^i IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) n^ / «* ♦ ' ; >i *^ i^ 12.2 u us , 1 u 1^ Hg 14 lmlSE9S II-25 m± 11.6 «" ■> - -' *■ \' .^^ i: Sis' ""Jl. Sciences GprpocadoQ '^-5%^^ ^»^^ ^^^ .. 23 WIST MAM STROT WEBSTIR,N.Y. I45«Q {716)172-4503 j (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (maaniiig "END"), whiehavar qSpliaa. IMapa, plataa. ehairni, ate. mfy ba fllmad at diffarant raductidn ratios. Thosa too larga to bo aniifiraly includad in ona axpoaura ara fllmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand corner, loft to right and top to bottom, as many framas aa raqulrad. Tha following diagrams illustrata tha mathodt - . L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica i la, g4n«rosit4 da: \jm Library, Unlvorslty of Mastom Ontario. ^ Las imagas suivantas ont 4ti raproduitas avac la plus grand soin, eompta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da I'aiiamplaira film*, at an'* conformM avac las conditiona du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat impriihia sont filmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaalon ou d'lllustration. soit par la second plat, salon la cas. Tpus los autraa axamplairas originaux sont filmto an commandant par la prarhlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaalon ou d'lllustration at w tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. . Uh daa symbolaa suivanta apparat^ra sur la darnlAra ifnaga da chaqua microficha. salon la cas: la symbols ^ signif ia "A SUIVRE". la. «ymbolo ▼ signifia "FIN". . '■ *■■'.■ / ■ ; • ~ ^, ..-'■"■■ ' ■ ' ' Laa cartas, pjanchas. tabiaaux. ate. pauvant *tra fiimAs A das taux da rMuction diffArants. Lorsqua la document aat trop grand pour Atri raproduit an un saul clich*. il aat film* i partir da I'angia supAriaur gaucha. da gaucha i droita, at da haut an baa. an pranant la nombra d'imagaa nAcassaira. Las diagrammas suivsnts lltustramiomAthodai . . • . % 1 2 3 *■■ 1- « ■■ 1 '» .-Z- 32X S 6 *' • V \, ^ ■-*- %'«•■ i^Jr^ ':W PB 4> THE MoNtREAL Law Reports COURT OF QUEEN'S iBENCH. r . ^^- ^"'V ■ ■'I '^ CASEfS DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF QjUEEN'S BENCH. flONTREAL. A 1886, U i some Cases of j previous years.) / J A AhELhB.i Occasional, CoxTBiBUTOBs / ' J ^' **' MNQPRi;. (ff<-i»/Yfi dutinoHukmlL initial*) \ ^-^- UAMSAY. '^ ' J J. J. BBAU0U4MP. V N T. RIBLLE, y VOL. II. ■^. ? PRINTED AND PySLlSHEp BY THE GAZETTE PRINnSG CO? ■:^m ..v.: .... .' # *■ *"^ « • *'■., ffSitt mi /■ -m^. - I -ff^--' \.' ' n JXIDQES or THB COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH 1886. \;he Hon. Sir ANTOINE AlUt DORiON. Kt.. ChUf Justice. SAMUEL CORNWALLIS MONK, THOMAS KENNEDY -RAMSAYi ULRIC JOSEPH TESSIER, ALEXANDER CROSS, LOUIS FRANCOIS GEORGES BABY, Attorney General: \ i, / Hk Hon. A. A. TAILLON,^ Q.y. Solicitor General: / The HoN.\E. J. FLYNN, Q^. Clerk of Appeals : L. W. MARCHAND/ Puisne fudget. r\. /■■.: ■*^:-' •I .1. ^ A '■'■I Bai B6\ Bel Bla Boi ' Boi Boi ■ - \ ■, ■ Canai 1 Canac « * 1 i ^--'i-^^^^m^ ■ . I / TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN VOL. II. Almour & Harris 409 Awtociation (L') Pharmaceu- ' Hque, Brunei &.... 352 ue 64 491 Banque d'Epargnes & Banq Jacques Curticr....:., Uanque d'HocheJaga, Stephen & Banque Jacques" "Cartier/'u Banque d'Epargnes &,... 64 Barlow, Fairbanks &.. 300 wiri*„"'"'"-"--' •••'■■ >^^ Black, Wheeler &.. '.■■.*.'.■?■ lag isj Borrowman, Northwood &.. ' 2fiR Bouchard & Lajoie y 4^ Bourguignon, Citizens Ins. Co „ & ■ 22 Boyce & Phoenix Mutual Life ' Insurance C0..Z. 990 Brady & Stewart..2.... Jti Brunet, Cheney/&...... """'■laQS Brunet & Coloration drVa'^ Cote St/Louis.... ino Brunet & 1,'Association Pharl maceutique 0^9 Butler, Pierce & o2 BywT, Corner & ...!*!;!".*.■ 262 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., Ro- ' binson & ,._ .^ Cassidy, Rolland &....'..<".... 7 238 Central Vermont Railroad & Lareau . ,.... 268 Chauvcau, Cheney & Brunet, & 298 Cheney & Brunet, & Chauveau. 298 Citizens Insurance Go & Bour- guignon 22 Cie d'Assurance Mutuelle & Vilieneuve gg Connecticut and Passumpsic ^ Rivers RR. Co., Morris & 303 Connecticut and Passumpsic Rivera RR. Co. v. South Eastern RR, Co „.., 105 Copeland & Leclerc 366 Comer & Byrd "" ^62 Corporation of St. " C^^'i're, ' Macfarlane & -,, mi Corporation de la Cot^j|| Louis, Brunet & •^iS|^'103 80 Court, Bell &. , Cox & Turner .....!.'.'.'.' 278 44 Cross & Windsor Hotel Co.! Cuthbert, Jones &. Cadot & Ouimet...... . 211 Campbell, Oilman &...'.['.]"" 291 Canada Sugar Refining Co" Peters &.... "' Canadian Bank of Xoiiitoerce! Exchange Bank & Canadian Pacific Ry. Co ., Goyette & 42D 416 Daigneau & Levesque 2O6 parting, Dudley &... .: 45^ 170 236 Demdfs, Macdougall &.'.'.*,'.'.. Desgroselliere, Riendeau &... •••• •••• •• 310 Dudley & Darling ■'■' 453 %.. P .^-_-— _ Exchange Bank & Canadian*. Bank of Commerce 475 E«£hange Bank & Hall 409 tvans & Mbnette 243 Tl TABLK OF CA8B;8 RKPORTED. if: ■#' '#■- - r I ■ 1^ '* V 'J'AMLJi ,OK CASES VlTfUD: S^ZM-t*'**^ -— .,uc.y.«. :.... WlanKitr ,1: Talbot ... Wllveau A Chevr«nin . Paok 887 • . . . .. . . ./. ... . 1 K,oh. Wv. 18. •'•••••.•8Dor. Q. B.317 ••"^•"^ I Q. I* R 200. ►^♦♦» ♦»»T Bowman ••. Took« , JT* f**'' 214 ... r .... . ••.■.....! Campb. 377 BridKer r. 8ava»p» . Bubbv. V«lverU>n., 157 17« 23.86a JJJ # Cannon r. Huot 24 L. T. 822i ■1Q.I^R189. Cwila 4 Crawford... ^ J'/' " ••* V^ J^K. 189. .....,...^ Copperr. Nell * '"^^r.Q. a sib. Crane 4 Nolam . . . . . . 7« ,., "'*'•;'• Cu.hlng4D«puy :.•/: — 19L.aj.309.: ^•w«,17^;8Leg.New.;i4o!r: jambroavllle *. Henriequln ........ «!».„' Dansereau 4 Letourneu A.D.1837,p.608... 176 28 34S 807 341 809 .S86 186 848 386 187 Dr«mn.ond4 8outt E.-ten.Ry.^:::::^i:-^'i^,^.*-8«^ .277 Durocher 4 Beaublen -« **^.J.'Z76. ^«. •Stuart'i Bep.808. * ^xch^Dge Bank 4 Craig « , „ ,^ ^ Ex parte Dofiaihue...;.... V i^^V*®" 486 61 Ex parte MccSiw:::::;;::; •'^•••;?'^k-2«5. •v......8Leg.Newa^ Ill ••'....... 40flt 08..,J....f 4flj^ Oninoar4Hall ' "' ' ^ '" *^ Q-^..c.^ip;p;;;;-;-6;:::;fii.1i;^,£»^:;:v«. B«.p*mg«.............,.,.,..,^^^^ ^^ -^ • V I ' ,^ * "? T^— ■ It . •":y^*' « ■^s. - * . - . -■ • ■:' - '« r. -■- . i „^ '' m w. m u ment roll, or to reserve to the aotaal owner of a property any recourse > against tboee ftom whom bj9 had derived his title after the improve* ment had been miade. 2. The vendon^l>y a clause of the deed of sale, relinquished and waived any right to exact interest on the unpaid bldanoe until the net ^ revenues of the company purchaser should be sufficient to pay the annualliabilities of the company for interest,' insurance, etc., in con- nection with a certain loan, aft^r which they would be entitled to receive interest to the extent of 7 p. c. out of the surplus of revenue, according to its sufficiency :—A«/(f, that tfie true meaiiing of this stipulation was t^t the purchaser should pay no interest on the balance due during the extension of time granted for the payment of the balance; unless the net revenue of the property should be. suffi- cient to pay the charges for interest, insurance, etc., ,and not merely that the claim for interest should be postponed. ■^'■K , . ■ ■■■■-' ■ -. ''it The appeal was ftom a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal (Dohebtt, X), June 9, 1884, maintaining a plea of cod^ensation and disn^stiig the appellant's action. Oeoffrion, Q.C., for the appellant; , H. Abbott^ test the respondent. iji l'T-> 4 II.* q«i Now>, :a < TWt^ HfarmnmnKa A iump ...t Can. ft C. R. TO. ■TJk aba Uleam Ifavlgalkin Co. . • .31 «- ^•J^V' "J- BoluiAThrselUv^a •• ;«l.c3.B.S04 ..— MykaaA 8haw ■ . L.Il.,4Q.B.D«»-^- - Toof h h The Piovlndal Insuranoa Co. . .» L. C. 1. 1». Wln«at«». Foito'- "* 4a m m 1« » .M W. R 6&0. ly lecoane le improve* ad waived Lil the net to pay the itc., in con- entitled to Kf revenne, Dg of this est on the ayment of Id be saffi- aot merely ' -'ft )r Court, g a plea ction. "■»^*v/ Tf AMtAM. n« f), ^ T 7 . '^^""'^^t^ng tte cost of improvements on the property/of special individuals, existed in Prance, ^e general pnnciple which must govern this question is tenu des evictions dont il avait une cause^ou du moins un g^e eiistant des le temps du contrat de vente. soit queues procedent, soit qu'elles ne procddent pas du fait du vendeur." Vente No. 86. ^ T^e next question is what constitutes a gmneexiOant at the tijne of the sale? It has been suggest^ by ^ant that he was a «M«i»,«airc, and that the comply h«i ac ^thedkgationofthedebt.andhadprSdtop^ appelant, and that it does not appear that his vendow were the^wners ofihe land at the time of the improve- ments. On these points we are against appellant. It is abundantly evident that he was the cessiamioire of the vendors m possession when the proceedings with regard , TO tna umprovftment- lvo«<.« — j xi-- t^ i *• -ar 433 43S 334 196 28 Oww** btfot* Cin^,4mHm. SI iOm. IV.ch. ».... U7 10.11 V|ftch.e ...1 . tm i2Vic.oh.4a ;•'■ ju5 GftUCcK 19 ^ S3Vifl.eh. Il,s.l0 tit 41 Vltch.3 HI 42-48 VIo.ch. 88, s. 4... |i 43^Vlo.rh.4B ;;. 887 484 only to give the i;oinpany delay to pay the interest till, by their operations, they were able to paj eeiven per centum. When the partie^ intended only to extend the delay of payment they us^ expressions which jplainly indicate that intention. The judgment will, therefore, be reformed with costs of both Oburts. ' ; v " DoRioN, C. J. :— By this action, the appellant seeks to recover from the Company (respondent) |2,281.37, of which |1,290.68 is fcCr a balance of a larger sum which, by deed execnted before Hunter, Notary Public, on< the 28th June 1S*J*J, the Com- pany acknowledged to owe to Mary Ann Campbell, widow Elisha Lane, and which balance she has transferred to the appellant by deed of the 16th of June, 1880, and the re- mainder for interest at t p.c. on said balance from the Ist of July, 187*7, to the 15th December, 1888, date of the \ ' ^ i 'i^ik^jkJi ii.l^'^4il. "'•M J una Lunn. Emma H. Lunn and Alexander H. Lunn. sold Wiid'JT ?7i^ (respondent) the property on which the Windsor Hotel has smce been bnilt in the City of Montreal for the sum of 1112.212. whereof |18.702 we're pa^T W mg a balance of |98,610 remaining unpaid Alexander H. Lunn. one of the vendors, seems toliave nmsferredtoMrs-Lane. on the Yth June. 18Y6. his share of the purchase money, andbydeedof the 28th of June, 18-77 h«^ir^ '^ff *? P"^^"- ^«' representing one of -the Wndors. and to the other vendors 186.084.46. being whlStr^''*'^'"!"^""^ ^ ^"^^ and intere^ which sum has since l^n paid. Mrs: Lane and the ven- dors liavid Torrance and others, excepting AlexanderH tSw ™ ^«**P«ty tothedeed, agreed to assist ^n&r^ - obtammg a loan of 1860.000. and ^ re- Imqi^h the pnority of thdr hypothecs upon the property and also to extend tn «iV Si-^ av : . /« ., ^ "ywiy, Tr^ extend ^o dx re».fei:S<:2K Z^^i of t he liri«n0B dun thnm. "»L»,rf«j)«M».y.»J SlW^ ">"* t S^ !Si::::::.;::--"^*''''-g 135:::;:::::'-':."":S iwo *"'iI5 woe .;:'•' 21 S008 J5« M71..... :. • • ijo ^ 443 MM 230, TM Su"". 230. aw mS:::: ::::::::: t*Ji tan. "^ ^* 348 472 M4 • J*ft. »<«». S4« isao........ *<*•«<» «*«o...... ...' J '^ :::::::::«} Ml../ ": J? f>x^ tfnpothm. m::::::::::: «» ^ 1^ SM JOO ■.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ^ (722.. 2"3 ^ 2fl6 \ Ife , « -"J I.W" juu^iucuto ivudcruu lu J.OIO ana loc;, iiie as- }■ I sessment rolls by wtich the property^old to the Company S/ I had been charged ^ith a proportion oi the cost for open- ing and widening Stanley Street, and for opening Domi- nion Square, were set aside. Subsequently, the city obtained from' the Provincial Legislature authority to cause other assessment rolls to be made for the purpose of assessing in whple or in part the cost of the improvements already made upim all and every the pieces or parens of land or real estate which the commissioners (to be named) should determine to have been benefitted. (Act of 18'79, 42 &; 43 Vict.c. 53, sec. 4, §M & 4.) New asseslsment rolls werel made under this Act, and the' commissioners having determined that the property of the Company (respondent) was benefitted by the im- provements referred to, assessed the amount to be paid by the Company at the sum of $522.90 for the opening and / io(», me as- - 1 — '""", »«o api/ciittui comenas that the stipulation as regards interest in the deed of the 28th of June, 1877, does not amount to an abandonment of anv claim for interest until the revenues of the Company were sufficient to pay interest, but to a mere postponement of the term of p^yme,nt of these interests, which were-to run m^e meantime as if no agreement had taken place We do not think this i? the interpretation which ought to be given to the stipulation contained in the deed of the 28t^ of Jupe. 18W. .By thatdeed, Mrs. Lane 4d the other creditors agreed to extend, for a period of six years, the ^rm o| payment' of the balance. of the principal, ank to waive ,tfieir right to, claim ikerest until the net rWenues of th^ Company sh<]ald be/ sufficient to pay the interest SS'T*>r"Tf J^'**^ '^' contemplated loan of fU?i , . ^ "^^ **^ T P'i^°iP»l. they have extended th^delay for its p^yinent./in the'case of the iiiterest. they - h«^e waived the nglit t o/ oi mm it . If th^auleiiiiua hi iLt*. 4ia = — '-J '^{■^inw \ nqn. OrifoirtAi / , t Q. B. SM; MNiiL bjr DapfWM qovrt, 10 L K, iqi , t Q. B. M; ooniL by ifapraaM Couti, • L. N. 4ia I^ A F>.Tl^y| Q. B. 446 ; eooM. by BdpwMiu, Coart. ^^*'!!^\T1 ^^'"^'^ o' th. IWi.h oTB*, Cim^,^ 2 (4. R WO, onoM. bV HuprauM Coort, 10 L. N. 100. * ^ia rST^' ' * "• '"^^ ~-«^ ^r 8ap«n«. Court. It % r '«±t:: r^^-.M^Ll!^*^fe .!l ih wmcuA^ere especially asseBSjjd for it. (Sect. 4, $2 refer- ring to §8 of 87 Vict. eh. 51. sect. 116). This they have done by determining that t^e Company, respondent, was fnter- ested in the improvement, and by assessing its pro|)erty for Its proportion of its cost. There is nothing in the i>roceed. mgs of the Commissioners to aifect the foriner owners of the property, and nothing in tl^e law to give a retroactive effect to tjieir awards and jissessment rolls ; nor to reserve to- the actual owners of the property any recourse against those from #hom they had derived their title after the improvements had been made. : ; The auteurs of the Company were not parties to the pro- ceedmgs of the Commissioners, and could not urge any objection either to the regularity of their, proceedings, or to the amount awarded. The city could not, under th^se assessment ToUs, h&re collected from the auteurs of the Company, the amount for which the property of the Coni- mrt „]7i n "■"«»r« protected from any claim on the part „< the Company, respondent. Ky the provision, con! tamed m Arts. 1180 and 1192 of the Civil Code, and the Company can no more retain the balance stindne^ her oI«m thjm ,t cnld force her to refnnd the eighly°°eveh «.d» half i«r cent, of h.roriginJ claim which thlor S ote im"""" ^"""^""^ "' "" '-' »' «"« .^he_ appellant «, 'if poMible, in a still better position th«.,h„ auuur. Jtrs. Une. since the Company th^n^h P.S Eos^ ''•S««'«'y,h.s offered topayhimtheS t^hT^ "Vr """ ""' '»?« »"" *e Company k^'S assMsed under the new assessment rolls. This offcr J.. mjdewithont any reference to or reserved W*cWm- what»ever..s will be -ee,bytheletterof thetZf J^T 1888, forming part of the record.:>-^ '^o'June, If it coi rid I wf h.i.^ ti,.t Tffn, L,P ^ , ~ _ . A _; % ^ repre»nting Al^der a ImS:^^^^ I . ttupofrDumi. from •« ordT of . Jad^/of the 8ap«rior Coart. ••ttC M.de an order of the IVofhonoUry. by whiTthe^Do^f I^t. we.^ .athori.ed to borrow |6.()Jo on mort^^:L* «mmov.W property beWnging to th. lUm «.UU. ^fi»n% QG. forre«pon<^ntji. moTinfN- The •ppUction for futhori.ation wm made br th. appelUnU. in the flr.i in.U„o^ to the Prothon^t^y under art. me, Tiu/snJ of 8rd Pe,t of the 2wl of » r. '^i ~„w. „ ,.'».'» «T. vr woD\>E>ouicui.o, uuc uoiurv tiiu Halt) Dy XittVia Torrance and others, which there was no law to sapport, and there wak a clause in the deed giving to the vendors the advantages derivable from the Anility of that taxation. The property therefore passed to the purchasers with at least the risk of the future action of the legislature who had the power, Ijnt were not supposed to be likely to invade private' i-ights by imposing taxes previously declar- ed illegal and on property legally free from any such burdenis ; but if the law to authorize such a tax was allowed to pass unchallenged it was at the risk of the party in possession, who should have opposed it, and thus protected their property. The second assessment was imposed to recoup the Cor- poratidh'for their outlay, they did not require to be parti- cular as to" who were to be the sufferers, provided they got sufficient power to levy their indemnity. « +i^*** ^■nn* < 4 an orUi'r of « judg**. bul m b«fi.r«i n(ition to ooart and Jadg« in matt«ni ■onh aa th« pr«««nt, and wh^rvva? a court and jodgw hava (concurrent jariadiition, an app«al li^ from tha ord««r of lh« .jn«l|(«» a« well aa th« «oart ThlB prin«ipl«< wan a(iopt«gu«. Gth«Twia«»-lt would •imply m«an a moltitnde of appMla, •■ the app«IUata V (*) » Uf. K«wi, JO*. O • M^ «•»•. 33«. . ■ * ' - » , I, : ^ *■ I ■ ... I 1881. »d they „u«, thi. prete^ion ^^rZ Z..; iiZ I" h^l 7 ? '^"?'" "' "■* ^'" "-d .eoond part. here, by re.pect.vely rel»q»i,h .nd wwve my mrhj to «^ I"iCJS^?i "T* '^ W the mnaj liability ,f 1 Um .Md Oompmy for intereet. ia.urMice, &o r per MBtnm per uiaim out of rach oyerpln, of reveaZ Coatt?tl!Tr'*'" «.fflcieat.to li,„id.to the pnierest out Of wJuch the arrears as wnll oa ♦».« ! fnterest ahould be paid. *^* *''*"*"* . * < 7 a J T •'"•''^ "' tUSap^Hor Court i^orui^»|J Artid* 4tf4 Md ffllowlng of .aid^Jod. • ^"^"^ ** ."nt^««d in tha third part of th.Ld«of1?4.Ur^^^ I »i^ ^" ***• ""^•" «*^»'» »»y »»»• JlpnofbU Mr I Irjltl ^^ '" '^" ''^ *^^ Nortmbw. W ^^p^. IwUh^t."' "^'' '**" "^^ '^^^ "' ^^^'^ •PP«"-»- MoUon granted and appaal d aitltriUllt ha.! t» • iJ a aim of II.AM in». montff t» llbi baiiiU b«l«tlaiil had panbttMil lk« book d»bls of UvHiM. and bad coltwUid IIm man ol ll.ftW) Stt tm aoromil Tb* dmd of miU nnd»f wblob b« part baafxl th« iMWtk d^bla wm m*! Midi" at th« suit of lh« F«l«r«l Hank Thi« lUnk in* rib«d f»r judftnvilt on Uwl dndt<1'*i'«*<>n ^** dm Uratiott an it stood f Thi* |if«r|iirfhi««» divuA'd th«t h» owwl nothing Tha baiil should havn HI«Hi& «ont<*«taUon of ttrn dM'Ur«tion. As il was,^tln gamiabiM had b«eti (»adt«mii«* - •. - ■V "> ** 0Miai4«itnc tlat Ik* Fwliwal UMPHP*"^ ^ '«■■■•> kail no rtf ht lu obuaa • jutf|^Wr«r pmU •fala.it UMaj^iUnt CharUw U A Orajit. imti Mi4i,onth«att«iii «i»l BMaa b«r«la wkU« tb« 4«i laratUNi of ttm Mkl llmt rvnaliMMi tt««'ont«it«Mi, llM aaoM bitiiif to lh« •4^* i Im oip«4 nolhlitff aiul tiad nothlnf In hit bands b*' „^iltin|f ^4«« to iHti dflfiitidani I^ivnina. and (fm«i4«riDf that In ll|pfv«at of «tt4h trmtMUIion th« apiMitlanl won.l -''^ (') The deddoo "•ill « u ■ ■ '>'Miia»-ii i«* Willi ttik Il«frli. iiMK Mhl ihim l\mn 4aik mth *t«>«ia tmipiV^lm l« |Mi|f |%i •*f iMl ptmmmi kt'H I •It4>ni«pi br appmIImiL ♦ r ♦ / V- .•« ^1^ &MriJli '■*» >>' ♦• tt, ■■■WF <*ji* .J is*" « ■;i^ •'■•<■; -^ ■ .su ■;■■ "■» r- i . "6 ■ . - ,H^EI^EAL LAW HEFO&XB. ■ i ^•^s A !f.">:;r September 25, 1886. ' V Coram DoipioN, OJ., Monk, Ramjsay, Tkssier, Baby, JJ. * . HON. ALEXANDER CROSS, * ' . (Plaint^ in Court below), ■ Appellant; TItE WINDSOR HOTEL COi OP MONTREAL, (Defendant in Cowt helow), ^] • ^ •-■■ Respondent. CWy q^ Montreal— ^Assessment for improvement — 42- 4" 48 Vic. eft. 68, s. 4, §§ 1, 4r— Warranty— Construction of agreemeiU _.. ^ as to waiver of interest. • .< A vendor who sells a propbrty during the proceedings of expropriation for a pnblid improvement is not garant of the purchaser for tlie share of the cost of the improvement with which the property is -charged by an assessment roll subsequent to the date of the sale. And this holds good even where the assessment roll referreid to was prepared under the authority of an Act of the Legislature to take the place of the original assessment roll for the same improvement, made previouB to the sale, but which had been declared ni^ by the (Tonrts,— thme being nothing in the AcTto give a retroactive effect to the new assess- ment roll, or to reserve to the actual owner of a property any noourse > against those ftom whom hja had derived his title after the improve' ment hlad been made- 2. ThevendorSrJ>y a clause of the deed of sale, relinquished and waived any right to exact interest on the unpaid blUanoe until the net , revenues of the company purchaser should be sufQcient to pay the annual liabilities of the company for interest,' insurance, etc., in con- necticHi with a certain loan, aft^r which they would be entitled to receive interest to the extent of 7 p. c. out of the snrplns of lovenue, according to its sufficiency :—AeM, that tfie true meai^ng of Uiis stipulation was tiiat the purchaser should pay no intisrest on the balance due during the extension of time granted for the payment of the balance; unless the net revenue of the property sl)ould be anffi- dent to pay the charges for interest, insurance, etc., ,and not merely that the claim for interest should be postponed. The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal (Dohebty, J.), June 9, 1884, maintaining a plea of conl^ensation and disnjbsipig the appellant's action. Cfeoffrion, Q.C.^ for the api^Uant. ., Zr. ilMoM, for the respondent. OOtJllT OF QttlEN'S BENCH. d uu. CroH Ramsay, J.:—. Thw 18 a suit by a cessionnaire to recover part of a baUteur '^'j" (iefonds claim and interest. The action is met by the res- W'"-^^* "<•»»' pondent setting off an amount paid by the company in '" discharge of the auleurs of appellant for alleged improve- ments by which the property sold to respondent Was said ' to be benefitted. The respondent also contends that by an agi^ment with the atUeurs of appellant in 1878, they relmquished the interest on the balance of the claim due by thecompany to appellant's airf««r, from that time, until the hotel company was in a position to pay certain ex&Bes and seven per centum pn a sum of money borro^e7by the hotel company, and out of which appeUant's autJrs werei to be paid, and were paid a large portion of thei^Iaim. Ihe first question that arises on the issues thus raised 18, whether a vendor who sells during the proSedings of expropriation for a public ii^provement. is garant of the purchaser for tig share of the improvement with which the property i6 c^irged by a ji^^sequent repartitiiih. We d^cLTv^'TH. T^'' "^ ^"^ *^" question offers no difficulty^ Although no statute, sud^ as those in force here with regard to distributing the cost of improvements on the property/of special individuals, existed in France ^e general principle which must govern this question is ZTa ^'^ • v^ ^l ^'^^^''- ^' «*y« = " ^« ^«°deur est tenu des evictions dont il avait une cause.ou du moins un geme existant d6s le temps du contrat de vente, soit queues procMent, soit qu'elles ne procddent pas du fait duvendeur." Vente No. 86. ^1^ next question is what cUstitutes a gwtneexisiant at he time of the sale? It has been suggest^^a^ant that he^was a c«««im«a,>c, and that the comply had ac oeMi^e^egationof the debt. andhad pro^^edto p^ :^e^t. and that^it doe. not appear that his yeJol were the^wners ofihe land at the time of the improv^ mentsi On these points we are against appellant. It is abundantly evident that he was the ce^Lre of the vendors m possession when the proceedings witii regarf ,to the improvement began, and the hotel oomnanv^ ^J''^'\ * 'ir-'^T "tjf^ f ' 1^ • i?^ '•/'tT ? 10 MomatBAL LAW B£K>Bm ■; I : 1"^ cepted signification of tKe deed of cession and nomo:^e; ^^ we, therefore, think appellant stands precisely in the posi- Widdij^iiouition ^f the original vendors. The real difficulty arises out of an ex post facto law. It is a difficulty which, one would suppose, should at once have suggested itself to {he mind, as not tfalHeast obvious of the many inconveniences resulting from ex post facto legislation of this kind, that it would disturb most unfairly acquired rights. The pro- y ceedings with regard to the expropriation, were, at the time of the sale, so illegal that it was necessary to apply '^ to the Legislature to renew the power to make a reparti- tion of the cost of the improvement. This law does not say who shall pay for the improvement, and in the bA)p^ sence of such a disposition, it is impossible to charge tj|i|^; J vendor, under the ordinary charge of warranty, with%' liability, which ha& no legal Existence at the time of the sale. We must, therefore, reverse thB. judgment, in so far as regards the capital. , On the question of interest we are with the company > respondent. By the terins of the deed the aiiiteurs of appel- lant relinquish their claim to interest, and it is impos- sible to read the cktuse to mean that the intention, was only to give the company delay to pay the interest tiU, by their operations, they were able to pay seven per centum. i When the parti^ intended only to extend the delay of payment they us^ expressions which plainly indicate that intention. The judgment will, therefore, be reformed with costs of both dburts. : DoRioN,C. J.: — By this action, the appellant seeks to recover from the Company (respondent) 12,281.8*7, of which #1,290.68 is f»!»'>«« 4ue was only to be paia from the Brst of July. 1881. when the net revenue of ^ the property of the Company became sufficient to pay the annual liability for interest, insurance and other chLes in connection with a contemplated loan of |860,000 ; that „ ^ „ this debt had been incurred by the Oompanyibr the price of the Windsor Hotel property, and that both principal *f • 'wu^'n'^*'' P"^ '^^ ^"^P^'*^**^^ by a larger sum which^the Company had paid to the City of Montreal for --- Sr uT " ^"^^H ^^ ^^^'<^ the ^pellant who sold the property to the Company. i'i^ "^ The Court below maintained the plea of compensation and dismissed the appellant's action. The facts which gave rise to the litigation between the ' parties are as follows :^. i "««« lae On the 3rd of April. 1876. David Torrance Mary Lunn Julia Lunn. Emma H. Lunn and Alexander H. Luin. sold Wii^l r?T? ^'^P**'^?^'**) tl^e Property on which the Windsor Hotel has since been built in the City of Montreal for the sum of ♦112.212. whereof 118.702 were paid, W mg a balance of |98,610 remaining unpaid «»v Al«an^ H. Lunn, one of the vendors, seems to^iiave ransfer«dtoMrs.Lane, onthe 7th June, 1876. his share of the purchase money, andbydeedof the 28th of June, 1877 ■ th^^"*"^ ''*^'!^ *? P*^^''- ^«' representing one of the Wndors, and to the other vendors |86,084.46. being which sum has since l^en paid. Mrs. Lane and the ven- Lumj, who was not a party to the deed, agreed to assiitt # ^qm he priority of their hypothecs upon the property, and/also to extend to six yearsihe period for thepaS of fte balance due them.^t^^la^^^Jl - ; ■■ < ''f-j n # MoStRBAt LAW RSFOfim ■•/■ 1W& \ > anjf right to exact and re^re any interest upon the amount qfj said ^alaitce until the net\revenues of the Company should be '"'*' sufficient to pay the annual lutbihties of the Company for interest, insurance, ^c, in connection ioith the said loan of |860,000, after which they would be entitled tb receive interest to the extent of 1 iPc.ottt of the surplus of revenue, according to its suficiency" The secretary of {he Company has testified that it was only since July, 1881, that the Oompany had a net surplus available to pay interest on the claim of the appellant. A Previous to. the sale of the pi^perty to the Company, certain public improvements hM. been made in the vicinity, by the opening • of Stanley/Str^t and of Dominion Square, and the proi)erty had ^ been ass^sed fior a sharit of the cost of these improvements. Th6 claim of tht city was, howeve*, disputed, and by the deed of sale . of 8rd of April, 18t6, the vendors reserved all right of action, claims and demands they might have against the Mayor, Aldermen and citizens of Montreal, for (he recovery of the special assessment for/ the opening of "Stanley Street, and for the drain in said stjreet, paid by the vendors to the Corporation. By two judgments rendered in 18*76 and 18t9, the as- sessment rolls by w^ich the propertj^old to the Company had been charged W;itli a proportion o^ the cost for open- ing and widening Stanley Street, and for opening Domi- nion Square, were set aside. Subsequently, the city obtained from* the Provincial Legislature authority to cause other assessment rolls to be made for the purpose of assessing in whole or in part the cost of the improvements already made upon all and every the pieces or partMs of land or real estide which the commissioners (to be named) ^ould determine to have been benefiited. (Act of 18*79, 42 & 48 Vict. c. 53, sec. 4, $§ 1 & 4.) New asseslsment rolls werel made under this Act, and the' commissioners having determined that the property of the Company (respondent) was b^efitted by the im- provements referred to, assessed the amount to be paid by the Company at the sum of #522.90 for the opening and OOUBT 0# QUEEire BEffCH. 18 IM. 0URTOJ QUEEITS BENCH. 8tood It. by acquiescing in the proceedings of the Com. miSBioners. and'by paying the alant of the a«Hessme„T: -the money was paid to discharge a liability of the city hL t"hlV"'"^*^ '' '^' ""'^^' "^ *^« Company wiih has therefore no recourse against them, the e being no special warranty in the deed of sale providing for such a contingency. (Troplong de la vente.^o. 465-6 & 7) But supposing the vendors to have been, under the general warranty stipulated in the deed of sa e. Hab le to mini Ron ' T' T^ ^^ *^« ^^"^P-y - *^« As sesl- monl Rolls made under the Act of 1879. the appellant is not one of the vendors, nor bound to the warranty sUp" lb". " ^:t^ "/ "*'" ^« ^^^^ "«* ««« -^ this deeHf sale, but upon the deed^f the 28th of June. 18-77. by which the Company promised to pay to Mrs. Lane, wiomie re presents the sum which he claims, this p;omise having been made by the Company after full knowledge of th! PaJ?"o)ihrp' *^'''^''' P"'*'''"^ ^'"^ '^"y «^«i™ o^ the r„J • A . ?.r^' ^««P<^d«^t' »>> the provisions con- tamed m Arts. 1180 and 1192 of the Civil Code, and the Company can no more retain the balance still die ^ her claim than it could force her to refund the eiX^even and 9 half i,er cent, of h^r original claim which the Com ^^^^^^-^^^^^^ - The^appellant ^. 'if possible, in a stiir better position" P.S.ROSS, its Secretary, has offered to pay him the balZ« tr^r^ 1"' "^^ *^!^» ^""'^ the oLpany h^ p^-d l^^^r^'^''^'^ Prop^rt/hadbeen assessed under the new assessment rolls. Biis offer w^ ' made without any reference to o^ reserve of any Z^ whatsoever.as will be see^ by the letter at the t^^fl^'^ 1888. forming part of the recotdr.^ ^ «t"oiJune, If it c ould beheld that Mrs. Un e and the «n».ii,^. „ i4>i^ Hen l mg Alexand er H. Lunn, ye the ^ Z^ o ^^h^ 188S. Cm«i WimlMir Ifotol C<>. 16 MONTREAL LAW REFOSm IMS. WliKlnor Hotel Uii. i I 'III Company, (respondent), the guarantee could not extend . * .. . **"y^"- i(.„ ' A-f I I f*t. 18 \ ^^.. MONTREAL LAW BBrORTa Co. , dittinct deckration to thit effect, ivhich in certaiiily not «i«iTii.iiiI° ^ 1°°"** r *'*" *''•"■« •» queition. But suppose for O" the sake of ftifgument that the ola^se imported a reloaic/ it was oondi^lbnal ou the terms of the compromise being conformed to, which wo^ld have reqpirod the debtor to be ready with aqd to tender the money when i^, fell due, or th« debt rovix^ed in fall, , ' ' A^in, in aucli case, it «iras fdr the debtor, the Company, to show the state of their accounts, if they dtjatred to ^vo the benefit of such a condition. They have'fai^ tomalA) _ Juiy sufficient proof. It was concerning a fa^%cluiively Vithiu their cognizance. They were paying^vidends in ,1882, which implied ability to pay interest at tin earlier date. •■•■■■■,-■ The respondents have made no proof, whatever of defi- ciency of fundp. They^aveno satisfaction, and merely fix the arbitrary date of l8tJuly^l|81, . ^ Mr. Ross, on his examination "%;tl]ie appellant, makes a passing allusion to being behifid «n that loan to the i N extent of 146,000, but they paid it off" by a new arrange- ment ; this mufllj have referred to the sale or negbciation of their bonds.! It is at nil events inapjafcaWe to the j interest on the dbbt in contenii)lation by the „agMement| of 28th June, isfj. He says, I tendered an account show- i ing the financial^sition of*tK(a Odmpany itself. I never I rendered any statement to the plaintiffs ' When on the "Zth June, 1888, Ross wrote to the'appel-. lant, " a eonsiderable time ago I informedlyon we could " not pay interest thereafter," what interest did he refer to ? No deduction had up to that time been claimed,— no account furnished, nor any notice of a fixed time from which only the Company pretended interest was payable. The six years* delay had not then expired, and without explanation as the case then stood, it must have meantf the whole interest. They must have construed the deed as the appellant did. The conditions were giving time| for the capital, but naturally a creditor would expect! interest as soon as the funds were sufficient. The res-l ponde^s^^ade a point that some of the creditors acceptedl OOTTllT |p QUEEN* BENCa. 19 thu respondent's term* Thia i> #iK»j»..^i Th«.ppen^ti.o„tm;Jotlttt Z ■ -.•ordrng to the deed oX^n^JoHHornkj^ Is^^^^... Th., following i, the jadgmont of tho Court :-i " The Court, etc.... • ' ; !' Considering that the appellant claims by his action by Darid Torranot »n4 „ii.„„ .. .i . « P"'* "" ••»• hv T>.rM Tn~.„ ™ ".loui^ auo on tho price of aala by U„,d Torr.„ce Mi other, to th. Company re.Dond«Bt by deed of a.le before J. S Hunter n«lJL U-, the 8rd of April, im. wbioh Tm „° ITIm'T'"* '^'' deed «n-ef.r^.H date J^Yof K'eXo J J. 8. HunUr, notary, on the 28th June IS?*- «„j .t ...«,of««9..04forintore.to„ *e .Id :'n""f'«5m8° fnm the let of July. 1877. to the 17th of IWber 1M« .e the me of 7 p., eeptum per «,nun. JZ?nte™t on wcMnber, 1888, date of aervice of the action • And coMidering that the reepondent. We pleaded to ^» action, let. «u.t««o,dingtrthe «idZiof^^ -^;Z»:rp.rin:r: :i;t.°ri-c„i ♦1,586.88, with the ,omof«lo'i««r' . '*? """ *^ ~id prinoipa: from 2XtaT m'"^, tlT "^ 1882, forming together the .„m crf'«l 687 »8 wi*^ ^"^ -y^ 't&^'d 20 MONTKBAL LAW BCroBm yt 1 > V i X ■/■ '""• on th« property which they had parohM« ; (') The decUon *o.J-,inrwM,v. in the above caie aatMorto Om^miLnt^^i -— w " - - — ■ p -^— ^-^7— r ■i-.V I vi "■iif .^1- 22 >: MON'^REAL law' RBPORlfe. I January 26, 1886, Cktram DoBioN, C. J., j Ramsay, Tessier, Gross, Baby, JJ. THE CITIZENS INSURANCE CO. OP CANADA ' {Defendants in Court below), Appellants; AND ISAj BOURGrtJKJNON v ~r-~7^PlainJlif in Court below), :■•■''•■:;'. 1 ' . •■ v' .:.- RESPONDENT, ^ ■ ; Fire JnsuraHce—Powers\of Agent— Interim^ J^eeeipt — iVoft-urae of Policif— 'Conditions — Notice of other Inmrance. UiaLi) :-^That the agent of an insnranoe company haa no authority to accept an insurance and Kive a receipt for the premium in exchange for a receipt for his individual debt to the person insuring, and snoh i. act on hfs part will not bind the company. 1 ,v, , - 1 ■ •■ ■ - '■■'■ THii appeal was from 'a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal, Rainville, J., Slst January, 1882, uondemniijig the appellants to pay the respondent the sum of |985, anrount of loss by fire sustained by respondent. M. M. Taitt Q.C., for the appellants. \ . " ■ J. C. Hatton, Q.C., and H. J. Kavanagh, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered as follows :— ■ if. ■ /■-■Ramsay, J.:—- ' /^.j^- ^■■'- <-■■■.'' ^i-'''^'^-lhs'.-. This is an action onha insurance receipt given by the company's agents at 3t. Johns. ?'^ It^is contended tha^N;|iere was no insurance because i the premium had never b^n paid, but that the agents of the coipipany took the insurance, so far as they could, by setting off the amount of the premiuuL against their account with respondent. Secondly, that .by terms of the receipt, a policy was to be given within thirty days by ,which the receipt was to become void, and no policy luid been issued. Thirdly, that by the receipt, the insurance I was made subject to the conditioned: of the policy, one of] \ COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 28 I which w^ the griving notice to the company of any other' m acknov^edged m writing. -^ ^'"^ Boa^JLoo. h.Sll iL ^'"i* " ^"'y important. We think it can hardly be questioned that an agent of an insmlZ company cannot take insurances and grant rSTTn etchang^ for a receipt for his individlll debt And S appears iha this is equaUy Arue Whether he^n be one havmg general ^r limited powers, unless the power be specially conceded tel himVpSfom sLi ! transaction ; and so we held iA i^^JTZ Z ttrr . ^- * ^^'^- <'^ Buf^rres^L^n?^: wli t^^T'' TV"' ^""«^"' foithatCompl'; - ^ owed him more than the amount of the premium Thl thfnr'^- **!* ! perfect equivalent fo* the amount of^^ • the premium. And so «« k^u *w.x _, "*""""ioi the premium. And so we held that wnere a geneml I jnt. who had an office in Montreal f^r the tranS of the business of the company, ordeL books foTZ company injuring, andfortheprice of which^^Lmp^v was liable, he might fairly set off the ac«> J duTby Z company against a premium. But in iiis ca^ L « JT I ^tion took place ; the liability of Jhe^^^^ the account is not proved; the acciint is not pSed the respondent had only a common aLunf^h^' tlfl"? '' 1r "^' *P*^*' *^** thXwentTh^u^' Ijudgment should be reversed " ^'ps ground, the . clus^e thTt thl «w. ^ ! ^^""^ '"^^'^ *I^«**" *oJ,e con- 1T!/1«A I '^' ™ '^^^ **> ^ ^^d till notice ■received and balance of premium repaidf Besides w« 2 Leg. News, 8M. ^ " (') Tough et «L A The ftovincial In,n^ j ■ - A -* f n\ 24 WONTEEAL LAW REPORTS »»» valid ; they did not give it, but wish to bind the respon- cit..on.^i„«.Ca dent by conditions he could alone know by the policy. Bourgutaon. This is a one-sided way ^f dealing with a contract, and we have already hefd that ttiis could not be ; Lafleiir Sf Ue Caizehs Insurance Co.{') Besides, how could it be endorsed on a policy wjiich did not exist ? f ^ The judgmei|t follows:— ^. "CoMidering that it appears by the evidence in this cause that the respondent never paid the amount of -—premium mentioned in the interim receipt on which the present action is founded ; " And considering that Roy, the agent who signed the said interim receipt, had no authority to sign and issue the same -without ^receiving the amount of premium • required to effect the insurance therein mentioned ; " And considering that it is not proved that the said company appelant ever accepted the said risk, or - — ^ acquiesced inite issue of the said insurance, or ratified the act of the said Roy ; \ • \ " And considering that therd is error, etc., doth reverse, . etc., and dismiss the action of the respondent with costs." *^ Judgment reversed. Abbott, TaU, 8c Abbotts, attorneys for Appellants. J. C. Hatton, Q. C. attorney for Respondent. * U: («) 1 Leg. News, 518 ; 22 L. C. J. 247. m u. '1^ 26 COURT OF tiUEEN-S BENCH. January 16, 1886. Coram DoRioN. C.J.. Ram«ay. CitosH. Baby. JJ. AGNES ROBINSON, (PlmtUiff m Court below), Appbllant; ■ -.-^ ■..'■. ;;■ AND ; ,\ THE CANADIAN PACIFIC EttLTAy COMPANY - (Defendant in Court below^, , Respondent. Master and Ser.^ Dana,es-Ne. Trial-E^iu^^ of Testtmony—Partiality of Jury. • emS^ ^^.^ °««lf«ence or Wait of .kju of « fdl^^ 'tKSr^ Adj^ontotheiury be taken into conaidSJT JrtSeiT «;« ""^*°^ "''^ ^^P^''^ ^whlchahouId,«aUow«,tothe'ii^:;:,;re^^^ not in iteelf . 'nl^Z. «S'%r SST" ""^ *"*^°"y ^«' Oourt will look to the XZcy L? r^^l* "''^ *"''' ''"V** which the witnesa wa. p"S to Si S''^"" °^ *'*" ''^^'^^ such witne« i. before ttoS^lTL ^J*"''* ^^ affidavit of Po-ed to give doea not appTto bTw wTr^- T*^** '''"^'^ 4- The fiMst that one of tlA inrv ,« ♦k- #«««» was excladed, I .etang .ride . verdict forZSl»t' ^' !?' ?'^'' •is, ^x<. i-ffw-im j^ "' ^> 4_T^ S I -^SfJV-'-^'' Ir f|i.1!"»*r*"^»?f ■» 7*»i;^i, i -I r 1886. « 1 26 MONTREAL LAW BEPORtJ . ' ■ 1- ■ ^ •'" ' motions, one for judgment on itie vdrdict, and] t^ie other Robimwii foy j^ Qg^ ^ij^j q^ijg action was instituted by a widow ' p!lcifl^B^.'o^. on/behalf >&f herself and a minor child, for damages against the Oanadia'h Pacific Railway Company. The action was in the usual form. It was pleaded to by a general dene- ' gation, andrby a further plea that the defendants were not to blame, nor their employees, but that the accident which led to the death of the plaintiff's husband wall caused by Mis o.wn negligence. The answer was general. - These pleadings were presented to the judge to fix the - facts for a jury. The facts must be fixed in accordance with the issues, and they, werejo fixed and the parties proceeded to trial. The plfitiltm made her evidence and closed her ^n^^u^e, and the defendants made their evidence aqd closed their en^tf^. The ccnmsel for the plaintiff addressed the jury, dnd the counsel for the defendants also addressed the jury, and after all this he^said there ' was a witness present whom he desired to examind. Now/ / what was proposed to be proved by this witness ?V The defendants said they wished to prove that .the maohiVe * ^ the unloading of which was thp cause of injury, did Hot « ' belong to the defendants, but to one Scott, of Philadelphia ; that Scott agreed with Black, whouwas in the defendants' employment, that it shoiUd be left in the C.F.B.^ds". Scott asked whether it was necessary to send men to. unload- it, and Black replied that JLt wias not neceissary, that he would farjiish men for the pucpose.' I, presiding at the trial, declined to i^mit this evidence as irrelevant. _^ There is not a word abcqiit Scott in the^plea. If this>evi-^ V dence c^me in, the case might %ferred to or indicated in W way in the pleadings.^ tabe admitted, what is the use h-"'"-^- ofpleadingsatall? I, hold that the evidence of Scott Slf/sH*." which by the judgment of the majorityof the court^is'*' proposed to introduce, is utterly irrelevant and illlu and I am. therefore^ forced to dissent from the judging.' , JomwoN, J This is a motion for judgment on the ver- JnlL ''''*"^ ♦^'^^^ *« *^« «*!»«''«« damages suffered m consequence of the death of the hufeband Td dlrr.^it r "^^'^^^^ *" ^*^^ ^-^ occasiofiedby^e t ; ^"^^ *"^ negligence in unloading a heavy machin. f^.^^^^^ or wagon.; The pleas tAe action were, Ist, that if any accident demurred it was not owinir hroth';^* '' ^ ^'''''^^'' ^' *^- servJtsTu? & Jt^ '''tr'^ ^^ carelessness of the victim himself. 2nd. ad^/«Mea,,yo^ «,/«/. The issues were, ^erefi^rlstmefhert^^ defendants or their secants ; 2nd. whether there was wS^m^ir ^1^".^ ^^^^' *^^ unfortunate IZ who met his death, There were no other issues; and^ js^portant to observe this, as will presently Cee^ .The plaintiff 's motion for judgment wL met by one fr* on five different grounds; 1st. The omission from the Jl^ment of facte for the jury oi some of thrS^^ necessary to be proved. 2nd. Misdirection. 8rd. P,^ tLZ^^"?"^ '' ^ *"^- ^*^- '^^ absence o^ important witness at the comiiencement of the trial with- out a^ fault of the party, and whose evid^ ™ tendered before the clpse of the proceedings, but^ W KLf't '*^- '^'^^ Of ne/:WdenrZj inetenu. Every consideration urged except the fourth rTh! ""J ''^'^' ^ unavailable "io the defend^! Ist. The party went to trial upon the assignment of facte «« It was. without ol^ecti<» at the ZfS^*^ :J^:!!^^^!^^'T^ Welyldihisinl^l V' j • • y'-l _ , / , ■ V t , ■ . ., _ '. ^ a • ■' ' ■ " • ■ ■-'■■.,■ -j * ^ ' ■■ 1 . - . U. r-J ^ vm. 28 HONTBEAL LAW REFORm i or so ago. It isNa pTinci^l© of fairness which I, have ThecillL "^^T *®^ applied,; and if the defendants had got the Paoiflo'iiyiSI verdict we should, of coarse, haVe heard nothing about it. Hilliard. on new trials (chap. 6). treiits Uie subject exhaus- tiyely and cites all the cases in notes. The case x>f Can- non V. Huot, 1 Q. L. R. 189, ils in point. Besides these con- sider^ttens, it may be observed that the facts which -it was saiA were necessary to be pr6ve4, did not arise under the issue, which was simply what I have stated, «nd did not in any manner gite 'rise to tile question (iinder our law probably inadmissible) as to the right to recover for an act of a fellow servant 2nd; The misdirection com- plained of consisted in instructing the jury that they were to consider the mental suffei^ng of the widow and child of th6 deceased in estimating the damages. .That point was once m6ote4 in England, but the English decisions have also been considered here, and held not to i^pply to our law. {Ravars^ v. The Oraa^ Thtnk ^RaUwajflib., 6 L. 01 J. 49.) The judgment of Mr. Jnstice Aylwin will 1vell repw^perusal. 8rd. Partiality in th« jury. There is nothi^ in this. After the qise was. clos^i^d the " verdictytendered, and when the members had ceased tp form.a jury, th§y agreed to hand their fees to the plaintiff"" -As to the fifth point, we hetiW nothing," and w« see nothing whatever of the discovery of new evidence, pro- perly so called. But though we see no new evidence strictly speaking, discovered afterwards, we see evidence tlftit was not given t^ the ju#y, though it was known to exist, because the witiiess who could give it did not attend in ^e, and this is the reason given as No. 4 in the motion fo* a Mw tijiftl. The defendant, no doubt, took the risk of his Mtnejss' non-attendance, and did not' niov^toptit offthe[t^al.u But before the conclusion of the trMa,the witness, yAose name was Scott, appeared, and the de- fendant d^unsel applied fbr^ leave to cnunine him before the plaintiff ?8 counsel had risen to ^ly; and Scott's evidence was^^xcluded. The entries on^the record show this beyond doubt or cavil. Now, the liability of the defendants depended upon a very nice duoenunimt of ^■ .V i'/'ia«i ^^ / ■V COURT OP QUEEN'S BEl^Cft. •, under the issue ka 'jl were liabl6, hadthe ling, /or whiter 4mj was linder/ ler oj others. In/ Jtiry^oiiiid the defend-/ ^id heaM affect^i^ Eiie . . . ., the suchlc^X Wot Scott:^ \ 29 wa.disoh.rgedVuX^^ ** of the cafie,^the ifendal^t^ - *^^ «"^»™^t«^ces stands, distinctl^-^nied ti control and managSnent of ■ the waggon and the^ratioii, of the control and responsibilityVi the absence of Scott's evidence ij ants liahle ; but it is )impoi&B to\ ^ithout Baying, at the leastO^hati Vhat he had to say, it might vft>ateti the main fac^ upon' whSh ihe liability work I have already cited ^ nfc trials present point in chap. 16 ; t$e MiS granted precisely on the s^me principle as i newly discovered evidence 7 1,utfis^e7^ of due dihgeMby the pWto^CBgiuiUin liflo Ry Co. \J n -W ith th e posfllbJe con- w ■ \ J 80 MONTREAL LAW REFORXa vm. Rohlnunn % :p. . aequeuce of direct injustice' to the defendants ; or of as* Burning at on<;e and conclusively (which we are unable |mU{6 li^! Cu. to do), that his evidence could not have the effect of showing that the' defendants were not the responsible parties. It may be well to note that our code of procedure seems to go farther than the* practice of the English or American courts. Art. 426, paragraph 15, reads that a new trial may be granted " if an importanjt witness was ab- " sent at the time of the trial without any fault on the " part of the party who had summoned him, and his evi- " dence is still obtainable ; and in all cases where the " merits of the case could not be diiicussed, and the party "aggrieved and his attorneys are free frota blame in that " respect." Now if a new trial should be granted for the al)|8ence of an important witness, it would seem absurd to say that it should not be granted when he waci pre- 86pt and his evidence tendered an4 rejected. What is wanted is the evidence. What is to be remedied is the absence of the means of getting at the truth, and the re- medy seems in either case to be to let in the evidence. The fact is that the principle upon which we are acting in this case, appears to be one that is iudispensable to the administration of justice. If we can say we won'l vhear hear evidence when evidence exists, and is at himd, and is ready to be heard, it would be difficult to give a reason ibr our sitting here at all. In England lately, at the . Chester assizes, I see that Sir Jam€s FitzJames Stephen (no insignificant name), after a reindict of guilty, allowed evidence to go to the jury^ — and evidence consisting ^merely of the defendant's statement ; and it so coQipletely changed the matter, that he was acquitted (').' The court, besides, cannot but be aware that o, force nuyeure of a most imperative and unusual kin^ is what prevented the attendance of this witness, thQ railway track being snh- merged and impracticable.^^New trifd ordered. i ""i""''™^ *" ">- di.tincti«i.mrfe(42'&48Vic^!?? ! ^?^ '""'^'^ o» the elem«ntTl*S;^-^i,';;^'^«™J»%- ^^ RobhiKon namoly, thono arising "by tho neglignncu of any porson f»ci(S!'Ky'c* " i» tho sorvico of th« oraployor who has tho charge or " (control of any signal, points, locomotive engine, or train " upon a railroad." For these last the employer js always liable. There appears to be a mtle useless refinement in all thin. Why should the fellow-dorvant be in a different position from any othejp^third person ? And if the rule is good, why make a diltinction between the driver of a locomotive engine and the enginoer of a stationary one ? '- I am inclined tp thii^k thAiytho whole dilhcnlty arises ^em a failutf^ io ke6p 4iHtinOt malice and negligence {dolus and cu//Wi). It is evideitt that the employer is not ' garant for the Wilful wrongdoing of his servant, but Z' why he should not, be liable for his negligence in the J \ perforifkance of the duties he is set to do, because his victim is a fellow-servant, baffles all reason to explain. The second objection is, that in his charge the Judge ex« pressed his opinion as to the sufficiency of the ^idence, "^ and misdirected the jury in' matter of law. The part of ' ' his charge referred to is thus reported : " With reference *' to the fifth ground or head {Of objections, and which Is "the only one involving a question of law, the Judge " told the jury in assessing the damages, if they found " for plaintiC thoj^had right to, and might consider the "nature of the anguish and mental sufTerings of the " widowed mother and her orphan child." We think the Judge has a right to charge the jury as to the matter of fact, and to express his opinion as to the general value of the evidence. It would require a very , spQciid exercise of the powers of the Judge in this respect , / to make us coiisider it gave any support to an application / for a new trial. In this case the charge presents no ground of objection so far. As to the question of law we have to enquire what is meant by " all damages '* in the article 1066. It is obvious that it must be taken in a re- .!__ strictedwseose. Itmusttaiean all damages suffered by some ^ particular person or persons. To underst&nd fully what " person is meanj;.w,e mufd; go back to the origin of the law. Hi V» -faXf-^i^^^r^P *f»URT OF QUREN'8 BENCfi IIM. This loadi US to consider thoJ cofhmon l»w nf liv a Htatuto of recent date 11-12 v^ Z **'^^»"<^« *»<» q.u.troa under the o Xw fhal L^^^^^^^ ^T^T. ^' "" ""^" «M.oH,on •»tio., i;,. i *"' '" "■"" ' lit of the wife. hu.btad, parent .„d™^ !rtL„ " kbo... death .hall have been mc^n^lLl^'"""' were authorized to awaM «a,h^.m ' ^ . "•" •'"''^ IV ur oi tne person deceased, and in Lower fV«;.i„ w ir^ the personal representative.. tutor or curaTonr W. r*J^ Jdeceased, but for th« K««^r* r ^l ^fr^"^ °^ '^e*^ of the I u oi ine iaw of Bnglwid, or something nearly akin ♦.. It on this point in its stAiul tk« „„ *• ii«ariy aKin to lifficulty. The ZuLlf.i, f ?^^''***'" " '^^^ ^»*^o«*l bJ' '^~-X"ti:^dt:fd'.^^^ '-S > ■^v. .Mi I f Knblnann • * . Ttix (iHiinilInn l'»«in« Ry »'" V*fF /■ 1 I ^ 14/ * MOWTRIAT. LAW RIFORm •rwork. and article I06fl 0. 0. aMumm to declare what th.. law wan at that tim«. It U to b« obMirvd thatlho article 1056 docK not appear in the title of 6hli«ati«nii a« at ftmt r..|K,rtcd. and it i8 not impportjul by anthontu* iw in the originally report.Kl article*, ai4 i>»rthormore. noth- ing ««.«a to remedy pr«.amed dofeot. in the law of two countne. a. to a matter in which the legal rule ia e..^. . .ally different. What. then, i^ the rule of interpretat r? Wnl''''"'r'r.***'3'^"**""»- ^''^^ recourL to the Roman law, which la refciUy the aouroeof all our rules for T: ^ yi^' ^"^ *^'" ^'«' '^^ ^'^r-^ adopted by he court m the .^o of Ravar, Sr The Grand 7runk. It is 2rX T^ ,i' '^"^ '"^^ "^ **^** °~« ^-^ »«« *'o»owed deuded in that caae was that und^ihe statute the r«l- onah IP must be proved. H the^, Ve adopt this prin- I III settlJL k' Tr* ***• "'"*^' ^^ *»»« ^««««««<1 ha. statute !^H "****• ?'^"^*^ ***«y ^^^'^ ^ft>™ the U !^' Tk "T«^«^»*»y -he sues, or, as it was before lir^^'i fi. *"*r'' ^^ **^''' *■'*' *»«' »»«»«fi*' »«» her own nght. and herefore the words " all damages " murt be heW to mdiide ^1 W damagea, or all t^dalges of hose for whom she sue,. Taking thia view of the^ae^ ion. I cannot say that the charge of the lelimed judge in hhe court below was not correct ir, law. and we Wa n^ ni ^.^J^*^»* **»« J"y 8«ve greater weight to the sT^^IS^irr^'^**^'^""^^^^ In^itisnot isuggested that the damages are excessive. The rale we lay dowh ,s open to the criticism that it is dangerous to teave a question of thiasort to thi appn^ciation of^ej^^ that th'" '"'*.^^ "' '^' '"'*'^' ""^"^y^ »* ^J he**^n & Wn? T '^' '*r^ '*^' * ^^-« appreciation of miH kind of damage as for any other. By th§ evid«iioe, (')i8L.aj.i7a ' -- - . u ■>w , f - 'liiMki' 'inrMiii .•H,'i.^.t». w sW V li- M MONTREAL LAW BEFORTi > » V^ it can ''be found ont what was giyen i ISt^r one kind of Robinfon ^am^ge and what for another, and if ^he estimation is PM%e*R^(K evidently exaggerated,' a new trial Way be ordered for that reason. j ' ^B to the third We are to reverse, and the judgment of the Court of Review on the motion granting a new trial will conse- quently be reversed with costs. . ■#s Ij h:'/ ■v-f ■ ■■>. !l't . / DoRiON, C.X: — ■ '1 ■\-. ■■■■;■■ ■ ■ __ . ' '■ J '"*'!; -.,-■' f There was no difficulty under the commoii law, as it existed before the code, and the statutes preceding the code, as to the right of action by otte consort to recover damages for the death of the other caused by a third party- G-uyot Rep. vo, Reparation Civile, f 4.— 10 & 11 Vibt. c. 6. The code (Art. 1056) has not destroyed or modified this right ; it has merely restricted it to one action at law in favor of the surviving" consort, ajotd of the snrviying father, mother and children of the deceased ; — that is to sf^y : that under the article of the code now existing, if an action is taken by the injured party before his death, his consort and representatives are prevented from taking a further action afterwards ; and if he has not ti action i represei one act This is ] deceasei righis, a child, hi Thep judge ii that the the wid< to her. ] law of I charge v well exp bilit6, N( It is, I juries tisi of sland were no awarded firmed b] . IJndou different that the i cannot b< at all at c< (Lord Car there shoi different £ the wido\ ttot. Ther |by the sta 3, J. : The ca8( |Gonrt of £ iting a Theapp "\ .-; : . i one kind of estimation is )e ordered for k there is any by any undue y against the the foreman icurred. Nor 3 jury adding ik Scott's evi- r we consider giving a clue the machine eged, proved, )d was in the cen off his re- mce of which tay the plain- r the Court of i\ will conse- oh law, as it ^receding the rt to recover a third party- & ilVibtc. . or modified action at law he surviving I ; — that is to ¥ existing, if ore his death, i from taking 1 OOtTET OP QtJEEira BENCH. at lais. Robinaon action during his life, but one action qan be taken by his representatives generally ; and not oie action by the wife "-""-on me action by the father, and another by the children' P-.«4«^ me is not an action given tathe heirs or Vtees ofX "" ^ °^ de«>aaed ; it is a special action independent of successive . v ngWs,and subsisting upon the relations of parent and v child, husband and wife. Guyot, loc. cit. The principal question to be de<^ided here is, was the iu fV *^^/^"'•* *>«lo^ wrong in telling the jury that they. might. take into consideration the feeHuiw of ^"^ " the widow, m assessing the damages they were to award toher Mowing iJa«d^y/a law of France as it has always existed here, the judge's charge was not contprary to law. The law of PWce is wdle^essed by Sourdat in his Trait6 de la Eesponsa- . ' bilit6. Nob. 88jafd 84. * It is, no-doubt, diffict^t to assess such damages- but juries «^e88^damage8 to the feelings every day in cases of slander, hbel, false arrest, etc. Here the damages were^iwt excessive. We have seen |8,000 dam^es awarded for a cut finger; and this amount was oon- firmed by the Supreme Ooiwt. Undoubtedly, the rule as to the measure of damage is that the feelings of the bereaved consort, chila 88 MONTREAL LAW EBP0RT8. use. RobiDHon & f:h claiming daJhages for the death of her husband, killed ^ while in the employ of the Company, engaged in the PMiflS'afdSl removal of a weighty iron machine with other of their servants, the iron machine having fallen on him and crushed him to death. The action imputed negligence to the Company respon- dents. The case was tried by a jury, who rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $8,000 damages. The Court of Review set aside this verdict, and ordered a new trial - on the ground that the judge had misdirected the jury,, ^on a point of laVir, in having instructed them that in estimating the damages thiay might take into considera- tion, the angrlish of mind suffered by the appellant. If the direction in this particular were wrong, the j udg- ment should be maintained, if otherwise, it should be reversed, and judgment entered for the appellant on the verdict. If th^jury took into account the appellant's anguish of mind, they may have given the principal part of their verdict on this ground; but whether much or little, if the direction were wrong, the jury are supposed to have been influenced by it, and their verdict being tainted with error, must be held bad. The question, therefore, is, whether the anguish of mind, suffered by . the appellant, is a legal ground for compensation in damages. I think this Court is bound by the precedent of Bavdryv. the Orand Trunk Up. Co., in which a solatium was allowed to* the plaintiff, the widow, for her anguish of mind occasioned by the death of her husband. In that case, there was a strong dissent by two out of three of the - judges, and if the matter were entire, and a precedent to • be established, I would prefer agreeing with the minority ^ of the judges rather than with the majority. This subject first engaged the attention of the Legisla- ture in 1847, when the statute of Canada, 10 &; 11 Vic. cap. 6, Was passed, providing a^remedy whenever the death of a person had been caused by such wrongful act, neglect :~ or fraud, as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in leepect thereof. In such case the person who th- r-'T*' ■ I V 1^ OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 8ft would have been liable if death had not ensued, should ^ be liable to -an action for damages notwithstanding the ^£-^ death of the person injured, such action to be for the l^*,.4r»fe? benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the per- son whose death had been so caused. Thw was copied from an English Act and applied to the united Provinces of Canada, that is both Upper and Lower 1^ \''^'^ '^^'''^* "y''*""^^ «^ law prevailed, and although It 18 said the remedy previously existed by the law of Lower Canada, yet from the absence of deci- sions it does not 86em to have been practised in Lower "—. Canada, and as a legislative enactment providing a speci- f^K^T'S* ', "^^ti ^'' ^^ ^ ^^«' Canada, it was subshtued for^%ok the place of any supposed previously exi«^medy. and had the advantage of approximatingW^formity the exercise of the remedy m each section of the then Province of Canada. It was inforce when the case of iZawfyv. 2)k«(3nse- quently^the wife as well as the husband would each have a separate cause of action for theit wounded feeling*. This 18 a proposition which has neVer been, and I believe neveJ" will J)e admitted. It consequently proves to my satisfac- tion hat the anguish of mind of tfie surrivTng widow ,18 not an element^ for which there can be a pecuniary compensation assessed/, 1 have a serious' objection lL an- guiahof mmd being in Myins^an* a subject of pecuniary compensation,, save in cases >here the injury contplained of 1^ caused by such a to^ious act as implies malice or culpable negligence, for which exemplary damages mav be given. Where, as in the present case, the injury hw ' resulted from no wilful, wrongftil act, nor any faidt beyond the omission of kome 'extra' precaution, I thiik - the damages should be measured by the pecuniary loss tKe act-has cau^d to the elai&jint. I believe it will not be dS- T .puted that this is the law of ;Shgland,and although the civil law may be somewhat more elastic as giving a wider lati- tude to the discretion of the Judge, I think a carefulieru- sal of the authorities cited by Mr. Justice Badglei in the ^ case of Ravary v. The Qrmd Ikunk, to Which otheS" might be added, will satisfy the enqtirer that, as Well under the French law as the English, only material loss is.a proper subject for compensation in such cases, and not consider-^ - ations of sentiment or mental kU^ress, which are inevitable ' at spme time in the course of nature, aUhough sometimes anticipated by misfortune, accidentor other cause. Where a jury does not interpose, there isless occasion for.strict ness-but the latitude all p wed to the Judge, under the ^ , system of the civil law, of tempering the damages accord- ing to ihe. circumstances.of each particular case, is ex- tremely flangerotts, when the same license is transferred .to the jury with unlimited authority, to assess for mental \ angujsh: I have been disciissink the subject as if' the case had arisen under the Statute. Art. 1066 0, 0. under s ',■■-,*■ ■ . '■ OOtJBT OF (iUEEN« BElfCH. 41 it UM. RoUiuon 9 _J __ ."^ th» dwaagM here iadiiited "^ «ew ^al to admit theLevide,c6 of a wito^Th^. ' 'J ' too late to.give 1^ testimony at thHrir' tJ. "I"^' ' fr... ; f - ^n > The judgment is in the fofaoWing terms :l ^^v Burtend or pertinent to tlie i«nft inttL^re l^A^" ae ».pondent..h.ve n.it been ^nSty ^T.£l .l> 1 L 42 MONTREAL LAW REPOBm « UM. df thd honorable judge whTse^# ^ _., JudgmtH f m-, Cartei^Sf.Gi id$tem for the appelant ^tt, T^Sf AJibotts for the respondents. 18W. MoSbane . H»llet»l. •■ ■■ \ ■%■! >■■: 4i MONTBEAL^LAW RBPOKTp^ ^ . , y. September 26, 1886. Qmim Monk, EIamsay, Teshikh, Obobs, Baby, JJ. ' Damk 0. 11 ^NES* {Defendant in Court below), • Appkllan-?"; AND ' , ED. O. pjTHBERT,' . . {Plaintiff' in Court below), — -, -l_l^L^-__-ii._:^.__,_^,^___ -J. ^_ Respondent;--. Substitution— WUhin what limilt it mp be created— C. C. 982 —Accretion. , H«u) :— Conflnning the judgment of the Superior Court (M. I.! R.. 2 B. C 28), tliftt by the old juriaprudenoe lntroduce: *»- •'! •-(I koMTRBAt Uw «iii>birnL J.. . jy ^ ^gard aux Bubatitutions qui te feront & I'avenir par tcMta- Inent et ordonnaace de dermJire.vobnt6 ou entre-vit'g, et par<;ontmt do manage ou ftutrei quelcon(}n<>8, outre «t plus arant deux degr^ def substitution, aprAs I'lustitu- tion et premidro disposition, ioolle uon compris.' *L'Ordonnance d'Orlfians de 1666, Art. 27, p. 204, 14v. coll. d'lHambort, oit dans los termes suivants :— • Et ampli- fiant Tarticle de noe ordonnances fiites k Orleans pour le fait des substitutions, voulans obju^t plusieurs difficnlt^s mues sur les dites substilutions auparavant faites, des- queHes touteiois le droit n'est encore fichu dI acquis id aucune personne vivante ; Avons dit, d6clar6 et ordonii6, que toutes substitutioiiB MioB auparavant notre dite or-, donnance d'Orlfians, efl quelque disposition que ce soii par contrats entfe-vifg ou de dernidre volenti, et sous quelqnes paroles qu'elles soient confues, seront restraintes »u quatridme degr6 outre Tinstitution ; ezceptd toutefois les substitutions desquelles le droit est 6cfan«t d6j4 ac- quis aux personnos vivantes, auxquelles n'entendons pr£- judieier. Ordonnons aussi, que, dor6nava»t, toutes dis- positions entre'vifs, ou de demidre volont6, contenant substitution, seront pour le regard d'icelles substitutions pubfifies en jugement A jourde plaidoierie, et enregistrfees les grertes royaux plus prochains des lieux des demeu- Tances de ceux qui. auront' fait les dites substitutions, et ce dedans six mois, k compter, quant aux substitutions testamentaires, du jour du dficis de ceux qui les auront faites et pour le regard des autres, du jour qu'elles auront ^t4pass6es, autrement seront nuUes, et n'auront auoun effei' "La, jurisprudence du parlement de Paris a confirm^ ces deux ordonnances, mais il y avait certaines juridic- tions qui reftwaieiit parfois d'accepter les dispositiojw de ces ordonnances, alors a 6t6 promulgu6e TOrdonnanoe de. 1U% (Thevenot d'EssauUes, Des SubimutioH$,p. 468J dont Particle 69 se lit comme suit :—• L'article 59 de I'Ordon- nance d'Orlfians sera ex6cut6, et, en cons6quence, toutes les substitutions faites, soit par contrat dtfvmariagfe on autre acte entre-vifs, soit par disposition k caUse de mort, '■"S^i' monagij oa OODW or 4UEENV BUCH. / .>.x™Ui«^H * 104don„.„co d« Moulin., p., „p , [\. droit mWriea^-Pothier. jSi.*««,tfto„ mof? ITl I 870. .. w- jB . ►""""»•««»■ «eot. 7, 4rt. 4, page "CSoM urns (Strange, notre code .embled»nner oomm. le. codiacalenr^ aprt. beaoooap d'httiUMon J^u^. Jdopler ropini.„,.e r«=te imp^f,I'mr»p"8 1 I «*. provincial de I80I, en donnant la libertTSl,™;.! d. teter. a autori.* |e, .»l».itnti.n.>,^talue. 'I^ s:=,rdl-^it'St"^^^^^^^^^ «. ^^^iza:^ ^nait"::.::'^: le. «.b.t.t,t.o.» «>nt o.ntHu»t A re.prit et i ToLT^^ " JonM Cuthbwt. ^ ./ ^ m # .^J^^ei&^l^i^'^V I JimM CbtbUri. "\ - 1 !.♦-- 4« ^ ^ MORTBEAL LAW RKPORm notro^ noiir«Ue IdgiaUtion lar Ins tcitimenti. il ne (knt dono pan lua ^itendro.' - " Lh l%wlaturo, «n iMloptant ViltHcU mX tel qn'll nat formula. daiiHuotru «:<)d« rivil, Homblo avoir d6iiapprouv« I'opinion des codificatwura. U loi aitf^Uiiio, tout auaai bien quo la loi fran9aia«, eat oontni la p«rp6tuit6 dea aub»- titutioiiH (Jarmaii, on WUh, vol. I, pag« 269. Ootto auto- rit6 d6montr« qu.^ Im iwURont^um Hf Ho»t tromi)6H quaiid. pour fitayor I«ur opinion, ila ont pr6t.mdu quVu Angl«- terro Ion Hubatitatioua pouvwont ^^tro ci^toa pour on tumpa limits. , ; , .; ■■; -t „: , ' ^ _^/, -^11 eat A remirquer que le teatameuTen quoflion a m fait en I •798 ot a pris forco , » 4» f «; J ('nth' '•■MM prt. aa, p. 40, dit plow par Nottchet tjiU" pOFNOUUe NoJt »1 oito I'artiolo ;{() \ »♦>' ""'»» '"'• form«at an den«, Vl»4.»l. 5 ' ■ * ."'."" lilro, p." ™L,Z,r' w""'"'""?l' "» "'■•"• ■'•"-. ™x, nui *.,. al . „ Vn uU'r' l"""' """"""' •'"*- |>our Ru imrt «t jwtionA "Th<^v^i^<'^^-iai Ixjvesque, a 616 6t«inf« t^ Ta * P*" "® *»>«• The judgment in appeal^ wi Ramsay, J:^ ^This was an action by the relii the appellant Jones the purchi VOU II. Q. R T*^:' T delivered as Mhwa by »ndent to recover from tooney of certain seign- M \ " r I '1? Jones Onthbert, ir HiT ■i'.l . - 50 \ MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. iorial rents sold by respondent to Jones. Jones resisted the action on the ground that the respondent was a grevi de substitution and could not give a title, and the other appellants intervened as the appe/^s. The facts are these : the Hon. James Onthbert made his will on the 4th of August, 1798, and died shortly after, that is before the 19th October of that year, leaving his will substantially unchanged. By this will he bequeathed his property to Jiis son James, and substituted It to his son's children and ^ their children for 160 years. In order that the ques- tion may be fully understood, the dispositions of the will, iii so far as regains this substitution, are as follows :— "That my said trustees do permit and suffer the said Lieutenant James Cuthbert to use, occupy, possess and enjoy the rents, issues and profits of the Seigniory of Berthier, including the parish of St. Cuthbert, in the ' district aforesaid, agreeable to the Grants, ratification of His Most Cly^istian Majesty, charters, and contracts there- of^ with all the rights, privileges and honors thereto apper- taining for and during the term of his natural life, with- out impeachment of waste, subject to certain legacies." . The will thpn goes on : — "And from and after the death of the said James Cuth- bert, that my said trustees do permit and suffer the heirs of his body, lawfully begotten, to use, occupy, possess and enjoy the rents, issues, and profits of the saidjgSeigniory of Berthier in like manner ""for and during^ his, her or their natural life (Jr lives ; but in case the sai^ Lieutenant James Cuthbert Trtiould die without issue of his body, lawfully begotten, or such issue should die without issue of his, her or their bodies, lawfully begotten, then the said trustees shall permit and Suffer the said ^ss Cuth- bert, etc. -••jl.