiiiT OF Ad.missio.v as PiPir,. 
 
 A niandanius to compel the admission of a 
 child to a public sehocd will not be granted 
 where it is shewn that there is not accommo<la- 
 tion for her, for this is a valid answer to such an 
 application, especially where it appears, as here, 
 that there is sullicieiit accomniodation at another 
 public school in the same town ; nor where it is 
 shewn tint the application for admission was 
 not made in the regular and proper way, under 
 the Public School Kegulations, as was the case 
 here, inasnuich as, although the cliihl in ipies- 
 tion WHS a registered pupil at the other public 
 school in the same town during the preceding 
 term, she had not atten<led tliere at the coni- 
 nicucement of the present one, nor had applica- 
 tion been made to the inspector to have her ail- 
 niitted to the school to which adniissi(ui was 
 now sought. Dunn v. Board of htliicution for 
 the Town of Windsor, 6 O. R. liiu,— Ferguson. 
 
 X. Kxrrl.SION ou SUSI'KN.SION OK Pi TILS. 
 
 On the 3id of December, 1884, a school teacher 
 dismisseil the plaint ilF, a boy thirteen years 
 of age, for disobedience, speaking impudently 
 when questioned about it, and refusing to be 
 puuishcil for inistiuuduct. The matter was 
 
 100 
 
 brought l>efore the trustees, and on thefith.Iaii- 
 uary they held a meeting and passed a resolu- 
 lion that the boy could return to scliii<d oU his 
 e.xpre-.sing regret for his miscondnct. .Aftertho 
 receipt of a solicitor's letter on l)chalf of the 
 father, the trustees, on the lOth Kebniary, liehl 
 another meeting and passed a resolution that tha 
 boy couhl return to school after one day's sus- 
 pension. On the llth February another moct- 
 ing of the trustees was held ami a rcsi)liitioii 
 passed reinstating the resolution of the (ith Jan- 
 uary. 'I'll father was not notitied nor was ho 
 present at the meetings of the (Ith .lanuary and 
 llth February ; but he was notitied of, niid was 
 pres(.'nt at the meeting of the lOtli February. 
 The boy returni'd to school, but, relying on the 
 resolution of the lOth Felu'uary, made no apol- 
 ogy, and remained there for scver:il day.s, but 
 WHS not interl'ered with by the teacher, who, 
 however, would give him no iiistruclion. In an 
 action in tlie Divi.sion ("oiirt against the teichcr 
 and trustees fin- an alleged wrongl'ul di.snii.s.-'al, 
 tlie learned judge dismissed the case against the 
 teaclicr, but held the trustees lialde : -Held, 
 tliat tlie action must he dismissed against the 
 trustees : that it was not their act, but that of 
 the te lelier, that caused the boy's removal : that 
 the pissing of the resolution as to apologising 
 was not an expulsion : that the teacli(U' in not 
 in.>tructing the boy was not acting under the 
 trustees' uirection ; and that they wire not 
 liable fur not compelling her to give the in- 
 struction; - t^bnere, whether in such a case as 
 this malice must not be sliewn, unless followed 
 by .scnne .act anuuinting to assault or trespass ; 
 and whether a mandamus, and imt an action, 
 was not the proper remedy, 'i'he action of 
 the trusti-'cs in proceeding in the absence and 
 without notice to the pirties interested, and 
 also the unreasonable coinluct ot tlie father, 
 commented on. In re the Miiiixtir aj Eilin-ntion 
 — .Mrlnlyro v. Piililic Sfhmil 'J'rn.sfct.i u/ .Si ction 
 Eiifht in thf TQwn.sh![i oj ISIuuchard.' \\ (). U. 
 
 4;m. -c. p. 1). 
 
 A pupil at a public school having injured the 
 to]> ot a school desk by cutting it, he was 
 ordered by the schoolmaster to replace the top 
 with his own hands, and was suspended till 
 he should do so. Tlie suspension was on tho 
 •20th February, bSSS, and on the 7tli of May, 
 1889, notice of motion was served by the father 
 of the pu[iil for a mandamus to compel tho 
 trustees to readmit the son. In the meantime 
 appeals had been made by the father to three of 
 the trustees, to the pulilic school board, and to 
 the annual school meeting, on all of which 
 ap[dications the acticjii ui tl'L- teacher was sus- 
 tained. During this time the pupil attended 
 another public school : — Held, that the discre- 
 tion exercised by the master and trustees shouhl 
 not be interfered with, especially after tho 
 delay and change in the position of allairs. Hi: 
 McCallnm and Hoard oj /'uhlic School Trnnteeit 
 of .Section (J, Township of Ii rant, 17 0. R. 4.'jl. — 
 itose. 
 
 XI. HlCll .StHOOLH. 
 
 1. JJiitricls. 
 
 After the repeal of .'IT Vict. c. 27, s. 38 (Ont.), 
 by 40 Vict c. 10, s. IS, sub-s. 2 (Out.), a county 
 council, having no power to dotcrmiue the limits 
 
 V, 
 
1731 
 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 1732 
 
 ml] 
 
 of high school districts, passed a by-law dc- i 
 terrnining the same. By another by-law they ] 
 repealed it, and e3tal)li3hed new limits: —Held, i 
 that such last incntioiicd by-law was valid iin far ; 
 as it repealed the first by-law, which was invalid, | 
 but that the rest of it must be quau!>cil. A'e j 
 Chamberlain and the United Coiintiex of Star- i 
 moni, Dundux, and Gleiiijarry, 45 v^. li. -0. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 In 1870 the township of Grim''by passed a by- 
 law attacliing a certain portion of the township 
 to the village of Oriniaby for high school pur- 
 poses. In 1881 the same council similarly an- 
 nexed another portion. Corresponding by-laws 
 were passed by the village of (Jriinsby. IJy 45 i 
 Vict. c. .'13 (Ont. ), the township was divided into I 
 two townships of North and .South (Jrimsby. 
 In 1882 the council of the township passed a 
 by-law, on the petition of less than two-thirds 
 of the ratepayers, repealing the two former by- 
 laws : — Held, that the two township by-laws, 
 with the corrtsponding village by-laws, formed 
 nn agreemrnt, ])ursuant to li. S. ( ). (1877), c. "JO."), 
 8. 30, as amended by 42 Vict. c. 34, s. 32 (<»nt,), 
 which could not bo rescinded by one of the 
 nmnicipalities without the coucuirence of the 
 other; and therefore that the repealing by-law 
 should be passed oidy upon the [letitiou of Iwo- 
 tliirds of the ratepayers. AV Wdlrirhiii and the 
 Tuirn-ilii/)'' ill Suuih tmd Xtirth Oriiwby, 3 O. R. 
 2^3.— Wilsc'.n. 
 
 The counly council of the united counties, act- 
 ing under 37 Vict. c. 27, s. 38 (Out.), which gave 
 power to every county council from time to time 
 to determine the limits of u high school district 
 for each high school existing in the county and 
 within its municipal jurisdiction, ha<1, on 23rd 
 June, 1876, by by-law No. 516 declared that 
 district No. 4 should eoi..-iist of the village of 
 Morrisburgh and the townships of Williams- 
 burgh auil Winclic-iter. .Section 38 was repealed 
 by 40 Vict. c. I(i,s. I8(()nt.), which, h(iwever,de- 
 clired that all high school districts w Inch ex- 
 isted at the time of its passing (viz., 2nd March, 
 1877), should continue until the county cuuncil 
 should think lit to discontinue tliem. On 12th 
 October, 1877, the county council passed by-law 
 No. ;">.") I in which, after reciting, niter alia, that 
 it was eNiJi'dieiit to consolidate all acts and by- 
 laws of those counties wliich in any way related 
 to high school districts, proceciled in direct 
 terms to r.peal several by-laws including No. 
 510, and then went on to enact that the united 
 counties should be <lividcd into live districts for 
 high school [lurposcs. No. 4 and No. ,'> being 
 in the county of Diiudas, and No. 4 embracing 
 Williamsburgh, Winclu^stcr, and Morrisburgh: — 
 Held, that altlmugh the reconstruction of the 
 districts was ultra vires and void, bccau.se the 
 power to determini; the districts had cea.sed at 
 the passing of 40 Viet. c. U)(()nt.); yet the repeal 
 of by-lvw oK), being within the power to discon- 
 tinue the districts which th.it statute preserved, 
 was valid, and the townsliip ol Winchester had 
 therefore ceased to be part of district No. 4 be 
 fore the resolution of April, 1878, was |)asse(l. 
 lie Hoard of Kd neat ion nf the Villiii/e of Morrix- 
 burijh and the Tuionship of Winchiiler, 8 A. R. 
 169. 
 
 Tiie board of education, acting under the rc- 
 aolution of April, 1878, had on ISIth July, 1878, 
 made a demand upon the townshi|) of Winches- 
 
 ter for its proportion of the mouev requireil. 
 Before that demand was made another by law, 
 No. 5!M), had been passed on 22nd June, 1878, 
 by the county council, repealing that portion (;f 
 by-law No. .')')!, which relateil to high school dis- 
 tricts for high school purposes in tlie comity of 
 Dumlas, and enacting, inter alia, that district 
 No, 4 should end)race the village of Morrisburgh 
 only. This by-law was passed after a m ijurity 
 of the reeves and deputy reeves of the county (if 
 Dundashad, under the power given by 41 Vict, c, 
 15 (Ont.), reijuested the county council to abolish 
 the ilistricts Nos. 4 and Q, and to constitute tliu 
 corporation of the village of Morrisburgli hijih 
 school district No. 4 : — Held, that this bylaw 
 was elt'ectual to .abolish district No. 4, it tint 
 district had continued to exist after the j)ii.ssaye 
 of by-law No. 551. JO. 
 
 When the demand was made in July, IS78, 
 by-law 590 was in force. It was moved agahiat 
 in the Court of Queen's IJench in Noveinlier, 
 1878, aiul was tpiashcd so f.ir as it assiiincd M 
 lUleimine the limits of districts, but not, so f.ir 
 as it repealed by-law No. ."i.")l : (Chamberl liu r. 
 Stormcmt, 45ti."l'.. 20). ( >ii 27th.lune, Is7!l,tlic 
 county council passeil anollier by-1 iw No. (il7, 
 simply abolishing the existing high .schoil dis- 
 tiicts in the county of liunclas. At this time mi 
 part of the money dciiiaiidcl had been hviuil. 
 This by-law was passed after the rule nisi lorn 
 mandamus in the matter had been granted, hut 
 before it was argued : — llelil, .agreeing with 
 (!alt, .1,, who had discharged the rule nisi for.'i 
 mandamus and with Hagarty, ('. J., who dia- 
 sentcd from the judgment of the majority of the 
 Com t of Queen's lieuuli (45 Q. B. 400), that if tho 
 demand had been originally valid, it could not 
 be enforced after the passage of by-law No. (il7, 
 and nothing would have remained in (luestiou 
 but the costs of the applictition. Ih. 
 
 2, Apimintnii'iit of Iliijh School lioordi. 
 
 On motion to c<intinue an injuuution to res- 
 train the corporation of a town in a judicial dis- 
 trict from paying over to tiic high school board 
 of said town, and the said board from receiving, 
 the sum of 5;I5,(IOO raised by bylaw of said town, 
 for acquiring a site and erecting a high .school 
 thereon : -Held, that under tint provisions of 
 sections 4 and 10 of It. S.O, (1887) c. 220, taken 
 in connection with section 1 of 50 \'ict. c. 64 
 (Out,), incorporating the said town, the corpo- 
 ration were authorized to ajipoiiit a liigli school 
 board therefor, and to pass the by-law for the 
 ei'ection of said school ; and that the consent of 
 the Lieiitenant-ttovernor, provided for by section 
 8, was not required, .is this was not an addi- 
 tional high school : —Held, also, that the ap|)(iiiit- 
 nieut of the board must be by by-law; hnt.i 
 by-law thei'efor passed after the motion was made 
 but before the hearing thereof wjis sullicient. 
 The court refused to entertain an objection tli.it 
 the hoard were about to build the sclioid on 1 v i 
 not acquired by them, for it could not bt • 
 sumed that the money would be spent until tlie 
 title to the land had been aeijuired ; and also it 
 was not necessary to shew that specific portions 
 of the $15,000 had been appropriated to the pur- 
 chase of the land and the erection of the build- 
 ing. Dawson v. Town of Sault Sle. Marie, 18 
 O. R. 506 -Gait. 
 
 
1732 
 
 i money reqiiireil. 
 le aiiothor by law, 
 I 22i)(l June, 187S, 
 ing tliat portion of 
 I to high school ilJH- 
 lea in the county <if 
 ulia, that distriot 
 la.ne of Morrislnut;h 
 ei'l after a mijority 
 ves of the county of 
 •given l>y 41 Vict. c. 
 ty council toabohsh 
 11(1 to constitute tliu 
 [ Morrishurgli iiinh 
 ,(1, tliat tliis l)yliiw 
 trict No. 4, ii tint 
 ist after the piissaye 
 
 na<le in July, 1S7S, 
 t was inoveil aguiiiat 
 Jeiicli in Nove/iiber, 
 f:ir as it assuii'cil to 
 ricts, lii\t not so f,ir 
 i,')l : (C'haniheil liii v. 
 
 •iTlhJune, IST'-', the 
 
 lier liyl iw No- <il7, 
 ,iiig high -schoiil dis- 
 las. At thi« time no 
 li^l hail been Uviuil. 
 ter the lule nisi liir n 
 ail bein grante<l, hut 
 lleia. agreeing with 
 ;e(l the rule nisi fur a 
 arty, •'. J-. "''o >lia- 
 ol the majority (if the 
 
 Q. 15. 400), that it the 
 ly valid, it eonlil not 
 
 geof by-law No. 017, 
 remained in (luesliou 
 iition. Il>. 
 
 ijli Srhniil lionnh. 
 
 an injunction to res- 
 town in a judicial (lis- 
 tlie high scliool hoard 
 board from receiving, 
 ly liylaw of said town, 
 irecting a higli .school 
 tier tlie provisions of 
 I). (ISS7) c. 2'20, taken 
 )ii 1 of ■)() Vict. c. 64 
 aaid town, the corpo- 
 
 a))point a high .school 
 iss the by-law for the 
 nd ttiat the consent of 
 provided for by section 
 this was not an ailJi- 
 
 also, that the apiioiut- 
 
 1,,. l)y by-law; hut a 
 i-r the motion was made 
 tliereof was sutlicient. 
 rtaiii an objection that 
 mild the soliool on 1 v i 
 or it could not he • 
 
 luld bo spent until ti-e 
 acipiired ; and also it 
 f, that specific portions 
 ppropriateil to the piir- 
 erection of the !)Uild- 
 .SauU Sle. Mane, 18 
 
 1733 
 
 FX7BLI0 SCHOOLS. 
 
 1734 
 
 [)■ 
 
 </ 
 
 3. Application to Miinicijjal CounciU for f'undn. 
 (a) For liuililiwjH. 
 
 On the 29th April, 1878, the board of educa- 
 tion of the incorporated village of Morrisburgh, { 
 which was formed by the union of thv high i 
 .school board of high school district No. 4 of the j 
 nnitud counties ot .Stormont, Dundas, and (!len- • 
 garry, and tlie public school board of the inciU'- 
 iiorated village of Morrisburgh, in which village \ 
 the high school was situated, resolved that the 
 sum of S7,000 sliould bo levied on liigii school 
 district No. 4, to cover the expense of huililing, 
 hirnishing, etc., for purposes of tlie liigit school : 
 
 -Held, that the joint board, and not the higli 
 school board, was tlie proper liody to make the 
 ru'qiiisition for the money, under .S7 Vict. c. 27, 
 B. C3; adopting the construction put upon that 
 section in Re Perth, 'A'.) (),. 15. 34, which had 
 hceu conlinned by iinplieation liy 42 Vict. c. ;i4. 
 Itt liuurd of Educiitinn uf the. Villaiji' uf .Uorrii- 
 himjk ami the Towmhip of Winchester, 8 A. K. 
 1G9. I 
 
 See Dawson v. Town oj Sau'l Ste. Marie, 18 
 O. R. 5j(>, p. 1732. ] 
 
 (b) For Sch'jol Maintenance. 
 
 Held, that the words " maintenance, acoom- 
 niodalion and other necessary expenses" in sul)- 
 scctiou (), of section 25 R. .S. (). (1887) c. 22G 
 include the purposes mentioned in section 35, 
 (1) and coii.se(iuently that an application under 
 Bcctioii 35, (1) must be made before the first 
 day of August : — Held, also, that an application 
 under section .'15, (1) must be the corporate act 
 of the school board, not merely the verbal 
 request (however un.aiiimous) of the individuals 
 composing it, and must specify the puriioscs for 
 which the money is required: — Held, also 
 (MaoKnnan, J. A., dissenting), that to come 
 within the provisions of section .'io, an applica- : 
 tiou must be an independent application for 
 puiiMisus mentioned in tliat section, and that an 
 ajiplication combining other purposes with these 
 purposes, may be rejected by a simple majority 
 vote: — IfelJ, also, that an ajiplicition under 
 S'.'ctioii ."5, may be rejected liy the council, 
 .ilthougli no formal by-law relating to the pur- 
 j) i.ses of the application is before the council, 
 and the meeting at which the rejection tnkes 
 place, has not been called for the speciiil pur- 
 piisc of considering sucii a by-law. I'er Mac- 
 lennan, J. A. — (^uiere, whether a township 
 comes within the Act. Uocisicm of Boyd, C, 
 15 0. I!. (i8(i, reversed. In ru Oakwood /liijh 
 Schnol Hoard ami the Township oJ Mariiwsn, IG 
 A. R. 87. 
 
 XII. MiSCELL.VNEOU.S CASES. 
 
 To a bill by a rural schoid section corporation 
 to compel the municipality to make good money 
 paid by the municipality to a person alleged not 
 to he the duly appointed oliicer of the corpora- 
 tion, the treasurer of the municipality is not a 
 proper party. School Trustees of the Towmhip 
 0/' Hamilton v. ^'eil, 28 Chy. 408.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Moneys appropriated for educational purposes 
 not protected by township treasurer's bond. 
 Mee TowiiMhip of Oakland v. Proper, 1 O. R. 
 330, p. 1332. 
 
 Under 40 Vict. c. 22 s. 11 (Que.) the superin- 
 tendent of education for the province of Quebec, 
 on an aiipeal to him from the decision of the 
 school commissioners of St. Valentin, ordered 
 that the school district of tlie municipality of St. 
 Valentin should be divided into two districts 
 with a school-liouse in each. The school com- 
 missioners by resolution subsequently decreed 
 the division, and a few days later, on a petition 
 beiii" presented by ratepayers protesting against 
 the division, they passed another resolution re- 
 fusing toentertain the petition. Lateron, with- 
 out having taken any steps to put into execution 
 the decision of the superintendent, they passed 
 another resolution declaring that the (listrict 
 should not be divided as ordered by the superin- 
 tendent, but should be reunited into one. In 
 answer to a pentmptory writ of mandamus 
 granted by the Superior Court ordering the 
 school coinmissioiiers to put into execution the 
 decision of the superintendent of education, the 
 school commissioners (respondents) contended 
 that they had acted on the decision by approv- 
 ing c)f it, and that as the law stood they had 
 power and authority to reunite the two districts 
 (m a petition of a miijority of the ratepayers, and 
 that their last resolution was valid until set 
 aside by an appeal to the superintendent: — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, that the cominissioners having acted under 
 the authority conferred upon them by Cons. 
 Slats. L. C. c. 15 ss. 31 and 33, and an ap- 
 (leal having been made to the superintendent of 
 education, his decision in the matter was final 
 (40 \'icl. e. 22 s. II ((,)ue.), and could only 
 be modilied by the superintendent himself on an 
 ap|)lication made to him under 33 Vict. c. 25 
 s. 7 (Que.) ; and, theiefore, tliat the peremptory 
 mandamus ordering the n spondents to execute 
 the superintendent's decision should issue. 
 Trembtayy. Valentin, 12 S. C. R. 546. 
 
 l!y the patent or grant of the township of 
 Cornwallis, in King Co., N. S. , made in 1761, 
 tour hundred acres of land were declared to be 
 " for the school." ]5y a subseipient grant from 
 th'j Crown in 17!H), the said lour hundred acres 
 were declared to be vested in tiie rector and 
 wardens liy the name of the Church of Saint 
 John, in the said township, and the rector and 
 wardens ot tlie said ciuuch for the time Ijeiiig 
 '•in special trust, to and for the use of one or 
 nioie school or schools, as may be deemed ne- 
 cissiuy liy the said trusties, lor the convenience 
 and bt^nelit of all the iidiabitants of the said 
 township of Cornwallis, and in trust that all 
 schools in said township furnished or supplied 
 ' with m.isters (jnalilied agi-ce;d)ly to the laws of 
 1 this province, and contiiicted with for a term 
 not less than one whole year, shall be entitled to 
 an equal share or projiortion of the rents and 
 profits arising from said school lands, provided 
 the masters or teachers thereof shall receive 
 and instruct, free of expense, such poor child- 
 ren as may he sent them by the said trustees." 
 The grantees took possession of the land men- 
 tioned in said grant, and they and their suc- 
 cessors in office have ever since remained in 
 possession of it, and until the year 1873 the 
 rents and profits arising from such land were 
 distributed among the schools of said town- 
 ship, and poor children sent by the trustees to, 
 and educated in, said schools according to the 
 terms of the trust. In 1873, however, the then 
 

 1735 
 
 QUEEN VICTORIA NIAGARA FALLS PARK. 
 
 1738 
 
 trvBtccs discontinued such distiilnitirm and 
 allowed the funds rcidizud from xaid lands to 
 accumulate, tlio reason allcjjcd tliurifor \)c\ug 
 that the schools of the township Ixul hcconie 
 BO numerous that the sum aiiproprinted to 
 each would he too small to be oi use, and ulso, 
 that under tiie free school ajstem all tlie poor 
 children of the townshif) were educated free 
 uf expense and tlie object for wliich such funds 
 had previously been supplied no longer existed. 
 The present defendants were investud with 
 tho said trust in IS7!', when the revenue of 
 the said lands had accuinuhitcd until tliey 
 amounted to over !iJI,'JO(). Sliortly after they 
 became such trustees it was determined to 
 build a school-house in a certain district in 
 said township with tlie money. A meeting of 
 the vestry ot tlie cluircli was held and a reso- 
 lution passed authorizing such school-iiouse to 
 bo built on Land leased from the churcii ; tlie 
 school was to lie non-sectarian, l)ut after school 
 hours any of tlie cliildren that wished could 
 receive instruction in the dnctrincH of tiie 
 Church of England. On a suit to restrain the 
 defendants from using the trust funds to build 
 such school-house and praying for an account: — 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the Supreme 
 Court of Nova Scotia, and restoring that of 
 tho court of first instance, that the trustees 
 had no discretion as to the ap]>lication of the 
 trust fuinls, but were l)ound to distribute tlicni 
 among all the schools of the township, which 
 would bo entitled to participate under the 
 terms of the trust, however wanting in utility 
 auch a disposition of said funds might be : — 
 Held, also, that the Attorney-General of the 
 province was the proper person to bring this 
 suit. — Held, per Strong J., that in interpreting 
 the trust, in order to explain the ap|iarent 
 repugnancy in the grant in providing that the 
 rents were to be distributed among one or more 
 schools, etc., and also among all the schools 
 in the township, the probable condition of tho 
 township, in respect to the number of schools 
 therein, at the time the grant was made, 
 coupled with the long continued usage which 
 has prevailed in the manner of administering 
 the trust, could be considered as a rule of 
 guidance for such interpretation : — Held, also, 
 per Strong J., that under the doctrine of cy- 
 pr6s, a reference might be made to the master, 
 to report a scheme for the future administration 
 ot the charity. AUorncy-Omeral of Kuva 
 Scotia V. Axforit, 13 S. C. IJ. 294. 
 
 The whole tendency of recent amendments of 
 the Education Acts has been to give the rural 
 school sections greater powers of self- regulation 
 and self-government, and the courts should not 
 be astute to interfere unless there has been a 
 plain violation of the statute, or a manifest 
 usurpation of jurisdiction, or a reckless disrc- 
 
 ?;ard of individual rights. This action was there- 
 ore dismissed, but without costs, as it was a 
 new point and the statute was not plainly ex- 
 pressed. Wallace v. Public School Trusteeit for 
 Union School Section Number Nine oj the Town- 
 ship o/Lobo, 11 O. R. 648.— Boyd. 
 
 Expropriation of roads for public woriis, 
 Hen lie Tn tit Valley Cu ml, " J!e H'aln- Sin,/," 
 awl " The lload to the. Wharf," 11 O. H. 087. 
 
 Having licjuor for sale near public works. Sec 
 BunUv. Coimee, 15 O. U. 710, p. 1003. 
 
 PUBLICATION. 
 
 I. Ok Award— .SVe Auhithation ami 
 AwAitn. 
 
 II. Ok Dkkamatoky Matthu— 5ce Dekama- 
 ■noN. 
 
 III. Ok By-laws — iVc, Municii-ai, CoRiniiA 
 
 TIONS. 
 
 IV. Oi"ENiN<i I'lini.icATioN — (SVe Opknim; 
 
 I't'ni.ic.vrioN. 
 
 V. Service by Puiii.kation— .9t'« Prac tick. 
 
 QUAKERS. 
 
 See Dorlaml v. Jonoi, 12 A. U. 043 ; 14 ,S. C 
 R. 39, p. 232. 
 
 QUALIFICATION. 
 
 I. Ok 1)i hectors ok Co.Mi'ANir.,s — S,. 
 
 COMI'ANV. 
 
 II. Of .lusTic'ES OK THE Peace — See .Irs- 
 
 TICE OK THE PeACE. 
 
 III. Of Memiieus ok Municii-al Counciu 
 
 — See MuMCiTAi. Coni'oRATiONa. 
 
 IV. Ok Members OK Paui.iament— SmPar- 
 
 LIAMK.NTARY ELECTIONS. 
 
 V. Of VoTEns--i'ee Parliamentary Elec- 
 
 tions. 
 
 QUARANTINE. 
 
 .See Husband and Wife. 
 
 QUASHINO. 
 
 I. Convictions — See Intoxicating Li- 
 quors—Justice OF THE Peach. 
 
 II. By-Laws — See Municipal Cobpoba- 
 
 TION3. 
 
 QUEBEC. 
 
 See Foreign Law. 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS. 
 
 See PfrriTioN of Right. 
 
 QUEEN VICTORIA NIAGARA FALLS 
 PARK. 
 
 EXPROPBIATION OF liAND FOR— /See CnoWH. 
 
' 
 
 ) AND WllE. 
 
 \. NIAGARA FALLS 
 lRK. 
 
 Und fob— -See Crown. 
 
 1737 
 
 QUIETING TITLES ACT. 
 
 1738 
 
 QUEEN'S COUNSEL. 
 
 SfC BAIUilSTKli-AT-LAW. 
 
 QUI TAM ACTION. 
 
 See Penal Actionh and Penaltieh. 
 
 QUIET ENJOYMENT. 
 
 .Vfc Covenants rnit Titi.k — IyAM>r,oiu) ami 
 'I'knani. 
 
 QUIETING TITLES ACT. 
 
 I. I'CTMKlN. 
 
 1 . (/rm ralh/, I ~'A~. 
 
 2. iSt rricc, 17.S7. 
 
 II. I'dSTINd AuVKllTISKlliiNT, l'',i~. 
 in. ICVIDENCK. 
 
 I. Ahsli-arl, 1738. 
 '_>. Olhf.r C'(/.«x, 173S. 
 
 IV. OlTSTANDINi: C-'r.AlMS, H.'iS. 
 
 I. Pk.titkin, 
 
 ]. (I'em rally. 
 
 Whore a petitioner uiiiler the Quieting Titles 
 Act has only an estate in fee in renminder, the 
 consent of the tcnimt for life must he olitained 
 before tlie petition ciin be Died. J'l; J'cllni, 8 P. 
 R. 470. -Blake. 
 
 A oontestiuit under the (Jiiieting Titles Act 
 nuist file a petition in hi.sown niiino before ii cer- 
 titiuati' Oiin issue in his favour, but he may use 
 on such petition, the evidence adilueed on the 
 jxitition m which ho was contestant. He Dun- 
 hiim, 8 P. R. 472.— Blake. 
 
 Parties to whom land has been conveyed after 
 the registration of the certificate of the filing of 
 the petition, and iwuding the investigation of 
 the title, must be sul'stituted as petitioners. /iV 
 Ciimmiii'j.t, 8 P. It. 47.'!. — Proudfoot. 
 
 Where pending the investigation of the title, 
 the petitioner laid out the haul in village lots and 
 registered a plan : — Hehl, that the petition must 
 be amended in accordance with the plan. Be 
 Morse 8 P. R. 47.5.— Blake. 
 
 2. Strrice. 
 
 In a proceeding by petition under the Quieting 
 Titles Act service on the official guardian is good 
 service upon infants who ai'e required to be 
 notified of the proceedings. A'e Murray, 13 I'. 
 R. 3G7.— Ferguson. 
 
 II. PosTiS(! Advertisement. 
 
 Where the advertisement in a quieting titles 
 proceeding was posted at another court-house 
 
 than that rcouired by (!. 0. Chy. 504 (Con. Kulo 
 102(1);— Held, that the irregularity might be 
 waived under H. S. (). (18H7) c. US, gs. 45, 46. 
 A'e JlaniH, 12 P. It. 4;iO. — Uoyd. 
 
 III. I'"VII)KN(E. 
 
 I . A liKlmel, 
 
 Registrars' alistracts nuist be continued to the 
 date of the (■(ititicate of title, /.'c VnmminaK. 
 8 P. H. 47:». Proudfoot. 
 
 Where in a iiotition under the (Quieting Titles 
 Act it was sh(!\\ii that the registrations on the 
 whole lot, <if Mhiili tlic laud in (lucstion formed 
 a part, nuniliorcd over .'idO, and tiiat it would 
 take six months and coil s!|(HI to prepare an ab- 
 stract :~ Ii< Id, that the abstract might be dis- 
 Jionsed with, if the atlidavit of a provincial 
 laml surveyor weio tiled, jiroving that he had 
 exaniiufd all llii' registrations on the lot, and 
 that only jorlain spcciticil n\iinbor» all'octod the 
 land in question. Hi Morsi (2), 8 P. U. 477.— 
 Blake. 
 
 2. OUia- OiAM. 
 
 Wlicrc till 10 was no evidence to shew that 
 infants had boon sorvid with a ilccree of fore- 
 closure, reserving to thorn a day to sh'iw cause 
 on attaining their majority, but it was shewn 
 that they had been sorv(«l with notice of pro- 
 ceedings under the (Quieting Titles Aet, proof 
 of service of the ilecree was dispensed with. 
 Jh Oikhrisl, 8 P. R. 472. -Blake. 
 
 Where a petitioner under the Quieting Titles 
 Act claimed title as devisee of certain land, but 
 the description of the land in the will was difTer- 
 ent to that of the land which he claimed : — Held, 
 that ho might establish a title by showing a niis- 
 dcscriptiou in the will. But whore a nusde- 
 scriptioa occurred in a deed : -Held, that the 
 petitioner had merely established an equity to 
 have the deed reformed, and that under the Act 
 the court could not declare the title as though 
 the deed had in fact been reformed. Re Cal- 
 lai/liuii, S P. R. 474.— Chy. 1). 
 
 When a petitioner under the Quieting Titles 
 Act claimed title through a vesting order made 
 upon a sale under a docioc in an administration 
 suit : — Held, under (Uinn r. I>oble, 15 Chy. 665, 
 that in tlio absence of jiroof to the contrary, the 
 ordei' should bo assumed to be regular, and that 
 it was unnecessary to give evidence shewing title. 
 Jie Mur^i; 8 P. 11. 47.">.- Blake. 
 
 See A'e Dunham, 8 P. R. 472, j). 1737. 
 
 IV. OuTSTANDisti Claims. 
 
 Where the title of a petitioner under the Quiet- 
 ing Titles Act was established except as to on 
 undivided one-fifth interest in the bare legal 
 estate, which appeared to bo outstanding in an 
 infant : — Held, such interest must be got in by 
 the petitioner, or be declared in the certificate 
 of title to be outstanding. Ke Raynerd, 8 P. R. 
 476.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Quivre, whether an order made by the referee 
 of titles barring the claims of an infant heir at 
 

 
 •H 
 
 im 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1740 
 
 law would have the oflpct nf divt'HtiiiK tho CHtato 
 of tho infant. Ih Shtinr. (\ (). It. .'M'i.— Iloyi). 
 
 Hoe Be Pdlrn, 8 I'. 1!. 470, p. 17.37. 
 
 QUO WARRANTO. 
 
 See MuNicn'Ai, Cohi'oha'iionh. 
 
 Where tho actual holder of an offici; is charged 
 with holding it ini]iro|iprly, (iiio wurrantd |iro- 
 cvcdinug on behalf of tiie (.Jiu't ii are tjio "idy 
 means l>y which it can he declari'd vacant. ( hn/i- 
 lin V. PiiliUc Srhoiil litianl of the Ton'ii of' WikkI- 
 stock, 16 O. H. 7;^8.-Strecl. 
 
 An appeal from n decisioii of the ("onit of 
 Qneen's Bench for Lower ('ai'iida, appeal nido 
 was quashed on motion for want of jiiii-dic- 
 tion, the proceei]inf,'N l)L'ing l)y <imo warranto as 
 to which there is no appeal liy tlie statute. 
 Wdlsit V. I/ef,niaii, U S. C. R. 7;'S. 
 
 See Ch't/ithi v. Pidilie f!<hoiil lltmnl of the 
 7'oivn o/ iVooditork; Ki (). K. 728, p. 1724. 
 
 RAOINO. 
 
 See Davi» v. Hnriil, 9 O. R. 4.1.-), p. 83.3. 
 
 BAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COM- 
 PANIES. 
 
 I. Powers OF hnMiNioN and Phovincial 
 LE(;isi.ATrKKs, 1741. 
 
 11. Raimvav Dkci.akki) a Work for the 
 Geneuai, Advantage of Canada, 
 1744. 
 
 III. Lands and their Valuation. 
 
 1. FiUnu I'liiiiK, 1745. 
 
 2. Lcmdi Tiikai. 
 
 (a) Ooreriiment Lands, 1746. 
 
 (b) InfanW Entute, 1747. 
 
 (c) Tenant for Life mid Eatnte. in 
 
 Remniniler, 1747. 
 
 3. Lamh Injur'wnsJy AJ'eeted, 1748. 
 
 4. l.aiuh Gvauled on Conditions. 
 
 (a) Erection of Slalions, 1751. 
 
 (b) Farm Crossings, 1752. 
 
 5. Other CttKts, 17 ")."}. 
 
 6. Order for Immediate Possetsion, 1757. 
 
 7. Compensation. 
 
 (a) Generally, 1758. 
 
 (b) Interest Allowed, 1762. 
 
 8. Reference and A ward. 
 
 (a) Submission, 1762. 
 
 (b) Desistment, 1762. 
 
 (c) Objections to Award, 1763. 
 
 (d) Costs, 1766. 
 
 (e) Other Cases, 1767. 
 
 9. Action for Wrowiful Taking, 1768. 
 10. Alienating Lands Taken for the 
 
 Purposes oj the Ra'dway, 1768. 
 
 1 1 . Ilesnminij Title to Lands Taken hi/ 
 Itaibmys, 1768. 
 
 IV. roNHTRICTIOS OF RaII.WAYH. 
 
 1, Commencement of Wurk, 1768. 
 
 2. Running on or Cruisim/ itiiilinin/^, 
 
 1760. 
 .3. J!rid!i(s and Sidiiniiis, 1770, 
 
 4. Fences, 1771. 
 
 5. Iliilis, 1773. 
 
 6. Farm ('rnssings, 1773. 
 
 7. Pd'kimi RiiUinii/ Froijs ~ Srr Si ii- 
 
 IIF,AI>'V. H, p. 1781. ■ 
 
 \'. Injcry to Pkhsonh and Ammai.m. 
 
 1. /h/ Ctil/iihiii Itt hi'ie.n Trains, \TiH. 
 
 2. liuiiniiiii l,'i rcincli/, 177<"). 
 
 3. At ( '((mi/hi/.i, 177.">. 
 
 4. On Tracks, 1778. 
 
 5. Sounding Whittle or Hell. 1770. 
 
 6. Difeclire Conslrurtion of Itwtdlnd, 
 
 1780. 
 
 7. Fences or Coles out of Hr/Kiir—Src 
 
 .St'itiiCAD IV. 4, 5, pp. 1771, 177;). 
 
 8. Packing /,'aihray Frogs, 1781. 
 
 0. (lel/imi On or Oil' Trains in Motiim, 
 
 1782. 
 
 10. Lialiilili/ for Injuries to Serranli, 
 
 1783.' 
 
 11. Animals Trcjxf^sing on Raihntyn, 
 
 178.^ 
 
 VI. FiKE KKOM KN(iINES, 1785. 
 
 VII. CAKRIAliE OF PaSSENiIERS AND TllKIR 
 Ll'lKiAllE. 
 
 1. Oovernme.nt Railways, 1789. 
 
 2. Pnssrngcr Tickets and Passes, 1790. 
 
 3. Liability for Luggage, 1790. 
 
 VIII. Carriaoe of Goods. 
 
 1. Liahililji as Carrieri or Ware- 
 
 housinieii, 1703. 
 
 2. Lialiitily Jkyond the Line, 1705. 
 .3. Other Cases, 1790. 
 
 IX. TrAKKK,' AliKANCiE.MENTS, 1798. 
 
 X. ARRANCiKMENTS WITH KXPRKiiS COM- 
 PANIES, 1799. 
 
 XI. Aruaniiementhwitii Telegraph Com- 
 panies, 1799. 
 
 XII. LiAiiii.iTY for Acts of Auknts, 1800. 
 
 XIII. Limitation of Actions, 1800. 
 
 XIV. Stock— .^ce Company. 
 XV. Directors, 1802. 
 
 XVI. Bonds and Bondholders. 
 
 1. Rv/ht of Bondholders to Register and 
 
 Vote, 1802. 
 
 2. Other Cases, 1804, 
 
 XVII. Aid to Railway Companies by Muni- 
 cipalities. 1806. 
 
 XVIII. Amalgamation of Railways, 1814. 
 
1740 
 
 Lnn<U Talvi lnj 
 
 I.WAVH. 
 
 r„rk, I'fiS. 
 
 Hniiiij y/i(//iic('y.<, 
 
 ,H, 1770. 
 
 73. 
 
 •'ro'lH - Sfr Si II- 
 H." 
 
 \M) Animm.h. 
 u Trniin, 17711 
 , 177.'). 
 
 r Uell. 1770. 
 
 710)1 «/ Itundhitl, 
 
 nl of l'( piiii—SfC 
 a, pp. 1771, 1771). 
 Front, 1781. 
 Tniiiin in MolUm, 
 
 tfitu to Senvnli, 
 
 liiiij on Ifailimy^, 
 
 i, 1785. 
 
 NdEKS .\ND THKIR 
 
 ■aiJH, 1789. 
 and Pa-ii^eK, 1790. 
 ijtKje, 1790. 
 
 Jarrkrt or Wart- 
 
 793. 
 
 ,7i(i thf Lint, 1705. 
 
 790. 
 
 lENTS, 1798. 
 
 TH KX1'RF,S.S CllM- 
 
 II TkleoiuphC<i«- 
 
 » OF AliENTS, 1800. 
 
 IONS, 1800. 
 
 ■lY. 
 
 )LDERS. 
 
 ?<;«)•.« to Regifter uiid 
 4. 
 
 lOMPASIES BY MCNI- 
 
 Railways, 1814. 
 
 174. 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY OOMPANIZa 
 
 1742 
 
 MX. Hah. WAYS IN IIamhokUwk.iveh, 1814. 
 
 X.\. iN.M'Nirl'KINH AdAINMT— .SV'-Imi NtTION, 
 
 XXI. MtscKi.i.ANKoi's Casks, ISl'i. 
 
 XXII. Sl-KCIAI, A(riH UKI.ATIMl It) I'AIITIOULAH 
 
 Kaii.way.s. 
 
 1. Cttnnila A/lfintir liailifay Cotnmny, 
 
 IHHt, 
 
 2. t'nnniln Cenlrtil I'ailirau Comiinny, 
 
 IHKt. 
 
 'S. Canitilii Sonlhirn llaUii'ny Cotiipany, 
 INKI. 
 
 4. ( 'd mill i<in I'dil fir lliiihrny Company, 
 
 18ltl. 
 
 5. lirie mid lluiun /''lilinti/ Cniii/uiu!/, 
 
 INK). 
 G. Onind ./iiiiiliun Iliiiliniy Cinninini/, 
 1H17. 
 O'riiiid Trunk Ituilwiiy Cdnt/iitny, 
 1817. 
 
 8. Midlmid Haihrny, 1817. 
 
 9. Northern Railway t'omiiany. IS 17. 
 
 10. Onlariii iind Sun// S/i'. Marir Itail- 
 
 iciiy CunijiHiiy, Is 17. 
 
 11. In/irvn/liinn/ llridije Cii. — Scr I.nteu- 
 
 NATIONAL I'lIlIIKiE CoMI'ANV. 
 
 XXIV. Tkamwav -6'ef Stheet ItAii.wAYs. 
 
 I. Towers of Dominion and rnoviNtiAL Leoi.s- 
 
 LATUKE.S. 
 
 Held, Armour, ,T., disauntiiig, tliat tlic timber 
 liconseH cliumcd l)y tlio plaintilT as liouiiHcu uf 
 the Ontario (loverniiit'iit wore subject to the rij^lit 
 of the Canada (/'entnil Railway Cipnii).iiiy ac- 
 quired before confederation to eoustruct their 
 road across the Cruwn lands over which the 
 licenses in (ptestion extended, and tliab the de- 
 fendants, aasignocs of the railway company, 
 were, tiiereforc, not liable in trespass for enter- 
 ing upon, and cutting the timber on the limits 
 in prosecution of the work of ))uilding said 
 railway. Foran v. Mcln/yre, 4'> Q. H. '_*88. — C^. 
 
 B. D. 
 
 Held, tliat the Canada Central railway ac(|uir- 
 ed under their charter granted by the .-^ct 19 & 
 20 Vict. c. 1 12, and subsecpient Acts relating 
 thereto passed prior to confederation the rigiit, 
 which was preserved by section 109 of tlie 1!. N. 
 A, Act, to enter on tiie Crown lands in the 
 province of Ontario on the line of the railway in- 
 cluded in a subsequent timber license granted to 
 the plaintiir, and to cut the tinilxr within six 
 rods of either side tiiereof, without any icstric- 
 tion as to obtaining the consent of the Lieuten- 
 ant-Oovernorin Council, livolli v. Mc/uliire, 31 
 
 C. I'. 183.— Osier. 
 
 Scnible, that in the case of railway companies 
 within its exclusive jurisdiction the Kuminioii 
 Parliament has the power to confer upon them 
 the riglit of constructing their lines through the 
 Crown lands of the several provinces through 
 which they may pass, without such consent of 
 the Licutenant-Uovernor in Council. Il>. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A., the legislation of the 
 Dominion Parliament forbidding the defendants 
 oontracting against liability for their own negli- 
 
 ffoiu'c is not ultra vins. for/f/v. Ornnd Trunk 
 I!, ir, '•„. .l/„)7o)iv. (Irnnd Trunk H. If. Co., 
 10 A. U. 1(V.'. 
 
 The di'frndants, a -lilwiy compatiy inrnrpo- 
 ratcd by an Act of llic I'ai ha;iienl of ( '"ill iihi ami 
 subject to the pKiviMioiiH ( inoiig othcr.ti of 
 Mcction 'J7 of the H.iilway Ait of Cuiada, 
 built thiir road through land, in th.' I'lo- 
 
 vince of Ontario, the li f wliwh w.ih in tho 
 
 Crown but over whii^h the idiiintillH hail for 
 thicc MiiciM'H.sivc years hidd tiiiibci- liccn.-n's is>iu<l 
 by till' I'rovinciaKlovciniiiriit. 'I'lif-c liieiiscs, 
 giving till' right to cut timber and cxilii-.ivo 
 piisNCNsiiiii in the uhuuI fnriii, wiic ibitcd res- 
 iii'i'tivcly the .'ith of .fuly. ISH:t, the Hitli of 
 |)i('ciiilic'r, ISHl, and the" 'Jllml of .liil\ l>SH."). 
 and caili cxti'iided from its date to the : h of 
 the next April. The defi'iidaiits eiitiiil upon 
 the limits in iniestinn about the ciid of the year 
 1.S84 and the road was comiiletcd in .Inly, iHSIi. 
 Ill biiil'ling the road the dcfindaiits cut ilowii 
 timber mi the line and also Imtli within ainl mit- 
 side of till' six rod belt nii'iiti'iii'd in tlie fta- 
 tute. No timber was rut aftii I iiTiiMber, Iss,"), 
 The plaintiU's brought this acliDii on the Otli of 
 September, ISHti, to rerover ilaniiims for the 
 timber lilt. It was adniitted that as to timber 
 cut out.side the six rod belts, they weri' entitled 
 to recover, but it was contenikd tli;it as to tim- 
 ber cut on the line and within tlmse bi'lts the 
 action was barred. The defendants had tiled 
 their plan and book of reference but they had 
 not taken any of the statutory stejis to ncipiiro 
 tho interest of the plaintifl's :— Held, per Street 
 .r. (15 O. R. 7.13), that under the subsectioii 12 
 R. S. C. c. 109, s. 0, the timber cut within tho 
 six rod limit became tho property of the rail- 
 way, and that the loss of the trees was (lama','e 
 or injury sustained by the iihiintiU's by " lea.si.ii 
 of the railw.iy," under section '.'7 of H. S. ('. 
 c. 109, and the action was therefore bariiil by 
 that seclion by reason of its not having been 
 brought within the six mnntlis: - Held, in the 
 (Joint of Appeal, perllagarty ('..I. O. , and Osier 
 .1. A., that thi; d.image to the timber on the lino 
 and within tlie six rod belts was damage " sus- 
 tained liy reason of the railway" within the mean- 
 ing of section '27 of 1!. ,S. C. c. 100, and that that 
 section was intra vires the Dominion Parliament. 
 That the plaintitl's were entitled to damages for 
 the illegal occupation of the limits and as ciinse- 
 iiiient thereon to damages for all injury done 
 (luring the illegal occupation ; but that tho 
 plaintilTs had no title to the limits sullicient to 
 maintain an action, either on legal or e(piitable 
 principles, in the intervals between the licenses. 
 That, therefore, the right of action was barred 
 except as to damages sustained during the cur- 
 rency of the last license, but was saved us to 
 those by virtue of the occupation being illegal 
 up to the 30th of April, 1880, less than six 
 months before action; per Hurtmi .1. .\., and 
 Maclennan ,J. A., that the section was ultra 
 vires the Dominiim Parliament as being an un- 
 necessary interference with property and civil 
 rights within the Province, but that even if 
 valid would not avail for the protection of the 
 defendants as they were mere trespassers ; per 
 Maclennan .J. A., that oven if the section were 
 valid and applied, the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 recover all the damages, the trespass having 
 been a continuous uninterrupted one and the 
 plaintiff's right of renewal of their licenses being 
 
mS 
 
 BAILWATS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES 
 
 17M 
 
 i 
 
 ■uffi(di;iit to ciiablu them to recover notwith- 
 Btaiidinn llie intervuls between them. McArlhiir 
 V. Aoiilinn I'urijii: Jiinrlion I!i/., 17 A. R. 8(). 
 
 Under tlie Hritisli North Anierieiv Act, 18C7, 
 8. 108 re.ul in ennneution witli the tliird schedule 
 thereto, all railways hclonginj; to the province 
 of Nova •Scotia, including the railway in suit, 
 passed to and liecame vested on the 1st of July, 
 1SU7, in the Dominion of Canada; hut not for 
 any larger interest therein tlian at tliat date 
 belonged to the province. Tlio railway in suit 
 l)eing at the date of the statutory transfer sub- 
 ject to an oliligation on the pait of tlie pro- 
 vincial government, conlirnicd by SO Vict. 
 c. 30 (N. S. ), to cntiM' into a trallic ar- 
 rangeinen! witli the respondent company, the 
 Dominion govcrmnent, in ))UisMauce of that 
 obligation entered into a further agreement 
 relating tliereto, of tlie "J^iid of Sc|ileMiber, 
 1871 :— QuaMo, wlietiier it was idtra vires the 
 Dominion pnrliau.ent by an enactjncnt to tluit 
 clTect to extingui.sli the riglits of tlie respondent 
 com|iany under the said agrccuiiMit. lint; — 
 Held, tiiat ;17 Vict. c. Hi (i)om.), did not upon 
 its true construction, purport si to do. And 
 although it autluni/ed a trani-fci- of the railway 
 to tile a|ipellanl, it cliil not enact sucli traniifer in 
 derogaticii of the rcspundents' rights under the 
 agreement of the 2'2nd of Scptendier, IH"!, oi' 
 otherwise. Wi^lirnt'ouiitlcali. W'.Co.x. Wiiiil- 
 sor anil AiiiKijiolU J{. II'. Co., 7 Ajip. Cas. 178. 
 
 Tlie jilaintiir, being the luddei' of a debenture 
 issued by the B. .t O. H. \V. Co. under 2:{ 
 Vict. c. 10!). sued tlieiion. liy the 27 Viet. e. 
 57, the r.-dlway company were authorized to 
 issue [neferential boncls, and to execute a mort- 
 gage to a trustee to secure payment thereof. 
 The railwiiy, being at the time of confederation 
 a local work, the .SI Vict. e. 44 (Out. ), was 
 passed, which recited that the tr\lstee was in 
 pos.se.ssion and about to fori'clo.se the mortgage, 
 and anionyst other things, <lireeted tliat the ile- 
 benturcs (therein called ordinary bonds) should 
 lie converted into stock at a certain rate on the 
 dollar ; and that the holders thereof should have 
 no other claim on the company than for conver- 
 sion of their debentures into stock. 15y the 41 
 Viet. c. 'M (Dom.), the I!. &, O. liailway C'o. and 
 the defcMidant company were amalgamated. 'J"ho 
 defiiiihints set up that their liability on the de- 
 benUires in (piestinn was txlinguished by the 
 31 Vict. e. 44 (Out.), and that they were ready 
 and willing to take the debentures in exchange 
 for reduced stock thereunder. 1'hird replica- 
 tion that the Act was not binding because it was 
 a private Act, and the plaintill' was not named 
 therein, nor a petitioner therefor, nor were his 
 rights specially taken away thereby. Fourth 
 replication, that the Act was ultra vires, because 
 the debenture was pay.dile in London, Kngland, 
 and was there domiciliated, and the holder re- 
 sided there at the time of the passing of the 
 Act, beyond the jurisdiction of the Ontario 
 legislature : -Held, on demurrer, third replica- 
 tion bad ; for, though the Ontario Act was in the 
 nature of a private Act, it aniliciently r'"ferretl 
 to the plaintiir by referring to the cltt.ss of bond- 
 holders to which he belonged, and that he was 
 therefore bound thereby : —ICeld, also, fourth 
 replication bad, for the local legislatures were 
 not restricted by the term "property and civil 
 rights ill the province" to legislation respecting 
 
 bonds hold therein, and that where debts or other 
 obligations are authorized to be contracted under 
 a local Act, passed in relation to a matter within 
 the power of the local legislature, such debts 
 may be dealt with by subserpient Acts of the 
 ^anielegislaturu, notwithstanding that by a fiction 
 of law they may be domiciled out of the pro- 
 vince. Jones V. Canada Central Ji. W. Co., 43 
 Q. H. 250.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that the Grand Junction Railway being 
 wholly within the province of Ontario, the Do- 
 minion p irliament had no power, undjr the IS. 
 N. A. Act, to incorporate the company without 
 expressly declaring the work to be one for the 
 gcuiral advantage of Canada or of two or nuire 
 of the province. AV (/rand Jiiiiclinn Ita'lway 
 V. Coniitii (,f I'tlerhoniiKih, (> A. R. 339. See 
 ' S. <:, 4.-. Q. 15. 302; 8 S.'C. R. 70. 
 
 See MoiiUioiise. v. (Irmid Trunk I!. W. Co., 8 
 
 A. I!. (i37, 1). 1781 ; Xorvell v. ('(iiidda Sunlherii 
 
 n. ir. Cii., A. R. 310, p. 170."i; Attorncij- 
 
 1 (iciiirid oj ISrilish Coliimh'nt v. Alloniiy-O'ewral 
 
 ' of Canada, 14 App. Cas. 205, j). 31 1. 
 
 .S(?e also Subhead II., infra. 
 
 1 1. Raii.wav.s DKcr.ARKi) A WoiiK Koii riiK Ckn- 
 
 KliAL AllVASTACK OK Ca.NADA. 
 
 Land was ex|)ropriatcd by the defendants in 
 l87(i, and |iroceediiigs to olitaiii compen.sation 
 therefor were begun in I88L (hi the •_'5tli .May, 
 1883, the defendants' railway became by statute 
 a jlominioii road having jireviously been an On- 
 tario road : — Hehl, that the procedure provided 
 by the Domini<m Consolidated Railway Act, 1879, 
 applied to the proceedings, and therefore that an 
 appeal under the provisions of tlie Keviacil 
 Ontario Itailway Act could not be prosecuted. 
 Darlinii v. Midland li. W. Co. , 1 1 1'. R. 32. -Hoyd. 
 
 In an ajiplicition for an injunction to restrain 
 the defendants, who were incorpor.itcd by Sta- 
 tutes of the Ontario Legislature, from applying 
 to a ccninty judge for a warrant for possession 
 of certain lands required by them, and licing 
 expropriated liy them under the provisions of 
 the Ontario Railway Act, on the ground that 
 the defendants' railway had lieeu declared a 
 work for the general advantage of Canada, 
 and that no notice of expropriation had lieen 
 served ns reipiireil by the provisions of the 
 Ontirio Railway Act: — Held, under the circum- 
 stances of this case, and following ('Icgg r. The 
 (jlr.ind Trnnk Railway Co., 10 O. R. at p. 713; 
 aiul Darling >'. Tlie Midland Itailway Co., 11 P. 
 R. 32 ; that the defendants were no longer 
 within the <iperation of the Ontario .Statutes: 
 Held also, that a noti<'e re((uiring the lands given 
 under the Dominion Railway Act, Mas not siitK- 
 cient notice nndt^r the I'rovincial Itailway Act. 
 liarhi'uii v. <SV. Cntluirines and Nia/ara Ciiilral 
 If. W. Co., 15 0. R. 580.— Fergusoii. 
 
 A rail. .ay company, incorporated by an Act 
 of tlie Ontario legislature, was therchy author- 
 ized to construct, ecjuip, and operate a railway, 
 between certain points. IJy an Act of the Domi- 
 nion Parliament the (iovernor-in-Council was 
 authorized to grant a subsidy to the coinpaiiy ; 
 and by another Act of the Dominion Parliament 
 the conijiauy's railway was declared to be a work 
 for the general advantage of Canada, and the 
 
1744 
 
 1746 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1748 
 
 A'here debts or other 
 be coiitrncted under 
 n t<> a matter within 
 islatiire, sucli debts 
 e(|uent Acts of the 
 dingthat by a fiction 
 cd out of tlie pro- 
 ittral R. ir. Co., 46 
 
 ction Railway being 
 of Oiitcirio, the l)o- 
 powiT, und'.-r tlie JJ. 
 lie company without 
 k to be one for tlic 
 a ()!■ of two or niori; 
 (/ ,/iiiicliiiii I'ailinay 
 
 <> A. It. 3:W. See 
 
 R. 7(i. 
 
 Tniid- I,'. W. Co., H 
 
 I V. Citiiftdn Soiilhrrii 
 
 p. 1 "•)."> ; Atlorimi- 
 
 V. Alloni'y-Ciwrai 
 
 »-), p. ;iu. 
 
 II., infra. 
 
 WoHK K()HTIIE(5kN- 
 OK (!.\N.Vl)A. 
 
 y the dofeiidants in 
 obtain compensation 
 . (Jn the L'otii May, 
 ay became; liy statuti; 
 cviou.sly liecn an On- 
 e piocedui'c piovided 
 cd Railway Act, 1S79, 
 and thurei'oi'e tliat an 
 ons of llie Revised 
 1 not 1)0 piosecutetl. 
 D.,nl'.R.32.— Royd. 
 
 injunction to restrain 
 incorporated liy Sta- 
 lature, from applying 
 arrant for po.ssession 
 l)y tlu'ni, and being 
 kr the provisions of 
 , on the j^ronnd that 
 lad l)ecu declared ii 
 Ivantiigo of ('anada, 
 propriaticni had l)cen 
 le provisions of the 
 dd, under the circum- 
 dlowing ('logg i: The 
 , 10 (►. Ii. at p. 713; 
 nl Kailway Co., II 1'. 
 ants were nr) longer 
 he Ontario Statutes: 
 [uiring the lands given 
 ■ay Act, w as not frntH- 
 ivincial I'.ailway Act. 
 and Niajnrit CiiUral 
 -Ferguson. 
 
 icorporated l)y an Act 
 was tiierel)y author- 
 ,nd operate a railway, 
 Jy an Act of the Domi- 
 ■ernor-in-Council was 
 sidy to tiio company ; 
 Dominion Parliament 
 3 declared to be a work 
 of Canada, and the 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 company was authorised to build a branch line. 
 No furtlicr powers of any kind were conferred 
 upon the company by the Dominion Parliament : 
 — Held, that the effect of the declaration that 
 the railway was a work for the general advan- 
 tage of Canada was to bring it under the exclu- 
 sive legislative authority of the parliament of 
 Canada, but that the Acts of the Ontario legisla- 
 ture, previously passed, were in no way affected ; 
 that tiie railway in question was not one "con- 
 structed or to be constructed under tlie author- 
 ity of any Act passed by the parliament of 
 ':'anada" (see R. S. C. c. 100 s. 3 ) ; and there- 
 fore sections 4 to 39 of R. S. C. c. 109 did not 
 apply ''> it ; and a motion to a judge of the 
 Hiuli Court under section 8 for a warrant of pos- 
 session of certain lands was refused. J{t' SI. 
 ('athariui'H nwl Nimjarn Ceiifni/, Jl. W. Co. 
 and liarlfaxi, 15 O. R. 583. — Street. 
 
 Tlie defendants, who were originally incorpo- 
 rated under an Ontario Act, gave notice of their 
 intention to expropriate certain lai.ils, and also 
 executed the usual bond, wliich was duly allowed 
 by the County Judge, and possession taken liy 
 thein. .Sui)se(|uently, tiio Act 51 Vict. e. 78 
 (I)oin.) was passed, bringing the r.iiiway under 
 the legislative authority of the Dominion, and 
 incorporating the provisions of the Dominion 
 Uailway Act as to expropriation of lands, exce))t 
 whore inconsistent with tlie Ontai-io Act, but 
 ratifying all acts already done in tiiat regard. 
 Afterwards the arbitrators who had been ap- 
 pointed in the matter of tlie above hiiuls to give 
 tlie compensation therefor, gave notice of inten- 
 tion to proceed witli the arbitration, iinmcdiately 
 after which tlie defendants gave notice of do- 
 sistnient, and tlien a new notice of intention to 
 expropriate the same with other lands, aiidsnl)- 
 scquently .another notice specifying tlie original 
 land only: — Held, that the notice of desistment 
 served avoided the original bond, and the de- 
 fendants must now give security by deposit of 
 money in a bank instead of a bond, that bi'ing 
 tlie mode of giving siciuity under the I toiiiinion 
 Railway Act, and unless tliey did so, tlie plain- 
 tiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the 
 defendants from using the laiicl. Xihnn v. 
 Si. Cdlliariiict (iiid NUujitya I'enlrttI 11. IT. Co., 
 Ki O. R. 459.— Rcdiertson. 
 
 Part 1. of the R. S. C. c. 109, does not apiily 
 to the applicants, a company incorporated under 
 a loc;il Act, 'fi Vict. c. 82 (Out.), tiiongli under 
 Dominion control, as being a railway for the 
 general advantage of Canada, it being only 
 applicable to railways coiistriicte<l or to be con- i 
 8tiu<'ted under the autlioritv of a Doininion Act. l 
 Tiitonio lielt l.iiiv II. W. (\,. v. I.ivuliv, 19 0. 
 R. (i07.— Rose. 
 
 f<eeCI>n,i\'. Criiiid Tniid- A'. IV. Cn., 10 O. 
 
 R. 708, 713, p. 1781 ; /,'(' (1, -111111 J,ii,rl!i,u. n. W. 
 
 Co. V. CiHiitly of Ptt'iihotoiiiih, G A. I!. ,339, p. 
 
 1807. ' - 
 
 III, Lands ani> tiikii: Vai.i'aiion. 
 1. Filiiiij l'laii-1. 
 
 See KiiinHfDii ,<■ Punhrok-' It. IT. Co. v. 
 Murphji, 17 S, C. R. 5S'2, p. 17."><>; Oiilario mid 
 Saidl. Sle. Mnrie U. W. C >. v. Camidinn i'ndjic 
 R. W. Co., 14 O. R. 432, p. 1709; Cori,omllon of 
 Parkdale v. We.it, 12 App. Cas. 002, p. 1757. 
 110 
 
 2. Lmid." Taken. 
 
 (.i) Corcrnmenl Lands. 
 
 Ry section 4 of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112, the 
 clauso-, amongst others, of the Railway Clauses 
 Coiisoliilatioii Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 51, relating 
 to lands were incorporated therewith, whereby 
 the com|iany were cmpowereil to enter upon the 
 crown lands on the line of their railway, and to 
 fell and remove the trees standing thereon, etc. 
 I5y .section 8 of the Ki Vict. i;. 109, the possession 
 of such lands was not to be taken without the 
 consent of the (iovermir in Council, but it was 
 expressly provideil lliat this was not to limit or 
 all'cct the |)Owcis given by the sp(!cial Act : — 
 Held, tliit the last n oncd proviso shewed that 
 section 8 w.is not to appl.V to this comp:vqy. 
 DooHi V. Mcl'ilnie, 31 C. I'.' I83.-C.P. D. 
 
 The t")ntaiici, .Sinicoe, and Huron Rjiilway 
 Company (afterwards changed to "The North- 
 ern Raihv.iy of Canada "l, in the course of tho 
 constriutioii of their mad way, acting in assumed 
 and allcLicd jmrsnancc of the powers conferred 
 on the conipiny by its charter, entered upon 
 and took posKcssi.>ii of cLitain governiiient lands 
 held by tlie priiiri|ial otliiers of Her Majesty's 
 ordnance for ordniiiicc purposes, and proceeded 
 to construct their mid tliereoii. Afterwards 
 iiigoti:itions were o])pn('d between the company 
 anil the; prinrtjid ntliciTs for acipiiriiig such 
 right of way, in the conrse of which numerous 
 litters passed lictween the ]iarties and between 
 the several de|i;ntini'iits roniiccted with tho 
 ordnani'e departniciit, fioii' which it appeared 
 that tin; jiartics cuiocrncd had arrived at the 
 coiiclnsion that the cunipany were acting with- 
 in tlii'ir stalntin-y powiTs, and that .all the 
 department cniiid rcipiirc was compensatiiui for 
 the land taken. SiiliscquiMitly all these lands 
 were, by tile Imperial (iovernnient ceded to the 
 governinent of Cainda, and in the year 1875 it 
 Wi- 1 ascirlaincd tint the sum for which the 
 govermni lit held a lien iip:in the mad amounted 
 to about l.'()00,(i;iO ; and l>y an Act of the; legis- 
 lature of that year that claim was compromised 
 by the govcrn'niciit for CIOO.OOO sterling wdiich 
 was |iaid. In the year I8,'>(i or 18.". ihis company 
 agreed with tlie'firaiid Trunk Railway Com- 
 pany for the use of a iiortini of this land for the 
 purpo.ses of tin; line of the latter company, who 
 it was shewn had eiiterei! upon and continued 
 in the use of this land until 1879. when the 
 Credit Valley Itaihvay Company, with a view of 
 obttiiiiiiig an entrance into the city of Toronto, 
 entered upon this tract of land, and were pro- 
 ceeding to construct their line of road thereon. 
 Cpniiabill tiled by the Crand Trunk liailway 
 Company an interlocntory injunction was grant- 
 ed to restrain the farther coiistriii;tion of tho 
 Credit Valley Railway, until the hearing, when 
 the injunction was made perpetual, the court 
 being of o))iiiion that the Northern Kailway 
 Company, under their dealings with the board 
 of ordnance, and under the various statutory cn- 
 aelnients aiipearingin the case, had acnuiredan 
 absolute title to the hind in ipiestion, free from 
 any lien in respect thereof, drand Trunk If. 
 \y. Co. V. Credit Vuilni II. II'. Co., 27 Chy. 
 232. Proudfoot. 
 
 Taschereau J. was of opinion that the award 
 in this case included comiiensation for the 
 beach lying in front of plaintiff's property, which 
 
1747 
 
 BAILWA7S AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 17tt 
 
 i 
 
 belones to the Crown, and, for tliat reason 
 Bhotild be set aside. Biiinoitelle v. No7-lh Shore 
 R. \V. Co., 17 S. C. R. 303. 
 
 See Foran v. Mclnti/re, 4r) Q. B. 288, p. 1741 ; 
 Bmlh V. Afclnti/re, 31 C. P. 183, p. 1741 ; At- 
 torneyOeneral V. Midland R. W., » 0. R. 511, 
 p. 1755 ; McArthur v. Northern A Pacific June- 
 tion R. W. Co., 15 0. R. 7.33 ; 17 A. R. 86, p. 1743. 
 
 (b) Infant's Estate. 
 
 The mother of infant children, resident with 
 her, being entitled to a third undivided intei'est 
 in the land, they owning tlie residue, l)y deed 
 agreed with a railway company, in consideration 
 of an extension liy them of tlieir line of railway 
 from E. to P., and for one dollar to grant to 
 them in fee the ri>;ht of way "tlu'ough my land 
 in P., consisting of such purtion of lots eigliteen 
 and nineteen as may lie required to carry tlie 
 railway across said lots, " and conveyed to tliem 
 accordingly. At tlie time of the conveyance slie 
 hod not been appointed guardian lo her chil- 
 dren : — Held, tliat under the Railway Act of 
 1868 (31 Vict. c. 08. s. 9, sub-ss. 3, 9, Doni.), 
 her deed barred the children's interest in the 
 land as well as her own, and that they were 
 therefore not entitled to compensation from the 
 company. Diinlop v. Canada Central R. 11'. 
 Co., 45 Q. B. 74. -Q. B. D. 
 
 See Re Dolsen, 13 P. R. 84, p. 1748. 
 
 (c) Tenant fur Life and Estate in Remainder. 
 
 A railway company paid to tenants for life the 
 full price of tlie land conveyed by them to the 
 company for their line of railway, and on the 
 cesser of the life estate the parties entitled in re- 
 mainder filed a liill stating that the raihv.ay com- 
 pany assnniec to purcliase the lands fo"- t!vj '.'.f^\ii, 
 of way ; that the comiiany alleged th.it they hail 
 paid the full oonsiileration fur tlie land to the 
 tenants for life ; submitting that even if the cnm- 
 pany did make such payment tliey did so in their 
 own wrong, and asking for payment of tiie 
 plaintiffs' share of the purchase money : — Held, 
 that the statement that tlie company "alleg- 
 ed" that the purcliase money w.'is all paid to the 
 vendors was not such a jiositive statement of 
 the fact of jiayiiient to the tenants for life as to 
 make them proper parties to the liill, and a de- 
 murrer was allowed on this ground. ()n:ifon v. 
 Grand Trunk It. II'. Co., 28 thy. 428.— Spragge. 
 
 An " action for money had and received will 
 lie wherever a certain amount of money belong- 
 ing to one person has improperly come to the 
 hands of another. " Therefore, where a railway 
 conpany jiaid to the executors of a tenant for 
 life the sum payable for the fee simple of lands 
 taken by the company for the purposes of their 
 road and subseipiently the remainderm.an fileil a 
 bill against the company and the represeiitatives 
 of the tenant for life, seeking to obtain payment 
 from the company of the proportion of purchase 
 money payable to the reinaindernian : — Held, 
 that the executors were properly made parties 
 with a view to the conipany obt lining relief over 
 against them in the event of the comp.iny being 
 compelled to make good the money in the (irst 
 instance, and a demurrer by the executors was 
 overruled with costs, on the ground that the 
 
 company were entitled to a remedy over against 
 them for the amount overpaid them, and on the 
 additional grounil that the bill alleged all facts 
 necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to a direct de- 
 cree .against them, although the bill was not 
 framed with a view to a direct remedy against 
 the executors ; for " the payment being made by 
 the company to the executors * * * of money 
 to a proportion of which the plaintiffs were en- 
 titled, and the payment being made without the 
 authority of the plaintiffs it became money had 
 and received by the executors to the use of the 
 plaintiffs." .S'. C. lb. 431.— .Spragge. 
 
 Under the Railway Act, C. S. C. c. 66, s. 11, 
 sub-s. 1, as interpreted and explained by 24 
 Vict. c. 17, s. 1, a tenant for life had power to 
 convey the fee to a railway company, but had 
 no power to receive the purcliase money ; ami, 
 therefore, a railway company which took a con- 
 veyance in fee from a tenant for life and paid 
 her the puichiise money, remained responsible 
 for the payment. The meaning of sub-section 
 22 of section 1 1 is that the money value of the 
 land is converted into a piece of real estate, 
 which the railway company holds for the 
 owner of the land in place of which it stands, 
 and that the estates in the land existing at 
 the time the land is taken become estates in 
 the compensation instead ; and upon the tenant 
 for life, in this ca.se, conveying the fee, she 
 became tenant for life in the compensation, and 
 those entitled to the inheritance to the land 
 became entitled to the reversion in fee in the 
 compensation as against the railway comiiaiiy ; 
 and the Statute of Limitations did not bes.'in 
 to run against them till the death of the tenant 
 for life. Young v. Midland R. W. Co., 16 O. R. 
 738.— Street. 
 
 The tenant for life conveyed to the railway 
 conipany in 1871. Thepersoi> entitled to tlie re- 
 version .\,l<.^. !'•" "f" voi,ttte ilied in 1871 intes- 
 tate, and I. H. V., his .sole '.eiress-at-law, died in 
 1S84, leaving a will, in >• nich she devised to the 
 plaintiff a .specific pared of hind, inclu<liii!,' the 
 part conveyed to the r: ilway company : — Iliild, 
 that this will did not paso t-* the plaintiff the right 
 to receive tlie oomjiensation iiioney, and that as 
 to it I. H. Y. died intestate and it descended to 
 her lieirs-atlaw, of whom the phiintiff was one ; 
 and the plaintiff was allowed to amend by aildinj; 
 the other heirsat-law as parties. lb. 
 
 Where land was conveyed to C. D. for life 
 witli reniiiin<ler to her diihlren, and 0. D. dur- 
 ing tlic infancy of her children agreed to sell 
 and convey tlu^ land to a railw.iy company for 
 the purposes of its railway : - Held, that C. U., 
 notwithstanding the provisions of section 3() ef 
 the Railway Act of Canada, 51 V'i(!t, c. 21), had 
 no right in law to sell ; to get such a right an 
 order of a judge under sectiiin 137 was reciiiired; 
 and where the proceeding was entirely for the 
 benefit of the railway conipany, and no factious 
 opposition was raised by anyone, the coiii|iaiiy 
 should pay the costs of the order as piirt of tlio 
 price of the land. I!< Doh,/,, 13 V. R. 84-Ho.vd. 
 
 See Wilxnn v. Orahttm, (2), 13 O. R. 001. p. S'lli. 
 
 3. Landt Injuriouxlji Affected. 
 
 The plaintiff In his statement of claim clainieil 
 damages from vhe defendants for " unlawf ully> 
 
 \ 
 
174S 
 
 nedy over against 
 them, and on the 
 
 alleged all facts 
 tfa to a direct de- 
 the bill was not 
 t remedy against 
 ent being made by 
 * * * of money 
 )iaintiffs were en- 
 niade without the 
 ecanie money had 
 
 to the use of the 
 >nigge. 
 
 S. C. c. 66, 8. 11, 
 explained by 24 
 life had power to 
 onipany, but had 
 iliiise money ; and, 
 wliicli took a con- 
 ; for life and paid 
 laincd rosponsil)le 
 iug of sub-section 
 loney value of the 
 ;ce of real estate, 
 ly holds for tlie 
 ■ which it stands, 
 land existing at 
 become estates in 
 [id upon the tenant 
 ying the fee, she 
 compensation, and 
 itance to the land 
 rsion in fee in the 
 railway company ; 
 ions did not liegin 
 leatli of the tenant 
 R. ir. Co., 16 0. R. 
 
 ^ed to the railway 
 ' entitled to the re- 
 licil in 1871 intes- 
 re»s-at-law, ilicd in 
 1 sliedcvi.scd totlie 
 hinil, includint; the 
 ! company : — Ifelil, 
 ic plaintiirtlic riijht 
 iiioiiey, and that as 
 x\\\\ it descended to 
 e phiintiff was one ; 
 to amend by adding 
 •ties. lb. 
 
 id to C. D. for life 
 en, and C. D. dur- 
 dt Ml agreed to sell 
 lilw.i" company for 
 Held, thatC. U., 
 :)ns (if section 3() of 
 r>l Vict. c. •2'.t, had 
 ;et such a right an 
 in VXl was rciiiiireil: 
 was entirely for tlie 
 my, and no factious 
 yone, tlie company 
 order as part of tlio 
 , V.\\\ H. >S4-I5o.vil. 
 
 13 0. H. 001. p. «!•<)' 
 
 /// AffiVtcd. 
 
 ent of claim clainieiii 
 
 its for " unlawfully. 
 
 1749 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 175(X 
 
 I 
 
 negligently and wiongfuUy " depressing certain 
 streets iu a town and thereby making it incon- 
 venient and almost impossible for persons to 
 approach the plaintiff's store for business ; also 
 for, in like manner, blocking them up and ren- 
 dering them almost impassable in the neighbour- 
 hood of the plaintiff's store, and thereby "neg- 
 ligently, unlawfully, and wrongfully, "preventing 
 customers or others coming thereto, and almost 
 entirely destroying the plaintiff 's business. The 
 statement further claimed that if the depressing 
 and blocking up should be found to be lawful, a 
 mandamus sliould be granted re(juiringthe defen- 
 dants to proceed to arbitrate to ascertain the j 
 compensation payable to plaintiff; or that it be ; 
 referred to the proper officer to ascertain and 
 state such compensation: — Held, on demurrer, 
 that the statement of claim was suthcient ; for it 
 alleged that the work was negligently done, and 
 this gave a cause of action, even though the work ! 
 itself might be lawful. Qiuere, whether a man- 
 damus would be granted ; for if the plaintiff was 
 entitled to compensation the proper remedy 
 would apparently be by reference to the proper 
 officer, as asked by way of alternative relief, 
 also whether it is necessary to allege that de- 
 fendants' railway touches or takes a poitioa of 
 plaintiff's land; and whether also, under the 
 Itailwiiy Acts, defendants are liabhi to make 
 conipunsation except for lands taken. As to 
 the latter points, as the judgment could not be 
 reviewed until alter the trial they were en- 
 larged before the judge thereat. (JiiiUiuu)i v. 
 Caniuki Soiilhern It. W. Co., U. R. 507. — Itose. 
 
 The appellants made a railway upon the f<)re 
 shore of a tidal and navigable river by means of 
 an embankment extending along the entire 
 length of the respondents' frontage, cutting off 
 all access to the water from the respondents' 
 land except through (me opening left in the said 
 embankment and another opening just outside 
 the respondents' boundary ; — Held, allirniing 
 ri(m V. North Shoie It. \V. Co.. 14 S. C. 1!. 
 677, that by the French law prevailing in Lower 
 Canada, the respondents as ri|>arian (UViiers had 
 the same rights of acci.< it .soiiie as they wiuild 
 have had if the river had not been navigalilc ; 
 that the above obstr\iction to such rights with- 
 out parliamentary authority was an actionable 
 wrong ; that the substituted openings above- 
 mentioned were no answer to a claim for indem- 
 nity. Xorth Shore Jx'ailini;/ v. I'hin. 14 A[)p. 
 Cas. 012. 
 
 There is no distinction in principle between 
 riparian rights on the bank.s of navigable or 
 tidal and on those of non-navigable rivers. In 
 the former case, however, there must be no 
 interference with the public right of navigation, 
 and in order to give rise to riparian rights the 
 land must be in actual daily contact with the 
 stream, laterally or vertically. Lyon v. Fish- 
 mongers' Company (1 App. Cas. 60*2) followed 
 and held to be applicable to every country in 
 which the same general law of riparian rights 
 prevails unless excluded by some positive rule 
 or binding authority of the lex loci. lb. 
 
 Held, that under the Quebec Railway Consoli- 
 dation Act 1880, section 9, no authority is given 
 to a railway company to exercise its powers in 
 such a n\anner as to inflict substantial damage 
 upon land not taken without compensation. To. 
 
 A riparian proprietor on a navigable river is 
 entitled to damages against a railway comp my 
 for any obstruction to his rights of no-e-i et 
 Kurtie and such obstruction without parliamen- 
 tary authoiity is an actionable wrong. (North 
 Shore R. Co. v. I'ion, 14 App. Cas. iiVl followed) 
 Jii,j„oiiftte v. Xortli .Shore H. W. Co., 17 S. 0. 
 K. 303. 
 
 The lands in (jucstion were lots three, four and 
 six on Clinton avenue, in the town of Niagara 
 Falls. The defendants had taken for the pur- 
 poses of their railway a small part of lot three 
 and the plaintiff claimed damages for the injury 
 caused to that lot and lots four and six, by lower- 
 ing the street in front of these lots so as to eualde 
 the railway to be carried over the highway, and 
 which was done in such a niiinncr as to obstruct 
 the plaintiff's access to his land :— Held (atlirm- 
 ing the judgment of the court below), (I) that 
 upon the evidence the sum paid to plaintitF for 
 the ))art of lot three actually taken, included 
 any damage to that lot, but not to lots four and 
 six. (2) 'I'hal the claim as to lots four and six 
 w:is in respect of lands injuriously affected by 
 the exercise of the powers granted for the rait- 
 way within the meaning of the Consolidated 
 liailwayAct, lS7!t, s. !»,sul)-ss. lOand I2(l)()m.). 
 (JuaTc, whether the conipeiisation clauses of Part 
 I. of the Consolidated liaihvay Act, lH7il, a])ply 
 to the defendants' railway; but:— Held, that 
 either under that Act or the Consolidated .Statu- 
 tes of Canada, ehaiiter (>(i as applied to these de- 
 fendants by their s))ecial Act compensati(m was 
 recoverable :--~l'cr Burton, .1. A., Part I. of the 
 Act of 187!l ai)])lies to the defendants" W'elland 
 branch on which the work incpiestion was done. 
 liowen V. Canada .Southern It. If. Co., 14 A. R. 1. 
 
 Held, also, that there was nothing to exone- 
 rate the defendants in the fact that they had 
 obtained the leave of the niuuicipality for doing 
 as they had done. Per Burton, .1. A., that the 
 the court had no jxiwer to compel a refeience to 
 an olllcer ot the court to ascertain the damages, 
 but only to compel an arbitration, to which the 
 plaintiti' was entitled under the Act. //*. 
 
 \Vhere under the liaihvay Act, .">! Vict. c. 2!) 
 (Uom.) the owner of a mill who was also the 
 owner of a lot adjoining it, which was used as 
 the principal n:eans of communication between 
 the mill and a public highway, and aero.<s which 
 lot a railway company h:i(l elected a Ircsllc 
 br'dge, also sought comiiensation for the loss of 
 local custom to and from the mill, not arising 
 from the construction of the railway, but from 
 asulisc([Uent user of it :--}teld, that the (hiniages 
 were too remote and speculative to be allowed. 
 .St. Ciithariiiea It. U'. Co. v. SorrU, 17 O. I!. 
 007.— Gait. 
 
 The plaintiff was in possession of certain lands 
 under an oral agreement of purchase at .*l4.'iO, 
 payable in bricks deliverable as demanded, of 
 which .SlOO worth had been deniiuiiled and de- 
 livered. The defendants, without making any 
 compensation or taking any ste])s uuder the 
 statute therefor, built their railway in front of 
 the land so as to interfere with the plaintiff's 
 right of access, whereupon this action xvas 
 l)rought,and damages recovered by the plaintiti', 
 he being treated as entitled to the whole estate 
 in the land and the injury ijermancnt, reducing, 
 the value of the land :— Held, that the comp.iny 
 
1751 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1762 
 
 were trespassers, and could not justify the acts 
 complained of under the statute : that auhstan- 
 tinl damages, on ])roof of them, were reeoveralile 
 for tiiu disturbance of the possession ; hut in ii 
 first action only nominal damages for the injury 
 to the reversion: — Held, therefore, that tiie 
 damages liere were not prt)perly assessed, and a 
 new trial was directed. Semlile, that the dam- 
 ages for injury to the reversion belonged to the 
 vendor ; ami leave was given to add iiim as a 
 party phiintilF. Masoti v. •Soulli Norjulk Jl. W. 
 Co., lot). H. l.-^Z— C. ]'. 1). 
 
 See III ri' Arli'itriitUiii lifliirni Onlniio miil Qui- 
 hec I!, ir. Co. <niil(ic(i)flf 'J'ai/loi; (>(). 1!. ."iSfS, p. 
 
 n.W; ir-y/s V. Aoh/ki'h it. iV. r;.,., un. u. no^, 
 
 p. I7W) ; .\lr.\)lliiir v. Sortluru I'licijlf Jiiiicddii 
 n. ir. r,,., ].-,(). H. 7.T5; 17 A. ]{. Ml, \>. I74:{. 
 
 4. Lniuh (I'ldiiUd on Cuiitlilions, 
 
 (a) Ercvtkm uf SUtdoii". 
 
 An engineer of tlie defen<lants, whoso duty it 
 was to obtiiin tr;insfers of land and deteiiuiiie the 
 situation ol station h<mseK, proeureil from tlie 
 plaintilis, lor nominal consideiations, grants of 
 land for .'i station-liouse and ground, repiesent- 
 ing that the station would be put, as dcsii'ed by 
 the jilaiiitill's, ataeert.iin jioint advantageous to 
 botli. Tiie deed of tiie plainlili' .S. contained 
 tliis proviso :--" Provided tliat tlic said eompany 
 their successors and assigns, do erect and main- 
 tain on tile said lands a station for the accom- 
 modation of |)assengers and Ireight, and name 
 the same 15.'' Tiie station was erected on the 
 land in the deed containing this proviso, l)nt 
 not at the jioint reiireseiited : -lleld, tliat 
 though the plaiiititTs iiad the expectation tliat 
 the station would have been placed where they 
 desired, yet there had been no decoit practised 
 by the (leleiidants' enginiier for the purpose of ob- 
 taining the grants of the land : that the engineer 
 had no jiower to bind the deleiidants to such a 
 thing ; and that the defendants had done all 
 they were bound to do by observing the proviso 
 in the deed, which called for tlie erection of the 
 stiition-honse on the lands without sjiecifying 
 any jiarticular point. Sclitkluiiif v. Canadu 
 Southern It. \V. Co., 'JS Chy. 2.'10. — Siiragge. 
 
 The plaiiitilV agreed with contractors for tiie 
 buihling of a railway to cenvey to them in fee 
 simple six acres, to be increased to ten if neces- 
 sary, in consideration of their placing the station 
 for tlie town of I'rcscott thereon. After the road 
 had been surveyed and the station buildings 
 erected on the jiroperty, the phiintitl' executed a 
 conveyance thereof to the contractors which 
 contained a covenant by them to continue and 
 maintain tlie station on those lands from thence- 
 forth, butthedeeil was never executed by the 
 grantees. The eompany continued to use such 
 station for about ten years, when they removed 
 it to a distance of one and a-half miles : Held, 
 reversing the judgineiit of the court below (28 
 Chy. oSIl), that the act of the eompany in thus 
 placing and using the station was a substantial 
 compliance with the agreemen^, and that they 
 were not bound to continue tlii-t station there 
 for all time. Per Hagarty, C. J. .Semble, that 
 upon the defendants ceasing to use the lainls for 
 the purpose for which alone they had been con- 
 veyed, tlie grantor would be at liberty to resHine 
 
 possession. Per Patterson, J. A. That even if 
 the phiintiir were entitled to claim such posses- 
 sion in c()nse(|uence of the company ceasing to 
 use the land for the purpose for which ahme it 
 had been conveyed, the fact that the company 
 had resumed the use and occupation during the 
 progress of the cause would be considered a ma- 
 terial fact upon an application to alter the frame 
 of the bill in order to ask that relief ; and under 
 tlic prayer for general relief the Court would not 
 determine that the plaintiff was entitled to re- 
 enter, even though facts ajiiiarently siifficientlo 
 justify such a decree might be alleged in the 
 the pleadings and deducible from the evidence. 
 The proper form of eonveyance that should have 
 been used for eU'eeting the idaintitrs imrpose 
 suggesteil. Jc.ssiiji v. <lrnntl 'J'rnnk I!. IT. Co., 7 
 A. U. I2S. 
 
 Hcii Cloiisi' V. Cumiilii Southern It. IT. Co., 4 
 0. ]{., 28 ; liid-jord v. Chrilham, 10 O. H. 257 ; 
 14 A. 1!. 32 ; 10 ;s. V. 11. 235, pp. 1810, 1811. 
 
 (b) Farm Croifxhii/n. 
 
 A deed conveying a right of way to the defen- 
 dants in 18(iU, contained the following stiptila- 
 lion : "The company to make and maintain a 
 farm cro.ssing, with gates at the present farm 
 lanes, the fence ;it crossing to be returned as 
 much as jiossible." 1!. the eonijiany's engineer, 
 treated foi' the conveyance, Init had no power to 
 agree for a second eiMssing. though it was said 
 he had promised if he should lind a seeoiid 
 crossing neccs.sary he would, so far as in him 
 lay, get it done, and the deed was executed upon 
 this unilcrstaiiding : - Held, (reversing the de- 
 cree of I'rotidfoot, v. (!., 27 < 'by. !I5), that the 
 defendants could not be compelled to make a 
 second crossing for use in winter ; and tlLit, 
 n])oii the construction of the words above set 
 forth, they were bound to continue the crossing, 
 not close it up or impair it or alter its character 
 as a farm crossing, but were not obliged to keep 
 it free from snow. I'roudfoot, V. ( '. dissenting. 
 Ciinieron v. Willhiiil<in,(!rfy ti- lirnct It. W.Co., 
 28 Chy. 327.— Chy. I). 
 
 In negotiating f<u- the sale of lands taken by 
 the (,'anada Southern Railway Company for 
 the purjiose.s of their railway the agent of tin; 
 company signed a written agreement with the 
 owner, which contained a clause to the elTeet 
 that such owner should " have liberty to re- 
 move for his own use .all buildings on the 
 said right of way, and that in the event of 
 there being C(mstrueted on the same lot a 
 trestle bridge of sutlieient height to allow 
 the passage of cattle, the company will so 
 construct their fence on each side thereof as 
 not to impedi! the jiassage thereunder " :— 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low (11 A. 1!. 30()), Hitohie, C. J. dissenting, 
 that under this agreement the only obligation 
 on the company was to maintain a cattle pass so 
 long as the trestle briilge was in existence and 
 did not prevent them from disc<nitinning the 
 use of such bridge and substituting a solid 
 embankment therefor, without providing a pass 
 under such embankment. Canada .Sout/urn R. 
 W. Co. V Krwin, 13 S. C. 11. 102. 
 
 The C. S. R. Co. having taking for the pur- 
 poses of their railway the lands of C., made a 
 verbal agreement with C, through their agent 
 
 ! 
 
 
1752 
 
 . A. That even if 
 claim such posscs- 
 iinpaiiy ceasing to 
 for wliich alone it 
 tliat the company 
 upation during the 
 )e consiilered a ma- 
 n to alter the frame 
 it relief ; and under 
 the Court would not 
 was entitled to re- 
 arcntly sutticieuttn 
 , 1)0 alleged in the 
 from the evidence, 
 ice that should have 
 phiintitrs ]mrpo8i' 
 Trunk /,'. II'. Co., 7 
 
 ithrrii A'. H'. Co., 4 
 lain,, 10 (). U. 257 ; 
 5, pp. 1810, 1811. 
 
 nxintju. 
 
 of way to the defen- 
 c following stipida- 
 lakc and maintain a 
 it tlie present farm 
 ; to 1)0 returned as 
 conii)any's engineer, 
 l)ut liad no jiower to 
 though it was said 
 lould tinil a second 
 I, so far as in him 
 il was executed upon 
 , (reversing the de- 
 • Chy. '.to), that the 
 impelleil to make a 
 
 winter ; and tliat, 
 he words above Bct 
 ontinue the crossing, 
 )r alter its ciiaraeter 
 
 not ol)liged to keep 
 )ot, V. ( '. dispeuting. 
 )/ .(• Ilrnct A', ir. Co., 
 
 )f lands taken hy 
 ihvay Comj)any for 
 ay tlie agent of the 
 agreement with the 
 clause to the elTecl 
 have liberty to re- 
 11 l)uildings on the 
 lat in the event of 
 on the same lot a 
 nt heiglit to allow 
 c company will so 
 ■acU side thereof as 
 age thereunder " :— 
 lent of the court he- 
 ie, C, J. dissenting, 
 the only obligation 
 .ntain a cattle pass so 
 ,vas in existence ami 
 )m discontinuing the 
 substituting a solid 
 iiout providing a pass 
 Cmiada .SonlJurii II. 
 W. 10-2. 
 
 , taking for the pur- 
 lands of C, made a 
 through their agent 
 
 I 
 
 176S 
 
 BAILWATS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1781 
 
 T., for the purchase of such lamls, for which lliey 
 agreed to pay IJGtJ'i, and tiiey also agreed lo make 
 live farm crossings across tiiu railway on (J.'s 
 farm, three level crossings and two under cross- 
 ings ; that one of such under crossings siiould be 
 of sutiicient height and width to admit of the 
 passage through it, from one part of the farm 
 to the other, of loads of grain and hay, reaping 
 and mowing muclnnes ; and th. sucii cross- 
 ings should be kept and maintained liy the 
 company for all time for the use of ('., ids 
 heirs and assigns. C. wislied tiie agreement 
 to be reduced to writing, and particularly re- 
 ijuested the agent to reduce to writing and 
 sign that part ot it relative to the farm cross- 
 ings, but he was assured that the law would 
 compel the company to buihl and maintain 
 sucli crossings without an agreement in writ- 
 ing. C. liaMiig received advice to the same 
 effect from a lawyer whom he consulted in the 
 matter, the land was .sold to tlu; company 
 without a written agiecment and the pureliane 
 money [laid. 'I'he tarni crossings agiced uihui 
 were furnished ami iiiaiiitaiiied for a iiumljcr 
 of years until the conii)any ileturniiiied to till up 
 tile portion of their road on which were the 
 under crossings used by C, who theieupon 
 brought a suit against the company for damages 
 for the injury sustained by sucli proceeding 
 and for an mjunctiou : -Held, revelling the 
 judgment of the court below (II A. H. 'JS"), 
 which varied the judgment of I'roiidl'oot, 
 J. (4 U. K. 28), Uitehie, I'. .]., ilisscnting, 
 that the evidence shewed that the i)liiintitV 
 relied upon the law to secure for liim the cross- 
 ings to wliich he coiisidend hiuisulf entitled, 
 and not upon any contract with the company, 
 and he could not, therefore, compel the company 
 to provide an under crossing through the soliil 
 embankment formed by the lilling up of the 
 road, the cost of which would be altogether dis- 
 proportionate to his own estimate of its value 
 and of the value of the farm : — Held also, that 
 the company were bound to provide such fiiiin 
 crossings as might be necessary for the bcne- 
 tieial enjoyment by C. of his farm, the nature, 
 location, and number of said crossings to lie de- 
 termined on a reference to the master of the 
 court helow. The substitution of the word " at " 
 in section l;{ of cap. tiO of the Consolidated Sta- 
 tutes of Canada, lor the word "and" in section 
 13 of c. ol of 14 and ITi Vict., is the mere cor- 
 rection of an error and was made to render more 
 apparent the meaning of the latter section, the 
 construction of which it does not alter nor atVcct. 
 Brown II. Toronto & Nipissing K. \V. Co. "Jli 
 C. I'. 20li overruled. CmiwUi, iSuulhern li. \V. 
 Go. V. CVouiie, 13 S. C. U. 13!». 
 
 See Faiycy v. The OramlJ unci ion H. 11'. Co., 
 4 0. R. 232, p. 1814; Vtziiiaw. The Qiu;ii, 17 
 S. C. R. 1, p. 1701; Otiay v. The Queat, 17 S. 
 C. R. 30, p. 1762. 
 
 5. Other Cofci. 
 Where land had been taken by the Great 
 Western R. W. Co., for the purpose of their 
 railway under !l Vict. c. SI, s. 30, and 10 Vict. c. 
 99, the company, in ejectment brought by them, 
 can rely on the title acquired thereby, and are 
 not driven to prove strictly the title of their 
 grantors. (J? rat Wenterit K. W. Co. v. Lutz, 32 
 C. P. 100. -C. P. 1). 
 
 The P. * C. I,. It. W. C..., incorporated in 1855, 
 by 18 Vict. e. 104, had acciiiired the land in 
 ipiestion as part of their road l)eil. In 1805, its 
 charter expired, the road not having been put 
 in operation. In 181)0, 20-30 Vict. e. 08, was 
 passed, by which the road was to be sold at auc- 
 tion, the Act of Incorporation was revived, and 
 the time for completing the railway extended 
 for live years from the passing of the Act, and 
 there was a fuitlier provision for sale under order 
 ol the Court of Chancery. Within the five years 
 a conveyance was executed to the defendant 
 company, which took po,ssession, but did not use 
 the land till a short time before the suit. In 
 1S72, the C. P. &M. 1!. & M. (^o. tiled a map 
 and book of reference of a proposed extension of 
 their line over the land in cjuestion, and con- 
 strneted p:irt of their road thereon, liut ceased 
 in IS7:!. In ISSO, under 43 Vict. c. !:4 (Out.), 
 the C. P, & .M. H, k .M. Co., leased to the plaintiff" 
 (•(iHip.iny thelmd in i|Uestioii,:ind this action was 
 brought to neover possessinii thereof : -Held, 
 alliiining the judgment of the court below, that 
 the |)artial construction of t heir road by the C. P. 
 & M. R. it M. Co. in l,S72, wasanact of trespass: 
 that toe defeiKlant company under the Reviving 
 Act and couveyauee in pursuance thereof ao- 
 iiuitcd a title to the laud ; that the power to sell 
 by order of the (!ourt ol Chancery was permis- 
 sive merely : that their right to the land w.as not 
 t'orfeited by non-completion of the work on the 
 land within the live years, and therefore that 
 tile plaintiircoinp.uiy slioidd not succeed, llraml 
 Jniiclii,!! II. If. Co. V. .Mitl/aiii/. A'. II'. Co. 7 
 A. U. 081. 
 
 The deed to the defendant company described 
 it by its original name of P. II. L. k li. R. Co., 
 when in fact its name had been changed : — 
 Held, a snliicieiit dcscriptio ))ersoiue, to enable 
 the comiiany to take, though it might not be 
 sutlicieut to sue in. lb. 
 
 There is a distinction between the rights con- 
 feried u|)on municipal corpurations and railway 
 coni|)anies resi)ectively to exproi)riato property, 
 the t'lirmer existing for the public good, the lat- 
 ter being conimereial enter])rises only. The 
 chaitera of the latter are therefi.re more rigidly 
 construed than are the )ioweis of a municipal 
 corporation. Ilaiiliiii/ v. Towiishii> of L'lirdijj', 
 20 Chy. 308.--Pio,idfoot. 
 
 In an action by the Attorney-iieneral, upon 
 the relation of the bursar of Toronto University, 
 to recover possession of certain lands claimed to 
 be vc.-^ted in Her Majesty for the benctit of the 
 university, the defendants pleaded tliat the said 
 lands liail been, with the assent of tlie university 
 and bur.sar, taken possession of by them for the 
 purposes of their railway under their statutory 
 powers, and that they had since retained and 
 tlu 11 were in possession thereof, and they also 
 pleaded the Statute of Limitations : — Held, on 
 deniUMcr, that it was not necessary to set out 
 specitii;ally the statutes alluded to, in the vari- 
 ous proceedings connected with the expropriation 
 of the land, and the defence was not objection- 
 able, upon demurrer, on the ground of want of 
 certainty, by reason of its merely general allega- 
 tion of compliance with the statutory reciuire- 
 inents : -Held, also, that the mere allegation that 
 the defendants were in possession atlbrded a good 
 defence in law in such an action, and pntthepTain- 
 tiff to the proof of hia cause of action, under Rule 
 
WW 
 
 Bailwats and railway companies. 
 
 1756 
 
 [ 
 
 ]44(Con.Rule416): — Held, also, that even if under 
 li. S. O. (1877) c. 165, the assent of the l.ieuten 
 iint-(iovcrn()r in Council to tlie expropriation of 
 the lands hy the railway was necessary, which it 
 was not, yet after a user of the land by the rail- 
 w;iy (or ten years, coupled witli tiie legislative 
 recoj^nition 'if tlie status of the railway com- 
 pany, and with tiie fact that the taking of it was 
 with the assent of the university, and colleges, 
 and bursar, the fornuvl assent of the Crown must 
 bo held to liave been dispensed with, and tres- 
 pass (U' ejectment woulil not lie : — Held, also, 
 that the .statute of Limitations was no bar to the 
 action, altluiugh brougiit by the Crown in its 
 capacity as trustee of the land in (juestion. 
 Regina c. Williams, 1!) Q. li. 397, followed. 
 Altorii<i/(,'u,tnit V. MiiUiiiiU li. W., 3 O. li. 
 513.— Boyd. 
 
 Expropriation of mining lands — Injunction. 
 See Jenkins v. Ceiilnil Ontario li. W. Co. , 4 O. 
 R. 59:i, p. 920. 
 
 The Ncutliern Railw.iy Company of Canada 
 have no [lOwer to take land conipulsorily under 
 section 7, suli-section -, or section S, suli-seclicui 
 10 of the Railway Act of ISdS, incorporated in 
 their special Act 3>S Vict. c. ().") (Dum.), for the 
 purpiisu only of obtaining therefrom giavel or 
 other ni iterial for tlie repair or maintenance of ^ 
 their road, because these sections do not confer 
 comimlsory powers to take land. Nor have 
 they such powers under section !l, sub-section 38 
 and 39 of the riail« ay Act of 1H79, because that 
 Act dois not applj' to tluir railway : — Sumble, ' 
 even if compulsory powers are conferred bv sec- 
 tion 9, sub .sectiim 10 of the Act of l«(iS the 
 powers are to taiie materials only, not the land 
 itself, iis was attiniiite<l in this case. ^iV ir«<- 
 sun v. Xoiihoii Ji. i\'. Co., 5 O. H. 550. — Osier. , 
 
 Where a railway ci>m|)any contracted for the j 
 purchase of cerlani land with H., a married 
 wonuin, in the .ibsence of her liusbaiiil : — Held, 
 that tlie coiii)i;iiiy were under no obligation to 
 see tli.il. 1). had iiiiUpeudeiit advice in the mat- 
 ter ; and inasmuch as tlio price seemed not to 
 be grossly inadi(|uate, and I!. ap]n'ared to be 
 fully conijios mentis, ami iifi untair advaiitngc 
 having lieen t.ikcii (rf her, the agreement could 
 not bo set aside. IS.'s mairiage took place in, 
 1870, ,ind tlie land was held by her to her .sepa- I 
 rate use : -Held, that the concurrence of her I 
 husliand in the cnntiact wii' unnecessary, nor 
 was it necessaiy for him to join in the convey- 
 ance. Jlrj/foii V. Ontario tt- Qiii-liec Ji. ]V. Co., 
 8 O. R. 3S(). — Fergusiiii. 
 
 A company built its line to the termini men- 
 tioned in the charter and then wisiied to extend 
 it less tlian a mile in the same direction. The 
 time limited for the completion of the road had 
 not expired, but the company had terniimvted 
 the repre.-eniation on the board of directors, 
 which by statute, was to continre during con- 
 •triictiiin, and had claimed and obtained from 
 the city of K. exeni])tion from t ition on the 
 ground of eomplt tion of the road. To effect the 
 desired exteoMon it was sought to expropriate 
 lands wiiich w>re not marked or referred to on 
 the map or phm lileil under the statute : — Held, 
 atii'iniug the judgments of the court below (11 O. 
 R. 38'2, .582), that the statutory provisl' ns that 
 land required l<>r a railway shall be indicated on 
 a map or plan tiled in the department of rail- 
 
 ways before it can be expropriated applies as 
 well to a deviation from the original line as to 
 the line itself, and the company, having failed 
 to show any statutory authority therefor, could 
 not take the said land against the owners' eon- 
 sent : — Held, also, that the proposed extension 
 was not a deviation within the meaning of the 
 statute 42 Vict. c. 9, s. 8, snb-s. 11 (Dom.). Per 
 Kitchie C. .J., .Strong, Fournier and Taschereaii 
 •IJ. , that the road authorized was completed as 
 shown by the acts of the omipany, and upon 
 such completion the compulsory power to expro- 
 priate ceased. Per (iwynne J., that the time 
 limited by the charter for the completion of the 
 road not having expired the company could still 
 file a map or plan showing the lands in (picstion 
 and auipiire the land under section 7, sub-section 
 18 of the Act 42 Vict. c. 9. Kim/Moii and Pem- 
 broke Ji. If. Co. V. Murphy. 17 S. C. R. 582. 
 
 Held, that 4li Vict. c. 04 (Doni.), which 
 empowered ihe company to iiold and own land 
 in any municipality tlirough or in which the 
 main line or any branch was carrieil for the 
 erection and maintenance there(m of stations, 
 sidings, etc., as might be necessary for the pur- 
 poses of the company, did not empower tiieiii 
 to exjiropriate against the will of the owner. 
 .V. C, 11 (.). R. ;i02.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiffs were incorporated under 37 
 Vict. c. 91 (Out.), for tiie jiurpose of building a 
 cathedral, and were the owners of a block of 
 land enclosed within one fence, and bounded oil 
 three sides with streets, known as the Catiie- 
 dral or (.'hapter House Block, upon which tliey 
 h.ad erected a Chapter House as part of the 
 cathedral, and had leased other portions, lint 
 for want of funds the other part of the eatlie- 
 dr.il was not proceeded with for some years. 
 The defendants, in c(mstructing their railway, 
 reiinireil jiart of the block, which would cut olf 
 ii part of the cathedral, when erected, lor tlieir 
 line, and took jxissession of it, but the plaiiitills, 
 under the circnnistances, declined to sell or con- 
 vey, or arbitrate as to the value of anything km 
 than the whole block. In an action to compel 
 the railway to take the whole and desist from 
 their proceedings as to parloidy, it was : Held, 
 that tlie block of land was set apart for c.itlu dial 
 purposes, and had not,byany delaiilt of the plain- 
 till's, lost tliat <listinctive ecclesiastical cliarac- 
 tcr, and an injunction was granted against the 
 railway taking a part only, as in .Sparrow r. 
 Oxfonl, etc., R. \\. Co., 2 D. M. & (^. !»4. 
 Ciilliedral of the J/oly 'J'rinili/ v. WiM Ontario 
 J'aci/ic Ji. jr. Co., 14 O. R. 240.— Boyd. 
 
 It was con' ended by the plaintiffs that the 
 defendants hrving taken possession couhl not 
 withdraw, !.at must take the whole block;— 
 Held, that the mere going into possession of 
 part, although a high-handed act on the ])art of 
 the defendants did not necessarily commit them 
 to the purchase of the whole, and that the de- 
 fendants should have the opticm to take the 
 whole or withdraw, and pay all damages ami 
 costs sustained by the plaintiffs, lb. But sue 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 19, s. 4 (Dom.). 
 
 When a railway company gave notice of their 
 intention to expropriate certain lands adjoiiiinj,' 
 their lines, but which were not required for 
 buihiing any of their works upon, and the evi- 
 dence shewed grounds for supposing that the 
 
1166 
 
 1767 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 17B8 
 
 ited applicH as 
 iginal line as to 
 , having failed 
 tlierefor, couM 
 le owners' eoii- 
 loscil extension 
 meaning of the 
 11 (l)om.). I'cr 
 and 'j'aschercau 
 18 completed ns 
 lany, and npon 
 power to expro- 
 ., that the tiiiii; 
 )ml)letion of the 
 iipany conld still 
 auds in (mestiou 
 ion 7, sub-section 
 iiiistoii anil I'lin- 
 S. C. K. .Wi. 
 
 (Doni.), which 
 Id and own liuul 
 or in whicli the 
 
 carried for the 
 ;reon of stations, 
 isury for tlie jmr- 
 t empower tiieiu 
 ill of the owner. 
 
 orated nuilcr 37 
 pose of biiihliiig a 
 ers of a Woek of 
 >, and bounded on 
 iwn as the (^atlie- 
 upon whiuh tliey 
 se as part of the 
 iher portions, but 
 )art of tlie cathe- 
 1 fur some years, 
 iiig their railway, 
 hioh would cut oil' 
 crecteil, lor their 
 
 lut the plaiutill'B, 
 iiicd to sell or coii- 
 ue of iiuylhiiig liss 
 n action to coiupil 
 jiiid desist from 
 dy.itwas; llild, 
 ajiart for callndr;d 
 deuiult of the plain- 
 clesiastical eharac- 
 ;ranted against the 
 
 as in Sparrow i'. 
 « L). M. & *'• '•'^• 
 itii V. WiKt Ontario 
 U40.— Hoyil. 
 
 plaintiffs that the 
 ossession conld not 
 Lhe whole block :-- 
 
 into possession of 
 d act on the part of 
 isarily connnil tln'm 
 le, and tli.it the de- 
 option to take the 
 IV all damages an<l 
 ititls. lb. U'lt see 
 im.). 
 
 , gave notice of their 
 tain lands adjoiiiiniJ 
 •re not required for 
 ! upon, and the evi- 
 
 supposing that the 
 
 
 powers were to be oxorcised for other than those 
 purposes which the railway laws of this country 
 permit and allow : — Held, that they should be 
 enjoined from procee<ling with tiie expropriation. 
 Nihan v. St. Vnthnrbie-t and Nia(j(i.va Central II. 
 \Y. Co., 10 O. R. 4o!>.— Hobertson. 
 
 The position of a vendee mnler a contract for 
 sale of land considereil. .See Maiuii v. South 
 Norfolk It. ir. Co., 19 O. R. 13-2. 
 
 Held, tliat an order of a railway committee 
 under section 4 of the Dominion Act, 40 Vict. c. 
 24, does not of itself and apart from tliu provi- j 
 sious of law thereby made applicable to the case ! 
 of lanil recpiiied for the proper carrying out of 
 the reciuirements of the railway committee, 
 autliorize or empower tha railway company on 
 whom the order is made to take any person's 
 land or to interfere with any person's right: — 
 Held, that sucli ]irovisions of law include all 
 the ))rovisions contained in the Con.soli<lated 
 Railway Act, lS7!t, under the headings ol " I'laiis 
 and surveys" and " Lands and their valuation" 
 which are applicable to the case ; the taking of 
 land and the interference with rights over land 
 being placed on the same footing in that Act. 
 When a railway company, acting under an order 
 of the railway conunittee, did not ileposita plan 
 or book of reference relating to thealtorations re- 
 jpiired by such order: — Held, that it was not en- 
 titled to conimence operations : —Held, further, 
 that under the Act of 187!), the payment of com- 
 pensation by the ra'lway comp:iny is .a condition 
 precedent to its right of interfering with tlie 
 possession of lanil or the rights of individuals, 
 .lone.s i: Stanstead Railway (,'o., (L. R. 4 1'. C. 
 98) distinguished, ('or/iiintlioii .(/' /'/irhluli', v. 
 WfKl, 1- App. ('as. ()()2. .Jndgnieiitof Supivme 
 Court I'i S. (,'. R. •-•"id, allirnied ; .liidgnicnt of 
 Court of Appeal 12 A. R. Xr.i, reversed ; .ludg- 
 iiieiit of Divisional Court SO. R. 5i(, allirnied ; 
 Jiicignieiit of Wilson, C J., 7 <). R. 270, 
 allirinod. 
 
 See diinilcrham v. Tonmlo mid yijiii-iiiiii /'. 
 IV. Co., 28 Chy. 212, p. 181.'). 
 
 case, the court deulined to interfere summarily, 
 and dismissed the application of the railway 
 company for a warrant to enter forthwith upon 
 the lands :—Quiere, as to power of judge to 
 award costs directly under the Statute, 47 V^ict. 
 c. 11 (Doin.). Jk Kiwi-itoii and l\mhroke. II. IK. 
 Co. and Muriihy, 11 P. R. ,104.— IJoyd. 
 
 In the computation of the ten days provi, lus 
 notice, necessary to be given under .)! Vict. c. 
 20, ». 104(l)om.), to obtain a warr.int for the 
 poss. ssion of laud by a raihv.iy company, thu 
 day (.f the service of the notice and the ilay of 
 the return must botli be excludeil. !{■• Oii'arit 
 'I'aniitri' Su/i/ilif.i ('niujidni/ and Onl.irii iinit 
 QurMc R. W. Co., 12 1'. R. JO:!. -Armour. 
 
 Wlnn-o a railway company, having a right to 
 expropriate land, obtains uii ler sicliou lOIl of 
 the Railway Act .>1 Vict. c. 20 (D.mi.), a war- 
 rant for ini'iiediale jiossussion, an.l the amoii;ii/ 
 subscipieiitly awanled to the landowner is not 
 more thin he was previously <iircied by the 
 compiny as compensation, the costs of the ap- 
 plication for the warrant should, under sectiott 
 Hi-'), be jiaid by the landowner. AV Sliihlii/ and 
 Till'. Xdji'iiii'i', Tamirorlh and (Jichrc II. W. t'o., 
 1.3 I'. K. 2:17. -Street. 
 
 An order granted iiii ler the Railway Act. II. 
 .S. C. c. 100, s. S i;tn by a judge in chambers 
 granting payment of money d posited by a 
 railway conipaiiy as scurity for land taken for 
 railway purposes is not ;i|)pealal)le as a proceed- 
 ing originated in a superior court within the 
 meaning of R. S. C. c. 1. '{."), s. 28. See Caiuidiun 
 I'arilir J{. ir. Co. v. Lilfl>; Stiniiiari/ oj Sir. 
 Thence, 16 S. C. U. (iOO. 
 
 The apidicalion for a warrant for possession 
 of land reiiiiired liy a riilwcy company under 
 sub-section 211 of section 20 of It. S. O. (1887), c. 
 170, slioiild be made to the county judge and not 
 toa judge of the high court. Toronto liill Line 
 II. W. Co. v.LaiuIrr, 10 <J. R. 007.— Rose. 
 
 6. Order for Immediate Po.'^wsiion. 
 
 Seinble, that the powers conferred on the 
 county judge under the Railway Act of Ontario, 
 R. S. b. (1877), o. Km, s 20, subs. 2;i, of 
 ordering ininiediate possession, before arbitra- 
 tion hail, do not exclude the jurisdiction of this 
 court to enjoin the taking of possession, if the 
 company is making use of its powers to attain 
 any object collateral to that for which it was 
 incorporated; but otherwise it is not within the 
 jiiri.sdietiou of a judge of this court to interfere 
 with an order of a county judge, though granted 
 ex parte. Jenkin.'i v. Cenlnd Ontario I!. 11'. Co., 
 4 0. II. .J93.— Proud foot. 
 
 Immediate possession of Land, .illeged to be 
 necessary for the purposes of a railway, shouhl 
 not be granted to the railway on summary pro- 
 cess under the Hailwiiy Act unless two points 
 are very clearly established : 1st, That the com- 
 
 }i.iny has an indisputable right to acquire the 
 ami by compulsory proceedings ; and 2ii(l, That 
 there is some urgent and substantial need for 
 immediate action; and inasmuch as tfau-''e points 
 could not be said to have been clearly established 
 by the affidavits and arguments in this preacut 
 
 7. Compi nmtion, 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 The idaintiff herein, a tiinbrr licensee, sold his 
 interest in the license ami limits to one W., who 
 entered and cut timber, luit the transfer was 
 not inoved, and by tlie regulations of the Crown 
 Lands Department all tiansftrs were to 1.hj in 
 writing and sulijcet to their approval, and were 
 to be valid only from such approv.al : — Held, 
 tlial the leg;.', title to the limits and timber 
 thereon was in the plaintill', and that W.'s pos- 
 .session was the plaintill's, who was entitled to 
 maintain an action for dam.ige done to the limits. 
 Booth V. Mclntyi;; 31 C. V. I83.-C. P. D. 
 
 1 Where a railway company in construction 
 of their road took pos.session of and built their 
 I roail across a plot of land of the plaintiff, who 
 I instituted proceedings to compel payment there 
 I for, and umler the decree a sum of 5iil.8('(0 was 
 I found to be the value of such plot, which sum 
 : together with interest and costs, was paid by the 
 company in order to prevent the land lieing pur- 
 chased by a rival company : and three years 
 afterwards they ap,ilie(l on petition to have a 
 portion of such purchase money refunded, on the 
 ground that another railway company, whose 
 rights had been assigned to them, had previously 
 
"W^'tf^ 
 
 1759 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1760 
 
 S 
 
 I 
 
 tSi 
 
 c 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 
 I'ri' 
 ■ i, 
 
 ■A 
 
 paid a prior owner nf the land for n portion 
 thereof :— 'J'lie court (Firj^iison, J.), refnHud tliu 
 relief asked with coiits, on the ground, aninrigst 
 others, thiit tlie comvimy, hud they exercised 
 duo diligence in tlio niatttr, might have lieconie 
 aware of such prior jnircliase and payment. 
 Vuvihle V. Cuboiii'ii and I'ttciburoiiijh II. 11'. Co., 
 29Chy. 121. 
 
 S., being the owner of lands through which 
 the defendants desired to l)uild their road, agreed 
 to give them tiie right of way, and the company, 
 with his written permission, took possession with- 
 out compensation and constructed their road, 
 and had up to tliis time licon in uninterruptecl 
 possession for more than ten years. The ]]lain- 
 tiff, claiming under S. , now demanded comjjen- 
 Bution anil olitained a mandamus ni»i to proceed 
 to arV)itration under the Hallway Act, lM(i8: — 
 Held, atliiiiiing the judgment of (ialt, J., tliat 
 the plaintill was not entitled ; that ^i. having the 
 right to accept any or no compensation, and liav- 
 ing elected to tid<e none, me compiiny then be- 
 came entitled to the lands, i.nd the plaintiff could 
 not succeed. I'er <!alt. .1. 'I'he ten years pos- 
 session of the companv had ex nguislied tlic 
 title of S. and those chiiiniiig under him, anil 
 vested it in the comiiany. 'J liniii/ixoii v. < aniitia 
 Cenlntl li. W. Co., :{ (). 1!. l.'JO.— (^ H. D. 
 
 The owner of land taken liy a railway, is en- 
 titled to compensation ; ,iiul the company must 
 proceed to settle the amount thereof, under I!. 
 S. O. (1877) e. l(),j, 8. -JO; if they do not the 
 proper course is to ajiply for a niamlamus. 
 On such application a formal title in the absence 
 of proof to the contrary, n(!ed not be proved ; it 
 is BuHicient if the applicant swear that he is 
 the owner of the lanil taken. J)e.morexl, v. Mid- 
 land liailway oj Canada, 10 P. R. 73.— Cam- 
 eron. 
 
 The riglit of a railway company to cut dow n 
 trees for six rods on each side of the railway 
 under the Consolidated Railway Act, 1879, s. 7, 
 Bub-s. 14, is entirely distinct from their right to 
 expropriate land for the road. If compensation 
 can be claimed for it, it nuist be distinctly de- 
 manded by the notice : — Held, therefore, that 
 an award was bad in allowing cnniiicnsation to 
 the owner of lamls exj)ropriated for the damage 
 that might accrue to the owner by the possible 
 exercise of such right. In re The Ontario and 
 Quebec li. W. Co. and Taylor, G O. 1!. ;i:?8.- 
 Camcrou. 
 
 Qna're, whether under the Consolidated liail- 
 way Act, 1879, more than the value of the land 
 actually taken can be allowed, as the Act does 
 not contain a section e([uivalent to section 7 of 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 10,5, and section 5 of C. S. C;., c. 
 6(5, giving compensation for damages to lands 
 iujuriously affected, lb. 
 
 Semble, that where a parcel of land is severed 
 by the railway the actual value is the difference 
 between the value of the land of which it forms 
 part before the expropriation, and the value to 
 the owner of the remainder after the expropria- 
 tion. Ih. 
 
 Held, that the possible damngea to bush land 
 from greater exposure to winds and storms, and 
 the greater liability to injury by fire by leason 
 of the working of the railway, were contingen- 
 cies too remote to be considered in estimating 
 
 the amount of compensation where there were 
 no buildings to be endangered. lb. 
 
 The notice by the railway company included 
 compensation " for such damages as you may 
 sustain by reason or in conseipience of the powert 
 alM)ve mentioned": — Held, sutHeient to allow 
 the arl)itiators to award damages resulting to 
 the owner from the expropriation. lb. 
 
 Where in building their road the defendants 
 left a subway under a trestle bridge, and the 
 evidence shewed that the plaiiititf, the owner of 
 the land crossed by the railway at this point, 
 had enjoyed the open and continuous user of tins 
 subway as of right ever since 1862, but that the 
 dcfenilants were now proceeding to till it up :— 
 field, that tho\igli the plaintill could not pre- 
 vent the tilling up of the subway, he was enti- 
 tled to damages for his property in the easement. 
 The plaintiff was entitled to assume that there 
 was a reservation of the subway in the ileed from 
 the oiiginal j;rantor of the right of way to the 
 railway company, wliich deed was lost, or he 
 was entitled to claim the easement nmltr the 
 I'resi I'iption Act from Imij,' afid niiinternipteil 
 enjovnieiit :is of rii;lit. (.'louse i\ Canada South- 
 erii U. W. Co., 4 (>. U 28, 11 A. K. 287, 13 8. 
 C. H. i;!!», ili.stingiii.shed. Il'f//.s v. Xurllieni li. 
 tV. Co., 14 O. 1!. ■-)94.— Troudfoot. 
 
 Held, that the right of compensation for land 
 taken by a railway coni)iany is not barred sliiirt 
 of twenty year.^, and is not barred by the claim- 
 ant's title to tlio land being extinL^nished by 
 reason of the railway comi)auy having been in 
 posses.siiin for ten years. A'os.t v. (Iraml hunk 
 It. W. Co., 10 (J. R. 447. --(^ 15. 1). See alsa 
 ifvWry v. (;rand Trmk It. 11'. Co., 21 O. U. 224. 
 
 Per Armour, .!., the plaintiff's claim to com- 
 pensation was not money secured by lien, or 
 otherwise charged on land, within section 2.'{ 
 of I!. S. O. (1879) c. 108, and he had not a ven- 
 dor's lien, for the relation of vendor and pur- 
 chaser never arose between him and the com- 
 pany. /'). 
 
 In fixing compensation to a landowner for 
 l.inds expropriated by a railway, the rule ia, to 
 ascertain the value of the land of which it forms 
 a p.irt before the taking, and the value of such 
 land after the taking, and deduct one from tliD 
 other, the difference thus arrived at being the 
 actual value to the owner of the part taken. 
 Rule laid down by Camevon, C. J., in He Arbi- 
 tration between the Ontario and Quebec R. W. 
 Co. and Taylor, li O. R., at p. ;U8, followed. 
 .lames v. On/nrio and Quebec li. W. Co., 12 0. 
 li. 024. — Ferguson. 
 
 The "taking" is ])roiierly fixed as at the 
 date of the company giving notice to the land- 
 owner of their intention of taking the land; 
 and it is not correct to say that the value of the 
 lands shoidd be taken as of a date prior to know- 
 ledge of intention to construct, or in anticipation 
 of the construction of the railw ay. lb. 
 
 Held, by the Court of A|)peal atlirming the 
 judgment of Ferguson, d., (12 0. R. 624,) that in 
 ascertaining the compensation to he made to a 
 landowner for land expropriated for a railway 
 under R. S. C. c. 109, s. 8, the value of the part 
 taken (as well as the increased value of the part 
 not taken, which by sub-section 21 is to be set 
 off ) must be ascertained with reference to the 
 
1760 
 
 thora were 
 
 1 
 
 1761 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1762 
 
 hfio 
 Jh. 
 
 oinpiiiiy incluiled 
 igoB iw you may 
 ;ni;e of tho imweri 
 iitHciuut to allow 
 iiigo3 resulting to 
 
 m\ tlic defendants 
 e bridge, and tho 
 iititV, the owner of 
 fo.y at this v"'"'. 
 tinuouHUser of this 
 180'2, l>ut that the 
 i„g to till it up ;— 
 titi could not pre- 
 Uway, ho was eiiti- l 
 
 ty in the easement. 
 , assume that there 
 ay in the <leed from 
 ight of way to the 
 "d was lost, or he 
 asen\eut under the 
 iind uninternipteil 
 »e i: Canada South- 
 il A. K. ■■■i»"< 1-^ *^- 
 ||V;/,s V. Xurllievii U. 
 lldfoot. 
 
 mitiensation for land 
 V is not harred sliort 
 barred l.y the elaiin- 
 ling e\tih:_;iii'<hed hy 
 )aiiy having heen ni 
 Uos.1 V. (Iraiiil I niiik 
 -A). I'.. 1). f^L*) alsa 
 ir.Co.,'210. lt.'.Vi4. 
 
 liutitr's claim to com- 
 seenre.l l-y lie'n, m 
 
 1, within seition '2A 
 
 md he had not a ven- 
 of vendor and pur- 
 
 i;n him and the com- 
 
 n to a landowner for 
 
 nlway, the rule is, to 
 
 land <if which it forms 
 
 uid the value of such 
 
 ded>ict one from the 
 
 arrived at hiiug the 
 
 ,r of the V'^vt taken. 
 
 ■,m, C. J., in He Arbl. 
 
 rio and Quebec K. « • 
 
 at p. :U«> foUowed. 
 
 UecJi. »r. Co., 12 0. 
 
 i,erly fixed as at the 
 inc. notice to the land- 
 ",f taking the land; 
 y that tho valae of the 
 of a date prior to know- 
 truct, or in anticipation 
 e railw ay. Jb. 
 
 , Appeal affirming the 
 (iVo. R.O'24,)tl.atin 
 
 is'atinn to be made to » 
 opriated for a radway 
 8 the value of the part 
 •eased valne of the part 
 •section 21 is to be set 
 I with reference to tbe 
 
 date of the deposit of the ma|> or plan anil Imok 
 (if rcferenco, undrr suli-scL'tioii 1 I (or in tliiteas' 
 with reference to llii: d ite <>(' the notice or ili'tei^- 
 miriation to expropriate), and thei^itfore, sn li 
 value should iucludu an incrcasi! wliiiii m i\ 
 have been caM.seil by, or is owiiii; to, the ciiii- 
 teiiiplated construction ol the railrt iiy : Si^mble. 
 pir linrlon, .). A., tint what is intendcil liy siili- 
 section '2\ is a direct or peculiar hcnclit accrniiij^ i 
 to the particular land in ipu^stion and not the | 
 general henelit to all landowners resulting from [ 
 the construction of the railway : — .Scnd)le, per j 
 ().'«lor, tl. A. The laiul in ipicstion not having ^ 
 heen taken for the iiurpose of the railway ' 
 strictly, but, after the same had been liiil down, 
 fur the purpose of cH'ecting a deviation in a street 
 in iinli'r that the railway might run along tho 
 original street, there was no right to set oil' the 
 increased value of the land not taken, caused by 
 the construction of tho railway. S. ('.,!.') A. K. 
 1. 
 
 Held, tliat where a railway ci)Mi]):iny had 
 failed to pay the balance of i;oiiipi'Ms itiori 
 iiwariled to landowner-i in accorchuu'c with .-i 
 juilgiiient obtained for the same, althongli it had 
 entered into possession and was operating its 
 railwiiy over the lanib, the landnwiieis were 
 entitled to an (u-der declaring them to have a, 
 vunihir's lien on thi^ laiuls for the c.monnt, with '. 
 such provisions as were necessary to i-calizi! by i 
 means ot a sale ; but they were not entitled to; 
 an injunction to resti'ain the defendants from 
 operating the railway on tlie lands, nor to ai' 
 order for delivery lip of possession. A1Il;o(),1 
 Merrybeid and Darlington K. W. Co.. .'Ci fh. i 
 1). tlTl, distinguished, l/nn'ohi /'n/nr .1/;//., Co. , 
 y. Si. ('iilhaniict iind XiiKi'ivit Ciiitnil II. IT. 
 Co., 19 0. R. KHJ.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where land is taken by a railway company ' 
 for the purjMJse of using the ^'ravel thereon as i 
 ballast, the owner is only entitled to conipen- I 
 sation for the land so taken as farm land wlicre ! 
 there is no market for the gravel. Vr.ina v. 1 
 ThelJ'Kaii, 17 S. C. K. 1. ■ 
 
 The compensation to be paiil for any dam ii,'cs 
 sustained liy reason of anything done under and 
 by authority of 1!. S.C!. u. Hi), s. ',i, sid)-s. (el, or 
 any other Act re8|)ecting public works or gov- 
 ernment railways, inclndes danniges residtingto 
 the land fiom the o|)eration as well as from the 
 construction of the railway. lb. 
 
 The right to have a farm crossing over one of 
 the government railways is not a statutory 
 right, and in awarding damages full compensation 
 for the future as well as for the past for the 
 want of a farm crossing should be granted. Jh. 
 
 (jwynue J., dissenting, was of opinion that 
 the owner had the option f)f demanding, and the 
 govennnent had a like option of givini;, a cro.'^s- 
 ing in lieu of compensation, and that on the 
 whole case full compensation had been nwaided 
 by the court below, lb. (See now 52 Vict. c. 
 38, s. 3.) 
 
 Where land expropriated for government rail- 
 way purposes severed a farm, the owner although 
 not at the time entitled to a farm crossing ajiart 
 from contract was entitled to full compensation 
 covering the future as well as the past for the 
 depreciation of his land by the want of such a 
 crossing, f Jwynne, J. , dissenting on the ground 
 111 
 
 th'it the owiu'r was (^ititled to a crossinc; n-t a 
 nnitter of law. d'uai/v. Tin: (Jiin n, 17 S. C. K. 
 .'JO. (Sec MOW r)2 Vict. c. ;ts, 8. .•!.) 
 
 .Sec Diiiifii/iv. Vtuuvlii Cciil.ral /'. IT. Co., 4'> 
 <,». 1!. 71. p. 1747 ; 0,c.s/,.H V. drnnd Tnnil: I!. IC. 
 (V, •-'SCIiy. 42S, .v. (,'. //,. i:(l, pp. 1747, I74H; 
 X'li-riill V. I'iUiala Suiithrni U. IT. Co., "i A. R. 
 lit, p. 17(J1; l!ri/ion v. Oiilnriii iiiid (Jm 'ii<' I!. 
 ir. C(,., S (». I!. itSO, p. 17"..". ; ViiMv V. Caiuula 
 S„i,ilirn, U. II'. Co., 11 A. |{. 2S7; \\\ S. C. I!. 
 l.'i!(, p. I7."i.'{; Kninn v. Caiutiln Soiillii-nt 11. 11'. 
 Co., II A. R. .S(Ki; l:{ ,S. 0. R. If!.', p. 1752: 
 YoHwjv.Midlaiullt. II'. Co., 10 O. R.7;iH, p. 1748. 
 
 See also Subhead III. 8, infni. 
 
 (b) /nlereit AHoircd. 
 
 Money was paid into a bank under C .n- 
 scdidated Railway Act, 187!l (Dom.), s. <), sul.-.s. 
 2S, and an order for iimneiliate p.l.s.•^ession vf 
 lands e>:iiro|.riatcd by the compmy w.is made 
 by a judgi! under the subsection, ■•uid an a^vard 
 ol com|iensation was made sillisci|nently : • 
 llchl, that tho landowner was entilled to in- 
 terest (Ui the amoULit awai'ded him oidy at tho 
 rate allowed liy the bank on the niniay paid in 
 and not at tliu legal rale. A'c '/'n-i/ior ii.w/ The 
 Oiiiarhxiiid Quebec Ji. 11'. Co., 111". R. :!71.— 
 U'Connor. 
 
 -■Vn (.rder was (d.tained for imnieili'ite jiossis- 
 sion of land under the Consolidated Railway 
 .\ct, l.S7!l (Dom.), and inoney was paid into tho 
 Canadian Rank of ('onnnerc(^ under the same 
 Act by the company : — Jlcld, that the laml- 
 owner was entitled to interest upon the anionnb 
 snl>sei|nently awanled him fiom the date of tho 
 awaril, oidy at the rate allowed by the liaidi 
 upon a ile|iosit ami not at the lej;al late of six 
 per cent. Re Le-v, 21 C. L. .1. 15t. followed. 
 AV I'liilhi-ifk and Onliuio tiud Quel),/' I,'. 11'. Co., 
 
 11 1*. 1!. :{7:i. - Uoyd. 
 
 Interest is prop<'rly allowed to the landowniT 
 on tlie amount of his comjiensatiiiu from tho 
 time of the taking to the time of the award. 
 Jaiiictw iiiilaiio and Quebec It. W.Vo., 12 O. 
 R. (i24. — Ferguson. 
 
 8. Itcfirviive nnd Ainaid. 
 
 (a) Sidiin'itiiton. 
 
 The railway company served a notice on H. 
 under 42 Vict. c. !) (Horn.), ollering a sum of 
 money as compensation for land to be expro- 
 priated by thcin, and naming an arbitrator. 11. 
 served a notice on the company, naming hi.i 
 arbitrator, and the two appointed a third : — 
 Held, that the notices of appointment of arbi- 
 trators and the ajuiointment of the third arbi- 
 trator might he made a rule of couit undei' CI*. 
 1". Act, section 201. Re Credit Valley R. W. 
 Co. !'. Creat Western R. W. Co.^ 4 A. U. r>32, 
 distinguished. Jliniiii.i and XainDcr, Tarn- 
 iroilh, and Quebec 11. IV. Co., H 0. R. ;i49.— 
 Rose. 
 
 (b) DesUlment. 
 
 Held, that a railway company having desisted 
 once from their notice to lake land, given under 
 R. S. O. (1877) e. I(i5, s. 2U, could not again de- 
 
1763 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1761 
 
 aiHt, puiiiliii^ an arliitnitinn procuodiiig, undur a 
 Buuoiid iiotii;i!. Tlio L'niiipaiiy 'h arbitrator having 
 withdrawn from siiuli arbitration, in duferunci: 
 to a notice of iluHiHtnient givun by the company, 
 -after the amount to bo awarded had been agreed 
 U|>on by the other two: — Held, tiiat the com- 
 ))any coidd not ol)ject to tiie award on the 
 ground that tho company's arbitrator luid not 
 been asked to sign it. Moore v. Ventral Ontario 
 It. IF. Co., 2 (). R. 047.— Q. B. D. See K, S. 
 <). (1887) c. 170 8. 20(10). 
 
 A railway company at different times served 
 H. with three several notices under the Domi- 
 nion liailway Act, stating that portions of land 
 owned by him were re<|uired for tho company's 
 line, 'i'o each of tlie first two notices H. re- 
 plied by a notice appointing an arbitrator, but 
 stating such a|>pointnient to be expressly with- 
 out prejudice to his right to insist that the com- 
 pany had uo right to take any part of his land. 
 The company served successive notices of desist- 
 nient from all their three notices, and H. give 
 notice tliat he objected to the third notice of 
 Kicsistnient, and claimed that the company had 
 no right to desist from their tliird notice of ex- 
 |iropriatiou :— Held, that the company had not 
 exhausted their powers of desistnieiit, but had 
 the right to desist from their third notice. H. 
 could not be allowed to complain of the abandon- 
 ment by the company of proceedings to compel 
 him to sell his land to them when he had noti- 
 fied them ut every opportunity that he intended 
 to contest their right to compel him to do so ; 
 After they had acted upon his expressed inten- 
 tion, and abandoned the notice to which he ob- 
 jected, it was too late for him to endeavour to 
 insist upon its validity, Grieraon v. Cheshire 
 Lines' Committee, L. H. 19 Eq. 8.S, referred to. 
 Jie Hooper and the Erie ami Huron R. \V. Co., 
 12 P. R. 408.— Street. 
 
 Per fJi^ynne and Patterson JJ. That an 
 abandonment of a notice to take lands for rail- 
 way purposes must take place while the notice 
 is still a notice and before the intention has been 
 exercised by taking the lands. U. S. C. c. 100, 
 8. 8, sub-a. 20. Canadian Pacijir li. W. Co. v. 
 Little Stmwarn of lite. TUerese, 10 S. C. R. 000. 
 
 See Nihan v. St. Ca/hfrlnfa and Niagara Cen- 
 tral K. W. Co., I(j O. R. 459, p. 1745. 
 
 '-'■ (c.) Ohjectiont to Award. 
 
 This court has no jurisdiction to set aside an 
 award made under the Railway Act of 1868 (.31 
 Vict. 0. 28 (l)om.), but : — Held, that even were 
 there jurisdiction the court would not have inter- 
 fered in this case, as the instrument in question 
 was in no sense an award, under the statute, the 
 provisions of the statute not having been ob- 
 served, tliere having been only two arbitrators 
 appointed, who had not been sworn, and sub- 
 section 26 of section 9, not having been complied 
 with. In re Horton ami Adma.xton and Canada 
 Central It. W. Co., 45 Q. B. 141.— Gait. 
 
 Held, affirming the decree of Proudfoot, V.C., 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to specific per- 
 formance of an award giving him damages for 
 his lands taken by the defendants ; that the sum 
 awarded was not so excessive as to shew any 
 fraudulent or improper conduct ou the part of 
 
 the arbitr.itors ; and Quiuro, whether, if shewn, 
 it would be a defence in such a proceeding : — 
 (juiere, also, the land having boon taken under 
 an Act of the dominion Parliament, whether 
 till! finding of the arbitrators could l>e reviewed 
 unilui' the statute of Ontario, 38 Vict. c. 1,5. 
 Nornalt v. Canala Southern li. \V. Co., 5 A. 
 
 R. i:i. 
 
 After the evideuco had been closed the con- 
 struction eonnnittee of the railway company 
 wrote a letter addressed to H,, agreeing to cer- 
 tain things whereby the damage to his pro- 
 perty would be lessened. This was delivereil ti» 
 the arbitrator for the company l>efore the award 
 was made and by him to the umpire, but woh 
 not connnunicated to H. until after the awanl, 
 which cimtained recitals of tho benefits proposeil 
 by this letter, and assessed the compensation at 
 the sum originally offered by tho company. The 
 award was not signed by H.'s arbitrator, who 
 swore that the letter affected the award, and re- 
 dnceil the sum awardeil, while the otlier two 
 arbitrators swore it had no ell'ect upo.i their 
 finding :— Hold, that the award was bad. Iler- 
 rinij and Najiawe, Tamw^irlh and (Juehcc li. 
 II'. Co., 5U. H. :J49.— Rose. 
 
 Remarks as to the ciiution to be observed l>y 
 ai'bitrators in such eases in considering or acting 
 upon such agreements ma<le pending the arbitra- 
 tion. Ih. 
 
 An ap|)eal on petition will not lie from the 
 award of arbitrators appointed under the Domi- 
 nion Railway Act 1 879, 42 Vict. c. 9 ( Dom. ). The 
 only mode of impeaching such an award is by un 
 action to set it asiile ; or else to make the sub- 
 mission a rule of court, and then move to set it 
 aside. The appeal given by It. S. O. (1877) c. 
 105, 8. 20, sub-s. 19, only applies to railways 
 over which the provincial legislature has juris- 
 diction, and is not available in such a ease as 
 the present : — .Somble, the court has no power 
 to turn such a petition as the present into un 
 action. Jie Lea and The Ontario and Qnclxx 
 li. ir. Co., 8 0. R. 222. -Proudfoot. 
 
 On an arbitration with regard to land taken 
 by a railway company, tlie argument closed on 
 tlie 10th of August, and the arbitrators adjourned 
 until the 11th, when, after discussion, one of 
 them said he was sorry he could not concur with 
 the others in the sum they had agreed upon, and 
 withdrew. Tlie other two then signed the award 
 in presence of each other, and reacknowledgcd 
 it in presence of a witness on the 14th of August,: 
 — Held, that the meeting having been adjourned 
 to the 11 til the case was within the tonus of 4*2 
 Vict. c. 9, 8. 9, sub-s. 17 (Dom.) :— Held, also, 
 after reviewing the authorities, that the award 
 was valid at common law. Freeman v. Ontario 
 and Quebec R. W. Co., O. R. 413.— Rose. 
 
 Held, that the Canada Southern Railway, 
 although brought under the jurisdiction of the 
 Dominion before proceedings had been taken for 
 expropriation, was still subject to the Railway 
 Act then in force in Ontario, C. S. C. , c. tiO. An 
 award having been declared void by the Supreme 
 Court was amended so as to meet the objection, 
 given effect to by that court and was re-executed 
 by the arbitrators after tho time limited for mak- 
 ing the award had expired. The company hav- 
 ing tiled a bill to set aside such award, as well as 
 the original award, the defendant, by his answer. 
 
1761 
 
 if shewn, 
 ieocUng : — 
 ken iiader 
 wlicthur 
 
 ruviuwuii 
 ict. 0. ITi. 
 
 Co., r> y\. 
 
 I tliu cm I 
 coiii|i»iiy 
 ng to our- 
 tn liJH prii- 
 ulivvrud to 
 tliu awuril 
 
 , llllt WIIH 
 
 HI a wan I, 
 
 H propOHOlt 
 
 iisatiim at 
 paiiy. Tlu! 
 
 ■ator, who 
 ii'il, ami re - 
 
 otliur two 
 U|i(i,i tliuir 
 bad. /A',-- 
 
 (JucJm-c a*. 
 
 1765 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1766 
 
 j'.!»crtc<l tliu validity of both. Thobill wtuidiH- 
 iiiiHaod on the tfrcmnd that it waHnniiouuHaary : — 
 Held, that this, iu efToct, atlinnod their valiility, 
 and an appeal was allowed. Nori'M v. Cuiiala 
 Simlhern 11. IF. Co., awl Caiimla Soatlifint II. 
 <V. Co. V. NoriieJI, 9 A. 11. 310. 
 
 Held, that where tho oompnny'g arbitrator had 
 not been iiotiticd piirHiiant to the statutft of time 
 aad place appointed for sif^ning awards botwe(^ii 
 tlio company and landowners, such awards were 
 invalid by the statntu (J. S. C. c. (i(i, s. 1 1 siib-s. 
 II, and that altiioiigh he hail notified the otiier 
 arbitrator tliat he woidd not attend, and waived 
 any notice. Ih. 
 
 K. IJ., et al. joint owners of land sitnate in 
 llie city of Quebec were awarcled $1 1,!)0(» under 
 4.'?-44 Vict. c. 43, s. 0, for a portion of said land 
 (ixpropriatcd for the use of the North Shore Hail- 
 way Company. On the I2th March, 1H85, K. H. 
 ct al. inatitnted an action against the North 
 Slioro Railway Company, based on tlie award. 
 The notice of expropriation and tho award, both 
 <le8cribed the land expropriated as No. 1 . on the 
 plan of the railway company deposited accord- 
 ing to law, but in another part of the notice it 
 4le8cribe<l it iis forming part of a cadastral lot 
 t2.'i45 and in the award ns forming part of lots 
 'j;)44-234,'>. Un the .'ith December judgment was 
 rendered in favour of K. U. etal., for the amount 
 of the award. From this judgment tlie railway 
 eom|>any appealed to the Court of Queen's 
 Bench (appeal side) and that court reversed the 
 judgment of tho Superior Court, holding inter 
 alia the award bad for uncertainty. On appeal 
 tf) the Supreme Court of Canada it was : — Held, 
 reversing tho judgment of the Court of Queen's 
 Kcnch (appeal aide) that there was no uncertain- 
 ty ill the award as the words of tho award and 
 notice were sufficient of themselves to describe 
 the property intended to be expropriated and 
 \vliich was valued by the arbitrators. BeamlH 
 V. The North Shore It. W. Co., l.-) S. C. R. 44. 
 
 On an appeal to tho Supremo Court from a 
 judgment of the Kxche(|uer Court increasing the 
 iiLi^uiit a»ar<led by the official arbitrators to 
 the claimant for expropriation of land for the 
 I utcrcolonial R. W. : — Held, reversing the judg- 
 ment of the Kxchequer Court, and restoring the 
 award of the official arbitrators that to warrant 
 Jiri interference with an award of value neces- 
 Harily largely speculative, an apjiellate court 
 must be satisfieil beyond all reasonable doubt 
 that some wrong principle has been acted upon 
 or something overlooked which ought to have 
 been considered by the official arbitrators and 
 upon the evidence in this case the Court refused 
 to interfere with the amount of compensation 
 awarded by the official arbitrators, lieijitia v. 
 Parndin; lleijina v. Beaiilieu, 16 S. C. R. 710. 
 
 In the matter of expropriation of land for 
 tho Intercolonial R. \V . Co. tho award of the 
 nrbitrators was increased by the judge of the 
 Kxche<pior Court from $4,155 to $10,824.25 
 sifter additional witnesses had been examined 
 by the judge. Oi» appeal to the Supreme 
 »:ourt: —Held, affirming tho judge of the 
 I'^xchequer Court, that as the judgment appealed 
 from was supported by evidence and there was 
 no matter of principle upon which such judg- 
 ment was fairly open to blame nor any oversight 
 of material consideration, the judgment should 
 
 bo affirmed. (Jwynne, J., dissenting. llr'iiHH 
 v. Chailniiil, 1(1 ,S. ('. R. 721. 
 
 In an award for land expropriated for railway 
 purposes where tliere is an adi'(|uate anil Hulli- 
 ciont description, with convenient certainty of 
 the land intended to l)e valued, and of the lan<l 
 actually valued, suirh award canimt afterwarda 
 be set aside on the ground that there is a 
 variation between tho description of the land 
 in the notice of ex|)ropriation and in tho award. 
 lii.itvnu'lli- V. S'orth slwiv li. W. Co., 17 S. C. H. 
 
 See Moore, v. Criilrnl Ontario It. W. f.'o., i! 
 (). R. (147, p. I7<)3 J In re n't.. Ontario and Qiidm- 
 It. W. Co. and Tautor, O. U. 338. p. 1751). 
 
 (d) Co^ts. 
 
 Where it was determined that neither party 
 was entitled to the costs of arbitration under the 
 statute ; but the company, in order to take up 
 the award, paid tho whole of tho arbitrators' 
 fees : — Held, that a siinmiary order could not be 
 made to recoup the company for one-hulf the 
 fees out of the moneys payable to the land- 
 owner, and such order was refused without 
 prejudice to an action for tho same purpose. 
 Jti: I'hillirirk (iml Ontario and Quebec It. W. Co., 
 II P. It. 373.— Hoy d. 
 
 A railway company, having taken certain 
 lands for the purposes of their railway, made on 
 otrer to tlie owner in payment of the same, which 
 otl'er was not accepted and the matter was re- 
 ferred to arbitration under the Consolidated 
 Ituilw.iy Act, 1870. On the day that the arbi- 
 trators mot, the company executed an agreement 
 for a crossing over the said land, in adilition to 
 the money payment, and it appeared that the 
 arbitrators took tho matter of the crossing into 
 consideration in making their award. The 
 amount of the award was lexs than the sum 
 offered by the company, and both parties claimed 
 to be entitled to tiic costs uf tho arbitration, the 
 company because the award was less than their 
 otl'er, and the owner because the value of the 
 crossing was included in the sum awarded which 
 would make it greater than the offer : — Held, 
 uffirmiiig the judgment of the Court of Appeal, 
 which affirmeil Gait, J. (5 O. R. 674), Owynnc, 
 J. tlissenting, that under the circumstances 
 neither )iarty was entitled to costs. Ontario awl 
 Qmhex It. ir. Co. v. I'hilhriei; 12 S. C. R. 288. 
 
 Ry the Dominion Railway Act, R. S. C. c. 109, 
 s. S, sub-s. 22, the costs of an arbitration as to 
 the value of land expropriated for a railway inoy 
 be taxed by the juilge. Tho judge in this case, 
 by an order not appealed against, referred the 
 taxation to a taxing ofHcer : — Hold, that the 
 question whether the judge had power to dele- 
 gate the taxation could not be raised, and that 
 an appeal lay from the taxing officer to the 
 judge. Ite Mcltae and the Ontario and Quebec 
 It. \V. Co., 12 P. K. 282.— Proudfoot. lb. 327. 
 -Chy. D. 
 
 Quoere, whether " the judge " named in sub-a. 
 22 could delegate the taxation of costs. S. C, 
 12 P. R. 327. 
 
 By sub-section 23 of section 8 of R. S. C. c. 109 
 "the arbitrators * * may examine oa 
 
1707 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1708 
 
 oath * * tho partioH, or hiicIi witiioHHt;! nn 
 muy voliintitrily ii|i|i<"ii' luifon: tliciii." In tliix 
 
 CUHU MUll|lirllUM Wtil'i! iHHIII'll, anil \t itlUHML'H 
 
 att«ii(l(ul u|iiiii tliuiiiuiitl wure i xiiiiiiiicil : ilchl, 
 that tlioru wiih no jiowur to unnipet lliu attend- 
 ancu of witiicHHUM, »n<l tlioHu wlio .'iltiiiilcil niuHt 
 liuvo tlonc NO voliniturily ; IIutd wiit no powtT, 
 Ihorufoni, to tiix lliu HnlipuniiH uh micIi, lint iim 
 tlioy opurali'il an notii-fw, tlii^ projiur cdhIh of 
 llotiuuH hIioiiIiI Iiu allowcil, anil aUo lliu coh' of 
 tliu uttundanuu of Hit; witnuHsuH. .V, C, I'J P. I!. 
 282. 
 
 In nxpioiiiiatiiin uatioH tho coHtH hIioiiIiI Iiu 
 tnxud liliurally in favour of the proprietor ; Init 
 where tho »tatiite» niLiition " eosts " only, and 
 not/' full eoHt8,"(eoHt« iiH butween Holicitor and 
 client lire not intended. Where a railway com- 
 iiany in expropriating land under the Diniiinioii 
 Kitilway Aet agreed to pay to the lanilowiieiH 
 "all coHtxineideiital to the arliitration " had to 
 fix the conipunaation to he ]iai(l : -Held, that 
 tho words did not extend to eosts as hetwceii 
 Holicitor and elieiit, nor to eoHtH preliniinary to 
 tho arbitration. AV Jlroiison iiwl Caudila Allan- 
 tic li. W. t'o., 13 I'. K. 440.— Uoyd. 
 
 (e) Olher Cane*. 
 
 D. bronght an aetion to cunipel a railway eoni- 
 paiiy to arbitrate to aHcertain the value of cer- 
 tain land taken for the pnipoueM of the railway 
 company, and after the beiviee of the writ the 
 company served u notice to arbitrate, and alter 
 arbitration an award was made by two of the 
 urbitralors, but wa.s HubHeijuently Het aside by 
 tho court as iiivalid. I), llien proceeded with 
 his action, and the railway company pleaded 
 ihut the arbitrators had tixed u tiniu ior the 
 making of tho award, but did nut make any 
 within the time limited, and did not enlarge the 
 time, and that therefore the siiiii of .§4()0 oll'eied 
 by the railway company before proceedings 
 taken had become the amount of the coinpenna- 
 tion. The judge found on the evidence that 
 no time hud been tixed by the arbitrators for 
 making the award : — Held that as the par- 
 tics by their pleadings liad placed themselves 
 upon an issue as to whether the arbitrutdis had 
 fixed a time or not, and as that issue wau found 
 in favour of the plaintitf, the sum of |4UUoireie(l 
 had nut become the coinpensatiun to be paid, 
 and a reference back was ordered. Demore.M v. 
 Grand Juuctiun li. iV. Co., 10 O. R. 510.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 The proper modo of enforcing an award 
 of coinpensatiun made under tho Railway Act 
 is by au order from the judge. C'amidiau Paci- 
 fic R. W. Go. V. Lillle Heminary of Hie. Therese, 
 16 8. C. R. 606. 
 
 Quffire — Whether sub-soction 34 of section 8 
 of chapter 109 R. S. C. perinits possession to be 
 given before the price is fixed and paid of any 
 land except land on which sumo work of con 
 struction is to be at once proceeded with. lb. 
 
 A motion was ma<lo to (Jalt, J., under I{. .S. 
 C. c. 109, s. 8, 8ub-s. 28, to determine the 
 validity of the cause of disqualiiicatiun urge<l 
 by landowners against the arbitrator i<ppuiiited 
 by a railway company under the provisions of the 
 Act. The objection was, that the arbitrator was 
 a ratepayer of a city largely interested in the rail- 
 
 way company an a shareholder nnd nruditor. I lit 
 was nut hiiiiHelf a shareholder, nor had he any 
 peiHunal interest in the matter, except m a 
 resident of the city, in which hu had no real 
 eHtiite, and was iisnes.^ed rm iiieumc oiilv : 
 Held, by (iult, •!., that the arbitrator wan imt 
 dl^'inalllied. J>'i Aliljiiilhin anil 'J he. (.'"' '/7» 
 Jihnliunii. W. Co., I'J I'. R. 2U4.— (Jalt.- ( hy. 
 I). 
 
 Held, by the ('haneeiy Divisional Court, Unit 
 no appeid lay to a Divisional Ciiiirt fmiii [\\t; 
 ileeiNloii of tiK' judge acting under the slalnii'. 
 
 Held, also, that the DivisionnI ('ourt had no 
 po« er to remove the proceedings by certimari. 
 Ih. 
 
 C, 
 
 II 
 
 Sec /iowin v. C'auddii Suiithcru li. W. 
 A. R. I, p. 1750. 
 
 Liinitatiun of actions. .SVr Subhead XIII., p. 
 I HOC. 
 
 !). Avlion fur Wrniiyfiil Tukiun. 
 
 Held, that as the appellants had not lakiii 
 the steps necessary under the Act of IfSHO, 
 to vest in them the power to cxorcisi' Ihe 
 right or do the thing lor which ciiiii|ieiis itluii 
 Would have liecii due under the Aet, an action 
 by the respondents fur damages anil the lu- 
 iiiuval uf the uliKtruction would lie ; in wlii< h it 
 the olistructiuii were nut ordered to be n moved 
 (l.inia;.'es as for a perniaiieiit injury to the ImiiiI 
 could be recovered. (Ii.rpuratiuii of I'arkilaU. r. 
 West, 12 App. Cas. (102, lullowed. Anrlli .S/n/jr 
 Ji. ir. Vu., V. i'hii, 14 App. ( .IS. 012. 
 
 10. Aticnathid Luiii/n Tnkvu for thf. I'nrpoiWH of 
 
 Ihe Jini/ira;/. 
 
 Hehl, that Hie (haiid Trunk R. W. Co., under 
 14 and 15 Vict. e. 51, hud no power tu eunvey 
 ur alienate lands ; and certainly nut lamls ac- 
 ([iiiicd by them for the purposes uf the railway, 
 and w hicli were necessary for its cuiistriiclion, 
 maintenance and accumiiiuihitiun : - (jincie, .is 
 tu such power under (1. S. ( '. c. liO, s. il, 
 sub-s. 2. As the deed fnnii the cuiiipany was 
 nut shewn tu contain any (covenant : Held, in 
 ejectinent against lliein, that they weie not 
 estopped; and :— Quaere, whether, in any case, 
 they conhl be estopped in such an action. 
 Pntli V. (Irand Trunk li. \V. Co., 80. I!. 4<J!).— 
 O'Connor. 
 
 11. liemimimj Title to Laiidii Taken by Railways. 
 
 See JcHsitp V. Oranil Trunk li. W, Co., 7 A. 
 R. 128, p. 1752; AVifl and Ainiinra li. W. Co. 
 
 V. Ronneau, 17 A. H. 483, p. 1802. 
 
 IV. Construction ok Railways. 
 
 1. Commencement of }\'tirk. 
 
 The plaintiffs were empowered by their Aet of 
 incorporation to construct a railway in seLiiinis 
 between the River S. S. M. on the west, ami ii. 
 on tho east, and such luilway was by the twen- 
 ty-third section of their Act to be coniimnced 
 within three years, anil to be completed within 
 six years from 4th Murch, IbSl. In the years 
 
 
1768 
 hulitor. ||„ 
 
 I' liail llli ;i„y 
 
 |i!Xi!('|.t :ch a 
 JIiikI iio ICIll 
 liirut (iiilv : 
 jitor was ii„t 
 'I he. (,'111 1/, h 
 |(Jalt,-( liy. 
 
 |l Court, Hint 
 |irt fi'diti i|„, 
 
 tllU Slllllltl'. 
 
 Foiirt liiiil IK, 
 by certic)i:iij. 
 
 ['. ir. (•,,, |.| 
 
 h'l'l XJII.,|,. 
 
 (iiiij. 
 
 il not lakiii 
 ct (if I,SS(*, 
 fxtH'ciHi' i,|i(. 
 ;i>iii|)innilioii 
 t, ail iii'iioii 
 Hiiil Mm: ru- 
 in uiiidi 11 
 
 )i: I'l IMOVtd 
 r to tlic liiliil 
 f I'illkdlll,. ,.. 
 
 A'lirtli .shtiri: 
 12. 
 
 ''■ t'nrpoHen of 
 
 V . Co., iiiidoi' 
 ;i' to foiivoy 
 lot IiiikIh ac- 
 tli«j railway, 
 NiiiHtriiulion, 
 
 - Qllillf, ,IH 
 
 •'■ tili, K. !), 
 oinpaiiy \v,ig 
 ;: lld,l, in 
 y Moic not 
 in any case, 
 nn acti(in. 
 L». li. 4!J!). -^ 
 
 ly liailu-aijs. 
 
 '. Co., 7 A. 
 H. W. Co. 
 
 'AYS. 
 
 lioir Act of 
 in sc'Liiiins 
 e.-st, aim ,;. 
 
 tlllj tHCIl- 
 
 ;oniimin;i(l 
 tud witliin 
 1 tlie yuai-g 
 
 1709 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1770 
 
 18HI anil I8H2 thuy Miirv«yuil, liiuatuil ami tiloil 
 plaiiH from tlin riviM' S. S, M. oaHtcily to S. It. 
 about onu-thiril of tlii! >.'iitirc Icii^'tli of tliojr 
 road, anil did Hoino work tliiMron of tlm (;har- 
 ttcttsr of " i.'oiiHtrtiutlon " HiK'li an j{railiiij{, lil.i il- 
 in^ and (:Iio|i|iIml;. Lit tin tiioi'(> was iloiu: l)y 
 tliitni from ISS.' to iHMti owiii),' to tiiiaiu'ial n^a- 
 80IIS, Imt wllii MO iiilciil ion of aii.in loniii;,' tlio 
 road. Till) iliifi'iidantH who lia<l conHtniclod a 
 liiiii of railway in far wv^t ax A. iiiocii^iIcmI, in 
 IKii'cnilicr, IHSd, to coiiliiini,' tlm i;onHtiiic!tioii of 
 their liiii! wiHtciIy lioiii A, IoIIh: HivcrS. S. \|. 
 ami in doiii){ mh ihi' I tliin lim- whieli plainliirs 
 had lorated : III Id, on tlic I'viiji'ihc, that tlin 
 wiiiU doiii- liy til" pi liiilill'i w.is a liona lidi' I'om- 
 Mirii(M'iii''nt of their railway wltliin the tliieo 
 years ii ipiired iiy their .Aet. Oiifnrin iiitil S,iii/I 
 Stc Mai-ir II. W. ('.,., \. ('iiiiiilliiil /•iirilir /,'. ||'. 
 I',,., II O. U. I.fj. Kergiimm. 
 
 Held, that ai tin; plaiiititrM were author- 
 ized to eoiiHtniet their r.iiiw ly in heetioiiH, tlioy 
 were not lioiilid hel..i ; e.iiiiineiKJinj; Hoik Ui lilu 
 jilaiiH of tlioir wliole line. /Ii. 
 
 ."iee (Jor/ioriili-ii iif /''(rkiliili- v. Il'i s7, j'J App. 
 CaH. lid-', p. I7.'>7. 
 
 '2. Ituuniiii/ on or Ortmniiiij H'mhiimyx. 
 
 A iniiniei|i.ility iiiiy tile iliill toronipel a rail- 
 way eoinpniy to jiiit «ti Ih and highways im- 
 properly traverse<l hy theii- liiii! ot railway in 
 ^oiid repair, and will not he lestrieted to pro- 
 uitediiig iiy indietnieiit or inforinatioii. Fi m Inn 
 Fitll" V. I'irloriii li. \V. Co., '2'.) Cliy. 4. - lioyd. 
 
 The phiintill's, a iiiiniii'ipal eorpor itioii, liled a 
 liill seekinj^ to rcHtiaiii the defendants arailw.iy 
 compiny, from tresp'issin^ hy riiiiiiiie^ their 
 tiaeks aloii^'oueof the streets of the iiiiiiiieip.dity 
 without fii- eoiisent thereof, thus impedini; 
 tr !i,-, in c-iiti ii of the llailway .Vt, (,', 
 
 S '. c. (10, N. IJ. Mih-,-. I ; Held, thai Iiy virtue 
 . Uiii Municipil .Vet tliere. is miidi pouei- ol 
 ni.iMigeinont. ei • 'rol, cte., liestowe<l ii|«iii iiilllii- 
 cipalities. r.lld di a responsiliility east ii|iiiii 
 
 tl I .IS to jiiHii \ them ill intcrveMing on liehalf 
 
 of ' inhiiliit aiits for the procrval ion of their 
 ri - : Semlile, Imt for the laiiL'tiage used in 
 (•' jih ''. 'riieC^inada Co., 4('hy. tio(i, the piopur 
 fi 111 of the suit would havo lieen liy wav of in- 
 form it ion in the name of tin; AHornoy-( lenural, 
 with the luirporation as rel.ito Jfi. 
 
 The City of Ottawa, passed n.'soliitioiis provi- 
 ding for a lease of right of way to the Canada 
 Atlantic Railway C<imp:iiiy over lands (expro- 
 priated Viy the eity for water-works purposes, 
 under ."I.") Vict. e. 81) (Out.) : i\\<\, that though 
 primil faciu the only right ' iided to be coii- 
 lerriid on n company is tli.it expropriating the 
 privivte propi;rty of individuals or corporations, 
 and not property alnjady (bevoted to the piililie 
 nsps, or already oxprojiriated under other Ails, 
 yet uiioer hoiik; cireiiinstaiioi!H the right toiii iko 
 sneli expropriation might exist, and if so, then the 
 city wimld have the eorresp(mding power to con- 
 vey ; anil ns the applicant had not sliewn to the 
 court that circnmstances did not exist under 
 which the r.iilw.ay company could take tiie land, 
 the court woiilil not assume that the city hail 
 committed ii breach of trust in passing the reso- 
 lutions: —Held, also, that there was nothing in 
 
 the ivMolutioiiH authorizing the railwayn to ermw 
 the streets at a LOade .liU'ereiit fioiii that pre 
 Heribed by the liailway Act of IN7!». /,( re 
 Itfiiinun iimlCilij „j Ottiiiint, I t). K. 41.'i. g. 
 
 Per Armour, .1., the jury were rightly directed, 
 Milder the facts Htated in the report of this (•a.ie, 
 that the deh iidanl.i hail laid down the track, on 
 whi.h the iir.Mdciit happen, ..l, ill Iheeily of Ot- 
 tawa, without aulhoiity, it bciii^r a third track 
 or switch fur lis- in .■oiiiicctioii with their stu- 
 tion, lor piirpo.-ics of Nhiiiiting, eti'..aiid if ille- 
 gally l.iid down no aripiieseeiice, i;x(upt by by- 
 law, would make it rightful a-i agaiiMl tliu 
 phiintiir. I'er lligiity, C. ,1. Having Ik un 
 there for many yeiiis with the Uiiowlcdge and ac- 
 i|llii;M'cu,;e of the coipoiatioii, its existiuiee I'oiild 
 nut alone make defendants liable, but it witM 
 jiidperly left as a eireiimstaiii.'e to he eoiisiibrud 
 liy the jury. I.rit \. St. I.airninr. ninl tHhimii 
 It. ir. i'o.. and //I'liliiu V. .S7. Liiiniiiitu anil Ot- 
 tairii /.'. ;r. C,,., 1 O. K. ,-)|.-). i). li. I). 
 
 Where a railway company ciiiiHtruetiMl their 
 railway .doiig a hi;'liHay in .a niunicipality, the 
 eoniicil whereof mcic not formally applied to 
 for Icavc!, but suliscipii ntly passed a resoliitiiiij 
 notifying the railway coiniiaiiy to till up the 
 ditch existing on both siilcs of the railway, and 
 to put down proper i lossings ; lb Id, that the 
 iM)r|ioratiou had theieliy admitted that the rail- 
 way company were lawfully in occupation of 
 the highway, and could not afterwards object. 
 'I'dirn-ihiji (if I'l inli,:,l;i V. (Jiinilila C< nl nil It. \V. 
 
 Co., :i o. II. m:\. Oxicr. 
 
 The leave of the niiinicipal or local authori- 
 ties reipiircd hy ;{| Vict. c. CiH (l)oiii.), bcfoni » 
 railway is carried along an existing highway, 
 may be granted at any time whether before, 
 during, or after the constrnction of the railway, 
 and need not neci;ssarily be given by by-law : - 
 Semble, that R. S. O. (IH77), c 174, H. 277, 
 enact iiig that the |iiiwers of township councils 
 shall be exercisid by by-law, must be construed 
 as n feiring •>nly to the exercise of powers of 
 thi; council under the .Municipal Act, and not 
 to powers which may be exercised under a 
 special Act pissed for other purposes or by 
 another legislature. //;. 
 
 Held, that the corporation having stood hy 
 while the railway was constructed, and siih- 
 siipieiitly for iijiwaids of live years, while it 
 was in operation, and having also by the resolu- 
 tion afoi'(;said, proenried further expenditure hy 
 the company, were bound by acipiicscence, and 
 could not now maintain .an action for the re- 
 moval of the railway fioni the street. A cor- 
 poration niiiy bi; bound by acipiicscence as an 
 individual may : - (^luerc, whether such acqui- 
 escence would have avaih:d as a legal juatihca- 
 tion for the defendants on an iinlictinent for a 
 niiisaiice at the suit of the Crown. Ih. 
 
 3. Bridijni <in<l Suhwaj/n. 
 
 The plaintiir, as administratrix, sued tho de- 
 fendants, under 44 Viet. c. '22, s. 7, (Ont.), for 
 the death of her illegitimate son, a brakesman 
 on the itefend.'ints' railway, who was killed by 
 being carried against a bridge, not of the height 
 rcijuircd by that Act, while on one of their 
 
1771 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY OOMPAinES. 
 
 1772: 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 A' 
 
 f.i 
 
 trains pagaiiig uii<leriioatli it. 'I'lie bridge 1>eIoiig- 
 eil to another railway coinpauy, which had tiiu 
 i'ii{ht to urosH tlie dutuniliiiitH' lini; in tiiat way, 
 and tliongli the tiniu alloui'd l)y the Htalutu tor 
 raising tiiu hridge had expired thity hail ncit done 
 MO. 'I he jury found that tlie ditV-iidants iiad 
 heeii guilty of nc^gliut'iice in not raising, or pro- 
 curing to be raised, tlie Iiridye : -Hchl, that the 
 plaintiff was not entitled to recover heeauac sec- 
 tion 7 of the Act applies only to bridges « ithin 
 tlio control of the eoinpany whose servant had 
 been injured. (lihKoii v. Miilhiiul II. W. Co., 'i 
 O. K. CTiS.— Q. B. I). 
 
 Action to recover daiiinges for injuries sus- 
 tained by the pluintitr l>y leason of an overhead 
 bridge being less than seven feut above the toji 
 of the ilcfendants' ear. At tlie time of the acci- 
 dent the defendants were operating the Miilluiid 
 Kailway under an agreement made 'JJnd Sep- 
 t»!mber, 1883, whereby it was agreed that the 
 defendants tihoiiM take over all the lines of the 
 Midland Railway ("oinpany, buildings, rolling 
 stock, stores, and materials of all kinds, and 
 should during the eoiitinuaiice of tlie agreement 
 well and eflicieutly work the said lines ind 
 keep and maintain them willi all the works of 
 the Midland Kailway in as good repair as they 
 were when so taken over. The cigreenienl 
 was to be in force for twenty-eight years. 
 The Midland Hallway I'dinpany, though in- 
 corporated under 44 Vict., e. (i7 (Out.), was 
 brought under the eoiMrol ol the pailiaineiit 
 of Canaila, and made a Dominion Kailway, by 
 46 Viet. e. '24 (l)oin.), passed in ISS:i, liel'ore the 
 agreement vi-as nmde. l:y the .Act of ISSI, 44 
 Vict. c. '24, 8. .'i (l>om.), amending the Coiisoli- 
 (lateil Kailway Act of IS7!t, every bridge or other 
 erection or structure under which any railway 
 passes, etc., existing at the time of the passing 
 of the Act, of which the lower beams were not 
 of sutticient height from the surface of the rails 
 to admit of an open and cle.ir headway of at least 
 seven feet, shall be reconstructed or altered with- 
 in twelve months from the passing of the Act, 
 BO us to admit of such open and clear headway 
 of at least seven feet, at the costof thceom[)any, 
 municipality, w other owner thereof, as the ease 
 may be, etc. Ily 44 Vict. e. 'I'l (l)iit. ) passed 
 when the Midland Kailway wan under the legis 
 lative authority of t)ie (irovince of Ontario, that 
 railway was reiniired to reeonstriict l)ridges 
 owned by tlu^ eomjiany within twelve months 
 from the passing of the Act in terms identical 
 with the hominion Act except that the former 
 Act ni.ikes every railway liable to its servants 
 tor any neglect, etc. : llild, ( !alt, J., dissenting 
 that the delendants were not liable for the injury 
 Hustained by the plaintift". Mr/^ivrli/iu v. (Intiid 
 Trunk K. W. Co., I'2 (). I!. 418.-C. P. 1). 
 
 See. WfM V. VWai/e of I'arkdtik, 12 A. K. :t«3, 
 p. 4()4 ; 12 S. C. R. 'im ; 12 App. Cas. <i02, p. 1377. 
 
 4. FeiiceK. 
 
 The plaintiff sued the defendants for the loss 
 of certain catvle which had escaped to their read 
 by reason, as he alleged, of the neglect of the 
 company to fence, and were killed by their train. 
 It appeared that the plaintiff owned land on 
 either side of the defendants' lailwuy, but the 
 Toronto, Orey, an<l IJrnce R. VV., which lay to 
 the north of defendants' railway, and had also 
 
 l>een taken from his farm, ran between his land 
 and defendants' rail^^'ay : -Held, upon the facta 
 stated in the report, tiiat there was no evidence 
 that the cattle had reaclied tlie railway from the 
 south side ; and the fact that the Toronto, Grey, 
 and Uruee It. W. Co. had neglected to fence did 
 not give the plaintiff, in respect of the occiipa- 
 tioii of their land by his cattle, the status of 
 that company for the time, as adjoining | ro- 
 prietors, against whom only thedefendai Ls \\ere 
 bound to fence, so as to make the defendants 
 liable. Dowiltutu v. (Irantl Trunk II. iV. Co., 
 5 A. K. 585.' 
 
 Sheep belonging to the plaintiff escaped Iniui 
 his premises (ui the highway, and from th> nee 
 owin^ to defects in the fences of the defeud.incs 
 into lands of theirsj. whence they strayed on to 
 the railway track ^^■here they were killed l)y a 
 passing train : ffeld, (reversing t'le judgij.eiit 
 of the t'ouuty .Iiidge) tliat the defeiidants «ere 
 not liable fin' the loss, the sheep not being law- 
 fully on the highway. Diiidt'ln v. (•'tmiil Ti iiiik 
 II. W. Co., II A. I!. 471. 
 
 The plaintitfs occupied aljout an acre oi lot 
 twenty-nine adjoining the railway of the lUfcii- 
 ilant company. Their horses pasturing on another 
 part of the lot, wliich the plaintiffs ilid nut 
 occupy and to « liich they had no title, passed 
 on to the track and were killed by a parsing 
 train : — llehl (atlirining the jiidgnunt of the 
 Q. K. I)., 7 »». K. t)73), that tlie plaintitfs were 
 not entitled to call upon the defen>lantc(>ni|>aiiy 
 to fence across tliat part ol the; lot from whieli the 
 horses escaped ; and tlurefurc, that the couipany 
 were not liable to make gooil their loss to the 
 )ilaintill's. Couwai/ v. Caiindian I'ttcific I'. W. 
 Co., 12 A. K. 70S.' 
 
 The meaning of the terms " I'roprietor," 
 " Tenant." and " Occui ■nt," considered. .S'. C. 
 7 0. K. (173 -t^. B. I>. 
 
 The |)laintiff and one Nadcau, occupied ad- 
 joining lots on the line of the defendants' rail- 
 way ; Nadcau as the locatce of the (.'rouu, 
 plaintiff as a sipiatter, and by !igreenient between 
 them it was arranged that their horses sliould 
 IMisture together. One of the pl.iintitl's hoi.ses 
 strayed from Na'ieau's lot on to the i ;. k of 
 the defendants' which at that point was i;ii- 
 feiieed -and was killed by a passing train. In 
 an action for the value of the horse it was : — 
 Held, th.'it "occuiiied lands" under the Railway 
 Act, 4t> Viet. 0. '24. (Dom.), denote lands imI- 
 joining a railway and actually or coiLstnii lively 
 occupied up to the line of the railway by n a on 
 of actual occupation of some part of the seiiiiMi, 
 or lot by the person who owns it or is entilli^l 
 to possession of the whole, and that although 
 mere occupation such as that of a stpiatter i.s not 
 provideil for in the Act, N. was, under the cir- 
 cumstanecs, entitled to re(]uire the defenilanta 
 to fence, notwithstanding he had oniittt'il to 
 fulfil the conditions of his locution by perlnini- 
 ance of the settlement duties rei|uired thereby - 
 the Crown never having taken steps to cancel 
 such location ; that uniler the eireumstaiiies the 
 question us to contributory negligence did not 
 arise, and therefore plaintiff was entitled to re- 
 cover. Dacin V. Cauadlun J'licific /I. 11'. Cn., 
 12 A. R. 724. 
 
 Held, O'Connor, J., dissenting, that in the 
 face of 46 Vict. c. 18, s. 490, suh-ss. !5 and 16 
 
 \ 
 
1772: 
 
 teen his land 
 
 [)on the facta 
 
 I no evidnico 
 
 way from the 
 
 '>ronto, Grey, 
 
 I to fence did 
 
 tlie ocuiipa- 
 
 the sfiitnH of 
 
 l.jciining i lo- 
 
 ndiii :» \\ t;io 
 
 dcft'iidiiiits 
 
 A'. >r. (V,.. 
 
 iscuiied fiDiii 
 fioni thi nee 
 tlefciid.iiitB 
 stniycd on to 
 killed liy a 
 'le jiiilgii.'ent 
 Liidaiits Were 
 lit being |,mf. 
 Urnvil Triiiit 
 
 n aeru ol lot 
 
 of the d( fen- 
 
 iiigon another 
 
 iUtU <li(i not 
 
 ) title, iiioiscd 
 
 l)y a passing 
 
 nuiit of the 
 
 ilaintltlH were 
 
 ilante(>ni|i;iiiy 
 
 roni whieli the 
 
 t the e(iiii|iikliy 
 
 eir loss to the 
 
 Pacific /,'. tV. 
 
 " I'roiii'ietor," 
 lidercd. .S'. U. 
 
 oeeupidd ,id- 
 fi^ndants' niil- 
 f the Crown, 
 inent lietwecn 
 horses slioidd 
 intitl's iKii.'sex 
 
 the 1... k of 
 loiiit was lin- 
 ing tiain. la 
 rse it was : — 
 r the Railway 
 otir lands im1- 
 •onstruitivcly 
 Viiy by n a on 
 if the seriiipii, 
 or is entithid 
 :hat altliiin^h 
 rjuatter is nut 
 inder the eir- 
 b defendants 
 I omitted to 
 1 by |icrliirni- 
 'ed thereby — 
 !|i8 to eancel 
 inistances the 
 enoe did not 
 ntitled to lu- 
 ; //. W. (■,:, 
 
 that in the 
 8. !5 and IS 
 
 1773 
 
 RAILWAYS AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 1774 
 
 (Ont.)i which seemed to wvnction thcni and em- 
 powered nniniuipalities to provide a^'ainst injury 
 resulting from t'e ni, barbed-wire fenees eon- 
 atructed by the (it.fendant< npon an ordinary 
 country road along the li;-e of their railway 
 could not be treated as a nuisance, no liy-law of 
 the locality in which the accident eoniplained of 
 in this ease having lieen passed respecting fences 
 of the kind, and t^iat defen<lants were not there- 
 fore liable for the loss of the plaint itt's colt, 
 which while following its dam as the latter was 
 Iteing lo<l by the plaintiff's servant ran auainst the 
 fence and received the injuries resulting in its 
 death. Ililliinrd v. (Iraiul Tntiil; A'. W. Co., S (). 
 R.583.-Q. B. I). 
 
 5. (tales. 
 
 The defendants' line of railway ran thmugh 
 the plaintiff's farm, and the plaintitf's nrire es- 
 caped from a field adjoining the railway through 
 agate opposite a farm-crossing which the defen- 
 dants had constructe<l. and whieli was out of 
 repair, and was killed on the railway : —Held, 
 that the duty imposed by law upon the railway 
 company to erect and maintain fences on each 
 Hide of the railway with o))cnings or gates 
 or bars therein at farm crossings of the road, 
 is not at all dependent upon whether or not 
 a duty is imposed upon them by law to erect 
 and maintain such crossings, but win illy inde- 
 pendent of it. Afiirphyv. (Iriintl Tnnik II. W. 
 Co., 1 O. R. 019.— Q. B. D. 
 
 Plaintiff's horses, in consequence of insecure 
 fastening "of the gates at the farm crossing 
 where the defendants' railway crossed their 
 farm, got through the gates and on the lailway 
 track, and wore killed by a passing train : — 
 Held, that the plaintiff by reason of the o(m- 
 tinued use of the faulty fastening, could not bo 
 deemed to have adopted them as siitlieieiit, and 
 that it was the duty of the defeudauts to pro- 
 vide and maintain projicr fastenings for the gate 
 Section of the statute 47 Viet. c. 11 (l)om.), 
 commented on as to the nature of the duty cast 
 on the plaint'ff to keep the gate closed; and : — 
 Quaere, whether the words in that .Act, that the 
 owners must keep the gates closed, extend 
 further than in respect of their own use of them ; 
 or whether, if the gate l)ecamc open by any ac- 
 cidental means, or by the act of a stranger, and 
 remained open without any person being near to 
 prevent animals passing through it, the ow ner or 
 occupier would be liable to the lull extent pro- 
 vided by the Act, although it had become open 
 without his agency or neglect, and remained so 
 without his knowlctlge. McMUIwil v. (liwiitl 
 Trunk R. W. Co., 12 0. R. .'i47. -Cameron. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 6. Farm Cco.t'o'df/s. 
 
 See Mtirphijv. ilrawl Triinl: It. IT. Co , \ O. 
 619, niii»a. 
 
 See also Subhead III. 4, (b) ji. IT.Vi. 
 
 R. 
 
 V. iNJtiRY TO Persons and Animai-s. 
 I. liif Collinion lielireen Traiim. 
 
 The Grand Trunk Railway crosses the (Jreat 
 Western Railway, about a mile east of the city 
 
 of London, on a level crossing. On 19th June, 
 18"(», a Grand Trunk train, on whieli plaintiff 
 was on 'iioard as a conductor, before crossing, wa.* 
 brought to a stand. The signal man, who was 
 in charge of the crossing and in the employ uient 
 of the Great Western Railway Company, droppe<l 
 the semaphore, and thus authoriitcd ihetirand 
 Trunk train to proceed, which it did. While 
 crossing the track, appellants' train, which had 
 not been stopped, owing to the accidental burst- 
 ing of a tube in air-brakes, ran into the (Jrand 
 Trunk train and injureil iilaintiff. It was shewn 
 that tlie.se air-brakes were the best known ap- 
 pliances for stopping trains, and that they had 
 been lenl,.! during the ilay, but that they were 
 not applied at u sufficient distance from the cros- 
 sing to enable the train to be stopped by the 
 hand-brakes, in ease of the air brakes jiiving 
 way. {!. S. C. c. (iO, s. 142 ( U. S. O. (1S77) c. 
 KJo, s. 90) enacts that " every railway cnnipany 
 shall station an officer at every point on their 
 line cro.ssed on the level by any other railway, 
 and no train shall proceed over such cro.ssing 
 until signal has been made to the conductor 
 thereof, that the way is clear." Section IIU, 
 enacts that "every locomotive * * ' .n 
 train of cars on any railway shall, before crossing 
 the track of any other railway on a level, be 
 stopped for at least the space of three min- 
 utes :"— Held, that the aiipellants were guilty 
 of negligence in not applying the air-brakes at 
 a sufficient dislanoe from the crossing to enable 
 the train to be stopped by hand-brakes in ease 
 of the air-lir.ikes giving way. That there was 
 no evidence of contributory negligence on the 
 part of the Grand Trunk railway, as they had 
 brought their train to a full sto]!, and only pro- 
 ceeded to cross appellants' tra"k when author- 
 ized to do so by the officer in charge of the senia- 
 |)hore, who was a servant of the Great Western 
 Railw.iy Company. (!rea> irtsA /)< A'. IT. Ci.. of 
 (\um(ln V. lirowii, 3S. C. I!. loQ. Affirming 
 .S'. C. '2 A. R. ti4 ; 49 (,». 1!. :V.\X 
 
 The plaintiff was going from I. to M. by train 
 in charge of cattle. At T. the train on which 
 he had come from 1. was p.irtly biuken up, to 
 be remade with some cars w Inch were standing 
 on another track. While there the plaintiff, 
 unknown to the defendaii' >, went into the 
 caboose at the end of the c .s which were to bo 
 added to the cars from I., and when the eoiinec- 
 tion was about to be made, deliberately stood 
 up, and was washing his hands, when the shock 
 of the connection cau.sed the injury, for damages 
 for which this action was brought : - Held, 
 affirming the decision of Rose, .1., that there 
 was 110 evidence of negligence on the defendants' 
 part ; and the mere fact of the accident happen- 
 ing to the plaintiff was not in itself sufficient 
 evidence of negligence :— Hehl, also, that, there 
 was evidence of contributory negligence, in that 
 the plaintiff knew that he was in a freight train, 
 where tlurt would not be so much !..are shown, 
 and yet stoixl up, instead of sitting ilowii. as he 
 might have done, while the connection was 
 being made, especially as he entered thecihoose 
 before the train was made up, and had no reason 
 to think that the defendants knew that he was 
 there, llii/chinsiin v. Canadian /'acljir It. IT. 
 Co., 17 0. R. 317.— Chy. l>.; 10 A. U. 4'J9. 
 
 See CoHi/fi- V. Orand Trunk U. W 
 0. U. 160, p. 1801. 
 
 Co., l\ 
 
1775 
 
 RAILWAYS AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 1776 
 
 lei; 
 
 iiC^ 
 
 U.f; 
 
 
 2. limminij lteverneUj. 
 
 Seinlile, that section U5 of 0. S. C. c. 66, 
 re(iniriii^ n person to l)o stationed on tlie last car 
 in tlie tniiii, apjjliea to tlie station grounils of 
 railway oonipanifs in cities, towns, ami villages, 
 as well as to the limits oiitsiile of such station 
 gi-oumls. /liiiiidt V. (I'riind Truid- /{. 1)'. Co., 
 •,i (). R. 441!. — C. l\ D. 
 
 The defendants wore required by law to station 
 a m:\n on the last c:ir of every train mnving re- 
 versely in any town, to warn persons standing 
 on or crossing the track of the a|>iiroicli of the 
 train : -ITcMd, that the defendants did not coni- 
 ]dy witli tills ilirection hy hiviiij; a niui at the 
 front end of the last ear, where he eould not see 
 ])ersons I'lostsiriL.' the trai^ks. In this ease tliere 
 was MO lirdve at the io:\r end of the last ear. 
 The liriki'snian on the last (ur, seeing the track 
 oh^ii' a fi'W minutes hefore the aerident, went to 
 tlie front end. and the jdaint'lf tlien atteniiitiiig 
 to cross, was injniel : —Held, evidence of negli- 
 gonee to go to the jury. Li'rmi v. Mhlluii'l I'. 
 W. Co.,:\o. K. (J'i.l.— Q. I!. I). 
 
 The train was . ..eking at the time the accident 
 happeiiel. I'lT .Viinour, .1. -The jurv were 
 rightly direited th:it defendants were hound to 
 sound the wln.stle or ring the hell, when tin; 
 near.'st part of the train was eighty rods from the 
 crossing ; and having regard to the fact that they 
 liad without authority increased the nund)cr of 
 tracks therc^ it was also right to tell them that 
 it was f.ir them to say wiiether, eoiiNidering the 
 nature of the crossing, they should not have 
 stationed a man thei'e, or taken some other than 
 the statutory precautions, l^ill v. iSV. Lairreiirc 
 anil Ollama l{. W . Co. riHil iliiil'tii v. St. Lair, 
 re.m-e. anil Oltaii\. It. 11'. Co., I O. It. 54.").— (}. 
 B. I). 
 
 See Ca-r>/ v. Cniiailinii I'arijir A'. U'. Co., lo 
 O. R. r.74, j). 1778. 
 
 .'?. At Crn<iiiiii'<. 
 
 The servant of the plaiiitifr was in charge of 
 an omnihuK running to ami from the station of 
 the defendants' railway, aiid on the evening in 
 question was attending at (ieorgetown station, 
 at ahout ton feet from tin; tiaek, hut was unahle 
 to see along tlic raihv.iy in either direction by 
 ruas<m of houses intervening. I!y hiaving the 
 oinnihus, howevei-, and guiiig to the track ho j 
 could hav(! seen an approaching train ; hut ' 
 omitting to taki^this pieeiution, although aware 
 that a freight train was then on the track near 
 the cnissing, he started oil' to cross it, and did 
 not hear or see anything of the ap|)roaehing train 
 until within ahout four feet of him, wlioii he was 
 nn.al)le to avoid it, ami the omnibus and harness 
 were consiileralily damaged. It was not shewn ; 
 that the iliiverof the train hail given any warn- 
 ing of its approaeli )>y souniling the whistle or ', 
 bell on its Hearing the part of the track where it 
 croHsiid the road to the station. ,\t the trial 
 the plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground of the ' 
 contributory negligence of the pliintilTs servant : ; 
 — Held, on appeal (reversing the judgment of, 
 the (,'ounty Court), that the (piestion of con- ■ 
 tributory negligence had been improperly with- ' 
 drawn from the jury, and that a now trial must 
 be had in order to submit that question to them, i 
 Bennett V, Gran I Trunk R. 11'. Co., V A. U. 470. 
 
 Held, that u mere track crossing, on a roiul or 
 way on a railway company's own grounds for the 
 convenience of passengers and others in going to 
 and from the station on railway business, is not 
 a public crossing, highway, or place, witliin C. 
 S. C. e. 0(i, s. 104, so as to subject the company 
 to the re<juiremonts of that section of ringing tlic 
 bell or sounding the whistle when approaching 
 SUCH crossing ; hut, sendde, apart from the 
 statute, care must bo tak(ui when starting their 
 engines fr<iin the station. lUniiilt v. Crnml 
 Tnink It. 11'. Co., .S (). I!. 44().— C. V. D. See 
 
 ' the last case. 
 
 ! 
 
 I The |)l.iintilT. early in the morning, it not 
 being cpiite day-break and snowing a little, was 
 ilriviiig a yoke of oxen .iiid a pair (if bob sleiglis 
 along the liigliw.iy towirds a railway crossing, 
 sitting on the fiont boli, low down behind the 
 oxen. Till' track cross d the hii;liway at an 
 acute angle, ami was S'lme seven feet above the 
 highway, wlii'li was gr.ided up to it. At the 
 crossing there were some bushes which obstructed 
 
 : the view, but before reai'liing them there was a 
 
 i view of the track for some sixty or seventy rods, 
 but not wliih^ in the hollow at the licitlom of the 
 grade and sittin;,' .is the plaiiitiH' was. The jilain- 
 titTi.ilhout hinking for the train, drove on to 
 the track, and as he diil so lie saw a ti.iin ap- 
 proa liiiig a few rods oil', when he jumped to the 
 oil' side and hit the olV ox, causing it to spring 
 asid(? .md clear the track, but before he could 
 
 , giM, eleir himself he was struck by the train and 
 injured. It was urged thit the |)laiiililV by so 
 doing voluntarily exiiosed himself to danger; 
 
 ! but tln^ie ivas evidence to the cnntrarv. Tlie 
 
 , ilefeiidants' engine had an automatic bell. A 
 witness stated that these bells do not always 
 ring when the train is in motion. 'I'lie engineer 
 
 I stated that the bell w.is in good <irder when tin; 
 engine left the last station, but he could not say 
 
 I whether or not it was ringing when the accident 
 
 j happened, while a number of witnesses st.vted 
 tliat the bell was not then ringing. The jury 
 
 ! found that the bell was not ringing; that it was 
 not in good order ; and that the plaintill" exer- 
 cised rea.soiiable care. On motion to enter a non- 
 suit ;— Helil, Wilson, C. .)., doubting, that there 
 was eviiloneo for the jury ; that it ('onld not bo 
 said that the tindings wen; not justilied, and the 
 
 I court therefore refused to interfere. Wilton, v. 
 
 I Xorlhim It. W. Co., ,■> (). 1!. 400.— C. R I). 
 
 I Tlie (le(;ea»ed. who wis well accjiiaintod with 
 the locality, wliile driving along a ro; il running 
 ill the same diieetioii as and crossing the rail- 
 way, was killed at the crossing liy a locomotive, 
 not a regular train. The jury found that the 
 engine was going unusually last ; that the whistle 
 was sounded at another cnissing, three fifths of 
 ' a mile off, but was not continiiod ; and that de- 
 ; ceased was not guilty of eontrihutory negligence. 
 'I'lie Common I'leas Divisiiui, upon tlie evidi'noe, 
 more fully stated in the repv-t , refused to dis- 
 turb this verdict, and on iijipc ,il their judgment 
 was aflirmi!d, Cameron. C d,, dissenting, on the 
 ground that the plaintill" was b:iunil to disprove 
 contributory nigligence ; that she had failed to 
 do so, for had ilei'ea.sed looked he must have 
 seen the train coming ; and that there should 
 therefore have been a nonsuit. Davey v. The 
 London and Soutli-Western H. W. (!o. II Q. 
 H. 1). 21.-i; 12 q. 15. 1). 70, ami Dublin, Wick- 
 low, and Wexford R. W, Co. v. Slattory, ,1 App. 
 
1776 
 
 on n roiul or 
 ounds for thu 
 •8 in g()in>{ to 
 iinuss, is not 
 e, within C. 
 tile company 
 if ringinjitho 
 
 Jipproaohing 
 •t from tliu 
 tartina; their 
 It V. (h-iind 
 I', r). See 
 
 ■iiinj;. it not 
 ii little, •,v;is 
 f 1)()1) sleighs 
 :iv crossing, 
 licliind the 
 uv;iy at an 
 ct above the 
 it. At the 
 •li olislrnoteil 
 there was a 
 'oventy roils, 
 intlom of the 
 ;. Thephiin- 
 (Irovo on to 
 a twin ap- 
 iMiped to the 
 it to sining 
 or(( lie could 
 lie train and 
 iiiiitilV l)y go 
 f to danger ; 
 itr.irv. The 
 itic hell. A 
 > not always 
 The engineer 
 ler when the 
 'onld not Bay 
 tlie accident 
 lesses stated 
 ;. The jury 
 : that it was 
 la in till" exer- 
 1 enter a non- 
 g, that there 
 con Id not be 
 lied, and the 
 Willnii V. 
 C. P. I). 
 
 minted with 
 o, d rnnning 
 ing the rail- 
 locomotive, 
 nd that the 
 t the whistle 
 I ree fifths of 
 ind that de- 
 ' negligence. 
 le eviilence, 
 used to dis- 
 ir judgment 
 ting, on the 
 to disprove 
 ad failed to 
 must have 
 lere should 
 vcy II. The 
 ('•o. II Q. 
 )lin, VVick- 
 uiy, 3 App. 
 
 1777 
 
 RAILWAYS AND BAILWA7 COMPANIES. 
 
 1778 
 
 Cas, H.'m, commented on. Per Paiteraon, J. 
 A., and Rose, J., with(mt admitting Davey v. 
 The London ami .South-Western R. W. Co., to 
 decide that the plaintilF must negative contri- 
 butory negligence, it is inapplicable here, in view 
 of the statutory duty to give warning by bell or 
 whistle, which does not exist in Kngland. Peart 
 V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 10 A. R. 191. I 
 
 M. B. while driving along the highway at the ' 
 crossing of the (!. \V. railway in the town of S. I 
 operated by the <lefendants, was killed by a train 
 of the defendants, which was then, as found by ^ 
 the .jury, running at a high rate of speed with- , 
 out ringing a bell continnously or sounding a ' 
 whistle at short intervals. The jury at the trial 
 answered all the questions submitted to tlic^n in 
 a manner favourable to the plaintilf and ad- 
 versely to tlie company, and negatived any con- 
 tributory negligence on the part of the deceased, j 
 On appeal it was : — Held, by this court, affirm- 
 ing the judgment of the court below, 8 (). R. 
 601, that there was sufficient evidence of negli- 
 gence to warrant the findings of the jury in 
 favour of the plaintilF. livckvtl v. Oriiii'l Trunk 
 K. W. Co., 13 A. R. 174 ; Hi S. C. R. 1V.\. , 
 
 For the defence it was shown that the de- 
 ceased was driving slowly acro.ss the track with 
 his head down ami that he did not attempt to 
 look out for the train until shouted to by sonic 
 persons who siw it approaching, when he 
 whipped iqihis horses and endeavoured to drive 
 across the track and was killed. As against tliis 
 there was evidence that there was a curve in 
 the road which would ])revent the train being 
 seen, and also that the buildings at the station 
 would interrupt the view:— ITcM, per Ritchie, 
 O. J., and Kournier and Henry, ,1.1,, that the 
 finding of the jury that there was no contrib- 
 utory negligence should not be disturbed. 
 Strong, Tascheroau and (Jwyiine, .I.T., contra. 
 S. C, xnh nom. (Iritnd Trunk A'. If. Co. v. Ilcrk- 
 ctl, 16 S. ('. R. 7I.T 
 
 Action against defendants for an injury sus- 
 tained by )il linlitV being run over by defendants' 
 train at a highway crossing, caused, as alleged, 
 by the omission to ring the bell or souinl the 
 whistle. The persons in charge of tin.' triiii 
 Bwore that tlie whistle was soundeil in coiii|ili- 
 ance with the statutory requirements. The 
 plaintilF said he heard a whistle wliieh In^ thought 
 came from a round house near by, but which 
 might have been from the approaching train, 
 anil though the plaintilF'". witnesses stited they 
 did not he ir the whistle it was (piite consistent 
 with their evidence that the whistle was sound- 
 ed. 'I'he plaintilF, as he appro.ichi'd the track, 
 looked to the north-west for shunting engines, 
 which ho knew were going backwards ami for- 
 wards all the time, and so did not look to the 
 south-west, being the direction in which the 
 train was ajiproaching, and if he h id been look- 
 ing he would have seen the train and the acci- 
 dent would have been avoided. A person fol- 
 lowing immediately behind plaintilF, siw the 
 train and stopped his waggon. I'er Ro.se and 
 MacMahon, .1.1, — No negligence ini ilefend lilts' 
 part was proved, for it could not be held on the 
 evidence that the whistle was not sonndeil as 
 required. I'er (Jalt, (",.I.— There was contri- 
 butory negligence on the plaintilF's part in ap- 
 S reaching the cross'ng in not looking in the 
 irection of the approaching train. I'er Rose, 
 
 112 
 
 •T.— The mere fact of plaintiff not looking in 
 that direction w.is not, under the circum- 
 stances, evidence of contributory negligence. 
 li/aki' V. Cinndian Padfi'- A'. iV. Co., 17 O. R. 
 177. -C. P. 1). 
 
 The plaintilFs, husbind and wife, sued for 
 damages for injuries sustained by the wife, 
 charging the defendanta with negligence in using 
 their r.uUvay in sliunting cars, etc., a'ld in not 
 notifying and prote ■ling the public at crossings. 
 Tlie wife w.is being driven in a cutter by hor 
 sou along a street wliieh crossed three tricks of 
 the defendants, and when the cutter was thirty 
 feet away a " silent '' ear pissed along one of the 
 tiaeks. Tln^ son pulled tlie horse u)) suddenly, 
 witli tlie ell'ect of throwing the motluT (.nit of 
 the cutter and so producing the injury com- 
 plained of. The jury found that the (lefendants 
 were guilty of iiegli.'i'iice, ,inl tint the son by 
 his driving contributed to the accident :— Held, 
 that, upon the evidence, the tinding of contri- 
 biitoiy negligeii ;c could not be interfered with ; 
 and that the injury was too remote a conseipiencc 
 to be attributed to tlie negligenc' of the defen- 
 dants. Aik'nu'in V. (I rand Trnnk 11. W. Co., 
 17 (). I!. •-'■JO.— IJ. I'.. I). 
 
 A tr.iveller on a|i|iroaehiiig a r.iilw.ay crossing 
 is bo;iiiil to use such fa'-ulties of sight and hear- 
 ing as he m ly b" po-sessed of, and when ho 
 kiiiiws he is ajJiiroaiOiiir.,' a crossing and the line 
 is in view, and llieie is nothing to ])revent him 
 fiMin seeing and hearing a train if he looks for 
 it. 111! ought not to cro<s the track in front of it, 
 without looking merely b caiLse the warning 
 rei|iiiird bv 1 iw has not been given. llVic v. 
 C^niwlhiii 'Panli.- II. II'. ('.-., Ki A. R. 100. 
 
 4. On Tracki. 
 
 The defendants" station at A. was on what 
 was known a ■ Mie si Ic track, between which anil 
 the main lia. k *liere was a centre platform for 
 p.issengers abglitiug from and getting on to 
 trains on the main track. The plaintilF liiul 
 come to the station to meet a friend, and was 
 atleiiipting to cross over the side track to reach 
 the centre platform, when the engine and ten- 
 der which had been detached froin the rest of 
 the triiii and switched on to the side track, and 
 Were backing down to pick up a car some fifty 
 yards distant, ran over and injured him Tho 
 pliiiuilFwas looking in the opposite direction 
 from that from which the cii''iiie and tender 
 weii^ coining, and therefore did not see them ; 
 and it appeared that had he been looking out he 
 must have seen them before he attempted to 
 cross, and so could liavi' avoided the accident, 
 as it was only a se imd or two from the time ho 
 st.irted to cross until he was struck, and there 
 was no obstruction to his view. In an action 
 for damiges the jury having disagreed ;— Held, 
 that the plaintilFs (■videnee having shewn that 
 the aeeidenl was caused by his own negligenco 
 ' and want of cure, the defendants were not lia- 
 ble ; and judgment was ordered to be entered 
 for them ; tjua'rc, whether an engine and ten- 
 ! der constitute a train within section it'i of R. S. 
 ('. c. 10!), so as to require a man to be stationed 
 ' oil the rear thereof to warn persons of their ap- 
 ' proacli ; but in any event, there was a n>an ao 
 stationed here who did give warning. (h>>ei( v. 
 'aniadianPacilieR. H'. Co.,15 0.R.7r.4 -(M'.D. 
 
Iv 
 
 1779 
 
 RAILWATS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1780 
 
 
 !l|l 
 
 
 [1% 
 
 To reach from the hijjhway the station of the 
 defendants at Point Eifwaril, it was necessary to 
 go through the railway vard and cross eleven 
 railway tracks. A plank walk, uiifenced and 
 unguarded, runs across these tracks, extending 
 from the street to the cast end of the station 
 platform. The hushand of the ])laintifT, who 
 was familiar with the locality, while hnrrying 
 to the station before diiylight, left this phink 
 walk upon reaching the track nearest the plat- 
 form in order to walk round the rear of a train 
 that was coming in from the cast on that track 
 and was still in motion. Wliile some twenty 
 feet from the plank walk, walking between the 
 tracks and near the rails of the track second 
 from the platform, he was struck by the buffer 
 beam of a shunting engine and killed. This 
 shunting engine had been standing some 1.50 
 feet to the west of the plank walk, and was pas- 
 sing slowly to the east for the purpose of being 
 switched on to the track nearest the platform, 
 and then aiding in placing in the ferry boat the 
 cars of the train that h.id just come in. The 
 shunting engine had been standing to the west 
 of the plank walk for the purpo.se of con vein 
 ence in giving orders to the engineer ; its head- 
 light was burning and as it moved its bell was 
 ringing. There was ample space between the 
 two tracks for a person to stand in safety, and 
 the approach of the shunting engine could easily 
 be noticed :— Held (Hagarty, C. J. O., dissent- 
 ing), reversing the decision of the Chancery 
 Division, that the accident Wiia due to the care- 
 lessness of the deceased and not to the negli- 
 gence of the defendants, and that the plaintiff 
 could not recover. Jona v. Grand Trunk li. 
 W. Co., 16 A. R. .S7. 
 
 The extent of the duty of railway companies 
 in providing safe access to their stations con- 
 sidered, lb. 
 
 On appeal to Supreme Court : — Held, Four- 
 nier and (iwynne, .1.1., dissenting, that the 
 company had neglected no thity which it owed 
 to the deceased as one of tlic public : -Held, 
 per Strong and Patterson, .I.T. , that while the 
 public were invited to use the ]ilnnkeil walk to 
 reach the station, and also to use the company's 
 premises, when necessary, to pass around a 
 train covering the walk, there was no implied 
 guaranty th'it the traffic of the road should not 
 
 at the appearance or noise of the train. The 
 jury in answer to the question, " If the plain- 
 tiffs had known that the train was coming would 
 they have stopped their horse further from the 
 railway than they did ? " said " Yes " : — Held, 
 though this question was indefinite, the answers 
 to the questions as a whole, viewed in counte- 
 tion with the judge's charge and the evidence, 
 warranted the verdict, (h-and Trunk li. W. 
 Co. V. Itoxenhenjer, OS. C. R. .SI I. 
 
 In 1871 the owner of a block of land had a 
 plan made and registered laying out the land 
 into lots and streets, etc. Most of the land in- 
 chnling that part murkeil on the plan as O. 
 street, was fenced in and used for pasturage and 
 so ontiniied until ISSl when a portion thereof 
 including (>. street, no lots fronting thereon hav- 
 ing been disposed of, was sold by the owner to 
 the defendants who treated the land as their 
 private jiroperty, using it as a shunting yard. 
 The plaintilf, a little boy, who lived witli his 
 father near by, was standing on a snowbank oi» 
 the side of the track where it crossed O. street. 
 He saw a train api>roacliing and when it camu 
 opposite where he was it gave a jerk which 
 frightened him and ho slipped <lown on to the 
 track and was run over by the train and injured. 
 No whistle was scmndcd or bell rung : — Held, 
 that the omission to scnnid the whistle or ring 
 the bell did not impose any liability on the de- 
 fendants as it in no way contributed to the acci- 
 dent : — Held, also, that O street as marked on 
 the plan was not a highway within the meaning 
 of the Railway Act. Shoilirink v. Canada At- 
 lantic li. II'. Co., 16 O. R. 515.— C. P. I). 
 
 Held, that the statutory obligation to ring 
 the bell, or sound the whistle, only applies to a 
 highway crossing, and not to an engine shunt- 
 ing on defendants own premises. Ciitcy v. < 'iin- 
 wtian Paa/h li. W. Co., 15 (). R. 574.— C. P. 1). 
 
 At a i>lace wbiob was not a station nor a high- 
 way crossing, the N. H. R. W. ('o. had a siding for 
 loading lumber delivered from a sawmill and 
 pilecl upon a platfoi'ni. The deceased was at the 
 platform with a team for the purpose of taking 
 away some Unnbor, when a train conung out of 
 a cutting frightened the horses, which (Iraggi^l 
 the deceased to the main track where he was 
 killed by the train :--Held, that there was no 
 
 proceed in the ordinary way, and the comi)any i 'l"tV "P"» f'c company to ring the bell or sound 
 
 was under no oi)ligation to provide special safe- 1 
 guards foi persons attempting to pass around a 
 
 train in .notion : — Held, per Taschereau, 
 that the d>;ath of the deceased was cau8e<l 
 his own negligence. .S'. C. 18 S. (^ R. 696. 
 
 I'y 
 
 5. Sounding Whintlt or Jie/I. 
 
 Held, by the Supreme Court, affirming the 
 judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (8 
 A. R. 482), that Consolid.ited Statutes of Canada 
 c. 66, B. 104, must be construed as enuring to 
 the benefit of all persons who, using the high- 
 way which is crossed by a railway on the level, 
 receive damage in their percon or their property 
 from the neglect of the railway company's ser- 
 vants in charge of a train to ring a bell or sound 
 a whistle, as they are directed to do by said 
 atatute, whether such damage arises from actual 
 collision, or as in this case by a horse being 
 brought over near the crossing and taking fright 
 
 the whistle or to take special precautions in ap- 
 proaehi is; or passing the siding. Ni'u- Urnvi- 
 wirk /.'. ir. Co. V. \'fiiinvn-t, 17 S. C. R. 35. 
 
 At Crossings. —Sr.i: Sublicad V. S p. 1775. 
 
 Sec Lf/I V. .SV. Lan'renrf. niid. Ollanm R. \V. 
 Co., 1 <>. R. .'■)45, p. 1775 ; Unnl v. Ilrnnd Trmik 
 R. W. Co., 15 A. H. .58, p. 1785; Canada Snulh- 
 em R. W. Co. V. ,h<-kx,.n, 17 S. C. R. .SI6, ]>. 
 178.5. 
 
 6. Dafectiri' Cun^l ruction of Rowlhcd. 
 
 Semble, that where a railroad crosses a public 
 highway at a level crossing, and it is open to 
 observation that the highway is in a dangerous 
 state, liability will rest upon the operating com- 
 pany for resulting accident, even although a 
 different company was responsible for the origi- 
 nal faulty construction of the I'ailwiiy roadbed 
 which led to the unsafe condition of the high- 
 
1789 
 
 train. The 
 f the phun- 
 
 miiiff wouhl 
 
 T from the 
 /:-HehU 
 
 the answers 
 in connec- 
 evidence, 
 
 link /{. ff. 
 
 land had a 
 t tiie laiul 
 tlie land in- 
 I>lan as O. 
 sturage ami 
 iiou thereof 
 hereon hav- 
 
 10 owner to 
 lid as their 
 
 11 ting yard, 
 ed with liis 
 lowbank oiv 
 1 O. street. 
 Ill it uiiino 
 jerk which 
 II on to the 
 iiid injured, 
 nj,' :-Held, 
 istle or ring 
 
 on the do- 
 te the acci- 
 inarked on 
 ho meaning 
 Canada At- 
 V. I). 
 
 ion to ring 
 ipplies to a 
 gine shunt- 
 iiry V. < 'an- 
 l.-C. P. 1>. 
 
 I iiorahigh- 
 a siding fnr 
 iwniili and 
 1 w.is at the 
 B of taking 
 iiiiig out of 
 uli clraggi-d 
 arc he was 
 jre was no 
 ill or sound 
 tions in a[i- 
 Vw Ilnivi- 
 R. 35. 
 
 . 177-.. 
 
 ma R. \V. 
 
 nixl Tnivk 
 milt Smilli- 
 \<. 3I(J, |>. 
 
 Ihal. 
 
 's a puhlio- 
 is open to 
 dangerous 
 iting ooin- 
 ithough a 
 
 the oiigi- 
 </ road licit 
 
 the high- 
 
 1781 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 178t 
 
 I. 
 
 I 
 
 ■way. Sibbald v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co. ; 
 Trenmyne v. Grand Tntnk R. W. Co., 19 O. H. 
 164. -Chy. D. 
 
 Liability of railway company for loss of lug- 
 gage caused liy defects in roadbed, constructed 
 under contract for the government before tlie 
 acquisition of the road by the defendants. (<ue 
 Bate V. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., 14 (>. U. 
 625 ; 15 A. H. 388 ; 18 S. C. R. C97, p. 1792. 
 
 8. Packinij Railway Frog». 
 
 The plaintiff, a workman employed by tlie 
 Grand Trunk IJailway Company, was injured 
 while in disclmrge of his duties, by reason of liis 
 foot having been caught in one of the frogs of 
 the rails, which wns not packed in the manner 
 prescribed by 44 Vict. c. 22 (Out.) :--Held, that 
 the Grand Trunk Railway being a Dominion 
 Railway, and witliin section 92, No. 10 (a) of 
 the B. N. A. Act, was not affected by the statute, 
 which ])rofessed only to apply to railway com- 
 panies in respect of which the provincial legis- 
 lature had authority to enact such proviNioiis : 
 and therefore, that the dcfeiidiints were not 
 liable. Mimkhousr. v. (I'ntinl Tnink /{. IT. Co., 
 H A. R. 637. 
 
 Action by plaintiff, as adniinistiator of (,'., 
 for damages under 4^ Vict. c. 22 (Out. ), by rea- 
 son of the omission to pack a frog oii iho Mid- 
 land Railway which the delendants « eie opeia- 
 ting, whereby (".'s foot was caught in the tiog 
 and he was killed by a train :— Held, that de- 
 fendants were not liable; that the Midland liail- 
 way was a railway connecting with or crossing 
 the defendant's railway, and under 46 \'ii't. c. 
 24 (Dom.), was exempt from tlieo])ci'ation of the 
 Ontario Act. Clei/ii v. Grand Tntnk R. IT. Co., 
 10 O. R. 708.— C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that the omission to state in the stati- 
 ment of claim, as rcciuired liy sub-section 2 
 of [section 8 of 44 Vict. c. 22 (Out.), and 
 to prove, that the defendants knew that the 
 frog was not packed, or that the dcciascd did 
 not know it, or that he had notilied the defen- 
 dants or any person superior to hinisilf in tlie 
 service of the defendants, or that sucli iieismi 
 was not aware thereof would pieclude any re- 
 covery, /h. 
 
 •Section 2(!2, sub-section 3, of .11 Vict. c. 29 
 (Dom. ), provides that "the spaces behind and 
 in front of every railway frog or oiossiiig, and 
 between the fixed rails of every switch, wlierc 
 such spaces are less than five inches in width, 
 shall be filled with packing U]i to the uinler side 
 of the head of the rail," and section 289 of the 
 same Act provides that "every company, * * 
 causing or permitting to be done, any matter, 
 act or thing contrary to vhe provisions of this 
 Act or the special Act * * or omitting to do 
 any matter, act or thing required to be done on 
 the part of any such company, * * is liable 
 to any person injured thereby for the full amount 
 of damages sustained by such act or omission,'' 
 etc. The plaintiff, who had been for some 
 months employed at the place where the acci- 
 dent happened, as a switch foreman, while in 
 the course of his duty in the act of uncfuipling 
 cars, had his foot caught in an inipacked frog, 
 whore it was crushed by the wheels of the cars : 
 
 —Held, that, although he was a servant of the 
 defendants, he was a "person injured" within 
 the meaning of the statute, and entitled to 
 maintain an action for negligence. Le Ataii v. 
 Canailian Pacijic R. W. Co., 18 O. K. 314. - 
 Chy. D.; 17 A. R. 293. 
 
 The jury, having found that the frog was not 
 packed, in reply to a <iuestion whether the 
 plaintiff had " notice or knowledge or ought he 
 to have h;ul notice or knowledge that the frog 
 was not packed," answered : " We believe he 
 did not have notice, and shimld have had 
 notice," and in answer to another (piestion they 
 negatived contributory negligence on the plain- 
 tiff's part : — Held, that even assuming that the 
 meaning of the answer was to impute notice of 
 the danger to the plaintiff, it would not prevent 
 his recovering so long as he himself was imt 
 negligent, there being no finding or evidence to 
 sustain a liiuliiig tliat the jilaintiff, freely and- 
 voluiitarily, with full knowledge of the nature 
 and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed 
 to incur it. //*. 
 
 (,lua'rc, [icr l'"ert.'usim, J., whether it is not 
 lu'i'cssaiy, iiinler tlie present system of pleading, 
 to sil up specially a defeiwe arising from the 
 niaxini, " Volmti tionjit iiijio-in." II,. 
 
 9. '/( >li 111,1 On or Off Triiiiit in Motion. 
 
 The phiiiitill's, hiishainl and wife, were mi a 
 train of the ilcfunilants, going to Lcfioy. The 
 comluotor, before reaihiiig the staiion. aiiiiiiunc- 
 cd that the next station was Lufruy. Uii ap- 
 pro.'ichiiig the station the train, iicconliiig to llie 
 plaintiirs witnesses, was slowd, but did not 
 stop. The husband fjnt oil while tlie train was 
 moving slowly, and his wifo, seeing that the 
 speed was imieasing, ami that tliiy were pass- 
 ing the station, sprang after him, though he had 
 let go of her iiaml, anil told lur not to jiiiiip, and 
 was iiijuivd. It was left to tlic jury to say 
 whether she had acted iiiipi mleiitly in so doing, 
 and they found a verdict for the plaiiitills ; - 
 Held, alliniiiiig the jiidgiiient of the (^. H. I). (4 
 O. R. 201), that there was eviilenccol an invita- 
 tion to alight, and that it was for the jury to 
 say whether she had acted in a reasonably pru- 
 dent and careful nianiiei' in availing heisclr of it. 
 Edijar v. Xnrlhtm R. 11'. Co., II A. R. 4.V.'. 
 
 The plaintitr, who was a passenger mi a train 
 of the defendants, alighted at a station, nml the 
 train having started belore he had re-entciiil it, 
 endeavoured to juiii|i on while it was in inotimi. 
 In doing so he was iiijiiieil. and lirnnght this 
 action for damages fur negligi'iice. Tlieii> was 
 evidence of an invilatimi iiy the cmicliirlor of 
 the train to jump mi whde it was in niotimi. .iiiil 
 the jury found (1) that tliiie was such in\ ita- 
 tion. They also found i2) that the pliintiff 
 used a re;isonable degiTe of care in endeivoiir- 
 ing to get on ; and (3) that he was injured \\ hile 
 trying to get im. in pnrsuiiiue of the request of 
 the conductor. It was argued by the defi inlanls 
 that the danger to the plaint ilf was so patent 
 and obvious that he had no right to act mi the 
 conductor's invitation, or to attempt to gt^t mi 
 tlio train : - Held, that this was a matter which 
 should ha\e been submitted to the jury, and 
 that it was not covered by the second finding ; 
 that the iiuestion involved in the action cmild 
 
1783 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1784 
 
 m 
 
 not be (Ictcriiiincd on the findings, and that 
 there should be a new trial. Per Armour, 
 C.J. — Qiic^tionH for the jury sugguHtcd. Curry 
 V. Oaiiadkin Pad lie R. W. Co., 1/0. R. 65. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 10. Liahility for InjurUn to Ser rants. 
 
 The statement of clainj alleged that the ])lain- 
 tifT was employed by tiie defiiidants to work at 
 track laying: that wliilo so employed the defen- 
 dants directed and rcfjuiicil liiin to a.«»i.st in 
 bringing r.tilwiiy supplies to the place where 
 they were licing n.scd : that they also diiccled 
 and rc(iuircd him to be carried, a.s ])iut of liia 
 employment, on the iUfcn<Iaiits' trains; that 
 accordingly he was received by the deieiidants 
 " to be safely carried " on a train, and that 
 owing to the defendants' iiegligencc lie was, 
 whilo so triivcUing, thrown oil' the train and in- 
 jured:— Held, 1. That i( the idiiintiir accepted 
 a dilfercnt eni|)lnymcnt from that oiigindly con- 
 templated, he became the defendants' woikman, 
 in Miat new employment, just as he had been in 
 his former employment. '1. 'I'hat the statement 
 tlnv; the pbiintill' was received on tlie train " to 
 be Kafely c.irried " did not imjily th.it a special 
 bargain was made '• to safely carry, " but only 
 that the jilaintifl' was to lie safely carried as one 
 of their workmen in the c(]Urse of his employ- 
 ment ; and that there was no cause of action. 
 Mm/ V. ilitl.irio auil \)ii,liic 11. 11'. Co., 10 (). R. 
 70.— Wilson. 
 
 Ou the undisputed facts di.selo.sed in the plain- 
 tiff's ease it apijeared that there was a switch- 
 stand erected in the defendants' j'ard close to 
 the track, the deceased, who was a brakesman 
 in the defendants' employment, being aware of 
 its position and proximity to the track. On the 
 day in (piestion the deceased was engaged as a 
 brakesman on a train passing through the yard. 
 His position as brakesman .should have been on 
 top of the eai-, but for some reason which did 
 not appear, he was on the side of the car, hold- 
 ing on to the lailder, by which brakesmen mount 
 to the top of the car, ami his attention being 
 drawn towards the end of the train be did not 
 see the switch-stanil, when he was struck by it 
 and thrown under the wheels of the car and 
 killed : — Held, that there was no evidence of 
 negligence on the part of the defendants ; and 
 that there was such want of care on tlie j)ai't of 
 the deceased as disentitled the ]>laintili', his 
 administrator, to recover ; and the case was 
 therefore properly withdrawn from the jury. 
 Ryanv. (\iiiaila Soulhi-ni 11. If. Co., 10 6. R. 
 745. -(!. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff was necessarilj' on the top of 
 the oar in the performance of his duty. There 
 was no evidence to .show that he knew, at 
 the time of the accident, that he was near the 
 bridge, the night being dark ; and it was a mat- 
 ter of doubt wliether he even knew that the 
 bridge was too low. The bell rope was not con- 
 nected before the train left the statiim, but this 
 did not appear to have been through any neglect 
 of his, and for all that appeared, tlie train might 
 not have been completed until just before start- 
 ing, and until the engine was attached no con- 
 nection could be made : — Held, that the plain- 
 tiff could not be deemed guilty of contributory 
 
 negligence. Mc Lauchlin v. Grand Trunk R. W, 
 Co., 12 0. R. -118. -C. P. D. 
 
 R. , i,h»i plaintiff's son, was employed as fire- 
 man on a locomotive engine which was in charge 
 of a driver nameil R., B. being under his orders. 
 R. was severely scalded by the bursting of the 
 boiler, from which death resulted. The acci- 
 dent was apparently caused by the sudden in- 
 flux of cold water into the boiler, which had 
 been allowed to run too low. There was no 
 evidence to show to wIkjui the negligence was 
 attributa'ile ; but it was ])roved that, though 
 the couijiany hehl the driver resiionsible as re- 
 gards the engine, it was the tluty of the fireman 
 for which he also was resiionsible to the eoni- 
 panj', to attend to the supply of water, which 
 was part of liis education to tit him for the su- 
 perior position of driver, an<l that from his po- 
 sition he had greater facilities for opening the 
 valve than those possessed by the driver ; and 
 from a report put in by one of the defendants' 
 otlicials, it appeared that R. had charge of the 
 water at the time of the accident. In an action 
 I against defendants for damages under "The 
 I Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act," 49 
 i Vict. 0. '-'S, s. 3, sub-s. 5 (Out.) : — Held, that 
 the defendants were not liable. Jiruuiid v. 
 i Cuiailian Pacific II. W. Co.. 15 O. R. 375.— C. 
 j P. D. 
 
 , Action by plaintiif to recover damages for the 
 I death of her husband by reason of, as was al- 
 I leged, a defective brake on a ear on defendants' 
 I radway, on which deceased was employed as a 
 t l)rakeman : — Held, that there could be no re- 
 I covery, for the evidence failed to show how the 
 ! accident liappened, the contention that it was 
 I the defective brake being mere conjecture ; and 
 even had it been the cause, it would have been 
 I no ground of liability, for under the defendants' 
 rules it was the deceased's iluty to examine and 
 see that the brakes were in jiroper working or- 
 der and report any defect to the conductor ; and 
 if he made the examination bo ajiparently dis- 
 covered no defect as he made no report, a latent 
 defect being no evulcnce of negligence ; and if 
 he omitted to make such examination, etc., 
 then the acchlent wcmld lie attrilnitable to his 
 own negligence. Jifidi/eroir v. ilraial Trunk li. 
 W. Co. MM). R. 191.— C. P. D. 
 
 J., a switch-tender of the Canada Southern R. 
 W. Co., was obliged in the ordinary discharge of 
 his duty to cross a track in the station yard to get 
 to a switch and he "A-alked along the ends of the 
 ties which projected some sixteen inches beyond 
 the rails. While doing so an engine came behind 
 him and knocked him down with his arm under 
 the wheels and it was cut off near the shoulder. 
 t)n the trial of an action against the company 
 in conse(iunce of such injury the jury found that 
 there was negligence in the management of the 
 engine in not ringing the bell and in going faster 
 than t!.( law allowed. They also found that J. 
 could not have avoided the accident by the exer- 
 cise of reasonable care: — Held, that The Work- 
 men's Comjiensation for Injuries Act of Ontario, 
 49 'Vict. c. '-'8, applies to the Canada Southern R. 
 W. Co., notwitlistanding it has been brought 
 under the operatiim of the ( iovernment Railways' 
 Act of the ])ominion : — Hehl, also, (iwynne and 
 Patterson, •] J., dissenting, that there was no such 
 negligence on J.'s part as would relieve the com- 
 pany from liability for the injury caused by im- 
 
 I 
 
 |i .,/ 
 
1785 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY OOMPANIRS. 
 
 1786 
 
 proper contluct of their servants uiul the judg- 
 ment of the court lieh)W Hustuining u venliet lor 
 the phiintiir wus right ('uiiailtt lioitlhcni h'. It'. 
 Co. V. Jackwn, 17 S. C. K. 'Mti. 
 
 Injuries occasioned by imiisitiou to ^laek niil 
 frogs. >S'ec .Subhcatl V. S p. 1781. 
 See Oibwn v. Midland II. W. Co., 2 0. 1!. t!.")8, 
 
 In an action of negligence for the destruction 
 liy lire ot a i{Uantity ol luinl)er owned by tlio 
 pluiutit)', and wliicli by leave of the defendants 
 he liad piled close to their track, caused, us the 
 plaintift' alleged, by siiarks emitted fi(jui thu 
 smoke-stack of one of the locomotives belonging 
 to tlie deleudanl compiuiy, the jury at tlie trial 
 found that the lire was caused by the imperfect 
 
 p. 1771 ; Jmiiiiii/x v. iirand Trunk Jt. If. Co., 1.) ; or difictive construction of thesnmke-stack, thu 
 A.'R. 477; IHApp. C'as.SOO,p. 1790; lUcLnnrhliu cone being placed too ch>se to the netting, and 
 V. Orand Tnmk Jl. W. ' o., 12 O. K. 418, p. 1771. by reason ot the bonnet rim not lilting sulKcicnt- 
 
 j ly close to the bed. Upon a motion in banc to 
 set asiile the verdict entered by tlieplaintill', the 
 I court, upon the evidence set out ni tlie case (32 
 By the negligence of the piaintiH"s servants, ' ^'- •'• '^^*1 :-Hcld, that the lin.ling of the jury 
 his horses escaped upon the defendants' line of «;'s ''"'y supported thereby, and on appeal to 
 road at a farn\-crossing, not far from an open : *!"» i'"urt Irom that decision, the court being 
 
 11. Aniinal,'< TreKjxisiinij on liailwiii/. 
 
 overhead bridge on the track. Xoiiie of them 
 were astray upon the track. While bcingdriven 
 back towards the crossing by the persons in 
 charge a tniin approached, which drew up for 
 IX time, the rear cars being on the criissing, and 
 then tlie tiuek being clear the engine driver 
 sounded the whistle for biak(!S olT, and pro- 
 
 eijuaily divided, the juilgineiit was atllnned and 
 the appeal dismissed with costs. Alter the oc- 
 cnireiice of the accident which caused the ile- 
 stiiictiiin of the plaintill's luiiiber, 1>. an engine 
 driver of the difeiidants, aJiil who was in charge 
 of the locomotive (No. ti) on the day tlie tire oc- 
 ciiMitd, made lui entry in what was termed the 
 
 ceeded. The horses, or some of them, had then ''^^{""■•^ i'<'ok, kept in the defendants shops: 
 come nearly abreast ol the engine, but, alaiine.l ■ ••.'•""olii rim of bonnet in slack wuiits making 
 by the whistle and motion of the train, they V" ," . • rV.'"'" '*'"!''^'' '" ''""^ '" "'*'' l'""," 
 turned and ran on towards the bri<lge, They -^^ the trial I!, was calle.l as a witness on iho 
 got upon the brhlge before they couhl be P<"t ot the plaintill, and proved his iiaving nmdo 
 stopped, and some had their legs broken l,y t ^uuh entry in the usiia course ol his duties. Per 
 getting them between the ties, and others >l''''«^''= <-••'• ^-,""'' .'^''^^''ty ,<-••';- ^''''•'' ""V'^ 
 jumi.e.l over the ties and were killed or injured. I )V'>^ piopery produced and rea.l to the jury. Per 
 There was ample siiace on each side oi the track : '''"■^"" '""• l'ft'^^'«'>". •'•'• A., such entry or re- 
 by which the horses might have passeil. I here 1""^ ^^ as mei.ly a nairativc ot a past occurreiico 
 
 by wliicll tlie liorses miglit tiave | 
 was no evidence that the engineer had acted 
 recklessly or wantonly in proceeding with the 
 train :— Held (reversing the judgment of the 
 Queen's Heiich Division), that the defendants 
 were not liable ; there was no evidence of iiigli- 
 gence in the inanner in which the train was 
 started ; the defendants were using their own 
 property as of right and in a lawful way, and no 
 duty was cast upon the engineer to w.iit until 
 the horses had been entirely driven oil' their 
 
 i)rcmises. Auger r. The Ontario, Simcoc. and 
 luron H. \V. Co., 9 C. I'. Kio, considered. 
 Campbell i: The iJ real Western K. W. Co., lo 
 y. 14. 41)8, observed upon and distinguished. 
 J/urd v. Uniiid Trunk It. IT. Co., 15 A. H. .")8. 
 
 Fences and gates out of repair. 
 IV. 4, 5, pp. 1771, 1773. 
 
 Sec. .Subhead 
 
 VI. FlKK I'KOM BMIINES. 
 
 In answer to a ipiestion wliether the plaiutill' 
 had been guilty of contributory negligence in 
 piling his lumber so near the track, or by allow- 
 ing tlie sawdust to remain on it, or by not hav- 
 ing autlieieiit appliances to extinguish lire. If 
 
 r .^niiK'tliiiig ill the opiiiiun ot \>. reiiiiiiing atten- 
 tion, and ill any view could only be receivable as 
 evideiiLe against the company, if at all, upon 
 proof of 15. s death. With a view ot shewing 
 that engine Xo. was defectively constructed, 
 evidence was given that on previous occasions 
 when it was in the same or an iiiiproviil condi- 
 tum, it had thrown out sparks, causing lires. 
 I'er Spiugge. C. J. (•.. and llagaity, C'. .1., such 
 evideiue was properly receivable: — ^ienible — ■ 
 I'er Spiagge, C. J. O., and Patterson, J. A., 
 although a party to a cause may be entitled to 
 call for the piodilction cjf doeuineiits, in order to 
 obtain discovery, it docs not lollow that the coii- 
 tiiits of such documents arc in themselves evi- 
 dence. S. C, tiih nam. Ciinwia CmUnd li. W. 
 Co. v. M<-L(tr, n, 8 A. R. 5()4. 
 
 R. owned a barn situated about two hundred 
 feet from the New liriinswick Kailway Com- 
 pany's line, and such barn was destroyed by 
 liri'. caused, as was alleged, by sparks from the 
 deft iiilants' engine. An action was brought to 
 recover damages for the loss of the barn and its 
 contents. (»n the trial it appealed that the fuel 
 used by the etunpany over tins line was wood, 
 and evidence was given to the ell'i^ct that coal 
 
 80, could the delendants by the use of onliiiary W.is hss apt to throw out s])arks. It also ap 
 care and diligence have prevented the injury, the ! p.arcd that at the place wlieie the tire occur- 
 jury answered : Not as to piling lumber or as to I i-lmI llieie was a heavy up giade, neccssilating a 
 sawdust, but somewhat as to appliances. We ' full head of steam, and therefore increasing the 
 think itiat the tlelendants could have prevented i daiigi r to siirroiiniliiig property. The jury found 
 fire, and that tiie plaiutill' is entitled to a verdict, that the ilefendants diil nob use reasonable care 
 
 The plaiutill it appeared had for many years 
 piled his lumber upon defendunts' land, with 
 their assent, within a short distance of the track: 
 — Hehl, that the plaiiititi' was not bouinl to 
 provide a[ipliaiices to guanl against defendants' 
 negligence. MiLarcn v. ('iinada Cvnind It. IK. 
 Co., 32 (J. P. 321. -C. P. U. 
 
 in runiiiim the engine, but in what the want of 
 such care consisted, dhl not appear by their 
 finding :— Held, reversing the judgment of the 
 court below, that the company «ere under no 
 oldigation to use coal for fuel tor their engines, 
 ami the use of wood was not in itself evidence 
 of negligence ; that the linding of the jury on 
 
 
17«7 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1788 
 
 'i^i 
 
 the question of negligence was not satisfactory, 
 and that therefore there should be a new trial. 
 New Bruimwick H, W. Co. v. Robin»on, 11 8. C. 
 K. 688. 
 
 In an action brought by P. against the appel- 
 lant company for negligence on thi; part ot the 
 company in causing the destruction of P.'s house 
 and outbuildings by lire from one of their 
 locomotives, it was proved that the freight shed 
 of the company was Hrst ignited Xty sparlts from 
 (ine of the company's engines passing the Chip- 
 pewa station, and the tire extended to i'.'s 
 premises. The following questions inter alia, 
 were submitted to the jury, and the following 
 answers given : — Q. Was the fire occasioned W 
 Kparks from the locomotive? A. Yes. Q. If 
 so, was it caused by any want of care on the 
 part of the company or its servants, which, 
 under the circumstances, ought to have been 
 iixercised? A. Yes. Q. If so, state in what 
 respect you think greater care ought to have 
 been exercised ? A. As it was a special train 
 and on Sunday, when employees were not on 
 duty, there should have been an extra hand on 
 duty. Q. Was the smoke-stack furnished with 
 as good apparatus for arresting sparks as was 
 consistent with the ethcient working of the 
 engine? If you think the apparatus was defec- 
 tive, was it by reason of its not being the best 
 kind, or because it was out of order ? A. Out 
 of order. P. obtained a verdict for $800. On 
 motion to set aside the verdict, the Queen's 
 Bench Division unanimously sustained it. On 
 appeal to the Supremo Court : — Held, affirming 
 the judgment of the court below, Henry, J., 
 dissenting, 1. That the questions were proper 
 qucsticms to put to the jury, and that there was 
 :fiufficient evidence of negligence on the part of 
 the appellants' servants to sustain the linding. 
 '2. If a railway company are gnilty of default 
 in the discharge of the duty of running their 
 locomotives in a proper and reasonable manner, 
 they are rcHponsible for all damage which is the 
 natural consequence of such default, whether 
 such damage is occasioned by fire escaping from 
 the engine coming directly in contact with and 
 consuming the property of third persons, or is 
 caused to ihc property of such third persons by 
 a fire comiiuiuicating thereto from the property 
 of the railway company themselves, which has 
 been ignited by fire escaping from the engine 
 coming directly in contact therewith. Cantula 
 Southim R. W. Co. v. Phelps, 14 8. 0. R. 132. 
 
 The statute 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, a. 8:>, which is an 
 extension oi 6 Anne c. 31, ss. 6 and 7 is in force 
 in the province of Ontario as part of the law of 
 Kngland introduced by the Constitutional Act 
 31 Geo. 3, c. 31, but has no application to protect 
 a party from legal liability as a consequence of 
 negligence. Ih. 
 
 A train of the Canada Atlantic R. W. Co. 
 passed the plaiutifif' farm about 10.30 a.m., and 
 another train passed about noon. Some time 
 after the second tr.iin passed it was discovered 
 that the timber and wood on the plaintiff's land 
 was on fire, which tire rapidly spread after be- 
 ing <1iscovered and destroyed a quantity of the 
 standing wood and timber on the said land. In 
 an action against the company it was shewn that 
 the engine which passed ut 10.30 was in a de- 
 fective state and likely to throw dangerous 
 sparks, while the other engine was in good re- 
 
 pair and provided with all necessary appliances 
 for protection against tire. The jury foun<l, on 
 (lucstions submitted, that the tire came from the 
 engine first passing, that it arose through negli- 
 gence on the part of the company, and that such 
 negligence consisted in running the engine when 
 she was a bad tire thrower and dangerous :— 
 Held, atiirming the judgment of the Court of 
 A]ipeal, 14 A. K. .309, that there benig snlKcient 
 evidence to justify the jury in finding that the 
 engine which passed first was out of order anil 
 that it being admitted that the second engine 
 was in good repair, the fair inference, in the 
 absence of any evidence that the fire came from 
 the latter, was that it came from the engine out 
 of order and the verdict should not be disturbed : 
 — Held, also, Henry, J., dissenting, that the 
 locomotive superintendent and locomotive fore- 
 man of a railway company are otHcers of a cor- 
 poration who may be examined, as provided in 
 K. S. O. (1877), c. 50, s. 1.36 (1), and the evi- 
 dence of such officers as to the conditions of the 
 respective engines and the difference us to the 
 danger from tire between wood-burning and 
 coal-burning engines taken under said section 
 was properly admitted on the trial of this 
 cause, and certain books oi the company con- 
 taining statements of repairs required on these 
 engines, among others, were also properly ad- 
 mitted in evidence without calling the persons 
 by whom the entries were made. Canada At- 
 lantic R. W. Co. V. Moxhy, 15 8. C. R. 145. 
 
 Ill an action^for negligence by reason of which 
 it was alleged that fire had escaped from a loco- 
 motive of the defendants, and the plaintill's pro- 
 perty was destroyed ; there was evidence that 
 the engine had passed only a short time before 
 fire was discovered in a manure heap, and which 
 communicated to the destroyed property; that 
 a strong wind blew across the truck towards the 
 manure heap; that there was no other known 
 source from which the fire was at all likely to 
 have come ; that the wind was not in a tlirection 
 to have caused sparks from a steam sawmill 
 close by, to reach the premises, and that cinders 
 were found in the straw lying on the manure 
 heap by those who went to extinguish the tire :— 
 Held, that from these facts, there was evidence 
 for the jury that the mischief was caused by the 
 locomotive. Tlie evidence further shewed that 
 the engine had run ninety miles without the 
 ashpan having been emptied ; that ignited sub- 
 stances were found upon the manure heap, 
 which were too large to pass through the net of 
 the smoke-stack, and it was alleged must there- 
 fore have come from the ashpan , that the ash- 
 pan was perfectly good and so constructed that 
 it was ditticult for ashes to escape from it ; and 
 that the possibility of any escape would be pre- 
 vented by emptying or partly emptying the pan : 
 — Held (reversing the judgment of the court 
 below, 11 O. R. .307), that the jury might have 
 found as legitimate inferences of fact that the 
 fire escaped because the pan was full, and that 
 the result might with reasonable care have been 
 avoided ; that there was therefore sufficient 
 evidence of negligence to go to the jury, and 
 that a nonsuit was improper. McUibbon v. 
 NorlhtniR. W. Co., 14 A. R. 91. 
 
 During a very dry summer— little rain having 
 fallen, and none for some time prior to the fire 
 ill question, fires also having been frequent in 
 
1788 
 
 ry appliances 
 iry foumi, on 
 >me from the 
 iirough negli- 
 md that such 
 engine when 
 langei'ouB :— 
 he Court of 
 iingsufHcient 
 ing that the 
 >f onler and 
 icond engine 
 •ence, in the 
 •u came from 
 le engine ont 
 )c disturbed : 
 ig, that the 
 •motive fore- 
 I's of ft cor- 
 piovided in 
 tnd tlie evi- 
 itiong of the 
 •0 iui to the 
 )iiniing and 
 said section 
 rial of this 
 nipany con- 
 •td tm these 
 Jroperly ad- 
 thu persons 
 Canada At- 
 . R. 145. 
 
 on of which 
 from a looo- 
 lintid^s pro- 
 idence that 
 time before 
 I, and whicli 
 perty; that 
 towards the 
 ther known 
 »11 likely to 
 1 a direction 
 mi sawmill 
 thatuinders 
 ho manure 
 the fire :~ 
 as evidence 
 used by the 
 lewed that 
 k'ithout the 
 united sub- 
 lure heap, 
 the net of 
 iiust there- 
 at the ash- 
 ucted that 
 >m it ; and 
 dd be pre- 
 g the pan : 
 the court 
 night have 
 :t that the 
 > and that 
 have been 
 sufficient 
 jury, :ia,l 
 Uibbon v. 
 
 lin having 
 i> the fire 
 ^quent iu 
 
 1789 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1790 
 
 that section of the country, the defendants al- 1 
 lowed brush and long dry grass, which had been 
 growing for two or throe years to remain uncut 
 on the side of the track adjoining the plaintitTs 
 farm, while they had the day previous to the 
 tire, for the protection of tlicir own property on 
 the other side of the track, burned up the dry 
 grass, etc., there. A spark from defundantM' 
 engine having set tire to the dry grasx, etc., ad- 
 joining the plaintiirs laud, the tire extended ami 
 destroyed his fences, gr'^wing crops, etc. In an 
 actiim against defendants i':yrefor, all these cir- 
 cumstances were laid before tiie jury, who 
 found for the plaintill':--Hcld, that the citsu 
 having been properly submitted to the jury, 
 their verdict could not be interfered with. 
 Flaniiujiin v. (Minuliaii I'adjic It. \V. Co., 17 
 t). R. t). -C. V. 1). 
 
 Running a train ton heavily laden on an up- 
 grade, when tliure was a strong wind, caused an 
 unusual (piautity of sparks to escape from tlie 
 locomotive, whereby tlie rcRpondents' barn, sit- 
 uated in close proximity to tlic railroad track, 
 was sot on tire and destroyed : — Held, atlirming 
 the judgments of the courts below, that there 
 was suHicicnt evidence of negligence to make 
 the railway company liable for the damage 
 caused by the lire. Per (> Wynne J. ThiVt the 
 "damage" referred to in section "27 of chap. Klil, 
 
 B. S. (J. and scctiim 2S7 of 51 Vict., chap '2!), is 
 "damage" done by the railway itsjlf, and not by 
 reason of the default or neglect of the company 
 running the railway, or of a company having 
 running powers over it, and therefore the pre- 
 scription of six months referred to in said sec- 
 tions is not available iu an action liki! the pres- 
 ent North Shore R. W. Co. v. Mc Willie, 17 S. 
 
 C. R. 511. 
 
 of which the Minister of Railways ami ('anal* 
 has the management, direction and control, under 
 statutory provisions, for the benefit ami advant- 
 age of the public, isabranciiof tlic public police 
 crcateil by statute for purposes of public con- 
 venience, and not cntercil upon or to lie treated 
 as a private and mercantile speculation, and that 
 a petiticul of right does not lie against thct'rouii 
 for injuries resulting from the ncuifeasance or 
 misfeasance, wrcmgs, negligences, or oniissiouB 
 of duty of the subordinate otficers or agents em- 
 ployeil in the public service on said railways. 
 That the (^rown is not liable as a common car- 
 rier for the safety and security of p issengom 
 using said railways. Jtei/iiia v. MrLroil, 8 S. 
 K.. rv. ', 
 
 2. PuiMi'nijnr TiekiiU and J'ainfH. 
 
 Deceased was an express messenger, and aa 
 such was being carried on the defeuilants' train 
 at the time nf his death, without a ticket or 
 payment of fare, under a contract between tho 
 defendants and tho express company : —Held, 
 tliat the deceased beiir^ lawfidly on the train, 
 the defcuilants were liable for negligence in 
 causing his death :— Held, also, that the de- 
 ceased was tlie servant of the express company, 
 and was not in any sense engaged in any (Com- 
 mon employment with i no servants of the rail- 
 way eonipany. .fentiiii'i-< v. (I rami Trunk K. W. 
 Co., \r, A. I!. 477. AlHniied I'rivy Council, 13 
 Ajip. Cas. «(X». 
 
 .Sec /Sale v. Canadian I'arilir /'. 11'. Co., 14 
 O. It. ()25; 15 A. R. .'ISS ; K< S. C. R. 607, 
 p. 17!>2; drand Trnnlc l{. W. Co. v. Voiiel, II 
 S. C II. Gl'2, p. 17i)7 ; Andirmm v. Canadian 
 Paci/ie R. W. Co., 17 O. I!. 747, p. 1702. 
 
 VII. CaKHIAIIE of PASSENdKRS AND TIIKIK Lr(i- 
 OA(iK. 
 
 1. Oovernment Railwayn. 
 
 McL., the suppliant, pui'chased, in 1880, a 
 first-class railway p.asaengcr ticket to travel from 
 Charlottetown to .Souris on tlm I'rince Ivlward 
 Island railway, owned by the Dominion of Can- 
 ada, and operated under the management of the 
 Minister of Railways and Canals, and while on 
 aaid journey sustained serious injuries, the result 
 of an accident to the train. By petition of right 
 the suppliant alleged that the railway was negli- 
 gently and unskilfully conducted, managed and 
 maintained by Her Majesty ; that Her Majesty, 
 disregarding her duty in that belL-klf ami her 
 promise, diil not carry safely and securely sup- 
 pliant on said railway and that he was greatly 
 and permanently injured in body and health, 
 and claimed $50,000. The Attorney -(Jeiieral 
 pleaded that Her Majesty was not bound to 
 carry safely and securely, and was not answer- 
 able by petition of right for the negligence of her 
 servants. The judge at the trial found that 
 the road was in a most unsafe state from the 
 ■rottenness of the ties, and that the safety of life 
 had been recklessly jeopardized by running trains 
 over it with passengers, and that there hail been 
 a breach of a contract to carry the suppliant 
 safely and securely, and awarded $30,000. On 
 appeal to the .Supreme {'ourt of Canada: —Held, 
 (Fournier and Henry, JJ., dissenting), that the 
 -establishment of goveniment railways in Canada, 
 
 .S Liahitity fur Lui/'jaiir.. 
 
 The plaintiir was a passenger on one of do- 
 fondants' cars ociiipying a slci'piiig berth. Ito- 
 fore going to shH:|] lie had undressed himself 
 and had put his pocket-book, containing his 
 money in his trousers pocket, rolling up his 
 trousers and putting bis 8us|ienders around 
 them, and then plajed them under his |)illo«r 
 next the wall. When ho w.is called before ar- 
 riving at his place of destinatimi, he discov- 
 ered that his pocket-book and money were gone. 
 No negligence in the defendants was shewn : — 
 Held, that no liability attached to tho defen- 
 dants. Stearn v. Pullman Car Co., 8 0. R. 171 
 — C. I'. D. 
 
 It is the duty of a railway company to have 
 baggage re.idy for delivery on the platform at 
 the usual place of delivery, until the owner in 
 the exercise of due diligence can call and receive 
 it ; and it is the owner's duty to call for and 
 receive it within a reasonable time. Therefore, 
 where a person on arriving at his destination 
 deliberately refrained from applying for his bag- 
 gage on being told by his cabman that he couUl 
 not conveniently take it, and on sending for it 
 on tlie following day, one of three trunks could 
 not bo found :— Held, in an action to recover 
 the value of the trunk and tho wearing apparel 
 it was said to contain, that the liability of the 
 railway company as common carriers had ceased 
 and, in this reversing the judgment of tho court 
 below, a nonsuit was ordered to bo entered. 
 
1791 
 
 RAILWAYS AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 1792 
 
 M 
 
 P 
 
 The only ulnirii, if uny, M'liich tbo plaiiitifT, un- 
 der the uiruunmtanceH, liail ugiiinst tlie I'diiiiiuiiy, 
 was ns wuichiiiist incii or luiilii'H. \'iii<li< n/ v. 
 Grand Tnwk 11. \V. («., l.'J A. K. 1)3. 
 
 By motion 25 of 42 Vict, c. » (Doiii.), wliicli 
 is headed " Woikiiig of tlie lUiUvuy,' it ih en- I 
 acted that the tiuiuH hIiuII lie utartcd und run ut 
 regular hours, etc., an<l Kliall furniuh acconinio- ! 
 datiun for tranA<|iortulion of goods and )iaH8('ii- 1 
 gers, etc., whieii aro to ho takin, trauHfcrred, I 
 and diacluirgcd at, from, and to sucli {iluct's on I 
 the due payment of tlie duo toll, freight, and j 
 fares, etc. ; and the party aggrieved hy any ! 
 neglect or refuHal in the |ireinit<c8 Hhall have an i 
 action therefor u^iiiuHt the company, from which 
 action the eoinpHny »liall not he relieved l>y any i 
 notice, condition, or declaration, if the damage 
 arises from any negligence or omission of the; 
 conipnny or its servants'. The road lied of the | 
 defendants' railway was on an endiankment ' 
 about fifteen feet high, Imilt on the side of a 
 rocli which sloped into a muskeg or small lake, > 
 the limbanknient, it was alleged, heing made hy | 
 the side of the rock being tilled in with loose 
 sa'.id, which had no coliejiiou, and without uny ' 
 retaining wall to keep the r^uiid from .slipping. 
 The sand slipped elV the side of tli>^ loik into 
 the muskeg, und the train on which the pl.iinlilV 
 was travelling was thrown into the i^uity 
 caused therehy, und took tire, and tlie plain! ill's 
 baggage was hurnt. This part ol' the ro:id had 
 been built hy contractors nniler the government 
 before the dofentlants aci|iiired the road ; and it 
 was not shewn that the delendants hail .'iny 
 notice or knowledge of the defect. The plain- ' 
 tiff was travelling cru the train fmni Ottawa to 
 Winnipeg on a ticket procuied at the company's ' 
 office at Ottawa. Wlien she went to get the ' 
 ticket, she asked for and obtained a return 
 ticket, which had u condition limiting the com- 
 pany's liability to a sum not exceeding .^100. 
 The ngent, ut the time, re(|uested plaintill' to 
 sign her name to the ticket, und, on ])laintitl' 
 asRing the reason, the agent said it was for the 
 purpose of identilicalion, the ticket not being 
 transferable. The plaintill' accordingly signed ; 
 her name to the ticket. The ticket was issued 
 at a reduced rate in considerution of the plain- 
 tiff's agreement to the condition, but ])laintitr 
 was not informe<l, nor hud she any knowletlge 
 of this, nor ot the condition limiting the com- 
 pany's Uability ; and she said she had not read 
 the ticket because her eyes were sore, und she 
 was unable to do so. It was, however, some 
 hours in her potscssion before starting on her 
 journey :— Held (Ki .se, J., dissenting), that sec- 
 tion 25 only appliul to negligence in the man- 
 agement of the train, or handling of goods dur- 
 ing their transport, or at the point of receipt <ir 
 delivery, and not to a defective construction of 
 the road, ami therefore defendants could avail 
 themselves of the condition, which was one they 
 were competent to make, und the plaintill must 
 be bound by. Vogel r. (irand Trunk H. W. 
 Co., 2 O. 1!. 107; 10 A, 1!, 162; 11 S. C, R, 
 612, commented upon. I'er Cameron, C. J. — 
 The road not having been built by the defen- 
 dants, they were not chargeable as an act of 
 negligence with a defect in the original con- 
 struction, without direct notice that it was not 
 properly built. Per Cameron, C. J., also : — 
 Even had there been actionable negligence it 
 was competent to the company, in consideration 
 
 of a rcduued rate, to linnt their liability. Per 
 Hose, J. - The dam.ige was caused by negligence 
 in the uonstruction of the road, or from want of 
 repair of the road bed, and being so caused de- 
 fendants couhl not lindt their liability. J'er 
 (iidt und liOHC, thf. There was evidence of 
 negligence to go to the jury ; und. Per Cameron, 
 (J. .l.--lf the defendants could, under the eir- 
 
 i cumstunces, be liable lor fuulty construction, he 
 was of <ij)inion there was such evidence. Kaw- 
 cett r. (ireut Western H. \V. Co., 1 Moo. P. C. 
 N. S, 101, followed. The judge ut the trial 
 charged the jury that uidess the pluintitl's at- 
 
 ; tention wus drawn to the ticket " sutliciently to 
 nuike her understanil that she wus signing 
 something more than ordinary with passengers 
 obtaining u ticket to go to some parlicular places 
 ami rel urn," then she was not bound by it: — 
 .Sendile, this was misdirection. On upoeul to 
 the Comt of .Appeal it was : Held (by the 
 majority of the court), allirnnng tlic judgment 
 of tilt! court below, 14 O. It. (i'J.'i, that there was 
 no evidence of jmy negligence with which the 
 defend.ints wcic eliargcalile : Held, also (Hnr. 
 ton, .). .\., dissenting), tlial. wbc'tlicr or not th" 
 plaintill sigiiicl the licUet or iiil'oriiied herself of 
 its contents, it embodied the terms and con- 
 ditioiiHoii which alone tlic^ cli'fiiid iiits contracted 
 til carry her and her biigiiage. I'lr liurton, 
 ,1. A.- The delivery of the; ticket with uny con- 
 dition, by itsi'lf aniouiitcd only to a ])roposalt<i 
 carry on certain teiiiis, and until brcnii^ht to the 
 notice of the party intended to be bound wu'. 
 Iiot u contract, lint on appeal to the Supreme 
 
 i Court it was: -Held, leveisiiig both the judg- 
 ments ill the courts below, (iwjniie, .1., dissent- 
 ing, (but tlicre was sullicieiit evidence that the 
 
 i loss of the bagg.igo was caused by defendants' 
 negligence, and the special conditions |irinted 
 on the ticket not having been brought to the 
 notice of plaintitf .she was not bound by them 
 and could recover her loss from thc^ company. 
 Hull' V. Caiiailittii I'ufijir I!. II'. Co., 14 (). li. 
 ti-ri. -C. P. I).; 15 A. 11. ;«S; 18 H. C. I!. 
 0!I7^ ^ . — 
 
 ; In ail action by the jilaintifT, a p.issenger by 
 defendants' r:iilway. for the loss of iier baggogc, 
 and in which the lU^feiiccs was that the defen- 
 claiils' liability was limited by a condition on the 
 ticket to ■'JlOO, certain letters were admitted in 
 evidence, one written by tliodefendaiils' b.iggago 
 age lit to the passenger agent asking whether 
 plaintill' s attention li;id been called to the condi- 
 tion on the ticket, and why it had not been 
 sigiicd by her, und tlie other the reply thereto, 
 stating that the comjiany's rules did not require 
 nnlimiti (1 tirstclass tickets to be signed, and that 
 tli's ticket had been sold ut full turill' rale : — 
 Held, tliut the letters were projieily admittid ; 
 but they wc re of no consKiuence us the ticket on 
 its face shc«ed thutitwus not jiurchubcd fcub- 
 I ject to the cc ndition. Kirkstall Brewing Co. v. 
 rurntsa Railway Co., L, R. 9 Q. 15. 408, fol- 
 lowed ;— Held, also, that the six months' linii- 
 , tutioii clauf^e, it. S. C c. 1(1), s. .'■)7, does not ap- 
 ply to an iK'tion of this ehaiacter arising out of 
 contract, but to acti(>ns for dnm:igcs occuisiontd 
 , by the company in the e.\ecut cm of the jiowers 
 ' given or assumed by them to bo given for cn- 
 : ubiing them to muintuin their railway. Thu 
 cases on this subject reviewed. Aiiihrson v. 
 Caiiad.ati Par [fie Jl. W. Co., 17 O. 1!. 747. -C. 
 P, D. 
 
 
1792 
 
 1793 
 
 BAILWATS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1794 
 
 liiiliility, IVr 
 I by iicyligeiicc 
 1' fruiii wuiit of 
 
 HO OIIUHud (lu- 
 
 liuliilily. J'cr 
 
 lis eviiltiicio of 
 
 , IVi- C'aiiiui'un, 
 
 iiiulor till) cir- 
 
 oiiHtiuctioii, liv 
 
 vidt'iiw. Kaw- 
 
 ., 1 Moo. 1'. ('. 
 
 io lit tlie trial 
 
 ; i>laiiitiit''8 ut- 
 
 ' siiflifii'iitly t(i 
 
 I' MiiB signing 
 
 ^'itli iiiiMscngt'iH 
 
 )arliuular pTaco 
 
 bound by it : — 
 
 <ln u]i|>('ul to 
 
 lliid (by tlii^ 
 
 tlio jiidgnicnt 
 
 tliat tlieri) was 
 
 itli wliicli till' 
 
 (;ld, also (Hur. 
 
 tlio:' or not tli.' 
 
 nmd luTseir of 
 
 I'lnis and con- 
 
 mis (■oiitractcd 
 
 I'll' Burton, 
 
 ' with any I'on- 
 
 o a i)rii|i().sal to 
 
 liKiu^lit to the 
 
 bi- lionnd wa.i 
 
 tlic! Snpriine 
 bdtll lliu jlldg- 
 iiK', .J,, dissonl- 
 idencu that tiic 
 by dt'fi'ndanttt' 
 ditions pi-iiitcd 
 linnij;lit to tlio 
 liDiind by tlioin 
 i till! crnnpany. 
 
 , Co., 14 (). R. 
 ; IS H. C. I!. 
 
 n iinnHrnger by 
 i)f iur baggage, 
 tli:it tlie dctcn- 
 oiiditioii on the 
 -Tc adniittid in 
 ulants' b.iggago 
 isking wliftlitT 
 III to tliecondi- 
 liad not been 
 i ri'ply tlu'it'to, 
 did not rtquire 
 igned.and tlmt 
 
 1 taiifr rato : — 
 uily admitted ; 
 [iH the ticket on 
 puu'liabtil mb- 
 lircw ing Co. v. 
 Q. H. 408, fol- 
 ( niontlis' iinii- 
 57, ilci'8 not iip- 
 r arising out of 
 ges iiccationtd 
 
 1 of tllC pllMCI'8 
 
 I given for cn- 
 
 railway. 'Ilio 
 
 Aiiiliraoii V. 
 
 O. U. 747.-C. 
 
 fendantH in their elevator there, undur, as they 
 ocintiindud, the right conforrud thurofor by the 
 L'onilitions i and tliey tlu'iitiMidurud grain of tliu 
 «anio gPiiili! an plaintitf'H, which \K rcfiisnl to 
 iiocopt : — Ki'ld, that the onniignnient note and 
 Hhipiiing receipt, which coimtitutcd the lont-'act 
 bitlwcon tho partivi, tihpwud tlmt a diMtinction 
 was niudo butwccn grain uonHigned to the do- 
 fondants' oluvator and other grain ; the condi- 
 tions as to wuruhouaing, set out in the report of 
 tlio case, being only applicable to the former, 
 and that the plaintllf was llioreforu entitled to 
 recover the amount of the daningcH siistaincil by 
 the iionduliveiy of the siiecitiu grain shipped. 
 LexdiT V. Northern It. W. Vo., 3 O. U. «J.-- 
 C. 1'. D. 
 
 Four carloads of flour were delivered to de- 
 fondants to bo carried from Newmarket, Out., 
 to Chatham, .V. li., under a special cimlract 
 whereby ilefendants were nut Id be liable tor any 
 delay occasioned l>y want of oppurt unity to for 
 wanl goods beyond places where difendants had 
 statiou.i, but they could forward tlieiii to 'heir 
 dusliiiiition by public carriers or otherwise, as 
 oppoitunity niiglit offer; that pending comnui- 
 nication with the consignees the goinls remained 
 on the defenilants' premises at the ciwnei's risk; 
 iind that clefeiulants were not to bo liable after 
 notilicatioii to the carriers, that they were ready 
 to deliver the goods for further cimveyaiice ; and 
 that defenilants were not to be liable for loss by 
 tire. It appeared that the defenilants line did 
 nut extend lieyoiid 'roriintn, and that the gooda 
 Were to be forwarded by the (iraiid Trunk liail- 
 way ('o. : that on their arrival at Toronto, they 
 were placed in dotondants' freight sheds, and 
 notice, addiessed to tho consignee, sent to the 
 ' eunsignor nt Newmarket, and also to the (irand 
 parties to whom they belonged, etc, and that ''"'»"'' Hailw.iy Co., that the defendants were 
 tho warehousing of all goods would be at the ' I'";i""ed to deliver the goods for further con- 
 owner's risk and expense. On the arrival of the veyaiice ; and that, after such notice, while the 
 gooiU at Toronto they were pluoed in the deife'"'"'" """i '" detendaiits' freight flieds, they 
 fondants' waielioiiHC there, and the plaintilT, on WiMO destroyed by fire without any neyligcnco 
 roeeipt of the freight advice note called at the "» defendant.V part:-llehl, tlmt defendants 
 warehouse, and obtained permi.-sion to leive ^eie not li.iblo as earners, because they had 
 them there, nothing being said about stma-e. i ciinessly limiled their liability; nor as waro- 
 Tho goods were subsequently lost and the plain- :'"'"'«'^""-'"- ''"""'S" "" "egligenco was shewn; 
 tiff brought an actimi against the defendants to I "'" ""'y neghgenco suggested being that defen- 
 recover their value : — Held, that ho could not I ''''"'» "'"' """^ procure or supply cars for the 
 recover, for altliou h the defendants must bo li"iisl>i|'"ii>^'i>t beioie the tire, l.iit that this was 
 deemed to have held the goods ns warehousemen """^ siista.nable ; and even if tlu.i could consti- 
 and not as carriers, the terms and cnndilions of , •'"''-■ iiegligeiiee;— Quiere, whether the recovery 
 the request note and shipping rocei|it, wliicli i '=""''' "" tor iiiore than nominal damages, i.e., 
 
 Tho appeal was taken to tho Court of Appeal 
 on two groniiiU: (I) that tho accident wai 
 caUHe I by the act of (iod or vis m:ijor : ('2) that 
 the defendants wore protected by the limitation 
 eliiuse, U. S. C. c. 1(M, 8. 27, tho accident hav- 
 ing taken iilaco more than six months befure 
 action : —Hold, as to the first point tho court 
 agreoil with the court below, and thought thiit 
 the tinding of the jury was fully justified by the 
 evidence. Upon tho second point the a|>pellaiits 
 also failed, ISiirtoii and Macleunaii, J.I. A., ad- 
 hering to the opinion expressed by them in 
 McArthur r. Xorthorn and Pacific .Junetioii It. 
 W, (Jo., 17 A. R. 86, that the section was iiltr i 
 vires, and Hagarty, C. J. ()., and Osier, J. A., 
 thinking that it did not apply to an action of 
 eontract, though not fully diseus-sing tho i|ues- 
 tinii as such discussion was unnecessary. S. ('. 
 17 A. H. 480. 
 
 .S.eu Enuriinn v. Ninr/ara Nnniiialion Co., 2 O. 
 |{. .V2S, p. '212; iJixoii V. Hichelina Nnviiinliou 
 Co., 15 A. R. 047, pp. 21-', 213. 
 
 VIII. Carriaok ok (Joodm. 
 1. LiahUKy at Carriers or iVuivlioiiMciwii. 
 
 On the back of tho request note and shipping 
 receipt given and received by the plaintilf on 
 the shipment of goods from Montreal to Toronto 
 and the freight advice note received by him on 
 the arrival of tho goods at TiM'onto, and specially 
 referred to on the face theieol' respeetively, 
 were a number of comlitions under the heading : 
 " General notices and conditioim of carriage," 
 one of which was tlmt the company should nor, 
 be liable for any goods left until called for or to 
 order, or warehoused for tho eonveniencc of the 
 
 constituted the contract between the paitie.s, 
 applied and bound the plaintiff, irrespective of 
 whether he had read tho conditions or knew 
 their contents, and therefore the defend.ints 
 were protected by the condition above set forth. 
 Atayer v. OnimC Trunk li. IK. Co., 31 U. P. 
 248. -C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff, who lived at Meaford, sold a 
 quantity of barley by sample to one D., a brewer 
 in loronto, and shipped siiinc by the defendants' 
 
 railway, consigned to D. at IJiock street, sign- ' there used for tho puiposo of storing goods, 
 Lag a consignment note and receivinga shipping wlijie they were subsequently destroyed by fire, 
 
 wluther the loss by tire was the damage natur- 
 ally resulting from such negligiiice. lirudie v. 
 NoHlLe.ru 11. 11'. to., (i O. R. ISO.— Rose. 
 
 Under a condition in a railway shipping bill 
 the delivery of goods was to be considered com- 
 plete and the responsibility of tho company to 
 terinin:ite when tlie goods were placed in the 
 company's warehouse at their destination. The 
 goods Were carried to the station at the place of 
 ; delivery and were placed in the company's shed 
 
 receipt from the company, which stipulated 
 such receipt shouhl not oe transferable, butth.it 
 as to grain consigned to defendants' elevator at 
 Toronto defendants would grant a negotiable re- 
 ceipt, and was subject to certain conditions, set 
 out in the report of the case. The btirley was 
 duly carried to Toronto and warehoused by de- 
 
 118 
 
 The station was some live miles distant from the 
 village where the plamtitl's place of business 
 was : — Held, that the station was the destination 
 of the goods and not the village; that the shed 
 was a warehouse within the meaning of the con- 
 dition; and that after the goods were placed 
 there the company's liability was at an end. 
 
 d 
 
1796 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1798 
 
 HichnnUna v. Cnnnilinn I'licidc It, W, Co., ID 
 O. I(. 3«l>.-(;. V. I). 
 
 2 Liiibil'Uy Ueyuiid the Line, 
 
 Wlioro u railway company iiiulertakan to carry 
 
 f;o<)il'. to a point lieyoml tliu terniiiiUB of itH own 
 ine itH contract is forcarriagu of the goods over 
 tlio wholu transit, and tlio otlicr oonipuiiiuH over 
 whoHt) line tliuy inUHt pass aro niuruly iigunts of 
 tlie contracting company for snuli carriage, and 
 in no privity of contract witli tliu Hliim)or. 
 liristol and Kxutur li.ailway Co. c. Colling (7 ti. 
 Ji, Cas. IU4| followed. iSucli a contract iMiing 
 one wliicli a nidway couijiany might refuse tu 
 enter into, siiction lUl of tliu Kuilway Act (R. 
 H. C c. 10!)) doiis not prevent it from restricting 
 its liability for negligence as carriers or other- 
 wise in resiiect to the goods to be carried after 
 they had left its own line. The decision in 
 Vogel r. v.. T. H. Co.. 11 S. C. H. tJI'i, does 
 not govern such a contract. (Iraiid Tntiik It. 11'. 
 Co. V. MiiMilluii, 10 S. C. II. r)4:{. 
 
 One of the ecuiditions in a contract by the (>. 
 T. R. Co. to cairy goods from Toronto to I'ort- 
 4ige la I'r.iirio, .Man., a place beyonil the ter- 
 minus of their line, provideil that the company 
 "should not lie responsible for any Iohs, mis- 
 <lilivery, damage or detention that might hiip- 
 jien to goods sent by them ; if such lo-is, mis- 
 <lelivery, damage or detention occurred alter 
 Raid gooils airivcd at the stations or places on 
 their line nearest to the points or places wliicli 
 they were consigned to, or beyond their said 
 limits " : — Helil, that this condition would not 
 relieve the company from liability for loss or 
 damage occurring <lnring the transit even if 
 such Toss occurred beyonil the limits of the 
 company's own line:— Held, per Strong and 
 'J'aschereau, ,M., that the loss having occurred 
 after the transit was over, and the goods de- 
 livered at I'ortagc la I'nvirie, and the liability 
 of the company as carriers having ceased, tiiis 
 ciinditi'in re Ino'd the contract to one of mere 
 bailment as soon as the goods were delivered, 
 and also exempted the company from lial)ility 
 us warehonseiiieii, and tlio goods were from 
 that time in custody of the company on whose 
 lino I'urtage la I'rairie was situate, as bailees 
 for the shi|)per. (Fournior and liwynne, JJ., 
 dissenting). Ih. 
 
 Anothercondition of the contract provided that 
 no claim for damage to, lois of, or detention of 
 jjonds should bo allowed unless nrttice in writing, 
 with particulars, was given to the station agent at 
 or nearest to the place of delivery within thirty- 
 «ix hours after delivery of the goods in respect 
 to which the claim was made : — Held , per .Strong, 
 .1. , that a plea setting up non-compliance with 
 this condition having been demurred to, and 
 the plaintiff not having appealed against a judg- 
 ment over-ruling the demurrer, the (piestion as 
 to the sulficienoy in law of the defence was res 
 judicata : — Held, also, per .Strong, .1., (Jwynne, 
 J., contra, that part of the consignment having 
 been lost such notice should have been given in 
 respect to the same within thirty-six hours after 
 the delivery of the goods which arrived safely. 
 Ih. 
 
 (Jond-i wore sent by another railw.ay company 
 and were carried by it to its crossing point with 
 defendants' line when the goods were delivered 
 
 over to defendants tolmourriod to the plaintilf : 
 — Hold, that an actiini for tliu hms of tliu giKidH 
 was nut muintainablu by |d dtitilf ouuiiiMt do- 
 fondants as there was no privity of contniet 
 botweun them, /{ichtiiilniinv. dinwlian I'ar.iiic. 
 It. W. Co. Il)(). R. :«(!».(;. I*. I>. 
 
 Hoe lliirrry v. (Iruiul Tiunk If. M'. Cii., 7 A. 
 It, 7irt, p. !■)».-); Ilr:ili>' V. \ui-lhfrn It. II'. 
 Co., (M>. R. IH(», p I7!>t; llnti-ly v. AhrrliniilM' 
 Ihi/ifOi-h Tiaiix/iort.iU'.n i;,., I'J A. R. '2)1; 14 
 .S. C R. 572, p. 'JI4 ; Wiifili-n v. I'liiindiiin, 
 Pacific II. IC. Co., i:< (>. U. f)iV2, p. 17UH. 
 
 3. Otlie.r CimtK. 
 
 To an action for the non-delivery of goods de- 
 livered to defendants to be earrieil from llainil- 
 t<iU to Toronto, the <lefendants set up that llicy 
 duly carried and duliveriiil the said '.'oods to tliu 
 plaintill' at Toronto, but that liu did not, us re- 
 ipiired by one of the terms of the special contract 
 ejitered into between the p irties, give the defc!ii- 
 daiits within tliirty-.ii\ li puis there if tur notice 
 of any damage or loss ; -Held, that llui (U^fenei) 
 failed, as the cvideiii-e hliewed that the goodi 
 were never cairieil or d'lliviMed :is nllegeil. A 
 further di^feiice set up was, that the plaiiitill' 
 colli I not maintain the action, which was in 
 case, bi'iause he was not the owner of the gomU 
 at the time of the shipment at H .niilton, having 
 sold them to one H : llel I, al>o that the evi- 
 dence shewed that he was the owner, furalthoilijh 
 there appeared to h ive been asile, the property 
 was not to |iass until tiiu ilelivery of the gooils 
 atT(U'iinto. Sl(i(li:v. (I'luiid Trunk It. W. Co., SI 
 C. !'. '2U(».— C. 1'. 1). 
 
 The respondents Rued the ap|>ellant com- 
 
 Iiany, for breach of ciuitraet to carry petro- 
 iMim in covered cars Innn lj, to 11., alleging that 
 they negligently c irrled the same upon open 
 platl'iirin ears, wlieieliy the b irre.ls in which the 
 oil was were expos d to the sun and weather 
 and were destroyed. At the trial, a verbal con- 
 tract between pliiniill's' and defend uits' .agent 
 at \i. was prove I, that tin: defendants would 
 carry the oil in covered cais with despatch. The 
 oil was forwarded in open cars, and delayed in 
 diH'eriint places, and in cniscrpience a large 
 (juantity was lost. On the shi|iment of the oil, 
 a receipt note was given u liieh saidnothingaboiit 
 covered cars, and which stated that the goods 
 were subject to conditions i^iidorsed thereon, oiiu 
 of which was, " that the ilefeiiil mis would not 
 be liable for leak ige or delays, and that the oil 
 was carried at the owner's risk ; ' -Held, jier 
 Kitchie. C. ,1., and Koiiniier and Henry, .1.1., 
 that the loss did not result from any risks by 
 the contiMct impose I on the owners, but that it 
 arose from the wrongful act of the deleiidants in 
 placing the oil on open cars, which act was in- 
 consistent with the contract they had entered 
 into, and in contravention as well of the under- 
 taking as of their duty as carriers. I'er Strong, 
 Fournier, Henry, aii'l (iwyiine, J.I. The ovi- 
 duiice was admissiblu to prove a verbal contract 
 to carry in covered cars, which contract tho 
 agent at L. was aiithon/.od to uiiter into, and 
 which must be incorporated with the writing go 
 as to m ike the whole contract one for ciarriage 
 in covered ears, and that non-cuniplianco with 
 the pruvisiou as to carriage in covered cara, pro- 
 
17B6 
 
 1797 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1798 
 
 I to tho plaiiitill' : 
 
 lllMS of lliu g(M)(lH 
 
 iitiir auuiiiHl tlu- 
 vity of uonti'iuit 
 O'lnrylian I'ariiic 
 . I>. 
 
 //. ir. To., 7 A. 
 Xnrthiru It. W. 
 'ly V. Ati-rfli'i Ills' 
 •J A. K 2)1; It 
 
 'It V. I'diimliiiiif 
 
 i, \>. I7im. 
 
 very of goodH do- 
 ■iu<rfriiiii Mainil- 
 Hut u|) tliitl llicy 
 
 M:lill 1.'0(IiIh til tliu 
 HI (lid lint, IIS ro- 
 ll Hiiuuiiil ciiiitraiit 
 IS, >;ivu tlm iliifnii- 
 tlioii; if tur iKitlci! 
 that llii! ili'fimri) 
 I tliiit till! ;;oi)il'4 
 1 ;is iilliif^cd. A 
 Jiiit lliu |ihiliitiir 
 I, wliiidi was ill 
 viiiir iif tliu ^iiiiil!) 
 n .indtdii, having 
 Iso that tilt! uvi- 
 /imr, f()raitlii)ii};li 
 *:di!, thi! propiirty 
 'ury (if tliu (ijiKiils 
 
 ttiik 11. ic. Co., ;n 
 
 iippullaiit uoiii- 
 , to c iriy pctni- 
 I II., allu,.;iiig that 
 saiiiu upon <ipi;ll 
 nls ill wliicli thu 
 Hiiu and wcatlitT 
 rial, a vcrlial ooii- 
 lufuniliiits' aguiit 
 ofuiidanln wouhl 
 th duspatoh. Tho 
 , and dolayud in 
 ioquiiiici'. a largo 
 pniL'iit of thu oil, 
 tail! nothing ahdiit 
 il that this gooda 
 Disud tlicrcoii.ono 
 iiliiils woulil not 
 
 and that thu oil 
 sit : ' -lluld, [K;r 
 and Ifunry, .1.1., 
 ■oai any ri.sks liy 
 vnurs, hut that it 
 thu dclunilants in 
 iviiiuli aut wax iii- 
 thuy had uiitured 
 ,voll of thu nndur- 
 urs. I'ur .Strong, 
 e, J.I. Tho evi- 
 a vurbal uoiitriusl; 
 null uoiitract tlio 
 .ci enter into, and 
 ith tliu writing bo 
 t onu for uarriage 
 -uonipliaiico with 
 covured uara, pre- 
 
 vuntoil the uppollantg nutting up thu uondilinii iigunt at Itrandoii fru<|U<!iitly applied for thu 
 that "oil WU8 uarriud at thu ownurV rink" uh Haiiii', hut wiim iiifnniiud thuy hail not arrived, 
 oxoniptliig tliuin from liahility. (Irauil Tinnk Thu dufundaiitH allugud that nutiuu of arrival 
 It. \¥. Co. uf CuiMuta v. Filiije.nM, 5 S. V,. It. \ was Hunt hy post uuid to thu pluintilfH pro|)ur 
 2<)4. j itddri'Hs at ltraii<liiii, Inil thuru waH no uvidunuu 
 
 A doalor in liorHon hirod a car from thuOraiid '■ *" «'"■*" '''■" '•'''^ ruauhud tliu plaiiitilf, and thu 
 Trunk It. W. Co. for tho pnrpoHo of transport- «'«"1« 1'<mi>«o a daniaguiihluor purishalilo niituro 
 ing hiH HUiuk ovur their road, and signud a ship- ""i.'-'i ''» '-'"' ■'" V' ""''' ''J' '•'••uiidantM. 
 plug note hy whiuh ho iigruud to hu l.iniii.l hy '"""'" for nondulivury and uonvurui-m 
 lliu folliiwiiig, among othur conditioiiH: (I) Thu 
 owner of animaJH uiiilurtakus all riHks of loss, in- 
 
 jury, daniagu, and otliur uontinguiiuius, in load 
 ing, utu. (it) Whun fruu paHHUH aru givuii to pur- 
 KoiiH in uliargu of animals, it ih only on thu ux- 
 prusH condition that thu railway uom|iany aru 
 not ruMponsihlu for any nu^ligunuu, dutaiilt or 
 mivuouiluut of any kind, on thu part of thu uoni- 
 pauy or tliuir Hurvants, or of any othui' puison 
 ur porHoiiM whomsouvur, causing or tunding to 
 uauHu thu duath, injury or dutuntioii of any pur- 
 Hiin or pui'Hons travelling upon any hiiuIi fruu 
 (lasiiuM -tho pui'Hoii using any huuIi \>i. w takus all 
 iiiks of uvury kind, no niattur how uansud. Thu 
 liorKU8 wui'u ourriud over thu (Irainl Trunk Kail 
 way ill ohargi of u puraoii uinployud hy thu 
 owner, snuh purson having a fruu pass for thu 
 trip; througli thu nugligunuo of thu uompaiiy's 
 Hurvanla a collision oucurrud hy wliiuli thu 
 horsus wuru injurud : --Hold, pur Kituhiu, (J. .1., 
 and Kourniur and lluiiry, .i.J., allirniini{ tlu^ 
 jiidgniont of thu Q. IS. '■)., 'i O. li. 11)7, and 
 till! Court of Appual, 10 A. it. Kl'i, that uiidur 
 thu (Junural lUilw.iy Act, IStiS (;M Vict. u. 
 (iS), ». %), snli 8. 4, asamundud hy ."U Vict. c. 4.'1, 
 X, •), ru-uiiauCud hy CoiiHnhdatud Uailway Act, 
 IvS?!) {Vi. Vict. c. D), 8. 2.'), 8uh s.s. '.', :{, 4, whiuh 
 jirohihitud railway coiii|ianius from protuuling 
 thumsuivus against liahility for iiugligi'iiuu hy 
 miticu, condition or dudaralion, and wliiuli ap- 
 pliea to tho tiraiid Trunk R. W. Cn., thu uoni- 
 p my could not avail thumsulvus of thu ahovu 
 Htipiilatioii th.'it thuy slionld not hu ruH|ionsililu 
 tor thu nugligunuu of thumsulvcs or tliuir ser- 
 vants. I'ur .Strong ami TiiHuhuruan, .1.1., that thu 
 Words "iMtiuu, condition or dc'iiaratiun,' in thu 
 haiil stililtu, uontumplatu a pnlili': or funeral 
 iidIIcu, and do not pruvunt a uoMi|i,iny from 
 untiring into n spucial uontraut to protect itself 
 I loni liahility. (IniiitlTniiit It. IT. ''o. v. Vo'iil, 
 II S. C. I!. 1)12. 
 
 lluld, adirming tlie judgmunt of tiiu coiiit hu- 
 low, '.) t). H. 2.')1, that ill thu ahsuncu of collusion 
 lliu court wouhl notinipiiru into liiu ruasonalilu- 
 Iir8s ot thu ratu8 uhargud hy a railw.iy company 
 to an ux|)ru»s conipaiiy. Vichrs ICxiirc"" i.'d. v. 
 C'aiuuliuii I'mijic It. W. Co., l.'l A. K. 210. 
 
 The pldiitiff on the 2nd March, ISS-.', du 
 livond to thu(i. W. K. Co. at L., Out., S40 
 linshuls of oits, to hu carried hy said railways 
 and coiinucting railways to 11, Man., and thuro 
 delivered to the plaiiitill'. The oats were shipped 
 in car No. (),21K{, and while in transit were 
 trailsferiud to car No. ;i,!)0(i of the St. I'., M. & 
 M. K. \V. (/'(), IJcforu the arrival of thu oats, 
 tlic iiluiitiit' arranged with the defeiidaiif s' agunt 
 ut Winiiipi'g to have car (),2(}U stopped at Win- 
 nipeg. Thu o its were not stopped at Winnipeg 
 liut were carried on to Brandon. The plaintili', 
 hefore leaving Brandon and making the Winni- 
 peg urr.iiigement, li.id instructed ids agent at 
 liramlon to receive the oats. The oats arrivud 
 at Jiramlon on the 5th May. The plaintiff's 
 
 111 an 
 lluld 
 
 (reversing thu jiidgmunt oflialtd., at the trial), 
 that thu plaiiitill' was untitled to recover ; that 
 the ilufundantH were not protuotud liy 42 Viet. o. 
 I), s. 17 (l)oin.), and Miihsuutions, for to eoine 
 within it, tliu goudN must runiiiin in thu defuii- 
 d. lilts' possesHion for at lu ist a year, iinlesH thu 
 tolls h:ivu huuii duniandud from thu purHoim 
 lialilu, and paymunt rufnsud or neglectiMl for six 
 weeks after dunianil ; and though 8uh-suction 
 II says nothing of a duliiind, thu whole Huctioii 
 must hu read together, wliiuli shews a dem.uid 
 was leipiirud ; that thu post card was not a sutli- 
 uieiit demand, unless it was shewn to have 
 ru.'iuhud thu person it was addressud to ; that 
 thuiu was no breach in not stopping at Wiiini- 
 pug, as thu contract to stop only a|ipliud to ear 
 l),2ti;{ ; and that the plaiiitill' was untitlud to ro- 
 covur as damages the valuu of thu oats at Itran- 
 doii at the time of couvursioii ; hut as thero 
 was soniu diltiuulty in a.scertaiiiing this, the 
 eonrt thonglit suhstaiitial justice would hu done 
 hy allowing thu plaintilf thu pricu paid at L. 
 with six pur cent, interest added. Warden v. 
 Caiiiuiiaa I'lui/k It. IC. Co., 13 0. K. 052.— 
 C. I'. I). 
 
 ('onstruotion of uoiiditions in hill of lading. 
 N'''' lliililij v. Mi'irliiiiili' Ihijialrh TritiiHjMirld- 
 lion. Co., 4 (). K. TIW; 12 A. K. 201 ; 14 S. C. 
 li. .■)72, p. 214; Dijiuiiil v. .\(»ih<:rn ami North 
 H'i'M<rn It. ir. Co., II (). U. M:\, p. GUI. 
 
 See Miirtoit V. Kinijuloiiuwl Munlrcal Fonoard- 
 iiiij I 'o. , \\X ( '. l*. mil) ; I'l-rkhis v. MUiiiiint)i)i 
 iiiid l)(iiiiiiiiiiii fUeaiiiKhi/t Co. [Liinital), 10 I'. K. 
 I '.IS, p. 1040. 
 
 IX. TlUKKIO AuKAN(iEMENT8. 
 
 By au agruument unturud into hetweon tho 
 plaintill's and thu Toronto, (iruy and Bruce Rail- 
 way t!ompany, it was iigiveil that there should 
 hu cirlain joint ratios uhargeahle to pagsengcrs 
 and freight hy the steamsiiip company and tho 
 niilwuy company to \n- divided iu certain pro- 
 portions ; and if it shoiild lie found that the 
 piopoi'lion payable to the steamship company 
 did not at till.' end of the season amount to the 
 sum therein stipulated, then that tlie dulicieney 
 should lie niadu good hy ii ruhate from the share 
 of thu railway company ; and, on thu otlier 
 hand, if the steamship company received moro 
 than the sums muntioiied iu thu agreement, the 
 railway company were entitled to a share of thu 
 suriilus. Siihseiiueiitly, an agreement Wiuj en- 
 tered into whurehy thu Toronto, Orey and liruco 
 Ihiilway Company leased their line to tho On- 
 tario and Quehec Uailway Company, the latter 
 agreeing to assume the contract with thu pluin- 
 tilFs. 'Pins agreement was ratified by Act of 
 Parliament. The Ontario and (,?,uubeu Railway 
 Coiupany niadu a lease of their line to the Can- 
 adian I'auitic Railway Comjiaiiy which was con- 
 lirmed by Act of Parliament, and by which Act 
 the Canadian Pacific Uailway Company wore ta 
 
1799 
 
 BAILWATS AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 isoa 
 
 
 Wli 
 
 aaaume all contracts of the Toronto, Orcy and 
 Bruce Railway Company, incliuliiig the one 
 with the pluiiititfs : — Held, that cvun if tlic 
 agreement between the plaintill'M and the Toron- 
 to, Grey and Ilruce Railway Company were 
 ultra vireg the latter company, it wus mude 
 valid by inc subsequent legislation ; but, apart 
 therefrom, it wa? in no eense objectional>le, 
 Otpen Sound 'Steanuhip Co. v. Canadian Pacific 
 R. W. Co. 17 O. K. C91.-(!. P. D. ; 17 A. R. 482. 
 
 Contract for ciirriajrc of goods at less than 
 ordinary local rat«iB rtce Lamjdon v. lioberUon, 
 13 O. U. 407 
 
 X. Arrancemeni's with Express Cumi'aniks. 
 
 Held, affirming the judgment of the court 
 below, 9 O. R. 251 , that the railway company hav- 
 ing granted to one incorporated express company 
 the privilege of employing their station agents to 
 act as agents of that express company, such 
 agents having as employees of the railway com- 
 pany the right to use the company's trucks and 
 baggage house as places for storing goods ; and 
 retuseu the same privilege to another incorpo- 
 rated e.Tpress company brought themselves with- 
 in the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 60 of 
 42 Vict. c. 9 (Dom.), which enacts (hat any 
 railway company granting any facilities to any 
 incorporated express company shall grant equal 
 facilities on equal terms and conditions to any 
 other incorporated express company ilemanding 
 the same. Vickert Expresn Company v. Cana- 
 dian Pacijic R. W. Co., 13 A. R., 210. 
 
 XI. ARRANflUMENTS WITH TeLEOKAPH CoM- 
 PANIE.S. 
 
 In 1869 the E. & N. A. Ry. Co. owning the 
 road from >St. John, N. B., westward to the 
 United States boundary, made an agreement 
 with the W. U. Tel. Co. giving the lutcer the 
 exclusive riglit forninety-iiine years to construct 
 and operate a line of telegraph over its road. In 
 1876 a mortgage on the road was foreclosed and 
 the road itself sold under decree of the Equity 
 Court of New Biuiiswick to the St. J. & M. l!y. 
 Co., which company, in 1883, leased it to tiie 
 N. B. Ry. Co. for a term of 999 years. The 
 telegraph line was constructed by the W. U. 
 Tel. Co., under the said agreement, and has been 
 continued ever since without any new agreement 
 being made with tlie St. J. & M. Ry. Co., or the 
 N. B. Ry. Co. The W. U. Tel. Co. is an Ameri- 
 can company incorporated by the State of New 
 York, for the purpose of constructing and opera- 
 ting telegraph lines in the State. Its charter 
 neither allows it to engage, or prohibits it from 
 engaging, in business outside of the State. In 
 1888 the C. P. Ry. Co., completed a road from 
 Montreal to St. john, a portion of it having 
 running powers over the lino of the N. B. Ry. 
 Co., on which the W. U. Tel. Co. had con- 
 structed its telegraph line. 1'hc N. B. Ry. Co. 
 having given p<'i mission to tho C. P. R. to con- 
 struct another telegraph line over the same 
 road, the W. U. Tel. Co. a|>plied for and ob- 
 tained an injunction to prevent its being built. 
 On appeal to the Supreme Court of Cannda 
 from the decree of the Eq\iity Court granting 
 the injunction : — Held, 1. That the agreement 
 made in 1869 between the E. & H. A. Ry. Co. 
 
 and tho W. U. Tel. Co. is binding on the pre- 
 sent owners of the road. 2. That the contract 
 made with tho VV. U. Tel. Co. was consistent 
 with the purposes of its incorporation, and not 
 prohibited by its charter nor by the local laws 
 of Now Brunswick, and its right to enter into 
 such a contract and carry on the business pro- 
 vided for thereby is a right recognized by the 
 comity of nations. 3. The exclusive lisjht 
 granted to the W. U. Tel. Co. does not avoid 
 the contract us lieing against public policy, nor 
 as beinn a contract in restraint of trade :— Held, 
 per ti Wynne J., dissenting, that the comity of 
 nations does not require tho courts of this coun- 
 try to enforce, in favour of a foreign corporation, 
 a contract depriving a railway company in Can 
 ada of the right to permit a domestic coi'iioia- 
 tion, created for the purpose of erecting tele- 
 graph lines in the I'uminion, to erect snch a liii); 
 upon its land, and depriving it of the right to 
 construct a telegra|>h line upon its own luiid. 
 Canadian Pacijic li. W. Co., v. Wrxtern Union 
 TdKjraphCo., 17 S. C. R. ir>l. 
 
 XII. l.iADii.iTv KoR Acts ok Aoents. 
 
 ( '. , a freight agent of respondents at Chatloini, 
 and a partner in the firm of B. & Co., caused 
 printed receipts or shipping notes, in the forin 
 commonly used by the railwiiy company, tn bo 
 signed by his name as the company's agent in 
 favour of B. & Co. for Hour which had never iij 
 fact been delivered to the railwaj company 
 Tho receipts acknowledged that the conipany 
 had received from B. & Co. the Hour addresseil 
 to tho appellants, and were attached to drafts 
 drawn l)y B. & O. and accei)ted by appellants. 
 C. received the proceeds of the drafts and ab- 
 sconded. In an action to recover the amount of 
 tho drafts: — Hehl (Fournicr and Henry, .1.1., 
 dissenting), that the act of C. in issuing a false 
 and fraudident receipt for goods never delivered 
 to the company was not an act done within the 
 scope of his authoriiy as the company's u^'cnt, 
 and the latter was therefore not liable. Erb v. 
 (irtal IVcKttrn li. W. Co. of Canada, 5 S. C. 
 R. 179; 3 A. R. 448; 42 Q. 13. 4(i. 
 
 Powers of agents of railway companies in pur 
 chasing rifiht of way. f^ice. Schtiehauf v. Canadu 
 .Soul In ri, It. W. Co.. 28 Chy. 'J.Sfi, p. 17.')1 ; Clome 
 V. Canada Southern R. W. Co., 4 O. R. 28; 11 
 A. R. 2J.7. 
 
 XIII. Limitation op Actions. 
 
 The plaintiflf being the owner of a tract of 
 land mar I'reseott, on the SOth of (Jv-tober, 
 1849, agreed with the contractors engagi 1 in tl.o 
 laying out of the railway of the defendants, ai.d 
 in acquiring lands and rights of v..iy forthecon- 
 structii n thereof, in consideration of dicir plac- 
 ing the station of the railway for Presc )tt upon 
 his land, to convey to the contractor!, their 
 heirs, etc., six acres of such land for that pur- 
 pose, and, if necessary, for the purijcoc of such 
 station, to allow thein to take an additional 
 quantity, not exceeding in a'.i ten acres. 'Hie 
 station was erected in 18r)r) on these lands, and 
 used by the compiiny until I8()4, when it was 
 el< sed, and a station erreted about oncaiid a- 
 liplf miles fioni the plasitiH's lands, and station 
 buihtinge Li ectculuereon,inconsequencoof which 
 
 t • I I IK-l 
 
ifm 
 
 1801 
 
 BAILWATS AND RAILWAY OOMPANIES. 
 
 1802 
 
 ing on the pre- 
 hut the contr.iut 
 
 was cousisttiit 
 orntioii, ami not 
 
 the local liiws 
 
 it to enter into 
 
 e kuBinesi) pro- 
 
 ognized by the 
 
 exclusive lis-ht 
 
 (Iocs not avoid 
 
 uhlic policy, nor 
 
 ftnide;— HlI(1, 
 
 t the comity of 
 
 rts of this coun- 
 
 ign corporation, 
 
 ompany in ( 'an 
 
 JMiestic corpoiii- 
 
 [>f erecting tcl(^ 
 
 erect such (I lini! 
 
 of the right to 
 
 its own Innil. 
 
 Wistern Union 
 
 OK AliENTS. 
 
 iuts lit ChatliiiMJ, 
 B. & Co., caused 
 tes, in the toiin 
 
 company, to ]u) 
 ni>any's agent in 
 ich had never it; 
 ilwaj company 
 
 it tlie company 
 ! flour uddre.-^.seil 
 taclieil to drafts 
 d by appellants. 
 8 drafts and iih- 
 cr the amount of 
 md Henry, ,1.1., 
 n issuing a falsi; 
 H never delivered 
 done within the 
 ompany 's u^'ont, 
 . liable. Erh v. 
 Canada, 5 S. ('. 
 41). 
 
 ompanies in pur 
 '('h<nifv. Catiuda 
 i, p. ITr)! ; CloiiKc 
 ,4 O. K. '.'8; 11 
 
 \CTIONa. 
 
 jr of a tract of 
 )th of Ujtoher, 
 •s engagi 1 in tl.o 
 defendants, ai.d 
 V. ay for the con- 
 on of ilierr plac- 
 )r Presc )tt upon 
 ntracton, their 
 id for tli.it pnr- 
 puriicoc of such 
 e un additional 
 ten acres. 'Hie 
 these lands, and 
 4, u hen it was 
 ,bout one-aiid a- 
 luls, and station 
 !;quenceof Mhieh 
 
 the plaintiiT'a remaining lands became depreci- 
 ated in value :— Held, that the defendants hav- 
 ing entered upon and retained posscasion of the 
 lands, BO agreed to be conveyed, for more than 
 twenty years before the filing of the present 
 bill (1876), afforded no defence under the 
 Statute of Limitations, as u[) to a pci'iod much 
 within the twenty years their possession could 
 not be questioned, and no right of suit had ac- 
 crued to the plaintiff until the use of the lauds 
 for the purposes of the station was diseontinued 
 in 18(>4. /(.iiMy* V. Qraml Trunk It. II'. Co., 28 
 Chy. f)83.— Spragge. 
 
 Operatiim of statute in case of lands taken by 
 railway for right of way. See Thiniijmut v. 
 Canada Vetitraf H. »'. Co., 3 O. K. 130, p. \im. 
 
 Held, that section 34 of 1!. S. O. (1877), c. 
 ion, which fixes a limitation of six months for 
 bringing actions for any damage or injury sus- 
 tained by reason of any railway, did not apply 
 to an action Imiuglit against a railway company 
 for damages for wrongfully taking earth fioiii 
 off ♦I'e plaintitl's' land. The Townsliip of Brock 
 V. The 'roronto and Nipissing 15. \V. (Jo., .37 
 Q. B. 372 followed, lieord v. Credit Valley 
 R. W. Co., 9 t). H. 610.— Ferguson. 
 
 In an action brought by the plaintiff for in- 
 juries received while being carried on a train, 
 the defendants set up that the injuries com- 
 plained of happened more than six montlis be- 
 fore action brought, and that tlio action was 
 barred by the 27th section of the Consididated 
 Railway Act, to which the plaintiff demurred : 
 -Held, that any damage done througli negli- 
 gence upon a raihvaj' in the carriage ot passen- 
 gers and tlie like is ilamage ilone " by leasmi of 
 the railway." Browner. IJrockvilleand Ottawa 
 1!. W. Co., Si* Q. B. '.'()•.»; McCallum «•. (Jiand 
 Trunk R. \V. Co., 31 Q. M. 027, and Kelly r. 
 Ottawa Street U. W. Co., 3 A. R. 016, referred 
 to anil followed : — Semlilo, that the coiiehiding 
 words of the 27th section of the Consolidated 
 Railway Act. viz., that " the defendants may 
 prove that the same" (that is the damage) 
 " was done in pursuance of the authority of 
 this Act and the Special Act," should be read 
 as meaning "in the course and pros'jcution of 
 their business as a railway company, consti- 
 tuted in pursuance of,"' etc. May v. Ontario 
 and Qiieha //. II'. Co., 10 O. R. 7(l.-\VilsMn. 
 
 On 10th May, 1870, C. was seated in a car of 
 the C. V. H. Co. standing on the railway of 
 that company, w'licn an en>,'ino of tlie defen- 
 dants ran upon tlio railway of the C. V. K. Co., 
 througli gross negligence as alleged, and colli- 
 ded with the car in which C. was. He was in- 
 jured in the collision, and died on I Itli August, 
 1885, as alleged, from the injuries thus received. 
 Od 4tli August, 1880, his executrix brought au 
 action therefor : — Held, on demurrer, that the 
 action was for injury sustained "by reasmi of 
 the railway;" and that the limitation of six 
 months, provided by section 83 of C. S. C. c. 
 60, 8. 27 of 42 Vict. c. 9 (Uotn.i, applied and 
 prevaile<l over the limitation of twelve months, 
 provided for by section .') of R. S. O. (1877), c. 
 128 ; and therefore the action was barred. 
 Coiii/er V. Orand Trmk li. W. Co., 13 O. H. 
 160.— O'Connor. 
 
 A title by possession may be ucquire<1 as 
 .against a railw ay company to lands originally 
 
 obtained by them for railway purposes. Bob- 
 bett r. South Kastern R. W. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 
 424, a|)pi(>ved. Judgment of Falconbridge, J., 
 affirmed. Krii' and Xiajara Ji. W. Co. v. Houi- 
 «'«», 17 A. It. 483. 
 
 Action against railway for cutting and remov- 
 ing timber within and (mtsidc the six rod belt. 
 See MiArlhnr v. Xorthirn and Pacific Junction 
 11. W. Co., 15 O. R. 733 : 17 A. R. 86, p. 1743. 
 
 Ill action for damages for loss of luggctge. 
 See Andirwn v. Canadian, Pacific H. H. Co., 
 17 (). n. 747, p. 1792. 
 
 See Xorlfi Sliorc J!. 
 C. R. 511, p. 17K<). 
 
 ir. Co. V. McWUlie, 17 S. 
 
 XV. DlKKCTOKS. 
 
 I'ersonal liability of ))resident of a railway 
 eoni)iany on an acceptance of a bill of exchange. 
 5 A. R. 470, p. 104. 
 
 See Maildeii v. Coj: 
 
 ^Vhere the directors of a railway company 
 
 I jiasscd a by-law, enacting that tlie salary of the 
 
 I plaintiff, as solicitor of the company, should be 
 
 1 fixed at 8l,0(XJ per annum, vviicli by-law was 
 
 j afterwards, at a meeting of the shareholders, re- 
 
 ' pealed : -Held, that the by-law was within the 
 
 I competence of the <lin'etors, under C. 8. C. c. 
 
 00, s. 47, ami the sluueludders could not undo 
 
 the arrangement in res[ieet of past ser/ices of 
 
 the solicitor received by them. Falkiiier v. 
 
 I Urand Junction R. W. Co., 4 O. R. 350.— Boyd. 
 
 I Without express power it is the right of the 
 directors of a railway company to appsiat neces- 
 sary otHeers and agents of the company, and to 
 
 ; provide for the manner of their payment, lb. 
 
 See M<-Lnr,'n v. Fiskcn, 28 Chy. 352, p. 26!?. 
 
 -WI. Bonds and Bondi-j. ; ; ;««. 
 
 I. infill of' Hondhotderi to Reijinltr and Vote. 
 
 A trustee held certain debentures of a railway 
 eoiiipany on trust to secure certair, creditors of 
 the company for advances made by them, which 
 debentures were to be handed ovei,' to the credi- 
 tors for sale, upon the company making default 
 in payment of the .advances. Tlie company made 
 default, and the dcl)ciitures were delivered over 
 to the creditors : -Held, that tlie creditors were 
 entitled under 34 Vict. c. 43, s. 33, to be regis- 
 tered as bidders of the debentures, to enable 
 them to (jualify and vote for directors ; and that 
 a mandamus should issue to compel the company 
 so to register them. //(. re. Tlinmxoii and Victoria 
 R. II'. Co., 8 B. U. 423. —Wilson. 
 
 O., being the holder of fourteen bonds of the 
 r.iilway ixmipany, issu'nl on 1st May, 1876, pay- 
 able on Ist .laiuiaiy, 18S1, with interest mean- 
 while half-yearly at six per cent, per annum, re- 
 quested tlie secretary of the company to register 
 the bonds under .38 Vict. , c. 56 (Ont.). This the 
 secretary refused to do unless the iiitcriiiediate 
 transfers were jiroduood and registered at the 
 same time : —Held, that the secretary was bound 
 to register the bunds without the production or 
 registration of the transfers, and a summons for 
 a mandamus was made absolute with costs. In 
 re Oiler v. Toronto, tlrey and Bruce R. W. Co., 
 ,8 P. R. 506.— Wilson. 
 
 fl 
 
1803 
 
 KAILWATS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 180i 
 
 i!i 
 
 The Canadian Bank of Commerce received 1 
 from M. li. & Co. , bankerg in London, Ixmils of 
 the T. G. A B. R. Co., to the amount of Jt'lor),- ' 
 SWt. rcpre»eiite<l l)y M. H. & <'o. iih lielonging 
 to dilferent ()ei-8onH n.tmed. and tendenMl them 
 for registration at tlie railway ortic(^ in order 
 that these persons niiglit vot*- tliTeon. Tlie 
 w^-retiiry of tlie laihviiy cumpaMy registered 
 RU>.-h of the lionds as stood in the names of tlie 
 ori;zinal hohlers, hut ref.iMcd t<> register tlie 
 otlnr-rs unless written transfcis from the original 
 holdf-rs were jinnhiced : — Held, that the uoni- 
 piiiy .should register the lionds without the pro- 
 duction of the transfers ; tliat the proof of title 
 in the alleged owners was suHicient ; that the . 
 issue of scrip in London as representing the | 
 iHinds formed no ohjection ; and a iiiandamus to 
 register the honds was granted. /;* re Johnson 
 ami The Tortiiilii, (Irci/ a ml liniri' I'. 11'. Co., 
 8 I'. H. fi^-). Wilson. ■ 
 
 I5y the Act of incor[ioration of a railway < om- 
 paiiy, every sharehiddii waseiil itled to one vote 
 for every share held liy liini. It was provided 
 by the sanie Act, that if the iiilciest on the 
 bonds issued l>y the cuiiipany should he in arre.ir 
 all holders of honds slmidd iiavc the >aiiie right 
 of voting and i|ualitieatioii for directors iis were 
 attached to slmreholdeis : — Held, that the hoiid- 
 holders were not enlitleil to more than one vote 
 on each bond. Hdiilimi v. /.niil/aif, H I'. R. 
 538.-CJalt. 
 
 To an application for a mandamus to coni|iel a 
 railway company to register honds, it was oh 
 jectcd that it did not appear the company had 
 niiule default in payment of the interest, the 
 coupons not being shown lo have been prcsiiitcil 
 at the place named for payMunt : Held, that 
 the fact of the company nevi i iiaviiig been ready 
 to pay them there or elsewhere, was a siilliciiMit 
 answer to their objection, /{i- 't'homtnu iukI IIic 
 Victoria J{. ir. Co., i) I*. K. US). Osier. 
 
 A demand upon a railway conip.iny to register 
 the bonds was held sutliciently made upon the 
 assistant secreti ly, wlio, it was shewn, perform- 1 
 ed all the dutie of the secretary's ollice. //). 
 
 If the h-ih' I's of railway bonds desire to ao- 1 
 quire tlie right of voting theicoii uinlerthe Act, 
 all the transfers mu.st be evidenced in such a 
 way as to enable the company to register them ' 
 in the same manner as they register shares. No 
 special provision by by-law for the registration 
 of such bonds is l■e(luisil(^ ///. 
 
 It is enough that the hondiiolders mi the ap- 
 plication for a maiidamuM siicnilil make out a 
 prim& facie title, and the nuic fact that they 
 were directors of the cmnpaiiy was held no "' 
 jection, it not being denied that they had done 
 what was necessary under 37 Vict. e. (13, s. '25, 
 to entitle them to become holders. //). | 
 
 Under a statute which provided that, in the 
 event at any time of the interest upon the Ixmds 
 of a railway company rcmuining unpaid and 
 owing, then, at the next general meeting of the 
 company, all holders of bonds should have and 
 possess the same rights and privileges, andquali- ! 
 ncations for directors, and for voting, as are ' 
 attached to shareholders, provide<l that the 
 bonds, and any transfers thereof, should have ' 
 been first registered in the same manner as was 
 provided for the registration of shares ;- Held, j 
 
 that the words "at the next general meeting" 
 were merely indicative of the earliest period at 
 which the bondholders might vote, and that the 
 statute did not rc(iuir(i a new registration in 
 order to entitle the bondholders to vote at any 
 subseipient meeting, so long as the interest re- 
 mained unpaid. ifeld, also, that the hend- 
 holders' right to vote was nf)t limited to the 
 right of voting for directors, but that they had 
 the right to vote on all subjects properly com- 
 ing before a general annual meeting upon which 
 shareholders might vote. And where a snb.se- 
 ipient statute extended the bondholders' right of 
 voting to "special meetings;" — Held, also, that 
 the bondholders liad the like right to vote on all 
 subjects coining before " sp(!cial meetings. "^ 
 lliiidrir V. Grand Trvil II. IV. of Camilla 
 (I'ravil, Triivl- li. W. o/ ( anaila v. Tuniiilo, (Inij 
 anil Uriii-e l{. ]V., 2 U. U., -141. -I'roudfoot. 
 
 Where a statute authorized the railway 
 company to enter into agrcemeiit with .iny 
 other companj', for leasing or working its line, 
 provided that assent then'to shouM !)(■ given hy 
 at least two-thinls of the sharehohlirs pres( nt, 
 ir repre-^enti-d by proxy, at any iiKcting spe- 
 cially called for the puijiosc : — Held, that tlic 
 word " shareholders'' must be interpreted to in- 
 clude all who were entitled to vote as share- 
 hcddcra, which iiiclii<lcd bondholders. Held, 
 also, that the registered boinllnddtis were eii- 
 titleil to vote at a special meeting cilled for the 
 purpose of obtaining the a.ssiiit of the sliiire- 
 hohlers to such an arrangement, on the (juestion 
 of its adoption. Osier r. Toronto, (!rey it Ih'iice 
 R. W. Co., 8 I". R. riOti; and Ite John.son and 
 Toronto. (Jrey, and Hiuce II. W. Co., 8 P. H. 
 ").■)"). followed : - Held, also, that the votes of 
 registered bondhohlirs hi'vingbeen rejected, the 
 arr.ingcment, though confirmed by two thirds 
 of the actual shan^holders present, or lepre- 
 senterl, was nevertheless not properly ccnfirincd 
 within the ineaningof the statute, and an action 
 to compel speiilic iierformance of the agreement 
 was dismissed. Ih. 
 
 2. Olhfr Cwteji. 
 
 The L. and K. li. W. Co. wus incorpfUiiled 
 ill I8(i0 (32 Vict. e. 'A, Quo.), to construct a 
 railway from l.t'vis to the frontier of the state 
 of Maine, a distance of ninety miles. The coir.- 
 paiiy were authorized by that Act to i.ssue boiida 
 or debentures to |)rovide funds for thi^ coiistruc- 
 tioii of the railway. In 1872, liy 3li \'ict. c. 45 
 (t^uo.), jioner was given to issue bonds to the 
 auKuiiit of .'«3,0O0,000 without limitation of 
 time, and without restriction as to the length 
 of the r.iiUviiy eoiistrueted. In 1874, a statuto 
 of the Legislature of Quebec (37 N'ii't. c. 23), 
 deelareil that debentures lo the amount of 
 ?280,000 had already been i.ssued, and limited 
 for the Inturethe issuing of bonds to the ainonnt 
 of i;,3C(l,000 sterling, to be issued as follows : 
 The first issue of €100,000 at once, the second 
 issue of flOO.OOO when forty-live miles of the 
 road should have been completed and in lunniiig 
 order, as certilied by the goiernmeat inspecting 
 engineer, and the third issue of t' 100,(1(10 as 
 soon as thirty additional miles— making in all 
 seventy-five miles - should have been completed, 
 with the same privilege for the tlir<"> issues. In 
 1875, by the Act 39 Vict. c. 57, i! i legislature 
 
1801 
 
 leral meeting " 
 rljcst perioil at 
 e, and that the 
 ri'giatrntioii in- 
 to vote at any 
 :li(! interest re- 
 hat the hdud- 
 liniited to (ho 
 r tluit thuy had 
 properly com- 
 ing upon which 
 *liere a hiiIiho- 
 fiolders' right, of 
 leld, also, that 
 it to vote on all 
 :il nicetinf,'».'* 
 
 . (>/' ClIIKKlll 
 
 I'liroii/o, (liiy 
 I'loudfoot. 
 
 the railway 
 
 I'nt with ,iny 
 
 orkini,' its liiu!, 
 
 iilil !)(( given by 
 
 iiihlcrs prosi nt, 
 
 y iii(etiii>{ s)io- 
 
 MiM, that the 
 
 terpieti'd to in- 
 
 vote as Khaie- 
 
 oMiMs. Htld, 
 
 "liliTH were cii- 
 
 g (^•llle(l for the 
 
 of the shaie- 
 
 iiii the (jiieHtion 
 
 >, • '• rey & Hrnco 
 
 le .Iiiliuson and 
 
 '■. Co., S P. li. 
 
 at the votes of 
 
 en rejected, the 
 
 l)y two thinlg 
 
 si'iit, or repre- 
 
 perly confirmed 
 
 e, and an action 
 
 [ tlie agreement 
 
 is incorporated 
 
 to COMKtillct a 
 
 ier of the atiito 
 les. The cois:- 
 t to issue hoiids 
 r the C(jn.striic- 
 • ;)(> \'ict. c. 45 
 li hiiiids til the 
 liinitatioM of 
 to the leiiMtli 
 1MT4, a statute 
 7 Vict. c. '.';!), 
 le ainoiint of 
 >l, and limited 
 tr) the aiiKiiint 
 I as follows : 
 ce, the .s<'('(iiid 
 e niihs of the 
 ind in inmiing 
 esit inspecting 
 F €1(10,0(10 iis 
 making in all 
 'en coniplctid, 
 •"" issncH. \n 
 he legislature 
 
 1805 
 
 RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 180S 
 
 amended the former Acts so as to modify tlie 
 condition to lie fullilled liy the \,. and K. 1*. \V. 
 Co. before the third issue of C10'),(tOO could he 
 by them niaile. This coiiilition was as enacted 
 by the said .\et (3!) Viut. r. ,"i7i, " .su soon as 
 the rails and fastenings iccpiired for the com- 
 pletion of the remaining forty-live miles or 
 thereabouts of the .ninp-iny's line shall have 
 been provide! 'lieu the ivmaining one thousand 
 bnniN of oi'' h.iiidred pounds each, to he termed 
 till I ' lie may be issued by ihu oiim|)auy." 
 In the .\et lastly cited, the preamble declared : 
 — "Whereas it appears that a total length of 
 forty-five miles of tlie comjvany's line having 
 been completed, a first and second issue eiuih of 
 one hundred thuusaiel poiiuils of the company's 
 debentures have beci m '■■" In March, ISSl, 
 the L. and K. Ky. wis sold liy the shcrillat the 
 suit of the pi lintitrs the \V. M. Co., and liought 
 by the Q. (.'. II, (!o., respondents, for S!l!)."),000. 
 In April, 1881, the eor|K)ration of the city ot 
 Qiiobee (appelluits), tiled an o[)position ajin dv 
 eoimeri'rr ittr ■■Ji,N,0'i'' l)eiug the amount of SOO 
 debentures ' .(.'iOO .'erliug and interest of the 
 second issue ; s; • on the 2.")th daiuiary, IS7.'), 
 numbered l,020anfl upwards, jjayalile on the 1st 
 January, 1804, and for the paynieutof wliich the 
 opposunts alleged that the said railroad was liy- 
 pothecated. The Q. C R W. Co.. ,ilso oppo- 
 sants in the case, contested the opposition of the 
 corporation of the city of (Quebec, and claimed 
 the issue of the bonds of the second issue anil 
 behl by the appellants was illegal. .\t the 
 trial no certilicatu was produced, but the gov- 
 ernment engineer stated that he had rciiorted to 
 the Minister of Railways that there were only 
 forty-three and oue-half miles of the road com- 
 pleted, and the secretary of the company testi- 
 fied that the total length of railway eertilied hy 
 the governinout eni.'ineer as being cnnipleled i 
 and in running order had never exceeded 
 forty-three and one-half miles. The judge at 
 the trial found as a fact that there were only 
 forty-three ami one-half miles eoiupleted, and 
 held the bonds of the second issue invalid. This 
 judgment was affirmed by the Court of (^hieen's 
 Ik'iich (appeal side). On appeal to the Supreme 
 Court, it was :--IIeld, (reversing the judgment 
 of the ('onrt below), that the etFccl of the sta- 
 t".te .'!!) Vict., c. 57, is to inakt^ the bonds therein 
 mentioned good, v.ilid, and binding upou the 
 company, although the conditions |)reecdcnt 
 specified in H7 Vict., c. '23, mij;ht not have been 
 fulfilled when they weri! issued. Ritchie ( '. ,]., 
 aud Strong J., dissenting. Per Kournier and 
 Henry till., that as there was evidence that a 
 certificate or report hid been given, oral evi- 
 dence of the contents of the certificate or report 
 was inailmissiblo and therefore respondents had j 
 failed to prove the illegality of the secmid issue. I 
 Cili/ of Quebec v. QiafiM Veiilni/ I!. II'. Co., \Q \ 
 
 s. (\ R. rm. I 
 
 So long as a railway company is a going con- ! 
 CPU. bondholders whose bonds arc a general 
 charge on the undertaking have no right, even j 
 although interest on the.se bonds is in arre:u', to 
 seize, or take, or sell, or foreclose any part of | 
 the ])riiperty of the company. Their remedy is 
 the ai)|)'iiutmeiit of a receiver. The lumdhol- 
 ders of the defendants in this case were held not 
 entitled to the moneys claimed by them, which 
 were the earnings of the road de|)osited in a b.ink, 
 and which had been attached by judgment credi- 
 
 tors of the road. Decision of Boyd C, 18 (). R. 
 581, reversed. /VkZ/m v. W. Calhirinrs ,<• Xia- 
 !l<imCc,i/r<i/ n. H'. Co., 19 0. IJ. 501. -Chy. D. 
 
 See .A,»,'.y V. Cnnatln Veiilml /I. IV. Co.. 4(J Q. 
 H. "JOO, p. 1744 : /{unk of Turonlo v. Ciilii,iii-ii, 
 I'elei-lioronjh and Mannoni II. II'. Co., 7 O. R. 
 1 p. 480. 
 
 XVII. Aii> TO U.vii.wAV Co.^ir.vNiKs nv Mu.ni- 
 
 ('II'AI.ITIKS. 
 
 Held, that where a by-law granting a boiUH 
 to a railway eompany has been caiiied by thu 
 electors, a municipal council may refuse linally 
 to pass the same because the passage of the by- 
 law has been procured by bribery, aud may set 
 up such bribery in answer to an application for 
 a niandainii.< :— Qua're, wheth u- it must bo 
 shewn, as it was here, that enough votes have 
 bii I bribed to destroy the majority. St'inble, 
 that a inand imus should not be gr.iiited at the 
 instance of any railway company or person to be 
 benefited by such by law, w'lere a single act of 
 bribery or cnrruption has been brought home to 
 the ajiplieaut. In re Lanjiloii mid tlif Ar'hiir 
 Jiiiirlinii II. W. Co. and Ike Towniliin o/' Arlliur, 
 45 (^ i;. 47. -Osier. 
 
 By 18 Vict. c. .33the(!iaud Junction Railway 
 ('ompany, which was to run from the town of 
 Peterborough to Toronto, was, with certain 
 other coinpauies, incorporated with the tirand 
 Trunk Railway Company. Not having beeu 
 built within the stipulated time, the charter of 
 the former company expired, and in May, 1870, 
 the (Jrand Trunk Ra.lway having refused to 
 construct it, an Act was pa.saed by the Dominion 
 Parliament, 'M Vict. c. 53, dissociating the work 
 from the (iraud Trunk Railway Ciunpany, and 
 reviving the charter of the (Jraud Junctioii Kail- 
 way Company. It directed that all the corpo- 
 rate ,()wer3 origi lally vested in that com]iany 
 should be vested in certain [icrsipus, who slnnild 
 exercise the saint as fully as the parties named 
 in the original eliarter could have done, and ex- 
 tended the time for construction. On the '23rd 
 of November, of the same year, the ratepayers 
 of the defendant mniiicipality voted in favour of 
 granting the company a bonus of S"5,0(H), but 
 the by-law was never read a third time. At the 
 time the nuiiiicipality had no )iower to grant a 
 bonus to a lailwav coinpany, but siibseipiently, 
 in 1871, by ni V'ict. c. 48" (Out.), the by-law 
 was declared as valid as if it had beeu read a 
 third time. It was declared to he binding on 
 the cor))orafii)n, and they were directed to act 
 upon it. and issue debentures, as if it had been 
 proposed after the Act. On the same d\y the 
 municipal hiw was amended so as to empower 
 all municipalities to grant iiid for similar pur- 
 poses. X! Vict. c. 43 (Ont.l. was then j)assed, 
 amending ,ind consolidating the Acts relating to 
 the plaintilfs' railway, but it did not expressly 
 give retrospective validity to anything tint had 
 been done, or mention the by-law, and by ,30 
 \'ict. c. 71 (I hit.), the time fur completion was 
 further exti ndei!, and it was directed that none 
 of the by larts should lapse by reason of non- 
 coin].letion wilhiii the time previously (ixed : — 
 Held, reversiiii,' the judgment of the Q. 15. (4.> 
 Q. H. 302), that the (iraml Junction Uailway 
 t^oinpony, being a local work of the province of 
 Ontario, "'i-Act 33 Vict. c. 53(I)om.), was ultra 
 
1807 
 
 BAIL WATS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 1808 
 
 Tires tlic dominion parlininent, nnd that the com- 
 pany were therefore not in existence \ihen the 
 det«.:>(liuit8 Kranted the bonus, or when the Act 
 34 Vict. c. 48 (Unt,), validating the by-hiw was 
 passed ; and as 37 Vict. c. 43 (Ont.), which was 
 the first Act by a legislature liaving power to 
 incorfiora*o them, did not legalize the by-hiw in 
 favour of tlie plaintifrs, they were not entitled 
 to a mandamus to compel Che delivery of the 
 debentures. Re Orand Jundion If. IT. Co, v. 
 County of Peterhorom/h, li A. R. 3.j9. 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A. , the omission of the 
 plaintiffs to file any plan in accordance with 
 sec. 10, sub-section 4, of the Railway Clauses 
 Act, 1 4- 1.") Vict. c. 51, was a sufficient answer 
 to the application. Ih. 
 
 It was provided by the bylaw tliat in the 
 event of trusties being tlierc.iftcr appointed by 
 the logi.slaturc for receiving,' the dcberurcs, the 
 warden should, within si.v months after the 
 passing of the Act, deliver the debentures to 
 them. No 8|)ccial Act was p.isscd nominating 
 the trustees, but by the At 'i 1S71, M Vict. c. 
 48 (Unt), it was enacte.l that whenever any 
 municipality should grant i bonus U> the com- 
 pany, the debentures i;;:f,'ht, at tlie option of 
 the niunicip.dity, be delivered to three trustees 
 to be named as therein directed. Per Patter- 
 son, J. A., the legislature had not appointed 
 trustees witliin the meaning of the by-hiw, and 
 as there was tlierefore no default in delivering 
 the debentures, the mandamus must on this 
 groun<l also be refused. Jh. 
 
 Per G Wynne, J., (Kournier and Taschereau, 
 J.I., concurring). As the undertaking entered 
 into by the municipal corporation contained in 
 the by-law for granting a bonus to a railway com- 
 pany, is in the nature of a contract entered into 
 with the company for the delivery to it of de- 
 bentures upon conditions stated in the by-law, 
 the only way in Ontario in which delivery to trus- 
 tees on behalf of the company can be enforced, 
 before the company shall have acquired a right to 
 the actual receipt and benefit of them by fuliil- 
 inentof the conditions prescribed in the by-law, 
 is by €in a<!tion under the provisions of the stat- 
 utes in force then regulating the proceedings in 
 actions, and not by s\iminary process by motion 
 for the old prerogative writ of mandamus, which 
 the writ of mandamus obtainable on moti<m witii- 
 out action still is. Per >[enry, J. , that if appel- 
 lants had ma<le out a riglit to file a bill to enforce 
 the performance of a contract ratified by the legis- 
 lature, they would not have the right to ask for 
 the present writ of mandamus. S. C, 8 S. C. 
 R. 76. 
 
 Held, following the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of Canada, In re (iranil Junction R. W. 
 V. Peterborough (3 .S. (\ U. 70), that a writ of 
 mandamus to compel the issue of debentures by 
 a municipal corporation under a by-law in aid of 
 a railway, will not be granted upon motion, hut 
 the applicant must bring his acti(ni. In re. The 
 Oannda Af/nntic I(. W. Co. v. Towmhip of Cam- 
 bridge, 3 O. R. 2<)l. -Osier. 
 
 Held, that under Ontario Act 34 Vict. c. 48 
 the Oranil Junction Railway Company was 
 recognized as an incoriH)rated company, other- 
 wise that it was actually incorporated by Act 37 
 Vict. c. 43 (Ont.); the effect of the two Acts being 
 to give to the company so incorporated the benefit 
 
 of a by-law of the respondent corporation, which, 
 under certain conditions, provided a bonus for 
 the railwfiy :— Held, further, that under the Act 
 of 1871 the said by-law was legal, valid and 
 binding on tlie corporation, but that the railway 
 company had not, on the evidence, complied 
 with the ciHiditions precedent. The stipulated 
 certificate of the chief engineer had not been 
 produced, and although under paragraph 8 of 
 the by-law, debentures might be delivered to 
 trustees without a certificate that applied to a 
 time when the debentures or their proceeds 
 were to bo held in suspense, not to a time when 
 the trusts were spent and the payment, if made 
 at all, should be made direct to the company. 
 Ordiid ./iiiiclioii mill Midlinid ItaUirny* iij Can- 
 ada V. Ciiijioralion of /'e/erlmroiiii/i, 13 App. 
 Cas. 1.%'. Judgment of the Court of Appeal, 
 13 A. 1!. 420, aflinned. 
 
 The railw.-vy company were 1 ound by their 
 original charter to comincnce wit lii>) three years, 
 and to 'iiish the roul within eight year.-;, v.'hi,.li 
 they failed to ilo v ithin the specified time: — 
 Helil, affirming t'le decision of the Chancery 
 Divisional Court, 8 O. U. 201, and of IVoudfoot, 
 J., lb. 183, tl'.at the phiintitl's were not in a 
 position to enfor jc the delivery of the debentures 
 after the lajiso of nine years from the passing of 
 the by-law, when a total cliange of circum- 
 stances had tnken jjlacc, and wlien the perioil 
 fixed by the jdi'intifl's'eliarter for the ci npletien 
 of the railway li:'d exiiireil. Cnuailit Atlantic 
 H. II'. Co. V. Citi] of Ottawa, 12 A. R. 'i.<4. 
 
 Held, following Canada Atlantic R. W. Co. r. 
 City of Ottawa, 8 O. R. 201; 12 A. R. 234; that 
 under section .Vii). sub section 4 of the Municipal 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), c, 174, a gr.int by way of 
 bonus may be made to a dominion railway. 
 Canada Athnitir J{. W. Co. v. Tvioiiihip of Cam- 
 bridiji; 11 (). R. 392. - C. P. I>. 
 
 Under 44 and 45 Vict. c. 40, s. 2 (Que.), 
 passed on a petition of the Quebec Central Hail- 
 way Company, after notice given by them, .ask- 
 ing for an amendment to their charter, the 
 town of lycvis passed a by-law guarantccihg to 
 pay to the Quebec Central Rail say Company 
 the whole cost of expropriation 'or the right of 
 way for the extension of the rai'.way to the deep 
 water of the St. Lawrence river, over and above 
 S30,000. Appellants, being ratepayers of the 
 town of Levis, applied for and obtained an in- 
 junction to stay further proceedings on this by- 
 law, on the ground of its illei;.ality. The pro- 
 viso in section 2 of the Act under which the 
 corporation of the town of Levis contended that 
 the by-law was authorized, is as follows : " Pro 
 vided that within thirty days from the sanction 
 of tlie present Act, the corporation of tlie town 
 of Levis furnisiies the said company with its 
 said guarantee and oblig.iti 'o |iay all excess 
 over $.30,000 of the cost of expropriation for the 
 right of way." J5y the Act of incorporation of 
 the town of Levis, no power or authority is given 
 to the corporation to give such guarantee. The 
 statute 44 and 45 Vict. e. 40 (Quo.), w.as passed 
 on the 30tn June, 18"1 ; and the by-law ftiruiing 
 the guarantee was passed on the 27th July fol- 
 lowing : — Held, reversing the judgnicjit of the 
 Court of Queen's Bench, L. ('., aj)peal side, aud 
 restoring the judgment of the Superior Court, 
 that the statute in question did not authorize 
 the corporation of Levis to impose burdens upou 
 
1808 
 
 1809 
 
 SAILWATS AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 1810 
 
 oration, which, 
 !(l a bonus for 
 
 under tho Act 
 gal, valid and 
 liat tho railway 
 dice, coiiinlied 
 The stipulated 
 
 had not been 
 )aragraph 8 of 
 )e delivered to 
 at applied to a 
 their proceeds 
 to a time when 
 -yiiient, if made 
 
 the company, 
 //■/"■nyy (,/ Can- 
 •oiiiili, 13 App. 
 lurt of Appeal, 
 
 I Dunil by their 
 iiM three years, 
 It years, v'hi 
 
 leciliei! time:— 
 f the Chancery 
 id of I'roudfotit, 
 were not in a 
 f the debentures 
 
 II the p!issiiij( of 
 ,iise of circum- 
 vheii the period 
 r tlie e( npletioii 
 
 iiiini/ii Allnnlk 
 
 \. n. 'i.i4. 
 
 itic K. W. Co. i: 
 A. H. 2;U ; that 
 of tlic Municipal 
 ;r,iiit by way of 
 inini'm railway. 
 'oiihiship of Cavi- 
 
 40, s. 2 (Que.), 
 )eo Central Kail- 
 'u by them, ask- 
 a\r charter, the 
 giiaraiitcciiij^ U; 
 vii'iay Company 
 for the right of 
 '.way to the tiecp 
 , over and above 
 vtepiyers of the 
 obtained an in- 
 lings on tliis by- 
 ality. The pio- 
 inder which the 
 s contended that 
 I follows : "I'ro 
 roni tlie sanction 
 tion (if the town 
 mpany with its 
 () pay all o.xcess 
 opriation for the 
 inocirpuration of 
 nthority is given 
 Ltnarantee. The 
 inc.), was passed 
 • by-law forming 
 -i/th July fol- 
 judgmciit of the 
 U]ipeal side, and 
 'Superior Court, 
 id not authorize 
 ise burdens upou 
 
 f' 
 
 7 
 
 the municipality which were not authorized by 
 their Act of incorporation or other special lejjis- 
 lative authority, and therefore tho by-law was 
 invalid, and the injunction must be sustained. 
 Ritchie, C. J., dubitante. Qwliec iVarehoiixe. 
 Co. V. Levis, 11 S. C. R. 6C6. 
 
 A by-law was submitted to tho council of the 
 city of 0. , under 30 Vict. c. 48 (Ont. ). for the pur- 
 pose of granting a boiiiis to a railway then in 
 course of construction, and after consideration by 
 the council it was ordered to be submitted to the 
 ratepayers for their vote. By the notice pub- 
 lished in accordance with the provisions of the 
 statute such by-law was to be taken into coiisi- 1 
 deration by the council afU^r one month from its 
 first publication on the 24th of Septcml)er, 
 1873. The vote of tho ratepayers was in favour I 
 of the bylaw, and on 20th of October a motion j 
 was ma(io in the council that it be read a secoml I 
 and third time, which was carried, and the iiy- i 
 law passed. Tho mayor of tlic council, however, I 
 refused to sign it, on the ground that its con- ] 
 sideration was proinattire ; iiid oil .5tii Novcm- { 
 ber the same motion was n. ido and tho i>y-law | 
 was rejected. Nothing nioi.- Wiis done ii' tlie { 
 matter until April, 1874, when a motion was, 
 again made before the cfmncil that such by-law i 
 be read a second and third time, wliich motion 
 was, on this occasion, carried. At this meeting 
 a copy only of the by-law was before the coiin- 
 ■cil, the original having been mislaiil, and it was 
 not found nntil after the commenceineiit of tliis 
 tiuit. When it was found it was discovered that 
 the copy v(.ti!d on by the ratepayers contained, 
 by mistake of the printers, adatci for the by-law 
 to come into operation difTerent from that of tlie 
 original. !n 188U an action was brought 
 against the corporation of the city of O. for the 
 delivery of the debentur'>8 provided for by the 
 by-law, in which suit the ((uestion of the vali- 
 dity of the whole proceeding was raised : — Held, 
 affirming the judgment of the court below— 
 I. That the vote of 20th November, 1S73, was 
 premature, and not in conformity with the pro- 
 visions of section 231 of tho Municipal Act; 
 that tho mayor properly lefusoil to sign it, and 
 that without ' il^niiture the bylaw was 
 
 invalid und<a' section 220. 2. That the eoiiii 
 cil had power to consider the by-law on the 5th 
 of November 1873, and the matter was then 
 disposed of. 3. That the pioceedinga of 7th 
 April, 1874, were void for two reasons. One, 
 that the by-law was not considered by the eoun- 
 <5il to which it was first submitted as provided 
 by section 23(i, which is to be construed as 
 meanii.g the council elected for the year and not 
 the same corporation : and the other reason is, 
 that tho by-law jtassed in 1S74 was not the same 
 as that submitted, tlirie being a (iifreieni-e in 
 the dates : -Semble, that the functions of a 
 municipality in considering a by-law after it has 
 been voted on by tho ratepayers are not minis- 
 terial only, but the by-law can be continued or 
 rejected irrespective of the favourable vote. 
 Canada Atlnniir llnihmi/ Co. v. ('ill/ ofOttaim, 
 12 8. C. R. .%."); 14 A. I!. 230; 8 O. R. 201. 
 
 The corporation of the County of Ottawa un- 
 der tho authority of a by-law undertook to de- 
 liver to till' Montreal, Ottawa and Western 
 Railway Company for stock subscribed by them 
 2,000 debentures of the corporation of $100 each, 
 payable twenty -five years from date and bearing 
 
 six per cent, interest, and subsequently, with- 
 out any valid cause or roason, rofiised and 
 neglected to issue said debentiireH. In an action 
 brought by the company u'^ainst tho corporation 
 solely for damiges for their negloot and refusal 
 to issue said duhentures :— HeTl, ivtUrining the 
 juilgment of the court below, that tho corpora- 
 tion, apart from its liability for tho amount of 
 tho debentures and interest theieim, wiuj liable 
 under Arts. 1,005, 1,07:1, 1,810 and 1.841, C. C, 
 for daniiigeF, for breach of the covenant. ( Kitchie, 
 C. J., and (iwyiine. .J., dissenting.) ( 'ou.nl y o) 
 Otlaim v. Moiitrriil, Ottawa A- Wi:Htern R. W. 
 Co., 14 S. C. R. 103. 
 
 H.'ld, allirtniiii; tlie iudgment of the Court of 
 (ineeii's liiiieh for Lower ("anad i (3) that a de- 
 benture being a ne^otiabli! iiistriimeiit, a rail- 
 way con pany tliat has iMnnplii'd with all the 
 condition I preciMlcnt stated in the by law to the 
 issuing and delivery of debentures granted by a 
 municipality iscitithvl to siid dfbenturos, free 
 from any deelai.itinn on tlieir face of conditions 
 mentioned in tlie bylaw to bo performed in 
 future, such as the fiitiiic keeping up of the 
 road, etc. Art. Ol'ri Miinici|ial Code. l'\)urniorJ. 
 ilisHenling. /^/n'^/i of St. t'vuairt v. McFarUine, 
 14 S. C. R. 73S. 
 
 IJy an agieeinent between tho K. A. H. Uail- 
 way Co. and the 'louii of C. the latter agreed 
 to pass a by law granling a bonus to the com- 
 )>aiiy in aid of tlie coiistruetion of a railway, sub- 
 ject to the peiforinance of certain specified con- 
 ditiims. The by-liw siib^eipiently approved by 
 the ratepayers, ami passed by tiie council of the 
 town, did not contain all tlic conditions of the 
 ; agreement. In an action ag liiist tiie town to eom- 
 ! pel the delivery of debi-ntiires for the amount of 
 I the bonus the defendants pU'aded non-perforin- 
 ! anee of the conditions of tlie atjroenient as justi- 
 I fyiiig the withliohliiig of the delientures, and, 
 i by way of counter elaini, prayed specltic j.c. 
 i forinance of sncli loiulitions by the plaintiffs : — 
 Held, I. I'er liitiliie C..1., Strong, l''onrni«r, 
 i and Henry •11. Tasehei can and (iwyiine, ,1,)., 
 contra, that the title to I hi' debentures did not 
 ' di'peiiil upon prior peifoiniance of cfinditions in 
 till' agn!enient not included hi the bylaw, bat 
 upon performance of those in the by law alone, 
 1 and the latter having been complied with the 
 debentures should issue. 2. I'cr Foitrnier J., 
 that the debentures should, neviirthcdess, be 
 withheld until the il.images for non-performance 
 of the conditions in the agreement were p'iid 
 i or secured. 3. I'cr Rit.hie C.J., Strong and 
 j Henry .IJ., Fournier .1. cimtra, that speeitic per- 
 1 forinance was not an appropriat 'emedy in 
 such a case and the defendants i^onld only elaini 
 ' daiiiagea for non-piMformanee. 4. Per Kitchie, 
 ! C..1., Strong and Kournier,.!.)., that the claim of 
 ' defendants for .lamiges couhl be disposed of in 
 ! this action under tlio counter-claim and there 
 i should lie a reference to assess the same. T). Per 
 Henry .1., that the evidence did not justify a 
 refeience and the counterclaim should be dis- 
 niissed with a leservation of defeiulants' rights. 
 liiHionI v. Chatlinm, 10 0. R. 257; 14 A. R. 
 32;'l6.S. C. U. 2:io. 
 
 (hie of the conditions in the agreement to be 
 performed by the railw.ay company was "to 
 construct at or near the corner of CollKirne and 
 William streets (in Chatham) a freight and pas- 
 senger station with all necessary accoininoda- 
 
1811 
 
 RAILWAYS AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 1812 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 *ii% 
 
 tion, connected by sivitches, sidings or other- 
 wise with said road " upon the council of the 
 town passing a liy-law granting a necessary 
 ri^'ht of way : — Held, 1. That such condition 
 wail not complied with by the erection of a sta- 
 tiot.' building not used, nor intended to be used, 
 and for which proper otlicers, such as station 
 master, ticket agent, etc. , were not appointed. 
 Strong •)., dissenting. 2. Per (Strong J., thivt 
 the condition only called for the construction of 
 f. building with the required accommodation 
 and nonnections, and did not amount to a cove- 
 nant to run the trains to such Htntion, or make 
 any other use of it. 3. The words " all neces- 
 sary acciimmod.'ition " in the condition required 
 that grounds and yards sulfcient for freight and 
 paraengcr traffic in case the station were uacd 
 should be provide<l. Jb. 
 
 The Act incorjiorating the railway com])any 
 contained provisions respecting lionuses grnnted 
 to it by municipalities not found in the Muni- 
 cipal Act:— Held, that such special Act wns 
 not restrictive of the Municipal Act, and it was 
 only necessary that the provisidns of the latter 
 should be fullowc<l to pass a valid by-law granting 
 such a bonus. Jb. 
 
 Held, that all defects of form in the by- 
 law were cured by 44 Vict. c. 24, s. 28, provid- 
 ing for registry of by-laws and requiring an ap- 
 plication to quash to be made within three 
 mon ths after such registry. Ih. 
 
 In 1880, before the passing of 46 Vict. c. 18, 
 (Ont.), a municipal council, with the view of 
 granting a bonus to a railway company, caused 
 to be submitted to the vote of the ratepayers 
 a by-law to raise money for that purpose. At 
 the voting tiiereon the votes for and against it 
 were equal, and tiio clerk of the municipality, 
 who also acted as returning dfliter, verlially 
 
 fave a casting vote in favour of the by-law :— 
 leld (reversing the judgment of the C V. I).. 
 11 O. R. 392), that section l,')2of the Municipal 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, is not applicable to 
 the case of voting on a l)y-law, and tlierefore 
 the casting vote of the cleik was a nullity, and 
 the by-law did not receive the assent of the 
 electors of the municipality within tlie meaning 
 of R. S. (). (1877), c. 174, s. 317; as such a 
 defect could not be cured ))y promulgation of 
 the by-law : — Held, also, following Canada At- 
 lantic r. Ottawa, 12 A. K. 2;i4, and S. C. 12 S. 
 V. R. 377, that the by-law was bad for non- 
 compliance with section 330 of the Municipal 
 Act, R. S. O. (IS77), c. 174, the section corri"< 
 ponding with section 248 of 3(t Vict. c. 48. 
 Per Burton, .1. A. The jjrovisions of section 
 248 of the Municipal Act of 187tl, 3(i Vict o. 
 48, do not apply toby-laws forgriinting bonll^es 
 to railway.-*, and the judgment of tin Suiireme 
 Court of Cauf.da in f'anaila Atlantic K. \V. Co. 
 ». Ottawa, 12 S. V II. ,377, does not so decide. 
 Canada Allavli li. II'. Cu. v. The Tomnsliip oj 
 Cambridij,; 14 A. R. 29!) 
 
 Where a railway c<inii)any in breach of a con 
 tract cntereil mlo by tlieui in consideration ot 
 a lar^'i- amount of deln nturea given them 
 by the plaintiffs to run trains from the east- 
 ern part of the city of ,St. T. to the west- 
 ern part, ceased to nin such trains :- Held, 
 on a reference as to damages, that thougii the 
 «ctual depreciation of property tu the western 
 
 part of the city resulting therefrom was a mat- 
 ter pertaining to the property -owners, and not 
 to the city, yet the IcKScned taxation resulting 
 from such depreciation was not too remote a 
 fact for consideration on the reference, and such 
 a loss in taxation which could l>e traced to or 
 reasonably connected with the company's de- 
 fault fornie<l a yearly standard which might be 
 capitalized so ivs to fairly represent the money 
 eompensation to which the plaintiffs were en- 
 titled. Stated broadly the eu(|uiry was how 
 much less benetit had been received by the 
 municipality by reason of the railway service 
 at one station being discontinued :— Constat, 
 that the personal loss or inconvenience suffered 
 by travellers or citizens from the abaniloiimeiit 
 of the station, or the actual depreciation in 
 value of the land individually owned in that 
 neighbourhood could not be reckoned as consti- 
 tuents per se of the damages suffered by tho 
 corporation ; — Held, also, that if the railway 
 company admitted that they were never again 
 going to run trains to the western end of the 
 city, the damages should be assessed (mce for 
 all, which might be done either by fixing oiio 
 solid sum, or by directing a yearlv payment. 
 Cili/of St. Thmiax v. Cndit Valliy'l!. U'. Co,. 
 15 b.R. 673.— Boyd. 
 
 By agreement bearing date the 19th day of 
 May, 1873, the defeiulants in consideration of a 
 bonus of $.3(X),00() granted to them by a section 
 of the county of Simcoo, of which the town- 
 ship of Nottawasaga forni.s a part, covenanted 
 with the plainti^'-i to (among other things) 
 "erect, build, and complete good and sullicient 
 and suitable !tlation-buildingsfor|KV>isengers and 
 freight" at live certain places within the town- 
 ship; t>> "estalilish at each of the places here- 
 inlM N>i-e mentioned regular way stations, " and 
 to "well and .siilhcienlly keep ami maintain the 
 8.-iid five stations above Micntioneil with all suit- 
 able, necessary and proper buildings as tho 
 business done or c«|tal>le of being ilone at the 
 said stations respivtively may retpiirc lor seven 
 yeant after the tritins shall have connnenced to 
 run on the said road and (to) untlertuke to do 
 the piissen^er uid freight business of the comity 
 at said stations." By a further ugrecment hear- 
 ing date the 2i>th day of May, |S7H, I'tio defen- 
 dants in cons, deration of a bonus of ^2t),(M)0 
 granted to thtm by the plaintitl's, covenanted 
 with the plainull's to "erect, build, and coni- 
 ]ilete good and iiutlicient and suitable statio'i- 
 buililings for pash"ngers and freight on tliu line 
 of till' said railway at the several places follow- 
 ing in tlie saiil township," five places being 
 specified, and to "establish at each of such 
 places regular wiy slatioiiM ' This agreement 
 provided that the mute of the line of the rail- 
 way through tile township as detinni in the 
 foiUici agreeimiit might be dixialed iroin to 
 such an extent as to admit of the stations liciiig 
 located at the points niiMlioned in the second 
 agreement, and provided further that it should 
 not be inciimlMiit on tlie defen<lants to crrit 
 stations at the places uieiitioned in the former 
 agreement, "but that the places lincin defined 
 for stations shall be taken to be in suli.stitiition 
 for the places mentioned in such former .ngiee- 
 ■Tient. ' The defendants erected stations at the 
 points specified, three of these stations being 
 respeotivi'ly called A., (i. and N. '1 rains com 
 menced to run on the line in the year 1879. la 
 
1812 
 
 1813 
 
 BAILWAT8 AND BAILWAT COMPANIES. 
 
 1814 
 
 efrom was a mat. 
 •owners, and not 
 iixation ri-siilting 
 lot tfx> remote li 
 ference, and sufli 
 1)6 traced to or 
 I! company's de 
 wliich might l.o 
 ■esent the money 
 uintiffs were en- 
 ii<iuiry was bow 
 received by the 
 > railway service 
 nued .--Constat, 
 venience suffered 
 tlic abiindonmeiit 
 depreciation in 
 owned in that 
 ckoned as consti- 
 suffered hy the 
 t if the railway 
 were never again 
 stern end of the 
 assessed once for 
 itT by fixing one 
 yearly payment. 
 »ll,y It. W. Co., 
 
 the 19th day of 
 onsideration of a 
 
 liem by a section 
 vhieh the town- 
 part, covenanted 
 g other thiiig.s> 
 od and stilllciont 
 ir i>;w.sengers and 
 vithin tlie town- 
 
 Ihe places here- 
 ly stations," and 
 and maintain llie 
 iicd witli all suit- 
 niildinga a.s the 
 sing done at tlio 
 re(|uire lor seven 
 e ciininienced to 
 undertake to do 
 ess of the county 
 ug^-cnient hear- 
 1.S7S, ilio (leffu- 
 i<)nus of ?'2(),(M)() 
 tiffs, covenanted 
 build, and com- 
 suitable statior.- 
 ight on til..- line 
 al places follow- 
 *'e places being 
 t each of such 
 This agreement 
 line of the rail- 
 
 detiiKil in the 
 viated iiom to 
 e .stations being 
 I in the second 
 • that it should 
 idants to eri r( 
 
 ill the former 
 1 111 r('iii defined 
 in sub.stitution 
 I former .ngiei!- 
 
 .statioMs at the 
 
 station.^ bi'biij; 
 
 'I rains com- 
 
 year 1879. la 
 
 1880 :he plaintiffa licing disBatisHed with the | de facto were perfectly legal. 2nd, That as the 
 mode in which the stations at <i. and N. were i provincial treasurer had admitted l)y his plead- 
 
 mgs that the road had been completed to the 
 satisfaction of tiic Lioutenant-Coveinor in Coun- 
 cil, the onus was on the municipal corporation, 
 wiM" en ra«•^^ to prove that the government 
 had not acted in conformity with the statuto. 
 Strong, J. dissenting, (juiiiily of I'oiUiacv. 
 /(•o/fw, 17 S. C. H. 4(iC. 
 
 being maintained brought an action against the 
 defendants for specific performance of the agree- 
 ments. In this action a consent decree was 
 pronounced and an injunction granted restrain- 
 lug the defendants from ceasing to maintain the 
 
 stations except in a certain manner in the decree 
 specified. The decree contained no limitation 
 
 or other provision us to the time tluring which 
 the stations were to be maintained, though this 
 question had been raised at the hearing of the 
 action. In 188G, after th-s expiration of the 
 seven years, the defendants made changes in 
 their mode of maintaining the station at A. and 
 kept it open for about four hours a day only. 
 The ])laintiffs were dissatisfied and this action 
 was thereupon brought by them to compel spe- 
 citic performance of the agreements : — Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of Robertson, J., that the 
 word "establish," does not in itself mean "main- 
 tain and use forever ;" tliatthc seven years limi- 
 tation applied to the substituted stations, and 
 that the defendants were not bound to maintain 
 thein after the expiration of that time. IJick- 
 ford V. The Town of Chatham, 14 A. H. .32, 10 
 S. C. R. 23.5; Jessnp r. Crand Trunk 11. \V. 
 Co., 7 A. R. ]'2li, and (ieauyeau r. (Jreat 
 Western II. VV. Co., .3 A. R. 412, considered; 
 Wallace v. Croat Western R. W. Co., 3 A. R. 
 44, distinguished :— Held, also, that the decree 
 in the former action did not constitute the 
 question of the seven years limitation re.s 
 judicata ; there bcirg no adjudication on that 
 question, and in any event an adjudication on 
 that (juestion being unnecessary at the date 
 (if the former action ; Concha i'. Concha, 1 1 
 App. Cas. f)41, considered and followed. At 
 tlie trial evidence was a<lmittod on l)ehalf of the 
 plaintiffs of representations made by directors of 
 the defendant company, n^ meetings held to 
 consider the question of granting the second 
 bonus, to the effect that bv the sec(md agree- 
 ment the defendants would be bound to main- 
 tain the stations for all time: — Held, that this 
 evidence was clearly inadmissible. TuiriiMhi/i 
 of NiiltawaHiiqa v. Jlamitlon and A'otih Western 
 R. W. Co., 16 A. R. 52. 
 
 A municipal corporation, under the authority 
 of a Ijy-law, issued and handed to the treasurer 
 of the Province of Qucbei^ $oO,000 of his deben- 
 tures as a subsidy to a railway company, the 
 same to be paid over to the company in tlie 
 manner and subject to the same conditions in 
 which the government provincial subsidy was 
 payable under 44 & 45 Vict. c. 2, s. 19, viz., 
 "when the '•oad was completed and in good 
 running order to the satisfaction of the Lieuten- 
 ant-(jovcriior in Council." The debentures 
 were signed by 8. M. who was elected warden 
 and to()k and held possession of the office after 
 W. J. P. had verbally resigned the {lositiou. 
 In an action brought 1 y the railway company 
 to recover from the treasurer f the province 
 the 8ri(),0(K) debentures after the government 
 bonu* had been paid and in which action the 
 municipal corporation was »)ii.w en caiiKf as a 
 co-defendant, the provincial treasurer pleailed 
 by deniiirn^r only, which was overruled, and 
 the county of P- itiac pleaded general denial 
 and that the debentures were illegally signed:— 
 Held, 1st, affirming the judgment of the court 
 below, that the debentures signed by the warden 
 
 See Cilij of Hi. Thomax v. Cr'dit Valley li. W. 
 Co., 12 A. R. 273. 
 
 XVIII. Amalgamation ok Railways. 
 
 Part of the consideration for the riglit of way 
 over idaiiitiff's land was that the comp:iny, the 
 Helleville andNorth Hastings IJailw.iy Company, 
 sbouhl construct a cattlcpass under the railway, 
 for the use of the plaintiff'. The company refuseil 
 to construct the pass, whereupon the plaintiff, 
 on the 30th April, ISSO, filed a bill in chancery 
 against them to enforce the agreement, to which 
 the company on the I3tli September, 1880, filed 
 an answer, and on the 13th November a decree 
 was obtained l)y consent to construct it on cer- 
 tain terms specified therein. In March, 1 879, the 
 Acts, 42 Vict. c. r>3 and.'')7 (Out.), were pa-ssed, 
 authori/ing the Helleville and North Hastings 
 Railway Company, and the defendants to enter 
 into an agreement for amalganiatioii subject to 
 the ratification and approval of a majority of the 
 shareholders of said companies, at public meet- 
 ings called for such purpose. ()n the 29tli June, 
 18H(), an agreement was entered into for the 
 amalgamation .)f the two companies under de- 
 fendants' iiai'io, which was on the same day 
 ratified and aiiprovcd of by the ics|)ective share- 
 holders. The piaintitf had no notice or know- 
 ledge of the deed of amalgamation, or of its 
 contents. On the 4th M:irch, 1881, the Act 44 
 Vict. c. ()8, (Out.), was passed, by .section 1, of 
 wliicli the said decil of anialganiation was de- 
 clared legal and Viilid, and that the two com- 
 ]janies should be amalgamated and united, under 
 the defendants' name, in the terms of the said 
 deed. The decree not having been carried out, 
 the plaintiff brought this actitm against the 
 defendants to enforce it : — Held, that there was 
 no complete amalgani.itiou of the two companies 
 until the passing of 44 Vict. c. (i4 (t)nt.), so that 
 the Belleville andNorth Hastings I'ailwayCom- 
 jmny had not ceased to exist when the decree 
 was made, which was tlieieforc leual and valid ; 
 and that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain 
 this action to enforce it against the defendants. 
 Fan/It/ V. draiid Juin-tioii li. 11'. Co., 4 O. H. 
 232.'— Seiikler Co. .fudge. -C. P. I). 
 
 See Join'i V. Caiiwla Cinlrnl I/. 11'. ('o., AC) 
 Q. 15. 250, p. 17H; /I'e (•'rriii'l Jiiwllnn Hail irmj 
 Co. V. County of I'tlerliiiromih, A. R. 339, p- 
 1807. 
 
 XIX. Railways IN Hand.s OF Rkceivkis. 
 
 The receiver appointed to receive the proceeds, 
 of a railway comp;iny and apply the same in 
 carrying on the business of the company, paid 
 Si55.97 to the owner of land over which the line 
 ran for the right of way over his lands, he hav- 
 ing threatened to obstruct the ])assage of the 
 company's trains unless paid. On passing bis. 
 accounts the master refused to allow the jiay- 
 
1815 
 
 BAILWATB AND RAILWAY OOMPANIES. 
 
 1816 
 
 ii| 111* 
 
 
 f} 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 i 
 
 •1 
 
 t 
 
 
 I ■ 
 
 
 ment in favour of the rocoiver, which ruling of 
 the master wiia aflirniod (in uppital, tut Hiich pay- 
 ment (lid not properly como under the head of 
 " wurkini{ cxpeuscs and outKoixga " for the road, 
 and wliicli alone the receiver wax uuthorixud to 
 pay ; hut the court (Spragge, C.) gave the re- 
 ceiver lit)erty to take out an order now for the 
 alloM'ancu of thia disbursement, on payment of 
 the costs of the appeal but refused to make such 
 an order in respect of feus paid to the solicitor of 
 the conipiiiy for th(! examination of titles, as 
 there was not any evidence to shew that the pay- 
 ment was Hiicli an would have been saiictionud 
 by the court if applied to in the tirst instance for 
 pcrniiMxion to pay the same, doodrrliaiii v. 
 Toronto ami XijnK«iii<i It. W. Co., 28 Cliy. 212. 
 
 A receiver of the defendants' railway had been 
 appointed to take the revenues, issues, and pro- 
 fits, to pass Ins accounts pcrioilically, and to pay 
 into court the balance due from him after provi- 
 ding for the working expenses and outf^oiiiga of 
 the railw-iy. The nui.ster was directed to take 
 an account of nil persons entitled to liens, 
 charges, or incunilminces, .mil to settle their 
 prioiitirs, anil the money to be paid into court 
 was to be p;iid to such persons according to their 
 priorities to be asccrtaini^d : Held, aftirining 
 the decision of IVoudfoot, V. ("., that the muster 
 in takin^f the receiver's accounts, should have 
 allowed debts pnid for working expenses which 
 were not rej,'ularly ))ayable until after his ap- 
 pointment, but not those already in default at 
 that time, which were properly ]iayable out of 
 the moneys to be paid into court according to 
 their priority. S. C, 8 A. H. (185. 
 
 Although the duty of the receiver of the gross 
 proceeds and revenues of a railway, is to pay 
 thereout all expenses necessary for the main- 
 tenance, inaiiaf;einent and working of the under- 
 taking, he would not be M'arranted in expending 
 the same in any extraordinary outlay ; and where 
 an application was made by the receiver to au- 
 thorize the purchase of a large amount of rolling 
 stock, the outlay in respe(!t of which would re- 
 (piiro to be met by anticip.iting income, the 
 court (Boyd, C.,) refused to sanction the expen- 
 diture, i.ee. v. Vkloria li. W. Co., 29 Chy. 110. 
 
 See Fox v. Nijt'msini) 11. W. Co. ; (loo'lerhain 
 V. Nipixsimi li. W. Co'., 29 Chy. 1 1, p. 1820; Ace 
 V. Cre.dil Valliy li. W. Co., 2<'»Chy. 480, !>. 429 ; 
 Smith V. Port /)oi)e.r and Lake Huron liaitwiii/ 
 Co., 12 A. H. 288, p. C98. 
 
 XXI. MiSCKLLANKOUrt CASES. 
 
 Held, th.it the defendants, a railway comp-iny, 
 were not subject to the provisions of "The 
 Ditches and Wutor Courses Act," R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. 1 99. Mi//er v. Grand Tnmk H. W. Co. , 
 45 Q. 15. 222. ^Q. H. D. 
 
 Under the Assessment Act of I8(i9, .32 Vict. c. 
 36 (Ont.), the lands of railways might be sold 
 for the non-payment of taxes. Smith v. Mid- 
 land li. W. Co., 4 O. R. 494. — Boyd. 
 
 Notwithstanding any liability which may be 
 cast by statute upon a railway company to main- 
 tain and repair a bridge anrl its approaches by 
 means of which a highway is carried over their 
 railway, such highway is still a public highway, 
 within the provisions of the Municipal Act, R. 
 
 S. O. (1877) c. 184, s. .131, requiring every public 
 road, street, bridge and highway to be kept in 
 repair by the munici|Hil eiir|)oration, who are not 
 absolvetl from liability for default, by the lia- 
 bility, if any, of the railway company. Mead 
 v. Totoimhii) of Klohicokr and Grand Trunk R. 
 W. Co., 18 O.' R. 438.— Q. B. D. 
 
 A railway ticket is not a subject of copyright 
 under C. S. C. e. 81. Oriftn v. KiiiyHlon and 
 Pemhrcke. It. W. Co., 17 O. R. CGC— Falcon- 
 bridge. 
 
 iSee lVe.nt v. Villaiie of Parkdn/f, Carroll v. 
 Villa<i<- of Parkdnl/, 7 <). R. 270 : 8 O. R. 59 ; 
 12 A. R. .m3, 12 ;S. (!. R. 250, p. 1377. Itickford 
 V. Canada SontKfiii li. W. Co., 14 H. C. R.'74.'«, 
 p. 47. 
 
 XXII. .Si-EciAi, Acts Ri;i,atin(i to Particular 
 Railways. 
 
 1. Canada Atlantic liailway Co. 
 
 The charter of the Clauada Atlantic Railvay 
 Company, reciting in the proaiidile that the line 
 of radway which it was proposed to construct, 
 would alTord the shortest and most coiivenieul 
 connection between the cities of Ottawa and 
 Montreal, authorized the company to construct 
 their track from the city of Ottawa to, etc. The 
 head oflice was to be in Ottawa : —Held, that 
 they had the right to enter the city and construct 
 from a point witliin the limits, in re liroiuon 
 and the City of Ottawa, I O. K. 415.— Osier. 
 
 2. Canada Central liailway Co. 
 
 See Foranv. Mclntyrf, 45 Q. B. 288, p. 1741 ; 
 lioolh v. Mclnlyre, 31 C. P. 183, p. 1741 ; Jonrn v. 
 Canada Central li. II'. Co. 46 Q. B. 250, p. 1744. 
 
 3. Cana/la Southern liailway Co. 
 
 See Nor veil v. Canada Southern li. \V. Co., 9 
 A. H. 310, p. 1765; liowni v. Canada South- 
 ern 11. W. Co., 14 A. R. 1. p. M'A). 
 
 4. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. 
 
 Held, Henry J., dissenting, th.it the Cana- 
 dian Pacific Railway (Jompany have power, 
 under their charter, to extend their lin. from 
 Port Moody, in British Columbia, to Knglish 
 llay. Canadian Pacific R. IF. Co. v. Major, 13 
 S. C. R. 233. 
 
 5. Krie and Huron liailway Co. 
 
 By the Municipal Act, R. S. O. (1877) c 174. 
 8. ;>o9, 8ub-8. 4, authority is given tograntbonuses 
 ano issuedebontures in aid of a railway company, 
 payable at such times, etc., as the municipal 
 council may think meet. By the defendants' 
 special Act of Incorporation, .36 Vict., c. 70, 
 (Ont.), the debentures were to be issued and 
 delivered to trustees within six months after the 
 passing of the by-law, who were to receive and 
 convert the same into money, and deposit the 
 proceeds in a chartered bank and p.>y the same 
 out on the certificate of the chief engineer of 
 the railway comp'vny : — Held also, that a com- 
 pliance with the terms of the general Act was 
 
1816 
 
 lining every public 
 may to be kept in 
 ration, who are not 
 efoult, by the lia- 
 company. Afead 
 Oraiid Trunk R, 
 
 bjoct of copyrigiit 
 « V. Kviyslon and 
 R. GGO. -Falcon- 
 
 rkrtnli; Vnrrnll \ 
 
 270 : 8 (). R. m \ 
 
 p. 1377. liickrord 
 
 ..14S.C. R.743, 
 
 .MJ TO Pakticoimr 
 
 nilway Co. 
 
 Atlantic R.iilvay 
 imMi' that tilt! Ijiie 
 Dsod to cdiistruct, 
 I most convenient 
 cs (if Ottawa and 
 pany to construct 
 tiiwa to, etc. The 
 awa : -Huhl, that 
 I city an<l construct 
 Is. In re limn-^on 
 
 \i. 4l5.-OsW. 
 
 lit way Co. 
 
 I R. 288, p. 1741 ; 
 i, p. 1741 ; Jown V. 
 Q.B.250,p. 1744. 
 
 'ailway Co. 
 
 hern li. IF. «,., 9 
 V. Canada South- 
 
 i7r»o. 
 
 nilmay Co. 
 
 ?, that the Cana- 
 iny have power, 
 1 their lii>. from 
 inbia, to Knglish 
 . Co. V. Major, 13 
 
 ilway Co. 
 
 O. (1877) c. 174. 
 n to grant bonuses 
 I'ailway company, 
 IS the municipal 
 
 tile defendants' 
 36 Vict., c. 70, 
 o be issued and 
 niontlis after the 
 re to receive and 
 and deposit the 
 ml |>.iy the same 
 hief engineer of 
 .Iso, tliat a corn- 
 general Act was 
 
 1817 
 
 REOEIVER. 
 
 1818 
 
 ■ufficiont, for that the proviiiong of the special i 
 Act were not restrictive, but enabling and en- 1 
 Urging the powers under the general Act : and ' 
 that under the circunistances tiie appointment 
 of trustees would have been UHuless. Uirl^/'ord 
 V. Town of Vhiitham, 10 U. It. 2i}7. — Cameron. 
 14 A. R. "32 ; 10 8. V. U. 236. 
 
 6. Grand Junction liailieay Co. 
 
 See Dfmormt v. Midland It. W. of Canada, 10 
 P. K. 73, p. 123J; (,' rand Junction It. W. Co. v. 
 County of I'etKrtioruuuh, 6 A. R. 330 ; 8 S. C 
 R. 7(>, p. 1807 i Orund Junction and Midland 
 KailwiiyH of Canada v. Corjioration of I'eler- 
 boroui/h, 13 App. Can. 136, p. 1808. 
 
 7. Grand Trunk It. W. Co. 
 
 ^Ko I'ratt V. a rand Trunk It. 11'. Co., 8 O. R. 
 4U«, p. 1708. 
 
 8. Midland Itaihnay. 
 
 Under 4.') Vict. e. 67, s. (l)oni.), the Mid- 
 land railway, ns constituted by the Act, is the 
 company, that strangers or persons having 
 claims, etc., upon any of the companieH incor- 
 porated liy the Act, should proceed againnt for 
 the enforcement of their rights. iJeniorcit v. 
 Midland It. W. of Caiutda, 10 P. R. 73.— 
 Cftmerou. 
 
 9. Northern Itailway Co. 
 
 It. W. Co. of Cduwla V. 
 Co. of Canada, "J? Chy. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 I. Dkposit Rkokii't.— .S>« IUnkh. 
 II. HniK ItKciKirT. .See IIihino. 
 111. Insuiwnub Rkoku't.— 6'ee I.nhuranob, 
 
 Legatee having given a receipt not bound to 
 execute a release. .See Kaiter v. lioiinton, 7 O. 
 R. 143, p. 11(1.3. 
 
 A receipt qua receipt is not a contract, but a 
 mere ucknowledgnient, and is open to explana- 
 tion und contradiction by p/irot. Stcinhof v. 
 Miliae, 13 O. R. tm.~V. V. 1>. 
 
 S. sold all the elm and soft maple trees on a 
 certain lot to T., and at the time of sale gave T. 
 the folldu'ing receipt : — Uecoivcd Irom J. L. for 
 T. , the sum of ^iVM, on account of elm unit soft 
 maple on," etc., the said lot.drscribing it. Parol 
 evidence was admitted to shew, and the jury 
 found that one of the cdiiditions of tlie sale was 
 that the timber was to lie reinovcil Ijy 'I', within 
 two years ' :- -Held, that the receipt here was 
 not thccimtract bc;tween the parties, but a mere 
 acknowledgment of so much money ; und there- 
 fore till! parol evidence was pruperly admitted. 
 Helil, also, that the ellecl of the condition was, 
 thai '1'. Wiis only to have the right to cut and 
 remove the timlier within the two y>:urs from 
 the date of the agreement. Jolinstou v. Khort- 
 reed, \'l O. R. 033, followed, lb. 
 
 See Mtmi'luHohn I'iano Co. v. Graham, 19 0. 
 R. S3, p. 1538. 
 
 See Grand Trunk 
 
 Credit i alln/ It. \V. ,.„. .,, ™, -, „..j. 
 
 232 p. 1740; Ite Watnon v. iVorthem It. IK. C,., 
 5 0. R. 550, p. 1755. 
 
 10. Ontario and Sanlt Ste. Marie Itailway 
 Com puny. 
 
 By the (Jonoral Railway Act R. S. O. (1877) 
 c. 1U5, which was by the plaintiffs special Act 
 incorporalid therein except as varied by the 
 latter, ten per cent, of the capital of the railway 
 was by Miibsection 5 of sectiim .36 reciuiied to lie 
 expended witlijn three years, and the railway 
 was to be ci>m|>leted within ten years of the 
 passing of the special Act in default of which 
 the cor[iorato existence of the company ceased, 
 ami by section 4 of the general Act, sections 4 
 to 30 theieof inclusive were to apply to all rail- 
 ways autlionzid to be con8tiucte<l by any 
 spueial Act (d the province, and to be construed 
 therewitli as foiiiiiiig one Act : -Held, that sec- 
 tion -I (il the gener.d Ai^t did not aplily to the 
 plaintiffs, and that Bccti<in 23 of their special 
 Act iiiu.st be read in siilistitution for sub-section 
 6 of section 3(i ii<iuiriiig tlie expenditure of ten 
 percent, if i,lie capital within the three years. 
 Ontario and Sanlt Ste. Marie Itailway Co. v. 
 Gnnailian I'acijic R. 11'. Co., 14 O. R. 432.— 
 Kurguson. 
 
 RAPE. 
 
 Set Ckiminal Law. 
 
 REOEIVER. 
 
 I. Al'I'OINTMKNT OK. 
 
 1. In Mortija.(je CancK, 1818. 
 
 2. In Other Canen, 181!). 
 
 3. Jiy way of Eqaiialile lijcecution—See 
 
 K.XKUUTION. 
 
 II. Attachment ok Monkys in Hanu.s ok, 
 ISlil. 
 
 III. POWKIW OF. 
 
 1. To Take. Leijal Proceedimji, 1819. 
 
 2. To Make AHiciimenls on I're.mium 
 
 Nol<^, IS'iO. 
 ,3. Railway Compniiien -See TtAiLWAYS 
 and Railway (Jo.MrANiKS. 
 
 IV. LiAim.iTV OK, 1S21. 
 
 V. liidiir TO CosT.s, 1821. 
 VI. UiscHAKUK OF, 1822. ;, 
 
 'L Ari'OINTMKNT OK. 
 
 1. In Morlrjage Cwtci. 
 
 Wliere actions wciu brought by mortgagees 
 without the leave of Ihi; court lor sale of iiiort- 
 g.iged premises after tlic apijunitiiicit of a re- 
 ceiver lo ri;ceive the rents and prolita ot such 
 premises, an order was made, upon tlic petition 
 of the mortgagees, allowing tlie pr.iceeili'igs in 
 the actions to stand, and allowing th. |ieti- 
 tiouers to proceed with the actions iiotwith- 
 
 ••s 
 
1819 
 
 REOEIVEB. 
 
 1820 
 
 ItM, 
 
 ctnmling the nt>pniiitnient of the rnceivor. Hard- 
 Uf.r V. BunitM, \'A \'. li. 230. - Hoyd. 
 
 See Wallact v. Wallacf, 11 (). R. 674, p. 1310. 
 
 a. /)( Othrr Ccmen, 
 
 Thu pliiiiititr, currying on thu hnxincHH of adrng- 
 gJBt, inortgiigcd IiIm Htuckin tniilu to thu (lefun- 
 iliuit ; tlio iMHtiniiiunt Ity whicli it wuh uffuutt^il, 
 Htipulating that thu ilufunihmt Hhonhl take iihh 
 Husaion of tiiu Htouk nnd pruniiHi'H, to iiohl for tour 
 months in orilur to Hccnru rupayniunt of inonuy 
 . ailvancud, and powur wuh givun to the niortgn({uu 
 to ud<l new Htouk ho an to Ki^ep up thu huHinuHg. 
 Default W1I..J niadu in iiayniunt, nnd thuruaftur a 
 hirgo amount of Htouk was achlud, souiu of tiio 
 money beinguxpendud hy tho ilufunihmt witli the 
 aHsont of thu plaintitl'; other money, huing part 
 ■of the protitH of the huHiiicHH, was tliim ruinvunt- 
 od in new ntook ; somu of tile old Htouk remain- 
 ing in spuuii'. 'I'iie matter wan lefiTrud to tiiu 
 imtHtur at ISulleville, to take tliu auuonnts of tlie 
 dualingH liulwcun tliu parriuH. Iluforu thu maBtur 
 made niH ri|)ijrt, tliu |ilaintitt' applied on putition 
 for the appoiiitiiicnt of a ruueivur, on the ground 
 that the iiinrtga^e had hueii paid in full :— Held, 
 (!) that iiH the new Htouk liuliini{ud to thu mort 
 gnguc hiniMulf, and lliu idaiutilf could tliurifnre 
 have no claim iiikwi it, and au the inantur hail 
 not yet found which party was induhtud to the 
 other, h<-i lindin^ would nut Im; anticipated liy 
 the appointiiiuiit of a receiver ; {'2) that alllumgli 
 tlie deluiid'iiit'H right on dufault, waH to Null tliu 
 original ntock en liloe after notice, Ntill thu du- 
 fendant was ;it lilicrty to add further capital 
 and Btock to the hiisiiiess, hut not to the preju- 
 dice of tliu tnoi'tga^or no as to improve him out 
 of his CNtatu ; and no Ioii^ a» the plaintill' cliose 
 to allow the l.iiNiiii.'SN to yo mi uiiilur the ilufeii- 
 daiit's contiiil, he liad tliu rigiit so to conduct it, 
 subject to hfiug called mi to account. I'unti r v. 
 Mordiu, '>'.! ( 'hy. •.•.-). IJoyd. 
 
 A notice of motion for partition having been 
 served, the plaintitl' moved for an injunction re- 
 straining tliu defendant from collecting ruiitH, 
 and for a receiver. It appeared that the ihfuii- 
 <lant waH a Ntiaugi-r, wlmse right to be in poKHcs- 
 sion waH denied ; -lluM, that no relief enuld be 
 had against him without bill lileil. Yuiiiif/ v. 
 Wii(jhl, 8 1'. H. IDS. -Wake. 
 
 When the niLsconiluct is such as would entitle 
 a plaintillat the outset to apply for an injunc- 
 tion or a receiver, an action hIiouIiI bu brimght. 
 HuUifaii V. /Jail,/, !) I'. U. .'jOO. — iSoyd. 
 
 See McLean v. linuc, VA P. 11. 504, p. (i3j. 
 
 II. Att.vciimknt of Mosevs in Hands ok. 
 See Sluart v. Growjh, 15 A. R. 299. p. 93. 
 
 III. PoWKIW OF. 
 
 1. To Tab' Lcijal /'roceeditig.i. 
 
 In the.se eases an objection was taken that 
 there was no power to sue bec.iiise the com- 
 pany's license under 42 Vict. e. 25(Oiit. ), had 
 been revoked, but it was shewn tliat one B. had 
 been appointed receiver, and was sjiecially re- 
 .quired oy order of the cliancery division, to 
 
 prosecute all niemlMini in arroan for culls, nnd 
 that he hud adopted thcHO actions, and was 
 pronecutlng them ns receiver : — Held, that tho 
 objection was not tenable. Union Fire Inn. Co. 
 V. Fil-.»immonH-- Union Firt Inn, Co. v. ShieMi, 
 32('. I'. «02. — Hngarty. 
 
 After a decree had been pronounced directing 
 theaiipointmunt of a receiver, but before the ap- 
 pointment was coinpluteil, thu dofehdunt eiim- 
 p.iny had made a payment to a creditor, which 
 the plaintiir b',, a judgment creilitor, alleged to 
 be u fraudulent prefuienue, and moved lor an 
 order that the receiver should take proceedings 
 to recover the money so paid : - Held, that as 
 the puyment uomplaineil ol took place before the 
 actual appointment of tliu reuuivur, it was more 
 reaHonable that thiiHe who were inturoHtud at thu 
 time the p.iyinent was made, particd to the suit, 
 and who objuutud to what hail buon donu, hIihuIiI 
 in pursiin apply for the appropriate ruliuf. Fox 
 V. Xi/iisniii'i It. W. Co -(iuiiUerhuin V. j\'i/iiiiiiiiij 
 II. W. Co., 29Chy. II. lioyd. 
 
 A reuuivur, appointed aH the uoinpany were 
 here, Ii.ih a liglit to as.surt hin ulaimi actively, 
 thoii^jli he may reipiire in hoiiiu iiiHlanuuH the 
 sanetlon of thu court ; and a eoiiLuntion having 
 beuii raiseil us to a forfeituru of the iiituiust ot 
 the legatee, luuvu was given to thu U'linpany to 
 assert their claim by an uetion. AV Mor/ihy— 
 .Uuijihy V. Sivai, II 1'. It. 3lM. Uoyd. 
 
 A receiver has no right to Hiie in his own 
 niiiii! lor a debt due to the peiHon orcurpuration 
 whose assets he has been ap|ioiiitud to rci.'uive; 
 niirean that riglit bu eonfirred on him by order. 
 Hut where by an e.x parte order inude in the 
 action in which the pl.-iintill' was appointed re- 
 ceiver, he waH authoi'i/.ed to bring aetums in his 
 own iiamu for the collection of debts due to a 
 certain I •raii^^e, and bioiiglit this action piirHii- 
 aiit thereto. Meld, that an aineiidment hIiouIiI 
 be niailu adding thu (irangu as cn-plaintill's 
 without Nucuiity being given lor their co-its, they 
 being insolvent. If there were no pei.son in whose 
 naniu thu lU'tion could lie brought, there would 
 perhaps be jurisdiction to direct it tube brought 
 in thu iianiu of the receivui. .McCain v. Fn-tln, 
 1;H». !!. (i99. -Chy. I». 
 
 S. recovered a judgmeiiL against S. S. and 
 plaintiti' wm appointed the roeuivei in th.it suit 
 to receive S. S. 's share of his father's cHlalu which 
 hu was entitled to under the will of the latter. 
 The share not liuing paid over plaintitf brought 
 action in his own naniu against thu f.itlier's ex- 
 ecutors to recover the amount. 'I'hu duleiidants 
 duiiiiiircd on tliu ground that thu cau^e of action, 
 if any, was vested in S. .S., and that iilaintilt' had 
 no right to bring the action: — Held, that the 
 right of action was in 8. S. ami not the plaintitf; 
 by his appointment thu plaintitf bucaine entitled 
 to receive thu amount, and the defcmlants, the 
 executors, having notice of his appointment could 
 not safely pay over the money to any other, and 
 in case of their refusal to pay, the plaintill's duty 
 was to apply for leave to bring an action in S. .S.'s 
 name. Mcliuin ii. Frutts, 13 <). II. 099, cited 
 and foHowed. tiluarl v. Crowjli, 14 O. K. 255.— 
 Robertson. 
 
 2. To Make. AxmiiiiieiUx on Preiniiim Xotex, 
 
 Where .ipplication was in.ule to the court to 
 add the persons who had signed premium notes 
 
1820 
 
 lulls, And 
 Ian 1 1 was 
 [that tho 
 
 Iim, Co. 
 
 Shielilt, 
 
 I directing 
 Iro tliu ap- 
 Jiunt coni- 
 lor, wliich 
 liliugL'd to 
 Till lor nil 
 JrnuuL'iliiigii 
 III, that na 
 fbufiirc tlio 
 
 waH more 
 btuil at the 
 li> tlu) suit, 
 lint', hIkiiiM 
 lilicf. Fox 
 
 M ijiitniiig 
 
 ipaiiy were 
 II iiotivc'ly, 
 ritallUUH tliu 
 lion having 
 iiituriiHt ot 
 iiiipaiiy tu 
 Moi'jihy— 
 yd. 
 
 in his own 
 
 (j>ir|)iiratiun 
 
 to rci.uivu; 
 
 iiii hy iinler. 
 iiuilu ill tho 
 [|i|iuiiiteil rc- 
 ictiiins ill liis 
 •■\itii iliiu to a 
 ictioii {iiirHii- 
 liiiunt Hhimiil 
 
 u(>-|)liiintill'x 
 !iruo-it>*, they 
 I'aoii in wiiiisu 
 
 there would 
 tube brought/ 
 iiiit V. FrfllH, 
 
 st S. S. and 
 I' in th.it suit 
 1 estate whieh 
 ii the Litter. 
 ntiU' In'ought 
 f.itlier's ex- 
 le del't'iidants 
 u-^e of action, 
 
 lilaintill' had 
 elil, tli.'it the 
 the plaiutiil'; 
 3anie entitled 
 feuilant.s, the 
 ntiiienteould 
 ly other, and 
 aintill's duty 
 tinll ill S. S.'g 
 K. C'J'J, cited 
 
 O. it. U55.— 
 
 ill III Xolen. 
 
 the court to 
 einiuui notes 
 
 1821 
 
 BEOTIFTINO MISTAKE. 
 
 aa jiartii'S in the master's ottiue, and to direct i 
 the inuuter to assess the amounts due upon the 
 notes, uiid to order payment of the same to the 
 reoeivur from time to time, it v/as shewn that 
 the ilireetom had not made any assessments 
 upon the notes pursuant to H. .S. U, (IH'I) e. 
 l(il,8. 4'}, et seij :— Held, that as the lialiility 
 attiiohod only upon such assessment by the di- 
 rectors, the court should not add to, or alter the 
 liability of the parties who had made the notes 
 by referring it to the master or receiver to do 
 that which the directors only could do ; clause 
 75 of 'M Vict, c. 44, which nave powi.'r to a re- 
 ceiver toilothis, having been omitted from the 
 statute on reviHion. uill. v. Aturhnitln' anii 
 Mauu/'uclurtrii' Jim, Co., "JSty'liy. GOU.— lilako. 
 
 IV, LlAIIII.ITV oif. 
 
 On the 2',ltli of danuiiry, 1S7K, an order was 
 made direcliug tliat l>. be receiver in the suit, 
 lie tirst giving securitv to the satisfaction of the 
 registrar. At the date of tlie order and pre- 
 viously tluMcto, i). was the agent of the mort- 
 gagor, and asHiich collected the reiiti of the pro- 
 perty in ([iieslion, I), reeeiveil verbal notice of! 
 the Older and executed his own bond asneciirity, 
 which the registrar declined to accept, and I), | 
 continued to receive the rents and |iay lliem to j 
 tho mortgagor, Un the 'JUlh of May I), exe- 
 cuted a second liond, reciting the oiiler of lln.' 
 -Uth of .laniiary, and ciinliliiiiicd that he "do 
 and shall account for every sum of money which I 
 he shall receive on account ot rent," whii;li was ' 
 tiled on the 'J'Jiid ot May, aini on the .'iril of ' 
 June, acopy of the orderof the 'i!)tli of .lamiary, I 
 was served on him, and he was notilied that his 
 security had been accepleil : — Held, by the 
 master in ordinary, and atHrnicd on appeal by 
 iSpraggc, C, thill I), was account.ible fur tlie 
 rents reccivcil since the 'i'.lthof ilanuary, but was 
 entitled to be allowed for any disbiii.-eiiienls 
 pro[)erly made by him. U'LilLnt Canada, th: ' 
 V. i«fc, S I', l;. •J(i-'. 1 
 
 V. Ukjiit to Costs. 
 
 A receiver is entitled as against tho defen- 
 dants, to the costs of a suit in which he succeeds, 
 though the action has been brcmght without tlie 
 sanction of the court. UnNniil—Uickty s. NtiU, 
 y P. K. ITG-l'roudfoot. 
 
 The receiver was served with notice of the 
 presentation of the petition, and apiiearcd there- 
 on by coiULScl. The petition, besides praying 
 for the relief which was granted, asked in the 
 alternative that the receiver might be di.scliai'ged 
 or that he iniglit be ordered to pay the peti- 
 tioners the arrears of principal and interest due 
 on their mortgages and the costs of tlie actions 
 and llic petition : — llclil, tliaC if the ])etitioner8 
 wished to protect themselves from paying costs 
 they should have prcjcceded under Con. Rule 1 1'J.'J 
 and tendered the receiver. J j with the petition ; and 
 this not having been clone, and the relief asked 
 in the alternative prayers being such as justilied 
 the ap;-'^arance of the receiver, the receiver was 
 entitled to lie paid his costs by the iietitioiiers ; 
 and the petitioners were aUowed to add the sum 
 so paid and their own costs to the mortgage 
 <lebt. O'ariina- v. Baiyess, 13 1'. R. •250 — Boyd. 
 
 VI, DisciiARriK or. 
 
 ir, Co., 20 CUy. 
 
 .See Lff V. Crtdit Valley It 
 480, p, 420, 
 
 REOEIVINa STOLEN QOODS. 
 
 See HrijiiM v, tit. Deniii, H V. It. 10, p. 44<i. 
 
 Ill recngiiixancc. 
 9 I'. It. 31, iii/m. 
 
 RECITALS. 
 
 See /I'c (laiilhri'.aux'H Hail, 
 
 to 
 
 BECOQNIZANOE. 
 
 1. (».N Kktimin ok W'liiroi.' Ckiitioiuhi — 
 
 Src ('|.;ilTloK,\lll. 
 
 II. On (,)iasiiixi; Ci in vhtio.nh - .Ve« Jus- 
 tick OK TIIK l'K.\C'K. 
 
 Where caption takes place under writ of ar- 
 rest. See Xri'il/iam V. Xa.lhani, '."J (Jhy. 117. 
 
 A reeognizaiiee taken before a pidice inngis- 
 trate under ."tl' ,'(3 \'icl. c. ;i(), s. -M (Doni.), 
 Form (^. '2 (.Sclied.), omitted the words "to 
 owe" ; -Held, fatal, and that an action would 
 not lie upon the iiistrumuiit as a recognizance. 
 lUijiuaw J /(xk/Imi, ■{.-,{). I!. r),")0.-Q. B. D. 
 
 Held, that the forfeiture of a recognizance to 
 np|iear was a debt sulli. lent to su|iport the ap- 
 plication for an attacliniriit under tho Abscon- 
 ding Debtors' Act, and that such writ may lis 
 granted at the suit of tiic crown, where the do- 
 fendant ab.scoinls to avoul being arrested for a 
 felony, lii'jina v. Slcivai-I, H V. K. '2!)7. —Osier. 
 
 A recognizance of bail put in on behalf of a 
 prisoner, recited that he iiad been indicted at 
 the Court of (iciieral .Sessions of the I'eaco for 
 two separate oU'ences, and the condition wa«, 
 that he should appear at the next sittings of 
 said court, and plead to such indictment aa 
 might be found against liini by the grand jury. 
 At the next sittings the accused did not appear, 
 
 and no new indictment was found against liiiii : 
 
 Hehl, that the recitals sulllcieiitly shewed the 
 intention to be that tlica'cuscd should appear 
 and answer the indictineiits already fonuii, and 
 that an order estreating the recognizance was 
 properly made. J{r. Uaallirnaiixn Bail, 9 I*. R. 
 31.— Osier. 
 
 RECORD. 
 
 Fee on entering. See ifoi-tni v. Grand Trunk 
 li. ir. Co., 10 1'. R. 02 ; liimhury v. Mann- 
 J'adiirer.i' /iik. Go., 13 V. It. 52. 
 
 RECTIFYING MISTAKE. 
 
 I. In Dkkds — See Dkkd. 
 II. In Policies— .See Insuban'cx. 
 
^. 
 
 ^!*^^o. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TFST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 /^/ 
 
 ^^4f 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1^ 12^8 |2.5 
 ■^ 1^ 12.2 
 
 ^ U£ ill 2-0 
 
 1.8 
 
 L25 111.4 IIIIII.6 
 
 <^ 
 
 y 
 
 Vi 
 
 0/ 
 
 v: 
 
 Riotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporalion 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WeBSTiR,N.Y. 14510 
 
 (716) 172-4503 
 
 ^^4^ 
 

 
 73^;®^ 
 
1823 
 
 REOISTBT LAWS. 
 
 1824 
 
 REDEMPTION. 
 
 I. Of Land Sold fou Taxes- 
 MKNT AND Taxes. 
 
 ■See AssESS- 
 
 II. Of Mortoages — See 
 Wife — Mortuaoe. 
 
 Husband and 
 
 REENTRY. 
 
 Held, that the word "possibility " m R. S. O. 
 (1877) c. lOG, s. 2, includes a "right of entry for 
 condition broken," mentioned in section 10, and 
 is more extensive than the latter phrase ; and 
 might therefore bo a subject of a devise, and is 
 covered by the general name of " land." In re 
 Melville, 11 O. R. f)'26.-Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that a "condition of re-entry," or con- 
 dition strictly so called, as distinguished from a 
 " conditional limitation," is a means by which 
 an estate or interest is to be prematurely de- 
 feated and determined, an-' no other estate 
 created in its room. lb. 
 
 REFEREE. 
 
 See Piiactick. 
 
 REFERENCE. 
 
 I. To ARBiTnATioN— See Arbitration and 
 
 A\VA[!D. 
 
 II. To Master cb Referee — See Practice. 
 
 III. To County Court to Assess Damages 
 —See County Courts. 
 
 REFORMING DEEDS. 
 
 See Deed. 
 
 Scmblc, it docs not follow because a plaintiff 
 asks in his bill for reformation of a document 
 that therefore a defendant is entitled to claim 
 the same relief though he has not nsked for it. 
 Wolfe V. Huijhen, 1 O. 11. 322.— Ferguson. 
 
 REFUSING TO ANSWER. 
 
 Sie Evidence. 
 
 REFUSING TO PROVIDE FOR 
 FAMILY. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 REGISTRARS. 
 
 I. Of Divi.sional Courts— See Practice. 
 IL Of Deelss— ifec Hegistry Laws. 
 
 IL 
 
 IIL 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 VL 
 
 vn. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XL 
 
 xn. 
 
 REGISTRATION. 
 
 Of Hills of Sale and Chattel Mort- 
 OAOEs— See Bills of Sale and Chat- 
 tel MoRTGA'JRS. 
 
 OfBy-Law.s — i^ee Municipal Corpora- 
 tions. 
 
 Of Deeds— See Registry Laws. 
 
 Of Lis Pendens — See Lis Pendens. 
 
 Of Mechanics' Liens— See Lien 
 
 Of Medical Practitionep,— See Medi- 
 cal Practitioners. 
 
 Of Discharge of Mortgage — See Mort- 
 
 GAGK. 
 
 Of Partnership— Sec Partnkrship. 
 
 Of Plans— See Registry Laws. 
 
 Of Railway Bonds — See Railways 
 AND Railway Companies. 
 
 Of Voters— See Parliamentary Kleo- 
 
 TIONS. 
 
 Of Wills— See Will. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 
 IIL 
 
 IV. 
 V. 
 
 REGISTRY LAWS. 
 
 Registry Acts, 1824. 
 Registrars. 
 
 1. Linlnlilii for Wrovijftil or Negligent 
 Jt'eijisiratioii , 1825. 
 
 2. Fe,s, 1825. 
 
 3. Notice of Action to, 1827. 
 
 4. lAabiUtji of Sureties, 1827. 
 
 Instruments which may he Regis- 
 tered, 1S28. 
 
 Manner of Registering, 1828. 
 
 Effect of Registering oh Omitting 
 to Regi^teu. 
 
 1. Plans, 1828. 
 
 2. ll'tVAt-Sce Will. 
 
 3. Discharge of Mortgage — See Mort- 
 
 gage. 
 
 4. As Notice, 1829. 
 
 5. Giving Priority, 1823. 
 
 6. I'Jqnilahk Interests, 1830. 
 
 7. Other Cases, 1833. 
 
 8. Cloud on Title — See Sale of Land. 
 VI. Nova Scotia Registry Acts, 1833. 
 
 VII. Memorials AS Evidence— Sec Evidence. 
 
 I. RsGisTKY Acts. 
 
 The Registry Act of 1865, section 66, and the 
 Registry Act of 1808, section 68, are retrospec- 
 tive. Miller v. Brown, 3 O. R. 210.— Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 Sections 82, 83, 84 and 86, of R. S. O., (1877> 
 c. III. (Registiy Act), and sections 524 and 027 of 
 the Municipal Act con.sideied. Jn re H'aldiev, 
 Village of Burlington, J3 A. R. 104. 
 
1824 
 
 )N. 
 
 ClIATTEI, MORT- 
 SaLK and ClIAT- 
 
 [iciPAL Corpora - 
 
 RY Laws. 
 AS Pkndens. 
 
 ■See Lien 
 ONKR— *'ee Mkdi- 
 
 'OAGE — See MoRT- 
 
 Paktnkrshu'. 
 
 KY Laws. 
 
 - .SVe Railways 
 
 NIKS. 
 
 iamk.stary Elbo- 
 
 ws. 
 
 ifiU or Negligent 
 
 1827. 
 1827. 
 MAY HE Reois- 
 
 NO, 1828. 
 
 Hi OR Omitting 
 
 age — See Mqrt- 
 
 9. 
 830. 
 
 Ule of Land. 
 Acts, 1833. 
 ;— Set Evidence. 
 
 ;tion 66, and the 
 8, are retiospec- 
 i. 210.— Pioud- 
 
 R. S. O., (1877> 
 nar)24an(ld27of 
 
 /n re Waldie v. 
 104. 
 
 1825 
 
 REGISTRY LAWS. 
 
 1888 
 
 II. I{i:(ilsTUAIi; 
 
 1. lAah'dilij for Wiowj/ul or Xtnt'Kiint /inji.ilm- ' 
 lion. 
 
 S., believing that lii» fiitlier (still living, hut 
 of unsuiiixl mind) wiis ciititied to certain l,in.i« 
 to which the idaintitl's elainn d title, took llie 
 udvice of ids .solicitor, t'., who, hcing ndvised | 
 by counsel, instiucted by S. , piepaiedand legis- 
 tcred an instrument, wheruliy he, S. , staled that 
 he claimed tlic lamls, and would u]>on the 
 demise of his father, comnieiiee lUdccediiigs for 
 their recovery. The [daiutitis were thus obstruc- 
 ted in the sale of their lands, and bi'oiii:ht an 
 action against S. , C, and the rigistiar, to re- 
 move the instrument from the register, as being 
 a cloud on the title, and for damages. I'roiul 
 foot J., dismissed the action as against the regis- 
 trar, l)nt gave judgment, with a ri fercnee to 
 assess damages, against S. and ('. , (4 i). R. 47.'!): 
 — Held tiiat the UeL;isti'y Act <lid not authorize 
 the registration of smh an instminenc ; anil, 
 (Cameron J. dissenting), that an action woiihl 
 lie for its removal. I'er Cameron, .]. ~ 'I'he 
 instrument, being on its face one which did not 
 affect the title, was not removaMe by the 
 court, and the action should be dismissed. 
 I'er Hagarty, C. .1., and Aimour, J. — '1 lie act 
 of registration was a wrongful one, and all ] ar- 
 tits concerned in it were resjionsiblo to the plain- 
 tiffs, and the registrar was theiefoie a ])ro[iir 
 J)arty ; but, l)er Hagarty, (^.J., he was not a 
 necessary |>arty. I'er Ifag.irty, I !..!., there being 
 no mala liiles, the damages shoiihl lie nominal. 
 I'er Cameron, J., the registi'ar was not a pro- 
 i)er party, having acted in good iaitli, and in the 
 oelief that he was acting w ithin the scope of his 
 duty ; nor was C, tlu^ solicitor, a proiicipaity, 
 he having acted to the best of his judgment and 
 ability in a<lvising his client, after eonsultiiig 
 counsel. Ohitirio iiiiiiixlriid l.oon inid liivcsl- 
 ment Co. v. I.indsnj, ;{(». R. CO. — Q. 1!. I). 
 
 A will relating to eeitain land, though regis- 
 tered, was not enti fid on tin; abstract index, 
 whereby the j)laintiff dainud he was damnilied 
 in purchasing a mortgage on the land, the mort- 
 gagor ha\ing no title. The moitg:ige was liist 
 puiehastd by S., a solicitor, fir himself, and the 
 assignment of it maile to the plaintiff, for w limn 
 he was accustomed to act, ami towhuni lieaftt r- 
 wards sold. S. was not ret.dned by iilaiiitiff' to 
 iseareh the title for him ; it was not se.in lud 
 when lie sold to the plaiiitilV; and the judge 
 before whom the c;ise was tried held that lie le 
 li ;d on the sujiposed title acquired by the inoit- 
 J ^or by poH.session ; — Held, that the plaintiff 
 juld not claim that he was damnified by defen- 
 dant's omission ; and that he could found no 
 action on the seanh mode by S. Gnen v. 
 ronton, 8 0. II. 471.-C. P. I). 
 
 2. Fcen. 
 
 The plaintiff's sued the defendant for the pro- 
 portion of f(!C3 received by the deten<lant as 
 registrar, to which they were entitled under R. 
 S. O. (ItS77)c. Ill, ss.'!»8-IO:i. The .lefi-mlant 
 demurred to the declaration on the ground that 
 these sections were ultra vires the local legis- 
 lature, as they imposed an indirect tax, an<l not 
 a tax for raising a revenue for provincial pur- 
 
 115 
 
 poses :-lleld, affirming the judgment of Armour 
 •J., that having received the money in (piestioii 
 under the above Ait, the ilefendiuit cduld not 
 deny that he received it tor the purposes therein 
 pruvideil : -Held, also, that if a tax at all, it 
 was clearly a direct tax, and intra vires. Countj/ 
 Kj' llastiiiij-i V. I'uiiloii, ') A. U. 543. 
 
 In an action brought against a county registrar 
 to recover back alleged oveieliarges, it was shewn 
 that the plaintill'had c.dled upon the registrar to 
 search the books and indexes in his oliicc, and in- 
 lorin him of the persmis named as giantees in 
 the last executed deed of a eert:dn lot ; and also 
 what ineumbraiRes there were registered against 
 it. There were twiiitj'-eight entries on the ab- 
 stract index, and the regisirar charged for these 
 services $1.4."), being at the late of twenty-tivo 
 cents for the first four entries .-.nd live cents for 
 each of the other entries ;- (,)iuere, whether the 
 registrar was hound to do. or could recover for 
 doing what the plaiiitill rei|niieil of him ; but ; — 
 Held, that as he had done it, the charge whicii 
 the idaiiitiff had paid, and which w.is rea.sonablo 
 on the principle of the tariff, could not be re- 
 covered back. Macnanuira v. McLiiy, 8 A. R. 
 
 :h9. 
 
 The plaintiff told tlie registrar that one A. 
 owneil a lot in the lowiifliipof 15., liut was igno- 
 rant as to the luiniher of the lot, and asked tho 
 registiar to tell liini what ineunihrancis there 
 were against it, which the legistiar did, and 
 charged for those services twenty live cuitsfor 
 ascertaining the number of the lot, and twenty- 
 five cents for searching fur the inciimhranccs : — 
 Held, that both were pii.per charges, lb. 
 
 The plaintiff asked to examine an original con- 
 veyance in the r^■gi^try ollice, iiiformiiig the 
 ollicer of the names of the pai ties thereto and the 
 hinds affected thereby, but dd not tell him the 
 nunibiM' of the conveyance. The registiar exam- 
 ined the indix, for which In,' cliargiil twenty-five 
 cents, ;ind ten cents for producing the ducument : 
 — Held, to be proper charges, lb. 
 
 The registrar was required to |iroiluce the ab- 
 stract index of a hit, « hieli contained IMO entries 
 lor which he iei|uirc(l to be p;,i(l ^'Z iiS lor a gen- 
 eral search, the |)laintiff offering to pay twiuty- 
 tive cents :- Hild (Hurton, J. A., and .Morrison, 
 J. A., dissenting), that the registrar had charged 
 $1.7.') loo much. //'. 
 
 The registrar charged .S2.()."> for an ahstr.ict of 
 live folios— i.e., .^l.'JO for siarelus, the remain- 
 der being for copying at the usi.al rale:— Held, 
 the regisirar was enutled to those fees, though 
 he only copied it from the hidex. Ih. 
 
 A registrar when prejiaring an alistract is not 
 bound to rely on the correctness of the abstract 
 index, but may properly test its corieetness by 
 making all .searches necessary for the prepara- 
 tion of the abstract ; he may rely, however, on 
 the index if he thinks ]iroper, and charge the 
 same fees as for searches, liut if he gives a 
 cerlilied copy of the abstract index only he can 
 charge no more than the rate [ler folio, lb. 
 
 Per Burton and Morrison, J.l. A. -The regis- 
 trar is the proper person to make searches, and 
 he must produce the original iii.Ntrumenls and 
 the liooks containing copies thereof only, but 
 not the abstract index, lb. 
 
1827 
 
 BEaiSTRY LAWS. 
 
 1828 
 
 If' 
 
 S •! 
 
 ■-i r. 
 
 ;mi 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 af 
 
 Per Spragge, C. J. O., and Patterson, J. A. — 
 Every person interested in a lot of land is enti- 
 tled to see the abstract index thereof for the 
 purpose of making a search, as the book con- 
 taining sucli abstract is one of those which tlie 
 registrar is bound to exhibit under tlie Hegistry 
 Act. Jh. 
 
 Per Spragge, C J. 0. — A registrar, when re- 
 quired to furnish a copy of any document or 
 entry can make no charge for a search for the 
 •original. Kriss r. McLay, 25 C. P. 100, over- 
 ruled in part. III. 
 
 Where a registrar of deeds was dismissed be- 
 fore tiie expiration of the year, having received 
 in fees an amount in excess of that specified in 
 the statute, (R. S. O., 1877, e. Ill, s. 104) :— 
 Held (attirming the judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench Division, 3 O. R. '23), that he was bound 
 to return and pay over to the treasurer of the 
 municipality a proportionate amount of such 
 ■excess, although not in ofKce at tlie time pre- 
 scribed by the statute for making his return ; 
 but — Semble, that the treasurer could not main- 
 tain an action for such fees before the 15th of 
 January, the day named in the Act for the 
 registrar sending in his return: — Held, also, 
 that the defendant was not entitled to notice of 
 action. Cowily af Bruce v. McLay, ] 1 A. R. 
 477. 
 
 Held, that on the proper construction of sec- 
 tion 98 of R. K. O. (1877), c. Ill, each registrar 
 is bound to account to the county as therein 
 mentioned only after he has first received the 
 .sum of 8-,500 and not before, and this whether 
 there be successive holders of the position in 
 tiny one year or not. The Act being in deroga- 
 tion of the rights of registrars as they previously 
 •existed under tlie common law, must be con- 
 Rtrued strictly. He Itiqersoll, Gray v. Iix/er- 
 ■mil, 10 O. R. 194.— Robertson. 
 
 3. Notict oj Action to. 
 
 See Ontario IndMlrial Loan and Investment 
 ■Co. V. Limhey, .S 0. R. 60, p. 1825 ; County oJ 
 Bruce v. McLay, 11 A. R. 477, mpra. 
 
 4. Liahility of Sureties. 
 
 Action upon a bond of the defendants as sure- 
 ties for a registrar of deeds, dated 8th January, 
 1880, to recover the portion of fees received by 
 him, which he should have paid over to the plain- 
 tiffs underthe Hegistry Act, R.S.O. (1887),c. 114, 
 8. 107. The bond was in the form prescribed by 
 schedule A. of the Act, and was conditioned for 
 the performance of the duties of the Registrar's 
 ■office and against neglect or wilful misconduct 
 in office to the damage of .any person or persons. 
 The form was prescribed before the introduction 
 ■of the provisions now contained in section 107 
 of the Registry Act, which by section 13 makes 
 provision for the giving of special security for 
 the payment of moneys under section 107 : — 
 Hel(f, that the bond given by the defendants 
 must bo taken to be restricted to the perform- 
 ■anoe by the registrar of the duties imposed upon 
 iiim other than the duty imposed by section 
 107; and the action wai dismissed. County of 
 Middlesex v. Smallman, 19 0. R. 349.— Street. 
 Affirmed, 20 0. R. 437.— C. P. D. 
 
 III. Instrument.s Which May be Reoi.stkeed. 
 
 Quaire, whether a deed of land not specifying 
 any particular lot by description is capable of 
 registration. lUinxeil v. liuinell, 28 Chy. 419. — 
 Spragge. 
 
 See Ontario Industrial Loan and Investment 
 Co. V. Lindsey, 3 O. R. 66, p. 1825. 
 
 IV. Manner of Registering. 
 
 A discharge of mortgage referred to the mort- 
 gage as 5,704, whereas it was registered as 5,764 
 C. W. :^Held, that it was nevertiieless a valid 
 discharge properly registered, lie Clarke ami 
 Chamberlain, 18 O. l\ 270.— Boyd. 
 
 Tlie Registry Act, though requiring every in- 
 strument to be numbered, says nothing about 
 adding letters, which appear to be only arbi- 
 trary marks adopted by the official for con- 
 venience of reference, lb. 
 
 V. Effect of Reoisterino ok Omitting to 
 
 Register. 
 
 1. Plans. 
 
 Held, that the registration o^ a plan of a sub- 
 division of a town lot and saL made in accor- 
 dance with it does not constitute a dedication of 
 the lanes thereon to the public. //( re Morton 
 and tlie City of St. Thomas, 6 A. R. 323. 
 
 A municiiial corporation laying out a square or 
 park, on lands acquired by them untrammelled 
 by any trust as to its disposal, may deal with it 
 in any manner authorized by section 509 of the 
 Municipal Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, at least 
 where no private rights have been acquired in 
 consequence of their action ; but they cannot so 
 deal witli lands dedicated by tiie owner for a 
 special purpose, which case is pi'ovided for by 
 section 407. Whether the dedication arises only 
 from the act of the owner, or by express giant, 
 the municipality must accept it, if at all, for the 
 purpose indicated. The owner of land dedicated 
 to the public a square by filing a plan upon which 
 were the words, " Square to remain always free 
 from any erection or obstruction :" — Held, that 
 the municipality had no power to close up part 
 thereof, and to dispose of it to trustees of a 
 church. In re Peck and the Town of Gait, 46 
 Q. B. 211.— Osier. 
 
 Held, that though a plan not certified as re- 
 quired by the registry law, R. vS. 0. (1877) c. 
 Ill, s. 82, sub-8. 2, had, althougii deposited in 
 the registry office, no effect under the registry 
 law, yet in a deed reference might be made to it, 
 as it might to any other document in the regis- 
 try office or elsewhere, for the description or 
 designation of a lot. Fen/tison v. Winsor, 10 O. 
 R. 13.— O'Connor. See S. C. 11 O. R. 88. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of Proudfoot, J., 
 9 O. R. 274, tha'< the status of C, as a person, 
 or the assignee of a person, who registered a 
 plan, was a question of law and fact combined 
 for the county judge to determine upon O.'s ap- 
 plication to him, under R. S. O. ( 1877), c. 1 1 1 , s. 84 
 to amend the plan, and that his decision was not 
 examinable in prohibition :— Semble, a person 
 not the owner of the property may register a 
 plan, and although this would be at the time a 
 
1828 
 
 BE ReoISTEEED. 
 
 d not specifying 
 
 }n is capable of 
 
 28Chy. 419.— 
 
 and Inve-ttmerU 
 J25. 
 
 TERINO. 
 
 red to the mort- 
 yistered as 5,764 
 irtheless a valid 
 Jt'e Clarke awl 
 yd. 
 
 [uiring every in- 
 9 nothing about 
 ;o be only arbi- 
 ofBoial for con- 
 
 tt Omitting to 
 
 a ])lan of a sub- 
 made in accor- 
 
 ea dedication of 
 III re Morton 
 
 R. 323. 
 
 g out a square or 
 [n untrammelled 
 may deal with it 
 ction 509 of the 
 c. 174, at least 
 een acquired in 
 b they cannot so 
 ;iie owner for a 
 jrovided for by 
 ation arises only 
 f express grant, 
 if at all, for the 
 f land dedicated 
 plan upon which 
 lain always free 
 I :"-Held, that 
 to close up part 
 :o trustees of a 
 own of Gait, 46 
 
 certified as re- 
 
 S. 0. (1877) c. 
 
 gh deposited in 
 
 ler the registry 
 
 lit be made to it, 
 
 snt in the regis- 
 
 description or 
 
 , Wiiiwr,mO. 
 
 O. R. 88. 
 
 (f Proudfoot, J., 
 as a person, 
 ho registered a 
 
 fact combined 
 le upon G. 's ap- 
 1*77), e. 111,8.84 
 lecision was not 
 nible, a person 
 
 may register a 
 e at the time a 
 
 1829 
 
 REGISTRY LAWS. 
 
 1830 
 
 futile proceeding, yet if he afterwards became 
 tlie owner of the property and adopted tlio plan, 
 be would be entitled under the Act to liave it 
 amended. In re Chuholiii and iht Town of 
 ■Oakmlle, 12 A. R. 225. 
 
 See Net-in v. McMurray, 14 A. R. 126, p. 596. 
 
 4. An JVo/ifc. 
 
 Several parcels of land were embraced in one 
 mortgage. .Subsequently tlie mortgagor further 
 mortgaged some of them to the plaii.tiffs witii 
 the usual mortgagor's covenants. He afterwards i 
 ciiuveyed aiiotlier parcel to S. , who, when he. 
 took his conveyance, was not aware of the ' 
 plaintitl's ii]ortL;age, but it was registered 
 against tiie parcels embraced in it, though not 
 against tiie other parcels : — Held, that the regis- 
 tration of the prior mortgage against the parcel , 
 bought l)y S. was notice to him of the right ot i 
 persons wlio purchased other parcels before he 
 purchased to throw the mortgage upon his par- 
 cel, and that .S. was affected witli notice of tlie 
 plaintiff's mortgage, and the right it conferred. 
 C/ark V. Boijart, 27 Uliy. 4i"".— Hlake. 
 
 See Dilke v. Dowjlas, 5 A. R. 63, p. 1274, 
 riatt V. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 12 O. R. 119, 
 p. 427. 
 
 5. Iving Priority. 
 
 An execution creditor does not occupy as fa- 
 vourable a position under the Registry Act as a 
 purchaser for value without notice ; and he may 
 be defeated by a deed made before though regis- 
 tered after the lodging of the execution in the 
 hands of the sheriff, limnell v. RimseU, 28 Ciiy. ] 
 419.— Spragge. 
 
 Where two mortgages on different properties 
 by the same mortgagor came into C.'s hand be- 
 fore the Registry Act of 1865, and the mortga- 
 gor, after the passing of the said Act, assigned 
 the equity of redemption to M. by a registered 
 instrument ; — Held, on M.'s suing for redemp- 
 tion, that the registered conveyance to M. pre- 
 vailed under section 66 of the said Act, over C.'s 
 equitable right to consolidate the two mortga- 
 ges. Miller v. Brown, 3 0. R. 210. -Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, following Truesdell i: Cook, 18 Chy. 
 532, and Dynes v. Bales, 25 Chy. 593, that the 
 grantee in a subseciuent conveyance, registered 
 liefore the registry of a previous conveyance 
 from the same grantor, of which the grantee had 
 no actual notice, could maintain an action to 
 have the subsequent conveyance declared enti- 
 tled to priority over the previous conveyance, 
 and that this court had power so to order upon 
 such terms as seemed just. Weir v. Niagara 
 Grape Co. U O. R. 700.— Q. B. D. 
 
 R. G. and J. G. being the owners, subject to 
 the dower of their mother R. , and an annuity 
 in her favour, of certain lands, mortgaged them 
 to one C. to secure advances made by him to 
 them. R. knew of the mortgage and was asked, 
 but refused, to execute it. Subsetjuently R. G. 
 and J. G. mortgaged the lands to .M. to secure 
 advances made by him. R. released all her 
 claims for the purpose of this mortgage, but re- 
 ceived no benefit from the advances. This 
 mortgage was taken by M. without any notice 
 
 of the morcgiigc to C, , ami was registered be- 
 fore it anil gained pi'iv'rity over it. Under this 
 mortgage tlie lands we'e sidil, and after pay- 
 ment of the claim of the ])laintitls a surplus re- 
 mained wliich li. clainitii in jiriority to C. : — 
 Held, reversing the decision of Royd, C, 16 O. 
 R. 321, that slie was not entitled to priority. 
 The prioiity gained by M. by force of the 
 Registry Act did not enure to her benelit as she 
 was not the purchaser or mortgagee, nor did 
 that priority enure to her bcnelit as surety by 
 virtue of the doctrine of subrogation, because 
 that doctrine could not lie invoked to defeat the 
 honest claims and superior equities of third 
 persons. MacU iinaii v. Gray, 16 A. R. 224, re- 
 versed by Supreme Court. Sec S. C. xub nom. 
 Gray v. Coiiijhiiii, 18 8. C. R. 553. 
 
 Registration of a subsequent deed will not 
 give priority over aiiotlier uiiregistere<l deed 
 from the saiiii' grantor, prior in ])iiint oi" time, 
 j unless a valualde consideration for the former 
 ! is proved. Mere production or registration of 
 tlic instrument by the party claiming under it 
 is not sufficient proof for this puri)ose. Barber 
 V. McKay, 19 U. R. 46.— Chy. i). 
 
 The plaintiff registered a lien against certain 
 lands. On the day before such registration the 
 defendant, an intending purchaser, had searched 
 the registry office and found only two incum- 
 brances registered against the property. Shortly 
 after the defendant completed his purchase, and 
 having paid off t..e two incumbrances, registered 
 discharges thereof with his deed of purchase, 
 but as he did not make any further search, he 
 did not discover the plaintiff's lien :— Held, 
 atKrming the decision of Falconbridge, J., that 
 the defendant was entitled to stand in the place 
 of the iiicumlirancers whom he had paid off, 
 and to priority over the plaintiff's lien. The 
 Registry Act does not preclude eiuiuiry as to 
 whether there was knowledge in fact ; and the 
 court was not compelled as a conclusion of law 
 to say that the defendant had notice of what he 
 was doing, au.l so could not plead mistake. 
 Brown v. McLean, 18 O. R. 533, specially con- 
 sidered. Abell V. Morrison, 19 O. R. 669.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 See Trust and Loan Co. v. Gallaiiher, 8 P. R. 
 '^-:, p. 1274; Rosx v. Hunter, 7 S. C. R. 289, p. 
 .0^4; Retvrkiny. McFarlan>;,'d X.R.^-l^,^. 1831. 
 
 6. Eijiiilable hitereKl.t. 
 
 In 1851 thedefendant'sfatherboughtfordefen- 
 dant the land in question, and in pursuance of his 
 instructions, to prevent the defendant disposing 
 of the land, tlie deed which was registered, was 
 made to defendant's son \V., then about twelve 
 years old. The defendant and liis family there- 
 upon took possession, and lived tliere up to the 
 present time, the defendant being assessed and 
 payingthe taxes. The family residence, with the 
 garden and orchard, which was fenced off from 
 the rest of the land and comprised from two to 
 four acres, was always deemed to be the defen- 
 dant's special property, and he had always exclu- 
 sive possession thereof, with the consent of the 
 others. VV. resided with his father for several 
 years and then went to the United States, but 
 returned in 1869, when he conveyed by deed iu 
 fee simple, which was registered, to one H., his 
 
1831 
 
 BEOISTBY LAWS. 
 
 1832 
 
 
 B 
 
 B 
 
 n 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 .n 
 
 I 
 
 ■tcp brother, who had full knowledge of nil the 
 fuots and uii'ciini8tanu(!si,inid wlio liuil l)eL'n work- 
 ing tlic lund on slians witii the defendant und 
 another. DulViidiint cunipluiiad to him ol tiie 
 sale, and denied W.'s right to bell, wheieiH)on it 
 was arranged that thing.-i wei c to go on an i)efoi'e, 
 and defendant was to havehi» shate. H. , in l>)70, 
 and again in 1S74, without the delendaiU's know- 
 ledge, mortgaged tlie land, hy nioitgjige.s ihdy 
 registered, to the i)Iaiiititls, v\ ho had no notiei 
 or knowledge of any of the eiruunistaneea, or of 
 the defendant's [loasessioM. Jn I'elirnary, I8S1, 
 ejeetnient was inought hy thephuntilis :-- Held, 
 that the iilaintitls, biiiig imrehasers tin- value 
 without notice, claindng under the registered 
 paper title, were nndeiK. S. (). (1877) e. Ill, s. 
 81, entitled to recover, except as to the house and 
 plot, to which the dufcndaiit hy liis exclusive 
 possession had ac(juired a title under the Statute 
 of ' 'nitations. Canada J'l rmaiieiU Loan and 
 S- t'jx Cu. V. McKaii, 32 C. 1". 51.— Osier. 
 
 The rule that a niortg.igee siiall not he re- 
 deemed in respect of ihe mortgage witliout 
 being redeemed also as to anutlier njortgage cre- 
 ated by the same nuirtgagor, applies as well in a 
 suit to foreclose as to redeem. In such a case the 
 property embraced n\ one nu>rtgiige realized more 
 than sulhcient to discharge it. '1 he i)hiiiilif}', an 
 execution ci-editur of the mortgagor, obtained 
 a security on the l.inds couipiised ni such mort- 
 gage which w.is rcgLstcied after it, but witlumt 
 notice thereof. On a sale of the lands embiaeeil 
 in another mortgage a loss was sustained by the 
 mortgagee: — llelil, that the difemlaut, theuiort- 
 gagee, liad not the jiglit as against the plaiiitdl', 
 to consolidate his uiortgai^is, ami make goo<l tlie 
 loss on the one out of ihc surjjlus on the other 
 sale, the policy of the Rcgistiy Act being to give 
 no eti'ect to hidden iquitics. Johiintoii v. KimI, 
 29(..'liy. -JIW.— .Spraggc. 
 
 PerHagarty,C.J. If an "ecjuitablelicn, charge 
 or interest" be created by deed or by any writ- 
 ing cai)able of In iug rgistered actual notice of 
 such deed or instrumint v.ili, uutlei- the (iTlh 
 section of the Registry Act, ;{l Vi.t. e. -JO (Out.), 
 prevent the ell'ect of juioiity of registration. 
 But as to upiitabh' beus, etc., eviilenccil by [larol 
 only, auiong.-t others a veminr's lien for lUipaid 
 purchase money, ihry ha\ e by that ^\et hecn 
 prevented irom allVcting a duly ngi-tcred title. 
 In the dispositiou of real ))roperiy, unless in 
 cases of actual moral fraud a stringent observauce 
 of the regi.-lry law is the wisc.-t rule to adopt. 
 I'er I'roudfoot, .1. 'l"he fact that a man who 
 knows of another's title to laud, buys in such a 
 way as to g^t a title on the register and tiicn sets 
 the owner at deliance is sucli a clear case (jf 
 active fraud as would deprive him of the protec- 
 tion of the Registry Act. I'er Patterson, J. A., 
 and I'roudloot, .1. 'I'he ruling in Forrester i. 
 Campbell, 17 rhy. 379, that the llegistry Aetof 
 18Go (-*. <i(i), does not avoid an ei|uily as against 
 a subseciuent instmment tliougli registeicd, if 
 taken with noticfi, ai)|)rovedof. I'eCirkin v. Mc- 
 Fur/anc, A. R. 42!>. 
 
 R. S. O. (IS77), e. Ill, s. 81, declares tiiat 
 "no equitable lien, charge or interest alleeting 
 land shall be deemed \alid in any court in 
 this province after this Act shall come into opera- 
 tion as against a registered iii,strument execu- 
 ted by the same party, his heirs or assigns " : — 
 Held, that this seetiou does not apply to a case 
 
 in which the party registering such instrument 
 has notice of the equitable lien, charge or inte- 
 rest, even though the same has been created by 
 parol. (1 Wynne, J. dissented from the judg- 
 ment of the court, taking a difrerent view on the 
 facts presented by the evidence .V. C, mili uoni. 
 Host v. rtttrkiti, 13 S. C. R. 677. 
 
 y. being the owner of certain land, mtntgngeil 
 it with otiior lauds to the M. l*. B. .Society by 
 mortgage, dated I'.'th July, 1873, registered 14tli 
 .Inly, 1873. Subsequently being desirous of sell- 
 ing part and l)aying otl' the mortg.ige and getting 
 a new loan, he by an agreement in writing, 
 arranged with the society to leave the mortgage 
 standing, take a further loan ot .'J7W, and liave 
 certain of the lands (of which the lot in question 
 was part) released by the society. A second 
 mortgage for the !}70() advauee w.is prepared and 
 executed dated 1st February, 187.'), registered 
 llth I'cbiuary, I87ri, which by mistake, as was 
 alleL;ed, included all the lauds in the tirst mort- 
 gage ; and a release dated i)th February, 187."), 
 «as duly executed by the society releasing the 
 lot in question from the operation of the mort- 
 gage ol IJth July, IS73, iiiid was afterwards re- 
 gistered '20th Alareli, 1870. "., the plaintilV, 
 being aware of tlie agreement, but unaware that 
 the seeond mortgage included the lf)t in (piestion, 
 which should have been omittv .1, hjaneil V. cer- 
 taiiimoiiiys.andtoiik amoitgage.Uited '21st .May, 
 1877, reyistei'td Uth June, l>ui, to .'■eciiie the 
 payment thereof. 'I'he s iciety assigned the se- 
 cond mortgage and all moneys secured tlieieby to 
 the defendants by assignment dated 1st .March, 
 1881), registered 17tli .lanuary, 188 I, anil by deed 
 dated 1st .March, 188'J, registered L'nd .June, 1883, 
 Y. conveyed his equity of redemption to li. In 
 an action by H. to correct the mistake by com- 
 pelling the defeinlants to convey the lot in (pie.'j- 
 tion to 1). , it w iS: Held, adi lining tlie judgment 
 of Ferguson, J., that the combined operation of 
 I!. S. U. (1877), c. Ill,s. 81, jvud R. .S. (). (I&77), 
 c. (lo.s. 8, foimed a complete defence, and for that 
 the defaidaiits as assignees of the mortgage fc^r 
 valui', having tlu- legal estate, might defend as a 
 purchaser fur value without notice, and claim 
 also tlie pioicclion of the Registry Act, asaj;'iinst 
 the pla ntill'a subxquent purchaser or nr "tga- 
 gee fr.'iii the original mortgagor : -Semble, that 
 even as an .iiist the mortgagor the (h^feml.iiit.'j 
 would abo be entitled to (nevail. liridijiH v. 
 lUal Estate Loan and Dihiuluie Co., S O. 1!. 
 493. -t hy. D. 
 
 \V. and bis son W. \V., mortgaged separate 
 jiaicels of l.iiid owned in severalty to tlie delen- 
 daiit e.imp iiy for .'SbOlK), willi a proviso for re- 
 leasing \\ . NV.'s land on payment of .T.'iOU and 
 tln' other parcels on payment of sums named. 
 'I'lic eovi nant for payment was joint. ^V, W. 
 allerw,;ids sold Ins land to J. VV., suliject to 
 the |i.iMiieijt of •ii^.'iOtt to the company. W . then 
 mortgaged his land to the plainlifF, by an instru- 
 ment wliich declared it subject to the (ompaiiy's 
 mortgage, and th(! manner in wliich the .^4,t)00 
 was lli^ tiibiited upon the lands. The v.arions 
 coiiveyunees were registered. It was judved 
 that W. \N . WiS m. rely a surety for Ins father 
 ill the iiiortLiigo transaction with the company, 
 but tile plaiiiritl' had no notice of this :- Ileld, 
 reversing the juilginent of Proudfoot J., that 
 the \A int.fTs registered title prevailed over the 
 equity of W. VV. to charge bis father's lands 
 
1832 
 
 such instrument 
 1, cimrgu or into- 
 3 l)i'un cifiited hy 
 fiiiiu the juily. 
 ereiit view on the 
 :e S.C, mill iioiii. 
 177. 
 
 II land, iiiort^'flged 
 I". H. S„e,ety l.y 
 
 ;i, registered I4tli 
 igdesiroufi of Hell- 
 tgiigeiiiidgittiiig 
 lent ill writing, 
 Live tlie mortgage 
 I ijTWJ, and liave 
 lie lot ill (iuestioi) 
 ioty. A second 
 w.i.s prepared and 
 1S7.'), registered 
 iiistahe, as was 
 
 III tlie first iiKirt- 
 l''e 1)1 nary, 1S7,-,, 
 
 ety releasing the 
 tioii (jf the niorl- 
 ■a» afterwards re- 
 ■;., the iiiaiiitity, 
 hut unaware that 
 lie hitinqiiestion, 
 :1, loaned V. ccr- 
 ^•■UUed'-'Ist.May, 
 'i, to (-eeiiie the 
 y assigned the se- 
 ieeiiiod tlieiehy to 
 dated 1st .M.iich, 
 lS,SI,and hydeed 
 ed2iid,)uiie,lS.S3, 
 iniption to H. In 
 mistake liy com- 
 y the hit in qnes- 
 liiig the judgment 
 ined o|)uiaU..n of 
 id K. S. (). (1(577), 
 fiiiee.aiidfcirtliat 
 the mortgage fur 
 night defend as a, 
 lotiee, and elaim 
 ryAet, as against 
 liaser or in -tga- 
 r : --.Semhlc, that 
 r the dt'fciid,.iit.s 
 ail. Jirifji/M V. 
 I'-e Co., a O. li. 
 
 tgageil .separate 
 Ity to tiie deftii- 
 a jirovi.-o for ro- 
 •nt of .•j.^iOd and 
 iif sums named. 
 
 joint. W. W. 
 
 \V., suhjiet to 
 P'luy. W. ihea 
 ifr, iiy an instiu- 
 io thecompaiiy's 
 hieh thc.>i!4.0()0 
 J. 'I'lie variou.s 
 
 It was proved 
 '■ for Ins father 
 1 the company, 
 )f this:~ireld, 
 Lid toot J., that 
 ivaileil over tho 
 
 father's lands 
 
 I 
 
 1833 
 
 BELEASE. 
 
 1834 
 
 with tho $.500 for which he (\V. W.) had made 
 his land liable, and the hind of the son was 
 charged in favour of the plaintiff with the $'M) 
 and iitorest. Oay v. Hall, '2.S Chy. 'VM, ap- 
 proved and followed. Cofi v. Ontario Loan unit 
 JkbaUure Co., 9 O. 11. 2.S6.— Chy. D. 
 
 In an action for the posscasicm of lands un<ler 
 a mortgage liy defendant's brother W., and the 
 foreclosure thereof, the defendant claimed under 
 a trust of the lands by W. in his favour ; and. 
 also a title by ]iossession. The trust was a 
 parol one, namely, that W. should prcieure a ii'- 
 icasc of tlie 1 iikIs for defendant, who was tluMi 
 underage, from the Canada Company, the lea.se 
 apparently containing a riglit of piireliasc ; and 
 should afterwards pay tlu! jmrchase money and 
 take the deed in his, W.'s name, aii<l hold it 
 until defendant becanie well wli'ii he was to 
 transfer it to the defcMidant. he having beiii ill 
 at the time. The (h'fendant paid thoiiKniey for 
 the lease and rlie imrcliase money for the land : 
 - Held, that the parol evidciuu^ was not sulli- 
 cient to supjiort the trust ; but in any event, as 
 the trust \\as to be eiiforit(^d against \V. and his 
 grantees, it could not prevail against phdntiU's 
 mortgage, it having boen registered without 
 notice of the trust. Jiniiico/' A]f(inlri'(il v. Stucdrl, 
 14 O. H. 482.— Rose. 
 
 7. Oilur Cnxrs. 
 
 Held, that a vendor does not complete his 
 title until his deed is registered, i. e., that regis- 
 tration is essential to the title. Laird v. Patau, 
 7 0. K. 137. -Proudfoot. 
 
 Sec h'onn V. Kronxhiin, 12 O. R. 197, p. .'iSS ; 
 Gdrltr V. drawtt, 14 A. R. 685, p. 1177; laratl 
 V. Leith, 20 O. R. 3()1. 
 
 VI. Nova Scotia Registry Act.s. 
 
 R. (the ajipellant) brought an action against 
 H. (the respondent) for having erected a brick 
 wall over and upon the upper part of the south 
 wall or cornice of ajipellant's store, pierced holes, 
 etc. H. pleaded inter alia, special leave and 
 license, and that lie had done so for a valuable 
 consideration paid by him, ,ind an equitable re- 
 joinder alleging that plaintiff and those through 
 whom he claimed had notice of the defiiiilant's 
 title to this easement at the time they obtained 
 their conveyances. In 1809 one C, who then 
 owned R."s iiropeity, granted by deed to H. the 
 privilege of ])ierciiig <lie soutli wall, carrying his 
 stovepipe into the flues, and erecting a wall 
 above the south wall of the building to form at 
 that height the north w.all of respondent's build- 
 ing, which was higher than li.'s. R. purchased 
 the property in 1872 from the Rank of Nova 
 Scotia, who got it from one F., to whom C. had 
 conveyed it — all these conveyances being for 
 valuable consideration. The deed fr<mi C. to H. 
 was not recorded unti 1S71, and R.'s solicitor 
 in searching the title, ('id not search under C.'s 
 name after the registry f the deed by which the 
 title passeil out ofC. in 1862, and did not there- 
 fore observe the deed creating the easement in 
 favour of plaintiff. There was evidence, when 
 attention was called to it, that respondent had 
 no separate wall, and the 'lorthern wall above 
 .appellant's building could be seen :— Held, that 
 
 the continuance of illegal burdens on R.'s i)ro- 
 peity since the fee had been acipiired by liim 
 were, in law, fresh and distinct trespasses against 
 him, for which he was entitled to recover dam- 
 ages, unless he was bound by the license or grant 
 of C. That the deed creating the easement was 
 an iiistrumeut recpiiring registration under tho 
 provisions of the Nova Scotia Registry y»ct, 4th 
 scries, llev. ,Stat. N. ,S. , c. 79, as. 9 and 19, and 
 was defeated by tlie prior r gistration of the 
 suhscipiuiit pui chaser's conveyance for valuable 
 cousi.leiation, and tluiefore from the date of the 
 ngi^tiation of the conveyance from N. to F., 
 that the deed of grant to 11. became void at law 
 against !•'. and all those claiming title through 
 him. That to defeat a registered deed there 
 iini.-.t be actual notice or fiaud, and there was 
 no actual notice given to R. in this case, such 
 as to (li-entille him to insist in eijuity on his 
 legal priority accpiired umler the statute. Rons 
 V. Ilniili:r, 7 .S. ('. H. 2S9. 
 
 IVr Owyiine, .J., di.ssentiiig.— That upon the 
 pleadings as they stood on the record, the ques- 
 tion of the Registry Act did not arise, and that 
 as the incumhrance complained of 1>" 1 been 
 legally created in I8.'»9, its mere contimu -ice did 
 not constitute a tiesjiass, and that the action as 
 framed should not be sustained, lb. 
 
 RELATOR. 
 
 Stc Municipal Corporations. 
 
 RELEASE. 
 
 I. Who may Give, 1834. 
 It. Effect of, 18.30. 
 
 III. By TAKIN«CRIMlNAI,l'KOCEEDINa.S, 1836. 
 
 IV. Co.MPEI.LINCi E.XECUTION OF, 18.36. 
 
 V. Ry Way of Arronn and .Satisfaction — 
 See Accoiin anu .Satlsfaction. 
 
 VI. By Ckeditors— .S'cfi Bankkuptcy and 
 
 I.NSOLVKNCV. 
 
 VII. Of MoiiTOAiiE. .9fe Mortoage. 
 
 IX. Of Surety — Sue Bail — Principal, anu 
 Surety. 
 
 I. Who May Give. 
 
 After issue joined one of two plaintifTs gave to 
 the defendant a release under se;d of all actions 
 and demands. The defendant thereupon moved 
 to stay all proceedings in the suit ;— Held, that 
 the defendant should ple.ad the release, and that 
 he was entitled to a stay of proceedings, and 
 the renii.iiiiiig plaintiff was allowed to strikeout 
 the name of the other plaintiff. Mc Alpine v. 
 Carlimj, 8 P. H. .71.- Osier. 
 
 J. M, and F. ^f., his wife, were jointly insured 
 in the defendant's company, whose deposit was 
 being administered under R. S. O. (1877) c. 160, 
 ss.21,22. On 4th February, J. M., without the 
 assent of F. M., signed and sent to the receiver 
 a claim for rebate as empowered under that Act 
 No acknowledgment of the receipt of this claim 
 
1835 
 
 RELEASE. 
 
 183& 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 5" / 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 was given by the receiver, who, on 27th Feb- 
 ruary, sent J. M. and the other policy holder a 
 circular notifying them of an agreement for re- 
 insurance, and that if they objected tlicreto, and 
 desired to claim for rebate, they were to do so 
 before 16th March. On 24tii February, the 
 property was burnt, and J. M. forthwitli claimed 
 for the whole loss : — Held, that neitiier J. M. 
 nor F. M. were bound by the former's claiui for 
 rebate. That it was not a release, l)ut iin in- 
 valid attempt by one to exercise a joint statutory 
 power ; or else an attempt to make a new con- 
 tract, which was not authorized by one of the 
 fiarties, and was not accepted by the receiver 
 lefore the loss occurred. Granting that a re- 
 lease by one joint tenant would extirigiiish the 
 right of both, it docs not follow that entering 
 into a new agreement by one will prejudice the 
 light of the other. Clarle v. Union Fire. Ins. 
 Co.—McPhee'n Claim, 6 0. R. 63").— Proudfoot. 
 
 In consideration of a conveyance to him of a 
 certain farm, the petitioner agreed witii lii.s 
 mother that he would during her life provide 
 her with a house on the farm, and with neces- 
 saries, and support his brothers and si.sters 
 thereon until they reached sixteen years of age, 
 so long as they remained at home on the said 
 farm, and assisted him so far as they were al)le 
 in the management of it : — Held, tluit the 
 mother had no right or power to release the 
 petitioner from tlie obligations undertaken by 
 him with reference to his brother^ and sisters 
 under the a))ove agreement, ar.d if tlie children 
 did their part they could iiold tiieir brother to 
 his j)romise, though tiie agreement was not in 
 terms made with them as parties. Jlif McMil/iiii, 
 17 0. R. 344.- Boyd. 
 
 Qu.ere in tiie preicnt state of the law is a re- 
 lease to or satisfaction from one of several joint 
 tort-feasors, a bar to an action against the others. 
 Grand Trunk If. }V. Co. of Canada v. McMillan, 
 16 S. C. R. 543. 
 
 To an action by L. against A. the defence Mas 
 release by deed. On the trial it was proved tnat 
 A. had executed an assignment for the benefit 
 of creditors and received authority by telegram 
 to sign the same for L. The deed was dated 8th 
 October, 1881, and afterwards, with knowledge 
 of it, L. continued to send goods to A., and on 
 5th November, 1881, he wrote to A. as follows : 
 " 1 have (lone as you desired by telegraj)iiiiig 
 you to sign died for me, and 1 feel confident 
 that you will see that I am protected and not 
 lose one cent by you. After you get matters 
 adjusted 1 would like you to send me a che(jne 
 for $800" , • • j,j ^pri]_ 
 
 1885, A. wrote a letter to L., in which he said : 
 " In one year more I will try again for myself 
 and hope to pay you in full." In November, 
 
 1886, the account sued upon was stated : — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the court below, 
 Taschereau an(l Patterson JJ. dissenting, that 
 the execution of the deed on his behalf being 
 made without sufficient authority L. was not 
 bound by the release contaiued therein and 
 never having subsequently assented to the deed, 
 or recognized or acted mder it, he was not 
 estopped from denying \ .lat he had executed it : 
 — Held, per Taschereau and Patterson JJ. , that 
 though A. had no sufficient authority to sign 
 the deed yet there was an agreement to com- 
 pound which was binding on L. and the under- 
 
 standing that L. was to be paid in full would be 
 a fraud upon the other creditors of A., who 
 couid only receive the dividends realized by the 
 estate. Lawrence v. Andcrion, 17 S. (,'. R. 349. 
 
 8ee Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Jenkins, 
 16 O. H. v>15, p. 115. 
 
 II. Effect of. 
 
 Action for work and materials. The cause 
 having been entered for trial, defendant paid 
 plaintiti' $2,500, and received a release expressed 
 in the most general terms, and the record was 
 withdrawn. The plaintitl' again gave notice of 
 trial, alle^iing that the §2,.")00 was only part of 
 the consideration for the settlement, and that 
 the defendant was also to piocure for him an 
 ap]iointnient in the civil service with a salary of 
 at least )?2,000 a year. He refused, however, to 
 repay the !*2,500, tiiongh defendant ottered, if 
 he would do so, to give np the release. The 
 master in cluii diers having set aside the notice 
 of trial and stayed all proceedings. Armour J., 
 on ai)peal, rescinded thisord^ir on the 11th April, 
 18S2, and perndtted defendant to plead the 
 release on that day ; re^ilication and joinder of 
 issue to be tiled on tlie two following days, and 
 directed the issue to lie tried at the next assi- 
 zes, which Itegan on the 17th. 'I'he defendant 
 took out the order and pleaded the relea.se, and 
 the plaintiff entered the case at tliese assizes, 
 liut was allowed to witli<lraw it, and defendant 
 in Faster term following, a])])ealed from the 
 oi-der of the judge : — Held, that tlie order must 
 be resciniled, for the plaintiff could not repudi- 
 aie the release while retaining the money whicii 
 he had received under it, and as the additional 
 consideration alleged, was illegal, the plaintitl" 
 being jiarticops criminis, could not set it up to 
 avoid the release. JJtwson v. Macdonald, 32 V. 
 P. 407. -C. P. D. 
 
 III. ]}y Taking ChiminalPkoceeuixos. 
 
 The sheriff' of Oxford, in executing a writ of 
 replevin, was obstructed by the defendants, 
 who rescued the goods. On complaint of the 
 sherift''s officer, they were sunmiarily tried be- 
 fore a police magistrate and fined, undtr .T2-3lt 
 Vict. c. .'12, by which it is declared that any 
 jierson discliarged or convicted in such a case 
 shall Ije released from all further or other 
 criminal proceedings for the same cause. A 
 motion afterwards made by the plaintiff to 
 attach the same parties for contempt, was dis- 
 charged, but without costs. Huijwuud v. //ay, 
 46 Q. IJ. 562.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The pursoi of a steamboat had been sum- 
 moned by the plaintiff' before a magistrate for 
 an assault, and a tine was imposed which he 
 paid. Per Wilson, C. J. This under 32-33 
 Vict. c. 20, s. 45 (Doni.), though a release to 
 the purser, did not constitute any bar to the 
 present vil action against the company. Em- 
 erson V. j.'^iaijara 2ii^avi<jatioH Co., 2 0. R. 528. — 
 C. P. D. 
 
 IV. COMPELLINO ExEcnnoN OF. 
 
 Right to compel legatee to execute a release; 
 See Kaiser v. Boynton, 7 O. R. 143, p. 1163. 
 
 
1S3S 
 
 in full would l)e 
 ors of A., who 
 I realized by the 
 17 S. C. R. 349, 
 
 erce v. Jcuklm, 
 
 ilM. The cause 
 
 (tefeiiilant paid 
 eleiise expresseil 
 
 the record was 
 giive notice of 
 
 t'i only part of 
 iiiciit, iuiii that 
 iiie for him an 
 
 "ith a salary of 
 ic(i, however, to 
 
 lant offered, if 
 release. The 
 side the notice 
 igs. Armour J., 
 
 the 11th April, 
 t to plead the 
 
 and joinder of 
 iwing days, and 
 'i the next assi- 
 The defendant 
 he release, and 
 t these assizes, 
 
 and defendant 
 ealed from the 
 the order must 
 uld iKjt repuiii- 
 le money winch 
 
 the additional 
 il, the plaintiff 
 not set it up to 
 aaloiiald, 32 C. 
 
 {OCEEDI.VOS. 
 
 utiiig a writ of 
 lie defenilants, 
 nplaint of the 
 larily tried I)e- 
 d, under .T2-3;j 
 hired that any 
 in such a case 
 ther or other 
 .me cause. A 
 e plaintiff to 
 Jinpt, was dis- 
 /icuod V. Ila;/, 
 
 lad been sum- 
 magistrate for 
 sed vhich he 
 I under 32-33 
 1 a release to 
 ly bar to the 
 mpnny. Em- 
 lO. R. 523.— 
 
 )N OF. 
 
 lute a release.' 
 I, p. 1163. 
 
 ' 
 
 1837 
 
 BEPLEVIN. 
 
 1838 
 
 RELIOIOUS INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 I. C'ltt'ncms— ,?('« Ciiuitfit. 
 II. Devi.sks or Rkqitests to— Sec Will. 
 
 As to power to hold land. ,See Lnndiiti ami 
 Caiindiaii Loan mul Ainiici/ Co. v. (lynlinm, l(i 
 (). R. .S2n, p. 273 ; M<IH,umUl v. lliuihe.i, 10 O. 
 It. 570, r- 'i73. 
 
 REMAINDERS. 
 
 »ft Will. 
 
 REMOVAL. 
 
 I. Of Causes —SVe Cektiohaiii. 
 II. Of RriLDiNcis — See Wav. 
 III. FiiOM Office— .SVfl Municipal Coiiro- 
 
 RATIO.NS— (JUO WaHUANTO. 
 
 REMUNERATION. 
 
 1. To ExK(^rTons and Admisistratous— 
 
 Ste. EXECITORS AND AHMINISTISATORS. 
 II. To AOENTS— .SVfi FRINClrAL ANO AdENT. 
 
 III. To Employees— .S^ee Master and Ser- 
 vant. 
 
 V. For Work and Lahour— iS'p*' Work ani> 
 La HOUR. 
 
 VI. To Trustees— .S'ce Trusts and Trus- 
 tees. 
 
 RENDER. 
 
 5"e Bail. 
 
 RENEWAL. 
 
 I. Of Leases — Sen Landlord and Tenant. 
 II. Of Writs. 
 
 1. Of Summons — Se" Practice. 
 
 2. 0/ E-rceution—Sic I^'-xecution. 
 
 IIL Ok pROMisEs-&e Limit.\tion of Ac- 
 tions. 
 
 RENT. 
 
 Sep Distress — Landldud and Tenant- 
 
 !SUEI!IKF. 
 
 Devise of rent tn attesting -witness. See 
 llopllm V. /fofk-iiis, 3 O. R. 223. 
 
 Kent issuing out of laml is a tenement, it par- 
 takes of the nature of land, and is within the 
 5th section of the Statute of Frauds, and hence is 
 .Jso within 25 Geo. II. c. 0, 8. 1. Il>. 
 
 REPAIRS. 
 
 I. CoNTnAcrs IN Leases— .V«.; Landlord 
 AND Tenant. 
 
 n. Ry Personal 1!ei'ki:sentativi:s — .S-c 
 Executors and .-VDMiMsTitAToiis. 
 
 IIL LMrUOVKMKNTS— ,SVc hu'ROVEMENTS O.V 
 
 Land. 
 IV. OfH'ohways — S'f Way. 
 
 REPLEVIN. 
 I. When Maintainahle. 
 
 1. Sal-ofOooih, IS3S. 
 
 2. Siilr of Timher, 1839. 
 
 3. Olha- Ca.'<('M, 1839. 
 II. Damahes, 1S39. 
 
 IIL Pl.EADIN(f AND PUACTICK, 1840. 
 
 IV. Replevin ISond. 
 
 1. Duly of Sheriff to Tub; 1841. 
 
 2. Aclionx oil, 
 
 (a) Damnijes and 6V.^^•^, 1842. 
 
 (b) Other Caws, 1842. 
 
 V. Jurisdiction of County Courts.— S'ee 
 County Courts. 
 
 VI. Conversion of Goods -See Conversion 
 — Trover. 
 
 I. When Maintainable. 
 
 1. Sale of Goudt. 
 
 M. by false representations induced T. to sell 
 him a hor.se, buggy and harness and to take for 
 them two promissory notes. T. having dis- 
 covei'ed the fraud went back and demanded 
 back his goods, at the same time throwing the 
 notes ou the table. On the assurance of M. how- 
 ever, that on the following Tuesday he would 
 bring the pro])erty or satisfactiop, T. again took 
 the notes and went away. M. did not appear as 
 he had promised, and T. sued out a writ of re- 
 plevin against M., but before it had been exe- 
 cuted M. sold the property to plaiutitf, an in- 
 nocent purchaser who havuig been dejjrived of 
 it under the replevin, brought trover against 
 the sheriff: — Held, that the plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover, that the contract had not l)een dis- 
 atlirmed when the writ of replevin issued, and 
 that the mere issue of it was no notice to M. of 
 disaffirmance and could not affect the plaintiff; — 
 Held, also, following (ireat Western Railwaj' 
 Co. V. McEwan, 28 (}. I'.. r)28 ; 30 (,). 15. 5.19, that 
 the ilefendant as sheriff having taken the pro- 
 perty out of the plaintilT's possession could not 
 justify under the writ of rejjlevin. Stoener v. 
 SjiriiKjii; 7 A. R. 497. 
 
 The plaintiff with the intcnticin of jiarting 
 witii tlie possession aiul propertv in certain 
 Hour made an absolute sale of same, ou appa- 
 rently short terms of ciedit to defendant, who 
 witidield from plaintiff his intention to pay for 
 the flour by setting up a claim he had accjuired 
 against the plaintitT :— Held, that this did not 
 constitute a fraud on the defendant's part so as 
 
1839 
 
 REPLEVIN. 
 
 1840 
 
 I?' a 
 
 * 
 
 M 
 
 to entitle tlio j)laintifr to disaffirm tlio contract 
 and replevy tlin flimr. liake.r v. Fiihe.r, 19 O. 
 R. CoO. -(-". r. I), 
 
 See McGrc'jur v. MrXdl, 32 C. P. 638. 
 
 2. Sale or Timhrr. 
 
 L. et al., cliiiining certain lands in the town- 
 ship of Norton nnder a jiiiper title, built a barn 
 and camp in 1S7"), commenced and continued 
 log^in;; all that winter and in snbseipicnt years. 
 In 1877 Mel)., Hutting up a title uiuler certain 
 proceedings adopted at a meeting of the inhabi- 
 tantsof theti)wnsiii|) in liU7, held for the j)urposc 
 of making provision for the pour, by which cfv- 
 tain commissioner's were authorized to sell vacant 
 lands, cmUmmmI upon and cut on the lands in 
 question some oOO trees, which hejjut on the ice 
 outside and inside L. et al.'s boom, mixing them 
 with some ilOO logs already in said boom, and <Mit 
 by L. et ;il., in such a way that they couhl not be 
 distinguished. Mel), then claimed tiie wiiole as 
 his own, and resisted \i. et al.'s attempt to remove 
 them. In an action of ie|)levin brought by L. 
 et al. for 1.440 logs eiit on said lauds : — Held, 
 that L. et al. 's |)os,session of the lands in ipicstion 
 was sufficient to entitle them to recover in the 
 present action ag:iinst Mel)., who was a wrong- 
 doer, all the logs cut on the lands in (luestion. 
 Per Strong, .). When one party wrongfully in- 
 termingles his logs with tho.so of another, all the 
 party whose logs are intermingled can reepure is 
 that he sliould be ])ermitted to take from the 
 whole an eipiivalent in number and cpnility for 
 those which he originally possessed. MclJoiialti 
 V. Laxe, 7 S. C. R. 402. 
 
 See Mcdrfioi- v. McNeil, .T2 C. P. 538 ; liaUs 
 V. Mackey, 1 O. R. 34, p. 1842. 
 
 3. Other Ca-ies. 
 
 In an action of replevin brought in the County 
 Court of Haldimand for a mare taken by the 
 defendants fromtheplaintifTsclosein that county, 
 removed to the county of 15rant, and there de- 
 tained until replevied: — Held, that the taking 
 could not be justified under a warrant issued for 
 the arrest of the plaintiff' on a charge of stealing 
 the mare ; and although the oiJginal taking was 
 justified under a search warrant issued in Haldi- 
 mand to search the plaintiffs premises in Haldi- 
 mand for the mare, and to bring it before a justice 
 of that county, yet the subse(pient removal to the 
 county of Brant and detention there were not, 
 and constituted the defendant a trespasser .ab 
 initio, and therefore the County Court of Haldi- 
 mand had jurisdiction to replevy the goods in 
 Brant. Hoover v. Craitj, 12 A. R. 72. 
 
 Replevin will not lie against a pound-keeper. 
 Ihhottmi V. Henry, 8 O. R. 625.— Q. B. D. 
 
 See Schnffer v. Dumhle, 5 0. R. 716, p. .34.3. 
 
 II. Damages. 
 
 The practice, generally, as to damages in ac- 
 tions of replevin is that where the goods are 
 promptly returned, only sufficient will be given 
 to cover the expense of preparing the replevin 
 
 bond, but where the party distraining actH in a 
 manner unnecessarily harsh or oppresaivi>, sub- 
 stantial dainag(!S nuiy bo recovered. Anil wliere 
 the sheriff" was unable to replevy some of the 
 articles mentioned In the writ, by reason of their 
 having been lost or eloigned by the defendant, 
 the plaintiff' was held entitled to recover' their 
 value as damages ; the count being in the dctinet 
 as well as in the detinuit. l/ifiliaiii v. OU'nUa- 
 tjhan; ItwoiM v. 0'Callii>jhaii, 14 A. I!. 477. 
 
 III. Pl.KADINii AN1> PlIACTIt'K. 
 
 (See Cnn. h'li'n IdHS, et m-i/.) 
 
 Fn an action of rc|)Knin the shciilV I'cplcvied 
 part of tlie goods, and ccrtilicil in his return to 
 tile writ that the rt'niainder had been eloiiincil 
 to places unknown befnre tin; writ came into his 
 hands. Tlie phiintilf declared in two ennuis. 1. 
 Kor that the dcftmdaiit unjustly detained the 
 gooils of the plaintiff, specifying the good-. \f. 
 plevieil, until, etc. '_'. l''or that the defendant 
 unjustly detained and still detains, against sure- 
 ties and pledges, the gooc's of the plaintiff', 
 speeifiing the goods eloigned :--llelil, under l{. 
 S. (). (1877), c. 53, K. 24. that tin; second cnnnt 
 was maintainable ; tiiat the two counts were pro- 
 perly joined, and that the declaration was not 
 open to objection. Tliiirsfon v. Jimirtl, 8 P. 
 R. 10.— Hagiirty. 
 
 The plaintiff issued a writ of rci)levin direct- 
 ing the sheriff' to replevy "two huixlred and 
 thirty sheep and laudts," unjustly detained by 
 the defendant. On the jirevinus day dcfendiint 
 had sold the property to one (iill, in whose pos- 
 session it was when the seizure was made : 
 Held, tliat the idiove deseriptinu Wiis not sulil 
 cient, and that the articles could not be seizt^d 
 under the writ while they were in the possession 
 of a party not named therein. I'liiintiff" wjis 
 allowed to amend the desci'iption and substitute 
 or add (Jill as a defendant. Jfuvrii/nn v. /)ris- 
 coll, 8 P. R. 184.— Dalton, Maxtei: ' 
 
 Actions of replevin are not within the general 
 provisions of ()rders I ami 2, an<l the practice 
 and pleadings therein are within tin; exception 
 of Rule 4. A statenuiut of claim hied in such 
 an action was therefore set aside, and the phiin- 
 tilf allowed to declare according to the old prac- 
 tice. Campan v. /ynrux, P. It. 142. — Dalton, 
 Mttiiter. 
 
 In an action of re)devin ten days' notice of 
 trial must be given, instead of eiglit days, as 
 under the old practice. Wullacev. Cowan, 9 P. 
 K. 144.— Dalton, Maxia: 
 
 In an action of replevin the first count charged 
 the defendant with taking certain goods on pre- 
 mises known as the " Crceinore Woollen Mills ;" 
 and in the second count with taking certain goods 
 on the premises known as the " Northern and 
 North- Western Station at the said village of 
 Creemore." The defendant pleaded denying the 
 taking and the pro|>crty, and then for a third 
 plea set up. that one W. was tenant to the de- 
 fendant of certain premises in the said village 
 known as "Block B,'' and certain other premises 
 known as the " Langtry Block ;" that rent was 
 in arrear, and because of such arrears of rent the 
 defendant "well avowed the taking of the said 
 goods on the said premises and justly, etc., as a 
 
 I 
 
1840 
 
 ;rainiiig actH in a 
 
 oppieSHJvc, Rill). 
 
 roil. And wlioro 
 levy HoiiKt „f tho 
 l),V lu.iHnii of tlioif 
 y till! (ItjfciKliiiit, 
 
 to rocDviir their 
 i'l^'iii thu ilftinct 
 iihtiiii V. OU'dUa- 
 
 tA. It. 477. 
 
 lAOTICK. 
 
 ft SI'lf, ) 
 
 Nlii'iiir ri'|)!('\i(!(| 
 ill liin rt'tnni to 
 
 il Ih'cii Cloj^'lliul 
 
 lit ciiiK' into liis 
 I two counts. I. 
 Hy "Ict.viiKMl th(! 
 K the j,'(io(l-, r<i- 
 1 tlic (iefeiidiiiit 
 iis.fijjiiiiiHt Miire- 
 'f thi! plaiiitiH", 
 -llfM, under |{. 
 he sei'ond count 
 counts wore |iro- 
 iinttioii wiiN not 
 ■. liiiiird, 8 r. 
 
 icph'vin dircct- 
 •I) hiindrui] mid 
 •tiy detained hy 
 X day defendant 
 1. ill wlio.se jio.s- 
 
 was niadi! : 
 n wa.s not Hiilli 
 I<1 not lie seized 
 
 II tile pos.ses.sioM 
 
 I'laintitr w.-us 
 1 and snl).stitiite 
 loviijtxn V. Diis 
 'I'. 
 
 liiii the general 
 
 lid tiic pra(!ticc 
 
 tile exception 
 
 III tiled in such 
 iind the plaiii- 
 <• the old prac- 
 
 14'_>.— Dalton, 
 
 day.s' notice of 
 eight days, as 
 V. Coiraii, 9 I*. 
 
 count charged 
 goods on prc- 
 oollen Mills;" 
 !,' certain goods 
 Northern and 
 aid village of 
 id denying the 
 n for a third 
 lilt to the de- 
 le said village 
 itlier premises 
 that rent was 
 rs of rent the 
 g of the said 
 tly, etc., as a 
 
 1841 
 
 EEPLEVIN. 
 
 1842 
 
 distrcBS for said rent which still renin ins due nnil 
 uii]iaid :" — }Ield, on deniuri'cr plea had ; for if the 
 "said preinises" upon which the alleged taking 
 was iiiade were the prcniises set out in the plea, 
 then the taking was on other pKiniihes than 
 thime named in the deularation, and tlieie waH 
 no confession, and the plea of non cejiit covered 
 this defence ; hut if the premises named in the 
 declaration were rcferied to, then ilefeiidaiit eon- 
 fcs.sed the taking and juatilicd for lent tlue lor 
 other premi.sea, which amounted to a taking otl 
 the demised prcmi.scs, so that enough was not 
 shewn. Ilubins v. L'oil'ce, !) C). li. U.'W.— Rose. 
 
 Ifeld, that the venue in any action in replevin 
 ill a County Court except for gooiis distrained 
 may lie changed to any other c(junly uiider 1'. 
 M. i). (1H77). e. r>0, s. W,-,. O'lJuiiMll v. Diidic- 
 vuiill, U O. H. 1.— O'Connor. 
 
 Ill a replevin action the writ was directed to 
 a slierill' who was thesole li(|uidatoi' of the |)laiii- 
 tills, and as such iiistitute(l the action ;— lield, 
 that this was at most an iriegularity, and it was 
 too late for the defendant to raise the olijielion 
 after ap]ieaiaiiee. K. ,S. U. (1S77) c. i");j, s. !), 
 a]ii)lics to the case of an applicaticii on the 
 iiuiits, and not for irregularity only : — (,iuaie, 
 whether, even if the olijeetioii had heen taken 
 in time, it should have juevaileil, having regard 
 to the kind of duty the sherill' has to perform in 
 executing a writ of re()leviii, ai.'d to the poi-itioii 
 of the li(i'iidator as a nieic otiiccr under the Act. 
 Mlihii (til Co. V. JJxiiiidly, 12 1'. H. .'■.lo.— 
 Armour. 
 
 .^ee liradky v. Vlinki, 1) J'. K. 410, p. G27. 
 
 IV. Ukim.kvin Honi). 
 
 1. JMily of Slwriff to Take. 
 
 In replevin a County Court judge made an 
 order when the writ was griiuteil, ilirectiiig the 
 slieriir to seize the goods and hold them siiiijucl 
 to re(juisitioii hy the l)laintiir to replevy to him. 
 The sheritr seized the gooils, liut did not take a 
 boml as directed hy J{. h. O. (IS77), c. o.'i, s. 1 1 : — 
 Held, that this order did not do away with the 
 necessity of taking a hond, and the seizure was 
 set aside, with costs to he paid hy the sherill'. 
 LawlesH v. Iludjord, \) P. K. ,'13.— Daltoii, jl/a.v 
 ter. — Wilson. 
 
 Held, that it is the sherifT's duty in replevin 
 to take a bond with two sureties, and to use duo 
 c.ire and to exercise a reasonable discretion in 
 inquiring into the sufliciency of the sureties, and 
 that w'hen he had failed to do this, and the owner 
 of the goods replevied, and the bailitl' (dcfcu- 
 dants to the replevin suit, which had resulted 
 in their favour) brought an action against him 
 for damages consequent thereon, they were en- 
 titled to recover all such damages as naturally 
 flowed to them from his wrongful act, viz., the 
 rent in arrear, the costs of <listiess, and of the 
 replevin suit, and of an action against the prin- 
 cipal and sureties on the replevin bond and inci- 
 detital thereto, provided the same did not ex- 
 cee<l the penalty named in the bond ; and the 
 defendant could not excuse himself by shewing 
 that the plaintiff in replevin and one of the 
 sureties was worth the amount of the penalty of 
 the bond at the time it was taken, Norman v. 
 
 116 
 
 Ho/ie, 13 0. R, fiuO.— Armour. AlTirmcd, 14 O. 
 R. I'HV.-Chy. \). 
 
 'J. AcliiiiiK on, 
 
 (a) JJdiniiijiH ami Conln. 
 
 Where the avowant successfully defends a re- 
 plevin suit, and mbsKiueiitly institutes pro- 
 ceedings on '.he replevin bond, he is not cnti'lcd 
 to recover as part of his ilaiiia;;es the excess of 
 solicitor and client c(sts of his delence, over 
 and above his taxtd party and ] arty costs in that 
 action. Burton, . I. A., dissenting. W'illinmM v. 
 Croiv, 10 A. R. ;iOI. 
 
 Per (Isler, J. A.- .'^emMe, that the efrect of R. 
 S. (». jlh77) c. M, s. 3.'i'2, is to make the Inqieriul 
 Act 5 iV C Viet. c. !I7, s. •.', as to costs in eases 
 of rcjileviu on a di>tiess lor rent in an ear aji- 
 plicahle tu our practice, /h. 
 
 (b) Oiltd- ('u.i,'H. 
 
 The trial of an action of re|jlevin in a('ounty 
 Court was, by a judge's order, on the apidiua- 
 tion of the plaintitl therein postponed to the 
 next sittings thereof, and Huhseciueiitly the ac- 
 tion was by judge's older tiaiibfened to another 
 County (Jourt. In an action on the replevin 
 bond it was held, on dcniiirrer, that the delay 
 being that of the jilaintili' in rejilevin \>'ithout 
 the consent or eomiivaiiee and against the op- 
 position of the defendant therein, the sureties 
 to the Ixmd were not discharged. O' Doiindl v. 
 JJudii-iiaiill, 14 O. R. 1.— O'Connor. 
 
 The defendant's timber limits adjoined those 
 of 15. & C, but from uncertainty of description 
 in their respective licenses, the division line 
 was not delined. The delendnnt replevied 210 
 pieces of timber cut within a line run under in- 
 structions of the crown timber agent, as the 
 boundary of the defendant's limits, but on 
 account of the iiitirinity in his license, he failed 
 in the action as to 175 pieces, for a return of 
 which li. & C. were eiititleil to judgment. The 
 latter procured an assignment of the replevin 
 bond to themselves, and assigned it to the plain- 
 tilfs who brought this action thereon. The 
 court was of opinion that the timber in cpiestion 
 was cut upon lands intended by the crown to be 
 withinthelimits of tliedefendant'sliceuse though 
 B. & C. had some grouiuls for asserting title 
 thereto :— Held, that there having been a breach 
 of the condition of the bond, B. *: C. became en- 
 titled to recover such damages as they had sus- 
 tained by replevin jiroceedings ; that the bond, 
 ! after it was assigned by the shorilf to B. & C, 
 ! was a debt and cho.se in action assignalile pur- 
 ' suant to the statute ; and that tlie ])laiutitf 
 ! having the bcnclicial interest therein by assign- 
 ' ment was entitled to recover ; but it being a 
 ' case for the eijiiitable interference of the court, 
 ' it was directed that upon payment by the de- 
 ' fendant of the cost incurred by B. & C. in out- 
 ' tingaud transporting the timber up to time it was 
 ' replevied, less a set-off' found for the defendant 
 I in this action (the amount to be ascertained hy a 
 [ reference if the defendant should so elect), 
 ' further proceedings should l>e stayed. Baten v. 
 i Mackey, 1 O. R. 34.— Q. B. D. 
 
 I -I 
 
1843 
 
 REVENUE. 
 
 184i 
 
 'ft- 
 
 S1V 
 
 If ' 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 I. OFjunOEHIV C'liNTKnVKRTKI) Ki.ErnoN 
 
 Tkiai.h — .Vcc I'akliamkntahy Klkc- 
 
 TloNH, 
 
 II. Of Mahtkks AM) Rkkkkkks— .SVe PiiAf- 
 
 TICK. 
 
 REVENUE. 
 
 REPUTATION. 
 
 KVIDENCE OF— .SVe KVIDENCE. 
 
 RESCINDING CONTRACT. 
 
 See CoNTKACT — Fiiai;i) ami Mihrei-resexta- 
 
 TION— .SaIE of tiddD.I— SaI.E OF LaNI). 
 
 RESERVED CASE. 
 
 See Chiminai, Law, 
 
 RESIDENCE. 
 
 See Domicile. 
 
 RESIDUARY ESTATE. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 RESTRAINT OP TRADE- 
 
 See Contract. 
 
 In gr.inting and regulating tavern and shop 
 licenses. See /I'e Cromiie find (he Citi/ of Brant- 
 ford, 6 0. R. 188, p. 1053 ; Be Boy Inn and the 
 City of Toronto, 15 0. R. 18, p. 1053. 
 
 RESULTING TRUST. 
 
 See Trusts and Trustees. 
 
 RETAINER. 
 
 See Solicitor. 
 
 RETAKING. 
 
 .Sec DlsiRh>s. 
 
 RETURNING OPPICER. 
 
 See Municipal CoRPOBATross — Parliamen- 
 tary Elections. 
 
 On the .Ird Kelinmrv, IHH7, 15., a eoal nior- 
 ciiiint, made an aHMiu'iiincnt to the (.Lnntili For 
 ] the licnetit of IiIh creditor.M under 4H N'ict. e, "Jti, 
 (Ont.), and tlieru piiHHi'd thereunder to the 
 phiintili'a ipi.intity of eoal in II. 'h yardf*. ISy 
 perndssion of the euRtouiH' department, li., on 
 giving Heeurity therefor to tiie crown, iiad sohl, 
 before tlie ii.ssignment, certain other eoiil, im- 
 ported hy him, without first paying tlie duty 
 upon it : — Held, I, Tlint there was nothing in 
 the CuHtoiuH Aet, R. S. C. c, '^•l, nor in law, 
 giving tlie eiown the right of lien upon the coal 
 assigned to the plaiiitiU', foi' dutv payal)le by H. 
 in respect of the other coal sold l>y Inm ; 'J, that 
 the i.ssue of a writ of extent liy the crown 
 against l>. on the litth Febiuary, 1HS7, for the 
 recovery o*' Hi. duty .so piiyal>le in res|iect of 
 such other coal .v'oulil have availed tlie crovn 
 nothing so far as the property imsigneil to the 
 i)l'ii.tiir was concerned, for it could not have 
 been seized under such e.Ntcnt, having previous- 
 ly become vested in tlie i)laintitr; 3, That the 
 claim of the crown foi' the chity j)ayable by 15. 
 in respect of such other coal was not payable by 
 the plaiutitlont of the jiroceeds of the pro))erty 
 assigned to him in preference to the claims of 
 other creilitors : the principle that when the 
 right of the crown and the 8\d)ject come into 
 comi)etition, that of the crown is to be preferred 
 in any case, has now no e.Kisteneo in Ontario, be- 
 cause the oireet of R. S. O. (1887), c. !»4. is to do 
 away with any distinction l)etween debts duo 
 from the sul)jeet to tlie crown and debts duo 
 from subject to subject, and to jdaco them 
 all upon the same footing. .Such ])rinciple al- 
 though it has been up|ilied to winding-up pro- 
 ceedings instituted under statutes in which the 
 crown is not bound, and where the property was 
 not divested out of the crown debtor, is not 
 applical)le to estates in bankruptcy or asf, ;ned 
 in trust for creditfira. C/ark.ton v. Attornei/- 
 General of Canadtt, 15 0. R. iVA'l. — Armour ; IG 
 A. R. 202. 
 
 0., manufacturer of an " Automatic Sprink- 
 ler," a brass device comjiosed of several parts, 
 was desirous of importing the same into Canada 
 with the intention of putting the parts together 
 there and putting the completed articles on tho 
 market. He interviewed the appraiser of bard- 
 ware at Montreal, explained to nim the device 
 and its use, and was told that it should pay 
 duty as a manufacture of brass. He imported 
 a num))er of sprinklers and paid the duty on 
 the several parts. There was little or no 
 labour performed on the sprinklers in Can.ida. 
 The customs officials caused the sprinklers 
 to 1)0 seized, and an information to be laid 
 against him for smuggling, evasion of pay- 
 ment of duties, under-valuation, and knowingly 
 keeping and selling goods illegally imported, 
 under sections 1.53 ami l.")5 of tlie Customs Act 
 of 1883 : — Held, reversing tho judgment of the 
 Exchequer Court, that there was no importation 
 of sprinklers as completed articles, by G. and 
 the Act not imposing a cluty on parts of an arti- 
 cle the information should be dismi.ssed. Held 
 also, that the subsequent passage of an Act (48- 
 49 Vict. c. (51. s. 12, re-enacted by 4!) Vict. c. 
 30, s. 11), imposing a duty on such parts, was a 
 legislative decl.aration that it did not previously 
 exist., Griiinellv. The Queen, 16 S. (-. R. 119. 
 
 
1844 
 
 It., a odiil iiiiT- 
 
 tlu( pLiiiitill' fdf 
 
 LT -IS Vict. o. L'(i, 
 
 t'rt'iiiKltr to till) 
 
 It. 'h yanlH. Hy 
 
 liiiitiiiciit, |{., oil 
 
 •I'OHIl, llllll Hold, 
 otllL'l' colli, Jlll- 
 
 I"0'i'iK the iluty 
 was nothing in 
 .'II', nor in law, 
 i-'n u|ioii the uojil 
 tv |iaj'iil)l(! by H. 
 Iiy liiMi ; '2, that 
 t liy till! crown 
 <-y, 1S«7, for the 
 l>li! in rcM[iect of 
 ailuil tile uiovii 
 a.>isij;iie(l to tlio 
 could not liuve 
 having jircvious- 
 ill'; .'t, That the 
 y l)iiyal)U; hy jj. 
 s not payable by 
 of the jiiojierty 
 :o the claims cjf 
 that when the 
 bjcct conie into 
 n to be iircfen-cd 
 ;e in Ontario, be- 
 7), 0. !)4. is todo 
 iVecn debts duo 
 and debts duo 
 to place them 
 ich jirinoiple al- 
 winding-up pro- 
 es ill wliich the 
 ;lie i)roj)erty was 
 » debtor, is not 
 itcy or a8>, ;ned 
 oil V. Attoniei/- 
 -.— Arinoiir ; IG 
 
 toniatic Sprink- 
 !f several parts, 
 me into Canada 
 ! Jiarts together 
 1 articles on tho 
 praisor of luird- 
 Iiini the device 
 it should pay 
 He inijjorted 
 id the duty on 
 i little or no 
 lers ill Canada, 
 tho sprinklers 
 ion to be laid 
 ■asioii of pay- 
 aiid knowingly 
 ;iilly imported, 
 e Customs Act 
 idgnicnt of the 
 no importation 
 ;le.s, by (i. and 
 larts of an arti- 
 niissed. Hehl 
 of an Act (48- 
 l>y 4<) Vict. c. 
 ;h parts, was a 
 not previously 
 i S. C. R. 119. 
 
 ! 
 
 1846 
 
 RIDEAU OANAL. 
 
 184S 
 
 REVIEW. 
 
 iSVe l'u.\(Ti('K. 
 
 REVISING OFFIOER. 
 
 Set I'aiu.i.vmkntauy Ei.ixtionh. 
 
 REVISION. 
 
 I. C'lit'RTOF— .SVi CoruT OK Kkvisio.n. 
 II. Ok Taxation s<<- Co rs— Soi.icitok. 
 
 REVIVOR. 
 
 See iSriPE Fac[as and Rkvivoi;, 
 
 RIDEAU OANAL. 
 
 Under tho jirovisions of 8 (rco. IV., c. 1, 
 passed on the l/tli Feb., 1827, by the I'rovincial 
 Parliament of Uinier Canada, and I'ciicra'lv 
 known as tho Hidi'mi Canal Act, Lt. -Colonel 15y, 
 who was employed to superintend the work of 
 nia'.\iiig said canal, set out anil ascertained 1 10 
 acres or thereabouts, part of 000 acres or there- 
 abouts theretofore granted to one (iraee M c(^ueeii, 
 as necessary for making and completing .said 
 canal, but only some twenty acres were actually 
 necessary and used for canal purposes, (irace 
 Mc(|Jueen died intestate, leaving Alexander Mc- 
 Queen, her husband, and Willi.im McQueen, her 
 eldest son and heir-at-law, her surviving. After 
 her death, on the S'st January, 1832, Alexander 
 Mc(^ucen released to William Mc<>>iieeii all his 
 interest in the said lands, and on the (itli Feb- 
 ruary, 18;H2, William McQueen granted to Colonel 
 By all tho lands previously granted to his mother. 
 Colonel Hy died on the 1st February, 18.'t(i. Ity 
 G Will. IV., c. 10, persons who aciiuired title 
 to lands used for the purpo.scs of the canal after 
 the commencement of tlie works, but wiio had 
 purchased liefore such comnicnccmeiit, were en- 
 abled to claim compensation. Ity the Ordnance 
 Vesting Act, 7 Vict., c. 11 (Can.), the Kidcau 
 canal and the lands and works belonging thereto, 
 were vested in the principal otlicers of H. M. 
 Ordnance in (ireat Britain, and by section 20 it 
 was enacted : "Provided always, and be it en- 
 acted, that all lands taken from private owners at 
 Bytown under the authority of the Rideau (anal 
 Act for the uses of the canal, which hav; not 
 been used for that purpose, be restored to the 
 party or parties from whom tho same wore 
 taken." By the 9th Vict., e. 42 (Can,), it was 
 recited that the foregoing proviso had given rise 
 to doubt as to its true construction, and it was 
 enacted that the proviso should be construed to 
 apply to all the land at Bytown set out and as- 
 certained and taken from Nicholas Sparks, under 
 8 Geo. IV., c. I, except certain portions actually 
 used for the canal, and provision was made for 
 payment of compensation to Sparks for the laud 
 retained for canal purposes, ami for the revest- 
 ing in him and his grantees of the portionsof lands 
 taken but not required for such purposes. By 
 
 the I'.ttli and 20th Vict., c. 4.'), the ordnance pm- 
 pi'rtiiH iieeaiiie visted in Hi'r Majesty for the 
 Uses of the late I'roviuce of Canailii, ami by the 
 itritish Xoitli Aiiuiiia Art tliey liciNiiiie vested 
 ill Her .Majesty for the use of the I iiiminion of 
 Caiiiulii. 'I'lie sil|ipliiilits, tho hgul lepre.Melita 
 fives of Colimel liy, biiiiighta prtitioiiof right,al- 
 legiiig the fongoing facts, and seeking to have 
 Her .Majesty declared a trustee for thelii of all 
 the said laiiils nut actually used fur the piir|ioseH 
 of the said euiiiil, ami praying tiiat sueli portion 
 of said lands iiiiglit be restureil to tiieiii, ami tho 
 rents and prohts thereof paiil, and us to any parts 
 sold tiiat the values thereiif niighl be [laicl to- 
 gether with the rents mid |ilotits, pij ir to the 
 selling thereof, liy liisst.tteiiieiit in defence, tho 
 .\tliiriuy-(l(>iieialeoviciiiled,aiiiiingotherlhing8, 
 that (par. o) no interest in the lands set out and 
 ascei tallied liy Colonel Uy, passed to William Mc- 
 Queen, Imt tile claiiii fcr coiii|ieiisati(in or dam- 
 ages for taking .said lands was persmial estate ot 
 tiiace Me(,lueeii, .'11111 iMissed lo her personal re- 
 lireseiitative j tliat (|iur. (I, 7, and 8) the deeds of 
 the.'ilst .Iiimiary ami lltli I'Vliiuai;,, 18;i2, passed 
 no estate or iiiteri'st, the title and possession of 
 the lands, lieing in His Majesty, iml that such 
 deeds weie \(iiil under .S2 Hen. Vlll,, c. 1) ; that 
 (par. !l)Colonel Hy v,ns iiie.ijiable, by reason of his 
 ])ositioii, of aeiiiiiring any benelieial interest in 
 said laiidsasiigainst His .Majesty ; that (par. 10, 
 II, 12 and 13) Colonel IJy took proceeding.-. under 
 8(leo. 1\'., c. I, to olitain eumpeiisation for the 
 lands ill ipiestion, but the arliitnitors and alsn a 
 jury suminoiied under the Act decided that he 
 was entitled t()iio cdiiijieiisatioii by reason of the 
 enhancement of the value of his other land and 
 of other advantages aecriied by the building of 
 the canal, and that this award and verdict were a 
 bar to the supj/'iants claim ; that ([lar. 14 and 1.5) 
 the provi.'io of !l \'ict., c. 42, was confined to 
 Nicholas Siiarksaiid did notexteiiil to the lands 
 in i|Uestion ; that (jiar. l(i, 17, 18 and 19) by 
 viit'ic of 2 Vict., c. l!l (l'p)ier Canada) and a 
 jiroclainatioii issued in ))iirsuanee thereof, all 
 claims for damages which might have been 
 lirought under 8 (ieo. IV., e. I, by owners of 
 lands taken for the canal, including claims of 
 the said (Irace .Mcli>iieen or Colonel liy, or their 
 respective ie])resentative3, were, on and after the 
 lstA()iil, 1S4I, fur ever barred ; that ([lar. 'Jli, 
 27 and 28) the sii])|)liams were ba'red by their 
 own laches ; and that (ji.ir 20) they were barred 
 liy the Statute of Limitations. ( >ii a special case 
 stated (III tlie pleadiims for the opinion of the 
 court :--Hcld. 1. 'I'lie Statute of Limitations was 
 limiieily pleadable iiniler section 7 of the Peti- 
 tion of Right -Vet of 1S7(). 2. William Mctjueen 
 took the lands liy descent from his mother, if 
 siie died before the lauils were set out and iis- 
 eert.iined fur tho pui'iiiises of the c:inal. If she 
 died afterwards, ho did not, as they were v&.xd 
 in the Crown under 8 (ieo. IV., c. I, ss. 1, .1, 
 and her right was converted into a claim fur 
 uompensation under the 4th section. 3. This 
 right of compensation or damages, if asserted 
 under the 4th sec. of 8 (ieo. IV., c. 1, woidd go 
 to (irace Mc(iueen's personal representatives, but 
 if the land was obtained by surrend'-r under tho 
 2iid section of the statute, then the heir-at-law 
 of (irace Mc(^»uecn would be tho person entitled 
 to receive the damages and execute the surren- 
 der. 4. The deeds of the 31st January. 18',2, 
 and Cth February, 1832, are void as against the 
 Crown so far as they relate to tho acres in di'^- 
 
1i 
 
 1847 
 
 BIDEAU CANAL. 
 
 1848 
 
 T 
 
 
 pnte, tsxcept so far as the same may be consi- 
 dered as a surrender to tlic Crown under the 2nd 
 section of tiio Hidcau Canal Act. 5. The 9th 
 paragrapli of the statement in defence is a sulli- 
 cient answer in law to tlie i)etition. C. Tlie de- 
 fence set up in tlie 10th, 11th, I2ih and l.Stli 
 paragraphs of the statement would he sufTiciont 
 in law, su])posin{,' the stateuieuts tiierein to l)u 
 true. 7. 'I'ho proviso of 9 Vict., c. 42, s. 29, 
 was confined in cH'cct to tlie lands of Nicholas 
 Sparks only. 8. If the cl.iini is to l)c made hy 
 Grace McQueen's por.son.d representatives uniler 
 the 4tli sectiiin of the Rideaii Canal Act (and 
 any claini iiy licr could only !)e under that sec- 
 tion), the Acts refrricd til intlielGtli, 17th, IHlh 
 and 19th )i.ir,ij,'rapliH of tlic statrniciit in defence 
 have .'in a|)plication to tlii.s case and would con- 
 stitute a l):u'a;;ainst ail claims lo Im; niailc under 
 the lliil'jau Canal Act. As to tlie claims to he 
 made hy the heirs of ('ohmel Iiy, tiiey iiave no 
 claims under any of the statute-f. 9. If tlie Ord- 
 nance Vesting Act vested the 110 acres in ipies- 
 tion in the heirs of Colonel Iiy. the court was not 
 prepared to s.iy that tlieir claim had hcen liaried 
 by laches on the stateinciit set out in the peti- 
 tion. Hut the statute had not that cfl'cct, nor 
 had Colonel Hy or his legal icjircsentutivcs ever 
 had for his <ir their own use and benefit any 
 title to these 1 10 acres. Ti/lec v. The Queen, 
 7S. C. K. (iol. 
 
 Under a similar state of facts to those set out 
 in the last case the appellant, the heir-at-law of 
 V.'illiam McQueen, by her jietition of rigiitsouf^ht 
 to recover from the Crown ninety acres of tlie land 
 originally taken hy Colonel |}y, but nr)t used for 
 tlic pur|)oses of the canal, or such )iortion there- 
 of as still remained in the hands of the Crown, 
 a. id an indemnity for the value of such portions 
 of these ninety acres as had been sohl by the 
 Ci .)Wn : — Held, per Owynue .1. (in the Kxche(juer 
 Court) — Uniler the statute 8 Ceo. IV. the original 
 owner and his heirs did not become divested of 
 their estate in the land until after the expiration 
 of the period given by tlu; Act for the ofliccr in 
 charge to enter into a voluntarj' agreement with 
 such owner unless in virtue of an agreement 
 with such owner. Mor was there any conver- 
 sion of realty into jicrsonalty cirectcil liy the Act 
 until after tiic expiration ot siitl period. I!y the 
 deed made by \Villiani Me(^)ueen of tlietitli Feb- 
 ruary, 183'J, all his estate in the 110 acres, as 
 well as in the residue of the (iOO acres, passed 
 and became extiiigu'shed. such deed operating 
 as a contract or agreement made with Cid. By 
 as agent of His Majesty within the provisions of 
 the Act and so vesting the 110 acres ab.solutely 
 in Mis Majesty, his lioirs and successors. 2. 
 Such deed was not avoided by the statute .32 
 Henry VIII. c. !), Colonel IJy being in actual pos- 
 session as the .servant and on behalf of His Ma- 
 jesty, and taking thedccd from William McQueen 
 while out of ))o.ssession, the statute having been 
 passed to make void all deeds executed to the 
 prejudice of jtcrsons in possession by persons 
 out of |)i).ssession, to persons out of posses- 
 sion under the circuuistances stated in the 
 Act. 3. There was no reversion or revesting 
 of any portion of the hinil taken iiy reason of its 
 ceasing to he used for canal purposes. When 
 Land recjuired for a iiarticuhir (lurposc is ascer- 
 tained and determined by the means provided by 
 the legisl.ature for that purpose, and the estate 
 of the former owner in tlie land lias been by like 
 
 authority divested out of him and vested in the 
 Crown, or in some persons or body authorized by 
 the legislature to hold the expropriated land for 
 the public purpose, if tlie estate of which the 
 former owner is so divested be the fee simple, 
 there is no reversion nor anything in the nature 
 of a reversionary right left in him in virtue of 
 which he can at any subscrpient time claim upon 
 any principle of the common law to have any 
 jiortion of the land of which he was so divested 
 to be revested in him by reason of its ceasing to 
 be used for the jiurposo for which it was expro- 
 priated. 4. Assuming that Grace Mc(^>ueen had 
 Iiy operation of the Act become divested of her 
 estate in the land in her lifetime and that her 
 right had become converted into one merely of a 
 right to c()Ui])eiisation which ujioii her death 
 passed as iiersonalty, tiie nonpayment of any 
 demand which her personal rc]»rescntative 
 might have had could not he made tlie basis or 
 support of a demand at the suit of the heir-at- 
 law of William McQueen to have revested in 
 him any portion of the huuls described in the 
 deed of the (itli February, 18.S2, .after the execu- 
 tion of that deed by him, whetlier effectual or 
 not for passing the estate wliich it jirofessed to 
 pass. .5. The proviso in the 29th section of 7 
 Vict. c. II, as explained liy 9 Vict. c. 42, was 
 limited in its application to the lands which 
 were originally the projjerty of Nicholas Sparks 
 and not conveyed or surrendered by voluntary 
 grant executed by him and for which no com- 
 pensation or consideration had been given to 
 him. G. Her Majesty could not be placed in the 
 position of trustee of the lands in question 
 niiless by the express provisions «if an Act of 
 Parliament to which she would be an assent- 
 ing party. In the Supremo Court held : — 1. Per 
 RitchieC.J. By the deed of the Oth of Febru- 
 ary, 1832, the title to the lands passed out of 
 William AIcQuceii, but assuming it did not, he 
 was estopj)ed by his own act, andcouhl not have 
 disputed the validity and general effect of his 
 own deed, nor can the sup|)liant who claims 
 under him. 2. Per Ritchie C.,1. and Strong 
 and G Wynne JJ. The suppliant is debarred 
 from recovering bj' the Statute of Limitations, 
 wlii-h tlio Crown has a right to set up in defence 
 under tlie 7tli section of the Petition of Right 
 Act of 1,S70. 3. Per Strong .1. Independently 
 of this sccti<m, the Crown, having acquired the 
 lands from ]>ersoiis in favour of whom the sta- 
 tute had begun to run before the possession was 
 transferred to the Crown, that body incorpo 
 rated under the title of "The J'rincipal Otiicers 
 of Ordnance " would bo entitled to the benefit of 
 the statute. 4. Per Strong J. The Act 9 Vict. 
 I c. 42 had not the eflcct of restricting the opera- 
 ! turn of the revesting clause of 7 Vict. c. 11 to 
 j the lands of Nichidas Sparks, and was passed to 
 I clear up doubts as to the case of Nicholas Sp. ks, 
 and not to deprive other partiesoriginallycomi; g 
 within section 29 of 7 Vict. c. II of ulie benefit 
 of that enactment. .5. Per Strong .T. A peti- 
 tion of right is an appropriate remedy for the 
 I assertion liy the suppliant of any title to relief 
 i under section 29. Where it is within the power 
 I <if a party having a claim agaii'st the Crown of 
 such a nature as the jiresent to resort to a peti- 
 tion of right a mandamus will not lie, and a 
 mandamus will never under any eircumstanees 
 be granted where dii'ect relief is sought against 
 the Crown. (5. Per Strong .1. By the express 
 terms of the 3rd section of 8 Geo. IV. c. 1, the 
 
1848 
 
 1849 
 
 ROADS AND ROAD COMPANIES. 
 
 1850 
 
 nd vested in the 
 dy uutborized by 
 opriated land for 
 tc of which the 
 the fee simple, 
 ng in tlie nature 
 liin in virtue of 
 lime uhiini upon 
 aw to have .any 
 was so divested 
 of its ceasing to 
 uh it was expro- 
 ico Mc(J|iieenbad 
 divestuil of her 
 lie and tiiat her 
 ) out; nicrt'ly of a 
 upon hor death 
 payment of .any 
 
 rcj)resentative 
 ide the l)asi8 or 
 t of the lieir-at- 
 ave revested in 
 lescrihed in the 
 after tlie execu- 
 ther eli'ectual or 
 I it professed to 
 !)th section of 7 
 Vict. c. 42, was 
 ;he lands which 
 JS'icholiis Sparks 
 ed l)y voluntary 
 • which no coni- 
 heen given to 
 b be placed in the 
 ids in question 
 ins of an Act of 
 111 be an assent- 
 irt held:— 1. Per 
 e (itli of Febru- 
 s jiassed out of 
 g it did not, he 
 d could not have 
 ral effect of his 
 ,iit who claims 
 J.d. and Strong 
 ant is debarred 
 of Limitations, 
 set up in defence 
 jtition of Right 
 
 Independently 
 ng acquired the 
 whom the sta- 
 s possession was 
 ; body incorpo 
 'rincipal OHicers 
 to the benefit of 
 The Act 9 Vict, 
 ctiiig tlie opera- 
 7 Vict. c. 11 to 
 id Wiis passed to 
 ueholas Sp ks, 
 riginuUyconii; g 
 1 of uhe benefit 
 ong .J. A peti- 
 rcnieily for the 
 ny title to relief 
 'ithin the power 
 t the Crown of 
 resort to a peti- 
 not lie, and a 
 y circumstances 
 i sought against 
 Hy the express 
 o. IV. c. 1, the 
 
 title to lands taken for the purpose of the canal j contract with (.'olonel By tlie property went 
 vested absolutely in the Crown so soon as 'he ! to Williiim Mctiiiecii her lieir-iit-law. I'or 
 
 same were, pursuant to the Act, set out and 
 asccrtuined as necessary for the jmrposes of the 
 canal ; .ind all that (irace Muliiieen could 
 have been entitled to at her death was tlie 
 compensation provided by the Act to be a.sccr- 
 t.iined in the manner tliertiii prescrilied, and 
 this right to receive and recover tiie money 
 at which this compensation should lie assess- 
 ed vested, on her death, in her personal repre- 
 sentative as forming part of her personal est;ile. 
 Therefore as regards the 110 acres nothing 
 passed by the deed of (itli February, \H',i\i. 
 And up to the passing of 7 Vict. c. 11, no 
 compensation had ever been puid by the Cinwn, 
 nor .any decision as to compensation binding 
 on the reiirtsentative of (Irace Mctjlurcn. 
 7. Per Strong, .1. The jiroviso in section !)l! 
 of 7 Vict. c. U apidiod to tlic niintty ains 
 not used for the iiurpose of the ciinal, and had 
 the effect of revesting the oiiginal estate in 
 William Mctiueeli as the heirat-liiw iif his 
 mother, subject to the ell'ect upon his lith; nf 
 the deed <if tith F.biuaiy, l.s;i'2. Uut if it had 
 the cIVect of reve^tin^ tlie land in the personal 
 representative, the supiilianl is not such personal 
 representative and would therefore :ail. S. 
 Per Stroiii,', .1. This deed did not work any 
 legal estoppel in favour ol Col. I'>y wliicli would 
 be fed hy the statute vesting tiie legal estate in 
 VVilliaui Mc(,)uecn, the covenants for title hy 
 themselvt., not creating any est(ipi>el. |}ut if 
 a vendor, having no title to an estate, umler- 
 takes to sell anil • ivey it for valuilile cn- 
 sideiatinn, his deeo, tliou'.'h having no i>resent 
 operatidii either at law or in ecjuity, will hind 
 any interest which the vendor may afterwards 
 acipiire even by purchase fur value in the same 
 property, and in respect of such alter arijuired 
 interest lie will be considered by a ciairt ol 
 equity to be a trustee for the original purchase r, 
 ami he, or his heir-at-law, will lie cniniielled to 
 convey to such purchaser accimlin^ly. In other 
 words, the interest so suliscqneutly aec|iiired 
 will be eoushlered as "feeding" the claim ol" 
 the puichaser arising under the original eon- 
 tract of sale, and tlio vendor will not he en- 
 titled to retain it for his i>w n use. Therefore, if 
 the suppliant were granted the lelief asUed, the 
 land and niont^ reeovci ed hy her wouh' in ei|Mit,y 
 belong to the heirs of Ci>louel l'.y. Alihnugh 
 nothing jiasseil under the dee<l of the (itli I'eli- 
 ruary, 1832, yet the suiipliant couhl not with- 
 hold from the heirs or r>:|ireseiitatives of Culouel 
 Uy anything she might recover from the 
 Crown under section '2!) of 7 Vict. c. II. Imt the 
 heirs or representatives c.f Colonel l'.y would in 
 turn become constiiictive trustees for the i 'rown 
 of what they might so ree.iver by force of the 
 rule of equity furbiddiiig purchases by li luei.ry 
 agents f(U' their own bemlit. 9. Per Stiung, .1. 
 The dee<l of the (ith Fehruaty, 18,T-', hem,.- in 
 equity constructively a contra>:t by William .Mc- 
 Queen to sell and >'(mvey any interest in the 
 land which he or his heirs iiiight afterwards 
 acquire, there is nothing in the statute ;i:-' 
 Henry Vlll. c. 9, or in th.i rules of tlieeumnion 
 law avoiiling contracts savoring of maintenance. 
 eontlicting with this use of the ileed. 10. I'er 
 F(mrnier and Henry, .M. The mere scttin;,' out 
 and ascertaining of the lands was not siillicient 
 to vest the property in His Majesty, and (.race 
 McQueen having died withnut having made any 
 
 Fouruier, Henry and 'I'aschercau, .M. 1. The 
 deed of the (ith Fehruary, 18.'{'2, male lic^fore the 
 passing of 7 Vict. e. II, t. "29, and live years 
 after the Crown had been in posse.-sioii of the 
 pro|)erty in tpiestiou conveyed no inluiesl in 
 such jiroperty either to Colonel i>y j)i;isonally or 
 as trustee for the Crown, and the title therefore 
 reniaiued in the heirs of (irace .\lctj>ucen. "J. 
 The jiroviso in section 2!) of 7 N'iet. c. II was 
 not limited hy 9 Viet. e. 42 to the lands of 
 Nicholas Sparks and the aiipellant is entitled to 
 invoke the heiielit of it. ;i. Tiie ninety acres 
 now used for the pur[)iises of the can il did not 
 hy 19 Vict. c. ."i4 hecoiue vested in Her Majesty, 
 nor wore they tr.insferied hy the I!. N. .\. .Vet 
 to the exclusive control of the donuuion parlia- 
 ment. The words "' adjuncts oi the canal ' in 
 the liist schedule of tlie H. N. .\. Act could 
 only apply to those thiiies necessarily required 
 and used for the working of the canal. 4. The 
 thrown was not entitled to set iq) the S(:atiite of 
 Limitations as a defence hy viriiut of section 7 
 of the Petition of liight .\et, I87(i, that .-ecti<jii 
 not having any retroactive ellejt, .'>. I'er Four- 
 uier, Henry and Tascliereau, •!•). There could 
 l)e no estopiiel as against William .\lci,(ucen by 
 ■•irtue of tlie deed of the (ith I'Vliruary, I8;l2, 
 in the face of the proviso in 7 Vict. e. II. The 
 court being equally divided the a|)|)eal was <lis- 
 misse I without costs. Mr(Jii"i'n v. fhc. Qiiccii, 
 
 HIS. c. H. 1. 
 
 See llardifiir v. L'hiiptii'i i, (i (). R. 272. 
 
 RIGHT OF WAY. 
 
 .S'ee Way. 
 
 RIGHT TO BEGIN. 
 
 Ste Nkw Trial— Tit IAN, 
 
 RIGHT TO REDECM. 
 
 Ste Mokt(ia(;k. 
 
 RIGHT TO REPLY. 
 
 Sec. Trial. 
 
 RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS. 
 
 Si-c WATEii AND Water Coi.ksk.s. 
 
 RIVERS. 
 
 ,S'ce Water ani» Water Co(ir.si;s. 
 
 ROADS AND ROAD COMPANIES. 
 See WAV. 
 
1851 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1852 
 
 ROYALTY. 
 
 .SVe Patknt Koit Invkntios. 
 
 
 i 
 
 B 
 
 mi 
 
 RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE- 
 
 See Estate— Will. 
 
 RULES OF COURT. 
 
 Coil. Rule 5 provides that " the division of 
 tlii'se rules into chiipteis, titles iiud lieiulings is 
 for convenience only and is not to afi'ect their 
 ciiiistruution" : — Held, tiiat Con. Rule 1008, nnt- 
 witlistanilinj; the heading ", Summary In(|uirics 
 into Fraudulent Conveyances," is not limited to 
 cases of ei|uitalile interests arising under fraudu- 
 lent conveyances, but applies to a case where a 
 judgnientcreditor is seeking toniake available the 
 interest of his debtor under an agreement for the 
 purchase of land. A reference was directed to 
 ascertain what interest the debtor had in the 
 land in question. U'ood r. Hurl, 28 Chy. 140, 
 not followed owing to the change of law by 
 Con. Rule 5. Peters v. SlonesH, 13 P. R. 235.— 
 Gait. 
 
 The authority to proceed by rule or order nisi 
 in (plashing a by-law, conferred by R. 8. O. 
 (1887), c. 184, s. 332, is inconsistent with Con. 
 Rule 520, and must therefore be taken to be re- 
 pealed ; for by 51 Vict. e. 2, s. 4 (Out.), it is 
 declared that all enactments in the revised 
 statutes inconsistent with the Con. Rules are 
 repealed. It is therefore not now proper to 
 
 Eroceed by order nisi. Re Peck and Anielias- 
 urg, 12 P. I!. (504, followed. Hewison r. Pem- 
 broke, OO. R. 170, distinguished. Jie Coleiuift 
 and Tomvihip of Colchenlrr iVo''<A, 13 P. R. 
 253.— .Street. 
 
 See ncyiiia v. Bhrhall, 19 O. R. 697, p. 
 854. 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 See Sunday. 
 
 SALARY. 
 
 See RE.MUNEKATION. 
 
 SALE. 
 
 I. Contract of Sale Generally — See 
 Contract. 
 
 II. By Bill ok Sale— Sm Bills of Salb 
 AND Chattel MoRTcAdES. 
 
 III. Of Goods— .9ee Sale of Goods. 
 
 IV. Or Lands— See Sale of Land. 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 I. Statute of Frauds. 
 
 1. Xote or Afemo'\,mlum, 1852. 
 
 2. Acceptance and Jieceipt, 1854. 
 II. Contract of Sale. 
 
 1. Absolute or CiinditioH'.il, 1855. 
 
 2. Price and Payment, 18.^6. 
 
 3. When Property I'ltsseulo Buyer, 1857. 
 
 4. Piircliaxthji Sample or InHpection,\^{i 1 . 
 
 5. (juantily and Quality, 1803. 
 
 0. Jtif/ht of Selection, 1805. 
 
 7. C/iinKje of Place of Delivery, 1800. 
 
 8. Breach of Conditions an to Shippimi, 
 
 1807. 
 
 9. By Auction — Sec Auction and Auc- 
 
 tioneers. 
 
 10. By Bill of Sale— See Bills of Sale 
 
 AND Chattel Moiitoaces. 
 
 11. Parol Enidencc to Vary — See Evi- 
 
 dence. 
 
 12. Convcr.iion of tloodx — See Conver- 
 
 sion. 
 
 13. Warranty — See Warranty. 
 
 14. Illegal Contracts— See Gaming— Sun- 
 
 day. 
 
 15. Fraudulent Contracts — See Fraud and 
 
 Misuei'resentation, 
 
 III. Vendors' Title, 1807. 
 
 IV. Rescindin(j Contract, 1867. 
 V. Proceedings on Contract. 
 
 1. Party Liable, 1809. 
 
 2. For NonDelicery or A^on Acceptance, 
 
 (a) Damages, 180!). 
 
 (b) Other Gases, 1870. 
 
 VI. SrorrAGE in Tran.^itu, 1870. 
 VII. Sale of Partum-lar Articles, 
 
 1. Intoxicating Liquors— See Intoxica- 
 
 TiN(! LiyroRs. 
 
 2. Ships— See Ship. 
 
 3. Stock— See Broker— Company. 
 
 4. Timber — See Timuer. 
 
 VIII. By Particular Persons. 
 
 1. .4!/eH*«—.Sef Broker— Factor— Prin- 
 
 cipal AND A(iENT. 
 
 2. Banks— See Banks. 
 
 3. Companies— See Company. 
 
 4. Sheriff— See Sheriff. 
 
 IX. Distress— See Distress. 
 X. Replevin— See Replevin. 
 
 I. Statute of Frauds. 
 
 1. Note or Memorandum. 
 
 K. entered the sale of certain groceries in a 
 book which was not produced, but the plaintilt' 
 
1862 
 30DS. 
 
 (/Mm, 1852. 
 'iceipt, 1854. 
 
 lioii'il, 1855. 
 lit, 18r,(5. 
 
 listen /o Buyer, 1857. 
 Vor/Hjiy>ef<ioH,18(il. 
 lily, 18()3. 
 1SG5. 
 )/ Delivery, 18()(i. 
 oHf ON /o ShippiiKj, 
 
 Auction and Auo- 
 
 Sef Bills of Salk 
 
 OIiT(JA(iE.S. 
 
 VarySix Evi- 
 
 0(/.< — iS'ee CoNVER- 
 
 ARRANTY. 
 
 See GAMINTi— SUN- 
 
 •l«~See Fravdahv 
 
 I'lON. 
 
 7. 
 
 T, 1867. 
 
 TRACT. 
 
 sr NonAcctpUtnce, 
 
 I. 
 
 70. 
 
 c, 1870. 
 
 Ahtu'i.es. 
 
 I'n—See Intoxica- 
 
 — Co.Ml'ANT. 
 
 :r. 
 
 IONS. 
 
 It— Factor— Prin- 
 
 MPANY. 
 
 K. 
 
 as. 
 
 VIN. 
 
 ATJDS. 
 
 indum. 
 
 in groceries in a 
 , bnt tlie plaintitt' 
 
 1853 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1854 
 
 produced a list of the things ordered, and tlieir 
 prices ; and K. afterwards sent the order in a 
 letter signed by liim to tiie defendants, who 
 tliereiipon wrote the phvintitrs, " K. reports a 
 jiale that we cannot approve in full, but will ac- 
 cept for,'' enumeratinir certain articles. Upon 
 tiie phvintill's' insist', ig on tiie completion of tlie } 
 order in full, the defendants cancelled it alto- j 
 gether : — Held, that the letters wereasutKcient [ 
 memorandum witiiin tlie seventeenth section of 
 the Statute of Frauds. Ockley v. Mcusoii, A. 
 B. 108. 
 
 The contract was expressed to sell " Limits 
 Nos. 1 and 2 for .ii!15,500 ; also all the plant used 
 in connection with the shanty now in operation 
 on limit No. 1, included in the list made outlast 
 snnuner, and the material then not included 
 which had been in use for the winter's opera- 
 tions of 1880 and 1881," at the price of S:{,0(X): 
 — Held, sutliciently definite to satisfy the Statute 
 of Frauds since the plant referred to therein 
 «ould easily be identitieil by parol evidence as 
 being that specifically described in a certain 
 writing, which accompanied the aljove contract, 
 and wliich was signed in the firm's name and by 
 the purchaser, as also coulil the terms of credit 
 to be allowed as to the iiayment of the §15,500, 
 and such parol evidence was admissible, though 
 the contract imported prima facie a down pay- 
 ment of $15,500. Jfeid v. Smith, 2 0. K. 09.— 
 Chy. D.— Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff in England sold certain goods to 
 M. & Co., at Toronto. After the arrival of the 
 goods at Toronto, the plaintill' discovered that 
 i\l. & Co. were insolvent, and lie notified his 
 jigeut to stop the goods ; but it appeared that 
 M. & Co. had paid the freight and duty and 
 removed the goods into their warehouse. After 
 negotiations between plaintiff's agent and M. & 
 Co., the latter verbally agreed to hold the goods 
 subject to plaintitf 's order, and on the following 
 «lay wrote plaintiff's agent to the same etfcct, 
 but no written assent was made thereto. M. & 
 Co. subsequently nnide an assignment for tlie 
 beueKt of their creditors to defendant, who took 
 
 \yhere an offer, sign d by the defendant to 
 exchange a stock of guods for land did not in 
 any way designate the pcrmm to whom it was 
 supposed to he nia.le or for whom it was in- 
 teii.led, and such person could not be ascer- 
 taineil without extrinsic parol evidence adUinc 
 to the memorandum :— Held, not to bean agree- 
 ment in writing within tlie statute so as to en- 
 title the iilaintilf to specific performance:— 
 Heid, also, that an acceptance of the offer be- 
 neath tlie defendant's signature, signed by the 
 lilaiiititf's assignor did not cure the defect 
 Whitt V. Tomnliii, 19 0. K. 513. -Chy I) 
 
 2. Acceiilance ami Iteceiiit. 
 
 Defendant sold the jdaintiffs some tea, ami 
 verbally agreed that he would take back, at an 
 advance of ten cents a pound, such part thereof 
 as the plaintiffs should liave in stock unsold at 
 a certain date :— Held, (affirming the decision 
 of the Queen's Bench Division, 40 Q. B. 1) that 
 there was but one entire conditional contract- 
 not one contract to sell the tea to the plaintiffs, 
 and another to buy it back— and therefore the 
 delivery of the tea by the defendant satisfied 
 the Statute of Frauds, and the plaintiffs were 
 entitled to recover for the defendant's refusal to 
 take back the unsold tea. Williams v. Burgess, 
 10 A. & E. 499, considered and followed. Luitu- 
 den V. Davies, 1 1 A. U. 585. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court be- 
 low, that in an action in the province of Quebec 
 upon an unwritten commercial contract for tha 
 sale of goods exceeding the sum of $50, oral evi- 
 dence of acceptance or receipt of the whole or 
 any part of the goods, is admissible, under Art. 
 1235 C. C. Muiin v. Ueryer, 10 S. C. K. 512.. 
 
 The defendant, a manufacturer of woollen 
 goods, in company with W., his manager, went 
 to the warehouse of the plaintiffs for the purposo 
 of purchasing wool, where he was shewn a quan- 
 tity consisting of about 200 sacks of white wool 
 which plaintiffs offered to sell at twenty-four 
 
 possession of the goods, and on demand refused cents a pound for the lot. The defendant, after 
 
 to deliver them up to plaintiff, whereupon trovpr 
 was brought : — Held, that the goods havirij; be- 
 come the property of M. & Co., and being of 
 greater value than |40, in order to retransfer 
 them to the plaintiff, it was necessary that there 
 should be a memorandum in writing, shewing 
 the terms of the transfer, or some other act suf^ 
 ticieut to take the case out of the Statute of 
 Frauds ; but — Semble, if any consideration had 
 been stated between the plaintiff's agent and M. 
 & Co., for the latter assuming the position of 
 bailees of the goods, and holding them for the 
 plaintiff's benefit, the transaction might have 
 been supported as not coming within the 
 statute. liraasert v. McEweii, 10 O. K. 179. — C. 
 P. D. 
 
 Held, that the letters of the defendant, set 
 out in the report of this case and read together 
 in the light of the parol evidence, constituted a 
 sufficient note or memorandum in writing within 
 th« 17th section of the Statute of Frauds, and 
 that parol evidence was also admissible to shew 
 what the words "work " and "rig " used therein 
 referred to. GhriUit v. Burnett, 10 O. R. 609.— 
 •Q. B. U. 
 
 exaii;ining as much of the wool as he desired, 
 ordered ten sacks thereof to be shipped to him 
 immediately with a view of trying it, that is to 
 see if it would produce the quality of goods he 
 dealt ip. On the following morning the defen- 
 da-.t saw the plaintiff' L. personally, and in- 
 formed him tliat he wouhl take the lot; and the 
 plaintiffs agreed to carry it for him on certain 
 terms, and on that day the ten sacks were 
 shipped to the defendant. At the same time an 
 invoice was sent containing the memorandum : 
 "Terms, interest at seven per cent., from Ist 
 February," being the terms offered to defendant 
 if he would take the lot. The ten sacks were 
 subsequently received at the defendant's mill and 
 were worked up there : — Held (reversing the 
 judgment at the trial and of the Divisional 
 Court), that the agreement to take the lot made 
 before the performance of the first bargain was 
 a variation of or substitution for the first bargain, 
 and that the delivery of the sacks was a delivery 
 and such an actual receipt and acceptance of 
 part of the goods purchased as satisfied the re- 
 ({uirements of the 1 7th section of the Statute of 
 Frauds, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 recover the price of the remaining 190 sacka. 
 
18S5 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1856 
 
 
 together witli interest from tlie date niciitiuned. 
 Uiidtay V. McliuberU, l.J A. R. 378. 
 
 The plaintiff aj;reeil to sell the tlofeiulant a 
 piano for §400, to be piiid by notes at one and 
 two years with iiitirest, witli a rebate for cash. 
 Thcpiano was ilelivered at defendant's residence, 
 who after usiiit; it for some time, objected to re- 
 tain it, and refused to give tlie notes or pay tlie 
 stipuhvted price. The plaintiff tliereupon sued 
 the defendant in t'le County Court, claiming tiic 
 iS400 and inteiest. At the trial leave was given 
 to strikeout tlie words " witli intcr'!st :"— Hehl, 
 that the anidiint was asccitaincd by the act of 
 the parties, and that defendant having neglected 
 to pay either l)y notes or cash, the plaintiff was 
 entitled to recover in an action for goods sold 
 and delivered. 'I'lie Statute of Frauds not hav- 
 ing been pleaded nor any objection properly 
 taken to the sufliciency of the delivery of goods 
 either at the trial or in the order nisi, the court, 
 without deciding that there had been a sufficient 
 delivery:— lielil that the objection was not o[)en 
 to the defondunt, iind rcfu^sed to permit an 
 amendment. Uneiiizcii v. Jluniti, 13 A. R. 481. 
 
 II. Contract of Sale. 
 
 1. Ah-iohitc or ConJitioiial. 
 
 A contract for tlu; .sale of goods " to arrive '' 
 does not constitute; a conditional contract ren- 
 dering tlie vendor li.ible oidy on the condition of 
 the arrival of the goods, except perhaps whore 
 the goods iv.' eitlur in transit in a named vessel 
 or about to lie ^lii|iped at a named port in some 
 particular maiiiicr. In this case, being a sale of 
 iron tobemade inScdtlaiid, it was: — Held, upon 
 the evidence in the case, that the sale was abso- 
 lute, and not subject tn any condition as to the 
 arrival of the gocids. F/cui-i/ v. Cojdaiid, 46 Q. 
 B. 3G.-Q. 1'..^). 
 
 By telegrams ancl letters the defendant offered 
 to sell the plaiiililf twelve cars of barley, to be 
 delivered free on the tiack in Toronto at sixty- 
 six cents per bushel, of the (juality of two cars 
 previeusly slii|i|ied by the defendant to the 
 plaintifl, suliject to in-pection by the iihiintiff iit 
 bis own expi use at LiinsdoMiie. 'I'iie plairitilf 
 telegraphed, " All right, will take the lot. Shi)) 
 one car on receiiit ((iiiik." By letter of same 
 date the plaintilV sad that this might save tin; 
 necessity of Ins sending dnwn to inspect, as if 
 this car was ail right he need not do so. The 
 car was .'■lut by the dtfendant, who, hdwever 
 wrote at once, «ln n :idvising of the sliipinent, 
 that the only w;iy lie would sell would be to 
 have the bai li y ins])ictcd at his grain house. 
 Defendant drew on tlie plaintiff for the price of 
 the car sent, wliiili was iiaid. The plaintiff did 
 not ins])ect, but after receiving this car, the 
 plaintiff' wro'.e :i lid telei;raphed to defendant to 
 ship the 1 alancc, but ilefeiulaiit refused to do so : 
 — Held, Camel on .1 .. dissenting, that the contract 
 was subject to tlieconilition stipulated for by the 
 defendant, that the |ilaintiff sliould iiisport 
 before slii|inieiit ; and that the shipment of one 
 car, with the Utter accompanying it, was not a 
 waiver of the comiii ion for inspection at Laiis- 
 downe of the nsidui!, which the defendant was 
 therefore not bound to deliver. Ooodall v. Smil/i 
 46 Q. B. 388. -y. 15. U. 
 
 2. Price and Payment. 
 
 The Albert Mining (!o. (reapondeiit) brought 
 this action to recover for coal sohl and delivered 
 to appellants during the years ISOti, 1807 and 
 18GS. S. and M. and one iMctJ. were partners 
 carrying on business under the name of the Al- 
 hertine Oil (."ompany, the defendant S. furnish- 
 ing the capital. The contract for the coal was 
 made by .s. wlio was a large stock-holder in the 
 plaintiff company and entitled to yearly divi- 
 dends on his stock. The agreement, as proved 
 by plaintiffs, was that !S. purcliiised the coal for 
 the Albertine Oil Company, the nienibers of 
 which he named ; that the president of the 
 plaintiff company told S. they would look to him 
 for payment, as the other partners were poor ; 
 that I lie terms of sale were cash on delivery on 
 board the vessels ; and that IS. agieed that the 
 dividends payable to him on his stock should be 
 applied in (laymeiit for the coal ; that in conse- 
 quence of this arrangement the jilaintiffs ciedit- 
 ed the Albertine Oil Coinpany with the amount 
 of S. 's dividends as they were declared from 
 time to time down to August, IHfid, leaving a 
 balance of S'.II2 due to ,S. It also appeared that 
 the eoal deliveied was charged in the plaintitl's 
 books to the Albertine Oil Com|)any, and that 
 the bills of lidiiig on the shipments of the coal 
 wei'e also made out in their name, and thatsouie 
 time afterwards a notice, signed by S. and M. 
 Wis given to tlie iilainlills, comiilaining of the 
 inierioi' (lualily of the coal, and claiming dam- 
 ages in conseipience. In the latter part of the 
 year 18(18, .'^. repudiated the agieeinent to ap- 
 prnpiiate his dividends to the payment of coul, 
 and refused to sign the receipts therefor in the 
 jilaiiitill's books He had signed the receipt for 
 the dividends of bSdli. Tlie present action was 
 then brought (in 1S73) against S. and M., tliu 
 suiviving partners of the Albertine Oil Com- 
 piny, Me(i. hiving died, to recover the value of 
 the cod. S. shortly .-ifteiwards brought an 
 action a^jaiiist the plaiiilills for the dividends ; 
 this I liter elaiiii w;is lefeired to aibitiation and 
 an aua'd uas made in favour of S. for upwards 
 of .si."), 0011, wliieh the jihiintifls (laiil in July, 
 1S74. Till' ivceilit niveii for the payment stated 
 that it w s in lull satisfaction of the judgment 
 in the suit of S. against the Albert Miiiing("om- 
 piny, ml it appeared (though evidence of this 
 was iilijeeted to in tlic! present action) that it iu- 
 cludetl the ilivideiids for the years IS(J7 and 
 ISfiS. The judge before whom the action 
 was tiied. nonsuited the ])laiiitilfs, but the 
 Sni reine i ourt of NovaScotia setasiile the luiii- 
 suit: Held, reversing the judgment of the 
 Court leh'W. Strong , I., dissenting That tliere 
 being cl' r e\ ideine of the appropriation of S.'s 
 dividi lids ill piiivuaiici! of the agreement made 
 with li 111, ■ nd therefore of the plaiiitill's having 
 been p i I f'l the eoal in the manner and on the 
 terms a' i- e I on, tin pl.iint id's were ]iroi)erly non- 
 suit d. N ihr V. Allimt Miniiiij Co., 'J!>. C.ll. oa. 
 
 Tin plaint ff bought the olfiee and plant of a 
 newsp )ier. gavi a eh.ittel mortgage thereon to 
 \\'., aid p aid P in charge. The defendants 
 inaiU^ i\\ nces to P. for the purpose of carrying 
 on til II 111 ss. W. sold the jiroporty by auc- 
 tion i;r ii. Miiount of the mortgage debt to the 
 defei 1 a 1 s, « ho, supposing tliat P. was the 
 owm r. w sin d to secure themselves for the ad- 
 van do to him. The defendants then 
 
1866 
 
 ijment. 
 
 apoiideiit) broiiglit 
 sold anil (Ifliveied 
 iM I8(i(i, 1807 and 
 c;(i. were jjartners 
 le iiiinie "f the Al- 
 'undiint M. furnish- 
 
 t'or the coal was 
 itock-holder in the 
 ed to j'eai'ly divi- 
 •ecniont, as ])rovi'd 
 ;hii.sed the coal for 
 
 the nienihers of 
 president of tliu 
 'would look to him 
 rtners weie poor ; 
 h\i on delivery on 
 'i. agieed that tlie 
 lis stock should ho 
 al ; that in eonse- 
 le ])laiiititrs ereilit- 
 y with the amount 
 ere dechired from 
 ;t, lS(i((, leaving a 
 also a|)peared that 
 il in the plaintitl's 
 'oinpany, and that 
 inents ot the coal 
 inic, and that some 
 pied by S. and M. 
 :on)plaining of the 
 md claiming dam- 
 latter [)art of the 
 agieement to ap- 
 payment of coul, 
 its therefor in the 
 nod the receipt f(ir 
 (resent action was 
 st S. and M., the 
 Ihertine Oil Com- 
 ecnvcr the value of 
 vard.s hrouglit an 
 or the dividends ; 
 to aihitration and 
 • of .S. for upwards 
 ill's paiil in July, 
 he ])aynie,it stated 
 ! of the judgment 
 ilhcrt Milling Com- 
 ;h evi<leiice of this 
 taction) that it iii- 
 e years ISG7 and 
 whiim the action 
 laintiU's, Imt tlio 
 :V set aside the nou- 
 jiidgnieiit of the 
 nting That there 
 iliropriation of S.'s 
 le agreement iiiaile 
 e plaintill's having 
 inauuer and on the 
 were projieily non- 
 yC'o.,<)S. C. 11. ;j5. 
 
 ficc and ])lant of a 
 Krtgago thereon lo 
 The defendants 
 lurposc of carrying 
 i property hy auc- 
 irtgage tlebt to the 
 that P. was the 
 iistlves for the ad- 
 dcfendants then 
 
 1857 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1868 
 
 agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff; but i tity of staves to be loaded in cars at a railway 
 a dispute arose as to the price, and this action ! station by a day named. Hy the terms of tha 
 was brought to obtain speeitic performance of , agreement the staves were to be considered at 
 the agreement. There was written evidence of all times, whether marked or not, the property 
 the agreement in a document signed by the de- ! of the plaintiff as security for advances :— Hehi, 
 fendant iMoore, part of which was as folhi-s: ! that under the agreement the staves became the 
 " Price of this office to be what it has cost Mr. ; pn.perty of the plaintiff as soon as made, and 
 Norton (the other defendant) and myself." Spe- 1 never were the property of M. ; and that the 
 cific performance was decreed by consent, and j agreement did not reipiire tiling under the Chat- 
 it was referred to the master at London to take , tel Mortgage Act ; and that the plaintiff" there- 
 the accounts, and to report what was the true ; fore was entitled as against an execution creditor 
 agreement between the parties :— Held (revers- of M. 
 ing the decision of the master and of Ferguson, ; V. U. 
 J. ), that the defendants had the right to shew 
 l)efore the master what they nu'ant by the refer- 
 ence to the cost of the otficc as tixiiig the price ; 
 and that, upon the evidence, the true agreement 
 
 iditor 
 K Lsrij v. Ji'u.j,,:i, 3-2 C. P. G'Jl.— U. 
 
 Assuniing the {-'aiiadian law to be (notwith- 
 standing Alts U7'.>, Kr.',-. anil 1027 Civil Code) 
 that the property in the thing sold passes by a 
 between the parties was, tliat the pri "e was't'o y*^"""!^' >^""tivu't of side without delivery even 
 be the amount paid to W. plus the advances to !'' '■\^i'"''*'^ ""'''' pi'ties^^lleld on the evidence 
 
 in tins case that the iiiduia of a lama lide sale 
 that the circumstances of 
 
 P. 
 
 I paid to \v . pi 
 /funhcs V. Mnorp, II A. II. 5()'.). 
 
 When thiM-e is no actual agreeiiumt as to price 
 or time for payment, the law will supply the de- 
 ficiency by importing into the bargain a pnnnise 
 by the buyer to pay a reasonable price, and by 
 implying, in the absence of evidence to the con- 
 trary, that payment should be iiiaile on delivery. 
 Christie v. Bnriiclt, 10 O. \\. (i()i».— (J. 15. D. 
 
 were wanting! ami 
 
 there having been no change of po.-sessidii of 
 the thing alleged to have been sold was one of 
 the material facts to shew that the sale was 
 simulated. Cmhiinj v. JJiij,ai/, 5 App. Cas. 409. 
 
 W., a commission merchant residing at Toledo, 
 Ohio, ])iirchased and shipped a cargo of corn on 
 the order of C. et al., distillers at HellevilTe, and 
 Plaintiff and defendant entered into the fol- drew on tlieni at ten days from date for the 
 lowing contract: "To (J. M. H. (plaintitf)— price, freii:;ht and insurance. This draft was 
 Please deliver to mc at Port Arthur live head transferred to a bank in Toleilo and the amount 
 good steerson first ' City ' up, and six steers and of it received by W. from the bank, and the corn 
 heifers on second trip 'City' up, ami four cows on having been insured by W. for his own beiietit, 
 same trip, also 10(1 good lambs in lots of lifteen was shipped by him under a bill of lading, 
 or twenty, of $:i each lamb, to dress not less ' which, together with the jiolicy of insuiance, was 
 than ten pounds per quarter, price of cattle ] assigned liy him to the same b ink. The bank 
 
 $3. 50 weighed at Port Arthur." Nothing was 
 said as to time of payment. The cattle were all 
 
 forwarded the draft, policy, and bill of huling to 
 their agents at Belleville, with instructions that 
 
 delivered, but the plaintiff refused to comiilete | the corn was not to be delivered until the draft 
 
 the contract until the cattle were paid for, ' 
 which the defendant declined to do : -Held 
 (rever.sing Armour, J.), that the jirice was not 
 ]).iyable till the eoinpletion of the whole contract, 
 and that the refusal of the det'eiidant to pay for 
 the Jiart delivereil did not justify the plaintilfin 
 refusing to deliver the remainder. Per Ferguson, 
 .1. The contract being entire and containing 
 no stipulation regarding the manner or time of 
 payment, the defendant was entitled to refuse 
 to pay for the jiart that had bei'ti delivered un- 
 til the remainiler should be delivered, and the 
 refusal of the )ilaiiitiff' to deliver the remainder 
 was not justitieil and was a breach of the con- 
 tract. Per l5oyd, C. — If the contract is entire 
 the ])rice was not jiaj'able until .ill the deliveries 
 were completed ; if it is divisible (nioad tl 
 
 was jiaid. The draft was aieeiited by C. et al., 
 but the cargo arriving at llelleville in a damaged 
 and heated conditinn, between the dates :if the 
 acceptance and the matiiiity of the dr.ilt, C. tt 
 al., relused to receive it and afterwards to pay 
 the draft at maturity. I lieren]ion the bank and 
 W. solil the cargo for behalf of whom it might 
 concern, credited C'. et al. with the proceeds on 
 account of the clrait, and \V. tiled a bill to re- 
 cover balance and interest; — Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the Court of .Aliped (5 A. II. 021)) 
 (Strong, .1.. dissenting), that the contract was 
 not one of agency, and that tln^ iiropeity in the 
 cm'u remained by the act of \V., in liimsilf and 
 his assignees, until after the arriv.d oi the corn 
 at Melleville and iiayiiient of the dratt ; anil the 
 damage to the corn having iicciiried while the 
 
 is (livisilile (pioad tile 
 attle and the lambs, so as to be in dl'ect two property in it continued to he in W. an 
 contracts, the failure to pay for the cattle by sigiues, C. etal. should not bear the loss. 
 the one party w(nild not excuse the other in not [ v. Willhoii"; 7 S. C. 1!. 470. 
 forwanling the lambs within the time limited, j The plaintiff consigned crude oil to A 
 
 his as- 
 
 ( 0)1)1/ 
 
 who 
 was a refiner, on the express agreement that no 
 jiroperty in the oil should pass until he mads 
 certain payments. Before m.iking such p.ay- 
 ineiits, however, A. sold the oil to the defen- 
 dants, without the knowledge of the plaintiff ; — 
 Held, alHrming Proudfoot, V. C. (2!) Cliy. 300), 
 that although the defendants were jnirchast rs 
 I for value from A., in belief that he was the 
 owner and entitled to sell the oil in (pieation, 
 the plaintitT, under his agieemeiit «itli A., hav- 
 : ing retained the propeity in the oil, and not 
 M. agreed to manufacture am^ furnish to the having done anything to estnp him from main- 
 joint account of himself and the plaintiff a quan- j taining his right of ownership, was entitled to 
 
 117 
 
 Where there has been jiartial delivery, and con- 1 
 sumption of that jiart, and failure to perfinin the i 
 rest of the contract, the seller has a right to sue ' 
 as upon a (luantuni meruit, and the purchaser | 
 has his cross action or counter claim for dam- 
 ages. Withers r. lieynolds, 2 15. Si Ad. SS2, 
 ••onsidered and distinguished. Jioyd v. Snitiraii, 
 ITiO. R. 492. -thy. I). 
 
 3. When Propertj/ i'luscn lo /iiii/cr. 
 
1859 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1860 
 
 if 
 
 i 
 
 recover from the purcliasers tlio ])i'ioe of tlie oil. 
 Forrislnl v. McDonald, 9 S. C. R. 12. 
 
 'J'hree uaaos of goods, exceeding; §40 in value, 
 WL'it; veil):illy onloreil by L. at M. from pluiiitid' 
 Jit T., tlirou^^h pLiintill's tniviilliM', aii<l wuic 
 8iii))|)e(l, (;oiisigiii)(l to L., .-mil cairicil liy railway 
 .111(1 tliu'ii Ijy dufeiid.iiit.s stuaiiiei' to M. Two of 
 the cases wei'o ivueived by L. , oiiu of wliieli w.is 
 .ill a d iinigud coiiditioii. Tlie third c:i.se re- 
 tiiaiiiiMl oil lioard the vessiel, as the imrsur refused 
 to deliviM' it \\\) until the ficiglit on these uasi's 
 us well a.s on a v.irii.'ty of other j^no Is coiisi<,'ned 
 to L. WIS pvid, wliioli L. refuscul to do until he 
 had tiist an o()|iortunity of ehe<3kinj; over the 
 .griods. Ji.'fnro the dispute was settled tlie ves- 
 S'jI left, and w.is siilis (lUiuitly wreeUed and tlii-i 
 e.ise li.it. An an' ;iii(i'MKtiit w.is made between 
 pl.iintitr and L. whereby plaiiitili' allowed iv. 
 twenty-live ]ior cent on the value of the two 
 eases received by L. 'i'ln^ )i'aintilt' then brought 
 4111 ai:tioii ajiainst tli dofend.iuts to re(Miver tlie 
 twenty live per cent, si allowed, and the value 
 of the case lust : -Held ((Jalt, .1., dissentiiiL,'!, 
 that tluu-e was an ai.'ceptanoe and receipt of the 
 j.'oods by l>. so as to ])ass the |)ropePty therein 
 to him : and theioiore the action siKuild, under 
 the .M'.'ivintile Amendineiit Act, li. S. O. (IS77), 
 e. IKi, s. ,"), subs. 1, have been niaiiitaiiie<l by 
 him and not by plaiutili'. I'er (Jalt, .1., the 
 action was properly brought by pliintill', as the 
 jirojierty in the j^oods had not passed I'riun him : 
 and he was entitled to re(.'over the twenty-ti\ e 
 ^per cent, so allowed by biiii, :is also the price, ot' 
 the case lost; lor altholl^dl the lo.ss there iif was 
 occasiciiied by the dangers of navigation, the 
 defendants were not proteeted under '.M \'i( t. e. 
 '17t (Doiii.), the evidence shewing that the loss 
 was by the fault or neglect of the deUuidints. 
 Frii'.iid'i/ V. (Jaiiiila 'I'miisit O"., 10 (). I>. 7o(>. 
 (.'. P. 1). See also Ldii'/doii v. JiohtrUmi, 1,'{ (). 
 H. 4!)7. 
 
 ':i. "in'tain wheels. 
 . '.r' otory under a 
 vi v.as .stipul.ited 
 > the gooils should 
 'i:de price tllCfcdf 
 1 merely passing; 
 
 The plaintifTs sold '(.'T_ 
 etc., to be used in iln 
 written agreemeiiti ". .■ 
 tli:it the right and \):oyc"l 
 not ji iss to tlieui imti' th 
 was i>aiil, the right of \)oai.. 
 
 such riglit to be forfeited anii the ))laintili's to be 
 lit libel tj' to resume possession in ease of default 
 in the ])ayinents being made, or in case of seizure 
 for rent, etc., or .ipoii any attempt by U. fi Co. 
 to sell or dispose thereof without the oou.sent of 
 the plaintill's, it being expressly cleelarod that the 
 sale W.IS condition d only, and punctual iiaynieiit 
 of the instalments beiiigessential to itsexisteiiee. 
 U. it Co. jilaeed the machinery in the flume be- 
 longing to their factory, which was held by tlieni 
 under a leise from II. & Co., and suliscipiently 
 the slieriH' having seized other chattels behinging 
 to U. it ('o., they surrendered the j)ipssessifui of 
 the ])reini.ses and delivered the key thereof to H. 
 it Co. Default having been made by U. it Co., 
 the jilaintiffs diunanded the wheels of H. it Co., 
 which demand H. & ('o. refu.sed to comply with, 
 assigning as a reason that they had not possession 
 thereof, and in the following month the wheels 
 were sohl under proceedings to enforce payment 
 of the liens of certain mechanics : — Held, artirin- 
 iiig the judgment of the t!ominon Ple.as Divi- 
 sion, 8 O. R. 405, that the plaintiffs were entitled 
 to recover the value of the goods. Joseph Hail 
 Manufadiirimj Co. v. liazliu, 11 A. It. 740. 
 
 .■\n engine, lioiler, and other machinery, were 
 shipped by plaiiititl's to the defendant K. under 
 a written order to ship aaiiU! to his address ux 
 ptu' sum agreed on, \v/,. , $H"5 ; .*i'i25 to be al- 
 IowimI for IC.'s portable engine and boiler, anil 
 .'^li.'t.'i to \i: p.iid oil Nhi[imeiit ; but, if not settled 
 for in cash and notes within twenty days, then 
 the whole amount to become due. The tinier 
 not to be coniiteriiiaiided, and until payment tliu 
 machinery to be at K.'s risk, which he was to 
 insure, and on demand was to assign the policy 
 to the plainliirs, and the title thereof was not to 
 pass out of plaintill's, M. agreeing not to sell or 
 remove same without the plaiiitiii's' consent in 
 writing. On defiiilt in piyni'Mit the phiintills 
 could enter and lake ;ind remove the macliineiy, 
 and K. agreed to ileliver same to jilaiiitills in like 
 giHiil order and eimdition as reeeived, save ordi- 
 ii.iiy wear .iiid tear, and to p;iy expenses of re- 
 moval. Any notes (U' other security given by !•',. 
 for his indebtedness to be collateral thereto. The 
 niaehiiiery was put nji in a mill on jirenii.ses 
 leased with right of pureh.ise, by defendant D. to 
 K.'s wife for one or live years from 1 Ith March, 
 ISSS. K.'s wife died on the 'ilbd Ootolier, 18S:J, 
 and by her will .ippoiiited \-\. sole executor, giv- 
 ing him power to sell or dispose of any property 
 to which test.itrix was or might be entitled. K. 
 by deed of liTtli April, lS8,"i, demised and re- 
 leased to \). all the right, title, and interest in 
 the premises as \vell of himself ;is also as execu- 
 tor, together with the mill built thereon, with 
 the boiler ami engine, etc., iiiid im the same ilay 
 I), h.'ased the siiil premises, mill and machinery, 
 to K. for one year. Alter the execution of this 
 lease |). mortgaged the land, mill and machinery, 
 to the defendants, tin; 1''. boan .s^oeiety. The de- 
 fendant K. iiiiveriiaid any cash, but gave his pro- 
 missory note at three months, which was renewed 
 from time to time, but uliimately 10. having failed 
 to i):iy same, the plaiiitills demanded the inuclii- 
 nery, when 1). notilicd iilaiiitill's not to remove 
 same, as .also did the .society : -Held, that the 
 eli'eet of the tr.insaction was, that the property 
 was in the plaintill's, and that they were entitled 
 tlieri^to and that there was an illegal detention by 
 the defendants 1). and 10. amountiiigto a conver- 
 sion ; and that the V. Loan (Jo. by having notitied 
 plaintiff not to remove the maehinery, were pro- 
 per parties to the suit to give plaiiitills full relief ; 
 and that unless delendants allowed plaintiffH to 
 remove the machinery on demand, the plaiutitls 
 wiue entitled to recover .ijlioO with interest, being 
 thepriceof tlieniachinery,aiid tli.it upon removal 
 of the engine and boiler the sum of §()0 for rc- 
 jiaiis should be paid by pl.iintilis to I), to be re- 
 paid to phiintill's by K. I'olsni v. Dci/ctv, 12 (). 
 R. 27.J-C. 1". I). 
 
 v., a music teacher at IJeardstown, 111., wrote 
 to K. it Co., at ('hic;igo, til It he had a customer 
 named .1. to whom be could sell a piano, and 
 desiring them toshiiione in their own name, to he 
 subject to their order, but F. to pay freight 
 charges in case of no sale, and return jiiano to 
 plaintiffs, he, K. simply to act as their agent. 
 K. & (y'o. not having the style of piano reipiircd, 
 handed F.'s letter to plaintiffs, piano maiiufai;- 
 turers in Chicago, who after communicating with 
 K. , shipped a piano to Heardstowii, consigned to 
 their own order, but to be delivered to F. on 
 payment of the freight charges. The jiiaiio was 
 received by F. at Heardstown, and its receipt 
 acknowledged in a letter to plaintiffs. It wiia 
 
1860 
 
 niichinei'y, wore 
 iidiint K. iiiider 
 I hia iul(lre»s im 
 
 $'225 to Imj 111- 
 iiiul boiler, mill 
 it, if not Mottled 
 outy (lays, tlioii 
 luo. Tiio order 
 ilil piiyniunt the 
 liioli lio was til 
 rtsign tlio jjolioy 
 oroiif was not ti» 
 g not to MuU iir 
 tills' consent iu 
 lit the plidntili's 
 : tlie niiieliineiy, 
 liltiintilVs ill like 
 eiveil, save oidi- 
 oxpeiises of ro- 
 lity },'iven by K. 
 ral thereto. The 
 lill on premises 
 (lefuiiilant l>. to 
 oni I Ith March, 
 1 October, IH8:i, 
 le executor, j;iv- 
 of any property 
 be entitled. K. 
 leiiiised and re- 
 
 aiid interest in 
 iis also as execti- 
 It thereon, with 
 on the same day 
 1 and machinery, 
 xeciilioii of this 
 land machinery, 
 ■ociety. 'J'he de- 
 but f^avo hispro- 
 hich was renewed 
 y H. liavinj^ failed 
 mded the niaelii- 
 I's not to remove 
 
 -Held, that the 
 ;hat the property 
 ley were entitled 
 eyal detention by 
 itiiif^to a oonver- 
 ly having notilied 
 liinory, were pro- 
 lintills full relief ; 
 )Wed plaintiffs to 
 md, the plaintiffs 
 til interest, being 
 hat upon removal 
 im of S(iO for re- 
 Is to I), to be re- 
 ' v. Dcf/ter, 12 <). 
 
 down, III., wroli! 
 e had a enstoiiicr 
 sell a piano, and 
 r own nanus to be 
 ''. to [lay freight 
 I return |iiano to 
 , as their agent. 
 )f ])iano reiiuired, 
 i, piano maiiufac- 
 iiinunicating with 
 )wn, eonsigned to 
 olivered to K. on 
 . The piano was 
 II, und its receipt 
 (laintili's. It w;is 
 
 l| 
 
 1861 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1862 
 
 shipped by F. to Virginia City, III., and from 
 there to K. at Toronto, under the assumed name 
 of K., and was there pledged by F. under such 
 assumed name, with defendant I)., a pawnbroker, 
 li» cover an amount loaned liy I), to pay tlio 
 fhargcH as well as a fni'ther advance, F. rejire- 
 senting that ho mtended opening an agency for 
 the sale of pianos. The piano w.is taken by I), 
 to li- own pi-einises, where it remained until 
 replevied : — lleld, that there was no sale to F. 
 of the piano, as it never was iiitemled that the 
 property should pass to him. Jln.ili v. /•'/■//, l.j 
 .). R. 122.— C. V. U. 
 
 Sec '/'hiiiiirtn V. JikjH-^, 7 O. 1!. ,"iSS, p. ~r>',i ; 
 /•'/•(/'! V. Mllliiion, 1(»(). I!. oOlt, p. 7,S7 : 'rhaniis 
 .Vnri'ialinii Cn. il/miihil) v. II -il, !,'{ A. I!. ;{ i.'f, 
 ]i. 277; IS<rlnnii v. J/((--m/ Miimi/'Kr/iiriiKi Cu., 
 I,-) (). R. .")ll>, p. ISli."). 
 
 4. I'lirc/iase III/ Smii/^lr or /n'/Kftiim. 
 
 Tlie defendants nureed with one ^V., who 
 .stateil iiUMJiTcetly t liat he was acting as broker 
 for the plaiutill', for the pnrchii-^e by SiUiiple of 
 a (juantity of c ilton wasi i; at cue; and one-loiirtli 
 ecuts per iiouinl, to be delivered at St. Catha- 
 rines. In reality \V. was selling foi' his own 
 benolit, as he arranged to iiurchasc the waste at 
 oiicccntaiiound. Instead of insjiLieting tlie goods 
 ut iSt. (Jatharines, tiio defendants reijuested 
 \V. to consign thcin to their iioiisc iu Ci.iein- 
 nati, U. S. , which the iilaintill' ilid by direi'tion 
 of \V. The jdaintitr, at the reipiest of \V., 
 jnade out a bill of lading iu tlie n one of the 
 defendants and drew on them for the jirice at 
 one and one-fourth cents per pound, which 
 ilraft was aeecjitcd by the defemlants, the 
 jilaintill' paying W. his prolit iu cash. On the 
 goods reaching Cincinnati, an insiiection took 
 )ilacc wlien thej' were found greatly inferior to 
 the sanijile. Tne defendants rejected the goods 
 but refused to I'etnrn them to the plainlitV at 
 St. Catharines, although he was willing to ac- 
 cept tlieiii tlier,'. In an nction on the bill of 
 <;xchange : -Meld, atlirmiiig tlie judgment of 
 .Senklcr, Co. .1., that the defect in ijuality 
 formed no ground of defence, tli;it the plaiutill s 
 contract w. IS to didiverthc goods at St. Catha- 
 rines, where the ins|)ectioii ought piimi'i fai.ie 
 to have tiikcii place, and that the only redress 
 of tho dofciid.ints w as by cross action. 'J'oinrs 
 V. /hiiiinion Jruii mid JltJiil Co., II A. 1!. 
 
 The plaintid", a fruit dealer in Ottawa, went to 
 Montreal for the purpose of buying fruit « here 
 lie met the defendant, who had a ()uantity of 
 apiiles for sale. The defendant in answer to a 
 «lue.stion by one II., his agent, said they would 
 be lound to be "a good lot,"' and II. oiiciied 
 sevcru.l barrels for the purpose of plaintill' exam- 
 ining the contents, which he did in live or six 
 instances, when the apples "ap])eared to be 
 good." 'J'lie pluintiir might, had he so desired, 
 have examined all the barrels ; but having pre- 
 viously bought apples packed by the defemlant 
 which proved satisfactory and placing reliance 
 on the reputation of the defendant for being an 
 lioncst packer, he refrained from any further ex- 
 :uiiination, and purchiiseil \'M bariols, which, on 
 siibsecjuenlly attempting to sell, proved to be so 
 inferior in (piality tliat parties refused to buy ; 
 others returning what they had bought. There- 
 
 upon the plaintiff instituted proceedings to re- 
 cover compensation for the defei;t in value. The 
 judge of the County Court withdrew tho ease 
 from the jury, and entered a nonsuit, which sub- 
 sei|uently in term was set aside: —Held, on ap- 
 peal, that as the sale w.is not a sale by sample, 
 and the plaiutill' had not bc'ii deterred by any 
 acts or conduct of tho defendant from making a 
 full examination ur .nspection of all the barrels, 
 the ilefendant was not liable on any warranty, 
 ex|iress or implied, and that the niixim caveat 
 (Uii[itor apjilieil. linrlhiruk \. Youii'i, 12 A. R. 
 (171. 
 
 The plaiutill' contracted with the defendant, a 
 dealer in liinilier, to .sell him 200,000 foot of 
 eighteen font jilank of red or white pine two 
 inches thick and fi-om six to twelve in -lies wide; 
 "(piility the same as he had supjilied the jirc- 
 vioiis year,' to be paid for by acceptance at three 
 months from date of sliipHient. The lumber 
 was to be shipped f. o. h.,al the plaintill's mills 
 to siii-h ))laces as the defendant should direct. 
 .■\ slii|iineiit was iiride of snmc car loads which 
 the defendant iic(;epted. Siiliseipicnt shipments 
 were made, some c.irlo ids of which were received 
 and others rejected at Hamilton whore the 
 defendant cariieil on business : —Held, in an 
 action for the price, that umler the terms of the 
 contract tliiMiispection should have been made 
 at the plaintiti's mills and (aliirniing tho judg- 
 ment of the court below, !) O. R. 500), that the 
 defendant could not rejeel; the lumber at Ham- 
 ilton unless it was shewn that tho article deliv-^ 
 ercd was not the article agreed to be delivered :* 
 and the cvideiuo f died to shew that the des- 
 eri[ition of the lumber mentioned in the contract 
 was not substantially sitislicd. Per Burton and 
 Osier J.I, \. Although in a contiaet for the 
 sale of goods not then ascertained, words such 
 as were hero used as to (piality would amount to 
 a warranty that the article to be delivered 
 slinul I agree with that descriiition there WJis 
 not evideiieo to show a briacli of the contract in 
 that respect. Therefore : -Held that the defen- 
 dant's willy remedy w s in damages for the in- 
 feriority of the article delivered. — Semble, per 
 llurtoii .1, A., assuming that the contiaet gave 
 the ))iirch;iser the right of inspection and rejej- 
 tioi! at Hamilton: an aceeiitance and payment 
 fur one shipment would not preclude the defen- 
 ! daiit from rejecting subsuipient shipinents of the 
 himlier that did not substantially answer tii. 
 eoiitraet. Dijmciil v. ThoDfijii, 12 .\. R. 059. 
 
 T. eoutracted for the purchase from I), of 
 
 201). ()()(» feet of lumber of a certain size and 
 
 cpialilj', which D, agreed to furnish. No pkvce 
 
 was named for the deliveiy of the bur -r, and it 
 
 was shipped from the mills wdiore it was sawed 
 
 to '1', at Maiiiiltou. 'J', accepted a number of 
 
 '. carloads at Haniiltim, but lejected some because 
 
 : a portion of the lumber in ( di of them was not, 
 
 ,is he alleged, of the size ami quality contracted 
 
 for :- -Hold, atKi'ining the judgment of the Court 
 
 I of Appeal for Ontario, Koui-nier and Henry, JJ. 
 
 ■ dissenting, that 'J', under the oircumstances of 
 
 \ the ease had no right to reject the lumber, hia 
 
 I only remedy for the deliciency being to obtain a 
 
 reibietion of the price or damages for nou- 
 
 1 delivery according to the contract, S. O., nub 
 
 } iiniii. Thompiou v. Dijimiit, 13 8. C. I!. 303. 
 
 See V.oodall v. Smith, 40 Q. B. 3S8, p. 1855; 
 Ltijijutt v. Clari-y, 13 0. R. 105, p. 1804 ; Lend- 
 
186S 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1864 
 
 
 lay V. AfcRohert^, 13 A. R. 378, p. IS'w ; Moou-i< 
 V. Oooderham and WotIk, 14 O. K. 451, p. 1804. 
 
 5. Quanlilij and Qiia/ih/. 
 
 The (lefendnnts, with the knowledge that a 
 consignment of goods was in excess of the tiuan- 
 tity ordered by them, made no objection on tiiat 
 KTound though negotiations took phvue for a re- 
 duction in price, on account of delay, etc. , but 
 took into stock fifteen out of twenty-five cases 
 sen'' 'I'lic other ten casiis remained in bond till 
 they were sold to pay duties : — Held, that there 
 was evidence on which a waiver of any objection 
 as to th( excess was properly found, iiooihjeur 
 Rubber Co. v. Fouler, 1 O. R. 24'2.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The defendant company agreed to jnirciuise 
 from the plaintiff a (juantity of iron called " l)e- 
 pere"iron, tlie ])liiintitl to deliver the same us 
 the defindiinta should rcijuire for tlieir woiks. 
 The plaintiff sul>se(iuently without any re(|Uisi- 
 tionfrom the defendants, shipiicd to them nearly 
 the whole quantity aj;reed for, of another brand 
 of iron manufactureil by a ditlerent coniiiaiiy, 
 though using the same ore and fuel and making 
 the same grade of iron as the l)(.pere Company. 
 Thedefendants refused to accept tlic iron ottered: 
 — Held (allirniingSl C. 1'. 475), that the defen- 
 dants were not bound to aecipt the inui so ten- 
 dered, neither couhl the plauititf recover the 
 value thereof, the iron being a different article 
 from that contracted for. lledMrom v. Toronto 
 Car Wheel (-'o., 8 A. R. 0:27. 
 
 The defendant purchased from the plaintiiF a 
 car load of " No. 1 green hoops," to be delivered 
 at the railway station. Un their arrival at the 
 station tlicy were removed l)y the defendant to 
 his own place and some of the hoops used l)y 
 him, but merely, as he said, for the purpose of 
 testing them. He tlicn wrote to the plaintifl' 
 ttiat he was astonished at his sending ilry and 
 rotten hoops for first-class green hoojis, and if 
 he, defendant, had seen them before they were 
 at his place lie would not have touched them ; 
 that there were less in the ear than the nuniber 
 stated by the jdaintitf; that he enclosed a bill 
 which was the anu>unt he intemled to p.iy, and 
 not a cent more, because they were not worth 
 that ; and if the plaintiff would accept the 
 amount olf'ired to let the defendant know by 
 return mail, and lie would remit. In answer, the 
 plaintilT tlinjugh his solicitor, threatened a suit, 
 when the defendant replied that if plaintifl' 
 would not accept this he might go on and sue : — 
 Hehl, there was evidence to go to the juiy of an 
 acceptance <jf the hoops, and an agreement to 
 pay on a quantum meruit. McClure v. Kreutezi- 
 ger, 6 O. R. 480.— C. P. D. 
 
 In an action for the price of 810 tons of coal 
 thedefendants pleaded delivery of only 70.5 tons 
 and tendered the price of that quantity which 
 was refused. At the trial it was proved that 
 defendants agreeil to take the coal as per bill of 
 lading without having it weighed. They caused 
 it to be weij^hed, however, in their o« n yard 
 without notice to the vendors and it was found 
 to consist of only 7.'>.') tons, and about three 
 weeks after receiving the bill of lading they 
 claimed a reduction for the deficiency :— Hehl, 
 Fournier and Henry, JJ., dissenting, that the 
 defendants had uo right to refuse payment for 
 
 the cargo on the grounds of deficiency in the 
 delivery, ciuisidering that the weighing was 
 made by them in the absence of, and without 
 notice to, the plaintitl's and at u time when the 
 defendants were bound by the option they had 
 previously nnule of taking the coal in bulk. I'. 
 Ilwlon Cotton Co. v. Canada ^ki/ijjiin/ Co., 13 
 S. C. n. 401. 
 
 The defendant ordered a (juaiitity of boots 
 from plaintiff at Montreal, thnmgh <j., plaintitl's 
 agent, who showed defendant saioples, some 
 being known in the trade as "solid leather," 
 and others as "shoddy." The defeinlant said 
 he bought what was represented as solid leather, 
 w bile (i. said he sohl by sample, and that the 
 boots were in accordance therewith. The order 
 was given in September, and parts delivered 
 respectively in October and November, and the 
 balance somewhat later. The defciulant said lie 
 comjilaintd, in October, and agiiii some three 
 weeks later, to (i. of the quality "f the l)()ots, and 
 that he would ship tliein back, when (1. told 
 him to do so. The defendant said he shewed 
 (i. a pair of the boots which had turned out 
 ba<lly, and (1. said as he was guitig to Montreal 
 he would shew them to the ))laintiir. On O.'s 
 return he told defendant that if there were any 
 more like that to send them all back. In Janu- 
 ary the defendant went to Montreal and asked 
 for an extension of lime for payment, to see if 
 the goods turned out all right, which the plaiii- 
 titf refused to give, when defeiiilant said if they 
 did not turn out riglit he would return them. 
 'I'he boots were taken into stock and a large 
 quantity sold ; but a few i)airs were returned. 
 In February the defendant claimed to be entitled 
 to return the boots as not answering the con- 
 tract, '['here was no evidence to shew what 
 defendant s loss was ; and the whole evidence 
 was conflicting. It was urged that the defect 
 was a latent one, and therefore not discoverable 
 by ordinary inspection and examination. The 
 defendant accijited four bills of excli.uige in i)ay- 
 UKiit of the })rice, one of which he paid after 
 maturity. In an action on the other three the 
 ilefiudant denied his liability thi:rion : and also 
 eouiiterclaimed for damages. The jud^e at the 
 trial f(juiid for the plaintill' on the bdls, and 
 dismissed the eounter-claim, without |)rejudice 
 to the defendant bringing a fresh action for 
 damages : — Held, that the linding as to the hills 
 was correct, as there was unquestioiialily a good 
 consideration therefor ; and <lefeiidint's remedy, 
 if any, must be on his counter-claim ; but, in the 
 absence of any evidtnce of loss, tlaii' could he 
 no judgment tlnreon ; and also, if the judj^e at 
 the trial had decided on the eonllicling evidence 
 tlie court might not be able to inleit'ere. The 
 right, however, conceded, of bringing a fresh 
 action, placed the defendant in as f.uourable a 
 jiositiou as he could expect. LnjiJiitt v. Clarry, 
 13 O. R. 105— C. P. D. 
 
 Under a contract to sujiply gooils of a speci- 
 fied description which the liiiycr has no oppor- 
 tunity ot inspecting, the goods must not only, in 
 fact, answer the specific de.-cri|itioii, Ijiit must 
 ■ be salealile or nierchantalde under th<i.t descrip- 
 tiiiii. On a sale of goods when the buyer has uo 
 opportunity of inspection, the niaxini caveat 
 emptor does not a|)ply. Mooert v. ilooderham 
 and Worls (Limited), 14 O. R. 451 — Fer- 
 guson. 
 
1864 
 
 luficienoy in tlio 
 weighing was 
 of, luul without 
 I time when thu 
 option tliuy luul 
 ;oal ill l)iil|{. r. 
 Shi/ijiiiiij Gu., 13 
 
 Uiiiitity of boots 
 igh a., ]iluiiititl's 
 t siimhiIl's, some 
 Hiilid kiithei'," 
 10 (lefeiidaut s:vicl 
 i iis solid leatlier, 
 df. iind that the 
 with. The order 
 [larts delivered 
 iveinher, and tiie 
 kttndant.said lie 
 j,Miii soinu three 
 of the lioots, and 
 k, wlien (i. told 
 ; said he shewed 
 1 had turned out 
 ;iiing to Montreal 
 liiitiir. On (J.'s 
 if there Were any 
 biiek. In Janii- 
 itreal and asked 
 iiyiiieiit, to see if 
 which the ((lain- 
 idaiit said if they 
 uld return tluni. 
 toek and a large 
 I's were returned, 
 inied to lie entitled 
 iswering the eon- 
 cu to shew what 
 10 whole evidence 
 (1 that the defect 
 e not discoverable 
 xaniination. The 
 f exeh.uige in pay- 
 icli he iiaid after 
 le other three the 
 :hi'rton : and also 
 The judj^e at the 
 on the bill.s, and 
 without Jirejudice 
 . fre.sh action for 
 ling as to the iiills 
 estionaldy a good 
 fend int's remedy, 
 .'laini ; but, in the 
 ss, thill' could he 
 ;o, if the judije at 
 iiitlictin.i; evidence 
 
 interfeic. The 
 bringing a fresh 
 
 1 as f.iMiurablo A 
 Lrijijdit V. C'larnj, 
 
 gooils of a speci- 
 cr h.is no ojipor- 
 niust not oidy, in 
 riptioii, liut must 
 ider tli.it (loscrip- 
 1 the buyer has no 
 le inaxiiii caveat 
 '.r-i V. (luoderhnui 
 . R. 451 — l-'er- 
 
 1865 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1868 
 
 The plaintiffs agreed to deliver to the defen- 
 danta a (luantity of StafTordsliire Crown Bar iron 
 of the 1. K. brand. A part of the iron was 
 delivered to the defendant . of which a con- 
 siderable (juantity was unbranded ; the defen- 
 dants, however, did not treat the absence of the 
 brand as creating a diHiculty in the way of their 
 accepting the iron, but proceeded to test it, and 
 finding it unsatisfactory, declined to receive any 
 more, or to pay for the whole or part. 'J'his 
 action was then brought for the contract price 
 of the whole. The jury found that the iron was 
 merchantable, but not eijual in (juality to the 
 standard T. K, Crown brand :— Held, that tiie 
 duty of the plaintilfs under the contract would 
 liave been performed if they had supplied to the 
 defendants inereliantable irmi liearingon its f.ice 
 the genuine brand contracted for ; but in the 
 absence of that authentication, and having its 
 gard to the conduct of the defendants, the con- 
 tract must be taken to be one feu- the sale of 
 iron manufactured by the T. K. Co., ,,i the 
 <piality usually indicated by the Crown brand, 
 and so the defendants would have the riglit to 
 test it, and according to the liiidinu'sof the jury 
 would have been justified in rejecting it all ; ami 
 the fact that the portion which was branded 
 was below tiie standard, did not estop the de- 
 fendants from shewing that the portion which 
 was unbranded was also below the standard, i 
 iJiit : — Held, that the defendants, having used 
 in the manufacture of their machines, after the 
 doubtful ((uality of the iron had been brought 
 to their notice, and withotlt the cinisent of the 
 plaintid's, a cousideiable (juantity of what had 
 been delivereil to them as part of an entire eon- 
 tract, had precluded themselves from objecting 
 to tiie remainder of that which came into their 
 possession. Held, also, that the property in the 
 part of the iron which was not delivered to the 
 defendants, must bo taken to remain in the plain- j 
 tiffs ; for defendants had never exercised their i 
 right to test it, and had refused to receive it, t 
 and until tested the plaintill's could not compel 
 the defendants to accept it. The action was 
 treated as one for the price of iron which the 
 defendants accepted, and for damages arising 
 from their refusal to accept the remainder, 
 and, in accordance with the findings of the , 
 jury, which in the opinion of this court, 
 were sustained by the evidence, judgment was 
 entered for the plaintiffs for the actual value of 
 the part of the iron delivered only (the damages ] 
 having been negatived by the jury), and for the 1 
 defendants upon their counter-claim for dama- I 
 ges sustained from the breach of contract, other j 
 than by reason of the inferior (juality of the 
 iron ; and the plaintiffs were allowed the costs [ 
 of the action, and the defendants the costs of the 
 counter-claim. Bertram v. Manney Manujac- 
 turiwj Co., ]5 0. R. 516.— Q. B. U. 
 
 See Exchamif Bank v. Sthiwn, 32 C. P. 158, 
 p. 1870 ; Dyiiieut v. Thompson, 9 O. R. 566 ; 12 
 A. R. 659 ; 13 S. C. R. 303, p. 18(i2. 
 
 6. Riijlif of Selvction. 
 
 The plaintiffs in the beginning of January, 
 1880, had purchased through C. & O. of Mon- 
 treal, a quantity of rails, and reciuiring 2,000 tons 
 more, negotiations were entered into between 
 fl., the plaintiff's agent, C. & G., and the de- 
 
 j fendant, which resulted in a note being sigueil 
 I on the 14th January addressed to the defen- 
 dant advising him that they had sohl to tlin 
 plaintiffs on the defendant's account 2,000 tons 
 of rails (56 lbs. to the yard) at £8. ISs. Od. stg., 
 per ton payment to be made in London against 
 documents, and credit to be there openecf with 
 approved bankers in favour of defendant's agent. 
 The defendant, who was then in Montreal, 
 signed a, sale note in similar terms to the above. 
 The sale was immediately eoiumunicated to the 
 plaintiffs, wdio signed a eonlirimitory note, add- 
 ing the words that the make should be either 
 lOhbwvale or Moss Bay, and wrote across the 
 face that the rails were to be 50 lbs. "ordinary 
 section and specification." This confirmatory 
 note was not communicated to the defendant 
 until after action brought. The credit was 
 oiieiicd by the plaintifl's in aeoordanco with the 
 contract. The plaintiffs and defendant were 
 dealers in and not manufacturers of rails. The 
 defendant, at the time the contract was entered 
 into, had [lurchascd rails from a linn in England, 
 who were also <lealers and not manufacturers, 
 and wlio had arrangeil with the manufacturers 
 at Kbhwvale for the manufacture of rails of a 
 section known as "Hamilton & North-Western, " 
 anil which came witliin the terms, "ordinary 
 section," by which a number of different kinds 
 of sections were embraced ; and these were the 
 rails which the defendant intendeil deliver- 
 ing to the idaintifFs. The plaintiffs required a 
 section called " Sandherg,'' which also came 
 within the term "ordinary section," and when 
 they discovered the defendant's rails were Ham- 
 ilton and Nortli-Western, they endeavoured to 
 get defendant to change the section, which Ui^s 
 defendant was unable to do. The plaintiffs al- 
 lowed the rails to be shipped to them and paid 
 for under the credit, and it was not till after- 
 wards that they notified the defendant of their 
 refusal to accept, contending that under the 
 contract tiiey had the right to name the section : 
 — Hehl, that even if the confirmatory note were 
 embraced in the contract, it did not give the 
 plaintiffs the right of selection ; that parol evi- 
 dence was not admissible to add such a term to 
 the contract ; and that the evidence failed to es- 
 taldish any usagi' oig such right, especially 
 as the parties dealers and not inanufao- 
 
 turera, and in of the plaintifl''s conduct in 
 
 the matter, and tfiat the contract was therefore 
 performed by the section delivered. Page V. 
 Proctor, 5 0. R. 238. -C. P. D. 
 
 7. Chanrjc oj Place of Delivery. 
 
 The defendants agreed f . ooll to the plaintiff 
 a quantity of tow, to be delivered in the United 
 States at a "Boston point," that is, a point to 
 which the freight charged was the same as to 
 Boston, Mass. Both parties contemplated the 
 route from the Suspension Bridge as that by 
 which the tow would be sent, and Bellows' Falls, 
 Vt., a Boston point on that railway system, was 
 the place named by the plaintiff, but subse- 
 quently he desired to have the tow sent to 
 Franklin, N. H., which was not a Boston point 
 on that railway system, and he agreed to pay 
 the arbitrary or extra freight, which he supposed 
 was five cents per 100 pounds. The defendants 
 accordingly consigned the gootls to " Franklin, 
 
1867 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1868 
 
 n 
 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 si 
 
 
 m 
 
 N. H.," iind ii\ tlif onliiiiiry coiirHi' of tinim]iort 
 they wcr«! taken to Hostun, mid tlienic to Fi.'ink- 
 liii, N. H., wIliTu they Mere icciivcil liy tll(; 
 |>liiiiitit}' Hulijci't to iMihv.'iy cliiiiLCM (.'it^illy ex- 
 ci-'i'iliiig the livo (lilts per KHI ]iiiiiiiils. It Imp- 
 |)i'nc'(l tli.'it ]''iiiiikliii WHS 11 I'ldstoii pciiiit upon 
 tlif lini'K of riiilwiiy w itii wliiili tliu ( liunil 'rriink 
 Kiiilwiiy coiiiu'cti'il at St. Alluiiis. iiiiil t lie iK fiMi- 
 diints hiid on one occiision sliippdl two cai' lo.iils 
 from Htations of tint (Iciiul 'I'liink IJaihviiy liy 
 tlmt louti', liut ill foiisi'(|iuii((' of delays nt tlic 
 St. Alliaiis' LiiKtiilii lioiisc, till' plaiiitilt' wrote 
 directing the defeiidiints to «lii)) hy the Suspen- 
 sion Miidgc: Held, that hy tin if coiitnut tiie 
 defendants Mere not l)(pninl to slii)) to Kivuddiii. 
 N. II., wliieli was not a IJoston [idint williin tlie 
 contraet ; and tliat under tlie i iieiiiiistaiicis tlie 
 pliiiiitill', and not tiie defi iidaiits, was hmind to 
 pay the extra freij;lil. The iiidunicni ,,f tiie 
 ijueen's lielieli DiviHimi ntliinied : tliat of tlie 
 Conuiion I'leiis I'ivision icvcised. >','"""'"'■ ^'. 
 JAr'nuixtoiii', 10 A. Ii. 'Xu>. 
 
 8. lircurh nj {'uuilU'iittia as li> Slii/ijiinii. 
 
 'I ho plaintilV ]mreliased a c|iiantity of laiiilis 
 from the defendant to lie consigned to plaiiitifl"s 
 firm lit Hntl'alo, wliieli eonditinii iilaintiH' stated 
 he inserted in the eontiaet " to lieli> our Inisi- 
 nesH, * * and to he!)! Iniild the tiiiii ii))," 
 the linn being a new one. Defeiiclant disre- 
 garded this condition and sliipjied the laiiihs to 
 another name, and |i!aiiititl' refused to aeei'pt 
 delivery. In an aelioii for the dep<- it paid ut 
 the time of the contract and for dainiiges, it 
 was: — Held (aflirniinn Hose, d.), that the term 
 of the bargain as to the matter of consigiiineiit 
 was a material part of it : material to the plain- 
 tiff as the defendant well knew, and following 
 Bowes V. Sliand, '2 Apji. ('as. 45"), that the 
 plaintiff' mu.st succeed. Norriiigton r. Wright, 
 115 U. S. Itep. I,SS. specially referred to. d/c- 
 Leanv. litown, 1.5 O. H. .SI.3.- (hv. I).; Hi A. 
 R. l()(j. 
 
 III. V'lCNDOIl's TiTI.K. 
 
 SeciS/orac)' V. S/iriiK/cr, 7 A. H. 497, infra; h'ar- 
 rintal V. McPonn/d, \) S. ('. R. 12, p. Ksriil. 
 
 IV. KKSCFMlfNC CONTKACT. 
 
 M. by false representations induced T. to sell 
 liiin a horse, buggy and harness, and to take for 
 them two promissory notes. T. having dis- 
 covered the fraud, went and demanded hack his 
 ;;oods, at the same time throw ing the notes on 
 the table. Chi the assurance of Al., however, 
 that on the following Tuesday he would bring 
 the property or satisfaction, T. again took the 
 notes and went away. M. did not appear as he 
 had promised, and T. sued out a writ of replevin 
 against M. but before it had been executed M. 
 sold the property to the plaintitl', an innocent 
 purchaser who having been deprived of it under 
 the replevin, brought trover against the sherifT : 
 
 Held, that the plaintiff' was entitled to re- 
 cover ; that the contract had not ))eeii disaHirm- 
 cd when the writ of replevin issued, and that 
 the mere issue of it was no notice to M. of 
 disaffirmance, and could not affect the plaintiff. 
 SloMtr V. SpriiKjer, 7 A. R. 497. 
 
 The defendantH contracted to purchiiHO a (piun- 
 titv of old iron rails fiom the plaintilf eoini any, 
 to lie paid for as each KK) tons were delivered. 
 The plailitills eoiisigiierl 1,|."() tens out of l,;;00 
 tons slipiilateil for, and drew for tlii^ amount 
 thereof at tlu^ iign ed price, which draft tlu' (!(• 
 feiidiints refused to iiecept under tlie erroiiemiH 
 belief that a portion of tlie iron ehargid for had 
 not lieen received by tlieiii, ami iiiforinid the 
 liluintiir cdiiipany of the ground of their refusal 
 to accept the draft: Held, adiriiiiiig the jiidg. 
 iiieiit of the (^1. l;. I). -JO. !!. I, tliat this ietii>al 
 to aeee]it wiiM not, under the eirciimstaiu'es, siicji 
 an Jiet lis to warrant the plaintill's in ticatiiig it 
 as a repiidiati.m of the contract, or such as 
 \\ iiild 11 lease the plaintiUs fioin a further ) er- 
 foiniaiicc of it. \Vliat would animiiit to siieli a 
 ri|illiliatioil eonsidcrcil. Mii/fdicl IliiihrdiJ fit. 
 V. (iiiliiiio lldlCnij M'ill.-<, 10 A. I;. (177. 
 
 II., doing business at Halifax, X. S., was 
 aceiistoined to sell liiiies to .1. I., of ricti.ii. 
 Their usual eourn^ ol business was lor II. to ship 
 a lot of goods consigned to .). I,., and send a note 
 for the price acc'cinliiig to his mvii estimate of 
 ^^( ight, etc., which vas snbjcet to a future r<'- 
 liate if till ic was foiiiul to he any ih iicieiuy. ( )ii 
 I Ith .Inly, ItSSl, a shipineiit was nndc liy It, in 
 the usual Kiiirse and a note was giu'ii by ,1. I,., 
 which II., caused to be discounted. The goods 
 eaiiic fioiii rietoii l-amliiig and reniaintcl tlnio 
 until .Viignsl ,"tli, when .1. L. sent his lighteriiiaii 
 for some other goods and he tiiuiing the goods 
 sliiijied by II. I.idiiglit tin in up in his lighter. 
 '1 he IK xt day ,J. \.. was informed of their 
 arrival and he caused tliciii to be , tored in the 
 \\aielious<' of 1). L. where he had other goods, 
 with instructions to keep them for tlu^ parties 
 who had sent them. The same day he sent a 
 telegram to II. as follows : "In trouble. Have 
 stored hides. Apjioint sonic one to take care of 
 them.' 11., iiniiiediat(dy came to I'icton and 
 having learned what was don.^, expresseil 
 himself satisfied. He asked if he would take 
 them away, but w,is assured by ,1. L. that I lii'y 
 
 i were ail right and left them in the. warehouse. 
 
 On (ith August, a levy was niad ^ under an 
 execution of the I'iclou IJank against .). L., on 
 all his pid]ierty that tlic^ slicritl could find, hut 
 the goods in (|iiestioii were not iiu'luded in the 
 levy. On I'Jtli August .J. L., gave to the hank 
 
 1 a bill of sale of all his hides in the warehouse of 
 
 ' 1). L., and the bank iiidemnitied I ). 1.,. and took 
 possLssii'ii under such bill i,1 sale of the hides so 
 shipped by H. and stored in said warehouse. In 
 a suit by II. against the bank and I). L. for the 
 wronijful detention of such goods : - Held, alliriu- 
 iiig tlie judgment of the court below, tliat tlie 
 contract of sale between.). I,, and H. was res- 
 cinded by the action of .1. L. in refusing to take 
 possession of the goods when they arrived at 
 Ills place of business and handing them over 
 to l>. L. with direction to hold them for the eoii- 
 
 ' siguor, and in notifying the consignor w ho ae- 
 (piiesced and adopted tTie act of .J. 1.., whereby 
 
 [ the property in and possession of the goods bu- 
 
 1 cam(! revested 'ii H. ; and there was, eoiise- 
 (juciitly, no title to the goods in d. 1,. on the 
 
 ' I'Jth August when the bill of sale was made to 
 the bank. I'klnu lUitik v. Ilamy, 14 S. ('. 
 H. 017. 
 
 j The plaintiff with the intention of parting 
 with the possession and property in certain Hour 
 
1868 
 
 irolmso ft (iiiun- 
 intitrcdiiiiiuiy, 
 rtcic iliilivcrcil. 
 iiM out of l,;;oo 
 
 OV tllC MIIIOIMit 
 ll (lliltt tilt! lid. 
 
 till' einiiiciiim 
 lmr.i,'(i| f(ir liad 
 iiit'innii i| till! 
 )t' tliiii- rrfiisiil 
 iiiiii;; till' jiiilj,'- 
 liiit tliiw IClllSllI 
 
 llllhtiUU'CH, Slll'll 
 
 ill treating' it 
 
 I'l, I'V Slll'll ii.s 
 
 11 I'liitlicr 1 tr- 
 
 lllllllt til Sllcll il 
 
 '/ lltiiliniii I 'fi. 
 (i77. 
 
 1. 
 
 X. S., was 
 
 iif I'ictiiii. 
 
 I >r 1 1. tii.slii|i 
 
 ImI Sl'llll il iKltC 
 
 11 I'stiiiiatt' of 
 
 t" .'1 flltUll.' II'. 
 
 ill .iriiiiry. Oil 
 
 i liniK' \,y If. ill 
 
 uiu'ii liy ,1. I,., 
 
 Il'li. 'i'llr ^IJliils 
 
 niii.'iilinl tilrio 
 
 It Ills li;,'litriliiaii 
 
 iilili;,' till' gdiiil.s 
 
 I ill his li^'liti'i'. 
 
 nlllil'il of tliiii- 
 
 lu , loi't'il in I 111,' 
 
 ail fitliur yonilM, 
 
 1 for till! [liirtios 
 
 .' ilay lie siiit ;i 
 
 tidiilili". KaVK 
 
 10 til takt! care of 
 
 e to I'ic'tou and 
 
 loili', I'XJIK'Sslll 
 
 111' would take 
 .). L. that thi'y 
 tin: Villl'llOllsi'. 
 
 mill ', under aa 
 lyainst .J. I,., on 
 
 eoiilil tinil, liiii, 
 
 iiiehiileil ill the 
 l.ivu to the hank 
 he wareliouse of 
 I l». L. and took 
 c of the hides so 
 1 « alehouse. In 
 ml I). L. for the 
 
 : — Held, alliiin- 
 Iielow, tiiat the 
 mil II. was IIS- 
 refusing to take 
 they airived at 
 ding tlieni over 
 hem for thecoii- 
 isignor will) ae- 
 
 •). 1,., wlierehy 
 if the goods he- 
 ei'c was, eonse- 
 iii J. I,, on the 
 lie wiia iiiadc to 
 irvcy, 14 S. ('. 
 
 tioii of jiarting 
 I ill cci'tiviii Hour 
 
 1869 
 
 SALE OF GOODS. 
 
 1870 
 
 y 
 
 UN 
 
 mado an ahRoIiite miln of tlio sumo on niiimrcnt- diviniiL'eH uhieh thn nnnr.ll,.iif 1,„ i .„u. • i 
 ly Miort t.'nn« of ere.lit to the defeml^ilit who ' to wit ti::.^^^:.;^?^ ',,,': 7 S^;^ 
 withheld from phimtilf Ins iiiteiition to pay fill' ' ' i"'" < "' <" u\i ly 
 
 the flour by Hetting up a eliiiui lie had iiei|uii'ei| 
 HgHilist the plaiiitilf: Held, tint this did not 
 constitute 11 fraud on the defendant's part so as 
 toc'iititle the plaiiitilf to disaHirin the eontiiii't 
 and replevy the lloiir. llab r v. A'mA/c. |!I () 
 K (KiO.-C. I'. I». 
 
 Iietweeii the valuo when the aeeeptanee w„ 
 refused and the eoiitrai't price, niid other iiei 
 essiiy eX|,eliHes, the ailloiinl of wliieli, liiiliif 
 a matter ot evideliee, was inoperlv within tlio 
 proviiiie of the eoiirl, lalow hi delermiiie. 
 Clin/, 11,1111 V. /.arlii, 4 ,S. C. |{, ;t4i,). 
 
 i^iso linisiirl V. .VfE'iriii, ino, I!, i;<(, p. KS71 
 
 V. I'UOCKKIIISIIS ON Covri! \('T. 
 I. I'fiiiii IJiiJ.lc. 
 
 Whore one liroiight an aetion against llie 
 registered owners of a eertain ves^l for the 
 value of goods su|iplied lieforc! they lieraiiie siieli 
 owners, not "II the order of the defindaiits, hut 
 on tliii order of one (!. V, , ln'twren whom and 
 the defend.iids no relation of agency was pioviil ; 
 
 Held, that the plaiiitiir could not recover: - 
 Held, also, that it was open to the dct'endaiits |o 
 Bhow that their n:\\ iiilerest was that of iiiort'.'a 
 goes, though osteiisilily registered owners. 'I'lie 
 fa«t that the veiscl got the lieiielit of the sup- 
 pli(;a and neecssarics did not make the legist cied 
 «>wiier liahle. Xr/son v. ]V' //<■, S (), H. H'2 _ 
 lloyd. 
 
 See Ffictullji V. Cuimili Tniv-iil f',,., |(t (). It. 
 7.W, p. ISoO: Mi/lir v. .Syc/i/c/iw,;, |i; ,s. ('. |; 
 722. 
 
 2. For you-Pc/iivri/ <ir Kon-Arceiilinu'e. ; 
 
 (a) DniiKti/ia. I 
 
 On the Ttli M.iy, IS74, the appellant sold to' 
 the n^spondeiit ."(III tons of hae. The writing, 
 which was signed li\- llm appelliiit alone, wiisiii 
 foUowiiig terms L "Sold to (1. \ (', i'Oi) tons of 
 tiinuthy hay of liest ipiality, at the |ii'ice of .$'21 ! 
 pur ton of f. o. ll. ]ii'iipelleis in canal, Montreal, 
 at aiieh times and in such (piantities as the said 
 (}. A. C. shall order. The said hay to lie per- 
 fectly sound and dry when delivered on hoard, 
 and weight tested if re(|uired. The same to ho 
 paid for on ilelivery of each lot hy orderor 'Irafl I 
 on self, at the U.iiik of Montreal, the same to ho ; 
 consigned to order of Doniinioii IJiink, Tiirnnto." I 
 In exeeulion of this contract, the appellanl dc- ! 
 liveroil 147 tons and thirtv-three pounds ot hay, I 
 aft<tr wdiieh the respondent iefii.sed to rceeivo ' 
 any nioro. The aiijiellaut having several times I 
 notified the res]ioiidi nt. both verbally imd in | 
 writing, by foinial protest on the "-'Stli 'Inly, > 
 1874, rei|uesteil him to take delivery of (he re- 
 maining :\'}i tons of hay. <'n the 1 1th of Xovem- 
 lier following, the appellant brought an action 
 of damages for breach of contract, bv which ho 
 claimed .5,*?, 417. 77, to wit, .S2,47l diU'erence be- 
 tween the actual value of the hay at the date of | 
 tho protest and the eontraet jiriee. and S!)4H.77 j 
 for extra cx|)cnpes which tlica))pellant ii'-.urred, 
 owing to tlio rctusil of the respondent to fulfil i 
 lii.s contract :-ireld, that such a eontraet was i 
 to }>ii executed within a rcisonablo time, and 
 that, from the ovidonec of the usage of trade, 
 tho delivery, under the cireuinstances, was to 
 be made before tho now crop of hay, and that 
 the respondent, being in default to receive 
 the hay when required, was bound to pay the 
 
 Oil the mil of duly. ISS,-,, the plaintilV, a eat- 
 Me dciler, bought from defciidaiit forty-two 
 
 ^ head ot cattle for S'J,77l', and paid .«?'.>( »0 on ae- 
 <'i>uiit. (he difcndaut to retain the animals on 
 Ills pasture until in a eondilioii lit for the Kii.r- 
 Ml inaiki't, for which they were to the kliow- 
 ledi,'eolthe defendant piiVcliascd by the plain- 
 till', 'riiedcfeiidaul iii-ist iiig that he was bound 
 to rel iiiithe cattle until the 'JOtli of Aii^-u-it only, 
 on the ISth Sepleinhcr, wrnle to the plaintiil", 
 rei|iiiiing him to "settle for the cattle and take 
 
 Ithiinaway before the •.'7th instant, or I will 
 sell Ijie cattle again to get my money out of 
 thciii.' The |)1 lintiir, not having acted upon 
 this notice, the ilcfcndaiit on the "illi of October 
 sold torty of the cattle at a loss, and r. fused to 
 refniid the deposit. In an aetion brought by 
 the plaiiitiir, the evidence, as to the exact 
 teinis of the eontr.iet, was eontradictory, but 
 the jury found in favour of tlie iiliiiitilfs ver- 
 sion, and gave a verdict for the full ;iiiioiiiit of 
 dejiosit, which on a motion in.ide in term, tliu 
 judge of the County (,'ourt refused to disturb. 
 On apped. this court being of opiuloii that 
 
 ^the plaiiilitr could waive the breach of con- 
 tract and simiily sue for recovery of the money 
 paid, allirmed the judgment of the court below, 
 with costs. Miiinuj v. J/iiirliiii.<(,ii, 1 1 .V K. 
 4S!). 
 
 Sec .]ffC!iitr V. Kriuli-.iiin\ (i O. I!. 4S(). p. 
 "St).'!; Dfiwhl v. Tfinm'inn. !) O. \l. "ilid. I'J .\. 
 K. (i.-i!!: l;i S. ( '. I!. ao;{, p. ISIi'J; /l,;lr,im v. Mrr. 
 
 ■■ill/ M.iii,if(i,-inriiiii r,,., b"> 0. K. oKi. p. lS(i.-|. 
 
 (b) Olhn- Ciuex. 
 
 Held that to an action by an aasignec of an ac 
 count for the priei', of lumber and stives de- 
 livered by the assi^Tiior to the defendant under 
 two cert:',iii cnitracts therefor, the det'endiiut 
 under R. ,S. O. (1S77), e IKi, s.s. 7, 10 ^nd the 
 .fiidieatiire Act, ss. 1'.', Hi, and Iliilc I'i7, (Con. 
 1'ule '.\''M eaii set up as a defenci! ji claim for 
 dauia'.'c for the non-delivery by the aisigiior to 
 the defendant of eert liu other timber and staves 
 speeilicd in the eonlracts, and for the iiiferim" 
 ipiality of those delivered. Per Osier, .J., his 
 right to do so depended wholly upon R. S. O. 
 (lS77)e, 110,8. 10. In this eise the judge, at 
 the trial, having refused to entertain the former 
 del'enee, a new tri d was ordered, li.cc/iani/i'. 
 Haul; V. Sfiiison, 32 C. P. I'lS.— C. V. I). 
 
 Sec Midliiwi l{. fV. Co. v. OiUnriii /{„//}>,</ 
 MilU Co., 2 O. R. I ; 10 A. R. (177, p. IHGH. 
 
 Vr. Stoppack IN' Tbansitu. 
 
 The plaintifi's, merchants in Hoston, sold and 
 consigned goods to .1. C. & Son, in Toronto. 
 While the goods were held by the railway com- 
 pany in T., J. C. & Son assigned to the defen- 
 dant as trustee for the benefit of creditors. The 
 
1871 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1872 
 
 T 
 
 Pi' 
 
 
 nI 
 
 defciiiliiiit, iininpiliattily iiftur tliu nHMi|{iiiii<'iit, 
 piiBMuil liiiil ciiforcil tliu kiiikIh, niid jiiiiil tliciliity 
 tlict'CDii, ami tint railway coiiipaiiy ri'iiiovcil the 
 CDods fiiHii tliii ciixtoiiiH WiU'ulioiiHf til tlicir 
 freight nIu'iIh, wlwtiti tlicy riiiiaiiu-il, ami ilclis'i.'ry 
 wai ri'fiiMcil to till' ilcfi'iiilant fill' iiiiii'iu'iiiliirtioii 
 Ity liiiii of II liill of iii'liii^, ami tlu' firi;;lit waH 
 not (laiil or ti'iulvi'i'il. Tim iilairitlMs having 
 ■to|i|)i'>l tlic ({iiimIh :--'llt'li|, timt tlic tnuiMJtiiH 
 was not at an I'liil, for tliat tlii' railway I'liniiiany 
 continiii'il to lioM tlut ^moiIh hh rariiri'.i, ami not 
 n« a^jcntH for the ilifcnilant. 'i'lii' )iliiiiiliH-( li.ul, 
 III.' fore tiny Htojipi'il tlir ^ooiIm in ti'iinsitil, lirovcil 
 tlK'ir I'l.iinifor tliu gooilson tin' rstiitc of .1. ('. iV 
 Kiiii : lli'M, that tliJH iliil not i|c privi' tlnni of 
 tlii'ir liHlils HM lii'ii liiililrrs, or all'iTl llu'ir rii;lit to 
 »to|i till' hooiIm in tiansitil, Miiniaii /■Jnn/o/H' 
 I',). V. I!(„is/,a,/, 7 (), K. 007.- ti». li. I>. 
 
 I'cr ('iinii'ron, ('. •!,, Mtoppii^i' in trannitii iIoon 
 not roscind ii I'ontrai't on tlii' xalr of j{iioiIm, Init 
 nii'iilv jjivrH till' vindor a lii'ii on tlio yoodM for 
 tliidr jirii'i'. ltnisH,il v. Mrh'irn,, |(H >. 11. I7!». 
 
 If., of Souris I'. K. F., L'arrird on (lir l)iiMin("<'< 
 <if lolistrl' |iiirUili^', Kcndin;,' Ills goods to M , of 
 llalifix N. S,, w lio sii|i|ilii'il hini with tin plitiH, 
 etc. 'I'lii'y liad di'iilt in tliin wa\' for Roviral 
 Voars, wlic'M, in ISS'i, II. Hliippi'd I.SII cusi's of 
 ticcf via rirtoii ami I. ('. I!., iuIiIii'mmiiI to M, 
 Tliu liill of iii'liiiL; for this sjiipni.'iit was si'iit to 
 M., luid |iro\ idi'd that tlii' f,'o'ids Wiio to lii' 
 dcl'vi'ii'd lit rictoii 111 till' frci^dit iitji'iit of tim 
 1. C. It. or his assigns, tlm freight to lii^ p:iy- 
 aide in Halifax. M., tluM'onsigm'i', lii'iiig on the 
 verge of iiHolvenoy, indorsod the liill of lading 
 to AIi'.M. to Hi'iniri! ai'i'oininodation iioi'cptanci'j 
 H. drew on M. for the value of the lonsigminnt, 
 lint the draft was not iK'ee|ited, and ll. then 
 directed the agent of the I. (". H. not to deliver 
 the gooila. The goods had licen forwarded 
 from I'ictou, and the agent there telegraphed 
 to the agent nt Halifax to hold them. AleM. 
 apfdied to the agent at Halifax for the goods, 
 «iul tendered the freight, hut didiveiy was 
 refused. In a replevin «uit .against the llalifax 
 agent; — Held, allirining the judgment of the 
 court below, Henry, J. di.ssenting, that the 
 goods were sent to the agent at IMelou to be 
 forwarded, and that he had no other interest in 
 them, or right or duty conneoted with them, 
 than to forward them to their destination, and 
 could not authorize the agent at Halifax to 
 retain them : — Held, also, that whether or not 
 ft legal title to the goods passed to McM. the 
 position of the agent in retaining the goods was 
 simply that of a wrongdoer, and MeM. had sueh 
 an equitable interest in such goods, and right 
 to the possession thereof, as would iirevcnt the 
 agent from withhidding them. McDonnId v. Mc- 
 Phernon, 12 S. C. H. 41 (i. 
 
 The plaintiff sold to fJ. a quantity of leather, 
 which was to be sent to the purchaser at 1*. by 
 railway. The shipping bill contained, amongst 
 others, the following conditions; " In all eases 
 * • the delivery of goods will be considered 
 complete and the responsibilities of the company 
 shall terminate when the goods are placed in the 
 company's shed or warehouse, * * when they 
 shall have arrived at the place to be reached 
 upon the railway of the company. The ware- 
 housing of them will be at the owner's risk," 
 who was to be liable for any charges for storing 
 them otherwise than in the warehouse of the 
 
 company. " .Storage will bo uharged on all 
 freight remaining in the deiiotH over fortyeight 
 hoin'M after its arrival." While the leather re 
 liiaineil in thi^ warehouse of the railway company 
 at I'., the puri'haser requested the station agent 
 that it might be kept for him by the 'ompany 
 until he could lind time to remove it, and askeil 
 him not to eliarge storage, hut the agent mule 
 no proniisi! ; and Hiibseqiienlly the sheiilV iiaid 
 the I'liiirges thereon, Hri/i'd the leutlier niider a 
 writ of utiaeliininl Nii'd out by the defi'iidants, 
 and reniovi'd the Niiine I'lolii the nIoIi's of the 
 lailway eompany to t he shop of I i. ; llehl, that 
 this dill not deprive the vendor of his right to 
 slop till' g Is ill transitu. Mr/.,iiii v. /Init/i 
 
 nil/,/, !•_' A. K. ;is;(. 
 
 The defendants, iiiip.iid vendors of goods, 
 shipped them over tin' ( I in ml Trunk l!:iil\\.iy to 
 
 the vendee at \V. When the g Is arrived the 
 
 railway eoinpany's agent at W. sent an adviee 
 notiee to the vendee, wlni refused to take it. 
 After this the veiilie .issigmd to the plaintill 
 for the beii'lit of his iri'ditors, iiml the plaintid 
 as soon as the iissignineiit was ileliveri'd to him 
 produeed it to the r.iiluiiy lompiuy's agent and 
 claimed the goods, olViring to p:iy the freight, 
 but piiMliniiig no iidvire noliee. Tln^ agent did 
 not ri'fuse to deliver the goods, but staled that, 
 aei'iiiding t i the rulrs of the I'oinpany, when 
 the jirrson ehiimiiig the goods was an assigin'e 
 for the lieuelit of ereilitors, his dutv w.is to 
 telegraph to the i'oni|iauy's solieitor lor instruc 
 tioiis ; be did so telegrajih, but before he re 
 eiived an luiswel' .'11111 on the .miiue day tliede 
 fiiidants notilied biiii not to deliver the goods to 
 the vendee or his a^'signee, iissuining a right to 
 stop them in transitu :- Held (l''ali'iinliridge, ,!., 
 dissenting), tli it the ai.'tion of the railway com 
 pany's agent in delaying till herereived instruc- 
 tions was not wrongful ; that till' traiisilus was 
 not at an end when the det'endants interviuied, 
 and the right of stopiiago was well exercised. 
 Awhrsan v. FUh, Hi (i. K. ■17(1. —Q. B. 1). 
 Aliirmcil on appeal, 17 A. li. '2.S. 
 
 II 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 I. .St.atutk of Pkauds. 
 
 1. Note or Mcmorandunit 1874. 
 
 2. Part Per/iirmniicfl, 1S7(». 
 C'>nti(A(;t III- .S.vi.K. 
 
 1. liy Letteri or Tftii/raiiis — Se.r C'iin- 
 
 'IKACI'. 
 
 2. Conslritcihiii, IS7S. 
 
 .^. When Till)!' w o/' the. /'J-:si iire nf Ihf. 
 Coittrarl, 1882. 
 
 4. IMirnry of /'oHxcxnion, I8S.'J. 
 
 5. Sak Acconliii'i to Plan, I8S3. 
 
 6. Descrip/ioti of Land, 
 
 (a) Unknown QnanlUy, 1884. 
 
 (b) Othar Crtfci—Sec Uekd. 
 
 7. Compenitttion. 
 
 (a) For lircaclirs in Carrying out 
 Contract, 1884. 
 
 (b) For Miarepreupjitafion in Adrer- 
 tisemcnt of Sale hi/ Auction, 
 1885. 
 
1872 
 
 ' iliHi-f^iil (III nil 
 oVLT loity cinht 
 
 It' tlio Ifatlutr ri' 
 iiiilwuv «.()iii|niiiy 
 I III! Mtatiiiii iij^L'iit 
 liy tllf 'ii||l|i,'iiiy 
 
 ovc it. mill iiHki-il 
 tllU IIKllll u\u\c. 
 Mm Hliciill' iiiiiii 
 li'iil licr iiiii|(.r II 
 
 tllc ilrf.'MrluiltN, 
 II' Ntdll'S (if till' 
 
 '<'•• ll<'l.l. that 
 I' "t lii^ ii;,'lif, f(, 
 '•■l.iiiii \\ lli-iilh 
 
 iiloi'.s (if ^M((i|k_ 
 milk l!;iil\\,iy I,,' 
 MiiJM iuiivcirtli,. 
 ■ Nciil iiii iidviic 
 I"*!!'! Ill tak(! it,. 
 I 111 llii^ plainiitl 
 okI till' jilaiiitill 
 ili'livcicii to liiiii 
 
 p uiy's nuciit and 
 ji.iyllic freight, 
 Tile ayciit (ijij 
 liiil Htalcil tlial, 
 i^iilli|)aiiy, will. II 
 was an aMMij»ii|.(. 
 iH duty Was to 
 
 I'iliir for iiistriK; 
 
 It Id'forc li(i |•(^ 
 
 iitiK! day tlir- dc 
 
 iVCI' tll('';,',hMlsto 
 
 miiii« a ri;.'lit to 
 ''ali'onliiidi,'!', ,(., 
 ln' railway i-oin 
 rcii'ivi'd iiisti'iic- 
 lii' ti'ansitiiH WIS 
 uit.s iiiti'iv(!ii(..(i, 
 
 < W(!l| (•\(!lcis('l|. 
 
 t. 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 187S 
 
 m, 1874. 
 .S7(!. 
 
 •aim — Sec C'liN- 
 
 (, ISS3. 
 (K, 18S3. 
 
 y, 1884. 
 Deki). 
 
 Garryinrj out 
 
 tii»i ill Ailvtr- 
 e. bji Auction, 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1874 
 
 8. JiiUreil nml Taxf», 1H85. 
 
 9. Hfil -S,'f l)KKt.. 
 
 10. ^f|||i;|ll;|r nr Sale S'l' Wnnri'SCF.. 
 
 11. Coi'i'iiiihli nil Sdh' -.S'('( CoVKNANT — 
 
 ('(IVKNANTS yi)li 'I'lTI.K. 
 \'2. Fraiiil nml .Miiri/irfH'-iilfilinn — i9«!« 
 
 l''n\tT|l AMI MiSKKI'llKHKNTAllllN. 
 
 13. S/i'fi/ic I'frfiiniiiiiiiU' -See Si'Kcii'IC 
 
 I'r.iiidUM \N('i;. 
 
 14. I'liirlK'"! lit' Trint I'fii/ii lii/ III/ TriH- 
 
 tern — .Vcr Tld'HTH ANI> Tlll'STKI-.S. 
 1.5, //(/ Aiir/liiil SV»; ArCTIOS ASK 
 
 Alci iiisi-.ijis. 
 III. Tin.r.. 
 
 1. (I'liiiil Tl/li, issti, 
 
 2. AhMi-iifi, I MM". 
 .1. 1 11 at mil I'll mix. 
 
 (ll) Hull' I'liy II hii'dli'r ill ,l('//o)lj» 
 
 fur /III I'ln-rliii-^r Mum I/, |SS7. 
 (ll) I'linliilif S'lilijnl 'III Miiilijiuii', 
 
 isss. 
 
 ((•) l>i^l•|l<ll■l|l■ iif lijl Villlll,l-,\S{W. 
 
 4. h'rlihiift of Tillo, !>!((). 
 
 n. Cliiiiil on Til/i; LSI,!'. 
 
 fi. C.i.v/,y, IS!i:t. 
 
 7. OlliirCrisii, IMiW. 
 
 8. ('iiiiipriixiiliiiii fur {iiipriii'i iiiniltuiiili'r 
 
 Misliih' of 'I'iilr Sr,i hii'unvK- 
 mi;nth (IN Lanii. 
 
 9. Coi'euaiitii/iif Title — Sfc Cm t.sants 
 
 F(IK TlTI.K. 
 
 10. OiilxldiiiUiin Diiirrr — .SVc DowKK. 
 
 11. Apiiliciiliuiu iiiiilir It. S. 0. c. Jii!> — 
 
 iSVc Vksiioks ash 1'i'ik'm askks' 
 
 A(!T. 
 
 12. Kffir/ of KulU'i' iiiiili-i- Iho l!,ijiilrij 
 
 Lair.i—Srf HKiirsTitv Laws. 
 
 13. QiiiiliiHi Titli;^ — See Qriinis'i! 
 
 TiTr.Ks, 
 
 TV. Pkkpakation ami Tknhku ok Dkkh, 
 1 89 1. 
 
 V. Vknmiiik's l.iKN, 1895. 
 
 VI. I!ks('!N!ii\(; .Sai.i;. 
 
 1. Oi-iin-ally, 18!)0. 
 
 2. For Fraiiil—Si'e l''nAt'ii ash Mis- 
 
 KKCHKHKNTATION. 
 
 VII. .Sai.ks i'iiiiTa.xks --.S'ec Assks.s.mknt ami 
 'I'axks. 
 
 VIII. Sai.r ok Cruii's - "'"c C'luii'.s. 
 
 IX. ('kdwn FjANDS—.S!.: Crown Lamis. 
 
 X. DOWKU— .'?(■'' DoWKK. 
 
 XI. ExonANoE OK Lands— .^(fi ExcirAsnE. 
 XII. Sale Undkk Kxkcut'.on— .Sft*^ Exftcr- 
 
 TION. 
 
 XIII. SAt.E iiY ExEciToKs and Aijmimstka- 
 
 ToRs— .SVc ExKOuroKs and Ad.mini.s- 
 
 TR.VTOR.S. 
 
 XIV. Fixri;REs— See Fixtures. 
 
 XV. Married Women's Property — See 
 
 Hu.SBAND AND WlKE. 
 
 118 
 
 XVI. Infant's Estatr— .9m Infant. 
 
 .\VII, I.ANinoiiD <iiviN(i Fai.sk NoTirp. or 
 Sai.k .S'i( I.amii.orh ami Tenant. 
 
 XVIII. Sale ITnueii I'owkiis in MuuroAoit - 
 Srf .MmiTii m;e. 
 
 XI.\. SAt.K IN I'ahIITIHN I*l|ilC'l'.K|lIN(IM--i$C« 
 i I'AIiriTION. 
 
 .\'.\. Sat.k rNUKU OiiiiKR OK Till'; ("oriiT 
 .Vi' Sale oi I, ami nv ((iidkii m' the 
 
 ColliT. 
 .\.\l. Sm.kTi) mi I'lV li'viiwws See I!aII.- 
 
 WAVs AND Railway ('omi'aniks. 
 .XXII. Sale oI' T'miii;ii--.Vc<' Timiikii. 
 
 X.NIII. Sm.K liV 'riil'STEEH — .S'(P, TufSTS AND 
 'I'lllSTKIlS. 
 
 1. Sr\Ti TK ()!• I''ru US. 
 
 1. Xiifi III- Miiiiuriiiiiliiiii. 
 
 Wlii'ica wi itti'ii a'ii'ccnii'nt foi- tlipsalc of land 
 ('iHifaiMiil tile fiillowili;,' cniidilioli nf nali', " 'I'lic 
 Vi'iiiiiir shall jiavi' tin' ii|iti'iii of i\ I'l'scrvi'd liiil 
 wliicli is MOW iilaci'il ill llii'lian Is of tlic ai'ction 
 , ctT," ami tlir rcsii'vc Mil was woidi'd a'< fol- 
 lows, " I'i'sali'of .Alliii Wiliiint's faini, rcsi'rv(!i? 
 I lild, .<il()."i IKM' acre:" Held, tint tlw aliovc 
 . Words, even llioiiiili riad to^itlicr.isllii'y slioiild 
 I 111', did not so idi'iitify llic vnidor as to s.al isfy 
 I till! ,St;it\iti' of l''i'aiids. " Vciidnr " is not a siiflj- 
 j cii'iit di'si'i'iption of tlid parly sclliiij; to satisfy 
 ' i\H\ rc(|iiiri'iii('iits of tlic said statute, Wilinot v. 
 Sliilhn; •_' (». I!. 7H. lioyd. 
 
 .\., wliosi^ wifi' owiird a ci'rt.iin ficrliold jiro- 
 pi'i'ty on St, di'iii'i.;!' sti'i'ct, wi'oti'lol!. tin; owner 
 of a rortaiii li'ascinild property on Kiiij; street, 
 with rcfcri'iii'i' to the said properties as follows: 
 " If yon will assume my mortu'ik'i', ini'l p'ly mo 
 j in eash S.i.TOtt. I will assume yoiir iiiorti,'a;;o of 
 ' .?."i,00(loii the leasehold:" and IJ. replied, " Vour 
 I olfer of this date, for the exehan;,'(^ of my pro- 
 t perly on Kini; street for your property on St. 
 I (leoi'f^e street, I will aeeept on your terms :" — 
 ' Held, allirmin;,' the jiidjj;nicnt of l''erj,'Uson, .(. (2 
 0. I!. 00!)) not a Kuilieieiit ineauiraiidiini of the 
 onntraet to satisfy the Statute of l''rauds. (Ar- 
 mour. .1., douiitiiiL'.) yfi'<'liiiiii V. McUriirken, 
 3 0, R. .")!)(!. -(^ 1'.. I). 
 
 Per I'roudfoot. .1.-- It lieiii^ proveil that the 
 foniiei' will in this eisn was mah' pursuant to 
 an alleged ai.'re.'ment that will mijjht lie con- 
 sidered as evidenee of the aj^rc :ir.e!it. and WU8 
 evidenee in writinj,' sallieient to satisfy the Sta- 
 tute of Frauds. < 'iimiihrlt v. MiKerriiher, (i O. 
 R. 8.-1. 
 
 At a tax sale of land, .1. R. R. ami T. A. K., 
 finding,' there would lie a eoiitesfc lii'tween them 
 for lots 1118 and 1119, sij^'iied an agreement, 
 with their initials in the mir;^in at the liottom 
 of the paf,'e of the ( ! izette, containing the list of 
 lands to he sold as fallows : 
 Mr. .1. I!. K. i.\ We liny on joint ae.;'t (".LR. R. 
 
 " [of Ills,' ami 1119 she- ^ 
 Mr. T. A.K. I I riir's Xos. above. (T.A.K. 
 
 The slieritl "s iiumliei's had not lieen printed 
 in the (ia/.ette, ImtT. A, K. hal preti-Ked them 
 in ink to most of the parcels on tliat pige of the 
 (Jazette, including Xos. 1118 and 1119. It was 
 not stated anywhere in that list that these num- 
 
1875 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1876 
 
 Ihts wurc! sheriff 'h iiumbcrH. J. H. M. liaviii},' 
 Iml for tilt! lots, and afterwards eaused tli(Mii to 
 1)0 odiiveyc'd to 15. , 'I'. A. K. now ^roiiL'Tit this 
 aeticin against J. R. K. and !>., elainiiiiu,s|)e(ilie 
 perfdrin.'ince of the aliovo .iffreenient, and a de- 
 eliiration that J. R. It. and 15. wen; tnisteea tnr 
 liiinof un undivided iiiiiiety of the huuLs : Held, 
 ailirniin^ the decision of I'roudfoot, .)., that tlie 
 al)Ove eonstitlited a siini(tient nienioiaiidiini of 
 the agreeniiiit within (he Statute; of i''rauds. j 
 The manner of paying the anioi .it of 'axes, or liy I 
 whom payment was io Ix; made;, wi'-i not oiw; of | 
 tlio essentials of theeontract as liet'veen the par- 
 ti(!s. The ini])lication of law woidn he thai w iio- j 
 ever paid ,so as to (lomjilete tlie sale slioiihl iiave 
 eontrihution of a moiety from tlic othei' : Held, ; 
 linther, that the ilefeiidunl appending not having 
 pleaded the defenet; of the statute, could not 
 elaini tin; hiMU'lit of it;- -Held, also, tliat the 
 • ihove iigreemeut was not illegal, nor did itniaU(; 
 any diU'ereiice that it was a ta.\ sale. AM /( /■ v, 
 /{oaf, SO. 1!.()!).- Chy. I ). 
 
 The ))laintill' who was mortgagee of c(;rtaiii 
 lands, alleged tliat I,., the present holder of the 
 mortgage, purcha.sed it fi'oni < '. « ilu know ledge I 
 of the fact that C'. had i)urcliascd it from the | 
 original mortgagee as trustee for the plaintili', | 
 who was to lie allowed to redeem on paying what- 
 ever C. .slunild pay for the nuirtg.-ige, and a cer- 
 tain .idditional sum for (Vs services ; and sought 
 to redeem on ]iaynicnt of what was due under 
 the said agreement with ( '. ; — Held, that the 
 above agreement ffell within the Statute of 
 Frauds, and slunild lie evidenced in writing : — 
 Held, also, that even if this were not so, L. could 
 not be atl'ecled Iiy such agre(!iiicnt. having iiur- 
 chaaed ■without notice of it. Wiit/lil v. /■I'l/", S 
 O. R. 88 -Chy. 1). 
 
 Where property was sohl by auction. th(; par- 
 tieii1ar.s and conditions of sale not disclosing the 
 vendor's name, and tluMMintraet was duly signed 
 by the purcliascr, linr, was not hy ll:e vendor or 
 the auctioneiM' acting in the m.itterof sale, and 
 Bubsequciitly, in conse(|Uencc of delays on the 
 part of tin; pureha>er, the .attorneys I'or the ven- 
 dor (one of whom was the vendor liiinself) wrote, 
 " Ke S. 's purchase, we would like to clo.se this,'' 
 And referring tiu'ertain repre.sent.ations made in 
 the advertisenii'lits of the sale: "They were 
 not made jiart of the contract of sale. * * 
 Have tlie gooilness to let us ki"n\ whctlicr the 
 vendee will pay cash or yive' mortg.ige. If the 
 latter we will prepare it at once and send you 
 draft for .approval ; " and on a sulisci|Ucnt oeca- 
 aion : " lie .S.'s jiiirchase. Ileri^wilh jilcase re- 
 ceive deed for approval." and on another occa- 
 sion the vendor liimself wrote, " I sliali take im- 
 mediate Hte|is to ent'orce the (contract'": — Meld, 
 ivflirming the judgment of the courts lielow ("28 
 (Uiy. '207; 8A. i!. Kil), that the conditions of 
 sale together with the correspondonei; Meresulll- 
 eiont to constitute a eomplete and perfect con tract 
 between the vendor and jnirchaser within the 
 St.'itute of Frauds. (T DoikiIxk v. Slanoiurs, II 
 S. C. R. linS. 
 
 ('. verbally agreed with an agent of W. at 
 Toronto to buy land in Manitoba, paying the 
 agent ten per cent, of the purchase money, and 
 taking his receipt therefor. ('. signed the re- 
 ceipt as a witness, made un affidavit of execu- 
 tion, and registered it, in order, as ho swore, to 
 hind the bargain. The vendor's name did not 
 
 appear in the receipt, but there was a reference 
 in it to a tcdegr.im sent to the vendor, whicli 
 was produced and shown to be addres.sed to W. 
 The plaintiir was the owner of the land, W. 
 being merely his agent, but VV. subseipiently 
 exeeuti;d in his own name a conveyance of it to 
 ('., who also signed it : — Held, that the affidavit 
 made by ('., the receiiit ami the telcgrnm could 
 be read together, and when so read constituted 
 evidence of a contract siilfieient to satisfy the 
 Statute <if Frauds ; and that tin; reccii)t could 
 not he objected to as evidence lieeause of a mis 
 take in it as to the price, which was subse 
 (pK'iitly CO, reeted in the deed ; — Held, also, 
 allirmiiig the decision of Feigiison, .1., (8 O. I!. 
 'Mi')) that the deed executed by \V. Wivs siilliciiiit 
 to satisfy tin; statute, although inellectual as .-i 
 conveyance. McCdrlhji v. C'iih/h'i; 12 A. It. 'JM. 
 
 An oU'er to inirehase land «as written and 
 signed by tlie defendant in an oll'er book kclit liy 
 a tirni of land iigt'iits w'-o were aiitli<ii'izcd by tin; 
 |)i..'iititr to sell the lard, and was verbally accept- 
 ed by tin; ageiits. The oll'er was not addressed to 
 .any one, but the liook was marked on the back 
 with the inil iais <if the agents, I'revioiis to this 
 (ill'er letters had been wrilti n between the defen- 
 dant and the agents, in which ,'in oll'er at alower 
 price was made and refused for the same land. 
 .\fter till! s(;coiid oU'er was aecciited, the defen- 
 dant's solicitors corresponded with the agents of 
 the iilaintiir about the title, referring in their 
 lirst letter to the l.uid which the defendant had 
 purchased fr(jm the agents : -Held, that tlic 
 initials on the hook might he read into the otl'er 
 to supply *he name of the vendor, and that these, 
 with the correspondenc(;, constituted a suflicicnt 
 agicemeiit within the Statute of ' ids to bind 
 tlie defendant. K( iim ih/ v. Olilhaiii, 15 0. K. 
 4;}3.— Q. 15. 1). 
 
 Held, l)cr (lalt, {'. .1., ill this ease that the 
 •■igrecments were \iiid nndei' tlu'Statuteof |i'raiiils 
 
 ' as v.lu'U they were made the plaiiitili's lia.l no 
 lands, and tliere w.is nothing in the agreements 
 to shew what lands the defendant was entitled 
 to, or the plaiiu ll's were liound to convey. 
 /'ciiiii'-riiiifi' ('niinii.'Hiiiii Co. v. /■'riir/ii'lil. Kit). 
 
 ! K. .■)44. See also, ,V. C. in appeal, 17 A. 11. •_'(l.''i. 
 
 .Mthough Intrinsic parol evidence may lie 
 given to identify one of the parties, it cannot In; 
 [ given to supply infoi iiiation as to the person to 
 I whom an oU'e'r in a niemorandum reipiired to liu 
 1 o; writing liy the Statute of Frauds was made 
 j or for whom it was intended. .\iid where an 
 i oiler, signed by the del'eiidant, to exchange a 
 i stock of goods for laiiil cliil not in ;iny way ch sig- 
 ! nate the person to w hoiii it w,is supposed to he 
 I made <ir for m lioin it was intended, and such 
 ; iierson could not he aseertaiiuMl without extiiii 
 sic parol evidence adding to tin; memoranduiii : 
 lield, not to bean agreement in writing with- 
 in the st.atute so as to entitle the plaintifl' to 
 specitie iierforinanee : — Held, also that an ivcecpt- 
 aiice of the otVer beneath the defendant's signa- 
 i ture, signed by the idaiiitifl "s assignor, did not 
 j euro the defei;t. H7i(7'' v. Tomn/iii, ]\f O. R. 
 1 .'51 ,'4,- -Chy. I). See also Mclvfnxh v. Moynihuii, 
 18 A. K. '2.S7. 
 
 2. Pari Pf.ijormnvrc 
 
 C. C!., the ])laintiff, alleged that A. C, hi* 
 father, being the owner of certain land, indiiocd 
 
I 
 
 A 
 
 187& 
 
 ( was a rcfereiu'u 
 
 vendor, wliicli 
 
 uldrosNod to \V. 
 
 >f tho land, W . 
 
 V. Huljaotiuontly 
 
 ivcyanco of it ti> 
 
 hilt tlio affidavit 
 
 o tt'logrnni conld 
 
 t^id (lonstituttcl 
 
 it to .'iati.sfy till; 
 
 'u: i(<(:ei])t conld 
 
 KM.'HiiHo of n niirt 
 
 litli WHS 8ul).s(,' 
 
 1 :— Hi^ld, also, 
 
 son, d., (SO. l;. 
 
 was siiliiciiril 
 
 in'jll'i'ctual as a 
 
 /•, 12 A. I!. L'M. 
 
 as wiittrn unit 
 
 li'i- liiiok ki'iit liy 
 iillioii/(.d liy tin; 
 
 vi'ilially accc[it- 
 niit addressiul lo 
 ki'd on tia' liick 
 
 I'ri'viiins to f Ids 
 
 tWl'Cll till! dofl'll- 
 
 M oH'cf at alowiT 
 tlio siiiiiu land. 
 i^pti-d, tin- defi'ri- 
 itli tlio agents of 
 't'l'i!n-ing in their 
 i> defendant had 
 -ll'ld, that liie 
 3ad into the oiler 
 r, and that these, 
 tnted a suflieient 
 if ' ;ds to hind 
 ihlhaw, 15 O. K. 
 
 his case tliat the 
 Statiili'of {'"iMihU 
 plaiiilift's Inid no 
 11 the iigicenieiils 
 hint was entitled 
 niiiil to eonvev. 
 Fiih-lieli/,, Kit). 
 L<al, 17 A. R. 'J(i.-.. 
 
 videiiee may he 
 ties, it eannot he 
 1 to the person to 
 nil rei|iiired to lie 
 •'rands «:is made 
 And where .in 
 t, to exehanije a 
 in any way desi'4- 
 IS sii|ip()nod to he 
 ended, and siiil- 
 1 without exli ill 
 le inemorandiiMi : 
 tin writii't; willi- 
 i'- the iilaintiirto 
 so that an aeiM pt- 
 h'fenihint'.s sieiia- 
 assignor, did iii>t 
 <iiin/iii, lit (). R. 
 ''iv/( V. Afoi/nifi'iii, 
 
 I that A. C, lii» 
 ail) land, iiuUicud: 
 
 1877 
 
 SALE or LAND. 
 
 1878 
 
 liiin to abstain from enforcing a certain claim, 
 and also to work on the land, hy leprcHentiii},' 
 that he would devise the Iniid to him, which he 
 afterwards represented that he had done ; and 
 A. ('■. being dead, C C-'. nowdiiimed the hniil an 
 agaii'St one to whom A. ('. had devised it by a 
 later will, revoking the former one. The exeen- 
 tion of the former will was proved as alle^jcd : 
 — Held, reversing th<! decision of I'roudfoot, ,1., 
 that this was not such part |)erforiii.inee iis to 
 take the case out of the Statute of {''raads, fur 
 the execntion of the former will was the act of 
 the jieison whose estate it v as .'<oiight to charge, 
 and net of the person seeking to enforce the 
 contract, and, moreover, did not ini])(iit a con- 
 tract, hut only indicated a benevolent intention 
 displayed by the testator in tlu! exeeiitioii of an 
 instrument essentially of a r('vncabl(> nature: 
 Qua're, wliether if it h.id been proved, which it 
 had not, that A. ('. had, by his rein i seiil.itioiis 
 that he had devised the hiiul to (,'.('., induced 
 liini to forego liis chiiiii, and to work on the 
 land as alleged, this would have entitled ('. ('. 
 to succeed. Camjiln/f v. .\/rKi fiirln i\ (J (). It. 
 «r).~ Chy. I). 
 
 'I'd take a case of alleged contract cdnceining 
 land out of the Statute of l''iaiicls llieaelsof part 
 perforniiuiee must be done !iy the party seeking 
 to enforce the coiitrai t, and niust be such as to 
 manifest from their natiiie that theri^ is s.niie 
 contract between tUo. pa-t'.-s touching the land 
 in ([uestion, and the piojier order of muislialliiig 
 tlie evidence in such cases is lirst to ]irove the 
 |)a'.'t performance, and so let in parol I'Videiice 
 of the iigreenient sought to be cnfinced. Mad- 
 dison r. Alderson, S .Ajip. ('as. -KIT, followed. 
 Ih. 
 
 Whore a person came into |iossessioii of real 
 estate as tenant, and it wasslievMi unei|iiivocally 
 vi/. , by part payment of the puicliasi' money 
 evi<lcnced by the receijit in teiiiis therefor, that 
 his tenancy was afterwaid.s reliMi|iiished, and 
 tliat his possession, beiiiL; changed in character 
 by parol contract to ]inrcliase, «as contiiiiied as 
 that of a vendee : field, that the possession 
 thus changed was such [lait iierfornianceas took 
 tlie contract for sale out of the Statute of l-'rauds. 
 MrOcc. V. /utiK; !) (). 1!. 47.".. - Chy. I). 
 
 A. brought an action against 15. for the rents 
 and jirolits of certain lands, wlii('h had liehniged 
 to their father who had dieil inteslatc, which 
 lands H. had taken and held pe. '••ssion of fur 
 S(!Veral yeais. On the action being entered for 
 trial an agreeinent of settleiiient was arrived at, 
 by which the action was to be stayed iipeii R.'s 
 granting and releasing to .\. his interest in the 
 
 leases: Tfcdd (afTinning the judgment of fVond- 
 
 loot, .1.), that the slaying of the action was a 
 
 sullieient part peiforinance to take the ease out 
 
 of the Statute of Kiaiids. .\n option was given 
 
 I to A. to aki! a judgment for speeille pertoim- 
 
 anee, with a reference as to eoiii[ieiisiition, if 11. 
 
 Was unable to procure all the grants a..d re 
 
 leases he agreed to procure ; oi' a judgment for 
 
 I an account of the rents and prolits. the subject 
 
 'of thi! former action. i'oiilis v. (,'ualrs, 1} (>. 
 
 : K. 11).-). ('. I'. i>. 
 