--"'. " And I do hereby desire and express my wdl that all my said seigniories, manors and Lordships, to wit the Seigniory of Berthier, etc., shall be kept entire ^^to whomsoever the same may come or desjceJI according to the order and limitationis hereinbefore contained, *nd shall conjjnue so to he from one generation to another fdr and ';?> p CJPUBT OF QUEEfTS BENCH. 51 i . \ o •during the afoiesnid tenn of IBO „ pleW and ended d„ri,;„ t- I ^™" '" ^ '""y oom- estates or any part lh«^ k*^ ^' " '''»"»'« 'l" ""W cWge, mortJJ^ ,j- '^f ■ .^'^v^J"™* hypotheoatio., declared t'o be'uCri; voinnS't"" n"' '' "''"'^ P»ri»«» wh.t««verf sa™ »d elWbt ' , """'"' """^ dowerforthelifeof the ~~-! ??"''' " ^asoaabM panted, Or by way of .^T'*" "'""»"'» '""""""y be virion for.ndd«.Wthe^^''"*r"' ,"'""'«* "^ "^ P™" ren, «,d at the eSt „„ „f .u' '"'* °' " <"'"'l « *«'dent, and he two-third., was «sponZt alT! \'^e^'^ *™» question we J.avet„1;°f^iit""*^' ^'' " «" i-X'ri:;t:stx'^:::™'r*<>'«°wed.. serve that thft will was m J! i^l ' ** " ^'^^P^' *o«^ a««** /I^Tm ^ "^"f .*» i« the caae of ^ «»«»«,()., There might possibly be good • 1888. Jonei . C'uthb«rt. V a iu 4828 ; Mtu^rt's Itep! i£S: ' " ^?'^ -^ J*^"**^" \ 62 MONTREAL LAW EEFOBm Jonei Outhbert ■4ii . . ''i« ■,■1 ■ / ^ reason for arriving at an interpretation of the section 10 of the Act of the 14 Geo. Ill, different from that o'f the Privy Council, but the interprettat^on was accepted, and the provincial legislature passed this Act of the 41 Geo. Ill in consequence. We are therefore of opinion tha€ when this will was made, and when the testator died, the limitation of substitutions to three degrees was the law of thislProvince, whatever it may h^ve been from tlie passing of the 41 Geo. III. until the coming into force of the Civil Gode. . — How are these degrees to be counted? This is a question of greater difficulty. Under th^oordinance of lt4t, the point is niFade perfectly clear. • That law insists on the pure and simple rule, that each person in whose favour the substitutio^p opens, and who takes under the will, counts as a degree. (Art. 84. See Furgolel88.) But the ordinance of 174t was after the establishment of the^Conseil Superieur of Quebec, and it was not registered there. I^^ot being published in the Province of Quebec, it waj»»' Jiot in force there, for the constit|it|M^l rule of R-aftbe under the old regime seems to be moFtMtable, that a statutehas no force in any jurisdic^on until its publica- V tion by the Parliament of the Prpvince. /We must there- fore go further back, and in doing so we come to the Ordi- nance of 1629, The article 124 of that ordinance declares : "Voulonsque^dor^navant les degrfis des dites substitu- tions etfidi&icommis par tout notre RoylEiume, soient compt^s par t4te, et non par souches et g^neratioiis : c'est-a- dire chacui^ie ceux qui auront apprehend6 et recueilji le dit fid6icommis, fassent un degrd, sinon que plusieurs (teut- ■ eussent mcc4d^ en concurrence comme utie seule t6te, auquel cas ne seront compt^^ qiie pour un seu)|diegr6. Declarons nuls tons les arrets qui seront ci-apres donnds ati contraire de ces presentes, nonobstant tout usage ancien ott aujire- ment, et sans prejudice des arrets ci^evant inter yenns.'* This ordinance was i'egistered both in Paris and 'jou- louse with remontrances. The remonsti^ce of Toulbuse is given -at length by Neron. That Parliament adhered* to its jtiirisprudence, to count par sou(^ and not par t4tes. d 1 1 . <♦. 1; ^» OOUBT OP QUEEN'S BBlNCtt * 68 The r^motttrance of Paris is not ifiren SDeciall v K„f w has a note on th« «^;^u i. -T ^P^^*«"*y. but Neron ordinance of 162 '^ <. 54 MONTREAL bAW AEPORTa Juhei & Cathbert. BiK" si till p6re\ substitue k 8on fill tons les enfants, ptetits- enfiijcits de Mi testatour, et qu'il ait port6 ensuitti h snb- Btitutioll pltis loin, tous ces petita-enfants du iestatear vehantiA reciieillir la substitution ne font tous enseinble qu'un seul d6W ; ils sont tous^'donjointement appel^; ,, ils ue fonnen^aonc totis que le premier 4jBgr6 ; ceq]iii,par/ la mSme raisok aurait lieu dans le cas mdme que'des [" «rri6i%s petiUsj^ifants^ par representation de leur pere, '■ con(?ourraienia\iBc leuVs oncles, pourrebueillitr Tflfetet le ' « ^u6ficedeiataetoi^re9uyerture d'une telle substitution ; -Vest tpujouts prWer'^degrg, nonobst«»it le nombre et la- q[Ualitd qu prbximlt^ de ceux qui, la recmeillent ; tdMaU Vesprit des prmiirAordanmnces qil*une post^rieure a fix6." He -quotes in support of his opinion the ordinance ol 1^9, an\l says lateA; V* Usage qui ne peujt fitre contests et qui ne peut pliis A^i^er puisque c'est la dispt^ition de I'art. 34 dp. premier miare ^ I'ordonUance de IHV Art. 34pf the ordiuMiGe of lt47 iis in these words : Article XXXIY. ^n cas que la substitution ait 6t6 faite au profit de plusieursHfrdres, ou autres > appelSs conjojnte- *lnent, ils seront cens^Mavpir rempli un degr6, ehacunpour la part K portion qu^U difta recueillie dans les dUshiens ; ensqrte que si la dite part passe -en^ite d un autre substUu6, m4med, u^ }peUs conjoitUement, U soU regards rd un second degri." \, A Paris on a toujours compt4 au- fant de degr^s de substitution qu*il y avait de persdnnes' qui I'avt^ent recueillie suecessivement ayecefiet, quoique cespersonnes fussent ^ans un m^me degre de parent^.' A Toulouse aujcontraire I les degr^s de substitution se comptaient p^ les degr& de parente." (Tr. ides Subs. 671.) We have therefose come 1^ the conclusion that the ordin&nce of ,1629, if it be considered that by the sentence V 8iirt>n,*' &c., it was intended to modify, the former law of; the coutumede Paris, (^ ajvIbs not obserred, luid fell into x> de ceux qui avaient 4t6 cofntne remplissant d cet 4g Again, Pothier says ■.•• •- ■«.. (')On the other hyfiothesis, thatlthe words *' tinonque^^ ^, did not ch»nge the older law (X Xh& comwJede Pam, a^ great aothotit^r^'which Btipporta this judgm9iiib, may be ref^red to. Among the Qoedtions snb- mittod by Chanoelldr d'Aguesfieau td the coqrta and paiiiaments as pre- ■ f .« „■■»■» 3 - odHTw OP qumm bench. U «6»«t.*fi,r one deg « ^lt«ll T f "" P"*"*^ :/•: '^VlfJ-K.) . ''"-:- >; ',/ .:«" / -^ ^- ' ■_■.-'> v M? le uruBwuldegFgoupourp ^ureu^g^n^rai de, Paria pli pour oette d^islonr^ Zuirl^S^J:^^ L»mo gnon. tout 8e>#unit •rr^t^VnpouST^rrXrpot^ILl^^ I'arUcleXLIV de^c«: que le parlement d'Ai, a «oi« s^lf" „ , i^f"? "° »"*•* ^°»*«. ce Ieurchef,ou caauciM, oa pS J^SLZt" '"**"*'^ *^"'^°* ^^ 8ioM enrabondantes." «c?«>««ement, qupique on croie oes expwa- "Mais de oett^ queetionilen nalt natiu«ii«m.„* .peut.«t™ia*ime veritable qu^tion "^STI""' *5^' **"* "* Willie f>ar on dee .ubstitHl^tehfSr * ""v^""^** lapaitre. .1"^, A P«nd^ !• chose daSreS^.r^' ^^ ^° ••*^' P*«» VPar rapport 4 cette portion ; c'^Ue aSor^^wA "^^ "° "*'™" ^^^K^^ J^nandr." Queetions^ ^^t^^M^'I^C^ JWiaprodence and opinions crfXLti • ? ® ■Peaks of the different i[ -\. (Defendant itifirit inUance)^ .» .¥ : LESFOMDEJirE ^ , J^l*- iHjy D ^«^lil8i,^ w'httreilie Clourt ])aa itppointf^ ,<)he ^"iterlJ only, ami tlio f- ^ otj^rt'linh pi-m-Jed^il to.act without pnitest'Orbbj^lon by the par- Re- The ties, tl^iy '^'iU m^pra|^imo(l to have acijuiescet),' hl^t^ie ;report will ^ not b<<^8et wid/ on tli^ (];roiin/ * . The ap|«iay w*s from^a judgment of tl^^onrt of ' yit'vv. The M(it4 Jtrc stato'ffsm. th« opinion of Gross, J.' ' only que$tfou of laW mvt)t%d' in the casQ was the pre- X, ;"( ' • ■*' ■' ■>% "/'.■ .' •■' '■ ' " Oi tiu)lu divfcrsitjfi ile aQntlmem, ni cntre les auteura, ni entre %;^rlomdnt»; touycouvtennentque le^^^fans etpiline, les ^tranuera, \^n substitu^ conJ|)inte^§nt pour recaeilreil^'n lini^fitQ tempis la m^me '. auccebsion, ne^ ferment qu'«n la 'd^c'isbn precise de * ^ f artifice CXXIV de I'ord. do.J628i,.>a laquelle iWidfi^tiy des arrfit^s de I ' M. le ^I.'r^Bident^ de lAmofgnoh, titre <,des ii(16i-coimjii^,:;e8t enti^rement J covlbrme." ">S't(r la ncondf < qa^cr, deux sortea de parlem^nts, ceu^^^ n'ont pas sepleinent pruvu la difficult^, etceuxqai I'ont sentie.^ " Tela sont Grenoble, etc, « " Lea autrea ont pr6^u,,od'(!u taoina ^itrevu la di cord^ent point entr'eux'^iuf decider qu^ quand la titue^ i^aase aux autres,* cel<^ fait un (legr^ pour comt^te autt ylH^ degr^a tl I'^gard de chaque q,uiK>n par Utea; and Alaace which adopta the same L .»« ^it'ila a*k8'^ ■^■n des eji q\ie I'ola personnes ent BT ^ABiH flb ments which im- 'era to the view par sot/chet '*». utiscence t» & ofaeMe expert wa« ii- ^aud^ment appointing a£ single expert wai, in dWi con |in^»on to. articles 322 .n^ 828 of the Xt^S^ 01108$,' J. ;--| r The action was by MalboBuf! a contractor, against JVTad I^andeau, proprietor, for «162.64 the urt^^f TJ struction of a stone foundation to\ h^Je" hlt^f fhAni r ri r^"'*^ agreement. MalbcBuf alWW t J h!^ w* '^'^ ^'""^ completed according to coSf and had been accepted by Made. Larandeau; ' Made. Larandeau pleaded that the work was nnf fn Ko paid for until finished ; that it was ne":f cTmpie 1 dl nreredto, nor accepted by her; that ^4 was M^^n- stmcted.and incomplete; that from its imWeSi tT« ; ^ ^as admitted into the house, renl^*^ j^ . . bita^ and causing her damage ; that she hSd oZS^ p^ for the work and was still willing io do sa on tht satne bemg completed ; that she had called on M^cBuf ,r w ?4 offered j^ h^g it determined by experts what It would cost to finish tfe work - -^peris wnat ^ .Malboeuf replied that the worfc had been! completed r^ndrut^'r.'f " "^t^-'^^^Mst^ randeau had offered to pay the whole amount demanded as well before ^ after actibn brought, ,."^ "^'^**«<*' The case went to rerti$» by one expert was unauthorized by law, was void and should have been rejected. , " It is quite true that" the Code, of Procedure, artfples 821, 822 and ^28, only seem to contemplate &n/expeii^ hy three experts. But ah examination of tfiw whole case leads us to believe that the first j^gme^was erroneous. There is 'proof in the depositions of La^ml^e, Lessard and others, that the work was absolutely worthless and ^ould have required entijre ot^m^al, so that if the expertise' allowed\hiiQa something for his work he cannot coioplsan. I think, ihereforev it, is unnecessary to decide whether ther (O^tertise was unauthorized by law or not. t|^; * As to the pretended acceptance, of {&e work h^ffSLeAe, LarandeauAand her offer to pay,%here is some ptopf on the subject! but I do not find ^at the plaintiffs pre* tension in tnis refpect is made ou^nor Is it to l^ readily presumed. Madame Larandeau appears. to have said thai' she would pay if the plaintiff would finish the work, but she never went further 'than this, and such language would not bind her unless the v^brk was satisfEuptorily completed, which was never done. Although th& case is not without difficulty on the proof, we are^pf opiniea j;hat the equity on the whole is with therespKjindent, and Ihat her position is ajso j^^ified by law. , Tke jt^^meat appealed from; is therefore confirmed. ^^- j " . '' DoBioNjC. J., said that without deciding whether' it' was a case in which three experts were reqpir&d, under the Code, it was evident that MalboBufhad cpii8^ed.to . .r ^BT OF qfUf&nrs $ENdtf. '* • «r / hi ^'1*T ?' 7"- ^"^ ^"^ '<» «'«« **»« objection that --'h-f th^e experts yhonldh4re>entippointed. ^ Ur.„';W IUM84Y, J Jcpncurred. " V /// . N " Appeal diamlsued. ^^Srmel&Jafilm ^ Gouin, attorneys f6r fepi^ellaiit. - J«-/Vrre */ ^fe««^g, attorney? for rfespondent. • " , ■ (J. K.M- '.'- .... .,^." .,■•■ " « :j ■ ■ . , • January 21, 1886. CoramiJiioNK, Ujmb^, Tmsier, 0«oa8. Baby, JJ. Damb^^ ALLAS FRBJJOH et al. {D^eitdatai in Court below), <. • . *> • ^ApprfKUNTO; AND . . ,; X .- .__.___:.-.-.-;-'--' Dame ElJzABETH McGEB ot al, (PlaitUifs m Cb,^^ ^c/w), ^Respondents. I^fneiitar!, executor^I^ ofpou^s-^Groundsfor s 'x't removal from oMoe. . , >.--.■• . ■ " b 9 - --■;■.- "^ - ■ ^^2!^"^^^^ e«^utorf transferred the control of the e.- » to^iwother pe«on, who paid the moqiea belonging to U^to* jh^^^'fS^^ ^'^'^ ™ '^'^dexed by the Su- fe ^•^^,^ "'•""^^ ^^« appellants fiom i ^aex^uto„$idalso maintaining a «,««.orr«. The »««r«i<»>rfe as follows :—^ n^^fe^pl^&k We ertablMhed the ft*. 4 I*; • I . \ . • Ik r ' / / % l^m. "^ :« *'^*-" •;■'.«" •t^'vm^' r mumuhL Hw Mjfi^iim Uere I'ONtu, lor or thn money brought ^thut Hsid defendauatt in their wilUngnewn that a|tunatt thorn for aaid such other Bum M taking r^- k ■R I. •V,, lUHHl^ of «x()^tpi^ of th^t will aud tes- ***fflS^HHP^*'**™*'* M(;(>e«, have, in and by thoir pip|^fn(|pPlr'!RiH cause, admitted to hav« belonging to itli*, and pleaded 4 twider^f |2,«81J4, whi«;h tender, >ver, hM not b^m Vepes ^^l«lu Court for plaintifiH,— an( their soid qiiality^ judgment Hh( sum, but witl into consideration the pijetensions of Dame Alhw French personally, this Court shyi determine, but contests th« right of phiintiffi to havdi them declared ousted and di- vested pf their said olHce ol\«ecutors ; " And considering fnrtlier that it hath been proved that said defendants, as executors of said will, did prior Jp the making of the inventory of the estate and suoces- ,jiionoftho late Jamea. McCJee, make over tha==f»«jirip8r l)art of the estate and succtwsion of said lat^^nes Mc- ; G6e to Alfted Eogera, mentioned in the decision and m^e of the tiers-saisii in this catise, lo wit, all the moaep > i* #f ^tern Townships Bank, without security, ^d appSrehtly without receipt, and that afterwards, ta wit by actt of .luaudatB 80 tailed, passed before Mack*%Kotary Public, oij.the|8|ptliof Janu"^ry |888, theyapppintek; con- traiy to the nrdvisioM of artidlp 918 of the Civil Code, 8«»d •fred^ers tlgbr ^iudiory, giving Mm or pre- tendiriflb give and confer upofl him all aAd eVery. the powe^ conferred upon" them by s^ James McGee^ "as eiecutofl^Hi^r hi^asfeMriU. and ^ in fajjt divest therii- • selves of idl attdsffigtaii th^^atate why* thty had in charge,- ^d mtrasted thgiB»me whollylo aifid Alfred " And <»n8ide«pM^t'iia» bjBdn klly established in ^, ,-A.. ^^wcftuy'that8^Kfe|Pantshad,by fio.divestingthem- ^^ p , - >^v©^ of w whoI^t»te entrusted to them, arid entrust- "•|F • » ' ing the fame to said Alfred Rogers, faped and aeglectdd ■H" '^" ' V . V* M as such .«xectitore, and wholly failed to fiJlS^ the y^ * - dai»t. h»vo bv IM. ^ •*,"n,g only entitled to one-tkird of th. whole e ".! " , thepPl^vea her and was also r n«r*„ * *""*»* legacy oT'Jid Psfftt^«^ ' , ? P *J^ ^** *^« luventory oiijudesta^Jlpd acquiesced therein; ' And con^^ring that said defendants i* f ho,-, -a Counting to tV^m of JS^Tl 8^ ^ ^"^ ^'"•''- possession thorBof ah*! *».« j *'^8*'j?' V^no admits the . »g*o th^; :^ '^t"" "*"* »»"' »f "«>»Sy «o belong. '4 # .„ .p^ -j-r J!w -K" t at • 1 ,. MOlfTKIEAL LAW mPORTH. |l! _J*^ " And cpniidering ftirthwr that said dflr«ndftnta in idd Jj^i* "J" quality hav« rMndor«d an atjcount of tK«» atiaim of Haid «^« •• • •• tat«, and hav«i inado an oH«r, which howMvnr waM not rupflat«4 by tho d«i)o«iit of th« uinount in ('.ourt with thwir pieaa, of the muiu which th«y claim wan due plain- tiifs under Haid will of aaid late Jamea McGeo, being aa appeara by the evidence wholly inauHlcient ; "'And conaiderinjf that anid defendant Dame AHaa * Frtuich haa wholly failed to anatain her pretenMiona urg«>d in her plea filed in thia cauae ; " And conaidering further that Haid defendant William —. r French, haa failed to tu^<{»bliah ahy juat reaaon why plain*- V titfa are not entitled to their Juat ahare in aaid eatfte, to wit. to the Hum of 18,802.80, but haa admitted bin inabil- ity to act aa exe eiplima- JTm- Oir/iM- k. rt ,j . . Appeal dismissed. ^^' wZtrT^T- ""^''^^y" ^^^ appellants. /. t^ 4- Cote, attorneys for respondent. i M«4lM •( I J' r «.'SjS'-!!*fc,^feiVa^ 64 MOEirrBEAI^ L%W RSPOKTS. N* r ' • ^ January 26, I8861 C^oTflm .DoRioif, C. J,/ Ramsay, Cross, B,f pV.'Sjr U BANQtJED'EPARGNES DE tA CITll BT t>U ^ DISTRICT DE yONTRl&AL , ' * (Defendant in Court' helmv), i . AND ^f 1 W ■ .C 'i.A BANQTTE .TACQUE^CARTIER ^ ... {Plaintiff in £our( below), ' - ' ' ■ • ' RES]POjondent, and not to himself jMjrsonally., On 41jroiu the appella»L^^t!»9»sia^A« =4^ 4' ' ■'^.f' oftho foIJowi le pfr6t / 4it,.Col I ' ' prunt a ^ 'don '.1 de Ja de - demand '• billets e *paa auto mandere '»• "C^n* . , Julien -j^ *:, dit Cott^s "CSott^ man4ant ^ i8-esaftrib du mahd •'tiEetl^ " Conai me «t phs m le defenderee .' "'C(|i»id --et labile c ment le tra , ladited^fc proflv6 ^ " .^onsid< directeurs d du dit C^tl par le tit Q emAt p, '• * % >^ COURT OP QUEENS BENCH. ' ' Considdrent qije bien oup 1p /lif n^**;: ^' - demanderesse et A aZJ ^ ^ emprunter pour la . billets errptt/pfe^^ ^«« «"»P^«^t«. I- manderesse pour TranX^ '''""'P*^^ P*' ^» r6mis^fr^. f^t, '. ^^^ I?f r^' "'"^^^ ««s-dit,^.^il, .ht r^pudi^ i«0. U B»nqae d Bpanrnoi " yonsid^antqu'il est bi^n^tabli dans. cetteSan«e que H^' 'iit,»»nne du 13. septembre 1873 a et6 St au •^"^^ ^'^ wnnellement. et one U nrn^„;. ^„ .L .^ * ' i"^ %- M :U •^ -rr .< < 1 v^ '^^'IW 60 MONTREAL LAW REPOBTa ^' LaBAnque d'SpHrynct & I« BuiHtUU JiicqiitttiOirrtier d^fdnderesse ^ , J #. /', » • .: ■> formellement la reclamation de U dite cet 6gard, ntc" 4. Branclmud and C A: Geoffrion, Q. C., for appellant How. 4.' Lacoste, Q. C, for respondent. Ramsay, J.: — ^ This is an important case, owing to its difficulty and also to its considerable pecuniary interest. The respond- ent sued the appellant ,on an account setting forth a variety of transactions, but the issues are now reduced to the consideration of one of them. The cotirt is, moreover," discharged frotti entering into any consideriaitipn of the «ccfl%(niK, for it is agreed between the parties that, if the appellant's tender is not sufficient, the judgment is to be confirmed as it stands. In other words, we fire to adjudi- cate solely on the legal rights of the parties relative to -this one transaction. On the 13th September, I8t8,the cashier of the Jac(3|Tres Cartler Bank borrowed, in his own name, a sum of $25,000 frdm the appellant, on the security of five hundred shares , of his bank, which stood in his own name. This loan was for three months, and when the amount became , due, the Vclashier a,Tranged that it should remain payable orf de- mand. This state of things contiiiued till the 22nd Feb., 1875, when the shares of the bank fell much in value, and the respondent notified the^cashier that unless the amount was paid, or some othet settlement come to, the shares would be Sold. The^cashier then saw the manager of the Savingi? Bank and told him that he was not the real debtor, that the shares were not his, but wefe held by him for the bank, as it was unlawful for the bank to hold it^ own shares,, that he had borrowed for his bank, and that he woiald hand over as fur^rer Security effipctr of the bank. Thi^ he did to the value jof nearly $30,000. It ^ pears that/the manager of the Savings Bank took no steps to enquire further as to how this, matter stood, taking th^ statement of the cdshier as sufficient explanation of exceptional transaction. This is,* to some exteiit, explail ,by the great confidence the directors seem to ha^'.e re- i,. ,-*.. (i-"-i^igi5rs#fji" '^' \ OOUBT &F QUEEN'S BifCH. i1, actually b<::?<:;^* t'fc J t ^" ''^ ^"^^'^^ ''^^ -T^ maimer, at alJ events ila «r^' V . "" *" »«nk, „ was inen overdrawn to the extent of iftisftnn ^ that m noregrular book bf tL bank did fhV.' ^^^ appear, as now represented Ld ^1? * 'transaction show.thatthe:ca^rWdEfit'''v'rr^^'^^^*** ' trust for the bank Th I -^ hundred shares in . ; offered to^tr^r^^TT^' ^^ '^ favings^BanJc— ^ i- " .f*7 .? . ^^Pf^fff^es.. je crois enepre, ^ais & compte spe- "»v.^u«H v^anier/'p. 8. Of rq w.th the f,™ of the t™„4™ « ^ a|^"rr'" books of 'all the paWes. Apniw. .tAU P^ ^ '^° Bible, and it may even b^ SdM. ,^T "'*' '""^ bable. The Savines BaB^S^^^^'f?""** '"P-^-' m bad faith into mSX^f T ?■*»" *° »"* tb«n of p„,„f i. J apHwCrT ¥ ■'•''' •""- ' ./ll --M vt prooi 18 on appel W. j J>e ^ question'of the e^«d|of did nol act in the name of the bani Mr ^,n?^K T - ^''' ^ays positively in Jiis^vTdence th^twf t*^^ T-'^«' on the lathsitember ^ «^a*\the ^ashier sWliim ^ •• i» -'V •*» — T- "'!'^'^^W 69 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. w> l4i ntunque d'EiMrfiiiox A La Umique in its own shares. Mr. Oott6, when first examined, does not rcmomber to have seen Mr. Jndslh on the sub^^ct, but trnyn I—" J'ai du le mentioimer a M. ' ,-f. ;f\ j«,a^w earlier. . ^^0^^ p^s que j'jue jamais ftKt de d . --^^ ^^ :i< \Si c^ieS^^' . ip. B&,- Further on he i 0'',^' t '• giuren^efit r6fl6chifje declare que '^.-•' ^; ;*' Barbeau, le gferant de la Banque d' arbeau ; mais je ne iclaratioU' formelle k lys: " Aprds li^voir' ai ittentionni& k M.^ argues, que TqiBI' AS: . ■•: v f?v|>ruutqi;ie.je faisais sur les dites" parts 6tait poulr Vavatt-, ^^ stage de La Banque Jacques Cartler, et aorsqUe La BaUque <-" " d'Epiat^rgneia m'a demancl6 desMretds collateral es, j^'ai fait *' Id mfim^ declaration iji'ai fail la mfem* dj&claratio^^daas ]M^ deux pccaaions an; g6raut de l^ Basque d'Epargne|i^^ f turning to Mr. Barbel's »Yidence, we mid him saying in ' his examination-in-chifef;''l always understood it to be a -'/ special loan to the JacqueS-Cartier BanW' P-, 1- "Bn* i^i qpross-exar^iuation he explains how^ittle enect this general understanding amounted to. He says: " Sans cetfce d6ela- " ration formelle de la'part de M. Jlohorfe Qott6que c'^tajt " ^Ur La Ranqiie que ce pr6t avait 6te fait, nous u'awtpns $jimai$ song6 a cqnsid^rer cela comme une dt U» afg/a Banque, i* Jacques- Oartief.' 'k fe M " Q. Ju8ar llentrem|se de M,i36tt6? I " R. Precisement." \ ' ' In addition to this, it seems that even injFebruary, 1875, When M^. Ba]rbeaU was fully aware pf the contention of theciishier that he was a prMe-nom, thelbool^s were not change'd in the Savings \JBank.Qn thfelSth June, the ^Banque Jacques-Cartier.glbsed its doors, Jahd 'Mr. Barbeau befeame its managerj while he rfemaiued g-^aw/ of tbe Sa^ngs Bank. Then an operation was pedbrxned which, ItaKen by itself, of courfife.xjannot fikltertherights of parties, |)tit Ayttich, at. all eyentSj indicates wh«t' ||^~Barbeau ■_, f .to' . .. ■d' •* I ■« • ^ .r:^\ ■ JXfqBftbF QUEENS Bi|:NCH. > ^f ^\, 'k eounttb thaf of /K^T '""*"""' '^ora Mr. Uottfis ac- uiit, rotnatotth* Jacques Cartief Bank. On the 1«JtK Of Ja]y,.the whole accouat^as -tfansferrpd fn fk t y€artier Bank Donhtl««rf^t^ i ! *^ the Jacques ^'thought ^msf^aO ^!5-> '^'^ *^^* Mr. Barheau of Mr: Oott6- aT.^fV.„+ T* ! ^' ^*^^ "i^ presence -^ : i^^-^ %^a, direct W?yltlerr„^:r """'" ^ U.e cortmuBkation. On Zl^i^^ ' import of ■ • ■ five iifiinmk., -.v • . "*'™'y. 'hose eianmisd— jlK, represented . hostile interested lL7is^I ' . ontrol to this entry of the ?8ri Jane It U^TS!' oi.. of tU^^:^S^ti^ — it 'te, ," • r» <4 ^ ■^ V'yv.l k' A 70 MONTR AL LAW REPORTS. UM. ou the 28rd June, 1875 ; at lateHt ou the 2!Hh^iy it was altered in the pa88-l)ook. In September, 1876, Mr. Barbeflp, ueased to have any aut^iority in tjie Banqae JacqueH Carttef. ^< 1 « l«*^ liu Buniiuo e€ »o»f. story. elapsed sine, Mr. BarLn iTt^^JXtlTS /•oquel Cartier in other hands-^dd t„^° 7^"° has venWt. whisper safchl^AationTTR"* Jaeqnes Oarlier «noHl,™<- ""^"«"'»n- The Banqne iulkJt exten;^^^^^^^ "* -adily admit to tl^, We ar« Vhl r* "f **»»^ »* " «<>* applicable to this case We are, therefore, to reverse with costs. (») ev^Tdoubt 88 to the exisS^S ^ ^^^''^^ ^""^ "^hore is, bow- ^.rtditeeems tome tot Si^twLSrr-"^^ ^'« ''"^ ^-^y- ^«'». FoperV ,ifylod . new debt 11^ ft G***' **"''^ techidcUy, «, not im- \' I»» Bsnque Jacquei Cnrticr ■:A i f. S, i^,^*!^ 72 :r y ..A MONTREAL LAW REPURTB. /:'■ 1886. Im Ituiiiiiie (rK|iiircii«ii lift Itnmiue Crohs, J?:-^ This ai;tion waH brought by La Banque J^;ques C^rtier to recover from La Banque d'EpargueH a balance onlsecu- Trities deposited with and colle48,988.46. The Savings Bank admit ♦I6,fll7..09, whi«h they deposit and deny any furthot tsum .being dUe by them. La Banque Jacques Certier contendl that a loan ol* $26,000 charged to them was unanthoHfsed,'. 't^.e controversy is entirely confined to the balanct* that wouJij be due on this loan if authorized, and the paHi^s haye agreed to the exact amount to \n^ awarded in case it should . ^ be decided that the Jacoues Oartier Bank is liable llbr this loan. .The Superior Court has given the Jacquea Oartiei^ ~ Bank judgment, and tne Savings Bank now appeail. {"■ The circumstances appear to be as follows i — Fot severftl years previous to 1876\the Savings Bank werti.in^e habit of making large depiosits with the JacqueS Oartier Bank, on which interest was allowed at ratea> agreed upon ; these deposits on the 81st December, 1874, jamountT ed to ^500,000, and an increase was sivlicited by the Sav- ings Bank. d • > On the 13th September, 1873, Houore Cott6, being, then cashier of La Banque Jabquesi, Oartier, effeeted a loan, for th^ee months from the Savings Bank of $25,ilK)0, giving as security 500 shares t)f the stock of the Jacques .Cartior Bank. The loan was paid td Cott6 by two cheques, om^ on the Merchants Bank for $11,006, tlne other on the City Bank for |i4,000 ; they wera-oarried to the credit of Ootte in the books of the Jacqu^ Oar tier Bank, and covered an . aitparant overdraitJiin Cottfe's accoumit of $18,000. Although •'•^' ' \ effected in Cott6's name, and\ the shares given in security tranSfCTred by Ck>tte. personally, Juduh, then president of V / the ^ Savingly Bank, Barbeaii its man^er^. and jpottfi the 'e^bfoti^wer, ccyieutf i» iheir testimony that the loiui was • V' ai|^(levsl(K>d. to be a loan tp the J^ques Oartier Bank. ^WKbu'^jt iell'due on the, 18th December, it was arrangeid . that' itc should renudu as a Io«d on call at 8 per cent. interest. . »•" ^ • * ,. ' » \ ^ \ ^n t% ^6th Febma^y, 1$75, tlie deposit itdvances of the * 4 ■y -> -iV 'ti; J, h TT — '^ /f ^' •*>' - ^Al',^«'; ..«; .; Savings ip excess Holiuited Bank coi vious de] tomers' ]> transfern February which h shares hi the balar peated hit Cartier Bi shades she : the loan i loans, H^ theftfrthe; the^unden to insist or then held the payme Bank close (dismissed a a ra^ort on genWal adi |^w)on\after>/» sence of Cot was not enti he cauaed a . journal, ^crec Bank, then'i also made i with the Sa Bank, 19th Ji ofAugijsthe of the loan to An electioi ing in some ',>' ♦ ffaiDj ■) COURT 0iJ|EE»t, 9Meln' /.' , . jj; .P e.c«. of ,600,000, Cottl, o„ bS ofTht I . * .""!" .olimw a farther adva.,c. of ,,48 ooo thtl h J '""''' ^'^^F'^ Bank consented to make on condiS'.t . ^ ""l *""«* , '- "*"."• • viou. de,x«i.. ,k„„,d be :^n"XTh ltd '"'\*;^"- ■'""'^' tomer,' „romi..ory note., IZtttl t '"^T"* "' <=»■■ ~ , tr.„.fe,,ed/over L f.l „w, -^Woo S?.? u' ^^ Bibmary, and #160 22« 82 oT .t !! " ^" "^ ^O"" ^ which Lt dite he vZ o7,H^r "" ^^f'™"^' °° ' 8l..ro. haWnK deDr«,iin P ,.i '''"' OatHer Bank .he halanceTfte T.l'^C T^ T" 5f "^^ peated W» declaration that thVToan wit" .rri"'' ». — ^_ Cartier Bank, they wished it .^^„ J } ^'^<«>« .hare, .hould not beZrWced • Z / "^ "■"' "•» 'he lo«. in the ZZZ^ 'JH^^Z'^'' '».«-»"> . .' •■ loan.. He .«nse,nently3.fl.H Mo-* """'""'' " " the ftfrther amount o?t29 8« 9? ""■ '^"""S" B»»k .he^nnderstandin^lS' a^i^rSr-' "^"" "^ ,.^ort on.the atemt^ifr"'^'^"''''^' ' geXal .dminietrator. He IXd H. T,*° '""' ■ , »ooii\ afterwards he exnl.i.LT* ?u , . °" declares thai -e of oottML^'.:.;t "i^o: irri° 1: •'"■ Bank, tienWoLi; to ,m« u' r *• "'^ ^'^« •1.0 m«le in the pass took „f !1'", ^ '°''T«" «« "ith the Saving, Ckbvtl.^ ^'^"™ Car8§ Bant B.nk, 19th July WS to ^i^ °^Si°^*" "' *« S«Yi"gB f the jUjues Cartier B«.k. whicb.ri^'L''f."".?«"" .•J ii J ,f *k tV "*** 8iai;ement andrec , to be^Jtecording to hfs view of the j " An election of directors took place in ttg in some change of the penom^i: * le 125,000 ^ :«^||^ .'\ ^ 'Bmf -.s*^ j^g "^N^e ,./V.-'- ■'^'^ \: r "^^s, RklH) ■ 9 %.* ..^ -4 •k'- choHi'ii/proBiclent aiul appointed admiiUBtrator, and on ifco '."""j'jjjl^ 16th A'uguat, 187«, invoatigationii having ^MH»n mad»s tH»' L;BSi.ql.i diin'otora pMH«d a reaolution rt^pudiating tho loan ol j«oqttMC»rti»r 125,000, of w^ioh notice was givon to thri SavingH Bank " and th« pre«ont ac^tiou hm btnm brought in- conrtequonco. r C'dtt^, in his «viden»!«^ HWijara that the entire ol'th*^ trans- I actions above mentiontisd, incladiiig the loan of 125,000, ^ were made fw and in tho interest of the Jiuiques Oartior Baiik, that th^ money r«!ceiv«'d went to the profit of tho bank; and that tho^^ares Ke gave uh security were aharcB , • owned by the bank, which he had purchased with the * knowledge and approbation of the directfrs'^to pr«v 1>«nk, showing that a matter of «u«: i^itiMy I«ft to him. h in h.«id».« app, from the Having Hank olfi^ctdd by hi tt«d to a Iargft«itent ; and prominHor tora«r« an, «h«wn to havo b„«n trauHfurr; as woil a« theSaviugH Bank. Th.H., .inunafencea and iact tha th« dir«<-torB l>rctcmd that th«y Xot W tnt t me of the failure, show how utterly the din^otnJ abandoned all management and ,cnijo\ toCouT n tl hould the«i8e vea havd controlled, it i« no excuse to sav that he aced without their authority, ai.d the public 71 !^ of P .?i^- 7^''J o^n^^onduct seems to ratify the «^t of Cott6 and to demonstrate their necessity. hiJZ n the fa«,e of the entries in the bpoks they /fteVwards U^eni^l ves resorted to the same source, the l42S .foJaiVe loans for the bank. » *^* f*"'.' Z^Ji A *^« *f«*'™o°y of ^udah. of Barbeau, .and' Co te-was madmjssible to ,.harge the Jacques C^^Hermnk with the personal debt of CottC, it may beLwe^at the ' bjeetion waB.not taken, but supposing it co^W t stm raised by the Court. Cott6 had undoubtedly r^wer to S ^w for the^acq,^ Cartier Bank.id to ple^e^ l^^s in he had the same poXr of borrowing Yr*i,T ^ , Cartier .Bank, and JsaLg^^^ W^P'^" Perfect security as rei^rds^^^. k *T^*»°*« ^"^ ttrt the,.-M leiat, were in perfeotgwd fiuth in «nZ^ iddiid VJ'*'"!'"'' I I I // "li -a 180. J. 1 |J. 3p, B. rsft,. J. 809. •"• %'..^ t .r... '4- a 298 1. '.10.....,,. art. 28 848 307 341 399 .238 196 S4S ,Cm. 409J 8 Leg. LegNew»,140.... 386 •I>- 1837, p. 608... 187 lQ.a862. 277 "496 61 J. '276. Bep.80e.. 1Q.B. 39. Ill .286.. 408r »*'4<«-r-...; 4or r. 2 Q. a 374. BWS,800. ... 4«8 111 rA \i ^- . • 18. 898 .5--: M .4" IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT^3) .■♦.,..■...- :' W ■,•:■■.-. ^■^:-^-'^.,h-.-- '■;;;. ■.■■.■:■-:■••. y. ,>:,"^-/'--- ■/' v^^■ ■':■■'•■; ;;^^^-- :\-.'-V'"'\'-/^ :'■::':•■ ;^V,^ : J'. ,'-'.:,:::[ ^ -r:/.-.;^iJrr^;,-^ ', _ , . ■ ■ ■ ■ ' •• B • . y *■ • ■■'''■ ■' ■' ' ■ ■ ' ',' >' ^ ' ■ : 1 -.v ■ - » ' ■, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■• ■ '' X- .' • . % ■ • p " \ ■ ■ - ■> - ■' ', i - ■ » ■ " ■ " • w ■ ■ ' ■ :• •' ' * ■•■■-" ^ - ■ ' ■ ; ■■ '' ■ ■■■■-. , - ■■-.-■.. ^ ,^. « * ■i * . , ■ , ■■■*■■,. >• ' ' -■.'■. ■■.,■' ■ ^v ■ ' . ■'■^■; ^^' ■ ■ .- ■ •- ■ ■" 'r ■ ■■ .. * »4. " • • ■' ■ ■^ ■ ■ . V ■ . ■ ■■--,.- c - ' . . ' " ■ " ■ - ■ f ■ • ■ ^ t . . ■ ■ . . ..*-•:; i- • ^- ■ - ■ ■ * ■■■■- ...■■■-'. , ■ ^ '- ■'■ "' ' ■- ■■"■.'«■■■"■":., .:■■;■ «. * 1 :/- - -■ 1 '• . _ ^ - ■ ^^^n^... -<>■ ,.'V4v7f»t 76 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. V !f I , 1886. \ I > ft 'I the loan in favor of tho Jacques Cartier Bank. That Ite^motISi ^a^ik having an interest, and for its advantage chose, Ln B^nquc through Cott^, to Say : Don't sell the shares, we adopt the '"*''"*', "^"*' loan, it itf ours, and here is security to make you safe. But although empowered to borrow for and in the name of the bank, it miy be said, it is not to be presume4 that Ootte could do so from his own personal creditor to pay his own personal debt, unless the prdti^justified such an in- ference. This proof I think, results from, Ist. The delivery __ over of the assets of the Jacques Cai'tier Bank to cover the loan. 2nd. From the entries made in the books as well of the Jacques Cartier Bank as of the Savings Bank,, -acknowledging the liability.. 3rd. From the silence and ' conse'^uent acquiescence of the Jacques Cartier Bank to such disposal of its assets, and to these acknowjtedgments for a peridd of fifteen months without objectiott . These acts, although performed by the cashier, tnust be|>re8umed to be the ac^ of the Directors, He was theh?i5ervant and deputy, and the acts were of that vital and inyportant • Bkture that the Directors were bound to know, and they* cannot excuse themselves by pretended ignorance. As to the acknowledgmepts by the entries in the books, Barbeau was at the time they were made administrator of the ^ afiairs of the Jacques Cartier Bank, and as such, had power to niake such acknowledgments, provided it was done without fraud ; he was not acting peirsonally or for himself, but in his capacity as administrator of the Jacques Cartier Bank. • The report made by him to the Directors of their affairs, and his conduct were approved of by the Directors, and reasonably bound the Jacques Cartier Bank. No presumption of fraud arises in regard to his acts, they are in perfect accord with the evidence of Judah, Barbeau _ and Cotte, as to the origin of the travLsaction. This tacit sanction of the Directors with theiir presumed knowledge of the disposal of the assets and the state of the accounts lasted for fifteen months, and would, in all' probability, have continued but for the election of new Directors, who promoted a different policy. Their resolution to repudiate came too late, and could not impair the evident under *«t standi] accoun to the appro V ^'V^vTW.r*'*'' ank. That age chose, 3 adopt the ) you safe. I the name iume4 that itor to pay such an in- lie delivery ) cover the SB as well ngs Bank,, ilence and )r Bank to jiedgments on.. These i^resamed )Tvant and in^portant , and they* ice. As to :8, Barbean tor of the snch. had ted it was illy or for le Jacques 5 Directors of by the rtierBank. acts, they I, Barbean This tacit knowledge B accounts robability, ctors, who repudiate ut llIlde^ / y-\ eOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 77 to the timH of fu^ ,^"**° ^* tl»i« : ^ pruvea tnat this transaction ufr-a* fnr fW« u ^ tort.-:: ri"'.^'r5 r" '^^^' 1« no doubt that it ia cWlye.taMi.h^Vu^!'" *''*'' °"» • notion was for the B.n„„T r „ ""' *''* *"»»»• profited ti,er°by ifZe f'^"'" '^^^ ""^ «»' " tad it in tlus Mr B.^ »««*»«»«««« & >«.„ ? I to the directoB and wl fl.!? .' ^^ ™'»»»Wicated it -ry transacMon ThT e^ ' IT '^ -?" *''" "^"^ °' "■" teen months aftemar^ TO. """ '!P"*»'«d «>r iif- ■»««*»•««» UdT^. ^''■' ™ » ™ffl«wnt commence.. toeatabliah thrtS^TrZ!.!? " "'•" "'' efficient. -n. but With t 'Brrne'rri-s:^ ^""^ -" Thejudgment Of the Oonrt is as follows- ' .PP^Ctlrtf^l^«C°^S»P'-be. I878,.the • J-ques Oartie,. in hto^l SS ' if "f,"- ^anqne the security of 600 shaTof X s dd Z^^*^^ "" the name of the said Honort CoH« ^ 'tending in Hhe value of the Jd .hi. ' ™^ «>n8idering that, ' -^^v :*(r«l /■« «. . 'X », Ml I 1880. liA BlUiqM d'KpnrgneH Si' La Bnnqiie JiHMiueii Cnrtier ♦ ►• 7g ' MpNTREAL LAW REPORTS. , the sai^ appellant th^ the loan was made to the Banque Jacques Cartier lor which he was acting, and not to him personally ; " Considering that the transacjtion was subsequently entered on the books of the Banque Jacques Cartier, to wit, on the 23rd June, I8t5, as being a transaction of the said Banque Jacques Cartier and not of the said Honore Cott6 personally, and considering further that the pass- book of the skid Banque Jacques Cartier with the. said bank appellant was also altered on or about the 29th July, 18t6, in accordance with the pretension that the said Banque Jacques Cartier and not the said Honore Cott6 was the real debtor of the said sum of $25,000 ; " And considering that the said Banque J[|icques Cartier, although well aware of the said pretension of the said bank appellant, carried on b'usiness with the said bank for more than twelve months, and notably on the Srd of May, 1816, borrowed from the said bank appellant a large sum of money without in any way repudiating or putting in question the pretension of the said bank appellant as to its indebtedness for the said sum of $25^00 ; " And considering that the said Banque Jac(Jaes^)artier acquiesced in the pretension of the, said bank dj^Bint, and did not repudiate the same until the 5th o|9HBust, " And considering that by such acquiesceilce the said nque Jacques Cartier confirms.the evidence adduced to tablish that the said Honor6 Cott^j in borrowing the aid sum of $25,000, acted for the said bank and not for himself personally ; r ' --^ " Considering that although the agent does not bind . his principal beyond the limit of his authority, and although it is not to be presnined that it is within the au- thority of the agent to bind the principal for the personal interest of the agent, the principal may, by subsequent ratification, or even by tacit acquiescence, render himseif responsible to a third party for the act of his agent, irres- pective of any consideration of the relative rights of the principal and agent between thems^elves ; * WT ' ^^i^i^m\ ')"/ \ CX)URT OF QUEEN'S HENOH. 79 pell^'iC^tr'S^t*^ - r^^ *" the judgment ap- ^m. Sun«rinr n * . «' ® Judgment rendered by the i*n-»»»«). »» Appeal." ^' '°'*' ^^^'^"^d i« tl^e Court of ^.^. Branckaua, attorney for appella^'^'"* '^"^«^L respondents. '^***"" ^ rv'^\ f. COURT OP QUEEN'S BEN(» / Mnm, etc., coHMnti le trois marB IHTo ».r • mais en i^.alit6 oofir wl " ** "°"* personnel. transport de MeS an r"''."^" ^"^ '«^"»»" P^•^' da 28 fevrier 188lTe dl 7"^'". '"'»"'^"*^' «" A -avait a. fait ZLtZ^t:! :^'^rT T^ ^^ •-'' que la d6fend«resNo refuse neanmni I ^* "^'^^ «* somme de #2,500 d«.8 le con™ dH ^'"'"'' '''"»'' faitensniti de OTande. rfll ' '",<•«'<""»»■•«>«> aorail,. lanto pour la fabri^lLT ?^"" ^"^ '=°'"™'« mpor- con«d«r.bIe., ,i elle ^yZZil \ "^P""" <•<« PK>iifc voir le 16 maU mq^°° '^° ''' '<»>>P» apr«s ce b«I, aa-" I banqne, ayant fa« Mmf^ ' ?"" '''™' ''^de a la defenderesK,, m n..irrr»ie dSr . '^-■" •' ^ 'tl ?CZ * «"• "P^" de Po-^easion. le dit UM. iMI Court. r. i -».' *«W^ffi54; ipfffwuy^ 7"*,f '^Tt -^-f^'- r *, ^^ rr ' Ha * Mm. / Y Cnnrt -$■• ■ w^: 8t MONTREAI, LAW REPORXa liil i jIL ' Iwlj K=-. 1 1 Thompson anrait en k nnhir den tracaRserjeff fort d^aagr^ ables, aurait 6t6 arrAt^ ot mif* en aixaaaiion devant la .jus- tice criminelle ; . "Que cette d^possession, ces proces.et ces troubles ont eu pour r^Bultat de faire k la d6fendere88o des frais con- siderables, de remp^cher d'exploiter la manufacture en question pendant une p^riode d'au moins 89 jours, savoir 25 jours du 15 mars, date de la prise de possession par le syndic provisoire a la faillite de Rcott, an ,8 aVril, date de la remise des lieux par le syndic d^^'finitif de Scott, A la dfefenderesHev'?Sp14 jours ad^itiottnels pendant lesquels il a fallu r6parer les machine? eodommag^es par la gel6e et remettre la dite manufacture len etat de fonctionner ; de Temp^cher de remplir les contrats qu'elle ayait faits ei par suite de la. priver des profits qu'elle aurait rSalis^s, lesquels dommages, frajs, d^penses et pertes de profits s'e- l^vent en tout^ la somme de $ IK, 804. 20, dout la banquc representee par le demandeur es-qualito est responsable en vers elle ; " Qu'en consequence la somme de $2,500' qu'bUe devait payer a la banque pour devenir proprietaire est plus que payee et compensee, et que la defenderesse a droit de gar- der la dite manufacture et les machines qui en dependent ; dont la demanderesse^ est mal fondee k demander la jm|- session; "^ < " Attendu que par sa reponse k ces moyens de defenHe le demandeur ds-qualite, tout en niant les faits et la recla- matipn alieguSe par la defenderesse, a neanmoins declare qu'il 6tait prdt a abandonner k la dite defenderesse en reglement d0 ses pretendus dommages, la somme de $500 que la defenderesse devait pour les deux anndes de loyer de la dite manufacture et machines ; "Attendu qu'il est 6tabli en preuve que la defende- resse a de fait 6te injustement depossedSe pendant la pe- node alldgnee, de la jouissance de la dite manufacture et qu'il lui en est resnlte de grands troubles et dommages; "Odnsiddraut qu'lk rtuison des cont^entions et stipula- tions intervenues^entre la defenderessf et la banque fail- 1/ lie, d defei lite d t defen banqi et n6c qui ly) "Vi -i "Co des ga pendai des fra fendere 11, 14, de son leraent tie, et ; rejetes- ne recoT que le c CT ^f^""'' «»« l»d«. y. '4, ,6, ,6, 1?. IP^VaC 22 . 28 1 >• '' "' '' «• '' «• »• de «>n compte el ce iui^n i '* P""'*« pwe t'B. el le« ilem» 3, 10 72 ^a « S^?* ''•" P°" P*'" qne le comple de Bur^lh. d * ""'!'"'•"«"<' ^ 2 P.r™ d« Uchite (item. lO^Tlg) ° r"" " ^' '''"^«" .on .„.„ri.,e. p„ ,. -Z^nZ don S^'e'T *"""""»- -We: at 8. Vn r.b«„^ lotolede nrir "" ""'«''■ •"Ires Items (18, 24, 2S, 26 et 2J) "^^^ '"""' «« ..rlesqnelselle dev,S? rSis^He ™ f "' *""»" <" «««t»re, par raite de. faite ,„»«.. ^^i*^""- fenderease .oil d'exfcuter T ' """'?'"#•# d«- 4«- 1. temp, fix* p!:t, irrTdr^^"'"- l»i« reqoi. en temp, utile et A S^ • * ''"«»'" '« "Conaid^nmt, amTt I. '»mt T ^^'^ «»'»»*•: p« «* p«.»v*yc* te^LTi**"- <"'•" "•- '■»ae.di..m.rcl.«.e.<„^t^L^;^ Mm. 0^ / ■ % s-'W"ir''rrw^^ ""'^^ t- 'M 5" OmH. i N MONTREAL I*AW RF.PORTB. coniratu n'auraitMit pa* pu Atn^ rompliN npri^n la reprim; (le i)owt(>iiiiion dt> la maiiiii'acturH par la (U't'««ti(l«rt>MH ; •' C6iiHiii tempH utiU\ il eitt ^itabli, au contrair*', qu'tfltd"' aurait pu h«^ pro«ur»>r «;»< hoin, en n'im- (wrte quel tempH d»i I'ann^^e «'t HHairp piMulant toi.it n ; , " OonHideraut, en ronwMpuMuo, que rinexfnution des contratB all^gu^K par la d^'fendereHw ne peut Atre impu' t6e au fait de la ban(iue et n'est paH unc suite immediat(> et direour i>erte de bois gate, qu'autune preuve n'en a et6 faite ; " (^onsiderant enfin, quant a la perte dm proHta que la det'enderesse aurait pu laire par I'oxploitation dels ditc maUufacture pendant la periode de depoHseKsion d'ii-elle, que la reclamation de ladfelenderessw est ^tablie et prbuvfce, mais jusqu'H concurrence de $685 se'niement, savoir a raispn de |]6 par Jour pendant 85) jours ; " Considfirant, qu'il resulto de »e que dessus que la to- tality des dommages ^tablis par la dfefenderesse ne s'6leve, par la reunion des deux, sommes susdites, qu'a celle de 11,845.06, laquelle est insuffisaute pour compenser t»t eteindre ctelle de #2,600 que la dSfeud^resse devait payer (^ la banque pour devenir propri6ta!ire do la manufacture et des machines sus-mentionnees ; " Considferant, en consequence, que la dfifenderesse n'ayant pas fait le paiement convenu, elle n'est pas de- venue propri^taire des choses lonees et n'a auctin droit de les retenir apres le terme de son bail ; ' ' '•^onsidfirant, quant i,Ja -i^mpensation des dommages all6gn^ par la dfefenderesse iji^e le syndic ofFre de faire, au moyen des loyers diis paf la\dite d^fenderesse jitsqn'a • h"^* ?,-^*-7 ,-Fp» savoir H > miJRT OF QUBEN-H nRNCH. HO - le«ee had the onl J„ "f *' 1 ' ' '"'' P'ovMed that the •oa. of »2 60oT!° "^.P-Z^h^^ of the property for the l™.«r «L o^e JobTH M """* l" •""""''y- ™e , the Mechanr S A^rtr," "";. ""e'-'hi.r of k^-ear.r^di.thef^ir'ifrrh'.nrr; - ■ H *t It i- m Omti. X." ___». ft'^ 1' .. 11 ■ ,,^ M r MOHTRKAL law HKi|^)Rm Th« tnuisfBr wm •igiiified,8th.MMroh, IBftl, and a troiariiil domand for {MMiaoMioti of th<^ j)ru|Mfrty matin ii|)on th<' apiMsUaiit by thu liquidator. The appoUaut dnfundmi th«* Huit on groanda to be hnroafler m«uttonud. Thfl.Hupertor Coart gave judgnv^ut ordering the »ipulitioii, aiid tVoiu, thiM judgmuat the prtmeut appeal haa been taken. / By h^r pl^a Mr*. Thompaoii prot«itt>d that the tSuperior Oourt at Montreal had uo juriadictiou in the t;aiie, but att there had l>eeu no preliminary plea to the juriadiution, and the Btt|)eri9C Court hiiviug <^leArly {uriadifttion jivt«r the Mubject inattt^s, the queatiou of locality oji' the auit could ndt be raiaed in the abaence of the proper plea ; the mere proteat had therefore. to Im) diaregarded. The plea to the mec|ta ijj^to the etfeet that one ThomuN Scott, aa well aa the now appellant*, had ea<;h the owner- ship o' [K)rtiona of XHb moveable etteuta ; that Scott had raised money from the Me(;hatkit;8 Bunk to the e^teul ^ of |2,600 by giving a bill of aale of cttrtaiu of the move- ables and machinery at the sjkwl factory to Meniieu ; that Scott included in this sale a great part of the moveables which belonged to \he appellant; that an understanding was come to, that the ap(>ellant should assume Scott's liability and acquire the whole property, in -pursuance of which to secure ' the bank she made a nominal sale of her interests. to Menzies, valued at 14,419, for tli« sum of |2,600, that it was really not' but only a pledge of the property, bnt that e of the lease Menzies was bound to maintain the possessiod and eiydyment of the property, and protect her from evictions; that Scott, having been put into the Insolvent Gourt, his assignee, on the Idth March, 1879, sdme twelve days after the execu- tillh of the ledse, took possession of the factory and- pre- vented Mrs. Thompson from having the use ofH for^ thirty-nine days ; that she called upon Menzies to restore her possession, &nd he promised to do so, bnt failed to ke«p his promise ; that she had gone to great expeiise in procuring additional machinery, making repairs and al- terations anert; sud sdt r^Mpond ftist ^ tension proiwrty Aiou is i been ta) such a u in expul m prini ties havii To be( opinion, ( net them twenty-ti j^aiblo for' |plaim for the lesso „e8 that k at>pel and if this prpceedi^ factums, o been avoid But, ove this nature "P«icifie |)r! pardhase, a to operate a *' P fm^^^0m^smm:^^^^^mw< "%:* 'J If'''' ^!sf""v< CWUKTorQtJBRNililcmjM. '' 87 • ■«'***>le wood for in«kiiiff nbooU -ii «r 1.1 .^ m»iMufa<:tur«of.,HK,I« «lrr . . u *" ''''«*•••«*- for tho prom.. inco^L^rj;.:^^^^^^^ -r the i^^ci) ^;:c/ . t';:;it?^;:jjv'T ^ ProiHJrty, «h.,'h«^ ,,ri^ht to havn T • P*W for the . -a ..t off i„ cotp.4«tiou ohh m^o'3' "r''*:' It II to he observtwl that ti... n . ^-iou to e,«i„, thirlh^wol dh^^t^^^^^^^ T Proi»«rty UntU her dama«,.« v^er ' .W "f * *^"'*~" *»>« "ou i. for th« di.mi«.al «f Tk ^! ' ^'"' ''"^^ ^"°*«- lie. h.vmg to Jo with thi. .ttWr ' '" """ >»'■ .«ble fo,-tB.Zfo«.hmetrwhl I Ck rK'T'- ^laim for it>i«oi\>n k xL ^" ^ *A»nk doobtfhl, a &»» that couM h„e h.l .T" '^'P<'«"W« for (Urn- pj;':h^h\^:n:rri:ritvr"' - 'actums, containinir aSfl n«.,oo »« • .. P® ^'^^ *^o b-«.v„M„,withV;L';:;"e:t:r''*' "'*''' "-^ ■ ^op.^.e.^tofft.th/pr^Sl^^'lSl^ ] .5" i • * ij^^-L ~iS\^ .a^n 'H" 1S& 89 MONTREAL LAW REPORm V Court. ffii' h% M < ■l • ijl: ^i b« aacertained, the issue still remained as to whether they were really saflTered ta an amount equal to thjB price to have been paid for the property. The judge of the - court below has gone very carefully into this enquiry, and to my mind has made a very libwal allowance |br^ any damages legally claimable. He makes the whol«> amount to 1 1,345.96, whereof $585 are forjhiirty-nine dayH of, the deprivation of the use of the faotojry at |16 iM>r day — I think a decided overestimate, ^dnch sdm of 11846.96 being insulHcient to coAj^er the price of. $2,600 to be paid for tHe protj^rty, the prayer of the appellant for the dismissal of respondent's a9tion obviously could not be granted, > and respondent's demand for expulsion had of necessity to be allowed. The appellant, besides, owed two years' ren^, equal to |600, which the respon- dent offialred to abandon for damages, and I think the judge ro«d^ au overestimate of the time the factory was closed ; excluding Sundays, I should think it did not exceed 23 days. The claim of Scott's assignee was wholly unfounded. Hcott had sold out his interest to Menzies. ' It is true that .the appellant is not shut out of her recourse in al»^jaQtion of damages, or she migKl even raise her prettaisioii that the property was only pledged, but it would be' well for her to reflect whether 'shdk;ould prove anything like the. amount the .f^dge of the Superior Court was disposed to allow her, and whether there is a respcfnsible party liable for the damages. As the matter at present stands, the judgment appealed from must be confirmed. Judgment confirmed. T. P. Butler, attorney for appellant. Maclaren, Leet, Smith 4* Rogers, attorneys for respondent. (j. K.) -"V *,< ' J"' \ 3P^ to whether to thjB price (Ige of the 18 enquiry, 3wattce jfor^ the wholf f-nine dayw at flfi per h Hilin of 9 of.|2,60U a appellaut msly could ' tixpulsioii int, besideH, the respou- think the iactory was it did uot NM wholly to Menzies. ler recourse 1 raise her |red, but it iould prove le Superior jther there IS. As the Baled from \ «>URT or QUEEN'S BENOII. «« ^ ■ . w ' ' *2 mars 1886. 0.anTioni6s, J. e« 0.. Mon,c. Ramsat. Obobs. Babv. JJ. TRh LE FElt PE LA CITfi m MONTREAL, -r--^ (O^fenderessH eu Cour inf&ieurel ,- Apfelantk; " KT _ - ■ ' ; DAME VILLENEIIVE KT viR '1^ ^ (^^^^'w^rs en OJ^^prieure), ' . iNTIMfta. :.ArbUrage-~Kmm,ciatumlacite. faire determiner le montant den dommZTiu^i^n!;^ *''*^ **"'" -nonce p.r U n,.™e A son e^rom'lnT^ZZ^Z^L^Zl'; «"* - connne p.r elle avant I. nomination Z .rbU^. ^*'^*'''* Le jugement suivant rendu uar la nftn* «a«,,it • i«a Uour, etc. - . • Hangar 6ng68 sur un immeuble qui lui appwtenait \ K. J \ k&j^l^. prLTlw" et contenu dans la dite mahan^ ■ que les mots ' J!!l. f *t-^5*f i "». 1^.'. T^ n IIQNTREAI. LAW REIX)RT& y ■ '! Ik * ' I', i it .i' It ^ ^'■'Ji ¥ I . i,fi "* " Att«nda que le 6 janvior dernior la demanderewo A'kSiSin** pourauivit la difimdorouHe, r6clamant d'ell« la ditv viiitMttv.. Bomme de #1,060.75, ot all6guant, dans sa d6claratiou, Ioh faitM (d-d^utiB mwiitionnfilB, «t de plus, q^je lea bieiu mtmbliw 6taiunt asaur^B tela qu«^ co^iteuuH sdit dana la dito niaJHou, Boit dana 1«h autnw bAtimenta aBsul-fea, conforiiKi- uiMut aux couditioDH ordinairoado la d/'/«mdoroBH««, t«ll«.s qu'fccritjfB Hur le doH d« sch twly^ua ^^auimrauco, et «'«xtraitttH d« aa charte «t sea rdgleuuinta/; ^- 'j \ •* Atttmdu que le lor mar* Mriiier Uf- d6fonderoH80 a plaids i\ I'action do la deinfl^dei#««, ot qu'oUe all^guaii ' dana nuo premiere oxceptiqin, que parrai lea objeta ainsi aaaur^a so trouvaiout quatro vfUisea et un baril contenaiil dea hardoa ot du lingo ot divo^a objeta inobiliera qui au- raiont b\i' endommag^^B pbur^^une aoinmo do |675.r>5 qufe reclame la demandereaao et qui, au moment de rincondio, ne HO trouvaient paa dana la maiaon aaaur^io, maia daus i dno petite uonatruction en boia, en dehore do la dite mai- ' Bon, ot servant de cuiaine d'<^t6 ; que lors de la dite aasu- rance la dofoudereaao ignorait que la demandereaao gardait des hardea et du lingo de grande valour dana cette cuiaine d'fetfe, et-qu'il ne fut paa alora d6clar6 par la demanderease qu'une^^partie notable dea meuble^ offerta & assurer ne * - trouvait paa datis la maiaon ; qq/o ai la dfifenderesse out connu CO fait, elle ^urait'refusfe d'btt'ectuer la dite assu- rance ou, k tout 6v6nem*ent, elle ne I'aurait fait qu'4 un ^ taux beaucdup plus ^lev6 et juatifife par de plus grands risquea rfisultant de I'fitat des lieux a cette 6poque, et qu'en cons6quence la dite assurance est nulle, par suite dea fausaes representations et raicenises / de la demande- resae;. que lore de la dite assurance Ik /demanderesse ne dfeclarantpas le lieu ou 6taient les dits ybjets, la dfefende- reaae crut naturellement qu'ils fctaie^it flans la maiaon, vu que dans le cours ordinaire des chosesydea objots de cette nature ne se trouvent pas dans une /cuisine, qu^elle les as89ra comme tels, 6t chargea ik la d^manderease le taux d'as^urance fix6 par I'usage et les rd^ementa pour tels cas ; ^ qu'il 6tait du defoir de la demaiuderesse de dfeclarer toutea lea cireonatances qui pouvai^nt aftecter I'apprecia- f ■ * / \ ._ *-iw K-f^ms^F ^ r ■PB-^sf|y ^-^'s Ki^Hf^^^a^i^frj'^^ " ^"^'t COURT or QUERNfl BBNCH. tion ciu rinq^iu qu«« ia dtitnandnnwHo propoaait ti la d^- fondereuBfl d'l^iwiurftr ; qu'il r^iiultn de ce qa« d«fwuR qu« la demaiuh^nfsso no pvni r6clam«r k>ii doinmagen caubte am dita effeJH ot objetH <|ui ont 6tA eRtirat^H A la nomme a« 1676,56, i^on plus qu'nne antre Homraede ♦88.1»5,pour • ertains mm^bles Hiidommages dans le hangar et qui n'ont pan 6t6 iOuvfortB par la dite asBurance, vu qu'ila n'ont oaa i'K^ d6clar6s alorH ; que la 8tiul« Bommo qui Boit dueen vertu do 1ft ili to Ohbu ranee est r»'lle do'i|8«0.26, savoir #270, pour domiriagoH k la inaiHon, ♦!»(>.2.'i jwur doinmagoH «;au- 8^B aui mt^ubloB do la muiHon, ot tondut en demandant fu'te du di^pbi et de la consignation qu'ello fait de la dite Nommo do 1860.26, ot quo Ta^Uion do la domanderesse soit renvoyee ayet; dopens ; " Attend*^ quo par uno autre exception, la delenderesse all6ffuait qu^ Jorsque la dite assuramie a 6te effectu^e les qufttre valiH^s et le baril en question.jdrec leur contenuse trouvaient di^^s la maison assuroe et non dans la cuisine d'6t6, et qu'ils n'ont 616 tranBi>6rt6K dans ce dernier en-, droit qu'apros lo 6 octobre sans avis k la delenderesse. ce (|ui mit fin au contrat d'assurance des dits objets ; ^ " Attendu que par une troisieme exception p6remptoire, lad6fendere88oall6gua que la demande d'assurance ne fut pas rempli et la police pr6par6e avant le dit incendie, parce que les officiors etaient alors surcharges d'ouvrage! que le 1§ novembre 1888, .lo dit Tancrede Jobin vint avertir la d6fenderesse du dit incendie, et qu'en r6ponse aux questions posfiesparles officiers de la dfifenderesse, il' leur d6<;lBra que le m6nage etait assure pour $2000, mais ne dit pas alors ou se trouvait ce m6nage lors de I'incen- die; que le m6me jour les officiers de la d^fenderesse se transporterent sur les lieux incendies, et que c'est alors .que pour la premiere fois la dfifenderesse constata qu'une , quantit6 consid6rable de hardes et linge se trouvait dans' la cuisine, et quelques uns dans le hangar; que 8ubs6- quemment, et en conformit6 f^ la loi et aux rdglements de la dfefenderesse, des arbitrep furent nommfispar les parties pour estimer les dommages causes par le dit incendie- mais que la dfefenderesse s'objecta k ce qti'ils estimassent IIMl U a« d'Aaiuranoti Villaaattv* J • ,Tt' 1 • M MOKTRRAI. LAW RKFORTB. UCto H VIIImimv*. ! 8,* .\ \tm dommagcM canaf h anx hartitw «t lingeii tronrAs dans la dite cniaiiM et dans 1« dit hangar, vn •ntant qu'ili n'i- vainnt paa ^tA aMur^n ; *' Atttmda que le IH avril d«riiior. la d^«fynd«rMHW pro- duiRit av«M« la permiiwirtn dw la roar un»« autre exception pfen^mptoini all^gunnt que la demand««re8iie avait d/iolar/* dans la demande d'amurance dn 5 octobre 1H88, qn'elle *tait proprif'taire do rimmeahh^ qu'elle demandait A wkn- rer. mai» (ju*' wtU' d«Hlaration ^tait tauHm> en antani qu'elle ii>taif pan proprifttaire maiH qu'elle n'en jouinsail qu'^ft titre do grev^e de subHtitution ; qu'ofi vertu de' la loi et reglementii de la d^fenderewse invprim^a au do»i det* policea, toute peroonne demandant k etfectn«'r une anHii- ranne doit declarer en quell*?- qualitfe elle fait cette df- mande, et que toute fauB«e dferlaration a i'et'%ard rend nulle }a police ; , " Attendn que par jngement de t^^'tte cour du 16 avril dernier, il fat permiH h 1ft dfefenderesae d'amender sea ex- reptionH en premier, deuxierae et troisieme lieu produites. en ajoutant k sea cou'lusions que la Homme par elle d6po- «6e de $860.26, ne Boit pay6e A la demanderesHe que darn* le caa ou le plaidoyer 8uppl6mentaire ci-dessua mentionn^ aerait renvoyfe ; " Attendu que le 5 octobre 1888, la dite defendereH«e par le mihistere de son secretaire a donn6 k la demaijde- resse un re9U constatant que la dite demanderesse avait remia ce jour lA ^ la dite d6fendereH8») son billet pour la somme de $lt4, et qu'elle avait pay6e la somme de |8.H8 pour I'eht'r^e sur rasaurance qu'elle avait eflfeetufie a la dite compagnie au montant de $8,620 pour trois annfees, a compter de cette date lA sur proprifetfis dfecrites dans sa demande en date du dit jouj: e^ qui devait fttre compl6t6 par la police ;■'"'■ "Attendu que ce n'est que 19 novembre 1888, que la dfefenderessratransmis A la demanderesse la police d'as- surance dont il est qnefttion en cette cause, et que le 22 ' novembre 1888, la demanderesse aprds ayoi^ examinfe la dite iwlice a, par une lettre de cette derni^re date, protests contre I'insertion des* mots "contenm dans la dite maisnn" 4 6t'' ■. ,• &■ F'F'?' . "^nfe^i '"^ *T'^ , ,? 1- T'"^^ OOUBT OF QtTRENV BRNOH. 96 qui «« liflent daim U dite police, At m ronvoy« cette polinn «iiiiwrAtairodeU(X)mpaffnifldftf«nd«reM«. lai demandant d« rorri'gHrrotte HiTAur : ^ " Attendu que la d6fendere««e a m orffaninA^ noun lm dupomtionB g^n6raleii dn chapitre 6H don Statut. Refon- du. pour I.. Baa Canada, «t .,u'eU»' » obtenue une charte itp^riale par Ina diaponitions du Mtatut d« Qu6be< de 1881 44-46 Vio, rhapitr« H2. intitniA ; " Acte concernant la . ompaffniH d'awurance mntuolle oontre le feu d^ la Oit* do Montreal, et pour d'autren Hns ;" " Oonaidfirant qu« par la aection 7 de ce dernier Htatut lacompagnie dAfendereBse pent aiwurer dea maiwnn et bAtiMoa «,t„6eH ^an« la cit6de Mont»<^al, et le mAnairp de I anduro ; -o " " Oonnid^rant que la demandereiiie a ansur^ na maiaon el «on manage et que rette aiiauranre paraiiavoir H6 oHectu6e par la d6^ndere«i,e, ronform^raent, et en vertu dps diapoflitions de la dite section 7 du dit statut • " Consid^rant qu'en vertu dea diapowtions deVarticle 044 code civil, le grev6 poasAde pour lui-mAme k titre de propri6taire A la charge de rendre et ««„« prejudice aux droits de 1 appele, et qu'il r^aulte dea dispositions du dit article que lorsque la demanderesse ii d6clar6 qifelle dtait propri6taire de I'immeuble assure, eNe nV pas fait nne fausse dfeolaration-comme le pr6tend la'dfefenderesse " Considfirant qu'il est bien vrai qu'en vertu de la section 20duchapitr©^62de8 statuts de Qu6bec de 1881 toute liersonne demandant k effectuer una assurance doit dficla- ; rer en quelle quality elle fait telle demapde, et qu'une fajiBse declaration k cet 6giird rend nulle la police qui est 6man6e, mais que mftme en admettant que la demande- resse uprait d6clar6 en termes formels qu'elle etait propri- itaire du dit immeuble, ce qui n'est pas 6tabli, puisqu'il est admis que la demande d'assurance a 6t6 sign6e en Wane, il n'en serait pas moins vrai que sa declaration n'est pas fausse. et qu'elle est aux yeux de la loi >opri6- taire du dit immeuble ^uoique gwv6e de substitution ; " Oonsid6rant de plus que par la section 21 du dit statut touje b&tisse sujette k uhe substitiitidn, pent vaUdement una A'Amurmntm Vltl«M»««. A .C& ; Sr-' ^(BBfilS^I'WVwS^k'K f ^ I. w ik \v 96 ucu it'AimiraiK* •i VIIUn*H*«. MONTRKAL LAW RRFORm ♦Iro aMtin'Hi A U coin|>«inil«J d6fi»tnl«'rwwM«, ol «|ti« l« hill««« (l.- atiHil iii<^iii« gr««v»M d»« anbu- tihition, romtiii' Mtiadit, «"t. qii'il K«iiU« d«a JbUm d»^ lolU- t auw ft d»'K diitiMmUioiiH UHm«*nt (|Uo I«>H objwtM 'ittohiluirH aMHUi'i'M rtaiwnl darn* la dito maidon, («t qu'on ii« p«ml din» non plua qu'il y ail d« la imrt d« ta d«maud«rbi«tn nuy biliurH iu» m'rait pan wiiHlammtmt dans la tro4^R«»^; quv dau« lo han gar, «;omm« p*ir cx«mpl«, lo charb^u ; " Gonsidoranl <|u'iJ rf'sulto doH diHpoHition« do l« soclioii 7 dn chapitro 62 des Htatutu do Qu6bo«' de IHHl, ot do la rodulo B., annoxiio au dit statut, quo lo prinoipal objot d« la dito compagnio ost d'a«8uror le» b&tiHHes occuptwH pur loR a8«ur68 ou loH mombros do la rompagnio ot lour me- nage, c'e«t-a-diro lo mfmago cjui so trouvt? daiiH Ioh dito« bAtisses, et quo rola r^-sulto aussi dos termos du douxioine alinoa des informations gfinfirales qui ho trouvent on t6te des roglomonts do la dfefendorosso, ou olle dit qu'ello as- sure aussi le m6nago du proprifctairo ainsi quo* son choval et sa voiture ; "Considfcrant qu'il r6#ulte des faits et circonstaiues prouv6es en cette cause. que U domandeEosso a entonda faire assurer, et la dfefenderesse a entondu jissurer les hft* tisses ou r6sidait la demanderesse, et les moubles ,de ma- nage et effets mobiliers qu'elle avait dans les dits lieux; " Gonsid^rant qu'apres la dite assurance effectu6e la dite '»f f •afnnAnUr 1« riiiquA amtimA n.r I. Ai.t j * ' mita * pin. d- ri.c,u« „ r«t /.,?«rd. ,.t qu„ |a m,mdt^r9»m d*po..r ,.rtai„. .,««t. „»ohUlor. d.„.' I« hi;""" U rouv. |„K.^.r.i.„t. ,.nm,„« ..la da rn.t. J\.r2Z .on-tan qu'.I y a .n . on.n.tom.nt ,nutu«l .t nS'd l7« "nd:"r'T.'r" •"""' •" '"^-'^«- -- -- - " I (^ndroit oil il R^ tronvait • « l.v«Br «. dlupcition. d« I. motion til do m. r*,l. moot., ,,.. d.,or.to ,„. ,0 t„„.p„rt d„ ^„4 ;;■'*«'• ■(.n. I. ,»l,„o ™„d,. l',«,„,.„oo „„||„ „r ,... rrt l« Sont, va qq, 1„ (,it dB dSpoMr .-ertsin. .rtiolo, «„urt. ». 1. o„,.,„o d'^t* „■«,, p„ „„ , rt d«., doT,« l^^t .rt.ol. do. di.. rtg,o„.„u, ot q„o lo mCo ;:?. do "»»d.ro«o p,r.il ,„i, M, »««rtp<,Hr™ „?^1 .o ,1^ ^n l.po .c. .„™m« ,;,l. par.!. d'.ille„„ «,« ZoM ' P" I. dite action 12 de. dil. rtgUnwBt. »t n,rT!rj^ |ra.qni*m, cadition do*, dit. iSliftT "^ * ""«'• iMo , ,vil ramnr« mt tens de d«olarer ploinemont ot t V'::.^^' w MOKTaKAt LAW RBTOiail III I ; if I J- #4 it ' dm •ITKt* ManriM ili«rii n'«(ai«nl |NM »i|MWf > uii \An» gfnd rkquf qu'aii mom«»iii on I'lmnpHitirH n fit* ♦• !!'.•« I u<"«'. t"! r|n'il n'y n |»m li«Mi d »i»i)lu|a««r « U ««uii« im;Iui'II« !•• diN|NHiitioi)M dc U iiw tioii 2ft dii . h«|iilr.»rt2 dw lUinU d«» l«vai«'iit M Ih M»mra»' d«* IIM), |M»ur U maiaon. |H0 inmr la .uiniii" d Air »U HJO jwiir lo h»n- Ijar. frtrmanl un inviitBiil toliil do $270 dt» dointiap;>'>« r»iii«N am diti^H bAl^«w par !«• tlil iiu!«»ndi« ; "^ •• Altfudu qn« lea arbilrea nomm£*H par h«n dil««a parti<>« |iour «'onNlatt;r l«a doinina^fM laita aux nieubioM dv mi'- nag«' aMMUr^ par la dfifiuideroBKU ••<»mrn« miadit. ont fait rapiMirl que \m dita doiiimageH aiiiai faitaaax dila inMubl*** ft effi'lH inobiliera, laiit rem niluca daiia la inaiiion qiw dana la .niHino d'Alr i«t U> hangar ri-deiiauB iiienlioM- Ufa, a'Alevaionl a la aorarae de 1771.75, n« f*^ cMHB* Mtl> 11.100 jpoitr It mai*on, IflO aur nif# C7oinm«« U potw* if«wittrwia» n'Hdl pM ••IKW^ pr»p*f4». tin lal promll, ti»l %w r«l* ■«• |»nili«H»« ofilln«lr««m«iil. H» I* Ini r»mtllr« imiiii tin «ourl d*Ui tin p^tt pluK ami inour «pr4«. If i» iu>vt»iit4»rw anirMit •! AVMl «|n« «•*•»«• iHilUe «tti ^* wwiiw A TliiUmA*, nn in- ifwdlo *cU**« iUn» *•• •*••« •*••*' •»•••"'*• ••* ••* **••»" magM ««■*• P«t !• ft*** •'*l»'^w»». »•» «l»w «on«til*». imr tarbitrtfco qui «»»* H*" lniru*dl«l«nn«nl •pr^«, * U w'mm** ,1^ 17111175 pour \t* mMtthU'» el taio mir rimmfiibt*', for' . ro«nt.-nloat|l.0«»7ft \ On ttvait r»it niffncr I* a«ii«mulH a MMiiral^c* «• '»/«'•• mttiH. irom^Kll«t«miml uprrii rinc««nai»', c«' impWr mI U pti« «l.i» »in«nl« Ml trouv*rniil|A «outMnir,«a rkpporl %jr**« »' U imnil.lv. aunt il > i^Uil 0'^^*^ »•• "»*»H ""'^j*"* Ham tmtiit maimnt." . ^ \ *i / ' lion, d rit»tinW<« !♦• monUnt Hi« p«r l«n •rbitrwn tmmin« vt aautre, fut |M)unmivi« «t ij^v «ont*Bt« ««tt« ' * aliquant, awm un** im'ini«l« oicwption. <| n>T»ilpM dIoUr* Iwi «hoiMw tellfii qu*ell«ii6 M •U« e'ttt d*voil6 le fmii qa« p»rti« iUm m«ahlfls «n ^wn '^- ' H»if>ni Akm la < ui«in« d'M*. qaili« nattraiant p^ R qvU •• trouvaient dfuia la maiaon et .enait, Jwini^aence, pour dommaKflii tail » le qn'anz nw^nbloa qiw If aomme de |86CL26 qn'elle ci^naignait en C5oar. *■ •^1^ iay<*r h •Hrl q' ^-^'T^T' ^_„ (VOWi / '1 './^ %' Moo qu A^ |«i A mtohtP INMA , h. A ll„t.m*«d-.Mr Wt lid., .ut,^ d6.,imii«,. f«„..« d..« .» d«,n.„.i. ;r„.u. •luVII,* vouUit mmur^r. «m •uuWm'ell.i i. *.. j«l . l.diU M-uran.., .« trouv.it r«i,o.ul„t „all« .,t T «.a «v' Ji <' 102; •IT /,«,'-■ *« j.->-* > '■ 11" >' liSJ' UCie d'AMunnce et Villcneurc. - s? ■>, V^ ^ . • .)f011)!RE;AL LAW REPOBTB. . poTti ces cnoses «ii di^hor| d#is Tleai! aisurAB sans la pet- miB&ioii ^8 rappelante. Albrs, et dans ce cas, rintim^ anrait fntalemeajk enfreint lea cojpiditioii^ de la police d'as- suraitiBe. *"* ,\ S'il iailait Vii croire Tappelante, iHntim^e ne ppnvait pas faire transporter dans cette bfttisse, sans uue permission sp^ciale de sa part, son argenterie pour Iftjjfaire 6claircir, sa vaisselle pour la faire laver, ses hard^s pour les fair*' s^her, ou sou linge pour le iaire lesBivbr, b&tisse qu'elle connaissait 6tre une cuisine' d'6teet devoir dtreappropriee A Tusage auquel on foit se^vir yt'nje telle p iece dans desy famiTles de la position dociile et di^s conditions de forttlue de I'intim^e. , Gela serait ^xorbitftnt et cette Gour ue pent consacrer une telle pretention, ^yidemment. A- ' ' Muntenant, quant ^ la sub'st^^tipn, nous sommes d'o- pinion que,rintimfee,avait droit, 6pmme grev6e, d'aissurer la propriety. Les autorites sont cfaifes sur ce point et la jurisprudence du pays est aussi <$ans ce sens. Elle pos- S(pde en son nom compe pi^opridtaire et pent done assurer cet immeuble, et on ne sauriiit Faccuser d'avoir fait uue fausse declaration en ne sediE^t point grev§e de substi- tution d^s sa demande d'assj^rance qu'on lui a fait signer m^i^ i^MUewca. . 7 NpusJie Savons, le contrat d'assurance est de droit strict et on n^ peul/guere en etendre les termes, mais, au moins, faut-il |ui dpn^er un<^ interpretation raisonnable et pra- tique, ^t c'est Ce que nous faisons en ecartant celle que I'appelante T6udrait faire pr6valoir. Je puis ajouter que le fait que les articles perdus o« enjdommages etaient sur les liteux assures njest pas nie, et qu'aucune fraude ou. nnauvaise foi n'a 6te imputee k I'm- timi§e, soit q^ant a.la cause de I'incendie, soit quant k fa valeur de ces articles. Sur le tcfut, nous trouvons done que I'intiinee ^st bieo foiidee dims sa reclamation et le jugement dont est appel lui ayam donne gain de cause; nous le confirmons avec 1- Jugement confirme. 4. BruAet, avocat dfe la demwidereBS^. /De BeU^euille 8c Bonin, avocats deia defenderesse. (J.J.B.) i^ it''"! > 1 ■,» ^l )Sf^SStEESBSlBBS^i^ .' \ V COUBT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 108 September 26, 1886. Coram l^^of,, C. i.. m>m, Ramsay. Tkssier. Baby, JJ. JOSEPH BRUNET ET AL., {Plaintiffs in Court belqfo), Appellants ; ' /. AND ^^i^^^-OOR^HATIO^ DU VILLAGE DE LA COTE ST. LOUIS, ^J^endant in Cowilfelow), \ * ^ Respondent. Powers of Municipal Corporation-Agreement to open street, A J^jni^l Cbrparation caniiot validly bin^^ ror failure tetany „„t^.,,^^^„^^^p^^j^^^ J -J^Pe^^ from ajudgmen^of the Superior Court Montr^, (SlcoTTE,J.).May29.1879.di8miirngtheTp- Pellantj^ action, in th;» following terms :~ ["Lac!our,etc...:... detd^S^^"^*^;! ^f '^^"^'^'^^l^^rs ne peuvent r^clamer des dommages^contre la d^fenderesse, A raison de ce que certains tr^^vauxet I'ouverture de certaines rue. proietLs ant 6^ adoptees par le conseil de la dite con>oration. i'S pas it6 executes qumtd la rue Drolet- • DartS^nf 'T* ^1''* '^'^ " ^" "™ d'engagement entre les £ti nif ^ '^'^weA ce que I'inex^cution des travaux rfro- fnntif "?'''^^^" * ™"^ respoisabilitfi pourdomm^es centre la coTporatioh,tel que demand^- "Con«id6^t d'ailleursjque les demandeurs n'ont pas fait et ex6cut6 ce qui leur incombait pour permettre 4 I'au- ^nt6municip,ded'agir en conformity aur resolutions sus- dites. relativ|»s k la rue en question ; et que les deman- '^• I ,11 t, k K> I I. 'A' 1 I ) 14, III', w 5^,*^*- 10^ \ JfOMTttSAL LAW REFOBm 18U. Bnin«t Corporation OoUBt. I»uia. dears n'avaient aucnn droit acquis auquel la d6fendere8J»l» ait port6 prejudice ; pas a / " Considdrant que rindemnit6 rdclam^e n'est raison de dommages actuels et directs, occasionn^s par le /mauvais 6tat des chemius et des rues ; mais qtie ces dom- mages sont 6loign6s, ioMrtaius, calculus snr des esp^rances et des chances fort prpil6raatiques de profit dans la vente des quelques lots que les demandeurs out encore k vendro, dans le terrain achet6 par ea£ dans un but de speculation, par la revente en petites portions ; . " Gonsid6rant que les demandeurs n'ont pas prouv6 les allegations de leur demaude ; " Consid6rant que la .defenderesse n'est responsable d'aucuu dommage et d'aucuu prejudice euvers les deman- deurs, declare leur action mal fond6e et la deboute ave«' depens distraits a IWocat de la.defeuderesse." Bm. A. Lacoste, Q.C, and Hon. R. Lajlamme, Q. C, for the appellants. Josep/t Doutre, Q.C, and /. O. Joseph, for the respondent Ramsay, J.:- - This is an action of damages. In 18t3^ the appellant was a proprietor within the limits of the Municipal Cor- poration of Cote St. Louis. Being desirous of disposing of his property to advantage, he entered into negotiations with the officers of the Corporation to open two streets, and to demolish an old stone house. In consideration of these undertakings the appellant was to give the Corpo- ration a strip of land. The Corporation agreed to these propositions, and went so far as to pass a resolution in the sense of the agreement with appellants, and iook posses- sion of the strip of land, but the Corporation did not open the streets, and did not remove the old house. The ap- pellant sued the Corporation, seeking damages for the failure to open the streets. The action was dismissed in the Court below, and we think rightly. No such action will lie. The executive of a Municipal Corporation can- not bind itself ^her wise than the law directs. It cannot ^<;f bind itself to make a by-law. This depends upon the genewJ principle that the State, of which a Corporation is; a disi genen mazin are, tli pellan to be t have s Ltico appelli Ao. (J. a THE i RR.