 ! li., a resilient of liritish Colnmhia, wrote to 
 his si>tcr, in Kiigland, that he would like one of 
 her ehildicn to i-mne out to him, and in a scioiid 
 letter he siiid " I want to get some relation In re 
 : tor what property I have, in case of Hiidih;!! 
 death, would he eat up by oiitsidi^rs and my re- 
 lations would git nothiii'.'." On hearing the 
 I contents of these letti is 'I'., a son of li.'s sistc'r, 
 ; and a enal niiiier in I'aigland. came to liritish 
 IColunihia anil lived v.ilii 15. f.ir six years. All 
 ' that time he worked on 11. 's faiiii and received 
 a share of the ]irolils. After that he went to 
 work in a coal mine in Idaho. While there he 
 received ;i h'tter from l>. containiiig the follow 
 ing: " I want yon to eonie at once as I am very 
 bad. 1 really do not know if I shall get over it 
 or not, and you had hitler hurry up and cunie 
 to nie at once, for 1 want yon and I dare s ly 
 yon will guess the reason why. If anything 
 should leippeii to ni(! you are the person who 
 ^hiiuld he here," On reel ijit of this letter 'I". 
 iiiiniediately staited for the farm hut 15. had 
 died and was buried 1m fore he reached it. After 
 his return he received the following tele;.'r.ini 
 which had not reached him before he left for 
 home: "{'nine at once if yon wish to see nie 
 alive, ]ii(>perty is yours, answer iiiiniediately. 
 (Sgd.) I!.'' Under these eireiiiiist:inces T. claimed 
 the farm and stock of 15. and brought suit for 
 spccilie |ierfiirnianei' of an .■illeged agri enieiit liy 
 I!, that the same shniild heloiig to him at H. s 
 death: Held, atlirmiiig the jiulgiiient of the 
 coiii't below, that as there was no agreeinent in 
 writing for tlii! transfer of the propnty to 'I'., 
 and the facts shewn were not sullieient to con- 
 stitute a part pi rfnriiiaiice of such a;;reemciit, 
 the fourth seelion of the Stitlile of Kraiids was 
 not complied with, and no pei forinanee of the 
 contract could be decreed. '/'»/•»</• v. I'l'i-.rnil,. 
 
 17 s. c. i:. 'Js:!. 
 
 Con I'M M"l' III' S.M.I', 
 ■_'. CiiiflnK'Hiiii. 
 .•\n agi'eenient for Ihe piiii:hase of certain land 
 
 iiig for the paMinnt of a certain poi- 
 )iiirchasc nioiiev, eiintinneil as fol- 
 
 land, and on 15. undertaking to obtain certain after piovid 
 releases, etc. 15. 's coiinse! a]i|)eared in court ; tioii of tli 
 
 wlien the case was called for trial, and stated i lows: "The remaiiiiiig S!|,!M)0 (after deiiuetint 
 that it was settled, and an entry was made in i tlu? ainoiint due to tin' Crown), payable in in 
 tlio court minute book, that the case was settled stalnients of .■>!|ll(l each, without interest, on Nt 
 out of court. Snbsei|U',;ntly 15. nipiired A. to I .\pril in each year, diiiiiig nineteen yiars," and 
 procure certain releases, and although these liad the purchaser to secure by mortgage " the resi- 
 not formed part of the settleineiil, A. agiecd to! due or sum of SI.II'lO (less the amount due to the 
 do so, and at great trouble and expense pro- ' Crown) payable as afoiesaid." It was not then 
 cured the execution of the same ready to be de- | known exactly how much was due to the Crown, 
 livered to 15. Certain of the releases to he pro- but it was soon after ascertained to be ^'M'A ; 
 cured by 15. were to be executed by married 
 women ami infants which he was niiable to pro- 
 cure. In an action to compel 15. to carry out 
 tlie settlement, 15. set up as a defence the Statute 
 of Frauds; and his inability to obtain the re- 
 
 Held, the true meaning of the above agreement 
 was that the ainoiiiit il .e to the Crown was to bo- 
 subtracted from the .*;|,!«I0, and the balance 
 paid in instalments i.f .SlOU each on 1st April in 
 each year until the whole of .such balance should 
 
SALE OF LAND. 
 
 im 
 
 1879 
 
 be paiil. Wutfe v. Hunlits, 1 0. R. 322.-1 
 
 Ferguson. \ 
 
 On tlie 7th Decembor, 1874, T. G., by a jiro- 
 mise of sale, agreed to sell a fiiini tc D. iil., 
 then a minor, for §1,200 — of wIul.'i ^.jOO were 
 paid at the time, lialance jiayiihlu iu sfeii yearly 
 instalments of .SlOO each, witli interest at seven 
 per cent. I). M. was to have ininieu'ate pos- 
 session and to ratify the deed on 1)eeiiii.i'iy of 
 age, and to he entitled to a deed of sale if instal- 
 ments were ])aid as tliey liecame due, "hut if, 
 on the eontr.'iry, 1). M. fails, neglects, or rel'iises 
 to nnike such i>ayinents wiun tluy eoiue <lue, 
 tlieu said 1). M. will forfeit all liglit lie lias hy 
 these presents to olitain a (h'ed of sale of sjiiil 
 lierein mentioned farm, and lie will moreover 
 forfeit all moneys already j)aid, and wliieii lieie- 
 after may lie paid, wiiieli said moneys will lie 
 considered as rent of aiiid farm, and these pre- 
 ents will tlieii he consiilered as null and void, 
 and tlie parties will he consiilered as lessor ami 
 lessee." After 1). M. became of age he left the 
 country without ratifying the )ironiiso of sale, he 
 paid none of the instalments which became due, 
 and in 1870 T. (i. regained ]iossession of the 
 farm. In C)ctoher, ISSO, 1). Si. returned and 
 tendered the balance of the ]ii'ice,and elaimcil the 
 farm :- Held, reversing the judgment of the 
 court below, (.Strong and Taschereau, J.I., dis- 
 senting), that the condition j)reccdent on which 
 the jiromise of sale was made not having been 
 complied with within the time spccilied in the 
 contract, the contract and the law jilaced tlie 
 plaintilV (/( (h iu< in,-, and there was no necessity 
 for any demand, the necessity for .i demand 
 being inconsistent with the terms of the con- 
 tract, which imiiiediately, on the failure of tin? 
 perform.ance of the condition, ipso facto cliiiM<;cd 
 the relation of the parties from vendor and ven- 
 dee to lessor and lessee. (I'l'aiii/r v. MrLonicin, 
 9 S. C. R. :«5. 
 
 By an agreement for the sale of land foi' .SflO, 
 000, iJijOOO w .IS to be paid on execution of the 
 agreement, .$40,70.) within sixt}' days thereafter 
 and the balance to rcnuiin on mortgage. The 
 ])urcliascrs paid the .S4,0()() but refused to pay 
 the ?40,704, to recover which this action was 
 brought : — After the expiration of the sixty 
 days the vendor iiistitutcil ])rocce>liiigs to re- 
 cover the amount agreed to be then (laid, 
 and at the trial, Cameron ,J., dircctdl judg- 
 ment to be entered for the defendants with 
 liberty to the plaintiff to bring a fresh action 
 which, hy an order of the Divisional Court, was 
 set aside (2 (). R. 573). On appeal, this court, 
 (Hagnrty, C. J. O., dissenting), discharged that 
 order with costs. Per Rurton and Patterson, 
 jr. A. — The agreement to convey the lands, and 
 that to pay the money at the expiration of sixty 
 days were not mutual hut dependent, so tliat 
 the vendor before being entitled to lecover the 
 ]iurcha.se money must shew that he was ready, 
 willing and able to convey, and that the pur- 
 chaser, until he did so, eouhl not be 'died on to 
 pay his money and rely on the abii.uy of the 
 vendor to convey the estate, or in the event of 
 his being unable to do so, look to him for repay- 
 ment. Per Rose, J. — Without determining that 
 point expressly, the neglect and delay of the 
 vendor to take the necessary steps to show his 
 title to the lands, part of which the vendor ad- 
 mitted was vested in one Y., were such as dis- 
 
 itso 
 
 entitled him to call for p:\ynient, and therefore 
 that the finding of the judge at the trial was cor- 
 rect ;— Held, by the Connnon Pleas Division, that 
 the provision as to the mortgage not stating when 
 it was to he payable did not render the agreement 
 void for uncertainty. McDonnld v. Murray, 1 1 
 A. R. 101. ^iid Armslrouij v. .4 ?»/(■>•, 21 O. R. 98. 
 
 On 2nd Maj', 18S2, the plaintiff by agreement 
 under seal sold certain land to defendant for 
 SS.JO, §100 to be paid on the execution of the 
 agieemcnt and the balance without interest on 
 1st January, 1883, the defendant covenanting to 
 ])ay accordingly ; and in consideration thereof 
 the plaintill' covenanted to convey or cause the 
 land to be conveyed in fee simple to defendant, 
 fi'ce from incumbrances, and to permit defen- 
 dant to occupy same until default. By the 
 agreement defendant also might assume posses- 
 sion, and might collect the rent then due from 
 M., the tenant of the premises, an<l make ar- 
 rangements with him forgiving up possession, 
 defendant took possession, but was turned out 
 by M., who claimed the land and registered a lis 
 liendcns against it. Defendant in April, 1883, 
 recovered judgment in ejectment against M., 
 when M.'s solicitors undertook to, and on 17th 
 October, 1883, did remove the lis jiendens. In 
 an .action brought by plaintiff on Pith October, 
 1883, for the recovery of the luirchase money :— 
 Held (per Cameron, < ". J.), following McDonald 
 /■. Murray, 2 O. 1!. .")73 (but see ,S. V,. 11 A. R. 
 101, snjira), that shewing a good title was not 
 a condition jnecedent to the recovery of the 
 ]ini'cliase momy; and moreover the plaintiff's 
 covenant was to convey or cause to be (Conveyed. 
 Per Rose, .1., that apart from .McDonald c. Mur- 
 ray, the plaintill' was eutilleil to recover, for as 
 the judgmi'iit in the ejectment action disposed of 
 defendant's claim to the land, the existence of 
 the lis pendens, which could be removed for $5 
 or .SIO, was no answer to the plaintiff's claim. 
 The defendant also counter-claimed, setting up an 
 agreement by plaintiff to pay the ejectment 
 
 j costs ; and also claiming damages for being kept 
 out of jiossession : — Held, that to entitle the 
 defendant to recover these costs an uiujualitied 
 ])riimise to ])ay should be shewn, which the 
 evidence failed to do ; but as plaintiff admitted 
 he intended to pay a ))ortion of them he was 
 ehai'ged \\ith half the costs; and he was dis- 
 allowed interest for the time ilefendant was kept 
 
 I out of ))ossession. McCrae v. Bacbr, O. R. 
 
 j l.-C. P. D. 
 
 ! B. sold to C. land mortgaged to a loan society. 
 
 j The consideration in the deed was $1,400 and 
 
 the sum of §104 was paid to B. C. afterwards 
 
 )iaid $1,081 and obtained a discharge of the 
 
 I mortgage. B. brought an action to recover the 
 
 j balance of the difference between the amount 
 
 I paid the society and said sum of $1,400, and on 
 
 I the trial he testified that he intended to sell 
 
 1 the land for a fixed price ; that he had been 
 
 j informe<l by W., father-in-law of C, that there 
 
 would be about $300 coming to him ; that he 
 
 had demurred to the acceptance of the sum 
 
 offered, $104, but was informed by C. and the 
 
 lawyer's clerk, who drew the deed, that they 
 
 ' hadfigured it out and that was all that would 
 
 ; be due him after paying the mortgage ; that he 
 
 i was incapable of figuring it himself and accepted 
 
 j it on this representation. C. claimed that the 
 
 I transaction was only a purchase by him of the 
 
1180 
 
 1881 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1882 
 
 and therefore 
 I trial was cor- 
 Diviaion.that 
 t stating when 
 the agreement 
 V. Murray, 1 1 
 r, 21 O. R. 98. 
 
 by agreement 
 ilufondant for 
 icution of the 
 lit interest on 
 ;ovenanting to 
 ration thereof 
 
 or cau.se the 
 to defendant, 
 permit defen- 
 lult. By the 
 i.ssume jiosses- 
 "len due from 
 ind make ar- 
 ip po.sscssion. 
 as turned out 
 cgi-stered a lis 
 I April, 1883, 
 t against M., 
 
 and on 17th 
 pendens. In 
 I'Jth October, 
 uise money : — 
 ing McDonald 
 . C. II A. R. 
 title was not 
 L'ovcrj' of the 
 the i)hiiiitiff's 
 ) l)c I'linveyed. 
 loiiald c. Mur- 
 ccover, for as 
 ion disposed of 
 If existence of 
 moved for $5 
 lintitr's claim. 
 1, setting up an 
 the ejectment 
 for being kept 
 to entitle the 
 in unijualitied 
 II, whicii the 
 itifT admitted 
 tliein lie was 
 
 I ho was dis- 
 daiit was kept 
 '(/.vr, O. R. 
 
 a loan society. 
 IS S; 1,400 and 
 C afterwards 
 ;liarge of the 
 to recover the 
 
 II the amount 
 S1,4CK), and on 
 ;cndcd to sell 
 
 he had been 
 C, that there 
 iiiin ; that he 
 of the sum 
 )y C. and the 
 ed, that they 
 til that would 
 ;age ; that he 
 
 and accepted 
 lined that the 
 ly him of the 
 
 equity of redemption, and that B. had accepted . was :— Held, (reversing the judgment of Proud- 
 1104 in full for the same :— Held, reversing the , foot, J.), that the original dealing between 1!. 
 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Taschcreau and McM. created no binding contract on the 
 and Owynne, JJ., dissenting, that the weight latter, it being merely an option given him ; and 
 of evidence was in favour of the claim made by lie not having completed the puicliase witiiin six 
 B., that the transaction was an absolute sale of montlis the subsc(piciit sale and conveyance l)y 
 thelandfor?d,400; and independently of that, the B. to McM. was upon a new and distinct con- 
 deed itself would be sufficient evidence to yup- tract. Xo interest in tlie twenty-live feet (lot 
 port such claim in the absence of satisfactory 40) passed to the O. S. t'o. under McM.'s inort- 
 pioof of fraud or mistake, linnjcm v. Voitmni, gage, and tiie subsLipKiit conveyance to him 
 14 S. U. R. 'JO. " fed the csloiipel " created by his prior mort- 
 
 ,-. ,, .,, , ., , . ..,„ , , gage to the extent only of Mc.M.'s interest which 
 
 On the 5th June th. plaintiff executed an was that of owner of the emiity of redemption, 
 agreement whereby he agreed to purchase from • (,,. „„.,„,,. „f the twenty-live feet (I(.t40) charge.l 
 defen.lantalotinVVinnipeg, ataiidfortliesuin;„.ith .*;{00, audit liiadu no ditlcrence that 
 that might be placed thereon by 1)., provided, : tjio .^.SOU mort-age was taken to the plaintiff in- 
 that If the price exceeded $0,000 the excess .stea.l of to B., the effect of the whole transaction 
 should be secured by the plaintijl by mortgage ),j,i„g that W. was the owner (,f lot 40 subject 
 on the property. 1 he sum so li.xed to i,e paid t„ a first mortgage of .^.'iOO in lavour ot the plain 
 by plaintiff "deeding to the detendant his tiff, and a secoml mortgage of the U. S. Co. B. 
 
 !"'?T.f.!,".i*:.*:!'''!'"„ "'r.."' „."''!."!.^.":... '^." !.'.'';' ".:",".': '"^''"s '•>• !'>» 'i^-'''''"s ^uh mc.m. crated in him 
 
 " " '' the status of owner, and in the plaintiff that oi 
 
 mortgagee, was not, nor w.is the plaintiff in a 
 position to complain of the legi.stiation of plan 
 ;i'J7. Due Irvine r. Webster, -J t,>. li. •_';U ; L»oe 
 llciiiRsscy '•. Meyers, 2 U. S. 4'J4, observeil 
 uiiuii. S'lfilt V. JtrMitmi;/, 14 A. 1!. I'.'O. 
 
 loan agrt'i'ineiit for the s.ile of land it was 
 provided lliit the cash payment sluiuld be made 
 
 ivt II " bOSOOIl 
 
 shall lie satis- 
 
 day defendant executed an agreenient whereby 
 he agreed to jmrehase the plaintiff's interest in 
 the 'i'oroiito lots for .'*0,(K)O, the defendant to 
 pay the interest and taxes to date, but to de- 
 duet same out of the ijd.OOO. The Toronto pro- 
 perty was conveyed to the defendant who entered 
 into possession and \i.(id off the mortgages on it. 
 The ilefendant refused to convey the \\'inni)ieg 
 property except for .^.S.OOO, at whieh .sum he . 
 
 contended 1). had valued same, but the evidence "•"' t''e iiioitgage tor the l.alanee 
 shewed that 1). had declined to make any valua- i''* tbe solicitors tor the ])iiiviia.ser 
 
 tioii. The defendant also refused to "aiipoint lied with the title " : — llelil, that the meaiiiii^' 
 
 another valuator. In an action to recover from "f tbe ccntiact was that payiiu lit was not to be 
 
 defendant the sum of .SO.OOU, the pi, iiilill' iiiti- reu"'''^'''' ""''' ^''^'b title w.is shewn as wouhl 
 
 mated he would accijit a eonveyauee of the jn>lify the piircli.iser in takiii:,' |)u.sses."ion, and 
 
 Winiii])eg property in settlement of his claim 
 on defendant paying the costs : — Held, that un- 
 less the defendant .iceepteil the offer, then there 
 should be judgment for the plaintiff for the 
 $0,000, less ?JS;!8,2S paid for interest and taxes : 
 — Senible, that the two agreements must be 
 deemed to be independent: — Held, also, that this 
 
 following Wells r. Maxwell, ;I2 ileav. oj'j, that 
 no satistaetiou being gi\ei! as to a prior mort- 
 gage all'cetiiii; the land until two years after the 
 agreement, the purcliaser comM not prudently 
 take possession until ihi n, .md inteicst on the 
 purchase money should only be allowed from 
 that time. /.'., Mfl.Kin and Wu/L-'ir, 19 0. R. 
 
 was not a case for specilic perl'oriiianee n.)r for ; l*^!- Bovd. 
 
 rescission. I'rorlor v. Mul/i,j,tii, i;i O. K. Osa.- | fi^^^ V.inKowihm.t v. IhnlMm, I (). 1!. .149 ; 1 1 
 
 ^- !'• "• A. K. (ill!), 1). 4'2I ; MrKnr.l,. v. Diri.jht, '2 O. K. 
 
 McM., in buihling a house, by mistake built . •'*''"' I'- ' ' '' ' '^"f"'' ''■ "'"'I' ** ^'- "• '^''' P" '«7.3. 
 
 part of it on the land of the adjoining owner | 
 
 B. On discovering this he applied to B. with a | 
 view of pureliasiiig a portion of l>."s lot, and B. 
 on -iOtli July, 1 SMI, wrote : "1 hereby oiler to 
 Sell you twenty five feet frontage for the sum ol 
 l$"2r)0, to be |)iid six months trom date, otherwise 
 this offer to be liilir' * * and i>. accepted 
 such offer at the foot in the wonls, " 1 heieby 
 accept the above offer." McM. seven days after 
 registered a [ilaii as No. ;i27, alleged to be of his 
 o«n property, but whieh included the twenty- 
 tive feet as part of lot M., and the next day exe- 
 cuted a mortg.ige on lot M., with a description. 
 
 .'{. 117/' /( 7V//('' ('< iij (lie K-i-itiire nf the ('oidract. 
 
 Time may be of the essence of a contract even 
 without any express stipidaliou ii it a|ipear 
 that such was tlie intention. Defnulant wrote 
 bis agent on •2."<tli .March: "ift). (iM.iiiitiff) still 
 wants that farm * * he can have it lor 1^350 
 net, provided it can be aiialiged at once. Kind- 
 ly advise me * * if he accepts, and when be 
 will piy the money over." On tilli .Vpiil, the 
 agent teligraphed defeiid.mt " O. will take the 
 
 which included the twenty-live feet, and whieh farm, will pay the money in two weeks, ' and 
 was assigned to the defendants the O. S. Co. on lltli April tlie defendant telegr.tplie.l "your 
 R's offer to .sell to McM. was not acted on within ' offer of 0th comes too late :'-llel.l, that an ar- 
 the six months limited, and B. afterwards, in raugem.nt between detendant .ii.d his agent as 
 January, 1S>:{, scdd ami e(mveyed the twenty- to the hitter's commission woiill not allect the 
 five feet (whicli was called l.t 40 onhis[li.sl net price as bttweeii plaintill and defendant. 
 plan No :V,hi, legistered 'JOtli January, lSS;j), to ; Hehl, also, that the encpiiiy '• when will he pay 
 McM. for .t!400, payable, til 00 cash ami mortgage over the money " shewed an intention to give a 
 for *300, and which mortgage was at the iiist nice t reasonable time for such purpose, and that under 
 of B. taken to his daughter N., the i.Uiintdl'. j the circum.staiices two weeks was not an unrea- 
 
 Thc O. .S. Co. suhseipieiitly sold under the pow er 
 of sale ill their mortgage to the defendant W. 
 lu an action by ^. to realize her mortgage, it 
 
 sonable time. But :— Held, also, that the ac- 
 ceptance of defendant's olbr was imt in time. 
 Ukljidd V. DicLon, IS O. H. 188. — Hose, 
 
1883 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1884 
 
 i. 
 
 See C)-o.isfic/d v. (iould, A. 1^ 218, j). 000; 
 
 Diiiiiri/ V. Villa/, \:i A. n. 47, i>. 'Ml. 
 
 4. IhiirKij/ of J'o.tiit.s.iioii. I 
 
 Tlie delivery to a piireliiiscr of a house of tiie 1 
 key thereof is not of itself delivery of jxissesKioii; ' 
 it IS but a syinljoliciil delivery, and may lie evi- [ 
 deuce of posHessioii if j^iveii or received with 
 that view. I'loplis J^unii (tint /iijinsit Co, v. 
 Bacon, '11 Chy. ^'J4.- I'n.udfoot. | 
 
 Merelyobtaiiiiiij^ tlie keys of a huihliug in order 
 to view the ijrt'iniscx, no as to ehtiniute alterations j 
 inteiideil to he made, and to perforin otlier acts to 
 preserve the i)ieini.sts from deterior.itidn, is not I 
 such a taking [losses.sion under a eonlract for sale i 
 as will hind the purclKiser and render him liable j 
 to pay interest on tlie purchase money. W liat 
 will be a sullicienl taking of ])(js.sessioii of a pur- 
 eliased house con.'^idered and treated of. Jh. \ 
 
 By one of the conditions of sale the pureha.ser 
 was reipiired to pay a deposit of ten j)er cent, at 
 the time ol sale and the remainder within one i 
 month thereafter, and upon such ])ayiuent the] 
 purchaser was to be entitled to acoiiveyaiiee and ' 
 lo be let into possist^ion of the propcj ty pur- , 
 chased: Held, that iiinler this condition the' 
 payment of the [lUichase money Ijy the pur- 
 chaser and the delivery to him by the vendor of 
 possession were eoncnrient acts, and unless tlie 
 vendor was in a poi-ilion to put tlie purchaser in 
 ))ossussioii he could not be called ujion to pay 
 interest on the un|iaid jnirchase money. Xeitlier 
 was he lioiui.l in such a case to [lay ground rent 
 accruing due ui.on the proju^'ty whilst he was so 
 kept out oi ponscssion. In sucli a ease, letting a 
 purchaser into leceipt of r<'iits and prohts is not 
 a eoinpliaiice with the eondiliou to give the [mr- 
 chaser possession. I'nder such circuinstaiiees 
 the purchaser was luld entitled to make a de- 
 duction of a pidjioi tionate shiie of tlie taxes 
 assessed on the pit r.ii-ics for the year in which 
 the sale w.is ellected. ///. 
 
 See McCrni v. liitck. r, !> (>. 11. 1, ji. ISSO ; 
 Kcai/x v. Kiiiurd, Id (>. I!. .'{14, p. (i.ll : Mim.ioii 
 V. l\laii<(iii, 10 1'. It. !.■).">, p. IMI7 ; l><irln,-\. 
 Jiarbtr, U P. H. i;t7, p. IW)/. 
 
 5. .S'r(/r AcKiiil'iiiij to I'liiii, 
 
 The city of Tcildiito oU'ered land for sale, ae 
 cording to a plan sliow ing one block consisting of 
 live lots each, aliout l!00 feel in length running 
 froili east to west bounded mirth and south by a 
 lane of the same length, and east by a lane run- 
 ning along the w hole depth of the block, and con- 
 necting tlie other two lanes. South of this block 
 was a similar block of snialler lots, ten in luim- 
 her, running north and south ll!0 feet each. The 
 lane at the east of the liist block wa.s a continu- 
 ation, after crossing the long lane between the 
 blocks, of lot No. 10 in the second block. 'I'lie 
 advertisement of sale stated that " lanes run in 
 rear of the several lots." M. became the pur- 
 chaser of the first block and C. of lot 10 in the 
 second. Before registry of the plaiiM. applied 
 to the city council to have the lane at the east 
 uf the block closed ui> and included in his lease, 
 which was granted. (J. then objected to taking 
 -a lease of his lot with the lane closed, but after- 
 wurds accepted a lease which described the land 
 
 as leased according to plan 380 (the plan ex- 
 hibited at the s de) and plan 352 (which showetl 
 the lane closed ; and lie brought an action 
 against the city and M. to have the lane re- 
 oiiened :— Hehl, atiirmiiig the judgment of the 
 court below, 11 A. I!. 410, which reversed the 
 judgment of Ferguson, .1., 7 O. \i. lill, that C. 
 having accejited a least; after the lane was closed, 
 in which leierence was made to said jilan 3.VJ, 
 was bound by its terms and had no claim to a 
 right of way over land thereby shown to be in- 
 cluded in the lease to M. Held, aLso, per 
 CJwynne, .)., that under the contract evidenced 
 by the advert isment and public sale C. actpiired 
 liO right to the use of the lane afterwards closed. 
 Carcji V. Ciiij of I'oroiilii, 14 S. (,'. K. 17'2. 
 
 See Al/r!/l v. /'/<il/. 10 S. C. R. 42.',, p. 487; 
 Sniilli V. Million", 10 A. K. 140, |i. 4Si: • LuiUr 
 V. (li-OMll. lO!";. ('. I!, lo:., p. 48li. 
 
 ',). /Ji->crl/iti')ii. of Jjdiid. 
 (a) Uiih-immi, Qaunlilij. 
 
 Ill proceeding to a .salt; of lands under a decree 
 of the Court of Chaiiceiy in 1870, one parcel was 
 advertised as containing 100 aeii;s, and was bid 
 olf by one A. at ^\)\. per acre, which in the agree- 
 ment to purchase signed by A., as well as in the 
 conveyance to him, was ilesci'ibe<l as '■ 100 acres 
 more or less, etJinposed of the east part of lot',)," 
 etc.: h(! jiaying or securing according to the con 
 ditions of sale, the sum ol .':?3,IOO. Jn reality the 
 portion so sold contained lL'4 acres and sixty- 
 eight one-hundredths of an acre, a fact neither 
 party to the tiaiisiietion was aware of. There 
 was no provision in the coii<lit.ions of sale for 
 compensation. The piirchasor hceaiiie aware 
 that there was an excess on llie same day, iin- 
 inedi itely after the sah;, but the vei.dors not 
 until long afterwards, though before the I'xecu- 
 tion ol the conveyance. Jn the rcj irt on sale 
 several of the sales \veic referred to as atso iniieli 
 per acre, while the one m ipicstion was ineu- 
 tiohed as a sale ,iL a bulk sum of .St, 100. After 
 the conveyance to A. he had been obliged to 
 take pideeeilin:;s against ( ;. i'., the pelson who 
 had conveyed the ialiil in (jiieiti(jn to the father 
 of the vendors, to oblun jiussessioii ot the por- 
 tion in dispute ami which he succeeded in oh- 
 taining. 'J he vendors, howevctr, reliiscd to iii- 
 terjiose in such proiH:ediiigs, or to assist A. in 
 any way in such litigation : -Held (reversiiijr 
 the judgment of Ferguson, .)., T) O. I!. 704), that 
 the sum of .•:;•'!, 100 Wic^ bid lor the whole parcel ; 
 that the sale being in bulk, and there being no 
 provision in the conditions of .sale lor compensa- 
 tion, there could be iiorcctilicationaftertheex > 
 (■utioii of the conveyance, nor could there have 
 been, under the eireumstances of the case, a 
 rescission of the contract, had such relief been 
 asked for. There was no mistake as to what 
 was inlcndeil to be sold, t\v in the price intended 
 to he paid for it, I'atterson, .1, A,, dissenting. 
 ColliKi/haiii V. t'oUiiiijlKiin, 1 1 A. U. (124. 
 
 Sec fim v, McLvait, 14 S, (', K, 032. 
 
 7, Cotii/iMmatloii. 
 
 (a) For Jircarlu.s in Carry im/ out Coiitraii. 
 
 Held, u[)on the evidence in this ease, that the 
 purchasers were not entitled to a conveyance of 
 
1884 
 
 1885 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1886 
 
 (the plan cx- 
 (wiiiuU sliowuil 
 
 ight ail action 
 vo tliu l:ine rc- 
 |ii(lgiiiont of tin; 
 I'll ri!vurtiu<l tlu; 
 
 11. liU. tluit (.'. 
 
 laliu wascluHud, 
 ) said ])liin (t.j'J, 
 
 1 no chiiin to a 
 sliown to l)u in- 
 lloM, also, jHT 
 tiauL eviUunuuil 
 salu C. au(jnii'o(l 
 tcrwaids t'losuil. 
 
 . K. IT'J. 
 
 R. 4-.'.-,, ,.. 487 ; 
 p. 4SI' • (Jaiiir 
 S(i. 
 
 Mil. 
 till/. 
 
 Is niuler a decree 
 II, one parcel was 
 es, ami was bid 
 lieli in tlie agree- 
 as Well as in tlie 
 ;(1 as '• 100 acres 
 ,st part of lot ',)," 
 ■ding to tile con 
 ». Jn reality the 
 icres and sixty- 
 L', a fact neitlier 
 ware of. Tliere 
 jioiis of sale for 
 became aware 
 e same day, im- 
 the veiilors not 
 cfore the execu- 
 
 rC) irt on sale 
 
 1 toasatsomiicli 
 jstion was men- 
 f .Sf.lUO. After 
 been obliged to 
 
 tlie person who 
 ion to the fillier 
 sion (rf the por- 
 ucceeded in oh- 
 ■, relnscd to in- 
 • to assist A. in 
 Held (icversill!.' 
 O. li. 704), that 
 le whole [)arcel ; 
 I there beiiiii no 
 le tor coinpcnsa- 
 ion after the ex ;- 
 joiild there have 
 (jf the case, a 
 sncli relief been 
 ,alve as to what 
 le price intentled 
 , A., dissenting. 
 . 11. (124. 
 
 H. 032. 
 
 out Colli rail. 
 
 lis ease, that the 
 a conveyiincc of 
 
 or compensation for a. small part of the land con- I 
 tiaeted for, to which tlie veiichirs were not able 
 to make title. Ite. lioli'n'r and Onlario lii'xM- 
 mi'.ut Ax/iocliilion, Iti (). K. 2.")!). — .\riiiour. I 
 
 See Imiwrial Hank of Cnnailn, v. Miicnife, 1 1 
 {I. R. 407; Mniixon v. Mmiion, 10 1*. R. I."),"), 
 p. 18i)7 nnrhir v. liarhrr, ] I P. 1!. l;C, p. 1S!»7 : 
 J'lopti'.i Loan iiii'l J)(/i'itil Co, v. lliicoii, 27 
 t;hy. 2!)4, p. ISS.X 
 
 (b) For MUripri'ii iiliilioii In Ailri rli-^' imiil of 
 Sii'i III/ Aiirlinii. 
 
 K. pnrelias(Ml certain proiieity at aiutimi 
 wliicli had been advertised. Among tin; repre- 
 sentations made in the ailverlisrment, was om; 
 that it "at prtisciit rents for .Sl,lll(l." Alter 
 the sale the purchaser applied for coinpeiisatioii 
 on two grounds: (1) That the landlord was 
 boiinil to iieat the building for the tenants, the 
 cost of which was not included in the Sl.llil); 
 and (2), 'Chat the .>?l,l(;o did not include the 
 taxes which the lamlloiil had to )iay : -Held, 
 that he was entitled to coniiieiis ition on both 
 grounils, and a lefcicin.'i' was ordered to asccr- 
 
 III. TiTr.K. 
 
 1. (looil Tilh. 
 
 Held, that tlie piirchnsc under a tax sale by 
 the township clerk was avoidable transaction; 
 and jier Wilson, ('. ,1., the lilaiiitiir, on tile (!vi- 
 dence li id, or must be as-suiiicd to have Iiad, 
 notice of tlic inlinnity of liis vendor's title ; but. 
 pel- Osier, .1., tliere was no siidicient evidence 
 of notice. lUrhn v. Joliii.^f'Hi, .•i2 C. 1'. 301. 
 C. R I). 
 
 re 
 
 as to title 1111 ler a judgnieiit 
 I this clause: ".And in case a 
 )C made an en((uii'y when it wa.s 
 
 lain the amount 
 i!. 414. Kergiisoii. 
 
 See SI (till III »■>■ V 
 H A. R. Ilil ; 11 
 
 A'r Miirrinj and K' rr, 13 0. 
 
 . <i'l>ijiiiiliu,\ 2S Chy. 207 ; 
 (' i:. .TiS. 
 
 8. liili-ri "! mill '/'iiy ■<. 
 
 Where in a sah; under a decree no uiiilue de 
 lav ill investigating tlic title is attributed to I 
 c'tlier party, interi^^t upon )Mirchase money is : 
 payable only from tlie date of the aeceiitance of 
 the tilh', and not from tlie time nanieil in tlie 
 conditions of sale. IlnnUnn v. Joir/ili, S 1'. II. 
 2!).'!. "Stephens, Urfi rir. 
 
 A pnrcliaser becomes liable to ])ay interest. 
 when no time is fixed by tlie contract, fniiii the 
 time when lie could prudently take jiossessioi:, 
 and in the case of tin- purchase of several ])ro- 
 perties under an iiulivisible contract he eaiinot ; 
 prudently take possession niitii the title to the 
 M'hole is made. Lainl v. I'ntoii, 7 <>. l-t. i;i7. — i 
 I'roudfoot. ■ 
 
 Where in the contract for the sale and pur- 
 <diase of land, the jiarties (ix tlie time for pay- ' 
 nicnt of the imrchas ; iiKiney and the ]iciiod from 
 which interest thereon is to be couiputed. ir- ■ 
 respective of the time lixcd for completion, 
 interest must, in the absence of delimit or breach 
 of contract or of actual niiscondnct in rel itioii 
 thereto on the part of the vendor, be paiil from 
 the period named, notwitliatanding the existence 
 of ditiiculties as to title justifying the purchaser 
 ill refusing to eoni))lete until they are removed. 
 .Judgment of Royd, V., reversed. De Visnie v. 
 DeVisnio, 1 Mae. k. (!. 3.")2, observed npon^ as 
 iicing no longer an authority. //( rt Diinjmaii 
 ■iwd /laU\i Contract, 17 A. it. 3!)8. 
 
 See Thi' Pioitli'''* l,oiiii and Ihfiosil Co. v. 
 H.i,-oii, 27 ('hy. 2!)4, p. 1SS3; iViiidsor Hold 
 Co. of' Monlri'ol v. CVo.ss, 12 S. C. li. (124, 
 p. 4<)r) ; Hit. McLean and Walkn; 10 O. R. Itil, 
 p. 1882. 
 
 On a rcl'erci 
 which coiitaiiM 
 good title; can 
 
 lirst shewn that such good title could be made, 
 It was: Held, that tiiese Words meant when 
 was a good title first shown upon the abstract. 
 La'irilw I'oloii.li). \i. 1,'{7.- i'roudfoot. 
 
 He' 1. also, tliat a vendor does not complete 
 his title until his <leed is ri^gistcred ; i.e., timt 
 registration is essential to the title. Jl>. 
 
 In ail action for siieeifii; iicrfornrinco of a 
 
 cniitiacl tor the sale of land it was contended 
 
 by the; iilaintill' that the title could not now 
 
 I be objecte 1 to by the ilefend.iiit, as bv tile 
 
 j terms of the contract all olijeetions tn the title 
 
 j were to be uotilied by the 2(itli hccembcr, 1887, 
 
 land this was nol talicii until a W(;ek later:- 
 
 ileld, following Ward /•. St;illibiass. I,, i{. 8 Kx. 
 
 n.'i, that such a condition did not apply to the 
 
 case of the vendor bi;iiig unable to gi .-c a gooii 
 
 ; title, but only to objections and re(|uisitions 
 
 j which might have bem iniipcrly enforced against 
 
 I a vendor who liacl a valid tith; ; and the objee- 
 
 { tion here nii'4lit go to the root of the plaintiff's 
 
 title. /Irnin, \.' />, ',,■■-: 12 I'. U. ;{!)(!. -Dalton, 
 
 j Mii-^l.r. 
 
 lly written agreement for the purchase of land 
 it was ]irovidcd that " no title deeds, abstracts, 
 or cviileiici;s of title to be reipiired other than 
 those in the vendor'i: possession, nor shall the 
 viiidor be reipiired to give a covenant for the 
 pioduetiun ol tlie same." - Held that under this 
 condition the vendor was relieved fr<mi tiic ab- 
 solute oliligation of iiiaking a good title to tin; 
 land ; while it the evidence of title cou|ilcd with 
 the abstract and it may be the public register 
 did not disclose ami prove a good title, the pur- 
 chaser was not bound to complete, but in that 
 event the veiiilor would not be liable for dam 
 ages because of the aliove condition. Miliiloali 
 V. y.'o;/./.s 14 t). It. 07.— Royd. 
 
 On 11 reference as to title to land, it appeared 
 that one .\. entrusted certain money to a loan 
 association to invest for her on iiiorLgc-gL, iiiulcr 
 an ii>;ri;eihciit that the association should guar- 
 antee to her payment of interest at seven (ler 
 cent, and in consideration thereof should retain 
 to their own use all interest over that rate. The 
 mortgage which recited the said agreement was 
 taken to the trustees appointed by the asso- 
 
 \ ciatiou. and was made in 18(11. ]5y 32 Viet. e. 
 
 1(12, s. ,') (Out.), all lands, mortgages, etc., held 
 bv trustees of the association were to be deeine<l 
 vested in the O. S. Co., so that the same might 
 be sold, assigned, etc., by tiie latter. vSubse- 
 ipiently the niortgagcu' released his equity of re- 
 demption to the C'. S. Co. in full satisfaetion of 
 the mortgage moneys, but not so as to merge this 
 mmtgage. Hy 3(i Vict. e. 121, s. 5 (Ont.), all 
 lands, mortgages, etc., held by the C. 8. Co., 
 
1887 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1888 
 
 
 
 I'' 
 
 ft 
 
 4t 
 
 were to l)c deemed vested in the C. T. Co., so 
 that the siiine itiiglit )ic siild, nHHigned, etc., by 
 the C. T. Co. Aftti'wards tlie latter coiiiiiany 
 conveycil the lands to the vendor : — Held, that, 
 inasmuch as the above acts made no mention of 
 H., the vendor could not make a gootl title free 
 frrni her claim, who, unless tiie moneys advanced 
 by her had been re])aid, was in equity substan- 
 tially the owner of the mortgage, and if she 
 chose to adopt the act of the trustees in taking 
 a conveyance of the equity, then of the lanii. 
 Mackliii V. JJowHikj, 1!) (). K. 441. — Ferguson. 
 
 See McJhmald v. Murray, 2 (). R. .■)7.'{ : 1 1 A. 
 R. 101, p. 1880 ; McCvac. v. lUicbr, !» O. K. I, p. 
 \»m;McLfan<ind WiMn; 1!)U. K. 101, p. ISS'.'. 
 
 2. Ahslrac/. 
 
 }i. agreed to sell certain land to W. , and in the 
 agreement it was i)riivi(led that " tlie examina- 
 tion of title to lie at tlie cxiicuk' of tin: purcliascr 
 who is to call for only tlio.sc deeds and pain r.s 
 in my ])osses.-ioM or under my control." \V. dc- 
 inandcil a soliiitoi-'s al'stract which 15. declined 
 t<) funli^h ; ami on tlic cxiimin;itioii of the title 
 it was discovered that a deed was ndssing whicli 
 hail not Inen registered, so th:it a clear )iapcr 
 title could not be made out. I?, then otl'ered 
 evidence of a title by ])(isscs.'-iipn by <kclaiati<>!is 
 under 87 \'ict. c. 'M (l)oni.), which W. clccliiied 
 to accept : Held, on an ajiplicntion under the 
 Vendors and I'urcliaseis' Act, K. S. (), (1)S77), 
 c. lOi), s. 8, that U. was bound to furnish an 
 abstract, aiul that \V. was not bouml to accept 
 declaration evidence of the title by |iossession, 
 and the vendor was directed to obtain alHilavits 
 from the declarants, when the purchaser coidd 
 cross-examine the deponents, and if not satis- 
 fied with that, although he might be thought 
 unreixsonable, the purchaser was entitled to 
 have the evidence taki n viva voce, and have 
 his title sanctioiU'il by a decice. in w liicli case, 
 and for that iiurjiose leave was given to him to 
 institute a suit for specific performance, all costs 
 of which were rescr\((l until the hearing. A'e 
 /iounleail and il'druir/.; I2t>. R. 488. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 See Mr[idi:.-<h v. Hoijirn, 14 (». I!. !»7. j). ISSfl ; 
 Dame V. .Sl<(li'r, 21 (). R. ;i7r>. 
 
 3. Iiicaiiilirdnrcj*. 
 
 (a) How far a Jh/hicr in A rl ions for (he. Pur- 
 citii-ic Atdiny. 
 
 Where on the s.de and convej-ance of land the 
 existence of an incundirance is concealed by the 
 vendor, who covenants against incundirances ; 
 and the purchaser executes a mortgage to secure 
 a b.'daneo of un[i.iid j)urchase nuincy, the court 
 will restrain an action to enforce payment of 
 such mortgage. bro\i<;ht at the instance of the 
 niortgagee-or the volinitary transferee — unless 
 the amount of the incinnbrance so concealed is 
 deducted from the sum secured by such mort- 
 gage. The principle was aj)i)lied in a ease where 
 the imrehaser was a married woman, ami her 
 husband had joined in and executed the nujit- 
 gage, by which he covenanted to pay the amount 
 secured thereby, although the covenant against 
 incumbniiiees was to the wile and not to the 
 husband, the covenantor, himself. Luvelace v. 
 Harrington, 27Chy. 178. — iSpiagge. 
 
 Cain agreed to .sell lands to Carter for $1,400. 
 payable in yearly instahnentsof $100 each, with 
 interest, and covenanted that on payment he 
 would convey to Carter in fee simple, free from 
 incund)rances. 'I'hcre was, at the time of this 
 agi'eement, a im>rtgage on the property still in 
 force, payable some years before the last instal- 
 ment of i)Mr(.'lia.se money. C. & C, to whom 
 Cain had assigned the agreement, nowsned Carter 
 for certain instalments overdue: — Hold, revers- 
 ing the decision of I'loudfoot, J., that C. & V., 
 were bound to ensure the defendant, in making 
 the intermeiliate paynujnts, that he, the defen- 
 dant, would have a good title, clear of incuni- 
 braiu'cs, w hen the period of completion of the 
 (;oiitracl had arrived. Cameron v. Carter, 9 (.). 
 I K. 42(i.--Cliy. I). 
 
 I Hold, as to the allegc'd misrepresentation, that 
 it was not such as would avoid the contract, hut 
 it Wcuild c:ist it upon the vendor to make good 
 his repri'sentation before hu could com[)el tlie 
 imynient of the j)urcliasc money. Ihit, in any 
 event, a purchaser of land has a light to assume 
 that the title is good, and that it is free from in. 
 eumbiMnce,aiii| to ri'ijuire this to be show n before 
 he can be eoiiipelled to [i.iy any part of his piir 
 cliiisc money. (iambic r. ( iiimmerson, 9 t.'h^ . 
 1 !)'.», approved (,f. //,. 
 
 (b) Purrhnfe, Sulijid to Morli/aije. 
 
 Where a purchaser of a portion of an estate sub- 
 ject to a mortgage gave a covenant to i)ay apro- 
 jiortion of tile mortgage money, on a bill filed 
 liy the veuilor's assignee lo compel payment hy 
 the |iurchaser, the court refused to give such re 
 lief except upon the terms of the vendor's share 
 of the mortg.ige debt being ))aid at the same 
 i time, although there was no covenant on the 
 jiart of the vendor that he would pay. Hut the 
 court refused to include a direction that the pay- 
 ment by the |iuichasers of his share slioiild he 
 conditional on the p lymeiit by other and iude- 
 ' pendent purchasers of other parts r)f the estate of 
 i their shares of the sum due. In such a case, 
 j however, it would seem that any of such pur- 
 chasers paying the amounts properly payable hy 
 others would lie eiitith^l to use tlie name of the 
 plaintill' in ])rocce(liiig against such defaulting 
 purchasers, upon indemnifying him .igainst costs. 
 Cliinow V. lioutli, 27 CA\y. 15. — Spragge. 
 
 A vendor of lands, which were subject to in- 
 cumbrances created bj' himself, covenanted with 
 his vendee to pay oil the iiicumbianocs, and dis- 
 charge the lainls sold from them. The vendee 
 subsequently imutgaged the lands to the plain- 
 tills, with the usual mortgagor's covenants. In 
 a suit by pi linlill's sciking (amongst; other things) 
 to have till! lands relieved of the incumbrances: 
 —Held, that the plainlill's were entitled to tlie 
 benelit of the vendor's covenant, and he was 
 ordered to discharge the iiicumbr.inee, and p:iy 
 the costs of llie iiieiimbrancers. Ctarlcv. Uo'iart, 
 27 Chy. 4,JU. T.lake. 
 
 Several parcels of land were embraced in one 
 mortgage. .Siib.-e(iueiitly the mortgagor further 
 mortgaged some of them to the iilaintill's with 
 the usual inortL'agor's covenants. He afterwards 
 conveyed another parcel to 8., who, when lie 
 took his conveyance, was not aware of the pl.iin- 
 tills' mortgage, but it was registered against the 
 parcels emliraced in it, though not against the 
 
 tas/ammamim 
 
188S 
 
 ) Carter for $1,400. 
 iof.S100eiiuh, witli 
 at on payment ho 
 2 Hiniple, free from 
 at the time of this 
 le property still iu 
 [ore the last instal- 
 
 C. & <J., to whom 
 nit, now sued Carter 
 ue : — Hold, revers- 
 i, J., tiiat C. &('., 
 fendant, in making 
 liat he, the defen- 
 le, dear of incuni- 
 
 coiiipletion of tlic 
 rort V. Carter, 9 (.>. 
 
 •epreaentation, that 
 id tlie contract, Imt 
 idor tn make good 
 oiiuhl coinpol tli(j 
 )ncj'. I tut, in any 
 iM a right to assume 
 it it in free! from in- 
 i to lie slioH 11 l>ef(ire 
 ny p:irt of Ids pur 
 iiiniinersoii, 9 I'h' . 
 
 o M(irti/(t(je. 
 
 ion of an estate sub- 
 enant to pay a pro- 
 mey, on a l)ill tileJ 
 lonipcl payment iiy 
 scd to give such re 
 t tile vendor's share 
 ; iiaid at tiie same 
 o covenant on the 
 otdd pay. Hut tiie 
 ctidii that the pay- 
 ds KJiare slionld lie 
 liy otlier and iiule- 
 arts ot the estate of 
 o. In siicli a ease, 
 any of sucii pur- 
 iroiK^rly payahle hy 
 ^se the name of tiie 
 st such defaulting 
 ig him against costs. 
 ,— Spiagge. 
 
 were subject to in- 
 If, covenanted with 
 imliranccs, and dis- 
 tiielii. Tlie vendee 
 ands to the plaiu- 
 or's covenants, la 
 iiougst other tilings) 
 
 tlie inoiimhrauees: 
 rere entitled to the 
 cnant, and lie was 
 
 iimhr.iiu'e, and p;iy 
 i. Clark V. Lioijart, 
 
 10 cmliraccd in one 
 [) niortgigor further 
 
 the phiintills with 
 
 11 ts. He afterwards 
 S., who, when he 
 
 aware of the plain - 
 [istereil against the 
 'h not against the 
 
 1889 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1890 
 
 other parcels : — Held, (I) That tlie plaiiilitls payment of tlie .SoOO lieiiig taken a.s part of llie 
 were entitled to rc((uire as lietweeii them and S. con.'sideration. Delimit having heen made in 
 that the parcel conveyed to the latter .should he payment ot the .SI, (1(10 mortgage, the mnrlgagee 
 resorted to for satisfaction of the prior mort- proceeded to a sale luiihr the power, and N. lie- 
 gage liefcu'c recourse should lie had to the panels came the purchaser of lintli parcels with a view 
 cmhraeed in the plaiiitill's' mortgage. (•_>) That of Jirotecting himself, and thereupon took pro- 
 Ihe registration if the prior mortgage ag;iinst the ceedings to comiiel .\l. and the repieseiilatives of 
 parcel liougld ly S. was notice to him of the C. to pay the amount due on the .sl,(iO(» niort- 
 riglit of persons who purchased other parcels gage: -Held, i.Hirmiiig the judgiuent of tho 
 before he purchased to throw the moitgage upon court below ('JS Chy. .'I.'!4), that there was not 
 his parcel, ami that S. was alleeted with n<itice any privity between the plaintilland (.'. 's repre- 
 vif the plaintifl's' mortgage, and the right it con- 
 ferred. Ih. 
 
 The |)laiiitiff purchased a house and lot from 
 defendant for .'::-',00O, Jiayiiig 81,000 in cash, and 
 assuming a mortgage lo .a Iniihliiig society " on 
 which !:<ti()4 is yet uii|,aid,'" ami giving a mortgage 
 to the defemlant for the liahince. The defen- 
 dant covenanted that he had not incumbered, 
 save as aforesaiil. Siibsei|miit iiKpiiries shewed 
 that tlui'c were due tin' soi'iety seventj'-one 
 monthly inst ilnients nf SlO.T"', in all si ,l,S!t.o."), 
 and the plaiutilV insisti'd that she w.is cntitleil 
 to credit from the di'fendaut for the diU'ereiiee 
 between .':(lli4 and tlie latter sum. lUlt ; - Held, 
 that the plaintili' was entitled to retain in his 
 hands only the casli value ot' the mortgage at 
 
 sentatives, and that the (iemaiid remained with 
 M., the original vendor, against C.'s estate. 
 Xorria v. Mnulon-it, 7 A. 1!. l!.'{7. 
 
 Although where land is sold subject to .-in out- 
 standing mortgage, theic; arises a presiiiii[ition 
 or sujiposed intenliou in eipiity on the [lart of 
 tin; purchaser, to indcmnily the vendor against 
 the mortgage (that i.s, li under the actual cir- 
 cumstances, the pal ties are to be considttred to 
 have really oeeiipied the relatiwii of vendor and 
 purchaser), yet tliis presumption may be rebut- 
 ted by parol eviihnee ; and it was held to have 
 been so rebutted in this ease, in which it ap- 
 peared to be contrary to the real intention of 
 the parties to the tian.sa 'tion in i(Uestion, who, 
 moreover, were not strictly in the relation of 
 the date of his purchase, if the society would vendor and purchaser. I'arol evidence, however, 
 accept it, if not then such a sum as, with in- , couhl not have been given in support of or to 
 terest on it, would meet the accruing [laynients. ' strengthen the presumption oreipiity in the liiat 
 The defendant by his answer admitted an error place, though such evidence could be given in 
 in the c<iiiipntatioii of llii^ amount due the society, answer to the evidence advanced to reliut such 
 
 and otl'ereil to pay the dill'erence between tl'.e.'<(iii4 
 and what he alleged was the cash value and costs 
 up to that time : — Held, that in the event of the 
 society accepting iireseiit payment of the cash 
 value, the defendant was entitled to his costs of 
 suit, subse(|uent to answer. Slaric v. Sla'phrrd, 
 •:'.) Chy. ;H0.— I'roudtoot. 
 
 presum]ilion or ecpiity. Curhy v. Craij, 15 O. 
 K. 1. — Kergusun. 
 
 «ee Kempt v. Mamukij, 9 1'. R. ofj'i, p. 1081. 
 
 (e) Di-ichurge of, hi/ yeinlor. 
 A venilor agreed to pay otF a mortgage exist- 
 M. conveyed land lo the plaintili' subject to a ing on the property, and the decree directed a 
 mortgage to the T. & L. Co. for §2,000, and one ! good and sullieient conveyance "according to 
 to C. for .SoOO, which the plaintiircoveiiaiitedto said agreement.'' The defendant, the vendor, 
 pay and save M. harmless tlierefldui. The plain- | neglected to Jiay oil' the moitgage, and the 
 lili' then conveyed to the defendant in considera- plaintili' thereupon moved upon petition to 
 tion of "S^O.-iO anil assuming the ]iayinetit of amend the decree by ordering th'i defendant to 
 the mortgages" aforesaid. The deieiidant ga\e Obtain a discharge of such incumbranee ; but 
 
 the court (iSoyd, C), directed that the vendor 
 pay off the mortgage within a limited time, or 
 in default, that the purchaser should be at 
 liberty to do so, procure an assignment, and 
 have Ids remedy against the vendor, whose con- 
 veyance he was not bound to aeeei>t till this 
 
 II 
 
 lack a mortgage for the bahinee of tin; purchase 
 loney. He went into possession and paid some 
 
 interest on the '!'. Ik L. Co. luortgagc. .Subse- 
 
 (pieutly a new ariangement was made, and tlse 
 
 (iefendant's m<irtgage was discharged, and a 
 
 mortgage fur .Si ,850 was givi'ii by the defendant I 
 
 to the plaintiir, which included tlut amount of ! mortgage was paid otf; the purclmse money 
 
 three Jiroinissory notes for .'?l!.'iO ami otheritems, ' in c<nirt to beaiiplied protanto tliereto :- Held, 
 
 liesides the balance of the purcha>c money, also, that as the matter had been referred to 
 
 There was no covenant for jiayment therein. ■ the master by the decree, which was for specilie 
 
 'I'he T. & L. Co. mortgage fell duo and was not I performance, it shoulil have been disposed of in 
 
 paiil, and the plaintili' liaid CJ.'s mortgage of Ids oiiice under G. O. i'JG. (Con. Rule 02). 
 
 s.'iOO:- Held, that the defendant was bound to \ iytammers v. O'Dunvhue, 29 Chy. G4. 
 
 jiay off the T. & L. Co. mortgage ami relieve the 
 
 liiid therefrom, and indemidiy the jilaintiff 
 against it if personally liabh; thereon. Caucirun 
 y. Mk'L; 2 O. K. GDC). -Q. H. D. 
 
 M., who was the owner of Wliiteaerc nmr treasurer that the land was not redeemed from 
 I'.lackacre, both subject to incumbranee of SI .liOO sale for ta.xes is sulhcieiit, and that an alinlavit 
 ami .«;.-,00, sold Whiteaere to C. subject to the cannot be reipiired li.m a, public .illicer as to 
 5^1,000 mortgage, wit'.i covenants for title, save the proper discharge ot his duly. More evidence 
 as to that mortgage, the m.irtgagc debt in reality 
 being the consideration or purchase money there- 
 for. M., afterwards sold lilaekaere to N. , sub- 
 
 4. Evidence of Title. 
 Held, that the ccrlifieato of the municiial 
 
 ject to the §500 mortgage, which conveyance 
 
 also contained absolute covenants for title, the ! i ork, 7 
 119 
 
 ly be required as between a vendor and pur- 
 
 cliaser than in a suit where the owner or tliose 
 
 claiming under him are parties. Ue Morion and 
 
 Lot A'o. 6' on Plan A'o. SSO in the County uj 
 
 -Proudl'oot. 
 
1891 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1892 
 
 U])oii 11 sale of land the abstract of title set i 
 out jv mortgage given to ii building society in 
 1850, the niortgagor l)eing ti shareholder by sul)- 
 8cri])tioii. The proviso was for repaynien*^ at 
 the times a])poiMted in the company's rules, ))y 
 inontldy subscriptions, to be onntinued until the 
 objects of the society should be attained. The 
 mortgage was produced, and had endorsed upon 
 it a niemor:in(lum, without date, purporting to 
 be signed liy the secretary-treasurer of the soci- 
 ety, that it was paid and settled in full, but the 
 signature was not proved. In conveyances made 
 in lS.')('i and 1874 tliis mortgage was treated as a 
 subsisting iniund)rance : — Held, that this mort- 
 gage should not. in favour of the vendor, be pie- 
 suined to have been sarislied ; nor, iiaving regard 
 to the provisions of I'liy. (i. (). :{<,I4 and .S'.Ki, 
 ((.'on. l{ulcs ll'i, 114) sliould ti\c (piestion be 
 disimsL'd f)t' u|)on a i)resuinption of law. The 
 vendor should shew that some portion of the 
 ))urchase money did not become i)ayal)le under 
 the rules of the society within the period of ten 
 years before the contract, or that this could not 
 be ascertained ; or that the records of the society 
 could not be referred to; or that there was dilli- 
 eulty in proving the fact set forth in the iudor.se- 
 ment on tiie mortgage, that it had been paid in 
 full. Miliilosk V. /.'o-/(-i>-, \-J. 1'. 1!. 389. — Street. 
 
 It appealed that the vendor, although by the 
 contiaet he had limited himself to certain proofs, 
 had elected to make out a title perfect botii as 
 to aljstract and veriiication, in order that lie 
 might compel tiie purchaser to accept it: — Held, 
 tiiat the purclia-^er was entitled to have the title 
 made out as strictly and completely as if the 
 vendi.r had not in any way guarded liimselt by 
 the tirnis of the contract. Ih. 
 
 The abstract of title set out a registered con- 
 veyance from L. (i. et al. to S. (i.: -Held, that 
 the purchaser was entitled at the veinloi''s ex- 
 pense to the production of the conveyance with 
 the usual registrar's c. rtiticate of registraticui 
 of the duplicate indorsed upon it or to the pro- 
 duction ot' a registrar's certified copy. Ue 
 C'hai'les, 4 (.'hy. Chand). It. 19, commented upon. 
 Jf the vendor relies upon a possessory title the 
 l)urchaser is entitled to erossexaniine persons 
 making atiidavits in .«uj)port of it, for the rea- 
 s.ins given in He Houstead and Warwick, 12 O. 
 1{. at p. 491. //;. 
 
 Upon a {)etition under the Vendors' and Pur- 
 chasers' Act: — Held, (1) that the purchasi rs 
 were entitled to certified copies of registered 
 deeds or memorials of deeds in the chain of title 
 which the vendors were unable to piciduce. 
 Mcintosh /•. Rogers, 12 I'. It. 389, followed ; 
 <Jooper i\ Kmcry, 1 Phil. 390, distinguished. 
 Re liuhhr and OiilarUt Invi'Ktmcii' Axsochilion, 
 16 0. R. •259.— Armour. 
 
 A contract of sale of land provided that the 
 veinlors should not be bound to produce any 
 <leeds or evidence of title except such as they 
 might have in their possession, but should show 
 a good title, etc. It appeared that A. P., by an 
 imlenture of 16th .lanuary, 1858, conveyed the 
 lands in question to trustees on certain trusts, 
 which deed was registered by memorial not 
 containing the trusts. By deed of appointment 
 <lated 4th July, 18()2, nuide in pursuance of the 
 4leed of 1858, also registered by memorial, which 
 purported to contain a full copy of the deed in 
 
 which were recitals which set out what pur- 
 l)orted to be the trusts of the former deed and 
 showed a life estate in A. P., with a power of 
 appointment in him, A. P. duly appointed to 
 trustees who were represented hy the vendors, 
 with directions to sell after his ileath, which 
 had recently occurred ; neither of these <leedH 
 was in the possession oi' power of tiie vendors, 
 the trustees. On an application under the Ven- 
 dors' and Purchasers' Act ; — Held, that the ven- 
 dors were not bound to produce these two deeds, 
 and th.'* the i>roduction of the inemorial of the 
 ileed <if appointment twenty years old, reciting 
 the trusts of the trust deed, was sutlieient evi 
 (leiice of what tho.se trusts were ; and as tiiere 
 was an absolute trust for sale tiie piircha.scr 
 should take the title. A. I', in 1873 assumed 
 to mortgage the lands in fee, and died in 18!S7 : 
 — Held, that tiie mortgage only bound his life 
 estate, and that the veiidms were not bound In 
 procure a discharge thereof. A'c I'oiilitii a ml 
 Swaiis/oii, Kit), k. (J09. — lioyd. 
 
 On a sale of lands the purchaser objected tii 
 the title on the grounds ( I ) that there was no 
 evidence that a certain mortgage had been dis- 
 charged ; and (2) that title being deduced 
 througli the devisee of a iierson who had died 
 sinre the coming into force of the " Dcvolutidii 
 of Kstates Act, " R, fS, (). (1887), e, 108, the 
 legal estate was outstanding in the executor of 
 siieli iierson. It appeared that all delits of tin; 
 testator had been paid ; Held, that both mat- 
 ters were matters of convevaiicing. and not of 
 title. Morliii V. Jfti'icr, 19 O. it. 705. — L'liy. I). 
 
 5. Cloud on Title, 
 
 A bill alleged that a mortgage was exeeufed 
 by W. to the defendant in consideration of ^.IC 
 that defendant advanced only .§150 thereon, and 
 W. being entitled to receive the balance assign- 
 ed such right and conveyed his eijuity of redemp- 
 tion to the plaintiff'. That thi^ defendant refused 
 to pay the lialance an<l claimed to hold the mort- 
 gage as security for .*i450. The prayer was for 
 specific pcrfcH'mance or, in the alternative, a de- 
 claration of the above facts, and for general relief. 
 At the hearing, the judge allowed a demurrer ore 
 tenus, on the ground that an agreement to lend 
 money could not be specifically performed :— 
 Held, reversing this judgment, tliat upon the 
 facts alleged in the bill, namely, that the mort- 
 gage was being held for more than had been ad- 
 vanced thereon and therefore to t'lat extent had 
 formed a cloud on the title, the plaintiff would 
 bo entitled to a declaration to that effect, and 
 ajipropriate relief; and as the demurrer admittwl 
 the truth of the allegation it should have lieeii 
 overruled. C<dnrl v. liuriilMm, (i A. 11, (i2u. 
 
 The plaintiff was owner in fee of certain lands 
 which were conveyed to him by deed of 27tli 
 July, 1868, registered 11th August, 1868. Suh- 
 seipiently, by mistake, the lands were sold t<ii' 
 taxes, although no taxes were actually in ar- 
 rear ; and by deed of 11th March, 1880, were 
 conveyed to A. McL., the tax purchaser, wliicli 
 deed was registered 18th May, 1880. On 29ih 
 November, 1881, A. McL, conveyed the said 
 lands to J. W, by deed absolute in form, hut in- 
 tended fts security for money advanced by J. 
 W., which deed was registered 1st Decemher, 
 1881. The plaintiff found out that this sale fer 
 
 k 
 
1892 
 
 3t out whiit pur- 
 forinur duud iin<l 
 with a. power of 
 liily nppoiiitetl to 
 il \>y thu Vendors, 
 his dcutli, whii^h 
 LT of tlicMu dcuds 
 ur of tlie vendors, 
 on under tlio Ven- 
 [ehl, that the veii- 
 e tliese two deeds, 
 e nieinoriiil of tliu 
 years ohl, reciting 
 was sullicient evi 
 I ere ! and as tiitre 
 de the pureliaser 
 . in l.S7:{ assumed 
 anil died in 1SS7 : 
 idy hound his life 
 iVero not hound to 
 A'c I'oiiloii. <i(t(l 
 ■d. 
 
 leliaser ol>jeuted to 
 that tliere was no 
 ;age had i)een dia- 
 le l)eing dedueed 
 son wiio liad died 
 ' tlie " Devohitioii 
 (I8S7), e. 108, the 
 in tlie extiLUtor of 
 lat all del)ts of tin; 
 -Id, that biith mat- 
 aneinj,', and not <il 
 >. K. 70."). -Chy. 1). 
 
 I'illc. 
 
 ,'age was exeeuttMl 
 nsideration of !|4.'i(i 
 (■ iSl'iO thereon, aiid 
 th(! balance assij^ii- 
 s ecjuity of redenip- 
 e dutendant refuKtcl 
 •d to hohl the inort- 
 riie prayer was for 
 e alternative, a de- 
 id for general relief, 
 wed a deuuirrcr ore 
 I agreement to lend 
 3ally performed :— 
 Lint, that upon tlio 
 lely, that the niort- 
 ; than had been ad- 
 ; to t'lat extent had 
 the plaintitr W(jnld 
 to that etiect, and 
 denuirrer adniittcil 
 t should have heeii 
 ium, (J A. U. (il'U. 
 
 fee of certain hiiida 
 1 by deed of U7tli 
 LUgust, 1808. Suh- 
 ands were sold tor 
 ere actually in ar- 
 
 March, 1880, were 
 tx purehaser, whicli 
 ay, 1880. On iKtth 
 
 conveyed the siiid 
 lute inform, but in- 
 ey advanced hy •>. 
 Bred Ist DeeemhiT, 
 lit that this aale for 
 
 ' 
 
 1893 
 
 SALE OF LAND. 
 
 1894 
 
 taxes had taken place shortly before bringing reference as to title, and to have the title niani- 
 
 this action, in which he sought the cancellation 
 of the deeds to Mel-, and .1. W. -.-Held, that 
 the plaintiir was entitled to have the deeds can- 
 celled, and .1. W. was entitled to judgment 
 against A. McL. forthe moneys advanced l)y him. 
 Cliarttoit V. WiiiMiii, 4 U. U. 480. —Ferguson. 
 
 The registration of any instrument which casts 
 doubt or suspicion on the title, or which einhai- 
 
 tested before he makes a single payment. C'eim- 
 iron V. CarUT, !» (). H. 4'-'t).-('hy. I). 
 
 I'.y an agreement for the sale of certain hiiitl, 
 the vendor was to give a good marketable title 
 of which the piucliaser Was to salisly himself ut 
 his own expense, and w.is not to call for any iib 
 stract of title, deeds or evidences of title other 
 than those in the vendor's possession. .Subac- 
 r.isses the owner in maintaining his estate, or in iiuently on a reference in a suit by the vendor 
 
 disjiosing of his projierty, is a cloud upon the 
 title against which the couils will relieve. .Ami 
 in sucli case it is suflicient if there is a registered 
 instrument apparently valid on its f.ice, iRcoin- 
 piiuied by a chain of title, although aii intruder 
 oil tlie chain of title, which is iiUely to work mis- 
 chief to the real owner. A )mrcliaser at a sale 
 of lands hehl under an ortlcrof court olijccteil to 
 the title on the ground that four deeds liad lieeii 
 registered against half of the lot by parties who 
 apparently IimI no title, but one of whom had 
 notilied the ijiuvliascr that lie elaiiiied some in- 
 terest in the lauds: Held tli.U such registered 
 deeds were tdoiids uiioii tlu; title, ;ind tliat the 
 purchaser couhl not \n: coiiiiiijled to t;dve it. 
 Knejer v. Mi-Kaij, 10 1'. K. .S4."). - Jlodgins, .I/i(.v 
 ttr ill Urdiiiari/, 
 
 tor s|iecilic performance, the defendant lile<l 
 three (dijeetioiis to the title having referenco to 
 a small portion of the laud, which were answer- 
 ed liy the iilaintilV, and the refereliee was pro- 
 ceeding when the defemlaut applied and obtained 
 fioiii the master leave to tile other objections. 
 Oil apiieal, I'louilfoot, .1.:- Held, that the mas- 
 ter in ordinary had no jiiiisdictioii to grant such 
 leave, but on a siiliseciiuiit application to the 
 court he gave the leave ie(|uircd on terms. 
 Cl<ld-r V. L'W'jIrl/, 10 1'. K. -208. 
 
 I'laiiititV was a [lurchaser tiiider a power of 
 sale ill a inortgagi; for .■:?'J(H) taken by u solicitor 
 for costs only .S'iO of which had been incurred ut 
 the ilale of the mortgage. The power was ex- 
 ercised to collect the full amount of the mort- 
 gage and interest. Before the purchase was 
 ccjiiiplcted the mortgagee's right to sell was 
 raised as a (juestion of title by the plaintiff who 
 
 Upon a petition under the Vendors' and Pur- 
 chasers' Act: — Meld, that the purchasers were en- 
 titled to have removed from the registry as clouds ! had become aware of these facts. Before these 
 upon the title; (a) A certain eertihcate of lis ! objections were removed, the property was sold 
 pendens in an action ujjon a mortgage which ap- ! again under a prior mortgage : — Held, that the 
 pcared by the registry to be discharged ; because ; mortgage was a valid security for no more than 
 it could not be ascertained from the registry it- ! §30 ; that the phiiutiti' having become aware of 
 self that the action was in respect of the dis ; the vexatious user of the power, was justified 
 charged inortg.'ige ; (ij) A second certilicatc of in refusing to complete the purehaso, and was 
 lis pendens in an action to set aside as fraudulent entitled to recover back the deposit paid by him. 
 il deed in the chain of title under which the ven- Luckimj v. Ilalslul, 10 0. It. 3"2. — Boyd, 
 dors claimed, the vendors not being piuties to it, ' 
 
 Ixicause the vendors, and, if the title passed. 
 
 In one of the conveyances in the chain of title 
 
 , • 1 .. 1 111 L- / > the urant was to the party of the thii'd part, 
 
 the iiurchascrs, initrlit le ai i ed as iiarties ; (c) ; i ^ .i i -. ^- ^ l\ 
 
 .' ' c .. °. 11 .1 1 1 • .'■'. whereas there were only two parties to the cou- 
 
 Ap,,wer.,f attorney t<. sell the lands HI. piestion, .^„j ^,^^ \^ ^,._{, ^^^^,,j ^ ^-^ 
 
 albhough registered after the mortgage under J^ ^^^^^^^ j^ ,_H'd,l, that this was a valid oh- 
 which the vendors were sclliug ; because the jeotioii, though the iiistrmuent would bo at once 
 vendors might be allected with notice ot the ^,,,,,.,^^^1 or reformed as against the grantors; 
 interest claimed by the donor o the power, such ^,. ^,,,,,,1 ,„. ^„^^^j , .^,,^j,^^^,, ^„,„,eyance drawn 
 interest having accrued, i at all be ore the ven- ^^.j^,^ certainty. A'e Clarke and Chamb<r^ 
 
 dors obtained title. /.V ii„i„. ,■ r,„,i ti„i„...,. i„. . . i_ i - ^ J.. 
 
 Jiohii r anil Oiilaii 
 10 O. R. iO!).— Armour. 
 
 In- 
 
 rc.xlmenl Anxn. 
 
 See Ontario Intlnslrial Loan anil Invi'^hm-nl Co. 
 V. Lindsty, 3 O. R. 00, p. IS^.') ; Hamilton J'rori- 
 dent Loan Society v. Gilbert, O. R. 434, p. 700. 
 
 lain, 18 0. R. 270.— Boyd. 
 
 See McCrae v. Backer, 9 0. R. 1, p. 1880 ; Im- 
 perial Bank o/ Canada v. Metcalfe, 11 O. R. 407, 
 p. 057 ; McDonald v. Murray, II .-V. R. 101, p. 
 18S0 ; Cameron v. Cameron, 14 0. R. .'iOl, p. 
 18110 ; London and (Janadian Loan and Aijency 
 Co. v. ar<diam, 10 O. R. .S2!», p. '273 ; Bromu v. 
 Peari, 12 1'. R. 3!)(i, p. ISHO ; lie McLean aiui 
 iVatker, 19 0. R. 101, p. 18S'2. 
 
 IV. Pkhi'auatiun and Tk.ndek of Deed. 
 
 6. Cosiii. 
 
 The ordinary rule in a vendor's suit, is, that 
 the costs are given against him up to the time 
 when he has hrst shown a good title ; but where 
 the (piestion as to title is not the chief matter in 
 dispute the costs will follow the result. Laird \ 'jy\^^ general scope of the Judicature Act, ami 
 V. J'alon, 7 O. R. 137.— Proiidfoot. | especially section 10, sub-seetiou 8 retiuires that 
 
 Where a purchaser's objections to the title j the matters in controversy between the parties 
 ave caused the litigation and have been over- ! "lay be completely and hnally determiiied, and 
 
 - multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning such 
 matters avoided ; so that, whenever a suhject of 
 controversy arises in an action, the court should. 
 
 ha 
 
 ruled, he will be liable for costs, notwithstand- 
 ing any decision in his favour on particular points 
 iu dispute. lb. 
 
 7. Other Cases. 
 When the price is payable by instalments, 
 
 if possible, detenniue it so as to prevent further 
 and useless litigation. In an action for the 
 specific performance of an agreement to convey 
 land, the defendant set up as a defence that 
 
 the purchaser of land has a right to have a [there was no tender of a deed for execution 
 
189$ 
 
 SALE OF LAND ELY ORDER OF THE COURT. 
 
 1896 
 
 ! ; > 
 
 •r 
 
 ir ->. 
 
 m 
 
 beforu notion (mhiiiiioiicciI ; l>ut at tlic hiuiic tiiiiu 
 iniliuatud that if tlicro iiail liccii a tt'iiilor it 
 would }iav(! ' ji!ii rt'fuMud •.--llild, that tlmugli, 
 iiiHtriftiuas, tiii'if niiindd liavi; lii.'fii a tiiidcr.yot, 
 undvr the ciiciiiiiHtaiK.'cH, it should lio diHptMiscd 
 with, liiid jiidf^iiiont was entered tor the ]ilaiii- 
 tiffs. McDoiiyii// V. Hull, la O. li. l(l(!.— 
 O'Connor. 
 
 See AfcDoim/il 
 R. 101, p. ISSO. 
 
 Mnirdi/, •_'(». K. .".7:i : 1 1 A. 
 
 V. Vknuor's Likn. 
 
 On the occnsion of the defendant eflucting a 
 pnrchnae of land from one Jl., au'ainMt uhoni 
 the jdaintifr liad a claim for money advanced to 
 efTcct the original jmnliasc jointly hy H. and 
 himself, and in the I'lmveyaiitc of a ponidn of 
 which he refused to join until assured hy his 
 Holicitor, with dcfemlant's assent, that part ol 
 the purchase money would he ]iaid to the solici- 
 tor, out of whicii the solicitor agreed to jiay 
 the amount due the plainlitl', \\ liei'eu|ion the 
 plaintiti' joined in the eonveyanec to the defen- 
 dant, which was duly registered. The defen- 
 dant and H. however made other arrangements 
 for diBchargiiig all the purchase money, no por- 
 ti«m of wliieh was paid to tiie solicitor or tiie 
 plaintiti':— Held, allirming the ju<lgnient of 
 I'roudfoot, .1., that under the eiiouniHtances an 
 equitable assignment iiad lieen made of so much 
 of the purchace money as the [)laintili".s <lemi",i"i 
 amounted to, and for which purchase money II. 
 had a vendors lien; and that the defendant was 
 bound to pay the s:ime to tlie plaintiti'. (I!nr- 
 ton, J. A., (lissenting.) Armxtrwiq v. Fair, II 
 
 A. R. 186. 
 
 For eoiiipensation for lands taken by railway 
 company, i^ee /{ossv. Crawl 'frtiiil,' h'. IT. Co. , 
 lot). R. 447, p. I7<i0. 
 
 \V. S. . being indebted to R. & Co., who liehl 
 a saw mill and tind)er license, etc., belonging to 
 VV. S. in their own name, as .security therefor, 
 wrote to them that he had arranged with his .son 
 W. A. S. for the transfer to him of his business, 
 and upon his arranging with It. it Co. the lia- 
 bility of VV. .S. that \V. A. S. was entitled to be 
 placed in the position of W. S. with respect to 
 the property held by I!. & (."o., and that on .settl- 
 ing that liability they were to convey to \V. A. 
 S. I5y a sul)se(picnt agreement \V. S. agreed 
 with VV. A. S. that the latter was to pay otf the 
 liabilities of VV. .S. in two years, nijon which \V. 
 8. was to transfer to him other lands than those 
 held by li. & Co. Sul)se(iueiit advances were 
 made by R. & Co. to VV. A. S. The defendant 
 
 B. afterwards paid ofT R. it Co., and R. & Co. 
 and VV. A. .S. joined in conveying tlie property 
 in ((uestion to the defendant R., who subse- 
 quently made advances to VV. A. S. ami to his 
 assignee, on his becoming insolvent. To some 
 of these advances tlie plaintill's, the executors of 
 VV. S., agreed by instrument tinder seal, stipu- 
 lating that it should not afl'ect their lien as 
 against any one but the defendant B. They 
 then claimed a lien on the lands for the amount 
 of the liabilities of their testator VV. S., which 
 W. A. S. had agreed to ])ay as the consideration 
 for the transfer to him of the business: — Held, 
 affirming the judgment of (Jalt, J. (Cameron, J., 
 dissenting), that no such lien existed, even if 
 
 the defendants had had notice of the transaction 
 between VV. S. an.l VV. A. .S. :— Held, by the 
 Supreme Court, that even if such lien e.xisted 
 H, could not be said to be allected with notice 
 of it. Sroll V. Ikiitdiit, 14 S. C. R. 7;i5 ; o O. 
 
 I!. 1. -y. B. I). 
 
 VI. liKHtM.SniNfi .S.M.K. 
 
 1. (iiiicru/ly. 
 
 II. I). C agreed in writing with C. C. on 17th 
 January, 18S'J, to sell to him lots .'17 and .S!) foi 
 §5,450, payable if 1,701 onthedelivcty of the deed, 
 and upon the title to lot .'17 being found satisfac- 
 tory to C.C. or his solicitor, and upon a quit claim 
 deed of lot 30 being delivered ; tiie balance to lie 
 secuied by mortgage ; said sale to l)e completed 
 within thirty days, otheiuise the deposit of .'^25 
 to be fdi'feited. II. I). C, bona tidt! believing 
 such to be the case, represented to C. C. at the 
 time of the sale that a patent from the Crown 
 had issued for lot .'17, and relying on this repre- 
 sentation C. C. entered into the agreement and 
 afterwarils verbally agreed to sell lot .')7 at a 
 large advance to one R. On IDtli February, 
 IHH'J, the conveyance was exeeuteil, the liulk of 
 th(! iiurchase money .S4,0'.'5 liaving been paid 
 prior thereto in cash, a prondssoiy note being 
 taken for the balance in lieu of a mortgage. It 
 afterwards appeared that no patent had ever 
 issiitul for lot ',i~, and not« ithstanding the clhnts 
 of n. 1). C., it was not till 'Joth April, ISjiH, 
 that the department at length issued a patent, 
 and tjien only for four chains of the lot, leaving 
 ninety links outstanding. In I'ebriiary, ISMl 
 C. C. had told II. I>. C. that he woiilil not keep 
 the property, that by reason of no |):itent having 
 issued, R. had withdrawn Ironi his oiler, and he 
 demanded his nuniey back >villi his actual ex- 
 penses incurred. H. I). C. rcl'useil to cancel the 
 sale, and C. C. now took these ](roceediiigs to 
 have the sale rescinded, and the deed delivered 
 up to bo cancelled: — Hehl, tliat there having 
 been no actual fraud, and the deed ol 'Dnveyance 
 having been executed, the )ilaintiir could not have 
 the relief sought for. Wilde r. (iili.son, 1 II. b. 
 Cas. 005 ; Biownlee v. Camplicll, 5 A pp. (Jas. 
 9'25; and Hart v. Swaine, 7 Ch. I). V* distin- 
 guished. Cam' ran V, Caimroii, 14 0. It. .501.— 
 Chy. I). 
 
 Heo Cottingliam V. Cotthii/hnw, II A. R. 024, 
 p. 1884; rroiior v. Mn/li<jaii, I.-? O. U. OS.'}, p. 
 I8SI 
 
 SALE OF LAND BY ORDER OF THE 
 COURT. 
 
 I. Decree for Sale, 1897. 
 
 II. Advkktiskment and (Conditions of 
 Sale, 1897. 
 
 III. BlUUINGS, 1898. 
 
 IV. TENDEK.S, 1898. , 
 
 V. Purchase Money. 
 
 1. Fayment into Court, 1898. 
 
 2. Iiiterext, 1898. 
 
 3. Abatement nf, 1899. 
 
 4. Payment oj Incumbrances, 1899. 
 
1896 
 
 (if tliu truDsnutiiiii 
 1. :— Hold, liy tliu 
 HiU'h lion oxiHtt'il 
 ructt'd witli iidtic'c 
 ('. II. 7:(5; .") O, 
 
 Sai.k. 
 
 vith V. C. on 17th 
 liiU 'M and 3!) for 
 ;liV(.Ty (if thodut'd, 
 ing fduiid HiitiHfai:- 
 I u(i(iiia(|uit ulaiiii 
 
 tilt' liiilaiKju t(i lie 
 l(-' t(i lio i(iiii[ilt:t(.'(l 
 till! ilc|i(i.sit (if fi^L) 
 iiin'i tide litlioviiig 
 
 1 to C. ('. at the 
 
 fldlll tlU! ("lOWII 
 
 viiig (III this rojirc- 
 lie Mj^rcciiii'iit and 
 
 I sell lot .'iT at a 
 
 II lOtli I'Vlii ii.iiy, 
 Lilted, the liiilk of 
 haviiij,' lioeii paid 
 liHxny note lieiiig 
 if 11 iiKirtyage. It 
 
 ]i:it('nt had over 
 tuiidiiig the etl'dits 
 
 •J."itli Aiiiil, IS>s;{, 
 
 h issiieil a patent, 
 of tlu! lot, leaving 
 
 n iMdiiiiary, IS.SH 
 he uoiild not keep 
 f no ]i:itent having 
 ni hi.s oiler, and he 
 iitii hi.s actual ex- 
 
 tised to eaiicel the 
 L'se ]iroceediiigs to 
 -he deed delivered 
 that there having 
 leed of 'onveyanco 
 itill' could not have 
 
 '•. (iilison, 1 II. I,, 
 hell, ."i Ap|i. (Jas. 
 L;h. I), fj di.stin- 
 II, 1-10. U. .Wl. - 
 
 im, 11 A. R. 024, 
 , 13 O. It. 68;i, p. 
 
 IDER OF THE 
 
 »7. 
 
 I (/'ONDITIONS OF 
 
 I 
 
 ', 1898. 
 
 rancea, 1899. 
 
 SALE or LAND BY ORDER OP THE COURT. 
 
 1897 
 
 VI. VViiKN Propkiitv Vksts iv I'tmciiASEie 1 
 I8!»(». 
 
 VII. Vehtino Oiii.Kii, 18!)!). 
 
 VIII. (JiviNo IP I'liucriASK, 1H!)9. 
 
 IX. TiTi.K, 1000. 
 
 X. Taxkx, IflOO. 
 
 XI. SicTTiNd Aside Sale, 1900. 
 
 XII. Ari'I,I(!\TION,S UNDKR CoN. Riti.i; 1007 
 
 Kr sK(j, — Si'.f. KiiAUi)i;i.i,Ni ('onvkv- 
 
 ANCKH I. 2, p. 819. 
 
 XIII. Infant's Khtatk— .S'm' Inkant, I 
 
 I. Decmsei: mil S.\i.i;, | 
 
 i 
 Where a de(tree direeted a wale of eertain )iiii- i 
 perty at tln^ expiration of a year from the date \ 
 of a inaster'.s report, a Hale at the end of a year 
 from the date oi the deeree, instiad of the iliite 
 of the report, \va« allowed under special oircuin- 
 staIK■e^<, on the grmind that the deeree was in 
 etVeet eipiivaleiit to a judgment at law. Porle v. 
 Jnriii, 8 I". I!. tO. Mlake. 
 
 ,See liicLvr v. Hickir, 27 Chy. 070, ji. 1900. 
 
 1898 
 
 III. UlDDINdM, 
 
 II. All\ I'.Kl'ISIvMKNT AMI ("oMirriONS (I!' SaI.K. ; 
 
 j 
 
 At a judiei.il sale of a farm, the conditions of ' 
 Bale were the usual eondilions of tlie court, pro- ' 
 viding for the delivciy of po.ss^^ssioll to the jmr- 
 chaser upon payment of the lialance of the pur- 
 chase money one inonth after the sale. The 
 purchaser lived upon apart of the lot which was 
 not sold, and was aware that the farm sold was ! 
 occupied liy a tenant, hut .swore that he did not ' 
 know the terms of the tenancy, that he relied 
 upon the conditions of sale, and that he bid more 
 for the land because there were growing crops 
 thereon. The purchaser paid the balance into 
 court at the proper time, but did not get posses- : 
 siou then, nor had he got iiossessiou at the time ' 
 of this apiilication, 7th .lauuary, 1S84 : -Held, 
 that the vendors were bound by the terms of the ! 
 printed and pulilished conditions of sile, and ' 
 that it w.vs not the business of the purchaser t>i 
 ae(piaint himself with the tt^rnis of the tenancy, 
 and by eiKpiiry to ascertain w hose were the crops. 
 Order made for jiossession. with a reference as to 
 coniponsation. Maii.inii v. Afaiiton, 10 P. R. | 
 155.— lioyd. 
 
 The advertisement of a judicial sale stated 
 that the property was in possession of a teuaiit, 
 who would permit the purchaser to obtain pos- 
 ses.sion on the Istof November. The purchaser, 
 however was prevented by the tenant from tak- 
 ing possession till the month of .lanuary foUow-- 
 iiig. About the middle of November the pur- 
 chaser obtained a vesting order: — Held, that the 
 purchaser was entitled to eompensation from the 
 vendor for being kept out of possession, and that 
 he had not waived his right liy taking a vesting 
 order. The fiiiluro to give possession was a, 
 breach of the rejiresentation intheadvertisement, 
 a representation on account of which it was to be 
 assumed that the purchase money was greater 
 than it would otherwise have been, liarhe.r v. 
 Barker, 11 V. R. 137.— Ferguson. 
 
 A master has no power to give leave to bid to 
 a party condiicling a sale. ApplKuvtionmuBt be 
 made to the court. II,' L(iyn,ck~Mc(/Uliiray v. 
 Johnson, M I'. R. iVls. -lilake. 
 
 lalierty of tnist(u! to bid at sale. See /Ikkfr 
 V. /.'<>/■, r, 7 A. R. 2S2. 
 
 IV. TuNIiEIl.s. 
 
 On the reference under tlu; (lc(^ree in a mort- 
 gage suit, the pliuutilf put in several allidavits 
 as to the value of the property, §;t,,5(»<t being the 
 highest price iiMMcd in th"iii. The dufendantdid 
 notlileany al'ldnvlts in reply. The lilaintiirs 
 then tendered .S:i,."iil() for the property, which the 
 inastcr declined to accept without an order direct- 
 ing hiiii to do .so. The referee on application re- 
 fiisi'd such order, and on aiipeal, i^pragge, C, 
 upheld his i idgmeiil. ItniiiMiy v. MilJoiKild, 
 S P. I!. 28.'!, 
 
 \'. I'ritciiAsi: Money. 
 
 I. I'ltymiiil into Court 
 
 On a sale under a decree, the purchaser, ex- 
 cept under Kptciiil circiiinst.ince.s, will not be 
 eonipcllcd to pay his purchase iiioney into court 
 until he has accepted or apjirovcd of the title 
 or the master has reported that the vendor can 
 make a good title. Mfl),,iiiiil v. McDirmid, 
 8 I'. I!. •JS.-Ulake. 
 
 Ont^ of the defeiiilaiits in a suit piireha,scd the 
 lauds ill (picstidu upon a sale under the usual 
 decree for partition or sale. The .■ippellant, the 
 plaintiff, w.is lirst niort^'agoc, and the purchaser 
 was second mortgagee of the interest of one S., 
 the owner of an undivided sixth interest in the 
 lands ;— Held, that the iiiiichaser was entitled to 
 a conv(>yance from S, with the usual covenants 
 for title as to his interest, and ,.a. not bound 
 to accept a vesting onhr. Cauieroii, .1., doubting, 
 whether the (piostion was not one of conveyance 
 rather than one of title, and whether therefore 
 the ]iiirchaser should not be ordered to pay his 
 purchase money into court. <,lna're, whether the 
 appellant, whose only iiiter(^st was that of mort- 
 gagee of S.'s inti le t, had any locus standi to 
 bring a suit for p i tition, or to app(!al without 
 his co-plaintilV. Luidniiio v. Sntmiii, 8 A. R. 557. 
 
 I Where the plaintiff 's solicitor made default in 
 I payment into court of the ten per cent, paid to 
 I him at the time of sale, under the conditions of 
 I sale : — Hidd, that the other parties entitled to 
 I the purchase money should not sutler thereby, 
 ! Imt that the pliiintiifs share should be charged 
 ' with tlie delicieiicy. Mittkim v. Clarke, 11 P. 
 i R. .3,"i0. Proudfoot. 
 
 See also .Sub-head V. 4, p. 1899. 
 
 I 2. Intereat. 
 
 '. Where; in a sale under a decree, no undue de- 
 I lay in investigating the title is attributed to 
 i either party, interest upon purchase money is 
 ! payable only from the date of the acceptance of 
 ■ the title, and not from the lime named in the 
 ' conditions of sale. Harrison v. Joseph, 8 P. R. 
 I 29.3. —Stephens. 
 
1899 
 
 SALE or LAND BY OBDEB OF THE OOUBT. 
 
 190» 
 
 I* 
 
 1^ r 
 
 3. Ahull nil III of. 
 
 Wliero luiiil w»H uilvoi'tiiitMl for hiiIu iiiulor ii 
 (It'rrei!, ami tint iiurdiitHur, tlin owiior of tliu ml- 
 joining lot, who liiul nitto Ixu'ii in poNMoHMioii, liy 
 IiIh mum, of tlid iiilvurtiH(!(l pn^tiiiHVM, tt'inlcrtMl 
 for (liiMii, knowiiiK tliiit tli« IiuhIh coiiipriHcil 
 fvwcr iiunjM than tlio inlvcrtlMi'inciil MtaU.'cl, luxl 
 intending to mn'k im iihatt'iiit'iit after tint piir- 
 ulinMO wuH (.'oinplctt'd, and n HuliK<M|Ui'nt iiiciiin- 
 bnincur olforcd to j;iv« thu wiinu \mi.:v. for tlicin 
 OH thu piii'chaHor:- ■li<'ld, that thti pi'titioner 
 Rlioiihl l)(! put to liiH (ticution cither to tuki^ thu 
 land without ubatuniunt of thu piirc^huHo nioiioy, 
 or to hit it >;o to tlit; Hulis('(|Ui'nt int'iniilirancur, 
 Carmkhiirlv. FirrU, H V, K. 'JS!). Sti-phuiis, 
 //«!/m'c— liluku. 
 
 4. Paymml of Innimfminei'H. 
 
 The hill waH lilud hy a Nccoiid niortgageu, Ihu 
 fifHt niort^a){('u not heiii;^ iiia<lc a party. At a 
 Hul(! untlcr the d(M'r<ic, Si. piir<:iiaM('d the land, 
 aiid afterwards jiaiil the piin'hase money into 
 court; he then ni<irt;(.i|r('il the land, then eon- 
 vcycd hiw eijuity of redemption, and then took 
 out a venting order. A miliMe(|Uent mortgaj^ee, 
 claimed payment of his claim ottt of the moneyN 
 in court. On the l!(th Novemher, on tlie 
 application of M., the referee made an order, 
 dircctiiifj payment to the asMignee of tin; lir.st 
 mortgagee of Inn claim out of the piH'chane 
 money in court. It appisired that M. thought 
 ho waH purchaHJng fn^e from iucuudiranccH, and 
 waH iguurant of the tiist mortgagti. On appeal, 
 I'roudfoot, V. ('., ujiheld the referee'.s order. 
 Flemiiiij v. Mi-Domjull, S 1'. R. 200. 
 
 SoeJfi/de V. Iliirlim, 8 I'. \i. '20r>, p. .''lOO. 
 
 VI. WiiKN 1'koi'kktv V'Ksr.s in I'ikckasku. 
 
 A purehaner at a sale under decree nigned the 
 usual coiitraut to pur(.'ha.s(>, and paid tliedepo.sit. 
 The next day the l)uililiugHon thei)ropcrty were 
 hurned down :- Hehl, hy I'roudfoot, \'.C, on 
 appeal, I'eversing the deiiHiou of Stephens, re- 
 feree, (S 1'. K. Kiti), that the loss would not fall 
 oil the purchaser, as the interest contracted for 
 did not vest in him till tli(! report on side was 
 contirmud. ^Icphtitson v. Huiii, 8 T. K. '2~>S. 
 
 Vir. VKSTrNc Ordkr. 
 
 See Fkmiiiii v. Mrlhniijall, 8 1». K. 2(K), p. 
 HHirra ; llyih' v. Ihirlou, 8 I'. R. 'JOfi, p. 500 ; 
 haplante v. Sraiiicn, 8 A. R. 557, p. 1898. 
 
 VIII. (JlVINtl t;i- J'URCIIA.SK, 
 
 At a sale under a decree on the 25th March, 
 1879, A. purchased the lanil in (|UC8tion. On 
 the I9th April, 1879, he transferred his interest 
 to W., and on the 2()th April, one H. purchased 
 and took an assignment of the dower of one .S. 
 in the land. On the Kith J<'cl)ruary, 188(», A. 
 applied to be released from the contract to pur- 
 chaBe on the ground of the outstanding dower. 
 The evidence showed that S. liad agreed with 
 the heir-at-law to accept a gross sum in lieu of 
 her dower, that W. really purchased the dower, 
 but took the assignment in H.'s name, and that 
 
 this application though in A. 's name, waitrrally 
 made hy W.;- Held, that no relief couh' 
 granted, the applicant having himself ereatvil tliii 
 olistaide hy nu'aiiH of which he sought to pre- 
 vent tin- sale being carried out. Eraser v. itinin, 
 8 1'. R. 278.-Spragge. 
 
 At a sale uniler the standing eonditiiuis of salo 
 of the court the purchaser |iaid ten piT cent, of 
 his purehuse nu)ney, but made default in paying 
 the balance, and on a resale the propeily 
 l>roughl $2t') more than at the lirst sale. Ro>di 
 ('., refused an application by the purchaser lo 
 have his deposit repaid to him, but ns itappcnn d 
 that the deposit woidd eov(tr the (expenses and 
 costs incurred )iy the ri^sale, \w. directed that 
 the purchaser should not be reipdred to p.iy 
 them in additiiui. Till v. Kiiii/i/), 9 I*. R. :tl i. 
 
 I.\. Tiri.K. 
 
 In a sale under a decrees: Held, that thii 
 Iiurehaser had no right to eertilied copies of re- 
 gistereil and otiu'r documents )irocured at tint 
 expensit of the Vendor. Ilnrrinun v. Jiiki/iIi, 8 
 1'. R. 29;i.- Stephens, lii/irn. 
 
 Where a bill was sc'i ved on a defendant pi r- 
 sonally, and about a year afterwards a final ordir 
 of foreclosure was granted in \\w suit: llel<l, 
 that a purchaser was not entitled to insist on 
 the plaintill' (the vendor) proving that the ilefi ii- 
 ilaut was alive when the final order was made. 
 Ill iiiUu-KUH V, Speurir, 8 I'. R. 402.— Spragge. 
 
 (:iou<l on title. See Kn'ffr v. McKay, 10 I". 
 R. ;t45, p. I89M. 
 
 See M<-I)irmiil. v. McDcrmiil, 8 1'. R. 2S, p. 
 1898; Laplmite v. .Sraiwii, 8 A, J!. .W?, p. 1898. 
 
 X. Taxes. 
 
 Thepurehasers claiuieil thatthe vendorsshould 
 pay a proportion of the taxes for the yt^uf ISM) 
 uptotith of March, when the title was accepted 
 anil possicssion given. The bylaw for the enllce- 
 tion of taxes in Toronto for 1888, was passed ou 
 the 2iul April, 1880, and ])roviiled that the tavr-t 
 should be due and j)ayabl(' on 4th.luuc, 1880, lut 
 that if an instalment was then ))aid, further |,iy- 
 meut by instalments might be made on the l.'itli 
 , I Illy and Hi'd September : — Held, that iiiicjer 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 174, s. :^47, and the terms of 
 the city by-law, no taxes were due so as to form 
 a charge on the land until 4th ,luiio, the date 
 when the lirst instalmeiit of taxes was due, .'ind 
 that the vendors therctfore were not bound lo ]iay 
 any part of the taxes for that year. UarriKUii v. 
 Joseph, 8 P. 1!. 293.— Stephens, J/cfnrc. 
 
 XI. SETn.No Aside Sale. 
 
 Although a decree for sale should direct the 
 same to take place with the approbation of tiie 
 muster, the omission of such direction is no 
 ground for moving to set aside the sale under the 
 decree where the same really took place with 
 such approbation, even in a case where infants 
 are interested, /lirkir v. IHcker, 27 Chy. 570. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 ^ee Campion v. lirackcnriilge, 28 Chy. 201, p. 
 95. 
 
 I 
 
igo» 
 
 nnirif, wnnrrally 
 risliif c'»»l(' 
 
 IIIHI'lf Ct'OUttMl tllll 
 I! MDII^Ilt l<> |ll<'- 
 
 /■'rrmer v. iliiiiii. 
 
 iiiiilitioiiH of Hiilo 
 ti'ii |)('r rv.ui. of 
 li'fiiiilt ill paying 
 !• till! |)r(>|M'ity 
 
 ilSt Hull!. I{l'>ll, 
 till' |llll'l,'llUMr| Id 
 
 III iiH itii|iii('iiii il 
 
 tllll OXpullMCH Hllll 
 III! llil'(!Ctt!(| lliat 
 
 ii'ipiir(!il to |My 
 
 I'll, !» I', li. :!ii. 
 
 Ill'lll, tllllt llll! 
 
 licil i:opii'n i)t ic 
 lnouiircil at I hi; 
 \rit<i,ii V. JiiHi i>li, S 
 
 it (Irfciidiint pi r- 
 .■iuiImh litial nnliT 
 
 till! Hiiit: lli'i.l, 
 iticii to insist (>u 
 lig that till; ikf( n 
 
 oiilrf uiiH liiiiilc. 
 402. -Spra!,'gc. 
 
 V. McKay, 10 ['. 
 r/, 8 I'. K. -is, p. 
 
 . J!, rin?, p. isiis. 
 
 tilt! VciiiIoi'hhIiimiIiI 
 
 for tliu yi'ar IsM) 
 
 litlo was iiuL'i pti il 
 
 •law for the collcc- 
 
 kSS, whs paHHCll nil 
 ilcil that till! tiivcs 
 th.liiiie, IHMO, liiit 
 Jiaiii, further | :iy- 
 madi! on tlie l.'itli 
 Helil, that iiiiiler 
 ami the tonus of 
 line so a.s to form 
 ;h .Jiiiie, the ilate 
 ixes waa iliic, and 
 'not liound to pay 
 ear. IJarrinoii v. 
 s, licferec. 
 
 .Salk. 
 
 should dirc<;l the 
 ppiohation of tlio 
 '1 direction is nn 
 the sale under the 
 r ♦■ook place with 
 aae where infants 
 »\ 27 (."hy. 57G.— 
 
 !, 28 Chy. 201, p. 
 
 1901 SCIRE FAOIAS 
 
 SALE OF LAND FOR TAXES. 
 
 iSVe ASHKSMMKNT ANU TaxKH. 
 
 SALOONS. 
 
 Sir Intoxicatinii hlgtioiis. 
 
 AND REVIVOR. 
 
 1902 
 
 SALVAGE. 
 
 Sec iNHl'ltAN* K-Hllll>. 
 
 SAMPLE. 
 
 .SVi Sai.k (ik <;:'"i 
 
 SATISFACTION. 
 
 Sic. Aci'dKIi AM) SaI IslvM' 
 
 'h'lt If the motion wiw m THHiiry i", had lii'in 
 111,'liliy rrfiiH.'d : (.hia'ie, whether it vum iie.eH- 
 Mary to (ilitaili leavi to isMiie exeeiitioii upon, ep 
 to revive the jiidHliient, exeintliiii liaviii« heeil 
 III faet iH!<iii!daiid ietiM'iii'!| within nIx years fmin 
 itx recovery. Allan c. Mc'lavjsh, •-• A. I!. '.'TS ; 
 Hoice e. O'Loano, :» A. K. 1(17, coimiienteil on.' 
 Ml- Malum V. S/inicfr, IM A. K. l.'tO. 
 
 •Iild;," , ,it was leciiVeriM; in I.S.MI. On t|,„ 
 'j;jrd of Oelolier, iNdil, an order Was made hy a 
 jildi,'!' ill cliaiiilpcis torevJM! Iiy enleiin!,' a i-ii^. 
 Kestiiiiion the mil under tlie(''. I,. |'. Act, ami 
 the NUi.';,'rstioli was intend on t lie 'i'Jiid .laiillaiv, 
 IS7(t, liiit no exeriili.pii i-Hiieil after that date. 
 OntheCiih De.'ciiUr, ISHJ, .m order was niadi) 
 \et (('(III. Hide HM'i), for 
 
 under Hide ;rii), (> f 
 leave to tin' plaintii 
 that the entry of ii 
 I'. Alt w.is a jnd:.iii 
 new starting point i 
 to run from, aii.i tli.u u 
 
 " I xci'iition ; ll( Id, 
 
 M"ii iiiidi'r the ( ' I,. 
 
 tilt! eniiil .iiiil i;av<' ii 
 
 ttilte of Limitations 
 
 M'l'ioil of Ijndtatiiiii 
 
 SCHOOLS. 
 
 S:c I'liii.ii! ScjicKii.s. 
 
 SCIRE FACIAS AND REVIVOR. 
 
 I. To IllcvtVK ArTloN>, lOOl. 
 JI. To Rkvivk .liniiiMKNis, 1901. 
 III. On Dkatii, l!t(»2. 
 
 1. To Hkvivk Actions. 
 
 An order of revivor was olitained in this eaiisc 
 on the ground that the solo jilaintilV hail .issi^'ned 
 all his interest, ete. , to one ('lose. The plaintili j 
 applied to the court liy petitiim to .set asidi! tlio 
 order, dispiitiii); the assii'iinnnt on the allei,'a- 
 tion of which the order was olitained. rroiid- 
 f(K>t, V. C, discliar^'ed the ordi!r of rev i\iir \\ itli 
 costs. Fi^kcii V. Iiici\ SI*, i!. 147. 
 
 See Ronn v. Poincrni/, 2S Chy. 4;i.'), p. IISS ; 
 Merchants' /lank v. Utinilr'ini, 10 I'. |;, 4(17, p. 
 1089; Onusetl v. Carln; (I (). K. M\. [>. !I2!I. 
 
 II. To Ri:VIVK .JuDdMENfS. 
 
 Held, that since the imssinn of .S.T Vict. o. 12, 
 B. I (Ont.) (K. S. (). 1,S77, c. ll(i)tlicassi>,'iieeof 
 a judgment is entitled to revivi! the same in his 
 own name hy entering a suggestion on the roll. 
 I'liUiiiM V. Foj; 8 1'. R. i'l. -Dalton, Q. ('. 
 
 The ]i1aintifr recovered judgnieiit against the 
 defendants on the ."^rd of Noveinlier, lSli."{, ami 
 the last execution issued thereon was returned 
 iu Septendier, 18(>.5. More than twenty years 
 afterwards the plaintitt'moved for leave to issue 
 execution against the surviving defendant, hut 
 no evidence was given of any ])art payment on 
 account of the judgment or acknowledgment of 
 liability thereon within that period : — Held, 
 
 ill the CISC of judgments in jiersonal ailioiisiK 
 twenty years iimler If. S. (). (IH77) <!. (11, and 
 not ten years uiidir K. ,S. O. (IS77) e. p.'S, wliieli 
 relates to jml'^mmts as liens on Imiil. Allan r. 
 MeTavish, i; ,\. l;. 'jys, and Hoiie ,', OLoaiie, 
 H A. 1!. I(!7, eommeiitnl on and followed : — 
 (|fu.ere, per Itiise, .1., wlnther tlure is any period 
 
 lixed hy the st itiite hey I wliieli the eiuirt may 
 
 not hair power to allow e\eriitiiiM to he issliici. 
 McCiillumjIi v. .Sy,.x, 11 p. |[. ,'|;i7. D.ilton. 
 .V(M^■;•.- l{ose. 
 
 111. ()s1)i:atii. 
 
 A lilaintilV in ;iii arlion fur dnwcr rerovered 
 jnilgment, hut hefore the exceiition of the writ 
 of assigiiineiit of dower, and after its issue, tho 
 tenant of the freehold died, having devised the 
 land in i|U(!Stion to the presi'nt defeiiilant : llild 
 that the pliilitiU'must |iioi'i cd ajaiii -t the devisee 
 hy scire facias, .ind not liv suggest imi or revivor. 
 J)iii!h\. Dniii'isiiii, SI*. It. 7." Hagaity. 
 
 The original defcinlant dying pendente lite, 
 the plaiiitills issued an order of revivor on tliu 
 22nil .April, and served it on the defendants hy 
 order on the same day, .•iiid almig with it a mi- 
 ti(!e of trial for the ."ith May, at Coinwail. The 
 defendant moved t.i set aside the notice of trial 
 as iri'gnlar :— Ifcld, that the order of revivor 
 was ill force from its service, ami as it would he 
 conlirmed hy llie lapsi! of twelve days upon the 
 4tli of May, the notice of trial for tiie ."itli .May 
 was regular. ,V' »' Yml: I'iaiin Cn. v. Slinii-niii, 
 10 1'. ii. 270. Dalton, M(islii\ 
 
 iS. I', hrought an action for damages sustained 
 and to he sustained hy reason of hrcaches of 
 covenants for title in a conveyance of certain 
 lands to him, and hi'l'ore tlu! trial died intestate, 
 whereiipiui his administratrix took out an order 
 of levivor, which onler was now sought to ho 
 set aside on the ground that the right of action 
 did not survive to ht!r: -Held, that as to dama- 
 ges which accrued during the lifetime of .S. I'., 
 his administratrix was entitled to sue for the 
 same ; hut that this was not so as to damages 
 which might have accrued since his death, for 
 which — Semhlc, the heir, or devisee, might bring 
 
 I an action. In the ca.sc of such coveiiaiita run- 
 ning with the land where only a formal breach 
 takes place in the life of the ancestor, the remedy 
 
 i for damages accruing after hia death, passes to 
 
1903 
 
 SEDUCTION. 
 
 1904 
 
 |1 'W 
 
 tlicheirordcviHw:; but wlunci not only ilic lin^aoli 
 took place?, l)iitil;uiiai;csin.'LTiiu(l in tlio lirutiiiu.' of 
 the ancestor, the remedy for these (lainai,'eM jjiisses 
 to the personal repr(!sentative. P/itll v. drawl 
 Tnuik Ji. W. Co., II O. R.'24(). -I'loudfoot. 
 
 See White v. rarhr, IG S. C. R. fii»n, p. 1393. 
 
 SCRUTINY OF VOTES. 
 
 Sir TnTOXICATINC NlQUOliS — l'.\l:l.I.\MI'.NTAKV 
 ElJCtlTlONS. 
 
 SEAL. 
 
 1. ('(iNiitAcrs WITH Oini'i'KATioN's — .SVt 
 
 (,'li.MI'.\NV. 
 
 II. 'I'd Dr.Kii — V. '■ l)KKl>. 
 
 III. 'I'd I'.yLaWS -*(' MUMCll'Al. Coill'OKA- 
 
 TIDNS. 
 
 SEARCH WARRANT. 
 
 >S(( IsTdXir '.'I iNi: 
 
 l,ii,)i'(ius— •Ir.'iTicK or Tii; 
 
 I'KACIC. 
 
 Ilchl, thnt an actinn for malicious prosecution 
 will lie for issuing a seai'cli warrant without rea- 
 Bonahle and jji'oliahle cause. Yuiun/ v. Nic/iol, 
 9 0. 1!. :!47 ('. I". I). 
 
 See Jlooru- V. r,-,,;./, I'J A. R. 7'-' p. IS.'iO. 
 
 SEAWORTHINESS. 
 
 Sir Insuranck. 
 
 SECOND APPLICATIONS. 
 
 Si'r PRACTICE. 
 
 SECURITY. 
 
 I, ('(ll.l.ATr.l;Al Si'C CohLATKRAL Sr.ou- 
 
 nrrv. 
 
 II. Foi; Co.'iTS. 
 
 1. <!i iicralhj—Si'C, {\)STS. 
 
 •J. Siilifitor Takiiin Si'curily for CotU^ 
 Si I ."^oi.ioi rou. 
 
 SEDUCTION. 
 
 1. InIIK IMKNT KOli, 1004. 
 
 II, Ri(;iiT OK AcTToN, 1904. 
 
 III. KVIDKNCK, lOO."). 
 
 IV. I>AMA(n;s, 1900. 
 V. (\)STS, 190(5. 
 
 VI. OrnEH CvsEs, 1906. 
 
 I. InDICTMKNT FOK. 
 
 See Huiiiia v. Smith, 19 O. R. 714.— C. I'. I); 
 p. 17'21." 
 
 II. RkIHT O!' A(!TI0N. 
 
 WIktc an nnmarried wcunati is seduced and 
 pregnancy follows, or sickness which weakens 
 or renders her less ahle to W(uk or serve, the 
 father's cause of action is eouipli^te, and cannot 
 l>o ilivcstiid hy the suhsi'ijUcnt niairiaue of his 
 dani^hter l)cfore birth of a eliild. 'I'iic facts of 
 seduction, preLjiiancy, ami illncssminlit liejirovcd 
 liy tlie ilan,i,'iiter, but she rni,i,dit refuse to answer 
 as to will) was tin; cause of iicr |)i'('j,'uaiic-y if she 
 asserted that the cliild slie lnno was Imrii in wed 
 h)ck. Kniiisv. ]\',i//, -JO. n. Kill. "(.». U. I). 
 
 \Vlicrc the dauglitcr was luarricd dnring hci- 
 jireun.incy cnrise(|Ucnt upon her seduction l)y tiic 
 di fciidant, and her cliild was born in wedlock, 
 ami till' action was l)rnuL;lit at tlie instig.ition (jf 
 tlie husliand. he and his wife biin;,' the (inly 
 witnesses, and no pionf of sickness iw inability 
 to serve was given: — lleM, (Armour, .1., dis- 
 senting), tiiat a nonsuit was prn])erly ('iitered. 
 I'er Armour, .1. If loss of service was neces- 
 sary to be ])roved. a new trial should be granted 
 for that |)urpiise ; and it cannot be s,ii>l tli;it 
 under siicii eiroHinstanees a father sustains no 
 damages apart from tiie loss of service. III. 
 
 In, -111 :iction for scdiiction of the graiidniece 
 <if the |ii lii'till', it a])ii(!ared that on ht r l.ithcr's 
 and motlier's death, wlieu she w;is almiit twelve 
 years old, she went to liv(Mvitli the ))laintiH', and 
 fium tlieiice Went out to service to various per- 
 sons, and at the time of the seduction, ami for 
 three years previously, was in the service of oi,e 
 C. rct:duing her wages for licr own use. She 
 was sciluced by tlie defendant in the month of 
 April, being tiien about iiinct;'i'n years old. In 
 June following sin; Went to llctioitfor a <-ou]ile 
 of weeks, and from tlieiii!e to the ])laint ill' 's, 
 wlicrc slic resided until slie was sick, when she 
 went to the hospital, where .she was confined. 
 While at the plaintill's she worked, and did 
 whatever was re(|nired of her, the plaintill't leaf- 
 ing her as if she were at home, as her guardian : — 
 llidd, that the ]daintiir could not recover, for 
 that tlic right of action for the alleged wrong 
 was not vested in the plaintitF, but in thepcr.soii 
 who was master .)f the girl ut tiic tiiiu! of hi'i 
 seduction. McKi'ruii: v. ;l/c//irr», (i <). II. 4-'S.- 
 ('. I'. I). 
 
 Ill an ac' ui for seduction brouglit by tlio 
 inotlu'r and stepfather of the ilaiighter, it ap- 
 pisircd til it at the lime of the sediietiou the 
 daughter was not living at home with lie pl.iin 
 tills, hut was out at sm'viee : — Held (.illiiining 
 the judgnieiit of (ialt, .1.), that the plaintill's hail 
 the right to maintain the action ((hia're, as to 
 the mothcr'.s right to sue alone. Mi i/i r v. /{ell, 
 ISO. K. 3.-|.-Chy. 1). 
 
 In an actiiui for sodiietion it ajipeared that 
 the plaintitV was the brother of the girl seduced; 
 and tluit the girl, though in the service of iin- 
 otlier person, yet (by .igreement with her mis- 
 tress, entered into at tlie time of her eiigagc- 
 nieiit) was at liberty to perform, and did per- 
 form certain services at home for the plaintiff, 
 uniler contract with him f(U' which she received 
 compensation : — Held, that the plaiiitilf was en- 
 
 s' i""--— 
 
 '-iv'^.c.aj^.^i.^'j' 
 
 mmmfmimmifflt^vn 
 
 t^'^^.^viiSS^JiitS^'s^We^W''*'^*''""'"*^'' 
 
1904 
 
 l)K. 
 
 1. 714.-C. I'. I); 
 
 TIDN. 
 
 .n is s('ilu<,'C(l ami 
 s wliioli weiikcns 
 (Ilk oi' .serve, thu 
 |)l('t(', iiiid ciiiiiiiit 
 t iii.iiriauc of his 
 1(1. 'I'iid facts of 
 siuiylit lie |)loV(;il 
 t refuse to answer 
 |ii'(',L,'iiu!iey if slie 
 • wa.s 1)11111 in Weil 
 
 Kill. -(,>. i;. i>. 
 
 inieil (lininL; lier- 
 r seiliietioM liy the 
 liolii in wedlock, 
 llic ilistii;,itioii (if 
 e lieiii;; tli'^ onlj' 
 kness or inaliility 
 .\rnioiir, .1., dis- 
 |iro)ierly iMitcred. 
 rviee was neees- 
 diiiuld lie ;,'rante(l 
 mot lie s lid tint 
 iitlier sustains no 
 Burvice. //<. 
 
 ;if tile ;,'randnieoe 
 it on hi r t.ither'H 
 was aliiiut twelve 
 I the |ilainliir, ami 
 ;i^ to various per- 
 C(l\n/tion, and fur 
 the sei'viee of oi.e 
 jr own nse. .Sle- 
 in the month of 
 en years old. In 
 troit for a cowide 
 ) the |ilaintilV's, 
 is siek, when she 
 li(! was eonlined. 
 worked, and did 
 the ]ilaiiitiir treat- 
 is her guardian: — 
 I not re(!i)ver, for 
 le alleged wrong 
 lint in the iiersiin 
 the time of her 
 ((//,<)(». H. 4-JS.. 
 
 lirou'.'ht liy the 
 ! danghter, it ap- 
 he seduction the 
 no. with he plain- 
 — Held (allirniing 
 . the plaintills had 
 )i\ f.hneri^, as to 
 ■. M.i/.r V. /I, II, 
 
 it a|i|ieared that 
 the girl seduced ; 
 the service of an- 
 nt with her niis- 
 le of her eiigage- 
 rni, and did per- 
 for the iilaintiff, 
 diioh she reeeivcd 
 u plaintiff was cn- 
 
 1905 
 
 SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 
 
 1906 
 
 titled to maintain the action. Hist /•. Faux, 4 I 
 H. it S. 400, H|)eoially referred to ; Thompson /•. ! 
 llo.ss, 5 11. & N. Ki. distingnished. Slrnit^ihnn 
 V. Sullh, 1!)(). It. .MS.-fhy. 1). 
 
 It appeared that the defendant was not ()uite 
 of a^e, and that no guardi.in had evei- li(!an ap- 
 pointed, hut that till; faitt of infancy was well- 
 known to the defendant's parents and to the 
 Kiilicilor and counsel who apiie;U'e(l for him at 
 the I rial, and no oli.jection on this grinnid was 
 taken till tliLs motion before the Divisinnal 
 ronrt;- Held, that under Con. Mules •Jill, Si:!, 
 the iippointnu'iit of a gu.irdian was not impera- 
 tive : the (Miurt had ii. diseretinn ; and in this 
 ease tlie judgment olitained against the defen- 
 dant at the trial should not lie iiilerfei'ed with. 
 I-'uruival r. lll'ooke, 1!( L. 'P. X. S. l.'il, fnllowed. 
 
 U,. I 
 
 IDDCi;' 
 
 he wished to know what it could bo aettlcil for; 
 that he did not do so with a view to any one 
 hut merely out of curiosity. The jury found 
 for the plaintiff with i^ToO :— Held, that tMere 
 was siillieient evidence to go to the jury in sup- 
 port of the j)laiiiti!T's ease ; and that the dam- 
 ages, under the cireumstanees, were not exces- 
 sive. Palmhii V. McChani, 12 (). Pv. 192.— C. 
 1'. I). 
 
 See /•;/•««.■( V. Wall, 2 0. II. ICG, j). I9()4. 
 
 Si'c 111 ii'iii'in- V, 
 
 Thriislii 
 (). R. 
 
 »•, 10. R. :ii; 
 
 ."(OI, ill I'm. 
 
 III. KVIDKNCK. 
 
 Held, fdlowiilg HodsoU i: Tavlor. I,. I!, il (). 
 li. 70, that in an action for se liiction evidence 
 as to defendant's means is iuaduiissilile ; and 
 that evidence of tln^ kind having been received, 
 defendant w is not to Uc prejudici'd in his ajipli- 
 eation for a new trial liceause his counsel had, 
 aftiu' having done Ills liivst to exclude the evi- 
 deuei.'. examined defendant ou the same subject 
 with a view to disproving the estimate placed on 
 his nu:ans. Fn-iiiixim v. Vrllrli, 4.") (>), 11. l(i((. — 
 (,>. I!. 1). 
 
 In an .aetion of seduetinn the plaiiitill' ob- 
 tained a verdict, and judgment was dii'ected to 
 he entered in his favour. In the foUowiag sit- 
 tings of the Divisional Court an order nisi was 
 obtained to set aside the verdict .ml judgnieut, 
 and t 1 enter judgnutnt for tln^ dcf(Mid lut, on the 
 giound of the iiupnioer admission of the evi- 
 dence of the seduced gill by reason of her iu- 
 compiiteiiey to give evideuee. The order was 
 set down, and on its eomiiig on for judgment, 
 it ai)|ieaied that after i\w order had been served 
 the plaiatilF had died : -Scmble, that under O. 
 .1. Act, Rule :ts:{ (Cm. Kill'! (12(1', the action 
 nbite I iiy re.ison of the plaiutiir's d '.atli : Held, 
 thai the girl's evidence was improperly received, 
 as it clearly appeared that she was not eajiable 
 of understanding or ai)prcci:iting the nature of 
 an oath or the obligation she assumed in swearing 
 to tell the ti'iitlKand was tln'refore incompetent 
 to give evideuee: and without !;er exidciice the 
 verdict eoiild not be suppoi led An oider was 
 granted staying further proceedings in the action. 
 Udijw Sle'i"(trl, lOO. I!. .-)OI.--C. P. I>. 
 
 In an luition of seduction the only evideuee 
 was that of the plaintilV, the father of the se- 
 duced girl, aid the dcf(Uidanl, the uirl having 
 died shortly after the birth of the child. The 
 plaintifTsfcitcil tint the (lefeiidant had admitted 
 that he h id seduced the girl, and asked what 
 the ease could be settled for. The defendant 
 denied that he was the father of the child, or 
 that he h.ul made any siieli admission : that he 
 had heanl L. spokeii of as the fither of the 
 child. He admitted having asked what the ca<c 
 could be settled for. but that he did so because 
 he heard the plaint iH w:ih asking If 1,001), and 
 
 \'2i) 
 
 IV. Damaoks. 
 
 .Assessment of damages by judge without jury. 
 See Altai, •\: llVw/e, O'O. ll. 1."), p. fiS2. 
 
 , See rnlinhi/ v. MrClninj, 12 0. P.. 192, supra. 
 
 v. Costs. 
 
 In an action for seductiou it appeared that the 
 wrong complained of was partly attributable to 
 the culpable conduct of the girl's parents, and 
 the jury g.ive a verdict for the defiiidant, but 
 declared that they desired him not to get the 
 costs, whereupon judgment was directed to be 
 entered for him witliontcosts : - Held, that good 
 cause w:'s shewn why costs sliould not be given 
 to the defendinl within Rule 4'JS (Con. Rule 
 1170), which declares that where an action is 
 tried by a jury the costs shall follow the event, 
 unless upon aiiplicatiou made at the trial, for 
 good cause shewn, the judge or court shall 
 otherwise order. Wanuhij v. Miklvll , 5 O. R. 
 427.- C. P. 1). 
 
 VI. OriiKR CJasks. 
 
 Held, allinniugthc iudgmcnt of (Jameron, J. (0 
 P. R. 2l)li), that und''rtlic Insolvent Act, 18G4, 
 s. subs. ■"), a disch irgc in insolvency would 
 form no answer to [iroceediiigs upon a judgment 
 against defendant for seduction, llinimjer v. 
 fhriuhi'i; I U. II. :H3. -'.). B. 1). 
 
 .-Vrrest under r!a Re. —See Wheally v. Sharp, 
 S P. R. IS!), p. 00;{, 
 
 lu an action of seduction brought against an 
 infant, the defend iiit w.is served per.sonally. 
 .iiiil entered an appeiraui;e. in |ierson : — Held, 
 that the coimnou law (iraetiee refi^rred to in t!ou. 
 Pule 2iil means the praetiee by which a real 
 guardian and imt a tictitioiis one wis appointed ; 
 and ail order was ma le rcipiiring the defendant 
 to appeir by gii ir li an within six days, and in 
 default that tli^ plaiiitill' should b- at liberty to 
 appoint a guardian for him, the consent of such 
 guardian being shewn, as als i that he had no 
 interest adverse to the defendant. Ihjm v 
 llroirii, I UP. Pv. 17. -Street. 
 
 SEIZURE. 
 
 Ski' E.vEinriiiN -Siikkifk. 
 
 SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 
 
 Scr PuHMc Schools. 
 
1907 
 
 SESSIONS. 
 
 1908 
 
 SEPARATION. 
 Deed ov—See Husband and Wife. 
 
 SEQUESTRATION. 
 
 See Execution. 
 
 SERVANT. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 SERVICE. 
 
 Of Process and Proceedin(is. 
 
 1. III. Iliijh Court — See Practice. 
 
 2. In Dirision Conrln — -SVe Division 
 
 Courts. 
 
 3. Ill Eject ment— Sec. Ejectment. 
 
 4. Other Proceedings— See The Several 
 
 Titles. 
 
 SESSIONS. 
 
 I. Who to Preside, 1907. 
 II. Convictions. 
 
 1. Amendment of , 1907. 
 
 2. Appeals From. 
 
 (a) To Sessions, 1908. 
 
 (b) From Sessions — f>ae Certiorari. 
 in. Mandamus to— .S'cc Mandamus. 
 
 I. Who to Prkside. 
 
 Held, per Armour aiul O'Connor, .1.1., tliat 
 the county ju(lgtM)f the county of Lanark liad no I 
 power to prosiilo at tlie sessions i'\ t'le (;ininty of 
 Renfrew, tho provincial statuU' > thorizing iiiin 
 to do so l)eiiig ultra viroa. \Vi: , C. J., ui)on ; 
 this point gave no (lositive opinii, hut inclined 
 tothe opposite view. Uili.foii v. .1/, '>n>iultl, 7 0. 
 R. 401.— Q. 15. 1). ' 
 
 II. Convictions. 
 
 1. Amendment of. 
 
 Where an appeal was l)rought from a convic- 
 tion imposing imprisonment with h.ird labour, 
 which the magistrate had no power to awar<l, 
 and the sessions amended the record by striking 
 out "hard labour:"' — Held (Cameron, J., dis- 
 senting), that their assuming so to amend tlie 
 conviction was not a quashing of the conviction, 
 .•ind therefore trespass would not lie against the 
 justices. McLellimv. McKiunon, 10. R. 219. — 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 Per Armour, J. , the general sessions of the 
 peace have no power under 32-33 Vict. c. 31 
 (l>om.), to amend the sentence in a conviction as 
 by striking out the part imposing hard labour, 
 
 but can hear and determine an appeal on tlie 
 adjudication of guilt only. Hagarty. C. J., in- 
 clined to agree, but gave no express decision on 
 this jioint. Ih. 
 
 See In re liyerand I'lows, 46 Q. B. 200, iiijr:i. 
 
 2. Appeals from. 
 
 (a) To Sessions. 
 
 A conviction may be returned and proved at 
 a;iy time during tlie hearing of an appeal there- 
 from to the general sessions, or, in the discretion 
 of the cliairinan, even during an adjournment 
 for judgment. /« re llyer and Plows, 46 Q. K. 
 206. -Osier. 
 
 A minute of conviction signed by the justice, 
 but not sealed, was returned to the sessions, 
 upon tlie entering of an a]>peal therefrom by 
 the defendants. The jury found the defendant 
 guilty of tlic ofFeiice of wliicli he had been con- 
 victed, but on niotiiili for judgment he objected 
 that tbe conviction was not sealed. The chair- 
 man reserved jiiilHUKiit until a day named, and 
 during the acijournmeiit the justices returned 
 and filed a conviction under seal. Tlie chairman 
 then declined to receive it, or to give judgment, 
 holding that there was no conviction upon which 
 to found the appeal, which had been heard : — 
 Held, that the prosecutor was not entitled to a 
 maiulamus to compel him to deliver judgment ; 
 for the reception of the conviction in evidence at 
 that period was in the chairman's discretion, 
 which could not be reviewed. Ih. 
 
 On an appeal to the sessions from a conviction 
 by a magistrate for breach of a municipal by- 
 law, it is in the discretion of the chairman to 
 grant or refuse a request for a jury, under 36 
 Vict. c. ^H, s. 2 (Doni.), which is declaratory of 
 the meaning of section 66 of the .12-.S3 Vict. <■. 
 31 (Doni.), an 1 is not conlined to cases under tlie 
 .Acts inentioiu'il in the ])reamble and title, whic li 
 relate oidv to the desertion of seamen. Rpii'uni 
 v. Wayhin<it"n, 4ti Q. H. 221. Osier. 
 
 ( )n the appeal the ajipell iiit tendered evidence 
 and witnesses not hc.ird on tli(^ trial before the 
 magisfrute whirl) the chairnian rejected, relying 
 on 32-!i."> Viet. c. 31, s (iCi (l)oni.), wliich, ho" - 
 ever, h.id been re])ealed by 42 Vict. e. 44. s, 
 10 (l)oin.). The conviction was amen<led and 
 affirmed, as and fr)r a breach of a municipal by- 
 law :— Held, that the ap]iellant had the riglit 
 uiiiler eitiier the l>oininion Act, or R. S. (>. 
 (1877), c. 74. s. 4, which governed the case, to 
 have such witnesses examined, and having bei ii 
 deprived of this right, the order of session* 
 should be quashed. Ih. 
 
 Held, that the prosecutor of a complaint can- 
 not appeal from the order of a magistrate dis- 
 missing the complaint ; as by \\. S. O. (1877), '"• 
 74, s. 4, the practice of appealing in such a case 
 is assimilated to that under Dom. Stat. .S3 Vict, 
 c. 47, which confines tho right of appeal to the 
 defendant. A prohibition was tlierefore ordered, 
 but without costs as the objection to the juris- 
 diction had not been taken in the court below. 
 In re Murphy and Cornish, 8 P. R. 420.— Osier. 
 
 Two justices appointed in 1880 for the tem- 
 porary judicial district of Nipissing, made a 
 conviction in the sahl district of one M. for .in 
 
am 
 
 1909 
 
 SET-OFF. 
 
 1910 
 
 an appeal on t))e 
 agnrty. C. J., in- 
 Itress decision fpi» 
 
 ' Q. B. 200, i)ijrn. 
 
 ed .and proved .it 
 ;in a)>p(!al there- 
 in tlie discretion 
 an adjonrnnient 
 
 / r/uw.'i, Hi Q. K 
 
 il I)y tiiG jnstice, 
 to tile sessions, 
 al tliercfi'oni liy 
 il the defendant 
 he liMil lieen coii- 
 nient he ohjectcd 
 lied. The eliair- 
 i day named, and 
 instioes retnrneil 
 I. 'J'lie cliairniiiii 
 o yive ju()gnient, 
 etion njmn whieh 
 id l)een iieard : — 
 not entitled to a 
 eliver jiulgment ; 
 ion in evidence at 
 nan's discretion. 
 
 prom a conviction 
 a innnicipal liy- 
 the chainnan to 
 a jnry, under ,S(! 
 is declaratory of 
 ihe .T2-.S3 Vict, c 
 tociises nnder tlio 
 eand title, wliic h 
 seamen, lieqiiia 
 Osier. 
 
 endered evidenn) 
 • trial hefore I lie 
 
 rejected, relying; 
 in.), wliich, lio« - 
 •2 Viet. e. 44, s, 
 as amended ;ind 
 
 a nmnicipal l>y- 
 t had the right 
 et, or R. S. (1. 
 rned the case, to 
 and having hecii 
 rder of sessions 
 
 a complaint can- 
 a miicistrate di.s- 
 . .S. b. (1877), c. 
 iig in such a eiise 
 in. Stat. .3.3 Vict, 
 of appeal to the 
 lerefore ordered, 
 tion to the juris- 
 ihe court below. 
 R. 420. -Osier. 
 
 180 for the teni- 
 pissing, made a 
 >f one M. for an 
 
 assault committed there : — Held, that no appeal 
 would lie under 9 Vict, c 41, now Consol. Stal. 
 C. c. 101, s. 4, to the general sessions of tiie 
 county of Renfrew, being the nearest to the 
 place of conviction, for the justices were not ap- 
 pointed under that Act, but under the R. S. (). 
 (1877) c. 71, and the place of conviction was not \ 
 within any part of (Canada defined and declared 
 by nroclaniation under that Act. ilibion v. 
 MchonakI, 7 O. R. 401. -Q. B. D. 
 
 On the conviction of the prisoner herein she 
 was connnitted to custody under a warrant Lssiiel 
 by the convicting magistrate. Slie gave '.>ail 
 and was discharged from custody under 'X\ Vict, 
 c. 27, s. 1. On the a))peal being heard, the 
 prisoner was found guilty an<l the conviction 
 allirmeil, and the prisoner directed to be pun- 
 ished according to the conviction. No jirocoss 
 was issued by the sessions for enforcing tlic 
 judgment of the court, Init a new warrant was 
 issued by the convicting nnigistrate, under which 
 the prisoner was retaken. Writs of haltcas corpus 
 and certiorari were issued, and on the return 
 thereof a motion w.is made fur the discharge of 
 the prisoner. In tlie margin of th(i writ of 
 habeas coriius, it w is marked "per" ',VA Car. 2, 
 which was signed by the judge issuing it : — 
 Held, that the ]nisoner was not in custody or 
 contincd under the judijnunt of tiie .sessions, 
 but under the warrant of tiie convicting magis- 
 trate : and — Senilile. under tlie rircumslanccs, 
 the convicting magistrate was functus othcin, and 
 therefore c.uld not issue the warrant in i|Ucstioii, 
 which should have been issued by the sessions ; i 
 and possibly they Cdiild iiave directed puiiisli 
 mcnt for the unexpired term ; l>ut tliat if no liail 
 had been given, and tlic piisdner liad remained 
 in custody, no further order <if coniniitnieiit 
 would have been necessary, or if no warnint of 
 comniitnient had been issued prior to apjical, tlie | 
 magistrate C(nild have issued one tiiereafter : — 1 
 Held, also, that uniler acerticuari the conviction ' 
 ndght be (juashcd ; and, as the judgnieiit of tlic 
 sessions conlirmcd the conviction, it would |iro- ; 
 bably fall with it. Ilojina v, .l)w■o/^ iM). I!. 
 541.— Rose. See Ar.si-ud v. I.illiy, 11 (). 1!. bVi ; 
 14 A. 1!. 2.S3. p. 1124. 
 
 An appeal from a conviction for iiialicioiis i 
 injury to pro])crty came on for hearing at the ! 
 general sessions. No onU^r of adjouniiiieiit ■ 
 was endorsed on the cdiiviction, tlic clerk merely 
 entering a minute of the order in liis book. At ; 
 the following sessions tlie aiipeal was Iieard and \ 
 tlie conviction < plashed :— Held, that the pro- 1 
 vision in section 77 I!. S. ('. c. I7S, as to! 
 endorsing the order of .adjournment on tlie con- 
 viction was not imperative, but directory merely, 
 and therefore the omission to make tlie ciidoisc- 
 meiit did not afl'cct tin; validity of the ordir tf) 
 (piash. Rvijimi v. Head, 17 O. l!. IS.").- f. 1'. D. 
 
 See McMlan v. Mch'inmn, I O. 1!. 210, p. ' 
 ■l'J07 ; /,'<;iiiia v. /{umsni/, 1 1 O. R. 210, p. 1048 ; 
 liei/ina v. Diiiiniiui, 14 O. R. 52, ]). 218; /!c(iiiiii 
 V. 'McGaiihy, 12 1'. I!. 2.50, p. 1001. 
 
 SET-OFF. 
 
 I. Subject MArrKR ok Skt-okf, 1910. 
 II. Ok Costs— iS'ee Cost.s. 
 
 III. In In.solvencv Proceedixcs — .See 
 B.VNKitri'Tcv AMI Insolvkncy. 
 
 IV. CofNTKU C't.AI.M OK SkT-OKF. 
 
 1. Pleadbiij—Sd' I'i.kaijI.m:. 
 
 2. Co»lx of- Siii Costs. 
 
 3. Iti l)l<tr(xt—S<i- Distress. 
 V. Ok JuiKiMRNTs — See Judoment. 
 
 I. Sin.llX'T M.VITF.K OK Set-okk. 
 
 The plaintiQ' had recovered a verdict for .*(i(H> 
 against defeiulant for malieious proscculion, lint 
 jiidgment had not been signed tliereoii. At llie 
 same assizes the defendant recovered a verdict 
 against the plaintiU'for.^^.SSO on promissory notes, 
 and signed jiidginent. The plaintitl' almost im- 
 mediately after its recovery assigned his verdict 
 to his bnitlicr, but tlie court held this to be a 
 device to ))rcvcnt a set-oil -. — Held, that the 
 defendant was entitled to have the plaintiti"s 
 verdict set-oil' jiro taiito liy eiiteriiig satisfaction 
 U])oii his judgment to the extent of tiie verdict, 
 and paying the costs of suit ; and it made no 
 diil'evcnce that the jiid;;iiieiit had not liceii enter- 
 ed by the plaintitl'. Crmii V. .1/''. I //(/«'•, 411 (^. 
 15. 2S4.— Osier. 
 
 A mortgagor and mortgagee' dealt together for 
 some years without having luul any settlement 
 of accounts, and llie former liecuiiie insolvent. 
 At tlie date of the insolvency tliere existed a 
 right of set-oil', in favour of the moi'tgagor for 
 the balance due him on their general dealings : - 
 Held, allirming the finding of the master, tliat 
 such 1 ight of sct-otl'passcil to the oilicial assignee 
 of the mortgagor, and that a transferee of the 
 securitv took it subject to the equity. Court v. 
 J/olhi)iil, 2!) Chy. lit.-Uoyd. 
 
 .\fter plaintill' had comuieiiccd an action 
 against the ilcfeiidant to reeover from him in 
 ies])ect of his uiiliaid stock in a joint stoi'k C'ln- 
 pany the stun of .Sl+-'.2il, lieingtln^ amount of an 
 unsatislied judginent reeovi r.d by the lilainlill' 
 against the eonipaiiy. one I!, rd'ovei-eil a jmlg 
 meiit against the coinpaiiy, for ^4,H:il!.()S, and 
 assigned it to one (1., who assignid |ialt of the 
 money recovered to the extent ot S."iOO, the 
 ainoiiiit of the defendant's unjiaid stock to the 
 defendant. 'I'lic object of the assigliimnt to the 
 dcfenilant was togive him luioiity over the plain- 
 till's claim : -Held, that the proeining of such 
 assignment by defeiulant l)eiiig for such purpose, 
 amrbeing a voliintaiy act on defendant's part, 
 anil witlMiotiee of iilaintiU's eluiiii, did not con- 
 stitute adefeiice to it ; but— Semble. if the set-oil" 
 had accrued to the defendant in liis own right, 
 althoiiiili after action brought, it would have 
 been otherwise. /'/'./(/ v. dalluinvj, 5 O. It. 
 ,'502. -C. W 1). 
 
 In an .action of trcs]iass hn- entering the 
 warehouse of a deceased person (of whom the 
 plaintill' was the .idmiiiistiatoi ) after his death 
 and taking and coiiveiting the goods therein, the 
 
 i defeiulant set -oil' a debt due by clceeaseil to him. 
 
 I An administration order had been made of which 
 the defendant had notice before defence. 'J he 
 set-oil' was held bad under 27 Vict. c. 28, s. '-•8, 
 (Ont ) and also because of the ailmiuistralion 
 order. MoiiUUh v. ll'oW-, 10 1'. R. 102. I»al- 
 ton, Maxtn: 
 
1911 
 
 SET-OFF. 
 
 1912 
 
 J 
 
 I 
 
 
 A Bolidtor's bill of costs will be allowed as a ] 
 set-ofT and as a debt, though no bill has been ! 
 delivered. J/dc/z/crwy/ v. Tifilalc, II I', R. 1 
 201.— Boyd. 
 
 J. I., the appellant, gave to one (I. his note j 
 for S(j,000 which was endoi-.sed to the J5ank of 
 V. E. I. ; the Union Bank of 1'. [•:. I. at the time . 
 held a cJHMjue or draft, made by the Bank of V. i 
 K. I., for nearly tlie siinie amount, and thi.s draft , 
 the appellant piueliascd forsoiuetliing ninre than , 
 $200 less tiian its face value ; bein;^! sued on the 
 note ho set-otl' the auioinit of sueii ciieijuu or ; 
 draft, and paid the diHeience. On the trial he \ 
 admitted he had )>urcliased it for tlie purpos • of 
 using it as an oll'set to llie el.iiin on liis note, j 
 which he had )nade non-nrgotialile, and he also 
 ailmitteil tliat if lie enuld succeed in Ids set-oil' 
 and another ]iarty could succecil in a sinular 
 transaction, tiie I'nion Bank would get their 
 claim against the Bank of P. !•",. I., whicli ha<l 
 become insolvent, ))aid in full. 'I'lie judge on the 
 trial charged that if tlie draft was cjiilorscd to , 
 the defenilant to enable him to use it as a set-oil' 
 hocf)uld not do so, because he was a contributory 
 within the meaning of the TOth section of tlie 
 Canada Winding-up Act, and that the Act which 
 came into force on the I'Jth May, ISS'J, was n;- 
 tros])tctive as regards the endorsements made 
 before it was pa:-sed, Imt witliin thirty days be- 
 fore tlie conimenceniLiit ol the proci-e(lings to 
 wind up tlic allairs of tlie liank. Tiie jiii y, under 
 tluMlirectioii of tile judge, fduiid a general ver- 
 dict for the plaiiiliir for liie amount of the note 
 and interest, wliieli the Siiprenie Court refused 
 to distill b. On appeal to the Sujneme ('(Uirt (if 
 (.'anada : - Held, reveisiiig the judgment of the 
 court below, tiiat appellant having pincliased the 
 draft in (|Ue.stion for value and in gnoil faith 
 jirior toL'Oth .\la\', KSS2, the Canada \Viieling-ii]) 
 Act, 4.") Viet.c.'J."}(l)iiui.), was not applied >le, and 
 therefore tlie apiiellant was entitled to tiie beiie- 
 lit of his set-oir, aii<l liiat the Winding-up .\ct 
 was not retiMsjieetive as to this cndnisenient. 
 /«'/.s V. B<iiil; III' Priiici h'llirari/ I</(niil, II S. C. 
 K. 2(i,-). 
 
 Y. in making a deposit on a governnient eon- 
 tract, gave a iniirkeil cliei|ne on the Central 
 liaiik. in « hieli he was ;i shareholder, and whicli 
 ch(!i|ue was subsei|iieiilly caneeih'd and a deposit 
 receipt issued by tin- b.ink substiluted tluu-el'or. 
 N'. gave liis note to the bank to cover the 
 amount of the receipt. 'Plie bank went into 
 lii|iiidatiim '.hi\ Dcceinlier, 1SS7, aiidoirJOth Jan- 
 uary, liSSS, Y. having been reciuireil by the gov- 
 ( inment to take up t he <lei)osit reeeipt and re- 
 ])l;iee it witii other security, took an assigiiincnt 
 of the receijitand notiliod the bank. On hi'lng 
 tlireateiied with ii ."-iiit on the note, he liled a 
 |jc;tition asking for have to set up the dciiosit 
 receipt against the note as a set-oil' : - Meld, fol- 
 lowing Ings r. Bank of I'rinee I'Mward Island, 
 1 1 S. C, R. o(;,-,^ that Y. as maker of the note 
 to the bank was a mere debtor and not a con- 
 tributory and that .although also a shareholder, 
 and so liable asa contributory, he was notacon- 
 ti iliiitory quoad the debt which arose out of an 
 inde|)endent transaction and for that reason sec- 
 tion 73 of R. S. C. c. 129 did not apply :— Held, 
 also that the prohibition in the Act against ac- 
 <piiring debts for the purpose of set-olT is limited 
 to the ease of eontributorics ; as to debtors the 
 law of aet-off as administered by the courts is 
 
 applicable as if the company was a going concern 
 and following Re the Moseley etc. (joke Co., 
 Barrett's Case, 4 I). O. J. & S. 750, that the 
 right of set-oil" virtually arose not by reason of 
 dealings subse(Hieiitto the winding-up order, but 
 of dealings prim- thereto, because the engage- 
 ment was to give security to the satisfaction of 
 the governnient ami in taking up the deposit re- 
 cci])t and suiiplying better security Y. was only 
 fullilling that which he was obliged to do by a 
 prior buna tide engiigemciit.-//* re. the Central 
 IS'iiik of ddiiaild wild the iViiiiliiiii-lip Art, Ch. 
 }.'!), /,'.S. (:.—Yi,rb\iC<i.se, 15 0. 1!. 025. —Boyd. 
 
 It a))pe ired that during S. I*. 's ownershi]) the 
 gove. anient constructed a breakwater at the 
 mouth of the river, and that S. 1". had been 
 awarded damages "on account of the penning 
 or damming mi of the waters by the construe- 
 tioii of tile breakwater, ami forcing them back 
 on .S. i'.'s jnoperty," and on another account 
 not iiiatei ial to this action : —Held, that as the 
 sum awarded was a lum)) sum for both accounts 
 together, and as the evid(!iice on the arhitratioii 
 shewed that the breakwater only aH'ccteil S. I'. 
 to the extent of tliree feet of water, leaving him 
 a fall of live feel, tlic value of which could only 
 be ascertained liy a reference, and a-i the sub- 
 jects of the arbitration and the action on the 
 covenant were not the same, tin! company were 
 not entitled to set-oil' the iiKint^y leeovcrcd fnini 
 the goveriimciit ag.iiiist tiieir lialiility for dam- 
 a^es for their breaeli of contract. I'/ci/l v. (Iraiul 
 Tniiilclt. W. Co., 12 O. R. 119.— Rroudfoot. 
 
 The plaintill in his st itemciit of idiiiii alleged 
 certain traiisa(;tioiis between him and tiie defen- 
 dant, in the whole comprehending over .':!l,00O, 
 and claimed a balance of .'^l()l).7'-! and interest 
 from the 1st .hi'iuary, I.SSS. 'I'lic defendant by 
 liis statcnu'iit of ilefeiicc denied that he was in- 
 debted to llie plaintill' in .any sum, and alleged 
 til it the ])laintiir was indebted to him for goods 
 supiilied and on certain |)r(>missnry notes in the 
 sum of .^l,.'i'i.").7">, for which hecoiiiiter-claimed : 
 — Held, that the m itter of tile counter-claim was 
 nally ■' set-olT, and eve:i if it wi'ie not improper 
 to <■ ill it a coiinter-elaiiii, having regard to Con. 
 Kiile .■{7.!. this could not idiange its real cliar- 
 acter. Cutler --. .Morse. 12 1'. R. .-)!)4. referred 
 to. Iliiiiii'tl V. 117);/., i;{ P. R. 149. Ferguson. 
 
 \j. having improperly withdrawn from the 
 moneys of tin; I'ompany a certain sum on the 
 assumption tliat he was entitled to it in payment 
 of his services: — lield, that this was a br<Mch 
 of tiust <m L."s I'.irt, and the amount thus with- 
 drawn fcrmcil a ilebt baseil on a breach of trust, 
 recoverable by tin; liipiid.ator, under the sjiecial 
 provisic -IS ol it S. C. c. 129, and as to which 
 no set-oir was permissible against any debt or 
 dividend due from tlu; company to L. He lioU 
 (iiiil 1 1 nil ('(I. ■-/jirimiitniic'i I'tur, 14 O. R. 211. 
 ; Boyd ; l(i A. R. .S97.' 
 
 I Held, that a married woman, tlinngh married 
 befoi'c 4th May, ISoO, was not bound by a cove- 
 nant of her husband, entered into by him for 
 himself, his heirs and assigns as a lessor of eer- 
 , tain lands, to pay at the e.spiration of the lease 
 for a certain nialthouse which the lessee was to 
 ! have liberty to erect on the demised premises, 
 I though the reversion had been .assigned to her 
 I husband anil another as trustees for her, in such 
 I a way that she had the entire beneficial interest, 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
r 
 
 1912 
 
 was a going concern 
 cloy eti\ Coke Co., 
 c& S. ICiii, tliat tlie 
 )3e not by reason of 
 iiKling-iip order, but 
 jeoaiiso tlie engagc- 
 
 tlif satisfaction of 
 ig up tlie deposit re- 
 L-eurity Y. was only 
 
 1 obliged to do by a, 
 ■-III n: the Central 
 'iniUiiij-iip Art, C/i. 
 50. U. 625. —Boyd. 
 
 I'.'s owii^-rsliip the 
 breakwater ;i,t the 
 hat S. P. had i)een 
 Hint of the penning 
 rs by the coiistriie- 
 
 foi'uiiig them back 
 )n another aeeonnt 
 —Held, that as tlie 
 n for both accounts 
 ■^ on the arl)itratioii 
 only aH'eetcd S. I'. 
 
 water, leaving him 
 if whieii could only 
 L-e, and as the suli- 
 
 the aetiiiii on tlie 
 
 the ci)ni|);uiy were 
 iiey recovered from 
 • liability for dain- 
 let. I'/a}/ V. (.'rami 
 
 l!).--l'r,mdfoot. 
 
 )nt of elMiiii alleged 
 him and the defeu- 
 mliiig over S1,00(», 
 ()!).7- and interest 
 The ilefciiilant by 
 ied that he was in- 
 y .sum, and alleged 
 d to him for goods 
 lissory notes in the 
 leeoiiiiter-clainied : 
 'couiitcr-elaini was 
 Were M<it improper 
 •iiig ri'u'ard to Con. 
 luuc ils real char- 
 V.n. 5!)1. referred 
 !. I HI. l''ergiisoii. 
 
 hdrawn from the 
 M'tain sum on the 
 ed to it ill payment 
 
 this was a breaeh 
 amount thus with- 
 i a briiaeh of trust, 
 , undei- the special 
 
 and as to which 
 tainst any debt or 
 my to I,. /,V Jioll 
 "rtsf, 14 0. R. 'ill. 
 
 n, though marric<l 
 t bound by a cove- 
 l into by liiin for 
 a.s a lessor of cer- 
 ration of the lease 
 I the lessee was to 
 ileniiscd premises, 
 ;n assigned to her 
 )ea for her, in such 
 beneficial interest, 
 
 1913 
 
 SHEEP. 
 
 lilt 
 
 and though the covenant ran with the laud: — I 
 Held, also (affirming the decision of l-'ergusoii, ' 
 •2 (). 1!. 459), that a claim on behalf of the .said ' 
 trustees for rent in arrear, and for <lamngos for 
 non-repair, was not a matter of .setoll' against 
 damages recovered against W. F. for breach of 
 said covenant, though he was one of the trustees, 
 they not being matters arising in the same ! 
 right. Per Uoyd, C. — Semble, if tlie amount to ' 
 lie paid for the nialtliouse had formed a lien on 
 this particular land out of whiidi the rent issued, 
 it may be that the claim for setoll' in respect of 
 rent ill arrear and damages for non-repair would 
 have prevailed. Avihroxe v. Fm-irr, 14 0. K. 
 ojl.— Chy. 1). 
 
 On 15th November, 1SS7, the day before the 
 HHspcnsion of the Central liank, one I'., having 
 sulHcient funds to his credit, drew a cheque upon 
 it payable to (."., who dejiosited the same in the 
 Dominion Hank, anil obt.iined an advance upon 
 it, and the Dominion Hank claimed upon it in 
 the winding up proci'ediiigs. having presented it 
 fur payment on i\ovembcr ITtli, whin, however, 
 the Central liauk had suspended iiayiueiit. On 
 •J.'ii'd Novcmlier, 1SS7, Llie Central li.ink marked 
 the cheque good, ili'bitiiig D.'s account and 
 crediting the D.uiiiiiiou Tank with the aiiiouut 
 thereof. Afterwards, however, the liiiuidators 
 claiming the right to set oil' certain sulisri|Uciitly 
 accruing liabilities of I), again.st tlic cliei|iic, the 
 |)oniiniiin Hank withdrew their claim iipmi it, 
 ami the Master in Ordinary disallowed it. .Sub- 
 seijueiitly, and after l,he lirst dividend had licen 
 paid, C. heard of this, and lilcd a cl.iim on the 
 cheque, on l.'ith Septeiiilier, ISSS. The master, 
 linwever. held tli-it the time for iiling claims 
 hiiving elapsed, he had a discretion as to allowing 
 the claim. ;ind allowed it only .subject to the said 
 set-oil': — Held, that there was no i ight to sct-oll' 
 as claimed, and that the allowance of the claim 
 was ex debito jiistitia', and not discretionary. 
 The fact of the (Jeiitr.il i>ank having accepted 
 the cheque, and credited the amount to the 
 Dominion I'ank, and charged the .imoiint to 
 Donovan, shewed conelusivc'ly thai at that time 
 the Central Hank was not a creditor of Donovan : 
 nnr did the case come within the meaning of 
 any of the clauses in the Wimliiig-up .\ct rela- 
 ting to fraudulent iircfcrcnces. A'c (.'i ii/rii/ Haul;, 
 —Cay/cj/'n Ca-se, 17 0. !!. 1'_'2.— Robertson. 
 
 \ landowner had an old .aecoiinl fur bread 
 against the contractor for the erection of certain 
 stores supplied, which account, with interest, 
 lie charged against the sums due to the con- 
 tractor under the contract :--Helil, iqimi the 
 evidence, that the aci.'ount and interest should 
 be treated, not as a matter of set-otl', Imt as a 
 payment of so much ot the contract price. I'mnx 
 v. Dixon, 17 O. R. :^{U). -Q. H. I). 
 
 The defendant having distiained for rent in 
 arrear, the plaintiH' claimed that the defeiulanl 
 was indebled to him in damages for breach of 
 the covenants in the lease to repair, and to lease 
 to phiiiitill'an adjoining piece of land, and ob- 
 tained o.K parte an interim injunction restraining 
 proceedings under the distress which was dis- 
 solved on the ground of coueealment of facts : 
 Held, that the d cin igcs claimed by the iilainlill' 
 were not a " debt " within section .'i of 50 \'ict. 
 ch. 23 (Out. ), so as to constitute a set-off against 
 the rent: and although undei the O. J. Act 
 they might bo the subject of counter-claim they 
 
 would not justify an injunction as against a dis- 
 tress levieil as here. Walton v. Hmni, 1,S ll 
 020.-MacMahon. 
 
 >^i'ti Ciilrcnrill V. C'ltiiijifon, :(! C 
 ()!!(); Dnirson v. Moffali, l(» |'. R. 
 ). HtOO; Siiarrv. Jlwlennrh, 10 
 iiUu:i. I'acilk II. W. Vn. v. tirai 
 
 \). 1078; W'uKUor Hold Co of M 
 
 12 S. C. R. 624, p. 4!)o. 
 
 I'. .•142, p. 
 
 ,. , :ms, p. (i.VJ. 
 
 p. litOO; Smtrry. lUvlemu-h, 10 O. R. l;j| ; Can- 
 atliun. I'liniic /,'. ]V. Co. v. (.'ratil, 1 1 H. 11. 20,S 
 
 untna/ v. Cn 
 
 SETTLED ESTATES ACT. 
 
 ^ Upon a petition under the .Settled lOstates Act, 
 Hoyd, (;., dis])eiised with the ex imiuation re- 
 quired by till' Act of amarriid woman interested 
 who lived out of the jurisdiction, but not of one 
 who lived within the jurisdiction. 'J'lie Married 
 Woman's Projierty Act 1S84 (Ont. ), does not 
 apply to cases under the Settled Estates 
 whert^ the woman has acquired tht 
 fore the passing of the form 
 11 1'. R. IDS. 
 
 Act, 
 : property be- 
 .\ct. A'c Eiujlmh, 
 
 See Hi Sii,'iili'.-i TriK-ii-i, 4 (.). K. 518, p. 895 ; IS 
 O. U. .■!27. n. 1509. 
 
 SETTLEMENTS. 
 
 I 
 
 I .\1.\i:ui.\(;k Sktti-kmi;nts. - - ,sv« Kuauoulknt 
 
 CoN\ KVANCKS — llrsUAM) AND WifK. 
 
 SEWERS. 
 
 .Vic MlMCIl'AI. Coill'OKAilON.S — WaTKR AM> 
 
 \V.vTi;uci)iJusi;.H. 
 
 SHADE TREES 
 Sec Wav. 
 
 SHARES AND SHAREHOLDERS IN 
 COMPANIES. 
 
 .SVe Co.mi'any. 
 
 SHEEP. 
 
 The owner of sheep killed or injured by a dog 
 can, under R. S. (). (18>>7), c. 21 1, s. 15, recover 
 the damage occasioned thereby without proving 
 that the dog had a propensity to kill or injure 
 sheep ; and the Act ainilies to a ease where the 
 dog has been set upon the sheep. It did not 
 appear upon the face of the ciuviction in ques- 
 tion that the oll'ence was committed within the 
 territorial jurisdiction of tlu coiivieting justices 
 of the peace, but upon the depositions it was 
 clear that it was sc committed : —Held, that the 
 saving provision of section 87 of R. S. C. c. 178, 
 sliould he applied ; and the order nisi to quash 
 the conviction was di.icharged. lieijina. v. 
 I'crr'ui, 16 0. R. 44G.— Armour. 
 
1915 
 
 SHEBIFF. 
 
 1916 
 
 SHELLEY'S CASE. 
 
 .S'ce Estate — \V ill. 
 
 it.'' 
 
 SHERIFF. 
 
 I. Duties anh Liabilitiks. 
 
 1. On Wr'U.s of ExtctUion. 
 
 (a) Laiid/ord'.H Claim for Rent, 1915. 
 
 (b) Ahaiidonmciit — ,Se<'. Kxeci'tion. 
 
 2. In /iid-rjikiidtr—iice Inteuplkauek. 
 
 3. Ill liepltriii—Stc ItEi'LEViN. 
 
 II. Fees. 
 
 1. Wht'iiOffict of S/icilf i-i Vacant, 191G. 
 
 2. Pounda<jt, 1911!. 
 
 3. Taxation of, 1917. 
 
 III. Venue in Actions dy ok Against 
 
 Sheuikf, 1918. 
 
 IV. Undeki'akinij Given to iSiieuiik isy 
 
 AlTOKNEY, 191.S. 
 V. AsSKiNMENTS FOK THE ilKNKKIT OK 
 
 Ckkditoks, 191S. 
 
 VI. Sale oi'' Land von Taxes — .b'ec Assess- 
 ment AND Taxes. 
 
 I. Duties AND LiAuiLiTiES. 
 
 1. Oh Writu of Execution. 
 
 (a) Landlord' If Claim for I'ciU. 
 
 Goods having lieuii seized by the sheriff under 
 execution, and chiiiiis having been made tliei'eto 
 by thiril j)crsiiiis, namely, cliattel iiKirtgayues, 
 iin interpleiider sinnmons was ()l)tained by the 
 sheritl'. Notieo was then given to tlie slieiill' by 
 the laiidhird of rent (hie, Imt no distress was 
 issued or anything lurther (h)ne on liis behalf. 
 An interpleadei' order was made, and tlie elaim- 
 ailts having failed to give tlie seeiirity required 
 thereby, llie goods were sold pursuant to the 
 terms of the order, the landlord becoming the 
 purchaser. They were never removed from the 
 demised premises. The elaimants were sueeess- 
 ful : — Held, that the statute 8 Anne e. 14, s. I, 
 only applies to the goods of the exeeiitioii debt- 
 or, and not to those of third persons, against 
 whom there must be a distress, notice to the 
 sheritl' not being suliieient ; and that the sheriff 
 selling incurred no lialtility, as he was secured 
 under tlie interpleader order : — Held, also, that 
 the sheritl' is not liahle when the goods have not 
 been removed from the demised premises. The 
 
 i)roceeds of the sale were tiierefore ordered to 
 )e paid out of court to the claimants. Clarke v. 
 Farrdl, 31 C. V. 584.— C;. 1'. D. 
 
 Under an execution in Maclean r. Anthony, 
 the sheritl', on the 19th April, 1883, having seized 
 the defendant's goods, sold them to one Fergu- 
 son, there being at the time rent overdue to the 
 lanillord. Ferguson did not remove the goods 
 from the premises. Hy agreement between the 
 landlord, the sheritf, and Ferguson, the latter 
 retained sutiicieiit of the purchase money to pay 
 the claim for rent. Subsequently Ferguson sold 
 
 the goods to one English, when it was arranged 
 that English should pay the old claim for rent, 
 and a further instalment which had meanwhile 
 fallen due. The defendant then surrendered his 
 term, and Knglish became tenant. On the 'I'MA 
 of April, an execution in Slater r. .Vnthony was 
 placed in the sheriff's hands, and he siizcd llie 
 same goods some time between "Jlst May and 
 23rd June. English having claimed the goodii, 
 tliesherilfiuterpleaded,aiidan issue was directed 
 which resulted in favour of Slater. Pending the 
 interidcader issue the siierill' allowed the land- 
 lord's bailill', who also claimed the goods for ar- 
 rears of taxes, to sell them and pay the rent and 
 taxes in arrcar. At the conclusion ot the inter- 
 pleader issue it ap|>eared that the sheritl' had 
 taken no security for the goods, and that English, 
 the elainiiint, was worthless : Held, that there 
 being no claim either f'<u' rent or taxes which 
 the sheriff was justilied in acknowledging, ho 
 was liable to an attachment, on motion of the 
 execution creditor, for ilisoljedieiice of the inter- 
 pleader order. Macli.an v. Anlkony — .^lldtir v. 
 Anthony, lit). K. 31)0. — H<jse. 
 
 Writs of execution had lieen placed in the hands 
 of the sheritl' of Hastings, under which he made 
 a levy on goods in Jlclleville and .Madoc, Icaviuy 
 them on tiie piemises iii which he found tliciu. 
 After the service, which was on the I'itli (d' Keb- 
 ruary, and while the goods were in the debtor's 
 premises, two instalments of .(int fell due, on 
 the 1st of .March and June, which were paid liy 
 the sheriir ; — Held, that this payment should not 
 l)e allowed, because the goods might have hueii 
 removed by him before the rent fell due, and 
 being under seizure, they were not liable to dis- 
 tress, and there was nothing in the delit(jr's 
 lease to accelerate payment of rent on sci/.uiu 
 of his goods. (I'raiii v. (Irani, 10 1'. K. 40.— 
 Wilson. 
 
 See liubr v. AIL-Ihsok, II (). H. 735, 14 A. 
 It. 409, p. rj(i2; I'msl and ljoaii(Jo.oj'Ciiiindii 
 v. lAiirni.siiH, () A. iv. 28(i ; 10 S. C." K. (iT'J, 
 p. .")24 ; J//.(/;i.s v. /l/aA-iaU, 10 I'. 1!. ItiS, 
 p. 101.-). 
 
 11. Fees. 
 
 1. W'licn Ojllri' (,/ Sturijl' is Varanl. 
 
 The fees earned l)y a deputy sheriff while tliu 
 oliice is vacant by reason of the death, resigna- 
 tion, or removal of the sherill, of rigUt beloiii; 
 to tile deputy himself, ami neither the repiesen- 
 tatives of tlie late nor the newly appointed 
 sherilt' have any right or claim thereti>. .)/'■- 
 Keltar v. Hinder. son, 27 Cliy. 181. — lUake. 
 
 In such a case where fees had been received 
 by the deputy, and w liicli the bill alleged he hud 
 in ernu' paid over to the executors of the late 
 sheritl', and the deputy subseipiently voluntarily 
 assigned all his right and claim to such fees tu 
 the newly appointed sherili', who tiled a bill tu 
 compel repayment of the amounts to him, the 
 court allowed a demurrer for want of equity, 
 lb. 
 
 2. Pouiidaye. 
 
 The poundage of a sheriff eanuot be taken to 
 cover more than the risk and responsibility cast 
 upon him when he seizes, retains, and sells guuds 
 
 ■air«iii[jiii' Tit-'ni • ( r atuwn 
 
1916 
 
 1917 
 
 SHERIFF. 
 
 1918 
 
 1, when it was arraiigud 
 ! tlic old claim for rent, 
 t which hail lucaiiwliile 
 mt tlieii Hui't'cmlei'cd his 
 lie tenant. On tlic 'J.'hd 
 1 Sliitur r. Aiithdiiy was 
 autls, and he siizcd llic 
 hctwceu "J 1st May and 
 ,viiig claimed tliu ydodu, 
 iiinl all iasue was directed 
 of Slater. Pending the 
 lieriir allowed the land- 
 lainied tlie goods fur iu- 
 em and pay the rent and 
 ecniclu.sioii ot the inler- 
 ed that tlie .sherill' liad 
 g<K)d.s, and that Knglish, 
 [less : Held, tliat tliere 
 <ir lent or taxes wliicii 
 I in acknowledging, lie 
 nient, on motion ot the 
 lisobedience of the inter- 
 im V. Anlho)iy — .b7((<tc v. 
 -H(jse. 
 
 I lieeii placed ill the liaiuls 
 ;.s, iiiKlcr which lie made 
 ville and Madoc, having 
 1 which he found tlicni. 
 1 was on the I'itli of Feb- 
 lods were in the deiitor's 
 iits of .(lilt fell due, on 
 liic, wliicli were paid by 
 > this payment shoiiiil iiut 
 ; goods niiglit have hueii 
 ; the rent fell due, and 
 ;y were not liable to dis- 
 nothing in tiie dehtcjr's 
 inent of rent on sci/.uie 
 . (Iruiil, 10 1*. it. 40.- 
 
 s/(, II (). H. :;{.■), 14 A. 
 anil /juiiii Co. of'Cdiindd 
 L',S(i ; 1(1 S. C." K. 0711, 
 achiall, 10 I'. 1!. lUS, 
 
 l'-ni:s. 
 Shii'ijr is Vnrant. 
 
 de[mty siiciitf while the 
 111 of the <leath, ivsignii- 
 
 slieriir, of riglit heloiij; 
 ,lid iielliier tlie repicsen- 
 )v the newly ajipoiiiteil 
 
 or claim thereto. Mi'- 
 ' Chy. 181.— Hlake. 
 
 fees had been received 
 li the bill alleged he hud 
 le executors of the late 
 subseijueiitly voluntarily 
 id claim to such fees tu 
 leriir, wlio tiled a hill tu 
 ^he amounts to him, the 
 rer for want of ei|uity. 
 
 uiidiiAje. 
 
 leriff cannot 1)0 taken to 
 k and responsibility cast 
 s, letaiiis, and sells gouds 
 
 and from thia levy returns the money. If the 
 sheriff's action be intercepted, so tliat he does 
 not make this money, it is for the court to say 
 wliat allowance shall be made to him in lieu of 
 poundage. Wadnworth v. lidl, 8 P. H. 478.— 
 IJlake. 
 
 Held, Wilson, C. J., dissenting, that a sheriff 
 lias no right to poundage upon an execution 
 against lands, unless there has been an actual 
 sale. MerchaiUx Hank v. Canijilir//, ',i2 C. P. i 
 170.-C. P. I). 
 
 Held, that the usual mode of coniputiug she- 
 rill s poundage is correct, namely, to allow six 
 jicr cent, on the first Jjl.UOO, and in addition 
 thereto three per cent, on the amount over 
 jfljOOO, and under $4,000; and in addition thereto 
 one and a li:'-lf per cent, on the aniuunt over 
 4,(K)0. Fkmiiir) v. IJall, <) I'. K. ;ilO. — Oaltoii, 
 Mauler. — Cameron. 
 
 Held, under tlie facts stated in the report, that 
 this case came within the provisions of R. .S. 
 O. (1877) c. Oli, s. 4."), and that therefore the 
 jsheriti' was entitled to poundage. Muirinon v. 
 Taylor, !) P. It. 3S)0.— CanK.-ron. 
 
 Held, that the sherill' was entitled to charge 
 poundage upon each of several writs though all 
 were issued by the same Kolicito;' and were placed 
 in his hands at the same time, (jiuiil v. llrant, 
 10 P. ];. 40.— Wilson. 
 
 A sherill' upon arresting a judgment debtor 
 upon a ca. sa. thereby becomes at once entitled 
 as against the execution creditor to full pound- 
 age on the amount of the execution. MuSah v. 
 OpiKiilmmcr, 11 P. R. ;J4S.— Ualt. 
 
 3. Taxation of. 
 
 Where a sheriff's fees have been taxed before 
 a deputy clerk of the Crown under R. S. U. (l!S77) 
 e. tio, s. 48, a revision ot such taxation cannot | 
 take place before the principal clerk of the 
 Crown, l)Ut the court may refer the liill liaek to 
 the same deputy clerk tor a revision of the taxa- j 
 tion, where it appears that items have been im- 
 properly alio 4ve<l. Iluy\. l)iiiLr, ^ V. It. 1'20. j 
 — tJsler. I 
 
 I 
 
 Held, that a siieriff 's bill of fees may be taxed | 
 on notice under section 48 of the Kxecution Act, i 
 K. kS. O. (1877) c. (it), either at I'oronto or in the 
 slieiitl s own county, as the party taxing may 
 elect. J)oiiiiitioii J yjic FuliiuUiiij C<i. v. S'aijie, 
 a P. K. 174. — Armour. 
 
 An execution and the judgnieiit under which 
 it issued were set aside on the ground of irregu- 
 larity m obtaining the judgment :— Held, that 
 the phiintiU was not entitled to have the sheiifl's 
 bill against him taxed under R. S. (J. (1877) e. 
 tiO, s. 48, as the setting aside of the execution was 
 not a ■■ settlement by payment, levy, or other- 
 wise," within the ineaning of the Act, or under 
 section 47, as the plaiiitilf was nota"pers i 
 liable on any execuiion : "—Held, however, that 
 a slierirt, as an officer of the court claiming fees 
 by virtue of its process, is so far within its juris- 
 diction that his bill may be taxed under Rule 447, 
 U. J. Act (Con. Itule 1230). The item of ^0 for 
 taking stock was improperly allowed, not being 
 incurred in the care and removal of the property 
 
 within the tariff. Morrinoii v. Taylor, 9 P. H. 
 390. -Cameron. 
 
 Tlio sheriff jiaid persons at Hollevillo and at 
 .Madoc for "taking stock" after the levy: — 
 Held, that these payments should bo disallowed, 
 as they do not appear in the taritf, and the local 
 master was precluded by R. S. (). (1877) c 66, 
 s. 51, from allowing any thing to the sheriff which 
 was not correct and legal. OiaiU v. Grant, 10 
 P. R. 40. -Wilson. 
 
 It appealed that the deputy sherilf kept the 
 keys of the store in Ikdleville, and went himself 
 twice a day to see that the goods were safe :-- 
 Held, that tile payment to him of $'2 per day na 
 piissession money, should have been allowed only 
 ' i' the master were sati.slied that it was necussa- 
 rUy and actually p.dd, and the item was referred 
 back for reconsideration, it Ijcing alleged that 
 the only possession was locking up the store and 
 keeping the key. III. 
 
 Held, also, tiiat the [daintiff properly applied 
 to a judge in chambers to review the taxation 
 liursuant to It. ,S. O. (1877) e. (JO s. ;V_', as Rule 
 447 (Con. Itule 1'230) applied only to the Toronto 
 taxing otliceis appointed under Rule 4.'>8, O. J. 
 Act (Con. Rules 104, I!l7). In. 
 
 III. Vkmk in .•Vctions 
 
 SlltlllFF. 
 
 liV OK A(iAINST 
 
 In an action wherein a sheriff' is plaintiff or 
 defendant, the opposite party, if he so desire, 
 may have tiie action tried in the county mljoin- 
 iiig that in which the sheriff resules. liranueu 
 V. JdcW.s 8 P. R. 3-_'-'.--tialt. 
 
 IV. U.NUKliTAKlNC CIVKN TO SUERIFF BX 
 Al'TOKNliY. 
 
 Held, allirniiiig the Supreme Court of New 
 Bniiiswick ("25 ^. R. Ite[i. Ii)i)) that a promise 
 of indemnity to the sheriff' by an attorney in 
 binding on his client where the attorney hail the 
 conduct of the suit in the course of which such 
 promise was made, and the subsequent acta of 
 the client shewed that he had adopted the at- 
 torney's proceedings. Muirhead v. ShinxJ}', 14 
 S. C. R. 735. 
 
 V. AsSIIiN.MIiNTStdllTlli;l>l!NEFITOFCRKl)lTOIUt 
 TO SllUUIKK. 
 
 An assignment for the benefit of creditors 
 made to a sheriff under R. S. (). (1887) c P24, 
 is made to him as a public functionary, lUid on 
 his death the care and administration o." the 
 estate assigned devolves upim his deputy, and 
 thereafter upon his successor in olUce. It ia not 
 competent to the sheriff to diselaiui or decline 
 to act as such assignee. Brown v. (,'rove, 18 U. 
 K. 311. -Chy. I). 
 
 Where an assignment under the statute ha<l 
 been made to a siieriff', who died shortly after, 
 and proceedings were subsequently taken in 
 their own names by judgment creditors of the 
 assignor to set aside a transfer of property as 
 fraudulent :— Held, that the plaintiffs, suing 
 alone, had no locus standi to maintain the ac- 
 tion. III. 
 
1919 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 1920 
 
 
 \i 
 
 
 I 
 
 2^- 
 
 I. 
 U. 
 
 FII. 
 
 IV, 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XL 
 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 .\IV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVIT. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 Application ok Impkkiai. Statutes, 
 I9iy. 
 
 Sale of. 
 
 I . Warranty as to Clasx, 1 920. 
 
 Owners. 
 
 1. Part Ou'iicrs, 1920. 
 
 2. LiahiWy of. 
 
 (a) For Supplier, 1921. 
 
 (b) Fire from Slcamhoa/fi, 1921. 
 MoKTOAOEKs OK Sims, 1921. 
 Carriage of Passenijrks, 1922. 
 Carriage of (Joods. 
 
 1. Vhurtcrpiirhj, 1922. 
 
 2. Contract to Carry, WIX 
 
 [\. nm of iMdiiii.i, 1924. 
 
 4. S/'Hraije, 192r). 
 .5. S/ii/>mnil, 192."). 
 
 0. Acliiin^/iir //O.S.S', Deli'nliim and Xmi- 
 i/i'/irir>/. 
 
 (a) Hh/ht of Action, 192(). 
 
 (1)) Eviikiicc, 1920. 
 
 (c) Dama^fCi, 1927. 
 Mastkii, 1928. 
 Frekjut, 1928. 
 Demurdacie, 1929. 
 TowAOE, 19.'50. 
 Collision, 1930. 
 Salvaoe, 1931. 
 AvERAOK, 1932. 
 Baruatry— .^e*; Insurance. 
 Assessment of Ships, 1932. 
 Seizure of Shakes in Ships, 1932. 
 Ferry— 5cfi Fekry. 
 
 Marine Insurance — Stc Insurance. 
 
 Maritime Court — Htc Maritime 
 Court. 
 
 I. Application of Imperial Statutes. 
 
 The dofeiulant as iiilniinistratri.x of her iins- 
 band, vho '.osc Jiis lift: by the foundering of a 
 steamer called ti.e Waiibiino, belonging to the 
 plaintiffs, on which ho w as a j)asscnger, sued the 
 plaintiffs to recover damages under R. S. O. 
 (1877), e. 128. The plaintiffs, who claimed 
 limited liability under suction 54 of 25 & 26 
 Vict. 0. ()3, (Im)), ) tiled a bill under the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 514, 
 (Imp.), to restrain tlic action, and prayed that it 
 might be deter "icd by the court whether they 
 were liable for r ho of life or merchandise, and, 
 if so, for what amount, and the persons entitlecl 
 thereto :~Held, reversing the decree of Spragge, 
 C (27 Chy. 3-l(),) that the Waubiino, not having 
 Ijeen registered under 17-18 Vict. c. 104 (Imp.), 
 was not a British sliip within the meaning of 
 that Act, by virtue of the Statute of Canada 36 
 Vict. c. 128, and therefore not entitled to take 
 
 advantage of the linutution clause ; and thatevrii 
 if siie were, tiie plaintilfs were not entitlrd to an 
 injunction, as they did not adnut their liability 
 for damages to tlie extent mentioiu.'d in the .Acl, 
 and bring into court or oli'erlo secure the amount. 
 <i(Oi<iiaii Jiui/ '/'rtiii'<iiiirtitli(in. Cu. v. Fiiliir, ."i 
 \. H. 383. 
 
 Held, that as tlie tugs in ijuestion were imi 
 registered as liiitish sliips at llie time of the ac 
 cidont their owners were not entitled to have 
 their liability limiteil under 25 & 20 Vict. c. iu\ 
 (Inipj. 'rh:it the limited liability under section 
 12 ol' ;il \'R:t. e. 58 (I)iim.), does not apply t.. 
 cases other than those of collision. Srini'lt v. 
 lirilish Vahiiiiliia '/'(iirini/ iiiiil 7'r(in.ijiorl<il)oii Co., 
 9 S. C. R. .527. 
 
 Held, in this ease tliat the provisions of ih.- 
 Imperial "' Mi rciiauls' Sliippiii;,' Act " did ni>t 
 inevciit till' property in the ship passing to tin 
 assigiiei' umiiir the " Insolvent Act, lS7li. 
 ./o;,; < V. Kliiii'!/, 11 S. C. K. 708. 
 
 The mortgagee of a Ibitish slii[i is not an 
 oMiicr witiiin the miMiiin;,' of Imperial Statnti' 
 17 it IS Vict. c. 104, and theie is no prnvi.-iiipii 
 in that statute to prevent an alien heing a nmi t- 
 gagee. ('oiiiihick v. Ilavrii, 13 O. U. 407. - 
 I'liiuiihiot. 
 
 11. Sale oe 
 I. ]\'iirrnii/i/ as to CVir.ss. 
 
 'I'lie defendants bought a vessel from tin; 
 l)laintill', who, as the jury found, warranted her 
 to class l>. 1, and promised to get lier insured in 
 a company, of which lie was agent, for §1,400. 
 She would not class as 15. 1, and no insiirauco 
 could bo ell'ected under that class ; hut deleu- 
 dauts sailed her uninsnied until she foundercil 
 anil was totally lost, in an action for the pur- 
 chase money ;— Held, that the measure of dam- 
 ages to which defendants were entitled foi 
 breach of the warianty uas not the ,$1,400 for 
 which she might have l)een insured, but the sum 
 which it would have taLeii to make her cla.ss II, 
 1, which it was foi- defendants to shew. I.'i, 
 Itorhc V. O'llwjan, 1 U. K. 30().-Q. B. 1). 
 
 III. OWNKUS. 
 
 1. I'lirt Oiciicrn. \ 
 
 (jua're, whether co-ov\ners of a veisel have a. 
 right to share in the profits thereof earned in 
 Ventures to w hich they ilid not assent, as a ma- 
 jority of the owners can eni])h)y the vessel 
 against the will of the nnnciity, wlio, however, 
 can compel the majm ity to give a bond to reatore 
 the vessel in safety or pay the value of their 
 shares. In stieh las. s the minority do not share 
 the hazard, neither are they entitled to the 
 benelit of the voyage. Mcii-lianla' liankw Cm- 
 ham, 27 Chy. 524. -- Froudfoot. 
 
 Where certain persons, including ( I,, advanceil 
 money to complete the building of a yacht .it 
 Cobourg, to sail for prizi^s at New York and Phil- 
 adelphia, and scrip uuiler seal was executed de- 
 claring tliat (1. was to hold the yacht in trust as 
 security for the advances; and (4, incurred cer- 
 tain running expenses in taking the yacht to the 
 race : — Held, that G. was entitled to a first 
 
1920 
 
 ■MXim ; and tliikt<'v<'ii 
 •0 not uiititlrd toiui 
 uliiiit their liiil)ilit\ 
 •iitioiu.'il ill tho Acl. 
 i.s(.'i;iiio tliuiviiioinit. 
 Ill ( '(I. V. /V-7/1'/', .") 
 
 L (luiistiou were ikiI 
 tlie tiiiiu of the ;ic- 
 t entitled to iiiivi' 
 .'.') & -JO Viet. e. ii:{ 
 
 liility under Neetidii 
 (loeH not iipply Vi 
 )llisi(iii. Srin/I V, 
 
 'ri'dnsjiorliilioii Co., 
 
 i; |iri)vision» of 
 )iii/ Aft " (lid 
 nhi|) passing to 
 Ivcia Aet, 1>>7 
 TON. 
 
 sh Mlii[i in not 
 )f Inipcriiil Stilt 
 fie is no pnivi 
 iilicii lieiii;^ ii iiK 
 I.S U. U. 407 
 
 tilr 
 lint 
 tlh 
 
 .'Ill 
 lib' 
 
 ion 
 lit- 
 
 CIlXA-i. 
 
 vcxsel from tin; 
 iiid, warranted iier 
 > get lu'r insured in 
 
 agent, for $1,400. 
 , and no insuraucu 
 ; ela.s.s ; but deleii- 
 intil she founderi'il 
 
 aelioii for tlie pur- 
 lie iiieasiire of dam- 
 were entitled for 
 
 not tin; §1,400 for 
 isurcil, Imt the .sum 
 
 1 make luir ela^.s 11. 
 iiit.s to shew. /,'/, 
 m.~\l W. I). 
 
 of a veisel have ;i. 
 I thereof earned in 
 ot assent, aH a ma- 
 employ the vessel 
 ily, who, however, 
 I'e a 1)1111(1 to restore 
 the value of their 
 uority do not .share 
 ■y entitled to tliu 
 haiit.i' llnnk v. Gra- 
 )t. 
 
 udiiigC J, advanced 
 ding of a yaelit .'it 
 .'ew York and I'hil- 
 il was executed lie 
 le yaeht in trust as 
 id (!. ineuned cer- 
 ig the yacht to the 
 entitled to a first 
 
 1921 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 1922 
 
 chiirge on the proceeds of the sale of the yacht, 
 fur those exi)ensea, lis they had lieen incurred in 
 pnmecuting the enterprise for which the trust 
 was created, linni v. dijl'dnl, 8 P. It. 44,^ 
 Taylor, Manltr. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 See WeUlon v, Vamjhnii, T) S. C R. 35, p. .■)34. 
 
 2. Liahi/ili/ of. I 
 
 (a) /''((>• Hiiiiplii's, ! 
 
 Whore one brought action against the regis- 
 tered owners of a certain vessel for the value of 
 good.s supplied before they became such owners, 
 not on the order of the defendants but on the 
 order of one (!. C, between whom and the de- 
 fendants no lelation of agency was proved; — 
 Held, that the plainlitl' conhl not recover: — 
 Held, also, that it was open to the def(!ndants 
 to shew that their real interest was that of 
 mortgagees, though ost(!iisibly registered owners. 
 'I'Ik! fact that the vessel got the lieiietit of the 
 siipplic I and necessaries did not make the regis- 
 tered owner liable. Xflwii v. Wiif/c, S O. It. 
 S'J.— Hoyd. ' , 
 
 (I)) Fiiv from SIiiiihIioii/x, 1 
 
 Held (afiiniiing the judgment of I'roudfoot, 
 .1.), that tho evidence which appears in the re- i 
 port of this ease, was sntlieient to go to a, jury 
 ti) establish negligence in the maiiagciiieiit of , 
 the defendant's steamboat. lliUidrd v. Tliiirn- ' 
 Inn, 9 A. R. 514. ; 
 
 I'er Hurton and Patterson, J.T. A., the owner! 
 of a steamboat navigating the inland waters of j 
 Ontario without legislative authority, is liable I 
 for loss occasioned to )iropertv liy lire communi- 
 cated thereto by the steamer without any proof 
 of actual negligence. ///. 
 
 I'cr llurtoi;, J. A., the fact that a steamboat 
 lias been granted a licence by the Inspector 
 under the authority of the Act for th" Inspec- 
 tion of Steaniboat.s, 31 Vict. c. tio (l)om.), does 
 not remove, neither was it intended to remove, 
 the common law liability of the owner of snch 
 steamboat to a person whose property is injured. 
 Ih. 
 
 See Broivn v. McRar, 17 0. R. 712. p. 1397. 
 
 IV. MoRniAiiKK.s OK .Ships. 
 
 Semlile, a mortgagee of a vessel until he takes 
 possession or does something e(|iiivalent thereto, 
 is not entitled to an account of the moiuy earned 
 by the vessel for freight, etc. : but, where in a 
 .-iiit by the mortgagees of a [lart owner of a 
 M'ssel the defeadant, the owner of the other 
 shares, admitted that he was sailing the vessel 
 lor the joint benetit of himself and the other 
 iiwiiers, other than the pl.iintitl's, though pre- 
 vicus to the institution of the suit he had only 
 disked for evidence tliat the auent of the plaiii- 
 tiffs really held the shares for tliini ;— Held, 
 that the fair inference was, that the defendant 
 was sailing for wliomsoever might be the owners 
 III' entitled to the earnings ; and that having had 
 ■■sufficient infoimation to ae(Hiaiiit him with the 
 fact that the plaintitl's had uci|iiircd the shares 
 either as mortgagees or owners he had thus re- 
 ccgnizcd their right to demand un account. 
 
 121 
 
 Mii-i-hniitx' Hank v. Graham, 2" Cliy. r)24.— 
 I'mudfoot. 
 
 Tho plaintitl's who were mortg.igees of a vessel, 
 in exercise of a power of s ilc contained in their 
 security, on default of |)ayiiient sold the interest 
 of their debtor by aiietioii, when the siinie was 
 bought by one wl'io held it in trust for the mort- 
 gagees :—Hehl, that the ell'eet of such sale and 
 purchase was, that the iilaintill's remained mort- 
 gagees only of the interest so sold. Ih. 
 
 I'lainlifF was nioitgagce of sixty-four shares 
 in a vessel belonging to defendant, and on the 
 defendant's insolvency was allowed liy the cre- 
 ditors and the assimiee to take her as she stood 
 at a valuation. Ilefendant had previously re- 
 moyeil from the vcs^iel ,i piano ami several otiior 
 articles, and had snlistitiitcd stoves for ste.ini 
 heaters :- Held, that in the absence of fraud, 
 the plaintilf was coiieliided by the settlcnieiit 
 with the assignee by wliieli he took the vessel iis 
 she then stood, and could not recover these 
 articles ; and that the mortgagor being in posses- 
 sion, was entitled to manage the vessel as he 
 thought best, and to remove such articles upon 
 substituting others for them :— Semlile, that a 
 piano on board of a vessel would not pass to a 
 niortgageeuii(lertliewords"witli her boats, guns, 
 amniiinition, small arms, and appurtenances." 
 SI. John v. ISulliraiit, 45 Q. IJ. ()14.— (^ 15. 1). 
 
 See La liorh \\ D'ffat/nii. 1 (). W. ;iOO. ]). (J.IS; 
 Xelmii v. U'iijh, 8 (). li. ,S-J, p. 1!)2I ; Ciiin-^Un-.k- 
 V. Ifarri.^, 13'0. II. 407, p. 1!!'20; Junc--< v. Kiniuij, 
 11 S. C. R. 70S, p. l-.'G. 
 
 V. 0.\nHrA(lK OF PASSENGER.S. 
 
 Liability of shipowner for assault and im- 
 pris()iiment of pa.=senger bj' purser. Sec Kmnvon 
 V. yiaijnrn Xiirlijalioii Co., 2 O. R. 5'iS, p. l(J<)(i. 
 
 Conveying travellers on Sunday. See linjiiia v. 
 IMijijill ; Itiij'iim v. fortirr, 1 (J. 11. 537. 
 
 Liability for luggage. See Dl.voii v. llirhcHnt 
 Xariijalioii Co., 15 A. R. U47,i). 213. 
 
 VI. Caruiaof, ok (Ioods. 
 
 1. Charli.rparly. 
 
 In September, 1SS2, a vessel sailed from Liver- 
 pool, (i.l)., for i'atliurst, N.H., to lo.id liiiijb(r 
 under charter. Having sustained diiiiiages on 
 the voyage she was taken to St. .loliii, N.ii.. inr 
 repairs, and when snch repairs «iie c(ini]ili ted 
 it was too late in the scasim to proi eed to T.ath- 
 ui'st. In an action .ngainst the (■wner for breach 
 of charter party the jury found that the repaiis 
 could have been made at Sidney, C.l!., in time 
 to enable the ship to go to I'atliurst :— Held, 
 that the jury having pronounced on the (jues- 
 tions of fact, and their verdict having licen 
 ; affirmed by the Su])rcnie Cimrt of New Hriins- 
 wiek, this court would not interfere with the find- 
 ing ;- Held, also, that under such finding taking 
 the vessel to St. John was such an unnecessary 
 deviation fri in the voyage us to entitle the 
 charterer to recover. C'a.v.vVs v. Bin ns, 14 S. C. 
 It. 250. 
 
 ; See Carvill v. Schofeld, 9 S. C;. R . 370, p. 1 020 ; 
 Lord V. Darkhov, 13 S. C. R. 10(>, p. 1030; 
 McEuan v. JilcLecd, 9 A. R. 239, p. 1927. 
 
1923 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 1924 
 
 .(: 
 
 2. ContraH to Carry. | 
 
 Ono C. eiitfred into ajfrccmciits with several 
 piirtit's to carry freiglitu for tlioin iit cortiiin 
 n.'iincil prioufi to lie puiil to the ilufeiuliiiit — not 
 iuuiitioiiiii<,' liny particular vcssiuls in wliiuli tiie ' 
 sanii; wero to be carried — and then ajjrecd with 
 tlie del'eiulant, as part owner and master of ves- 
 Heh-i iu which tiie pliintiUs luul an interest, at 
 rates conHidenil)iy ludow the sums ayi'eeil upon, i 
 Tlie defendant and C. hoth swore tliat tlie ar- [ 
 raiigeiiiunt had not l)ueii made liy C. as agent of j 
 tlie dc^fenduiit, Imt for iiis own lieiielit ; — Held, 
 that the fact of tlie (U^feiidant liavinj; rendered ' 
 an aeeoiint in his own name and also sued for a 
 portion of th»^ freiL;ht, tliiiii;,'li aidi'<l hy the 
 other ciieiini<taiK'es niciilioiied in the jiuli^ment, I 
 w;is not siillic'ent to countervail tlie posilive de- 
 nials of the defi'iidant mid ('.. tliat the contracts , 
 had not heen made in l)ehalf ol and as agent for 
 the de'eiidant, freight heing prima facie payahle \ 
 to the master of a vessel, and the cargo need not 
 lie delivered liy him until the freight thereof is : 
 jiaid ; nltlioiigli in any other transaction sueh \ 
 eonduet would have licen stnuig evidence that 
 the defendant was the principal contractor. 
 Ulcrrhinil.i' liduk V. (•'rahinii, '2~ Chy. ri24. — 
 I'roiidfoot. 
 
 The hill of lading containing tlie contract in 
 <luestion providrd inter alia, "that the machin- 
 ery in cpicstion is to he delivered at the port of 
 Alontreal unto the (i. '!'. R. Co., hy them to he 
 forwarded upon the conditions aliove and here- 
 inafter expressed, tlience per railway to the sta- 
 tion nearot to Ottawa, and at the aforesaid 
 statioii delivered to order * * freight * * 
 to he p.iid liy the consignees." " That the 
 goods are to he delivered from the ship's deck, 
 when the shipowner's reaiionsihility shall cease. 
 Through goods sent forward hy rail are deliver- 
 ahle at the railway station neaiisst to the place 
 iiauieil hereafter." " 'I'liat any lo.ss, damage or 
 detention of goods on this through hill of lading 
 for which the carrier is liahle must he claimed 
 against the j)arty only in whose possession the 
 goorls were when the loss, damage, or detention 
 occurred" :-- Held, that the hill of lading 
 showed no contract on the part of tlie del'en- 
 <lantM to deliver at Ottawa, or the nearest sta- 
 tion to Ott iwa ; nor any contract, the breach fif 
 M'hich was made in Ontario, because, if there 
 ■was such a contract in the hill, force and oli'ect 
 could not he given to the stipulation in it that 
 the shiiiowner's responsibility should cease when 
 the goods Were delivered from the ship's deck. 
 And, again, if there was a contract, and its 
 terms e.siuessly exempted the defendants from 
 any and all liability for damage for any loss, etc. , 
 arising beyond their line, no damage for a 
 breach in this province would result to the 
 plaintitr. I'lrklii'* v. Mi.isii.ii/tjii and Uoitiiiiinn 
 i)(i;am<hli) Co. ( LiiniU.d), 10 1'. R. I!»S.--Rose. 
 
 The iiliintilfs ordered goods from K., \,. & 
 Co. , to be shipped to plaintitfs at Flat Creek, 
 Manitoba, via the C. M., etc., Ry. Co., by which 
 line plaintiffs had an arrangement for a s|)ecial 
 rate of freight, of which they informed K., L. 
 & Co., but did not notify them of the terms 
 thereof. K., L. k Co. delivered the goods to C. 
 & M. at Montreal as agents of the ilefendant's 
 line of boats consigned to the plaintiff's, to be 
 sent by the said line of boats to M., and thence 
 by the C. M., etc., Ry., and informed C. & M. 
 
 of the fact of plaiiitifTs having a special rate. 
 The bill of lading which ('. & M. gave for the 
 gooils was prepared by a clerk of K., L. & Co., 
 who stated that he attached thereto a ticket 
 marked " Ship our freight by C. M., etc., Ry. ; 
 great bonded fast line ; low rates." The gooils 
 were carried by defiMidant's vessel, not to M., 
 but to I)., and tlience by railway to their destina- 
 tion, anil were acccpteil by plaintiff's, but plain- 
 tiffs had to pay higher freight than if earned as 
 diiccted. 'I'he goods were earrii.'d from I), as 
 (piiekly, or more iiuickly, than they would have 
 been from .M., and the freight would have been 
 less had it not been for plaintiff's' special agree- 
 ineiit with the (". M.,etc., Ry. Co. Tin,' defen- 
 dants' conduct in sending the gooils by I), was 
 Jiroved to have been wilful: — Held, that there 
 was a valid contract to carry via .M., and that 
 |)laiiitiff's were entitliMl to recover for the hreaeli 
 thereof in not carrying therefrom; but HeM, 
 (reversing the judgment of Wilson, ( '. .!., at tlie 
 trial), that the plaint ills could only recover 
 nominal damages ; — Held, also, following Friciul- 
 ly /•. Canada Transit Co., 10 O. R. ~M, that the 
 plaintiff's were the owners of the goods, ami 
 entitled to maintain the action ; —Jleld, also, 
 that the eoutract for the low rate could not he 
 assumed to he illegal, as heing contrary to public 
 policy, because lower than the ordinary Imal 
 rates ; for even if it could not be enforced hy 
 plaintiff's against the eoinjiany this would lie im 
 defence to the defendant. Lnin/iloii v. HiiIh rt- 
 .1011, i:U). R. 4!I7.— C. I'. 1). 
 
 ilcld, that the fact of the bill of lading liaviii^' 
 been made in the rrovince of Quebec, did iiui 
 deprive plaintiff's of the benetit of li. tS. O. (IH"7), 
 e. I l(i, for not only was this not set up by the 
 pleadings, but also it did not a]>|)car that tliu 
 (j)uebec hiw was ditfercnt from that of Ontario; 
 and in the absence of proof it would be assuniuil 
 to be the .siime. //'. 
 
 3. /all of Lddiilij. 
 
 The N. (Ik N. W. Railway CJo. and the (!. W. 
 Railway Co., sldjiped on the plaintiff's vessel a 
 ([iiantity of wheat from Hamilton to Kingston, 
 consigned to the Molson's Bank in care of the 
 defendants. The bills of lading contained tlic 
 following provision: "All deticiency in cargo to 
 be pahl for by the carrier, and deducted from 
 the freight, and any excess in the cargo to \w 
 paid fur to the carrier by the consignee." 'I'lie 
 ipiantity described in the bilis of lading wiis 
 1 "ij.'WS 10-(')()ths Imshels, while the actual (piiiii 
 tity shiiiped was l."),n;W lO-OOths bushels ami 
 the discrepancy was shewn to have occurred liy 
 the omission by mistake to include a draft nf 
 oOO bushels, in making iij) the statement ol the 
 (piantity shipped. Tlie plaintiff', the cariii!r, 
 elaimed that he was entitled, for his own u.se, to 
 the 500 bushels so shipped in excess : — Helil, 
 that the provision in the bill of lading did not 
 give it to him, and that no custom or usage was 
 (iroved, giving it sueh meaning. The defen- 
 dants who had accounted for sueh excess to the 
 shipper were therefore held not liable to the 
 plaintiff. Murloii v. KiiniMon and Montnal 
 Forwardimj Co., 32 C. V. 360.— C. P. \). 
 
 See ParkiiM v. Mit>4.i.iipi)i ami Doiimion 
 Slvam-ihip Co. (LimHed), 10 P. R. 198, p. lilA'i; 
 Merrhaiitti' Dcnpatch Trannjiorlation Co. v. //«'<- 
 
1924 
 
 viii^ a Hpcoimi riitc. 
 . it M. gave for tho 
 Ilk of K., L. HiVi,., 
 m\ tlicreto 11 tickut 
 ly ('. M., fU'., Ky. ; 
 
 nitiis." Tilt' goods 
 1 vi'saul, not to M., 
 A'iiy to tliuir (luHtiiia- 
 pliiintill'M, l)ut jilaiii- 
 ht tlmu if cMrnetl an 
 
 curritMl from I), as 
 lan tliey woiilil liavu 
 lit would iiave boon 
 iiitiflk' .sjiuuial iigne- 
 lly. Co. 'I'lu! dufi^ii- 
 lie ;;o(>ds liy l>. «as 
 ; — llidd, tliat lllciu 
 ry via M., and tliat 
 ;uovi;r for tlio liroaili 
 icicfroin ; but llt^lil, 
 W'ilHon, ('. .1., at lliu 
 could only lucovir 
 Iso, following Kriciwl- 
 DO. K. 7")t), lliat tilt) 
 1 of tliu gomls, and 
 ictiou ; -Htld, also, 
 )\v ratu could not liu 
 iiH contrary to public 
 1 tiic ordinary lncal 
 
 not 1)0 enforced by 
 my I bi!< would bi- iin 
 
 LiKi'liloii V. Itnliirt- 
 
 bill of lading baviii^ 
 : of (,>ucbcc, did not 
 ;titof R. fS. O. (187;), 
 
 his not set ui> i)y the 
 not appear that tliu 
 
 roin that of Ontarin ; 
 
 f it would lie assuineil 
 
 ly Co. and tlie G. \\'. 
 lie plaintilF's vessel a 
 [ainilton to Kingston, 
 
 I Hank in care of tlio 
 lading contained tlie 
 delicieney in cargo lo 
 1-, and deducted from 
 38 in the cargo to Iw 
 
 the consignee." 'I'lie 
 e bills of lading was 
 ihile the actual (jUiui 
 l()-()0th3 bushels ami 
 
 II to have occurred liy 
 to include a draft c^f 
 ) the statement oi the 
 plaiiititi; the earlier, 
 led, for his own use, tii 
 led in excess : — Held, 
 
 bill of lading did ii"t 
 o custom or usage was 
 neaning. The defeii- 
 
 for such excess to the 
 leld not liable to the 
 t/K/.Hiort and iMonlriiO 
 , 3'0C.-C. P. U. 
 'xsip/n and Dombiiini 
 
 10 P. R. 198, p. m-i:); 
 igportntiou Co. v. //«''- 
 
 1925 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 1926 
 
 I 
 
 /,; 14 S. C R. 572 i 12 A. R. 201 ; 4 U. 72;<, p. to ,1,.. Suprcne ( 'ourt of Canada, it was : - Held 
 
 •2U;Laujdou v. liohnt'^on, 1.10. K. 4U7. p. lUi4. aiHn.iing tl,,. judgment of I he court below, that, 
 
 as tliere was no coiiditioii p 
 
 4. Sloiraije. 
 
 A bill of lading acknowledged tlio receipt on 
 lioard a steamer ol the defciiiiant.i, in gixid order 
 and eouditiou, of gooils sliip|ied by '1'. (licsli 
 meat) and coutiactid to deliver the saine in like 
 good order and condition » • » 
 lo.ss or daniiige resulting from sweating * * 
 " * decay, stowage, * " * 
 
 or from any of the loilowiiig ))erils, whether 
 ari.><ing finiii the nigli-em e, deiaiilt or ei rur in 
 jiidgiiient of the piliit. ni.ister, niai iinis (H-dtlicr 
 p.-r.siuis in the seivii'c of tin; .■<liip, or for whose 
 acts the shilMiwiirr is liable (or dtliii u is" Imw . 
 soever) always excepted, namely (sitliiii; lliem 
 out) : Held, atlirining the judgment of thi; 
 court below, .Sir W. .1. Kitchii^ C. ,1. ami 
 l''ouriiiel'd. <tissciiliiig, that tile clause "whether 
 arising from the negligence, default oreirurin 
 judgment of the lu.istcr,'' eti\, covered iis well 
 the pr(!eedinge.\ce|. lions as those which I'ollowcd 
 and was not liniiled in its a|iplir:itioii by the 
 wi'i'ds "friiin any of tlie I'olli.wing perils," and 
 the defendants wire, llieretiirc, not li.ible for 
 damage to the goods sliipjied resulting from iiii- 
 jiioper stowage, which was one of the excepted 
 jM'iils. Tndiior v. Illiul: IHamoud SUaiiiMji 
 Co. of MuiUnat, l(j S. C. K. loO. 
 
 5. SltijtmiHt, 
 
 l}y a charter party of lltli December, 187.S, it 
 was agreed that plaiiititrs vessel then on her way 
 to Shelbnrne, N,.*;., should iiroceed with all pos- 
 sible despatch after her arrival at Shelburne, to 
 St. John, and tbeie load from the charterers a 
 cargo of deals for Li vciiioid : and if the vessel 
 <lid not arrive at Shelburne on or before 1st of 
 .lamiary, 1879, the chart( lers were to be at liberty 
 lo cancel the charter p.u '•. The vessel arrived 
 at Shelburne in December and .sailed at (Mice for 
 Nt. .lohn. At the entrance of the harbour of St. 
 .lolm she got upon the rocks and was so badly 
 damaged that it became neccs.sary to jiut her 
 on the blocks for repairs. Although she was 
 repaired with all possible despatch, she was not 
 ready to receive her cargo until 'ilst of April 
 foHowing, prior to which time, on 'Jtith March, 
 the charterers gave the owners notice that they 
 would not furnish a cargo for her. The owners 
 sued for breach of the charter party, and on the 
 trial defendants gave evidence, subject to objec- 
 tion, that freights between St. .John and Liver- 
 pool were usually much higher in winter tuaii in 
 HUiiuner ; that lumber would depreciate in value 
 liy being wintered over at St. .John, and al.so as 
 to the relative value of lumber during the winter 
 and in the spring in the Liverpool market ; and 
 it Wiis contended that the time occupied in re- 
 pairing the damage was unreasonable and had 
 entirely frustrated tlie object of the voyage. 
 The judge direuted the jury that if the time 
 occupied in getting the vessel oil' the rocks and 
 repairing her was so long iis to put an end, in a 
 eoininercial sense, to the commercial speculation 
 entered into by the shipowners and charterers, 
 tliey should find for the defendants. The ver- 
 dict being for the defendants, the court below 
 Jiiade absolute a rule for a new trial. On appeal 
 
 , t^iit in the char- 
 
 ter that the ship should he at Si. .loliii at any 
 fixed date, ami as the time tal en iii r.p.iirmg the 
 damage was not imrea.soualile, ami the .lehty di<l 
 not entirely friistiato the object of thi' voyage, 
 till! charterers were not jiistilied in retiising to 
 carry out the contract. Currill y. .Sc/kiJiUU, \) 
 
 s. c. i:. .•(711. 
 
 U, .[rl'idin j\„- /,„<.,, J),liiilluii.(iiii/Xi'ii(li/ir(ri/. 
 
 (a) /,'/;//(' 1,1' .li-lidll. 
 
 I'hlee eases of yciuds exceeiling .s |0 in value 
 were verbdly cu'dered by L. at M. from phiiiiliir 
 at T., through plaiiitiil 's traveller, aod were 
 snipped, eoii>i;^nei| to [,., niid e.iiried by railway , 
 and I hen by def. ndaiit's .ste.imer to M. Two ()f 
 the eases were reeeiveil by L., one of wliieli was 
 in a duiiiiiged coiidilion. The third ease le- 
 maiiu'd on board the ves.-ii I, as the purser relnsed 
 to deliver it up iiiilil the height on these eases 
 as well as mi a variety of other goods consigned 
 to 1„ was paid, which 1... refuse. 1 to do until he 
 halliist an oppoitunity of checking over the 
 goods. Itefoie the dispute was settled the vessel 
 lelt, and was subseipieiitly H recki d and this ca.se 
 lost. An anaiigeiiiciit was made between plain- 
 titlaiid L. whereby plaintill allowed L. twenty- 
 live per cent, on the value of the two cases re- 
 ceived by I,. The plaintill' then brought an 
 action against the defendants to recover the 
 tweiity-Mve per cent, so allowed, and the value 
 of tin.' case lost ;--lIeld (I Jalt, . I., dissenting), 
 that there was an acceptance and receipt of the 
 goods by L, so as to pass the property therein to 
 him ; and therefore the action shoulil, under the 
 -Mercantile Ameiidment.'Vct, l!.S. I). (I877)c. 1 Hi, 
 H.."), subs. I, have been maintained by him and not 
 by plaintill'. Pert lalt, .1., the action was [iroper- 
 ly brought by plaintill', as the property in tin.' 
 goods had not passed from him ; ,iud he was 
 entitled to recover the twenty-live jier cent, so 
 allowed by him, as also the price of the case lost ; 
 for although the loss thereof was occasioned by 
 the dangers of ii.i''. itioii, the defemlants were 
 not protected under H7 \ iet. c, "_'.") (Doin.), the 
 evidence shewing that the loss was by the fault 
 or neglix't of tlie defendants. I'rieinl/i/ v. Citn- 
 (ida i'lmiKii. Cuiiijidiii/, 10 O. H. 750. — C. P. D. 
 
 (b) Eridciicc. 
 
 The plaintili's alleged and proved an agreement 
 with the defendants that the defendants' vessel 
 should ])roceed to li. and carry thence to C, a 
 cargo of liiinber ; that the vessel did not go to 
 15. as agreed ; and that in eoiiseipienee the jilaiu- 
 till's had to procure another vessel and pay a 
 larger price than that agreed upon by the de- 
 feudaiits. The defendants alleged that the rea- 
 son they did not go for the lumber v/as, because 
 the plaintili's did not ,L;ive them or send to the 
 master of the vessel the necessary orders. The 
 judge who tried the action in the County Court, 
 of bambtoii, found this allegation untrue, anil 
 gave judgment for the plaintili's: — Held, that 
 this court could not reverse the finding in the 
 court below upon this question, as the view of 
 the facts presented by the appellants, derived no 
 support from the documents in evidence, and the 
 
1927 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 1928 
 
 I' ^' 
 
 i 
 
 court iliil not. kcc itw way tip tKkin;^ a (lltl'iifiit 
 view of till) rviiliiicf fimri lliil tiiki li l>.v tlir 
 Jllil^r at till' tl'jiil: lli'lil, al~o, that it wum Hlif- 
 liiii'iitiv piovicl tliat tlie iilaiiitillH wnv rcaily 
 mill williiiH (.) Hliiji tlic liiiiiliri J l)iit, |i(r ISuiloii, 
 ■I. A. (ili!-.si!iitjii^')< ll>>' plaiiitillH xlioiilil liavn 
 avcrroil, ami tlii' ihiiih u.ih upon tliciii to mIicw, 
 and tliiy illil nut mIk'W tlnii' iiiiiliiicKH luiil will- 
 ingncHH to nliip thr liiiiiliri' on till' ilrtViiilantH' 
 vi'Hm'l. Till' lasc, howivir, wa« cliH|ip,-Mil of in 
 till' (.'iiiii't lirliiw nn iin iiuniatci'ial iHHiic ; anil iih 
 till' appi'llants iIiuhd to ii'Ht their oasi' ujion a 
 point which tlio jiiil|L;i' loiinil against tliiiii, tliu 
 appeal hlioulil he ili.sniiHMi'(l. AlvKur.ic v. Ihtii- 
 cnj, l'2 A. II. ;JI7. 
 
 (o) PlIIIIIIIJIX. 
 
 Ontlii':{ril()citoljeilli(plaiiili»''.|iHitiriil "The 
 Krie lielli'," a vi mm'1 ow inil hy ' 'efiinlaiitM, to 
 eairy Halt froiiidodiiiehtoMi 'catHuventy- 
 
 tivc cent.s a toll. (In the II ilief the <lo- 
 
 feuilantM telegr.iphi'il infoiniiMj; plaiiitilltliat 
 tliiH vensel ooiilil not go, anil iei|iieMtiiig liini to 
 accept the services of another. Thereupon hoiiic 
 oorrcHpoiiileiii'e eiiNUicI helwicn the jiartieN, the 
 plaiiitiir insisting upon the ilefeiichuits peifonn- 
 ing thi'ir coiitiact, ami tiny linally agreeing to 
 ilo HO, During all tliis time the |)laintit1 eoiilil 
 have hail the salt con\e\eil liy other vessels at 
 #1 per ton, liiit iliil not, jiieferring to wait for 
 the ilefenilant's vessel which was loaileil on the 
 •iilth Novemher. Owing, liowi vcr. to the appre 
 hensionsof the eapt.iin as to the weather, which 
 ileteri'eil him from going out, the vessel was 
 frozen u|> ill (ioilerieh hailnKir, ami it was then 
 iniposHihIe toforwaril the salt otherwise than hy 
 rail; ami for the piiipose of einleavoming to 
 carry out a .sale which the pluintilf hail niaile, 
 he iliil senil several tons hy rail, and ]iaiil his 
 consignee the dill'ereiice in price for salt which 
 he had to Imy in Milwaukee and that as^reed to 
 he paid to the [ilaintill'. 'I he difrerenee in expeiiso 
 in sending hy rail .'ind that agreed to he paiii to 
 the defendants, anioiintiil to .>•.'{.•_'"> per ton : — 
 Held, atiiriniiig the jiidgnient of the court lielow, 
 4ti Q. I!. 'S.\'i, that the plaintiH' was not lioiiml nt 
 the peril of losing all claim against the ilefen 
 dants for .-iliy additional loss, to have ehaitered 
 another vessel .it i}\ ]Kr ton, on receijit of the 
 telegram of the 1 1 th < Jetoher ; and that, under 
 the eirciinistances, the ])laintill' was entitled to 
 recover the dillereiice jiaid to hix coiiKignee as 
 al.'io the I'Xcess of freight. Caineron, ,!., ilis- 
 .scnting, who tliought that the sum of twenty- 
 five cent.H jjcr hushil, allowed hy the arlpitrator, 
 the advance in freight tor which the salt could 
 have heen carried, was ail that the plain! ill' was 
 entitled to iccover. Mrh'iiaii v. A/cLaii/, !) A. 
 
 The plaintifT, a dealer in grains, etc. , in Canada, 
 consigned to hiseorri spomliMit in Liverpool, Kng- 
 land, a quantity of clover seed, and delivelcd the 
 same to the agent of the defeiidant company at 
 Waterford in Ontario, for the purpose of heiiig 
 carried to Liverjiocd, receiving from sueh agent 
 the usual hill of lading, lii fore the seed had li ft 
 the Aiiierican frontier for the seaboard the plain- 
 tiff desiied to chiingc the consignee, and apjilieil 
 to one H.. an agent of the company, risideiit in 
 Toronto, for that purpose who, on payment of 
 the udditiunal freight, granted a fresh bill of 
 
 hilling, ngreeing to carry the seed to [jimdon. 
 The change of destination was duly comiiiuni- 
 cated by U. to the agent of the company at 
 HIaek lioi.'k, whose duty it was to have luaih the 
 neci'HHary i hangesin the iiiNtiumeiit securing the 
 passage ol tliegooilHilut \ tree through the tiniti I 
 State><, hut this ho omitted to do, in coiisi ipii m .■ 
 of which the seed went to Liverpool, ho thiit in- 
 stead of being delivered in London on the I'.MIi 
 Feliruaiy, it did not reach tliile until the'J.'hil 
 of .Maicli, too late hir the sowing tiade, so that 
 the M I'd had to be .sold at a hi'avy loss : Held, 
 (allirniing the judgment of the court below, I (». 
 li. 47.) (1) Tliat the Toronto agent was author 
 i/,ed to 111 ike the I'liaiige in the lii'slination of tlicr 
 seed, and ('.') that the defendants were bound to 
 iiidi niiiily the plaintill against the loss siislaiiird 
 by I'c'ison of till' fall in the market value of the 
 seed, together with the additional siiiii paid fur 
 the freight from Liverpool to London : Scmblc, 
 Unit the same rule applies where the goods .iie 
 not iiitinded for immediate sale at their place of 
 destin.'ltion. Maiihillt v. Mi irlnni/.i' I h-ijintth 
 mill '/'rrnin/ior/alioii Co., 1) A. I!. 'J.S'i. 
 
 •See Fiiniilhi v. ('iniiiiln Tidiii'il Cii., 1(1 O. II. 
 7.")tl, p. l!CJ(i; Ao/'i/ V. Diu-iiUuii, I."! S. {'. K. I(i(i, 
 p. l!i;!0; Ciiiiinliini l.iiriiiiinliri Co. v. (Jii/i^/aiiil, 
 
 Hi A. it. :i'."_', p. I'.iJii. 
 
 VII. MAsri:it. 
 
 Action for work and services. l')iiiploymciit 
 of master " for the season." I,,osh of vessel. .Sco 
 /•;///>• V. Mlilltini/ A', ir. Co., 7 A. I!. -Kit, p. 
 
 i'.':{7. 
 
 Dismissal of master for ilisolieiliciuc, etc., lie 
 being a large Hhaieholdir in the company. .Sec 
 (iiiHiIJokI, \. Aiiii/oFiiiu'h Sliitiiitliii) Co., U.S. 
 
 c. I!. :WA, p. i-j:is. 
 
 S(!e .Mirrhiiiily' Hiiiihx. ftriiham, 'J7 Cliy. .VJ4, 
 p. lil'21!; /nil riiiilioiiiil W iirkimi iiml 'I'rdii^jimln- 
 lion Co. V. LiM, no. K. 4tlH', p. I'Kt'i. 
 
 I VI IL KiiKicirr. 
 
 A schooner, carrying coal late in the aiiliiiiin 
 of ISM,'{, from S. to K. was damaged by sliess uf 
 weather. The cargo w.is niilo.iih d to rcp.iii tlic 
 I vessel and the coal could not bo dili\eicd heloiB 
 I the spring of KSHI. The hill ot lading slated 
 1 the rate of Ircight to be ?<l..'i(l |'cr ton, but if the 
 coal were not delivered in the season of I.S.'i.'i tlio 
 1 freight was to be at the going rales w hi n lliu 
 ! coal was delivered, " the ilangcis of navi^atimi, 
 tire, and collision excepted." On the .'ii rival of 
 the H( 111 oner al K. the master Icndeiid the coal 
 to the coiisigneef, who refused to accept it. ili.s- 
 claiming all title thereto, and conteiiding that 
 the consignor or insiirerH must take it. The 
 master, too, refused to deliver unless iipnii pay- 
 nil nt of a laru'cr rate of freight than tli.it llieu 
 prevailing. After ten days delay the coal was, 
 by consent of ) arties, unloaded on the coii- 
 signees' wharf, they receiving it as w liailiiiL;eis. 
 It wan alteiwards sold by consent of ji irlies iunl 
 w as piirchased on behalf of the consignees ; - 
 Held reversing the decision of the (J. 1!. I>. U 
 O. It. 170 (Ilagarty, C.I.O., dissintingi, agret'- 
 iiig with the court below that freight was pay- 
 able only at the reduced late, but holding that 
 it wus the duty of the defendants to tender tliu 
 
1928 
 
 > Mi'i.'il til [ioniliiii. 
 iiH iluly ('i)iiiliiiirii 
 I till' i()iii|);iiiy iit 
 IM til IlilVi' tiiitilr till.- 
 mnciit siMiiiiiiH tlir 
 :liniiigli i\n; iJiiitrl 
 
 llll, ill lllIlHKUll III ■■ 
 
 ixriiiiiil, HO tliiit ill- 
 iiiiiloii (III llio l-tli 
 Hit' until till! 'Jlliil 
 ting tiiiilf. Nil tliiit 
 leiivy liiNH ; llrlil. 
 c, i:imil licliiw, 1 O. 
 ) i\;,'i'iit was luitlinr 
 ciii'stiiiiitiiiii lit' till! 
 iiiitH wi'iT liiiiinil til 
 
 I till' loHS MIHtailirll 
 
 iiuki't. Milium of till.' 
 ioiiul NUMi jiiiiil lor 
 l.iiniliiii : Siiiililc, 
 ilirtc till' ;,'iiiiiIh aii- 
 all' lit tlll'il plllrl' lif 
 li rrliiiii/'(' Ih-ipiiiih 
 I!. -JH-J. 
 
 nuii'il Co., 10 (). II. 
 
 „(,, i:t s, V. II. Kiii, 
 
 ('(. Co. V, <JlJl>lllUI(l, 
 
 ;it. 
 
 icen,- Kiii|iliiyiMrMt 
 
 fjOSS lit' VCMSi'l. Sris 
 1., 7 .\. I!. Kil, p. 
 
 soliuiliinico, otc. , lie 
 the conipiiiiy. See 
 Still iiiihii) Co., !l .S. 
 
 ■iiliiiin, 'J7 Cliy. •'■|-4, 
 iiiif mill 'rronf/ioiin- 
 m,\<. IO.S'2. 
 
 i:irr. 
 
 lati! ill tlio aiiliiiMii 
 .aiiia.niMl l)_v stii.'.'SM iif 
 iloailnl til I'i'ii.iii- tliu 
 t Im iU-li\cri'il lii'liue 
 lill ot liiiiiiig st;itc'il 
 ■|() (n'r tun, lint ii lli« 
 III' season lit l.^i^.'i tlie 
 lill),' rati's « hill tliu 
 iiigiiM of iiavi);ati(iii, 
 " On till' ai rival i)f 
 ;i'r Ic'iiili'irtl till' I'iml 
 oil to iu;tii)l. it, ilis- 
 mill rontriiiliiij< that 
 must taUo it. The 
 vcr iinli sH iiiiiiii iiay- 
 uight than th.it then 
 M ilolay the inal was, 
 liiaili;il on tho I'lm- 
 iig it aH \\ haitiiiijois. 
 rmsnit of j) irlii'H ami 
 >f tlio I'liii.sigiiri'.-* :— 
 n of thug. I!. I>. 14 
 I., ili.ssiiitilit;!, iigret'- 
 liat freight was pay- 
 ite, liut holiliiig that 
 ;licUint.s to tclulei- the 
 
 r 
 
 
 1929 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 1930 
 
 colli to tlio pliiiiitiff'H witiin ik'iniiinl fur |i;iynu!iit 
 of frtiiglit at the reiluroil rate, ami thitnut. hav- 
 ing iloiu! HO, till) Male waN nnaiithoii/.eil, ami the 
 cxpi'liHeM in eiiiiiieetiiiii tlierew il li eoiihl imt he 
 oil irgi'il .igaiimt tlii! |ilaintill's. 'I'lie eniirt alsn 
 helil, that, for the siiiiU! I'uiisoii, the allowaiiee iif 
 ilaiiiagi'H in the iiatiiro of ileiniiriage emilil nut 
 be Hlixtaiiieil, Imt that the ilefeiiilaiits were 
 cntitleil til siiini! eiiiiipuii.>iatiuii ((Lved at.'jIliH)) fur 
 thn ilelay of tlio plaintiilH in iiiilii;iiliiig the 
 vi'.iHiil, alter tliu iliity of iinhi.nling w.im ael iially 
 umlerlakin liv them. Caiiiiiinin /.nriiiiiuliri Ci'i. 
 V. Co/iilanil, IDA. I!. :V2-.'. 
 
 See Lonlv. Ihiviihoii, l.'ts. ('. I;. h;ii, p. m.'id. 
 
 I the (,'iiurt liiluw, ileiiiy, .)., iliN.soutiiig, that 
 
 I ftH there wan eviileme that the vesHel euiilil 
 
 ; have lieen lunhil with a full anil euinplele 
 
 eargu withuiit night wui k liefure hIii- left, lm,l 
 
 the frtight. i.s Hiipplie.l I lie eargu aw agreeil liy 
 
 the eharlri pai ly, the ajipelhiMts wiie liahle for 
 
 ■liiiMigrH ami that the pi.iper imM.-iii|-e uf the in. 
 
 •.punileiit'n .'laiiii vva.s the aiiiuiint iit agreeil freight 
 
 wliirh they would Iiim; eai'iied II pull the delieieiit 
 
 jC.ugi. That ihe deiiiiinige days iin'iiliuiied in 
 
 I thoeharler were over ami aliuve the hiyiiig days 
 
 I ami had no lefennee tu the loading of' the ihip. 
 
 I.iiiil \. Itiiiiilsoii, i;t S. ('. I!. Hit). 
 
 Sfi: Ciiiiinliiiii l.iiiiiiiiiilirr Co. v. Cti/ii Inml, J.J 
 
 }<). |{ 170; Hi A. H. :fj2, p. lU'Jit. 
 
 l.\. DK.MIimAill'. 
 
 Held, reversing the jlidgiinnt of .\iiiio\ir .!., 
 at I he trial (Arinoiir .1., iliMdentiiig), that in eum- 
 pnting deiiiiiirage Sniiday i.s to he reekumd as 
 one of the days to lii' allowed fur "i),iys" 
 mean the saiiie aH running days, or eonseentive 
 days, unleNHtheri! lie some partieiilar eiistuiii. If 
 the parties wish to exelmle any days from the 
 I'oiiipiilation they must lie e.xpressed. Wihlmii v. 
 Mifliii'I'i /lui/ Liiiiilii'r Co., (Limiiid), 7 <>. {{. 
 711). -Q. H. i>. 
 
 .\. Tow Al^K. 
 
 The 
 
 ('. T 
 ge with ."> 
 .1 llo.id. 
 eoal, and when 
 After the ship 
 
 luwa 
 
 Uoy^i 
 
 I into a I'oiitraet ot 
 'Im|i I'lirasher fnnn 
 
 Co. entel'ei 
 to tow the ; 
 
 I N.iiiainio, there to lo.iil with 
 lo.ided tu tuw her liaeU to sea. 
 was towed tu Naiiaiino, under 
 
 lly I'harter party the .ippellantsa 
 the responiU'iit'ssliipat Nliintreal, w 
 
 aiiangeiiirnl lutweeii the I!. ( '. T. Co., ;uid the 
 M. S. Co., the reliiailiiler uf the engageiiiellt was 
 undertaken lietweiii the Iw o euinpameH, and the 
 M. .S. Co.'s tug hoat, Ktta While, , and the li. 
 agreeil to load ! t^- 'I'' <'o.'n tug, lieaver, proceeded to tow the 
 
 i'itli ii ear"oof I Thiasher out ot Nanaiinu on her way to sea, tin 
 wheat, maize, peas or rye, "as fastaseaii lie re- 
 
 ceived ill line weather," and ten ilaysdeinuriage 
 were agreed on over and above laying days at 
 forty pounds jier day. I'eiialty for iion perform 
 ance of the agreement, was estimated amount of 
 freight. .Should iee set in during loading so as i 
 to endanger the ship, master to lie at liberty to ' 
 sail witli part cargo, and to have leave to iill 
 up at any open port on the way homeward for 
 shiii's lienelil, i'iie whip WMs ready to receive 
 cargo on the l.'itli November, ISSO, at eleven 
 a.m., and the appellants began loading at two 
 p.m. on the Kith November, .^fter loading a 
 certain (piantity of rye in the forward hold, .is 
 it would not be safe to load the .ship down )iy | 
 the head any further, the captain refused to 
 take any more in the forw.ird hold. Xu otii'jr 
 cargo was ready, and as the appellants would 
 not put the rye anywhere e.xeeiit in the forward 
 hold, the loading stoiijied. At eight a.m. on the 
 10th the loading rei'o; imeuced and coiilinui'd 
 night and day until six a.m., Sund ly, the 'Jlst. 
 at which time the vessel sailed, in cuiiseipieiiee 
 uf ice beginning to set in. When she sailed she 
 was'iH.j tons short of a full cargo. If the ico 
 in the canal had not detained the liarges having 
 grain to bo loaded, the vessel would have been 
 liiailedoii theuightof the lOtli. The respondent 
 sued a|!pellaiits liecause ship had not received 
 full cargo, and claimed two-and-a-half days, I ."ith. 
 Kith and 17th of November, and freight on 'IWl 
 tons of cargo not slii|ipcd. Tlie appellants con- 
 tended delay was not due to them but to the ship 
 in not supplying baggers and sewers to bag the 
 grain. That the time lo.st on the lirat week was 
 made up by night work, and that mere delay in 
 loading could not sustain claim for dead 
 freight. The .Superior Court gave judginent 
 for the respondent for the dead freight but 
 refused to allow demurrage. This judgment 
 
 Ktta White being the loreiiiost tug. Whilst 
 thus in tuw the ship w.is divigged on a reef, and 
 beeami.' a euniplete w riek. I'he night of the ac- 
 eideiit w.is light and elear, the tugs did not steer 
 aceordiiig to the eoiiisi,' presiiihed by tiie eliarts 
 and sailing direetions ; and there was on the 
 other side of the eourse they were steering, up- 
 wardsof ten miles open .'^ea frei' from all dangers 
 of n.ivigatioii, and the ship was lost at a spot 
 which was plainly indioaleil by the sailing direc- 
 tions, .■ilthuugh there was evidence that the reef 
 w.'is iinkniiw'u. The ship had nu pilot, and those 
 aboard wi're strangers to the coast. In an action 
 for dam igi.'S for negligently towing the ship, and 
 so causing her destruetion : -Held, 1. That as 
 the tugs had not ubsei'ved tliuse [iroper and rea- 
 sunable precautions in aduptiiigand keeping the 
 courses to be steeled, w hieh a iiriidenl navigator 
 would have observed, and the accident ■.-. .i:; llie 
 result uf their uinission to do so, the owners of 
 the tugs were jointly and sever.illy li aire (Tascli- 
 eretui, .1., clissenting as to the lialiilityof the M. 
 S. Co., and holdinu' that the l'>. ('. 'I', (-'o. were 
 alone liable). •_'. That under the llrilish (Jolum- 
 bia .ludieature Act the a'tioii was maintainable 
 in its present t'orm by joining both eoniiianies ;ia 
 defendants. ."!. That as there was nul hing in tlio 
 M. S. (/'o.'s charter or Act of incurpuratiou to 
 prevent tlieii' purchasing and uvvning a steam 
 ' tug, and as the use of such a vessel w.us inci- 
 dental to their Iiusiiie.ss, they had a iierfcct right 
 to let the tug to hire for such pur|iiHes as it was 
 used fur in tlic pres 'lit case. Snnllw linl'mh 
 Cohunhiii Toiriiii/ ami 'I'raitspniiatiiiuOo.idii. 
 iC. K. -yll. 
 
 XI. Collision. 
 
 On the 27111 .\iiril, ISSO, at iiort K. on lake 
 Erie, where vessels go to load timber, staves, 
 
 was alHrmod by the Court of Queen's Bench etc., and where the I'Irie Helle, the respoiideiit's 
 ■(appeal side). On appeal to the .Suprume Court 1 vessel, was in the habit of landing and taking 
 of Canada :-Hcld, amrming the judgment of passengers, the M. C. Upper, the appellants 
 
1931 
 
 SHOPS. 
 
 1932 
 
 :im 
 
 vessel, was moored at tlie west side of the dock, i 
 and had her anclinr dropped some distance out 
 in continuation of the direct line of the east end ! 
 of the wliaif. tinis brinj,'ing her cnl)le directly i 
 acniHH tiie end of the wharf from east to went, ' 
 and witliout linoying the same or taking snnit; 
 nic.-isure to inform incoming vesisels where it was. 
 'I'lie Krie Belle came into tiie wharf safely, and 
 in hacking out from the wharf she came in con- 
 tact with the anchor of the M. C Upper, mak- 
 ing a large hole in her hottoni. On a petition 
 tiled by the owner of tlie Kric Belle, in the Mari- 
 time Court of Ontario to recover damages done 
 to his vessel bj' the schoon :r M. C. U])per, the 
 judge who tried the case found, ow the evidence, | 
 that both vessels were to blame, and held that i 
 each should pay one half of the damage sustained ' 
 by the Erie IJcllc. On appeal by the owner of the | 
 M. C". U|)per and cross appeal by the owner of 
 the Erie Belle to the Supvenie Court of Canada : | 
 — Held, per Ritchie, C-'. .1., and Foiirnier and 
 Taschereau, .LI., that as the Kviv Belle, being | 
 managed with care an<l skill, went to the wharf : 
 in the usiuil way, and as the M. C. Upper iiad j 
 wrongfully and iiegliL'cntly placed her anclior i 
 (as nmch ."v part of the vessel a,s her niast.i) where i 
 it ought not to have been, and without indica- . 
 ting, l>y a buoy or otherwises, its jiosition to the 
 Erie Belle, the owner o*' the Krie JSelle was en- 
 titled to fullcompiiinatioii, and tlieM. C. Upper 
 slunihl jjay thewholeof thedamage. PerSStrong, 
 Henry, and (iwynne, .1.)., that the M. ('. Up))er 
 had a right to have her anchor wiiere it was, 
 and that it was not in the line by which the 
 Kr'w Belle entered and by which she could have 
 backed out ; that the stiain on the anchor chain, 
 wlicn the crew of tiie .M. V. Upper were hauling 
 on it all the tii"e the ]''rie I'elle was at K.,sutH- 
 ciently indicated the position of the anchor, and 
 tlierefore that the accident happened through no 
 fault or negligence on the part of the M. C. Up- 
 per, 'i'he court beini' ecpially divided, the ap- 
 peal and cross appeal were dismissed witliout 
 costs. MrC(i/him\. Oih/tc, In re The "J/. C. 
 Ui>j)i r," 7 S. C. R. 30. 
 
 The owners of the tug "B. H." sued the 
 owners of the steam i)ropeller " St. M." for 
 damages occasioned by the tug being run down 
 by the pro[ieller in the river Detroit : — Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of the Maritime Court of 
 Ontario that as the evi<lence showed the master 
 of the tng to have misunderstood the signals of 
 the propeller, and to have directed his vessel on 
 the wrong course when the two were in proxi- 
 mity, the (jwners of the propeller were not liable 
 .•md the petition in the Maritime Court should 
 be dismissed. Ituhi rt-toti v. Wi(jk-—The. St. 
 Maginti, 10 S. C. R. T'JO. 
 
 See S<ii>ell v. liriti-fh Co/nmliifi Tomnq and 
 Transportation Co., 9 S. C. R. i5'27, p. lOSO. 
 
 XII. >S.\LVAUE. 
 
 A \ essel being stranded on the northern shore 
 of Lake Erie, the master telegraphed to the 
 numagcr of a wrecking company at Detroit, for 
 tugs anil wrecking apparatus, to wliicli the nian- 
 aijer answered agreeing to furnish the same, 
 lliey were accordingly sent anil the vessel 
 rescued and saved. The plaintiffs claimed to 
 recover an amount exceeding the value of the 
 
 vessel, made up of per diem charges for the tugs 
 and apparatus : — Held, that in actions in the 
 High Court, salvors, in the absence of a specilic 
 or express agreement to the contrary, must be 
 taken to render their services under and subject 
 to the rule of the Admiralty Coi'.c, limiting the 
 maximum amount of salvage to a moiety of tlie 
 value of the saved vessel, and cargo, if any, 
 which rule is equally ajiplicable to wrecking 
 companies as to ordinary vessel owners : that tlie 
 agreement nnist define a specilic amount as to 
 the salvage to be paid or a rule wliereby it m:iy 
 be determined ; and that tliere was no agreement 
 here, but merely a reiiucst to perform the ser- 
 vices :— Send)le, that the master of a vessel can- 
 not by express agreement l)ind the owners to 
 l)ay salvage beyond the value of the vessel. 
 International W'reckimi and Transportation Cn. 
 V. Lol>l>, 11 O.K. 4()S.-^C. P. D. 
 
 XIII. AvKKAfiK. 
 
 Where a vessel was disabled by a gale near a 
 lee shore, so that she could not work ofl', and 
 aftei the anchors had dragged until she began ti) 
 pound on the bottom, the master, with the view 
 not of saving the cargo, but of enabling the crew 
 to escape, headed her round to the shore, win re 
 she was stranded and abandoned by the crew, 
 and the defendant, the owner of the cargo, alter- 
 wards got it out at his own expense :— Held, 
 that the stranding was not voluntary, and that 
 the cargo was not liable to general average. 
 Danceyx. Ilurn.'i, 31 C. P. .•H:1.— Osier. 
 
 Right of insurance company to average. See 
 Plxenix Ins. Co. v. Anrhor Ins. Co., 4 O. It. .'>'J4, 
 )). 991 ; Western Assnranee Co. v. Ontario Cval 
 Co., 19 O. R. 4G2 ; '20 O. R. 293, p. 990. 
 
 XV. Assessment ok Siiii's. 
 
 K. resided and did business in the city of 
 Halifax, and was owner of ships which were not 
 registered at the city of Halifax, and wliich liuil 
 never visited the port of Halifax. Under the 
 authority of ,S7 Vict. c. ;1(), s. I, and 27 Vict. 
 C.81, ss. 340, .347, 301, Rev. Stat. N. S., the 
 assessors of the city of Halifax valued the pro- 
 perty of K., and included therein the value of 
 said vessels : — Held, that vessels owned by a 
 residc^nt, but never registered at Halifax, ami 
 alw.vys sailing abroad, did not conic within the 
 meaning of the words " whether such ships ur 
 vessels be at home or abroad at the time of assefs- 
 nicnt,"and therefore were not liable to be asses- 
 sed for city taxes. City of Ilali/ax v. Kenny, 3 
 S. C. i;. 4il7. 
 
 XVI. Sei/.uke ok Shares in .Shii'.h. 
 Sec Trerict v. Bnrkett, 1 O. R, SO, p. 170H. 
 
 SHOPS. 
 
 See Intoxicatino l.iguoRS. 
 
 Closing shops under the Shops Regulation 
 Act, .")! Vict. e. .33 ((hit.). See Heginav. Flori/, 
 17 O. R. 715, p. 1351. 
 
 ) 
 
 k£aAi 
 
1932 
 
 harges for the tugs 
 in iictiflus in tlic 
 bsunce of a specitio 
 contrary, must Im 
 i under and subject 
 Coi'.c, limiting tliu 
 to a moiety of tlie 
 ind cargo, if any, 
 'cable to wrecking 
 lel owners : that tiju 
 citic amount as to 
 lie wherel)y it njav 
 
 w;isnoagrceniiiit 
 to perform tlie scv- 
 
 itrr of a vessel ciiii- 
 iiul the owners tn 
 
 1 lie of the vessel. 
 Tniiixpoiiation Co. 
 
 I). 
 
 \(l K. 
 
 ed by a gale near a 
 
 not work o(l', and 
 
 d until slie l)egan to 
 
 aster, with tiie view 
 
 of enabling the crew 
 
 to tiie shore, where 
 
 loned by tiie crew, 
 
 r of the cargo, al'tei- 
 
 •n expense :— Held, 
 
 voluntary, and tliat 
 
 general average. 
 
 J13.-0sler. 
 
 ny to average. See 
 ins. Cu.,4 O. I.'. r,'24, 
 Co. V. Ontario Cunl 
 295, p. 990. 
 
 OK SlIII'S. 
 
 ness in the city of 
 iliips which were not 
 lifax, and which Imd 
 ialifax. Under tlie 
 ', s. 1, and •_'" Viet, 
 iv. Stat. N. ,S., tlu, 
 lifax valued the pro- 
 Lhcrein the value of 
 ve.s.selB owned by a 
 cd at Halifax, and 
 not eonie within the 
 lether such siiips er 
 at tlie time of asse.«s- 
 ot liable to l)e asses- 
 Hali/aj: v. Kenny, l{ 
 
 AKE.S IN Ships. 
 O. K. SO, p. 1708, 
 
 193S 
 
 SOLIOITOB. 1S34 
 
 I-iguoRS. 
 
 ! Shops Regulation 
 See Rvgiua v. Fiorij, 
 
 8H0BT FOBMS. 
 
 See Deed— Landlord andTenant— Mortoacie. 
 
 SIDEWALKS. 
 See Way. 
 
 SIMILITER. 
 
 Si'r, I'l.KAniNii. 
 
 SLANDER. 
 
 Sre Dkkamation. 
 
 SNOW. 
 
 Se<- Way. 
 
 SOCIETY. 
 
 See Benevolent SoriKriris— Co-mtanv. 
 
 SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 See DorlamI v. Junfx, 12 A. R. o43 ; 14 S. C. 
 R 39, p. 232. 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 I. PaiVILKdKOK, I9.S4. 
 
 II. PRIVILKdl'.l) ('llMMUNI(ATU)NS — SVc Kvi- 
 DKNCK. 
 
 III. PrACTISIM; WI rilillTt KKTIFKATK, 1934. 
 
 IV. AoKNT oKSoMcrroK, lO.S."). 
 
 V. PROC'Ki;i)IN(iS A(iAlNST AND Ll AlllLirY OF. 
 
 1. For Niijliijinrf. 
 
 (a) Conilnrlinii Lc'/a/ I'rorcedimi^, 
 
 193(i. 
 
 (b) JnriMiwnt. of MoiKij, 193". 
 
 2. To Sniiimni 1/ .hirixilii'lion. 
 
 (a) To En fori;: Undirlahinii, 193S. 
 
 (b) ConUmpt of Court, 1938. 
 
 (e) For mil I'lii/imj orer Monii/t, 1938. 
 
 (d) SIrikinu of the h'olls, 1931t. 
 
 (e) Priici'ulhuix Initiated by the Court, 
 
 1!)40. 
 
 VI. Authority. 
 
 1. With rrfirencf to Aitiont and other 
 
 Leijid /'rocmlinijt, 1940. 
 
 2. To Receire Money, 1942. 
 VII. Duties. 
 
 1. Retainer and Appointment, 1943. 
 
 2. Dealing with Client. 
 
 (a) Taking Security for Co^t«, 1945. 
 
 (b) Other Casei, 1946. 
 VIII. Costs. 
 
 1. Agreenicntmin to Co.'il'i, 104(i. 
 
 2. Oftr to Reduce Anwnnl of Hill, 1947. 
 
 3. Unnecennary Proceidingn, 1948. 
 
 4. Sniisiiuiiiiig Hill „j C'o.it.i for Com- 
 
 niiAiioii, 1948. 
 
 5. Moderation of ('oxts, 1949. 
 
 0. R<fereiire to Taxation or Reriiion. 
 
 (a) JI'Ao way Apply, 1949. 
 
 (b) Orilir for Delivery and Taxation, 
 
 1949. 
 (e) Ihfore Whom, 1950. 
 
 (d) What nuiy he Referred, I9')l. 
 
 (e) S/)eciid Cireumntanren, 1951. 
 
 (f) What Recovrrahle, l!ir.4. 
 
 (g) Interest on Cost.t, 1955. 
 (h) Prarlice, 1955. 
 
 (i) Costs of Tajation, 1956. 
 
 (j) Appialfrum Taxation, 1956. 
 
 7. i'ecarery hy Action, \^"i. 
 
 8. Liahilily to Refund, 1957. 
 
 9. Other Cases, 1958. 
 IX. LiKN foii Costs, 1959. 
 
 X. MiscEi.LANEois Cases, 19CI. 
 XI. Attorney -fjENKRAL —.SVc Attorney- 
 
 (J EN EH A L. 
 
 XII. Barristek- See Barristeu-atLaw. 
 
 XIII. CoINTV CliOWN ArroKNEV— .S'.f Ctil NTY 
 
 Chown Attounev. 
 
 XIV. Law Society— iSre Law Sociktv ok Up- 
 
 i'erCanaiia. 
 
 I. PkIVILKHF. (1K. 
 
 Ordering attorney out of court in trial of con- 
 tested election. See South Orforil Flection ~ 
 Hopkins V. Olirer, H. E. C. 243, p. lolti. 
 
 III. PllACTTSlNi: WlTEIOl-T CeUTIIMCATE. 
 
 M., a solicitor, who had not taken out the cer 
 titicate entitling him to practise in the (Jnlario 
 courts, allowed ids n-.nie to appear in iiewsjiaper 
 advertisenients a-. ■ 'i prolessional cards and 
 letter heads as a incnilier of a liini in active 
 practice; he was not, in fact, a lucmher of the 
 tirni, receiving none of its profits and paying 
 none <if its expenses, and the tirni did not ap- 
 pear as solicitors of record in any of the proceed- 
 ings ill their professional business. The Law 
 Society t<nik jnoceedings against M. to recover 
 the penalties imposed on solicitors practising 
 without certilieate, in which it was shown that 
 the name of the lirm was indorsed on certain 
 papers tiled of record in suits carried on by tho 
 (inn : — Held, rcvcising the judgment of the 
 Court of Appeal, 15 A. H. 100 and the Q. B. 1)., 
 13 0. H. 104, that M. di.i not "practise as a 
 solicitor " within the nieai.ing ot the Act impoa- 
 
1935 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1936 
 
 ,* ' 
 
 1 
 
 ing thu i)enaUics (R. 8. 0. (1877) c. 140) iuultlm*- 
 he was not est(>j)pt'(l, by pcnnitting liis name to 
 appear no a member of a firm of practising soli- , 
 citors, from showing that lie was not such a i 
 member in fact. MacDoiuiall, v. Lav: Society of , 
 Upper Canada, 18 S. C. R. 203. j 
 
 IV. AoENT OF Solicitor. 
 
 W. & Co., attorneys in the province of Quebec 
 for B. & Co., there, requested the defendant, an 
 attorney in the province of Ontario, to sue a 
 company tliere on a promissory note made by 
 thein, of which H. k Co. were tjie holders. l)e- 
 fenchmt issued the writ in the name of h. & Co., 
 and indorsed his own name as attorney. He, 
 however, never had any communication with , 
 them, treating,' only with \V. & Co., wlio had! 
 sent him many similar claims to collect, and 
 creiliting them witli the amount of the note 
 wjien collected :— Held, alfirming tlie judgment 
 of the County ("ourt, tliat tlie plaintiff, who was 
 the assignee of B. & Co., was entitled to recover 
 frmn defendant tlie amount so coUecteil ; the 
 rule that the town agent of a country principal 
 is not accountable lo a client of the latter not 
 being applicable, as W. it Co., were merely the 
 agents of 15. it ( 'o. to retain the defen<lant toact 
 as their attorney, between whom and W. it Co., 
 n direct ])rivity of contract therefore existed. 
 Jio^s V. Fllfli, 6 A. l\. 7. 
 
 In a certain suit D. acted generally as solicitor 
 for H. who lia<l been appointed administrator 
 pendente lite. In certain matters, however, in 
 connection with the proceedings, 1). advi.sed H. 
 to retain another solicitor, deeming it improper 
 to act himself for H. in respect to these matters, 
 as he was also acting for another party. The 
 solicitor thus retained by H. agreed with D. to 
 do the work which he was retained to do for 
 agency charges of which he rendered 1>. an ac- 
 ccnint. I), made up one bill of costs ami ren- 
 dered it to H. which included at full rates the 
 services which the other solicitor had ])erformed 
 at agency I'ates. H. paid the bill with these j 
 charges to D. : — Held, that the master on taking ! 
 H.'s accounts with respect to the estate of which 
 he liad been appointed administrator, should 
 have allf)wed the bill as properly paid so far as 
 concerneil the said charges, for there was noth- 
 ing impr-^per in the transaction, liealli/ v. Jfu!- 
 dan, 10 O. H. '278. -Fergu.son. 
 
 Li'!n of agent for unjiaid asjency charges. See 
 7?t h'yaii, II I', i;. 127, p. HWl. 
 
 Service of papers on Toronto agent. See 
 Pril/it v. Li,iil„n; 1 1 P. R. Sl.l, p. 1070 ; Ilohiu- 
 noil V. liahiiisoii, \',\ 1'. 1!. 51, p. 1070. 
 
 Where a solicitor has not entered the name of 
 his agent in a county town, service of papers in 
 an action where the ))roceedings are being carried 
 on in such county town cannot be efFected upon 
 him by posting U[i copies in the olhee of the 
 local registrar there, if he has the name of a To- 
 ronto agent duly entered. Con. Rules 203, 204, ' 
 and 461 considered. Exxe.ry \. Grand Trunk R. ' 
 W. Co., 13 P. R. 221.— Dalton, MaMer. j 
 
 See Rp. IdiiK/fon v. .)ficl-/r, 8 P. R. 506, p. Ift.")l ; | 
 Ai/ww V. IHunbtt, 9 P. R. 456, p. 386 ; Kimj v- 
 Moytr, 9 P. 11. 514, p. 1954. I 
 
 V. Pkocekdinus.uiaisstand Liability ok. 
 
 1. For NcijUiienre. 
 
 (a) Conducting Li'ijal Proceedinijt. 
 
 C. who was in active practice as lawyer, .ind 
 the author of several useful legal treatises, had 
 obtained a mortgage on a valuable leasehold 
 estate and having taken such proceedings as 
 resulted in a forfeiture of the mortgagor'j term, 
 procured from the owner of the property a. re- 
 newal of the lease to himself. Tiie mortgagors 
 instituted proceedings to redeem, but C. assert- 
 ing that he was absolute owiur of the interest, 
 instructed solicitors to defend the suit. They 
 expressed to C. some doubt as to his right to 
 resist the claim of the moitgagors, whereu])on 
 he with one of the solicitors, \\cnt to a counsel 
 of note, who, without having time to give the 
 case full consideration, verbally advised them 
 that the suit should be defended. ('. drafted his 
 answei' his solicitor adding one clause. Counsel 
 retained for the heai'ing told ('. he would un- 
 doubtedly fail in the litigation, and subsequently 
 the usual decree f(n'red'.)uption was pronounced, 
 C. being ordere<l to pay such costs as had been 
 occasioned by his resisting redemption. It was 
 alleged against the soli<;itors that they had ad- 
 vised C. that he winild be entitled to costs in any 
 event ; that they had refused to eonsiiler or sub 
 niit to him an offer to pay tin; mortg.age money 
 and costs on the ground as they alleged that ('. 
 claimed about three times the sum offered : thai 
 they had colluded with the mortgagor's s(dicitor 
 in having jirocecdiiigs instituted, which they had 
 wrongly a<lviseil him to defend ; and that he 
 had a good defence, but the same had been 
 negligently managed. There was a written 
 retainer which did not express any si)eci;d 
 arrangement as to costs or the terms on which 
 the defence was to be conducted. The court 
 being of opinion that ('. had failed to makegoo.l 
 his chaiges against the solicitors, atiirmed the 
 order made by Spr.igge, C, reversing the tin<ling 
 of the taxing officer that the solicitors were not 
 entitled to recover the costs of the litigation. 
 A'.' AVrr, yl/vrt and /lull, Solicilori, 2!) Chy. 
 188.— Chy. 1). 
 
 Although in a simjile ease of a ilistinet asser- 
 tion and a distinct denial of a fact at the time of 
 a client retaining a solicitor, which thus forms a 
 part of a eontr.act it may be a proper rule to say 
 that in such a case the sidicitors has himsi'lf to 
 blame when any difficulty arises, as he might 
 have ij.otected himself by hiving his retaim^r in 
 writing, there is not any .lutlioiity for extending 
 that rule to facts arising aftei- the retainer and 
 during the progress of the litigation. In any 
 event the rule applies only where it is simply 
 (lath against oath, not where there is other evi- 
 dence direct or cireumatantial in support of the 
 solicitor's. /'*. 
 
 Where F., a solicitoi- on behalf of his client, 
 served a notice of sale nuclei- a mortgage made 
 pursuant to the Act respecting short forms (I!. 
 S. (). (1877), c. 104) upon what he believed, after 
 diligent eii(|iiiry, was the last jilace of residence 
 of the mortgagor in this province, and did so on 
 the instructions of his client, who was fully ad- 
 vised as to tli(; Slid enc|uiries and their result, 
 and bona fide deeming su(di services suthcient : — 
 Held, that F. was entitled, as against his client, 
 to tax the costs of the proceedings under the 
 
1936 
 
 i) LlABIMTY OK. 
 
 rc 
 
 •oceudiiiijs. 
 
 •I' !i8 lawyer, and 
 
 gal treatises, had 
 
 alualde le.iaeho)d 
 
 li prriceediiigH as 
 
 nortgagor'j term, 
 
 10 property » re- 
 
 Tiie mortgagors 
 
 in, l)ut C UNSert- 
 
 r of tlie interest, 
 
 the suit. They 
 
 IS to his riglit to 
 
 igors, whereupon 
 
 rtcnt to a counsel 
 
 time to give the 
 
 lly advised tlieni 
 
 1. C. drafted his 
 
 chiuse. Counsel 
 
 ('. ho woulil un- 
 
 iinil suhsecptcntly 
 
 1 was pronouneed, 
 
 eosts as had heon 
 
 einption. It was 
 
 lat tiiey liad ad- 
 
 ed to costs in any 
 
 o ronsi<li;r or suh 
 
 mortgage money 
 
 y allegeil that ('. 
 
 iuni ofl'ercd : thai 
 
 rtg;igor-'s solicitor 
 
 d, which they had 
 
 id ; and that he 
 
 same had hecn 
 
 was a written 
 
 iress any si)eeial 
 
 e terms on which 
 
 icted. Tlie court 
 
 lilod to mak('g<Hid 
 
 itors, adirined the 
 
 ■ersing the linding 
 
 iolicitors were not 
 
 of the litigation. 
 
 o/iViV'<Cf, 20 ( 'hy. 
 
 f a ilistinct usser- 
 fact at the time of 
 liich tiius forms a 
 projier rule to say 
 rs has himself to 
 ises, as he might 
 iig his retainer in 
 rity for extending 
 • tlie retainer and 
 tigation. In any 
 here it is simply 
 there is other evi- 
 in support of the 
 
 alf of his client, 
 a mortgage niiule 
 g short forms (I!, 
 he lielieved, after 
 [dace of resilience 
 ICC, anil did so on 
 ivho was fully ad- 
 am I their reftult, 
 vices sutliciont : - 
 igainst his client, 
 udings under the 
 
 T 
 
 1937 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1938 
 
 power of sale, although it appcareil the mortga- 
 gor really was at the time of sucli service, witli- 
 in this province. O' nniiohx: v. Wliitly, 20. K. 
 424.— Ohy. D. Affirmed on appeal. See'iOC. L. 
 J. 14(). 
 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 104, permits sulntitutional 
 service at the residence though the mortgii;or 
 may he within the jurisdiction. But even if si:ch 
 is not the proper construction of the stituto, it 
 is a matter so douhtful tint tiie solicitor who 
 liona tide acted on th vt view of the statute should 
 not lose his costs of so effecting .service. Ih, 
 
 Where services are rendere 1 by a solicitor at 
 the instance of a idiciit. |)iissessinn the like 
 knowlcd'.'c of the matters of fa^tas the salieitor, 
 the onus is on the diiiit to establish nci;ligoui'e, 
 igniMMiice, or want of skill, by reason of wliirli 
 aliinc and entirely the services have lieen utterly 
 wortlilcss, if he resist the t ixation of eosts in- 
 turied by such services. Ih. 
 
 See < /all it- Co. v. Collins, \'2 P. R. 4i:!, p. ]'X,{. 
 
 (li) I uveal ini lit Qf Mom I/. 
 
 A solicitor entrusted with moiuys to invest, 
 did so on property of insiilliiient value, and his 
 client, shortly after the loan, desired him to 
 realize the amount advanced, whicii tiie solicitor 
 endeavoured to do by getting the owner to eH'cct 
 another loin from a building society, lie de- 
 sired his client to reh'.ise his mortgage for that 
 purpose, undertaking to obtain security on 
 chattel property for any ilcliciency brfore acting 
 on the release. The society refused t > advance 
 more than .$800, which it was stipulated should 
 be pai<l to the client, thus leaving a b;d iiue due 
 him of about .^loO. The solicitor proiaiivd I'loni 
 the mortgagor a chattel mortgage on cattle, etc., 
 variously valued at from 8l"l) toi>lH(>: such 
 security being made out in tlie name of the 
 client, and only requiring his atlidivit of bona 
 fides to have it registered. This the client re- 
 fused to accept, and instituted procci'diugs 
 against his solicitor for the surplus of his cl liin : 
 and the judge of the ("ouiity Couil gave a ver- 
 dict and jiidgniciit for .SI77 agiinst the latter. 
 On ajijieal, this court (Uurton, .1. A., dissciiting) 
 being of opinimi that the plaintilV li id of his own 
 wrong lost the briielit of tlic chattel inortga^'c, 
 reduceil the judginent by 81 17. thus limiting ilie 
 verdict to .*!()(). with Division Court costs, but 
 refused to either jiartv costs of the a|iiical. 
 O'Ciilhuihaii V. Ikriiiii, 11 A. R. ont. 
 
 R., a practising solicitor, was ntaiind by the 
 lilaiiititr to manage her Imsiiiess allairs, and he 
 obt lined from her and inve-ited larue sums of 
 iniiney in mmtgage sei'iirities. A year after- 
 wards R. entered into paitiicrshi|) with the de- 
 fendant W. , and the linn carried on business as 
 solicitors and (■onvcyaucers and had in their 
 hands .several estates to man.age. It was agreed 
 v»nen this partnership was fi>rnu'<l that \V. 
 should have no interest in the |)laiutill"s business 
 which continued to be managed eulii'dy by R., 
 but the entries in connection therewith were 
 made in the books of the lirm, in lueys received 
 on the plaintilf's acoonut were ile])osited with 
 the linn's nionevs, and from time to time re- 
 invested by the linn, or piid to the plaintiff or 
 to R. by cheques of the lirm, and charges paid 
 by borrowers went into the profits of the tirm. 
 
 122 
 
 Losses occurred owing to the insuflicieiit value 
 of some of the mortgagcij properties : —Held 
 (Rurton, .1. A., dis.scnting), allirmiug the judg- 
 ment of the (Jueeii"s I'.'iieli Division (If) (). R. 
 (iO'J), and thitof Hoyd,(". at the trial, that under 
 the circuinst iiices, particulirly beciuse of the 
 niDiioy having beun ai'tit illy received by the 
 lirm, anil again paid out by tli'iii to the borrow- 
 ers, both pirtncrs were lialile for the negligence 
 compliiined of. I'cr Hiu'arty, ('. .T. (). The 
 business being prima I'acic within the scope of 
 the jiai tuership liii-iiiies<, \V. was liable and to 
 escape liability lie should, wlieii the piitnership 
 was formed, have given notice to tlic plaintiff 
 that he was not to be liable. IVr lUirton, .1. A., 
 R. aloMc was retained by tlie plaintiff, and as 
 it was a term of the partnersliip that W. was to 
 have no interest in the plaintiff 's business, there 
 was 110 duty cast upon him to give notice toiler. 
 Any liability to lur could arise only by estoiipel, 
 and there was nothing .iiii nintiiig to.-stoppel in 
 this case. Thnnijisoii v. /'oliiiimii, l(i .\. R, 17.'i. 
 
 Dining the inrtiiersliip, the plaintiff, acting 
 on It's advice, allowed him to invest moneys in 
 the imrcliase of lands in Dikoti, it binng agreed 
 that he was to pay her interest on the moneys 
 so invested, and that any )irolits wvvf to be di- 
 vided between tlie ))laintitr and It. W. had no 
 knowledge of this transaction. Tii" moneys so 
 invested wen' lust : -Held, reversing I lie judg- 
 ment of the <,)iieeii's Ueueh Division (1")(). K. 
 lifi^l, and ainnning that of ISoyd, 0. at the trial, 
 that this was a tiansaction clearly outside the 
 scope of the partnership husiuess, and that W. 
 was not liable. Ih. 
 
 See T)i:ihr\: .M.i'jmUi, lOO. R. 0(10. 
 
 2. T'l Sinitm'tri/ JiirUilh'linn. 
 
 (a) To Kiifnrcc Uiidnrtdkiiu.i. 
 
 The I'ourt will not siiiumirily compel a solici- 
 tfir to perfiirm an agrci'inent or undertaking, 
 ni'Tcly because he is a solicitor ; if it was not 
 given by him in his professional coniiectiou with 
 the suit or matter, the jiirty to whom it is 
 given will be left to his artion. Wilwii v. 
 lii illij -lir Ihiru-ni -ni'l M,i-iili<i, 12 .\. R. 252. 
 
 Where .M , a soli. 'iter, uinuceessfuUy prose- 
 cuted a petition agiinst the apolic iiit ,it his own 
 expense, in tli" name nf one If., .iiiiei'iiig to in- 
 demnify H. agiinst C'lsts, M.'s interest being 
 merely as surety on a bond for If., a summiry 
 aii|iliintioii to in ike NF. pay the costs of the 
 liitition w.is refused. /''. 
 
 (h) G'tiiliinpt ')/■ I'oiirl. 
 
 Sit //) /•' ()' lii-U'n —Uii'vi'i. I'.r ml FiTilz v. 
 irn,i-l.ni,t, l(i S. ('. R. 107 • 14 A. R. 1st; 11 O. 
 R. (llVt, p. :V20; I'rilchti-d v. Pi'itrhird, 18 0. 
 R. 173, p. 10.10. 
 
 (c) For Xot I'(riiii',i Orfi- Moiinji. 
 
 The fact as to whether nvineys collected by an 
 attorney had h 'cn afterwards loined to him by 
 th • client was disputed ; but an un Icrtaking 
 was produced, signed by the attorney to the 
 cffe 't that he ludd tlu oneys for investmont : — 
 Held, tint i; t'l ; trumctim was aftirw.iril8 
 
1939 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1940 
 
 tiiriieil into a loan to the attorney, he niu3t be 
 preptucil with the clearest evideiiee of the 
 change in the relation, otherwise the usual order 
 against the attorney must be made ; and in tliis 
 case the evidence was held to be iusutlioient: — 
 Held, that where an order directing a reference 
 to the master has been made in cliambers, in 
 such a case, and tiie reference completed under 
 it, an application for relief thei'efroni must be 
 made to the court. In re an Attorney, 8 P. R. 
 102.— Osier. -C. P. D. 
 
 A solicitor in an action had obtained an order 
 for the payment out to him of certain moneys 
 in court, and upon such order obtained the 
 moneys. Subseriuently an order was ol)taiiied 
 rescinding the above order and directing tlie 
 solicitor to forthwith repay tlie said moneys into 
 court, and to pay the costs of the api)lication. 
 < )n his non-compliance therewitli a motion was 
 made for his connnittal : — Held, that the order 
 for committal should go, for what was sought l)y 
 the motion was the punishment of the solicitor 
 for his contempt in disobeying the order of the 
 court ; and that Con. Itule S((7 hail no aplica- 
 tion. I'ri/churd v. I'ritchard, IS U. 11. IT.'J, 
 178.— MacMahon.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Ke Fklcher, 28 Chy. 413, infra ; Wil-ion v. 
 Jieatti/, In re Donovan, 'JA. It, 149, I!).")?. 
 
 (d) Strikinij off the A'o/At. 
 
 Upon the taxation of solicitors' costs against 
 their client, it was shewn that large sums of 
 money belonging to their client had reached their 
 hands, and after deducting the amount of the 
 costs a cr)nsi(ler,ible balance remained due to the 
 client, for which he had, under the order of ta.\a- 
 tion, issued an execution, but the sheritF had 
 been able to realise only a .small portion of the 
 debt ; and thereupon a motion was made to strike 
 the .solicitors oir the roll in ilefault of paynii'nt of 
 the amount remaining due. The court (lUiko, 
 V. (".), iK.wever, in view of the fact lh.it tlio 
 client had treated the claim as a debt fioui the 
 solicitors to himself, and |)roc'cedtil to a sale oi 
 all that he could seize under execution, was of 
 opinion that he could not fall back on a right 
 which he had had and might have ixeicised, 
 unless, in addition to the Mnn|iayuient of tlij 
 money, niiscondui't on the jmt of the solicitDr.-i 
 could be shewn that w luhl warrant the inter- 
 ference of the co\n't ; and refused the application, 
 with costs. I{e F/,/,:h'r, -28 Chy. 4i:i, 
 
 To justify an order to strike a solicitor off the 
 rolls there nuist be personal misconduct ; it is 
 not enough to shew that his partner has been 
 guilty of fraudulent conduct, from which a cou- 
 .structive liability to |).vy money may iici-ha|)s 
 !ir!se. The court is not in the habit of exerci- 
 sing even the lesser jurisdiction of ordering pay- 
 ment in a summary iiumner against a solicitor to 
 whom personally no blame is attributable, though 
 he may be responsible for his |)artner's acts. 
 St. Aubyn r. Smart, L. R. 3 Chy. 040 distin- 
 guished. AV McOamihiij awl Wal-^li, Soliri/nr-^, 
 ■.\ O. R. 425.— Proudfoot. 
 
 On the presentation of a petition to restore a 
 solicitor to the rolls, who had been struck off by 
 an order of 1st Septeiniier, 1874. for nonpay- 
 ment over a client's money, evidence was re- 
 quired as to his good conduct since the nutking 
 
 of the order, and notice to the Law Society of 
 the application, and on this being complied witli 
 he was restored, but the order was not rescind- 
 ed. J{e Mitinumara, a Solicitor, 9 P. R. 497. - 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 It was charged against T. a solicitor, that one 
 \V. being about to be tried for a criminal offence, 
 was induce 1 by T., as her solicitor, to pay him 
 .*!2W) for thv purjjose of influencing the jury. 
 The court, upon the facts stated in the repnVt 
 being satistieil that the charge was proved, au 
 order was matle striking him off the rolls. 'I'lu; 
 petitioner having made a prima facie case, and 
 l)eing unable from want of means to iiracced 
 with tiie ap|)lication, a solicitor was a' jiointed 
 i)y the court to take the matter up. He 'I'ilu-i, 
 a Solii-itiir, 5 (). 11. 87. — Hoyd. 
 
 See Wil-ton v. Biatty—la re Dunuran, 9 A. R. 
 149, J). 19.')7 ; Ilaniln v. Law Soeieti/ of Upjwr 
 Canada, IG (>. It. (>'_>.); 17 O. U. 300; 17 A. K. 
 41, p. IKiO. 
 
 (e) Proecciliniis Initiated hi/ tht Court. 
 
 Where at tin; hearing matters are brought to 
 the notice of the court which affect the character 
 of one of the parties, a solicitor, the court will, 
 of its own motion, and without being applied to 
 by any other ]iarty, call upon such solicitor to 
 shew cause why he should not be called upon to 
 •inswer these nuittei's. In re a Solicitor, 27 
 Chy. 77.— Spragge. 
 
 V'l. AiTHDiiirv. 
 
 1. With /'I'/erenei' to Artioni anil Other Lc;/al 
 J'rocenlinijx. 
 
 A Montreal tirm of solicitors brought an aetinu 
 for one C. against H., the now jilaintiff, which 
 was settled for .•?:>,70(», of which H. paid .^3,0II!», 
 
 i and gave the .solicitor.s a note for iJ.'i.'iOO made 
 
 , anil cndor.stid rospi'ctivcly liy the defendants 
 (Jiillith and (iiuison, and held by H. asendorsir, 
 nut of winch they weic to take the .'?700 and 
 
 i their costs. They sent a clerk to Toronto, wluii; 
 
 I defendants lived, to ctlcct a settlement, butbiiiii; 
 
 '\ niuible to do so, he left the note for collection 
 with M. it (,'o., a Toronto lirni of solicitms. 
 
 I After legal proceed Iults had been institutcil, 
 plaintill p lid ('. the i;7(iO. .A. settlement was 
 <li-'cussed between the silicitors, which M. &('<i. 
 agreed to, |)rovideil their costs and the charges 
 for the clerk's expenses to Toronto were paid. 
 Xegotiation for a settlement had been going mi 
 between the p.irties themschi'S, and on the 2ud 
 December an agreement was entered into, that 
 delendants shimld pay .s.'),(MJO clear of every 
 thing, to the plaintill'. On the 4th IJccemlier 
 defendants' solu^itors were informed by M. &Co. 
 of other [larties, hcsides tin; ))laiutifr, being in- 
 terestcil in the iintc. On tith l)ecember the par- 
 ties met and etl'eeted a settlement, by plaiutilF 
 accepting §5,000 in full of all claims under the 
 action. The ;iote which was held by M. & Co. 
 was never delivered up to the defenilants : - 
 Held, that the action was not the plaintilF's, but 
 that of C, or for his benefit, and th.at M. & Co. 
 could proceed therewith, as C.'s solicitors, to 
 enforce payment of their costs, and the Montreal 
 solicitors charges : that the settlement of u claim 
 under a negotiable security without the security 
 being delivered up, subjected the defendants to 
 
1940 
 
 le Law Society nf 
 iiiig complied witli 
 • WHS not rcscind- 
 >or, 9 P. R. 497. - 
 
 solicitor, that oiu' 
 a criminal ott'eMi(;. 
 icitor, to pay iiini 
 ucncing the jury, 
 atcd ill tlie repcTit 
 Hi was proved, an 
 oB" the rolls. 'I'lio 
 iia facie case, and 
 iiicaiis to prjcicd 
 tor was a' fiointud 
 tor up. Jfe Titii-f, 
 
 Diinuvati, 9 A. R. 
 Soriflii of Upiwr 
 I!. .'WO; 17 A. K. 
 
 /'.(/ '/"• Cinirt. 
 
 ers are brought to 
 iU'eet the character 
 or, the court will. 
 It hciug applied to 
 11 such solicitor to 
 t be called upon to 
 re a HoUc'Uur, 21 
 
 rv. 
 anil Other Le-jal 
 
 brought an actinu 
 w i)laiiititr, whicli 
 fh K. |)aid .•*.'}, OiMi, 
 •■ for .'?.■),.")()() iiiadr 
 ly the defendants 
 by II. as endorser, 
 ikc the .'?7<)0 and 
 to'J'oronto, whcri; 
 tleinent, but l)rin:; 
 ote for eollectioii 
 linn of .soliciting, 
 liceii instituted. 
 ^ settlement was 
 •s, which M. k Cd. 
 I aiul the ehar^'es 
 )ronto were paid, 
 ad been going on 
 3, and on the 'Jnd 
 mtered into, that 
 10 clear of every- 
 le 4tli Ueceniber 
 rnied by M. &C'o. 
 )laintifr, being iu- 
 )eeeniber the par- 
 ncnt, by plaint ilF 
 claims under tin,' 
 lehl by M. & C.i. 
 le defendants : - 
 he plaintiir's, but 
 lid th.it M. &('o. 
 J. 's solicitors, to 
 and the Montre.d 
 :lemcnt of u claim 
 ;houtthe security 
 he defendants to 
 
 !' 
 
 1941 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1942 
 
 such charges as were a specific lien thereon, of 
 which ihey had notice ; or ;— Seuible, even 
 without notice : that the effect of the agreement 
 of the 2nd December was that the defenilaiits 
 should pay M. & Co.'s costs, and defendants 
 
 The order of the master in chambers (9 P. R. 
 220) staying proceedings on the ground that the 
 acti(Ui had been settled by the plaint ill'.s scdiei- 
 tor, was reversed because the evidence shewed 
 th'-*^ the settlement was a ]n'ovisjiinal one, and 
 
 afterwards on the settlement made not iuoviding:t ,t the plaiiititf hini-self had not adopted 
 therefor, and leaving the note outstanding, was ' MrDoinilil v. Fiild, 12 p. R. 21.'!. - ('. P. 1 ». 
 
 some evidence of collusion to deprive M. & Co, 
 of their costs, and that the notice given not to 
 settle without providing for if. &. Co.'Hiaists, 
 etc., gave M. & Co. an eipiitablo claim to the 
 interposition of the court. Ila/l v. Uiiljiih, 5 
 0. 1!.47S.-C. P. D. 
 
 Per Wilson, C.r.C. P. — If parties to an action 
 authorize their solicitors to enter into negotia- 
 tions for a settlement, an<l while the negotiations 
 are proceeding, one party unknown to his own 
 or to the opposite solicitors, writes to the otlu'r 
 party personally withdrawing from the nejiotia 
 
 After the trial of an action had been postponed 
 at the assizes and the defemlant inid left the 
 assize town, his solicitor and counsel ellceted a 
 settlement with the iilaintill', whieh was given 
 eileet to by the entry of a venlictainl juilgUK'iit 
 by eon.seiit. The solieitcu' admitted that he \\ as 
 not instru<'ted, but relied cm his client adapting 
 the scttleineiit, which was in the solicitor's opiu- 
 ion a favourable one. The client .said tliut he 
 liad instrneted the solicitor not to settle in 
 the way hi; diil:— Held, that the defend.mt 
 was entitled to have the verdict and jud^^na nt 
 tinns, and the respective solicitor.s, not knowing '• set asi<le and a new trial, on payment of co.>ts. 
 
 what has taken place between their clients mean 
 while, cimclude the terms of a settlement, such 
 settlement will not be binding on the party who 
 had thus withilrawn from the negotiations, be- 
 cause the other party had direct notice of his 
 withdrawal : — Semble, that if the principals had, 
 between themselves, entered into an agreement, 
 and the solicitors in ignorance of what the clients 
 were doing, had previously conclndi^d a different 
 agreement, the agreement made by the .solicitors 
 would bind because j)rior in time. On the same 
 rea.soning where the two principals negotir^e, 
 and either perfect a contract or put an end U 
 
 Wall V. Clark, 12 P. K. :{59.— Chy. I). 
 
 Where solicitors jtrojierly representing the 
 claimant and tiie execution cieditors in an 
 interpleader made an ariangeiiutnt by which 
 !:"HI of the claim made and ]irovided for in the 
 inteiiileaiier order was abandolied, and the' slie- 
 ritV, by the direction and consent ot both the 
 solicitors, ill good faith distrilmted .^441 among 
 the creditors entitled, and jjuid only the l)alaiir(; 
 into court, instead of the whole proceeds of tlic 
 s.de, as directed by the intei'iileader order, 
 which was not amended :- Held, that thcsolici- 
 - 11,-, '"IS had authority to make such a variation of 
 
 jiroposals for one before the delegated powt^' to ' jho ..nler, aiul th^ sheriir was justilic.l in acting 
 their agents has been tully exercised, the acts of ,„„ jt . and it made no difference tliat the 
 the principals are the binding acts, ,ind the sub- interpleader order was a con.scnt order, for it 
 Bcipient acts of the agents are of no avail as „ ^^ .^n interlocutory (,rder, au<l the variation 
 against their pnneipals. In t'.:s case, ui)on the \ ,ij„ „„t ,^„-^,^t. t,,j,,,, parties. Jlwhlt v. Bibh, 
 
 letters and evidence set out in the report, it ' pi p || ^y.> iJoyd 
 
 was:— Held, that the defendant had not with- ; 
 
 drawn his prior pro|K)sals and abamloned the Held, afHrming the judgment of the Supreme 
 negotiations before a final arraiigemeiit had been , Court of \lw I'.ruiiswiek that a promise of in- 
 come to by the respective solicitors. I re/t/oH | <lc'nnity to the siuiill' by an attorney is bind- 
 V. Vnnlon, (5 O. 1'. 719. Cliy. 1). ' i'lg on his client wiieretlie attorney had the con- 
 
 duct of the suit in the course of whieh sueli 
 A settlement of an alimony acticui after judg- \ piomise was nuule and the subscipient acts of 
 inent f<U' permanent alimony, U]ioii which writs ; tiie client showed tliat he had .-idoptcd the 
 of execution were in the sheritrs hands, was attorney's proceedings. Miiirlniul v. .s/ifcri//". 
 
 elFected between the parties w ithout the inter 
 vention of the solicitors on the record. To carry 
 out the settlement a third solicitor was instructed 
 to withdraw the writs from the sheriti's hands, 
 whieh he did without paying the costs of the 
 plaintiffs solictor, which he knew were unpaid. 
 There was no collusion or actual fraud against 
 the plaintill's solicitor proved :— Held, per Pcr- 
 guson, J. that the plaintitr.>5 solicitor had con- 
 trol of the writs in the sheriff's hands to the 
 extent of his unpaid taxable costs, and that he 
 was entitled to have the writs replaced, or new 
 writs placed in the sheriff's hands at the expense 
 of the solicitor who withdrew tlicni and the 
 plaintiff', or to an order directly against the dc- 
 lendant for payment of his unpaid taxalde costs, 
 and for the costs of the motion against the 
 plaintiff' and the solicitor who withdrew the 
 writs ; but that he was not entitled to an order 
 for payment of his unpaid costs by the solicitor 
 or the sheriff. This judgment was atlirmcd by 
 the Chy. 1). with this variation, that the soli- 
 citor who withdrew the writs was relieved from 
 the payment of costs. Friedrkh v. Frkdrkh, 
 10 P. R. 308, 546. 
 
 14 S. C. U. 73."). 
 
 ,'^ee Johnston v. Juhmlim, 9 P. K. '_'.-)!(, p. KWt); 
 Wilkinson v. Harrfji, \T^ (). K. .'VIC, p. (i'.lt. 
 
 2. V'o lii'Ci ire Ml/IIP I/. 
 
 Authority to receive iiaymeiit of mortgage 
 money. See (lilhnw 1,'oniiin < 'oihu/ir F/iisnijud 
 dorjiiinilion oflh'' Diucisi oj Kinijslon in Caiimii, 
 7 O.K. 14ti, p. I2liit. Ill ri- Flint oudJiliitt At- 
 lorni-.i/s, a I'. H. ;i(il, II. 1270. 
 
 M. applied to McM., a solicitoi-. fin- a hi.vn of 
 .?f),2fX) on his land. McM. got P. to advance 
 the money. He then drew the mortgage, which 
 was executed by M. ami wife and left witli him 
 till P. came tojiay the money. P. Kuli.seiiuently 
 called on McM. and upon his rcgisteriug and 
 delivering over the mortga;^e )iaid him the 
 money. McM., after this told M. , on his call- 
 ing on (ith March, that P. had not as yet been 
 able to get the money, and on M. stating he 
 rc(piired §400 at once, McM. gave him his own 
 cheipie for that amount. M. swore this was a 
 
1943 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1944 
 
 !(l 
 
 loun ami was subsecjuently I'epaiil. On 2iul 
 April McM. aliHcomled without liaviiig account- 
 ed for tlio Sl(>,000. After liia departure, two 
 receipts were found among his papers, signed by 
 M., and dated Cth iMarcii, for §400 and 889.30, 
 respectively, as money received from MoM. on 
 account of tl>e P. niortgnge, and a memo, from 
 which it appeared tluit §20.'). 55 had been paid 
 out of the mortgage money by McM. to dis- 
 charge execution debts of !M.'s whicli he liad 
 instructed Mc^I. to settle: -Held (in tliis 
 affirming the judgment of IVoudfoot, J.), (1:2 
 O. R. 702), that it must be shewn tiuit either 
 express or inqjlied authority had l)con given 
 McM. by M. to receive the money to justify 1'. 's 
 paying it to him ; tliat his ijossession of tlie 
 mortgage with an indorsed receii)t did not give 
 such authority (but, in tliis reversing the judg- 
 ment of I'roudfdot, .].), that tiiere was evidence 
 of authority to receive toliisownuse, out of tiie 
 morlgago money whtn paid, the aljove tlirce 
 sums sulHcieut to entitle 1'. to hold the mort- 
 gage as a security to that extent. McMiiltoi v. 
 FoUey, 130. E. 299.— Q. B. I). 
 
 VII. DuTiiis. 
 1. Ttetaimr and Appointment. 
 
 Tlic defendant's testator was a slieritT and 
 official assignee under i;hc Insolvent Act of 1875. 
 The plaintiil' was solicitor for the City liank, and 
 also for (me H. , upon whose petition one (!. F. 
 was place<l in insolvency. The official assignee 
 became eieditors' assignee. At the first meet- 
 ing of creditors, 1!. l)eing chairman, tlie ])lain- 
 tiff, repicsenting tlie City Bank, whose claim 
 amounted to nearly tlie wliole indebtedness, 
 moved a resolution to sell certain gnods of the 
 insolvent, that the assignee should take tin; 
 necessary proceedings to i-ealize the assets, and 
 recover certain pro))erty alleged to belong to the 
 insolvent, and for that purpose to retain counsel, 
 if necessary. B. became inspector of tiie estate, 
 and consulted witli tlie plaintirt', and on his ad- 
 vice instructed the assignee to defend and bring 
 actions. The assignee was ()l)liged to \y,iy costs 
 and damages in an act ion lirought against iiiin to 
 recover goods wrongfully taken by liiiii ; and he 
 also paid the iihiiiitill' some costs, whereby tiie 
 assets of the estate were exliaiisted, and a small 
 siiiii in addition piid by the assignee out of iiis 
 own funds. The defendant's testator was sul)- 
 seijuently removed from the office of assignee, 
 and a new assignee appointed, whereupon he 
 jircsented a petition to tiie Insolvent Court, in 
 which he alleged that he had retained the plain- 
 till', and had been put to great expense in bring- 
 ing and defending suits as assignee, and had be- 
 come liable to pay large sums of monej' in respect 
 thereof, and prayed payment liy the new assig- 
 nee, which was refused. The ])laintiff delivered 
 his bills to the defendant's testator in his life- 
 time. After the death of the testator the plain- 
 tifi' wrote a letter to one of his sons about the 
 costs, in which, in relating the facts, lie stated 
 that he was attorney for the bank. The plain- 
 till' now sued the personal representative for his 
 unj);iid costs of the proceedings carried (m by 
 him. Seiikler, Co. J., who tried the case, found 
 that the retainer was not a personal one by the 
 assignee, but that the plaintiff had acted for the 
 benefit of the creditors, and was in fact their 
 
 solicitor :— Held, Armour, J., dissenting, aflSrm- 
 ing the judgment of Senkler, Co. J., it was a 
 question to be determined on the eviJenee 
 whether tiic retainer was a personal one by the 
 assignee, or whether he was acting merely on the 
 instructions of creditors ; that upon the evidence 
 the plaintiff was solicitor for the creditors and 
 not for the assignee personally ; and, notwith- 
 standing the admission contained in the as- 
 signee's ])etition, he had not incurred any per- 
 sonal liability for the costs. Bntlerjidd v. Wdlx, 
 4 0. U. KiS.-Q. B. 1). 
 
 Per Armour, J.— The prestimption is, that 
 when a solicitor is retained, the person retaining 
 him is liable for the costs, and to avoid liability 
 he must shew some special agreement to the 
 contrary ; and the evidence here not only did 
 not displace the presumption, but shewed that 
 the testator had always considered himself liable 
 for the costs. //;. 
 
 I'er Hagarty, C. .1. It is the duty of a solicitor 
 to inform his client, when a trustee, as to the 
 advisability of taking proceedings and incurring 
 costs, when it may i)ecome a question whether 
 the costs will have to be paid out of his private 
 funds or out of the trust fund or estate. Ih. 
 
 Where a solicitor had instructions to defend a 
 suit, which was discontinued and a new one for 
 the .same cause of action was commenced : — Held, 
 tluit the original retainer to defend continued in 
 the new suit. Clarice \. Union h'in liiti. ('<i.-~ 
 Ca.st()n'.-i Cane, 10 I', It. 339. — Hodgins, Master 
 in Onliiiari/. 
 
 The general manager of a coiiijiany had au- 
 thority to do acts which occasionally required 
 legal advice : -Held, that he had implied autho- 
 rity to retain a solicitor whenever, in his judg- 
 ment, it was prutbuit to do so, but that such 
 authority ceased on the suspension of the com- 
 pany, lb. 
 
 During a reference in an administration suit 
 the master appointed tlie solicitor for one of the 
 unsecureil eieditois of Ih,! estate in (|iiestiou to 
 represent tiiegcncral oodyof unsecuieil creditors. 
 The Inqierial IJaiik were nuseeiired creditors of 
 the estate ; liiey sent in a cl.iim to the adminis- 
 trator in answer to tiie statutory advertisement 
 for creditors, but did not ))r()ve tiieir claim be- 
 fore the master. The nomination of the one 
 solicitor for the unsecured creditors was an ex 
 parte proceeding, of which the bank were not 
 notilied till a year afterwards ;— llel,', that, in 
 the absence of contract or of an or<ler of the 
 master made under conditions contemplated by 
 (1. O. Chy. 218 (See Con. Rules 49, 1188), the 
 solicitor could not recover from the Imperial 
 Bank any portion of the costs incurred on behalf 
 of tiie unsecured creditors: — Held, also, that 
 the doctrine of ratilication by silence or inac- 
 tion did not apply to a case like this. Hall 
 V. Lavcr, 1 Ha. 571, followed. Itn Munteith— 
 Merchaiit.i' Hank v. MonUdlh, 12 P. R. 288.— 
 Dalton, Mailer. — Boyd. 
 
 A solicitor retained to collect a diibt is not 
 entitled to interplead without a further retainer 
 for that purpose, but being so retained he has 
 the ordinary rights of solicitors as in other con- 
 tested cases. Ilackttt v. Bible, 12 P. R. 482.— 
 Boyd. 
 
1944 
 
 I disituntiiig, affirm- 
 r, Co. J., it WU8 a 
 
 OH the eviJuiife 
 ersoiial one ))y tlie 
 ctiiig iiieiL'ly oil the 
 t upon the evidence 
 
 the creditors and 
 Uy ; and, notwith- 
 itained in the as- 
 
 incurred any pcr- 
 Hiitlerjidd v. WMs, 
 
 esuniption is, tiiat 
 lie jK'i'son retainiiij; 
 d to avoid liability 
 agreement to the 
 here not only did 
 1, hut shewed that 
 lered inniaelf lial)le 
 
 e duty of a solicitor 
 trustee, us to the 
 lings and incurring 
 V (lucstion whether 
 I out of his private 
 1 or estate. Ih. 
 
 uctiona to defend n 
 and a new one for 
 oinnienced : — Held, 
 lefeiid continued in 
 ion Fill ///.«. ('(I, — 
 Hodgins, Manter 
 
 t company had aii- 
 casionally rei|uirt{l 
 had implieil aiithu- 
 never, in his judg- 
 ) so, hut that stich 
 icnsion of the coin- 
 administration suit 
 icitiir I'or one of the 
 istiite in (|iiestion to 
 inseeiircd creditors. 
 ii'Liired crcMlitors of 
 lini to liie admiiiis- 
 tory advertisement 
 •ove their claim he- 
 inatioM of the one 
 ;reditors was an ex 
 ;he bank were not 
 Is : — llcl,', that, in 
 of an order of the 
 IS contemplated hy 
 :ulos 4!>, 1188), the 
 from the Imperial 
 i incurred on behalf 
 —Held, also, that 
 by silence or inac- 
 bse like this. Hall 
 3d. Ii<: Munteilh— 
 h, \i y. R. 288.- 
 
 illect a debt is not 
 t a further retainer 
 80 retained he has 
 ors as in other eon- 
 )le, 12 P. R. 482.- 
 
 
 1945 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 See lie Kerr, Akers and Bull, 29 Chy. 188, 
 p. 1930; Millar v, Cliiif, Jte Millar a .So/iciVoc, 
 12 P. R. li>5, p. 1959 ; Fraxe.r a Solirilor, III P. 
 \{. 409, p. 1947. 
 
 2. Ihaliiiij until Clie.nt. 
 (a) Takinij Scatrily for Costs. 
 1)., being indebted to the plaintitl' for costs in 
 
 the action which was lost, and the two actions 
 not being so intimately connected as to be H'- 
 garded as one. London Maiiud Fin Inn. Co. \ . 
 Jwoh, It; A. II. ;59-J. 
 
 (1)) Olhor Cases. 
 
 In a foreclosure suit the defendant allegcil 
 that the plaintilf, a solicitor, had been employed 
 
 some siiits and other nuittcrs, by ail nistrun.ent l,y i,i,„ ,„ April, 1878, to procure a loan ol 
 not under seal assigned to hiin a h'ase ot certain ■i\,m), which he recniired to pay otV a inortL'a.'c 
 premises made by 1). to the defendant, togctiier f„,. .s!2,(MM), on which tlicre was due >iL', I'iO, and 
 with all rent in respect of said lease and the j that taking advantage of the information so 
 term tlietel|y created. In an action to recover , i,c,,uired, the phiintill had inirchased the mort- 
 froin the defendant the rent which accrued g,.,ge for himself at the price ot .•<1 400 It 
 due after the making of the assignment, the : appeued that the .lefendant had, in the spring 
 judge charged the jury that while plamtitl' re- of 1877. obtained a loan of .•jOOO on a portion c*' 
 mained J), s solieitiu' he could not take any seen- the land in i|iicstion, tliroiigh the plaintitl' aitiiig 
 lity for his beiieht, and that he should have dis- asagent ami legal adviserof aloan eoiiipany • that 
 severed the connectiim between tluni, and let in January folli>wing, the defendant had appli(<l 
 j). have independent legal advice :— Held, mis- ; to the plaiiitilV, acting in tlie same capacity, to 
 
 -Hehi 
 direction, for that the aKsigiiment, if not invalid 
 ill other resj)ects, was valid so far as it was a 
 security for costs already incurred : — Held, also. 
 
 procure a small loan from the cninpaiiy on tlie 
 land in (|iiestioii, which the jilaintill told him he 
 could not recommend to the coiM|)aiiy : that 
 that I), was not a necc-sary party. (/n/6raiVA : afterwards one 15.. who lield the .^2,0(10 inort 
 
 V. //nfi;/, SO. It. 701. (.'. I'. I» 
 
 'gage, tried to sill it to the company through 
 
 PlaintiH' was a purchaser under a (lower of '''V I'l'm'^itl, who, limling that the land com- 
 
 .sale in a mortgage for t*--iOO taken bv a >,oii<iit..r 1"'^''' '" ^^ ''"' ""^ ••■"""= "1> to the value re- 
 
 for costs, only .•S.-iO of which had l.Jeii incuned iimifd by the ,M>mpaiiy wrote li. to that ellect, 
 
 at the date of the mortgage. The power wa:( and sul.seHUciitly the plaiiitill, who denied thai 
 
 exercised to collect the full amount of the the defendant had ever i.Kpie.sted hiiii t,. obtain 
 
 mortgage and interest, liefoie the purchase 
 
 the .SI. 400 loan, purchased the iiinitL'a<.'e for 
 
 was iMiuipleted the mortgngee's right t.i'sdl was "'.",'',''' '"''.•'^'•^-" • ,„"'-"'' ■ ' «\«;'«"'^' ""^ "i'^'-'-''-' 
 raised as a (luestion of title bv the plaintilf who "\ '.'';'''^'' ; ;, ' - *-' *- ''.V- -I;!'), that llieevidence, 
 had become aware of these 'facts. IJeforc the "•''"■•l''« fully set out in the report of the case, 
 objections were removed, tile property was sold s"^"':"'.^'';^' the defendant had not ajiplied to 
 again under a prior mortgage : -llchl, that the , *'"•' 1'''""^' ) f'"' .t'l^ *';,•<'" )'""'' ""-l.that there 
 inortgagc was a valid .security for no more than "'^'^ '"' '-•""hilential or luluciary relati..i,ship ex- 
 li!:?0: that the plaintiir having become aware of i«tii,g bet ween the parties which pivclude.l tlie 
 the vexatious user of the power, was justilicd ^ l''^'""-'" ".'"" , V".">'l'=''-::'«.'J'^ mortaajic. 
 in refusing to eoniiilite the imiehase. and was 
 
 'hourn v. Arnold, tJ A. H. 158. 
 
 Kil- 
 
 entitled to recover back the deposit paid by him 
 Aof /.;»;/ V. J/iilslid, HiO. R. HI — P.oyd. 
 
 Actions were brought by one G. against two 
 insurance coiiipiiiies to recover losses occasion- 
 ed by a tire. The actions were tried togetlier, 
 and ill one the plaintitl' recovered judgment, but 
 the other was dismis-cil with costs. I he defen- 
 dants acted as ( l.'s solicitors in each action. Hy 
 a special agreement, iiiion the faith of which 
 eacli action was carried on, the solicitors were 
 to have a lien upon the amount recovered in 
 each action for the costs of that action and of 
 the other. The iiisiir.ince compiiny against 
 whom the unsnccessful action had been bmunht, 
 attached the inoiuys due to (!. by the einiipaiiy 
 against whom (•. had Micccedcd, and the oetcii- 
 ilaiitsclainicd a lien on the jndgnuiit which hid 
 been thus att:utl,cd for all their costs in both 
 actions: Held, revc'rsing the decision of .Vi niour, 
 (.'. .1., that so f.ir as the lien claimed by the de 
 
 Action for breach of duty as tru.steea in niaii- 
 .geiiicnt ot estate. See Taylor v. McCrul/i, 10 
 0. R. ()09. 
 
 VI 11. Costs. 
 
 1. Aijrciintnls as to Costs, 
 
 Under an agreement between thv ibfciiilaiits 
 and their solicitor, he was to he paid a IIximI 
 salary, to cover all his iirofcssioiial services to 
 the city, exclusive of counsel fees and other dis- 
 buisemciits \n\\d by him, hut hi' was to have the 
 right to costs IriMii parties ugainsl whom the 
 corporation should succeed, ami be entitled only 
 to dislmisemeuts when they should fail. In a 
 casein wide lithe dctendalitssuicecdei I. judgment 
 was entered against the plainliti and the usual 
 costs taxed, (hi motion for revision : — Held, 
 Wilson, (_'..l.,ilissenting, following -larvis r. (Jreat 
 , . , Western R. \V. Co., 8 C. P. •280, tli.it as under 
 
 fcndants depeii.led upon the agreement it must their aereement the ilefendaiits were not liable 
 fail, hccause that agreement was nothing niore to pay the attorney tlu) costs taxed excejit dis- 
 thanana-reeniiiitto secure costs to he iiieni- i„„.„,.,|,^„ts, all co.sts except disbur.s.nieiits must 
 re<l in the future, and the general proposi- i,^, ,ii«„i|„„ed. Wilson, C. . I., thought .larvis r. 
 tiim that a scdieitor will not be permitted to ,;,.^,,,t w-stein R. W. Co. not asatislaetoiy dcci- 
 take a security for costs to be iiienrred, is j,ion, and opposeil to the later case of (laUoway 
 established beyond controver.sy : — llchl, "Iso, ,. Corpnration of London, L It. 4 K<|. 90. 
 that the solieilois had no lien for the costs ot ,s'M7!».so« v CVv of Kimj.'iton, .'{1 C. P. .'W.S. 
 the unsiiee ssful action upon the fund recovered i 
 
 in the other, that fund not having been recovered 1 The agieemeiit to pay a solicitor a lixed sum 
 or preserved by means of the costs incurred in | as a yearly salary in lieu of piying items in 
 
1947 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1948 
 
 detail, is neither illegal or unusual, whether it 
 proviiles for tlio past or tho future, t'alkiner 
 V. Uraiid Jtturlion It \V. Co., 4 0. R. 350.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 The solicitor acted for a client iu defending 
 him upon a cliarge of arson, and in prosecuting 
 actions agiiinst two insurance companies to re- 
 cover for ft loss l)y lire. At tlie time tliu solici- 
 tor's servicfs were reijuircd the client liiid no 
 money and liad no prospect of getting any, and, 
 in conse(juenLe of the risk tiie solicitor ran of 
 getting nothing and hisinga considerable sum for 
 dislnir-seiiieiits, tlie client otl'cred him a retaining 
 fee to lie paid out of tlic insurance moneys wlien 
 recovered, and it was agreed hetween tlieni tiiat 
 such fee should lie .§150 for the two actions, the 
 amount claimed tlierein being about .§1,2-30. 
 Subsequently, and when some costs had liceu in- 
 curred, the client made an assignment to a third 
 party of the moneys due to him from the insur- 
 ance companies, in ti-ust, to pay the solicitor his 
 costs, including tlie retaining fees agreed upon, 
 and to pay the balance to creditors. The client 
 at a later date made a general assignment for 
 the benefit of creditors : — Held, upon appeal by 
 the assignee from the taxation of the solicitor's 
 costs, that the first assignment in trust was a 
 security for costs already incuned, a CDutirma- 
 tion of the original agreement, and a quasi ap- 
 propriation of tho money ; and as it appeared 
 that the client understood that tlie p.ayment of 
 retaining fees was voluntary, and that they could 
 not be recovered from the opposite party, the 
 retaining fees were properly allowed to the soli- 
 citor by the ta.\ingofliccr ; and under the excep- 
 tional eireumstances of the case the amount was 
 not unreasonable. J{e /'niscr, a tialicilor, 
 13 P. It. 40!). — Kaleonbridge. 
 
 See Jic Makuliiisdn'dHd Wade, 9 V. \\. 'J42, 
 p. 44 ; ArnoUli v. O'Boiiohue, 2 0. 11. 322 p. 45. 
 
 2. OJer lo Unlace. Amount of liUl. 
 
 Where a solicitor has otlered to take in full 
 settlement less than the anioiml of a hill of cnsts 
 as reniUi'Ld, and has made the oiler in a manner 
 nnecplivocid and liinding upon liim, then and 
 not otherwise he is to be allowed the benelit of 
 the otfer upon taxation if the client reject it and 
 proceed to tax the bill. Ite Freeman et a!., I 
 C'hy. C'hamb. R. 102, and Ku Carthew and lie 
 PauU, 27 Ch. 1). 4S5, considered and explained. 
 He AUwoii Suliciloiii, 12 P. R. (i. — Ferguson. 
 
 Where the offer to make a reduction in the 
 bill was not upon the face of it nor in any letter 
 accomiianying it, but was made verbally and in 
 the course of a conversation on the subject after 
 the delivery of the bill : — Held, that the offer 
 was not of an unecpiivocal character made so as 
 to be binding upon the solicitor, but lett him 
 free when it was not accepted to claim all he 
 could get upon a taxation, ami he was therefore 
 not entitled to the benefit of it. Ih. 
 
 The solicitors rendered to a client ten hills of 
 costs, amounting in all to g!428.83. The client 
 obtained an order for taxation, reserving his 
 light to dispute his liability to pay the bills, 
 and reserving also the costs of the order and 
 taxation. The bills were taxed at $329. 7t>, more 
 than one-sixth being taxed oft' ; but the solicitors 
 
 contended that they were not liable for the 
 costs of the taxation under It. H. O. (ISS7), e. 
 147, B. 35, because of an offer made bj them 
 before the order but after service of the noticu 
 of motion therefor, to take 5f250in full of all tliu 
 bills, and a sulise(|ueiit offer to take .':<200 in full 
 of all but one. Tiiese were not offers to reiluee 
 the bills to the sums named, but were oll'eis to 
 take suith sums if the liills were paid without 
 dispute as to the client's liability upon them. 
 The oilers were rejecteil and the taxation pro- 
 ceeded with the above result. When the (|ues- 
 tion of the liability upon the l)ills was still 
 undeterndned, the client applied for costs of the 
 order and taxati(ui : — Held, that the solieitois 
 when their offers were rejected remained iu a 
 position to claim the full amount at which their 
 bills nnght l)e taxed ; and, therefore, such oilers 
 could not avail them ; and they must pay the 
 costs of the order and taxation. Re Allison, l'.i 
 P. R. G, a])proved and followed. J'e Cameron 
 ,Solin(or.s, 13 P. R. 173.— Q.R.U. 
 
 3. UnneceHsary Proceedinyt. 
 
 The mere non-comnninication by a solicitor to 
 his client of an offer of settlement does not [imve 
 that proceedings after the oiler were uiinei.(s- 
 sary, and that the costs of them shotdd be dis- 
 allowed under Con. Rule 1215 unless it is shewn 
 that the offer was an advantageous one, the ac- 
 ceptance of which the solicitor ought to have 
 advised, and it can be fairly inferred that he re- 
 frained from connnur 'siting it and advifing its 
 acceptance merely lor the pur[iose of putting 
 costs into his own pocket, and without regard 
 to the interests of his eliiiit. Hi- 0' Domilior, a 
 Solinlor, 12 P. R. 12. -Armour. —C. P. U ; 14 
 P. R. 317. 
 
 4. SnhMitiU'uxj Bill of Costn for Commii-^hii. 
 
 In ana<lmiidstration suit the estate was insdl- 
 venl, the total assets being §72,000, the liabilities 
 .'3>1HS,475, an<l the creditors ISO iti nundier. The 
 eomnnssion of the solicitor, who acteil for all 
 [tarties, was allowed by the master, under ('•. 0. 
 Chy, 0(3, (Coll. Rule 1 l,S7)at .§995. Kight credi- 
 tors, at the close of the suit, and without notice 
 to the solicitor until fourteen days before mov- 
 ing, aiiplied for an order for the delivery and 
 taxati(ni of the .solieitor's bill instead of the al- 
 h)waiicu of the commi.'.sion, oi. the ground that 
 the commission was excessive : -Held, that the 
 commission was not s) exorbitant iiS to warnuit 
 the substitution of a t.ixed bill, and a prubahle 
 reduction by that mode of payment, especiidly 
 as the benefit to thv! creditors would be trilling. 
 Inrc. Sliithiaij, Anlk::s v. JJiwar, 10 1*. R. 23ti. 
 — Boyd. 
 
 The scope of the G. O. Cliy. 043 (Con. Rule 
 11S7), is nii.'rely to aid in fixing a solicitor's re- 
 muneration. It '.s not ii'temled to do strict 
 justice, but is only :> sort of convenient expe- 
 dient for fixing costs without taxation. Jli. 
 
 A very liber.al conipensatioii in such cases is 
 not per se a reason for reducing the commission, 
 or directing the taxation of a bill in its stead, 
 nor per contra, is a low or inailoipiate compen- 
 sation a reason for increasing the commission, 
 or directing payment by a taxed bill. Ih. 
 
1948 
 
 )t liiihle for the 
 
 !. H. O. (ISST), r. 
 r iiiailo li^ tliciri 
 
 il'i' of till' IKitii'c; 
 
 dill lull ol all till! 
 I t.iki! !i'2m ill full 
 it iitJ'ors to luiliko 
 mt wvvti oli'i'iM t'l 
 (MO iHiid witlmut 
 lility ii])oii tliciii. 
 
 tllll tllXlltioil |)l(i- 
 WIlCIl tilt! (|I1(W- 
 
 le liills \\i\n still 
 I'll for costs of tliu 
 mt tim soliiitois 
 eil n.'iiiiuiiuil ill a 
 lilt at wliioli tlieif 
 I'cfore, siicli (ilifis 
 ujy must pay tin; 
 . He Allison, ]•> 
 cil. J'e Cdiiicivii 
 
 m by a soliuitor to 
 out (loos not iHiJvu 
 
 or WOIO UMIICt'CS- 
 
 cin should ho ilis- 
 unless it is shown 
 goiius one, tin; ai'- 
 or oui,'ht to havu 
 iiforred that ho re- 
 it and ailvi.-iiii,' its 
 iiii[ioso of fiutliiig 
 nd without rogaiil 
 AV 0' Duiiiihui , a 
 jur.— C. V. J). ; 14 
 
 for Commi-i-'taa. 
 
 10 estate was iiisiil- 
 !,(K)(), tholial.ililiis 
 
 in nuiiilier. The 
 who aotod for all 
 laster, under (i. 0. 
 •}\)\):i. Ki-ht oKMli- 
 iiid without iiotifo 
 
 1 days lieforo iiinv- 
 tlie delivery and 
 instead of tho al- 
 
 1. the ground that 
 : - Held, that the 
 taut us to warrant 
 ill, and a [iruhalilc 
 aynient, es|ieoially 
 would 1)0 trilling. 
 far, 10 1'. K. •.'.«. 
 
 y. t)43 (Con. Rule 
 iig a solioitor's re- 
 lilod to do ^itrict 
 eonveniont expe- 
 : tax.ition. //'. 
 
 1 in suoh cases is 
 ig the oonunissiou, 
 u hill ill its stead, 
 adcijuate oonipeu- 
 ', the coininission, 
 :ed bill. lb. 
 
 1949 
 
 souorroR. 
 
 1950 
 
 SemMo, in cases afTectcl by O. O. Cliy. 043 | taining such ordors on pra-eipe is the more coii- 
 (Con. Rule 1187). any party interested in tho vonieiitono, and shoulil prevail in all divisions 
 O'^tate, who may dcsiro that a solicitor shouldlie of tho High Court of .Justice, 'yrder made with 
 p lid in the particular matter or suit on the 8*de costs as of a pra'eip;- ord".. /iV Filz'icrtM, a 
 
 of a taxed bill instead of by commission, shj|(iild 1 .S'()/iViVo.', 10 I'. It. ■.•7!». 
 
 },'ive notice to the solicitor to that etFoot, and have 
 tiie master note it in his book, at tliiniarliest stage 
 possible in tho proceedings, but there is no prao- 
 ticc authorizing the substitution of a bill of c<psts 
 fur commission al the option of any jiart y. Ih. 
 
 ."). Moihralhii) of Cii.<Ik. 
 
 On an iijiiieal from a cerlilic:ito of llio master 
 ill which ho hold that under an order which di- 
 rected him to " ascertain ami state whit aiiioiiut. 
 
 !». — Dalton, Master. 
 
 ' Solicitors retained out of moneys in their hands 
 belonging to their client, siillicient to pay their 
 costs, and handed tho olieiit a cheiiue for thv 
 balaiici'. The client took the che(|uo but did not 
 cash it until sho had written to tho solicitors 
 .stipulating that tho cashing should bo without 
 I lirejiidice to her right to n'cover a larger sum, if 
 sucli was duo her. After the lajis ; of a year from 
 the recyijit of the ehciiue, the client applied for 
 an order for tlu^ delivery of a bill of costs : — 
 . Held, that the circumstances did not amount to 
 
 (if any), is jiroporly chargeable by.). H. against paym-nt of the costs, and the order for delivery 
 
 the estate of T. \V. deceased in respect of leg d was iiiailo. lie .Sutt:vn, II Q. 15. I>. 377, distin- 
 
 proceedings taken by the said J. II. as ailminis i ;,'uislied. .SV/i/vi;/;/ v. Srhratj'j, II P. R. 218.— 
 
 ir itor])endeiite litoof the said estate in thecourts ' lioyd. 
 
 or otiiervvisc.'' tho bills of costs of tho solicitor of ; ,, ^i i- i- r ■. l, 
 
 the ailministrator should be taxed in order to i ^^T ^'l^ "I'plicat.on of a mortgagor the .nort- 
 
 ascertain the amount .luo. It was : -Held, that ' "''«.''':' '"''"'^V ^^'-^^ V.'''''^'-"'!' ''y '' ^^"»"ty J'"la''. 
 
 the master was wrong ; that the bills sliouM, if ] 
 
 iieces.sary, bo subjected to iiioder.ation, and not i 
 
 taxation ; that nioihu-atioii is a well understood 
 
 term, and is more liberal than taxation even as 
 
 lietween solicitor ainl client, liiiilli/ v. Ifalilaii, 
 
 ()(). H. 71.">. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Bills of costs for services rendered to an estate 
 after a testator's death, down to the ilate of an 
 order for tho administration of the estate, were 
 paid by the executor after the order and pending 
 ailininistratioii procceiliims : -Held, that there 
 could be no taxation of the liills as against the 
 executor at the instance of ere liters, but that 
 the bills should bo moderated. So far as the 
 solicitors were concerned the payment by the 
 executor was to bo regarded as payineiit of tho 
 bills, and to obtain a taxation after payment a 
 ease would have to be made against tlie solici- 
 tors. I'laetically the niodoratioii might bo so 
 ciiiiductod.if warranted liy special cireuiiistaiiccs, 
 as to dill'er but little from a taxation. AV 
 //'(./"'•, Tnuliix' lUuik- V. .Uimai/, \> V. R. Hi). 
 -|{<.yd. 
 
 (i. Ii'i'cr'iii; to TdCiitioii or /'rrisioii. 
 
 (a) 117(0 Ma;/ Apjilij. 
 
 Kesidiiary legatees may apply for taxation of 
 bills of costs roiideiod to executors for services 
 to the estate; for they come wit liiii section 42 
 of the Solicitors' Act. It. S. (). (KSS7) c. 147. as 
 being "liable to pay, " i. c, by the lessening 
 of tho aiiiDUnt ol the residuary estate. AV 
 •Sklinier, a Solh'ilur, 13 I'. K. 27l).— Street, 
 
 .Vny one cestui ipio trust may in tho diseie- 
 tion of tho court obtain an onler under the 
 third [tarty clauses of tho Solicitors' Act for the 
 taxation of a bill of costs for business connectod 
 with the trust estate of a solicitor employed by 
 a trustee. Saiulford v. Porter, Hi A. R. 56.5. 
 
 (b) Order for Delirery awl Tavntiou. 
 
 Upon a motion in chambors for an order for 
 the delivery and taxation of a solicitor's bill of 
 costs relating to certain proceedingsunder a mort- 
 ijage : —Held, that the chaueery practice of ob- 
 
 to di.'liver to the apiilicant a copy of tho bill of 
 costs of a sale under tho power in tho mortgage ; 
 and the bill was delivere I |)urMi mt to the order ; 
 -Held, that although the delivery was, under 
 section 45 of the Attorneys' Act, to be reganled 
 as for the purposes of a reference to taxation, 
 yi't the person so obtaining the copy of the bill 
 had not nec'ssarily tho right to tax t!io bill ; 
 and a priocipe order for t:ixatioii was set aside, 
 where at the time of making it there wore two 
 matters in dispute, viz., whether payment .-is 
 such had been mule by the mortgagees to the 
 .solicitor, and whether tiic iiiortgagoos had pre- 
 cluiled themselves from the right to tax the bill. 
 AV .lA)//<'t'/, ri Soliriior, VI V. U. '240.-— Ferguson. 
 
 (c) IJi/ure Whom, 
 
 Rills of costs between solicitor and client 
 should prima facie bo roforrcl for taxation to tho 
 ni.aster of the county in wiiicli tho woric was 
 done. AV /diii'ilon ninl. .Miclc/e, S 1*. R. 50 j. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 R S. O. (1887) c. 147, s. 3'2, provides that a 
 bill of costs may bo referred for taxation to the 
 proper otlicer of any of the courts in the county 
 in which any of tho business charged for was 
 done: — Held, that "Courts" hero does not 
 mean " Divisions of the High Court ;" and 
 where the business charged for was (Joiie in tin; 
 ollice of tho local registrar and masten at Belle- 
 ville, the reference for taxation was properly 
 made to the deputy clerk of tlio crown at l5olle- 
 ville, both being otficers of the same court. AV, 
 Chite.and Williams, 13 P. R. 110.— Boyd. 
 
 Held, allirmiug the decision of Street, .1. 
 (13 P. It. •27()), that a reference for taxation of 
 bills of costs between solicitor and client ina,y 
 properly be directed to one of the taxing oHicns 
 at Toronto, even where the bnsiite.ss charged t..r 
 in the bills, with the exception of a^-cney work 
 done at Toronto, was all done in an outer county. 
 The words of section 32 of the .Solicitors' Act, 
 It. S, O. (1887) c. 147. "any of the business 
 charged for in tho bill, iiielnde business ptM- 
 forined at Toronto by tho agent of the principal 
 solicitor. Armour, C. .1., inclined to tlio 
 contrary opinion, but ikferred to that of tho 
 
1951 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1062 
 
 >'. 
 
 other nicmbDrs of tho cmirt. /iV Skinner, a 
 So/iritor, i:{ P. R. 447. -(^ H. D. 
 
 Soe A't Solidtorn, 9 P. R. 90, p. 19.V.. 
 
 (d) jr//a< Maiiho RijWred. 
 
 Cliargt's l>y u solicitor who acte<l as n/tjeiit for 
 the priiioipal solicitor, are subject to taxation 
 though thu principal receives a coiniiiissioii. 
 Upon such taxation a master should without 
 special direction regard any settlement arrived 
 at between the solicitors. AV litiiiijlmi ami | 
 MicHe,% P. I!. 5G0.— Hoyd. j 
 
 Costs of sale under power of sale in a mort- 
 gage. .See AV C'nrnr aiiil iMidr, 8 P. 1!. 5(!, p. 
 1'29(»; lie McDoiiiild, MrDnmitil ,V Marsh, lit., 
 .S8, p. 1299; He. Croiiyii, Kiir <(• lielln, Altornai.t, 
 Ih. .•J72, p. 1'299. 
 
 A solicitor sued his client in a Division Court 
 for the amount of his liill of costs. While the 
 action was standing tor judgment tlic client ob- 
 tained fioui the UKoitcr in cluunbcrs an order for 
 taxation. IVnding an a])peal from that order 
 judgment was gi\ en, which shewed that all tlic 
 items in the bill w hich were in (lis)iut(^ were con- 
 sidered anil adjudicated u[ion : — Held, that con- 
 sidering the natnie of the clmrgcs and the cir- 
 cumstances disclosed in the atKdavits tiled on the 
 application, the order ot the master was riglit. 
 AV, IUir<hll, a Solirilor,'.) P. It. 487.— t)sler. 
 
 In proceeding under a judgment for the wind- 
 ing up of a conipaiij', the former solicitor of the 
 company bnught in a claim for bills of costs 
 alleged to be due him, w hich the master referred 
 to one of the taxing i Ulcers to tax : — Held, that 
 the master had authority to direct such refer- 
 ence. (In .such a reference the taxing otlicer 
 gives his oiiinion us to whether the fees and 
 charges clainied sliould be allowed or not, and 
 on that ojiiiiion the master makes his adjudica- 
 tion. Vim let V. I'liioii Fin lii.iiirdiicc Co. — 
 0,i!<i<iii's Cofi, 10 P. U. ;i;>9.— Hodgins, MunUr 
 ill Ordhitii I/. 
 
 After paynu nt of a bill of costs, the court will 
 not disturb it on t lu' gi (umd of overcharge unless 
 it ap])eais to be a case of gro.ss and exorbitant 
 oveicharge amoniitiig to fiaml. Rut befoie 
 payment it is < iiongli if the it( ms arc unusual or 
 more than onlinai ily large so as to re (juire justi- 
 fication, ainl il MO ex|iliiiiation is furnished by 
 the solicitor. u|i('n whom the onus to do so rests, 
 then taxatic n m ill be ordered. AV WalLir- — 
 \\al/:er\'. /.'or/((,v/< c, 10 P. K. 400. -Roy d. 
 
 Held, that the eonjuiu'tion of tho following 
 circumstances, vi/., (1) That the relationshiii of 
 solicitor and client was (ontinued after delivery 
 of the bills ; ('2 1 That there was an otlci' by the 
 solicitor to make a substantial deduction fioni 
 the bills sued on, .md (,'?) That there were items 
 of apparent oveicharge as to which lU) explana- 
 tion was oflered by the solicitor, would justify 
 an order fur taxation. Jh. 
 
 (e) SiKclii/ ('{rcii7nsfaiue.<>. 
 
 Wliere a client ajijlic s for taxation of anattor- 
 ney's bill after the cx|iiiation of a year from its 
 delivery, he .•■hi uld shew (:uch special circum- 
 stances as would have justified a reasonable man 
 
 in not previously stjeking a taxation, or that In; 
 was prevented by some uniivoidaldo ea\ise. 
 Where judgment had been signuil againat tin: 
 client in an action on tho bill during thu jien- 
 dency of negotiations for a settlement, this was 
 held a sutlicicnt reason for directing a taxation 
 after the year. l'atlidlo\. Clinrcli, S P. R. ;i(i;t. 
 — (Cameron. 
 
 On a sale of property under a power in a mint- 
 gage, the solicitors more than a year before this 
 application, with the approbation of the agent 
 of the mortgagee (who was out of the country), 
 retained out of tht: proceeds of the sale a lump 
 sum for tiieir costs, and delivered no bill :- 
 Held, a special eircunistance untler R, S. (». 
 (1877), e. 140, s. 44, entitling a sidjsetpient in- 
 cumbrancer to have a bill of costs in detail di ■ 
 livcre<l to him ni)on payment of the costs of ,i 
 ropy. A''' .Mnl<-(ilinmii and Wadi', Solicit or.-i, '.( 
 P. k. •24'-'. lioyd. 
 
 On I'Dth .July, 1877, A. and I'.., a linn of soli- 
 citors, rendered their bill to ('., also a solicitor-, 
 for lirofessional services. On ."iOth May, 1878. 
 C. wrote to A. and l>. claiming a reduction nt 
 the hill, and alleging overcharge, and an agree- 
 ment to do the work for half fees. No notice 
 was taken of this letter, nor did C. take steps 
 to have the bill taxe.l. On duly 8tli, 188-2, A. 
 and I'., sued in the County Couit on this hill, 
 and judgment was entered therein on. July P.llli, 
 1882, for default of ap[)eai'ance, which judgment 
 was, by consent, sub.sei|uently waived. On.luly 
 27th, i882, a bill for services reiulered suhse- 
 (piently to ,)uly, 1877, was delivered to C. by 
 A. and R. In this bill was included the follow- 
 ing item : " To amount of judgnient entereil 
 .Inly 19th, 1882, .*i2(>8.(l7 for previous accounts 
 renilerdl." An action was then commenced in 
 the Chancery Division for the amount of the 
 two bills, (hi the trial of the action, judgment 
 was given for the amount of the tirst bill, us 
 rcn<lered, and also for ihe amount of the sccoiul 
 bill, subject to taxation :- Held, on apj)ial tn 
 the Divisional Court, that neither the existence 
 
 ' of a controversy as to the terms on which the 
 business was done, nor the continuaiice of tlie 
 employnient alter the delivery of the lirst bill, 
 wde "special circumstances" within R. .'^. 0. 
 (1877), 0. 140, s. :{."), entitlingC. to tax the lir.sl 
 bill after the lapse of a year ; - Held, also, that 
 the reference in the second bill to the ainoiiiit 
 daiiiicd in resiiect of the first bill did net 
 amount to a reremlei iiig of the tirst bill so as to 
 entitle llie 'tlieut to a taxation. AriioUU v. 
 
 ' O'Douiiho,, 2 O. R. ;t22. — Chy. D. 
 
 I Tho rule rcipiiring special circumstances to 
 warrant the reopening or taxation of a bill of 
 costs after tw( Ive months, does not apply w here 
 the bill has hem delivcied after a comi any has 
 laen onUrul to be wound up. ('kirhr v. I'liitm 
 Flr<' lux. Co.- Cax/oii'x (axr, 10 P. R. .•i;l9.- 
 Jbxlgiiis, Mti.it(.r ill Ordiiiiny. 
 
 The following ciieunistances were held not t" 
 be special cin iimstances which would entitle the 
 client to t.ix his solicitor's bills after a year from 
 their delivery, because these eiroumstanees could 
 be as well (onsidered at the trial of the action 
 as on a rcfeienee to a taxing oliicer. (1) That 
 the bills sued on containeil certain items in- 
 cluded ill other bills paid by the climt; (2) 
 'J'hat some work was charged for which never 
 
 If 
 
1952 
 
 195S 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1954 
 
 axutioii, or that In; 
 iii:iv(>iilal)lo cause. 
 Mij^iiud agaiiHt llir 
 )ill (luring tliu pen 
 uttleiuciit, this w.is 
 iruutiii),' a taxutiuu 
 liiirrli, S I'. H. ;((i,l. 
 
 r a power inaiiKnt- 
 1 a year before tlii.s 
 )ati()ii of tliu ngciit 
 ut of tlio country), 
 of the Hale a Iiiim|» 
 L'livurcd no liill :- 
 ie under K. S. (I. 
 ig a Hul)sei|uent iii- 
 f costs in detail ch- 
 it of the costs ol ,L 
 W'liiir, Suliclliii.^, !l 
 
 1 li. , a linn of soli- 
 ( '., iilsci a MoliritiJi', 
 In ;t()tli May, ISTS. 
 lin^ a reduction nt 
 iirgi', anil au aijri'c- 
 lit fees. No noticu 
 r dill (". taUe steiis 
 i.luly Sth, hSS-J, A. 
 Court on this liiii, 
 icrein on .July liltli, 
 ce, which judgment 
 y waived. On .lidy 
 es rendered Mulisc- 
 Iclivercd to ('. hy 
 ncliiileil the foUow- 
 juiignicnt entcrcil 
 ■ luevious accounts 
 tlien eoninienccd in 
 the amount of tlie 
 he action, judgment 
 of the hrst hill, iim 
 nount ol tile sccomi 
 Kelil, on ajipcal tn 
 leither the existence 
 terms on wliieli tlie 
 continuance of tin,' 
 L'ry of tiu' lirst hill, 
 L's" within H. S. (». 
 gC. to tux the lir.st 
 r :- Held, also, tlmt 
 hill to the Mmiiunt 
 tii'st hill did nut 
 the tir.-it hill .so as tn 
 xation. Anioldi v. 
 hy. D. 
 
 al circumstances to 
 axation of a hill nf 
 Iocs not apply where 
 iiftir a ciiini liny lias 
 p. Cltirh' V. I'liioH 
 sr, 10 J". U. ;);{!».- 
 
 .•es were held not t" 
 ich would entitle the 
 ills aflei' a year frnni 
 ' circumstunces cmilil 
 J trial of the actinii 
 ig ollicer. ( I ) That 
 d certain items in- 
 by the elii nt ; (•-') 
 'ed for which never 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 ( 
 
 WAS done ; (3) That a payment of .^'itMlou account ! 
 hy the client was disputed. AV W'ti/kcr— U'ulktr 
 y. Hoihtiitcr, 10 I'. K. 400.-IJoyd. 
 
 The hill of costs in ouest'on \v;is for profes- 
 aionnl services remlered the defendant in an I 
 iuveBtigatiiiii of his conduct as n puhlic otlieial 
 lioforo a commissiiMier appointed hy the Ontario 
 liovcrnment. The special circiinistanco relied 
 upon to enable the ilefendant to obtain the order 
 for taxation after the lapse of more than a year 
 from the delivery of the bill was, in the words 
 of the defendaTit, that " there was a distinct 
 undurstanding between me and the above nanu'd 
 plaintiffs that the payment of the said bill of 
 costs was to lie over to await the ihcision of the 
 Ontario (iovernnient, who were by both nie and 
 the said Jjlaintill's, as they stated, expected to 
 pay the said bill of costs, I being one of their 
 ollicers, and the charges iigainst me having fallen 
 through " r—lfeld, tliat the existence of the 
 uhovu understainling, if proved, was nnt a spe- 
 cial circunistance within R. S. O. (l!S7"), e. UO, 
 a. 35, to justify an order for the taxation of the 
 hill after the l.ap.se of a year, from its delivery ; 
 but that the bill should have been taxed subject 
 tusuch undorstunding. Fletcher v. Field, 10 P. 
 U. COS.— Rose. 
 
 Rules 447-449 (Con. Rules I'.'SO, 1231, and 
 851) are not necessarily a|)plicable to a tax- 
 ation had under 48 Vict. c. 13, s. '22, (Out.), 
 and where upon a taxation by a local nllieer, 
 these rules had not been complied with by the 
 party (d)jecting to the taxation, a revision was 
 nevertheless ordered, the court thinking the 
 bill BO exorbitant as to show special ciieuin- 
 stances. Siiiikr v. Snhhr — SuiJi:r v. Orr, 
 11 1'. R. 140.- Boyd. 
 
 A bill of costs rendered by a solicitor in 
 October, ISSH, was paid shortly afterwards, but 
 upon the undertaking of the solicitor, contained 
 ill letters written by him, that the payment was 
 tit be subject to the taxation of the bill at any 
 time. The solicitor died in May, 1S8!(, and no 
 application for taxation was made till the 2nil 
 iScptember, IHSlt, when an ex parte order was 
 iibtained from the master in chambers for taxa- 
 tion, the letters of the solicitor not being pro- 
 duced nor any special circumstances shewn. 
 Hpon the application of the executrix of the 
 soiii'itor to the master to set aside his ex parte 
 order, the letters were produced : —Meld, that 
 tile master was not bound to vacate his lirst 
 order, although it was wrong ; but, there being 
 no imputation of bad faith, he was right in giv- 
 ing leave to amend the order so as to do sub- 
 stantial justice ; and, notwithstanding the death 
 of the solicitor after being paid, there was juris- 
 diction to Older a taxation as against his repre- 
 sentative, under the eircumstaiices. The appli- 
 cation, being witliin the year, came under section 
 4(i of H. ,S. O. (18S7), e. 147, and "special cir- 
 eumstanees " to justify a taxation existed in the 
 fact of the letters having been written by the soli- 
 citor ; hut the delay of the applicants and the 
 death of the solicitor were reasons for imposing 
 temis ; and it was ordered that upon the taxa- 
 tion the books of the solicitor should be prima 
 facie evidence of the correctnessof his charges, or 
 if the books were not available that the bill 
 ahould be bo taxed as to throw the onus of im- 
 peaching any charges on the applicants. Jie 
 Baker— He Mac Donald, 13 P. R. 227.- Boyd. 
 
 123 
 
 In this case the large amount of the bills, and 
 the fait that retaining fees were ehaiged by 
 the solicitor, Were looked iip..n as speeinl eir- 
 cumstaiices. Vi'e Skiiiiifi; a Soliritor, 13 P. R. 
 270. -Street. 
 
 See W'i/soH V. Jkalty — In re Doiiovaii, DA. R. 
 140, p. lOJT. 
 
 (./■) W'liat Itcrovtruhle. 
 
 Fraud having been charged against a defen- 
 dant, who was a solicitor, and the charge being 
 whollj unsupported:- Semble.that itwuuld liavo 
 been proper not merely to deprive the |ilaintiir 
 of her costs, but to allow such defendant uU hi* 
 costs. Frcnl v. Orr, (i A. R. (Jlhi. 
 
 The iilaintiir, an attorney, was the ofTirial 
 assignee of an insolvent estate, lie brouglit an 
 action on behalf of the estate, and used his own 
 name as the altiirney on the record. The plain- 
 tifl' obtained a verdict :-^-Held that under se'O- 
 tioii 32 of the Insolvency Act, 187.'), lie was 
 entitled to tax disbursements (uily against the 
 defendant. Aijww v. lion-i, 8 P. R. 07.- Osier. 
 
 A master or a single judge has no di.scrctioii 
 to allow a solicitor more than ?<1 jier hour for 
 attendance on the taxation of a bill of costs, 
 either between solicitor and client, or party and 
 party : the tarill' being fixed at that rat 
 O. (iOS. Re Totkn,»V. R. 385. — Proiidfoot. 
 
 G. 
 
 Where costs as between solicitor and client 
 were to be paid by the plaintitlto the ilefendant, 
 and where it appeared that the defendant's soli- 
 citor had at the reijucst of his client, made in 
 good faith and on rca.sonable grounds travelled 
 from Sarnia to Toronto, tn atti ml on the exaini- 
 iiation of the plaintilT on the bill : Held, on 
 ajipeal from the master, that the detendant 
 could tax against the plaintilVn sum of !>(i(), jiaid 
 to defendant's solicitor for two days services and 
 travelling expenses. Goin/h v. I'ark, 8 P. R. 
 402.— Prouilfoot. 
 
 The plaintifT, a solicitor, obtained a verdict for 
 damages and costs in an action for libel, in which, 
 I although another solicitor appeared as acting for 
 I him in all the pleadings and proceedings in the 
 I suit, he actually iliil the work, and curried on 
 I the suit hini.self ; Held, on appeal from the 
 ! taxing ollicer, that full fees and disbursements 
 except " instructions," had been properly al- 
 lowed to him, and that his acting as agent for 
 the solicitor whose name appeared in the jiro- 
 ceedings as his solicitor did i ot all'eet his right. 
 Kimj V. Moyer, 9 P. R. 514.— Hagarty. 
 
 The court refused to interfere with the dis- 
 cretion of the t.ixing officer in allowing certain 
 costs to the solicitor of proceedings which had 
 been set aside as irregular, and as to which (!., 
 alleged negligence and want of skill. Vail db 
 Co. V. Collim, 12 P. R. 413.-Cliy. ]). 
 
 A taxing oflicer cannot charge a solicitor with 
 interest upon moneys in his hands belonging to 
 his client. Ih O'Dotiohoc, a .Solicilor, 12 P. R. 
 012.— Armour. See S. C, 14 P. R. 317. 
 
 The solicitors instituted an action on behalf 
 of a young woman, one of two residuary legatees 
 and devisees under a will, against the executors 
 and trustees, for an account. Upon the plead- 
 ings, charges of negligence in getting in rents, 
 etc., and of refusal to account, were made 
 
1955 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 10S6 
 
 agaiiiHt tlic (Icfi'iidantii, aii<1 it wiih Htiiti.'il that a I liill of cosIh to ii t;i\iii)^ oHicur, nIidiiM init ilii ret 
 rt'll^•lH^! wiiM (ilitiiiiKMl fioiii llic otlicr iVHidimry tlm olliccr to d > iiioir tliaii iixrcit liii tlif |ifo|M'r 
 
 feMi 
 
 
 lufj.itci! in tli(! iilisi'iice of liiH Holiciloi-, iiiiniu 
 (liiitidy aftiT liisciiinitigof af^i', liy t;il<iiij{ lulvaii- 
 ta^i' lit' Ills iK'iM'H.iitirH. At till! ti'ial jiui^iiirnt 
 waH givi'ii ill till! iiHual tcriiiH ut' an ailiiiiiiiNtra- 
 tioii iiiiii'i', ri'sciviiij; further (liriJotioiiH ami 
 i'lmlH ; anil liy lliu jiul^iiit'lit on fiirlhcr ilirrc- 
 
 ainoiiiit of it. Mn'ilinnilil 
 r)8(l. Daltoii, M'tsur. 
 
 I', /hi; 10 I', i;. 
 
 A Hiiliuitor vnIiii lian olitaiiniil an orilcr iiir tax 
 
 atioii of liiN liill III' iiiiHtH a>;aiiiHt hiu rlii^iit, ami 
 
 taxi'il IliH hill uiiiirr it, in nut tintilhiil to a kuiii 
 
 .. ,1 1 !,■,.■ :. »i . I . r iiiary onlir tor iiiyinrnt of thu anioiint loiinil 
 
 tloiiH tilt! ilaliititl was K'^' •• till' K'iiii'ial uohIh of , •' ,,,, .,' • ,. ...•.■ . 
 
 ., ,. ' . ,1 1 f I . I iliu'. W Ik.'Iu tlif I'luiit olilaiiiH till! on rr ur 
 
 tluMU'tloii ai'aiiist thiMlcfciiilaniM h.iviiil', how- , ,. i ,i i i •. i • it , .■ 
 
 "^ "' - I taxation, hi' Ihi'ii'liy HiilinntM hiniHidf to thr 
 
 Hiininiaiy jiiriH'llctinM of thi' rimit, ami nIioiiIiI 
 
 nt fiMiiiil to \h: iliir 
 
 -| . .-,,. 1 I A tl » , ; III MIU milirillll . /!'■ ff tllflllftlftlli, II Solii'lfOI', It! 
 
 iilaintili was onU'roil to pay the extra costs ,, ,, ,,,.,, ... » .' ■ • - 
 
 ' .... I V. - I*. R. .{S(i. .sfiiM't. 
 
 <!Ver, i^iisiM ini'urri'il liy the plamtill iiroeeeilinu i . . ... 
 
 1 -J. c • » 1 ti " Miiinniarv JiiriH'lictioM o llie 
 
 l>V wi'it of HUininons iiHtcail of hy Hiiiiiniarv ap- , < ' ■ . .i 
 
 f .■ ,■ 1 • • i i- 1 I 41 ' he orilereil to iiav tlie aiimun 
 
 plicatiiiii lor an ailininiMtration onlei', anil the i . .i i- i ' H n- i ■ 
 ■, . ..... 114. .1 . . : to the MO lel or. /i'<' t\ ifi/iiinii 
 
 oeuasioneil to the (lefenil.intn hy Hiicli iiroceecl 
 iiig : lli'lil, that no (|ueMtioii waH raiNoil liy the 
 Iilaintili' whicli eoiilil not have lieeii iliN|iiiHi'il of 
 III the inasler'H otlieo ; and, under the eireiiin- 
 stances, in the ali.si'iicu of any evidoncu to siiow 
 that the elieiit had, with knowled^u of the 
 jiiactice of the court and the risk hIio ran, ex- 
 
 Suliible, that the order for l/ixation niiiler ( 'mi. 
 Itulu 44lt HliiKild, unih^r the authority of hiiIi- 
 seetion (d.) of that llule, wiiere it is made u|iiiii 
 the client's a|i|ilii'atioii, contain an order tor the 
 payment liy him of the amount to he found due 
 ii|iiin the refereni'i', hut when it is made upon 
 prcHsly instructeil the aolicitovs to proceed in llii' | tlie .solicitor's ajiplicatiiui, Mliouitl contain noMiili 
 
 way they did, tliey could not tax aj{aiiisl her 
 any more costs than they would hu untitled to 
 liail they proceided liy notice of motion instead 
 of liy writ of .sumnions. Scaiilan v. McDonough, 
 10 (;. I'. I(»4, H|ii.'cially referred to. /iV Allciih;/ 
 ftiid MVtr, iSolicitor^t, 13 I'. U. 40H. — Robertson. 
 
 See /// , ' F/iii/ (tiidJillvtl, Allovii'i/s, S I'. \l. 
 3(il, )). l--'70; //( re McClivt, Sulicilui.i, !) 1'. I!. 
 '213, iii/ra. 
 
 in) lutcrtnl on Costs. 
 
 Interest may he allowed on a solicitor's hill of 
 costs, if a dcmiind in writing is made for it. la 
 re MrClivo, Solirilur.", \) I'. K. 213. — Wilson. 
 
 'I'he t.ixinj; ollicer has no power to allow inter- 
 est, unless the matter has heeii specially D- 
 ferrcd to him liy the ordr' foi t.i >''•■■ Jh. 
 
 .Sue .1 /•(■/(«:/• V. .V rii I'. I!. ti4S, [. 
 
 :t!i-.v 
 
 I) I'raclice. 
 
 Where an oi r is mad' for taxation of an 
 attorney's liill, aK I. two ittoincy and client 
 under the R. S. (). (IH77 I HI, s. 4!t, a common 
 law court has no power Inn , as it li.'is in Knj,'- 
 land, under the .V 7 V'icl. c. 73, a. 43, to make 
 n summary order for payment of the amount 
 foiinil line from the client, exci'pt by consent. 
 In re A. /I. and V. I)., Attorneys, 8 1*. R. 
 I'iO. -O.sler. 
 
 On an application to tax a solicitor's hill more i 
 than a month having elapsed since it.s delivery, j 
 an orili'r was issued in llie long form in use be- 
 fore theO. .J. Act instead of the form under Rule 
 -143 (see (.'on. Rule l'-"2('>), .'is the master is men- 
 tioned in that order but the taxing otlicer is the 
 iiroper otlicer to tax hills of costs iiiidtM' Rule 
 43S (Con. Rule 1'231) of the Act. lie Solii-itorn, 
 y I'. R. IH). —.Stephens, Ri'fcrce. 
 
 An order for the taxation of a solicitor's bill 
 Ht the instance of the client, sho.ild refer the 
 bill siinjily for taxation. A clause in such order 
 directing payment to the solicitor of the amount 
 «f the taxed bill was struck out. lie Clarke, 
 9 P. R. 1»7.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 Held, that by the O. J. Act, the former prac- 
 tice has boeu changed, and an order referring a 
 
 Older. 'I'iie solicitor should he entitled to add 
 the costs of the relcrenee to his idaim only in 
 the event of the client appearing upon the relcr- 
 enee. Millar ''. ('line, I'JI*. R. I.''ir>, distinguisheil, 
 and In re llarcourt, 32 .Sol. .1, {112, followed. Ih. 
 
 (1., a judgment creditor of W. A. ('■,, ganiisheil 
 a fund recovered by ,1. W. C, suing as the 
 assignee of W. A. ('., (•. disputed the validity 
 of the assignineiil from W. A. ('. to.l. W. ('., 
 and an issue was directeil to be tried lictwtM'ii (i. 
 anil •!. W. ('., as to the portion of the fiimt 
 
 which would remain after satisfying tlii! clid f 
 
 the solicitor of t). W. C who had a lien iipiui the 
 fund for his costs incurred in the recovery of it. 
 Upon appeal from the taxation of these costs, 
 before the trial of the issue : -Held, that <•., 
 had the right to he represeiiteil upon the taxa 
 tion and a)ipual, as in one evnit he had an inl^'i- 
 est ill the rediictinii of tht! solicitor's bill, ami 
 there ciiilld not be two t.ixatioiis, one as against 
 .1. W. C, and the other .'gainst (i. if he suc- 
 ceeded in the i.-^sue. (lalUk (Ju. v. Collins, 12 I'. 
 R. 413. Chy. D. 
 
 (i) Costs of Taxation. 
 
 .See lie Allison SoCcitor.t. \i ]'. R. 0, Ji. l!M7 ; 
 III- ' ■mil ron,. Solicitors, 13 I'. R, 173, p. I!)4S. 
 
 (j) Appeal from Taxation. 
 
 When an order is obtained by a client referring 
 the taxation of a solicitor's bill to the master in 
 (lie .ounty where the work was done, any 
 I ew of the master's conclusions must lie iili- 
 t.iiied by way of a})peal to a judge. In ir 
 lilakeraiid Henderson, 9 1*. R. 1M2. — Boyd. 
 
 Held, that the notice of appeal from a certifi- 
 cate of taxation of a solicitor s hill of costs hy the 
 local master at St. Thomas, must bo seven days, 
 as ro((uired by (J. O. 04'2 (see (Jmi. RuleS-l!(. ) 
 .Such a case is not within Rule 44!) O. .1. /Xct 
 ((Jon Rule 851.) Kxchamje Hunk v. Newell, '.) 
 I'. R. 5'28.— Proudfoot. 
 
 The time for appealing from a taxation ef 
 costs begins to run from the date of the ccrtili- 
 catc of taxation, not from the date of e.ich ruling 
 in the course of taxation, lie O'Bonolioe, a 
 Solicitor, 12 P. R. 612.— Armour. 
 
 ._ 
 
r 
 
 1956 
 
 mIioiiM lint ililrcl 
 c'liiiii till' |ii'ii|ii'r 
 l'>i>n; 10 I', li. 
 
 I III! iii'iUm' lor tax 
 Ht liix I'lii^iit, mill 
 nilillcil III ii Kiiiii 
 
 Iri lUllllllIll lllllllll 
 
 iliM till! order li.r 
 
 IlilllHldf to till' 
 
 I'liuit, mill nIiimiIiI 
 t foiiiiil t<i lir (iiic 
 '()/(, n Solicitiir, li! 
 
 txatioii miller ( '.111. 
 authority of hiiIi 
 ru it iH iiiiiile ii|i(iii 
 ill all oilier lor the 
 lit to liR found dill'. 
 I it in iiiado u|)oii 
 illd c!iilitaill iiosiirli 
 1)0 L'lititlud to add 
 liJH (daiiii only >u 
 ini{U|ioii till! ii'lVr- 
 iri5, ilmtiii^uiHluKl, 
 . (IL', followed. Ih. 
 
 i\ , A. (I.. ^;ariiinlieil 
 C, suing as the 
 jiiited till! validity 
 A. C. to, I. VV. ('., 
 II! tl'ii'd lictweeii (!. 
 iii'lion of the fund 
 isfyiii)^ the eliiiiii of 
 had a iiuii ii|iiiii tliu 
 I thd i'e(;()vt!iy ol it. 
 tioii of tliuHe imhIh, 
 3 : — Held, that (■., 
 ted upon the taxa 
 lilt he had an int/cr- 
 .Holicitor'.'* Iiill, and 
 ioiiM, one as agaiiiHt 
 LjaiiiNt (!. if he Nile- 
 Cu. V. Oo/tiiis, 12 I'. 
 
 rnlwn. 
 
 V2 I'. II. G, p. I(U7 ; 
 . K. 173, p. I'J4S. 
 
 Vdxation. 
 
 \>y a olieiit rcferriiij; 
 liill to the master in 
 rk was diuii!, any 
 illusions must lie iili- 
 to a judge. /;/ ;i' 
 R. 1S2. — IJoyd. 
 
 ippeal from a eertili- 
 r 8 liill (d' eostsliy the 
 must 1)0 seven d;iVH, 
 [see Ci.ii. KuleS-l!).) 
 Rule 44!) O. .). Ait 
 e liatik V. Nuwill, '.) 
 
 from a taxation of 
 (Into of the certili- 
 ledato of each ruling 
 . J{e. O'Donohoe, a 
 •raonr. 
 
 1957 
 
 8OLI0ITOR. 
 
 1968 
 
 7. lit fori rij III/ All lull. 
 
 !». Other Ciintii. 
 
 Ill All action liy a Nolieitor lo rei'iiver the 
 ainoniit of a hill of eimth, the fait that he dmh 
 nut, ill llis Hlali'inent of elalln, allege that the 
 hill was deliveied a month liefore .ti'tiun hiought, 
 is not now, any more than hefote the diidiralnre 
 Act, ground for dininriir, lint only lor defi nee. 
 S,-nw V. Dud' It, :( (». R. :i70. Itoyd. 
 
 Though under I!. S. O. (IS77), «'. I Hi, h. .TJ, 
 I lie right of act ion on a liill of eost* inay lie hiis- 
 peiided pending a month liiiin delivei y to the 
 party to he ehiirged tlii!re\vitli. iieveilhelesM the 
 sfilieitor is a cnilitor, .iiid may as Hinh, liifore 
 till! expiration of .sinh mmitli, liring an iirtion In 
 set aside a voluntary eonveyaiice as fi aiidiileiit 
 ;>iid void. //). 
 
 See Diijl' V. I'liiiiiiliiiii .Mutual fin- Inn, C'o., 
 !l r. R. 'I'Xl ; ■-' (). R. .".lid, p. !I7!»; Mii,;l,„„il,l v. 
 /'/>/', lU 1'. R. TiSO, p. Il).')((. 
 
 is. Liiiliilili) lit III I'll ml. 
 
 Ill an action iiiHtitnted hy the widuu ufT. W. 
 Ill set aside a will alleged to have lieeii exeeiiled 
 liy him under undue iiillui nee, I), aeteil a.s her 
 solicitor and ohtaiiu'd a deeree as piayed. lliii'' 
 iiig the pendency of siieh aetiipii one M. was 
 appi)iiite(l hy the court administrator with the 
 view of g(!tlllig in certain delits due the estate 
 iHiforc heilig liarreil hy lapse of time. Xuinerous 
 actions were lirought liy 1). in the n.'inn' of II., 
 in SDiiie of which mninys aggregating a large 
 mini were leeovcred, whilst in many no hciietit 
 whatever resulted to the estate, and costs 
 amounting in the whole to !>!•_', 7HS. .'17 were in 
 <!iiried, which had lieiin taxed as helwccn soli- 
 "itor and client, on II. passing his accounts 
 lieforc the master, and were paid to l>. (lartly 
 hy li. out of moneys of the estate, and partly 
 hy funds coming into I). 's hands as such solicitor 
 and retained hy him. Snliscipiently a piicir 
 will of 'I'. \V. was duly proved hy the executurs 
 iiaiiicil th(!i'cin, who Iook pnii ceding.^ to olitain 
 an accountof ll.'s ailministration and ataxatimi 
 of D.'s costs. 'I'lu'sc proceedings liiially resulted 
 ill a dismissal thereof as against I)., and an 
 <ii'iler on it. Id pass his accounts, which he did, 
 eliargiiig the estate with the amount of costs so 
 paid to I)., hut on a icta.xatinn of I). 's hills the 
 aggregate amount was rediieiid to .':<7-i).-''li, sev- 
 eral of the hills lia\ iiig liecn di.sallowed in toto, 
 on the alleg(!d gioniid that the actions had lieeii 
 hrought williout the leave of the court, and li. 
 was ordered to pay in the dill'creucc. 11. was 
 iinahle to do so, anil thcrenpoil he, as also the 
 executors, hy their several petitions applied for 
 and olitaincd an order upon iX to repay the 
 ainunnt with costs, or in default he struck oil' 
 the roll of solicitors. ('1\) ( 'hy. '-'SO. ) On appeal 
 the order was reversed (.Spraggi!, C. ■!. ()., dis- 
 senting), the court heing of opinion that the 
 taxation and all the other proceedings in refer- 
 ciiee thereto having liecn had in a proceeding to 
 which 1). was not a party, he could not he hound 
 tlierehy. I'er Spragge, C. J. O. Under the 
 circumstances appearing in the matter an order 
 to strike I), otl' the rolls in case of nonpayment 
 was not called for, nnil that there were special 
 eircuinstiinees in the case for the opening of the 
 tiixation at the iiistunco of the estate. Wilson 
 V. litaltij—lnre Awomii, 9 A. R, 149. 
 
 A petit inn was jircHcnted hy the husliaiKl of 
 l». to deelaru his wife a liinalii' wliieli was op 
 piihed hy her. Rending the he.iiingof the pell 
 lion I), assigned liel separate ^■^late liirlhc henelit 
 of her ci<'ilitiii.'<. The emirl dihinlHsed the pell 
 lion. D.'s solicitor priHenied a petition tor 
 taxation of l),'s i.'osts, and for payment hy the 
 assignee ill priority to theelaiins nf ihe eieditois: 
 
 III III, thai the costs of oppiming the petition 
 liiighl he ehiMsed as neeessaries which the wife Is 
 ll ilile to p:iy out ol her Hepaiate estate, and for 
 which that estate is li.ihle m the hands of her 
 ashignee, hut that tin y could not he put on the 
 fiioting ol niaiiilcnaiK'c. .Such eosts Hlionld lie 
 paid latulily out ol the assets, and costs sulise 
 ; (pieni to the assigiicienl .dioiild not rank in eoiii- 
 I petition Willi eieililiiis heliiie the assigiiinciit. 
 Ifi Ihiiiilinlt. 10 I', l;. o|li. li.iyd. 
 
 (hi the referenee in this ease II. sought to use a 
 
 j certain hill ol eosts as a voueher of ninneys 
 
 I )irii|ieily expended hy him in legal proeeedingH, 
 
 and il WHS shewn that the said lull had hecn 
 
 |)iiipcily lirought into the master's otlii'c on a 
 
 former refi reme, and pinperly Icfl there, unil 
 
 that se.ii'i'h had heeii iiiade for it, hut without 
 
 success, aUliough there was no evidence that it 
 
 had liceii removed, or that il had hecn noticed 
 
 or seen elsewhere afterwards, nor of any occa- 
 
 I sion when it would pmlialily have heeii reiiiovtMl 
 
 J from till! olliee : - lli'ld, that the master should 
 
 have adiiiittcd seeoiidaiyevidcnee of its contents, 
 
 ! and proccediiigsshiiuldliaveliceii taken in respect 
 
 lo it as nearly asiniglit he the same as if II. hod 
 
 ! heen aide lo piodiicc it. JltiUly v. IlidiliUi, 10 
 
 j (). It. '27^. Kergusoii. 
 
 1 The taxing ollleer's allocitur is suHieient proof 
 I that the liusincss cliai'g(!d for was done hy tho 
 I solicitor. Ctarkc v. Uiihni Fin: lux. (,'o. — 
 \ Ciist„ii's Cn^i; 10 ]'. H, ;t;tll, lliidgins, iJ/uirfer 
 
 ill I lllllllll I'll. 
 
 I A siilii'ilor for a company is entitled to charge 
 I such CHiiipany fur special work and joiiriieyB 
 I uiidei taken at the reipicstof individual direuUirH 
 and the general manager. /'/. 
 
 I All order was made in an aliinnny suit direct- 
 ing the defendant to pay the plaintitV, heforc 
 hearing ol an appeal, a sum of $4U tor the pur- 
 j |iosc of |);iying the wdc's cniinsel lee, liolwith- 
 ] Ktaiidiiig 'dial the solicitor for the plainlill would 
 ! he her ci'iinsel on the appeal : (.^uaic, whether 
 ;<iwingtotlic altered stains of man led women, 
 \ the reasiiiis for such |)aynienl has not ceased. 
 , Miujiii-ii V. Miiijiini, 10 I*. R. "i70. Osier. See 
 j alsii /iiiji-Km \'.' Iiiijniiii, Jli., "iliO, p. 800; /Iriul 
 ' III/ V. Urii'lhy, III., ,"171. 
 
 W. sold land to II., and covenanted to indeiii- 
 
 nify him agai list a mortgage ihitrcon : -Held, that 
 
 ! H. was not entitled to solicitor and client, but 
 
 ! only to iiarty and party, eostsof an action on tho 
 
 ' coveiiaiil. JJuttonv. Wuiivr, 11 R. It. 302.— 
 
 I'nnidfoot. 
 
 An .attorney's hill of costs will he allowed as a 
 set-oil' and as a dcht, though no hill has heen deli- 
 vered. Mdciilivrsoii y. Tmdak, II 1*. K. 201.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 Under the common order for taxation of » 
 solicitor's hill of costs, Korni l.Sti, O. J. A., a 
 taxing ollieer has power to iuveatigato and dig- 
 
1959 
 
 SOLICITOR. 
 
 1960 
 
 pose of questions of carelesaneHs, inipro^/.-iety, 
 and negligence in tlie cnmhiet of tlie huxinesHto 
 which tlie bill relates ; and tlie otticer's certifi- 
 cate is conclusive us to all matters within liis 
 jurisdiction. Where, tlierel'oro, after action 
 brought upon a bill of costs there has been a 
 tsxatiou under sncii an order, there is an 
 end to litigation, and it only remains to enforce 
 paj iiient of what lias been found due, whicii may 
 I)e done upon a snbseiiuent application by the 
 solicitor. Tlie original order for taxation may 
 reserve questions of retainer and negligence in 
 a profHir case, but if it does not tlie client should 
 not be allowed a double chance of defeating the 
 solicitor's claim, by proceeding to defend the 
 action after tlic conclusion of the taxation. Re 
 Clark, 9 P. R. .3.37, ami Macdcmalil v. Piper, 10 
 P. R. 586, distinguished. Millar v. Cliue — 
 lie Millar, li> P. R. 155. -Boyd. 
 
 Costs "as between solicitor and client" in an 
 action include such ccsts as a solicitor can tax 
 against a resisting client under the general re- 
 tainer to prosecute or defend the action, ('oiisi. 
 neau v. City of London Firp. fnt. Co., 12 P. R. 
 512. — Armour. 
 
 Tlie defendant in this action was represented 
 by a tirin purporting to be a firm of solicitors, 
 one of the niembers, however, not being a duly 
 admitted or certificated solicitor. Tiie plaintiff 
 objected to the costs awarded the defendant in 
 the action being taxed to him :— Held, that in 
 the absence of jiroof that these costs had not 
 been paid by tlie ilefend;iiit to the persons who 
 acted as his solicitors, tlu^ objection could not 
 prevail ; nor could it even if that proof had been 
 
 given. Reeder v. Hlooin, 3 Ring. 9 ; «•. 
 
 .Sexton, 1 Dowl. ISO, followed. Scolt v. Dali/, 
 12 P. R. () 10. —Armour. 
 
 See Unllv. arilfi/h,riO. R. 478, p. 1041 ; Sand- 
 ford V. Porter, lii A. R. 5()5, pp. 112, 1949. 
 
 IX. LiKN FOK Costs. 
 
 A defendant's solicitor as well as a plaintitrs 
 solicitor may have a lien for co^4ts im a fund in 
 court. War./ell v. Tnnumth, 8 P. R. 142.— 
 Stephens, linfere.e. 
 
 A bill was tiled by a purchaser against the ven- 
 dor for rescission or specific performance of aeon- 
 tract for sale of lands in the county of Sinicoe, 
 made the I'itli day of Octolicr, lh70, and regis- 
 tered in July, 1H75, and by the d« eree made in 
 October, ISTO, the plaiiitili's were ordered to pay 
 certain overdue iiurcluise nirrney. C, a credi- 
 tor of the (Itfeiidunt, having placed a fi. fa. 
 lands in the hands of the slurifi' of Sinicoe in 
 Deceniiier, 1878, obtained a stop order in Janu- 
 ary, 1879, against the j)Uicliase money in court. 
 The defcndiint's solicitor clainiid a prior lien for 
 costs of this huit but had obtained iiostoponltr : 
 ^Held, on the application of the defendant's 
 solicitors for payment of the fnnd to th»ni, that 
 their lien had jiriority. I'art of the fund in 
 court was a balance of purchase money paid 
 into court by the pl.intiff in March, 1879, pur- 
 suant to the decre on further directinns made 
 in October, 1878, ( . seeking to attach this 
 balance, in addition to his stop order obtained 
 in January, 1877, placed a fi. fa. goods in tht.' 
 hands of the sherifi of York in Febiuary, 1879 :— 
 
 ''Tsld, that as to this balance the solicitors' lien, 
 bad also priority. Ih. 
 
 In garnishee proceedings a court of law will, 
 as against the attaching creditor, protect an at- 
 torney's lien for costs of the action or suit in 
 which or by which the debt attached has been 
 recovered, where the garnishee has notice of the 
 lien. ('aiiMlinn Bunk of Cummtrce v. Crovrk, S 
 P. R. 437. -Osier. 
 
 1 A court of equity will ix:;t'''>in a creditor wiin 
 \ has obtained an attaching order at law from en- 
 I forcing it against a fund recovered by means of 
 j a suit in equity, to the prejudice of the attorney's 
 
 lien for costs in tlia. suit. lb. 
 
 I 
 
 ! The lien extends only to the costs incurred in 
 the particular suitor proceeding, and not to the 
 j attorney's general costs against the client in 
 j other matters. Jh. 
 
 15y the terms of the judgment pronounced at 
 the trial costs up to the hearing were to be p:iid 
 to the plaiutifi'out of the fund in court, a refci - 
 ence was directed to take the accounts, ainl 
 further directions .and subsc(iucnt costs wrrt' re- 
 served. The report of the oliicer to whom tin 
 reference was directed found the plaintiff in 
 debted to tlic estate in a eonsideralilc amount, 
 and a motion was m.tdc by the defendant Mollatt 
 (pending an appeal from the report) to .stay pay- 
 ment out of court of the costs of the plaintill up 
 to the trial until after the hearing on furtlur 
 directions in oriler that the amount fnimd iliio 
 to the ostati! by the jilaintilf might be set oil' | lo 
 taiito against the costs awarded to the plaintill ; 
 — Held, that the judgment ])rououui.ed at thi' 
 trial gave the plaiiitill anil his solicitoi' a vesti il 
 right to be paid out of tiic fiiiid in court prior to 
 the defendant's equity to ask a sitolV, and n<> 
 set-off should be allowed to the prejudice of tlic 
 solicitor's lien thus arising. A solicitor's Inn 
 having been asserted at the bar (luring the aigii- 
 ment, au athdavit proving it was allowed to lie 
 put in subseipiently, following the suggestion of 
 Strong, V. C, in Webb r. McArtliur, 4 Ciiy. 
 {;hamb. R. O.'}. iMwxon v. Miijjiill, 10 1'. \\. 
 3()().— Royd. 
 
 Where judgments were recovered in the same 
 action by the jihiintiff on his claim with general 
 costs of action, ami the defendant on hiseountur- 
 claini with costs thereof, siicli olaimaiid count r- 
 claim arising out of the same subject matter, 
 the judgment for counter-claim largely exceed- 
 ing the former in ani<iiiiit, a set-oH' was allowed 
 of so much of the money reeovered by the de- 
 fendant against the plaintitl' on defeml.inl'.s 
 counter-claim as would cover th(^ costs a(ljiiilj;((l 
 to the plaintifl' on his recoveiy of jnii;;nieiil 
 against the defendant, notwilln-taiiding flic 
 claim of the plaiiitiH's solicitois to a lien on tlic 
 costs adjudged to the plaintiff :— yiia-rc. when a 
 judgment, as in this ca.se has been lianiid with- 
 out directing a set-otl", whether a judge in eliaiii- 
 heis has power to direct it to theprejntlice of the 
 solicitor, so as to vary the decree of the eoiirt. 
 lirorm v. AeUon, il P. R. 121. — Dalton. 
 Masttr — Osier. 
 
 The Toronto .Tgrnts of a deceased solicitor 
 were held entitled to a lien on a sum of money in 
 court to the credit of this matter, to which the 
 solicitor was entitled for his costs, to the extent 
 of their unpaid agency bill of charges in thiji 
 
 
1960 
 
 the solicitors' lien 
 
 court of law will, 
 tor, protect an at- 
 1 action or suit in 
 [ittacheJ has been 
 le has notice of tlu: 
 j«e>-ce V. Crowh, S 
 
 nin a creilitor wlin 
 ler at law from eu- 
 vcrol Ijy means if 
 ceof the attorney s 
 
 e costs incurreil in 
 in;,', and not to thi> 
 inst the client in 
 
 But pronounced at 
 ing were to be paiil 
 (I in court, a refti 
 the accounts, ami 
 ^uent costs wi re n - 
 tlicer to wliom tlie 
 1(1 the plaintitV in 
 nsiileralile ammint, 
 defendant Mollatt 
 report) to stay pay 
 s of the plaintill lip 
 hearing on furtlu r 
 amount fmind <hio 
 miyht licsit oil' j lo 
 led to the plaintitV: 
 ])ron(inni.cd at tlu- 
 is solicitor a vcsti il 
 111(1 ill court i)riiif ti> 
 k a set-oil, and iiu 
 lie prejudice of tlie 
 
 A solicitor's lieu 
 
 bar during the aigii- 
 
 was allowed to he 
 
 ng the suggestion (jf 
 
 SlcArthur, 4 Cliv. 
 
 Mufnit, 10 I'. K. 
 
 covered in the same 
 J claim with general 
 idant on his counter- 
 li claim and count r- 
 line sniiject matter, 
 aim largely ex(eeil- 
 
 I set-olV was allowed 
 eeovered l>y the dc 
 it ill' on defdidaiil's 
 ■r th(! costs adjuilgMl 
 Cdveiy of ju(i>;nunt 
 lotwiihstaiidiiig the 
 itois to a lien on the 
 ,iH' ;— ynarc, Mhciia 
 IS been tianinl with- 
 her a judge in cliaui- 
 [) thepnjudiei^ of the 
 
 deoree of the court. 
 . R. I'il.— Dalton. 
 
 a deceased solicitor 
 on a sum of money in 
 matter, to which the 
 8 costs, to the extent 
 
 II of charges in this 
 
 1961 
 
 SOUOITOR. 
 
 1962 
 
 matter, and it was ordered that their hill should I tioM. (Henry, .1., dissenting.) Ayottt v. 
 
 \te paid out of the fund in priority to the claims! lloiichir, S.'(,'. U. 4(10. 
 
 of the other creditors of the solicitor, lie Jlyitii' .... , ,■ . . 
 
 UP R. 127. Ferguson. >* here the directors of a company have power 
 
 to appoint otlicers and agents and dismiss them 
 
 The plaintiffs sued for freight for the carriage at pleasure :— Held, that their apiiointmcnt of a 
 
 (if timber, and the defendants pleaded a counter- solicitor need not he under the corporate seal. 
 
 claim for neglect and delay in the c.irriage of the rVin/v v. i'iii<m Fire Ins. ('o.—Cnslnn'.< Catr, 
 
 lOP. R. .S;i!).— Hodgins, Most,r in Onliiianj. 
 
 It is iireferable to have the proceedings under 
 
 ail order for winding up a conijiany under 4.'> 
 
 Vict. c. 'l'.\ (l)om.), conducted by solicitors who 
 
 lie totally unconnected with the company to lie 
 
 actions, and 1 i...ect tiiat judgment be 'Jiitered ^*ollll(l up. /A ./ow/i/t //«// .ManiifiiftiiriiiiiCf , 
 
 -Hovd. 
 
 timber. The judgment at the trial was as fol 
 lows: "The verdict will be for tlie plaintiffs for 
 S!2,12'2, and for the defendants upcui their coun- 
 ter-claim for .§1,420, and each party will be en- 
 titled to costs ac'T'pst the other, as if the state- 
 ment of claim .!•• ,1 counter-claim wore separate 
 
 lis, and 1 i...ect that judgment be 'Jiitered woundup.^ 
 accordingly": — Held, {reversing the decision of '0 1'. It. 48.). 
 the master in chambers), that the judgments 
 recovered by the plaintiffs and defendants imist 
 be treated as judgments in separate acti(uis, and 
 therefore, that in setting off the judgments the 
 claim for costs, of the defendants' solicitors u\i- 
 on t'ac judgment against the ))laintitl's should be 
 protected, ('(iiiaditin Pacili< I'- It'.''", y. (iniiil, 
 11 P. R. 208. -C. P. I). 
 
 Where the plaintiff's solicitor made default in 
 payment into court of the ten per cent, paid to 
 liiiii al the time of sale, under the conditions of 
 sale: -Meld, that the other parties entitled to 
 the purchase money should not suffer thereby, 
 but that the lilaintill's share should be charged 
 with the delicieiicy. JA)'//,v'»vv. Cldf/.'r, 11 1'. 1!. 
 ;>.')0. I'roudfoot. 
 
 An assignment was made by the inortgugorto 
 a creditor of a portion of a fund in court, as to 
 which litigation was pending between inortgu'^or 
 and mortgagee as to their respective shares . — 
 Held, that to the extent to which the solicitors 
 of the mortgagor incurred costs in resisting and 
 jirevailing against the accounts brought in on bu- 
 iialf of the mortgagee to that extent their lien 
 shouM precede the assignment. Yi mm v. .John- 
 si,.,,, 11 P. H.23I.— lloyd. 
 
 .See Hull V. ih-lffith. .T (». H. 47>S. )>. 1041 : 
 l.imdot. Mutual Fii-i l,i.i. Co. v. .Jiiruh, Ui A. 1!. 
 
 :m, p. Mt4(;. 
 
 X. MiscKl.l.ANKois Casks. 
 
 I'fendants 
 
 The ])Lisoii to receive payment under an order 
 f(ir))ayment of costs only, is entitled to an order 
 attaching debts due or accruing due to the per- 
 son to pay. Any doubt existing upon the Kiig- 
 lisli cases and the (). .1. Act Uules, is cleared up 
 bv It. S. (). (I.H77). c. tit), s. 72. y.'< li-rim, a .SoU- 
 r':i„r. 12 I'. I{. 297. — IJalton, Mnsln: 
 
 'I'lie solicitor of a judgment debtur who had 
 alisconded tiansl'erred ])r(i|ieily nl' the jiidgmeiit 
 debtor to aiiurcliaser under a power of attiu-ne\ , 
 and received the Ldiisidcration money S4,(K(0 : — 
 Held, that the solicitor was a iierson to whom a 
 transfer of the debtor's ))ro|icrty and ell'ccts tn 
 the extent of ••s4. 0(1(1 had been made, for the 
 possession of that sum had been transferred to 
 iiiiii by the (h^btor, and the solicitor was liable 
 to examination under 4!) Vict. c. lii. s. 12 (Out.). 
 I'er .Xrmour. .1.— The solicitor was also an 
 
 The plaintiff", knowing that the 
 were a tirni of solicitors, advanced to one A. i ■ i ■ i 
 
 money up(m a joint note signed by him and by , employee of the judgment debtor within the 
 cue of the defendants in tiic lirm's name, with- nieaningof the .section, '.'oini/js v. Ilaii,'', 12 I', 
 out the knowledge or e(mseiit of his partner. H. ;(:!(). -Dalton, .l/-c'«/-. -Rose. -(,). 15. 1). 
 No us.ige or general mutual authority to sign xhe rule that the solicitor for a partv will not 
 notes in the name of the hrin was |)roved, and j^^, ,,^.,, ,.,t,,,i by the eourt as a bondsman forsucli 
 it was admitted that the pli.intiff had no know- j ^^. j^ ^^■^^^ ;„ ,-,„.g,, ■y\^^ ^.^^\^; y,..^^ appliul to 
 ledge of the transactions relied upon to shew [i^j, ■^,.^^^, „f t|,p committee f>f the person and 
 such authority. A vordiet wasgiven for defen- 1 ^^^j^j.^,, „f .^ \^^^^.^{i^ giving a bond f(U' the due 
 dantsin theCJounty ('oiirt, and a rule ni.sitosctj p^f,„,,i,.^,n,,, „f j,,,,. ii„tics as .such committee 
 it aside refused :— Held, that the plaintiff could I \^^^^^ ,,|iv.ring her two solicitors as sureties. It, 
 not recover against both defendants, but that ^_,^-;^_^^^^^j j.j'J) ];. ;{,-,<i.^ll(,bert.son. 
 the defendant who signed the iiott- was liabl 
 Wilwn V. /ti-oirii, (i A. 1!. 411. 
 
 Seinble, that in this Trovince the business 
 which is called '•scrivener's biisincs.-. '' is part 
 of the ordinary business of a solicitor. Thomp- 
 w* V. lli)hiiison, 1.') U. H. (;()2.— (i». H. D. 
 
 Actions brought in the name of a road ctmi- 
 Liability of solicitor for slander of title. iScci,,o,,v lu'ainst the iiresciit plaintiffs were dis- 
 
 . • l" I .■II 1 #. . I I t1^ ..'•'.''... , ' .1 1 .l,..t tl.n .,«•>,, 
 
 Deposit of client's money by solicitor to his 
 own credit. Liability of bank. See /iailn/ v. 
 JellcH, A. H. 187, p. l."?4. 
 
 (httnrio Iii(l,it</fiol Iakiii ami Ihi'isI,ik „/ Co 
 IAi„h:y, 4 {.). I!. 47.'^; 3 <>. H. 0«, p. iS'-T). 
 
 ■d with costs oil the ground that the com- 
 
 liauy had never been incorporated according to 
 
 Knowledge of s.dieit.u-^how far binding on | 1=*^; J'i^' •'''''''"^'^Ir^twT'mnvuw 't'fuS'of 
 client. .See li,al K.lat. I„,;sl„„„t Co. v. MH- \ f">"' <>* the •^^".■•por,.tors "'\^ "'' y-,* '„^^,;;i 
 ,opolilan nnihlin„S,„-Ul„. SO. 15. 47G, p. 12<M) :, them composing the hrm of solicto.s who had 
 
 ,-opolilan UntUliiiii !^onilij. .^U. i\. 4(0, ]». iziwi ; , ••"^•" ".•"■i '^. „,,*:,,„» nn lidiilf of the 
 
 iLm V. S„r,'l, 7 A. R. 72.^. p. SO.l. Joh„s,on , conducted the *" '"^; '^f/ Xh"v ie' p Lslv 
 .. / ;,. < ., (lit ^> .)-,(» „ I'jmi gupiiosed company, and all toui na\ingcxpri.»siy 
 
 N. JuhmloH, it O. K. 2..'.», p. 1.109. autlioii/ed the bringing of the former actions, 
 
Sf), 
 rt 
 
 m 
 
 i! it 
 
 Ml-'. 
 
 
 1M8 
 
 SPEGIFIO PERFORMANCE. 
 
 1964 
 
 and prolnible cause in liringing the former I 
 aetious, the present actions were not maintain- 1 
 able against tlie dcfciulants as corporators or as > 
 solicitors bringing actions on behalf of the 
 plaintiffs who had no legal existence. FlatI v. 
 WaddeU—Toiniseiid v. Wad<Ml, 18 O. IJ. 539.— 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 In expropriation eases tlie coats aliould be 
 taxed liberally in favour of the proprietor ; but 
 when in such eases the statute mentions "costs" 
 only and not " full costs," costs as between soli- 
 citor and client, are not intended, lie. Broiixon 
 and CiDiada Atlantic li. W. Co., 13 P. R. 440.— 
 Hoyd. 
 
 Where a railway cnmjiany in expropriating 
 land under the Dominion R. W. Act agreed to 
 pay to the landowners " all costs incidental to 
 the arbitration,'" and to fix tlie compensation to 
 be paid: — Held, that the words did not extend 
 to costs lietween solicitor and client nor to costs 
 preliminary to arbitration. Ih. 
 
 SPECIAL BAIL. 
 
 .SVfi Bail. 
 
 SPECIAL EXAMINER. 
 
 The powers of the special examiner under 0, 
 O. Chy. 147 (Cim. Rule 407), as to directing the 
 prof'.uction of documents, extend to examina- 
 ti JDS, under Rule 285, O. J. Act (Con. Rule 566). 
 Orpea v. AV/r, 1 1 P. R. 128.— Boyd. 
 
 SPECIAL CASE. 
 
 In Gontrovkutki) Elkctios Trials— .S'ce Par- 
 
 LIA.MKNTARV ELECTIONS. 
 
 Under the O. .T. Act, section 28, sub-section 
 *1, a judge sitting elsewhere than in a Divisional 
 t'ciurt, istodeciile all questions properly coming 
 before him, ami is not to reserve any ease, or 
 any point in a case, for the consideration of the 
 Divisional Court. On the trial of an action, the 
 |)lcadings were admitted to state the facts, and 
 wliat was culled "a special case on the plead- 
 ings," was reserved for tlie opinion of the judges 
 of this court. On the case condng before the 
 < 'omnion Pleas Divisional (lourt it was held that 
 tiie special case ns such could not be enlcrtaincd ; 
 i)Ut the application was diivcted to lie turned into 
 11 motion for judgment under Rule ',i'l'\ (Con. Rule 
 757) or on tlie pleadings and admissions under 
 Rules 315 (Con. Itule 748) and 321 (Con. Rule 
 7.M). Till v. Till, 15 0. R. 133.— C. P. I). 
 
 Held, per Armour, C. J., that, except by 
 consent, aflidavits cannot bo received to alter 
 or modify a special case stated by consent ; 
 the only relief open to a party complaining tliat 
 a case has been misstated, is to apply to amend 
 or vacate it ; and ipLcre, whether it could be 
 amended after judgriient. Cmmnean v. City of 
 London Fire Inn. Co., 15 O. R. 329. 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
 
 I. Oknekallv, 1964. 
 
 II. Contracts kok Sale of or Relatini: 
 TO La Nil. 
 
 1. .S'a/es I'll A(ifii/x, 19()4. 
 
 2. Statute, of Fmwla, 1965. 
 
 3. Whi'H Titlr in Imperfect, 1900. 
 
 4. iVhen Contract in Conditional, 1967. 
 
 5. Al/-.t:ncr of Common Intention, ij08. 
 
 6. Fraufl or M inrcprcsentat ion, 1908. 
 
 7. Inadequate Consideration, 1969. 
 
 8. Dtlay in Carryimj out Contract, 196!». 
 
 9. Compennation or Abatement of tht 
 
 Pnrrhn.ie Monoj, 1970. 
 
 10. Pleading and Practice. 
 
 (a) Partien, 1970. 
 
 (b) Demurrer, 1971. 
 
 (c) Contn, 1971. 
 
 (d) Other Canen, 1972. 
 
 11. liejirence as to Damagen, 1972. 
 
 12. Other Canes, 1972. 
 
 III. Acts OF Parliament, 1974. 
 
 IV. Awards, 1974. 
 
 V. A<ii!F.emknts to Hih^ueath I'ropkrty, 
 1974. 
 
 VI. Other Ackeements, 1975. 
 
 1. OESEriAI.LY. 
 
 The court must see its way clearly before de- 
 creeing sjiccilic performance and it must be satis- 
 fied of the integrity and j^ood faitii of the parties 
 seeking its special interference. Where incapa- 
 city and inade(|uacy go hand in hand, the court 
 may refuse to enforce a contract, altiiough the 
 purchaser was guilty of no gi'oater fault than 
 making a hard and unconscientious bargain. 
 I Ouugh V. Jknch, O. R. 099. —Chy. 1). 
 
 I Per Strong, J. — According to the principles 
 ' upon which a court of equity acts in enforcing 
 such contracts and agreements as are properly 
 the subject of its jurisdiction, it will always ex- 
 ecute the whole or such parts of the agreement 
 as remain executory ; but if the parties have he- 
 fore action carried out any of the terms of the 
 contract such executed portions will not bo dis- 
 turbed. Peck V. Pou;ll, 1 1 S. C. R. 494. 
 
 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 See Solicitor. 
 
 SPECIAL ENDORSEMENT. 
 
 Ox Writs— .S'ee PRACTict:. 
 
 II. Contracts 
 
 FOR Sale of 
 Land. 
 
 OR Relatino to 
 
 1. Salen hy A gent n. 
 
 See Ryan v. Simt, 7 O. R. 266, p. 1907 ; Walnu- 
 ley V. Griffith, 10 A. R. 327, p. 1969 ; McCarthy 
 V. Cooper, 12 A. It. 284, p. 1876. 
 
1964 
 
 JOINER. 
 
 1 examiner under (i. 
 , as to directing the 
 extend to cxamina- 
 Act (Con. Rule 566). 
 —Boyd. 
 
 >RMANCE. 
 
 LK OK OK ReLATINi! 
 
 9(>4. 
 
 M)()5. 
 )er/ed, 1900. 
 Conditional, 1967. 
 oil Intention, ii»68. 
 
 atntation, I9()8. 
 kmliiin, 1969. 
 y out Contract, I96!(. 
 
 Ahalcmenl of the. 
 1970. 
 net ice. 
 
 »71. 
 
 1972. 
 
 hnnagci, 1972. 
 
 J. 
 
 ;t, 1974. 
 
 KyuKATii Property, 
 S 197.-). 
 
 I.LY. 
 
 ly ule.irly before dc- 
 ! and it must be aatis- 
 d faitli of tiie parties 
 loe. Wliero incapa- 
 id in liand, the cinut 
 ritraot, althougli the 
 [> greater fault than 
 iiiieieutiouH bargain. 
 K-Ciiy. I). 
 
 iig to tiie principles 
 ity acta in enforeing 
 unts as are properly 
 in, it will alw.ays ex- 
 ts of the agreement 
 tlio parties have l)e- 
 of the terms of the 
 ions will not be disi- 
 I S. ('. R. 494. 
 
 I)F "B RelATINO to 
 
 {(jenln. 
 
 J66,p. 1967; WalmA- 
 p. 1969; McCarthy 
 1876. 
 
 
 1965 
 
 SPECIFIC PERPORMANOE. 
 
 196S 
 
 2. Statute, of FnnoU 
 
 I 
 
 
 Although the 4tii section of thn Sf^initc of 
 Frauds requires any agrecnitfut for the puivliasu 
 or sale of land to lie evidenced by a niitu m- 
 inunmrandum thereof to be signed by the iKiitv 
 sought to be charged, yet where !,\nils wcri' solil 
 l)y a trading corporation, umler a pmver of .sale 
 contained in a niortgiige, ami the |niiihaser .it 
 suuli sale signed an agreement to piinhase, and 
 afterwards filed a bill seeking .specilic perfurni- 
 nnco with compensation for the hi-s or" eroii.s 
 which were ailveiliscd with the hunl. lu;t ac- 
 tually belonged to third parties, ami the rlefen- 
 dants, (the corporation), answered the bill ad 
 nutting the fiiet ot their being mortt;agees. ami 
 jiroeeeded with sundry .statements sneh as. 
 "when the ])lainti(l' bid fur ami was deelai-,d 
 the purchaser of the lamls * * the sum bid 
 by the plaintilV w.iH a low priio * * that the 
 plaintiff was not in fact the rial pnnlia^er of the 
 lands at the .said sale * * that the (•onip.inv 
 was not bound to put liic ])1 aintill' in possessinn, 
 l)ut never ilid any act to jirevent In r taking 
 iwssession. and * ' that possession «:is taken 
 by the plaint ill', ' and the answer clainnil no 
 benelit fromt! e statute, and did not deny hiv- 
 ing made the e<in tract ; neitlu.rdid it laise anv 
 objection to the want of the corporate seal : - 
 Held, that this suHiciently admitted tiie agi-ee- 
 ment to si 11 and no proti.'ction of tlie statute 
 having been claimed, tliat the plaint ill' was en- 
 titled to a dccr'ee, witii compensation tor- rhe hiss 
 of the crops, with costs. Chun r v. Xuilh ,,f 
 Scotland Canndian .\/or''in;/': Co., 'J7('liy. oOS. — 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 The dcfemlant in 1S7I wrote to his snn ujio 
 had left home to work fnr himsidt, that if he 
 would r-eturri he wmild give him lifty acres of his 
 farm and a share u( tlie rattle ,iml sheep w hen 
 the jilainlillgnt married, but if lie slavi'l away 
 he would saeriliee his own and his father's in- 
 terests. Upon reel i|it ol' the letter the plaintiH' 
 returned and r'emained iirr the fairn wnikiiig it 
 with his father, except at cer-tairr tinres wliiri lie 
 werrt to work for wau'es for himself. It «ai 
 proved that the father' had pointed orrt the 
 fifty acres which he intended to give Iris .son, and 
 tire sorr I'Utereil and er(i;ted a horr^e ther'eorr 
 with his father's approval, and oeeripied it with 
 his farrrily, he hiving- married itr IST'I: -Held, 
 that the (ilairrtiir was entitled to specilic pel'- 
 forirrance of this .ni.'i'eenrerrt. Cur^mi \ . C'lrinu, 
 
 :u). i:., 4.'{!t. V. r. d. 
 
 A., whose wife owned a (Certain freehold 
 property on St. (leorgc str'cet, wi-o'.e to I?., 
 the owner of a certairr leasehold pnipirty on 
 King street. « ith r'efcr'errcc to the said propi r'- 
 ties, as follows, " If you will assume my nimt- 
 gage, arrd piy me in cash, l?."!,?!'**, I will as-iirrne 
 your morti^age nf irS.'i.OOO orr the ha>eh'ild," and 
 15. replied, " N'our uller of this elate, for' the ex- 
 clrarrge of irry pro]ierty orr King street fur yoirr 
 jircipcrty orr St. (ieorgc str'cet, I will accept on 
 yorrr' terms :" Held, atHr'miiig the jmlmrient of 
 Feigrrsorr, .1., '2 ( ). It. (i(l9, rrot a strtlicient nrerrro- 
 rnrrdtrrrr of lire contract to satisfy the Statute of 
 Frauds, .\rrrrour . ■!., doubting :- Held, also, irr 
 utr acti<irr for specilic pei'forrrrarrce of the above 
 contract by H., correspondence betweerr the so- 
 licitors of the part ics of date subseiiuent to the 
 date of the above letters, as also the reijuisitiorrs 
 respectirrg titles which passed betweerr the soli- 
 
 /■rtors, wer-einailrnis>il)leiueviderrce: Held firr 
 t her', that t lie fact that A. 's wife had simnd a'enn- 
 veyance of tireland irr i|uestiou to I!., wlii.h con- 
 veyance had never b, en delivered, arrd did rrot, 
 ly r'ccrtal or otherwise, set forth tlrccnutra-t r'c- 
 Ircd on, could rrot assist IS. in the actiorr tor 
 specilrc p.i'f(ir'niari,e. MrC/,,,,,, V. VrC-wkLii 
 
 :\o. n. m;. t), n, d. 
 
 ; Arr olFcr to purchase larrd was writterr and 
 signed by the defendant irr an olhu' lm..k k.'pt by 
 a lu'in iif land au'dits wlm wer'eantlior'ized livthc 
 1-iIaiiitill'toscU tlie land, and was verbally ac- 
 cepted by the a-ents. The offer was mit ad- 
 dressed to arry f rie, but the hook w.'is niirke.l on 
 the back with tli.' initi ds of the agents. Pre- 
 vious t.i tiris oll'.-r letters hail been writt.'ii lie- 
 twciu the defendant and the .'rgeirl.s, in which 
 .'in oiler at a lower' (.lie was rnaile .'irrd r'clrrsfd for 
 
 , the same laud. After the .second oiler was ac- 
 cepted, the difeiiil irit's solicitor's curn spduded 
 M itir tlie .'li^crits of the plaintilf abniit the title, 
 referring irr tlnir lir-t letter' i,. the l.uid which 
 
 I tire defiirdaiit had piirchaseil fnini I lie a..:eirts : — 
 Held, that the initials on the book mielit lie r'cail 
 into the olh-r to supply the rraiiie of the veu.li.r, 
 and that these, with the correspiirrdeuce, con- 
 stituted a sulli.-ieiit: agreement witljirr the 
 
 j Statute of Frauils to bind the defendant. A'-u- 
 
 \iinl,iy. OI,/lr,„i, l.-)tj. n.VMl l). li. I). 
 
 i Wlier-e arr olier-, .-igned by the defendant, to 
 
 : exchange a stock of good.s for land did not in 
 any way designate the jier'soir to wlioiii it Wits 
 supposed to he riracle or for' whom it was irr- 
 teii led, and siich jierson could iret be ascer- 
 
 , tairied witlioiit extrirrsic (laro! evidcrrce aiMirrg 
 to tlie iriemoranduiir : — Held, rrot to be an agr'ce 
 
 I ruent irr wr-ifing withiir the statirte so as to en- 
 title the phiintiil' to specilic peiforniaiice : — 
 lleM, abo, tliat an acceptanee of tile oMer- be- 
 rieatlr the deferrdaut's signatur'e. signed by the 
 lil-iiiitilf's nssiLrnor diil rrot cure the defect. 
 II'A/'. V. Toiiialii. 10 (). I!, ."ii:!. - fliv. 1). .Sec 
 
 ; Mi-liiln.^l, V. Mnjiii'l'ui, IS .\. K. •IT,'. 
 
 Sec Uidhra:, v. .lAooii. 'J.S ( 'Irv. WV.K p. l!>7."i ; 
 ' Citrri'llw U'i.iifiiiL.. ID. R. |.-i(r,"i). ll:i'_' ; Co-i^.s 
 I V. Cmlc.-i, 141). II i:i,-), p. lOT.'l. ' 
 
 .1 117,. ,/ 7':ili- />■ fiiiixrt'et. 
 
 In a suit at the in.starrce of a verrdur of land 
 for the speoitro per foriuarn.'e of arr agr'cement to 
 sell, the ilefeuce r'aised was, that the land w.'is 
 a'.i'eed to be conveyed free fr'orn ineuinbrani'es, 
 but the same wis sirlijeet to the dower of one .M. 
 arrd to a rirortuage, ami tlrer'cfor'i! th'it a giod 
 title could rrot he sirewrr. It w.is salisfa('to;ily 
 sirewrr that the dower' had been stillieiently 
 barr'ed. and tlie I'l port of the rrraster stated that 
 the |irice agi'ced to be |iaid for the Imil was 
 •?:t,.-|Oit ; that ?1.S0<) was due on the riifirt^aue, 
 and that the piirehiscr had paid only slot) on 
 accenint of his purchase, "and tliat the noii 
 coiiipU-ti.in of the contract (was) attrihirtahlc to 
 tlie desire of tile pni'i'haser to recede fr'orrr the 
 contract." The defendant, dowrr to the bririg- 
 irrg of the decree irrto the nraster's otliee, had 
 not dcuiarrded any ab>tract or rrradi; any objec- 
 tiorr to the title : the corrrt, on fuither diree- 
 tiorrs. ruiide a dci'reo orderirrg dcfeud.mt to 
 Kpeeilically carry out the agr'eerncrrt, ami pay to 
 tire |)laiiitilf the geireral costs of the cause. 
 Cmlfiui V. Sl,'i,li.iii, 27 Chy. 4:U. Spr'agge. 
 
1967 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
 
 1968 
 
 Held, in an action for specific perfornianco, | 
 tiiat slicwing title is the manifestation cm the 
 abstract nf all matters essential to a, good title, j 
 nnil thit as the defendant had demandeil no 
 ahatract heforo action, he conld not comjilain 
 that title was first shewn thereafter, and he was 
 ordered to pay tlie costs thereof. IJiidges r. 
 Longman, 24 Heav. "27, cited and followed. 
 Lomliin and Cdiindinii Loitn and Aiftney Co. v. 
 Omham, 12 P. R. G57.— l%d. 
 
 To an action for s)iecific performance of an 
 agrcenirnt for the exchange of lan<ls the a:;r<e- 
 nient was admitted, the only defence heing 
 fraud and a re)>udiation tlicrefoi'. A month 
 prior to thi' trial, the difcndaiit ascertained that 
 the plaintitrs wifi^ ami nut tiie |ilaiiitill'. wastlir 
 ownei- of the land, ami that she had cxicutid a 
 deed thereof to lie delivered to the defendant. 
 Ko claim for re|in<li;ition was made on the 
 groimd of vant of title. At tlie tiial the ih • 
 fendant was allowed to amend liy setting np 
 tliat neither at the time of the agreement nor 
 at the commencement of the action was the 
 plaintiir the owner of tin; land, without any 
 aveinient th.it on the di-scovery thereof the 
 defiii'lant repuilialed on such ground ; Held, 
 that the amended defence constituted no answer 
 to the ai'tion, and that the defendant not having 
 repiidiateil when he ascertained the |)Iaintil! 
 had no title, it was siillicient if the plaintill 
 m.ide title on the reference therefor. /Vnv/iv 
 V. ir/7/.s ]!» O. I!. 303.- ('. I'. 1)., IS A. C. -Jlli. 
 
 Sec Iin/ifi!iil naiik of' Cdiiiidii v. Mdralh , 11 
 O. R. KiT. ]). HIT-': He noiiMituI niid WiuinrL. 
 12 0. R. 4SSp. 1887; Unncnw I'virs, 12 P. I;. 
 30(5, p. 1S8G. 
 
 4. When Contract is Condit'wnal. 
 
 C, R. S., being the owner of certain leasehold 
 property, wrote V,. K. K., a lan<l a^ent, a letter 
 in these wonls : "Please call on .1. .1. R. Me 
 kee])3 a small shop * ' He resiiles in my 
 honsc on P. stre-et, and haslieen w.mting to pur- 
 chase it for some linu'. 'I'ell him if he gives me 
 S2.'l."> cash at once 1 wdl send the papers to you 
 for him, and he e in )),iy over the money to you. 
 Please write me by retuiii mail." On the follow- 
 ing day !•'.. v.. K. wrot(> .1. .1. I!, as follows : 
 '• .Mj'. S. of .Me.iford wishes me to a.iy that if yon 
 desire to pureh.ise some ])roperty he owns on P. 
 street, that if yon give him ^^■_'.■^.") cash he will 
 semi tile dei'ds tome and deli vi'r them to you. 
 Yoiirearly r<|tly will very much oblige.'' .About 
 a inontli after an acceptance was endorsed on the 
 latter letter in these words : "! iiereliy accept 
 the above on tln^ nmlerstanding that I ]iay no 
 c.\|ienst's,'" and it was signed by .1. .1. R. I'pon 
 an action for speeilic iieiform.mce bj' ,7. .1. R. 
 against (J. R. .S. it was : -Held, that the letter 
 from ('. R. S. did not contain authority to K. M. 
 K. toentei into a contraet foi' the side of the pro- 
 perty : llehl, also, that even if there had been 
 no (juestion as to the authmity of \'\, K. K., the 
 inseitioiiof the words "on the understanding 
 that I pay no (expenses " in the acce])tanee pre- 
 vented it from being considered an aece|)tance 
 of the oiler said to lie contained in the letter of 
 K. v.. K. Ilijaii V. S'uiii,~i O. R. 2(10. — Ferguson. 
 
 On the 2()th .lannary, 1882, McI. wrote to H. 
 fls follows : " A. McI. agrees to take §3r>,(X(0 for 
 
 property known as McM. block. Terms — one- 
 third cash, b.dance in one year at eiglit per cent, 
 per annum. Open until Saturday, 28th, noon." 
 ()n the same day H. aeceijted this oiler in the 
 following terms: "I lieg to accept your oiler 
 made this morning. I will accept the property 
 known as McM. Idock, being the property on M. 
 street, for .'*35,O()0, payable one-third cash on 
 completion of title, and balance in one ye.ir at 
 eight per cent. You will please have papers and 
 abstract submitted by your solicitor to \. V. \\., 
 Ks(|., 22 1) block, as soon as possible, that 1 may 
 get conveyiince and give mortgage." On a liill 
 for s))ecilic performance the Coiiit of (Queen's 
 lleiicli (.Man. ) ilecreed that II. w.is entitled to 
 have the aiii cement sjieeilic illy |Hrforined : — 
 llehl, liitchie, (.'. J., and l'"ouniiei', .!., dissent- 
 ing, that there was no bindiiiu' nncvuiditional 
 aeeejitanrc of the olfer of sale, and therefore no 
 eonipleted contract of sale lielsveen the parties. 
 Mrlnli/n V. Hou<l. !» .S. C. R. ono. 
 
 ."<ee Cnniiriin v. Wf/Ziiniltin, (Iri'ii and liruct 
 n. II'. Co., 2,S Chy. .S27, ]>. 17.''2. 
 
 5. Alisiiice. of Coninion hifiulion. 
 
 11. wrote to O., " I have coii.Niilci'ed the mat- 
 ter of our convei'^atioii, and olier yon .':?S00 for 
 the property. ■■ O. leplied : "1 have your favour 
 oli'eiinu: 'iSW for the property (describing it). [ 
 have eoiieluded to accept your oli'cr.'' 'i'he evi- 
 dence shewed that at the prior eoincisation re- 
 feireilto in It.'s letter. II. was .seeking to buy 
 the property in i|Uestion on teiins of live or 
 sevtn years' credit; — Held, that as ihcaciept- 
 aiieeby (). was as of a e.ish oiler, while K. did not 
 intend to make any sucli oiler, the eontraet could 
 not lie specilieally eiifoieed, tile jiarties iHU'eriiig 
 in their iinder.standiiig of it. OmiiiiDn Sii-iiriti'-i 
 r,,. V. irirh<i,-d.<nii,-{). I!. ISJ.- P.oyd. Afiirmed 
 by the (.'ourt of Alipeal. /'<. IS;">. 
 
 (i. Fraud nr Miirc/irffrntatinn. 
 
 The |il lintill' negotiated with the defendants 
 I liillith for the |inrcliase ot' the lands in (|ues- 
 tioii, and at (liU'ereiit times obtained fidin tliciii 
 vM'itiiigs Liiviiig him the option to pniehasc for 
 .■^2ll,<»tl(). Defenilants (iiillilh .set up that these 
 negotiations were had with the plaintill, as their 
 .igeiit, with a view of elleetiiiL; through him a 
 sal" to the Independent Order ot Odd I'Vllows 
 • it the same or a higher jirice to the defendants 
 Oritlith. .After these o|itioiis had been given to 
 the plaintill', In; on the forenoon of the 17th 
 I'ebieaiy. I,S82, agreed to sell to the Odd Fellows 
 for. •?'.'."), 000, and afterwards on the s.ime day he 
 Went to ihe dcfendautsi iiillith aiidoll'ered to pur- 
 eh.ise fiU'.^lO.oMOinlieu of the .•:!'JO,OOII previously 
 named, lie was a<ked by the (iiilliths whether 
 the saleto thet >(ld Fellows w.is oil', tow Inch here- 
 plied tli.it it w.is. and in the same eouversatioii 
 inlormed the (Jrifliths that he could not sell the 
 projc! tv for -S-'O.OOO, as a reason w liv he should 
 get it lor .SIK.oOO, for if sold to another, he. the 
 pl.iintill', Would be eiitithd to a commission of 
 S^oOO : and the (irilliths thei'cupon agreed to sell 
 to ]>laintitl' for ?l!l,")()0. Siib.seipiently on the 
 saini! day plaintill' entered into a contract in 
 writing to sell to the Odd Fellows for §25,000: — 
 Held, that without reference to the (juestion of 
 agency to sell, the evidence showud that a sale 
 
1968 
 
 k. Terms — oiie- 
 it eight per cent, 
 lay, UStli, noon." 
 tliis oU'lt in tlie 
 coept your oU'er 
 ;f j)t tlie property 
 e property on M. 
 le-tliird cash ou 
 ue ill one ye;ir at 
 
 lave ])aper8aii(l 
 ;it<irto X. V. 11., 
 ;silile, tliat 1 may 
 ,Mgt'."' On a i)ill 
 'oil it of (Queen's 
 
 was entitled to 
 ly piTfoiiiied : — 
 rider, .1., disseiit- 
 ilju' illieiiiwlitioiial 
 and therefore no 
 uei'ii the parties. 
 
 liiltulion. 
 
 sidercd tlie niat- 
 nli'er you .-JSOO for 
 
 hiive ymir favour 
 (d('.seril)iiif.' it). I 
 
 oiler." The evi- 
 r eonveisiitiiiii re- 
 aH seekiiij,' to hiiy 
 
 terms of live or 
 lilt as the at'( ept- 
 while K. did nut 
 the contrai't ('oiild 
 111' imrties dilVcriiij; 
 Oiiiiiiiiiii Smirlliii 
 - I'xivd. .Atliniied 
 
 US-).' 
 
 ftiiitittlnil. 
 
 th the defeiiihints 
 he lands in i|ues- 
 litaineil from them 
 m to piiiehase for 
 
 set lip that these 
 e jiluiiitill', a.s their 
 iiu thrniiali liiiii a 
 er of Odd KelloWS 
 to the defendants 
 
 had lieeii j,'iveii to 
 iiMOii of the ITtli 
 to the Odd Fellows 
 m the same day he 
 I aiidoU'ered topur- 
 S'JO,(l(M>pivviuu,sly 
 
 ■ (irilliths whether 
 ioir, towhieh here- 
 same eonver.sation 
 
 ■ could not sell the 
 son why he should 
 to another, he, the 
 o .1 eoininissi<in of 
 upon agreed to sell 
 hseipiently on the 
 into ft contract in 
 lows for Sl'2r),000:- 
 
 to the ipiestion of 
 hewed that a sale 
 
 1969 
 
 SPEOIPIO PERPORMANOE. 
 
 1070 
 
 to the Odd Fellows was in coiiteniplatioii of hotli 
 parties and was the foundation of the traiisaiv ; 
 tion, and (reversing the judgment of I'roiidfuot, ' 
 ,1.), that the misrepresent itioii of the jilaintifT 
 iu regard to the sale to the Odd Fellows, was 
 such as disentitled him to a decree for specilic 
 performance. Burton, .1. A., dissenlionte. 
 Widmxhy v. ariXTi'h, 10 .\. R. 'A-11. 
 
 See Stitmmers v. O'Dniiolwe, -S Cliv. '2i)7 ; 8 
 A. H. H>1 ; IIS. ('. R. 3,-)S, p. 11170 ;" (/.,»,//, v. 
 Jleitch, O. R. C99, infra. 
 
 ('. ), that looking at the nature of the property, 
 the siilijeet of the coutr.ict, time would, without 
 any stipulation in resjieet thereof, he regarded as 
 essential ; and it was intemlod liy the parties 
 that it should lie so, and understood hy them 
 tint it was so; aiiil tlu' siihsiipient corrcspoii- 
 ilence shewed it to have lieeii expressly made so, 
 and tlieiefoie, til it the |)laiiitiirs were not enti- 
 tled to a sp'cilii- (lerformanee 'f the contract. 
 CroKsn, /(I. V. (;i>iin, !l A. 11. '-MH. 
 
 Sei 
 472. 
 
 Mr.lrllun-v. The (Jii'-rii, 10 O. It. 191, p. 
 
 7. limdcqviile ('oii-iiilirnlinii. 
 
 The plaintiff, an old woman of the ageof eiglity- 
 gix, sued for rescission of a contract for the sale 
 of land, and the defendant hy way of cross-relief 
 nskeil for specific performance. The eviileme 
 shewed that at the time of contract tlier(! was 
 incipiality hetween the parties in that the plain- 
 tiff was not so well aide to protect her own in- 
 terests, as was the defendant to ])rotect his ; 
 that she had ca|)riciously and iinprovidently re- 
 jected the advice of her solicitor, who tried to 
 persuade her to accept an otVer n ore advauta-ie- 
 ous: that she was illiterate, and her capacity 
 {wi'nk at liest) was atVected hy her extreme aue, 
 hy her distress from want of money, and hy 
 drink ; that the price ofl'ereil liy the defendant 
 wasclearly inadeipiate: tliat tlioui^rl, it. lid not ap- 
 pear that the defendant was Linilty of fraud, yet 
 that prohahly the plaint ill' did not clearly coni- 
 piehend the terms of the hargain :--lleld. that 
 under these circumstances, thouLdi no snili'jieut 
 reason existed for interfering with the decision 
 of the judge, hidow, in dismissing the plaintiff's 
 liill, s|)ecilic performance of the agreement sliould 
 not have hc'cn decreed : — Held, also, that iiias- 
 uiiich as all the evideiii'e that could throw lii;hl 
 upon the CISC, had, admittedly. Iren given, the 
 fact that the issue of iinpr. ivideiice w.is not 
 vaiseil on the |)leadings was immateiial. Iu such 
 a CISC it is a mere matter of form to .ad ipt the 
 iileidings to the matters iiroved. (Imi jh v. 
 /.V»./i, (iO. K. 099. -Chy. D. 
 
 8. Drliiij hi (^irri/iiiif o)if Coiilni'-I. 
 
 Tlu^ tlefendant agreeil to sidl to the plaintiffs 
 certain tiinher limits for .S'-'o.<Hlfl, stipulating 
 that they sliould have a <rert liii n lined time to 
 iiisjiect the property and arrange for )) lyineiit of 
 the price. Suliseipicutly. ami on the •JOtli of 
 August, the plaiiitiU's wrote excusing tlieiiiselvcs 
 from not having carried ont the pnvcliase and 
 asking fm- an extension of time for their acta |it- 
 ing or refusing "your limits, one or two wiicks 
 if possilile." In answer. 0. sugt;ested that it 
 was not necessary to make any exteiisiim of time 
 for the rtfceptanee of the oiler hy the plaiiitill's. 
 and if they wrote statiiiu' they were satislied 
 with the timber, the ipiality and the price, and 
 that they only wished the extension of time to 
 mike their financial arrangements, adding, "and 
 if you do this you can coiisiiler this letter an- 
 tlinrity for the additional time." The plaintiffs 
 wro.o accordingly, and the further time asked 
 for expired on the 10th of Septemher, hut they 
 failed fully to complete the iiurchasi- at the time 
 named, and (! sold to the other defendant Mil- 
 ler :— Held (affirming the judgment of IJoyd, 
 
 124 
 
 9. Compmsalioii oy Ahdiivn-ul of Ike Puirlvtie 
 MdlD'l/. 
 
 Altliough a vendor is aUowed great latitude in 
 the stateiiients or e\agL;er,ations he may make as 
 to the 1,'ciieral ipialities .and capaliilitii's of land 
 he is aliout to oll'er for .sale, still he will not he 
 |ieiiiiilteil to make direct misstatements and 
 niisre]ireseiitations as to matters of fact whiidi 
 would naturally have the eircct of inducing par- 
 ties resident at a ilistaiH'c to hid for the propertv. 
 Therefore, where an ailvertisement of pro[)eity 
 ahoiit to lie sold desci ilpcd it as heing "a farm 
 of eii.'lity-one and a ipi irter acres, twenty acres 
 cleared and fenced," on the faith of wdiich the 
 )ilaiiitiir ]nireli ised, when in fact there was not 
 any cle iriiiir or feiiciu,' inidc upon the premises, 
 the court (111 ike, V.C), in proiionueing a ih^cnie 
 for specilic perform Ilea; at the iiistaina^ of the 
 purchaser, directed a reference to the master to 
 make an allowance in res|)ei't of the matters 
 misrepresented, and ordered the vendor to pay 
 the costs of the suit. Sin iii:il' r.-< v. O' I toimlioc, 
 •IS Chv. -W, \ se.^ S. ('. 8 A. K. If.l ; US. ( '. 
 1!. .T.S. 
 
 An owner of real estate who alone enters into 
 
 an aLji nient to s dl will he reiiiiiieil to procure 
 
 a liar of his wile's dower or ahite the purchase 
 money in the event of her refusal. See Van 
 N'coaiian /■. Ilcuipre, ."i Cliy. .")!l'.l. I.iiinihmil v. 
 Sla'.'i':,'-' t'hy. ;»S7. — I'rimdfoot. 
 
 The (ilaintiff' airreed in writing; to sell to the 
 defendant .•c'tain liiids for s:{..-)(l(), of which 
 the ilcfeiidaiit should pay -S'tlO on the date of 
 thu aiireeiiiciit, to he icpreseated. however, hy 
 two horses and two organs wliicli he was to deli- 
 ver to the plaintiff. 'I'hc defeiidaiit. however, 
 sold the ori.' insaiid ])aited with oneof the horses. 
 On t he plaiuti If siihsiM[uentlyhriii:.'ing this action 
 for spc'ili" p'rfoiiinnee. the court ordi-reil the 
 di'fimdant to p -v S-i'lit in lieu of the horses ami 
 orgms. Jiiii's V. Dnl,. KiO. It. 717. Chy. D. 
 
 See Clfitrcr v. Xnr/li iii' Srntlriiitl Caiindtdii 
 Vnvhiivi,. Co., •11 Cliy. .-)()S. )). 19(m; Carroll \: 
 ir;/.V»ms 1 O. It. loO. p. 113-2: Cort^'fV. Coa/rs 
 14 O. I!. 19."), p. 197.'). 
 
 10. Plrwliifj (111(1, rrnclice. 
 (a) I'drlic. 
 When his wife joins with the owner of real 
 estate ill the contract of sale, and the )mrehiiser 
 institutes proceedincs to compel specilic perform - 
 aiice thereof, the wife must he joined as a party 
 defemlant ; ami the fact that the hill alleges that 
 her only interest is tliat of an inchoat.! dowre.ss 
 forms no ground for dispensing with her being 
 
1971 
 
 SPEOIFIO PEBFOBMANOE- 
 
 1972 
 
 
 ■o joined. LoiKjhead v. Stuhhs, 27 Chy. 387. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Where tlie owners of the property iii an action 
 for the speuitic performance of a siili! of land, 
 wore married women, and their liii!d);inds were 
 joined as co-plaintilf's, and the dufcndiint deinnr- 
 red ore tenus, on gronnd of misjoinder of i)arties, 
 leave was given to amend by making the hns- 
 ))aiids defendants, or hy adding next friends for 
 the married women as oojil.iintiffs. Yhiiiki v. 
 lioherlfiOH, '2 (). R. 4:U. — I'.oyd. 
 
 See CmnfiiHi v. Wc/tiin/lDii, llrey and llnire 
 U. W. Co., •i7(;iiv. 0.-), p! nW; hirf T,;ln;i, 
 n„il Iforiiiy, '28<'liv. 0-24; Cun-oll v. Will',<n,i.% 
 
 ^ (). R. irio, p. ii;5'-»; /.W;.)Vs v. iinii, i o. r. 
 
 :iS,S, p. 1!»74. 
 
 (1>) Dcniiirriy. 
 
 Where a demurrer is raised to a statciiiciit of 
 elaiiii for spet'itic pi'ifurniiini.'e on tln^ ground of 
 no snllicient iigreeni(!iit, it is cnoii^li if in any 
 jispeet of tlie ease, tlic |)]aintitl' may lie intitlcil 
 t<i some relief. In this ease it was iuild, en tlic 
 statement of claim set out in tlie report, that a 
 concluiled contract was slicwu, and tliat defen- 
 dant was liaMe. Misjoinder of jiarties is, since 
 the .ludicature Act, no longer a ground lui- de- 
 murrer. Yoiliui V. I'(jlr,-t.i(,ii, '2 (). II. 4.'i4. — 
 Hoyd. 
 
 See Fniscrv. Johi^'on, Vi I'. 11. 11:?. pp. I!)7(i, 
 1!»77. 
 
 (c) r^).s^. 
 
 Whatever may he the rule in I'liglaml. Ihis 
 ciMirt has maihtaini'il juris^lietinn to make a de 
 feiidant ))ay ensts in a suit for speeilic iierCoiiii- 
 ;inee, though tlie hill he dismissed, if the eir.tiiii- 
 stani-es he such ns to warrant doing this. Ilem-i'. 
 in such a suit, hr.iught hy the |iureliasers of cer- 
 tain lands, anaiii;'^ the vendors and a suli'e(|Uent 
 [Hirchaser, where the judge of first instance 
 dismissed the ae'ion without costs, hut gave tln' 
 suli-^i'ipicnt puie!ia~"r his costs again-t his en- 
 dcrendauts, although no issue was raiseil hetwci n 
 the defendants ; Held, that he had jurisdictiou 
 to niaki! the order, in his diseretiou, and having 
 exercised such discretion, this ccuirt would not, 
 int'rfrre. Me.Mahou r. IJaiiies, Oi'.h r I'.ook No. 
 !), fill. T.'M) (not ri'pMitell. followed. ('Iiiin-h v. 
 Fnll,-i; :{<). I!. 417. Chy. I). 
 
 In a suit foi- speeilic perfoniiance, the det'eii 
 dant set up that the i .iison he had icfuscd to 
 complete the agrccUKMit w.as, that he had heen 
 induced to enter into it hy certain misrepresen- 
 tations of th<! plaiutill', hut which he entirely 
 failed in pro\ ing. .Mthnugh the master reported 
 that a gooit title was lirst shewn in his olljee, 
 the decree on furthci' directions ordcrcil thi^ 
 costs to he paid hy the (hhiulant. mil w ithstaud- 
 iug that tiic hill contained certain statiiiients 
 wliich, it was alli'geil. were iint true, and had 
 not heen proved, t he court heing of opininu tliat 
 such statements had not any unterial heariug 
 upon the ease, and that a suit woidil have hcen 
 noce.ssary without rcfcr( ; '(^ to I he i|uestiiin of 
 title, i'ldtl v. lilr.-.niil. '2!K'hy. Ki. l'\'rguson. 
 
 Sec (iraham v. Slrphtvn, '27 Chy. 4.'U, p. I!)(i(i ; 
 Stammrrn v. O'Doiiohoc, '2S Chy. •2(t7. p. 1!I70: 
 J'lithcr/'urilv. Sin;/, '2!)C'hy. 51 1. p. 17!i;t ; f.oinlon 
 
 and Oniiidian Loan and A<jf.ncy Co. v. Orahamf 
 12 I*. R. (iol, p. 19tJ7. 
 
 (ll) OfllfV GUHCH. 
 
 When on a sale of lands the contract provided 
 that the purchaser should ho allowed ten days 
 to make reipnsiti<inson title, and time was made 
 of the essence of the contract, and the purclia-stT 
 made certain ol)jcctious within the ten days, 
 and the answers not heing satisfactory refiused 
 to com])lcte, whereupon the vcmlor sueil fur 
 s|)ccilic piuformaniie and ohtained the usual 
 judgment : — Held, that the purchaser could not 
 laisc in the mastei's oHice fresli ohjectioiis not 
 raised within the ten days mentioned in the 
 (viutraet. /ni/iiri(i/ /lindo/Cdiiadav. Mclralft^ 
 11 (». R. 4l!7. — Ferguson. 
 
 15y an agreement for the sale of c(!rtain land, 
 
 the vendor was to give a good marketahle title 
 
 of which the puichascr was to satisfy himself at 
 
 , his own expense, .and was not to call for any ah- 
 
 sti-act of title, deeds, or cviilences of title ollmr 
 
 than those in the vendor's ])ossossion. .'<nhse- 
 
 , (|UenlIy on a refeiince in a suit hy the veudiir 
 
 J for speeilic performance, the defendant likd 
 
 three olijeetions to the title having reference to 
 
 1 .'I small |iortion of tlu^and, which wcreanswcied 
 
 1 hy th(! plaintiir, and the refeiencc was pidcecd- 
 
 ! ing when the defendant apiilied for and olitaincd 
 
 ; fioin the master lea,ve to tile other ohjei-tions. 
 
 Oiiapja'al I'roudfoot, d. : — Held, that the nias- 
 
 ] ter in ordinary had lu) jurisdiction to grant such 
 
 i leave, hirt on a sidisei|nent applieatiorr to the 
 
 I court he gave the leave rccprii'cd on tcrun. 
 
 \('/,id-" v [Mii'jhii, 10 1'. R. •2(iS. 
 
 Si"(' S/ninwifM V. It'Dniml,,,,, •![) Chy. (il, )i. 
 ISiMI: Toirii ot I'lhrharnii.ih V. Miil!<ti,il I!. W. 
 <'.,.. VI I'. It.l-JT. P. Ii!|.-. 
 
 1 1. Uifi '■' III"!- ii'< ii> l>itiiiii:/''s. 
 
 On a hill liled tn i->'seiird a cnrrtiaei fur t la- 
 sale of land, the delerrdairts ;isUed hy way "I 
 cr-oss r'tdief to have the sarrrc^ speeilleally ppr' 
 formed. On a r'cheai'iirg the divisiimal enirr-t 
 refused spi-cilic pn forarrance or' r'cseissiurr, hut, 
 ha\ ing l-e.L'ar-il to the tincliiig of the judge at tlie 
 tr'itd. that no .letud fi-and had he-ir proviil 
 agiirrst the defiiulairl the pur ehasi-r-, thuiigli il 
 ap))eaicd that to a, cer'lairi <'Xtcnt he had ovei- 
 reaihed the ])lainliir, arr old woinarr, wireir rrrak- 
 irrg the coiit ract, they or-d(M'cd ;i reference, luidei- 
 Casey r. Ilaulon, '-1 < 'hy. -'2."), to asce-itairr tlie 
 amorrirt, if any, of llu- dcferuhinfs (lainai;('s 
 'I'ht^ master- at Or'.ingcvilh! fouml dcferrdanl en- 
 titled to .s| I. ().">. Iris costs of irrvcstig.il ing tlie 
 title, hut icfuscd to allow him .Sl.i)!!!*, which 
 was the diUcraaier^ lictwccu tlri^ contl'act liriee 
 ami the value of the land. Oir appeal, I'.iiyd, 
 ('., ciinliriired the master's report, (-'ijii'ih v. 
 /;.)/.//,!» I'. I!. 4;il. 
 
 12. Olhir C'ltin. 
 
 In a suit for specific perfoiirrance it was shewn 
 that the plairrtiU' had agreed to c^onvi^y tn tlui 
 defcnd.irrts cerla.irr lands irr eorrsidciaticn of his 
 being paid one-third of the sum for which defeii- 
 <lants should he crrahled to .sell the same. This 
 
 !3S 
 
1972 
 
 iry Co. V. Oraham, 
 
 coutniut provided 
 
 .allowed tun days 
 mid tiinu wiiM iiiiulc 
 
 iiiiil tliu pmoluisur 
 liin tliu ten diiys, 
 atisfa.a<n-y refiistccl 
 u vtnilor siK'd fur 
 litaiiK'd tlic iisual 
 )iii-cliiiser uoidd not 
 ■I'.sli olijoctionsi 111(1 
 iiieiitioiiud ill tliB 
 'diiada V. Mcirii/f,^ 
 
 i]v fif (•(•rtain laml, 
 
 1 iiiiiiki;tiil)lf title 
 siitisfy iiiiiiself lit 
 
 t to t'iill for any ab- 
 iioe.s of tith: oilier 
 |)ossossion. Siilise- 
 suit liy till! viiidiir 
 If dufciidaiit tiled 
 liaviiif,' rifcienee to 
 liicli wero answered 
 •reiico was |ii'ocei'(l- 
 it'll for and nlitained 
 li! otlicr "liji'i'tions. 
 Icld. tliat the lll;lH- 
 ietiuii to ;;r.i!it siu.li 
 a|)idii'atioii to the 
 r(|iiii-cd on tei'iiH. 
 •2(iH. 
 
 '"»', •_'!) Chv. (It, ], 
 
 I V. MnHnnil /,'. ir 
 
 />IIIJIII'/''S. 
 
 .1 contiai'l for the 
 
 H asked liy way of 
 
 mo spei'iticaljy per- 
 
 lie divisional eoiirt 
 
 e or rcscissiiiii, Imt, 
 
 of the jild;,'!' at the 
 
 I liad lif-ii proved 
 
 iiiicliascr, tliiiiijih il 
 
 xti'iil lie had ovei- 
 
 woniaii, ttiieii iiiak- 
 
 d a reforciice, iiinler 
 
 i"), to ascortaiii tlie 
 
 fciidant's daiiiaj^es, 
 
 itllid defendant ell- 
 
 if iiivesti,L;itiiii; the 
 
 him SI, 011(1. wlileh 
 
 till! eontraet jiriee 
 
 On appeal, lioyd, 
 
 report, lioihjli V. 
 
 niaiiee it was shown 
 1 to eoiivey to the 
 aniHiileration of his 
 iini for wliieli defen- 
 ell the same. This 
 
 1973 
 
 SPEOIPIO PERPORMANOE. 
 
 1974 
 
 
 \ 
 
 agreement was Rubsequently eaneelled on tlio 
 defendants undertaking to pay plaiiitilV .'ji'i.tMKJ, 
 oiiudiftlf by a note, the other half liy the eonvey- 
 aiioe of certain town lots at an iiseertaiiied valu- 
 ation ; and this second or siihstituted agreement 
 t lie plaintiflF sought to enforce. The defendants 
 set up that in consequence of their ascertaining 
 that plaintifT had not a title to the land conveyed 
 to them a fresh agreement was entered into to 
 the effect that the defendants should he at 
 liberty to sell the land, and pay to jdaintitf one- 
 third of the net in-oceeds, anil which tliey as- 
 serted they had done. At the hearing the court 
 (Sprngge, C), being satisfied that the defen- 
 dants account of the transaction wa.s correct, 
 refused the relief claimed, but ottered the jihiiii- 
 titfa reconveyance on payment of costs, wliiidi 
 ithe defendants as.sented to, or a clecree upon the 
 footing of the third or last mentioned agreement 
 upon payment of costs ; on rehearing, this de- 
 .Tce was atlirmed with costs. Rathirfoi'd v. Simi, 
 •JltChy. .'ill.— Chy. I). 
 
 A writ of arrest w ill not be granted against 
 tlie puivliiiser in a suit for specific performance, 
 unless it lie shewn by alHdavit that the vendor's 
 lien is iiisutbcient. AWfOH v. Dnfoi , S I*. It. 
 
 :«2.— Pioudfoot. ■ I 
 
 A. brought an action against H. for the rents 
 and profits of certain lands, which had belonged 
 to their father who had died intestate, wnich 
 lands H. had taken and liehl possession of for 
 several ye.irs. On the action being entered for 
 trial an agreement of settlement was arrived at, 
 hy which the action was to be stayed upon 15. 's 
 planting and releasing to A. his interest in the 
 
 I mils, and on B. undertaking to obtain certain 
 K leases, etc. 15. "s counsel appeared in court 
 «heu the case was called for trial, and .stated | 
 that it was settled, and an entry was made in i 
 liie court minute book, that the ease was settled 
 out of court. JSubsequently 15. required A. to 
 procure certiain releases, and although these had 
 
 II it formed part of the settlement, A. agreed to 
 do so, and at great trouble and expense procureil 
 the execution of the same ready to be delivered 
 to H. (Certain of the releases to be procured by 
 r>, were to be executed by married women and 
 iiif.ints which he was unable to procure. In an 
 artion to compel B. to carry out the settlemeiit. 
 15. set up as a defence the Statute of Krauds ; 
 and his inability to obtain the releases : — Held, 
 (aHirmiiig the judgment of Proudfont, .1.), that 
 the staying of the action was a sutticient part 
 ])!!rforniance to take the case out of the .Statute 
 of Fraiuls. An option w.is given to A. to take 
 a judgment for specific perforinvnce, with a 
 reference as to compcnsition. if 15. was unable 
 to procure the releases ; or a judgment for an 
 account of the rents and profits, the subject of 
 the former action. Ci)a/en v, Coatix, 14 0. R. 
 195.— C. P. U. 
 
 If under W. S. O. (1877), c 109, the court 
 adjudicates upon a question of title between 
 vendor and purchaser and directs the purchaser 
 to carry out the contract, and the purchaser 
 then fails to carry out the contract, it is unneces- 
 .sary to bring an action for specific performance 
 ■ of the contract and the requisite relief may be 
 liad on notine of motion for payment of the pur- 
 ch.ise money or in default a re-sale. Re Craiij, 
 10 P. R. 33.— Ferguson. 
 
 ail 
 that 
 
 In an action for specific performance of 
 agreement for the sale of lands, itapp. reilti.^i, 
 tlie parties intentionally omitted from the writ- 
 mg a part of the agreement, as to the tenor of 
 wliicli iH.th parties .igreed ; and the defendant 
 asked to have this inserted in the jiidgmont for 
 specihc performance, but the plaiiiiill' objected : 
 —Held, that on the principle that he who comes 
 into eiputy must do equity, it was proper that 
 the omitted portion of the agreement should hi 
 msw-ted as chiimed. Jutiet v. IMe, Hi O. R 
 '■■ C'liy ■' 
 
 71 
 
 D. 
 
 See 1 av<lon v. Vardon, 6 O. R. 710, p. 107(5 : 
 .Iwilhnm V. Wnniu', 10 P. R. 621. p. 1070; 
 hohfrtxpn V. I'iiit,r^(,u, 10 O. I!. •2(57, p. 1070; 
 MrCiuhW V. MrCasU//, 12 (). R. 7h;{, p. 42'2 • 
 'V''(f V. MrL<,w, 14 S. V R. ti;52,i). 207:5 ; /.V ISo„ 
 xtp<id,m,l \ynndd;V10. R.4S8,p. 1,SH7; .Vr/>o»- 
 'ja/l y Hull, 13 O. n. 160, p. 1S!»5; P,oclor 
 V. .]fiilh;i(i,i, 13 0. II. 683, p. 1881. 
 
 III. Acts ok Parliamknt. 
 
 See AltiiniPif-di.tiernl v. Iidernatiomil Jirvlif 
 i'j., A. R. .537, p. 1010. 
 
 IV. AwAuas. 
 
 Held, alllrniing the decree of Prondfoot, V. C, 
 that the plaintitlWas entitled to specific iierform- 
 aiice of an award giving him ilamages for his 
 laiiils taken by the ilfeiidants ; that the sum 
 awarded was not so excessive as to .shew any 
 fiaudiileiit or inqiroper conduct on the part of 
 the arhitrators ; and Qnare, whether if shewn 
 it would be a defence in such a proceeding. Xor- 
 mil V. Camidu Soiilhern It. W. Co., 5 A. R. 13. 
 
 V. AllREE.MKNTS TO HEgCKATlI Plttll-KKTY. 
 
 When a father enters into a contract whereby 
 he parts with the custody and control of his 
 child with the bona fide intcutioii of advancing 
 the welfare of the child there is nothing in such 
 a contract illegal or contrary to public policy, 
 .and although where such a contract is executory 
 on both sides the court cannot decree specific 
 perforinanoe by rca.sou of the want of mutuality, 
 yet where the contract has been faithfidly pcr- 
 forined, so far as the father and child are con- 
 cerned, so tliat tlieir status has become altered, 
 the court will if possible enforce in specie the 
 perfoiinance of the contract by the other party 
 to it. ItoherU v. Hall, 1 O. R. ,388.— Chy. D. 
 
 Where the parents of the plaintifT agreed with 
 H. and his wife to give up to them their 
 daughter, the plaintiff, then six years old, to 
 bring up as their own, and make her sole heiress 
 of their property at their death, and when it 
 appeared that the agreement was boni fide in- 
 tended by the father for the ultimate benefit of 
 the plaintiff, .and that the plaintiff had remained 
 with H. and his wife for twenty years, rendering 
 them efficient service, and it appeared H. in- 
 tended her to have his property, and regarded 
 the agreement as binding, so that he considered 
 it unnecessary to make a will : — Held (reversing 
 the judgment of Ferguson, J.), that the agree- 
 ment could be enforced against U.'s represenW 
 tive, and that it must be decreed accordingly : — 
 Held also, (alfiiiniug the judgment of FerguBon, 
 
1 ; 
 
 1975 
 
 SPEOIFIO PEBFOBMANOE. 
 
 im 
 
 I 
 
 "i 
 
 
 I*' 
 
 I 
 
 "I 
 
 i 
 
 J.), that inosmnch as if the parents of the plain- 
 tiff had brought a suit upon the agreement in 
 this case and recovered tliey wouhl be trustees 
 for the proceeds for her, the plaintiff might 
 maintain the suit in her own name. Ih. 
 
 Where u contract on the part of iv testator, 
 founded npoji a valuable and sufficient conside- 
 ration, that he will leave by his will to the other 
 contracting party a suni of money as a letjucy, is 
 clearly made out, the representatives of the testa- 
 tor maybe compelled to make good his oliligation. 
 Walker v. BoikjIihii; 18 O. \\. 448. Al 15. 1). 
 
 But where the testator, tlie <,'randfiitlii'r of tht^ 
 plaintiff, promising that if sliu would reiiiiiiii witii 
 him until his <leatl> or licr miirriag'j whiclievtr 
 event should first happen, he would provide for 
 her during that time, and would make the saiiiL' 
 provision for her by will as ho nlioidd make fnr Ids 
 own daughters, took her from the lioiiif of her 
 parents at the age of twelve, adopted lior, and 
 maintained her, wliile slio worked for liini, for 
 nine years, but, altliougli lie iii;iili' his diuighters 
 residuary devisees, left the plaiiitifT nothing by 
 his will, and paid her nothing for liei' services, and 
 she sued his executors for specifics performance 
 of the contract or promise and in the alternative 
 for wages : — Held, that the case did not fall 
 within the rule ; the i)romise made and the con- 
 sideration for it being both of too uncertain a 
 ehai-acter to entitle the plaintitV to eome to the 
 court for specific performance ; l>ut that the 
 circumstances gave rise to an implied contract 
 for the payment of wages, ami took the ease out 
 of the ordinary rule that eliiltlren are not to 
 look for wages from their parents, or those in 
 loco parentis, in the absence of special contract, 
 whilst they form part of the household. Deci- 
 sion of Proudfoot, J., varied. //(. 
 
 See Halkrni) v. Mom,, 28 Chy. 319, p. SloS ; 
 Campliell v. McKernchrr, ft (). It. 8r», p. 1877; 
 Turner v. Prevoxf, 17 S. V. U. 283, j). 1878. 
 
 V'l. OTIIKK AdliKK.'HKNTS. 
 
 The court will enforce a verbal agreement, 
 although it is to do an act which is not to be 
 performed within a year from the time of making 
 the agreement where the consideration therefor 
 has been e-xecuted. Iltilleran v. Moon, 28 Chy. 
 319.— Spragge. 
 
 Held, that the votes of registered bondholders 
 of a railway having been rejected, the arrange- 
 ment made in this case though eontirmed by t^^() 
 thirdsof the actual sharehoUleis present, or repre- 
 sented, was nevertheless not properly confirmed 
 within the meaning of the statute, and an action 
 to compel specific performance of the agreement 
 was dismissed. Hr.ndrlo. v. Grnnil Trunk li. W. of 
 Canada-Grand Tnmkli. If. o/ Canada v. Toronto 
 Grey, and Bruce It. W. Co. , 2 O. R. 441.— Chy. D. 
 
 Held, by the Conmion Pleas Division (affirm- 
 ing the decision of Wilson, C. J. C P.), a mar- 
 ried woman can not only bring an action against 
 her husband in her own name, but she can also 
 compromise it, or deal with it as she pleases, 
 just as any other suitor can ; and if the plaintiff' 
 and defendant have agreed to certain terms of 
 settlement of such a suit, such contract can be 
 enforced against the defendant, by the plaintiff 
 suing in her own name without a next friend. 
 
 And so iu the present case where, by way of 
 compromise of such a suit, the parties to it 
 agreed that the plaintiff should execute a proper 
 deed of separatmn containing certain covenants 
 by her, in return for which the defendant sluiuM 
 convey to the plaintiff certain lands and pay 
 certain moneys: -Held, that the plaintiff was en 
 titled to specific performance of this agreement : 
 that it was not the separation which was being en 
 forced, but the performance by the defendant ni 
 his contract. Vardon v. Vardon, 0. R. 719. 
 
 In consideration of a bonus granted by the 
 |)laiiitiirs to tilt! defciKlaiits the latter agreed (l| 
 to bring their rail' •■from Jiigeisoll to sonic 
 point on the line '■; lie Canada .Southern Kuii- 
 way not more than half a mile east of the pre- 
 sent passenger station of the Canada Southern 
 Railway at St. Thomas, and (2) to run all their 
 pa.Hseiiger trains to and from a small station oii 
 Church street. Tlie defei I.^..'. t>erfoniied tin- 
 first part of the agreement, and also the seeoml, 
 so long as the Canada .Southern It. W. Co. per 
 mitted the use of their line from the point of 
 junction to the small station on Churcii street ; 
 but on the refusal of the other company to con- 
 tinue this privilege, the defendants diMcontiiiuiil 
 the iierfoniiance of this part of their agreement: 
 — Held, affirming the judgment of Ferguson,.!., 
 (7 (•. It. .'{32.) distinguishing Lytton r. (!ri a 
 Western H. W. Co., 2 K. & .1. .394, and Wallar,. 
 r. (treat Western H. W. Co., 2 A. H. 44, th.al 
 this was not a wi.se in which the defeiid,int> 
 sliould be directe<l speoitieally to perform tiicii 
 contr:'.ct as to the('hurcli street station, buttlim 
 the plaintiff's were entitled to a refeienee us ti. 
 damages for breach thereof. ('//// o/'.SV. T/ainin- 
 V. Crfidi/ Vnlh',1 IL 11'. Co., 12 \. R. 27:<. 
 
 In an agiceinent for the sale of land from H, 
 to P., the terms were inserted in these ui.kIm 
 " Price .*1,(HK), .$2(M) cash, and balance in live 
 yearly payments, interest at the rate of seven 
 per cent., and covenant of P. to build Ihium 
 worth not less than .'?4,0(IO, to lie comiiieiieed in 
 a year from date and liiially eoinpleted in twn 
 years * *." Tlie.S2(K) was paiddown, ami I!. > 
 solicitor prepared and tendered the deed (in 
 which was inserted a covenant to build) and tli. 
 mortgage to P. for execution. P. refused to i\ 
 eciite tliem and It. brought an action for speiilir 
 Iierformancc, which P. defended on the gronml 
 that the covenant to build was too vague and 
 would not be enf<n'ced by the court : -Held, 
 that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to the per 
 foiniance of the defendant's agreement to give w 
 covenant to build a house of certain value with 
 in a spccifieil time. Wood r. .Silcock, 50 L. T. 
 N. S. 251, distinguished. Ilttlurlsnn v. /'nlti rfim, 
 10 O. R.2G7. -Proudfoot. 
 
 The iiction was brought iu the Chancery Divi 
 si(m to obtain specific performance of a covenant 
 to repair, or for damages : — Held, that it \\a>^ 
 really a Common Law action for specific perfur 
 mance of such a covenant could not bo decreed. 
 Biwihamw. Warner, 10 P. R. 621. — Ferguson. 
 
 Where the plaintiffs claimed specific perform ' 
 ance of a contract to supply them with milk fef 
 a cheese factory upon certain terms, and in tli'' 
 alternative damages, and the defendant asked 
 for rectification of the contract, a jury notice 
 was struck out. Franer v. Johnntoii, 12 P. K. 
 11.3.— Boyd. 
 
1976 
 
 where, by way of 
 the parties to it 
 (1 execute a projitf 
 certain covenants 
 I defendant Hhrnilil 
 lin lands and pay 
 the plaintiff was 111 
 of this agreement ; 
 ivhiehwasljeingtn- 
 )y the defendant nf 
 v/oH,0O. R. 719. 
 
 lis granted l>y tlif 
 
 'le latter agmi-d (|) 
 
 IngeiMoil to sdiiif 
 
 ida Southern Kail- 
 
 le east of the pre- 
 
 B I'anada .Soutlicrii 
 
 (2) to run all liioir 
 
 a Hinall station (in 
 
 Ofrforiued the 
 
 iiid also the secoiid, 
 
 rii I!. \V. Co. pLi- 
 
 froiii the point (if 
 
 1 on Church street : 
 
 ler company to ciin- 
 
 ulants discontinued 
 
 of their agreemeiit: 
 
 ent of KergUMon,.!., 
 
 iig Lyttoii /'. (In It 
 
 .1. 394, aiKlWalia.r 
 
 , 'i A. K. 44, thai 
 
 ich the defendant> 
 
 lly to perform tluii 
 
 eet station, but tliai 
 
 to a reference a.s fn 
 
 Cihi iif Si. T/iumii- 
 
 12 A. R. 273. 
 
 sale of land from I!, 
 •ted in these u^ids : 
 and lialance in livi- 
 at the rate of seven 
 f 1'. to l.uild h.m,-. 
 to lie comillriieed lli 
 ly iimipleted ill tHii 
 1 paid down, and 11. > 
 (U'led the deed (in 
 ant tolmild) and tlir 
 n. 1'. refused tu e\ 
 an action for speeilii 
 ;nded on the gidiiinl 
 was too vague ami 
 the court : — HeM. 
 y entitlctl to the jiei 
 iigrcenient to give a 
 f certain value with 
 i: Silcoek, 50 l<. T. 
 )hi}-l.tiiii V. Pdlti rxdii. 
 
 1 the Chancery Divi 
 inancc of a covenant 
 --Held, that it wa.- 
 1 for specific perfor 
 9uld not be decreeil. 
 I. 621. — Ferguson. 
 
 led sjtecific perform 
 ■ them with milk fnf 
 In terms, and in tli«' 
 he defendant askvil 
 tract, a jury notice 
 . Johns/on, 12 1'. K. 
 
 1977 
 
 STATUTE LABOUR. 
 
 1978 
 
 Held, that where a piirty seeks eiiuitable re- 1 
 lief to which lie is not entitled, the o|)posite : 
 party should, unless in a very clear case, dennir, 
 instead of attacking the pleading indirectly by 
 asking to have a jury. Bingham r. Warner, 10 
 P. K, 021, coiUDiented on. l/j. | 
 
 P. being the owner of certain lands was served j 
 by a railway company with nutieu of expropiia- ' 
 tioii and tendered u sum of nioncy for ri^lit of , 
 way uiid damage, which he rcfusiid, .Subse- 
 quently on the application of the company and 
 with the consent of I'.'s solicitor the county 
 judge made an onler fixing the amount of secur- 
 ity to be given for damages, ami the [irice of '• 
 the land, and giving the company possession 
 upon their paying the amount <if security into a i 
 bank to the joint credit of 1'. and the ciimpany. 
 The money was paid in pursuant thereto. An | 
 arbitration was then i)rocee(led with, and the i 
 compensation to be paid for the value of the 
 land taken, and the damage to the lemainder, { 
 was lixed by the award in separate siiins. Pro- 
 ceedings and ap|)eals as to the costs kf\)l tlie 
 matter oiien, and 'h.' niuiiey iiiiiaiiird to the 
 cieilit III the joint lecount until I', died, after 
 making his will, by wliiuli hv devised all his 
 real estate toatrusNc, and appointed the plain- ; 
 tilt' executor. The clefcndants were apiminted 
 tiiistee> in place of the trustee named in the 
 will. Upon a special case for the opininn nf the 
 eimrt as to whether the plaintitl' as exei ntnr of 
 the personal estate or the delendaiits as trustees ! 
 (if tiie testator's land, was or were entitled to I 
 the slims awaidcd or any part thereof. It 
 was ; -Meld, that notice to treat having been : 
 given, and a claim made by the landowner, and ; 
 retiised liy the company, and the money having 
 lieeii paid into court and ["issessioii taken by 
 the coiiiiiaiiy, these eircniiistaiiees umh r the 
 autlioiity (if .Vash r. 'I'lie W'oivester liiiprove- 
 lueiit ('oiiimissiiiiHis, 1 ,)ur. N'. .'^. !)7."f, would 
 entitle tile landownei' to have s| ((ilie perfor- 
 inaiice against the company, and that therefore ] 
 the land was converted into money and the 
 plaiiUill' as executor was cntilled to tlu^ sums 
 awaicled. //o.</-i(( V. 'J'ofoiito (irid ral. 'I'ni-il.f . 
 Co., 12 0. H. 480. -Proud foot. 
 
 " Nut guilty by statute " cannot be pleaded , 
 to an action for specific pel fdrmaiice of a con- 
 tract ; and the defence of " not guilty " iirc- 
 spective of statutory aiitlmrity is not admissible 
 under the Judicature Act. Tmrii of' /'rla- 
 bnrow.lli v. Mhllaml /.'. II'. Co., 12 P. P. 127.— 
 Daltmi, Mustii: 
 
 The plaintid', a bookkeeper and accountant, 
 entered into the following agreement with the 
 firm (if It. & Co. in the form of a letter addiesscd 
 to himself ; "In consideration of you advancing 
 Us the sum of §3,000, wc agree to give ymi eid- 
 lateral secuiity, and to pay yim interest on the 
 same ;it the rate of eight per cent, per annum." 
 The plaintitl' advanced money for the tienetit of 
 the lii 111 of R. (& Co., but before he had received 
 any >. > iiiity the tiriu made an assignment for 
 the beiiclit of creditors. The plaintitl' now 
 sought to have it declared that he had a lien on 
 the assets and eti'ects of the firm, real and per- 
 Miiial. and to have them assigned to liini : — 
 Held, that the agreement was incapable of 
 speeilic perfornianee by the court, for the reason 
 that the terms were too vague and uncertain to 
 he entertained. No kind of security was speci- 
 
 fied in the agreement, and parol evidence could 
 not be «iven to supply the delieieney. The 
 plaintitl was, however, entitled to have jndg- 
 meiit at law against the linn of K. & ( 'o. f,,,- 
 ••:!l,!»0Oand interest and costs of actiim. KeUear 
 i: Smith, II Chy. .")70, foll.iwed. Fouhr v. Hu. 
 idl, 12(). R. l.'iG.-Pioudfoot. 
 
 See Cameron v. WeNliiiilnii, Civi/ mitl /Inic' 
 A". IP. Co., '2H Chy. .T.'7, p. l7;Vi; Cn/tm v. 
 Iiiinilwi,i,{) \. K. ti2(), p. I,S!I2; IUri.ior<l \. To,,;, 
 of'r/infliniii. It) S. C. I;. -JS.-i; 14 A. K. .'12 ; III 
 <>. R. 2i-)7, pp. INIO, l.Hll ; J/mjhrM v, .l/,.«,' , 
 1 1 A. R. ;")()!), p. ti,-)4 ; Uruiidu'je v. J/uioiiJ, 
 13 A. 1!. 337, p. 248. . 
 
 SPEEDING CAUSE. 
 
 ■Scr Pn.M TICK. 
 
 SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. 
 
 ■Siy Intoxic VTiNi; Lhjidus. 
 
 SPLITTING CAUSES OP ACTION. 
 
 Sci: lIlVISIoN CoiKTS. 
 
 STAKEHOLDER. 
 
 Sir. ( Iamino. 
 
 See Ifitllon v. I'abind IlniiL; 9 P. 1!. .VW, p. 
 134. 
 
 STAMPS. 
 
 I. 0.\ P.ii.i.s OR Norrs- .S'cp Hii.i.s ok Kx- 
 c'iiANia-: ANK Phomissokv Notes. 
 
 II. I.AW StAMI'S-.Vci; I.AW SlAMl'S. 
 
 Duties payable in stamps. Powers of Pro- 
 vincial Legislature. Sec Allufifydi iicitd for 
 (jutliec V. ViVk/, 10 Api). Cas. 141, p. :H)3. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM. 
 
 See EjECT.Mf:s'T— Pleading. 
 
 I STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. 
 
 i 
 
 See Pluadino. 
 
 STATUTE LABOUR. 
 
 See Assessment and Taxes. 
 
I 
 
 ir 
 
 m 
 
 51? I* 
 
 IS 
 
 (f 
 
 Jtm 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 1980 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 1. 
 II. 
 
 111. 
 
 IV. 
 
 v. 
 
 VI 
 VII 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 CoNSTKI't'TllIN OK, tiKSKIlAIIV, IU7!). j 
 
 iNTKKI'lU.rATKiS Ai I', ll)H(». 
 I'tMVATK ACIS, 
 
 1. (lent full ij, 1!)S0. 
 
 'J. Itnilirdji AdK — Sm Haii.ways and 
 Raii.wav Comi'amks. 
 
 riidSI'KCTIVK Oil KkTU()SI'K('TIVK,J11)8I. 
 l.MI'KKATIVK OK |)l UKCTOIIV, 1!W2. 
 
 HKi'KAi.iNd .Statute.-*, I98;t. 
 
 I.Ml'KKIAL KnaCTMKNTS — ,V( (' IJaNK- 
 Ul I'TtJY A.Nll IsSdl.VKMV ^('oNsTlTl'- 
 IIONAL LA\V--Sllir. 
 
 Otiiku I'auticii.ak Acts — See TlIK 
 Sevkual Titi-ks. 
 
 I'AKTlCfl.AK WoKliS— .Vm WoHDS AND 
 
 Tkkms. 
 
 Si'KC'lAI.I.Y I'l.KADINl! A StATUTK— .SVf 
 I'l.KAIlISi;. 
 
 1. ("oss'inri'Tios OF t ii;.M;i!Ai.i.v. 
 
 Per Aniioui', ■). — 'I'liu Ai,t(liH(jiiiililyiiij,'ii liccii- 
 8(.'L- for the Hale of liijiior fi'cuii lioKliii^' Miuiiiui|ial 
 ottioii hIiouIiI be foiistrucd htriotly, imd should 
 not be fxtentlod to tlie iKiitiitr of a j)ir.soii law- 
 fidly lioldiiij; a lictiise in his own name, /ln/iiia 
 ,.,■ nl. Jlriiii V. IhoUi, A O. \{. 144.— g. 15.' I»; 
 }( 1'. It. 4.Vi. St'c Hiijiiiti IX rid. Claiici) v. Cuii- 
 nil 11, 46 l^ H. S."i, i).'l:V2(l. 
 
 lu ]ienal statiiti's (jUL'stions of doubt arc to bu 
 tiiiistrufd favourably to the aucu.st'd. Sorlh 
 Oiilnrlo lilii'tiiiii [Out.) — Mct'ankitl v. l^nxtuii, 
 11. K. C. :»(I4.— C. of A. 
 
 Held, following Ivistern Counties, Jetc, H.jW. 
 I'd. r. Marriayc, 11 11. L. Ca. ;!'i; l.any /•. Kerr, 
 3 .Vj)l). Cas. S'ilt ; and Van Nornuin r. (!rant, 
 27 t'liy. 4'JS, thiit both scction.s 10 and II 
 of 15. S. (). (1S77), c. 4!(, are to be governed by 
 the heading immediately preceding section 10; 
 80 that where the interest sought l<» be reached 
 by the creditor has not been conccaletl by a fraud- 
 ulent conveyance, the Judge ban no authority to 
 give sunnnary relief under section 11. Woud v. 
 JIiirl,'2H Chy. 14li. — I'roudl'oot. See .50 V. e. 
 '.', s. 1. y't^ct V. .Stoness, Vi V. R. 23,"), p. 81<J. 
 
 Ilcninrks as to end)nicing in ono Act several 
 subjects which are not exiires.sed in the liths ; 
 and as textile ellect of the title and preandile of 
 a statute as guitles to the construction, liiijina 
 V. \ya.iliiii'jluii, 4(i Q. 15. 221.— Dsler. 
 
 < iencral rennirks on forms prescribed in various 
 cases by Acts of Farliainent. ili-inmill v. (Iitv- 
 Idiiil, 12 O. It. i:{l».— Hoyd. 
 
 The court will iiot be punctilious in adhering to 
 the letter of the statute where there is reason- 
 able accuracy an<l no possible prejudice resulting 
 from literal inaccuracy in the frame of a warrant 
 to sell for arrears of taxes. J''il:iji'riild v. fVi/noii, 
 8 0. H. 509.— ehy. I). 
 
 Krror in transcribing Act. .Sec //* re Central 
 Bank of Canada — Yorke'n Caie, 1.5 O. I{. at p. 
 629. 
 
 The sectiouH of R. S. O. (1877), c. Ill, relut 
 ing to registrars' fees being in derogation of the 
 rights of registrars as they previously existed 
 under the connn in law nuist be construed strict- 
 ly, lit /iiijirioll — flnij/ v. InijertiiM, IG O. K, 
 H(4. — Robertson. 
 
 R. .S. I). (ISH7), e. 11)4, 8. 122, which iuip.isei! 
 a liability in certain eventualities on innkeupim 
 wlio give li(iuor to persons who thereby become 
 intoxicated, is a remedial measure, anil sliuiild 
 I'cceive a libeial constriu:tiiin. 'J'licn v. liuliimim 
 1(1 U. R. 4;W.— Chy. 1). 
 
 It is tlio duty of the court where it finds le^jiH- 
 lation intended to legalize the dudicatimi nf 
 ' property to lainlable public purposes, to construe 
 I the Act so us to enlarge rather than limit its 
 'operation, Jiiiltniiil. v. (lilli-ijue, l(i O. li. 4M0.— 
 I Boyd. 
 
 I Tlie tjuestion of the authority of schedules in 
 Acts of parliament discussed. I'ruax v. Dixun, 
 
 17 0. R. :i(((j. y. 15. \). 
 
 ' ('onstruction of revenue laws. See GriiimH 
 Iv. Tin \hi,'ii, 10 .S. C. R. 110, p. 1844. 
 
 I Tlie plaintill's pro|)crty was destroyt'd by lire 
 ' the day the Ontario Insurance Act, 1887, came in 
 I force: Held, that R. S, O, (1877), e. Ilil, m 
 j force at the time insurance was ellected applieil 
 ' to the policy. Melnli/n v, Eiul Willinins Mu- 
 •Imd Fin ]„i. Co., ISO, R. 7'J.— C'hy. 1). 
 
 I II. Intkkphktation Act. 
 
 ' Words importing the singular number. See 
 I lie J/iirdiinj, lU I'. R. 112, p. 1)12. 
 
 III. I'kivatk .Vers, 
 1, Willi rulli/, 
 
 .\n regards the character and construction of 
 a private Act imd tlie ellcet of a recital tlicrein. 
 — .See 6'/V// q/' (,>»(V/( (• V, (,>ii(liei Ceiitiul It. 11, t'u., 
 10 .S. ('. R. ,')(i;f, at p. iiSO et. siq. 
 
 Wheiea company is incorporated by a special 
 Act, and there are provi.sions in the special .Ut 
 us well as in a general Act on the same suhject 
 which are inconsistent ; if the special Act gives 
 in itself a complete rule on the subject, the ex- 
 pression of that rule amounts to an exception of 
 the subject matter of the rule out of the general 
 Act, Oiiliirii) and Saitll .Sle. Marie R. W. Cv. v. 
 Canadian I'aeijie J{. tV. Cv., 14 O. R, 43'.'.- 
 Kergusou, 
 
 When the rule given by the special Act .ip- 
 [)lies only to a poilion of the subject, the speeml 
 Act may apjily to one portion and the general 
 Act to tlie other. The probable intention of the 
 legishitnre is important in considering a mutter 
 of such a character. Ih, 
 
 liy the General Railway Act R, (S. O. (IH77), 
 c. 10."), which was by the plaintitl's special Act 
 incorporated therein excejit as varied by the 
 latter, ten per cent, of the capital of the railw.iy 
 was by sub-section .5 of section 30 required to be 
 expended within three years, and tlie railway 
 was to bo completed within ten years of the 
 passing of the special Act, in detault of which 
 the corpor.ite existence of the cunipany cease<l, 
 
1980 
 
 (1877), c. Ill.reliit. 
 ill <loi'ogatioii of the 
 [irevioHHly oxiHted 
 
 . 1)0 I'OIIHtl'UC'll Btrict- 
 
 Iniju-Koll, l(i U. k. 
 
 122, which inip(iiie« 
 iilitii'Moii iiiiiki'(.'|)i'n 
 who thfiuhy l)t'coiiie 
 iifaMiii'c, anil mIkiuM 
 I'lkt V. Jtiihiiimii, 
 
 t wlicrc it DikIh legin- 
 tliu iluiiicutiiiii (,f 
 imipuNus, tocoiisiiini 
 utliut' thiiii limit it« 
 i/'(t, l(i O. li. 4S6.- 
 
 ority of 8cliC(lulu8 in 
 I. Truax v. /Jixon, 
 
 hvws. Sec (Irinniil 
 lit), p. 1844. 
 
 wilH (tcfitl'oyt^il hy lire 
 
 iK't! Act, 18.^7, tiimi' ill 
 
 O. (1S77), <•. llil, III 
 
 was ctlccteil applieij 
 V. h'iul IVilliniiis Mii- 
 
 7y. -C'hy. 1). 
 
 ATioN Act. 
 
 inguhir iiuinhcr. See 
 , 1.. <J12. 
 
 PK Acis. 
 
 ■«////. 
 
 '1' and coiiHti'uction uf 
 ct of ii recital therein. 
 i7/( I Ctiitial It. If. t'u., 
 it n( q. 
 
 :or[)()i'atc(l by a speciiil 
 ioiiM ill liic special .Vet 
 t on tlie »atnc .'^uljjt.'Ct 
 ' the special Act gives 
 111 tlio sulijcct, the ex- 
 ults to an exception ul 
 rule out of the gciiewl 
 lie. Marie J{. 11'. Co. v. 
 Co., 14 O. H. 43'.'.- 
 
 )y tliu siiecial Act ap- 
 tile subject, the speoml 
 rlioii and the general 
 obahle intention of the 
 I eoiisideriug a mutter 
 
 y Act U. «. O. (1S77), 
 plaiiititt's special Act 
 B])t as varied hy tlic 
 ; capital of the railway 
 ction 3() required to lie 
 ears, and tlie railway 
 thin ten years of tlic 
 t, ill default of wiiicli 
 the cuiiipany eeuHcil, 
 
 1981 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 1982 
 
 and hy »eotlon 4 of the general Act, Hoctlons 4 
 to 3(1 thereof incluHive were to apply to aU rail 
 wiiys authorizi'd to be constructed by any special 
 Act of tlio IVovince, and to hV constnieil 
 therewith ns forming one Ai't ;--Hcl(l, that see- 
 tioii 4 of the general Act did not apply to the 
 plaiiitillH, and that section 2.'{ of their special 
 Act niiiHt be read in sulMtitution fur siib-Rcitiun 
 ."i of st^ctiou 'M rtMpiiring tlii^ expemlitiire uf ten 
 percent, of the capital within tiic three veaiH. 
 
 The Act incorporating the railway <'(iniiiuMy 
 I'oiitained provisions respi'ding Ikhium's granted 
 to it by iminieipalities not fuiiiid in tiie .Munici- 
 pal Act : — Hehl, that such special A<!t was not 
 restrictive of the Municipal Act and it was only 
 necessary that the |irovisions of the latti'rsliould 
 he followed to jiass a valid by-law grant ingsucli 
 a bonus, liickj'oril V. 'I'oirii <>/' ('IihIIkiiii, M) S 
 r. li. 2.S5; 14 A. K. :12 ; 10 ('». I!. 2.-.7. 
 
 See Mddllii V. l>oir/l,„j, 1!) (». R, 44), p. 1SH7. 
 
 IV. 1'KOSI'KCTIVK ok Hktkosi'kctivk. 
 
 /V')i/)''(7('it] — Held, that the statute 42 Vict, 
 c. 22, (Out.) " An Act to amend the law of 
 dower," does not apply to mortgages made liefore 
 it was passed. Mnrtiii<lah: v. C'li(ik'Ciii,ii A. K. I. 
 
 Held, that the " Married Woman's I'lopeity 
 Act, 1884," 47 Vict. c. I!) (Onl.), is not retro, 
 spectivo. Scott V. Wye, 1 1 P. K. !W.— O'Connor, 
 
 One Chamberlain being in iiiHolvciit circum 
 stances, and indebted to K. in .^120, was pressed 
 by him for payment when be agreed to sell K. a 
 horse for $1 10, in part ])ayiiient ; and about tiie 
 blth of August, 188,'), delivered the horse in pur- 
 suance of such an agreement. K. kept posses- 
 sion of and worked tin; horse for one day, and 
 then he lent him to Chamberlain, who coiitimied 
 to use him in his business until tiie early part of 
 October following, when he returned the hor.se 
 to K., who thenceforward ri^tained iiDssession 
 of him. On the .Slst of October, Chamber- 
 lain executed an assigninent to tiie pliiiiitill' 
 in pursuance of the Act 48 \'ict. c. 2(1 
 (Ont.) respecting assignments for the bciielit of 
 creditors, which came into force on the l.st 
 September, 188.1. In un action against K. to 
 recover the horse ou the ground of fraudulent 
 preference : — Held, a(iirniiiig the judgment of 
 the court below, that the sale having been made 
 Ixifore the Act came into force, the provisions 
 thereof did not api)ly. lugs r. Itank of Prince 
 Kdward Island, 11 S. C, K. 2(i.-), followed. 
 Coaft V. Ke/I;/, I.") A. R. 81. 
 
 The defendant who was eiiiployed as tinancial 
 manager of a firm advanced to them a large sum 
 of money to be repaid on bis giving six niontlH' 
 notice demanding jiaymeiit, in default of which 
 the firm covenanted to assign certain securities. 
 This notice was given on l.ltli .January, ISSS, 
 but although re|)eated demands for payment 
 were made by defendant nothing was done until 
 19th Uecember, 1885, when a transfrr to him of 
 certain securities was made by the tiriii who 
 within two iiiouths made .an assignment under 
 48 Viet. c. 20 (Out.), which came into force on 
 Ist September, 1885. In an action by the 
 assignee under that statute to recover back the 
 «moiuit realised from the securities, it was — 
 
 Hehl, that whether or not tiie linn were in in- 
 solvent circumstances at the time of the transfer 
 of the securities, the statut • u.is not retroHpe,- 
 tive so as to apply to a triii-f, r made as thiH 
 wasin purHiiaiiceot a piv existing binding agree 
 
 iiiciit for valiialilc considerati and valiil uinler 
 
 the then state of llie law. Wh.tli.'r the elleet 
 of the statute is to alter tlu^ law in tliis respect 
 Qua'ie. Clnrk-.^oti v. SI, rlin.j, 15 A. It. 2.'I4. ' 
 
 See MiLiicliHn v. Uxlionir, ~ (». It. 2!t7. 
 
 ItHi-ii-ijiniji;.] .Seniblc, that It. .S. (). (1877) 
 c. lO'.t, s. 2 is r.^tiiispective so as to cast the onus 
 of disproving tiie piyment ol ti.e eonsideiation 
 on tlie party iiiipeaehing a eonvevam^e as vol 
 uiitary even thougli the tiMiisa.tion took place 
 prior to that enactment. Sidii/ini v. ,l/,i^ur'/ 
 1 O. R. 178. -Royd. '' 
 
 42 Vict, c. 20, s. 11 (Ont.), authorizing the 
 taxation of a mortgagee s costs l>y any party 
 interested, without any order to tax a|')plit"s to 
 mortgages executed before tlie p.issing of the 
 Act. /V/v/i(.<o;( V. J<Jiiijliihaiiil SmllinhliirenlntriU 
 Co., 8 1'. I!. 401. -Taylor, Musi,,: 
 
 Held, that thoiijjh not expressly so enacted, 
 40 Vict. e. 40 (l)nni.), is retrospective in its 
 operation and applies to convictions whether 
 made before or after tlie passing of the Act, and 
 that under section 7 the right to ciirtiorari is 
 taken away upon service of notice of ajipeal to 
 the sessions, that being the first proceeding on 
 an appeal from the conviction. lie,iina v. Lynch, 
 12 0. R. 372. -Wilson. 
 
 Held, following Rroddy r. Stuart, 7 0. L. T. 
 
 (), that 48 Vict. c. 20 (Ont.) is intra vires 
 
 the provincial legislature. Where the plaintiff 
 
 j sought to invalidate certain payments of money 
 
 I made hy an insolvent debtor within thirty days 
 
 I prior to his making an assignment under the 
 
 1 said Act, but before it came into force : — Held, 
 
 I that the claim could not be sustained either upon 
 
 the ground that the statute was retrospective, or 
 
 upon tiicgronnil that what the plaintill' sought to 
 
 obtain was dclined and given by sec. .3, suli-s. 3 
 
 of the statute. Clurttim v. Oiilario Hank, 13 
 
 O. 1!. (ititi. —Ferguson ; 15 A. R. 10(5. 
 
 See Cilii of Qiiehe.,: v. Qinhcc Ci'.nlnil It. W. 
 Co., 10 S.' C. R. 5(!3, p. 1805; /»;/,< V. liaiik of 
 Prince Edward hlaiiU, 1 1 S. C. R. 3li5, p. 284. 
 
 V. Imi'krative OK Directory. 
 
 .Semble, that the provisions of section 40 of 
 32-I]'{ Vict. c. 31 (l)oin.), that no .idjourn- 
 inent shall be "for more than one week " arc 
 directory merely. Regina r. French— Regina v. 
 Rolicrtsou, 13 0. R. 80, distinguished and not 
 fidlowed. Hfijinav. Ilefftrwm, 13 0. R. 610. — 
 Robertson. 
 
 The duties of an assessor and a township clerk 
 under R. S. 0. (1877), c 180, ss. 109, 110 and 
 1 1 1 are imperative not directory merely and their 
 performance is conditional to the validity of a 
 tax sale. (Burton, J. A., dissenting.) Donovan 
 V. Hoi/aH, \r A. R. 432. 
 
 Held, th.at the provisions of section 115 of 
 the C'anada Teinperanco Act are directory only. 
 llcjina V. Brown, 1« O. R. 41.— Q. B. D. 
 
198S 
 
 STATUTORY CONDITIONS. 
 
 1984 
 
 » 1 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 It. H. (). r. 115, H. 30, |,{iviii^ piiwur to the | 
 b<:li<:lii'l'M 1)1 III)' liiu Hiii'icrty III t'Xiiiiiiiiu witlii-HHvit i 
 uimIim' iihIIi Ih iiiit iiii|it'iittivi!. Scii IIhwIh v. I 
 l.nin Surlily of I'/ijnr t'ltiiiidu, 1(1 (), H. (I'J.l. - 
 Ikiyd; 17 A. I!. tl,p. IIIM>. 
 
 lliOil, timt Hntidll ;t:.l of U. S. O. (IHH7), v.. 
 IK4, w liirli iri)iiiii'(i u liv l.uv iTi'iiliiij,' a ili^lil liy 
 tlid iHHiiiii^ III' ilclii'iitiin M I'lii' II liiiigiu' tt'iiii tliiiii 
 oiiK vciir to III' I'i'giMtci'i'il within :i fiii'tni;;ht from 
 tilt! Vuiiil iiii>i.>iiiK tlicii'iif, is iiifiniy (iiriKjtory. 
 ttv h'nrHiiiiir mid Ihr Vitlnijv iif MuriiKliiirij, 
 1(1 (». K. 7-."-'. Str.'.!l. 
 
 SiTtion IvJOof till! AHHCHHimiit Ai-t, U. H. (). 
 (1887) •:. ID'I, priiviili'H that tliu cloik Hiiall ilt^- 
 liv<'r tlu! mil lotliu collcrtor mi or Imforc the 
 Int iluy of (Irtiiliir, or kiicIi other iliiy iih iiiiiy lie 
 
 f>rt'H(:rilM'<l liy ii liyliiw ol tlic lorul iiiiiiiiri|iiility ; 
 lilt no liy law waH (la^Hiil, ami tliu roll fur INStI 
 WUH not tielivrri'il liy tlii' ilcrk to the (lufcnihuit 
 until altoiit iHt .laiiiiary, ISH7 : -llelil, that the 
 iirovlHioiiM of hci'liiiii I'.'O are iliri'i'tory, and not 
 ilii|H'ruti\)! ; ami the iimiM>iiin to deliver the roll 
 within the preKcrilied time had not tliu eir'.'et of 
 pruvuiiting iht! eolleetor from proeeediiij^ to <'ol- 
 It'ot the taxcM mentioned in the roll as soon as it 
 was delivcM'ed to liiin, or of rendering snili pro- 
 ecudingH invalid. I.ririn v. /Iniil;/, 17 <^ it. 
 
 The N«!W l!i uiiswiek Ijijuor License .Vet, IhST, 
 provides that " all apiiliral ions for license, other 
 t liun ill cities and im'or|>iirated towns, shall he 
 pi'i'Heiited at the annual ineeliiig of the council 
 of tlio municipality and shall then lie taken into 
 cdimideration, ami in cities and incorporated 
 towns, at a niei'ting to lie held not later than 
 the filHt day of April, in each and every year." 
 'I'ho interpretation clause provides that in the 
 city of .St. .lolin the exprissioii "council" inuaiiH 
 the mayor who has the powers given to a iniiiii- 
 eipal I'ouncil. It is also provided that when 
 anything is recpdied to he done at, on or hefore 
 a nuH'tiiig of council, and no other date is fixed 
 therefor, the mayor may lix the date for doing 
 the same in the city of St. .lohn :- Held, atlirin- 
 iiig the judgment of the court hclow, that the 
 piovixion I'Kiuiring licenses to lie taken into con- 
 sideration not later than the first day of April in 
 directiry only, ami liiensis granted in .St. .loliii 
 aie not in\a"liil hy rea.son of the same lieing 
 granted after that date :— liehl, perdwynne J., 
 that this iirovisioii does not apply to the city of 
 St. Jidin. Diiiiuliir v. I'ltirx; O'lleijan v. I'tttin, 
 17 S. C. U. 44. 
 
 VI. RKI'E.VI.IMi Statutkh. 
 
 Section 4(>4, suh-sectioii 2 of 3<> Vict. c. 48 (Out.) 
 enacts that the council of every city, town, ami 
 incorporated village, shall have power to pass 
 ijy-lawB for assessing upon the real projierty to 
 be immediately liencfited hy the making, etc., 
 of any coininon sewer, etc., "on the petition of 
 ut least two-thirds in number niul one-half in 
 value of the owners of such real property, a 
 special rate," etc. The subsection is anitnded, 
 80 far as the same relates to the city of Toronto, 
 by 40 Vict. c. 39, s. 2, by inserting after the 
 words " owners of such real pnporty 'the words 
 *' or where the same is in the opinion of the said 
 council necessary for sanitary or drainage pur- 
 poses." 40 Vict. c. ti, respecting the revised 
 
 statutcH, pasMed ill the h.ime NcHsion, repealed :ili 
 Vict. c. -IS; and Ft. S. (). (1877), c. 174, n. ...d, 
 Mub-H, 2, corresponds with the repealed Ncctina 
 4U4, Muh'Neetion 2 ; Held, Armour, •)., doidil- 
 iiig, and ('ameroii, >l., iliHsenting. I. That iiiidi'i 
 40 Vict, c, (I, s. 10, the K. S. (). (1877), was Mih- 
 Htituted for tlu' repealed Acts and the amending 
 Act applied to the H. S. (). (1877), e. 174. 2. 
 The amendment in 40 Viet. e. .'10, was a nfur- 
 (Mice in a former Act remaining in loice tn an 
 eliaetliK^iit repealed, and so a reference to tliu 
 i!iiai'tiiient in till! revised statutes, corresponding 
 to the section 41(4, siibseetion 2, within seclinii 
 
 1 1 of 40 Viet. c. 0. 3. That tin.' city of Toronto, 
 therefore, could pass n by-law in 1 87!) to cuii- 
 struct a sewer, wlieii neeesHary in their opinlciii 
 for sanitary or drainage purposes, without any 
 petition therefor. /» ir llimli v. City nf Tu 
 roiilo, •♦;■) C^. It. -fW.- t-i HA). 
 
 Section 217 of 20-.*«0 Vict. c. .'il has not hua 
 repi'aleil though marked eflite in the Kcheilali' 
 pi'elixi'd to and not reenacted in 3li N'ict. c. 4S 
 (Out.). Sidlliili Anil rii'tiii / iifinlinr.nl Co. v. 
 riV/ai/c of Kliira, A. K. 028. 
 
 KfFect of repeal of .Stani]) .Act. See Cuii'ihiU 
 V. Ckiilr, I*. It. 471, p. 15."). 
 
 Sembic, section 34 off. I.. I'. Act, I!. S. 0. 
 (1877), c. .'■lO, s. HiKseet'on, Rule I0<;7), has imt 
 been repealed hy Hide .1, Ontario .ludiiatiire 
 .Act (see Coll. Hide 224). Cvrhruni- Mninifnc- 
 liiiimi Co. V. I.iuiwn, 11 r. I!. 102. -^ Kosc. — 
 (l \\. I). 
 
 The eircct of the revision of the .Slatiites of 
 Canada, lnought into force by royal pini Liriia- 
 tion, 1st .March, I8H7, though in form repealing 
 till! Acts consolidated, is really to jireserve thtiii 
 ill iinlirokeii cnntiniiity, and the adoption of the 
 Canada Tcinpeiaiice Act by niiinicipalitii s piior 
 to that revision, has not hein eh.uigcd or inter- 
 fered with liy it. The alterations m.ide in the 
 phraseology of the Act by the revision are not 
 vital, and ilo not materially change its chaiaeti-r 
 or ell'eet. Liimm I'diiuiiixsioin m Jul' Finiitr- 
 tini' V. Ciiinili/ o/" I'liiiili imc, 14 (). I!. 7H. - 
 jloyd. .See also llniiuit v. hiirnioii. Hi. 07-, |i. 
 1028. 
 
 The authority to liroceed by rule or order nisi 
 in (iiiashing a by-l.iw conferred by H. S. (t. 
 (I88(), c. 184, s. ;5.T.', is inccinsisleiit with Ciin. 
 Rule .'i'JO and iiiiist thcrefure be taken to lie 
 repealed, for by ">l N'let. o. 2, s. 4 (Out.), il is 
 declared that all eiiaetments in the rcviseil 
 statutes inconsistent with the rules are re- 
 pealed. It is therefore not prop.r now to pro- 
 ceed by order nisi. \\v. I'eck and Ann liaslmi);, 
 
 12 1*. R. 004, followed ; llewison i: I'emliroke, 
 O. R. 170, distinguisheil. Jli Culuiii/I v. 
 TowiLshii) of ColehiiKltr Sortli, 13 1'. R. 2.'i:!.— 
 Street. 
 
 See RolxrlKim v. Lurocque, 18 O. R. 409, p. 
 880. 
 
 See also BANKiiri'Tcv and I.nsoi,vency, IV. 
 13, p. 131. 
 
 STATUTORY CONDITIONS. 
 
 Sec I.NSUIIANCE. 
 
1981 
 
 mIdII, rcpoali'il :iii 
 1), c. 174, ■. ."i.'il, 
 
 rcpciluil ■ii.iiiiiii 
 111)111', ,1., ilcinht. 
 ^. I. Tliitt iiiiili'i 
 
 (|H77), WHS sill,. 
 
 ml llii' iiiiii'iicliii^ 
 
 IN77), <3. 174. •.'. 
 
 . ;)!(, Miin u ic fcr- 
 
 H ill liiiuu to mi 
 
 |r fl'lt.'IK^O to tllo 
 CS, COflCHpOInlilijf 
 
 ■_', witliin Kci'iKiii 
 
 ic city <if 'I'dionto, 
 
 in 1M7!) to tiiii- 
 
 y ill tlicir o|>iiiiciii 
 
 iHiiM, without iuiy 
 
 k- V. C'lly uf Tu 
 
 , ,M ll.lH llllt liCCII 
 
 ill till! hiMiimIiiIi' 
 I ill :W VivX. r.. 4S 
 iiri.itiiKiU Co. V. 
 
 U't. Sou Cati'jIM 
 
 \\ Art, I!. S. 0. 
 I{|||t! I()(i7l, IlllHIInt 
 )ntiii'io ilinluature 
 'oihratif Miiii\iJ\>(' 
 
 I!. IfW. Itosf.-- 
 
 of till' Stiitiil.'s of 
 ly royal pin. lima- 
 I ill foini 11 |M';iliiig 
 
 ly t« plrMIVl' lllclll 
 
 tlio ailo|itioii of the 
 riiiiMic.'ipiilitii s iiiiur 
 II tli.iiif;i (I or iiili'i- 
 [itioiiH inailt' ill tlic 
 III- iv vision iiic nut 
 •luinge its clmiiietir 
 iioiii r.i Jul' Fi'iiiti- 
 c. 14 (). i:. 711. - 
 l)iiriiioii, III. ()"'.', p. 
 
 I)y nil«! or order nisi 
 Vrre.l l.y H. S. (I. 
 iiisiMleiit willi Coll. 
 Pit' Ik.' tiikcn to lio 
 •>, n. 4 (Out.), il h 
 Its ill tliL' rtvi.'^i'il 
 tlu! rules aiu ic- 
 piopii- now to pro- 
 k anil Aiiii'liasliiii'}.', 
 wihon r. I'cniliroke, 
 il. /.'( Ci'liiiiill V. 
 ■th, 13 r. H. '-V.:!.- 
 
 ,18 O. U. 4()(», p. 
 
 1) I.NSOI.VE.NCV, IV. 
 
 EDITIONS. 
 
 1985 STREET RAILWAY. 
 
 STATING PROOEEDINOS 
 
 1986 
 
 STREAMS. 
 
 .Vrt AkBITKATIoN .\S|> AWAIIK |'|(,\i,TH k. 
 
 STEAMBOAT 
 
 •SV-" Ship, 
 
 STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE 
 
 Jiirimliction of Htipcniliiiry nn^^iMtrato for 
 jiiiliciiil ilistrii't of I'urry Soiinil. Sic llni'mn v. 
 Monte.it/i, l."i(). K. 2!M)," p. Kl.TI. 
 
 Hdlil, tlmt .'IS Vict. r. 47 Kiviii)^ po«iT to 
 piiliuu liinl Htipi'iiiliary in.'i'.'iHtrati s to try in ii 
 Niiiiiniiiry iiiaiinor filoiiiu.s .iiiil ini.sili'iiK.Mnoiir, 
 was intra viri'H tli<! Iioniininn I'arliuiiiiiit. /» 
 «'(! lioucher, ('uhhuIh' Dig. I HO. 
 
 STOCK. 
 
 S>f. Hkoker— Company -Raii.w.ws and Hah.- 
 
 WAV (Jll.Ml'ANIKS. 
 
 Cnllfi on iiiHunincp company stock nftor bus- 
 jionsion of license. See l/iiii,ii h'irr liixurnnre 
 Co. V. Filznimmniis, ;VJ C. 1'. tiO.', p. !):U ; (fnion 
 Fire. Inxuranve Co. v. I.ymaii, 4f> Q. H. 471, l). 
 !):i.3. 
 
 Assessment of. Sec Kx paiie Jiimm D. Lrwin, 
 US. C. H. 484, p. (K). 
 
 Locus of liiiTik stock. Sou IfiiyhiH v. /!ces, 5 
 0. R. (i')4, p. 1012. 
 
 Halo of stock under execution. See Cnnvrrli- 
 rut mid I'axsiimiisic Uin r It. II'. ( o. v. Moriin, 
 14 H. I'. 11. .SIS, p. (ilW. 
 
 Onnililiiii; in. See llc'iiiia v. Afur/ihi/, 17 O. 
 
 R. 201, p. s;i:t. 
 
 Purchase of, on margin. Sec liKOKKic. 
 
 STOLEN GOODS (RECEIVING). 
 
 Sfe CiiiMiNAL Law. 
 
 Sf WaTKII ami UatKI ColltHK)'. 
 
 STREET. 
 .SVe Wav. 
 
 HeiiiJirk.ioli till' serious eoiiMi'ipieiiees likely to 
 urisu fi'iiiii the loiistaiil ihannis m the ii.iiih s of 
 j streets ill the city ol Toiouto. r.iii A'io/.//i».< v. 
 htiiUiiii, 1 1 A. R. (i!)!», 
 
 «CE. 
 
 STOP ORDER. 
 
 iS'e*- Payment. 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU. 
 
 Sie Sale of Good.s. 
 
 STOWAGE. 
 
 See Smr. 
 
 1S5 
 
 STREET RAILWAY 
 
 Aitioii f(ir ilaiiiiiijis to jiropeitv and loss of 
 fares throii^li the iiiilawlid .iimI 'iie;;liKi'iit re- 
 niov.d ol .1 house over a highway miiipiiil l>y n 
 street railway company. See funnilu .-ilnct It. 
 IK. Co. V. JJotlnii, l'> A. 1!. tiT'.t. 
 
 The Onehcc Slrei-t Railway Coinpiny wero 
 aiitlioiizeil iiiidir a liy law (lassid hy the city of 
 Quehee arid all a);rueiiieiit excutril in pursiiaiico 
 thereof to eoiistiiii't and operate in certain 
 I streets of the city a .street railway fnr a peiioil 
 , of forty ye irs, and it was alsi providnl th it at 
 'the expiration of twenty yeirs from the Olli 
 I I'Vhniary, ISIi.'t, the corpuratioii iiii^ht, alter a 
 notice of six inonlhs to the loinpiiiy. to he Kiveii 
 , williiii twelve iiioiiths iiiimidiatily pn eediiij; 
 I the expiraliiiii of the saiil twenty years, as.siiniu 
 j till) owiH'r.ship of Slid riilway ii|)oii payment, 
 etc., of its \aliie, to lie deti riniiied liy aihitrii- 
 I fioii to;;elliir with ten prr cent, addition d :-- 
 Hidd. levi r.siiij; the jiiili;nieiits of tlie ediirts he- 
 low I |i'Miiriiier, .1., di-s.'iiiiiif^), th it the eoiii|iany 
 were entitle I to a full six i.ioiitlis' notice prior ti) 
 theOtli l'\liruiiy, ISSo, to lie yiv. ii witliiii thu 
 twelve iii'inths preieliiii,' the Dili Kelntiary, 
 IHS.'i, and till reloie a iiotice gi^iii in Novemhcr, 
 ]SHi, to thei(imp;iiiy tli.it the cor | oral imi would 
 take jiossi ssinii of the railway in six months 
 therealter WHS hiid. QikIh i- ,' Inii 1,'tii'irii)/ Ca. v, 
 Ciln oJQiiph,r, 1.". S. C. I!. KM. 
 
 Per Stroiif^ and Henry, JJ., that the court 
 li:id no |io\\(i' to appoint an arhitialor or valua- 
 tor to make the vaiiuUiin prmiildl for ly the 
 iigri emi lit afti r refusal hy the coii.|i: ny lo iip- 
 poiiit their arhitrator. ]M)iiiiiiei, <l.,ci ntia. Jb. 
 
 In IStil iin iigreiment was eiiteiid into be- 
 twien the I lainiills aijil eertain | aitii s tor the 
 const I net il n a id opi ration of stn 1 1 i«ilwa,\s in 
 tlieiity of 'rdioiilo, in \iliieh tl.iy iigried to 
 coiistriK't the lines of road spiciliul In in tinio 
 to tine, and that thiy would at all tin es em- 
 ploy can fill, ."-ol er and civil nniiits, eoi.ductoia 
 and dii\eis to take iliai<^e of the eais ii| on tho 
 said radwnyff, and that ihiy and their igenta, 
 ci ndiiuters, drivers anil sinants won'! at all 
 times * * o] irate the .snid lailway, and 
 <aisetlie same to le woikiil iiiidi r mch rigu- 
 latiins as the ecmii.on i oiiiii il of tic city of 
 Toiiato might dum iiciei-.'-aiy and ic(|Uisite 
 for the jirolectioii of the peisens and pn ) erty 
 of th<j puhlie, and provided Muli legulatii im 
 should not infringe uion the piivilcgis gianted 
 hy the agnunent. SuhteijUeiitly tlicjirivilegisBo 
 confciitd npou tliofcc itisons weio usaigncd to 
 
1987 
 
 SUBROGATION. 
 
 1988 
 
 the (lefemlants wlio continued to work several 
 railways, an 1 after some years introiliiueil for 
 use tiicreon smaller cars, drawn by one instea'l 
 of two liorses as h iil l>uua done previously, and 
 with only one mm in clrtrj;o instead of two as 
 <)!i til ' larger eirs. In 18S2 the council of the 
 eity pisHe.i a liydaw (No. l-(i4), prohiljiting the 
 operation of any cars within the city limits 
 without two m mi in ch.irgi', one as driver, the 
 other as con lni:tiir. Tlie defendants refused to 
 conform to this liy law, and tills action was 
 brought to ciiniiiel tlieni to do so, the ;ig"eement 
 of IS(!1 lieliig relied on as warranting that relief : 
 
 — Held (roverfing the judgment of tlie court 
 Jielow), Oslir, .1. A,, dissenting. (1). Tliat the 
 liy-iaw in <(uc.stion was not witliln tlie terms of 
 tlie iigreeniiMit, and that it wa.s therefore ultra 
 vires. (•_') That tlie hydaw was also invaliil as 
 it was an invasion of the domestic ccmccrns of 
 the company. Ciiy of Toronto v. Toronto Street 
 llitdirnij Co. , 15 A. K. .'10. 
 
 By.S(i Vict. c. 99 (Out.), tne I/mdon Street 
 Railway Cornpiiny was incorpor.ited, liy section 
 l.Sof which, the city of London were authorized 
 to enter into an agreement for the construction 
 of the railway on such of the streets as miglit he 
 Jigreetl on, and for the piiving, repairing, etc. of 
 the SM\\'.\. By section 14 the city was also eni- 
 poweri'il to pass hydaws to carry such agreement 
 into ciroct, and containing all necessary provi- 
 hioiis, etc., for the eondnct of all p;irties con- 
 cerned, including the company, and for enforcing 
 obedience then^to. A by law was passed by the 
 city providing for the repair of certain portions 
 of the stii'cts by the .street railway eoiiipaiiy 
 who were to be liable for all dainagos occasioned 
 to any per.son by reason of the construction, 
 repair or 0|)(r,itlon of the I'ailway, or any ]iart 
 tliereof, or liy rea-oii of tlie default in repairing 
 the Slid piiitions of the streets, and tliat the city 
 slinuld be iiidciniiitUMl by the company for all 
 liability in reap ct of sucli damage. An acci- 
 dent havinj; hippeiicd to plaintitl' by reason 
 of saiil portions of said streets being out 
 of repair, an ai'tion was bi'ouglit by plalntid' 
 against the lity of Londnn tlierefor. After 
 action brought, ami more than six months after 
 the occnvrence of the Jiccldent, on the appli- 
 «Mtioii of the city of London the street rail- 
 way company were niailo jiarties defendant : 
 
 — Held, that notwithslinding, the said legisla- 
 tion, by-law, and agreement, the city was liable 
 under section o.SI of the Municipal Act, K. 8. (). 
 (lSS7i 1S4 to the plaiullir ffir the damage he 
 liad sustained ; but that they had a remedy over 
 against, the street railway company : — Held, also, 
 following Anderson i\ Canaclian Pacific R. W. 
 Co., 17 O. II. 747, that the six months' limitation 
 clause in the llail .vay Act did notapply, the right 
 o.' the city .igaiiist the street railway company 
 bjing one of contract. C'ar/i/ v. City of London 
 18 0. R. 12J.-C. I'. D. 
 
 The (lef.ndants, by letters patent issued under 
 the Street liallway Act, 1!. S. O. (18S7), c 171, 
 were authorized to builil and operate (on all days 
 except Sundays) a street railway, etc. On an 
 iiiforiiiation laid to restrain the operating of the 
 railway on Sninlay : — Held, per (lalt, C. d., that 
 an information would not lie for the Act did not 
 prohibit running cars on Sunday : — Per Rose, J., 
 that the information would lie, for the authority 
 to operate the railway "on all days e^:r•^pt tun- 
 
 days" implied a proliibition against working It 
 on Sunday : —Per MacMahon, J., that tlie infor- 
 mation would not lie, for no private right or 
 right of property was involved nor any injury 
 of a public nature done, and the interference of 
 the court will not be exorcised merely to enforce 
 performance of a moral duty. Attorncy-liciK ral 
 ex rel. lloUhi v. NiKjara Fall", Wesley I'drk 
 ami Clifton Tnimwiiii Co., li) O. H. 024.— C. I'. 
 I). ; atlirined by the Court of Appeal, 18 A. li. 
 453. 
 
 See Connty of York v. '/'ornnto Oravtl Hoiul 
 and CoiirriU Co., II A. H. 7ti5, p. 333. 
 
 SUBP(£NA. 
 
 iS'ct Costs — Evidknck. 
 
 SUBROQATION. 
 
 *'(-<; In.suranok. 
 
 As a general rule the doctrine of subrogation 
 does not apply in favour of a party who lia.>^ not 
 paiil money or given something in satisfaction or 
 extliignishment of a security, cliilin, or demand, 
 or partly so, or who has not [laid soinetliiiig by 
 way of getting in a security, or the like. (Vmy 
 ml/es v. Fuokan, Hi O. li. ()9I. -Kergnson. 
 
 The plaintitl', ikii execution creditor against 
 lands, lii'oiight an action to set aside as fraiiilu- 
 lent, two mortgages of real estate made by Iiib 
 execution debtor and succeedeil as to the lirsl, 
 the action being dismissed as to the second mort- 
 gage. The lands were sold but, did not realize 
 enough to pay the plaintitl' and the second inert 
 gagee. The plaintilf then cl.iiined to be entitled 
 by his diligence to priority for his execution over 
 the second mortg.igc to the extent of the mort- 
 gage so set aside as fiMuduhnt : — Meld, that he 
 was not entitled to any such )irioi ity as to his 
 exec'ition, but that as his costs as but ween solici- 
 tor and client over and above his co^ts as lutweeii 
 party and party, and such of the hitter costs as 
 might not be realized from the defendants (other 
 than the second mortgagee) were a first cliarge 
 on the fund as in the nature of salvage. Ih. 
 
 The plaintifT advanced money to the owncrof 
 real estate to pay off existing mortgages thereon, 
 and took and registered a inortg.ige on the pro- 
 perty for the amount, paid off the prior ii'ort 
 gagi's and registered discharges of them, the de- 
 fendant having all the time an exeentioii against 
 the lands of the mortgagor in tlie hands of the 
 sheriff of the countj' in which the lands were 
 situate, of which the plaintifT was ignorant, his 
 solicitors having neglected to search : — Held, 
 that the plaintifl' was entitled to be subrogated 
 to the rights of the original mortgagees, and to 
 priority over the defendant's exreution, to tlic 
 amount paid to discharge the prior mortgages, 
 upon the ground of mistake, he having done so 
 under the belief that he was obtaining a llrst 
 charge ; and that he was not disentitled to relief, 
 because by using ordinary cire he nilglit have 
 discovered the mistak'}, the defendant not liav 
 ing been prejudiced thereby. Brown v. McLatii, 
 18 0. R. 633.— Street. 
 
 
 
iviiist w<>i'kiii;{ it 
 , that the iiifnr- 
 jiivatu riyht or 
 uor iiny injury 
 15 iiiti'i'fi.'romii! (if 
 iiTuly to cnlorci) 
 iltoriif.y-d'iiii ral 
 , Wei/ey I'urk 
 K. «'24.— C. I'. 
 Vppoul, 18 A. li. 
 
 utn dravfl limul 
 p. 33;'. 
 
 ;ncb. 
 
 )N. 
 
 K. 
 
 nt! of subrogatidii 
 iirty who hn." nut 
 g in«:itisfacti<m ur 
 clanii, or (It'iiiiiiid, 
 laiil Koinuthiiig l>y 
 r the like. (Sour 
 -Kurgusoii. 
 
 I creilitor iigainst 
 ;t luside as fraudu- 
 stato inadf l>y his 
 It'll as to tliu tirHt, 
 to tlic sccoiiil iiiiirt- 
 l)iif. ilid not rvati/.c 
 111 the Beconil iiiort- 
 inied to \w cntitlvd 
 •Ilia exuculion over 
 iXtcnt of the inort- 
 it : — Held, tiiat he 
 
 I iniiivity as to iiiii 
 ,» aa but ween solici- 
 liisuo<ts.is hi'tweeii 
 
 llie latter coata aa 
 le ilefuiiilmts (other 
 were a tirst charge 
 of aalvage. Ih. 
 
 iioy to the owner of 
 mortgages thereon, 
 ortgage on the pro- 
 of!' the {irior n'orl- 
 ges of them, tlie ile 
 111 execution against 
 
 II the hands of tlie 
 ieli the laiida wtne 
 If was ignorant, lua 
 
 to search : — llelil. 
 .'d to 1)0 silhiogateil 
 
 mortgagees, and to 
 's extcution, to Ilie 
 lie prior mortgages, 
 , lie having done so 
 
 as ohtaining a tirst 
 disentitled to relief, 
 .are he might have 
 
 defendant not ha\ 
 Drown v. McLean, 
 
 1989 
 
 SUPERSEDEAS. 
 
 The plaintiff registered a lien against certain ' The Imp. Act 21 Geo. III. c. 49, prohibiting 
 lands. On the day before sueli registration the amusements and entertainments on the UrdV 
 defendant, an intending purchaser, had aearehed Day, is in force in Ontario, and an application to 
 the registry and found only two iiicuinlirances (piasli a eouvieti<m tliereuiuier for kei ping a 
 registered against the property. .Sli.irtly after j disonleily himae known as the •• iloyal Dper.i 
 the defendant eom|)leted his purchase, and liav- House,"opi.|iedainl useil for pubhceiitertaiiim.nt 
 iiig paid off the two ineumhranees, registered and ainuaement on the Lord's Day, was therefoie 
 discharges tiieleof with his deed of purchase. ; refused, tinjina v. /iariien, 4,5 y. 1!. '^Hi.- i). 
 but as he did not make a furtiier search, he did 15. D. 
 not discover the iilaintitrs lien ;- Held, aflirni- ' ,.,, , ■ , ^ 
 
 ing the decision of Falcoiil.ridge, .1., that the i .. '^ V*^''"'^'"',''- "^ner and captain reapee- 
 d "fendant was entitled to stand in the place of "'■''>■ "^ •'' «t'^^»"'l'"'^t. advertued that they woul.l 
 
 _ lace 
 the incunibraiieers whom he had paiil off, ••ind 
 to priority over the |)liiiitifra lien. 'I'lie Hegis- 
 tiy Act does not preclude iiupiiry as to whether 
 tlierc was knowledge in fact ; and thecoiiit was 
 not com]ielle<l as a conclusion of law to sav that 
 the defendant had notice of what he was doing, 
 .•iiid so could not Jiieail mistake. IJrown /•. Mi'- 
 Ijcan, IS (>. 1{. o.'iH, specially eoiisideied. Alhi/ 
 v. Morrison, 10 O. H. Wiit. -C'liy. D. 
 
 See Jack v. Jad; I'i A. H. 47t>, p. 7">(i : Pnr- 
 «/im v. Mrhol, Hi (). I!, (i!)!) ; I.') A. R. •J44 ; l.l 
 S. C. H. (JIO, p. 12t>-2 : Marfi'iiiinii v. Cnnj, Hi 
 O. 1!. 321 ; HI A. K. 224, p. l2,-)4. 
 
 SUBSCRIBING WITNESS. 
 
 See EviDENCK. 
 
 SUBSTITUTIONAL SERVICE. 
 
 See I'liAOTicK. 
 
 SUMMARY CONVICTIONS. 
 
 See JtlSTU'ES OK TIIK I'lCAOK. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 I. 
 II. 
 III. 
 
 SUMMARY TRIALS 
 
 Bkkokk MAcJisrK.vTEs — Sec Wn.wv. M.v- 
 
 <1ISTUATE.S, 
 
 For Ii.i.KiJAi. Acts at Klkction.s— .Vec 
 
 I'AKLIAMKNTAliY Kl-KCTIONS. 
 
 Bf.koke Cou.N TV ivuHE—Ste Criminal 
 Law. 
 
 carry exeiir.-iioiis on Sundays. A number of 
 passeiigeralefl Itiitlalo, in the .Mate of New York, 
 on a Sunday mondiig, and proceeded liy rail to 
 Niagara, wlienee llicy were earned by tlie ilefeii- 
 daiits' steaiiibiiat to Toronto and back the same 
 day. The (lefcndants having been convicted 
 therefor for an oHeiiee under K. S.O.(l877)e. IS!); 
 Held, that tlie passengers were " travellers " 
 within the iiicuiiiig of the exreption in si'c. 1 of 
 the Act : that there is no distinction in such a 
 case between travellers for pleasure and for 
 biiaiiiess ; and that the eonx icti(Jiis were there 
 fore bad. lictjina v. Dai/fieU ; Ittii'mn v. I'ortier, 
 1(1. R. .'),S7.-(^ 15. D. 
 
 Held that R. S. O. (1S77) e. 189, which for- 
 bids the |irofaiiation of the Lord's D.iy by per- 
 sons carrying on their ordinary liusiness, does 
 not apply to persons in the public service of 
 Her .Nlajesty, and tlierefore a (Oiiviction of a 
 goveiiinienl loekteiider on the W'ellaiid canal, 
 for locking a vessel through the canal on Sun- 
 day, ill oliedienee to the orders of his superiors, 
 was rjuaslied. lieijum v. licrriman, 4 O. B. 282. 
 -Q. IS. I). 
 
 In an action upon a contract for the purchase 
 of a horse, the statement of defence alleged that 
 on Sunday the lOtliof .-Kpril the defendant drove 
 out to the plaintifl's place for the purpose of ex- 
 ehaiigiiig a horsi^ and that on that occasion it 
 was agreed, etc (stiting the defendant's version 
 of t;ie bargain) :— Held, tliat this stateiiKMit was 
 not suflicieiit to raise tiiu defence of illegality 
 under the Lord's Hay Act, butas it was treated 
 at the trial as tendering tlie proper issue, and as 
 the jury found tiiat a contract was made on u 
 Sumlay, the judgment for the plaintiH' was set 
 aside and a new trial granted, without coats, 
 with leave to both jiarties to amend. Cromon 
 V. lUiihn, 12 A. I!. 94. 
 
 Application for injunction to restrain the ope- 
 rating of street cars on Sunday. See Atlnrneil- 
 Vi-tiii-iil 'J- nl. Iliiliki V. Xiaijara Fdda, We.sh'jf 
 Park mid aiiftoii Tramivay Co., 19 0. R. 024 ; 
 18 A. R. 433, p. 1988. 
 
 SUMMONS. 
 
 Wnrr ov—See Ejectment— Practice. 
 In CiiAMnEus — See Practice. 
 
 MAdlSTHATES — fe InTOXICATINCI Li- 
 
 yuoRs ; — JiT.sricE ok the Peace. 
 
 SUNDAY. 
 
 Sai.k ok Liquor - 
 
 LlQtORS. 
 
 ■See IsTOXiCATiNa 
 
 II. In Comittation ok Time— See Time. 
 
 SUPERSEDEAS. 
 
 The plaintiff, on the sale of certain land to the 
 defcuJant R., loft in her hands a aum of $2f)0 of 
 the purchase money as i^eciirity against an exe- 
 cution in auotiier action then in the hands of a 
 sheriff against the plaintiffs lands. Sulise 
 quently the plaintiff appealed in that action and 
 on doing 80 gave a bond with sureties condi- 
 tioned to pay the debt and coats : — Held, re- 
 versing the judgment of the court below, that 
 the perfecting and allowance of such security 
 operated as a writ of supersedeas of the writ of 
 
 1 
 
1991 
 
 SUPREME OOURT OF CANADA. 
 
 1992. 
 
 ff't 
 
 if 
 
 n 
 
 || 
 
 execution, not as a stay thereof nieiely ; and 
 that the plaintiff was therefoie entitled to re- 
 cover the bnlanee cii' the purchase money from 
 R. O'Dimohov v. IMAmov, 1(1 A. R. 622. 
 
 SnPPLEM£N'ri\L ANSWEF 
 
 See PLK.iniNc 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
 I. Authority to Issre Haukam CdHpr.--. 
 
 loai. 
 
 TI. Appkai.s to. 
 
 1. Jioiid. aiulSeriiri/y, 1991. 
 
 2. Fmluw. 190-.>. 
 
 3. Leure to Apjxul per SatUm, 'i''02 
 
 4. From what Courts, 1994. 
 
 5. A/>iit(t/x/rom Qiithec, 1995. 
 0. Amount in ('ontrorcra;!, 1995. 
 
 7. Final Jndijmcvl.i, 1997. 
 
 8. Fntnrf Hi;//its, L'OOO. 
 
 9. iVci/' Tria/s, L'002. 
 
 10. CriniiiKil Prorcniliiiijn, 2(K)2. 
 
 11. Mamlamvs — iVc Mandamus. 
 
 12. Ilahins Corpus- .SVc Habkas Coiirus. 
 1.3. ElrclioH /'cliiloiis—Ste, Paiiliamen- 
 
 TAIiY Ki.ECTIONS. 
 
 14. CroKt Api>ml% 2002. 
 
 15. ApjKnI.-' on (Jin.stioiifi of Fart, '2W,i. 
 IG. Ol/ur Cosa-; 2003. 
 
 17. Practice. 
 
 (a) Timejor Appmlhirj, 2005. 
 
 (1)) AvKVilnn Hi o/ /'/iadivij>i,200T. 
 
 (c) Othrr Casi-s, 2007. 
 
 18. ros/s 2009. 
 
 19. liiijl'l to tuki- (I'rtniiiil.i of Appeal not 
 
 takin Ihloiv — .Ser Appkai,. 
 29. Cdxe-' Kildthiij to Apinal (Itnerullij — 
 See Appkai.. 
 
 I. AuTnuiMiT TO IssuK HaiirasCorpi-h. 
 
 Sec /» r(! M^tina TnpanU'r, 12 S. C. R. Ill, 
 p. 840: /;- re S,,roii/<;. 12 .S. ( '. Il, 140, j.. 84(! ; 
 In re IUmh(r Cassels' Dig, 180, p. 848. 
 
 II. ApI'KAI.S ' /. 
 
 1 . lioml ami Sec- riiij. 
 
 Therj having heen i..> dcl.iy in afplying f..r 
 leave U>n\ p<iil ai.d th'' drlny tieing (aiiBcd liy the 
 act (if the coiiit : Held, tli.it iln time for filii g 
 the boiul must ir.nint from the urant ng of h ave 
 II AtV^ 9 P. K, 288.- 
 
 Mci rae v. 
 
 to njipeal. 
 Patterson. 
 
 The following certificate was fil<»l with the 
 printed ciise, as comjilying with Uidi)()of*hc 
 Supreme ( 'o'lrt Rules . " \\'v, tlie vimletHigned, 
 joint jiriitlioiiotaiy fi.r tin- I^uixrioi Court i'{ 
 Lower CauaiU, now the I'roviuco of QutLec, do 
 
 hereby certify that the said defendant has de- 
 posited in our office, on the twentieth day of 
 November, last, the sum of five hundred dol 
 lars, as security in appeal in this case, before the 
 Supreme Court, according to section thirty 
 first of the Supreme Court Act, passed in the 
 thirty -eighth year of Her Majesty, chapter 
 second, Montreal, 17th Januaiy, 1878, Signed, 
 Hubert, Honey & Gendron, P. S. C. "— Held, on 
 motion to ((uash appeal, that the deposit of tin- 
 sum of $500. in the hands of the prolhonotaiy 
 of the court below, made by appellant, without 
 a eertiticate that it was made to the satisfaction 
 of the court appealed from, or any of its judges, 
 \\:iH nugatory and ineit'tM^tual as security for tlw^ 
 ci -i of appeal. Per 'I'aschereau, J., the ca.-e 
 should be sent back to the court below in older 
 that a proper certificate might be obtaineii. 
 Macdonald v. AUiott, 3 S. C. K. 278. 
 
 The Court has no discretion to iiicrea.se the 
 amount of security on appeal to the Siipreiiie 
 Court of Canada, fixed by 1.*. S. C c. 135, s. 
 40, at .'?500, because of the number of rcspoii 
 dents. Archer V. S( rem, 12 1". K. 472. (i^hi. 
 
 If objection is made to the form of a bond fm 
 secuiity for costs on appeal to the .""iijueiiif 
 Court it should be by apiilicatioii iiicliaiiil>er,s to 
 dismiss, and if not so made the objection will bi' 
 held to be waived. Whitman v. (Jniov. ISunIc nj 
 Hal, J ax, 10 S. C. ii, 410. 
 
 S. brought an actiim against .1. and LssuimI a 
 writ of cajiias. Hail was given aii>l s|,rriid b.ul 
 cntereil in due couiS(>, but the bad-pieci w iis iiu. 
 filed, nor judgment enteied ai;ain.st .1., Im- .some 
 months after. On a|iiilicatioii lo a jiidf,'e in 
 ehambcrs, an order was inaiie lur tlie ni-cliar^^e 
 of the bad on account of delay in enienng ii|> 
 judgment, and the full eoilit li filled lu set asiile 
 Hiieli an order. An api eal w.s l.roiij,ht to tiie 
 Supreme Couit, of Canada, cnliti.il in t le suit 
 against •!., fic in the juilgnient if the fnll ceiiit, 
 and the bond tur s-ecnnty lur costs «a> given tn 
 J. : lletil, that as the bad, the eiily paitiit.s 
 nally interested in tlie a|ipeal, were uil Indole 
 the ( ourt and m.t entitled lo tlie benclit of the 
 bend, tne appeal iiiu^t be (lua.-lied lor want of 
 proper seem ity ; -Held, al.su, th..t llie apiieal 
 would not be as tin: matter w..s .■•iinjoy one ol 
 pr.iclice, ill the iliseietion of the (oinl below. 
 Scomiiie.lt V. Jaiiii ■<, 10 .S. C. R. 59. i. 
 
 See Cit'Zc.tix' Ins. Co. v, /kusons, ,')2 ('. I'. 492, 
 p. 412: /lMijet>s v. ('onirai/, 11 I'. I;. 514, |i. 
 151, p. 412. ■ 
 
 2. Faclnm. 
 
 The plaintiff's factum, eoiitainirg ri lleetions 
 on the judge in eipiity :.\ul the luL eouri o! -New 
 
 liruiisunk, wis ordered to be taken oil ihu tiles 
 of the court as siandalous and impei tiiiuiit. 
 
 Vernon v. (diver, II S. (J. It. 150. 
 
 Sec O'SulUran v. I.ukr, l(i S. C. I!. (i.'iO. 
 
 3. Liare to Appatl p:r SaVrm. 
 
 The Chief .Justice of the iSnpreme Court, under 
 section {jot the S'ipromeCoarl A; uiidinent Act 
 uf 1879, allinved an ajipeid direct lo lln- .Su] rciiii! 
 ( '..urt ef taiiiuli), it 1 cing known teat i lieie ueio 
 tlii:ii only two judges ou the bench in M.mitoLa,, 
 
1992. 
 
 ulant haa di:- 
 iitioth day of 
 
 hiiiidreil ilol 
 ise, befoi'f tlic 
 crtioii tliiity- 
 pnaHuil ill till! 
 e»ty, (;bui)ti;i- 
 
 lb78, Si|,'iie(l, 
 C."— Held, on 
 dt'poi'it of till- 
 : |ii'i)tlioiiotai y 
 dlaiit, witlioiit 
 ;lie satisfaction 
 y of its juilgiK, 
 ifuuiity fur tli»^ 
 J. , the ca.-c 
 liulow ill oidtr 
 
 liu iiljtaiiu'ii 
 
 7S. 
 
 ini'iea.sc thr 
 ;o tlio Supriinc 
 
 (.'. c. 1 ;{.'), V 
 diur of I'lSpon 
 K. 47-J. (l.-l.T. 
 
 Ill iif a liiiiiil fill 
 
 tint >ii|iieni(' 
 
 I iiU'liaiiilKM's to 
 
 ilijuutioii will 111' 
 
 I 'iii"ii litiiiL 11/ 
 
 ■I. ami issiii'il ,1 
 
 aiiil s|.'<'i'iai li.ul 
 
 iil-pieci. u as iiii; 
 
 Mist i)., Iiir sdiiii- 
 
 to ii .i»d;,'i; in 
 
 r tilt! t(i-cliaij,'i: 
 
 y III ciiii'i iiig ii|i 
 
 fiihud to .si.'t asiilc 
 
 i I roiii,lit to tliu 
 
 .itii d ill t lu suit 
 
 if liu' full ciiuit, 
 
 lists \\a^ gi\ 111 til 
 
 Liu: only pailies 
 
 , wort! lilt lirtori! 
 
 le liiiiiclit of tin; 
 
 >li('d lor \\:>iit of 
 
 that till' appeal 
 
 ',is ^illl|lly one ol 
 
 till! uoiiit below. 
 
 a9;». 
 
 oiiH, :w c. p. -lO'.'. 
 
 II I'. K. .'.14, II. 
 
 aiiili^g ixiUftions 
 lid, uouri o! .Niw 
 tiikun oit iIk- tilos 
 iiid iiiipt I liiiciit, 
 M. 
 
 ^. C. I!. (iliO. 
 
 r Sallnn. 
 
 •ome Court, tuulcr 
 ; Ai wiidiiiont Act, 
 ct lo till- .Sui'ieiiii! 
 vn tiial ! Ill 10 'Aei« 
 iicli 111 M.iniwbu, 
 
 1993 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
 1994 
 
 the i>laiiitifF(0]iief Justice), and Diilmc, J., from 
 wliose decree tlio appeal was broi-glit. Si-hnlt^ 
 V. Wooil, (i S. (". li. 585. I 
 
 A Huit brouglit by reBpondoiits a;^aiiisl I), as 
 rector of St. James' Catliedral, Toronto, to have I 
 certain lands declared to lie held by him iiotonly ' 
 for hiin.sflf but also for the beuelit of the otlier 
 rectories in the city <if Toronto, was dccicled by 
 Kergusoii, J., in favour of the rv^imndcnts, a 
 ilccision which, on apjieal to tlutdliaiiceiy Divi- i 
 sioii of the H. C. J., was upheld. U)) to the I 
 time of the judgment rendered by the latter 
 (!ourt the proceedings had been carri(!il on 
 in the name of 1). by arranj,'eiiieiit between liini 
 aii<l the chuichwardeiis of St. .liuiips' t'atliedral, 
 wliiieonteiidod that they had an interest separate 
 from that of I), in the disposition of the lands 
 and tin' revenues therefnim, and who had in- 
 di'iiinilied l>. against costs. I>ut upon the 
 <;hurcliwardeiis |(ro[iosing to appeal lotlie Court 
 ot Appeal, 1). refused to allow his name to be , 
 further used in the proceedings. The Court of 
 Appeal, upon an application being made by the 
 •I'liuieliwardens for leave to appeal, refused to ' 
 grant such appeal, holding that the i.hiircli 
 w.irdeiis had no interest in the lands or revenues. 
 The churchwardens thereupon ajiplied to. Stiong, 
 .1., in ehaiiibers, foi' leave to appcil per s.iltcni 
 In the !-!upreiiie Court of Canada under seetioii li ' 
 <if the S. C. C. .\et, ISTll. from the jii(igment of ' 
 ;,hc Cliaiieery Division. The judge Iwld tliatthe 
 eliurehwardens had an interest at least wliieli 
 justilied them in appealing. He would not 
 liiiwover, as a judge in chambers, overiiile the 
 ■decision of theC'ourtof .Apiieal, but granted 
 le ive to renew the application to the full 
 ciniil. On tlu' motion coining before the full 
 court it was held that the appeal should be 
 allowed upon a |)loper iinieniiiity being given 
 by the (diuivliwardeiis to I), against all possible 
 c.ists, the ciiiirt expressing no opinion on the 
 merits of the case itself. Ileiirv, ■!., dissenting;. 
 on the giouiid that it w.is impossible to di'ciile 
 the right to appeal without eiiteiiiii; into the 
 merits, and on the nniits the elinreliwai .lens had 
 no interest in the lamls or revenues. I)ii Miiiiliii 
 V. Ijiiiiijlri/. IH.'^. C. I!. 'I'fX. Leave to appeal 
 to Privy Council refused 57 I.. T. \. S. .'117. 
 
 An appeal came before the Supreme Court, by 
 ■ onscnt. from a dei-ision of the jiidne in eipiity 
 of \( w llrunsuieU without an inteiiiiediate 
 ap])eal to the Supreme Court of the nrovinee 
 and, after aigunnnt, was dismissed. (!• .S. C. 
 1!. 017.) I'he judgment of the .Siiprenie Court 
 was subseipieiitlv reveiseil by the privy ciinneil 
 and the ease sent back to the judge in eipiily to 
 make a decree. The plainlitl's being dissatistied 
 with the deelee pronouneeil iiy I lie jlldge ill 
 <!i|Uity applied, under K. S. C. c. I.'!."i. s. vJli. for 
 leave to appi'al direct tlieritfrom : — Held, Tiis- 
 chereaii and t;\^ylln<^ .1.1., ilisseiitinir. that under 
 the cir(!iimstanees of the ease sitoli leave should 
 bi.' granted. Lni-in v. I'/oni , 14 S. C. K. 7--. 
 
 It is not a siidieieiit ground for allnwing an 
 appeal diieit from tin deiisionof the trial jiid^e 
 on farther eniisideratioii i.r of a Divisional Couit 
 of till' High Court of .lusticeot Ontario, that the 
 •Court of Ap^lealof that province hail alrc.idy, in 
 a similar case before it, given a decision on the 
 abstract ipiestion of law involved in the case in 
 which the ,ippe d was sought, tlioiigh it might 
 be Hiilticient if such decision l;ad been givtin on 
 
 the same state of facts and the same evidence. 
 Kyli. v. Vmialn ('„. : Hisli,/, v. Toinuihip of 
 Midinieriii/, 15 S. C. K. 188. 
 
 4. Fiiiin Wind Courts. 
 
 Per Strong and Taschereau, JJ., that un ap- 
 Iiealilois not lir from theConrtof Uevit .v(l'.(i.) 
 to the Supreme Court of Canail.i, (Henry, J., 
 contra). MmdoiKihl v. Ahlioll, ;j S. C. 11. 278. 
 
 Held, on a niotimi to ipiasli, that an appeal 
 will not lie to the Supreme Court of Canada in 
 cases ill which tin court of original jurisiliction 
 is not a superior court, and that the Court of 
 \yills and Probate for the county of Lunenburg, 
 Nova Scotia, is not ,i supern.- court within the 
 nicaning of the 17th seetioi „i the Supreme and 
 KxclieipK 1 Court .Act. lUamUlt v. Kaiilhach, 
 :i S. C. 1!. 704. 
 
 Iniiii action instituted iii the Superior (Jourtof 
 the Provinee of (,>ueliee liy the' appellant against 
 .M. A. C. and nine other ilefi'inlants, the respon- 
 dents, three (it the ili feiidants, severally demur- 
 red lothe appellant's aetiou, exeejit as regarded 
 two lots of land, in wliirli they acknowleged the 
 .ippellaut liiul an uiidivideil share. The Superior 
 Court sustaiic'il the demurrer, and, on ap|>eal, 
 the Court of t^lufen's l!eneli for Lower Canada 
 fap|ieal siile) allirmed the juilgment. The appel- 
 hint tiiereujioii ajipealed to the Supreme Court, 
 and respiinileiits move 1 to quash the appeal on 
 the grouiiil that the Supreinc Court had no juris- 
 diction : Held, that as the judgment of the 
 Court of (.tueen's Mcneli (the highest court of last 
 resort having jiiiisdietion in the Province) finally 
 determined to put an end to the appeal, which 
 was a judicial proiecdiiig within the meaning of 
 section !t of the Snpienie Court .•\niendinent Act 
 of IS7!I, siiih jiilgment was one from which an 
 ajipeal would lie to the Supreme Court of Canada; 
 and though an appeal cannot be taken from 
 a eouit of lirst instance directly to the .Supreme 
 l.'ourt iiiitil there is a final jndguieiit, yet, when- 
 ever ,i provincial Court of .\p])cal has jurisdic- 
 tion, ■. ais court can eiiteilaiii an aiipeal from its 
 judgment linally disposing of the appeal, the 
 case being in other respects a |)roper subject of 
 appeal. Vln ralhr v. Ciinllo'); 4 S. C. K. 00.5. 
 
 The College of Ste. Thi-rese having petitioned 
 for an order fur payment to them of a sum of 
 .•?l.O0(l deposited by the appellants as security 
 for liind taken fur railway purposes, a judge of 
 the .Superior Coiut in chamliers after formal 
 answer and hearing of the parties granted the 
 Older niider tlu Kailway Act, P. S. C. c. lOit, 
 s. 8. subs. ."il. The railway ••iiiiip.iny apiiealed 
 ag.iiust this iirdcr t<i the Court of t^neen's Bench 
 for l.o«er Canada (apjieal side) and that court 
 allii iiied the deiMsUMi of the judge of the Superior 
 Court: -Helil, that the order in (piestion hav- 
 ing been made by a judge sitting in chambers, 
 and. further, acting under the statute as a 
 per.sona de.-iigiiata. the |irocecilings had not 
 originated in a Su|ierior Court within the iiiean- 
 iiig of .section 'iS ot the Su|iremc and Kxchcipier 
 Courts .Vet ami the ease was therefore not 
 appealable. Ciniailiiiii Pacijir 11. \V. Co. v. 
 Liltl' .Si miiiorn of Sh: Tlu'ii'i'i , Ki S, C. It. <iO(i. 
 
 Hy an orlinanee of the Nortli-West Ter- 
 ritories an apjied lies tioni the decision of the 
 Court of Pevisioii for aiijudieatiig upon assess- 
 
?. 
 
 1. 
 
 1996 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
 1996 
 
 if 
 
 «, 
 
 
 ments for school rates to the flistrict court of the 
 soliool district ; on sucli appeal being broiijjht 
 the clerk of the court iasucs a summons, milking 
 the ratepayer plaintiff nnd the school trustees 
 ilefendants, which summons is rcturniildc at the 
 next sitting of the court when tiie ajipeiil is 
 heard. The district is now merged in the 
 Supreme (Jourt of the Territories : — H^ld, that 
 an appeal will not lie from the judgment ot the 
 Supreme Court iillirniing a decision of the Court 
 of Kcvision in such ease, as the i)roeeedings do 
 not ori;;inate in a Supiaior Court. K. S. C. e. 
 1X5, s. 'J4. An appeal in such case will lie since 
 the j)assiug of ol Vict. c. 37, s. i>, wliich allow.s 
 an appeal from the decision of the Supreme 
 Oourt of the Territoiics altlionyh tiie matter may 
 not have originated in a su|)eriiir court. Ainjii" 
 V. Cnlijnrji Sclinol 'riii>-lcis, lUS. ('. 1 1. 7 Hi. 
 
 See Dai,j;,i v. Afiin/iils, ;t S. C. R. ■_':>! , p. I'J.'JI. 
 
 5. A/ijtiiil-i Jioin (Jmbic. 
 
 A churchrate ]iayal>le in two instalments of 
 -■i!l6r> each was as.sesscd on a certain property in 
 I he I'arish ol' the Nativity. The IJuuk of Tiiron- 
 to 8ul)se(|Uciitly lieeame pniprit^tor of this liiud, 
 and in an hy|)iptliecary action liro'.ight liy rc- 
 spc adcnt.s against thtni t(i iiifoice the [)aynient 
 of ;he lir.st instalment of saiil churcliiate, the 
 Superior (Jourt at. Montreal hell th-j Hank of 
 Toronto were liahlc ; the Court (•! <iMiei;n"s liench 
 (appeal side) coiilirmcd the juil-iiicnt : Helil, 
 on appeal to the Suirreme Cmnt ot ( 'anada, that 
 the case did not come witiiin any ot the classes 
 of cases mentioned in i:c. ,s of I'J N'iet. e. .'{!( 
 (Supreme ( 'ouil .\iucndnient .\cl, IS7!t;, jiro 
 vidmg for a|ipcals from the Province ot (^)ial)ee, 
 aiul was not ap])calal)le. TIk limik of '/'onuild 
 V. //(■ C/()v' f/c., i/i III I'artii'-it ill lit yn/iri/i'' ilc 
 III Sllinix Viiri/r, 1-2 S. C. K. -J."). 
 
 'I"he provisions of the Supleme and lAehe(|Uei' 
 ('onit», .\cts iilating to appeals from (j)nelicc, ap 
 ply to eases jii ising iimler the I'ctition of liiglit 
 Act of that l'ro\ln<>e. Hi \'ii:t. e. •.'7 (<^ie. i. Mc 
 flriiri/ \'. Till <Jiiiiii, 14 S. C. \\. 7.'t.'). 
 
 An .Tppeal from a deeisimi oi tlu,' ( 'oni t of 
 (Queen's IJeneh for Lower Canaiia, appeal side 
 (M. L. i;. •_»(,>. W. IS'.') «as (|ua>he.l on motion 
 for want of jiu is.lietion, the pio ceilings l.cing 
 hy (|U0 wai-iaiito as tc) wliirh tlu'rc is no apjieal 
 hy thestatvite. W'liJ.ili v. Ih fH rnmi, \l S. C. \\. 
 
 See Caiiiiiliiiii I'luijic It. IT. Cn. v. IJltli 
 
 liOt). It. 
 V. Mm- 
 
 Simhliii'i/ 11/ Sl<: 'J'lirn'.ir, |(i S. ( 
 I9!)4 ; (hiliiiln mill ',>'"'"'■ /■'• H'- 
 ■helnrre, 17 S. C W. 141. p. -JtWO. 
 
 Co. 
 
 See 
 •J(»0(l. 
 
 dso Suhlieads II. C, 7, .S, |i|'. M>!l'>. I'.I!I7, 
 
 (i. Atiiniiiil III Colli rnrrrsy. 
 
 L., aiipellant, sued I!., the respondent, hefore 
 the Suiierior ( 'oiirt at .Vrtiialiaska, in an ai-tion 
 of daUKiges (laid at .SHI.OOO) for slander. The 
 judgment of the .Superior Couit awanled to the 
 appellant a sum of $1,000 for special and vindic- 
 tive damages. R. appealcil to the Court of 
 Queoi's Bench (aj>peal side), and L., the ])re.senl 
 appellant, did not ask, hy way of cross appeal, 
 for an inciease of damages, hut contended that 
 
 the judgment for .$1,000 should he confirmed. 
 The Court of Queen's Bench partly concurreil iu 
 the judgment of the Superior Court luit (littered 
 as to the amount, because L. had not proved 
 special damages, and the amount awarded was 
 reduced to .S.'tOO, and costs of appeal were ;;iven 
 against the ))resent appellant. L. thereupon ap- 
 pealed to the Supreme Court: — Held, Taseheieau 
 J., dissenting, that 1,. the plaintitT, although 
 respondent in the court below, and nr)t s<ikiiig 
 in tluit court by way of cross appeal an inci. isi- 
 of damages beyond the $1,000, was entitled to 
 ai)peal, for in iletermining the amount of the 
 matter in coritroversy between the parties, lliu 
 proper course was to look to the anioinit for 
 wliich the declaration ciuiclnded, and not al tlie 
 amount of the juilgment. .Joyce r.llart, 1 S ('. 
 K. .S2I, reviewed and ai)proved, l.ii-i v. /,' /, 
 (i .S. C. U. 4H'2. Mut sec ni'Xt ease. 
 
 Where the plaintirt' has ac<|uiesced in the 
 judgment (<f the conit of liist instanct' by not 
 aj i)ealing froni ti\e same, the ineasiiie of vuliie 
 foi deteimining his right of appeal under. -.c- 
 tion •_'!! of tiie .Si:prenie and K.\(die(pier Con' t.s 
 Act, is the amoiiiil awarded liy the s.iid jn. •.,' 
 nieiit of the court of lirst instance, ainluot inc 
 amount claimed hy his declaration. (Levi >'. 
 I'.eed, (i S. C. \\. 4S-J, overruled ; Allan r. 
 I'latt, l.S -Ajip. Cas. 7^iO, referred to as ()\.| 
 ruling , Joyce i\ Hart, I S. C. K. .TJl.) Mm,. II.' 
 V. Lifihrri', Hi S. C. l!. :{S7. 
 
 Ilelil, that allluiugh the anionnt elainicil la 
 this ea>e by the declar.it ion was made lo e.Scied 
 •S2,U0(I, by ineliiding interist which had li( . ii 
 barred by iiicscii|ptioii, the appeal would lie. 
 Ai/iilli'V. Ii,, Ill-Ill i\'.\ S. C. It. 4(i(). 
 
 A life insurance coni|iany deposited \iitli the 
 prothonotary of the Snpeiior Court, under llic 
 .ludic i.ll Deposit .Vet ol l^liiebif, the sum ol .':^.'>. 
 (MIO, being tln^ anionnt of a life )Miliey issued hy 
 the company to one I'l. L. which by its teiin.-' 
 had bc!(vime payable to those eutitleil to ;lie 
 same, luit to one half of which sum rival elanns 
 were put in. The appi'llaiits, as eollateial 
 heirs of the ilci-eascd, by a petition clainied llie 
 whole of the thrc.'c thons.iiid dollars, and I lie 
 rc-pondent (mise-en -cause petitioner!, the « idow 
 of the deceased, by a counter p( titioii elainicil 
 as commune en bieiis one half : and, in lier 
 answer to the appcll iiits' Jictition, ]iiayed that 
 in so far .is it clainied any greater siiin than one 
 half, it siiould be dismissed. .\tter issue joined 
 the .'^iljieriiir ('oiirt .iwarded one half to the ,ip- 
 pellaiits, and the other half to the rcs|iiindciit. 
 from this jinlgnient the appellants ap|ie.deil In 
 the Court of l,)iiecii's IJcneh (appeal side) ami 
 that court conlirmed the jndgnuMit of the Supe- 
 rior C<uirt. (hi apjieal to the Supreme Court of 
 C.iliada :- Meld, that the sum or value of tliu 
 matter in eontroversy between tlu^ parties beiiit; 
 only ■•?!,. "(Mt, the case was not a|)|ieal.ihle. II. 
 S. C. e. 1. '{.'), s. •_".). (l''oiiinier, .1. . dnbitaiite). 
 I.nli.'li V. /liiiliniii, Ids. C. K. ;{;)(). 
 
 Where tlie matter in conti'over.sy is bank. 
 shari'S, their actual value at the time of the in 
 stituti<ui of the action and not their par value 
 w ill determine the i iglit of a|)peal under section 
 ■J'.l Supreme and l',.\eheipier Courts Act, and the 
 actual \aliie of such shares maybe shown by 
 allidavit. .Uiiir v, t'urtcr—Uohini v. Cailii: 
 HiS. C. It. 47;i. 
 
 
 /,•:?««;;.;. .j-v- , 
 
1996 
 
 lie coiifirnu'd. 
 .ly conciirred in 
 iirt Imt (lifl'Lifd 
 
 lild IKit pi-nVfd 
 
 it awiirdi'd w.is 
 )eivl woio ;;i\i'ii 
 ,. tlu'ieujioii ii]i. 
 old, Tasolificiju 
 iiitilT, !dtliiini,'h 
 111(1 not istikiiij^ 
 pcill Mil ilii'li ;isi' 
 WiiH ciititliil i<> 
 
 unioiiiit lit' iliu 
 the piitics, tlio 
 tlio luiKiimt fur 
 and not iil tlic 
 
 c.Ilait, I S ('. 
 
 /,./•(• V. ,';. ,/, 
 
 •i|uic.six'd in the 
 lance ))v not 
 leisure i)f v.ihie 
 ])|)'al under .-.i'- 
 Cxclii'(|iier C'l.i,' t.s 
 I'V the said jii.'i,'- 
 i;ee, and nut i in; 
 latiiin. (Levi r, 
 iiled ; Allan r. 
 I'l'ed to as o'. .r 
 
 iniint cluhned in 
 IS made to exui ril 
 
 wiiicli had hi '11 
 ippoal Wolllil lie. 
 
 Kil). 
 
 I'liositrd w itli the 
 Cniirt, niider the 
 e, the siini ol .•<.'!, 
 I' I'oliey issued hy 
 hiili hy its ti I ins 
 e entitled to :hf 
 I sniii rival elaiins 
 Ills, aH iiillatiud 
 litimi claimed iIh' 
 dolhil's, and tlii! 
 linneri,ihe wid.iw 
 ' |Htitiiiii elaiiiii'il 
 all' : and, in lier 
 itiiiii, ]iiayed tliiit 
 itii' sum than mie 
 Alter issue joiiii'il 
 lie half til the ap- 
 I the l-cs[ii)iideiit. 
 Hants a])|ie.ded tii 
 (apjieal side) ami 
 nieiit III the Suju'- 
 Sii|iiiiiie ( 'oiirt of 
 1 or valni,' ot the 
 1 the iiarties liciiig 
 t apiiealalile. K. 
 r, d. , iluliitaiite). 
 ;. -MO. 
 
 troversy is hank 
 he time of the In 
 )t t hiii- par value 
 [leal under sectiim 
 nuts Act. iiiiil the 
 nay he shown b}' 
 lohiiis V. Carli'i; 
 
 1997 
 
 SUPREME COURX OF CANADA. 
 
 1^98 
 
 
 An action was instituted by the respondent 
 against the appellant for the partition ..ml liei- 
 tation of a clieese factory, etc., in order that 
 the proceed-J might he divided according to the 
 rights of the parties who had carried on husi- 
 ness as partners. The judgment appenkd from 
 ordered the licitation of the factory and a)ipur- 
 tenanoes. On a motion to i(uash the a|i|)(;al hv 
 the respondent on the ground that the mattcV 
 in controversy was under !*l'.()0(). tlii' apiiclhint 
 in answer to the respondent's idlidavit tiled an- ■ 
 other affidavit showing that the tot:d value of 
 the property was !?.1,0(i(), lint it heiiig admitted 
 that the respondent Iplaintill') claimed hut one- 
 half interest in the lU'opeity, it was:— Held. ' 
 iiiat the niattiM- in eontrnversy, and claimed hy 
 the resfiondent, not amounting to the sum or 
 value of §2.000. the appeal should lie ipiasheil 
 with costs. Hoiiit V. Saiii/'df'i; Ki S. ('. I!. 7"2:!. 
 
 The Supreme fViiirthns iin jurisiliction ;inder 
 section '2'.) of the Supreme aiM Kxeheipier Courts 
 Act, npiui an apjieal liy the det'cnil.iiit where 
 the amount in eontrnversy has not heeii cs- 
 tahlishcd liy the judgment apjiealed from. 
 ((Jwyiine .1., reserving his opinion mi this point). 
 Ouliiriii mil/ Qiiihrc /,'. WCo. v. .]/iir<-fiiii n-f 
 ITS. ('.!!. 141. 
 
 Althiingh the court cannot refuse to li. ar an | 
 appeal in a case in which only twenty-luo laillurs i 
 is involveil, yet the liriiiging of .aiiiicals for such i 
 trifling amounts is ohiectiiiiialilc nud sliould not 
 he encouraged. McDuiinId v. (Iillitri, K) ,S. ('. | 
 R. 700. j 
 
 The section of the Ontario (udicatuie Act, I 
 1881 (section -l.'J), which jirovides that in cases ' 
 where the amount in controversy is under f?l,()l)0 \ 
 no uji|icil shall lie from the decision of the i 
 •^'oviri ■' .ApiK'd to the Su]ireme Court of i 
 Canada, except liv leave of a jmU'eof the fnrnier ■ 
 court, is ultra vins the legislature of ()nt!iiio' 
 and not liiinling on this ciiiirl. Ucni irks on an 
 order grinting such leave on appellant under- 
 taking to ask no ccisis of appeal. < 'lii.rh^nn v. 
 liijiin, 17 S. ('. K. 'ril. 
 
 7. I'hinl Jiii/<imciifs. 
 
 St. L. claimed of S. .•«'2,1 •_'.-> 7"). h.d inc.. due on 
 a huildiiig contiact. S denie 1 the i l.iim, and. 
 hy incidental dciiKind. claimed .Sl^-'iliS for d.-m- 
 agcs resulting from dcfeciive work, 'i'lie .Supe- 
 rior Court, on 27th March, 1S77, gave judgment 
 in favour of St. L. for the nli'dc amount of his 
 claim, ,ind dismissing S.'s incidental demand. 
 This judgment wis reversed hy the Court of 
 Ucview, on the 2!lth D.n'emlur, I.S77. St. 1,. 
 a|))iealed to the Court of (^tuecn's Ticiich, and on 
 the 24th Xovcmlicr, ISSO, that court held that 
 St. L. was entitled to the lialancc claimed hy 
 him, from which should lie deducted the cost of 
 rchiiilding the defectively ciiiistrneled work, 
 and in order to ascertain such cost, the case was 
 remitted to the Suiieiior Court, hy whom ex- 
 perts were apjiointed to ascertain the d.images. 
 and. on their report, the Superior (^ourt, on tin 
 IHIh dune, IHSI, held that it «as hound liy the 
 judgment of the Court of (^)ueen's liencli, and 
 deducting the amount awarded hy the tixperts 
 fioni the lialancc churned by St. L.. gave judg 
 ment for thi dilFeren ••.>. The jndginent was 
 aflirined by iho Coirt of Queen's Bench, on the 
 
 l!)tl 
 
 iinuaiy, 1S,S2 : Ifehl, cii ajipcal. that 
 t lejudgincntof tlicCnurt of (,)iie..n's llnich of 
 the 'Jlth Xoveniher. IS.SO, was a Iin d judgim lit 
 on the merits, and that the Snpciior Cuurt. 
 whenthe c.ise Wiis leiiiittcd to it, lightly held 
 th,.t it was hound hy that jinlgiii. iit'!' anil that 
 M. L. «as entitled to the haiaiice tin rehv found 
 due to liiiii. Per I'oiniuer, .).--!. That the 
 judgment of the 2ltli Xoveniher. ISSK. tliomdi 
 iiiterlocutnry in that part of it which directed 
 the rcfereiee to experts, was liiial on the other 
 points in litigatiiii:. and could therelurc have 
 pioj'cily hecii appealed fromasn final judgment. 
 '-'. 'llial allMciiigli 1,11 ail appenl Irom ,i Vmai jiiilg. 
 ment. ail appellaul m ly have the ri-lit |,, impugn 
 an interlocutnry jinl-inent iviid, red in the can.ie. 
 yet he losis this li-lit if he voluntarily and 
 wit In lilt reserve acts upon such interloriitoiy 
 juilgmcnt. Shdir v. SI. Louis, S .S. C. |!. :i,s,">. 
 
 Held, Tiisihcrcaii r,nd ( 1 Wynne, .1.1., dissent- 
 ing, that although the judgn'ielit appeal d from 
 ill this iMsc was a judgment on a dcniiirrer to 
 
 part of i.'ie actii ly, it was a (inal jndgiuciit 
 
 in a iudicial |irocciMling within themeuiingof 
 the third scctinu o;' tin- Siiiirenie Court .\iiieiid- 
 ment Ad of IS71I. Cln'vallier r. Cuviliicr, 4 
 S. C. l;. (ll).-), fnlhiwcil. .s'Ai'././sv. /'.'i,/,,,S S C 
 
 i;. .-i7i). 
 
 An action was hrnught hy respondent as en- 
 dorsee of a iiromissory note nnnlc hy appellants 
 in favour of diic .1. A., and hy him endorsed to 
 respondent. The ajipellaiits pleaded that the 
 amount of the note had jen attached in their 
 hands hy oiicof A 's judgii.eiit creditors and paid 
 liinh r the garnishee clauses of the Coinnioii Law 
 Proci dui-c Act of 1'. I''. I., triii.scriptsiif .sections 
 (iO to (i7 iiicliiMvc. of the Keglish C. L. V. Act, 
 I8.">4. To this ]ile:i rcs]ionileiit ilcinu;red on the 
 L;rouiid that the ih lit was not one « liicli e 'nld 
 ]iioiicrly he attai'lied. and on the ."ith h'l liri;aiy, 
 1 88.'!, the Supreme Com t g.ivi^ jiiduineut in faMiiir 
 of till! rcKpoinlcnt mi the deinurrer. No rule for 
 judgunnt on the dcuuirrer was tak.ii out hy the 
 re-ponlent. On the lllth M ucli following, an 
 order was ohtaine I to ascertain ammiiit; of de.lit 
 and d.imigcs for which final jinlgment was to he 
 entered, and |iidgiiicnt \\as sigiecl for the re- 
 spondent on tiie 'Jiid May following. The ap- 
 (icllants then appealed to the Supreme Court of 
 ('anad.i. On niulion to (]iiasli for want of jiiris- 
 dictioii, it was cont' nded mi hihalf of rcspmnieiit 
 that the aiipcllauts should hive appended from 
 till' judgnieiit rendered mi the dcniiirrcr on the 
 ."itli l''i'hrii.iry. 188;!, and within tliir' lys from 
 that date: hut; - Ifeld, that the jii(li;i'n lit en- 
 tered on the 2inl May, 18S:!, was the " tiual 
 jildgnient" in the case fretn which an appeal 
 would lie to the Supreme Cmirt. Itililn' v. 
 .','.'«/■;;/, II S. C. I!. lo7. 
 
 .\ \\ rit of ca\ii:is having liecn issued against 
 
 M, K. under the provisions of .\rt. 7!IS of C. C. 
 
 I'. (!'. Q.I h" petitioned to he discharged under 
 
 1 Art. 81!) C. ''. I'., and issue having hceu joined 
 
 j oil the pleadings under Art. S'Jtt C. C. 1'., the 
 
 ' petition was disin'ss'd hv the Superior Court. 
 
 From that julgiuent McK. appu.ded to thet.'ourt 
 
 of (,>ucrn's 15ench for Lower Cmad . (;ippe:d side), 
 
 ind that emirt miintaiiied the juilgmcnt of the 
 
 >uperior tloiirt. 'riurenpnn McK. appealed to 
 
 the Supreme Court of Canada. On motion to 
 
 quash for want of jn'Msdiction : - Held, that the 
 
 I judgment wus a final judgment in a judicial pro- 
 
' 
 
 III 
 
 It', 
 
 
 i: 
 I 
 
 ! 
 
 •I 
 n 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 1999 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF OANADA. 
 
 2000 
 
 cceilin^ within t)iu incanin^df Hcction 28, i'. I.'i.') 
 R. S. ("., .'iiid tlu'i'uroi'C! appculiiltlt!. TaRC'licieini, 
 •I., dissuiitiiig. Stiiiiton i: Ciiniida Allantiir 1!. 
 W. Co. (JaHselH* Dig. 24!) rcvieweil. Mac- 
 KiiiiioH V. Kr.roark, IS S. C K. 111. 
 
 Uy a rnlo nisi of the Snjirome Court of New 
 IJniiiswick, K. was callud upon to show cause 
 why an uttachineiit Mhnnid not iH.sm; ugaioHt 
 him, or iio he ooininilted for eont'Mnpt of eourt, 
 in puhliHliin^ certain articles in a newspaper. 
 On the I'otuni of tlie ride it was made alisohite, 
 unit a writ of attaehnieiit was issued eoniinanding 
 the siuMifl' to liavu tlie l«nly of I'', before the 
 court on a day naiucMl. I5y tlie prai'tiee in such 
 cases ill the said court it appcarcMl that tlic at- 
 laciirnciit was issued merely in firdei' to hriiig 
 tlie jjarty into court, where he niifjlit IxMirdcred 
 to answer interronat oriels and hy his answers 
 purge if lie could his c(iutem))t. If uiiahle to <h) 
 this the court would pronipuiice sentence. K. 
 a|))iealed from the judgment making the i-ulc 
 alisolute, (hi motion to tpiasli said appeal: 
 Mild, that tlu! Judgment a))pL'aled from was not 
 a liiial judgment from which an appeal wouM 
 lie niitler section ^-l (a) of the Supreme ami Kx- 
 chiipicr (,'ouits ,\ct, I!. S. (J. c. i;t.'). A'//(s v. 
 /.',((/■(/, I(i S. ('. U. 147. 
 
 Tin? decision of a provincial court in a case of 
 constriictivi! (Mintempt is not a ni.-ittcr of discre- 
 tion ill which an appeal i< luoliihited liy section 
 27 of the Su|ircim; ami l'Aelie(pier Courts .-Xct. 
 'rasehercail, J., duhitante. The Supreme (-'ourt 
 has juiisdictidii to entertain such an appeal from 
 the judgment of thcCdiirtof .Appeal of the I'ro- 
 vin<'c, not only under scctinn 24, snl>-secti(Ui (k) 
 of the Sujircnic iind KNchecpicr Courts Ait .as a 
 final judgment in an action iir suit, hut also 
 under snip sec'ldii (1) of section 2<i of the' same 
 Act. as ,1 tiiial judgment " in a matter or other 
 judicial prncccding" within tl c meaning r>f said 
 section "Jti. The adjudication thit the ap])cl- 
 hint. a solicitor and otlicer of the loiiit and 
 moved aLtfiinsl in that (;iialit\, has liecii giiilly 
 of a contempt is liy itself an ap])ealahle jlldg- 
 iiient, altlioii;^li no sntence for the eonlcmpt 
 has lieeii ))ronouiice'i liy the court. When the 
 ))ari,y in contem]il has hceii ordered to pay th.' 
 «;osts of till- appl'eation to i-oiiimit the court in 
 el1ei;t indicts ■■: tine for tlie contempt. /;/ I'l 
 Hiiini II 111 i II Itiiiiiin I .!■ III. Fi'lil: v. How- 
 /mil/.' I(i S. C. K. I!i7. 
 
 The iiiilgiiieiii of a provincial eourt allowing 
 a dcnuirier to the [•l.iiiit ill's rejilicatioii to one 
 of several picis liy the ilcfcndants, uhichdoes 
 ,iot op( rate to put ,111 end to the whole or any 
 part, of the action or defence, is not a liiial judg- 
 m< lit from which an 'ajipeal will lie to the 
 Sii|)rcliic ( 'ourt of Canada. Slmir v. I'lnini/inii 
 /'iiri/ir If. ir. Co.. I(> S. C. U. "(W. 
 
 .Iiidgmciit was recovered in the suit of N'irtue 
 r. Have--, I i ought to realize niei lianics' liens, 
 nnd C, , the owner of tlii^ land on which the 
 inechaiiic's work was done, applied Iv |ietitiiiu 
 in the Ch-iiiccry I)i\ isioii to liavi- --ih h pidgiiieiit 
 Net ii.side ,'is a chiiid upon his title. On this ncti- 
 tion an Older was m.idc allowing C. to come in 
 and I, fell.! theaclioii for lien on terms, which 
 not heiiig complied v itli the petition was dis- 
 missed, and the judgment dismissing it was 
 aHirimil hy tint divisional Court and the Court 
 of Apiieal. On appeal to the Supreme Court of 
 
 t^inada :- Held, that the judgment appealed 
 from was not a final judgment within the mean- 
 ing of iieetion 24 (a) of the 8. & K. C. Act or. if 
 it wiui, it was u matter in the judicial discretion 
 of the court, from which hy section 27 no appeal 
 lies to this court. Virtue v. Ilayix —In re C/tirki\ 
 10 S. C. R. 721. 
 
 A judgment of the Court uf Queen's Heiich 
 for Ix>wer Canada (appeal side), cpiashing a writ 
 of appe.ll oil tlic ground that such writ had hecn 
 is.mied contrary to the provisions of Art. II h; 
 C.C.P. is not "a final judgment " within tin- 
 meaning of section 28 of i\w Supreme ami 
 Kxcheipier Courts Act. (.Shaw r. St Liaiis, 
 S S. C. )!. .■|87 distinguished). Ontario and 
 V'c/'"- A'. W. Co. V. .\iiiixlirtcr.,, 17 S. C. li. 
 141. 
 
 8. Fuluir /lii/litM. 
 
 By a i)roccs vcrhal hy the municipal council 
 of Ste. Anne dil IJotit de L'lsle a portion of the 
 road fronting the land of mic R , was ordercil to 
 
 I he improved hy raising and widening it. Upon 
 R.'s refusal to do the work the coiiiii'il hail it 
 
 i performed, paid .S'JtMJ for it, and suhscipicntly 
 sued R for the, said. '?2<)(t. The Court of (,)'i(cn's 
 
 I liencli, ((juc), on appeal allii nnd a jndgnieiit in 
 f.ivour of the mnniciiial council for that ainoiint. 
 
 : On ajipcal to the .Supreme Court it was : -Held, 
 
 I per Kouinier, llciiry and <! wyimc. .1.1. (Strong 
 and Tascherean, .I.I., dissenting, and liitcliic, 
 C. .1., expressing no opinion on the point) that 
 although the matter in controversy ilid nut 
 amount to .*i2,0(M), yet, as it related to a charge 
 
 on the appcll.int's land wherchy his rights in 
 
 I future might he hound, the case was ajipual 
 ah'e. R. S, C. c. i;t.-), s, 20. /Iihnni v. U 
 
 I I '(I . . , i ■<■■«• ill: .SVi . .Inili' i/ll llnill i/i L'lxli', l.'i.S. 
 
 ('. R. !I2. 
 
 In an action for .'*l,.'W.'t..'l(i. a Inlince of one nf 
 several money payments of !?2,(Mt() (!'eh. one 
 w hell of the dell iidants agreed to jiay to tlie 
 plaint ill every ye, ir so long as ('crtaiii seiairity 
 given hy the plaint iir for tile lU'fciid.ints remain- 
 ed in the hands of the government, the defen- 
 dants contended thai the security had hccn re- 
 leised liy the action of the uovermnent .iiid they 
 were Ihereforc not li.alile to ji ly the .iinoiint smil 
 i for, or any further iii-^talmcuts. The Court of 
 (^hiecn's I'.eiich ( ipjn al side) held that the 
 
 I security had not 1 n released and g.ive jiiilg 
 
 I iiicnt for the .iniount el.i'incd. The derendaiits 
 
 applied to line of the jiid^'cs of that eoiut and 
 
 oiitaiind leave to appe il on the ground that if 
 
 the jndgment was well foiindi d then liitnre rights 
 
 . \Minld he hiiiiod and they had liecoine llahlc for 
 
 two other instalments of .so, (XK) each for wliioh 
 
 aetiiiiis were pending: Held, that tin,' appeal 
 
 Wdilh' not lie, liceansc eveii if tile tiitiire lights 
 
 of tlu .efeiid lilts well' lioiind hy the judgment 
 
 smh future ri;;lits hid no relation to any of the 
 
 I matteis or thiiii;s enumerated in siili section (h) 
 
 ; of section 2'.l of the S. & K. C. Act, The words 
 
 [" where the lights in future inigtit he hound" 
 
 I in I his suh section ,iie governed and ipiahlied hy 
 
 i the preceding word-, and to iii.ike .-i ease ajipeal- 
 
 alile when till' amount ill contioi'cr.s)' is less than 
 
 .•52,000. no! i.'iily must fiituic rights he hiiuml hy 
 
 I the judgment, hut l he fiiltiie rights so hoiiiul 
 
 I niU't rel.ite to some one of tlu- matters or things 
 
 I specilicd ill the .suhacctiou in ipiestioil, vi/. ; 
 
2000 
 
 {mciit appealed 
 k'ithiii the inu:ui- 
 
 K. C. Act or, if 
 (liuiiil tli»crvti<iii 
 ion '27 no appcvil 
 
 1 ~InraClark<\ 
 
 f Qiiuon's ){uni:li 
 <|iiiisliinj; a writ 
 L'li writ iiail Im'imi 
 na of Art. 1 1 hi 
 lit" witliin tlic 
 I! Supreme ,'iri<i 
 w ('. St lidiiis, 
 ). Ontario 1111(1 
 , 17 S. V. It. 
 
 iiini('i|ial coutK^il 
 ' u piirtidn of the 
 , , WiiN ordered to 
 leiiinj,' it. Upon 
 e I'oiiiii'il liiid it 
 md »uli.s('(|Ueiitly 
 ' ( 'olirt of (^'icen's 
 I'd ii judginriit ill 
 for tli.il iiiiMiiiiit. 
 it il \\ iiN : -Held, 
 line. d.l. (Shoiig 
 II;,', and i!it<'iiie, 
 III the |ioint) tiiat 
 iiiven.y did net 
 liit('(l to :i cliiirj;e 
 ■liy \\U lights ill 
 Cii.ie Wiis appeal 
 I. /I't.liiini V. An 
 III '/< L'Isli; |.")S. 
 
 . li d ini'e of one of 
 S'i.UIIO e'eh. one 
 d to ]).iy to tlie 
 t eert.iin .sceiirity 
 ;'feiid,iiits reiiiain- 
 nnii'iit. tile defeii- 
 iirily had liecn re- 
 crnineiit .nid they 
 y the.iiiii'iint sued 
 tx. 'I'lie t'oilit (if 
 ) held tliat the 
 1 iind ^ave judj; 
 The <lrl'endaiits 
 of that i-niiit and 
 he yrnund tliat if 
 
 then niturc ri^'hts 
 
 liecdiiir lialdi! for 
 MK) each for which 
 I, tliat the appcul 
 
 tile tntiiit' rights 
 1 hy the jiidgiiK^nt 
 tion tn any of the 
 ill «nl) section (li) 
 
 .Act. 'I'hi! wonl.s 
 niiu'ht he hound " 
 il and (jiialilied hy 
 laki' a lase appeal- 
 loi'ei'H}' is less than 
 i^dlt!^ he huuiid hy 
 ■ riulits ho hiiniul 
 • matters or tliiiign 
 ill nuestion, vi/, ; 
 
 2001 
 
 SUPREME COURT OP CANADA, 
 
 aoo2 
 
 to a fee of ollice, duty, rent, reveinic, m- sum ' 
 (if money liayahle to Her Majesty, or to some | 
 title to lands or teiieinenti'. or to annual rents out ' 
 of Imiils or teneinentN, or to some like niatteiM ! 
 niul tliiiifjs. ( mill it V. tliliiinii, l(i S. ( '. |{. IH',). , 
 
 On an appeal fiom a iinlgment of the Cunrt of 
 (,»ueen'« ISeiicli for Lower Canada l.ippial shle) 
 in an action lii'on;.dit to ri'ciiver ."isiitil.llil, tlic 
 amount of a .spcM.'i.il assessment for a driin ahmj^ 
 l!u! property of the deftnd.ints. tli • res[i(in teat 
 niiivcil to ipiasli for want of jniisdiction du the , 
 jjronnd that the matter in eoiitrover.sy was! 
 under 1J'J,0(K), and did not come w ithin any of 
 the exceptions in section 'J!) of the Sii|iretiie and : 
 Kxcliei|Uer Courts .\et : Meld, that the ease 
 came within the words " siirh liki' matters nr 
 tilings wdiere the lights in fntiire iiiight he 
 hound,'" in paragra)di ti of section J'.l, ami wa.s 
 therefore a])pealahle. Li t Kfi'li'^inxl'iijiu s it, St. ' 
 Siil/iii'i' 'I'' Moiitiiii/ V. Cit/i iif M(,iiliiiil. |(i S. C. 
 
 IW .'W Vi''t. e. <)7, the jdaintill's were aiithorl/id 
 to hnild and Iimilltain a t(dl hriilge on the jjiver i 
 1/.\ssinn|ition at a ])laee called " I'ortage," and i 
 if tiie said hiidge shciiild hy accident or ofln'i'- 
 wise he destroyed, liei-oiin^ unsafe m- iiiipa-s.ihle. 
 the sail! plaintilVs werc^ hnnnd In rehnild the said 
 hridire within tifteen months next tollnwing the 
 giving wa\' of said hrid^ic. iiiuler pen dty nl fur- 
 feitnre of the advantages to tlicin hy this .\<'t 
 granted; ami during any time that the said' 
 liridi'e shonld he unsafe or impassahle they were 
 hound to miint lin a fei'iv acmss tin' said rivir, 
 fur which they might recovei' the tolls. The 
 hridge was accidentally c'.irried away hy ice. hnt 
 rehiiilt and openi'd for tratiie within llftecii 
 months. |)nriiig the rccunstriictioii, .althoneji 
 plaintiU's iiiaiMtained a ferry across the river, the 
 ilefeiiilant hiiilt a temporary hridge within the 
 limits of the pi n otitis' fr.ineliisc and allowed it 
 to he iiseil hy parties crossing the river. In :m 
 action hroiiglit hy the plaint ill's, cd ainiiiig .■<l,l)lll) 
 dama'.;es, and lirayine that defendant lie c.ni- 
 denined to demolisli the temporary hridLje. on an 
 apjicid to the Siipicnic Court itw.is: llidd, (I I 
 that as the riidits in future might lie h.iund the 
 ease was appcalahle under I!. S. ( '. c. VXi, s. 'Jit ihi. 
 CJ) jieveising tile judgment of tile eolllt helow 
 Riteliie. C. •!.. .iiiil I 'at t el son. .1.. disMiit iiig, tliat 
 the exclusive statutory pri\ileg«' estemied to the 
 ferry, iuirl whih' in linta ned hy tln^ plaint ills the 
 di'fiiidaiit had no right to Imiid the tcinpor.iry 
 liridge, hnt as the hridge had since liecn demo- 
 lislicd the c'oiirt would nier(ly award nominal 
 damages and laists. (IiiIkiiuiiii v. ti'iii/lniiili. Id 
 S. C. K. ."■.7!>. 
 
 'i'o give the Supreme ('mirt jniisdiction to 
 hear an appeal in a ease from the I'loviiieeof 
 Qiichce hy virtue of section '-".t (h| of the Su- 
 preme and l'",\(diec|iier Courts .\ct(K. S. ( '. c. 
 hl'i), the matter r<l iting to a fee of (.thee where 
 the lights in future might ho hound, must he 
 the iiiatier really in i-ontroversy in the suit in 
 which the ajipe.il is sought and not .something 
 merely collater.il tiiercto. This clause will not 
 give jurisdiction in a case in which the action was 
 hroiiLdit to recovcM- p .n dties for hriherv under 
 the (,)iicliec i;iecti(ni Act, (I!. S. (), Art. 4--'!l), 
 even assuming that the eH'ect of the judgment 
 rniiy he to disipialify the ap])ellant from holding 
 ofliee under the I'lanvii for seven years. ( 'liiiijiinii 
 V. Nvnifiii,/, Hi S. C R. (iOI. 
 
 126 
 
 !(. Xi ir TiiitU. 
 
 Lnder 3S \ ,et. e. 1 1 (I)om.), the Supreme 
 ( oiirt has ])ower to make any order or to give 
 any pidenieiii which the court helow might or 
 
 might to have given, and a ngst other things 
 
 to <ir,ler a new trial on the ground either of 
 nusdireclion or the v.idh'l h..ing against the 
 weight of ovideiua^ : and that i.ower ianotUkeii 
 away hy section 'J'.' in this ease, in which the 
 coiiit helow <l)d not exercise any discretion a* to 
 the ipiestion of a now trial, and where the appeal 
 trom their judgment did not relate to that nub 
 Ject. ('ii)iiiictii-iit Mutual l/,fi. fiiK. Co. (»/■ 
 lldilfi,,;! V. Momr, (I App. Cas.«44; (J S. C. 
 I!, (ilil. 
 
 The court will not hear an appeal where the 
 eoiirt helow ill the exercise of its diHcretion has 
 ordered a new trial on the grouinl that the ver 
 diet IS against the weight of evidence. Km; hi 
 
 II iiiiliiii Mills ('„. (IJiiiitnl) V. Muss, 1 1 S. C. I!. 
 
 'I'he <lefiiiilaiit in an action ag.iiiist wlioni .a 
 verdict had passed at the trial moved for a new 
 trial 111 foic tint Divisional Court on the grounds 
 of niisilirectioii, siir|)rise and the discovery of 
 tiirtlieri-vidciice, and the motion was granted 
 on the ground of misdirect ion (!.") (.). I!. ,")44). 
 The plaintillappealed and the Court of Appeal 
 held that there was no misdirection, hut tliat. 
 the order of ilie I livisioiial Court directing the 
 ci>e to he siihinit ted. to another jury had hetter 
 not he interfered w itli, the circuiiist iiiees of the 
 ease heiiig peculiar : Held, that as the judgment 
 of tint Court ol .\|)peddid not proceed upon the 
 ground that the trial jinlgc had not ruled 
 according to law, no apjii'id wciidd lie to the 
 Suprciiie Court of Canada from its decision. 
 In the t'actiini of the res|iondents no ohjcctioii 
 was made to the jiirisdic'tion oi the .Supreme 
 I ourt, hiu it was urged that tin; appeal slnnild 
 not !»■ (•nterlained and that the ixmrt should 
 not in.eri'eie with the discretion in favour of a 
 new trial exiaviscil hy the tuo lower courts, the 
 circumstances, it was eoiiteiided, hciiig stronger 
 thill those in tli" I'.uveka Woollen Mills (^o. i\ 
 Moss II Can. S. C. i;. 111. O'SnIliriiii v. Lab, 
 
 III S. C. I!. (Wli. 
 
 Section '^4 (dl of the SupiciiU' Court Act (K. 
 S. C. c. Kl.")) allow iiig iiii appeal " from tint juilg- 
 niciit on .a inotion ior a new t rial upon the ground 
 that till' judge has not ruled according to law," 
 IS applicahlc to jury cases only. (Iwyniie, .1., 
 diihitaiilc. U<ii:/'.i'.r St.-nt II. W. (\>. \. Joi/r, , 
 17 S. C. I!. 7l)!». 
 
 See Si'iri/I V. Ilrhi^li ('iiliiiiililn 'I'oirillil (iml 
 Triiisii'ii'liitiiiii I'll, il/iniiliil). !) S. C. R. .")'27. p. 
 •JOOS : .I////./' V. Sli/ih: 11.^1,11, II! S. C. R. 722. ]>. 
 20.V2; V.iii^ilriii V. iri.-hnr.h„ii, 17 S. 0. R. 70:!. 
 p. -JODIl ; l!virhiiiil.< V. Ilninvlii Hnnlhirn R. 11'. 
 
 '■.<.. i:i I', i;. !)••{, p. 2007. 
 
 IK. I'riiiiiii il I'm-idliinjii. 
 
 See 7// n Miliiin Ti-f jiiiiiiei; 12 S. C. R. 111. 
 p. 404. 
 
 14. Cross Ajipi'als. 
 
 \n appellant in the Court of Queen's Itench, 
 (jhiehee, who Inul partly succeeded, appealed to 
 
aoos 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
 2004 
 
 ii 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 tlu! Supreme C'onrt on thcfiriiiinil thiit tliv jml^'- \ 
 nioiit M'OB yut cxprHHivc. At tlio HiiitK! tiitu! tlio 
 reH|H>n(1(!iit aiipculfil on the ^rnuml that the jiiil^- 
 moiit of tlic Su|Hirinr Court ii\ij»lit to Irnvx lu^cii 
 iidirmod. 'riiisHccdiid ii|i))('iil wuh tri^itcnl liy tliii 
 roiirt Hs a cr<is.M-a|)|)<al imdfr tlic Sn)ir('iii(! ( 'otirt 
 rnlos, mid tlin rfH;»iiid(ii(« on tlio Rccoiid aiipcal 
 huviiiK BU('<'('(Mlfd in j;<^ttiii>; tin' jndijnH'nt rr- 
 vnrHiid on the second pnint and ronlirniiil on tlif 
 first |Hiint, Wi-w allowed costs of a c^o.ss■,•l|^|lt^^l. 
 I'ifon V. nniint, T. S. < '. H. :tl.S. 
 
 15. A iipcnln nil Qiii'tliiiin III' I'^itft. 
 
 Hold, wlicrc ;i c1iH)iiitcil fact, involving; niintii'.il I 
 i|neHtionH, JH r.'iised liy an !i)ipe.'d fioni tlie judg- 
 ment of tilt! MMritiiiii' f'oiiit of (liitiirio, as in 
 tlic <;;iHi!of a colliHion, llic Sii|ircnic Court will 
 not revcise tlic deirei.' of tlie jlld;;c of llie coiiit 
 lielow, iiiciclv lU'on a lialaiirc of tcsliniony. 
 " 77/<' rii''<i„" Mi'CinU, V. liiilli, \ S. C. j!. 
 (i-IK. 
 
 Held, that the Supreme Court on ajipeal w ill 
 not reverse on mere matters of fact the jildfjliKiif 
 of thn jiidirc M lio trit s an elr'ction jidition, iiii 
 less the matter of 'lie cvideii(( is of sinli a iiiitnrc ' 
 Jis to <'oiivcy an in'esistilile I'onvictioii that the' 
 jiidf^Mieiit is not only wroiiu, hiit is <'rroncoiis. j 
 Miilili-iiltti /:7i r/idii Mdijiiiniw Ihijii-, OS, C. It. 
 0.1. Son Jilso lliilhiir h'/ii'limi- H'luri iix v. 
 Ciillihn/. «tS. C. l;. 102. I 
 
 A .lury liavinji |ironoutice(! on the i|nestion of 
 fact, and tluiir vi'rilict liaviiiL' licen allirnied hy . 
 tho Suproinc Court of Xew I'liiiisw iik, tlii^ Su- 
 preme Coui't dcclincil to iiitcifcie with tlu^ lind 
 in^. Cas.^rf.i v. Ilnrni, If S. ( '. K. 'J.Vi. ' 
 
 Wlieri' a judj,'nie?it a)i))c,ili'd froiii is foiiiidcil 
 wholly upon i|Mcsl ions of tart the ^iiipnine ( 'onrt 
 of Caiiadri «ill not icvi'isc it iiiile>s (011x1111(11 
 hoyoiid all reasondile don lit. that siuh jiidi/niciit 
 is ch ally crroiicdiis, .liidiMnciit of the (diii t ol 
 (Jlucen's neiiih f((i- Lower Can ida, app(al side, 
 .illirmcd. Arfin v. 'J'lir l^vmi, 14 S. C. \\. ~'M. 
 
 10. Olhir Cii.^r., I 
 
 H«ld, that the order a|)]ii:ilcd from in this 
 case IxiiiK a decision on ;iii a|)pli('.itioii liy a 
 third |iarty to the court was apiiciilalile under 
 the nth section of :!S Xict. c II (Koiiiiiier. .1., 
 diH.scntinj;, and 'rasclieiciti, .1., douhtiiiL.'). Il'/V- 
 L-ivx V. (},</,/, s, ,S S C. 1!. '_'();{. 
 
 Hold, that .in appi :il from the Siipicnic Cmirt 
 of Nova Scotia, ordeiiii^' r.iiiU :in(l iiiceeilcncc at 
 the liar to oiii: U. would lie to the Snpreiiic 
 Court of Canada (l''oMiiii.r, .1.. dissentinj,'). 
 Levoir v. Uitih'iv, ,'i S. C f'. r>7.'>. 
 
 Per Stronjr. .1. The Supreme < 'oiiit oiij^dit not 
 to interfere to levei'sc a decision upon ;i mere 
 (|UC"stion of practice reiiiilatcd liy the rules 
 peculiar to the co.irt ajiinaled from. Sec Join's 
 y. Tmk; 11 S. C. I!. Iil7. 'J():(. 
 
 I'er stroll;.', .1. - An cxlrenicly stroiiL,' < a.se 
 should lie sin w n to iiidiicc the (•( iiit to allow 
 .III appeal from (he iii(!j,'iiii nt of the court liclow 
 on ]irclimin;iiy olijcctions, Slu Uninif h'/ii/!(iti 
 ( Duvi. ), fi'olfei/xon V. Linii:i. 1-t S. C. H. L'.^iS. 
 
 It is a Hiibstaiitial olijei lion to a winding,' up 
 order appointing a licniiitator to the estate of an 
 
 insolvent (Mimpany under 4.') Vict. c. 23 (Pom.), 
 that such order Ills liceii made without nnlico to 
 the ci'i.'ditors, contrihiitorieH, Nliareholders, nr 
 ineinhers of the company as ri'ipiired liy sect ioii ''I 
 of the said Act, and an order so made was net 
 aside and the petition theiiifor referred hack to 
 the iil(l;{(! to lie dealt with anew. I'er (iwyiiiu!, 
 • I., dissentinv!, that such an olije<:tioii is |iuri'ly 
 technical and iinsiilistantial and hIioiiIiI not he 
 allowed to foini the siilijcct of an appeal to tliia 
 court. S/iDii/linil V. I'liimi i'lii Int. Co., 14 ,S 
 C. li. (Wl. 
 
 On a refcTeiice liein:; niidc to thi' otlicial iirlii- 
 trators of ccrtiiiii claims m.ide hy one If. ii^xaiiisl 
 the ^'ovcnimeiit for damages arisiiiL' out of tlip 
 eiilar;^cnient of the l.achiiic canal to land situ 
 ateil oil said eaiial, the arliil rators aw.Trdeil i|. 
 !*!),'2l(i in full and liii il settlement of all claims. 
 <hi an appeal taken to the Kxchei|iier Court liy 
 II. ('r.isclieicaii, .1., presiiliii(_'l this amount was 
 incicased to .*!|.').!l!l(l. iiieliKliiiL' ?•"> <i<><) for ilain- 
 ayes caused to the land Irolii 1H77 to 1,SS4, hy 
 lc(d<a(.;e fidiii the canal siiici' its enlar^;eiiiciit, 
 :iiid the jiid>;e reserved tht^ rinlit to 11. to eliiiin 
 lor future daiiii(.'es from that date. <)naiia)i- 
 pi'al taken to llic SiipiiMiic ( 'onrt of Canada, it 
 was: Held, reviTsiiiL' the jiidi/nieiit nf the Kx- 
 cliei|uer ( 'out t and conlirniini,' tln^ award of the 
 arliitratoi's, that it must he tiken tliiit the arlii- 
 tiators dealt with every item of 'l.'s claim 
 siiliinitted to them aii(| iiieludeil ill their a ward 
 all past, present, and future daiirK^cs. and that 
 the evidence did not justify an inereiise of the 
 .iinount aw'ar(le(|. Cwyniie. •!., was of opiiiidn 
 that iiiider Vl Vid. c. 8, s. :tS, t he Sii|M-eiiiu 
 Court, had power (alllioi|(_di the crow u did not 
 •appeal to the I'lxcheiiuer Court) to review tlifi 
 award of the ai-liitritois. and that ill this ivi.se 
 SI, (KM) would lie am)ilc ('iiiipensiit io'i fir any 
 iuiuiy tint llie claimiiil's land can he said to 
 have MislaiiK (1. which liiioii tin' cvi(|eiicc can 
 he attliliiitcd to the work of the enlar(.'eni('iit 
 of the canal. /,'. 70-/ v. Ilitl.irl. II S.' ( '. \{. 
 
 7:!7. 
 
 A deei-idu of the .Sniircmc ('oiirt of N'ova 
 S,, ilia Mil N. S. I!cp. :!41 ), contirmiii;; the ir 
 port of a inistcron .1 reference, reversed on the 
 ground that tlie 111 i«ter had exceeded hisailtliiir- 
 ity and reported on matters not rcfcrreil to liiiii. 
 Ihiiill y. Mrllyillh. 14 S. C. 1;. 7:{!l. 
 
 (hi .'in ap)ii'al to the .'supreme ('oiirt froiii ;i 
 judiiment of the I'.xelicipiir Court iuereasiin/the 
 ^amount awarded hy the ollieial arliil rators to the 
 claimant for expioprial ion of land for the Inter- 
 colonial Railway: Held, reversiiii; thi; ]\.v\%- 
 inentol'the l'',xclii (puT Cdiirt iinil restdrini; the 
 .award of the otlicial arhitrators, that td warniiil 
 iin intei ferciiec with an award of v.aliiu necos 
 sarily lart'i Iv .■^peciiliitive, an appiOlati^ court 
 ; must he satislicd lieyoiid all rcasoiiahlc douht 
 th.at some wroiii; )iriiiciii|e has liccri .acted un or 
 : somelhin^; dveilddki'd which ou(,dit to have heeii 
 consideii'd liy the otrKiial arliitrators, .and upon 
 the evidence in this case this court refused to 
 intcrferi! with the amount of eoiupeiisatioii 
 awiirdcMl hy the otlicial .arliitrators. liiijina 
 y, I'liritili.i : Uniiiiii v. Ilniiiliiii, Hi S. C. R. 
 71(!. 
 
 See III IV n< lini (Y Ih'ifii, Rfi/hia (•:)• ivl. FeUlz 
 V. Iliiirlmiil, 1(1 s: C. K. 107, p'. 100!); .S>amm''/f 
 
 V. Jamis, h; s. c. 1!. r.o:t, \i. 1002. 
 
2004 
 
 let. c. 23 (T>om.), 
 
 without iiolioc to 
 
 Hli;in)li(ilil('rH, or 
 
 liroil liy 8C(ti(Hi''4 
 
 so Ill:lll(! WHS Hct 
 
 refcrrud l(iu;k to 
 w. I'l^r (iwyimi;, 
 iji'ction iH |iurely 
 111 hIkiiiM not liu 
 an ii|i|K!'il to tliiH 
 
 !■' Ills. Co., II S. 
 
 i> tli(" ollii'ial lU'lij. 
 
 liy one If. .'ifiaiiiHt 
 
 irisiii'.' nut of tlip 
 
 li'iiiiil to liiml situ 
 
 iilofM iiwardcil H, 
 
 lent i)f all cliiims. 
 
 ;i'lirc|ii(i' Court liy 
 
 this iiMirniiit \v:is 
 
 iir !!!."i (KMl for (lain- 
 
 IH77 fo 1SS4, l,y 
 
 I' its cnlarfiL'iiii'iit, 
 
 .;lit to II. to claim 
 
 t ilatc. On an u)i- 
 
 'diirt of Canada, it 
 
 ilL.'n](iil of lliii Kx- 
 
 r till' awaril of the 
 
 do'ii that till' arlii- 
 
 cm of 'l.'s claim 
 
 led ill their award 
 
 daiiro^cs. and that 
 
 an iii'Tcasc of liic 
 
 ,1. , waM of o|)iiiimi 
 
 s. .'tS, the Sii|)rcniu 
 
 the crown did not 
 
 mrt) to review tlic 
 
 id lliat in llii-i ca.sB 
 
 Hieiisal lull f ir any 
 
 land call he faid to 
 
 I the cvidi'lice call 
 
 of the eld iiLreinciit 
 
 'iilin-l. I I S.' C, K. 
 
 nie (^oiirt of Nova 
 , conlirniin;,' the it- 
 lee, reversecl on the 
 •Kcceded liisanllior- 
 lot referred to him. 
 I!. T.'i'.l. 
 
 ireiiie ( 'unit finin a 
 Court iiiereasiiiv'tlic 
 ial arliit rator.s to tliu 
 f land for tlie Inter- 
 ■evi'i-.-^in},' the JuiIk- 
 I't and resloi-ini,' tliu 
 :,ors, that to warrant 
 ard of value neces- 
 an aii|iell:it(^ court 
 dl reasoiialile doubt 
 las lieeii acted on or 
 1 oiifiht to have licen 
 iliitr itors, and mioil 
 iiis court refused to 
 it of conijit'iisation 
 iiliit rator.s. Ilnjina 
 aiilUii. Hi S. C. R. 
 
 , Hcii'iiin i-r vet. Fehh 
 i7, |). 1009; fScamiiiflt 
 11. 1092. 
 
 2005 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
 2006 
 
 17. I'riirlii'f. 
 
 (a) 'riiiii' I'lir .i/i/ii iiliiiii. 
 
 Tiiiit! for filing,' hond on apjieal to Supreme 
 Court. See .yfr(Jriir v. M7nV, , I". K. 2S8, p. 
 IflOI. 
 
 'I'lie thirty days' time allowed for appealiiii{ to 
 the Siiprcine ( 'oiirt of Canada under section 'Jo I 
 of the Siipreine and Kxcluiiiier Courts Act com- i 
 nicnces to run on tiie issniiiodf the eertitieate of I 
 the Court of Appeal. W'rl iixtiij \, (Irijlilli, II i 
 1'. li. I »7. C. oi .\. 
 
 Where any siilistaiiti il iii.ittcr rciii.iins to he 
 ilctcriiiined on t he set I lenient of the niinntci he- J 
 fore the nv^istiar, the time for ap|icaiiiio to the 
 Siipreiiie Court of Canada will run fioni the 
 entry of the jiiil;,'iiiciit, othcrwiM' it will run | 
 from the date on wliicli tin- jiidi^nieiit is pro- 
 liolineed. In the Province of (Jiieliec the tiim; j 
 runs ill every e.isi' from the proiioniieiiif; of the 1 
 jiid>,'iiiclit. O'Siilliniii V. Iliiiljl, l."{ S. C. K. 
 
 4;ii. i 
 
 Where the Court of .AppiNil for Onl.iriorc 
 versed the jud;,'iiieiit of the vice-ehaiici llor in 
 favour of the plaintill, and di.smissed tiie action : 
 
 llidd, lliit in such case no siih.stantial lines- 
 tiini could remain to lie settled lufore the entry 
 of the jndfjfiiKnit, and the time for appealing to 
 the .Supreme Court of Canada would thcrelore 
 run from the pronoiinciiij,' of tlio jud;,'inent. 
 O'Siillivan i\ H.irty, V.\ S. C. I!. 4':{|, distin- 
 guished. Wiiliiixirij w Hiijli/li, i:!S. C. I!. 4:{4. 
 
 Where, after the minutes of a ease deeideil liy 
 the Supreme Court of liritisli Colnmhia wore 
 settled, tlii^ plaiiitills moved hcfore the full 
 L'ourt to li.ive the miiuttes \ .iried and they were 
 varied hy stvikiiio out certain deelaialions ri!- 
 specting the rij^hts of the plaintid' C. and the 
 ilefcndaiit M. res|iectiv(dy, .and .also with respect 
 to the costs payalde hy the plaintill' \',. : Meld, 
 that thitii' heing snhsl.intial i|Uestioiis to he de 
 cidcd heforc the indgineiit eniild lie entereil the 
 time for appealing,' to the .Supreme Court of 
 Canada wonhl run from the date of the entry of 
 the jiidgiiK^nt. O'Sullivan v. Ilartv, l.'l S. C. 
 K. 4':tl, followed. Miii/ln/ v. < •iirwn, la S. C. 
 
 u. 4:jo. 
 
 Rule COO of the rules of the M.iritime Court 
 of Ontario rei|uires notice of .appeal from a do- 
 cision of that eoiiit to the .Supreme (aiurt of 
 Canada to heyiven williin liftceii days fn in the 
 pronouneini,' of such decision. A judgment of 
 tiio Maritime Court was handed hy the surrogate 
 to the registrar, Imt not in open eourt, on Hist 
 August, and was not drawn up and entered hy 
 the registrar for some time after: — Held, Tas- 
 uhoieaii, .1., iluliitante, that notice of ajipeal 
 within fifteen days from the entry of such judg- 
 ment was sullieielit under the said rule : — Qmere 
 —Is such rule intra vires of the Maritime Court? 
 Rolii'rt.11,11 V. Wii/le, 15 S. C. K. '214. 
 
 The judginent of the Court of Appeal was de- 
 livered oil the Tith M.areh, IS80. On the Ifitli 
 March the solicitors for the defendants wrote to 
 their (dients suggesting an appeal, hut they 
 rceeivci no instruetions until the '2nd April, 
 and took no step till the ;{rd April. No ex- 
 planation was offered of the delay or neglect 
 except the produetioii of a telegram to the soli- 
 citora from an officer of the defendants giving 
 
 itiHtructinns to appoal, and Huugenting that tlm 
 matter hail heeii ovei looked hy another oiru!er. 
 The judges in the Divisional Court and Court of 
 Appeal were unanimous in deciding against the 
 defendants : Held, that, under these einiiin 
 stances, the time for giving the reipiired nolieo 
 should not he extended. 1,'oir/iiiiilH \. Cnmila 
 
 Suiiiiin-ii It. ir. Co., i;i I', u o;i.-c. of a. 
 
 In haheas corpus proceediiigs. In iv .s'm<i/', 
 l(i S. C. K. :i<ttl, p. S40. 
 
 The Snprinie Court of (;,inada has no jiirisdiu 
 tion to hear an apiieal " from a jiidgiiieiit on a 
 motion for anew trial on the groniid that the 
 judge has not ruled according to law," iinlc-is 
 the notice reiinired hy section 41 of the Siipreiiio 
 Court .Act has heeii given. ,\n order made hy 
 a judge of the court appealed from giving defen- 
 dants " leave to appeal to the Supreme Conn of 
 Canada leaving it to plaintill's to dispute the 
 right of appeal in the .'^uplclne Court," even if 
 considered as an eidargeiiieiit of the time for 
 giving notice, will not give the court jurisdic- 
 tion if no notice is given pursuant to such eii- 
 largciiicnt. The time lor giving notice iiinler 
 section 41 can he extended as well .after as heiore 
 the twenty days havi' elap.sed : Ih^ld, per 
 Strong. J. — In suirtion 4'2 of the Act, proviiling 
 that under special circuuistances the court 
 appealed from or a judge thereof may " allow .in 
 appeal " although tlii! time limited therefoi liy 
 ]ireviiius sections has e.xiiired, the exprcs.'-ioii 
 ''allow an appeal " means only that the court or 
 judge may settle the case and ajiprove the 
 seenrity. Vaiiqhtin v. Hiihnrdsoii, 17 S. C. U. 
 703. 
 
 On a motion to ipnvsh the appeal on helialf of 
 the respondent, on the ground that the appelluit 
 had not, within three days after the registrar 
 of the eourt had sot down the matter of the peli 
 ' tion for hearing, given notice in writing to ilio 
 j respondent, or his atlnrney or iiu'ent, of sieh 
 setting down, nor .applied to and olitained from 
 I the judge who tried tiie petition further time for 
 i giviiiL' such notice, .as reipiiied hy the 4Hth .s'c 
 j tionof tlieSn|ircineanil KxcheipierCourts Act: — 
 I Held, that this provision in the statute was im- 
 perative : that the giving of such notice was a 
 1 condition prceedeiit to t lie exercise of any juris- 
 diction hy the Supreme ( 'oiirt to hear the .appe d; 
 I that the appellant having failed to comply with 
 I the statute, the court could not gr.ilit relief 
 ! under Itiiles ."ili or tiO ; and that, llierelore, the 
 appeal could not he then heard, hut must he 
 struck oO'the list of ajipeals, with costs of the 
 niotioii. Siihsoipient to this judginent, the a))- 
 |iellant applied to tin! judge who tried the peti- 
 tion, to extend the tiini; for giving the notii e, 
 whcienpon the said judge granted the applie i 
 tion and made an order, "extending the time 
 forgiving the prescrihed notice till the lOth day 
 of Dceeiiilierthen next." The case was again .set 
 down for hearing at tiio Kehruary .session follow 
 ilig, heiiig the nearestoonveuienttiiiie,anil notice 
 of such selling down was duly given within the 
 time mentioned in the order. The respondent 
 thereupon moved to dismi.ss tlie appeal, on the 
 ground tiiiit the appellant unduly ilelayed to 
 prosecute his appeal, or failed tohring the same 
 on for hearing at the in.xt session, and that the 
 judge who tried the petition had no power to 
 extend the time for giving such notice after the 
 three days from the first setting down of theca.so 
 
3007 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. 
 
 2008 
 
 fiir lit'iiiin;^' liy tlu' rrt'iHtr/irfif tliiM cdiirt: Meld, I 
 tllikt till' |iii\vrl'iif till' jllil^i^ wild ll'M'il (lie |i<'ti 
 tloii to liliilii: 111! orilri' cxtcliililli; till! tillir till' . 
 Kiviii;; HiK'li iiiitiiu' Ih u fji'iirrtil iiiiij fxcluKivc 
 piiwci' 111 III' iixi'K^inril iiircii'iliii^ til Miiiiiiil iliMci'iv 
 tioii, unit tin; jilil>;c- having iiiailu Hiiitli an oiiU'i' 
 in tliiH riiHi', till- a|i|)<'al caniu |ii'ii|i('i'ly Ih fiirr llii' 
 limit for liiMi'in^'. ('IVi'Ihtciii, .1., iliMsiutiiiH.) 
 Sill III Oiiliiriii ijiclittii ( Ihiiii. ) W'hcihr v. fiililm, \ 
 
 3S. r. |{. ;<74. 
 
 Tiir lU'frnilantM a|i|ionliwl to tlii^ ('oiiil of j 
 A|i|ii'al fi'oiii an oi'iliT iif a jiivisiniial ( 'iniit iIIh- , 
 i:liai'^iii^' an ordi'r niHi to I'litcr jiiil^nu'iit for tlu; 
 ili'I'i'iiilMiit.H or for a iii'U trial, on tlir ^roiiml, ' 
 anions utln rn, that the trial jiiil^'i! hIioiiIiI havi' ' 
 williiliawn the cami from tliii jury, or hIioiiIiI 
 liavi: iliii'i'li'il tliriii otlirrwiKf than liii iliil. 'I'lii' 
 Court I if A|i|i<'al iliHiiiiH!ii:il thu(l(:frnilantH'ii|i|i<ial, | 
 Hiiil the ili'lL'iiilaiitH Nought to a|i|ic.'il froni Hiith 
 (lixniissal to till' Sii|it't'nii' ('ourt of <'anaila: | 
 llrlil, that till' jilii^iiK'Ht of tht' ('olii't of Appeal 
 canic within M'i:tioii -4 (i|) of tlit^ Siiprcnir ainl 
 Kxrliei(iii.'i' CiiiirtH Ai't, \{. S. ( '. r. i.Vi, iik"ii 
 jiiil^iiiciit ii|>on a motion tora nrw trial upon tint 
 ((roiinil tliat the jml^r has not nilcil acrorilin,^ 
 to law : " ami that tlm pr'oposi.'il appeal w.ih 
 j{i)Vrnn'il liy till! nt'oossity for tiii' iiotiei; of ap- 
 peal within twenty ilaVM pre.scrilied liy flection j 
 41 of the Aet. ItDirlilii'lt V. ('illlillld Silllllimi 
 
 I! II'. r'l/., i:»r. K. !);i. ( . of \. 
 
 (li) A nil iiiliiii III III' I'll iiiliiiijs, 
 
 I). Mi'.M. the re.sponilent, mmi'iI the S. W. I!. 
 Co., the .ippi'llants to lecovir ilalii.'i;ii's allej^eil to ' 
 liavf lieeii siislaineil hy leaMin of the oli-itrm- ! 
 tion ot the 'i\ei Miianiiehi hy appellants' Imioiii. ' 
 The pleas were not },'iiilty, ami leivi: ami liceiine. 
 On the Iri.il the eoiilisei propiiseil to aihl a plea, 
 that the wroiiL,' eomplaineil of was oc(;a.siimeil liy , 
 the extraoi'iliiiaiy freshet. The eoiiiiHil for the 
 respomleiit iilijeiteil on the ^roiiml that sueh ; 
 plea nii<;ht liaM' lieen ileniuri'i'il to. The learneil . 
 jml^e rel'iisi i| till.' apiiIie.'Uion, lieeansit he in- • 
 temleil to ailniit the eviileme iimler the plea of 
 not ;{iiilty. On .ippeal, the eoiiiisel for the ap- j 
 pellant eoiilemleil that the olislriiel ion coni' ; 
 plaiiK'il ol' was justilii'd under the statute 17 
 Vict. e. 10 (\. H. ), iiieoi porating tin.' Southwest 
 Uooin Company : — Held, that the appellants, | 
 not haviii).; put in a plea of jiistilie;Uiou under 
 the statute, or ajiplicd to the .Supreme ('oiirt ol 
 New Ihilliswiek III li.'ilieii for leave to ami'iid their 
 pleas, eoiild not lely oo that f^iouiid liefore this 
 court to reverse the decision ol the eonrt liclow. 
 Simthirisl 11,10111 Cu. v. Mi-Milliiu, WS. C. IJ. 7(M). 
 
 See Mniire v, < 'iniiu rl'ii-iil Mill mil I lit. Co. 
 of llarl/iiiil, (i S. C. H. (W4. 
 
 (c) Othn Cnxix. 
 
 Ffeld, that it is not neees.sary to serve a eer I 
 tilieate of a judgment of the .Su))reme Court 
 when the deinee is not niaterially altered. See 
 (.'rastll V. Carlir, « O. U. ;"iS4. 
 
 This e.'iho coming hefon; the court below on 
 motion lor judynieiit under the order which 
 governs the practice in such eases, I'ud which is 
 identical with lOnglish Ordei- 4(», Jiule 10, of the 
 orders of 1S7">, the court could give judgment 
 
 linally detunniiiing all ipieitioUH in dispiiiR 
 although the jury may not have found on tlii'in 
 all, I'ut docH not enalile a court to iliHpoHc of a 
 I'liHe coiitrury to the linding of iv jury. In e.iNi' 
 the eoiirt ciiiisiderH particular tiniiings In he 
 agaiiiHt evideiiee, all tnutean he done is tnawaril 
 a new trial, i^illier generally or partially under 
 the powers eoiiferri'd liy the rule Hiniilar to the 
 Knglish Ordered, liule 'Ml. The .Supreme Court 
 of (,'aiiaila, giving the judgment tliat the eoiirt 
 helow ought to have given, was in this ea,se in a 
 position to give judgment upon the evidence at 
 large, there heing no lindings hy the jury Inter' 
 posing any ohstaide to their so doing, and there 
 fore a judgment should he entiu'od against hotli 
 defendants for IIHIt.OIIO and costs. Smvll v. 
 llriliili (Jolimihlii 'J'uiriiii/ mi'l '/'miiniiiiilitliiiu 
 Co., (Limlliil), !IS. C. 11. iV.'7. 
 
 Ah to appeals where the ipiestion iiivolvcd in 
 one of praetiei! [leeiiliur to the court appealeil 
 from. See./nici v. Titrl:, 1 1 S. C. l!. I<)7. 
 
 A party Heeking an appeal ohlained an extdii- 
 sion of time for tiling his case hut failed to take 
 advantage ot the indulgence so granted, where 
 upon, on the application of (h<! respnndent, the 
 appeal was dismissed hy the judge in ehaiiihtrs. 
 On motion to rescind the order dismissing the 
 a|ipeal : Meld (.Strong and (iwyniie, .1,1., lijv 
 seiiting), that under the eircunistances of tin; 
 ease the court would not interfere liy lesciniliiij; 
 the judge's order and restoring the ajipeal. I.'ihi 
 of \yiiiiiipiii \. Wiiijltl, !;{S. C. !!. 411, 
 
 A doeiinient which has not lieen preserved iii' 
 produeed at the trial, cannot he relied on or 
 made )iart of the ca.se in appeal. Liniini-i v. 
 Miil.'<oii'„ /liiid; 10 S. C. K. rvili. 
 
 A document not ]iriived at the Iriiil Iml relied 
 on in the Court of (.lueen's Hench for the |lr«t 
 time cannot lie relied on or madejiart of thccisc 
 in appi^al. Moiitre.il L. it M. ( 'o. r. I''aiiteii\ 
 CJ S. C. it. 411, 4;i:i) and Lionais i\ .Molsim's 
 Hank (10 S. C. I!. .Vi7) followed Kn-lin niir 
 Hank- of I'luiiiilu V. nihil III, 17 S. C. II. IDS. 
 
 Where the judgment of the Siipreiue Court nf 
 ('anada has hecii reveised hy the privy eoiiiicil, 
 the proper manner of I'uforcing the judgiiieiit nf 
 the privy council is to olitain an order making 
 it a rule of the .Supreme Court of Caiiaila. 
 Where such judgment of the privy couiumI Mas 
 made a rule of court the court ordered the re 
 p.iynieiit hyone of tin; pirties of costs recciveil 
 pursuant to the judgment so reversed. Linviii. 
 V. Ilniir, 14 S. C! I!. -,-l-l. 
 
 .■\fter judgment application was in.ide to vary 
 or r(;verse the judgment on aflid.'ivits sliowin;,' 
 that the ipiestion which the judgment decidcil 
 should have lieen suhmitted to the jury w.is 
 sulmiitted and answered : - Held, that the appli- 
 cation was too late, as the court had to deter 
 mine the ajipeal case transmitted, and the 
 respondent had allowed the appeal to he argacil 
 and judgment rendered without taking any stoi'S 
 to have the case iimentlcd. J'roriili iicr KWi- 
 inilloii In-i. Co. V. (Irrow, 14 S. C. R. 731. 
 
 Ahatcment of action by death of plaintiff. 
 See ItVuV,- v. Piiihr, 10 S. C. U. 099, p. 1.S9S. 
 
 Notice of appeal — Extension of time lor 
 giving. Sec \'itiiijhaH v. Richardson, 17 'S. ('. 
 
 w. 7o:{, p. 2000. 
 
2008 
 
 ill iliN|)iilr 
 iiiiiil on tlii'iii 
 ,c> iliH|iimu III II 
 
 lll'V- III ("IHI! 
 lliill|{H to III! 
 
 iiic in tiiiiwiinl 
 iii'tiiilly iiiiilrr 
 Hiiiiiiiir t(i till' 
 ■iiiliri'iiioCinirt 
 t)mt till- riiiirl 
 
 tiliH CIIHI! ill u 
 
 r I'vidfiui' ivt 
 till! jury iiitn- 
 11^', iuhI there 
 il ii^aiiiHt lidtli 
 Is. iSV//ir// V. 
 7'i(iii.i/i(iitutiiiii 
 
 on iiivolveij is 
 court ii|))iciileil 
 11. 1!)7. 
 
 liiU'il an exteii 
 It faileil til take 
 ;raiiteil, wlieie 
 io.s|ionili'nt, the 
 ^e ill ehaiiihtrs. 
 
 iliHIiii.ssin;^' the 
 yiilie, .1.1., ilis 
 iiHtaiifes rif tlie 
 II! liy ri.'siiiKliii^ 
 ,lie a|i|ieiil. CiVi/ 
 
 It. 4n. 
 
 ceil preHerveil or 
 
 111! ii'lieil on nr 
 
 Leal. l.itiimU v, 
 
 !• tri;il lull relii i| 
 iieli fur the lir^t 
 le |iart of tlieci.^e 
 
 ( 'ii. c. I'aiiteii\ 
 in.iis )', Mdlsdii's 
 Weil. Kxchniii]' 
 
 S. C. W. KIS. ' 
 
 luiireine ( 'oiirt of 
 lie jirivy eoiiiieil, 
 
 the jiiilijiiient iif 
 III! oilier niaklii}{ 
 oiirt of Caiiaila. 
 iiivy I'onneil v\a.s 
 
 orilereil the le 
 of cii.sts leoeiveil 
 rever.suil. Ltirln 
 
 was iiiaile to vary 
 IliilavitM slidwiii;,' 
 uilgnieiit (loeiih'l 
 to the jury w.is 
 111, that the ajijili- 
 iirt hail to iletei- 
 uiuIUmI, and the 
 Hioal Id he argiuM 
 t taking any steps 
 I'riiriilfiici- ltV(.</(- 
 .('. K. 731. 
 
 oath of plain! ill'. 
 It. ()90, 1). 139,S. 
 
 ion of time lor 
 ■hardsou, 17 S. ('. 
 
 2009 
 
 SURVEY 
 
 It in toft late to raimi an olijeetiou for tlm tlrnt ! 
 liiilii on the argument liefore the Siijireme ( 'oiirt 
 thiit till! U!>{iilru|ir(!H(!iitativesof the nHHuieil were 
 not miule partioH to the euiiMe. I'ihhic v. .S'ioi 
 /,(/■« /;w. Co., 17 H. (;. K. -.m. 
 
 18. <,'Mtll. 
 
 (,'oiitB of croHii ap|>ual. Sue /'Udii v. llriiiitll 
 nS. t;. K. .'IKS, II. 'iOOU. 
 
 On apiieivl to the Court of Appi-al the jiiiln 
 nientH ol the (Joint of ('liaiu!ery in lavniir of the 
 plaiiitill'H respectively, wcire allirnieil with ed.st» 
 of appeal ; iiliil tlio ilefeiiilaiit.s appeahil to the 
 .Snpreliie ( 'oiirt. In the lii'Ht eiiHe ihati.'ourt >{avo 
 leave to the ilefeiiiluiitM (ap|i('llaiitN) to ainenil 
 their iiiiHwer, Maying nothing uh to eimtfi, anil 
 upon Httcli unieiiilnient lieiiig inaile, ilei.lareil 
 that the iiwanl upon whieli the hill had lieeii ^ 
 lileil hIiouIiI lie null and void, hut Haid nothing | 
 ahoiit eoHts. In the Mecoiid i:a.s(! the .Siipii iiie \ 
 Court ordered a new trial to he had hetween the 
 parties, without eosts to either party. The' 
 plaiiilills having olitaiiied orderH of the ( 'mirt of 
 l^hiineery niaking the eertilieatti.s of the Court 
 of Appeal of the JiiilgnieiitH in appeal order.H of 
 till! Court of Chancery, immuciI exeiiition.s tlnre- 
 dii for the oostM awarded in appeal : Held, that ' 
 the plaiiititl'M were not entitled to Ihe eosti of 
 the appeal to theConrl of Apjieal, mid theexeeii- i 
 tiiiiiH were .set aside Aiiirnt/ v. Cininilti Soiillt i 
 rrn I!. II'. Co. (Jiiiiiiiiniliiiiii v. (!<iiiit</a Sixilh- 
 mi It. II'. Co., i) r. K. :'i;t!l.- I'mudtoot. Chy. \ 
 I). I 
 
 An order was made inilttinnifyiiig the nextj 
 friend of the infant plaintill'.s out of their money 
 lor the eosts of an uppi'al to tlie .Siiprenie Court 
 iitt'anada where the appeal w.im advLsed hy more 
 than one eouiisi 1, and one of the jiid^^e.s of the 
 Court of Apiieal had dissented fioin the rest. 
 duUiiii/liuin V. CiUliiiijhiiiii, II 1'. It. I. ■{. -Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 \n the appeal was ([uaslied for want of jiiris- 
 ilietion the eimUs iiiipo.sed were only costs of a 
 luiition to (piaah. 0'6allii>(in v. Lake., 10 S. C 
 
 Ii. u;iti. 
 
 I. ih Lkahk 
 
 ANT. 
 
 II. I!v lUii. 
 
 SURRENDER. 
 
 Sir I.AMll.UKU 
 
 SOlO 
 
 AND Tk«- 
 
 Si'f |{\ii,. 
 
 t)t grant Ironi the Crown. .Son Moffiill v 
 Srrulrh, mi K. r.ii4: SO. It. 147; I'.' A. It. 157 
 p. (il), ' 
 
 Of iiLsuraiiee policy. See Cuhlii'dl v. .S7(i</ 
 arnim /■',/•, and l.ijv /ui. Co., || ,S. C. li.2\,'>. I> 
 iKii'), ' 
 
 SURROOATE COURT. 
 
 I'KOHATK AMI LkHKRH ok AllMINISTItATIO.N 
 
 Si'fi K.KKtlJToicS AM> Al)MIMHrilAToK.s. 
 
 CoHtM of an appeal from the Siiriogate Court 
 to the (loiiit of Appeal .sliould li. ta.vjil on the 
 seale ol the court appealed In ni, as provided hy 
 l;nle 28 ol the Court of .\|ipial, and not on the 
 scale of the County Coiiri, npii.alH. A'e./a/j v 
 \y<ih,.H, 10 I', li. .•W4.- Osier. 
 
 In the ca.se of an actidii transferred from & 
 .Surrogate Courv to the High Court of Justice, 
 tht! costs of the prdc:eediiigs in tlit! .Surrog.ito 
 Court previous lo the tiaiisicr slionid oe taxed 
 on the scale piovideil hy the liulesof IS,"iH, i. e., 
 as iie.irly as po.-,sil)lc on Llic t'liiiiiiy Court «i;alo. 
 lie llairis, -Ji Cliy. 4.)!), and lie (Mlcr, '^4 Chy. 
 .")•_'!), expliiiied ami followed, /'ul v. I'til, II 
 1'. li. 1'.).). Iloyd. 
 
 I It is not intended hy Coii. liulc :ill that tlio 
 
 '' hiismensof the .Surrogate Court should In u large 
 
 I measuie he transferred to the High ( oiirt ; tlio 
 
 intention is, lo provide for llCl.•l■.^slll^ s arising in 
 
 the progress of an action where npr. .sentalion 
 
 I of an estitc is rcipiircil in tin; aclioii, and tliciu 
 
 has not h,:eii carele.iaiicss or lic;,ligcnce on the 
 
 part of the parly who may nipine tlie appoint- 
 
 iii<!iit made. Uiidci' the circiiiiislaiices of this 
 
 ease an applicition for the ;ip|iointiiieiil of an 
 
 adiiiiiiisLi.ilor ad litem was ichiscd. lie (/'liaiiih' 
 
 liss, V2 I'. II. til!), distm^iiislicd. M,ir v. 11(7 
 
 .1(111, l.'t 1'. R. ;U. — Kergusdii. 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. 
 
 .See llimi CotJUT oi' Jrsrni;. 
 
 I'cr Armour ami O'Connor, .J.I. 'I'lie Su|irenie 
 Court ol .Judicature is not properly a court, and 
 ought more propeily to liuve hecn called the 
 .Supreme Coiinuil of Judicature. Jtu'/iiui v, 
 UniUii.ij, 7 0. U. U8. 
 
 SURETY. 
 
 See I'llINCll'AI. ANl» StlKETV. 
 
 SURPRISE. 
 At TaiAL— See Nkw Tkial. 
 
 SURVEY. 
 
 iS'ci; DkkIi -LiMIl'ATIO.N' OK AcrioNs. 
 
 Inipicstidiia relating to bo'.indaiies and descrip- 
 tions ol lands, the well estahlislicd rule is, that 
 the work on the gr.iund governs ; and it is only 
 wheie the site ol u mouuniuiit on the ground is 
 iiic.ipalilc of ascertainment that a surveyor i!j 
 antlidii/.jd to ap|)dilion the ipiantit.es lying he- 
 tween two deliiicil or known hound. uies. 'I'liere- 
 fore, where an original nionunient or [lOst was 
 planted as inilicalmg that the north-west angle 
 of a lot was situated at a distance of hall u chain 
 south therefroin, and another surveyor had actu- 
 ally plantu.l a post at the spot so indicated, and 
 sub-iciiuently two surveyois, in total di.«rogard 
 of tiiB two posts so planted, both uf which were 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 11° 
 
 mm. 
 
 1^ isi^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 2.0 
 
 L25 114 11.6 
 
 Hiotografiiic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WIBSTM.N.Y. MSSO 
 
 (716)»2-4S03 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^JiiMi/. a«i*i^^ ^ , a a m ij- 
 

 1^ 
 
 k"0 
 
 V 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 "S 
 
Wf'^'""" 
 
 \i "i 
 
 2011 
 
 TAVERNS AND SHOPS. 
 
 2012 
 
 '*;; 
 
 
 easy of ascertainment, made a survey of the lo- 
 cality and placed the post at a different spot : — 
 The court (Spragge, C.) disregarded the survey, 
 and declared t!ie north-west angle of the lut to 
 be as indicated by the first mentioned monument. 
 Artley v. Curry, 2!) Chy. 243. 
 
 A surveyor in making a survey is under no 
 statutory obligation to perform tile duty, but 
 undertakes it as a matter of contract, and is 
 liable only for damages causi'd by want of rea- 
 sonable skill, or by gross negligence. Township 
 of Stafford v. lidl, l> A. K. 273. 
 
 '!"he defendant, a provincial land surveyor, who 
 w^'i employed by the plaintiffs to run certain 
 lines for road allowances, proceeded upon a wrong 
 principle in niakiiig the survey, an(l tlie plain- 
 !iff- Hued him for damages which they had paid 
 tf 'eri-ius encroached upon by opening the road 
 u- -I' .:"/ to his survey : — Held, reversing the 
 j . \p)it of the Common Pleas (31 C. T. 77), 
 t'.»i< tl:e plaintiffs could not recover, as althougji 
 the p iivey was made by the defendant on an 
 erroneous principle, the evidence failed to prove 
 that the lines as run by him were not correct: — 
 Quiure, per Patterson, J. A., whether tlie fact 
 that the plaintifl's knew tiiat the correctness of 
 the survey was (juestioned before the opening 
 tlie road, did not make them guilty of contribu- 
 tory negligence. lb. 
 
 Ilemarks upon the impropriety of receiving 
 the opinicms of surveyors as experts, as to the 
 proper mode of making a survey under a statute. 
 lb. 
 
 Compensation forimprovements inconsequence 
 of unskilful survey. See Plumb v. Uteinhoff, 2 
 O. R. C14, p. 900. 
 
 Amendment of jdan. See In re Chithohn and 
 thi- Town of Oakmlle, 12 A. R. 226, p. 400 ; In 
 re the Hon. G. W. Allan, 10 O. R. 110, p. <)3. 
 
 Surveyors' field notes as evidence, fc^ee Mc- 
 Creijor v Keilltr, 9 O. 1!. 077, p. 6117. 
 
 R. who held a license from the government of 
 New Brunswick to cut timber on certain crown 
 lands, claimed that S., licensee of the adjoining 
 lot, was cutting timber on his grant, and he 
 issued a writ of replevin for some 800 logs 
 alleged to be cut by 8 The replevin suit was 
 settled by an agieenient between the parties to 
 leave the matter to surveyors to establish the 
 line between the two lots, the agreement provi- 
 ding chat the lines of the land held under said 
 license (of H.) should be surveyed and estab 
 lished by (naming the surveyors) and tlie stumps 
 counted, etc. : — Held, reversing the judgment 
 of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick that 
 under this agreement the surveyors were bound 
 to make a formal survey, and could not take a 
 lino run by one of them at a former time as the 
 said boundary line. Snowball v. Ilitchie, 14 8. 
 C. R. 741. 
 
 In an action of ejectment the question to be 
 decided was whether the locus was situate within 
 the plaintiff's lot No. 5, in concession 18, or 
 within defendant's lot adjoining No. 24, in con- 
 cession 17. 'fhe grant through which the plain- 
 tiffs title was originally derived gave the south- 
 ern boundary of lot 6 as a starting point, the 
 course being theneo eighty-four chains more or 
 less to the river. The original surveys were lost, 
 
 and this starting point could not be ascertained : 
 — Held, afhrming the judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal for Ontario, U A. H. 788 (which reversed, 
 2 O. R. 614), Strong and Taschereau JJ., dis- 
 senting, that such southern boundary could not 
 be ascertained by measuring back exactly eighty- 
 four chains from the river. Pluiiib v. Sti'in/ioil' 
 14 S. C. R. 739. 
 
 ;//; 
 
 J. McA. et al, (plaintiffs) auteurs having 
 leased a certain portion of a lot of land for min- 
 ing pur[ioses described in the deed by metes and 
 bounds with the following option : " Pcjurra le 
 dit ac(iuereur changer la course des lignes et 
 bornes du dit lopin <le terre sans eu augmenlei- 
 les bornes, Tetendue on superficie en suivaiit 
 dans ce cas la course ou ligne de la dite veine do 
 quartz qu'il pent y avoir et se rencontrcr en cet 
 endroit, apres que lui, le dit bailleur, aura pro- 
 spects le dit lopin de terro susbaille,'' adopted 
 certain lines of a survey made by one Proulx, as 
 containing the vein of quartz. B. et al.' (de- 
 fendants') auteurs leased another jjortion of the 
 same lot. In an action en hornnyc between the 
 parties the court appointed three surveyors tn 
 fix the boundaries. Kach surveyoi' made a sepa- 
 rate report, and the rep. .'t and plan of the sur- 
 veyor Legeudie, adopting ProuLx's lines, was 
 adopted and homologated by the court : — Held, 
 affirming the judgment of the court below, 
 Gwyniie, J., dissenting, that plaintiffs' auteurs 
 having located their claim in accordance with 
 the terms of their deed they were now estopped 
 from claiming that their property should be 
 bounded according to the true course of the 
 vein of quartz, and that the judgment homo- 
 logating the survey adopting I'roiilx's lines and 
 survey was right and should be aflirmed. Mc- 
 Arlhtir v. Brown, 17 S. C. R. 01. 
 
 SURVEYOR. 
 
 See Survey. 
 
 SUSPENSION OF ACTION. 
 
 Sec Action. 
 
 TAKING ACCOUNTS. 
 
 See MoKTciAGE— Practick. 
 
 See 
 
 TAVERNS AND SHOPS. 
 
 BoARuiNo House— I NNKKErnR— Intoxica- 
 ting Ll(jUURS. 
 
 Powers of Provincial Legislature as to restrict- 
 ing the hours within wliicli billiard rooms in 
 taverns may be kept open. .See Iteijmi v. 
 Ilodije, 40 Q. B. 141 ; 7 A. R. 240 ; 9 App. Cas. 
 117, p. 311. 
 
 Closing shops under the Shops Regulation 
 Act, 61 Viet. c. 33 (Out.) See lieyiita v. Flory, 
 17 O. R. 715, p. 1351. 
 
2012 
 
 ot be ascertained : 
 it of the Court of 
 8 (which reversed, 
 •chereau JJ., dis- 
 ouudary could not 
 ick exactly eiglity- 
 Plniiib V. Sti'inltdJ', 
 
 i) auteurs having 
 
 t of laud for iniu- 
 
 deed by metes and 
 
 ptiou : " Pourra le 
 
 urse des lignes et 
 
 sans eii augminUer 
 
 porticie en suivant 
 
 de la dite veine de 
 
 e reiicoutrer en cet 
 
 bailleur, aura pro- 
 
 susbaille," adopted 
 
 e by one I'roulx, an 
 
 tz. B. et al.;(de- 
 
 3thcr j)ortion of the 
 
 iurnnije between the 
 
 three surveyors to 
 
 irvcyor made a se)i;i- 
 
 ind plan of die sin- 
 
 I'roulx's lines, was 
 
 y the court : — Held, 
 
 f the court below, 
 
 at plaiutiti's' auteurs 
 
 iu accordance with 
 
 y were now estopped 
 
 property should be 
 
 i true course of the 
 
 the judgment homo- 
 
 ng I'roulx's lines and 
 
 Id be alHrmed. Mc- 
 
 R. Gl. 
 
 yOR. 
 
 VKY. 
 
 3F ACTION. 
 
 'ION. 
 
 3C0UNTS. 
 
 — Pkactick. 
 
 ND SHOPS. 
 
 iNNKKEPEU— INTOXICA- 
 
 ivuua. 
 
 legislature as to restrict- 
 'liich billiard rooms in 
 open. See llcjmi v. 
 A. R. 246 ; 9 App. Cas. 
 
 the Shops Regulation 
 ) See Jieyina v. Flory, 
 
 1 
 
 2013 
 
 TERMS. 
 
 2014 
 
 TAXATION OF COSTS. 
 
 I. Generally— iSep Costs. 
 II. Ok Solicitor— .966 Solicitor. 
 III. Of Sheriff— .S'ce Siieuikk. 
 
 TAXES. 
 
 I. Municipal — iS'ee Assessment and Taxes. 
 
 II. On Sale of Land— .SVc Sale of Land— 
 Saleof Land bvOkueuofthe Court. 
 
 iii. as bktween landlord and tenant— 
 See Landloud and Tenant. 
 
 VI. In Fee— 5ee Kstate— Limitation or 
 Actions— Will. 
 
 VIL In Common — ^ee Kstatk— Limitation 
 
 OF Actions— Tim 11 Ku— Will. 
 VIII. Joint Tenants. Sec Estate- Will. 
 
 Tenant in common of chattel?. 
 BuniMK, 5 O. R. 085, p. 185. 
 
 See Gunn v. 
 
 TEACHERS. 
 
 See PuiiLic Schools. 
 
 TELEGRAPH. 
 
 I. Contracts by — See Contract. 
 II. Teleurams in Evidence— .SVe Evidence. 
 III. Telephone— See Telephone. 
 
 Arrangements with railway companies. See 
 Canadian I'ucijic H. IV. Co. v. Wexlcrn Union 
 Telegraph Co., 17 S. C. K. 151, p. 1800. 
 
 TELEPHONE. 
 
 Interference by wires of Electric Light Com- 
 pany with wires of Telephone Company. See 
 Bdl Telephone Co. v. Belleintle Electric Liqht Co., 
 12 0. it. 571, p. 921. 
 
 Agreement aa to transmission of orders by mes- 
 sengers. See Electric Despatch Go. v. Hell Tele- 
 phoiie Co. of Canada, 17 O. R. 459 ; 17 A. R. 292, 
 p. 335. 
 
 House being moved coining in contact with 
 telephone wire across the street, which caused 
 some bricks to fall on a passer-by and injure him. 
 Liability. See Howard v. City of St. Tlwmas, 19 
 0. R. 719, p. 1393. 
 
 TEMPERANCE ACTS. 
 
 ■See Intoxicatino LiyuoR.s. 
 
 TENDER. 
 
 I. Of Money, 2014. 
 
 II. Ok Deed— .S'ee Sale of Land. 
 
 Ill For Contracts— iScr Contract. 
 
 IV. On Sale of Land by Okdeb of tub 
 CouiiT— sVe Sale of Land by Oudbk 
 OF THE Court. 
 
 I. Of Money. 
 
 This action was to recover money as compensa- 
 tion for land expropriated, and for otlier relief. 
 Defendants pleaded a defence in denial, and also 
 a tender of .$100 and interest, but did not pay 
 tlie amount into court :— Held, that the defence 
 of tender without payment into court was a good 
 defence under the 0. J. Act, ami a motion to 
 strike out the defence, or to compel payment 
 into court, or for judgment for the amount, with 
 leave to proceed for a fuither amount, was re- 
 fused. JJemureilv. Midland K. IV. Co., 10 P. 
 R. 640.— Ualton, Master. 
 
 In proof of an alleged tender to the bailiff, the 
 plaintiff said that he asked the b.iiliff for a bill 
 of demands, with all costs, and he would pay 
 him : that he, plaintilf, had then $87 in his 
 hand, which was sutticient to pay the rent and 
 costs, and said, "Here is your money;" but 
 that the bailitl' refused to receive it. Tiiis was 
 denied by the hailitf ; but the question was left 
 to the jury, wlio found that there was a tender. 
 The goods tlistrained were afterwards sold by 
 the bailiff :— Held, that on the evidence the 
 finding of the jury could not he interfered with, 
 and there must he held to have been a tender 
 to the bailiff; and that tiie landlord was respon- 
 sible for the bailitPs act. Matiieson v. Kelly, 
 24 0. P. 598, distinguished. Howell v. LtHtoweU 
 lUiik and Park Co., 13 0. R. 476. -C. P. D. 
 
 Plea of tender and payment into court. V. 
 Hudoii Cotton Co, V. Canada Shipping Co., 1.S 
 S. C. R. 401, p. 1694. , 
 
 TENANT. 
 
 1. At Will— See Limitation of Actions. 
 IL For Years— /Se(? Landlord andTenant. 
 
 III. For Life— Sflc Estate— Limitation of 
 
 Actions— Waste— Will. 
 
 IV. By Curtesy^.Vcc Estate. 
 
 V. In Tail— See Estate— Will. 
 
 TERM. 
 
 Effect of abolition of a term in computation 
 of time. See Kean v. Edwardn, 12 P. R. 625, 
 p. 2022. 
 
 TERMS. 
 See Words and Terms. 
 
s 
 
 8 
 
 
 2015 
 
 TIMBER. 
 
 201& 
 
 TERM'S NOTICE. 
 
 See Practick. 
 
 TERRITORIAL DIVISION. 
 
 IMckinaon's lalaiul in l^ake St. Francis, is part 
 of thf. County of Gleii^'arry. Jiegina v. Du- 
 quette, 9 P. R. 29.— Osier. 
 
 The township of Humphrey is within the terri- 
 torial limit of tlie County of Siniuoe, and forms 
 also part of the district of Parry Sound for cer- 
 tain judical purposes. See lietfina v. Moiiteith, 
 15 O. R. 291, p. 103;}. 
 
 Semble, R. S. O. (1887) c 5, s. 1 is to be inter- 
 preted as meaning *'"•>, tlie townships named 
 .shall be townships f( c i .unicipal purposes when 
 it becomes possible to make them such lie Met- 
 calfe, 17 0. R, 357.— Boyd. 
 
 TESTATOR. 
 
 See Will. 
 
 THIRD PARTIES. 
 
 See Costs— Pr.EA DING. 
 
 THREATS. 
 
 See DuRfSS— Parliamkntauy Elections. 
 
 Deed obtained l)y thn nts of lepnl proceedings. 
 Sue Sheard v. Lain/, 15 A. R. 33!), p. 7(i7. 
 
 Tntimidntion of wcrknicn. See Ilyni's v. 
 /•'wAer, 4 0. IJ. CO, 78, p. 'M\. 
 
 TIMBER. 
 
 I. Contract for Sai.k ok. 
 
 1. Geneialhj, 2015. 
 
 2. DiiwafjiK for Breach, 2020. 
 
 II. RuiiiTs cpi- I'kvants kok Life and in 
 
 Common, 2020. 
 
 III. MiscKLLANKdiis Cases, 2020. 
 
 IV. Ckown 'I'imbkr — See Crown Lands. 
 
 V. RitnrisoF MouTOAOEES-iSfie Mortgage. 
 
 VI. Floating Timiikr— See Water and 
 
 \N'a'ieii Courses. 
 
 VII. Rlflkvin for— -Vee Replevin. 
 
 I. Contract fok Sale of. 
 1. Generally. 
 
 By ngrecmcnt in writing, datrd loth October, 
 1873, A. agreed to sell, ond B. and C. agreed to 
 
 purciiase, all the merchantable white and red 
 pine timber, suitable fortheirpurposes, standing, 
 lying, or being on certain premises owned l)y A., 
 for the price or sum of ^<>00, payable, ^00 oii 
 date of n,greemeiit, and the balance in one year, 
 with a provision that the timber should be cut 
 and removed off the lands, on or l)efore the 15th 
 of October, 1881. It was furtlier provided that 
 Vi. and C their agents, representatives, or 
 assigns, should liave the right to enter upon the 
 premises at all times during the period for which 
 the agreement was to continue in force, fur the 
 purpose of cutting and removing said tindier ; 
 and tluit if 15. and C. should remove the whole 
 of the tind)er oil' the land liefore the expiration 
 of the year, they would pay the wliole of the 
 purchase money imnie<liately after removing tlie 
 said timber: — Held (Proudfoot, V.C., dissent- 
 ing), tliat tliis was an agreement for the sale of 
 an interest in land ; that prima facie the vendor 
 was entitleil to a lien for unpaid purcliase money, 
 and tiiat the circumstance tliat the tinil)er was 
 purchased l)y B. and C. , for the purpose of being 
 cut down and used at their mill as soon as pos- 
 sible, did not deprive the vendor of the light to 
 the lien :--Ileld, also, that the last proviso in 
 the agreement, as to immediate payment of the 
 purcliase money in case of removal of all the 
 timber before the arrival of the time for payment 
 of tlie §200, dill not operate to destroy the ven- 
 dor's riglit to the lien. B. and C. did not pay the 
 $200, and after the expiration of one year from the 
 date of the agreement assigned it to the defen- 
 dants, who had no actual noticj that tlie S'200 re- 
 mained nnpiiid, but the iigreeiiientwasregistered 
 against the lands: — Held that tlic veinlor was 
 entitled to an injunction to prevent cutting and 
 removing liy tlie defendants until the .S-!OU was 
 paiil. Marshall w. (ireen, 1 C. P. D. ."!'), coni- 
 nieiitcd upon anil distinguished. Sidiimtr-s v. 
 Cook, 28Chy. 179.-Cliy; U. 
 
 Under an agreement, dated 2nd O;,tober, 1880, 
 the defeiiilant sold to H. all the pine tiniher 
 grov iiig on certain lands, to be removed during 
 the years ISfsO and 1881. 'I'lie limber was all 
 cut iiiti) logs before the end of 1881, but a por- 
 tion was not then renioved : — Held, that this was 
 a sale of goods and chattels, and not an interest 
 in land ; and the timber so cut having hecoiiie 
 the plaintiirs property he had the right tore- 
 move it after the expiiatiim of the time men- 
 tioiied ; though, Semble, the defeiiilant iiiii:lit 
 have a right of action for not removing it «ithiii 
 the time. The defeiiilant having refused to per- 
 mit such removal. the plaintitf brought replevin, 
 and was held entitled to succeed. Mcd'nijiir v. 
 McNeil, 32 V. P. 538. -C. P. 0. 
 