< Procedm Hjbu):— 1. that a tion of has be -'. A non-i anon-j When ■ ioent, I two mi expina Whei« Coats, p s^curit] 3. 4 Kavanoi for leave (DOHEBT^ itX'- a *it*ii'V" ^endeTeBf|^ est pas a n^s par le ) ces dom- !8pf ranees 8 la vent«> ) k vendro, i^culatiou, prouv^ les isponaable es demau- K)ute ave«' a, for the is^ondeut appellant cipal Cor- sposing of igotiatious vo streets, leration of the Corpo- 1 to these ion in the M>k poBses- l not open The ap- es for the smissed in ich action ation can- It cannot ^..?■■ -iff ' November 23, 1886. Coram DoBioN, C. J., Bamsay, Cross, Baby, JJ. THE CONNECTICUT AND PASSUMPSIC EIVKRS RR. CO. v. THE SOUTH EASTERN BB. 00. et al. -Motion far securUy for costs— Abs^^endant— Pleading toithout reserve. Procedure- Co. V. Cameron, 7 Leg. News, 214), Hiiui:— 1. (Following Bowker Ih-ti that a motion for security for oi»t8 may be presented .dSi-fir" T'' has been given within the four days "iw mouon 2. A non-resident defendant is entitled to ask farsecnrity for costs. fi«m' a non-resident plaintiff "«^u«»y w costs, fiom 3. Where a non-resident defendant has been summoned by adverts*^ expiree in v««»tion. the delay ™ns ftTsSiT ' "^•''""'"^ ^•'^ Where a defendant, after giving notice «rf motion for «KurUv far cc^ts. pteads without reserve of his right, he waiv^ rSSt^ J^^^^h, for defendant Hendee, a nin-residant, moved « leave to appeal ftom a judgm«mt of the Superior Co^ (DoHEETY. J.), dismissing a motion for security^c^r l.i 1M6. Wmt MOllTRSAI^ LAW EKF0B1& :% .1 ItB, Co. Y 8e< _ jade too late, it being filed after the expiration of four RiwSi'k.l^co.days from the return of the action. The defendant Hendt* southkuitern was Bummoued by advertisement, and appeared on the Ist September. Notice of motion for security was uer^'ed on the 4th September, and the motion was made on the lUh September. The, decision of the Court of Appeal in Bowker Fertilizer Co. Sf Cameron, showed that this was regular, and that thp motion should have beeu granted. , Umergan, for the plaintiffs, said this case was not quite the same as the Bowker ctMa. The action was. returned May 19, and the motion for security should have beibn filed May 28. But the defendant Hendee, being a non-resident, was summoned by advertisement. He pleaded ai| excep- tion to the form on September 4, and made a motion lor security for costs, September 11. It was submitted that 4^ing a foreigner, he was not entitled to the'benetit of C. C. 29 as to security. Further, that he was not entitled to a longer delay for asking security than the resident de- fendants. Lastly, that by pleading an. exception to the form without reserve, he had waived his right to obtain security for costs ; C. 0. P. 128, amended by 36 Vic. (Q), c. 6, S.6. DoBioN, C. J. : — This is a motion for leave to appeal from a judgment which rejected a motion made by the petitioner Hendee in the Court below, asking for security for costs. Both parties are absentees: the plaintiffs have their principal place of business in the United States, and the defendant Hendee is one of several defendants, also resident in the United States. He was called in by advertisement, \n^ appeared on 16t September. On the 4th September he gave notice of motion for security for costs. On thie same day he filed a plea without any reserve of his right to se- curity. We think' that he was entitled to security, and. that the giving notice of motion within four days was sufficient, but that having pleaded over, and without any (») 7 Legal Newa, 214. - ation of four dantHen'dtse eared on the J was sen'ed xiade 'OU the rt of Appeal red that this I have beeu i-as not quite j(i9.H, returned ave been filed non-resideut, led wof excep- a mention lor bmitted that he benefit of } not entitled ) resident de- iption to the ght to obtain ' 35 Vic. (Q), 1 a judgment oner Hendee costs. Both leir principal he defendant aident in the dsement, \aA leptember he On this same is right to 86- security, and, mt days was without any 'g.l.agthe street inMonteWto «»ght the young womiU. by the »m, die w«ftiirhteii^ »d scre^Md, »d the tw» men then went .w."* S*^ ■ f I ,1 < ■« - » it1BH^''f^'' :/. 108 IIOOTBKAX LAW BEPOKia lan. PapiiMiu Tuber. . / M sequently, the appellmt wished to apologize, on the ground that he had taken the women for servants of his father, the seignior, coming out of the manor grounds, and wished to see who they w«re ; but the apology -^tui not listened to, and criminal proceedings for assault w^ro instituted. The criminal proceedings were afterwardiy abandoned and a civil suit commenced. The Superior C'ourt at Aylmer (McDouoall, J.) allowed |100 damagt^H. La/ontame for the appellant. /. M. McDpugqil for the respondentu. y It appears fi'om.the evidence that the appellant laid his hand on the arm of one of the ladies. She was alarmed, and uttered a shriek. The appellant retired, and th«> ladies went away uphurt. The appellant went afterwards to the residence of the ladies to offer some explanation or apology. He was received with a display of great indig- nation, and the door was kept shut against him. The next day the father of the young man went to explain that his son had mistaken the ladies for servants living' the grounds of the manor house ; btit the explanation was not accepted, and. nothing but the law would satisfy them. The respondent Went before a magistrate and made a com- plaint, aod this, no doubt, was the proper course. In the complaint the assault was- represented as a trifling one. Then the assault case was abandoned, and an action brought for a large amount of damages. . 7he plaintiff has proved no damages at all, but she has proved a right of adtion. So, the only question is the amount of damages which should be idlowed. The Oourt here considers #100 unreasonable. These people are really making a mountain out of a molehill. It is a case very difficult to deal with, because the costs have to be considered. The Court has resolved to lay down a rule,' which, however, may not apply except .in cases where the circumstances are nearly similar. The plaintiffs having esta-blished a right of action, and the dimiages being unreasonable, the Oourt will reduce the damages to such a sum as might have been Bit '. ^. -'.ns^^ssi^-i Mf count flih the sidd appellant IS condemned to pay to the respondents in thdr «ud naihes and quaUties. with coata as Til of thlcLurt below as of thia appeal." ' _ . Judgment modified. L. it. my Of, Attorney for respondents ' \^ (J.K.) •. . ■ ■:■/ ' ■ "^^■"■■ " ; \ i 18Mi Paplneaa r;]!i -l': , A'. "-'■>'•. .\ X J *Sku.^ ■- - -1 -'-^rrr "Jae • # - ■ ■■•* ■ ' i I- ■ . . '*■ ' ;• :^t-t * -- . \ ' • J^ ^ .^ i i^ ^^g m^^^. ...... iC^A^ts^-^^.^isi&i^ , tSJli ,f . 1 ^ m 110 MONTREAL LAW REFORTH. May 26, 1886. , Ckyram UORION, 0. J., Ramsay, Crosh and Baby, JJ. NORMOR V. FARQTTHAR. Procedure— Intcription for Enqn^te—C. C. P. 284. An iiucription upon the roll rfr'« <'>i7H/f<'« for nn(|ii<^t«, without the >fonMrit of th« oppo«it« party, ii regular. Exchange Bonk A- Craig, M. L. R., 1 y. B. 39, (lintinguiMhod. The defendant moved for leave to appeal from an inter- locutory judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal, (Ma- THIBtT, J.), May 15, 1885, didmisRing her motion to reject the plaintiflTs inscription for enqu^te. ' The issues in the kn\i having been completed, the plain- tiff, without the consent of defendant, inscribed thel^ase on the roll i*enquite. The inscription, dated May 4, 1885, reads as follows : — " La demanderesse inscrit cette cause "snrlerole des enqndtes, pour enqudtc^ en icelle, pour , " mercredi le 18me jour de mai conrant, et en donne avis " 4 Messrs. Church & Co., avocats de la dfefenderesse." The defendant moved to fejeet the inscription, "inas- " much as she had not given her consent to the same, but " on the contrary she had, after receiving notice of said " inscription, declared her option to have the case tried at " enquMe and merits," The motion being reje<~?- , <>)♦ Leg. News, 89a V^ / n • '♦^jfB^ COURT OF QUBSITO BKNCH. Hi tice Papmeau that a party may inscribe on the roll A'En- quite for the adduction of evidence, without the consent of • he opposite party. The inscription was in accordance with article 284 of the Code of Procedure ',-.;♦. ■' ■ RAM8AY, J.^(rflM.):— / _ I think l^ve to appeal should be allowed. It is not safe to say what practice tn^y not be established under ?• ,. . . '*' amendments, but I think we hare r^tically decided the question before t«i in m Exchange tt.^?^.^*^'^^ The judge in the Court below dist^ gaished this case from it by saying that in the &tchange Hmk Sr Craig the inscription was for the adduction of evidence " at iengthr It is argued that there are now hree modes of taking evidence, (a) at length by consent m the old form, (b) by notes (taken by the judge), or (c) bv inscription lor proof and merits at the same time. I think hi8 18 a misinterpretation of the code and the statutes, and that there are only two modes of taking evidence. Art 248 creates the inscription for proof and hearing at the same time, as the regular mode of procedure. Art. 284 then permits the parties, by consent, in writing, to pro- ceed at length, and in the old manner, before a judge or the prothonotary. This becomes very clear by article 286 which says ^ •• The evidence is taken down in writing! either at length or in notes, according to the provtoions contained in this section." Thew is no provision in that section, or in any other, for a third mode of taking eVi- which provides generally that cases shall be inscribed for the adduction of evidence when not to be tried by jury It » perhaps an unnecessary but harmless article. wWcli do^^Ijretend to give an additional manner to t«kel (') M. L. R, 1 Q. B. 3ft ' V £«ll«^f^ '#*^"''*'^«"** <»<»»' ^hat^wa. held in th. - ^Aanpf itan* «fe CVov, Wen with the decisions in Gnq^wy P«H««m/ Cb.. « to -tabliah, that if . pMy ch Norm«r ». Farriahar. No 4- - J- X \ DomoN, 0. J. :•— » t|»ii (!onrt dctoidfid In th* «m« of Rrckanf^e Bank v Ortiifr, that a party cannot inaorihe for the adduction of evidfAce at length without the conaent of the other part- ies to the cauae. Here the plaiutiHrhaa merely inscribed for enquMe, and it appeara to the majority of the Oourt that the inai^ription ia rej^lar and falU und^r Art. 284 " " which readu ^la follows:— " When^ the case is not lo he " trie^ by a. jury, either of the parties may inscribe it on^ '• the roll for the adduction of evidence." It is ndt an4%r. scription for evidence nu hmg, under Art. 286, which ^^* quires the (M>nsent of all the parties, and therefore tjfiiiv?' .ase is not like hlcchange Bank v. Ornig. The mqtion fo^ , leave to appeal is rejected. Petition for leave to appeal,, rejected. Church, Chafdeau, Hall ^ Nicoih, Attorneys fqr defendant. Archambattlt, Lynrh, Bergmm «V Mignnult; Attorney^ for plaintiff . ■^. -^ nnt putting tlie wordti "at length," in liis ihseription, and if (le can man-,, age to Ret hU inscription filed before the otfeef . party, he eon cpnopfcHiiH advenary to go on at length, althoiigh them be no consent in writing. With a little goodwill on the pan of the Courts, under the ingenious legist' lation of the 34 Viol, it k not impawible to aasimilata almost completely the system of proof and merits to the old system of double inscription. K. -f«t . COURT OF QUKEN'B BBNCH, iia November 26, 188A. /'■"'MX'K.ON, OX, M„.K. T«^„. n„™„ .„, B«v. .u. .rANK WADSWORTII, iJ^tft^nt m'Cmrt helow), Appeixant; V. A. McOORD ET Ai... -^-' i^f'^intif* in Cmtrt below), AND SUSAN Mcmullen, i'^»V9Her in (hurt betotv), • Kespondbnts. ^ ""'ofUdlZSSCitM --the the f.. ' W" in Quebec. ."cht^ElLrnThen ""'"'*'«" *'** "'" ^"--''^ l«rformedtheoere„,ony.Hndtkl H^.'^T"'* *•' **•" "'««'' "ho forth the domicile of the Lrti^r.^^^ , miU declaration of intenli^n rffl^^ f^' ""'* ^ "^^^^^^rM . for- domicile. ^"**°" ■"*".*"•">» *" ««t»Wi«h the matrimonial »• Apart from such decoration in th« .,.♦ ^ • 114 MONTREAL r^W KBroEm Wiitiwartit _/ (? .*» Ti ' \ II 11 1 — 4 , '^ 1'^ i 1 W *■ . 1 ' « 1 ?'"' 1 r -T ^- '■•// |iart, rttr." /or tht* ap- c«ttfl villf, IIU m»|.mr «lo Win Wsdaworlh «»t»; d'jlln* part. «t Mary Quiglfljr. v«uv»' de Jaim'* M« Mulloii, Uu town ■hip de N«u>«"". • 1 . > - ^ -^^ • «• Im dle^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^t is diffienlt to say that heacqii^ m-^- threeTearVLll?> ^^«' ^o'^ing there for ?wLr « Jli "*® ^^'^'^ *<> Qnebec with the rafk« nf l^i- marriage that he w^TonJ^ T^^ 'l"" "* "' by the law of OrifJ!rT!S^"®®^ **"«**»• ^^^t^er ' " '*w ™ untano nor by ^tiiiifof TrAlatiP«rty. and the ■si} & fcl iftt' «« /''Wf'^M de d«e,muier ce i^^v^mv ET". #118 MONTRISAL LAW REPORTS. IIML Wadiworth MeOord. »n -, f I"- taine d'ansifeer en arriere pour retracer les circonstances des 6poux^ et il fant d6termineT si leur domicile k r6po- que de leur manage 6tait dans la province de Quebec, ou dans la province d'Ontario, ou en Irlande d'ou les 6poux 6taient Emigres. Les consfequences de cette decision sont graves pour les intim6s McCord, enfants de feue Margaret Wadsworth, fllle des dits James Wadsworth et Margaret Quigley. , Si ce domicile 6tait dans la province de Qu6bec, les intimfes McCord ont droit a une part dans la succession de leur {ueule Margaret Quigley par son droit de communautt^ avec James Wadsworth ; si ce doj^iicile 6tait dans la pro- vince d'Ontario, ou en Irland^, il n'y a pas eu de commu- naute entre les epoux, et les intimes McCord n'ont droit a rien. / En 1822, James Wadsworth, a I'ftge de 20 ans, 6migrait d'Irlande au Canada ; .de 1822 a 1825, il a continu6 k de; meurer en Canada,«mais"il n'appert pas clairement par la preuve quelles ont et§ sou occupation et sa residence, mais de 1826 «k 1828, 6poque de son mariage, il parait qu'il etait employfe k travailler dans les fordts sur les bords de^ la rivierei^wa et a descendrfe d^ radeaux ou cages de bois appartenant a James Mullen, premier mari de Mar- garet Quigley. Mullen en Emigrant lui-m6me • d'Irlande quatreoucinq ans auparavant, y ayait laissfe sa femme avec un enfant, Susan jMuUen, intervenant^ . en cette cause. ""■ La femme Margaret Quigley arrive au Canada en 1827, mais en arrivant elle apprend que son mari, James Mul- len, est mort quelque temps auparavant. Elle se .rend a ^uil, dans la province de Quebec, ou elle demeure avec sa petite fille fligee de six ou sept ans. En 1828, elle des- - cend a Qu6bec avec I'intention de s'y embarquer pour re- toumer en Irlande. La ellc^jse trouve a loger dans la mdme maison que James Wadsworth qui etait descenlu il Quebec sur un train ,de bois appartenant 4 feu James Mullen et son aespc|§. "^^ ^ ; _ ^ Aprds 6tre red! qtiielque temps k Qu6bec, James Wads- wor»h >t M a rg a ret Qu igl ey. venye de James Mullen, ae COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. jjg mariW^ I'figlise catholique. en la ville de Qa6bec le etant de^la vil e de Quebec, e^elle. veuve de Jas. Kulleu La petite fille Susan Mullen a rendu temoignage deV cTconstances qui out pr6c6d6 et suivi immediatement L manage; elle est A peu pr^s la seufe personne ou du mozns. la seule survivante. qui ait eu cornaissauce L te jm sest pas.6alors. Elledit :'' Mr. Wadsworth bonded m the same house with us ^l^erself and Margaret Quig ^Y'^^ mdther). but when hi came there of how W he was there befpre the marriage I cannot say I c^ '• 2lnCV ^W*^"" •^^'''*^»^* before the JUdinrr tok he was. We boarded at MulhoUands. Mr. wSs- worth came to Quebec on a raft k timber. Wo remai^d atJIulholland's after the marriaie until we left Quebi After the marriage I and some ti,3e in October (the mar- ^^«»ttUng ^ .t King,. He we^Iup'IZ t^Tc^ took My Brother and I remaned at King'e antH m W^wortk «tamed « J.„„,y 1829, when he took my mott« np the Bonn«=here ; «.d *«* «« to itf,. ^„"^ Le t&noin Mather dit : •■ The only bnUding in OtUw. BpMto. Qu «Uit-ce done que Bonnechire alors ? Wads- ™th tr.T«^lait dan« 1. foret. 4 nn endroit Cpele B^. -h^re enr 1« horde de rOtUw... dane la ^^^. Imo. liny .yait p., alors de mueon » BonnecWre. il ny eiutait que troie on qnatre femUles ■- il m Mat^n. tee prj. de Mnd L.ke%t nn pen pin. l^a«>Z. ^e^ariknte d. h».i,«, i peine con^enoCd'nnt^* «KWer, i BonneoWre, et y demenr. avei „ fJTe M"gM»t Qnijleyjneqn'ea 1886. Alo» il rerint 4 Xn ^vmce dn BwOanad., on il demev. dnr«.t 26 .« ei c«m ,ne Margaret Q^ley est n.^ et a jjTJZnt IWL . Wadnrorth McCord. V m ' 'K' m MONTlifiAL LAW R£FOia& liNL ..Wadtwcirth M«Cord. Il:-- r I i ill Dans laquelle des deux provinces se trouve I6galement lear domicile matrimonial ? Poiir constituer le domicile matrimonial, il fe™* 1« f""* et rintention. Letait seultle Ja rfesidence ne suffit pas ; et c'est U une distinx^ion importanto. C'est le lieu ou les futurs conjoints pffoposent de fixer le 8i6ge de leur asso- ciation c<^njugale, qu'il convient de prendre en conside- ration, pour determiner Jeur commune intention quaut au regime auquel iU entendaient se soum,ettre. Notre C<^e Civil, a Particle 80, dit : "Jja changement de domi- cile s'opere par le fait d'une habitation r6eUe dans uu autre lieu joint ^.ftw/en/uMi d'y faire soirpjincipal 6tablisse- ment, " 7"^^^' II est difficile de trouyer une residence de fait dans uu chantierou Ton va ttavailler ; on pent dire fegalement que c'Stait k Quebec qu I'hommfe de chantier passait^une partie de rete, ou a Hull ou il s6journait avant de remonter^au chaiitier. L'incertitude existe #ur le fait. C'est cett'e in- certitude resultant de la vie aventureuse de James "Wads-* worth, qui I'a oblige de fixer son domicile et de Vindi- quer lors de sou mariage avec Marg^et Quigley comme etant etabli de fait et d'hitention & Qii^foec. lis but manifeste ce choix et cette intention d'une mar niere formelle en presence d'un fonctionnaire public, qui etait tenu de s'en enquerir et de constater les faits et Tin-, tention des partieis. Pourquoi le tribunal cbntredirait-il cette intention exprime§ ibrmellement par le^ d§ux 6pOux qui ont signe I'acte de mariage ? Notre Code Civil pose la rigle h I'art. 81 : " £a preuve de I'int^ntion r68ulte de "la declaratidn d« la personne et des ciroonstattces." II n'y a pas d'acte plus solenne) que I'acte enregis.tre de la celebration du mariage en presehce de plusieurs te- moins. C'efit par la que les epoux manifesteiit leur in- tention quant a I'existence de leur domicile et au r6gime de lois cqncemant le mariage qu'ils adoptent pour eux et leuTB ei^fants a yenir. Cela lie la femm^ qui n'a pas d'autre domicile que celni de aon mari. (0. C, art. 83). Si pn 1828, "^adsworth con^'e^vai^ encore I'espoir de vfttonrnftr en Irlaude^ il fin avait une bonne QCCMJon enae jf A I ."^ N. '!(i '■\. OOUftT OP Qtf EEira 61 '>f^. ,121 P«t d,a 6p„„, de fl«r le BiSge de leur «„«!!.«„„ eon- qui e.t 4 coii«d«rer comme domicile mstrimci.) ,0» <»»™iitg6n«r.Iement ,»e I, circoasUnce da lieu la solution de la qaestion de «,Toir quel «,» !» rhnme^nl I l™ epoux aont ceu8«« avoir adoptt. Mai#«rtaSteu„ I en.e,gj,ene que c'est I. I„i J„ domioile d„ a^rf "rr meat da aiariage qai ea I'abaeace de ciaL Ztlw" c«t,oa coajagale. Voy. ea ce sena ., Foeft,. S ST «...aalotpriv«, Noa.20,27et(i»; aiie",«i^« «ot™ .™, cette n.ani4re,deYoiria'e»l pi^J;;! 5^d„ j4qu.atparlo.-m«nii.et nfeewairemeat, de 1. p^de 1. future «poaae. 1-iateati.u d, .e ^.amettr^ A U iHl ce «ieat de fl«r le 8,«ge de leur „»od«tioa eonjnirale ouil ZZl r°* '""" ••«I'«"0»' » ooaaidfe.tioL?;ri^ linelijeateadaieat ae aonmettre ; Aoen'eet ouL l'.K. »ace de circoaetmces de nature 4 inMlZ\T . .'*^ qull. aoivent ^tre pr^an.*, Iv^irvatSirr^r' j-Ie matrimonial ™ liea du domicitt du mS •• i^S^' c|r,\r>8»\ v^,r-"'iai4::eXt^'t «-- J'avoae qu'll ^ difflcUe ^e Hxer le^T^li^f de gea. I SmtY" •'^ encore de Tfaid«.ci permanriSt, m.^ U Wadtworth MoOord. ^■y \ h .4) t montr^leobntraire, SI ■ • ?■, ♦* 122. MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. ;fr h UU. WMlaworth el il'il; ^ ils signent un acte SQleuDel pom* declarer lenr domicile ^Quebec: ou est rall6gation on U preuve de I'erreur?' En verta de 1 'art. 66 de nbtre codti reprqdui^atit la loi an- cienne, le fonctionnair^ est tenu de constater et indiquer le domicile des 6poax. II I'a fait. Omma prremmuMtur rite et solemnUer acta, donee jtrobetwr in contrartum. .' -^ . a. A Qa6bec, Wadsworth passait' VH^ i vtsudre sa mar- chaudiHe, son bois ; k ptly^r et ^renVoyer hoh hommea, u reuevoir des avauces pour continaer ses chautiers. N'e- tait-ce pas 14 son principal etablissement d'afifaires Y ' II a voulu fixer son dofuicile matrimonial k Quebec et se sou;' mettre aux lois de cette proyimie. Pothfer s'exprime ainsi an traite de la commuuautd, No. 16 : "II faut dire que quoique', lorsque I'^pdox s'est mari6, jf n'eut pas en- core acquis domicile k Orl^ns, il suttit qu'il eut eu des- sein d'y faire son domicile matrimonial, et pour qu'il soit eu consequenp6 cens^ avoir voulu suivre pour sou mariage les lois d'Orl^ans plutdt que c^es du domicile qu'il allait quitter." • _^ i / Nonv. Deuisart, vo. Go^munaut^ dd biens, sec. 4,ai8cute la loi q^i-egii 1{^ communaut6 legale et dtablit qi;l'il faut suivre celle du Imu ou le mari ^mene sa femme et va s'6- tablir immjldiatement apri^s la c^l§bratio;i, i. e., posons^ que ies epooz vont se fixer dans un lieu autre qi^e le premier domicile du man, soit qu'ils choisissent le domicile de la femme, ou un domicile, stranger 4 tons detix ; alors il n^est pas certain si la co- habi^tion en tel endroit est rextention d'une intention ant^rieuare an mariage, pu bien d'une volont6 subs6quente du mari, k laquelle la femme est obligee de se confotmer. IHms cette incertitude, il faut se d6ci4er par les circons- tanc^ particuli^res de chaqne espece." ^ — ^ 1 Tonllier, No. 3*72: "Le fait doit toujours conoDurir avec rintention. Lalr^sidence la pins longne-'ite-prouve L, BS CITCODS- OOUBT OF QUEEN* BBNCB, 128 nen.8ielle nest pas accoinpagn<»e de la volenti, tandis '^ que 81 1 intention est constante, elle ophre le changement w^Kworth av«c la/ r^sidrfnce la plus courte ne fut-elle qne Junjimr *'<^««' car dn moment que le feit concourt avec rintention^il ' /orwe ou cAfwig-e le domicile sans aucwn d6lai " . . Quavt an domicile^n I|;^nde. ce qne I'on' appellerait le . ':5 domicile- d'opgine, il ent^Un pronver PintentioYi de le ' ^ conserver et de retonrner en Trlande. >^s fait, en prenve etabhsstSnUe contraire. - »^ ""^r A „lri^'°'*^l T "*''" **' ^irconstanc^B q«i 6t.»blissent, 4par lenr declaration formelle dans I'acte dn mariaire qne 'intention des 6ponx 6tai^de faire lenr domicile Z^'^^^^ ugal dans la province de Qn6bec. lis resident quelqne temps en la cit6 de Qn6bec, ensnite A Hn1l dans k JZ province, lis font baptiser et enterrer leurs enfant; A Hnll .Is mettent a l'6cole les enfants snrvivants A Hull 21' resident apres lenr relonr, de la forfit de BonnechireiU . ymenrenttousdenx. C'est bien lA le si6ge de lenrW ciation coiyugale. "oaw Le jugBioent sera dolKTconiirmfe en obligeant I'intiinfie iTT ^TT " T ^ W-d^wortha tont donn^p*; son testament de rendre compte des biens et de remeuJe aux denx enfants McCord et A Snsan Ifnllen lenrpfrt dans la communaut6 entre Wadsworth et sa premiere ponse, on A payer 160,000 pc^urtenir lien de ceUe ^^l avec lea d6pens, mais e d61ai ponr rendre compte s"a PJ^^ de trente jonrs apr.s signification dn^W t MoNK,'J.>— v^ :■/ ^y.--:. ■:-■''' '■■< ■;..:■' . .' .'■""- .Bv,n.if,the decl»™t*ii of Tad»worti, in the acle Je ^ :^ -™^ ooultf be co„lr«ii„ted, m my opi,u.n it h^* ; mUhoM of his eopntiymen did. to better his coniC " ae colonies^ or in foreign conntries.^He domes to C».^ tfa.e,«eof20; U»e. here ever .fter ; squire, proSrtyT Mies C«ud. hi. home to every sense orthe ^Hete "^ ^;- ».rr.«i twcem 0««l., bring, up to 0.n«U S^o^ ' :i- "it •I, .:vti^ I. f * * • i'; 1' flH'!'^ 1^ iq fK^i if ^pi i''\ •■ Hl'Viat '• . c •l i; ■ ';'^M ' ^i' ;';^^ "■ ' 'J •'i' /^p^ ;■-■ 1 ' .■ ■''. '^^^^^1 •: i ^H : -m ! ^B . ■ i j| ^^1 ■' V;J ■!il ,j '■■' , i ■■ r » ■ ?f*SF^^J^ i? V' ■:»-r 12?' f" Ills' - IJ Watbworth MtOord. N. *> iii . I MONTREAL LAW REPOBTB. surviving child by his first marriage, marries her to a Canadian, and at the age of nearly ^0, he dies here, and in baried here, where his children and his first wife were also baried. 3o far as appeara, he never set foot in Ireland from tho time he left it in 1822. Both common sense and author- ity seem to me to require us to hold that WadHWorth abandoned his domicile of birth and acquired a ueW domicile in Canada. It may be, or not be, a. question whether his Canadian domicile was in Ontario raider than in Quebec. One of my dissentient colleagues holds that hii^\ domi- cile was in Ontario, although he thinks it may possibly have been in Ireland, while the other thinks it was iu Ireland, although it may possibly have been in Ontario. It is supposed that if there be a doubt where W^dsworth'u Canadian domicile was (Queli^c or Ontarm)Cit must be held that his domicile of birth Adhered h>^im. This is in my opinion an ierror. The mbment Itis beyond dbubl that Wadsworth came io Canada ta Settle, and settled iu Canada, then it is certain that lus domicile was a Cana- dian domicile, and that his IrisK domicile was lost. The pretention that his domicile donld possibly have been in , Ireland is not only untenable,' but it seems to me to hava> been an afterthought. It was stated at the bar and not denied that the pleas, as originally filed, only spoke of the Ontario domicile, and that the plea respecting the Irish domicile was only put in afterwards by consent. Btit even taking the pleas in the order in which, they ftre filed, it seems to me inconsistent to allege that Wadsworth abandoned his Irish domicile and acquired an Ontario domicile, and afterwards to say that he did not abandon his Irish domicile. But it is stated that at the ^me of the marriage he had not yet acquired a Canadian ddlmicile. The presumption certainly is, from his subsequent con- duct that he must have left Ireland for gooi^, and that consequently, at the time of his marriage, six years after his arrival in Canada, he had acquired a Canadian dbmi- ' 'I >i fftrwif 125 <(»• QUEEN'S BENCB^ That whetf^ii married, he did noi iatead to return IMS. Wsdinrorth iitL cile. to Ireland is corti^niy proved by the faot~That hisT^fe «^-r was then on her way ba«,k to Ireland, and that he per- ««^»' Nuaded her t<^cha%e her plans and to atay in Canadl, with h,m aft^ their marriage. This. a« «,y domicile may really ilAye^been at Quebec; 1i||jke time of the marriage, as stated in the~aa?e fie nutriagil It was open *o the appellaiit to allege and prove that'Ql^ebeu waa nWthe matrimonial i domicile of the consorts and that theiflkj^ntion was to M immediately after the marriage to live tri Ontario, on th|e BonnechAre river, or elsewhere. Rut it is not proveh that they had any such/intention. The facets proved would indicate that w|»at rpfcidence th/ere was at the place now called Egansville qA the Bonnechere river was not con- templated at the timtf^f the marriage. That residence, moreover, does /6ot appear at any time to have been at-^ tended with the conditions necessary to constitute domi- cile. • , , / The legal presumption is that a man who, as a squat- ter, resides in the woods, on a lot which has not even been surVjeyed, and in connection with his lumbering operational whether for seven years^ as in this «rtan4 one. if it in held that theT# in no evidence that the intention of the conaortn at the .me of the marriage wai, to «,ttl« in Ontario and e«tabUah he.r matrimonial domicile there. Th,n it wouW. follow from hia declaration that hia domicile waa Qnebec before hia marriage, and that at the time of hia marriage the matr,mo„.aI domicile of the conaorta waa therelL^ mi..l! r' ' ""^ f'*'*'""" "'' '^y ""'^'^ matrimonial io- ration of domicile in the a^te de tnariage turna anon tht view one forms of the character of Z^nty im^Td by he law ol Wer Cajiada upon the ..r. who cdebrat'a the. marriage. The v%y atrict rule of he law cf Lower ranad..a that the only «., having juria'diction to mjry • he parties la their prr^e cur4. The partiea muat K panahionera, otherwiae the marrhige ia a nullity. There may or may not have been exceptions to thia rule.' but il i« «nne,:e8««ry to diacuaa tKe question of these ^oe^ble exceptions to the rule, for thia.cV doea not cZe'::::;Mn tl aulj^t "''' ''^'"''^ *' ^^'^' '^^i^orm. on Under the system of the old French law. waa the mr6 bound to know of his own knowledge whether W^Il worth waa his parishioner or not? If ^,e ia preaumeTto have known the fact of hia own knowledge, or if atlLv^ Ltrtr:h:t'r"*.''L^^^^ ^^^ ^- ^- "^ W«I« ^K lu • .*P^ ^™ '^« "^^ declaration of ^adsworth, then the declaration ia concluaive and can- no> be controverted without an inscripHan de/aux^ J^Z 'f T'T^^. ^'** ^""'^ ™ *»»« respondent*, ^rgu^ ment that the declaration in the ode de Zriage ii, Xt «t. 66 of our code, in conformity with the old law re^ linire the domicile to be Bet forth by the «.. in the^^^^ ^ •^njff^. but art. 68 provideathat if the marriage is aX,^ mzed elaewhere than at the pl«^ of ZJIZ^Z' ..I j5 W« tity of the partjoH, aiid while art. 181 NhowM that tho |Mir tie* nhould hsV^an at^tual domiuile t'l^tnliliNhed by 11 re iiidence of at leMl nil monthii in the platan where they Are marrttHl (in fact, the old law rwer Tauada, the t-ure w hound to an- t;ertain that there is no legal imiNHliment hetwwm the partieR. -ij • In view oftheiie proviiiionN of our law,. it in «-HiTainly a rery rariona queation whether the tttr4, in marrying thowt^- who profeaa to be hiii own parinhionerH, ia not to be held to have |>«ritonal knowledge oftht^ fa«^t. To hold that he ia would he reasonable. The rule, at any rate, woulH have this very great advantage, that in a case like tht> present, where the declaration has never been contra- dicted by the husband in his lifetime, when both of thi> consorts are dead, as well ofi the cur^ who married them, evidence of the very unsatisifautory charat^ter of that ad- duced ii^thlB <'ause could not possibly Ix^ admitted to'din- torb the condition of the parties in the at^te fte mariage. The appellant has cited two cases reported by Sirey where the declarations in the aete de nutriage wg/e net considered as conclusive on their fac«. I have examined those decisions very carefully, but do not consider them conclusive by any means. Th« systsam in France since the Revolution is different from the old French syjsteni, which gave the ami (nrisdiction to marry his own pa- rishioners, and so fiir as the general rule within which the Resent case ihlls, no others. In the second place, the two cases cited are very peculiar cases, so far as the facts are concerned, the evidence being of a very oonvincitig ch|iracter. Finally, the setting aside of the' declaration in the aete (U mariage in thtMe cases had not the effect of diminishing the rights of the wife, but, on the contrary, luid the effect of improving heir condition. But even admitting tkat an nucr^ttian defanx was not indispensable in this case, the oihm qneetion. in connec ♦*. / < ^^- •twwm tht' A OOUBT or QUWN* BEIfCH. >• '^ which ,„ .ig„.,d byth«Tur„?i *^*^''^• *'• '-"^If*' The declarltn r?ound r„ ""i;*^'^^ of property, of rx.w«r rl ,1 * do^. - & h^m \ - 180 MONTREAL LAW BEFOBT& tun. Walworth MoCord. ' ^ alors qtl'elle 6tait sar le point de 8*en retdtinier en Irlande d'ou elle ati8sr6tait venue. C'est k Quebec, dans le Bas-Ganada, ou il 8'6tait rendu, sur un radeau qu'il devait y vendre, que le mariage est c616br6. Dans cette'ville se tronvait alors.le grand mar* ch6 de bois dn pays, et Ik allaient tous ceux qui faisaient des affaires dans cette importante braucHe de commerce; Appel6 a donner et faire connaitre sou domicile pour la publication des bans, "WadsWorth se d6clare de Qu6bec, et persiste a conscrver ce domicile dans Tacte de mariage. qui est inscrit aux r^gistres paroissiaux. X Son maitre avait fait le bois dans la forfft, au knd de rOttawa, c'est-a-dire dans le Haut-Canada, et "Wadsworth, apres son mariage, continue les m6mes opSratioits dnrant plusieuTs anuses sur des terres dont il n'a aucuntitre, pas plus que n'en avait son prM^cesseur, tout en faisant des d^frichements et y Sdifiant une rustique habitation pour ^ le loger lui et sa famille.- €eux de ses enfants qui d§ce- dent durant ce laps de temps sont enterr^s dans le Bas; G^ada et les autres y sont envoyfis k I'fecole., clnbs^quemment, ayant vendu ses droits, qnelqu'ils fus- sent, dans ses d6frichements k un M. Egan, riche mar- chand de bois du Bas-Ganada, Wadsworth devient /oreman ou contre-maitre de celui-ci, et continue rexploitation I>our le compte de ce dernier, tout en r^sidant dans le Bas- Ganada ou il avait transports et Stabli sa famille sur une ferme oum§tairie, situ^ dans le township de Hull, qu'il avait achetSe, comme il en avait fort souvent exprim§ le dessein. Pendant un quart de siecle, il est demeur6 sur cette propri6t6 d'ou il ne s'Sloigne ensuite pendant quel- que temps que pour y revenir passer le reste de ses jours, . y mourir et y 6tre inhum6, de mSme que I'avait 6te Ba premiere Spouse. Sous de telles circonstances, est-il possible de dire que Wadsworth n'avait pa» 6tabli son domicile dans le Bas- Ganada? • :vV ;•■•.; ■■\. Gomme on le voit, il s'y est mariS, y a fait ses operations de commerce, y a demeur6 la plus grande partie de sa vieg y est mort et y a dt6 inhumS arec sa premiere Spouse. erenlrlande .■;^?^^^^^7l^i OOUBT OP QDEBire BENCH. effete.* fi.«t lea n.«me, r*gle, e. anx une.er.iL Ainai dahs notre pay., on-ne aaurait dire que ce. ner. »nnea oonnuea »u. le. noma ai &^iie,a i Z^7JZ it^^^ i?/°:TT"™ "■»(»»'» leaontappt ite et ou pourtant il. demeuient tre^eonvent pluaiei™ - «.nee. Ce. homme. qnittenileur domicile ,^„u.W- fonc™ dan. I. foret, td queWad.worthr. ft^T^tS lentilaooupe et fabrioation du boi. dm..t Juult 181 iw. Wwtnnmb HoCori. ,>£n I- f Wadiwortb MtCord. 3 V 182 MOllITREAt. LAW REFORTa moiti6 de I'annie. A I'ouverture dp la navigation ces bois 6taiit mis en radeaux ou toiit simplement jeWs ^ans les rivieres pour descendre au fil de I'ean sont amenfis par enxaumarch6 d'outrds souveut, aprds le paiement de leur salaire et quelques jours de dfelassement, ces hommes retournent dans les bois reprendre leur travail pour le continuer ainsi durant quelque fois fort longtemps, jus- qu'i ce qu'enfin, ils crbient devoir retourner vers les leurs ou qu'ayant realise suffiBamment d'argent pour s'fetablir dfefinitivement, ils achetent une propri6t6 pouir s'y fixer, tel que I'a fait Wadsworth qui, apreS tout, n'6t4it, jusqu'A son ^tablissement d6finitif ^ Hull, rien autre chose qu'un homme de chantier. Cette' classe d'hommes assur6ment ne perd point son domicile par cette absence du Bas- Canada, qui h'est qujB temporaire, car ejlie n'est cens^e durer que le temps qu'elle sera occup6e tiu travail ci-des- sus indiqu6. En djautres termes, ces homines ne sont que temporairement absent et lieur resideiiQe dans les lienx ou le travail les appelle ii'est censfe duret qu^aussi longtemps que ces occupations les y i;etiendront De ce que leur en- gagement couvrirait une espace de Iseptou huit ans, ce- laps de temps i|e pourrait leur constituer un domicile ; encore moins si, dans toutes les circonWances sferieuses de la vie, ces hommes, tel q^e le faisait Wadsworth, avaieiit indiqu6 clairement par leurs aCtes et manifestations, que leur domicile 6tait ailleurs. La question a d'autres aspects, mais M. le juge Tessier, mon savant collegue, les ay^t trait6 avec une grande luciditfe, il est inutile pour moi d'y revenir. D'tfhtres questions aussi ont6t6 soulevfees par les par- ties, mais ie ne vols pas. qu'il soit n^cessaire de les abor- der actueilement. . « , . Pout toutes les raisons ci-dessus expnm6es, je conoours avec la miyorit6 de cette Cour dans la confirmation du jngement de la Cour Sup6rieure qui dfeclare que Wads- worth avait son domicile dans le Bas-Canada. ^^.-f^, ' - Jhdgment confirmed-O J^^mmins, Q.C, attorney for appellant. ^ -^ l^mwrrf ie Bamardy attorneys for respondent. (J. kJ (') Bevened by the Supreme Cbort of Ganads, June 22, 1886. ^ OOtTBT OP QUEEN'S BENCft jgg " ■ ■. ...... r ■ - ..' . ■ ■ ,' ' December 20, 1872. '^"' """*'' C.J., Oabon, D,m„o™, Boou.r «.d MONK,JJ. AIM£ BtLIVEAU • ¥ (Pe/endatu in Court below), * * " Appellant; ■■■ AND ' ■ . ; i> BENJAMIN MARTINEAU {Piamiif in Court below fr ^P Respondent. ffotei-keeper^C. C. 106.5, the respondent's action tkI . ^ ""' ^**^J' n»a»ntaimng that judgment was as follows :~ **** ""^ "Ia dour, etc... " Considferant que le d6fendeur r foiTi; j all6ga6s de sa defense et q^^ZL^^^i^^^ P«»uver les prouv6 que le 6 sentemK,J^ contraire le dema^ideur a le. n.« MeGiU et N,t^ rr.t.^uir."."" «t la »aofe dli afteodenrT™ J ^ P" '° '*"«1 .lo« ineonnue d«'^S;rTCt iT.: STT ghgenoe coupable de la persoine A nJi Vi / ^* "^ oonfiS son cheval et sa v^n-pf ^ ^? , ! ^^^^'^deur avait " 0. __.,.li h '^m^M.^ \. 184 MONTBEAL LAW BEFOBm ^ 1872. B«liTMa liartlDMU. .225. ^ BUres qMl 9^ r99ues et ^<6 1'itat 4« maladie dans lequel il a £t6, j|pit de la valeur de $150, a colldamn6 le d6fendeur 4 payer la dite somme a^ demandeiir avec int6Tdt de ce jour, et avec dfepeijs comme ^yxna action de la CJour Sup6ri^ure." • v ' The case was inscribed in Review by the defendanl, who .comt^nded as follows : — '. , Qn'il avait plaid6'^ cbtte action qu'il n'«6tait nnlieinent coupable ; quele 6 septembre dernier il avait lou§ sa voi- tnre k un nomni^ Yoyer pour aller an Sanlt an tt6collet ; que Voyer n'^tait ni le domeetique,, ly I'agent, rii Tem- proy6 du 4^feh4eur. Le d6fendeur'pif6tendit que d'apres le seconjcl paragraphe de I'article 1066, celiii qui sesert' d^uii animal est resppnsable des dotnmages qu'il pause . j^eudant qu'il en iWt;U8age et c'est le i^eul qui soit appli- cable a ^etti; cause. Les anteilrs 'quiUont comnient6 les articles 1884 et 1886 du CodeiNapoKbn, qui correspondent ;- aux articles 1(]'54 et l6d6 de notre code, ne lussent aticun , dbute sur cer p|i^t ; % Soutdat, de la R«sponsabilit6 : Nqs.- ' ^^ 886 et 887 etc. ; 10 Paiid«?ct^s Jran9ai8es,*p.598; Story,-* Aigency, No. 468 ; 2 Hiiliard, on Torts, p. 447 ;, 6 Laroii^ hiere, Obligaiions, p. 786 ; 8 Zachatiae, p. 208, No. 4 ; 1 ' Dalloz, Diet. w. Responsabilitfe : p. 242, $ 608 ; Sirey, 1837, 2, 608 ; Shearman &; Redfield, o^Negligence, p. 67; No. 60. The plaintiff cited the following authorities :r- ' Chitty, on Carriers, p. 366; 2 Sourdat, de la Respons., .- I>. 108,- No. 782, art. 199, pt 107 ; 2 Toullitfr, p. 400, Noa^ 296 et 297 ; 2 Favard, p. 42 ; 4r Merlin, p. 24 ; &6p., Jurisp. vo. Dowmage, pi 692; 1 Domat{ i». 474; 4pomat, p. 196. The majority of *the Court of' Review, ( Mac^y, Beaudby, JJ.) were of opinion to cttifirm the judgment. jroBBAJfCE, J. (rf&«.) :-- ' . This. is. an action of 4smages for personal injuries inflicted uj^n the plaintiff by the defendant'^ horse in the city of Montreal. The declaration ccnnplains th$t on, or \abont 1ihe.6th September, 1370, th^laintiff was crossing McGili street, in the direction of Nott&Dame street, when ha waa th yown to the groun d bv the horae of the <^fendL_ ■ I. .•^- ■ "^1 : ... COURT OF QUEBN-S BENCH.. • \" o^ leaiiedhiscamariwr!. V '"'^ ^^F. ^e defendant accompli" ir*;™*;ff7»tMh^ c^magewithout being; ploy oSer W .If f r*' ^'^ ""^^ P«™«» i" ^is em ' P^y . under hi« control, but driving the carriage him* ^^^^ Tk^ i * . ""^'o*» J . 30th 0ec., 1870) or Ie«ed the ho^ „d W „? °^*"'' '"""'"^ borrowed - driving himllf " """■«' *»"" defe»(iittt Mid-w^ . ,,^^X^:e;:^tSri^^^^^ "l4»ter^l2rlt- '*^'^'' '^"^ ^''-^ »« m' . " 1. c«i,»^^r„^^'* ?" ™r^ ^-^ ""verse et cm« < mi MHjMu MartioMa. s~ .jL.:-^„.r #■ ■■ iff 4 ^ 1- »■ " ■ ir».Vf iJ.;; «n«i qu'Umoiitait." "^««nre id propnStaire di^ fcherS \ "'^^m'' -4 1> '' ■ B4Uv«au MartlnMii. •/ MOMTBk^L LAW BEPOBm lis case is quite in poiii.t. ^he original of thi» opinion, jjs in the Digest Lib. 9, t. 2, (7, and is by the Jurist Labeo. It is commented on by Ccursius, with approbation, With this remark: "cum "Jculpd equitantis sit factum : 'seiius si vitio equiJ" Brunne- lannns, &b. the same passage, speaks in the same sense. 2, Sourdat d^ la responsabilit6, in a chapter on responsi- )ility for the acts or others, begins .with the statement ' that, No. 760, " en principe, chacnn rfepond nniquemfent de " son fait. lies fantes sont prersonnelles." He then treats of the exceptions, as in the case 6{ fathers, tutors, hus- band and wife, principal and agent. No. 887. " Le rapport " de commettaut k pr6pos§ entre deux personnes, dans le " sens de I'article 1884, du Code civil, d6pend de ces deux " conditioiis rfeunies,! lo. que le pr6po86 ait 6t6 volontaire- *.\ ment et librement choisi ; 2o. que la commettant ait le " pouvoir de lui donnei' des instructions, et mdme des " ordres sur la maniere d'accomplir les actes qui lui sont " confi^s. Partout ou I'existence de ces dehx conations "sera constat^e, on pourra dire hardiment que la respon- " sabilit6 existe : que si Tune d'elles vient 4 manquer, " la responsabilitfe cesse." No, 896. " Le fermier n'est pas " le prfeposfe du proprifetaire de Timmeuble. Cela n'est pas " donteuX, car le louage des choses n'dtablit, par lui-mdme, " aucune jsubordination du preneur vis-jl-vis du bailleur. " Gelui-ci, h moins de stipulations particuli^res, n'a pas le " droit de surveiller et de diriger les opimi^Bpas du i^ermier, " sauf en ce qui conceme la jouissance de I'immeuble et " dans son interfet propre. , . . Ainsi, le bailleur n'est " pas responsable des d6g£its causes par le fermier dans . " des operations faites mdme sur I'immeuble ou k raison •• de I'immeubW ^ #i Larombiere, treating of Art. 1886, vol. 6, p. 785, says :— " Gelui qui s*en sert (de ranimftl) est pendant que I'animal " est k son usage, tenn. de la m^me responsabilitS. II est *' alors seul responsable sans que la paxtie l§s66 puisse, " dans le cas ouuil seltoit en igtat d'insolvabilitS, exerc^r n^ ** recouTS en garantie centre le proprifetaire." ^ ^, p. 208 (note4), Hays the Humo <3iing. -Zach« A , 7 • j OOUBJ OP QUKEira BBMOa V ijiy ^reyl A.D. 1887. p. 608, report, the ewe of DambramriUe JHennfqutn m which it was decided that " le proprifi- taire dun bateau n'est pan responaable des dommages causes par ce bateau A l'6clu«e d'un.canal. lorsque laTr- soni^e qui le couduisait au moment de I'fevfinement n'6- " frl!!'/^'* domestique, ni Uon pr6po86. mw« .euleme^i le locataire du bateau." ^ , Broom's Maximr, p. 586 (6tl|. treating of the rule re^at^periar,'^ remarks tiiat the rule does not apply .^e^artydoi^i,^ Shearman & Redfield. on Negligence, p. 67.No. 60: "No " the W Y""''*^' "^^gligenceof an6therperson.unle«s ^thektterishiaservantorageiit, TheUwn^ " thell «',P«;«°^»l.*^»«ot be held responsible on the mere ground of^uch ownership for an i^juryimffered Jf 'bother person frooi the contact of suohjproperty with ' .hi? person pr property. The lessor of property of any " S r' fr'""?^*'' the lessoFof a ferry, i. not respoa. sible for the negligence of the lessee or his nenranU in » "its management." cs »«*«! in Ildt^!^?"'* '*1^' coisider^tion given io this cas^ f^ljustifiedinconcludingthat neither under the Ebm.^. cip e, would the proprietor be liable for the hegIig«aoe or faultofthelesseeorborrowerinth^useofhiX^^"' J The words of our Code introduce no new rule. 1066 ' "^kphT'^'^^'^v"^'?"*- " '^•^Po^^We for the damage. ^ «^U8ed by It. whether it be underiiis own oare or .und!' tttat of his servants, or have strayed pr e.ciQ,ed from it .^ He wV j8 using the animal is equally responsible whUe^ it IS m his. service;" . . . «, !*^""^^'f> '^"""'^ ^«^^<1 Wly as well to tli arriole as to the ai^ic| 1885 of theCWf. npon which he»s^™ ment should notib^iBturbed, and I am oWiged foV^e reasons I have giv^n to enter my dissent. *^ *^' **^ .The case was the n^en to appeal, wh ere the iuA ^^ ras naamm ona l y revg ggedr > ^ ■ i'™«'""uir UTS. BtfliTMa MkrtliiMu. '1 ' 'i ; r 1] fT*" Sf'j'St IfMrtlDtku MONTREAI^ LAW ft^FOBm We are of opinion that'the judgmedt ih this case cannot be sustained. B6liveau has been, condemned in damages as the owner of a horse, which, while being driven by a person stopping at his hotel, to whom h(^ liad hired' it, ran over and injured the respondent. There is no question as to the horse not being easy to manage ; the animal was not under the care of any of the appellant's employees* and there is nothing to bring the ca«i under 1066 of the Oode. c The judgmen t in app^ is registered as foUovys : — " La cour, etc. ...... \- "\ " Oonsid6rant que d'aprds la preuve faite en cette cause, il appert que le cheval appartenant k Tappelant et qui a caus6 le dommage dont se plaint I'intimd, 6tait uu cheyal douz et tranquille et. facile k mener ; ■ ' " Consid^rant qu'il est 6galement prouv6 que ni I'appe- lant, ni aucun de ses employes, ni personne k son service, n'accompagnaient le nomm6 Yoyer anquel le dit cheval avail 6t6 liVr6, et qui le conduisait lui-mdme et seul ;< " Consid^lrant que dans la circonstance, d'aprds la preuve et d'aprds la loi, le dit appelant ne peut dtre tenu respon- ^ Bftble des dommages ainsi causes au dit intim6, et que, par- tant, dans lejugement dont est appel, savoir le jugement reudtt p»r la Cour Sup^rieure siSgeanten Rdvision, k Mon^6al, le 80dmi<9 jour de juin,il871, confirmant le juge- mefihf rendu par li^Oour 3ap6riei^re si^geant en premiere instanice k Montreal leSOdme jour d^ d6cembre, 1870, 11 7 a erreuTj casse, annule et I'enversele dit jugement de la diie OourSup6rieureVi%eant en Bdvision, et proc£dant a rendre le jugement ^^i eut dft 6tret rendu, d6boute le demandeuif ^titim^ de son action avec dSpens tant en premidt&^tai»<^ i^ea. ^visioja et en Appel." y .Tndgment reversed. 4* OeoffrioH, attorneys fojr appellant. LarwtigtT SflSafnr^f^^ipvaxs^hioit respondent. — (J.K.) • li. ^ ■» * ' 1 , kt.-.L-L. .^ — =!* rt ■ i i* I s £; « • * » » J rjj \ \ r B' ' * «j '. *■ ' * 't iSSs^nss^t£a^ai&£ -^ ^^www^^^^^^^r^^^^^^-"' V,;" ^"^\ POURT OF QUBENV BENCH. 189 November 21, 1886, Coram DoRioN. C. J, Monk; RAifgAY, Okoss, JJ. W^LIAM W. WHEELER KTAL.. ^ {l>tfendantt in Court below)/ ..;,•; '-'"^'■. ■'■'* ./ ■'•^- Appellants; •-V'^- -V: •-,.■:, AND ■, /■■.^ :-^ :.-V.^^^.^ JOHN. BLACK et al., ' y (Piamtifi in Court beiow,) RESPONDBNTg. * ■ ■ . ■' I ServUude— Drain— Rmewal Of lUgiUration^CC. 2172— interference with Servitude— C.C. 651—Chan^g ' condition of ftremim—Bam erected over \ Drain^Demolitijpn ^ .' "*^hoTl^ (Approving U Bar^ du PeupU ,t Lapam, 10 L.CJ. «(,»/ «Blf, such a. a servitude of dnUn through a property eatabUehed hfc deed in favor of a neighbouring proSSTy. P^**"^' «"**»»"•»>•<» f , "^ !^;H-?f.r"**"°''**'%"'X'"'» ''»°d^ do nothing which twida/tol S;^„V > -f *""*.''^ *^* '•'"*"^« >«- convenient than iUaJW X SLt,^H^''?r*"°"' "^-^'^he,^ the owner of the ^rvienTld oonatrdcted a Bwn over the drain running through hi. land, an?°| . SZ?rL?nl^*'"'^°''*^°'*'**^'*' >»''«^«>ved that S| 30. The action to enforce such servitude doe. not lie l^ainat a L^ in.totuted,buthemay.be condemned personaUy in damaaSTk. participated in the actof ob.truction. '^"y^^'W*^ i? 1». *he app«jl was from a judgment of the SbperiorCl^urt; Ibemlle, (CHAaNON, J.) May 19. 1888. mai^niig i^ i^^ndenta' action. The judgment wa. in the foflowing "Lacour, "etc. -' :.■*'/■'■■/■.■ yr,/ i ^^ • ^" Oonsidfirant qu^ lea demandenn rtclament par aoti^ oon^BBoire qne le lot de t«rreHa.^ <^--^ - • - •<.■, <* /> ••'^y -^^ag^ff^ •*'■ 140 v MQNnUUL L4W AiFOBlE. WhMUr Il I V i f 4 I r if ' 1 1 1 f il 1 li , 1 ■ J?" •f >' U d^olarttion, loit diklfti^ an^jetU tu profit dn lot d« terre dee domandenrt auui d^orit dana la dito declaration, 4 une servitude r66lle, cousistaiit ea un droit d'6goat, \«- qael, d'aprds le'titre conatitutif de la dite flervitude, donl copie eat prodait« par les demandeurs aa sontieu de leur action, cousiatait en le droit d'6goiite:!r par ie moyen d'un canal lea caves de la maisou 6rig6e sur le lopin de tern* des deihandeun, maitton dt terrain alora en la posaeaaiou du noniin6 J. W. BUck, et lequel droit d'^gont devait de pins Atre exerc6 lous tme all^e traveraant alora le terrain acquis par .lea- dSfendenrs ut alora appartenant au nommi Pierre Dubeau- ; "Gonsid^rant'qu'il appert par le dossier qn'nn aom- maire ou oxtrait du dit acte qpustituaut la dite servitude a 6t6 dement enregistrde, sons Top^ration de Tordonnance dn bureau d'enregistremeut ; et consid^rant qn'il fppert. par la preuve que le dit canal d'6gout a de fait 6t6 cons- .trait, partant des caves de la maison en question, traver^ aant le terrain du dit Pierre Dubeau, vendu depuis '^aus d^fendenra, et allant d^boucher dans le canal Ohambly ; " Gonsid6rant que la- dite servitude, d'aprds lei tennea de I'acte cr^atif d'icelle en date du 22 ao(it 1848, n'est 'autre qn'une des servitudes r6elles does par la chose k la chose, et n'est pas un droit ou privilege personnel, tel que les d^fendeurs le pr6tendeut par leurs defenses ; " Gonsid6rant que la dite servitude 6tant une servitude r6elle, et donnant un droit dans la chose. Jus in re, I'enre- ^stremenl du titre le ^r^ant, u'avait pas besoin, aux termes de I'AH. 21*72 dn 0. 0., d'dtre renoavel^ pour con< server les effets du premier enregistrement vis-i^vis d'un acqudreur subsequent ay ant enregistr6 son titre d'«cqni-. sition ; ■■: "■.^■'■v^^.^ ' ■-■'•'■ :''' -^ ■■-''■^ ■.''■<'.■■'■' ^ , " Oonsid6rsi(t d'ailleim quW tupposant que tel renou- vellement f&t nec^ssaire, les defendenrs ne ponrraient invo^ner ce d6faut de renouvellement, attendu que, aux termes de I'Art. 2098 du G. 0., I'enregistreinent de lenr propre titrd n'aurait pu' lenr servir dans les ciroonstances' qui la condition qn'il* auraient pa ddmontier queie titre d^aoqwiitioa de lenr yeiidenr avait 6te enregiitrt\cho(W que 1«« dAfendears nont pas montrte ni m«me all6ira6« etcho«eqm«fit d'auUirt plus rt6ce«iaire dan. lV.p*ce qae le t,tre d acqniBition da nomm* Louis Dubeau. veudeur de. d6feudeurs. n'6tait autre qu'une donation, avec carac- tAre gratuit. dont la vaUdit6 meme d6pendait de son en- regntrement ; "* " Oonsid6rant que les d.*fendeur« n'ont pronv6 que let demandeura et leurs auteurs ont cess« d'avoir I'usaffe d# UditeJiervitude pendant 80 ans; et consid6raht qu« |« rontraii-e apparait par la preuve ; Considferant que I'action aes demaudeurs repose^urdes litres savoir sur le titre constitutif de la dite servitude «n date du 22 aoiit 1848. ayant assujetti le lot de terre acquis par les d6fendeurs k Toxercice de la servitude y men- tionnfie, et sur le, titre des demtfndeurs k la propri6t6 du fonds dominant, acquisition qui. par elle-m«me a fait ac qu^nr^aux demandeurs toutes les servitudes actives t attacnees ,' i-, ■■ ' ' \ :, • .,,• ■- ■ ■' • Consid6rant!que I'action n-estlpaaune action en d6^ nonc.at.on do nouvel oeuvre, et ne repose pas surunepos- «e8s.ondelanetjour du droit de servitude dont il^Tf qiul«t>on. possession qui seule serait insnffisante soua no re drojt pour en obtenir le b^nifice. attendu que dan» nqti-e dro.t. nulle servitude ne pent s'acqufrir sans titre ; Conmdferant que les deux heritages dominant et ser- vant ne do.vent pw 6tre nficessairement contigu« pour YTJ^^'^^^ '^'^''^^ y ^^"^ I6galement et utileinent attache. ma.s qu'il suffit qu'6tant dans le voisitfago I'une de 1 autre, 1 une puisse retirer nne utilit6 quelconque du wrwce foncier .mpos6 sur I'un au profit de I'autre • v J in^S'?* ^"*^* servitude ayant eu, une ibis son^ M8.ettefix6e^anset,|>ar8on Utre cr6atif. le propri«ai,« du fonds as^tti n6 pouvait changer Tancien 6tat de» Iieux de manifte a rendre son exercioe tant pour son «i^e que pour sa consolation et entretien. plus incam^ ''Oon«d6rant que dans I'espece il ap^pert par la prenv7 que lee difendeuw out, dans rautomne 1880. 6rig§ dee Constructions BUT le fonds servant de mmi^re k «>nvrir WbMlOT BiMk. ■1HI s* ' ', ( .'! 11 ^' WlMltr Wt: L MONTREAI. LAW BKfOBTB. YtAlH dont il AUM^oestion dani 1e iiire crimiitAe \u dii^ ■orvitude, ainai quo le canal d'^gout s'y trouvant oufoui . at oooaid^rant que lea d6f«Qduurs u'avaieut paa le droit, dans lea circonitMicea, de iaire tell«s copatraotiona k Ttn* droit «t _de la idaniAre ana indiqu^, len demandeara ae tronvant duna I'lBipoaaibilit^, k raiaon do la dito conatruc- tion, de pourvoir k la reparation de lour canal d'6gont do la mani^re dont ila pouvaient 1« fairu ou vortu dn titrt« crtetif de la dite aervitade, et de la mani^re dont le d6feu- denri devaient le aonffrir en vurtu du tn6me acte ; " OiUwtd^rant qa'ainai lea objection* faitea par lea deux d6f«mdenrN an droit d'^gout dea demandeuEt^ et anamen- tionn^ea, aont raal fonddea ; " Gonaid^rant n6annioina, qu^nt au d^fendeur Goker %'. qn'il appeH par le doaaifer que lors de Tinatitntion de la pr^aente abtion, il tfrt^ 6t»B6 d'itre propri6taire da lot da terre aaatyetti k la dite aervitude, et que le d6fendettf Wheeler 6tait le aoul propri6t«ire en poaaeaaion da dit lot de terre^ "Conaid^rant qne la pr^aente action 6tant, dana une de aea partiea, une action r6elle, devait 6tre dirig6e qaant k ce, contre le pTopri6taire et pOsaeaseur d'alora du lot dt terre en question ; ot conaid^rant qu6 la partie dea con- elusions de la dite action demandftnt qae le dit lot de terre aoit d6clar6 asaiyetti k la aervitude et que la cohb- tmction y 6rig6e fat d6trnite aooa Tautoritd de cette Oour, a d6faut par le d^fendeur de le faire de bon gr6 et qu'il f&t d6fendn au d^fendeur de troabler les demandeurs a > Tavenir, nie pouvaient dtre demand^e et accord^e que ^ contre le propridtairei et poaseaaeur d'alors da dit lot de ,/ terre, et nallem«i|t contre ane pertonne n'ayant plus alon aucun droit de propri6t6 ni d^k^lnbaaesaion sur le lot de terre en queation ; * '" Gonaiddrant qa'en cons^qaence le d^lendeur Wheeler aeal doit aabir oette partie dea coacltiaiona, 6tant la partie ^ dependant de ^'aotioii tielle confesaoire, et qi|e le defen- dear Cokw* doit en Atre Iib6r6 ; ; " Gonaid^rant qaant41a demande de dommagea'intft- rdta, qae yia-^-via lea demandeora, lea deox d^feudeon. -a^ ^/ .r" -/ > i®». P.r co„,A,„e„t le. .ufar. du .,u..i.d«lit repr^H oaf "^ nane e. demandeur. ont p« l6gala««„t demandir X doinn,.ffea qa ,1. ont -ouflferU .-t que U Cour e«t appolAi, A •ppr6.u»,r par aou ja««m«nt . *^^^ que !«• demandeum -out tondH A #^^8Le« d!?^^ denm solidairemont ponr et A rai»o,iBElSKeDro«hr • la sommo-d., |60 A titre d« dommagoirWSP^* 2 ' «>mtade a 6t6 dflment onregi.trt par «>mmaire tel nu^ reqms par rordonnano. de. bureaux d'enreglti^ment sen pJaindre. leur propre enregistrement aant nans effet .ttendu le d^faut d'enregiatrement du titre d'acqu .£ de leur vendeur Louis Dubeau; ^q««WMon n„l ^??!r ^r '**^°'*' ^" dfefendeur Wheeler, et acUug# qa« le lot de tenre acquis par les d6fendeurs du dit lLuII Dol^au par acie du sept septembro 1880. U d6sign6 dan. • declaration des demandeurs. est affects et assujetti par «t en vertu de i'acte pas^6 entre le nomm6 Pierre Dube^ endatedu22aout 1848. all6gu6 dan. la d6clarat^n e" dument enre^istr* par son^mMre en octobre 1848. au droit degout y exprim6 et de la mani^re et A I'endroit v mT ^ — .onn6s. au profit et en faveur du lot de terre acquis ^ ' tiara ion. le dit lot de t^rre ft'fitant autre que le terrain d^cnt au dit acte du 22 aout 1848 comme fiLt c^uS ^ m la possession- du dit J. W. fiHtck ; ' " Et il est ordonn6 au d6feiideur Wheeler, propritta^ * t possesseur actuel du dit fond, servant, de dfiS^",^ - i^re disparaitre telle partie de la grange 6rigle .^ i^if qni recouvre la dite all6e et le cand^'lsout^'ry wi^ sL^ ■[ '■#• ■■;■-»!• ,L _/> t * 4 i^irtlrifrii' •aration8, la tions y sont de troJB se- at jugement, >araitre telle telle d^moli- » cette Cour demandeurs r^ventualite de nevplns rcice de 16ur qu'6 sa con- - ■ ■# •envoie cette int a recon- Ustruction y 3 de Taction tre lui et le i d6feiideuT8 [nm«|tde $50 ^sttttion a la r, et avec les le d^fendenr tnt anx XraJB es t^moins et )r chacnn la ipens jL Mtre %ite par les i6popse«des -3 S «WBT OP WBEire BENCtt ! ' j^g demaadeiirs allfiguant et mvoquaiit lea titres intertafi- or6atifdu dlt droit de servitude ; " Gonsidfiirant que lea ^llfigations de la dite r6ponSe ne ^afe irrJ*"*"" ^" demand^tnrs. q^^tait Zj^^ par e le-mftme en reposant sur ,1» Utre Jrfiatif de la dite -nt^t sur leur propre^titre , la propria.. 4u dit " Considfirant que sur I'al%ation d^ ^.^^fense 6non- fant quelle vendeur des deinandeurs n'6tait pas proprifi- aire du fonds. les demandeurs 6taient fon^6s 4 sp6cialiser a chaine de leurs titres intermfidiaires, et spgcialement le' titre de Wise pere et fils, lesquels titres n'fetaient pas nfe- " Renvoie la dite rfiponse en droit. , mais sans frais." W. W. Bobertton, Q.a, for appellants :— It 18 submitted on behalf of appellants that this judg. ment shoii^ be reversed for the following among othw 1st. As to appellant Ooker. As it was decided by the .nfenor court, he was not liable to the action enlnoU. Im "^*r r*^' ^'^^ «m/e.«>ire, because at the time of the institution of the action he was not proprietor nor mposse««ion of the i«.operty upon which the servitude Imll r ' *^''*^'' the judgment stands against ^ only for a condemnation for damages. The prXoes ' not establish any damages, and does not even show that ^e ttn, that the respondent, were entireW .n^vrfllf ^?" ?"'»•" ert.blMung the «,vit„de >nveyea the naht nf n«^tiB*«».^*; j — . — . — law, BlMk. ^ . :* 4 ). \ ! ■* i conveyed the right of constractiug^nf Tismg-ft" cCrai5~^ ^ ^- WbMlM Black. r+---f- ik momKBALiiAW REPORTS^ under an^ alley way (which sArved as a foot and a road- way fot the occupants of all thje houses of Pierre Dubeau)' for the purpose of draining th^ cellar of the house onAhe dominant land ; and appellantts contend, that the right . to preserve and repair the drain was ai» essential part of ' the right of servitude, and the obligation to^allow the. drain to be preserved and repaired, was an essential part ' of the servitude, and depriving the respondents of the right to preserve and repair the drain, wa^ therefore de- priving them of the setvitudel Appellants reTy upon Ihe following authorities, to sUstain thesQ propositions ; — Pardessus — Servitudes, Tome 1, p. 13&, says "Que le pro- pri6taire*du Wds grevene lieut se refuser A laisser ex6- cuter les bavaux, necessairek a I'usagls de la servitude, quand m^xm il ^prouverait duelque dommage." Toullier, (Tome % ^o. "548) says, thdt " le propri^taire du fonds Servant ne pent rien fittre qui supprime I'usage de la ser- vitude, ou qui Ini prfejudicie " Article 562, C. C, declares, that: — " He vi^hp establishes a servitude, is presumed to grani;all that is necessary for its exercise." Article 663, C. C, declares, that^ — "-He to whom a servitude is due, hgs the right of&aking all the works necessary for its exercise and its preservatioli." Article 66t, G. C, declares, that, " The proprietor of the servient land can do nothing which tends to diminish the use of the servitude or to, render its exercise more inconvenient." Article 657 alsc^. provides, that the owners of the servient land may offer to th^ owner of the dominant land another place "as con- ' venient for the^exerci8e of his rights, and the latter cannot refuse it." The appellants, so far from making any dffer under this article, to allow the draifl to be changed to another part of their land (if another place'^or the drain as con- venient for the respondents could be found, which res- pondents do not admit) refuse to acknowledge, that any servitude exists. Toullier, Tome 3 :— No. 662. >, " Une fois I'usage et le mode des servitudes, determines par le titre ou par la possession, il n^est perinis ni an p'ropri^taire du fonds dominant, ni a celui du fonds servant, de rien inno- TOT A I' a noi e 'n 6tat d e s lieujt.L , >, . . ;» t'j* •■ * ■ *>-»«*/ .>. V^ •JT^'j- , t ;\w qpUBT Or QUEBN^BENck 149 po« en Merit Jn^ . ^ "" '°" »»"««" n«ceM«re. parties in fond. 0^^^. / J^ ° °™ «nTrages .lu lea (Tome 12 p «T f . "?°'"""«^« " U«molombe . ' C). de ne,ne,»^fa,fe qui tende 4 dimimvr iWcicrJ; l servitude rAffo nKi;'». x' ^ —»»*m9r i ezercice de la bienqt I'rbtjfeflL C^/'"" "'• *<"" •»"' 099 (SM md 6M ZI^'Tl.*'"'' le c« des Art 698 et ..rvitude.-^-est d«.s 1'<.C«» p«„>f ..r^ • " ' P<»«e an propriStaire difonds n^r^lW "'""■ Bonffrir et de n. fi.,v. .''"'" servtot, d»^l«rer et de ".r^St to'^t' *'" *»f' «• -"itnde e^ed t. fee of ■ «i7 oenent to the respondents, as tht-CorDori^n- To. John's,, by resolntion of JS&e 2 iiS^J^^ ?? "^ *' ■»operty .. fte S/^ '" ''^" °"?"' ^'fiiVthe ■-"r'.*. (Tome 12, ^<,. eg,, ^y,,j.s^ ^^^ uai' BiMk* '■' I'll ^. 1- AtoMTBEAt LAW BEPOBm ■ [•'-{■■ ¥ uiiiip prfiteiKme 8erviti£iB Jl laqnelle le JfoncUx ^''S*' n'Awrait aucun intfertt.Wrait null6 ; mais iVfaucti ^ ^wf; le |feftiut d'inWnJi Mt l|en manifeste ; c«^rutil»|« ' --«'^ notre arti^ 68Tp99, C. Q. L^O.) lit s'^*^ *■■&' ;',*■>< ?fvr , ' ; n; ^ai:i^ uuLic ojiiiijic uoi i^rt<7<7, i ' n^ v',V:|l;; 'id'ui^itoanier^ Ivrgel 'et il S' ' " >'^1l;1'j appiBU^te, 6loign6e, einnl^' sei^ ,e app(upfnte, eioignfee, et ni<|IOC% sepjr^fUUt St. 184£p>Qe Pii d, for 1^: and thd |%fa of th6,i^^ndeiitt^^*Wl£>1i^»l^ the use 6f th#8iil|'ibtrtlitfe olr ^jellars of said' 1^ (wc) by ^ ^^ain fhrongh the M the said pbsseMes in the jsai^ ^^^n*" '''^^ open pet ween the se^'^MtJMpseB ij^kgffe lloi4^»idFi:ont Street to SAi^ MlKPiiDg ;; jto m^d'llie said draiii in such vlfay: lasvt^ot in* pV'^'^^^wWh^Prfw<>f 8|id^?fe"e Dubeatt:or^if 'Jiggn^," , ' ^ and l^amage'ls ddne tf pBj damages. It viras' jNll^^l^ sti- II • ;{ iJptilat^ that lictincdUfii^dit)r is to arise ".frojdai th^ 1©'**®*^* '|iN)l^ privilege '1^) as 4^^ said Pierre J^'tplplti or ^ , kis aibigns andfto r^fto^yt}|e iidewalks he ^ay iiijare or '; ^- f MM m^ :i ,_j;*''-..;^A*^:t4k6,away.' , :, ._^ -. ■ ,^,^ --^^ .^ ^^ The declaration^ after sliting'^^^7^^ ^^ r •^,*'^ ..lidi^e Ihei necess^y a^egafiionsio connect thd piM^ies to j^^; y fe iJthe suit^i^ith thbse of^he^fed, proceeds to set]iqrth the ^ i "' ^ ' ,'bre«ph complained ofl It is said, that^tip-'t(>i|hurrefl ssion et le consente: nr , ofiHr nn autre f< de lenrsjlroits susdii li^ -7^ Igp. "\l^e les dits ddfeude^ oxit ainsi a| ':-.'Wi:y. -■-'■.-]■ •■' " ■ ■ y- •'. '^fc^^■ Jfei?:? , ■ ■ « '.■; ■K^ ^ i - ■■ L k^^7 ■ ' i "4 . Ueux^to que»tion san. la permisBioii et le cdngen &^ ^^.^^^ ddfendeufti en construiiMMit lad/te ;^ eU«, dites fondations de maniire A traveneAt T2 ^^'T,' '^*^'**'** fait, la dite all6e et le dit clal/ at |mmu6 I'usage des droit, ci-haut mentionn6^ Jt.,#maiideur8 au dit pawag^ et au dit canal, et e2font •ri.Jai!!'**^?,"' ^"''^"^"ode «t m6me en ont rendu i^page impossible. ;' ' t^ti^'? '"" 1!f^ ^T*"^"''" «ont obliges de r6parer SuUoft TV" ^**^"*"*^^ ^" ^«^ ^^ r6paraUons a icelui sont absolument nfecessaires et urgentes pour 1'6. goutement des dites caves de la dite mafson; que ^o^ f^W telles reparations ils sont obliges de faireetSre ' du'Sit T'f°"^ considerables sur tout lep^Z du^^ canal, surtout sou, la dite allfee. mais qu'ils^en son" completement empechfis par la partie de la dite grang^e etoe 4 leur grand dommageet detriment" -? ^. 1 !5***'**?'^'*"°'''' "" *«^«^ *^»* plaintiflFs may be declared to have a right to the servitude constituT^ by Jhe deed of 1848. and then they goon to pray -aS que les dits defendeurs soient condlnfis A d6moHr et e^ lever dans le d61ai a 6tre fixe par cette honoraWe cZ jan/ et sur le jugement a etre rendu en cette cause k ' dite gr«age et les fondati«s <|Jioelle, ou au moins les par- ties dicelle grange et d'icelles fondations traversant Jt de chaque cot6 dela dfte all6e. surl une 6tendue suffisante pour y jeter la terre provenant, 4e8 excavations nfices- ksdit8.demandeursv*|^^^dro^ tout <^ - fbmementaujuge^pS^^^^^ - nonledUdeiai^^^ce queIe.|S^ ^ cette honorable Cour. en vertu dujugenient<«im reSka^ti-'lA en cette ca^ 4 foii^ et effedluer hi^te demolition de^ ' " dite gnftife et des dites fondationa ou des mwties ci-ha^ ; mentionnees d'ioeUd aux frais etdgpens IS , MM WhMlM BiMk. ■^^ "■' *p» A iV ^art?^ --?(1 ^;:'P'* IHI ."V. ■ •• f *. s - WhMlar / dean 'dims le d£Ui et de la manUre 4 dtro fix6t pur oette honorable Cour dans et par le dit jtigement, 4 ce que les dtts demaudeurs 'soient r6int6gr6s et maintonus en la pos* j^lejMioi) paisible sous I'aatoritd de cette Gonr de leur dit droit d'^gout, et A ce qa'il soit fait defense aox dita dSfeu- " lurs do les troubler k I'avenir danti la dite possession d^ leur dit droit." Under a very loose system of pleading, this declaration may not be deniurrable, but «as it is presented to the Court, and under the evidence, the pretention of respond.- ^J^ia that the right to put a j^ipp or subterranean drain Under a field, to drain a neighbouring house, implies au obligation never to alter the then (H>ndition of the field, ai|d specially not to build over th« draii^so that the re- paration or refection of the ^tirain may be impeded, and that an action will lie to demolish such building Whether there be need oTVepdirs or not. * , ' "o In spite of vague or equivocal words in the declara- tion, it is evident by the motives of the judgment, which are* very clearly put; that this was the issues .the Court, considered it had to deal with. I^ is there said :— ^ "Gousid^rant que la servitude ayant eu une fois sou^ . assiette fix^ dans et par son titre cr^tif, le propri6tairf du fond^ assujetti ne pouvait changer I'ancien 6t|rt|>^de8 "lienx de maniere k rendris son ezercice J^ pdursHmMsag^ que pour sa conservation et entretien^^lus incdinmode ; " Consid^rant que dans TespftCe il a^if^rt par la prei que les dfefendeitrs ont, dans I'automne de^l880, 6rig6^ constructions sur le fonds servant de maniire 4 con^rir Talltge dont 11 Stait question dans le titi« cr^atif' de la dite servitude, ainsi que le canal dugout s'y trouvant enfoui ; °' etconsld^ri^t que les d^fendeurs n'avaient pas le dirotf, dans l(t$ drconatancest ""de faire tdles con^ructiom d Tendrmt et * de la maniere su8-indiqu6e, tes demandeurs se troaV;eni dans I'impossibilit^, 4 raison de la dite constituctionL de pourvo.^ 4 la reparation de leur ^oahal d'6gout ^e l«iina^/ ni4re.dout lis pouvaient le faixe eii vertu du titre or^iif de la dite servitude, et de la mani4re dout Aes d6fend|iDni davsif^nl b sonffrlr en vertti da m6me acte ; ; i^ V' \ ^ » V, ,/ i_^:^. ^■f >:.' Mr sbnmsdg^ nOtfRt OP 0OJE^N» BENCH x^ 168 „ ' '.■■ "- - ' •■ . ■^ I' • #» ^ " #'■' '"^ " Bt il e,t ordonnfi au Ufifendeur Wlieeler. propri6t«ire |;t poBsesseur actuel d« dit fondi .ervaut.de d6molir et tair. diaparaUn, telle partie doJa gran'go 6rig6e eur ic^i qui recouvro la diteall6e et le cattal dugout 8> trouvau «n W, dau« I. but de petmett^^ aufdem^ndeuL d« tIS ■ »i, la prouve constatant que .t«l8 trayaux^de reparation- y nont actiiellemenl n6ceB p.re«. et ce dan, le d61ai de trois nemaines a coSp^er de la sigmacation da prdaent jugement " * * " # *^ # "'■%■• ■ 2Jt i\mi ordonn6 au d6fendeur A^eeler de nepLtrou- We. lee demandeurB ^ I'avenir dans iWcice de le^ X droit de servitude, tant .quant A son usag^ qu'i LZnt- mtion et entretieu." «« . 4« " w* cpaser- This. then, is a judgment forbidding formally the W, P.'nants ever to build over tAis tub^ in the gZd tT ladfement about to be rendered, although -it modifies to ^e extent the judgment appealed from. consSSes the .»nie doctrine, in whicli I cannot concur ' is 117^^ ^"^^^ '7?'^ ^^ ^^PP^'* «*• tW« doctrine h *^'**^.^«P^P"«to'-of ti^e land charged shall not render the semtude-le^ e6nv.nient than it was at its creation The 18 undeniable. a^:,'b„exposition of a general S- up^ but It is not lass WtM- the servitude ^riot be extended or^exaggerated. , ^^.^ l^^ ^^at is the line of division between these- co-limiinous rights ? The subject 6f servitudes^ is not an easy one^ It has Wore, been examined with great carTand the pr": ^les governrijg these rights hiv« been minutely dS- '^t .Tall •: Sl^S^if "i"^^^ ""^^ ^-- namL The I 7^1^»" " .^*W «rfj««»^ Now. the doctrine is to be fmed. that the ngh»t a tile drain in^^^i^ [,a,de8 as an »ccess«^ffff grei^t servitude for which S^l^!!?!:^ direc^y|u point could wwy unye Mm rnnrinrrfJ Ift^au ^ag bfteu urpdnflfld ait W ^ WhMlir BImK. :.V A -\ '^ X" f- a^^^Bmt ''^■1' IB; .«''»* m' I^^H^' # 164 MONTIUUl. LAW BSVOItm ■!ir ; WbMtor for or agftfnitl compatible tad«« au ■ervitutWu Iti :'-f^x,-'': iiSa^by ' ay Ii^t, which appears to vim to b« in- principHui of the law of servi- >u oxperieuce of daily life. Th« ^ ft«d by the title and what that titU ii(»- cesaarily mplieH. Ho the right |o dri^ water 4t a fbnii- tain.implieN the ricrht to cross the lantwhere it is situWo in order to get to the foantaiu^aii|0^ h similar reasoQ, the right to have a dra^|^||(p||||^^^^^ig;h4 to get at thn |>l%ce whert^ it is to rtt^ir it. ll\dpi^not^ however, imply tfil'mach more important serviioae pfuo^bnilditig over a Pnitaiiivwhidi mliy uot reqatre xiepalr once in two tkoa» rears. Drains as old as tha\have been foi^nd in [ng order. to the particular case, there is no evidence that re- pairs are required- The only evidence attempted to h^ made ia^ that respondents' cellar is damp and that water lodges there ; but it is also shown that the cellar iH deeperffiian the mouth of tlife drain. Respondents^^T no right to deepen .their drain. The servitude rcnPnit as it 'i«;jmadev "^'' '"''^ *1. ,". ^ ^ ■ ' ' ''■'^- ' i '''^■' ■ ' > T'Tr* "' . Agai^4t aj^pears that before the barn was built, the drain requWed repair or cleaning at the P'lace where the barn now stlindst>nd the ground was not dug up. I.m thereforj9 of the^ opimo^that the Jndgme|tt ahotili^ M rfeversedffts there is no evi^^jdce that Repairs al^enecesaary, and, if /becaflttry,'vl^t thejtaintiSs ^xf n<|t entitle^ to lecnKd tft the 'nilding over the drain ^i«> Since this judgment, .