 Ouarantee by bank manager as to culling tim- 
 ber. See DohM v. OiKario Hank; .S (). K. 2!)9 ; 
 <J A. U. -184, p. 843. 
 
 Onaaaleof "timber limits" held under licenses 
 in piirsuaiiee of the C. S. C. cap. 23, a cl.iuse of 
 simple warranty (garantie de tons troubles genii- 
 ralement fjueleoii(|nes) does not operate to pro- 
 tect the piirchatcr against eviction by a peison 
 claiming to be entitled under a prior license to a 
 portion of the limits sold. Duinnda v. Diijniy, 
 !) App. Cas. 150. iieveising ,S. ('. G S. C. 11. 
 425. 
 
 W. S. agreed to transfer Ids timber limits to 
 W. A. S. in case the latter should witliiu two 
 
201& 
 
 le white and red 
 (Urposus, staiuling, 
 lises owned by A., 
 l)ayiible, $400 on 
 lUmco iu one year, 
 bcr should be cut 
 r l)efore the 15th 
 tlier provided that 
 epresentatives, or 
 t to enter upon the 
 he period for whicli 
 ue in force, for the 
 ^ving said timber ; 
 remove the wliole 
 fore the expiration 
 y the whole of the 
 after removing the 
 oot, V.C, dissent- 
 nient for the sale of 
 ma facie the vendor 
 lid purchase money, 
 ;iiat the timber was 
 the purpose of being 
 mill as soon as pos- 
 jndor of tlie right to 
 the last proviso in 
 liate payment of the 
 f removal of all the 
 the time for payment 
 I to destroy the vcn- 
 ndC. did not pay the 
 inofoneyear from the 
 ;ned it to the defen- 
 t)tice that the 8200 re- 
 cement was registered 
 that the vendor was 
 ) prevent cutting and 
 ;s until the 8-OU was 
 1 C. I'. D. ;5'"', com- 
 uished. Smiimers v. 
 U. 
 
 ted 2nd October, 1880, 
 all tlie pine timl)or 
 to be removed during 
 'i'lio limber was all 
 ■nd of 1881,l)utaiKir- 
 1:— Held, that this WHS 
 Is, and not an interest 
 so cut liaving become 
 3 ha<l the right to re- 
 tiim of the time men- 
 the defendant niidit 
 not removing it within 
 , having refused to per- 
 iiitilll)rought leplcvin, 
 succeed. Mcdnv"^ v. 
 
 ;. I'. I). 
 
 na«er as to culling tim- 
 Wo /ia«/l-, 30. H. ^!>9; 
 
 its" held under licenses 
 . C. cap. 23, a clause of 
 e de t(ms troul)ks gone- 
 oes not operate to pro- 
 ist eviction by a peisnn 
 nder ii prior license to a 
 I. Diitinidii V. Di'iniy, 
 ersing S. ('. C «• C. K. 
 
 for lis timber limits to 
 ttcr should within two 
 
 2G17 
 
 TIMBER. 
 
 mi 
 
 years, pay off a mortgage to H. and other lial>ili- ' 
 ties, ami iu case \V. 8. was obliged to pay any i 
 of such liabilities he was at liberty to sell such j 
 portion of said limits as would recoup him. At 
 the same time W. S. wrote to |{. authori.sing 
 him to transfer to W. A. .S. said lands whicli he 
 held as security, on jjaymcnt of his claim. 1!. 
 assigned his claim and tiie limits to 15. who, by 
 agreement witli W. A. IS. and the executors of 
 \V. S. , c(uitinued to carry on the lumber busi- j 
 iiess formerly owned by \V. S. Certain of the 
 liabilities of W. S. not having been paid his 
 estate claimed a vendor's lien on such limits, and 
 relied on the letter to 11., and (ni notice to an ', 
 attorney who prepared the agrcenicnt with B. i 
 to estaldish notice of sucii lien in 15. :- Held, 
 affirming the judgment of the ij. 15. I), for 
 Ontario, 5 (). R. 1, that oven if such lieu existed ] 
 B. eouhi rot be afl'ecte<l w ilh notice of it. ScoH i 
 V. Benedict, 14 f^. C. U. 735. j 
 
 I 
 C. conveyed to H. certain land by a deed ' 
 which contained the following reservation and ' 
 covenant : " And tlie said party of the lirst part | 
 reserves to himself all the standing timber upon 
 the said lands, excepting that which measures | 
 eight inches through, and the sai<l party of the 
 second part, covenants with the said party of 
 the first part, to give him live years from the 
 date hereof to take the said timber oti' the said | 
 lands, with the right of entry upon said lands j 
 for the purpose i removing said timber :" — ! 
 Held that V. was entitled to all tlie tinibci' over [ 
 eight inches in diameter. Curlxtl v. /Jdrjxr, 5' 
 0. R. 93.— Chy. 1). 
 
 15y deed, dated 4th April, 18S4, made between 
 •f., and 8. & L. , J. agreed to sell and S. & L. to 
 purchase all the merciiautable pine, suitable for 
 the purpose, standing, lying, and being on cer- 
 tain described property, for a sum whicli was 
 then named and paid, '• Provided, however, that 
 the said timber and logs shall he cut and re- 
 moved off said lot on or before the 4th April, 
 1884." The defendant I!, (claiming through S. 
 & L.) after the expiration of the time agreed 
 upon, removed logs which J. had cii' after the 
 4th day of .A])ril, 18S4, and for this ). l)iought 
 this action and recovered a verdict for .?125. 15. 
 moved against the verdict, on the ground that 
 under the deed, and the a^sigmiunt to him, he 
 was the absolute owner ol llie timber, subject 
 merely to sucli claim as the vemlor might have 
 agauist the vendees for breach ot the covenant 
 to remove the pine within tiie time named ; — 
 Held (OCoiinoi', J., dissenting), tiiat the agree- 
 ineut could not be construed .is an al solute grant 
 ot the jiine trees suitable for the business of the 
 grantees, subject to a covenant by them to cut 
 and remove the trees wiihiii ten yens ; but that 
 it was a grant of the [line subject to the condi- 
 tion that the timber and logs should be cut and 
 ri'moved off the pruiierty i ii or bifore the 4th 
 day of April, 1884 : -Held, also, that this condi- 
 tion applied as well to tiees severed before as to 
 those severed after the ex|iiiation of the term: — 
 Held, per O't'oniior, .1., that the ciise was with- 
 i'.: the meaning of the law as decided by the 
 curt in the case of Mctiregor i\ McNeil, 32 C. 
 P. 538, and that the defendant w.-is the absolute 
 owner of the timber, with ;n nffirmative license 
 to cut and remove the same, which the vendor 
 could not revoke, although the time within which 
 the timber was to be removed Lad expired ; 
 
 127 
 
 though the vendor might have other remedies. 
 Johnston v. Shorliiul,~\'l O. R. 033. — (,». 15. I). 
 
 S. sold r.ll the elm and soft maple trees on a cer- 
 tain lot to'!'. ; .and at the time of >alcgave'r. the 
 following receipt : " Received from .1. L. for 'I'., 
 thes\ini of .*!.")00,oii account of elm ami soft maple 
 on, "etc., the said lot, describing it. I'aiole'. im-,. 'j 
 was admitted to shew, and the jury found, tliat 
 "one of the conditions of the sale was that the 
 timber was to be removed by T. within two 
 years."— Hehl, that the receipt here was not the 
 contiact between the jiarties, but a meie ac- 
 knowledgment of so much nioney ; and therefore 
 the parol evidence was pripperly admitted : — 
 Held, also that the ellect of the conditiini was, 
 that T. was only to have the right to cut anil 
 remove the timber within the twoycais from the 
 date of the agreement, .lohuston r. Shoitreed, 
 12 (). 1!. G33, followed. Sldiilwlfv. McJ.'w, \:i 
 O. R. 540. -C. I'. D. 
 
 Senible, that a sale of growing timber does not 
 come within the operation of the liills of .Side 
 and Chattel Mortgage Act. /h. 
 
 C, after having examined a lot, entered into 
 an agreement with \V., the owner, whereby the 
 latter sold all the pine timber standing on the 
 lot to C, "such as will make good merchant- 
 able waney-edged timber, suitable for his pur- 
 pose, at the rate of ■'SIS per hundred cuhic feet," 
 andC. pahl to W. .SI, 000, "the balance to be 
 paid for before the *■ :iber is removed from the 
 lot." C. cut 8051. ortli of lirst-class timber, 
 suitable for the Quv. c maikct which was all of 
 that class to be found on the lot, and sued \V. to 
 recover back the balance of the 81,000, namely, 
 8348.83: — Held, that the true construction of 
 the contract was that W. sold and granted to C. 
 ])ei'mission to enter upon his lot, and cut all the 
 "good merchantable timber there growing, suit- 
 able for his purp().--e, ' and not merely " tirst- 
 (dass tindier," that there was more than sulli- 
 cient "good merchantable timber" still remain- 
 ing on the lot to cover the balance of the 81 COO, 
 and that there was no evidence to shew that the 
 contract had been rescinded. Per 'I'aschcrean 
 and Owynne, .I.J., that the payment of the 
 81,000 was an absolute ](aynicnt, the ])l;iinti(r be- 
 lieving and representing to defendant that there 
 was sullicient timber to cover that amount, if 
 not more, on the faith of which representation 
 defendant entered into the contiact, which he 
 otherwise would not have done, and that if the 
 lilaiiitilfmade an error, he, and not the defm- 
 daiit, must sull'er the consi(|iiciices of this error. 
 j Clarke v. ]lh!li', 3 S. C. R. .'tOO ; 28 C. 1". 203. 
 
 The respondents, owners of timber lands in 
 
 New Brunswick, granted C. & S. a license to cut 
 I lumber on twenty-live sipiare miles. 15y the 
 I license it was agreed inter alia: " Said stiimpage 
 I to be paid in the follow ing niannci-: Said coni- 
 ' pany shall first deduct from the amount of stnmp- 
 i age on the limber or liiniber cut by grantees 
 
 on this license as afonsaid, an amount eipial 
 : to the mileage paid by thini as aforesaid, and 
 
 the whole of the icmaindci', if any, tliall, not 
 j later than the loth April next, be secured by 
 i good endorsed not( s. or other snlhcient security, 
 
 to be ajipidved of by the yaid company, and 
 I payable on the loth ."inly next, and the hunber 
 {not to be removed from the brows or landings 
 
 till the stumpage is secured us aforesaid. And 
 
2019 
 
 TIMBER. 
 
 a 
 « 
 n 
 
 e 
 
 i 
 
 ■1 
 
 said company rnscrvcs and retains full and coni- 
 pleto (iwiiersliip and coiitiol iif all lunilici- wliich 
 shall be cut from the aforementioned premises, 
 wherever and however it may be situated, until 
 Jill matters and things upper tainini,' to or cnn- 
 iiecte 1 with this license shall lie settled and ad- 
 justed, and all sums due or to become due for 
 stumpa^'e or otherwise, shall be fully [laid, and 
 any and all damages lor non-performance of this 
 agreement, orsti[iulatii)ns herein expressed, shall 
 be litjuidated and jiaid. And if any sum of 
 money sliall hive become ])ayable by any one of 
 the stipulations or agreements lierein expressed, 
 nnd shall nnt be paid or secured in aime of the 
 modes herein express d within ten days there- 
 after, then in such ease said comjiany shall have 
 full power and autlimily to take all or any part 
 of said lumber wherever or however situated, 
 and to absolutely sell anil dispose of the sime 
 cither at jnivate oi public sale, for cash ; and 
 after deilucting reasonable exiienses, connnis- 
 sions, and all sums which may then be due i~ 
 may become due from any cause whatever, i.. 
 lierein exjiresscd, the balance, if any there may 
 lie, th(!y shall pay over on demand to said gran- 
 tees, after a reasonable time for ascertaining and 
 li(]uidating all amounts due, or which may be- 
 come due, either as stumpage or clamagcs." For 
 securing the stum])age jiayable to respondents 
 under this license (I. ct S. gave to the respon- 
 d'nls a draft U}»on ,1. & (>>., which was acce])ted 
 by .J. & Co., and a]i))rciveil of by the respon- 
 dents, but which w.is not paid at matuiity. 
 After giviirg the draft ('. it S. sold the lumber to 
 J. & Co., who knew th(^ lumber was cut on the 
 plaintiH's lainl under the said agreennuit. .T. 
 & Co. failed, an<l appellant, their assignee took 
 jiossessiori of the lumber and sold it: — Held, 
 ))er Strong, 'Pasehere in and (! Wynne, JJ. (atlirm- 
 ing the judgment of the court below), Ititchic, 
 ('. J., and Fouinier and Ihury, .!.[., di.ssenting, 
 that upon the case as sirbrrrilted, and by mere 
 force of the terms of the agieernent, tin; abso- 
 lute pi-opeity in the lumber in (luestion did not 
 jiass to C. it S. iminediately upon the receipt by 
 the corn|)aiiy of the acce])ted draft of C. & S. 
 on .1. & Co., and that a|)pillant was liable for 
 the actual jiavment of the stumpage. Afr/.cod 
 V. Ni-w Uran'siriflc It W. Co., 5 S. C. R. 281. 
 
 Whore one sold and assigned to another all the 
 pine timber be might choose ':) cut for twenty 
 years with the right to make roads to get to and 
 remove the same, and a covenant that the grantee 
 might, without let or hindran 'c from anyone, 
 cut and reriuive the timber : —Held, (I'rourlfoot, 
 J. dissentin,'), That the timber so sold together 
 with tlie rights irnj) irted to the irurchaser were 
 an interest in land and not chattel property. 
 AVliere having tirst granted such timber and 
 rights to the plaintHFs assignor, the defendant 
 five ye.ir-s after soM the timber to another per- 
 son, who forthwith proceeded to cut the same i 
 — Held, that the defendant was responsible to 
 the plaintilTiri damages ; and, per I'^erguson, J. 
 that he would have been so, even if the timber 
 sold wiu'e chattid property, for that the act of 
 the defendant in selling to another [ler-son would 
 in that c ise amount to a conversion of tin; pro- 
 perty. MrXaU V. IJaiaes 17 0. K. 470.— 
 (.;hy. D. 
 
 See GroH^U'dd v. OoiM, 9 A. R. 218, p. 1970 ; 
 Rdd V. Smith, 2 O. R. 09, p. 1544. 
 
 2. Diimaijenfor Bniich. 
 
 The plaintitl' contracted to deliver timber to 
 
 tiie defendant at St. Ignace, to be transjxirted by 
 
 him to Quebec fcu's.ile there. There was no nmr. 
 
 I ket nearer to the place of delivery than Que- 
 
 ) bee. 'I'lie plaintill' made def.udt and in an action 
 
 I for tlu! price tire defendant "ounter-elaimtd for 
 
 damages for nomlelivery of the timber : — Held 
 
 ; Cameron, ,)., dissenting, reversing tlie judgment 
 
 i of Uurton, .1. A., that the measure of daniat'es 
 
 i was the value of the timber at Quebec, les,' ,.'ie 
 
 cost of transportation thereto from thepoit.iof 
 
 delivery. I'er Hurlon, .1. A., and Cameron, ,1. - 
 
 Loss of ))rofits could not be I'ecovered, and as 
 
 the contract price for such timber had not varied, 
 
 and there was no evidence of any contract hy 
 
 defendant to resell, w hich could be taki'n into 
 
 consideration, or of any purchase by him to ,sup- 
 
 ])ly its ])lace, thei'e was no right to more thun 
 
 nominal damages. liendrii: v. Nctloii, .'{ (). K. 
 
 303. —Q. IJ. U. Atlirmed in appeal, 12 A. 11. 41. 
 
 The plaintiils .and defendant entered into an 
 agreement in the following terms: "I, the 
 uiulersigned, agree to deliver S. S. Mutton k 
 Co., forty M. feet black ash, with mill culls out 
 f. o. b. vessel on Cornwall canal, at §10 jjor M. 
 feet, also ten M. feet soft elm at. .§10 ))er- M. feet 
 f. o. b. vessid on (aii'iiwall canal, to be deliveroil 
 in the month of dune, 18S1, the lund)er now on 
 stick ami part seasoned, "ami the ))laintiffssigneil 
 a corresjionding nremoranduin, agreeing to ac- 
 ce;)t such lumber at the time specified : — Held, 
 that the words "with mill culls (uit," applicil 
 to the ash only, not to the elm ; — Held, also, 
 that the plaintill', not having had a vessel ready 
 to receive the lumber in .lune, could not recover. 
 Per Osier, J. , time was of the essence of the con- 
 tract, and the defendant was not bormd to 
 deliver the lumber in September. Million v. 
 Dry, 7 A. n. 455. 
 
 See M'-.Nedl v. IIalii>'.-<, 17 O. 11. 479, p. 2019. 
 
 I II. Ri()iiT.s or 
 
 Tr:N.\NTS KOK 
 Co.M.MON. 
 
 LiKK AND IN 
 
 Held, following Drake v. Wiglo, 22 C. P. 405, 
 that a tenant for life in this country may out 
 down timlter in the proj)er eouiso of good hus- 
 bandry, in order to liring the proper pi'opoition 
 of the land under cultivation, and |)erhaps de- 
 stroy' such timber, but that he oirinot cut down 
 timber even for the sime purpose, and sell it. 
 Saundi',rA v. Brcakic, 5 O. 11. (iJ.'J. — Fergiisnn. 
 
 A tenant in common occupying the connnon 
 property is not chargo.vble with the value of 
 timber cut by him <m such pi'operly iluring his 
 occupancy. Mii.}i--<if v. Lindiny, 10 I'. R. 173.— 
 Hodgins, Master in Ordinary. 
 
 X. MiscKt,ii.\NK0U3 Cases. 
 
 IMcdge of timber limits to bank. Quebec re;'ii- 
 litiona as to timber on Crown lands. See (h-iiiit 
 V. La liawiue Xationak, 9 O. R. 411, p. 139. 
 
 Railway line built tlirougli lands under license 
 from the Ontario (ioverninent. See MrArlhurw 
 N'orllfrii and Pdcilic Jiinrlion If. iV. Go., 15 0. 
 R. 733 ; 17 A. R. 86, p. 1743. 
 
 See Regina v, Dunn, US. C. R. 3S5, p. 1583. 
 
 ■BIMH 
 
2020 
 
 Brinch. 
 
 to dclivLT tiiiilier to 
 to l)u transpoituil liy 
 , There was no mar 
 
 -lulivury than Qiie- 
 aiilt and in an ai'tioii 
 
 "ountur-clainicil for 
 
 till! timber : — Held, 
 .ersini; the judgment 
 measure of damat'cs 
 ■r at Quebce, le.sf jic 
 .'to from the poii.c of 
 L., and Cameron, .1. - 
 he recovered, and as 
 imher had not varied, 
 e of any eontiact hy 
 
 could 1)0 taken into 
 rcliase by him to sup- 
 
 right to more thiin 
 •II' V. Necloii, W (). R. 
 in appeal, \'l A. 11. 41. 
 
 idant entered into an 
 ng terms : "I, the 
 liver S. S. Mutton k 
 sh, with mill euUs ont 
 11 eanal, at §10 ])or M. 
 elm at $10 i)er M. fci't 
 
 1 eanal, to he delivert'd 
 81, the hnnher now on 
 \,m\ the ])laintifi'H signtMl 
 iidum, agreeing to ac- 
 tinic siteciiied : — Helil, 
 iiill eulU out," applied 
 the olm : — Held, also, 
 ■ing had a vessel ready 
 unc, could not recover, 
 the essence of the cou- 
 nt was not bound to 
 September. Mullun v. 
 
 ,17 0. K. 479, p. 2019. 
 
 M FOR Lll'M'-, AND IN 
 ION. 
 
 ! V. Wiglo, 22 C. P. 405, 
 n this iMuntry may out 
 per coui'se of good hus- 
 g the proper proportion 
 k'ation, and perhai)s dc- 
 hat he cmnot cut down 
 uu purpose, and sell it. 
 O. 11. GO;J.— FergiisDP. 
 
 occu])yiug the cf)nnnon 
 able with the value of 
 uch property during his 
 lAmlic.y, 10 1'. K. 173.- 
 linarij. 
 
 .NKous Gases. 
 
 t» to bank. Quebec regu- 
 
 Jrown I,in<ls. See Crmil 
 
 ^, 9 0. R. 411, p. 139. 
 
 rough l:inds under license 
 
 ument. See McArthuf\: 
 
 „„Hh>n li. W. Oy.,15 0. 
 
 .. 1743. 
 
 11 S. C. R. 3:55, p. 1583. 
 
 2021 
 
 TIME. 
 
 2022 
 
 TIME. 
 
 Computation of Ti.me. 
 1. Gewmlly, 2021. 
 
 absenee from town of the revising ofTicer on Mon- 
 day, 2Sth .June, and on his return on the aftei- 
 noon of that day he was tol.l what had been done, 
 and that if he did not consider that sutlieient the 
 notice Would he procured again and served on 
 him person dly, hut he said what was (hjiie was 
 sulHcient ; - Hidd, that the last day for service 
 for the sittings for the final revision to he held 
 I'.'th July was Sunday, 27th .June, hut that under 
 section 2, sub-section 2, 48 & 49 Viet. e. 40, 
 V. TiMK THE EssKNCK OK THK CoNTKAcr— ' (Dom.), the time was extended, and S. had all 
 .S'ee CoNTliAOT— Salk ok Land -Sim;- the ne.xt day, and that the notice was well given 
 ciiiu Pkhkoii.manck. i on Monday. I!n Simiiioti.s niul Dallon, 12 0. H. 
 
 1503.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 II. 
 
 111. 
 IV. 
 
 2. .Sunday, 2022. 
 Reahosahle Time, 2023. 
 Miscellaneous Case-!, 2023. 
 VAt!.\TioN — See Vacation. 
 
 Section 4(5 of the Canada Teniperanoo Act 
 provides that the heaiiug may he adjourned to 
 a certain time ami place, hut no such adjourn- 
 
 „, I • i:u- 1 .1 -n r.., . , incnt shall be more than a week : — Held, that 
 
 riie plamtm and others, eouneillora of the town • ti, „,.... 1. ,„„. 1 , , , i-mn. 
 
 I. . ' i: .L^ 1 1 i- <• ,1 -1 itlieucck nlu^t Ih! coniiuited as seven days ex- 
 
 clusive of ihe day of ailjouinment. lieijlna v. 
 
 CoMi'i'TATioN OK Time. 
 (jencralbj. 
 
 of Petrolia, attended a meeting of the council on 
 tlie otli April. They were absent at the next 
 meeting called for and held on the Slst May and 
 tliencef()rward, without authorization, till the 
 7th of .July, when, at a meeting of the council, 
 a resolution declaring their scats vacant, and 
 ordering a new election was put, and an amend- 
 ment to refer the matter to the town solicitor 
 was lost : whereupon the dissentients left the 
 room, in consc.j.ienco of which there was no 
 <piouim, when the original motion was put and 
 carried : — Held, tluit the three months should 
 he counted frojii the 31st May, being the first 
 meeting that the plaintiffs had not attended ; 
 and that the resolution was therefore void, as 
 well as on the ground that there was no (piorum 
 present when it was passed. Afeanis v. Town 
 of Petrolia, 2S Cliy. 98.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Notice of calls of stock. See Na'ional Ins. 
 €o. V. Ejhmii, 29 Chy. 40G, p. 2.")1 ; Union. Fov 
 Int. Co. V. Filz^lmnionx, ;?2 U. 1'. 002, p. 251 ; 
 Union Fin' Ins. (Jo. v. O'Gara ; .Sanu' Phiiiitifs 
 V. Shnolhrid, 4 O. R. 359, p. 251. 
 
 R. K. O. (1877), e. 50, s. 93, provides that a 
 plaintiff shall be deemed mit of court unless he 
 declares within one year after the writ of sum- 
 mons is returinible. The writ of summons was 
 served on the 24th February, 18SI), and the 
 declaration was served on the 24tli February, 
 ISSl :— Held, that the plai'itirt' should have de- 
 clared on the 23r<l Feliruarv to have been withni 
 the statute. Miirrhison. v. Canada Farmers'' 
 Iw. Co., 8 P. R. 451.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 In com])uting the time within which an action 
 must be brought under the provisions of the 
 Division Courts Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 47, s. 
 2;{1, the day on which the fact was committed 
 must be excluded. lianas v. Johiislon, 3 O. 
 R. 100.— C. P. D. 
 
 A summons issued within a month after the 
 formal acceptance of otli;e by a can lidate for 
 mayor of a city by t;iktng the statutory declara- 
 tious of qualilication and oliije is in time, not- 
 withstanding that it issued more than six w-eks 
 after the election, and more tliaii a month after 
 a speech accepting ollico made by the respondent 
 at a meeting of electors, and certain other acts 
 of a similar character, less formal than tlie sta- 
 tutory declaration. Iici/iiiaex ri'l. Fdit-\. lion'- 
 Innd, 11 P. i{. 204.— Dalton, Master. 
 
 The notice to the revising officer in this case 
 was left with his clerk at hia ollice during the 
 
 V. (luulais, 14 0. R. 013. 
 
 Collins — Re.ijuia 
 O'Connor. 
 
 In the computation of the ten days' previous 
 notice necessary to Ijo given under 51 Vict. o. 
 29, s. 104 (Dom.) to obtain a warrant for the 
 possession of land by a railway company, the 
 day of the service of the notice and the <lay of 
 the return must hM\ ba exclude I. Re Ontario 
 Tanners' .Supplies Company and Ontario and 
 Quebtr R. W. Co., 12 P. 1!. 5G3.— Armour. 
 
 An award nmst be moved against within the 
 term following its publication, or within the 
 period which such term formerly occupied. 
 And when the term lias been ah(dislied, where 
 award was published on the J 3th an August, 
 1888, notice of appinl dated 7th September, 
 1888, but not serveil till 10th September, 1888, 
 was :— Held, too late, and the appeal was dit- 
 inissed. Kean v. Edicardi, 12 P. R. 025. — 
 Armour. 
 
 The last of theeightilays within which the de- 
 fendants shouM have delivered their statement 
 of dc;enco, as re(purcd by Con. Rule 371, was a 
 Saturday, and on that day at twenty-tive min- 
 utes past two in the afternoon, no statements of 
 defence having then hjon filed, or served on the 
 plaintilfs' solicitor, the officer entered a note 
 tliat tlie pic idin,'S Were closed : — Held, that the 
 olfi er had no power to close the pleadings 
 until the end of tlic day, which would be three 
 o'clock ; and tlierei'iire the note was irregular 
 and should be set isidc. Con. Rules 7, 39.S, 398, 
 480, considered. Lh^yd v. Ward, 13 P. R. 238. 
 -Ualt. 
 
 Held, that the word "forthwith," contained 
 in section 4 of the Creditojs' Relief Act, U. S. 
 O. (1877) c. (i5, with reference to the enlry by 
 the slieriff ot muncy levied unler execution, 
 must receive a strict c instruction, and means 
 " without any delay." Kven if e(|uivalent to 
 "within a reasonable tim'," a del ly of fifteen 
 days after tlio sale was held to be not reason- 
 able. Maxwell V. Scarj'e, 18 0. II. 529. —Armour. 
 
 2. k'uiday. 
 
 A chattel mortgage '..^as duly executed on the 
 12th of duly, and filed on the 18th, the 17th 
 having been Sunday :— Held, affirming the judg- 
 ment of the County Court, that auch registratioa 
 
2023 
 
 TITLE. 
 
 XHt. 
 
 i 
 
 ft 
 
 8 
 
 waH too late, the Act R. S. {). (1H77), c. 119, 
 requiring tlie same to Ite cflfL'teil within five 
 (layy from tlio execution of tlie inHtrunicnt ; tliut 
 Kunrlay counted as one of hucIi five (lays, and 
 that Kule 457, <). J. Act (Con, Rule 47<)), did 
 not apply. McLean v. I'iidivlon, 7 A. R. 490. 
 
 Held, reversing tlie judgment of Armour, J., 
 at the trial (Armour, .J., dissenting), that in com- 
 puting demurrage .'>und!\y is to he reckoned as 
 one of the (lays to he allowed for. "Days" 
 mean the same as running ilays, or consecutive 
 days, unless there he .some particidiir custom. 
 If the parties wish to exclude any days from the 
 computation they must he expressed. Olhhon 
 V. MichaePn Bay Liuiiher Co. (Lbn'ittd), 7 (.). R. 
 746.— Q. U. D. 
 
 Rule 455 O. J. Act (Con. Rule 473), applies 
 to the Chancery Division of the High Court of 
 Justice. The service ot a copy of an appoint- 
 ment to examine on the ])laintiirs solicitor on 
 a Sunday for a Monday is .'nsulliuient. Lon/ace 
 v. Ilurrhiijton, 1(1 1'. l!. 157. — Dalton, Muxler. 
 
 Sundays and holidays are excluded in comput- 
 ing the five days notice necessary in a short 
 notice of trial. Short notice of trial served on 
 Wednesday for Monday : — Held, had. O'Don- 
 veil v. O'DoiiwII, 10 P. R. '204.— Osier. 
 
 8ee L'e Simvwiin und Dallmi, 12 0. 1!. ."05, p. 
 L'022. 
 
 II. Rkasonabie Timk. 
 
 ^QcArlav^xotiy. Viager, 10 A. H. 477, p. ICSO; 
 Carvill v. Srho/ielil. 9 S. C. R. ;170, p. 1926 ; 
 /iiihiier V. Hrinmnll, 13 A. R. 411, p. 1144; 
 Oldjield V. Diekxoii, IH O. R. 188, p. 1882. 
 
 III. MiS( KLi.ANEocs Cares. 
 
 One of the conditions of the sale was that the 
 timber was to he removed hy T. within two 
 years : — Held, that the eti'cct of the condition 
 was that T. was only to liavo the right to cut 
 and remove the tindjer within two years from 
 the date of the agreement, .lohnston i\ Short- 
 reed, 12 O. R. 6.S.S, followed. Steinhuff v. Mc- 
 Rat, 13 0. R. 540.- C. I'. D. 
 
 R. S. O. (1877) e. 180, s. 59, regulating 
 appeals to the county judge from the Court of 
 Revision as to the assessment of property pro- 
 vides (sid)-section 2) that the pen-on appealing 
 shall serve upon the clerk of the municipality 
 within five days after the date limited by the 
 Act for closing the Court of Revision a written 
 notice of his intention to appeal ; (sub-section 3) 
 that the judge shall notify the clerk of the day 
 he appoints for hearing appeals ; .nnd (sub- 
 section 4) that the clerk shall tliercupon give 
 notice to all the parties appealed against. Sec- 
 tion 56, sub-section 19, provides that all the 
 duties of the Court of Revision shall be com- 
 pleted, and the rolls finally revised, before the 
 Istday of July in each year. The Court of 
 Revision heard the appeals in question on the 
 10th June, 1886, and rendered judgment on the 
 following day. Notices of ajjpeal dated the 15th 
 June, 1886, were served upon the clerk on the 
 19th ; the Court of Revision sat until the 5th 
 July ; on the 15th July the clerk notified the 
 Judge that notice had been given of these 
 
 I appeals, and on the 26th July the judge notiticd 
 
 the clerk of the day that he had appointed for 
 
 I hearing the a]ipeals, and the clerk notiticd the 
 
 I parties :— Held, that the limitation in section 
 
 ' 59, sub-section 2, should he construed to mean 
 
 j that notice of appeal should not be served after 
 
 the expiration of live days from the closiiig of 
 
 the Court of Revision ; and also that the service 
 
 in this case was within the five days, us the 
 
 notices were in the hands of the clerk duriuj,' 
 
 the five days, and were acted upon hy him ; and 
 
 further, that service jirior to the expiry ol' tlir 
 
 five days was good service. iScolt v. Ton'n ij' 
 
 JJn/owel — LiniK/xtem v. Town oj' LxMoied, 12 1*. 
 
 R. 77.— Rose. 
 
 On the nuiturity of a bill of exchange the 
 drawers thereof thinking tlie acceptor would lie 
 un.ihle to meet it telegraphed him that if un- 
 able to meet it to draw on them for the 
 amount : — Held, that no time being mentioned 
 in the telegram an authority to draw at siglit 
 would be implied, linnk aj Alonlrcal v. Tliumnx. 
 10 O. R. 503.— (;. I'. 1). 
 
 The judgment in the Court of Appeal in a 
 habeas corpus proceeding was pronounced on 
 the 13th November, ISSb. Notice of intention 
 to appeal was imniedialely given, but the cane 
 in appeal was not tiled in the Supreme Couit 
 until the 18th February, 1889 :— llehl, that tlie 
 appeal was not brought within sixty days iriin 
 the date on which the judgment sought to he ap- 
 pealed from was pronounced and there was no 
 jurisdiction to hear it. In re S) 'art, Ki S. C. It. 
 396. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 V 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 TITLE. 
 
 On Sale of La.su — See. Sale ok Land- 
 Sale OF Land uv Okuek of thk 
 
 COUKT— Si'ECl FlC 1' K li F O U M A N C E - - 
 VenUOKS ANlt PUKCIIASEKS' A(;T. 
 
 Covenants for — See Covenants fok 
 Title. 
 
 Cloud on — See Sale of Lank. 
 
 iMrnovEMENTs Undeii Ml-^takh; of 
 Title— .Vt' Imfhovements on Land. 
 
 , By I'ossE^sioN- 6'ce Limitation of 
 
 ACTION.S. 
 
 Denial of Title- 6'ee Estoi-fkl- Lanh 
 LORD AND Tenant. 
 
 QiiiETiN(; Titles— See QciETiNo Titles. 
 
 Slander of Title— *ee Defamation. 
 
 Rei'hesentation as to Title in Appli- 
 cations for laavBAUvK—Sce Insu- 
 rance. 
 
 Requisite to Maintain Ejectment— 
 See Ejectment. 
 
 Proof of in Trehfass— -S'ee Tri.si'Ass. 
 
 Jurisdiction OF Inferior Courts wiiKN 
 Title VI Land ls in Ques-tion— .^(»- 
 CouNT-. Court— Division Coikts. 
 
 Ousting Jurisdiction by Claim of 
 Title— >See Justice of tue Peace. 
 
202i 
 
 judge notitiod 
 I iipiJoinUd for 
 I'k iiotitied the 
 ion ill suction 
 tivii'd to iiieau 
 bu served after 
 tlie elosiiig of 
 that the service 
 kc days, us tlie 
 he clerk during 
 un hy him ; ami 
 he expiry of the 
 
 Scolt V. 'I'oiril 1./' 
 
 LUtond, I'J i'. 
 
 if exchange the 
 eptor would In; 
 liui that if un- 
 them for the 
 
 ))ciiig mentioned 
 o draw at sight 
 treat V. Tliumii''. 
 
 , of Appeal in a 
 pnjnounccil on 
 tice of intention 
 ven, l)Ut the case 
 c Supreme Court 
 Hehl, that the 
 1 sixty (lays mm 
 t sought to be ap 
 md there was no 
 V) 'art, Hj S. C. Jl. 
 
 !« Salk ok Land— 
 r Okijkk of thk 
 
 'KlilOKMASCE — 
 
 L'liASKKs' Act. 
 e Covenants kok 
 
 jF Land. 
 
 KR MiM'AKI-, OK 
 KMENTS "IN LaM>. 
 
 LlfllTATUlN OK 
 
 EsToi'i'KL— Land- 
 
 eQuiETiNCi Titles. 
 5'ec Uefajiation. 
 ■0 Title in ArPLi- 
 
 DANCE— iSVc InSU- 
 
 ;ain Ejectment— 
 
 s— ^'fce Teeskahs. 
 
 RioR Cor RTs when 
 IN Question— •>"' 
 
 IVISION Col liTS. 
 
 ON BY Claim ok 
 E OK the Peace. 
 
 2025 
 
 TRADE MARKS. 
 
 TOLLS. 
 
 .Ste International BRinciE Company— Way. 
 
 TORT. 
 
 Set Damages— Neolicknce. 
 
 Liability of the Crown. See JAm.s/vj/!-(i Milt Co. 
 V. The Qmcii, '28 Cliy. "Hi,"}, p. 1 MO ; Itfi/inn v. 
 McFarlant, 7 .S. C. \\. 'iUi, i)p. 1580, loSl'; Jones 
 V. The. Queen, 7 S. 0. It. 570, p. 157(5; I'ej/ina v. 
 MrLeod, 8 S. C. R. 1, p. 1582; Windsor and 
 A niiapolii It. U'. Co. v. The Queni, 10 S. 0. R. 
 X\7,; 11 App. Cas. 607, p. 1584. 
 
 In torts the principle of agency does not apply ; 
 (■acli wrong doer is a principal. See Ontario In- 
 dustrial Loan and Inrestment Co. v. Liiidseii, 4 
 (). R. 473. 
 
 Held, under R. S. O. (1877) e. 125, that in an 
 action for a tort conmiitlcd by a wife during 
 coverture the husband is not a proper party but 
 the wife must be sued alone. Antcr v. lUxiers 
 'M C. P. 105.— Osier. 
 
 Joint liability of husband and wife. See Bar- 
 (-./• V. We.4orcr, 5 O. R. 110, ]). 880. 
 
 Liability of wife. i<ee Shan- v. McCreari/, 19 
 <). R. 30, "p. 880. 
 
 C/Uivre '.— In the present state of the law is a 
 r>'leaso to or satisfaction from one of several 
 joint tort feasors a bar to an action .against the 
 others. See (,'rand Trnitk li. W. Co. o/' Canada 
 V. MeMUIan, l(i S. C. R. 543. 
 
 P. brought an action again.st a conductor of 
 the I. C. R. for injuries received in attempting 
 lo board a train, and alleged to be caused by the 
 negligence of the conductor in not bringing the 
 train to a stand still. On the trial, P. was non- 
 .suited, Kud on motion to the full court the non- 
 suit was set aside and a new trial ordered. 15e- 
 tween the verdict and the judgment jrdoriug a 
 new trial, P. died, and a suggestion ot his death 
 was entered on the record. On apjjcal to the 
 >!upreine Court of Canada from the ord ;r of the 
 fall court : — Held, that under Lord CanipbeU's 
 Act, or the etpiivalent statute in New Bruns- 
 wick (C. S. N. B. o. 86), an entirely new cause 
 •of action arose on the death of P., and the 
 original action was entirely gone, and could not 
 lie revived. There "oeing no cause before the 
 < 'ourt of Appeal, the appeal was quashed with- 
 <iut costs. IVhite v. Parker. 1«S. (,'. R. 609. 
 
 TOWAGE. 
 
 .See Ship. 
 
 TRACTION ENGINE 
 
 See Coiinti/ of York v. 
 \and. Ciinrnii- t'n., 3 (). It. 
 J12S. C. H. .-,17, p. 3:{i.'. 
 
 Toronto tirarel liotul 
 584 ; II A. R. 765 ; 
 
 TORONTO (CITY OF). | 
 
 Assessment for sewers. See In re liroek v. ' 
 *'ily of Toronto, 45 Q. B. 53, p. 1374. | 
 
 TRADE 
 
 1. CoNTR.VCTS in RESTRAINT OK TkADE - 
 
 See CoNTHACT. 
 
 II. Defamation Akkectinci I'eksons is 
 Trade —See Defamation. 
 
 Hi. Exemptions from Distress ok Pro- 
 piKTV KciiTHE Benefit OF Trade 
 See Distress. 
 
 Trades— iSre 
 
 IV. Resti:ainin(i Offensive 
 In.iinction. 
 
 V. Infkinckment of Trade Marks -&•« 
 Trade Marics, 
 
 Trade FixrcREs— .S'ce Fixtures. 
 
 Separate Thadini; iiv Married Wo- 
 man —.See HCSIIAND AND WlKE. 
 
 USA'IE OV—See CcsTOM AND USAOK. 
 
 VI. 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 TRADE MARKS. 
 
 The principle on which the court protects 
 trade marks is, that it will not permit a party to 
 sell his own goods as the goods of another ; a 
 party therefore will not be allowed to use names, 
 marks, letters, or other indicia, by which he may 
 ])a8s oil' his own goods to purchasers as the manu- 
 facture of another person. MeCali v. Theal, 28 
 Chy. 48.— Blake. 
 
 The plainliH', a resident of New York, was 
 engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper 
 patterns, and under what he considered a per- 
 mission from, or arrangement with the propri- 
 etors of an illustrated pajier called " Harper's 
 Bazaar,"' styled such patterns " Bazaar Pat- 
 terns," which words he registered in the United 
 States and in Canada as his trade mark, and for 
 the pur)i()se of extending his business in this 
 })rovince appointed the defendant his agent for 
 their sale, who for some years acted in that 
 capacity, and subsequently coiinnenced a like 
 business in his own name, calling his patterns 
 by the same name, stating that they were manu- 
 factured by "A. M. Theal," while those of the 
 plaiutili' were stated to be those of ' ' James Mc- 
 C'all ife Co. " ; the defendant, however, usina 
 envelopes of the same colour and size, lettered 
 and numbere<l in precisely the same way, the 
 only perceptible dilTerence being in the name of 
 the alleged agerrt, which, to casual observers, 
 would readily pass unnoticed. Thereupon the 
 plaintiff tiled a bill to restrain the defendant 
 from using the name "Bazaar Patterns," or 
 from otherwise inducing the public to believe 
 that the patterns sold by him were those manu- 
 factured by the plaintiiL The court (Blake, 
 V. C), under the circumstances, thought there 
 was not any exclusive right on the part of the 
 plaintiff to the use of that teiin ; but restrained 
 the defendant from using wrappers similar to 
 
TRADE MARKS. 
 
 202S 
 
 ■E.-,l 
 
 those of tho plaintiff, or in any other way acting 
 in Huch a manner us to lead to tlic lielief tliat the 
 defendant was selling tho gooda of the plaintitt'. 
 The plaintiff, hoM'cvcr, having failed in the main 
 hrnnch of the rolief Hoiiuht — the use of the word 
 " Hazaar "— this relief was grnntid, without 
 costs. Ill, 
 
 O. carried on hiiisness in partnership with B., 
 a. part of the biisineHs heing the sale of a series 
 of copy books designed hy 15., to whieh was 
 kIvcu the name " Ueatty's Head-line Co|)y 
 Book." The partnership was dissolved by H. 
 retiring and receiving ^lO.CMlO for his interest in 
 the business. After the dissolutidu I!. nia<le an 
 agreement with the Canada rublishing Co. to 
 pre^jare a copy book for them, which copy book 
 was prepared and styled " Picatty's New and 
 Improved Head-line C<H)y Book," wliicii tiie 
 said company sold in connection with tliiir busi- 
 ness. G. brought a suit against B. and the com- 
 pany for un injunctidu and an account, cluiniing 
 that the sale of the last mentioned copy book 
 was an infringement of his trade mark. He 
 claimed an exclusive right to the use of the name 
 " Beatty " in connection with his copy book, and 
 alleged that he had p.iid a larger sum on the 
 dissolution than he would have paid unless he 
 was to have the exclusive sale of these copy 
 books : — Held, atlirming the judgment of Fergu- 
 son, J., 6 O. R. (is, and of the Court of Appeal, 
 11 A. R. 402, H('nry and Tascliercau, .1,1., dis- 
 senting, that defendants had no right to sell 
 " Beatty's New and Improved Hciiiilinc Copy 
 Book " in any form, or with any cover calculated 
 to deceive purchasers into the belief that they 
 were buying the books of the jilaintitl'. Canada 
 Puhlixhimj Co. v. (Iiuje, 11 .S. C. R. 300. 
 
 Tho L. ¥. P. 1*. Co. published a newspaper 
 •ailed Tho CommercialTraveller and Alercantile 
 Journal, which was known as The Commercial 
 Traveller, and registered under the Trade 
 Mark and Design Act of 187!) as The Commercial 
 Traveller's Journal. The company sold the j)aper 
 and good-will to the pl.aintiff, and on tiie negoti- 
 ations for the sale the plaintitt' saw tlie defemlant, 
 who was then employc<l by the company as man- 
 ager and editor, and who shewed him the assets 
 of the paper, the printing contracts, etc., and 
 recommended the purchase as a good investment. 
 After the sale the defendant, who had retained 
 the mail list of the subscribers to the papi r, i)ub- 
 lished a new paper called The Traveller, and 
 used the list to send copies of his paper to some 
 of the names contained therein. It was shewn 
 in evidence that while defendant was in the 
 employ of the company he often used the word 
 Traveller as designating tlie paper then known 
 as The Commercial Traveller. In an action to 
 restrain the defendant from infringing the jilain- 
 tifFs trade mark, it was — Hehl, that the title of 
 the paper published by tho defendant was an in- 
 fringement of the trade mark of tho plaintitt', and 
 that the subseq'ient im"' 'io.ition by the defendant 
 of a newspaper under the name of The Traveller 
 was calculated to mislead persons, and induce 
 them to believe the |plaintitt''8 paper was the 
 paper referred to. Carey v. Goss, 110. H. 019. 
 -Gait. 
 
 Held, that although the 4th section of the 
 Trade Mark and Design Act of 1879, 42 Vict. 
 c. 22 (Dom.), requires registration of the trade 
 mark before the proprietor can bring an action ; 
 
 and the 14th section provides for registration of 
 an assignment, the latter section docs not onmt 
 that registration shall be necessary to give rtluct 
 to such assignment. An injunction was there- 
 fore granted. Ih. 
 
 H. ct al., manufactured and sold cakes of sfinii, 
 
 having stamped thereon a registered trade mark, 
 
 described as follows: A horse's head, above 
 
 which were the words "The Imperial;" thewmda 
 
 "Trade Mark," one on each side thereof; and 
 
 underneath it the words " Laundi-y Bar." ".1. 
 
 Barsalou & Co., Montreal," was slani)icd on the 
 
 reverse side. D. et al. manufactured cak( s dt 
 
 soap similar in shape and general a|)pearan( f ti) 
 
 B. et al., having stamped thereon an impel Uet 
 
 unicorn's head, being a horse's head, witli a 
 
 stroke on the forehead to represent a horn. Tlie 
 
 words " Very Best" were stamped, one on eicli 
 
 side of the head, and the words " A. Boniii, II.") 
 
 I St. l)oniinii|ue St.," and "Laundry" over miil 
 
 ' under the head. At the trial the evidence! was 
 
 j contradictory, but it was shewn that the aii|iel. 
 
 ' lants' soaj) was known, asked for and jnircliaxMl 
 
 ' by a great number of illiterate persons as the 
 
 "horse's head soap." — Held, (Henry, .1., (lis- 
 
 : senling) reversing tiie judgment of the (iliieeii'» 
 
 I Bench (appeal side) and restoring the juilgnunt 
 
 of the Superior Court, that there was sueli an 
 
 imitation of B. et al.'s trade mark as to mi.slrinl 
 
 the public, and that they were therefore entitled 
 
 ' to damages, and to an injunction to restrain I). 
 
 ' et al. from using the device adopted by tie iii. 
 
 I'xtrsalou V. Darliiiif, S. C. R. 077. 
 
 I In an action to restrain the infringement ef a 
 trade-mark registered undij' the "Trade M.iik 
 
 Jand Design Act of 1H89:" — Held, f.dlowing 
 McCaul i>. Theal, -'8 Chy. 48, that prior uscreiin 
 
 j be given in evidence to invalidate the timle 
 mark. I'aitio v. Todd, 12 O. R. 171.— I'reiiil- 
 
 1 foot ; 14 A. R. 444 ; 17 S. C. R. 190. 
 
 Held, that the words " (l<d(l Leaf" used in 
 the plaintitt 's trade mark distinguished the lluiu- 
 made by the plaintitt' from that made by any 
 other person, and, as such, was a proper subject 
 of a trade mark within the language of section 
 j 8 of the Act. .v. C. 12 (). R. 171. 
 
 ! Held, on the evidence that "(iold Leaf" Wiis 
 ! a ciminion brand for patent ttour in use befme 
 the registration of the i)laintitt"'s tra<le mark, and 
 that the plaintitt' had not the right to endeavour 
 to attribute to that which he might manufacture 
 a name which had been for years before a well- 
 known and current name by which that article 
 was defined, and that there must be judgment 
 for defendant with costs. Ih. 
 
 The fact of proprietorship or ownership is a 
 condition precedent of the right to register a 
 trade mark or to obtain any advantage under 
 the "Trade Mark and Design Act of 1879," ami 
 registration thereunder does not create or con- 
 fer such status on an unqualified person, and his 
 right thereto may be disallowed. iS. 6'., 14 .-V. 
 R. 444. 
 
 It is only a mark or symbol in which property 
 can be acquired, and which will designate the 
 article on which it is placed as the manufacture 
 of the person claiming an exclusive right to its 
 use, that can properly be registered as a trade 
 j mark under the "Trade Mark and Design Act, 
 1879 " (42 Vict. c. 22). S. C. , 17 S. C. K. 196. 
 
202S 
 
 J for regigtrfttion of 
 lion docs not Pinct 
 Issnry togiveoHfct 
 jinction whs tlicrt- 
 
 Hold lukcH of .siiiip, 
 
 stered tnuli' iniu k] 
 
 >rse'8 lu'iul, iiliove 
 
 iperial;"tht'Mdi(ls 
 
 Hide tliercof ; and 
 
 undiy I',ar." '•.1. 
 
 as stamjitd on tlju 
 
 facturcd cak.s nf 
 
 ural u]>pearaii( (■ to 
 
 erc'oii an inipnuit 
 
 stj's liead, will, „ 
 
 resent a liorn. Tin. 
 
 nijifil, one on ncli 
 
 ds " A. Honin, ||-, 
 
 lundry" ovtiiind 
 
 111 tilt' i!vid(;nt'(! \iiis 
 
 wn that tho a|i|ic|. 
 
 I for and ))ur(;li!i-c(l 
 
 ■utu persons as iln- 
 
 1, (Henry, .(., ,lis. 
 
 lent of tlie (^liiLMLN 
 
 )rinf,' the judgmmt 
 
 tiiere M'as snoh an 
 
 mark as to niislrail 
 
 o therefore entitled 
 
 ctioii to restrain li. 
 
 adopted by th' m 
 R. 077. 
 
 le infringement of ^i 
 
 the "Trade Mark 
 
 — Held, following 
 
 that prior user eaii 
 
 ivrtlidate the trade- 
 
 (). K. 171.— IV.nnl- 
 
 J. IJ. 190. 
 
 Jold Leaf" used in 
 itingnished the llunr 
 
 that made by any 
 ivas a [jropei' auhjcet 
 language of section 
 I. 171. 
 
 It "(iold r.caf" was 
 Hour in use before 
 iff's trade mark, anil 
 e right to endeavour 
 ! might manufacture 
 years l)efore a well- 
 • which that artitle 
 must bo judgment 
 b. 
 
 ) or ownership is a 
 right to register a, 
 y advantage under 
 n Act of 1879," and 
 not create or con- 
 fied person, and his 
 )wed. S. a, 14 A. 
 
 1 in which property 
 will designate the 
 
 as the manufacture 
 elusive right to its 
 gistered as a trade 
 •k and Design Act, 
 '.,17 S. C. K. 196. 
 
 SOM 
 
 TREATING. 
 
 203a 
 
 Where the Btntute proscribes no means feu- rec- 
 tification of a trade mark inijiiopi'ily re;,'i»teri'd 
 the courts may afford relief by way of difcnii' 
 to nn action for infringement. III. ' 
 
 Per (1 Wynne, .). I'rojM'rty caniu)! be ae(|uired 
 in marks, etc., known to a jiarticular trade as 
 designating <iuality mer(dy and not, in thmi- 
 Bclvcs. indicating that the goods to w hi(di they 
 arc affixed are the manufacture of a itarticnlar | 
 person. Nor can pro|)erty be acrpiired in an 
 ordinary Knglish wonl expressive of (|uality 
 merely though it ndght bo in a foreign word or 
 word of a dead language. //;. 
 
 The plaintiff having registered as a traile mark 
 the words " Iiii)ierial cough drops" now sued the 
 (lcfen<bint foi- infringeiiient thereof by s( lling 
 confectionery und('r tins name "Imperial Congh 
 Candy :"— Held, that inasmmdi as the evidence 
 showed that the wonl " Imperial" as a ilesigna- 
 tinn or mark for cough dro]is or eantly w as really 
 public propeity, and a common brand or desig- 
 nation forcanily long befori^ the jilaintilf s regis- 
 tration, tlie pliiiiitiir ha<l not the right toattii- 
 bute to that whicdi he might manufaet nre a naim^ 
 which had ben for years before ji wi llknown 
 and current n mu^ by which that artiide was de- 
 fined, and the artion must be dismiaseil. I'aitlo 
 ». Todd, 12 (). It. 171, followed. ll',(^o» v. 
 fVeMike, 12 0. 1!. 44!).— I'ergnson. 
 
 Words whiel) are separately publiei juris. 
 such as " Hed " and ".Seal," when eondiiiicd 
 and applied to a speiilie manufactuTc may cease 
 to be so, and m ly well be protected as tr.ide 
 marks. Single or mf)ro letters may also form a 
 trademark, and morees|)ecially when condiined, 
 woven, or introduced into a monogram. Smilli 
 V. Fair (Red S.nt Onsr) • S'. G. (dreen Srn.l 
 Case), 14 O. R. 7-29. -I'roudfoot. 
 
 A common seal of wax to be uscmI on a ciirar 
 box is u good trade nuirk within the terms of 42 
 Vict. e. 22 (l)iini.), the Tiade Mark and Design 
 Act, 1879. II). 
 
 The Dominion Trade Mark and Design Act, 
 1879, defines " trade mark " in more general and 
 comprehensive terms than the Knglish .Act of 
 188,S, 46 Vict. c. .")7, s. 64, and some care must 
 be used in considiM'ing Knglish decisions, Under 
 the English Act a trade mark may be registered 
 in any colour, and the registration confers on the 
 registered owner the exclusive right to use the 
 same in that or any other colour, and : — Semble, 
 our own Act has as extensive an application. Ih. 
 
 There is no provision in our Tnade Mark and 
 Design Act, 1879, similar to section 70 of Imp. 
 Act 46-47 Vict. c. 57, which provides that a 
 tmde mark when registered shall be assigned 
 and tr.insmitted only in connection with the 
 good-will of the business concerned in the parti- 
 cular goods for which it has been registered. lb. 
 
 The fact that a plaintiff h.as brought an action 
 for infringement before registering his trade 
 mark, which action has therefore proved abor- 
 tive, does not prevent him from bringing another 
 action after registering. Ih. 
 
 Semble, the inability to sue for the infringe- 
 ment of a trade mark before registration only 
 applies where the infringement has been done 
 innocently, and not to the case of fraudulent 
 imitation or forgery of trade marks, lb. 
 
 The iieeount of pidiils in an aetii.n fur in 
 friiigemi'iil sliould not b.' contined to the period 
 I siiliseipient to n'gislrntloii, at any rati' when the 
 infringement hns not bi'eii iiiiKH'eiit. ///, 
 
 Hy "prior user" the Tr.ide Maik ,illd Design 
 
 Aet. 1.S71I, -12 \iet. >: 22, s. li i|t,,ni.i, me.ins 
 user before adoption b\ the regi-,trant, not be- 
 fore registration. //,. 
 
 I User of a trade maik in .a foreign eonntry is 
 no jiislilieation lor an inlringement in tlie eo"nii- 
 try where the action is brought. ///, 
 
 I 'i'he plaintills, |iroprietors for about twenty 
 • years of a eomnierid.d s(diool, sought to restrain 
 the defiiiilinit, ;dso a propii, tor of a >iiMil.ir 
 institution, lately istablislied in the same place, 
 from using the name " l!(dlc\ille linsiness 
 ; Ccdlege," wlli(di. although geneially useil by the 
 public in describing the plaintills' est ddishioent, 
 , was not its registi reil uauii', iiml li;id never been 
 ailopteil or ajipropri. fell by the pl.iutills them- 
 selves, who had carrieil on theii' bu-iiue-s uiuler 
 'dill'ireiit names, (uie of which was re;^istered. 
 .Alter the defendants' advent some eoiifnsion 
 aro^e in the post ollii/e as to letters addressed 
 I " rulleville I'lUsiness ('(dicge." but it ilid not 
 : a|ii)car that any students «ere lost to the plain- 
 I tills by reason id' the defendant's conduct: - 
 llelcl, that as there had been no actual user by 
 I the idaintill's of filename el.iimed. user by the 
 liuldic was not suHieient to attach the designa- 
 tion to the business so as to make it ei|uivahnt 
 to the plaintills' jiersoiial user thereof : — 
 Held, also, that the name in controversy being 
 nicridy descriptive of the n.ature of the business 
 and the locality of its operations, in the absence 
 of evidence of user of the name of the jdaintifl's, 
 or that the name of the locality was so insepar- 
 ably eonueeted witli their establishment that a 
 second.iry meaning was attriluitable to it, there 
 was no ground for protecting the name. Thomp- 
 son r. Moiitgomeiy, 11 Cliy. I). .'!."), distin- 
 guished. .No costs were given to tlie ilefelidalit, 
 as he had sought by the use of the name to 
 advantage himself in an unmeritorioiis way, 
 li'iiliiii-ioii. y. Itdijli , l!S O. 11. .■{^7. — l!o)d. 
 
 TRA.MWAY. 
 
 Sei' Stukkt Uaii.w.w. 
 
 Accident upon. See Mcl'arkiin' v. Uilmoiir, 
 5 0. R. 302, p. 1245. 
 
 TRANSFERRING CAUSES. 
 
 Hci' I'kactick— Trial. 
 
 TRANSIENT TRADERS. 
 
 See Ml'.mcii'ai. Coupokations. 
 
 TREATING. 
 
 Ste Parliamentary Elections. 
 
2031 
 
 TRESPASS. 
 
 2032 
 
 TREAT'S. 
 
 ,V(^' KXTKAIHTKtN. 
 
 H 
 
 TREES. 
 
 See TiMiiKK— Way. 
 
 ObaervatioiiB on the construction of the Tree 
 IMimtiiiK Ai:t. Seu Connor v. Middcijh, llil/ v. 
 Middauli, 10 A. K. 3.5G. 
 
 TRESPASS. 
 
 I. 'l"o (iOODS. 
 
 1. Oaiem/h/, 2031. 
 
 2. Liiiliililji of Exi'ctil'ion Creditor 
 
 ICXKOUTION. 
 
 II. To Lanp. 
 
 1. Ihi and Aijahisl HV/om, 2032. 
 
 2. Tillc and Pox.^eHnon, 2032. 
 
 3. Several Trcn/iasxcs, 2034. 
 
 4. J)nm<itji'n, 2034. 
 
 6. Injunction to I'l'tlrain, 2035. 
 
 0. Kfert of Judipnvnt in TrenpaM, 
 
 7. OiMlinij Juritdiiiion hi/ Claim of 
 
 — .SVc (.'(lUNTY CoUKT— JUSTK 
 
 ■liiK Pkack. 
 
 III. To Till.; Pkk.son. 
 
 1. For AKxaiilt and Imprinonmcnt, ; 
 
 2. For Malicionn Prosecution, 2036. 
 
 IV. YoM WRoSfivuii Distress — .S'ee 
 
 TKKSS. 
 
 -Stic 
 
 2035. 
 
 Title 
 
 'K OK 
 
 2035. 
 Dis- 
 
 J, To (ioOKS. 
 
 1. (lencrully. 
 
 Tlie tli'fondiiiits who liveil in Hamilton, lind a 
 <;laini nj^ainat W. at Ingei'soll, and tliinking he 
 was carrying on Imsiness on his own account, 
 issued a wiit therefor through their solicitors 
 C. & B. , whicli wa.s served by C wlio went to 
 Ingersoll under special instructions from defen- 
 dants to do .so, and to talte such steps as they 
 might tliiiili l)est to recover tlie claim. A judg- 
 ment was afterwards ohtiiined, and an execution 
 against W.'s goods issued. Tiie BJierifF sent his 
 officer to execute tlie writ who was informed by 
 W. that )(e had no goods, which the officer be- 
 lieved to be true, aiul so informed the sheriff who 
 accordingly notified ('. & H. C. & B. refused 
 to accept tliis, and wrote the sheriff in effect 
 that he had acted improperly in not seizing the 
 goods on ex parte statements, and that he must 
 take such action as would enable him to test the 
 truth of the statements he had acted on. The 
 sheriff then seized the goods and applied for an 
 interpleader onler. The goods were proved to 
 be the plaintiff's. In an action to recover dam- 
 ages occasioned by the seizure :- -Held, that the 
 sheriff must be assumed to have seized, under 
 the circumstances, under instructions from the 
 <lefen(lants' solicitors, and as the solicitors were 
 
 acting under speiMal instructiims from tiu' defi n 
 daiits to take such proccudings as they iiiiviit 
 tliink best, tlie latter were lialile to the plain- 
 tiff. .Smith ,•. Keal,9 Q. 1$. I). .340, distingiuNlifl. 
 Wilkinson ''. Jfarre.i/, 15 O. H. 3Ki. — Kose. 
 
 Under ii hire receipt of nn organ sold by 
 defen<lant H,, to plaintiff 's son, ami signi^d Ky 
 the latter, the defendant R. was authorized on 
 default of jtayment to resunn^ possession of 
 the origan, and he and his agent wer(^ given full 
 right .nd liberty to enter any house or preiniKcH 
 wiiere the organ might bo, with authority to 
 remove the same, without resorting to any li'jjul 
 process. Default having been made in pavnient 
 of certain instalments diUMUicler the hiri' riM't'lpt, 
 defendant H. sent his ixiokkeepcr, the other 
 defeiidiuit and two assistants, with instruetidim 
 to get the orgiin. The bo()kk(('|per taking the 
 liii'o receipt as his atitlinrity, went to jplaintiff's 
 house, where the organ w.is, opeiK'd tlie house 
 door ami cntereil tlie hall, but on his attempt 
 ing to open the door of the idom in whiili tin 
 organ was, the )daintitr's wif(! (tlu? phuMtiffaiid 
 the son being absent) resisted bis entrance, when 
 a sciitlle ensued and the plaintiff's wife was in- 
 jured : -Held, tluvt K. w.is r('Rponsil)le for the 
 acts of his servant, the bookkeeper, for they 
 were done by him in the disciiarge of what he 
 believed to be his duty, and were within the 
 gen<'ral scope of his authority :- Held, also, th.it 
 the judgment airainst both R. and theltnokkcc^pcr 
 was maintainable, for it was reciivereil against 
 them as joint wroniriloers. Mnrphv r. ('or|iorii- 
 tion of OtUwa, 13 (». K. .3.34. diKtinguished. 
 Fcrijnson v. JlnUin, 17 O. R. I(i7. C. P. D. 
 
 See Schafftr v. Dnmhlc, 5 O. 1!. 710, p. 34:!. 
 
 II. To [.AND. 
 
 1. Ii;i iind Aiiniimt Whom. 
 
 Held, .\rmour, .1., ilissentirig that the Crown 
 timber liccn.ses claimed liy the plaintill'as licen- 
 see of the Ontario (Joverninent were, siibjcc't to 
 the right of tlie Canada Central Itailway Com- 
 pany, acMjuired before confeder.ition, to construct 
 the road across the Crown lands over «liich the 
 licenses in (jucstion extended, and tliat the de- 
 fendants, assignees of the railway company, were 
 therefore not liable for trespass for ijutering 
 upon ami cutting timber on the said limits in 
 j)ro3eciitlon of the work of building the saiil rail- 
 way. Foran v. Mclnli/rc, 45 Q. R. 2.SS. -Q. 
 R. D. 
 
 Right to bring action for damages for tnsp.iss 
 committed by municipalitv. See ViinK(jmimd 
 V. Tonm of Scaforth, « O. R. 599. 
 
 See Itrookc v. Afcf.mn, 5 (>. R. 209, p. 2fMi ; 
 Fcrijiixon v. Hohlin, 17 O. R. 107, •'<)(/>/■'( ; liniyea 
 V. none, 19 <). R. 433, p. 2034. 
 
 2. Title and Ponte-won. 
 
 On the ISth Xovember, 1878, oncQ. actingas 
 agent for .St, (!., under a power of attonu'y 
 which empowered him only to protect and lerise 
 St. (1. 's lands, but not to sell, agreed with the 
 plaintiff to sell him a wihl lot, the pnrchase 
 money to be paid by ten yearly instalments, ami 
 time to be of the essence of the agreement. The 
 plaintiff paid only one iustalnient, which Q. 
 
2032 
 
 .1(11)8 from till! (Infill. 
 iiij<H an thoy iiii>.'lit 
 liul)lc to the plaiii- 
 340, (lisliiiKuiHliL'l, 
 
 R. ;n{i.— UoM!. 
 
 an orKiin mdM liy 
 son, mill Hif;iii!il hy 
 wiia aiithori/.vd on 
 Hiinic p(WH(!H8ion (if 
 KlMlt Wl!l(' niv(Mi full 
 ly li()iiH(" or pri'iiiiKi's 
 with authdrity t(i 
 cHdrtiiij; to iiiiy \v)in\ 
 ■II iiiiiilc in |iayiii('nt 
 ilcr till! Iiiic rfc('i|it, 
 
 kkcCJKT, tlu! lltlllT 
 
 tn, with iiistriK^tidim 
 ikkccpor takiii;,' tlic 
 y, went to |(laiiitifl"« 
 o|i(Mi(.'(l tli(! Ikiiisc 
 lilt on liiM attempt 
 looiii in wliicli tlu 
 nf(! (till! iiliuiitiiraiid 
 ['il liiHiMitiiinco, when 
 aiiitiH'"H wife was in- 
 < r('spoiisil)l(' for tlic 
 hook keeper, for tlicy 
 1iHcharj,'<i of what he 
 iiid w(!re within the 
 ty ;- Held, also, that 
 I. and the lionkkcoper 
 as recovered a^j.iiiiHt 
 Nfiirphy r, Corponi- 
 334, diKtinijiiisheil. 
 i. 1«7.-C. P. \). 
 
 )0. I!. "It;, p. 343. 
 
 AND. 
 
 iiMf iVhoni. 
 
 iitinj; that the ('rowii 
 the plaintiU'as lieeii- 
 neiit were sii'ijeet ti) 
 iMitral I'ailway Coni- 
 •dcratioii, to eonstruc^t 
 lands over whieh the 
 led, and that the de- 
 lilway company, were 
 trespass for entering 
 111 the said limits in 
 building the said rail- 
 ., 4,') Q. 15. -JSS. y. 
 
 damages fur trespnsH 
 V. See Villi Kiiinuud 
 
 R. rm. 
 
 5 O. H. "20!), )i. •2(h;; 
 I. 107, KUjirii ; Jiriii/ea 
 J34. 
 
 osir.sKton. 
 
 1878, oneQ. acting as 
 i power of attorney 
 / to protect and lc:ise 
 jell, agreed with the 
 d lot, the piirchase 
 arly instalments, and 
 [ the agreement. The 
 istalineiit, which Q. 
 
 '2033 
 
 TRESPASS. 
 
 20S4 
 
 faid 111' forwarded to St. (1., who r.itili'd tlw 
 (iHreement. Shortly aft(!r the agreement the 
 liliiintill', with Q.'« periiiisHion, went on the lot 
 and cut and remined sonie timli.T tlicrefroiii, 
 and Homi! two or thrive days aftiM wanls went 
 liack and worked lialf-a-day iiiiderhriHliing, Imt 
 (lid no further clearing, except to (,'iit timlier for 
 tirewood. The defendants (I. k S., under a 
 iiiintake as to the plaintitrs lioiindary, tres- 
 imssed on the land liy cutting timlier thcriMiii, 
 Imt (111 the lioiiiid iries lieing Kettlod they otl'ereil 
 lilaintifl compoiisatioii, though C said hi.s oiler 
 was for the plaintifTs interest in the land. 'I'he 
 plaintiff was in default with St. U. when the 
 at'timi was lirouglit, Imt not when the trespasses 
 were cominitteil:— Held, that there was siitlicient 
 ovidence of plaintiff's title as against St. (!., fur 
 the evidence shewed a partly perforine(l agree?- 
 iiie't which could have lieen enforced ; and even 
 \[ ' '■ proof of St. <;.'s title was defective the 
 nilmissions of the defendants C. iV S., who were 
 mere trespassers, were sufficient evidence of 
 title to constitute idaiiitiff"s acts of entry on the 
 liuid constructive jios.session of it liy him ; and 
 the onus was on the defeiidantM of showing 
 eitiier that St. (i. had no title, or that :iiiv title 
 acipiired liy the plaintitr under him had lieeii 
 Inst :— Held, also, that altlmnuh liy the agiee- 
 ini'iit time was of the essence thereof, and tliere 
 was default made, there was no defuilt when 
 the trespasses were committed, and defendants 
 not claiming under St. (i. could not set up liis 
 right to avoid the agreement, Imt as it was sui;- 
 yestcd that St, (i. might also liring an action 
 for the same trespasses, a release thereof from 
 him was directed to lie filed. With respect to 
 two other defendants P. ,S. and F., the verdict 
 was set aside, for not only was there no evi- 
 dence against them, hut the record was defec- 
 tive in that aninterhxnitory judgment had lieen 
 signed against them for nonappeiir.uiee, witli- 
 <illt their having lieen deidaied against. Johii.-<liiii 
 v. Chrlxlk, 31 C. P. .S.^iS.— (.'. "'. I). 
 
 Per Riirton, .T. A. The owner of an e(|iiitalile 
 «st:itc cannot, notwithstanding the .ludieature 
 Act, proceed against a trespiisser in his own 
 name. He is still liouiid to sue in the name of 
 his trustee. Admnxnii v. AilumMii, 7 A. R. ."i!)2. 
 
 Actual oceujiitioii of lan.l is not essential to 
 give a right to maintain trespass hy one who has 
 the lei.'al title. Ft is sntficiciil thu 1, he enter 
 upon the land so as to put himself in legal pos- 
 session of it : — Held, that putting up lioirds on 
 the lard liy the owner, stating that the land 
 was for sale, was a sufficient eiiti'y u|ion hispirt 
 to vest the legal iiosaession in him to eiialile him 
 to maintain formally an action of trespass. />/»• 
 oran v. Ihrhn-t, 4 O. R. (i3.').— C. P. I). 
 
 A testator by his will directed his executors 
 to pay all his debts, etc. , out of his estate. Then 
 followed specific devises of his estate to his wife, 
 children, and nephews, and a direction to his ex- 
 ecutors to sell the chattels, excepting the house- 
 hold furniture bequeathed to his wife, and out of 
 the proceeds to pay the debts and to invest the 
 balance for the benefit of the wife and children. 
 By a codicil he directed his executors, if neces- 
 sary, to sell in the first place lot A, specifically 
 devised as aforesaid, to pay off any debts or in- 
 cumbrances against his estate ; and in the event 
 of SHcli sale being insufficient to pay said debts, 
 •«tc. , then in the next place to sell and dispose of 
 
 I2S 
 
 I lot 11, also so speeitieally devised, I'he rxeeutom 
 
 before di.spiising of lots A and l», n<dd to defen 
 
 diiiit t he urowitig timber on lot (', a Int specitieully 
 
 devised to the pl;iintitl'<, the defitinliinl purchas 
 
 iiig in good f.iith and on his soii.itdi's advice that 
 
 the executors had the right to sell to iny debts ; 
 
 I and defeiid.int entered and ciitdHwn .iiid carried 
 
 away the timber. Snbseipieiitly the defendant 
 
 j |iiireliased the land from the mortgagees thereof, 
 
 the laml liavint,' been morl;; iijed by testator. The 
 
 plaintiffs, at the testitor's dei'ease, were un(l(!r 
 
 , age, aiel did not become of age until after the 
 
 , trespass c. a ,ilaim 1 of, when they brought Ires- 
 
 ! pasnagiiiih. .1 ^fendant claiming as damages the 
 
 value of the timber so cut. Tliere w.is no entry 
 
 or possis^ioii taken by lilaiiitiffs before action 
 
 '■'> need: Held, atli- 1 ing th jiidgnieiil .if 
 
 R , •!., that by rea i of then! being no siieli 
 entry or pos^ ssio' iiie action was not maintain 
 able. Per ( . ,i eroii, ('. .1. -To entitle the plain- 
 tiffs to reci' 1' either at law or ii' einiity, an 
 en'.ry upon the land by the plaintiffs must "have 
 been made at a time when they had a right to 
 make such entry to (!arry tlie li!gal possession 
 with it. liaker v. MilU, 110. U -J.^'J.- (!. 1'. I). 
 
 \ lessee of a lot hid for more than twenty 
 years "xer(!iseil acts of ownership oviir pi.rt of a 
 lot adjoining, ind now .ilaiiii'd to have acijiiired 
 title from Ills landlord by iiosaession to the said 
 jiart, and bnuiglit this action of trespass again.st 
 the present owiipr of the rest of the said adjoin- 
 ing lot; Hidd. th.ii his action must be dis- 
 missed, for although a tenant taking in land ad- 
 jaeer'. to his own by enero lehiiietit, must, a-> 
 lietween himself and his luidlord, be deemeil 
 prima facie tii t ike it as \y\rt of the demi.sed 
 land, yet that iiresiimption will not prevail for 
 the landlord's benefit against third persons. 
 The result of the eases ajipears to be that where 
 a peisiin is in possession with the assent of the 
 Crown, payin,' rent ; or where a person is a 
 pnrchasi'r, although the jiatent has not issued, 
 such )i(!rson eiin maintain trespass against a 
 wroiig-dcKir, but this wis not the present plaio- 
 tiff's )iositioii. Harper c Charlcsworth, 4 II. 
 & C .")74, rcferreil to and sn'cially considered. 
 /?/».//.fi V. /.Vise, 19 0. R. 43.3.— MacMahon. 
 
 Sec Mcnoiiwihij v. Dfiimnd; 4 S. V. R. 60!», 
 p. II SO: irrs/./H Hrtiik of Cdumla V. firceij, 12 
 O. It. OS, p. 1277. 
 
 3. S/ivrril '/'/v.v/Kii.ifi.s. 
 See /?«.« V. flinihi; 7 S. ('. R. 289, p. 18.34. 
 
 4. l)iimtui(s. 
 
 The defendant leased certain land to tht! 
 plaintiff for a term dining which tlie latter wis 
 to make improvements, and at the expiration of 
 the term the value of such improvements, as well 
 as the amount of the rent, was to be fixed bv 
 arbitration. The defendant having distrained 
 for rent claimed to be due :— Hold, that there 
 being no fixed rent agreed upon there w;i3 no 
 right of distress, and the defendant was therefore 
 merely a trespasser and liable in damages to tlu! 
 .actu.ai value of the goods, but not to double their 
 value, as it was not a case within 2 W. k M. 
 Sess. 1, c. 5, s. o, which refers to the wilful abusts 
 of the power of distress. Semble that, although 
 there m.ay be no rent in arrear until the same is 
 
2036 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 203S 
 
 I ^ 
 
 If ■* Si , 
 
 fixed by arbitration, there cannot be said to bo 
 none due. Mitchell v. McDuffij, 31 C. P. 266, 
 649.— C. P. D. 
 
 Where the damage consisted in cutting down 
 some ton or twelve ornamental shade trees grow- 
 ing in the highway vippusite the plniiitifTs land, 
 for which he was awarded $150 : — Held, not 
 excessive. Dovglan v. Fox, 31 C. P. 140. — 
 V,. P. D. 
 
 See Robinson v. IlnU, 1 O. R. 260, p. 457 ; 
 Brooke v. McLean, 5 O. R. 209 p. 206 ; Galar- 
 venu V. Oitilbaull, 16 H. 0. R. 571), p. 748. 
 
 I). Injuiirtiim to lienlram. 
 
 See (irand Trunk R. W. Co. of Cunnila v. 
 Credit Vallni R. W. Co., 27 Cliy. 2.32, p. 1746; 
 Finelon Fidin v. Vkturia R. W. Co. , 29 Chy. 4, 
 p. 920. 
 
 6. Ejfect ofjwhjminii in TirspriMn. 
 
 A judgment in favour of the plaiiititl' in im 
 action for tri'spass to lands upon iilcas (amongst 
 others) of land not plaintiffs and liheniiii toiie- 
 nicntum, is not a complote cstop])ol, preventing 
 the dofendaiit in another suit, from (piL'stiotiing 
 the jilaintifT's title to any part of thi; lands. The 
 judgment is only an estoppel with ri'gani to the 
 title of that jjortion of the land upon wiiich it 
 had been shown that the defendant had tres- 
 passud. Ifunter V. /iirwcy, 27 Chy. 204. — Hlake. 
 
 III. To TiiK Pkksdn. 
 
 1. For Assault and luiprinnnincnt. 
 
 Where an appeal '.as liro.iglit from a oonvii^- 
 tioii imposing imprisonment witli hard lilxmr, 
 whiel) the niagiatrate liad no pcvwer to aw nd, 
 and the sessions aniendod thi; rucoi'd by stiikiiig 
 out "hard lalioui" : - Held (Cameron, .1., dis- 
 .senting), that tlieir assuming so to amend the 
 conviction was not a iiuashingof the conviction, 
 and therefore tiespass woidd not lie against tlie 
 justices. McLeUan v, McKinwm, 1 O. R. 219. 
 -Q. B, 1). 
 
 The 41 Vict. c. 9, intituled "An Act to widen 
 and extend certain public streets in the city of 
 St. .lolni," autiiorized commis.-tioners .ipijointed 
 by the governor in council to assess owners of 
 the land who would be benefited by the widen- 
 ing of the streets, and in their rcjjort on the ex- 
 tension of Canterlniry striict, tlie commissioners 
 so appointed assesseil tlie benelib to a certain lot 
 at .i^l9.46, and put in their report the name of 
 the appellant (McS. ) as the owner. The amount 
 80 assessed was to be ]>aid to the corporation of 
 the city, and, if not, it was the duty of tlie re- 
 ceiver of taxes appointed by the city corporation, 
 to i.ssiie executim and levy the same. McS., 
 although assessed, was not the owner of the lot. 
 S., the receiver of taxes, in ilefault, issued an exe- 
 cution, and for want of goods MeS. was arrested 
 and imprisoned until he paid the amount at the 
 chamberlain's office in the city of St. John. The 
 action was for arrest and false imprisonment, 
 and for money had and received. The jury found 
 a verdict for McS. on the first count against both 
 defendants : — Held, (reversing the judgment of 
 the Supreme Court of Now Brunswick), that 8., 
 
 who issued the warrant founded upon a void ag- 
 sosainent and- caused the arrest to be made, wag 
 guilty of a trespass, and being at the time a ser- 
 vant of the corporation, under tiieir control and 
 specially appointed by them to collect and levy 
 the anumnt so assessed, the maxim of respondeat 
 superior applied, and therefore the verdict in 
 favour of McS. for $63.5. ."9, against both respon- 
 dents on the first C(mnt should stand. (Rituliie 
 C. .T., and Tascliereau, .J., dissenting.) Per 
 (iwynne, J., that the corporation had adopted 
 the act of their officer as their own by receiving 
 and retaining the money paid and authorizing 
 McS. 's discharge from custody only after such 
 payment. McSorly \. Mayor, etc., of the Citii 
 of' St. John,li^. C.'H, 531. 
 
 The plaintiff, during his initiation as a member 
 of the ilefondants' lodge, in the presence of the 
 principal officers and a number of members, con- 
 stituting a full and peifect meeting, wa^ injured 
 through the rough usage of some of the mem- 
 bers, i t apj)eared that this and other pioeeed- 
 ings were taken with the knowledge oi all those 
 who were present, and that somewhat similar 
 prooceilings had happened on the occasion of 
 other initiations, and that they were allowed 
 and not checked :--Hi'ld, that they nnist he 
 taken to have been done with the consent of the 
 corporate body, an<l that the defendants were 
 liable in damages for the injuries sustained. 
 Kiui-cr v. /'hii'uij: Lodye, I. 0. O. F., 7 0. R, 
 .377. -C. P. D. 
 
 Held, that the discharge of the plaintiff from 
 custody on h ibeas corjnis was not a quashing o. 
 his conviction on a charge on unlawfully lemov- 
 ing cordwood from an Indian reserve ; and th.it 
 the conviction remaining in force, and the de- 
 fendant h.iving had jnrisdicti(ui,theaftion, which 
 was tresi>ass fur assault and inii)riHonnient mull- 
 oidusly anil without reasomible and probahlo 
 (MUse. could not 1)0 maintained, but the actinn 
 should have been on the case ; but that even if 
 the f(U'm of action was right, there was no evi- 
 dence of want of reasonable an<l probable cause. 
 ir,intvr V. OilkUon, 7 O. R. 73.5.— Q. 15. 1). 
 
 Sus|)eusion of action until criminal chargo dis- 
 posed of. See Till/lor v. McCtdlowih, 8 0. R. 
 .309, p. 18. 
 
 See Reid v. Mai/hxe, 31 C. P. .384, p. 1217; 
 Mnu'rxon v. N>a(/arn Navu/alion Co., 2 (). R. 
 .52S, ]). 1241 ; Fi'njiiKon v. Rohlin, 17 <). H. 167, 
 p. 2032 ; Hamilton v. Massie, 18 O. R. 585, p. 
 21.5. 
 
 2. For Malicious Prosecution. 
 See Macdonaldv. Jfenwood, .320. P. 433, p. 1218. 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 Notice ok Trial. 
 
 1. Where Nccesmrij, 2038. 
 
 2. ]!y whom (liven, 2038. 
 
 3. When may be Given, 2038. 
 
 4. Lcii\ith of Notice. 
 
 (a) Generally, 2039. 
 
 (b) Shm-t Notice, 2040. 
 
 \^ 
 
 'v?p.'srt'''«i'»»'fjwww»»«w» 
 
203S 
 
 uuded upon a void aa- 
 rrest to be made, was 
 eing at the time a ser- 
 luler their control and 
 sm to collect and levy 
 e maxim of respondeat 
 erofore the verdict in 
 9, against both respon- 
 lould stand. (Ritoliic, 
 
 J., dissenting.) Per 
 rporatioii liad adopted 
 their own by receiving 
 
 paid and aiilhnri/.ing 
 stody only after such 
 Mmjor, etc., of the Citii 
 U. 
 
 Si initiation as a member 
 II the presence of the 
 inilicr of members, con- 
 ct meeting, wan injured 
 of some of the mem- 
 this and other proceed- 
 ! knowledge ox all those 
 that somewhat similar 
 lied on the occasion of 
 hat they were allowed 
 •Id, that they must be 
 i with the consent of the 
 at the defendants were 
 the injuries sustained, 
 ye, I. 6. O. F., 7 0. R. 
 
 rgo of the plaintitV from 
 lis was not a quashing o. 
 •go on unlawfully icinov- 
 
 iidian reserve ; and that 
 ig in force, and the de- 
 <(liction, theaotion, which 
 ; and iinpiisoiiinciit niiili- 
 feasouiible and pnihable 
 iiiiitiuiied, but the action 
 le case ; but that even if 
 
 riglit, there was no evi- 
 lable and probable cause. 
 '. R. Tm— Q. 15. 1). 
 
 until criminal charge dis- 
 v. McCiilluwjh, 8 0. R. 
 
 , :U C. p. 3S4, p. 1217 ; 
 Namqation Co., 2 <). R. 
 I v. iiohlin, 17 (). H. 167, 
 Massie, 18 O. R. 585, p. 
 
 ioH-i ProHeculion. 
 (wZ,32C. P.433,p. 1218. 
 
 2037 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 2038 
 
 LIAL. 
 
 lAL. 
 
 •fHsar;/, 2038. 
 liven, 2038. 
 be Given, 203*. 
 N'olire. 
 illy, 2039. 
 Votice, 2040. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Xfl. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 XX. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 6. Service of, 2040. 
 
 6. Irrvijularlty in, 2041. 
 
 7. Couutermand of 2iolke, 2041. 
 
 REFKRENCK from iSul'ERIOR CoURT TO 
 
 County Court, and vice vkiiha, 
 2041. 
 
 Fee on Entering Record, 2041. 
 
 Postponement ok Thiai,, 2041. 
 
 Withdrawal of A<rrioN— .SVe I'u.vc- 
 
 TIUE. 
 
 Jury Notice. 
 
 1. FUinii and Serriiii/, 2043. 
 
 2. Uitihl /() hare. Trial hy Jury. 
 
 (a) Oeniml/i/, 2044. 
 
 (b) fVhrir the C'liiirt of Chance)-!/ had 
 
 Formirlfi Exrtiinire. JiirMir- 
 lion, 2047. 
 
 Special Jury, 2049. 
 
 Trial of Separatk Qcestion.s Ahis- 
 iN(i IN THE .Same Action, 2049. 
 
 Conduct of Cau.se, 2049. 
 
 Rkuit to Beoin, 2050. 
 
 RiciiiT TO Reply, 2050. 
 
 Reference to Master or Referee — 
 See Arbitration and Award — 
 Practice. 
 
 Jury. 
 
 1. Chnllen(/iiig,20o0. 
 
 2. OmisKion to Sivrai' Juror, 2050. 
 
 3. Wllhdraual of Juror, 2031. 
 
 4. Withdrawimj Ctixe from Jury, 2051. 
 
 5. Dinpensim/ with Jury after Evidence 
 
 Taken, 2051. 
 
 6. Directimi Jiiri/ to Anntver Quen/iont 
 
 of Fact, 2051. 
 
 7. hifluencimj — See New Trial. 
 
 8. In Criminal CaseK. — .SVe Criminal 
 
 Law. 
 
 Verdict. 
 
 1. Generally, 2053. 
 
 2. New Trial when Verdict is Against 
 
 Evidence or the Weight oj Evidence. 
 —See New Trial. 
 
 In Criminat, Cases— .?ee Criminal 
 Law. 
 
 County Judoe's Criminal Court— .Sm 
 Criminal Law. 
 
 Evidence and \Vit> "sse.s— .See Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Orderinu Witnes,ses out of Court — 
 .See Evidence. 
 
 Venue and CiiANniNo Place of Trial 
 — See Pleadino. 
 
 Of Conte,sted Elections — Set Parlia- 
 mentary Elections. 
 
 Costs of Abortive Trial— .See Costs. 
 
 XXIL New Trial- See New Trial. 
 XXIII. Nonsuit— .Sec Non<iuit. 
 
 I. NcnicE OK Trial. 
 
 1. When yi'cuniary. 
 
 When a cause is postponed by the order of thfr 
 judge at the assizes, upon the defendant's appli- 
 cation, it is a reinanet, and no notice of trial 
 for the next assizes is necessary, under the rules 
 of 1875 (37 (,). B. 528) and the'O. J. Act. /)oiw- 
 rnny. lUmlthu; 10 1'. R. 52. — Dalton, Master. 
 —Wilson. 
 
 Dismissal of action under Con. Rule t)47 
 where plaintiff does not give jiroiier notice of 
 trial. See Clarke v. Crei'/hlon, l:{ P. R. 113, 
 p. I(i51. 
 
 2. Hy Whom (liven. 
 
 The words "either party," in Hule25,5, O. J. 
 Act, (Con. Rule <i54) nieiin "any party," and 
 wlitn an aotimi is as to all the parties to it ripo 
 for trial one of several difendaiits may bring 
 tlie case on under that rule by giving notice 
 of trial to tin; plaintiil' ami his co-defendants. 
 McLean v. Thompsov, fl V. R. 553.— Boyd. 
 
 Since the (). .1. Act any one of the parties, 
 plaiiititls or defendants, may give notice of trial. 
 Tiiiiwi;/ V, (,'raiid Tnmk A'. IC. Co., 11 P. R. 
 438. — Dalton, Master. 
 
 In an action in the t.'Iianeery Division in which 
 no jury notice had been given, the defendant 
 gave notice of trial for the assizes lieginning on 
 the loth Seiiteinber, 188!' and the iilaintiff for 
 the chancery sittings beg .ning on the 4th No- 
 vember, 1889: — Held, that nnderCon. Rule(i,54, 
 either party lias the right to give notice of trial 
 for tlie next sittings, wliether an assize or a 
 chancery sittings ; and the plaintiff cannot take 
 away that right from tiio (lefendant by giving 
 notice of trial for a later sittings. The plaintitFs 
 motion I', set aside the defendant's notice; of 
 trial was tiiereforc refused. I'a.niateor v. Webb, 
 7 0. L. T. Oce. N. 2+4, distinguished. Shaw v. 
 Crawford, 13 P. R. 219.— Dalton, Maoter. 
 
 3. When may be Given. 
 
 Held, that in an action coninicnced by a writ 
 not specially endorsed where the ilefendant dues 
 not plead to the declaration, the plaintiff must 
 sign interlocutory judgment against the defen- 
 dant before he is in a position to serve notice of 
 trial and assessment of damages. Fenwick v. 
 Douohue, 8 P. R. 116. -Dalton, Q.C. 
 
 A summons to dismiss an action for breach of 
 an order to examine, generally implies a stay of 
 proceedings ; but where the judge who granted 
 the summons struck out the part relating to a 
 stay, ami the summons was afterwards enlarged 
 without any mention of a stay, a notice of trial 
 served while the summons was pending, was : — 
 Held, to be regular. Merchonta' liaiih v. Pier- 
 mi, 8 P. R. 129.— Dalton, Q.C. 
 
 A writ in ejectment was served on the 1.5th 
 August, 1881, and an appearance entered after 
 the 22nd of the same month :— Held, that the 
 plaintiff need not file a statement of claim, under 
 
20S9 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 
 tl)o new practice, ami that a notice of ti'ial served 
 immediately after the entry of the apjiearaiice 
 wag regular, tlie cause being then at issue. 
 Laidlaw v. ADhhawjh, 9 P. Jt. (i. — Dalton, 
 
 Mauler. 
 
 A cause is at issue where a joinder of issue 
 has been delivered, or where three weeks have 
 elapsed after statement of defence has been de- 
 livered. A notice of trial serveil before either 
 of these events had happened was : — Held, 
 irregular and was set aside. Schneider v. 
 Proctor, 9 P. n. 11.— iMlton, Mantcr. 
 
 On the 22nd August, 1881, a replication had 
 not been liled, but the suit was in such condition 
 that it could then have been tiled : — Held, that 
 under the O. .). Act, Rule 494, notice of trial 
 might be given M'ithout filing a replication. 
 Sawyer v. Short, 9 P. R. 85. --Dalton, il/a.s<c>-. 
 
 Tlie original defendant dying pendente lite, 
 the plaintiffs issued au order of revivor on the 
 2'2nd April, and served it on the defendants 
 by order on the same day, and along with it a 
 notice of trial for 5th May, at Cornwall. The 
 defendant moved to set aside the notice of trial 
 as irregular :— Held, that the order of revivor 
 was in force fiom its service, and as it would be 
 contirnied by tlie lapse of twelve days upon the 
 4th of May, the notice of trial for the 5th of 
 Mivy Mas regular. New York I'iano Cu. v. 
 Steceiisoii, 10 l\ R. 270. —Dalton, Master. 
 
 The reply in this action contained two para- 
 graphs, the lirst denying certain allegations in 
 the fourth paragraph of the defence, and tlic 
 secon<l Joining issue upon the rest of the defence. 
 Notice of trial was served witli the reply. A 
 motion to set aside tlie notice of trial was dis- 
 missed, because the affidavit filed in sup))ort of 
 it did not state that no joinder was filed wiien 
 the notice of trial was given :— Semlile, the 
 joinder of Lssue referred to in Rule 176, O. J. 
 Act, (Con. Rule 392) is not a simple denial of a 
 previous jileading. Welter v. I'roctor, 10 P. R. 
 323.— Dalton. Master. 
 
 The plaiutiir delivered a sini|de joinder of issue 
 upon the stiiteiiient of defence and counterclaiin : 
 — Held, tliat this closed the pleadings, and tluit 
 notice of trial served with it was regular, /fare 
 V. Cawthrope, 11 P. R. 353.— C. P. D. 
 
 Where a case lias been made a reniaiiet at the 
 assizes a notice of trial for the Chancery Divi- 
 sion sittings is irregular. Ward v. Jarkton, 12 
 P. R. 225. — Dalton, Master. 
 
 See Garner v. Tnne, 12 P. R. 280, p. 1G13. 
 
 4. Lenijth of N'otice. 
 
 (a) (lenerally. 
 
 Plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys had an 
 agreement between themselves by which papers 
 in the suit should be sent by mail. The notice 
 of trial was posted the day before the last for 
 giving notice, but reached defendant's attorney 
 one day too late. It was shown that t' prac- 
 tice of both attorneys had been to admit service 
 an of the day of receipt : — Held, that the notice 
 of trial must be set aside. Robson v. Arbuthnot, 
 3 P. R. 313, distinguished. McDonouijh v. Ali- 
 son, 9 P. R. 4. — Dalton, Master. 
 
 The words " according to the present practice 
 of the Court of Chancery," inRuIe2()6, O.J.Act 
 are only intended to determine that the entry 
 of the suit for trial is to be made with the proper 
 officer of the Chancery Division, leaving the time 
 of entry to be determined by the procediiiK 
 Rules 259 (Con. Rule C6I) and 264 ((;on. Role 
 665). 'J'en days' notice of trial is therefore suffi. 
 cient in all cases coming within its terms. Bar- 
 ker v. Furze, 9 P. R. 83.— Proudfoot. 
 
 In an action of replevin ten days' notice of 
 trial must Vie given, instead of eight days, iis 
 under the old practice. Wallace v. Cowan, 9 p 
 R. 144. -Dalton, Master. 
 
 Where an overdue statement of defence was 
 tiled on the last day for giving notice of trial for 
 the assizes, and a joinder of issue and jury 
 notice were tiled by the plaintiff on tlie same 
 <lay, but after the filing of the defence :— Held, 
 that the service of notice of trial with the join- 
 der and jury notice, on the same day, before the 
 filing of the defence, was not an irregularity. 
 Jiroderlck v. Bruatch, 12 P. R. 501.— Dalton, 
 .il/rt.f^e?'.— Armour. See Mrllroy v. Mcllroy, 14 
 P. R. 264. 
 
 A defendant is entitled to the full ten days' 
 notice of trial prescribed by Con, Rule (ifil, un- 
 less he has consented to take short notice of trial, 
 or unless short notice can be directed as a term for 
 granting an indulgence sought by a defeiulant; 
 and there is no power to compel a defeiuliint to 
 take short notice. Hamilton Provideii' and Loan 
 Society v. McKim, 13 P. R. 125.— Rose, 
 
 The ten days prescribed by Con. Rule C61 for 
 giving notice of trial cannot be shortened except 
 by consent or when short notice of trial is im- 
 posed as a term in granting an indulgence. The 
 plaintiff on the 23rd May, when the pleadings 
 were not closed, gave notice of trial for a sit- 
 tings beginning on 10th June. Tiie pleadings 
 were closed on the 27th May, and notice of trial 
 might then and up to the 31st May have been 
 regularly given in good time for the lOth June. 
 The defendant waited until the 5th June ami 
 then moved to set aside the notice of trial given 
 on the 23r(l May, as irregular: — Held, that the 
 defendant had waived the irregularity by his 
 laches. Whilmy v. Stark, 13 P. R. 129. -Dal- 
 ton, MaMer. — street. 
 
 See Daries v. Hubbard, 10 P. R. 148, p. 2041. 
 
 (1)^ Short Notice. 
 
 Sundays and holidays are excluded in com- 
 puting the five dnys' notice necessary in short 
 notice of trial. Short notice of trial served on 
 Wednesday for Monday :— Held, ba<l. O'Dou 
 nelly. O'Donnell, 10 P. R. 264.— Osier. 
 
 See Hamilton Provident and Loan Society v. 
 McKim, 13 P. R. 125. supra ; Whitnei/ v. Stark, 
 13 P. 11. 129, supra. 
 
 5. Serrice of. 
 
 Service of notice of trial effected by leavinga 
 copy of the same in the office of the defendants 
 solicitor before six o'clock, but after the solicitor 
 and his clerks had left for the d;iy, takes effect 
 only from the time when the notice came to the 
 
2040 
 
 ig to the present practice 
 >r,"inRuIe'2()6,O.J.Act, 
 utei'iniiie that the entry 
 he iiiade with the proper 
 Ji vision, leaving the time 
 niued by the preceding 
 061) and '264 (('on, Rnie 
 ! of trial is therefore suffi. 
 jg within its terms. Bar- 
 3.— Proudfoot. 
 
 evin ten days' notice of 
 nstead of eiglit days, m 
 Wallace v. Cowan, 9 P, 
 er. 
 
 tateiuent of defence was 
 giving notice of trial for 
 inder of issue and jury 
 lie plaintiff on the same 
 g of the defence :— Held, 
 ice of trial with the join- 
 I the same day, before the 
 was not an irregularity. 
 2 P. R. 561.-Dalton. 
 ic Mrllroy v. Mcllroy, 14 
 
 tied to the full ten days' 
 cd by Con. Rule (161, nn- 
 
 taite short notice of trial, 
 III be directed as a term for 
 ; sought by a defendant ; 
 
 to compel a defenilant to 
 iiiilton f'rovideiii and Loun 
 P. R. 125.— Rose. 
 
 ibed by Con. Rule CGI for 
 lannot ))(; shortened except 
 lort notice of trial is ini- 
 luting an indulgence. The 
 May, when the i)leadinf!s 
 e notice of trial for a sit- 
 0th June. The pleadings 
 th May, an<l notice of trial 
 ( the 31st May liave been 
 nd time for the 10th June. 
 1 until the 5th June and 
 lie the notice of trial given 
 irregular :— Held, that the 
 •d the irregulaiity by his 
 Stark, 13 1'. R. 129. -Dal 
 
 ;an<,10P.R. 148, p 2041. 
 
 horl Notice. 
 
 lays are excluded in com- 
 ' notice necessary in short 
 •t notice of trial served on 
 day:— Held, bad. O'Doii 
 V. R. 264.— Osier, 
 
 •ident and Loan Society v. 
 ). unpra ; Whitney v. Starl; 
 
 Service of. 
 
 if trial effected by leaving a 
 the office of the defendants 
 'clock, but after the solicitor 
 eft for the day, takes effect 
 ivhen the notice came to the 
 
 2041 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 2042 
 
 knowledge of the solicitor. Tiie practice laid 
 down in Consumers' (ias Co. v. Kissock, 5 Q. B. 
 542' MoCallum v. Provincial Ins. Co., 6 P. H. 
 101 'held not to have been altered by the 0. J. 
 Act as to service upon a defendant's solicitor. 
 Navies v. Hubbard, 10 P. R. 148.— Ualton, 
 Mauler- 
 See McPomugh v. Alinon, 9 P. R. 4, p. 2039. 
 
 6. JiTeijtilarity in. 
 
 A notice of trial in an action brought in the 
 Queen's Bench or Common Pleas Division given 
 inr a snecial sitting for the trial of an action in 
 
 he Cmncery Division, is irregular, and will l,e Y"' ''^^■"°""'^ *'^«f;': 
 the (-.".uiowy ,i/;</,//,./ni7 UM' I! W. done by thu master if U 
 
 set aside OraiU v. M.ddltlon, 10 1. 1.. 5So.- .^^^^^ ^,^^j. ^,^^ ,,efen.lai 
 Dalton, Mauler. 
 
 See Stewart v. Sullivan, 11 P. R. 529, p. 
 1670. 
 
 7. Countermand of Notice. 
 
 Where notice of trial lias been given, it can- 
 not b'i countermanded by either party. Friendly 
 V- CuWec, 9 P. 1!. 41. -Dalton, .l/((.s(ec.— O.skr. 
 
 II. Rkference I'no.M Superior Court to 
 County Court, asu vice ver.sa. 
 
 [See Con. Rule 071.] 
 
 Hee Merchanix' think v. Urimbr, S P. R 
 p. 398; Jiarkrr v. Lwmn, 9 P. !!. 107, p 
 
 repudiated the allegation of fraud, and alleged 
 that \V. had every opportunity to satisfy him- 
 self, and did satisfy himself, as to tlie value of 
 what he was getting ; tiiat ho had told tlie plain 
 tiff he valued the land at t-,OiM, and that iu no 
 way had ho sought to take advantage of the 
 plaintitf. S. was unable to be present at the 
 hearing, and applied for a postponement, on the 
 grounils sot forth in an atlidavit, that he was a 
 material witness nn his ov .i hchalf, ami that it 
 was not safe for him, in his statu of health, to 
 travel from Ottawa to Winnipeg. Dubuc, .1., 
 refused the postponement, on the ground that 
 tins court was only asked now to decree that tin- 
 account sliould be opened and proiierly taken, 
 and the amount ascertained, which would be 
 le court should so decide, 
 lilt would then have an 
 opportunity of being present, and tliat he was 
 not necessarily wanted at the hearing ; and, as 
 the result of the evidence, made a decree in 
 accordance with the contentions of the plai'itiff, 
 and diiectc<l an accouiit to be taken : — HeM, 
 that under the oircumstani'tH, the case ought 
 not to have been [jrocecded with in the ahtence of 
 appellant, and without allowing him the oppor- 
 tunity of giving his evidence. I'er llitchie, ( '. 
 J., and .Strong and (iwyniie, .1.1., that on the 
 merits there was no ground shewn to entitle the 
 plaiiitili'to relief. I'ur liilchie, C'..)., and Strong, 
 •J., that the bill upon its faio allegeil no ground 
 sullicieiit in ecpiity for relief, and was demur- 
 rable. Srhidt: V. Wuod, 6 S. C. R. 58."). 
 
 398 ; 
 
 The plaintiff gave notice of trial for 2iid ()c- 
 
 , -, , tobur. On 23r(l .Septcmlier the detiMKhir*- "b- 
 
 Coym V. Ln, 14 A. R. o03, p. 1(121 ; London and ^ ^.^;,,^,,j ^,^ ^^j.^^,,, ^^ j,„.,tj„,„e the trial on pay- 
 
 Canadian Loan and Ajinry to. v. Moriihy, II j i^^^j ,j,- ^^^^^^ . _i|ei,l, a ,,.(,ii<litioiial order not 
 
 I'. 11. 8G, p. 2042. I staying the plaiiititl's iirocpudiiigs, and one 
 
 which the defendant was at lil)erty to abandon 
 
 iTi m . ,. L',.™..,..x-,. n..<..,>,>i> without being liable to pay otliir than the costs 
 
 III. Fee on Kntekim; Heookd. • c ^i ,■ ..■ mi w ,i i> ■■ i> 
 
 * j of the application. Allin v. MaUicrx, ^) I'. K. 
 
 Where the trial of a cause was postponed till | 477.— Osier, 
 the next assizes, deiendauts to pay the costs :— 1 , . ^ , , . . . . , 
 
 Held, that no second fee was ifayable to the I . An mterploader isstie arising out of an action 
 iiciu, •• . , of the '•" t'"-' '•■'"'' ^'"'"''' "' ■'"^"'-''' w.is directed to be 
 
 tried in a County Court pursuant to 44 Vict. c. 
 7, s. 1 (Out.) : - Held, that a nmtioii to postpone 
 the trial of the issue should have been niad-j in 
 thot-'iuinty Court. Lmidan nii'l ('miaiintn ],nnn 
 rinilAiicnry ''o. v. Murjihy, 1 1 1". R. 81). -Dalton, 
 MnMi'r. 
 
 The costs of moving to |iostpoii« a trial on ac- 
 count of the alisiiice of a malei iai witness, will 
 be costs iti the cause, where the party miiviiig 
 has made diligent illorts, eti;., to secure the at- 
 
 l'orli:r—Kno£ v. t'orto 
 
 ileputy clerk of the crown upon entry 
 notion for trial at the latter assizes, and that | 
 when so paid by plaintitl', such fee was not tax- i 
 iible against ilefeiidaiits. Mortonw Orand Trunk 
 U. W. Co., 10 P. R. 62.— Wilson. 
 
 8ec Jinnhnry v. Mannfactnrnrit' Ins. Cc, 13 
 1'. K. 52, p. 2044. , 
 
 IV. PoSTl'ONK.MEST OF ThIAI,. | 
 
 W. (plaintiff) entereil into negotiations with S. 
 (defendant) to purchase a house which defendant ' 
 was then electing. \V. alleged that the agree- ^ 
 meiit was, that be should take the laud (two and ! 
 iilialf lots) at »400 a hit of fifty feet frontage, j 
 mul the materials furnished and work done at 14,_p. 384; 
 its value. In August, 1874, a deed and iiiort- ; p. 384. 
 
 giigc were executed, tlio consideration being j j,j uniering the postponement of a trial the 
 autedin both at |."),926. The mortgage was : jj^.^y^^,,. j,h.i,^^„j|,l.,.h l^^ ^ ilisiretion under Con. 
 afterwards assigned to the M. and N. VV. L. | uuiyiiHl to impose terms. And where, iiiioii the 
 Company. \V. alleged in his bill, that f^-. '" | ,ii,fcndants' application to postpone the trial, 
 violation of good faith, and taking advantage id i j|,g master so ordered upon their giving security 
 W.'s ignoranco of such matters, an I the conti- j j-^^^. j,^,.j „,■ t|,g amount sued for : — Held, that 
 deuce he placed in S., inserted in the mortgage | j^j^^, ^^^^.^^^ ^^.|,^ piop.-rly imposed. HanknJ Ham- 
 a larger sum than the balance due as a fair anil i ^^^^|^ y aiark, 13 P. ii. 213. — lioyd. 
 luasonablo market value of the lands, and of ,, ^ , . r /r iqd 
 
 what he had don- to the dwelling-house and See Bmhnry v. MHnufactnrtr>i Iuk Co., 13 P. 
 other premises, and he prayed an acoount. S. [ R. 52, p. 2044. 
 
 tendance, liroirn v. 
 111'. 11. 250.— Kose. 
 
 Costs of the (lav. 
 . U. 285, p. 3.iti ; 
 Oiitiviiltr 
 
 See Ilopkini v. 
 //u'/7 v. t.'ridihc, 
 \."MiiIIM, 13 i\ 
 
 Smith, 
 
 12 P, K. 
 
 It, 509, 
 
I i 
 
 2043 
 
 TBIAL. 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 
 i ;-| 
 
 K ^i 
 
 II 
 
 
 VI. Jury Notice. 
 
 1. FUimj and Serving] . 
 
 With his joinder of issue, the plaintiff served 
 notice of trial for the Cliancery sittings. Defen- 
 dant afterwards served a similiter and jury no- 
 tice :— Held, that the similiter and jury notice 
 were good, and that the notice of trial must be 
 set aside. McLaren v. McVuaiij, 8 P. K. 54.— 
 Daltou, Q. C. 
 
 The plaintiff joined issue upon defendants' 
 pleas, and at tlie same time tiled a similiter, 
 without a jury notice, for the defendant. After- 
 wards the defendant tiled a second similiter, and 
 with it a jury notice : — Held, that the defendant 
 should have tiled a jury notice with his pleas ; 
 that the first similiter was good, and that the 
 second was unnecessary, and must, together witii 
 the jury notice, be struck out as bad. Hyde v. 
 Casmea, 8 P. R. 137.— Dalton, C^.C. 
 
 An order directed the trial of an issue in an 
 interpleader matter, 'i'he plaintiff served the 
 issue but did not serve with it a jury notice as 
 required by R. S. O. (1877) c. 34, s. 4. He sub- 
 sequently served a juiy notice with the notice 
 of trial. The defemlant did not appear at the 
 trial, and a \erdict was rendered for the plain- 
 tiif, who afterwards obtained (on notice) in 
 chan^bers an order for costs : — Held, on appeal 
 affirming tliia order, that the verdict obtained 
 on the trial by a jury was not a nullity, but only 
 irregular, and not being moved against promptly 
 should stand. Leenoii v. Lemuii, [) P. R. 103. — 
 Boyd. 
 
 The plaintiff omitted to (ile a jury notice with 
 his last pleading, and applied ex parte to the 
 master in chambers for leave to withdraw the 
 last pleading and reiile it with a jury notice. 
 The leave was granted:— Held, on appeal, that 
 when the plaintiff came to tliu court to be reliev- 
 ed from his slip, he should have been called upon 
 to shew that tlie case was one which siiould be 
 tried by a jury, and that unless lie had been 
 able to do so the defendants should not have 
 had their statutory right to have the case tried 
 by a judge without a jury taken away : — Hehl, 
 also, that notice of the motion should have been 
 given to the defendant, in accordance with the 
 spirit of Rule 400, O. J. Act, (Con. Rule 527). 
 The appeal was treated as a substantive motion 
 for leave to tile the jury notice, and the order of 
 the master was atlirnicd, without costs. I'oiutU 
 V. G'Uy oj Loudon A Knuraiice Co. — I'owdl v. Que- 
 bec Iniurauce Co., 10 P. R. 520. — Rose. 
 
 R. S. O. (1877) c. 44, s. 78, sub-s. 2, provides 
 that a party to an action desiring to have it tried 
 by a jury shall, "at least eight days before tlie 
 sittings at which the action is to be tried," file 
 and serve a notice therefor. R. S. O. (1887) c. 
 52, s. 148, provides that no record containing 
 issues to be tried by a jury shall be entered for 
 trial unless the fee of three dollars required by 
 that section be lii st paid. The plaintiff before the 
 following assizes, tiled and served a jury notice : 
 — Held, that Con. Itule 071 was not intended 
 to overrule stiction 148, but was only aimed at 
 protecting litigants from being required to pay 
 a new fee for entering their actions for trial a 
 second tima, and not to relieve tiiem from the 
 
 Eayinent of any other usual fees. The plaintiff 
 ad the right to give the jury notice, paying the 
 
 jury fee, and annexing the jury notice to the 
 record at the time of setting down. Order of 
 Hose, J., striking out jury noticf, reversed, 
 Buubury v. Manu/acfurera' Insurance Co., lap 
 R. 52.— Q. B. D. 
 
 SeeBroderickx. Broateh, 12 P. R. 561, p. 2040. 
 
 2. Right to have Trial by Jury. 
 
 (a) Generally. 
 
 In ejectment where equitable issues are raised 
 under II. H. O. (1877), c. 50, s. 257 (Con. Rule 
 677), the issues must be tried without a jury 
 Bryan v. Mitchell, 8 P. R. 30:?.— Dalton, Q.C- 
 Armour. 
 
 Where the cause of action was one of apureW 
 common law character, and none of the defences 
 or replies presented issues of a merely equitable 
 character, Boyd, C, reversed the order of a local 
 master, striking out the defendant's jury notice. 
 Bank of British North America v. Eildy, 9 P. R 
 408. 
 
 If it were shewn that there was likely to be a 
 great complexity of facts : — Seniblc, that such 
 an element alone would not be a reason for dis- 
 pensing with a jury in a common law cause of 
 action, lb. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of land, in 
 which the writ issued from the Chancery Divi- 
 sion, the jury notice served by the defendant! 
 was struck out, and a motion to transfer the 
 action to another division was refused. Bank 
 of British North America r. Eddy, 9 P. K. 468, 
 does not since Rule 545, O. J. Act, afll'ord any 
 general rule of practice. Masse v. Masse, 10 
 P. R. 574.— Boytl. Reversed, 11 P. R. 81.- 
 Chy. 1). 
 
 In an action brouglit in the Chancery Division, 
 on behalf of the plaintitf and other creditors, to 
 set aside an calleged fraudulent transfer of notes, 
 etc., made to the defendants by the debtor, and 
 for an injunction to restrain the defendants from 
 negotiating them, the defendants served a jury 
 notice, which the master in chambers refused 
 to strike out. On a[)i)ual to Proudfoot, J., he 
 allowed the appeal and struck out the notice, 
 reserving leave to appeal to the Court of Ap- 
 peal : — Held, that Rule 545, O. J. Act, was not 
 intended to, and does not, interfere with the 
 power of transferring actions from one ilivision 
 of the High Court to another, nor with the rij(ht 
 to give a jury notice in a proper case, nor with 
 the existing modes of trial of particular actions. 
 Fawsou V. Merrhants' Bank of Canada, 11 P. R. 
 72.— C. of A. 
 
 In an action for the price of goods sold and 
 delivered, which was begun in the Chancery 
 Division, the defendant's jury notice, which had 
 been struck out, was restored, ami the action 
 was transferred to the Queen's Bench Division. 
 Masse c. Masse, 10 P. R. 574, not followed, owing 
 to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Paw- 
 son V. The Merchants' Bank, 1 1 P. 11. Tl 
 Hirriny v. Brooks, 11 P. R. 15 — Ferguson. 
 
 The action was brought in the Chancery 
 Division to obtain specific performance of a 
 covenant to repair, or for damages : — Held, that 
 it was really a common law action, for specilic 
 performance of such a covenant could not be 
 
m 
 
 the jury notice to the 
 setting down. Order of 
 
 jury notice, reversed. 
 •era' Innuraiice Co., 13 p, 
 
 <cA, 121'. R. 561,p.2040. 
 
 Trial by Jury. 
 
 nerally. 
 
 quitablc issues are raised 
 c. 50, s. 257 (Con. Rule 
 )u tried without a jury 
 R. 30:?.-Daltou, Q.C.- 
 
 iction was one of a purely 
 , and none of the defences 
 luea of a merely equitable 
 versed the order of a local 
 defendant's jury notice. 
 Ainaricay. EMy, 9P. R. 
 
 ,t there was likely to be a 
 
 acts :— Seiiiblu, that such 
 
 I not be a reason for dis- 
 
 n a uomniou law cause of 
 
 ;he recovery of laud, in 
 1 from tlic Chancery Divj. 
 served l)y the ilefeudants 
 a motion to transfer the 
 vision was refused. Bank 
 rica r. EAAy, 9 P. H. 468, 
 p45, O. J. Act, atl'ord any 
 rice. Manse v. Jhtsne, 10 
 [ieversed, 1 1 P. R. 81.- 
 
 t in the Chancery Division, 
 till' and otiier creditors, to 
 audulent transfer of notes, 
 indants by the debtor, and 
 istrain the defendants from 
 e defendants served a jury 
 ister in chambers refused 
 ipeal to IVoudfoot, J., he 
 nd struck out the notice, 
 peal to the Court of Ap- 
 le 545, O. J. Act, was not 
 is not, interfere with the 
 
 actions from one division 
 mother, nor with the rij^ht 
 n a proper case, nor with 
 tiial of particiUar actions. 
 
 Bank of Canada, II P. R. 
 
 le price of goods sold and 
 1 begun in the Chancery 
 it's jury notice, which had 
 
 restored, and the action 
 i Queen's JJench Division. 
 ^. 574, not followed, owing 
 B Court of Appeal in Paw- 
 ts' IJank, 11 P. K. 72. 
 
 P. R. 15 — Ferguson. 
 
 rought in the Chancery 
 peeific performance of a 
 for damages : — Held, that 
 )n law action, for specific 
 a covenant could not be 
 
 2015 
 
 TKIAL. 
 
 2046 
 
 <lecreed, and the' defendant was therefore en- 
 titled to the benefit of his jury notice. Bimj- 
 hamv. Warner, 10 P. R. 621.— Ferguson.. 
 
 In an action of seduction no appearance was 
 entered, the plaintiff then tiled a statement of 
 claim to which no defence was made, and inter- 
 locutory judgment was signed, and notice of 
 assessment of damages given. The defendant 
 did not .appear at the trial and a jury was called 
 who disagreed as to the amount of damages, an(l 
 were discharged. The judge then tried tiio 
 case himself without a jury, upon a fresh tajdng 
 o; evidence, and assessed the damages, and 
 gave judgment for the plaintiff :—8eml)le, that 
 under the 0. J. Act and former practice, the 
 judge in such an action had no powiir to tlispense 
 witii the jury :— Quiure, whether in any event, 
 a jury having been called and disagreed, they 
 could be dispensed with, and a retrial had 
 without a new notice; but it was unncccs.sary 
 to decide the point, as it w.is not satisfactorily 
 established that tiie writ of sunmions had been 
 served on the defendant ; and he was therefore 
 allowed to hivve atrial on the merits. Adair 
 V. Wade, 9 0. R. 15.— C. P. D. 
 
 I. brought this action against 8. in the Chan- 
 ■cery Division claiming (I) foreclosure of ceitaiii 
 mortgages, (2) upon an open account, (3) dam- 
 ages for breacli of a contract ; and S. sueJ 1. in 
 the Queen's Bench Division for damages arising 
 out of the same contract, with which also I.'s 
 other claims were connected. On a motion to 
 strike out a jury notice, S. offered to let I. have 
 judgment upon the mortgages and the open ac- 
 count, with a reference as to the amounts, sub- 
 ject to a defence which he rai.scd as to a contract 
 by I. to purchase the property covered by the 
 mortgages. Boyd, C, directed (1) the trial of 
 an issue, at a sittings of tho Chancery Division, 
 as to the defence raised by 8. ; (2) that the claim 
 for damages in this action should be tried l)y a 
 jury at the same time and place as the cross- 
 action ; and (3) that I. should have judgment 
 upon the mortgages and open account with a 
 reference, which was to be stayed pending the 
 trial of the issue directed. Irwin v. Sperrti, 11 
 P. R. 22!). -Boyd. 
 
 The action was for the amount of a bill for 
 medical attendance ; no equitable issue was 
 raised, and it clearly appeared that the only 
 matter in dispute was the amount of the bill ; — 
 Hehl, a proper case for a judge in chamhers, 
 under R. S. O. (1877) c ,50, s. 255, to strike 
 out the jury notice. Pickup v. Kiw.aid, 11 P. 
 K. 445. — Ferguson. 
 
 Coumfje and McLennan became contractors 
 for the construction of a section of the Canadian 
 Pacific Railway. The agreement therefor stipu- 
 lated that ninety per cent of the work should be 
 paid for during the progress thereof upon " the 
 progress estimates " of the proper officer of the 
 company, the remaining ten per cent, to be paid 
 on the completion of the contract, at which time 
 the company alleged that they liad discovered 
 tliat by moans of fraud the contractors had pro- 
 cured from their engineer progress estimates for 
 sums greatly in excess of the work (b i.e ami 
 they claimed for overpayments about $600,000. 
 The contractors, on the 5th of 0.;tol)er, 1885, 
 sued out process in the Queen's Bench Division 
 to recover $200,000, the balance claimed by 
 
 them as still due ; and on the.llst of the same 
 month the company sued out process in the 
 Chancery Division against the contractors to en- 
 force payment of the amount claimed to have 
 been overpaid them. Issue was joined in the 
 actions respectively on the 17th and 14th of 
 November following. In the action in the 
 Chancery Division the contracturs gave notice 
 for trial by a jury which, on ai>plication by 
 the company, was struck out by llie nnistcr in 
 ch-ainbers who also made an order refusing a 
 inotion made by the contractors to stay proceed- 
 ings in the Chancery Division action until the 
 determination of the (juestioiis in the other 
 action. Thereupon the contractors appealml, 
 and on argument before I!oyd, C, their appeal 
 was dismissed. The conip my moved for and 
 obtained an order from the master in chambers 
 to stay all proceedings in the Queen's Bern h 
 Division action with liheity to the contract*)ra 
 to raise in the Chancery Division action by de- 
 fence, set-otr, counter-claini or otherwis<' all 
 questions intended to he raised by them in the 
 Queen's Bench Division action against which 
 order the contractors appealed to Rose, J., who 
 feeling bound by the decision of 15 lyd, C, affirm- 
 ed the order of the mister : — Held, reversing 
 those orders (11 P. 1!. 149), that the Court of 
 Appeal had jurisdiction to entertam tlie appeals, 
 and that atrial with a jury was the prima facie 
 right of the contractors whose action was the 
 earlier one, and that the orders complained of 
 were not such as rested in the mere discretion 
 of the judge. (Hagarty, C. J. O., hcsitante.) 
 Per Osier, J. A., even if the facts were such as 
 would entitle the judge at tlietiial to strikeout 
 the jury notice, the present orders were pre- 
 mature. Conmeev. ('anndiaii Pacijic l{. iV.Co., 
 ami the Canadian Pacific II. IK. Co. v. Conmee, 
 12 A. R. 744. 
 
 The (juestion whether an issue as to a mecb.in- 
 ic's lien should be summarily tried or not, rests 
 largely, if not entirely in the discretion of the 
 iudge. Ru Moorehoane and Leak, 13 O. R. 290. 
 -Chy. D. 
 
 The action was brought ( I ) for the recovery 
 of instalments of money due under a scrip con- 
 tract ; anil (2i. for a declaritiim of the plain- 
 tiffs' right to specific pcrlnrmaace of the part of 
 the contract as to settlement cluti';s, the time 
 for performance not haviii;; yet arrived : — Held, 
 Proudfoot, J., dissentini;, a i)niper case in which 
 to oxerci.se the power under Itule 2')(!, O. J. A., 
 (Con. Rule 05-')), of severing the action so as to 
 have that part of it wliieli is preliminary tried 
 fir jt, the defendants having a prim I lacie right to 
 a jury as to the m liu mitt(T in cuntroversy, the 
 ( 1 ) claim ; while the (2) claim cunld be better tried 
 without the intervention of ,a jury. The defen- 
 dants' jury notice, which hid l)een struck out, 
 was restored, and the whole action was left to the 
 judge at the trial to try partly with a jury, and 
 partly without a jury, or altogether without a 
 jury, as he might think .idvisable. Per Proud- 
 foot, J. — The court or a judge has power by the 
 C. L. P. Act, section 2.'(5, to act before the trial 
 by striking out the jury notice, and the power 
 should be exorcised when it is perfectly clear 
 that the issues are such that they cannot be 
 properly tried by a jury ; the (juestion should 
 not in every case be left to the trial judge to 
 determiue. Temperance Volouizalion Society v. 
 
2M7 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 2048 
 
 n 
 
 Emm, 12 P. K. 48— Proudfoot.— Chy. D. ; 
 afKrined by the C. of A. //*. 380. 
 
 The plaintiff's sued, as exccutois of McB. to 
 recover from the defeiidnnt, a solicitor, money 
 placed in his liands for investment, iind notes 
 and money received by liim as solicitor and 
 agent for Mel?., nnd prayed that the defendant 
 niiglit be ordered to assign certain securities in 
 his hands. The defendant set up by way of de- 
 fence a certain agreement, under which he 
 alleged that the plaintiffs Merc estopped from 
 making their claim. The j)lnintiffs then amen- 
 ded tbeir statement of claim, setting up fraud 
 in procuring this agreement, and asked that it 
 might be decluicd void, and l)e <lelivered up to 
 be cancelled :- Held, the case came within sec- 
 tions 257 and 'i'lS of the ('. L. P. Act (( 'on. Itules 
 1)77, 678), and that the legal issues should be tried 
 by a jury, and the e(|uital)Ie issuos by a judge 
 without a jury, unless the judge at the trial, in 
 the exercise of his discretion, chose to try the 
 whole case without a jury ; but that the defen- 
 dant was not eutitle<l as a nuitter of right to have 
 the jury notice struck out. Temperance Coloni- 
 zation .Society r. Kvans, 12 P. R. 48, followed. 
 McMahon v. Lannj, VI P. 1!. 62.-0. P. D. 
 
 An action for part of the price of a macliino 
 and to enforce a lien on landforsuch price, with 
 a defence of breach of warranty in the defective 
 condition of the machine, is not distinguishable 
 from an ordiiuiry mortgage action. Such an 
 action would have been in the exclusive jurisdic- 
 ticm of the Court of Chancery before the Judica- 
 ture Act, and a jury notice is therefore improper 
 under section 45, (). J. A. A separate trial by 
 jury upon the is.sue raised as to tiie character of 
 tlie machine should not lie ordered in a ease of 
 this kind, where there is but one cause of action. 
 Temperance Colonization Society v. Evans, 12 
 P. R. 48 ; McMahon v. Lavery, 12 P. R. (52, 
 distinguisheil. Farraii v. Huntf.r, 12 P. R. 
 .•J24.— Chy. D. 
 
 The trial judge has by .section 255 of the 
 ('iUimon Law Procedure Act a discretion to try 
 any case with or without a jury as he may think 
 best, and iiis discretion will not bo interfered 
 with by a Divisional Court. Bromi v. Wood, 
 !•_' P. R. I'lS. — Cliy. 1). 
 
 Where e(|uitable issues arc raised a jury is not 
 of right but of grace uiuler section 257 of the C. 
 I . P. Act (Con. Rule()77). And where, in an ac- 
 tion, brought ui.deran order of tlie court made in 
 a former action, to try the plaintiff's right as 
 against the now (icfrndants to the possession of 
 certain land i< covered in that action, c((uitable 
 issues were raised, and the case had been once 
 tried before a jury, w ho had disagreed :— Held, 
 that an order striking out the jury notice was 
 properly made. Leave to ap)ieal lefused. Adam- 
 mn V. Adurnsoii, 12 P. 1!. -lO!).— J3oyd. 
 
 (b) Wlmv the Cmift of ('hdvr.evii had Formerly 
 Exchirs'ire, Jurltdictiun. 
 
 Held, that an action to set aside a conveyance 
 ' could, previous to the (). .1. Act, have been 
 brought in tlie Court of Ciiancery <inly, and the 
 defendant had tiicreforo no right, as of course, 
 to have the action tried by a jury. While under 
 the old Chancery Act (R. S. (). (1877), c. 40, s. 
 i)9) the court might direct an action to be tried 
 
 by a jury upon notice and for good cause, yet 
 this could only be done by the court, and not 
 by a judge or master in chambers. Thitrluw v 
 JJecl; 9 P. R. 268.— Patterson. 
 
 In cases in which, before the 0. J. Act the 
 Court of Chancery had exclusive jurisdiction, a 
 jury notice ia irregular and will be .struck out 
 Oowaidock v. Maim, 9 P. R. 270.— Daltoii^ 
 Mante.r. 
 
 Held, that the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
 Court of Chancery in section 45, of the 0. J. 
 Act means its jurisdiction as exercised generally 
 in dispensing e<|uity, and not its exclusive as 
 distinguished from its auxiliary jurisdiction. 
 Pairson V. MiirchanW /lank of Canada, 11 1'. 
 R. 72.-C. of A. 
 
 Held, that an action brought b3' the plaintilT 
 on behalf of himself and other creditors to set 
 aside an allcgeil fraudulent transfer of notes, 
 etc., iiia<le by the defendant was such an action 
 as would, bef le the O. .J. Act, have been in the 
 exclusive jur liction of the Court of Chancery, 
 and thcrefoie it fell within section 45, aiul 
 should be tried witliout a jury. The jiractice 
 hiid down in liank of B. N. A. i: Eddy, 9 P. K. 
 468, is still tiie proper practice. Tlie question 
 whether the order of Proudioot, J., was ap- 
 pealable was not determined, as the appeal was 
 dismissed. Jh. 
 
 The Court of Chancery had, before the 0. J. 
 Act, exclusive jurisdiction in actions to estab- 
 lish wills, and its power to direct a trial by jury 
 (R. S. O. (1877), c. 40, s. 99) is continued "in the 
 High Court under section 45, (). J. Act. But 
 the heir-at-law in .'^uch an action has not now in 
 this province an absolute right to a jury, and 
 the court refused to direct one on the i.ssues 
 raised herein. /iV LiirU— Jackson v. .S'l'oW, 11 
 P. R. 107. — Ferguson. 
 
 Action by two ratepayers, on behalf of them- 
 si'lves and all other ratepayers of A., against all 
 the members of the municipal council of A., 
 l::'."'.:ii,'i acting fniudi'.li'iit- 
 
 charging that t\\ 
 ly and in c )l!u- 
 continued 'lim '; 
 knowleiige tiiav .ic 
 him to recei''a fur 
 the municipality : 
 the liability of tr 
 
 ■;'-! 'lie treasure', of .'\.. 
 
 v '"^r it Jiad conn; to tlair 
 
 ■ ii defaulter, and allowed 
 
 moneys, causing loss to 
 
 Id, that the law attaches 
 
 Lcoi. t,i municipal councillors, 
 
 and that it was sufficient to cliarge them us 
 such without using tlie word •'trustee": that 
 the action was one in the former exclusive juris- 
 diction <if the Court of Chancery, and a jury 
 notice wa.'i theri'fore improper. Morrow v. 
 Connor, 11 P. R. 42.S.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that this being a case which befdre 
 the O. .1. Act would have been in the sole 
 jurisdiction of the Court of Chanceiy, to grant 
 the relief asked, tlie Divisional Court coiihl act 
 without the intervention of a second jury ; and, 
 the evidence failing to establish the plaintill's 
 right to the relief asked for, the decree was set 
 aside ; but as to tli' dannges, as they had not 
 been moved against, they were not interfered 
 with. Jaine.i v. Clnni'iU, 13 O. R. 1 15. -C. P. D. 
 
 This action wjis brought to rescind a contract 
 for the sale of a vessel by the plaintifVs to the de- 
 fendant, on the gnnind that the defendant had 
 failed to perform his part of the C(nitract, and 
 for damages for breach of the contract and for 
 
 liL^ 
 
2048 
 
 ml for good cause, yet 
 by the court, luul not 
 ihainbers. Thurluw v. 
 3r3on. 
 
 fore the O. J. Act tlie 
 
 xchisivc jurisdiction, a 
 
 iid will bo struck out 
 
 I'. R. 270.— IJalton", 
 
 ivo jurisdiction of the 
 jction 45, of the 0. J. 
 1 as exercised ijentTally 
 d not its exclusive as 
 auxiliary jurisdiction. 
 aiik of Canada, 11 1'. 
 
 ronght by the plaintill" 
 
 otlier creditors to set 
 
 lent transfer of notes, 
 
 mt was such an action 
 
 . Act, have been in the 
 
 the Court of Chancery, 
 
 vithin section 4'), ami 
 
 ; a jury. The practice 
 
 N. A. V. Eddy, 'J 1'. H. 
 
 iractice. The question 
 
 'roudioot, J., was ap- 
 
 ine<l, as the appeal was 
 
 •y had, before the 0. J. 
 on in actions to estal)- 
 to direct a trial by jury 
 99) is contiiuiod in the 
 ion 45,0. J. Act. But 
 in action has not now in 
 ito right to a jury, anil 
 irect one on tiie issues 
 ix— Jackson v. Si'ott, 11 
 
 ycrs, on behalf of them- 
 payers <if A., against all 
 uiiicipal council of A., 
 I ,:it?i, acting franilMlent- 
 ;*"! '.ho (leasurt; of ,A., 
 
 '"^r it liad conic to tliiir 
 Li, defaulter, and allowed 
 moneys, causing loss to 
 d, that the law attaches 
 t;) niunici])al coiuiciUors, 
 ent to cliargc tiieni as 
 
 word •' trustee" : that 
 le former exchisivc juris- 
 f Clianccry, ami a jury 
 ini|>ioj)er. Murroxi' v. 
 Prou<lfoot. 
 
 ig a CISC which before 
 liave been in the sole 
 rt of Ciiancery, to giant 
 I'isional C<inrt could act 
 n of a second juiy ; i""'i 
 establish the plaintill's 
 for, the (Ucrce was set 
 iniiges, as they had not 
 ley were not interfeiod 
 M:}0. K. 115. -CI". D. 
 
 ;ht to rescind a contract 
 y the plaintill's totliede- 
 that the defendant liad 
 rt of the contract, and 
 of the contract and for 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 2050 
 
 injuries to the vessel, which had been delivered ■ 
 to the defendant, and to restrain the defendant ; 
 from dealing with it, and for delivery up theieof : 
 —Held, that tiiis was an action over tlie sulijcct 
 matter of whicli, lieforo the Administration of 
 Justice Act, 1873, the Court of Ciiancery had 
 exclusive jurisdiction, and a jury notice wa.s 
 therefore improper, under section 77 of llie Judi- 
 cature Act, 11. S. (). (1S87) c. 44. Toraiifo and 
 Hamillon Xttri(jafioii Co. v. Hilcox, 12 P. R. 622. { 
 — Dalton, Mauler. — Gait. 
 
 See Bii>'i/inm v. ]\''<iriicr, \0]V. R. 021, p. 2045; 
 Fraaerv. Johiintoii, 12 V. R. 113, p. 1970. 
 
 VII. Si'KCrAI, Jl'UY. 
 
 The trial judge certified for the defendant's 
 costs of a special jury suinmonedat his instance. 
 farquhar v. Jiohcrtwn, l.S 1'. II. luO. — Rose. 
 
 nil. Triai. of .Skpakatk. (,>rKsTiox.s Auisim; 
 
 IN TFIK SaMK .'VcTION. 
 
 An action brougiit to enforce the performance 
 by the defendants of a certain by-law passed by 
 tlie])laintiil's, and also the perforniaiice of a <luty 
 inil)ose<l by tlie Itailway Act, came on for trial 
 without a jury, and the trial judge decided to 
 try the first branch of the ease scjiarately ; and 
 after hearing evidence upon it, held tiiat the 
 hy-law was not legally binding upon the defen- 
 dants, and dismissed the action without hearing 
 evidence on the second branch :— Held, that 
 Con. Rule 055 nuist be read in conjunction with 
 section 52, subsection 12, of the Judicature Act, 
 K S. O. (1K77) c. 44 ; and this case was not one 
 calling for an application of the Rule by directing 
 separate trials of the (piestions raised. A new 
 trial was therefore ordereil. VUUuip. of fort 
 Erii' V. Fort Erie Ferry It. W. Co., 13 l>. R. 444. 
 -Q. 1!. 1). 
 
 I.\. C'oNDUCT OK C.Vt'.SK. 
 
 The defendants ap|)ear(!d by tiu^ same attorney 
 pleaded jointly by the same attorney, and their 
 defence was, in substance, ])recisely tlie same, 
 but they were represented at the trial liy separate 
 counsel. On examination of plaintiffs witness, 
 both counsel claimed the right to cross-examine 
 the witness : — Held (alliiining tiie ruling of the 
 judge at the trial), tliat the judge was right in 
 allowing only one counsel to cross-examine tiic 
 witness. ir(i//.fr v. Mc.Uilliiii, S. C. U. 241. 
 
 Junior counsel are not at liberty to take po- 
 sitions in argument which conflict with the 
 positions taken by their leaders, fnferiialioiia/. 
 Bridiir. Co., V. Canaihi Soiiflxm R. W. Co., 7 A. 
 11. 220. ]5ut sec 19 C. L. J. 358. 
 
 At the trial counsel for the defendant objected 
 that there was no suflicient case made out upon 
 one branch of the plaintiff's claim, the rectifica- 
 tion of an agreement. Tiie defendants" counsel 
 thereupon declined to argue the point until the 
 evidence was closed, and the defendants then 
 called one witmiss upon another point : as to the 
 rectification, tlic learned judge ruled that the 
 plaintiff had made out no case— and as to the 
 other points he decided in defendants' favour, 
 and dismissed the bill, with costs. Tiiercupon 
 the plaintiff appealed to this court and the decree 
 
 129 
 
 was re\'erffed and the relief prayed for given to 
 the plaintiff. On settling the certificate of judg- 
 ment the sidicitor for the defendants objecte<l to 
 that part of it whicii directed the taking of the 
 accounts between the parties, and that credit 
 siiould be given for .•?4O,0{)U, the value of the 
 l)Iant, etc., seeking to have the action remitted 
 to the court below, in order to conclude the trial 
 and take such evidence .as the respondent might 
 adduce in sup))ort of his defence, and moved the 
 court to vary tlie certificate accordingly :— Held, 
 that the defendant was bound liy the course 
 which he liad elected to adopt, and the aiiplica- 
 tion was refused, with costs. Macduitatd v. 
 Worthiinjtuii, 7 A. R. 531. 
 
 X. RiOIlT TO liKOIN. 
 
 Defendants admitted policy, proofs of death, 
 proliate, etc., aiul accepted burden of proof at 
 tiie trial, and claimed the rigiit to begin: — 
 Ilidd, tlie plaintiffs iiad the rigiit to begin, not- 
 witlislandiiig .sucli a<liiiissi(Uis. Milkr v. Con- 
 /(:(!< ralioii I,,/,' A.s.tinviicc Co., 11 0. R. 120.— 
 
 q. B. D. 
 
 XI. Rl(iHT TO ReI'LY. 
 
 The judge at tlie trial nonsuited, bccau.se 
 he thought the .agrconicnt had not lieen pro- 
 perly proved, but allo\vc<l the case to go to 
 the jury on tlie issue of fraud, the onus of whicii 
 was on the defendants, and for assessment of 
 damages. The defendant's counsel cross-exam- 
 ined one of plaintitrs witnesses on the nuestion 
 of fraud, and the plaintifl re-examined him upon 
 the cross-examination : — Held, tiiat l)y reason 
 of sucli re-examination the plaintiff was not 
 deprived of his right of calling witnesses in 
 reply to the defendant's evidence of fraud ; at 
 all events, this was a matter for the judge at 
 the trial, and ahso the plaintiff liaviiig had to 
 open the case, tlie fact of tlie case guing tii the 
 jury only on the issue of fraud and for tlio 
 assessment of damages, did not deiiiive the 
 plaintiff of the right to reply. McDonald v. 
 Murray, 5 O. R. 559. -C. 1'. 1). 
 
 XIII. Jlkv. 
 
 I. ChaUcwjiiHi. 
 
 At the trial of an action the defendant's coun- 
 sel challenged a juryman for cause. On the 
 trial judge stating that he did not think any 
 cause was shewn, and that the counsel had 
 better challenge peremptorily, tiie counsel did 
 not claim tlie right to try the siifticiency of any 
 cause against the ini])artiality of tlie juiyman, 
 but accepted th' o])inion of the juilge, ami the 
 juryman remained on the jury ; — Held, that on 
 a iiiiitioii for a new trial an objection to the jury- 
 man could not be entertained. The action was 
 trie<l at Hraiitford, and a new tri il was moved 
 for at a place other than r.rantford, because the 
 jury there were biassed against defeiid.int : — 
 
 Held, that this formed no ground for a new trial. 
 
 HoocZ V. McPhcrson, 17 O. K. 103.— C. V. I). 
 
 2. Omission to Sicear Juror. 
 The court will not grant a new trial because 
 one of the jurors has not been sworn, where no 
 
2051 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 2052 
 
 & 
 
 S 
 
 m 
 
 8 
 
 injustice ia done tliereby. (7oose v. Grand 
 Trunk R. W. Co., 17 O. R. 721.— C. P. D, , 
 
 .3. Withdrawal of Juror. 
 
 The withdrawal of a juror at a trial has tlie 
 cffiict of concluding the suit, and, with it, of 
 determininj,' tliu whole cause of action. Flake 
 V. Clapp, 8 P. It. C2.— Dalton, Q. C. 
 
 4. Withdrawing Case from Jury. 
 
 In a Division Court suit a jury was demanded 
 and called, hut the presiding judge withdrew 
 from their conaiderati<m everything except the ' 
 iimount of damages to bo awarded, saying that 
 there were no facts in the ease disputed, the 
 jdaintifF's evidence being uncontradicted. The 
 jury assessed the <lainagc8 and judgment was 
 entered for the pliiiutili' :— Held, that where the j 
 plaintilf furnishes evidence which tiio judge 
 thinks suflicient to support his case, the case 
 cannot be withdrawn from the jury ; the mere 
 fact that the defendant does not call evidence 
 to controvert the plaintiff's evidence does not 
 concludi^ the matter, for the jury might refuse 
 to credit the pl.aintifT, and iirojierly (ind a 
 verdict for the defendant. The judge in this 
 case excccdf 1 his jurisdiction liy assuming the 
 functions oi the jury ; and tlio I'ight tohavetlie 
 case submitted to the jury lieing an absolute 
 statutory right, the violation of it was ground 
 for prohibition. lie Lmus v. Old, 17 O. R. 
 610.— C. P. D. 
 
 See Rijnn v. Canada fioiithcrn It. W. Co., lOO. 
 R. 745, p. 1783 ; J'etliijrcw v. Thoman, 12 A. K. 
 577, p. 795. 
 
 5. Dispensing ivith Jury After Evidence Taken. 
 
 The judge at the trial of an action has the 
 power to dispense with the juiy afti'r all the 
 evidence h;is l)e(.n taken, but the power should 
 be sparingly exercised, ^fark■^^ v. Town of 
 Windsor, 17 0. R. 719.— C. P. 1). 
 
 6. Directing Jury to Answer Questions of Fact. 
 
 In an action against a railway for injuries 
 caused by a collision at a crossing, the jury in 
 answer to the rpiestion, " If the i)lainli(rs had 
 known that the train was eoi>'.iug would tiiey 
 have stopjied their horse fu. ther from tiie rail- 
 way than they dill," sai'l "Yes: "—Hold, that 
 tliough this was not very definite, yet taken 
 with tlie evidence on which the jury acteil it 
 was sufficient. Roifenhcnicr v. Grand Trunk R. 
 W. C'o.,32C. P. 349. -C. P. D. 
 
 Where a (juestion was not put to the jury 
 until after they had rendered liieir verdict and 
 answered the other questions submitted to them, 
 and after the judge had been moved for judg- 
 ment upon those answers, but it was done 
 while all the parties an<l their counsel were pre- 
 sent and before the jury had left the court 
 room:— Held, that the question had been pro- 
 perly put. McLaren v. Vanada Central R. W. 
 bo., 32 0. P. 324. -C. P. D. 
 
 Tlie judge is not bound under the O. .1. Act 
 to submit questions in writing to the jury. 
 
 Lett. V. St. Lawrence and Ottawa R. W. Co.;lHii. 
 ton V. St. Lawrence and Ottawa II. W. Co., 1 
 R. .'ilS.-Q. 15.' !>.' 
 
 Per Patterson, J. A., it was not improper to 
 leave to the jury the (piestion whether the 
 amount in this case was ascertained by tlie act 
 of tiie parties. Wat.son v. Severn, A. R. 559. 
 
 The R. S. (). (1877), c. 50, s. i>(i4, makes it 
 imperative upon the jury to answer questions 
 submitted to them and prohiliits them from giv- 
 ing a general verdict instead. Hut the judge 
 after having put (juestiims, may, nevertheless, 
 in his discretion receive a general verdict. Fur- 
 low/ V. Carroll, 7 A. li. 145. 
 
 The now system ot calling njion juries to reply 
 to spocilie (jucstions considered and discussed, 
 and, per Hagarty, C. J., ((uestioned. Canada 
 Central R. W. Co. v. McLann, 8 A. R. 504. 
 
 It was objected that the rei)resentatioii liml not 
 been found In be false to tlie knowledge of the 
 jilaiiitilf company ;but: — Held, that the (piestion 
 as put to the jury having licen assented to by 
 counsel on both si<lesasojie the lindingon which 
 would be decisive, it was too late to take this 
 objection ; and the effect of the finding imist he 
 taken to be that the defendant knew the repre- 
 sentation, which was as to goods of his own 
 manuficture, to be false. Star Kiil'im/ /'ad Co. 
 V. drcenwood, 5 O. R. 2S.— (}. B. D. ' 
 
 An objection was taken to the charge, as being 
 adverse: —llehl, that the charge could not be 
 complained of here, for to give effect to the objec- 
 tion would be to conqiel the judge to suhmit the 
 ease to the jury, leaving them to ajtply the evi- 
 dence without any assistance from him, which 
 was not the practice in tliis province. Scomjall 
 V. Stapldon, 12 O. R. 20G.— (J. P. 1). 
 
 Per Rose, J. — There is notliing to lu-ovent a 
 judge directing the jury to liinl on e(|uitable 
 issues. Ill this case the jury iiaviiig found for 
 tiio defeiiilants, liic court, on the evidence, 
 directi:d the judgment to lie (iiitercd for the 
 plaintiff'. Rai; v. MclJoiiald, 13 (). R. Xyl. 
 
 In an action against McK. and M. for goods 
 sold and delivered, the ])laintiff swore tiiat he 
 had sold the goods to the <lefendaiits and on 
 their credit, and his evidence was corroborated 
 by the defendant .McK. The defence siiowed 
 that the goods were charged in plaintiff's books 
 to Vi. McK. & V/O. (the defendant McK. being a 
 memlier of both firms), and credited tlie same 
 way in C. McK. ft, (^o's. books, and that the 
 notes of C. McK. & Co. wera taken in])ayment, 
 an<I it was claimed that the sale of the goods 
 was to C McK. & Co. The trial judge called 
 the attention of the jury to the state of the en- 
 tries in the books of the plaiiititrand of C. McK. 
 & Co., and to the taking of the notes and to all 
 the evidence relied on by the defence, and he 
 left it entirely to the jury to say .as to whom 
 credit was given for the goods :^Held, affirming 
 the judgment of the .Supreme Court of New 
 Brunswick (27 N. B. Rep. 42) Strong and Pat- 
 terson, .1.1. dissenting, that the ease was pro- 
 perly left to the jury and a now trial w.is re- 
 fused. Milli'r v. Stephenson, i(J S. C. R. 722. 
 
 In malicious prosecution. See Gorverv. Lmse, 
 10 O. R. 88, p. 2055 ; Webber v. Mcleod, 16 
 O. R. 009, p. 1222. 
 
2052 
 
 2053 
 
 TRIAL. 
 
 2064 
 
 tawali.W. Co.:mn. 
 lawa li. W. Co., 1 0. 
 
 wns not improper to 
 ucstioii wli(!tlicr the 
 jcurtaiiiod by tlie act 
 
 Severn, (i A. li. 559. 
 
 50, 8, 1204, inivkes it 
 to answer (iiiustiong 
 iliil)its tliuni fri)m giv- 
 oad. Hut tlui judge 
 IS, may, nevurtbeless, 
 general vurilict. Fur- 
 ry. 
 
 ig ui)on juries to reply 
 idcrud and disuiisaed, 
 [uustioncd. Canada 
 ari'H, 8 A. R. 504. 
 
 riprosijntation liad not 
 tliu knowledge of the 
 leld, that tlic (luestion 
 t; l)oen assented to by 
 10 the finding on which 
 I too lato to take this 
 of the tiniling must be 
 idant knew the repre- 
 to goods of ins own 
 Slur Kiil'iiy I'ad Co. 
 — (J. B. U. 
 
 1 to tlio charge, as being 
 3 charge could not be 
 ive eil'cct to the ol)jec- 
 lie judge to submit the 
 them to apply the evi- 
 tancu from liiui, wliich 
 bis proviiic;e. Scowjall 
 J.— C. V. I). 
 
 s nothing to i)revent a 
 y to lin(l on e((uitablc 
 
 jury having found for 
 lurt, ou tlie evideuce, 
 
 to l)e entered for the 
 mihl, V.\0. K. ;?.V.'. 
 
 MeK. and M. for goods 
 jilaintiir swore that he 
 the defendants and on 
 ideuee was corrolioratcd 
 . The defence siiowed 
 rged in ))laintiirs l)ook3 
 efendant MoK. being ft 
 and cri.'dited the same 
 's. 1 looks, and that the 
 
 wei'j taken in jiaymcnt, 
 it the sale of the gomls 
 
 Tiio trial judge called 
 y to the state ot the en- 
 
 plaiiitiirand of C. McK. 
 ; of tlie notes and to all 
 
 by the defence, and he 
 jury to say as to whom 
 goods :— itelil, atlinning 
 Supremo Court of New 
 op. 42) Strong and Pat- 
 
 tliat the case was pro- 
 and a new trial was re- 
 tmon, 10 S. C. R. 722. 
 
 ,ion. Sec Cowfirv. £iM««. 
 ; Webber v. McLeod, 16 
 
 See Providence yVaHhimjt'oii Iiii. Go. v. Oeroio, 
 14 S. C. R. 731, p. 985; Carter v. (IraHiUt, 14 
 A. R. «JS5, P- 2054. 
 
 XIV. Vekdict. 
 
 1. Generally, 
 
 In an action against the sureties of an abscond- 
 ing assignee in insolvency, on tiie assignee's bond 
 to tlie tiucen under the statute, u verdict was 
 
 interfere injuriously with the light, and had 
 caused no Hubstantial diminution of the light 
 necessary for tlie enjoyment of the plaintilF's 
 iiouse. Under all the eireuiiMtaiiees, no olijcc- 
 tion iiaviiig licen made -n t' e ground of mis- 
 direction llie justice of the -• »se ilid not reiiuiro 
 that a new trial should be granted. Carter v. 
 (rV<t.si7/, 14 A. R. 085. 
 
 In an action for wrongful dismissal the jury 
 
 fonnil (1) 'i'liat there was a tinal bargain made 
 
 -. 1 - *^ n, f.,;„i f „ iuno 1 ■ . . 1 , I'wtween the parties (2) 'i'hat the plaiiitiir was to 
 
 eiitere.1 at the trial for !j80() subject to a legal j^^t ^!)()0 a year ; and in answer to the .luestion 
 
 ^'■'-■'''10". wbieh was afterwards decided ni favour . Ml JHung a c.,n,lili,m of the bargain that the 
 
 of the plaintill. It wa,s agreed by the p:irties plajntitl's term of service should end if 1^ 
 
 that in case ot such a ileeision, the ainoiiiit for | ,i„t {\i t„ ,\^, ^\^^, ,i„ties 
 
 which the verdict should l)e entered was .s7(J(i : 
 
 — Hehl, tiiat the verdict was not for a debt or 
 
 snm certain within R. S. O. (1877) c. ."ill, s. 209, 
 
 and that it should not carry interest from its 
 
 entry. Woodruff v. Canada (I'liaraiUte Co., 8 
 P. R. 532.— Hagarty. 
 
 The court refused to quash a conviction under 
 the liquor license Act, allirined on appeal, on the 
 ground among others that tiio general verdict of 
 guilty was inconsistent with the answers of the 
 jury to specitie (jueations. Rijjina v. O'raini/er, 
 
 B. D. 
 
 40 ii, B. .-{sa.— Q 
 
 Verdict subject to opinion of the court. — 
 Power of the court. See CrcujiUon v. Chiltick, 
 7S. C. R. 348, p. 117. 
 
 (commission allowed by jury witlunit any evi- 
 dence to support finding. See Town oj Welland 
 V. Brown, 4 0. R. 217, p. 72. 
 
 In an action against the defendant, as a sur- 
 geon, for negligence, the jury found for the plain- 
 till', but added to tiieir venlict the following : — 
 " We arc of opinion that the <lefendant mailo a 
 mistake in not calling in skilful assistance, but 
 not wilfully or through inattention " :— Held, a 
 mere expression of opinion, and that it did not 
 nullify or afl'ect the verdict. Sheridan v. J'ti)con, 
 10 O. R. 032. -(i. B. 1). 
 
 The judge at the trial in the County Court, 
 entered a verdict for the plaintilT, instead of <li- 
 reetiiig judgment to be entered, and afterwanls 
 refused a rule nisi to set aside such verdict. 
 Hide 405 of the O. J. Act (Con. Rule 52(i) in 
 ell'ciet forliids the granting of any rule to shew 
 cause where the application is against the judg- 
 ment of a judge who tries a cause witliout a jury. 
 QuaTc, as to the application of this rule to 
 County Courts by Rule 490 (Con. Rule 1257) :— 
 Held (per Patterson, J. A.), that the entry of 
 the verdict might be treated as a direction to 
 enter judgment, and was a decision from which 
 an appeal would lie under Rule 510, (see Con. 
 Rule 798). An objection to an appeal from a 
 jiiilge refusing such rule might lie raised by 
 motion in chambers, but it was not obligatory 
 to raise it in that manner. WUliams v. Croir, 
 10 A. R. 301. 
 
 e was 
 o tlie duties of a captain, was tiic 
 plaintill' lit to do tk^ duties of a captain ?"' (3) 
 " It has not been satisfactorily shewn by the 
 evidence," and (4) The plaintill' was dismissed, 
 and added as a rider the following: "Your 
 jury believing that the plaintill' did not receive 
 proper aid in the discharge of his duty, M'ould 
 recommend a verdict for plaintill' of ,§100." The 
 judge entered a verdict for the defendo'-t, and 
 tlie plaintill' moved to setit aside. The Divisional 
 Court being eijually divided, tlie motion to set 
 aside the verdict was dismissed ; but the Court 
 of Appeal directed the judgment entered for the 
 defendant to be reversed, and judgment for.SlOO 
 with County Court costs to be entered for the 
 plaintill', unless the defendant elected to have a 
 time named to take a new trial ; Hagarty, C.J., 
 dissenting. Per Boyd, C. — The onus w;i8 on the 
 defendants to prove the unfitness and the jury, 
 as is manifest by their recommendation, did not 
 intend to pronounce against the plaiiitifl''s com- 
 petency. 'I'lie findings were left in too uncertain 
 a state to enter a verdict for either party against 
 the will of the other. No material part of what 
 the jury returns to the judge should be dis- 
 regarded. Per Proudfoot, J. — The duty of the 
 jury was completed when they answered the 
 (juestions. It was for the judge to determine 
 what the legal result of the answers was. The 
 jury's recommendatiou would rather seem to 
 liave been done more for .sympathy for the plain- 
 tiff than with the desire of aflirming his com- 
 petency which they had previously found was 
 not proved. St. Duhk v. Baxter, 13 O. R. 41. — 
 Chy. D. Reversed 15 A. R. 387. 
 
 At the trial, the defendant's counsel raised 
 the objection that the amount, if any, duo the 
 plaintiff for maintenance, was only payable at 
 the end of the year. The trial judge overruled 
 the objection, and decreed that plaintiff was en- 
 titled to receive $2 a week, payable weekly. 
 The defendants counsel then asked to have the 
 amount payable monthly, to which the judge 
 assented, and gave judgment accordingly : — 
 Held, that the judgment could not be deemed to 
 be by consent, so as to preclude the defendant 
 from afterwards moving against it. Sweeney v. 
 Swcenaj, lU 0. R. 92.-C. P. U. 
 
 Sections 263, 264 of the C. L. P. Act R. S. O. 
 
 The jury were asked : " Did the defendant's | (1887), c. 50, except in certain actions including 
 
 house interfere injuriously with the light of the i malicious prosecution, the judge may require 
 
 plaiutilf's house ? " They answered, " Yes, | the jury to answer questions ; and "in such case 
 
 but not injuriously" :— Held, that in effect a the jury shall answer such questions, and shall 
 
 " ' " .,«f ..;»rn iirn7 \rorilinf. - " and 1)V Hfietion 252. the 
 
 question of law had been submitted to the jury 
 and that the finding was too uncertain to sup- 
 port a judgment for the defendant. Per Osier, 
 J. A., dissenting, that the finding of the jury 
 plainly was, that the defendant's house did not 
 
 not give any verdict ; " and by section 252. the 
 parties in person, or by their attorney or coun- 
 sel may waive tri.al by jury. In an action for 
 malicious prosecution, the trial judge, without 
 objection, left certain questions to the jury. 
 
9)55 
 
 TROVER. 
 
 2m 
 
 I- 
 
 wliifli they ttiiswered, but niUcA that their vcr- 
 «Uct wns for tlu; plniiitiff. The judge disregardcil 
 tho gcncriil verdict and cnti'iod jiidgimiit, on 
 the ariHWers to tho questions, for the defendant ; 
 — Hehl, timt the parties must ho assumed to 
 have waivi'd their right to a general verdict, 
 and assented to judgment on tho specific find- 
 ings of fact ; for if they couhl waive trial by 
 jury altogether, there was no reason why they 
 uould not agree to tho course adopted in this 
 case. The jury therefore in finding a general 
 verdict weie doing wliat it was agreed they 
 should not do, anil what tho parties and the 
 court di»])ensed with their doing, ilower v. 
 Lmse, IC O. 11. 88. -C. P. D. 
 
 Recommendation by jury in verdict as to 
 coats. See Walmslvy v. Mililull, 5 O. R. 4i27, p. 
 
 377 ; Wmvcr v. Smrycr <(• Co., 10 A. R. 422, p. 
 
 378 ; Furqiiharv. Bohertson, 13 P. It. 15(5, p. 379. 
 
 ^coStar Kiihify Pad Co. v. Oreenwood, 5 O. H. 
 28. p. 20r.2 ; WMnr v. AtcUud, 16 O. R. 609, 
 p. 1222. 
 
 TRINITY TERM. 
 
 Effect of abolition of the computation of time. 
 See Kean v. EdwurdH, 12 P. R. 625, p. 2022. 
 
 TROVER. 
 
 Sfi: CoNVEHSION. 
 
 In trover for goods against an assignee in in- 
 solvency : — Held, following In re Harrett, 5 A. 
 R. 200, that tho assignee may object to the ab- 
 sence of a bill of sale on an alleged sale by the 
 insolvent just as an execution cre<litor or subse- 
 quent ]>urchaser for value may do. ISnan' v. 
 •S'««<A, 45 y. 1}. I5(i. 
 
 The plaintiff alleged in i c count in trover 
 that the defendant convertid to his own use, or 
 wrongfully deprive<l the plaintiff, etc. : — Held, 
 overruling Bain r. MacKay, 5 P. R. 471, that 
 the count M-as not embarrassing. Tuylor v. 
 Adavix, 8 P. It. 60.— Dalton, Ma.'^ter. 
 
 In an action of trover or conversion against 
 appelant, high sheriQ' of the county of Cund)er- 
 land, N. y. , to recover damages for an alleged 
 conversion by the upjiellant of certain personal 
 projierty found in tlie jjosscssion of tho execu- 
 tion debtor, but claimed by the respondent, the 
 pleas were a ikiiial of the conversion, no pro- 
 perty in plaintiir, no possession or right of pos- 
 session in plaintitl'and justification under a writ 
 of execution against the execution debtor. The 
 judge at the trial told the jury that he "thought 
 it wns incumbent on the defendant to have 
 gone further than merely jiroducing and pro- 
 ving his execution, and that if a transfer had 
 taken place to the plaintiff', and the articles 
 taken and sold, defendant should have shewn 
 the judgment on which the execution issned to 
 enable him to justify the taking and enable him 
 to sustain his defence " : — Held, that the sheriff 
 was entitled under his pleas to have it left to the 
 jury to say whether the plaintiff had shewn 
 title or right of possession to the goods in ques- 
 
 tion, and therefore there was misdirection. 
 MeUun v. Jlminon, 3 H. C. R. 706. 
 
 Action of trover charging the appellants with 
 converting 25U barrels of mackerel, which were 
 tho property of W. M. R. the respondeiit'H 
 assignor. One of the branches of appellants' 
 business was supplying merchants who were con- 
 nected with the fishing business in tho country, 
 and who in return sent them lish, which was kuIiI 
 and the proceeds iilaced by appoUants to credit 
 of their customers, One S,, who so dealt with 
 appellants, in October, 1877, sent them seventy- 
 seven barrels of herring and 231* barrels of niutk- 
 erel. On 3rd November, 1877, S. sold all the 
 fish he had, including those mackerel, to one R. 
 at §8 a barrel, when .some were delivered, leav- 
 ing 230 barrels in the appellants' store, and in 
 payment received t§4,0(K) and a promissory note 
 for .^,000 at four months. This note was given 
 to appellants by S. on account of his general in- 
 debtedness. On the 4th March, 1878, H. lie- 
 came insolvent, and tho respondent who was 
 subsequently appointed assignee denumded the 
 23(i barrels of mackerel and brought an action 
 to recover the same. After issue was joined the 
 appellants proved against the estate of K. on 
 the note and received a dividend on it. The 
 chief justice at the trial gave judgment for 
 $1,888, less $40. 10 for one month's insurance and 
 six months' storage, and found that the appel- 
 lants had knowledge that the tish sued for were 
 included by the insolvent in the statement of 
 his assets, and made no objection thereto known 
 to tho assignee or creditors at the meeting :— 
 Held (Strong, J., dissontirig), that tho appellants 
 having failed to prove tho right of p''oporty in 
 themselves, upon which they relied at tiie ti ial, 
 the respondent had, as against the appellants, a 
 right to tho immediate possession ot the tish. 
 2. That S. had not stored the lish with a])pel- 
 lants by way of security for a debt due by him, 
 and as the appellants had knowledge that the 
 tish sued for were included by the insolvent in 
 the statement of his assets, to which statement 
 they made no objection, but |)roved against the 
 estate for the whole auKmnt of inscdveiit's note, 
 and received a dividend thereon, they could not 
 now claim the tish or set up a claim for lien 
 thereon. Troop v. J/art, 7 S. C. R. olS. 
 
 A cargo of coal was consigned to B. and the 
 master of the vessel refused to deliver it unless 
 the freight was prepaid, which H. in his turn 
 refused but offered to pay it ton by ton as dc- 
 j livered. By direction of the owner's agent the 
 coal was taken out of the vessel and stored, 
 wliereu[)on B. tendered tho amount of the 
 freight and demanded it, but tho agent .still re- 
 fused to deliver unless the cost ot storage was 
 paid. In trover against the master :— Held, 
 affirming tho judgment of the court below, 
 (! Wynne, .)., dissenting, that tho refusal of the 
 agent after tender of the full freight was a con- 
 version of the cargo for which the trover would 
 lie: — Held, per I'attersoi,, J., that trover weuld 
 lie, but not against tho master, who was only 
 the servant of the agent, and acting under his 
 directions : — Held, also, that an action ex delicto 
 for breach of duty in not delivering the cnal 
 according to the bill of lading would not lie, 
 Winc/ieder v. Jimby, 10 S. C. R. 336. 
 
 See Stoener v. Sprivger, 7 A. R. 497, p. 183S ; 
 Blackley v. Dooky, 18 O. R. 381, p. 345. 
 
 I U iii .# » 
 
205ff 
 
 was misdirection. 
 R. 700. 
 
 thu appellants witii 
 
 uckere), wliicli wtre 
 
 tliu ix'spDiuluiit's 
 
 iches of appclliiiitH' 
 
 L'lmntB will) were COM- 
 
 iii'HS in tlio uoiintiy, 
 
 tiHli, whiuli witH KuM 
 
 iippellantH to credit 
 
 , wlio so (lulllt witii 
 
 sent tiieni Koveiity- 
 
 23(! Imrrolsof nmuk- 
 
 877, IS. sold nil tlie 
 
 mackurul, to one R. 
 
 ore delivered, leav- 
 
 ullautfi' store, ami in 
 
 d u promissory note 
 
 This note wiis given 
 
 mt of liis general in- 
 
 larch, 1S78, U. lie- 
 
 espondent wiio was 
 
 gnee demanded the 
 
 id l)roiigiit nn ac'tion 
 
 V issue was joined the 
 
 the estate of R. on 
 
 lividend on it. I'lie 
 
 gave judgment for 
 
 iionth's insurance and 
 
 Dund that the appel- 
 
 tlie fish sued for were 
 
 ; in tlie statement of 
 
 jeution thereto known 
 
 rs at the meeting ;— 
 
 ig), that the appellants 
 
 ! right of propoity in 
 
 ley relied at the tiial, 
 
 aiiist the appellants, a 
 
 lossession of the lisli. 
 
 il the iisli with n])pel- 
 
 for a del)t due hy him, 
 
 d knowledge that the 
 
 ;d by the insolvent in 
 
 ts, to which statement 
 
 )ut proved against tlie 
 
 nt of insolvent's note, 
 
 hereon, they could not 
 
 t np a claim for lien 
 
 7S. C. R. r.I2. 
 
 nsigned to B. and the 
 Bed to deliver it unlet^s 
 
 which R. in his turn 
 ly it ton by ton us de- 
 
 the owner's agent the 
 he vessel and stored, 
 
 the amount of the 
 but the agent still le- 
 u; cost of storage was 
 t the master :— IJcld, 
 
 of the court below, 
 hat the refusal of the 
 
 full freight was a con- 
 /liicli the trover would 
 , J., that trover would 
 master, who was only 
 
 and acting under his 
 hat an nctiou ex delicto 
 ot delivering the coal 
 
 lading would not lie. 
 
 C. R. 330. 
 
 7 A. R. 497, p. 183S ; 
 R. 381, p. 345. 
 
 2057 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 20n 
 
 . TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 I. CBEAtioN Of Trust, 2057. 
 
 IF. Operation of the Statute of Uses— 
 See UsEH AND Trii.sth. 
 
 III. Resulting Trust, 2001. 
 
 IV. Evidence of Trust, 2061. 
 V. Notice ok Trust, 2062. 
 
 VI. Trustees. 
 
 1. Appointment of, 2065. 
 
 2. Anrptancc of Triml , 2(m. . 
 
 3. Change of, 2066. 
 
 4. Removal of, 2067. 
 
 ■6. Compeiimlioii and Allowance, 2067. 
 6". Dcleyation of Power hi/ Tnmtce, 2069, 
 
 7. Power of TruHtei: to Rind Co-Trmtec, 
 
 2069. 
 
 8. Liability for Acti* of Co-TruMce—See 
 
 Executors and Administrators. 
 
 9. Invtdmea/x hy, 2009, 
 
 10. Saks ami LeawKhy, 2071. 
 
 1 1 . Mortyagen hy, 2074. 
 
 12. Improvements on Land, 2075. 
 
 13. When Truntce'a Intercut in in Conflict 
 
 with Truxt Exlate, 2075. 
 
 14. Purcliane or Leane of the Trust Pro- 
 
 perty by Trtixtees, 2075. 
 
 15. Nei/liijence in Manaijement of Estate, 
 
 2077. 
 
 16. Deposit of Trust Moneys, 2077. 
 
 17. Followiwj Moneys paid to Persons not 
 
 Entitled thereto, 2078. 
 
 18. Accounts, 2078. 
 
 19. Liability for Interest, 2079. 
 
 20. Costs and Expenses, 2079. 
 
 21. Other Cases, 2080. 
 
 22. Proceedings Against. 
 
 (tt) Injunction to Restrain from Selling, 
 
 2080. 
 (b) Limitation of Actions in Relation 
 
 to Trusts— See Limitation of 
 
 Actions. 
 
 23. Of Infants — See Infants. 
 
 24. Of Schools— See Public Schools. 
 
 25. Of Religious Institutions — iSeeCiiURcn. 
 VII. Beneficiaries and Cestui que Trust. 
 
 1. Dealings between Trustee and Cestui 
 
 que Trust, 2081. 
 
 2. Assent of, to Transactions, 2081. 
 
 3. Right to Possession of Property, 2081. 
 
 4. Parties to Actiom — See Pleading. 
 
 Tin. Miscellaneous Cases, 2082. 
 
 IX. Executors and Adminisitiators— See 
 Executors and Administrators. 
 
 X. Construction of Wills— See Will. 
 
 I. Creation of Trust. 
 
 The defendant in consideration that his father 
 would convey to him certain lands in the town- 
 
 ship of Caledon, undertook and asjrood to convey 
 to the plaintitr, a young.ir brother, 100 acres of 
 land in the townsiiip of .Vrtemesia. The father 
 conveyed the land to the defendant, but instead 
 of his conveying to the brother as he hail agreed, 
 he Bold the pidperty more tlian twelve years be- 
 fore bill tiled, the plaiatitr lieing then at least, 
 twenty-one years of age : — Held, that under 
 these ciieuiiistances the defendant was merely a 
 constructive trustee, and that the plaintilf's 
 right to call for a conveyance was barred by the 
 Statute of Limitations ; liut the dtdeiidaiit hav- 
 ing denied the agreement to convey, which, 
 however, was clearly established by his own 
 evhleiice, the court (Hlake, V. C.),on dismissing 
 the bill, refused to give ilefendanl his costs. 
 Fi-rginon v. I'irgustni, 28 fliy. .'{80. 
 
 The operation of an ordinary deed of bargain 
 and sale under the Short Forms Act— R. S. O. 
 (1877) c, 102 -eonvcying lands to trustees con- 
 sidered and acted on. Seatuu v. lAinney, 27 
 Chy. 169.-. hy. 1). 
 
 Creation of trusts under building contract in 
 favour of sub-contractors. See Ftirhan v. La- 
 londi; 27 Chy, COO, p. 1166, 1167. 
 
 A testator having disposed of one third ot the 
 residue of his estate, real and personal, devised 
 and beciuoathed the remainder to ,]. C, to hold 
 to him, his heirs, executors, administrators, or 
 assigns for ever in trust for the benefit of the 
 testator's two sisters, and with all reasonable ex» 
 pedition to convert the same into money, and 
 apply the sa ne, or the proceeds thereof for the 
 benetit of the said two sisters as he should con- 
 sider just. And he directed that his other trus- 
 tees sliould not eiuiuire into or iiiterfero with 
 such distribution as J. C might choose to make 
 among the said two sisters, except when their 
 concurrence should be necessary for conformity. 
 J. C. predeceased the testator :— Held, that the 
 above was in substance an imperative declara- 
 tion of a trust of the whole remainder for the 
 equal benefit of the two sisters with a discretion- 
 ary power reposed in the trustee as to its mode 
 of execution, and the court would undertake to 
 discharge vicariously what could not otherwise 
 be done, owing to ,L C. predeceasing the testa- 
 tor, by referring it to the master to ascertain the 
 proper mode of earryiuf out the directions of the 
 will. Re Charteris, 25 Chy. 376 commented on. 
 Order made referring it to the master to work 
 out a scheme for the application and distribution 
 of the fund. Charteris v. Charteris, 10 O. R. 
 738.— Boyd. 
 
 A chattel mortgage made by D. to McL. was 
 given to secure a sum made up of debts duo to 
 McL. and two other persons ; McL. made the 
 usual affidavit of bona fides, asserting that the 
 whole sum was due him ; no trust of anjr kind 
 appeared upon the mortgage, though the inten- 
 tion was that Mc. L, should hold it as trustee 
 for the other two. The mortgage was filed 
 within the proper time after its execution. 
 McL. assigned the mortgage to the plaintiffs, 
 who afterwards obtained judgment against D. 
 and under the execution tlie sheriiT seized the 
 property covered by the mortgage. After this 
 seizure the plaintiffs instructed the sheriff to 
 withdraw, and then took and held possession of 
 the property under the mortgage. The defen- 
 dants placed writs of execution against thegooda 
 

 9069 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2089 
 
 of I). In tho hands of the ohcriff (ifter tho plain- 
 tilTB had takon poHRCssion under their tnortgiigo. 
 D. was Holvcnt whon ho gave tiio chattel ni<irt- 
 gago, but insolvent whon tiio plaiiitiirH tooli ptm 
 iiODsion :— Held, that tho fuet tliat no trust waa 
 doclarod on tho faooof tin: mortgage was notliing 
 moro tlian an informality, and wan uiired )iy the 
 taking pfmsession lieforo tho rightH of orouitorH 
 hud attached on tho ehattelH ; and neitiier the 
 insolvency of tho mortgagor at tho tiniu of 
 taking ])OH.MeR8ion, nor tlio fact of tlio seizure 
 nndor execution l)efore taking poMseHHinn allected 
 tho poHition of tho plaintiU's : — Held, alHO, that 
 tho taking poHHossion could nf)t he viewed nn a 
 preference within 48 Vict. c. 'Jfl, s. '2 (Out.). 
 Bank o/' i/niiii/ton v. 'J'nmh/i/ii, 10 O. H. 247. — 
 Q. B. i). 
 
 By a settlement certain lands were conveyed I 
 to trustees, upon trust to hold tlie said laud | 
 * * situated * * being lot No. '2 * * 
 to O. A. ; and also lot No. 1, situate * * to 
 A. A., sons of (the settlor) * * to the use of 
 them their heirs and a.isigns as joint tenants, 
 and not iis tenants in connnou * * and, 
 lastly, upon trust, thiit the said IruBtees * * 
 shall, well, and sutliciently convey and assure, 
 »l)»)lutely in fee to tliesaid parties resi ectively, 
 etc. ; — Helil, tiuit tins trust was an executed 
 trust, in which tlie lindtations were expressly 
 declared, ami that neitiier a diliiculty in ascer- 
 taining tho true construction and legal niuaning 
 of the words used, nor the final trust direct- 
 ing the trustees to maku the conveyances of 
 the legal estate made any ditl'ercnce ; and that 
 the words nuist receive the same construction as 
 if they were found in a common law conveyance : 
 — Held, also, that an estate in fee in lot "2 passed 
 to (i. A., and that the words " as joint tenants, 
 and not as tenants in common," were used to 
 prevent (J. A. and A. A. from taking as tenants 
 in common, as it was supposed they would have 
 taken under 4 Wni. I V . c. 1, s. 4S, and that 
 they were needlessly used : — Held, also, that as 
 G. A. died intestate and unmarried, Ist danu- 
 ary, 18^2, the defendants, as the children of a 
 deceased l)rother of the plaintiff, took an cijual 
 share in the lands as co-teni iits in common with 
 tho pluintiir A, A. : that they were as much en- 
 titled to the possession of the lands as tiie plain- 
 tiff", and that the plaintiff having obtained tlie 
 legal estate from the trustees slu)ul(l luild the 
 aaniu as a trustee for all the tenants in conmion : 
 — Held, also, that there being no proof of ouster 
 of the plaintiff, he could not recover from the 
 defendants any mesne profits in this action. 
 Adamnon v. Adamxon, 17 O. K. 407. — Fer- 
 guson. 
 
 ■ Tho plaintiff and defendant were brothers and 
 their father, who died in the year 184(j, ap- 
 pointed the plaintiff and two other sons of the 
 testator his executors, and among other bequests 
 devised the land in question to the defendant. 
 The testator had endorsed a note for the accommo- 
 dation of the plaintiff, and after the testator's 
 death the hoklers of this note sued tho plaintiif 
 and the two br thers as executors and recovered 
 judgment against them. T'le land in question 
 was sold under that ju'*i,,'Ment at sheriff's sale 
 and was bought in h\ t'le plaintiff. The will 
 had been registered i'Ut had not been proved. 
 Subsequently the plaintiff mortgaged the land in 
 question and sold it subject to the mortgage. 
 
 Tho moi ■ /ai;ees afterwards sold and tho plaintiff 
 again l>oi.^nt m the land :— Hehl, that it Ining 
 the plaiiititl i duty to pay tho note, ho had not 
 ac(|uirijd thu title to tlio land lor IiIk own K'uilit 
 at the shcrlfl i mlo, but became a trustee fm tlie 
 devisee, thu defendant, and that this trust re- 
 vived when the plaintiif bought in the land for 
 the second time '.—Held, further, tliat aHsuiiiing 
 that tho plaintiff was not a truktee for the de- 
 fendant and had no jiajier title there wax nut, 
 upon the evidence, any ]ios8CRsion of theluiul in 
 (juostion by the plaintiif sufficient to conlrr u 
 title under the Statute of Limitations :~l|i'li|, 
 lastly, that the situation of tho parties not liav- 
 ing changed, the defendant was not bound liy 
 laches. Judgment of thu Chancery DiviMinn 
 aflirinod. Mchonald v. McDonald, 17 A. K 
 ig'2. 
 
 A firm composed of two members dissolved 
 nartnorshi]). One of the partners continued the 
 business, giving to the retiring paiiner a iiiiiii- 
 ber of notes in payment of ids sliare in the liimi- 
 ness. Tlio continuing partner afterwards fcjnii- 
 cd a partnership with anotlier person and, liy 
 tiie articles tliereof, transferred to tlie new In in, 
 as his contribution to the capital, all tlie assets 
 of his business subject to tho deduction tliirc- 
 from of his liabilities, which they wer(! sullicient 
 to pay in full, and whicli were to be assume d by 
 the copartnershi|i and charged against liini. 
 Among these liabilities, kiiown to the new jinrt- 
 ner, were a number of tiie notes which the iclir- 
 ing partner had endorsed to the phiintitVljifiirc 
 maturity. The new firm paid two of these notes 
 and interest on another, and liad some negotia- 
 tions with tlie plaintiff for an extension ol time 
 for payment of the unpaid notes. I'erHagarty, 
 C. J. O., Osier and Macleiinnn, JJ. A., dilleriiig 
 on this point from the judgment of tlie (Jueen'a 
 Bench iJivision, 14 O. K. 137, tliat no trust was 
 established in favour of the retiring partiiei by 
 the articles of partnership of the new firm, ami 
 that tlio plaintiif was not entitled to enforce 
 j against the new firm tho performance of tiie 
 ' sti]iiilation in the articles for payment of the 
 notes held by her. I'cr Burton, J. A. There 
 was a trust and the judgment should be alliiiiicd 
 on that ground. I'er Hagarty, C. J. O. The 
 judgment should be affirmed on the ground tiiat 
 the evidence established an independent agree- 
 ment between the new lirm and the plaintiif to 
 pay the notes in question. Per Burton, Osier, 
 and Maclennan, JJ, A. No such agreement 
 was proved. Gregory v. Williams, .S Mcr. 582, 
 and In re Empress Engineering Co., 16 Cli. D. 
 125, specially considered. Tlie court being 
 thus evenly divided as to the result, the ap- 
 peal was dismissed, with co.sts, Hindirxon v. 
 KUte.y, 17 A. R. 456.— Q. B. U. Reversed S. C. 
 nub nom. Odtorne v. Kelhy, IS S. C. R. 698, p. 
 1540. 
 
 Sec aioM v. liurl, 8 O. R. 391, p. 830 ; Ketimly 
 v. City of Toronto, 12 O. \\. 211, p. 493 ; Firm 
 V. Ferris, 9 C). R. 393, p. 593 ; Clinddi v. La 
 Banqw. Jarqiies Cartin; » S. C. R. 597 p. I'^S; 
 Imperial Hank of Canada w. Melni!fe, 110. R. 
 467, p. 591 ; Coyne v. Hroddy, lb O. R. 173; 
 15 A. R. 159, p. 1206; 0(77 v. ailmour, 14 
 O. R. 129, p. 869 ; Tnpper v. Annaml, 16 S. 
 C. R. 718, p. 324; Be Iron Clay Brick Mann- 
 factnrinij Co.— Turner's Case, 19 O. R. 113, p. 
 268. 
 
 P . *'• 
 
20W 
 
 IhoIiI ami tho nlaintifir 
 
 I— Held, tliiit It Im iiig 
 
 llliu not(3, ho linil not 
 
 Id tor liifi own Kutlit 
 
 J.iiiii'H truHtti! fdi tlie 
 
 Id tliiit. tliJM trust If- 
 
 lniKlit ill tliu IiuhI fi,r 
 
 Jirtlier, tliut iissiiiiiinu 
 
 |a triiDtcu for tli<- (lu- 
 
 titl<! tlmru was mit, 
 
 JtsosMiiin of tlic liiiiil in 
 
 |HiilKuient to (;oiili'f u 
 
 LilllitiltioiiH : — II rill, 
 
 till) parties not iiay. 
 
 lit WiiH not Ijoinid hy 
 
 lu Chancery DiviHJdn 
 
 \Mc Donald, 17 A. K. 
 
 o inuiiiberH disHnlvod 
 
 inrtiiers continued tin- 
 
 [tirinj^ pa.l-iier a nuiii- 
 
 liis hIiuic in the luiHi- 
 
 tner afterwards fdrm- 
 
 otlior perHon and, hy 
 
 'crrod to the new ijrm, 
 
 capital, all the assets 
 
 tliu deduction tlnrc- 
 
 :li they were sudicicnt 
 
 were to lie assunird l)y 
 
 iharged against liini. 
 
 iiown to tlio now jiart- 
 
 notcH which liuMtlir- 
 
 t() the plaint idhcforc 
 
 paid two of these notes 
 
 and had sonic uefjotiu- 
 
 )r an extension ol time 
 
 1 notes, l'erlfaj;;uty, 
 
 Minan, JJ. A., dideiiiig 
 
 dgnieiit of the Queen's 
 
 137, that no trust wus 
 
 the retiring partner by 
 
 |) of tliu new tirni, ami 
 
 :)t entitled to eiifurce 
 
 :ic performance of the 
 
 !s for payment of the 
 
 Burton, J. A. There 
 
 iiontshouhl lie adiiincd 
 
 lagarty, C. J. C». The 
 
 lied on the ground timt 
 
 an independent aj^rec- 
 
 rm and the plaintilftn 
 
 II. Per Huiton, Osier, 
 
 No such agreement 
 
 Williams, 3 Mer. 582, 
 
 neering Co., 10 Cli. D. 
 
 d. I'he court heing 
 
 to the result, tho ap- 
 
 costs. Hvmlrrxon v. 
 
 H. 1). Reverse. 1 S. C. 
 
 nj, 18 S. C. R. 098, p. 
 
 !. 391, p. 8.10; Kfiimly 
 It. 211, p. 493; Fuw 
 [). 593 ; O'mildi v. La 
 » S. C. R. 597 p. 1.13; 
 ', V. Melrai/c, 1 1 0. R. 
 ro,/(hj, l;i 0. R. 173; 
 Oill V. (rilmour, 14 
 wr V. Avnand, 16 S. 
 •on Clay Brick Mann- 
 lose, 19 O. R. 113, p. 
 
 ! 
 
 2061 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 III. Rkhitltino Tri«th, 
 
 A resulting trust arises onlv In favour of w 
 jiarty paying the whole or an alii|Uiit piirtof the 
 purchase money; and in such caKc the i nist is of 
 11 pal't of the purihased estate pio|i(irtioni'd to 
 tilt! sum paid. No such trust arises from the 
 eii'i^umstaiii'cs of a man making ailvances on he- 
 half of another who luis agreed to liuy the estate. 
 Sitiidi'i'idii V. AfcKiirhi r, 13 .\. R. .lOI. 
 
 The defendant, whose daiiuliter had married a 
 brother of the plaintill'aiid who was an executor 
 named in the will of .S., the father of the 
 pluintill', took a iiiori! than common interest in 
 the settlement (if his ti^statoi's estate. In coii' 
 ge(pienci' he suggested to the plaintill' the 
 desinihility of his |)Urcliasing the estate of one 
 (!. situated near tho S. homestead ; as hy so 
 doing the plaintill' could ret a i-i the (i. f.iriii ler.v- 
 ing the homestead to he e(|ually divided lietween 
 ills two hrothers: saying in inswer to plaintid's 
 ohjeetion of want of means that he dcl'eiidiint, 
 would assist him with his payments. 'I'he pur- 
 chase was aceorilin^dy ell'ccteil, and plaintiH' and 
 defendant paid up the purchase mom^y, hut not 
 ill any agri'cd pr'i|Hirtioiis, some of cletendant's 
 advances heing maile partly in cash and partly 
 in kind ami the conveyance was made to the 
 plaintill', tlie(lefeiidaiitsulpscril)iiigas the witness 
 and retaining ]ioss<'»sioii of the di'ed. On an 
 attempted settlement of their respective rights 
 tho defendant under the ciriMiiiistances insisted 
 that ho and the |ilaiiititr had imrcliased on joint 
 lieeount ami that there was a resulting trust in 
 his favour as to u moiety of tlic land and that 
 he was entitled to the then value thereof and 
 on jiroceediiif^s taken \>y the plaintill', Armour, 
 J., gave judgment for tiie defendant. On 
 appeal to this court ; — Held (Ifngarty, ('. .1. ()., 
 dissenting), thatonthi! i^vidcnee there was not 
 a resulting trust : that all defciidaiit could claim 
 was a lien f(Uthe amount advanced hy him; and 
 n reference was directed to take the aiu'ouiit and 
 if the amount found due should not he paid in 
 six months that the estate should he sold, the 
 amount due defendant paid to him and tlie 
 surplus, if any, jiaid to the plaintill'. Ih. 
 
 lint held hy tlie Supreme Court reversing the 
 judgnieiit of the court helow (13 .■\. R. .'i(il), and ! 
 conlirming the judgment of th<! trial judge, i 
 Henry, .1., dissenting, that the evidence gieiitly | 
 preponderated in favour of the eonteiition of 
 MeK. that the purchase' was a joint one hy him- 1 
 self and .S. : — Held, also, that S. heing liahle for ' 
 an ascertained ])ortion of the purchase money ! 
 there was a resulting trust in his favour for his 
 interest in the land, .V. (\ siih nom. McKercher 
 V. Sandcrwii, 15 S. C. R. SOti. 
 
 See Tapper v. Annand, 16 .S. C. R. 718, p. .324. 
 
 IV. KVIIIKN'CE OF TUI'ST. 
 
 In an action for the possession of lands under 
 a mortgage hy defemlant's brother W., and the 
 foreelosure thereof, the defendant claimed under 
 a trust of the lands by \V. in his favour ; and 
 also a title by jiossession. Tho trust was a parol 
 one, namely, that \V. should procure a lease of 
 the lands for defendant, who was then under 
 age, from the Canada Company, the lease ap- 
 parently containing a right of purchase ; and 
 should afterwaids pay the purchase money and 
 
 take the deed in 
 
 il not prevail ugainst plainti 
 
 rt *"■" ." > .'..i-i iiiib |iie\,iii u^aoisL piaillliws 
 
 mortgage, it, having been registered without no- 
 tiee of the trust ; H,.l,i, also, that the evidemo 
 tailed lo establish a title bv liossession, Hank 
 ij Miwlrnil V. Si.intrt, 110. U. 182. Itose. 
 
 See Mr/.niii v. /lnii-<\ •>'.) Cliy. 507, p. 2000. 
 
 V. X'.iicK okTuist. 
 
 O. W. I''., being the patentee of a certain lot 
 described as of '.'(lO acres, but in which thoru 
 was a <lelieieiiey, conveyed li.df the lot to .1 ■• 
 I'., who conveyed it to "trustees t(p ludd in i.usC 
 for K. I'"., wif(Mjf (1. W. 1''., upon certain trusts 
 di'daicil In the deed, ai.d witliout ]Miwi'r to her 
 to autieipat('. The delieieney \\nn sulise(|ueiitly 
 discovered ami U|i(iu the apiilieatioii to the gov- 
 ernment in the name of the trustees by(!. W. 
 I*'., whom they appoiiiteil their agent for that 
 jiiirpose, a grant of land, as iMimpeiisation for 
 the delieieney was made to the trustees of !■;. l<\ 
 ileseribiiig them as such. Subse(|uently an in- 
 strument uiwh'rseal, expressed to be made be- 
 tween J. I!. 1',, of the lir.st part, ami K. V., 
 wife of (i. \V. R, of tlu! second ])art, and the 
 trustees of the third part, which recite<l thc^ fact.s 
 and also that the trustees had no real interest 
 therein, but were named as grantees merely as 
 being the legal owners (jf the original half lot, 
 was cxeeiited hy ,1. 1',. I'. A K. !•'., whircliy they 
 declared that the )iarties of the lirst and second 
 parts were not in any way interested in the 
 lands granted as com))eiisatioii, and that tlits 
 trustees held them as trustees for (1. W. I''., tho 
 patentee of the original lot. After this the trus- 
 tees, by the direction of O. W. I''., e(uiveyed to 
 K. under whom tlic defendants claimed. K. K. 
 now brought this action to recover the land : - 
 Held (Hagarty, (,'.. I., dissenting), that M. and 
 those claiming iiuiler liini must be held to have 
 had notice of the title of the trustees, who woro 
 ('escribed in the patent as trustee's of K. F. : 
 that this land was subject to the trusts of tho 
 jirevious eonvcyaiico to them : that K. F. was 
 not cstojiped by the declaration executed by .1. 
 I). 1'. and licrself, which did not divest her of her 
 title, and that tin rctnre she was entitled to re- 
 cover;— Held, al-.", that there should be a refer- 
 ence to the master to take an account of taxes 
 paid and perm.ineiit improvements made upon 
 tho lands, further cot'sidtration being reserved. 
 Per Hagarty, U. J. Tl.o legal estate being in 
 the defendant by conveyaii.;e from the trustees, 
 the pl.iintift' should sliuw an eipiity to recover 
 what siio claimed as part of the trust estate, 
 which she had not done ; that the patent to the 
 trustees, though describing them as such, did 
 not in terms declare any trust respecting this 
 land, and it could not be assumed that it formed 
 part of the trust premises. Per Armour,_ J. 
 The case was not within R. S. 0. (1877) c. 9.5, s. 
 4, as to impiMvoments under a mistake of title, 
 but was governed by the principles of cciuity 
 governing the relationship of trustee and cestui 
 
2063 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2064 
 
 
 (juo trust. I'er Cimieinn, J. Tho case was 
 within thu Htiitnte. Fnott v. JHce, 4 O. 11. 94.— 
 Q. li. D. Hee next case. 
 
 The plaintiff, who wiis cestui que tnistof certain 
 lands held hy H. & P. under a settlement wiiich 
 provided u(,'ainBt anticipation, became a party 
 to an instrument, in which B. k. P. were named 
 as parties, but did not excctitc, which amongst 
 other things, dechired that B. & P. had no re.al 
 interest in certain lands which had been allotted 
 to and were pubseijucntly granted to them by a 
 patent froiu tlie Crown, in which they wore de- 
 Hcrilied as trustees for tho phiintifl, for tlio pur- 
 ])08e of making eoniponsation for a deficiency in 
 tho settled estate, and that the person really 
 entitled to such compensation was her husbaml, 
 O. VV. F. Subse((ueiitly 1). and P. executed a 
 similar declaration and afterwards (}. W. V. 
 joined with thcni in a conveyance of these lands 
 to a boniV fide purchaser (E.), nndor whom the 
 defendants claimed : — Held (aflirming the judg- 
 ment of Boyd, C, Gait, J., dissenting), (l)That 
 the lands granted us coinpensation were subject 
 to the term.! of the settlement ; (2) That the 
 plaintifTs docliiration in favour of her husband 
 was inoperative in face of the restraint upon 
 anticipation ; and ('A) that the terms of the grant 
 from the (Jrown were suflicient to put K. on in- 
 quiry, and that he and the defendants must be 
 taken to have had notice of the settlement, and 
 the phiintiiT was therefore entitled to recover. 
 Per ({alt. J. —The patent granting the compen- 
 sation described B. & P. as trustees of the plain- 
 tiir, but did not grant tho lands to them as such, 
 and it could not be assumed, in tho face of the 
 declaration as to tho title of G. W. F., that the 
 plaintiff was tho party entitled to such compen- 
 sation. Foolt V. Rice, 4 O. R. 91, atHrmed. 
 Foott V. Me<li'or<je, VI A. R. .351. 
 
 The plaintiff placed in the hand of one J., a 
 practising solicitor, a mortgage given to the 
 plaintiff by one R., together with a discharge 
 thereof duly executed, for the purpose of ena- 
 bling .J. to receive payment of the moitj^age 
 money, which 11. wa.s boriowing from a loan 
 company, and which it was arranged, between 
 the plaintiff and J., in the presence of tho local 
 manager of a bank of which J. was tho solicitor, 
 should be deposited by the solicitor in such 
 bank to the credit of the plaintiff, and a deposit 
 receipt obtained therefor. J. did receive the 
 money by a che(pio of the loan company, amount- 
 ing with interest to $6,455, which he (leposite<l 
 in the bank to his private account. About ten 
 days afterwards he drew upon his account for 
 $3,000, which he deposited m the same bank to 
 the cre<lit of the ))Liintiff, obtained a deposit re- 
 ceipt therefor in favourofthc plaintiff and trans- 
 mitted the same to the plaintiff on the 2(>lh of 
 August, I8S1, telling tho plaintiff in his letter 
 that " the balance will bo sent next week. " He 
 drew upon the fund for his own purposes, and 
 died, without rendering any account, on the 4th 
 September following : — Held, that tho bank was 
 not aflfectid with tho notice of the money so do- 
 posited being trust moneys, so as to render the 
 bank liable for J.'s misappropriation thereof. 
 After the deposit of the plaintifTs money .1. re- 
 covered a sum of $1,182.95 for the defendant S. 
 as her solicitor, which he also depositetl in the 
 same accouut on the 24th of August, IKKI. Up 
 to the time of J.'s death the amoant at his credit 
 
 always exceeded this sum : — Hold, that the 
 moneys so deposited by J. had been held by 
 him in a fiduciary character, and might be fol- 
 lowed by B. h S. : but (in this reversing tho 
 judgment of tho court below) as between tho 
 plaintiff .and .S. , that S. had a first charge upon 
 the sum at the credit of J. for the full amount 
 of her deposit, and that tho balance was appli- 
 cable to the discharge of tho plaintifTs demand. 
 The bank claimed the right to charge against 
 the account in priority to the claims of the 
 plaintiff ami S. cheques and notes of ,T. pre- 
 sented or maturing after notice to the bank of 
 J.'s death : — Held, that tiiey jould not do so, 
 and in consequence of luiviuj.' made such claim 
 both in this court anil the cou "t lielow thev were 
 refused their costs, liniley v. JeJlitt, 9A.R. 187. 
 
 A hfililer of shares "in trust" is not a ninn- 
 ilatairo prctc-noni and holds subject to a prior 
 title on tho part of some pfirson undisclosed. 
 .Such holding not being forl)idden by the law of 
 the colony a tr.insferee from such holder is 
 bound to enquire whether the transfer is auth- 
 orized by the nature of the trust. U<ii\k iif 
 
 Montreal V. 
 R. 0(51. 
 
 Sweeny, 12 App. Cas. 617 ; 12 S. C. 
 
 Three persons occupying a fiduciary position 
 towards a bank, became jjartners in a firm, 
 agreeing to p.ay for their intorestn a certain sinii 
 of money in li((uidation of creditors' claims. 
 They did pay this sum but out of moneys of the 
 bank wrongfully appropriated by them. Siih- 
 scijuently the firm was formed into a joint stock 
 company, and tho assets of the partii'^r.sliip were 
 assigned by the partners to tlu! company. Tho 
 company soon afterw.irds faileil, an<l a windinj;- 
 up order was made, tlie original assets, upiiii 
 whicli the bank claimed alien, to a cnnsiilcraMe 
 extent coming into the jKisscssion of the liijuida- 
 tor : — Held, that i\u: original partiuMS were iidt 
 affected with ccmstnuttive notice of the means 
 Ijy which the in omiug partners olitaincd the 
 moneys bi'ought in, and that no actual notice to 
 tliem or to the company being shewn tiie Iwok 
 had no lien, .ludgment of the ("ounty Court of 
 \'ork reversed. In re If err Piano Co., 17 A. 
 
 R. :}:i.3. 
 
 Tlie plaintiff obtained from a loan company an 
 advance on the security of ccsrtain sliares in a 
 joint stock company not nnmbered or caj)al)le of 
 identification, which were transferred by him t") 
 the managers of the lo.an company "intrust." 
 The managers were also brokers, and were as 
 brokers carrying on stock speculations for the 
 plaintiff, and he transferred to tliem as security 
 for the payment of " margins" certain other 
 shares in the same company, tho transfer hcinj; 
 in the same form " in trust." Sub.sef|ueiitly thu 
 loan company were paid off by the broker? at 
 the plaintiff's recjuest, and the brokers enntinneil 
 to h(dd the first shares as well as the others as 
 security. Upon all the shares the brokers then 
 obtained advances from a bank, transferring 
 them to the cashier "in trust," and from time 
 to time changed tho loan to other banks ami 
 fin.incial institutions each transfer being made 
 from and to the managers thereof " in trust." 
 An allotment of new shares was taken up by the 
 then holders of the ])ledged shares at the rcipiest 
 of the brokers. .Subsequently tho brokers on 
 the security of the old and new shares obtained 
 a loan from the defendants of a much larger 
 
in :— Hold, tlmt the 
 J. had boon licM by 
 ,er, 1111(1 miglit })e fol- 
 ia this reverHiiig the 
 d(iw) as ))i;t\vi;eii thn 
 til a first cliui'gu upon 
 . for the full amount 
 10 halaiiuo was nppli- 
 ho iilaiiitifTs duinand, 
 ht to charj,'i! against 
 to tlio c'laiiiiH of the 
 ami iiotos of J. prc- 
 iiotioe to tlio hunk of 
 ;licy jould not do so, 
 viiif.' made suoli claim 
 oou-t h(dow tlifcvwcre 
 f/v. J<Uitt, 9A,R. 187. 
 
 I trust" is not a iiinn- 
 ilds subject to a prior 
 le pni'son undisclosed, 
 orhiddon by the law of 
 from suoli liolder is 
 r the transfer is aiith- 
 t the trust, linnk nf 
 ipp. Cas. 017 ; 12 S. C. 
 
 ing a fi<luciary position 
 c partners in a firm, 
 intorcstH a certain sum 
 1 of creditors' chiims. 
 ut out of moneys of the 
 riated by them. Snh- 
 )rmed into a Joint stock 
 of the partnoiship were 
 to tlio company. The 
 3 failoil, and awiiidinj;- 
 original assets, upon 
 alien, to a eniisidcrahle 
 lossession of the liijuidi- 
 giiial partners were not 
 I'e notice of tiie inoana 
 ; partners ohfaineil tlic 
 that no actual notice to 
 being shewn tlie bank 
 of tlie (bounty Court oi 
 If err I'Inmt Co., 17 A. 
 
 from a loan eonipany an 
 / of certain shares in a 
 , numbered or cajiahlc of 
 re transferred by him to 
 an company "hi trust." 
 " brokers, and were as 
 )ck speculations for the 
 rred to them as security 
 
 margins" certain other 
 pany, the transfer hein^ 
 ust. " .Suh.se(iueiitly i\v: 
 d otr by the brokers at 
 ml tlio brokers contiiiueil 
 
 as well as tlie others as 
 
 shares the lirokers then 
 in a bank, transferring 
 n trust," and from time 
 oan to other banks and 
 icli transfer being made 
 gers thereof " in trust." 
 ares was taken up by the 
 ged shares at tlie reiiiiest 
 Kjueiitly the brokers on 
 and new shares obtained 
 danta of a iimcli larger 
 
 2065 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2068 
 
 amount than the amount duo by the plaintilf to 
 the brokers, the shares being transferred by tlie 
 then holders to the defendants :— Held, revers- 
 ing the judgment of Street, J. (19 O. R. 272), 
 that the defendants were entitled to hold the 
 stock as security for the full amount advanced 
 by them to the brokers ; and that the words " in 
 trust" in the transfers meant that the various 
 transferees were holding the shares "intrust" 
 for their respective institutions. Dui/'ian v. 
 Londnh <fr Canndian Loan and Arjtnry Co., 18 
 A. R. 303. 
 
 One 01 two joint trustees assumed to lend trust 
 moneys on the security f)f mortgages on land, 
 taking the mortgages to himself alone "us 
 trustee of the estate and eflTccts of ,1. C, de- 
 ceased." These mortgages were hyjiotliecati^d 
 by him to, and moneys were advanced to him by, 
 the defendants, ostensibly to meet an unexpected 
 call by one of the beneficiaries ; but tlie moneys 
 were not so applied, nor otherwise for tlie bene- 
 fit of the estate, and they were not re(|nired for 
 any such ])uri)08es under the terms of the will 
 creating *\ e trust. In an action by the other 
 trustee and two new trustees, who were also 
 beneficiaries, appointed in his stead :— Hold, 
 that he had been guilty of two breaches of trust, 
 and that the plaintiffs were entitled to follow 
 the trust securities and to make tlie tlefendants 
 account for all moneys received by t'-ein there- 
 under. Ciimming v. Landed liunkin / and, Loan 
 Co., 19 0. R. 420.— lioyd. Affirmed 20 0. R. 382. 
 
 See WriqU v. Le.i/.% 8 0. T?. S8, p. 1875 ; finnk 
 of Montreal v. Stewart, 14 O. R. 482, p. 2062. 
 
 VI. TRn.STEES. 
 
 1. Apvf'nline.nt of. 
 
 A testator devised certain jiroporties to H . F. 
 M,, .7. H. M., and D. M., as tenants in common, 
 ami charged tlie same with .SIOO.OOO to lie paid 
 by them to his son, and two daugiiters, married 
 women, share and share alike, through his wife 
 M. M. , as trustee as tiiorein mentione<l ; and 
 directed that at the death of M. M. tlie said 
 $10,000 should be hold by tlie said dovisces 
 and iheir survivors on the trusts of tlie will, 
 "unless my said wife shall have previously 
 appointed, by will or otherwise, any other person 
 or persons to be a trustee in Ii ;r place, which I 
 hereby authori/e and give her power to do." On 
 5th November, 1873, M. M., by deed professed 
 to nominate and appoint L. R. and .1. U., to be 
 trustees in her place under the will, and after- 
 wards by another deed of 0th October, 1877, 
 again appointed L. R. and .1. U. to bo such 
 trustees ; — Held, that the will only autliorizc<l 
 M. M., to appoint a trustee to bo such after her 
 death, and neither of the appointments of L. R. 
 and J. U. were authorized iiy tiic will :— HeM, 
 however, that although R. S. O. (1877), e. 107, 
 8. 30, could not be invoked to authorize either 
 appointment, since it did not come into force till 
 3l8t December, 1877, yet under 40 Vict. e. 8, s. .10. 
 (Ont.), assented to on 2nd March, 1877, the latter 
 appointment was a good and valid one, for tliat 
 Aet applies to the case of a trustee appointed 
 before the passing of it, who desires to be dis- 
 charged from the trust, and consequently money 
 paid to M. M. as such trustee, after the appoint- 
 ment of 6th October, 1877, did not discharge the 
 
 130 
 
 debt :— Held, also, that tiio fact that L. R. and 
 J. U. were the husbands of the fom.ile cestuis quo 
 trust, altliough it ajipeared from the will that 
 tlio testator intended that tiie legacies should be 
 free from the control of any present or future 
 husband, did not make the aiipointment ImiJ, 
 altliough it miglit be that if the court were ap- 
 pointing trustees, the iiusliaiids of the cestuis 
 (jue tri.stent would not be appointed. McLmhtin 
 V. Unhorne; Magee v. Unbome, 7 0. R. 297.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 40 Vict. c. 8, s. .SO (Ont.), is very bnwwl 
 in its language, and a trustee who has from the 
 beginning been a sole trustee h;iH, under it, the 
 same position and power iis a last retiring trustee, 
 or a sole surviving trustee, /ft. 
 
 Senible, that 40 Vict. c. 8, s. 30 (Ont.), is 
 prospective and not retrospective in this seuBc, 
 that it would not make valid tlie appointment 
 of trustees made prior to its jiaasing without 
 authority. lb 
 
 See //I re Treleven and Horner, 28 Chy. 624, 
 p. 2081. 
 
 2. Acceptance of Tnist, ' ' 
 
 The plaintiffs, A. & .1. filed a bill for the pur- 
 pose of having a deed made to tiie defendant by 
 .). declared void, as having been obtained by 
 fraud and misrepresentation. The bill alleged 
 that J. had subsequently made a deed of the 
 same property to A., for the T>'irpos(! of remedy- 
 ing, as far as ho could, the wrong he had done 
 by conveying to the defendant— tlie bill alleging 
 that such deed to A. was made to him "as 
 trustee for the heirs of A. M." who had died 
 seized. The bill in no place alleged that A. was 
 trustee, but in the following paragraph it was 
 stated that " before the execution of such last 
 mentioned deed the heirs of the said A. M., who 
 .nrj the rightful owners of the said land," etc.- - 
 Held, tliat notwithstiuiding the absence of any 
 cpross allegation of A. being such trustee, suffi- 
 cient was stated to shew that he had accepted 
 the office of trustee, and as such was entitled to 
 litigate the subject matters of the bill, and a de- 
 murrer for want of equity was overruled with 
 costs. A demurrer ore tonus for misjoinder of 
 plaintiffs, it appearing by the will that .1. had no 
 interest in the questions raised, was allowed, 
 without costs. Roche i,-. Jordan, 20 (,'hy. 573, 
 followeil. McLf-an v. lirucc, 29 Chy. 507. 
 
 3. Ghanfie oj. 
 
 The R. S. O. (1877). c. 107, s. 3, provides that 
 every new trustee shall have the same jmwers, 
 authorities, and discretions, and shall in all re- 
 spects act as if he had originally been nominatoil 
 a trustee by th' deed, will, or other instrument 
 creating the trust. Where a mortgage made in 
 favour of two trustees of a marriage settlement, 
 and which contained a power of sale exercisable 
 by them, but not by an assignee of the mortgage, 
 not lieing in conformity with the Short Form of 
 Mortgage Act, was together with the lands 
 therein, on the resignation of the trustees, as- 
 signed to a new trustee appointed in their place: 
 —Held, that the new trustee stood in the place of 
 the former trustees, and could exercise the power 
 
2067 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 of sale, not as an assignee of the estate, but as 
 if appointed a trustee by the deed creating the 
 trust. Jic. aUmour and White, 14 O. R. 694.— 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 See McLachUn v. Ushorne ; Mwjee v. Unhorne, 
 7 0. R. 297, p. 2066. 
 
 4. Removal of. 
 
 In an action to account and for removal from 
 trusteeship instituted by the party who had ap- 
 pointed the defendant trustee and curator to a 
 substitution created by marriage contract, a tutor 
 ad hoc to the minor cliildren and appol^s to the 
 substitution has not suiHcient quality to inter- 
 vene in said suit to represent the minors. Art. 
 269 C. C. provides for the only case where a 
 tutor ad hoc can be appointed to minors. Strong, 
 J., dissenting. Rattray v. Larue, 15 S. C. 1{. 
 102. 
 
 In an action by an incorporated educational 
 institute for the removal of one of the trustees, 
 ■who also acted as secretary, for alleged improper 
 dealing with the corporate funds, judgment was 
 given, but without any finding of wilful miscon- 
 duct, directing such trustee's removal, on the 
 ground that so much doubt was cast upon his 
 dealings with the trust funds that it wmdd not 
 bo proper to allow him to remain a member of 
 the board. Such an action is maintainable witli- 
 out making the .attorney-general a party. Wil- 
 herforre Ediicalionid InstitxUe v. Holden, 17 0. 
 R. 439.— Rose. 
 
 5. Compensation and Allowance. 
 
 Held, following the case of the commission- 
 ers of tlie Cobourg Town Trust, '22 Chy, 377, 
 that the commissioners of the Toronto Harbour 
 were entitled to compensation for their services; 
 and this whetlier tlio iiarbour belonged to the 
 Dominion or the Provincial Government, as in 
 the event of it being found to belong to tli" 
 Dominion it niu.st be assumed thattiie Dominion 
 Government intended the conuuissioners to be 
 subject to the law of tlie province in wliicli tJie 
 trust was to l)e administered. Re The Toronto 
 Harbour CommimionerK, 28 Chy. 195. — Spragge. 
 
 The .«!nm to lie allowed sliould be such as 
 would be a reasonable compensation for the ser- 
 vices rendered, and at the same time such a 
 moderate amount as would not be an inducement 
 to members of tlio city council, or of the board 
 of trade, or otliers, to seek the office for the 
 sake of tlie emolument. Tlie duties of the office 
 licing shown to be not at all onerous, an allow- 
 ance of $50 a year was named as sufficient to 
 obtain tlie services of tlie riglit class of men to 
 discharge them. lb. 
 
 The rule that a trustee must not have a pre- 
 Bonal interest in conflict with his duty as such 
 trustee, applies as well to public as to private 
 trusts. Therefore, where one of the commis- 
 sioners of a harbour had large landed interests 
 adjacent to and upon one part of it, and was 
 interested in having that portion of the harbour 
 improved, the court (Spragge, C), on directing 
 an allowance to be made to the commissioners 
 for their services, expressly excepted the com- 
 missioner so interested from participating there- 
 in, and this although he had not applied for any 
 
 compensation and had at the board of commis- 
 sioners opposed any such allowance being made. 
 lb. 
 
 VA'liat is proper compensation to be allowed to 
 a trustee foi his management of the trust estate 
 is a matter of opinion, and even if, in grantinf 
 the allowance, the court below may have citdII 
 on tlie side of liberality that alone is not suffi. 
 cient ground for reversing the judgment. Where 
 the master at (Juelph had iillowed §125, wliich 
 the court, on appeal, increased to 8250, this 
 court refused to interfere, McDonald v 
 Davidson, 6 A. R. 320. 
 
 Trustees on assuming the trust estate are not 
 to be allowed a commission for merely taiiiiig 
 the same over ; but trustees, properly dealing 
 with the estate, and handing it over on the de- 
 termination of the trust, are entitled to one com. 
 mission, for the receipt and proper application 
 of the estate, payable out of the corpus. A'e 
 Berkeley's Trusts, 8 P. R. 193. -Blake. 
 
 Trustees are not entitled to a coniniissioii for 
 the investment or reinvestment of the funds of 
 the estate. They are entitled to a com mission 
 on the receipt and payment of the income of the 
 estate, payable out of the income, and to a coin- 
 pensation for looking after the estate, payalile 
 out of the corpus. lb. 
 
 Trustees may not unreasonably be allowed 
 something for services not covered by the mm- 
 mission awarded, lb. 
 
 The master has power to allow a luiiii) sum t<) 
 a trustee as his remuneration for the care nnd 
 management of real estate, but to entitle him to 
 such sum there ought to lie evideiite to eiialile 
 the court reasonably to see tliat the services fur 
 which such sum is asked have been renilenil, 
 and to make a proper allowance therefor. Win re 
 a master fixed a sum on evidence, nut xntlicicmly 
 particular, the case, on appeal, was referred Imol; 
 to him, with leave to the trustee to give pi(i|ifr 
 evidence. The trustee to pay the costs of the 
 appeal and the additional costs in the master's 
 office. Stinson v Slinsou, 8 P. R. 5(i0. — Ferjiu- 
 son. 
 
 It is incident to the office oi a trustee that 
 the trust property shall reiiiilnirse him for his ex- 
 penses in administering the trust ; and a clause 
 so indemnifying a trustee is infused into every 
 trust deed; and the statute R. S. 0. (1877), i'. 
 107, s. 3, does little more than what courts of 
 equity had been accustomed to do without any 
 statutory direction. Therefore a trustee who 
 had beeni r 'iced by a settler to accept a trust 
 under an instrument void by the law of the 
 settler's domicile, is entitled to be reinilairsed 
 by such settler for all liis expenses incurred in 
 the execution of the trust. Jfiu/hcs v. AVe*. ID 
 P. R. .301. — Hodgins, Master in Ordinary. 
 
 Semble, that though the trust deed in ques- 
 tion was invalid, and notwitlistanding Smith r. 
 Dresser, L. R. 1 Eq. 651, .35 Reav. .378, yet m 
 against one who himself assisted in creating the 
 trust, a trustee acting -nder it would have lieen 
 entitled to expenses ...curred in respect of it ; 
 but upon the facts stated in the report, it wm 
 hold that the sums claimed were not shewn to 
 have been incurred in respect of the trust deed. 
 S. C, 9 0. R. 198.— Proudfoot. 
 
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2070 
 
 at the board of commis- 
 ;li allowance being made. 
 
 )en.sation to be allowed to 
 ;eincnt of the trust estate 
 
 aiul even if, in grantinv 
 lit below may have erred 
 ,y tliut alone is not sutti- 
 ng the judgment. Where 
 had allowed §125, wliich 
 
 increased to $250, this 
 tcrfere. McDonald v. 
 
 g the trust estate are not 
 tiission for merely taking 
 rustecs, properly dealiiiu 
 anding it over on the (le- 
 st, are entitled to one com- 
 )t and proper ai)plicati(m 
 out of the corpus. He. 
 1\. 193. -Blake. 
 
 titled to a conimiasioii fur 
 nvestment of the funds of 
 3 entitled to a commission 
 yment of tlio incimic of the 
 the income, and to a ciini- 
 after the estate, payalilc 
 
 unreasonably be allowed 
 !S not covered by the mm- 
 I. 
 
 i\'er to allow a Uun]) sum to 
 uneration for the care and 
 state, but to entitle him to 
 t to be evidence to eiialilc 
 to see tl\at the services fur 
 skcd have been rcnilprcl, 
 allowiiiice therefor. Wlii're 
 on evidence, not sutlicicmly 
 III appeal, was referred kick 
 I) the trustee to give jjrdpcr 
 tee to pay the costs of the 
 ional costs in the master's 
 in.to)i, 8 I". R. 500.— Feij!U- 
 
 ;he oflicc oi a trustee that 
 allreindnirse him for his ex- 
 ing the trust ; anil a clause 
 ustce is infused into every 
 3 statute 11. S. 0. (1877), o. 
 more than what couits of 
 ;ustom<'d to do without any 
 I'lierd'are a trustee wiio 
 F a settler to accept ii trust 
 it void by the law of the 
 
 entitled to be reimliursed 
 .11 bis expenses incurred in 
 
 trust. JIuiiliM v. 7iVc«, I" 
 8, Mailer in Ordinary. 
 
 igh the trust deed in quo 
 d notwithstanding Smitli r. 
 p f.51, 35 15eav. 378, yet M 
 iself assisted in creatiiiR the 
 ng -nder it would have neon 
 38 ...curred in respect of it; 
 stated ill the report, it wss 
 claimed were not shewn to 
 in respect of the trust deed. 
 -Proudfoot. 
 
 Trustees under a marriage settlement exchang- 
 ed an investment of the estate in Manitoba lands 
 into the stock of a land company. Nothing by 
 way of income had ever been realized from either 
 land or stock, and it was stated that both were 
 vjueless. The responsibility of making the 
 exchange was taken away by the consent of 
 those interested : — Hold, that a percentage upon 
 the nominal value of the stock was not the way 
 to arrive at the trustees' reniuneratioii, but that 
 they should be allowd a sum to cover their 
 trouble in making the exchange ; and the allow- 
 ance made by a referee was reduced from .«!lf)3. - 
 50 to $50. liePritlie Trmls, 13 P. R. 19.— Street. 
 
 Certain rents were collected liy the tnistetis 
 through an agent, whom they paid l)y cominis- 
 Bion :— Held, that they were justified in employ- 
 ing an agent to make the actual collections for 
 them, but were bound to look after the agent, 
 and for their care, trouble, and responsibility 
 were entitled to an allowance of two and ahalf 
 per cent, upon the rents collected, lli. 
 
 In the province of Nova Scotia prior to the 
 passing of 51 Vict. c. 11, s. r)9, the rule of Eng- 
 Ush law relating to commission to trustees \\'as ' 
 in force, and no such commission could be allow- 
 ed unless provided by the trust. Powtr v. 
 Meaoher, 17 S. C. R. 287. 
 
 See Haijes v. Bai/ex, 29Chy. 90, p. 1682; liurn 
 V. Oifford, 8 P. R. 44, p. 2079; Burn v. Jiiirn, 8 
 0. E. 237, p. 1422; Taylor v. Mwjrath, 10 O. li. 
 669, p. 2079; Re Bolt and Iron Co. — Linmixtone'n 
 Case, 14 0. R. 211 ; 16 A. R. 397, pp. 2(iu, 267. 
 
 See also Exkcutors and Admini.stkators. 
 
 6. Deleijation of Paver Inj Trtintee. 
 Seo Smith v. SlcLellau, 11 O. R. 191. 
 
 7. Power of Trustee to bind Co- Trustee. 
 See Davin v. Lems, 8 0. R. 1, p. 2072. 
 
 9. Inrcx/nifiilsby. 
 
 A., on his marriage, having conveyed a certain 
 farm (which was then under contract of sale) to 
 the trustee of his marri.igo settlement, provided 
 that the purchase money, if the sale was carried 
 out, and the land itself, if the sale was not car- 
 ried out, was to bo held subject to the trusts of 
 the settlement, as follows : " And it is hereby 
 agreed by and between the parties hereto, that 
 on the payments of principal being made from 
 time to time by the said J. J. V.[(purchaser) , the 
 Kud S. ]}. H. (trustee), or any other trustee or 
 trustees to be appointed as hereinafter mention- 
 ed, shall invest the same in such estate or secu- 
 rities, whether real or personal, and of what 
 nature or kind soever as to him or them shall 
 seem best, and most advantageous to the inter- 
 est of the trust hereby created, and on such in- 
 vestments being from time to time realized the 
 lame to reinvest in like manner." The settle- 
 Kant also provided that if the said J. J. V. for- 
 feited any right be had to the said real estate it 
 ihould vest in the trustee for the purposes and 
 Mes of the said trusts thereinbefore mentioned 
 M regards the purchase money with full power 
 to lease or sell the same, etc. The purchaser, J . 
 
 J. v., having failed to carry out his purchase, 
 and having reliiupiiahcd any claim ho had to the 
 farm, the trustee subsc(iuently exchanged the 
 farm for a city lot. On an agreement for a sale 
 of the city lot, the ]nircliascr declined to can y 
 out the purchase on the ground that the trustee 
 had no power under the settlement to sell and 
 convey. On an application by the trustee un- 
 der the Vendors and Purchnseis' Act, R. S. (). 
 (1877), c. 109, it was :--Held. that there wa.s 
 a tlircction to invest in real estate, and following 
 .loiiit Stock iJiscountCo. r. Brown, L. l\. 3hA\. 
 139, that " investing in" means the " actual pur- 
 chase," and the purclia.ser's objections were over- 
 ruled, with costs, h'r JIaririrk awl Lul three mi. 
 the north sid". of Kinij Htreel '. the City of Toronto 
 5 0. R. 710. -Boyd. 
 
 A testator, by his will, devised all his pro- 
 perty to trustees upon trust, after providing fur 
 certain annuit'is, to accumulate the income of 
 tiio residue for ton years, and tlicn to hohl the 
 estate for the biiietit of his soils and daughtcis 
 as therein nientioned, or in the case of a son or 
 daughter who might be dead, to li(dd tlic shan. 
 <if such .son or daughter accoi'diiig to the pru- 
 visiiins of his or her will, and in default of any 
 such will, for any children, him or her surviving, 
 and if no such cliihl, then over. He also em- 
 powered his trustees to make advances to his 
 sons and daughters, or any eliildrcn of his sons 
 and daughters, as they might deem advisable, 
 out of the inc<mie of the share of such son or 
 daughter or child, an<l authorized them to invest 
 the moneys of the estate in such securities as 
 they should think proper, and to continue any 
 business he might be engaged in at the time of 
 his decease, for one year after his deat. At 
 the time of his decease the testator was a part- 
 ner in a firm of distillers. A few months after 
 his death, the surviving partner and the repre- 
 sentatives of his estate turned the business into 
 a joint stock company, the testator's share of 
 the assets of the partnershii), with the assent of 
 all his children, being valued and put in as so 
 much stock. Aceordiiig to the fundamental 
 agreement entered into ))y the corporators, a 
 large share of the profits of the company were 
 annually accumulated as a reserve fund. After 
 a period of seven years, the interest of the estate 
 of the testator in the company was bought out 
 by the surviving partner at a large advance, 
 based upon the amount of profits so accumula- 
 ted in the reserve fund, with an allowain'e for 
 the prospective amount of such [irofits in future 
 years:— Held, that the above employment of the 
 funds of the estate was technically a ] -i.-udi of 
 trust, and an improper investment ^ .:ci- the 
 terms of the will. " Investment" is m.t a pro- 
 per term astomoneja in trade; and "security" 
 means such security as binds lands or something 
 to be answerable for it :— Held, however, that 
 the reserve of profits derived from the user aiul 
 increase of the capital, was jjroperly regarded 
 income, out of which or out of tliat part of the 
 purchase money wliich represented the same, 
 advances might be made by the trustees, under 
 the will. Distinction between this case, and 
 one between tenants for life and reniaindernien, 
 pointed out. iror/.iv. iVorIx, IS O. R. 332.- 
 Boyd. 
 
 Where moneys are left by will to be invested 
 at the discretion of the executor or trustee, 
 
2071 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2072 
 
 S 
 
 « 
 
 I: 
 
 Ma 
 
 IS 
 
 i 
 
 the discretion so given cannot be exeroiBcd other- 
 wise than according to law, and does not warrant 
 an investment in personal securities or securities 
 not sanctioned by tlie court. Spratt v. Wilnon, 
 19 0. R. 28.- Boyd. 
 
 Held, that an executor and trustee who de- 
 posited funds so left in trust for infants, at 
 three and a-half or four per cent, interest, in a 
 savings bank, did not conform to his duty ; and 
 his failure to do so exposed him to pay the legal 
 rate of interest for tlie money, although he acted 
 innocently and honestly ; and the acquiesenco 
 of the statutory guardian of the infants, not 
 being for their benelit, did not relieve him : — 
 Held, also, that the defendant was not entitled 
 to costs out of the fund, but that he should be 
 relieved from paying costs. lb. 
 
 See Burritt v. Burritt, 27 Cliy. 14.S ; Beaty v. 
 Sham, 13 O. R. 21 ; 14 A. R. 600, p. 71(i; Be 
 Oahourie — Caxey v. Gahourk, 1.3 O. !>. 6.3u, p. 
 721 ; Be J. T. Smi/h'K Tru.st.s, No. „\ 18 O. U. 
 327, p 2080; Ciimmivi; v. Landed Banldn<i and 
 Loan Co., 19 0. R. 426 ; 20 O. R. 382, p. 2065. 
 
 10. Sales and Leases by. 
 
 The plaintiflf being indebted to the defendants 
 as indorser in the sum of about §7,000, and being 
 pressed for payment, wliich he was unable to 
 make, transferred to the defendants certain 
 timl)er limits which lie stated had cost him 
 $25,000, to hold as security for his indebtedness, 
 and for the purpose of enabling them to sell it 
 and realize their debt. The regulations of the 
 crown lands department, however, forbade the 
 recognition of any conditional transfer, and 
 therefore the assignment was in terms absolute. 
 The defendants, without adopting any means of 
 ascertaining the probable value of the limits, 
 offered them for sale by public auction, with the 
 assent of the plaintiff, when, no sufficient offer 
 having been made they were withdrawn, and, 
 without having made any further inquiry as to 
 value, they were sold by private sale, without 
 consulting the plaintiff for $6,000. The limits 
 were subsequently sold by the purchaser for a 
 very large sum. Previous to the attempted sale 
 by auction the defendants had received several 
 offers of sums more than sufficient to pay off 
 their claim. In an action brouglit by the plain- 
 tiff against the defendants for selling at a grossly 
 inadequate price. Armour, J., gave judgment 
 in favour of the plaintiff, with S19,C54..38 dam- 
 ages, which, on appeal to this court, was affirmed 
 with costs, Hagarty, C. J. O., dissenting, on the 
 ground that, under all the circumstances, tliere 
 should be a new trial for the purpose of further 
 investigation. Per Burton and Patterson, JJ. A. 
 The defendants sold by private contract, with- 
 out authorization, and did not take proper steps 
 to have the limits valued. Per Osier, J.A. 
 The defendants were bound to exercise proper 
 care and discretion, and to adopt such means as 
 would be adopted by a pruilnnt man to get the 
 best price that could lie obtained. Prentice v. 
 Consolidated Bank, 13 A. R. 6!>. 
 
 The trustees of M., deceased, who held the 
 legal estate in land in trust for sale for the pur- 
 pose of a reservoir, sold to one Z, in 18.'54, a 
 portion of lot ten, Niagara Falls survey, for the 
 purpose of a reservoir, the intention being to run 
 
 a line of pipes 
 Fa- 
 
 over the residue of said lot to 
 Niagara Falls, where a fpump-house was to be 
 constructed for the purpose of forcing the water 
 to the reservoir, and thence it was to be distri- 
 buted by pipes over the town of Niagara Falls. 
 T. B., as well as E. B. M., the acting trustee, 
 agreed to extend this lease for ever at a rental 
 to be fixed every twenty-one years. The trustees 
 subsequently sold the land in question to S. B.. 
 son of T. B., whose place, it was understood, 
 S. B. was to take, T. B. having the right of pur- 
 chase under his lease, and having expended large 
 sums in improving tlie property. S. B. subse- 
 quently mortgaged to a certain company, who 
 sold under foreclosure proceedings to the plain- 
 tiff'. The land through which such pipes were to 
 run had been devised by one M. to E. B. M., his 
 wife and three others as trustees. Ir icj54 E.B. 
 M. alone leased it to T. B. for '-.urteen years. 
 In 1854 T. B. leased a strip f^^M, feet wide by 
 650 feet long to Z, for the x^urpose of laying his 
 pipes therein, for ten ye.irs, at a nominal rent, 
 and both T. B. and E. B. M., in that year, by 
 seperate iustrumcrics, covenanted with S. B. that 
 she or T. B., it he should purchase the land 
 under a provision in his lease for that purpose, 
 would continue the lease to Z. for twenty-one 
 years, perpetually renewable, at a rent to be 
 fixed by arbitration. Z. constructed the reser- 
 voir, etc., and laid down the pipes in 1854, and 
 the town had been supplied by them ever since, 
 In 1864 E. B. M. gave a further lease to T. B. 
 for seven years, and in 1868 she convoyed toS, 
 B., the appointee of T. B., his father. S. B. 
 mortgaged to a loan company, who sold under a 
 decres for sale to the plaintiff, stating in the ad- 
 vertisement that it was subject to the right of 
 the defendants, who represented Z., to lay their 
 water-pipes under the lease from T. 15. to Z. 
 After the expiration of that lease no further lease 
 had been executed, but $12 a year was by agree- 
 ment, paid as rent to T. B. and to 8. B, until 
 the title became vested in the plaintiff, who re- 
 fused to accept rent or to recognize defendants' 
 rights, an'.', brought trespas.'i against them :— 
 Held, 1. That the lease of 1850 by E. B, M. 
 alone was not liinding on her co-trustees unless 
 they could be shown to have agreed to it ; 2. 
 Tiiat the right of Z. to get a lease from T. B,, 
 under the covenant of 1854, contir.ncd as against 
 T. B. under the second lease of 18C i ; 3. That 
 the defendants having under the covenants of 
 T. B. and E. B. M., taken possession and con- 
 structed tlie works, which were of a permanent 
 and expensive character, and for the pul)lic bene- 
 fit, and having paid rent up to the time of the 
 plaintiffs acquiring title, and all parties having 
 had notice, and having made no objection, they 
 were entitled to an injunction staying the action, 
 and to a lease for twenty-one years, rcnewableat 
 a rent to be fixed by arbitration or by the regis- 
 trar of the court. Davis v. Lewis, 8 0, R, 1.— 
 Q. B. 1). 
 
 Trustees under the will of F. S., holding cer- 
 tain lands by virtue thereof on trust to sell m 
 soon as conveniently might be after her decease, 
 and distribute the proceeds among her children, 
 one of whom was D. V. L , contracted to sell 
 the said lauds to one H. T. There were at the 
 time writs of fieri facias in the sheriifs hands 
 against the lands of D. V. L. , some of which had 
 been placed therein before the date of the swd 
 contract :— Held, nevertheless, that the said 
 
2072 
 
 residue of said lot to 
 
 jump-houae was to be 
 
 me of forcing the water 
 
 ice it was to be diatri- 
 
 town of Niagara Falls. 
 
 M,, the acting trustee, 
 
 ise for ever at a rental 
 
 one years. The trustees 
 
 ad in question to S. B„ 
 
 ce, it was understood, 
 
 liaving the right of pnr- 
 
 d having expended large 
 
 iroperty. S. B. subse- 
 
 certain company, who 
 
 roceedings to the plain- 
 
 which such pipes were to 
 
 one M. to K. B. M., his 
 
 trustees. It- ici54 E.B. 
 
 B. for '^artcen years. 
 
 trip f'jjht feet wide by 
 
 he jiurpose of laying his 
 
 .irs, at a nominal rent, 
 
 B. M. , in that year, by 
 
 )vcnantcd with 8. 15. that 
 
 ould purchase the land 
 
 3 lease for that purpose, 
 
 ase to Z. for twenty-one 
 
 ewable, at a rent to be 
 
 Z. constructed the reser- 
 
 ^n the pipes in 1854, and 
 
 plied by them ever since. 
 
 a further lease to T. B. 
 
 1868 she conveyed to S. 
 
 '. B., his father. S. R 
 
 mipany, who sold under a 
 
 jlaiutiff, stating in the ad- 
 
 Ls subject to the right of 
 
 ^presented Z., to lay their 
 
 ,e lease from T. B. to Z, 
 
 f that lease no further lease 
 
 it $12 a year was by agree- 
 
 ) T. B. and to tS. B. until 
 
 id in the plaintifl', who re- 
 
 ir to recognize defendants' 
 
 trespasH against them :— 
 
 ease of 1850 by E. B. M. 
 
 r on her co-trustees unless 
 
 1 to have agreed to it ; 2. 
 
 to get a lease from T. B., 
 
 f 1854, contir.'ied as against 
 
 id lease of ISCi ; 3. That 
 
 ig under the covenants of 
 
 taken possession and con- 
 
 vhich were of a permanent 
 
 ter, and for the public bene- 
 
 rent up to the time of the 
 
 tie, and all parties having 
 
 ug made no objection, they 
 
 junction staying the action, 
 
 inty-one years, rcnewableat 
 
 arbitration or by the regis- 
 
 >afw V. Lewis, 8 0. R. l.- 
 
 3willof F. S., holding cer- 
 thereof on trust to sell m 
 • might be after her decease, 
 roceeds among her children, 
 3. V. L , contracted to seU 
 J H. T. There were at the 
 facias in the sheriffs handi 
 D. V. L., some of which b»a 
 before the date of the aafd 
 levertheless, that the said 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2074 
 
 writs did not form any incumbrance on the lands 
 in the hands of the trustees so as to prevent 
 them conveying the same to a purchaser inde- 
 fectibly, and that any share of the purchase 
 money which D. V. L. was entitled to he would 
 get as personal, not as real estate .-—Held, also, 
 that the purchaser was not bound to .see to the 
 application of the purchase money. He Lewin 
 and Thome, 14 O. R. 133.— Boyd. 
 
 The executors of an estate were authorized by 
 the will to sell such portion of the real estate as 
 they iu their discretion should think necessary 
 to pay oflf a mortgage and such debts as the per- 
 sonal estate would not discharge. They offtrcd 
 for sale at auction a lot described as sixty acres 
 (more or less) section 78, Loch End Farm, Vic- 
 toria District, and giving the boundaries on three 
 sides. The lot was unaurveyed and was ollered 
 for sale by the acre, an upset price of $33 being 
 tixed. By tlie conditions of snle a survey was 
 to be made after tlie sale al l.-i- joint expense of 
 vendors and purchasers. S. purchased the lot 
 for §31) an acre and on being surveyed it was 
 found to contain 117 acres. The executors re- 
 fused to convey tliat (quantity, alleging that only 
 some §2,000 was rutjuired to jiay the del)ts of 
 the estate, and refused to execute a deed of tlie 
 117 acres teudercd by S. In a suit by S. for 
 spijcific performance of the contract for sale of 
 the whole lot : — Held, reversing the judgment 
 of the court below and restoring that of the 
 judge on the hearing, Gwynne, J., dissenting, 
 thatS. was entitled to a conveyance of the 117 
 acres, and that the executors would not be 
 guilty of a breach of trust in conveying that 
 (juautity. iV-d v. McLean, 14 S. C. R. G3'J. 
 
 A testator gave all his estate, real and per- 
 sonal, to trustees upon trust to allow and give 
 the use thereof to his wife during her life for 
 her support and nuiiutcnance, and after her 
 death, to sell and divide the proceeds among liis 
 children equally :— Held, that the wife liad tlie 
 right to leave the farm and deal herself directly 
 with the tenant during i. r life. In this case 
 those entitled in nunaiuder were the adult chil- 
 dren of tliu life tenant, and no active duties 
 were cant by tiie will upon the trustees during 
 theooiilinuance of the life estate, and .such liein 
 
 deed to the trustees containing apt words miL'ht 
 be treated as a deed of l.argai,? and sale v-ealC 
 the legal estate ni them upon the trusts men 
 
 turned, and that the right tosell existed-- -Held 
 a so that the siib«e(inent provision as t.. tlic 
 children buying fr.,ni <,ne another on atlaiuimr 
 twenty-one, was not inconsistent with or reimir' 
 naiit to the exercise of tiie power of sale at 
 present, but would still be operative if no previ- 
 ous sale were made. He Uniham Vontrmt, 17 
 U. K. 0(0. — 15oj-(l. 
 
 The plaintifTs were trustees under a will 
 holdingthecgal estate in the property devise.! 
 an. bequeathed, in trust to maintain themselves 
 and their chihlren, with reinain.ler over to the 
 children upon the death of themselves ; witli 
 power to ahs.ilntely c.mvey the property and to 
 exclude any child fiuin partieipatin« in the re- 
 main.ler :-Held, that the plaintills had implie.l 
 power to make all reasonable leases. Bruuke v 
 I'l'uwii, 19 0. l;. 12-1, _u„se. 
 
 The plaintills made an agreement for a build- 
 ing lease to the defendant of part of the trust 
 estate tor twenty-.)ne years, with a provision f„r 
 coniiieiisatiou to the defendant at the eii.l of the 
 term tor his improvements, and the liraft lease 
 settled provided thai the plaint ills should at the 
 eiulof the term pay for sneh impruvemeiits or 
 renew the lease for a further term of tweuty-oue 
 years :— Held, that the provisions of the a"ree- 
 ment and lease were reasonable, and bouiu! the 
 trust estate, aii.l that the plaiutilFs were entitled 
 to specific performance. lb. 
 
 See In re Jnvrit v. Cuid; 29 Chy. ,'{(),S, p 
 Doinieij v. Ihnnk, 14 O. R. 21'J p. 20Sl'. 
 
 11. Mur/ijaf/es hi/. 
 
 U'J; 
 
 A testator charged his real estate with pay- 
 ment .)f his debts, which he directed to be paid 
 thereout as soon as possible, and then devised it 
 to his executors and tiii.stues on trust to sell as 
 soon as they .should think prudent, and invest 
 the proceed.-*, and pay an annuity to his wi.low 
 ^ until sale, and atter the sale, invest a sum 
 
 the case, the court would give elleet to the usual "'"!'^'',l ^ '".'," " ''"^'' ^" H^''" 'l^^' "■ ^I'^^i'i'^ aiimiity , 
 incidents .)f an estate for life by which the ten- j '"" '''«t''l'"te the pioeeeds among his family ; 
 antcan occupy it or let it, or otherwise .lispose i '""^ proceeded: Until sol.l as aloie.said I 
 of it as soenis best to that tenant :-Hcld, there- 'Ij'-^'-'t /I'-vt niy trustees keep my .schooners em- 
 
 I ploye.l tor freight anil hue as tar as jiossib'e, 
 ami for such purpose to engage all necessary aa- 
 
 foro, that a lease tlieretof.)re made by the trus 
 tecs without the sanction of the widow, though 
 there was no evidence of mala tiiles on their 
 part, must neveitheless be set asiile, and posses- 
 sion of the property given to the wi.low or her 
 nominee. Uejlhrinanv. Taylor, 15 0. R. 070.— 
 lioyd. 
 
 Execut.u's sold aii.l conveyed pi-emi.ses to cer- 
 tain trustees on trust for the infant children of 
 M. G. ill fee but with a proviso that the gran- 
 tees might absolutely dispose of the premi.ses 
 with the consent in writing of a majority of such 
 of the children as hail attained twenty-wue, and 
 a further proviso that in case eitiier of the gran- 
 tees, or of the children on attaining twenty-one, 
 shouhl desire to part with their interest in the 
 premises, the same shouhl be first ollered to the 
 other members of the family. Three of the 
 children lia.1 attained twenty-one years an.l were 
 willing to consent to the sale : — Held, that the 
 
 sistaiits, and keep the said vessels in repair ; 
 and may store grain and other goods and mer- 
 chandise ill my warehouse for hire or storage, 
 and may take such action as they think advis- 
 able to work and develop my interest in the B. 
 gold miue, but the outlay by tliem shall nut at 
 any time exceed .^1,000. The trustees beeamc 
 indebted to a bank for certain expenses iiieun-cd 
 iu coniiectiiiii with the schi'oners and repairs to 
 them ; and in eonnectiim with the warehouse, 
 and to meet this indebtedness, executed a mort- 
 gage of the real estate to the plaintills, who uow 
 brought this action for forecJosiire. Tlie testa- 
 tor's ilebts had all been paid before the execu- 
 tion of the mortgage, but tliei-j was no evidence 
 that the plaiiitill's knew more as to the purpose 
 fur which the money was re.juiieil, than that it 
 was to pay a debt due at the b.iiik by the 
 estate :-- -Held, reversing the judgment of For- 
 
2075 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES- 
 
 2076 
 
 O 
 
 fa 
 H 
 
 ft 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 guson, J., that the plaintiffs were entitled to 
 the usual mortgage judgment, for tiiere was no 
 sufficient evidence of notice to them that the 
 money was not to he expended in conformity 
 with the will. Liniilm and ( 'anadhin Loan and 
 Aijim-y Co. V. W allave, 8 O. K. 539.— Chy. D. 
 
 The testatrix, by her will, devised and be- 
 (jueathcd all the rest and residue of her real and 
 
 Some years afterwards, and after the death of 
 her husband, the plaintiff' instituted proceedings 
 to have the lease cancelled, alleging as grounds 
 of relief, inade(iinvcy of rent, want of proper 
 advice by the plaintiff' in the execution thereof, 
 and the hduciary relation towards herself which 
 L. had assumed. Under the cireumstaucea the 
 court (Spragge, C), granted the relief asked, 
 notwithstanding L. swore tliat he was not aware 
 
 personal estate unto J!. G., " upon trust to sell I j.,,,^^ ),y ,,,^,i i,^.^ appointed trustee; that 
 
 luy real estiite and to call in and convert into 
 money the remainder of my jiersonal estate, ] 
 with power to deuiise or lease * * any por- 
 tion tliereof fni' any term or terms of years. 
 * * And I declare tiiat the said trustees 
 shall out of the money.s arising from such sale, 
 eallingin, and conversion * * pay off' the in- 
 cumbrance, if any, existing on the F. propeity, 
 and siuill divide the balance of the said moneys 
 among my four children." 'I'lie remaining pro- 
 perty, not incluiled in the residuary estate, was 
 specifically devised by the will among the chil- 
 dren of the testator in certain shares. R. (i. mort- 
 gaged a certain portion of tlie resiiluary real 
 estate to one 'I'., and ainilicd the proeee<ls of the 
 loan in part in li(iuidatiou of the outstanding 
 nioitgage on the V. property, and in part other- 
 wise tor tlie benctit ol the estate. The property 
 comprised in tliis mortgage was sold by the court 
 on proceedings by T., but did not bring enough 
 to pay of the whole mortgage debt ; — Held, on 
 administration of the estate l)y the court, that 
 the trust of tlie residue was a mere trust for 
 conversion out and out, and H. (!. had no power 
 to iiiakc the mortjiage in (juestion, nevertlieless 
 to the extent to which the estate got the benefit 
 of the loan, the executors of T. were entitled to 
 rank against the estate for the balance of their 
 mortgage debt, but only sulis(!(pient to certain 
 mortgages idaced by s[)ecilic devisees since the 
 death of the testatrix on ]>ortions of the estate 
 devised to tliem,iMitlMding the V. property, with- 
 <uit knowledge, so f.ir as appeared, of the source 
 from which thi' money discharging the V. mort- 
 iiago came : -Tfeld, alsr), tiiat the mortgage to T. 
 iieing invalid, it could only carry interest at six 
 per cent. , although it ])rovided for interest at 
 twelve per cent. l.ou<loii and Canadian Loan Co. 
 H. /iH'.l, distinguislied. d'ordiiii 
 H. 01 1 . — I'roudfoot. Sec S. C. 
 K. '200.S. 
 
 r. Wallace, 8 ( >. 
 V. (Ivnhni, 1 1 O. 
 in appeal, 12 O. 
 
 12. lni/)ror(ini nl.-i on Land. 
 
 See Ilr Hrnd<r, 8 1'. U. 399, p. 89,") ; Food v. 
 nire, 4 (). R. 94, p. 'JOC.S. 
 
 13. When Trust< 
 
 f'x Intevrxt is 
 'I'ru^t Estate.. 
 
 Con tlie/ with 
 
 In re Toronto I farhcur Commissioners, '28Chy. 
 19.-), p. 2008. 
 
 14. Punhasc or Lease of the Trust Properly 
 1)1/ Trustees. 
 
 \j, and S. were appointed by the court trus- 
 tees foi' the plaintiff', a mai lied woman, upon 
 
 he 
 never signed the consent to act as such, and that 
 iiis conduct throughout had Itecn bond tide, it 
 being siiewn tiiat he had effected an insurance 
 upon the buildings situate upon the jircniises, the 
 applieation for which he had signed as trustee, 
 and there being reason to believe that if lie liiul 
 not signed the consent himselt he had authorized 
 the husband of the plaintiff' to affix his signature 
 thereto ; i)ut gave L. tlie option of accepting a 
 new lease of the property to be settled by the 
 nuistei' ; which decree was affirmed b^ tiie full 
 court on rehearing. tSiattni v. Liinin i/, '21 (!\\y, 
 1()9. 
 
 The plaintiff' was mortgagee of certain lands, 
 and by the will of the mortgagor was devisee 
 tlurcof in trust to pay certain legacies charged 
 thereon —amongst others one to the (hifendaut, 
 an infant about ten years old. Having instituted 
 proceedings against the defendant to enforce 
 payment of the mortgage, theconductot the sale 
 was given to tlie guardian of the infant, and the 
 plaintiff had liberty to bid at the sale under the 
 decree as mentioned, 27 Chy. 570:— Held (re- 
 versing the order then made), thattlie liberty to 
 bid accorded the plaintiff', who occupied the two- 
 fold charactm* of mortgagee and trustee, was 
 given him for the purpose of protecting ids in- 
 terests .as mortgagee, but did not absolve him 
 from tlie duty which, as trustee, he oweil to the 
 infant ; and that tlie comluet of the plaintilf 
 prior to and at and about the sale, as set out in 
 the ease, by means of whicli In; bad Ijcen enahled 
 to make a profit at tlie expense of tiic infant 
 cestui (pie trust, was such as would have ren- 
 dered the sale invalid if the land had remained 
 in his hands ; but as it had passed into tiiosoof 
 an innocent purchaser the iilaiutill' siioulil be 
 charged with the outside selling value oi ll;": 
 estate at tiie time of the sale, or should pay to 
 the defendant the amount ilne to hini uiicier the 
 will, with interest thereon from the <late of the 
 sale, together with the costs of the court hclow 
 subse(iuent to the petition, and also the costs of 
 appeal. Iticker v. Itiehr, 7 ^V. R. 282. 
 
 Purchase of client's property by solicitor. 
 See Kilhourn v. Arno/d, A. I!. 15S, p. 1!)46. 
 
 A director of a jidnt stock eompany, having a 
 juilgment and execution of his own ag.iinst the 
 ]iroperty of tiic company acting in good faith, 
 purchased tiie same at a sale by the morlgagccs, 
 under a power of sale for ^^8,400, .and sold it in 
 the following year for .■:<23,00() : -Held, in wiiiii- 
 ing lip jn'occedings, that he could not purchase 
 for his own benelit, but held the land as trustee 
 for the conijiany and was aeeountalile for any 
 ])rofit received on a resale, and by reason of his 
 refusing to pay over or account for such protits, 
 and in fact by his apiicaring as a hiddcratthe 
 
 writtiMi consent imrportiiig to lie signed by tlnuii [ sale and so damiiing the biilding, was guilty of 
 ai'reeiiig to act. Hubserpientlj' L. obtained from i a breach of trust within R. H. ('. e. I21t, s. .S3. 
 the jdaiiitill'a lease of tlie trust estate to himself, i AV Iron Clay lirick Mann/act urinj Co. — Turiien 
 at what was alleged to be an inadecjuate rental. ! Case, 19 O. K. 113. — Robertson. 
 
2076 
 
 2077 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 d after the death of 
 istituted pi'oceodingg 
 , alleging us grounds 
 ent, want of proper 
 ho execution thereof, 
 owards herself which 
 lie circunistauccB the 
 1 the relief asked, 
 tliat he was not aware 
 ted trustee ; that he 
 ) act as such, and that 
 Lul lieon l)on:l tide, it 
 eU'ected an insurance 
 upon the jiruniises, the 
 had signed as irustee, 
 believe that if lie liiwi 
 iselt' he had authorized 
 tr to aflix liis signature 
 _ o[)tion of acfepting a 
 y to be settled l)y the 
 IS allirmed 1)> the full 
 nil V. Lunutij, 27 Chy. 
 
 gagee of certain lands, 
 mortgagor was devisee 
 icrtain legacies charged 
 s one to tlie ilcfendant, 
 i old. Having instituted 
 B defcndimt to enforce 
 e, the conduct of the sale 
 m of the infant, and the 
 lid at tlio sale under the 
 7 Cliy. 57(i:— Hehl (re- 
 uade), thattlie lil)crtyto 
 tl', wlio occupied the two- 
 tgagce anil trustee, was 
 )ose of protecting iiis in- 
 Dut (lid not alisdive iiim 
 ,s trustee, he owed to tlie 
 conduct of the plaintitf 
 i\it tlie sale, as set out in 
 ,iiich lie iiad been en.abled 
 ;he cNponse of tlie infant 
 such as wouhl have ren- 
 if tiio land iiad remained 
 ; iiad passed into tliosc of 
 r the plaiutiir sliouhl be 
 ;siile selling value of tlie 
 the sale, or shoidd pay to 
 )unt due to liiiii under the 
 ■rcon from the date of the 
 e costs of the court holow 
 itioii, and also tlie costs of 
 :ker, 7 A. H. 282. 
 
 i's proiicrtv by solicitor. 
 Id, G A. It.'loS, p. 1!I46. 
 
 it stock company, having* 
 ion of his own against the 
 lany acting in gnod faith, 
 t a'salc by theniorlgai^cM, 
 V for tfS,400, and s.ild it in 
 r .■<•_';!, 0U<» : -Held, in wind- 
 that ho could not purchase 
 ut hehl the land as trustee 
 I was accountable for any 
 •csal(!, and by reason of his 
 
 or account for such prohts, 
 piieariiig as a bidder at the 
 
 the bid.ling, was guilty ol 
 itliinR. S. ('. c. 12il,8.S3. 
 luin,fac/iiriwjCu.-lm(f> 
 -Robertson. 
 
 See McDonald v. McDonald, 17 A. K. 192, p. 20G0. 
 See also Pri.vcipal and Acent. 
 
 17. FoUoichuj Money. t paid to Persons not 
 Kiifi/hd thereto. 
 
 Where C, an insolvent, had assigned all his 
 assets and stock-in-trade to .S., as trustee for 
 creditors, and the iilaintill' elainied a speeiKo 
 lien on tlie same to the extent of certain trust 
 moneys, which had conic into C.'s haiuls, as 
 trustee ami execi:<or for the plaintill', under tho 
 will of his (the plaiiititPs) father, but had been 
 wrongfully coiivc.tid by ('. to his own use, ami 
 
 15. NegUijence in Management of Estate. 
 
 C. M., a solicitor, invested money of T. in a 
 third mortgage of the E. property. Afterwards, 
 in IS()2, the property was put up "for auction un- 
 der a decree for sale at the suit of tluilirst moil 
 gagor. A. M. held the mortgage on the proper 
 next after the lirst nn 
 
 owing to the great de[)i. ^v, „. v..., ,,.,n .,, i , ... 
 
 the E. property, it would, if sold then, sca;celv , 'l"^' "'."^""ty or connection with llu, stock-in- 
 fctcli enough to pay off the lirst mortgage, it v.a's i '^'"'.•'' 'i^^lM''^'' toS.:-Hcld, that I ho plaintiff as 
 ftL-reed between (.'. M. and A. M. tiiat C. M. i ?p"'""',*' '^' "'fi'ly ^''titled to a dividend with 
 should, out of his own moneys, buy in the pro- ' *'"' "''''''' '='''''''t">-«. "U the full aniouut, with iii- 
 perty by paying off the first nmrtgage, and then '' '"-'''^.f ''"'^^'1 ,*!' V,"' ''""" ."'' "■'*'<i«i"'"-"l- Cidhane 
 hold the same in trust to sell, and out of the ^'^ '^'""'''' *" •■'• '^- "^-""Jih 
 
 ,gor. A. M. hehl the mortgage on the property """'«"" .\ come. .id i.y i . u, ins own use. ami 
 
 :xt after the lirst mortgage. Fiu.ling tl.at, ':"'1''".V^''' "'•"« <'«n lousiness to pay his trading 
 
 t-ing to the great depreciation of tlie value nf ,'''"• ''V "'? *" "''"-''' *'"''''' ''"' ""'^ appear to 
 
 . I." t,, •,^ ...,,,.1.1 .t .,..11 ii 1 lie anv identitv or conni'i'tinn uitli tli.. uf....L-.Mi. 
 
 proceeds to tirst repay himself the amount so 
 advanced by him, with interest from the dale 
 of the sale, then to |)ay A. M. his ehiim on the 
 prnperty, with interest, and then to pay T. his 
 claim, with interest. C. M. accordingly ad- 
 vanced sufficient to liuy in the jiropcrty as 
 agreed. In 1864 a formal deed of trust was 
 drawn up and executed liy the first, mortgagee, 
 and by ('. M., A. M., and T., wheri!by the jiro- 
 perty was conveyed to ( '. M. on trusc to sell 
 "without delay," and ajuily the ])roeeeib 
 
 See (uilhrailli v. Diiin-oiiilie, 2S ( 'liy. 27, p. 7,55 ; 
 /liiil,!/ \\,/(l/,-lt, it A. It. 187, p. I.'ti; (iiraldiv. 
 La Ji(tii<]iH Jai-i/if.s Cai-lin\ !) .S. C. R. .507. p. 
 i;i:?; //( re Jfirr I'iaiio C'>., 17 A. 11. XVi, p. 
 2()(i4 ; Ciimmiiiij v. London Jlaiikiu'/ owl Loan 
 Co., 19 (). H. 426; 20 0. H. 482, p.' 2065. 
 
 aforesaid, and giving him jiower to lease in t 
 meanwhile, and making him answerable only for 
 loss resulting from his own "wilful nenlecl ami 
 default." (". M. leased the property from time i 
 to time, but he did not sell it until lsS3, when 
 T."s executrix brought an action charging him I 
 with ilefault and breach of 1 1 ust, and cbiimiiig 
 an account and damages. 'I'lie evidence sheweil , 
 that the property had all through been of a very ] 
 unsaleable kind, consisting of a farm, very 
 stumpy and badly fenced, and an old mill, wliieli 
 lad (juite lost its value. It also ajipeaii'd tliiit 
 C. M. had never advertised the i>ropeity for sale, 
 hut at tile same time that it was well known in' 
 the neighbourhood that it was for sale, ami that 
 it was not the sort of property that was likely 
 to he bmitrlit \>y a stranger. 'I'liere was. also, 
 no pe.sitivo evidence that at any time ('. M. 
 SuuM have effected a more adv.intagemis s.ile 
 t! n that ho elFccted in ISS3: ami it apjieared 
 that up to ISSO neither A. ,M. nor T. had eom- 
 jiiwru'd of the delay, but if anything, aeipiieseed 
 u; 11; Ilrdd, under all the circumstances of the 
 fw.', affirming the decision of the master in 
 on'Miary, that (!. M. was not jiroved to have 
 been guilty of neglect and default as trustee, 
 nor ilid the evidence afford any basis for asses- 
 sing damu.".;c!j auainst him. Taylor v. Mmiralh, 
 lOU. R. ti6i>.--J!oyd. 
 
 It). Deposit of Trust Moneys. 
 
 Where tlii assignee of an insolvent estate 
 transferred tho money to the credit of the estat e's 
 account in a bank to his own jirivato account 
 and then used it for his own private purposes, 
 the hank deriving no benefit from the transfer 
 anil it not apjiearing that the assignee was in- 
 debted to the liank :--nel(l, that the bank was 
 not liable to repay tho amount to the estate. 
 Cliiirh V. Con.idlidatxl Bank of Canada, .'U C. 
 P. 169.-C. P. 1). 
 
 Sec Bailey v. Jclletl, 9 A. H. 187, p. 134. 
 
 18. Aceounts. 
 
 „« It appeared that in 1880, on T.'s solicitors do- 
 
 1^. i niiimliiig an account from C. M. of his dealings 
 
 with the trust estate, (.'. .M. employed S., a pro- 
 .fe.-^sional accountant, to makecmt from his books 
 a detailed account, and S., in so doing, applied 
 icceiiits from time to time in liipiidalioii of the 
 liriiieipal moneys due to C. M. under the trust 
 deed, instead of applying them in the lirst in- 
 .stanceiii liipiidation of the interest accruing due 
 thereon, and the account so drawn up w.as 
 delivered to the .sidieilors of I'. An affi- 
 davit of ('. .M., moreoviM-, was produced in tho 
 master's ollice, wherein he stiti^d tli.it this ac- 
 enunt was correct, and m.ideoiit und(}r his super- 
 vision, and he spoke to the same elU'ct in an ex- 
 amination taken de bene esse in this action. 
 .\flcr iiidginent in this action, which referred it 
 to the master in ordinary to take ac(!ount of (J. 
 M.'s dealings as I riislee, and before the .same Wiis 
 taken into the master's ollice, (j. M. died, and 
 on return of 1 lie master's warrant to bring in tho 
 account t;. M.'s executors broiiiilit in a new ac- 
 count, dill'ering frcnn that remleied ,as aforesaid 
 to 'r. 's sidicitors, in that they ap|ilied receipts 
 ill liipiidation in the lirst instance of the interest 
 aceiuing on ('. M.'s claim, which method ma<lc 
 a dilleri'iice in l\\i: result of many thousand dol- 
 lars. No aci:onnl had been rendered to A. 
 .M.:--Ilelcl, that as against 'I'., ('. .M. and his 
 execulcns were boiiml by the account previously 
 rendered to T.'s solicitors and by the method of 
 ap))roprialioii of receipts to jirineipal contained 
 therein, but were not so bound as against A.M., 
 as against wlioni the account brought in by C. 
 iM.'s e.veciitors could stand. In the account 
 thus delivered in ISSO, after the principal 
 moneys were salislied by ajiplication as afor(!said 
 of reeeipis, interest was chai'geil at ti^n per cent, 
 on all subseipient receipts ag.ii list C .\I.: — Held, 
 that this was an error in the account, and the 
 executors of V. .M. Were not bound by it and to 
 this extent the acccnint miylit be rectitiefl. 
 Mctiiegor r. (iaiilin, 4 t,>. 15. .'(78, considered and 
 distinguisliid : — Held, by the niast(T inordin- 
 ary, that the amounts paid by C M. to a pro- 
 
2079 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2080 
 
 a 
 
 » 
 
 2: 
 
 I 
 
 K 
 
 
 Ma 
 
 I 
 
 fcssional land agent in connection with the sale 
 of tlie ^'roperty, and a curtain sum paid l)y C. 
 M. to a professional accountant for making up 
 the account delivered in 1880 sliould be allowed 
 to him in hia accounts. But that sums paid by 
 G. M.'a executors to a professional accountant 
 for making up the account brouglit in by them 
 into the master's oflice, and a certain sum paid 
 toC M.'s solicitors on account of their costs in 
 the action should not be allowed to C. M. in his 
 accounts : — Held, also, by the master in ordinary, 
 that C. M. , as trustee solicitor, was not entitled 
 to profit costs, but, nevertheless, lie was entitled 
 to a commission of five per cent, on the amounts 
 coming to A. M. and T. , less a certain sum paid 
 as commission to a land agent for eft'ecting the 
 sale of the property, since double commissions 
 cannot be allowed. Tuylur v. Mwjrath, 10 
 0. K. 6G9.— Hodgin.s, Madcr.—MoyA. 
 
 It is the duty of a trustee, or otiier accounting 
 party, at all times to have his accounts ready, 
 to afi<)rd all facilities for their inspection anil ex- 
 amination an<l to give full information whenever 
 required. As a general rule he is not obliged to 
 prepare copies of his accounts for the parties in- 
 terested, tiiougli if, for example, the cestui (|Uo 
 trust or principal lives at a distance from where 
 the trust afl'airs are beingcarriedon, or in a foreign 
 country, it would be tlie duty of a trustee to give 
 all reasonable information and explanations by 
 letter; and even, if requested, but at the ex- 
 pense of the cestui que tru.st, to prepare and 
 transmit accounts and statements. Handfurd v. 
 Porter, IG A. R. 565. 
 
 See Burn v. B%irn, 8 O. R. 237, p. 1422. 
 
 19. Liahility for IhIi'vcM. 
 
 See Re Crowti'r — Croicti'rw Ilhiuitui, 10 O. R. 
 159, p. 719 ; In re JfoiiJ<l)ir(i('r — //oiixlnniir v. 
 Kralz, 10 (). R. 521, p. 718 ; ''I'ai/lor v. Mwiruth, 
 10 O. R. (509, toipra ; J{e (I'dlioiiric — t'axiy v. 
 ddhoiiric, l.'JO. R. 0.35, p. 721 ; Sjiratl v. W'dmii, 
 19 O. U. 28, p. 718. 
 
 20. Co.-it-i and ExptnavH. 
 
 Held, that the master had projicrly allowed to 
 defendant, in his accounts, a fee of .^lO paid l)y 
 him to a counsel for advice iis to bis aetinu in t 
 respect of two assignments of a jjolicy of insur- 
 ance. Jliii/rx V. Jl(ii/(.-!, 29 Cliy. 90. — Ferguson. ■ 
 
 Where certain ])er.'<ous, including (!., advanced i 
 money to cfiniplotc the Ijuililiiig of a yacht at i 
 Cobourg, in order to sail for prizes at New ^'ork j 
 and I'iiiliidelphia, and scrip under seal was exe- i 
 cuted, declaring tliat (i. was to liold tiio y.ielit in J 
 trust as security for tlio advances; and (J. in-' 
 currcd certain running expenses in taking tlie , 
 yacht to tiie race :— Held, that (1. was entitled | 
 to a first eliarge on tlie proceeds of the sale of 1 
 the yacht, for tliesc expenses, as they had been 
 incurred in prosecuting the ent'jr|n-isu for which 
 the trust was created. Jinr)i v. iliffiird, 8 P. R. 
 44 — Taylor, Motiler. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Expenses incurred by trustee under invalid 
 trust deed. .See Jhit/hes v. Y^ecs 9 O. R. 198. 
 
 Any one cestui que trust may, in the discre- 
 tion of the court, obtain an order under the 
 third party clauses of the Solicitors' Act for the 
 
 taxation of a bill of costs for business conncoteil 
 with the trust estate of a solicitor employed 
 by the trustee. Sandford v. Porter, 10 A. R 
 5(55. 
 
 Where a creditor brought an action f*^- an ac- 
 count against the assignee for the benefit of 
 creditors of his debtor after ilemanding copies of 
 the assi^'uee's accounts, but without expressing 
 any desire or nuiking any attempt to inspect the 
 accounts, and without waiting a reasonable time 
 for preparation of copies, the assignee was allow- 
 ed his costs as between solicitor and client outof 
 the balance of the estate in his hands, and in case 
 of deficiency the plaintiff' was ordered personally 
 to pay it. lb. 
 
 The mere fact ihat a trustee in rendering an 
 account to bis cestui que trust, claims that he 
 bus in his hands a smaller sum than is found to 
 1)0 due l>y him when his accounts are taken in 
 court doe.s not disentitle him to the costs of an 
 action against hiui for an account, lli, 
 
 A trustee or executor stands in the same posi- 
 tion as any other litignnt with respect to costs. 
 Siiillkv. Wi//i(tm'<oii, 1:J p. R. 12().-Hose. 
 
 See Taylor v. Mw/rath, 10 0. R. 009, )). 2079. 
 
 21. Other Casen. 
 
 Tlie plaintifT in this case being a trustee for 
 sale was held not to be in a position to ask for 
 jiartition. Keefcr v. McKay, 29 Chy. 1G2,— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 A trustee is not exonerated by the Act respect- 
 ing trustees and executors, and the administra- 
 tor of estates, 1!. S. O. (1877) c. 107, if bo had 
 actual notice of a claim before distribution, even 
 tliougli he may have sent the notice iirescrihed 
 and received no response to it. Carlimi liri'irimi 
 Olid Mii/lliiij Vo. V. Ji/ack; O. R. 441. — Feign- 
 son. 
 
 Qualification of trustees as voters. .See Saiilh 
 a re II ri Hi: Nhrliuii (Out.) -Ellin v. Frastr, H. E. 
 
 C. i(i:i, p. 14:54. 
 
 Tlie law attaches tlie liability of trustees to 
 niunieipal couneillors. .See Morrow v. Connor, 
 11 1*. 1!. 42.S, p. i:}78. 
 
 On an a])plieation by a trustee conqiany, and 
 a party who was entitled for life to tiie iiieonio 
 of a fund in court, which was the )iroeceds of 
 the sale of certain .settled estates, for tlie pay- 
 niciit out of the fund for the purpose of iiivest- 
 inent by the ooinpany as trustees, (tiiey liaviiij; 
 been appointed the trustees un<ler the will which 
 devised the settled estates), wliieii application 
 was opposed by the official guardian on behalf of 
 the leMiainderiiian : — Held, that the practice and 
 cuiient of authority were .against what was 
 asked by the petitioners, and that they were not 
 entitled to it as a matter of right, and that the 
 a|)plieation must be dismissed. /iV ./. T. Sinilh's 
 Tiuintii (A'o. ..'), 18 O. R. .•127.— Boyd. 
 
 22, Proceediiit/M A'jainst, 
 
 (a) Iiijiincliuii to Pcxfrain from Si'll'iiuj. 
 
 Held, that the court has jurisdiction to pre- 
 vent trustees about to sell property under a 
 
 
2080 
 
 for business cunnccteil 
 
 a soliuitor einployeil 
 
 1 V. Porter, 10 A. R. 
 
 lit an action f*^" an ftc- 
 leo for tlie benefit of 
 or (lemnnding copies of 
 )nt without expressing 
 attempt to inspect the 
 itiiig a reasonable time 
 the assignee was allow- 
 licitor and client out of 
 n bis hands, and in case 
 was ordered personally 
 
 trustee in rcndcrinf,' an 
 trust, claims that ho 
 
 r sum than is fouml to 
 accounts are taken in 
 
 hinj to the coats of an 
 
 1 account. Ih. 
 
 stands in the same posi- 
 with respect to costs, 
 I*. R. 12(i. — Rose. 
 
 h, 10 0. 11. 069, p. 2079. 
 
 r Cascx. 
 
 case being a trustee for 
 in a position to ask fur 
 IcKaij, 20 Chy. 102.- 
 
 rated by the Act respect- 
 ors, and the adniiuistra- 
 (1877) 0. 107, if be hail 
 before distribution, even 
 ,'nt the notice presciibed 
 e toit. Carliii'i liri-n-iuij 
 tk,iSO. K. ■441.-l'"ergu- 
 
 aes as voters. See .S'"»(/i 
 -Ellis V. Fram; H. E. 
 
 c liability of trustees to 
 Sec Morrow v. Cunmr, 
 
 \' a trustee company, and 
 ed for life to the income 
 icli was the proceeds of 
 led estates, for tiic iiay- 
 for the purpose of invest- 
 as trustees, (tiicy having 
 stces under the will which 
 states), whicii applicatiua 
 cial guardian on behalf of 
 [eld, that the practice and 
 were against what was 
 re, and that they were not 
 tor of right, anil that the 
 smissed. lie J. T. Smith'i 
 i. ;527.— Boyd. 
 
 diiKjH Against. 
 
 hxiruin from Selliinj. 
 
 t has jurisdiction to pre- 
 to sell property under a 
 
 2081 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 
 2082 
 
 power or trust for sale, from selling in an im- 
 prudent and improper manner; and thus in this 
 case where it a])peared that although cestnis 
 que trustent rei)resenting tivesixths of tlie |)ro- 
 perty desired u sale without reserve, the inter- 
 eats of the remainder would be jirejudiced by so 
 BcUing, an injunction was granted to restrain 
 gucli trustees from selling without u reserve bid. 
 Dowmij V. Dennis, 14 O. 11. 21!).— Ferguson, 
 
 VII. Bknefuiauiks and Cestui giK Trust. 
 
 1. Dealings hetwan Trustee and Ctstiii qut Trust. 
 
 See Bentli/ v. Xorth- We.it Transportation Co., 
 12 App. Cas. uS9, p. 267. 
 
 2. Assent of, to Transactions. 
 
 Land was settled on a trustee, in trust for the 
 use of II. till marriage,, 'ind then upon otheitrusts 
 for the hn.sl)and and wife as tenants for life, and 
 ultimately pioviiling for the issue; the assent 
 of the tenant for life was necessary for a .-iah! ; 
 ami there was power in the deed to ajipoint H. 
 asa trustee on the original trustee refusing to 
 act. Tiie trustee had an absolute discretion as 
 to forfeiting and ap)ilyiiig the estate among or 
 for the benefit of the parties to the deed in case 
 of anticipation or attempted anticipation -.--Held, 
 that the consent of H. and his wife, as tenants 
 for life, satisticd the condition as to assent in 
 case of a sale : that H., as trustee, was entitled 
 to receive the purchase money, andtiiattho pur- 
 chaser was not bound to see to its application. 
 hire Treltren and Horner, 28 Chy. 624. — Blake. 
 
 It having been suggested by the court that the 
 appointment of H. as trustee, wasnot one which 
 the court wouhl luive nuide, the matter again 
 came on for argument, when it was:— Held, that 
 H. was placed in a position in which his interest 
 as one of the parties to the deed upon forfeiture 
 might conflict with his duty as tru.stee, and that 
 the court would not have made and couhl not 
 sanction his appointment. Jh. 
 
 3. Jiii/hl to Possi'ssion of Properly. 
 
 The rule is that when property is devised to a 
 trustee to pay the rents and jirotits to any ))er- 
 son the cestui (pic trust is entitled to the posses- 
 sion ; but where other parties have also a claim, 
 it rests in the discretion of the court whether the 
 actual possession shall remain with tlie cestui 
 que trust or the trustee. Or/urd v. Or/vrd, 6 
 0, R. (i. — Ferguson. 
 
 J, 0. by bis will prf>vided as follows : "4. Not- 
 withstanding the iliicctions hereinbefore con- 
 tained, I desire that if my son \V. O. returns to 
 Toronto within five years from the date of my 
 deatii, my said executors shall hold in trust for 
 him from the lime of his return to Toronto said 
 lots Nos. * * subject to the existing life es- 
 tate of my said wife in a portion thereof, during 
 the term of bis natural life, and shall (lay over lo 
 him all rents, issues and profits thereof, and after 
 his death shall divide the same between his chil- 
 dren in such manner as he shall in his last will 
 and testament direct, and in default of such di- 
 rection and appointment to divide said jinqicrty 
 equally between them, conveying to each child 
 
 131 
 
 \ his or her share when, if a son, he attains the a^o 
 of twenty-one years, or a daughter attains the 
 age of twenty-one years or marries, ami in the 
 meantime to apply the proceeds of the same to 
 the sniiport and maintenance of said children," 
 In an action by W. (). a^'ainst the executors and 
 
 , trustees of the will, claiming the actual iios.ses- 
 sion of the iiropertv of whicdi he was entitled to 
 the rents and profits, it was :— Held, tiiat he was 
 not entitled to such possession, and his action 
 was dismissed with costs. Whiteside r. Miller, 
 14 Chy. ;i9;<, commented on and followed. //*. 
 
 See IDfirniaii v. Tnyhir, 1.") 0. I!. 070, \i. 207.3; 
 Aditmsonv. Adamson, 17 0. II. 407, p. 'Mo'J. 
 
 VIII. MiscEi.LASi:ous Cases, 
 
 Hight of e(|uitable tenant in fee simple to ro- 
 e(mveyance of trust iiroi)erty. See /'(ten// v, 
 'Jiuwron, 2!) thy. 3i;{. 
 
 Misapplication of money.s assessed underdrain- 
 age liy law. -Trust created. See .-iviilh v. Total- 
 xhip of lUlfhih, 3 O. I!. 405, p. 13.58. 
 
 I'er llagaity, C. J. It is the duty of a solici- 
 tor to iiifurni his client, when a trustee, as to the 
 advisaljility of taking iiroceediiigs and incurring 
 costs, when it may become a (pieslion whetlier 
 the costs will have to be paid out of his jtrivate 
 funds or out of the trust fund or estate. JJulfur- 
 /kid V. Wells, 4 0. R. 108. 
 
 Attaching trust moneys. See Llui/dv. Wallace, 
 9 l". K. 335, p. 87. 
 
 rieading. See MrLcau v. Unic; 29 Lhy. 
 507, p. 200(;. 
 
 A transfer of the estate does not involve tlio 
 transfer of trusts or powers necessarily as insepa- 
 
 rable incidents of the estate. 
 Dluud, II (). R. .".37.— lioyi 
 
 He Uilchrisl lurl 
 
 See Wriijhl v. In- 
 '.<(; <;/' Huron, 11 S. 
 
 (.'lergy coiunuitalion trust, 
 rorjiornh d ,'<i/ii(/it of tin: Dio'' 
 C, II. 95, p. 228. 
 
 t'harita'ile trust. .See Atlorni'ii-denerul oj 
 Nora .-ieolia v. Axford, 13 .S. C. R.'294, p. 1735. 
 
 A holder of shares "in trust" is not a man- 
 dataire pivteiKjni and holds subject to a prior 
 title on the part of some person iindisclnsed. 
 , Such holding not being forbuldeii by the law of 
 I the colony, a transferee from siicli holder is 
 bound to inquire whether the transier is author- 
 ized by the nature of the trust. IJaid: of 
 ' Jlunlrtal V. Sirtt-ii[/, 12 App. Cas. 017. (.Judg- 
 ! meiit of Suiircme Court 12 S. C. 11. 001, 
 ' atlirmed.) 
 
 Article 19, C. C, P,, is applicable to mere 
 agents or nianilatories. It is not appliealile to 
 trustees in whom the subject of the trust has 
 been vested in [iroperty and in iiosircssion lor the 
 benefit of third parties, and who h:ne duties to 
 i perform in the ])roteetion or realization of the 
 ti'ust estate. Where trustees scdd proiicrty over 
 ; which they had iiossissioii and title :— Held, 
 , that they were entitled to sue the purcha,-.er to 
 whom tiiey had deliveicd possession, upon his 
 covenant to pay the balance of the piucliase 
 I money, Browne )'. Pinsoiicault (3 S. C. K, 102), 
 jan.l iiurland v. Moll'att (US, C. R. 70), over- 
 ruled. Putleuiis v. Pr^uiir, 13 App. Cas. 120. 
 
2083 
 
 VACATION. 
 
 2m 
 
 See Kielj/ v. Smyth, 27 Chy. 220, p. 254 ; Parr v. 
 MoHlijomtry, 27 Chy. 021, p. 1287 ; Aduimon v. 
 Adammm, 7 A. K. 592, p. 1188 ; SinipnoH v. (7oc- 
 ie«, 5 O. R. 377 ; 10 A. II. 32, p. 727 ; Ilimhex 
 V. Ihen, 5 O. R. «54, p. 1012 ; MoukUn v. Duml- 
 iny, 19 0. R. 441, p. 1887. 
 
 ULTRA VIRES. 
 
 i. costhacts— s(!e contracts. 
 
 ii. companiks and corporations — see 
 Company — Municipal (/OUporation. 
 
 III. LkiUSLATION— 6'eeC'0N.STITUTI0SALLA\V. 
 
 UMPIRE. 
 
 See Arbitration and Award. 
 
 UNDERTAKING TO SPEED. 
 
 See Practice. 
 
 UNDERWRITERS. 
 
 See Insurance. 
 
 UNDUE INFLUENCE. 
 
 See Fraud and Misrepresentation— Parlia- 
 mentary Elections. 
 
 USAGE. 
 
 See Custom and Usa(!E. 
 
 USE AND OCCUPATION. 
 
 D., by permission of tlie comtniHsionor of 
 crown lands for Ontario, Itnilt ii wiiarf on the 
 waters of Toronto bay at the islimd ne.ir Han- 
 Ian 's point ; anil clainiod a sum of money from 
 C. for the use and occupation l)y him of the 
 wharf in landing passeni,'er8 from the steamer: — 
 Held, that there could bo no recovery ; for tiie 
 evidence failed to shew any agreement liy C. to 
 pay wharfage, etc., or tiuit tolls had l)een usually 
 collected or charged, while tiie relationaiiip and 
 dealing of the parties would raise the inference 
 that no ciiarge was contemplated. CleiuUnniiuj 
 V. Turner, 9 0. U. 34. -U. P. I). 
 
 See Till V. Till, lo O. R. 133, p. 885 ; Re 
 Crawford v. Seney, 17 0. R. 74, p. 537. 
 
 USES AND TRUSTS. 
 
 The operation of an ordinary deed of bargain 
 and sale under the Short Forma Act 1{. S. 0. ( 1877) 
 
 c. 102, conveying lands to trustees considered 
 and acted on, Svalun v. Luimey, 27 Chy. 169 
 -Chy. D. 
 
 A huo:/aii(l and wife were the parties of the 
 third part in a conveyance, whereby the wife'g 
 father did " grant unto the said party of the 
 third part his heirs and assigns forever," etu,, 
 lKkl>enauni " unto the said party of the third 
 part his heirs and assigns, to and for his and 
 their sole and only use forever " : — Held, tiiatby 
 the operation of the statue of uses, the liiishand 
 took an estate in fee simple, lie Youmi, 9 I'.R. 
 .521.— lloyd. 
 
 Certain owners of the eriuity of redemption ia 
 lands by deed granted the same to " A, his 
 heirs and assigns, to have und to hohl tlic same 
 to A., his heirs and assigns unto and to the use 
 of H. , his heirs aud assigns." This was ilat«d 
 17th July, 1875, and registered July 21st, 1875; 
 — Held, that whether this deed operated under 
 the Statute of Uses or not, U. took under it the 
 beneficial interest in fee, and it had the same 
 effect as if it were a conveyance to A. upon trust 
 for the benefit of B. Imperial Bank oj Cannda 
 v. Metcalfe, 11 O. R, 467. — Ferguson. 
 
 See Dunlap v. Dunlap, O. R. 141 ; .9. C, mib 
 iiom. Dunlop v. Dtadop, 10 A. R. (j70, p. 493, 
 
 USURY. 
 
 See Pawnbroker. 
 
 UTTERING FORGED INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 VACATION. 
 
 A master's report made during long vacation 
 in contravention of (!. (J. 42.5 (.see Con. Rule 8), 
 is as against a defeudaut having no notiue of the 
 ])roceedings on which the repoi't is founded, 
 entirely null and void. Fuller v. McLean, 8 
 P. R. 049.- Boyd. 
 
 The term " vacation " in (!. O. Chy. 042 (see 
 Con. Rule 849), moans (Christmas as well aa 
 long vacation, and hence the former is not to he 
 counted in the time within which an appeal from 
 a m.aster's report may be had under that order, 
 Notice of ajipeal from a report dated 29th No- 
 veml)cr, 1SH3, given on the 31st December, 1883, 
 for the 7lh .January, 1SS4, is valid. Il/'d-ev. 
 /iui/tlinij ami Loan Ainociation, 10 P. R. 153.— 
 /Joyd. 
 
 Christmas vacation is not to ))c excluded iji 
 reckoning the eight days within which an appeal 
 from the master or local judge oi- master in 
 chambers is to be brought on under Rule 427, 
 O, J. A. (Con. Rule 840). As such appeals ftre 
 not heard in vacation, the time for appealing 
 will be extended as a matter of course uj)on an 
 ex parte application. Snowdeu v. JJnnlimjlon, 
 12 P. R. 1.— Ferguson. 
 
 Taxation of bill of costs during vacation. See 
 Counineau v. City of London Fire Ins. Co., 13 P. 
 R. 36, p. 382. 
 
2084 
 
 2085 
 
 VALUATOR. 
 
 2086 
 
 bo truHteea considered 
 Luimei/, 27 Chy. 169. 
 
 ore the parties of tlie 
 .11, wiioioby tlio wife's 
 the saiil party of the 
 assigns forever," etc., 
 lid party of the tliird 
 lis, to ftiul for his and 
 •over": — Held, that by 
 lie of uses, tlie liUHl)and 
 pie. JlH Yomitj, 9 I'.R. 
 
 c(iuity of redemption in 
 the same to " A, his 
 ti uad to iiold tliu same 
 igus unto and to the use 
 \>n\s." This was dated 
 istered July 2l8t, 1875: 
 lis deed operated under 
 ot, B. took under it the 
 ic, and it had the same 
 veyance to A. upon trust 
 iipcrial Hank oj Caiuida 
 i7. — Ferguson. 
 
 »,0O. l\. 141 iS.C^mb 
 op, 10 A. R. 670, p, 493. 
 
 JRY. 
 
 NIIROKEK. 
 
 ED INSTRUMENTS. 
 aiNAL Law. 
 
 lATION. 
 
 lade during long vacation 
 . O. 4'2.") (.see Con. Rule 8), 
 lilt having no notice of the 
 h tlie report is founded, 
 .d. Fulh-r V. McLean, 8 
 
 n " in (i. O. Chy. 042 (see 
 ms Christmas as well as 
 noc the former is not to he 
 ithin wliieli an appeal from 
 r bo had under that order. 
 II a report dated "iOth No- 
 li tlio Slst Deeemher, 1883, 
 1SS4, is valid. AVdfe v. 
 i.tsoi-iation, 10 P. R. 153.- 
 
 1 is not to be excluded in 
 lays within which an appeal 
 
 local judge oi- master in 
 lought on under Uule 427, 
 840). As such appeals are 
 on, the time for appealing 
 
 a, matter of course upon an 
 1. Snowikn v. H mUiiiglon, 
 on. 
 f costs during vacation. See 
 
 Loiulon Fire Ins. Co., 13 P. 
 
 A direction to the registrar to settle in long i 
 vacation the minutes of a judgment pronounced 
 oil .10th June, was refused. Miller v. S/hnccr, 
 13 F. R. 478.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Hiertwriijhl v. Lvyi, 9 1'. 1!. 200, p. 1GC5. 
 
 such valuation is made fraudulently. 
 andal Vrtdil Co. v. Thomimon, 8 A. 
 
 VAORANOY. 
 
 See PuitLiu MoKAi.s. 
 
 HlieWj,tiiat such 
 (Jdiiiiilii [j 
 H. ()!Mi. ' 
 
 The court i)ol(iw diHiuixscd a Idll HKmI to enforce 
 a claim for damages sustained liy an exeessivo 
 valuation of land by the brother and partner of 
 the paid valuator duly appointed by the plain- 
 tiffs, on the ground that it was not shewn that 
 the valuation was made fraudulently. This 
 court, while differing from such view, declined 
 to revi'rse the decice and ordered a new trial, at 
 which the evidence of one of the defendants al- 
 ready taken might bo used, in tlie event of his 
 then l)einL' out of the jurisdiction, but ordered 
 the defciiilaiits to pay the c(Mt» of the appeal ; 
 the new trial to be without costs in the cinirt 
 I below. ///. 
 
 The defendant, by a certiticate signed by him ,,,, , , , 
 as reeve of the township, stated he had personal ,' '": '"•tcnilaiit I.., who was a professional 
 knowledge of property belonging to one A. M., y'il'"\tpi'. was employed by plaintiff to personally 
 and occupied by him, which the defendant be- , ">ycHtigate the security otl.Mcd for a loan on real 
 lieved to be worth 12.000, and woul.l readily sell ''Tj ""V" ™^:'-"'*,t''« valu.ition of a U.eal 
 at a forced cash sale for .*l,600: that about iif- , ""''""•'"'■• , V": ''^■i'"'''"'' visited tlie property 
 teen acres were cleared and ready for and under : '*"1^ reported, in etlect agreeing with the local 
 cultivation, etc., setting forth further favouralde/.7"'V'i''' ^'"'' ^''" V^o\Miv\.y was worth con- 
 
 VALUATOR. 
 
 «,lf. The defendant was aware that the plain- 1 ""Pn^s'l'le to sell for anything like the mortgage 
 tiflfs were al.out to advance money by way of ; ""'""y- ''1 "" '■*'^^'°" ^f »et>'l'«'^"fo >» valuing 
 loan on the security of this property, and had i ,f Property he jury found for the plaintitr. 
 called for his certiticate, by which they said they ; / ''^ }f'^, "^*''« f'»l ' "f-'oted he jury that the 
 would be guided in making such a.lvauce. The ^^\^}^1 tj":_^l«f"">l'"'t 'I'.'l not obtam the opinion 
 court, under those 
 defciiilant answerabl 
 the |ilaiiitiffs in conseii 
 his certiticate, although 
 
 able to him, and his services were gratuitous. 
 G<jit!Mi V. Paloii, 27 Chy. 4S. — Lilake. i It appeared from the evidence that the mort- 
 
 ,,,,,, gagor had endeivourcd to procure a loan for a 
 
 Tie defenilant, who was employed on behalf j,i,„ii,j,. .iinouiit on the same property from a 
 
 of the plaintiff to v.alue certain lands, intended company in which the defendant L. was a di- 
 
 to certify the value at S-_>,0()(), but through the j^^tor, and that the loan was not effected, liav- 
 
 iraud of the agent he was induced to certify for j,,^ i,^^.,, ,il,:i,„|„„e(l by the moiti'aL'or. The 
 
 «3,(M)0:--Held, afliriniiig the decree of Hlakc, '■ ' ■ • -•"*-■ 
 
 V. (;. (2(i Cliy. .S!M)), that the defendant was not 
 liiilile for any loss sustained by the plaintiff: — 
 Held, also, that the circuiustances of this case 
 wiiiild not justify the court in reversing the 
 tiiiiliiig of the judge of lirst instance, that the 
 valuation was made without fraud or inten- 
 tion to deceive. SUvcrth'jrii v. IIiuili r, 5 A. R. 
 Ii37. 
 
 judge at the trial, although he directed the jury 
 that there was no evidence that the defendant 
 had acted with intentional dishonesty, pressed 
 upon their notice, with other observations, the 
 eii([uiiy : " Why was not the original transac- 
 tion carried out ?" : — Held, per Rose and Mao- 
 Maliou, .F.J., that these observations tended to 
 create a jirejudicc in the minds of the jury 
 which was not warranted by the facts. Ih. 
 
 Per Burton, J. A., a valuator is not liable for! K., a respectable man livingiu the neighlwur- 
 uegligence in making a valuation of land, ou \ hood of the property, in his evidence valued the 
 wliiuh a loan is jn-ocured, unless it be fraudu- laud .at from §200 ti) ^300 per acre, but the judge 
 
 leutly made. Ih. 
 
 The paid agent of a loaning society, who pro- 
 fessed to be skilled, and had a knowledge in the 
 valuing of lands, was held liable to the society 
 for a loss sustained by them by reason of a false 
 report of such agent. Silverthorn c. Hunter, 
 5 A. R. 157, distingniaheil. Hamilton Provi- 
 dent and Loan Society v. Hell, 29 Chy. 203.— 
 Spragge. 
 
 In order to render the paid valuator of a loan 
 company answerable for a loss caused by exces- 
 sive valuation of property, it is not necessary to 
 
 told the jury that K. was not in the land busi- 
 ness, an<l had no knowledge of the v.alue of the 
 property. I'er Rose, J.— The observations as to 
 K. were a practical withdrawal of his evidence 
 from the jury. Ih. 
 
 Per Gait, C. J.— There was evidence of negli- 
 gence to go to the jury, particularly in defen- 
 dant L. not making enquiries of others in the 
 neighbourhood as to the value of the land. lb. 
 
 See Agricultural Investment Ou. v. Federal 
 Bank, 6 A. R. 192, p. 136 ; Moberlij v. Brooks, 
 27 Chy. 270, p. 770. 
 
8087 
 
 VENDORS AND PUROHASEBS' AOT. 
 
 2m 
 
 VAR7IN0 DEEDS. 
 
 Set Deed— Kviui'.NtK. 
 
 I 
 
 VARYINQ MINUTES. 
 
 .SV'' 1»HACTUE. 
 
 VENDITIONI EXPONAS. 
 
 See ExKCUTioN. 
 
 VENDORS' AND PURCHASERS' ACT. 
 
 A tostutrix (Icvisud to tnistuuit all her estate, 
 real aiul pui'Hoiml, which, or a Huttieient portion 
 of which, they were to (Usixme of tor ijuynieut 
 of debts, and the support and education of her 
 two youngest duugliters C. & M. during' their 
 minorities, excepting two tenements known as 
 the Westminster property, which were to be re- 
 served for the use of C. und M. so long us they 
 or either of them should remain unmarried, und 
 iu order that C, on attaining twenty-ono and 
 being unmarried, might in her option occupy and 
 enjoy for her life, so long as she should be un- 
 married, one of the houses for lier own residence 
 and that of her sister: and, in the event of her 
 marriage, the youngest daughter M. was to have 
 the same option und clioice, the intention of the 
 testatrix "being that in addition to their sup- 
 port and maintenance out of all my estate, us 
 devised, my youngest daughters C;. & M. shull 
 have a home within tlieir control so long us they 
 or either of them shall lemain unnuirried ;"and 
 up(.n the marriage of both C. & M. the whole of 
 such Westminster property was to be sold, and 
 the proceeds theieof to form part of the retidu- 
 ary estate und be divided amongst all her chil- 
 dren, sons und daughters, then living, share und 
 share alike. C. und M. attained majority und 
 were unmarried, vhen all the children, includ- 
 ing C. & M., together with the trustee, joined 
 in a contract to sell tlie Westminster property. 
 In answer to a quefttion submitted to the court, 
 under the Act (K. S. O. 1877, e. 105)), it was:— 
 Held, that all these jiarties joining in a convey- 
 ance, a good title cotdtl be made; and although 
 in applications of this kind the ccsts are in the 
 discretion of the judge, the purchaser was or- 
 dered to pay the costs. O'iiiiis v. iJarvill, 27 
 Chy. 502.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 Though (n a bill tiled for specific performance 
 if the infunt children ultiuiutely entitled under 
 the settlement were mude putties, the court 
 might order the completion of the fule und pay- 
 ment of the money into court for investment, 
 where the eorjius of the estate would be pro- 
 tected for the children, yet on application under 
 the Vendors und I'urcbusers' Act, in the absence 
 of the other parties to the settlenjent, it would 
 not comijcl the purchaser to accept the title. 
 In re 'J'rtltrcH ami JJorhtr, '28 f'hy. 024. — Blake. 
 
 Held, that a mortgage which contains an 
 acknowledgment of receipt of the mortgage 
 money, but no covenant for repayment of money 
 does not of itself afford conclusive evidence of 
 
 a debt, so that the mortgagee or his assigns ciu) 
 muiittain un action for its recovery. In this cuiie 
 it was shewn that no money was ever advaiicuil 
 by the mortgagee to defeniUnt, the luortgayur, 
 but that the mortgage was given for a dcl>t ilue 
 by defendant to one (.'., who in consideratimi uf 
 getting it agreed to relieve defendant fidiii ulj 
 personal liability ; und theiiluintill's, aHSjgiieciKjf 
 the niortgnge, were held not entitled to lecovtr. 
 Quiere, whether section 1, sub-section 4, ami 
 section 2 of the \'enilors und I'ureliaser.'*' Act, 
 K. S, (>. (IS77), c. 10!t, apply to sin'h an action 
 as this, or only to actions wheie the title toliunl 
 is in question. London Loan Co, v. Smyth, 1)2 
 
 r. p. 5.m-c. r. d. 
 
 On u petition under the Vendors and I'ur- 
 chasers' Act, the ijuestion of the existence or tlje 
 vaHdity of the contract for sulu euiuiol bo tried, 
 but only thof>e matters which would be euttr. 
 tained u]>oii a reference as to title under u decree 
 for speciiicperfoiinuiice. The only parties uucea- 
 sury on such a ])etition are those who would jju 
 parties to u suit for hpecilic perforniunce, and 
 therefore mortgagees wlio hud been joined were 
 dismisseil with tiieir costs. AV MucSuUi, 1 U. 
 U. !I4. — I'roiulfoot. 
 
 Semble, that R. S. O. (IS77) c 10!). r. Sis 
 retrospective so us to cast the onus of (ii.s|)riiving 
 the puynunt of the consideriition on the imity 
 inipeuehiiig u conveyance as voluntary even 
 tliough the trunsuetion took iilnce jirifir to tlial 
 en.Tctnient. Saiahm v. Malnhimi, 1 (). J!. 17S. 
 -IJoyd. 
 
 Held, that on nn upplication under K. S. 0. 
 (1877) c. 109, 8. .'^, the (|Uestioii of tlie ul):indiin- 
 ment of the contract between the parties ciuinut 
 be raised. IJextlcmon v. Speiictr, 8 1'. K. 402— 
 ■Spragge. 
 
 Held, that the Act (R. S. O. 1877, c. 109) was 
 intended to piovide for a simple cuse where time 
 wus no tliN])Ule us to the vulidity of the coiitiiut 
 und tbut the c<iurt ought not to enter ujun the 
 (iuibtion of the validity of the title, until it Mas 
 decided that the eontiact w.'is binding. Uendii- 
 Km i; Speiieei-, 8 J'. 1!. 402, not foUowid. ]le 
 Ji'oliiilnoii ami iJciijuiiiuu, I) 1'. H. 288. — Uoyd. 
 
 Semble. applications under the Vendors and 
 rurchiisers' Act .'•houlil not be made fortlunjiie 
 puipose of settling questions of title when tlii' 
 existmee and validity of the contract is not dis- 
 puted. Jif ll'ivijlwm und Wr'njijli-'^troith, 5 0. II. 
 (ill.— Ferguson. 
 
 If under ]!. S. O. (1877), c. 109, the court 
 adjuditutes ujjon a question of title between 
 Vendor and purchaser, and directs the pnn liascr 
 to carry out his contract, and the ]iuicliiuitr 
 then fails to carry out the contract, it is un- 
 necessary to bring un uction for s|ieeillc jjer- 
 formunce of the contract; the re(]uis'ite relief 
 niuy be had on notice of motion lor ]iaynientuf 
 the jiurelia.'-e money, or in default u retalo, etc. 
 Re Craiij, 10 V. R. il,').— Ferguson. 
 
 More evidence may be required as between a 
 Vendor and purcbnser than in a suit whue ti.e 
 owner or those claiming under him ure jjartics 
 lii Morton (Old Lot A o. li on I'Uni ,mV/ In tk 
 County of York, 7 O. U. 59. — rrondfoot. 
 
 Upon a petition under the Vendors and I'm- 
 chasers' Act : — Held, that the purchaseis were 
 
 ; 1 i< 
 
aott 
 
 VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE. 
 
 2000 
 
 ;iigeu or hiH uHdiguH cun 
 
 ricuveiy. In thin case 
 
 iiey WUB cvur iiilviiiicwl 
 
 uiitluiit, tliu mortyiigur, 
 
 iiM given fur u dclil ilue 
 
 who ill cuiiHiilL't'iitinn uf 
 
 evi: (U'finiliint fidui ull 
 
 l)u jiliiintitl'H, a«HignLu»ijf 
 
 not ilititled to leodvur. 
 
 1, Miil>-Htc'ti(in 4, and 
 
 n luiil I'urfliHsuiit' Act, 
 
 iipiily to Hucli an iiftiou 
 
 [H wlii'ii! thetitlu loluiul 
 
 i( Ldun Co. V. Siiiylh, Wl 
 
 tlic! Vuniliira ami I'lir- 
 nn of tln! fxistoncu of tiie 
 
 for Miilo ciinnol lio tiid, 
 
 wliifli would bu tnltr- 
 
 iiH to title unilur u (lucree 
 
 'I'hi; only jKntius uuies- 
 
 me tlioHu who w oiilil bu 
 [jocilic pflforuiunce, lUiil 
 111) hiid bucn j(pinoil wcic 
 ihts. Hi- Mcu-yul'li, 1 U. 
 
 O. (1877) c. KM). B. 2 is 
 ist tlio onus of (lisprciviii); 
 nsiiU'iiition <in tliu (liiity 
 iiiiLO as voluntary iviii 
 1 took jilai.'u inior to tiint 
 
 . jl//i/.sl»r;/, 1 U. 1!. 178. 
 
 plication inuler R. !?. 0. 
 
 ((Utstion of the ahaiiiloii- 
 
 etween the partieH cannot 
 
 V. Spnictr, 8 1'. K. ii)'l- 
 
 (R. S. O. 1877, c. 10!)) was 
 I- a Biniple ca-e wlicif time 
 he validity of tiie contiiut 
 ght not to enttr iii^n tiie 
 ty of the title, until it was 
 act was binding. >kiuUr- 
 I!. W2, not followid. l!t 
 nitt, 9 1'. H.i2SS.-]ioyil. 
 
 18 under the Vendors and 
 Id not be made forlluMiiuc 
 uestions of title when tlii' 
 i' oi the contract is not dis- 
 and \yri<j(jl<"U-oi-th, 5 0. 1!. 
 
 (1877), c. 109, the cmiit 
 question of title bctwciii 
 r, and directs the pun liasiT 
 ntract, and the jiuicliiUiir 
 mt the contiact, it is im- 
 m action for specific \m- 
 itraet; the rcipiit'itc relict 
 e of motion lor i)aynHnt et 
 . or in default a rctalc, etc. 
 3,— Ferguson, 
 y be required as between a 
 ■r than in a suit w lu re ti.e 
 ling under him are iiartio. 
 ^o. (1 Ml Pidii .:mi III tl'C 
 . K. 09. — i'ronilfi'ut- 
 nder the Vendors and Pur- 
 1, that the purchasers were 
 
 Mclntodh 
 ("oopcr I'. 
 lir hohie.r 
 16 O. R. 
 
 entitled to certified enpi"- of rejjiHtered dordior 
 
 memoriiilii of deeds in the chain of ' " ' . which 
 
 the veiidorH were unable to produce. 
 
 r. Rogers, 12 P. R. 389, followed. 
 
 Emery, 1 I'hil. 390, distinguished. 
 
 awl Oiitnrin Invriitme.nl Aitoriation, 
 
 2.'59.— Armour. 
 
 A contract of sale of land provided that the 
 veiiilors should not bo bound to produce any 
 deeds or evidence of title exeejit such as they 
 might have in their possession, but should show 
 a good title, etc. It appeared that A. P., by an 
 indent uro of Ifith January, ISOS, convoyeil the 
 j.inds in (picstion to trustees on certain tiusts, 
 wliieli deed was registered by memorial not con- 
 taining the trusts. By deed of appointment 
 dated 4th July, 1802, made in pursuanci^ of the 
 (leed of 18.58, also registered by memorial which 
 purported to contain a full copy of the deed in 
 wliich wore recitals which sot out what pur- 
 ported to be the trusts of tho former deed, and 
 showed u life estate in A. P., with a power of 
 appointment in him, A. P. duly appointed to 
 trustees who were represented by tho vendors, 
 with directions to sell after his death, which 
 bad recently occurred ; neither of these deeds 
 was in the possession or power of the vendors, 
 the trustees. On an application under the Ven- 
 dors and Purchasers' Act : — Held, that the ven- 
 dors were not bound to produce these two deeds, 
 and that the production of the memorial of the 
 deed of appointment twenty years old, reciting 
 the trusts of the trust deed, was sutlicient evi- 
 dence of what those trusts were ; and as there 
 was an absolute trust for sale tho purchaser 
 should take the title. A. P. in 1873, assumed 
 to mortgage the lands in fee, and died in 1887 : — 
 Held, that tho nnortgage- only bound his life 
 estate, and that tho vendors were not bound to 
 procure a discharge thereon. I{e Panlon and 
 SwaiiMon, IC 0. R. CC9.— Boyd. 
 
 See Re Boustead ami Warwick, 12 0. R. 488, p. 
 \m;McIntoHh v. Iloiiers, 12 P. R. 389, p. 1891 ; 
 Van Vdsor v. Hwjhuon, 9 A. R. 390, p. 003. 
 
 VESTED ESTATE. 
 
 .Str Will. 
 
 VENDOR'S LIEN. 
 
 See Sale of Land. 
 
 VENIRE DE NOVO. 
 
 See Pleading. 
 
 VENUE. 
 
 ^cc Ejectment— Patent for Invention- 
 Pleadinu — .Sueri ff. 
 
 VERDICT. 
 
 (See New Trial— Trial. 
 
 VESTING ORDER. / 
 
 Sir. Sm.k ok LvNh nv Okdkk ok TiiK Court. 
 
 VEXATIOUS PROOEEOINOS. 
 
 .V(t Costs. 
 
 VICTORIA UNIVERSITY. 
 
 Hold, that under ti.e .\ets incoriicrating Vic- 
 toria University, and the statutes thereof, sot 
 out in the judgment, the chancellor hns no 
 power to call a meeting of the .Senate elsewhere 
 than at ('obourg tl.'j present seat of the Univer- 
 sity. Tiwii of Coliouni v. Victoria UnivtrMy, 
 18 0. R. lbT>.— Ualt. 
 
 VESSEL. 
 
 See Ship. 
 
 VOLTINTARY CONVEYANCE. 
 
 A.S Against CRED'roR8—6'ee Fraudulent Con- 
 veyances. 
 
 A mortgage which had been executed by the 
 defendant I. reciting that it had been agreed to 
 be given to secure notes held by tho plaintiffs 
 and containing covenants ftn* title was reformed 
 on parol evidence by substituting for one of the 
 parcels inserted by mistake which did not belong 
 to I., another lot proved to be his at the time of 
 creating the mortgage, and being tho only other 
 lot owned by him. Such a mortgage is not 
 voluntary or without consideration so as to ex- 
 clude reformation. Bank of Toronto v. Inoin, 
 28 Chy. 397.— Spragge. 
 
 The absence of a power of revocation from a 
 voluntary settlement is not a ground for sotting 
 it atide. The plaintitf, who had just come of 
 age, being about to marry, applied to her solici- 
 tor who was also her guardian, for advice as to 
 her property, and had several consultations with 
 him, at wliich the heads of the marriage settle- 
 ment were agreed upon. The solicitor did not 
 know her husband, and acted solely in the 
 interests of the plaintiflf. Nothing was said 
 about a power of revocation in the settlement, 
 which contained the usual clauses, but gave 
 rather more power than usual to tho plaintifif, 
 and was made in consideration of marriage : — 
 Held, that it was not a voluntary settlement ; 
 an(l, that as it contained the usual clauses in 
 such deeds, and simply omitted a power of revo- 
 cation, which is not usual in settlements for 
 value, there was no evidence of Improvidence, 
 or ground for setting it aside, in the absence of 
 fraud or mistake. Hillock v. Button, 29 Chy. 
 490.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Held, that 42 Vict. c. 22, s. 2, (Ont.) (amend- 
 ing the law of dower) does not apply to a caae 
 of voluntary sale by a husband. See Calvert v. 
 Black, 8 P. R. 255, p. 560. 
 
a»i 
 
 WAIVEB. 
 
 , (i 
 
 < ' i; 
 
 > i 
 
 111 
 
 m 
 
 i mki 
 
 Semble, that R. S. O. (1877) c. 109, s. 2, 
 ia retrospective, so as to cast the onus of dis- 
 proving payment of the consideration on tlic 
 party impouchiug a conveyance as voluntary, 
 even though the transaction tools place prior to 
 that enactment, Saiuleiv ', Malnbitrf/, 1 O. 
 R. 178.— Boyd. 
 