^fts derbd. I h&ye ^Sought it desirable to look into the 'an|;h^i|j|fli^to set ifailftspn^lte foijbd to 8U|>portJ% princ: eiated ia the julgn^o^^ "^ alahning as that' Inun t^k ia. more tedious than ^ vC. ,4ti|ic«It. SefYitude»c«'ce the wall of his neHjjhhour's house and raise the pavement to make Z^' jTli " '»«i>ten-anean drains are included. Lai. ^IlMr^2.#^rv,t^. LIX. 1.^6) Can it be assumed th!t whu there .« a\pal mention of the prohibition to a Id over a nght of way. that if there had been a prohi- bU^on to build over a right of subtorranean drain, it would have passed unn5ti4^d?. It was not that the rights^ ri!ht«f^ *-»^« ««t>ject land forbidden to build pver the nght of. way, but U is equally forbidden to build so as oprevent the right of gutter. Dig. viii. t. 5, 1. 9. Again ^.idea that the owner cannot b,Uld over a ubtemSln ^n^^smcompatihl«.^ith the laws as to the oZ^l J^^T^T^'" *W«. »^ou. legal difficulty beiui on this ^estion. The nght to prevent any one building on a JtLZi^^ " f^ "^*^ mm/lot^ arfttT«« «im «»«' il [ t - o - ^ ■.^— ' / -"' i^^ m -&- 1 ■ M%' WVj, mht r Iff- '1^- ■m • ,r 16« MOMTRBAL LAW REI^Rm I ^S£ T Dig. t. 89, 1. 1, 14. The contradictiou betw«ertect IVagnient and that, if entire, it would meet exat^tly the catie of repairM or occaNiouai usci Being ho interpretedit is decisive against the principle of the Judg- fllont in this case. Caepolla iii^ives a ford of the actibn to remove an impediment to the repair or cldansing of a sewer, and the defendant's answer, from both ofl^hich it appears that the impediment need only be removed ^hen the plaintiff tequires to repair, and for the purposes of repair Tr. II. cap. VI, 7 and 8. ^ Under the modern French law there does not seem to h* any change from the old law in this respect. Mr. Lau- rent, with his accustomed vigour, builds his doctrine on the 0. N., but his conclusions do not seem to add much to the doctrine of the Roman law. Whether interpreta- tion is to be strict or broad is little mure than a question of degree in mbst cases. As regards servitudes, it has never been questioned that the greater right implies the minor, or that the necessary accessary (called by Mr. Laurent, with questionable exactitude, the " servitueU accn- •oM-e") follows the principle by implication. Our code has followed the old law of servitudes with- out deviation, except in two articles (821 and 682, $ 8.) Neither of these modifications alters the general principles of servitudes. -They merely affect detaUs. DoEiONpC. J. :— / :{ The minority of the Court are of opinion that the judg- ment is in conformity to law, and should be confirmed. The Blacks say, you have built over our drain, and we wish to repair it. In answer to this, Wheeler pleads, first, yonr right to have a drain there hai not been re* * Q OouBT c|r Qomri butch. qa.«t.on is whether the appellant had a r ^hf » . baildiiiff over the drL Th « nT . ^ *"* P*** "P • more .ncon.-enient, It i, .howa by tli rTidence Z repaim ar« necewary. ^nd the rtmrJnA^* •vw«nce that tk. naent« cannot ffet ft* »he dra n to repair it Wo think, therefore, that the e- pondenti are entitled to,«k that (he barn ie taLn !» Km to enable them .to ,,,k^ repairs to their dra „ BaT y it may not he h»tmmmmh» *^ Ti j "»'«r arain Uni ™.ll portion, „„ Sr^^i^^ta^ "T" """« ""» • .ki. more .xpIioU »7,;"^,r,„rr' " 1, '" T**" j™. p.t to ^^, i.c«v.s"„ tp*r ':i'r *. .voided m orfer to repair tl,, dr«n. " J." h° '^ ' """'^ '"' ^t^ "> -y 'M there ,kould biTP heen no dam.gee ailowed«»»inrt WnTlll kl^ . to b,. proprietor before th^ ««TwM taJiiS^ f °T* ta..^. appear to h.v. bT.^™ J^X t^' a"'!: |-™ the judgment o«. hi, ^^„;^ - Monk, J,.-— t onir:::/"^--^ ^^-^^^^ The following ia the text of the jud^ndlltiS; iilal • La Conr, etc :-. ^r^? *Pfl|ea' :— 'Con8id6rantqtt'iln'yapa8malinJG--r\ • fMr.ct d Iberville, le 19 d'.vril, 1888, el dont e,t7^Li liToir- tt 7 i ^'^^^'afia, avec la modifipation auivante ^<^^ n est ordonn6 ag d^fende^r Wm. W. vUIerTi!^' ■t4Mk. ♦ 'K . /^~ i> IT 48 *.5 I i-i'l 1^8 MONSWil^ LAW^BEPOamj IMS. WhMlar A BiMk. Wr~ ' -lA- <■ ^^W des dits appelants, propri^taire et possesael^ aotndl da fbnds servant d§8iga6 dans la ddclaration, de dSliiQiirjgt^ faire disparaitre tell,e pdrtie de la grange 6rig6e ^ttlr ieelui qui recouvre TallSe dontil est question dans le titre cr6a- .* tif de la 4ite servitude, et le canal d'figout s'y -trouTant «nfoui, jusqn'i une. hauteur suffisante pour permettre auz deniandeurs de faire, quand la n^cefssit^ s'en , pr^sen- /'i „ * t^ra, tcius les travaux et ouvrages n^cess^ires pouir Isicon- ' ^, servfitjbn dti dit canaf d'^gout, et de la dite servitude?** . ' - sp§cialbi^ent pour Y'fiBtire ^ctnellement les -dits travanx^ • < de T^pjairatioix?, la preuverconstatant que tek trlivai^ *de T^pirations y Bont actuellem^t ngdessaires, et^ce, aussi .,* (»mm^6toent qu'ils auYaient pu le faire d'affres T^tat des lienx Ibrsque ta dite servitude a 6t6 imposes par Tacte ' d^ 22me3bur d'aHt 1848, ce qui seria 6t^bli par experts,, \ ' si les parties ne^^^Qvent s'entendfS^ et ce, dans un delai ' '^ de trpis seqai>a£l|Les 4 coitij^tetT de la signjficatfon du present jugem^Ujb, oultidut autre d6lai qui sera fix6 par l^a Cour ^ ^/' Sup6rieure,-8^iiott» ®^^ delai pass6, saUs, avoir fait^dispa- ^ - -raitre telle par tie de 1« dvte|^range, p est ordonn6 que; i^fe ^Wol^io^ et d^tfuctibn soit £i|it« song rautoiiti^ de | > ^ ,. Ta Co'ur, aux fTlais et d^peis du d6fendQur Wheelcsr ; '*^ V " Et il'^st oidbnn6 au dit d6fendeur Wheeler (appelant) . de n6 pas trcfubler^ les denfandeurs intimes, a I'aveniT dans r'exercic^jde leur droit lie servitude, tant qiCa sod " )usage qu'4 sa jconservatioii et entreti^il ; r . 'K, \, . " , . "Et»laOoui|, quant 'au.dfifendeur, appelant Ed waird'C Goker,4ieavoie cettk partie de Taction demandant qu'il soit restrein't 4 recbi;maitre la dite servitude et a d^molir Ifi cpnstructip]^ y 6rig(§e.; maisK maintieiit contre*^ lui cette jDartie de I'^jtioh demandant , des ""coigiclusions person- *^ nelles contre&ii^ et le dit "Wm. W. Wheeler ; ' /. " Et en coW<^qQence, la Gour condas^e les ^^dfendeidrk appelants a jiayeT aux demandeuVs intimes Wsonfme de ^0 li^tjtt^de'dbmma^es int§r6ts." (J>i$smtimteXK<>n-^- isay).v/ ' -:'■'.-■;■■'■ '■'-/.'■'■ -l-if-'.' >- Judgment co^firmed Roibertsoik, )SiUMe~if,FUet, Attol^eys for J^p^^ai^ts. ^4: Rutfret, for .:-^-; 1(9 PELLANTS '^7' r -Petitions fob leave to appeal. Appenl4o Supreme dc^f^j^^ rigfUs~Servf4ude~ Securiti, SiaMw^^ifv r.'""'' ^""'^ property Tthe ZTi^ll^W^ «»pondeiit8, ana order«i the appel*- tat to 4emolBh a portion of. bam boilt on the serSl ~ plunliff, o perform when neceseary aU the work ieW ;^ai.^erV.tio,^the «ai^^ ^'li:'^;; TheappellantepBlitioned for leave toUo^l t^ ih^ Mn^tregi»rea,M|not$^ real estate. ;^ C - • Theres^^ents opposed the petitioii ^ the gronn^ : J. That a question of servitude as in thjplesent cdsFis Ceme^^t "'*J" "^r^ of seLonS o^tLe si^r^e Couita^dmeat Act 6f 1879: . 4 ^ 2.,Thattfcggivi|ppfse<5UTityj8ajnatter>venied hy' ■^v *r » f! !h ■■#■ • K •% %^ -Pi h 160 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. -3 '«?• Quebec law ; that nider Art 198fli C. C. the sureties must .J^**'*' justify on real estate, aud fhat this rale is apjftrcltible to H .Biiek*. appeals to the Supreme Court in the absence of any specific provision in the ^preme Court Act that personal secur- N ity shall be sufficient. ^ After consultation with the other members of the Court, • the honorable Judge allowed the appeal on the security ■* ♦•'i bond offered Robertson, Ritchie, Fleet &• Falconer, i n ^ ... L. G. M^domiU, ^ - • j for petitioners. ,. . Geoffrwn, Dorion, Ldfleur Sf Rinfret, for respondents. \Y March ,27,^86 Coram MoNK, l^iiiBAY, Tbssibb, Cbosh and Baby, JJ' f » .^ HENRY MACFARLANE ' {PUUni^Jn Q)urt below), „ _• ' ' - ^ V. , ■:'; ^'■■- ''-^ ■'' ^'^ ^ -Appbllant; ' -ij. ' ' ■ ■^•'- "AND / V, ■ ' ■. '■ «PHE GOBPOMTION OF THE PARISH OF ' • . ^ ST. GllSAIRE ^ s^ i {Defendant in Court below), , ' Respondent. Munich Debentures — Condittdm-^Municipaf Code', A¥tP^S2. A debenture m a iieuotiable instrument, and cHunot bear a condition <«i' • "the face of it, makint; its validjty dependent u|x)n obligatidii^ to be fierformed in Aiture. And so, where a municipal corporation voted a bonus to a railway company payable in debentures, and the by-law imposed certain future obligations upon tl^i^ompany as to the mode of operating the road^ it wafi hekt, t\aA dmmUvip in which thrae obligations were set forth lis conditions w«re npt S valid tender. The appeal w as from a judgment of the Superior Coiirt, . St. Hyacinthe (Siootte^ J.), disi[QiB8iiig the action. The ^ question ii5 fully stated in the opinions. O'Hali&rdn, Q.a, for the apipellant. ; Xiq/lainme, Q.C., for the xespoBdent. 4,. xfe' i4f«/982. \ hh ^^ OF QUEEITO BENCH. 161 -'* «• tmetion ;«; "L ,^^^^^^^ ^^''"^^'^^ <1^ % dont la con... lien d^Bleca^Ztn^ a^tageuse. et c'eBfce qui a ^'^ . de at rLti }- -^^ Municipalit6 dela p^roisle ' " de St. C6saire a accords an aide de «20 nnn a u^ P^^o^spe 2o;Ler6gleAientenvertudnfluelile8t6mis- .' - * ^ 30. Le montant pour lequel il-^st donne - . . : ^. I* tauxdeJ'interfit payable par.annie • ~ i '' •' ' eo-^Adatedesonemission.- ^ - ' #|?' " ^ ooadition. impos^es par le «,i,Wa loJdeT ?i •!! V ^ ,.i?" r^ i'~'*S.: \ 11 Vte A\ ■ »• -I, .^ I 1 >H ^ / t-t 162 MONTREAL LAW itETOBTS. U> -4 \v r / <•-' J-' '.•«^' ^•^ 1 ' 1 'A 1 ^ iM«- culidrement. Peut-on alors dire qti'un conseil qui s'est MMhriwe .ainsi ^uriiis 4 la loi a err6, sous prfetexte qu'une d6ben- K"&lrture est, en soi. un effet n6gociable et ne peut, en conse- quence, 6tre sujet a aucune condition ?, Je ne puis me rfen^re a cette maniere d'interpreter notre loi munioipttle. Elle v^ut bien que les corps Aunicipaux se prfetent aili ou\Tage8 d'un interfit public, mais elle veut aussi qu^ les oqntribuables ne soient pas trompes, non plus que lefc tiers, p• . \ 1 Cross; J. 1-7 . ,.,. , The aipeillant \^n[|^' suit agwnst the parish of St. O^saire for the re^rery of 200 municipal debenW of 1100 each, witfr^terest coupons attache4^ .^liicb he . claims to recoref "under the followin|? circumstances:- On the 6th December, 1880, the (Jwmcil of the ^parish of St. Ofes^ire passed a by-law granting a bonus of $20,000 m Aid tof the Montreal, Portland & Boston Bailw/>y Com- pany, t^v^gage" them to make a branch of their road from the station at Ste. Matje de Monnoir, or Mk>ieville, te St. C6saire. The by-law was approved of by the elec- tors and Wctioned in du^ course" by the; Lieutienant- Governor. ' . - ' •• l- .j it was therein-provided' that the bonus was to he im ■ iff ^ebentarip driJiiO each, wi«» semi^iiia^tereay \ ■^ .-;•«* t^'.. < «*■ ■A It U"- .^' ■^i^^^ ^■4i-: OOURT OP QtfBijra BENCH. il qni s'est 'une dSben- t, en conse- ae puis me mimicipdle. prfetent atfi ussi qud Ua lue leh .tiers, 8 exigences 3 a ■ accepte , elle savAit lies avaieni ;. C^saifiB, et lables de la it non pJluR son cession- L-dire, faites^ par Je code '• .- ' * ■ et.jeirepttis lire infirraer ittul «it dis- lissehj^imen^: larish oi St. debenture $4/ which he instances :— he ^parish of of $20id00 in iilw^y Com- I their road « Mkneville, - by the elec : Lieutenant- as to be l*W axial interest I ^•^ K •"t' ' # .-• - on > v- •'^\ t "■ 4: l«t lZ.hi„M" f"*f ,."»"'»' declared. th.t the dib.4- ""'-^ Ttk i "•'.'"' ^«"™'«d «o the Company until- ntf-Jw ^'in'^»c' *"" """nij" «'• «i4;:'in,a;'-^- 8 The»ailway .Wiori "honld,, Mt bsdutant m™. .l.«.^n.rp,nt.ft»„th,ohnrcl^WSrclsf^^"^^^ , JMin»ry, 188,8, the by-law wm to become nnU and void The «.j,panf were t» keep «he r^ in .pe»lion «d "^ ^1-- 5^?ann.S.- ^^ -^ *" "^ '*»^'-» t : The j^jdwas^^ulycoinpleted Within iL specified time ^*^ ^d all. the conditions precedent stated in the h^aw to r he.ss.um^and delivery of the debentures compL^ ' Jy the Cotnpany. The keeping of the road in op^ation of frefgit. did, not apply as conditions precedent Th! iebentur^ therefor^ became deliverabin?tSent t« ' these conditions coming into operation.% '*"v"^"'* *? ; The appellant was contractor for the b^iildinir' of th/ ' raJroad, and. as part payment for his work SLt' .Company transferred to him their claim for the S^uT!^ ' voted by the Council of St. Ofisaire /»«»*>««« «o The respondent, pkaded a tender efdebentures which v ^ey had made on, the llthof JuftJSb4 bein? Tf th! r^msit, number and to .Mamoun?!!?^''^^^^^^^^ -, I^S'l^hT'^^^ -^interest n't^ j::^!^: leaked 1 -to rrri!; 't^'^^ ^^^^^ .ciir^sS^d'*' ^ ••:#•'' ^^^ . 1 • 3. The station of the- said railway Shall bej^ithm ten arpents of the Catholic church of the villa|f jof St^ The plaintifl' (appellant) rfefnsed to acce|?t the debentures ^with these conditions. v ,v ^ ^ ; The respondent Contended that he had a right to exact their insertion in the debentures in virtue of the toroTi- sioAs in the by-law and AxtJ 982 of the Municipal Code, more especially as the Jtejlway Company had become insolvent and the parish bi" St Cesaire could not other, wise have kriy security that the conditions they made with the Company in regard to the future would be fulfilled. T- -,".■■■:-:;;.■■■ - : ,,^.^-.-.-^:-v-: -.:,.:-,■ The Superior Court adopted|the respondent s views. held the tender of the debentures in the shape offered "sufficitent, and dismissed appellant's action. The con- tractoV now appeals. ., * • ii. i Th J case is extremely embarrassing. It is obvious thai_^ the by-law did" not impose as A condition of the issue and delivery of the debentures, the performance of the under- taldngs to be^served in future affer the completion of * the Toad. - - ' { Two sets of con#ntions ware^contemplnted by the by-law ; one sei were conditions pr«^5edent to the delivery of the debenij?res. These were all performed. ^^^^J of the by-law the debentures wert> not to be delivered - . nntil these conditions had been fulfilled Theyjvere »U ^ ftilfilled before the debentures were aaked for. The otheri I ■' set of conventions to^ be performed in future were to > > '^ ,*K; e debentures /J' Q0U8X OF (iUEBW'S ^MmkS' 4« ■\ fhlfiUed after the delivery of the debenture.. In respect — to them the by-law attached no conditions to a^ect the MwUru.. !^a,rdir';n ,?'^"*"'-?' "'^ «on»«»ouly understood and Wfe acu)rding to the general usage, are negotiable instriJiftnts .. transferable by endorsement or by mere delivery. They ' ar« usually given in payment of th« work of construe- - tion and were «o intended to be given in this case in aid ot ,t^e construction of any railroad or public work, accord- ' - mg to Art. 479 Municipal Code, and not to be conditioned ontheperformanceoffutureobligations. There is nothing ' m the by-law to indicate that the respondents would have aright % place restrictions on theiir payment to guarantee the future keeping up of ^he road. For that they would' naturally have to depend on the iVbiiity of the Company * on Its personal undertaki;uld be neiNo impracticable. It, therefore, the l^ertion of these xjouditions were not required by thV by-law, were the respohdents Justified in insertmg them \J>y reason of the provision of Art; 982 of theMunfcipal Cod^ which is in the words Allowing:- " It must further contain all provisions necessary to carry ' ' into effect the intent of the by-law in virtue of which it •^18 issued." It 18 naturally argued that this imperative statutory requirement cannot be dispensed with, and that the intent^ the by-law was not only to obtain a branch railroad but to secure its future running at moderj^te rates 01 treight. There is muck force in this reasoning ; at the same time it is very evident that the value of the deben- tores was earned t)y thfe railway and its contractor, and toe, irrespective of sijfch condition as precedent to their jBhvery wcording tj/^the terms 6f the by-kw. therefore toey could not be inserted as binding conditions aflfectiiik the amou^o be paid under the deWtures, and if inope^ wtive in tl^ r0»p6ct their insertion in any shape would ■ -ii I, -^1 '1 \ IV " 'I 1«'.6 MONTREAL l^W REPOITrs. ■^ '* "-i ry iip only have tho effect of cwting doubt on the abtolnte MMfMUn. nature of the obligation in the debenturee, and thereby ?f*8??&."™!' greatly impairing their value as negotiable instruments, ' which the municipality lias no interest in doing. They cannot be inserted as conditions, because they were «uol made so by the by-law. Are they provisions without being conditions ? If so, they are of no force, and thei; " insertion' would be without benefit and peraiciouJi. Added to this, the Municipal Code in its appendii given a complete form of a municipal debentnr« without refer- - * ence to any such provisions. The firlicle cited i« t^ague in its terms, and may be sufficiently complied with by mention of the fact that the bonus» is granted to aid in the construction of the particul^ branch railroad in the temis they are authorized by Ajjt. 479 of the - Municipal Code, which may be said not to contemplate keeping a railrod upinfuture. < \ * j We are of opinion that the^ municipality of St. C568air^ had no right to insert as cotoditiona, in thf debentures which they tendered to the appellant, the provisiott therein contained for the keeping up iai future of said^ branch railroad and reguiating its ri^s of freight, and that all the conditions' preceient to the delivf>ry of the deben- tures having been perJiormed, the appellant, as transfew of the rights of the Railwav Company, is entitled to recover the debaitures m form and tenor fcee ftom condi- * tions and in the shape of absolute obligations in form negotiable. Therefore the judgment diamissing appel- lant's action must be re v«(i«ed, and the pan th of St/Cesajre ordered to. deliver over to the* appellant debentures free^ I from-Sai^ conditionf,;8ubjecl of coufrse to the daduction allo^ved «n the Cwart below, for tfie amount attached ' • under Ae mvae-arrm at the sui^ of Bombardier, a creditor, i • ^y ho had placed an attachment with the municipality, iitfeing rank befpre the assignment to the appellail^ of the rigiif {^t&a bpnus. ^^^ ..«".» >i^ » *■ * ,.A " The |iuni4^1 Corporation of SI. €!*«Bre rot«d a sum >. ■\. yv M,- -mmm. p ■jw^'^mwrr " '** rot«d a SUB OOUBT or QDGJSM'S JfllCl^ of money to a railroad ccmpany^ debentures. These dobentares ^ 0' ' i!p ich Wiit6.be pajd in not to be given till i 'Al AftefutUia v. the road is in running ordt^r, and until H*rve^l otherthinif8T^«ooW»«» wer^ performed. All these stipulations were folftlled ; but the by law stipulated also future obligations—that the road was to be kept op6n— that there should be two trains a day, and that the rate of passage and freight should not exceed a certain amount. " When the municipality was asked to give the' deben* lures they tendered them (Charged with all these Tuture conditions. The appellant, who stands in the place of the • company, brought his action for debentures freed from kll suspensive conditions. The .Superibr Court declared the debentures oifered to be sufficient. ' I There are legal questions which, if they Jiave no other merit, exljibit, at all events, the ingenuity of tL^^pro- ; pO»er. This is one of tbetp.* The respondent admits that the debentures are due since he affects to tender- thein, but what fie tenders is iiot a debenture at all ; it is only an acknowledgment of a conditional indebte^ess. A debenture is a negotiable instftam^nt ih the nature of a promissory note, and therefor^, it cannotvbear a con- dition on the face of it. There^:'^ a form of debenture given by the statute which shows clearly, that the «fen- tioa of the legislature was ntt to call an instrumejl »* debentuib which should be so only in name. * The arfaiment used in support of the judgment is this : Art. ^2, Municipal Code, skys, "it (the debenture). must " furlhel- contain all provisions necessary to carry into/ "effect the intent of the by-law in virtue of which it is " issued," and therefore the undertakings as to the future obligations of the railway company must appear on the face of the debenture. . ' „ s It does not appear to ine^lwt'ihis i^%ie proper ililr^ pretation of the article. The intent of the by-law is tbe construction of the railway in a Certain manner ThZ mode in which it shaU be worked is not the immediate (intent of th^y-law, and therefore it is not a provision which ■honldNi^ar on the^ face of the de^lB^. In ' i» N 1 " ' ''i.i «>p* 1.;^ I «j :,y<44^* ■ *f'%«j^f NTiU|ALl«AW mvoirm ud. piao^, if it w«se n«ceMMry.to pat tlK3Slitipal»- MMfwOM ^j^Q, on the (mjo of the debeutare, ther^ is nothing in the '^r*£'?M:i)^iirticletoaQthorizethe Court to My ^h«t.tfaeM "provi- Hioni'! Bliall be "the cx)ndition of this debenture." It must bt) evident that if the decipiion of the Cottrl below were maintained, not only the ^lebentnrea would be valuelesH att aecnrities; but the f2d,000 Bubaoribed by this municipality could never be recovered. I am to reverse. \ The following is tne judgment of the Court r—* \ " The Court, etc. " Considering that the debentures tendered by -the respondents to the appellant, as specified in the plea of the latter, and as prodnned by them in tbjs cause, contain certain conditions' therein inserted to the effect following, to -wit: . ; I . 1. That the said Railway Company shall maintain iu Ijbranch of the said railway from the village of a station of the said company at or near. ^shall run at least two trains a day eac/h way St. C^saire, said trains to connect;^' with the ling at Marieville ; ff, / 2. The Railway Company will not charge a hlghi^ rate for fare' of passengers or fo;r freight shipped ^ip>m or received at St. C^saire to or'from any place beyoni|, Marie- ville than the riles charged, or to be charged, from Marie- ville to Montreal and the United States in piropc^rtion to the number of miles tranifelled ; \ 8. That the station oAe said riilway shall be within ten arpents of the Catholic chuzch of the village of St. C^saire; " Considering that by the by-Ia-w passed by the council of the said parish of St. CSsaire, cited in the pleadings in this cause, there is no^rovision to the effect that said con- ditions were to be inserted in the debdnturea to be issued in virtue of said by-law , nor that they were in any man- ner imposed or to be imposed as conditions precedent to the issuing or delivery of said deben^^UroB ; " Considering that said debentures wdre intended to be /■■ \ Wf^ '••'"• A. ^ ■^ ■^« OOUBT aV QUKEIWJ BDNCH. &«» . \*hirM *" '^'^'' "*'"'* "•ff»^i*Me birtttim*^ pty.blir ' "it; VbMlutcly and without condition ,^ " Ohnsidorittg that reapQndenta h«l no ri Haid cortditbna in siCid debenlurit, and a«liver to app^Uautu d«b«nturoii frei from •— " Oontid«ring. th«refor«, that there is error ment rendered in this cauae by the Superior •t St. Hyacinthe on tho Uth of December, l^a-, now here doth reverMe, annal and Het aaide the n,.™ ment and procjeeding to render the judgment whic! »„, -aid Superior Court ought to have rendered, doth overmle and diamiBM the pleaa of the respondent,; and doth order hat within fifteen daya after the Hervice upop them of thi8 judgment, the said reapondenta do deliver to the appellant 200 debentures of thaaaid Corporation, ^h^ . the BUm pi iliOO, etc." , , A /^.rr.. ■* -f «d«f«»eat wveraed, Baby, J, dtoi. ( " . OHailoran Hf l>ufy, attorney, for appellant. . / Laflamm, Huntington, Lqftamme ^ Richard, attorneys for ^ respondeifts. ,,*''• ''i ...... ,11 s ). ''i," ■«^, I (I J)j.k:) V". 'a 1 ', \ ;/ (>'• 'i ;^ * ', li }t T. J"' s?. ''i >^ ^<- ■'" ■ , ". "■- ■ :_.[_■'. ■ ■ ■ ■'.: . ■-'• ' '': '" "■ -c- '' ■■'■•. J '. ■' ■! ' ^ '■ -r' - • ' \:-r-::::y '-. ■''-"■ "' » / • ■ - *■ '■ .; ,'' ■"". ■'■''■■ ■ ■ *■ •^■:i^-'-'; ,.\ '. ss • " ■ "* ^ ■■ ■"■ \. "■ » » ■■■ '. '':- ' - . »« ■ ';> . y^ t J» • • V ■ ■'r^^jM L:.. ■ V -J '^M :t "v #>ijfv ■•"•i- "'**^;^ *t IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fe fe // .^^^-^ /. ^ n '■i 1.0 1.1 12.8 Z lit us IL25 III 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.6 '^ ■f r hotograpJiic Sciences iration 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)S72-4S03 ■ ■^.mv: 1 •*- -fi \ ■V"£- ■ * ■ t • .*_ • • « * ^ y ' ~t. 1 ■ . - \ /■ ♦. ■c-. ■^ . • •< *■ ■^> -f « - ,, . • . ,^^ , - i • '■ , ' « ' s •» ^■■ • ^m • - 4, . * \ »' \^ ' », - ' *■■ • V - ' 4 >^^ ^ *■' «• •"' \ ■ 1^. \ \ . y-~'^ ^>^ "^ ' '\ .' » \ . / }R ^„ * ' * 9 f _ ^■^ \' * i " r • ~ ■* _ 1 V- , \ , ^ I. ' \ .!•« ^^^^^^Aj^fi^Ab^^i^^^ ^^ • , ^ i^i- 1 1 170 MONTREAL LAW REPORTa FORI March 22, 188«. Cordm DoRioN, C. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tkssier, Cross, JJ. HARTLAND S. MACDOUGALL ht al., {PCaint^a in Court below,) Appellants ; GEOR^fe DEMERS, '.- ^, (Defendant in Court Mow,) RE8K)NDENT. Fictitious Contracts — Slock transactions — Settlement by of differences— C. C. \m*l— Broker— Principal }o. Time bargains are not necessarily illegal, nor does tl^ la# refus^to enforce them, if they are made for serious transactions intended i be falfilled, althouglft it may happen, contrary to the expectation of^ the parties, that they are not really carried out as contemplated, but ' from unforeseen causes come tote settled by diflTerences. \But if, in contemplation of the parties, they are at theiyinoeption int^ded to be speculative transactions, to be settled by adjustment of prices .^ acco.rding to the rise or fall of the market, and not by delivery of the subjects bought or sold, they become gambling tranaactions, and, under CO. 1927, there is no right of action for the recovery of money claimed thdrefuader. 2o "Where brokers act for a person contracting as^above to deliver grain * at a future date (but without intention to make actual deli very ),\ and the brokers, having fu^l knowledge of the fictitious character of the transaction, disclose no purchaser or principal, they will be considered principals as regards the party contracting to* deliver, and no action will lie by the brokers for the recovery of a deficiency upon the transaction. ^ The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court,\ Montreal, (Loranoer, J.), Dec. 3, 1883, in the following terms:— "LaCour, etc: — "Considfirant que le montant r6clam6 en cette cause par les demandeurs, serait du pour avances qu'ils auraient faites comme agents du dClfendetir dans certain^ tran- sactions de bourse consistant en achats de parts dans des compagnies de chemin de fer ou autres indtistries com- merciales dans la Puissance^u Canada, et de gprains .aux Btats-Unii^^'' ''■...;: _";:-v^ . «u sh 22, 1880. EB, Cross, JJ. r AL,, below,) »PELLANTS ; bdow,) BSPdNDENT. lent It^^paifmeHt pal anoAeenl. t^ Ui# refUB^to bioAs intended he expectation oP »ntemplated, but enoes. \ Bat if, iu ption int^ded to istment of prices t>y delivery of the ranaactionB, sud, ' the recovery of 9 to deliver grain lal delivery),, and character of the vill be considered sr, and no action iciency upon the \ aperior Court,\ the following in cette cause ju'ils auraient :ertam% tran- parts dans des [idttstries com- le grains .am OOUKT OF QUEENTB BENCH. 171 ^ " Considfirant.que le d6fendeur a plaid6 que U contrat intervenu ^ntre les parties n'avait pour objet que dea op6- rations Ectives fondfees sur des vale^irs et effets imagi uaires ; qu6 les dettes contract^(?s par suite de ces op6ra- tions sent des dettes de jeu ; que les transactions en ques- tion. 6tai^nt des march68 a terme par lesquels aucune des parties n'6tait tenue A la livraisou des effets achet6s, et qui devaient se rfesoudre entre eux dans le payement de la difference entre le prix d'a^hat et celui de la reventfe, et qu'elle ne constituait qu'un jeu sur la hausse ou la baisse, et que le tout n'6tait qu'Un contrat de jeu prohibe par la loi, pour lequel les demandeurs n'avaient aucuu recours en justice; . , " Consi^ant que le d6fendeur a prouve les all6gu68 de sa dfefense ; que les transactionr intervenues entre les demandeurs et lui, n'ont et6 qu'un jeu de bourse, et que le contrat si^lequel repose la prfesente action est prohib6 par I'article 1927 C.C. ; que malgr6 que dans toutes ces tran8a*■ OOUBT OP QQEEira BENCH. Its how far they were justified in purchaaing to cover them- selves. The authority is fully admitted at page 1 of respon- dent's factum. Indeed,it was too clear to be decently denied At the second argument, it was also in words admitted that m transactions of this sort— that is, on sales for future deli- very/carried on by what are called margins,* that is by an amount to cover, the loss by rise or fall in the' price of the article, the power to buy and the power to sell stand on the same footing. It seems to me it would be a mere quib- ble to pretend anything else in face of the uncontradicted testimony produced by appellants. This was evidently the view taken by the judge in the court below. It would hme been very easy for him, if he thought so, to say there 18 nb evidence that Demers authorized the Macdougalls to Huy for him. But he could not say that, and he dismissed te action because ajeude bourse was disclosed. The judg- tent in the court below tjien implies a contract proved However permissible it may be to plead in the same suit (1) I never transacted with you. at all, and (2) our trans- actions cannot be subject of a suit, for the law has taken away the^right of action, if is manifest that evidence to Ruppor^oth of these pretentipns is impossible. The evidencfe of the existence of a transaction, whether a yew de bourse or otherwise, knocks' the general issue out of court, whatever may be its valife'as a mere question of pleading. We therefore come to the twd exceptions, which are so mixed up they liSy be examined together, and their mat- ter may b^ held to present th« second question, namely is i the contract one which' the law discourages so far as to refuse the parties to it right of action ? In order to keep the Veal question perfectly clear of aU the sensatibnal matter that may possibly be wound up in the public mind relative to a case indirectly affecting large mterests, Imay say.that if it appeared that a contract, seem- ing to be onetof ordinary purchase and sale, was simulated fio as to cover a bet on the rise and fall of prices of produce or stocks, I skould unhesitatingly declare that no abtiou would he between the parties to the bet. And so it Jias m UflS. Mkodoaiall DoOMn. '-f '! i lii ■ , 1 ■ i ^'..i f' ■'■A • 'i >' '■ it ■ i ^-^i '.' i1 '«tLg^u»U -^ ^-,^»^ J^i,rJj^.^,A^-J^J*^„^^L ■if^l^l w <■(!)■*- 1 ^1 [iju '•I ■• 174 MONf^fiAL LAW REFOBTB. . See Sirey, Oode civil annoi6, art. been held in France. 1695, notes 8, 4 and 6. Is thdre any such evidence in this case ? The learned judge in the Court below hafi e^dently adopted as a pre- sumption /um et de Jure, that a sale for future delivery on a margin is ajeu de bourse, and therefore that it is gambling;' I know no law for this, and it seems to me to be a tqtally gratuitous presumption, that a man may not carry on his business with the vendor on the same principle he carries it on with the bank. That is, in both rases he is either trusted or he furnishes sequrity. Who ever heard that it was essential to a bargain of sale that the purchaser should have money dnd the vendor the article ? In France, it has been held that the price in the haud^ of the broker of the purchaser is not indispensable for the validity of the bargain. Sirey, on, the article quoted, note 6. Also, that bargains fi terme, in view of profits to be realized by the variation of prices of goods, do not necessarily imply a legal presumption of betting. {lb. 1.) Nor is a wager to be presumed because the price was not paid, and no delivery made (/A. 9); nor because the bargain is il prime {lb. 10) ; nor will it be presumed to be a wager from the fact alone th&t the price was settled by the payment of a difference (76.11). ' ^. ■ _■ '^ ■: \ -V; ■■ ;t. / Is there anything in the transaction before ns to give a special significance to the facts mentioned ? The respon- dent has not attempted to show any. He examined Mr. Macdougall, who answered point blank that it was at the option of the respondent to have had the bargain effectively carried out. Mr. Demers says that he is not to be believed in this, and that it was only a bet on rise and fall. But the testimony of Mr^ylMacdougall supports the contract, that of Demers is against it. Again, we are told we axe to presume that the contract was simulated because there were many transactions between appellants and respon- dent, and in none of them was there ever a delivery. This is an excellent specimen of anon jse^uttttr. (1) Ninety- nine illegal contracts will not establish that the hun- dredth is illegal, just as evidence of i^ man stealing ten UL *(,' ',' \ *'-"' '^"'^'■'^f* ,' ■"■■i'OTJjI-" OOUBT OP QUEBITO BENCH. \^^ Urea Of bread will not prove that he didn't buy the eleventh. (2) It is not proved that the other contract* were simuUted because there was no delivery, as has been dr^y said of this one. The logical conclusiW then' to which respondent seeks to lead us amounts to this You must accept as proof of fraud in this ease, the ex- istence- of other similar cases, in which fraud is not proved. See notv Ih Sirey on ar^. 1696, C.N . It is quite possible that a great deal of gambling may be earned on under simulated contracts of sale, but the ques ion we have to decide is whether it has been proved that this IS one of them. Again, if it be determined to put |m end to the possibility of making gambling contracts in hw way, the legislature has only to declare that sales for tuture dehyery can only be made between parties who bvThfrSr/''^'' 'u" '""*"'*'" °^ ^^^^^ " guaranteed by that faithful voucher-a warehouse receipt, and th« money m a bag. . We^now come to the third and last ((Uestion, namely whether, supposing this contract by Demer/. to be in vio- lation of article 1927 C.C. Demers' agents cannot recover Taking lihat article as expressing the old law, it does not ^ so far as to say that the person wh(,pays a gamb- mg debt for another shall not recover frpSi ^ priS the amount that he has so. paid. This is not "claS under a gaming contract or a bet." . .There ca^ be no doubt that if money be advanced for an immoral or an illegal purpose, or even with an object which, under the circumstances, is improper as PothW says Mandat No^8, the money cannot I r^ "e^ Wk mg^debt withm this rule, it is necessary in the first^e > to show that a gambling debt is either immoral, illicit or under the circumstances, improper. The English statut^ 8 & 9 Vic, ch. 109, contains a disposition vei? similar to our article 1927 C. C. It is as follows : "AulZc" o^ agreements, whether by parole^or in writing, by way of isas. Maedoucall D«m«n. fijlj MMdoofall ' Dtntri. I^Jfi ^I'TUff ' '7f^' 1*76 MONTREAL LAW B£((&TS. / / " gaming or wagering, shall be null and void, and no sait " shall be brought or maintained in any conrt ^f law or " equity for recovering any sum of money or valuabh* thing alleged to be won upon any wager, Or shall have " beeo^ deposited in the hands of any persoii to abide the " event on which any wager shall have iMen made, pro- " vided always as to lawful game, sport, /pastime or exer- " oise." A great many cases have been decided under this section. In addition to the dkla of/ Hawkins, J., and Lindley,.T^, in the case Ifuickerv. Ht^r^y, quoted by appel- lants, I would refer to the case of Buttb v. Yetverton & Ker,{*) y^ecided in 1871. "A testator had requested a friend to bpi ir him on certain horses, and the friend had paid the amount lost by the bets. HeUi, that the request tojiet - implied authority to pay the bets if lost, and that\^the MendX^as entitled to prov^ ag^nst the testator's estate for the amount paid by huh. in respect of the bets." Again, "An agreement between a principal and his agent that the agent shall employ moneys of the principal in betting on horse races^ and pay over the winnings there- from to his prinQipal^ is not a contract by way of gaming or wageriiig rendered void by 8'& Vict., ch. 109, s. 18, nor is it illegal."— iJeextcm v. Be^ston.C) In another case, " the plaintiflT employed the defendant for a commission to make bets for him on horses. The defendant accordingly made such bets, and he ^received the winlpkgB from the persons with whom he had so betted. In an action by the plaintiff for the amount which tho defendant had so re- ceived : held, that 8& 9 Vict, ch. 109, k. 18, wiiich makes null and void all contracts by ^ay of wagering, did not apply to the contract between the plaintiff and defendant, and that, therefore, notwithstanding^^the statute, the plain- tiff was entitled to recover in respeGt of the bets which had been so paid to the defendant."— ^firu/g-er Sf 8avage.{^) In a very rj^ent case, " the plaintiff, a\turf commission agent, was employed by defendant to mal^e bets for him (») 24 L. T. 822, A. D. 1871. (») 1 Exch. Div. 13; 38 L. T.Rep. 700, (A.D. 1876.) (») 16 0- B. D. 363. ?i» V- ■iJ-^Hf ^ , » - *^^ 3 **f *i|^*- f^^^f f^% ^spft- ■ OOUBT Of QUEEN'S BENCR ,^^ 177 M, a. ?f ? ^ ^ u" • '""'"'«'• °' T«tl.r».ll,, paid ^ " Pa'a Held, by Bowen and Frv L TT /n..« »/» it ha« been dLt t ^IvIT,^^^ ^ 'l!^ f" "'^^' ^"^ «o far a« the aecisionVoi the ^^^^^^^^^ *^^^ anthoritv with n«, fha., ^nfiT^sh courts are of any Ff hi K ^ *'■*' "«*'"«* th« judgment / It ha«. however, been said, very correct! v/k . *u interpretation iriven hv *K« .• .v'^'^^^^t^X- that the r KT T * ^ *"® ^■^"'"ts m France of Art iqa-; h^ .f the c.ntr„t that h?il toT" ■' ""J"""" »' "■" • ' --„ any „„„ thZ ht p JcipJ^ Z!n«,^^"r' «-Wi«g i. not illegaSe f l^d^:^";;^ ^^ ^' oHiy due to pcitivolaw, it must be evident that hf ." I At the second argument here at. «fr«,f «"»'«te. (')13Q.RDiv.779. (A.D. 1884.) * • n26LlMi.,Ch.841. ; : , VoL.lL, Q.R i 18 i '■■'' l«M. MaodougaJl A Domanr. itn *• 1 ' ii I l'*Vl I . If if iff I "1,1 I'm' I'I IfiT i IWWt. Mui'iinufall A Dfinam. ^Ii= J 1 «l f , ^ii'f 17H MONTREAL LAW REroKTU. \ pfiidi'iitly of the object of the pUyt^im, C. dujeuc}i. 8, $ 1 No. 68 ; hut ailer rotiHidering all this.he rejectit the Roman layirK which ffivH th«> player the right to recover hack what hp ha8 loHt at play, b<'!cauiw^ they are not in force under the «'UHtQ|rt)f», and he ^oen on to say : " Nims n'avons dans rea " /irox\fnrt(i, tie Urn civile* mr le jeu, que ten ordoHnnncex de no* " roin, le» arret* et ri^frfements de fntlin- fait* en cr^rtUion. Or " tftu/es re* Ini* *c hornent «i rondamner le* Jeux^ «i jtronancer de " frro**e* amende* eontre eeux ipti d(mjtent i)jimer, et A d^ier " ravtion jHiur re qui a H^ ffigw^ nujeu ; mat* il n'ff n aucune " de re* lais qui donne nu.r perdan* loruju'U* MUU nuijtttr*. In " r(*/iHitioH flex stwime* quit* 'i nihil aliud est aunm ,,.nr..i *"2 'tmmuni, , I havH hoard ft >whiAni>r "^ which ««,„ de«r.bl« or .onvlk^ t ,K *" " '™""' A recent writer (Hardcrt IcTr, K •" """"™' v Lord Blackhum in . J^ 1 i "^ '' *" 'f"™ " *'«"• "f But thi. i.l„rw^ ^y a. eS'^;"'.'!"!""" •''*»"""'■■ ever, that c«« doe, a„t bear ojm^u a^'"^' ''""• What the Privy Conacil S M^t '*''"""' ">"• . Il^y ma.tdecid.„ the S'S ' ht"t„T''jL''?r'' ™d that in doing eo ther wonuS hfveUecided. ..thoritiee a. to the pleT^t^c^, ""^'™ *''<»'<='» like the Code Na JlC Th^f^" »[«'«?««»« . c«i. French writer. Sd«iJn,fo?,h^' wodd l«,k .t ference there miihtI»TT *''*''»'•«"«>■' of any dif. ^.i-tionof thrtt.x^^„^' "'^rvdJ"""''"'™'^ '- tIM. Ma4i(|ounl| I>*ai«n. I'i. 1 iij^H -.^^^M liN d t ^ ■ i3 9 'W ip.' t IHO MOHTftEAL LAW aElVBI& laM. M»v«»iH«r«. .1.1, Hi-- . ^< whoii • ■Utttto in incorporiiliMt in m code, lh« sUtala do<>ft iii[)t (MKiKt to b(^ int«r|>r«it«Nl m • Mtatnt«. Thin Gragorian, H(>rtnoK«>iiiAii, Th«*oH«>(r of Hlatut«N. X^** ii MH ^xi||inf]^ bt)twtt<*ii ih«) intorpretation oi NtutulcN in Sootlitnd and in Knfj^Und NiH>m> to bfl ont] of Nriip«>H tht> t*'Nt' oi' rloM^ aualyRiH. I rannot., howovflr, he* liuvt' tliui lh(« law hrnigne cim:t»sa iini xh «>xt<>nfl«N in Siotlnn8. An haH bt't^xi alr«>ady Naid,.th(>n> in no fundamontal diti'«>rfln«-o botw«t>n th<« ino ol' inlurprt>ting MtututuH uudtir the civil law aH rw.nivod in Frant«>, and nnd«>r tho common law of Hngland. Domat hiut tri>at«>d tho (|utMtion ^t somn lehg^th.'and h« dooH nol» prtttt^nd that thi^ Itoman law id not hiH guide. I think I have shoyvn concluHividy. that under th§ Roman law a Npivial reNtri«ti(m of ihe common law cannot, he extended. It \H not IcHH evident that a statute can only be e^ptended when it ruuR with the (Common law, and when the exten- Hiou iH to matter psrecisely similar in kind— ^/u mthne. genrr an Domat Kays, which is not the- case here. The case ol" Tjodouceur Sf Morasne has been referred to. It has no bearing on this one. The Chief Justice and I, dissenting, were df opinion : (1) that the note was for a bet, and that the plaintiff was not the bmrnjide Holder, but that the real plaintiff was a party to the bet ; (2) that the unpaid note was n6t payment. For both the reasons I have endeavored to explain I am to reverse with my brother Mon]k ; but the majority of the coiirt is to confirm. ' . ,i Monk, J. (dm) :^ . ' ' ^ This is a c^e which practically is of "considerable im- portance, and had Aot my learned colleague, Mr. Justice Kainsay gone so fa^ly into the law and facts of the (^e in dissenting with myse|f from the judgment about to ba rendered by the court, J should have considered it •di.. ■■*«l** 'V^ <^ ■ ,- . ., ti.-., -^J.^™* '-_%»»«. 1! (X)t)UT fir qVEBin BKNOU. ,g| MJdxr W« k J -I'l'" < iai»< 6hl- .t: ; tilh^t '^r"'^ """' • point i.undi.p„l?^a'.XSleAnjr°'' 'n" ' «itabli.hed that in i.nr.u.nrn . ^ " '" ''''"'"y they '.old the corn in r„*,-„ 'L n ""'r ""'< '"'"'"■Ity. i. contended, I d6 not ZT ^"""' ""■''«"<>»• U - "y other ,„a„tity, diiivirbr.r.r„ltt' dlT,' "'^ e ..poewMed ..owner.at the time K of 1^ " "' «r "OW Thie contention i. ;/'■ » 1 1824^*^ MONTBEAL LAW BEFORIB. I. ( -^ a- ' 111.' Maotloufatl Uemcn. 1^ ' " " «^ J, t^ J ,f net a ^ 4 « I 1' 5> ' 'p^ 'C f^.< %" time before the stipulated period of delivery, and then the appellants applied to Demers for . margins to protect themselves. These he refused to furnish, and as the price of corn continued rising, the appellants applied a second . time for margin^, and were again refused. Tbiereujpon they advised him that they woul(^ in brokers' language",,* close the deal ; they did so, and there Ayas a loss, for the recovery of which this action was brought. His first answer was. that he did not authorizeT to buy, and was not bound to furnish pargins ; and, secondly, strange to say, he coiyiends that this was a gambling transaction, and that they cannot 9laim the amount from him, Now, on the first point, surely the agents of Demers, if they had a right to sell on his account, were entitled to margins to protect themselves. Is there anything illegal iu this alter notification to Demers V Such a proposition is not only contrary to the usages of trade, but simply pre- posterous. If Deiners. goes into this kind of business, he knew what he was i^bout, and he knew, or should have known, that he was boiind to protect his agents • from loss. He refused t(\do so, and 1 am clearly of opi- nion th^t they had the rigjrt to protect themselves, and in this I cannot conceive that there is anything contrary to law. It is admitted that the accounts between them are and have always been con^ct. Upon this point there -i^ notand cannot be any dispute. But ii has been urged by Demers that this was a gambling transaction. He c<»nes> into Court and he hab the hardi- hood to urge his own turpitude against a fair, usual and legal transaction, and he seeks to git rid of a liability thus contracted by swindling his agents. \ It appears to me that this won't do. But let us see for a foment whether this is or is not a gambling transaction. I^ionfess I am utterly at a loss to understand what foundation there is for such a pretention. I feel perfectly satisfied t^at there exists no law either in England, France or thi^ country which would sanction such a view of this particular transaction. Bui, assuming this to be a correct view; of the law in regard to the matter in dispute, this, at the nw§Bt, would -' 'r-- V CJOORT OP Q0eEN«8 BEStCM. \'t m J^Uhe coi^act as be;;^een Demers^atid'the plrtv to whom he .old the 40.000 bushels of corn^W no otherl can be no dn„K?' -^k u J^'"' °^^*^ °^ ^^^^^ there hT, count ' il ^ '^' ^""^ '' ^»«^»"<»' F'**»«« - jni* country, unless it were shown that Macdona.«n tract Ihis 18 not only not proved hn* iu^ , Z 3; T""*"" """■ "O"'*! '««i™ « check - jaagment oil the Court below should be revarmH .ij .i.i. tieyppellau^. should be indemuified tTelritr ^'"' Caoss, J. MoS IX^'' M.ed«ugall Bro... brokers, /of vmce oj yuebei The amount-elaimed is *1 2a<> QQ +i.. «.;^ bem d.to Ae 12th June. 1882. ' A"" •uueo. were kU gambUng tianeacUous, ud t^t the IDM. Maodnaiall Uainani. >ii' III •I'lB =7T nf :ili Kli' 184 MONTREAL LAW REPORT& l') ! IMS. Maedouiall Oemen, w it X'' 1 (» ifi "i^-^"'- claim was based on gaming contracts, for the recovery whereof the law refused a remedy. He further pleads a d^fensie en fait. "' Bought and sold notes, statements, accounts and other . documents produced, show that -the parties commenced their dealings in October, 1881 ; they were few in number; and exclusively in stocks, up to the time of an under- standing being come to, resulting from the following correspondence : — - On the .28th December, 1881, Demere writeg. to Mac- dougall Bros., making this enquiry : " Do youio^anything *' on Chicago exchange on grain, pork, et^ in options ? "If you do anything in those options please give me, " your conditions and charges of commissions." On the 29th December, 1H8], Macdougall Bros, answer, "Deal in Chic^o } margin 10 per cent. ; commission, " wheat \ per cent, on the deal and 10 cents per tierce for "lard." / ■ As part of the evidence there is produced, dated at intervals between the 17th November, 1881, and the 3rd of May, ,1882, inclusively, twenty-five sold notes and twenty-five bought notes of stocks and produce negotiated by Macdougall Bros, for Demers, the bought notes cor- responding generally with the sold notes as to number of shares and quantities, the only difference being in the price, so that in general ench purchase could be set off against a corresponding sale, the one balancing the other, as to number or quantity— differing only as to price. There is, besides, a bought note for one single transaction in October, viz., for the purchase of fifty shares Montreal Telegraph stock. There are also produced seven statements showipg seven purchases and seven sales of the same subject's, whether of stock or of produce, showing each sale set off against a corresponding purchase, a balance of profit or loss being struck in each case of such double transaction as so effected, all occurring between the 9th of February and the 3rd of May, 1882. Also, accounts current showing the transactions in the same light. The bought and sold notes and other fouchers are all -iil^rMts-, »-, «»»«^. •'^S^AHW- OOUy OF QUEEKTB BENCH. , . - 185 which i. acknowledged by MLff^r" """i" *'''""'• « iBltcrii, which th^vlix ^ ™ ™ ">" 27th in I jii vi;aK.n tliey besides sav : '• W«cfi4..ti k^ u -, ' " mnsJS^ ; I™J2° -'hont a margin, and J.n "Kminwh™ most „T„T ^'"'™''<> y»" "todts and " the ^IZ " ? ""''" ''""" '""'« «'o»«d out Demers: " b^iS' ai.^f ^*:^««^«» B'-os- telegraph to " it or close deal ^ ^ '''""*' '^"^"*'^"^^- W^" ^^^ -nd " Advisable." ^ ^ ' .^'^'''f' ^<*''» ^^ y«» think to^"^;^ ^^^:? J^y. M::^o«,all Wwrite " you. we cover dyour ^rn to'dl^ T '/ >"'' ^'°"» " wire. We will send 1? I ^ "^^ *^^'«"^ y**'* ^y the same d^t^ Ift^ ^^I ^"^ "' *^^ '" '^"'^ ^ in their own nalZVp:Xl o"^^^^^^ ^ ^"^^* "'^^^ 40,000 bushels July corn ThirKr^* '*'"*'"'** «^ aseriesproducedby Demerson I "^^* "^*' ^^ ^"« ^^ ness for MacdougalfS Snl ti' '""^'"'^'^^^ «« - wit- hini. " Not authorized TM ^^ *PP^*" ^""^'^ hy tion taken brhTm In his ll^ Tl''^"^' ^^*^ *^« P««- his Bvidence (selp 8 Hi 'f, *^" ^^"^ ^P"^' »°d in On fKl eli^ /w ' *' «PPe"ants' appendix ) Un the 8th of May, Macdouffall fi«!l i , account to Demers, cldmi^nS Q» '"'J^ *^"" On the ITtK i/r *"^™™« »l,J39.99 now sued for. ^ "i^olltl J' ?^""'''^"*««^<>*Kem as follows- "T„*' r -|>ly to yours of the 8th and m I .egret to saTthat j Maoitoacaii I>«iaeni. -* ,ps^. f ' MMdoosall 'd-': ■M — /■■! ■4- 186 . MONTREAL LAW RBPOttm " cannot give you my money away. I beg to refer you to " my letter of the 22nd of April. Had you held com sub- " ject to my order, you would have been paid sam^ as New " York stocks ; should you wish to go further I am pre- " pared to meet you. I have my information taken and "good." Three letters of Alexander Qeddes, of Chicago, an* produced, addressed to Macdougall Bros,dated respectively the 18th and 16th of Abril and the 12th of May. That ol the 13th of April acknowledges a remittance ot #2,000 of margins, advises the pi^chase of 10,000 bushels of July corn, quotes July corn at 70c. and anticipates lower prices. That of 16th of April still predicts a reaction Cor lower prices. That of, May 12th quotes July corn at lower prices, say 73|c. I make some qudtations from the oral testimo^hy : Mr. Meredith, the chief clerk of Macdougall Bros., When asked what the balance sued for consists of, answers : '*lt is the " losses on the Ghicago transactions, less the profits made " on other transactions. Appellants' FacEiim, p. 21, 1. 14; " Q. Did the plaintifis actually pay these losses to ihe ' "agent in Chicago? A. Yes. L. 17. Q. Were you 4a- " thorized to buy these 40,000 bushels of wjrn by the de- " fendant Demers ? A. We notified him to cover, that is • to buy," or we would close out. He did not put up the "> margin, and we therefore closed out the account. P " 22, 1. 27. There was a. debit against him (fhe defend- "ant) of about $1,000. P. 22, 1. 10. Q. What was the "result of these transactions? A. A loss of |1,787.60. " P. 20, 1. 6. Q. All these transactions were to be settled " by the differences between the price of buying and th«, " price of sellings A. No ; he could have delivered if he " wished." P. 23, 1. 29. ' ; Mr. Esdaile, broker, at p. 24, 1. 33 ; " The Chicago corres- " pondent of a Montreal broker always looks to the Mou- " r al broker to see that margins are kept up, and I know " in my case they woiild hold me personally responsible if " margins are not kept up," p; 26, 1. 3. "If the firm of " brokers or correspondents at Ghicago wires that margins *% / ^Ul fe.to^«.>.«««t,. '♦ OOtTRT DP QtJEEN-S BENCT^ 18t Mont™., ba„, ,^^„^,,j, ^^^_^^.j^y ^•^ ^^ oWthe Uemors 8tat(4 in his evidenfce n 14 1 i^^r . ^ "theletterol£A0.7fk a ., p P *'♦.*■ 9ft I received " then and dilL./P"^' ^'"^ ^'^ "°* *»»« statement " icdved a ir ™f ^ "'^ ^"'■'*^«' remittances. I had received a ««itemett,t from them before, statinir that 1 had 110 margjn with them when I ha.! I 7k t bul'irrqXi:^::;:'r "■r:,"- -go""'"- for ^e «.d not .tt "ene^'T""?; '"t '' "" **"" ""'^ bv »fr l.'.j .,f •"■"""" "'nnn of brokera, as mentioned .liirhl^T^T ''"° ""Ploy-d, his «>,» .t bhicgo wTuU •™Xrr "^"""^ ""'"r M'cOo-gall Bros irt'':. Ft/' -^^^^ ■ l«'*n »et ««• IL^rt^ir ."" !'"''«»" »««■» to have 'ocal answer Kh. !ff . .J.if """^ ''«8''"» "■ "q"'- •i if hTv^sh. ^ evif . ^'" ^""" ™"'^ "«" deliver-- mdersZdin tk^ f '^ '■"P'y'"8.i» a* terms of the 8 yioinerences. No tune or place for delivery. *,' MMdoanll Uainara. ^A ( 1 1 1 .. ' 1 , 1 fWPW ::r *'% "''^w^rr^ HMdounlt Umnan. •-kr '■ /■• V,.> in. I-., II / 1 8 8 - M0NTML4L ^W REFORm _. ^ was mentioned in the bought or sold notes, btit Jnly corn must have meant corn deli^entble in July. They weni dated at Montreal and in ordinary course would call for delivery there. The particular transaction which comes in at the close of the account to turn the balance against Demers, wa^ni^i follow^; — Demers was at the time seller, through Mat;- dougall Bros., of four parcels of July corn of 10,000 bushels each, in all 40,000 bushels, on which they considered they had not sufficient margin. They consequently on the 2nd May telegraphed to Demers to furnish more margin, and on thtKfsame day telegraphed to Qt^ddes, their Ohicago agent, to buy corn for a cover or set off*, to protect them against the sales. They demanded no specific amount and allowed Demers up delay to furnish additional margin. They must even then have had some margin if reckoned on the price at which the corn had been sold, because the May purchases, efi^ted to balance Demers' sales, {show _ a loss of |l,73t.50, whilst the balance claimed oh the .^whole account is only $1,289.99, and as they seem to have consented to hold over after the sales, it is to be pre- sumed, that for the time, and until com began to rise iu .price, theyv were satisfied with their margin. Unless satisfied at that time they would not have consented to hold over as they did. That margin depended on the general state of accounts at that time between them and Demers, of which no statement has been furnished. They could not arbitrarily defeat Demers' right without showing that they were entitled to some specific amount of margin and allowing him a reasonable opportunity to furnish it, They telegraphed Demers on the 2nd of May, making an indefinite demand for margin, and on the sam« day tele- graphed their Ohicago agent to cover, These two acts appear to have been simultaneous, aiid <>n the 3rd of May they furnished Demers with a bot^ht note in their own names, dated at Montreal, for 40,000 bushels of com to re' place the corn only deliverable in July. On these issues and facts, and the evidence so adduced, the Superior Oourt was of opinion that the balance so sued -AM '"A,: COTOT OF QUiaiTB BUTCH. jgg Th. .ppe,l now under con.id.r.ti„B hu tnieB tdw„ Kr.t whether ilhe bd.nce sued for. if Jno.feraed in nriue of „», or moreg.™i„^ oontraci. for whicTthelw deBle» • remedy ; and Secondly, whether MacdonRall B»o8 were in.(i«,^ ■ th,.r P«reh«e of the «,0«» t:..hr:f Tn C ^^n:": .nd .t the r..k of Uemer., „d ,h„,, .( w. ^.k ^^ ^-^i^^' It " "'""'•'"■'^ -•"-«■'">"■ flnctn.S.:of2 s«°h :,*:h™:i:;"!;rti'.T'ttr"''' ""•' "»' '»'<^' i"^..,n„r doe. t^rrj^ : r„rth":l ifT; t " m~lelor,en„a» lran«ac,ti„„. intended to b^ftS T parties, that they were not really carried mi* «- 1 P..W, bnl c«ne fron. nnfore.«,^ 'Zt TL^eS^T difference.. B„t if in contemplation oTthe ™w 1^ were at their inception intenild toV ''l,^^'" ."'•^ tact, and this la correct, bat it mav be ao omvL I j ?u .pp«oi.tionof the proof toahow ftat theyZ^JSl f p.rp«,e different from what they pnrwrt^ Z^' T »v«,ig„ attribnte of the tribunal Z^^ril.V "■.' >4- \ — i. ! - , iJ^i ■ ■ Ipl IjEjJi t ■ ;, i|(^ ^^^^P^lB I # iijii r ^ mm III I:- ■4,. ^■3 *■»;'' "t^www -^ "\ 190 M ORTftEAI. LAW REFORm MmnIovmII !i! Ih^ coniiidtTtHl gambling tranHat'tioiiN. I agroo with th<> judgti of the court h^low in the inference he huM drawn from the evidence in this caite, that the surrounding cir* «^umHtan<;e«i lead to the con.o«.d h.v» b«,„ ..lied npon to ,.rod,... the „ oH h2 "»ly l>.rty whom Demer. wonid h.ve ..-.lied upon to n.ke good the profit No prindp.. would h.t ITn .^ l«>rent. It „, therefore, between then, two p,rtie« „ 01 " well™ ,t. ,on,eq,,e«.«,. For .11 th.t .ppe.„ to?h, oontr.ry the ..1„ „f ™„ h„, ^^„„ ^f^J^^^^^ B™.. lhem,elve., .nd pr.,.lfc.||y it w« ,o. ., they w^« U-e p.r.,e. who t«,k the ri.k « ™g.rd. Demer." 7Z oU derk i r!."^ the K„.r.nte, to be put into the h.nd! prob.We th.t M.i-doug.11 Bro... through their «,ent .t Ch.«wo o, otherwi.e, m.y h.vo m«le .1. „d pS«« or Deme™ „ they cWm to h.™ done, »d th.t tLrw^ h^f ,K "°°" ""'' '™' P""""^" «"d re.1 ^IhT m.ke proofof .nch tnmMction. m«I h.Te lhemielT«i to ' bl«ne for not doing „. It i, not .hown th.l they nmdb «.y contr«=U for Demer. with jobber. ouUiide. or L^! Uter,! cntr«t whatever for him ; but. if er™. tte OMiiMihl4>, lK>ni(>rM would liMik to them for pay- MU'nl IMl w«ll an tlit^ rH<-«*p(iuu of th« «<>ru. Th«' n-al miMU ing of the parti«*M N«Htma to havi* b«f«in, that » HptMuUtivo Nal^ of so much corn ahouldlM iniuU* hy l)«un«r« in hojXfH of a riiut in th«^ niHrk<*t, and »i«-ordinff (o him, it ahoul'd rnmain Mold until au opiMtrtuuity o«-( urr<'d of covtirinjif it by a pun^haiM) at a lowur liguro, and aicordiuK to Mat- douKall Hroi., until their holding it Hold tuttail^d on th«rn t(K> gniat li rink of liability in u rising market, douming that thi^y lia chanr«>N <»f loHH. Ntuthor party coutcmplatnd u ri^al trauNat-tion, which waM probably tho rcuMon of thii 27('ivil('0"' ■••olu du mot il n! i '^" illicitodau. I. .on, ,(,. ^ '"^^ n?and«t.<,ui la perte une fois coiuiomm6e /1\ la V <. - (•> 18 I. C. Jur. 81. Vou II, Q. B. :3I ;:2 ^tmm ■ «T ■-^ii \ •••*■" \ Ifii -^HBf'} I < \ • W ^A|fcSp,Jfe»Vil>«. ?»w^ ♦* 1 ■sy-"F^^ 'r ^ HONTKBAL I^' % IIm4«i«b1I EPORTE ioit f •1 ■u ^^1 u ',p . I v' ; i' 4\ 1 Si£ ' f^ m . '^ ) ^Ml 1| J ; 'g ^ 1 i. ' 'P* ' m jfcl : i;Ei-'-.l._ 'Ha nnitl doinii it niMton tp^itrif p«7#^ Bi 4' " fiMi Atrt tdmia A »nTQ«r «ii« dvMM iii''rm«nt approuv^ par U doctrine «tt aoiTin i»b " J\iriaprad<»no«, il faut a'y rattachor d'autant plaa qa« df- " oidtfr le (jontraira cc aaralt tromp«r 1« Toa da la loi, fl| " dana In caa oi^ oII<* n^ donno aarnna aotton fourn^jpi^n " moyon tocgoara fatiU* do I'Mudfr im doiinane % wMk^ " qa'«n(re daa Joueura auiqtiAla toiit» action r6< ji»r«»q\Bi% " intardite on tiera pourrait m> placor qui participant au " Jta commo intormMiairo viendrait plua tard aona 1« pr^ '* text© d« paycmoiitHofftfcltt^ Ala df-rhargc ft I'acqalt da " perdant at;tionnar c« derniwr urt juiitic«." , Moliot. p. 889, No. 486 : " La nulltt6 du tnaroh« A term» " flctif 6tant radi«ale, d« m«m« que toutea le« nuUit^a qai " ont leur Rourcjiei dana un motif d'ordr« public, M\ en rt* " anlte qu'aufjMilp dnii partioa n'«Bt r«f uo k pniMl^r oanit u<> " march6 In |mncip» d'ane action utile contro I'autrn par " tie, ni 1'agent de change contro aon client acheteur ou " yendew, ni c« deraier contre I'agentde change, ni enfin *' I'agent ^t change contre aon confVire acheteur ou ven* " deur et Vice veraa." It haa bey^n held generally in the Bngliah caaes under aeo. 18 of the statute 8 & 9 Vic, ch. 109. that an ag«nt employed to malce a gaming contra<»t may do ao pnrauani to ^ia inatmctiona, and in the ovenyt of, Iosh may pay the loaa and recovet the amount togrincipal, alao t|ti^HHlktionR t||0plt, imply an authority to pay the hMMHost^lthough made in the agenrt own name, and that such authority, the .bet being in t;he agent's name, will become irrevo- cable, if, by refusal to pay, the agent is subjected to damag« >r. serious inconvenience and loss in his own basine88. The Ehglish statute is more stringent than our code. It reitfEjiA follows : " All contracts or agreements, whe- the^y ^urol or in writing, by way of gamblin«r or :i ,.^.,. oooiT Of Qviiif^ mmcB -*-5^ 106 T^*^ *^^- •nit sIuIIIm Wifrtng. .hdl b. nslt «4 iroid. «.. ^ .„„ ^, ^ _ ^►rought or m^inuinml in m, c«art of Uw or ^qxlUv for »-^- rw5or«riii|r ...y .am of moiw, or vslMbki thing lOWiid^ '''^ to b« won upon mft^y wagw," T ,^'"^"* % •»Ij! MONTREAL LAW RBF0RT6. ■4i , However gpreat the reapect which «hoald be conceded to the majority in this case, I think it will be admitted that the reasoning of the dissenting judge is very strong ; it is, moreover, in accord with the French authorities, and especially with the view bythem taken that what a principal cannot lawfully do himself, he cannot legally authorize Ik agent to do for him. The language held by Mr. Justice Story, in his work on Agency, $ 839, might, I think, have some application here: "There " can be no reimbursement or contribution among '! wrong doers, whether principals or agents." In the case of Reed v- Anderson the points involved TIo not ever seem to have bejen subjected to the test of t highest tribunal, and far as it goes it does not so^' me to go the length of ruling the present case. 'S^4^a^fi0 gave no authority, to employ an agent in Chicago, he had no contract with that agent, the contracts he made were with Macdougall Brothers, and in their name down to the last disputed one of the purchase of the r£0,000 bushels of July com, whereof the bought note is produced, their authority ever to have made this contract was denied from thi^ first, they were in fat^t forbidden to make it. Demers' position is consequently stronger than if the an* thority had existed and had been revoked before the broker had paid a liability which he had incurred for his principal, and no case has been cited going so far as to hold that a broker whose authority had been revoked after he had made a gaming contract for his principal and before he had fulfilled it, could persist in fulfilling it against the will of his principal, and maintain an action for indem- nity against his principal, imless hii refusal to pay would subject him to pecuniary loss or serious inconvenience beyond the mere inconvenience of being sued by his agent on a contract that could not be enforced I take it that, according to otir system, if there was a liability incurred by MacdongsJl Bros, for Demers, Demers would be liable to answer to their suit as being their g-amiU, and if there was no liability, there would be no need of such recourse. ■ ■ X eOtJM at QtEBN*S BfiNCtt. i9d On the second question, viz. : Whether Macdougall Bros. : vm. were jnstiHed in their purchase of the 40,000 bushels of Mwdoogrii July com. As a general rule, a transaction made for an- D.5.n. ^ other without authority would be a nullity, ft is, how- ever, permitted to one person to act as ih^ne^^forum gestor of another to do for him a useful busine^v to his profit or advantage. It is argued that the purchase in question was in the interest of Dem'ers, and that it was justifiable by the usage of brokers and by the circum- stances of the case. It is not shown that it was in De- mers' interest. He conten^lated the value of cOm in the month of July, at which time he conceived he could fulfil his sales at a low price and have a profit oh them. The com to close the deal was bought 8rd May at a high price after which time it is proved that it fell off in price, but ■ - It does not appear what it could have been got for in July It was purchased on the theory that Demers had not the com and was un^e or unwilling to fulfil his contracts. The suit was brought on the 12th June, 1882 on a claim founded on the close of the deal in May be- fore the intended speculation had ripened into perform-' ^ ance. It is, therefore, m^^^n that the deal wtis closed in Demers' interest. As to its being according to the custom of the brokers^ as spoken of by Mr. Esdaile, " to close out the option whether long or short as the case may be." This may very well be a custom sought to be established by the brokers much in their own inter^t :• it does not follow if !f 'l"??;?*^^ ^y **^' ^^ *^« contrary, it at once defeats the fulfilment of the contract in the sense in which It purports to have been made, and introduces the gamb- Img element by a balancing by difference in price The pretence for doing this is a supposed default to fulfil a contract and a legitimate power conferred by that default A resale of a subject purchased for default of payment is more readily understood than a purchase to protect from the consequences of a sale, because the seller is supposed opowess oi to be able to procure within the required time the property he ha* sold. THe pretence, no doubt is m m * I I T 'T T 'cWi'*T^fe advance)! at the initiation of the transaction ; and that it should bdvkept up to that figure, if required by the fluctuations oK the market. I don't think this is proved ; hut suppose iK were, what are the legal conse- quences of failing to do \o in the case of sales ? In the first place, the broker should certainly state spedfically the amount required, and I should say give notice of when it is required, but in fejise this does not bring the money, what are the legal coljsequences ? Not an unau- thorized purchase of a like amWnt. •'The sale must have been made either with theint^tion of a delivery or it was a. sale to be closed by a deal The first proposition would imply an obligation to deliver, but only when the contract matured — the last #a speo^ilative transaction, to be settled by difference. The first.Yniy, is the one the legal consequences of which require to be considered. In an ordinary sale for future delivery, thfe seller only makes himself liable for damages for non-deilvery at the time promised. If he gets the broker to comract for him in his (the broker's) own name, and addsVthe subsidiary contract of undertaking to indemnify hixmfrom chancel of liability in case of a change in the valueWthe article dealt in, the consequences of failing to keep tU) a margin may authorize the broker to expend money to protect the interests of his principal by himself paying foAand fur- nishing to the purchaser the article sold, when me iime arrives for the maturity of the bargain, but it cannot au- thorize! a purchase by anticipation to 'interrupt thev ope- ration/of the contract and defeat the vendor's expectfuion of a pfrofit at the time he has calculated on. If the ci tract had matured, the broker would have a perfect rig! to pmtect himself by purchasing for his own protection. If it /had not matured, he might still do so at his own risk,/ and if the seller failed to produce the article sold whep tKe time for delivery arrived, apply his pur- chase in liquidation of the sale for which he was bound ; or if he liquidated and closed the deal by anticipa* tion, he would be protected in doing so if he coold show that the operation had proved to be in the interest -■^^ iW the article iA*"',T,"-'"#.'- ^^m^l^w^ OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Ml as foil "Di or *^'_^ benefit of the seller. It is quite true, that if his baigi|in had been for a margin, to be kept up, he could - bn the failure of such margin, take whatever steps thjlaw might allow him to claim that mar^n, or perhapsMemand security, but he could not, on legal prin- ciples, do an authorized act at the risk of his principal, such aW/buying by anticipation to cover a possible future loss. Thisfview is corroborated by the authority of a book cited ai the argument by the counsel for the appellants, viz., l^tollot. Bourses de Commerce. As to allowing re- sales o ■ purchases as % set off, it would seem from the numbers cited, 182 and 188, to favor the appellants' pre- tensioijs, but by reference to the conclusion of No. 181, it would jappear that the remarks in Nos. 182 and 188 apply exclusikrely to " Marches au comptant." Again No. 184 is ^ws r — as les marches 4 terme si la remise donn^ est insuf- " fisanle, soit que la sommese trouve trop faible par suite ' d'rmf provision erron^e, soit que les valeurs remises " comtiie argent aient subi une baisse depnis, il n'est pas^ " doutjux que I'agent de change qui k l'6ch6ance du terme " a levfe et paye tout le prix des effets achetes, ait une ac- " tion m remboursement de l^xc6dant contre son client. " Sur ^rme arrive k son ex^utipn, on.doit y proc4* MMdMgkll Daman. *f> >' '^ '■•■vl^; 808 MONTREAL LAW REFORT& MMitonfaU '* Daman. ill ' « <■ , ^ "^ 1 .. "■ • * '*! A . ■a iC •a 23 ■^ " der de la mime manidre que poor le marchi au comp- " taut. Voir No. 152. Lea raisoiis de decider quant an " droit de revente sont encore identiqnes. Le client qui • " a foumi une couverture mime insuffiaante a d& pr6vQir •' qu'au moment de I'ezdcution du march6 k terme il &u- " dra qu'il remit le prix entier de I'achat. Mais avant " I'dch^ance la situation est diffdrente, car la fiansse peut i 'Vfucceder h la^baisse et reporter les effets achetis an " prix du maTch6 dans Tintervalle du temps qui doit s'.6- y, " couler depuis jusqu'au jour du terme. Aussi cette ma- , " tti'ire de procSder qu'on appelle en langage de Bourse " exiaiter le client, a 6t6 critique a-yec raison dans le cas < " dont nous venons de p^Ier, alors mdme que I'agent de " change avait fait op6rer la revente par la Ghambre " Syndicate. Lies actes .de la Ghambre Syndicale, quelle " que soit la garan^ie morale qu'elle prdsente n'obligent " point les tiers, et le rdglement intdrienr dei la compagnie " dont I'agent de change ezcipait dans cette espdce, ne " leur est pas plus opposable, parce qu'il n'a point 6t6 " sanctionnS par I'autoritg ; il ne permet m6me la revente *' de piano qu'en cas d'inex6cution aa jour 'de I'Schdance. " G'est oe qui a 6t6 jag6 notamment dans les affaires " Fonmier et Lechat. Pnisqne I'agent de change s'est " contents d'une somme d6termin6e qui devait dans sa " pensSe remplir approximativement la difference possible " entre le prix d'a^hat et le prix de revente, il -doit s'a* " dresser -&• la justice i)our obtenir Tautorisation de reven- " dre avant le terme convenue." He, however, cites an arr^ dans la Premidre Qhambre de la Gour ImpSriale de Paris that had decided that a "Sim- ple Bommation faite au client " was sufficient for a mise en demeure, of which he, of course, disapproves. If this view of MoUot should prevail as regards a re^sale, how much more should it operate against a re-purchase in case of an unexpired term for the delivery of effects sold? I think his reasoning is most satisfactory, in faoiconplu- ' siv^ on this point. . "^ _ Tfaii^ auth'br, at No. 454, goes on to g^ve the j^ispra* dence on the subject of the ntarchi$ d terme, which are con* ^ ■mi^^i!*miFT f OOUBT OF QUKBN's BENCH. 208 iidered gaming transactions, citing the celebrated arrH 6f Forbin Janson, analogous to the one now under consider- ation, he conclndes by No. 466 : -^ "En rfesumant les dficisions judiciaires dbnt nons venonsderendrecomptejngent: lo. Que les marchfcs k terme snr les effets publics qui n'ont d'autres objets que les diflPfiy^nces de cours doivent fetre reputes jeux de Bourse et ujimiils comme 6tant d6pourvus de cause et de r6alit6 comme contraires aux loix, k I'ordre et la morale pnblique- 2o. Que I'absence du d6p6t rend presumable le d6faut de cause et de r6alit6. 80. Que les jeux de Bourse ne peu- vent engendrer aucune espdce d'action utile devant les tribunaux au profit de qui que ce soit, ni du client contre I'agent de change ni de celui-ci contre son client,ui de celui- d contre son confrere ou les ayants droit de ce dernier." I I am, therefore, of opinion that the balance sought to be recovered in this case is claimed in virtue of contracts proved to have been made between Macdougall Bros, and Demers, and to have been gaming contracts intended not to be executed according to their literal tenor, but by liquidation, setting one set against another set, and settling by differences of price, and that any contracts or disbursements of money that may have been made by Macdougall Bros., in furtherance, of said gaming con- tracts, of which I think there is. not a sufficient proof, must themselves have been made under contracts of the same nature, viz., gaming contracts. That MacdougaU Bros, have not shown that they were authorized or had a right to purchase jfor account of or at the riskimd charges of-said'Demers on the Srd of May, 1882, 40,000 bushels of July corn, as charged in their accounts filed in this ca^se, md have^failed to show that if said corn had been, kept 86Id nntiVthe month of July, 1882, they would have suffered any loss thereby, or have been entitled to claim any balance of account from said Demers, consequently that the judgment of the Superior Court, dismissing the action of the said Maodongall Bros, should be confirmed liMdoncUl DmMn. ''mi ^^1 'i I' ■IK ■i Vi'l f 20r MONTREAL LAW REPOBia LtTMqn* fnt p faites par lesavuat juge Oasault, dans cette cause, peuvent s'appliquer ftu cas de rintim6. ' ' -J ^^ ' * DoBION, 0. J. :— - , ' C"^ This' case has given as some troubW. l)aigneaa leased a house to Levesque from July, 1884. Part of it ' was occupied by another tenant, and as to this part Le- vesque's lease was only to begin on 1st Noven|ber. At the same time Daigneau sold Levesque his stock of gro- ceries in the leased premises, and bound himself not to carry dn' business in that neighbourhood. By the lease, Daigneau also bound himself to clapboard the house which was then in an unfinished condition. On the 2l8t • October the workmen commenced the work. They put tarred felt under the clapboarding, and this emitted a disagreeable odour which penetrated into the premises occupied by Levesqae as a shop, and injured his groceries. The work was finished on the 81st October. Levesque,. without patting Daigpieau en demeure to remove the felt, (|)^y«v. Legale, 44L (*) 6 Q. L> R 806. OOtTR OP QDEKirs BKNCB. Mt f^^ d6f6ndeurB 1 -> . • brought an •ctton to nmlHatft the Ia^m, and also claimed damages for injury to hia gooda by th« amoll of Iho tarred- felt. The Court in the district of Ottawa diHrnissed the action, but this judgn^nt was set aside in Eeview. and Levesque was allowed |^00 damag«)i« for the iiyury oansod to his goods by the smell of the tarred felt. Th« part of the action by which he aski^d damages because Daignoan ^ had continued to carry on bu-iiuess, was dismissed^ Dai- gneau has appealed from the part of the judgment "^ich condemned him in damages, and urges that the other party gave him no notice of damage and made no com- plaint ; and that th^ paper is oi^ the description in ordi- nary use for the purpose. \ The evidence is somewhat conflicting, btit there can be no doubt that the weight of testimony is to the effect that the goods were injured by the smell. There is no proof of ahy mise en demeure except the action. ' If the de- ' fendant (now appellant) h^d pleaded, " It is true the tar- " red felt is iiyurious, I will remove it," he would be in a much better position before this Court. But he pleaded that there was no damage done to the goods, and it is clearly proved that there was damage. The CJourt of Re- view cancelled the lease, and granted damages. As to the cancellation of (he lease I do not thi^fc there is any diffi- cultyr bu£ I would not have thia cise taken as a prece- dent for holding that the misk m demeure is not required before bringing an action for the recovery of dwnages. If the appellant had pleaded as he shpuld havef doiu»^f offering to remove the tarred felt, Vor m^W woi^ aotv have been disposed to grant .^idWa^t^ As to ihe amount of damages there is considerable jdi&culty. If I had been sitting in the Court below, I would not have given as much as $200, but seeing thit the amount is not very large, the Court is of opinion not to disturb the judg- ment on a mere question of appreciation of damages, and it is therefore coiifirmed. —■ Judgment confirmed. Sobidoux Sf Fbrtin, attorneys for the appellant. lioehoH 4- Champagne, attorneys for the respondent (J.K.) ^ MM D«lan«M :■¥ •A* •i k \n 908 jmrniAi law -. Umy 26, 18M . Cortm DoRioM, 0. J.. MONX, Gbom, Babt, JJ. THE MONTHEAL OITY PASSENGER RAILWAY C(3 •, ^ ' {Dtfendanti in Court Mow), '. ^%i i Appiixantb. 41fD ^ ROBERT IRWIN {PUUtUiff in Court Mow), - . Rkhpondknt. Carrier — BttponttbUitjf — /tynry to Fauengtr — Onu$ ProbamHr |In.n:— Thftt a fionifMny niiKaK«(l in thn onnvfiyaiu»« of p«|MQgif|(,i|- rasponaibUt for itijiiruM MUMUinixl by a paiHiunK«r wliil« twii^'f in tb« cnnipAny'a v4hlclo, iinieaa It beproved by tli« compAnirtlfiflt)! WM intpoaaible for them to prerant Um accident ^ \ The appeal was from a judgn^ent runderad by ih« Superior Court, Montreal, Doherty, J., (;;pndeinning tho appellants to pay respondent the sum of $226 damages. Tait, Q. C, for the appellants. ilrcAtdo/c/, for the respondent. The opinion explains the case. Cross J. ;— - • Irwin brought the present action against the City Pas- senger Itilailway Company -for damages alleged to have been sustained by him in consequencd of one of their ve- hicles, on which he was a passenger oit the 10th of March, 1884, being driven with unusual speed round the cor- ner formed by St. dttherine and Bleury Streets, and down Bleury Street, where th(^ driver lost control of the horses, and by the violence of their career caus^ the tongue to become detached from the carriage. As 'a consequence it came vitfleutly in collision with a tiee in the street, whereby IrVirin was forced with violence against the front of the vehicle and w»8 causi^ serious injury which he estimates at 1^00, all of which he alleges was caused by the incompetence, fault, and gross negligence of the ser %■ f V. -OntM Probandi, *, Th« Company pl,.«do'a that th«y Uml Ih,«,i KuiUv of no ..o|rI,g«„.« what«v,,r i„ th« matt«r ; th.t th« «.u,idflnt WM due to th« had condition of th« ro«d« »t that ««a.„n of th« y«ar. which th« (Jity Corporation had n^gUtod to k««p m r«p.ir,~that Irwin himmdf waa in fault, and jfu.ltjr^ ,n,prud«nc« by ntanding up although r«c,u«.ted to k.q> h,H m,at by thi* .-onductor; that if h« ha«l don« ao h« would not huvn iHvn inJuriKl. and that h« did not HaH«?r. the damage hu pretended. ^^*^*T^' ""^ '*** J°**«" °*' ^»'« «up«,rior Court a'pi^alld. *''' '*""«"• '""* ''''' ^^™»'-y »»- ,ai. Hhown that Irwin re^ed a oon«deraWe ahock. hat he wan bruiaed. and hin noae wa*. badly hurt it bled ' »r«ely ; ,t waa dreaaed in a druggiafa ahop. and alter. wardH attended to at leaat on two occaaiona by Dr Howard, the cHeot whereof waa to confine Irwin li the houae for aome time, and u alight permanent mark waa left on that feature. The road waa proved to be in rather a bad condition «« .8 almoat inevitable at that aeaaon, and the manufac- urera of tl^e vehicle prove that it waa aufficiently strong- ly made and of good materials. The driver. Deaormeau. attributes the fault to a hole in the road opposite a little Htreet leading to St. Patrick'. Church, aad says his speed was not unusually fast. - -M The Superintendent produces the iron bolts that served M fastening to the shafts which were broken ; he states that they were perfectly aound and of the best iron There is contradictory evidence as to the speed at which the vehicle was going. Atkin. a fellow passenger, swears that m going round the corner, that is of Ste. Catherine and Bleury Streets. " we were going at an unusually ra- pid pace ; also we proceeded at a very rapid pace down Bleury Street. I perceived that the horses were at one - side of the sleigh, and I saw that the accident was ine- vitable, so I got hold of the strapa in my hand, and we Vol. n, (^Bi »* InAa. M A >«r i^^ ' 1 Srv 1^ ■^< C# <*M » p " r 1 210 ".^■fiTK^-J^ MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. C. p. K Co. IrwiD. «r •*ii* -•rtS*' %-*«' ■ H ««k li iC f. ■m ^{M 1 1 K " dashed against a tree, and the whole of the passengers " were piled in a heap at the bottom of the car, and when " we righl;ed ourselves it was observed that Mr. Irwin " had sustained a very severe injury." ^ Admitting that the carriage was substantially built of sound material, and that the roads were in a bad condi^ tion is not enough to exonerate the company from blame, tar to avoid the presumption that the driver was in fault. The rule with regard to public vehicles for a passenger that is-'jnjnred is, he commits his safety to the driveri who is presumed by his negligence or intslonanagement to ha\^ caused the injury, unless he proves that he could ,uot have prevented it. Among other precautions he should have taken was that of calculating the necessary means of overcoming the extra danger. He should, to ex- cuse himself, have shown that it was impossible for him to do so.' There was a very early case determined about the y«ar 1847, holding the owner of ti vehicle strictly to this rule, and making him responsil^Ie for his hired man, It was the case of Cole v. Brewster , a collision of vehicles, whereby the plaintiff lost an arm. See Fothier, Louage, No. 193 ; Nouveau Denizart, vo D6lit, p. 151, No. 2. ,; I do not t^ink that the circumstance of the conductor asking the passengers to k^ep their seats, which is proved, w^ of much account. ^^ was natural when the sleigh was rushing down the street, a pretty steep declivity, by gra- vitation and momentum, that the passengers would be excited a:&d would be on the alert to see what was: to happen. I am o:l[ opinion that the judgment should be confirmed. ,. "-m-, , ■■ '. -v^""' ^ ' ^ ^ Judgment confirmed. Abbott, Tait, Abbotts 4* Campbell, attomeyB for appellants. Archibald, McCormick 4* Duclos, attortleys for respondent. ^ ''',i^. (J; K) S- '-' < - r?' ■'^■y OOTOT OP QUBEira BENCH. 211 ^ .. May 21, 1886. Ck»ram Dorion, C. J.. Ramsay, Tessieb. Cross. bIbt, JJ. OADOT, (Dtfendant below), AppELLAZffT ; AND -A .. OUIMET^ . ' ' {Piaint^' below), - ^ Respondent. Pamh-Canonical and avU-Erection and division of paruhes .," • '-•. ':.* ■ ■/ —Tithe. , . . ' -..^ ■ .. HKLD.^-(Affirming the decision of Cimon, J., 7 Legal News 415) th«f bXr^l- 'h-r "**!,'^"'' "^"^ coStS"' deic*£s by decree of the bishop, and annexed to a canonical parish not bered parish to the new cur^. "«u«>iu Under the old law of France prior to the cession, the bishop had the Hght to create. ,uute or divide parishes in tfie interest of the churet W ^ tTfi'**^""*** "«*•*«' "»'» this condition of thiiTwnot ..T^®?%!*l.'^'"^^"*»J^d«n»entofthe Circuit Court distnct of Johe^te, (Cimon, J.), reported in 1 Legal Ne^\ Thejictiimms^y the c«fiS of a canonical parish pot cml y const^uted, dismembered from a canonical parish qitilly constituted, against an inhabitant of the dismem. bered parisl^^t iw tithe. The quesUbn was whether- a pewon being a Roman Catholic «id a proprietor in the parish, could be compelled to pay tithe to the new clirA <3eoffrion, Q.p., for the appellant^ Comellier for the respondent, i ^^^ The judgment of tl^e Court was delivered as foUdws •— ■ .'^^ ' ■■ ■ " • ■ Ramsay. « J. :-->. , fhequestion to be decided in this easels' towhoidoes itjj til J 1 ^ # /^ W'i 212 MONTBEAL LAW REFORXa • 1 Ctdoi A Ouimet. 1 'I »'' f* ' 'I; n ^ '% < •1" m' tithe belong ? The respondent, pli^intiff in the Court be- low, is the eur4 of thfe parish of Ste. Julienne, erected by canonical decree, not confirmed civilly, out of the limits of the parish of. St. Esprit, erected by canonical decree, confirmed civilly. The defendant is the owner of land situated within the limits of the new parish, and the tithe sought to be recovered is the tithe of the grain growing on said land. The defence is that the cur^ of the primitive parish is the didmatevr, the new parish not being erected civilly. In other words, it is contended that the Bishop cannot, by canonical decree dividing a parish, divide the tithe between the cur4 of the old parish and the new. This questidn is not embarrassed by any other issue. Appellant has not acquieciced in any way. He has ten- dered his tithe to ,the curi of St. Esprit, and he has con- stantly received spiritual consolation and assistance from the curi of St. Esprit. In order to restrict our investiga- tion to its- Qarrowest limits, it may at once be remarked that a{;quiescence in its most ample form could not affect the question, if it be true, as appellant contends, tha^he tithe attaches by the civil recognition of the parish, unless in the extreme case of the payment for so long a period as to create a presumption in favour of the civil erection of the new parish, which, of course, is impossible in the pre- sent case. Again, by ah Ord. of il Augl, l'72t, the in- habitants of a parish were enjoined to pay the droits de sepultures et autres dus to the cure of the parish. 1 E. and 0., 484. *And if seems these rights were to be so paid whether the sepulture was in the parish or not. We have then to enquire what tithe is '? In its first aspect tMsog^^anonical question ; an<), therefore, we may fairly look at tSe'Woi^sof the canonisis to see how it was considered by the chuicfi7~ So for as I understand the matter, tithe is a payment for the support of God's ministers, luid therefore, divines say, it is n«rf: only a moral obligation but one of natural law. The amount, how- ever, is judicial y that is, it caii onlyJbe recovered accord- ^ ing j^ custom, or according to express law. The right to -lit-^Attj»erseqi««irf u=a n a s en a e more a b s tra ct t h a n w ^ en we •1 jf'/lt COURT OF QUEENB BENCH. 2I8 ZT t^ /^^"rf^an never be alienated from the church Its fruits may sometimes be alienated, formerly ever the form adopted to collect the revenue or to realize Hiffi!iul'*^^'*''*l^^'^ '^^'^^'^^^^^ that it would be difficult to suppose that the law had derogated from it S r.r''*''\r'''?''*" it ^ui scarcel/be mainl'nS by the appellant that there is any text of cW wW^ mamtams his pretensions ; but he endeavours to support This IS doubtless, a perfectly logical mode of proceedinir provided the reasoning be sufficiently cogent The onlv must meet the questions^as advanced by the litigant. th.nr'K^^"**^'*^'^'^^^'^^ *« '^^ parish, ^d that he pansh is necessarily a territory marked out by compe- SnTcair';..'^^'''*"' '^'^^^"^^^ *^^« propositiortTi:, technically exact m every particular, it is sufficientlyso for the purposes of the present case. But when aDoelL^ thereby the statutes and the civil code. " se se^t iZ^. 9umentet dvUement," he invokes a test whidh k ^Z. less, even if true In the course of theseT^t^ "^ui be shown that the statement is inexact. ^ ^ ? " It was an excellent saying of Callistratus « oiOiL ^ let us see how matters stt^ in* LtT WeJt't'" ever haan- in «.;« j • • <■ ^™«c©. - we must how •cts of authority alOne, nnlew they be ooheoBMlt with 7 T"'V^; y ^1 f^ Hi'-" 1 l^" M Oulot Oaimet. '"* '«C si-' ' I i I', 55' '••«% I*' 214 i«Of?SS^£0^^ • MONTREAL LAW BEFORIS. f^TSI'^T resolves in dealing with the matter before ns, for the abuses are not great, and the anomalies have retained their distinctive characteristic. . The "Object and origin of tithe give rise to no diMcul- ty/ The law of France follows precisely the definitiouH * of the It seems, then» that the parish was in its origin the creature of ecclesiastical polity, that it formed itself, to some extent, on the <^xisting civil institution of com- monity, mark, or township ; that«ie civil law, in its turn, recognized the parish, and extend^^or'gave i^ oppo^ tunity of extending, its system. ^ : i , Qaly on < word remaiaa-t^be Baid-fnrth»r;OA th« ap ^^^ , ' ' \' ^ » ■*" „ •^7 " / % 1/ ■ 1 ', .. ^ ^ -r^-n^ Hl'-^T^t %^ J * C»URT OF QUEENtJ BENCH. Sit phcability of Art. 24 of the Edit of 1'796. to th^caaebefora us. Appellant does not contend that the flishop had not performed his functions in the erection of 4ke parish of Sfe. Julienne «i?«r les soltmnitis and procSdures accduium4e$ ; and, therefore,a|t would be out of place to enter upbn this matter in isuit like the present, to" which the Bishop is not, and, perhaps, couldtnot, be made a party. It may safely be affirmed that tlie posiiive law of France never differed substantially from what is expressed in Art. XXIV. » *^ ^ We thus see tfeat by the baiioriical law tliere w^b' nothihg to prevent the Bishog from creating a parish in his own diocese ; and that the law of Fra^oe did not in- terfere with the canonical law in this respect, but that it constantly maintained the episcopal jurisdiction. Perhaps it will Ijio said that the bishop iay ci«ate, but that he cannot touch what is created. The Edit of Dec 1606,i8de^ve on this point : '' Avons ordonn^ et ordtm- ' turn que Its archev^ques et 4viques, chacun en teur diocise, pour- rotUprocider aux dUes unionn, tant des binifices s^culien que ri- • gutters, seton qu'ils jugeront ^tre commode, et pour fe hien et utUitS de Viglise : pourvu toutefois que ce ne toit dn consetUe- ment des patrons et coUaborateurs, et qu'ils ne touchetU aux offices ctaustrauz,^i doivent r4sideitbe aux igltses desqueUes Us tUpendent." ,N6ron vol. 1, Edit de Henri IV, D6c. 1606. Jui^s. des Off. p. 29. ' The author of the i^ Jurisdiction des OJieiaux," thus re- numes the rights of the bishops as to cures and b^Jices: lis peuvent aysi crier de nouveaux bHUfices dans leurs diocises, ' let umrrm^me de deux paroisses n'enfaire qu'une, oudiviser une aire en plusieurs iglises paroUsiales. (See also d'^firicourt, Lois Eccl^siastiques, part. 2, chap. 21; et Pevret, Trait6 delAbup, liv. 2, chap. 4, n. 10. Ordonnaiice d'CWfians, art. 16. Ordonnance de Blois^aHs. 22 et 28.) The same writer adds " d umr, sig^mer ou rSdmredesfondations, tors- quelesrevenusquip sont aUachfs soiu si mwli^ues, qu'on ne „ msse plus Us acquiUer." Note 8. arrtt dm 2d Jan. 1688. Duperrai, lit. 1, c. 16. ^ Oadot OutnMl; , I' ; w ■^ .ill ;' ■sissi "■I 1 ' * Pr. des Dimes, p. 186. # In this clEtse the ' question is as to the legality of the ' caBoHical decree erecting the parish, and not as to the title of the cur^, whose possession d'etat is admitted ; ueverthe* less, it is worthy of note, for it consorts with the law ou the same subject passed specially for Canada nearly at the same time, and to which allusion will be made later, that where there is no reserve of the collation or presentation ' to a b^ni/ice, ihe Bishop may "en disposer de jdein droit." -^l Juris. desX)fficiaux 28, quoting Oom. of Dnperrai. Coming to the laws specially passed for this Province,' two kinds have to be considered; first, the laws of the ' French regime ; second, the laws passed under the English figime. ^ - During the former of these periods it will be found, that in all essentials the legislation for La Nouvelle France was directed by the same policy, and followed on the same principles, as the legislation for old' France. And so we find the reopgnition of tithe as part of the fundamental law of the Pro^i^ce — the exercise by the State of its power to regnlatB the amount, the form in which it was to be paid, and the mode of its polIectioxL— the parochial system, the permanent cur4, and his right to the tithe of his parish bj^ the common law, exactly tAin France. ' And here it may be observed that the history of tithe in CAUftdft is very easily mustered. It is nDtmbscnrod by ihe = incidcfttts o( with abtises. COURT OP QUEERS BENCH. 219 an institution sbwly developed or incrasted ^ It came in as a portion of tlie common law. Th€^ >f «ot a scrap of legislation tjo declare that tithe l***^^"* *° Canada. Its perception/was handed over to the ^eattinary of Quebec by -the Bin|iop of fetr6e, con- l^rt^wl.by the Lottres Patentes of the King, euregistered at Quebec on the 10 Oct., WG8. B.^ O. p. Jug^jmentH ot Dec. du Con. Souverain, 1, Ifi. Thi« fixed t^ amount 8tM8th. . , ', .■ ;-^<^ , .•:.., . Evidences _ of the commoii' character 6^'tl^e doubl(9 legis- lation for France and for Quebec are so abundant as to be almost inexhaustible. It ^ill.-only be necQS||^ry to point out a few of the more obvious examples. \ We have the Edit concemant les dimes et U^%,res fixes (May, 1679), which no more assumes to in^oduce tithe than did the letters patent of 1668. The jireamble of this edU declares the intention to be to provide for the build- ing'of churches ^d establishing piirishes. Then we have it declared that the tithe shall bi^long ''enticement cl chaatn da curis dans Vilendue de laparoisse oit it est et o& it sera Habli perpituel, au lieu ^6t, 1 E. & O., 281. Again, a great eflfort Was made to get persons, and par* ticularly the Seigniors, to grant land for and to build churches. This failed, and a» arrit du conseil du roi aceorde le patronage des igUses d monseigneur I'evSque, in considera- tion of his bnilding churches in parishes where there were none (1 E. & O., 2'79), and so also in France' the Bishop, who was coHateur ordinaire (avril, 1695, 2Neron, p. 266), nominated if the pd/ron did not nominate in the proper delay. a1 ' Thus we see that the- bishop's right m aMateur or^jinaire rtandsont even more prominently in' Canada than in ./. IM. Cadot Oulaat. >; ■■ \ I ■;.■ ; '1 •< m France, because in Uaoada it was not limited by e^ 5-1 f -| :il if 1A\ \ I J- -gW^-^ftP?*! «K^:^^ '^ \i &S0 •i*?' MONTREAL LAW REf>ORm OniMt. Iti' N t ««. Is I *••« it: 1^ •i^'J' 1 ceptional intereflts vested in^otherH, as was often the cnna in the mother country. ^ It may be said, this is all very w»^ll, but who makes tho parish to which tlm tithe belongs ? The appellant ought to answer— the King; but instead of that ho says " th« King AND the Bishop." If it had been said that it waH the King alone, or the Bishop with his (Council, or after calling in the patron, the cHr4 and the people, the position might to some extent be defended ; but that the erection of a parish so as to create a right to tithe was necessarily the joint act of the King and the Bishop is a proposition which it seems difficult to* maintain. Appellant says :— A parish must have limits ; to secure that required the., concurrence of Ihe (dvil and ecclesiastical authority, as is peen by the riglemefU of the Governor, Intendunt ond Bishop of the 21 Sep., It21, confirmed by the King fiy arrM 8 mars, 1722 (1 E. & O., p. 448.) That in France, parishes were created by Lettres Patentes, and that in tht; same way they were created by Lettres Patontes hero, and BO, it is said, the curfy of Montreal and St. Sulpice wore united and incorporated to the Seminary of Saint Sulpico. Doubtless a parish must have limits. This is a topo- graphical necessity, just as a kingdom or a county must have limits. But it is not essential that limits should be designated for one purpose, as they are for an- other, although'^it may be convenient. - Again, it does not seem to be questioned that the King could by Letters Patent create a parish under the old system. If he did so, and the Bishop appointed a curi, the cur4 could tithe the parish so constituted ; but, as has been shown, this did not prevent the Bishop from constituting aparish or from ^dividing one already created, even by the King. The only restriction imposed by the civil law on the Bishop's authority was that he must respect existing rights — rights of the patron, of the incumbent and of the people,' i]i4 the ordinary way in which the exercise ^f his powers JDonld be questioned was by the appel comme cPabus. The refereiice to the arrdt of 8 Marc)i, 1*722, is not fo^ tnnate. A riglement was made by the Governor and In- '&' I' / , ■ )ftoii the catiu COURT or QUEEira BENCH. SSI tj'Udant and the BiBhop\to give a better dettoription of parishcH already oziating) aiitl on the date named, the KIng'i Conncil confirmed the riiglement. Without doabt, Ihiti ronfirmat^on ot^ftblifiheB a Hanotion of civil authority ; i^ does npt establish that Huch sanction is eHsential to give a legal right to tithe. To maintain appellaufa proposition to any etftent inferentially. it would l>o necessary to show that tithe was not collected in parishes not established ^ rivilly. As a matter of history.it was constantly collected by legal process where there was" no special rec^giiition of the civil parish. And no instance has been brought to our notice in which it has been held, that tithe could. not be collected by process of law in parishes not civilly or«<;ted. Everything points the other way. For instance, what could be meant by the declaration of the Edit of May, 167»,^hat the tithes should belong entirely nd L'Anga Gardien did not wish to be bound by. the r^glvnent fixing the tithe at the 26th measure of grain, and they were calle^4»«(^ant and forbidden, as were all other curis, to exact tithe be- yond the regiment of 6 Sep.. leet. This anA was pro/ nounced on the 18th Nov.,. 1706, and it implies that thea4 curis were entitled to the tithe fixed by law. Howev^ their right does not rest on inference ; on the Ist Feb., 1706, we find another arr^< declaring that they were i entitled to tithe as fixed by law. (2 E. & 0., p. 189.) ' Oathe 27 March, 1718, there is an ordinance command- ing the habitans de BeaumoHt et de la Durantaye de porter la dime qupresbUire de la paroisse de Beaumorit. (2 E. & O.. d. 484.) : \ •> r ■ i ' i. 1 i i. vf um. li (HllMl. • » \ \- ..' $ •", "■■■ 11 ' '. > , if ■:>■' ^^ / ■^7^ mi 228 MOMTBEAL LAW REPORItL CtdM Onlaat. i / On th^ iiamfl day, night habitan* wero condemned to pa\ tithfl to tho church of the (wriiih of Notrw Damn de Povt', th« tithrt having Imwh «'od«Ml to iho church hy U«v, R; 1' LeBrun, a Jesuit, who had thittrvi th» pnriiih when tht^ tithe accruod after the death of M. Haint Coame, t^e pre- vioua mri, Theae pariahea do not iieem to hav(« been civilly recog- niJiod till 1721-2 by the rifflement and arr^t already men- tioned. (1 E. &;0., p. 448.) The reference to tho afiairn of St. Snlpice ia even lean happy. In 1702 the Seminairo de St. Sulpice, Paris, be- coming alarmed at the edict of May, 1B70, foljowed by th«> declaration of 1680, prayed th<< King to declare that it waM not intended by the edict and declaration in ({uontion to affect their rommttiMK^/^ at Montreal, which, through priests chosen by the auperior, miniatertMl to a imriah created by the BiAop. The King aRsurerl them that the *dU and declara- tion wore not intended to jnclude thift parochial aqmngc- ment, and he gave them Letters Patent, in whien it in affirmed th<|t tho Bishop of Quebec had cretUed fke fjarislt. This ia a aingular mode of establishing that the Bisho{) could not erect a mre without the concur^iice of the King. / We now come to BnglisK timeH, and htato the appellant'R hopes seem to revive. There has beeij much declamation about the sub vemive intentions of the new power; but no radical change seems to have/been made The most <;ritical period Was, of cour«e, tW^ears of transition until Parliament established a Goyertiment for the Province of Quebec, during which /time it was governed as a Grown Colony, and that on the most general instructions. Thei« was, however, noming tl^t could be properly quali- fied as a premeditated interfetence with ^he municipal law of Canada. Although all sorts of subtle meanings have' been imagined as concealed under the non-committal proclamation of 1768, and the still .ruder ordinance of GNneral Murray of 1764, the dangers of a tyrannical inter- ference have appeared greater to the successors than to the contempofariee of the General, and of the most honest of / comrt Of /^VERND aimfvi. King*. Intentionii •rn* doubtful quantity. Tho«« aro b«iit which producn tho rfimt fAVomblo roMaltii, ami in 1774 w« hiivo proof of thoii0 that animat«Hl th« penionii who wmh* mimeiontly Btroiii? to pn^vail. Th« Quobw; A«t. paMN(>d that yoar, by it^ ftth Nflc-tion roitt'rattm th« promiiio of the tri'aty lurordi^g tho friw eiprciao of tho n^ligion of tho ChuTsh of R/mo to tho Roman Catholir inhabitantnof the Province of Qaeb«H', " and invoHta th« clergy with their armstomffd dni»H with rc>iip«u;t to inch p«r»ion« only aa (thall prxifi'Hs tho Hnid roligion." Tho roaervation of the KingV «upr«ma , et parish, taken ; " as : Paroi^ia COURT OF QUEEira BENCH.^ £26 ■" ■ ^ " ^ fit^s limitatus," and he adds, " Cette difinUitm e4 admi$e dans le droU, mais avec VaddUion contenu^ dans rarticle <»- dessus" p. 81. ; / j Dogmatic utterances of codes, like other definitions of the civil law, are very liable to be subverted. At any rate they can scarcely be taken as true iu every sense. Now if It be intended merely to saV, that in the civil law "parish "is usually intended to mean the parish- reco- gnized civilly, there is not much to cavil at, for probably the statute law is principally occupied with the parish civilly erected. But if it be intended to intimate that"' there 18 no parish known to the languag^bf the civil law but that which is civilly erected, the proppsition cannot be maintained. It is controverted by the very sections of the statutes invoked in support of art. 9. For instance cap. 18, C. S. L. C. sec. 8, is referred to, and there we find " the ecclesia^ical authorities. ... shall proceed, accord- ing to the ecclesiastical law and practice of the diocese, to the final decpbe for the canonical erection of any parish or the division or union, etc." Then section 16 refers to the proclamation of the governor "erecting sucK parish fdr civapuirpbses,fmd for con/Jmmg-.establishing and recogniz- ing the limits and boundaries thereof ," of what 'i The civil palish. Then ch. », 0. S. L. C, is cited. It giVes powers to religious congregations which are not formed into par- ishes, to 4old property, and provides for their succession. Theh reference is made to the M. &"%. act, C. S. L. C. c. 24, sept. 85. It reads " for the purposes of this act. . . '. the following territorial arrangements shall be ma^e"— er^o there is no canonical parish except those recognized civiUy by.the proclamation of the governor ! The last quo- tation is from a.school act.r - * ^ It is idle to contend that there was ^o canonically erected parish, so the definition is not strictly exact ; but it may be said that its erection created no legal relation except the right to move to get itself recognized. But where is this prescriptipn of the Jaw to be found? There must be something positive ttf" upset the old law of France as applied to this country, and as Chief Justice 1886. Ci^ot Onimat A W Vob It, QJ^ TT i ■H li -lli,« :i H 11 n m i:: i % f'lV^i?'^"" *•*-'» V- MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. O . 9 I'^i: im. O«dot Ouimet. M Lafontaine said in Jarret 4* Sinical, we are sworn to gite effect to the latvs of France. As v^ hwe Been, it was only in 1748 that, for the first time, an edict iiraa passed in France requiring letters patent for the erection oib4n4fices. This alteration in the law in 1*743 could liot afiect Canada. A decision in a case where registers were refused to a • canonical parish has been referred to. It cannot have any analogy with this case. Whether the canonical parish has a right to a register or not I am not aware, but itris evident that the possession of a civil register, furnished by the ' Government under a statute, stands on a footing totally different from the common law right to fithe. But a doctrine is insisted upon by the learnedjijuage, over and over again, in that case,' which, if true, would decide this question, and be a ground f6r reversing the judgment ii th#pre-' sent case scarcely invoked by the appellant. He says : "The Civil Q-overnmgnt has alone the power to give, by its approbation, civil effects to canonical erections." 'And further: "The Givi^ Courts recognize no. parishes but civilly erected ones." (2 Rev. Cr., 441) This doctrine appears to me totally inadmissible, either under i%& public law of France or under that of England. It might as well be said that no private act can produce <;ivil effects. The true doctrine is that every act may, and generally does^ create a civil relation, better expressed by the French term— «» fORpor< de droit. These notes have been drawn out to such length that - the endeavour has been to avoid' treating every question not strictly within the limits of the case before us. A word or two has been said, on the question of registers, merely to note that the question of registers is governed by a statute and therefore is not identical with the question of tithe. To be intelligible, one is sometimes iorced to go outside the strict logical limits of the ques- tion, and so iii this instance my hand is forced, and 'at the risk of being thought tedious, what has been slightly no- ticed, must be treated and extended. It is no part of my , opinion to maintain that inconvenience of a formidable COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 22t' kind will not arise when the canonical decree is not con- firmed ^r adopted by the state. What is maintained, is hat the decree is not null, and that it" binds as regards hthe, where there is no special law regulating the parti- cular case. The argument ab inconvenientHs therefore inad- missible This is by ^o means n^w. There is a declara- tion de Louis^XJV, du ^1 Janvier 1690. portant defenses a«i maiguilhers des fa^briques, paroisses et confrfiries, d entrepreidre aucuns b&Wnts sans permission du Roi. . The canonical parish, witWt the^confirmation. .by tliS^l rtate m Quebec, has no legaKme>h& of teifigits parish- oners to pay for a ^ew chui:kt>rthe repair of the old one. The bishj^wtU- therefore be obliged, unaided by tlie interyglipf Wutire or judicial authority, to rely ''"tIk* JHBv T °'''''*^ *¥ religious influence. ine c^^^our ^ Senecal has attractbd some atten- tion^ Tt^was decided in.the Circuit Court at St. Hya- cmthe m 1864, on demurrer. Defendant said, (1) the L- ' servant of A misaion cannot claim tithe; (2) the free and common soccage lands- do not owe tithe. The first point was^i^^ected ; but the action was dismissed on the^se- cond demurrer. In so far as the successful ground of de- murrer is^cerned, the case is of no importance for it only decided a^uestion arising on a statute. Thirteen years later, a j6dge in the Circjait Court at Three Bivers gave an opinion on the point at variance with the opinion m iJ^o«r Sr Senecal. When Roy ^ Bergeron (1) was decided, the question had been set at rest by the 20 Vic. c. «.^pt8. 4 and 5. There remains however this mi^eh of Sefour 8f, Senecal, and it is this, that tith6 may be exacted by the dfe«6n;a»/ of a mission. This supports ^ the general reasoning insisted upon by respondent . Iain, Uierefore of opinion that tithe is due by the com- mon a^.tha^^the common law has not been interfere with, lihat tithe is the property of the permanent cur4 ordesser- «^of a parish, linder t^hateyer name he goes, that the «^of souls is.vabdlycpnferred by a Bishop within his (I)8B.L.528. • 1M6. O^ot ODimet 'I ■•■|5; ■ jit! . Iffi mm' 'PHI. i 4 It ' A UM^v 1* ^ it"- rr. r > 823^ MONTREAL lAW REPOBTSLv ; V . own diocese, and that by' the decree of the Bishop, nnre- veiled, the parish* is created to which tithe attaches. I Bein^'of this opinion, I>m to confirm, and this is the con- clnsion airivecl at' by the whole Court. i-DoRiON, Ch. J«., concurring, referred to the record ot a, case decided in the Q.B.} Montreal, September, 1848, No.^ 866, Messire'T. BrdssarU v. Paul Bessener, Jib. . In this c|8« i|t wajs held, on a law issue,^ that the.ciir^ of the parish dismembered by canonical decree XM)nTd recover for ^the i|n the new parish,^ ^ , > - Judgme^ confirmed. 4. C%ar/aff(/, attorney, foi^ appellant. ~ - 6req^rttm,Q.C, counsel.' ^ " / . Ouimetf (hrneUietJf Lajqie, attorneyfs for' respondent. *' ' January 25,-1886. ♦CbroOT MoNKf, ^AMSAy,* Teswieb, Cross, Ba^^y,, JJ. ' i ♦ JOSfiPH GRfiGOI]^B ET AL., ^ \ ' ■ {Xk/endants in Cowrt below), - V jM'PELLANTS ; '■^^'-'- ■■^>- .. "AND ' ■ ' Dame JULIE GR^GOIRE et vib,. * . ,. " V {Plciinliffin Court below), - ' Respondent. .\- '\ 'P- Tutor and minor — Sale equivalent to rendering of account— ^ . . Prescnpjfbn—C. C. 2258.' ' > Hklo:— -That a sale by a minor, emancipated by marriage, to her father; /and ex-tutor (without any account being rendered, but after the s making or an inventory of the community existing between her V* father and mothdiO of her share in her mother's sucoe8sion,-4-8aid ^ sale containing a valuation of what* was coming to her firoiu her —-- tutor— should be cbnsidered^as e, Oct. 19. 1888 mamtaming the respondent's action. ? '> ' Nov. 26; 1886.J tParadis an^ Robitbux, Q.C., for the appellants. . v , ' . ' ' . Gr«q^rio»,;Q.C., for the respondent.- , ". TKSSiEB, j;*:^ . , ■ ■ .. ■ - . '■ ^■.. , ^ II S'agit d'un? action en reddition de compte le tutette i to laqueHe la demanderesse, Julie Gregoire, a auXi ' conclu k faire dearer nuljun inventaire flit par son ' I^re, et une vente, on dation en paiement, portant quit- tance des droits successifs mobfliers etJmmobiliers lui provenant de sa meje, Marie Dupiiis, d6c6d6e en lg48 ^ La demanderesse Julie Grfegoira's'est mari6e en 1864 Par acte du 9julllet 1855, son mari ThWa^ aira«*''^t '• elle^'cbmrnuns en biens, ont reconnu avoir c6d6aup6re . rde Julieqr6goire les drbits sufesWfs proyenant.de W I lnare,.y eompris tout ce que ,lu^ ^evait son.pere cd&me sontuteur. Cfettecession de drt,|ts.par^i ^>i, |t6 con- sentie en consideration de la sonfme de ^^00 ' '■"" II aiyert^u;il n'y a pab eu d^ coi^te^ dk tutelte reiidu ^ r ;«^*^V* ^°'-^ ^ J>«re' Joseph Gr4ire,«st^d^cM6 6ft : 1881. Parson testament'- il^/in3|iti?6%»tiire8 tiniver^ I - sds ses deit$ fils. C'estcohtre^^Wl^ ^e^^ iwrte. son action;- ' ^.'\:^z..^"'>'^'^-:/ ■ ^ ™r^. ^ ' Bntr« Itutres exceptions; l,^p4SSd?4£i^ Pacia • ^ de yente^oQdatiptf en p^^ent djiv9 juillet 1866, dans I aquelle la denmnderesse 'Julie Or4oire u donn6 quit- - I tance A son^ere pour tout ce qui pouvait lui reVefiir en ' biens^meuSles et immfeubles dansv la succession de sa , mere Sophie Dupms, etalleguent que s'fitanticoulfi prte I de 20 ans depuis sa majority, il jr ^.lieu k laiVreseriptitfn ' ^dedix^nscontre la demanderesse. #^''"- •. - ' Ilfi'y tt patf de donte que si hi aedRderesse Vfitait • Pjourvu Paraction prise dans le^ dix W^r6s sa m.«orit6, ' elle aunut droit k ses conclusions. / • ^11 feutdonc examiner si c'est la.^scription de dix ans^ Ott telle de trente miB qui H'appl if(^ ft dnnn oe cm o i, ot w UB«. OrffBiK. 1 •I- ! .1: "\ t',. i v'--- |: ■ :-s. s tv / mi m 7 '^^•' *■*■ ' ' '■ r'J"-^*'-'" .,»■;. • * ,■ -'■'■■"■■ ■* •*' •>-*- 280 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 18M. Grteoln ar<«olra. LI (4' t' '€ . J •iri km • If *5> .« i ^ I. i Goncilier Tarticle 2^|^8 C 0., qui diclaTe racoon en reddi- tion de colnpte coni,tre le jluteur prescriptible par treirfe ans, avec I'article 2268, qtii d6clare preacriptible par dix , ans I'actiou en'r6f6rtaatiou de compte^at celle en resciRioii de eontrat pour etreur, fraude ou vurfence, ei donner eflFet .^ di ces deux articles. ^Qejui qui accorde trente ans ne doit s'appliquer qu'au cas qu'il n't^ eu aucune transaction entre le pSre et ses enfant^ api^sleur mkjorit6. Lowqu'il n'y a en aucune quittance par es enfants.de letirs droits, ttlors il faut la prescription de trente ans contre Taction en-reddition de compte.^'pifre el simple ; mais lorsqu'il y a eu dation en paiement et quilttance, il y a lieu k la pres- cription de dix ans. En effet, un acte de la nature de celui qui a eu lieu eiltre les parties en 1865, suppose une estimation de ces droits, une espfice de reddition de coinpte, ^eut-6tre informe, mfeme seulement orale fondfee sur I'in- ventaire en A6tail qui a pr6c6d6, mais en ce cas le majeur a dix ans apr^s sa maJQrit6 pour revenir contre pareiU acte, il a le temps de s'apierceybir, s'il ^'sonffre prejudice, s'il y a eu erreur, et il pent invoquer la nullity prononc6e par I'article 811 du Code Civil. Mais peut-il pftndant plus de dix ans, m6me pendant vingt-neuf ans, garder et peut-(6tre d^penser ce que le p6re ou tuteur luiaremis ^ pour reprfesenter sa part dans le Qompte de tutelle, dans les droits successifs de sa m^re et, sans pr6alablement re- mettre ce qu'il a re9U, demander une reddition de compte, mSme aux fils 16gataires uaii^els du pere, comm^.dans ce cas-ci. C'est, il me serable, contraire k I'article 2268 ;. * c'est demander une rfelbrmation de compte ; c'est deman- der de mettre de cote I'acte de dation en paiement de 1866, ce qui est clairement prescriptible par dix ans. Or si vous ne pouvez faire mettre de c6t6 la quittance que vous avez donn6, vous n'avez plus ^oit de r^clamer ce qui a fait I'objet de cette quittance. On dit que la disposition contenue en I'article 811 est d'ordre public, et qu'on ne pent pas I'enfreindre. Cerai- sonnement s'appliquerait aussi bien contre la prescription de trente ans que contre celle de dix ans. Un cohtrat en- ^h6 d'ogTOur, de fe»iMkr4e viol e nr- o , Tn'r iayfej [i,i U I::/. ..<•■: -^ A COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH., 281 I'ordre public ? Cep^ndant la loi en preacrit Tanntilfttion par dix ans. Pourquoi n'appliqaerait-on pas cela aussi bien & une dation «n paiement et quittance, de bonne foi en apparence, comme dans ee cas-ci 1 ' Lee codificatenrs ont cif6 la cause de Moreau ^ Motz qui a beaucoup d'analogio avec celle-ci. Les juges de la Oour Supdrieure avait mainteuu qu'il y avait lieu & la prescription de trente (»n8 ; cVux de la Cour d'appel, parmi lesquels 6taient les juges Lafontaine, Cafon, Mondelet et * jBhort, ont ^maintdau la< prescription de dix ani. Leur"^ jugement a 6t6 confirms par le Conseil Ptiv6 Le juge Lafontaine a citi& de nombr«uses autoritfes pour appuyer son opinipn. On trouve le rapport de cette cause au 7e vol/ Incisions des tribunau|c du B.-C, p, Ut, et 10 vol. ■ p. 84.-;,: ;:.'■. •; : • ^ ''.v^' .■:•'■:,;■"■,.■■■■.•■" '■-:.' L'hon. Juge Lafontaine s'exprimait comme suit (p. 167) : "Des actes de la nature^de ceux dont iTs'agit, en suppo-. " sant qu'ils" puissent 6tre attaqu6s, ne sdnt pas nuls de "plein dr6it,'ils sout^eulement annulable^, ou sujets 4 \ " rescision. Nul doute que raetion fond6e sur leur annu- "labilltfi ne dftt ^tre port^e dans les dix ?ins. L'ap]()e- " lante ejt bien fon^^e k mvoquer tette prescription dans " les circonstances de la cause. Les dficharges de comptes ' " de tutelle, quoique denudes non visis tahvlis, wAi disfunctis " rflrfMMii6tt?,'ne peuvent plus 6tre .attaqufies apres les dix* " ann6es de leur date, post6rie,ures k la majority suivant^ "les arrets rapport6s pdr MM;. Louk et Brodeau, s^n an- ' " notate^^, sous la lettre T. sommaire 3, ce temps ayjint ' "6t6jug6 suffisant pour . > Larombi^re, art. 1804, No. 40, p. "2:—" Co qui nous " confirme dans notre opinion, c'est que dans notre an-' "pienne jurisprudence, le pupille qui avait trait6, avec " Bon tntcni^ san s examen de jeeutpLoH et wus cuiumun^ =T== IMS, Orteoln Ur4i i^r«. ■S ~A — L f i 1- i ■'{' "P If X t. •14 - ^ '■■^ u "•^^ Urteolre UriS7ectifying. T^at is to say, prescription will not cciVei^ actual omis- sibn tp do, until 80 years have elapse4^rbut after 10 years have elapsed, lesion and even errpr; fraud and violence, /sannot be enquired into. This tjeems to me, to be a very (tangible and very reasonable distinctiop. It should require a longer space of time t^ efface rigBfe that have nevgrbeen settled, than to destroy a settlement on which all the important transactions of a life may have been car- ried on. The law recognizes the diclaratwti de voloiU4 (legal consent), not " validly giVen, " so far as to 'subject the contract it seems to sanction, to a shorter preRcription than the original obligation to account. The preset case shows the importance and wisdom of the rule. An in- ventory is made imperfectly, it is acted i^n, and^afi*^ twenty years perfect acquiescence, for this is admitted by respondent!a factftm (and t h e roa g on is giv e n the de »fg Ur4fDlN iUtvAto. t « p. V 884 MONTBl'/AL LAW BKI-OIITS. 1. K i'. 1 1 ■ ■ Ik, ' hr .,^t /I J "" to profit by the tntor'a good wiliy, the pftfty icquiflictiig trieii to 8«t thEE^ME9i£, ftihn t)efore, tWere wm a BVrtiiTlkr dc|cifli<^ in the case of RietiftMiu 4- Dagnmllipn, 1^. V) l/haii been said, that the Court phould not sanction ^^df the law reprobates. This argument, in spite of its apparent force, is not oon- (luHive. Error,. fraud and even Violence are covered by th.) prew-ription of ten years ; a|kd if the thing be an ab- Holute nullity^^it is idle to discuft whether the prescrip- tion he of ten or of thirty years. "''■,, There was a question aa to whether this action brought in the wife's name, the husband being a party only to aufhoriae his*^ wife, was properly brought. There lf-- g ' \' , — motion by the husband to be allowed tp come in to take csHfl, there had been a Hottloment. Thon.^n tlie ground that' there had l)eeii fraud, an action was hrouKht for anotl^r account without ino;itioniiig thtfflrst account, and the Court held tliat tlie^tion could nofbe main-v tained In that form, In tlie prewtnt case, the Itofioudont treated ths X 'Z- flnit uc«t)unt aa a iwrfty;t nullity, and there was no conclualon for settinK A it BHide. On this ground, tlie appeal would btt maintained, and th« ' \ action diamiaaod. " ' ,- i , ,/ The conndtraiit of the Judgment Im aa followa :— — ; - -^ ;-^'"'- -'■• - V" " Considering that the fenialo. Respondent has, by her attorney, acknowledged by Act of the flOeonth day of April, oightoen hundred and •evonty, passed before C. A. Richardson, Notary," acknowledged that her latfl father, Isaai! Ruttera, had rendered her a true and faithftil account .- of I>i8 udminiatrtttlon, which he had n» Tutor to the said female Appellant, of tliu property of the said female Respondent and had paid unto her the " : ' «um oftwolvethouaafadftvo hundred dollars (»12,600) aa the balances "W residue of said account for which, through her said attorney, ahe gave the laid Isaao Butters a taW and complete discbarge, which Act w^s subse- quently, to wit, on the fifth day of May, eighteen hundtod and seventy, ~ duly ratified by tlie said female Respondent ; "And considering that the said female' Respondent cannot claim ^ toother account from the representatives of the late Isaac Butten for his •dminlstratlon aa Tutor of her property, without first demanding that the said discharge, so given by her said attorney and ratifi^ by her w aforraaid, be set aside and declared null and void ; ^ " And pdnaidering ^lat tlie female Respondent has instituted the pre- I. «nt action without having first demanded the rosiliation of the said dis- charge of the 15th day of April, 1870, and of the said rsUficaUon of the 5tliday ofMay, 1870." (') The conm(fMin( of the judgment is as follows:— " " Conaiddrant de plus, quelademandereaae-intimte nepouvaitdeman- deraudtfendeur-appelantuneredditiondecompte, sans en m«me temps — ' demander i oe que le compte d«JA rendu par le dit dtfendenr-appelant et Mcept« par la demandereaae-lntimte assist^e de son curateur, fftt mis de c6M et qu'elfc fdt relevte de son acceptation. " . f t 1 1 »*■, 7 'i^ ' -a » MONTKKAti LAW RRHOHTH up tho iniUnco. Thn opinion of thia Oourt a* to thi« mattur in ■affi«ti<*utly uxprniiiMtd iti tho <'m«h of IManger Sf Tklfiot, 8 Doo. d'App. an ; iiiul Gmte S^ Ugtw.4, lb. 81». I th«f«for4) think that thoint in not esMon- tial, an we are deciding thn mtmiN of the caMe, and an it ia another ruaMon for the dispOHitivo of the judgment. I therefore, do not think it neoenaary toexpreBsadiHuent on thia point nnd ! concur in the judgment of the Uoart. The [udgmeut of the Court « m foUowi ;— re, Je. «n omotUnt do d«maMd«r «p/« ialomoiit et on tninpa (ipportnn In tf^joi de cetto pr«uvfl, Uqu«ll« mi NufiiHante prinul/iuie ; "Oonaidftraiit qu'il s'eit 6ioul6 |>1un do trouto aim i^iitw la oonfeotiou da dit inv«iitair« «t U pr6aont« wHion, et qao la proacriptirtii d« dix anit a'applique ik co caa-ci et I llr(< iWIra '1 qu'il n'y a plus li<^a tk do veutaire ; ^~** Ooniidfirant qa« la 1* Ruooesaion do Ha mdr ooinmaQH en biouB, quoiq 'annulation du dit ii^ Ji vaiit oita do rihtiinlA dam rintim^o ot ton mari, T6c6d6o dfi roddition de k uno oalimation de ■«• compto on Ibrmo l^alo, feq droits et H une quittance et d6<;hargo par lo mari do I'inti m6e, conimo chef de la comtnunaut6, et par sa dite ipome rintim6, auxquela le corapte de tutelle «tait dd, et que pour obtenir une^ condamuation contre los d^fendoura A rondre un compte, il est ndcessaire et essontiel do mettfe / do cdtfi ct annuler la dite vonte 6quipoll«nt d une quit- tance des droits r6clam6H dans la prAsente action, et qu'il s'est 6coul6 plus de dix ans avant la pr^sente action, laquolle est en consequence prescrite ; , f0- '& " Con8id6rant quo la dite vente comprettd dans le pri*^ de $800, restimation et compte de 0^ que leaparties oni con8id6r6 6tro le montant revenant A I'intinjn^ la jjes- tion.de son p6re et tuteur, et que les dfitailsdr 1 Wtif et du passif du dit compte se trouvaiont faciles k constater et ont dii 6tre constatfes par I'inventaire clos le 24 octobrD 1848, ce qui 6quivaut d un compte in forme, dont la ^e- manderesse ne pent demander laT^formation apros dil m 6coul68 depuis sa majorit6 et s^p otfrir de reme^tre (mpr6alable ce qu'elle Fe?u," et% f . . \ Appeal maint^ed, actiort of respondent declared pres- cribed by ten yelrs and dismissed with costs in bot^ courts. •: l|pnk, J., dissenting. ^ara3w ram Dorion, Ch. J., Monk, Ramsay, Gross & Baby, JJ. V ROLLAND {Plaintiff below), ApPELTiANT; AND CASSIDY {Defendant below), Respondent. , ■ ■ ■ . ^ >.. ■ - Arbitration — Mediators — Irregtdarities — Acquiescence. Hklu:— Wliere the parties agreed to submit their differences to arbitra- tors and mediators, and notwithstanding serious 'irregularities on the part of tlje mediators, proceeded with the arbitration, that it was too late tcqme8ced in by Oassidy, and signified upon Rolland. t- 1888. Holland ft C^ldjr. V. ^ V. '1 i u •1 ■.■"» '•i ■''ly ft"'' ■*■' ■ v'. . ;v >j-'j i ■ ■■.■-,.■ ■;. , :■■■ f Bolland OaHidy. H !5i M^ :t# ^ Jf-.- !, 4* - mum,'; 't* i^e: Si: m MONTREAL LAW REP0BT8. The objections to its form made by Bolland v?ere thir* teen in number :— ^ ". • . > .;,,,. . ■ , ' ■ ; ■-> :- .,.,': '■: ■ '..i' 1. The arbitrators were not sWOrn, as required by thil compfomis submission. 2. They did not hear the parties nor theiryfwitnesses after being sworn. '•] ;- * ^; 8. They neglected to swedjr the witnesses, as required by*law and the terms of the cojnpromu. t 4. They took no regular notes of the evidence, ana elm- ployed stenographers without being authorized to do so. 4. The' notes taken were irregular and not certifif4v 6. They refused to he^ RpllandVwitnessesX ■ ' ^ *7. They, particularly Ward and Tourrille, acted with partiality, and with a purpose, of deciding in favor of Gfussidy. ''' 8. Toiirville and Ward permitted Cassidy to be repre- sented by his lawyer, contrary to the terms, of the , cotiipromis. ;>.-.:' ..:•■^-' -; ■,/ ■■':.,;;■■: '.■,•■'''. /^ 9. They took private explanations from Gas sidy in Rolland's absence. ' "%^ •10. Thfey consulted .GassidyVlife^l adviser, in his presence, as to th<^ que8tioi|8 in the case. . , , ; „ 11; It was understood that neither party shotild be assisted by his lawyer, and Gassidy violated this condi- tion>i. .J • ^ . , ■ ISlT The award was based on incomplete and imperfect d|¥»nments. - / ' ' Il4^ The majority of the arbitrators treated Holland as anlligent and not as a partner. Giving these objections our bes^consideration, we hare come to the conclusion that none of them are sufficiently supported to enable them to prevail.' There is no doubt that one of the arbitrators did not, in all respects,' act \?ith that prudence and scrupulous regard to propriety whicli would have been most becoming under the circumstances, but we think' they all aCted.in good faith ahd conscien- tiously. They bestowed great pains ajad' labour on their work, and have made a very well digesfed report on the inatters submitted to them. I think Tourville would have 1 ' ,;■■.. 4 \''\ \ land v?ere thir* jes, as required ■- T'" s: ■• '■ "■ \ OOTIBT OF QUEEira BENCH. £41 exhibited greater propriety by^ot visiting the office of the legaka^viser ofCassidy, as it is proved he did, or making enquiry, as regatds any legal points, of the lawyer of either party, but, ^t most, they seem to Tiave desired merely to satisfy themselves on an abstract question of lavfon which the arbitrators did not come to a wront conclusion, an enquiry which any aUbitrator may fairly make./^nd being amuAt^ composUeurs th®y were, by law afid accorJing I r ^ , . . ^" ^'^Pensed with very strict observance of forhialities. There is really not m A substanc^ in the - objections, and if even some of them mightlt first bear a ; serious ^pect, they M^ere not so, at .the time, view-d by the parties themselves j^ Imth parties proceeded'without niaking objections at thrtifne when such objections might have been considered. o]p»rtnne, and both parties availed themselves of the as8istal|ee of their respective^ legal advisers, although neither watrepresented by a lawyer before the arbitrators. It map be worth while to review some of the objections serio/w. The first is unfounded. The arbitrators, in their awarpcertify that they werf swornvbefore a Commissioner, as reqU|^ed by the compromis. Thik 18 proved by a certified copy of tfie oath by the notary whp. took the written oath in deposit with the original ftwardj^a proo^ not -objected to at tfee time, and' which f? a.?*?5'.^^^ ''^**"^' I consideUrunfounded in fact.. The third, ec^ually so. t'he witn^^r were dworn by the arbitrators. They have the^power of .experts, and should follq^w the same procedure? See^, 843 C P C and by Art.. 834. C. R C, elp^rts are au^rizl' toswe,^ ahe^witnesses: Any slight irregularity, if any. with re- prd to the notes of evidence, must be co^sideytd cov«ed ' for want of objection at the time, and from the '^rbitrdtors' quality of amwftfef composUeurs; besides they both took part m the proceedings, especially the examination^ of the •* witnesses. The remainder of theobjeotions are unfolded m feet, as regards^nything like legal sufficiency. Ihave already poticed the pretence of having employed lawyers ^ which was uot done to the extent of a violation of the terms of the compromis and tha MSflL ^ Rolland Omidr. i' i ,1 )•■ <. 'i' p ■i RoiUnd' CMildy. *<> 242 MONTREAL' ^^W EEP0RT8, iiiii trators to th^ office of the legal adviser of , the gaining party, which, though imprudent, has no., great signific- ance, especially as affecting the conduct of men of very ;high standing. On the whole, we find nothing so Beribuu as to affect with nullity th^ award of the arbitrators, and we th^nk it ou^ht to be confirmed. The judgment of tl^e , Superior Court will therefore be afiBrmed. • * , I concur in the judgment on the principle of acquies- cence only. In almost evei;y case it is safer tb trust to an ' organised system rather -than to an unorganised system. This applies to'arbitratii^s more than to anything else. .There have been deplorable irregularities in this case, ^and if the party now complaining had chosen to with- 'draw he would hiive been right in doing so. But he was Aiming to go on, and did go on, and It is too late after / the rendering of the award, to take advantage of tbe iiffegularities. * rpdRiON, Ch. J. : — In this case three merchants went out of their ordinary business and formed a partnership for the sale of lumber. As often happens in such cases where persons Bmbark in a new business, there was* a considerable loss. One of I the parties had been bought out, and. the other two (who are the plaintiff and defendant in this smt) could not \ agree as to the settlement of the accounts. They had been on friendly terms, and they wish'ed to settle thfeii dispute as quietly as possible. They ^elected three of thd most fespectable men in the city of Mpntreal as arbitra- tor^- and amiables c^positeurs. I suppose no ihree men bett(^"adapted for the purpose could have been found in the city; In the arbitration bond it was stipulated that the parties should not be represented by lawyers before the arbitrators. They wanted to conduct theiir case them- selves. 'The ^arbitration proceeded. There were irregu- larities, and one which would be fatal was this : that in the absence of one of the arbitrators, two of themwerd Sii^'.f&y ■■f^^- *■■■■" ■"■'-- "'■"" " .._ ■"" ■■■;• V -^ ■•> -; . ■ ,'. » ■ V ^ \ * »is ■ "OQyBT OP QUEENB BENCH. 248 taken to bbtnin the opinion ©f the lawyer of one of the parties. Even if there had been no stipulation thit^oun- sel shouia not be heard, this Wobld mnuj the arbitration altogether. I express my opinion strongly that this would tte fatal to the award. But in the present ease we find that the other party 'did very nearly the same.' More* oyer, the, opinions of the lawyers were put before the arbitrators. The party who now complains of the awwd stated, that h«^^fltill had conHdence that the arbitrators would do justice. We ttfibk, therefore, as the parties depended OIi^tl^e arbitrators to do justice, and as ho com- plaint of any irregularity was Viade at the time, and the arbitrators were not conscious that they were committing any impropriety m 'seeing counsel, and acted throughout m goo4 faith, that under the circumstances the ajipellant has waived the right to complain,*and Iherefore the judg. ment maintaining the aW&rd must be confirmed. * Judgment .&)nfirmed. Monk, J., dm. Archanibault, lif^,»Betger(m ^ Mignault for appellant. Lacoste, Olobens/^, BisailltmSc Brosseau for respondent ' (J. K.) / . • i fi_ \ -r^ January 27, 1886 Coram DoRiON, C.J., RAMSi^Y, TessIeb, Cross & Baby, JJ . t ROBERT :^N^ ET At., ^ f ■ °. J^" A . APPELJiANTS : ^', ^^ NAEOLllONMONE^, ; ■ V V " . .{Plaintiff^, in Court heUno] ■■ ■ *" ■. : ■" '■■ '"'**!. /" ■„ V --BAsPOiifXtt:: ^er and Servant-^Accident to ^mnt—lle^Hmsifm/ I ^defendaatewerectmstractingal^ufldipgin^t^^^^^^^ attheirw^citati9n,men(of wh■ ,D (IWM8AVW|Cpofl8,"J^ :— Tftaf ffTe i^up^en of probf wa».on'ttil defenda#>'i* rebut ||^?||e8uinpi;}pn ot .m0$^n'!O, ^M KavlD*:t»«fc;done/ th6'dr6li|lafc|i? M^ ' ^ -.: M^^l Eiotf yafi brot|g)|it ^' •1KT**5^^'"1I!W'H' W^®'' amage^^jr an i4»fii*y ^cip^l^^l^^wfricmp^ I ilie appellants v^re ^PCSclmg at th'i^ corner of «Hd Victoria SqWej^ the City of Montreal, qat, it wsts alleged, o(||||tred pwiiig to thriAg- Appellants' workm'fn.; The' ease came in ihe . fit st inl^ce|k.before Mr. Justice ' ' ' '!4y'''" W%mxe% m the SupeyiO|r Gonft, fc fismiBsed thQ action ^' ''^'•'"■* 'I "fi^th« following reasoiis ^^■^ '■■fm ^ .;;:!,.• .^ .■'-'[::'■ -^: detifs el celui qttiitfiit ch4rgi^:^ia ipiililuiTe l'to!t pa* €|;6 avertjs que le detoahdeur et ses.compa- ' ' ji^onfftfiDalient ttt^^ailler en dedarii |fe la bfttisse mention- ii6e d&'^ifc ^^ftiaratioh du d^mahdeur, et qu'il n'est pas 'iic>n pj^ns pWuvfi- que rhomme qui a accidenteilement jiit parfir ^* l^'^que qtii est tombfee suT le demandeur ait ^.que^e dernier travaillait au-de^ous de lui ; ' ' , '^CoABidfits^nt qu'aucune faut#,iii'a 6t6 prouv6e centre les dfefendeuf 8, et qtici, pqt;jr cettlej jfjeiison, ces demiers ne peuvent.^tre 'responeables du 4^|4liiage r^olam^ par le dei^andeur." ;• . ■;';• h':, V. ..- J?;:' ' ':" " ■ The case was then takettto Revibw, where the judg- ment was reversed, SIgotte, .Torbano^ and , Lobanoeb,] » * Jj; Jan. 81,, 1885. ToRRANcat, v^., mact^ the folio auction of damages f< ibutory negligence, want of pro^ As I rea given, damages $225. De . <^ serrtftionis :— kjuries.^ Plea of I i was" dismissed forf vidence, I jvould havftj ere constructing a[ ** f/' IP-; 00T7BT OF QUBEire BENOS. bwldhig. At their repeated solicitations, men were sent tiu" u T*^' /'^™ **^' street, by „ pipe into the MW»nfir. 'W'hich conld not be done without working in- f. 1. *L ^ '*'**'/'^^' ^ "^'^^ P'*^""^ *»«»» the wall high aWe where plaintiff was working at the Bfpe hole I loosened and started a brick in the wall. Tl^rick fell -on plaintiff. A man above had already let fafi a hammer and wAming tad been given to the men above. The ^tr^ plaintiff was employed was dangerous from the Mher men working above. Tlie evidence of particular facts IS very vague ftnd general. I think, with plaintiff, that the burden pf proof was upon defendants to ?1S'"tk' *A "^^^«*»«« of f^*« telling in favour Jl foo J^^ ^"""^ '^^^ ^°"« «o. I would reverse and give |226 damages, with costs of both- courts I Thejudgment in Review was as follows •-— ' "La Oour, apr^s avoir ent^ndu les parties.par leurs .vocals respectifs. «uMa demande .du demandeur pour revision dujugement rendu par la Cour Sup6rieure de ce IDistrict. en la pr6scnte cause, le huit de Juillet X«84 lexammfi le dossier de la proc6dure dans la dite cau^e et |pleinementd61ib6r6; uxi-e cause, et I "Considfirant. en fait, que le deux Novembre ^388 le Idemandeur travaiUant comme journalier k des Waux Hm^d^s par les d^ndeurs, pour et dans un. b^tisse i mb6e stir sa t6te par le, fait d'autres travaiUeurs em- ■ployes par iesdefendeurs ; "Con8id6rant,en lait, que le demandeur a^6t6 rendu ^capable, pendant plisieurs, mois, pax les blessures qui Murent alors.inaig6^s,4M,^r^:son travdlordinai^^ . mdommag^nsid§raW;X , i^^ i 245 ' *•: i iji'j iv6 Dar miT^ • - /•' ^ >■- ■ - 4..-. .WT'**'^^,^* jjifende »utetaitpay^par^; ,. :r-.^ ; \»v r" Consid6rant que le travail fait par le demaWeiw 6tait po^conn,^ par les d6fendeurs^t leurs^i^i^^^ pr-cnnRtrncti ^e^ avee vt pt i t e la p r ompltttde pMii R.^ I ■-^% 'W^ *^.'*^ >^ (7^^ Mooatt*. I if''. 1f. 4 ► » ^ f 1 1 ^ 4^ ^'«l ' il • ft Ir I? 24a .MONTBEAL iJiW REPORTS. "GonsidiTant que les d^fendeurs 6taient tenus de preparer et r^gler leurs autras travaax de mani^re k ga- rantir proteciion et aOiret^ an demandeur ainsi employ^ k faire an travail d'urgenoe coxninand6 par lea d^fendeurs; " Gonsid^rant que le dcmauch)tir faisait an travail de creusage dans le sol, qui Tompdchait do voir ce qui poa- v.ait £tre fait au-dessus de sa t6to ; et qu'il avait droit de compter que le maitre et ceur^ui le repr^sentaient don- neraieht tela ordres'que requis pour que le demandeur ne fut pas oxpos^ ^ j^tre dcras^, ou assommg, ^ raison des travaux qu'on pouvait faire auodessus de sa t6te ; ~ " Consid6rant que le demandeur, tant par lui-m6me que par ceux appel^Gi k donner assistance pour, le travail special qu'on lui avait^ qopimand^, pnt prfevenu ceux qtti 6taient au-desstis, de faire attention pour >6y iter qu'41 ne . toi^&t'sur leur tSte des choses qui pourraient les blesser; "Considferant que le demandeur a^ait tout ce qu'nn travailleur, dans sasitaatio|}, deyait faire ; " '^Gonsid^rant.que les d4fend»urs^ n'Wt' pas pris les 'precautions nScessaires pour 'pHmunir le » demandeur coutre I'accident^^et^yinjure doUt il se plaint, et, partant qu'ils sont responsables du tortcausS; „ , " -" " Gonsid^rant que les dom mages sOuffert« parled«iqpiaQ- deur, tant pour le gain qu'il a manqi^;^ii}e faire* durani Ik pSriode indiqu^ et constat^e, que pour" leT^jiRpenses oc-'^ casionn6es par le fait de s4 maladie, sont deja somme de $225 au moins, et que, par consequent, il y a errenr dans le susdit jugement di^ huit Juillet df rnfer qui a renvoy6 Taction du demaMeur ;^, Annule et met d^ c6t§ ledit jugement du huit Juillat 1888, et proc6dant prendre celui que la dite'tCour Superieure auripat dfi rendre dans Tespece ; Goudamne les dits defendeuirs solidairement a payer au dit demandeur la sUs-dite somme db $225, ave« interSt k compter de ce jour, et les "cl6peny tant do' la Coar*| de premiere instance que de celle-oi, di^j^aits d Messieun Ouimet, Gomejlier^ Lajoie, avocats dtf'dei^ndenr." IUmSAT' J. {diss.) :«^--rt^.---:i:--^'-'-7-- ■ -v?3**.^7---^.-- . ,■.•'- This is an action of damages by a wor)im(^n against the t ■ ■- 'if - . 1 ::jfci-, V- w •0 ^'-•K ■' ' OQV^yOrftOEENi BENCa r„rn «lt '•""."""Vr*'"'--. I> •»*»"■ that whilethe P^gre... the depWs..„poriat.end«t of th» „^r.wrrr. ^ lh«r«,ue,tofd„rend«Dt,»,„t up . g.„g of men to 1„ .iTge «r.ter.pipe. IWliVe, p„,f„™i*g ^^^ ^^^^''J .. loo.e br.ck on the fopofth. vvallove^where thfyw^Sa own,g » another workman, employed '.bove, Jtting hi.' tot on .t, fell „d ..mok pWntiffon th-e he^, iimoti" VIT """^^ I»;»l.e Conrt of «„. i„.t.nce. the JZ w«jd.™,.,ed, but thi. judgment w« n.ve«ed in « view fZ t . T" "' *"'™"- '^'^''^» "" qaestionTf ftult .» not e«,y to profe ; but there i. another kind of mberfteement. whift it ,eem» to m.; might reS be overcome, it i, the «iAe„,.l „„». Hoiever ^^ works of benevolence, .t h.*.,n„thing to r^mmend it Wer of hw workmaff ^in.t , foitnitoi^ events or .g«m. h,. own f.„U. yhe employer is obliged toin Th,sobl,g.t,on IS- carried to its fullest 'Extreme under Z' W, and prnpetlyso. in order to mriw it the iutertst^f-" t»t.ng\th« obl^ation and by holding him responsibKr' e^ms „h,vhhe^could;not foresee. This case^ppel '^ me to be sin^laHy fre« from difficulty, A gang of m™ 8. tcy^k .n a plioe ,Cm.,ifest danger, Therf at ^ pie working above th«m and no protection is placedto pjwent «. accidfet. such as! th« .ne that h^p^^^e^ •Itiough p enty of material was at laid. The wmC' S tot? r*" u" ""'')»1«'' work. A hammer • wLhim 1?;^ "■» -PW-'^ and the man working- Ml a^dVriaKT ' ^^ ? •'"' "»*»»» "ho let if >U. and jokel^h him .stoke danger. Undisturbed *uf T^"^ *"■• '""k, ^ a litfle lateSrict telLan^un-dedMonette. J/j,as been described! nTw .'^^■" 1^. I 1 ■| 1 • / { * • 1 1^ !P f^ 'If I* verite. ; MONTRIAI. UW REPORm It of a|tpeiIaniiV Could plaintiff havn action: agaiuiit the man who get hia foot on not, ho haii no at^tion againnt appellants. ^ Negligence is it^ pla^tiff.^d he should stand the con- sequences. V^*-; 'f % ' <^^^^ •^r*- ..*s ^l •' *S'<|»'' »••» w ». ••* •..Chrotw, J. I think t6e injury Aii(pfained of WMthe reanlt of pnrft^ accident. It was the/ duty of the men working under- neath Jo exorcise caution. There was no '/ante on the |»rt xrf the employer.^ The conclusion 'olilhe majority of the Court, amounts to^is : that the^naster guarantees the safety of his employees; There is no ground in law for this, and the 6ffe<;t of establishing such a doctrine f$t would be that an eniployer could not conduct himself in ?%. such a way as to aioid responsibility for nCTJrtnnt, ^ kI ■^^■\ ■ ■ -.^k:- ..^;-' y I ■■ ^: ; Tkssirr,^ J. r-r-- ■- ■ • •^^■>''- • «■:■"' *%l * I think this case is one of th6 clearest that has come before this court, and that it is difficult tor'a^iv« |t any olheT; conclusion than that the judgment should be con- * , firfeedi*>The appellants requested that inen„ should be ' ' t B^nt tg pe|form_ the wQ^^k, and by doing so They riiade * themselves respenalble that the house was in a safe ^nd " pAar coition filiUhedxeciition of the work. The law ^ holqwthd master responsible, not only for the damage ioa||i8t>d by his owd fault, bu^ also for that caused by - '■ the 0iifil^^ those . ^er hif 'fptrol. Wm. KnowIari"d, oiie of*«the wiincss«4 staJtas. that a "^mm^r fej dovyn . and 9'Barly struck th<^||[||^Tow. « Ble'snoiUj^ up and said • 'oeii to kTlf ianyvJipT^^wron tfe the building,' as one toan hud , been o-icilled ^fMBtAi^ady.