 A voluntary or covinous conveysince under 27 
 Eliz., 0. 4 is voidable only, and is goo<l and valid 
 until avoided. Harper v. Vvlhal, S O. U. 152. 
 Ferguson, 
 
 A husband, on 2nd September, 1885, by deed 
 of bargan and sale made in pursuance of the Act 
 respecting Short '^ irmsof Conveyances, convey- 
 ed to his wifccerfini lands, theconsideration being 
 "natural love aii.l .ilection anil §5," tlie receipt 
 of the consideration wu« also admitted in tlie 
 deed, besides the usual innrginal receipt of the 
 $5 ; habendum to tlie wife, lier lieiis and assigns 
 for her and tlieir sole and only use forever : — 
 Held, that the evident intention of the owner 
 might be given effect to, as far at least as tlie 
 beneficial interest in the property was concerned, 
 and an order was, therefore, made, vesting in the 
 wife all the estate and interest of the husband 
 at the date of this deed to her. Whilekend v. 
 Whitvheiul, 14 0. R. 621. -I'loudfoot. 
 
 See JoncK v. McOralh, 15 O. R. 189; S. C, 
 16 0, R. 617, p. 883. 
 
 VOLUNTAR/ PAYMENT. 
 
 See Payment, 
 
 VOTERS 
 
 I. In CoMi'ANiEs— .SVfi Company.— RAiii- 
 WAva AND Railway Companies. 
 
 II. Under Canada TEMrEKANCE Act or 
 LiyuoB Lu^ENSK Act— 6Vc Intoxica- 
 TiNo LiyuoR.s. 
 
 Voters List — See Parliamentary 
 Eleutionm. 
 
 Ill 
 
 . .,*, WAGES. 
 
 See Master and Servant— Lien. 
 
 .fi »-;".■ WAIVER. 
 
 I. Or Secitrity kor Costs — See Costs. 
 
 II. Estoppel— .Vw Estoppel. 
 
 III. Laches— fe Laches. 
 
 , IV. Of Conditions in Insurance Policies — 
 See Insurance. 
 
 V. Ok Appeal — See Appeal. 
 
 VI. Matters of Practice— Sfe Pleading- 
 Practice. 
 
 Where the advertisement in a quieting titles 
 proceeding was |)osted at another court house 
 
 than that required by G. O. Chy. 504 (Con. 
 Rule 1026) :— Held, that the irregularity might 
 be waived under R. S. O. (1887), c. 113, ss 
 45, 40. Re Ilarrii, 12 P. R. 4.30. -Boyd. 
 
 Where a sheriff seizes goods under writs of 
 execution, and a mortgagee lays claim to them 
 under a chattel mortgage, the fact that he siiiiae- 
 f|ucntly directs the sheriff to sell under the extcu- 
 tions, does not necessarily amount to a waiver of 
 his claim under the mortgage. Sequvorth. v. MiH- 
 den Silver Plating Co., 3 O. R. 413.— Boyd. 
 
 When a defendant submits to examination 
 before a magistrate it is too late afterwards to 
 object to its propriety. Iti'i/iiiay. Ilamwy, \\ 
 
 0. R. 210.— Ualt. 
 
 Of service of summons by entering on defence. 
 See ltd/ma v. Ikinutl, 3 O. R. 45, p. 1030. 
 
 Issuing of a summons by a magistrate waived 
 by defendant entering on defence See 7iVi/i;ia 
 V. Clarke, 19 0. 1!. 001, p. 1100. 
 
 Of irregularity by appearance and pleadiiii; to 
 summons of justice of tli'* peace. See Itciihm v. 
 Jinimril, 4 O. H. 0(»3,i). 1114 ; /icr/ixa v. i'ollwi,, 
 14 O. R. 014, p. 1037 ; Jlajina v. l{oi', 10 (». K. 
 
 1, p. 1030. 
 
 Of objection to jurisdiction by application for 
 new trial. Sec /« re Eranit v. SiUtuu, 8 I*. 1!. 
 307, p. 551. 
 
 Of irregxdaritv in return of couimission. See 
 Dariimj v. Ihirlmj, 9 P. R. 500, p. 023. 
 
 Of conditions for inspection in contr.ict for 
 purchase of grain. See Goodall v. Smilli, 4(! Q. 
 B. 388, p. 1855. 
 
 Of forfeiture of breach of covenant to repair. 
 See Leijihton v. Midley, 1 O. R. 207, p. 1139; 
 lloldeniesH v. Lang, 11 O. K. 1, p. 1141. 
 
 Of notice to (juit by payment of rent after 
 action brought. See Laxlun v. R-ienheni, 11 
 0. It. 199, p. 1154. 
 
 By receipt of rent after forfeiture. See 
 Doltson v. Suotherau, 15 O. R. 15, p. ll.W. 
 
 Of right of tenant to redeem mortgag(^ See 
 Afarlin v. Milex, 5 O. R. 404, p. 1303. 
 
 Of excessive consignment of goods. See dood- 
 year liidiher Co. v. Foiter, 1 O. R 242, p. ISC'). 
 
 Of mechanics' lien. See Makiiin v. Robinson, 
 6 0. R. l,p. 1107. 
 
 Election to waive personal liability on a note, 
 and accept liability of a company. See llroim 
 V. Howtand, 9 O. R. 48 ; 15 A. R. 750, p. 105. 
 
 Of notice to arbitrator of time and place for 
 signing award. See Norrell v. Canada Southern 
 R. W. Co., 9 A. R. 310, p. 1765. 
 
 Of priority of rights of the Crown by accept- 
 ance of dividends. See Ifeijina v. /iank oJ'Xora 
 Scotia, 11 S. C. R. 1, p. 459. 
 
 Of objection to assessment. See Ex /Mrtt 
 Leirln, 11 S. C. R. 484, p. 00. 
 
 ( )f objection to title. See Clarke v. Laiigky, 
 10 P. R. 208, p. 1894. 
 
 Of right of purchaser to compensation from 
 v(3udor for being kept out of possession, by tak- 
 ing a vesting order. See Harlter v. Barber, 11 
 P. R. 137, p. 1897. 
 
G. 0. Chy. f)04 (Con. 
 t the irregularity mitht 
 . O. (1887), a. 113, 88. 
 P. R. 430. -Boyd. 
 
 08 goods under writs of 
 ;ageo lays olaim to thim 
 ;e, tlio taut that bu siiliae- 
 ilFto sell under the tixticii- 
 ly amount to a waivtrof 
 tgage. Spqsvorlh v. Miri- 
 3 O. R. 413.— Boyd. 
 
 submits to cxiimiiiation 
 is too late afterwards to 
 Ri(jiiin V. Ramxay, \\ 
 
 IS by entering on defence. 
 3 O. K. 45, p. 103G. 
 
 s by a magistiate waived 
 11 defence See lirifiua 
 1, IJ. IKK). 
 
 pearance and pleadiiif; to 
 til'' peace. See Itcifxin v. 
 [). 1114; Rcijltta v. ( 'oliim, 
 
 litijimi V. Uoc, 1(» (). R. 
 
 idiction by application tor 
 Uraiin V. /SiUtoii, 8 I'. U. 
 
 jturn of commission. See 
 1'. R. 5(iO, p. (>23. 
 
 nspcction in contract for 
 ee Oooda/l v. Smilli, 4(i Q. 
 
 ach of covenant to repair. 
 'ley, 1 O. R. 207, p. 1139; 
 
 11 o. i;. 1, p. 1141. 
 
 by ])ayment of rent after 
 i Luxtun V. It^^cnhcnj, 11 
 
 it after forfeiture. See 
 15 0. R. 15, p. 1152. 
 
 to redeem mortgage. See 
 R. 404, p. 1303. 
 
 nment of goods. See (loml- 
 oxtn; 1 O. R 242, p. \m. 
 
 See Makinn v. Robinson, 
 
 lersonal liability on a not«, 
 
 jf a company. See Wroini 
 
 48; 15 A. R. 750, p. 1«5. 
 
 ator of time and place for 
 NorvM V. Camuhi Soulhern 
 110, p. 1765. 
 
 ts of the Crown by accept- 
 <ee Reqinny. RmikoJ'Xom 
 p. 45». 
 
 ssessment. See Ex /xirtt 
 i4, p. «0. 
 
 e. See Clarke v. Lmnjky, 
 
 [. 
 
 iser to compensation from 
 
 t out of possession, by tak- 
 
 See Harlter v. Barber, 11 
 
 8093 
 
 WARRANTY. 
 
 JDM 
 
 Of notice to vendor of defect in machinery sold. 
 See Tomlinnon v. Morrix, 12 O. R. 311, p. 2095. 
 
 Of breach of contract and resort to recovery 
 of money paid. Sec Murray v. Hvtchimon, 14 
 A. R. 4«9, p. 1870. 
 
 Of right to appeal from order of the court by 
 having compiled with such order. See He Smart 
 /n/ants, 12 F. R. 635, p. 848. 
 
 Of objections to finding of arbitratoi's. See 
 Cmmee v. Canadian Pacijic A*. W. Co., 16 0. H. 
 639, p. 41. 
 
 Of presentment and notice of dishonour. See 
 Blackkj/ V. McCahe, 1(5 A. R. 295, p. 1.37. 
 
 By payee of statutory re(|Uiiements as tr) 
 notes " given for patent right." See Girvin v. 
 Ihtrke, 19 0. R. 204, p. 1556. 
 
 WALL. 
 
 See BniM)iN(iS. 
 
 WAREHOUSEMEN AND WAREHOUSE 
 EEOEIPTS. 
 
 See Ranks— Bills ok L.\riiN"(! and WAUKitorsK 
 
 RkCF.IPTS— CoNSTTTITTfONAL LAW— RAILWAYS 
 
 AND Railway Compaxies. 
 
 WARRANT. 
 
 I. For Arre.st— .S'cc .Ii'stice ctiie Peack. 
 
 II. For Sale ok Land kor Taxes— .S'cc As- 
 
 sessment AM) Taxes. 
 
 III. Of Distress— <9flc Jcsticb of the Peack. 
 
 IV. Of Commitment— .9«' Jr.sTiOE ok The 
 
 Peace. 
 
 V. Search Warrant— ."Jce Intoxicatinc; 
 LigiJORs— Justice ok the Peace- 
 Search Warrant. 
 
 WARRANTY. 
 
 I. Implied Warranty, 2093. 
 II. Action for Breach of. 
 
 1. When Action trill lie, 2094. 
 
 2. Krideure, 2095. 
 
 3. DamwjeH, 2095. 
 
 III. Miscellaneous Cases, 2097. 
 
 IV. Where Sate ihs been by Sample or 
 
 Inspection. — See Sale of Ooods. 
 
 V. As to Ships.— *■(' Ships. 
 VI. In Insurance.— .fee Insurance. 
 
 I. Implied Warranty. 
 
 Plaintiff sued the defendants for the value of 
 a portable engine and boiler which had been 
 hired by the <lefendants, and which boiler had 
 exploded when in their possession immediately 
 
 after they had begun tou.se it, and while in charge 
 ofaconipetLMteiiL'ineor: -Held, tliataa the IcHsor 
 of a cl.attel ti.r hire impliedly warrants that it 
 is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it 
 is let, the plaintiff, in the abaenee of ncgliyeiico 
 on the part of the defendants, couM not recover. 
 Vcynohh v. Roxbimjh, 10 O. R. 649.- Q. B. 1). 
 
 Under a contract to supply goods of a specilied 
 description wliicli the buyer has no opportunity 
 of inspecting, the goods must not only, in fact, 
 answer the specific description, hut must bo 
 saleable or nierchantalile uinler tliatilescription. 
 On a sale of goods where the buyer has no 
 opportunity of inspection, the iiiaxim caveat 
 emptor does not apply. 'I'lio plaiiititl's sold ii 
 cargo of rye to the defendants to be shipped from 
 K. and delivered afloat at the defendants' dock 
 at T. On Ijeing unloaded at T. irto the defen- 
 dants' elevator, it was discovered by the de- 
 fendants' inspector that the bottom of the cargo 
 was heated ; and siil)8e<|Ueiitly tlic whole of it 
 became heated. There was no oppnrtunity to 
 inspect the rye at the time of the making ot 
 the contract, nor did the defendants waive in- 
 spection. There M'as no (ixpress warranty as 
 to (piality or condition ; —Held, that there was 
 an implied warranty on the part of tlic plain- 
 tills tliat the commodity delivered would be 
 saleable or nierchantublc under the descriiition 
 "rye," that there was a breach of such war- 
 ranty, and that tlie maxim caveat emptor ilid 
 not apply, .(ones v. .Inst, L. R. 3 0. 15. I!)7, 
 cited and followed ; liortluvick v. Young, 12 
 A. R. 671, distinguished, Afiiocrnv. Ooode.rha 
 A' Worts f Limited) HO. R. 451.— Ferguson. 
 
 II. Action for Breach of. 
 1. When Action will lie. 
 
 The defendant delivered a piano to the plain- 
 tiff on a " hire contract," the price being stated 
 to be §5(M), payable by crediting .$I<X) on an old 
 piano taken in exehaiigc, and tiie balance of §400 
 1 >y monthly instalments, the plaint iff gi villi; a note 
 for the S400, jiayahle by like instalnK.'iits. Ttio 
 contract stated that the del'endant did "neither 
 part with said iiiano," nor did the plaintiff "ac- 
 i(iiiie any title" to it until the note was fully 
 paid. (!ertain iiistalinents fell due and payment 
 was enfoiced, and there were instalments in ar- 
 rear wiieii action was brought. The plaintiff' 
 sued fur fraudulent misiepresentations, and for 
 general damages fur breach of implied warran- 
 ties ; the alleged iiiisrepreaentations or warian- 
 ti('s being that the piano was worth .?500 ; that 
 it Wiis a lirst-class instrument; and as good as 
 ntiy Steinway or Cliiokt^ring iiiaiio. The jury 
 fouiiil for the plaintiff witli damages :--Held, 
 that as the property had not passed, an action 
 for the breach of warranty would not lie. Frye 
 V. Milli<,mi, WO. R. 509. -0. I'. I). 
 
 l!y a written agreemcLt the defendants sold a 
 threshing machine for .?5(X», to the plaintiff, tak- 
 ing .an engine in part payment of §250, the balance 
 to be secured by promissory notes. The right of 
 pos.session was to he in plaintiff until default, but 
 until payment the right of jiroperty was to be in 
 defendants ; with a warranty by defendants that 
 with good m.an.agement the m.achine would do 
 good work and was superior to any other machino 
 made in Canada, etc., anil if upon starting the 
 machine, the plaintiff, followingthe printed hints. 
 
WABSANTT. 
 
 
 M: 
 
 rules anil directions of defendants, was unable 
 to operate it well, he was to give defendants 
 written notice of the defect, and a reasonable time 
 was to be alloweddefendantsto get to the machine 
 and remedy the defect, unless they could advise 
 by letter ; hut if they were unable to make it 
 operate well, etc., and the fault was in the machine 
 they were to take it back and refund the pay- 
 ments made, or remedy the defective part, but 
 if the fault was through improper management 
 or neglect to observe the printed, etc. , directions, 
 the plaintiff was to pay all necessary expenses 
 incurred ; and if, plaintiff observing such direc- 
 tions, nny part, except belting, failed during the 
 year, through any defect in material, the defen- 
 dants, on presentation at the manufactory of the 
 defective piece, were to furnish a duplicate there- 
 of, but defects \\. pieces were not to condemn 
 other parts. Deficiencies in general adaptation 
 for threshing, separating, etc., for which alone 
 the machine should be taken back, must be re- 
 ported ten days after starting the machine, and 
 not after continued use or injury thereto. The 
 defendants had, on the plaintiffs complaint, at- 
 tended and made alterations in the machine, 
 M'hereupon the plaintiff used the machine for six 
 weeks, and then sent it back to the defendants, 
 because, as the plaintiff said, it failed to comply 
 with the warranty, and he had no furtlicr use 
 for it ; but, as defendants understood to be re- 
 paired. The plaintiff did not ask for the return 
 of the engine. No printed hints, etc., were 
 given by defendants, nor written notice of the 
 defect given by plaintiff ; and no default was 
 made by plaintiff in payment of the instalments. 
 In an action to recover the 8250, the value of the 
 engine taken as part payment, the redelivery of 
 the notes, and §500 damages for breach of war- 
 ranty : — Held, following Krye i'. Milligan, 10 O. 
 R. 509, that as the property in the machine hail 
 not passed to the plaintiff, he could not maintain 
 an action for breach of warranty. Held, also, 
 that the plaintiff was not entitled to return the 
 macliine after the expiration of the ten days, no 
 notice in writing of the defect complained of 
 having been given ; and that the fact of the 
 defendants' previous attendance to make altera- 
 tions did not constitute a waiver of their right 
 to such notice, as the evidence shewed that when 
 plaintiff sent for defendants he did not intend 
 giving notice with a view of availing him.self of 
 the right to rescind ; and the starting under the 
 contract must be regarded as that which took 
 place after the machine was so altered. Tumliii- 
 son v. Aforrit, 12 O. K. 311.— C. P. 1). 
 
 2. Eddence. 
 
 See McMulhn v. Williaim, 5 O. R. 518, p. 2006 ; 
 La Roche v. O'Hoijmi, 1 O. R. 300, p. 658 ; Ellis 
 V. Abell, 10 A. R. 22(i, p. 658 ; Mooers v. Gooder- 
 ham and WorU, 14 0. R. 451, p. 2097. 
 
 •" . ' 3. Damages. 
 
 The defendants bought a vessel from the plain- 
 tiff, who, as the jury found, warranted her to 
 class B. 1, and promised to get her insured in a 
 company, of which he was agent, for $1,400. 
 She would not class as Ti. 1, and no insurance 
 could be effected under that class ; but defen- 
 dants sailed her uninsured until she foundered 
 
 and was totally lost. In an action for the pur- 
 chase money : — Held, that the measure of tuun- 
 ages to which defendants were entitled for 
 breach of the warranty was not the §1,400 for 
 which she might have been insured, but the 
 sum which it would have taken to make her 
 class B. 1, which it was for defendants to shew 
 LaRoche v. O'Hagan, 1 0. R. 300.— Q. B. D. 
 
 The plaintiff sued the defendant, a piano 
 maker, for breach of a warranty given by his 
 salesman on the sale of a piano, that the instru- 
 ment was then sound and in good order. The 
 plaintiff signed the ordinary receipt note, which 
 is set out in the report, providing for payment 
 of the price, and that until paid the property 
 should remain in defendant, in wliich there wp,,i 
 no mention of the warranty : — Held, that pirol 
 evidence of the warranty was admissible, as it 
 was apparent that the receipt note was not in- 
 tended to be the evidence of the whole contract. 
 Qurere, whether this question should not have 
 been left to the jury : — Held, also, tliat the 
 salesman had authority to give the warranty. 
 Quoere, whether any evidence of an express 
 warranty was necessary :— Held, also, that the 
 proper measure of damages to allow was the 
 price which at the time of sale would have been 
 required to remove the alleged defect, and the 
 jury having given much more, the court named 
 a sum to which the plaintiff might reduce hia 
 verdict, or that there should be a new trial. 
 McMulkn V. Williams, 5 A. R. 518. 
 
 The defendant was a mtvnufacturer of steam 
 threshing machines, which were recommended 
 as being safe from fire ; that tiie engine would 
 not throw out sparks and that the separator, 
 which was sold and u.icJ i herewith, would not 
 throw out grain in the ciiaff, and that alto- 
 gether these were the 1)eat threshing machines 
 ni the world. The plaintiff alleged that after 
 hearing tiiese recommendations lie sent a written 
 order to the defendant for a steam engine and 
 separator, which when used proved defective, 
 the engine throwing out sparks and the separa- 
 tor wasting the grain by tlirowing it out with 
 the ciiaff ; and he claimed to have tiie contract 
 of purchase rescinded and the notes given by 
 him in payment of the machine rciturned ; and 
 $300 damages. The judge at tiie trial having 
 ruled that the plaintiff could not rescind the 
 contract, but- could only rci.ver, as damages 
 for breach of warranty, yv difference in value 
 between the machine ( tracted for and the 
 one which was delivered- ,!o jnry found (in an- 
 swer to questions) that ti re was a warranty 
 which hatl been broken and tnat by such breach 
 the plaintiff had sustained damages to the 
 amount of $500. Per Cameron, C. .1. C. P., the 
 plaintiff 's claim on the pleadings was for breacii 
 of a contract not proved by the evidence, and 
 no amendment should be allowed to change it 
 into an action for breach of warranty ; but there 
 should be a new trial. As to the (luestion of 
 damages,— Per Hagarty, C. J. t) , and Hose, 
 J., the damages claimed in the pleadings were 
 claimed upon the basis of a rescission of the 
 contract and return of the notes. The damages 
 awarded were for a breach of warranty, the 
 plaintiff keeping the machine and paying for it ; 
 and there was evidence to support the finding 
 of the jury as to damages. Per Cameron, C. J. 
 C. P. There was no evidence from which the 
 
2096 
 
 an action for the pnr- 
 at the measure of dam- 
 iita were entitled fnr 
 was not the §1,400 for 
 
 been insured, but the 
 ive taken to make her 
 
 for defendants to shew 
 0. R. 300.— Q. B. D. 
 
 he defendant, a piano 
 
 warranty given by his 
 
 piano, that the instru- 
 
 id in good order. The 
 
 nary receipt note, which 
 
 providing for payment 
 
 until paid the property 
 
 lant, in which there wr.s 
 
 ■anty :— Held, that pirol 
 
 y was admissible, as it 
 
 receipt note was not in- 
 
 ce of the whole contract. 
 
 ucstion should not have 
 
 Held, also, that the 
 
 y to give the warranty. 
 
 evidence of an express 
 
 y:— Held, also, that the 
 
 mages to allow was the 
 
 I of sale \\'ould have been 
 
 ! alleged defect, and the 
 
 1 more, the court named 
 
 aintiff might reduce his 
 
 ! should be a new trial. 
 
 5 A. R. 518. 
 
 a manufacturer of steam 
 ?hich were recommended 
 
 ; that tile engine would 
 
 and that the separator, 
 'n',1 iherewitii, would not 
 the ciuiff, and that alto- 
 
 l)est threshing machines 
 aintill' alleged that after 
 ndations he sent a written 
 t for a steam engine and 
 1 used proved defective, 
 ,it sparks and the separa- 
 by tlirowing it out with 
 med to have the contract 
 
 and the notes given by 
 e machine returned ; and 
 udge at tiie trial having 
 ff could not rescind the 
 nly rccver, as damages 
 y. Ill- difference in value 
 
 I t tracted for and the 
 3d • >!0 jnry found (in an- 
 \t ti re WAS a warranty 
 
 II and ;,nat by such ))reach 
 stained damages to the 
 
 Cameron, C. I.e. P., the 
 3 pleadings was for breach 
 ,'ed by the evidence, ami 
 
 be allowed to change it 
 3h of warranty ; l)ut there 
 I. As to the (piestion of 
 ■ty, C. J. O., and Hose, 
 led in tlie pleadings were 
 is of a resuis.siou of the 
 
 the notes. Tlie damages 
 breach of warranty, the 
 lachinc ami paying for it; 
 se to support the finding 
 iges. Per Cameron, C. J. 
 evidence from which the 
 
 •2097 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2098 
 
 plaintiff's damages for breach of warranty could 
 be reasonably ascertained, and for this reason 
 also there should be a now trial, Tlie court 
 being equally divided, the appeal was dismissed. 
 Ellis V. Ahell, 10 A. R. 226. 
 
 The breach of warranty of a specified chattel 
 does not entitle the purcliaser to return the 
 chattel and rescind the contract, and it forms no 
 defence to an action by the seller for tlie price, 
 but the purchaser, on being sued for the price, 
 is allowt^d to give evidence of the breach of 
 warranty in reduction of damages. Moopm v. 
 Gooderham and Wortu, 140. R. 4.51.— Ferguson. 
 
 III. Misc'KLLANEor.s Cases. 
 
 Covenant to "warrant and defend" in assign- 
 ment of patent right. See Green v. Watimi 2 
 0. R. 027, p. 1354. 
 
 I)y the Banking Act, 34 Vict. c. 5 (Dom.), 
 banks were prohibited from buying or selling 
 goods or merchandize : — Held, therefore, that 
 an action would not lie against an incorporated 
 bank for breach of wai-ranty on the s:iie of a 
 horse-power machine. Jiad/ord v. Mci-chau(s' 
 Bank, 3 O. R. 520.— C. P. D. 
 
 On sale of timber limits. See Ducondit v. 
 Dupiiy, 9 App. Cas. 150, p. 2016. 
 
 As to warranty .against charges and encum- 
 brances on sale of land in the province of Quel)ec. 
 See Windwr Hotel Co. v. Cro^s, 12 S. C. R. 624, 
 p. 495. 
 
 WASTE. 
 
 Brbacii of Covenant to Rkpair.- .^pe Land- 
 lord AND Texan r. 
 
 The plaintiff, in consideration of .?25 paid by 
 defendant, executed in his favour a lease of a 
 small plot of land, at a yearly rent r)f one cent if 
 demanded, with the right on the part of the de- 
 fendant to remove all buildings at any time 
 during the lease. The lease contained no cove- 
 nants on tlie part of the lessee other than tliose 
 to pay rent and to pay taxes, and it was silent 
 as to any right on the part of the lessee to bore 
 for oil •.— Held, tiiat prima facie, the lessee had 
 not the right to bore for oil, and having done so 
 and commenced o[)erations in pumping crude 
 oil, an injunction w.is granted to restrain the 
 further removal of oil from the premises until 
 the hearing of tlie cause. Lancoij v. Johwitoii, 
 29 Ciiy. 67.— -Ferguson. 
 
 Impeachment of tenant for life for waste. See 
 Clow V. Cliiir, 4 O. R. 355. 
 
 Right of tenant for life to cut tinilier. See 
 Saunders V. nreakie,SiO. R. 603, p. 2020; Mitniie 
 V. Lindmij, 10 P. R. 173, p. 2020. 
 
 Right of mortgagor when lumber is cut on tlie 
 mortgaged premises. See ficott v. Viitlnin/, S 
 P. R. 336, p. 1285; McLwd v. Arey, 16 O. R. 
 365, p. 1285. 
 
 Alterations in building by tenant. See Hcl- 
 dmrnn V. Laiin, 11 O. R. 1, p. 1141. 
 
 A tenant who, for the purpose of clearing the 
 land and rendering it more fit for cultivation, 
 
 132 
 
 collects the stones therefrom, has the property 
 in the stones, and the landlord has no interest 
 in them, and is liable for their value if he dis- 
 poses of them. Saunders r. Breakie, 5 O. R. 
 603, commented on. Lmrli v. Godxon, 15 0. R. 
 252. -Q. B. D. 
 
 .See WIniK v. Xell-s, 11 S. C. R. 587, p. 1158 ; 
 ^nll V. Ati/I, 8 O. R. 370, p. 906 ; Crawford v. 
 Bwjij. 12 0. U. 8, p. 1140. 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 I, Navkiabi.e Watkrs. 
 
 1. (lauralbj, 2008. 
 
 2. Leifixluiire J nrlidiclion — See CoN"- i- 
 
 TUrioNAL Law. 
 
 II. Wn\T Constitutes a WATER-couRflE, 
 2099. 
 
 III. AccKKTiON, 2099. 
 
 IV. Forming Boundaries, 2100. 
 
 V. RkiHTS and LlAllII.ITIE.S OF RiPARIAN 
 
 Pkoi'hietoks, 2100. 
 
 VI. Floatin(5 Timber, 2105. 
 
 VII. PKNNiN(i Back Water, 2106. 
 
 VIII. Pollution of Water, 2109. 
 
 IX. Rkmits by Prescription, 2110. 
 
 X. Drains THRoucmAD.ioiNiNf) Property, 
 2110. 
 
 XL Liabilities of Mitnicipalities for 
 Injuries Caused by Sewers and 
 
 jJKAINS. 
 
 1. In CiHes ami Towuh, 2110. ■■ 
 
 2. Othr nrahii, 2113. 
 
 XII. Ditches and Watkr-C()UrsesAct,2115. 
 
 XIII. Duaina<;e liv-LAws- .SVe Mcmcipal 
 
 Corporatiox.s. 
 
 XIV. Canals— •S'f.e Rideau Canal. 
 XV. Bridc.ks over Rivers— .^ee Way. 
 
 XVI. Ferries— .SVc Fi;ury. 
 
 XVII. FiSIIKRY— .S'ce FlSlIKKV. '^ 
 
 XVIII. Harbours— .SV IIauboue. ' ' ' 
 
 I. Navioable Waters. 
 
 1. Oeneralh/. 
 
 Held, in tlii.s case, that the wliarf being con- 
 structed over the navigalile waters of tlie bay of 
 Toronto, tlie license of the coinniiss'ioner of 
 crown lands for the province of Ontario, even 
 if he had power to grunt it, would not confer 
 the right to impose tolls on vessels landing pas- 
 sengers on the wharf, for the public have a right 
 to reach the shore over the waters of the bay, 
 and C. having been invited, .as it a))peared, by 
 the proprietors of Haulan's point to run hia 
 vessel there, he had a right to land on the wharf 
 which prevented his reaching the island at that 
 place : — Quiere, whether the soil at the bottom 
 of the Toronto bay at the place in ipiestion was 
 vested in the province, or in the city of Toronto 
 under the patent from the crown of the island. 
 CtiHdinniiiij v. Ttmier, 9 0. R. 34.— C. P. D. 
 
WATER AND WATER-OOUBSES. 
 
 210O 
 
 E. et al. brought an action of tort against W. 
 for having pulled up piles in the harbour of 
 Halifax below low water mark, driven in by 
 them as supports to an extension of their wharf, 
 huilt on certain land covered with water in the 
 harbour of Halifax, for which they had obtained 
 a grant from the provincial government of Nova 
 Scotia, in August, 1801 . \V. jdcaded inter alia, 
 that " he was possessed of a wliarf and premises 
 in said harbour, in virtue of which he and his 
 predecessors in title had enjoyed for twenty 
 years and upwanls before the action, and had 
 now, the right of having free and uninterrupted 
 access from and to Halifax harbour, to and from 
 the south side of said wharf, with steamers, etc. , 
 and because certain piles and timbers, placed by 
 the plaintitis in said waters, interfered with his 
 right, he (defendant) removed the same." At 
 the trial there was evidence that the erections 
 which E. et al. were making for tlie extension of 
 their wharf, did olistruct access )»y steamers and 
 other vessels to W.'s wliarf. A verdict was 
 rendered against W., wliich the full court re- 
 fused to set aside : — Held, (reversing the judg- 
 ment of tiie Supreme (^ourt of Nova Scotia) 
 that, as the crown could not, without legislative 
 sanction, grant to E. et al., the right to place at 
 said harbour below low water mark any obstruc- 
 tion or imi)edinient so as to prevent the free and 
 full enjoyment of tlie right of navigation, and 
 as W. had shown special injury, ho was justified 
 in removing the |)iles which were the trespass 
 complained of. Wood v. L'ssoii, 9 S. C. R. '2.'J!>. 
 
 SeeAfcLarcn v. Cnldirell, 6 A. II. 456, 9 Ap|). 
 Cas. 392, p. 2105 ; O'nnliwr v. Chapman, (J O. 
 R. 2/2, p. 2101 ; W'ariii. v. London and Canadian 
 Loanand Aiii'nn/Co., 70. U. 700; 12A. K. 327 ; 
 14 S. C. R. 2:i2,p. 2103; liallr v. lioofli, 1 1 <). R. 
 491 ; 14 A. R. 419; 15 App. Cas. 188, p. 2104, 
 2105. 
 
 II. What Constitutes a Watkr-coursk. 
 
 A water-course entitled to the protection of 
 the law is cotistitnted if there is a sutHcient 
 natural and accustonieil How of water to form 
 and maintain a distinct and defined channel. It 
 is not essential that tiie sui)ply of water sliorld 
 be continuous or from perennial living source. 
 It is enougli if the How arises periodically from 
 ratural causes and reaches a i)lainly-defined 
 oh,tmiel of a permanent character. Jieer v. 
 Stroud, 19(>. R. 10.— f'hy. !>. 
 
 III. ACCKETION. 
 
 By IO(Jco. IV., c. 11, the t'oliourg Harbour 
 Company were authorised to construct a har- 
 bour at Cobourg, and also to liuild and erect all 
 such needful moles, piers, wharves, buildings 
 and erections whatsoever, as should be useful 
 and proper for the protection of tin; harbour, 
 and to alter and amend, repair and eidarge the 
 same as might be found exiiedient. The har- 
 l)our company commenced their work in 1820 
 by running a wharf southerly from the road 
 allowance, lietweeii lots sixteen and seventeen of 
 the township of Hamilton, which now forms 
 Division street in the town of Cobourg. Hy 
 means of the mu<l and earth raised by ilredging 
 and gradual accretions, which were prevented 
 from being washed away by being coufined by 
 
 crib- work, the original wharf was widened to the 
 full width of Division street, and in addition tliey 
 constructed a storehouse and placed a fence dU 
 viding it from the land which appellant (wliose 
 lot fronted on Division Street, and extended to 
 tlie water's edge), had gained by Jiccretiou since 
 the additi<m to the original wliarf was miide. 
 Thereupon the ai)pellant filed a bill coniplaiiiing 
 that his access to this alluvial land was obstructed 
 by the storehouse and fence which the respon- 
 dents caused to bo jilaced on the addition to the 
 wharf and ])raying tliat the respondents other 
 than the attorney-general, be decreed to reiiuive 
 them : — Held, 1. That land gained by alhivial 
 deposits arising from natural or artificial causes 
 or from causes in part natural and in partnititi- 
 cial, so long as the fact is proved that tiie accre- 
 tion was gradual and imperceptible, accrues to 
 the owner of the adjacent land. 2. Tlmt the 
 st()rehou.se and fence complained of in this ciise 
 were not constructed on any p.-irt of Divisimi 
 street, but on an artificial structure constnicled 
 under the authority of a statute on the line of 
 Division street for harbour purposes and, there- 
 fore, apptdlant was not entitled to be iiidcnini. 
 fied because he was denied access to his alhuiul 
 land through the ])ieniises of tlie respoiuliiits. 
 3. that the public right of way from the end of 
 Division street to the water of Lake Ontario, 
 was extinguished by statute by necessary iiiipli- 
 cation. Corporation of Yarmouth r. Siiiininus. 
 10 ("h. 1). 518, followed. Slandly v. I\rni. .1 
 S. C. R. 356 ; 2 A. It. 195. 
 
 IV. FonMis(! BocvnARiES. 
 
 River Rideau boiindnry between towiishi|is nf 
 Olouc^ester and Nepcan and the city of Ottawa. 
 See /'I'l/ina v. County of Carlilon, 1 (). I!. 277. 
 p. 2138. 
 
 See Mi-Arlliuv v. <lillii.'<, 29 Thy. 223, infi-.i \ 
 Altri/l V. ri,iil, 10 S. ('. II. 425, p. 2101 : A'-rv,' 
 v. fioo/li, no. R. 401,11. 2104 ; He. Trml V„!l..,j 
 Canal anil l.an'l E.i /yroiirialid nt Faiilun Falls, 
 12 O. R. 1.53, i>. 2101 ; Hr.idi/ v. Sadler, l(i 0. 
 R. 49; 17 A. R. .305, p. 2108. 
 
 V. Ullilrrs AND LlAHII.ITIKS OF Rll'MlI\N 
 I'HOI'HIEruUS. 
 
 Under a conveyance of land, on a stream not 
 navigable, described as running from, etc., 
 "south, etc., to the northern aide of the; " * 
 river, * * then mirtli-easterly aloii;; tlie 
 bank of the .said river, with the stream to tiie 
 centre of til' : lid lof; -Semi de,tliat the ;,'iaiitee 
 was bound by the bank of tlie river, and liadimt 
 any riglit to extend the boundaries to aii<l aloiii! 
 the middle or thread of the stre.ini; hut ;-- 
 HeM, whether he had or had not such iif,'iit, he 
 couhl not erect any structure in the stream tlmt 
 could or might aflect prejudicially the tlow of 
 the water as regards other riparian jiroiniotors. 
 McArlhui- v. <lillii:<, 29 Chy. 223.— Siira;,'j.'e. 
 
 A rip.arian proprietor has not the alisolute 
 right to the natural and unobstructed How of 
 the water of a stream over his lands, Imt iiis 
 right is a <|ualilied one, and subject to tlic law- 
 ful and reasonable user of the waters by a mill 
 owner above him on the same stream, and tliis 
 although the user above him may be at times 
 
2100 
 
 2101 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2102 
 
 vharf was widened to the 
 
 cet, and in addition tlipy 
 
 3 and placed a fence dj. 
 
 which appellant (wliose 
 
 Street, and extended to 
 
 ained b}' accretion since 
 
 ginal wliarf was niiidu, 
 
 t filefl a l)ill coniplaininu 
 
 iivial land was obstructeil 
 
 ence which the res)ion- 
 
 ed on the addition to the 
 
 t the respondents other 
 
 111, he decreed to remove 
 
 land gained by alhivial 
 
 itural or artiticial causus 
 
 latural and in part artiti- 
 
 in proved that the actie- 
 
 inperceptilde, aecriK-s to 
 
 eent land. 2. Tliat the 
 
 miplaincd of in this cuse 
 
 )n any part of Divisinn 
 
 ial structure constniited 
 
 statute on the line (if 
 
 xmr purposes and, tlare. 
 
 entitled to be imU'iiiiii- 
 
 lied access to his alhivial 
 
 li.ses of the resj)ondiiits. 
 
 t of way from tlic (.ml i.f 
 
 water of Lake Ontario, 
 
 atutc by necessary Inijjji- 
 
 f Yarmouth r. Sininions, 
 
 c(l. Slanilh/ v. J'uni, ,3 
 
 105. 
 
 HolNDAKIES. 
 
 lai'y between townships nf 
 n and tiie city of Ottnwii. 
 ()/ Ciirliloii,'\ (». i;. '277. 
 
 /W. S '2!) riiy. -Ji;!, infr.i ; 
 ("'. R. 4-2.-), p. ^lOl ; A'.r/r 
 ,p. 2104 ; 1,'e Trnil Vwlri, 
 ■iijirifilnl at Fiiirliiii FiiH.i, 
 ; llniihl \. Sadkr, 10 0. 
 , p. 2108. 
 
 Alill.lTIKS OF Rll'AKIAN 
 'UIKTOKS. 
 
 J of land, on a stream not 
 as running from, etc., 
 oi'tiiern side of the " * 
 Udrtheasterly aiony the 
 r, with the stream to the 
 — Semi de, that the j,Maiit('e 
 k of the river, and had ikjI 
 le boundaries to and aloiii; 
 d of the stre.wi ; liut ;-- 
 1 or had not sui h ri{,'lit, he 
 ,ruct\ire in the stream that 
 ; prej\nlicially th(! tlow of 
 otluT riparian proiiriftors. 
 >9(;hy. -il'S.- Siiraf.!ge. 
 
 tor has not the alis(dnte 
 and unobstructed thiw "f 
 n over his lauds, Imt his 
 e, and subject to the law- 
 jr of the waters by a mill 
 the same stream, and this 
 uvc him may be at times 
 
 Dick'wn V. Car- 
 
 
 for an extraordinary purpose, 
 negie, 1 O. R. 110.— Ferguson. 
 
 C., the owner of two lots of land divided in 
 one place by G.'s land, and in another liy a bay 
 formed by the waters " " 
 which washed the shores 
 to (Kinstruct a bridge bet 
 
 easier access between them, which bridge would 
 have the effect of cutting oil' (J.'s land from tiie 
 canal, and of making the water between the 
 bridge ami (I. 'a land stagnant. In an action by j 
 (i. against ('. for an injunction to compel him 
 to desist from the work, and remove that |)art 
 already constructed. It was:— Held, that (i. I 
 had the lights of an ordinary riparian owner, \ 
 and that the stieani being a navigable one made 
 no dili'ereuce, except that those rights arc sub- \ 
 jeet to the public right of navigation, that those 
 rights had been injuriously all'ected by the de- 1 
 fendant, that the ])laintilV siiewed that an injury I 
 would res\dt to him if tiie work was completed, ' 
 and that he might in good time l>ring his action | 
 to prevent the wrong, t''at even if the liay was 
 not part of the Riileau canal itself, so as to give i 
 him the rights of an owner and occupant of i 
 lands adjoining the canal under 8 (ieo. IV. c. I, ! 
 8, 1"), ho was entitled to use it as 
 access to the canal, and that on the evidenci 
 the jdaintiir was entitled to his injunction- 
 Gaidimr v. Cfiujuiinii, (j U. K. 272. — Ferguson 
 
 Besides the lands the title to which was de- 
 rived from their common gr.antor, the aiiiiellant 
 was proprietor of another piece of land, called 
 block A., situated on tlie oppo.site side of the 
 River Maitland, the boundary of said block on 
 the river side being high water-mark : — Held, 
 that the lateral or riparian contact of the land 
 with the water would sullice to entitle the ajipel- 
 lant to object to any unauthorized interference 
 with the flow of the river in its natural state. 
 AtlrUl V. rialt, 10 S. C. R. 425. 
 
 Where a river flowed diagonally tliidugh a 
 certain lot of land, and the owner of the lot 
 granted the part thereof lying N. or K. of tlie 
 said river to one party, and the ])ait lying S. or 
 
 years before action, .were a wharf and storehouse, 
 so ne.ir the dividing line of the half lots that ves- 
 sels could not call at the west side of the wharf, 
 ... ... c...,,(,..vi i.v 1 iiav ^'"•'''''"'•lt'"'''»si"ess wasdone, without passing 
 
 of the Rideau canal, ' ',V'"' *'"''"'}'' •"V- '^^ ''"'} P'",''^f>' ''^■'-•"'Pyi"^' 
 of all these lots be.ran *'"= '"""' 'V' i" ^'"^'■•,* *'"' '''":''^- '" ''"'^ '"" 
 tween his two lots for , !*"'-'^^':««<"'« "^'1 "'«" ''"^1 up vessels at their whart 
 in winter, two or three abreast, occupying part 
 of A.'s half lot nearly every year since the erec- 
 j tion (if tlie wharf, and about eighteen years be- 
 i fore action built on the wharf an elevator fen- 
 1 receiving and shipping grain at the west side of 
 the wharf. In bs.s;{ A. [lut up a notice warning 
 : persons against trespassing dii liis halt' lot, which 
 [ vessels passing to II. 's lot kiKicki-d down Suli- 
 ' sc(picntly, in the same year, A. diovc piles into 
 I the soil of his own half lot, ostensibly as a 
 foundation for boat houses, and was about to 
 i drive others, to the obstnictimi of the approach 
 j to l>."s wharf, wlun l).,lo meet this, began 
 , nidving vessels to and fniiii his wharf, and linally 
 I moving them tn his wliarf and extc-nding into 
 ■ the waters on A.'s lot, thus preventing him from 
 driving more piles. In trespass by the |)laintitl, 
 15. elaimed, first, an easement by iireacriplion 
 and non-existing grant to the owners of the fee — 
 , whose lessee, Taylor, who ere(.teil said wharf, 
 means "' | ^as— over A.'s lot to the extent nece.-sary to 
 1 allow vessels to pass to and from his wharf, and 
 I to lie up there , secondly, that the water cover- 
 I ing said water lot were navigable waters part of 
 Lake Dntaiio and 'I'oronto harbour, and that the 
 wharf was a construction within the law for the 
 purposes of enabling tlit- harbour to he used, and 
 the saf<! and useful navigation of said w,aters, 
 i and that the act of A. was a wrongful interfer- 
 eiK.'c and an obstruction of the use of the said navi- 
 gable waters, which l>. was entitled to abate : — 
 Held, 1 . That the waters covering said lot seven- 
 teen were part of the navigable waters of Lake 
 Ontario, and the same law was applicable thereto 
 as in the casi- of tidal waters, in the absence of 
 a valid grant the soil beini; veiited in the Crown 
 and subject to the jus ]mblieiim of navigation ; 
 
 That the Act 2H Vict. . 
 
 .r){R. .S. O. IS77 
 
 e. 2H, s. 47), gives to the Crown authority to grant 
 water lots, and the grant of water lot seventeen 
 by the deseriplion, " land covered with water," 
 
 W. of the said river to the other party : -H 
 
 th.it this would carry the ownersliip of the soil | was valid under these eiiaetuunts, and sutlieient 
 
 to the mid-thread of the river to the resiiective ; to pass to the grantee and his representatives 
 
 parties, no evidence of intention inconsistent j the soil and the jus publicum for navi^iation and 
 
 therewith appearing ujion the instrument. AV 
 
 Treiil VoU(y CamiL and Liiiitl Exjirojiriattd itt 
 
 tl 
 
 Ftndim Fulls, 12 O. R. 15;{.— Royd. 
 
 Held, reversing the judgment of the court 
 below, Taschereau, .!., dissenting, that a riparian 
 owner on a n.avigable river is entitled to damages 
 agains'.' a railw;vy eomjiany, although no land is 
 taken from him, for the obstruction and iiiter- 
 nipted access between his property and he 
 navigable waters of the river, viz., for the injury 
 and diminution in value thereby occasioned t( 
 
 like in the water, which could be built upon, 
 lilled up, or otherwise dealt with, as niixht be 
 thouuht proper 
 
 ,"?. That so long as A.'s water 
 was unenclosed or unix'cuiiied any one might 
 pass over or across it without being liable to b(^ 
 treated as a trespasser, and an easement such as 
 that claimed could not therefore be ac(|uire(l ; 4. 
 That the(laim to an easement was not founded 
 on an enjoyimsnt nee clam, nee vi, lUiC preeario, 
 and was therefore not as of riu'lif, and could not 
 be sustained : 5. That the evidence shewed the 
 user of the idaintiirs water lot was not as of 
 
 his property. 2. Th.at the railway comi.any in i ^.j,,,, ^^,,,, the'tinding of the jury was warranted 
 
 the present ease not having C(miplie(l with the 
 provisions of 43-44 Vic. e. 43, s. 7, sub-ss. ,S and 
 5 (Que.) the .ap]iellant's remedy by action at 
 law was admissible. P'loii v. North iShon A'. IT. 
 Co., 14 S. C. R. (577. See also liiiinoiiitU' v. 
 North .Shore A*, ir. Co., 17 S. (". R. :)t):i. 
 
 A. was lessee for years of the west half, which 
 was prixctically vacant, of water lot 17, Toronto 
 harbour, B. proprietor of the east half of the 
 same lut, on which, erected more than twenty 
 
 liy the evidence ; (I. 'i'liat neither the erection of 
 the wharf nor its long use, nor the erection of 
 the (devator, shewed such a claim of enjoyment 
 .nsof right as to satisfy the statute ; 7. 'I'hat in 
 .any event the claim was of an easement in 
 gross, and therefore invalid ; .S. That the ver- 
 dict upon the evidence set out in the re[)()rt, 
 should have been against the defendants in .any 
 event, beeau.se they were not making use of the 
 wateis for the purposes of trade and c(jmmerco 
 
2103 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2104 
 
 
 ■ka 
 
 when they aiichorcil the vessels upon the lot ; 9. 
 Tliat the patent to the city of 'I'oronto of tlio 
 water lots, conlirnieil by tiie esplanade let,isla- 
 tion, gave to tiie ownei's of water lots the right 
 to till in their lots, and turn them into land. 
 Wniin V. London niid Canadian Loan and 
 Ai/i'vy Co., 7 O. R. 70(5. — Q. 15. I). AHirmed 
 oii appeal, \'> A. 11. 327; 14 S. C. R. 232. 
 
 J. A. was the patentee of a certain water lot 
 on the River Ottawa, and the description in the 
 patent covered the lot and two chains distant 
 from the shoi'e, hut a reservation was contained 
 ■J' " of the free uses, pass.age and enjoy- 
 
 o 111, over, and ujion all navigalile waters 
 I .' hii r may he hereafter found ill or under, 
 ■r ,. i! -. iig •■hrough, or upon any part of the 
 said parcel of 'and hereby granted. " Tlie said 
 •rater lot \\as suhseriuentiy conveyed to A. R. , 
 but tlie des( rijition in tlie deed to liiiii only 
 went > tlie v edge : -Tfcld, reversing the 
 
 judgiiicut of l-ro.ii'foot. J. (10 (). R. .351), per 
 Royd, C. — Tiic citcct o; the patent is to convey 
 the dry land and liu^ land covered by water two 
 chains out, subject to the rigiitti of the public in 
 the Ottawa as a navigable river. As to the 
 land bordering on the water' the plaintiiF is a 
 riparian proprietor, and lias the right to have 
 the water in front of him open for all navigable 
 purjioscs, and to enjoy it free from extraordinary 
 iniimrities. F.ven if the land under the water 
 is vested in the plaintiff's grantor he could not 
 derogate from his grant to the water's edge by 
 polluting, lining uji, or otherwise cutting off 
 his grantee from the lieneficial enjoyment of the 
 river, still less can the defendants be protected 
 in their wrong-doing, 'i'lie grant to the patentee 
 of the river-bed two chains out, carries, a.*; 
 parcel of it, the water thereon so that the l)ed, 
 the bank, and the w;vter are vested as private 
 property in the patentee, subject to the servi- 
 tude of a common public right of way for the 
 purposes of navigation. The term "navigalile 
 waters" in the patent is to be construed as re- 
 ferring to water of such a (le]>tli and situation as 
 is, according to the reasonable course of navi- 
 gation in the particular locality, i)ractically 
 navigable. The ))atentee might rightfully use 
 and occup}- the land covered liy water, but only 
 .so much as will not interfere with the public 
 casement ; but every encroachment on the water 
 will be at liis peiil if it is proved that he is guilty 
 of a public nuisance. There was no evid(!nce to 
 shew that the plaintifTs structure (the boathouse) 
 is a nuisance : and whatever may lie the nature 
 of the plaintiir's title or occupancy of the w.iter, 
 it is enough that his possession an<l liusiness 
 are, as against the public, legitimate in order to 
 entitle him to recover as against a wrong-doer. 
 Kven if the ]ilaintiirs jilace of business was 
 proved to be a nuisance because it invaded the 
 navigable waters of the river, it does not follow 
 that that dis[ioses of the plaiutiti's claim for an 
 injunction and damages, as he might well in- 
 voke the maxim. Injuria non excusat injuriam. 
 Per Ferguson, ,1. — There is nothing either on 
 the face of the conveyance to the plaintiti', or in 
 the surrounding circumstances at tlie time of its 
 execution, to indicate tliat the gr.intor intended, 
 if intention could now be of any consequence, to 
 reserve to himself the part of the lot under the 
 water, or any right or title to it. The contrary 
 would rather appear, from his being in posses- 
 sion at the time, and having a boathouse 
 
 situated as the present one is. By the convey- 
 aneo to the plaintiff ho obtained title to the 
 lands in the stream embraced in the two chains 
 from the bank, but subject to the ri{,ht of navi- 
 gation expressed in the patent. What the 
 plaintiff has done is no nuisance, nor is it shewn 
 that he has caused any injury to navigation, 
 and he is entitled to redress for the grievances 
 of which he comjilains. Kven if the plaintiH" is 
 not the owner of the land under the water, ho 
 is entitleil to redress for the injuries he lias, sub. 
 tained as a riparian proprietor, merely. /\''ill(\. 
 /iouth, 11 O. R. -tOI.— Chy. D. See .V. ('., infra. 
 
 This judgment was affirmed by the Court of 
 Appeal (Rurtoii, J. A., dissenting). Per Hag- 
 arty, V. J. ()., an<l t)sler, J. A., the plain- 
 tiff is in the ])osition of a riparian proprie- 
 tor. He owns the land on the bank and has 
 the same right over the water as the rest of 
 the pul)lic. Tiierc is, however, a special injury 
 to him, and a wrongdoer not in privity with 
 I', cannot be heard to raise the (piestion of P.'s 
 rights in order to exclude plaintiti' from the 
 water. The frown owning the bed of the river, 
 coulil grant a portion tliereof, res(>rving the 
 public right of u.ser, which is the effect of the 
 reservation in the patent. Per Patterson, .1. A. 
 The plaintid'is a riparian proprietor. Thejiatcnt 
 to .'\. granted the laud without any restriction 
 of his absolute dominion over it, and there is 
 nothing to distinguish it from an or-diriary grant 
 of crown lands. It was made in couteru|ilation 
 of the grantee occupying the land withbuihlings, 
 or wharves, or' otherwise at his pleasure, and so 
 far there was, under legislative sanction, a cur- 
 tailirient of the jus publicum. The reservation 
 of the fi'ce uses, passage and enjoyment * * » 
 of all navigable waters consider-ed as an cxcep. 
 tion, was void, as repugnant to the license. The 
 public right to the use of n.avigable water's is the 
 right of each individual, and stands on a different 
 footing ; it does not come by grant from the 
 ci'owii, but is a iiaramount right to be curtailed 
 only by .-Vet of the Icgi.slatirie. A pidilic ease- 
 ment cannot be the subject of an excejition in 
 favour of the grantor. If the exception were 
 construed as perpetuating the jus puldieuin, it 
 would be r'ciiugnant to the grant in its operation 
 under the statute 23 Vict. c. 2 s. 35, and would 
 be void. The true reading of the patent is, that 
 the reservation touching navigable water's is ap- 
 plicable only to other )iarts of the lot, and not to 
 tile two chains of the river bed. The whole lot 
 vested in A. fi'ee tr'oni the asserted jus pulilicuin, 
 and the plaintiff as against his gr'arrtor, P. aiida 
 fortiori as against wrong doer's, had acipiircd a 
 title to the river portions under the Statute of 
 Lirrritations. Per Burton, ,1. A. -The plaintiff 
 cannot be r'cgardcd as a rijiari.an proprietor; the 
 person occupying that position is P., arrd on his 
 tilling irr the lot, as he is entitled to do, to the 
 extent of his grant the plaintiff would be en- 
 tii'cly cut off' from the stream. The plaiutifT, a 
 tres])asser, carrrrot complain of others trespassirrg 
 oir portions of the pi'opcrty of which he is not in 
 possession, although it may interfere with his 
 access to the [lortion of which he is in iiossession. 
 If the woi'ds of the r'cservation in the patent 
 extend to the right of navigation, the i-e.serva- 
 tiorr is absolutely void. The statute 23 Vict, 
 c. 2, s. 35, gives to the cr'own the riglit to grarrt 
 the bed of the river and the water upon it free 
 from any rights publici jur'is. The statute of 
 
2104 
 
 le is. By tlic convey- 
 
 obtiiiniiil title to the 
 
 vced in the two chains 
 
 ct to tlie ri^'it of niwi- 
 
 patent. What the 
 
 lis.ince, nor is it.slicwn 
 
 injury to navigiition, 
 
 ■ess for the {grievances 
 
 Even if the pliiintiff is 
 
 ,(l under tlie water, he 
 
 lie injnrics he has, sub- 
 
 ietor, merely. Ihltex. 
 
 y. \). See S. ('., infra. 
 
 Ilrnied by the Court of 
 lissenting). I'er Hag- 
 Icr, J. A., the plain- 
 )f a riparian proprie- 
 on the hank and has 
 ' water as the rest of 
 wever, a special injury 
 not in privity with 
 ,se the (piestion of P.'s 
 ..lie plaintilt' from the 
 ng the l)edof the river, 
 thereof, reserving the 
 nch is the etl'ect of the 
 :. Per Patterson, .1. A. 
 
 I proprietor. 'I'lu^ patent 
 without any restriction 
 
 II over it, and there i.s 
 , from an ordinary grant 
 I made in contemplation 
 ; the land withhuildings, 
 B at his pleasure, and so 
 islative sanction, a cur- 
 licum. The reservation 
 I and enjoyment * * * 
 considered as an cxcep- 
 nant to the licen.se. The 
 if navigable waters is the 
 and stands on a diflercnt 
 omc by grant from the 
 int right to be curtailed 
 dature. A public ease- 
 l)ject of an cxcejition in 
 
 If the exception were 
 ing the jus jiublicum, it 
 the gr.ant in its operation 
 ict. c. '2 s. 35, and would 
 ing of the patent is, that 
 g navigable waters is ap- 
 irtsof the hit, and not to 
 iver bed. The wliole lot 
 he asserted jus pidilicum, 
 inst hisgrantn-, P. and a 
 ng doers, had acipiircd a 
 nns under the Statute of 
 ton, J. A. --The plaintiff 
 I, riparian proprietor; the 
 position is P. , and on his 
 le is entitled to do, to the 
 le plaintiff would bo en- 
 strcam. The plaintiff, a 
 plain of otheis trespassing 
 city of which he is not in 
 t may interfere with his 
 which he is in possession, 
 cservation in the patent 
 navigation, the rcsorva- 
 1. The statute '23 Vict. 
 1 crown the right to grant 
 d the water upon it tree 
 ci juris. The statute of 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2106 
 
 litations could give the nliiintiff no title to! proper :-Held, also, that the ahaenoo of aprons 
 ,• part of the land covered by water, except of the jiroper statutable dimensions iMMin plain- 
 
 2105 
 
 limitations could give the 
 
 any , , . . ._ ... 
 
 that actually occupied by his lh)atiiig wliarf and till's dams across the river allonUi. .,.., ,.„..„i„ 
 boathouse. .S. C. U A. K. 410; allirined by no gronml f..r claiming the right ti. usu without 
 the Privy t,ouucll, mih tioiii. huolh v. Haiti:, 15 conipinsat'on plaintiU's improvem.iits not in 
 App. Cas. 188. I the hed (■. the stream, lioale c. l)iiks„ii, |;{ 
 
 There is no distinction in principle between ' 9' ^'; '^ i'' ''•■'"'•"•'"^''l "l""'- M'i'k' y y. Slunmii, 
 of navigable ortidal , ^ *"*• " '^•~^'-i- ^^- ^- '^^''^ 1^- «• *»• (l«^T). ^- I'-'l'- 
 
 [iiiii pi 
 lefciidiints 
 
 riparian rights on the banks 
 ami on those of non-navigable rivers. In the 
 former ease, however, there iiiusl lie no inter- 
 ference with the publio right of navigation an<l 
 in ()i<ler to give ri.w to riparian rights the land 
 uiUi^t. be in actual daily contact with the stream, 
 laterally or vejtically. Lyon r. i'"isliniongeis 
 l.-onipaiiy (I App. t'as. (i(i2) followed and iiuld 
 to he applicable to evciy country in wliich the 
 same geiuv:d law of riparian rights prevails 
 unless excluded by some positive rule or binding 
 authority of the lex loci. Xorlli Sliorv ]!. IT. 
 ('(/. V. I'inii, 14 App. t'as. 012. 
 
 See //itirkiK'i v. Malmil'ij, 211 Ohy. :i2(i, p. 21(Mi; 
 Uniij V. 'ruiL-ii dl' JJinida-i, 1 1 < ). l;. ."JlT, p. 21 12 ; 
 W'uod V. A'.«('/t, 'J Si. C. It. 2;{U, p. 20'.)!t. 
 
 VI. Fl.O.VTlNd TlMliKK. 
 
 Held, that although the publio may have in a 
 river, sucli as the oue in (picstinn, an ea.-cmuiit 
 01' right t(i lliiat rafts or logs duwn and a right of 
 passage up and down in t'anada, etc., wherever 
 the water is sullieiently liigh to be so used, such 
 right is not inconsistent witli an exclusive right 
 oi tishing nr with the rij,ht of the owners of pro- 
 perty iipixisite their respective lands, ad medium 
 liluin acpue. Ilnjiua v. llUn rlsuit, G S. C. U. 52. 
 
 Hehl, that the right (conferred to float timber 
 .ind logs down streams l>y Canadian Statute 12 
 Vict. c. ST, s. 5, is not limited to siicli streams 
 
 See (Jiiuldy U'ti-i r JJi'iriiiij liuuin Co. v. JJavid- 
 "01, 10 S. C. U. 222, p. aiti. 
 
 Vll. pE.\MS(i IJ.AUK W.VTKK. 
 
 In order to establish a right to damages as 
 against the crown fur having, i\s allegcil, ob- 
 structed the lluw of water to ihe mills ot the 
 suppliants, it is incumlieiit on the huiiiiiiauts to 
 .shew tliatlcss tliaii the natural vuhmie cif w.iter 
 foiniiug the stream reaches their mill (jii account 
 (if siicli alleged (iltetriuitiou : thercfoie, where it 
 apiicaicd up<iii the evidence that certain waters 
 allc;;rd to have lieeii penned li.icU by a dam 
 Would never have readied the mills of the sup- 
 pliants, and the extrmiu: and unprecedented dry- 
 ness of the se.isuu had had an a|jpieciable ellect 
 upon tlie supply of water :— Held, tliat the evi- 
 dence did not sustain the peiitiuu, wliith ailegud 
 that the supiiliants sustaiueil damage by the 
 eivcliuii of a dam across the river, abuve their 
 mill. The reiliess of a subject sulleiing damage 
 from such acts, if unauthoi-ize.l by statute, 
 Wciuld lie against the subject \\ ho committed the 
 wrong, and nut against the crown. Mnikukci 
 Mill Co. V. The (Jumi, 28 Cliy. 5(J3.— Spragge. 
 
 The patent from the crown of a hit of land 
 situate on the bank of a river, reserved free 
 access to the bank for all persons, vessels, etc. 
 There was a ([Uiintity of stone on the lot, which 
 
 as in their natural state, without ini|)rovenients, the plaiiitill' desired to (piariy, but was prevtut- 
 
 iaid hi 
 
 tindier, etc 
 
 during tresliets, permit 
 til he tloateil down them, but extends tn the user 
 witliciut compensation ot ail imiirovemeiits upon 
 such streams, I'ven when such streams have lieen 
 leudered Ihiatable thereby. ISoale .r Dickson, 
 IS t'. P. .'iHT, ovei luled. .'>ueh right is only con- 
 fuired by the statute during freshets ; ipucie as 
 Id the rights at other seasons of the year iif the 
 parties, that is, of the lumbi'rers on the one side, 
 mid the ownei's of the improvements, and the 
 liud of the stream whereon they have been ellec- 
 tfd on the other. Caldu; II v. Mil.aii it, !l App. 
 
 ('as. ;{!I2. .Indgment of the Suiiivme Court, 8 reiiort thereon. 
 
 ed liy the penning liack of the water of the river 
 by the defendant, the owner of a mill thereon 
 lielow the plaiiitill s laud :— Held, that llie rc- 
 servatiiiu by the crown in the grant was nu.'rely 
 an ea-enieiit to the puldic, iiom ithstanding 
 which the iilaintilV was a riparian piopiietur, 
 and as such entitled to complain of tlie injury 
 caused by the pe'iiuing baek of the water. The 
 jiarties ilesireil tlie as.>istance of scientilic evi- 
 dence as to the height of the ilefeiidant s dam 
 and the ell'cct of I'aising it. The court (Proud- 
 toot, . I. ) appointed an engineer to inspect and 
 
 S. C. K. 4.'i5, reversed, 
 
 The plaintiir had erected dams, slides, and 
 other impidVements for facilitating the passage 
 of sawhigs and timber down a stream, lleat- 
 ahle in a state of nature. Some of these oiides 
 Were situated in the bed of the stream, others 
 Were built entirely on the plaiiitill 's l.iiid on one 
 side of the stream, the water of which was 
 daimned back so as to llow in [lart through the 
 artilicial channel thus constructed. The defeii- 
 d.uits, in driving their logs and timlicr down 
 thestieaiii, used all the slides and iniprnvemeiits. 
 Ill an action for tolls for such u.ser : - llelil, fol- 
 liiwing Caldu ell r. McLaren, 9 App. Cas. ;!52, 
 tiiat as to all slides and imiirovcinciits construc- 
 ted ill the bed of the stream, plaiiitill' could not 
 recover; but; Held, also, as to all such ini- 
 provements outside the channel, and upon |dain- 
 tilf's laiul, that a recovery by the plaiiitill' was 
 
 reserving 
 olitained. 
 
 the costs until his rc- 
 Ihdckins v. Mahiijj'y, 
 
 port slioulil I 
 2!) Chy. ;J2U. 
 
 When one brought action to restrain the diver- 
 sion of the water wliicli supplied his mill, from 
 the channel in wlii^di it had tlowcd for more than 
 twenty years, and it a[ipeared that tne channel 
 was ail artilicial cut, diverting the water from 
 its natural outlet, and had been made originally 
 at the instance, and by peiniission of the then 
 owner of the creek, in wiiicli the water naturally 
 Uoweil, partly for the beiiclitol the owner, who 
 had however, on many occasions lilocked up the 
 cut, so as to turn the water to its natural outlet:— 
 Held, that such an occupation wouhl not give a 
 statutory right to the licensee, and that the onus 
 was on the plaintitf to make out his right, and 
 shew than there had been a change in tiie mo.le 
 (if user, alter the ori'^ination by iiermission. 
 Mal>:olia\. lIuHtu;^0. K. 102.— iSuyd. 
 
2107 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2108 
 
 a 
 
 90 
 
 m 
 a 
 
 8 
 
 The (Icfeiidantu were iiicorimratod by 31 Vict. 
 c. 06, (Out.), with power to tiii<<j and iii)pro[H'i- 
 ate a slip of luiiil '200 toet wide, and to uoiistnict 
 anil maintain a canal from lUack river to Lake 
 St. ,l(ihn, and thence to Lake C'oiichiching, witli 
 the fnll use and enjoyment of the waters of said 
 river, and the tributary streaniH and Lake St. 
 John for floating <ir moving log.s ; and to execute 
 thereon all necessary works, Imt so as not to 
 impair and injuriously affect the enjoyment of 
 the present channels thereof ; and to construct 
 and Keep in repair, suhjcct to such provision, all 
 locks, bridges, and erections necessary for said 
 works ; tlie price or the compensation for the 
 lands taken in case of dispute, oi' for any lands 
 Hooded or injuriously affected l)y the company's 
 works, to be settled by ar))itration. The ilcfen- 
 dants under tlicir statutory |)owers erected a 
 canal, and at the iioint of commencenu'nt con- 
 structed two piers extending into the river ; and 
 in the JSt. John's creek, whicii ilowcd from Lake 
 St. John to lilack rivei' below tile canal, a clam 
 was erected. A break occurred in the liank of 
 ISlack river on the canal side beyond the piers, 
 wherel)y large (pumtities of water from lilack 
 river (lowed into the canal, and llius into Lake 
 ,St. John. Owing to the formation of l>lack 
 river below the junction of .St. John creek there- 
 with, the water in the creek at liigh water dur- 
 ing freshets was backed up into Lake St. ,lolin 
 and overtlowed the plaintill'sand other lands at 
 the head of the lake. The plaintiff contended 
 that either by the break in the river l)ank 
 whereby more water was bi'ought down than 
 usual, or by the dam preventing the water from 
 Howing away, it remained longer tlian it other- 
 wise would have done, and thus eauseil the dam- 
 ago complained of. Sjiecial (picstions were not 
 submitted to the jury, and there was no finding 
 by them as to wlietlier tlie cause of damage, if 
 any, was the dam or the break in the river bank. 
 The jury found foi- the plaintill' :— Held, there- 
 fore, there must be a new trial to ascertain 
 whether the damage, if any, was caused by such 
 dam or by the break in the river bank ; and, if 
 by tiie latter, was it the result of negligence or 
 by vis m.ijor '/—Quale, whetiier there was any 
 liability cognizable in a court of law .•ittaeliai)le 
 on the defendants ; and whctlier the compensa- 
 tion clause applieil, the plaintilf's land not hav- 
 ing been flooded under any right so to do claimiMl 
 by the company. dliirki' v. Itaiiia 'J'uiihi.r 
 'hniixpoH Co., (lAmilul), !) O. R. tiS.— C. J'. \). 
 
 The approaches to a bridge built over a river 
 were su[ip')lted on trestle work, the water How- 
 ing through the trestle woi'k and spreading over 
 the low liind until it fell into tiie river. The 
 municipality subseiiuently lilled in tlie trestle 
 work and made a solid embankment there n here- 
 by the water was penned liack, and sent down in 
 a greater Ixidy and with greater force in the 
 regular ohannel, l)y rea.son wiiereof a great part 
 of the bank of the river ujion wiiicii tiie plain- 
 tiff's factory was erected, was washed awaj-, and 
 was being so washed away from year to year : — 
 Held, that as the work was done by defendimta 
 in such a way as to occasion damage to the 
 plaintiff, whereas it could and should have been 
 done without such effect, this was a matter in 
 which the plaintiff must prosecute his rigiits liy 
 action, and was not tlie subject of compensation 
 under tiie arbitration clauses of tiie ^luniciiial 
 Act. The land in respect of which the claim 
 
 was made was mortgaged:— Held, that the 
 mortgagee was not a necessary party, the pro- 
 ceeding not being for compensation f(n- land 
 taken, Imt as a defence of and protection to 
 property. As, however, his security might be 
 prejudiced or diminished by the washing away 
 of the lanil, and he might be able to assert .some 
 right to the compensation, there could be no ob- 
 jection to his being joined ; but as the conipeii- 
 sation was (uily s(mie S">0, the court would not 
 leipiire him to be made a party, hi n Xickk 
 anil /hi: Tuirn of IVa/kuivit, 11 O. U. 4S3.- 
 WilsoM. 
 
 A crown p.itent, issued in ]i^')'2, conveyed to 
 tlie jilaintiir M. ii. a tract of land " conl'ainiiig 
 by admeasurement sixty acres, be the same iiKire 
 or less," and otherwise known as lot nine in the 
 4tli concession of the townshi])of ()]is, " exclusive 
 of tlie lands covered by the waters (,( the S. river, 
 which are hereby reserved, tngetlier witli free 
 access to the shore thereof for all vessels, lioiits, 
 and persons." The lot actually contained I'OI 
 acres, but tiie dry jiart was only sixty acrea. 
 At and before the issue of tiie patent, tlure was 
 a certain mill dam on the ,S. river, whicli laiseil 
 the water of the river and Hooded a poitinu of 
 lot nine ; the plaintill's did not objeel to llie 
 Ihioding of lot nine by tlie dam, but brought this 
 action to restrain the defendants from still fur- 
 ther Hooding the lot to the extent of about four 
 I acres, by the use of bracket boards upon the 
 I dam, which raised the water about a foot ;— 
 [ ffehl, reversing the judgment of i'ldiidfoot, J,, 
 (13 O. H. (i!)!.'), that the defendants had no pre- 
 scriptive right to overllow the plaintill's' lumls 
 by means of the bracket boards; — Held, per Ar- 
 ! Iiiour, C. J., that the words in the grant, '•con- 
 \ taining by admeasurement sixty acres, be the 
 j same more or less," did not control or all'ect the 
 I description of the land granted, tliat desciipti(]ii 
 [being plain and uuamiiiguous; that the words 
 I "exclusive of the hinds covered by the waters 
 1 of the .S. river, which are hereby nserveil, " 
 I iiicant the waters of the ri\er S. in its natural 
 ; channel, the waters between its shores in its 
 I natural condition; and therefore that IJ. took 
 ! under the jtatent, not only the dry part of lot 
 9, but also the drowned land excluding the chan- 
 nel of the river ; and the plaintill's had estab- 
 lished their title to the land upon which the 
 water was penned back by the use of bracket 
 i boards upon the dam. I'er Street, J. — Tlio Ian- 
 I guage ol the descri|)tion in the [latent admits 
 j of two ditl'i^eiit constrnctions, and that should 
 I prevail which would make the (luantity ot land 
 [ conveyed agree with the (piaiitity iiieiitiniuMl in 
 the patent; and therefore the patent sliouKl he 
 , construed as if it excluded all the drowned laud 
 both witliin and without the actual chaiinel of 
 ' the river; the extent of the drowned land living 
 measured by reference to the heiulit of the 
 water as inaintained by the dam without tiie 
 j bracket boaiils. Keinarks upim the admission 
 of extrinsic evidence to aid in the construetiou 
 of a crown patent. JJniili/ v. Suilkr, 10 0. K. 
 4!).-ti. 15 O. 
 
 Held, [iji I'roudfoot, .f., that, in construing 
 the patent, reference might be had to (laiiers in 
 the crown lands oiHee connected with the appli- 
 cation for the patent, and that tiie reservation 
 in the grant covered the laud (Irowiied hy the 
 waters of the river Scugog and its alilueut as 
 
2108 
 
 gcd : — Helil, that the 
 ^UL'Ssiii-y party, the ])rn- 
 comiiensatiDii for land 
 ; of anil iJi'otuution to 
 , his security might be 
 I liy the washing awuy 
 it hu able to assert some 
 n, there uouhl be no ob- 
 ucl ; but as the conipen- 
 ■»0, the court would not 
 a parly. /// rr yickk 
 xrlon, 11 O. U. «3.- 
 
 j(l in IS.VJ, conveyed to 
 let of land " containing 
 )• acres, be the same nmre 
 known as lot nine in the 
 aishipof Ops, "exchisivi; 
 the waters (. I theS. river, 
 •ved, together with free 
 eof for all vessels, bouts, 
 . actually contained 'JtH) 
 t was only sixty acres, 
 of the patent, tliere was 
 he S. river, which niiseil 
 and Hooded a (lortiou of 
 s did not object to the 
 :hedani, liul brought this 
 lefendants from still fur- 
 the extent of about four 
 iracket boards upon the 
 J water about a foot ;— 
 Igment of l'r<iudfoot, .)., 
 e defendants had no pre- 
 .tlow the plainlill's' lands 
 et boards; — Helil, per Al- 
 svords in the giant, "con- 
 :inent sixty acres, lie the 
 d not control or allect the 
 1 granted, that description 
 niiignons; tluit the words 
 ids covered by the waters 
 uh are hereby reserved," 
 bhe river S. in its nutunil 
 between its shores in its 
 id therefore that 1>. took 
 t (Uily the ilry part of lot 
 d lanil excluding the cliiUi- 
 the plaintills had estah- 
 the land upon which the 
 ick by tlie use of bracket 
 Per .Street, J.— 'I'lielan- 
 tion in tlie patent admits 
 itructions, and tiiat should 
 make the (puiutity of hmd 
 the ipiautily meiitiuinMl in 
 efore the patent sliould he 
 ludcd all tlie drowned hind 
 loiit the actual cliaiiiiel of 
 of the drowned land hting 
 nee to the lieigiit of the 
 I by tlie dam without the 
 marks upon the admission 
 to aid in the construction 
 Utadif V. Sadki; 10 U. K. 
 
 )ot, .1., that, in construing 
 e might be iiad to papers in 
 ;e connected with the appli- 
 it, and that the reservation 
 (1 the land drowned by the 
 .Scugog and its atHueut us 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2110 
 
 IX. Rkiiits by Puksckiption. 
 
 (). 11. lO'J, p. •JlOd ; ,/o»..< v. I'lslm; 
 .')1."), p. ".'lOil ; Itiilli- V. Ituuth, 10 (). 
 <). R. 401 I 14 A. R. 41!t, pp. '2104, 
 
 17 S. C. R. 
 11. :<,51; 11 
 210,-1. 
 
 X. Drains TiiiiorciH An.ioiMsii I'ltoi'KRTV. 
 Whetkr V. Black, 14 S. C. R. 242, p. 
 
 .See 
 .574. 
 
 backed by the dam with the bracket boards. 
 S a, 13 0.R. 692. I 
 
 ... , .,, , , Scmble, per Proudfoot, J., that the richt to 
 
 One of two joint owners of a miUdam, each fo„l the strt^am could not he ac.uired by the 
 having a mill on the opposite sides of the river , lefendants by a user of twentv v":"'^- Vnn 
 by which the dam was formed, was entitled to ' hJ,,,noiHl v. Town o/Svnfurth, G (J. R. rM). 
 a prescriptive right to the supply of water as 
 
 furnished by the dam all the way across the , See Wnviii v. Limdon and Cniindinn Loan and 
 river, and to dam back the water on to the plain- Aijiurii C'o.,7 <). U. 70(1, p. •_M0.'{ ; W'ond v. hUsoii, 
 tiff's land, but the other owner was not. In an S. C. 1!, •_>;!!), p. '20!)!) ; Mdlrolm v. Ifitiilir, tt 
 action to restrain botii owners from backing the 
 water to the detriment of the ])laiiitill' ;— Held, 
 that the dam as a piece of property was an en- 
 tire thing, and that the plaintifi' was not entitled 
 to an injunction restraining the use of the water, ; 
 his remedy being in damages against the owner , 
 not entitled to the easement. Slolhard, v. //;/- ' 
 l\ard, 1!)(). R. .')42.— Royd. 
 
 Where a proprietor, f(jr the piir|)ose of iin- 
 iiroviiig the value of a water-power, lias built a 
 dam over a water-course running througli his 
 property, and has not constructed anj mill or 
 manufactory in connection with the dam, he j 
 cannot, in an action of damages brought by a 
 riparian proprietor whose land has been over- 
 flowed by reason of theconstrueti(mof thedani. To a declar.ition charging negligence in tlio 
 justify under the provisions of chapter .')1, ('. S. construction and mainteiiaiicoof drains, in order 
 L.C. Nor can he acquire by prescription a right to drain the streets of a town, wliercby the 
 to maintain the dam in (piestion ; Arts. M'A, drains were choked .and the sewage matter over- 
 549, ('. C. ; nor can he claim title by possession Howed into plaintitl's premises, defendants plead- 
 to the land overlloweil without proving the re- ed that the cause of action did not accrue within 
 quirenients of Art. '2193, C. C. ./o/« s v. /'Vv/i. /•, , three moiitiis :— Held, bad, as section 4!)1 of 
 17 S. G. R. 51.-). 
 
 .See Dkhion v. Cnriii<ik, 1 O. R. 110, p. 2101 ; 
 Attrill V. /'Idll, 10 S. (". R. 42.'), \>. 2101 ; /'/((// 
 V. ihvad Trunk II. W. Co. of CiukuIh, 12 0. 1!. 
 119, p. 427 ; Hardy v. Filial raidl, 17 S. C. R. 292. 
 
 .\I. I.IAHII.ITIKS OK Mi'MCirAI.ITIKS KOR In- 
 
 .iiniKS Ca^ski) liV Skwkrs anu Dhains. 
 (1) III Cities (Hid Toit'iix. 
 
 It. S. (>. (1>S77) c. 174, did not apply. Sidtimiii 
 V. Town, of Jiarric, i,'> Q. li. 12. — Usler. 
 
 VIII. POI.I.UTKIN ov Watkk. 
 
 The iiliiiiitiir leased premises at the corner of 
 Queen and Uatliurst streets, which ran at right 
 angles to e.icli other, in Toronto. There was a 
 main sewer on (^>ucen street, witli which plain- 
 titl's private drain, constructed liy the defen- 
 dants at the ex])ense of the plaiutill's lessor, eim- 
 , .... 1, , , nected, and which had lieen extended westward. 
 
 W. aaimred a lot adjoining a small s ream at .,,,^^,.^. ^^..^^ ,|,^,,.^,i„_ .^^ ,,,,,^,„„,j p,,, tland street, a 
 CUe-dcs-Neiges, Montreal, and liuding the water ^^.^^^ ^,^j,, ^^ ,,^ j^,. j,,^ ,,„,,,„so <,f .Ijviding the 
 polluted from certain noxious substances thr.iwn ^^,,^^^,j. ^j^,, ,,.,^,^i , j^ j„ |1„„. eastward and wcst- 
 into the stream brought an action in damages ^^..^j,, 'i-i^.i-e was a sewer <m I'.atliur.st street, 
 iigain.st ('., the owner of a tannery situated lit- ^^^^^^1^ ,,,. ,),,^,^,,^ ^^,.^.^^,^_ Sulisequently, and about 
 tecu arpents higher up the .stream, and aske, j-„,„, .^ |,(,f„,,. tl,o action, a .sewer was con- 
 for an injunction. At the tria it was P'-oyed ^ ^^|.^j^,^_, ^„ Rathur.st street, north of Queen 
 thatC. and his predecessors had, from time ; ^^,.^^,4 i„tothis sewer a creek was turned, in 
 immemorial, earned on the business ot tan- 1 ^^.,^j^,|| .^j. ^j,,,^,, j|,g „..^j^^^,. ^^..^^.^j^j f^.^.^ .j^.^p . „„,i 
 
 niiig leather there, using the water for tanning 
 
 puqioses, to the knowledge of all the inhabi- 
 tants without complaint on their part: that; 
 it was the principal imlustry of the village ; that ' 
 the stream was partly used as a drain by the 
 other proprietors of the land adjoining the 
 stream, ami manure and tilth were thrown in, 
 but thiit every precautiim was taken by ('. to 
 prevent any solid matter from falling into the 
 creek. \V. (mly acciuired the property since C. 
 had been using the stream for the purpose of his 
 tannery, and there was no eviilcuce that the 
 property had depreciateil in value by the use ('. 
 made of the stream : —Held -AtKrming the judg- 
 ment of the court beh)W, that \V., under the 
 
 circumstances proved in this case, was not e'l- 1 J|j,i,L.m,f position, connection, capacity, and levels 
 titled to an injunction to restrain 0. froin using I £ ^i^^ f,cwers on Ijueeu and Rathurst streets. 
 
 a number of cross streets drained thereinto. 
 Within the four years before action, but never 
 before, the plaintilfs cellar had been Hooded 
 several times, and the cause of this action was 
 the th)oiliiig (luring astuady rain of eight or nine 
 hours duration, the plain'tiir alleged, originally 
 defective construction of sewers, and negligence 
 in not reliairiug, but simply proved the Hooding 
 anil the aliove facts, and the jury found a ver- 
 dict for him. A new trial was directed (Armour, 
 ,1 . , d issen ting. ) Per Hagart y , ( '. .1 . , and ( lameron, 
 .]. The mere ])roof of the Hooding did not es- 
 tablish a prima facie case of negligence against 
 the defendants , a specific ground of negligence 
 iiiust be proved, anil there was no suHieieiit evi- 
 
 the stream as he did. IIViV v. C/aitde, 10 S. (.'. 
 
 u. .'■.75. 
 
 See Van Eqmond v, Tmrn oj Smjorth, 6 O. R. 
 509, p. 2111 ;" Crinj v. Town of Diiiidat, 11 0. R. 
 317, p. 2112; Jialli: v. Booth, 11 0. R. 491, 14 
 A. a. 419, pp. "2104, 2105. 
 
 Per Cameron, . J. Remarks as to the diHerence 
 in the liability of, or injuries caused by, sewers 
 and by highways. Per Armour, .J. The fact of 
 the Hooding of .sewers constructed, controlled and 
 managed by the defendants, was prima facie evi- 
 denccTof negligence ; but the fact that no flood- 
 
2111 
 
 WATER AND WATER-OOURSES. 
 
 2112 
 
 
 
 iiV . 
 
 I i'i ;■• 
 
 ing had occurred before the construction of the 
 Bathurst street gewer north of Queen street, 
 coupled with the other evidence, was suHicicnt to 
 shew priuui fuciu thut that sewer brought down 
 more water thim tlie Queen street sewer, and 
 Bathurst street scM'er, south of Queen street, 
 were caijable of carrying away rapidly enougli, 
 and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. 
 Noble V. City of Toronto, 40 Q. B. 519. -Q. 
 
 B. D. 
 
 Many years before the defendant municipality 
 was laid out, a culvert was constructed by Z. on 
 private property for the benefit of a railway 
 company whose lands adjoined the stream in 
 question. By reason of tlie culvert, the water 
 brought down by the stream was not carried olf, 
 but overflowed the plaintiffs hind. The stream 
 was the natural drain for the surrounding coun- 
 try, but the det'endants used it to a small extent 
 for the drainage of the town. It was found that 
 the Hooding would not l.ave been occasioned by 
 the water brought down through the defendants' 
 user of the stream, Inil thut water brought 
 down from the uiea drained, apart fiom tiie 
 defendants' ut^er, v\ duld have alone caused the 
 damage : — Helil, that the defendants were not 
 liable. Laivv. Towu ')j' Xiaijara Fidlx; Hum- 
 fidd v. Town of Niuiiura Falli, G O. R. 40". — 
 
 C. P. D. 
 
 The defendants constructed a number of drains 
 in their town, discharging into a creek running 
 through the lands of the plaintiiV, wliicli drains 
 conducted a quantity of brine or salt and refuse 
 from salt manufactories in the neighbourhood 
 into the creek and rendered the water tilthy and 
 unfit for drinking, and also cornjded the ma- 
 chinery in the plaintiff's woollen factory. And 
 the defendants, having passed a by-law to deepen 
 the creek, threw down the plaiiititl's fences, 
 entered ujion hi^5 land, and threw u|i earth from 
 the bed of the creek and left it there :— Held, 
 utfirniing the decision of Pmudfoot, J., tliat the 
 <lrains not being constructed under a bylaw, the 
 
 J)laintitf was entitled to maintain an action for 
 lis injury sustained, and for an injunetion, ami 
 was not com|)elled to sue those who had dis- 
 charged the otl'eiisive matter into the drains, nt r 
 to seek his renuily under the arbitration clauses 
 of the Munici] al Act, nor to resort to mandamus 
 to compel better drainage : — Held, also, that 
 damages for the trespass liu the ]ilaintiirs land 
 could be recovered liy action, as the corporate 
 powers undei' tlie by law fordeepening the creek 
 might have been exercised without the coniiiiis- 
 sionof the trespass; and this, too, notwithstand- 
 ing that the work was done under and by means 
 of a contractor, who, however, was not an inde- 
 pendent eoiitiactor, but Worked under the super- 
 inteudence of the council. \'niiEi/iiioii(l\'. Toirn 
 ofSeaJorlh, <i (». J!. o!)9. — Chy. 1). 
 
 A drain of the defendants for carrying ofl' the 
 surface waters of a street ran along the street 
 and across it, and then through piivate property 
 until it reached a creek. On the street there 
 Wiis a screw factory, the proprietors of which, 
 by defendants' permission, connected a drain 
 from their works with the defendants' drain, 
 which had the etlect of carrying noxious matter 
 from the factory into the creek ; but, on com- 
 plaint thereat, the proprietors used an old cellar 
 as a reservoir for the noxious matter; but which, 
 it was alleged, filtered through from the cellar 
 
 into the drain and go into the creek. The drain, 
 without the infiltration into it from the cellar, 
 from which it was twenty-six feet distant, cnn- 
 veyed nothing injurious into the creek. The 
 plaintiff, a ri|)arian proprietor on the creek, hav- 
 ing a factory there, claimed that by reaxoii of 
 such fouling he was jn-evented from using thu 
 Milter of the creek for domestic inirposes or for 
 his factory, and brought this action against the 
 defendants therefor : — Held, that defendants 
 were not liable ; but that the liability, if any, 
 was on the sciew factory. VanEgnion<l v, Tor- 
 poration of Seaforth, ti 0. R. G9'J, distinguisheii. 
 (Iraii v. T<,wn of Dmidits, 11 O. R. 317.— C. P 
 1). ; 13 A. R. r)88. 
 
 A drain was constructed by a municipal cor- 
 poration, and by reason, as was alleged, of the 
 negligent construction thereof it was not of suHi- 
 cient capacity to carry away the water hrougiit 
 down it as was intended, or by reason of an dh- 
 struction negligently allowed to remain tlieiein, 
 the water overflowed the banks of the drain iind 
 damaged the plaintiff's premi.ses ; — Held, that 
 the ]>laiiititr's claim for the damage sustained 
 was not one for compensation under the aibitm- 
 tion clauses of the AJunicipal Act ; but was iiio- 
 perly the suliject of an action in which tlie hud- 
 
 , ings of tlie jury should be had as to wlietliorthe 
 damage was caused by such negligent coiistiuc- 
 
 i tion, etc., or by vis major, namely an uuusuid 
 flood. Mi-Arthiir v. Town of Collinijifnoil, 9 0. 
 R. 3C8.-t'. P. 1). 
 
 The plaintiff's house was drained liy a private 
 drain into the street drain, which was near lo 
 j but did not extend as far as his house. L., who 
 ! also had a house drain connected with the .street 
 I drain, put a grating across it near the coiinec- 
 ; tion with the private drain, which obstiiiuteil 
 the street drain, and dammed back tin; water 
 and sewage through |daintiffs private diaiii iiitii 
 his cellar and damaged the plaintiff's pieinises. 
 The naluie of the olistruetion was know to tlie 
 plaintiff but not to the defendants, and the 
 plaintiff did not notify them thereof. There 
 'was no by-law compelling piopcrty-ovMurs to 
 drain their lU'cniises into the street <lraiii, and 
 their use of it was entirely voluntary. There 
 ' was no complaint as to the insutiieieney or coii- 
 \ struction (d the street drain. In an action hy 
 the plaiiiliir a;;ainst the defendants for the in- 
 jury sustained by liiin : — Held, that the defen- 
 dants were not lialde. McCoiilc ii v. Tomi of 
 \ Jirodriltr, 11 O. It. .T2'2.— C. P. D. 
 
 ' The plaiiititl's owned and occuiiicd a houseniul 
 ; prciiiiscs which had been drained by a drain run- 
 ning tliron>;li private grounds to and under a race- 
 way, which the owners of the lands on the other 
 side thereof on which the water flowed had 
 : stopi)ed up. On the east siile of the street on 
 j which plaintill's' house was there was an o)icu 
 , ditch or drain connecting with the raceway, 
 1 which at first was no higher that the struct, hut 
 i being afterwards lianked up, the flow of the 
 water was stopped ami was spread over the 
 adjoining lands. K., the then owner of plaintiffs' 
 land, andothersinterested, petitioned the council 
 to construct a drain under the raceway, which 
 the corporation did by means of a well at the 
 raceway and a live inch pipe under it. U. then 
 connected his iirivate drain with the well. The 
 defendants afterwards connected the drainage of 
 other streets with the well, whereby more water 
 
2113 
 
 WATER AND WATER-COURSES. 
 
 2114 
 
 o the creek. Thu drain, 
 into it from tlic culkr, 
 ty-six feet ilistiuit, con- 
 IS into the creek. The 
 )rietor on tlie creek, hav- 
 ,iinetl that hy reason of 
 evented from using the 
 lonieatic purposes or for 
 it this action n^ainst the 
 - Hehl, that dufeiulants 
 iivt the liability, if any, 
 •y. VnnKgmonil v. Cor- 
 6. R. .WJ, (liatinguislied. 
 as, 11 O. 11. 317.-0. P. 
 
 cted by a municiiial cor- 
 1, as WU8 allegt'd, of the 
 thereof it was not of sntti- 
 iiway tlie water l)r(night 
 (1, or by reason of an oli- 
 llowed to remain tiK-iein, 
 lie liank.s of tlie drain uuil 
 premises: — Helil, tliat 
 n- tlie damage sustained 
 isation under tiu; aibitia- 
 licipal Act ; but was |jro- 
 action in which the hnd- 
 Ito had as to whether the 
 such negligent constnie- 
 lajor, namely an uniisuiil 
 'otvii of ColCtnijirtioit, 9 0. 
 
 was drained by a ])rivate 
 rain, which was near to 
 ar as his house. L., who 
 connected with the street 
 cross it near the connec- 
 s drain, which obstructed 
 dannncd back the water 
 laintilVs private drain into 
 d the plaintilV's premises. 
 truction was know to the 
 the dcfemlants, and tlie 
 :ify them thereof. 'I'liere 
 icl'liiig propcrty-imucis t» 
 into the .street drain, and 
 •iitircly voluntary. There 
 .o the insullicicucy or con- 
 t drain. In an action hy 
 the defendants for the in- 
 n :— Held, that the defen- 
 e. Mi-Coiikni v. Toini of 
 {•22.— C. V. 1>. 
 
 d and occupied a house and 
 jcen drained by a drain run- 
 grounds to andunder a raee- 
 /rs of the lands on the other 
 lich the water tlowcd had 
 
 cast side of the street on 
 sc was there was an open 
 lecting with the raceway, 
 , higher that the street, hut 
 ankcd up, the tlow of the 
 
 and was spread over the 
 , the then owner of plaintitts 
 ■estcd, petitioned thecouneil 
 under the raceway, which 
 by means of a well at the 
 iicli i)ipe under it. U. then 
 e drain with the well. The 
 ds connected the drainage of 
 le well, whereby more water 
 
 was brought down to tiie wel than tiio live-inch , Hehl, allirining the dcciMioa of iiose, .1., that 
 pipe wouhl cany oil, and it (lowed l)aek on the tltt proper construction of K .S. () (KsTT) c 
 plttintilfs' premises which were damaged. There 'M, s. M, »ul.-». a, as also of the re-i-naetn.eut, ii'i 
 was no authority given from the defendants to 47 Vict. c. 8 (Out.), is that as a pre reipiihite to 
 use the well, and tiie only evidciKc ot aniuics- the nuintcnancool an action lor damages arising 
 cence was the knowledge by ()., defeiulants' from neglect to repair, there slumld he luasdu- 
 iitreet inspector, and no objection made by able iic. lice in writing given by the plaiiititl to the 
 him:— Held, f<dlowing .McConkey r. Town of municipality alleged to he in default, ami this re- 
 Brockville, II (). K. ;W2, that the defendants quiremeiil is not coiilined to the remedy by man- 
 were not liable for the damage sustained by the daimis: lleld,tlierefcjie, in this action", in which 
 pbiiitills. KV/.i/i v, Vili/ uj St. Culhariiun, 13 the plaintill sued a miimciiiality lor lloo.lmg jus 
 
 b. R. 30!).-('. 1". I). 
 
 An action lies against a municipal corporation 
 where by the means of their works in grading 
 their street.s or otherwise they cause snrl'aue 
 water to be discharged ui)on tht; lands of a 
 neighbouring proprietor tf) hisdani-ige, if by the 
 exercise of proper care in perl'ormiiig the work 
 such injury might have been avoided. The 
 coriioralion of Ottawa, in the exercise of their 
 right to make drains au<l ditches to <!aiiy oil' 
 surface water finiii several streets in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the |plaiiititl s propi rty, sn negli- 
 gently extxuled the Wurk as to cause ilaiiiage 
 to the plaintill by the overllow 
 water upon his lauds. In an 
 therefor the trial jiulge nonsuited the plain- 
 tiff. The nonsuit was subseipieiitly set aside 
 hy order of the Divisional Court, costs of the 
 first trial and of the order to be costs in the 
 cause to the jilaintilf in any event. On ajipeal 
 to this court the judguieiit of the Divisional 
 Court was aliirnnd with costs. (Iluiton, .1. A., 
 dissenting,) [ler Ihirtoii, .1. A.~ There was no 
 
 lands by imt pioviding a proper outlet fori:eilain 
 drains, and aUo by not repairing the di aiiis ; that 
 inasmuch as there was no evidence of injury, 
 other than arising from the non-repair, and as 
 to this no statiitiiiy notice had been given, the 
 lilaintill's action must be dismissed, (.'ri/ili r v. 
 Tvwimliii) of Saniiii, 15 0. U. ISO.— C'liy. I). 
 
 ^Vhere a iminieipality, acting under the On- 
 tario Dr.iiiiage Act, in imrsuance oi a selieme 
 tor the drainage of tlieii- tnw iisliip, constructed 
 a system by wlii<:li water w^i- drained olf into a 
 certain di.im f. ruierly coiistrueted through the 
 plaiutilVs land and running into a natural creek, 
 ot the surface whereby the creek, by reason of the aucuniula- 
 ictioii brought tioii (if water eauseil by the new clraiiis, though 
 siillieieiit before to carry olf the water bnniglit 
 down into it, oveillowed ami injured the plain- 
 tiirs land : — Held, that the liefemlants were 
 liable fur any damage thus caused to the )ilaiii- 
 till', ami there was iintliing in the municipal nv 
 otiier legislation of this province to eliange the 
 illegal ( haraeter rif such an act. It aiipeared, 
 however, that the plaiutill's property had been 
 
 negligence, and on that ground the nonsuit benetited by the drainage works as a whole to 
 should be upheld. Ihriic.y v. (.'ilij nj' Ottuwn, a greater extent than it had been injured bv the 
 ISA. H. 71'2. 
 
 See Duck 
 p. '2141. 
 
 overllow complained of, and the delendants 
 aceedeil to the reasonableue.ss of the plaiutill's 
 demand for a better outlet, and were proceeding 
 to make it; — Held, that under these eireum- 
 atances it was sullicieiit for the present to de- 
 clare the plaintill elititleil to have the creek 
 widened and deepened to the necessary extent 
 rhc det'emlants in ISdo pissed a by-law for the within a reasonable time. Xoiihimul v. 'rouui- 
 con.struetioii of a drain which went through the shqi i^J Italiiijh, 3 O. H. 3-17. — Hoyd. 
 
 V. Ci/i/ of TorimUi, 5 0. H. 295, 
 
 (2) Othir Drniii.H. 
 
 plaintitVs land, and for assessing certain l.-mits, 
 including tin; lilaintill's, theretor. The drain 
 was coninieiieeii in IStili and ciini[ileted. Iii l.S7o 
 they passed another by-law f<u- wiileuing and 
 deepening this drain, which was aeenrdiugly 
 done. Ill l.S.Sl, they eoustrueteil another ilraiu 
 ninning into the tirst below the plaintitrs land. 
 The tirst drain iiaviiig become out of re|>air and 
 choked 11)1, the jilaintill's lauds were to some 
 extent Hooded in the spring and autiiiim, and 
 the water lay longer than if the drain had been 
 kept properly clear :— Held, rdiiniiing the judg- 
 ment of llagarty, ('. .). (Cameron,.!., dissent- 
 iiig1, that the plaintill' was eiitithil to recover 
 against the defendants f(pr their breach of duty 
 in not keeping the drain in rcjiair, under 1!. 8. 
 
 When M. brought fteti( u for an injunction 
 against a niunicipal cori :ii j' <w Un- that by rea- 
 son of certain (Irainage works eoiistriieted by 
 them the defendants had caused an iucre.ised 
 (luantity (if water to How into a click luniiiiig 
 through his lauds which were situate in an a(i- 
 jdiniiig township, and which had c(iiise(|Ueiilly 
 heeii ill lodcd and damaged, partly from the ac- 
 cess of water sent into the ereeh, and paitly 
 frimi the increased velocity imparted to the tlow 
 of water into the creek :— Held, that .M. was en- 
 titled to an injuuction restraining the in- 
 creased How ot water into the crceU, and also 
 the increased velocity, and to a reference as to 
 damages, and that he was not bound to proceed 
 ■ y way oi iirbitration under -iti Wvi. e. lS(Oiu. i. 
 
 0.(187'r),c. 174, s. 543, and that a mauilanius ^^^^ .,,,]; ,.;,,,,,j,t „.,^J,.^tlilK•, ty t(i seek reli(t in the 
 
 aliouhl issue to compel the defendants to make 
 the necessary repairs. I'er Cameron, J. An 
 action is expressly given by section r>4'2 for in- 
 jury done by such neglect, where the drain 
 serves two municipalities ; Init in a case like the 
 present, though under .-cetion 5-13 the niunici- 
 piility may be compclhd by mandamus to repair , 
 the drain at the expense of the lands benefited. 
 
 ordinary way hy action :— Held, also, that the 
 fact that thebylaw under which the s.iid drain- 
 age w(uk was (hue had net been (plashed, did 
 nut prevent the plaintill' from bringing this 
 action. Midoit v. Tcinmhip o/Wei-Hd, \) O. 
 R. ()ll.-Chy. I). 
 
 Refcrenee under the Municip.al Act. See In 
 
 no action lies for injury caused by non-repair, re l/oil'json iwd ihe Join,slup ol J^o.savq,i(l, 1 1 
 Whit. V. Ton-ushi/, of Oo^JiM, 2 0. 1!. 287.-0. R. 589, p. 1381 ;/« re :,miha,.l h. loim- 
 Q. B. D.; 10 A. R. 555. ^.nldp oj I'li/viptuu, V2 0. li. -.0, v. i^ifi.. 
 
 133 
 
2116 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2U( 
 
 Tim (lofendtinU enlargoil a driiin running 
 through tlio idaintitT'H land ; thii earth tuktin 
 from which tiiuy dttpoHittul on oitlior lidu and 
 loft it there. Tho |>laintiH° iiiud for damages to 
 Inn land, etc, l>y ri'iinon of Hiich dopooiting of | 
 thonarth. It waH adniittL><l that tliu work wan 
 done undur a Ity-law, panged umler Hcii^tion 570 
 of tho Municipal Act (IHSli), and it wan not 
 unggeHtud that tliii liy-law was <lofcutivu in any 
 way. Tho jury found that tho dttfondanta were 
 not guilty of any nugligoncu, hut that tho plain- 
 titr had HultVrcd daiiiiigo in conHC(|uen(Mi of thu 
 exeuution of the work : — Held (reviMHtng the dti- 
 ciHion of KoMU, J.), that upon thuHu tindlnga 
 judgment should have Ituen entered for the de- 
 fend uitH ; that a cauHO of notion could nut accrue 
 from till) doing of a lawful aut, uidoHS in a neg- 
 ligent manner; and that the plaiutiirH remedy, 
 if any, was by aibitratiun to obtain uoinpeuRaiiun 
 under the Municipal Act of 1H83, Hection 01. 
 I'rixlun V. Curporation uf Camil'ii, It A. H. 85. 
 
 The plaintiffH Itrcuiglit Uiih action an land- 
 owners injuriously aHected by certain drainage 
 works of tho defendants and the aHHOHMuientH 
 made under by-laws relating to th« snino, seek- 
 ing damagcH and other relief : — Held, that there 
 was no misjoinder of plaintill's, nor was it in- 
 cumbent on the ]ilaintin'8 to sue on behalf of any 
 others, and aI»o that tho {ilaintiD's had the right 
 thus to procc(i(l by way of action and not of ar- 
 bitration. Alfxandi rami the '/'ownnhi)) of' How- 
 ard — Oalhriiitli V. Townvhip of Harwich, 14 O. 
 R. 22. — Ferguson. 
 
 Damage to land arising from an overflow of 
 water caused by negligently diverting the water 
 from its natural course without providing a 
 Butlicient outlet, is not the subject of compen- 
 sation under the Munici))al Act, ISH."}. Slalker 
 V. Township of Dimwich, l'> O. R. 342.— Q.H. D. 
 
 See n'altonv. County of York, (i A. It. 181, 
 p. 2140; Oniy v. Toin, ofhiiiiilax, 11 (). R. 317; 
 13 A. R. 588, p. 2112; In n Xick/<- iindlh<- Tonm 
 of U'alkirtou, II <). I!. 433, p. 2108; 0' liyrnc v. 
 Cainplitit, 15 0. R. 339, p. 21I(;. 
 
 XII. DlTCUE.S AND WaTER-COUKSBS' Aot. 
 
 Held, that the defendants a railway company 
 wore not subject to the provisions of "The 
 Ditches and Water-courses' Act," K. S. (). (1877), 
 c. 1!)9. j)fill''r V. (,'rawl Trunk Ji. \V. Co., 45 
 Q. B. 222. -Q. H. D. 
 
 After the time fixed by an award under tho 
 Ditches and Water-courses' Act, 1883, for the 
 completion of certain drainage work by neigh- 
 bouring landowners, the plaintili', who was one 
 of the ])artic8 interested in the award, in writing 
 re(iuired the defendant, as township engineer, to 
 inspect the work, with the obj(!et of having it 
 completed according to tho award ; but, as the 
 plaintiir alleged, the defendant neglected to in- 
 spect the work or cause it to be completed ac- 
 cording to tho award, and thereby the provisions 
 of the award were not carried out, and the 
 plaintiff in con"ccjuonce suffered damage by rea- 
 son of water remaining on his land, etc. : — Held, 
 that the jiroviaions of section 13 of the above 
 Act as to the inspection by the engineer are im- 
 perative, and an action would lie for breach of 
 his duty ; but even if the evidence had shewn 
 such a breach, the damages claimed were not 
 
 nroximute, necessary, or n esults thereof. 
 
 The other provisions nt h . 13 are iiieroly 
 
 |iermissive, and no autimi would lie for th«ir 
 iionperformnnee : nor, \m re it otherwise, (•(ml,! 
 it be hidil that the dauiai^es idaimed were th< 
 proximate result of such iion performance. Thow 
 who, by the tt-rms of the award, ought lo have 
 done the work, were the persons proxiniitoly 
 resixitisible for the damages. O'/ii/rni: v. ('amih 
 I,,//, 15(). K. 33!». li. K l>. 
 
 Where an award has been mule under tha 
 " Difchesaud Water courses' .\cl, ISS,'l,"t|i('oiily 
 remedy for the noii-(um|)letion of tlu! work in ac- 
 cordance with the awarii is that provided by sec- 
 tion 13 of the Act. Murray r. MawHiui, I" C. 1'. 
 588, frd lowed ; and O'Hyrne i: Campbell, bH). 
 K. 33!l, dislinguishcil. No other or greater costa 
 Were allowed to the defendants than if tliuyhiul 
 suci.'essfully dennirred instead of deft^ndiiig iiliil 
 going down to trial. J/iplmru v. TowuMn of 
 Orforil, 19 0, U. .585.— (^ H, I). 
 
 I. HniiiwAYS Vk.stkd in tub CiinwN,211". 
 II. I)ki)|(!atii)n ok Hkjiiwavs, 2117. 
 
 III. Pkivatk Way.s. 
 
 (a) Oemrnlly, 2118. 
 
 (b) Piijhl hy Nercxsity, 2121. 
 
 (c) liiijht hy J'rcucripliou, 2124. 
 
 IV. POWKKS, DrTIE.'^, AN» I.IAHILITIKH OF 
 
 MlINICIl'Al. CoiiroUATlON.S. 
 
 1. J nrimlictiun and Powers, 2l2!i. 
 
 2. Oprtiimj or EnldliUxhinij Ilonils, 2126. 
 
 3. Ai'ijuirinij RoaiU, 2130. 
 
 4. AKsnmption of Jtondx. 
 
 (a) Of Tomn-ihip liotidx In/ Conntiti, 
 
 2130. 
 
 (b) EriiU.iiic of, 2130. 
 
 5. Aliandoninii liotvh, 2131. 
 
 6. Cloxiny lluwlx. 
 
 (a) Nolirc, 2131. 
 
 (b) OthiT Unxi'x, 21. S2. 
 
 7. Comprnxation, 2132. 
 
 8. Tolls, 2134. 
 
 9. Befmir of Hii/hwnyx. 
 
 (a) Appropriiil'niij Mciti'rinl, 2134. 
 
 (b) Liiiliiliti/ til lii pair, 2135. 
 
 (c) J'roi'i'tiliniix Ai/iiiiisl for Nou-rt- 
 
 pair, 2130. 
 
 10. Injury to Propirty hy liaising or 
 
 Lonwrlny lioadx, 2130. 
 
 11. lirid'jes, 2137. 
 
 12. Liahilily Jor NcijIiyi'Mcc. 
 
 (a) Ihfcxl iu Roadway. 2140. 
 
 (b) Drawhridijfx, 2142. 
 
 (c) Diferls in Sidewalks andCrotsingi, 
 
 2143. 
 
 (d) In Use of Machinery, 2144. 
 
 (e) ContrilnUory Neijliijcnre, 2144. 
 
 13. Lease oj Minerals On or Under lioadi, 
 
 2144. 
 
sin 
 
 WAT. 
 
 2118 
 
 r II (!MultH tliuront. 
 
 if H .13 iin^ iimroly 
 
 tioii woiilil lie for their 
 
 wt'Ct! it <itlii(rwi«cs ninld 
 mii;,'t'H i;liiiiiieil w<:ri! tha 
 ^ mm ^)(!rt'|)rlmlllC(^ ThoM 
 \w iiwanl, (luglit Id have 
 the poiHont* iiioxiiiiiitcly 
 m^i*. O'lii/rni-.v.Cainp- 
 
 U. I>. 
 
 UH l)oeu Ilia U' uiiilur tho 
 .iiiHfH' Act, I.S«:!," the only 
 iiiilutiiiiiof till! work ill ftc- 
 ni is that iir<>vi<if<niy HOC- 
 liirray ''■ PawHuii, 17 C, 1'. 
 'Hynu! I'. Camiilii:!!, 15 0. 
 No otlicr or ^rtiiitcT coiita 
 efuiidants than if tliuyhiul 
 I iiiHli'iiil of (lofcmliiii^ iviid 
 llijihiiru V. Towiiihip of 
 -{}. H. I). 
 
 KHTKI) IN TIIK CbOWN,211". 
 OF HlOIIWAYH, 2117. 
 
 TS. 
 
 iihj, 'ilia. 
 
 1,1/ NcccKxilU, 2121. 
 hy Prencrii'tion, '2124. 
 
 JTIF.S, AND LlAlUMTIKS Of 
 L COUIMIKATIONS. 
 
 \on anil. I'nwcrs, 212'). 
 
 or Ki/iihlinhiiiij lioiuk, 2126. 
 
 7 RoaiK 2 ISO. 
 
 on of Jtoitd-i. 
 
 'ouutihii> RiiniU litj CowUitt, 
 
 10. 
 
 ,,irc of, 21.S0. 
 
 iw,i Howlx, 2131. 
 
 'luwlit. 
 
 •c, 2131. 
 
 r Cnxi'H, 2132. 
 
 alion, 2132. 
 
 134. 
 
 ./■ lliijlurnili. 
 
 n>iiriatin\i MctterinI, 2134. 
 
 iiVtV// <i< Riiia'ir, 2i:?.'). 
 
 •rcAuKis Aiiainit fur Xon-n- 
 
 lir, 2130. 
 
 /,) rrojitrty h;/ llamng or 
 
 ;»;/ liiiwlx, 2130. 
 
 , 2137. 
 
 (/ yoc XeijlUji-.nec. 
 
 'act in liOiuLoa!/. 2140. 
 
 iirhridiji'x, 2142. 
 
 ■('(•C.s i?i Sidewalks andCromngi, 
 
 143. 
 
 Ux,i of Machinery, 2144. 
 
 drihiilory Ne,jU<jencc, 2141. 
 
 )/ Minerah On or Under Soads, 
 
 V. Snow and Icj ov Sidkwalks, 2145. 
 VI. Removal ov Biiluinuh, 2147. 
 Traction Knuineh, 2147. 
 TuuKM, 2147. 
 
 LlABIMlY (IK PniVATK I'EKHOHi, 
 
 1. Fur ObnlrucliuHM, 2147. 
 
 2. For ArcideiU^, 2147. 
 UuAO A.NU liKIIKiK (JoMl'A.MES. 
 
 1. Formation of, '2147. 
 
 2. MnnifipalitieH Tiikinj Slock; 2M.S. 
 
 3. yW/'<,214U. 
 
 MlSCEI.LANKOUH C'aHES, 2151. 
 
 HiiiEKT Railways— ^'i I' .Stkkkt Rail 
 
 VII. 
 
 VUl 
 
 IX 
 
 X. 
 
 XI 
 Xll 
 
 veiiiuiiiM' iif p»THonsnoiiij< toono V.'n place, inillii, 
 brBWciy and ilistillcry. In IM4 K. lonvoyed 
 th(! Iiuiil on uacli Hidu of it to liiH non nnd Hon-in- 
 law, liut ill) mention of it wiih inailc in the dcoiU. 
 T\\v wilu of tlio pnichiotiT from iliu Hon-in law, 
 whilu HiM:akiiii{ to K at ono tiiiiu about thii title, 
 AH to wliicli somu dispute aroDi', ooiuplaiiied th»t 
 die old travulled roud ininht lie cloned up. F. 
 rupii(Kl tliat they would Htill have the Rliort rixMl 
 leading to the roud alliiwanev, which would utill 
 1)« opened if the old travelled road were cIonihI : 
 — Held, that the latter ntHteiiient, in connection 
 with the liictH of the former u«er of the road, 
 and of ilM not having lieeii diitpoited of when K. 
 disposed of the lainli on eaidi Hidi; thereof, HUlll- 
 cieiitly HlifWed tiie intention to deiUcutu the 
 Rhoi't road to the pulilic : tlial the applicant htul 
 therefore another coiivenieiil way to his lands, 
 and that the liy-iaw Hhoiild not heijuashed ; hut, 
 I under the eimiiiiHtanceH, no I'ontH were given. 
 Adiii ' and lln' Toifinliip of HiikI Whilhy, 2 O. 
 I R. I',;).— Osier. 
 
 K. hrought an ai^ion for treMpaNB to hiH land 
 in laying pipuH to carry water to a puhlic iiiHli- 
 tutioii. The land had been iiMcd ua a piiMic 
 highway for many ycaru and there wuh an oiJ 
 Ht.itute authorizing itH cx|iri)]irialion for public 
 )iiirposi's. but the recoiulH of the municipality 
 wbii'h Would contain the proccecliiigH on hucIi ux- 
 . , proprialioii, if any had been taken, wore lost: — 
 
 pciiaatum therefor was claimed by the c(u'pora- Held, reversing lliu judgment of the Supreme 
 tiou of the village in which the roads were, and (;,„„.(, „f M„v,i Scotia that in the aliHunco of any 
 by one K. C. S. through or over whose lands : i.vi,i,,,„.,, „f .lo.licati.m of tlie road it must lie 
 the roadrt ran. It appeared that the roads were , prcaiiiiud that tliepiocee.liiigs under thcHtatiito 
 estabhshed as public highways by the municipal I „.urc rij,i,tly taken and K. couhl not recover, 
 authorities by by-laws in the years 1S42 and! /Jid-^onv. Kearitry, 14 S. V. U. 743. 
 184.'), respectively, under 4 it .5 Vict. c. 10, Hs. ;{!• 1 
 
 ,')l, although no compeiisution was paid to 1 tmiil^rrupled user by the public, 
 
 XIII. 
 
 WAYS. 
 LlAllIi.lTY OK UaII.WAY Co.Ml'ANIKS—S'ec 
 
 Railways and Railway Ch.miamk.s. 
 
 I. Hkiiiwavs Vkstkd in tiieCkown. 
 
 Certain lands on wliidi wore two roads called 
 "Water Street" and "The Road to tho Whait," 
 being rc(juired for public works, were expropii 
 atud by the Dominion (ioveriiment, and the com 
 
 and 
 
 for seventy 
 
 the owners tliurufor :-llcld, that although origi- ! Y""'*. "f '' roadway .ilong the edge of an unoc- 
 nally the soil and freehold of the roads or cupied and uninclosed farm bordering on a lake, 
 streets may have remained in the jirivute owner, "l"'" 'i «ii''dy bciich lormed tliere by the waters 
 guhiectto the iiublic easement (the right (;f u.scr) ; "' tl"- ••'■k'-. and the course of which roadway was 
 8iiict the year ISoH, at all events, they became sl'M'itly varic.l from tunc t.) time by the rise and 
 vested in the Crown as representing the province f-'" of the waters of the lake, i.s sulhcient ovi- 
 of Ontario, by virtue of '22 Vict. c. !)'J, s. 301, ;l'"":V'^'^';'."'".'';'".';r"' ''!^^,\ ':'' .""'I'^,' i"'. . , .! 
 and that the compensation therefor was payable 
 to tiie Attorney (ieiieral of Ontario, who was 
 ordered to be made a party in order to give pro- 
 tection to the Dominion tiovernmeiit in expro- 
 priating the laud. Ji'e TniU Valley Canal— lie 
 ■• Wulrr SIreit " and "The Road to the tl'harf," 
 11 U. R. ()87.— Boyd. 
 
 breaking through of a small inland lake by 
 which the road was cut across and a navigable 
 channel created was held not to deprive it of its 
 character of a highway. Frank v. Tuwnnhip of 
 Harn-kh, 1«0. R. 344.— Chy. 1). 
 
 I 
 
 Sec Rae v. Trim, '27 Chy. 374, p. 2120. 
 
 II. Dedication ok Hkiiiways. 
 
 Helil, that the registration of a plan of a sub- 
 divi»i<in of a town hit and sales made in accord- 
 ance with it, <locs not constitute a dedication of 
 the lands thereon to the pulilic. In re Morton 
 and the CilyiifSt. Thomas, A. R. 3'23. 
 
 Tiie mere fact of the owner of lands selling 
 I them in lots according to a plan shewing streets 
 Parties in posst^s.sion of crown lands before and lanes adjoining the .several lots does not bind 
 piitent issued cannot dedicate any portion of the 
 same : parties so in possession, however, may so 
 far biinl them.selves liy their acts as that when a 
 patent shall issue to them the lauds granted 
 would be bound by any right or casement to 
 which their sanction has been obtained, h'ae v. 
 
 him to continue such streets and lanes unless a 
 purchaser is materially inconvenienced J>y the 
 
 closing of any of them. 
 1 1 A. K. 410 ; 14 S. C. 
 
 Cami V. City of Toronto, 
 
 R. n' 
 
 Trim, 21 Chy. 374.— IJlako. 
 
 The corporation of East Whitby by by-law 
 closed up an old travelled road, whereby the 
 applicant was shut out froni ingress to his lands 
 except by a short road leading to the original 
 
 III. Private Ways. 
 
 (a) (Icncralbj. 
 
 An arrangement made between the plaintiff 
 anil H., whereby the latter "was allowed toco 
 
 road" allowance, which was now for the "lirst ; through " the plaintiH"s land, was superseded % 
 time opened. For some years prior to 1844 the an arrangement whereby, in consideration of 150 
 abort road was used as a private road for the cou- 1 cords of wood and the making of a road by B., 
 
 I 
 
2119 
 
 WAT. 
 
 21201 
 
 
 *4 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 m 
 
 ! ■!: 
 
 n 
 
 ill 
 
 
 ■ i^^ 
 
 •E 
 
 ' f- V 
 
 a; ^ .' 
 
 ■ ' ; £ 
 
 the latter was to have a right of way through tlie 
 same land. The plaintitf wi s to erect ami keep 
 up the gate at one end, and B. was to keep up 
 the gate at tlie other end of tlie road. The wood 
 was delivered, and the road made, according to 
 the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff sub- 
 sequently erected three additional gates along 
 the course of tha right of way, which were not 
 necessary for the enjoyment of the hind. The 
 bill was filed to restrain the defendant from using 
 the way except upon the terms of sliutting those 
 three gates when going through :— Held, revers- 1 
 ing the decree of Spragge, C. , that the right of 
 way having been purchased when there were j 
 but two gates, the plaintiff had no right to fetter 
 the enjoyment of the way by adding additional 
 gates. Kantncr v. Jieadle, 29 Chy. 2«().— Blake. | 
 
 Where C, by deed conveyed certain land to 
 S., who owned certain land adjoining the land of 
 C, but not adjoining the land now conveyed, j 
 and the deed proceeded — "and I further convey > 
 the right of way to cross my land * * from , 
 the highway * * to the land owned by S., i 
 * * to have and to hold the aforesaid lands 
 and premises with the appurtenances unto and 
 to the use of S., his heirs and assigns forever :'" — 
 Held, that the right of way was not a mere way 
 in grosfl, but became appurtenant to the ianil of 
 S., generally, and not merely to the land con- 
 veyed by the deed. 1'lie word "pnniists" in 
 a deed may cover not merely the land eon\ ey- 
 ed, but all that goes before in the deed. iSaylor 
 V. Cooper, 2 O. R. 39«.— Proud font ; ,8 A. K. 
 707. 
 
 Held, on appeal that the words" tmj)loyed in 
 the deed were suflicient to |iass the interest in- 
 tended, and that the rij;lit of way was tliereiiy 
 made appurtenant to all tlie lands of S. there 
 situated ; not merely to that .so cohviyed Ijy C. 
 S. C.,8 A. R. 707. 
 
 In an action of trespas.s (j. c. f. the defendants 
 justified under a reservation or exciption in a 
 deed through which the phiintitT claimed title 
 and in which the dcsciijition cf jinjieity was 
 followed by the wolds, "' excejitiiig mul leseiv- 
 iug a rigiit of way or road allowance ot two rods 
 in width along the .'•outli side of said lot"; — 
 Held, that lliis was c nly a reservation of a rij^lit 
 of way to the grantor and not an exception of 
 the soil. M'riijht v. Jarhoii, 10 O. R. 470.— 
 Q. B. 1). 
 
 On the 2r.th March, 1853, one f J. L. by deed 
 of sale granted to P. ('. "a rijilit of jiassnge 
 through the lot of land of tiie said vendci' front- 
 ing the public road as well on ''oot as witli 
 carriage,' and to tlie charge ol the said jiureliastr 
 " of keejiing the gates of the said passage shut." 
 In 1882 MeM., having aeciuired the dominant 
 land, builc a coal oil refinery and waieli(ju.^es 
 thereon. In the course of his trade Iks had 
 several carts making three or four trips a day 
 throuj^h this pas.'-age 'laving tlie gates open, and 
 in addition to his owo carts most of tiie coal r)il 
 dealers of the city of Montreal, wholesale and 
 retail weie supplied there with their own 
 carts. At the time of the grant the land was 
 used as agricultural land : — Held, atliiming the 
 judgment of the Court of (Queen's Bench for 
 Lower Canada, lleniy, J., dissenting, that the 
 passage could not be used for the purpose of a 
 coal oil retinery and trade, as McM. thereby 
 
 aggravated the servitude and rendered it mure 
 onerous to the servient land than it was when 
 the servitude was established. Art. 558 C. C 
 McMilUm v. Iledije, 14 8. C. K. 736. 
 
 Plaintiff 's predecessors in title had granted to 
 defendant's predecessors in title a right of way 
 over land afterwards conveyed to plaintiO', sucli 
 right of way being conditioned upon the grantees 
 thereof " fencing and keeping in repair " the 
 roadway over which the easement was granted. 
 Shortly afterwards the grantees fenced the sides 
 of the roadway, and put gates at each end df it, 
 which after remaining many years, rotted 
 away:— Held, that on the proper construction of 
 tli« instrument the right of way was deiitndeiit 
 upon defendant's niaintanmg fences not merely 
 at the sides of the way in question, but also ut 
 the ends of it, where they might liave gutes 
 as part of the fences :— Held, also, that even if 
 this was not the proper construction of the iu- 
 strunient, ]>laiiitiil, as owner of the soil, was 
 entitled, himself, to fence the ends of the 
 way, putting gates therein of such width and 
 construction as wouhl reasonably admit of the 
 right of way being conveniently used. Chink- 
 nail V. IJhitiliJ'onl, 15 O. U. 285. — t^. B. U. 
 
 Some years prior to 1847, J. I*., plaiiitifi'8 
 
 father, became the owner ol lot 18 in ."itli ion- 
 
 cession (if York, and biriit the house, in which he 
 
 lived up to the tini'. of his deatli, on the iioitli- 
 
 west half and near the sixth c(.nc(ssiin line. 
 
 , In 1847 J. 1>. purchased lot nineteen ailjiiniiigloi 
 
 , eighteen on the north, the occupiers of the uist- 
 
 ! crn portion of which prior thereto and .1. D.s 
 
 ' tenants since, used a trail or road running fiim 
 
 the northerly pait of the east half of eighteen, 
 
 ! where the plaintifl's house stood, acioss the 
 
 west half of nineteen to the boundaty hetv.ien 
 
 ' eighteiii iiod nineteen where there wcic several 
 
 trails or roads acioss t!ie west half of eighteen 
 
 • to a jirivate lane leading in a westerly dircetion 
 
 ; past J. I), s luiuse to the sixth concession. The 
 
 trails ran through bush land, and no one«is 
 
 used eontinnoiisly or exclusively, 1 lit as was 
 
 convenient. In It'OO, J, 1). cenviyed the i;>t 
 
 half of nineteen to jilaintill', and jihiinlifl' uIm' 
 
 aicjuiied by devise fioni his father, who (iieiliii 
 
 1877, the north -e.'ist (|iiarter of eighteen, wliidi 
 
 adjoined tlie east half eif nineteen ein thesnulli. 
 
 The west half eif nineteen .1. D. devised to liis 
 
 elaughter who had ever since been in occ'iipatioii 
 
 thereof, and the north-vest half eif eif;hteeii I" 
 
 his son W. who %\ns living with him atli? 
 
 de'iith, wIk) conveyed to the> ehfenelant. Minitly 
 
 after. I. 1>. had conveyed the east half of nine 
 
 teen te) him, the jihiintitV with .1. I».'s peMiiis- 
 
 sioli cut anew roadway outsiele eif the woods di 
 
 le)t eighteen ceiiine cling thereliy with the liiiie 
 
 to the' sixth coiuessioii. In 1877, by an aj;iet 
 
 merit entercil into between plaintitl and W. I), 
 
 in ce.iiside'iiition eil' certain piivile^ges gi anted to 
 
 \\'. 1)., ^V. 1). e'ovenaiited te) jiermit idaiiitillt" 
 
 have a right of way alemg the said lane frciii tli'j 
 
 ' sixth eoneession and extending foity roils iiiist^l 
 
 the centre of the hit, se) ;is to allow |daiiilill Im 
 
 j ce)nimunication fie)m tlic lot nineteen ahiig >aiil 
 
 i lanetothesixtliceineessioii:— Held.tliatthereMaj 
 
 no eletincel ri>;lit of way existing in lf-(i(l over tlif 
 
 west half of li t eighteen aiipiirteninf to the east 
 
 half of nineteen so as to enable plaintilV to elaiiii 
 
 an easement therein as granted under the Minis 
 
 therefor iu the conveyance of 18G0; thattheustr 
 
mi 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2122 
 
 and rendered it more 
 land tbaii it wiis when 
 ished. Art. 558 C. C. 
 . C. K. 736. 
 
 9 in title had granted to 
 in title a right of way 
 vt'yed to plaintiff, sucli 
 cloned upon the grantees 
 ceeping in repair" the 
 
 easuniuiit was grunted, 
 rantees fenced tlie sides 
 
 gates at eaoh end (>f it, 
 ; many yeais, rotted 
 lie proper constnietion of 
 t »if way was dependent 
 iiung fences not merely 
 in (juesi/ion, but also ut 
 
 they might have gutts 
 Hclil, also, that even if 
 
 construction of the iu- 
 
 (iwiier of the snil, was 
 fence the ends cif the 
 erein of t-ucli width and 
 reasoiuilily admit of the 
 iveniently used. Ckinli- 
 J. 11. •IHo.—Q. B. D. 
 
 o 1847, J. 1^, plaintifl's 
 iiev <il lot IS lu "'til ''""■ 
 n.ilt the hou^e, iiiwliielilie 
 { his death, on tlie noith- 
 the sixth concis^sini line, 
 d lot nineteen adjiining l(il 
 , the occupiers of the uist- 
 prior thereto and .). D.V 
 trail or road running fnm 
 the east half of eigliteen, 
 s house stood, aeioi-s the 
 to the houiutaiy lictv.(tn 
 :i where there weie several 
 s the west lialf of eighteen 
 ling in a westerly aireetioii 
 the sixth concession. The 
 bush land, and no onew:s 
 ir exclusively, 1 vit as vai- 
 id, J. 1). conveyed tlie list 
 plaintifV, and pliiiulifi' als" 
 loni his father, who died iii 
 (|uarter of eighte. ii. wlndi 
 ilf of nineteen on tlie snuili. 
 letecn .1. D. devised to lli^^ 
 ver.'^ince heeii in ocnpiitKiii 
 rth-west half of eighteen I" 
 as living with him at li? 
 (1 to the defen.lant. Slinrtly 
 i-cyed the east half of nine- 
 damtiiV with.). K.'s peinu^- 
 way outside of the woods mi 
 •ling thcrehy with the lane 
 si,.n'. In KS77. hy an ajjrw 
 utwem plaintm and \\. !•• 
 certain iirivileges gianledto 
 L'nauteil to permit idamtitlt" 
 along the said Ian.- frem tlio 
 dextemlingfoity rods east ..1 
 
 ,t, so as to allow plaiiitilHif 
 111 the lot nineteen al.aig >ai>l 
 cession :-Hehl.tl,attliereTO 
 
 way existing in IMiOovertlif 
 htetn appurtenmt lotliewt 
 
 astoenahlcpl."i'tdVtocta 
 
 n as granted underlliewows 
 veyance of 181)0; that tbeustr 
 
 of the roadway cut in ISfiO being merely permis- 
 sive, there was no prescriptive right thereto, hut 
 merely a license, which was revocable at any 
 time, and was revoked by the father's death, 
 and thereafter, as the evidence shewed, the user 
 was regariled by W. as merely permissive, 
 which was acceded to by plaintiff in 1877 by his 
 then entering into the agreement of that date. 
 Per MacMahon, J. — Th. jury are to find specific 
 questions of fact to which the court must apply 
 the law on the facts so found. The construction 
 of the agreement was for the court, and its 
 meaning was that the old lane has to be extended 
 easterly in a straight lino for forty rods. J)iiii- 
 (an v. 'Ro,irr-<, 15 O. R. G'J9.— C. V. 1). But see 
 .v. C, iiijrn. 
 
 The Court of Appeal reversed this decision 
 lieing unanimously of opinion th.at upon the evi- 
 dence it was clear a defined right of way existeil 
 at the time of the grant to the plaiutifT and that 
 under the terms of the grant had ])assed to him. 
 They were also of opinion that the finding of 
 the jury as to the location of the exten.sion of 
 th" lano should not have been disturbed, the 
 written agreement with regard to this extension 
 being ambiguous and both parties having given 
 evidence as to its real meaning and allowed the 
 question to be submitted to the jury. ,S'. C, 10 
 A. R. 3. 
 
 Held, however, by the Supremo Court, Rit- 
 chie, C. J., dissenting, that plaintitr had no title 
 to the right of way by prescription, the evidence 
 clearly shewing that the user was not of a well 
 defined road but only of a path through Ijush 
 hind and that he only enjoyed it by license from 
 his father, the adjoining owr.or, which license 
 was revoked by his father's death, but : — Held, 
 atlirining the judgment of the Court of Appeal, 
 that under the agreement the right of way 
 granted to the plaintiff was wholly over defen- 
 dant's land, the agreement not being explicit as 
 to the direction of such right of way, rc(piiring 
 a construction in favour of the plaintiff and 
 against the grantor. S. C. mih 7iom. fiuijers v. 
 Dmican, 18 S. C. ii. 710. 
 
 Where a right of way is granted as appurte- 
 nant to certain lands, there is a right of unre- 
 stricted user of the way in connection with the 
 beneficial enjoyment of the premises to which it 
 is a])purtenant by every jiart-owner of the pro- 
 perty, but such part-ownership confers no right 
 to further burden the land over which the way 
 exists by using it in connection with other ad- 
 joining property to which the privilege is not 
 annexed. Teljerv. Jacobs, 16 O. R. 35.— Boyd. 
 
 See Dixon v. Crox-f, 4 (). R. 405, p. 2122 ; /i/w.i 
 v. Boeckh, 8 0. R. 451, p. 1.389 ; lic'iiiia v. Mc- 
 Donald, 12 O. R. 381, p. 1099. 
 
 (b) Biijld by Necesdlii. 
 
 Where C, conveyed to S., land which was in- 
 accessible from the highway without passing over 
 the lands of C, or some other person :— Held, 
 that a way of necessity was impliedly granted by 
 C, over his laud conveyed to S. Saylor v. 
 Cooper, 2 O. R. 398. — Proudfoot ; 8 A. K. 707. 
 
 Since a way of necessity can only pass with the 
 fftmt of the soil, the owner of the legal estate in 
 ue laud as to which it is claimed, should be a 
 
 party to an action claiming such way, and where 
 an ecjuitable owner of the land sued, he waa 
 permitted to make the owner a co plaintiff by 
 amendment at the hearing. //*. 
 
 B. ami W., becoming entitled in 1830, as ten- 
 ants 111 common of KiO acres of laml, under a 
 dt'vise, made a partition thereof by agreement, 
 whereby fifty acres were allotted to each in 
 severalty. The fifty acres allotted to B. were 
 land-locked, and there was no way out to the 
 highway, exee)>t over the fifty acres of W., 
 over which accordingly I!, was allowed by W. 
 to pass at will. In 1840, \V. sohl to K. the 
 tlnrty acres of his fifty next .idjoining B.'s fifty 
 acres, and also a strip for a road across the ot'.ier 
 twenty acres. In Ks4S, K. granted to the then 
 owner of H.'s fifty acres a strip for a road along 
 the north side of his thirty acres, and also the 
 strip ahm;,' \y.'a twenty acres conveyed to him 
 Ml 1840. This made a ehiuige in the course of 
 the way theretofore used by |{., and his succes- 
 sors, and was thenceforth the course followed 
 by the latter, and was the right of way in (jues- 
 tion in this action ; hut this deed was not regis- 
 tered till ISSl'. ]{.'s (larcel subsecpiently be- 
 came vested in the }daintiff, under conveyances 
 granting not only the land, but also all ways, 
 etc., tlierewith used ami enjoyed. The defen- 
 ilant claimed title to part of W.'s fifty acres by 
 deed made in 1 854, wj^itliont notice, as heallegecf, 
 of the deed of 1848. ^ The right of way in ques- 
 tion had been used by the plaintiff and his pre- 
 dccessois in title for over thirty years, prior to 
 the obstruction thereof by the defendant, to 
 restrain wliieh, this* action was brought :— 
 Held, that the effect of the will and agreement 
 together was the same as if the will itself had 
 ileviscd the one-half to B., and the other to W., 
 and the plaintiff had a i-iglil of way of neces- 
 sity over the defendant's land, and was entitled 
 to an injunction to restrain the obstrnetioncom- 
 plaine.l of ; and it was not necessary for him to 
 shew any express grant of the right of way by 
 the defendant, or his predecessors in title : — 
 Held, however, that the right of way would 
 have passed under the gr.ant of land, and all 
 ways, etc. , used and enjoyed therewith, as also 
 under a ileed of grant drawn according to the 
 \ct respecting short forms of conveyances, even 
 if it had not been a way of necessity, and no 
 such words were necessary in order to pass a 
 way of necessity : -Held, also, that the subse- 
 (picnt express grant of a right of way by the 
 (lefendant's predecessor in title, tlid not destroy 
 the right to a way of necessity : — Hehl, also, 
 that tlic defendant having notice of an actual 
 travelled way across his land was atfectod, also, 
 with notice of the oriuin, as well as the exis- 
 tence of the right : —Held, also, that changing 
 the locality of the way, from time to time, by 
 the agreement of the respective owners, did not 
 destroy the right of way, nor could the grant of 
 a certain specific lino for the road put an end to 
 the right, in case a purchaser should buy with- 
 out notice of the grant : — Held, lastly, that any 
 act of a tenant, without the knowledge or sanc- 
 tion of the landlord, could only affect his inter- 
 est as tenant, and could not prejudice the 
 reveisioner. Dixon v. Crogn, 4 0. R. 465. — 
 Proudfoot. 
 
 Semble, that a way of necessity does not give 
 a right to the owner of the dominant tenement 
 
m--' 
 
 Z12S 
 
 WAY. 
 
 zm 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 to «ros8 any part of the servient tenement at 
 pleasure, but is confined to a definite way to be 
 determined by the agreement of the parties, or 
 by the owner of the servient tenement, or of the 
 dominant te^iement in his default. Ih. 
 
 S. by his will devised his farm to trustees, 
 who divided up the property into six several 
 parcels, designated parcel one, parcel two, etc. , 
 according to a plan vhioh was registered, and 
 by contemporaneous conveyance under the Short 
 Form Act, conveyed the parcels to the testator's 
 six surviving children. The description of parcel 
 two included the lane in question, described as 
 a right of way, the use of which was thereby re- 
 served to the owners of parcels four and six, to 
 which it was a way of necessity. Tarcel three, 
 which adjoined the way, was conveyed without 
 any mention of the lane. During tlic unity of 
 title some farm buildings stood upop parcel 
 three, adjacent to the lane in (luestion, which 
 was used as a means of ingress and egress there- 
 to, but they had long since disappeared. 15y tlie 
 Short Form Act, R. S. O. (1877), c. 102, s. 4, 
 every deed, unless an exception be made therein, 
 shall be held to include all ways, eoKcments, 
 and appurtenances vhatever to the lands there- 
 in comprised, belonging or in any wise apper- 
 taining or with the same, held, used, occupied, 
 and enjoyed : —Held, that the defendant claiming 
 under the grantee of parcel three, could not 
 claim a right of way over the lane : that section 
 4 of the Short Form Act could not, under tlie 
 circumstances, be deemed to ap;)ly : that the 
 right of way was not a continuous easement, or 
 way of necessity ; and that plaintiff's riglit there- 
 to was not barred by the Statute of Limitations : 
 — Ilcld, also, that the defendant as owner of 
 a part of parcel four, could not claim the right 
 to use the way as appurtenant to parcel tliree. 
 Mamjhan v. Casci, 5 O. K. 518.— C. P. U. 
 
 C. conveyed to R. fifty acres of land iind also 
 a strip twenty feet wide, to the south, to give 
 access from the fifty acres to the town line. R. 
 mortgaged to C. the fifty acres, but not the 
 twenty feet strip, and then conveyed the strip 
 to N. Afterwards R. conveyed the fifty acres 
 to his son, siiiiject to C.'s mortgage, and on the 
 same day cave bin; the occupation under an 
 agreement for sale of the adjoining fifty acres 
 to the west. Tlie son mortgayed to the plnintiff 
 the fifty acres conveyed to nim. During the 
 possession of R. and liis son they got access from 
 the ciist fifty acres to the side line throiigh the 
 west fifty acres owned by R. The agreement 
 for sale of the west fifty acres to the son having 
 )>een cancelled, and R. having refused to al.'ow 
 a tenant of his son of tiie east fifty acres access 
 to the siile line through the west fifty acres, the 
 plaintiff brought this action against R., C, and 
 N. for a declaration as to the existence of a 
 right of way through the strip conveyed to N. , 
 or of a way of necessity through the west fifty 
 acres, ami for other relief :— Hold, that if a 
 right of way through the twenty feet strip did 
 pass to C. under the mortgage to him, it was a 
 right of way only to C, his heirs and assigns; ! 
 and the existence of a right in the plaintiff to 
 redeem C did not give her the rights of C until j 
 after redemption. But: — Field, that the plain- , 
 tiff was entitled to a declaration of the exist- 
 ence of a way of necessity tii rough the west 
 fifty acres, which was given by way of implied 
 
 grant when R. conveyed to his son. The exer- 
 cise of the implied grant was suspended during 
 the time that the son had possession of the west 
 fifty acres, but upon the termination of that 
 possession the implied grant and the right of 
 way under it was revived. Lupton v. Ratikin 
 17 O. R. 599.— Q. B, D, 
 
 Upon the severance of a tenement by devite 
 into separate parts, not only do rights of way of 
 strict necessity pass, but also rights of way ne- 
 cessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the parts 
 devised, and which had been and were up to the 
 time of the devise used by the owner of the en- 
 tirety for the benefit of such parts. Br'tgijn v. 
 Semmens, 19 0. R. 522.-Q. B. D. 
 
 (c) liiijht by PreHcription. 
 
 Held (Armour, J. , dissenting), that the Ontario 
 Act (R. S. O. 1877, c. 108) reducing the period 
 of limitation to ten years, does not apply to the 
 interruption of an easement, such .as a right tea 
 way in alieno solo, ii this case a lane, wiiich the 
 defendant had occupied and obstructed for ten 
 years, but which the plaintiff had used prior to 
 such obstruction. Mykel v, Doyle, 45 Q. B. 65.— 
 Q. B. 1). 
 
 In a possessory action en rvinti'ij ramie brought 
 by P. against H., the latter denied P.'s posses- 
 sion and pleaded, inter alia, that he was pro- 
 prietor and had exercised a right of way over 
 the land in dispute for a number of years. The 
 land in dispute consisted of a roadway situated 
 between the adjoining properties of the plaintiff 
 and defendant. At tlie trial P. proved that he 
 had had possession for a, year by closing up the 
 roadway with a fence and putting his cattle 
 there, and that at times he allowed tlie defen- 
 dant H. and others to use the roadway to get to 
 the river, and that when defeiidunt H. took down 
 the fence be iiniiiediately restored it, and tliat 
 defendant H. tiien asked him to let him use it. 
 That it was after tlie defendant H. had again 
 taken forcible possession of the land that he in- 
 stituted against him the present action. H. 
 proved he liad used the roadway as a passage for 
 a number of years, and put in his title. The 
 courts below held that both parties had pioved 
 only an equivocal possession and dismissed the 
 plaintiff's action, orderingthat their rights should 
 be tried by an action mi petitoire. On appeal 
 to the Supreme Court of Canada : — Hehi, re- 
 versing the judgment of tlie court below, Four- 
 nicr, J. dissenting, that as P. had proved a 
 possession aiiimo domini for a year and a day, 
 he should be reinstated and maintained in 
 peaceable possession of the land, and H. for- 
 bidden to trouble him by exercising a right of 
 way over the land in question, reserving to 
 the latter his resource to revendicate aii pelt- 
 toire any right he might iiave. Piiiwnnanll v. 
 Ilebert, 13 S. C. R. 450. 
 
 E. and B. owned adjoining lots, each deriving 
 his title from S. — E. lirought an action of trespass 
 against B. for disturbing his enjoyment of a 
 right of way between said lots and for damages. 
 The fee in this right of way was in S., but E. 
 founded iiis claim to a user of the way by him- 
 self and his predecessors in title for upwards of 
 forty years. The evidence on the trial shewed 
 that it had been used in common by the succe* 
 
 
2m 
 
 to his son. The exer- 
 t was suspended during 
 id possession of the west 
 he termination of that 
 grant and the right of 
 ed. Lu})ton v. Hutdiii, 
 
 if a tenement by devise 
 only do rights of way of 
 it also rights of way ne- 
 
 le enjoyment of the parts 
 been and were up to the 
 by the owner of the en- 
 
 f such parts. Briyiis v. 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 / PrcHcription. 
 
 isenting), that the Ontario 
 108) reducing the period 
 irs, does not apply to the 
 ment, such as a right to a 
 ;hi8 case a lane, wliich the 
 d and obstructed for ten 
 )laintiff had used prior to 
 :el V. Doyle, 45 Q. B. 65.— 
 
 )n en reiiili'iji'aiide brought 
 latter denied P.'s posses- 
 cr alia, that he was pro- 
 ised a right of way over 
 e a number of years. The 
 ted of a roadway situated 
 
 properties of the plaintiff 
 he trial P. proved that he 
 r a year by closing up the 
 ce and putting his cattle 
 nies he allowed the defeu- 
 ) use the roadway to get to 
 cu defendant H. took down 
 ately restored it, aud that 
 ked him to let him use it. 
 le defendant H. had again 
 ion of the land that he in- 
 
 the present action. H. 
 le roadway as a passage for 
 nd put in his title. The 
 it both parties had proved 
 isession and dismissed the 
 ringthat their rights should 
 1 au pelitoire. On appeal 
 rt of Canada : — Helcl, re- 
 of the court, below, Four- 
 that as P. had proved a 
 iiini for a year and a day, 
 :ated and maintained in 
 of the land, and H. for- 
 in by exercising a right of 
 in question, resurviug to 
 ce to revendicate au pell- 
 ;ht have. Pimonmitill v. 
 50. 
 
 [joining lots, each deriving 
 rought an action of trespan 
 bing his enjoyment of a 
 said lots and for damages, 
 of way was in S., but E. 
 I user of the way by him- 
 ors in title for upwards of 
 dence on the trial shewed 
 in common by the succet 
 
 S125 
 
 WAY. 
 
 212S 
 
 give owners of the two lots :— Held, affirming 
 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia, Ritchie, C. J., and Owynne, J., dig. 
 senting. that as E, had no grant or conveyance 
 of the right of way, and had not proved an 
 exclusive user, he could not maintain his 
 action. E/lii v. Black, 14 S. C. R. 740. 
 
 A right to an easement previously enjoyed 
 cannot be acquired by the lapse of time during 
 which the owner of the dominant tenement has 
 a lease of the land over which the right would 
 extend. During such unity of possession the 
 running of the Statute of Limitations, is sus- 
 pended. Stothart V. HUliard, 19 0. R. 542.— 
 Boyd. 
 
 ,See Bofjerx v. Duncan, 18 S. C. R. 710, p. 2121 • 
 WflU V. Northern R. W. Co., 14 O. R. 594, p' 
 2133. 
 
 IV. Powers, Duties and Liabilities of Muni- 
 
 CI PAL COKPORATIONS. 
 
 1. Jurisdiction and Powers. 
 
 By a special Act of the legislature of Ontario, 
 45 Vict. c. 45, provision was made for the con- 
 struction of a sub-way or sub-ways as a means 
 of crossing curtain railways entering the city of 
 Toronto, part of which had to be constructed 
 within the city, and part within the adjoining 
 municipality of the village of Parkdale, and in 
 consequence of a disagrermcnt between the city 
 and the village as to the terms upon which the 
 undertaking should be proceeded with, the latter 
 united with the railway companies in obtaining 
 an order in council under the Dominion Act, 46 
 Vict. c. 24, authorizing the companies to execute 
 the work, and the latter entere<l into an agree- 
 ment with the village authorities that they 
 should construct the same, which they proceeded 
 to do. In an action against the village lirouglit 
 by the holders of property in the city and vil- 
 lage, which was greatly damaged by the mode 
 of executing the work : — Held (reversing the 
 judgment of the courts below, 7 O. R. 270, 8 (). 
 R. .TO.— Hagarty, C. J. O.. dissenting), that the 
 municipality was not answerable for any dam- 
 ages caused by the works. Per Hagarty, C. J. 
 0. The defendants could not legally undertake 
 the work merely as the agent of the railway 
 companies, and can only be treated as principals ; 
 the plaintiffs are entitled to a reference as to the 
 compensation to be awar<led to tliem. Per Bur- 
 ton, J. A. When the council of a corporation 
 professing to act. under tiie authority of the 
 coqwration does acts which are injurious to 
 others, if the objects and purposes which they 
 propose to accf)ni))lish are not within the scope 
 of the corporate duty imjjosed on it by law, the 
 corporation is not liable. What tiic corporation 
 attempted to do here was not to put in force any 
 of the corporate jiowers of the municipal body, 
 but the powers supposed to be possessed by the 
 railway companies, and for this reason they are 
 not liable. Per Osier, J. A. If the defendants 
 could act as agent of the railway companies 
 they can defend themselves just as an individual 
 could do under the authority of the Railway 
 Act and order in council ; if they could not so 
 act it is equally open to them to defend them- 
 selves from liability as a corporation, and either 
 way the plaintiffs fail. But on appeal to the 
 Supreme Court : — Held, Per Ritchie, C. J. , 
 
 Fourmer and Henry, JJ., that the work was 
 not done by the municipality under the special 
 Act, nor merely as agent i >r the railway com- 
 panies and the nmnicipality was therefore liable 
 as a wrong-.loer. Per Owynne, ,J. 'Iliiit the 
 work should be considered was having been done 
 under the special Act and the plaintitfs were en- 
 titled to compensation thereunder. Per Tas- 
 chereau, J. Tliat the work was done by the 
 municipality as agent for the railway companies 
 and It was therefore not liable. The decision 
 was attirmod by the Privy Council, 12 App. Cag. 
 t)03, but, no opinion was expressed as to the 
 rights of the corporation of Parkdale to recover 
 again against the railway companies either under 
 the general law of principal and agent or under 
 the express provisions of tlieir agreement with 
 those companies. West v. Viltaiic uf /'aikdale— 
 Carroll v. Vi/laije of Parkdale,' 12 A. 1{. '.m- 
 12 .S. C. R. 250 ; 12 App. Cas. 002. 
 
 Qua.re, as to the jurisdiction of a local muni- 
 cipality over a road running within one or more 
 townships or through more than one township. 
 See Hcijina v. Coniily of Perth, 6 O. R. 195 ; 
 Ihwison v. Township of Pembroke, 0. 11. 17o! 
 
 Jurisdiction over bridges. Trarersy v. Glou- 
 cesler, 15 O. H. 214, p. 2138 ; Counli/ of Victnria 
 v. County of f'cterlwroiinh, 15 A R. (il7, p. 21.39; 
 Johnston v. Township of Nelson, 17 A. 1!. 10, p. 
 
 See Township of Ancaster v. Durruvd, 32 C,. 
 v. 5(i3, p. 2134. 
 
 2. Jpenina "*■ i^stalilishing Roads, 
 
 A by-law passed by a municipal corporation 
 cannot have the effect of taking any lands of the 
 crown in addition to those appropriated by the 
 crown for tlio purpose of highways in order to 
 tlie opening up of the country. Rae v. Tiiw, 
 27 Cliy. 374. -Blake. 
 
 Held, where a by-law has been passed for 
 opening a road over certain land, the ninnieipal- 
 ity is not bound under R. ,S. O. ( 1877), c. 174, s. 
 4.")6 to make compensation to tiie owner before 
 entering on the land. Ilardimi v. Townshiii of 
 (\ml!f,'2{). R. 329. -Chy. 1).' 
 
 On tlie 13tli November, 1883, the judge of tlio 
 County Court of tiio county of Halton, in wliioli 
 county the lands mentioned in the report were 
 situate, after heaving tlie several parties in- 
 terested in the said lands and the streets liiercon, 
 made an order altering and amending the pliui 
 thereof by closing up and declaring closed cer- 
 tain streets and parts of streets XotwitJistand- 
 ing such order the council of tlie defendant 
 inuiiiciiMdity on the 5th of December, 1883, 
 passed a bylaw accepting and declaring open 
 some streets so closed, and autliorizing and 
 ilirectiug the road commissioner to remove all 
 fences and obstructions therefrom ; whereupon 
 the plaintiff moved for and obtained an order 
 nisi to quash such by-law, which upim argument 
 before Rose, J. (7 0. R. 192), was made absolute 
 wi^h costs. On appeal to this court that order 
 was affirmed, and the appeal disiiiisacd, with 
 costs. Sections 82, 83, 84, 85 of the Registry 
 Act, R. S. 0. (1877). c. Ill, and sections 525, 
 527 of the Municipal Act 1877 considered. In 
 re Wiildie and the Villaye "J Burtimjtuu, 13 A. 
 R. 104. 
 
2127 
 
 WAY. 
 
 n 
 
 s: - ! 
 
 Wlieio tlii^ owners of liuiils, adjoining original 
 road allow uncus. Liid out roads on tiioir lands 
 which M'ere used as puldic roads for upwanls of 
 eighty years, the origiTial road allowances being 
 all that time in the occn])ati()n of the owners of 
 the lancls, an<l used and treated as their own 
 property, and no eviilencc was adduced to raise 
 a presumption tliat coin]ienHation had been paid 
 to them for the roads so laid out : — Held, afHrni- 
 ing the judgment of Osier, J. A. (8 O. R. OS), 
 that the presun)]ition was that the original road 
 allowances had been taken and used in lieu of 
 the roads laid out by the original owners through 
 their lamls. and tliat a by-law to ojx'n up the 
 original vo:id allowaucn as of right, was invalid. 
 Hunittc. M:irll)(.rough, "JilQ. B. 110, .approved; 
 (^ameron r. Wait, 'A A. R. 17r), explained. 
 Jitemf.r v. Vil/aiji' nf (Irhmhij, 13 A. R. 'J-i'). 
 
 It was contended that since the passing of 44 
 Vict. c. 24, ss. 1,"), 16 (Ont.), the only reine<ly 
 for persons claiming an intei'cst in a ro.'id allow- 
 ance w.is by arbitration to lix compensation : — 
 Held, that the Act only a])])lies tu tlie ease where 
 the council have in good faith intended to open 
 a road allowance, but by mistake have not done 
 80 on the true line. S. C. , S (). R. OS. 
 
 It is discretionary Mith and not obligatory 
 upon a niuniei|)al council to open a road allow- 
 ance, and the fact that a by-law has been passed 
 «loe.s not create such an ohh'gation, and a manda- 
 mus was refused. Re Wi/xoH V. ]Valiilki', W V. 
 R. 147.— Rose. 
 
 It is essential to the validity of a by-law 
 to expro])riate land for the purpose of establish- 
 ing and laying out a higliway, that the course, 
 boundary, and width of such highway shiudd be 
 capd)lo of l)eing .ascei'tained from the bylaw 
 itself or fioni some doeuinent or description 
 f'.ferred to by it, wliicli may be treated as 
 incorpoi'ated tlierewitli ; failing this the liy-law 
 is necessarily inoperative and voi<l. In .'in 
 action by a nuinieipid corporation tor(^stiain the 
 ownt.'r of land from obstructing an alleged public 
 highway over Iiis l.ind, tlie onus of ]iroviiig the 
 existence of such highway rests on the ])laintill's: 
 anil wliere the road in cpiestion, the l.ind tor 
 which liad not been expropriateil, was described 
 as being " A road on the boundary between the 
 lltli ami I'ith concessions c)f the said tnwnshii) 
 from tlie line between lot Xo. .'tO anil lot No. .'il, 
 to the line lietween lot No. .S.") and lot No. .'ili, " no 
 survey or other ileseri])tiou of the ro.id being 
 refei-red to in the by-law passed for the iiurjiose 
 of opi'uing up tlie same, and no siitiicieiit 
 eviilenci^ li.iving been given of the ))erforinani'e 
 of statute labour on the lino of road, it w.is : — 
 HeliKatlirinim.' the judgment of the (;. P. I), li' 
 (). R. •-'!)7), that the plaintifls had failed in 
 shewing that the road as claimed by them had 
 been duly established ;is a public highway: — 
 Sctnble, the land for a road not having been 
 exproiuiatcd the mere expenditure of jmlilic 
 money in opening it and the ptiiforinanei^ of 
 statute labour upon it does not make it a higli- 
 way. .SV. Viiicvut V. Orconlielil, 15 A. I!. r)t)7. 
 
 The proposed ro.ail was to be only forty feet 
 in width. The authority of the county council 
 in this behalf was not obtained until after the by- 
 law had been passed, and this a])plication to 
 quash it made: — Held, that the consent of the 
 county council, though a condition precedent to 
 
 the laying out of the road, was not a condition 
 precedent to the passing of the by-law. Ih, 
 
 Tlie Municipal Act, (18S3) sec. 584, enacts thai 
 no council shall ])ass a by-law for estaldisliinga 
 public highway until written or piiiitcd notices 
 of the intended bylaw have been posted u)) one 
 month previously in six of the most jiublic places 
 in the neighbourhood of such road, etc. The 
 defendants on the 20th of July, 1887. published 
 notices of their intention to pass a by-law on the 
 20th of August, I8S7, to open a road across nine 
 lots in the first concession of the township. On 
 that day the council met and passed a by-law 
 establishing a road across four onlj' of the lots 
 mentioned in tlie notice. The date of puttine 
 up the notice was recited in the bylaw, and was 
 admitted by the allidavits tiled by the defenilants 
 on shewing cause to the motion toipiash the by- 
 law. Nothing liad Ijccu done tinder the by-law : 
 - Held, reversing 1,") (). K. 4.'{ on this point, that 
 the giving of the prescribed notice is a eimdition 
 precedent to the right of the council tojiasssuch 
 
 I a l)y-law ; that the month is to lie couipiit<'d ex- 
 
 1 elusive of the (irst and last days tliereiif, anil, 
 thcrcfoie, that a notice on the 20tli of .Inly of 
 
 i intention to pass a by-law on the 211th of August 
 was insulHcient. Aiitlioriti<!s as to com]Hi(ation 
 
 I of time in such a case considered. Laplaiitc r. 
 
 i Peterborough, .') (). R. (i.S4 ; Wannamaker r. 
 
 I (Ireen, 10 (). R. 547, approved. (4>uare, wliether 
 the council could pass a by-law to open up or es- 
 tablish a road other than the road as described in 
 
 j tile noticL. liaker r. Saltlleet, 31 (,). 15. ."iSG, re- 
 ferred to. Hi' Oxfniiii (Dili lliv Tovuiship of Sid- 
 
 \ )ii:y, 15 A. R. ;{72. 
 
 \ A bylaw was jiassed by the city of Ilaniiltou 
 on the loth .iannary. 1S87, giaiiling .•?.■), (KH) in- 
 wards the coiistrii.'tion of a free road leading 
 into Ilaniiltou froiii thiiMst. to be paid when anil 
 so soon as the sum of s>li.5(H) should iiave been 
 contributed by the eorpoiatioii of the tiiwiisliip 
 of l)arton,or any other niniiieipality and private 
 subscribers, .iiid actually expemled on the work 
 of construction of the said roads, or on the (lur- 
 cliasc of the I'ight of May thciefor. 'i'lie pay- 
 nient w.is also made conditional on the con- 
 struction of the roads in manner, and on the 
 terms, and subject to the conditions .as in the 
 bylaw cont.iineil. Ainoiig other conditions wis 
 one that no moneys should be paid until the 
 council of the township of jlartoii should have 
 jiassed a by law for the assumplion of the saiil 
 nuids, and the piojier iii.iintinance thereof liy 
 the said township, and lint il an agreement slioiiM 
 liavi' been entered into between the corpoiatinn 
 of the said township, and the corporation of the 
 
 , city of Hamilton, jiroviding for the niaintenanci' 
 of the .said roads in a proper state of . i|)air, anil 
 iis free roads lor all time to come ; and it was 
 fnrtlier )irovided that before any neineys were 
 paid the city was to be satistied that the eastern 
 fret^ road should provide connection willi the 
 present .system of township roads to seiMirc free 
 travel from the top of the mount lin. etc. No 
 date was tixcd for doing the work, or payingthe 
 money, and no provision was niaih' fur levying 
 the amount during the inuniciptd year, imr w;ia 
 the by-law sulimitted to the vote of the peo- 
 ple : Held, that th(! by-law created a fiitnre 
 indetinite and contingent liability, and if such a 
 by-law was valid at all it oug!it to have been 
 submitted to the vote of the ratepayers. The 
 
Hi 
 
 mmm 
 
 212B 
 
 1, W.18 not tt condition 
 (f tlie by-liiw. II). 
 
 ;3) sec. r>S4, onnols that 
 -liiw for cHtiililisliinga 
 ttoii or i)rinte(l notices 
 ivi! l)t't!n jiosted up one 
 ' tlieniost |)ut)lic plficeg 
 
 sucli road, etc. The 
 ■ .Inly, 18S7. pnMishwl 
 to j)ii8Sii hy-liiw (in the 
 )pc'n a roail armss nine 
 1 (if tlie townsliip. On 
 t and passc^d a l)y-law 
 s four only of the lots 
 Thf ilati! of putting 
 
 in the liy law, and wan 
 s tiled liy the defendants 
 motion toiinasli the by. 
 dontMinder tiie liy daw : 
 ;. 4.'? on this point, that 
 led notiee is a eondition 
 the eonneil to])asHsuch 
 ;h i« to he eonii)ut<'d ex- 
 last days thereof, and, 
 
 on tiie''2!)lli of .Inly of 
 won tlie 'i'.lth of August 
 iriti(!9 as to eimiputation 
 (insidered. T^aplautc r. 
 (ilU : Wainiamaker r. 
 )roved. li»ua re, wiiethtr 
 
 liy-law to open u]! ores- 
 I the road as deseriliedin 
 ilttleet, -M (.». 15. 380, re- 
 wl the. Towiishij) (;/' Sid- 
 
 hy the eity of llaniiltnn 
 ISS7, ^'rantinj? ?.'),(KI() to- 
 il of a free mad leading 
 eist. to he paid when and 
 <:{,.")()(> should ii.ive licen 
 poration "i the tnwiiship 
 
 nnmieipality and jirivatc 
 liy expended on the work 
 <aid roads, or on the pnr 
 way theiefor. The pay 
 eonditional ><\\ the cou- 
 i in manner, and on the 
 the eonditions ,is in tlic 
 iKini; other eonditidus WIS 
 <h(iuld he ))aid until the 
 ip id' liarton should have 
 e assumption of the said 
 • maintinanee thereof liy 
 nnlil an agreement sliouM 
 I lietween tile eorperatinn 
 \nd tlie eorporatiiin nl tlie 
 idin^' l'(ir tiie maiiiteuani'.' 
 proper state of :-i'p.dr, and 
 lime to ennie ; and it vn* 
 
 liefnre any nemevs weni 
 e satislied that the eastern 
 vide edinieetidU witii the 
 nship mads to seeure free 
 if tlie mountiin. etc N" 
 n^' the work, or iiayingUi'! 
 d(iii was made for levying 
 
 municipal y.'ar, uer w:i3 
 
 1 to the vote of the pc(i- 
 hy-law ereateil a future 
 
 entlialiilitv. and if such a 
 all it onj.'!it to have heen 
 e of the ratepayers. The 
 
 2129 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2130 
 
 city derived income^ from ^certain sources inde- individual, to open an .iriu'ind rn.ad :iltow;mcc 
 
 pendent of taxes, hut this incninc with the 
 taxes levied left a detieieney which had liecn 
 
 make it tit for [luMic travel 
 
 Tvininlii/i of' yhHiHii-cnj, ITS. ('. \\. 479. 
 
 See Itxi'imi 
 p. -IVAX. ' 
 
 Ar'jiiii-hni Ronih. 
 
 Coiiiiti/ of I'ath, (.). K. 196, 
 
 4. AK'iiiiijithiii of Iload-^. 
 
 (a) ()/' ToiriKli'ip lliiioh In/ C'niiit'li:i. 
 
 .Action hy plaintitf for d.iiiirii.'es forthelosHof 
 usiiorsc whicii was killi'd hy falliiii.' iiitoa diteli 
 \\\\l liy tlic towiisliip, on a niid therein, under .-v 
 IraiuMLlc liy law. The townsliip iniiiicil hiwl 
 lassed a liy-la« fni' (ipcniii,;,' Mud cstiililishin;; 
 
 he sn|)pi)rted, and the hy-laws and resulutions : 
 were (luashed. /" /'c. CnriK iiO r \\ 'J'oirniliij) of , 
 
 "1" 
 Barton, 1.5 O. R. ;;'.j. -Kose. 
 
 luot hy borrowing money, which was still un- 
 paid, and no approjiriation had heen made for 
 
 the p.aynient of thei?."),000 : -Held, that this did 
 
 not validate the hydaw without snlimissinu to 
 
 the people. He-olntions and a liy-law ef the 
 
 township of llartoii dependent niion the }tauiil- 
 
 ton hy-law, held invalid aa heing ]iart "f an 
 
 invalid arrangement attempted to lie made imder 
 
 J 'ion .').').") of the Municipal Act of lHs;{ ; — 
 
 Held, also, tli.it the arrangement, if valid on 
 
 other groninls, and one fur their joint Imuclit, 
 
 might lie entered into under section '>'>') hy tlie 
 
 iiimiicipalities : — lield, lastly, that a hy-law 
 
 passed to open a free road, solely for the |iur- 
 
 pose of enabling the public to avuid travelling 
 
 upon a toll road, and thus aviiid the |)aynicut (It 
 
 t(dls, the " free road " not being otherwise re- this ro.id, ami siinrtly 'after the county conn- 
 piired for the jmblic cdnvcniciice - ecmld not cil liacl passcil a by-law, "assuming the road 
 
 :asar(i:idiif the said cnuiitv fur the purpo.sc! of 
 
 1 (iXpciiding thereon the c.iunty appropriation, 
 
 and f(ir such |iiirpiisc duly." The money of the 
 
 j Cdunty was expended fniiu vear to vear on the 
 
 A municipal couii'dl jiasscd a by-law to open [ said riiad. The Cdimty bylaw was proposed or 
 
 a ro.id in a certain dctined course, and by a sub- scccnidcd by the towusiiip'rceve, and its validity, 
 
 se(iuent by-law- appointed the defendant .M. a ' iilth.iiiiL.di iK.ver assented to by in-law, was never 
 
 counnissioner to rem ive all (ihstnictinns fnun ; disputed by tlie township :-'lleld, that by tlieir 
 the highway so detined. .M. cut down some | l)y.law llie' comity had assumed tiie road as a 
 trees of the plaintill's and reniovcd these and j county road, ami there was no power in the 
 portions of fences, .■\ctioiis of trespass were ^ statute authorizing them to limit the assump- 
 lirought against M. and the council, but the tion in the maimer proposed ; ami that under 
 hy-laws had not beini (|Uasheil : —Held, rcvers- ' the circumstauecs the county could not set up 
 ing the judgment of the (,». 1>. D. tiiat the road the absence of a townslii)) liyl.iw as^euting to 
 detined in the by-law was the tru(^ road, and the assumiition. Sections ."iS.'i and ."i<i(i. sub-see- 
 could properly be opened as therein dcliiied: tion o of R. S. O. (Is77), c. 1st, relic.l on by 
 —Held, also (Burton, J. A,, doubting, but not the cniiuty. were liehl not a|ipliealile to this 
 desiring to express a judicial opinion), that case ; -Held, also, that the county, iiiid(!r seiv 
 whether the road dctincil in the by-law was the (jon ."i.'fl, sub-section 1, were hound to keep tl 
 true road or not, and whether therefore a tres- 
 pass was comniitfc(l or not, the by-laws being 
 under certain conditions and ici|uircments with- 
 in the general com])i tcnce of tluM'oiineil, and 
 not being <|iiaslicd alVonlcil a complete defence 
 t(i the actions, ('dinuir v. Miihlmjli -Hill v. 
 Mtdditiih, Hi A. K. 3.")li. 
 
 road in repair, ainl Were 
 under sub-section 4, tt 
 
 lialdc 
 
 were 
 
 to iil.aiiitil)', but 
 iititlcd to judg- 
 ment over against the township. Hiilwr v. 
 Voini^hlji ol' (,'n.<ii,l,l S,.iilli, 17 (). [!. 7lX).--('. 
 1'. I). 
 
 H. was owner of .md resided on, a lot in the 
 eisilith concession of the township of .Mc(!., and 
 under the provi.sions of ('. S. U. <"., c. ."i4, an 
 allowance wa.s granted by the township for a 
 road in front of said lot 
 
 ever, never opemal owing to the ditlicultics 
 caused by the formation of the land, and a by- 
 law was ))i>ssed autliori/ing anew road in sub- 
 atitution thereof. Some years after 11. broiight 
 a suit to compel the township to open the original 
 road or, in the alternative, to provid(^ him with 
 
 (ll) /■,''•/./. lire 0/. 
 
 Ill all action ificonipel a inunieipal corporation 
 to niainiain and rejiair a street laid out by 
 private pci'soiis. it appeared that such street was 
 not eslaldished .as a highway by liy-law " - 
 .issume . . , ... 
 
 the municipal corporation : but it was contended 
 that the pcrfonnincc of statute labour thereon 
 with the consent of the patlimaster. and on one 
 occasion with the consent of the councillor for 
 the ward and of the reeve, was evidence that it 
 was otherwise a-i-uined for public user : Ibdd, 
 
 This road was, how- l ,,«.;, ,„„.,i tor public iis.'r by any corporate act of 
 
 aceess to his lot, and also to ki.'cii said road in (1,.^ (i„, ,.|cts rcipiircd to work such aii assiinii|- 
 rcpair and (lay damages for injuries c.iused by 
 the ro.ad not having been opened ; -Held, 
 affirming the judgment of the court In low, 1.") 
 A. It. <)S7, wiiieli had atlirmed the jud-niciil 
 of thcQ. P.. 1)., 12 (). IJ. 74!t, that the provi- 
 sions of the Act, O. S. U. ('., e. "i4, rcipiir- 
 ing a township to maintain and kci]) in repair 
 roads, etc., and |)roliibiting the (dosing or altcra- 
 ti.ui of ro.'ids, only applied to roads which h id 
 heen formally opened and used and not to those 
 
 which 
 
 a townshi|i, in 
 
 its discretion. 
 
 tion must be corporate acts; clear and nne(pii- 
 vocd, and suidi as clearly ami unequivocally 
 indicate the intention of the eoriioratioii to 
 assume the mad ; and the acts relied upon iii 
 this case could not bind the corporation nor 
 work siu h an assumption : -Held, also, f(dlowing 
 llislop r. .MeCillivray, 1.') A. 11. I1S7, that evim 
 if the sticet had been assumed for public user, 
 the plaiiitilVs only remedy washy indictment, 
 and the action was not inaintainablc. Ifalic.H v. 
 
 sidered it inadvisable to open 
 
 -H(dd, also, that 
 
 7 
 
 iiii-n-ilnii 11 
 
 »/■ }'( 
 
 the courts of Ontario have no jui 
 «onipcl a municipality, at the suit ( 
 
 1.34 
 
 idiction to ' Sec 
 
 f a private j l.J A. K. Ml, p. 2127. 
 
 Hill, ISO. U. 4.W.-Q. 15. I>. 
 
 ,S7. Viiirnil v. t!r<<vf!<'lil, I'i O. R. 297 
 
2131 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2132 
 
 ea 
 
 JO 
 
 PI 
 
 CO 
 
 •s 
 
 09 
 IB 
 > 
 10 
 
 5. Ahaiidonlng Uoaih. 
 
 A road ran ))et\vei.'n several townsbips in the 
 defendants' eountj', and was eonstrueti'd liy a 
 joint stock ciini])any. In ISOd, tlie ditcndants 
 j)Ur<'lias('il the ri^lit of tlie oad e(ini|iany in tlie 
 road at a sluTiil's sale under an t^xeeution against 
 the eonijiany, and received a deed from the 
 fllieriff. A l)ylaw liad heen jias'sed antlmrizing 
 tlie jiurehnse, l)nt tliroii;,di inadvertence was not 
 Bigiiecl or scaled, liut the imreliasc was rcc(it,'ni/c(l 
 in aiil)Sec(nent hydaws, and tlu^ defendants took 
 jjossession of and exercised exclusive jurisdiction 
 over the road, expendeil some %^'J, .">()() in its re- 
 pair, and continued to deal with it as their own 
 j)roperty until Sth luuc, ISSI, wlu'n they passed 
 a hydaw divesting themselves of the road, after 
 which the defenihmts ceased to exercise any con- 
 trol over it: — Held, that the ilefendants weie ! 
 not lialile foi' tlu^ non-repair (»f the load. I'er | 
 (Jalt, J. — The defendants never had any autlior- 
 ity over the road miiler the provisions of the , 
 Municipal Act ; hut they aci|uiri'il tlii' road, aiul 
 Ix^came res))onsihle therefor under tlieir |iur- 
 chase from the road eomi),iny, which must he 
 deemed valid, the defendiints, under tlie ciieiim- 
 stances, heiiii;estop]KMl from deiiyiiiL; the v;iHd- 
 ity of the hy-law authori/ing such piiichase. , 
 They, liowever, as they had a right to do, had 
 put an end to their lialiility l>y the liylaw 
 jiassed divesting themselves of the roail 
 
 Wilson, ('. •). 
 
 lie defi'iKhints could le;ial 
 
 acquire the roail liy iiiirch.Tse and make them- 
 selves resiionsihle for tlie same under a hy-law 
 ])ro])erly jiasscd for such jiurpose ; and if the 
 defendants are l)oiind hy their acts, ami are |ire- 
 clnded from diiiying their legal i<s))oiisiljility to 
 inaiiitain tlie road as a county mad so long as 
 they kee]) it, or if they can lie made to pi'ifi'ct the 
 original (lefcctive liy-law , as to the latter of which 
 propositions he expresM'd no opinion, they IkuI 
 by the hy-law passed therefor, diveste(l them- 
 selves of the road mid teiiiiiiiateil t In ir liahility. 
 Per l!ose, .l.--lf tlie dclVndants had power to 
 Jiiirchase the mad. and did purchase it , tliry had 
 power to ahaiidon it. and they hail liy their liy- 
 law exercis.-d such powir. /I'l /('/((( V. ( (iiiii/i/ d/' 
 
 I'lrth, ou. i; I 'Jo. CPU. 
 
 0. ChtsilHl llonih. 
 
 (a) A'o//.v. 
 
 Held, that the notice of intention to pass a 
 hy-law to close a mad shouM state the day on 
 which the ninnici|pal council intend ediisidcring 
 the liy-law. Seinlile, that thi' mere fact of the | 
 relator having knowledge aliunde w.is not a! 
 sullicieiit answer to an ap;ilic,ition hy him to 
 «piash for want of pro]ier notice of the day on 
 which tlie hy-law was to 'le c<iiisidi'i-cd. //; ;v' 
 Iiiril.i(\l/ mill till 'J'oiniKliiji III' .l-i/iliiiil' I, ■\T) (^). P>. ; 
 149. — Ilagarty. 
 
 A innnieipiil corporation passed a hy-law to 
 close up a liiLdiway, Imt the notices of the in- 
 tended hy-law. rci|iiireil to he given under the 
 "(Consolidated Municipal .Act, ISS.'t, ' were only 
 jnihlished for three successive weeks in a liews- 
 ])apcr, instead of four, as rcipiired hy section 
 54(> of that .Act. and 't was not shewn when the 
 six notices reipiired to he ])osted up were 
 |)o,'-ved, nor what they or the advertisement eoii- 
 tuiued: — Held, in an action for hreaking down 
 
 fences nurnss the road closed up under the hy. 
 law, that tin notices required to he given were 
 conditions precedent, the due lierforinanee of 
 which Were essential to the validity of the In- 
 law. Waiiniimiiker v. (Jreen, 10 O. K. 4,")7 L 
 
 <.). n. I). 
 
 (h) Other Ciiw. 
 
 The power of a municipal council to close in, 
 a road, under section MA of the Muniei]ial .Act, 
 w lierehy any one is exoluded from access to lii,H 
 lands, is a conditional one only, and if aiiutlu'i' 
 convenient ro.id is not already in existence, oris 
 not opened hy another hy-law passed hefore the 
 time lixed for closing the mail, the hy-huv clo.s- 
 iiig the roail may he ijuashed. The onus nf 
 shewing that another convenient road is open ti> 
 the applicant is upon the eorjioration. Ailnmn 
 ami tin Tijini.s/iipiij Kn-il Whitliy, 2 0. H. 47;).— 
 Osier. 
 
 A hy-law was [las.sed hy the defemlaut iiiiiiii- 
 cipality to close up uid grant to a railway roiii. 
 p.iiiy a portion of a street, hy which alone the 
 applicant had access to a piece of land sold ami 
 conveyed to him hy the municipality at a lax 
 sale, without pmviiling other convenient acie.ia 
 to the land. The land 'vas iinpatentiMl, hut tlm 
 applicant had p.iid all dues to the crown laml 
 depot iiieiit. The hy-law was ohjected to mi 
 the ground that it did not provide other euii- 
 veiiieiit access to the land ; that a nioiillis 
 notice of the (lassing of the hy-law was nut 
 given, tin notice having heen given on the 'Jsth 
 of .March, for the •_'Slli oi April : I hat it proviilcd 
 for arhit ration liy the iiia\or. and hy two ]nr- 
 siins, one appointed hy the railway company iiiiil 
 one hy I he applii'aiit, a mode dill'erent troiii tliiit 
 Jiroviiled hy tlie statute ; and that the award 
 was to he made within one month from the ilatu 
 of jiassing 1 lu' hy-law instead of one iiiontli fnini 
 the ajipointnient of third aroitrator : IhlJ, 
 that all the ohjcctions were well taken, and lliul 
 the hy law was invalid : — Held, also, that llio 
 .ipplieant had sutliiient interest in tin: land in 
 ipicstioii to entitle him to apply ; and, at any 
 rate, the nuiniripality were estopped hy tin ir 
 C(inveyani;e from setting that ii|) ; that an ajipli- 
 cant atl'ccled hy such hy-law is not hound tn 
 wait until the mad is actually closed hefore com- 
 ing to the court. 1)1 ri l.ii/ildiiti din/ tin Tiin'il 
 of' J'l tiifiiiriiiiiili, .") (). R. (j.'<4. — Rose. 
 
 Qua'i'e, whether there is any power to close ii|i 
 a mad of the nature of the one in this cii'^i', 
 riinuiiig through more than one miinicipality. 
 //ririsoii V. 'rmrii-lliji nf I'l nihinki ,V) (h 1!. 170. 
 
 llOSC. 
 
 Held, that a hy-law closing a mad across ii lot 
 where there was more than one road was void 
 for uncertainty in not shewing which road was 
 meant. Wiiiiiiuiiinki r v. Urieii, 10 (>. R. 457.— 
 (,». B. 1). 
 
 See Ciini/v. f'iti/ oj Tonmtn, 11 A. P.. 4Iii; 
 I4.S. (". R.'lT-', p.' 1.s'h4. 
 
 7. Comjh :i-!iilion. 
 
 Where in hiiihliiig their road thedefendantskft 
 a snhw;,y under a trestle hridge, and the evi- 
 dence shewed that the plaintitr the owner of tlic 
 land crossed liy the railway at this point, had cu- 
 
2132 
 
 2133 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2134 
 
 led up uikUt the tiy- 
 rcil to be };ivt'ii were 
 due i)erf(innam'e of 
 e viiliilitv of till! ))V- 
 een, 10 O. R. 4:i:.'- 
 
 CuK'f. 
 
 ivl council to close n\\ 
 >( the Muiiicil)al Act, 
 cil from access to liis 
 iiily, and if luu'tliei- 
 jady in oxisteuee, win 
 daw passed hcfore tin; 
 road, the V)y law rliw- 
 laslied. 'I'iie omiN uf 
 venieiit roail is i^ifu to 
 corporation. ,l'/"»n 
 ]yir,H>y, 2 O. K. 47:{.- 
 
 y the defendant niiini- 
 
 rant to a railway ii>ui- 
 
 •t. \>y which alone tk' 
 
 piece of lanil sold and 
 
 nuiiiicipality at a lux 
 
 iher convenient aerena 
 
 as unpatented, bill tlio 
 
 lies to the crown liiinl 
 
 w was objccte<l to "U 
 
 lot provide otliel- euii- 
 
 Uiid ; that a nioiitli's 
 
 f the by daw was imt 
 
 been given on the '^sth 
 
 April : that it jiruviaud 
 
 Ki\or. and by two liei- 
 
 he railway company iiiiil 
 
 mode dillcrent IroMi tli;it 
 
 ,c ; and that the awaiJ 
 
 Diie month from llie ilate 
 
 istead of one month fmia 
 
 liird arbitrator ; Ibl'l, 
 
 sere well taken, and ihal 
 
 1 :__ll(dd, also, thai llie 
 
 interest in the land ill 
 
 I to apply ; and, at any 
 
 were estoiilied by tluir 
 
 il that np ; that an aiipli- 
 
 'i)V law is not bound to 
 
 •liially chised before coiii- 
 
 , Lai'laiih ami th' Tvm 
 
 I. ();U.— Kose. 
 
 e is anv power to elnseiil) 
 of the one in this ease, 
 • than one munieilialily. 
 „/• l\„ihn,b,i>0. W. 170. 
 
 closing a road across II lot 
 
 i- than one road was voul 
 
 shewing which road was 
 
 •V. Oneii, KM). 1!. 457.- 
 
 i/ Toroiitii 
 
 U A. 11. 41h: 
 
 iiipi 
 
 lAiilwn. 
 
 ..irroadthedcfcndantskft 
 
 ■cstle bridge, and the cvi- 
 leplaintilV the owner nf the 
 vilway at this point, had eu- 
 
 joyed the open and contiiiuons user of this sub- 1 Re Ontario and Quebec U. \V. Co., mid Taylor 
 way as of right ever since 1802, but tiiat the de- i; (). H. at p. .US, and .lames r. Ontario and' 
 fendants were now proceeding to till it up :— ; (,>uebec U. W. Co., liJ O. U. at i.. (ISO, followed. 
 Held, that though the plaintiff could not lue- /,'. I'lyce ami City of ToroiU,,, Hi O. It., 7i>ti.— 
 vent the tilling up of the subway, he was entitled Street. 
 to damages for his jirojierty in the easement. 
 The plaintill was entitled to assume that there 
 was a reservation of the subway in the deed from 
 the original grantor of the right of way to the j 
 railway company, which deed was lost, or he was 
 
 See lifvmiv v. Villaiif of Urhmby, 8 0. K. 9S; 
 
 i:} A 
 
 .'1-27. 
 
 entitled to claim the easement under the I're- i 
 Bcriiition Act from long and uninterrupted en- 
 ioyineiit as of right. Clouse r. Canada .Siuithern 
 R. W. Co., 4 (J. R. 2S, 1 1 A. I!. •_'«7. KiS. C. K. 
 130, distinguished. Wi-lls v. A'orlli' ni Ji. H'. 
 Co., 14 0. It. ."iW. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 The defendants having built asub«ay in front 
 of the idaiiitit's' property, and in so doing low- 
 ered tlie highway so as to cut oil' the access 
 thereto, which was pi'cviously enjoyed, under 
 the circumstances set out in 7 O. li. -7t> ; >S (). 
 R. 5!): I'i A. U. ;{!« ; l'_' S. C. I!. •_».".(), and VI 
 App. (-'as. t)()2, it was referred to an ollieial re- 
 fci'oe to take an account of the damage, if any, 
 sustained by t'le phiintiIVs by ivasoii of the 
 wrongful acts of the defendants, and to fix the 
 compensation projier to be paid in resjiect 
 thereof. On such reference, the reft^'ee ruled, 
 (1) that the measure of damages was the dill'er- 
 etice in value of the property before tin 1 after 
 
 the constr-iction with interest added ; (2) that ; 1,^.^.",; .^ i,y.iii„. „f the adjoining municipality 
 the prospective capabilities or value of the land ^ivi„o the plaintitls the right to erect such toll- 
 could not be taken into account except s„ far as : ^.^i,. . ,„„i ^.v^n without such by-law the plain 
 such elements entered into the comiiulation of ! (ji]- ■ 
 the then market value, or had regard to what 
 wouhl have been the present value of the pro- 
 perty had the subway not been constructed 
 
 8. Tolls. 
 
 Held, that the plaiiitill's had the power to 
 di'inise to the defendant the right to cidlect the 
 tolls upon one of the townsliij) roads ; that such 
 right should be exercised under a general or 
 special by-law ;authori/ing it ; but tliat this ob- 
 jection was ilot open to the ilefeiidants, the 
 lessee and his sureties, the former having en- 
 joyed the beiielit of the demise during the whole 
 term. 'I'he lollgate was beyond the limits ol 
 the iil.dntill's' inunici|)ulity upon theUarton side 
 of the road. Hartou and .-\iicastcr being adjoin- 
 ing townshiiis :- Held, that an objection to the 
 plaintiirs' right to collect tolls thereat could not 
 be niaiiitaiiicil, for the lilaintitl's might have the 
 title thereto under the (ieneral Road t'ompaiiies' 
 .\ct, l;. S, O. (l,S77l, c. 1,V.', s. (13; and there 
 was imthing to shew that the whole road allow- 
 ance between the two tow nships was not part of 
 and vested in the plaintitls ; also, under 11. .S. 
 O. (1877), c. 174, as. 4!I8, 499, there might have 
 
 111. 
 .'iti.'l. 
 
 encroachment may have been acquieiiced 
 'I'uniisliip of Aiicanter v. Dnrrwid, Wl C. 1*. 
 -C. P. D. ■ 
 
 and (3) that the plaiiitill's were not entitled to 
 special damages for injury to their business. On 
 an ap|)eal from this ruling, it was : — Held, that 
 the corporati(Hi were liable as wrong-doers, who 
 wcie not protected from the conseipiences of 
 their tort by any statiitiu'y i)rovisioii, to make 
 good .all damag(^s sustained, for which an action | 
 would lie for their unauthori/cd act, such dam 
 ages being of a two-fidd character, involving in- 
 jury to the plaintiirs land and to their business. 
 If, in the evidence, one injury could be discrim- ! 
 iiiated from th ' other, it was competent to re- 
 cover iiinler both heails : - Held, also, that cvi- ' 
 (It'lice might be received of the present value of j 
 the proiierty with a view to throw light on the I 
 prospective capabilities of the land al the date i 
 of the trespass, but not to form a basis for com- j 
 pciisation on its present value ; such evidence | 
 to he used to aid in tixing coiiiiieiisatiou for 
 the detriment sustained at the ilaleof the perpe- 
 tration of the wrong, havini^ regard to the then 
 present and the potential value of the |iro])erty. 
 Wtsl V. I>atkilal<\ lo (). K. :U!). lioyd. 
 
 In an arbitration under the arbitration clauses 
 of the Municipal Act, a lamlowner claimed that 
 curtain lands had been injuriously .iirected by 
 the construction of a block pavement ;- Held, 
 that ill estiin.iting the landowner's coinpeiisatioii 
 the arliitrator slnnild set off against the land- 
 owner's claim for damages sust.iiiicd, the in- ^ 
 
 crease in the value of the land arising from the ] etc., from „ . . - . 
 
 coustruction of the pavement in which this hand i land, having first declare, the necessity to exist 
 shared in eoinm.m with all the other lands : and chosen and described the land from whicti 
 hencfitcd, and not merely such direct and pccu i the material is to be taken, by a liy-law ; ana, 
 liar benetit .is accrued to this particular land, j therefore, a by daw purporting to be passed un- 
 
 9. Itiiiair of Uijluvayn. 
 
 (a) A ppropi-ial'mij Material. 
 
 I'lirsuant to a by-law of the town of Ingeisidl, 
 ]ierinittiiig that iminieipality to takegravel hum 
 C.'s lainl for rep.iiriiig their streets, v/itliout 
 mentioning the ipiaiility, the award was made 
 that thecoriioration shoiild " Jjay V. thirty-two 
 aiid-oiie-half cents foi- every load of gravel or 
 stone they should take for the repairs of their 
 roads, as and for eoinpensatioii for the injury 
 done, and that the right to take such onivel at; 
 this price shouM extend for five years :" -Held, 
 that the by-law should have iletined the ipian- 
 tity of gravel reipiiied to be taken, and the 
 award sliould have fixed the value of such ipiau- 
 tity as well as the amount to he paid for the 
 right of entry to take the same away, and there- 
 fore that the award was bad. In re Ih' Town 
 o/liiijersoll and Carroll, 1 0. R. 48S.— Cameron. 
 
 Rysc(!tion.")0, sub-section 8. of R. S. O. (1SS7), 
 c. 1.H4, thecnuncil of every township is autho- 
 rized to pass by-laws for searching for and taking 
 such timber, gravel, stone, or other material or 
 materials as may be necessary for keeping in 
 repair any road or highway within the munici- 
 pality :-'lIeld, that the nic'aniug of this section 
 is, that the council may, as necessity arises for 
 their doing so, exercise the right to take m'avel, 
 my particular parcel or parcels of 
 
2135 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2136 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 CS 
 
 IS 
 
 M 
 
 if:. 
 
 ilorthiH section, which authorized ami empower- 
 ed the pnthm.iMters and other emidoyees of the 
 corixtnition to enter upon any land witliin tlie 
 municipality wlien necessary to do so, Have and 
 except nrcliards, gardens, and pleasure groumts, ' 
 and search for and take any timber, gravel, etc., 
 was u])on its face illegal, because it purjmrted 
 to confer ujmn its otlicrs wider and more exten- 
 sive powers than tiie statute authorized : — 
 Held, also, notwithstanding tiic provisions of 
 section 338 of K. S. <>. (1.S87), c. IS4, that the 
 
 {daintitr was entitled without (juasldug the hy- 
 aw to an injunction to restrain the defendants 
 from proceeding to enforce the rights tliey 
 claimed under this liy-law, by entering ui)on Ins 
 lands. /i'o<( V. '/'uiniihi/) of W'ext Wairamish,]'.) 
 O. n. 294.— street. 
 
 (1)) Liiibillli/ III Hi pair. 
 
 Held, that a prohibition would not lie in 
 this case, the title to the road, >i|)on whieh the 
 injury complained of arose, not being in nues- 
 tion, the road being a coloiuzatiou road Imilt 
 1»y the government before the organization of 
 the townships of Medoia and Wood as a muni- 
 orjality, an<l the (juestioii arising not being 
 one of title but of liability to keep in rejjair a 
 road so built. Per Wilson, V,. J. The road in 
 question was a colonization road vested in " the 
 crown or in a public department or Ixiard," and 
 which hail not been renounced by proclamation, 
 and the municipality were not bound to repair 
 it. Ill ri' Kiii'ihl v. Uuilid Ti)irii!<liipit uf iliilura 
 and W'lod, 11 O. R. 138. -Q. B. 1). Aflirmed 
 14 A. R. IIJ. 
 
 An a)ipcal from the judgment of Rose, .1. (not 
 reported), dismissing an a])plication' under 40 
 Vict. c. 18, s. ."iSS (Out.), for a mandannis tp 
 compel the repair by tiie county of Haldiniand 
 of an existing bridge or the construction of a 
 new one over the Osw ego creek, when: it crosses 
 the boundary line between tlio townships of 
 Moulton and Haldiniand, by reason of the judges 
 of this court being divided in opinion, was dis- 
 missed. Per Hagarty, C. J. O., and Osier, .]. 
 A. — Indictment was the appropriate remedy. 
 The court below had the right to grant the writ 
 in its discretion, wliicli was, however, |)ropcily 
 exercised in refusing it. Per Rurtou and Patter- 
 son, J J. A. — The duty under the statute is not 
 the general obligation to keep Inghways and 
 bridges in repair, but is a 8i)ecitic duty like that 
 cast upon railway companies by their cliartcrs 
 with I'cspect to the restoration of I'oads or tiie 
 building of bridges. The existence of lial)ilitj' 
 to indictment does not of necessity exempt from 
 compulsion by mandamus any party charged by 
 statute witl) a specific duty. Indictment would 
 in this case be neither a specific nor an adequate 
 remedy, and a mandamus should have liccn 
 granted. The demand made upon the county 
 council previous to the application was sufticient. 
 Per Osier, .1. A. — The demand was insufficient. 
 Per Curiam — The county council were liable for 
 the nonrepair of the bridge in questicm. In re 
 the Toivn.iliipn of Moulton and Vnnhorouyh and 
 the County of llaldlnwnd, 12 A. R. 503. 
 
 See Trarenty v. OloMcexler, 15 O. R. 214, 
 •2138 ; ff is/op V. Toumnhip oj McOillivray, p. 
 2138 ; 17 S. C. R. 479, p. 2130. 
 
 (c) Proceedings Anainut Jor Non-repair, 
 
 .See lli: Kniijhl v. Afcdora and Wood, 14 A. R. 
 1 12, p. 213.J ; Jlix/o/) V. TunuiMp of Mcdillinray 
 15 A. R. 087; 17 S. C. R. 479 p. 2130 ; JIuUrlv. 
 Townilii/) of Yarnwulh, 18 O. R. 458, p. 2130. 
 
 10. Injury to Proptrly by liuUing or Lowering 
 Ji'oadn. 
 
 The corporation of tlie city of Toronto, in the 
 exercise of its corporate powers, necessarily 
 raised the sidewalk in front of plaintilf's pre- 
 mises whereby, as was allege<l, the plaintiff's 
 preniiscii were injuriously affected, lie having 
 liad to raise the premises to the level of the 
 sidewalk. In an action to recover the expenses 
 occasioned thereby: — Held, on demurrer, that 
 this was not the subject of an action, but for 
 compensation under the arbitration clauses of 
 the Municipal Act, 1883. Adams v. City or 
 Tonmlo, 12 O. R. 243.— Wilson. 
 
 Action for damages sustained by the plaintiff 
 by reason of the defendants lowering the grade 
 of the street in front of her store. T'he property 
 owners, but not including plaintiff', had peti- 
 tioned the council for the block paving of the 
 street as a local improvement uiuler section 612 
 of the Municii)al Act of 1883. The matter was 
 <luly considered, and a by-law passed to ascer- 
 tain the property to be benefited thereby, and 
 the expense and amount of assessment ; a,: A sub- 
 sequently a furtlier by-law was passed for rais- 
 ing the money recjuired therefor by loan, and for 
 assessing the amount. It was deemed advisable 
 to change the grade, and the street was lowered 
 in front of the plaintiff's premises about four 
 feet. No refeieuce was made in the said by- 
 laws as to any alteration in the grade, nor was 
 any by-law passed therefor : — Held, that there 
 was no negligence in the corporation by reason 
 of the lowering of the grade, for the work was 
 undertaken in the interest of the residents, and 
 executed under the advice and direction of a 
 presumably competent engineer, the judge con- 
 sidering that he could not assume the discre- 
 tion vested in the corporation of deciding as to 
 tlie necessity of lowering the grade ; but :— 
 Held, that in order to justify the interference 
 with the grade of the street a by-law therefor 
 was necessary ; and in the absence of such by- 
 law the defendants were liable, by action, for the 
 damage sustained Ayem v. Town of Wiiidsor, 
 14 O. R. 082. — Itose. 
 
 Held (Rurton, J. A., dissenting), affirming 
 the decision of Boyd, C. , that a municipal cor- 
 poration can exercise and perform their statut- 
 able powers and duties in repairing highways and 
 bridges or erecting a new bridge instead of an 
 old and unsafe one without passing a by-law 
 therefor, and that the [ilaintift whose premises 
 were " injuriously affected " by the level of the 
 street on which they fronted being raised in 
 order to construct a proper approach to a bridge 
 that the defendants were lawfully rebuilding, 
 could not maintain an action against the defen- 
 dants, but must, in the absence of any negligent 
 construction, proceed under the arbitration 
 clauses of the Municipal Act, R. 8. O. (1887) c. 
 184, notwithstanding the absence of any by-law 
 for the prosecution of the work. Per Burton, 
 J. A. 'I'here was no obligation cast upon the 
 
2138 
 
 2137 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2138 
 
 ul Jor Non-repair. 
 
 •a and Wood, 14 A. R. 
 iii'imliip lit' Mvdillinray, 
 479 p. 2130; Huberts. 
 8 O. U. 458, p. '2130. 
 
 I) liuisvig or Loicering 
 'tis. 
 
 city of Toronto, in the 
 ,0 powers, iiuixissiirily 
 ront of jilaintilf's pre- 
 ivUcguil, tlic pliiintiff's 
 ly atfeotud, liu liaving 
 I's to the level of the 
 to recover the expenses 
 eld, on (leniiirrer, that 
 t of an action, l)ut for 
 i arbitration clauses of 
 S3. Adams v. City of 
 -Wilson. 
 
 istaincil by the jjlaintiff 
 mis lowering the grade 
 lor store. 'I'he property 
 ing plaintifl', had peti- 
 he block paving of the 
 jnicnl under section 612 
 
 1883. The nuittcr was 
 by-law passed to ascer- 
 
 l)encfited thereby, and 
 ; of assessment ; a .d sob- 
 law was passed for rais- 
 thcrefor by loan, and for 
 It was deemed advisable 
 d the street was lowered 
 il's premises about four 
 IS made in the said by- 
 )n in the grade, nor was 
 irefor :— Held, that there 
 ho corporation by reason 
 grade, for the work was 
 rest of the resiilents, and 
 dvice and direction of a 
 engineer, the judge con- 
 l not assume the disere- 
 joration of deciding as to 
 ring the gratle ; but :— 
 
 justify the interference 
 street a by-law therefor 
 the absence of such by- 
 re liable, by action, for the 
 2/c'M V. Town of Windior, 
 
 \., dissenting), affirming 
 C. , that a municipal cor- 
 and perform their statut- 
 iu repairing highways and 
 new bridge instead of an 
 without passing a by-law 
 ! plaintiff whose premises 
 ectcd " by the level of the 
 y fronted being r.aised in 
 roper approach to a bridge 
 were lawfnlly rebuilding, 
 
 1 action against the defen- 
 le absence of any negligent 
 ■d under the arbitration 
 pal Act, R. S. O. (1887) c. 
 the absence of any by-law 
 
 ►f the work. Per Burton, 
 > obligation cast upon the 
 
 aofortdanta to rebuild the briilgo at such a i inten.led to span the whole river and form a 
 height us to necessitate a change Ml the level of ! way from one lank to the other, the i.sliuul 
 the street, and therelore the defendants couhl ' — ' ' ' .;..,.. ' . • 
 
 uot lawfully change tlie level of tiie street with- 
 out passing a proper by-law for tliat puiposc. 
 Per B()yd, C. An owner of land has by common 
 law no vested right to the continuance of a liigh- 
 way at the level it was when he purdiased. The 
 corporation as owners or trustees for tiie piil)lic ! (). R, •.'77.'- Q. 15. I), 
 have the right to repair and in repairing to ini- I 
 prove streets or bridges without a liy-liiw fori Section "iIlO of tiie Municipal Act, 4(> \'ict. e. 
 that purpose. Yeomans c. County of Wellington ] l!^ (Out.), provides tliut " tlie approaches for 
 4 A. R. 301, followed; Mcdarvey r. 'J'own of I 1*1" feet to and ne.xt adjoining eacli end of all 
 Strathroy, 10 A. R. (iliti, and Adams i\ City of | bridges lielonging to, assumed by, ur under tiie 
 Toronto, 12 O. R. 243, discussed ; Van Kgmond jiuiMliction of any municiiialily or municipal!- 
 II. Town of Seafortli, O. R. (ilO, distinguished, j ti's. shall be kept U|) and niaintaimd 
 
 wliich WHS out of tiie direct coiir>e tliat the 
 liridge would otherwise liave taken, licing meiely 
 used f(,r engineering purposes : 11,4,1 aisn, that 
 under 11. S. O. (1877), e. 174, s. 4!l,-), tlie duty of 
 maintiuniug tiie luidge was cast upon tlie city 
 and county. Ilnjiuas. Couuly oj Ciiiiilun, I 
 
 Pratt V. Cili/ o/Sfmtjbrd, 14 O. R. 200 ; 10 A 
 K. 6. 
 
 See (jHllliiinii v. Canada Siiiillii ni J'. 
 GO. R. r)t>7, p. 1740; }V<\it v. I'dtidnlc, 
 319, p. 2133. 
 
 ir. Co., 
 
 15 0. K. 
 
 by the 
 local muiiici|'alitics in wliich they am situ.ite.'* 
 'I'lie actidii was ludught under Lord ('aniiilieH's 
 Act. Tint deceased met with the ac( ideiit wliieli 
 caused his death at the inteiscctioii of two 
 loiids, licith alleged to be nut of repair, andbuth 
 lying witiiiii the bouiiilaiies of the defendant 
 I towii>hiii, hul one of tlieiii leading to a bridge 
 1 1. Ilrid(jis. under tlie juiisdiction of the city of (Ktawa and 
 
 the county of (.'arletou, iiiul the approaches to 
 The township of <iloucester and tlie city of i wldcii, therefnre, under tlie aliove section, should 
 Ottawa, which was part of thc^ to\Mislii|i of Ne- 
 pean, are on the easterly and westeily sides 
 respectively of the river Rideau, and both with- 
 in the county of Carleton. In tlie river at this 
 point is situate Cuniniing's Island and a luidge 
 extended from the Ottawa side to the island, 
 and from the opposite side of the island to the 
 (Jloncestcr shore. A line ilrawii down the middle 
 of the river eipii-distaiit from the banks, without 
 regard to any islands, would leave the greater 
 part of Cumming"s Island on the ( lloUcester side, 
 but the channel lielween the isliind .ind (ilou- 
 ccster is e most navigable, while the largest 
 amount of water jiasses through the other chan- 
 nel : — Held, that a lini; so drawn properly ascer- 
 tained the limit between the adjoining nuuiici- 
 ' middle of the main 
 
 have been kept nii and maintained liy the city 
 and e<iiiiity. The point where the accident 
 uccurrc il was wiihui 1(10 feet from the end of 
 the bridge, but it was not shewn that there 
 was any artiliciiil structure; to enable the (mblie 
 to pass friiiii the road on to the bridge and fiom 
 the bridge (Ui to the road wliich would cover 
 the [loiut where the accident occurred :- Held, 
 reversing the judgment of Kobertson, .1., at the 
 trial, dismissing the action; 1. That the word 
 " .ipproaclics," in the section, nieaiis all such 
 artificial structures as may he reasiuiably neces- 
 sary and conveiiieut fur the purjiose of enabling 
 the public to pass from the road on to the bridge 
 and from the bridge on lu the ruad, and does 
 not include the highway to the dist:iiiec of 100 
 feet from each end of the bridge, at all events. 
 
 palities, for the words 
 
 channel,"" used in 14 it 1.") Viet. e. o, s. II, and j unless the arlilicial stiiictnres extended so far. 
 K. S. (). (1877) e. .">, s. 10. have their comniou ! o. That in any case section ."iliO does not relieve 
 law signilication cif the midiUe of the stream, and the local imniicipality from its statutory liability 
 therefore the island formed part of the towiishi[i ' to repair, but merely gives to such municipality 
 (if (iloncestcr, and that part of the bridge from ; the right to enforce the provisions ayaiiist the 
 the island to the latter townshiii was wliolly ^ mnniciiialityorninnicipalitiesowniiig the liridge. 
 within that township. Per Armour, .1. —If this | Trarti'sy v. (iloHreitci; 15 O. R. 214. — I,), li. D. 
 he not the true eonstiuctioii, then, as the 
 
 as tlie legis- 
 
 latun^were dealing with territorial and proprie 
 tary rights, and not with navigation, the words 
 "main ehaiinel"" mean the widest and not the 
 deepest ornmst navigable channel, in wliich ciise 
 also the island would be wholly within Clouces- 
 ter. The county was found guilty on an indiet- 
 ment for not keeping the bridge in rc]'air, which 
 had been removed into this court, but the indict- 
 ment describeil the bridge as lieing in the town- 
 
 r.y the i;. S. O. (1^87) e. Ih4, s. :>:'<:>, sub-s, 2, 
 it i.s'the duly of the eonncils ot aiijoiiiing coun- 
 ties to erect and maintain bridges over rivers 
 formiie,' or crossing tin; boundary line lictwceii 
 the two emmties: audit is declared that a road 
 wliich lies wholly or partly betwi^en two muni- 
 ci]i:dities, >liall lie regaided as a hdUiidary line, 
 altliougli it ni.iy deviate so that in hoiiie place or 
 plac-s it is wholly within one of the iiiuniciiial 
 
 ships of tihincester and Xepean ;-lleld, that by i ities. The liouiidary line between the counins 
 12 Vict. e. 81, s. 2(11, schedule n. 4, the easterly : of Victoria and Peterborough, m liart of lis 
 limit of Ottawa is the middle of the river, and 
 is coincident with the westerly limits of (ihm- 
 cester and that no part of the township of Ne- 
 pcan lies between Ottawa anil the river and 
 the bridge was therefore wrongly described as 
 being in tin' two townships :- Held, also, that 
 
 thouuh this could have been amended at the o - . ^ , , - , 
 
 trial, it eouhl not be amended on this motion, ' liy -12 Vict, c 4, (Out.) thee hits were de- 
 and a new trial was ordered. Per Cameron, .1. \ tached from the township of lf..rvey ami an- 
 The situation of the island in the river should ] nexed to the t"V'''^'''^;:L^ ^"'''''ll' /';;"':;", 
 not atl-eet the liability ..f the municipality, for after the Ut of March, ISbO for all ">'■ 1' > 
 the bridge was evidently a county work, being judicial, electoral and school purpose.,, and tor 
 
 course wasfurmcrly |ias.scd lictwecii llie lOtli con- 
 cession of the township of Vernhim in tlio 
 fnrmer. and the I'.ltli concession ot the township 
 (if Harvey in the latter county, the lots in the 
 latter coiiccssion flem one to liftecii being a 
 range of broken lots forming a narrow strip of 
 land fronting on the west side of I'igeon Lake. 
 
81S9 
 
 WAT. 
 
 nio 
 
 I 
 
 
 A 
 
 the purpose of registration of tUles, as fully as 
 if the same had always f-ifmed part of that 
 township ; and the remainder uf tno township 
 of Harvey was entirely separated from the parts 
 so detached for all purposes whatsoever ; -Hold, 
 that by force of tins Act and of the Territorial 
 ActR. S. O. (1887), c. 5, sec. 10, Verulani had 
 become a township bordering on a lake, and that 
 the boundary line between these two town- 
 ships and conseciuently the county boundarjy 
 line, in front of tlie range of lots so dctacheif, 
 was in the middle of Pigeon l^ke, and no 
 longer on the road allowance between such lots 
 and tlie lot* in the 10th concession of Verulain ; — 
 Held, also (reversing the judgment of Itobert- 
 son, J., 15 O. B. ?H>), that the road on the 
 former county boundary line, or on what might 
 liave been previously considered a deviation 
 therefrom, was not a deviation within the mean- 
 ing of section 535, from the roud on the boundary 
 line between the counties to the north of the 
 range of lots transferred to the township of 
 Verulam ; and, therefore, that the duty of main- 
 taining a bridge over a river crossing the road 
 on the former boundary line or deviation there- 
 from, and which was wholly in the county of 
 Victoria, was cast upon that county alone ; and 
 that the adjoining county of Peterborough was 
 not liable therefor. The term "deviatirju " is 
 used in the same sense in sections 535, ('2), and 
 638. Its meaning considered, and the case of 
 Brant v. Waterloo, 19 Q. 15. 450, approved. 
 County of Tic/oria v. County of Pderburowjh, 
 15 A. R. 617. 
 
 Section 5.'?5 of the Municipal Act, R, S. O. 
 (1887) c. 184, provides that " It shall be the 
 duty of councils to erect nnd maintain bridges 
 over rivers forming and crossing boundary lines 
 between two municipalities (other than in the 
 case of a city or separated town) within the 
 county." The question in tiiis action was 
 whether the bridges over Doty's Creek, Kettle 
 Creek, and Caddy's Creek, each of which is a 
 stream crossing a boundary lino between tw'o 
 township municipalities, were " bridges over 
 rivers" within the meaning of the enactment. 
 At Doty's Creek the 8i)an of the bridge was 
 sixty-seven feet ; at Kettle Creek, thirty-one 
 feet nine inches ; and at Caddy's Creek, nine 
 feet. The evidence shewed that at Ca<ldy's 
 Creek a culvert would have been sufficient, 
 while to cross the two other creeks bridges wore 
 necessary : — Held, that the bridges over Doty's 
 and Kettle creeks were " bridges over rivers" 
 witiiin the meaning and intention of the statute, 
 and tliat the duty of erecting and maintaining 
 them rested upon the county council, but that 
 the bridge over Caddy's Creek was not such a 
 bridge. AlcHardy i: Ellice, 1 A. R. C28, ap- 
 plied, notwithstanding changes in the statute, 
 and fcdlowed. Toininhip of Xorlh Dorchcxter 
 V. Voiiiili/ o/' Middlesex, 10 0. U. (J.jS. — Ferguson. 
 
 An action to recover damages sustained by 
 I'eason of the neglect of a municipal corporation 
 to keep in repair the api>roa<!hes to a bridge, 
 where the bridge and approaches are under the 
 jurisdiction of one municipality only, must be 
 brought within three months after the damages 
 have been sustained. Section 530 of It. .S. O. 
 (1S87), c. 184, applies only to cases where one 
 municipality has jurisdiction over a bridge and 
 another has jurisdiction over the adjacent ap- 
 
 proaches. Judgment of Armour, O.J., affirmed. 
 Johnston v. Totonnhip of Nclxon, 17 A. R. 16. 
 
 Notwithstanding any liability which may bo 
 cast by statute upon a railway company to main- 
 tain and repair a bridge and its aj)proaches by 
 moans of which u highway is carried over their 
 railway, such highway is still a public highway, 
 and as such comes within the provisions of the 
 Municipal Act, R. .S. O. (1887), c. 184, s. 521, 
 requiring every public road, street, bridge, and 
 hi^;hway to be kept in repair by the municipal 
 corporation, who are not absolved from liability 
 for default by the liability, if any, of the railway 
 company. Mead v. TowHihi/i of Utobicoke, 18 
 O. R. 438.- y. B. D. 
 
 See Sfeiiihujfv. Cv.porntion of Kent, 14 A. R. 
 12, p. 2143 ; Hi- Peck and the Township of 
 Amdiasbimj, 17 O. R. 54, p. 2149. 
 
 12. Liability for Neijligence. 
 
 (a) Defect in Roadway. 
 
 In driving along a country road tito plaintiffs 
 were injured by their horse and buggy falliug 
 into a ditch at the side of the road. It wiig 
 shewn that the roadway between the ditches 
 was thirty feet wide ; that the ditch was of the 
 same character as those along other roads in tlie 
 county : and that in some places where the 
 ditches are deeper than usual there are guards. 
 There was evidence produced on the part of 
 plaintiffs which, if believed, established facts 
 from which a jury might draw the inference 
 that the ditch, constructed where an I as it was, 
 was dangerous, although there was evidence on 
 the part of the defendants to the contrary. 
 The jury found a verdict for the plaintitrs, but 
 the Court of Common Pleas afterwards, upon a 
 rule nisi to enter a nonsuit or for a new trial, 
 granted a nonsuit, holding that they having 
 made a ditch without guanls or railings, or 
 without slanting the roadway to the i)ottom of 
 the ditch so that a persou could drive into it 
 without ujisetting, was no evidence of neglect 
 on the defendants' part to keep the road in repair. 
 Held, reversing this judgment (.30 C. P. lilT), 
 that it was a question of fact for the jury, 
 whether, having regard to all the circumstances, 
 the road was in a state reasonably safe anil lit 
 for ordinary travel. As the court below had 
 pronounced noopinion as to whether there should 
 be a new trial or not, the appeal was simply 
 aUowed, setting aside the nonsuit, but 'caving 
 the question of new trial untouched. Walton v, 
 County of York, A. R. 181. 
 
 In pursuance of the powers conferred by sec- 
 tions ,551 and 5.")3 of the Municipal Institutions 
 Act, R. S. O. (1877), 174, the council of tiiede- 
 fenilant municipality jiassed a by-law authori- 
 zing the paving of F. street with cedar blocks, 
 which work was proceeded with, but executed 
 in such a manner as to cause water to How over 
 and rest upon the lands of the plaintitl: — Held 
 (affirming the judgment of Proudfoot, J., who 
 found that the work had been negligently per- 
 formed), that the plaintiff was entitled to re- 
 cover tlie amount or damages sustained liy her, 
 and to enjoin the defendants from further over- 
 flowing tlie land; and that in consequence of 
 such negligence her profier remedy was by ac- 
 tion, not by a proceeding under the statute for 
 
2140 
 
 mr, O.J., affirinod. 
 HOii, 17 A. R. 16. 
 
 lity which may he 
 y company to main- 
 its approaches hy 
 9 carried over their 
 1 a public highway, 
 he proviaiona of the 
 i87), c. 184, 8. 521, 
 street, bridge, and 
 ir by tlie municipal 
 olved from liability 
 f nny, of the railway 
 Mp of' Ktobicoke, 18 
 
 m of Kent, 14 A. R. 
 d the Township of 
 p. '2149. 
 
 Neijlhjcnce. 
 
 oadwaij. 
 
 ry road the plaintifTs 
 se and buggy falliug 
 of tlic roa(i. It wag 
 between the (lituhes 
 
 the ditch was of tiie 
 )ng otlier roads in thu 
 le places wliere tiie 
 iual there are guards, 
 need on the part of 
 ed, cstablialied facts 
 
 draw the inference 
 I where an I as it was, 
 here was evidence on 
 nta to tiie contrary, 
 for the plaintitfs, but 
 !aa afterwards, upon a 
 lit or for a new trial, 
 iiig tiiat they iiaving 
 uarda or railings, or 
 Iway to the l)ottoin of 
 i; could ilrive into it 
 lO evidence of neglect 
 keel) t lie road in lepair. 
 {ineiit (30 C. V. •JIT), 
 of fact for the jury, 
 ) all the circuiustunces, 
 ruas<)nal)ly safe and tit 
 tlie court l)clow had 
 ,o whether there should 
 10 ap|)cal was simply 
 e nonsuit, lv.:t 'caving 
 iiutouclied. \\\tllon\. 
 181. 
 
 wers conferred liy sec- 
 Muiiici])al Institutions 
 
 the council of tlic de- 
 ised a l>y-law authori- 
 eet witli cellar blocks, 
 ed witli, l)ut executed 
 luse water to tlow over 
 >f tlie plaiiitiH:— Held 
 
 of I'roudfoot, J., wiio 
 I been negligently per- 
 iff was entitled to re- 
 lages sustained by her, 
 lilts from further over- 
 hat ill consequence of 
 [ler remedy w as by ac- 
 l under the statute for 
 
 mm 
 
 2141 WAY, 
 
 8148 
 
 compensation. McQarvey v. Town of Sli nthrou. 
 10 A. R. 631. '' 
 
 After a block pavement had been laid down 
 on Queen street, one of the moat travelled streets 
 in tlie city of Toronto, a drain about two and a- 
 half feet wide was opened out across the atreet 
 to the atreet railway track, and then tunnelled 
 under the track. It was tilled in with loose 
 earth not rammed down. On Sunday it rained, 
 in conaeciuonco of which the eartli was washed 
 down and aunk, leaving a very dangerous hole. 
 On Tuesday or Wednesday some residents in the 
 neighbourhood, seeing its tlangerous condition, 
 took some ce<lar posts and placed them length- 
 wise in the hole. On Tliursday night, about 
 nine o'clock, it lieing very dark and no light at 
 the drain, ond the street lamps not being suffi- 
 cient to sliew it, the plaintiff, his wife, ami an- 
 other person, were driving along the road, and 
 on reaching the drain the horse stumbled ami 
 fell, M'hereby the plaintiffs were pitched out of 
 the waggon and injured. The jury found that 
 the accident was caused by the wheels of the 
 waggon coining in contact with the drain. The 
 (lefendanta contended that it was caused by the 
 waggon coming in contact with the poats, and as 
 they had not put them there they were not 
 liable. It was agreed on the argument in the 
 Divisional (.'curt, that the court might draw in- 
 ferences of fact as a jury, and give such judg- 
 ment as in its view the evidence might warrant; — 
 Held, that on the evidence the defendants must 
 be deemed to have had notice of the condition 
 in which the drain was at the time of the acci- 
 dent ; and therefore it was immaterial whether 
 the accident was caused by the drain or posts:— 
 Semble, that aa the manner in wliiuli the drain 
 was filled in made it certain that in the event of 
 rain the earth would sink, the defendants must 
 be assumed to know that some one to protect 
 the public would place jiosts or other covering 
 over the hole, and were liable for aiiv injury re- 
 sulting. Duck V. City of Toronto, "i O. R. 2!)").— 
 C. P. L>. 
 
 The macadamized toll road known as Yonge 
 street, formerly a provincial pul)lic work, was 
 in 185.5, by Act of the legislature and order in 
 council, vested in and acquired by the county 
 of York. The order in council described it as 
 " the macadamized toll road running northerly 
 from the liberties of the city of Toronto to the 
 village of St. Albans (H<dland Landing), known 
 as Yonge street or the North Toronto Road to 
 Holland Landing,'" etc. One of the conditions 
 of sale was that the road sliouW be kept in 
 thorough repair by the county. The roadway 
 intended for ami used by travellers was a 
 macadamized road of the width of thirty feet, 
 and was not in any way out of repair, ami was 
 at the place where an accident occurred in all 
 respects exactly as it was wlien transferred by 
 the government to the county. The plaintiff 
 when turning out of a side road, in oriler to 
 reach an hotel which stood near the side of 
 Yonge street, drove along part of the original 
 -allowance for road on which the toll road was 
 constructed, but which had never been opened 
 for travel by the defendants, and was used 
 merely as an approach to the hotel. In doing 
 80, the night being dark, the plaintiff missed 
 the way leading to the hotel, ran against 
 «ome obstruction, and was, with his buggy, 
 
 thrown down a cutting or embankment into the 
 UiUrottd and was injured :- Held (reversing the 
 decision of tli.i court below), that there was no 
 evidence of negligence, and that the <lefendanU 
 were not liable. The plaintiff In d not been in- 
 vited to use the travelled way to the hotel as 
 part of the toll roa<l, and the accident had not 
 happened on any part of the toll roa.l, or ia 
 coii8c(|uence of that road being out of repair 
 tit,','k V. York, 15 A. R. 60«. 
 
 HylW Vict. c. 99 (Ont.), the Lomhm Street 
 Railway Company was incorporated. By section 
 VA of that Act the city of London was authorized 
 to enter into an agreement for the construction 
 of the railway on such of the streets im might bo 
 agreed on, and for the paving, repairing, etc., of 
 the same. |{y section 14 the city was also 
 onipowered to pass by-laws to carry such agroe- 
 ment into effect, and containing all necessary 
 provisions, etc., for the conduct of all parties 
 coneerned, including the company, and for en- 
 forcing obeilience thereto. A by law was passed 
 by the city providing for the repair of certain 
 portions of the atreeta by the street railway 
 company who were to be liable for all damage 
 occasioned to any person by reason of the con- 
 atruction, repair or operation of the railway, or 
 any part thereof, or by reason of the default in 
 repairing the said portions of the streets, and that 
 the city should be indeninified by the company 
 for all liability in respect of such (hvmage. An 
 acci(lent having happened to plaintiff by reason 
 of said portions of said streets being outof repair, 
 an action was brought by plaintiff against the 
 city of I.,ond()ii therefor. After action brought, 
 and more than si.x months after the occurrence 
 of the accident on the application of the city of 
 liondon the street railway company were made 
 parties defendant : — Hell I, that not wit hstanding, 
 the said legiHlation, by-law, and agreement, the 
 city was liable under section .Vll of the Muni- 
 cipal Act (R. S. O. (18S7) c. 184) to the plaintiff 
 for the damage he had sustained : but that 
 they had a remedy over against the street rail- 
 way company : —Held, also, following AndcrMon 
 V. Canndlan Pacific R. W. Co., 17 (). R. 747, 
 that the six months limitation clause in the 
 Railway Act did not apply, the right of the 
 city .against the street railway company lie- 
 ing one of contract. Carlij v. (Jity of London, 
 18 0. R. 122. ~C. P. D. 
 
 See Maw v. Townxhip of Kim/ and Albion, 8 
 A. R. 248, p. 2144 ; City of Montreal v. Labelte, 
 14 S. C. R. 741, p. 139.5. 
 
 (b) DrawhridijM, 
 
 The defendants constructed a bridge across 
 a navigable stream having in it a draw or swing 
 to enable vessels to ply on the river. There 
 was not any gate or other protection to guard 
 the approaches to the bridge when swung. A 
 horse belonging to the plaiiitid', broke away from 
 the person in charge of him, escaped out upon 
 the public road ami ran a distance of about two 
 miles to the bridge, reaching it while the draw 
 was open to allow a vessel to jtass, and rushing 
 into the gap was drowned. Toms t). Whitby, 
 37 Q. B. 104 ; Sherwood v. Hamilton, 38 Q. B. 
 410 ; Price v. Cataraqui Bridge ( 'o., 35 Q. B. 314 
 considered :— Held, uHirniiiig the judgment of 
 the court below, that the defendant muuici- 
 
[I 
 
 8148 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2144 
 
 i''- 
 
 mi 
 m 
 
 palily vould not ho made anHwonible for the Ioih hiiuIi oviiluiK'O of negligence in the cnnNtniuticitt 
 
 of the horsti. 
 14 A. K. 12, 
 
 Sltiulifjj' V. Curjivititioii of Ktiit, 
 
 (c) DeftctM ill Sidewalki und Cromiuji. 
 
 In an action a^ainnt tho town of Portland for 
 dninagi'H I'-ising from an injury cnuHcd by a do- 
 fcctivo RidKwalk, tlio evidence of the plaintitl' 
 ■hewed that the accident whereby hIio was in- 
 jured lia]){H>nud while uho wan engaged in wash- 
 ing th(! window of lier dwelling from tho outaido 
 of her houHo, and that in taking a 8te|) backward, 
 her foot went into a hole in the Hidewalk, and 
 shu wan thrown down and hurt ; hIic uIho Hworu 
 that hIk) knew llic hole waH there, 'i'hero whh 
 no evidence ati to tlio nature and extent of the ] to procure watci' tor jjubliu purposeu, uudei tin 
 
 of the cromiing m to make the corporation lialih; 
 iu ilamagcH f>ir injury to a foot pasHcngcr huh- 
 tainod by Htriking her fcM)t agaiuHt the curbing 
 while attempting to cnmH the Htreet, Strong 
 and F(Uinder, JJ. , diHHcnting. Cili/ of fniiitnu 
 V. UnliUmith, 10 H. ('. II. 'j:ii. 
 
 See Hmakij v. Vily of Uamillvii, 9 0. It. Hi! 
 p. 1394. 
 
 See aluo Snbhciid V., p. 'J 145. 
 
 (d) In I '.II' of Machinery. 
 
 Tho defendants, for tho purpimo of uiuking a 
 well in one of tlu^ pulilii; Htreets of the village, 
 
 hole, nor was allirnuitive evidence given of ncgli- 
 
 fenceon the part of any otlicorof the corporation, 
 'he jury awarded the plaintill' .*3()0 diiniagett, 
 and u rule niHJ for a new trial was diHchargcd :- 
 Held, jier TaHihereau and (^wynn(^ .1.1., that 
 then! was no evidence of negligence to justify the 
 verdict of tlie jury, iind there niiiMt be a new 
 trial. I'er Henry, J., that there waw evidence 
 of negligence on the part of tlio oilicerM of the 
 
 power eonfeired l)y Hection 4H1( of the iMuiii(;lp;il 
 Act, had erected a derrick in the 8aid streia 
 without pliicing a lio.ii'ding round it. The 
 ])laintiir h.id driven into the village past the 
 derrick « itliiput its iipiieariug to atl'ci't tiie lioHe, 
 the derriik not then being at work, liul on ;il 
 tempting to pass it on her way home, whili; tlie 
 derrick wan at wmk and making an umisind 
 noise, the Imr.sc took fright und ran away, tlie 
 
 coi-poratioM, but the ijuoiitiun of contributory plaintiir being thrown out of the carriage, and 
 negligence wa.s not properly Hubmitted to the Ncverely injured. The jury found that liie der- 
 jury, and there Hh(jul(i, therefore, bo a new trial. ' rick was )f a nature to frighten liorHe.s, and that 
 I'er l!itclii(% {'..I., and Kournier, .1., that the the defendants had not taken jiroper pi I'caut ions 
 plaintill was neithei' walking nor jjassing over, to guard against accidents, anil that tliere was 
 travelling upon, nor lawfully using the said street no contributory negligi'uce on the jplaintiirs 
 
 part :--Held, that tliedefendants were liable liir 
 
 at* alleged in th(^ declaration, and she was tliere 
 fore not entitled to recover, Tdh'ii of Portland 
 T. Vriffilhs 1 1 S. (!. U. 33.3. 
 
 A building was being erected on a street in the 
 village of liltnheini. It hud a biiscment several 
 feet deep, the joists of tlie tirst lloor being about 
 level with tlie sidewalk. l''or the purpose of ex- 
 cavating the basemi nt planks for tlie distance of 
 twenty feet had been renioved from the sidewalk, 
 ttud the eaiili taken away so as to form a grade 
 into the b.'isement, ]>Ianks being laid across the 
 spuee so made. In the centie of the basement 
 wall, where the doorway was, there was a hole 
 nuide by the grade into the cellar. I)iiring the I such trench ii 
 daytime a |iliuik was laid ''dm the jilanks across thrown and killm. 
 the sidewalk to the tir.st lloor, wliicli it was cus- , it was alligcd by tin 
 tomary to remove at night, ,'ind tlieie was no was will aware of tl 
 
 the injury sustained by the plaintill', Lnn-.-nia 
 V. Alhstoii, 19 0. K. (15.5.-0. 1'. 1), 
 
 (e) ConlrihiUory Negliiicnce.. 
 
 A ]iortioii of a highway which the defcndnnts 
 were bound to kee]) in reimii I ■' a Ireuiii 
 limning acioss it, cfiiised 1» water i . .ngfiom 
 
 •o to continue out of 
 lieeused w liiU' law- 
 road whirl had 
 , attiiiipti' Lioss 
 
 fi "111 whiili no was 
 .. 1 ion for daiiiage.s, 
 lilts that deceased 
 II the road, if any. 
 
 a culvert, and was 
 re]iair for a n 
 fully tiiivelliii 
 Jias.sed over tli 
 
 . lu; 
 III fore 
 
 In an 
 ilefei 
 ,• def, 
 
 direct evidence that it was not renioved on the ^ and at , he time of the aeiidinl was iiitoxicatnl, 
 night in (luestion. On the outside of the side- and thus cnntribiited to the accident. It was 
 walk there was a jiile of stonis and bricks, and left to the jury to say whether the deceased hail 
 the road was muddy. The jilaintill', who knew i so cuntiibiitiil to the accident, that but for want 
 of the dangerous character of the place, was at of reasonable care it would not have occurred, 
 night going alony the sidewalk, and while in ■ The jury iinswiied this in the negative, ami 
 
 front (d' the building mi!t two persons. He then 
 stepped to the right on to the ground next totlie 
 building, standing still till the persons had passed 
 by, when, on attempting to jiroceed himself, he 
 struck against something and fell into the hole 
 made by the giiuli^ into the cellar, and was in- 
 jured : — Held, that the defentlants were guilty 
 of negligence ; and that there wjis no evidence of 
 contributory negligence on the ]ilaiiitiH "s ]iart. 
 Copelnvd V. Vilknit of lilenhtim, 9 O. R. 19.— 
 
 c. r. D. 
 
 Held, reversing 1 1 O. R. 2(1, which was nffirni- 
 cd by the Court of Appeal, that a municipal 
 corporation is under no obligation to construct a 
 street crossing on the same level as the sidewalk, 
 and that a sidewalk which is at un elevation of 
 four iiiehes above the level of the crossing is not 
 
 •endered a verdict in favour of the )ilaiiitiir:— 
 Held alliiming the decision of the Court of 
 (^>iieeii"s licncli, w ho refused a rule nisi to enter 
 a nonsuit), that the (piestion of contributory 
 i:"!,diyeiice was one for tlu^ jury, and could not 
 have bem withdrawn from them. Mum v, 
 Toini.shi}is of Kill!/ and Alliioii, 8 A. R. -W. 
 
 ,>-ee n/Ut v. JSorrHh, 8 0. R. .')41, p. 1389; C«/"'- 
 Ifiiiil v. Vdfixii' of/l/iiili,-ii,i, 9 O. R. 19, p. 'J143; 
 'loini of I'orlkiiid v. (/n'lllllis, 11 ,S. C. I!. 333,1). 
 'Jl 13 ; (Jordun v. City of lidkrilk; 15 0. R. 2tj, 
 p. 'JMG. 
 
 1.3. Lease of Minerah On or Under lioads. 
 
 Mineral gas is a "mineral" within the nieiiii- 
 ing of section 5G5 of the Municipal Act, R. S. 
 
2144 
 
 2146 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2146 
 
 I thu coiiHtrnulioik 
 > coriMiriition liaMi; 
 oot piVHHciigci' n\m. 
 L^iiiiiHt tint L'1l^l)ill^ 
 III! Htreot. Strong 
 Cily of lAindiiti 
 I. 
 
 nitloH, 9 O. li. ir.', 
 
 (7ii?ie>';/. 
 
 lU'poHo uf Biiikhig n 
 uutu of tliu village, 
 iur|K>aes, \iii(loi llic 
 1st) of tilt! Miuii<:i|i:il 
 ill tilt! Haiil .stii'i'l 
 iig roiiiiil it. 'I'liu 
 III! villiv>,'i! punt llic 
 
 ig to iltl'cct tllC ilol-il', 
 
 it work, lull oil at- 
 Miy lioiiiii, \\ liili; till 
 making an unusiml 
 t anil lali aw:vy, tlic 
 of till! caniiigi', mul 
 
 fomiil that llif lU'i- 
 liti'ii lioi'His, anil tliat 
 :n jiiopiT |Mi'i:autpiiis 
 
 mill that thiTo was 
 D on till! plaintiirs 
 iilantH wiirc lialilc lur 
 11! plaintilt'. /-I'l'wiii 
 C. I'. 1). 
 
 Neiiliriitiicf. 
 
 which thi' cU:f(!iiilaiits 
 
 >■ >vati!i . .;froii. 
 
 Ml to conlinui "Ht nI 
 .Icotaacil while law- 
 li loail wliiih • hivl 
 •e, attiinplii' cross 
 I, from wliiiU lie was 
 II ;,, 1 11)11 for lUuiiages, 
 11 'aiils that ilccfaseil 
 fi, t ill till! roail, if any. 
 •idiul was intoxicatiil, 
 
 tho ai,e:iilciit. It was 
 clliiM- thiMlt'i'i!asoit liail 
 (l.iit, thai hut for want 
 hi not have occnnoil. 
 
 in tin; iiigativo, ami 
 ■our of till! plaintill':- 
 lisioii of till' Conil "f 
 si!il a riilo iiini to enter 
 L!.stioii of I'oiitrihutory 
 hi! jury, anil coulil not 
 fioiii them. j1/"'« v. 
 llhiini, 8 A. R.'^W. 
 ). H. r)41,p. 1389;C<r- 
 im, !H>. H. l'.», p. '-'1«; 
 
 lliiiis, U.S. c. u. h:i3,i). 
 
 mifvill,; T) (). K. 'J«, 
 
 On or Uiidfi- Itoada. 
 
 eral" within the menu- 
 e Municipal Act, R. !'• 
 
 0. (1887), c. 1H4. A Inane unilcr that «octlim 
 
 ■bouUl hu of the right to take thu iiiiiifralH, ami 
 not of tho highway itnclf. The leaMu in tliJN | 
 cuae wttH of IV portion of tho highway, " for the 
 purpoBo of lioriiig for nml taking tliei'(!from nil, | 
 gun, or other niiiiuraU : " thu ipiaiitity of lainl ' 
 wan no more than was iieeenHary for the roiii- j 
 paiiy'a nurpoHVH, ami the riglitH of the piihllo 
 wcro fully protccteil ; — Hi:lil, that the print iral j 
 dilTeruncu here was go Niiiall an not to ooiiHtitiite , 
 a ground for i|uaHliing the l>y law. The eoiiiuil 
 botoru paHHiiig tho liy-law, iiiHixteil mi an in- 
 demnity from tilt! gaHciinipi' ,' against any eustx 
 anil ilamagea that might ' iiciirruil liy reason 
 of tho pastHJiig of Haiiie : llelil, that iiinler the 
 uireuniHtaiu'CM, thin eoiihl not lie ileemeil to lie 
 cvidciii'O that it was not passcil in the imlilie 
 iiitort'Mt. Thu plaintill'H, hy first sinking a wt!ll 
 on tho land near the defeinlantH, did not therehy 
 aci|uiro tho right to restrain the defendants 
 from using the reRcrvoir lying under tlii! sai>l 
 land. Ontario Niitiinil. (lat Co. v. Sinurl ttml In 
 re Ontiirio Xithinit d'as ('a. anil the, Totrnxhip of 
 Uosfield South, 19 O. R. 591. —Street. AHlrnied, 
 18 A. R. O'JO. 
 
 v. Snow and Ick on Sidrwalk.s. 
 
 Tho defendants wore tho owners of n Iniilding 
 on tho street. A pipe, eonneetcd with the cave 
 troughs conducted tiio water from the roof down 
 thu side of the liuilding, and liy means of a s|ioiit 
 dischargod it upon the sidewalk, where in the 
 winter it was formed into a ridge of ice, iipini 
 which the female phiintill' slipped ivnd fell wliMe 
 walking on the street and injured herself. The 
 jury found that the defindaiits did not know of 
 the accumulation of ice, and that they oiiglit not 
 reasonably to have known of it : -field, Armour, 
 dissenting, that the tiefeiidaiits were not lialile. 
 I'er Hagarty, C. J. The carrying of the water 
 to the sidewalk was a harmless act ; the action 
 of the weather was the proximate cause of the 
 accident, and the defendants not having know- 
 ingly allowed ice to accumulate wero not rc- 
 aponsilile. I'ur Armour, .1. The conducting of 
 tlie water to the sidewalk was a wrongful act, 
 of which the formation of ice on the sidewalk 
 in winter was the natural certain and well 
 known result, and the defendants were reapon- 
 sihlo for the accident, Skillon v. Thompson, 3 
 0. R. ll.-Q. IJ. 1). 
 
 In an action for ilamages sustained by the 
 plaintitl' by reason of ice and snow falling from 
 the roof of the defendant's house and injuring 
 him while ho was walking on tho highway, evi- 
 dence was given to shew that about lialf an hour 
 before the accident happened the defendant was 
 notilied of tho dangerous character of tho roof, 
 hut took no precautions to guard against acci- 
 dents, and a by-law of tho innnicipality was 
 proved reijuiring the citizens to keep their roofs 
 clear of ico and snow : — Helil, that there was 
 evidence to go to the jury of negligence in the 
 defendant. A nonsuit entered at the trial was 
 therefore set aside, and a new trial granted. 
 Lazarus r. Corporation of Toronto, 19 Q. li. 9, 
 commented on and distinguished. Landrevilk 
 V. Gouin, e O. R. 455. -C. P. D. 
 
 The plaintiff, a resident inhabitant of the tow n 
 of Prescott, whilst proceeding along one of the 
 sidewalks of the town attempted to cross from 
 
 135 
 
 one Bide of sinii walk to tho other over an nci'ii- 
 miilalion nf hard lioatin snow, where there wan 
 a slight dei'livily in the HJdewalk, and in doing 
 so slipped and I'ell, theri'liy injuring hersell' : - 
 Held, reversing the jinlgment of the (^. II, I). (7 
 (). H. '-'(II), that tlieri! was no proof of ninh ac 
 cumulation of simw as indicated iit!gligencii un 
 the part of the defendants, and there being no 
 i!viileiico of negligeiict! ill the eonstruitioii of 
 the sidewalk the enrporatioii was not liable, 
 /lliidiij/ V. Coriioratiiin of I'nscatl, I'.' A. R. 
 0.17. 
 
 To an action by plaintilT against defondaiits 
 for an accident to plaintilV on I Itli .April, iMHtl, 
 t!auseil by slipping on ii sidewalk of defi'ndaiits 
 " covered with snow and iee, negligently allowed 
 to acciimiilatu theieon by difeiiilants, and being 
 otherwise ili!f(!etive and iiegligeiilly mit of re- 
 pair for a long time to tliiilefeiiiTants know ledge, 
 and which it was their duty to keep in repair," 
 liefuiidaiits jileailed that the village had not at 
 the date of the aceiileiit been orgaiii/.t!d accord- 
 ing to the terms of 19 Vict. c. .V), iiii!or|iorating 
 said village, and cuiilil not have any otlicers or 
 servants, and coiiM not bi! and was not guilty of 
 negligence, and by rea.son of anything done or 
 oniiltcd previous to or at the said date of said 
 alleged accident : — Meld, on demurrer, a good 
 defence. Sirn/mon v, Villdijc nf IlitnlHfWa, IS 
 (>. R. HH.- Rose. 
 
 The plaintilT, walking lioiiiu ut night, as he 
 was accustomed to, along the sidewalk provi- 
 ded by tile ilefeiiilants for foot passengers, and 
 which tile defeiiilaiits were bound by statute to 
 keep ill proper repair, but along the centre of 
 which a riilge of ico had accuiiinlated, and been 
 allowed by them to the knowledge of thu plain- 
 till', to remain in that conilition for a couple of 
 months, slipped across the ridge and fell, injur- 
 ing hiinself. While stating that he was walk- 
 ing carefully, he admitted that he was awaro 
 that it was a dangerous place, and might have 
 been avoided, eitlier by his taking to the travel- 
 led road, or by going home anotlier, but longer, 
 way. Numbers of peo|ile were in the habit of 
 using it daily without accident. The judge at 
 the trial declined to withdraw the case from thu 
 jury :—llehl, that the plaintilV, having the right 
 to use the sidewalk, it was a ipiestioii for tho 
 jury whether under tho circuinstaiices of the 
 case he was exercising such care as a prudent 
 jierson would reasonably exercise in using it, 
 knowing its condition. Knowledge is not per 
 so contributory negligence. Gordon v. City of 
 
 luiiiviiu; \->i). H. 'Jti.-ti. li. \y. 
 
 reason of ico on the sidewalk on Yoiigo 
 
 i '-y r ^ 
 
 I street, in the city of Toronto, the plaintiff, who 
 
 j was walking along that street about six o'clock 
 
 I ill the aiteinoon, slip[icd and fell, sustaining 
 
 I damage. The place in iiuestioii was in front of 
 
 I a lane'which ran between two stores, the walls 
 
 oi tlic stores forming the sides of the lane, which 
 
 sloiied towards the sidewalk ; tho ice being 
 
 caused by the water from rain and melting snow 
 
 riinniii'.' down the lane on to the sidewalk and 
 
 then frce/iiig. There was ice on the sidewalk 
 
 at the time of tho accident, but there was no 
 
 evidence of its having accumulated there, nor 
 
 did it appear how long it had been there :— Held, 
 
 that there was no evidence of ncligence on the 
 
 nut of the defendants. Forward v. Cily of 
 
 Toronto, 15 0. R. 370. -C. P. D. 
 
2147 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2148 
 
 VI. Removal of Buildings. 
 
 See Toronto Street Ji. W. Co. v. Dollfry, 12 
 A. R. 679, p. 10 J Howard v. City of St. Thomas, 
 19 0. R. 719, p. 1393. 
 
 VII. Traction Exgine.s. 
 
 See County of York v. Toronto Gravel Road 
 <t)id Concrete Co., 3 O. R. 684; 11 A. R. 766; 
 12 S. C. R. 617, p. 332. 
 
 VIII. Trees. 
 
 Held, thii* the owner of lond adjoining a high- 
 way has, uP'Ier R. S. O. (1877), c. 187, such a 
 special property in the shade and ornamental 
 trees growing on sucli highway opposite to his 
 land as to entitle him to maintain an action 
 against a wrong-doer to recover damages for tlie 
 cutting down or destroying such trees; and he 
 is not restricted to the penalty given by section 
 5 : — Held, also, that the Act refers to trees of 
 natural growtli as well as to ttiose planted. 
 Douglas v. Fox, 31 C. P. 140. -C. P. D. 
 
 In this case the damage consisted in the cutting 
 J down of some ten or twelve of the trees, for 
 wliicli the plaintiff was awarded $150: — Held, 
 not excessive. Jb. 
 
 See Connor v. Middagh, 16 A. R. 356, p. 2129. 
 
 IX. LiABiLiTV OF Private Persons. 
 1. For Obstructions. 
 
 An action for an injunction mav be main- 
 tained by a municipality to rest^. ■. the ob- 
 struction of a liighway. They ai ^ lut contined 
 to the remedy by indictment ; Fenelon Falls )'. 
 Victoria, R W. Co., 29 Cliy. 4, approved of, 
 St. l''incent v. Greetijii-ld, 15 A. K. 5G7. 
 
 •" See Standlii v. Pei-ry, 3 S. C. R. S.W, p. 2100 ; 
 Toronto StreH If. iV. Co. v. Dollery, 12 A. R. 
 679, p. 10 ; Dlcl\so7i v. Kearney, 14 ^. C. R. 743, 
 p. 2118. 
 
 2. For Accidents. 
 
 See Skelton v. Thompson, 3 O. R. 11, p. 2145 ; 
 Landreville v. Ootiin, 6 O. R. 455, p. 2145 ; 
 Bliss V. Boeckh, 8 O. R. 451, p. 1389. 
 
 X. Road and Bridge Companies. 
 1. Forme lion of. 
 
 By R. S. O. (1877), J. 162, five persons are 
 allowed, on taking . ertain steps, to form them- 
 selves into a company for the purpose of eitiicr 
 making a road or purchasing one already con- 
 structed, witliout the sanction of any authority, 
 executive or judicial. Such proceeding is wholly 
 the act of the parties, and no conclusive force is 
 afforded by the certificate of registration issued 
 by the registrar under tlio 15th section of tlie 
 Act. Theiefore, wliere one \V., with liis wife 
 and two sons— one a minor — together with an- 
 other relative, by an instrument in tlie form 
 required by the statute, executed by them, and 
 duty registered, declared that tliey had formed 
 a joint stock company (limited) for the purpose 
 of purchasing the roads, franchise, etc., of the 
 
 Hamilton and Milton Road Company, etc., with 
 a capital stock of $5,000, tlie whole amount of 
 whicli was subscrilied for by these persons, on 
 whicli they had paid five per cent, into the 
 hands of the treasurer of the company — another 
 son of W. — and all five of tlie shareholders were 
 duly chosen directors ; and liaving thus pur- 
 ported to ''onstitute themselves a company, tliey 
 purciiased the roads from tlie companies holding 
 the same at the alleged price of $31,000; and 
 subsequently brought action to recover tolls 
 said to be due for the use of the road : — Held, 
 reversing the judgment of the court below, that, 
 by reason of the infancy of one of the sub- 
 scribers, the company had no legal existence at 
 the time of the registr.ition of their declaration 
 of incorp -ation, and that no subsequent ratifi- 
 cation b^ him after attaining majority coild 
 validate his contract, and:— Quaere, whether 
 the contract was signed by more than three 
 persons capable of contracting, as the Married 
 Woman's Property Act, 47 Vict. c. 19 (Ont. ), 
 did not enable married women to bind them- 
 selves personally by their general contracts : — 
 Held, also, that the amount of the stock sub- 
 scribed could not be said to be sufficient in the 
 judgment of the shareholders as required by tlic 
 statute as a condition precedent to the incor- 
 poration of a company to purchase a road. 
 Hamilton and Flamboroni/h lioeul Co. v. Town- 
 send — Hamilton and Flamborough lioad Co. v. 
 Flatt, 13 A. R. 534. 
 
 The H. and M. Road Co., the owners of a 
 certain road, and in possession thereof as a toll 
 road, levying and collecting tolls thereon, 
 assumed to sell the ro.ul to the H. and F. 
 Road Co., who entered into possession thereof. 
 ISubseciuently it was liehl by the Court of 
 Appeal, on appeal from the judgment of Wil- 
 son, C.J., that the H. an<l F. Road Company 
 •..'ere not duly incorporated, because, while the 
 Joint Stock Companies' Act, R. S. O. (1877) c. 
 152, requires at least Hvo corporators to enable 
 a company to be incorporated, there were not 
 five here, one of the allugod incoi^poratora being 
 a minor. The corporation of the township of 
 Fast Flamborough thereupon jjassed a by-law 
 assuming possession of the road : — Held, that 
 the by-law was illegal, .nnd must be qu.ishcd : 
 that the efTcct of the judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal was to restore to the applicants the 
 franchise they held before the abortive sale took 
 place, the road having been kept alive as a toll 
 road, and repaireil as such from time to time, 
 and nothing having transpired to justify the 
 municipal corporation, in interfering with the 
 road, or assuming posses»<i(iii and control of 
 it, as the by-law authorized them to do. In re 
 the Hamilton and Milton Uond Co. v. Township 
 oj East Flamborough, 13 0. R. 128.— Cameron. 
 
 2. Municipalities Taking Stock. 
 
 Held, that sub-section 1 1 of section 479 of the 
 Municipal Act, K. S. O. (1887), c. 184, providing 
 that the council of a niunici|iality may jiass by- 
 laws for taking Ktock, etc. , in an incorporated 
 company, in respect of any bridge, etc., " under 
 and subject to the r> ipective statutes in that be- 
 half," only authorizes the passing of by-laws to 
 take such stock where in any special or general 
 Act under which a bridge, etc. , company is in- 
 
^0 
 
 2148 
 
 jmpany, etc., with 
 ; wiiole amount of 
 ' these persons, on 
 [)er cent, into the 
 company — another 
 ) shareholders were 
 having thus pur- 
 ees a company, tliey 
 I companies holdiiia 
 30 of $31,000; and 
 1 to recover tolls 
 E the road :— Held, 
 e court below, that, 
 :)f one of the snh- 
 o legal existence at 
 of their declaration 
 
 subsequent ratifi- 
 ing majority coild 
 :— Quiere, whether 
 ly more than three 
 ing, as the Married 
 
 Vict. c. 19 (Onl.), 
 imen to bind them- 
 reneral contracts: — 
 [t of the stock sub- 
 > be sufficient in the 
 rs as required by the 
 sedent to the incor- 
 3 purchase a road. 
 h Roaul Co. V. Town- 
 'jorowjh Road Co. v. 
 
 )., the owners of a 
 ision thereof as a toll 
 i;ting tolls tliercon, 
 
 to the H. and F. 
 to possession thereof. 
 Id by the Court of 
 10 jiulgnient of Wil- 
 1(1 F. Hoad Company 
 d, because, while the 
 ict, H. S. O. (1877)0. 
 corporators to enable 
 [ited, there were not 
 id incorporators being 
 u of the township of 
 upon passed a by-law 
 he ri'ad :— Held, that 
 id must be quashed: 
 ;iiient of the Court of 
 to the applicants the 
 
 tlieaboi live sale took 
 an kept alive as a toll 
 :h from time to time, 
 ispired to justify the 
 
 1 interfering with the 
 ;SKion and control of 
 !ud them to do. In rt 
 Road Co. V. Towmhip 
 10. K. 128.— Cameron. 
 
 ( Taking Stock. 
 
 1 1 of section 470 of the 
 [1887), c. 184, providing 
 uiciiiality may pass hy- 
 ;tc., in ail incurporated 
 ny bridge, etc., " under 
 ;tive statutes in tliat be- 
 le passing of liylaws to 
 11 any special or general 
 Ige, etc., company is in- 
 
 2149 
 
 WAY. 
 
 2150 
 
 corporated, a provision is contained authorizing 
 the municipal council to hold such stock, etc. 
 Where, therefore, the Act incorporating a bridge 
 company, did not profess to confer any power 
 on the municipality to take stock, etc., in such 
 ■company, no power was conferred under the 
 Municipal Act to do so ; and a by-law passed by 
 the municipal council for such purpose was there- 
 fore held bad, and directed to be quashed. Re 
 Peck and tlie Township of Ameliasbiirg, 17 0. R. 
 54.— Street. 
 
 3. Tolls. 
 
 The plaintiff, a stage driver, was in the habit 
 of driving passengers over that part of the road 
 of a compiiny incorporated under C. S. U. C. c. 
 49, and previous Acts, from T. to the terminus 
 of a street railway laid down on the Hue of the 
 road, being between two principal gates on the 
 road, a distince of nearly tiiree miles, thus 
 using raanv miles of the road daily. The de- 
 fendant, who was the lessee and manager of the 
 road, erected a clieck gate across the road at a 
 point within the space travelled by the plaintiff, 
 and then enforced payment of a toll of five cents 
 eacli way from the plaintitf, giving a ticket to 
 pass through the principal gate beyond : — Held, 
 that such check gate was legally erected, and 
 the toll was legally demanded ; and that the 
 fact that the plaiiitilf did not intend to pass 
 through a principal gate could make no differ- 
 ence. The road company consisted of four per- 
 sons, of whom F. and another personally signed 
 an authority to the defendant to erect the gate, 
 and F. signed for the other two under powers of 
 attorney for the management of their affairs, but 
 not specially referring to this road. After ac- 
 tion commenced these two ratitied F.'s act by 
 endorsement on tlie back of the authority : — 
 Held, sufficient. Vanderlip v. Smyth, 32 (J. P. 
 60.— C. P. D. 
 
 The provisions of the " General Road Com- 
 panies' Act" (K. S. 0., 1877, c. 152), respecting! 
 the extension of roads, apply to roads which : 
 have been constructeil and completed, and tolls , 
 established thereon. In this case the extensions | 
 were new constructions within the city of Ham- 1 
 ilton, an<l, measured separately, were less than 1 
 two miles, though the distance of the original ' 
 road and the extensions together much exceeded 
 two miles : — Held, that the defendant i were en- ! 
 titled to exict toll therefor. Knott v. Hamilton \ 
 and Flamhorouijh Road Co., 45 Q. B. .333.— 
 Gait. 
 
 The toll<;ate had been maintained for nearly 
 nine years on the portions of the road within 
 the city of Hamilton : — Held, that this did not 
 preclude defendants from erecting a gate and 
 taking toll there. Jh. 
 
 Under " The General Road Companies Act," 
 R. S. O. (1877), c. 152, ss. 102, 101, 109, the 
 first engineer appointed to examine a road al- 
 leged to 1)0 out of I'cpair, must act throughout 
 the proceeding unless another is appointed un- 
 der section 109; but under that section the 
 judge is the person to bo satisiiud that the first 
 engineer is unable to make or complete the ex- 
 amination, and hie decision on that point can- 
 not be reviewed. The engineer appointed under 
 the Act need possess no official certificate or 
 degree. The second engineer having been ap- 
 
 pointed in January to examine and report " as 
 to the present condition of the road " made an 
 examination and so certified, but was unable to 
 report whether the repairs directed by the pre- 
 vious engineer had been performed, as it was 
 covered with snow. In May following, without 
 any further authority, he again examined and 
 certified that it was in cood repair, and the 
 company began again to ta^e tolls ;— Held, that 
 he was functus officio after the first examina- 
 tion, and that the tolls tlierefore were illegally 
 imposed. Regina v. Greaves, 46 Q. B. 200.— 
 Osier. 
 
 Held, on demur »•( :o the statement of defence 
 liorein, omitting the allegation of demand and 
 refusal of toll at the gate, under R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 152, s. 131, and a seizure immediately follow- 
 ing thereon, that the demand should have been 
 at the gate, and the seizure should have followed 
 immediately t'lerf upon ; and that the statement 
 of defc'-^'o './as tiicrefore bad. Enrick v. Town- 
 ship of yannouth, 9 0. R. 102.- Rose. 
 
 By agreement made in the year 1869, between 
 a road company and the city of Hamilton, the 
 road company were to extend their road from a 
 point near the Dcsjardins Canal into the limits 
 of the city, and as part of such road should build 
 a bridge over the canal, the city to lend the road 
 company $5,000 for ten years at the nominal rate 
 of interest of one per cent. : and a by-law was 
 passed by the city to give effect to the agree- 
 ment, the by-law containing a proviso tliat no 
 toll should be exacted from any parties residing 
 upon or owning property within the limits of the 
 city on passing over said bridge. The road was 
 subsequently extended into Hamilton, and a toll- 
 gate erected within the city limits. Litigation 
 afterwards arose between the road company and 
 the city, the (Jreat Western Railway Company, 
 and the Desjardins Canal Company, as to the 
 erection of the bridge which was continued until 
 1874, when a settlement wasaffected by its being 
 agreed by all parties that a fixed stationary 
 bridge should be erected and maintained by the 
 road company free from any toll thereon, which 
 was legalized by 37 Vict. c. 73 (Ont. ) The de- 
 fendant, passing through the said tollgate, re- 
 fused to pay toll, on the ground that the by-law 
 was ultra vires : — Held, that the proviso in the 
 by-law was not ultra vires, for the road com- 
 pany could agree not to exact tolls from any 
 porsnn or body of persons, as there was nothing 
 ill the Act of incorporation to prevent their 
 doiu!,' 80 : that the city of Hamilton had paid a 
 substantial sum for the privilege ; and there 
 was no discrimination as regarded the residents 
 thereof ; and that the proviso only applied to 
 t!ie non-exaction of tolls on the bridge, and had 
 nothing to do with the road, and was legalized 
 by the 37 Vict. c. 73 (Ont.):— Held, also, that 
 an objection tliut the location of the road ha<l 
 not been made prior to the passing of the by-law 
 was not tenable after the road had been locate<t 
 and in use for more than fifteen years. Hamil- 
 ton and Flamboroiuih Road Co. V. Binkley, 90. 
 R. 621.— Rose. 
 
 On a motion by a road company for an injunc- 
 tion to restrain the defendant from passing 
 through their toUgates without paying tolls 
 when demanded, it was contended that because 
 there was a statutory remedy for the recoverj' 
 of a penalty for each offence under section 129 
 
DS-M 
 
 2ia 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2162 
 
 m 
 
 of R. S. O. (1877), c. 152, the court would not 
 interfere by way of injunction : — Held, that as 
 the plaintiffs had established a prini& facie case 
 in reeard to the rights they claimed, there was 
 jurisdiction to interfere by way of injunction 
 pending the determination of the question at the 
 trial and an injunction was granted, upon a con- 
 sideration of the balance of convenience, in 
 favour of the plaintiffs. Letton v. Goodden, L. 
 R. 2 Kq. 130, and Cory v. Yarmouth, etc., R. 
 W. Co., 3 Ha. 593, considered and followed. 
 Hamilton and Milton Road Co. v. Raifpherry, 13 
 O. R. 466.— Ferguson. 
 
 See Canada Southern R. W. Co. v. Interna- 
 tioTiat Bridge Co., 8 App. Cas. 723 ; 7 A. R. 
 226; 28Chy. 114, p. 1011. 
 
 Ayftfi.tt.u . —~~ 
 
 XI. Miscellaneous Ca.ses. 
 
 Quebec turnpike tiust. See Reijina v. Bell- 
 ean, 7 App. Cas. 473, reversing 7 S. C. R. 53, 
 p. 318. 
 
 Prohibition to judge of the County Court to 
 prohibit him from amending a registered plan 
 80 as to close up a portion of a street. See In 
 re the Town ofOakvilhand Chkholm, 12 A. R. 
 225, p. 1829. 
 
 Remarks on the serious consequences likely to 
 arise from the constant changes in the names of 
 streets in the city of Toronto. VanKouyhnet v. 
 Denison, 11 A. \i. 699. 
 
 Statute 48 Vict. c. 21 (Ont.), does not em- 
 power the commissioners .appointed thereunder 
 to expropriate the riglits of a road company, or 
 to close up any part of the road for the pur- 
 poses of tlie Niagai-a Falls I'ark. 71*6 Niw/ara 
 Fall* Park— Fuller's (.'(m; 14 A. R. 05. 
 
 As to what constitutes a " highway." Sec 
 Shoebrbik v. Canada Atlantic R. W. Co., 16 
 O. R. 515. p. 1780. 
 
 See Standi;/ v. P'lrry, 3 S. C. H. 3.-)6, p. 2100 ; 
 Oalarneau v. GHilliaiilt, 10 S. C. R. 579, p. 748. 
 
 WEEKLY ALLOWANCE. 
 
 Under Indigent Debtors' Act. See Wheatly 
 V. Sharp, 8 P. R. 189, p. 903. 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 Held (Armour, .7., dis.senting), tlial although 
 irregularly directed, imprisonment was justi- 
 fied in default of distress by section 02 of 32 
 & .33 Vict. c. 31 (Uoni.), incorporated in the 
 Weights and Measures' Act by section 53 tlicre- 
 of ; but that if iiuch imprisonment were not so 
 justified tlic whole conviction would be bad, 
 there being no power to amend by striking out 
 the award of imprisonment. Per Armour, J. — 
 That the .32 & .33 Vitt. c. 31, s. 02 (I)(mi.), 
 should only be construed as fixing tlie duration 
 of the term of imprisonment, where tiic special 
 Act provides specifically for some imprisonment 
 without fixing its tluration ; anil that as no im- 
 prisonment is expressly imposed by the Weights 
 and Measures' Act for tlie offence charged hero, 
 
 so much of the conviction as awarded imprison- 
 ment was made without jurisdiction, and was 
 therefore bad ; but that it was separable from 
 the rest of the conviction, and should be quashed, 
 leaving, however, the rest of the conviction to 
 stand. Reginu v. Dunning, 14 0. R. 52. — Q. 
 B. D. 
 
 WELLAND OANAL. 
 
 Compensation for lands taken. See In re 
 Wetland Canal Enlargement — Fitch v. Mcliae, 
 29 Chy. 139, p. 460. 
 
 WHARF. 
 
 See Standly v. Perry, 3 S. C. R. 356, p. 2100 
 
 WIDOWS ELECTION. 
 
 See Dower. 
 
 . 'V , ' WIFE. 
 
 ,,;,. See Husband and Wife. 
 
 WILD LANDS. 
 
 See Crown Lands. 
 
 I\ (H 
 
 Thirty or forty years before action a binzed 
 lino had been run between the lots of plaintiff 
 and defendant by S., a surveyor, along part of 
 which a fence had been erected. The parties 
 respectively cut timber and exercised acts of 
 ownership on the lands on each side of and up 
 to the blazed line. The plaintiff swore that 
 altixnigh he and his father h.-id been governed 
 by this line and never claimed or went beyond 
 it, it was always their intention to dispute it 
 when they should bo able to establish the true 
 line. The judge at the trial found that there 
 was sufficient evidence of difendaiit's occupa- 
 tion of the land up to the blazed line to extin- 
 guish the plaintiff's title :— Held, Armour, J,, 
 ilissenting, that the verdict was right. Title by 
 possession to wild land can be made out other- 
 wise than by acti.al enclosure. Steers v. <S/(Oic, 
 1 O. R. 26. -Q. B. D. 
 
 WILL. 
 
 I. Testamk.ntaky Cavaciiv. 
 
 1. Inj'anlH, 21. "(4. 
 
 2. Married Women, 2I"i4, 
 
 3. Mental Coimcily, 2154. 
 
 II. What May be Dkvishd, 2156. 
 
 III. Promises TO HEyiiEATii Property, 2I5'( 
 
 IV. Execution of Wills, 2I.")9. 
 V. Proof OF Wir.is, 2100. 
 
 VI. Revocation of Wills, 2100. 
 
2152 
 
 iwarded imprison- 
 sdiction, and was 
 as separable from 
 ihould be ^uoshed, 
 the conviction to 
 14 0. R. 52. -Q. 
 
 lNAL. 
 
 ;aken. See In rt 
 -Fitch V. Mcliatf 
 
 C. R. 356, p. 2100_ 
 iCTION. 
 
 R. 
 
 ■V 
 ID Wife. 
 
 NDS. 
 
 lANDS. 
 
 iiore action a blazed 
 the lots of plaintiff 
 rvcyor, along juirt of 
 erected. The parties 
 ,nd exercised acts of 
 each side of and up 
 plaintiff swore that 
 ■r had been governed 
 inied or went beyond 
 itcntion to dispute it 
 to establish the true 
 rial found that there 
 f difen<laiifs oceupa- 
 e blazed line to extin- 
 :— Held, Armour, J., 
 t was right. Title liy 
 n be made out other- 
 sure. SUcrs V. Shaic, 
 
 L. 
 
 OPACITY. 
 
 •n, 2ir.4. 
 
 ry, 2154. 
 
 KVISKD, 2156. 
 
 ITKATll I'KOl'KiaV, 215'( 
 
 ILU), 2159. 
 2100. 
 l^ILLS, 2160. 
 
 S16S 
 
 WILL. 
 
 SIM 
 
 'M''.' 
 
 VII. Construction and Interpbktation. 
 
 1. Generally, 2161. 
 
 2. A dmimhility of Parol Evidence, 2161 . 
 
 3. Particular Wordu and Expression*. 
 
 2162. 
 
 4. Description of Land, 2164. 
 
 0. After Acquired Property, 2165. 
 
 6. Period of Distribution, 2168. 
 
 7. Estate or Interest Taken. 
 " (a) Estate in Fee, 2169. 
 
 (b) Estate Tail, 2170. 
 
 (c) Estate for Lije, 2173. 
 
 <d) Rule in Shelley's Case, 2178. 
 
 (e) Joint Tenants and Tenants in 
 
 Common, 2179. 
 <f) Taking per Stirpes or per Capita, 
 
 2179. 
 <g) Takinr/ as a Class, 2180. 
 (h) Vested or Couliwjent, 2180. 
 <i) Vested Liable to he Dirested, 2185. 
 (j) Executory Devises, 2186. 
 (k) Estates or Interests taken by Trus- 
 tees or Executors, 2186. 
 (1) Gtvinij Right to Purchase, 2191. 
 (m) Bequests of Personalty, 2192. 
 
 8. Conversion, 2194. 
 
 9. Residuary Estate, 2195. 
 
 10. Annuities, 2195. 
 
 11. Legacies. 
 
 (a) Ademption or Revocation, 2199. 
 
 (b) Time of Vef <ig, 2200. 
 
 (c) Charged on i. (ud, 2201. 
 
 (d) Demonstrative or Specijic, 2202. 
 
 (e) Cumulative or Substitutional, 2203. 
 
 (f) Vested or Contingent, 2204. 
 ■(g) Liability to Refund, 2205. 
 
 (h) Interest on, 2205. 
 (i) Release of, 2205. 
 (j) Abatement, 2205. 
 
 12. Conditions and Conditional Limita- 
 tions, 2206. 
 
 13. Contrihntion, 2709. 
 
 14. Provisions for Suppoi't and Mainten- 
 ance, 2209. 
 
 15. ExerciseofPotverofAppointment,22li. 
 
 16. Debts and Mortgages. 
 
 (a) Due by Testator, 2216. 
 
 (b) Due to Testator, 2216. 
 
 17. Void Dev'ises or Bequests. 
 
 (a) Uncertainty, 2217. 
 
 (b) Mistake as to Status of Object of 
 Testator's Bounty, 2217. 
 
 (c) Devises or Betptests to Attesting 
 Witness, 22i7. 
 
 (d) To Foreign State, 2218. 
 
 (e) To Religions and Charitable Insti- 
 tutions, 2218. 
 
 ii) Void as in Restraint of ParetUal 
 Rights, 2224. 
 
 (g) Restraint on A lienation, 2224. 
 (h) Perpetuities, 2225. 
 
 18. Lapsed Devises or Bequests, 2225. 
 
 19. Election. 
 
 (a) By Heir, 2226. 
 
 (b) By Widow-See Dower. 
 
 20. Forfeiture of Devise or Bequest, 2227. 
 
 VIII. REfilSTK.VTIO.V OF WiLLS, 2227. 
 
 IX. Costs of Contesting or Constbuino 
 Wills, 2228. 
 
 X. Miscellaneous Cases, 2229. 
 
 XI. Executors and Administrators— .See 
 Executors and Administrators. 
 
 XII. Prodatk and Letters of Administra- 
 tion— .See Executors and Adminis- 
 
 TliATORS. 
 
 XIII. Donatio Mortis Causa— .?ee Gift. 
 
 I. Testamentary Capacity. 
 1. Infants. 
 
 In a so-called will, executed a few days be- 
 fore her death, G., L.'s wife, assumed to devise 
 tile land in question to L. At the date of this 
 will G. was oidy eighteen years of age : — Held, 
 that the will was invalid. C. S. U. C. c. 73, s. 
 16 (R. S. O., 1877, c. 106, a. 6), only removes 
 the disability of coverture in respect to wills, 
 not of infancy. Re Murray Caned— LawsoH v. 
 Powers, 6 0. R. 685.— Boyd. 
 
 2. Married Women. 
 
 See Smith v. Smith, 5 0. R. 690, p. 597 ; Rt 
 Murray Canal — Luwson v. Po.cers, 6 0. R. 
 6So, sujnn. 
 
 3. Mental Capacity. 
 
 The testator a man of education and a minister 
 of the Presbyterian Church, had become so 
 weakened by illness as to be confined to his bed 
 for some time prior to his death, and a day or 
 two before that occurred executed a will by 
 affixing what was intended as his mark thereto, 
 the instructions for which were entirely obtained 
 by tliu person preparing it, by putting questions 
 to the testator as to the disposition of his differ- 
 ent properties, and suggesting also the objects of 
 his bounty ; such will, when drawn, having been 
 read over to the testator clause by clause, who 
 expressed his assent to some of the bequests, 
 while as to others he made intelligent remarks, 
 and some changes in tiie provisions thereof. The 
 court {Blake, V. C, 28 Chy. 253), in a suit 
 brought to impeach the will as having been ob- 
 tained by fraudulent practices and undue in- 
 fluence of persons benefited thereunder, as well 
 as by the persons concerned in the preparation 
 of tlic will, refused the relief sought, and dis- 
 missed the bill, with costs to be paid out of the 
 residuary estate, although it was shewn tluit 
 though notice had been given to the testator, be 
 was wholly unprepared to make the will when 
 he came to the act ; tliat there had not been 
 any previous intention on his part to make a will ; 
 that he was a man who, when in possession of 
 
2156 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2156 
 
 S 
 
 I 
 
 his mental faculties, wivs not likely to tiikc siig- 
 gcatioug fruin others ; tliut not a single IxMiucst 
 or devise originated witii tlie deceased ; that the 
 writer of the will did not know what property 
 the deceased had, and adniitteil that if lie had 
 hod tiiis knowledge lie would have Hpoken to 
 hini seriously on the suhject of liis relations, of 
 whom there were several ; tiiat the will was in- 
 oQicious ; that the testator was eighty-four, and 
 during the jireparation of the will, as one clause 
 would be written out after his giving nssenttoa 
 devise or bu(|ue8t, he fell into a doze or sleep, 
 from which he had on each riccasinn to 1h' aroused ; 
 that it took two hours to prcjiarc tin: will, al- 
 though it covered itiit one foolscap sheet, and 
 that the parties preparing the will sent lor and 
 obtained the nundiers of the lots dcvist<l \>y the 
 will from a neighbour, thus shewing that they 
 could not obtain such information from the de- 
 ceased. The court being c(|ually divided, the 
 up])eal was disiin.ssed, witli costs to be paid out 
 of the resi<luary estate. I'cr J^pragge. V. .J. ((. , 
 and Gait, J., atlirnuugthe judgnicnt'if the court 
 below, that the evidence set forth in the rejiort 
 shewed that the testator was of sutlicicnt mental 
 capacity to executi! the will, and fidly understood 
 the act he was performing. I'er Ihirton and I'at- 
 terson, JJ.A. Altliough there is no doubt as to the 
 validity of a will nuide by (|uestion and an.swcr, 
 yet in such a case the court is more strict in rc- 
 i|uiring evidence of -spontaneity and volition than 
 in an ordinary ca.se, and that the evidence liere 
 shewed a want of either s|)ontaneity or volition. 
 ThompnoH V. Tonaiicv, 'J A. I!. I. 
 
 P. li., executor uuilcr the will of the late \V. 
 15., sued \V. r. A., curator of the estate of \V. 
 R. during the lunacy of the latter, to compel 
 W. C. A. to hand over the chtatc to him as ex- 
 ecutor. After prclimiriaiy proceedings had been 
 taken, K. \i. (the appellant) moved to intervene 
 and have W. K. 's last will set asiile, on the 
 ground that it had been executed under pres- 
 sure by I). J. M., W. K.'s wife in wlio.se favour 
 the will was nuide, while the testator was of un- 
 sound mind. 'I'he appellaii', elainicd and proved 
 that D. J. M. was not the leg.il wife of \V. U., 
 she having another husband living at the time 
 the second marriage was conliaeted. W. K. 
 who was a nuister pilot, died in ISSl, liaving 
 made u will two years previously. His estate 
 was valued at about $16,000. On the 4th Octo- 
 ber, 187S, \V. 1*. made a will by which he be- 
 queathed §4,000 and all bis household furniture 
 andeliects to his wife J. Al., $2,(100 to his niece K. 
 R., $1,000 to V. S. for charital)lc purposes, and 
 the remainder of his estate to his brothers, 
 nephews and nieces in e(|Ual shares. On the 
 8tn of the same month he made another will be- 
 fore the same notary, leaving .*S0O to his wife 
 J. M. , $400 to each of his nieces M . and K. R. , and 
 (400 to his brother with reversion to the nieces 
 if not claimed within a year, and the remainder 
 toE. R. Onthe'JTth November 1878, W. K. 
 made another will which is the subject of the 
 present litigation, and by which hv. revoked his 
 former wills and gave S'2,00(» to F. i'^., for the 
 
 Soor of the parish of >St. Koche, and the reniain- 
 er of his property to his '• beloved wife d. M." 
 Oil the 10th of January following W. R. was in- 
 terdicted as u maniac, and a curator a])pointe<l 
 to his estate. He remained in an asylum untd 
 December, 1879, when he was released, and lived 
 until his death with his niece E. R. , sister of the 
 
 appellant. Meredith, C. J., upheld the validity 
 of the will, and his decision was upheld by 
 the Queen's Heuch. On appeal :— Held (ic- 
 versing the juilgments of the courts below, 
 Ititchie, C. J., an<l Strong, J., dissenting), tluit 
 the proper inference to be drawn fi'oui all tlie 
 evidence as to the mental capacity of the testa- 
 tor to make the will of the '21st Novend)er, was 
 that the testator, at the date of the nuikiiig ni 
 the will, was of unsound mind. Jtw-id/ v. Li- 
 franati^, 8 !>«. C. 11. .'135. 
 
 The testator when nearly eighty years of age 
 executed a will devising the w lir)lc of his estate 
 to a son and daughter )iy his first marriage to 
 the exclusion of his wife and other children nf 
 thcseeonil marriage. .At the time of its execu- 
 tion he was on his di-itli-bed, staying with liis 
 ilaiighter in the Uniteil .''<tatcs, having slii.itly 
 before left his farm in Ontario witiiout any 
 notice to his wile and other eliildrcii. I'nr 
 ; some time l)cforc he had been atlli<.'ted with a 
 complication of diseases rendering liim ineapal'le 
 of managing his farm, and which resulted in lii-i 
 I death shortly after the execution of the will iu 
 j (piestion. A will was ])rei)arcd by an attmiiey 
 I practising in the place the testator was staying 
 at, leaving everything to the daughter, .solely en 
 the instructions of her husband. On this In ing 
 read over to the testator, who was lying iu Im-i1 
 and unal>lc to rise, sutl'eiiug great |)liy.sie.il ami 
 mental lU'ostratioTi, he remarUeil that it wasimt 
 I right, that he wanted the son's name in it Iim). 
 j The will in fiuestion was then preiiared, and 
 i aftei' being read over to him, without e\]ilana 
 ' tion as to the elTeet of the language used w;is, 
 I executed by him with assistance, with gi eit 
 I difiiculty. The attorney and medical man in 
 attendance were of opinion that he lunl sutlicicnt 
 mental capacity to make a will. The same 
 attorney had some' time before iinlueed bini to 
 refr.iin from making a similar will. Shortly 
 before the exeeiitiou of the will he hail haiuleil 
 to his d.'iughter a bank deposit leeeijit which she 
 had transferred to her name, and piii tly used, 
 he stating that he wanted her to take care ofliim 
 and that he was going to have a will drawn. 
 From the evidence it appeared that the testator, 
 as well as his daughter, were under the ini 
 pression that the will had refeienee to the de- 
 posit receipt (Ully : Held (v.iryilig the jndg- 
 nieiit of till! trial judge), that the will was in- 
 valid, its execution under cireiimstaiiees of tlie 
 testator's condition, and the absi uce nf any (\ 
 planation to him of the elleet of his testaincii- 
 tary act, being a fraud on the ]iart of tho.se cmi 
 eeriied in ]uiieuring its (execution. Frtnuaii v. 
 , Fniwaii, I'M). R. 14l.-('. 1'. D. 
 
 1 The decision of Spragge, ('., who set a-idt 
 the will on the ground of the insane delnsidii 
 of the testator as to the illegitimacy of his 
 yiuingest child, reversed. .Sec />< // v. /.(i, S .\. 
 H. IS"). 
 
 See //o(/;/ v. Mwju'nr, 11 A. I!. ."jOT, p. 2Mil. 
 
 II. \Vii.\T .Mav I!K Divisko. 
 
 On 2r)th .September, 1844, .1. Le I!, by deed 
 bargaincil and sold, etc , to the niUMieip.il cciiiiiil 
 of I), district, in comtideratKiii of live shillings, a 
 certain lot for the purpose of erecting tlieieoii 
 u school-house for the use of the 1). district. 
 
2156 
 
 2157 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2158 
 
 iphcUl the valiility 
 )ii wag upheld hy 
 lUieul : — Hold (lu- 
 the courts litlow, 
 ., dissuntiiig), tliid 
 iiiiwu from uU tlic 
 pacity of tlif listii- 
 Ist NoviinliiT, w;is 
 I! of th(! imikiii}^ of 
 nd. Vi'iOff// V. /-<• 
 
 ciyhty years of age 
 wliolc of his estate 
 is tirst iiiarriai;(! to 
 il other chililriii of 
 f time of its exitu- 
 jd, staying,' with liU 
 iti's, having shortly 
 itariii witliout any 
 her cliildrc'i). Tor 
 ■en allli<,'tcd with a 
 Icring liim iiicaiial'lc 
 vhiih resulted in liis 
 ciition of tin- will in 
 irc'd hy an attoi my 
 testator was staying 
 e daughter, solely <m 
 land. On this being 
 ho was lying in led 
 ■i great pliysieal and 
 irkeil thai it wa> not 
 son"« name in it tii). 
 
 then prtpared. ami 
 m, without ix]ilana 
 e language used w:i.s, 
 isistaliee, with ui'-it 
 and medieal ni an in 
 that he had suHiei( lit 
 
 I will. 'I'he same 
 
 me ilidueed him ta 
 inilar will. Shortly 
 
 will he had haialed 
 osit receipt whi<hslif 
 lie, and partly used, 
 ler to take care of him 
 
 have a will drawn, 
 ired that the testator, 
 
 were under the ini- 
 I rcfeience to the de- 
 il (varying the jndg- 
 hat the will was in- 
 ' circumstances of tlic 
 he aliseiicc of any e\ 
 ll'ect of his testaliien- 
 
 thc part of those roii- 
 cent ion. /■'(•" '""" ^'^ 
 I'. I'. 1). 
 
 :ge, t'., who wt aside 
 
 if the insane delusion 
 
 e illegitimacy of lii» 
 
 .See lidl V. Lti, S A, 
 
 n A. !!. 507, p. '.ili'l 
 
 111'. |)1-.VISK1). 
 
 844, d. !a! U. l>y <h'c<l 
 to the municipal council 
 atioiiof live shillings, a 
 ISO of erecting tliercoii 
 ISO of the I». dLstiict. 
 
 
 Halicndum, for the purpose aforesaid, unto the 
 municipal council fcuevcr. The di'cd was siili 
 ject to a proviso that the said council should 
 within one year from its ilate erect a scdiool- 
 housc for the use of the saiil district, or if the 
 said <'oiincil should at any time erect any other 
 liiiildiiig save said sihoid house aiul necessary 
 otlieos, or slunild sell, lease, alien, transfer, or 
 convey the said land, it should he l.iu fill lor the 
 .said d. Le 1'. and his heirs to reenter and avoid 
 the estate of the said municipal council. .1. le 
 r,. hy his will, dated '_';hd duly, IMT, dc\isc,l 
 all his real estate to ci'rlain nieces, and died in 
 the year ISIS, without having revoked or 
 altered said will. 'I'ln' municipal council com- 
 plied with the ccpiiditinii hy Imilding a scIioipI- 
 house, ami at the time of the niidiing of the will, 
 tile condition had not lieeii lirokeii, hut the sue 
 ecssors of ]). district clealt with the land other- 
 wise than was authorized hy the deeil, aiul liroke 
 the eoiiiliti(m. 'I'he land having heeii sidd, a 
 ))etition was lileil to have it decdarcil whether 
 the devisees under the will of .1. Lc I!, or his 
 heirsat-law were entitled to the |u'oeeeds there- 
 of: lli'hl, that the word " possihility " iii I!. 
 S. O. (1S77), c. llHi, s. '_', iui'ludcs a "right of 
 entry for condition hrokcii," mentioned in sec- 
 tion H), and is more extensive than the latter 
 plir.ise ; and might tlierelore he a siihjeet of a 
 devise, ami is covered hy the general name of 
 "land. ' And liiat upon the hre.ich of the con- 
 dition no new c.-late was acipiired, so as to rc- 
 ipiirc Words a|))ilie.il.le to after ai'ipiircd estates 
 to he founcl ill the will, 'i'he possihility ot re- 
 verter was a contingeut interest that existcl in 
 the testator when tlii' will was made, and t!ie 
 suhsei|iieiit hreach <if the comlitioii g.-ive a right 
 of eiitiy hy which the contingent interest might 
 he I'oiiVcrted into an estate in pn.sscssion :-- 
 Held, also, that a "I'oiiditioii of ri'-entry." or 
 
 , litioii strictly so caHcl. as d;stim,'iiished 
 
 from .a " c. iiditioii.il liinitaliou," is a means hy 
 w liich an estate or interest is to he lucmaturely 
 defeated ami determined, and no other estate 
 cieateil in its room : and that the condition in 
 this case was therefore perfectly valid. The 
 devisees and not the heirs of .1. I.e l!. were con- 
 seipieiitly held entitled to the land or the money 
 represi-n'ting it. In n- M'lrilh. II O. It. li-li.— 
 
 l'|(Uldfo(.t. 
 
 111. I'lIoMISI.S TO r.r..,UTVni I'KOCIUTN. 
 
 The testator, father of the ).laintiirs wile. 
 HiiL'gcsteil to him to |uircliasea lot of laiidwliicli 
 w.is suhject to a mort-aL:e, s.ayiiig tli.it if he 
 would do so. and ha\e the pnipcrty conveyed to 
 his (idaintitl's) wife he would piiy ilV the iiicuni- 
 hianci'. The pl.iintill" in conseipience made the 
 purchase, and had the property cuiveyed as sug- 
 gesteil, hut the test.itiu' refused to )iay the in 
 st dmculs on the nioitgage and the pl.iintill was 
 compelled to I'ay it olV himself. I'he testator 
 .suhse(|ucntlv exp'ressed his regret at having thus 
 aeled. ami promised the plaintitV that he would 
 do hotter for them ; that he wi>nld pay plaintilV 
 f I.")!) a year for ten years, and ln'cpicath to his 
 wife .sf,tK)(l. I!y the will, however, only .■^lIMI 
 was left to her, and the plaintilV institutecl the 
 present suit against the reiaesentative of his 
 father-in-law to t nforce such second agriement. 
 or for payment of ilamages hy reason ot the 
 breach thereof. The only direct evidence w.is 
 
 that of the plaintilV. At the hearing there were 
 proiliiccd two ri'ieipts siu'iicd hy the danghti r 
 for .S'.'tll) and .S'JIMI, res|ieetivc ly. ixpressed to he 
 oil account of money left her hy her father's will : 
 and witnes.ses swore tli;if the ti statiu- had tohl 
 them tli.at he had .igrecd to pay for the place if 
 the plaintilf would t.ikeiuit the deed in his wife's 
 name, ,ind that he was niakimr the pavnu iits as 
 the pl.iintill' had so tak.'ii the deeil : jleld, tlr.l 
 there was sullicieiit corrolioratioii of the e\i 
 denec of the pfiintill' as reipiired hy 1!. S. ( ), 
 (1^77i c. ti'.', ami that tin' seeond aurecmeiit or 
 promise hy the testator was not viliuit.iry, the 
 foinier pioiiiise, even if h:irn/il hy the statute, 
 liiing ,1 siilheient considi r.ition, as well as the 
 ciriivcyance to the daughter m.ade in pursuance 
 of it ; ami a decree was inaile for payinelil of the 
 legacy of j<l,(MlO. |. -^s the two sum-! of .S-lit> and 
 .<'Jlllt. with intiiest from one year after the death 
 of the testator on the halance. l/id'iiiiil \. 
 Mu,ni. -IS Chy. :flll. Spiagge. 
 
 .\n ai;rceinent to make a will in favour of an 
 adopteil child iiiny he enforced against thepi-r- 
 sonal representatives of the ohligor. See HnhiiN 
 
 V. //,(//, 1 (). I!. .>S. p. I!t7l. 
 
 ('. C. the pl.iintill'. alle-ed th.al A. ('., his 
 f.Uller, heiiii/ the owner of celt:lill land, induced 
 
 him to ah>taiu from enforcing a cert. liii claim, 
 and also to work on the laml, hy n presenting 
 that he wiaild devise the laml to him, which he 
 afteiwanls ri'prcsented that he had done ; ai'il 
 A. t'. hiing dead, ( '. C. now claimed the laml 
 as against one !o whom \. ('. had devised it hy 
 a later will, revoking the former one. The exe 
 lailioiiot the former will was proved as allegcil : — 
 Held, re\ersing tlie dpci-ioll of rroiiilfoot, .1.. 
 that this was not sueli |iart jierfonnaiice as to 
 take the else out of tin- St ituti^ of frauds, f, i 
 the execution of the former will was the .'ut oi 
 the jicrson whose estate it was .sought to charge, 
 and not of the pi'ison seeking to enforce the 
 contract, and, moreover, di. I leit inip^'it a con- 
 tract, hut only indicaled a henevolelit iiiten'i' n 
 displayed hy 'he lesl.itor in the cxeeiilani ot .-in 
 instrumeut esseiiti.illy I'f .a iev<icahlc nature : - 
 (Jiiarc, whether if it had hceii |iiovcd. whieli it 
 h.ad not. that .\. ('. had. hy his repr. seiiLitions 
 that he iiad devised the laml to C. ('.. indueed 
 him to forgo his claim, .nid to work on the land 
 as alleged, this Would h.l\e elllilhil ('. ('. to 
 siicceid. CiUKiili'll V. ,l/(7v' /■/■('e/e r. li 1 1. I!, 
 s.-,. I liy. I>. 
 
 Where a eoiitiae't on the |iarl of a te^t.rtor, 
 founded upon a \aliiahleaml suliieii'iit coii-ide- 
 ration, tliit lie will leave hy his will to the other 
 contraetiiiL; party a sum <il money as a legacy, is 
 r'Icariv madeoiit'. the icpiv.sentati ves of thi' testa- 
 tor ma V he compell.'d to make goo.l his oMi-at ion. 
 lint wiierc the t.-stator, the efMinliatlier ■■f the 
 |)|aiiitill, promising to make the same proviMoii 
 for her hv will as he sliouM make tor his own 
 ilaunhters, took her from the home of her parents 
 at tlie age of twelve, adopt.d her, and main- 
 tained her, while she worked fm- him. for nine 
 vc'irs, hut, although lie made his ihiii^diters 
 'residuary devisees, 'left the pl.iintilV nothing hy 
 his will,' and jiaid her nothing for her services, 
 and she sued his executors for specitic pertorm- 
 iince of the contract or promise and in the alter- 
 native for wages :- Held, that the ease .lid 
 not f dl within the rule ; the promise made 
 and the consideration lor it hemg hoth of too 
 
 "1, 
 
2159 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2160 
 
 ca 
 aa 
 
 i 
 
 3k 
 
 OB 
 
 S 
 
 nncert:iin a rUaraottr to I'lititk- tlif ]iliiiiitill'l 
 1(1 iMiMuMo till' .-lint fill- spiL'ific |ii'ifi)niiimct' ; ; 
 Imt that till' (.■iffiiiiist.uii L's yavo rise ti< an i 
 imiilicil contract for the iiayiiiciit of wages, 
 mill took tliu case out of tliu onliiiaiy nilc 
 tliat I'liihlicii !ue not to look for wages from \ 
 tlu'ir jpareiits, or those in loeo |)Uenlis, in the 
 aliaence ol .special contract, wliilst fluy form 
 |);irt of the lionschoM. l)cci.sioii of rroiulfoot, : 
 .T.. varied. IIViMvcv. /Imi'i/iN,,; ISO. It. IIS.— j 
 Q. ]}. I). I 
 
 See Turin,- V. Pnrosl, 17 .s. (;. |;. -js;!, p. 
 1S78. 
 
 l\'. l'!\i;cr rioN oi W'li i.-i. 
 
 A testatm ln'ouglit lii< will which li.ul hcen 
 Jiieviously sigiieil liy him to iwo pi'r.foiis to .sign 
 as witnesses. The witnesses signeil in the tes 
 tiitoi's |)resi nee, lit his rt'c|iiest, .-unl in the pres- 
 ence of each i>tlier: and they eithei' saw oi' had 
 the opportunity of seeing th<' tcst.itor's sii.'natiire: i 
 — Mehl, thai t (:c will wms validly execiite.l. .S'-'o^^ 
 V. S,;,n, l:i (I. I!. .Vi|. Ilosc. 
 
 The pl.iintitls were tlie devisees of the land in 
 (piestion in this a'lion under the will ot' II. 
 O'X.; the <l.fendant .\. (I'N., the fatln^r of the 
 plaiiitid's, was one of the heirsat law. and had i 
 ohtained coMvi'y.iin'c.s of t he land from the other 
 heirs-at law, of H. (»X.; and the def.nd.int ( ». 
 was the assignee of all the cstati' of .\. ON., 
 and had hcsides a mortgage from .\. (•'.\. 
 on the land in i|ue^tion. On the 17th April, 
 
 1S77, M. ON. signed a will in the jni'.scncc ot 
 one w itiiess ; another witness was then c dicil 
 ill, before whom the testator ai-know IcdL'id his 
 signature, and then hoih witnesses signed ni the 
 presence of the testator ami of each other. On 
 the •i.'fiil .Vjiril, 1S77, the testator, dcsiiing to 
 have two ch inges nia.de, caused two of the shi'cls 
 of the will to lie rewritten and read to him: 
 the two new slu'cfs were then |iiil into the place 
 of the eld ones, the doennunt pinned tog'thcr, 
 and on the last sheet , w Inch was not oni' of those 
 rewritten, the d.ite 17th \vas changc<l to -Jlhil : 
 the same witm-sscs were then cilhil in ,ind the 
 testator then acknowledged his sigiialiirc 1 i the 
 will, and eai-h of tin' t wo wit nessi's his. The 
 two sheets taken uni n{ 'he will wi'i-c .ifteiwards 
 «lcstroyed Iiy cmc II., Ky llie cliici'tion of the 
 te-^tator, Imt not in his pr,>,ncc. The testator 
 <lied a few da\s after this without h.i\ing m.ide 
 any other will. The w ill oi' the "J.'hd April was 
 otVi-'ri'il for pniliate, hut Was refused liy a .Surro- 
 gate Court; Held, that the will of' the 17th 
 .■\pi'il w.is duly exeeiiliil : Imt that the will of 
 the 'J.'ird Api'il w.is not duly executed, ,ind pro- 
 bate was properly refu.sed : and the will of the 
 17th .\)iril was not revoked liy the di'slrnctioii 
 ■of the two sheets out of the presence of the tes- 
 tator, nor liy the defective execution of tlu' will 
 
 )f the "JUrd .April, the intention of the testator' 
 not lieing to e.incid the w hole of the earlii'r will, 
 Imt only to make twoclianges in it, ;ind he lieing 
 under the lielief that the later will was a valid 
 one ; and it was adjuilged that the earlier will 
 should lie admitted tn proli.ite. O'A'i /// v. Oir, /,, 
 
 17 O. R. 52."). — Fergus. 111. 
 
 ElTeet of lieneticiarv witnessing execution of 
 the will. S.'c Snl.hcad VII. 17 (c), i>. ■.'•-'17. 
 
 V. I'lidoK OK Will.**. 
 
 A registered ineniorial twenty years old of .^i 
 will executed liy a devisee w hen possession of 
 the land has tieeii consistent with the registered 
 title, is good e\ ideiice of the devise therein con- 
 tained, (ioiigh r. Mcliridc. 10 ('. 1'. Kiii, spe- 
 eiallv referred to, MrDniinld v. McUmuinU, 
 1() ('). I!. -lOl.-Jtoso. 
 
 In an action for the recovery of laud, the 
 plaintill's elaimeil title under a ileedfrom the 
 I \ccutors of one .S., but tin; only evidence of 
 that will produced liy them was the copy of the 
 proh.ile fr<im the registry olliee, with the, ; lie 
 davit of verilieatiou attached : Held, that tliis 
 was not ])riiper evidence of the will. The plain- 
 tills, however, nought to support their ease hy 
 reference to a certain statement in the d. fen- 
 dants plcadiiig, in which, besides ilenying their 
 right to recover, she herself also claimeil title 
 uniler a dei'd from the executors of S. : llehl, 
 that they could not t.ike that part of the jilcad- 
 iiig whiidi suited their purpose and reject the 
 rest : that tluy could not use a sera]) of it tn 
 t;ke out the iiisulliciency of their own evidence. 
 liiirhn- V. MrKiiji. 17 {'). 1!. .■ilW, (hy. I ). 
 
 In an action to eslabli.-h .i will in the haml- 
 w litiugof the testator, pnrp. ilting to becxeciiteil 
 ill the presence of two snbscriliing witnesses, 
 w Iki enuld not be found and wliosi' haiiilw ritiii),' 
 I'ould not be proved, iilid probate wliereol had 
 been refused by the proper Surrogjite Coiiit, a 
 inotieii for judgment asking to have the. will 
 established and probate thereof granted, nut- 
 withstanding that all parties interested inn- 
 si'uted, was dismissed ami the apiilic.itioii re- 
 fused, on the ground that snilicieiit evidenci' had 
 not been iirodiiced tu show that such will was 
 the will of the testator iiiidcr K. S. O, ( bss7), o, 
 lO'.l, s. ]■_', ir;///.t»i.v„» V. IVillinm.ini,, 17 (I, K. 
 
 7;ti. it.ib.itsoii. 
 
 \'l. Kkvoc.vtkin or W ii.i.s, 
 
 The tcstatiir. by his will, inaih' in .Iniie, I'^sO, 
 gave the bulk nf his |)ropcriy to the |iliintiir, 
 his sister, with whom, in the aiitiiinu beferi' his 
 d.'ath. he had (piarridled, and it did m t ap|iiar 
 that she saw him again belore he died. The de- 
 felldalit. anothci' sistcl', cl.iimed under a secoiiil 
 will made an hour or two before the testator's 
 deith. The cvideiK'e shewcl that the testator 
 w.is a very deterniined man, ;ind not easily in- 
 llueiiced ; that he was sull'eiing from execs.sive 
 iudnlgeiice in drink ; that he latterly spoke in 
 very bitter and ollensive terms of t he defendant, 
 .ind had fr.'ipicntly said that she' should have 
 nothing: tli.it he had frcipiently, and as late as 
 .1 few clays befiirc his death, stated that if lie 
 .lied everything was .■irraiigi!'! and that tlio 
 pl.iintitl' wdiild gi't his |iroperty- Slioilly b.fore 
 ids death the defemhint had him brought loluT 
 hmise. On the ninlit of his death ih.' physici.iii 
 in attemlanee told dcfcnd.int th.it if anything 
 was to be settled it should be ibme at oili'e. -V 
 solicitor was sent fur to draw a will. The ile- 
 fendint instructed him before '"' saw tiie testa- 
 tor, ami upon her inst met imis the will was 
 diawn, which gave the bulk of the prop.'rty to 
 the difeiid.int, and a be.|Uesl of .•?l ,()()() to' the 
 plaintitl'. This the solicitoi' read over to the 
 testator and askcl him if he ;ipprnved of il. He 
 made a sign of dissent. The .lefeiidant urged 
 
2160 
 
 )K Wll.I.S. 
 
 twenty years oM of a 
 irf! wlif'ii ])()ss('9.siiin of 
 ;ciit willi tilt' i'i'j:istci-('(l 
 
 tlic devise tluMoili eon- 
 iHe. 10 ('. r. lOli, spo. 
 ])<itialil V. MrUoiiijnll, 
 
 vLMMivcry of lund, Hic 
 uikUt a <U'eil I'liiiii tlie 
 it tlu! only evidence uf 
 leni was tile eopy of tlie 
 trv olliee, with the, ; ;le 
 lehed : Held, that tais 
 
 of the will. The plain- 
 
 II sninidit their ease by 
 ^tateiMei\t in the defeu- 
 li, hesiiles denying; tlieir 
 ■rself also ehiinied title 
 exe<Miti)rs of S. : Held, 
 e that [lart of the (ilead- 
 
 ii\ni"isi^ and rejeet the 
 not \ise a scrap of it tn 
 ,■ of their own evidence. 
 I. i:. .■.ii-2. Ciiy. I». 
 
 li.-h ,1 will in tile liand- 
 
 nirportin;j; to he exeenteil 
 
 I suhseiiliiiif,' «itnes>es, 
 
 and whose handwriting 
 
 III priihate wiiereof had 
 I'op' r Snrro^'ate Conrt. a 
 iisUinx' to iiave tlie. will 
 te thereof j;ranteil, nut- 
 parties interested ceii- 
 anil tlie apiilication re- 
 
 ,at siillicient evidence hial 
 show that such will was 
 nnder K. S. O. (IS^Ti, o. 
 
 , V. ir///;'('».so,,, i: (I. w. 
 
 •ION o|- Wll.I.S. 
 
 w ill. ni:id'- ill .lime, ISSO, 
 |)rolierty to tin' plaintilf, 
 
 in the aiilmnn licfore his 
 ed, and it did m t .ipiicar 
 I heloie he died. 'I'liede- 
 r, claimed iiniler a second 
 tw.i hcfore the testator's 
 shewed that the tcstatm' 
 d man, and not easily in- 
 
 sntl'erin.i; from exi'es.-sive 
 that lie lalti^rly spoke in 
 vc ti'iiiisof the del'cndaiit, 
 aid that she should have 
 frcipieiitlv. and as late as 
 
 death, stated tliat if lie 
 
 arraiiL'<!d and that the 
 |iroperty- Shortly licfore 
 lit liiul liini lironj;ht to her 
 of lii- death the |iliysici,in 
 •feiid.mt that if anything 
 ■iinld he done at once. .\ 
 to draw a will. The de- 
 Ml liefori- ^" saw the tcsla- 
 listrnclions the will was 
 le linlk of the property t(i 
 
 lie(|iiest of ??1,<)I10 to the 
 iolicitor read over to the 
 111 if he ajiproved of it. He 
 it. The defendant urged 
 
 2161 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2162 
 
 the testator to give theplaintifT the .?1,000, Init ' 
 (as tilt! defeiid.int statud), he said 610 wa.s I 
 enough for the plaintiff. The .solicitor there- 
 npiiii went away leaving the will with the de 
 feiidaiit, and (hiring hi.s alisence it was signeil. | 
 The ovidenoe of various witnesses for the de- ; 
 fciioe was conllieting as to the iiieidents which | 
 happened dnriny this time and until the testa- j 
 tor's decease ; and while they all sjioko of the ' 
 te-ilator's unwillingness to give the plaintilf ' 
 more than §10, there was no evidence, other j 
 th^in that of the defemlant, of his desire to give 
 lier the Imlk of his property or to make any dis- 1 
 position of it : -Held, reversing the judgment ! 
 uf I'l (Midfoot, d., that the second vill conld not > 
 he estalilished on the nncorrohorated evidenci^ i 
 cf the(lefendant, and the )irior will was deid.-ircd i 
 til he the testator'.s last will. //("/./ v. Miviuin, ' 
 1 1 A. K. Ml. " j 
 
 .See O'XiUI V. Oinii, 17 0. IX. .VJ,-), p. 'JI.V.l. 
 
 \'ll. I'oNSTKltXION ANIi iNTKla'liETATluN. I 
 
 I 
 
 1. Ociiirii/h/. 
 
 It is a jirinciple of cnnstrnction that the same 
 meaning .shall, as far as possible, lie given to the 
 siiiiu^ words in the same will. /.'«/// //o»/(' (it'\ 
 (h< Ci/i/ of Ifiiiidltoii V. f.dri.-; 4 O. K. 18.— 
 I'.nyd. ■ 
 
 '2. Ailinix^DiiUlij of Ptirul I'.rub lire. 
 
 Where a testator devised lot 1-4 eoneession ](), 
 ill the township of A. to his two nephews, and, 
 after eertain pecuniary heipiests, directed as fol- ; 
 lows :" The lialanei^ of my estate that ni.iy ro- \ 
 main aft(n' paying the above beijuests, to bejiaid 
 to my relatives as my executors may think ad- 
 visable ; " and the evidence showed that the 
 testator did not and never h.id owned that hit ; 
 hut that he did own lot '21, eon. 10, in the town- 
 s'lip .-X., which was not specilic.dly devised by 
 llie will: Held, that the evidence of the testa- | 
 tor's intention to devise lot 'Jl, in con. 10 to his , 
 nephews was in.idmissible : Hchl, further, that j 
 the court would not anthori/.e the executors to | 
 convey lot 'Jl, in eon. 10 to the nephews nnder | 
 tlie residuary clause in the will. Sumimri v. | 
 Sini\itie);i, ;■)(). 11. 1 10. -Verguson. ^ 
 
 .■\ testator by his will devised as follows : — ' 
 " I devis(^ the south-west (|Uarter of lot .">, eon. 
 2 of Westminster, eotitainiiig fifty acres, moreor 
 less, to H, 1*. S., his heirs and assigns, in fee 
 .siiii)/lc. "The evidence shewed tint the testa- 
 tor did not own the south-west (piarter of the 
 lot. but did own the south-east ; that he and 
 the devisees had lived (Ui it for many years, and 
 that he did not own any other part of the lot, 
 except the lifty acres of the sontli-east i|U,u-ter : 
 —Held, that the evidence w.is admissible to ex- 
 plain the error, and cause the will to operate on 
 the south-east iiuarter. Ha Shanr, tiO. R. 312. 
 -Boyd. 
 
 The erroneous part of the dcserii>tion in a will 
 may be rejected if there is eiunigh left to identify 
 the subject matter devised. Suniiiiers c. Suin- 
 niers, 5 0. 15. 110, distinguished. /I>. 
 
 A testatrix devised the south (juarter of lot 
 20 coneession 9, township of I!., to T. L., and 
 the cast (juarter of said lot to her two daughters. 
 
 136 
 
 It was sought to show that she had at the time 
 of lier death no other land than the south half 
 of lot 20, eonccssion S, of R., ,-vnd to ni.ako the 
 will oiieiate to pass this to T. I.: -Held, that 
 the devise being in its terms free from ambiguity, 
 the judge below was right in rcjeoting evideiieo 
 of extrinsic facts, and that even if it might hav« 
 been shewn that lot 20, in eoiieession S, was the 
 (Uily land which the testatrix owned, the will 
 eonid not operate to pass it. Ilii-by v. S/orer, 
 II O. R. lOti.— Chy. 1). 
 
 A testator by his will directed his executors, 
 "hereinafter named," to p.iy his debts and fun- 
 eral expenses ; and then devised the residue as 
 follows: To his sou David, 'Mot Hi, con. 7, X. 
 H., real and [lersonal property ; " the said David 
 til liay to each of his danghters i?.")00, namely, 
 .laiiet, M.iry, and .Agnes in two years after his 
 death ; Marg.iret and Klleii at twenty-five, and 
 Christiiui to remain on the farm, the said sum 
 to be given her when she became of age. No 
 executors were naiiied. I'arol evidence was 
 admitted to shew that the land mentioned was 
 in the town.diip of Morris, that " N. H." meant 
 the iinrth half, and that it was the only land 
 owned by the test itor ; p.irol evidence was ahso 
 admitted to shew that Ciiristina, though spoken 
 of as a minor, was twenty-three yens old w'hen 
 the will was made, and that she was of delicate 
 constitution and of weak mind : -Held, that 
 there was an ell'ectual disposition of the real 
 and personal estate : that to a disposition of 
 [lersoiKil estat(^ executors need not be expressly 
 iiameil, but may appear by implication, and 
 that David was executor according to the tenor: 
 that as to the hind the ))arol evidence, which 
 was properly admissible, cleared u)) any am- 
 biguity as to the dcscriiition : and tln^ parol 
 evidence also shewa^d that as regards the pro- 
 vision in favourof Christina, she niustb(' treated 
 as an adult ; and that the lunvisiou for her 
 would include maintenance. Youinj v. Pumn, 
 11 O. R. .')',)7. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 See DniiM: v. Diimhie, S A. R. .f7(i, p. 21'J4; 
 C/arL-y. Clad; 17 S. C. I!. 370, p. '2170. 
 