* It- was after this that the ac- cident' to Mo2i^ furred.' There;: W^ certainly fault and ne|ligenc4*n^^the part of ilfbse overl^tid. Bricks do not fail of their own accord. The judgment holding the appellantilfespdnsible should be confirmed. .•'1^ Simian- ^,0:f. JR.C) this Coifrt in Oc^Qber last decided in the «ame S6a.id. v % /> (*) 111Q. L. R. 264. i*** ' « »■ .^-ft- '; i-^wji" ^ stand the cott* - -^ OOtJW Of , QVEtll^ BKNCU, ; l)owoN;Oh. X, Wiafeea (f the l^gMont cm ihi qiiiJ*. ion of re.pon.ibility. But »^ to the amopnt of damag..!,, he Hon. Chief Jnstioe regrjjtted tp olWVe « tenden.y <,n the part of the Court bekwr to gi^nt eiceMive damagep, AwouH be a h^ahip to'the reaponderit to teven% M Judgment for $100 or $m, bm .Hi. Honour concurwdi' ith reluctance in an aw«rd of fa26, wj^«?h he bclieyed to^ far beyond what thft evidence juatffied. Judgment conffrmed, lUtosay Hj^4Pxo»i,M, ^ iJ.A.A.BeUe, {or t^ppuWmta:: -('^0 ^•'' 'C, 'uimet, Comellier Sf ZqA»»«^ resppn^ent^' ^^ — ^ (J. K.) , ■ 'v 'Hf ■-' ■■ ■ j:4 'Ml? Monet tf. :' 4 it v'W a; '■' !; j%. --\« I »; ->Q Coram DoRiON, C.J., Monk, Tk^bIeb, BJM^; JJ. ./ ^ GE^MIGE M. MACDONNELL ex AC.! f ^ {PlaifUifft contesting in the Omrt below,) * . ' AND -.■"'!:■■::..' :v ii % 4 PfllUP S. ROSS As qualitI, (Ojtposant in the Court below,\ - Respondent, , " ^^t^Conslruction-'SubstitiUion or Usufruct. jA Teslator having beqnoathed hJa estate m follows :....«! leav. "^ my personal and real eatate for tlie benefit ,f my wife and fa "during her life if she remains unmarried to receive and apply L. funds as may be accruing out of it for the support and maintenE of t be family and educating them if she again marry her do«er is .. ii!i!! T!l '"■'' °"* *"'"* •■atatethe rest to be equally divided am6iny4he children my sons R. and W. I wish to enter the ministry .. ;,;■£ ! *'™®**'^ desire that every facility be given them to get thorb^hly educated. ..." Hiu) !-That this created a substitution of which the widow was insti- tute and the children substitutes, and was not a case of usufruct to the widow and nw propriM to the children^ a That though both widow and children had fory^ai* keted on the" latter interpretation they were nof thereby deprived of ihe right to urge the pthel interpretation now 1, ' . i i ' ■ II I , , ' • t - . " . . . • ■ • I ^»- - - . . —4Si. — . --^.^^ .: .- .. , — ^ »_— -d:- w :. A-. ^ vt: ^ 'X SAO J|ONTRF!AI> LAW llPOIlTfl MBl«««ll Hum. yAi^ App«llanU obtained judgmtmt agaiiwt Ooorge A. Cowan, and «!auB«d to be neiaied by the Sheriff of Montreal, on JIgri facias, as belonging to him one undivided «ixth ahare of a lot of land, in Mont/eal. HeapOttdent, in hia rapacity of «prator to Dame KHjm CroM. wid«)W of the late William Cowan, fatherx)f said defendant, filed an Opposition a/in tt annuls, 'whmihy he t^cited the will of the said late William Cowan, the eaaen- tial parta of which wi're em followB : " I leave aft ray " personal and real estate for the benefit of my wife and ** f^ily during her life if she remains unmarried to rfr " Oiivs and apply 8f ch funds as may be awruing out of ♦•it for the support and maintenance of the family and " educating them if she again marry her dower is all that " she will hare out of the estate the rest to be equally " divided among the children my sons R. and W. I wish " to enter the ministry and I desire that every facility be •' given them to get thoroughly educated." He then re- cited that by said will Mr. Cowan created a subslitulion of which Mrs. Cowftn is the institute, and his children (of whom said defendant is one), the substitutes, and that, in consequence, defendant has at present no right of proprie- torship in any part of the land seissed, which is part of the estate of the deceased; but merely "the simple hope*' of a substitute. The apptdlants contested this Opposition contending that by said will no substitution was created in favor of Mrs. Cowan as institute, and. the children as substitutes, but th^t a direct devise to the children was made of the propriiU, subject to a usufruct by Mrs. Cowan until" her second marriage or death. That under said recited will, Mrs. Cowan's rights were at most to have the property sold d la charge of her usufruct. That the registration of her right of usufruct under said will has never been re- newed as required by 0. 0. 2172, and has thus been lost. That said Eliza Cross, and Oppoftant as her Curator, have never, hitherto claimed aright of proprietorship, as now pretended, but have always adtditted and acted on the basis that the property of said immoveable wa6 and is ♦ i rCOUWT OF QUKEN'g BlMOfl, r • m m the nhlldron of Mid WinUtn ffeWwi, «nd Ihal the righti of .aid BlizA (Jroaa w«ro und aru thoiM of uaufruct- wwry: only, and ahe and OpixMiant havo become party to judicial prbccwdliigii and d««d« >m that baaii (of which H«v«ral are then cited and product), and have thereby " bound them««Ivcii to that poiiitlott. ' ; ; The plaiutifl'H produced uumerou* doodi in whfcjhMri. ' Cowan, her Curator and the children had continuouHly, until this prQ■ fl Montreal, the 7th Doc, 1880, by the Honcirable Mr/ "^ JWrrici! Chaonon, in the following termtr ' \ ^' "UOour, etc. - '' '.'.:^*** " Conaid6rant qu'il appett suffisamroent par le testa- ment du noTOinfi William Cowan, produit en cotto cause, . que ce dernier a voulu cr6er une substitution au profit dtf SOS enfants, pa? le caiial de Dame Eliza Cross, son 6pouse et non uu simple legs d'usufrait k cette deruidre, et un legs de la nu^ propri6t6 d scs dits enfants ; "Considfr^ntqn'il appert sullisarament par'lodit tes- tament que la dite Dame Cross, dout I'bpposant est le cu- rateur, a m ohargfe par le dit testateur de conserver et de rendre aux enfAnts du dit testatehr k la mort d'elle, la dite Dame Cross, on dans le cas de son convol en un autre mariage, lore de tel autre manage, les biens de la dite succession— errant par 14, m6me une substitution fid6i- commissaire au profit des dits enfants comme appel6s k la dite succession ; :;f 1/^, - - " Considdrant qu'll arijgjM par le dit tds- taraent que le testateMilpas eutendu limiter la dite Dtoe Cross A percevofrXljp/simples revenus de ses biens tattt mobiliers qu'immobiliers, pour les appliquer tant au maintien de la famijle et d'elle-mdme qu'd I'education des enfants, en autant que le dit testateur, outre la charge gen6rale qu'il impose k son fepotise de maintenir la famille et de faire iustruire les dits enfants, aurait 8p6cialement MMclitnnati Rom. I8l I •h-: T M i ppp ^25^ mqntiiea;* lXw BBPoia« /I 18S2L Maedonnell A Rou. ■ ■"• ■ ' '" , * 5 ' (I .' '' * * * -» V • s % "««n-« ^'> r ) .'' ' - ' 1 ■A mentionn^ an dit teBtameiit 9on d^sir k Tetfet qiu$ deox de ses ills devinssent miQistres, et ' aurait ' d^lar6 qtfiP voulait qu'ane ^d^caticoi parfaite ef complete fut domi(§e k ces deax enfant^, Qt qiui tonte facilitj^ leur itlit donn^e aiix fins de ve procurer une telle education — expresBJioliA qui doiytint colitroler la signification k donner aux mots dont se ^ert le dit teatatettr '^receive and applp,fuch funds as '.'Maybeaf^entingeut'ftfjUy^ et qui doiv.ent d^mo^trer que Iji'lestaieur a vouiu pa; ces n^p;t8 autofiser sa dite Spouse k m servir, pour le maintien de sa dite fanylle et d'elle- ;m^me, et pbar FMucation de ses dit« enfants, de tous ^t 'iels iouds qui pourraient ^ntrer dans^s mains de la dite • ' Daixie Cross provenant de la^dite succession ; ' '■, *'.Consid6rant qu'une'ftutorisation du genre de ^Ue sus- "^^ metdlionn^e islnflire encore, des mots ^dnt 1^ testateur si^ sert.-" Heave all my personal 4ihd teattsiate for ihe^benefiL of '■ viy wfe, aTtdfamiiy during her Hp,** c'est-i-dire poilr le pro6t, ' ti&h^fice et utility de la dit&'Qame Gross et 4e sa famille, I0 testateur d6el$irant qu^il vou^it que deux de ses en^ ^> fen^ speciatement eussent to«HrTacilit6 pour se procurer ^ "#.■ une ^^ucal ion parfaiteTet complete; ,, ~ c/ •/ — "Considerant qu'npe teller Jnt'etpr^tation .fait res8orl;iT ' la pens6e dxTTfestateur^ lorsqu'il dijt, plus loiu^dans sou V,. r , testament, \ttuijrest to be divided among ike chtfdren," le tes- t, tateur w>illani>ean8'aucun'doute»donuer p^r ,1a a entendre' qu'a la m<;>rt< nom de douaire ; > % . * W ' % " Considerant qu'il ne r^sulte pas du dit testament que ^ lots du testateur " the rest to be divided among the Vchifdrht." ne dftivent avoit d'application que pour le ca&, bu, pji^ suite d'un second mariage,^a dite JDame Cross- fit aiDL^me la dite 'succn^aitf: «pi^8entant ; car a' '•*j ^'Ji^. s6li 4oQai!re, telle ini^prS-' 4'-' t ■ OOITBT OP Qimkira BENCtt' 258. 1881 Maodonn«| & Boh. \ ■^ ion ,lft„dta,t dft^^^e l..te,tatenrnWa|t paepourvu h la 4i$poeit,on de son bien. »pr^ Ja'mort de sa dite ^po^^, dans le d«9 ou elle ne se serai t paaremarifie tan- le teatateur a fait, pour le cas' de la^^t 'dVladit^iame Cross comme r,our^..Iui de I'^ventnalitKaW >*^i C-, Oros. dabord, ^W certainfes^harges. etVnsuite an Profit ' a«tr^'«!! '^'"'' mort.ouapres son oonv;pl an un, autre manage ; » . „ '^ ,\.^ '^' ^J!i^''"*'**tT*^^''^ I'feiBfmble a« dit testW^nt wpride ' 6v,demtnent Izd^e chez le testat^ur d W ruKSr wt rT^^T^'"^ Pnffi8a?n«>ent dans etp^t son dit te^stament d «ue 4duBle disposition, au' trait dftei^psV • ^'^^^«*:^^f OR"6t5 ^«« ^^^«»*d« la aite succession da^ le.c«.ouelle survivrait ^ «^8 dits enfa^ts. 4oua. signes • i:^S;!il!!!ilJ" ^tibstitntfon fidei-ooin^^EL. cr6^3Snf "'' rT? "* "^** ^"^> ^* te^tame^t a iwrtl^^ 1^'' fid^i-eommissaii^la.saisfefaiteani. •• .1 enfantdn vivant du g^ev4^, d'une part indivise ^ans lek 2»e^snbst,tu6sserait niille. I'appele^ • siB profit i^fe dit te,t«nent, et condSSrant gn W«.: " . , ■ Welle sW attribu«d«u, le. flitsaae. le tiLv^e " ' emantsign t««Matenr«oiuce .rapport, ne panl leur or^fm.' •■ . tt^^p.teutdu«trei«noiiT elfe dan.l«.^tl.,;«.° r-. \ \ i ^ - > a * ;k'' '■ ./\^ / — .^ '--'h. , *; -■•■ . ;> ► « '~^' y- *ii* A y 264 MONTREAL T.AW REPORTa " ^ % VKt. Maodonnell ♦/^ V , '* 1!' 1 *-^ ■ff 4A- ..#' Iff' '% ■' par la procjamation pour conserver' k |* 4^*®. Daiarf Orosa les droits rfeels lui resultant du dit teslXmefit, telle n6ces- ; reitfe de renouvellement n'eut du exister iju'A I'^ard, comme le dit I'article 2172 du Code civil, des autres cr^- anciers ou des acqufeteurs subs^quents dont les droits att- raient fete regulierement ^enregistres ; \ " Consid6rant. que rien ne dfembntre que les denian- deurs en cette cause aiept jamais eu des droits dans I'i*^- meuble saisi, sujefs ik renregistrement et dpnt ils aieni^ renouvelfe renregistreraent de maniere a primer la diteV "Darae Cross, attendu le defaut par elle de s'6tre cbn-^ formee, en temps utile, aux dispositions d| la Ipi sous ce #ap]?ort; . y^ '\ Considerant que si la creanre des demandeurs est pli- reracnt ei siraplement chirographaire, comme toi^t I'indi- que paif le dossier, le premier enregistrementdu testa'" ment a pu conserver ler droits de la dlte IMme Cross vis- ^ Ik-vis 4es (Jits demandeurs, et considerant que le -renon- vellement de I'enregistrement du dit testament fait au- jourd'hui pourrait. encore conserver le premier enregistre- """^ent, vis-a-vis mfemefjttms autres crfean<5ielrs>-liypothe- caires-qui n'auraient-j)aS vencore effectufe tql renouyelle- *.,ment; , / • „ , '' ^ . '/ ■ " Considerant que poi3(r toutes les raisons d-^esSus, I'op- , position doit 6tre dfeclatfee bien fondfee, et 1^ contestatign, tant en loi qu'en fait, qui en a 6t6 faite, ren^oySe ; ^^ " Renvoie de fait telle contestation tant eii ^oit -qujejt^ fait ; main tient I'opposition dti dit opposint ^s qu^lj^ la declare bonne et valable, — declare que la dite Dailie Elizabeth a/ios Eliza Cross, representfee par I'opposant es qualitfe, estet etait lors de la saisie pratiqufee en cette cause, et des longtemps auparavant, la seule proprifetaire ^ de rimme,uble saisie, a titrtllle g|evfee de Bubstitutio^^ll% vprtiidu testament du'dk "William Cov«ran, son dfefunt fepoux su8»mentioiin6, declare que le defendeurn'avait alors qu'une simple espfertyape dans le bien saisi, et non. '• un droit de propri6te absolu dans le dit imn^^M^le ou % dans aucune de ses parties ; et d6plare, en cbn^Jueiice, la saisie qui a fetfe faite de tel immeubl^ et tous les pro- " il '5 4 ^-• r" ..r\ ^^ [ ... t • I , .OOUBT OF QUEEITS BENCH. - , .^55' c6d68qmont suivi tel saisie nula, de nul effetet non i avenus et en donne mainlev6e k I'opposant es qualitfe.' Le Atout avec^d6pen8 contre les demandeurs." ' From this judgment the pbintiff appealed. \ ; i2«»isa»/, for ^p^llants:-- . lo.'^liough a subsHtution may exist even when 4he yord usufruit " is used. (C.G, &28j, yet Vubstitution is not tobeiinder any„eircumstance8^p*.««,erf. rather any rea- ^ sonable interpretation of a doubtful iVistriwneiit is to be given which will give^a ^,Ve./ and immediate legacy. Pothier, Substitution, s. 2. art. 2.: -'Comme q'est la voIont6 qui forme. la^s^bstitution fidfii-commissaire, quoi: quelle ne soit pas £xprim6^, il suffit .qu'on puisse tifer des consequences ^e ee.qui e^t contend au^testament, que lelejtateura eu efFectlyemeAf volont6 de le faire pour que la substitution .soit aussi Valable que si elle 6tait ex- >im6e.^ II faut done que ce s^t des circo^stanqes qui ^\hrentn(cessairementi^v6t|e^la Jannes, Jm^,pi^c;^ 137. - ^> Hesti^tion8 4i thDrefe use of ^rop^which the "^ te^ator ^tows upon his Jieirs. must be cl^ly exj^essed, ' ?il?A.^''^^'"'^'°^^'"P*^*^«'^*^ly«^oke|eat&^^ ofg^fbstitutions or entails. ^ f ' Rieard, S^istittitions; chaj*, ^, Np. 89S)fiq^ius. fidei-commis iie soient pas odieu^.ils.-sMt i)ouftant de ^ "J«e1ir parceqVils ^nt a charge A^l^iitier ou un premier fidei-cmnmisssir^ pp^ q^ ;le^^^tateur a t6moi^ que^ que prMileption ^ les compren^t ies prfcers dans s* .disposition. \- '''.'-■ ' ^ 2o. this Will vi^^ii tl^ attribute of V substitution^ as given by Guyot. to. Sul^titufioii V ^91: * It is noi^: %««/i/ofan^mterest inthe/irop^^^^ QnjotM Nothin^shows that the 5ai»e thing is to be Wdby Mre >^ a^imffrstand then delivered by her to^^e' chiS^^ She gets revenue only. Thevenot D':^s8a«lo. Substitutions. ^ ' 1881 Maedminell Bom. 4 « <. • V » , it ?• ,■ >^ r '^■■' " n 1 1 ) ^ ^*v 266 \'N MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 1882. Maodonnell -Rom. til 1^ ^» r. r vf" jf^, > ■!** tic:: i , -V ■■'■ / /• ^ 9 t: There is no charge de rendre. There is no ordre mccessif. The two beneficiaries must be called successively aad not jointly as here, if the words " for the benefit of" im- port a call. Holland de Viliargues, Substitutions Pro- hib6es, p'. 62, No. 44, &e. Thevenot D'Essaule, Substf- tutions, pp. 9, 69-71. '. 3o. Rather than substitution this is a usufruct to Mra.^^ 1 ' Cowan and children as joint usufructuaries. " V lewe, all •• . . . , for the benefit of mj. wife awl farafly." Wylde's case, 6 Co. 16. Redfield, WJlls, 14. Newill 8c NewUl, 1^ Eq- Cases 432, and 8 Ch : , App. 252. Pothier, Subs^- M> ft k Pr6v6t de la Jannes. Juris, f ran. 1,§ 142. -^ : 4o. Defendant, the son, is entitled by law as^his father^s heir to a» absolute ^ahate en jrropriUi and not to'^ ^ mere con- ' tingency, liable Mf^piie as in substitution, unless his father clearlif Revised (otherwise. " The heir i^ not to tffe disinherited without an ft^ess devise to another or fte- , cessary implication." '♦Such implication, importing nol actual ne^essity^ but ^ strong a probability that an inten- tion to tjie contrary cannot be supposed." Jarman,*Will8, 2, 162, *nd see cases, Hedfield, Wills 1, 425, all which ': concurs with PoAi^r, Substitutions > ^, a. 2, J^i^.ftlso^ ■■c. C.864., ' f ■"'■ ^" • "^-3' :* ■ ' "' / • 50. The parties % their "qpalings ,with the estate, eVen, , > if it was origipajly a substitution, have rc-se^aled from f^\y' '*^\* \' *• •* COURT OF QUEEN'S ?ENCH. 26% the worda for the benejit of my ufl^e injid family are ixwM* late4 in this way : poArie jh-ofit^ binifice et utUitidela dVfe Dam "Cfross et de safaMUle. And this ioaeaxiing 10 evidently the cMrrect oner .i;-.:'' ./'''''''*•• /w-' ■:' X;-/--',— • "'v 3o. Thd words : to r^eiti^ and apply such funds as may be accruinf^ Old of U, mean e^'^iiently all the funds which may come from the Estate. It follows that the testator's wife is only b6und4o deliver to her children at her remarris^e or death, fo Jbe Equally divided between them, the rest of the Estate, that is, what; will remain of it after maintain- ing and supporting herself and familv/in4" educating the children according to th§ intentions of ^e te^ator, and in th(S ev(B)it' of a remarriage, after dedLucting. the si^ * qgalifted in the will under the term dower. ~ ^ . * nistitutes are not always bound to deliver to the sub- ■ siitutes %9 whole of the property given to them (0: C. 952) ; they are sometimes charged, as in, the present case, 'lo del|45'er bnly the rest of the ^property or what ^^m aias of it at the time fixed for the opening of the substitution, aiid tills, is the substitution de ce qui riste, quod^ lueredUate mperfuerit, , ' * ." ' 6 Polhier, Substitutions, 58*7. — " Les substitwtions uni- " verselles ne Sont pas totjours de tons les biens qu'on a "laissfes k rhei;itierpu autre successeur uuivei^sel qu'^ "en a grev6 ; on les fait qtielque fbi? avec cej;ta|nes limi- "tations. '* ' " »~- ' . " Par exemple, \ttn h^ritier est'quelque fois gyerfi ;de '' restituer apres ^on d6ces ce qui reste .des Inen^ de la . " snccessiorir quod 6x hcereditate superfuerit. , tc ^ "Cette substitution est^iff^rentje des substitptlonsuni-^, " verse^Iles ordiniirels, en ^^'elle ne comprendTpas tons ' " les biens qui ^bnt et6 ]|PI^ au«grev6, mais iSBuIement " ceai qui lui restent lors deson d^ces. \' .; '^'.>. " Les chosesj. soit menbles, soit imtneuble^tqae rhferilier " grevi^ a ali6n<^8, ne sipnt ^oi^c pas eomjpi^is^s dans cette . "substitution ; il n'en tf^fjjws milme du de-remplacemeht '\au substittt^, iorsque I'hfiriltier grev4ft'ft.pas^ngmeat6^ ^''son propre pat'rimoine du prix de layen/6.dje cefi ciitMeB,*' -' mais I'a cpnsommfe pouAses be^^ps." *tH'- ■ '^1., ;;^-' • > ■ ■ ■ ■ \ ... . . " ...'■■. i/f "••& .. • ^- " ■ .. Bom. f. 'J •i- I ..>*■ h. • J "'1 ■*ll -TT- •NT* *"• "^: itj-*,-*-- 11 n, ' » -',*"*'' fr 1)^ F# I/- ir 258 MONTREAL LAW REFOBT$. *f t U8S. MMdonnell 16 Guyot, R6p. de Jarisp., vo. SabstijttuW, 60t. 4o. The 4ct8 of the parties under qa erroneous rlow of ,their vighti cannoti- alter those rights.^t Ayould require to be shown that they knew their rights and i|j|ended to modify thjevi.^ C; 0. 1214. .^ '^ ^^ The Court of Appeal urianiniously adopted the eonstrac ' tioi* of the will given by the Superior Cpurt, and con. firmed the judgment. - ,„ ° A. ii. iZamsot^ for appellant. >>• , * " elle for m^ondenifW^ ■ , .. ti?%:- «fi w- ^ If: 1% 2t,1886: boBicaf, C; J., Monk, ^Wsay, Cboss, "Baby, JJ. r ,'4 - vvr - *i THE CENTRAL VERMONT RAILROAD {Defendant in Ckmrt below), "• ' Appbllant; AND ' HONORE LAREAU, '^• A {Plaintiff' in the Court below), RESPONDENT; JRttUidap—'Passmger jumping from Train in motion— AcaSmt -^Eesponsibilitif. ■ - ' ■'.' '.^ ■'\. ':■ '"■■'. ■ '"ii- HatD :— That even.where sr railway coinpany Hb in fault for not Btoppjng ita train at a Htation to which it has contracted to i;arry a passenger, ^ ^ nevertheless an «ctlon of damages will not be maintained against the "Vdnjpany for injuries received by the passen^r in jumping from a train iA tnotion, such damage Iwtng the result solely of the p^> seller's in^prudenc^ , / ^ ' ' • %-■■;■' ■>■'■,' '. ■ . '. " ' The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, 'liontreal, (GIIll, J.), maintaining the respondent's action of damages^'ror injuries received by his daughter, a minor, while travelling on th** appellant's road. The judgment of the C6urt below is repwted iuth0M. L. R., 1 S. 0.433. 1 «' \ . "1* notion— AatSsttt COURT OP QtJEEire BENCH. May 18.] 7. S. Ho// for the Appellant r-^ The main point to decide is how far, under anycironm- gtances, a person can juinp off a train whilst in motion, and recover 4amage8 for the fall. The appel]^||; pretends that it is a case of such gross imprudence, ^^tnt of case, mis- conduct and negligence, that the action is coinpletely barred. The learned judge in his judgment maintains that the conductor was bound to stop, and that the primary caus^ 6t all was his neglect to stop, but that the imme- diate cause was Mile. Lareau's negligence iin jumping off • while the cars were in motion. This he calls /auto commune, imd mitigates the damages. To the appellant it does not seem possible j;o call it faute commune. The omi!i^sion of the conductor to stop the train can hardly be compared or called equal ta the foolhardy act of this ypung lady^in attempting to jump off the train running at speed. j^. Lareaw, Q.C, for respondent : — En lisant la preuve on se persuade que Tappellmte a 6t6 ,qondamn£e avec raison. Elle a cbmmise une fautln on faite . preuve de negligence ou imprudence : lo. En n'arrStant pas k la station comme elle*6tait tenue de le faire. 2o.1Sn ne faisant pas machine en arriere aussitot que le con- dal^teur s'est aper9U qu'il avait d^pass^ la gare d'lber- yille sans donner &'Mlle. Lareau le temps de d^barquer. do. En n'allant pas avertir Mlleji Larean que la station 6tait d6pass6e, d'avoir a attendre pour d6barqUer & St. Jean, la gare voisine. , , . ^ ,' . < : ■ » -,^1 - .,, ' ■ ■ • ■ . '■ i .■.■■■'..■*»■ ■ V DoRioNjOh. J/^:— : f The Court is unanimously of opinion that the judgment in this case cannot be sustained. Virginie Lareairseeing that the train was going oh past the; station which was her destination, and where her father was waiting for her, jumped off and was injured. It seems clear to us that it w^ not because the train did not stop that the accident oocnnred ; b^t because Mile. Lareau was so imprudent as to jump off Vvtiile the train was in motion. 3he. might have recovered damages against the company for carrying ler on past her destination, but that is not the case before Omtral V«>- mont lUllroad ft s« j u~ /• A "=»=^ \ "x \ ^•' \ ■^ -0 ■ • u .^■.,, — r- ■ -". '^ ■ " ■■ .'■■ , f .. - fr J '^Yi - ,-'■■■ - '..■■ O **> . . » ■;s. :■- .^ ■'* ■•. ^"■'\'.- ,v: * ..,, " ■« ' w' ' - ,-. -7 ■ » <9 '-■ ■ < ,. -'l. - . 1? w - :. . .', ■ . ■ ' * ' :. ■ '^' I- '% ■ f< ■•fe •,. , • & - ■ _. is ^l i4 K,^ ;l 1 260 MONTREAL LAW BEPORTa Wt. Central V«i- nont Mir US. The ikninediate canao of the accident wag her rannlng LiiraMi o«t of the car and jamping off. Her own imprudence wus , the cause of the accident, and the injuries thereby sustained. she cannot recover for I .1',? o| ^, ' • 1^ AM "**■'- vci: -.5 /.■■ ■ " .' ■■-..'.- « vi i, ; :l e% ,^ ' ■ ■;^ ■ . * , ■ \l^ , ■'J- ■■■" ■. . :^ f ' "' - ' . '^ ; ! ■ ■ ■■. ■ -' ■ f, .1* . •;^ Ramsay, J. r— *. , The action is for damages against a railw-ay ^mpany for injury to the minor daughter of r^sjpondent! The girl took a ticket from St. Alexander to Iberville. QJwing to some pre-occupation the conductor neglected to i|top the" train at Iberville. ' The girl, seeing she was bein^ icarried past the station, jumped out and was considerably injured. The father brought an action for the injuries sustained by his daughter, and ihe court awarded very heavy/di^iQA|jr»d for these injuriesy The whole question is as to the'Teipon- sibility of the rttlway company. If reHponsible for th^ injuries, the amount is perhaps not excessive, '^ It is evi- dent that the company is liable for the da^^iagesft&sulting necessarily from it^ owi]^ act. It is not Hahle for the injury resulting from the a«t of the girl, to which she was in no way invited by the co|npany, or its ag^iitR. The rule is quite clear, and numerous English cases tura on the distinction, whuch sometimes appears very fine. In jure nan remota causa aed proximo speclatur., Re- spondent was quite aware (xf .this Tuhe, and attidmpted to show that there was a relaxation: M speed, which the girl might have; thought was an invitafipn to alight ; but this, if a tenable reaso& to account for her jumping off,*' and thus throwing the responmlility on the appellant, is not proved. It ^ shown that she jumped off an arpent*^ from the station. We are therefore to reverse. --- V The judgiSMmt of the courts as follow? : — , * La Cour, $tc '^ : ": "Gonsidcrsnt que lelou vers le ll'septembre 1884, Vir* ^nie Lar^u, fiile mmeure deM'intim^, ,deman<)eur eu ^pour de premie^ instance, kg6e d'environ vingt ans^ an- ^.'I'rait mpnt^ dans les t^hars de la compi^uie appelante dans " ,^]& pajroiise de Bt-Aiexandre^ pour se rendre a Ib^rjrille, ' ' 'a^fa^t |>r<£alableiaeat paji le jKrix.de son passage; que '•* OOTTRtOrQa :-j\ 1 'mi' quolque lea employfis "^(Kfi oompagnie fosaent infonais '** d« la destination de la^te Virginie Ur^au, il« ne fiwnt iiSXY;^*! point arr6terle convoi A 1« -gate d'Iberville, mais conHr j^^^* nuaront dans la direction de la vflle de St-Jean ; ^ , " Et considSrHnt qu'il est de plus prouv6 qu'apr^s avoir d6p«886- d'environ un arpent la' gare (d'IberviUe o4 elle devait descendre, la dite Virginio Lareau, sans avoir reqois lea employ 68 charges de la direction da convoi d'arrfiter ^ - pour qu'elle put descendre, et sans les Si^oir inform^ de '* son intention de le faire, et safis aucuue Pollicitation de leur part, ilurait descendti da qhar oii elle 6tait peadftUt que le convoi 6tait en mpuvement et proc6dait vers St- Jean avec la rapidity ordinaire sur ceite partie de la voie, et qu'elle aurait dans sa chute re^u des blessures graves, qui I'aurait laissee pendant »qi|^qae t\mpB am^cotmaiSi' ' sance Bur la voie mdme ; ^ " Et consid^rant que quoique la^>>qmj)agnie appelante %t en faute de ne pas avoir fait arrfiter^e convoii la gfare d^tlberville, ainsi qu'elle y 6tai^ "oWigee, cette omission ^n'est pas la cause immediate de8>i^le8stit^e8 que la dite. Virginie Lareau's'est faites efi dcsctjndant des chars, mais que ces blesaur^s sj||Wb>ejjUdrjS!ment dues k I'imprudence que la dite Virginie Lareau Sk comttiise eMdUscendant dea- (ihars pendant qu'il^.6t|ijent en ihouvemenl^ que ia com- pagnie appelante ne pent Mretenue respdnsabie 4e8 suites de^ cette imprudence et des dommages qui en s(int r6sal- t68 pour fintimd.; V ♦• ' ♦' " Et«onsid6rant qu'il y a erreur dans U jugement rendu pkr la'Cour 8u^6rieure sifegeant a Montreal le lie jour de mai 1885 ; " . \ ""Cette Courcasse et annule le dit jugeient du 11 mai 1885, -et renvoie Tactfonde rintim6, chaque partie pay ant 868 frais taut en Oour de premiere instano^jpie^ sur le pr6- sent appeh" , < ^ « , ■ Judgment Reversed. ■ Church, Chaplem, Hall Sf NieoUs, attorneys fot apjjeHant:- Lareau Sf Papineau, attornejrs'for respondeat. - ' v:- .,1; - 1' ,*-■ I- ♦I •s'». 'I^Wi^. iiQtfTnfMkL LAW Bk! ''4. V ■^ I r •^' jfanuary 2t, 18^6. Cifram l)oBiON, J., Monk, BAUdAT, GBOflB, Baby, JJ. ^. GEORGE B. CORNEH ■ . j^D^endant in Court Mow), Appellant ; * AMD , \\ '' MARIA BYRD - ^' ' {Plaintiff in Jdourt below), ~ • ^Respojjdkrt. .1 Maiter and Servant— Death of ^ervant-^ResjKmsibility of Employer — Damages, * 1^ the hnsbaiid of plain^j^ff, was employed by the defendant, master of a . sU^amBhip, to uasiat |n unmooring the Htoamshlp then lying at tim wharf at MontrwttI, and about to put to aoa. While M. waa atanding ready to <;a8t off the stern hawser from the post to which it was faatenixf the hawser snapped and M. was fatally injured. [kid (Rambay and Chobh, JJ., diss.) :— That the presumption was that the rope was insufhcient for the purpose for which it was being used, or tliat the ship was unsliilfully handled, and in either case the master of the sliip was responsible. The appeal was from a judgment oi the Superior Court, Montreal, Oct. 81, 1888 (Johnson, J.)r maintaining the re8p which coald not havo broken m t1 for the purpose it was used for, mii aud skilfully used, and that there negle<;t or carelessness on the pari of !',Oonsidering that the said deceased wi of about thirty-three years of age, and.earnii as a checker, %Qd that his widow, the plaintiff, ii'left,, without means of support, and With five children ; " Doth assess the damages in this cause at #6,000, eto-**. The appeal was argued first 6n th^ il8th Septe|Qb0r» 1885, before four Judges (Dorion, O.J., Monb^ Baiiilsay, Cross, JJ.), but the Court being eqttally divided, « * re-hearing took' place on the 18th January, t88d,.bi^re file Judges, including Mr. Justice Bftby. '*-" L. La/lamm0, for appellant; • . ^ .; ^* £r. il66o<^, for respbndent ' . n :, ■ . »• / . •, "1 ,:.;■•' ■ .■>. ■ , ■■ -f'' '^' ' » "'■ ■'"■"'■■■ '' ' RXmsay, J. ( iV rn>^ k-v JSdencjes Carporaaor 23 WeST MAIN STRICT WKBSTfR,N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4303 '^ 4^c :/. ^*w -<: ./ J ,* -■■ ^'. j.'v. -^ ■if*' ' -j.^ ' .--■ '•'■-» .:_ ..».. %■ ^, ■•"^^wr*' 264 • " MONTREAL LAW BEPOKTa 1886. Corner Bjrrd. -1 - "•C k if? Hi' it K 18 umversally admitted as sound law with us. that the fact of the person injured being in the, employment of the defendan is not an exception to the general rule of the Code Art. 054 C.C. . And the quotation from SourdatJL appellant s factum seems to say, that the doctrine in France accords with ours Formeri)^a contrary doctrine existed in Jingland; but the manifest absurdity of such a ^ule ha* •constantly protested against it, and a recent statute ha*. expenmentally, established «>rule not unlike that which prevails here. Evidently the employer is not responsible for the ordinary dangers of the calling in which the pe^ son yyured is engaged. So a ship-owlier is not responsi- ble to his sailors or their widows for the perils of the sea ; but I fancy there can be no doubt of his liability if he sent out his men in a ship that was not sea-worthy I am not sure that anything we can say will ever sen- i sibly decrease the diffieulty of dealing with the evidence meases of this sort; or. I might perhaps say. decrease' the fading of uncertainty by which those^ho are called npon to give advice as to the commencement of actions of this kind, ^e frequently beset. It may. however, be worth noting thbt a text of the Dig. de reg. jur. /. 23 endeavours to classify to soiiie e^teat th6se things fo^ ^W*ioii_5e^s presumed to be resj^onsibleu The accident occurring^-^5,,,Qge^ them, unless otherwise ex- plained, is held to be eiiEif^iaiit^.«4^^i,r or to be assim- ilated to It as casus fortuUus, ^^id est omneJtiS^pregmt^ nm potest. .5 Meermann, 495. .The action of the wind'^nr waves has at all times been considered as being of those things which cannot be precisely calculated; and mow particularly is it so when acting on a ship. Of coum this presumption may be rebutted ; but has it been so in this case ? It is admitted that there was a fresh breeze. and that the steamer was exposed to the force of the wind and a strong current, and the hawser having become tight for an instant, snapped. It is proved that the hawlr was sufficient in size and quality, therefore tlie fault was notm It. But it is said, if not due to any defect of the hawser, the handling of the ship must have been defecfc* dOUBT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. . 265 ive. There is no getting off one or other fiom of this dilemma, Respondent argues; and with perfect reason, if there be no such thing ap a fortuitous occurrence. Of course, it cannot be denied that as an abstract question of philosophy, there is no such thing a^ a fortuitous occur'- rence, but the law has nevet held any one to more than reasonable care. In the homely but expressive language of our law, which I shall not translate, for fear of doingit badly. It IS the soin d^un ban pkre de famdUe. This is not changed, and probably no oiie" is prepared to push the" pragmatical unification by the Code of «i//,a, to the extent 01 saying that there is no longer any occurrence for which some one is not responsible. The express terms of our tode forbid any such pretention (arts. 11 s.s. 24 C and 1072, 1200ih[660). The 0. N. also recognizes the ' ca. fortuU. ^Arts. 856, 1148, 1302, 1122. ^ It was not my intention to- enlarge uppii this question ; but the reference to it in another case of a similar kind to this one makes it necessary for me to add a word or two. Undej the old regime, it became a matter of discussion whether the doctrine of the three degrees of <^are which de- terriiined culpa was sound. Some of ihe feMr writers thought it was not; buttheauthority bf th^^featerjurists prevailed, and the doctHne we find in Pothier was full/ recognized. Mr. Sourdftt has been quoted in support of he proposition that cfe/ii and quasi-dilit stand on the same looting ; that is, that both give rise to responsibility. This **^?-t!^.i!^^' ^""^ '*"" ^^' "«* ^°»Ply' ^^^ been as- sumed, thaf teec«i«e^ft/ includes every intentional wrong- doing which injures andther, therefore every accident ' which eniails damage, if not a rf^/^, is iieceisarily i3«a«. <^M ) We^e it so t^ere would be no" room for the exlste^^ of the camsfortuitus, which, as has been shown, would be m direct contravention of texts of positive W. As to our article, I know something about it. for I was present at Its dlsc^ssion. As, a matter of fiict. Mr." Justice Dav drew the article. He was at once questioned as to ite (•) Even Somdat aoes not obntend for this. Na 668. IM. Bytd? fMii ;l 1 '«it^M Comer A Bynl. 266 MONTREAL LAW BEPOMa lission departed from i be intended to say same care, and that scope, and whether he intended to inify care. He at once disclaimed any such intention, an^I do not find in the Ckxie any reason to think the coi the intention so expressed. (') It is manifest that it never coui that every act of life required thl the charge of the Koh-i-nor di^tooiid necessitated no mofi*; care than that of a glass bead.* Tie article as "it appears was, however, adopted rather froni the desire to fit the Code to the waist-coat pocket, than friMirHuiy wish to change the practical working of the law, or, it may be said, than from the Weight of reason. (') From these considerations, I am constrained to say, as we did in the case of Periam Sf^BompieKre (L.lteS^wa 6), that without express evidence 6f failt on the pari of^the t w (') In order to have the field of discuaaion clearly before the mind, it is well to note carefully («) tb* state of the old law ; (b) the modiflcaUon of the C. N. ; (c) the innovation of the C. C. The old law is thus laid down by Pothier : "Le dibUeur ut obligid'ap- porter m aoin convenabk A la congerpaHon de la chote due. Le toin qu'U doU apporter A cetU cvruermtion eit difftrent, telun ladiffirente tiatuiydeicm- tratt ou qmai-contratt (fod robligation detceruL'^Oh. 141. The C^e Napoltoii thus modifies the'doctr^e :: U^^ation de veWer a la contemUum de la Ovate, toil que la cmventton n'ait WHBM que rutiKll deVune det partie$, soU qu'ette ait pew ohjetkur tUaia-^KKfe, Houmt celtd qui en est chargi d y apporter tow lee amni d'un ban pirtle^mille. ^X " atk oUigation ettplut ou'moim itenduerelativenientdcertairu contrail, dont let effet$, A cet igard, »ont expliqult tout U$ titreiqui let eoncement,** Art 1137. fciee also 1374, 1927, 1962. See Sourdat No. 663 for an estimate of what appears " certain, comme ritvJtant (|» terfc de I'art. 1 137." The Ovil Code thus Uys down the tajfr • "robligation de conterver la chote oblige celui qui en ett chargi d^y apporter tout let toim d'un bm phre de famiile." This article is distinguished as new law, but it contains no proposi- tion in violation of the old Ujir. AU that can be said is, that it mighf *have^een teore'ample. Th* doctrine of the Code therefort is, damage by fault creates an obligation in favour of the person who suffers- The lack of care which amounts to fault is left to doctrine. To say that Uie Codd has unified care by art. 1064 would be a contradiction in principle to art . (*) At page 18 of th« ^-irst Report only a few lines are devotecTto this change ; but from ^at is said, it is plain that the commis^ners di^ not introduce a new jole of law as to care; but only to sweep away any arbi- ' trary rule aa to " keei>iQg a thing safely under different dattet of oomraai." ■\ r If'- Ita' .<^ V OOimT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 267 IcAptain, either b^ bkd seamanship or owing to a defective liope, the snapping j)f the hawser of a ship, under the in- Iflaence of the windk and waves, is not one of those things Iwhich renders the Jhip responsible. Lin this case, the jaecieA evidence is all the other way. If M we have on tie other side is one man saying that a Ihawser never snapded with him while rwearing ashig loot of port. AnotHer tells us that a steam-tug would jdimiDish such risks.J^ It does not appear that under Cap- |t«n Corner's management, hawsers always break, and I Idon't knpW that there is any obligation to hire a steam- Itng. Again, one of Respondent's witnesses says, that the-' I best of hawsers mtt3rbe snapped in a moment by a strain ; land again we are ^Id, that it is expetJted to explain every- Ithing at sea, |>!i|.^at everything cati't be explained. We have thus tHk^Yestntsny of this man. Plaintiff's owifc wit- neps, speaking from personal observation, confirming' al- most word for word the d priori reasoning of the juris- I consult. If w^ turn to the conduct of th^ unfortunate ^ceased, I it appears to me to lyive been most imprudent. He stood oTer a cal^le which he had as good an opportunity to see strain, as ^he man who paid it out, aud whom the Res- pon^ent seeks to hold liable through th^qaptain. It was when the cable began to slacken, the deceased, should have gone to the post. He was of no use there when the 1^ was taut. It is also proved tliat deceased was Iccastomed to work on the wharf, and must have known > the peril of a rope snapping in . this ' way. Besides there 18 some evidence that he was warned. But even if there was no warning, and if there was no exceptional means of knowledge of the danger on the part of the deceased, It 18 to be presumed a man understands the ordinary nsks of the work which he undertakes to perform. Some of the modern French writers, leaving all the I known rules of responsibility by way of damages, have htaken an ingenious mode of extending the liability of the . employer, so as to make him the insurer or garani against [accidentofhisservant. The «ii«pM, they contend, is often, ' 1886. Corner Byrd. -=sr- ■^. y >. p — .Cro88, Baby, JJ. BRADY \)^ (PtaiiUif below), , '■ Appellant; AND STEWART ET AL. " : {Defendants Mow), Respondents, LUigiqm Right-^Sali qf-^C. C. 1682-1684. ^^' Hbld :— Th»t C. G. 1684. jj 4, wliich (ttatM th»t "the provJiJona of C. C " 1882 do not apply when the jixljifinont of » court has been rendewd " aflirining the rigllt," refera to a Judgment upon the particular demand in litigation, and not to a judgment affirming another right of a similar character. The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, Mathib^u, J., maintaining a plea of litigious^hts. .. |The a^ptllant became the owner of forty shares in the 8i Gabriel Mutual Building. Society, under transfers from four persons, who each transferred ten shares to him. By the present suit he asked that the respondents, the liqui- ■' dators of the society, be ordered to recognize him as the holder of these shares, and to place his name upon the' dividend sheets prepared for the division of the.proceeds of the assets among the members. The principttl defence to the action was to the effect that at the time the shares were- transferred to the plain- tiff, thfe transferors had no rights as members ; that their shares had been confiscated and forfeited for non-payment of due«i and that the plaintiff had purchased, for a small consid^ation, rights which he knew to be disputed; that he wa^ the buyer of litigious rights, and under ArticljJ 1682 ^f the Code, could only recover the price pa^, with interest thereon. \ ' Tft e Court below maintained this defeiioer and judg- "•4-. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.' 278 raont was ronder«d m«rely for the Mnonnt pdd by the plaintiff^ and interest. Jan. 16. j C. J. Doherty, for appellant. / /. Curran, Q.C., for respondents. Ramhay, J. (e/iM.) :— This is a case turning on the question ,of what is a liti giouH right. Article 1682. of the Code Civil, says that the sale of litigious rights may bo myt and the debtor (li8(^harged by his paying the purchaser whiit he paid for I It, hi» costs and interest. Clearly every right is not meant, ind Art. 1588 C. C. attempts to give a definition : " A right is held to be litigious when it is uncertain, anddis- putcd or disputable by the debtor, whethw an a<:tion for its recovery is actually pending or is lik^ay to become necessary. " If the article had said a litigious right is a litigious right, it would have been alrndSTe^ually effec- tive. Practically speaking, a right can never bo uncer- [ tarn to the judge, and our Code, therefore, forbids him to refuse to adjudicate under pretext of the silence, obscurity j)r insufficiency of the law (11 C. C). No text of law ex- I pressing directly the doctrine of this article can be found M far as I know, either in the Roman law.orin the ancient law of France ; but its dispositions accord with, and are almost a necessary consequence of the rule laid down for the interpretation of the laws. If a law might remain doubtful to the judge, why shouiy^Jbe' enjoined to interpretwhat seems doubtful or anUfhous in the text? Art. 12: V. C. . ■ ' - ' But It is equally clear that, philosophically speaking' every debt is disputable. Cicero says : Omnh res habet Inaturam nntbigendi. The only definite description of a litigious right is orie that is actually disputed. But that idea is excluded expressly by the last words of our arti- cle. Under the C. N. (Art. 1700), the question turns entirely on the institution of the action, and now a liti- gions right in France, is neither inore nor less than one which is the subject pf litigation sur lefond de droU. We, therefore, can get little help from the French books on ' WOL. II, Q. B. 18 IMk «r|ljr ItoWMt. #1 .m .J / .s, • **atiiig th« inattor whi«h iw no lon»(«'r availably, ain.u all It'ffiiihitivt* i^owtT haH \m*k\ taken away from tho Court* I do not in«>an to aay that Courta have nowjio difo.retionary pow«r«. ThM diatinotion I deairo to eiproaa, ia that they hav« no ind(*finablo diai-rution;to aet aaido i!ontraota. An illuatration- will rondi^r my mwaning plain. Tho judge may sot aaido a tontrat-t for fraud ; but th(^ fraud mu«t b« subject to oinumat^ription. 80 »judgH may aet aaido the conveyance of a litijfioua right, but only where A IdRletl deHnitiori <-an be given of what ia meant by tho term. I have not yet heard any attempt to pt^rforra thia feat in the preaent case. It in, of eourae, our duty tp give elfect to tho legislative will, expresal^d. in article 1688, HO-Qir m it ia poaaible. In doing thia, I cannot apply the article to questions othef than thoae where there ia doubt aa to the facta — for inatance, caaea depending on tho death of an heir or a legatee. ' ' . • '■ Taking this view, I am to reverse— the facta never were doubtful in thia case. ' ^ Monk, J., concurred in the dissent, considering that there wias no rqom left for doubt as) to the validity of the right, and that it could not be regarded as a litigioni ight. ■ Gross, J. :— The appellant, a6 holder under transfers of forty shares in the St. Gabriel Mutual Building Society, which is in liquidation, sues the liquidators, claiming a man«(i in by a^ concMinied, the appellant had pa'rohaaed. hflflharea he repreNenta at a nominal price, far below th« ralire of legitimate Hhar««a, with the expe in rirftie of the judgment of the Superior Court, confinded B Appeal, ill the case of the *Rev. Mr. Charbonneau,' ^hose shares had been declared forfeited in like circum'- ^ |lMice8 as tliose oi" the appellant. The Judge of the Superio^ Court held that the righ|ts ; huB sought ta be enforced by the appellant were litigi- im; that he was entitled td no more than what would ndemnify him for their cost, with expenses and interest iMed, for estimating whieh, data were given in thejadg- i*»" I ;• H i *> % tm. Brady Stewart. li 276 MONTBEAL LAW BEP0RT8. -w,, < ment, the aqaonnt whereof the respondents w^^io pay ^ the appellant within eight days, or, if refused, to deposit it in Court. In pbedience to which order- respondent* i deposited $200 and asked for final judgment, and the Court, finding the deposit sufficient, dismissed the action by judgment rendered 10th April, .188£j. I quote I from the evidence on which this judgment of the Supe- rior Court is based. The appellant himself, examined as to the purchase of his shares, says u — "I bought them at very Iredviced prices """I pai pa ac^^ -1 >; ,-?*" ...« • (X)URT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. an affecting another right of a similar character whichsoever had become litigious had been«determined, but not the particular right or claim now bought to be ^ (^forced, which had become and Was litigious before |lie other claim" or right was passed upon, and which, in fact, may remain litigious, as th« other judgment has n«t been I acquiesced in by third parties, and might hot be, shbuld a case arise that could be taken to a hi^lier court. My interpretation of this provision ^)f the*' Code is that it only applies to the particular dertiand in litigation [having been confirmed' by the judgment of a court. Were it otherwise, it would be easy for a speculator to [ press to judgment a case in which a similar principle wfw involved to one affecting numerous clainUg|hich he had purchased at a nominal price, and thus to^^ade in great part the law applicable to the purchase of litigious rights. As to the litigious nature of the rights" in/question, I think the terms of Art. 1582 C. C, and Pothier, Vente, No. [ 583, fairly demonstrate that they are litigious. Pothier says : " Celles qui so^t contesteeB ou peuvent I'dtre en total " (fti en partie." The society had apparently in good faith adopted proceedings which, according to their judgment, ' should have proved effective to forfeit the rights for well established defaults ; the shareholders had been notified, and for a long time seemed to make no objections ; the claims so unpromising had been purchased as a specula- t tion by the appeHant, he knowing that they were dis- puted and would-r;§qirfi^e litigation before he could hop^. to recover anything on them. "We have held such rights to be litigious where the principle seemed even more dif- ficult of application, viz., I think, in the case oiDansereau if Lelourneux.{^) The majority of the Court are of opinion to confirm the ^judgment in this (jjuse. ~~-^ Judgment confirmed, ~ Monk & Ramsay, JJ., diss. Doherty Sf Doherty, attorneys for appellant. Curran Sf Orenier, attorneys for respondents. (J. K.) . ; (■) M. L. R, 1 Q. B. 357. See opinion of Cross. .T.. n. .36g. M- USl BrMly 8t«waru H! II ^1 ,1* !' li .-. 216 ttONTBSAL LIW REPORTS. \''' 2 September 26, 1886. Coram DoRiON, C. J:, Basisay, Tkssikr and Cross, JJ. "iAMES F. COX, (Plaintiff i» Court below), t Appellant ; AND ^c: Bm^' 23? -^^ 1^, I I V '§ii:4 •I III WILLIAM R. TURNER ET AL., , (Defendants in Court below), ^^: - Respondents. 3a'e — Deliverp-^Befusal to accept — Counsel fee. The appellant, at Montreal, on the 26th September, 1884, sold tea to arrife I ex " Glenorcby," at the port of New York. The tea reached Montreil October 14, 1884, find was then ofTered to respondents. The latter I refused to accept nnless the conditions of sale were altered, and tbt | tea was resold at a loss. Hbld :— That the offer of October 14 was an offer to deliver within a reason- 1 - able time, and that if the respondents, after refusing to take delivei; I according to the conditions of sale, wish^ to retract their refusal, it was incumbent on them to make a distinct offer to the appellant to do so, and not to leaVe him in doubt as to the pioisition they took ii [ the matter. 2. A fee paid to counsel for advice will not be allowed as i>art of the dam- 1 ages fot breach of contract. The appeal was from a judgme&t of the Superior Court, Montreal (Doherty, J.), May 6, 1885, dismissing theap- I)ellant's action. The written judgment of the Comt below was as follows : — , " The Court, etc. # " Considering that the plaintiff hath failed to prove the I material allegations of his declaration, and more particu- larly that he ever put the defendants en demeure to accept I and pay for the tea in question, in this cause, under and according to the conditions of the broker's sale thereof to I the defendants ; 2^ '\And_ considering that whilst holding defendants | striotly to the cohdilfons of said sale in so far as t] we^ bpund originally thereby and persisting therein, lie I '.n? ,1 ' 7 ^.-■'^ > i »i»-s^4er l'''?'!JW-5j™Fgp?j^ "J^PSRW^'^T*^!^ cxhjbHo^ I'B BENOa 279 id as i>art of the dam- 1 was and still is in default to frfiver, or to offer to deliver, said tea according to and ttpon the conditions of said sale, or upon any conditions which defendants were bound to accept, and that they were not bound to pay before or simultaneously with said delivery as insisted by the plaintiff, contrary to the conditions of said sale ^hich by this action he now seeks to enforce ; "And considering that defendants have proved the material allegations of their plea and defense to this action, I and more particularly that the breach of said contract was made by plaintiff and not by them, to wit, by refusing examination and delivery of s»id tea according to said sale anespondents : promised to bj Mr teft^m^^p t em- — 18ML Ooz Tarneito <^ 1 '-^'■l Turner. h-.'.i ■/ ■,* '**•.. -■ • ' ^ Hr" ;^#** 280 liONTRBAL LAW REPORTS. ber'26, tl^e broker acting for appellant represented that it was on the way from New York, which implied that it would be delivered in Montreal about October 1 ;. and depending on such representations they made several sales which they were obliged to cancel. The tea hav,/ ing arrived some fifteen days later than was expected ihey were entitled to refuse it. but would have takeij^t if it had been equal to sample, but they- were refused -Lst- mission to examine a sample. They had drawn a ch;^ue on the 17th October, but, disgusted with the treattaent they had received, they finally preferred submitt/ng to the inconvenience of not getting the tea, and de<|ded to have nothing more to do with the appellant. / / Cross, J., (for the whole Court) :— / •(■ On the 26th September, 1884, the appellant, through his broker, Osgood, sold the respondents sixty-e^ight half- chests Japan teas, as per sample, Giraffe, 118,1]SJ0, at 20 cents per lb., duty paid, to arrive ex-Glenorchy, that is by a vessel of that name, to arrive, or which had arrive*(^,ftt the port of New York ; terms prompt cash, less 3 per cent. The tea had all arrived at Montreal by the 14th- October, and had been plap64 in the warehouse of David Kiniry, warehouseman. Previously, that is on Saturday, the 11th of Oetober, the appellant caused an invoice and delivery order (the latter addressed to Kiniry) to be made out and delivered to the respondents. This delivery order was by respondent's carter presented to Kiniry, probably on the 14th or early on the 15th of October (the exact time is not fixed by the proof), and Kiniry, in an- swer, offered to deliver the tea, but it was not then ac- cepted, and the delivery order was left with Kiniry. In the meantilne, by a letter dated the 14th, but only de- 1 li\rered on the 15th October, the respondents refused to accept the tea, unless the appellant would change the con- ditions of sal^, so as to make it on credit in place of for cash. This letter was to the effect thatt they, the respondentia would only accept th6 tea on condition that frhey should have the option of four months or 3 per cent, meaning 8 -per c«iit.-di8ee»at^ttfe^ thirty -day ft The^etegt~fer-makiiq ;= •■■V. .'H OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 281 this demand was that the tea had not arrived in reason- able tini«, an excuse which does not seem to be borne out by the proof, nor was it persisted in. The appellant refused to accede to this proposed change of terms, more especially to put himself in the position of a vendor on credit. The respondents, nevertheless, with^, oat intimating that they abandoned the posi^iq^ taken^ by them in their letter above cited, caused a Remand to be made by their carter on Kihiry for the return of the delivery order which Kiniry thfin, • by the instruc- tions of the appellant, as well verbally as in writing,, refused to give him. The appellant's written instructions to KiiHry, contained in a letter dated October^ 16, .re- quested Kiniry to retain the delivery order in his pos- session, and stated also that as the respondents had writ- ten the appellant, declining acceptance iif the tea unless the appellant would change the terms agreed upon, Kin- iry was requested hot to deliver the tea, pending instrue- ^ tions frdm him, the appellant, whereupon the respondents, through their attorneys, Doutre & Co., by letter of date October 18, addressed to the appellant, stated that the tea was not delivered by Kiniry. when appellant's order was presented; that on that refusal they had been re- quested by their clients to ask the delivery of the tea or the remittance of the order, which had been handed to Mr. l^iniry; that as Kiniry alleged he could not de- liver the tea nor the order, because of instructions received from the appellant, their clients the respondents consi- dered that the contract with the appellant was cancelled > and they intended holding the appellant responsible for all damages. Up to this time, the only question in dispute was as to the delivery of the tea, which appellant had the riglit of withholding against the demand that the transaction should be one on credif. If the respondents had coupled their demand for the' order with a declaration of willing- ness on their part jto comply with the terms of the sale, they might have thereby restored their position and put the appellant on his diligence. The appellant, consistent Cos k Tumar. M 2«2 ma. Turner. r/ ! 1} MONTRSAL LAW RBPORTB. .»,' with his pretensiofli, took this further precaution : as the _^re8pon4«nt8 were entitled to inspect the tea, appellant, on the ISthOctober, sent them an^r^er addressed to Kin' iry to allow them to sample the t«£^ ~ . The next proceeding was a formal notarial protest by the appellant, made arid siifnifi^d to the respondents on the 21st October, whereby he narrated the facts above recited and tendered the respondents a delivery order for the tea, demanding payment thereof according to the terms of the agreement for the sale thereof, and there being no compliance witl^ this depiand, but a refusal, on the grounds already taken by them, the appellant caused the tea to be sold for the best price that could be obtained for it, through^ broker, who offered it to the respondents themselves. There was a loss on the tea, which realized less than the price the respondents had agreed to pay for it, for which loss, Wi^eertain costs alleged to have been necessarily incurred by appellant, the present action has been bnm^ht. ^.Theleartied judge of the Superior Court was of opinion that the a|)pellant had been in default to deliver the tea according/ to the terms of the saleV and that the appellant had requj^red payment before or simultaneously with the delivery /of the tea, which «he respondents Were not bound to make; he consequently dismissed the appellant's action. The coluri here think that the learned judge was in error in tils' view of the case; that the appellant was ready and offered to deliver the tea, and that the breach of the contract occurred by the respondents refusing to accept it unless the conditions of sale Were changed so as to conyert a sale for cask into a sale on credit ; that on such Refusal, the appellant was justified in stopping the delivery of the tea, until satisfied that he would bo paid according to the terms of his contract and should not be obliged to submit to terms of credit ; that in the absence of stipulation to the^M)ntrary, the condition precedeiit on the vendee's part is readiness to pay the price ; that the offeiM to deliver was afterwards renewed in the protest ^ OOUBT OF QtTEElTS BENCH. 288 served upon the respondents, and that the pretended dam- ages snfTered l^y the respondents in consequence of delay in delivery, ar0 not imputable to the appellant. There is no doubt the Irespondents suffered inconvenience, and^ perhaps, even loss, in their business by not having the tea sooner, but on a sale tojurrive from a vessel expected in New York, the delay was not eicessive, and until the arrivisJ of the tea, no steiw were taken to complai'nof the ~ delay, nor is there much inr the pretension that prompt cash meant payment several days after delivery: -Cte*-,. cash sale, vendor's lien holds, and there can be no com- plete delivery until the money is ready simultaneously. This court is of opinion that the judgment of the Superior Court is to be reversed, and the appellant is to have judgment for the loss upon the resale of the tea, to- gether with the costs of protest. A demand 6f quite a novel character is, however, set up in this case, viz., ihe allowance of a counsel fee for giving advice to the appellant. We are not disposed to allow this charge. The courts &re continually pressed to allow extraneious charges, and if such demands were not resisted, the costs of litiga- tion would rapidly become even more ruinous than thiey already have the reputation of being. Every subject is supposed to be bound to know the law for himself, and if he thinks it prudent to be advised on what is legally an obligation of his own, he indulges in a luxury he is legally and, I presume, fairly bound to put to his own charge. -^ . ,_^.- j:'\ The judgment is as follows:— • 7 " Considering that at Montreal, on the 26th of Septem* . ber, 1884, the appellants, through the instrumentality of one'Osgoode, a broker, sold to the respondents 68 half chests of Japan tea at 20 c. per lb., duty paid, to arrive ex " Glenorchy," (that is by the vessel called the G-lenor- chy, at the Fort of New York), terms prompt cash, less three per cent ; ^ " Conctfdering.that said tea arrived i^ Montreal before and on the 14th of October, 1884, and was then and there < offered to the respondents, and payment thereof A^lj IMS, Cos k Turner. ■V If 9 - m '■':. f- 984 MONTREAL LAW RRrORTS. laaa. TvniM. i I ■t — •■•••»*-' demanded of them, according to the conditions of such sale ; " Considering that by letter dated the 14th of October, 1884, written by the respondents and by them addressed to the appellant, and delivered to him on the 16th of October, 1884, they, the respondents, refused to accept the said tea, unless the appellant would consent-to change the conditions of the said sale, so as to make it a sale on terms of credit, in place of a sale for prompt cash ; " Considering that the consequence of the said refusal was to cause loss and damage to the appellant, which have been ascertained ani determined by the resale of said tea and conseq^uent expenses at the sum of $118.22, for which the respondehts are bound to indemnify the appellant ; " Consiftering that if the respondents were afterwards willing to retract tHeir said refusal and to conform to the conditions of said sale, it was incumbent on them to have made a distinct offer to do so to tjvft appellant, and not to have reft hiij^injigubt as to the position they took in the matter; '" '.'; '^ -^^^fe^^;-'-" • " Considering that afterMii^t^Kisai; the appellant was justified in refusing the delivery of said tea, untn the respondents should have made offer in a distinct manner to carry out the terms of said sale and fulfil their obliga- tions thereunder, which they failed to do ; . " Considering therefore, that there is error in the judg- ment rendered by the Superior Court in this cause on the 6th of May, 1886, the Court of Our Lady the Queen, now here, doth reverse, annul and set aside the said judg- ment, and proceeding to render the judgment which the said Superior Court ought to have rendered, doth ad- judge and condemn the respondents jointly and severally to pay and satisfy to the appellant the sum of 1113 22 &c." * Judgment reversed. Trenholme, Taylor, Dickson Sc Buchan, attorneys for ap- pellant. ; /o»^A ^ Damftirand; attorneys for re8iH)ndent8. " (J.K.) , - ^^ s ^■v..,. a: iditions of suoh OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 286 December 80, 1886. Coram Dorion, 0. J., Ramsay, Orobs, Baby, JJ. "* ■I CHAUL^^ NORTHWOOD kt al. • / '«; (Plaintiffs Mow), /' ^^ » ' Appellants ; AND / / / • ALEXANDER BORROWMAN [Defendant below), Respondent. *" Sale — Dday in delivery — Diligence. Theappellanta, ofChatliaiii, Ont., through broken at Montreal, on the 6th July, sold a caivo of wheat, to be shipped by sail, as 'floon as a vessel could be secured, and to be delivered at Montreal. The wheat did not arrive at Montreal until August 16th, when the res- pondent refused tq aorept it The appellants had endeavoured to obtain a vessel at Detroit, but it was not until July 21st, that a vessel was flnallyjihartered at Torontou Held :— That mi delay of fifteen-days which elapsed before a vessel was chartered, was an unreasonable delay, as it appeared that a vessel might have been obta&ied sooner at Toronto, if the appellants had been willing to pay a ^beral rate of freight ; and the appellants not having alipwu due diU|[ence, the respondent was justified in refusing to accept the wheat \ ^^"^-^-^^^_^ , \- ^ - ., The appeal was |ro^ a judgment of the Saperipr Court, '^ Milktreal (Jett£, J.), Oct. 81, 1888, dismissing the action of the appellants. \^ The judgmentrof the Court below (which was affirmed by the judgment now reported), was in the Ipllowing terms : — *" " LaCour, etc: ^ " Attendu que les demandenrs r6clament du d6fendeur la somme de $1208.05, 6tant la perte par eux subie sur la revente d'une cargaison de 8,919 minots de bl6 vendue au d6fendeur, en juillet, 1882, k raison de |1.86 le minot, mais dont le dfefendeur a ensnite refuse de prendre livrai- 80U et que les demandeurs ont fait revendre k ses risques, *1?p *i SM MONTREAL LAW REPOBm I' , N(Wthw«ad UorruMnuan. .>«•' '^m^ •** I ne rtalliianl que |1.22f par mlnot, et oooa«ionuant vi\ com^mnuw la pert« totalo 8UHdi6 ce grain avec toute la dili- gence vottlne, et que le quinze aoAt ils I'ont offert an d^fendeur qui I'a refuafe sans raisoii plausible ; " Attendu que le d^fendeur a contests cette demande disant : que d'aprds le contrat invoqu6 et suivant la cou- tumoidu port de Mqntrdal, eh tels cas les demandenrs devaient charger et exp6dier la marchandise vendue sous un d6lai de cinq jours ; qu'ils anraient pu se procurer un navire dans ce ddlui et que le grain serait alors arriv6 a Montreal vers le vingt juiliet, mais ^ue par la faute et la negligence des demandeurs il n'est arriv6 que le quinze aoAt, et qu'aprds uu retard si considerable le d6fendeiir 6tait bien fond6 k refuser de prendre livraison de la dite marchandise ; > " Attendu qu'il ressort de la preuve au dossier que les demandeurs paraissent avoir 'fait de promptes demarches, pour se procurer un navire, aussitdt que contrat fut passfe ils n'ont cep endaint conclu que le v/ngt*un juiliet avec les proprietaires de " V Ariadne" et que le chargement de la marchandise ne s'est fait que le premier ao&t ; " Attendu qu'il est de plus prbuve, mdme par les t6- ' moins des demandeurs qu'il aurttit 6te possible k ces der- niers de se procurer un navire plus promptement en payant un fret plus 61eV6, et qu'il resnlte de la preuve de la defense qu'il etait mdme facile, vu la quantite de navires cherchant emploi k cette epoque, de s'en assurer *un Jle la capatite vouLue, 4« six au quinze juiliet, et par suite d'expedier la marchandise dans un deiai beaucoup moins long; >" /', * ^ SftJSflipf OOUBT or QUEEN'S BENCH. 287 " Attenda qa'il eit d« pins At'abli par nombre d'affrd- i«un ot d'exp^ditt^uri dn gruinH ihAniM dw ceaz «xatnin6fi ta Houtien do la demandu, que Iw retard des dumaudimra, daiiH la circonstance, eat toatr4-fait hora dea oaagea da commerce ; " Conaidirant que bion quo par Jen termea da contrat entre les parties il u'ait H(s fiz6 aucuu d6lai <^ertain et d& termini pour rexpMition de la man-handiiie vendue, lea mots y^in^^rC's : aussitot qu'il sera |M)MHible de se procurer on havire, {Oftooii tu veaset can be $ecured,) doiveiit n^an* moiiiH s'entendre et s'interpf^ter comme n'accordant aaz rendeurs qu'uu d^lai raisouuable, d'aprds lei aaages dn commerce, en pareil cas, et que cea usages condamnent le retard des demandeurs dans I'espece et justifient au con- traire le refus du d^fendeur, d'accepter la livraison tardive de la dite tnanrhandise ; / " Maintient les exceptions et defense du dSFendeur, d6- clare I'ofTre fait par les demandeurs de la marchandise vendue, le quinze aout, 1882, insuffisante et tardive aux termes du contrat invoqn6 et en consequence renvois et d^boute Taction des deinandears avec dSpens distraits, etc." ^ • ■ ;'..J' -, ■ . . •'. ■ Nov. lY. L. N. Bery'amin, for appellants. C. B. Cor/«r, for respondent. Cross, J. :— On the 6th of July 1882, Messrs. Northwood 8c Stringer, of Chatham in Ontario, through their brokers at Mon- treal, A. D. Thomson & Go., sold to Messrs. Borrowman & Co., a cargo of Red Winter Wheat, from eight to ten thousand bushels, like previous samples, at |l.d6 per buehel of 60 lbs, delivered here at Montreal, wheat to be shipped by sail as soon as vessel can be secured. .The cargo consisting of about 9,000 bushefs, arrived at the Port of Montreal from Kingston, in the Barge " Eing- hom," on the 16th August, Borrowman & Go. being notified. . It was formally tendered to Borrowman & Go. on the 17th August by notarial tender and protest, which was NorthwiMxl lionrawnwn. ' f >-m^ ■'*:-r 288 MONl'RKAL LAW REfORn " ■ ' 4 ' ' 1 i 1 y •UP- **' '*:' «.-•»' Hi' M r«peat«d on tho t#lli, H^ wm r«fViMd by Borrowniiii k Co. North wood & Co. thereuixia wohl'it at a hijj^ i»nd brouf^ht their Mition for tho dmnagoa luitained.^^l^ I ground that tho tn/ndftr wan too Uto. It WM •hipped IWft Chatham, on tho^ Ut Auj(ti«t for Klngnton, by tho Hi^hooner '^AriadM," which had biwn ohart»*r#»d at Toronto, on tho 2Iiit Jnly. It do«a not appoar that any extraordinary delay oct;urrod in oipoditing ^he cargo aftor the charter of tho " AHaditi." Chatham u • ^ an inland {lort on tho Rivor Thani«a. At a vesiel wii onlyj)ro<|uiV|)ent to «u ftifnHondents' answers that such is not the case. It is not pretended that the allegations, if true, do not justify the conclusions. But in effect, the objections . urged by the respondents and the judgment appealed from are, that respondents should have the privilege of choosing their own method of redressing the injury they have done ap- pellant. Appellant urges that the election of the remedy, when there is more than one for an injury, lies with the party injured, and not with the party committing it ; and if there be a choice of remedies, which, in this case, appel- lant doubtSj he has elected his remedy, — one which the law clearly recognizes, an4 he is ready to abide by it. The respondents should meet the action by a plea of not guilty, and not by a plea, as they now do, that there is another way in which the appellant may get some sort of satisfaction ^should he adopt it, and which the^, the wrong doers, prefer he should adopt. Tl^ere is some conflict in fhe decisions of the many learned judges, both in England and the United States, upon questions similar to the one in issue in this case. ^ COURT OF QUEEira BENCH. 296 , - . * - The majority have held that ^e wrongful acts of the pledgee do not annihilate the contract between the par- ties nor the int'ereft of the pledgor in the goods under it, and that the pledgee has the right to have his debt re^ conped in the damages which may be awarded. While a very, able minority of Judges have held that the bail- ment terminates by the wrongful act of the pledgee, the property reverts to the pledgor as its absolute owner, and as such absolute owner he is entitled to full damages. In either case, the Oourts are unanimous in holding that the pledgor has a right of action to recover damages. Sedgwick, Law of Damjjges, page 891. Ibid, page 892. Appellant, if the contraxst of pledge still exists, can not demand the return of the stock pledged until he has sa- tisfied the debt, or has offered, to do so, either of which he is unable to do, and his inability is the result of the onlawfal and fraudulent acts of respondehts in the sale and delivery of the stock in question. The value of the stock appellant alleges to be ninety thousand dollars. Respondents sold it for thirty thousand, one-third of its value. The total liability on the stock was less than sixty thousand dollars. Thus appellant's property, which was his means of meeting his liabilities, has been sacri- ficed by the respondents, who now urge that he must do, what, by their wrongful acts, they have rendered it im- possible for him to do. . Is appellant then to be deprived of all legal remedy? If the pretension of respondent and the judgment, ap- pealed from be correct, such is the inevitable result. And the general principle of law that every wrong has its legal remedy can not avail appellant. Kerr on Actions at Law, page 45, say8-^"Now since all wrong may be considered as a privation of right, the na- tural remedy for every species of wrong, is the being put in the possession of tl^at right, whereof the party injured is deprived. This may be effected, either by a specific restoration of the subject matter in dispute tothe l^gal owner, as when the possession of lands or goods is unjustly withherd ; or where^aU|, not possible, or at least not IMflL QllmaA ft CampbaU. '' HI fI i/^ t/, : »i^-^ .