 3. Pdrlinihir Wiiid.-idinl Kx/ircusiom. 
 
 A testator died in 1S47 leaviiiga will in which, 
 after devising his fariii to his wife for life, and 
 at her decease to b(^ divided by his ex.ciitor.s 
 between his sisters 1'. and H. in certain jiropor- 
 tious, he continued: "and in case either or both 
 of my sisters F. and H. die previous to my de- 
 cease', then my will is tli.at each of their por- 
 tions devised to them rcsp(H;liv.dy, shall be by 
 my executors divided between theinind each of 
 their heirs, share and share alike, tliat is each 
 sister's share to each sister's children, to them 
 their heirs and assigns for ever." Tlie testator's 
 sister H. predeceased him, leaving children, 
 who survived him, and having had also a 
 daughtei', who predeceased her, leaving a son, 
 TI. H. : -Held, that H. H. took noshaie of the 
 devise to H., f(n' it was clear the testator was 
 using " heirs'' in a colloipiial and not a techni- 
 cal .sense, as meaning "children," and the legal 
 construction of tlic word "children " accords 
 with its popular signification, viz., as designa- 
 ting immediate olTspring. Paradis v. Cnmpbdl, 
 6 0. U. 1)32. — Prondfoot. 
 
U ! 
 
 2168 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2161 
 
 ^' 
 
 U: 
 
 A teHtator, hy his will made on the 14th of 
 August, 1800, dcvi.sod certain Iniid to hia widow 
 for life, and after her duatli to two nt'i'hewa, 
 and in the case of the dentil of thcni, or either 
 of them, in hia own lifetime he devised the 
 share of such deceased to the heir-at-law or 
 hcirs-at-lnw of siicii deceased, his, her or their 
 heirs and nNsigns. The Act commonly known 
 as the Act abolishing Primogeniture, 14 & 15 
 Vict, c. G, was passed on the 'Jnd of August, 
 IS.")!, and came into force on the 1st of January, 
 18.")2. One nephew of tlie testator died in ISM, 
 leaving him surviving two sons and two daugh- 
 ters. The testator ilied in IHOO, and his widow 
 in 1870: -Held (Gait, C J. C. P., dissenting), 
 atlirniing the judgment of Rol)ertson, J., (1(5 U. 
 R. Ml), that tile Act aholisiiing Piiniogeniture 
 did not ap])ly (1) because the will was made be- 
 fore it was panned or took effect, and (2) because 
 the land had been lawfully devised by the jicr- 
 8on who died seised, and therefore that the 
 eldest son of the deceased nephew, as his com- 
 mon law heir, was entitled to the remainder in 
 fee expectant upon the death of the widow. 
 Tylee )•. Deal, 19 Chy. 601, approved. Baldwin 
 V. KivyMone, 18 A. 1!. CS. 
 
 A testator by his will, provided as follows : 
 "I will and bequoath to • • • C. H., all 
 properties, moneys, and personal efTects now in 
 my possession, for her own and sole use, to be 
 disposed of as she may ace proper'': — Held, 
 that the devise passed real estate : — Held, also, 
 that real estate m the occupation of a tenant at 
 the time of the testator's death, was in the 
 possession of the testator, lie Hanjan and 
 Fi-itzhigei; 16 0. R. 28.— Ferguson. 
 
 Where a testator, by his will, in which he 
 used the words "executor" aiul "executrix" 
 several times, iiinde a residuary be((uest and 
 devise to " tlie heirs and representatives of M. 
 K.': — Held, that, having regard to tiio context, 
 the next of kin according to tlie Statute of Dis- 
 tributions, am) not tlie executor of M. U. were 
 entitled to take uiiiler the above words. The 
 Weight of decision shows that tlie wonl " repre- 
 sentatives," wiien standing alone, means "exe- 
 cutors or adniiiiistrators,'' but. that very slight 
 expressions in tlie context have turned the 
 meaning in the other direction, to that of " next 
 of kin." Burkill v. Tozi'r, 17 O. R. 587.— Boyd. 
 
 " Child or children."— See Slohhart v. Guard- 
 house, 7 0. R. 2.39, p. 2170. 
 
 "Children."— See McPliail v. Mcliitoxh, 14 
 O. R. 312, p. 2176. 
 
 "Dying without heirs."— See Tym-hitt v. 
 Dtxmou, 28 Chy. 112, p. 2171. 
 
 '•EfTects." — See Hammill v. Ilammill, 9 O. 
 R. 5;iO, p. 2167. 
 
 " To be equally divided."— See Woodhill v. 
 Thomai, 18 O. R. 277, p. 2199. 
 
 " Family," intended in this case to include 
 the widow. — See Dawson v. Fraser, 18 O. R. 496. 
 
 "Family now at home." — See Dawson v. 
 Fraser, 18 0. R. 496, p. 2227. 
 
 "Heirs." — See In re B'njijar — Ruji/ar v. 
 SHnKon, 8 0. R. 372, p. 2191. 
 
 "Heirs."— See Scott v. Gohn, 4 0. R. 457, p. 
 2203. 
 
 " Hoirs-at-law."- See Ilarruon v. Spenctr, 15 
 O. H. 092, p. 2109. 
 
 " Heirs of the body."— See Re Cleatur, 10 0. 
 R. .S26, p. 2172. 
 
 "Home."— See Awjmlintv. Schrier, 18 0. R. 
 192, p. 2213. 
 
 "In case of death of my children."— See 
 Dtimh/e V. Dumble, 8 A. R. 476, p. 2194. 
 
 " Issue."— See He Ilumilttm, 18 O. R. lO,'., p 
 2177. 
 
 "Next of kin,"— See Mayx v. Carroll, 14 0. 
 R. 099, p. 2169. 
 
 "Now reside upon."— See Ilattim v. Ikr- 
 (ram, 13 0. R. 760, p. 2168. 
 
 "Offspring."— See Sireel v. Piatt, 12 (». R. 
 229, p. 2175. 
 
 " Worhlly estate."— See Town v. Borden, 1 0. 
 R. 327, p. 2182. 
 
 4. Dencription of Land. 
 
 Held, that "2(X) acres of land, the west h:ilf 
 of lot No. 14," was falsa deinonstratio of tlie 
 west half, tlie testator having referred t'l the 
 whole lot as being 200 acres in a subsequent part 
 of the will. Holthy v. WUkimun, 28 Chy. 550.- 
 Spragge. 
 
 A. McL. S. being the owner of a 200 acre lot, 
 and having disposed of twelve acres at the north- 
 east corner and five acres in the centre portion in 
 his lifetime, by his will devised as follows : First, 
 I devise and be((ueath unto W. A. S. the easterly 
 part of my lot No. 6, * * being descrilied us 
 one-third part of the length and the entire width, 
 measuring westward from the easterly limit of 
 the said lot No. 6, and containing sixty-six mkI 
 two-thirds acres, more or less. Sec(md, I devise 
 and be(|ueatli unto H. D. S. the middle part of 
 my said lot No. (i, in * * being described .is 
 one-third part of the length and the entire width, 
 measuring westward from the land hereinbefore 
 devised to \V. A. S., of the said lot No. (i, and 
 containing sixty-six and two-thirds acres, more 
 or less. Third, I devise and bccjueatli to iny 
 daughter A., tlie wife of J. B., of * * tiie 
 remaining one-third part of my said lot No. (i. in 
 * * being described as oue-tliird of the k'ii};tii 
 and the entire width of the said lot No. 6, mciisu- 
 ring westward from the lan<l hereinbefore devised 
 to H. D. S., and extending to the westerly limit 
 of said lot No. 6, containing by admeasurement 
 sixty-six and two-thirds acres, more or less. To 
 have and to hold the said hereby devised land and 
 premises, unto .and for the use of my said daugh- 
 ter A. , for and during the term of her natural life, 
 with remainder thereof on her decease to the 
 children of her body, and their heirs and assigns 
 for ever. A codicil provided as follows : I do 
 hereby alter my said will, so that if my said 
 daughter A., the wife of J. B., die without issue, 
 0': should outlive her issue, tlie remainder there- 
 of shall revert to my own heirs, share and share 
 alike :— Held, that each of the three devisees 
 took underthe will according to the measurements 
 given, that is to say, one-third part of the length 
 of the lot, and the whole width of it, and only 
 such portion of his or her respective parcel thus 
 described, as the testator had title to and power 
 
2161 
 
 I HmriHon v. Spencer, 15 
 
 —See Be Ckalor, 10 0. 
 
 Htinev. Schritr, 18 0. R. 
 
 of my cliiltlren."— See 
 . U. 476, p. 21»'t. 
 mnillun, 18 0. R. 19."), p. 
 
 a Mayx v. Corroll, 14 0. 
 
 "'—Sec Ilatlon v. Ikr- 
 2168. 
 
 ^we.et V. Plolt, 12 (). R. 
 -See 7'oit'« v. Borden, 1 0. 
 
 )(io» o/ Lauil. 
 
 1C8 of land, the west half 
 fiilsii (leinonstiatio of the 
 )!• having referred to the 
 
 I acres in a sul>8e(iuenl part 
 iri/i'i'woH. 28Chy. 550.- 
 
 he owner of a 200 acre lot, 
 f twelve acres at the north- 
 jres in the centre portion in 
 
 II devised as follows : First, 
 luntoW. A. S. the easterly 
 
 * * being described as 
 engtb and the entire width, 
 from the easterly limit ol 
 ul containing sixty-six (iml 
 •e or less. Second, I devise 
 [I. 1). S. the middle part of 
 
 * * being descril)ed as 
 engtb and the entire width, 
 from the land hereiiil)efore 
 of the said lot No. ti, «"'' 
 an<l two-thirds acres, inori' 
 evise and beqneath to my 
 fe of J. B., of * * .the 
 purtof mysaidhitNo. h.m 
 m1 as one-third of tlie lenf;tli 
 of the said lot No. 6, meijs"; 
 he lan<l hereinbefore deviseil 
 ending to the westerly himt 
 ntaining by admeasurement 
 irds acres, more or less, lo 
 said hereby devised land iind 
 ■or the use of my said daugh- 
 
 the term of her natural life, 
 preof on her decease to the 
 r, and their heirs and assigns 
 1 provided as follows : I do 
 ,id will, so that if my saiii 
 fe of J. B., die without issue, 
 
 ■r issue, the remainder there- 
 V own heirs, share and share 
 
 each of the three deviseei 
 .ceordingtothenieasuremeiitJ 
 , one-third part of the leug^h 
 
 whole width of it, and only 
 or her respective parcel thus 
 istator had title to and power 
 
 2165 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2166 
 
 to give, and that it could not be iicld that wiiat , claimed that the consideration theref(.r was i)ai.l 
 land the testator had was to bo ecjually divided or secured l)y him, and that in fact tluv shouUl 
 
 amongst his three children. Sanndirs v, lireakic, 
 5 0. K. 60.S.— Ferguson 
 
 have been conveyed to him. I'er .Sprajigo, 
 ('. .J. O. , and .Morrison, ,1. A , (agieeing with 
 Ferguson, J.) tliat although the will spoke Ironi 
 tile death of tlio testator these lots did not pass 
 under it; l)Ut (in this diU'uring from Kergu.ton, 
 •I.), that tlio fact.f, stated in the report, sutli- 
 eiently estaldished that the testator, us to the.se 
 lots, was trustee for Nathan. Per Ihirtou anil 
 I'attersoii, ,),J.A. (differing from Ferguson, J.), 
 tliat tile will spoke from the deatii of tiie testa- 
 
 ore was no reshluary devise :-Held, that as , *'"' 'V.V,^ ^l'''' therefore tiiese lots jiassed uiidor 
 I will, taken apart from the erroneous dcscrip- i ''' A'"' J»''«"»-'»t of herguson, J. (1 O. li. 1(>7), 
 11, contained a gift or devise of all tlie real i "''^ ^ '"''.':!.";''■' '■''^•••''•«'^'l- ' '""'"■^•''' v. I cin.wU,', 
 ate of the testatrix, whicii would, if taken I *'• '^' — 
 
 A testatrix by her will devised as follows: "1 
 give, devise, and beiiueatii to my iiusiiandall my 
 real estate, comprised of tiie nortliwest (piaiter 
 of lot number ten, in the sixth concession of tlie 
 Township of iMersca ; " and it appeared tiiat slie 
 liad never owned the said lands, but had owned 
 and lived upon the nortii-west ipiarter of lot tun 
 iu tlio fifth concession of tlie said township, 
 There was no reshluary devise : 
 the 
 tion 
 estate 
 
 alone, be a sutficient description for the purpose ' A testator, l)y his will dated lOtli May, IHT.I, 
 of passing tiie lands really owned by her, tlie devised to i!. M. tiie " property on 11. "street," 
 part of the descriiition referring to lot ten in and (iroceeiled : " I give all tiie rest ami residue 
 concession six, might be rejected as falsa demon- of my estate, real, personal and mixed, which I 
 stratio, and tiiat the lands really owned iiy tlie shall be entitled to at the time of my decease, to 
 testatrix, passed to the devisee. Hiekuy r. A. M.' At tlie date of the will iie possf.s.'-fd 
 Stover, 11 O. K. 106 ; Re Shaver, 6 O. K. 312; only one property on II. street, known as the 
 Summers v. Summers, 5 O. li. 110, distinguisli- ^ Red Lion Hotel, but he sulisi'iiiicntiy aeiiuired 
 cd. Wri(jht v. Collimj-i, 16 0. R. 182.— Ferguson, j other property on tiiat street :~-Heid, that, not- 
 . , , , ' witli.standiiii,' U. .•<. O. (1877), e. Klti, s. 26, the 
 
 A testatrix, being the owner of certain lands ■ after acpiired proiicrty on H. street di.l not go 
 and premises upon w.' :... .. '''oek of Imildmgs , toR. M., hut fellinto tlie residue. The testator 
 was erected, devised the property in two parcels, l,aviiig expressed iiis intention with refen'iiee to 
 describing the buildings thereon as i.eing in tlie ,,11 laiid .-veiiuired by him after the date of his will 
 occupation of certain tenants. The description i,y apinopriate w..rds in that will, it would be 
 of one parcel included an alley-way luimiiig j,oi„j, t.o„tiaiy to that intention to de.lare that 
 through tiie centre of tlie block, but the doims some after anpiired property should be with- 
 Uilt over the arch of the alley-way were struc- , h-awn from the jrsiibiary clause and iield to jiass 
 turally a part of , and were used willi a store that 
 formed part of the other parcel, to which aright 
 of way over the alley-way was -iveii :— Held, 
 Burton, J. A., dissenting, atiirmiiig the judgment 
 of the (."onimon Pleas Division, Ui O. U. 152, 
 that the presumption " eujus est Hohim ejus est 
 
 nscnie ad coelum" is a rebuttable one, and that . . , , ,, , - , • i ^ 
 
 under the circumstances the rooms in iiuestioii "'^^-'^ uii(|uestionably a I that the testator iiiiglit 
 did not pass witii the land. PutU v. Huiriue, 16 aeciuire su )sei|ucnt to the date of the wil ami 
 p^ ^ jyj I down to the (lay of Ins death, i'er i'lomlloot, 
 
 ' .).—Tlieie is nothing in ilie will indieatiii;,' that 
 Parol evidence to explain. .See Subhead VII. 2, 
 p. 2161. 
 
 See Hdtlon v. Bertram, 13 O. R. 766, p. 2168 
 
 under the prior speciti(! devise. Lord Lili'onl r. 
 I'owys Keek, 30 Heav. .'100, distinguished. .1/oc- 
 rlttin V. Mvrrixun, !) (). li. 22.'i. -ISoyd. 
 
 Tlu^ above judgnieiit sustained on appeal to 
 tlie divisional court, I'lmidfoot, ,1., dissenting. 
 'Vr lioyd, C— The resiiliiary clause in the will 
 
 After Acquired Property. 
 
 The testator by his will devised as follows 
 4th. I give and devise unto my son Nathan his 
 heirs and assigns for ever * * as much of lot 
 number 12, in tlie first concession of the township 
 of Beverley * * as I m.ay die seised and pos- 
 sessed of (except therefrom the south eigiity acres 
 of said lot). 5th. 1 further give and be<ineatii 
 unto my said son Nathan, his heirs and assigns, 
 the south eighty acres of said lot number 12 
 in the Ist concession of the said township of 
 Beverley, excepting so much thereof as I may 
 have sold and conveyed, subject, however, as 
 follows :" providing in certain events for tiie 
 division thereof between the children of Nathan 
 and the four other sons of the testator. At the 
 time of making the will the testator had sold 
 portions of the said southerly eighty acres ; 
 amongst others, lots 1 and 2 on the south side 
 of Margaret street which afterwards became 
 vested in his sou George. Subsequently George 
 nconveyed these lots to the testator. Nathan 
 
 tlie testator was relerring to a speeiHe piece of 
 property. The words, "The [.roiierty on Hugh- 
 son street," read immediately bet'ore the death 
 of the testator, would apply to all the lands on 
 Hughson street he then posscssfd. which, there- 
 fore, ail passed to Robert .Morrison; and _the 
 will shouhl be thus read under R. S. O. (1877), 
 c. 106, s. 26. Per Ferguson, ,J.— Tiie will shews 
 an intention on tlie part of the testator that his 
 "f l"^ subsequently acipiired property should be dis- 
 "',1?^ posed of diti'ereutly from the jiroperty vested in 
 him at the time of the making of the will, and 
 thus the "contrary intention" mentioned in sec- 
 tion 26 of R. S. b. (1877), c. lOli, apjiears by 
 the will, wliich consciiuently iloes not "speak 
 or take effect as if executed imnieiliately liefore 
 the death of the testator." .V. V., 10 0. R. 
 .10;i.— Chv. U. 
 
 A testatrix by iier will, after giving to her two 
 sons a certain mortgage, and after sundry other 
 specific bequests, continued; " I furtlier direct 
 that the balance of personal property, consisting 
 of notes and otiier securities for money, lie given 
 to my two sons aforesaid * * also tiiat if 
 there lie any effects possessed by me, at the time 
 of my decease, that the same may be divnled 
 equally in value among my grandchildren share 
 and share alike." The testatrix had no rea 
 

 2167 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2168 
 
 
 i 
 
 ostulf at tJie (lutu of thu \\\\\, but site ufturwitnlH 
 in hill' lil'utiiiiu uoUuuted tlie money duo on tliu 
 niortgagu, ami iuvustcd it and otlier funds in 
 tliu purcliiMe jf limd of wliicli slie died seized: — 
 Huld, ullitining tiiu deoiBiou of Pioudfoot, J., 6 
 0. U. (iSl (wlio liuld tlmt the word "effects" 
 was wide enougli to carry the real estate), tliat 
 the grauduliildreu wore entitled to thu said 
 lands, as well us to the personal estate, of whicii 
 the tcstutrix died seized and poasussed, not 
 specitieally disposed of by the will. JIamm'dl 
 V. Hammitl, 9 O. R. 530.— Cliy. 1). 
 
 J. O. devised to J. B., G. K H., and .T. F. D. 
 nil Ills proiierty and effects, real, personal and 
 niixi-il upon trust (after reciting that his inten- 
 tion was to make provision for his daughter K. 
 M. ('., and to do it in such a way that the ad- 
 niinistiation of the fund thereinafter provided, 
 shoidil be controlled by the trustees of his will), 
 to hold tliat part of "my property known as 
 • Walkcrlielil,' ))cing the property I now reside 
 upon, containing fifty acres more or less, until 
 the same siiall he sold by them as iiereinafter 
 provided for the use and behoof of my daughter 
 K. M. C'., so long as slie may desire that the 
 same sliould remain unsold, and should she de- 
 sire the .same to be sold, tlien to hold the pro- 
 Cecils of tlie same upon the same trusts and 
 for the same purposes as hereinafter directed, 
 witli regard to the siun of ^40,000 hereinafter 
 directed to ))e set apart." He then directed his 
 tnisttcs to set apait tlic sum of .*>4(),000 to be 
 hehl by tlicui upon certain trusts, and also a 
 certain furtiier sum to provide an annuity of 
 $1,'2UU for his wife, and provided that after the 
 said two funds should iuive been set a])art, tiie 
 residuary estate siiould be divided among his 
 neplicws and nieces ; and lastly, lie gave to his 
 trustees " full and absolute power to sell and 
 dispose of all his lands (' Walkerlield,' if sold in 
 my dauL'hter's lifetime, to be sold with her con- 
 sent only) at such time or times, and in such 
 manner as to tliem may seem best." The will 
 was made on 10th September, 1879, and .J. C. 
 died 18th December, 1885. After making the 
 will, on '2'th .June, 1883, J. O. purchased five 
 acres, and on '21st September, 1883, another five 
 acres, forming a block of ten acres, of which 
 one corner nearly coincided with one extremity 
 of a diagonal of " Walkerlield." On •22nd No- 
 vendjcr, 1884, he sold a piece of about three and 
 one-third acres of " Walkerlield." In his life- 
 time .7. C, entered into a contract in writing for 
 the erection of a dwelling-house on " Walker- 
 field," which was not completed at his death, 
 and since his death the executor had i)aid to the 
 contractor and architect certain sums in respect 
 to it :— Held, aflirmiug the decision of Proud- 
 foot, J., that the ten acres subseiiuently pur- 
 chased passed under the devise of " Walker- 
 field. " Per ]{o^d, C. —The word ' ' now," in the 
 devise of "' \\ alkerficld,' which I now reside 
 upon " should not be allowed to control the other 
 parts of the will, and is not sufficient to oust 
 the effect of the statute by virtue of which the 
 will is to speak from the death : —Held, per 
 Proudfoot, J., that the daughter of E. M. C. 
 was tenant for life of " Walkerfield," and after 
 the death her children took the proceeds of sale 
 as she might appoint, and in rlefault of appoint- 
 ment equally, and in default of children, the 
 residuary legatees took : — Held, also, per Proud- 
 foot, J., that the funds to build the house must 
 
 come out of the rcsiiluc. Hatlon v. Bertram 
 13(). K. 766.— Chy. D. 
 
 See In re Melville, 11 0. 11. 626, p. 2157. 
 
 6. Period of Diiilriliulion. 
 
 H. I', by her will provided as follows ; "Alio, 
 I will and ordain that my said (property) after 
 the death of my before mentioned daughters E. 
 O. W. and S. A. W., be sold * * and 
 the proceeds * * be divided between the 
 children of my daughters K. (). W., M. K.,and 
 .S. A. W., * * one-third to the children of 
 thu said K. O. W., one-third to the chililreu of 
 the said M. K., and one-third to the children of 
 the said .S. A. W., share and share alike, and in 
 cose of the decease of one of the said families of 
 children as aforesaid, the/i I will and ordain that 
 the said proceeds * * be cciuully divided 
 between the two remaining families, the chil- 
 dren of each family receiving share and share 
 alike, of such half to each family." At the 
 time of the making of the will M. K. was dead, 
 leaving three children who survived the testatrix, 
 S. A. \V. survived K. O. W., and died many 
 years after the testatrix. All three of the said 
 children of M. K. pre-deceased S. A. W., two 
 of them intestate and without issue, and one 
 leaving two children who survived .S. A. W. 
 K. O. W. had three children, one of whomdied 
 childless before the testatrix, and the other two 
 survived M. A. W. S. A. W. had sevenl 
 children, one of whom died during her lifetime 
 leaving children, and the others all survived her: 
 — Held, that the period of distribution was the 
 time of the death of M. A. W., and that the 
 children of E. O. W. and M. A. W., then living, 
 were entitled to the whole of the property, one 
 moiety to each family, the members of each 
 family sharing equally their moiety. Jenkins s. 
 Driimmond, 12 O. U. 606. — Ferguson. 
 
 J. C. died leaving a wife, and E. C, a 
 daughter. By his will, after giving all his pro- 
 perty to his executors to pay tho whole income 
 to his wife for life or during witlowhood, and 
 after her death or second marriage, to p.iy the 
 said income to his daughter, E. C, yearly, if 
 she had attained tho age of twenty-one, for her 
 life * * , he provided as follows : "And I 
 hereby empower her, my said daughter, if she 
 come into possession of the said income, and 
 have lawful issue, to make a will bequeathing 
 my said property absolutely to any or all of her 
 said children in such manner as she mi'.y thudi 
 best. And if she have no children, then the 
 said property to fall to my next of kin who may 
 be living on this continent," and further pro- 
 vided, " In case * * then notwithstandmg 
 anything heretofore provided, I will and direct 
 that neither she (Ellen) nor any of her cliildren 
 shfill receive any portion of my property, and m 
 such case my whole property shall be given to 
 my said wife absolutely, or if my said wife rf 
 that time be dead, then the property to go to 
 my nearest of kin as above provided." Th« 
 wife died and the daughter, E. C, attained 
 twenty-one, came into possession of the income 
 and died unmarried without issue, having made 
 a will appointing the plaintiff her execntor 
 In an action by the plaintiff, M., as executor of 
 the daughter, E. C, against W. C. and F. McO. 
 as executors of the testator, J. C, for the pn^ 
 
2168 
 
 uc. Ilafton V. Bertram, 
 I O. 11. ft2tt, p. 2167. 
 
 f DinlrihuJioii. 
 
 ivided as follows : " Alio, 
 my Haid (property) after 
 B mentioned daughlors E. 
 L)e8old • ^ and 
 bu divided between the 
 lersK. (). W., M. K.,and 
 i-tbird to the children of 
 lothird to the children of 
 lie-third to the children of 
 ire and share alike, and in 
 one of the said faniilitsof 
 the<i 1 will and ordain tliat 
 • be c(iually divided 
 aining faniilies, tiie chil- 
 receiving share and share 
 
 ciich lamily." At the 
 • the will M. K. wiih dead. 
 who survived the testatrix, 
 <]. O. \V., anil died many 
 rix. All three of the said 
 e-dcceased S. A. W., two 
 id without issue, and one 
 11 who survived .S. A. W. 
 ;hildren, one of whom died 
 ;e8tatiix, and the otiicr two 
 
 S. A. W. had several 
 om died during her lifetime 
 
 1 the others all survived her: 
 riod of distribution was the 
 f M. A. VV., and that the 
 
 andM. A. W., then living, 
 whole of the property, one 
 nily, the members of each 
 ly their moiety. Jenkins v. 
 „ 096.— Ferguson. 
 
 iig a wife, and K. C, a 
 vill, after giving all his pro- 
 rs to pay the whole income 
 or during widowhood, and 
 second marriage, to pay the 
 daughter, E. C, yearly, il 
 e aue of twenty -one, for her 
 .vided as follows: "Audi 
 r, my said daughter, if she 
 ,11 of the said income, and 
 to make a will bequeathing 
 bsolutely to any or all of her 
 ich manner as she ini-.y thm* 
 have no children, tlicn the 
 1 to my next of kin who ni»y 
 iontinent," and further pro- 
 * • then notwithstanding 
 c provided, I will and direct 
 ;ilen) nor any of her children 
 ortion of my property, ami m 
 e property shall be given to 
 .lutely. or if my said wife J^ 
 then the property to go to 
 1 as above provided. .!« 
 le daughter, E. C., attamj 
 into possession of the income 
 id without issue, having n»« 
 
 the plaintiflf her executw. 
 
 _i„;.ffiff M- as executor 01 
 
 2169 
 
 WILL. 
 
 217(> 
 
 perty, which the defendants resisted on tiie 
 ground that the next of kin of the testa- 
 tor, other than E. C. were entitleil to it; — 
 Held, that the '* next of kin " must ho ascer- 
 tained at the death of the testator, .1. ('., and 
 not at the death of his daughter, K. ('. ,aiidas 
 E. C. was solo next of kin, and being tciiiiiit for 
 life, she had also a remainder in fee exiHsctaiit 
 on her own death, and contingent upon her 
 dying without issue, and that this was hiicIi an 
 interest as would pass by her will, and tiie plain- 
 tiff, as her executor, was entitled to the property. 
 Mays v. Carroll, 14 0. 15. 099.— Ferguson. 
 
 By a will of personal estate, after a life estate 
 bad been given to the testator's widow, it was 
 provided Tiy a residuary clause that the pro- 
 perty should 1)0 sold and the proceeds e<|ually 
 distributed among the testator's nepliews aii<l 
 nieces, such Ijeciuests on tiie death of any of 
 them entitled to the same previously to the 
 period of distribution to go to tliuir " tieirs-at- 
 law." At the time of this action, the widow of 
 the testator was still alive, but soine of the 
 nephews and nieces liad died : — Held, that the 
 will gave a vested interest to such nephews and 
 nieces as should be alive at the time of the 
 testator's death, but tlio period of distribution 
 was the deatii of the wiilow ; and the liequest to 
 the nephews and nieces was subject to be divest- 
 ed as to those of them wlio should die liefoie the 
 Mid period of distribution, in favour of thuir | 
 representatives, who were entitled to take in ! 
 auDstitution for the original legatee, and. j 
 Semblo, for this reason it was to be inferred ! 
 that by " heirs-at-law " the te«tator meant to ! 
 express that the benelit was to go to the persons ! 
 who would inherit the perHoiial estate — that is | 
 to say, the next of kin. J/arriwn v. Sjitncer, \ 
 15 0. R. 09-J.— Boyd. 
 
 A testator gave two legacies to become due 
 and payable in three and four ye.irs re8|iectivuly 
 from his decease, and instructed his e.xccutms 
 to invest the same and i>ay the interest to the 
 beneficiaries, nn<l directeil the investment ot 
 two separate sums for the benetit of two other 
 devisees (one of whom was his sister) with a di- 
 rection to pay them the interest for their lives, 
 and proceeded, "and should there be a residue 
 or surplus after paying out the foregoing tie- 
 quests I will that the same lie eiiualty divided 
 between my sisters and S. J. B. , or the survivors 
 of them at the time of winding up the 
 afiliirs": — Hehl, that the time for the division 
 of the residue was, when sullicient funds were 
 invested to produce the legacies and fulfil the 
 directions of the will, and that it was not post- 
 poned until the legacies were paid over or to any 
 aubsequont time. Mack'Hii v. Ditnicl, 18 O. H. 
 434. -Boyd. 
 
 See TyrwhiU v. Dewson, 28 Chy. 112, p. 2171 ; 
 Anderson v. IM, 29 Chy. 452 ; 8 A. H. 581, p. 
 2180. 
 
 le plaintiff, M., as executory 
 1, against W.C. and F.M4 
 e testator, J. C, for the pt» 
 
 7. Extate or Interrst Taken. 
 
 (a) Estate, in Fee. 
 
 J. C, by his will directed his trustee to 
 divide his real estate equally between his sons 
 then living, when Ids eldest son should attain 
 the ago of twciity-fivo years, when the share 
 coming to his eldest son was to be conveyed to 
 
 him ami thev were to give liini jl2,fK)0 to stock 
 the same. In case any of liis sons should die. 
 before attaiiiiiiK the aye of tw.nty-tivu years, 
 without issue, then the share ..f the paity so 
 'lying should 1),. divided equally ain'.n« tlio 
 survivors. J. .1. C. the eldest s,m, .lird under 
 the age of twenty-five leaving ,v widow an.l in- 
 tant (laughter, having made a will iiiaUing no 
 devise of real estate, bill nivinj- hig wii,; his life 
 msHiance, thin standing in favourof a loan . oni- 
 pany, and directed that so iinicli of his .<«'.>,0(Hla8 
 was nercssaiy be used to lede.m the iiisiiiaiico 
 from '.he coiiiji.iiiy, aii.l tlir iialaiice lie .'ave 
 to his wife; Held, tliat thu devise to the 
 eldest son was a devise in feu siiiipl,., siilijoet 
 to an executory limitation over oii his dying 
 under twenty. live and without issue, anil as 
 issue was left, the infuni „as entiti.-.l to the 
 land as her fatlii I'sheiressat-law suhjuct to her 
 niotlurs dower; Held, also, that the ^-J.OtH* 
 was an absolute bequest, with a diit.^ticm :i'.s to 
 Its .ipplicatioii,aiid that llielegatee was i.iititled 
 to the money regardless of the iiarticiilar mode 
 of itsaiipliiatioii. Vvdk v. Xol'/e, 5 (). K. 4;t.-- 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 T. S. after pioviiling for his widow in his will, 
 made the follnwing devise ; " And I give .iiid 
 devi.se to my nephew I!. .S., lot No. ;!() in the 
 •Jiid con., said township of Ktoliicoke, diiiin;,' the 
 term of his natiiial life (excepting lie have a 
 child or ihililrcii), if not at tlu^ expir.itioii of his 
 life to go to my daii;{hter Ann (Jiianllioii.xe or 
 her heirs, etc., * *." The will also contaiiic'd 
 a residuary devise in fav<iiir (pf tlie testator's 
 widow. R. S. took po.sscssion, niarriod, had 
 childriii and died leaving liis wi(low and several 
 childnii. Ill an action by tlio widow of T. S., 
 claiming that U. S. was oiily entitled to a life- 
 estate ill the lot and that slie was cut il led to it 
 in fee under the rcsiiliiary clause. It wis : — 
 IliM, following I.etliioaliiciir /'. Triiiy, ,') .\tk. 
 791), that an estate in fee niiglil by iiiiplieatioii 
 be veste<l in the eliild or that the" testator's in- 
 teiitiim iiii,i;lit be properly eth'etiiated by apply- 
 ing the rule in IJitield's case (acted upon in Hoe. 
 d. .loiies r. Davies, 4 15. it .Ad. ").'>), aiiil residing 
 "child or cImMich "' as ni>inen colhetivmn, and 
 so creating an estate t;iil in I!. .S. Under the 
 oircuiiistaiices in this case "eliild"' was not a 
 designatio persona', but eonipicheniled a class 
 and tlierefoie the plaintin nmst fail. Slulilinvt v. 
 (luanlhousi-, 7 (). R. •.'.'tO.-lioy.l. 
 
 \ devise ill a will was as follows: "1 also 
 will, devise and lni|Ueatli to my daughter L. A. 
 the land and premises on which she now lives, 
 and being all the land in .said locality now owned 
 by me, to her and her heirs, but not to their 
 assigns." 1.. A. iiiariicd and had i^suc. In an 
 apjilication under the Vemhiis and I'urehasers' 
 .Vet: HcM, tliat slie took an estates in fee simple. 
 AV Tra;/iioriinil Kcilli, 15 0. 11. -)()!). — Itobertson. 
 
 SceSrn/l v. dnliii, 4 (). R. 4.")7. p. 22(i;{ ; /)H: 
 .<o» v. Dlrhsoii, () O. 1!. 27S, p. 2174 ; II' Wiwi'in- 
 till, 6 O. R. :1I5, p. 22U() ! AV Vasmr, II. It. 
 282, p. 2I7H ; AV Xorlhrofr, ISO. l!. 107, p. 2:;(i(5. 
 
 (b) Estate Tail. 
 
 A testator, amongst othenlevisesnnd liequests, 
 devised as follows :—".'"ccondly, I bei|ueatli to 
 my sun, Robert Little, eighty-six acres of laud 
 
•i 
 
 2171 
 
 WILL. 
 
 ( ..•" 
 
 2172 
 
 •■W 
 
 ((Ii!8ci'ibiiiu tliciit). nil" Olio Biiaii of liornGH niid 
 oiio-lialf of my furiiiiii){ uteiiNilN ; ho in iicvurthc- 
 IvHH Hul)j<iut tu pay tlio huiii of €II'J. lOi. to tny 
 tluiighti'i'i, UH iioi'i'iiiafter jiroviiloil, tlio aiiiii of 
 illH. ITiH. to Iki jiniil aiiiiiiiilly, tliu firHt iiiBtal- 
 uiciit to lie imid Olio yuai' aftor my (locunHo, un- 
 til tlio wliolo is paid." iio next dovixoil to his 
 Mon John fifty acruH of land, touotlior with onu 
 apaii of hoi'Hfs and one-half of his fanning nton- 
 .hiIm, Hiibjuct alHo to a cliai'(,'o of £l I'i. lOs. for his 
 danghtui'H. llo then made tit'voral liciiuoits in 
 favour of his (htuglitors and wifu ; and if hii un- 
 iimrrii'd daughtors should dio hoforu tlioir luga- 
 vii'H wi'i'o paid, dnhli and Itohurt wore to divide 
 till! unpaid Kiiiiis oiiually hctwcun them. }{c 
 then provided as followH : "Should either of 
 my two sons, Robert and John, die without 
 isHue, I wish that their shares should he divideil 
 ecjually among my surviving ehildren : " — 
 Held, that the sons took an estate tail, and not 
 a foe siinplo subject to an executory devise over. 
 Liille V. JiilliiiiiM, '21 (Jhy. 95,'}.— I'roiidfoot. 
 
 A devise was to A. C. M. for life with ro- 
 maindiTto her husband, W. M., " and the heirs 
 of their bodies for ever : "—Held, that \V. M. 
 took an estate tail, liy a subseipiunt ulause 
 th(t will lU'ovided that, in the event of the said 
 W. M. 'lying without making a will, the pro- 
 perty should bo divided among his surviving 
 children in certain shares, but dt^claied it to be 
 the intention of the testatrix that ho should 
 have full powers, willi the consent of his wife, 
 to sell and convey absolutely any part or por- 
 tion thereof ; " and in case of liis making a dis- 
 position by will to vary the shares and propor- 
 tions thereof as ho may deem beat": -Held, 
 that the powers so given to \V. M. to vary tho 
 Hharea or proportions of the lieiin in tail, did not 
 att'oct the (juality of the estate devised. Fkin- 
 w<i v. MfDowjnII, '11 t-'liy. 4.")i). — Spraiige. 
 
 liy his will and codicil a testator devised to 
 liissonJ. on tho death of his mother, certain 
 land in eoiisideration for which he was to pay 
 the sum of £150 to the executors in fimr years. 
 In tlie event of his ilying without heirs tlie lanil 
 was to be sold and the auiount received therefor 
 over and aliove .CITiO " to be eiju.dly divided 
 amongst my surviving children"; -Held, (1) that 
 J. toiik a fee-tail in rcinaindcr after an implied 
 life estate in favour of the mother, as the " dy- 
 ing without heirs" must bo taken to mean heirs 
 of the liody, not heirs generally, he having bro- 
 thers and sisters still living. J. died during the 
 lifotimoof his mother: — Helil, (2) tiatthe period 
 of division should l>e the death of the tenant for 
 life, and the survivors at tho tiino of such death 
 woro to take the wliido amount reali/.ed by the 
 sale of tho lands upon which, however, tho £150 
 was to form a charge. Tyrwhitl v. JJeifnon, 28 
 Chy. 112.— I'loudfoot. 
 
 The testator directed all the lands to be sold 
 by public auction or private sale on his youngest 
 surviving child attuning twonty-une, and tho 
 proceeds to bo divided amongst nine of his child- 
 ren, share and share alike ; but in tho event of 
 cither of the nine children dying without issue 
 before the youngest surviving child should attain 
 twenty-one, the shire of tho one so dying shonlil 
 CO to tho survivors : — Hold, that those words 
 did not create an estate tail or quasi entail — and 
 that the shares of the legatees were vested. 
 Scott V. Duncan, 29 Chy. 490.- I'roudfoot. 
 
 'i'lio testator devised certain lands to his son 
 W, M. "foraiicl during and unto the end anil 
 term of his natural life," and after the determi- 
 nation of that estate to the sons of tho body of 
 \V. M. in tail male, as they should bo in point 
 of birth, and for want of such issue In the 
 daughters of the body of W. M. and tho heirs of 
 tho iMidyof such ilaugliters, who woro to titke 
 as tenants in common, and for want of such 
 issue the lands were to hu divided amongnt the 
 testat<n''B other sons, or the heirs of tlieir re- 
 snectivo bodies, who at the death of W. M, 
 siKuild be entitled to any part of tho liinds de- 
 vised in tail in tlu^ will to liold to his said other 
 sons respectively, or the heirs of their respcc- 
 tivo bodies in the same course of descent in tail 
 as tho other lands devised to thi^m in tail re- 
 sjtectively, and for default of sni^h other Bonn 
 and of their issue at tho death of \V. M. to the 
 right heirs of \V. M. for over : — Meld, that W. 
 M. took a life estate, with remainder in tnil 
 male, to his lirst and other sons successively, 
 according to iiriority of birth, and failing mule 
 issue, with a f^urther remainder to his dauglitem. 
 And though circumstances might arise in which 
 W. M. would have an estate in tail l)y way of 
 remainder after tho internu'diato liinitations to 
 his tirst and succeeding sons, yet he could not 
 so deal with that ultimate remainder as to <lj- 
 vest their right to take as purchasers. IthldtU 
 V. Mclntoxh, !) () K. 000. Hoyd. 
 
 M. C. by her will devised as follows : " First, 
 I give and devise to my grandson, J. ()., the 
 farm * * to have and to hold the same ami 
 every part thereof for and during his natural 
 life, and after his death to tho heirs of Ids body, 
 should he leave any such, him surviving, ami in 
 the event of his leaving no such heirs, tlieii the 
 same anil every part thereof is to be dividuii u 
 fairly and eipially as may be, amongst. * * to 
 have and to hold the same to tlieni, their licirt 
 and assigns for ever ; but my will and desire ii 
 that my said grandson, J. <J., shall not have or 
 go into the possession * * until he shall have 
 attained the ago of tweuty-tivo years, ur tive 
 years after my death. Secondly, 1 give and lie- 
 ijueath to my son, •!. ('., .SIOO annually during 
 his natural life, the same to be paid to him ijuar 
 terly * * and to be a charge on the farm or 
 hoinesteail above devised to his .said son.bilin;"— 
 Held, reversing the decision of I'roudtnot, J., 
 that tho ellect of tho limitations was to give J. 
 C. an estate tail, which he had barred as the re- 
 sult of his dealings with the liiid liy way of con- 
 veyance. (Jreenwooil i\ Verdoii, 1 K. it J. 74, 
 distinguislied. I'er I'roudfoot, .1. - " Ifi'irs of 
 the body " means heirs of the budy living at the 
 death of J. (!. .1. (!. took only a lifi^estatu, anil 
 his heirs of his body would take as purchasers a 
 fee simple, if at .1. C.'s death there were no heirs 
 of his body, the estate would go to his tlieii liv- 
 ing brothers and sisters in fee sini|)le. I'Mcnr. 
 Wilson, 4 H. L. C. 257 distinguislied. In ft' 
 Cleator, 10 O. I!. .T20-Chy. 1). 
 
 A testator, by his wdl, provided as follows: 
 "I leave and lici|neath to my lawful wedded 
 wife, M. K. , all my personal property, iis al» 
 tho solo control and inana^euient of my reil 
 estate * * said estate be.iig ciinposfd * 
 I leave and bequeath the aforesaid e-tate to my 
 son J. C, after my wife's death * * and the 
 said estate is not to bo sold or inortgigedbymj 
 
2172 
 
 I certain lamU to his ion 
 ig niul unto tlio villi and 
 I!," mill after the dcternii- 
 (I tliu goiiH of tliu holly (if 
 i thuy shoiilil hu ill point 
 ,iit of such iHHiiu to tho 
 of W. M. anil thu lieinof 
 ((litcrH, who woro to talie 
 III, anil for want of such 
 o lio ilividcil ninoiigiit the 
 or the hiMiH of their re- 
 nt tho ihath of \V. M. 
 iiiiy part of tho IjuhIh de- 
 ll to holil to his Hiiid other 
 tho luiirH of thuir rcspcc- 
 o ooiii'HO of iloHooiit in tail 
 uviHoil to thoin ill tail rc< 
 kifiuilt of Hiu:h otiior Bonn 
 tho (loath of W. M. to the 
 for evor: — llolil, tliiit W. 
 0, witli roinaiiiilcr in tail 
 il otlior KoiiH Hiici'OHsively, 
 of liirth, anil failing mule 
 •omainilor to hin daiiglitt;™. 
 anccH might arise in which 
 tn tstiito in tail hy waynf 
 nternioiliato limitatioiu to 
 ing HoiiH, yi't ho could nnt 
 tiiniitc roiiiaimliir as to di- 
 ko iiH piirchasurs. HiddeM 
 (iOC — Hoyil. 
 
 loviaod as follows : " VirBl, 
 
 my granilHoii, ,1. (!., the 
 
 1 and to hold tho Hanie and 
 or and during hi.s natural 
 iilh to tho iioiiM of hirthody, 
 ^uch, him HMiviviiig, aiulin 
 
 iiig no suoh lioirB, thou the 
 thoroof is to ho iliviilud u 
 may lie, nmongKl * * to 
 ! samo to tliom, thuir heir* 
 ; but iny will and ilosire ii 
 III, .1. i'., flliall not have or 
 1 * • until lit! shall have 
 f twonty-livo yoars, en- five 
 Secondly, I give and iie- 
 
 V., 8100 annually during 
 laiiio to ho paid to liini ipiar- 
 1)0 a charge on the farm or 
 isod to his said son .lidin ;"— 
 
 (h'cision of I'roiidloiit, .1., 
 ) liinitatifms wa< to give J. 
 lich he had liarrcd as the re- 
 with the hind hy way of con- 
 ,d r. Vordon, I K. it J. 74, 
 
 i'roudfoot, .1. - " ll.drs ot 
 iis of thchiidy living at the 
 ;. took only a lif.-ostat.;, ami 
 r would tak(! a-< puichascrsa 
 ;.'« death tiioro w<!io no heirs 
 ite would go to his thou liv- 
 tors in fei; simple. Mdonr. 
 
 '257 distinguished. /« ft 
 0-Chy. U. 
 
 s will, providiMl as follows; 
 loath to my lawful wcldeil 
 ■ persoiiid jiroporty, as also 
 ,d inana:;eiii.inl of my wal 
 estate ho.iig cimposi'd 
 ,h the afonsaid e-tato tomy 
 wife's death * * an I the 
 I bo sold or mortgaged by m? 
 
 2173 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2174 
 
 mm •). C, but is to belong to hia hoirit. Should 
 my Hon J. C!, die without heirit the cHlafe * • * 
 my daughterii shall got their maintenamo nlT 
 ■aid PHtuto ihirinu * * I also hoipKNith tho 
 Hum of idghty dollars to each of my daiightcrii 
 • * to bo paid out of the said imtato by niy 
 Mill son il. (J." In an applicathui under tho 
 Vendor and I'lirohasorH' Ai^, it was ; -llidd.that 
 ,1. ('. took nil estalo in fee tail in remaiinlor 
 aftcr an implied life estate in his niothor, .M. K., 
 Kuhjoct, however, to tho I'liarm's of I he siivoral 
 legacies to ouch of tho testator's daughters. AV 
 CollUoHdwl LaiiiUriiiin, lOO. K. 471. — Kobiut- 
 
 Mlll. 
 
 Sec SliMnrl v. Hminlhoiis,; 7 (), H. o.'lll, p 
 '>m;SireHv. P/a//, I'.M). K. '.»•.'! I. p '.'IT.'i; /^^,• 
 linnmiih Ilinl Kslttlo Inrnfiiniif t'n. t /.imiliil) v. 
 J'alhrxnii, I.T (). It. 142; 15 A. K. 751, p. 'JlTd; 
 Mel'hailv. Mi-lnlosh, 14 (t. H. al'i, p. *JI7(I; AV 
 Jhmilton, ISO. R. 1115, p. 2177. 
 
 (c) Ettillp/nr f.!/,; 
 
 After directing a sale and division of tho pro- 
 ceeds of an estate, the will iis to one of tho lega- 
 tees, M. S., "provided that the s;iid .\|. S.'s in- 
 terest in my estate should not ho tiansrerable or 
 transferred to any oIIku- person whutKoiver, hut 
 niav be inherited by her children, h'gitimato; 
 anil in case the said iM. S. die without legiliiiiato 
 issue, then her iiitiuest in my (estate shall revert 
 hack to the other legatees," cti;. ; Hehl, that M. 
 S. took only a life estate. Jullhi) v. .Scott, 1*7 
 Chy. ;U4.-Hlako. 
 
 A testator devised certain real oalate " to ho 
 owned, posR(!ssed, and inherited byiiiy wife during 
 her natural life siibjeijt to the further piovisions 
 ofmy will," followed hy a devise to" \\ . (!. when 
 he is of tho age of tweiity-thrc(! years, '_'(K) iicroH, 
 orif sold before he arrives at tho years mentioned, 
 that some other lot of land or money aiiMiuiitiiig 
 in value to the above mitntionod lot he gi' en him 
 in lieu thereof :" — Ifcdd, that the wife took a life 
 entate with a vested riun.iiiider over to \V.( i. , and 
 the testator having shortly bi-fort' the date of his 
 will contracted for the sale of the land so devi.sed, 
 that the estate of \V. (i., who died iliiring the life 
 of the widow, and before he li.id attained twenty- 
 three, was entitled to the proceeils of such sale. 
 Holthi/ V. Wilkiiisiiii, 2S (;hy. 5.")(). — Spragge. 
 
 A testator devised certain lands ;is follows: "I 
 will, doviso, and be(pieatli niito my wife for and 
 during her natur il life all that parcel of land 
 (describing it) * " I also v\ill mid bcipioath 
 unto her, my beloved wife, everything, real and 
 personal, within and without ; and it is hereby 
 understood that the property almve describud 
 shall bo under the control of my said beloved 
 wife. After the demise of my wife it is my will 
 and pleasure that the aforesaid real estate, shall 
 descend to my nephew and his heirs." The tes- 
 tator had no other real estati; than t ho saicl lands, 
 and there was nothing else to which his language, 
 importing that his wife was to have contrid of 
 «verything, real and personal, could he referred: 
 —Held, nevertheless .that tho iiitermediafoclause 
 had no eflfoct on the life estate expressly given to 
 the wife, and there was nothing to change or en- 
 large the usual cliar.ieter of such life estate, so as 
 to render her dispnnishahle for waste. White i: 
 Briggg, 15 Sim. 17 ; S. ('. in appeal, 2 Phil. .')8;i, 
 distinguished. Clow v. CIom, 4 O. K. 355. — Hoyd. 
 
 A. devised land to hl« PXPoiitors, " to hold tho 
 Hame in trust for tho uso and heneilt of my son 
 W . during his hfetinio, and after the death of mv 
 son \\ m trust for his heirs, issue of his body 
 until the youngest of said heirs shall l.eeonio of 
 age an,l then t.. convey it to siiid heirs, thn 
 ehi dreu of niy said son W. taking e,|u:,| „lnires. 
 and the child or children of nny deeeuse,! chihl 
 of my said sou to take their parents share in 
 cpial i.ronorlion : " Meld, that \V. to.,k only 
 an estate for life, and that the legnl ,.«t.ite in ti-- 
 niainder vestiid in the trustees for the hcnelitof 
 his heirs, /n ir Itumnuet anil Smith H I* Il 
 .12.{.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 A ti^stator, hy his will, dated •.'.".th .liino Ififlfl 
 devised to thi! plaintiir " and his heirs ii'nd ex- 
 ecutors for ever," a parcel of luiid subject to the 
 
 folh.wing provisi |'h;it he neither inortL-ai/o 
 
 nor sell the place, hut that it shall he tii his 
 oil dreu after his di-cease." Tho plaintillhad 
 children living at the dale of the will 'I'he 
 testator died ill IHtl7 ; -Meld, that the phiintill' 
 could not, by his own (onveyiincc, confer an iii- 
 defiNisihlo title upon an intending purchaser, anil 
 that tho preferable coii>,triii;tioii of the .hniso 
 was to give the plaintilf an estate for life, re- 
 mainder to his surviving (diildieii for their li'vei 
 remainder to the plaintiir in fee. l)i,-k%ou \ 
 Dkktoii, (l(». I!. 27S.-Hoyd. 
 
 .1. r., by his will provided as follows: "I give 
 and ilevisc to my hrother I). I*, the * •on 
 which ho resides * • to hold the same to tho 
 said I), r. for and duriu'' his iiatur.il life, mid 
 aftirr tho (h'ath of the said I). I'., I ^rivc luid de- 
 vise thesaid * * to If. I'., second son of said 
 I). I'., to he held hy the sitid M. p. for and dur- 
 ing his natural life, and if tin; said If. P. hIihII 
 leave idl'spring him surviving, then I givo and 
 devise the same to such of his oirspriiig as tho 
 said M. P. shall appoint, and in case of no ap- 
 pointment being inailu hy thesaid II. 1*. in his 
 lifetinio, thiMi I devise the saiiio equally to the 
 (diildrcn of tho said II. I', in foe and in case 
 tho said II. I", shall die without lawful oH'spring 
 or diirim,' his father's lifctiino, then I j^ivo and 
 devise the saino to * * ." |). I*, and M. I*. 
 hy (tonvcyances and mortgages di'iilt with the 
 land as if they were the owners in fee. Aftvr 
 .several lllort^'ag(^s to one .1. K. who was H. I'.'g 
 solicitor, were registered against tho land, and 
 after I). I'.'s (h-atli ,1. K., having assured H. V. 
 that his (,I. K.'s) title to the laud was perfectly 
 good, anil that M. I'.'s cliildren had no interest 
 in it, persuaded M. I', as a matter of form to 
 exwtuto tho (lower of appoiiiliiieiit in favour of 
 L. S., one of his children, and to obtain from 
 \,, S. and horhushaiid. wiilioiit their knowing of 
 the execution of the power of appointment, and 
 on making the same repre.siuitalioii and without 
 consideration, a ipiit ulaiiii deed of all their in- 
 tiTcst in the l.ind. In an .action hy L. S. and 
 her hiishand, on disi-ovcring their interest, to 
 have the ipiit claim deed di.divcied up to ho can- 
 celled, and to have it declared that the convey- 
 ances ami inortg.ages inade hy I>. I*, and H. P. 
 onl,v bound their life estate. It was : — Hold, 
 that only a life estate w.is given to H. P., ami 
 not an (-state in fee tail. If "oll'spring" is roml 
 as "children," or ccinstruo<l as meaning "issue," 
 the devise falls within the rule that when words 
 of distribution, together with woids which would 
 carry an estate in foo are attached to the gift to 
 
r 
 
 2176 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2178 
 
 the issue, their ancestor takes for life only. 
 Here to the children or issue, in default of ap- 
 pointment, is given expressly an estate " m 
 fee," and it is distributed to them ' ' equally " : — 
 Held, also that untrue representations were 
 made which induced the execution of the power 
 of appointu'.ent and the transfer of the estate 
 thereunder without consideration ; and that the 
 instruments subsequent to the deed of appoint- 
 ment, did nut affect the fee simple of the land 
 and that the operation of the mortgages should 
 be limited to the life estate of H. P. in the land. 
 Sweet V. Plait, 12 0. R. 229.— Boyd. 
 
 A testator made liis will as follows : " I be- 
 queath to my wife E. K. all the real and personal 
 property that I die possessed of * * My wish 
 8n(i desire id, that she shall divide the said real 
 estate or personal property, £50 to my daughtej- 
 S., £50 to my daughter K., the balance to my 
 son W. (providing any more) (if a daughter) £50, 
 an<l if a son then the balance after £50 to each 
 of my daughters to be equally divided betwixt 
 them at her decease." : — Held, reversing the de- 
 cision of Proudfoot, J., that the widow E. K. 
 took a life estate in the whole real and personal 
 property, excepting what was necessary to pay 
 the legacies. WUkoh v. Graham, 12 O. R. 469.— 
 Chy. D. 
 
 A. by Ilia will devised as follows ; "'Igivc and 
 bequeatli to my nepliew B., and C his wife (de- 
 scribing the land) to their use for the term of 
 their natural life, and at their decease to be 
 divided among their children as they ni.iy sec 
 fit." C. , the wife, died, and after her dcatli B. 
 conveyed to one of bis children, D. . B. and 1). 
 then mnrtgnged to tlie company, and the com- 
 pany sold to E. under the power of .«ale in the 
 mortgage, but E. refused to take the compuiiy's 
 title : — Held, that B. and C. took an estate fnr 
 lite only : that tiiu appnintuKait in favour <pf one 
 child to the exclusion of tlie lost was not a valid 
 appointment, and that the title oflcicd was not 
 one that the imrchaser could be coiri|)illed to 
 accept : — Scinble, Had a similar appointment 
 been made by both husband and wife, it would 
 have been invalid. J{e Ontaiin l,oin) nml 
 Savingx Co. and Powem 12 O. H. .WS.- Fcrgu 
 son. 
 
 By her will the testatrix devised as follows : 
 "I give and devise to my bolovoil children A. I', 
 [her son] ar.d ^1. P. fhis wife] and to their chil- 
 dren and children's children forever all and siii- 
 gtilar lot l.'). * * Providcil always that the 
 aforesaid A. P. or M. P. shall not be at liberty 
 at any tin>c or for any purpose to convey or dis- 
 pose of (said lot) as it is my will tli:it the same 
 be entailed for the benelitof their children." The 
 residue of bevestiito the testatrix devised to hir 
 daughter-in-law the said M. P.:— Held, that 
 iipon the true construction of the will A. I', and 
 M. P. took oidy an estate by entireties for their I 
 lives and the life of the survivor of tlieni ■ - 
 Held, also, that they did not take an -.iltiniate 
 remainder in fee, cxiicctaiit on any 'jstate tail 
 given to the chiMren, and that nini'er 4S Viet. 
 o. l.S, s. 5, H. S. (t. (I8«7), c. 44, 8. (.2, siib-s. 5, 
 it was the duty of the court to .cake a deelara 
 tory decree as to this in onh'; to answer as to 
 the whole estate laiieii by the parents : — Held, 
 also, that a iiiortj,'age by A. P. and M. P was 
 vali<l and. i)ound their life estate in the land not- 
 withstanding the attempted restraint on aliena- 
 
 tion : — Semble, that the children took an estate 
 tail but t'le special case which wo* stated for the 
 opinion of the court did not require this to be 
 declared, The jiulgmeut of tho Q. B. I). 13 0. 
 R. 142, athrmed with a variation. Ptlerborouah 
 Heal Estate Co. v. Patterson, 16 A. K. 751. 
 
 One J. McP. lived upon lot 26, of which hi* 
 father A. McP. was owner from 1826 till 1878, 
 when he died, leaving twelve children him sur- 
 viving. A. McP. died in 1841, having by wilt 
 devised lot 2(» to J. McP., but adding : "He ig 
 not to sell or dispose of the said lanus, nor any 
 timber or wood now growing on the said lot ; on 
 tho contrary, the lanil is to devolve on the innst 
 deservmg of his children according to the dis- 
 cretion of my executors, that is to say after his 
 own death." In 1869 J. McP. conveyed the 
 north half of lot 2(5 in fee to the defendant. The 
 executrix of A. McP. made no selection as to 
 who was the most deserving of his children on 
 whom tho land should devolve. Nevertheless 
 the plaintirt', a son of A. J.' P., now laid claim 
 under the above devise to seven-twelfths of the 
 lot, being his own share and six other shares 
 which ho had acquired : — Held, affirming the 
 decision of Rose, J., that he was entitled to 
 judf'inent in respect to seven-twelfths of the 
 land, for that J. McP. only took a life-estate 
 under the 8ai<l will, under which he must he 
 held to have taken, as he did not disclaim the 
 benefit of it, and had not acquired title by 
 possession at the time of his father's death ; 
 and though no selection had been made among 
 the children of A. McP., the court would carry 
 out the general intention in favour of the cLiss 
 by holding that the estate descended on the 
 twelve children of J. McP. Per Boyd, C— 
 There was no estate tail given to .1. McP. under 
 the will, for (1) "children" in it had its primary • 
 meaning of deseendaiits of the first generation 
 only ; and (2) the chihlren were not to take as a 
 cla..?, in the first instance, but only those oiitnf 
 that class to be indicated by the executors as the 
 most deserving. McPhnil v. Mclntoxh, 14 0. 
 K. 312.-C*hy. D. 
 
 A testator directed his real estate to be sold 
 and the proceeds, after payment of debts and 
 certain le;,'Mcics, to be -lividcd into twelve equal 
 parts, "live of wliicli I give and devise to my 
 beloved daughter (". M., four of which I give 
 and devise to A. E. F. (daughter), and tl.vee of 
 which subject to the conditions and provision} 
 hereinafter set forth, I reserve for my son C. W. 
 .M. But ill no case shall any credit;)r of cither 
 of my chiMren, or any husband of either of my 
 I '.uiilren, daughters, have any claim or demand 
 upon the said exei'iitrices, etc., but their ies|)cc- 
 live shares shall be kept and the interest, rents, 
 ,iinl profits thereof shall be paid and allowed to 
 them annuilly * • • duiing their respec- 
 tive lives. Ill an action by the dauijhters to 
 1 ave their shares paid over to them untraniinelled 
 lyuiiy trust :--Held, affirming the judjiineiitof 
 the court below, that it was clearly the intention 
 of the testator that the daughters should only 
 receive the iiieoiiie from the shares during their 
 lives. Pout v. Pool, 15 S. C. R. 099. 
 
 A will contained the following clause : "To 
 iiiv .son (J. \V. 1 give and bequeath (hiring liii 
 life time, the south-east quarter of said lot 4 
 lieforo mentioned, and at his death to go to ami 
 be vested in liis sou \V. C. , or in case othc" sons 
 
 !■■ 
 
217S 
 
 children took an estate 
 which wM stated for the 
 not require this to be 
 it of tho Q. B. D. 13 0. 
 variation. Ptlerborowjh 
 non, 16 A. H. 751. 
 
 non lot 26, of which hi* 
 ner from 1826 till 1878, 
 ,welve children him sur- 
 in 1841, having hy will 
 P., but adding: " He is 
 f the said lanus, nor any 
 >wing on the said lot ; on 
 is to devolve on tlie most 
 ■en according to tlio dis- 
 i, that is to say after his 
 I J. McP. conveyed the 
 Eoe to the defendant. The 
 
 made no selection as to 
 erving of liis children on 
 1 devolve. Nevertheless 
 A. J! P-, now laid claim 
 3 to seven-twelfths of the 
 are and six other shares 
 !(1 :— Held, affirming the 
 
 that he was entitled to 
 to seven-twelfths of the 
 P. only took a life-estate 
 under whicli ho must be 
 IS he did not disclaim the 
 ,d not acquired title by 
 lie of his father's death; 
 Ion had been made among 
 3 P., the court would carry 
 lion in favour of tlie class 
 
 estate descended on the 
 J. McP. Per Boyd.C- 
 iiil given to .1. McP. under 
 dren" in it had its primary 
 nts of the fir.st generation 
 Idren were not to take as a 
 ance, but only those out 4 
 
 ted by the executors as the 
 
 I'hail v. Mcintosh, 14 0. 
 
 I his real estate to be solil 
 tor payment of debts and 
 e ,livided into twelve eiiual 
 
 I give and devise to my 
 M., four of which I give 
 !■. (daughter), and U.'ee of 
 
 conditions and provisiow 
 
 1 reserve for my son 0. W- 
 hall any oredit.)r of cither 
 ly husband of either of my 
 have any claim or demand 
 ;rices, etc., but their rospec- 
 ui>t and the interest, rents, 
 liall be paiil and allowed to 
 
 • * duiing their respeo- 
 action by tho daughters to 
 il over to them untranunellei 
 I, affirming the jud;.:nientoi 
 t it was clearly the intention 
 
 the daughters slioul.l only 
 ■iDm the shares during their 
 
 1.^) S. C. R. 6'Ji>- 
 
 the following clause: "To 
 c and bequeath du.m;,' >i« 
 i-east quarter of .saul lot * 
 ml at his death to go to ami 
 
 \V. 0., or in case oUic soiii 
 
 8177 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2178 
 
 should be born to my son O. W., then to be | R. 281 » oisi- /f:,i.hi/ „ \r.f , i .. r> r. 
 ec,ually divided between all the boys : "-Held, '■ C(MJ ,/o\V'" /V.«ol //."/ •'^''" IJ"*; " "• R- 
 that G. W. took a life, estate o/y. and t^^\T^^';'j;;.\S:J''L::Zt\^^'f 
 there was a vested remainder n fee n his sons 471 n -'IT-l. if-t'.ji. i I ■''.■. : 
 
 as a class, which would hH in all born boforeilk R 7.15 u 'ilG l>>":ku-ort/., lU O. 
 
 death. l{e ChiinUler, 18 O. K, 105. -IJoyd. " 
 
 A testator devised lands to his daughter : " to (d) Itule in Shelleys Caxe 
 
 her own use for the full term of her natural life, 
 
 and from and after her decease to the lawiu'l •'^ ^«*t"''"' devised as follows: 1. I will ami 
 issue of my saiil ilaughter to hohl in foe simple," 5'"''^'-'':*''**''*ll'"yJ"8t debts and funeral expenses 
 anil in default of such issue over. The daughter "•:?*"'' "Y "'>' two sons, A. & H., sluvre and share 
 contracted to convey in fee to a purchaser ; and ' , .°' ^"'' ^ ''erehy charge the estate hereinafter 
 the question whether she took a life estate or an I ''•^^"'^'^.'' *" f'em with the said payments * • 
 estite tail was brought up on a vendor and pur- ' ^^^ '""' dovi.sc unto my son 15. the north 
 
 chaser petition. The coi7rt refrained from niiik- ' l'.'" V'* '"'.-'*' *'* '"">' ''""' *■" ''"'d unto the said 
 ing any order on the petition, for the law on this , "'* '"^'''* '"'d assigns to and for his and tiieir 
 hea.1 seemed to be in a state of uncertainty, if not ^, ?", ""'y ."^''' ^"^' ^'^■'■•' * * "• 1 desire it 
 of transition, and any experiment could hettcr lie '^'"•".'d he distinctly understood tliat the property 
 made in a contested case when all parties inter- I'^'ieinbefoie devised unto my two sons, A. & 15., 
 ealeil were represented :— Semble, however, that "' V' , '^ '">' ""-'"' ""'j' during their life times 
 
 tlie issue should hold the iiroperty in fee simple , ,^ V ^'^'^'""^ ^'"^ property of their lieirs, 
 
 and that tliey, my said sons, shall liave no power 
 to convey or dispose of the said lands in any 
 manner whatever :— Held, that the rule in Shel- 
 ley's ease applied, and H. took an ahsuhite and 
 uneonditioiial estate in fee simple, ami that the 
 limitations contained in clause ((») were void as 
 
 appeared inconqiatiblc with an estate tail in tho 
 mother, and that " issue " must be construed 
 " children," .-ind the mother took an estate for 
 life only. J{e J/amllton, \S O. 1!. 105. -Boyd. 
 
 The testator by his will made a provision for 
 his wife as follows : "I give and ileviso to my repugnant to the estate devised by elanseCi) and 
 beloved, etc., 'all househohl goods,' etc., ' for unreasoimlile. 7i'e Cook c, G U. K. 28-J.- Proud - 
 the term of her natural life ;' and 1 give and foot. 
 
 devise to her one bedrooiii, and one parlour of t ^ i , ■ ■„ , • , 
 
 lier own choice in the dwellinK-house wherein 1 ,' ,'^' ''^ ''I'* ^^'''' ''«^''sed as follows : " I will 
 now dwell,' etc., 'also the use of the kitchen, ! f'."' '"-''''"-'i'V'/" ,'">'/"" '\- ■'^■' f°'' the term of 
 yanl, garden ; also, 1 give and devise to my said ' "Vlf""''^ '.'^^ ''"', '^1'"', | P">-^'l|ased * * 
 wife her life in the said lot heretofore men- '".'^ '^ "'^ '*''"! '"" ''; "'":"'' ^'r'''''-' ''^"■/"' ''eir or 
 tioned; also an annuity of m\ yeailv.'" He '"^■"•^. l'"'" «''"d hmda shall he eiiually divided 
 then subject to the abov.; and to the payment of i !!I'.'"."H.} !"'' -'" *''« ''^'■'t.'' "^ *' >'»■ '"'•''^■'■. ''"' 'f 
 SI.IXK) to his eldest son I)., and other legacies. 
 
 devised the lot to his second son .1. After the 
 testator's death the plaintitl', the widow, and J., 
 lived on the lot, iirranging between them as to 
 her maintenance. In np<ler to raise money to 
 pay D.'s legacy, the plaint iff ami J., mortgiiged 
 the lot to a loan e.)nii)aiiy, and on default, pro- 
 ceedings wore taken under the pow er of sale t.) 
 compel payment. The plaintitl' set about mak- 
 ing arrangements to pay oil' the mortgage, but 
 the company refused to aeee])t payments unless 
 the amount of two other nioitgages made by .1., 
 alone were also paid. No tender was made hy 
 plaintitl', nor was any demand made by her for 
 arrears of annuity or dower. An action was 
 brought by plaintili' to estahlisli the will, and to 
 have the iij;lits of the loan eonijiaiiy declared : — 
 Hehl, < hat the jiroper eonstruetion of the will 
 was, that the widow was to have a life estate in 
 the bedroom and parlour she should selert, and 
 also in the kitchen, yanl, garden, and also the 
 annuity of .«!'2() ; and that the loan company 
 coidd not claim to have the mortgnges consoli- 
 dated, and that as the plaintili' had not made 
 any tender to the loan eompany siie could not 
 claim her costs, !iut it was directed in lieu of 
 her paying costs that the arrears of annuity and 
 dower should be wijiod out. Sniilli v. Smith. 18 
 0. R. 203.- t'. P. 1). 
 
 See /,'„;,,,■.« V. L„ir/lii,(i), 27 Chy. .').')!), j). 21',»2; 
 Tyrwhill V. Drirsoii, 2S Cliv. 112. p. 2171 ; .1/'- 
 (jaiii/ v. T/iom/Miii, 2!l Chy. 2ts7, p. 22(1!) : AV 
 Swi/li, S P. H. ;W4, p 2! '.14 ;' /)iimU(. v. Dimhl,; 
 8 A. K. 47(i, )). 21114; Johiismi v. h'niiihr, 8 0. 
 R-_l!t;i, p. 2I8S; Sinilh v. Swi/li, S (). R. 1177, p. 
 2178 ; y.V C/iartcn —FiiHuii v. Whalmowjh, 10 A. 
 
 137 
 
 my said son .J. S. sliall die without leaving law- 
 f' ; . eirs, then in that ease 1 direct tile said hinds 
 "^Lt I lie sold and tlie proceeds llieieol to be 
 ;-.ji.ally divided among my remaining (diihlivn or 
 their heirs." The son . I. S. had been mariied 
 for some years at the date of the will, and had 
 a daughter after that (hite, who with her father 
 was living at the time of the testator's death: — 
 Held that the devisee .1. S. took a life estate 
 with leiiiainder to his ehild or eliildren ; and 
 not an estate in fee, under the rule in ."^helley's 
 Case. Smith v. Smith, 8 (). R. (i77.— lioyd. 
 
 A testator hy his will devised certain lands to 
 his son N. M., for life and after his decease to 
 his heirs and assigns forever, butsuliject to the 
 [laymeiit within three years out of the rents and 
 income of a sum of money eharged upuu the 
 lands therein specified ; after his ueath the land 
 was to he sidd iniivi.led N. M.'s youngest ehild 
 then liviiij,' was of the age of twenty one ytais, 
 the proceeds thereof to lie ecjiially divided be- 
 tween N'. M.'s ehildivn at the time of sale ; — 
 Held, .illiriiiiiig the iudi;meut ui Street, J., at 
 the trial, that under the rule in Shelley's Case 
 X. M. took an est,-itc in fee simple in the land, 
 but reversing it so far as it hehl that there was 
 a trust in favour of N. M.'s eliildren :~lleld, 
 also, that hy the terms of the will there was a 
 restraint on alieii.-itinn by s;il", liut not liy mort- 
 gage:--lb.ld, lastly, that the executory ilcvisc 
 in favour of N. .M.'s eliildren was void as a vio- 
 latiim of f he nile aj.'.uiist jiei petuilies. Mti/irs 
 V. Hamilton /'lurlthut tiiiil Luiin Co., I'J U. It. 
 ;{58.-C. p. 1>. 
 
 See ,S'"v(;/ V. riiiti, 12 O. I!. 229, p. 
 Chiimlkr, 18 0. R. 105, p. 2177. 
 
 lie 
 
^ 
 
 2179 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2180 
 
 (e) Joint TeiMiiin and TcnanUt in Common. 
 
 A will devised uertain property to tiie testa- 
 tur's two sons, their lieirs, etc., mid provided 
 that the devisoes should j'lintiy and in equal 
 xhares j)ay testator's debts and the legacies in 
 the will. There were six legacies of t;50 each 
 to other children of the testator, and these were 
 to he ))aid liy the de . isees at the expiration of 
 two, three, four, five, six and seven years re- 
 spectively. The estate vested before the statute 
 abolishing joint tenancies in Nova Scotia came 
 into operation : -Held, reversing the decision of 
 the court below, I'aschercau and (J Wynne, JJ., 
 diss., that these provisions for jjayment of debts 
 and legacies inilicatcd an intention on the testa- 
 tor's part to ctfcet a severance of the devise, and 
 the devisees took as te lants in common .ind not 
 as joint tenants. Fisher i: Anderson (4 S. ('. 
 R. 41)0), followed. On the trial of a suit be- 
 1 «cen per.soiis cl.iiming through the respective 
 ilivisces to partition the real estate .so devised, 
 eiiilence of a conver.sation between the devisees, 
 which plamtirt' claimed would shew that a sev- 
 erance was made after the estate vesteil, was 
 tendered and rejected as i)eing evidence to as- 
 sist in construing the will:— Held, (iwynne, .1., 
 dissenting, that it was properly rejected: -Held, 
 j)er (iwynne and Patterson, .T.F., that the evi- 
 dence might have been received as evidence of 
 a severance between the devisees themselves, if 
 a joint tenancy had existed. Claik v. Clark, 17 
 S. C. R. 376. 
 
 See Donald v. Donald, 7 O. R. (i(i9, p. '2-210. 
 
 (f) T'lkini/ pi.r Slirpus or per Capita, 
 
 A testator disposei '^f the residue of his estate 
 as follows : " I give ,tndbc(pn,illi the remaiiuler 
 of my personal and real estate to my legal heirs 
 inchuling my daughter .lemima Woodside, to l)e 
 di\:led e.iually amongst them. " He left three 
 children and four grandchihlren. the issue of two 
 otiier of his childicM, who pr. dfceased him : — 
 Held, that a division per capita (not per stirpes) 
 w^i.s pioper. C/iailhoiinii v. Chailhuiirnc, 9 IM!. 
 317. -I!oy<l. 
 
 The testator be([ueathed his residuary estate, 
 all other projierty, in lands, mortgages, an<l 
 stoi.'ks to his grandchildren, " the chddrcn of J. 
 ('., and of my liaughter .A. .1. H., wife of l>. M., 
 share and share alike, on their coming of the 
 age of twenty-five ycais, to be finally deter- 
 mined and paid to tlu'Ui on the youngest coming 
 to the age of Iwcntj'tive year-t I'rovidetl, 
 nevertheless, that each one on coming to the age 
 of twenty live years receive a portion of not 
 more than half of what their share will bo on the 
 youngest eominj of age.'' Then directions 
 were given as to keeping books of account, and 
 managing the estate. " And when the books so 
 au litrd shew the revenue of my estate after pay 
 ing the before mentioneil bei(uests. taxes and 
 ollur charges on the same, amounts to S^.'iOl', 
 then half of such revenue or income bo dividcil, 
 share and share alike, between the families of 
 my son ,1. ('., and the family of my d.iughter A. 
 .1. I>." (The other half going into the i'st;'''l. — 
 Held (1), that the ehiMren referred to, the 
 gi'auilchildreu of the test:itor, ti-i<k per capita, 
 find not ])er stirpes. (2) That when the eldest 
 att dued the ago of twenty live years he was en- 
 
 titled to receive ime half of his share payment 
 (nf which could not be delayed and that date 
 must be taken as the period at which those to 
 take were to be a^ecrtained and that any child 
 born subseijuent to the time the eldest child .tI- 
 tained twenty-five w.is excluded and all born be- 
 fore that period were entitled to share in l lie 
 estate. (3) That ti.' children did not fake ves- 
 ted interests, the git to eaili bein;' /tingeiit 
 on attaining twenty'ive. (I I'lii , u .nty-tive 
 was the age at whvh the parties became entitled 
 to an arrangement as to the amount of thtir 
 shares, and (.■)) That the trustees could ch;n:;e 
 ! the shares of any who had been overpaid with 
 I the excess of such payments. Amhrtnii v. ' 
 •2!> Chy. 4M ; 8 A. K. oTA. 
 
 .See Wood v. Armour, 12 O. R. 140, p. ^I'.i."). 
 
 (g) Takhiij an a C/as.i. 
 
 Where a testator, after devising r -tain '-tn'h 
 to '• my trusty friends ,1. L. and R. M. " -'h 'Kir- 
 tain trusts for the nuuntenance andetl,;j,; ■ ,\ nf 
 his son, .). E., and devising the residue, real and 
 personal, to the said "J. L. and R. M., or the 
 survivor of them,'' in trust to sell and <listriljute 
 the proceeds in payinentof certain legacies, there- 
 in specified, continued, " should there ultimately 
 be any residue, I direct my said trustees, or tho 
 survivors of them, to divide and pay the sanietn 
 and among my legatees, hereinbefore named anil 
 my said trustees, or the survivor of them, in 
 even and equal shares and proportions : " — Held, 
 that the trustees took as a class, i. e., one share 
 between them, equal to the slii'res taken respeu- 
 tivi ly by the legatees ; for looking at tlie whole 
 will, it a])peared that the testator was speaking 
 of the trustees in their otliciil capacity, and re- 
 garding them as one legal person. Hoii-i' llmwuf 
 Ih'- ('(lijof' llitmilloiiv. Lfiri.i, 4 0. I!. 18. — Royd. 
 
 See Slu'ihart v. O'linrtlhnii.ic, 7 O. K. L';!!), p. 
 •2170: Mrritait V. Mrl,iiu.-<h, 14 O. R. WVl, \i. 
 •2170; lit Cfiand'tr, IS O. K. lO."), ].. -2177. 
 
 (h) Vi.ftid iir Coiitiniji-nt. 
 
 The testator gave €1,.')(J0 by will to his widow, 
 and m the event of her mirryiug again or dying 
 intestate, this sum was at hi r dci'.th to he di- 
 vided share and share alike among "my heirs 
 (my brothers' chddren)." Tlie widow did 
 marry again, and a daughter of W., a brother 
 of the testator, died after inariiage but before 
 the death of the widow, an 1 so beiore the time 
 for distribution : -Held, th.it the rule in suoh ii 
 case, that a bequest in the form of a direction to 
 ])ay, or to |i.iy and divide at a future period, 
 vests immediately if the • ymcnt be postponeil 
 for the eouveiiience of th' estate, or to let in 
 some other interest ; th t the intention here 
 wa' to let in the l"'- estate of the widow, and 
 that this was a share vested in the deeeaseil 
 child of \V., whiidi passed to her re])rcsenta- 
 tives. Wihitcr v. Lt!i--<, 'IS ( 'liy. 470. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 A will eont.ained a devise in trust foi' the sup- 
 port and miintenaiiee of the testator's widow 
 liui'iiig her life or widowhood, with :i direction 
 that she should have the full right to possess. 
 occupy and direct the management of the pr" 
 j)erty : and at her ihiath or second imirringp. 
 '•my son Thomas, if ho be then living, slmll 
 
2180 
 
 )f hia share payment 
 jlaycil and tliat date 
 oil at which those to 
 d and that any chilil 
 le the eUlost uhihl al- 
 ;hided and all b()i n he- 
 itled t<) alriro in tin: 
 Iren did n >• '■ike v.s. 
 Ciu-li bein .lingoiit 
 
 ^1 I'll. , woiity-tive 
 :)arlu'< Uocame entitled 
 ■ tliu amount of thi ir 
 
 trustees could cli;ii -ii 
 ad been ovei'vaid wiili 
 nts. .-liM^''-"'" ^'^ '■''" 
 
 1-2 0. K. 14»J. P- -l"''- 
 
 an a ClaxH. 
 
 r devising f' 'tM\ ' lu'ls 
 . L. and R. ^t.'■ -" '^^f 
 eiiiinoe and ed,:J..-. ■ u of 
 ins the lesidue, real and 
 J. L. anil H. M-. <>'' "'« 
 ust to sell and distribute 
 of .H'rtain legacies, there- 
 ' should there nltnnately 
 
 my said trustees, or Mie 
 ivide ami pay the same to 
 
 liereinbcfore named ami 
 he survivor of t.beni, in 
 ml l)roiwl"ti""8 :' - Helil, 
 as a class, i. c, one share 
 } the shi-rea taken res|)ec- 
 
 for looUin;^ al the whole 
 lie testator was spcakmg 
 
 othci.d eapacity, and re- 
 •111 person. Hon^' ll'»n"<>) 
 'LnrU,\0. !!. 18. -Boyd. 
 
 uulhn„.<,; 7 (). It- -i'^P- 
 
 /»'.-/', 14 o. R. :ii-', !'• 
 O. K. lOr), p. -M77. 
 
 „• CotilUvjint. 
 
 l,,'(it)by will to his widow, 
 
 'nivrrviuL-igain or dying 
 
 ;is at ill r death to be di- 
 
 aUkc among "my heirs 
 
 vu) " 'I'lie widow did 
 
 luighter of \V., a brother 
 
 afU'r marriage but before 
 
 ,w, anl >-o lieiore the tinie 
 
 ' tliat tlie rule in su'^h ii 
 
 , the torm of a direction to 
 
 iividc at a future period. 
 
 the • yinent be posti"med 
 
 ,f ui' estate, or to kt m 
 
 t)i t the intention here 
 
 estate of the widow, and 
 
 ,. vested in the deceased 
 
 I, issed to her rei)resents- 
 
 :2S('liy. •17-').— I'"'"'''"^''' 
 
 2181 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2182 
 
 devise in trust for thesiiv 
 ^, of the testator's widow 
 ilowhood. with a direction 
 ^ tlio full ri«ht to possess, 
 e management of the in" 
 l;ath or second marnag''. 
 f ho bo then living, slwn 
 
 have and take lot one, which 1 hereby devise to | sue :-Held, that Thomas took a vested remain- 
 hiiii his heirs and assigns fhe testator theu der in fee expecUnt upon the determiuatiou of 
 
 gave to his other sons and to his daughters other his mother's life estate. .S\ C, mh nom Kcefer 
 real estate lu fee. He directed that all the said v. .l/cA'«!/, 'iK Chy. Ki'i. — l-'eiL'tison 
 devises " in this section of my will ine"tioned 
 
 aud devised" should take effect upon and from '^'"^ residue of the estate was directed to he 
 the death or marriage of his wife, and not sooner, converted, and to be at tlic disposal of tlie widow 
 He gave all his otiier lauds in trust for sale, the ^"'' ''"'" ''f**' while she reinaiiied unmarried, aud 
 routs aud proceeds to be at his wife's disposal tl'creafter to the children. Tliis was subject to 
 wliile unmarried, and after her death or niar- *''" ''''"*^''' l"""^''^".'"'" coming into possession: — 
 riage to be equally divided among his said ciiil- i ^^^Id, that tlio cliildreu took vested interests in 
 dreii. At such death or marriage all his per- i *''"' ^""^l'''"^'J'''"''"^'^'l'^estedon the hai)peniiig 
 soual property and estate remaining was to be °^ *''® contingency mentioned. Ih. 
 divided equally among his children : Provided a » .. t i i ■ -n i • i , i , 
 
 always, that in the event of any of his children , *"''''*°'' ^'V''l '\''.' «'')'" '"« •.''^■"'^■■'tead and 
 dying without issue before coming into posses- T T P^''^^''^'^^ *° Ins wife, while unmarned. 
 siou of liis or her share "of the property or/"'' the manilenance and support ot the f.unily 
 ' • • • ' - '- ■•' ■ 'surviving liim, until the meiubera of his said 
 
 money hereby devised or bciiueathed,' tli 
 share of such cliild .should go eipniUy among the 
 survivors and lueir issue; and in the event of 
 such death leaving issue, such i^sue to take the 
 share which would have belonged to tlie parent 
 if then living : and lastly, he directed that in 
 the event of his wife dying before him his pro- 
 perty should be disposed of at iiis death, as 
 thereinbefore directed at her deatli or second 
 marriage, in the event of her surviving him, so 
 far as practicable. Thoni;is died unmarried be- 
 fore hia inotiier. On a[)poal from the judgment 
 of the Chancery Division, pronounced i)y Fergu- 
 son, J., ("29 Chy. 1()2). I'er .Sprag^e, (J. .1. ()., 
 aud Patterson, J. A., (diU'eriiig from Ferguson, 
 J. ) that the interest devised lo Thuinas was con- 
 tingent upon his surviving his iiother. Per 
 Hagarty, C J., and Hurton, J. A., (agreeing 
 with Fergus<ui, .1.) that the interest vested in 
 Tiioinas and was disposal of by his will. Per 
 Spragge, C. J. U. , ami Patterson, J. A. The 
 proviso as to death of children with or witliout 
 is.suo extended to all the testator's property. 
 Per Hagarty, C. J., and Biirto i, .J. \, It was 
 
 contine.l to personal properly :-ilehl, by the Su- l^, ,\[yulM in certain proportions among hii 
 preme ( (uirt, Uitclue, (... ,J., .-.nd l-ouniier, .1., i„.„thers and sisters. Tliomas, the only cliih 
 
 dissenting, that the interest devised to Thi^mas 
 was contingent upon iiis surviving his motlier. 
 Ki'ifif V. McKuij, !) A. R. 117; •^'. ''. , xii') iioni. 
 Ml irh'titta' Bank oj Citinulii v. K'lj'ir, IS S, C. 
 K. .■)!.■). 
 
 f.imily should respectively attain twenty-one, 
 and afterwards for the maintenance of liis wife 
 fur life. He then [irocceded to give and be- 
 queath all his other real and personal estitc, not 
 thereinbefore mentioned, to his executors in 
 trust to dispose of and invest, and " upon my 
 son Thomas attaining the age of twenty-one 
 years, should he be my only child, in trust to 
 pay to iiini and put liim in possession of the .said 
 residue ;'' but if t;lierc were more chiMren, lie 
 directed that it should be divided amongst all, 
 in the proimrtion of one part to a daughto-r and 
 two parts to a son, to be paid to theia when 
 th-'y should re-spcctively attain twenty-one. He 
 then proceeded to devise to his .son Thomas the 
 homestead, together with the household goods, 
 etc., on the decease or second marriage of his 
 said wife, should he have attained his tweiity- 
 tirst j'car. And in case his son Thomas should 
 not survive hiin, or attain the age of twenty- 
 one, or in case he (the testator) should have no 
 other surviving child who should attain the age 
 of twenty-one, or in case he should have no 
 randchilil, his real and |iersonal estate was to 
 
 his 
 I 
 surviving the testacor, attained twenty-two, and 
 died without issue, leaving him surviving liis 
 mother who had not married again :— Held, 
 Thomas took a V(!sted estate, for tiiat it ilid not 
 appear that the testator intended it to he con- 
 tingent either (Ui his attaining twenty-one, (U- 
 surviving his mother ;~lli Id, also, the testator's 
 intention wis, that the gift over sliouhl not take 
 ellcct unless Th'.iuas didl under twenty -one, 
 without leaving a child. Uaii-dii'-r v. (lainhier, 
 I (). It. 1S4. -Proiidloot. 
 
 A testator, by his will, " as touching his worhl- 
 
 The will further contained a devise of lots 
 two, etc. , to the testator's sons, Alexander, John, 
 Chiirles aud I'liomas, their heirs aiiil assigns, as 
 teiiiuits ill common, and a direct i.)ii that llicsame 
 sli.oild take ell'ect from and after tlicdeath or se- 
 cond marriage of the testator's widow. There w.is 
 a, Jiroviso 1 hat if any clidd ilied without issue be- 
 fore eomiiig into possession of his share, the same ]*J^^,^g- j^'^^/,", (,, iij, ^yjfe the use "of all liis 
 should go to the survivors. An indeiUmc was personal property and of his farm ar,d bud lings 
 exccuteil between the parties, conveying all liic f^jj. [^g,, support and the bringing u|) of his cliil- 
 
 estate, etc., of those interested to Alexander, ,(peii, "ami at Ikt decease the whole of the 
 
 John, Charles, and Thomas, after tlie execution p^j.^,',,,-,! and re\l property to be ei|ually ilivided 
 of u hicli AlcN.indcr and Cliarles died. An Act [,^(^^.,,,.11 my six children :"- Held, "that the 
 of Parliament was subsequently \t issed contirin- g), ^,.^5, ^f the children vested on the death of the 
 iiig this iiiiientnre, iind declariug that it should 
 take elt'ect from its date, and not be aircuted by 
 tile subseiiuent death of any of the testator's cliil- 
 dreu ; anil it conlirincd the cstitc in .lo!in and 
 Thomas as tenants in coinnion, subject to the lite 
 e.state of their mother ; with the light of survi- 
 vorship between tlicin in ease of one dying before 
 the oth 'r without issue, i lore the death or mar- 
 riage of their in(>tlier. After this, and in Ids 
 mother's liletime, Tliomas died, having, however, 
 survived his brother John, who died without is- 
 
 testiitor. Hunl 1: il.iird, 2(1 Ciiy., .1(iT, ex- 
 plained and reconciled , -Held, also, "worldly 
 estate" inohnles not only the corpus of the 
 t^'stator's property, bnt the whcde of his interest 
 therein. Toi>-ii v. Bo,;loi, 1 O. It. .327. -Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 U. C. by his will devised all his personal estate 
 to his wife, M. S. C., to i'c held li>r the interest of 
 his son, A. .S. C. when he should have arrived at 
 the age of twcntv-four years ; an annuity to his 
 
s 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 2183 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2184 
 
 wife, M. S. C'., for lifu ; appointed liur j^iiarilitiii I 
 III the MOU to tak') eliiirye ol all reiiiaiiiiiiy iii< iiey ; 
 that m1i(iii1(1 at'ciuu fiiuji all sourec.-i ; siieli iniiii"y 
 to be useil for the iieri-^sary expuiises ol ediua- 
 tioli, etc., for the Soli. lie ile.'?ilul that the wife 
 jihouhl have control of all uioiiey luiiiiii;^ to the 
 son till he was of tlie ay(f of twenty four je.iis, 
 and at that time all ri nts and (Jther jiropirty 
 Hliould come into hi.s po.s.se.-hion, exec |it til. 
 annuity, lie fnitiur ih elared that at tlu ilcilli 
 of the \vif( all riiit.-iind all iiiterest.s :ui<l all pro 
 perly hlionld pa>.s into the po.vsc .s.sion of the son, 
 to he (iwneil l>y him, his lieir.s and assij,'ii for ever. 
 In case of tlu^ ileatli of tlie w it\' helore the son 
 attained twenty-four another giiardiiin with 
 similar powers was apiiointed. In ease of the 
 ileath of the son hel'ore his mother, llii'ii all the 
 projierty and nnts, eU., were to he her.s dur- 
 ing; ;u'r natural life, and .ifter her ileath oie^ 
 half to yo to the f'stiitor'.s relatives and tiie 
 halaiiee to the 1' latives of the wile, she makiiij^ 
 this (lipositioii liefoie her de;Uh ; hut if the son 
 :»t the tinier ol his death should leave a wile oi' 
 ehii.lreli. tlun all |)iojieit,\' sh'iiihl he suhjirt to 
 .sueii dispi sitioii as he .should make at the time 
 of his death. ( )ii .in ap] li( it'oii, nn<hr the \ Cn- 
 dois' and i'nreli.isiis' Act, I!. S. ( ». (|S77) e. 
 Id'.l, for the opinion of the .ourt : -llehl, thai 
 the will was sullieieiil to pa>s all the testator's 
 property, in. Iiidiiij; the land fi (|Ui'stioii ; that 
 the inleiest t.ikeii liy th'- son was a vested one, 
 and Was to enmi' into hi^ jiossession and eontrol 
 on his attaining' 1\m nly-foiir, alul. foUowiiij; 
 (iairdner r. Cairdiier, 1 (). It. 1!)1. thai the soil 
 having; .•lUaiind that aue the siilisei|nint i:ift 
 nevereonld .illeet his iiit< rest, whieh hail linoine 
 iihsohite. Jf the lands iiassiHl hy the u ill. the 
 Hon and the widow joiniiii; as yrantoi.-. roiild 
 eonvey sueli title as the testator had. 1 1 the lands 
 dill not pass liy the w ill, the .son as heirat l.iw 
 and the widow as to dowir loiild make title. 
 lie Cuuki (tint l>rijlit,S ( ). I!. .'i.'iO. -Fir^UMili. 
 
 A testator directed the trustees niidi'i' his will 
 to hold foracciiniiiliition tlie proceed.- and liiriiiei 
 of his iiei.-on il estate il[ioii eel tain tnisls. lie 
 also diieeted with reference to his real e.-l.itc 
 
 (w ith the exception 
 
 if 
 
 thai the income sliould, in the same i 
 
 mil 111 l.,iiiilsiy) t.iiii lwellt^■oln 
 
 and hliiid : — Held, reversing the judgnient nf 
 I'roudfoot, J. (1 (). I{. m-'), Ihirtoii, d. A., .li.v 
 scntiii^', that the children took ahsoluie vi'-tid 
 inleiests on the happening of the douhle evmi. 
 — I'er Ihi'ton, ,1. A , thai they took only (states 
 for life with remainder to the grandehildiiii. 
 /.'( CliarivH -I'nliuii V. Wlmtmowili, 10 A. l!. .'M. 
 
 .\ testator left all his estate to his execiUurs 
 " in trust hir llie helielil of ( 1. 11. till he arrives 
 at the full age of twenty-one, at which tiiia 1 
 diieel my said executors to give to (i. II. all tlie 
 said properly, " suhjeet to the condition tliiit 
 ''should the said (I. H. at any time hefore min- 
 ing of age go to live with his father, \V. 11.. lie 
 is to he disinheriled of the w hole or any portion 
 of my estate. And the said estate so loifiileil 
 is to he then given to my son d. 1). , his heiis ami 
 assigns. " 'I'lie testator diid in IS";"). In |s7ii, 
 while t;. II. was stilla minor, hemg only elr\eii 
 yeiiici old, ,]. \). and \\ . II. entered iiit(> an agii e- 
 nieiit under .seal, wherehy it was agreed that .1. 
 1>. should siip|ior I the widow of the 1 est at or, w ho 
 was his niother and the mother-in-law of W II.. 
 during her life, and should convert into nioiiiy 
 the estate of the testator, to which he wa~ nr 
 should he entitled under the w ill. and pay aiiioirty 
 of the proceeds to \V. II. in trust for the support 
 ol <1. il. till he should iitlain twcnly-one. tiie 
 res due to he then paid hy \\ . II. to (i. 11. I'lil- 
 siii I't to thiii agreement («. 11. fort liw ith icManl 
 with W. Jl. till he was seventeen years oi auc, 
 when lhi^ action was hrought hy the execiUni..s 
 for a del laralion of the rights ol (i. 11., .1. !»., 
 and W. II. under the will ; Held, that »;. II. 
 look a \ested interest in the property nndci the 
 will: that the condition \as a condition siili>e- 
 ipuiil, and was \oiil as heing "against lau : " 
 and (1. II, was entitled to all the estate gi\i ii In 
 him hy the will, notwithstanding the agrecMi. lit 
 of 1S7">, which eoiild not he reg.irded as a f.iinily 
 com|ildmise, or foi' the belielit of the ilifilil. 
 clink' V. /)'ii I iihjli, 7i i). K. 1-1(1. l'"i rgusoii. 
 
 ;\. dicil having two sons and two iliiiiglitir.i, 
 and hy Inr will directed that her jiroperty slnailil 
 he in\ested until ('., her eldest son. slioulil .it- 
 I hell it W as to hi' di\ ided lllto 
 
 naniici as 
 
 tour 
 
 eoual sliaics, alii 
 
 the me 
 
 fund until tin 
 
 fioiii his )nrsoiial estate, form one of one 
 
 he was to L;et the iir 
 
 sh 
 
 me nil 
 
 til he attained tliiii V, wl 
 
 leath or 
 
 his was to i/et his share out am 
 
 out. 
 
 oilier 
 
 his youngest child slioidd attain I 
 
 twent\-onc, when the hinds were to he 
 
 nee 
 
 shares were 
 
 lol 
 
 le nivested, and the niioiue 
 
 tl 
 
 lis held ni'on the same trusts as wen 
 
 aiisiii'' troin each snare wa.- 
 
 to I 
 
 PC ucrunnil.iteil 
 
 itit tli< 
 
 three elilldren n -pi . Ii\el 
 
 declared concerioiig the [leisonal estate, which atl.iineil tweiity-oiie, when they Weie 
 
 I ere for ih 
 
 tenants in eommoii 
 
 le elilldren named, in ei|iial sliaies a.s receive 
 
 till 
 
 an, tl) 
 nniial income thereoi. until the 
 
 will 
 
 .'oiitaiiic 
 
 pi. 
 
 vonngc'st (Mini, 
 
 F 
 
 iltamed the 
 
 VISIOI 
 
 I that in the event of the death of .-my of w In n he w.is to get his share out and 
 
 if lliiity, 
 out. .mil 
 
 iyuii. 
 
 len leaMlig ls>ne, Uie 
 
 sill \ild hi- ilivided among tl 
 
 le ls.--iie on 
 
 till I r at I a in in I.; tw cut v-one. 
 
 Iheieafter tin ineoine of the remaiidie.' l"» 
 shares was to he paid eijilally to the i w o itiun.'li- 
 
 landsay. the will conlaine 
 
 As to the l.iiiils in ters, t'. and .1., until one of lli 
 
 lollli 
 
 1 iliu 
 
 low ei to t he triis- 
 
 aii 
 
 tees to grant h| 
 ceediiig twi iitv- 
 
 eases for terni!! not 
 
 1 then one share was to he paid to the pei> 
 
 ex- 
 
 per.- 
 
 Ills who Would he entitled 111. lelo under 
 
 ;iid he directed that the Statute of I dstrihiitions in case siidi sli.uo 
 
 upon the liap|icniiig of the liouliL- e\elit ah.ive w.is ihe properly ol the d 
 
 icfcried lo the triisti 
 
 hohl 
 
 ,d 
 
 'I'l'-y 
 
 itaiiied twenty-one, niariieil, and di. 
 
 Iter so d.\ in,::, t • 
 '|.. Inlf 
 
 le rents ill the .same manlier and pioportioii.- a.-~ [''.attained Iwiliiy-oiie, having ma.!i' lev "ill 
 
 theivtofiiii' limiied w ith nfcii nci toll 
 lalioiis, :iiid the divhlt nil.- mim im oi 
 
 leacciiluu- 
 
 lie (leriviil cliililien : 
 
 d h ft :ill her pro[ii rlv lo her lin- 
 
 d t' 
 
 II 
 
 then from. The will furl In 
 
 lirit the jiiopei ell 
 
 ■r pri)\ii 
 
 d that in w ill of A. w:is to \est in < '. s hiisliami aiii 
 
 lef.ult of any of his grandcliildrcii ..tLiining rcn the oiie-foiirlh slmre tli.il 
 
 niajoiity till- pioceeih, ot 
 
 bl.ile, 
 
 le income I) 
 
 f fi 
 
 r lile, ai 
 
 d tir 
 
 llii pi 
 
 I I r.Miiial, should 111' ajiplied towards founding an entitled under the .Statute of l>ist. ihiiiious per- 
 
 1... titnti 
 
 the city of 'i'liiMiilo for the duinh t:i 
 
 loll 
 
 le persoiKi 
 
 1 e.st:ite of n 
 
 W'.tiieii 
 
2184 
 
 sing ll>^ jU.lglllfllt nl 
 
 >), I'.urtcii, •!■ A., 'liv 
 
 tonU !ll)^<llu'^ VC-tr.l 
 r (,t' Ihl- lloulil'' 0\cllt. 
 
 \lK-y tiiok i)iil> i>i.itis 
 L(i tlif gr;iii'li:luliln'ii. 
 „imo,i:ili, 1(1 A. i:.->l. 
 
 statu to lii^ CXUOUI..IS 
 ,[ (;. II. till liu 111 lives 
 '■one, lit wliii-li tiiiK- I 
 to giVi' t'lti. II. all ihi; 
 t(i the cimditiiiu that 
 it any tinii; bctoif . (iiii- 
 1 iiis fatUor, W. 11. In' 
 ic wliulc or any |)i>ilii'ii 
 saiil itstati' so Im t' il''l 
 hon .1. |).,llisllt■il^allll 
 lit.l in IsTi'i. In iNli. 
 lini'i-, liiing only i'I'vlu 
 II. cnli-'rcil intoanagiix- 
 ,v it \Mi« iigi'ii^'l tliat J. 
 i,'li,« (if iia'l.slalnr,«lii> 
 ni<)therin-la\v..l \\ H.- 
 ulil cunvi'it into niuiay 
 tor, to whi.li 111' «:i> or 
 tliu\Mll.iiii'l|'!'.Vii'"oi'l.V 
 . in trii.st for the siil'|'"il' 
 I attain Iwi'iiiy-oiif, tliu 
 l,y W. Il.toli. II. I'm- 
 ti.H. foithwith liMaal 
 acvcnti'in ycais of ^'f^^^^. 
 ,n.n"lit liv tlir .'x.^iitois 
 , ,.,^i,,^ „i i.. II., .1. 1>., 
 „iU ; ll.i.l, that t.. 1. 
 iP tlie pi-oiK'ily mi'li 1' tlif 
 ,n \a» a omdilion .-iilisi- 
 lioiiii; "ii.iiaiiist la\v ; 
 t(. airtli>u.staH.'gi\'ii>" 
 tl,..,lanaiim tlic agri'i'iii'iit 
 ,t \,v i-.-L;anlca a.-* a lamilv 
 n. iKllrlit of tlif iiitaiit- 
 O. K. II".- F'ig'i-""'- 
 
 sens ali.l l"o .iallgliKlS 
 
 ' thai hiTin-omrty sliuiilcl 
 
 ,1.,- .•hlot son. slioiiia at- 
 
 it wasto he diM'li-cl uitu 
 
 „. ^\a^log.■t ll.o iu' "ii'f 
 
 ,nc(l thirl V, Nvlan ">•• 
 
 "le iilUr 
 
 ■2185 
 
 WILL. 
 
 7"?G 
 
 attai 
 
 all and out. I 
 ..inv.^^t.d.aiul thrill... me 
 
 ■I. uas tci li>: iKHniiiiil.'l'''i 
 childivii 1. >lM.livLly 
 whtu tlu'V N\'K. . ai. I" 
 ,„,,.,„■ th.l.ol, iinlll tla 
 ta.n.d thr a..r -I 'li"'V; 
 s shal-i' out and out, .Ui.l 
 ,. tif the nMnainin.; t«o 
 Miuallv to til., iwodailu'li- 
 ,„„• ol lh«'in s'lioill'l 'll^'. 
 ,, to la. paid toth.'l'.'i.-j'ii 
 ll„. ,.nlitU..l th.u-loiiiidcr 
 in •■a..«' -ii'l' ■"''">' 
 Ik- danghli'i- so d.Mi.-. (■ 
 u.aninl. anddi.d L.lo.v 
 , l,,,vin.,' in.n!.. h.r "l" 
 ■tv t.) h..rhusl..M,d t.Mlicv 
 ,1 U,,. liiopoi .Ihvl Ml lie 
 j,,C .husl.ali.ian.l.lill'l 
 ,,,,,. that sh. ^^^'- '" "-'" 
 .,,,,1 thi'V wiT'll" I'l-""' 
 alutfof Dist.ll.illioi.s 1.C1- 
 a ...tatcof n.allii'd W'llK^l' 
 
 who die intrstato : P!. S. (). (IS"). ,•. IC,-,. >. •_>,-,. 
 Arbll V. Jt'oarh, 5 O. H. (i!MI.- IJnyd. 
 
 Tiic testator made a r< siiluary di.vise )f ri.al 
 (•statu to his i.xui.utdr.s, in trust fur Ins Imir 
 children, " nntil they, or the suiviM.r ov survi- 
 Mirs of them, shall liavi' attained tiie age (j| 
 twi.ntyone year.s, said real estat(. tu he divided 
 among I hi. .siid lour childn.n, share and share 
 alike, and in ease any of them shall have ilied. 
 leaving issiu', the said issue shall take the shai-e 
 wliieh otherwi.se would have gone to his. lu'r or 
 their indents." The will liiithi.r direi.ted the 
 foiii' children nf th(. testator slionid he main- 
 taini.cl and edneated ont of the ineomu of sueh 
 ]ii.i|ierty dnriiiL; their minority, .'ind tin. siir|iliis 
 III lie iine^led diirin ,' such ininoiity, and n|>on 
 the yiiimgest, (ir the .,:;;viviir nr survivors of 
 them, attaining tuenty-one to divide thi> j)(.r- 
 siinal estate share ami .share alike. And u|icin 
 ,iny of the children attaining t\venly-oiii.. the 
 ex. ■ illors were directed to advance such sum as 
 iiiii^hi he neei.ss.iry to estahlish .such child in 
 husiness, etc. .\ml all the residue of his per- 
 siiual esl;it(. was to he held liy his e\i...iitors and 
 divideil at the same time as the lands : —lleM. 
 (I ) (allirming the judgment of I'ergiison, ,)., 14 
 (), it. i;f), that one of the sons, who liad attained 
 twenty-one, was not entitled to maintenance nut 
 of the estate :- Held, (\arviiig the decision of 
 Kergiison. .1., I4(). H. i:{), that the four ciiildreii 
 took Vested and not contingent ini-eri.sts in the 
 residuary real and person.il estates, the interest 
 ill the real estate heing liable to he defeated as 
 to any oui' or more of them, upon the condition 
 sul).sei|ueiit ol death li(.fore partition leaving 
 issue, in which event the sliart. of tlu: di-ieased 
 would yo over to the i-ssue. Hi/uii \. Cvnl'if, I,") 
 A. |{. .-{Til. 
 
 II. was ciitith-d to a legacj under ,i will ])ro- 
 vided he survived the testator's w ife, and dur- 
 ing li(.r hfetiine he hroiight a suit to pioti et his 
 legacy ag.dn.st dissi|iation of the estate hy the 
 widow: Held, reversing the judgment ol the 
 eoiirthelou. that l>. had inon. tliaii a [lossihility 
 or evpeelatioii of a future interest; he had an 
 existing contingent interest in the estate and 
 was entitled to have the estate preserved that 
 the legacy might he jiaid in case of the ha|ipen- 
 ing of the (.oiitingein.y on w hieli it depended. 
 iJiiijijaK V. I)>ui(jiiii, 17 .'^. ('■ 11. •!!:<. 
 
 See //(i////// v. Wiltiiisnii, '_'S t'iiy. ,"i.")(). [i. 'JIT;!; 
 Sfottw hiiiirnii, o',) fhy. I'.M), ))". •-'171 I //' /!' 
 Jioiiiaiiri V. Siiiilh, S V. I!. ;f'.':!. p. o|74: l>iimlili 
 V. IhimhU:, ,S .\. I!. ■t7ti, p. '.'im. 
 
 The 
 taineci 
 street 
 
 (I) I e. 
 testator 
 
 l.tl l.iul,/,. (o /»- l)},;staf. 
 
 i.V])i'esseil a desire "to have re- 
 foi- my children my )u-'iperty on Vouge 
 and for this purpose I desire that thciu'o- 
 ceeds of my life iiisuiauce he applied in the 
 purchase for my daughters' hi'iielit of the iiicum- 
 nranees of that property. I'nder any circum- 
 stances, 1 desire tlialall my other lands he sold. 
 ■* * I desire that the iiroceeds of my estate and 
 rents of my Yonge street property he a])plied 
 ■* * in the support, maintenance, and eiiuea- 
 tiou of my two daughters, and in paying the 
 incninhr.inces on the Vonge street property. 
 After paying the necessary charges, my wish is, 
 that the interest of my estate he applieil hy my 
 
 trustees in O.tv .--iijiport nf niy eliildn-n. .ShouM 
 one of my >,ii,l two daiiL'hters die, or hecoine a 
 lioiiian Catliolie, her sh:iie to go to (heotlwr, 
 and should l.otli di,. without issue, or heeonu; 
 Hoinan Calholies, then my I'state is to go to mv 
 sister I,, ami lii-r h. ii> "' I direct that mv 
 trustees ^1 ,ill ilnide Ihe prncc.eds of my est.ite 
 C'lually ImIwc-.u my two d.-iughti-is, allowing 
 each, during tliei|. minority, or until the marriage 
 ol line or othi r ..f thi'in. a sum snilieieut to main- 
 tain and educate the mil 'ter they come of 
 
 age an ei|Ual share ol all ]iroei ids to he secured 
 and paid iheui, free from all control of any hus- 
 h'ud or ,iny other iiersou." 'I'liere were oidy 
 these two daughters, children of the testator, 
 and hoth attained the a,i:e of twenty-one years 
 witliouteitlier having licc.iim.a Koiiian ( 'atllolie : 
 — Held, that the. interests taken hy the daUL;h»'rs 
 W(.re vesli d, Ihouiih suhji-i.t to he divesti-d upon 
 Ihe h.ippeiiilii.' of the events mentioned heliu-e 
 twi.nty-onc:and that at that time the shares vest- 
 ed ahsolutely in Ihein; so that L. took nothing 
 under the will. CrljUlh v. (.'lijfl/li, •_'!) ( 'hy. 
 14.". — Fergnsor.. 
 
 A testator devised certain land to K. T. "dur- 
 ing his and M. .\.s n.itural life, then ar- 1 :ifter 
 that to he given to M. A. 's children to them, 
 their lieirs and .issigns for ever :"- Held, that 
 the cliildri.n of .\l. A. in e.xistenee at tin: testa- 
 tor's death fiiilliwith look vested iuterest.s, sub- 
 ject to be partially divested in favour of ehihl- 
 rcii of M. .\. suhsei|uently coining iiitoexisteni,u 
 duriiiL' the life of M. A., and that the represen- 
 tatives of any child dying bcf.-.re the jicriod of 
 distribution were entith-ii to claiiii the share of 
 thalchild. I'.iradis ,.. (■aniphell, (M). It. (;:W. dis- 
 tinguished. Iji'fK v. /,'■»•/•//, II (). 1!..")I7. lioyd. 
 
 See /VM/. ; V. MrK'il/.-2'.) Chv. IG'2, 9 A. R. 
 
 117, p. '-'iv-': /I'vfi" V 'W./,, I.") A. K. 37!>, p. 
 l.'|.S.". : I/arris,)!, v. S,,nir,,; i."i O. H. (i!)2. p. '-'Ki!); 
 
 w.miiiuM V. TiioiiKis, is(». i;. •_>::, p. oi!)!i. 
 
 (j) K.r.riilnr;/ /).,-;«,«. 
 
 .•^e(. i.iii/r V. r,ui',„.i<. -r, Chv. .'i.M, |i. 017I ; 
 Co../,- V. Ao'.'.. .-. o. I;. -i;{, p. 170. 
 
 (k) A'.s/k/i V Ol- Idiirisi^ tub It III/ ■/')■/( v/i I. < o/' h'j- 
 
 I t'tlf(H\i, 
 
 P,:,:,<h„-ii 7V».s/.v.] - .\ testator, by his will, 
 iiia.le an alisolute gift of all his pro|ierty to his 
 w ife, subject to the payment of delits, legaeicH, 
 fiiiier.d and testamentary expenses, and by a 
 sub-eipieiit clause provided as follows : " .\nil 
 it is my wish and desin., after my decea.a., that 
 my saiil wife, shall make a will dividing the real 
 ;uid jiersonal estate ami etreets hereby devisi.d 
 and bi.i|Ueathed to her among my said ehihlren 
 in sueh manner as she shall deem just and 
 eipiitahle ■' : Held, .dlirming the decision of 
 FerL'Uson, .1., reported 17 < '. H. olS (Hobert.son, 
 .1., dubil.nitei. that this did not (.reale a jire- 
 ,.atory tru.st. and that the wife took the property 
 absolutelv. I'd Movd, ('.— If the entire in- 
 terest ill the .subject of the gift is given with 
 .suiieradded words i.xiircssing the motive ol the 
 gift, or a eontident expectalinu that the subject 
 will be aiiplied for the benefit of partieuUr per- 
 sons, but witliout i'. ti-rnis utring down the 
 intcnst before giv <.-:;, it v ill not now he hi.|d, 
 without more, that a trust has been thereby 
 
 
2187 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2188 
 
 as 
 
 
 3» 
 
 OD 
 K 
 > 
 IB 
 
 (•ieiit(?(I. Ill ic Ail.iiMs mill tlif Kiii.siiiL'tnii 
 V.'stry, -JT <li. 1>. H'.tl. .iiid In ic I •i;,'u'l'^. < 'H- 
 j;tiry c. MiIiihiiicIsum, I!'.I ( li. I>. "J.^.S, spiiially 
 rt'feriX'ii to :u\>[ foll.iUnl /.'((;(/.■ o/' Mmdi-Kil \. 
 //o/'-i,-, IS (). l;. •.'■.'li. ( liy. II. 
 
 'I'llC lIkUI;;!' Ill tlu' (Ulll lit I'f ili'ii>ili|l nil till' 
 
 Kulijri.^t of |iiciatiii V I iu>Im rclii.u U< il ii)iciii. .^'. 
 
 ('., IT (>. i;. .".IS. 
 
 Ill III In- in I iiilri-i •'.] \ toliitciiilfviscil 1(1 Iniir 
 iicplicw.s aiid.i ^iiuiiliK.)ilic'\\ , tlii'ii' lii'ii's, cMrii- 
 t(>i-<, .•Kliiiiiiislr.itoi.-., anil :issii;iis, nil his real 
 ainl [ic'ismial |iiii|i(ity, sliair and xliaiv alilir, 
 111)1)11 tni.si, that till y, di- thi' ^iiiviviiis nr siir 
 vivor (if tlifiii, sliDiild (lilt (if till' s.iiiK " suilalilc 
 and Will " .sii].|i,,| t his \\ ifc diiriiij; licv natiiial 
 life in a.s coiiitnilalilc a ]i(isil ion as sUi' \\ as I Inn 
 ill « itii liiln. lie aiiimintid liis.said four iii'iilii'U ■ 
 iXLciitcis (if his « ill. Tiic iilaiiilill'and Ihr i\f 
 fondants, tlli' said drvi-i is and the rilhcr (lifcii 
 (laiits were all in phew s and nicies of the 
 lestaliir and would liavc lireii ( i. it lid to slian 
 in the estate in ease' of the te^t.-itor d.\ in^ in- 
 testate. 'I'lie ltstatoi"s « ife died liefore liilli : 
 Held 'Ainioiir, .1., dissciitiiif,'), that the di visees 
 took the lieiielicial interest in the estate, leal 
 and personal, share ami share alike. I'er 
 Ariiiiiur, J. 'I'lie eleation of the trust in favour 
 of the wife was the .sole ol'jeet of the devise and 
 the testator never inteinUii the devisees to take 
 l)elletiiially. lUillnril v. .S7.„-. ,-, ltd. I!. l."i;!. 
 (,t. I!. I>. 
 
 I'oin r lo Sill, Liiiii i.r .l/i.c/;/-)./. . | A testa 
 tor ilevised to his wife for life a paivel of land 
 " with the poweroi s>>le at aii.\ time diiiinj; her 
 life, sulijeel to tin (.oliselit of my eXieuiois." 
 Three eNe.iitoi's >Ki re appointed liy the w ill, om 
 of whom dieil, A eontrait tor sali' of ^lart of the 
 land havilij; lueli euti red into, it wis olijected 
 by the purehaser thai the eoils-«)il of the two 
 .surviving executors was not siirtieieiit : Held, 
 that in the coiillntim; state oj the aulliorilies 
 upon llie (lUestioii, the title was not one w hull 
 the eourt would fiii-e upon i punliastr ; Held, 
 also, that uiidi i smli a [ou r tin land eniild In 
 .sold in parrels. /.'-■ .1/". A'l/./.. I (». K. !M. 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 J. hy his will devised to I.'., liis wif". all his 
 reiil estate in L. "during' he.- r.aliiial life, for 
 the use and supporl of Inrsclt and f.iiiiily. .iiid 
 ill ease II. should al any tune think |iroper to 
 Hi'U my s.iid I .-tate, it shall In I lie duly of my 
 e.teeutnrs to sell the same w itl her eousiiil. and 
 tUo pi'oei Isthel'eof to lie disti llillli'd as follow.s," 
 (ild. : " Itiitifii. should not think piii[ier to sell 
 my said estate, tlnii tlu^ same shall he divided 
 cHiionj^st my ehildien tlu'ir heirs or assit'iis, aflcr 
 the ileatli of H., share iini' share alike." He 
 then noiuinated I', exeeiilor ol hi.s will, "'with 
 full power and aiithorilj to act in the same." 
 J. died in 1H:{.S. leaviii;.' "ll, and three eliildn n 
 him siirviv iiiu'. 1'. took out inohate. In l.slii. 
 If. liy deed i ouve-yed her estate in the 1,-inds for 
 £!.')<)" to 1'. Und. I I his deed I', olilained posses 
 i»iou, which hi retained till his deiUli in IsS'J, 
 whi-ii he di'viMjil the laud to K. in trust fm the 
 pur|)ose of his will, of wliieli he made K. ex- 
 ecutor. H. died ill Is7-J, and this iietiou w .-is 
 coiiiiiieiii-ed ill l!SS,'{. hy oii(> of .I.'s ehildrin. 
 claiming.' .-in aecoiint ai,'aiiist K. of the jirolits ol 
 the lands, and to liavi' the same sold, and the 
 prtteeeds tlisti iliuted nceording to .I.'s will: — 
 
 Held, allirmili',' the (leei.sion of Osier, .1. ,\ , th.it 
 I', roilld lint lie s.iid to hav-e lieen .'in expii.s.^ 
 
 tnistic within 11. S. ().. (Is77)e. los, s. •Mi. -ii„| 
 tliiit liein:,' so, the plaint ill's ,-iet ion was Imrn d Kv 
 the Statute of laniitations. 'I'lie proper eoiisti in'- 
 ti.iii to he ])l.-i(-ed on the will w-is, that a life i si:a.. 
 was yiveii to II. with a power of sale to 1' ilm-. 
 iiiu' lier life lime with Inr eonseiit, and tin ir- 
 mailider in fee to the ehildren ill the evi nl nl 
 lion I'vi-ciilion of the power: that unless . inl 
 until the eonseiit of the widow was j^'iven. llii. 
 liower of sale did not exist, and the exeeiitm ii nl 
 no duty to perform in relation to the lands : -uid 
 he did not lake, nor w.is it lieeessary for lillii In 
 take, the le;;al estate; that as he never was u-. 
 i|ilir(il to exei-llte the power. In- liev i-r lieiami. 
 tiiiMie. .Ii.lni^oii V. Ki-iiiii'i-. S (). K. |!t:|. 
 ( hy. 1). 
 
 .\ le^l.itor hy his will direrled his exei-iilcis 
 to p.iy all his delits, etc., oiitof his estate, 'rinu 
 lollovi 111 s|iii ilii' dev ises of his est.'ite to his u ilr, 
 childieii and mpln-ws, and a direetion tn In- 
 exci-iitors to sell the chattels, eNieptiiii. tin 
 lioii.-ehold fiirnitlirc lici|iii allied to his wite. mil 
 out of the proiii-ds to pay the delits and to in- 
 vest the lialaiiee for the lieiielit of the wile nil 
 ehildren. IJy a eodieil he diri eted his |.x( riiici,, 
 if necessary, to sell in tliir liist place li.i .\, 
 spei'ilieally devised as aforesaid, to pay oil ,iir, 
 delits or ini-iinihranees ac;ainst his estate : .ni.l 
 in the cv. lit of sii- h sal;' liein.L; insiiliieieiil In pi. 
 Slid delits, etc. , thin in the next place to ill 
 and dispose of lot I!, also so speeilic.dly dev i-' ■!. 
 'I'lie exeeiltnl's liefori' disposing of lots .A.aml II. 
 sold to defendani the c|(,\\ ii,u tiinhcr on lot 1 . :i 
 lot spei'itic.'illy di'vised to the pl.-iintiir«. tin .i.'- 
 teiidant pnreliasiiii.' in c(,.-„l faith and en Ins 
 solii'iloi's advice that the executors Iniil llii' 
 li^ht 111 SI 11 to ])ay delits : and delenilinl elil. i. il 
 and cut down and carried away the tiiniirr. 
 Siilisi'i|iieiitly the defendant |iureli,iM'd th. I.nnl 
 lioin the nioiti^a^ees thi'i'i'iif, the land h i\ Mr,' 
 liccii illollL'a>.:eil liy testator. 'I'lie plailil iH.~. at 
 I lie te-tator's deeea e, were uinlci aiie, and linl 
 not liccome of ,'iL,'e until after the trespass cum 
 phiincd of. when they liroueht tn-spass a,e iii>i 
 defeiiihint cl limine; as daniaL,'es the valiU! of i lu- 
 tiinlier so i-iit 'I'liere was no ciitrv or po-^is 
 sion tikcn liy pliiiiitiUs heiore action .niii- 
 inciiced : Held, per Kose, ,1.. (1) th.it the -eii. 
 eld l:Mie|iai,'c of the will was i-onlrolled hv tiic 
 ciidieil. and so the dehts were not i-hafeed nii 
 the iinajipKipriated estates; and therefore ilic 
 cNecutols had no lioWer to sell the t niliir mi ilic 
 land III (|iiestioii : i'l) that it a power of sale h,is 
 U'ivell to 1 he executors it could not In- c\clii-ril 
 
 until after the lands spei'itieall.y ,-ippi iipn.ili'il 
 had lieeii sold ; and (li) that the pniehasei. nut 
 shielded hy s. 'M\ of •_'!! \'ie-i. e. I'l) i()nt.>. ^^..^ 
 lioiiiid to see that the (lower was ri:,ditlv ' >' 
 eised. />■('/•</• v. .1////-, II (). W. •J,-),'!,' C. 1'. Ii. 
 
 l!ie|ii ill (■xeciltois to moituKge. .See /.'■'■t"il 
 mill I iiiiiiilii l.iinii mill Aiji inii f'n. v. W'nll'U', 
 S (>. K. ,'i:!!), p. '.'(IT."); (lonliiii v.' (iDnlim, 11(1 l;. 
 
 (ill ; I'JO. It. .■):i:!. p. -JOT.-.. 
 
 \ testator dil ecleil his executors to pay all liis 
 ■- uiiui.i' eliar,i;(-s :inil just di'hts." 'I'lie risiilnc 
 of his estate and property not re(|iiired fur lliit 
 purpose he disposed of as follows: To his vvifi' 
 all his household fnrnitliie. his pew in a iialiii-il 
 chiireli, and all cash in hand at his ileeeaM'. .-il^" 
 to his wife the entire, exclusive und uiidivi Inl 
 
218? 
 
 2189 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2190 
 
 liiiii of Osier, .1. A , tliiii 
 
 1 lulVC llCCII .'III l-X])ll>M 
 
 (ls77)c. KIS, s. 'M). .ni.l 
 ill's iictioli WiiM UuiMc 'I l.\ 
 IS. 'I'liu iiiiipcn'oiistiiir. 
 V ill WIS, tliiit :i life cst.iti-- 
 [Kiwcl' of siilr to I', iliir- 
 (■!• <Minsi'iit, mill tlic II'- 
 
 ■llillll'CII ill till' C'MHl lif 
 
 DWcr : tliiit iiiilc-s . ml 
 I' willow was ^iviii, tlir 
 ist, anil tlii'i'Xi'ciitoi li:iil 
 [■liitioii to till' liniils ; :iiiil 
 s it iici'cssiiry for iiiin to 
 lliat as liu iir\c'r was i,.. 
 
 lourr, III' IH'Vrr 111'' ;nui 
 
 \ ,■'■„,■ r. s (). K. I'.l.'i. 
 
 I ilirrcU'il liis cxri'lilors 
 ., oiitof IiIh I'slatc. 'I'lii'ii 
 s of liis ('stall' to his w itr, 
 , and a itirci'lion to Ins 
 
 <'liutti'l.s, cxi'i-ptin;.; I In: 
 |inatln'il to liis \mIi'. uhI 
 |iay till' ilrlits ami to In- 
 ' lii'iirlit of till' will ml 
 111' (lirirti'il his t'xr. iit"i-. 
 in tho lii'st plarr h'l A, 
 afoli'saiil, to pay oil .iiiy 
 I af^ainst his cslatt' : mii.1 
 \i- 1-ri'iiio insiillii-'ii'iit lo |i;i> 
 111 till' lu'Xl ]ilari' to ill 
 Iso so spi'cilii-'.iily ilr\ i" ''. 
 lisposiiiL' of lots A ;iii'i li. 
 'VoM iiiu liiiilirr on lol ( . .'i 
 to till' pl.iinl ill's, till- 111'- 
 n l;o.ii1 faith ami on lii< 
 ihi' cxciiitois Inil nil' 
 Is : ami lU't'cliilanl riii' '' il 
 arrii-'il away lin- tiihl" r. 
 mlant imrcli isiil tli l.iinl 
 
 tlu'ri'of, thi' laml h imt^ 
 stalor. 'I'Ih' plaiiilill-. at 
 
 NVL'ir nnilii a-r, ami 'iiil 
 il afdr till' li'ispass c mi 
 
 • hroiij^ht Ircsjiass ii^:;iiiisl 
 ilainau'is tin' valuo of I in' 
 
 • w.'is no iiilry or po-^rs 
 
 ititl's llrlolr aiiioll '"111- 
 Itosi', .1., (1| that till -I'M- 
 lill was oontrolU'il h> Im' 
 .'hts worn not rhar;;i'l "" 
 'stalt's ; anil tln'rofoii' llio 
 I'l- to si'll the t'lnhi:l'iiii llli' 
 that it a power of salr uas 
 .s it i.'ouhl not 111' rxrni.-iil 
 i spi'L'ilii.'ally apiiropruiiiil 
 :V) that the piiii'liasir, imt 
 •J'.l N'iei. e. -'I (Out.), ""* 
 ' power was riL^litly im" 
 
 's 11 (). K. -ra c. r. i' 
 
 to nioOigage. .See l.'u.ilini 
 ,1.1 .\<ii,h'ii Cii. V. W^li'Vi, 
 
 t;,i,;luii V.' (:n,;tnn, 111" l;. 
 
 I his rxrriltors to pay .ill liis 
 il |iisl ilehts." 'riieivsiiliii! 
 perty not ri'ipiireil for lint 
 
 of as follows ; To his wili' 
 nitiire. his ))ew in a naiiail 
 
 in hand at his decia^i'. •il'^" 
 I', exrlusive ami iinili\ i li'il 
 
 ,,,eof his h.mse siti.ate I't,'., to hi.'hitliisame sary to a .sile. //, n.n,,l,\ Tn,.,< |,Jn 1' 
 iluiinu her natural life, then the proi'i'i'ils to he -l'.'!). i',i'.iis,,ii. 
 I'lpiallyiliv idi'd.ete..hi' also;.'aveand heipii'.ithed 
 
 till- iiroi'ieiis of the honieste.id to he eipially '"^ee .lA',,,,-, \. .1/,/;,/,. ;j ( ), |j I7|, |,. O'joi . 
 ill\ ideil. etc. 'I'liere well' other lamls not imii //'.,''"'""" V. 'I'uijl.r. I." ( ), il. (17(1, p, v.'l)7.'l. 
 liolieil in the will : Held, thai lievertlliless . n ■ I 
 
 the executors eoiild K'^'' 'I f."'"d til le tn thiiii to .''"'",'.'"■'' '" ''." ■'^"'■';/":/' ^. I I'li'lei a oer- 
 tlic puiehasei', fur the .'il.ove words clearly iin- \'!"' "'" ""' ''.^"'■"•'■i-< "'■H' ilirectcd to sell and 
 ported an inleiition Ih.il the dehts shoiiid he '''■'I'""'' "' •' '''im ■'cither at )inhlic orpriv.it 
 p.ii.l lirst out of the estat'i and propertv of th,' ■*■'''■■'■■< '" *■'"'" may seem hc-l for the price, an. I 
 icslator: this I'l-cated a eharu'e of dch'ls upon ""'■'"' "'"''t '"'^''id i^'cons term.-; that rcisonahlv 
 Ins hinds .ind the mere failure of the Icst.itor to ''■'" '"' "''* '|i>';''l ''"'■ Hi" •■< nm' :" Held, that tin- 
 
 cm 'r.ite all his l.'inds in the siihsi omnt p.iil I'"" '■''.'" ^'I' '"^'"l^ >-"l a power to .secure part of 
 
 of the will hv which thc-e was an intol.icy as ^'"' \><"'' >'>■»«■•'»■* "t a iiiurt-a-e on the pr... 
 to the jrirt in ipii'stj ,„ in this action did not de- ' '.".■'''■^' ''."'''' ''",' "'■"""■'' "f «'ili' '"inj; Idt to the 
 tl.ict from the conclusion that all the lands were ''i'*''''''!"" "' Hi" Iriislees. II. <;,nhnm Cu„h;ni, 
 siieh.ir-ed. The direclion that his dehts should '"• ''•''"■ l'".^''- 
 
 I,i',„.id l.yhis executors conferred an iuiplied : /,„■,.,,„,„ ,„■ s.r.nll.s]. The testator, a 
 power ol sa c upon hem for the purpose ot ,,',,•. ,„,i,,,,„, „f ,„„ano, hut tetuporarily resideii in 
 ,,„- the del, s on of he proc.'ds : I eld, also. x,.w V„rh. uas pos.se.s.scd o real and personal 
 that apar Iron, the a hove ! S. .. c. 1( ,, s I!. ,,,„,,.,,,, „ ,„„.' ,io, ami also of |.ers,.„al pro- 
 CO ercil he c.isc. | he cstator i.id not indee'l , ,,,,,y i„vi'stcil in Cnited .Sfnles securities. ' I'.v 
 within the mcaniiiu' ol that .section devised he l.iswilihe named one resilient of the rniled 
 real estate chii-cil m .such teriiis as that ln^ i ,St,acs , his hroiher-in.law) ami two persons resi. 
 whole estate and interest therein h.id hecome , ,K.„„ „,• n„tario. ,.,s his executor.s, to whom he 
 cspr, ssly vested Ml any trnstcc hut he had de- i I,,.,,,,,,,),,.,! ,ll his per.somd estate, up,,,, t,ust a.- 
 
 M,cd ,t to smh an exCt as t,, , ,',.:,|,. .-, ,.|ia,-e : „, ,, ,.„„ve„ic„tlv nii,d,lhc to sell, call in ami 
 
 thereon «liicl, the Act ini'llecl lraiismi,tesintoi,,„„vi',t into money simli put of his est.-.te as 
 atriistamlthercnpon clothes the executor u It h ,s|„,„l,l ,„,( ,.„„m.m' of momv, and thereout to 
 power to lully execute that t,'„st hv convey, n^' „,;.ki' c, ,t.,i„ paviuents, and invest I he l,:ilaiiee 
 
 t ic whoh' esiatc ol the tcl.Kor. er Karloii. ,,f ,„,,, , .j.,-j„ ,„, „„ ,j„^, „f j,,,. ,,,,;,. 
 
 .1. A , disse,,ii„._M„ ( i.urt ol Apped the charge ,,,„.!,, „,f,|,ids of the Di.liiinion of Caiiada.of 
 imiM' only hy ,niplicalioi, and niieht he eon- ' the Province of Ontaiio, or up..,, Canadian 
 trolled or en ai-.'il l.y suh-eipu'nt exp,'e.ss,o„s in ! ( ;„ve,„i„ci,t or real .securities in the Province of 
 till' will, and iiiMrht [her foie, perhaps, he ex : o„,;i,.jo, or in or upon the ilchentiires of anv 
 tcmlcd to lauds which the testator disi.osed of „„„iieip.,lilv within the Pi'o\i„ce of Olilaiio 
 hy the will, hill the wl| contuo-d no expn <. .,|,„-,,s ,id, o'r in -a- iipiai the shares, stock-, ..r 
 sioii imlie.iiiii- ,111 inienlii.n to chii 'jc the de „,,.„|.i,i,..s ,,f .,„v hink. iiicorpor.ited hv Ad oi 
 scemled l.'inds. iind the executors ems. ipiently p,,|li iment of C-'iuada. iriviui; a divi.lciid. with 
 
 '■;"!''' ;'"' 'ii'ikc;. - '.,"'■'■■, ',;■■''■■ •^''"""■■. pow er to vary the. s.-dd stocks, fimd-.dcheulurcs. 
 
 '^ " ''' "'• l'">d: 111 A. 1!. ):"l shares and securities: ''Anl as respects my 
 
 I ,. ,. , . , .. , , ,. .,, .\im',-ic,i,, securities, hivii,:.' the fullest CO, ili !enci. 
 
 • I. ( . 1 1 11" I 111 s, ., , li:i\ , 10^ li\ I,- v\ 1 II I'll- ,1 ■ , , , . , ., .., , ■ I i\- 1- 
 
 ., , .. ,, , . , ■ ,, , 111 lie (,d:;i,,i'l,t a,,d ,,iti"_',lt V oMlie s.iid W . I'.. 
 
 vi'iei! as to !.pw ^ : ■■ .\ii.i \\ I. leis tmuh c ,, i .i • i i.' , i i , 
 
 , . , , ., I ., 111. h,'otl,er-,i,-l.iw aii'l tia-l.'c. I ,|i,'e I m .• 
 
 iiiis .■iri-e aiiioiiL; iii\ nn; \ vut i rciian o t e , ,' , i ,.; i i ,; i i i- ■ i . 
 
 ' ..,1 ■ t rii-l' es to lie liuiileil enllielv i>\ Ins inUiucnt 
 
 p|ii,le,'t\ M,i iici oll,,t ot ,1s llCie pill out , ,i . ,•, , . l . ' ; ": , ,,l . f 
 
 '. I ■ .. ,1 r ' 1^ lo t he s lie, ills losal ami rc,,i\ cstiiicil I liercol 
 
 I. the power o my tri,s,ccs to sell m di<p,.>c ot ,„ ,,„, ,,,,,„j,ti, '„f the s „„e , , he a;,d H' iiaili 
 
 ti,i'proocrl>, I lierchy order, dir.ct. .n,'! lully ,. ,|rv a, c until mat urilv tlen-of, :u,d I d-ckue 
 
 loilhori/e at and .-iftcr Iwenty veils alter my that mv said l,-„.stees or i r.ist.c -hail ict hce- 
 
 ";■'"'■ •"•^, ""■-'•v; to.-disollitelysclland ,.„„„ii;|,. f„, „„v h-.ss to he ocei-i.'Uc 1 therel.v ': 
 
 dispose ot my Slid pii'j.irty m I. to ihehe-t ,,,.,,|^ ,,,^,, this did not autlioi'i/... llm , '..invest 
 
 ailvantaiic, provided o,dx t hat it In lie w,-h ol ,,,„,,, „,. ,„„|„,^.^ I'calized on the sale or nialMriiiK 
 
 a m,i|o,ity ..| my lies who m,,y the, he hvo,-. ,„■,„„. „f , |„.s'e securities in tie ruit-d States, 
 
 ^"''"^" ■■"."' ' th.iwi-e. etc In IS-.,.,'! |,„, ,i,;„,i„.„vec,itorswre hound to lain- them 
 
 nil I'll, ,^ of ,1 I l,'jc ,,, ij.ait V of thosi' iute, e-'.d 
 
 into thi- 'oiiiitrN-, and iiives, vlieii, in one o,' 
 
 was held, and i! was dci.jcd to sell hy piii.lic „,|„., „,■ ,i„. sccuiities enumerate I hv He tes, a- 
 
 aiicl,,,,,. (1,1 a„ appl,iat,o„ hy the pl.iiiitills ^^^^.^ /,•„,.,.;// v. /;,o'///'. •J7 Ciiv. It.!. I'l aid 
 
 w II" w ei'e t ,,istei'S for one ot the licii s ,i,id leplc- .'^ . 
 
 sell ted only a om'sixlh shai i 1 he propel ty for 
 
 the usual Older for parlirtoii and sile. which See also Ti:i-Ts axo Tkistij;-. \ 1. '.i. p. 'JO.i'.l. 
 w,is I'csi-ted hv .'1 niajoritv of the hells. It was ■ ... , i .i • 
 
 Held, that the land iiri|llcstioiiW,-,sV.-.ieil in ()lh. ,■ C,,.... AXy'.Ud.V, ^^{U^-U.iU.uUuuii 
 
 the tinvlco on the cxiu'css trust to sell at the t" '''- "H" '"^ dwcllui-house and Inrmtille am 
 
 end ollwcntv veal's from the testato,'-s death, ■"! annuity, eont iiuie.l as lollows: - -ive ami 
 
 pMvided.i nriioritv of the hei,'s were in favour lic.|Ucatl, unto C. I.., and her chd lidi, t U' 
 
 of ,1 sale, which w.i's p,",vc,|, and that the juris- dwdhn- Imus.' they me.v occupy, the 
 
 iliction to iiirtition was ousted. /,V /V,),,,- «>l.;'il ( . P. I! . ami his cli,ldre,i, appointin,, 
 
 chiMr. 11 ahovc mcitioiiL'd, and i^.ilW, all transae- 
 Whei'i' a will devised kinds lo the executors timis to h,' null and void unless sustained in 
 0,, trust til sell the same : Held, that the else writin- hy holli cuiirdialis." And in the 10th 
 was not within section ,S of the Devolution of clause of i, is will he said : " 1 will and hciiileath 
 Kst.ites Acts, and the approval of the ollicial , unto each of my ^jrandchililreu livrii; at my 
 guirdian or an order of the court was imt neees- 'death sluil." ('. P. P. Wiis a son of tie testator, 
 
 ,il 
 
2191 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2192 
 
 3 
 
 ft: 
 a:.' 
 
 IS 
 
 m 
 
 uu<] liail cliililivn living at the tcHtator'ti ilcatli : 
 Ifclil, tiiiit tlio c:liil(|ri'ri incuiit \vei'tj tlxMi' i)f 
 ( '. K, IS. iiinl a. IS., ami tliuiu wan a siiii[>!e ^'ift 
 tod. li. ami licrcLililrt'ii, u ho took oonciiireiitly ; 
 ami (.'. li. I>. and ('>. I!. wtMC, hy tlio u))ovi; 
 clause, luailu tnistticH for their cliililrun, ami 
 oouM give a good ai'iniittanen ami discharge for 
 the 8'(MI, liut they WL'ri' not antliorizcd to rucoivu, 
 and coidd not give a good accpiit tance for, the 
 inoncyH iMMpicaf hed to tlicir children in the Kith 
 clause. J II ri' liiijiiar-livjijav v. SIUikou, 8 O. 
 I!. .'{72. — FerguHon. 
 
 In another clauHu of liiu will, the testator 
 willed and lie(|neathed " nnto <l. (;. It.'s wife, 
 v.. I>., $ri,'i(MI. This l)e(|iuiHt In under thu joint 
 nian;igenu nt of (■. (i. I>. an<l his wife for tlicir 
 heirs, should theie he none, then at their death 
 to revert Kaek to my heirs to lie e(|ually divi- 
 <led": -Held, that there was a trust of tin; 
 .'*.">,')0() reiM.sid in <;. <i. IV and V.. M. ; thiit K. 
 15. w;.R eiitit led to the lieiietit of the trust during 
 her life, ami upim her death the henefit of it 
 woidd goto any children there might he of (i. 
 <1. and K. li. .oi' liny descendants there might 
 lie answeiing the desciiption "their heirs," and 
 if there weie no such chililren or tlescen<lants, 
 thi'U to th.' heir.s of the t(^Htator, to lie ei|ually 
 diviiled amongst them. //>. 
 
 Anothi'r clause was as follows: "1 will .ind 
 l>ec|ueath nnto M. H. M.'s wife and his heirs 
 ■S'l.fMM), and apiioint .\l. I!. 1?. as gu.irdian and 
 numagerof this liei|Uest" : Meld, that a trust of 
 thc> .S"),(MlOwas therehy reposed in M. I!. I'>. ,aud 
 "heirs" was meiily descriptive of the legatees 
 intended. .M. K. IJ. was entitled to tecei\(t the 
 fund and hold it in trust. I hiring his life his 
 ^^ife \vo\dd he entitleil to the wliolc liemllt aris- 
 ing fmni the fund, and on his death tlierc^ would 
 lie a distriliution of it aumngst his wifi^, or her 
 1 e]Hesent:itives, as tlie case might he, and those 
 persons who would answer- tln^ desitription of 
 luiiso, M. I!. 1$. : and M. I!. I'.., as such trustee, 
 was entitled to receive, and cordd give! a good 
 acc|ruttaiice and discharge for-, the money. Ih. 
 
 .Sue lii-ys' lliimi of lln; Cil;/ oj //miii/toii v. 
 A' (/•/•.v, 4 < ). U. IS, p." •JIMO : /(( /■- llomiiiK's iiiid 
 Smith. S r. \K. W-l'A, ]). •-•174 ; rltinin-U v. Clmr- 
 /<W.v, 10 (». H. 7.'{S, 1). -JOGS. 
 
 (I) (liriiiij Itl'jht to I'lirrlmse. 
 
 A testator- directed that "in case any one of 
 the ahnve rramed t liree legatees hi- ahle ami will- 
 ing to Imy the hiirn, as aforesaid, at the |)rice 
 <il .'*4.tKllt. rrry executor's lri:reaftei- named shall 
 so sell said farrrr.'' Kach of the thr'ee legatees 
 claimed the right to pur-ch ise the faiirr ; -Held, 
 nrrder these circiim.stances, that the exeeutor-s 
 we|-e precluded fi-<ini carrying out this di|-ectioii 
 of th(^ will, anil that they must .sell the estate 
 .-irid divide the j)rocee(ls hetween the i)ar'ties in- 
 ter-csled. iiocoKling to another pr-ovision of the 
 will. ./(://•/>?/ v. ,S'(-((//, L'7 C'hy. .SU. — Hlake. 
 
 The testator was seized of certain lamls which 
 wvvii srd)jeet to incnmlnarrces, and liy Iris will 
 diiected the same to he sold if his sorrs irr sm-- 
 ce.ssion shonhl not icdeem. On, of the sons, R., 
 to whoirr the lir-st privilege of i-edec!ning was 
 given, availed hirrrsi-lf thereof, and rcileeiued the 
 pr'ojrer-ty, which was subject to certain eliarges 
 irn[i().sed hy the w'", in addition to the incuni- 
 
 bianeeH;--Hidd, that the rightto redeem wasin 
 etl'eet a right to purehiise, as the mortgages ivml 
 ehar-ges created by the will anuuinted to alMirit 
 UH nriieh lut the land wax worth ; uml that H. 
 had aei|iiii-ed a good title fr-eu fi-oiii any claim of 
 Ilia lir'oiheiH ; and IiIh hrotheru having institrrtcd 
 ))roccedingH iigainat him idaiining an interest in 
 the nutate that ho was entitled to recover hia 
 eostH, not out of the estate of the testator but 
 from the plairitiirH personally. SlerciiKon v, 
 SUftiii'/n, 28 {.'hy. 2,'J'2.— I'loiriifoot. 
 
 (m) lic'iiiesf^ nf Pemonalty. 
 
 A testator he(|ueathed to his two dauirhters 
 ' (hotli of whom were married and had ehililr(ri 
 I at the time of his will) the sum of .SI, 000 each, 
 charged upon lrin n.-alty, which hcdevisiMl. sucli 
 sums to lie iirvi;sted in harrk stock, aird the in- 
 terest accririiig tlrereorr to he paid to his dairgh- 
 ter-a durirc.; their- iratrrral lives, ami ,-ifter their 
 <lecease directed \\\i',aii sums to he eiprdly di- 
 vided nrrro'.gHt their hiui-s. liy a codicil, the 
 testator dir-ecftid that, should his real estate he 
 sold, the .?*J,00t( might remairr on rrrortgane at 
 iirterest, )iayalile lralf-ye:irly to the daiiLihtei-s, 
 and when the 'uortgage sirould he paid. Iris exe- 
 crrtor-s wer-e to have full power to iirvest that 
 sum in honrestcads for his daughter-s, should 
 they desire to do so: — Held, that the dan:.'h- 
 ter-s took a life estate, with i-crnaiirdei-s to tlicir 
 heirs as iHircliaser-s, I'mjirM v. /^oir/loan, '21 
 Cliy. iir>9. — Proudfoot. 
 
 Hy his will.). II. A. direoted : — " Until the ex- 
 j)ir-atiori of foiri- years from the time of luy de- 
 cease, ami until the divisiorr of my cstituas 
 her'einaftei- diiected, my execntoi-s shall every 
 y(!ar place to the cr-cdit of each of nry childi-eri 
 the surrr of .sixteen Irrrndr-cd dollars, .-iinl if any 
 of my children sli.-dl have dii-d. leaving; jssire, 
 then a like sum to and arrifing the issue of the 
 child so dyirrg, such surrr of si-^tceii huMdr-ed dol- 
 1 lars to he paid liy half-y<^;ir-ly instahirents to 
 ! such of niy cliildien as shall he of age or he 
 rrrarrie<l ; hut if airy advances shall have lieeii 
 made to .-.ny of therrr, an<l inter-est shall he due 
 th(M'eon, srrelr interest to he dcdircteil Irorn the 
 said sum of .sixtcurr hundred dollars. As r-ogards 
 I tlr(' d'.isiorr, apiu-ojiriation, .ind rrltiirratc diaiio- 
 ! sition of rrry estate, it is my will that, sirlijeitto 
 ! th(.' payment of my just dclits and legacies, hc- 
 I (|Ucsts and annuities, I have ht'r-etofure given 
 or may her-eafti-r uive, ami to the expenses of 
 , the marrageiiicnt of iiiy estate, .-dl the rest, resi- 
 due and reniaindei^of my i-stitc, and the inter- 
 est, inci'ease and accumula) inrr thei-i'of, he dis- 
 trilnited, settled, paid and disposed of, to and 
 among rrry children who may he alive at the 
 time (if the division and appropiialiou iirto 
 shares of my estate her-ciuiu'ter drici-tcd, .-lad 
 ■ the issui! thi-rr living of sirclr of my cjiilhca ii8 
 riray he then dead, at the time rrril in the rniin- 
 nei- following, that is to say : That inline- 
 diatcly on the expii-ation of foui- years fr-oiii my 
 de.ith, my executors, after- rnaUirrg such jiriivi- 
 -iorr as may he neeessar-y for the payiueiit of any 
 delita and legacies that may ho outstaiiiling and 
 unpaid, ami of outstanding annuities, arnloftlie 
 expense of the management of my estate, shiiU 
 divide all my renraining estate into as many just 
 and eipral sli:iies as the nurnher of my then sur- 
 viving ehildi-en, and of my children who shall 
 
m^ 
 
 2192 
 
 le right to rcdeum was in 
 e, 118 tlie nioi'tgiiKcs and 
 A'ill ainouiittMl to iiIkmU 
 fiix wiirtli ; unci tli.it R. 
 e free fi'Din any claim of 
 otlitTH iiaviiiK iiiHtitutcd 
 , <:laiiiiiii)i; nil intiTc'ft in 
 entitleil to rL'i'over liis 
 tate of the tentator but 
 ursonally. SlereiiKoii v, 
 — I'l'oudfoot. 
 
 (■;/■ /'n-sonnlfi/. 
 
 L'd to iii.s two <lauu]iti'rs 
 arried ami lia<l i^liildrcu 
 lh(! HUin of ?!1,()()0 cat'h, 
 , whicii iiudovimMl. sncii 
 1>aiil< Htii('l<. ami tlio in- 
 to l)L' paid to hin daii;j;h- 
 -al lives, and after their 
 
 HUiiis to lie eiiudly di- 
 icirw. I>y a eodiitil, the 
 sliould liis real eHtate he 
 
 ri'inaiii on niorty;au'e at 
 ye;irly to tlie dam.diter.s, 
 
 • Hhoidd lie paiil. his exe- 
 idl pnwer to invest that 
 
 • luM daughters, nhnidd 
 -Held, that the ilauiih- 
 with remainders to tlieir 
 
 ItmiirH V. Ijiiirlhinii, 27 
 
 iireoted : — " Until the ex- 
 friiin the time of my dc- 
 diviiiiiin of my estite as 
 ly exeuiitors shall every 
 tdf eaeli <if my liiildreu 
 ndri'd didlars, and ii any 
 lave died, leaving' issue, 
 1 anion;,' I lie is-sue of tlie 
 til of sixteen hniwlred dol- 
 df-yearly instalments to 
 lis shall lie <if a;;e nr lie 
 .dv.iiiees shall have been 
 and interest shall he due 
 to li(! dedneted Iroiii the 
 iidred dollars. As reiianls 
 tion, and ultimate disiio- 
 s my will that, suhjei'tto 
 t delits and leuaeies, he- 
 I have heretiifdie ^iven 
 
 and to tlii^ expenses of 
 
 estate, all the rest, lesi- 
 my e.st ite. and the iiiter- 
 iniilalian theri'of, lit; dia- 
 
 and <'.'.s|iosed of, td and 
 hii may lie alive at the 
 
 and a|i|iro)itiaticiii into 
 lereinal'tei' diieeieil, and 
 if sneh (if my children ii8 
 the time iiid in the man- 
 is to say : 'I'h.'it inline- 
 ion of four years from my 
 niter making' sikOi (irovi- 
 jy for the payment of any 
 t may he oiitst.uidin^' and 
 i(liii;,'aiimiities, and of the 
 inent of my estate, shall 
 ^' estate into as many just 
 ;! nuiiiher of my then sm- 
 f my chihlreii who shall 
 
 2193 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2194 
 
 liefore them have died, having IftV'f.il issue then romaine.l on the land. The defendants inne.l ■ I 
 
 «urvivin«, Hhall amount unto, mid dwU appor- on the .-roun.l that if a„v fm he ," 
 
 tion nud set off on„ sueli share to each o'f my to he fim.ished it sl,o,d.?h 'l, ■' ^ZL IZ 
 
 said then surviving ehildreii, and one sneh share iiiiideiiieiits nureliased with the „.l. >i . i 
 
 to the lawful issue of eaeh of my then deceased sail, or olitalne,! liy til, ' ' "' "'" 
 
 children, wlio.se lawful issue sliall lie then sur- 
 viving, 111! the issue of each deceased child stanil- 
 ing in the jiliicc of such deceased child. And it 
 is my will, and I direct, tiiat from henceforth a 
 separate account shall he kept by my trustees of 
 eac li share, and of the interest and profit thereof, 
 ami the payments made to or on account of or for 
 the niaintenaiiee and education of eaeh of my 
 said children or issue, shall be charged against 
 
 • 1 . , .. , - , '••'"••hangedf tlustoekor 
 
 implements left by the testator ; which appeal 
 was dismissed, with costs. Ihnvhoi, v Oticv 
 •i!) Cliy. 4:W.- I'r.iudloot. ' 
 
 f<ill 
 
 owmg 
 
 Tiie will of a testator contaiiu^d tlie 
 clause : "To my danghters laienor ali.TJ'iary 
 Alarm 1 give, devise, and becineath tile interest 
 ot t iree thousand dolhirs each per annum, to lie 
 paid to each of them half yarly " :- Held, that 
 
 the share apportioned to such child or .lildren, j l, J„ ^'l'"-''''' '""" "" '>''8'>liitc interest in the 
 <ir wherein such issue shall be interested, so that i , J, -J^rj:," *" "''"^'' "^ ""^"'' •■'""" ''■ ^'I'TP'"''. 
 all aeciimulations and protits that may arise shall | ,, ,"„ .'.ii' '^^?' f""""'i-'d. .Vaimw v. Jciikim, 
 ennre to the ineroase of each sever.al share on ' '^- ""•"•- "loudfoot. 
 
 which such accumulation or profit shall accrue 
 it being my intention that after such division 
 
 A M-ill directed an executor to pay A. fur life 
 
 ,.,.,-, ^, . ^ , " the interest, dividends, and profits of certain 
 
 8halltakeplHee,tiemaintenaiice,education,and, stock, and of the moneys into which the sii I 
 !"!!'!!f ?.!..!!"?.." l"^..*:.-!?? ^,'''''" "I^'l«''^!"''I'''"'^'*'"'«'.'tl»'''l''"i««-'l-'^Snbseiiuentiyncwstock 
 
 age of twenty-one years shall be drawn fr.im the \ was issuc^d at par aiul eighteen shares all.itled to 
 separate income ot such child, and tlie mainte- 1 the executor. Not helm' ae.^ept.d these new 
 naueeand education of the children of any of I shares were sold and produced a iiremiuiu of 
 my children who may have before them <lied, I .S-J'.'fi.()7, which was credited to the executor •- 
 le.ivmg issue, shall b.! drawn from the share or! Ilehl, that the pieiiiinin was principal and tliat 
 shares set apart for the issue of such deccase.l A. was entitled onlv to the interest on' it .luriiiir 
 child or children. And that ny children, and her life. /{>■. Smith, H I'. U. im.-IVondfoot 
 such issue of deceased children being of age, '.,,..,,..,, 
 
 that is to say, of the age of twenty one years or i '•■*'*'"■*">■ ''/ his will gave all his property, real 
 when rcsiiectively they shall .attain the age „f i "■,'"' I'L'rsoiial, to trustets, directing that his wife 
 twenty-one years shall be severally entitled to : ''''.""''' '-^'ccive all rents and interest .luring 
 receive for tlicir own u.se the whole'of the inter- i "i''""'"""'' "'"• '<i't'l l'>< youngest chihl should 
 ests an<l protits of the share and proporti<in „f i ^'f'l'i- "' J>g« : that in case of her death <irniar- 
 my estate to which they may be respectively '"'«'' ''"'"'Y *'',",-\"""?.'''' '^'"''' ™inc of .age, his 
 entitled." On '.'(i(h Mav, 18(14, M. L A tes- P'".'l''''''>' •'*'>""'fl "" <livide(l cqu.iUy .nnong his 
 tator's daughter, m.arried ( '. If. :■'., appellant , V'''''''''-''\,"!\''n''.'' ;''^'''I''-'';'^'^';V' "'""''« ''^ ''«^'' '"''I 
 Testator died 24th l),eember, 1870. On -'oth "' <^':'8call his chihlren should die under age with- 
 August. 1872, te:;tator's .laughter ,licd, leavin- ""^ '«^i'y. their portions shonl.l lie. livi.le.l e.iually 
 three chil.lron, H. A. F., H, ]{. K.. and W s" ,,"""",« '"*' '"',".'''"■'■•'' "'"• «i''t'^''«- A letter was 
 F. On the 14tli September, 1877, H. A. F the ' ^""'."' '","""*'' '",'* P''I"-''> '''•'l'-'-'*'*'' to his wife, 
 eMest s.m ..f the app.dlant .•mil M. L. A., .lie.l ! f^'"*'' t'"''.'"; hi^dmade two wills, "one before 
 Ther.Mipoii the aiipcllant claimed that the three f '*'■'';'; """'•"•'''• ^^.l'''^'' '» to be considered void, 
 brothers t.iok their m.ither's share uii.ler the will ! !'"' V"' "*'' r '•'?'' *" 'n'>'l>f.V. "s U was written 
 as tenants in .ommon and, the property hein.' "" 'V","'''.V- } wish my dear wife an.l our chil.l- 
 
 personal property, 
 the appellant lii^t father 
 
 H. A. F.'s share vested i;;!'"" t<',l'avo all my property, to lie divide.l cjimlly 
 
 tion of the testator was that his cst.ite shoul.l he 
 divide.l, an.l that the children of the testator's 
 daughter i.iok as tenants in comm.iii, and con- 
 sequently on the dciitli of the eldest son the 
 whole right, title an.l interest in his share, 
 veste.l in the apiicliant. Fislnr v. Amlfraoii, 4 
 S. C. I!. 40(). 
 
 t^Vl.l tl,.,f tlw. i.,tn., i "ly "''fs to have the use of the whole until the 
 nei.i, iii.u inc inicn- ,,1 ■.,i„„„ „„„ „f „,,„ i.. ..„„„ „, 1,.,.,, ,.t 
 
 ehil.lren are of age. In case of de.ath of my 
 chil.lrcn my wife to have the use of the jiroperty 
 in her lifetime, an.l then t.igo t.iiny hnithcrsand 
 sisters." The testator left two ehil.lren, who 
 both .lied uniler age immarrieil, their mother 
 surviving them : -Hel.l, reversing the judgment 
 of the court below (2!) Cliy. 274), that the will 
 an.l letter must be read together, an.l that the 
 will muststan.l except so far as "modified; "that 
 the "death of my chililren " referred to their 
 leatli un.ler age without issue before his wife ; 
 
 A testator who ;!ied in February, 1869, by 
 his will, amongst other tilings, gave legacies pay- 
 able in eight and thirteen years, anil devi.sed lot 
 
 8 to his son R., and lot 9 to his son I)., subject i anil therefore that she took the personalty (which 
 to charges, the devisees to get ]iossession thereof alone coul.l be .affected by the letter) for life, and 
 when his youngest chil.l attaiiie.l twenty-one. after her death it would go to testat.ir's brothers 
 At that time I), an.l R, were to get one-half of and sisters. Dianhlt v. Dumhk, 8 A. R. 476. 
 the stock an.l implements which would then be 
 <Mi the sai.l lots, the other half t.i be divide.l 
 amongst other legatees. The youngest chihl had 
 not yet attained twenty-one. The master at 
 Hamilton directed an account to,d)e brought in 
 of the stock and implements at the time of the 
 
 referenc! on said lots, being the proceeds .if the 
 
 old stock left thereon by the testator, and also ' to pay his debts, fnneral expenses and leg.acies 
 those suhseijueiitly pr.iduce.l from the produce of thereinafter given out of his estate, ami pro- 
 the sai.l lots ; and also an account of the stock ' ceeded : "My executors are hereby ordered to sell 
 <T implements left liy the testator which still I all my re.al e"state, after the payment of all my 
 138 
 
 Sec Cook v. ^^ol^le, 5 0. R. 43, p. 2170. In Re, 
 lii<l!/ur — Biijijar v. Slimon, 8 O. R. .S72, p. 2191. 
 
 8. Conversion, 
 A testator hy his will directed his executors 
 
 M 
 
219S 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2106 
 
 i 
 
 jiiHt (luhtM nn<l fiiiH^ml cx)i(!nii<*N, nnil all my |ii'i> i 
 pcrty mill imthoiiii! I'trfcl^i, iiiniicy oicliivl tflM, arc 
 to Ih! (u|iiitlly iliviilfil IxttwiM'n my cliililriii ami 
 tlitiir litiirH, tlial in tliu iifii'H of my hoii <!. ami 
 (liiiiglitcr K., iiiiw iIim'cuhihI, ami my MiHi .1., Mary 
 ami llaiiiiali, or tlicii' liciiH. Sliiiiilil iiiiy nf my 
 Haiil holi-H not lie of iinc at my ilciitli. my cxfcii- 
 tiii'H ai'i! Ill placi' tlirir Irj^arii'S in miiiii' iif tln^ 
 bitiikHdf Oiitai'iii until tlicHaiil luiiHiiii-iifiiui':" 
 Held, (I) That tliiTL- was mi iiitritacy (Mtlirrnf 
 tlm real or poiHonal I'Mtati-. It is In lu' |iri"iiimiMl 
 that Ihf tcstatiif iliil nut intrmi to lili; inti'stali', 
 nml the lan^ii^iK'' "hi'^M^il that hr iliil not intrnil 
 )iiH hiiii'M In taki- his |ii'i>|ii'i'ty as real I'stati-, as lin 
 pi'i'um|itiii'ily ilimtL'il a sale, making; an actual 
 udnvcrsiiin nl' it into miim-y. thus lili'mljntf thtt 
 roal anil |ii'i'son:il |irii|'<'rty intn a I'lmimnn fiiml, 
 unil then li<'i|iii.'alhi'il il all to the li';;ati'i's, {'2) 
 That the |i<'rn(ins rnt itlcil to sliaii' iinilri' I he will 
 took per rapita anil not per Ht iipi's upon tin' sami' 
 iirinciph; as in tlir I'asi! of Aluey r. Newman, l(i 
 Hciiv. 4.SI. (.'{) That till! uramlihilil of (i. was 
 not oiititloil to a hliaie, the ehihlien ol <t. takiii;{ 
 in thvir own i'i>;ht ami not in a icpri'si'iilative ' 
 i-apacity. Worn/ v. Aniiinir, I'.' (). |{. IKi.— 
 
 I'lCIHllfllot. 
 
 .See McO'any v. 77io«//iw)i,'i9('liy. 287, ]> 2209. 
 
 '.I. Ucniiliiiiri/ J'J^tiilf. 
 
 Aniiing other liei|Ui'sts the testator ileehireil as \ 
 folliiWH : "I l)ei|iieath to the Wonioiil I'reaeh. 
 crs' nml Willows" l-'iinil in eonneition with the i 
 WuBleyan Confereme here, the hiiiii of t;i,'J,"i(), 
 to 1)0 paid out of the nioiiey.s ilue nie liy Koliert 
 ChcHtnut, of Freilurietoii. I l)ii|ueath to the 
 Hilile Society L" I. '")(). 1 heiiueatli to the Wesleynn 
 MiBsionary Soi.iety in eonneution with the Con- 
 ferenee the Huni of CKoOd." ThiMi follow other 
 mill nunieldUs lieiplests. The last ijau.se iil' the 
 will is : -" SliDiilil there lie any siirplii.s or ile- 
 fieieney, a jno lata aihlilion or ilednetion, as 
 may lie, to he iiiaile to the foljnwiuji lieiiilests, 
 mniiely, tlu' Woinout Preachers' ami Willows' 
 Kmiil ; Wesleyan Missionary Society ; liihle 
 Society." When the estate came to lie wound 
 up, it was fiMinil that tline was a very lar;;esuL-- 
 plus of |iersonal estate, after paying,' all annui- 
 ties and liei|uests. This sui'plus was claimed, 
 Oil tlie one hand, under the will, liy these cliari- 
 talile iiiHtitutinns, and on the other liand liy the 
 heirnat-law and next of kin of the testator, as 
 lic'in}^ residuary estate, uudi>poseil of nndei' lii.s 
 will : — Held, atliiininf{ the judgment of the Su- 
 preme t.'ourt of Xew IJiunsw iok, that the " sur- 
 plus " had rcfereneo to the testator's jiersoual 
 eHtate out of which the annuities and le^'acies 
 ■were payalilc ; and therefore a pro rata adilition 
 hIiiiuIiI lie made to the tliree aliove-nanied he- 
 qucHts, Statutes of Moitmain not lieiii^ in foue 
 in New Brunswick. [Fonrnier and Henry, J.J. , 
 dissentini,'. ] h'ai/ v. Ainniiil (Juii/rniirr of Xnr 
 nniiisiricL; i/c, ({ S. V. K. :«).S. 
 
 See (Jiriiis v. Darrill, 27 Chy. "lO'J, p. 2087 ; 
 Oillv.1 V. McC-iiorhir, 3(>. I!. 26;t, p. 222(); Svm. 
 mcrx V. I'^iuiivKfs, ,5 O. R. 110, p. 21(il ; )'<«/ v. 
 Adams, ],•{ A. R. 12!), p. 2180 ; MoiLlin v. 
 Datiiil, 18 O. R. 434, p. 2Hi!». 
 
 10. AniiiiilkK, 
 
 J. R. died on the .3rd August, 187t>, leaving 
 a will dated 6th August, 1875 and u codicil datea 
 
 2lMt .Inly, 187*1. IW the will lin duvised to 
 liiM widow an annuity of li^lD.UOU for her lifu, 
 which he declared to lie in lieu of her duwcr. 
 TliiH niimiily the teitatnr din-eted sluniM \h) 
 chargealile on his ueiieral estate. The testiitnr 
 then ileviHcil and liei|Ue:ithed to the exeeutnni 
 and trnstecs of his wiN certain real and personal 
 property particularly dcscrilied in live schiiliilcii 
 marked respectively. A, II, •', I), and K, amirxfil 
 to his wdl, upon these trusts, vi/. : Upon trust, 
 during the life of his wife, to collect and reeiMvc 
 the rents, issueH nml prolits thereof which slimilil 
 lie, and he taken to form a portion of his " i;i'ii 
 eral estate ; " and then from and out ot the i^in 
 eral estate, dnriiig tin,' life of testator';i \\'\lv, 
 the executois well' to pay to each of his livi. 
 d.iuyhters the clear ye.irly sntn of .s|,t)(M) liy 
 eipi.'il ijiiarterly payments, free from thi^ dilits, 
 contr.icls and en>!a;,'emciits of their respectivr 
 hiisliands. Next nsuining the statement of the 
 trusts of the schedule propel ty specilically yiveli 
 the testator provided, that from and aj'lei tlir 
 death ol his wife, the trnstees were to eoljeit 
 and receive the rents, issues, divideliils ami 
 prolits of the lands, etc., mentioned in the siiii 
 sehedules, and to pay to his daiightcr M. .\. .\,, 
 the rents, etc. , apportioned to her in schediile \ : 
 to his daughter K. of those nieiitioned in schciiiili' 
 l(; to his daughter .M. of tlioMit menlloued in 
 Hcliedide ('; to his daughter A. of those iiivii- 
 tinned in schedule 1); and to his daiighler 1, of 
 thiLsi! mentioned in Hchednle K ; itaeli of saiil 
 daughters lieiiig charged with the insur.iiici', 
 griinml rents, rates and taxes, repairs and otiar 
 expenses with or incidental to the inaiiagcMuiit 
 and upholding of the properly apportioiicil tn 
 her, and tin; h.im.c heing from time to time <le 
 dncteil from suchnuarlcrly piymeiits. Tht;\\ill 
 then direeted tlw execiltnrs to keep the plo|Kr 
 t ies insured against, loss hy lire, and in case uf 
 total loss, it slioiild he option. d with the put' « 
 to whom the propi rty Was apportioned liy ilu' 
 sidiedules, eillicl' to direct tile insurance MHilli'V 
 to lie a[i|ilicd in reliuihling, or to lease the prn- 
 perty. It then declared what was to he ilmu 
 with the share of each of his daughters in cum' 
 of her death. Ill the residuary clause of tlie will 
 till re were the following words "The lesl, 
 residue and remainder of my s.iid estate, imtb 
 real ami per.-onal, and wh.itsoever and wli rt~ii 
 ever situated, I give, devise and lu'iplealli tlic 
 same to my said cxeciitois and trustees, upmi tlie 
 trusts and for the intents and purposes I'ojlim- 
 iiig : " lie then gave out of the residue ;i |ei;;ii\ 
 of .'?4,(mO to his lirolhcr I). I',., and the iiltiiinito 
 residue he directed to lie eipially divided aimii!.; 
 his children upon the same trusts with reganlt'i 
 his daughters, as were theninlicfoie declaivil, 
 with respect to the said estate in the said scln 
 ilnlcs mentioned. The rents and prolits of tin 
 whole estate left hy the testator proved iusiilli 
 cient, after paying the annuity of .*IO,00(I to tin' 
 widow and the rent of and taxes upon his linus' 
 in L., to pav in full tin' several siinis of .s!l.(illO;i 
 year to eacli of the daughters during the life"! 
 their mother, and the i|iiestion raised on this 
 appeal w.iM, whether the ey 'Utors and triiHtns 
 had power to sell or mortgage any part of the 
 eoriiiis, or apply the funds of the coi))Us of tlic 
 jiroperty, to make up the delicieney : -llilil, on 
 appeal, that the annuities given to the dauj;ti- 
 ters, and the arrears of their annuities, were 
 ehargealile on the corpii.sof the roal and persniial 
 estate subject to the right of the widow to lia™ 
 
2196 
 
 tlu! will lin (luviMcd to 
 i.f $IO,0()0 for li..r lifts 
 
 H! ill litMl of llIT llnwir. 
 
 itor iliroctcil nliciiiii| Ik' 
 
 .111 UKtlltl!. TIm! tL'stiltor 
 
 it'.itlicil to t.JK' fxi'iiitiim 
 cc'i'tiiiii ity.i\ and |i<'isciiiat 
 iMcrilH'il in live m^iriliilcit 
 
 , II, (', I), Mm\ K, HIllll'Sccl 
 
 iii.itM, vi/. : I'lpoii tniHt, 
 
 ifi", to odlU'it mill riTcivf 
 olitH tlii-'rcoi wliii'li sIkpiiM 
 
 III a portion of Ills " i;i'M 
 I fiiiiii anil out ot llii' ;<rii 
 lifu of tc^tatoi';! wife, 
 )i:iy to ciicli of IiIm live 
 yt'.niy Minn of ??l,(i(ll) hy 
 rnt.H, fire from the ilil)t», 
 iiciitM of tlnir \in\ livi' 
 
 ililij,' till- MtatcliH'iil I.f the 
 
 l|-0|llTl.V Mpcfitil'llllV HIVl'll 
 
 llial floiii anil iifli r tiio 
 IfllHlti'S well! to roiifit 
 4, iHHiirx, iliviili'iiiU mill 
 >'., nit'iitioiii'il in tlir siiil 
 to his ilaii>;lit( T M. A. A., 
 ioiii'il lolifi' in hcIh^iIiiIi' A : 
 insf nniitioin'il in scluiliilo 
 
 1. of tllOHl! infllllHIIril ill 
 
 iiujiliter A. of tlioMc men- 
 
 anil to lii.H ilaunliti^r l< "f 
 HcliiMliili) K ; tiacli of siiiit 
 rjjeil with tlu; iiisiiiMUci;, 
 III laxt'M, ivpairs anil iitliir 
 ittuital to tlir inaiii'Hilii'ii' 
 t: piopi'lly apiPollioiKil til 
 \tm from tinit' to time ile 
 ilfi'ly piyiiK-ntH. 'I'ln' will 
 clltois to keep (lit! piiipil- 
 liiss hy liic, and in oav i.f 
 IV. optionil with tlir piii' » 
 ,V was .ipportioii.il hy till' 
 dill rl till' insMialli'r liiipiuy 
 lildill;!. I'l' 1" lea.-ii' tlir pin- 
 lli;il what was to hr .liiiu 
 ■h lit his daui;litcl» in imm' 
 
 ii'sidliary clause of tin! will 
 owing wolds " 'I'lir rest, 
 IT of my Slid t'stat.', I". lb 
 I'l wh.its.irviM' and wli. it-i. 
 ', devise and l)ei|iiiMlh tlit 
 utipi-sand tiiistces, iip.ni tli« 
 tents and purposes fnllnw- 
 
 iml of the residue ,i li';^:iiy 
 her I). !'>.. and the iilliiii:ito 
 :i) he eipially divided aiii.n:; 
 e same trusts with re^^ai.ll.. 
 ere thereinhefore diei.iiTil. 
 <aid estate in the said s.ln 
 'he rents and prolits of tlif 
 
 (he testator proved iiisiitii 
 he annuity of !»10,nO(t f" the 
 of and taxes upon his liuiis.' 
 the several sums of .*l.tl(H):i 
 dauj;liters during the lifcnf 
 the ipiestion raised mi this 
 r the (•>:■ 'utors and triistiii 
 ir mortgage any part uf tlif 
 ; funds <if the corpus of tlic 
 ip the deticiency : -Held, on 
 inuitioa given to the daii^'h- 
 ,18 of their annuities, were 
 irpuHof the real and permmJ 
 u right of tho widow to lw« 
 
 2197 
 
 WILL. 
 
 219S 
 
 a Hiillioioiit Hiini Met iipiirt to proviihi fur hoi 
 uiiiniity. Ahmm v. Leiriit, 5 ,S, l' K. flU. 
 
 V k Bid I ' ** '''•",'''''■'"'•'■'' •"' "i" |>roportv for the 
 
 k "• "'•♦• '!• "" "• '•"• "Hears i,f the aniimtv. ' On a r«- 
 
 A testator lieijueatlnd the annual ineoine of ;i!l ,'''''"!''' '" ""' "laMter lie found that they had 
 liiseLtate. real and peimnial, to his widow dm ""' "k'''^ '" 'naiiiliin llie aetion, and »etlleil the 
 
 iind alliiwe.l interest 
 On 
 
 f'" •^'i'' "*'" years pr..i(.diiii; ,„.ti,,|, liioiight. ... 
 
 lier, and aflerthedeatli i.f hiitli I "!' "I'l"'"' liolii llie iiiaNtir s report, it wa.i: - 
 loiher, Jh.- said annnilv of ?i|(iiil , ','!'''• 'j'"' '*• ^- <•■ I I^TTi, e, ,"HI. hs. I'tMi an, 
 
 inu widowhood, milpjiet to the payinenl of .s|(iO '.'""".'"' "'''"' """oiity due, 
 ii year to his fatlit^r, and after tlii' death of his | 
 fntlier to IiIh mollie 
 
 his father iind niolher, Jh.- said annnilv of ?l|(iil i ,',','1"'' """ '^- ^- *•■ I I'^TTi, e. ."HI. hs. I'tMi »ii,l 
 was given in eipnil shares to N. and . I. , a sister i "'''■ "'"'''' "''i''i Hie intirest wiw allowed, in 
 and nieee of the testator, and he theiehv made ""' ''I'l'!"'"''!*' 'o eases wliei,. ,i rerov.ry ih sought 
 this unniiity to his father and mot her, as also i he !".'* "K"'!'"' " defeiidiint prrsini.iily , I'mt aujiinst 
 annuities to N. and .1., a iliaige iipi.n ;dl Ins, ,"* .''"'"'''• '""' '"'li'«in« Iti.oth V. Coiilton, "J 
 red fMtate ; and direeted his exenitois and '''"' '''""• ''''''^ eveept iiiiijer extiai.idinary eii • 
 trustees to pay or eaiise to he paid the net an''','"."'''""''!'' "'"'" l'"''li''ul.ir groiimlH suggeHted 
 
 iilial III II' ot his estate ("idler payinenl i.f the "j, '"''"'''I""' l"''"'"'"''^' H'lerist is not to liu 
 
 iniimitieit as aforesaid ") to his wife uhsolutelv i '""'',''"'" '''^' .'"''''""'"'"" """"''>'• In this 
 (luring widowhood : Held, that in the eM'iit I'.f 
 
 tile liieonie of the estate piining insiilliiieiit to 
 |uiy the annuities, the aiiniiitants were entiiled 
 to have the same raised out of the corpus of the 
 HMtate. .1(1111 1 V. .Iiiiiis, 07 Chy, ;il7, .Spriij.^|.. 
 
 A testator liy hJM will nnd eodliiK, devisirg 
 his real estate, etc., to (1. ||. M. jiinl 11. m' 
 trustees, and the Hiirvivorof them, and the heirs 
 of Hueh survivor, gave his widow an aiimiily and 
 provided that, when his son should attain tin 
 
 '■'I*' Ill' any iiri'iiniNtaiiiis, the awai.l of in- 
 
 leri>.| eolihl iii.t lie iiphrld as again.'-l iheansi. 
 gliee in insolviiii'^' : llil.j, al.^o. that the expin.se 
 ol some til... ring, lathing, mihI pla»leiing, was 
 properly iliaigid .lyi.iiisi the defendant, as W. 
 \. ^. and (!. V.. ,S. |i,ii| eoveiiaiitid lo keep tlii! 
 houses tenaiil.il.le, and these repairs were niailu 
 heiailsi' the tenant 1 hle.iti m d to liaM- : Held, 
 also, on the I villi nie in this ea.^' that the master 
 was ri;ilit in iliHajji.wing a l.irge set oil' hroiight 
 ill hv the ih feiiilant over and ahove the .■'lim of 
 
 liiig.s. 
 
 iigi' of twenty-one his trustees should eoiivey to | .SKi.'HIO allowe.l f..r n loiivtruetin- the hii 
 
 liiiii one-half of the I'stale and the residue when ■'>'"".''' v. Iind' mtch, iD't, |{, L'tlT lioyd. 
 
 lie should attain thirty, snlijeet, however, to the 
 
 luiniiity. lie also provided i hat if his son should A testator gave his kiih .\. his ho.iid and lod 
 
 (lie hefiire attaining the age of I liirty, t he H.iid I ^i'l^i ii"'l f.'i a year during his natural lite. Hi 
 
 trUNlt^es or trustee should holil "tlie said red 
 
 mill personal estate, moneys, and seeiiiities, or 
 
 so miieli thereof as shall remain in their hands, 
 
 ill trust to distrihiite the same aeeordiiig to the 
 
 .Statute of I listrihutions. ' 'I'lie last lodii'il ap- 
 
 piiinteiHi. I'",. T. undo. I!, ami the siirvivm-of 
 
 them, and ihe heirs, exeentois, administrators 
 
 iiiid assigns of such survivor new trustees and 
 
 t'xeeiitors in (ilaee of O. II. M. and I!. ,M.,wiih 
 
 the sanie powers. The .son attai I the .ige of 
 
 twenty one, ret^eived half of the estate, .iinl di 
 
 devised to his eldest son a poitiiin of his real 
 estate on I'l.iidition of his paying .A. t,'.'! out of 
 the L'.'i a year. He fuither deviseil another por- 
 j tion I.f his real estate lo his wife for her life, 
 and then lo his son I! , on londitinn tiiat It. 
 should p.iy tile halaiiie C'-' a year and k.'.p his 
 son A. Ill hoard and lodyin;,' diinn;; his naliiral 
 life: Hell!, thai the anmiily to .\.. llioiigh 
 ih.irge.il.le a^'iinst dilh'l.iil p.'irties. was not 
 sepaiahle. fj) 'I'liat the iiiteiil ion of ihe testa- 
 tor was to [iiovide for .\. from the time of tliu 
 
 lefore attaining the age of thirty iinniairied an. I testator's diatli, and thit It.'s land was eliarge. 
 
 without issue : Held, that tli.'" widow was en '' ' 
 
 titled to her annuity at well ,is her share iiiiler 
 the .statute of Distiiliutions ; hut that the tes 
 tator, having tre.'ited the real and personal esl.ite 
 IIS a hieiided fund to he distrililited, she was not 
 also entitltid to dower, and that sin- must eleet 
 lM!tweeii the distriliiitive share .'iiid the dower. 
 Iletjiiimlii/ IJidiiihi/ V. t^hiiiiil'i/. ^t {). I!. T.'tS. 
 Hoyd. 
 
 hie with such l''J a ye.ir, aie! the hoard and 
 lodgiiii,' from that time, iiotw ithstaieling the 
 teiianey for life. Miiiiiii \. I.tiiiiinij, Ml I'. R. 
 }titi>( r ill (hiliiinni. Hut hoo 
 |{ .VJO, p, ooio. ■ ; 
 
 i:t--'. Hoi 
 
 gilLS, 
 
 llso .V, C, 
 
 II o 
 
 A testat 
 
 or. h^ 
 
 .J. >S. hy his will gave his wife K. .S. an annu- 
 ity of ^'J.OUtta year, and eharged it on his estate, 
 After his de.itli K. S. the annuitant, ('. K .S. 
 and M. A. .S., two daughters, and \V. A. ,S. ami 
 <i. K. .S., two sons, entered into an agreement 
 
 his will, provi.led as followH : 
 " I give and devis.- to my four daughters " (nam- 
 ing them), "an annuity of .'^I'^D per year each, 
 to he [laid on.' .year after my ileeea.se, and to hu 
 for the period ef tli' ir natural lives. Al.so lo my 
 two granddaiiglitei.i " (rhildnn of a de(*.ised 
 daugiiter), an annuity of .SliO e.ieli, to In- paid 
 aiimiallv, ' * * whiili annuity will expire 
 It the liealli of mv last daughter, ill the event 
 
 wlierehy the annuity wa.^ eharged on eertain real of the death of any of my daught'is, the .'innuity 
 
 estate and other property, and the sons eove- 
 
 naiited to ]iay it, and the executors ot .1. .S. 
 
 traiisli\rreil all their interest as exeeiitoiH in all 
 
 the estate of ,1. .S. to the slid sons, siihjeet to 
 
 the said charge. Suhse(|iieiilly all parties joineil 
 
 in horrowing .'#I(>,()(X) on mortgage of |iart of the 
 
 j)ro|ierty for the purpose of reconstructing the 
 
 huililings, the annuity heing postponed to the 
 
 mortgages. \V. A. s"! and O. K. .S. afterwards speiiiilhrifts, drunkards, worthless eliaraeters, 
 
 W'ftnie insolvent, and li. heeame assignee in in- or guilty of any act of inimorality." One of tho 
 
 solvency. The annuity fell into arri'ar for sev- granddaughters named ni:irried and ilie.l, leaving 
 
 eral years, nnd V,. .S. died having made a will l»y an infant child, and her liiishand was aopointed 
 
 which she devisiul all her estate tot;. K. ■- 'i.L administrator of her estati;: - Held, that each 
 
 M. A. S., who brought un action against ■ annuity given was to continue to the jleath of 
 
 whiili she received during life to he eiiiially ili- 
 vidcd amongst her children until the dece.ise of 
 my l.'ist daughter, sh.ire .ind i.li.ire alike. In the 
 event of the death of my last surviving daughter, 
 the aniiiiities are immediately to ce.'ise, and the 
 aniouiit of leal ami jieisonal estate in the hands 
 of the executors is to he i ipially divided amongst 
 my ;;ranilcliildren, |iioviiled they are not lazy 
 
 
 •if 
 
■ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGE7 (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 // 
 
 /. 
 
 4j 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 I^IIIIM 112.5 
 
 i^ 1 
 
 
 |4o 1 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 11.25 11.4 IIIIII.6 
 
 V] 
 
 vl 
 
 •r? 
 
 
 /^ 
 
 r> > 
 
 y 
 
 /^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 \ 
 
 iV 
 
 .\J 
 
 t 
 
 \N 
 
 fv 
 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^ 
 
i^% 
 
 %^4. 
 
 
 & 
 
 w 
 
 
 vV 
 
 u 
 
2199 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2200 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 the last sui'viving danghtev, niul that the an- 
 nuity of tho (lcc'0;isc(l granddaiighter from tho 
 time of the hist payment to her until the death 
 of the last sniviving danghter was payable to 
 her proper personal representative for the bene- 
 fit of those who were, according to law, entitled 
 to her estate : — Held, also, that the words " to 
 be equally divided," were equivalent to a direc- 
 tion to " pay and divide," and that the interest 
 taken by tlie deceased granddaughter, in the 
 propertj- to be divided by the executors, was a 
 vested interest subject to bo divested by the 
 clause as to lazy spendthrifts, etc. , which clause 
 was not a condition precedent but rather in the 
 uatuiu of a condition subsecjuent, and that her 
 personal representative became entitled to her 
 share. ]\'o<iithill v. Tlioiuan, IS O. 1!. 277. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 .^ee Ethranh- v. Pi.trxmi, 4 O. R. oU, p. •2"204 ; 
 MaalniKilil v. McLniiKiii, S O. K. 170, p. '2211 ; 
 //( /■(' Miii'lliiii mill /III' ('(iiininxtioiii-rn of l]ii' 
 yUvfurn r«lh Pad; 14 A. H. -20, p. 2208. 
 
 11. Li ijacioi. 
 (a) Ai/i'mptioii (})• Jfi'vocalion. 
 
 'J'hc testator by liis will, made in July, 1877, 
 de\ised to his son {'•., certain real estate and 
 brewery, expressing that "this devise be ac- 
 cei)ted l)y and to be in full discharge of any and 
 every claim he shall have against my estate at 
 the tiineof my decease. '' In a subsequent clause: 
 " 1-. " the testator declai'ed that in the event 
 of selling lands specifically devised, the proceeds 
 were to lie .substituted foi- the lands l)y charging 
 the proceeds against the real estate of tho testa- 
 tor. The testator was indebted to (i. in the 
 sum of ?!3(>,14().S6, anil on tiie 8th of October, 
 1870, the parties met ami agreed that the testa- 
 tor should sell part of the lands devised to him, 
 including tlie brewery, to (i. for $27,000, and 
 the brewery plant for .^(!,OS7.20, which was cre- 
 dited on (r.'s claim against the testator, (i. sul)- 
 sequently, under clause " L." claimed against 
 the estate of the testator iiayment of the amount 
 for which the brewery premises and plant were 
 sold, lie swearing that li ■ was ignorant of tlie 
 contents of the will. Thercuj)on the plaintiffs, 
 two of the executors and trustees, instituted 
 proceedings seeking to obtain a construction of 
 the will: — Held, reversing the judgment of the 
 court below, tliat the agreement entered into 
 between the father an<l sou superseded the de- 
 vise to the son. Arch'r v. Si-virii, 8 A. K. 72.'). 
 
 W. F. by his will bearing <late 11th Febrnary, 
 18,33, inter alia devised to M. his daughter by 
 an Indian woman and to K. and M. his daugh- 
 ters by another woman, a defined portion of the 
 seigniories of Temiscouata and Madawaska, and 
 the balance of said property to his sons W. and 
 E. A short time after making his will the testa- 
 tor, who was heavily in debt, received an unex- 
 pected offer of £15,000 for the said seigniories, 
 and he therefore sold at once, paid his most 
 pressing debts, amounting to t'ii,400 and the 
 balance of ,£ft,fi0O was invested bj loaning it on 
 security of real estate. At his death, his estate 
 appearing to he vacant as regards the i'0,(')0(), 
 a curator was appointed. On the 27th Sep- 
 tember, 18,S9, the parties entitled under the 
 ■will proceeded to divide and apportion their 
 
 legacies, b.asing their calculations upon the 
 approximate area of the seigniories devised, 
 and received the collected ])art of the sums 
 allotted to each by the partition. In an 
 action brought by W. F. the respondent, 
 who was residuary legatee, against the curator 
 in order to make him render an account, the 
 court ordered the curator to render an ac- 
 count which ho did, and he ile])osited 850,000 
 and other securities. On a reyiort of distribu- 
 tion being made \V. F. (tiie respondent) filed 
 an opposition claiming his share under the 
 will. Tills opposition was contested by J., the 
 appellant, on the ground : 1st. That the lega- 
 cies were revoked and that in his cap:icity of 
 universal legatee to his mother (the legiti- 
 mate child, he alleged of the testator and the 
 Indian woman who was connuune en bicns 
 with the testiitor) he was entitled to one-half 
 of the proceeds of the said ,i!i(,(i00 ; and 2Md, 
 that in the event of his claim to legitimacy 
 and revocation of the legacy being rejected, 
 as by the will the daughters wovv, exempt from 
 i,he payment of the debts, he should, as rojire- 
 senting one of the daughters be entitled to her 
 proportion of f 1 5,000, the net proceeds of the 
 sale : — Held, allirming the judgment of the 
 court below, that J. (the appeUant), not hav- 
 ing at the death of his motlier '-epuiliated the 
 partage to which she was a party, lutt on the 
 contrary having ratified it and acted under it, 
 was estojiped from claiming anything more 
 than what was allotted to his mother. Per 
 Strong. Fournier and 'I'aschereau, .1.1. — That 
 under the law jirior to the code the sale of the 
 seigniories which were the sul)ject of the legacy 
 in ([uestion in this cause, had not, considering 
 the circumstances under which it was made, the 
 effect of defeating the legacy :—Semble, per 
 Henry, .J. — That there was a levocation of tho 
 legacy. The judgment of the court l>clo\v held 
 that as the testator declared that the daughters 
 shoidd not be liablofor the payment of hisdel)ts, 
 partition as regards them, should Itc made of the 
 sum of €15,000, the price olitained from the 
 sale of t!ie seigniories bc(iueathed, and not of 
 £0,000 remaining in his succession at his deatii. 
 On cross appeal to the Supreme Court of 
 Canada : -Held, that on the pleadings before 
 the court no adjudication could be made as to 
 the sum of £5,400 i)aid by the curator for the 
 debts, and that in tho distribution of the moneys 
 in court all that .1. (the apiiellant) could claim to 
 be collocated for, was the unpaid balance (if any) 
 of his mother's sliare in the moneys, securities, 
 interest, and ])rolit of the said sum of til.OOO in 
 accorilance with the partage of the 27th Sep- 
 teudjcr, 1839. Juiii.^ v. Fm.iii; 13 S. C. H. 312. 
 
 (b) Time 0/" Vi'xlinii. 
 
 A testator directed that, at the death of l.is 
 wife, if she survived him, all his estate (with 
 certain exceptions) shoidd be sold, anil the pro- 
 ceeds equally divided among his four daughters 
 and three sons and their children, after paying 
 §200 to each of the three children of his deceaHcd 
 daughter U. He left surviving him his widow, 
 who was still living, three sons and four 
 daughters and twenty-seven grandchildren, be- 
 sides the children of H. Two of the grandchild- 
 ren were born after the date of the will but before 
 the testator's death, and one was born after his 
 
 I 
 
2200 
 
 [>ns upon the 
 iories devised, 
 t of tlio sums 
 itioii. In au 
 lU lospondent, 
 1st the curator 
 11 account, the 
 render an ac- 
 losited 850,000 
 irt of distrilm- 
 spondent) tiled 
 ire under tlie 
 <ted l)y J., the 
 That tlie l';ga- 
 his Ciip:icity of 
 ler (tlie letjiti- 
 jatator and the 
 nunc en l)i(ns 
 led to one-half 
 ,(iOO : ami 'ind, 
 1 to legitimacy 
 heing rejected, 
 re exempt from 
 lonld, as repre- 
 tntitled to her 
 jirocecds of the 
 (Igiuent of the 
 Uant), not liav- 
 '•ejHidiated the 
 rty, liut on the 
 acted under it, 
 anything more 
 s nmtlier. I'er 
 ;au, .I.J.— That 
 ! the ?ale of the 
 ct of the legacy 
 not, considering 
 t was made, the 
 :— Scnihle, per 
 vocati(ni of the 
 ourt lielow held 
 t the daughters 
 cut of his debts, 
 
 lie made of the 
 lined from the 
 lied, and not of 
 111 at his death, 
 icine Court of 
 leadings he fore 
 ; made as to 
 curator for the 
 
 11 of the moneys 
 t) could claim to 
 
 balance (if any) 
 icvs, securities, 
 nil of .t;'.»,(iOO ill 
 
 the 27th Sep- 
 
 i:{s. c. u. 31-.'. 
 
 .he death of l.is 
 liis estate (with 
 1, and the pro- 
 four daughters 
 an, after paying 
 11 of his deceased 
 him his widow, 
 sons and four 
 andchlMren, ho- 
 the graiiilehild- 
 ic will but before 
 vs born after his 
 
 2201 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2202 
 
 m 
 
 death :— Held, that all the children and grand- . 
 children would take concurrently who were in 
 existence at the death of the widow ; but as 
 other gnindchildren might still come into being 
 who w<>uld not be bound by the present pro- 
 ceedings, the court deciined to make any order 
 upon the will. Dnjiltn v. Wooih, 2!) Cliy. 430. 
 I'roudfoot. 
 
 8. by his will gave four legacies to his daugh- 
 ters in four different clauses, each wonlcd as fol- 
 lows : " I bequeath to my daughter the sum 
 
 of five hundred dollars." Jiy a subsecjuent clause 
 he provided : "I also order that should any of 
 my daughters die, their portion to be eijually 
 divided uniong the remaining (uics." The legacies 
 were charged on his lauds. Directions were also 
 given that after u certain farm which he had 
 purchased but not paul for in his lifetime was 
 paid for, and all his delits paid, bis two sons E. 
 and A. " shall each pay my daughter M. A. S., 
 tile sum of iiM, whieii she siiall receive together 
 with the rent of lot 12() (frmii the executors), 
 to apply on her legacy. The other tliice daugh- 
 ters to be paivl in the same manner, K. in one 
 year after M. A., etc' A direction was also 
 given, that in case of any of the daughters ilying 
 their funeral expenses were to lie paid out of 
 their legacies, and in case of sickness their 
 physician's bill to be jiaid from the .same source: 
 — Held, on an ajipcal from a master, tiiat these 
 provisions and all otlieis of a like kind in the 
 will, had reference at most to tlie ukmIc and time 
 of payment of the legaciits, and not to tlic sul)- 
 slance of tlie gilt, and that as the testator had 
 not clearly and with certainty expressed the in- 
 tention that the legacies shoiilil not vest until 
 times of payment, the legacies were given in the 
 ordinary w.iy to vest U[)oii the death of the tes- 
 tator. Ill- Sti-ri'ii-f.—lSttmis \. Hfi-ri.nx, l-i O. 11. 
 707. — l''ergiison. 
 
 See Oiaham v. Bulti.n, 9 U, 11. 4Sl, p. 2207. 
 
 purposes of his will, and if the personalty was 
 not sufficient for the payment of the debts, the 
 legacies were payable out of the land ; if it was 
 sulHcient, they were payable out of the mixed 
 fund ; but so far as the charitable beijucsts were 
 payable out of the land they were void. Toointy 
 v. Truccij, 4 O. i\. 70S. — I'roudfoot. 
 
 Held, also, that interest was jiayable on the 
 legacies from a year after the testator's death, 
 in accordance with the general rule, in any 
 event ; and tiiis, although as the whole interest 
 of the proceeds of the land was given to the 
 wife, for life, the capital had to be kept invested 
 by the executors ; and, coiisei|uently, there was 
 no fund for the payment of legacies until her 
 death. Ih. 
 
 A testator devised his real estate and chattel 
 property (excepting some bcijUests to his wife) to 
 his son Koljcrt, subject to the payment of his just 
 debts, funeral expenses, and certain speeilied 
 legacies, which k-gacies he directed his executors 
 to pay. By a codicil he directed the chattel pro- 
 perty (except tiic specitic bcciUcsts to his wife) to 
 lie sold, and the proceeds ecjually divided amongst 
 all his children : — Held, that the spceilic legacies 
 were a charge on the real estate. Sh nxirt v. iJkk 
 10 P. K. 4ri.-Hodgins, Miislirlii OnluMni. 
 
 Legacies directed to be paid out of a mixed 
 residue arc a charge on land. Younj v. Pin ri.s, 
 1 1 C). II. 51t7. - IVoudtout. 
 
 A testator after devising certain pecuniary 
 legacies and a liuine to two of his chiUlren until 
 they became of age, pinvided as tollows : " And 
 I will anil lKi|Ueatli unto my daughter C. J., all 
 my real estate and the remainder of my pirsonal 
 estate after the above legacies arc |i,iid" :— Held, 
 (alhrniiiig Kuliertsoii, .).), that the legacies were 
 
 ; charged uiicn tlie real estate, ./u/iii-^loii v. Jji-ii- 
 
 ' muii, 15 U. i;. (i(). -Chy. 1). 
 
 .See Mumk v. Liinl^m/, 10 
 S. C. 11 O. It. 520, p. 2212. 
 
 I'. R. 132, p. 2I'JS; 
 
 (e) Cliiif'jid oil Luii'l. 
 
 A testator, after directing that his funeral 
 charges and debts should be paid by his execu- 
 tor, disposed of his real and personal estate as 
 follows : First, he gave and beipicathi il certain 
 legacies " to bi' paid out of my estate." and then 
 he gave the resiiliie and rcinaindcr of his estate, 
 real and [leisonal, to his son \V. alisoliitely, and 
 he nominated \\ . sole executor ; llehl, that 
 tlie legacies Were, by the will, charged upon the 
 estate, real and- pci>onal, a"d failing personal 
 estate became a charge on ,i ,• land; and that 
 W. had power to sell the la d, and a purchaser 
 Iiom liiiii \\a^ not biuiiid ti see to the applica- 
 tion of the inin base nioiiey. Moun: v. Miilish, 
 3(). R. 174.-tliy. D.-lerguson. 
 
 A tistator, afti r diiectiiig payment of his 
 debts out of Ills jiersoiial pioiierty, or if that 
 should prove iiiMiilicielit, then, that so much ol 
 his rial estate as would supply the delicieiiey 
 might be .-old fm- that puiiiipse, wciil on to di- 
 lert that Ids land should be sold, and the income 
 of the capital .iri-ilig Irom the sale be paid yearly 
 to his \\it(, for In r maintenance during her 
 iritiiral life, after M Inch he gave a miiiibir 
 of charitable bupiests and pecuniary legacies, 
 hilt made no residuary gift:— Held, that the 
 Iistator had created a mixed fund to answer the 
 
 (d) Di.iiioii-h-iilirt or S/ii.iijir. 
 
 A testator by his will directed that ".?5,000 
 of the money which I may be entitled as my 
 share of the iiaitiiei>liip biiKiiie>s iiou carried on 
 at,"' etc., under the name of K 11. ct Co., should 
 be invested by his ixccutirs at interest, and 
 that the income derived llicicfrom should by 
 tlicni be paid over, as received, to ids daughter 
 .M., lor her inaintenaiice until she att;iiiicd 
 Iweiity-oiie, when she should be entitled to 
 •■:5,(IIIU; and if the interest in any year Irointhe 
 iiivcbtmcnt should lall short of .MlKJ, the diller- 
 eiicc to make u|i that sum should lie paid by his 
 executors out of the intcie.-ts or prulits derived 
 irom the remainder of her estate. iSulijucl as 
 afoiLsaid, he gave the residue ot his estate, real 
 and pirsoiial, to his executors in trust tor his 
 son. Suli.-ei|iieiitly to the making of the will 
 the pal tneisliip <il I']. II. ii Co. was dissolvid, 
 and the testator until his death carneil on the 
 bu:-.iness alone, but under the ii.inui of 1^. 11. ito 
 Co., his interest in the partneisiiip h.iving been 
 reali/ed by him ;;iid carried into his iiiu busi- 
 ness ;—lle"ld, thai the legacy of .'r^."),(IUO was 
 demonstrative and not spceilic, and that she w;is 
 cutilled to be j ,iid the same out of the general 
 estate. J>ai/v. J/iiiii-<, 1 (). R, 147.— I'roiidfoot. 
 

 2203 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2204 
 
 IB 
 
 n 
 
 8 
 
 I* 
 ■I 
 
 5 
 
 ]Jy tliu liiijt cliiusi; in his will, a testator di- 
 lecteil that his cxtuutrix slioukl jtay his (lel)ts 
 out <il his j)tiKOii!il cstiitu, and tlion procueJuil to 
 leavu to his wife, whom ho naniuil as his execu- 
 trix, certiiin lauds sulijeet to iucundiranees, aiul 
 all his stoek, eattle, ete., upon the siiid lands, 
 and then devised the residue of Jus leal and 
 personal estate (aftif jiaynienl of his just dehts 
 and funeial exjienses) and all tiie lents and 
 issues thereof to a hrother and sister for their 
 lives, to he e(|uall_v divide<l l)etween them, share 
 and share alike, and after their death, to their 
 «;hildr('n, their heii's and assigns for ever, share 
 anil share alike. 'I'lie lirother |)redeceased the 
 testator. Tlie widow now hiouj^ht tiiis action 
 for the eciust nietion of the will :--Ueld, that 
 the he(juest of the stock, caltle, etc., to the 
 testator's wife was a specific legacy, and was not 
 subject to the testator's del)ts, notwithstanding 
 the first clause of the will :- Held, also, that 
 the gift of the residue to the brother and sister 
 was a gift to them as tenants in common, but 
 that the brother having predeceased the testa- 
 tor, there was an intestacy as to his shiirc. 
 Ji'itddx. Harper, 10 O. R. 422. MaoMahon. 
 
 The testator lienueathed to his wife "the 
 full control of all my real and ])crsonal estate, 
 stock and implements, during hec lifetime,' and 
 willed that at his wife's <lecease " all the stock, 
 of whatevei' kind, with tiie farming iMii)lements 
 oil the farm at my wife's decea.se shall l>e 
 equally divided between my sons." ■ — Held, that 
 the beipiest to the wi(h)W of the stock and farm 
 implements was sjtccitie, and therefore exempt 
 from the paymtnt of the jn'cuniary legacies. 
 AmjuiliiK: \. Srlirier, IS O. ii. 192. —Boyd. 
 
 (e) Citiniifn/ire ar Siihxlilnlioiiul. 
 
 A testator, after making certain btM|uesls to 
 his wife, directed tiiat after her death, his exe- 
 •eutors should sell all his estate, real aiul per- 
 sonal, and after |)i-ovidiug foi' cei'tain |iecuiiiary 
 legacies, should give the legal interest on one- 
 fourth of the remaining proceeds of his estate to 
 his daughtei' JO., to l>e jiaid to lu'r yearly dui'ing 
 her life, and after her death to l)edivi<led among 
 lier surviving children. Hy a coilicll he willed 
 to " K. .■md her heirs that share or division of 
 my estate, as referred to in a former will, in 
 land composeil of the north-east part of lot 7, 
 concession H, Markham." It ap])eared that the 
 testator had jiut 1',. in i)ossession of thesiid lifty 
 acres sometime before his death and that the said 
 fifty acres were about e(pial tooue-fourth of the 
 whole residiui of his instate : — II cdd, that the 
 devise to H. in the codicil was substitutional to 
 lier for the beipiest to her in the will : — Held, 
 t'llso, that under the codicil K. took an estate 
 in fee, and not one std)jecfc to the iuci<lents of 
 the origin d gift in the will. In no case of sub- 
 stitutinnal gifts has it been held that the snbse- 
 «|iient gift is to go to the jjarties entitled under 
 the subsequent liuntation of the former gift. 'J'he 
 word " heirs '' may sometimes mean " ehddreii," 
 both in regard to ])erson,il and real estate, but 
 that meaning will only he j^i.cu to it when it is 
 c'le.irthat the property was intended to go to the 
 children. Srult v. (lohii, 4 (). It. 4.'i7. — I'loud- 
 foot. 
 
 A testator, after directing payment of his 
 tlehts, and fmieral and teatameatary expeasus, 
 
 disposed of the residue as follows : — " Siecondly, 
 I give to my wife .'^loO annually, during her na- 
 tural life, or so long as she may remain my 
 widow, the said sum, to be received and ac- 
 cept id by her in lieu of dower, the said yearly 
 allow ance to be a lien upon iiiy real estate, and 
 to be [laid my said wife as she may need it 
 either iinarterly or hall-yearly." He then di- 
 rected his executors to sell his farm and all his 
 personal ])ionerty except that previously dis- 
 pose! of, and out of the proceeds : lirst to pay 
 his debts, etc., as aforesaid ; and to ilivide the 
 balance then remaining between his sons, suh- 
 ject to each of them securing to their mother an 
 annual ))ayment of f-M during her natural life, 
 the security to be satisfactory to her and his ex- 
 ecutors : —Held, that tlieio were sullicieiit points 
 of ditl'erence between the lirst annuity and the 
 subseijuent ones, to make it apjiarent that the 
 several annuities in favour of tiie widow were 
 intended to be cumulative. KdinanU v. J'narsiin, 
 4 0. H. ."lU.— I'rondfoot. 
 
 One S. by his will directed his estate, real and 
 personal, to be sold, except certain stocks, 
 lands, and sccuiities thereinafter s|)ecilically 
 devised, and that his debts and "testamentary 
 exiieiises" sluuild be jiaid out of the lirst moneys 
 that should come into the hands of his execu- 
 tors : and after making certain pecuniary he- 
 (plests, which he charged primarily on the fund 
 to be produced by the sale of his real estate as 
 aforesai<l, and secondarily on the proceeds of 
 his personal estate, he directed that "as to the 
 residue of my personal estate which may be ex- 
 clusively rlevoled by me to eharitalile pui'iioses, 
 1 bei|neatli the same to the churcliwardciis of 
 the A. church, to be invested by tliem for the 
 purpose ol forining an endowment for the sup- 
 port of the said chiuvh." Alt.erwards, hy ii 
 codicil, S beipieathed to three [lersous named 
 by him .'?3iJ,(H)0 as an endowment for the A. 
 church, to be invested liy them in their own 
 names as trustees lor the said church, and to be 
 dis[iosed of for the henelit thereof as therein 
 mentioned, but in cel'tain cmitingeucies to merge 
 in his residuary estate, and be dis|io3ed of under 
 the last clause of his will, by which he devised 
 all the r(.'st, residue, and remainder of his estate 
 of which he should die |)iisse,sseil tn .\. and L., 
 to be erjiially divided hetween them, shire and 
 share alike : -llelil, that on a prop^'r construc- 
 tion of the will and coilicil, .S'JD.OOU of the pure 
 pei'sonalty was to he held by trustees on the 
 trusts as delined for the beiietit of tlie A. church ; 
 and as to the residue of that fund, it was to bo 
 held generally liy the ehurohwardeiis for the 
 supjiort and iiiaintenauce of that cliurcli. A 
 legatee is entitled to take b )th ,i |iecuuiary gilt 
 and a residue, whether given in a will or in a 
 combined wdl and co licil, and the >;oiistriictioii 
 of a ])ai'ticular residuary gift is not all'ectivl by 
 the presence or absence of a g.'iicral residuary 
 gift, /ill// y. Iticlnr mid t'/niri;'iirit,rdi ii'< o/' /Ac 
 Chnrc/i oft/ic Aiixn-iioii, .") O. U. 3Sli. —Boyd. 
 
 (f) V(st'd. or (^oiiHiKji ii/. 
 
 A testator by liis will provided that in case 
 his father did not revoke his will and sode|)rivc 
 him (the testator) of certain lands thcreiu devised 
 to him, then he (the testator) devised to S. 
 certain lands, but in the event of his father 
 
 
2204 
 
 2205 
 
 WILL. 
 
 220C 
 
 ; — " SecoiuUy, 
 (luiiiig liur iia- 
 ay iein;iiu my 
 juiveil ami no- 
 liu siiid yearly 
 ual t'stiite, luul 
 ! may nuuil it 
 Ho thou tli- 
 irm iiiitl all his 
 [)i-cvioiisly (lis- 
 <: tiist ti) pay 
 1 to divide the 
 I his sons, sub- 
 ;iieir mother an 
 er natural life, 
 lier and his ex- 
 <ulhi:ieiit 'iininls 
 uniiity uiid the 
 parent tiiat the 
 he widow were 
 inliv. ]*eai:iiiii, 
 
 estate, real and 
 certain stuek.s, 
 fter si)eeitieally 
 
 " testamentary 
 tlio lirst moneys 
 s of his exeeii- 
 I pecuniary he- 
 ,rily on the fund 
 is real estate as 
 the })roeeeds ot 
 that "as to the 
 liieli may 1)0 ex- 
 ritalile piir[ioses, 
 uirchwanleiis ot 
 by tliem ior the 
 iieiit ior the sup- 
 Jterwards, by a 
 ! persons named 
 lent for the A. 
 ni in their own 
 liureli, anil to be 
 ereof as therein 
 i;,'eiieies to merge 
 lis|io3ed of under 
 ivliieh ho ih^viseil 
 nder of liis estate 
 
 ■d t > A. and L., 
 tliem, sh ire and 
 propi'r coiistriic- 
 •,OIJU of the pure 
 
 trustees on tlie 
 ,d'the A. eiuireii; 
 uid, It was to be 
 wardens for the 
 that eliureh. A 
 1 a pecnniary gilt 
 
 in a will or in a 
 
 the v;onstriictiou 
 
 s not all'eete I by 
 
 I'.'iieral residuary 
 
 ■liinu-ilnis ol' flic 
 
 . ;}Slj. — Boyd. 
 
 iiiji III. 
 
 ded tliat in case 
 ;dl ami so deprive 
 (Is therein devised 
 devised to S. 
 -ut of his father 
 
 altering his will and depriving him (the testator) 
 iif the lands therein devised to him, then he de- 
 vised the said land otherwise. He then be- 
 (jueathed jjeeuniary legacies to certain of his 
 children, adding in the case of those of tinnn who 
 were umler cdghteen, the words "to he paid to 
 them when they come of age,'' ami concluding, 
 " 1 do hereby authorize ami direct my said 
 executors to invest the moneys devised to my 
 children in good legal securities, until they 
 ■•urive of age, and the interest obtained from 
 such investment to be p liil to my wife to ssist 
 licr in sn))porting and educating my family.'' 
 'The father of the testator did not revoke or alter 
 his will in the way rcfc'ircd to, but the testator 
 |)iedeceased llim : Held, that tlie wonis rela._ 
 liiig to till! altm-alion of his Mill l>y tiic father of 
 the testator nuist l>o construed as meaning that 
 if the testator became t\n- owner of the lands 
 <levised in his fatlu^r's will, so that liceiuild ba\e 
 a disposing power over them, tiien that they 
 siiould go in the manner mentioned :- Held, 
 also, that the pecuniary legac-ies were all of tluin 
 Vested ; aiid that tlu! legacy left to each cjiild 
 j» which did mit attain twenty-one within the year 
 
 1 after the testator's deatli, was to be invested 
 
 until each chihl canu; of age, and the interest u|) 
 to the sevei'al times when they should (nicIi 
 attain twenty-one, should licajiplied iii assisting 
 the widow or mother to maintain and ucate 
 such eliild or cidiilrcn, and as each chihl lined 
 twenty-one he or she would be entitle^ to be 
 ]iaid tlieir respective legacies. Ili ,S/ir:iii/i- - 
 S/iurji v. Sjivoiili, 17 (). 1!. .'Hlil. -Robertson. 
 
 Sue a ill \: llllmoin; U (). I!. l'21l, p. Sli!). 
 
 (gl Lialii/lli/ to Jt'ifiniil. 
 
 Held, in this ease th.at although tlie sums 
 overpaid to some of the legatees had been so paid 
 with the sanction of tlie court, but in a suit in 
 which infants now claiming were not Jiropeily 
 represeutt ., that did not relieve tlie (larties to 
 whom such payments were made from refunding 
 the amount, ijut under the cireuinstancca' the 
 order foi' repayment should arrange the mode 
 thereof so as to be as little burdensoaie as should 
 apjiear to he consistent with justice to the jiarties 
 entitled to receive the money. Andi-i:\jn\. liitll, 
 8 A. R. .'■.,'Jl. 
 
 (h) lull ri ■it oil. 
 
 See Tonmrif v. Tiw^ii, \ 0. K. 70S. )). -J-'O.'; 
 .\liuiM< V. Liiidmi/, no. K. .VJ(», p. Si)!). 
 
 (i) licleaic of. 
 
 Right to compel legatee to execute release. 
 See K'tiicv v. Iioyiiioii, 7 O. H. 14.'J, j). IKi.!. 
 
 (j) Ahn/tiii' 11/. 
 
 A testator bciiueathed, " unto my sister M. .1. 
 such suiu a-^ will, together with what sh ill be 
 at her credit in my books at Monti, al, m ikc 
 Sli, 001).'' At the ti'iiij of the in iking of the will 
 there was S:{,'J.')S. 47 at .\[. . I. "s credit, but suli- 
 seijueiitly the test itor disp ised of his biisiiiess, 
 and as part of the arrangeniciit [ilaeed an addi- 
 tional sum of S.',0;il) to M. .J.'s credit, making 
 
 the whole sum al her credit .*.■), "J.'iS.-t'J ; of this 
 Slim, S;>,fl()()was |)laced on a sjiecial account at 
 interest, .'iS'J.OOO was agreed to be paid to her by 
 the purchasers, and the balance, .'«!'2.")S.4'2, was 
 paiil in cash, and her account balanced in the 
 books, leaving nothing at her credit : -Held, 
 that M. .I.'s legacy was to be reduced by tlie 
 amount of testator's debt to her at the time of 
 his death ; tiiat what had taken place an uinteil 
 to pavineiit of the debt ; and that she was enti- 
 tled to tlie legacy of ••?(), OOU. ir/7/,-,sv. M'Mm, 
 1 O. l;. l.-^l. — I'rou.lfoot. 
 
 1-2. Coii'l!: 
 
 (.ml Coiirliiiiihul l.iinitaliowi. 
 
 K. R. W . was a devisee under tlu! will of her 
 father \\. 15., of certain real estate in Toronto, 
 the material parts of which will were as follows : 
 " After the de.itli of my wife I dii-cct the said 
 freehold and leasehold property to be for the 
 beiielit of my son R. ai'd my daughters .M. ami 
 R., tlicir lieiis and assigns, to be divided in the 
 manner follDwiiig. " He then gave a part to the 
 son R. and proceeded thus ; " The freehold iiro- 
 |ie''ty I hold at present on .larvis street in this 
 city, to be divided in two lots from .larvis street 
 (to'O Mutual street, the lot witli tli.' hinise to be 
 given to .M. L. to hold fin' her beiielit during her 
 natural life, and to dispose of the same by will 
 and testament only, the reinainiiig lot thirty-live 
 feet wide on .larvis street, riinning through to 
 .Mutual street. I beipicath to my daugluer E. R. 
 and that she shall not dispose of tlie same only 
 l)y will and testament, and if either of iny said 
 daughters shall deiiart this life without leaving 
 issue, then and in such ease the survivor shall be 
 possessed of the share of the deceased sister." 
 i;. R. \V. contracted to sell the property deviseil 
 to her when the purchaser objccti'd to complete 
 the purchase on the ground that she had only a 
 life estate in it. On an apiilication uiiiler the 
 Vendors and I'urchascrs' Act, II. S. ()., (1877) e. 
 Ml!). It was:— Held, that K. R. W. took an 
 estate in fee simple, which was, however, res- 
 ti'icted by a condition against alienation in any 
 manner, except by a testanieritaiy instrument 
 and that such ri -traiiit was valid, lie Win.itnn- 
 l'i/,(U). n. .•II,-).— Chy. 1). 
 
 After a devise to his •■ u ('., his heirs and as- 
 signs for ever, of certa .iids, a testator added 
 th.it his devise to C, wassiilijcet to this express 
 condition, that he should n >t sell or mortgage 
 the land during bis life, but with power to do- 
 vise the same! to his children as he might think 
 tit in such way as lie might desire :~llcld, that 
 the case was governed by lie \Viiistanley, (J (). 
 R. 31."), and that the prop.rty wis not clothed 
 with a trust in favour of the children, but the 
 devisee took it in fee simple witli, however, a 
 valid iirohiliilion against selling and mortgigiiig 
 it during his life. '/iV Xorlhro/e, 18 O. I!. U)7.~ 
 Hi.yd. 
 
 \y. (>., by the third clause of his will devised 
 and beipicathed the residue of his estate to his 
 wife, I'uur sous .and two dau,diters, tlic devise 
 ,11, d be.piest being subject to the coailition that 
 they should .all unite in )i:iying to the executors 
 before the 1st .lannary, 1877, the sum of .'$l,(itK), 
 .iirl the s.une siim before the Isl .lanii.iry, 1882, 
 said sums to pay the shares of tw.i of the sons, 
 Alex iiider and Duncan. I>y the fourth clause 
 he gave the sum of §I,()()D, without condition, 
 
2207 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2208 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 to each of his sons, Alexander and Duncan. l?y 
 the 5th clause lie devised to his sons Douglas 
 and Robert Oliver tivo lots, and after giving 
 several lejjacies to his daughters, he proceeded : 
 "and further, tliat Alexander and Duncan work 
 on the farm until their legacies become due." 
 Alexander left the farm in 1871, and entered 
 into mercantile pursuits : — Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the court below, (i A. It. !i'X'}, 
 which aflirmed the judgment of Proudfoot, V. (,'. , 
 Kitohie, C. J., and Henry, J., dissenting, that 
 the direction tiiat Alexander shouhl work on 
 tlie farm was a condition precedent to his right 
 to the legacy of §1,000. Olircr v. Daridmn, 11 
 [^. C. 1!. 10(i. 
 
 A testator bequeathed his chattels and §1,000 
 to his widow. His estate lie directed, to be sold 
 and the SI, .500 to be i':>',l out of tiie proceeds. 
 After providing for tiie vestment of the estate, 
 he piocceded: "the _^ jaily interest accruing 
 from the same to be paid over to my said wife 
 yearly for tlie term of six years, or until my son 
 shall become twenty-one; otli. It is my will 
 tliat the aliovc-mentidued gifts and becjuests to 
 my wife shall )ie given to her in lieu of dower, 
 and on the further condition tliat she will 
 ch)the, maintain, and suitably' provide for my 
 said son until he sliall liecome twenty-one ; (!lh. 
 It is further my will tliat on tiie coming of age 
 of my said son, my executors shall ]iay over to 
 him the wliole of tlie principal sum of money 
 remaining in their liands after satisfying tlie 
 above exiieiiscs and legacies ; 7tli. Ill case my 
 said son slioiiM die beture (Miming of age, tlicn 
 the money so reiiiaiiiiiig as aliove, and to whicli 
 he wonlil tlieii lie entitled, shall be paid over to 
 my two eldest brothers." 'I'lu: sun died under 
 twenty-one :— Held, that all the gifts to the 
 willow were ujion the condition of niaintaiiiiiig 
 the son ; l)ut the eondition having lieeoine im- 
 possible of pert'cirniance by the .son's de itli. the 
 gilts were denuded of the eondilinn :— Held, 
 also, that the testatiir's brothers were not en- 
 titled to payment ol the capital until the time 
 at which the son would have attained the ."i^c of 
 twenty-one if he had lived ; and in the mean- 
 time the ^\ iilow was entitled to the income. 
 Grahum V. Jio/toti, !l t). H. 481. — Ferguson. 
 
 Testator, after granting to liis wife a life estate 
 in certain land, dev ised the same to his son, 
 subject to the fdUowiiig conditions ; " Kirst, 
 that he abstain totally trom intoxicating Iii|Uors 
 and eard-playing. Second, that he be Uiml and 
 obedient to his mother. 'i'liinl, that he be 
 known among his friemls as an indnstrions man 
 ten years afti r the death of his mother. Sli<nild 
 he fnllil these abuxe mentioned eonditioiis Igive 
 and devise to him to hold to his heirs and assigns 
 for ever tlu^ said lot. SliouM my son Michael 
 not till to the lettc r these I'onditions, then he 
 shall hav<' no lij^ht or title to the use of the said 
 ])ro)ierty during or after his molher"s lifetime. 
 P.ut I wdl and bc(|iu:ctli said half lot to m_\ j;rand- 
 
 .).. lohol 1 to his 1 
 
 lens and assi'Mis for ever 
 
 or indefinite for trial or adjudication by the 
 court; and iiaving been broken the .son's title 
 failed in .so far as the eondition was precedent, 
 and was forfeited in so far as the condition was 
 suliscijueiit. iSemble, that conditions two ami 
 three »vcre valid, and not too vague or nidetinitu 
 for trial or adjudication by the court : — Held, 
 also, that although the son was one of the heiis- 
 at-law it was not U'- essary to shew that he had 
 notice of the will o, the uonditions in it, for lie 
 had possession of tiie land as devisee under the 
 will from liis n.other's death until his own. 
 Jordan v. JJiiiiu, V.i O. R. "267.— Q.B.D. ; lo A. 
 II. 744. 
 
 Such a condition as the first could not fairly 
 be interpreted to pi-eclnde the use of intoxicants 
 for purely medicinal purposes. .V. ('., \'i A. I!. 
 744. 
 
 T. C. S. devised his estate of Clark Kill, with 
 the islands, lands, and grounds appertaining, to 
 liis nephew M. M.'s grandmother, by her will, 
 directed her executors to pay him iij'i.OOO a year 
 so long as he should remain the owner and 
 actual occupant of Clark Hill, " to enable him 
 the better to kee]) up, decorate, and beautifv 
 the projicrty known as Clark Hill and the islands 
 connected therewith": — Held, that the exprn- 
 priation, under an Act of the Legislature, of 
 |).ut of the Clark Hill estate, did not in any way 
 allect M.'s right to tliis annuity ; and therefore 
 in awai'ding compensation to M. for the lands 
 expropriated the arbitrators properly excluded 
 the consideration of any eontcmpl.ited loss liy 
 M. of tills annuity. A failure by M. to reside 
 and oeeu|>y would be in the nature of a forfei- 
 ture for bi'each of a condition subsei(iient, and 
 his right to the annuity would continue ab.soliite 
 until something occuired to divest the estate 
 which must be by his own act or default : the 
 vis major of a bi;idiiig statute couhl not work a 
 III! feiture. I'pon the evidence the court refused 
 to interfere with the amount of comiicnsatieu 
 awarded. /« ;v Marhh in diiil lln Co>inni-i''ioii<:rs 
 of /Ik Xhi.j.im Falls /'ad; 14 A. H. 'JO 
 
 S. M. had become entitled under T. C. S. 's 
 will to certain property called "Clark Hill, " 
 of which T. C. S. was owner when he died, ami 
 also to an uinlivided interest in certain other 
 pro]>erty of which 'I'. C. S. was tenant in coiu- 
 nion. lie also became entitliMl to a legacy uiider 
 the following clause of A. H. S.'s will : " I will 
 and direct that so .soon as .S. M. * * can ami 
 does take actual piisession of the real estate and 
 property * " under the will of 'P. C. S. * 
 
 * my executors * shall * * so long as 
 he remains the owner and actual occupant of the 
 said real e.-tate p.iy over to him * ' * the 
 annual sum of .-^'.'.d'oO to enable, etc. : — Held, that, 
 this clause, ii'ad in connection with the will of 
 'r. ' '. .'^., ii'feried only to the land of which T. 
 ( '. S. was absoliile owner, and not lo tli<^ land 
 h" owiMil as tenant in coinnioii : — IbM, also, 
 that actual possession and oceupatinii of the' land 
 by .S. M. 
 
 -Held, (1) that ll 
 
 tl 
 
 nee conditions were con- 
 
 ditions precedent u|i to the time 
 
 deatl 
 
 diti 
 
 (I th it conditions on 
 
 lb; 
 
 .f tl 
 nd tl 
 
 le m< 
 
 .tin 
 
 lis einisonant with and salislied hy 
 the iiossessicm of a servant or caretaker, or even 
 a worker on shares 
 
 lis subsi .luent for ten years 
 
 iree were 
 
 atier 
 
 tin 
 
 ary absence from the mansion house on 
 jierty, which was kept fuini>lied iiml 
 
 and that S, .M.'s teiiiiiMr- 
 
 tlie pro- 
 
 in char''!' 
 
 nioti 
 
 ler s death. 
 
 'I'lnit either the use of infoxi- 
 
 )f 
 
 a servant, did not create a torfeitui 
 
 .\r,i'/:- 
 
 eating licpiors or the playing of ca 
 a breach of the first condition 
 
 Ills wiiuli 
 
 1 b. 
 ;t. That the 
 
 /i nl V. M(i(/,-i 
 
 l!IO. R. 48'2. — IJovd. 
 
 See 
 
 C/ad-' 
 
 first condition was valid and was not too vai-iie I'r C(i>-n( r, O. 1! 
 
 f ;///,.-)(). U. 140, p. •2\Sl: 
 
 !'■ 
 
 .'178. 
 
2208 
 
 ;ation 1\Y tlie 
 the sou's title 
 vas precedent, 
 eondilion was 
 ions two and 
 ne or indelinite 
 oourt -.—Held, 
 ne of tl\e heirs- 
 ew that he had 
 ina in it, for he 
 viseo under the 
 until his own. 
 -Q.B.D.; 1")A. 
 
 !0uld not fairly 
 seof intoxicants 
 
 .s. c, 1.-) A. i:. 
 
 Clark Kill, with 
 appertaining, to 
 her, hy her will, 
 ini .•?-2,O0O a year 
 the owner and 
 "to enable him 
 ;e, and lieaulity 
 ill and the islands 
 that the expro 
 3 Legislature, of 
 id not in any way 
 y ; and therefore 
 M. for the lands 
 .roperly exeluded 
 ;eniplated loss hy 
 i; hy M. to reside 
 lature of a forfei- 
 11 sulise(|uent, and 
 contiiiuealisohito 
 divest tlie estate 
 , „r defa\iU : the 
 could not work a 
 L' the eoi.rt refused 
 f (lompensatiou 
 
 A. H. •-:<i 
 
 under T. ('. S/s 
 "Clark Hill, 
 when he ilied, and 
 ill certain other 
 lis tenant in com- 
 lualciiacv under 
 S.'swiil-. "1 wdl 
 ,, » " can and 
 the real estate au(l 
 ill of T. C. S. 
 * * so long as 
 iial occupant <>f the 
 
 lUU * * * t^'"^ 
 ^.tc :_-rield,that 
 
 ,11 with the will of 
 
 eland of whicli 1. 
 
 ,„1 not to th.^ land 
 
 ,uou-.-ll'l'l. f": 
 ■upatinn of tlic laud 
 
 li,ii,d satislie'M.y 
 
 careiaker, or even 
 
 it S. M.'s tcuip'ir- 
 
 11 house <ui the pro- 
 
 -.IumI and in charj,'e 
 
 t,„feiture. .'^"'■'••• 
 
 ^).- I'.oyd. 
 
 (). w. uo, p. '.^is*; 
 
 ITS. 
 
 2209 
 
 See A/iium v 
 Vookv. Xohk, 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2210 
 
 13. (.'oiitrihiitioii. 
 
 Liirlii.ryS. ('. R. 514, p. •21i)7 
 12 () R. SI, p. 748, p. 221-2. 
 
 ance of the plaintitt'a was, hy the will, made a 
 charge ui)on the lands ; and tiiey might forsiitii- 
 cient reasons, cease to live at iionie, and yet still 
 lie entitled to sueli support and iii linteuance. 
 Simiii^on V. /It lit 1)1/, 4 O. R. .■)72. — l'"erguson. 
 
 The testator also devised certain lamls to his 
 widow, to have and to hold the same for tiie 
 following uses ; " To .sell and dispose of the 
 same as she should think proper and rigiit, 
 and tlie moneys tiiereupon coming and arising 
 to u.se and apply for the payment of iiiy just 
 dehts, and for the maintenunco of herself and 
 my minor ehildien, and tiio education of such 
 eiiildren as she may see to he (it and neces- 
 .sary," and h'j lutiiorized his wife to iMinvey the 
 said lands in lee simple to the purchasers and 
 the same eipially hetweeii and ■ directed that in the event of any of the said 
 
 14. l^ronnloiis fur Siipiior! and Maiiittnance. 
 
 A testator devised all his real and iiersonal 
 estate, to trustees to sell the realty and get in 
 the personalty, the proceeds of wliich, after iJay- 
 iiieiit of dehts, they were to invest in their names 
 upon trust tn pay the annual income to his two 
 sons in eijual moieties, they maintaining their 
 mother during life ; and after the death of each 
 of the sons the trustees to liidd one moiety of 
 the trust moneys ujion trust to pay and divide 
 and transfer 
 
 amongst such of his children as siiould he living 
 at his decease, and tiie issue then living of .such ; 
 children as should he then dead, as tenants in' 
 eomninn in a course of clistril)ution, according to 
 the stocks, and not to the nuiidicr of individual 
 objects, anil so that tlie issue of any deceased 
 child should take, hy way of substitution, 
 amongst thcin, the share or respective shares 
 only, which the deceased parent or parents 
 would, if living, have taken :--IIehl, that the' 
 
 lands remaining unsold at the time when his 
 yiningest surviving child should attain twenty- 
 one, then the above devises and powers sho'.ihl 
 cease, am) the lands be subject to the tinsts of 
 his will previously declared, under which the 
 lands Were ultimately to be divided among his 
 children. The testator was twice married : — 
 Held, that the children and grandchildren of 
 the testator's first marriage had no right to de- 
 mand an account of the lands sold under the 
 widow was not put to her election, but was , aliove provisions, or investigate the amount 
 entitled to dower as well as the provision made used for mainteiiauce : — SembTe, that the widow 
 for her hy the will ; and it being alleged th.at , took absolutely the balance of the proceeds of 
 the sons had not provided for her maintenance, '. sale not reipiired for debts. In the case of sejia- 
 a declaration was made that she was entitled to rate devises, though the wife may be barred of 
 
 •such inaintenance, and a reference was directed 
 to find what would he a pinijcr sum for that 
 purpose, that a eoinidetc conversion had been 
 eflfeeted by the trust for sale in the will, so that 
 the interests of the sons should be ascertained 
 as if the will consisted of personal estate only ; 
 un<l that the sons took life estates therein only ; 
 and one of the sons having died without chil- 
 dren that there was an intestacy as to his sliare, 
 .subject however, to a proportion of the charge 
 for the inaintenance of the widow. MtOurii/ v. 
 Thoiii/ixuii, 2!) (;hy. 287.— I'roudfoot. 
 
 The testator by his will devised the proceeds 
 of certain real estate to his d lughter-inlaw, I''. 
 IX, widow of his son, \V. 1)., deceased, to her 
 me and supi>ort of his son \V. D.'s children dur 
 
 her dower in one, she is not therefore barred of 
 her dower in the others. Cowan v. Btsserer, 5 
 O. R. G24.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A testator willed as follows : — " I give, devise 
 
 and bei|neath to my executor and executrix " 
 
 (of whom one was the plaintifi', the testator's 
 
 I widow), " all my real and personal property of 
 
 I every kiinl whatsoever, for the beiietit of 
 
 my children, share and share alike, and to my 
 
 i wife while she continues my widow, and 1 give 
 
 to my said executor and executrix power to sell 
 
 any part or the whole of my real property for 
 
 the support and maintenance of my children and 
 
 my wife while she remains my wiiiow" ; — Held, 
 
 in an action brought by the widow, that under 
 
 ibovo will, she and the children took the 
 
 I the 
 ng her natural life, or so long as she remained . real and personal property jointly, she during 
 his widow ; and in the event of the death of his ] widowhood, and they share and share abke 
 said daughterin-law, then to his grandchildren i absolutely ; that she did no*- take .ui iiiiniediato 
 .so long as they remained minors. He then de- 1 estate in the whole with reversion to her cliil- 
 vised the land to his grandson P. I)., in fee, but \ dreii :— Held, also, that a lefeience might he 
 subject to the above devise. After the testator's directed similar to that in Main riy r. Tin ton, 
 death K. 1). married again, and was still living : ' 14 Vcs. 4m), to ascertain wdiethcr it wmild have 
 —Held, that the intent of the testator was, that ' been reasonable and proper in the trustees to 
 in any event the minors were to have the sup- I ai)])ly any or what part of the land, having re- 
 port of the land during minority, and therefore ! gard to the situation and circumstances of the 
 were so entitled during such miliority, upon the I children to their support and maintenance, and 
 determination of the mother's estate by marriage ! a declaration made that 
 
 jva well as by death. 
 P. 243. -C. P. I). 
 
 lli-nri/ V. Oillceca, 31 V. 
 
 the sum whicii the 
 master should Hud to have been proiierly ex- 
 pended by the mother in pu.it m.iintenanee 
 formed a charge upon the inheritancn of the 
 e'hildren respectively in the land, but ..s the di- 
 rections of the will had not been observed, the 
 eni|niry must be at the expense of the mother. 
 Doii<ih'l V. Dniiald, 7 O. R. 06'.).— Boyd. 
 
 A testator by his will, dated 31st May, 1872, 
 ance so long as they, or either of them, remain i after several specific bcipiests, gave the residue 
 at home with (his two sons) ; " and he gave hii' i," his real and personal estate to his trustees 
 personal property to his two sons in equa, ; upon trust to pay to each of his daughters, J. 
 shares:— Held, that the support and maiuten- j anJ L., for life, the annual allowance of §800 
 
 13'J 
 
 A testator devised certain lands to his tvo 
 sons, declaring that the legacies thereinafter 
 mentioned shouM be a charge thereon. He thei« 
 bequeathed '.criain pecuniary legacies to hi. 
 daughters, adding, " 1 give and devise also unto 
 (his said daughters) their support and maiuten 
 

 2211 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2212 
 
 S 
 
 I 
 
 each, wliicli tliuy were tlieu receiving, to be paid 
 to tiu'in seini-aiiniialiy, and to pay foi- thcediiua- 
 tioii, luaiiiteiiaiiL'u and ordinary reijuireniciitH of 
 Ilia soil (>., and then proceede.l : " And I direct 
 my trustees in their discretion, if tiiey liiid my 
 son (J. de.servinj,' of the same, to niake s leh an- 
 nual allowance to liini as to them may seem 
 warranted liy tlie pmceeiis of tlie income of my 
 estate, and if my said trnstees are satished as to 
 Ids steadiness they are to treat my said son (1. 
 in respCL't to the said allowance in the same 
 mivnner as my s lid daughters, J. and L. * * 
 It is my will thaX in the case of each of my said 
 daughters the eaj)ital sum necessary to produce 
 the allowance made to her he paid after her death 
 to such person oi' persons as she may by will 
 direct :" — Held, th it(jeorge wasonly entitled to 
 his maint.cnance and education duriiij,' minority, 
 for tliiiv was nothing in the will to indicate an 
 intention to extend the trust for maintenance 
 and eilncation lieyorul that period: — Held, also 
 that (icorge was not entitled to any annual allow- 
 ance in addition to his maintenance and educa- 
 tion during his minority, and the amount which 
 might be piid him after attaining majority, as 
 an annual allowance, rested on what the trnstees 
 in their discretion might deem warranted by the 
 estate. For by treating (J. in the same manner 
 as J. and L. the testator referred oidy to the 
 iTKxle of payment, ami the power of disposing of 
 the prineii)al, not to the amount of tiie allowance. 
 Jlacduinitd v. McLi'iDuui, 8 O. K. 17U. — Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 G. H. Z. in his will provided, with respect 
 to a certain mortgage, "I give and bequeath 
 out of the procerils of said mortgage to each of 
 mj- daughters (lumdng them) the sum of §200, 
 to be paid to them respectively when the 
 youngest reaches the age of twenty-one, and 
 if any of them shall not have been married 
 before that time the child or children being 
 then unmarried sliall not leceive their shares 
 until such times as she or they shall many. 
 Provided that my executors may i)ay such jiart or 
 ])arts of said legacies to my married daughters 
 before the youngest attains twenty-one if they 
 can do so without interfering with tiic pro])er 
 support of my wife and family. Provided if any 
 of my daughters <lie without issue the legacy 
 betpieathed to them shall be divided among their 
 surviving sisters. 'J'he bahmce of the proceeds 
 of said niortg igo I give and bequeath to my saiil 
 wife, to have and to hold the same for her use 
 and jjcnelit, and for the use and benefit of the 
 unmarried mendjers of my family, during the 
 natural life of my said wife, alter which my 
 will is, that the balance of proceeds of said 
 mortgage still remaining be equally divided 
 among my daughters then surviving:" — Held, 
 that tlic widow held in trust during iier life for 
 herself and her unmarried daughter, and that 
 she was bound <luring her life to apply the pro- 
 <:eeds of the mortgage for the proper support of 
 herself and that daughter while unioarried, 
 treating the j)rinci|)al and interest of the mort- 
 giige as a blended fund, and what remained was 
 to be divided ; and that the widow had the 
 right to draw bona tide from the prooneds of the 
 mortgage even if it consumed the v ,ole of the 
 corpus. Barclay v. Zavilz, 8 0. R. L'63. — Boyd. 
 
 A testator made his will as follows : — " I 
 leave to M. the west half of lot 9 during her 
 
 natural life. I leave to my son A." (an imbe- 
 cile) " his board and lodging with €") per year 
 during his natural life, to be given as heieinafter 
 mentioned. I leave to 15." (curtain other lands) 
 " niuler the folluwiug restriction: i. e., he is to 
 pay A. £'.\ every year dnrin// his natural life. 1 
 leave to H. the west half lot i), after Ids mother's 
 death, on the following condition: i.e., il'l in 
 eaeli year to be paid by him to A., and to keep 
 A. in board and lodging dining his natural life."' 
 The devise to II. failed, lie being an attesting 
 witness; — Held, that A.'s niaintenance as from 
 the death of the testator, and not as from 
 the death of .M., was a charge on the west half 
 lot !) in the hands of the hiirs: an<l the land 
 having, foi' some time after tint testator's deceiise, 
 been occupied under mistake of title by H. and 
 his assiitns, who had paid for A.'s maintenance, 
 the heirs could not enjoy the land without 
 making good the cliarge thereon to those who 
 had thus exonerated them. Muiisii' v. Liii'/yny, 
 11 O. H. iVJO.— Boyd. See also S. ('., 10 P. K. 
 43-', p '2I'J8. 
 
 A testator gave to his executors and trustees, 
 of whom his wife was one, all his real and per- 
 sonal estate, with a direction to convert his |)er- 
 sonal estate into money, pay debts, and invest 
 the balance. He directed them to ])ay his wile 
 fr(un time to time such money as miglit i)e suf- 
 ficient to support, maintain, and educate liis 
 family, and to maintain his wile in a manner 
 suited to their condition in life, and for that pur- 
 pose gave his wife power to collect money and 
 to take therefrom enough to maintain his family 
 and herself. And he (iirected his sons to pay 
 her §150 a year after they received tluir lands, 
 charging it on his lands, but they weie not to 
 pay it so long as she and tlie family were main- 
 tained out of the estate. The trustees were to 
 pay .§1,000 to each of the daughters as they at- 
 tained twenty-one, and if there was not sulfi- 
 cient personal estate to pay tlnni, the balance 
 was to be a charge on the leal estate : the real 
 estate was to be divided between the sons when 
 the ehlest attained twenty five, and then the 
 trustees were to give him .:>i!,0()0. The balance 
 of the personal estate was to lie divided between 
 the sons, the eldest being ciiarged with his 
 §'2,000. The testator's widow married again : — 
 Hehl, tiiat the children were only entitled to 
 maintenance until they attained their majori- 
 ties : -Held, also, that the widow was entitled 
 to maintenance until the provision as to the 
 §150 came into operation wliich would lie when 
 the sons respectively attained twenty-live. Al- 
 though the maintenance was to be made from 
 the personal estate, and no part of the rents 
 were assigned for that purpose, as the devisees 
 of the real estate were not entitled until they 
 .•ittaiiie<l twenty-five, the inteiinediatc rents not 
 being disi)oso<l of descended to the heirs-at-law, 
 i.e., the children, and might be applied for their 
 maintenance if the iieisoiial estate was insulii- 
 cient. Cook- v. Xoh/i-, 12 0. R. 81.— Proudfoot. 
 
 When a testator has ' inself sp(^eilied the time 
 for the duration of maintenanee, that will be oh- 
 served ; but the riglit to maintenance and sup- 
 port, when given in general terms, will cease 
 with the marriage or forislamiliation of a child. 
 Kn.'ipp i\ Noyes, Anib. 002 ; <!ardner c. IJarhcr, 
 ISdur. 508; and Wilkins i,. Jodrell, 13 Chy. 
 1). 504, considered and commented on. Jb. 
 
2212 
 
 2213 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2214 
 
 (an imbe- 
 5 iior year 
 licruiiiafter 
 tlicr lauds) 
 c, he is to 
 iiallilV. 1 
 lis umthti-'H 
 
 i.e., il-i i" 
 and to Ufcp 
 atuial life."' 
 in allestiuB 
 iviiee as from 
 not as from 
 ,lio west half 
 nd tlie land 
 tor'.s decease, 
 tic hy H. and 
 niiiinlenanee, 
 land withinit 
 to tliose wlio 
 Ir V. hiii'Isny, 
 . ('., 10 P. H. 
 
 s and trustees, 
 real and pev- 
 ;oiivert Ids i)er- 
 hts, and invest 
 o i)ay Ids wife 
 i might he suf- 
 iid educate his 
 \, in a nuvnner 
 ndfor lhati)ur- 
 leot money and 
 intain his family 
 liis sous to \)ay 
 ved th.il- lands, 
 liey were not to 
 Iniiv were main- 
 [lUStees were to 
 [iters as they JVt- 
 was not sum- 
 •ni, the halance 
 estate : the real 
 n tlie sons when 
 iuid then the 
 lO ihe balance 
 [ ,'livided between 
 [barged with his 
 luKinied again :-- 
 „„lv entitled to 
 ,.,1 Iheir nuijoli- 
 ll„\v was eutiileil 
 .vision as to the 
 1, would be wlieji 
 twenty-live. Al- 
 to be ma.le frotn 
 jart of the rents 
 ., as the devisees 
 .titled until they 
 ■mediate rents not 
 „ the lieirsatlaw, 
 ,e applied for their 
 estate was iiisutti- 
 li. SI.— l'i'""'l'""'' 
 if specified the time 
 |,ce that will b'^"''- 
 l.tenance and sup- 
 ll terms, will ^^»'>'^ 
 Liliation of a chiUl. 
 [dardnerr. Uarhcr, 
 Jodrell, 13 <-liy. 
 Iieiited on. ib- 
 
 A widow ceases to be entitled to support and I 
 maintenance upon marrying again :— (^ua-re as 
 to her rights if siie should again become a widow , 
 without means of support. Ih. 
 
 The personal estate turned out insufliciont 
 to pay tiie legacies of which the one of .*!'2,0(K) I 
 was lirst payable out of those remaining un- j 
 paid : — Held, if the S'ifiOO legacy tti the son 
 iibsorljed all the pcnuonal estate, the daughters i 
 would get none of it as their legacies were chaig- . 
 «id on the land, and that tlie §2,000 legacy and 
 the legacy for maintenam-e must abate propor- 
 tionally, and that there was no ground for mar- 
 shalling. //(. ' 
 
 I 
 
 C. devised the residue of his real estate to his | 
 executors in ti'ust for his four children (naming 
 them) " until they or the survivor or survivors | 
 of them shall have attained the ago of twenty- 
 one years, said real estate to he divided amongst 
 the said four children, share and share alike, 
 and in case any of them shall have died leaving 
 issue, the said issue shall take the share which 
 ■otherwise would have gone to his, her, or their 
 parent." He alEo directed that his executors 
 slionld provide for the maintenance, support and 
 education of the said four chihlren during their 
 minority ont of the income to be derived from 
 time to time out of his real and personal pro- 
 perty not otherwise devised and betiueatlied by 
 ids will: — Held, that I'. J. C, one of the 
 four chihlren w ho had attained twenty-one was 
 not eiitith'd to maintenance after that age. 
 Jt'ijau V. Coo/cy, 14 0. R. ],3. — Ferguson; ISA. 
 R. 379. 
 
 A testator by his will provided as follows: "I 
 will and devise that my said executors and trus- 
 tees shall comfortably provide for and maintain 
 and clothe my father and mother during their 
 lifetime, and that the same shall be a charge 
 upon my estate." The father and mother died 
 and during their last illness certain expenses 
 were incurred for medical attendance, nurses, 
 etc., and after their death for funeral expenses 
 and JOiiglish solicitor's fees in endeavoring to 
 collect the several accounts for the same : - Held, 
 that the expenses were covered by the provision 
 for maintenance, and an order was made for 
 I heir payment out of the testator's estate, lloicc 
 V. Caiiair, l.j O. li. (iUT. — Ferguson. 
 
 A testator bequeathed to his daughter " a 
 home as long as she may remain single ' in his 
 dwelling-house : — Held, that though in the (.'ase 
 of an infant ''home"wouhl probably include 
 niiiintenance, yet that the legatee in this case 
 being of :ige, and there being no exjiress words 
 giving her maintenance after minority, she was 
 not entitled to maintenance under the above be- 
 iiuest. Auyiistiiie v. {ichrier, 18 O. R. 1!)'2. — 
 lioyd. ^_^^ 
 
 Where a provision is made for maintenance, 
 the duration of which is detined by tlie test itor, 
 it will go on for the ])iescribed period iiolwith- 
 slandiiig the ileath of the beneheiary, because 
 to avoid an intestacy the court will adjudge it 
 to the I e[)resentatives of the deceased. Dun-son 
 v. Frasn; 18 O. R. 49(). — lioyd. 
 
 See aivim v. Darri/I, 27 Cliy. 502, p. 2087 ; 
 draham v. nollmi, !) O. I!. 481 j p. 2207 ; Yonmi 
 V. l'urri-<, 11 U. R. 597, p. 21G2. 
 
 1.5. K.itrci.ic of Power a/ Aj>iiointinrii/. 
 
 The decree in this cause (2S f 'hy. I,")0) reversed 
 so far as the will was declared void, on the ground 
 of insiiiie delusion. 'J'he testator, under the pro- 
 visions of his father's will, had the jiower of ap- 
 pointing his sliare of his father's estate among 
 his children or to his brother or sister. l?y his 
 will the testator gave portions, ••bout (uie-fourfh 
 of his estate to two of his elii' jii, and as to the 
 residue he appointed the same to his brother ('. 
 T. 15., desiring him to pay first his (testator's) 
 inilebtedne.ss to his father's estate, and to release 
 his policy of life insurance from such indebted- 
 ness, iUid tluMi gave and boipieatlieil to a stranger 
 the policy of assurance upon his life for .S.'f.OOO, 
 and all moneys arising therefrom : — Held that 
 as to the pfirtions of his estate given to his two 
 ■hildren the will was valid ; but as to the aji- 
 pointment to his brother, the same v as void as 
 being a fraudulent exercise of the power of ap- 
 pointment ; and therefore that as to tlie residue 
 after payment of the amounts given to the two 
 children the will was inoperative and void, and 
 that as to so much there was an intestacy. Jhll 
 v. Lee, 8 A. R. 18o. 
 
 A testator devised certain hands to his wife, 
 " to be held and enjoyed by her so long as she 
 shall live and remain unmarried. After my de- 
 cease and after her decease, or in the event of 
 her marrying again, then from and after such 
 second marriage, I will and devise the .»ame un- 
 to my son, who shall be named by my said wife, 
 by deed, under her hand and seal, and to his 
 heirs and assigns for ever. '' The widow married 
 again, without having executed the power : — 
 Held, that there being no s|)ecitic limitation as 
 to time, the whole period of the life of the donee 
 was allowed for the execution of the power, and 
 it did not cease upon her second marriage : — 
 (jiiierc, whether she could exercise it till after 
 lier second marriage. Cnwati v. Bcsserer, 5 
 O. R. 024.— I'roud toot. 
 
 Power to appoint ti'ustees. See MeLnchlin 
 V. Uaborne, Moiji-a v. Uxhurnc, 7 O. R. 297, p. 
 2000. 
 
 j A mortgage to secure .^800 on certain lands 
 was made by T. K. to his father. The proviso 
 for pa\ mint was that the §800 was to be paid to 
 the mortgagee's executors or administrators in 
 (■iglit weekly aiiiuial iiist ilments of SIOO each, 
 the first payment to be made one year after the 
 mortgagee's decease, upon trust to pay the same 
 to such person or jiersons as the mortgagee 
 should by deed endorse on the mortgage, or 
 otherwise by deed direet and appoint ; and in 
 default of appoii.tment to his cliildien other 
 than his son Jonn, etc. Xo appointment was 
 made by deed endorsed on the mortgige, or 
 otherwise by deed. The mortgagee by Ins will 
 directed that the §800 shoidd be payable, name- 
 ly, .^200 to each ot his three daughters A., M. 
 and B. , and §100 each to his granddaughter K. 
 aiiil his widow, to be [laid forthwith after his 
 death : — Held, that the will constituted a valid 
 appointment under the proviso in the mortgage, 
 and that the leg itees or apiiointees under it were 
 entitled to the sums beiiueathed to them ; but 
 that the time for the payment of the miniey 
 1 must be in accordance with the terms of the 
 I mortgage. AJcDennult v. Kciiian, 14 O. li. 
 Gb7. — Wilson. 
 
2216 
 
 WILL. 
 
 221» 
 
 fi: 
 
 I 
 
 Vy a mnrriagu Hottlemcnt laiiilH wore conveyed 
 to the use of tfiu suttlor, tliu iimthei' of tliu in- 
 tended buHbnnd, fur life, and aftei' her death iu 
 trust to \my the rents to the intended wife and, 
 in caao of her death before her iniHluind, upon 
 certain truats in favour of the husband and tlie 
 chihiren of the marriage ; but if he should die 
 in lier lifetime then in truHt for such persons as 
 ho by any deed with power of revocation and 
 new appointment, or by his will should direut 
 and appoint, an<l in default of appointment in 
 trust for his right heirs. Kefore the Ist of 
 January, 1S71, the husband predeceased his 
 wife, leaving no children. V>y bis will he de- 
 vised as follows : " I give unto my wife all my 
 real and personal estate whatever and whereso- 
 ever to hold unto her and her heirs, etc., abso- 
 lutely for ever. I do also transfer unto her all 
 the powers vested in me to be(|ueath, convey, or 
 execute by will or iitherwi.su all or any of the 
 
 Eroperties convoyed to her under the settlement 
 y hatiusiieba .Smith." The settlor was then 
 dead. The wife, a.ssiiming to execute the pcwer 
 contained in the settlement, by deed not con- 
 taining a power of revocation appointed the 
 lands to her own use absoluttdy and then con- 
 tracted to sell a part of them in fee. Upon a 
 case stated for the opinion of the court, under 
 the Venilor and Purchasers' Act as to whetiicr a 
 good title could be made to the ])urchaser, it was 
 held by the Chancellor: — (I) That the power 
 was not executed by the will. (2) That there 
 was a valid delegation of the power to the wife 
 by the will. (3) That the deed executed by her 
 was not a valid execution of the power because 
 not made with power of revocation and new 
 appointment ; and that the purchaser could not 
 be compelled to accept the title because of the 
 revocable character of iiny valid appointment by 
 deed. On appeal to this court : — Held, that the 
 donee could not by his will delegate the execu- 
 tion of the power to his wife, and therefore tiiat 
 she couhl not, under any circumstances, make a 
 valid ajipointment thcrei'nder. Judgment of 
 the chancellor (11 (). R. H)I, sub noni. Sniitli i: 
 McLcllan,) affirmed on this ground. Smilh v. 
 Chixhomr, 15 A. R. 738. 
 
 M. I), by her will devised certain land to 
 trustees upon trust to hold one part to the use 
 of her son C. fS. C for his lite, and after his de- 
 cease to convey the same to his children or to 
 such ol the testatrix's other three sons or their 
 chihiren as C ,S. C. nii;;ht by his last will ap- 
 point; and the other pait to the use of her son 
 W. I), ill j)redBely the same way. ('. !S. ('. and 
 VV. 1). each appointed his par(;el to the other by 
 will duly executed, and each conveyed to the 
 other his life interest, and covenanted in the 
 conveyance not to revoke the appointment made 
 by the will. They then contracted to sell both 
 jjareels to a ])urcliaser : — Held, that C. S. C. 
 an<l VV. I), each took under the will a life estate 
 with a j)ower to appoint the inheritance iu fee 
 by will amongst the specified objects, and that 
 such a power couhl not be executed except by 
 will; the intention being that the donee of the 
 jjower should not deprive himself until the time 
 of his death of his right to select such of the 
 objects of the power as he might deem proper ; 
 and notwithstanding the covenants here given 
 not to revoke the appointments, a subsequent 
 appointment by will to one of the other objects 
 ul the power would be a good execution of it, 
 
 and the covenants would not afl'ect the title of 
 the Hubsenuent appointee, for he would take the 
 estate under the original testatrix and not under 
 the devisee for life : — Held, also, that the posi- 
 tion of C. H. v. and W. 1). was not aided by 
 section 19 of K. S. O. (1887), o. 100, which gives 
 to the donee of a power the right to release or 
 to contract not to exercise it; by so doing they 
 couhl not confer upon thcm.selves the right to 
 give the purchaser a good title. Upon a peti- 
 tion under the Vendors and Purchasers' Act, it 
 was, therefore, <leelared that C. is. C and \V. 
 D. could not nuiko a, good title. J{t' Vothint 
 ami Diichi'oiih, IG 0. R. 735. — Street. 
 
 See Sim < v. Plntl, 12 (.). R. '2'-'!), p. 2175; /.', 
 Oiitdrio Loan mid Sariiiij"} Co, and I'oircrs, VI 
 O. 11. r)82, p. 2173. 
 
 10. Debis and Mortgmjes, 
 
 (a) Dtit liij Ttsl(Uor. 
 
 The Devolution of Estates' Act, I!) Vict. c. 22- 
 has not suijcrseded, but is to be reail in ccm- 
 junction with R. S. O. (1S77) c. 100, ss. 30, 37, 
 and mortgaged land devised by will is primarily 
 liable to pay its own burdens, unless the will 
 otherwise diiects by such terms as distinctly 
 and unmistakably refer to or describe the mort- 
 gage dcljts : — Held, that the fact that of two lots 
 owned by the testator, subject to encumbrances, 
 he devise<l one to his son, D. , while the otlici- 
 passed under a general devise to the executors 
 in trust for the heirs-at-law, all'onled no indica- 
 tion of intention that I), slioulil enjoy flee fiimi 
 the mortgage debt, nor did the fact that the 
 testator directed his debts to be paid out of a 
 mixed fund. JIasoiiv, Mtinoii, 13 O. R. 725. — 
 Hoyd. 
 
 Oi\ the 30th April, 1809, H. S. being indebted 
 to J. P. in the sum of 1^3, (X)0, granteil a hypothec 
 on certain real estate which he owned in the city 
 of Montreal. On 28th June, 1870, H. S. niailc 
 his will, in which the following clause is to bj 
 found; "That all my just debts, funeral and 
 testamentary expenses be paid by my execu- 
 tors, hereinafter named, as soon as poasildealtir 
 my death." By another clause he left to \V. Jl. 
 in usufruct, and to his children in property, the 
 said immoveables which had been hypothccatiil 
 to secure the said debt of «!3,()00. In IH79 II. 
 S. died, and a suit was brought against the rep- 
 resentative ol his estate to recover this sum ot 
 §3,000 and interest :- Held, reversing the juilj.;- 
 inent of the Oucen's Bench, 20 L. t!. Jui'. T'.*, 
 Strong. J., diss., that the direction by tlie testa- 
 tor to pay all his debts included thedebtof .'j3,ti()U 
 secured by the hypothec :— Per b'ournier, Tas- 
 chereau, and (Jwyniie, JJ., when a testator does 
 not expressly direct a particular legatee to dis- 
 charge a hypothec on an immoveable devised to 
 him. Art. 889 ot the C. C. does not bear tlie 
 interpretation that such particular legatee is lia- 
 ble for the payment of such hypothecary lUht 
 without recimrse against the heir or universal 
 legatee. J/arniiijlon v. Come, 9 S. C U. 412. 
 
 (b) Diir. to Tentator. 
 
 J. iS. directed his executors to cancel and en- 
 tirely release the indebtedness of his son VV. S. 
 upon a mortgage made by him to the testator. 
 
221ft 
 
 2217 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2218 
 
 tho title of 
 uUl take the 
 kI not uiulei 
 lat the l>o8i- 
 ot iviileil l>y 
 , which given 
 to release or 
 u doing they 
 
 the ligl't '" 
 Upon a peti- 
 lasers' Act, it 
 Ji. (.'. and NV. 
 J{f Volliint 
 ,rcet. 
 
 », p. 2175 ; l>< 
 nd I'oinrt, \t 
 
 ,jes 
 
 O.)- 
 
 , J9 Vict. 0. -J 
 l)e read in cmi- 
 \0«, as. 'M. :)T, 
 vill is priniiinly 
 
 unless the will 
 US us distinctly 
 scrihc tlieniort- 
 tthatof two lots 
 o eiicinnliranccs, 
 
 while the other 
 t.) the executors 
 or.lcdno iiidicii- 
 \ enjoy free from 
 l,e fact that the 
 
 be paid out of a 
 , 13 U. K- 725.- 
 
 S. being indebted 
 •anted a hypothec 
 owned in the city 
 1870, H. S. niade 
 ,ir clause is to li'J 
 ebts, funeral and 
 id by niy execu- 
 US possihlealtei 
 helelttoW. H. 
 ill prolieity, the 
 ,ueu hypotlu^calc.l 
 ,000. lnlH7'.tll. 
 lit against the rep- 
 "cover this sum ot 
 ■eversing the juog" 
 
 •'G L. ^'- •'"'• '■'' 
 ction by the testa- 
 I the debt of AOW 
 IVr b'ournier, 'I as- 
 licu a testator docs 
 idar legatee to dis- 
 loveable devised to 
 does not bear the 
 icular legatee IS ba- 
 hypothecary del>t 
 lieir or universal 
 
 . y s. (J. 11. 41-;- 
 
 tator. 
 
 j-s to cancel and eii- 
 css of bis son \\ • • • 
 liiiu to the testaliir, 
 
 swch releiwc to operate and talio effect immc- 1 
 <lintely on and from the te*t.itor'w deutii. W. S. 
 was also indebted to the teHator on n proinia- I 
 sory note and for goods, wlneli, together witli 
 interest, ainmiiited to upwards nf .*.■<, 7-10. 'riiis 
 amount tlie executors elainiod they were en- 
 titled to demand i)ayment of before tliuy oould j 
 bo called upon toiliacliarge tlie mortgiige, which . 
 eontcntion was sustained l»y the master in an | 
 action for the administration tif tho estate ; but, : 
 on motion, his finding was reversed by I'rouil- 
 foot, .1. (1'2 O. R. Gl.'i). On appeal to this court j 
 the judgment of the court l)elow was altirnied \ 
 « itli costs (liurton, .1. A., dissi'iitiug). IVr 
 I'lUrtou, J. A. — The beipicst of the nioitgago 
 w as not a specific beniiest ; and without refer- 
 ence as to what the original purpose of tiling thi' 
 bill was. \V. .*«. had claime(l to h.ive his inoit- 
 ^Mge released and had <il)tained an order for its 
 uiicoiidilioual discharge so tliat lie xtood in the 
 s line position as if he had brougiit an action for 
 that purpose expressly, and had thus Imiiinht ' 
 himself within the rule, that he who seeks 
 vi|uity must do eiiuity : whereas the ell'cct tif 
 tiie judgment ai)pealed from by reason of the 
 <>|ieration of the Statute of Limitations was to 
 leave the legatee fiee fiiiiii the debt due by him 
 to the estate and to expose the executors to a 
 iiabilitv to make ijood that loss, Air/i(r v, 
 s,reni', 14 A. H. rS^i. 
 
 17 Void Dtrincii or Biqtioilti, 
 
 (a) riiCi-rtainti/. 
 
 The petitioner in a «iuieting title application 
 claimed title as devisee under a will which con- 
 lameU llie following provisions: " .Secondly, 1 
 (levise to my son .1. !•'. (the land in (juestion)but 
 lie is to be known as a sober, steady, and in- 
 dustrious man. Thirdly, If at any time during 
 the perioil of five years after my death, it appears 
 to my executors, hereinafter named, tiiat my 
 said sou J. does not remain sober, 1 give them 
 power to sell and dispose of the said property for 
 .such charitable purposes as to them shall seem 
 meet : "-Held, that the power of sale in the will 
 was not void for uncertainty, and that the eertiti- 
 eate of title could only issue subject to such 
 power. Rf Fox and the South llulf of Lot No. 
 Onciiithi Tenth Coiu-cinion of Jhwiiii , S O. R. 
 189.— llolmcsted, 7iV/; ri t— Proudfoot— Chy. 1). 
 
 See Gillies v. McCoiiochie, 3 0. R. 203, p. 2220. 
 
 (b) Mi.itakv. ((.s to Status of Object of Tcatator's 
 Honuty. 
 
 Held, that, as it appeared that the only consi- 
 deration for the test.itor's liberality to J. M. was 
 that ho supposed her to be " my beloved wife 
 .lulio Morin," while at that time J. M. was, in 
 fact, the lawful wife of another man, the uni- 
 versiil bequest to J. M. was void ; through error 
 and false cause. lUmcll v. Le/mncois, 8 .S. V. R. 
 
 (c) Deriie!i or Bequests to Attcstimj Witness. 
 
 A testator devised land, subject to a lease, to 
 J. H. in fee, and as to the rent directed h.alf to 
 be paid to J. H., and half to the executor in 
 trust for J, 11. The executor, assuming the de- 
 
 vise to be valid, paid all the rent to .1. H. The 
 latter executed a deed of the land toC. II., I41 
 whom he afterwards paid (he relit with the 
 jirivity of the executor, as soon as he received it 
 from him. ('. II, went into possession of the 
 lanil after the expiration of the lease, and had 
 boon so receiving rent or in possession for more 
 than ten years before action eommenee<l. ,1, II. 
 was .1 witness to the will :--IIeld (atlirming the 
 decision of I'roudfoot,.!.), t hat the devise of rent 
 was \(iid UMiler 'J5<!eo. II. e. (!, s. 1, as.l. H. 
 was the beiielieial cU'visei of t'le whole of it. 
 Jlo/ikiiisv. Ilo/dtus, ;U». |{. 2-M— Chy. D. 
 
 (,>uare, wiicther since Hyan r. Devereux, Hi 
 Q. IS. KM), a bcipiest to one of the witnesses to a 
 will would beheld to be invalid. /;i )•< Munsie, 
 l(» 1'. R. !t8. -llodgins, Monti r in Ordinonj. 
 Hut see J/h»</i v. Lindsay, 1 1 Ct. R. ,VJO. See 
 also Morrison v. Morrison, D O. It., at (). 22.""». 
 
 A will having been attesled by one of the 
 legatees, the solicitor for the testator, being 
 present at tlu^ tiuie, and apprehensive that the 
 legatee was ineom[)etetit, signed the will hini- 
 self. and procured another also lo do so, but tho 
 name of the legatee was not struck <Mit of the 
 attestation clause :—Hclil, that evidence was 
 admissible to prove the actual fact of tho case, 
 and it thus appeared that the mistake of having 
 the legatee as an attesting witness h.ad been 
 remedied, not by striking out her name, but by 
 the parties proceeding to a new attestation and 
 subscription of the will, .ind tho legatee was 
 therefore not incap.teitated from taking under 
 the will. L'r Stun/is — Wvhlinq v. Van Even/, 
 17 O. R. ;i42.— Roy'd. 
 
 Sec Muiisic v. LimUaii, 1 O. R. 164, p. 2226. 
 
 (d) To Foreiijn Stale. 
 
 A testator directed his executors to pay and 
 deliver the residue of his estate to the govern- 
 ment and legislature of the State of Veimont, 
 to be disposed of as to them should seem best, 
 having rtganl to certain recommendations set 
 forth in the will : — Held (.atlirming the decree, 
 27 Chy. SGI), that the state was suiHcicntly de- 
 signated as the legatee to entitle it to take the 
 be(piest ; and the fact that the bequest was for 
 the benetit of, and to take etFect in a foreign 
 country, eouhl not be urged as an objection to 
 its validity ; naither could the objection that the 
 State could not be made amenable to the courts 
 of the State, and thus there would not be any 
 supervision of the trusts, as it must be assumtd 
 that a sovereign state would not do anything to 
 violate a trust ; besides, which it appoiirod that 
 the legislature was not, in reality, to assume 
 the trust, their duty being to appoint trustees 
 who would be amenable to the courts :— Held, 
 also, that the dii-ection for accumulation did not 
 render the bequest invalid, it being for the 
 couits in Vermont to s.iy whether the direction 
 should be carried out. Parkhurst v. Roy, 7 A. 
 R. 614. 
 
 (e) To lielifjious and Charitable histitutionm. 
 
 The residuary estate in this case consisted of 
 mortgages, the bequest of which, under the 
 Mortmain Act, wiis declared invalid, and to be- 
 long to the next of kin of the testator, the plain- 
 
2219 
 
 WILL 
 
 2220 
 
 tiff in the suit. Thoinxon v. Tunuifv, 28 C'liy. 
 iJ53.-muke. Seo S. C, A. U. I. 
 
 Three weeks licfore the tcstitor ilicd lie nrnde 
 hiH will wherelty liediicL'tfil iiiw luiiilstii he Huhl, 
 mill out of the pioceiils giive ?<■.', COO to hiw wiilow 
 in lieu of «1ow»t ami further ilincteil thiit " nil 
 moneys then reiiminiug in tlie hiiuiU of luy exe- 
 cntoi'H sliiill 1m^ (liviiUd lietween the foMowiug 
 fuiulH," nnniing tive dilt'eii'iit ■ liafities iu eoiiiie<'- 
 tion with the Ciiuiidii f rcshyte/iiiu ('luiicli- fueh 
 "money to he divided in whichever wiiy my 
 exceutoi'H may think host '' : Held, that the 
 l>eiineHtM to the chiiritieH were void inuli'i' tlie 
 Mortmain Acts; and there being no resiiluiuy 
 elauce the liecjueats ko fiiiliii;,' to take elh it went 
 to the heir»-iit-law, not to tlie next of kin of the 
 testator ; eostsof nil imrtie.s to he paid out of tlu^ 
 ewtate. AV Triis/M of JoliH MiJJoHiild'i Wit/, '2!t 
 Chy. 241.- I'rou.lfoot. 
 
 A will dated the 1st Aliril, 1H80, eontained 
 this elause :-" 1 will and desire that the resi- 
 due of my real and ixMHoiiat estate, heing the 
 sum of !?2.S(I(), more or less, shall hi^ paid to the 
 four Chnrehes of l')ii>i;laiiil, in tlit.' townships of 
 Orford and Howard, in four eijual jjarts to eacli 
 
 iuii $t,<MX) to the said ehiirch, |iroeeedeil ns 
 
 follows : " I give for a .Jewish Mission $1,000 to 
 
 that church which is sound and evangelical iu 
 
 iloctrine and ]iure in worship, nsing the gongs of 
 
 praise, the inspired hook which can \inite all 
 
 nations," etc. The evidence showed that tills 
 
 I deseriptiou applieil to tlie said ehiirch i — lleld. 
 
 I not void for unci'rtainty, for that the testjitor 
 
 I cle.irly intended the said church as the legatee. 
 
 liilliiK V. McCuiwiliii, 'A (». U. •_'0;i.-l'iou.lfooi. 
 
 The testator then iiroceeded thus ; "To the 
 pious poor converted .lews that iiiect lo;;etliirfiir 
 the reading of the striptuies for their iiistriiclieli 
 and mental cililicalion I leave .'?1,0()()" :- Held, a 
 good cliaritahle lie(jiiest and not void for uncer- 
 tainty. ///. 
 
 Lastly, the testator gave " thelulnnee" of his 
 estate "to the poor and dcstii i ', to supjily 
 their wants in food and raiment :"- II cld,a valid 
 he(|uest so far as tin . ;idue consisted of person- 
 alty, and an ini|niry was directed to guide the 
 court in the apiilieation of the fund, Ih, 
 
 A testator devised land to K., in trust to sell 
 and pay the jnoeeeds " to the Sisters of Charity 
 such chnrehes as follows: to'l'rinity Cliurcli, : of Hamilton, to he their property ahsolutely." 
 Howard ; St. John's (lluiich, Morpeth ; St. I 'J'here were also bei)uestM to K. of money, to pay 
 
 Chnrch, Hif-hgate, and the proposed new i the same to the St. Mary's Hospital, an Orphan 
 
 eluirch ut ClearvilTe, and to ho ajiplied hy my j Asylum and a Convent. No evidence was given 
 executors in the piyment of any debt or debts j to show who the Sisters of (.'harity were. In an 
 upon each of such churches respectively; and i action to recover the' land brought by the heirs 
 in ease of no debt, or there being a balance (■ atlaw of tin; testator :— ileld, that a corporate 
 residue after the payment of sucli debt or debts capacity could not be imputed lo the Sisters of 
 on each of such churches, res|iectively, then the i Charity, in order to destroy the gift to tlieiii 
 residue {if any) is to be paid by my executors to i under the Statutes of Mortmain, and that the 
 the churchwardens of such cliun ii, to be held devise, might be supported as a gift to the indi- 
 viduals who, at the time of the testator's death, 
 filled the character of Sisters of CUiaiitv. ]V<ilkti- 
 V. Miin-aij, 5 (). II. (iMH. Osier. 
 
 R. ]'. fi., by his will directed his executors 
 
 ^, ,, , i .^ , r ii "by anil out of the moneys which shall be re- 
 
 same month Upon a specnil case sta e.l for the ; ^^^^^ , ^,,^.„, ,.,.„„, j,,^ ,; ,5 ^ ^^ (^., f,„ ,„. 
 
 opnno.1 of the court, it was 8he,vn that there ; ^„ ^^.^J^^^ ,,f j,,^ ,,^,,^ ^^ ^,„„ „{ §.,- ,^,„ „„.i 
 was a large debt existnig on the MoriK-th church,, ^,,,1 ^^,^,,,.^.,1 , ,„„,,tg.ige by that company to 
 tor money borrowed on mortgage wherewith to ,„^ ,^^ j,,^ ^j,,^ J,f „ .i^.S^s./and of the interest 
 pay of! the buildmg debt. Ihe '-'l"";eh at Clear- ; ^,,^,,,^.^f ^,.,,i^.,, ,i,„i|-;,^,.,,,„, ..ft^r my .lecease, iu 
 viUe was not built at the time of the testator s ! ^,,^ jj..^^ ,,^^.^ ^„ t,,„ ^^„„ ..f' U1,.-;(k». part 
 
 death but some debts were existing .1, respect 1 t,,p,,.„f i,', j,,^ IJishopforthetiinebeingof Al^omi, 
 of materials and work on the foundation : j ;„ (,^„^^, ^^ ,,^ i^^^^i^.X l.y him in or upon any 
 Held, (1) that the mortgage .lebt on the Mor- .,f ^,,g j,,^.^,^^,„^„^^ hereinafter authorized with 
 peth church oouid not be considered as a l.u.ld- I ^^^.^,, f,„, the Bishop of ^Igonia aforesaid for the 
 jng debt ; but if it could be so consi.lered the I [j,,,^ y^^ ,,,„., ^j,/,^ ^^ t>,^ ^^ .^,,,1 t,,,„,. 
 
 bequest to pay the same would be voi.l, under ! ^,,^ i.^vestments tnercof at his discretion for 
 
 (-) that as to tlie ^^^y ,,^,,^.^.^^^^1,^.,.^,^,^ ^i^p^j,,,, j,p^.^^,,,j,,^,,, .^,,,1 ji,. 
 
 by them in trust ; and said money is to be in- 
 vested by such churchwardens, and the interest j 
 arising therefrom is to be paid to the incumbent | 
 of said church as a jxirtion of his salary or sti- 
 pend.'" 'i"he testator died on the 10th of the 
 
 the statutes of Mortmain. 
 Clearville church, which was in course of en 
 tion, the building debts would form a lien on 
 the lands from the beginning of the work under 
 the Mechaiiies' Lien Act, and the bequest to 
 pay off those debts would therefore be void, 
 unless the work was being performed in such a 
 manner as excluded the creation of a lien on the 
 
 income of such investment to he applied in ami 
 for the educatifm anil (jualil'yiiig of .John Kskiiiali 
 an Algonia Indian at present of the Shingwaiik 
 Home, .Sault Ste. Marie, Algonia aforesaid, 
 (heretofore snpjiorted by me), as and for a nii.s- 
 sionary iu the diocese of Algonia, aforesaid for 
 
 manner as cxciiK.ea t le creation 01 a iien on ine . ,^,,,, ,,,•;,.; .^,,,j ,,^,^4, ^^,^,, ^- ,^. ,^^ ^he nishope. 
 land. (3) Phat the bequest for the benefit _of | ^,,^ ^^-^^ ^^f^^^^^^ j,,^ ^,^^ ^j^^^. i,^,; , ^,,.^„ ^,„„„,e,. 
 
 the incumbent would have been void it the in- ; g„(„^i,ntiy qualified for such purpose, and upon 
 vestment had been directed to be made «Pon i j,„,i ,^f^^,,. ^j,^ ^„„ ,^tion of such education ami 
 realty ; but as the trust might be carried out by ; ^j ;„ ^ / ,„^,, i„^o„,„ .,„ aforesaid for 
 investing in personalty the bequest was valid it 1 '■ ■.' o . 'J •' . , ., 
 
 so invested. (4) That the amount to which the 
 incumbent would bo entitled was the residue 
 after deducting the void bequests for debts. 
 Sttwart v. Gesher, 29 Chy. 329.— Proudfoot. 
 
 A testator, a minister of the United Presby- 
 terian Church of North America, after bequeath - 
 
 ever thereafter from time to time in and for the 
 education and qualifying of some other person tn 
 be nominated by such Bishoj> for the time being 
 foralike purpose, and duringsuch time as he shall 
 think proper; but for which applications tht 
 trustees ami executors shall not be responsible. 
 And after payment of the aforesaid legacy I give 
 
2220- 
 
 2221 
 
 WILL 
 
 2222 
 
 iiiocecdi'il i\M 
 iHHi<miSl.tK)()t.. 
 
 jij{ tliii goiiHs >'t 
 \ tun uiiit(! all 
 (iwid llmt tlii" 
 •liurcli: - llfl'l. 
 lal till' U'Htutdi 
 ,i« till! li'gati'i'. 
 
 ();j,_l'(;OUll(()l>l. 
 
 tliUH : " To l)'<' 
 iii'i'l liijiiitlmfi'i- 
 tliiiriiistnulic II 
 ,000" :- HiM.ii 
 t void I'll' uiicfi- 
 
 leli.luiu'c" iif luH 
 
 til 1 •, to smpiily 
 
 .••_-Ut'l(l,a viiliil 
 
 msirtti'tl of vi'if "11- 
 
 Ctl'll to glli<U! till' 
 
 fund. Jl>- 
 
 l\., in tnmt to w\\ 
 Sistein ot Cluiiity 
 ipcrty absolutely. 
 . of uiomy. to V'^y 
 08i)ital, an DryliiU' 
 jviiU'iiiic was givfu 
 liarity wtjre. lu :ui 
 mght by tlio hfiiH 
 Id, that a coriiorate 
 ,,1 lo the Sisters ill 
 
 the gift to them 
 main, anil that tlie 
 tsa gift lo the "111- 
 the testator s ileaUi, 
 „f Chaiity. II "'*■■"' 
 sler. 
 
 •ecte.l hia executors 
 s whieh shall he iv- 
 
 H. & M. Co., foroi- 
 i,n of S:{:),tKH>, o« 111^ 
 |,V that comiiaiiy to 
 0, anil of tlie interest 
 after my ileeease, m 
 sum of Sl,r.lK), piul 
 
 tiineheing of Algol"" 
 vhiniinoruiii;ii»."> 
 .fter authori/eil wi H 
 -omaaforesaulfovthi 
 
 „etovary'^'>'l,t-'T 
 .fathis.liscietionfoi- 
 
 invlprescriheilaniUh.' 
 
 I to be avi'licil "'/"» 
 ,yi„g„f.lohnKskinah 
 
 ientoftheShiiH,'NvauU 
 . Al«onui afoiesaiii. 
 n,e),asan.lfo.'a.n.«- 
 Akonia, afoiesiuil fo 
 anneastheliishopo 
 ne being shall eimsule. 
 ueh imvpose, anil upon 
 of such eilucation am 
 income as aforesaiilfo 
 
 to time in ami for tl 
 of some other vevson" 
 .hopforthctniiebtni, 
 ingsueh time as he shall 
 ^.hich applications J 
 ^all not be respoiis We^ 
 
 aforesaid legacy I g^""" 
 
 i 
 
 imil ln(|iii'atli the following IrgacicH to he paid 
 out of llie Kiinn' fund or nioiny», nuinely : 'i'>> 
 the trtasurii- fur till' tinii' luiiit; of the .\lgiiiii;i 
 missions in ilritlsh .Xnirrir.i tlie Mini of .SI..'iOii 
 
 of ('ailiidinn cinniiry fur tlie bilielit nt tliiiM' 
 inissioiiM. 'I'k the tniiNiinr tur the tiine biiiig of 
 the Union mis'.iiiiiH in liiitish AnnriiM tiie hiini 
 of 5>l,">IMhi| the afoiiMaid ciirrciiiy for the luiiclil 
 of tiiosc inisMioiis. And to the trea-Miier for I lie 
 time bt'ini.' of ihe (ini.iiio iiiissii>ns inlhitish 
 AineriiM, the sum cf »■•' .MKl of the afoii-iiid cui- 
 ri'lley fnr the lieiiclit i' , .iiwc ii.is-iiiin : " liehl, 
 that till' lii'((iie~it III tile |.i.|in|iot Alu'oiihi for the 
 benefit ,ilid ediu;itioii of .Inlili I'Nkiniih .ilid (illiciM 
 was intciiiled to set .i|i:irt u fund wiiieh was to 
 have ]ii'i'|ii tiial 'itiniiai * e ami in ' 'iitli no iii- 
 dividual was l. i ive a |(ersoii;i' i.i;iit,aiid I'ol 
 lowiiiif (iill Mil r, Taylor, I-, 1',. Id \',<\. 'M, such 
 bei|Uest wa.s void ; --II. ! !. also, tiiat the In'- 
 (lUest to the treasun 1- f,ii ihe Al;,'iiliia liii.«.sioii 
 was a ehciiitabh' gill and iiiiist fail, liecaiiNe no 
 person (U' lioiiy was imi]mi\\ eivd li> hold it as 
 against the Statute of M'Ttinain, Otieo. II, e. 
 .')(!, ina-<iiuH'h as tli< re was no iiuoi]iiiiatinii of 
 Algoina for ei'i'Ie«i:istieal or niissionary |jiii'|iiises 
 with siiih poMris ; Held, also, that the he- 
 (|uests to tl;,' triasiiieis of the lliiidii and 
 Ontario missions ies|)eeti' ely were intended for 
 the missions sustained by the iiieor|ioratid 
 synods of tlie diocese. I of Huron and Ontario, 
 and that by virtue of their .Act; of liicoi))ora- I 
 tion both those dioceses vi ere eiialihil to hold 
 lands, etc.. in niort.iiain, and that siirh bei|Uesls 
 therefore did not t lil litiier for iiiitei taiiity or 
 beeanse they could not be held by the defen- 
 dants the sviiods li spectivelv. I.dlid/f v. C'lllll/i- 
 
 hfll, 7 O. It. LW. Boyd. 
 
 i 
 
 H. .S., by his will, beniuathcd eertain jiure ' 
 and iiiiiMire ])er.JoMalty to the London City .Mis- 
 sion, a charitable ori;aMi/atioii, ami died in 
 IS(!,5. Ill IS(i(> .\. S., his heiress and next of 
 kin, ai'iit a signed Miitiiig to the executor of 
 til" will, in which, after reeitiiig th.it doiiht.s 
 might arisewiii tiler thcinipure peisi malty jiassed 
 to the executor in trii^t for the chaiity, she de- 
 claied hcraci|uicscciu'e in wliat she siid she knew 
 had been the testator's intention, viz , that the 
 whole of the iiersoiialty, luire and iinpure, shoiihl 
 he treated by the executm' as so passing to him, 
 and renounced her riiihts thereto, and reijuesteil 
 the executor to treat it .ill .is so jiassing. In May, 
 l,S"0, .\. ."s. maile a will devising and be(|ueatli- 
 ing all real and personal jiioperty on certain 
 trusts. In ,Iuly, bSTll. she informed the execu- 
 tor of H. .S. that she li.ul eiiiinged her intentions 
 ail to the matter referred to in the writing of 
 I86(!, above meiitioneil. and she forwarded 
 fxnother will, dated .liily, ISTd, in which she 
 beiiueathed all the property .she had as heiress 
 and next of kin to II. .S. to,I. K., and appointed 
 the same person her executor as was executor 
 of the will of H. S. .1, R. died before A. S. In 
 1809. and in March, l,s70, A. S. had written 
 letters to the secretary of the London City Mis- 
 sion, in which she had expressed lur intention 
 of carrying into efl'ect the intentions of H. S. , as 
 expressed in his will, A. S, died in 1877, and 
 probate of her first will of May, 1870, was 
 granted to the executors named in it : — Held, 
 that the impure personalty could not pass by the 
 will to the London City Mission, and the writing 
 of 18(56 and the letters to the London City Mis- 
 sion did not amount to sueh an assignment of it 
 
 I as would p;iHs it to the charity iiiasinueh an the 
 icipiiiciiieiiis of the .Mortiii.iiii .Acln were not 
 loiiipiied Mitll : that a gift by « ill of in ciin ly 
 that jailed to take etbct by n'asoli of tfie Moil' 
 liiiiii .\ets, could no! be aided or set lip by the 
 party entitled to the piopi ily by aiiytliiiig less 
 than «liat woiilil be rcipiired to coii,.| ji ille a 
 gooil 'il't, by such party of the s.iiuc property (o 
 the party intended to" be bein lited by the gift 
 in the will, 'I'liere can be no niarslialling of as- 
 ■<cts ill liivoiir of a charity, ,\s to the two wills 
 of .\, S., the bcipicst te. .1. I!, by the seeomi will 
 lapsed by re.isou of her deitli before that of 11. 
 S,, and the siibjecl of it fell into the estate of 
 A. S., sons fo jiass umler tin' former will. 
 //((■/(./■ \ . //,„(/•,, s O, U. :f.>,s.- F, ixu.Mui, 
 
 (i. \V, by his will bcpieath.'.l JSI ,(1(1(1 to •• The 
 I'loteslaiit ( irpliaiis' Home for jloys in Toroiito. 
 'I'lie e\ iilence shewed tliat there Were two in- 
 stiliitions, either of which miglit have been in 
 tended by the testator: lleM, tli.it the hg.iey 
 should be divided between tlielll, WiHiiinis V. 
 /.'o//, !tO, It, ."ilil,- lioyd. 
 
 (1. \V. bcipleathed to " llie I'.eiievolent Illsti 
 tutioiis mill t'harities of (•■.vcii Sound. .^1,(1(1(1, 
 to be ili.^lriliiilcil as my executo's sli.ili deem 
 meet"; Held, that tlii^ testator intended a 
 beipiest to the Miniicipal Corporali iii of (Iwcii 
 Siaiiid, to be distiibii ted as the executors slioii Id 
 direct, //-, 
 
 .1. .M. ilicil on Aimiist nth, ISSi, lia\im,'niade 
 his will tlirce days before, in which, after giving 
 certain legacies, he provideil at follow .i -. "I ;;i\c 
 and dc\ isc all my real and personal estate w iiat- 
 socver and wheresoever, with the above excep 
 tions, to the Lutheran C'hureh for the jiurpo^c 
 of building a college in ( '.iiiada, and not el.-e 
 where, and ill his 11.1 llie." llw. Lnlheraii Clinic li 
 was not iiii'oi poratcd and held no l:iiid.-<, but was 
 composed of a iinmbei of coiigrig.itioiis in dif 
 tVrent parts of th.; province. The lands upmi 
 which till! various churches liehmging tlieret i 
 were erected, were vested in triistee.-i for the 
 belietit of the congiegations, and soliic! of these 
 lands were snit.ible as building sites for a cid 
 lege ;- Held, that the devise of llie reality ami 
 all persoieilty savouring of the reality was \oiil: 
 — Held, also following (lililetl r. Ilobson, ."> 
 .Myl. it K. .517, that the bciniest of the ]iiiie 
 personalty was also void ; that a bequest of 
 money or other )iersonalty to any ehaiitable 
 institution to build or erect buildiiiijs, takiMi by 
 itself, is within the .Statute of Mortmain; ami 
 that the onus of showing tli.it the intention of a 
 testator was restrained within lawful limits is 
 upon the Jiarty seeking to take the beipiest out 
 of the statute ; and tliat the intention must ap- 
 pear absolutely certain and clear ; and that land 
 already in mortmain must be indicated or the 
 future ae(|uisition of building land, otherwise 
 than by means of the legacy, must plainly be 
 contemplated, or the words of the will must ex- 
 prcs.sly inelnde the apjilication of tlij money 
 given in the acipiisition of land, which was not 
 done in this ease. Miirrai/ v. Maltoy, 10 O. It. 
 40. — Ferguson. 
 
 A testator made his will dated •inil February, 
 1884, in which was contained the following 
 devise : " To the congregation of Hums" Church 
 * * I bequeath the sum of ^'2,000 to be used 
 by the trustees of the said church towards the 
 
2223 
 
 WILL- 
 
 2m 
 
 purpose of purchasing land for a clebe iu any 
 place t)iat they may judge suitable, and fur 
 erecting thereon a manse, all for the use of the 
 said congregation through their trustees for 
 ever." He added two codicils on 21st Septem- 
 ber, and r)th l^eceniber, 1885, respectively, not 
 varying the above l)e(|uest, but confirming his 
 will, and died on the 27th of December, follow- 
 ing :— Held (reversing the decision of Ferguson, 
 J.), that the fact of the codicils having been ex- 
 ecuted within six months of the testator's death 
 did not, in the absence of anything in tlioni re 
 voking tlie charital)le gift, render it void under 
 R. a. O. (1877) c. 21«, or 38 Vict. c. 75 (Out.) 
 Jfo/meA V. Murray, 13 0. 1{. 75G.— Chy. 1). 
 
 A testator devised all his estate, real and per- 
 sonal, to a trustee upon trust to convert tlie 
 same into money, to liold upon trust to pay " to 
 the treasurer for the time being of the Super- 
 annuated Fund of the Methodist Cliurch, 81,- 
 000 ; " find " to pay al' the rest and rcsiibic 
 unto the treasurer, for the time being, of the 
 TruBtee Boai'd of tiie IJrant Avenue Methodist 
 Ciiurcli, to be applied by them or their suc- 
 cessors, in redeeming the debt existing against 
 the cliurch pro))erty " : — Held, tiiat the leg- 
 acy to the Superannuated Fund of the Metho- 
 dist C'hurcli was valid, for by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 
 142, the corporation was empowered to take 
 land devised in any manner whatsoever in its 
 favour ; and that all the benefits of the statute 
 were extended to tlie Methodist ('hurch, by 
 the statutes of Union, 47 Vict. o. 10() (Dom.); 
 and 47 Vict. c. 88 (Out.), so far as tlie Super- 
 annuated Preachers' Fund was concerned : — 
 Held, iiiiwever, that tlie residuary devise was 
 invalid, for neither by 47 Vict. c. 88 (Ont.) nor 
 by any other statute, was the new corporation 
 "The Methodist Church," empowered to hold 
 land for all purposes, including that for the en- 
 dowment of paiticuliir churches, and the projier 
 constructioM of section of 47 Vict. c. 88 (Out.), 
 as amended by 51 Vict. c. 83, s. 2, was that the 
 corpor.ition of the ^letllodist Cliurch should 
 have the ii;^lits, juivileges, and franchises con- 
 ferred u|)(iii the Ciniiicxional Society, but only 
 for the jiurposcs and objects of the said Con- 
 nexional .Society : — Held, lastly, that the residu- 
 ary benefit inteiuled was invalid both as to realty 
 and personalty, because the direction Wivs, as to 
 money, that it should be ap])licd in payment of 
 incumbrances on the church pmperty. iSmith v. 
 Melhoilist Church, 10 0. K. 1!)!).— Boyd. 
 
 The Act of incorpoMtion of the Toronto Gene- 
 rial Hospital provides that the trustees shall have 
 the powers and rights of Imdics corporate, and 
 shall be capable of taking from any jierson by 
 grant, devise, or otherwise, any lands, or interest 
 in lands, etc., for tlie support and use of the 
 hospital : -Held, following Smith v. Methodist 
 Church, 10 0. It. 199, that the plain meaning of 
 this provisi<m is to capacitate any person to de- 
 vise land to the hosi)ital, ami to (jnalify the hos- 
 pital to receive and hold beneticially land so 
 devised. It is the duty of the court where it 
 finds legislation intended to legalize the dedica- 
 tion of ])roperty to laudable public purposes, to 
 construe the Act so as to enlarge rather than 
 limit its operation, liutland v. Oillesjiie, 16 O. 
 H. 48(!.— lioyd. 
 
 See Ray v. Annual Conference of New Iirnnn- 
 n-iek and Prinrt Edionrd Island, 6 S. C. 11. 308, 
 
 p. 219"!; McClmaghan v. Grey, 4 O. 11. .329, p. 
 228 ; Toomey v. Tracey, 4 O. R. 708, p. 2202. 
 
 (f) Void as in Restraint nj Parental Uiijhis. 
 
 Sec Clarke v. Dan-avqh, 5 0. R. 140, p. 
 2184. 
 
 (g) Ri-Mraint on Alknatinn. 
 
 A diiTctiou in a devise in fee simple tli.it the 
 devisee sIkuiM " not sell, or cause to In' sol,;, the 
 above iinnied lot, or any part tlu'reof, iluiiug her 
 nitiiral life, but she shall be at liberty to grant 
 it to any of her children whom .she .shall think 
 projier ; " — Held a valid restraint ujioii alieiia 
 tioii :--fIeld, also, that the giving of a mortg.ige 
 by the devisee w.is not a violation of the restraint. 
 K'niilh V. Faii,,ht, 4.5 Q. P.. 484.— Q. 11. 1). 
 
 The testator directed that his wife should have 
 the use and control of all his ])i()peity real and 
 personal until his two sons \V. and H. should 
 come (if age or until the said projierty is disposed 
 of as hereinafter mentioned. He devised to 
 each of these sons ouc-half of his farm, to be 
 pos.sessed by them when respectively of the full 
 age of twenty-one. He tlien gave to his five 
 ilaughters certain pecuniary legacies to be paiil 
 by each of his jaid sons within si)ccitied periods 
 after their ])ossessing the property, and directed 
 them to give his wife a comfortable sujiport, or 
 t'lO each annually during her life ; and the will 
 then |)roceetled ; " I also will and clirect that 
 my above named sons W. and K. do not sell nr 
 transfer the said property without the writton 
 consent of my said wife during her life." Tlit! 
 will was registered. After attaining twenty-one 
 II. mortgaged his share without liis mother's 
 consent, to the defendants ( '. f; M. , who sohl on 
 default in the mortgage to the defendant (>. , wlin 
 purchased as trustee forM., with full knowledj^o 
 of the state of the title. Upon a bill filed by the 
 hcirs-at-law : — Held, affirming the decree of 
 Hlake, V.C. ''?! Chy. 161), that the restriction 
 upon alienation was valid, and was a condition, 
 the breach of which worked a forfeiture, but 
 that the heirs took the land in ((ucstion chargi'il 
 with payment of the annuity and the legacies : 
 Held by Hlake, V. C. , that tho mortgiging of 
 the estate ojierated .vs a forfeitur.;, but .is 
 the (piestion whetiier the mortgage was neces- 
 sarily a breivch of the condition was raised in the 
 argument, but not in the answer, it was ii'it 
 decided in this court. Earls v. McAlpinf, fi.-X. 
 R. 145. 
 
 By his will P. T., after giving a life estate to 
 his widow, devised lands to his son as follows: 
 " That T. T. do inherit the same as his property 
 on the conditions that he never will or sli.il' 
 make away with it by any means but keep it fur 
 his heirs:'" — Held, on an application under tin. 
 Vendor and Purchasers' Act, that the conditiim 
 attached to the devise was inv.alid, being an ali- 
 solute and unqualified restraint on alien.itiiin, 
 and that there iieing in the opinion of the conrt 
 no doubt of the vendor's title, the purchiiscr 
 should pay the costs of the proceedings, lie 
 Watson and Woods, 14 O. R. 43.— Robertson. 
 
 Testator devised as follows : " I also will that 
 that portion of the within-mentioned lands which 
 
2224 
 
 2225 
 
 WILL. 
 
 2226 
 
 ;,.^y, 4 O. K. 3-29, p. 
 , U." 708, 1.. 2-20i. 
 
 t/ Parental Rhjlix. 
 ,h, 5 O. R. HO, p. 
 
 in fee aimpli; tli.it the 
 or cause to 1)1' sol!, the 
 avtUiiTccif. ilmin;^ her 
 1)0 iit liberty to pniiit 
 ivhom she ahull think 
 restraint uiiou alieiia- 
 ii- giving of a nuivtgnge 
 olation of the restraint. 
 
 484.-Q. 15. I>. 
 hat his wife shouM have 
 
 his v'"P''''*'.^' '■''•'' '*'"' 
 ions \V. an.l H. should 
 ;ai.lproi)ertyi»<iisii()st'<l 
 ioneil. He ilevise.l to 
 iialf of his farm to he 
 respectively of the full 
 then gave to his live 
 uiary legaeies to he pai.l 
 within speeitied periods 
 ,c property, ami (liieetc'l 
 coinfortahle support, or 
 ,g her life ; an.l the will 
 ,„ will an.l .lireet that 
 ,V an.l H. <lo not sell .t 
 rty without the written 
 e during her life." 'I""'- 
 fter attaii;ing twenty-oi'c 
 e without his mothers 
 
 nta (" iS: M-. "'!>" *"'''^ "" 
 .tothe(lefen.lant(.>.,wh" 
 rM , with full hn..\vle.lge 
 Up.)n a hill filed hy the 
 atlinning the decree of 
 101), that the rcstnetioii 
 lid, an.l was a conditi'.ii, 
 .voike.l a forfeiture, hut 
 lan.l in iiuestiim ehargcl 
 muity and the legacies •. 
 that tho mortgaging <ii 
 ,x„ a f.)rfeitur'j, hut m 
 the mortgage was news- 
 •ondilion wasraiseilii'tlie 
 the answer, it was net 
 I-:,u-ls V. MrAli>i)ii; <)-\- 
 
 tcr giving a life estate t.i 
 ds to his sou as follow ■* : 
 t the same iis his property 
 ^t he never will or slial 
 any means but keep it f'lr 
 an application under th. 
 ■a' Act, that the ondition 
 was invalid, being an ali- 
 restraint on alienatioii 
 n the opinion of the court 
 lor's title, the purehasei- 
 ■ of the proceedings. M 
 O. R. 43.-Rol)ertaoii. 
 
 follows : " I also will thftt 
 hin-mentioned lands whicii 
 
 I have hereby bequeathed to my son \Villiani, 
 to my son lioln-rt, and to my sou .lames, shall 
 not be disposed of by them, either by sale, by 
 mortgage, or otherwise, except by will to tlieir 
 lawful heirs" : — Held, that the ondition impos- 
 ed by the will was invalid, and that the plaiii- 
 tiflf, one of the devisees, was entitled to hold 
 the land freed from the restrictions above men- 
 tioned. Hvddlestuwi V. IhdtUeitonv, 15 O. R. 
 280.— MacMahou. 
 
 Certain lands were devised to a married woman 
 with thf proviso that she should not alienate or 
 encumber them until her sister shoul.l arrive at 
 the age of forty years ; and also that the devise 
 .should be for her separate use, independent of 
 her hu8band"s control. She applied un.ler R. 
 .S. 0. (1887) e. 1.32, s. 8, for an order to bind her 
 interest, for her own benefit, in these lands : — 
 Held, that the restraint against alienation was 
 valid, and would have been so even if the appli- 
 cant had been a I'eme solo. Karls v. ^IcAlpine, 
 '11 Chy. 164, 6 A. R. 14.->: Pennyman r. Mc(^re- 
 gor, 18 r. V. 132 ; Smith v. Kaught, 45 Q. 
 15. 484 ; He Winstanley, « O. R. 315, followed 
 in preference to Re Rosher, Uosher v. Rosher, 
 '2(1 Ch. 1). 801 :— Held, also, that the restraint 
 on alienation was not a restraint ou anticipation, 
 within the meaning of the statute. ViV Wflkr, 
 l(i O. U. 318.— Armour. 
 
 A testatator by his will devise.l certain real 
 est;ite to two of his nephe ..s subject to the fol- 
 lowing con.liti.m : " But neither of my said 
 nephews is to be .at liberty to sell h! .lalf of the 
 sai.l property to any one except to persons of 
 tho name of O'S., in my own family ; this con- 
 dition is to attach to every purchaser of tho 
 said property" : — Held, that the condition was 
 vali.l. Re Watson and Woods, 14 O. K. 48, 
 distinguished. O'Sidlirau v. J'htlaii, 17 0. R. 
 730.- Robertson. 
 
 See airiii.t v. Bar rill, 27 C'liy. .'502, p. 2087. 
 /?c Wiii^taidi.y, CO. K. 315, p. 220G; PeU rbomwih 
 Heal Eifdtc /inr.'ilminl Co. (Limited) v. I'atkr- 
 .voM, 13 O. R. 142; 15 A. R. 751, p. •217(5; /.'e 
 X,n-thcof<\ 18 O. n. 107, p. 220(j; Mei/ers v. 
 Hamillon Provident and Loan Co., 19 0. R. 358, 
 p. 2178. 
 
 (h) Pi rpLluiticD. 
 
 Held, that the Act against accumulations, 
 commonly calle.l the Tiielluson Act, 39-40 (Jeo. 
 HI. c. 9, whicli was passed after the Statute 
 .32 Geo. III. c. 1, by which English law was 
 intro.luced into Ca.-ada and which did not ex- 
 tend in terms to the colonies, is not in lorce in 
 this province, where the law appears to be as it 
 was in Kngland before that statute. /fiini,-ion 
 v. KVpcofcr, 13 O. R. 692.— Boyd. See, how- 
 ever, 52 Viet. c. 10, s. 2 (Ont.). 
 
 See Parlchiiril v. Poy, 7 A. H. 614, p. 221S : 
 Mt'iiei-H V. llamiKon Profidi'ut and Loan Co., 19 
 0. R. 358, p. 2178. 
 
 18 Lap.H(d Devite^i or Jleqiients. 
 
 The testator becjueathed an .amount of personal 
 estate to his brother John, " to have an.l to hold 
 to him, his heirs and assigns, for ever." .John 
 predeceased the testator :— Held, that the legacy 
 
 14 
 
 ' lajised and that the next of kin of the legatee 
 ' were not entitle.l. Mtalcy v. Ailkim, 27 Chy. 
 ' 563. — Spragge. 
 
 H. niiide his will on 10th October, 186«,deviBing 
 lan.l to his son ,J., without wonls of limitation, 
 an.l adde.l a codicil on 2;h-d February, 1870, by 
 which he conlirmed the will save as changed by 
 the codicil. J., the devisee, .lied 17th February, 
 1874, and H., tho testator, died 15th iJecembor, 
 1879 :— Held, that as the will was made and rc- 
 publishe.l by the codicil prior to 1st .J.tnuary, 
 1874, the sections subse.juent to section 7 of K. 
 S. O. (1877) c. 106, and among them section ,S5 
 did not apply, an.l that under the former law 
 the devise to .1. lapscl. Xumsleiu v. Itedrick, 
 8 O. R. .338.— Proudfoot. 
 
 In one clause of his will, a testator devised 
 certain lands to iiis son A. S. M. " as soon as 
 he attains the ago of twenty-one years, for and 
 during the term of his u.itural life," and .after 
 the determination of that estate to the sons of 
 the body of A. S. M. in tail male, a.s they 
 should bo iu point of birth, and for want of such 
 isssue, thou t.) the .laughters of the b.idy of A. 
 S. M. and the heirs .if the body of such 
 .laughters, which .laughters and their issue 
 were to take as tenants in common, and for de- 
 fault of such issue, tho lands were to be divided 
 among the testator's other sons, or the heirs of 
 the respective bodies, who at tho death of A. .S, 
 M. sh.)uld be entitled to any part of the lauds 
 devised in tail in the will to hold to his respec- 
 tive other sons, and in .lefault of such sons and 
 of their issue at tlio death of A. S. .M. then to 
 the right heirs of A. S. M. forever. A. S. M. 
 predeceased the testator :— Held, that thcreuiMjn 
 the devise to A. S. M. lapsed, tlie whole scope 
 of the clause intending that A. S. M. shoul.l 
 survive tho testator. Ridddl v. Mclnloiih, 9 O. 
 R. 606.— Boyd. 
 