•«,-*•-.>• 'm MONTBEAL LAW REPORm Oilnuui Campbell. ^■■~ ,.V* ,*■!■'' iM' •^* •.-»• : i? an adequate remedy, by making the sutForer a pecuniary satisfaction in damages, to which damages the pairty in- jured has acquired an incoinplete right the instant he receives the injury." The judgment in question effectually deprives appel. lant of the application of this principle, * But the respondents have no legal right to the option which they demand, because they have voluntarily put it out of their power to return the stock in question by iU sale an :— 1. That under the advertiBenient,tbe sheriff was bouiHJL'to sell Um I property as a whole,--^. e/nsofrnct and nue prcpriiti combing ; and if! •p.-Tr -''WW^ asi-v -^Ti^ ^ ^ ■^jnw 'i'-^ _; ^-^jfF ' ^.-5?. m tellant) to a jodJ errgr in the jud r Montreal, on tk f the demnrreti seconde difeme al OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 299 (Imt tt •*!• of th»M«» riRliUi i««p»r»t«ly in»«l« by tho alieriff having nMultod In aurpriae and preJudlM) U) th« dof«iulanta, it would l>e aet wldH, on petition m nuiliU dr dttftt by defendanta. That UBiifruct la inconKireal right (droit inetrriwrfl) whlrh, nnd«r CP.C. - 638, ahould have l)«ona«t forth inlhe/)roc^(i-«erWof iwiBureandttlaoln Uw'advertlaement (C. P. C, 648) by mention of tho title under which It ia duo. , IIM. Ohener BruMt. tc, the said judg- the said demurrei, lament reversed. In 1888, Dame L D. Cheney, one of the appellants, was ^nfructuary and her children, the other appellants, were jMtf prc!;>n^to sell Um ipritU combing ; and I " Public notice ia hereby given that the undermentioned lands and ' tenementa have been Beized and will be aold, Ac., &o. [The names &c.,of plaintiffa : The names Ac, of defendanta, and their I ctpacitiea of usufructuary and nm proprtitotre*] " Tlie lots of land hereinafter described seiied as followa ? to wit,the uau* " frnct as belonging to Dame L. D.C. during her lifetime and the nw pro- "pri(fWaa belonging to wit,one nndivlded third t» L. V. D. and the other I " two thirds to Ac, Ac, Ac. " lo That certain lot of land Ac, (described.) " io That otber lot 9f land Ac, (deacribed.) " To be Bii)ld at my office, Ac, Ac," Ac." On the day of sale, Mr. Molson, an intending purchaser, sent a representative with authority to buy the first lot I ftp to |6y000. ' When the sheriflF had read the usual documents, he I put up for si^e the usufruct of Dame L. D. 0. tUone, and announced tha* if that did'not realize the judgment, he wonld tAeii put up the nue proprUti as a whole. Mr. Molson's agent, finding this mocle diflferent from what he expected, and having no means of distributing the total value placed on the property by his principal, ob- ;f '-.■,'-.." ■. . ' ' , ■ - J**' ■....'- ,.- ■" t .■"■'■■"■ ■.■'.■■■"■"■■ - , V f li'i 7:f . -' li.ijrpi ^wif# ^ Bnintt. t\ ,22 •::,.« ^ I ' 'I' .1; 800 MONTRKAL LAW RRPORTR. •IP. je«tt'd, but the mhIu w«w pro«»«ded with, and the !»((,.« "''•r' ^ milking no bid on the usufruit, it wm adjudirMd to A Brunet for $160. T\n^ nue ftrofmilS bwing th«n put uji^ wAu adjudged for |4,100 to Mr. MoIboii'h agent, who ^ was urged by bystanderH to bid. All this had referi!n.«« to tho first lot of land de8C|ibed, and the two prices hav ing exceeded the judgment, the second*lot was not koIA The dufendantH in the case, now appellants, -filed i Petition) en nuim tie d^tret, und»f ■f\ "•Tfl^' J'}" f^ COURT OF QUEENS BENCH. 801 " CoiiBid^raiit quo rex6cutia» ('mwe 6tait centre lea LiH poMonnuls d«« dita d6f«nd«arH et quo. sur telle Locution, !♦}» demandeuTH ne pouvaient faire Haiair, ot le Hh^ril*tu( iM)uvait prendre en ex^ution aur «^haque dfefen- Jdeur (lue h^ droit que la loi lu) reconnaiwHit aur lo dit Lmcublo, aavoir, ruaufruit quant .\ la d6fehd<^r«88e Dame lucy D. Cheney et la nue propri6t6 quant aux autrea ; L« iiUH droita Hont diatincta et afipurSa et oUt 6te aC'parfe- L.Mit aaiiiia et annoncfia en vento au moyen dea publica- Itiona requiaea; quo (^onafequerament la vento dea dita IdroitH ii^mobiliera pouvuit ot doyait r6guli6reraent 6tro kite par le dit Sh6rif 86par6ment et diatincteraent, con- I |orra6ment h la dite aaiaio ef lea ditea unnoncea ; ' Muiu^ient la oonteatatiou du dit adjudicataire A. Bru- I net et ceWe du Sh6rif, et renyoie et rojette la dite roqufeto en nullit^ de dficret, avec SJeftcns, etc." • / The defendants, »petitio;ier8 en nullity, then appealed.^ R. A^Rammy for appjjllanta. A. B. Jjongpri for respondent adj^ditataire Brunet. A. Ottime/ for sherifi;^ respondent. ' _ DoRi[)N, C. J., said the majority of the Court >yere of opinioii that thojsalo was irregular, and the adjudicatiou "must be set aside. The separation of the usufruct from thaovVuership was improper and not in a«.cordance with law. It was obvious that the not selling the whole together operated a prejudipe to the appellants.j The pro- perty was sold for about one-half the sum t^at would have been bid ,for it if the whole had been joflFered to- gether. The procedure v^as irregular for tlj.^ jfeasons set forth in the judgment to be rejidered. Dsufrrict is a droit incarjmel as mentioned in O.P.Q. 638, sec. 8. VidePothier, Cout. D'Or : T. 21, Nor2, p. 688 (Bugnet). Hericourt, Vento d'Immeubles, p. 225, No. 14. Property^ should not be morce/^ needlessly. Pothier, Cout. D'Or : T. 21, No. 12, p. 701. (Bugnet). As. the defendants might have given a- more definite description of the property seized, and as the advertisement agreed with the seizure, the Court was disposed in reversing the judgment to do so without OhiHity BruMt. -*1 1^^"' «« ■"^^ * OkMay liruMl. •«i««,M' ^' • ;.f 1 ""••I ! ■» iffij, V T^^lEaW^T* , SM •..»* MONTllEAL LAW REPOBm i^Sf -1 ■I •!- Tho following i« th« jadgmtnt of thfl Court :— "LftCoar, etc •*CoMldAr»nt<|u«lor«|u». l«w bimwqui font Tobjet d'oul Millie immobili^w Nout (Iah droitii incor|»or«lii, il doit «ii,l fait mention daim 1h i)r(MA«.v.Tb.il d« aaiiiiM du (itrenl vt^rtu du.|«pl Ua aont dua. (Article «88, Code de Pro, Civile): f/', ^ " Conald^irant qu« \m annoniuw qui' doivont pr«,.Hiet la xrente de tela droita incorporela doivent contenir Ii mAqie doncription d'icenx que celle inH6r6e dana le pro,*,. verbal de aaiaio, y .rompria la m.^.tion du titre en vertn duquel ila aont dua, (art. 648, Cod.» d« Proc. Civile) "Oonaidfirant que I'uaufruit .^at un droit in«;orpor.-l et que .elui aaiai aur I'appelaute Dame Luoy D. Cheney n. paa Hk aaiai ni annonf6 av.Mi lea formalitfia requiaes p« lea artiflea ({88 rfl «48 du (^ode de Proffidure Civile. mJ qu'au contrair^i lea annoncea «iui on^ pr6c6d6 la \ oii'te in- diquaient que I'uaufruit appartenant A lappelante «t I J nue propri{^t6 appartenant A aea enfanta aur claque pro- pri6t6 aaiaie, devaient 6tre vendua coiume ne faiaant qunn tout, ce que le ahferif avait le droit de faire en I'abaence de toute requiaition au contraire de la part dea partia iutSreasdea ; "Et con8id6r%nt qu'au lieu de vendre lea propriitfc aaiaiea coftform6ment aux annoncea, I'uaufruit et la nue propn6t6 ne faiaant qu'un tout, le ah^rif a proc6d6 s^pa- r6ment A la vette de I'uaufruit et de la nue propri6t6 de limraeuble d6crit dans le procea-verbal efdana leg an- noncea souB le numfiro un. oomme formant deux lota di«- tincts et que la vente ainai faite a 6t6 pr6judiciable am mt6rAt8 dea appelanta et qu'elle eat ill6ffale et nuUe ; " Et considerant quil y a erreur dana le jugement rendu palWa Cour de premiere instance ; "Cette Cour caase et annule le dit jugement, et prOc^ dant A rendrele jugement que la dite Cour de premiere instance aurait du rendre, annule et met A n6ant le decrei iait 86par6ment le cinq avril 1884, de Tusufruit a Alexis Brunet, et de lA nue propri6t6 A Herbert Darling de I'im- meuble No. 1861, quartier St-Autoine de Montreal, decrit ■^z^r^ .J mvKt or QUKiNn Menoh: 80S L prcM;A«- verbal d« iiaiaitt «n cutto c»iMi»^«oua nmni^ro uii ; [htqiii^ partie paycuit iiHi itftia tant eti ^cour ^u protniiro |iuiUii<«' qui iur r»pp«l." ^ (Dui)<'**<^i^i<|ity of the sale. Lonergan, for the respondent :^ — J/'l; The judgment to be satisfied was only $1,002, and < I article 596 of the Code of Procedure says, j^e sale must T not proceed beyond the amount necessary t4 pay the debt in principal, interest and costs. The sale might have been jof one share, with option to take more at the same rate. Sahsat, J. : — This case comes up on appeal-from a judgment maifa> I taining a petition m }i«//t/^ de d4cret. The sole ground niged wa8thata:«ale of "7,924 shares of the Montreal, ' Jortland & Boston Railway company had been sold by Ihe sheriff en bloc. The argument for the respondents was - , / that under article 696 of the Code of Procedure* the sale most not proceed beyond the amount necessary to pay the debt, in principal, interest and costs. This articl^ does not mean that the sheriff shall, not sell according to hiB seizure. The poWer given by the la^ is that th§ debtor may indicate tl^e lots to be sold, so that if there is more than enough to satisfy the judgment, |;h6 rest of the property shall not be sold. Regulayly, the shiiff sells according to his seizure, and he can only depart from this Older on the demand of the defen4ant. Thjs «ourt recenf ly.in an analogous case, Cheney SrBrunet^ decided that the sheriff must sell according to his advertisenkents. The peison to watch the regularity of such things is not thej ^* sheriff but those who are interested in the sale. Here it** I appears that the shares sold had no value in themselves. They were only valuable because, from the number, they gave a controlling influence over the road. The sale was ^^ hole and corny affwr ; every nii fl int e rested waa ■r I ll-': »M.L.R,2Q.B.298. 14s. .A4^^ •* - M ^--^ fT**^* - ^.t^.'si^i^'W^Tn-* ^Ti^t-^w ^, ','rtv^ J^7fe*^8(-' IfK-' ^F^l??" " ''" f T«^^'*^v ■" yw , *» 1/ ao8 MONTREAL LAW REPOBTa ISM. Morrii k a.tP. K. RR Co. 1» r ^ < there, or could Have been there. We are told that some i the great capitalists of the country were present, and thil they bid up to a Certain amount and then they allege the shares to be knocked down to the appellant. Undei these circumstances, the judgment aiinulling the must be reA'prsed, and the purchaser must be allowed th beneiit of };ps purchase, t'he people now complaining mightl have enjoyed the same advantage if they had chosen to| bid more. Not haying done so, they cannot^ now be mitted to set aside the sale, in ord^r that they may havel another opportun ity to buy. As an abstract principle, jtl makes no difference whether the shares were worthless ot[ whether they were i^hafes of the Bank' of Montreal or anjl other' bank. There was ne-i^r6wnee of collusion or frandil and the sheriff on^y sold ds he was bound to do. The judgment of the Court belo^ must therefore h\ reyersed with costs* Dorion.Ch. J.:— Barlow, the defendant upon whom these shares wenl - sold, ratified the sale : it is a creditor who comes in, and| says that the sale is null because the sheriff sold T,0 shares in one k)t. The pretension of the responden amounts to this, that the shares should have been share by share, foiv if it was wrong to sell V.OOO shaml together it would have been wrong to sell ten shaieil together. The respondent does not pretend that the shar^l were sold below their value. The creditors were in rejdit] benefited by the sale of the whole together, for by' that! proceeding the expense of a numberof sales was aT^ideiJ There may be case&i in which such gross injustice wonl^ appear, that the Court might be disposed to interfere ii order to protect the interests of the creditors ; but nothii of that kind is «hown here. It is clear fVom the ev apparaat surtont par le.fait qne la dite compagnie devait retenir snr ses gages||prtnre8 le prix de son passage ; qne la dite d^fenderessd devait, en cons6qi^ence, veilleT k \b. snret^ dn demandenr plus soignensement qu'elle ne I'a fait, et qu'elle est respdnsable du dit ticcident et de sds suites ; , " Consid6rant que le demandeur a pr6uv6 qn'il a souf- fert des dommages ponr tUi montant de |2lO tant pour le temps qn'il a perdu que ponr les sonfirances qu'il a dprou- t68 par suit^ du dit accident ; " fienvoie le plaidoyer de la d^fenderesse, et condamhe . cette demidre &' payer an demandenr Is^ dite somme de 1210, avec intfer^t, etoP* . ■ : - V May 18, 1886.1 ^- Abbott, for appellant. L O. Dairid, fot respondent. "■'•* / . ■ . ■' Ramsay, J. :—.' ■ '"""'•"■■^^'••- -.:,:>;. ^ .;.'-. 'V '■' These are four appeals in actions f6# datn%es arising out of a railway accident, by which respondents were in- JQied. There is no contest as to the nature of the accideilt' «r the amount of damages. The whole question's 4^ to the appflllant,*H rfiBphn H ihility . Through « man rjallfid N '. 81S MOITTRBAri LAW RRPORTB. '*« •*««i .^^■■amf J ^^ Thomson, apinsllant hired 80 mdu to work on their line "o^u! ^^ •fif'®®*"^ ^o pay *^ertain wages and to give free passage J the pla«',e where the work was to be performed. At a cer- '"*» point, thef men were to take a construction train When they arrived at this place, a train was waiting to carry them to their destination, but the only accommoda- tion prepared for them was aplatform car, loaded with lumber. However, without any special instructions as to where they were to go, they wei« ordered to take their - P^*^e8 at once. Thereupon Thomson and his men threw | t*^®" t^^ings on to the loaded car and got up themselves. ^ The station master, seeing that this was an inconvenient or iinsafe arrangement, had two platform cars attached to the train for the accommodation of the workmen. It f seems that some of^the men got on to these cars, but the j Plater number, Thomson among the rest, remained on 1 the loaded car. The train then started, and two^r three ™*^e« fi'o«» the station, one of the posts put to keep the lumber in its place broke, and the lumber and several of j . the men, among whom were the respondents, were pre- cipitated to the ground. The respondents were all more ^ ^ OJ" less injured, and brought actions against the Company. I The Company contends that the men were not author- ized in getting on to the loade4 car, that it was manifestly a rash thing to do, tliat therefore they did it at their own risk, that they were warned of the danger, that they were ordered to leave and to go to the unloj^ded platfi^rms pro- vided for them, and that tjiey obstinately reftised \o move. If either branch of this defence liad been prWd, it would have been a complete answer to the action, but the reverse is the case. The men were ordered ta take their places when no other cars were there. They got on to the loaded car with Thomson, and without any objection by any of the officials. We are then told by three perspns ^ that orders were given to the men to get on to the unloa4ea : T^ -^ - cars* It was seen that this was the turning point of the case, and an effort was made to establish the givingof this order. Three witnesses speak of it ; but the three accounts urn diffffrent One man said ho h c Mwd and did not RT Ot QtTKEN* BENCRf 818 vm. Ooyatto. ■ I -; ^^ ■ ■ . m official made aijhmi^ when, we are not toM ; and a third gave the order, wibiether in French ^r English, or in both, °»"]^'^| **'*• it is hard to say. Bai one thing certain is, that Thomson, who had charg^of the men, sat still, at all events, till after the train was iA tnotion. Thon he and two dr three others, —whether alarmed by the oscillation of thii over-load^ car, ox knowiplf i the peril, otherAvise we doh^t know;— ptssed to the ^ther platform. One of the re$^pondents tried to follow, but grew giddy- and desisted. It is not immaterial toiobserve that Thomson hasfnot been produced, while another witness, who was injured, anto go apon the platfprm cars, specially provided for carrying..^ the workmen, ahd Was without fault on ^e part of |the y^ompany. A ■ — V" .Ai «^" -IfJ-BSpft j ' 8H MbirmiAL L4W RIPORTB. mi c„ prn c. I, T " ^''****' **^ ^'^"'y -uitained from the cauw (}<^im! alleged. «nd theahiount of damage could not roasonably b« made th« aubjoct of complai|>t. The real question in the case is, who was in fault? It appears that all the gang of some eighty men in charge of a foreman, named Thompson, got on thii lumber car, at Sudbury. It was a construction train ^*^*»ned for the conveyance of men and material to the point required. Engley the yard-master, perceivinf that there was danger in the position taken by the men, <>'^e'«d two platform can to b8 put on for the accom- modation of the men, and directed them to get off the lumber car, ahd go on the platform cars forward ; they pAid no attenltion to vhat he said and laughed at him. , McCormack the coi^ductor, also warned them oflF, both in French and in English, but without effect. Davis, t disinterested witness, heard the warning given, and Bntwistle, /one of the sufferers, gives testimony to the same effect/ In consequencrbf the warning, some^ of the men, including th^ fbrbman Thomson, left the lumber qw and went on the platform, and of course escaped the injury. The witnesses examined for respondent state generally that they did not hear any wArning given, that they were told to get on the lumber car, and were refused admission into a viMi which fordectpart of the train. ' I think there is pro6f orthe warning, and that there was sufficient room on the p^tform cars to accommodate the men. The question remains whethe^ the officials of the Bail- way, seeing themselves, and Ix^ing most competent to upprefciate the danger, should have been satisfied with the warning as* given; whether, having the authority to do so, they should iiuQ|t have insisted on the men leaving their dangerous position,, or at lealbt warning them that they would remain lUere at their own risk and peril. It w pretended that the lumber was insufficiently ^"^ staked to keep it on ; but this is unreasonable.^ It was in- Bufficient t.o cwry ft joiid nf mm on top of it, and had not -_f. — , — '^ 816 (ioyaUa. OOUBT OF QUCKira BENCH. jbeen staked in view of such a contingency, but was pro-l i*"*- Ibibly Bufficiently Htaked to retain th« lumber itwjlf, and ^'^ '*<'•• lif defective in thia respect, it could' ha% ii\jured no one^ Ibf falling off, had they not ozposed themselves to the jdimger by choosing to take pAsage on top of it. I think that a disposition, often exhibited by men, to I be foolhardy of. and^indifferent to danger, especially where they may entertain hopi's that the consequence will fall apon a party able to answer for it, is not a tendency to be especially encouraged. I would hold that every indiv- lidaal should exercise a reasonable cantion on his own I behalf for the avoidance of danger equally apparent to ham as to the party to whom he looka for protection, the lobligation to the exercise of such caution being one of the best guarantees against accidents. I admit that the mndency of recent dtM'isions is toward a more rigid rul^ of responsibility thui has. accorded with my ideas Ijattice. . ■** ^ Ihave great doubt as to the NBailway Oomiilmy b^ing I hdd liable, but do not dissent because I think* the cur- rent of decisions is to hold oomi>anie8, in such ;oiuiee, to a I strict liability. ^ '" Judgment .cqnfinned. (') Abbott, Tail 4* Abbotts, attorneys for appellant. hmgpri if David, attorneys for respondent. ' Judgment WM also confirmed in the similar" coses of same appellant I ind Tremblay, Beaoctiamp, and Payette, respectively, Tespondents. frr;- -t' .'Ai I ' ■: '% §.■ f i i^ < ;§^ •N ■jf' ' 1 'j' . f^ «|)iiiw. Thu I Court In>)ow maiiiiaineil thu actiou; and the proaciit a|)- |N>iil wiiN from that d^tdaion. March 24.| IrviMJ Q.C., for th« upp<«lUnti :— Th« principal qupiijiioii in th«i ii«i..i. -vf" IH i^^B .1^1 n B ^^H « |H -i' 1 fi > „;ii i ;{!i Yl h\ 818 MONTREAL LAW REFORm » ( vm. Rom A UolUnd. ■I # •' ^ : land had passed out of the possession of the Crowii; anJ could only revert to the Crown by putting in fo^e t\ r/h .^^^,^^«*« ^^'^ granted before Confederation. Td not being the property of the Crown or of the pro;irj of Canada^ they did not vest in the province ofVaeS »It IS further contended that the conditions had in f^ t on to cancel nor of the cancellation, except its publi,^ hon m the official Gazette. The cancellation clause m^ be considered comminatory. and th, party allowed time to pomply with the conditions, I Cross. J., (for the whole Court) :— i This action was brought by the respond^it against the appellante to recover a quantity of logs cut byThe ap^ $4,000 as iheir value, also in either case, to pay #2,000 for damages done to the property. The i^espo/dent daimi to be proprietor under a location ticUt from the Crown to Geo. C. Holland. 9th June 1863. granted by the loL Appellants pleaded that the sale or location ticket to respondent had been cancelled on the 28th May 187? bv he Commissioner of Crown Lands, acting under the St/. uteofQuebec. 32 Vict., c. 11, and 86 Vict., c. 8. and the lots restored to the limits held from the Crowii bv the appellants. ' thJ«ir'^''?'f J""'^' '^""'^ *^ have Wormed the settlement duties on these lots byVoad woA and bv clearings and buildings made on lots Nos. Tsl^d 16 range 7. Portl«id West, and a waiver of the perform J of settlement duties by the registration in 1874 by the Commissioner of Crbwn Lands of the transfer from Geo. C. Holland to the respbndent of the lots in question. fimJL?^^ ^^'!?^^r,"''"'" ^~"^**^« Crown to cnt imber on a considerat>le extent of land including the lots lU question, whioh license wn " " ■ / OOURT OF QXJEEN'S BENCH. « 819 The Statute in force regalating the conditions of holdijL and cancellation of concessions of Grown Lands at the time the location in question was issued, was the 23 Vic, ch. 2(, which by section 29 provided : ;• "If the Commissioner of Crown Lands is satisfied that "any purchaser, grantee or located, or lessee of any Public ' Land or any assignee claiming under or through him, has "been guilty of any fraud, or imposition, or bas violated " anp of the cdndUiom of salty grant, location or lease, or of the " Licenseof Occupation, ^r if any such sale, grant, location " or lease, or license of occupation, has been^ or is made " or issued in error or mistake, he may cancel such grant, "location, Itjiaggpr l i ce n se, and re w Timft thp i l a nd th o r o in^ theycnt th^ timber claimed by the respondent in (his ^"^ [cause, viz., in September IStS. ! / "^ "V The location ticket invoked by the respondent contain- "'••'^^• I ed among others the conditions following : — "This sale, if not disallowed by th« Commissibner of Grown Lands, is made Hubject to the following conditions, viz.,: — The^ purchaser M^ take ession of the land within six months from the date hereof, and from I that time contitaue to reside on and occupy the same, either by hin^self I or through others for at least two years, and within four years, at furthest, from this date, clear, and have under crop a quantity thereof in proportion of at least ten acres for every one hundred acres, and erect theredn a habitable house of the dimensions of at least sixteen.l)y twenty.feet \No Mbtr to he cut bejore'the ittuingof the Pdtmt, except under *Jice^ at for clearing of the land, fuel, buildings and fences; all timber cut oditraijy to these conditions will be dealt with as timber cut without permissioip on Public Lands. No transfer of the purchaser's right will be recognized in cases where there is default in complying with any of the conditions of gale. In no cam leiU llie FMeht twiie be/cre the expiration of tun yean of oQcupation of the land, or the fvffUment of the whole of the eonditiont, bven though the land be paid for in fbll. Subject, also, to current lioensas to cut timber on the land, and the purchaser to pay for any real improve- ments now existing thereon, Belonging to any other party, and further subject to all mining laws and regulations.— Agent. Qtution.—l{ the Commissioner of Crown Lands is satisfied that aAy purchaser of public lands, or any assignee claiming under him, has be^n guilty of any fraud or imposition, or has violated orneglected to comply i my of the amditiont of tale, or if any sale has been made in error or mi^ take, he may cancel such sale aAd resume the land therein mention and dispose of it as if no sale thereof had been made. — Extract from I 20, Act 32 Vict Chap. H," M w '-ik 5f~ I ^ta - f' .:!- 320 MONTREAL LAW BEPORm IM, llolla^iid -^^5 '^•^L 'Ifll'* *c I ^' J i "... "■■■■-■»■;. ' > . ■ ■ • I ;; mentioned and ^apose of it « if no sale, grant, locatio J or ease thereof had ever been made ; and all such can- eel ations, heretofore made by the aovernor-in-Council or the Commissioner of Crown Lands, shall continue until altered." The statutes in force at the time the Commissioner of Crown lands undertook to cancel the location ticket for the ^t^y^ ^'''''*''*"' "^^ *^° '^2 ^^*^- «^- ". as amende* \J\ 8? Vic, ch. 8, which by section -9 provides : ^ ^ i " Whenever, uiider the twentiethsectionof the said Act. ^^ the Commissioner of qrpwn Lands shall cancel any sale ^ grant, location, lease or license, such cancelling shall ^^ effect a full and complete forfeiture of all moneys paid ^ by the purchaser, grantee, occupant or lessee, whether ^^ in part or full payment, or for any expenses or improve- ments mad^; but the said Commissioner may in all I' such cases, grapt such compensation or indemnity as he . may consider just and equitable. ^^ " Provided, that whenever a location ticket shall have been cancelled, notice thereof shall be given in the " Quebec Official Gazette, and posted at the door of the 'I Church nearest to the lot or lots, the location ticket of which shall have been cancelled ; and it shall be lawful ^ for the holder of the said lot or lots, within sixty days ^ from the said publication andposting up of the said notice to appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Counca and the Commissioner of Crown Lands shall not dispose ^^ of the said lp\s in favor of any other person, until the said delay is expired, or the- Appeal, if any, is decided." .1, on^^f "*"? ^^ respondent's license tdok place on the 20th May, 1878; and is in the words following — ^^" Under the authority of the Act '32 Vic. cap. 8, sec. 9. ^ of the Province of Quebec, I, the undersigned, do hereby cancel the sales of the undermentioned Idts of land for ^ non-fulfilment of the conditions thereof, viz : Township .. . ^'^'^i^^^' «»^« No. 8891, lots 11 and 12, Range 4. Name of Purchaser, sold to George Holland. Assigned to ¥. L. Holland, ' Signed, E. C. TACHfe. il. G" ■%■■■ r >' ^COUBT OP queen's BENCH. 821 l' IM VACBtl. A. C" All the requisite formalities to conform to the pre- Igcribed rules seem to have been observed in this case in [order to the cancellation. The learned Judge of the Superior Court declared this Icancellation nuH and void, as well as the license granted Itothe appellants for the, years IS'ZS and letO ; alsd that Ithe respondent was proprietor of the logs cut upon said llots by the appellapts.^Jio were ordered to restore the Isame or pay their value, and further to pay damages for I their trespass. ^ ; ; . , . .; ■' £ . -/•; . . . ': \ 'This Court cannot cdncur in the view of the case taken by the Court below.' Apart from the question as to Iwhether the Courts ^av^uthority to interfere with the Idiscretionary exercM|g||rduty imposed by Statute upon Ithe executive or JHp^trative officer of the G-ovem- aent, the evidHeC' shews clearly „that the settle- Iment duties un^rtaken by the first grantee, George iHoHand, were never fulfilled by him, nor by his trans- Iferee, W. L. Holland, now respondent; nor has it been I shown that the Crown ever waived any of these conditions lor accepted an equivalent therefor by work or improve- Iments made on other lots, or fey other parties, and neither Iby the fact of the receipt of the price or the registration I of the transfer from G^eorge Holland to W. L. Holland, did Ithe Crown waive their right to cancel the sale. The res- Ipondent may have established an equitable case for some Ikind of consideration from the authorities, but the Court lis powerless to assist him to obtain any redress on this laccount. Wecan only admii^ister the law as we understand '., |the legal rigHts of the parties to be, and in-this view we are constrained to reverse th6 judgment of the Court below, and to dismiss respondent's action. The judgment is as follows :— \ \7^ " Considering that t^he respondent bases his demand, andT ' the right to the conclusions by him taken in, this cause, upon the location ticket, issued, by the local Crown Lands : Agent, on or about the Othrof June, 1868, in favor of Ghorge C. Holland, for the sale to him of lots Nos. II and 12, in . IflU. Rou A HoIlMid. i*> # f VOL 11, (^ b: 81 ■"i.'y. ■f ^ Rom A KollMid. J^ ^. ^ "S3*- — _,,»■ > I I. ' 1% ■' \ J 822 r MONTBEAL LAW >BTS. A the^th range of the Township" of Portlai^ (w^st), after vaMds transferred to thQ now respondent, 'WmsXiMIolland - "iFConsidering that said location 'ticket was atftprwards, on the 28th May^i t^V8,"duly cancelled by the aatsistaDt commissioner of Grown Lands for non-performance of settlement dnties required as Well by sai^ iQcation ticket as biy law, and the respondent was duly noliiied.of such 'cahc«ilation; . • , '■-'■''■■ i- >''r^-^\_ *' Gonsideriilg. that at the time of \he alleged gprievancw ■ of which the respondent has complainedby his declaration in this cause, the appellants were duly lioensed by th« | Ciftiwn to cut timber vUpon gaia lots 11 and 12, in "the | towii?hip^of Portland, and were not, trespassers in any- thing done by them thereon, but Were within thdr rights 1 . in cutting timber t]l^ereon, and arp not by reasoik thereof. liable to the respondent for^aniy 4iniage8 ; "Considering that the re^on^ent has failed to prove any existing lawful title to the j timber, cedar, ash and .pine tr6^ by him claimed by hjs said action, or tjiaj he has suffered any ^amage for which* the appellaiits are] bound to indemnify him,*or that the appellants were tres- passers upol!li said lofls Nos. 11* and 12 ; "Con'sidering, therefore, that there is error in the judg- ment rendered by the saidj^upeifior . Court at Aylmer, in the district of Ottawa,, on the 26th of September, 1883, the Court of «ur Lady the Quefen, now here, doth reverse, annul and set aside ihe. said judgment, and doth dismiss the action of the respondent ywith costs." Judgment reversed. Sobertson, Ritchie Sf F/ee<, y^ttyneys for appellants. J. R. Ftemifig, f^ttomey for respondent. V » ' r- « • ■ » coCrt of queen^s bench. 823 i\ September 21, 1886; : C4w" '.' -a'- ^. ■ ■-' ^ \ \- ItHE PH(fiNIX mutual life INSURANCE COJI- PANY 0F HARTFOltD, {H^endaiU, in the Cowrie below),/ W'^^ ■*",•.■. ■■ RE8P0OT)ENf. l^e Insurance — " Dedarationts and statements of applicatuM-^-' Imreaskof risk — Intemperate habUs. ^ * • ; . \ i ■^' . The applic&tfon,aft0r' the usual answers add decIaratldAs, contained an . agreement thaj. shouldUbhe applicant become' as to liabits so far dif- ' fereiitifrom the oonditira in w.hich he was.ftie^ i^presented to l)e as ■ '^ to increase thd risk, on ttie life insured, the poli&^ir ^houM bflfiomQ ■null and void. JEhe-policV stated by its terms that4f any of the IJde- ^ clarations and statements H made in ttie application shpuld be found in^iuiy resp^ untrue, then policy shoilld be null apd Void. The .a^plil*' cant stated himself to be of temi^rate •and sober habits'. It %as. pro. Tedthathet)ecame)]>tempemteduringJthe'yeijlpreoedijaghisdeat^^ ^ ^ [ HiLD :-^lo. Thai the applicant'^ Wreement las to clUmge oft habits was -^ included. amdng the ," declaranons.dr state inents" br the application, and as 8uchbefcaHStte an expresA warranty. ^ , ; w . ■ 1 2a T^at the contract tfaus.for^edvins valid, aud became- binding on thb assured aiid his assignees. , \ '■ ' "' ' ^ ■ ^ 1 3a that 'in order, to void thia contrmt it is Buffici^tkt'-to'ptove that the ^ change of habits of (pnured was |uch as to increase (he risk on his ' Kfe, even though death be not proyed to havb resulted thei^from. I la Ilial in the present case, a ehJange'of habits was proved, yglmh in its nature increased the risk on the lile injured. \ , ■ The appeal was from a judgment of tte Snpdaor'CQnrt ',, I (SIathieu, J.), of the 19th February 1884? i:^ fi^r of res-! |pondent..,,r." ■:.;■._ ...a:'': cl. .,;..;.:.:,-:::■■ ..■:-■,:.,.>■> • The appellaht ' was holder of a Policy of Insurance, issned by the company respondent/on the* 2'7th September ISTS. on the life'of one W. A. Charlebois. for the mm of fi •!1 .:^ct #■ **x 1",. I ^ <» -i ( H 'S •1: If -t i' ;' t 1 ,'\ !» 1 l^ f J- ♦4 824 •MONTBEAL LAW REPOjElTS. 1888. Boyoe '■MM If 1 4 .i» ■^-Ji' ' 'the policy was iissued on «ji^ application signed by the! said Gharlebois, oft( the 8rd August 18*76. This application! Phoonu i»». Co. contained the folloWing clause : " It is hereby agreed" thail " this application shatl form 'Jm^ basis of the contra«t •!] " insurance herein applicator, and the same shall form parti • " of said contract as If therein recited, and that all «i{ **■ " s#eiw and declarttions contained in this application! " are and' shall be taken to be strict ^'arranties, and that! " should the applicant become as to habits s<^ far difierenti " from the ccmditiou in which he is liow represented tol — -" "be, as to increase the risk ^n his life...... the policyl "shall become null Aud voidl and all payments madel '• thereon shall be fprfeit^d." In answer to questions con«l tained in the form of application, Gharlebois declared his| habits to be temperate and sober. • >' ' > The Policy of Insurance states that " if any of the de-j " clarations or statements made in the application fori " this policy (upon the faith of which this policy is issued)! "shall be*found to be in any .respect untrue then! " and in such case, this policy shall be null lind void." The subject of the policy, W. A. Gharlebois, died oij the iTth September 1882. , After fumishih<^ proof of his death, the appellant, at I transferee of the policy, claimed the amount thereof from | the company, who refused payment. * It was proved, by his wife and by friends, that hiil habits underwent a change durinsrthe last year of his] life and that he took to drinkin^^Sivily. ,^ Medical opinion was divided as to the cause of de^th, I Dr. Dugdale and Dr. Alexander holding that Gharlebois] died of dropsy, produced by heart disease, and tlmt intem- perate habits did not increase the risk to an appreciable j degree, while Dr. Kingston, his regular mi$dical attend- ant, stated that he died qf disease of the liver, and that] his intemperate l^abitif materially increased the risk. V . ./I : Maclaren,, Q.C., and / N. Greenshields for appellant :- / The " dfeclfiraitions or statements" of the application] do not extend to a promise or undertaking of the appli* fiftnt.J^h4«j^nTi(lflrtakiTig t^onsftguently is not referK d:^ 'i ' ' ' ~- ' ' ' ' M COUlRT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 826 ■ H." ithe policy and is not a warranty. The undertaking i*«- i, in its nature impossible, a* no one c&n say what ^ fcilTge in habita is sufficWt to increase the risk on the***^" J,' ife insured, / ■ The proof does not show that the habits of insured tene^ his death, ^ in aiiy wa-y increased the risk on us life. • y. T. J?t«/te for jreJBpondent :~ _ The promise mAde-by the insured was siitnply a promis' .; declaration, land as such was part of the '* statements, fr declarations" of th4 application, and was so referred )in the policy as to make plart of it and to become a"pro- niflsory warranty. Ajiy breach of this waifranty there- Ike voided tbe,coijttact. /^ u' It was not necessary to prove habitual drunkenness in lorder to show intemper$|> habits. Insured had so Ichanged his habits as to increase the risk orfiiis l^fe. Authoritieti cited for respondent: , Wblj on Insurance, t(ed. 1882), s. 180. . ^ Bliss on Insurance, (edr 18*74)^1)?. 61-86, , ; Knecht v. Mutuhl Life Ins. Co., 35 Am. Rep. 641. Knight V. Mut. Life Ins. Co.; and J^eries r.lAfe Ms Co. I (Sup. Ct. U. S.) Refforter's nolje to same case. \ Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. r. Rief, 38 Am. Rep. 613. SchtUlT^x. Mutual JAf^ Ins. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 672. • .*■> Ramsay, J. {diss.) :— This ifi an action oh a policy of insurance on the life of I one Charlebois. T'here is a defence to the action turning upon the title of the appellant. It -was not Urged before us. The only question dwelt on was. Ihejight^f respondent to repudiate the contract, because eharlebois contracted intemperate habits diiring the last year of his life, by which the rif k was augmented, and that it wasi condition of the contract this was l (ui)ou the faith of which this "policy is issued) shall bfe found[ in any respect untrue | ♦* # * * the policy shall be null and void." -. "Appeltant 18 very eloquent in denouncing the rigour of I the terms of the policy, and shoWs clearly enough how such a clause might be made the pretext for very harass- ing litigation. This may be; but there is nothing in principle against astipulation that the. insured shall not | tM5t so as to increase the risk. It is an ordinary stipulation that a man shall not go into certain couptries, n^or become asoldlef, nor fight a duel, and so forth, and I don^t see why it may not be stipulated that he shall not contract intem- perate habits, so as to increase the risk of the insurer. The real questions are, " Is the stipulation as rigorous as res- pondent contends ;, and is it proved that the insured con- j tracied such habits as increased the risk ? . On the .first point there is no doubt that an undertaking 1 ' for a consideration not to do a thing is a binding condition that you won't do it, and that if you do it, the other party shall not be obliged. It is not, however, a warranty, siriclly speaking, and the application does not treat it as Spch. '• ■' , . ;■ Probably this "would be of no practical importance, hi the falsity of the warranty, and the^on-fulfilment of the ; oonditibn produce the Btixtie efiect, according to the appU* -caiion.' '■■': '■■/-'\- ■■■■:•' \'--- '--'':,''' :^^ Again, nothing (^be plainer ijhan the stipulation in the application that it shall form part of the policy, as if j therein recited. Here, however, a difficulty presents itself, l^he policy does, not repeat this^ and it, and not the A "ST . Tvs COURT OF QUEBW8 BENCH. m > \\ ipplication, is. the contract. On the contrary,! the policy "^ f teems to limit the generality of this clause, j,bf saying ^^ thstthe contract shall be null if thestatementiordeclara-^^"'^^"*'^ tions in tlie policy be untrue. What is complained of, is not a declaration, neither is it a statement. Whieh may be • troe or untrii^. It is A promise or undertaking not to do. This promise may be deceitfnll. It is possible, when making this promise, the insured may haVe detiexmined , to become a drunkard; but the /wowiMC if not tmriiig. ' But I)r. Hiu^ton'B ovidenci gooH to «how that Charleboifldiod of dropsy; that dropsy roHulted from a diseased state ol' th\ hvor. that intemperauco would create liver complaint and that his impression was that the insured died from hi* intemperate habits. At best th^so are but shrewd gm^nm. It 18 not by an opinion of this kind that a company whow business is to d«al in risks, cm b,j permitted to Hhirk payment on a coutra4-.t from which it quietly pad without question, pocketed a rovenuc till called upon to pi^T^ Uncontradicted, perhaps, this evidence might raiso ,| suspicion thtft Charlebois was a drunkard, and that thjg was the cause 6f his deatrf, but it turns out that in August, 1881, from which* time it is alone pretended he had contracted intemperate habits, he wtis found to" be suHot- ing from a very advam^ed heart disease ; indeed, the malady wafl so developed, that an insurance company refused te let him take up a lapsed policy. One of the medical men called by appellant, was of opinion that a drink might be beneficial to a man suffering from heart disease. Jhe idea is not new. A poet sings — * It lays the carefulhead to rest, V Calms palpitations -in the fcrtw<." Fortunately, we are not called upon in the ca4e before us, to decide this knotty point ; and we may s^ly leave it to the faculty to decide whether strong drink is a specific for anfrina pectnm. What we have to decide is whether the risk on the life of this man dying of heart disease, was materially changed by his taking, during a few of the last months of his life, a little more stimulant than he had done before. It seems to me that the position ot ihe company is not favorable. They trump up a diffi- cuhy when they have to pay, which they never thought of when they were receiving money. Under these suspicious circumstances I think the evidence should be absolutely conclusive. To say the least, it is controverted. I am therefore, with my brother Babv. to rever^A ■_;/. Tlut action id brought by James G. Boyco, assignee of T* I »poIicT/of insurance on tke lifdl of William Albert Char- "" "* heboid, IQ rocovor ^JJ.O'OO, the amount in»nred by said pol- \kj. _ . / The policy was eil^cted by Cbarlebois on his own lliftfon the 27th Septeniber, 1H70, and by him transferred . , to Maria Eliza Helmiiiit Bell, Mrs. Lefovre, who, by her I attoihiuy, transferred it to the appellant. Charlebois died 17thiSepteihber, 1882. < . Thij serious- defen^' C- ^WIWf ' IfONTHlEAT. T.AW RKPOfifH. I? Ht forth fi : "If any of | ^ f ,/^M tho declaraiiona or NtatdiuttntN made in the appli.aUoif " ^ •• for thia policy (upon the faith of which thia iwlUj » " isaued)Nhali bo found to be in any roupcct untrue, then, '* and in such cane this polijry ■hAll be null and void.'' I have no hesiUtion in saying that the contratit thui I formed w«i valid and becrame binding? upon Charh^boiJ and hia araigneeM. It then becomes purely matter of evi- denoe whether the alleged violation o f fehi c ondi tio n as J dhange ofhabitf ii pwv9$* |p^ a . j The learned judge of tKo Superior Court who rendered | the judgment appealed from, found it proved, and the ni- jority of thia court concur In the cduduHion he arrived »t. It is to be observed that the question is not whtthw the life of Charleboii was really shorifoned by a change \of his habits. The question is Whether a change of hii habits took place which in its nature increased the ri»k .of his dying. The risk may have greatly increased and /yet he may have died of a malady wholly unconnected with intemperance ; yet the increase of risk in such case, by the terms of his contract, would have vitiated his pol- icy- . - . X.- ■ . ■.. ..# The evidence of Dr. Kingston, Oharlebois' medical at- tendant and family physician; of W. F.Johnson and of | Charlebois' wife, Josephine Mondion, now Mrs. Germain. leaves no doubt in my mind that not only did Oharleboij so change his habits after effecting the insurance in que*- tion as to increase the risk of his dying, but that his death was accelerated by his confirmed habits of intemperance, commencing from the death of his second wife, in the summer of 1881, and continuing up to the time of hii I own decease. Dr. Hingston si^ys he was aware of hi intemperate habits, and was of opinion that he died of] disease of the liver, caused in a great measure by his ha- bits of intemperance. He more than once urged Charle- bois to be temperate, and is distinctly of opinion that the] risk upon kis life was materially increased by his intern- - p e rat a halwta. ==^ WW <\ n or QCKEHV^ERCM^ Mr y[n. Ooraiain. formerly hii wif«, ■p»ttkiii(( of tho two ""^ lilt y«MM of CharlohoiH' life, being asked : " Kt^it-il ivro* ""I** |pj« d'habitude V" atrnw^w: " II 6tait nouvflnt aoiui lin-"«^*"**'- timtnce - June 80, 1886' • Coram Monk, Tessieb, Cross, Baby, JJ. ' ^ HORACE FAIRBANKS et al., ' " . i ■ V ■' - ." ' . ; {Ptaintiffs beUm), Appellants; V ' ■ - -. ' . . AND -'-'■■ ^ ^ BRADLEY BARLOW ET AL, --_ — ^ 1 :-..-_: - : . ■ ■ :; — .-^■,„- (Defendants below), , AND ■ ■' ■ ■ JAMES O'HALLORAN, i I . {Intervenant below), RlfSPONDENTS. Sale wUlumt deliveri/— Possession— Rights of creditors. ' B, whp was the principal proprietor of a railway company, was in tlie hab^t of mingling the moneys of the company with his own. fle « botight locomotives essential to the business of the railway company and for several years allowed the company to have possession of the' locomotives openly and publicly as though their own property. Held:— 1. That the locomotives must be presumed tol)e the property of the company,— especially as regards creditors who had trusted the _ eompany on the faith of their possession of such property. 2. That the appellants, who claimed the locomotives under a sale from B. - not Accompanied by deUvery, were not entitled to tfH property as against a ftona^Jdc creditor of tMfe company. ■<. 'k' ' - . . • ' The appeal waft^from a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal (Torrance, J.), March 12, 1885, dismissing the appellants' action. . " . - ,»The judgment of the Superior Court wii In thU terms :^ V "The Court, etc......' ^ V "Considering that praintiflFs have failed to prove the proprietorship by them alleged in their declaratidii,4 " Cojisidering that th^e transaction with %arlow invoked by them was not a genuine but a simulated sjJe^andif at all real, was a contrivance intended to ohtftin: unAi^r .' ■•%■ \ts of creditors. t wm in these ed to prove the / -tJOUldT OF QtJEEire BENOa. 888 colour of a sale, a security upon the locomotives in ques- tion, and thus to avoid delivery of possession, which is I essential tb the validity of a pledge {Cusliing Sf Dupuy, ,VApp. cases, 409, and C«G. 19tQ) ; * " Considering that the intery^rtelr f^^ established his I right to intervene in the present case, doth grant the con- J tlusions of said intervention aiid the several pleas of de- Ijendants, and dismiss the jj^laintiffs' action and demande, 1 and doth annul and set aside the 'attainment made in said cause, — the whole with costs distrailiy etc." In rendering the above judgment Mr. Justice Torrance made the following observations :— ' The action set forth that plaintiffs were proprietors of ten locomotives formerly belonging to defendant Barlow, which he sold to plaintiffs in consideration of their en- dorsing notes to the extent of $50,000, they agreeing to , use the locomotives as collateral security, i. e. to return him any ijalance of proceeds of sale of locomotives after payment oj their debt. The declaration alleged that the |< original agreement of sale was executed on the J6th Jai- nuary, 1883. The ten locomotives were therein stated to be of the make of the Rhode Island Locomotive Works, and were the only ones of that make belonging to Bar- low. As the first notes were not paid at maturity, they were renewed by other notes aggregating the saUie amoufat, and at the same time, on tlie 10th May, 1888,, the supplementary agreement was executed and in it th^ names of the locomotives were given Jn detail- The plaintifiFs then alleged that the defendant Barlow abscond- ed, leaving the locomotives in possessidn of defendant, the South Eastern Railway Company, in ^operation on their- road. That plaintiffs had demanded deli vqfy from the com- pany before action brought, and havjinga right to possess them,*they had taken a saisie conservatoire. jThat thei other defendants, Redfield, Far well and Mclntyre were in ap- parent possession of. the property of the company and; also of the said locomotives (Barlow's property), styling themselves trustees under indentures of mortgage of the U88. ^irbanki Barlow* ?1 ' it ■m ^? f * i ' ' 684 MONTREAL LAW REPORTa 18B& Fkirbanlu A Barlow. *W^l mim" .^Z?Sb Milk MMr<<«| «•»•• •••••! •52 ^-ai "■••"» u. 4 The plaintiffs then asked for the delivery of the loco- tTlrd^r^^'' ^^^ defendants should pay the amount of Barlow did not plead The South; Eastern Railway Company pleaded a 4n. eral denial, and secondly that the locomotives were the property of the Railway Company, who never authorized ^ Barlow tcT pledge them, and that Barlow had acted only #s manager of the company; > The trustees pleaded their status l>y virtue of a statute - and that all the property of the Railway Company had passed to them, including thrlocoinotives. Thov also pleaded -la general denial. An intervention was also filed in September last by James OHalloran, alleging that he was a judgment cr^ ditor.and that Barlow was notoriously insolvent at the . time of making the Agreements, and asking that the ac- tion be dismissed. J. Plaintiffs contested the intervention an the ground of the perfect good faith of the transaction, ^f that Barlow ^, was not insolvent until long after the date mentioned by' intervener, and in any cage the intSrveneiC^ judgment was ^ of subsequent date to the seizure in this ca^e and could not affect it. ^ ' , The plaintiffs claim Under an alleged sale to them of date 16th January 1883, in the following words and fi- gures : " Hon. Horace Fairbanks and Hon. Franklin Fair- "banks having indorsed for my accoihmodation two " notes of twenty thousand dollars each, one dated Jan " uary 1, 1888, and one dated lOih January, 1883 and " payable in four months at the Bank of Montreal, and " one note of ten thousand dollars, dated January 16 f payable at the Bank of Montreal in three months from " date.-Now, m consideration of the said endorjsement • I have this day sold to the said Horace and l^ranklin ■^ l^airbanks, ten locomotive engine* of the make of the " Rhode Island Locomotive Works, which I now own md which I agree to deliver to the said Hoi^ce and Franklitt Fairhw n kB on dom»n The^^correlation of Cushing Sf Dupttp with this jcase is npt real; except that both transactions purpdrted to be^a bale, but in Oushing Sf Diipujf there was ^i^anting the essential of a price in money, or its equivalent in TftlflBf The prjcQ 18M. Fairhuika Banow. i\n 1> r i ; ^ <.• .^' 6 Ap|>. CMM» 400 } 8 In^s. NwwB, 171. -TT- ijt±^- ■-5ii «».• 0^ • I. . ^ / ♦ i*% 886 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. I 1S86. Fblrhanlu Jk UarJow. jii^'v §-% f 4. f stated on the face of it was, moreover, not serious,— " on^ dollar ";~the responsibility assumed was contingfent, not! real, by the promise to endorse notes whicJt might orl might not be endorsed by him, aiid which, subsequently I might, or might hot be dishonored by the' maker. TW) price for which the «alo purported to b^ma4e was suspif Clous ;— the ieaso for a sum which did not represent a] > reasonable return on thn money claimed to be invested was suggestive of a latent purpose^" and t^ whole pro! ceeding was andmalous. Here lio such^^onditibfl of things " exists., or is eVen suggested by the litigants. No one denies . that there vyas a price -nor that it was PO.OOO ; noralfirmsl th«t thft liability "^of the appellants was contingent and uncertain, nor that the proi^eediSg was ariomalous. It is manifest from the proof that th^ transaction was as foV Iwdurs: tl^at, trusting* Mr. Barlow, the appellants bought! ^he engines in question, and, as the price thereof, endorsed and promised to retire Barlow's notes for $50,000 • that pending ^e delay which would elapse till the notes ma- vtured, they allowed the engines to remain in Barlow's possession ; that it was only when circumstances made it liesirable for the persons (Stephen et al.) who had already secured possession of all the balance of BarloW's restate. under a rigorous deed of trust, to try and seize these also, that an effort was made to frustrate the appellants ifi their , proceedings to be put in possession of their property. O'Halloran, Q.C., for respbndents. CROsS,^^. (for the court) :— \v # By this action, the appellants kirbanks and his partner sought to recover possession of ten locomotive engines which they alleged had Seen sold to them by Bradjey' Barlow one of the Respondents, to secure them" against the endorsement ^f three promissory notes of the a-^re- gate amount of fifty ^hdusand dollars, endorsed at hrs're- quest, and which liaaxbeei^ renewed and the renewals ta^n up by them. The l^it was accompanied by a seizure and was directed as well against Barlow as against the South Eastern Railway Company , ^d against Bedfield, .?H,,, (•M^' '■■•' . ■'wA ? ^JTM- ■ .. i:>^ .eo\jR't pr-QJ^EEN'S BENCH. '#■' 887 Burlow. ^arwell and Mclntyre, l^tiistees undeY a Statute of ^lebeo, ""• 1 & 44.Vic. cap. 4Q. ' ' 'F^mIu The defendant Barlovr made default. ' Thd SoUth-Bastem lilway Company, by their plea, claimed the locomotives . their propexty.'^nd denied having given Barlow any Irithorjty to self i^ pledge them. ' . The Trustees pleaded their possession aiid owne^hip nndei- the statute of (Quebec, 43 & 44 Vie. cap. 49, having igood faith received -the locomotiyes from the South lastern Railway Company. , r '' The Railway Comptuy pleaded that.fhe locomotives iloqged to th«m, and never were the property of Barlow, hor was he eV»r ^authorize^ to sell or pledge the same. [he appelfantsV produced the title under which they mwed, heing \ sous 'seing prive document dated 16th January, 188^\^hich declares that Barlow sold them'the locomotives to^uWantee them against an endorsemeiTt of lis notes for $50,OyO.'* * / After a certain amount ^t^vfdeUce had been Yf^eh on hese issues, the respondent; James O'Halloran, intervened, lleging'that he wdfe a creditor df BarloW, denying any |ight whetljer of owiier^ip or authority In Barlow, to lledge the locomotive^ Barlow's insoly^ncv long before he institution of the action, the non-d^livefy of the loco- totives to the appellants, and a denial of appi^lants having my right to or lienor privilege on the locomotives, and jiis right as ^ cireditor to have the^retended stOb or pledge l^qlared invalid. H^concludai^at the plaintiffs > declared to have no lieu on^ the locomotives, and th'at beir action should be dismissed.' . / ^ The apijellants contested^the.itttervention, S^ ^J de? |imrrer, whichi was dismissed. ^- . . ' , '. Secondly, on the allegations Jhat the transaction .'j^th -.. tarlow was a sale by him to them in good faith, v^it^ the pt pf redemption in Barlow, who, w&en he so sdld the / omotives, was the proprietor thereof, and w&s in good r^mstah'Cfes and credit, so that no ^aiid or: preference m operated by the. conveyance; that Jhei non-delivery kaBduetothe bad frfjth j)f t he South Eastern Railw-ay; Vol. n,«Q.B, - , •• ' in t 99 u 1 *•' f 1 ■ V r • i ! ' 1.' J ♦ If,' ;| *-- njJ^^B^ mt * ., . ft ^X' 7- :^. ■^- 'ft*- '•Mm MONTPEAL LAW REPORTS. ^ „^, ,.j.ster,«jM thatlhe intervrafng party one oT its dlf 6(|0(|ij^||j{ij|^ .^'^i ifi collusion wij»|the Company to defeat tM^||P|s of; appeilan^whofcre 0ntitledio seW'the^^S the.pr^'eirvationlip their i;jph^ as Ajnst ^S'^tl^^ the Goi&pauy, wlich \ya8 ltt^K:eutr||L ' '. i'M^"^ .. '' ",' _ T% proof wa^ '^^««di^m i"<^%*^k?^ Jbineioi ,|heJ.nterventi6iiii-^|^'; ,, ■' ^1^/ :T'\: .'^^ ■i I - By Jbe tefitimffib^f JBarlo'W^'S^ A '^*^' ^W?*^ t^ktliAras P^^I#W|f%|0^ ay, tl\a|,;;Jie 8up]^0rtei«itMif ^^SP'' fee had purchased theiocomotives Ibi »#»,ino^iie8» Imtiit isllbvious it coul liaitae that the moni^^ ere his own J .. ««v*' Hv^ ^ " » P§llpwed\his affain» t0 l&iixed.'up wi ^ , .'^sllll^e^tke-Cdittp^ ^ ' H^ had the co«)l^d man '■ "^ ib;« *ln1^^^ *^f road wli«r€( the locomSptives^mre pi laced auj ^rt5'^;:j5^]1^te|is^%* '^war^ -withc^t any- agreenttBnt|i8' tq rent I |^>''W; ' ^- ■■ ' ■■■ ■^i^ertTie;.;Th^'^i^^itors of the road 'feal^ ^'*ft *°' presumi "** * PifiJ; *hi^ lpc9i|i|pi^ were owned fey t;!l^''jisoad, wliid l^^i'^ ' ' ^Jb**, yif V-vi^ >:. ^iiSl'Isi V Badow'si^n conduct -^arrantM fheiia ilk 4S^ ' ■" .sfii^fe ?, f ,, But wpiethef tbe Ipcouiotiyes. were owh(^a by the*Ri • ,;*^*vi^i i '^ad Co. pr by; Barlow^ itis obyiou^ that as against aft. ■/ x> - jiwijorediio^r of^rjfq^ iajPpeHatlts could.not prete: Hi' 'to hold t^lein, ant^ O'Halloran, having estallished his V Sition as Wjudg|tt€!nj| Creditor i>f Barlow^iiihb was im *^ ' '. i ' i i \ , vdnt, i^as entitled tb (he conclusions takm by his int tentiori ' " ' ■'■'''■ ■ " I 1 '-.' .1 ;■■ V i in: ■Ifo. iff iM , I ::;^ ! : Asbetweeifi the appesllauts 'and the I%iway Com|)anj n » vf *: • ^"^ Barlow, the matter niight have been more susceptil ^? ;i ' Pf difliculty, because altho^gt the cbnttract might on, ^ ' have amounted to a pje^ge, jeA the pledgajlmight hall i 'been fairly bpuifl^'to have d^ivered thij^y^ge tojM : ' « * ; . creditor, if no othel in|eresti? intervened, JHRe (juSstio f Vy,^ <. wotUd ^h^l^y ^SLVQ been raised ,a|^L^^KR^ the i way ^/OPMHy or tfaeir trustees had|HP|B|3raI, analitv.e , ' interest w^^ose th6 execution of iMmmtralct betwe the pledgor and pleddH, where th^Hbia title oral terest in the shbject matter in dispnt^^lHptriew takfl y rr^ :i L V--W:-^ ^•A; ■ .•••• \ { » COURT pF QUEEM'H BENCH. 889 ^'evidence leads the Court to the conclusion that it in the right of Barlow or his assigns to maintain ^lofc^otives had belonged to him and not to the ^ ly." He was drawing the company's money and placi^^t with his own. When he bought property i^ssMii lH*&r*' Company, and placed it in the use and occiTpa- |«#^th^ Company and allowed them the possession of '■ JjO|enly and pu|>licly a$4heiT property for years, it would ^^sumed to be their property, especially as regards ft^^ors who had trusted the Company on the faith of ! credit so given to them ; and when the trustees found |*j8proiierty iu the possession of the Company, they had Is^t to presun^e that it really was their property and devolved upon theVn. Unless a valid title were shewn to Ithe- contrary, they becan^e vested with the possesjsion, forming a> presumption of title iu their favor, until the contrary could be shewn by any party putting forwaTd abetter title. This brings up a subject on w^ich I think I there has been misunderstanding and perhap^ error, viz: I that the cpusent of parties to a sale, completes the'sale^ I without a delivery. The unquaU^ed application of this I principle, admitting its validity, /Wy in some [cases lead I to a misconception as to its effec/ts. True, the. Consent of I the parties completes the saW and gives a/ good titled I to the tendee, but it is-^ejitifcHy clear tht^ a vendor who has given a good tme by consent, may after- I wards give a better title to Another by consetit and de- Jlivery. This was' pxplainefl in my opinion transmitted jto the Privy Council i I which I have regretted lease, because it has Ijudgment jn some jTiews already ^eoJ^red i USOL Fairtenki Barlow. in e case oi Dupuy v. Cushing, omitted iiwthe report of the cas^s, tateng,^ granted the thatcase.^) V v / ^ / As regards the^cume^t o«»»d«te the 16th Jav^ry^l«88i * * ^#ich Barlow executed' in ftfvor of the ap^l^ts, li'^ M obvious Jh^t it does not make any evidence of a sale of . that the «f ans^tion aujiounted to a sale. U was a me"^ . - pledge of the locomotiVes in security for tfte a^pellSt^' (>i'ufupini6tt endoVRenient of notes for ^Barlow's aiicommodation, - ' f»*'J|«''V, pledge that w;aB wholly inoperative a« against any party I . BwiMT.. haying an adverse interest in the absence of an efFectiw ' 'delivery to and a lawful possession by the pledgee of th« k)comotive8, the subject of the pledge. " -The conclusion I deduce from the foregoing remarki, is that the appellants have shown no grievance entitling them to reliefin aiiy respect from the judgment they have appealed ; it mxust consequeptly be confirmed. V, ^^ \ •• $ Judgment Gonfirnied. ^^ur'ck, Chapleau, Hall Sr Nicolh attorneys for appellaats. ^ /. O'Halloran, Q.C, attorney for respondents. i - ■ ' ji* Kv S * ." > .; , " ,Jun^^80, 188^. Coram Monk, Eamsay, Tessieb^ CRpst*, Baby.JJ. ' . AiMfe IiAMbert;!^ ' , (PlainHff in the 6mH htUno), ' Appellaut;"..! GIEBERT SCOTT. KT al. ''"*^ ^■ , M {Defendants''4n Court below)^ -^ /* • . » . Respondents.' ^-^ Principal and Agent— Authmty of Agent. The purchaser dfffe car load of bf rley paid the price thereof to the vendorij agent, froii^ whom he receipted thp gi^ain, and who ww» moireover, named ia^iie bill of lading as the consignee. \ 1 HIld:— That the bill of lading constituted a written authoritV tothecotj signee to control the consignment, and' having delivered Jt, to receiwj the price; and his receipt was a valid dischaii^ to th6 puifcbliiser. The appeal was from a ju(^^ent of the SupworAOonii| , Montreal,. (Torrance, j.| June ^2, 1885, dismissing , the] appellant's action. . . ? Jn rendering the judgment; the following ioba|^vatioM| were made;— ^ ' .: T ! i: COURT OP QtJEfiN'll BENCH. 841 ,Jun^ 80, 188(1. >5, dismissing thel ToRRANCft, I. :~ ' \ " * , *«. The action \^a» to recover from the well known breweTS FtQ. Dow & Go., the sum of ))888i5, b^alance alleged to due on a sale and delivery tb defefid^nts of two dla^ poadH or 1,000 bushels of barley, at, 6*7 cents per. bnshel. The defendants pleaded paymeni, and they had paid one ' [)aignault, the (consignee of the goods, and n^H^w of plaintifF. The question simply is whether the payment Daignjiult should bind plaintiif. Th(^ facts are shortly Ithese : The first car-load was delivered .about the 18th 'November, 1884, and part payment made to the nephew, ignault, in the' offi^^e of defendani;^, and the nephew |eft without the b;&Iauce, because there was at the moment [no one in the office to sign the cheqpev The cleiic ex- tained to the Court that the balance .was paid by cheque Ito the order of Ijaijiibert, because it was. sent to him by Imail. The se,cond car was consigned by plaintiff to his Inephew, Daign^ult, by the Grand Trunk Railway for ,the ■ Icomenience of delivery. Daignault delivered the barffey lin' Hohtreal, was on t(he s^ot paid ih a cheque to beater', [and^aever handed it over to plaintiff. Plaintiff complained lt^t he haH written I a° letti^r to defendants on the 21st [November, requesting them to send him a cheque which they shpuld have mane payable to his order. Defendants [answered that Daignault was the colisiguee of the goods ; [that the payment to him of a portion^of the first car-load I was uot questioned ° tlfat'jt>eiug consignee, he had (^ontrol I of. the goods; thm; payment 'by -cheque -to bearer |in the Itity was usual, in consequeilQf) oi the difficulty or incon- venience of idemifying thfe ^ayee of a cji6gue to order. Moreover, thfe payment to I^aij^nault was fully Authorized |by G.G\m9 Wd 1761. ; r r ' The Oourt Kftlds that the payment to Daignault of the iie|ue. to hieilrer' was iu ^^ ordinary course of business.^ [Lambert' platted cqu^ ]^Sm ^^ Daignault by coni^igniug [the goods 'ip his ord^r^|ISfd payment to 'him wasjagood paymi I if.Lomer, '.May 2' Vide also K 0. J. Ti 1886.1 hI) H Aipott, for the %ark V. Lamer, 4 L. C. Z .j&Q:,lfobnson 'Lacoste, Q.C., for the appellant. I I«mb«rt Hoott. , 4 t J- 'Vf m € .«* I idents. ''i'- '-. !. n; WW W' « ; 84S MONTBRAr. LAW REWKTH. UabtH AmM. - v 1 Crohs Th« entN I .•llegef \citpam»t ^e r«Hpf>nd«>ut« hy t ■*Co., thei |appellant "idertQok to delivi^r to th» ini fourt^n days, two k4* ■J»!B,j artion, olaimod from the regpond- of a <'ar*load of barl«y, whioh he fthoUM pajT^uidwr the following date< "iSi!, luro( iiaid CfCi 1884, nddri<«0Ad to i8r«»JWimiira Do^& f had thcireby sold aod William Dow & (V. s barley as per sam^e M them, fpi «ixty-iievoii oeW per fifty pouuds, to be ered to them in their jrard>t|iey to supply the bag«; under the contract resulting froin said momorandmn. ■, he had delivered to the respondents the two car loads of nbarlQK so contracted Ibr^ amounting in ftU to over 1,000 busliels, upon whisish therjj remained due $888.86 whicV the actiori was brot^ht. ^^ The respondents pleaded that the transaction in iPKrftioil had l^en conducted through the intertnediatory of one ^Daignawlt who acted as the "agent of appellant, and de- livered tnS barley which, by the bills of lading, was con- signed to him.'^aign^lt.' They paid Daignault forjhe barky, the last iai|Jpa4J^ being paid by cheque according, to express request of the*in^ellant, the cheque, according "to customJljMng^nfcde piirable to bfearer, and being de- livered to SP^n&uft, the consignee of the barle^, and act- ing agenf ^ the appellant. " > •» ji.*' ^s^ y-\ The api)^|ii!l| ansWereijji^at ;I)iiiJjlbtilt,^a8 only s farter, and a^^ppell^fts- iMl lijjeiw; m^dj|L(,(eon8fgnee, merely for th^ I>\ji|3p68e of t^^jA»\ng tile baTley,'^d not I fk proprietor, Wliioh tbAi»t)^fant's knew .he was not. t^WvelU^roved, that.^aignault le Ippellant, w.fA jfche consignee He is by occupation a master •It isjidmitt^dt and; ';||h$ is the i^j^ew 6 ^ ^ ■.ntaa^ in the :bnl of lac earte?; . Hfe Superior Qpurt dismissed appellant's action on'thl I ground 'that :'Daignatilt was. made the cemsignee, j^idtf sAch was the ag^t of the appellant. t? I think the, judgment was right, and should be cobp IP^ ■-J , i.-'smRr-ie <. if^r. \. COURT OF tiU BEN'S BENCH. 81$ Itirmodli IML Intmbarl Heott. t ■■fH* - ' - * rfT (1 should be cor U ii not enough for appollant to show that Daig- uault vfaa oiily a carter, and that his i^amif wan iiitHtrtod lin t^v ijijl Of lading as consigntMs morwly to fa the moantimei appellii^t I Had written to rjMideutB, to send him ihe price % cheque. The Yespondents executed this commission by. Igiying Daignault a cheqtfe for the amount payable to Daignault cashed the cheque and kept^he money. "Who is to"be\the loser? The question is not without dignity. Therp is some confusion in the code as^o th^'/use of the words factor and agent. {Crane et al. «jf- Nolan, 19 L. 0. X ' 30!>). But I don't think, within the definitioi^ of the feode, Daiguault was a factor. He was, howeve^ something more thaii a common j^arrier. The grain was consj^ed to him, and he had it and the document of titfe, by ttte will of the owner, which is a very marked distinction between this case and that of Whitehead Sf CassUset al., '^ Crawford «/< 2J L.C. J. 1. Under 1748 0,0. he cdald hkve? ipledged these goodflL. ^ JV^hathe did was fb get the price which w^ payable, on d^ivery.^ The payment "therefor ■ ^ »*ri'«"'^^*^v ■A-;:' "wm^. iii''' 2:r> 8ll / MONTKISAL tAW RKPORW. Ml. WM inatltao a t>vnion huviiig legal poiiii(llant denired. A recent <'iiBe in England turni on a very Nimilar jwint. A creditor wrote to hii dohtor to send him a <'he(|ue by mail. The debtor did ho and the money was lost. Har^m IluddleRton held, that ib debtor having paid as the <'reditor deaired, the <>hequ*> wai payment. 80 hero, Daignault received the (;ai«h at th« former delivery,— thjs payment wan acknowledged, and reapondenta were aaked to send (;heque. They were not told to aend it by mail. By what means were they to itran«mitit? It will bo said, by Daignault, but by cheque to ofder. Then, why not say so, if they had the modified conndence in their emissary, that hir would probably steai but would not or «'ould not forge, I am to \ ' ' f . ■ (*, , %\ '1^'. « t- r , ii Hk J < k t - , ; -tg^, If _ . OOURT OF QWRKIfH BKNCH. 84fi Jon« 80, 188tf. CAWixm Monk, IUmhay, Tiwbikh, Orohh, Babt, JJ. laUAKI. VINKHKRO. Appbixant ; AHD >^ , ' HOWAIU) RANSOM kt at., {Vlaintiff* m Court Mauf), ■••'..■;■>;-. ~^ ^r ^ ^^ Rkhi>ondknth. ii*. •■■■.' •,■'■,-■■'•■■■ (hitias— special hait under C. C. P. A2i—SMtemmt and de- claration under 0^ CI. F, t66 — ContemjU — Commitment. HiLit : 1. (Approving Potilrt v, tMwrihi, « <^ L. It. 314). That a »lefen- lUnt who haa Rfven Hpedal bcU uiuler C ('. P. 824, ia not bdiind t« u^nl>io" uientioned in iirtklea 764- 7(16. C.G ?..■;;.:>,„. . ■ /■■ ^'■:r :\': ■ 2. Tho d«rendant in ttiis oMrnd'Mm boand by law to t\h auch atate- nient. could not be in oontAnipt for falling to do ao. 1 A commitment for contempt until otherwiHB ordorwl by the Court la irroKular,: it shoald bo for a apo(-ille«l timeor until the person con* forma to the onler which he dlaob^yed;^ h > ^ ' ^ The appeal was from ft jvAgmenl of the Superior Court, „ Montreal, Mathieu^ J., oirderiiig the appellant to file a statement and declaration as required by art. 766, 0. 0. P., and from a judgment liubsequently rendered by ToR- RANCK, J., ordering the imprisonment of tho appellant for (^n tempt for not filing Huch statement and declara- tion. In delivigiring the latter judgment, Torrance, J., ob- served: — ^ '''■ -y '■''.:'':'■'■■'■'„'/' '''^^^^^ * ■' "The demand here was for ,ftn 4>rd||^|^ imprisonment for contempt, against the defend|mti|^hey had been ordered by a jui^ginent of 4 May, lS§p,,|o file a sworn statement of their^ assets and liabilities in ihe terms of C. C. P., 764, 765, 766. The judgment was duly served as ordered, and the defendants failed to comply with its requirements. The Court would not here discuss Carter ifMdson, but would merely say that the order haying *.f' /##«' ; Jt ! I' ^■A !