 R. B. by his will devised his property to ex- 
 ecutors upon trust as follows : " Fifthly, in trust 
 ti> pay to each of my two surviving children V. 
 15. and M. A. B. the sum of .Sl.OOO," ,ind the re- 
 sidue after the payment of his .lebts, etc. , .an.l 
 tiio said legacies an.l an allowance to his execu- 
 t.irs, t.) his f.mr sisters. F. B. an.l M. A. 3. were 
 illegitimate chililren, and M. A. 15. married .and 
 dieil .luring tho lifetime of the testator leaving 
 chil.lren surviving. In a suit for .administration 
 and construction of the will it w.as :— Held, that 
 the wonls "chil.l .)r other issue " in R. .S. O. 
 (1877), c. 106, s. 25, mean legitimate child or 
 otiier legitimate issue and do not .apply to an 
 
 i illegitim.ito ciiild, and that the l.'gacy to M. A. 
 
 ; 15. hipsed. l/un/rajl v. Kee<jan, 10 O. R. 272.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 i See McOarni v. Thompwn, 29 Chy. 287, p. 
 I '2209: n>'ck<-r v. Hoare, 8 O. R. .328, p. 2222; 
 Ritdd V. Harprr, 16 0. R. 422, p. 2203. 
 
 19. Election. ', 
 
 (a) l>y Heir. 
 
 ^Vhere, by a will, huiil is devised to an attest- 
 ing witness, there is an intestacy oa to this devise 
 by virtue of the 26 Uco. II. c. 6, s. 1, and the 
 heir is not boun.l to elect as between this land 
 an.l a legacy be.jueathed to him by the will, 
 Mtinne V. Lindmy, 1 0. R. 164.— Boyd. 
 
 
iSSi'- 
 
 2227 
 
 WILL. 
 
 
 I 
 
 20. Forfeiture of Devise or Beijiient. 
 
 Forfeiture of lejiacy by executor. .See Kew 
 wdy V. Pivr/h, 27 Chy. SOCy, p. 711. 
 
 Where a testator provided by his will : " tiiat 
 the farm be kept till the youngest surviviDg uliilil 
 (tomes of age, at which time 1 would desire 
 the property to be sold and the jiroceeds to be 
 divided equally between all my children iind my 
 wife. * * My will is, that I wonld like tlie 
 farm rented to some good tenant, on tlie best 
 terms possible, the rent to be used in the sup- 
 port and maintenance of the family now at home. '' 
 The farm referied to was the only real property 
 ]iossessed by tlio testator either at the time of 
 making his will or at his death. One of the tes- 
 tator's children, though living on the farm at the 
 time of the testator's death, afterwards left it, 
 and went to reside elsewhere : — Held, per Fer- 
 guson, J. , that the words " family now at iionie ' 
 were designatio personanim, and that the ciiild 
 ill (pu'Stion did not forfeit her vested right to 
 share in the rents by afterwards leaving tiie 
 home. Siie afterwards died intestate, before the 
 testator's youngest surviving child came of 
 age : — Held, per Boyd, C, that her share of the 
 rents devoli'ed on her personal representatives. 
 Datmin v. Fnixer, 18 O. R. 4i)l».~Cliy. \). 
 
 See Kark v. McAlinne, A. R. Uu, p. 2224. 
 
 VIII. Rkcisth.vtio.n ok Wm.i.s. 
 
 The willow kept possession of the will for ele- 
 ven months after the death of the testator when, 
 she burned it for the purpose of enabling her to 
 borrow money on the property devised, and she 
 suUsequently sold her interest under the will, — 
 an estate for life — and the only child professed 
 to convey, as heir-at-law, to one R., who created 
 a mortgage, tuider whicli the ])roi)erty was sold 
 to l).,a bona tide purchaser williout notice, who 
 afterwards agreed to sell to R. loi' tlie amount 
 iif his jmrchasc iiioney, interest and costs : — 
 Held, that there was not any such inevitable 
 dilKculty as alfordcd a reason for the will nut 
 being registered within twelve niontiis after the 
 death of the testator, and that therefore I), was 
 entitlcil to the iirotection of tlie registrv laws 
 (R. S. (). 1S77, c. Ill, .«. 7")), as again.st tlie'infant ' 
 devisees ; but it apjiearing that H. had notice 
 of the will when he ijinchascil from the widow 
 and heir-at law, the cotnt declared tin; int'ai\ts i 
 entitled to redeem. AV Dnris, 27 C'liy. lO'J. - 
 I'roudfoot. I 
 
 Uy the will the plaintill's were to come into pos- I 
 session wlicn tiiey should become of the age of ' 
 twenty one yea's, not l>eing less than twelve years ' 
 from tlie date of tlic testitor's deatli, and they ' 
 wereinfanlsof tendery ears at the time when, after | 
 the death of If, O'N., the defendant A. ()"N., | 
 their father and guardian, agreed with the other , 
 luirs-at-law for tlie purchase of their shares, on | 
 the assumi'ion that II. O'N'. had died intestate, ' 
 and obtained conveyances from them. A. O'X. 
 and the other heirsat-law were at this time 
 aware of the facts in regard to both the wills, 
 and were also aware ttiat, after probate of tlie 
 will of the 23rd April had been refused, it was 
 the opinion of the solicitor for the estate that 
 the will of the 17th April was properly executed 
 und that probate might be obtained :--Hehl, that 
 the plaintiifs' rights were not defeated or preju- 
 
 diced by the agreement and conveyances referred 
 to; nor were the plaintiffs' rights defoateil by 
 the registration ot the conveyances to A. 0'\. 
 and his assignment and mortgage to O. , for A, 
 O'N. had actual notice and Itnowledge of tlic 
 plaintiffs' rights; and that the plaintiffs, who 
 were not guilty of any wilful neglect or default, 
 were prevented from registering the will by "in- 
 evitable difficulty" or "iinpedinieiit " within the 
 meaning of R. S. 0. (1877), c. Ill, s. 7'). The 
 defendant O. by a counter-claim asked for dam. 
 ages, being the value of a crop in the ground 
 and deprivation of possession of the land for a 
 year or more, but a reference to assess these 
 damages was refused. The plaintill's and the de- 
 fendant (). were allowed costs out of tlie estate 
 except tliat the defendant O. was oi'dered to pay 
 the costs occasioned by charges n:ade by him of 
 fraud and collusion ; no costs were allowed to or 
 against the defendant A. OX. McLeod c. 
 Truax, ■") O. H. 40.), sjiecially oliservcd upon. 
 0\\<:il/v. Omit, 17 0. Iv..")2r). — Ferguson. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Costs of Co.ntkstis(; 
 
 WlM.S. 
 
 .VND t'o.NSTlUlNl; 
 
 The rule is, that if there exist "sutlicientaiul 
 reasonalile ground, looking at tlie knowledge and 
 means of knowledge of the opposing party, to 
 question eithci- the execution of a will or the 
 capacity of the testator, or to jnit forward a 
 charge of undue influence or fraud, the losing 
 party may properly be relieved from the costs 
 of the successful party." This rule was acted 
 upon, and the plaintiff relieved from costs in a 
 case where the plaintiff had seen the deceased 
 the day after- the will was executed, ami found 
 him very low and unalile to speak intelligihiy, 
 and where the testator had to .sevcial persuns 
 s]i()ken appi'oviiigiy of the condiutt of tlif plain- 
 tiff, a son of a decased brother, and iiad ex- 
 pressed liiniself ill sncli a manner as iiubici'd tlio 
 plaintitl ami others to bi lieve that lie would he- 
 come a beneficiary under liis uncle's will, in 
 which his name was not mentioned, and wliiili 
 hail liccn jireparcd at the house of tlie widow (if 
 another brotlKU' of tlie testator, where lie hail 
 for .some time lieeu rcsiiliiig, and was taken ill 
 and died, altiiough at the hearing the pliintitl's 
 case entirely failed in proof. Maiiiii/iii/ v. Ki nip, 
 27 t'hy. 442. — .Spiagge. 
 
 The court ordered that the costs in this case 
 should be paid liy tiie respoiidenls (executors and 
 trustees of the will) iint of the general rcsiiluf 
 of the estate of the deceased, but if tiic said 
 residue should have been distributed then the 
 said costs sliould be contributed liy the per- 
 .sons who should have received portions of the 
 said residue ratably accoiiling to tlie amounts 
 of the respective sums received by them, fiikr 
 V. AiiilrvwH, 4 S. C. 1!. 400, 429. 
 
 Held, that although testamentary expen- 
 ses, which include the costs of a suit for con- 
 struction and administration, are usually pay- 
 able out of the general personal estate, yet here 
 the provision that the testamentary expenses 
 were to be jiaid out of the first niciey whieh 
 should come into his executors' hanil.^, .iheweii 
 the testator contemplated the payment of such 
 expenses out of a mixed fund of pure and ini 
 pure personalty derived from the conversion oi 
 ais real estate ; and there being nothing else in 
 
WITHDRAWINO CASE PROM JURY. 
 
 2230 
 
 conveyances referred 
 ' i-ights defeated by 
 voyances to A. O'N. 
 )vtgaye to O. , fi>r A. 
 nl knowledge of the 
 t the plaintiffs, who 
 ul neglect or defiudt, 
 ering the will by "in- 
 pediment " within tlie 
 ■), 0. 111,3.75. The 
 -claim aaked for dain- 
 i crop in the ground 
 sion of the land for a 
 ii'ence to assess these 
 e plaintitl's and the de- 
 costs out of the estate 
 ; O. was ordered to pay 
 liiirges n;ade by liim of 
 osts wereaUo«ed to or 
 A. U"X. MeUod i: 
 Bcially observed upon. 
 . ;VJ3.— Ferguson. 
 
 ■ISt;' AND CONSTIUISC 
 
 ,i.s. 
 
 .re exist " sutlieieutand 
 ing at the knowledge and 
 
 tlic opposing party, to 
 ccution of a will or the 
 „v, or to put forward a 
 ,„Je or fraud, the losuig 
 
 relieved frr)m the costs 
 " This rule was acted 
 ■ relieved from costs m a 
 tV had seen the deceased 
 vas execute.1, and f"uml 
 do to speak intelhgihly, 
 ,, had to sevcra persons 
 the condu.:t of tlic pUun- 
 ,d brother, ^''.d had ex- 
 ii manner as w\W'^'\ t''^ 
 
 iKdieve tliat he would hc- 
 
 ,.,t n.eationed, aud wind 
 
 3 house of the wnhm o 
 
 testator, where he had 
 
 siding, an.l was taken lU 
 
 ,)>. hearing the pluntdf ^ 
 
 ,roof. Mwn„l>,iiy.k>'inu 
 
 U.tthe costs in this case 
 espoudenlsleNecutms.™^ 
 
 deceased, but if the saul 
 ,„,u distributed hen he 
 
 contributed by the pa 
 
 received portions of tla 
 
 uncording to the amou = 
 
 , received by them. i'.../-e. 
 
 1!. 40(1, 429. 
 
 ,.1, testamentary expcn- 
 
 * t f n unit for con- 
 
 e costs of a sun i> ' 
 
 istration, are usually V^ 
 .,apers,mal estate, yet l^re 
 
 tuJ testamentary ex,K. ^ 
 of the Hrsl m.->e> ^^l^^^ 
 « executors' hmul.,»h^ 
 dated the payment of suci 
 nixed fun.l of pure and ini 
 Zxiro^u the conversion 
 therebeing nothing else in 
 
 tlie will to affect or alter this, the costs of this 
 action must be borne ratably by the pure and 
 impure personalty, and the proceeds of land di- 
 lected to be sold. Jiall v. Hector and Church- 
 irardens of the Church of the Anceii-iioii, 5 O. R. 
 :{86. -Boyd. 
 
 M. H. proved a will as executrix, afterwards 
 a subse((Uent will was found dated about a time 
 when the testator was in a weak state of healtli, 
 both physical and mental. A suit was brought 
 liy S. H., the executor in tlie latter will against 
 M. H. to set aside the first and establish tlie 
 second will, which was successful, and in whicli 
 M. H. was ordered to pay the costs : — Held, that 
 M, H. , in an action for an account of her deal- 
 ings with the estate, having a fair question for 
 litigation in endeavouring to uphold the tirst 
 will, was entitled to tlio costs thereof out of tlie 
 estate. Hill v. Hill, 0. R. 244. -Ferguson. 
 
 Costs of all parties of an action for the con- 
 struction of a will were ordered to bo paid out 
 of the estate of the testator and were taxed in 
 1883, but there were no funds available for their 
 ]iayment until 1888: — Held, tiiat interest on 
 costs could not be allowed out of the estate. 
 Archer v. Seem, 12 P. R. G48. — Ferguson. 
 
 See O'XeiU v. Owen, 17 O. R. 52.J, p. 2228. 
 
 X. Mi.scELLA.NEors Casks. 
 
 The court under special circumstances, al- 
 lowed money to be expen<le(l on improvements 
 on a certain property of a testator who had 
 directed by his will tliat the rents and profits of 
 all his property should be expended in payment 
 of debts, and in the support of his wife and 
 children until the youngest child should come of 
 ago. Jx'e Balder, 8 P. R. 39!).— Spragge. 
 
 Where one to whom a <levise prima facie 
 beneficial to him is made, neither accepts nor 
 rejects the same, but remains passive, he will 
 Ik) presumed to accei)t. Re JJeJhe, 2 O. 1!. 623. 
 — lioyj. 
 
 M. H. (tl;e executrix under a will which was 
 subsequently set aside) , having exjjcnded .s.'uSO. 35 
 in repairs to the real estate, and the testator's 
 will having givei. her a life esiate in all the real 
 estate, and having also given her "the income 
 of all investments of which I may be possessed 
 for her own use, and also the princi])al of such 
 investments as she may re((uire to use for her 
 own benefit : "— Held, that the $5.36.35 was pro- 
 perly allowed her. ///// v. fli/l, 6 (). R. 244.— 
 Ferguson. 
 
 A matter involving the proper construction of 
 a will cannot be brought up on petition under 
 R. S. 0. (1877), e. 107, s .35. liardnyv. Zarit-, 
 8 0. R. 6()3.— Boyd. 
 
 Right to jury in actions to establish wills. 
 See lie Ltivis—Juckxon v. Scott, 11 P. It. 107, 
 p. 2048. 
 
 Where a will creates a life estate in chattels 
 the executor is discharged when he hands over 
 such chattels to the tenant for life. The tenant 
 for life, and not the executor, then becomes 
 liable for them to the person entitled iu re- 
 
 mainder, lie Mnnsie, 10 P. R. 9i^. — Hodgina, 
 Matter in Ordinury. 
 
 Semble, the Chancery Division of the High 
 Court has jurisdiction to declare a will valid. 
 Dkkmi V. Monteilh, 14 O. R. 710.— Proud- 
 foot. 
 
 The share of a testator's estate, to which a 
 judgment debtor is entitled under a will direct- 
 ing the same to be sold and divided, may be 
 attaclied under t). J. A. Rule 370, (Con. Rule 
 935) though at the time ot the garnishee pro- 
 ceedings, the .said share is unascertained and un- 
 disturbed. Stuart V. (louyh, 15 O. i!. 60. — 
 Ferguson. 
 
 A registered memorial twenty years old of a 
 will executed by a devisee when pos.session of 
 the land has been consistent with the registered 
 title, is good evidence of the devise therein con- 
 tained, (iough r. McBride, 10 C. 1'. 166, spe- 
 cially referred to. AtcDoiHi/d V. McDoiK/all, 16 
 
 0. R. 401.— Rose. 
 
 The tenant for life conveyed to the railway in 
 1871. The person entitled to the rever.sion after 
 the life estate died in 1871 intestate, and I. H. 
 Y., his .S(de heiress-at-law, died in 1884, leaving 
 a will, in which she devised to the plaintiff a 
 specific parcel of land, including the part con- 
 veyed to the railway comiiany : — Held, that this 
 will did not pass to tlie plaintili the right to re- 
 cu. _ the compensation money, and that as to it 
 
 1. H. Y. died intestate and it descended to her 
 heirs-at-law, of whom the plaintili' was one ; and 
 the plaintiff was allowed to amend by adding 
 the other heirs-at-law as parties. Yoiukj v. 
 Midland Ji. »r. Co., 16 0. R. 738.— Street. ' 
 
 The defendant contested the validity of a will 
 propounded Ijy the plaintiff, and also propounded 
 two earlier wills, tiiulcr which, in the event of 
 
 I the last being invalidated, he claimed :- Held, 
 
 I that this was a proper subject of counter-claim : 
 — Held, also, that a general defence of fraud was 
 
 I admi.ssiblc in such a case ; but under that defence 
 the defendant was rc(|uired to give particulars 
 immediately after the examination of the plain- 
 
 I till. Apijle)>'uii V. Afp/emaii, 12 P. R. 138. — 
 
 i Royd. 
 
 WINDING UP ACTS. 
 
 See CoMrANV— CoNsriTLTioNAL Law. 
 
 WINDOWS. 
 
 See Light. 
 
 WITHDRAWAL OF ACTION. 
 
 See Pkactice. 
 
 WITHDRAWING CASE FROM JURY. 
 
 See Trial. 
 
 '!i 
 
B 
 
 I 
 
 2231 
 
 WORDS AND TERMS. 
 
 2232 
 
 WITNESS. 
 
 I. In Arbitration— 5ee Arbitration and 
 Award. 
 
 II. In Civil Actions— See Evidence. 
 
 III. In Criminal Matters— See Criminal 
 
 Law, 
 
 IV. Witness Fees— .^ec Costs. 
 V. To Wills— See Will. 
 
 Costs of witnesses who have appeared before 
 arbitrators to give evidence as to the value of 
 land taken by a railway. See lie McHae and 
 the Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co., 12 P. R. 
 282, p. 1767. 
 
 WORDS AND TERMS. 
 
 I. In Wills— 5^ee Wills. 
 II. Leoal Maxims— .?ce Maxims. 
 
 " According to the present practice of the 
 Court of Chancery."— See Barker v. Fnr^e, 9 P. 
 R. 83. 
 
 "According to the very right and justice of 
 the case." — Hoc Peterkhi v. J\lacFarlane,9 A. R. 
 429, p. 414. 
 
 "Acquired in any other way.'' — See Dominion 
 ^Loan and Investment Company v. Kilroi/. 14 0. 
 R. 468, 
 
 "Actual first cost." — See Black v. Toronto 
 Uphohtirimj Co., 16 O. 1!. 642. 
 
 "Actual, visible and continued possession of 
 the bailees.'' — See Re Monleith — Mcrchanlf' Bank 
 V. Monteith, 10 O. R. 529, p. 144. 
 
 "Adjoining municipality.'" — See Re Gallerno 
 and ToicnMp of Rockoiler, 40 Q. B, 279, p. 
 1353. 
 
 "Adjuncts of the canal." — See McQueen v. 
 The Qucn, 16 S. C. K. 1, p. 1850. 
 
 "Adult."— See Warnockv. Prieur, 12 P. R. 
 264, p. 1320. 
 
 "Advances." — See Goxddimi v. Deeming, 15 
 O. R. 201, p. 810. 
 
 "Adverse claim." — See O'Grady v. McCaffraijt 
 2 0. R. 309, p. 407. 
 
 " Against all casualties." — See Dixon v. Riche- 
 lieu Xariijation Co., 15 A. R. 647, p. 213. 
 
 "Agent for the sale of crown lands." — Sec 
 Srigley v. Taylor, 6 O. R, 108, p. 1437. 
 
 " Agents for persons not resident within the 
 district." — Hoe Re(jina V. MarslMll, 12 0. R. 55, 
 p. 1368. 
 
 " All costs incidental to the arbitration." — See 
 Re Bronson and Canada Atlantic R. ]V. Co., 
 13 P. R. 440, pp. 353, 1963. 
 
 "All days except Sunday." — See Attorney- 
 General ex rel. Hobhs v. Niagara Falls, Wedey 
 Park and Clifton Tramioay Co.. 19 O. R. 624, 
 p. 1988 ,. 
 
 "All judges, etc., of the county court."— See 
 In re Parker, 19 O. R. 612, p. 741. 
 
 "All judgments and all execntions not com- 
 pletely executed by payment." See Abraham v. 
 Ah-aham, 19 O. R. 266, p, 108. 
 
 "All necessary accommodation." — See Birk- 
 Jord V. Chatham, 16 S. C. R. 2.35, p. 1811. 
 
 "All parties concerned." — See Trmtees for 
 School Section 24 of the Towmhip of Bur ford v. 
 The Towniihip of Bur ford, 18 0. R. 546, p. 1728. 
 
 "Allow an appeal. "—See Vnutjhanv. Richard- 
 son, 17 S. C. R. 703, p. 2006. 
 
 " Assignment for the ^^eneral benefit of credi- 
 tors under this Act." — See Andemon v. Glann, 
 16 O. R. 592, p. 101. 
 
 " Any person."— See Chaput v. Robert, 14 A. 
 354, p. 1547. 
 
 " Anything done under this Act." — See Grant 
 v. Culhard, 19 0. R. 20, p. 930. 
 
 " Appeal brought." — See Rcginav. McGanltt/, 
 12 P. R. 259, p. 901. 
 
 "Appeal commenced." — See Regina v. Mc- 
 Gaidey, 12 P. R. 259, p. 30. 
 
 "Apply at chambers." — See In re Sclby, 8 P. 
 R. ,342, p. 1508. 
 
 "Approaches." — See Traverxy v. Gloucester, 
 
 15 O. R. 214, p. 21.38. 
 
 " Assets in Ontario wliich may be rendered 
 liable to the judgment." — See Pnrves v. Slater, 
 11 P. R. 507. 
 
 " Assigns." — See VanKom/hnct v. Denison, 1 
 0. R. .349, 11 A. R. 699, p. 421. 
 
 " Assumed to purchase." — Sec OirMon v. 
 Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 28 Cliy. 428, p. 1629. 
 
 " At least eight days before the sittings at 
 which the action is to bo tried." — See Bunhury 
 V. Manvfiiclurer.t' /«<. Co., 13 P. R. 52, p. 2044. 
 
 "Attested."— See y» re Weir, 14 0. R. .389, 
 p. 744. 
 
 " Authenticated.'"— /« re Veir, 14 0. R. 389, 
 p. 744. 
 
 " Ranking and incorporation of banks." — Set 
 Reifina v. County oj Wellington, 17 A. R. 421, p. 
 66.' 
 
 "Bankruptcy and insolvency."— See /iVf/im 
 V. County of Wellington, 17 A. R. 421, p. 66 ; 
 Clarkwn v. Ontario Bank, 15 A. R. 191. 
 
 " Be the same more or less.'' — Seo Xellesv. 
 White, 29 Chy. 338, p. 79. 
 
 "Being within the jurisdiction of such justice.'' 
 See Regina v. Bachelor, 15 0. R. 641, p. 1033. 
 
 "Brick houses."- Sec Stevenson v. McIIenry, 
 
 16 0. R. 1.39, p. 210. 
 
 " Bridges over rivers."— See North Dorchester 
 V. County of Middlesex, 16 0. R. 658, p. 2139. 
 
 " Broader and more comprehensive claims." — 
 See Withrow v. Malcolm, 6 0. R. 12, p. 1583. 
 
 "Building."— See Mitchell v. City of London 
 Fire Ins. Co. (Limited), 12 0. R. 706, p. 209; 
 Carr v. L\fe Assurance Association, 14 0. B- 
 487. 
 
 i 
 
 •», 
 
 11 
 
 I 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 14 
 
 s 
 
 
 i « 
 
 th 
 0. 
 
2232 
 
 t."-Sce 
 
 lot com- 
 •aham v. 
 
 iee Bick- 
 
 ustees for 
 urford v. 
 , p. 1728. 
 
 Richard- 
 
 ; of credi- 
 V. QlasK, 
 
 hen, 14 A. 
 
 See Grai\t. 
 
 McGavlcj, 
 
 ina V. Mc- 
 
 Sdhy, 8 1'. 
 
 Glouceater, 
 
 je rendereil 
 es V. Slater, 
 
 '. Denison, 1 
 
 Ou-xton V. 
 t2S, p. 1629. . 
 
 e sittings iit ^ 
 
 See Bunhnry 
 '.,. 52, p. 2044. 
 
 14 0. R. 389, 
 
 14 0. R. 389, I 
 
 banks."— Set j, 
 
 A. R. 421, p. jl 
 
 "—See Regina K 
 
 t. 421, p. 61); S 
 
 ^. 191. ;; 
 
 -Sen XeJknv- .y 
 
 (f such justice." | 
 
 641, p. 1033. I 
 
 n V. McIIenry, I 
 
 2233 
 
 WORDS AND TERMS. 
 
 2234 
 
 orlh Dorchenter 
 658, p. 2139. 
 
 isive claims."— 
 . 12, p. 1583. 
 City of London 
 R. 706, p. 209; 
 ilion, 14 0. K. 
 
 "Business of the defendant."— See Marshall 
 V, McRae, 16 0. R. 495, p. 1240. 
 
 "By reason of the railway."— See McArthur 
 V. Northern and Pacific R. W. Co. , 15 O. K. 733, 
 p. 1743 ; May v. Ontario and Quebec R. W. Co. ; 
 10 0. K. 70, p. 1801 ; Cou<jer v. Grand Trunk 
 R. W. Co., 13 0. R. 160, p. 1801. 
 
 "By way of gaming or wagering."— See North 
 Avierican Life Aninrance Co. v. Craujtn, 13 S. 
 C. R. 278, p. 993. 
 
 "Canadian policy."— See Re 'Briton Medical 
 and General Life Ansociation (Limited) (2), 12 
 O. R. 441, p. 1006. 
 
 "Carrying goods for sale."— See Rajijia v. 
 Coittts, 5 0. R. 644, p. 1106. 
 
 "Child or other issue" in R. S. 0. (1877) c. 
 106 s. 25, means legitimate child or other legi- 
 timate issue. —See JJanjrafl v. Keujan, 10 0. R. 
 272, p. 2226. 
 
 "Children." — See Paradis v. Canipbell, 6 0. 
 R. 632, p. 2162. 
 
 "Claimants." — See Standard Lis. Co. v. 
 Hwjhen, 11 P. R. 220, p. 1017. 
 
 "Coercion."— See Slieard v. Laird, 15 A. R. 
 339. 
 
 "Colour of right." — Sec Barllett v. Thompiton, 
 16 O. R. 716, p. 1154; Price v. Gninanc, 16 U. 
 R. 264, p. 397. 
 
 "Commercial Insolvency." — Sec Rue v. 2L:- 
 Doncdd, 13 O. R. 352; Clarkson v. Sterliwi, 14 
 O. R. 400. 
 
 "Commissioner in B. R., etc." — See .Vt'oW v. 
 Mitchell, 8 l». R. 518, p. 19; IlamiUon v. Har- 
 rison, 46 Q. B. 127, p. 19. 
 
 " Common and notorious report." — See Reyina 
 V. Richardson, 8 O. R. 651, p. 1638. 
 
 "Community property." — See JTmihes v. Rees, 
 5 0. R. 654, p. 1012. 
 
 "Completely executed l)y payment."— See 
 Clarksuii V. Strers, 17 O. R. 592, p. 108. 
 
 "Condition of re-entry." — See Li re Melville, 
 11 O. R. 626, p. 492. 
 
 "Conditional limitation." — See Li re Melville, 
 11 O. 1!. t)26, p. 492. 
 
 "Construction." — See Ontario and Sault St. 
 Marii- R. \V. to. v. VuntuUan Pacific R. IV. Co. , 
 14 O. R. 432. 
 
 " Containing by admeasurement sixty acres be 
 the same more or less."— See Brady v. Sadler, 16 
 O. R. 49, 17 A. R. 365, p. 489. 
 
 " Contract." -See Smith v. Uarrimjton, 29 
 Chy. 502, p. 123. 
 
 "Contractoi." — See Petrie v. Hunter, 2 0. R. 
 233, p. 2244. 
 
 " Contia'-v intention."— See Morrisonv. Mor- 
 rison, 10 O. K. 303. 
 
 "Contributory."— See Re Macdimald,and The 
 Noxon i,ros. Mitnnfaclurimj Co. 16 O. 1!. 368, p. 
 28« ; In re Venliol Bank oj Canada and Wind- 
 inij vp Acl-Yuike.-i Case, 15 O. R. 625, p. 288. 
 
 "Corrupt practices."— Sea North Victoria. 
 Election {/)om.)--Citmeron v. Macltnnan, H. K. 
 C. 584, p. 1458. 
 
 "Corruptly."— See llalton Election, (Dom.)— 
 Crosn V. McCraney, H. E. C. 736, p. 1458. 
 
 "Cost of repairs."— See Gerow v. British 
 American Ass. Co., 16 S. C. R. 524, p. 989. 
 
 "Costs." — See Re Bronmn and Canada At- 
 lantic R. W. Co. 13 P. H. 440, p. 353. 
 
 "Costs of suit as between solicitor and client." 
 —See Re Monleith— Merchants' Bank v.MoiUeith, 
 
 11 P. R. 3G1, p. 33. 
 
 "Costs of the day."— See flur/i/ v. Crabhe, 12 
 P. R. 14, p. 384. 
 
 "Costs of tlio execution."— See Lerij v. Daviex. 
 
 12 P. H. 93, p. 706. 
 
 " Costs to abide the event."— See Andrews v. 
 City of London, 12 P. R. 44, p. 372. 
 
 " County. "-Sec /?fli/ina V. Shavelear, 11 0.1!. 
 727, p. 1029. 
 
 "Court."— Sou Wellhanksv. Conjer, 12 P. R. 
 354, p. 8. 
 
 " Courts."— See Re Clute v. Williams, 13 P. [i. 
 110, p. l9,-)0. 
 
 "Currency." — See Wallace v. Souther, Hi S. 
 C. R. 717, p. 155. 
 
 "Damage by reusou of the railway." — Sec 
 North Siton R. II'. Cu. v. J/';ll'i//j(, 17 S. C. R. 
 51 1, p. 1789 ; McArthur v. yorthirn and Puci/ic 
 Junction R. W. Co., 15 0. R. 733, )). 1743 ; May 
 V. Ontario and, <,>nel,ic R. W. <.'<>., 10 O. R. 70, p. 
 1801 ; Comitr v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 13 O. 
 R. 100, p. 1801. 
 
 " Dangers of navigation, tiro and collision ex- 
 cepted." — See (.'auadiau Laconiotire Co. v. Cojie- 
 land, 14 O. K. 170; 1(> A. R. :i22, j). 1929. 
 
 " Days " in computing demurrage.— Soe G{l>- 
 bon V. Michael's Bay Lumlier Co. {Limited), 7 
 0. R. 740, p. 2(J2;{. 
 
 " Debt."— See Walton v. Henry, 18 0. R. 620, 
 pp. 528, 1914. 
 
 " Decision." — Sec Danjon v. Maniui-i, 3 S. C 
 R. 251, p. 089. 
 
 "Defendant is not entitled to dower." -See 
 Banks v. Bellamy, 27 Chy. .342, p. 16211. 
 
 "Demise."— See Spears v. Mdler, 32 C. P. 
 661, p. oS7. 
 
 "Depositing witli." — .See 71*6 Simmons and 
 Dalton, 12 O. R. 505, p. 1429. 
 
 "Deviation." — See County oi' Viclnria v. 
 County uf Peterliorowjh, 15 A. K. 617, p. 2139. 
 
 " Devolve."— See /h re Booth's Tru-ils, 16 0. 
 R. 429, p. 912. 
 
 "Dissolution by nuitual coii.scnt. "--Sec O'Kecfe 
 v. Curran, 17 S. C. R. 596, p. 1546. 
 
 "Domiciled nor ordinarily resident in On- 
 tario."— Sec Wanzer Lamp Co. v. Woods, 13 1'. 
 R. 511, p. 557. 
 
 "Dry goods."— See yiV^i^av. L'i(sse«, 12 0. U. 
 51, p. 1368. 
 
IB 
 K 
 
 I: 
 
 IS 
 
 i 
 
 WORDS AND TERMS. 
 
 2236 
 
 2235 
 
 .. «.n roldk V. John^, 16 ^' ^- ^^^' 
 "Due. --See I'Oift"- ^- 
 
 ^•*^'^' • V-' See Ha,Hhy.Lcm Soceity 
 
 .'Dueen.imry- -'!:''? ^ 4, „. 1I6O. 
 of Upper Cauada, 17 A i^ * ^P ^ 
 
 .. Effect ..t the mortgage. -S>ee 
 
 ..Oiv^^pv^ before^ ^ai^'*^^'" 
 .<Gooa cause, -bee b^ ^^^^ . i^amahar v. 
 
 UG00.I mey^l}i'",';:^I:l^^!rC r. 203, p. -2018. 
 
 iril^oH, 1/ O. R. -J". ^^^_ ,,_ ., 3 ^. c. 11. .W9 ; 28 C- i • I 
 
 » Effectually proscc^y.^^:^^^^^^^^^^ iucome."-See t'-'^// 'f ""* 
 
 5 O. R. 395, p. 413 ; i *-'^« j,_ k. 250, p. ^„ ' [° /,,/« ^.,s.,«-a»ce Co., 18 O. K- !»• 
 
 OaNflcZa .SoH^/<e»-». ^f. » • ^''- Canada ,J ^_ ^^ ^_ ^^^^^^^^ g q. 
 
 1712. . ... .„.. „,berwise." .'.' Hawk"'- -bee .; 
 
 9 p. R. 553, p. 203S. 
 
 644, p. 1106. ,^^ ^j,_„en and other per- 
 
 .' Hawkers or V-'^y VrS -'.-See Reuinas. 
 .ons cai;rym|^ou pet y trades. 
 
 6W»f, 50. K. IJ**'!' 17 R. 725, 
 
 ^'" ^^"^' . r , " See Baldwm v. A'i»!/.s<o)(t, 
 
 p. R. 553, p. -.iw''- .=,„"_ See 
 
 „iiv nv aths domicile. -»ee 
 •' Either personally 01 a^ ,,. , , v. Monlwjuc, 
 aldimandElcctwn(Dom.)-lloA^n 
 
 1458. . __„„„;_ „f „oods." ^- ^: ' \..r.., "-Sec IlaWwell ^.I>^<^P^^^ 
 
 "Error or miscalculation. 
 «Jey,10O.R.295,p.bl. 
 
 Fniwlcy, 40 Q. li- 
 y. 'lamu'ou ""'{.r-- , " Inn)rovidence."--bce y o«.s<f» ,,jj_ 
 
 "Existing or accruin.jigUts.-er.^^^^ , . .,urt ot Uw. 
 .Sec Cm-ci v. C'uo^c;/. O. .i. - '- 
 
 7/am,7^o. ««;!.^^°'"' " Improvidence. Y«':^/•r 
 
 ^'- "In any criminal case. 
 
 U. C. R. 140, p. 840. ^^^^,,ii. Loan and 
 
 „„.,one 10 .. .^. ^-^ ^ ^^^^^^^,.^ , p. .. j^^ bond.-- J<^^^^ - .^-«: ''^ 
 
 "Fieri Facias. -Sec Mmj ^,^_^ 4^ q. b. 10*'. 1 _^ o^e Joncx 
 
 R- l^'->. I'- ^^^- , orvtion "-Sec Jo«..s " In caseany thing shouW l^app^n. -S.e^o 
 
 "Eortheuseof the cor^^^ ^,_ 4,4, p,l^,_ /J,,,,^, U S. C. U. -08,^p.J-0. 
 
 "Family arrai^—^i, A. R.C:.,Y 
 Xi»!/.(o»e, 10 O. K. 41 
 
 . '5i^:T5'o:.^^Xr^ O: K. 474, P 
 
 ''"Forthwith.--See.M.«^e«v-'^--^- 
 
 R. 529, pp. 708, 202-. ^v„,,„,,J.«. 
 
 "Fraudulent device --Sec i-." j,, (, 
 
 landEMU,n{Ont.)-ta,scy^.Io, 
 
 '''''■ '*'"'tterritory.--See./.a;-TV.Mfc. 
 "Free Sraiit tenitoi>. ^^.^ 
 
 " From and aftei. ->ee ^ ,-._,4. 
 
 ,. „ .= " See lie ]}rou'<on and Canada 
 ..E« 1 costs -^«« ./"p. R. 440, p. 353. 
 Allanuc U. M . < -; ^^,.^„,,_ 
 
 "Further directions. -See MUiei 
 
 fl p R. 542, p. 409. ^. . ,. 
 
 . f ri.fl.t"— See Oin-m v. 
 "Given for a patent ught. 
 yj«,-ie,19U.R.2U4.p.lo.. 
 
 " I„ controversy on the appeal -bee O 
 ir;,;/n/ 9 I'. 1^- 30i. p. •*"• 
 
 P- ^''^'' . ,, ,,.„tion "-See BrockviUe 
 
 Inevitable difficulty. -Sec i^ 
 17 U. K. 525. , , () 
 
 lnn."-See .V..vomi.c v. .1.^--". '' «• 
 
 R. O'.'S, p. 11^^- 
 
2236 
 
 -Sec lie. 
 I. 
 
 ey Manu- 
 rqiihar v. 
 Vipund, 
 
 ! Clarke v. 
 p. 2018. 
 
 iiti/ston V. 
 18. 
 
 s, 5 O. R. 
 
 I otUer pei- 
 e lieuina v. 
 
 7 O. R. 72.N 
 Kiwjdont, 
 
 -See Daujun 
 1. 
 reference to 
 
 (0"M— '''''"' 
 1458 ; North 
 Boidlhee, H. 
 
 ■. Incorporali'.d 
 .R. 67,p. '■^'•i'-'- 
 . OiM'i. 17 0. 
 
 a V. AUbr'KjIit, 
 , R. 43, p.»l»; 
 (iw/ei/, 40 Q. li- 
 ra V. Atlorniy- 
 (J12, p. 4()8. 
 bo ci>f;niz;ible in 
 tlwoti Colieiji-, 
 
 • IiireSproiile, 12 
 
 'cvritij Loan and 
 
 92. 
 
 ,pen."-SeeJo«M 
 
 12G. 
 jal."— See O'Z^ono- 
 
 ':}6. 
 
 [or notes or other- 
 
 I'uml, 27 Ohy. 51o, 
 
 ,„_"__Sce Brockv'dk 
 i.^iniiitoiix, 11. K. <J- 
 
 V Lo»</oH Vanadiau 
 U. 27 :i, p. '-^S**- 
 Kiii<rlon V. CadttJtt 
 
 -See (/xV.-;/U. OweH, 
 V. Aiider.iuii, U O. 
 
 2237 
 
 WORDS AND TERMS. 
 
 2238 
 
 "Insolvent and bankrupt."— See Teiiipk v. 
 Toronto Stock Exchanye, 8 0. R. 705, p. 1.T2. 
 
 " Insolvent circnnistanccs." — See Domiuion 
 Bank v. ('owun, 14 0. R. 4G.5, p. 792 ; Clarknon 
 V. Sttrlimi, 14 0. R. 4(J0, p. 792; Warnork v. 
 Kloep/u; 14 O. R. 288 ; 15 A. I!. S24, p. 792. 
 
 "Intent." — See McLean v. ilarhind, 15 S. C. 
 H. 300, p. 798. 
 
 "Intent to defeat," "intent to clefiaiid."— 
 See Lainn v. Slinijer/cnd, 12 1*. R, 3()0, p. 'M. 
 
 " Intent to do grievous bodily haini."— See 
 L'-yiiia V. liuur/irr, 8 1*. R. 20, p. IIIO. 
 
 "Interest."— See Canii v. Kw,tt, 19 O. R. 
 442, p. 4()5. 
 
 "Interlocutory." — See Whitimi v. l/orii/, 12 
 A. R. 119, p. 1023. 
 
 " Investing in." -See linririrk timl. Lot /hm 
 iinthtnorlh-iidc iij Kin'/ xlriif hi the rili/ uj' 'J'uruii- 
 /o, 5 0. R. 710, p. 20^0. 
 
 "Investment."— See Worts v. iVvrtu, IS O. R. 
 332, p. 2070. 
 
 "It shall be lawful." — See ffands v. Lair 
 •Sockti/ 0/ Upiirr Cii Hilda, 17 O. H. 30S 
 
 " .lewellery." — See /iV'/i»a v. Cluiylir, 11 (>. 
 II. 217, p. 13(i7. 
 
 " Joint A.ssigiiee8." — See Ito^s v. Machar, 8 (). 
 K. 417, p. 286. 
 
 "Judge."— Sec 7/1 re Li-i'ie.i v. Wanl, 4'> (). 
 R. 37.'), p. .">54. 
 
 "Judgment upou a motion for new trial on 
 the ground that the judge lias not ruled aeeord- 
 ing to law." — See lloirl:iinU v. t.'iiiiada Soitthi-.rii 
 J!. \V. Co., 13 P. R. 93, p. 2007. 
 
 "Knowledge." — See Cliii/iman v. Tii /'!■■<, 8 S. 
 <'. It. 543, p. 157. 
 
 " Knows that lie is on tlie eve of iusulveney. ' 
 -Clartson v. IStirtinij, 14 O. it. 400. 
 
 " Labour." — See Ontario Co-oinrutirc Stoni' 
 Cullers' Association v. CVro/.T, 31 C. \\ 280 p. 347. 
 
 "Land." — See lie Hash mid the ('ninniisifioiurs 
 of the Sia/iua Fal/s I'ark, 14 A. H. 73, p. 401 ; 
 In re Mi'lrille, II O. R. CO, p. 21,-)7. 
 
 " Land loL-ated or sold witiiin the limits of the 
 free grant territory." — See S/uiir/i v. Lakelield 
 Liiintier Co., 17 A. It. 322, p. 404. 
 
 " L:inds, ndnes, nunerals and royalties." — See 
 Attornry-deiieial of Ontario v. Mercer, 8 App. 
 Cas. 707, p. 307. 
 
 " Law of the court."— See Melbourne v. City 
 of Toronto, 13 P. It. 340. 
 
 "Legal expenses. "—See End Toronto Ela-tion 
 (Out.)— Ileiinickw. Canieron, H. K. C. 70, p. 1458. 
 
 " Legal in.solvency." — See /I'ac v. McDmald, 
 13 O. It. 352, Clarkson v. Sterlwj, 14 O. R. 400. 
 
 "Less than one year." — See Ueijinay. Catim, 
 Hi O. R. p. 1308. 
 
 " Liable to pay."— See Re .Skinmr a Solicitor, 
 13 P. R. 27(), p. 1949. 
 
 " Loan of money."— See Hunk of Toronto v. 
 Hearer and Toronto Mutual Ins. Co., 28 L'hy. 
 87, p 979. 
 
 " Made or levied under execution."— See Heid 
 V. Cuiraiis, 13 A. H. 501, p. 700. 
 
 " Main Ciiaunel." — liK/ina v. Count i/ of Cark- 
 ton, 1 (). R. 277, p. 213U. 
 
 " Maintenance, aeeoniniodation and other 
 neces.sary ex])ense."— See Oakwood lli(jh School 
 Hoard and Township of Mariposa, io t). It 
 87, p. 1733. 
 
 " Marrii'cl man."— See TnroiUo General Trusts 
 Co.. V. Sen; II, 17 O. It. 442. 
 
 " .Matter or proceeding." — See Uim/ham v 
 McKenJe, 10 P. |{. 400, p. 159.3. 
 
 " May."— See Aitcheson v, Mann, 9 P. Pv. 
 473, p. 1558. 
 
 " .Mechanical operations." -See /n re Itoherl- 
 sou and the Toicnshiit of Xorth EasUiovc, 15 <>. 
 R. 423. 
 
 ".Meeting assenililud fur the purpose of pro- 
 moling llie election. '—See yorlh .Middtesix 
 Elcctiini, (<'hit.)—('amecon v. .VcDoui/all, H. K. 
 C. 73(i, p. I4K4; Presriilt Eleetion [Ont.)—Ci,„- 
 ninijhinn v. J/mjar, 1 K. C. S8, p. 1485. 
 
 " .Meetings of Kiectors." — Sec East MiddUscx 
 Election (i>nl.) — h'hod-r v. McKenzk, I K. C. 
 250, )). 1485. 
 
 ■' Mineral uas." — See Ontario Xat mill Cas Co. 
 V. Swart, 19 (). It. 591 ; 18 A. R. 020. 
 
 " Mistake, defect, or iniperfeetion." — See 
 niain V. J'e,d.-er, 18 O. It. 109, p. 104. 
 
 " Mode of chance." — See lieiiina v. Dodds, 4 
 (). R. 390, p. 832 ; Ikijina v. Jamieson, 7 O. R. 
 149, p. 832. 
 
 " Moi't u'agee in possession." — See Court v. 
 ;/o//,(/(r/, 29 Chy. 19, p. 1278. 
 
 " Municipalities in which the polls arc held." 
 — Sue South Ontario Election {Out.) — Farwellw 
 Ih-oicn, II. i;. C. 420, p. I4S9. 
 
 •' Naviiialile waters." — See Hatte v. liooth, 
 no. K. 491, p. 2104. 
 
 "Neglect or refusal." -See Vuriel v. Crand 
 Trunk 11. ir. Co., 10 .\. R. 102. 
 
 " Xegligently, unlawfully and wrongfully." — 
 Si:c (Juillinan V. Canada Southern li. W. Co., it 
 O. R. 51)7, p. 1000. 
 
 " Negotiaticm." — See Dominion Eankv. Oliver, 
 17 0. R. 402, p. 14,5. 
 
 " Negotiation for the purpo.ses of carrying on 
 the company's Imsiness. — ."^ee Hank of Toro\io v. 
 Coliourii, Teterlionnii/h, and Marmora li. (K. Co., 
 7 0. It! 1, p. 480. 
 
 " New title."— See Cameron v. Walker, 19 O. 
 R. 212, p. 1180. 
 
 " X(!xt sittings of the court." — See Chapman 
 v. Sniitli, 32 C, P. 555, p. 10.")0. 
 
 " Not guilty by statute." — See liond v. Con- 
 ni'i 10 .\. It. 3flS, p. 1015 ; Doau v. Michhjan. 
 Central II. W. Co., 17 A. R. 481, p. i:i94; Town 
 of I'Uerhoruii'jh v. Edwards, 12 P. R. 127, !>. 
 1015' Town of I'eterborowjh w. Midland li. 11'. 
 Co., 12 P. R.'l'iT. 
 
 "Not less than S.")0."— See Reyina v. Smith, 
 10 O. R. 454, p. 1040. 
 
r 
 
 2289 
 
 WORDS AND TERMS. 
 
 2240" 
 
 "Not less tlmii thirty days' notice." — See' 
 NatioHiil Iwi. Co, V. Kjletvn, 29 Chy. 406, p. 
 •->51. 
 
 "Not otlierwise or elsewliore."— See Direct 
 Cable Co. v, Duminion Teltiiraplt Co., 2S Cliy- 
 648, p. 759. 
 
 "Notes not to be sold."— See Swainlund v. 
 naritUoii, 3 O. It. .S20, p. 158. 
 
 "Notice, condition or declaration." — See 
 (Jrand Trunk H. W. Co. v. Vo>icl, 1 1 S. C. R. 
 G12. 
 
 "Notice sliall bo given. " — See Ifom v. Machar, 
 8 O. R. 417, p. 2.5.;. 
 
 "Notwitiistanding any act of the said cove- 
 nantor." — See McKay v. ilrKaij, 31 C P. 1, p. 
 494. 
 
 "Now in and upon." — Sue DoiiihI/i/ v. Hall, 
 7 0. 1{. 581, p. 19;J. 
 
 "Occupant."- Sec Cnnmiijv. CnuaiUan Pact- 
 fie n. W. Co.,- O. R. G73, p. 1772. 
 
 "Occupied lands." — Sec Darl-t v. Canadian 
 Pacific 11. W. Co., 12 A. K. 724. 
 
 "Of such trilling nature." — See Hamilton 
 Election (Ont.)-l'aUer>ion v. Htinj^on, 1 E. C. 499, 
 p. 1493. 
 
 "OtKccr or person fultilling a public duty." — 
 See Slallccr v. Totrnshiji uj Diiuicich, 15 O. R. 
 :}42, p. 1417. 
 
 "Oliicers of the corporation." — Sec Canada 
 Atlantic 1!. IT. Co. v. Moxley, 15 S. C. R. 145, 
 p. 629. 
 
 "On all days except Sundays."— See Altorwy- 
 Oene.ral, ex rcl. HoIiIm v. Niaiiara Falls, Winli^i/ 
 Park and Clifton Tramway Co., 19 O. R. 624, p. 
 92;i. 
 
 "On demand." —Sue Davies v. Fiinnton, 45 Q. 
 
 B. 369, p. 842. 
 
 "Opposite or interested party to the suit." — 
 See Wal-iiin v. Serern, (i A, It. 559, p. (iSO. 
 
 "Or otherwise in force in Ontario with respect 
 to any property tiicruin." — Sec Jlc SI. /'Iiiliji's 
 Church H'tsliiii and the O'la.'njon' and London Ins. 
 Co., 17 O. R. 95. 
 
 "Or which has such effect." — See Moliou's 
 Bank v. Ilaltir, 16 A. It. 323, p. 790. 
 
 "Other corrupt practices." — Sue IVcut Ifastiiitj.s 
 Election (Out.)— iye,ilcy V. miLi, H. E. C. 211, 
 p. 1500. 
 
 "Other ille<,'al practices at the election." — See 
 Weltand Etiuiion ((hil.)—Hol>.son v. Morin, 1 E. 
 
 C. 383, p. 1497. 
 
 "Other persons." — See Iltholl.son v. Henry, 8 
 O. R. 625, p. 532. 
 
 "Others." See lie McCormackandthe Town- 
 ship of Howard, 18 O. R. 260. 
 
 "Otlierwise dispose of." — See Kennedy v. 
 City of Toronto, 12 O. R. 211, p. 493. 
 
 "Owner."— See Prescott Election (Ont.) — Mc- 
 Kenue v. JJaniillon, H. E. C. 1, p. 1505. 
 
 "Owner or agent of tiiu owner." — .Sue lici/ina 
 V. IValson, 19 0. R. 646, p. 1718. 
 
 "Owner's risk against all casualties."— See 
 Dixon V. Jiichelieu Naviijation Co., 15 A. R. 
 647, p. 213. 
 
 " Party to a cause." — See Cameron v. Allniy 
 10 P. R. 192, pp. 543, 553. 
 
 " I'assing."— Sue In re Booth')* Entate, 16 0. 
 R. 442, p. 519. 
 
 " Payable at Bank of Montreal, Toronto, at 
 par." — Sue I{o.ie Bel/ird Printimi Co. v. Bank 
 of Montreal, 12 O. R. 544, p. 1.36. 
 
 " Purfuct liealth." — See Mutual Relief Society 
 of Xora Scotia v. Wihtler, 16 S. C. R. 718, p. 
 1000. 
 
 " Perils of tlie seas." — Sue Great fy^e»tern /h.v. 
 Co. V. Jordan, 14 S. C. R. 73^, p. 983; O'Con- 
 nor V. Merchants' Marine Inn. Co., 16 S. C. It. 
 331, p. 989. 
 
 " Person aggrieved. " — Hco Atkinn v. Ptolemy, 
 5 O. R. 36(i, p 1331 ; Hai/e.t v. Arvutromj, 7 '•• 
 It. 021, p. 1,")03; IVmt^'v. McAuluy, u'o. R. 
 
 313, p. 1701. 
 
 " Person injured." — .See Le May v. Canailian 
 Pacific H. W.Co., 18 O. R. 314. 
 
 "Personal estate." — Hee lie Nixon, 13 P. R. 
 
 314, p. 710. 
 
 " Personal property." — See City of Kiu(j.Mon 
 V. Canada Life As-fui'unce Co., p. 61. 
 
 "Possibility. "—See In re Melville, 11 O. It. 
 626, p. 492. 
 
 '" Preceding sections." —See Selkirk Election 
 (Dom.)—Younii v. Smith, 4 S. C. R. 494, p. 1473. 
 
 "Preference." — See McLean v. Garland, 15 
 S. C. R. 366, p. 798. 
 
 "Premises." — See Saylor v. Cooper, 2 O. R. 
 .398, p. 2119. 
 
 " Prior notice."— See //Union St. Juteph de 
 Montreal v. Ln/iierre, 4 S. L'. R. 164, p. 150. 
 
 " Prior user."— See Smith v. Fair, 14 O. R. 
 759, 1). 2029. 
 
 "Proceeds." — See Dominion Loan and Invest- 
 ment Co. V. Kilroy, 14 O. It. 468. 
 
 " Profits." — Sec Dominion Loan and Invest- 
 meiU Co. V. Kilroy, 14 O. R. 468. 
 
 " Prolits of tlie land." — See Workman v. liolili, 
 7 A. It. 3S9, p. 1198. 
 
 " Proper list to l)c used." — See East Durham 
 Election (Ont.) — Collins v. Camjihcll, 1 E. C. 
 489, p. 1428. 
 
 "Property and civil riglits." — See Doyle v. 
 Jiell, 11 A. R. 326, i>. 1501; lietjina v. Count// 
 of H'kllinfion, 17 A. R. 421, p. (iG ; Russell v. 
 The Queen, 7 Api). t;as. 829, p. 31 1 ; Citizens' Ins. 
 Co. V. 1'ar.^uns ; Queen Ins. Co. J'arsomi, 7 App. 
 fas. 96; 4 S. C. It. 215, p. .302; Clarkson v. On- 
 tario Hank, 15 A. R. 166, p. 790 ; Dnyle v. Bell, 
 32 C. V. 6,32 ; 1 1 A. R. 326 ; p. 307 ; Jones \ . 
 Canada Central li. II'. t'l)., 46 g. iJ. 250, p. 302; 
 Smith V. Merchants' Hank, 28 Chy. 629 ; 8 A. It. 
 1.-), p. 304. 
 
 "Proposed to be incorporated." — See In re 
 The Ldiidon S/miker J'rinlinj Co. — Pcarce's 
 Case, 16 A. R. 508, p. 249. 
 
lasualties."— See 
 * Co., 15 A. R. 
 
 ameron v. Alltn, 
 
 th'.i Estate, 16 0. 
 
 troal, Toronto, at 
 tiuii Co. V. liavk 
 
 m. 
 
 tmd Relief Socieljf 
 ti. C. R. 718, p. 
 
 (7, 
 
 'rent We.nterii Lid. 
 
 , p. 983; O'Coii- 
 
 Co., 16 S. C. 1!. 
 
 AlHw V. Ptolemi/, 
 Armttroiiif. 7 •'• 
 McAuluy, 5 O. H. 
 
 ' jl/'iy V. Cantuliiiii 
 314. 
 
 ft iVm-H, 13 P. K. 
 
 3e Ci'// (j/' KiugttoH 
 'o., p. 01. 
 
 .Ve/ii//.', 11 O. IJ. 
 
 ■iee Selkirk Elect ion 
 i. C. U. 494, p. 1473. 
 
 eaii V, Garland, 15 
 
 •V. Cm./iec, 2 O. R. 
 
 Union St. Juteph ih 
 L'. K. 104, p. loO. 
 
 /j V. /'«;*•, 14 O. R. 
 
 ion Loan and Inve.il- 
 II. 408. 
 
 i». AofKJ aH(i Ini'ett- 
 R. 40S. 
 
 eo H'ori'HtaH v. liohli, 
 
 ' — See Ea^t Durham 
 Caini>h(.'ll, I E. C. 
 
 lita."— See Doyle v. 
 • I ; Reijina v. Count ij 
 !1, p. 00; liuinell v. 
 
 p. 31 1 ; Citizeiin' Jn-i. 
 
 Co. I'arsoiin, 7 App. 
 ?02 ; Clarkion v. O/c 
 ,. 7!)0 ; Doyle v. «»■//, 
 iO ; p. 307 ; Jonen v. 
 40 y. B. 250, p. 302; 
 28 Cliy. 029 ; 8 A. K. 
 
 lovated."— Sec In n; 
 inlinj Co. — I'luircc'-i 
 I. 
 
 2241 
 
 WOr.DS AND TFRMS. 
 
 " iTopnetor. ~^>im' Conn-a i w Ciinodian Pa- 
 ciftc If. \V. Co., 7 (>. R. (i73, p. 1772. 
 
 '•IV(i8i!cuti()ii."--See Itiijina v. Meyer, 11 P. 
 R. 477, p. IIOI. 
 
 " Provitk'd always and this yrant is au.'ji'ct 
 to the following conditions."— See AV;i;(e(/» ^. 
 City 0/ Toronto, 12 0. 1!. 211, p. 403. 
 
 " I'rovinuial ohjeuts,"— See Clarke v. Union 
 Fire Inn. Co., 10 1>. R. 313, p. 302. 
 
 "Pnhlic Lands." -See Attovne.y-O'enernl of 
 Jiritiih Cntninliia v. Atlorney-Cem ral of Canada, 
 14 App. Oas. 295, p. 314. 
 
 " Pnri'lv n)0!u\v demand."— Sue Coiranloik v. 
 Man.'*, 9 P. R. 270, p. 1154. 
 
 "Questions involved in the action."— See 
 Adam,i v. Watson Mannjaclnrimi Co. (LimitiU), 
 ISO. 1{. 218; 10 A. H. 2, p. 7!m. 
 
 " Referring of ouusea under tiie Common I^iw 
 Procedure Act." — See /iank of Hamilton v. 
 liaine, 12 P. R. 418, p. 1057. 
 
 " Keguliition of trade and connnerce."— See 
 CUizeiui' Inn. Co. V. l'ar.'<o)is, ijwen /«.«. Co. v. 
 Parxoni, 7 App. Cas. 90 ; 4 S. ( '. R. 215, p. 309; 
 Hodje V. The Qneen, 9 App. ("as. 117, p. 311 ; 
 Mai/or, etc. , of Fredt-ricton v. The Queen, 3 S. C 
 R. 505, p. 310. 
 
 "Remaining on the land. "—See Lanrjmiiid v. 
 Mickle, 10 O. U. Ill, p. 470. 
 
 " Remise, release and i|uit claim." — See Pear- 
 son V. Mill holla nd, 17 O. R. 502, j). 494. 
 
 "Result of the flection."— See Welltiml Elec- 
 tion (iint.)—Hol)sun V. Moriii, 1 K. ('. 3S3, p. 
 1497. 
 
 " Retired .ludge," See Macdonell v. liUike, 
 17 A. K. 312, p. 1101. 
 
 " Itiglit of entry fur coTidition liroken." — See 
 In re Melville, 1 1 O. R. O.'O, p. 4!I2. 
 
 "Running at large." — See Ibholt-ton v. Henri/, 
 8 O. R. 025, p. 532. 
 
 "Safely carry."— See Mai/ v. 0::'rrio and 
 qmbec Ji. W. Co., 10 (). R. 70, pp. 1243, 
 1783. 
 
 "Sale." — See Donovan v. Hoyan, 15 A. It. 432, 
 p. A. and T. 
 
 "Scrivener's business." — See Thompmn v. 
 iiolnn.^on, 15 (). H. 002, p. 1902. 
 
 "Security."— See Worts v. Wuri.s, IS O. R. 
 332, p. 2070. 
 
 "Sell or give." — See .South Ontario Election 
 ((hit.)— Far well v. Brown, p. 1487. 
 
 "Separately from her husband." — See Do- 
 viinion Loan and Inveatment Co. v. Kilroy, 14 O. 
 R 408, p. 000. 
 
 "Shall have power." — See Havd.i v. Law 
 Society of Upper Canada, 17 O. R. 308. 
 
 "Shall no longer apply." — See Jiegina v, 
 Swalwell, 12 O. R. 391, p. 220. 
 
 " Shareholder." — See Zooloi/ical and Acclima- 
 tisation Socieli/ of Ontario, 17 O. R. 331, p. 250; 
 /leiidrie v. Grand Trunk J{. W. Co. , 2 O. R. 441, 
 p. 1804. 
 
 141 
 
 "So soon as the solicitor for tiic (.urchasor 
 shall lie satisHcd with the title. "—S.o HtMcl can 
 V. Walbr, I'.IO. I!. 161, p. 1S82. 
 
 " Solid brick houses."— See ."tV-'/riMoji v. .Vc- 
 Henry, 16 O. U. 139, p. 210. 
 
 " Subject to all the usual terms and conditions 
 of this company."— Sec Citi-.eiii' lii.^itrdin-e Co. 
 of Canada v. I'arxonx, 7 App. Cas. 90, p. 930. 
 
 "Such trial."— See Aljoina Kliction (Dom.)— 
 Ihirk v. Daimon, 1 K. C. 448, p. 1514. 
 
 "Taking " land.— See Jiumi v. Ontario ami 
 Quebec 11. II', Co., 12 0, R. 024, p, 1709, 
 
 "Tax."— See Let Ecclr4a4i<iuetil>' St. Siilpice 
 de Montreal v. City of Montreal, 10 S, C, R, 399, 
 p. 84. 
 
 " Temporary periods. "—See Ileifnia v. Caton, 
 16 0, R, II, p, 1.308. 
 
 " Tenant."— See Conicay v. Canadian Parijic 
 /.'. W. Co., 12 A, R, 708, p, 1772, 
 
 "Territory of tlie municipality." — See 
 Toiciixliijiaf liarton v. Citi/ of Hamilton, 18 U. 
 R. 199, 17 A. P.. 34(i, p. 1375. 
 
 "The Court,"— See WeUbanks v. Conger, 12 P. 
 R, 354, p, 1007. 
 
 "Then," 
 099, 
 
 -See Mayi v. Carroll, 14 O, R,, 
 
 "Title to land, "—See McNeill v, Haines, 13 
 P, R, 1 15, 
 
 "To have his living otT the pl.iee," — See 
 Brockrille Election (Ont.)— Flint v, Fitz-iimntunt, 
 H. K. ('. 129, p. 1431. 
 
 "Town having a police magistrate." — See 
 lltgina v. Yomig, 130. R. 198. 
 
 "Trade." — See Ontario Co-oj)eratice Stone 
 Cufler.s' AKxocialion v. Clarke, 31 C. P, 280, p. 
 347, 
 
 'Trade Mark."— See 5«i/V/( v. Fair, 14 0. R. 
 729, p. 2030. 
 
 "Trau.sfer."— See llritiih Canadian Loan and 
 Invi^limnt Co. v. Jirilmll, 13 P. 1!. :iU), [ip. 
 1 13, 085 ; Gotvans v. liarnef, 12 P, R, 330, p, 
 
 (iH4. 
 
 "Trustee, executor or guardian,"- -See Mi-r- 
 chaiit.f' Hank v. Monteilh—Ex ' Slawtard 
 
 Life A.t.iiinmce Co., 10 P, It, 58' i5(i3, 
 
 "Unable to pay his debts in tail,"- See Dn- 
 nJnion Hank v. Cowan, 14 O. R. 405, p. 792 ; 
 Clarkion v. Sterling, 14 0, R, 400. 
 
 "Under his signature,"- See Hay v. liurke, 
 16 A, R, 403, p. 163. 
 
 "Undertaking."— P/»e//w ct- Co. v. .SV. Cathar- 
 ines and Siagara Central L'. W. Co., 18 O. R. 
 581. 
 
 "Undue influence."- See Sheardw Laird, 15 
 A. H. 339. 
 
 "Until payment in full."— See Powell v. Perk, 
 15 A. R. 138. 
 
 "Upon payment of costs."— See Sluari v. 
 Branlon, 9 P. R. 500, p. 353. 
 
 " Use." — See 7?<!i/i«a v. L'oj/)/, 18 0. R. 
 485. 
 
 ;f 
 
 : 
 
WORK AND LABOUS. 
 
 2244 
 
 "Viiluiil)lu coiiKiilciration."— See Ualton Eke- 
 tioii (Oul.)--UnMstn V. Jiarher, H. K. C. i.'83, ii. 
 K)2r); Noi-lh Vic/uria Eltction {Out.), H. K. C. 
 U.VJ, p. 14U8. 
 
 "Vendors wlio Hball voluntarily use the mar- 
 ket pliiee fur the imrpoae of Helling." — See J{<- 
 iliiia V. Jla-it, II O. It. 242, p. 1107. 
 
 "Voluntiirilv."— Sec Whilmyv. Tohy,tiO. K. 
 .')4, 1). 8I«; Si'itarl v. Trnnaiii, 3 O. il. lltO, p. 
 81(i. 
 
 " Wiireliouse receipts." — See Re Mimleilh — 
 Mevrlntnls' Uank v. MunUilh, 10 O. R. 529, p. 
 144. 
 
 "Warrant and defenil."— See Onen v, l^a^ 
 .WH, 10 A. n. li;}, p. 42.S. 
 
 "Warrant of ICxeoution." — 8eo Macjif v. 
 J/uiittr, !) I'. U. 14!), p. 544. 
 
 " Wufor'sedge." — See AV '/'rent VoUey Canal 
 mill Liiniln Kx'/iroprialed id Ft iiilon Falls, 12 O. 
 R. 153. p. 488. 
 
 " Waters of tlie Sengog River." — See lirady 
 V. Sddkr, 10 O. R. 4!), 17 A. R. Mo, p. 489. 
 
 " Weekly j)aper."— See /.'c Trmte.eH of the 
 Eaul. /'ivMbytanim Church and McKay, l(i O. R. 
 30, p. 19. 
 
 " Wilful."— See Halton ElMion (Dom.) — 
 Cross V. McCramy, H. ]>:. C. 736, p. 1458. 
 
 "With costs."— See ]Y(dlon v. Henry, 13 P. 
 R. 390, p. 927. 
 
 "With intent.'— See Whitney v. Tohy,QO. 
 R. 54, p. 810. 
 
 " Witliin Ontario." — See Canada Cotton Co. 
 V. Piirmake, 13 P. R. 308, p. 89. 
 
 "Within a reasonable time." — Maxwell v. 
 Scarfv, IS O. R. 529, p. 2222. 
 
 "Without acknowledging their liability." — 
 iSee V. Hndon Cotton Co. v. Canada Shijnnna Co., 
 13 S. C. R. 401, p. 1094. 
 
 ".Without prejudice."— Admissions so made 
 8 evidence. See Evidence, p. 612. 
 
 " Without prejudice." — See Omnmnx, Securi- 
 ties Co. V. Richardson 7 O. R. 182, p. 325. 
 
 WORK AND LABOUR. 
 
 I. Party Doino the Work, 2244. 
 II. Who Entitled to Sue, 2244. 
 
 III. Contract. 
 
 1. Subject to Conditions, 2244. 
 
 2. Performance Prevented, 2245. 
 
 3. Extras, 2245. 
 
 4. Liability for Material Supplied, 2246. 
 
 IV. Pekformanck of Work. 
 
 1. Proper Performance, 2246. 
 
 2. Completion, 2247. 
 
 3. Penally for Non-Performance, 2247. 
 V. Acceptance of Work, 2247. 
 
 VI. Remineration. 
 
 1. Initdifd, 2248. 
 
 2. Subject to Cirtifirate or Decinion uf 
 
 Third Party, 2248. 
 
 3. Rtscission for Abandoninent of Con- 
 
 tniit lief lire Coni/iltliuu, 2251. 
 
 4. Promise of Liijnry — See Wli.l.. 
 
 VII. Mastkr and EMri/iVEE— iS«c Mastkii 
 and Seuvant. 
 
 VIII. F.,ien— .?ee Lien. 
 
 I.\. Work PERKoiniKo for the Crown— .SVc 
 Petition ok IUoiit. 
 
 1. Pakty Doino the WoiiK. 
 
 Where a contractor fur the building of ulioufc 
 made default in carrying on tiie work, and, in 
 conse(|uence, the owner, acting under a clauHe 
 in the contract to tliat ed'cct, diamiBsed him, 
 and agreed verbally with a sub-coiitructor who 
 had been employed by tlie contractor, that if the 
 sub-contractor would go on and linish the Mork 
 ho, the owner, would pay him : — Held that the 
 sub-contractor was entitled to a lien for all work 
 done under such agreement as a " contractor," 
 and as to such work he was no longer in the por- 
 tion of u sub-contractor :— Held, also, that the 
 sub-contractor acting under such an agreement, 
 was not bound by clau.ses contained in the origi- 
 nal contract with the dismissed contractor, pro- 
 viding for forfeiture, etc. Pelrie v. Ihrnitr ; 
 Guest v. Jfunler, 2 O. R. 233.— lioyd. See A'. C, 
 10 A. R. 127. 
 
 II. Who Entitled to Si'e. 
 
 Per Proudfoot, J. A son working at home 
 upon his father's place would not lie entitled to 
 recover for work and labour in the absence of 
 
 an ngreetnent to that eflect. 
 Kcrricher, 6 O. R. 85. 
 
 Campbell v. Me- 
 
 See McDonald v. Oliver, 3 O. R. 310, p. 331 ; 
 Regina v. Smith, 10 S. C. R. 1, p. 341. 
 
 III. Contract. 
 
 1. Subject to Conditions. 
 
 Plaintiff entered into an agreement in writing 
 with defendants to do certain work under a pro- 
 visional by-law, and which agreement contained 
 this clause : "Notwithstanding anything here- 
 inbefore contained to the contrary, this agree- 
 ment * • is made subject to the final passing 
 of the said by-law * * and in the event of 
 the said by-law not being passed * * then 
 this agreement shall be null and void * * ." 
 The by-law was never finally passed, and the 
 agreement was produced at the trial by defen- 
 dants to prevent the plaintiff recovering as on a 
 quantum meruit : — Held (reversing Ferguson, J., 
 who retained his opinion), that the defendants 
 were bound by the contract, and that the plain- 
 tiff on shewing the appro- 1 of the engineer, as 
 provided by the agreement, was entitled to a 
 mandamus to the defendants to raise the money. 
 The stipulation as to the final passing of the by- 
 law should receive a reasonable construction and 
 
2244 
 
 e or DeeinioH <;/' 
 
 H. 
 
 tdoMiU'tit of Con- 
 
 It t ion, •2'2'i\. 
 
 -Seit Wii.i.. 
 
 ,-KK— Sec Mastkii 
 
 t TiiK Crown— V'c 
 
 HIT. 
 
 IE WollK. 
 
 building of ftUoiifc 
 tlie work, and, in 
 iiig untloi- a clauBC 
 ;ot, diainlHseil him, 
 sub-cimti actor who 
 ntractdi', that if the 
 ftiid tiniali the work 
 ,„ :_liuUl that the 
 .oaliunforallwoik 
 
 as u " contractor," 
 lo longer in the posi 
 Held, also, that the 
 such an agreement, 
 nitaiued in the origi- 
 Bsed contractor, pro- 
 
 I'etrie v. Ihinttr; 
 
 —Boyd. SeeS. 0., 
 
 ED TO SUK. 
 
 on working at home 
 uld not )>e entitled t<> 
 )ur in the absence of 
 ,ct. Viuiipbdl V. i»/(- 
 
 , 3 O. R. 310, p. 331 ; 
 R. 1, p. 341. 
 
 PKACT. 
 
 Jondiliona. 
 
 , agreement in writing 
 tain work under a pro^ 
 h agreement containe<i 
 inding anything here- 
 . contrary, this agree- 
 ,iect to the final passing 
 • and in the event <>t 
 ig passed ; ; ,then 
 ull and void * • 
 
 inally passed, and the 
 at the trial by defen- 
 intitr recovering as on a 
 
 (reversing Ferguson, J., 
 i) that the defendants 
 ■act, and that the plam- 
 o I of the engineer, as 
 nent, was entitled to a 
 lants to raise the money. 
 J final passing of the by- 
 gonable construction and 
 
 WORK AND LABOUR. 
 
 224S 
 
 could only bo invoked when the work was not 
 properly perforiiieil. Qrin'mlniuv v. Tniriinhlii 
 o/IIowtirU, 18 0. If. !).•).- Chy. I). 
 
 2. Per/orinaiitv Pni'i'iiliil. 
 
 S. A, (V)., coiitiMctorn for tht^ urcction of a 
 liuiidt i'^ for the rcNiMindeiit in thi' I'ily of .St. i 
 Ji)!in N. H., lironnlit an ai.'tion claimini; to liavi' '• 
 Ix'tn prev«'iitoil l)y rcHpondcnt from carrying; out 
 chuir contriiot. 'i'ht; (iuuiaration also contained 
 the ooinnioii uoiintH, part of tlie work haviiij,' 
 Imjcii perforiiied. \\y tlio terms of tiui contract 
 the building, when erected, would not haviMnn- 
 formed to tiie provisions of a by-I.iw of tln^ city 
 passed (under authority of an Act of the (ioneral 
 Assendily of New lirnnswick, 41 N'ict. c. 7) two 
 days aftei' tiiu contract was signed. On the trial 
 of the action the plaiiitiliti were noiLsuited, nmi 
 an application to the Supremo Court of New 
 Hrunswick to sot siicii noiiHuit asi<le was re- 
 fused:— Hold, Henry, .1., .lissonthig, that the 
 by-law of the city of ,St, .lohn .nadu the s:ii<l 
 contract illegal, and therefore, the phiintitis 
 could not recover. Walker /•. McMillan, (i S.C. 
 I!. '241, followed. Per Henry, .1,- That the 
 erection of the Imilding wr)uld not, so far as the 
 evidence showed, be a violation of the by-law, 
 and, therefore, the nonsuit should lie set aside 
 and a new trial ordered. S/iitiis v, U'li/ka; 10 
 S. 0. 11. 113. 
 
 Where an executory contract is entered into 
 respecting property or goods, if tiio subject- 
 matter be destroy ei I by the act of (Jod or vis 
 major, over which neither party had any con- 
 trol, and without either party's default, the par- 
 ties are relieve<l. McKcinni v. McXamce, 14 
 A. R. 339; 15 .S. C. I!. .Sll. 
 
 3. Extrnn. 
 
 A by-law, founded on the usual ])etiti(m, was 
 passecl by defendants for the <lraiiiage of certain 
 lands in the township, and a contract therefor 
 under defendants' corporate seal, entered into 
 with plaintiH' for the construction of the drain. 
 The depths required were marked on the pro- 
 files forming part of the contract. Metween 
 certiiin points, where tlie deepest ex'-avation 
 was required, the drain was to be tiled and 
 covered. After the plaintiff had proceeded some 
 distance between these points, the defendants' 
 engineer, under who.se personal direction the 
 work was being done, discovered that the depths 
 were inaccurately given, and that the drain was 
 not deep enough between the said points, and 
 he directed the drains to be deepened and the 
 tiles, so far as laid, to be taken up and relaid at 
 the increased depth, thereby occasioning to the 
 plaintiff considerable work beyond that pro- 
 vided for by the contract. Hy amendments to 
 the Municipal Acts, councils, in the case of 
 drainage works, are authorized to make an as- 
 sessment upon the property of those benefited 
 when the means provided are not sufficient ; 
 and any damages recovered in proceeilings re- 
 specting such works are to be charged against 
 the lands benefited. It was proved that the 
 work done was absolutely necessary, for with- 
 out it the drain would have been useless. No 
 formal resolution of the council was passed 
 i\uthorizing this work to be done, nor was there 
 
 ' any concract therefor under tlie corporate seal. 
 
 ; In an action against defendants to recover the 
 value of Mich work : — Hehl, that the defendants 
 were liable therefor. Hiiiuw Tuini^hi)M<l'l)rh>nl, 
 !.■. O. W. .■)()(•.. -C. |>. I)., ,V.C'., revei>ed, l(i A. 1[. 4. 
 
 In acticiiis against the (Vown.- See I'r.T'.TniM 
 or K II Mir. 
 
 4. f.ialti/iti/for Mtilfv'iiU Siippllet/. 
 
 One .M., by a written contract, agi'e<;d with 
 the defendant for the erection of a dwelling 
 liiinsi' in two months from date, and if .M. neg- 
 lected to build the house defendant was to be at 
 liberty to purchase material and eniplny work- 
 men to tinish it, and deduct the I'ost of the 
 material, etc., out of the price. The plaintilf 
 agreed to supply .M. with lumber to be used in 
 the building, and M. , after a jiortion of the bun- 
 ber had biien placed in the building, gave plain- 
 tilf an order on defendant for the sum of .'*.'i4l.4(i, 
 expressed to bo " for lumber used in your house 
 one month after the building is liiiislud," which 
 the defmiclant accepted. M. I'aileil to inmplete 
 the building, and the defendant employed a 
 third p.irty todoso in accordance with the terms 
 of the agreement : — ^Held, per H.-igaity, ('. .1. O., 
 and Morrison, J. A. (ntlirming the judginirit of 
 the County Court), that the defemlant was liable 
 to pay the plaintilf, notwithstanding .M. <lid not 
 complete the building. Per Ihirton, .1. ,\. The 
 defendant was entitled to deduct « hatever was 
 jiroperly expended in completing the biiililing 
 under the coutrac'., and the balaru'coiily remain- 
 ing in his hands would be applicable to the pay- 
 ment of the order, but this balance according to 
 the evidence was sutlicient. liunitr v. Haym, 
 10 A. 1!. 24. 
 
 I\'. Pe"V'(ikm.\n<'k ok Wokk. 
 1. Proper Performaiui: 
 
 v. was a contractor with the government of 
 Canada for building a postotlice and K. was 
 sub-contractor to do the mason and brickwork 
 for a lump sum, the sub-contract consisting 
 simply of an offer to give the work for the sum 
 named and acceptance by K. P. being dissatis- 
 fieil with the work done by K. took the con- 
 tract out of his hands before it was completed 
 and tiiiished it himself. K. then brought an 
 action for the value of the work done by him 
 and on reference by the court to arbitration an 
 award was made in K.'sfiivcmr. The Court of 
 Appeal set aside the award .and remitteil the 
 case to the arbitrator for further consideration, 
 holding that though the contract did not autho- 
 rise P. to takeover the work and finish it at K.'s 
 expense, and the latter was therefore entitled to 
 recover on the «iiiantum meruit, yet the cost of 
 completing the work was consiclerably in excess 
 of the contract price:— Held, reversing the 
 judgment of the Court of Appeal, that as it ap- 
 peared from the evidence that the arbitrator 
 fully understood the matter .ind got all the in- 
 , formation that could be obtained on the subject, 
 I and as no impropriety or mistake was shown to 
 have been committed by him, no benefit couhl 
 result from sending the award back for recon- 
 sideration, and the decree of the Court of Ap- 
 peal was not justified. Kemmly v. PUjolt, IS 
 S. C. R. 699. 
 
2247 
 
 WORK AND LABOUR. 
 
 2248 
 
 P 
 
 2. CiiiHiili'livu, I 
 
 \j. ciumI \. ('t al. to ri'iHivtT ■' -om tlioin undor 
 RptM.'iiilly cii(I(Pi'Hfil writ, tliu Im aiuo of lu'ioiiiit 
 iliiu under itnd in imrMiiiinco of uii iifriei'mi'iit 
 under Koal providing; tliivt " \j. wii8 to run uocord- ] 
 iii^ to IiIh lieHt lU't and Hkiii .. lunnul of 'iOU foot i 
 for tlic Nuni of $4 \»'v running foot; tiiat ^\'M\ 
 sliould lie advanced on account of tlie contract, I 
 the balancp to bo l>»i(l on tiiu satisfactory coin- ' 
 ]d(jtion of tlie Work." L. made five tunnels, none 
 of wliiuh weri! U(M) feet, hut claimed ho liiid done 
 in all 1104 feet, In addition to tlio count on the 
 aKrueinunt the plaiiititi' inserted in his declaia- 
 tion the common coinits for work and lalioiir : ■ 
 Held, that there was not a Mullicient fnllilmciit 
 of the agreement, and inaHmucli as I,, had yiven 
 no pirlicnlars nor any evidence under the in 
 di^liitatns counts, the rule alisolute of the court 
 l)e|ow, orderitij,' ,jud(,!ment to lio eiitiMcd foi' the 
 <1cfendantH, should he atlirnied and the nppe-d 
 disnnsscd with costs. Luk'm v. XiiUiill, .'t S. ('. 
 U. tiS,-.. 
 
 .'). I'llKllli/ fur XiiuPt iJoiiiHiiiri . 
 
 The phd itiH'n^,'r(M!d to complete and set up liy 
 a Certain day a steam enj,'ine and m.ichincry ni 
 defendant's mill in wiiich he had previously lieen 
 using water power, hut failed to complete it for 
 some time afterwanls. 'I'lic muster at Owen 
 ,Sr)\ind, in estimatiii),' defendant's damages, al- 
 lowed him, for loss of profits, in addition to ren- 
 tal of the null ami interest on the value of the 
 machinery and of logs waiting to lie sawed, §1 l,S. 
 <hi a|)pe;d Irom his report, I'roudfoot, .),, made 
 an order declaring "tliat the true nnasure of 
 <lamagcs \.\n- di'fendaiit is entitled to claim is the 
 amount which would have liecn earned hv the 
 mill in the ordinary course of employment,''and 
 referred it hack to the master to review his le- 
 port. On appeal theiefrom to this court the 
 judgment was reversed ; the court licing of oj)i- 
 niiin th.it the master ha<l lieeli sufliciently liberal 
 in his allowance of damages to the defendant for 
 breach of the contract ; and that had any greater 
 amount of damages liecn given it could have been 
 allowed as speculative damages only. 'J'lie I'ight 
 to r('covcr for loss of profits discussed. Curhcf 
 V. Joliiisuii, 10 A. I!. .■)64. 
 
 ,See Chailnluii v. Cnilln'i-.^, 9 O. K. 083, p. l.JT'i. 
 
 V. ACCKITANCE (IF WoKK. 
 
 The dcfi'udants passed a by-law, approved of 
 liy the rate[iayers. reciting that there was " an 
 urgent necessity for a building to he used by the 
 municipal corporation as a lock-up, tire hall, 
 council chamber, and public li.dl," for the pur- 
 
 la 
 
 pose of ac(piiring the land and erecting such a 
 liuildingat a cost of .*!4,.')00, for the I'aising of 
 which sum, provision was therein made. M.'a 
 tender for carpenter work, etc. (including a 
 shingle roof) was accepted, but at a siieeial meet- 
 ing of the council at which only tliree of the 
 councillors with li. and L. the plaintiff, were 
 prcseiit, an arrangement was made by which H. 
 threw off §4 a square, and was relieved of the 
 roof part of his contract, and L. agreed to put 
 on a metallic roof of .Sfi a S(piare, and it was re- 
 solved by the c<Hincil that " the iron shingles 
 instead of wooden shingles to be put on the roof 
 of the new town hall." All this was done sub- 
 
 ject to the approvid <if the reeve who wim not 
 present, but wild .'iflerwards approved of it, and 
 at whose instance L. ordered the m iterial and 
 dill the Wiirk. L. received a payment nn a<' 
 count, but on the discovery of sonu' defects in 
 it.'s work, the defendants refused, although they 
 had taken possession of the building, to piy the 
 balance, on the gr<iund that the ronf w.is not 
 proiierly done, and that \i. was a sub cunt i actor 
 uniler I!., and that there was no contra<'t niidur 
 sial with him;— Held (allirming tiie judg nent 
 of O'Connor, .1.), that the legal ell'ecl of this was 
 to eiinsiinmiate a trijiartite agreement, by \t hieli 
 I!, uns to give up part of his contiact, and I., 
 was tn do the wtirk for a s]UMilicil jiric'c : that 
 betuecu the plaintill L. , tluwlefcndanis and It 
 theiew.is a novation of cnntraci si far as t hi' 
 riinf was comerncd, and as to tlial I. Iieiiiiiie 
 the principal and only cnnlraclor : Held, also, 
 that the taking possession, payment onacconiit, 
 etc., was «.;;!;;,.jt^.|,t evidence to justify a liinlilig 
 of an acceptance of tin; work a-t an execute 1 
 cmitiact, or a case "of an actual and de fact i 
 perl'ormance of the i:oiilraitt by mie party of 
 whicii till' other party has taken, received and 
 enjoyid tlie lieiielit ; " The Mayer, etc.. nf Kid- 
 ileni'iinslcr r. Ilardwick, L. li', !l Kx bS, cited ; 
 .Miinro i: liiitt, S K. & I!. 7;W. distinguishiMl. .\ 
 municipal corporation is li iblc! on an exeiMiled 
 contract for work done by its order, on its be- 
 half ami for its benelit, tlioiigh tlieii^ be no 
 agrci'incnt under se.il, if the tiling done wee 
 irgcntly rei|uired for the imrpmcs of the c.ir 
 )ioration, and especially so wliere the |irice tube 
 paid is not of larg(S'imount : Robins r. lirocktoii, 
 7 O. I!. 4Sl, referred to. Lfiirmici'. v. Villn'ir 
 of l.iidiiuir, l:U). H. 4L'I.- fhy. I». 
 
 \'l. Hk.minkii.vtidn. 
 
 1. Iiii/i/i<<l. 
 
 The defendant agreed with the jilaintid's lo 
 sink an artesian well at seventy live ceiitsafent. 
 Aftei- sinking a distance of KiOfcet, he met willi 
 an imiiedimciit, and refused to jnncced further; 
 -Held, reversing the decisiim of the ("oiinly 
 Court, that he was entitled to be paiil for llie 
 work d<mc, as the evidenci; did not shew an 
 agreement th.it he should receive nothing unlc--i 
 he succeeded in linding water. (,)tiaie, whetlicr 
 evidence as to how contracts fur artesian wills 
 were usually made in Hariie sliouM have lueii 
 received, liiirric (!(!■■< Ci>. v. Siilliniii, •') A. I!. 
 110. 
 
 ■J. Suhjtrt to t'ert'ififatc or /)ori.sinn of 'JViicI 
 I'lTxon. 
 
 V>y an .agreement made between L. , a builiKr, 
 and the building committee of a religious bo ly, 
 all previous contracts and agreements were lei- 
 minated and surrendered, and I., was to foiigo 
 all right to compensation except under the agic- 
 uient. One E. was to inspect and value ilie 
 work already done on the building, and if not 
 according to plans and specifications, L. was to 
 rectify the same at his own expense. E. wa-i to 
 value the building in its present condition, - nd 
 his award was to be final, and to be the sole 
 amount due to L. to date ; he was also to inspect 
 and value the building material on the ground, 
 which was to be paid for at the origiinil cost ; 
 
 i 
 
2248 
 
 2249 
 
 WORK AND LABOUR. 
 
 22S0 
 
 wllO \Vl>H ll'lt 
 
 ^•,.(1 nf it. mill 
 111 iti riiil inx' 
 liiiMit I'll iir 
 1,1.' .IrfivtH ill 
 
 iUl\"iit;liilify 
 
 i;i. t" \' '>' ''"' 
 iiMif N*.it* not 
 tiili tMintrai'titr 
 Kintriiit uiidur 
 till! jiiilu "flit 
 
 'Ol'l of tllis\Ml« 
 
 iLiii. iiy \\iii>l' 
 
 lit I ait. :iii'l I.. 
 
 yY\ 
 
 lliut 
 
 ■lllllllllS llll'l I'. 
 
 it Hii I'lU' lis ill'' 
 Imt I. Iifiiiiii'' 
 |. .--Ilclil, alsci, 
 iflit I'll inrnniit, 
 ilHlil'v a liiiiliii^ 
 a-t all I'Xn'iitc I 
 i,\ and il"' t'ii'"t '. 
 y mm jiaity "' 
 il, ifia'iviil i>"d 
 ,,!•, vU:.. nf Kill- 
 •1 I'.x IS, liti'i) ; 
 
 istinK"''*'"'''- -^ 
 . on an i'Xi'i^iil<'il 
 
 onliT, "11 itx '"■■ 
 ^li tlnii^ 1'*-" "" 
 lliiii^; ili'iH' ^^'•■'" 
 iioics of tin; i'"i'- 
 
 ■ iv tlu'l'ii'i't"''" 
 ihilis i\ r.i(»ktiiii, 
 irrnirr v. I'i"";/'' 
 
 iiy. >>■ 
 
 'IdS. 
 
 tin- i>laintin» to 
 V livi' I'l'iitsafoot. 
 (if.ct. lie nietwitli 
 i)i(a:i'Cil I'urtln'i : 
 ,„ „f till' Connly 
 1, 1,,. iiai.l for til'' 
 ,li,l not sliow nil 
 ivf notliiiig""'''^^ 
 l^hiair, wlictli''!' 
 f,,v ai'ti'sian w.'Us 
 slioulil liavi) Imch 
 SiiUiraii, "> A. !!■ 
 
 pension of Third 
 
 .t%veunL.,ivl>"iW'-i' 
 „f a lelif^iims »>'• Iv. 
 .rreumeiits were tiM- 
 
 ml 1.. w-ia I" f'"' *^" 
 •cnt under the ayi>'-t- 
 .p'.ct ami value 'las 
 i'uil'ling, and if i"'t 
 .itieations, 1- w'i« t" 
 expense. E. wa^ t-. 
 •cseiit cuu'lition, n.l 
 and to be the soo 
 he was also to iasi>t''-'t 
 ;crial on the groim'l, 
 ■- the original cost : 
 
 Held, that tlic efFei't of tlie anii'i'iniMit umh, timt 
 a jirii'u til lie tixed Iiy K, wait to hu paid for I,.'h 
 U'orkN, that V.. wnn not an arliitrator ; and that 
 the agreement eimld not he niadu a rnle of cimrt 
 an a HnliniiM.iioii to arliitiation. In n hiwimiiii 
 und Mavliii, 4(1 i}. I!, .'itil).— OhUt, 
 
 Held, that the minproductioii of an ai'chitcet'H 
 rertlHcatc apiiroviiij,' of the work done, tiiouyh 
 required hy tiiu eoiitractwith the diKiiilMHod eoii- 
 trnctor, an a condition inecedoiit to paynieiit, 
 did not preclude the Hnhcontractor from re- 
 covorinjj under the verbal agri'i'iiicnt, iirnviilcd 
 liic woi'k w;is .so done as to nioially entitle him 
 to Rueh oertilioatf, following Lewis c. Hoi'.re, 44 
 L T. N. S. (id. I'llvh V. Iliiiilii; (lii'M V. 
 Hh,,!,,; 'JO. M.'l-XA. Iloyd. 
 
 The plaintid's entered into a contrart Mitli the 
 ilefendant to const met a cedar block roadway, 
 etc., according to plans and Npcciliialions, and 
 to the direction and satisf.iitinii o| the city 
 engineer, etc. I'aymcnt was to be made montli- 
 ly at the rates mentioned in tiie tender, during 
 the \)rogrcs8 of the work, upon tlie engineer's 
 ccrtilicatc and that of the chairiiian of the com- 
 mittee, anil until the granting thereof no mmu'y 
 Has to become duo or payaldc A draw liack lif 
 lifteen jier cent, was to be retained by tlic cor- 
 poration until after six months from the time of 
 the liiial ccrtilicatc, slicwing tlie satisfactory 
 completion of tiie work. J5y the liy-law no con- 
 tractiir could demand payment until lie should 
 present to tiie treasurer a ccrtilicatc from tiie 
 engineer, etc., stating lie had examined, measur- 
 ed and computed the work, and that the sauift 
 was completed, or that the jiaymeiit was due on 
 such work, and also stating wiiat the work was 
 on w liich sudl inoney was due ; also that every 
 account before being ])aid should be ccrtilied by 
 the engineer, and by the eominittce under whoso 
 authority the work was done ; and the treasurer 
 should not pay such accounts unless furnished 
 with the two ccrtiticatcs :— Hold, that the re- 
 <|uired ccrtilicatc must be in writing. Hy the 
 conditions found witli the specitications the en- 
 gineer was tlie sole judge of the ijiiantity and 
 (|uality of the work done, and Ins decision was 
 to be tinal and conclusive as against the i ontrac- 
 tor : tliat inonthly payments up to eighty-five 
 per cent, of the work done should be made, etc., 
 on the measurement of tlie engineer, such certifi- 
 cates to 1)0 binding only as progress certilicites, 
 and in no way to affect the tinal ccrtilicatc, 
 which should only be given on the whole work 
 being completod and measured up, .iiid at the 
 expiration of six months when a coitilicate for 
 the balance should be issued by the engineer. 
 Part of the work required to he done by the 
 plaintiffs was the raising and removing i,*' the 
 street railway ties, eto., and replacing s.-in.'! 
 after the grading and ballasting had been com- 
 pleted. The plaintitrs did not replace the tics, 
 etc. , as the street railway company elected to do 
 tlie work themselves, but the plaintilTs sent in 
 their accounts charging therefor as if they had 
 done tlie work. As to a portion of the work 
 there was no certificate by the engineer that the 
 work was done or that the price was payable 
 therefor ; and as to the other portion 'Jic acting 
 engineer wrote under the account scut in " al- 
 hiwed one-third of above $521.0t>;" and then 
 under this was written "certified for the sum 
 of $521. 6G." On the Kick of the account the 
 
 j engineer siibsiipiciitly (■••rlilled that In' had c«- 
 
 amincd the a 'eoiiiit, and thai plaint ill's were en 
 
 tilled to rciMVer the sum of .S.">'Jl.t>i!, which wao 
 
 paid to the plaint ilFs. Under this ccrlilieat ■ 
 
 the pliiiiititl's claimed tliit they wcro eiititliHl to 
 
 recover fur the whole work done, an this wan 
 
 the effect of the eertilicate : -Hold, that lUl to 
 
 tiio lirst iiameil |iiirtion thcro could be no rr 
 
 covcry by reason of tlu^ absemio of a certillcato ; 
 
 and as to the other portion the eertilicate did 
 
 not show tli.'it the work was don» to the un- 
 
 I ginii r's satisfiielioii or w.i» completed, or that 
 
 I the payini'iit demanded wa« due; but at most 
 
 I that one-third of the work was diiiiu, which 
 
 j had been paid for ! and therefore nothing was 
 
 I shewn to be duo to the plaiiitills. .^fiUvjIi v. 
 
 .Vihj of Toronto, \'iO. K. •J;)li. -C. I'. I>. 
 
 The plaini ill' entered into a contract with do 
 fciidants f(" 'ho eoiistruction of certain main 
 sewers. , le loiitract provided that the work 
 and 111 iterial slmiilil in all things be |ierforme I 
 
 'and pro\ ided aceordiiig to tin' plans and spcei 
 licatioiis, liy a named date, and to the eiitiri! 
 satisfaction of the engineer in charge of the 
 work. The speeilicatious provided that the 
 Clint raotor should, on the lirst day of each 
 month, hand in to the engineer his lucoiint for 
 work during the prcci'ding muntli, and lie paid 
 oil the eertilicate of the cngiiieor at the rate of 
 eighty-live per cent, of work done during the 
 lirevioiis month ; an additional ten per I'ont. 
 
 I when the work was linisliod, and the liidance of 
 live pel colli, at the expiration of three nioiitli.s 
 from tlu! ilat'j of the completion of tin' contract, 
 etc. No linal ccrtilicatc was obtained from the 
 engineer of the complctinn of the work ; nor 
 was the work completed to his sat'sfactinii. In 
 an aitioii to recover the balance alleged to be 
 due under the contract ; — Held, that the corti- 
 
 \ licalc of the engineer as to the completion of the 
 
 I work was a condition precedent to the right to 
 recover, and therefore the plaintill' must fail. 
 
 I A'o^i'/(.<o» V. Town II/' Oircn Sound, 10 O. R. I'il. 
 
 ! -C. I'. D. 
 
 I >S. ct al. niailc a contract with fler Majesty 
 the (,)iiceii, represented by the Minister of Pub- 
 lic Works, for the construction of u bridge for a 
 liiinii sum. .\fter the completion of the bridge 
 a tinal estimate was given by the chief engineer, 
 and payment lliercof made, lint S. et al. pie- 
 I ferred ii claim lor the value of work, not in- 
 I eluded in such linal estimate, alleged to have 
 been done in the construction of the bridge, and 
 1 caused by changes and iillorations ordered by 
 1 the chief engineer of so i.ulical a nature as to 
 create, according to the contention of the 
 , claimants, a new contract between the parties : - 
 i Held, reversing the judgment of Henry, .1. in 
 the excliciiuer, Fournier, .J. dissenting, that the 
 engineer could not make anew contract binding 
 on the Crown ; that the claim came within the 
 origin.d contract and the provisions thereof 
 which made the eertilicate of the engineer a 
 condition precedent to recovery, and such cer- 
 tificate not having hceii obtained, the claim must 
 be dismissed. IMio Crown having referred the 
 claim to arbitration instead of insisting through- 
 out on its strict legal rights, no costs were 
 allowed. lifijiiM v. .Slarm, 17 S. C. R. 118. 
 
 See Forhan v. Lalomle, 27 Cliy. 600, p. 11(J(! ; 
 Brrlinuuet v. The Qneai, 13 S. C. E. 26, p. 1579. 
 
•■¥t 
 
 .;;>■■ 
 
 2251 
 
 WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. 
 
 2262 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 k 
 
 I 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FOR 
 INJURIES ACT. 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
 WOUNDING. 
 
 See Criminal Law. 
 
 WRITINGS. 
 
 See EviDKNCK. 
 
 3. liencigsion or Abandovment of Contract before' 
 Completion, I 
 
 The defendant had agreed with the plaintifla 
 for the erection by them of a house on liis land ; 
 and while engaged in such work the plaintiffs 
 alleged unnecessary delays in their operations 
 caused, as they said, by the neglect of the defen- 
 dant in supplying material for the building and 
 in the course of a discussion the defendant told 
 the plaintifT "If you won't go on with your 
 work, go away :" — Held, that this did not amount 
 to a rescinding of the agreement, and that 
 ]jlaintiffs were not warranted in treating the 
 agi-eement as abandoned by the defendant, who 
 %\'as entitled to counter-olaim against the plain- 
 tifiTs for the increased cost to him of finishing the 
 building. Midland R. \V. Co. v. Ontario Rolling 
 Mills Co., 10 A. R. 677, followed. Decision of 
 Calt, J., 14 0. R. 608, reversed. Clayton v. 
 MfConmll, 15 A. R. 560. 
 
 WRIT OF ARREST. 
 
 A writ of arrest will not be granted against 
 the purchaser in a suit for specific performance, 
 unless it be shewn byafMdavit that the vendor's 
 lien is insufficient. Nelson v, Dafoe, 8 P. K. 
 ,332.— Proudfoot. 
 
 Where the plaintiff in an alimony suit obtaiiLs 
 a writ of arrest, and the defendant gives bail, 
 and a breach of the bond is committed, the 
 plamtiff is entitled to have the amount for which 
 thi writ was marked paid into court, to be ap- 
 plied from time to time in jjiiyment of the ali- 
 mony and costs : and— Semble, that upon such 
 payment the sureties are entitled to be di.s- 
 charged from their bond. Xe.edJiam v. Need- 
 ham, 29Cliy. 117.— Boyd. 
 
 Wliere, under a writ of arrc.it a caption takes 
 place, the sheriff is entitled to a bond for double 
 the amount marked upon the writ. //'. 
 
 WRITS. 
 
 I. Of Akkkst— .S'ee Writ m Akrest. 
 II. Of Caitas— .See Arrkst. 
 
 III. Of Execution -.S'ee KxKCfTtoN. 
 
 IV. OfSimmon.s — .S'ee Ejectment— Prac- 
 
 tice. 
 
 WRONGFUL DISMISSAL 
 
 See Master and Servant. 
 
2252 
 
 intecl against 
 performance, 
 t the vendor's 
 if(/ot', 8 P. U. 
 
 ly suit obtains 
 nt gives bail, 
 immittecl, the 
 ount for which 
 urt, to be ap- 
 jnt of the ali- 
 hat upon such 
 led to be dis- 
 Iham V. Need- 
 
 a caption takes 
 )ond for doul)lc 
 
 it. n>. 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 CONTAIXIXG A DIGEST OF CASES REPORTED IN VOLS. I TO IV OF CART- 
 WRIGHT'S CASES ON THE 15RITISH NORTH AMERICA \CT, 1807. 
 
 COMPILED BY JOHN R. CARTWIWIHT, ESQ. 
 
 ,K AuREsr. 
 
 f.OUTION. 
 '.CTMEST- 
 
 ISSAL 
 
 ,VANT. 
 
 -Prac 
 
 PACE. 
 
 ACT OF PROVINCIAL Ll.GIS- 
 LATURE— Test of validity of . i. M! 
 See PiioviN'crAi, Lkoisl.vtches, 3. 
 ADMINISTRATION OF JUS- 
 TICE-Jurors . . . . ii. 044, Go;!, n. 
 See CuiMiNAL Law, 1), 10. 
 Appointment of Magistrates. . . 
 Sec JrsTicEs of the Pkace. 
 
 ALGOMA — Coniinission of Oyer 
 and Terminer to District Judge— Power 
 
 to issue i. 722 
 
 See Prerogative ok Crown, 1. 
 
 APPE.VL— The rule of the Judicial 
 Committee is not to pfrant leave to ap- 
 peal in criminal cases except where 
 some clear departure from the require- 
 ments of justice is alleged to have taken 
 place. Rk'i v. The Queen*— P. C. iv. 1. 
 
 2. An Act of the Ontario Legislature 
 provides that in certain cases no appeal 
 shall lie to the Supreme Court of Can- 
 ada without special leave : Held, that 
 this enactment is not binding on the 
 Supreme Court. — Clarksun v. Ryan— 
 Supreme Ct. Can iv. 439 
 
 Education ........ i. 81C 
 
 See De.nominational Schools, 1. 
 
 Royal Prerogative as to admitting. 
 i. 252 ; ii. 1 
 
 See Bankuui'Tcv and Insolvency, 2. 
 Pherogative of Crown, 2. 
 
 Special Tieave i. IC8 
 
 Sec Provinciai. Courts. 
 
 Trial for felony i. 57 
 
 Sec Provincial Legislatures, 1. 
 
 ARBITRATION-The British 
 North America Act provided (sect. 142) 
 that " the division and adjustment of 
 the debts, credits, liabilities, properties 
 and assets of Upper Canada and Lower 
 Canada shall be referred to the arbitra- 
 ment of three arbitrators, one chosen 
 by the Government of Ontario, one by 
 the Government of l^uebec and one by 
 the Government of Canada ; and the 
 election of the arbitrators shall not be 
 
 * See f>\ Vict., o. -13 (Ltoiii.l 
 
 PAGE, 
 made until the Parliament of Canada 
 and the Legislatures of Ontario and 
 (Quebec have met ; and the arbitrator 
 chosen by the Government of Canada 
 shall not be a resident either in Ontario 
 or (Quebec ;" HiUl, that no appoint- 
 ment once made under this pruvieion 
 could afterwards be revoked by the 
 Government by whom it was made and 
 that a majority of tlie arbitrators could 
 continue the proceedings and make a 
 valid award notwithstanding the ab- 
 sence of the third arbitrator, who had 
 affected to resign, and an attempted 
 revocation of his app(jintment by the 
 Government appointing him. In the 
 matter of an Arbitration an'l Aieard be- 
 tween the Prurince of Ontario and the 
 
 Province of Quehec — P. C. 
 
 iv. 712 
 
 ASSESSMENT.— Income of Do- 
 minion Officer i. 592 
 
 See Taxation, 3. 
 Indian Lands i. 831 
 
 Sec Indian Lands, 1. 
 
 ASSURANCE POLICIES-Power 
 
 to tax i. 117 
 
 Sec Taxation, 2. 
 
 Regulation of i. 286 
 
 Sec Trade and Commkhce, 1. 
 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL. - 'I he 
 Attorney-Generalof the Province is the 
 officer of the Crown who is considered 
 as present in the Courts of the Prov- 
 ince to assert the rights of the Crown, 
 and of those who are under its pro- 
 tection. The Attorney- General of the 
 Province, and not the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral of the Dominion, is the proper 
 party to file an information where the 
 complaint is not of an injury to prop- 
 erty vested in the Crown as represent- 
 ing the Government of the Dominion, 
 but of a violation of the rights of the 
 public of the Province, even though 
 such rights are created by an Act of 
 the Parliament of the Dominion. The 
 Attorney-General of the Province Ik 
 the proper person to file an informu- 
 tion m respect of a nuisance caused by 
 interference with a railway. Though 
 
 I . 
 
 f ,1- 
 
 i i\ 
 
2255 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. AOT. 
 
 225e 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 the i)ower of making criminal laws is 
 vested in thf Dominion Parliament, 
 tlie AttorneyGeneral of the Province 
 in the proper otticer to enforce those 
 laws by j)rosecution in the tjneen's 
 Courts of justice in the Province. — At- 
 torticii-Ocncral v. Niaiinra FaUa Inter- 
 natknal hridijc Co.— Chy,, Out. . i. 813 
 
 2. An Act of the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment incorporating a company for the 
 purpoHe of conHtructing a bridge across 
 the Niagara River from Canada to tiie 
 United States, directed that the bridge 
 should he "as well for the passage of 
 persons on foot, and in carnages, and 
 otherwise, as for the passage of railway 
 trams." The liridge was completed for 
 railway purijoses only, and tiie time 
 limited by the charter for completing' 
 the work having elapsed, an informa- 
 tion was filed in the name of the At- 
 torney-General of Ontario, seeking to 
 enforce the terms of the charter, or for 
 the reir.uvii'. of the bridge as a nuis- 
 ance : Held, by the Court of Appeal, 
 reversing the decision of S|)ragge, C, 
 that the bridge as constructed not being 
 a public nuisance the Attorney-General 
 of Ontaiio was not the proper officer to 
 tile the information. — Att(trne,y-< Icneral 
 V. International Bridtje Co. — C. A., 
 t)nt ii. 559 
 
 Proceedings to set aside Patent, iii. 3-11 
 Sec Patent of Invkxtion, 1. 
 
 Costs of iv. 370 
 
 Sec Navigation- and Shipping, 7. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOL- 
 VENCY.— The Act of the Legislature 
 of Quebec (33 Vict., c. 58) for the relief 
 of the appellant society then (as ap- 
 peared on the face of the Act) in a 
 state of extreme financial embarrass- 
 ment is within the legislative capacity 
 of that legislature. The Act was helil 
 to relate to a matter of a "merely local 
 or private nature in the Province," 
 which by the !)2iid section of the 15. N. 
 A. Act, 18(57, is assigned to the ex- 
 clusive comi)etency of the Provincial 
 Legislature ; and not to fall within the 
 category of bankruptcy and insolvency, 
 or any other cla.-s of subjects by the 
 9l8t section of the U. N. A. Act re- 
 served for the exclusive legislative 
 authoiity of the Parliament of Can- 
 ada.— iv'i7n(()» St. Jaciints dc Mon- 
 treal v. Betide. — v. C i. (13 
 
 2. The H. N. A. Act, 1807, sect. 91, 
 in assigning to the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment tiie subjects of bankruptcy and 
 insolvency, conferred on it legislative 
 power to interfere with property, civil 
 rights and procedure within the Prov- 
 inces, so far as these might be affected 
 by a general law relating to those sub- 
 jects : consequently the Dominion Kn- 
 actment, 40 Vict. c. 41, s. 38, providing 
 that the judgment of the Court of Ap- 
 peal in matters of insolvency should be 
 final, I. c, not subject to the appeal as 
 of right to Her Majesty in Council, al- 
 lowed by the Lower Canada Civil Pro- 
 cedure Code, Art, 1178, is within the 
 competence of the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment and does not infringe the ex- 
 clusive powers giveu to the Provincial 
 Legislatures by sect. 92 of the Imperial 
 
 page.. 
 Statute ; nor does it infringe the 
 Queen's prerogative, for it only limits 
 the right of appeal as given by the 
 Code. The section according to the 
 true construction of the word "final" 
 therein, excludes appeals to Her Ma- 
 jesty, but contains no words which 
 purport to derogate from the jireroga- 
 tive of the (,!ueen to allow such appeals 
 as an act of grace. It, therefore, does 
 not interfere with the prerogative of the 
 Crown ; and, ([uiere, what powers may 
 be possessed by tiie Parlianient of 
 Canada so to Aa. — Cuvillier v. Ai/brin, 
 2 Knapp's P. C. C. 72, reviewed. — 
 C u shiny \. Dupui/.—V.C. . . . i. 252' 
 
 3. Sect. 50 of the Insolvent Act of 
 18()9, which ])rovided that claims by 
 and against assignees in insolvency 
 might be disposed of by the Judge of 
 the County Court or by the County 
 Court on petition, and not by any suit, 
 attachment, opposition, seizure or other 
 proceeding whatever, was held not to be 
 beyond the power of the Dominion Par- 
 liament, becaiise the right to legislate 
 on the subject of bankruptcy and in- 
 solvency belongs exclusively to that 
 Parliament, and because at the passing 
 of the B. X. A. Act there was a system 
 of proceeding in insolvency in force in 
 the former I'roviricts of Upiier and 
 Lower Can.ida very similar to the one 
 established by the .Vet of 1809. —CVow- 
 
 bic V. Jacki<(>u. — (i. h.,Ont. . . . i. (i85' 
 
 4. An Act of the Dominion assuming 
 to provide for the liquidation of all 
 building societies in the Pruvince of 
 (Juebcc, whether solvent or not was 
 held to be beyond the c<imiietpnc',' of 
 the Dominion Parliament. — Mit.'Uniii- 
 ijhan V. St. Ann's Mutual IJiiililiny So- 
 cicty.—(l. B., <.^iebec ii. 237^ 
 
 5. An official assignee, or his agent, 
 acting under an Insolvent Act of the -^ 
 Parliament of Canada, can sell by auc- 
 tion the goods of a bankrupt without 
 taking out a license therefor ; and this 
 right cannot be restricted by a j/roviir- 
 cial enactment. The Quebec License 
 Act, 1870, in so far as it seeks to im- 
 pose a tax on the sum realized from the 
 sale of an insolvent's effects vhen made 
 under the In.solvent Act of 1809, 32-33 
 Vict. c. 1(), and to restrain the powers 
 
 of a-signees in putting that Act in 
 operati(Ui is invalid. — Cute v. Watson. 
 — Superior Ct., Quebec ii. 343 
 
 6. Sect. .59 of the Dominion Insol- 
 vent Act of 18IJ9 [itovided that no lien 
 ori)rivilege uijon the ])roperty of an 
 insolvent should be created for a judg— j^ 
 ment debt by the issue or delivery to 
 the sheriff of an execution, or by levy- 
 ing upon or seizing thereunder the 
 effefts or estate of an insolvent, if, be 
 fore the payment over to the i)laintitf 
 of the moneys levied, the estate of the 
 debtor had been assignt'd or placed in 
 liquid.ition under that Act : Held, to 
 be within the competence of the Do- 
 minion Parliament. — ATinjuy v. 7)i((/- 
 7«an.— Supreme Ct., N. S. , . , ii. 412 
 
 7. An Act which jjrovides for the ex- 
 amination of a debtor before a Judge, 
 and which authori/.es the Judge to 
 grant the debtor a discharge from gaol 
 or the limits as to the suit for which he 
 
2256 
 
 PAGB.. 
 
 56 the 
 ' limits 
 by tlie 
 
 to the 
 "tinal " 
 ter Ma- 
 i which 
 preroKa- 
 
 appt'al** 
 TV, ')oeH 
 VH of tlie. 
 ,ers may 
 ment of 
 
 ewt'd. — 
 
 . i. 252- 
 
 t Act of 
 •laiins by 
 ;i«()lvency 
 Judge of 
 e Ciiiuity 
 ■ any suit, 
 re or otlier 
 d not ti> be 
 iiiion Var- 
 I) legislate 
 ;y and in- 
 ly to that 
 Jie parising 
 AS a pysteni 
 in force in 
 Jpper and 
 to the one 
 m.-Croru- 
 
 , 1. cso- 
 
 in afsuminfc 
 ition of all 
 Province of 
 i.r not was 
 upetenc' of 
 — ,l/( rViiiKi- 
 Hidhlhuj So- 
 . . ■ i'- 
 r his aRent, 
 Act of the 
 1 sell hy aiic- 
 upt without 
 or ; and this 
 by a provin- 
 ebec License 
 seeks to im- 
 i/.ed from the 
 ts vhen made 
 of 1869, 32-33 
 ,n the powers 
 that Act in 
 (,'■ V. Watsan. 
 
 . • ■ ''• 
 niinion Insol- 
 d that no lien 
 roperty of an 
 ;ed for a judg-^- 
 or delivery to 
 )n, or by levy- 
 nereunder the 
 solvent, if, be_ 
 <) the plaintiff 
 iH estate of the 
 (1 or placed in 
 Act: Uilil, to 
 ice of the Uo- 
 'intuil V. Dud- 
 . S. . . • "• 
 videsforthe ex- 
 jefore a Judge, 
 the Judge to 
 harge from gaol 
 mit for which he 
 
 2257 
 
 CASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 237 
 
 ^ 
 
 343 
 
 412 
 
 PACE. 
 
 was confined, on proof that he is un- 
 able to pay his debts, and that he has 
 made no fraudulent transfer or undue 
 preference, is an Insolvent Act which 
 a Provincial Legi(>lature haw no power 
 to iiass, since the 15. X. A. Act came 
 into force, ard the ass^eiit of the (Jov- 
 ernor-(ieneral does not make such an 
 enactment valid. — Th( (Juccn v. ( haml- 
 /cr. — . Supreme Ct., X. H. ... ii, 421 
 
 8. The Legislature of Xew Bruns- 
 wick, prior to the union, passed an Act 
 extending the gaol limits. This Act 
 was not to come into operation until 
 Aiiril Ist, 1808, and before that d t e 
 but after the union, it "vas repealed by 
 A 8ubse(|uent enactment: ifdil, that 
 the sulijectof gaol limits does not so re- 
 late to ins(>lveney Jia to make the re- 
 I)ealing Act ultra vires. —MoAhunn \: 
 /"('nf.— Suiireme Ct , N.I?. . , . ii. 487 
 
 9. An Act of the Legislature of New 
 Brunswick, abolishing imprisonment 
 for debt, w.^s held not to be ultra vires 
 as respects a party not shewn to be a 
 trader or subji'ct to the Dominion In- 
 solvent Act. — ArviHtrDnyv. McCutchin. 
 —Supreme Ct., N. B jj. .|94 
 
 10. An Act of the Legislature of New 
 Brunswick, providing that as against 
 the assignee of tlie grantor under any 
 law relating to insolvency, a bill of sale 
 should only take effect from the time of 
 the filing thereof, was held to be within 
 the coinjietence of the legislature. — fn 
 
 re Dc r<'jfr.— .Su|)reme Ct., X.B. . ii. ,552 
 
 11. The Dominion Parliament by its 
 Insolvent Act of 1875, en.icted that any 
 person who purchased poods on credit, 
 knowing or believing himself to be un- 
 able to meet his engagements, and con- 
 cealing the fact with intent to defraud, 
 and who does not afterwards pay the 
 debt, shall lie held gi'liltj of a fraud and 
 h(» liable to imiirisonment for two years 
 unless the debt and costs are sooner 
 paid, provided that in the suit for the 
 recovery of the debt, the defendant is 
 charged \yith the fr.aud and declared 
 guilty of it by the judgment rendered 
 in the suit. The plaintiff sued for goods 
 sold and delivered to the defendants, 
 who afterwards became insolvent under 
 the Act, and charged them with fraud 
 in the terms of the .Vet : Hrhl, by a 
 majority of the Judges of the Common 
 Pleas, by two .Tiidges of the Court of 
 Appeal, and by three Judges of the 
 Supreme Court (the other three giving 
 no opinion on this point), tliat tne en- 
 actment is within the competence of 
 the "Oominioii Parliament. — Pcfk v. 
 S/ucWs.-C.A. Ont iii. 266 
 
 12. An Act of the Nova Scotia Leg- 
 islature for facilitating arrangements 
 between railway companies and the'r 
 creditors, provided that a company 
 might propose a scheme of arrangement 
 between the company and its creditors 
 and file the same in Court and that 
 thereafter the Court might, on applica- 
 tion by the company, restrain any ac- 
 tion against the company on such terms 
 as the Court might think fit. The Act 
 also provided that notice of filing the 
 scheme should be published, and that 
 thertmfter no execution, attachment, or 
 other process against the property of 
 the crunpany, should be available or be 
 
 2258 
 
 •AOB. 
 
 enforced without leave of the Court : 
 //'W, by Ititchie, ,1., that the above 
 Jirovisitins related '.o bankruptcy and 
 ii solvency, and were in excess uf the 
 IKiwers vested in a I'rovinciiil Legisla- 
 ture.— .l/f/ri/Mc// V. iViii'l,'--n)'d'Aru((p;li» 
 7i'c((7im,v r'o.-.Suiireme Ct., N..S. . iii, 368 
 
 13. By an Act <if the Legislature of 
 X'ova Scotia, provision was made for 
 -lie winding up of companies in general, 
 where a resolution to that effect was 
 passed by the conipaiiv, or where the 
 Court so ordered at the instance of n 
 contributor, on its lieincr made to appear 
 that such order was just and ecpiitable. 
 The Act could be enforced although no 
 debts were due by the company, but 
 coiild not be called into operation by a 
 creditor : //</</, that the Act did not 
 partake of the character of an insolvent 
 law, and was within the legislative au- 
 thority of a Provincial Legislature. - fn 
 re The Wnlhice Uiieattx Grcij Hlone Co. 
 --Supreme Ct., X.S. ..... iii. ,S74 
 
 II. I'nder the provisions of an Act 
 of the Legislature of Xova Scotia, " to 
 fanilitate arrangements between rail- 
 way comp.anies and their creditors," 
 the Windsor & Annapolis Railway 
 Company prop(isod an arrangement 
 whereby the so-called IJdebenture stock 
 of til!' company then bearing interest at 
 the rate of 6 per cent, was " abrogated 
 •and determined," and in lieu thereof 
 the holders of said stock ■v.jre to re- 
 ceive .allotments of new stocks thereby 
 created, bearing lower rates of interest^, 
 and otherwise differing from the stock 
 for which they were substituted : Held, 
 (Weatherlie, .!., dissenting), that so 
 much of the Act as was uecess.ary to the 
 confirmation (.f the jiroposed scheme 
 was within the legislative authority of 
 tlie Legislature of X'ova Scotia. — fie 
 Wiiuhur il- Aiina/i'ilh A'd iVico v. — Su- 
 preme Ct., N. 8 ' . iii. 387 
 
 1.5. The Dominion Parliament, under 
 its jurisdiction as to bankruptcy and 
 insolvency, has authority to provide ♦• 
 for the compulsory litniidation or wind- 
 ing up of a company inoor|)orated liy a 
 Provincial Legislature. — Hhiii>Jhr(tl v. 
 CTfirAc— Supreme Ct., Can. . . iv. 4.'i9 
 
 16. The Dominion Parliament, under 
 its jurisdiction as to bankruptcy and 
 insolvency, has autlr rity to provide for 
 the coniiHilsory liiiuid.ition or winding 
 U)) of a company incorporated under a 
 statute of the Imjierial Parliament.- - 
 AUcn V. 7/(ni.<0H. — Supreme Ct,, Can. 
 iv. 
 
 i 
 
 470 
 
 17. There being no statuteof the Do- 
 minion on bankruptcy and inselvency, 
 an Act was passed by the Ontario Leg- 
 islature for the purjiose of enabling in- 
 solvent debtois to place their creditors 
 on an equal footing, but not relieving 
 the debtor from arrest or interfering' 
 with his after-acquired propeity: Ihht, 
 by Burton and Patterson, JJ. A., 
 aftirming on this point the judfrnents 
 (if the Courts below (Hagarty, C. J., and 
 Osier, J..\., dissenting), that the Pro- 
 vincial Act was intra vires.— fVrtrA'.son 
 v. (Intarin Ilavk : Kihiar v. Central 
 i?«nA.-C.A.. (Int. . . . ■ . iv. 
 
 499 
 
■> ■•■*f ■ A^^JKi^ 4g 
 
 2259 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2260 
 
 PAOB. 
 
 18. The Dominion Parliament pro- 
 vided that Insurance Companies doing 
 business in Canada should make a de- 
 posit with the Minister of Finance for 
 the security of Canadian policy holders: 
 Held, that this legislation was valid, 
 and thai the Canadian policy holders 
 of an insDlvent company were entitled 
 to a distribution of the deposit, althoueh 
 proceedings for the winding up of the 
 company were pending in the English 
 courts. — Re Jiriton Medical and Gen- 
 eral Life Association (Limited).— Cb. 
 D., Ont iv. 639 
 
 Imprisonment of debtor . . . ii. 527 
 See Crimin.^i. Law, 7. 
 
 BANKS AND BANKING. - 
 
 Transfer of warehouse receipts . . i. 828 
 
 Hec Bills of Lading, 2. 
 Taxation of Dominion Notes . iii. 377 
 
 See Taxation, 5. 
 Taxation of banks iv. 7 
 
 See Taxation, 6. 
 
 BIGAMY. — Second marriage con- 
 tracted abroad iv, CGD 
 
 See CuiMiNAL Law, 13. 
 
 BILLS OF LADING ANDWARP]- 
 HOUSE RRCKIPTS-A Provincial 
 Act to the effect that all rights of suit 
 should pass to the consignee of goods 
 named in any bill of lading, or to the en- 
 dorsee thereof, to whom the property in 
 the goods sho\ild be transferred by such 
 consignment or endorsement, and that 
 every such instrument representing 
 goods to have been shipped should, in 
 the hands of a consignee or endorsee 
 for value, be conclusive evidence of 
 shipment as against the person signing 
 the instrument, was held mjt_jo_be 
 beyond the powers of the Provincial 
 Legislature as being an interference 
 with trade and commerce. — Beard v. 
 Stecle.-(t.B., Ont i. 083 
 
 2, The Dominion Parliament has 
 power to legislate with retpect to pro- 
 perty and civil rights, so far as neces- 
 sary for the exercise of its jurisdiction 
 over the subjects assigned tJ it by the 
 B.N. A. Act. Per Spragge, C. : The 
 Dominion Act, 34 Vict. c. 5, s. 46, 
 which authorizes the transfer of ware- 
 house receipts to banks by direct 
 endorsement, is within the powers 
 assigned to the Dominion Parliament 
 and is valid. — .S)ni«/i v. The Merchants' 
 Bank.*-Chy., Ont i. 828 
 
 BREWERS.— Licenses . i. 414 ; iv. 334 
 
 See LiCRNSKS, 1, 6. 
 
 CANADA.— Election Law. . . 
 Sec P^LEOTioNS to Parliament. 
 
 ii. 332 
 
 Legislation respecting Statutes of old 
 Parliament of Canada i, 361 
 
 iScc Legislatukks 01' Ontario and 
 
 QUKBKC. 
 
 Statutes. 
 See SlATVIva. 
 
 page. 
 CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT, 
 1878. — Power of Dominion Parliament 
 
 to enact ii. 12 
 
 See Intoxicatinc. Liijuorh, 1. 
 Appintment of officers to enforce, iv. 683 
 See Intoxicating LKiUc^Rs, 10. 
 
 CIVIL RIGHT-S.-Penalties. . ii. 297 
 See Criminal Law, 4. 
 
 Property and Civil Rights. 
 See PiioPEKTY AM) Civil Rights. 
 
 COMMISSIONS.— Enquiry. . i. 789 
 .Sec County Court Judge. 
 
 Oyer and Terminer i. 722 
 
 .See Prerogative OF Crown, 1. 
 
 COMPANIES.— The l)ominion Par- 
 liament has no power to incorporate an 
 association for the purpose of buying, 
 leasing and selling landed property 
 and buildings, the ojierations of a 
 society for such purpose affecting exclu- 
 sively property and civil rights within 
 the Province where they are carried on ; 
 and therefore the Act 37 Vict. c. 103, 
 incorporating the Colonial Building 
 and Investment Association for such 
 objects, was held to be ultra vires, 
 though power was given by said Act 
 to carry on operations througliout the. 
 Dominion. Monk, J., dissenting.— 1| 
 Lorangir v. fflWTTRff Buildimj and In- 
 vestment Association.— i^.B., (Quebec. 
 
 ii. 275 
 
 2. ITeld, that Canadian Act, .S7 Vict. \ 
 c. 103, which created a corporation with ' 
 power to carry on certain definite kinds ' 
 of business within the Dominion, was 1 
 within the legislative competence of 
 the Dominion Parliament. The fact 
 that the corporation chose to confine 
 the exercise of its powers to one Pro- 
 vince, and to local and provincial 
 objects, did not affect its status as a \ 
 corporation, or operate to render its \ 
 original incorporation illegal as ultra 
 vires of the said Parliament : Held, 
 further, that the corporation could 
 not be prohibited generally from act- 
 ing as such within the Province ; nor 
 could it be restrained from doing specifi- 
 ed acts in violation of the provincial law 
 uuon a petition not directed and adapt- 
 ed to that purpose. — Loramjer v. Colo- 
 nial Building and Investment Associa- 
 tion, reversed. — Colonial liuitdiny and ^ ^ 
 Investment Association v. Attorney-Oen- " - 
 eralof Quebec— P.C iii. 118 
 
 3. A company incorporated by a Pro- 
 vincial Legislature for the business of 
 insurance possesses the same capacity 
 and franchises within the jurisdiction 
 creating it as a company incorporated 
 by the Imperial or Dominion Parlia- 
 ments ; and may enter into contracts 
 outside the Province wherever such 
 contracts are recognized by comity or 
 otherwise. The term " Provincial ob- 
 jects " in the B. N. A- Act refers to 
 local objects witliin a Province, in con- 
 tradistinction to objects which are com- 
 mon to all Provinces in their collective 
 
 "This decision wiisrovursed by tlio Court of Appeal, 8 A. K. 1,5, on other (frouncls bi.t the ileeision of the 
 Court of Appeal wn» eiil)3i'qiieiitly revorseil hy tlie Supreme Court, 8 Can, S. C. H, .512, In the Court of 
 AppenI, Armour, J., held thnt the provision In iiuestion was invaliil, while in the Supreme Court, Fournler, 
 Henry and Taschcreau, .)J,, held the contrary. 
 
2260 
 
 PAOK. 
 
 ^. ACT, 
 ■liament 
 . ii. 12 
 
 orce. iv. 683 
 
 J. 10. 
 
 PS. . ii. 297 
 
 RtOHTS. 
 
 y. . i. 789 
 
 . . i. 722 
 
 r.N, 1. 
 
 inion Par- 
 pnrate an 
 Df buying, 
 
 property 
 ons of a 
 tiiig exclu- 
 hts within 
 larried on ; 
 ct. c. 103, 
 
 BuildinK 
 a for such 
 Itra vires, 
 IT said Act 
 lUghout the- 
 saenting.— ^ 
 inij (ind In- 
 (^uebec 
 
 2261 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. AOT. 
 
 275 
 
 Lct, 37 Vict. \ 
 iration with \ 
 ^finite kinds \ 
 minion, was < 
 Tipetence of 
 The fact 
 to confine 
 
 to one Pro- 
 I provincial 
 a status as a 
 o render ita 
 >gal as ultra 
 ,ent : Held, 
 ration could 
 Uy from act- 
 rovince ; nor 
 
 doing specih- 
 jroviacial law 
 ed and adapt- 
 amtcr v. dilo- 
 \ment Aswcia- 
 
 lUtihUniJ and 
 Atturncy-Orn- 
 . . in. 
 
 118 
 
 ■ated by a Pro- 
 he business of 
 same capacity 
 [le i\irisdiction 
 y incorporated 
 minion Parlia- 
 into contract^ 
 wherever such 
 \ by comity or 
 ' Provincial <>b- 
 Act refers to 
 rovince, in con- 
 which are com- 
 their collective 
 
 ,v.t the (leeiBion of the 
 
 r,io In the Court o( 
 
 pr'cme Court, Fournlcr, 
 
 or Dominion quality. — rVfir/lr v. Union 
 Fire Insurance Co. — Master's Office, 
 Ont 
 
 •AGE. 
 
 iii. 3,S5 
 
 iv. 701 
 
 2(;5 
 
 License to hold lands . . 
 
 Sec MoiiTMAiv. 
 CONTR.-VCT.S-Regnlation of. . i. 
 
 .S'f( TliAliK ANII CoMMKIlCK, 1. 
 
 COPYRIGHT.— 7.'iV//,< t<, lenishtcas 
 <o]— The B. N. A. Act was net intend- 
 ed to curtail tin; i)!iram(>iint authority 
 of tile Impcriul Parliament as respects 
 any of the matters assig-ned l)y tlie Act 
 to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Do- 
 minion Parliament, or of the Provincial 
 Legislatures. All tlmt the 13. X. A. 
 Act intended to ctfect by sect. 91, sub- 
 sect. 23, as to L'oi)yriglit, was to place 
 the right of dealing witli colonial copy- 
 right within the Domliiion under the 
 exclusive control of tlio Parliament of 
 Canada, as distinguished from the Pro- 
 vincial Legislatures, in the same way 
 as the Act has transferred the i)ower 
 to deal with banking, bankruptcy and 
 insolvency, and other speciKed sub- 
 jects, from tli« Provincial Legislatures, 
 and placed them under tiie exclusive 
 jurisdiction and contml of the Domin- 
 ion. The Parliament of the Dominion 
 has no greater ])ower to deal with the 
 subject of copyright tiian was possessed 
 by Provincial Legislatures prior tocon- 
 feder.ati(m. The Imi)erial Copyright 
 Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, was in force in 
 Canada at the time of confederation, 
 and IS in force in Canada still. It is 
 not affected by the Canadian Copy- 
 right Act of 1875, which Act is also in 
 force.— .VmiYMV. JklfurJ—C A., Ont. i. 
 
 Ct)STS iv 
 
 jSVc NAVKiATinN AM) SlIiri'IN'G, 7. 
 
 COUNTY COURT .TUDCK.-By 
 the B.N. A. Act, 18(i7, sect. 9G, the Gov- 
 ernor-General is autiwrized to appoint 
 the Judges of the County Courts, and 
 the Provincial Legislature of Ontario 
 hadno power to pass an Act authorizing 
 the removal of County Court Judges by 
 the Lieutenant"! iovernor for incapacity 
 or misbehaviour and liad not power to 
 
 i)ass an Act abolisliing the Court of 
 mpeachment, which existed in Cana- 
 da before the B. N. A. Act, for the 
 trial of charges against County Court 
 Judges. A County Court Judge may 
 be removed by the Governor- General 
 in Council, under the Imperial Act, 
 22 Geo. III. c. 75, but there is no pow- 
 er under that Act, or the Con. Stat. C. 
 c. 13, or under the Ciminion Law, to 
 issue a commission for a preliminary 
 enquiry under oath witli respect to such 
 charges. — Kc Sqiiier—il. B., Ont. . i, 
 Power to confer jurisdiction on. 
 
 ii. G(J5 ; iii. 319 
 See .TunoKs, 2, 3. 
 COURTS. - 
 Constitution of. . . . ii. 602, 653, n. 
 
 See CuiMiNAL Law, 8, 10. 
 Power to constitute. . . i. 5.57 ; iv. 618 
 Mauitimk CouiiT. 
 Patk.nt of Invkntion, 2. 
 Power to impose duties on. i. 158 ; 
 
 ii. 378 ; iv. 2SS 
 Sec Provincial Couuts. 
 
 Navig.\tion ANn Shipping, 3. 
 
 Impkkial Couut. 
 
 576 
 370 
 
 78C 
 
 2262 
 
 I'AG k. 
 
 CRIMINAL LAW.-An inf,.rma- 
 tioii under an Ontario Act for sehing in- 
 toxicating h<iuorsonSun<lay was held to 
 besofarachargi' of acriminal character 
 that the defendant couli.l not be com- 
 pelled to give eviiience .igainst him- 
 self.— i.Vvuia V. Jtvildii.—^l ]{., Ont. i. 709 
 
 2. A I'rovincial Legisl.ituie cannot 
 legislate with respect to otft'iices of a 
 criminal nature, except where sucli 
 legislation is re(iuired for tlie direct 
 enforceiueiit of a law of the Province 
 made in relation to a matter coming 
 within its exclusive juris(iicti<m. In 
 legislating in regarit to a matter with- 
 in Provincial jurisdiction, a I'rovincial 
 Legislature has no power to enforce its 
 law by provisions respecting tlie trial 
 and pun-shment of offenders in respect 
 of acts wliicii would bt! criminal offences 
 at eonimon law. .Sect. 57 of the Li<iuor 
 License Act of C»ntario, R. S. O. c. 181, 
 by which it was provided that any jier- 
 soii who, on any prosecution under that 
 Act, tampere(l with a witness or in- 
 duced or attemi)te(l to induce any such 
 l)erson to absent himself or to swear 
 falsely, should be li.ible to a penalty of 
 $50, was therefore lie)d to be invalid.— 
 Jieilinav, Lutvnnci -i.}. Ii., Ont. . i. 742 
 
 3. A Provincial Legislature has pow- 
 er to regulate i)rocedure affecting penal 
 laws which such Legislature has au- 
 tluuity to enact. Breach of a Provin- 
 cial Statute is not a "crime" within 
 the meaning of sect. 91, sub-sect. 27 of 
 the B. N. A. Act.— /'f)/"' V. Orijjitk. — 
 (IK, (iuebec ii. 291 
 
 4. A Provincial Legislature has |)ow- 
 er to regulate jirocedure affecting penal 
 laws which such Legislature has author- 
 ity to enact. A Statute of (.Quebec 
 having provided tli.at no procee<lings 
 in civil matters before a cti.strict magis- 
 trate should be removed to any other 
 Court by certiorari or otherwise, it was 
 held that a proceeding before a dis- 
 trict magistrate for the enforcement of 
 penalties under the license Law of the 
 Province was a civil proceeding within 
 this enactment, and that the right to 
 certiorari was taken away. — /s'.c jiartc 
 />»»(•((».— Superior Ct., t^ueViec. . ii. 297 
 
 5. A Provincial Legislature has pow- 
 er to regulate procedure affecting penal 
 lawswhich such Legislature has author- 
 ity to enact. — I'wje w UrixHth.—il. B., 
 C^iubec ii. 308 
 
 6. A Provincial Legislature has i)ow- 
 er to regulate procedure affecting penal 
 laws which such liCgislature has author- 
 ity to enact. An enactment of the 
 (.Quebec Legislature prescribing tlie 
 mode in which jieiialties for violations 
 of a Statute <if the Province (41 Vict, 
 c. 3) are to be enforced, w.as held to be 
 valid. — Coti'' V, Chauveau. — Superior 
 Ct., Quebec ii. 311 
 
 7. A Provincial Legislature has pow- 
 er to pass an enactment for tiie im- 
 prisonment of a person making default 
 in payment of a sum due on a judg- 
 ment in case (a) he has had since 
 the date of the judgment or order, 
 the means to liay the sum in respect 
 of which he has made default and 
 
2263 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2264 
 
 ft 
 
 IS 
 
 i 
 
 PACK, 
 neglects or refuses to \)ay it, or in case 
 (/;) tho liabilit}' was incurred by obtain- 
 inff credit under false pretei'ces, or by 
 means of any other fraud, or by the 
 comtnisbion of an act for which he 
 mif^ht be proceeded against criminally. 
 Weldcn, J., difMentiiig. — A'.r purtr 
 £■//«■«.— Supreme Ct., X.U. . . . ii. 527 
 
 8. An Act of the Parliament of 
 Canada provided in rejjard to appeals 
 from summary convictions made by 
 Justices of the Peace, that the piirties 
 mij^ht dispense with a jury if they 
 thought fit, and submit themselves to 
 the jud>,'ment of the Court apjiealed to 
 without a jury : Hrld, that this enact- 
 ment was not an interference with the 
 " constitution " of the Court (in rela- 
 tion to which the Provincial Legisla- 
 tures have exclusive jurisdiction), but 
 that it related to criminal law and pro- 
 cedure in criminal matters, and there- 
 fore was within the jurisdiction of the 
 Dominion Parliament. — Jtciina v. 
 Bradshaw.-Q. B., Oat. .... ii. 002 
 
 9. By a Dominion Statute "for 
 avoidintr doubt," it was declared and 
 enacted, "that every person qualified 
 and summoned as a Grand Juror or as 
 a Petit Juror in criminal cases, accord- 
 ing to the laws which may be then in 
 force in any Province of Canada, shall 
 be held to be duly qualified to serve 
 as such juror in that Province, whether 
 such were laws passed before, or be 
 passed after the coming into force of 
 the B. N. A. Act, 1867, subject always 
 to any provision in any Act of the Par- 
 liament of Canada, and in so far as 
 such laws are not inconsistent with 
 any such Act." Acts were afterwards 
 passed by the Ontario Legislature 
 changing the mode of selecting jurors 
 in that Province : Ifr.ld, that the Do- 
 minion enactment was not an uncim- 
 stitutianal delegation of legislative 
 authority and was not ultra vires, and 
 that a selection of jurors made in the 
 manner prescribed by the Ontario 
 Acts was valid for the pur|>ose of a 
 criminal trial. — Itciiina v. U Itourkc.-- 
 
 q. B. D., Ont. . ■ ii. (iU 
 
 10. The Acts relating to the attend- 
 ance of grand and petit jurors at the 
 County Couits (Courts of criminal 
 jurisdiction over all crimes whioh are 
 nt't capital), are within the jiowers of 
 th9 Local Legislature, under the 15. N. 
 A. Act, 1807, sect. !t2, as pertaining to 
 the "Administration of .Justice'' and 
 the '■ Constitution and organization of 
 Provincial Courts," and fio not belong 
 to the Parliament of Canada, under 
 sect. 91, as "Procedure in criminal 
 matters." — lifriina v. /'o/r v. — Supreme 
 Ct., N. B. .'.....'. . ii. G5:i ii 
 
 11. By the Act 32 & 3,S Vict. c. 31, 
 8. 78 (D), it is provided that iienaltie.i 
 against .Justices of the I'eace for the 
 non-roturn of convictions may be re- 
 covered in an action of del>t by any 
 person suing for t)"- "nme in any Court 
 of Record : Hclil, that this provision 
 was within the competence of the Do- 
 niinion Parliament, and that a Pro- 
 vincial enactment, declaring that 
 County Courts should not have juris- 
 
 I'AOK. 
 
 diction in such actions, was thtieby 
 overborne. — Ward v. /;<('/. — Supreme 
 Ct, N. B iii. 40.5 
 
 12. An Act of the Ontario Legisla- 
 ture provided that no jierson shoidd, 
 without written notice, supply to a 
 cheese or butter manufactory milk in 
 any way adulterated or from which 
 cream had been taken, and imposed 
 certain penalties for violation of the 
 Act : Hrld, reversing the judgment 
 of the (Queen's Bench Division, that 
 this Act was not an Act dealing with 
 criminal law within the meaning of 
 sub-sect. 27 of sect. 91 of the JSritish 
 North America Act, and was intra 
 vires of the Provincial Legislature. — 
 An Act of the Ontario Legislature 
 respecting appeals on prosecutions to 
 enforce penalties and piuiish offences 
 under Provincial Acts was held not to 
 be legislation dealing with criminal 
 procedure within the meaning of tho 
 above sub-section, and to be intra 
 vires. — Rcyina v. Waaon. — C. A., Ont. 
 
 iv. 578 
 
 13. The Dominion Parliament by 
 R. S. C. cap. IGl, sect. 4 enacts that 
 " Kvery one who being married mar- 
 ries any other person during the life of 
 the former husband or wife whether 
 the 6econd marriage takes place in 
 Canada or elsewhere is guilty of felony 
 and liable to seven years' imprison- 
 ment," and that "nothing in this sec- 
 tion contained shall extend to (a) any 
 second marriage contracted elsewhere 
 than in Canada by any other than a 
 subject of Her Majesty resident in 
 Canada and leaving the same with in- 
 tent to commit the offence." The 
 original Act containing in substance 
 this enactment was jjassed in 1841, and 
 its validity wat subsequently affirmed 
 by the Court of Queen's Bench in Low- 
 er Canada : Held, that the enactment 
 in the Revised .Statutes was valid ; and 
 that having in substance been in force 
 in Canada for some years prior to the 
 passing of the B. N. A. Act, it was 
 confirmed by se'jt. 12'.t of that Act if 
 any imperial confirmation was refjuired. 
 
 — Itcijimi V. liricrly.—Ch. 1)., Ont. iv. G05 
 
 Compromising Offence. . . . i. 07(5 
 
 Sec Lll'K.NSKS, 2. 
 
 Enforcing Temperance Act. ii. 000, 010 
 See Temi'khan<'K Act ok 1804, 3. 
 
 Proper Officer to enforce. . . . i. 813 
 See Attouney-Gkskhal, 1. 
 
 DEBT( m.— Power to provide for dis- 
 chariie of]. — l^y liu Act in force in tho 
 Province of Nov.a Scotia at the Union, 
 every debtor im|)iisoned under process 
 from any Court was entitled to apply 
 for and obtain his discharge. When 
 this Act was ])aised there were no 
 County Courts in Nova Scotia. In 
 1878 an Act of tho Provincial Legisla- 
 ture was passed, making the above pro- 
 visions applicable to persons imprison- 
 ed under process from the County 
 Couris, and this enactment was lifld 
 to be \a.\k\. —Johtiston v. I'oi/iil:. — Su- 
 preme Ct., N. S ii. 410 
 
 Discharge of ii. 421 
 
 Sec Bankuui'tcv and Ixsoi.vkncv, 
 7. 
 
2264 
 
 2265 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2266 
 
 405 
 
 I'AdK. 
 
 s th'-«eby 
 
 -Supri-me 
 
 . . iii- 
 
 . Legiwla- 
 n Hhovild, 
 ))l)ly to a 
 ly milk in 
 Din wliicli 
 \ imposed 
 i(m of tilt- 
 judKHK'"'' 
 isioii, tlml 
 lOiiiK Willi 
 ii-auing <>f 
 he I'.iitifti 
 wiis intra 
 {islnture,— 
 Lpgi«lature 
 ecutionR to 
 «h <itfonces 
 held not to 
 criminal 
 niiiet of the 
 be intra 
 A., Ont. 
 iv. 
 
 liament by 
 enacts that 
 arried mar- 
 i(r the life of 
 ife whether 
 place in 
 of felony 
 imprison- 
 in tluH seo- 
 A to (d) any 
 ed elsewhere 
 ither than a 
 renident in 
 i\me with in- 
 ince." The 
 in substance 
 1 in 1841, and 
 ntly affirmed 
 lench in Low- 
 he enactment 
 as valid ; and 
 been in force 
 g prior to the 
 . Act, it was 
 ,f tliat Act if 
 1 wasreciuired, 
 . ])., Ont. iv. 
 
 578 
 
 es 
 
 Gf)5 
 070 
 
 813 
 
 . Act. ii. COO, OIG 
 T Of 18114, 3- 
 ce. ... 1 
 
 KAL, 1. 
 
 nroviiic for flis- 
 n force in the 
 , at the Union, 
 under procos'S 
 ;itled to apply 
 liarge. When 
 there were no 
 la Scotia. In 
 nucial Legisla- 
 ; the above pio- 
 isdns imprison- 
 n the County 
 ment was hnld 
 V. i'o.v/if-.— ^11- 
 . . . ii. 
 
 SI) ISHOI.VKNCY, 
 
 416 
 421 
 
 _ I'AGK. 
 
 DELEGATION. -Subjects which in 
 one aspect and for one purpose fall 
 within sect. !)2 of the B. N. A. Act, 
 1867, may in another asi)ect and for 
 another jmrpose fall within sect. 91. 
 Jlusscll V, The Qiuoi (7 App. Cas. 821)) 
 explained and approved. Hild, tliat 
 "The Li(j' ■ c License Act of 1877," c. 
 181, Revised Sta'-.utes of Ontario, 
 which, in respert of ■.-ects. 4 and .0, 
 makes regiiL-.tions in tiie nature of 
 police or municipal reRulatioiis of a 
 merely local character for the gonii 
 government of taverns, etc., does not 
 in respect of those sections interfere 
 with the general regulation of trade 
 or commerce, but comes within Nos, 
 8, If) and 16 of sect. 92 of the Act of 
 1807, and is within the jiowers of the 
 I'rovincial Legislature. HchI, further, 
 that the Provincial Legislature had 
 power by the said Act of 1867 to en- 
 trust to a Hoard of Conimissioners 
 authority to enact regulations of the 
 above character, and thereby to create 
 offences and annex pen.ilties thereto. 
 ffodye V. The Quccn.-V. C. . . iii. 144 
 
 2. Act No. 22 of 1869, of the Indian 
 Legislature, which excludes the juris- 
 diction of the High Court within cer- 
 tain siMcified districts, is not inconsist- 
 ent with the Indian High Courts Act 
 (24 & 26 Vict. c. 104), or with the 
 charter of the High Court, and is in its 
 general scope within the legislative 
 power of the (rovernor-General in 
 Cy'ouncil. The 9th sect, of that Act 
 which confers upon the Lieutenant- 
 <3overnor of Bengal the power to de- 
 termine whether the Act, or any i)art 
 of it, shall be ap])lied in a certam dis- 
 trict, is conditional legislation, and not 
 a delegation of legislative power. 
 Where plenary jjowers of legislation 
 exist as to particular subjects, whether 
 inan Imperial orina Provincial Legisla- 
 ture, they may be well exercised, either 
 absolutely or conditionally ; in the lat- 
 ter case leaving to the discretion of 
 some external authority the time and 
 manner of carrying its legislation into 
 effect, as also the area over which it is 
 to extend. —y{f.9inrtv. /i«r«/i.— P.C. iii. 409 
 
 ' 3. A Colonial Legisl.ituro is not a 
 'delegate of the Imperial Legislature. 
 It is restricted in the area of its pow- 
 ers, but within that area it is unre- 
 stricted. Held, that the Customs 
 Regulation Act of 1879. s. 138, was 
 within the i)lpnary jiowers of legisla- 
 tion conferred upon the New South 
 Wales Legislature by the Constitution 
 Act (Schedul.d to 18 & 19 Viut., c. 
 54, 88. 1 and 45) JJdd, further, that 
 duties levied by an Order in Council 
 issued under sect. 133, are really levied 
 by authority of the Legislature and 
 not of the Executive. Al.<o that under 
 sect. 133 " the opinion of the collector," 
 whether right or wrong, authorizes the 
 action of the Governor.— i'lmv// v. 
 Aiwllo Camlh Cii.-l'.C. . . . iii. 132 
 
 Selecti)n of Jurors ii. 614 
 
 See CuiMlNAl, Law, 9. 
 
 DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS. 
 A 1 ruvincial Legislature may legislate 
 in regard to separate schools provided 
 
 that the riglits or privileges with re- 
 spect to denoiiiiiuitiotml schools which 
 any class of jiersons li.^ij by law in the 
 Province at the time of confederation 
 are not prejudicially affected by such 
 legislation. The )i. N. A. Act pro- 
 vidt|s by sub-s, H ,if sect. 93 that 
 " Where in any Province a sy^^tem of 
 separate or dissentient selio'ils exists 
 by law at the Union, or is then;ifter 
 established liy the Legislature of the 
 Province, an appeal shall lie to tiio 
 Governor-tieneral in Council from any 
 Act or decision of any Provincial 
 autliority afrectuig any right (pr privi- 
 lege of the I'rottstaMtiir Roman Catho- 
 lic minority of tin- (.'ueen's subjects in 
 rolalion to eilucation" : Jl<ld, tluit this 
 enactment (,'ivcs an appeal in respect 
 of those decisions alone which are legis- 
 lative acts, or their ttjuivaleiits, and 
 not in respect of matters affecting 
 merely the every-day detail of the 
 working of a .school. In election mat- 
 ters separate .schools liave the same 
 right of appeal to a County .ludire as 
 public schools have. — ,SV/)(i rdic Srhaol 
 Trustiesdf Jldlefillev.O'raiiu/er.—Chy. 
 Ont. . ; "... i. 816 
 
 2, The provisions contained in sect. 
 93 of the B. N. A. Act, that nothing 
 in any law made by a Province in rela- 
 tion to education "shall prejudicially 
 affect any right or privih'ge with res- 
 pect to denominational schools which 
 any class of iwrsons have by law in the 
 Proviiica at the Union," protect those 
 legal rights and privileges only which 
 existed in each Province at the Unicm 
 by virtue of jjositive legal enactment, 
 and not l)rivilege8 enjoyed >mder excei)- 
 tionjvl and accidental circumstances, 
 and without legal right. At the Union 
 the Law with respect to the schools in 
 the Province of New Brunswick was 
 governed by the I'arish School Act, 
 under which no class (jf jiersons had 
 any legal right or privilege with i'es(S'Ct 
 to denominational schools, and a subse- 
 quent Act, .34 Vict. c. 21, providing 
 that the schools conducted thereunder 
 should be non-sectarian, was therefore 
 held to be valiil. The constitutionality 
 of the Act 34 Vict. c. 21, cannot be 
 affected by any regulations of the Hoard 
 of Educat;ion made under its authority ; 
 and semble, if the Board of Education 
 have ni.ade regulations which they 
 ought not to have made or have not 
 made regulations which they should 
 have made, the ct-c falls within sub- 
 sect. 4 of stct. 93 of the Ii. N. A. 
 Act-K.r /larte yiV »if hi/— Supreme Ct., 
 N. B ii. 445 
 
 DIRECT TAN.VTION 
 
 i. 9,"), 117 ; iii. 190; iv. 7 
 
 SfcTA.XATlO.N. 1, 2, 4, (i. 
 DIVISION COURTS. — Appoint- 
 ment of .luilges ii. 665 
 
 See .IfnoKs, 2. 
 
 DOMINION CONTROVERTED 
 ELECTIONS ACT— Election Courts. 
 
 i, 158 
 
 See PuoviNiMAt, Covins. 
 DOiMINlON OKKICKR -.Sfi.-iirco/ 
 salary nf.]- A I'rovincial Legislature 
 
I 
 
 •I 
 
 2267 
 
 CASES ON THE B. N. A. AOT. 
 
 2268. 
 
 
 PAGK. 
 
 haB no powur to declare liable to neizure 
 the salaries of employees of the federal 
 Government. — irons v. Hudon—iiu- 
 perior Ct., Quebec ii. 340 
 
 Taxation of income i. 592 
 
 See Taxaiio.v, 3. 
 
 i^oMiNioN guvp:rnmknt.- 
 
 Jurisdictiun and J'ropertii.] Under tlie 
 B. N. A. Act, lK(i7, H. 108, rend in con- 
 nection with the third schedule thereto, 
 all railways belon(;inpr to the Province 
 of Nova ncotia, including the railway 
 in Huit, pa«ned to and became vested 
 on the Istof .J\ily, 18(')7, in the Dominion 
 of Canada, but not for any larger intu- 
 rest therein tiian at that date belonged 
 to the Frovince. The railway in suit 
 being, at the date of the statutory trans- 
 fer, subject to an ohligati<m on the part 
 of the Provincial (iovernment to enter 
 into a traffic arrangement with the 
 respondent company, the Uoniinion 
 Government, in pursuance of that obli- 
 gation, entered into a further agree- 
 ment relating thereto, of the 22nd of 
 September, 1871. Qun>re, whether it 
 was ultra vires of the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment, by an enactment to that effect, 
 to extinguish the rights of the respon- 
 dent company under the said agree- 
 ment. But held, that Dominion Act, 
 37 Vict. c. K), did not, upon its true 
 construction, purport so to do. And 
 although it authorized a transfer of the 
 railway to the appellant, it did not 
 enact such transfer in derogation of the 
 respondent's rights binder the agree- 
 ment of the 22nd of September, 1871, or 
 otherwise. — Western Oountiix lliiilway 
 Co, V. Windsor and Antnijmlis Itaitway 
 . o.-P.C i. 397 
 
 2. Held, following the case of the 
 Commissioners of the Cobourg Town 
 Trust, 22 Grant 377, that the Commis- 
 sioners of the Toronto Harbour were 
 entitled to compensation for their ser- 
 vices, and this whether the harbour 
 belonged to the Dominion or the Pro- 
 vincial Government ; as in the event of 
 it being found to belong to the Domin- 
 ion, it must be assumed that the Domin- 
 ion Government intended the Com- 
 missioners to be subject to the law of 
 the Province in which the trust was to 
 be administered. — Re Toronto Harbour 
 Commissioners. —Chy., Ont. , . . i. 826 
 Prerogative rights , i. 722 ; iv. 391, 409 
 
 Sec PuEiiOGATiVK oi.' Ckown, 1,3,4. 
 Public Harbours ii, 147 
 
 See Hakbouus. 
 Statutes. 
 
 See Statutes. 
 
 DOMINION RAILWAY. -Power 
 to transfer i. 233 
 
 Sec PitoviNciAL Lkglsi-atukes, 2. 
 
 EDUCATION. - Denominational 
 and Separate Schools , . i. 816 ; ii. 445 
 
 See Denominational Schools. 
 
 Imperial Law i. 761 
 
 Sec Medical Pbactitioneu. 
 ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT. 
 An Act of Canada passed before 1867 
 made void any contract referring to or 
 
 tagk. 
 arising nut of a Parliamentary election, 
 even for payment of lawful expenses ; 
 the Dominion Parliament pin.sed an Act 
 respecting Dominion elections, but not 
 containing this or any like provision : 
 IJcId, that this pro\ision ncit having 
 been repealed, was in force in (Quebec 
 as respects Dominion elfctii)ns under 
 sects. 41 and 129 of th(^ B. N. A. Act, 
 and that therefore a promissory note 
 given for the expenses of a subscciuent 
 Dominion election was \-itv\. — Will<tt 
 v. /Jc(in).t(/'j(s.— Supei.u' Ct., Quebec ii. 332 
 
 ESCHEAT.— Lands in tlie Province 
 of Ontario edchented to the Crown for 
 defect of heirs belong to the I'rovince 
 and not to the Dominion. At the date 
 of passing the B. N. A. Act the revenue 
 arising from all escheats to the Crown 
 within the then Province of Canada 
 was subject to the disposal and appro- 
 priation of the Canadiivn Legislature, 
 and not of the Crown. Altliougli sect. 
 102 of the Act vested in the Dominion 
 the general public revenues, as then 
 existing in the Provinces ; yet by sect. 
 109 the casu.al revenue arising from 
 lands escheated to the Crown utter the 
 Union was reserved to the Provinces 
 — the words "land«, mines, minerals 
 and royalties " therein including, ac- 
 cording to their true construction, 
 royalties in res|)ect of lands such as 
 u'icheiitK.—Attornii/Ueixral v. Mircer. 
 -P. C iii. 1 
 
 EVIDENCE-Per Torrance,.T. The 
 Dominion Parliament can confer autho- 
 rity upon Courts and .Judges in Canada, 
 to make orders for the examination in 
 the Dominion of any w'itness or jiarty 
 in relation to any civil or commercial 
 matter pending before any British or 
 Foreign tribunal ; and the Dominion 
 Act, 31 Vict. c. 7'!, which contains pro- 
 visions for this puriio^ie, was therefore 
 held to be valid. — E.t parte Smith — 
 Superior Ct., (Quebec ii. 330 
 
 2. Thetakingof evidence tobe used in 
 an action pending in a foreign tribunal 
 is of extra Provincial pertinence, and 
 does not fall within the exclusive legis- 
 lative authority of the Provinces ; the 
 Dominion Act, 31 Vict. c. 76, providing 
 for the taking of such evidence by Pro- 
 vincial Courts, was th'^refore held to be 
 valid. — lie WdhvrcU and Jones.— Ch. 
 D., Ont iii. 315 
 
 In Criminal Matters . . . . i. 709 
 
 -See Ckiminal Law, 1. 
 
 EX POST FACTO L AW-Power to 
 
 enact ii. 678 
 
 See TKMrKKANt'K Act ok 1864, 4. 
 
 EXTRADITION -The Imperial Ex- 
 tradition Act of 1870 is in force in Can- 
 ada, notwiihttanding thi»t the B. N. A. 
 Act previouslj' passed, gives lo the 
 Canadian Parliament jurisdiction to 
 carry out obligations resulting from 
 extradition treaties. — E.t parte Worms. 
 — Q. B,, (Quebec ii. 315 
 
 FEDERAL COMPANY-Power to 
 dissolve or transfer i. 233 
 
 See Provincial Leoislature.s, 2. 
 
 FERRIES— Taxation of . . iv. 370 
 See Navigation anu Shipi'ino, 7. 
 
332 
 
 1) 
 
 2268. 
 
 I'AdR. 
 
 I'lfCtiDii, 
 
 xpenses ; 
 
 (1 an Act 
 
 , Imt not 
 iruvirtion ; 
 
 t Imving 
 n (iuclifc 
 iiH under 
 [.A, Act. 
 sory note 
 
 l\)Hr(|Ut'nt 
 
 Willilt 
 (Quebec ii. 
 
 Province 
 
 Crown for 
 
 I'rovince 
 
 t tiie (late 
 
 u> revenue 
 
 e Crown 
 
 Canada 
 
 mil appro- 
 
 .«i.-(lature, 
 
 i)U(?li '<ect. 
 
 )()ininion 
 
 , aH then 
 
 ,'et liy neet. 
 
 i«ing from 
 
 Ml alter the 
 
 '. I'rovincen 
 
 s, minerals 
 
 Indinff, ac- 
 
 )nBtruction, 
 
 dn Bucli as 
 
 V. Ml reir. 
 
 . . iii. 
 
 ,nce,,T. The 
 infer autlio- 
 B in Canada, 
 ,mi nation in 
 ess or i>arty 
 commercial 
 y British or 
 o Dominion 
 ;ontain» pro- 
 fan therefore 
 rtrle Smith — 
 , . . ii. 
 ■ tobeusedin 
 •\gn tribunal 
 tinence, and 
 elusive leffis- 
 ovinces ; tlio 
 70, providing 
 lence by Pro- 
 ire held to be 
 ,/())! C3.— Ch. 
 . . . iii- 
 
 . . . . !■ 
 
 330 
 
 315 
 70'.) 
 
 W- 
 
 ■Power to 
 . . ii. 078 
 OF 1801, 4. 
 
 ! Imperial Kx- 
 force in Can- 
 ; the B. N. A. 
 gives lo the 
 irisdiction to 
 ■suiting from 
 parte IVorms. 
 .... ii. 315 
 
 ^Y— Power to 
 .... i. 233 
 
 ISLATUHKS, 2. 
 
 of . . iv. 370 
 I SHimNO, 7. . 
 
 2260 
 
 OASES ON THE B.N.A. ACT. 
 
 2270 
 
 FINK AND IMPRFSOXMKNT 
 Power (if Pnivincial I.fgislaturn to 
 authorize piinishiiient of Hiinie olfence 
 by botli niodes. —/;.<• ikiHi Pajti,,,— 
 Superior Ct.. (^lut'bec ii. 
 
 I'AllK. 
 
 320 
 
 ii. .■i22 
 
 I'tii'li V. (In'jllilh ii. itL'l 
 
 FINKS ANM) PF.XAI/rrK.S.-Tlie 
 
 Provincial Legislatures liavi' the right 
 to appropriate tinis to niiiiiieipal or 
 other corporations. — /!( (I //(// v, I'/inr- 
 maciHtical A.isociiiliiiii iif (Jii'iii- . ii. lVjO 
 
 FIRK INSURAXCK. 
 
 .SVf I.v.sui;.\N(K. 
 
 FIRK MAR.SllALS.-ConHtitution 
 of Court i. r)7 
 
 See PHOVINCIAr, LKniSI.ATniKS. 1. 
 
 FISHKRIK.S-The B. X. A. Act in 
 
 assigning to the Parliament of Caiiada 
 the right to legislate with respect to 
 Sea Coast and Inland Fisherii's, did 
 not thereby give authority to deal with 
 (piestions of property and civil rights, 
 such as the ownership of the beds of 
 the rivers, or of the H.-ilieries, or the 
 right of individuals therein. What tlie 
 Act gave to Parliament was a right to 
 legislate in regard to matters of national 
 and general concern, such as forbidding 
 fish to be taken at improper seasons, or 
 in an improper maimer, or with destruc- 
 tive instruments- such general laws ,as 
 are for the benefit of the public at large 
 as well as of the owner. Under the 
 B. N. A. Act the exclusive rights of 
 fishing vested in the proprietors of non- I 
 navigable rivers being in every sense of 
 the word " property, can be interfered 
 with only by the Provincial Legislatures 
 in exercise of the powers given to them 
 to legislate respecting property and 
 matters of a local or private nature. 
 The rights of the Provincial Govern- 
 ments in respect of fisheries in non- 
 navigable waters, the beds of which, 
 not having been granted before con- 
 federation, were then vested in the I'ro- 
 vinces as part of the imblic domain, do 
 not differ from tlie rights of private 
 owners which had been acquired by 
 grant from the Crown before that date, 
 ."vnd a lease made by the Minister of 
 Marine and Fisheries of a non navig- 
 able portion of a river in the Province 
 of New Br.inswick, passing partly 
 through granted and partly through 
 ungranted lands, was therefore held to 
 be void.— 77(f (Jucin v. HoUrtsim. — 
 Supreme Ct., Can ii. 05 
 
 GAOL LIMITS -Power to alter, ii. 487 
 
 .SfcBANKUUrTC'YAN'DlNSOI.VKNCV, 8. 
 
 GOVER\OR-(ii<:N'KRAL-Appeal 
 to under B. N A. Act. sect. 'J3 . i. 810 
 Sec Dkno.minational SC'HOOI.H, 1. 
 
 Authoiity as to issue of Comini.s- 
 siona i. 722, 789 
 
 See PltEKOCATIVK OK CllOW.N, 1. 
 COUNTV ColKT JUDOK. 
 
 HARBOURS -The "Public Har- 
 bours," which bv the B. N. A. Act are 
 declared to be tlie property of the Do- 
 minion, include all harbours, together 
 with the bed and soil thereof, which the 
 
 lAdE. 
 
 public have the right to use. and are not 
 limited to such as at the tiiuu of Con- 
 federation had been artiliiially con- 
 structeil or improved at the public ex- 
 pense ; and wlieie a grant of part of the 
 foreMhure iif a natiUMl iiarlimir uied as 
 such by the public, was made by the 
 Trovincial lioveriimeiit (if I'riiuv Kd- 
 ward Island suliseipieiit tn the aiUiiis- 
 siou of tli.it I'roviiuc into the riiiiui, 
 tlie grant was held to be iin ,ilid. — //,,/• 
 luiin v. 'I'n (II. --Supreme Ct., Can. ii. 117 
 
 IIAIJl) LABOTK - .V Provincial 
 Legislature has power to enforce any of 
 its laws by imposing hard labour as a 
 puiiishiiieiit for the x iolafion of them.— 
 Iliiiiiiiiv. Frtnvliii -(!. .\., Out. . ii. ,'')7(! 
 
 2. •' Iinprisoiii|i,'nt " in .No. l."i of sect. 
 !I2 of the Act of ISOr IB. N. A. Act) 
 means imprisoniiKMit with or without 
 hard lalMiiir. — /An/i/i v. Tlu Qiuni.— 
 I'. G ; ,ii. U4 
 
 I.MPHIilAL ACTS, 
 
 Sii Statitis. 
 
 IMPi:R[ALC()rHT-/'M»w/.,nu- 
 /)(),<( (liitim i'ii.\ Hilt, (reversing the 
 judginentdf tlii' Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia) that the I )oiiiiiiioii Parliament 
 has power to confer additional .iuri>dic- 
 tion (in the Court of Vice Admir.ilty at 
 Halifax, although tliat court was cre- 
 ated by an Imperial Act. — Jllnnnii- 
 (Icncrid i>t Cuiiii'lit v. /'Vi(((. — Supreme 
 Ct., Can iv. 288 
 
 IMPRKSON.MKNT-l'ower to fine 
 and imprison for same offence . . . 
 
 ii. 320, 322, 324 
 
 Sii Fink and iMi'iii.soNMKsr. 
 Power to impose hard lab lur ii. 570 ; 
 
 iii. 114 
 
 S(c Haki) La noun. 
 IMPRI.SOXMKNT FOR DKF5T- 
 Discliarge of debtor. . . . ii. 410, 421 
 
 6V(:Bankkiitcvan1)In.s()lvkncy,7. 
 Dkhiok. 
 Power to abolish ii. 494 
 
 See Ba.nkui TTCV and Insoi.vkncy,!). 
 Power to iiiip(is(' ii. ,527 
 
 See Ciii.Mi.NAi. Law, 7. 
 
 INDIAN LAXD.S-Those "lands 
 reserved fir the Indians," which by 
 sect. 111. sub-s. 24, of the 15. X. A. Act 
 are jilaced under the exclusive legisla- 
 tive jurisdictiim of the Parliament of 
 Gan.ida, are those Indian lands only 
 which have not been surrendered by 
 the Indians, and have been reserved 
 for their use .and do not includ(^ lands 
 to which the Indian title has been ex- 
 tinguished. The Ontario Legislaturi! 
 has ])ower to tax against a vendee un- 
 p.atented lands which the Indians Inivi; 
 surrendered for the purpose of being 
 sold ; all unpatented lands, whether 
 Indian lands or Crown lands, when 
 once agreed to be sold, being upon the 
 same footing as rcsiiects liability to 
 municipal taxation.— (/'nireA v. Fenton. 
 -C. P., Ont i. 831 
 
 2. Sect. IC.l of the B. N. A. Act of 
 1807 gives to each Province' the entire 
 beneficial interest of the Crown in all 
 lands within its boundaries, which at 
 the time of the union were vested in the 
 Crown, subject to such rights as the 
 
2271 
 
 OASES ON THE B, N. A. AOT. 
 
 2272 
 
 'I 
 
 I'AIIK. 
 
 Dominion can iiiaintain iinde'" hvcXh. 
 10s und W.—AHiirnrj/d'nK. of On- 
 lariu V. M< ircr, (8 App. Oas. 7fi7) fol- 
 lowed. 15y royal proclaumtion in 17tl3 
 poHMOHnion wuh f^riintcd to cicitain In- 
 dian tribeB of such lands " partH of our 
 dominions and territoriiM " n.'i, not hav- 
 ing been cedod to or puruhased by tii« 
 Crown, were n-HcrvMl, " f(ir tliti pre- 
 Bunt, " to tlii'ni awthi'ir liiintitiKK'°onndH. 
 Tlui proclamation furtlii-r enacted that 
 all pnrcliaKeH from the IndiaiiH of landM 
 renerved to them must be made on be- 
 half of the Crown I y tlie Governor of 
 tiie colony in wliicii the lands lie, 
 and not by any private jierson. In 1873 
 the land-i in suit, situate in Ontario, 
 which had been in Indian occupation 
 tmtil that date under the said procla- 
 mation, were, to the extent of the whole 
 ri^lit and title of tl)e Indian inhabi- 
 tants therein, surrendered to the Gov- 
 ernment of the I )ominion for the Crown, 
 subject to a certain (pialitied privilege 
 of hunting and fishing : Held, that by 
 force of the proclamation the tenuie of 
 the Indians was a personal and usufruc- 
 tuary right dependent upon the good- 
 will of the Crown ; that the lands were 
 thereby, and at the time of the union, 
 vested in the Crown, subject to the 
 Indian title, which was "an interest 
 other than that of the Province in the 
 same," within the meaning of sect. 109: 
 Held also, that by force of the said 
 surrender the entire beneficial interest 
 in the lands subject to (he privilege was 
 transmitted to the Pruvince in terms of 
 sect. 109. The Dominion power of 
 legislation over lands reserved for the 
 Indians is not inconsistent with the 
 beneficial interest of the Province there- 
 in.— *'<. Catherine's Milhnp and Lum- 
 ber Co. V. The Queen. — 1'. C . . iv. 107 
 
 INFORMATION-Nuisance i. 813 ; 
 
 ii. nry'i 
 
 See ATTOUNKY-GKNKliAr- 
 
 INSOLVENCY. 
 
 See Bankhi'ptct and Insolvency. 
 
 INSURANCK-Regulation of con- 
 tracts - i. 2ri5 
 
 .SccTuADE ANM) C'iMMKUCK, 1. 
 
 Tax on Policies i. 117 
 
 See Taxation, 2. 
 Taxation of Companies . . . iv. 7 
 
 .S'fc Taxation, 0. 
 
 INTERKST-Tlie general law hav- 
 ing limited the rate of interest, in the 
 absence of agreement between the 
 
 Ewties, to six percent., a Provincial 
 egislature has no power to authorize 
 a municipal corporation to charge ten 
 per cent. " increase " on overdue assess- 
 ments, the so-called increase being but 
 another name for interest. A munici- 
 pal corporation was authorized by an 
 Act in force at the time of confederation 
 to charge ten per cent, on overdue 
 assessments ; the Legislature of Quebec 
 passed an Act rei)ealing this entjct- 
 ment, and providing anew for a similar 
 charge: Held, by Johnson, J., that tlie 
 former enactment was effectually re- 
 pealed, and that the new enactment as 
 to increase was invalid. — yjo.is v. Tor- 
 rance— Superior Ct., (Quebec . . ii. 352 
 
 I'AQK. 
 
 2. The general law having provided 
 that on any contract or agreement 
 any person may stipulate for any rate 
 of interest or discount which nniy be 
 a(?reed on, an .\ct of the <.Juebec Le- 
 gislature, authorizing a com|iany to)>ay 
 such rate of interest for nilvances as 
 might be agreed, and to make arrange- 
 ments allowing such interest either by 
 selling obligations bearing a lower rate 
 of interest below par, or l>y issuing 
 them at par, bearing the agretid rate 
 of interest, was hehl to b(( within tlio 
 competence of the Provincial Legisla- 
 ttire. A Provincial Legislature may 
 give local corporations authority to 
 borrow money at any rate of interest 
 already legalized us to other persons 
 having the right to borrow. — ItoiKil 
 Canadian Innurance Co. v. Monlrvat 
 Warehousiny Co.- Superior Ct., (Que- 
 bec ii. 301 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUORS-Un. 
 
 der the exclusive legislative authority 
 given to it with regard to " Munici- 
 pal Institutions " and to "matters of 
 a merely local or private nature in the 
 Province," a Provincial Legislature 
 can confer on municipal corporations 
 power to pass by-laws wholly iirohibi-! 
 ting the sale of spirituous li(|uor8 in' 
 shojis and places other than houses 
 of public entertainment, and limiting 
 the number of tavern licenses ; and 
 the ccmferr iiig such power is not an in- 
 terference with " the regulation of 
 trade and commerce," assigned exclus- 
 ively to the Dominion Parliament.— 
 Slavin V. Villaiie of Oriltia.—i.l.M.,-" 
 Ont i. G88 
 
 2. An Act of the Parliament of Can- 
 ada prohibited the traffic in intoxica- 
 tinjf liquors, except under certain re- 
 strictions, in any county or city the 
 inhabitants of which chose to take the 
 steps therein i)rescribed for the adop- 
 tion of its provisions : held, by the 
 Privy Council, that such an Act was 
 within the jurisdiction of the Domin- 
 ion Parliament. - -ii(/.ss(7/ V, The Queen. 
 -P. C ii. 12 
 
 3. The state of things existing in 
 the confederated Provinces at the time 
 of confederation, and more i)articul- 
 arly that which was recognized by law 
 in all or most of the Provinces, is a 
 usefulguide in the interpretation of the 
 meaning attached by the Imperial 
 Parliament to indefinite exjjressions 
 employed in the H. K. A. Act. At 
 the time of confederation, the ri^ht to 
 prohibit the sale of intoxicating licp 
 uors was possessed by the municipal 
 authorities under the laws in force re- 
 specting municipal institutions in the 
 then Province of Canada and in Nova 
 Scotia, and conse()uently is to b^ 
 deemed included in the i»rovision as to 
 ■' municipal institutions " contained in 
 sect. 92, subs. 8, of tlie 15. N. A. Act. 
 The Provincial Legislatures have the 
 power for the purposes of immicipal 
 institutions to pass a prohibitory 
 li<luor law, or a licpior law which is 
 prohibitory except under certain con- 
 ditions ; this power is not incompat- 
 ible with the right of the Dominion 
 Parliament to jiass a prohibitory liquor 
 
S61 
 
 2272 
 
 I'AUK. 
 
 rovicled 
 
 frccmt'iit 
 
 iiny rato 
 
 inny be ■ 
 
 >l)f(; Le- 
 
 ly ti>j)ay 
 
 :iijci'H UH 
 
 iirntiiKB- 
 
 'itlitT by 
 
 )Wt'r rate 
 
 isHiiing 
 
 ri'ril rate 
 
 thin tho 
 
 LcKiNla- 
 
 11 re may 
 
 loiity to 
 
 f intorest 
 
 r ptTHons 
 
 - Itdi/til 
 
 Montreal 
 
 Ct., t^UB- 
 
 . ii. 
 )RS-Um- 
 
 iHitliority 
 Muniui- 
 
 latterH of 
 
 lire in tho 
 
 egislaturo 
 rporatioiiH 
 ly ])r()hibi-| 
 li(liior8 in I 
 an liouseH 
 d limitiDK 
 uses ; and 
 
 not an in- 
 ilation of 
 led exclus- 
 lianicnt.— 
 Ua.-(i.\i.~' 
 . . i. U88 
 
 ent of Can- 
 11 intoxica- 
 
 certain re- 
 tjr city the 
 to take the 
 r the adop- 
 !d, by tlie 
 an Act was 
 he Doniin- 
 
 Thc Qiicai. 
 
 . . . ii. 
 
 existing in 
 at tlie time 
 ■e ])articul- 
 i/.ed by law 
 •incei', ia a 
 ation of the 
 e Imi)erial 
 expressions 
 .. Act. At 
 the ri^ht to 
 icatiiif? lie)- 
 3 municipal 
 in force re- 
 tiona in the 
 lid ill Nova 
 f is to br) 
 wision as to 
 )i)ntaiiied in 
 
 N. A. Act. 
 B8 have the 
 f municipal 
 
 proliibitory 
 aw which is 
 certain con- 
 it incompat- 
 e Dominion 
 bitory liquor 
 
 2273 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT, 
 
 2274 
 
 12 
 
 PAdK. 
 
 law for thp wlioli' Doininion. — f'n,;,rtr- 
 iitiiin of Thru- JUnrx v. Sitlli. - <J. 11., 
 <^iebec ii. 'JHO 
 
 4. Jho I'rovincial Ij('(fiHlatnic» may 
 make reasdnablc ri'KulatinnH fur the 
 ))reHervatiiiiiol podd cirdiT in the muii- 
 loipalitii'rt umlcr their control, and 
 may, for tlii-t purpose, restrict tlie huIo 
 of HpiritiKiUs lii|U(irs. The iirovisiiin 
 of the l,»il(bec' Statute, HH Vict. c. 71, 
 B. 4, ordering liduses in which spiritu- 
 ous liquors ari' sold, ti> be closed on 
 Sundays, and on every day frmn elevi'ii 
 of the clock at iiiK'ht, until live nf the 
 clock in the morning, is within the 
 competence of a rmvincial Lej^isla- 
 ture. — AVoidM v. I'l'irpnrntidn af (Jiitluc 
 
 — Sujierior Ct., <^iiebec .... ii. [WH 
 
 5. Provincial lieKislntures can make 
 lawh regulatinjf the sale cif licpiurs 
 in taverns and public places, in order 
 the better to inaintiiiii peace and good 
 order, but they canmit directly or in- 
 directly prohibit tho manufacture or 
 sale of spiritu(uis liquors, or other ar- 
 ticles of commeice, or confer authority 
 for that purpose on municipal councils. 
 — Dc St. Aubiiii V. //(i/'raMcc. — t'ircuit 
 Ct., (Quebec ii. ,'j!»2 
 
 (5. A Statute of Nova Scotia, (lassed 
 after confederation, imposed penalties 
 for retailing intoxicating liquors witli- 
 out a license, and jirovided that licen- 
 ses should onl.v be Knvntod upon the 
 recommendation of the ^rand jury, 
 concurred in by two-thirds of the mem- 
 bers present, and accompanied by a 
 petitiim for tlie license from two-thirds 
 of the ratepayers of the poUinpf dis- 
 trict in which the tavern was to be es- 
 tablished. Knactmenta not essentially 
 different were in force in the Province 
 before confederation ; Nclil, that the 
 Act in (piestion waa not ultra vires of 
 the Legialature. Jfdd, further, that 
 if the restricti(ms were ultra vires, the 
 proper course waa to apply for a man- 
 damus to compel the ffranting of a 
 license, and that a refusal t) grant 
 licenses did not justify selling with- 
 out a license or release from the st.a- 
 tutory jienalty thereby incurred. A 
 Provincial Legislature is entitled to 
 legislate with a view to regulate with- 
 in the Province the Hale of whatever 
 may injuriou-'ly affect the lives, 
 health, morals or well being of the 
 community, whether it be intoxicat- 
 ing liquors, poisons, or unwholesiime 
 provisions, if such legislation is made \ 
 bona fide with the object of regulation 
 alone, even thdu^'h to a certain extent 
 trade and commerce are alfected 
 thereby. Kri'fc v. ..1/c/y'iiH«H— Su- 
 preme Ct., N.S ii. 400 
 
 7. A New Brunswick statute, 3(i Vict. 
 c. 10, empowered the General Ses- 
 sions of the Peace to grant licenses 
 as in their discretion they should 
 think proper, and they having refused 
 to grant a license to any person what- 
 ever, a mandamus was granted for 
 the purpose of compelling them to 
 issue a license to the applicant. The 
 Legislature of New Prunssvick by 
 an Act subsequent to confederation 
 declared that " no license for the sale 
 of si>irituouB liquors shall be granted 
 
 , . , . l'Al•^■. 
 
 'IT iHsiieil williin any iiarish or muni- 
 cipality in the I'rdvirue when a 
 inujority (if tlitt ratepayers, residents 
 in sueh parish (it munieipality, shall 
 P'titidii the Sessions or muiiicipai 
 Cdiiiieil against issuing any license 
 witliin such parish or niuniVipalily." 
 I'rior to confederation, there liad 
 been no legislation of tliis character 
 in New liriiiiswick, and this enact- 
 ment was held liy the Supreme Cunt 
 of that Province to be l)e\ond the 
 competence of tho Legislature. Iti ■ 
 lliiKi V. Jiintici.'i III' A'(Ht/'«. — Sui reine 
 Ct., N.IJ . . . . . •. . . ' ii. VM 
 
 8. The Piovincial Legislatures have 
 authority to iirohilvit or rcgiil ite the 
 sale (jf iKpiors in saioon,-. ,r tavi rns on 
 Sundavs. or at spe>!ial times. The 
 Statute 42-i;i Vict. c. M'^iehec) wlil'^h 
 re(|iiir'B houses in w'ncli spiritiidiis li- 
 (pioLH, etc., are sold, to be closed dur- 
 ing the whole of Kunilay, and (Ui eviiry 
 other day between 11 p.m. and ."> a.m. 
 is valid. (Kitchie, C. .1., and .Strong 
 ami Fournier, ^J.)~l'()Uliii v. ('(irjinv- 
 ad'oH ((/■ <,'«('(((■— SiipremeCt., Can. iii. 2.10 
 
 9. The old Province of Canada by 
 an Act inciirporatiiig the city of Three 
 Rivers conferred !)n the council auth- 
 ority to make Ijy-Uws for restraining 
 and prohibiting the sa'e of intoxica- 
 ting li()Uor8 or for authorizing such 
 sale subject to such conditions as 
 might be deemed expedient. In 1875 
 the Legialature of <.Juebec by a con- 
 Bolidatiim Act rejjcaled the above and 
 other Acts relating to Three Kivers 
 and re-enacted the former provisions 
 as to the sale of intoxicating li(iuor8 : 
 Htlil, (affirming the judgment of the 
 Queen's liench) that the Act of 1875 
 was valid. — Suite v. Corporation of 
 TArffyiiirrs.— Supreme Ct., Can. iv. 30.') 
 
 10. The Canada Temperance Act be- 
 ing a general law enacted by tho 
 Dcnninion I'arli.ament, when brought 
 into force in any municipality by a 
 majority of the votes of tlie (|ualiiiod 
 electors therein, may be enforciid 
 through the medium of Provincial offi- 
 cers appointed and paid for according 
 to Provincial legislation, and a Provin- 
 cial law making pmiaion for such 
 enforcement was held to be valid.— 
 LiceiiKi- ('iimiiiix.ii(,iii rn ni /•'runloiac v. 
 Couiitii »t l<'r'iiitiiHic.—C\i. i). Out. iv. C83 
 
 Criminal offence . . . . ii. (>0(i, (jKJ 
 S(r TKMPKItAXCK .VlT Of bSiil, 3. 
 
 Licenses. 
 Se/: LiCK.NsKS. 
 
 Regulati(m of taverns . . . iii. 144 
 See DKLi-:(i.\riON, 1. 
 
 ,11] DCiKS.—Jiirin'liHion resitrctinri] 
 —My an Act of the Legislature of 
 New Urunswick since confedt^ration, 
 3!) Vict. c. :">, it was provided that 
 Courts should be established for the 
 trial of civil causes before commis- 
 sioners apj)ointed by the Lieiitenant- 
 (Jovernor in Council. The jurisdic- 
 tion of the coimnissiduers was limited 
 to .?40 in actions of debt, and SIB in 
 actions of tort ; and was further re- 
 stricted in special cases. Un an appli- 
 cation to set aside a judgment obtain- 
 
™arr f 
 
 2275 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. k- ACT. 
 
 2276 
 
 I'Ain:. 
 I'cl bt'furu n coiiiiiiiHiiniittr appointt'd an 
 alxivii pniviili'd, on the );rciiiiiil tlint 
 HJiice tliH paHHiii)( iif tli)> M. N, A. Aut, 
 a Lit'Utenant-ticivernor liuil no piiwnr 
 to appoint •hultfi'H uf any kind, th(< 
 New lininHwicIt Act wan held to Ix- 
 valid. Alli'n. C. .F., ami Diitr, ■!., din. 
 
 .Siipivnif 
 . . ii. r)Oi» 
 
 Hentinff. - (/ainnni v. HaiiUii. 
 Ct„ N.H 
 
 2. In the Prcivincn of Ontario tlicre 
 went in I'xiHtence at thr Union, in ad- 
 dition to tlif Hiipciior and County 
 CouitH, othiT ConrtH Mtyli'd DiviHJon 
 CourtH, for the trial of wiiiall cauncH j 
 of tlii'Bd DiviHion Courtu then' were 
 81'veral in every county ; and they had 
 Hince their cHtahliHlinient been alwuyii 
 presided over by the County Court 
 tJudgeH. An Ontario Htiitvite, panKe I 
 after the Union, provided in etfect that 
 two or more countieM niiKlit be tfrouped 
 toffether by the Lieutenant-* iov«rnor 
 for judicial purposeH therein Hpecitied, 
 and the Act conferred on the County 
 Court .ludueH of (froiiped counties, the 
 same authority to try suits in eacii of 
 the ffrouped counlie-<, us tliey jHiHsesB- 
 ed in their own counties respectively 
 Hdil, that the Provincial Legislature 
 had complete jurisdiction over the 
 liivision Courts, and could appoint 
 the officers to preside over them, and 
 that the enactment in (|ue8tion, as 
 regarded these Courts, was valid. 
 Armour, J., dissenting. WHhdii v. 
 Mctfuhr-il. B. \)., Ont. . . . ii. <>(!5 
 
 3. An Act of the Ontario Lei^is- 
 latiiro provided that the County Judge 
 of one county might |>re8ide at tlie 
 Sessions in a ccmnty other than tliat 
 of which he was .fudge : Ilrhl, by 
 Armour and O'Connor, .1.1. , (Wilson, 
 C. J., doubting), that this enactment 
 was not within the competence of the 
 Legislature. — (rihsan v, MclJuiiald — 
 
 q. Ji. D., Ont iii. .'U!) 
 
 Commission of en(|uiry . . , i. 78!) 
 
 <SVe County Coubt Judge. 
 JURORS.— Selection of . ii. 644, 653, n. 
 
 .SVeCiiiMiNAi, Law, 9, 10. 
 
 JUSTICES OF THE PEACE- An 
 
 Act of the old I'rovinco of Canada 
 authorised the Governor to appoint 
 Police Magistrates ; the Act was tem- 
 porary : J/rld, that an Act of the On- 
 tario Legislatiu'e, continuing the same 
 in force, was valid. — 2'Ac Quvai v. 
 Raw. -(.l.\i.,Ont i. 810 
 
 2. Under the B. N. A. Act, the 
 ri^ht to appoint Magistrates; such as 
 District Magistrates, in the Province 
 of t^uebec, is vested in the Provincial 
 Executives ; and this right is not 
 affected by the provisions contained in 
 sects. 90 and 130 of that Act.— lieffina 
 
 V. Hornrr.—ll.li., Quebec . . . ii. 317 
 
 3. The right of the Provincial Leg- 
 islatures to legislate in relation to the 
 Administration of Justice, includes 
 aright to make provision for the ap- 
 pointment of Police Magistrates and 
 Justices of the Peace by the Lieuten- 
 ont-Governor.- iicflt'na v. JknncU. — C^. 
 
 B. D„ Ont ii. 684 
 
 4. Held by Wilson, C. J. (Armour 
 and O'Connor, JJ., expressing in this 
 
 I'AliK. 
 case no opinion on the pi int), that the 
 power to appoint Police Mngistrates 
 IM vested in tlie Lit utenant-(iovernors 
 of the I'roviiices under sect. 02 of the 
 U.N. A. Act.— Iliehiirdniiii v. Jlansmn. 
 -l/.B.!)., Ont iv. 030 
 
 t). Laws providing for the appoint- 
 ment of ilustices of the Peace relate 
 to the administration of justice and 
 fall within the powers of the Provin- 
 cial Legislatures.— AVvihi/ v. /*i(.i/(. iv. (J90 
 
 L.\NI).*i. —//(/./, that a conveyance 
 by the Pi'iivince of liritish Columbia 
 to the Dominion of " Public Lamls," 
 being in substance an assignment of 
 its right to appriipiiati! the territorial 
 revenues nrisuig therefrom, does not 
 imply any transfer of its interest in 
 revenues arising from the jirerogative 
 rights (if the Crown. The nrecious 
 metals in, \ipoii and under sucli lands 
 are not incident-i erf the land but be- 
 long I0 the Ciown, and, under sect. 
 lOiloftheh. N. A. \ctof lH(i7, bene- 
 ficially to the Province, and an inten- 
 ti in to transfer them must be express- 
 ed or necescariiy implied.— yl»or»(.(/- 
 Hinouil uf I'lritifli Ciihuahiii v. Attur- 
 mil (h)nr<i( of tUiHiuta. — V.C , iv. 241 
 
 Escheat iii. 1 
 
 .SV( I^HCMKAT. 
 
 Indian Lands. 
 
 Sec Iniiian La.n'Iks. 
 License to hold iv. 701 
 
 ine .M(UITMAIN. 
 
 LKGISLATIVE POVVER-The B. 
 
 N. A. Act in assigpmg either to the 
 Dominion or Provincial Legislatures, 
 power to legislate on any particular 
 subject, gives at the same time all the 
 incidental subjects of legislation neces- 
 sary to the exercise of the power so 
 assigned. — Hennitt v. Pli<trmaccutical 
 Associatiun of Qiuhec.—il. B., (Que- 
 bec ii. 2!)0 
 
 2. IIM, that 34 & 35 Vict, c. 28, 
 which authorizes the Parliament of 
 Canada to provide for " the adminis- 
 tration, peace, order and good govern- 
 ment of any territory, not for the time 
 being included in any Province," vests 
 in that Parliament the utmost discre- 
 tion of enactment for the attainment 
 of those objects. Accordingly Cana- 
 dian Act 43 Vict. c. 25, is intra vires 
 the Legislature. — Sect. 7<>, sub-s. 7, 
 which prescribes that full notes of evi- 
 dence be taken, is literally complied 
 with when those notes are taken in 
 shoithand. — yfi't? v. The Qucin.—l'. 
 C iv. 1 
 
 LEGISLATURES OF ONTARIO 
 AND QUEBEC— The powers confer- 
 red by the B. N. A. Act, 18(i7, sect. 
 129, upon the Provincial Legislatures 
 of Ontario and Quebec, to repeal and 
 alter the statutes uf the old Parlia- 
 ment of Canada, are precisely co- 
 extensive with the jwwers ol direct 
 legislation with which those bodies are 
 invested by the other clauees of the 
 Act of 18G7. The Act 22 Vict. c. (W, 
 of the Province of Canada, which 
 created a corporation having its cor- 
 porate existence and rights in the Pro- 
 
2277 
 
 CA8E8 ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2278 
 
 :i5i 
 
 vinomi of Ontniio unci i^iiflx-c, after- 
 wnrdd crcatiMl liy th« M. -N. A. A<t, 
 could not, nftiir tlm H, N. A. Act, Its 
 ropHBli'd or iiiiHlitiiMl l>y tln' Lfniida. 
 ture of Hither of tluMi- I'roviiictM, or 
 by tlut t'oiijoiiit openttioii of Ixith I'm 
 vincinl LcKiMlnturcH, hut only by tliH 
 I'arliarncot of tin* Doininion, Tlii< 
 <iunbttc Act, ;i8 Vict, c, (1», which iw- 
 Humitd to rcpcnl and iviiicikI tiic Mnid 'i2 
 Vict. 0. fill, iind (t) to (IcHtroy acorpor- 
 
 atioii which hivd I n creittt'd l)y the 
 
 I'ftrliaineiit of the i'roviiice of CJiin- 
 udu before the H. N. A. .Act, and to 
 .■(iilmtitute a new corporation ; ('2) to 
 alter materially the clann of perMons 
 interented in the corporate fiuwlH, and 
 not merely to impose conditions upon 
 the tranHaction of buHiiieHH by the 
 corporation within the Province, wan 
 held invalid. CilirniH luwniucf Com- 
 panii of (lantiila v. J'iii:i(iiin (7 App. 
 Can. !••>), approved and diHtinifuiHheil. 
 — Jhihic V. Titniiitrnlilii H Itnard.— 
 
 r.c i. 
 
 .SVr PHOVINriAI, LkoIsi.ATIKK.S. 
 
 LICKN.SKS -I'nwcy I; makr lillCH 
 rm/xrtinf). ]~'rU(\ ri^ht conferred on 
 Provincial liCtfiHlaturun by Bub-H. it of 
 Beet. !t2. of the B. N. A. Act, to deal 
 with " Hhop, Haloon, tavern, auc- 
 tioneer, and other lici'iiHeH," does not 
 eKtend to licenHe' on orewers. Itniiun 
 V. Till/lor (H(i U. (!. (; 1}. 21H), over- 
 ruled. Kitchie and Htronif, .IJ., diH- 
 sentinp.— -s'l l(r»^ V. Tlit yi/n/i.— Sup- 
 reme Ct., Can i. 114 
 
 2. The LegiHlature of Ontario hav- 
 ing; paHaed an Act to reffulate tavern 
 ai.d whop liceiines : lltUt, tliat thuy 
 had power to enact tlutt any perHon 
 who, having violated any of th(! pro- 
 viHioiiH of the Act, Hlmiild compromiHe 
 the offence, and any person who should 
 be a party to auch conipruniise should, 
 on ccmviction, Im imprisoned in the 
 common gaol for three months ; and 
 that Huch enactment was not opposed 
 to sect. 91, Hub-H. 27, of tho B. N. A. 
 Act, by which criminal law is asHifi^ned 
 exclusively to the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment. — licijina V. linardman. — (^. B., 
 Ont i. 076 
 
 3. The B. N. A. Act in conferring 
 leK'slative jurindiction over particular 
 Kubjecta, must be held to have given 
 at the Bame time the powers needed 
 for the effective exercise of tho juris- 
 diction granted ; consec^uently, the 
 right conferred on Provincial Legis- 
 latures to make laws in relation to 
 shop, Halo(m, tavern, auctioneer and 
 other licenses includes the right of im- 
 posing penaltioH for violating tho pro- 
 vincial laws in relation to those Hub- 
 joctB. Provincial enactments by 
 which persons who sell licpior by 
 wholesale are retpiired to take out a 
 license are not invalid as an interfer- 
 ence with trade and commorce. — A'r 
 parte LnriUv. — Superior Ct., (Que- 
 bec ii. 3I'J 
 
 4. Provincial Legislatures can im- 
 pose fines and penalties for selling 
 liquor without license. — yifz/JKa v. J/c- 
 A/««an.— Supreme Ct., N. B. . . ii. 489 
 
 IllTI' 
 
 alia, 
 
 r the 
 
 iit,'llt 
 
 III- 
 
 I'ro- 
 
 Imo 
 
 •re 
 
 .'>. Per .^pragg.', ('. .1.: The jurisdj. 
 tion of a Picnincial Legislature to It.. 
 gislate lesperling liceiiMes is iiiitcoll- 
 lined to theoliiectof raising a nveniie. 
 li'iniiit v. h'rmiliii. — V,, A., Ont . ii. 
 
 •1. The iiiHpeclor of Ijei'lioes f,ir the 
 revenue (liKtnct, iif Montreal, charged 
 aclrayiiian In the eiiiplny nf c.rlaiii 
 brewers (liilv licensed under the |».im- 
 iiii.iii Siatiite, l;t Vict., c. Ill, liefore 
 thii(;oiirt if Special Sessions nf the 
 Peace, at Moiiliial, with having sold 
 beer (illtsiile the IjliMiin-ss preliiii.cs of 
 the brewers, lint wllliin the said re- 
 veinie di«trict in ciiniraM'iilinn nf the 
 • .liiebi'C liieeiise Act of I'^Ts. 
 upon the brewers claiiiiii 
 tlial. being licensed liri'Wri 
 l)oiniiii<in Statute lli^y ha 
 to sell l)eer by ami tlirongli 
 ployees anil ilrayineii witlrei 
 vinclal license, ami thai tli<' 
 License .Vet and its aniembie 
 ultra viies, and if C'lnMiimii,,,,-,! ,|ii| 
 net authorize the cmnplaiiit, caused a 
 writ of proliililiiuii 111 III' issni'il mit of 
 the Superior (Jiiert .■nioiningllie Cuiirt 
 of Special .Sosii.iis of the Peace frnni 
 further proc ling; //.'/, per Kit- 
 chie, Vj. .[., and Strong, Foitrnier and 
 
 Henry, .(.!., thai the (^nel License 
 
 A(!t ami its Hiaendnients were intra 
 vires, and that the (!oiirt of Special 
 Sessions of the Pence at Montreal, 
 having jurisdiction to try tlie alleged 
 offence, and being the pr.', it trilmnal 
 to decide the ipiestioii of fact and of 
 law involved, a writ of prohibition 
 did not lie. Per Taseliereau and 
 (iwynne, .1.1., that the case was one 
 which it was proper for the .Siiperiur 
 
 o ■ 
 
 pri 
 
 i,hieliec License Act of 1,M"8 iinpiises 
 no obligation on brewers to take mil a 
 Provincial license to enable them to 
 sell their beer, and thercfme the Court 
 of Special .Sessions of the Peace hail 
 no jurisdiction, ami prohibition shoiilil 
 issue absolutely. — Smthlv, \ license 
 from the l)omiiiion(ioverniiieiitgrant- 
 ing nnthority to a brewer to manufac- 
 ture beer, does not confer the right to 
 sell the beer iimniifactured under such 
 license elsewhere than on the brewer's 
 Iiremises. — Mohon v. Liimhi -.Supreme 
 Ct., Can iv. 
 
 7. The New Brunswick Liiiuor Li- 
 cense Act, 18H7, provides that applica- 
 tions for licenses must be accompanied 
 by a certificate that the applicant is a 
 fit person to hold a lie 'iise :oid his pre- 
 mises suitable for tn^ purpose, and 
 that such certificate shall be signed by 
 at least one-third of the ratepayers 
 for th(^ polling suiidivision. The Act 
 also provides that no person holding a 
 license shall be ijualilied to sit on the 
 coinmission of the peace, to be a 
 member of a municipal council or a 
 teacher in a imhlic school : llrld, that; 
 these enactments were valid. — />u(i- 
 alur V. /'. /cm— Supremo Ct., Can. iv. 
 
 Butchers ii. XVt, 
 
 Six TllAIIK AM) COMMKIICK, 2. 
 
 Insurance 
 
 Sec ThaDK A.NI) COMMKili h-, 1 
 
 I'A.iK. 
 
 .^T(! 
 
 I'liiuii iw "!».' |>><'i'i ■ (•>■ bill ttiiiriiini 
 
 Jourt to deal with by proceedings on 
 irohibition. — Per (Jwynne, ,]. The 
 
 •.m 
 
 425 
 .110 
 
 i. L'liS 
 
2279 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. AOT. 
 
 2280 
 
 9D 
 
 n 
 tti 
 
 K 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 PAOK. 
 
 Stamp Duty i. 117 
 
 Sec Taxation, 2. 
 
 liei7TEnant-govp:rn()r or 
 
 ONTARIO— Issue uf Comniinaions to 
 hold Courts of Assize i. 722 
 
 .See Pkkrogative ok Citow.v, 1, 
 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, iv. 559 
 
 See Railways, 4. 
 
 LIQUOR.— Prohibition and regula- 
 tion of sale. 
 
 See Intoxicating Lkjuoks. 
 LICENSES. 
 
 Sec LiCKNSKS. 
 
 L(JCAL AND PRIVATE MAT- 
 TERS. 
 
 Sec Mattkhh ov a Mkhkly Local 
 OR Private Nature. 
 
 LOCAL WORKS AND UNDER 
 TAKINGS.— By an Act of tiie Prov- 
 ince of New Brunswick; passed prior 
 to confederation, the plaintiff company 
 was incorporated for the purpose of 
 constructing a railway fi;pm the city of 
 St. John, in that Province, westward 
 to the boundary of the United States. 
 After confederation another Act (32 
 Vict. c. 54) was passed for the purpose 
 of removing doubts respecting the lia- 
 bility of subscribers for shares in the 
 company, and this latter Act was held 
 to be within the competence of the 
 Provincial Legislature, The fact of 
 the legislature of a foreign country 
 authorizing the construction of a line 
 of railway in that country for the pur- 
 nose of connecting with a Provincial 
 railway, does not in any way affect the 
 authority of the Legislature of the 
 Province to legislate with respect to 
 the railway within the bounds of the 
 Province. — Kuropaniaml Nnrth Amer- 
 ican Raihcay Co. v. Thomas. — Supreme 
 Ct., N. B ii. 439 
 
 2. All works which are wholly with- 
 in one Province, whether the under- 
 taking to which they belimg be for a 
 commercial purpose or otherwise, are 
 within the control, and subject to the 
 legi.slation of the Pro\ince in which 
 they are situate, luiless they are by 
 the Parliament of Canada declared to 
 be for the general advantage of Can- 
 ada, or for the advantage of two or 
 more of the Provinces. The Domin- 
 ion Parliament cannot without such 
 declaration, authorize a company to 
 establish in two or more Provinces, 
 works needing special legislative au- 
 thority, and which are m their nature 
 local in each Province, the jurisdiction 
 in such case to give the needed author- 
 ity, being determined by the loc.'ttion 
 and object of the works, and not by 
 the circumstance that the company is 
 authorized to make them in several 
 Provinces. A comp.any was incorpo- 
 rated by Act of the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment for the purpose of establishing 
 telev)hone lines in the several Provinces 
 of the Dominion, but not of connect- 
 ing two or more Provinces by telephone 
 lines, nor was the undertaking declar- 
 ed to be for the general advantage of 
 Canada, or of two or more of the Prov- 
 inces, and in the absence of these cun- 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 dition.^ it was held that the Act, so far 
 as it professed to confer a right to 
 erect poles in the streets of cities and 
 towns was invalid.— iic'/i'iia v. Mohr. — 
 Q. B., tjuebec ii. 257 
 
 MAGISTRATES— Appointment of. 
 Sec Jl'.stick.s of the Peace. 
 
 lMARITIMb;COURT-TheAct 40 
 Vict. c. 21, D., establishing a Maritime 
 Court, with jurisdiction limited to the 
 I'rovince of Ontario, is within the 
 powers of the Dominion Parliament.— 
 The Picton. — Supreme Ct., Can. . i. .557 
 
 MARKETS- A statute of the Prov- 
 ince of Quebec gave to the council of 
 the city of Montreal authority to reg- 
 ulate and license the sale in any private 
 stall or shop in the city, outside of the 
 public meat markets, of any meat, fish, 
 vegetables, or provisions usually solil 
 in markets : Hdd, affirming the judg- 
 ments of the Courts below, that the 
 enactment was intra vires of the Pro- 
 vincial Legislature. — Pifjeon v. Jtccord- 
 er'a Co«r<. — Supreme Ct., Canada, iv. 442 
 
 Power to regulate i. 75(5 
 
 Sec Municipal Institutions. 
 
 MATTERS OF A MERELY LO- 
 CAL OR PRIVATE NATURE- 
 
 Direct taxation for local [purpose. i. 95 
 Sec Taxation, 1. 
 Property in Province . . . . ii. 241 
 Sec Property and Civil Rights, 
 1. 
 Relief of Insolvent Company . i. 03 
 Sec Bankruptcy and Insolvency, 
 
 Restricting sale of Liquor . . i. 088 
 Sec Intoxicating Lujuors, 1. 
 
 MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — 
 
 ftff/isira^i'oji)— The Iniperi.al Parliament 
 having enacted since confederation that 
 any person registered as a medical 
 practitioner under the English Medi- 
 cal Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90), shall be 
 entitled to be registered in any colony 
 upon p.ayment of the fees required for 
 such regi.stration and that the term 
 "colony" shall include any of Her 
 M.ajesty's ))ossession8 which huve a 
 legislature, the enactir>ent was held to 
 apply to Canada and to override Pro- 
 vmcial regulations for the examination 
 of applicants for registi'ation, notwith- 
 standing the coi ^deration Act and 
 the exclusive power given thereby to 
 the Provinces to legislate in relation to 
 education. — lieijina v. t'olleyc of Phi/- 
 sicians and Siirt/eoiKi, Ontario.— l^. B. 
 Ont ■ i. 701 
 
 MILITARY AND NAVAL SER- 
 VICE.— The Parliament of Canada 
 has, under the B. N. A. Act.fexclusive 
 jurisdiction in matters relating to 
 militia, military and naval .fervicc, and 
 defence, and consequently, the pro- 
 visions of the Imi)erial Army Act, 1881, 
 do not apply to Canada, «o as to make 
 persons not connected with the active 
 militia of the Dominion liable in re- 
 spect of acts which are offences under 
 the Imperial Act, but not under the 
 
 '^■^- •■--"= 
 
2280 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 hat the Act, so far 
 
 confer a right to 
 
 ;reet8 of cities and 
 
 -Itci/ina V. Mohr. — 
 
 ii. 257 
 
 1 — Apix)intmeiit of. 
 TUB Pkack. 
 
 URT— TlieAct 40 
 ilishing a M.iritime 
 tion limited to the 
 io, is within the 
 nion Parliament.— 
 Tie Ct., Can. . i. 557 
 
 tatute of the Prov- 
 I to the council of 
 1 authority to reg- 
 sale in any private 
 ;ity, outside of the 
 <, (if any meat, fibh, 
 isions usually sold 
 rffirming the judg- 
 ts below, that the 
 3, vires of the Pro- 
 —Pi(jeon V, Record- 
 e Ct., Canada, iv. 442 
 
 i. 75f) 
 
 [N8TITLTI0N8. 
 
 a mp^rkly lo- 
 ltk nature- 
 
 local [purpose. i. 
 
 95 
 
 nee . . . . ii. 241 
 iNi) Civiiy Rights, 
 
 t Company . i. 03 
 
 ■ AND InSOLVKNX'Y, 
 
 Liquor . . i. 088 
 G Liquors, 1. 
 
 ACTITIONER — 
 
 nperial Parliament 
 confederation that 
 red as a medical 
 le Enj^Ush Medi- 
 ct. c. yO). shall be 
 sred in any colony 
 ? fees required for 
 id that the term 
 hide any of Her 
 tiH which h;.ve a 
 tment was held to 
 
 to override Pro- 
 >r the examination 
 Istration, notw'th- 
 leration Act and 
 
 given thereby to 
 slate in relation to 
 . i 'oil eye of Pill/- 
 , Ontario.— il. Ii. 
 
 i. 701 
 
 ) NAVAL SER- 
 inent of Canada 
 \. Act.lexclusive 
 .ters relating to 
 naval .lervicc, and 
 piently, the pro- 
 ■ Army Act, 1881, 
 ida, «<) as to make 
 d with the active 
 iiiun liable in re- 
 ire offences under 
 lit not under the 
 
 . I" I If WII.V 
 
 2281 
 
 OASES OK THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2282 
 
 roi 
 
 7.)ii 
 
 :^57 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Militia Act of Canada.— //i//(/irs v, 
 Templ(. — Sessions of the Peace, Ciue- 
 bec ii. Hilt) 
 
 MORTMAIX.-An Act of the Do- 
 minion Parliament, incurporating a 
 company and jiuriiorting to enable tiiu 
 company to hold lands, may operate as 
 a license f n m the Crown for this pur- 
 pose. Such an Act would not prt^vent 
 the Province from passing a law i)re- 
 venting altogether or restri ting the 
 holding of lands l>y corporations in the 
 Province — McDioriiiid v. HiK/hes. — 
 (^.B.!)., Ont ' . iv. 
 
 MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIOX.S- 
 Tho provision contained in the Munici- 
 pal Act of Ontario, authorizing city 
 councils to pass by-laws " for prevent- 
 ing criers and vendors 'of small- ware 
 from practising their calling in the 
 market, public streets and vacant lots 
 adjacent thereto," is not ultra vires of 
 the Ontario Legislature, as being a 
 reguHtion of trade and commerce. In 
 giving jurisdiction to the Provincial 
 Legislatures in .ill matters relating to 
 municipal institutions, the intention 
 must have been that these Legislatures 
 should have iMiwer to alter and amend 
 all the existing laws with respect to 
 such institutions, and especially to en- 
 large the sccipe of a power existing in 
 the Municipal Act at the time of con- 
 federation. — Harris v. Cilii of Hitmil- 
 ton.— (I. B.,Ont . . .' .' . . i. 
 
 Nuisances iii. 
 
 See NUISANCKS. 
 
 Sale of Liquor. 
 
 See I.NTOXlCATl.NG LUilOliS, 
 
 NAVIGATION AND SH 1 PPINO. 
 The power to incorporate a iw.vi^'ation 
 company the operations of which are 
 limited to a particular Province, be- 
 longs exclusively to the Legislature of 
 such Province. — MacdoiKjnll v. Union 
 Nariij ition Co.—*}. 15., l,|nebec . ii. 
 
 2. The (iovernnicnt of the Province 
 of Quebec having by letters jiatent 
 granted a, water lot exteiuling into deep 
 water at the mouth f the Kiver .St. 
 Maurice, the lettvrs patent were held 
 to be valid, subject to an implied re- 
 striction that the requirements of navi- 
 gation and commerce were not to be 
 nterfered with or injured thereby. — 
 Normnnil v. .S'.'. LtiicniH'e Aitviyatioii 
 Co.—il. B., (^>ueb.,c ii. 
 
 .S. The Dominion I'arliament can 
 confer on the Vice- Admiralty Court-* 
 jurisdiction in any matterof navigation 
 and shipping within the territorial 
 limits of the l)ominion. When an Act 
 of the Parliament of Canada is in part 
 repugnant to an Imperial Statute, 
 effect will be given to the former .so far 
 as its provisions do not coiit'ict with 
 those of the Imperial enactment. — 
 The ^^inrHYiY. — Vice- Admiralty Ct., 
 Quebec ii. 
 
 4. A Provincial enactment autho- 
 rizing the erection of booms in a navi- 
 gable^ river does not conflict with the 
 power of the Parliament ot Canada 
 with resiiect to iiaMgation and ship- 
 ping under sect !)l of the IJ. N. A. Act 
 the words navigation and .shippinj 
 
 .'SI 
 
 378 
 
 .y?^ 
 
 43 
 
 3L'(> 
 
 , . , , . , PAGE. 
 
 being employed in that section in the 
 .sense in which they an; iiscil in the 
 several Acts of the InqxTial Parlia- 
 ment relating to navigation and ship- 
 ping, and in the Act o' the Parlimnent 
 of Ciu.a.la, ;n Vict. c. o.S, viz. : As 
 giving thi' light to pre.-cribe rules and 
 regulations f,ir ve.s.sel.^ navigating the 
 waters of the Donii'iion, and not as 
 excluding for all purposes Provincial 
 jurisdiction over navigable waters.— 
 MeMilhin v. Suulhicist Ii,uim Co.— ^ 
 Supreme Ct., N. H jj. 
 
 5. A Provincial Legislature may in- 
 corporate a boom coiii|iany, iHitciinnot 
 confer uiioii the couipaiiy power to 
 obstruct the navigation of a tidal and 
 navigable river, Taschereao, ,1., doubt- 
 ing. M(\]lill(in v. I'iiiiithiirsl liomn Co., 
 (1 P. & B. 715). overrulic' in part. 
 — Quold!/ ]tiv(r /)ririn;; Jlnota Co. v. 
 yA(iiV/.w».— Supreme Ct., Can. . iii. 
 
 0. The control over navigation con- 
 ferred on the iJoniiiiion Paillaaient by 
 the B.N..\. Act oes nut prevent the 
 Provincial fieirislatures from exercising 
 municipal and police control on navi- 
 gable rivers ; coiisiM|uently the <,>nebec 
 Act 4:i & 44 Vict. c. 02, extending the 
 liinits of the town of St. .John's to tlie 
 middle of a navigabh' river was held to 
 be valid, and to confer the right to tax 
 property within the ad<led limits. 
 Judgment of the Court of Queen's 
 Bench on tliis point atiirmed. -Cintrol 
 Vermont Jlailicaii v. St. /«/ui's. — Su- 
 preme Ct., Can iv. 
 
 7. Notwithstanding the exclusive 
 legislative authority over navigation 
 and shi)iping po.-sessed by the Domin- 
 ion Parliament, a Provincial licgisja- 
 ture can C(jnfer on municipalities the 
 right to tax ferrymen and ferries ; con- 
 sequently the tjiiebec Act, 3!) Vict. c. 
 .52, by which the city of .Montreal is 
 authorized to impose an annual tax on 
 ferrymen or stoaniboat ferries is valid. 
 Th(! aj.'pellant;:, while successful i>n 
 other grounds, having failed tosericjus- 
 ly impugn the Act in piestion, were 
 ordered to )iay the co'^ts of the Attor- 
 ney-General. — Lonijucuil Navi(jalion 
 Co., V. Viti/ of Montreal. — SuiirenieCt., 
 Can iv. 370 
 
 NEW BRl'NSWICK.-StatutcB. 
 
 f>f( Sl'ATU'l'KS. 
 
 NOVA SCOTIA. -Statutes. 
 
 See St.^tutks. 
 NUI.SANCKS.-The power of the 
 Parliament of Canada to enact a gen- 
 eral law of nuisance, as incident to 
 its right to legislate as to criminal law, 
 is not incompatible with a right in 
 the Provincial Legislatures to autlio- 
 rize municipal corporations to panJ 
 by-laws against iiuisance.-i hurtful to 
 public health, as incidental to muni- 
 cipal inslitutions.— A'x /)or^ /'iV/uii'.— 
 Superior Ct., Quebec .... iii. 357 
 InforiiKition respecting . i. 813 ; ii. 5Di) 
 
 See Ati'oun'kv-CIknkual. 
 ONT.-VUIO.-Power of legisl.ature to 
 rejieal or modify laws of Province of 
 
 Canada i. 351 
 
 Sic Lk(;ihlatuiik.sof Ontauioanu 
 t,)iKiiKe. 
 Statutes. 
 
 Sec S'l'A ruTKa, 
 
.2283 
 
 OASES OH THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2284 
 
 S 
 
 ■to 
 
 f 
 
 PACK. 
 
 PATENT OF INVENTION.— Pro- 
 ceedings in the nature ni a 8cire facias, 
 to set aside letters patent of invention 
 issued under the Dominion Statute, 35 
 Vict. c. 20, cannot be instituted in the 
 name of a Provincial Attorney-Gen- 
 eral, and can only be legally brought 
 by the Attorney-General of Canada. — 
 Mousscau V. Bate. — Court of Keview, 
 (Quebec iii. 341 
 
 2. The Dominion Parliament, having 
 in the year 1872 passed an Act respect- 
 ing patents of invention which by sect. 
 2H i)rovided that all patents were to be 
 subject to certain conditions non-com- 
 pliance with which should render them 
 void, and that the ISIinif-ter of Agricul- 
 ture or his deputy should have autho- 
 rity to finally determine any dispute as 
 to whether a patent had or had not be- 
 come voi.l : Jldil, that a court or judi- 
 cial tribunal for the deiermination of 
 the matters referred to in the said sec- 
 tion was thereby constituted and that 
 tlie constitution of such a court \ya8 
 within the competence of the Dominion 
 Parliament.— in re JJell TiUphnnr Cu. — 
 C.P.D., Ont iv. (!18 
 
 PENALTIES.- Procedure 
 
 )78 
 
 297 
 
 ()30 
 
 . . ii. 291, 297, 308, 3U ; iii. 405 ; iv. 
 tsce Criminal Law, 30, 11, 12. 
 
 Recovery by informer . . . iii. 
 ticc Proi'Kuty and Civil. RuniTs, 3. 
 
 POLICE MAGISTRATES- Power 
 to appoint .... i. SIO ; iv. 
 See Justices of the Pkack, 1, 4. 
 
 PRECIOUS METALS.-Right of 
 
 Province to iv. 241 
 
 Sec Lands. 
 
 PREROGATIVE OS' CROWN.— 
 The provisions of the B.|N. A. Act have 
 not superseded the prerogative right of 
 the Crown to issue a commission to the 
 Judge of the Provisional Judicial Dis- 
 trict of Algoma to hold a Court of 
 (3yer and Terminer and General Gaol 
 Delivery, for trial of felonies, etc.; and 
 such a commission by the Deputy of 
 the Governor- General was held to be 
 legal. Per Wilson, J. — The Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor, as well as the Gov- 
 ernor-General has the power to issue 
 commissions to hold Courts of Assize. 
 — Itcgina v. ylmcr.— Q. B., Ont. ■ i. 
 
 2. The petitioner having been de- 
 clared duly elected a member to re- 
 present the Electoral District of Mont- 
 manier in the Legislative Assenibly of 
 the Province of C^uebec.his election was 
 afterwards, on petition, declared null 
 and void by judgment of the Superior 
 Court, under the (Quebec Controverted 
 Elections Act, 1875, and hiiiiself de- 
 clared guilty of corrupt j)ractices, both 
 personally and by his agents. He now 
 applied for special leave to ajjpeal l;> 
 Her Majesty in Council : Held, that 
 sucl) application must be refused. Al- 
 thougli the iirerogntive of the Crown 
 cannot in general be taken away ex- 
 cept by express words, and the 90th 
 section of the above Act providing that 
 "such judgment shiU not be tuscei)ti- 
 ble of appeal," does noc mention 
 either the Crown or its prerogative ; 
 yet the fair construction of the Act 
 
 722 
 
 PAGE, 
 
 was held to be that it was the inten- 
 tion of the Legislature to create a tri- 
 bunal fur the purpose of trying election 
 petitions in a manner which should 
 make its decision final for all pur[)ose8, 
 and should not annex to it the incident 
 of its judgment being reviewed by the 
 Crown under its prerogative ; and the 
 Act having been assented to on the 
 
 Eart of the Crown, and tlio Crown 
 eing therefore a party to it, there was 
 held to be no jr-erogative right to 
 admit an appeal contrary to the inten- 
 tion of the Aci. — Thtberije v. Landry. 
 -P.C ii. ] 
 
 3. The Queen is the head of the con- 
 stitutional government of Caii.ada, and 
 in matters affecting tlie Dominion at 
 large her prerogatives are exercised by 
 the Dominion Governnient. The pre- 
 rogative privilege to priority over other 
 creditors of ecjual degree belongs to the 
 Crown as repre.^^enting the Dominion 
 of Canada, when claiming as a creditor 
 of a Provincial corporation in a Pro- 
 vincial court. — Ile(i. V. linnk nf Nuva 
 ,Vc«<i(r.— Supreme Ct., Can. . . iv. 391 
 
 4. The (Jueen is the head of the con- 
 stitutirnal government of Canada, and 
 in matters atfecting the Dominion at 
 large her prerogatives are exercised by 
 the Dominion Government. The pre- 
 rogative jirivilege fo priority over other 
 creditors of equal degree belongs to the 
 Crown as representing the Dominion of 
 Canada when claiming .as a creditor of 
 an insolvent hsmk.— Maritime Hank v. 
 3'/ic <;)«««. — Suiireme Ct., Can. . iv. 409 
 
 Appeal i. 2.52 
 
 See Bankkuptcy and In.solvkncy, 
 2. _ 
 Revenues arising from ■ . . iv. 241 
 
 Sec Lands. 
 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.— 
 Statutes. 
 
 .Sec Statutks. 
 PROCKDURE.-Civil. . . . ii. 492 
 .Sec Phopekty and Civil Rights, 
 2. 
 Criminal, ii. 291, 308, 311, 602, 653; iv. .578 
 
 Sec Ckiminal Law, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12. 
 PROHIBITORY LKjUOR LAVV. 
 Power to enact or repeal . . . ii. 12 
 280, 392. 382, 385 ; iii. 348 ; iv. 306 
 See Intoxicating LuinoBs, 2,3,5,9. 
 Tkmpkhanck Act of 1864, 2, 5. 
 PROPERTY AND CIVIL 
 RIGHTS.— An Act of the Legisla- 
 turr of Quebec authorizing the Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor to revoke the right 
 of certain municipalities to exact tolls 
 on a toll bridge, for default in making 
 repairs, and to transfer the property 
 to others, was held valid, as the 
 matter related to property and civil 
 rights and was of a merely local 
 imtnre. —Miinieiimlitj/ of Cleveland v. 
 Municiimlilii af Melbiiurne and Jirom/i- 
 Ion Uurc—il- B.,(^iebec. . . . ii. 241 
 
 2. Quo're, whether the Dominion 
 Act, 32-:W Vict. c. 29, s. 134, relating 
 to costs in actions against Justices, is 
 not ultra vires of the Federal I'arlia- 
 ment as relating to procedure in a civil 
 twatter. — Whittier v. />ii/<'f— Supreme 
 Ct.N.B ii. 492 
 
2284 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 ? the inten- 
 create a tri- 
 nn(? election 
 iiich should 
 ■vll purposes, 
 the incident 
 ewed by the 
 ve ; and the 
 to on the 
 
 the Crown 
 it, there was 
 ve right to 
 to the inten- 
 c V. Landry. 
 
 . . ii. 1 
 d of the con- 
 Canada, and 
 Domihion at 
 
 xercised by 
 it. The pre- 
 ty over other 
 lelongs to the 
 le Dominion 
 as a creditor 
 on in a Pro- 
 mi A' ()/ Novd 
 . iv. 
 
 id of the con- 
 
 Ciinada, and 
 
 Dominion at 
 
 exercised by 
 
 It. The pre- 
 
 ity over other 
 
 jelongs to the 
 
 Dominion of 
 
 1 a creditor of 
 
 it hut Jlank v. 
 
 Can. . iv. 
 
 31)1 
 
 40'.) 
 2.52 
 
 In.solvkncv, 
 
 iv. 241 
 
 ISLAND,- 
 
 1. . . . ii. 402 
 
 llVIL RiOHTS, 
 
 11,602, 653; iv.. 578 
 
 , 5, 6, 8, 10, 12. 
 
 >UOR LAW. 
 . . . ii. 12 
 
 ; iii. 348 ; iv. 306 
 IJU0R8, 2,3,5,9. 
 r OK 1864, 2, 5. 
 ID CIVIL 
 
 the Legisla- 
 ing the Lieu- 
 oke the right 
 
 to exact tolls 
 ,ult in making 
 
 the property 
 valid, aa the 
 srty and civd 
 
 merely local 
 / Clcnland v. 
 ncand liromp- 
 
 . . . . ii. 241 
 
 he Dominion 
 I, 134, relating 
 ist Justices, is 
 "ederal I'arlia- 
 edure in a civil 
 [■((/ff— Supreme 
 . . . . ii. 492 
 
 2285 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 3. The jurisdiction of the Provincial 
 Legislatures over "property and civil 
 rights does not preclude tlie Parliament 
 of Canada from giving to an informer 
 the right to recover, by a civil action, 
 a penalty imposed as a punishment for 
 bribery at an election. The Dominion 
 Klections Act,1874, by 8ect.l09,provides 
 that all i)enalties and forfeitures (other 
 than fines in cases of misdemeanour) 
 imposed by the Act shall be recover- 
 able, with full costs of suit, by any per- 
 son who will .sue for the same, by action 
 of debt or information, in any of Her 
 Majesty's Courts in the Provinre in 
 which the cause of action arose, having 
 comjietent jurisdiction : Hthl, that this 
 enactment was valid. — Di,iik v. liM. — 
 
 C. A., Ont ' . . . iii. 297 
 
 4. Where land then forming part of 
 the Ordnance lands of the old Province 
 of Canada had been granted to tiic 
 corporation of the city of Toronto in 
 the year 1858, it was held that after 
 the passing of the British North Amer- 
 ica Act tiie power to vary the trusts 
 contained in the grant was vested in 
 the Legislature of tlie Province and 
 not in the Parliament of the Domin- 
 ion. — Kennedy v. City of I'orunlo.— 
 
 Insoi,- 
 
 (;49 
 252 
 
 ii. (15 
 
 Coin- 
 
 828 
 
 Ch. D,, Ont, 
 
 Bankruiitcy .and Insolvency 
 Hce Bankkui'Tcv and 
 
 VKNCV, 2. 
 
 Exclusive Rights of Fishing , 
 .SV(; FlSHKliiKs. 
 
 Regidation of i'rade and 
 
 merce i. 205 
 
 Sec TliADK AND Co.MMKIU'K, 1. 
 
 Transfer of Warehouse Receipts, i. 
 Sec liu.Ln OK Ladinc and Wake- 
 HocsK Rkckiits, 2. 
 
 PROVINCIAL COURTS.-Po«Tr 
 teiimpoxe duties nn.] The Parliament of 
 the Doniini(m of Canada has power to 
 impose new duties upon existing Pro- 
 vincial Courts, and to give them powers 
 as to matters coming within the classes 
 of subjects over which the Dominion 
 Parliament has juri.sdicti(m, conse- 
 quently the Dominion Controverted 
 Elections Act of 1874 (Canadian Stat. 
 37 Vict. c. 10), which confers upon the 
 Provincial Courts jurisdiction with re- 
 sjiect to elections to the Dominion 
 House of Commons, is valid. Special 
 leave refu.sed to appeal from two con- 
 current judgments of the Courts in 
 Canada, affirming the competency and 
 validity of the said Act of 1874 ; it ap- 
 pearing to the Judicial Couunittee of 
 the Privy Council that there was no 
 substantial question reciuiring to be 
 determined, none of their Lordships 
 having any doubt of the soundness of 
 the judgments, though several judges 
 of the first instance had held the Act 
 to be invalid. — Valin v. Lunijlois. — 
 i. 
 
 P. C. 
 
 Precedence in 
 
 See <.iUKKN'.S COUNSKL. 
 
 PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES 
 
 — Hy the Statutes of the l,>uebec Legis- 
 lature, :n Vict. c. 32, and 32 Vict. c. 29, 
 Fire Commissioners or Marshals were 
 appointed, with 'power to investigate 
 the origin of any fires occurring in the 
 5J (A.) 
 
 158 
 i. 488 
 
 2286 
 
 l-AOK. 
 
 Cities of Quebec and Montreal •, to com- 
 pel the attendance of witnesses, and 
 examine them on oath ; and to conunit 
 to iirison any witnesses refusing to 
 answer without juat cause : Held, that 
 these Statutes were ivithin the com- 
 petency of the Provincial Legislature. 
 On pet.'tion by the Attorney-General 
 of the Province of '^luebec, special leave 
 was granted to appial from a judgment 
 lif the I Queen's Bench, (Quebec, on a 
 case reserved in a trial jir felony.— r/ic 
 ^iileen v. Cootc.—V. C i. .57 
 
 2. A Provincial Legislature of Can- 
 • .a has no jiower to pass an Act 
 transferring to anewc!inii)any. or otlier- 
 wise, a federal railway, with its appur- 
 teninces, property, rights and powers, 
 or to dissolve a fcileral company, or to 
 substitute for it a company to be 
 governed by, and s>il)ject to, provincial 
 legislation. — /ioi(v/i//» v. La CDHipinjnie 
 (ill Clninin tli Fir'li Mmitnal, Ottaivii, 
 
 >t <kridcr,t(il.—l'. C i. 233 
 
 3. The first stei> to be taken with a 
 view to test the validity of an Act of a 
 Provincial Legislature under the 
 B.N. A. Act is to consider whether the 
 subject- luiitter of the Act falls within 
 any of the classes of subjects enumer- 
 ated in section 92, which states the 
 legislative powers of the Provincial 
 Legislatures. If it does not come 
 within any of such cl.asses, the I'rovin- 
 cial Act is of no validity. If it does, 
 these further questions iray arise, viz., 
 whether the subject of the Act does not 
 also fall within one of the enumerated 
 classes of subjects in sect. 91, which 
 states the legislative powers of the 
 Domini n Parliament, and whether the 
 power of the Provincial Legislature is 
 or is not thereby overborne. — /jc'/ic v. 
 Tcmpriralitiis Itiiard. — V. C. . . i. 351 
 
 4. A testator had devised the residue 
 of his estate in trust for such of his 
 children as should be living at the 
 decease of his widow, and for the chil- 
 dren of any nf them who should then 
 be dead. Before the widow's death, 
 and on her application and that of the 
 testator's children (all of wliom were 
 living), the Provincial Legislature of 
 Ontario passed an Act (31 Vict. c. 99) 
 for dividing the jiroperty among the 
 testator's ciiildren forthwith: flil'l, 
 thiit such an .Act was within the c<ini- 
 Iietence of the Provincial Legislature ; 
 but the Court held further (Draper, 
 C.J., and Sprag^e, C. dissenting) tli.it 
 the testator's grandchildren, not hav- 
 ing been ex))ressly nr.ined in the .Vet, 
 and there beinp' no express aiul explicit 
 enactment specifically referring to and 
 barring their rights, tlieir interests re- 
 mained unaffected by the Act.— /^' 
 tiimihue.-C. A., Ont i. -500 
 
 5. Provincial Legislatures are not 
 restricted to legislation resjjecting 
 projierty such as bonds held in the 
 Province, and where debts and other 
 obligations are authorized to be con- 
 tracted under a local Act, passed in 
 relation to a matter within the power 
 of a Local Legislature, such debts may 
 be dealt with by subsecpient Acts of 
 the same Legislature, notwithstanding 
 that by a fiction of law they may be 
 
2287 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A- AOT. 
 
 2288 
 
 PAGE, 
 domiciled out of the Province.— i/ofifs 
 V. Canada Central Railway Co. — (I. B., 
 
 Ont i. 777 
 
 (!. Provincial Legislatures have, as 
 incident to their express powerH under 
 the B.N. A. Act, the right to summon 
 witnesses, and to punish persons who 
 disobey such summons, this rinlit being 
 necessary to the proper exercise of their 
 powers of legislation, and the control 
 assigned to them in res])ect of the ad- 
 ministration of public affairs. The 
 provisions of the Act of the (^uebtc 
 Legislature, 35 Vict. c. 5, regulatirg 
 this right are valid. Ramsay, J., dis- 
 senting. — E.r partf Danscreau.—i^i. B., 
 (Quebec ii. H>5 
 
 7. A Provincial Legislature has 
 authority to determine the f ge or other 
 qualificatioiis which shall be required 
 on the iiart of persons resident in 
 the I'lovince, to entitle them to man- 
 age their own affairs, or to exercise 
 certain i)rofessions or branches of busi- 
 ness attended with danger or risk to 
 the imblic. If laws on these subjects 
 incidentally affect trade and commerce, 
 this incidental jiower must be deemed 
 to be included in the right to deal with 
 those matters which are specially 
 l)laced under provincial control. The 
 (I'uebec Pharmacy Act of 187."), so far 
 as iv retiuires certain qualifications on 
 the part of persons exercising the busi- 
 ness of selling drugs and medicines, is 
 v.alid. The Provincial Legislatures 
 have the right to appropriate tines to 
 municipal or other corporations. — liin- 
 V(U V. P/tariiiaci itticiil AKXoriation of 
 Quebec— (). B., <^iebec . . . . ii. 250 
 
 8. A Provincial Legislature is en- 
 titled to legislate with a view to regu- 
 late within the Province the sale of 
 whatever may injuriously affect the 
 lives, he.alth, morals, or well l>eing of 
 the community, whether it be intoxicat- 
 ing liquors, poisons, or unwhole>onie 
 provisions, if such legislation is made 
 bona fide with the object of regulation 
 alone, even though to a certain extent 
 trade and commerce are affected there- 
 by. — AV(/f v. McLennan. — Supreme 
 Ct., N.S ii. 400 
 
 PUBLIC IN.TURY -Proper officer 
 to riomplain of. 
 
 Sec ATTOUNKY CiKKKUAL. 
 
 PUBLIC HAKBOUR.-.Iurisdio- 
 
 tion and ownersiiip ii, 147 
 
 Sec Haki)olu.s. 
 
 PUNISHMKXT. -Fine and Impris- 
 onment. 
 
 Sec Fink and Imi'kisonmknt. 
 
 Hard Labour. 
 
 Sec Haki) Labour. 
 QTTKBEC.-^ Power of Legislixture to 
 repeal or modify laws of Province of 
 
 Canada i. 351 
 
 See Legislatuuks of Ontario and 
 
 QUEDEC. 
 
 Privileges of Legislature . . . ii. 165 
 
 Sei Provincial Legislaturks, 6. 
 Statutes. 
 
 Sec Statutes. 
 QUEEN'S COUNSEL. - - Appoint- 
 fiicnt of.] A Provincial Legislature has 
 no power to authorize the Lieutenant- 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 CJovernor to api)oint Queen's Counsel, 
 or to grant to any member of the Bar 
 a patent of precedence in the Courts of 
 the Province. (Henry, Taschereau and 
 G Wynne, .T.I.) The question arose on 
 an appeal bjr (Queen's Counsel appointed 
 by the Lieutenant-tiovernor under 
 Acts of the Provincial Legislature, the 
 respondent being a <i>ueen's Counsel 
 appointed by the 'Jovernor-General ; 
 and Strong, Fournier and Taschereau, 
 .III., were of o])inion that the Provin- 
 cial Acts under which the apiiellants 
 were apiminted 'vere not intended to 
 affect the precedence of Queen's Coun- 
 sel appointed by the Governor-General ; 
 and it was therefore held. Per Strong 
 and Fournier, .T,T. -.—That .as this Court 
 ought never, except in Ciises when such 
 adjudication is indispensable to the 
 (h'cision of a cause, to pronounce upon 
 the constitutional jjower of a Legisla- 
 ture to ijat^s a statute, there was no 
 necessity in this casi! for them to ex- 
 press an opinion upon the validity of 
 the Acts in question. — Linoirv.Jlitcltic. 
 
 — Supreme Ct.. Can i. 488 
 
 RAILWAYS.--Whero it .s neces- 
 sary for a J'ruvincial railway in Ontario 
 to cross a Dominion railway, the com- 
 pany desiring to rlfict sucn crossing 
 must procure the approval of the Com- 
 missioner of Public NVorks for Ontario, 
 as well as the approval of the Railway 
 Committee of the I'rivy i-'ouncil of the 
 Dominion ; and the railway companies 
 cannot by agreement w.iive this ])ro- 
 vision. — Credit Valleii liy. Co. v. Great 
 Wedern Ky. Co.*— Chy., Ont. . . i. 82» 
 
 2. The Province of On'ario p.assed 
 an Act to make provision fcr the safety 
 of railway employees and '.he public, 
 such i)rovision having refen nee to the 
 construction and maintenanc" of rail- 
 way frogs, etc. Per Spragge, C. J., a 
 Provincial Legislature has no power to 
 pass such a law with reference to a 
 I )ominion railway situate locally \ 'itliin 
 the Province. The other Judges o' the 
 Court of Api)eal expressed nooi)ifion 
 upon the jioint, being of opinion that 
 the Act was not intended to a;>ply to 
 I )ominion railways, and for that reason 
 did not apply to tiie Dominion railway 
 comjiany in (piestion. — Manklunisr v. 
 (Irand Trunk Raihcan.—C A., Ont. 
 
 iii. 289 
 
 3. The Ontario Legislature by Rev. 
 Stat., 1887, o. 141, gives to workmen, 
 injured in the ccjurse of theii employ- 
 ment, the right, under cert:i,in condi- 
 tions, to recover conipeti'TCJon therefor 
 fr.m their employers ; Held, that this 
 enactment was valid and applied to the 
 defendant compa ly as we'll as other 
 railways under the legislative control 
 (if the Dominion Parliament. — Canada 
 Smthern Ry. Co. v, Jrt('A'.to)i.— Supreme 
 Ct. Can iv. 451 
 
 4. The Dominion Parliament having 
 by a general railway Act, applicable 
 to all railway companies o\er which the 
 Parliament had jurisdiction, limited to 
 six months the time for bringing 
 actions against railway com])anies iot 
 any injury caused by reason of the 
 
 •See R.S.O., 1887, c. 170, sect. 9, sub-s. 17. 
 
2288 
 
 PACK. 
 
 n's Counsel, 
 
 of the Bar 
 he Courts of 
 ichereau and 
 on arose on 
 lel aitpiiinted 
 irnor under 
 ;i8lature, the 
 ■n's Counsel 
 lor-General ; 
 Taschereau, 
 
 the Provin- 
 le apiHillants 
 
 intended to 
 ueen's Cuun- 
 nor-General ; 
 , IVr Strong 
 as this Court 
 es when such 
 sable to the 
 mounce upon 
 of a Legisla- 
 here was no 
 ■ them to ex- 
 \e validity of 
 loirv.liitcltic. 
 
 .... i. -188 
 
 ; it If neces- 
 ay in Ontario 
 \ay. the com- 
 suiii crossing 
 i\ ,if the Coin- 
 > for Ontario, 
 the Kailway 
 Jouncil of the 
 ay companies 
 ■live this pro- 
 /. Co. V. Great 
 Ont. . . i. 
 
 82» 
 
 ln:ario passed 
 f(V the safety 
 id Mie public, 
 'fer( nee to the 
 •uivnt':' of rail- 
 ragge, C. J., a 
 as no p)\ver to 
 reference to a 
 i locally \'ithin 
 r Judges (v^ the 
 sed no opii ion 
 if opinion that 
 ed to apply to 
 for that reason 
 minion railway 
 -Miitik-hounr V. 
 .-C. A., Ont. 
 . . . . iii. 
 
 ilature by Rev. 
 '3 to workmen, 
 [ theii employ- 
 ' certain condi- 
 i-.rcion therefor 
 Held, that this 
 d applied to the 
 I well as other 
 ;islative ccmtrol 
 lUwnb.—Canwht 
 isoji.— Supreme 
 . . . . iv. 
 
 rliaraent having 
 Act, ai)plicable 
 BO\er which the 
 ction, limited to 
 3 for bringing 
 y companies for 
 f reason of the 
 
 289 
 
 451 
 
 70, sect. 9, Bub-s. 17. 
 
 2289 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2290 
 
 PAGK. 
 
 railway : Hehl, by Ilagarty, C.J., and 
 Osier, .I.A., attirming the judgment of 
 Street, J., (Burton and Maclennan, 
 J J. A., dissenting) that this enactment 
 was valid. — McArthur v. Northern and 
 Pacific Jiinctiitn Jiv. Co. -C. A., Ont. 
 
 iv. 559 
 
 95 
 
 3117 
 813 
 
 Extending beyond Piovince . . i. 
 Sec Taxation, 1. 
 
 Jurisdiction respecting . . i. 233, 
 .Vtc Dominion Paui.iamknt, 1. 
 
 PhOVINOIAL LEfilSLATUHKS, 2. 
 
 Nuisance caused by i. 
 
 Sec Attounkv-Oknkrai,, 1. 
 Provincial connecting with foreign 
 
 railway ii. 
 
 Sec Local Works, 1. 
 
 REGISTRATION.— Registration of 
 medical praotioner i. 
 
 Sec MkDIUAL PitACTiriONIill. 
 
 RIVERS.— Jurisdiction . ii. 231, 
 iii. 243; iv. 
 See Navigation ani> SmrriNo, 2, 
 4, 5, 0. 
 
 Regulation <if fisheries . . . . ii. 
 
 See Fl.SHKHiKH. 
 
 SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 
 
 S(c Denominational Schools. 
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 Sec Navication and Siiiim'ino. 
 
 SHOP, SALOON, TAVERN, 
 AUCTIt)NEER AND OTHER 
 LICKNSES.: 
 
 Sec Licen.sks. 
 
 SMALLWARE. - Regulation of 
 
 vendors of i. 
 
 See MiNicjPAL Institutions. 
 
 HOVKRKlii'S .—Ilcprcsentatives of.] 
 The members of the Executive Council 
 of a I'rovince, under the B. N. A. Act, 
 represent the Sovereign, and cannot be 
 sued in the civil courts of thi; Province 
 for acts performed by them in the dis- 
 charge of their otticial duty.— Jfo/s'yii v. 
 Chaplcau. — Superior Ct., IJuebec. iii. 
 
 STAMP DUT v.— Pdwer to impose. 
 
 i. 117 ; iii. 
 
 See Taxation, 2, 4. 
 
 STATUTES- 
 
 Impcrial . . 22 Geo. 3, c. 75. i. 
 See CouNTv Court Judgk. 
 
 5 & G Vict. c. 45. i. 
 See Copyright. 
 
 31 Vict. c. 29. i. 
 
 Sec Medical Practitioner. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 62. 
 Sec Extradition. 
 
 439 
 
 701 
 
 542 
 32<) 
 
 (io 
 
 750 
 
 II. 
 
 44 & 45 Vict. c. .58. ii. 
 Sec Military and Naval Seuvick. 
 
 Canada— (Old Province of) 
 
 Con. Stat. C. c. 13. i. 
 Sec County Court Judge. 
 
 Con. Stat. U.C. c. 14. i. 
 Sec County Court Judge. 
 
 22 Vict. c. 00. i. 
 
 .SW' Le(;ihlatukks of Ontauio and 
 
 (,!UEHEC. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 18. 
 See Tejipkrance Act ok 1804. 
 
 28 Vict. c. 20. i. 
 Sec Justices oe the Peace, 1. 
 
 300 
 IflO 
 
 789 
 570 
 701 
 315 
 390 
 
 789 
 789 
 351 
 
 810 
 
 I'AI.E. 
 
 iv. 288 
 
 Dovihtion . . 31 Vict. c. 8. 
 Sec Imi'kriai, Court. 
 
 31 Vict. c. .38. i. 7.S9 
 
 Sec County Court Judge. 
 
 ^ 31 Vict. c. 48. iv. 039 
 
 Sec Bankrui'tcy and Insolve.my, 18 
 
 31 Vict. c. 00. ii. (i3 
 
 Sec Flshkhiks. 
 
 31 Vict. c. 70. ii. 330 
 
 o ,,- '"• 315 
 
 See W itxeshks and Evidknc i:. 
 
 311 & 33 Vict. c. 10. i. twr. 
 See BANKurnTY and Insdl- 
 
 VKNCY, 3, (). 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 29. 
 
 ii 492, 1144 
 &c Property and Civil Kighi-.s, 
 2 ' 
 
 Criminal Law, 9. 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 31. 
 
 ii. 002: iii. 105 
 Sec Criminal Law, 8, 11. 
 
 34 Vict. c. 5. i. 828 
 
 See Bills oi' Lading, 2. 
 
 34 Vict. c. 9. iv. 039 
 
 Sc: Bankrui'Tcy and Insol- 
 vency, 18. 
 34 and 35 Vict. c. 28 iv. 1 
 Sec Legislative Power, 2. 
 
 .35 Vict. c. 20. iii. 341 ; iv. (il8 
 Sec Patent ok Invention. 
 
 .30 \'ict. c. 54. ii. 378 
 
 See Navig.\tiiin and Siiii'i-ing, 3. 
 
 37 A'ict. c. 9 iii. 297 
 
 See Property and Civil Rights, 
 3. 
 
 .37 Vict. c. 10. i. l.-,8 
 
 Sec Provincial Courts. 
 
 ■37 Vict, c 10. i. 397 
 
 See Dominion (Sovernment, 1. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 103. ii. 275 
 
 iii. 118 
 See Companie.s, I, 2. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 10. iii. 200 
 S, Bankruptcy and I.\sol- 
 
 VENCY, 11. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 88 i. 570 
 
 See Copyright. 
 
 40 Vict. c. 21. i. 557 
 
 See Maritime Court. 
 
 40 Vict. c. 41. i. 252 
 
 Sec Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency, 2. 
 
 40 Vict. c. 45. i. 822 
 S(e Railways, 1. 
 
 41 Vict. c. 10. ii. 12 
 Sec Intoxicating Lujuors, 2. 
 
 42 Vict. c. 48. ii. 237 
 See Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency, 4. 
 
 43 Vict. c. 25. iv. 1 
 See Legislative Power, 2. 
 
 43 Vict. c. 07. ii. 257 
 
 Sec Local NVouks and Undertak- 
 ings, 2. 
 
 45 Vict. c. 118. iv. 701 
 S<c Mortmain. 
 
 R.S.C. c. 129. iv. 4.59 
 
 See Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency, 15. 
 
 R.S.C. c. 101. iv. 005 
 
 See Criminal Law, 13. 
 

 |--' V 
 
 2291 
 
 OASES ON THE B.N.A. AOT. 
 
 2292 
 
 1 
 
 78!) 
 
 67(i 
 
 fi88 
 
 i. 
 
 5!»2 
 
 i. 
 
 "SO 
 
 i. 
 
 f.83 
 
 i. 
 
 r.(JO 
 
 PAOK. 
 
 Ontario 31 Vict. c. 17. i. 810 
 
 Sa Jl'STICKS OF TDK Pk.\('K, 1. 
 
 31 Vict. c. 44. i. 777 
 See Phovincial LK(:r.si..\i iiiks, ,5. 
 
 32 Vict. c. L'2. 
 
 iSVf COVNTY CoUin JCDCK. 
 
 32 Vict. c. 32. i 
 
 S(C LlC'KNHKS, 2. 
 
 Intoxicating Lnjron.s, 1. 
 
 32 Vict. c. 36. 
 Sec Ta.vation, 3. 
 
 33 Vict. c. 12. 
 
 tin Coi'NTY CorilT ilCDfJK. 
 
 33 Vict. c. li). 
 See Bills' ok Laiuni;, 1. 
 
 34 Vict. c. '.)!». 
 Sec Provincial Lkcislatuhes, 4. 
 
 3(i Vict. c. 10. i. 70'J 
 
 See Criminal Law, 1. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 32. :. 414 
 
 ii. COO, CIO 
 
 Sic LlCENSE.S, 1. 
 
 Temi'ekanck Act of 1864, 3. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 75. i. 351 
 Sec Dominion C:ovehn.mknt. 
 
 39 Vict. c. 24. i. 265 
 See Trade and Commerce, 1. 
 
 3!) Vict. c. 26. ii. 678 
 
 See Temperance Act ok 1864, 4. 
 
 3!) Vict. c. 62. iv. 649 
 
 Hec Property AND Civil Rigiit.s,4. 
 
 40 Vict. c. 18. ii. 60C, 616 
 Sec Temperance Act of 1864, 3. 
 
 41 Vict. 0. 4. li. 634 
 See Justices of the 1'eack, 3. 
 
 44 Vict. c. 22. iii. 289 
 
 Sec Railways, 2. 
 
 48 Vict. 0. 17. iv. 690 
 
 See .Tusticks of the Peace, 5. 
 
 R.S.O., 1877, c. 42. ii. 665 
 iii. 319 
 See .TunoES, 2, 3. 
 
 R.S.O. 18?;, C.72. iv. 630 
 -S'cc Justices of the Peace, 4. 
 
 R.S.O., 1877, c. 165. i. 822 
 Sec Railways, 1. 
 
 R.S.O., 1877, c. 174. i. 756 
 See Municipal Institutions. 
 
 R.S.O., 1877, c. 181. i. 742 
 iii. 144 ; iv. 683 
 -Sec Criminal Law, 2 
 Delegation, 1. 
 Intoxicating Liquors, 10. 
 
 R.S.O., 1877, c. 206. i. 816 
 Sec Denominatio.val .Schools, 1. 
 
 R.S.O., 1887, 0.42. iv. 439 
 See Appeal, 2. 
 
 R.S.O., 1887,0. 141. iv. 451 
 iS'ec Railways, 3. 
 
 Quebec . 31 Vict. c. 25. ii. 228 
 
 See Navigation and Shipping, 1. 
 
 31 Vict. c. 32. i. 57 
 See Provincial Leoiblatukes, 1. 
 
 32 Vict. c. 15. ii. 241 
 See Property and Civil Rights, 
 
 32 Vict. c. 29. i. 57 
 
 See Provincial Legislatures, 1. 
 
 32 Vict. 0. 70. ii. 320 
 
 I'AllE. 
 
 i. 165 
 C3 
 
 .See Fine and Imprisonment. 
 
 33 Vict. c. 5. i 
 
 .See Provincial Lkgislatukks, 6. 
 
 33 Vict. c. .'iS. i. 
 See Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency, 1. 
 
 34 Vict. c. 2. ii. 291, 2!t7 
 
 308, 343 
 See Criminal Law, 3, 4, 5. 
 
 Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency, 5. 
 
 34 Vict. c. .52. ii. 2.'J0 
 
 See Provincial IjKcjisi.atuhk.s, 7. 
 
 37 Vict. c. .^.1. ii. .S35, 'MO 
 iii. 3.^.7 
 iv. 442 
 
 Sic Trade and Commerce, 2. 
 
 NriHXNCKS. 
 
 Mahkk.ts. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 57. ii. 361 
 Sec Interest, 2. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 8. ii. 1 
 Sir Prerogative of Chown, 2. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 12. ii. 346 
 
 See Dominion Officer. 
 
 38 Vict. c. C2. i. 351 
 
 See Legislatures OF Ontario an'd 
 
 38 Vict. c. 64. i. .S51 
 
 See Legislatures of Ontario and 
 
 tiUEBKC. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 74. ii. 368 
 
 See Intoxicating Liyuoits, 4. 
 
 38 Vict. c. 76. ii. 2M0 
 
 iv. 305 
 See Intoxicating Lujuorh, 3, 9. 
 
 39 Vict. c. 2. i. 2.33 
 See Provincial Legislatures, 2. 
 
 39 Vict. c. 7. i. 117 
 
 See Taxation, 2. 
 
 39 Vict. c. 52. iv. 370 
 
 See NAVUiATioN and Shipping, 7. 
 
 41 Vict. c. 3. ii. 311, 392 
 iv. 334 
 See Criminal Law, 6. 
 
 Intoxicating LiyuoHs, .5. 
 Licenses, C. 
 
 41 Vict. c. 27. ii. 352 
 Sec Interest, 1. 
 
 42 & 43 Vict. c. 4. iii. 230 
 See In'ioxicating Lkjuors, 8. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 9. iii. 190 
 See Taxation, 4. 
 
 43&44 Vict. c. 62. iv. 326 
 See Navigation and Shipping, 6. 
 
 45 Vict. 0. 22. iv. 7 
 
 See Taxation, 6. 
 
 Nova lieoUa . 37 Vict. c. 20. i. 488 
 
 See CJUEKir's Counsel. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 21. i 488 
 
 See Queen's Counsel. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 104. iii. 368 
 387 
 See Bankbuptcy and Insol- 
 
 VBNOY, 12, 14. 
 
 41 Vict. c. 8. ii. 416 
 
 See D::uiOR. 
 
 Rev. Stat. (4th HerieR) 
 c. 75. ii. 400- 
 
2292 
 
 VM.K, 
 WMKNT. 
 
 C. 5. !'• lt'5 
 
 HLATIIIKS, 6. 
 
 c. 58. i- «3 
 
 ANM> ISSOL- 
 
 c. 2. ii. 2!ll, 2it7 
 ;t08, a43 
 , 4, 5. 
 lnd Insol- 
 
 c. 52. ii. 2.^i0 
 
 SI.ATrUKS, 7. 
 
 c. .01. ii. 335, :V10 
 iii. ;f.07 
 iv. 442 
 
 UKUCK, 2. 
 
 2293 
 
 CASES ON THE B. N. A. ACT. 
 
 2294 
 
 c. 57. 
 
 ii. 301 
 ii. 1 
 
 , c. 8. 
 
 f Chown, 2. 
 
 , c. 12. ii. 34'j 
 
 'EU. 
 
 . c. 62. i. 351 
 
 K Ontario an'd 
 
 . c. C4. i. 351 
 
 kOntauioam) 
 
 ;, c. 74. ii. 368 
 
 lUjious, 4. 
 
 t. c. 76. ii. 280 
 
 iv. 305 
 jUjL'ons, 3. 9. 
 
 t. 0. 2. i. 233 
 
 niSLATUUKS, 2. 
 
 t. c. 7. i. 117 
 
 t. c. 52. iv. 370 
 
 1) SHii'i'iNt;, 7. 
 t. c. 3. ii. 311, 393 
 iv. 334 
 
 ,6. 
 LlQL'OHS, 5. 
 
 it. c. 27. 
 
 ii. 352 
 
 J3 Vict. c. 4. iii. 230 
 
 Lujf ous, 8. 
 
 14 Vict. c. 9. iii. 190 
 
 14 Vict. c. 62. iv. 326 
 
 Ni) SmPi'iNd, 6. 
 
 ct. c. 22. iv. 7 
 
 ct. c. 20. i. 488 
 
 .SKL. 
 
 Ct. c. 21. i 488 
 
 [HKL. 
 
 ict. c. 104. iii. 368 
 387 
 T and Insol- 
 14. 
 ict. c. 8. ii. 416 
 
 Stat. (4th series) 
 75. ii. 400' 
 
 S(e Intoxicatixi: Lun'ous, 6. 
 
 R<'v. Stilt. (.">th series) 
 iii. 
 
 ANii Insoi.- 
 
 c. Ki. 
 
 AND 
 
 c. 2i). 
 
 AND 
 
 r.j. 
 
 II. 
 
 INS(M,- 
 
 II. 
 
 Insoi.- 
 
 c. SO. 
 
 S(C BANKIHITI'Y 
 VKNlY, 1.'!. 
 
 New Ih-unsifii-k M Vict. c. 54. 
 Sti Taxation, 1. 
 
 ;n N'ict, 
 
 .SVf BANKUrlTCY 
 VKSUY, 7. 
 
 31 Vict 
 Sec l^ANKUn-TlY 
 
 VKNl'Y, 8. 
 
 32 Vict. .... 
 Sec Local "Wouks anu Um'kutak 
 
 INGS, 1. 
 
 33 Vict. c. 2X 
 Sec Lit'KNSKs, 4. 
 
 33 Vict. c. 47. 
 Sec Taxation, 1. 
 
 34 Vict. c. 6. 
 Sec Intoxicating Liqioh.s 
 
 34 Vict. c. 21. 
 
 374 
 
 !l."i 
 421 
 
 II. 
 
 II, 
 
 iNSOi.- 
 
 ii. 4;!il 
 
 4,Si) 
 
 '.•5 
 
 4',t!l 
 
 .■il2 
 4H!1 
 494 
 
 II. 
 , 4. 
 
 542 
 ,509 
 243 
 
 425 
 
 527 
 
 See Dknomina'IIonal Schools, 
 
 35 Vict. c. 44. 
 Sec Navigation and Siiirris 
 
 36 Vict. c. 10. 
 See Intoxicating Lujcous, 7. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 7. 
 .Sff Hankhittcy ani> 
 
 VKNCY, 9. 
 
 37 Vict. c. 107. ii. 
 Sec Navigation and SiiirriNG, 4. 
 
 39 Vict. c. 5. ii. 
 
 See Judges, 1. 
 
 45 Vict. c. 100. iii. 
 Sec Navig.\tion and SiiirriNO, 5. 
 
 50 Vict. c. 4. iv. 
 
 S(e Licenses, 7. 
 
 Con. Stat. c. 38. ii. 
 See CuiMiNAL Law, 7. 
 
 Con. Stat. c. 75. ii. 5,52 
 Sec BANKnuiTCV and Insol- 
 vency, 10. 
 
 Prince Edward 
 
 Island . 25 Vict. c. 19. ii. 147 
 See Hauuouhs. 
 
 TAVERN ANU SHOP LICKN- 
 
 SES. - Jurisdiction respecting. 
 Sec Licenses. 
 
 TAVERNS. -Regulations respect- 
 ing >" 1^^ 
 
 See Delegation, 1. 
 
 TAX ATION— An Act of the Provin- 
 cial LeRislature of New Brunswick (33 
 Vict. c. 47), intituled " An Act to 
 authorize the issuinf? of debentures on 
 the credit of the lower District of the 
 Parish of St. Stephen, in the County of 
 Charlotte," which empowered the ma- 
 jority of the inhabitants of that parish 
 to raise, by local fixation, a subsidy de- 
 signed to |)romote the constructioii of a 
 railway extending beyond the limits of 
 the Province, but already authorized by 
 statute, was held to be within the legis- 
 lative capacity of the Legislature. A 
 Provincial Legislature can, under the 
 B. N. A. Act, sect. 92, art. 2, impose 
 direct taxation for a local purjiose iiVH)n 
 a particular locality within the 1 ro- 
 vince. The Act in question was held 
 
 r\c,K. 
 
 .c:ll 
 
 to relate to a matter of " a merely 
 Of private iiatuit- in tlu' rrnvinei'," 
 wliieli, by tlie 92iui seotioii ef the IV 
 N. .V. Act is assiKMi'il to the e\ehi<ive 
 coiuiioteiiey of the I'mviiicial Legisla- 
 ture, and nut tn relate to a railway or 
 any local werlc or MililertaliiiiL.' within 
 theexeepted siib);'els loeiiti'iiieii in art. 
 10, sub-seet. (a) of the said section. 
 l/rno'ii St. ,/i(iv/»(,< .('. Miiiitrtid V. 
 Ilili.<h. L. K. ti 1". 0. 31. approved. - 
 Jhur V. /ll,irk:-l\ C i. '.>,") 
 
 2. The clauses of tlie Act, 3:1 Vict. c. 
 7 (passed by the lo'^'islatiire nt' i^'iie- 
 bec), wliidi iiii|iiise a tax upon certain 
 pnlicii's of as>\iraiice and certain ri'ceipts 
 and renewals, are not autliorizi'd by 
 the 1'.. N. A. Act, ISCr, sect, '.i'.', sub- 
 ss, 2, 9. A License .Vet by which a 
 liceii-ee is conipelh'd neither to take 
 out. nor pay for a license, but whicli 
 ineiely jirovides that the price of a 
 license sliall consist of an adiiesive 
 stamp, to be paid in respect of 
 each transaction, not by tlie licen- 
 see, but by the pel-son who deals with 
 him, is virtually a Stamp Act and not 
 a liicense Act. The imposition of a 
 stamp duty on policies, renewals and 
 receipts with (inivisions for avoiding 
 the policy, renewal, or receipt in a 
 Court of Law, if the stamp is not 
 atlixed is not warranted by the terms 
 of an Act which authorizes the imposi- 
 tion of direct taxation.— yl((oni(,v-(f'( »- 
 I rill fur (^hielicr v. Quiin liisuraitcc Co. 
 -P.C i. 
 
 3. A Provinciivl Legislature cannot 
 impose a tax upon the official income 
 of an officer of the Dominion liovern- 
 ment or confer such a power upon the 
 municipalities. —/,(7)niA(/H v. Crt// »/ 
 <)ltiiU(i.~-C.\., t)nt i. 
 
 4. //(/'/, that (Quebec Act (48 & 44 
 Vict. c. 9) which imposed a duty of ten 
 cents ujion every exiiibit filed in Court 
 in any action depending therein, is 
 ultra vires of the Provincial Legisla- 
 ture.— yl^oDKiz-f/cHcrn/ of (,»l(('i(C V. 
 AV../.-P.C >••• 
 
 .5. The Local Legislature has author- 
 ity to enact a law imposing a tav on 
 the Dominion notes held by a bank as 
 portion of its cash reserve under the 
 Dominion Act relating to " Hanks and 
 Hanking " (34 Vict. c. 5, s. 14).- h'ind- 
 norv. ComtiK rcud Jliink of U'i/i'i.«»r. in. 377 
 
 (). //(/(/, that i^uebec Act. 45 Vict, 
 c. 22, which imposes certain direct taxes 
 on certain commercial corporations car- 
 rying on business in the Province is 
 intra vires of the Provincial Legisla- 
 ture. A tax imposed upon banks which 
 carry on busine.ss within the Province, 
 varying in amount with the paid-up 
 capital and with the number of its 
 otfices, whether or n.it their principal 
 iilace of business is within the Province, 
 IS direct taxation within clause 2 of sect. 
 !I2 of the B. N. A. Act, 1807, the mean- 
 ing of which is not restricted in this 
 rosiiect by either clause 2, 3 cir 15 of 
 SiJt. 91. Similarly with regard to in- 
 surance companies taxrd in a siiin si)eci _ 
 fied by the AcL-Iliintnir Tornmo y. 
 
 7jambr:-'V.C 'v- J 
 
 Lands liable to. . . . . . • »• »31 
 
 Sec Indian Lands, 1. 
 
 117 
 
 092 
 
 liH) 
 
^ss^r' 
 
 2295 
 
 OASES ON THE B. N. A. AOT. 
 
 2296 
 
 PACiK. 
 ii. 84.'$ 
 
 PrnceedH of insolvent eBtate. 
 
 Sec BaNKIIUI'TCY AN'H Insol- 
 VKNCY, 5. 
 
 Taxation of ferrymen. , . . iv. .370 
 .SVr Navioation and Shippino, 7. 
 
 TKMPKRANCK ACT OF 18«4- 
 Tlif b N. A. Act in asslRning to the 
 Parliament of Canada the exclusive 
 legislative autliority over " the regula- 
 tion of trade and commerce," did not 
 thereby repeal "The Tem|>erance Act 
 of 1804," of the late Province of Canada, 
 27-2S Vict. c. 18, and did not deprive 
 municipal corpor.ations of the power 
 thereby given to prohibit the sale of 
 intoxicating liriuors. -iW(W v. Cur/^nra- 
 till)} iif the Coiintii of Jlichmond.—^i.li., 
 Quebec ii. '.Mfi 
 
 2. A Provincial Legislature cannot 
 repeal or niodity those sections of the 
 Temperance Act of lH(i4, (27, 2S Vict, 
 c. 18), which conferred on Municipal 
 Councils the power to pass by-laws for 
 prohibiting the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors, — Ilai't v. Cnrparation of the 
 County of Miasisqiioi. —Circmt Court, 
 Quebec ii. 382 
 
 Cooei/ V. MunicipaUtji of Bromc. — 
 Circuit Crnrt, I ^u'l)ec. ' . . , . ii. 385 
 
 3. The Temperance Act of 18()4, of 
 the late Province of Canada, proliibited 
 the i-ale of li(|U(irs by retail wherever 
 the Act was brought into force, and 
 provided «]iecial proceedings and i)\in- 
 ishments for offences against the Act ; 
 the Provincial Legisl.ature of Dntario 
 afterwards enacted that the sale of 
 liquor in such localities shoidd also be 
 a contravention of the Provincial Acts 
 for selling without a license ; these Acts 
 provided other punishments and pro- 
 ceedings : lithl, that under the 'lem- 
 perance Act the matter was one of 
 criminal law ; and that the legislation 
 of the Provincial Legislature was ultra 
 vires. — Jtci/ina v. J'rittir.—ti.li., Ont. 
 
 ii. (!06 
 
 iirgina V, Lake. — I.l.]i., Ont. . ii. (iltJ 
 
 4. Acts of the Ontario Legislature, 
 provided that Local boards of Com- 
 missioners, and Inspectors appointed 
 by the Lieutenant-Governor, should 
 perform certain duties in their respec- 
 tive localities for the enforcement of 
 the statute of tlie late Province cf 
 Canada, called "The Temjierance Act 
 of 1864 ;" and that a certain proportion 
 of the expenses .attending tlie execution 
 of these duties should be paid by the 
 municipalities c(»ncerned. The Tem- 
 perance Act i)rovided for prosecution 
 by private persons, as well as others, 
 for offences against the Act : Held, that 
 the Ontario enactments were within 
 the competence of the Legislature. An 
 enactment of an ex post facto charac- 
 ter by a Provincial I^egislature is not 
 void on that ground. — License Commis- 
 sioners of Prince Edward v. County of 
 Prince Edward. — Chy., *^j\t. . . ii. 078 
 
 5. A Provincial Legislature cannot 
 repeal those sections of th" T.^mjier- 
 ance Act of 1864, which re , i to the 
 prohibition of the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors.— (?ri'//iV/i v. Jtioux. — Superior 
 Ct., Quebec iii. 348 
 
 TKADE AND OOMMERCE-The 
 power of the Dominion Parliament for 
 the resrulation of trade and commerce 
 includes political arrangements in re- 
 gard to trade, and regulations of trade 
 
 PA(iB. 
 
 in matters of inter-provincial concern, 
 and may, perhaps, include general regu- 
 lations affecting the whole Dominion, 
 but it does not comprehend the ]>ower 
 to regulate the contracts of a particular 
 business or trade (such as the busjness 
 of fire insurance) in a singl" Province. 
 An Act of the Province of Ontario to 
 secure uniform conditions in iwlicies 
 of tire insurance was held to be within 
 the power of a Provincial Legislature 
 over "property and civil rights." Such 
 an Act, so far as relates to insurance on 
 projiertj^ within the Province, may bind 
 all fire insurance comi)anies, whether 
 incorporated by Dominion, Provincial, 
 Colonial or Foreign authority. A Do- 
 minion Act having recjuired insurance 
 comi)anies to obtain licenses from the 
 Alinister of Finance as a condition (if 
 their carrying on tlio business of in- 
 surance in the Dominion, neither the 
 Act, nor tlie fiict of a Comimny having 
 obtained such license, was held to with- 
 draw the Company from the operation 
 f)f the Provincial Act. —C'i7(Cih.< and 
 Qiurn In.Hitrance (\iiiiiHiiiii « v. J'ar.ions. 
 — P.C i. 2(!,'5 
 
 2. An Act which authorized the Cor- 
 poration of the city of Montreal to im- 
 pose a license tax on butchcis kee))ing 
 stalls or shops in tlie city for the sale 
 of meat, fish, etc., elsewhere than on. 
 the public markets, ivas held notto be I 
 ultra vires of the ProviiiciartJPptsla I 
 ture, as an interference with trade .iiid't 
 commerce — Aneiers v. City of Montreal 
 — Superior Ct., •,(uebec . . . . ii. 'Xi't 
 
 MaUelt( V. City of Montreal— '6\\\h'- 
 rior Ct., Quebec ii. .S40 
 
 Pankrujitcy ii. 343 
 
 .sVc Uankhui'Icv and In.soi,- 
 
 VKNCV, 5. 
 Bills of Lading i. 683 
 
 .SW: Bills ok Ladino, 1. 
 Intoxicating Liquors . . . . ii. 400 
 
 See Into.xicatim; LuiUou.s, 0. 
 License Law ii. 349 
 
 See LicKNSEH, 3. 
 Kegulation of taverns .... iii. 144 
 
 .SVf DELKliATlO.N, 1. 
 
 Temperance Act ii. 240 
 
 See Tkmpkuanck Act op 18()4, 1. 
 
 TRUST— Power to vary . . iv. 049 
 See Propehty asdCivil Rkiht.s, 4. 
 
 VALIDITY OF ACT OF LEGIS- 
 LATURE. -Test of i. 3.J1 
 
 See Leoislatuhe.s ok Ontario and 
 
 (h'KBEC. 
 
 VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS. - 
 Power of Dominion Parliament to con- 
 fer jurisdiction ii. 378 
 
 iv. 288 
 See Navigation and Shipping, 3. 
 Imperial Coirt. 
 WAREH( )USE RECEIPTS.— 
 See BiLL.s OK Ladino and Wark- 
 HorsE Reckipts. 
 WATER LOT ON NAVIGABLE 
 RIVER.— Power to grant . . . ii. 231 
 Sec Navigation and Shipping, 2. 
 
 WINDING-UP ACT. . . iii. 374 
 
 iv. 459, 470 
 Sec Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency, 13, 15, 10. 
 WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE- 
 
 See Evidence. 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 FOR INJURIES ACT. . . . iv. 451 
 See Railways. 3. 
 
2296 
 
 
 :<;<.") 
 
 I'AdK. 
 icial concern, 
 B general regu- 
 )le Dominion, 
 und the power 
 if a i>articular 
 ,8 the buHinesH 
 igl" Province, 
 of Ontario to 
 ns in policies 
 1 to be within 
 [vl LegJHlature 
 riglits." Sucli 
 
 insurance on 
 ince,niav bind 
 mies, wnether 
 m, I'rovincial, 
 ority. A ])(>- 
 red inHurance 
 nsi's from the 
 a condition of 
 )usin('«« of in- 
 n, neither the 
 inpany having 
 IS held to witli- 
 
 1 the operation 
 — Oiiiziiis and 
 
 iiK V. Parsons. 
 
 . . . . i. '-'(io 
 ori/.ed the Cor- 
 [ontreal to im- 
 tcliers keeping 
 ;y for the sale 
 vhere than on . 
 held not to be | 
 iiiciarflPprti'la- 
 rtith trade and 
 til (if Montreal 
 
 .... ii. 
 untrcal—Hwpe- 
 
 . . . . ii. 310 
 
 . . . . ii. 343 
 
 .\.\i) Insol- 
 
 .... i. 683 
 G, 1. 
 .... ii. 400 
 
 IQUOUS, 0. 
 
 . . . . ii. 349 
 .... iii. 144 
 
 . . . . ii. 240 
 JT OK 18(i4, 1. 
 vnvy . . iv. 649 
 ivii,Ri(iHTa, 4. 
 T OF LEGIS- 
 
 .... i. 351 
 IF Ontario AND 
 
 t COURTS.— 
 ■liament to non- 
 . . . . ii. 378 
 iv. 288 
 I) Shipping, 3. 
 
 3EIPTS.— 
 
 NO AND WaBE- 
 PTS. 
 
 NAVIGABLE 
 
 vnt . . . ii. 231 
 
 D Shipping, 2. 
 
 ;T. . . iii. 374 
 iv. 459, 470 
 
 AND INSGIi- 
 ), 16. 
 
 EVIDENCE- 
 
 IPEN8ATI0N 
 
 ;T. . . . iv. 451 
 
 TABLE 
 
 l>V IKK 
 
 N.\MES OF THE CASKS CONTAINED IN ArPKXDIX'. 
 
 Allen c Haii.soii 18 ('mi. S. C. 1{. (i(',7 
 
 Amor, Reg. r 42 (^). ]J. .T.U 
 
 24 I,. C. 
 10 App. 
 
 Jurist, 25!» 
 Cas. 2S1.' . . 
 
 :>:)! 
 
 Aiigor.s r. Citj' of Montreal 
 
 Apollo Caiulle Cimipaiiy, Powell r. . . 
 
 Arbitration and Awanl between the 
 Province of Ontario and tiie Pro- 
 vince of (^>iiel)ec, 111 Ke 
 
 Armstrong r. McCntehin '2 Piigslej', ;181 
 
 Attorney - (ieneral r. Interiiaticmal 
 
 IJridi^'e Comiiany Ii A pp. Rep 
 
 Attorney-* I eiunal r. Niai,'ara Falls In- 
 ternational Hridi;e Company .... L'Otirant, ;U.... 
 
 Attorney -(ienernl r. Mercer 8 Apj). Cas. 7(i7.. 
 
 Attorney-Cieiii'ial for (Quebec v. ti)ueen 
 
 liLsurance Co o App. Cas. lO'JO 
 
 Attorney-(!enoral of Hritisli Columbia 
 r. Attoriiey-(!eiieral of Canada. . . 
 
 Attorriey-dencral of Canaihi r. Flint. . 
 
 Attorney-'.ieiieral of Canada, Attoniey- 
 (ieiieral of I'ritisli Columbia r . . . . 
 
 Attornoy-(!eiicral of (.^>uebee, Colonial 
 JJuildiiif,' and Investment .\ssocia- 
 tion V. !' Ap|). Cas. 157. 
 
 Attornoy-deneral of Quebec r. Jiued. . 10 -Ajip. Cas. 141 
 
 14 .\pp. ('a,s. 2!)o . .. 
 10 Can. S. C. R. 707 
 
 14 App. Cas. 295 . . . 
 
 COLfSIN. 
 
 2258 
 228a 
 22il(i 
 •-'2()5 
 
 2254 
 
 2257 
 
 •_':.'o.> 
 
 2208 
 
 2204 
 
 2i70 
 2270 
 
 2270 
 
 2200 
 2204 
 
 B. 
 
 Bank of Nova Scotia, Reg. r 
 
 liank of Toronto c. Lambo 
 
 Bate, Mousseau r 
 
 Bayley, (ianonj,' r 
 
 Beard i^. Steele 
 
 Bclford, Smiles r 
 
 Belisle, L'Uniim St. .Iaci|ues de Mon- 
 treal V 
 
 Bell Telephone Co., In re 
 
 Bell, Doyle r, 
 
 Bennett v. Pliarniaceutical Association 
 of Quebec 
 
 Bennett, Reg. r 
 
 Black, Dow v 
 
 Blouin v. Corjioration of Quebec 
 
 Boardinan, Reg. v ■ • 
 
 Bourgoiii r. La Coini)agnie du Chemin 
 do Fer de Montreal, Ottawa et 
 Occidental 
 
 Bradshaw, Reg. v 
 
 Brierly, Reg. n 
 
 11 Can. S. C. U. 1 
 
 12 Ap]). Cas. 575 
 
 27 L. C. ..'uiist, 153 
 
 1 Pugsley & Hurbidge, :i24 
 
 :i4 (,). B. 4:i 
 
 1 App. Rep, 4:iO 2201 
 
 2284 
 2204 
 228:i 
 2275 
 2250 
 
 L. R. 6 P. C. ;il . . 
 7 Out. Rep. 005. . 
 11 App. Rep. 320 
 
 2255 
 228.'{ 
 
 2285 
 
 IDorion, 3:M) 2270,2287 
 
 lOnt. Rep. 445 2275 
 
 L. R. () P. C. 272 2294 
 
 7Q. L. R. 18 2273 
 
 30 Q. B. 553 2277 
 
 5 Aiip. Cas. 381 2280 
 
 38 Q. B. 5(i4 2203 
 
 14 0nt. Rep. 525 2204 
 
'■^jgggS^SE^ ' 
 
 2298 
 
 TABLE OF NAMES OF OASES IN APPENDIX. 
 
 COLOMV. 
 
 Hriton Mediciil and (■enuml Life As- 
 sociation, Ho li> Ont. Rq). 441 22f>!) 
 
 Bronie (Municipality of). Cooey c L'l L. C. .Jurist, 182 2295 
 
 Hurah, Ri'g. r .'! A])!). CaH. H8!t 22().5 
 
 Bush, Rug. II 15 Out. Rep. ;it»8 2270 
 
 o. 
 
 Canada Central Railway Co., .lonos r . 
 Canada Southurn Ry. Co. r. .Jackson. . 
 
 Central Rank, I'Jdgar r 
 
 Central Vermont Railway r. 'JOwn of 
 
 yt. .John's 
 
 Chandler, Reg. r 
 
 Chapleau, Molson c 
 
 (Jhauveau, Cot" r 
 
 Church r Feiiton 
 
 Citizens' Insurance Co. r. Par8on.>(. . . . 
 
 Clarke r. Inion Fire Insurnnce Co . . 
 
 , Shoolhri'd r 
 
 Clarkson r. Ontario Bank 
 
 i>. l^yan . . 
 
 4fiQ. B. 250 
 
 17 Can. S. 0. R. 31(1. 
 li") App. Rej). l(it> . . . 
 
 14 Can. S. C. R. 288 
 
 1 Hannay, oofi 
 
 (! Leual News, 222 
 
 7 Q. !.. R.2.f)8 
 
 28 C. P. .'(84 
 
 4.-> L. T. N. S. 721 ; 7 Ai)p. 
 
 ( 'as, !t(; 
 
 10 Pr. Rep. yi.'i 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 2(15 
 
 li") App. ]{ep. 1()() 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 251 
 
 Cleveland (Miniicipality of) c. Munici- 
 pality of Melhourne and Brompton 
 Gore 
 
 College of I'liysicians and Surgeons of 
 Ontario. Reg. r 
 
 Colonial Building and Investment As- 
 sociation r Attornej'-General of 
 Quebec 
 
 Colonial Building and Investment As- 
 socii;tion, Loranger r 
 
 Connnercial B.-inkof Windsor, Town of 
 Windsor r 
 
 Cooey r. Municipality of Brome 
 
 Coote, Reg. r 
 
 Cote c. Chauveau 
 
 r. Watson 
 
 Credit Valley Railway Co. r. Great 
 Western Railway Co 
 
 CroiuJjie c, .Jackson 
 
 Cushing r. Dupuy 
 
 Danaher v. Peters 
 
 Dansereau, Ex parte 
 
 Davidson, Quoddy River Driving Boom 
 
 Co r .' 
 
 De Grosbois, Willett c 
 
 Do St. Aubyn v. Laf ranee 
 
 De Veber, In re 
 
 Diblee, Whittier r 
 
 Dobie r. The Temporalities Board .... 
 
 Dow ii. Black 
 
 Doyle r. Bell 
 
 Dudnian, Kinney r 
 
 Duncan, Ex parte 
 
 Dupuy, Gushing c 
 
 4 Legal News. 277 . 
 44 Q. B. 504 
 
 9 App. Cas. 157 
 5 Legal News, llfi. 
 
 3 Russell & Geldert, 420 
 21 L. C. .Jurist, 182 .... 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 599 
 
 7 t^. L. R. 258 
 
 3Q. L. R. 157 
 
 25 Grant, 507.. 
 :t4 Q. B. 576 .. . 
 5 App. Cas. 409 
 
 2287 
 2288 
 2258 
 
 2282 
 22.57 
 2289 
 221)2 
 2270 
 
 229(i 
 22til 
 
 2258 
 225H 
 2253 
 
 2284 
 2280 
 
 22ti0 
 
 22(50 
 
 2294 
 2296 
 228() 
 2262 
 225(5 
 
 2288 
 225(5 
 225(5 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 44 2278 
 
 19 L. C. Jurist, 210 2287 
 
 10 Can. S. C. R. 222 2282 
 
 17 L. C. .lurist, 293 22(58 
 
 H(i- L. R. 190 2273 
 
 21 N. Brunswick Rep. 401 .... 2267 
 
 2Png8ley, 243 2284 
 
 7 App. Cas. 1:J(5 2277, 228(5 
 
 L. R. G P. C. 272 2294 
 
 11 App. Rep. 32(5 2285 
 
 2 Russell & Chesley, 19 225(5 
 
 1(5 L. C. Jurist, 188 22(52 
 
 5 App. Cas. 409 2250 
 
 E. 
 
 Edoar v. Central Bank 15 'App. Rep. KiG 2268 
 
 Ellis, Ex parte 1 Pugsley & Burbidge, 693 2263 
 
 European and North American Ry. Co. 
 
 r. Thomas 1 Pugsley, 42 2279 
 
 Evans r. Hudon 22 L. C. Jurist, 2C8 2267 
 
TABLE OF NAMES OF OASES IN APPENL.IX. 
 
 2299 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 225!) 
 
 2296 
 
 22()0 
 
 2270 
 
 22S7 
 
 2'JH8 
 
 2258 
 
 2282 
 
 2257 
 
 2280 
 
 22(i2 
 
 ...... 2270 
 
 r Ai)p. 
 
 .... 22!t(i 
 
 22t>l 
 
 2258 
 
 2258 
 
 225!i 
 
 2284 
 
 2280 
 
 22(J0 
 
 22<i0 
 
 1 2294 
 
 2296 
 
 228(J 
 
 22G2 
 
 225G 
 
 2288 
 
 225(5 
 
 2250 
 
 2278 
 
 2287 
 
 2282 
 
 2208 
 
 2273 
 
 01 .... 2267 
 
 2284 
 
 . . . .2277, 2280 
 
 . . 2294 
 
 2285 
 
 2250 
 
 2202 
 
 2250 
 
 2258 
 
 693 ... . 2263 
 
 2279 
 
 2267 
 
 F. 
 
 coivsiS. 
 
 Fakewell, The 7 «,>. I.. R. 380 2281 
 
 Fenton, Church r 2H c; I'. 384 2270 
 
 Flint, Attorney-Geuoral of Caimda f. . 10 C';in, S. t". l{. 707 2270 
 
 Foley, Re;,', r Stfv.'iis' I)i;:,'est, «8l 2263 
 
 Frawley, Roh- i- 7 Ai.p. Hup. 240 2270, 2278 
 
 FronteuHC, (Liconso Commissionors of) 
 
 1: County of Frontenac 1 1 < hit. Rep. 711 2274 
 
 (County of), LiceiiBu Comuiis- 
 
 sioners of Frontenac r 11 Out. Rep. 741 2274 
 
 a 
 
 I Pu-sloy it Burhidgo, 324 
 7 Out. Rop. 401. 
 
 2275 
 
 70 
 
 Cjanoso r. Bayley 
 
 Gihson r. McDonald 
 
 (loodluie, Ro 
 
 (Jrainger, Separate School Trustees of 
 
 Rclleville c ir, ( liaiit, 670. . 
 
 Orand Trunk Ry. Co., Monkhouse r. . H App, Rep. 0:57 
 (.(reat Western lly. Co., Credit ^'alley 
 
 Ry. Co, r 25 ( iraut, 50" 2288 
 
 Green, Holnian r Can. S. C. R. 707 2270 
 
 Griffith, Page c 17 L. C. .lurist, 302 2202 
 
 , iWe (• 18 1- C. Jurist, 119 2209 
 
 1!) Grant, 30f, 2286 
 
 2266 
 
 2288 
 
 P 
 
 opo r 
 
 l(i L. C. Jurist, 109 2202 
 
 . Kioux Lu;,'al News, 211 
 
 Hamilton (City of), Harris r 14 <.). B. (J41 
 
 Hanson, Allen r 18 Can. S. C. R 607 . . . 
 
 Harris r. City of Hamilton 44 (,>. B. 041 
 
 Hart c. Corporation of the County of 
 
 Missisquoi 3 Q. L. R. 170 
 
 Hodge r. Reg 9 App. Cas. 117 
 
 Holman r. Green Can. S. C. R. 707 . . • 
 
 Holmes 1: Temple 8 (,>. L. R. 361 
 
 Horner, Reg. v 2 Ste[jhuiis' Di^'est, 450 
 
 Hudon, Evans r 22 L. C. .luri.'^t, 208 . . . 
 
 Hughes, McDiarniid c 10 (hit. Rep. 570 
 
 .2205, 
 
 2295. 
 
 2281 
 2258 
 !i281 
 
 2295 
 2270 
 2270 
 2281 
 
 2276 
 2207 
 2281 
 
 I. 
 
 TsTERXATiONAL Bridge Co., 
 ney-General r 
 
 Attor- 
 
 (i App. Rep. 537 2265 
 
 J. 
 
 .Jackson, Crombie r 34 <,). B. 575 .^ . , 2250 
 
 , Canada Southern Railway Co. r. 17 Can. S. C. R •'ll'^ • • ^^°* 
 
 Johnston ,: Poyntz 2 Russell & Geldert, 193 2264 
 
 Jones V. Canada Central Ry. Co 40 (,>. B. 2o0 
 
 2287 
 
 Keefe r. McLennan 2 Russell & Chesley, o . 
 
 Kennedy t: City of Toronto 12 Ont. Rep. 211 
 
 King's (Justices of), Reg. r 2 Pu^sley, 63o . . . . ... 
 
 Kinney v. Dudman 2 Russell & Chesley, 19 
 
 L. 
 
 La Conipagnie du Chemin de Fer de 
 
 Mcmtreal, Ottawa et Occidental, 
 
 Bourgoin r 5 App. Cas. 381 
 
 Lafrance, De. St. Aubyn v 8 (,>. L. R. 190 
 
 3 (A.) 
 
 .2273,2287 
 
 .... 2285 
 
 .... 2274 
 
 . . . 2256 
 
 2280 
 2273 
 
2300 
 
 TABLE OF NAMES OF CASES IN APPENDIX, 
 
 Lake, Hoj{. >• 
 
 Lainbo, IJiiiik of Toronto r . . . . 
 
 , MoIhou r 
 
 Lttiulry, Tho1)orj{u c 
 
 Laiinlois, N'iilin '• 
 
 Lauroiice, Roj;. r 
 
 Loiioir r. liitchiu 
 
 Loiimlion r. City nf Ottawa. . . . 
 
 Ijovoillo, Ex parte 
 
 LouKiiouil Navigation Co. r 
 
 of Montreal 
 
 Lorangu- r. Colonial Building tiiid In 
 
 veatniont AHsociatinn 
 
 LTnion St, Jaciiues do Montreal c 
 
 Ikdislo 
 
 t'Ot.lM.V. 
 
 •J Q, B. 515 221»5 
 
 1 -2 .Vpp. Cn%. S75 22!)4 
 
 15 Can. S. C. U. 253 227H 
 
 2 Ai)]i. Vt\H. 102 2'2M4 
 
 5 ,Vi»p. CaH. 115 22H5 
 
 Vj 
 
 43 Q. B. 1(14 '22ti 
 
 3 Can. S C, 11. 875 
 2 App. llo|t. 522. 
 
 City 
 
 22H« 
 
 22it4 
 
 2 Stophons' Di^esf. 445 2277 
 
 l.T Can. S. C. R. oC.ii 2282 
 
 5 Lej^al News, 1 Ki 22«0 
 
 h.R tl P. C. 31 2255 
 
 M. 
 
 M 
 M 
 
 Mc.Vi.MON r. Pino 
 
 McAithur v. Northern and I'aci' 
 
 Junction Ry, Co 
 
 McClanuKhan r. St. Aim's Mu 
 
 Buildint; Society 
 
 McCutchin, Arniatron;,' r 
 
 McDiarniid r. Hughes 
 
 McDonald, (Jilison v 
 
 Macdougall i: Union Navi;,'ation Co. . 
 
 Mcduire, Wilson r 
 
 McLennan, Keefe r 
 
 McMillan, Reg. v 
 
 V. Soutliwest Boom Co 
 
 Malletto )'. City of Montreal 
 
 Maritime Bank r. Reg 
 
 Melbourne and Brompton (Joro (Muni- 
 cipality of), Municipality of Cleve- 
 land r 
 
 Mercer, Attorney-Oeneral r 
 
 Merchants' Bank, Smith r 
 
 Missisfiuoi (Corporation of the County 
 of), Hart I' 
 
 Mohr, Reg. u .... 
 
 Molson V. Chapleau 
 
 r. Lambo 
 
 Monkhouse v. Grand Trtink Ry 
 
 Montreal (City of), Angers r 
 
 , Longuenil Navigation 
 
 Co. V 
 
 Montreal (City of), Mallotte r 
 
 Montreal, Ottawa et Occidental, Bour- 
 goin V 
 
 Montreal Warehousing Co. , Royal Can- 
 adian Ins. Co. r 
 
 Mousseau r. Bate 
 
 Murdoch r. Windsor & Annapolis Ry. 
 Co 
 
 2Pug3ley, 44 2'257 
 
 17 App. Rep.Sfl 2289 
 
 24 L. C. .hirist, l(i2 225(i 
 
 2 Pugsley, ;!81 2257 
 
 KJOnt. Rep. 570 2281 
 
 7 Ont. Rep. 401 2275 
 
 21 L. C. .lurist, 08 2281 
 
 2 Ont Rep. 118 2275 
 
 2 Russell & Chosley, 5 2273 
 
 2 Pugsley, 110 2277 
 
 1 Pugsley A- Burhidge, 716 ... , 2282 
 
 •24 L. C. Jurist, 203 2200 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 057 2284 
 
 4 Legal News, 277 2284 
 
 8 App. Cas. 707 2208 
 
 28 Grant, 029 . . 2259 
 
 3 (i. L. R. 170 2295 
 
 7 Q. L. R. 183 2280 
 
 Legal News, 222 22h9 
 
 15 Can. S. C. R. 253 2278 
 
 8 App. Rep. 037 228S 
 
 24 L. C. Jurist, 259 2290 
 
 15 Can. S. C. R. 500 2282 
 
 24 L. C. Jurist, 203 2290 
 
 5 App. Cas. 381 
 
 2280 
 
 3 Legal News, 155 2272 
 
 27 L. C. Jurist, 153 2283 
 
 Russell's Equity Rep. 137 .... 2258 
 
 N. 
 
 Niagara Falls International Bridge 
 
 Co., Attorney-General r 20 Grant, 34 2255 
 
 Noel r. Corporation tf the County of 
 
 Richmond 1 Dorion, 333 2295 
 
 Normand u. St. Lawrence Navigation 
 
 Co 5 Q. L. R. 215 2281 
 
 Northern and Pacific Junction 11 v. Co., 
 
 McArthur v ." 17 App. Rep. 80 2289 
 
TABLE OF NAMES OF OASES IN APPFKDIX. 
 
 2301 
 
 COLL' MS. 
 
 . 2'j!tr> 
 
 . 22! 14 
 
 . 227« 
 
 . 2'284 
 
 , 2285 
 
 , ii'J()-i 
 
 . '2'2HH 
 
 . 22! >4 
 
 . 2277 
 
 . 2282 
 
 , 22fiO 
 
 . 2265 
 
 . 2257 
 
 . 2289 
 
 . 225(i 
 
 , 2257 
 
 , 2281 
 
 . 2275 
 
 . 2281 
 
 . 2275 
 
 . 227:j 
 
 . 2277 
 
 . 2282 
 
 . 22!t(> 
 
 . 2284 
 
 . 2284 
 
 . 22(i8 
 
 . 225!) 
 
 . 22!)5 
 
 . 2280 
 
 . 22H<) 
 
 . 2278 
 
 . 228S 
 
 . 22i)0 
 
 . 2282 
 
 . 229G 
 
 . 2280 
 
 . 2272 
 
 . 2283 
 
 , . 2258 
 
 2255 
 22!)5 
 2281 
 228!) 
 
 Ontauio Hunk, ClnrkHim r l"i A|i|i. l{i'|p. Kill 
 
 Orillia ( Villago of), Slaviii r :itl <.>. li. 1.".',) 
 
 O'llourko, III'!,', r 1 " )iil . Hop. 1(14 . 
 
 Ottawa (City of), Loprolioii c '.' A pp. Hop, ."i22. . 
 
 OOI.IMN. 
 
 22:.H 
 . 2272 
 . 2;!(18 
 . 22114 
 
 Paiik i: (Jiillitli . 
 I'uiK'i' !■■ (intlitU. 
 I'apiu, llx paito. 
 
 I'araoiis, Citizens' Inauranco Co 
 
 , (,)ueon Insuriincu Co. r. , 
 
 Peek r. Shiekla 
 
 I'otors, Daiialior r 
 
 IMiarnuvei'titical Assuoiation of yuol)uc, 
 
 Honiiott I' 
 
 F'icton, 'i lie 
 
 I'ij^'i'on ■. Itocorilor's Court 
 
 Pill(j\v, Kx i)arte . 
 
 Pino, RIc.Vlnion r 
 
 Popo r. (iritKtli 
 
 Poiilin V. Cori)oratioii of t^ueboc 
 
 I'owi'U r. Ajiollo Candle Co 
 
 Poynt/,, .lohnston r 
 
 Prince Edwanl (Licoiiso Commissioners 
 
 of) i: County of Prince Edwaid . . 
 Prittio, Reg. '■ 
 
 17 L C. ,1ui.st. :)02 
 
 IS L. C. .haist, ll!t 
 
 15 !,. C. .Inrist, :!;t4 
 
 HIL. 0. .Jurist, ;illt 
 
 I.". L.'r.N..s. 721:7 App.Cas.iKl. 
 •15 L.'l'.N.S. 721; 7 Apj). CaH.lMl. 
 
 tl App. Hep. (l.'SH 
 
 17 Can. .S. V. H. 14 
 
 1 l)oiii)ii, .'i;i(i 
 
 4 Can. S. C. n. (148 
 
 17 Can. S. C. H. 4!I5 ... 
 27 li. C. .lurist. 21(1 . . . 
 
 2 Pu^sley. 44 
 
 K; !, C. luri.st, 1(1!» .... 
 II Can. :■;. C. R 1H5 .... 
 
 HI Apj). Cas. 2H2 
 
 2 Russell &(ieldert, 11)3 
 
 2(1 (irant, 452 
 42 (..». B. (112 . 
 
 22(12 
 
 22(i!» 
 22(1!) 
 2:!(l.l 
 22! MI 
 2 2! 1(1 
 -257 
 227H 
 
 22S7 
 2280 
 22S(> 
 22H2 
 2257 
 22(12 
 227 I 
 22(15 
 22(14 
 
 22!I5 
 22! >5 
 
 Q. 
 
 tJiEBEc (Cori)oration ot), lilouin c . . . 7 <,>. L. R. 18 2273 
 
 1 I , Poulin r.... !l Can. S. C. R. 185 227* 
 
 (Jneddv River Orivin'' M<iom Co. r. 
 
 David.son - . 10 Can. S. C. R. 222 2282 
 
 t.)ueen Insurance Co., Attorney-tJon- 
 
 eral for t,)uebec r .". .\pp. Cas. 1000. .. .^ 2294 
 
 Oueeu Insurance Co. r. Parsons ■!•"> L- T. N. S. 721 ; 7 App. Cas. 
 
 im 22!)(i 
 
 B. 
 
 Ranscjm, Richardson c 
 
 Rec rder's Court, Pigeon r 
 
 Reed, Attornoy-Oeneral of Quoliec 
 
 , Ward r 
 
 Reg. 
 
 Amer 
 
 r. l$ank of Nova Scotia 
 
 r. Hennett 
 
 r. Roardman 
 
 r. Uradshaw 
 
 r. Rrierly 
 
 c. 15urah 
 
 r. Rush 
 
 )'. Chandler 
 
 i: College of Physicians and Sur- 
 geons of Ontario 
 
 i\ Coote 
 
 ■ i\ Foley 
 
 I'. Frawley 
 
 ■, Hodge I' 
 
 ■ V. I Forncr 
 
 • V. Justices of Kiii^i's 
 
 • I) Lake 
 
 • r. Lawrence 
 
 ■ r. McMillan 
 
 10 Ont. Rei.. :i87 227(i 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 405 2280 
 
 10 Aiip. Cas. 141 22!I4 
 
 22 N. Hrnnswick Rep. 270.. . 22(14 
 
 42(,). I5.:il)l 2283 
 
 11 Can. S. C. R. 1 2284 
 
 1 (hit. Roll. 445 2275 
 
 ;ii)Q. R. 5--)3 2277 
 
 ;i8 (,>. R. 5(14 22(13 
 
 14 Oat. Rep. 525 22(14 
 
 :i App. Cas. 88!) 22(15 
 
 15 (hit. Rep. :i!)8 2270 
 
 1 llamiav, 5.".G 22.'')7 
 
 44 (;>. B. 5(14 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. .-)!tO 
 
 Stevens' Diyost, 381 
 
 7 App. Rep'. 24() 227n, 
 
 !» App. Cas. 117 22(la, 
 
 2 Stephen's Digest, 450 
 
 2 Png.sley, 535 
 
 43 (.y. R. 515 
 
 43 t,). li. 1(J4 
 
 2 Pugsley. 110 
 
 2280 
 228(! 
 22(13 
 2278 
 2271 > 
 2275 
 2274 
 2205 
 22(12 
 
2302 
 
 TABLE OF NAMES OF OASES IN APPENDIX. 
 
 . Maritime Bank v. 
 
 r. Mohr 
 
 1-. O'Rourke .... 
 
 r. Prittie 
 
 v. Reno et al .... 
 , Riel V 
 
 r. Robertson .... 
 
 r. Roddy 
 
 , Russell V 
 
 — — , St. Catherine's Milling and Lum- 
 ber Company v 
 
 , Severn v 
 
 r. Wason 
 
 Renaud, Ex parte 
 
 Reno et al. , Reg. r 
 
 Ricliardson r. Ransom 
 
 Richmond (Corporation of the County 
 of), Noel r 
 
 Riel V. Reg 
 
 Rioux, Griflith v 
 
 Ritchie, Lenoir v 
 
 Robertson, Reg. i* 
 
 Roddy, Reg. v 
 
 Rosa i: Torrance 
 
 Royal Canadian Insurance Co. r. Mon- 
 treal Warehousing Co 
 
 Russell r. Reg 
 
 Ryan, Clarkson 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 657 2284 
 
 7 Q, L. R. 18.3 2280 
 
 lOnt. Rep. 464 2263 
 
 42 Q. B. 612 2295 
 
 4 Pr. Rep. 281 2275 
 
 10 App. Cas. 676 2253, 2276 
 
 6 Can. S. C. R. 52 2260 
 
 41 Q. B. 291 2262 
 
 16 L. T. N. S. 889 ; 7 App. Cas. 
 
 829 2272 
 
 14 App. Cas. 46 2271 
 
 2 Can. S. C. R. 70 2277 
 
 17 App. Rep. 221 2264 
 
 1 Pu:,'sley, 273 2266 
 
 4 Pr. Rep. 281 2275 
 
 10 Ont. Rep. 387 2276 
 
 1 Dorion, 333 2295 
 
 1(1 App. Cas. 675 2253, 2276 
 
 6 Legal News, 211 2296 
 
 3 Can. S. C. R. 575 228H 
 
 6 Can. S.C. R. 52 2269 
 
 41 Q. B. 2!)1 2262 
 
 2 Legal News, 186 2271 
 
 3 Legal News, 166 2272 
 
 4(i L. T. N. S. 889 ; 7 App. Cas. 
 
 g29 2272 
 
 1 7 Can. s! C. R. 251 . ! ! ! ! . ." .' .' ." 2253 
 
 s. 
 
 St. Ann's Mutual Building Society, 
 
 McClanaghan r 
 
 St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber 
 
 Co. c. Reg 
 
 St. John's (Town of). Central Vermont 
 
 Railway r 
 
 St. Lawrence Navigation Co., Nor- 
 
 mand r 
 
 Separate School Trustees of Belleville 
 
 r. Grainger 
 
 Severn r. Reg 
 
 Shie'ds, Peek v 
 
 Shoolbred i: Clarke 
 
 Slavin r. Village of Orillia 
 
 Smiles i\ Belford 
 
 Smith, Ex parte 
 
 r. Merchants' Bank 
 
 Southwest Boom Co. , McMillan r . . . . 
 
 Squier, Re 
 
 Steele, Beard v 
 
 Suite V. Corporation of Three Rivers . 
 , Corporation of Three Rivers v . . 
 
 24 L. C. Jurist, 162 2256 
 
 14 App. Cas. 46 2271 
 
 14 Can. S.C. R. 288 2282 
 
 5(i. L. R. 215 2281 
 
 25 Grant, 570 2266 
 
 2 Can. S. C. R. 70 2277 
 
 6 Ai)p. Rep. 639 2257 
 
 17 Can. S. C. R. 265 2268 
 
 •MQ. B. 159. 2272 
 
 1 .\pp. Rep. 430 2261 
 
 It) L. C. Jurist, 140 2268 
 
 VS Grant, 629 2259 
 
 I Tugsley it Burbidge, 715 ... . 2282 
 
 46 Q. B. 474 2261 
 
 •24 Q. B 43 2259 
 
 II Can. S. C. R. 25 2274 
 
 5 Legal News, 330 2ii73 
 
 T. 
 
 Temi'le, Holmes v 8 Q. L. R. 351 2281 
 
 Temporalities Board, Dobie v 7 App. Cas. 136 2277, 2286 
 
 Theberge v. Landry 2 App. Cas. 102 2284 
 
 Thomas, Eurojiean and North American 
 
 Ry. Co i> 1 Pugsley, 42 2279 
 
 Three Rivers (Corporation of) v. Suite. 6 Legal News, 330 2273 
 
 hi 
 
1. 
 
 COLUMN. 
 
 2284 
 
 2280 
 
 2263 
 
 2295 
 
 2276 
 
 2253, 227G 
 
 226!) 
 
 2262 
 
 App. Gas. 
 2272 
 
 2271 
 
 2277 
 
 2264 
 
 2266 
 
 2275 
 
 2276 
 
 2295 
 
 2253, 2276 
 
 2295 
 
 228H 
 
 2269 
 
 2262 
 
 2271 
 
 2272 
 
 ! App. Cfis. 
 
 2272 
 
 2253 
 
 TABLE OP NAMES OF OASES IN APPENDIX. 
 
 2303 
 
 , Suite r. 11 Can. S. C. R. 25 2274 
 
 Toronto (City of). Kennedy v 12 Ont. Rep. 211 2285 
 
 Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Re . . 28 (^rant, 195 2267 
 
 Torrance, Rosa v 2 Legal News, 186 2271 
 
 u. 
 
 Union Fire Insurance Co., Clarke r , 
 Union Navigation Co., Macdougall i\ 
 
 10 Pr. Rep. :J13 2201 
 
 21 L. C. .Jurist, 63 2281 
 
 V. 
 
 Valin c. Langlois 5 App. Cas. 115 2285 
 
 w. 
 
 WALtACE Huestis Grey Stone Co., Re 
 
 Ward r. Reed 
 
 Waaon, Reg. v 
 
 Watson, Cote v 
 
 Western Counties Ry. Co. c. Windsor 
 
 & Annapolis Ry. Co 
 
 Wetherell & Jones, Re 
 
 Whittier i'. Diblee 
 
 Willett V. Da Grosbois 
 
 Wilson r. McGuire 
 
 Windsor (Town of) v. Commercial 1 tank 
 
 of Windsor 
 
 Windsor & Annapolis Ry. Co., Re 
 
 , Murdoch r 
 
 AN'eatern Counties Ry. /•.... 
 
 Worms, E.x parte 
 
 Russell's Equity Rep. 461 .... 2258 
 
 22 N. lirunswick Rep. 279 .... 2264 
 
 17 A pp. Rep. 221 2264 
 
 3Q. L. R. 157 2256 
 
 7 App. Cas. 178 2267 
 
 4 Ont. Rep. 713 2268 
 
 2 I'ugsley, 243 2284 
 
 17 L. C. Jurist, 293 2268 
 
 2 Ont. Rep. 118 2275 
 
 3 Russell & Geldert, 420 2294 
 
 4 IJussell & Geldert, 312 2258 
 
 Russell's E(iuity Hop. 137 .... 2258 
 
 7 App. Cas. 178 2267 
 
 22 L. C. Jurist, 109 2268 
 
 2256 
 
 2271 
 
 2282 
 
 2281 
 
 2266 
 
 2277 
 
 2257 
 
 2258 
 
 2272 
 
 2261 
 
 2268 
 
 2269 
 
 , 715 ... . 2282 
 
 2261 
 
 2259 
 
 2274 
 
 2273 
 
 2281 
 
 2277, 2286 
 
 2284 
 
 2-270 
 
 2273 
 
 4 (A.)