-'■■ 846 MONTREAL LAVk' REPORTS: UM... . . *\ * ■ %. ■ m <-'imiM - m ■■ ,?.-■ 1 ' »,A*^^l.- i. .'* 4 t ■• ' ■ ■*»- ■ ■• » ' ■, *■ ; . ■-*»■ *" •■'^j, .■v.>- r- ■ "* M ^v^^' • -t ■ f • y ,'.- ;■*► • *(*■ . " '-. • 4 ■■ • . '-* . > ^ ,,;'*-, ^ •■ "•■. . .- -. ■ ■' . ."* ■' ■. ."•■»■■• »*■'*.'. ■ ft -! ■u - ,. " ; -,^ < ■•^'■-\"' ■ .4 V -/ . ' V A w ,^ •. ■• J i - * ^w' ■ > : -^ % V s .^ !^k ■.i*' -> «^ been disobeyed to produce the statement, G. C. 2273, the! RmLT ,^'"P"''*^"™®^* would now be ordered as prayed for." May 20.] M. Hutchinson and J. S. Archibald for the ap-J . pellant. ' . ' iXGirowarrf, Q.C, for the respondents. ' -■ Ramsay, J.. :-r. . . ; ^\ ■• .^ "^ This case gives rise to a question of contempt t« which | '" * "^the majority of the Court, does not th.ink it necessar^-now -f' to allude. The commitment is during tha pleasure of the 1 ^ 'Court. Thiisis manifestly illegal. There is no authority V^< **' common Ja^ which entitles ofte man tp iinprison another during his pleasure. We expre<|B no opinion as to whether or^when it is a contempt to disobey an order of a Court, or as to the siniilarity or difference between a i ^^ so-'fealled'rule for contempt, and ;«xecutio» ^v way of tw ^trainte par corps. The majority of thfr Cdtirt reverses the judgment sigiply on the gifoiind , that the commitfaent is rOdliegal on its face. " ' - . . '# ^ X . ^jPhe res^ndents Ransom c/'a/., Sued out a,writ ofcap^ \ > >X;* against^e appellant yineberg in. April,- 1884. VinebergJ ' "^ ^ ^ppea;f^ and put in special bail under Art. 824 of the Code ofxCivil Procedure. He ^ afterwards petitioned td . j quash the capias, Wui his petition W4» 4ismi8sea,,the cdpim was confirmed, and the .respondents [had jud^eni for •' V their cl^ito. ', * . / « ' ' . ' ^ ' V On the ?th of Meifch, ,1885, the respiQidents presented a petition to the Superior Court, juskialTtte^^ ^ should be (frdered to file" in the I*r^ht>notary's office, a i*:' statement under oath, in accordance ^ilh tlie r^Squire- * ments pf Arts. '7<54, *r6o*arid 'W6 of 't^C^de^ Civil Tro^ oedure, within such time as the CoUrt 'm^t M, and ia] default_of so doing that he should be declared to be in of Court and for such contempt be arrested - " aild kept in custody of ^6 keeper of the common sr^l of Jhe iDistrict of Montreal, ^n|ii|jg«9h time Id file such stat^meni;^ for stfci ' might order. "^^^ ;p^ >h ■0 COURT OF QfteEJre BENCH. 847 Le commitfaent is The' appellant pleaded that the bail given by him Art. 824 of the Coiie of Civil»^rocedure, was to the [ffect that the sureties would biecome liable if the appel- lant should leave the heretofore Province of Canada, to fit, (Ontario and Quebec), without having paid the debt,*^^ jiterest and costs, for which the action was brought, said hail being what was formerly known as special bail to |ihe action, the condition whereof was prescribed by the Btatute 5 Geo. IV. c. 2, and no one arr<^ted who had riven s.uch bail, could be legally called tlpon to m^ke a peclaration and abandonment of his property, such aban- Idonment being fot the relief of such debtors as could not Igije speiiial bail. That ^aid Art. 766 refers to the case of a Idebtor who has given bail to surrender himself in default lof a right abandonment of his property, and not to the lease of , til© defendant having given special bail Tl^e €iuestion4hu^ raised has undergone judicial inves- jtigation, and as we think, correct jdeoision in the case of [Pom/c^'V,. Lmniere, reported in 6 Q. L* R. p% 314. "It was Itherjp held that a ^fcndant, who l^as given specitfl bail, is Inpi b^ttiid to fiW j^istatemenf and ^ake thfe declaration meiitione§in A^76f if 'the^Code^ of Civil Procedjire. , . V ,^ hayjB nothing *io add to .the reasons therfe^given. '.tibly^ lead^ to thv. concI'^idiV that the judg- inents /a|S|a|ea- -^om sho'uld be reverse'd ' * ^ • ". The plfSmiis of the Code of Civil Projeedure fire taken from the. StMute'12 Vic. Cap. 42, the object of which wis ^ ^•relieve debtors whio could not give special bail as re- quired by the Statute 6 Geo. IV., b. 2. A new^scrip- tion of bail ,^as provided for those who^siiould i^aike the 8t,«^iment,*and surrenclfer their estates as directed by the l2?ic., c. 42, but-the|, right to give speciarj)ail Snd its consequences i^re left unimpaired. / ' /; If Vinel^rif wa^iioti^ound to fill^thct stateiaaent ^nd make the declaration required Iby Art..'766,C.P;e., ordered by the judgment pf the 4th of May, 1885^ that judginent idust be erroneous. It foHows that the judgment'of date the 30th Ji>^' ■■.*■ .t ■■*^' •■»■«« '*f 848 A.. V ?NTBEAL LAW REPORTS, f :: V'-be^ ^r*?! ^'"^ to iWisoiiment. is also wrotig. Jd fe BantHH. "? ^ '^r'f^' *^Xt^« respondent's p«j^«onlbr BanMm. '-»«*w**, auu i,ae responaei § , ■<. ■ ,mmjr - -. .; 11 '■ >■ '■■'■■/•■ ^- -if...'-^ ^f^ ^. ., udgment of 30th COURT OF QUEEire BENCH. 't- 849 June 30, 1886. -^■x. foram Monk, Tbssieb, Cross, Baby.JJ. ^ UNNA Hi. PATTISON et v!r . {Plaintiffs in Cmft betinv}-, , ■ " ^\ ' Appellants; I.- ■ .? AND MARY EHZA FULLER es^ quaiI, " ;: .', -' ■ ,: : -^ ~^^";7i^7v'"~^^~*^^/BE8POHDBNT. '^^^ t^WMl — Codicils — Construction of-^Revocation of legacy, H., who had $5,000 of stock ip La Banque.au F^uple, made a w^l, by which he bequenthed $1,000 of this stock to his granddaughter. Sub- ° « sequently, he made three separate codicils, all bearing the same date, * by«one of which he bequeatlved $3,060 of the/said stock to the same granddaughter, andljy th^ other two cotlicjls Ije madci specific be- • , quests of $1|000 each of said stock for other {objects,— thus disposing bytheojdicilsof the entire sum of So^Optt-^^^^^.^^^^^^^ . a^ ^ The question wo* whether |he bequlist p^ tfiefiist codicil of $3,000 to'^'o * . the granddaughter, under the circamlitarices Stated; revoked the ^pre- ' vious \»qufSih*t^et favor, of |l,0M,^!f|^^ j ^ Held :— That Ihe legacies contAini^ i» the cpdicils, dispqsTBife, as thi^.cfi'd specifically, of all the stock Y^hidi the testator had in I^Banq1|e du 'f Peuple, operated a revocation | : J' }; " ,^ The consid^ants of the judgment in Review whichVas affirmed in appeal, yrere as foll(j|j|p :^ — ; - \/ ," jKe Court, etc. /./ " ''^fr'r%- i, "<^ " Considering that there is error in the jud^ent of I'Jth* ' January lasl, doth reverse the same, 8|,nd proceeding tjj- ren^er the judgiaent which should have been i/endered:: by the Court B^low r • ' ^- ^sa' . * " Considering that the cq^dicils pleaded by the defendant; Mary Sliz^ Fuller, had the effect of cancelling; the bequest 1 ?1< .-J* ^9 'i at' m \J^' ■■■-■ • ■ ■■*" p •^.^(■'V* , » ■ •, . / V "'. f , -v B^Q MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 1M(L Pattignii Fuller. 'M n m^' 1 » V r ..y .«.»'.. s*'" ' ,. ' •«P«W«'1«J ^' -\. r of 11,000 sought to be recovered by this action, 4oth dij miss the plaintiff's action with costs," Johnson, J., who rendered the judginent of the ('ourti of Review, made the following observations :— V "The plaintill" brought her action. against the exexaitrixl , of the late Abel Hurlbhrt, jwid also against the ))anK, to| . ' get J1,000 of bank stock, as bequeathed to her By his V? will. The bank .submitted itself to the judgmeht of tiel , ... court, but the othet- defendant pletided that there were! ..%^." codicils to the will; that by the. first codicil (Oct. H, ^M883), the testator gave to the plaintiff |3,000 of thfesame -■ *. _8tock for her use during her life ; tL property to Si her chiiareifr iiiter hef Otujijj^^ that this codicil annulled , the absolute bequest o^0lify, and K^nade m STofl it. That by a second codicil, of the same date, the tefitator left 11,000 of stock to the poor orf Frdighsburgh ; and by a third codicil of the same date he left' the dividends of $1,000 of stock to the -Rev. J. £. Davidson, dunnghis life, and to his successors In ofc' ^fter him. .T|iat the testator's stock in the bank amounted to |5,0Q0, . Which was exactly disposed ^f by the codicils. • Tl^e plaintijf answers that there. \>(ras no express, re voc'toft of the bequest in the body of.tlte will ; but this is nS^cess&ry: " By articles 892 a|ij| ^% the revocation irjay be .either exprrfssor in conseq^iice of incompatible posterior dis- position^ ; and lomt^ at this matter in the light of ordinary transact^i and ordinary motives, , it appear^^ quite natural th^rp^i testator shi^uld have done what he ' did by the codiCti^ and dispose of dU the stock he had in the bank m the w*y stated in tije codicils. Thd judgment of the court below. Was for the plaintiff;' but I am for reversing that and letting tfae codicils prevail ; 'saving of .course, a% the right'^of the Rev. Mr., Davidson, and his .guccessbrs, not now iA^the "c^se." s - May 28.] Butler, ta^ GsaJSTrim, Q^Q., for the ^0i>peliaiits Tait, Q.O., for the respondfent. C I Cross, J. (for the Gouri^ :^ . ,, ^bel Hnrlburt had iSOftO of Kt^ m in IhB Fpoite IfM ••■■i;v\£ " /- ' ■■-A ,l« ?. :\. .;,:» ;/'- 4t .■s ,«.■'■ ■^^^ \\'^ '• V ' *. wm ' V r. '.'V* Rm .1 ' is action, 4oth dis iueut of the Courtl itions : — , aiiist the exetsatrixj liust the ))ft,nk, tol I to her fey his kA judgmeht of the i that there were I t codicil (Oct. 11, 13,000 of the^same property to ht^ hw is^cpdicij anuulled made in liim ofl J date, the te^jtator hsburgh; and by the dividends of] idson, daring his T him. ,T|iat the] to $5,0Q0,. Which Is. • The plaiutijt| revoday^Bift of the; is is ij0f uecess&fy; ion njay be .either] ble posterior dis- iii the light of I •tives, , it appeaj-l ave done what he le stock he had in Is,, Thd judgment lin; but I am for revail ; 'saving, of j )a vidian, and his COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. > 851 He ma*de a will, dated 8th Jx^\% 1881, by which he be- queathed $1,Q,00 of this fiank sto^kio his granadaughter, Anna Maria ^attison, now wife of S. F. ftaines, and the 1 appellant in thi» cause, . " . ; ;* k On the 11th October, 1888,'hav|ng then the same $5,000 f8to(k'ii\ the People's Bank, he ma^S^three separate codicils- all bearing the sanae date. / ,. . By bne of said' codicils he -bequeathed to his said grand daughter ^'#3,000 of fianjc stock whn^h i« in the People's B|nk; in the City of Mo,ntreal,'Vio be strictly entdiled to th6 lawful heirs of her oWnl»ody. she alone hj^er life- [tirae to have the right to draw thcti dividends. ^ ^ ; :By iyitot)i6r of the said codicils he bequeathed Jo thesBF" 'faring^* poor W I'religh^burg;, the 4*vidSii^8 on $1,000 of JaSF ffij^^.;;wHrpil8ln tle-^ Bank, in the City of M^tr^l.'^the pre»^»t j*!!^ ^^^ future generations as on- tailed pro^rty, to "be drawn and divide^ by the Rector of Fi-elighsburg, aAd his 8U(H:es8ors. , <, v» By a thijd of .the said codicils he bequeathed to the said Hector and.Vsitf^cessors, the dividends on fl^OOO, whUh is in the I'jeopje'ii Bank, in the City of Montre^. ^ ^ • '■ Hii'dled on the: 18th October, 1888. His widow, Mary ^liza Fuller, Xvas named executrix in the will. The- granddaughter, Mrs . Haines, no w sues the execi^ trii, claiming that she is entitled. to two separate and-iil^ dependent ' legacies— the first of $1,000 of .^Pi^ple's Batik- .stock, under the will, and the second of $8,000, undeljthe* codicil of the 11th October, 1883, and concludes for thfe delivery to her of the fi'r^ legacy of $1,000 which the ret spouderit Fuller refuses tq conced^lo^er. •' ThePeople'^ , Bank are put iihto the <;ause ,80^®^^^® bound by the judgment. 1886. Fuller... , ,^^*. or f ■' , „ ,, theippellants ',. " .."."^^^'W'- •*'"'.". \et- *I*I ■ * '" "taL-W * ^\- " •!*■ * ,."-;'*n^* •.■_".- ■. --', :;'.>' The Superior Couil awarded His. Haines th&-bonclu--flr sioiis of her demand, but in Review it was refased, and her action for the legacy of $1,00'0 was dismfsse^ J* ^. , ' .The question raised is whether the ,Ap|)$lia#^ .Anna ifaria;HM;isoti^ifr entitle to- two ; %a4es ;**' t^ple^ B^uk stocjs, one of ^1 ,000, undey -tjift wilj^of *^^ ^% ??¥* 188j,'Wit[ the other! ^f $3yOi^ iTS. it thuffi. mrts in Jnch casein Bstamentary do*^ I think the Suiw. !t v^ew of the case" a the codicils, dis- \ui Bank stock the M a revocation of b favor of the tes- B appeap to have lank Bt%^ in ike which, ^e held at] i" July, 1881, m ijiicils of date the his decease. Tie it they are to be when, therefore, licils, disposed 0? le did not intend same Bank Stock u of it musi there- first. This inev- dgment appealed ew confirmed, nts. ■ "or- v;\:, t-' espon^ent if . E 4 4,' '■■ . ' J '• <': " - ""■.■■.■ ^ ^ 9 1 ;'*■ ' • 1 ->-:.^ 1 \ COURT 0F< QUEEN'S BENCH. i|58 1 • June 30, 1886. WILliil AM i| LEWIS ET AL. / {fia^endant in Court below), "'" ^::--.f '.'''.■:"' -'/" Appellants^ FRANCIS P. OSBORN, * \. ' -r;;-^-—- i^^Ptaint^ in Court below), \; :(.::;'■.• ■.■'* Respondent. '• '■■■•■•■'*■ • Partuerslup—Be^aonsibiliti/ lor acts of person managing bust- ^eis carried on by appellants under a different name. Xbe appellants set upaiirm of "J. H. Wilkips & Ca", whioti Was in risaUty their own business, with J. H. Wilkins as manager, but to the " public the business was that of " J. H. Wilkins & Co." This Ann \ bought goods froAn respondent, the price of which was claimed Dy tlie present action. Held :— That the appellants were liable for the obligations of the firm of ^ 3. H. Wilkins A Co., ahd for the acts of J. H. Wilkins who was 'en- trusted with tie management ~ '''"' ii" * The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal, (Mathibu, J.), F^b. 19, 1886, msantaining the , respondent's action. "' '.. The principal question was as tb the. responsibility of the appellants for the acts of .one John H.Will^ns, manager oi" the jfirm of J. H. Wilkins & Co., composed of th§ v^ I a|>pellants, but not registered as their business, the appel- lants at the time carrymgi^ business under the firm "of , W. F. Lewis & Co. ' . Thejudgmemt of the court below, which was affirm^tj^ in appeal, was as follows :-^ "Lacour, etc. . : " Attendu qu'il a 6te prouv6 que le SOieme jour de juin 1880, par acte sous seing-priv6, les d6fendeurs et John Henry W|^ns> d^clarerent qu'ils aWaient ouvrir un m^ * gwiii, a Montri^al, sous le jiom de' " J. H. Wilkins & Cie." •I 4 H i1 A • 1« ^ •I pni i T (^t ro adauAJirtrt pty l,tt dit John TTnTiTy WillrinR, pont 'Vol. II, _Q.*B. 23 1.1 tCH W^\ w -••^K,' IMW. Lewiii ' Of born. "I ■^; c '*'*'*> 1*1, ••■mi^ "J" i '- - i ■ k 864 MONTRt:AL LAW RETORTS. — T- ,-^ eux, comme leur agent et g6rant, aitxx'onditions suivantcK que les d6fendeurs fournirait^nt Us martiljandises au prifl coutant et chargeraient uno remission do cinq ponr| cent pBur les marchandises acKetfees par les dfifend'qurset ohargeraient un prix k fetre (-^venu «vntre Ips parties, pou; les marchandises quo fourniraient les dfifeudeurs, axtt Iciif fonds de commerce: quWcun achat ne pourrait ^fre;fayt| pajWilkins eft qu'att(mn6 rente ne serait faite A crMif; que tons billets recevabies seraient d^posfes (»ntrfe les inaiag des defendeurs pour Acre placC-s au credit de J. If. ^ilkiV -n& Cie. ; que les projHts seraient partagfts 6galomont eiitrel les parties au dit iMitit, maiS qu'ils no servient pqjs associ^, et que oette con/ention jtni faite pour uno aunee v que cette conventioB/fut misy ii execution, et qu'un maga«iii fut ouvert, teL^ue coi\venu. et les affaires faites 8ou».l,> nom de J. HyWilkins & Gw., par le dit John'H. Wilki jusqu'au mois de juillet 188^; que dans lecours dos iriiis de mai, jiuta, juillet, aout et iept*'iabre 1883, les defenj deurs se^nt endettes envers le denandeur eja uue somrae de $462a0, pour des effets de commerce a eu?: vendues piy le demandeur, lequel moutant le demaadeiir a r6clame par /on action en'cette -ause ; que ie 9; avril 1883, j' H, Wilkins & Cie. tirerent une lettre de cha^e, datfe a ~ loptreal sur W. C. Sogers, de ^ew" Yorl^ he requferant /de payer a I'ordare de J.«ropos^a ses qreap'iers un concordat "iaue l|ls d6fendeurs ne vou- • iaieni pas accepter, pour le mQ^atant de leur cr6ance resul- tant'de la dite traite ett que le 25 juillet 1888, le .deman- d€f»K, d^iHs le but de faveiriaer "W. C. Rogers, et de Im faire '«*teMit.\a^^ concordat, perivU jane lettS-e aux dfifendeurs, , iq^ 18"n^ja4e'X H. A^lkins & Cie., par laquelle il jmf .Jl^ de la dite traite, a son 6ch6ance, le '",fl2 octobre 1883" poor vu que les d^fre;ruit| lit faite 4 crldif; i68 (Hitre les mains I tdej. H.,>^ilkU 8 6gal(»mont eutre aieut pas assooies, I uuo auuee ; que it qu'un magaiiii ireis faites 8ou».l,H John'H. Wilkji le courH dos nftis 1888, hs defen-J mr ejQ uiie somrae a eu?c venduppm- adenr a rtclaijie avril 1883, .L H. chaiige, dntf-e a 3rl^ ie requerant B^l «^,New .York, /dit Rogers, pay- i New York que ■O?. mskia fat pro- ? mais de juillef vable, propos^a endeurs ne von- Jiir cr6ance resul- 1888, le .deman- rs, et de itii fairc aux dfifendeuTs, laquelle il IjMir son 6ch6auce, le suW lui traiippor- t tAT^gtaphisscnt — *- 1 ; _.-i i - ^ CX)UBT 'I < *U« rei^issent att do- roandpur Ioh- liillets tie compotjitio^ k quaraute o^ntins dans la piaHlni, do /Rogers aussit/t qu'ils .lea atoraient refus : quo le 9 av/il 1H8JJ, Itoger;^ ayant I'treoAu^uu (;on- tprdat avec- ses cip6aucierH \\ quaraute rdre de J. H. Wilkins & Cie, , pour le mohtant de $135 sur -la baiique de Commerce du Canada, lequel cheque fut e^dosse par J. H. Wilkins & Cie., et paye par la banque ; J- ^^ " Attendu que le demandeur reclame, des \ d6fendeurs, la dite somme de $462.10; - " Attendu que les d^fendeurs, par leur plM^yer, bffrent ^ eu compensation du mont^nt reclame pa^Jpiandenr, le montant a/eux du par le demandeur po ijlgtiaites du ,^i IfwM k ^\ .» '« "MO^rilEAL L^W REPORta -r- ;.-C yt TJ •'>Vl L.*i. i^V^"*188f. garantierpat Kderaundetir. cximme Buiidit o.£\->^"*"*^''^^h''^^>"r«^ 18^4. loTBde IWignation on • cette capse. A la somiiie de |467.84 «n' capital, fraii. de protAt et int^rdt junqti'alorH ; " Attenduque le demandeur a r6pondu au plaidoyer ' des dfefendeurs que oes doniiors ii« A'^taient paa conforms aux conditions d« wa lettre du 26 juillet 1888 et qu'ils n'avaienVremiB au d^mandour aucu/ billet de' compow. tion de Rogers maisjavaient remis W billets A Rogers lui- / mftme, et dans le cas ou il serait^coisid^r^ que 4e deman- -:, T" ^^** ^'^ dfefendeurs le mont/nt de la dito- traite ij . I offre en compensation le montant/das trois billets de'^iora- , P<>"*»on q«« 1«8 d6fendeurs dev/ient lui r«mettr^^^ rl'Ll*^"^ 8'6|evaient M18^.08. ain^i que la somm. deJ105.87,'taontant en .capital et fiais de protdt du dit billet de "Gingraa & LanffJ^ois " du 19 d6cerabre 1HH2 r^*" '"E ^ compter du if. mars. 1888, et la somme de »185, liH^ii du dU ^!h6q6e du 6 Ifevrier 1888 ; 'I'*** le 3emai/deur dans nne autre rfiponse au *^^*^'^ff*'*' dfifendeurs. allegue qu'il n'avait fait que garantflif paiement d dit Rogers les dits billets de com- position, out fait ave^ lui de nouvetles conventions" qui out eu pour efFet d/ d6charger le demandeur de 1« dite garantie ; --^ " Attendu qu^es d6fendeurs dans leur rfipHque sp6- ciale A la premiere rfiponse du demaufileur alleguent que le dit John Henr^ Wilkin^fe'6tait pas iwtoris6 k emp^Lter la dite somm^ de $186, montant du cheque du 6 f6vrier ^^^^^f^^^ le billet de " Gingras & Langlois," ^^ et qlre 1888; I . ' * ■" - " Consid^rant que le dejuandeur s'eit, 2.'i juillet 1888, oblig6 envers J. II. Wilkl payer cette traite et que J. H. Wilkins & VA alors pour les d^fendeurs ei les reprisontaii'al bligation contract6e par lu demandeur dans la' 25 juillet 1888, doit proftter aux d6fendears qui ment le b6n6ficQ de i'obligation contenife dans ^oetto lottre ; . ,, " Oousid^rant que la remise des dits- billets di coinpo- 8iti6n faite par les d^fendenrs au dit Rogers o'a pas en pour etfet de lib6rer le demaadeur de. i'obligation qn'il avait contract6e par la dito lettre du 26 Juillet 188?, Vu ,, que le but dn d^femandeur en demandant la remise de ces | billets de oom position 6tait de so faire payer le nion,tail|jt „ par le dit Eogers, et que cette remise ne peut avoir pour effet que de rendre les d6fendeur$ responsables du mon» tant des dits billets do composition vis-A-vis du 40ma&- dour; Z'') ■ " ; ..;,. „ '■ \'^ • ■/^'^■" " Gonsidj^^nt que les d^fendeui^ oni remis au dito Rogers le^ dita billets de composition sa|i8 i'autdrisation du demandeur et en contravention k la dite lettre ^u_26* juillet 1888 ; v' . ;■ * '■ . ' -'""""'^ ; „ "Gonsid^rant que la remise du titre, o'est-A-dire des dits billets de composition pourrait dtre consid^r^ comme , une remise d,e la cr^anoe et que cbtte^ Femise, quoiqu'elle s'oxplique facilement paf led faits prouv^s eH c^tte cause, pourrait empdch'er le demandeur de recouvrer le moartii^t ^ de ces billets Se composition „<$u dit Rogers, ou dii -moins pourrait Ini rendre plutf difficile la collection de ce mon- tant; '" • .- > , ',: " Gqnsid6rant que, sons les circonstftnces prouv^es dans la cause, il est juste que 'les 46feiideur8,J)ortent seul.s la ffeBpoAsabiiit6 r^sttltfilit de<^Ia tkSp grandQ co&fiance qa'ils out ^tie eb. Rogerir en Ini refbettant les dits billets de com- position/sans le consentement du demandeur, et qu'ils doivjBOii tenlr compte ftndem^deni da montant des -ditir „ / nfyCL^ * ... .■■' I -■,-■•■.»..■'■ ■-■:■. ^' :-';■ ,.:.;\':;-V:.:; r > ■ /< r' , '.9 ' ■ ' .•..-■v0 -.■;■. 4 < • . ^ "* ■■ ■ ■■■'■■■■. '.--'■ ' , . . " **» . '"'■". ■'-■.•'", ;.'..-; 'ife . ,. ', ■ -■., . ■.<_. - ^ v ■7-*.. "■-■■*■ V . - y» ■ , ■•"-"^"■■' ' . ■" V ^-■■^■^i:i';\;.^.;c^^^^^^ ... '^fiaj^ ♦ ;■ ■^'. _._-.,, 1 - • , 1 '-.:-...■■ ^^1 ■'■^ ■V ■ » ■ - ■■■> '■"■■"■■ :. A' , . Ijj 1 '•l-^l- •# / 1«» gp-H ■;.'..■ ¥ .' ». s • . X - * A 9, -;\ ■ ■ - •■ « » ■ < , • \ ■ V, ' « " '■'■'. rf \ ' 't . *' •■ , ' ■ '>' ■ ,*;- ,. " ' ; ' ■ ' " :L.h'.. \'- .- ■' T;-^-',-' • ' V ■ ■ ■ ■ .' , ' ■•■ '■ -' '' ^^^ * ■ : H ,.; .■ .a- .... ,.■:..■., 1 ^^^^^^ k. » r i ^. A^, *;.,t. \-\ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 4^i / ■A-^"- ^ ^ \ Li 12.8 f2.5 US . ■ ■^ iiii 12.2 1:0 IL^ i U lii.6 £f'U2 12.0^ -- '^-^ ■^' • ,«' f w ■r .«' . V £.19 ' 6 '% -J;^ '■,W • ■-i «%. motographic Sciences ion 23 WIST MAIN STiOT WIBSTfR,N.Y. 145M (716)t73-4S03 4^ ^% ^ \ '^ -V^ ,.^ ^- i ■ *{- ^^ nf r» ' :^' ^»v^ -? «* r '<' ''^ \ .%. t •f .^•li: V*~~... L, --V «/^ 'f' -w i-ni'^'^tfftTfi'i "i' t^^W! 'i '" '"i,*!JT? •''' >"iT'ifrfWf'fF^'', rf''i/mf^^^^vH'i^""^:^s;iCM^' " ''•'■^ 1886. Oiborn. '4, ** 858 MONTREAL LAW REPORm 1 billets de composition, en deduction du montant de la dite traife du 9 avril 1888 ; • " Considfirant que le dit John Henry Wilkins 6tait con- 8id6r6 dans le public, comme assocife des d^fendeurs et que, vis-tk-vis des tiers, il 6tait suffisamment aufori86 a faire les transactions qu'il a faites avec le demandeur et notamment a escompter le billetaii dit .9 decembre 1882 de "Gingras& Langlois" etk emprunter la sommeMe $186, montant du cheque du 6 Kvrier 1888 ; " Con8id6rant d'ailleurs que ce transport du billet de " Gingras & Langlois " et cet emprunt d'argent ont et6 feits par J. H. Wilkins & Qie., et que c'est k John H. Wilkins & Cie., que le demandeur a garanti la traite du 9 avril 1^83, et qu'il est juste que le demandeur pnisse dfeduire d'une dette dup a J. H. Wilkins & Cie., et que les dSfendeurs r6clament le montant des creances resultant des dits tra^jsactions qu'il a contre J? H. Wilkins & Cie., et que les d^fendeurs ne peuvent reclamer Sea dettes actives de J. H. Wilkins & Cie., ^ans se charger des dettes passives ; " Considerant que sous les circonstanci^s pronv^es en cette cause, leS defendeursont le' droit d'opposer au de- mandeur, en compensation de sa creance le montant de la dite traite du 9 avril 1883, moins le montant des dits billets de composition, le montant du billet de ." Gingras & Langlois" et le montant du cheque du 6 ftvrier 1888; "Considerant que le 12 octobre 1883, le demandeur 6tait cr6ancier des defendeurs pour le montant de sa de- mande en cette cause, $462.10, et qu'il 6tait en m6me temps d6biteur de ces derhiers pour le montant de la dite traite du 9 avril I8p, au montant de $457.68, plus les frais de protfet, $1.83, formant une somme totale de $458.91, moins toutefois une somme de $186, montant du cheque du 6 f(§vrier 1888, celle de $102.28 montant du billet de " Gingras & Langlois " du dit 19 dficembre 1882, payable le 22 mars 1888, plus le cout du prot6t du dit billet, $3.13, et les int6rMs sur le montant capital du dit billet a compter du 22 mars 1888, jusqu'4 la m6me date* $8.40, et U somme de $188.08, montant des trois billets de compo- u •N.- ■■• V ■ COUBT OF QUEEM'B BENCH. 869 sition de Rogers, remis comme ansdit, fonnant en tout one somme totale de $426.89, 4 dfcduire de celle de $468.91, laiseant une balance de |82 qu« lea dfefendeurs avaient droit d'opposer en compensation A la cr6ance du deman- deur, laissant une balance de 148^8 revenant au de- mandeur ; \^ " Oonsid6rant que la defense des dfefendeurs est bien fondee jusqu'a concurrence de la dite somme de |82.02, mais qu'elfe est mal fond6e pour le surplus, et'que Inac- tion du deinandeur est bien fond§e pour la dite aomme de $480.0$, mais qu'elle est mal fond6e pour le surplus^, " A maintenu et maintient la dfifense des d6fendeuri» ' josqu'i concurrence de la dite somme de $82.02, et la ren- voie pour le surplus, oka maintenu et maintient Taction du demandeur, jusqu'a concurrence de la dite- somme de $430.08, etc." May 19.] H. Abbott, for the appellants. L. N. Benjamin, for the respondent. Cross, J. : — The judgment in this case should be confirmed for the reasons mentioned in it. The fljjpq^lants set up a firm under, the name of J. H. Wilktns & Co. By private agree- ment it was their own affair, but to the public, the busi- ness was that of J. H. Wilkins & Co. They bought goods from the respondent, and failing to pay for them, he sued. In defence they set up a guarantee letter which the res- pondent had given to J. H. "Wilkins & Co., for a debt due appellants by one Rogers of Now York. Respondent re- plied, saying that the condition of the guarantee letter had been violated, and the letter did hot, therefore, bind him, as the appellants hadu surrendered to Rogers the com- position notes which they wer^ to have delivered over to respondent, besides which, J. H. Wilkins & Co. o^ed him two sums, one for a note of Langlois, of Quebec, endorsed by them, and another for money lent to, pay duties. Appellants replied that J. BL Wilkins & Co. were not authorized to incur these debts. I am of opinion that they could not avail themselves of the claims and assets of J.H. 1886. L«wi* Of bom ■ mi i-m V ; y NnJT .4^S ■■*?■ 1 c-n-J-.-' ■^T'i'^'i '.'■?jp|p>"aA ^rlrtftwlr^rtrirt^ \ Jl^NTllEAL LaW ftEPOHTa LewiR k Oibom. aeo Wilkins Sc Co.. m^lew subject to their liabilities, judgment is confirmed. Tli. !i^ > •. » »• Ramsay, J.:— \, At first sight this case looks more formidable than it] really ,«. Respondent sue^ appellants, who carry oj business under the name of W.F^ Lewis & Co., for '|462 10 / tor goods sold and delivered. Appellants met the action ■ ,1 T"*'."t V' *"*^ ^^ ^^^^ you this sum, but we are the firm of J. H. Wilkins & Co., and you are indebted to ihat firm m the sum of |45l6», toiount of draft you guar- anteed to pay if the acceptor, Rogers, did not pay. on production of his (Rogers) promis8<^ note, and the deliv ery to us (Osborn & Sons) of his composition notes when received. It is true. Wilkins & Co. got the composition notes from Rogers, b,u^ putting faith in a statement of Kogers that he would.pay the draft, Wilkins & Co. sent back^hecomposition notes to Rogers. But this does not si^ity, for you the respondent, are in Rogers' place " We have been told with much earnestness that there is , no evidence that appellants are J. H^Wilkins& Co. I cannot see what it matters to Osborii wheth^^^are or S^Ift .f .*'^P™">>««d to guarantee the pa^^Vof the draft, li signifies not to him in whose handsHBraft is unless he has some equity to set up against felkins & Co! But there 18 a difficulty of some magnitude^ in appeUanfs way at this point Avowedly, they did not return the com]^sition notes to Osborn, unless they have proved that Rogere was Osborn. Is there aiy proof of this ? The evidence of Osborn on ih^ cammissim rogataire w very wild, but I don't think it bears out the prete^tion of appellants that it signifie^. nothing whether he got the composition notes or not. It is evident that if he doesn't get them, he has no claim against Rogers. What he, in fact.^ays, amounts to this : " I don't ,mean to repudiate th« guarantee; I can't say whether I shall sufier or not by not having the composition notes. I fancy Rogers wouW^pay me the composition.. I have not siiwed as yet, because Rogers l^as not paid< the odmposition and I* have not paid the draft." •"« * I •^••1 / ^ ' * and Wilkins & Go., are identical, I . , .y respondent can answer to Lewis & Co., that which he^ coald answer to Wilkins & Go. The rule must work both ways. That being the case, the indebtedness of Wilkins & Go. to respondent is fully established. The- only item seriously contested is the advance to J. H.- Wil- I kins for the firm of which he appeared to be ^ partner. It is appellants' own fault if they left this matter to Jje I jadged of by appearances. If tliB~judgment appealed from is bad, it is not the ap- I pellants who have to complain. I am to confirm'. " ~ ' Judgment confirmed. -^ ■ -• ■ ° ' % * . Abbott, TaU Sp Abb(ats, attorneys for appellants. ,' £. i\r. £ei|;amtit, attorney for respondent. (j. K.) ** . \ . 1888. Ltwta 1m Osborn. V t 1 1 . sl I \ t -m^ \ ■fcp^« ***!(« 'f A ''^ j^*"?^' 362 MQl^TREAL LAW REPORTa :sai«w'^ I 'j- V IV - January 2t, 1886. Corflw DoBiON, Ch. J, Mqnk, Ramsay, Cross, BabyJjI 'WILFRED E. BRUNBT, ^; {Petitioner in Court below), , Appeli^nt; L' ASSOCIATION PHA'RMACBUTIQUE DE LA PROVINCE DE QUfiBEO, {Bespondent in Court below). " ' . -RESPONDENT; '. ' ' ' • \ "^>. Quebec Pharmacy Act, 48 Vict. (Q.), ch. 86, a. ^— Constructs ; of— Partnership contrary to law. \ Hiu) :— (Reversing the judgment in Review, M. 1. R^, 1 & 6^485,) tlie appellant, who had, during more than flVe years before thJ ~ coming into force of the Act 48 Vict (Q.) ch. 3fl, practised i^ cbemiti • ' and dru^iat in partnership with his brother, and in his brothertl 'i name, was entitled, under sect 8 of the Act, tJ^be registered u il licentiate of pharmacy. The section in questionf must be constrwdl as applying to those who have illegally practised as chemists udl dniggists, and' jt was immaterial whether the api()ellant had practi«ed| • in his own nanxe or in a partnership contrary W law,— the illegslitjl in either case being covered by the Act ' '% , ■ ^ The appeal was from a judgment of the Court ofL Re^ipw, Montreal, reversing a judgment of the Superiorl Court, Montreal. The judgment of the Court of Review| is reported in M. L. R., 1 S. C. 485. The case turned upon the construction of sect. 8 of tli«| Act 48 Vict. jQ.) ch. 86. ^, . .^ ^ Jan. 20.] Oeqffrion, Q.C., and CbmVcai* for the pellant: — * ; The Act jof 1886 manifestly refers to illegal p^tner-l ships. It was intended to give certain perso^^a right tol a license; it refers, therefore, to those wh«t had ndl license. Those who had no license could not, under thll law of 1876, legally practise as pharmacists, and M partnerships which they formed with this object wewl COtJRT OF QUEEN* BENCH. 868 t in Court below), . \ RESPONDENT; ion of Beet. Softlwl rriveau for the jal. If the Act of 1886 does not refer to illegal part- '"*'• Bmhips it would have no meaning whatever. It is . ^"'*^ [bmitted that the fntention of the Act is so clear As to ^ii^jj««- jive no room for a different interpretation. I ;. i.ilrcAawiAattW, Q.C., for the respondent :— Section 8 of the Act of 1886 should not have a more Ltensive meaning than section 8 'of ,the. Act of 1876, fhich it replaced, and it does not entitle those to btf Emitted de piano who, under the Act of 1876, would, uve had to undergo ah examination. In the next place, he appellant as a certified apprentice is not entitled to te ben^t of the A :— 1. Where the respondent converted to hia own uae certain Htraw bought by him with money ftirniBhed to him by tlie appellant and intended for the appellant's benefit, that there waa probable canae for hia arrest , Where a person lays an information before a Justice of the Pdace, that a crime has been committed for which such juaUoe has general jnris- diction, and the justice grants a warrant upon which the accused is arrested, but he is afterwards discharged upon the ground that the justice had no authority in that special case, the complainant, if he had probable cause, is not liable in damages for fUegal arreat and imprisonment >5t The appeal was from a judgment of the Court of Review, (ontreal, Sept. 80, 1882, condemning th^ appellant to ay the respondent the sum of |100 damages for illegal est and imprisonment. The judgment of the Court' elow is reported in 6 Legal News, 840. The action was instituted before the Superior Court kbr the district of Richelieu, by the respondent, against |the appellant and one G-undlack, to recover damages for ilander, and false arresJ; and imprisonment. The Superior tturt, Taschereau, J.,Misj(nissed the action with costs; The respondent took t|i^n;ase to Review, and there the fint judgment was main'tained so far as the dismissal for |iiIaQder was concerned, but the judgment jbs regards the Ise arrest and impri^nment was reversei, and the sum 'i 'jKt '\ ■TlH#f*" ''f-l^- 866 MONTURAL hkVf ItRPORTH. INW. OomImiiJ LiatarA. • '2 J oltlOO (lAtnsgos WHS awarded. Th« oStiorvntiouH (i| JuRtit'M Muckny, v\ ho pronouncud th" judgment, wil found in ftill, in Ti I^ejifal N«iwm, pp. 840-2. Th« writin judffinont ol' tht» Court of Itttviow iv an foUowM : — " The (lourt. .'t... - " ConNideriuff that by the liual Judgmonl of the (W bulow, th«) motion of thti plaintilf wm not in»pro|).rlJ found not maintainable lui an action for verbal Mland«r, " Rut conMiderin^ that piuintiif h demand in the Co bt)low was (tompouud, and eonMidering that Hie pluinti^ of Contrec(uur, in the Di8tri(;t of Montreal, wan illegal! arrested at ContretHimr, i^i January, 1881, upon a tTimin charge preferred by the defendant Copeland against hifl before a Justice of the Peace, for th«« dintrict of liicheliej and that plaintiff i^fterwardN Hutfored imprisonment consequence, until freed m hereinafter stated ; " Considering that the warraht of arrest was illeg ultra vires, and involved a trespass by a Justice ofth Peace who issued it, and the execution of it_»t Contn ccBur, district of Montreal, by the constable of the diutriej of Richelieu, was a trespass ; "Considering that the plainti^ has been duly fn from said arrest for want of jurisdiction in the Justiej who issued the warrant for it ; " Considering that the said making of criminal charj by Copeland against plaintiff, and the said arrest and in prisonment were unjust, illegal, and without reasonab or probable cause and malicious, and that plaintilf been damaged by them, .and that he, Copeland, is reap sible in consequence, having been the chief mover in that was done ; " Considering that in the judgment complained holding to the contrary and dismissing plaintiff's actid as regards Copeland, there is error ; ''Considering that no justification has been shown • proven by Copeland, and that plaintiff's action cannd be held barred by any thing proved ; _i."Doth coss, annul and reverse the said judgment as gards Copeland, and proceeding to render the judgmei that should have been rendered by the Court below ; -*- ' ■^^^■''^rapSje'Veg," f;^^>^f^wr^^ t A- C»URT or OlIIIN'i BINCn. mi Doth rel, in the distric/of Richelieu, the defendants in tlMlmginal action conspilredtbgether maliciously, without reasonable or pro- babl/cause, and m^de a certain complaint under oath and sigiiiture of the present appellant before William Lunan, E8(/~?a Justice of the Peace, for the said district of Riche- lieJ, accusing the said respondent of having illegally and /ithi intent to defraud, converted to his own use and be- fefit certain straw bought by the said respondent with monies furnished to him by the present appellant and in- tended for his, the said appellant's benefit. That, there- upon, the said Lunan issued his warrant addressed in the us^l form to the constables of the said district of Richelieu, ordering them to bring before him or any other MM. OnMl»n " ■'T.!?!^;, •"-f^V*' ■"fpry •"■"^""^m ^ jl ^^ f- IML :=!: ilMN 968 MONTRRAI. LAW RRPORTH. ^ of th« JUnticMi of th« P«*c« of }Ut Mi^eiity, ih« Mid r,.» , 7!^ iwndent to .n«w«r to the Mid complMnt. That, tli..r«. upott, (?harleii W«ilhrenn«r. Hi^h Conalable for th« lud diatrict of UirWnliou. at tfi« nM|UMHt of tho Mid appollMt, did arrnat thoVaid wapondeiit and kwp hiiu, from th«* mi January. 1881. to 8 tit of tho aamo month, wh.wi hJ app«aml l>ofore a ma^iatratM for t^io diiitriot of Itioholieu. | and Kavtt aocnrity for hia apinmr^nco for tho 2iid of F«bru. ary then next. That on tho 2n4 of February, the roiJpond,.|,t appeared before Adolphe Hruneau, another of the Ju«ti(;w of the Peace, for the Mid dintriot, and the caae waa th«'d tt4journ.«l until the afternoon when I^uia Z. Gauthier. j another of the Ju«ti(08 of the PeaCe of the Mid diBtritt, diHiniraed the name for want of jurisdiction. Then follow- ed a sUtement of the pstH whijrh the present reHpondnnt WM obliged to pay in oon^qaenoe of his illegill arrost. Next followed an Allegation of verbal slander, attd that oa aaount of the premises, the raupondent suHer^ damages to the extent of $1000. for which he prayed judgment To this action the appellant pleaded . Ist. A d4feH»ee» fait. 2d. A plea virtually isetting up reasonable arid pro- j bable cause, and ^hat respondent never' suffered any - ' damage. The parties went to proof and the examiMion of wit- nesses was conducted at a length peculiar to the district "^Richelieu,— the stenographer's fees alone amountingta ^ery large sum of money. Jhe real poinl in the case as one that was not noticed by the Court of Review in its judgment, and it is the following ;— The complaint of t>e appellant showed in the most ^cofbclusiye manner that the respondent was not within ^thejorisdiction of the Magistrate before whom that conv plaint was laid. It is alleged therein in the knoat dirttt. terms that the offence committed, .was so committed in the Parish of Contreqcour, in the district of Montreal, and -farther, it was not alleged in the said complaint that said respondei|^ was then in thedistrict of Richelieu. Such being the case, it was the duty of the ijustioe of the Peace to refuse to iasne the warrant for the apprehension of the respondent. a)Oirr c)r quKKN-N uknch. ♦V 969 Thn appolUnt («nnot bo bUtnnd for th« luiirpatioa of |M)W«r by th« Juiition of th« F. 440. C. A._ Oei)ffrioH, Q. C, repraaentod the respondent who had not filed a fat^tum in appeal. Teshier and Crohh, JJ., ditwented on the ground Ihaf the appellant aotTod without, reasonable or probable cauae. ia taking the criminal procuedingH. "■"---. "--■■' ' " ' ♦ ■ ... R.wisaV, Jf-^ '" ■'*" « 'This cme comes up lM'(n'D^e cour^tli; it most nniatisfac- tocy^form. As is not unusual in cases coming, from th9 dis- trii't of Kicjiolieu wo have the evidence 8 welled to Bnormout bulk, and in the ^wildest and mos'i incoticlusive form. There jtri! <24 depositions produced on the part of the plaintiff respondent and 28 by the 4ef()Qdant. In additiou to adl th« ordinary inconveniences of evidence taken by steno*- gruphy, the Sorel stenographer ap][)oars to be a wit, and htram uses himself by taking down broken sentences- in < sui^h a way as to make them scarcely comprehensible. The action, it is contended, is Jbr djunag^, for ahmder and for false arrest, and the following quotations are tak^n, the/ finit from the plaintiff'^ evidence and the second from that of the appellant. • " Q. Vers le qoinze de jany ier dernier avez-yons yninon'^ ' ;.- vi m S10 Montreal law REPOKm ■m 18M. Copaland L«ol«n. '■-'P*i^. d *.. sieur Gimdlack'de Sorel, A Contreccour, chez le deman- d^ur en cette cause ? Ri Oui, monsienr. Q. Que faisait-il lorsque vous I'avez vu ? " -R. II 6tait arr6t6, je pense qtt'il venait de ^ri sa broohe Chez monsieur Lamontaffne, de la hjtoche qii'il avait mis U, pensant que la presse aurait 6t6 mise la. II 6tait chez Norbert LecJlerc pour parler de la paille. Q." Qu'est-ce qu'il lui a rappel6 devant vous 'qnand an pnx qu'il §tait convenu de lui payer \» paille qfte le de- mandeur achiterait p^u; lui reyWdre ? R. Monsieur Guibaiack a dManfe, a dit k Leclerc, (je n'avais pas su son premier marclier) de forcer A acheterde la paille. Monsieur Gundlack a dit k monsieur Leclerc, ' je te paye un bon prix pour acheter de la paille, jepaye quatre piastres par douze cents livres et un 6cu de per- centage." Je ne peux pas dire si c'est un 6cu par quinze - cents livres on par douze cents livres, je n'ai pas bien en- tendu ces paroles. Et apres cela il en a am6n6 encore cpielques voyages apres qu'on lui eut mdntr^ la paille sAle— ensuite il a commenc6 a nous demander I'argent pour la qu'elleje voyais pas comment qu'on pouviit lui devoir de I'argent par-ce-que Mr. Copeland luit avait donri^ la somme de quatre-vingt trois piastres par lui et moi, et que I'on avait pas re9U plus j| mon calcul d'apres le mar- che que j'avais fait avec Mrl Xeclerc plus de trente k trente cmq piastres de paille— et Ik il nous demandait cent trente deux piastres on illivrerajt plus de paille disant qu'il voulait plus livrer de paille sans qu'on vient lui donne^ la somme de cent trerfte deux piastres sans nons donner aucun compte pour mpntrer qu'on lui devait cet argent ; et la plus tard queiques jours apres Mr. Leclerc nous demandait toujours cent trente deux piastres et la il a dit que si on lui donnait pas dent trente deUx piastres ^U'il vendrait la paille." Having Iieli)ed to get the evidence into this intelligible Tshape, the respondent becomes restive and declines to ^le a/ac<»OT«aying he can't aflFord to pay for it. The po- sltioifof aptyty 8Q acting is Merred to in the XW Rnle M^:iLy ~ „^'r',''aiJ ^^wp-r V .' OOURT OF QUEElira BENCH. an If Practice. He is deemed to have deserted his dait in ' Ippeal and the appellant is heard exparte. The conse- Lences »f holding the respondent strictly to the terms Efthe rule of Practice in a case of this sort, where the Lrthen of proof is entirely on him, might be very serious, • lor I take it that a hearing exparte mcfans, as the words imply, hearing of one side. We do not, however, find it ha-essary in this case to say how far we might be justified in disregarding the pretentions of a respondent who will not maintain his judgment, oi* furnish us with the evi- Jdence in print, for the judgments aud procedure before las furnish us with a very simple mgde of dealing with ■the case. We have, in the first place, the deo^tation jwhich is in a very peculiar form. It alleges an a^Msation ■against plaintiff before a magistrate illegally, malicioudy, laud without probable cause, by appellant and one QrUnd- llack conspiring together ; that thereupon plaintiff was I arrested and imprisoned, and on a "further hearing, the I complaint was dismissed, fqute dejurididioni. The declara- tion then goes on to state that the accusation was false, I ontrae, libellous and calumnious, and it further states that the defendants had gone about falsely stating that the facts set dut in the complaint Were true, all this to the I damage of the plaintiff in a sum of $1000. The judge of first instance dismissed the action, saying I that there was no libel in the accusation, and that he had good ground, cause probable, for making the accusation, and that Gundlack, who was Copeland's i^ent, was entitled to -tell him of h|s suspicions. . The case went to review, and there the judges said there were two causes of action, one for slander and the other for false imprisonment, and they maintained the judgment, in so far,, iwJt dismissed tSfe action for libel, and they reversed it as regards the false -arrest. It is somewhat difBicnlt to understand the motives of the judg- ment. Why should it be declared that the accusation is not lib^UoQs^if the accusation was not only untrue, but malicious and Uiade without probable cause ? If again the ffccusatioh was^as it has just beea described, why 1886. Ooptluid IiMlero. ;?,!. :y^-' >^ t >M^.7^^ 8T2 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. ^^| 1886. Cupelaud Laolero. If " ,J Nf" 'i ■ 1 ■ M - "5*' do^ the Cour^f Review take the trouble to give as a separate motive that the magistrate had not the territorial jurisdiction required ? ''One can hardly escape from the id^^that the Court of Review thought appellant had good cause of complaint , against respondent, hut that appel- lant was liable, inasmuch as he had mistaken the topo- graphical fact that jMr. Lunan had issued a wkrrant in a case outside of his District. If that was the su^tantial motive of the judgment, it is clearly erroneousX But what is the story Grundlack, who has been absdved by everybody, tells us? He says that over and oveH again Leclerc refused to account for the |88 he had received, he^^nisisted on. having $180 for unexplained expendi- ture, and he said he would sell the straw which repre- sented Copeland's money, and he set tljie threat of arreist at defiance. After all this, Gopeland coitis^lted a lawyer, and acted on his advice. This enormous suit 4s then taken before a judge of the Superior Court, who say^s. the want of fair dealing, on the part of Leclerc, justified appellant in protecting himself, and still we a^e expected to say that this man acted without probable cause. I think, unless we are ambitions of encouraging appeals, for the pleasure of judging them, we had better let it be known that the decision of the judge of first instance, when he holds there is probable cause for an accusation, will be considered as tolerably conclusive on the point. Surely if a judge, who has studied law for two-thirds of hi^ life, thinks there is probable cause for an accusation, we can hardly call it fault if the uneducated layman shares the opinion. I did not intend tp say more on this case which seems to mcpto involve a very simple principle of law. But by the remarks of one of my brethren in this court, I under- stand it to be made a question whether the English or the French law should govern as to the damages arising for an arrest on a criminal charge. It seems to me that this question should offer no difficulty. The introduction of J the English criminal law naturally introduced along with it its necessary incidents, one of which is the righT _ complain. - The extent of that right could only be limited i.tS' T4*Bp,*T4^?{Ei^ COURT op" QUEEN'S I^)f6£^ I 818 . by legislation. It is not pretended that any such exists, for it can scarcely be seriously argued that Art. 1058 0. 0. has; changed the law; U is the expression, -the unfortunat«> expression, of a dry principle incompatible with other parts of the code, and which must be read with other dis- positions of the co^e. To read it alone does not express an absolute truth. T^e legal sense has, without question, ad- jnitted that the English law was tojMvern in cases like this, and the bee/t proof is that Engli^ technicalities have constantly beeiyused and ^ave even been. translated into I French in the «(ode. " Cause probable, "is not a technical- ity of French jurisprudence, f * It has been /also questioned Whether a justifiable accu- sation before/a magistrate without jurisdiction gives rise to an action of damages, and an authority has been quoted' to establish Ahat an accusation coram nonjudice gives rise to an action against both the person acting as a jud^ and against thef complainant. This is very true, observing the di8tincti6n/that the want of jurisdiction must be absolute, and not a' iooLere absence of authority owing to an error as to the local extent of the jurisdiction. We ar^ therefore to reverse with costs. * The following is the judgment of the Court :— ^«- "TheCourt, etc. ; V " Considering that the. ap{>ellant, in making the com\ plaint on which the plaintiff was arrested, had probable, cause for making such complaint ; " And considering that the magbtrate, before whom the complaint was made, had authority to entertain and deal with complaints of this nature ; " And cmisidering that the defect of jurisdiction — ^the reason for which the complaint was dismissed — only affected the 'territorial limits of the magistrate's juris- diction, and that it does not appear that the appellant in I snaking the complaint before a wrong magjistrate, was ao- toated by malice, or that the said respondent suffered any wrong by his said arrest ; " And (^nsidering that in the judgment appealed from, to wit , the jn d gment re n dered b y the S mJer i or Court 1886. CoMbuid Laolere. ■t i I'. m / .. U \ t I CoMlud Leclero. 874 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. sitting in Review at Montreal, on the SQth September 1882, thercr is error ; I " Doth revgrae the said judgment, and proceeding tol render the judgment which the said Court of Review! ought to have rendered, dot|i dismiss the action of the] said plaintiff with coste as well in the Court below, and] in the Court of Review as in the Court of Appeal ; " Tessier and Cross, JJ., dissenting." Judgment reversed. Kerr, Carter Sf Goldstein, attorneys for appellaat. GeoffrioH, Q. C, counsel fqlr respondent. (J. K.) . « • November 22, 1886. Coram Dokion, Ch. J., Monk, Ramsay. .Cross, Baby, JJ.j ARTHUR H. aiLMOUR, (Petitioner in Court below). Appellant; fi.. AND I^BEil^ N. HALL ET AL., {Respondents in Court below). Respondents. Quo warranto— Usurpation of corporate office— C C. P. 1016 . Hhld :— That the proceedings authorized by art. 1016 ft C. P., and snb- sequent articles of the same section, apply to cases of usurpation of an office in any corporation whatever, without any xlistinction. The appeal was from a jiidgment of the Superior Court, Montreal (Johnson, J.), July 23, 1886, maintaining a de- murrer to a petition or comj^aint ^under art. 1016 et seq. of the Code of Civil ProceduiieL I The judgment of the Court! below was in these terms : "•The Court, etc, ^ \,\ / r " Considering that thoj said li^itition is made to com ^ m * X ^■^^i^r->-' -^/^v-Wfiff - "x^ ' 4, OOURT OF QUEEN'S BBNOHT fis sc«— c: a p. 1016 8 in these terms : the respondents to shoW faiy what authority they hold the position of directors of a railway coitnpany, to wit, ' the Montreal, Portland and Boston Railway Gompany, which it is alleged they illegally hold and nsurp ; " Considering that, by l«.w, the right and remedy in- roked by the petitioner do not lie as against persons hold> ing the alleged position of the respondents, nor against any one for usurping a franchise of a mere private nature . not connected with public government, such as that which it is alleged the respondents hold and exercise ; but only where persons unlawfully take upon themselves to.actvinany miHlc^capaftity touching rule and govern- ment, "fls thcr admin istrationNpf justice, or the political rights of tfiird parties, or hold m: exercise an office known ' to the l^w generally ; "Doth I maintain the said demurr^and doth dismiss the said petition with costs, etc.'* Mr. Jusiice Johnson, in rendering the jiidgment, made the following observations : — Thill is 4 demurrer to a petition and order in the nature atAquoufarranto, under art. 1016 0. P. (sec. 2, c. 10). There is no pretension that it is anything else than the exercise of the reinedy under the statutes.which regulated the comnu»n law right ■ to a ^tto warranto; nor that the code has aUe^t^Qd or extended the right in any manner, or done .anything Mvon^^ubstituting a mode of procedure by summons, insted^^t^l^e old writ. \ The petition alleges the election of petitioners ;a8 direct- vik of a railway company, and the wrongful substitution^ or usurpation of defendants in their place. The question is not one of form : it is whether th(^ fight tp enquire, and call tipon defendants to shpW their ikuthority exisi^ under the law. They are, admittiedly ac^ng as directors of this railway company .^^d if the writ would lie in suc^ a case, of course it wbi|ld lie in the case of Bank direct- ors, or indeed directors of .any trading mpany what- ever. Ifow it is certain, that subh a right as is claimed by the petitioner oidy exists where a party unlawfully takes npnw Tiiimiiflif fa^ it nt in i Miy ptiMin fi A p a nity tnnp . hing rnla UM. Qilmonr HUt. /■■ 'It ^■■i ^-^ -^■ '"X ' \A ■;iS;. 876 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. i\ ^<^. OilmpW aai. and government or the administration of justice or the political rights of third persons. " irSust be an offi.* •' known to the law generally (as clerk of the peace, etc.)," per flittledale, J., in Reg. v. TTumas, 8 Ad. & Ellis, 188 What are and what are not cases in which the remedy will he are stated along with the authorities in Cole on Quo Warranto ; and at p. 166, the case of Rex v. Ogden is quoted, in which it was held by Bayley, J., that " there in " no instance of a quo warranto having been granted •| against persons for usurping a franchise of a mere pri- " vate nature not connected with public government." There was a suggestion by the petitioner's counsel that I should order proof before deciding the point of law. If the parties would (Consent, I would willingly do that • but of myself I cannot. The proof could only be of the facts alleged : and the ^demurrer for the purposes of the question of law admits them. There was also a motion to strijce the inscription for law hearing, Ijecause the petitioner had prematurely in.* scribed for evidence. I must refuse that motion and dis- miss the petition with costs, j I may add that in the case oVParis v. Couture (') where the decision was tha^under the Wfanicipal Code, elections to municipal offices could be directly attacked by peti- tion, it was also held that a proceeding like the present one substituted for the ^Kowarran/o would only lie in cases of illegal detention of public offices. I do not think that the verbal criticism of the article it No. 2 of the cases where it is made to apply requires any nqtice. The article is confessedly and on the face of it, a reproduction of the statute ; and the words " other public body or board " cannot mean to efxtend this proceeding of a prerogative nature to enquire into the private busi- ness of any corporation whatever; otherwise there is not a joint stock grocery or saloon, or cigar shop (and they can all become corporations when they like, under the Act for that purpose) where the courts might not be cal- (■)1QQ.L.B.1. "^-^ .^. N" "'''-•Wfi^'TWlW^WV^^-frfi*'^.'^ * ■~" N, *», CX)URT OP QtEEira BENCH. 877 I on to enquire into the authority of the salesman or 'bar maid. I Novt 16.] Geoffrum, Q. C, for the appellant. RiUhie for the respondents. A Ramsay, J. {^or the Coujt>^:— This appeal is from a judgment maintaining a demurrer- Ippellant proceeded by petition under art. 1016, CO, P., » question the right of Hall and others to hold utd ex- W8e the office of directors of the Montreal, Portland and aton Railway Gompany, a body politic and corporate, Inly incorporated according to law. This proceeding was met by a demurrer praying that he proceeding should be set aside : / 1. " Because the so-called office of director of t)to Mon* t-eal, Portland & Boston Railway Company, ii|t4ntioned I said petition, is not, npr is it, in said petiti<3(n, alleged |obe a franchise or privilege, or, in any sen^e, a public Ice such as contemplated by article 1016 pf the Code of iif I^ocedure. • 2. ." Because, as appears by said petitioi^, the office, so- Jled, which said respondent is-alleged/to have intfaded pto and usurped, is an office in a purely, private com- iieroial corporation, And not an office of a public natnire nch as contemplated by said article of the Code of Civil ednre, and the allegations ot said petition do not bring said petitioner's case witlbiin the purviei«r of said licle, nor entitle him to thoyromedy which Jie prays for |>y said petitioUv" ,i The judgment of the Cot^ beloW maintained these pre- ntions. In this judgme/t we find it impossible for us to oncur. Article 1016 gates the right toanypentm mteiatted ) make a complaint/whenever another i)erBon usurps, ntmdes into or nnltiwfhlly hc^ds or exercises 1. " Any publid office or aay franchise or privil^ in ower Canada; , / 2. " Any office in anp corporation or other public body or rd ; wither such officfe e^sts under the coinmon law, I ;•*! Olluoar i #'^^ ""> J 'BtstYKeoT Ordinan^ II Olli Imour Hall. 878 MONTRRATi LAW RIPORTR. The ruMon given for the judgment is that thin reme(iy| is not given against any onp for usarping a franohlNet a mere private nature not c'onnm^ted with public goveiil ment. This distinction is not made by the law. On tiA contrary, paragraph 1 provides for the public office ; pari'l graph 2 provides for any office in any corporation. We are to reverse with costs. The following is the judgment of the Court : — " Considering that the proceedings authorized 'by artl 1016 of the p. C. P. and subsequent articles contained ii| the same section, apply to cases of usurpation of an oifia in any corpojration whatever, without any distinction ; " And considering that there is error in the judgmentl rendered ^ the Superior Court sitting at Montreal oiL the 28rd of July 1886, by which the petition and cooi'l plaint of the said aj^pellant to have the election of respondents as directors of the Montreal, Portland &^ ton Railway Company annulled (U|d set abide, was mi«8ed upon the demurrer af the- respondeut Smmon Raymond ; " This Court doth Teve|iMi)jap:diallnul the said judgmen of the 2drd July 1886, and pfooeeding to render the jnd ment which the, said Court below should have render doth dismiss the demurrer filed by the said responden Emmons Raymond to the petition of the said appella and doth condemn the said Tespondent,_^mmon4B>r mond, to pay to the said appellant the <^sts incun^ < the teid demurrer in the Court below, and doth condeii allythe respondents in this cause to pay to the said a.^ lant the costs incurred on the present api)eal. J, C. Hatton, Q.C., attorney for appellant. M. J. Lonergan, attorney for respondent.' (J. K.) i. p ■-■■«tioufl(bl«3 that n propriotor of an andiyidtd Bharo i;Minot leait^ th« wholo property, or even his own share of it, withoat the conMnt of hiii| co-proprietor. SoeOuyot, Bail, b. 12, and Merlin, Bail, auto thii, and also an to what the (»-preprietor may do in i'nni_\ of refaial of the other <^o-p;rontietor to lease. It doe« not; however, follow, as A conaeq^denoe, that the proprietor par indivii cannot eject a troRpanItT or a periion holding Holely by the will of a co-proprietor. Another principle iroof that Kerby I represented the co-proprietor. Steams remained in thtl premises agaijnst the will of ihe other co-proprietor. So that we have a trespasser in possession of the prope^J and a oo-proprietor asking that he Im^ elected. This 9e- mand must be maintained. I reservenhe expression of aa opinion flis to the respondent's right to eject, if there hid| been a lease from Mrs. Kerby. . Judgment confirmed. Kerr, Carter 8f (Mebtem, attorneys for Appellants. Selkirk. Cross, attorney for lUspondents. (J. K.) Vi \ ■ » - f ■ \ \ .•i- ■ ' ' '■; *« ■- OOUBT Oy QUEEND BEMCU. \\%\ , Novombor 27, 1886. \Car9m Dokion, C. J., Monk, IUmmay, Tkmhikb, Ciiomb, JJ. :rOHN H. R. MOLSON et al., (PeiUionert m dourl below), § Appellants; AND ' WILLIAM B. LAMUK eh qual., ' " {InUrvmatU m Qmrt below), " \ Rkspondbnt. \Prvhil)UioH—Pow0n of prouinrial legislatwre— Brewer' $ Ikeme — Quebec License Act, 41 Via., ch. 8. |Th periur Court, enjoining the Court of Special SoMiona of tlie Ftoaoe Ihtin Airther prooee<|ing witli a aummom and complaint iatued ,by M. C. Deanoyen, police magiatrate, t^nti the appellant Ryan, upon the complaint of respondent, inapactor.of licenaea, chaiging Ryan witti^aving aold intozicatinK liquora witliout a tioenae. [Ryan waa a drayman employed to deliver and sell beer by Molaon A Bros., the other appellants, who wero duly licensed aa brewers under the Dominion Inland Revenue Act, 1880, 43 Vic oh. 19. |HiLo:-L (Overruling tlie deciston of Ix)nuiger, J., M.L.R, 1 aC. 284), that a writ of prohibition lies to bring up before the Superior Court a defect of jurisdiction of the Juaticei of the Peace, which is only ap- parent on proof being made of the allegations of the plea containing matter showing snofi want of Jurisdiction, e. g., that the party pniae- cated is the mere agent of a person not open to prosecution. 1 2. (Confirming the Judgment of Loranger, J.) That the power of the Dominion Parliament to legislate aa to the regulation of trade and commerce does not prevent the local legislature from passing an Act obliging a brewer to uke out a lo<»l license permitting him to sell beer or ale manufactured by him, whether he sells such beer at his brewery, or elsewhere by a person paid by a commission on the sales; and therefore the Quebec License Act, 41 Vic, ch. 3, is oonati' tutiomiL The appeal was from a jadgment of the Superior Goart, iMontreal, Loranobb, J., March 14, 1885, rejecting a pe- Itition for a writ of prohibition. The judgment of the [Court below is reported in M. L. B., 1 S. 0. 264. 1 # \r I* ■it I? f I* t 1 1 1 « i s i %. |i4W RiPoirrM. b 1 m' ■. ' B«p(. ffl, 1886 I W. II Ktrr, Q. 0.. for thu apiMlUnt^^^ Th« f»«'tii ot th««'»*e »r« M folio vrt:— On thn lOth Nov«n<»»»«r, IHM2, th«< pn^Mitt app(i out of th« BaiMtrior Conrt. ai^joining th« (?ottrt of Hpwid M^aaionH of the IViu«. sitting in th« oity and district of Moutraal luid M. 0. Dm- noy(!ni, Raq., Tolioo Magiiitratii for th« dintrict of Mont- real, from further prbo««diag with a (<«irtam aummonH and J complaint iaautMl by thas aaid M. 0. Dttanoyera agaiuHt th«il • aaid app«llant Audrnw Ryan, on tho 10th June, 1882, ujmjb the compIaintofth«prf;a(Mitr«uipondtint, William B. I^mbe, Baq., Inspui'tor of Li(!enR<>n for the revenue district of Mont- real, charging the said Andrew Ryan with having m\i intoxicating liquors without a license, at the date men- tioned in the said summons and complaint. . ' The appellants, in support of their application for the jidd writ of prohibition, alleged : - ' That the appt-llant, ^^rew Ryan, was the employee, servant and drayman^tfriho appellants John H. R. Molaon & Bros. ». • - , , That JoKii H. R. Molson A; Bros, and their prede cording to the custom of the Gh>veriiment of Ganada, wik ' issued in the name of one of the. members of the firm, to J m Kf B. Molson. I appelant Andrew Ryan, for a long time prer- SeethjTBne, 1882, was employed in the serving fappellai4|py<^n H. R. Molson & Bros., and befowi I that time wi^a by them sent out as their draymat j m <* ^ ^ ^ thti aiipMlUntilht^ pplication for the I *|j»WKr*par COURT OF qiTVnfli BKlfr^. t?|H» fiib Mr bottl«a »nd kegu of beer, holding let U krigtUons. ■ ■• , ^ ■•,.^4" «^. Th« •ppellAiiU then net up the Jjiiiae ot the fltiinatoiia nd lompUint aK«hiitt the naid Andrew Rymn, and the t lllod in writl|ij(.^to the ii«id charge by Ry»n, Netting ih bin ■•ld|wjd»^in.»nt by th«/«ppfllUnta John II. R,' lolwiii '*MnF 'Slljd^*^*^ *»« ^"w '* not goilty " in the ■luut-r «Jpr>rll^(iiinfe Hummonii and rompkint. ^fef '^'*^ further «et forth that M. C. l)eanoyers,. " J^*^ CJoart of Spooial HoNiionN, had taken jariKJiio ir the aald Ryan, and hanatitulional, and moreover did «ot apply to he Raid Andrew Ryan. ' ' "' That the Oourt of Hpecial So8sioi!^|| the Peace had no BfiKliction whatever to try Ryan fornR pretended offence charged againit him, nor had the said M. 0. Deanoyera Df right to take up the cane «nd hear the same. The ap- ellants alleged iq support of their pretension* the fol''^ owing reasons : • , » lit. jDeoause there is no Act of the Legislature of the ' avinoe of Quebec which authorises the said complaint nd prosecution. 2ud. Because the pretended Act of the Legislature, upon »hich such prosecution was instituted, is not an Act of ke Legislature of the Province of Quebec, but purports > have ,been l^ade and enacted by Her Majesty the Qufien, " ie«t/hfving no right or title to pass Acts binding Be Province of Quebec. 8d. Because the pretended Act, intituled '* The Quebec [icense Law of 1878," under which flie prosecution was *ituted is entirely illegal, null and vc^id and nnconstit- ktlonal, the same not having be«n passed by the proper dy gifted yr jih legisUtive poweis upon the sulyect in ' be Province of Quebec.^ — ^^- -—-;-— ^-——^j^ 4th. Because the said Act purports to treat of and reg- ate criminal proce4iire. /^ ^ . #■ .^i|i' n 1 ^1 !■ 1 11 i ■St •:^-> . «^' >.>■' ■■^w-. « ,v 1 ;J yy ■\v ^ Mobon , ;, dth. Secanse the p^v^al claose is by fine and imprison- 'ment. . ' ' 6fch. Because the said Andrew Ryan, being in the ent-l ploy of the said John H. R. Molson & Bros, and lictin under their orders, 'the act of Ryan, in selling the be was an a(;t of the appellants John H. R. Molson & Br who hi their license from the Government of the Don] inion of Canada were authorised and empowered sol sell such ihtoxicating liquor. 7th. Because the appellants John H. R. Molson & Bn ' being licensed brewers had the right of selling by i through their employees and draymen without any] ther license whatsoever under the Province of .tju^b License Act of 1878. . ' 8th. Because the Legislature of the Province of Queb have no right whatsoever to limit, or, to interfete vitj : the traffic of brewers duly licensed by the Oovernmentt Ganada. ' ' That therefore it became necessary for theappellanti for their own preservation, to apply for a ^rit of prohi^ ition to restrain thd said prdceedings. ' vThe'respondent, in his quality of Inspector of licenses! th^revenue district of Montreal, intervened to supp ' the Complaint, and to contest the writ of prohibition,! by his intervention set forth : Tl^at the Police Magistrate had jurisdiction to try ease ; that the Quebec License Law was . constitutionsdi also its amendments, and particularly with regard to tlj case of the said Andrew ^Ryan. That under clause 92 of th^,^. N. A. Xct, the legislatu of the Province of Quebec had the right to pass the liceu law in question, that even if the said John H. R. MoIi & Bros., had the right to sell beer under their licen Ryan had no such right. That moreover the said Jo H. R. Molson & rewer, being a restraint and regfulation of trade and commerce, falls within the class of I subjects reserved by the 91st section oftheR N. A. Actfor the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of yiu 11,(4. Ji 26 ■ '-V ■-_■'■ ';A . -■•■. :-■::..■■■■-.■ ■ ■■ ■ - -- ■■■ . : ■-.■ ■■ ■■ •' ■■ -1888. Mtdwm LmdIm. % « •J- i ^ ^r~ ^!1 Mi 1 , K /' Ml MollWD & Lambe. \ i'ii 4* \-^ "; ? ^s^*', ■w^ 886 HONTBEAL LAW REFORtS. Oanada ; and that a license imposed upon brewers by a I local legislature is a restraint and regulation of trade and] commerce, and is ultra vires. It is admitted that it has been the immemorial custom! and usage in thel|city and district of Montreal for dray-[ men employed by brewers to sell and furnish beer to I customers of the said brewers, as the sale for which 1 1 conviction against Ryan was sought to be obtained, wu| effected, without taking out a license. It is admitted that Ryan was, at the time of the alleged] offence, in the employ of the firm of John H. B. Molson&l Bros., brewers, duly licensed under the provisions ofl "The Inland Revenue Act of 1880," (Canada) and thatl the sale complained of was effected by hint- ^ such dray- man of the said firm,of br&wers. It is submitted on these facts that the prosecution ofl Ryan and his attempted conviction of the offence of sell-| ing intoxicating liqupr without a license is an attempt (al the part of the Provincial authorities to tax and regulate thai trade of brewers licensed by the Dominion Oovernmentl and to force them to take out licenses for their draymenj in violation of the principles recognized in the case of] Severn Sc The Queen. ^ It is also further ^^biiiitted that neither the Quebec] License Act of 18^8, 6i any other Act-passed by the Legis-j lature of the Froviiucd of Quebec -taxes or regulates the! tra^e of a brewer, -and that if any fi^h. Act did purport] so to tax- or regulate the trade of a brewer it would be I void and ultra vires, and would hot grant any power toj any Justices of the Peace in or out of Sessions or any] other Court to punish by penalty or fine any infiractio]u| or violations of such last mentioned Act. Thejippellants also 'Submit that there is no sufficientj remedy by certiorari, and that the Writ of Prohibition ill the only available remedy to bring up before the Superiorj jCSourt the defect in jurisdiction^ of the Justices of thel Peace which is only apparent on proof being made of thtl allegations oJF the plea containing matter showing snaj want of jnrisdiction. • ^?-4r^^ [»j4*w«ei^E* ITT^^J*^ Kjr '•9'!ij^»^'!r^' ^2"- ■^^m ORIS. . upon brewers by a ;alation of trade and! immemorial custom | f Montreal for dray< kud fumisb beer to le sale for which 1 1 to be obtained, wul 3 time of the alleged ohn H. B. Molsonft r the provisions ofl ' (Canada) and thatl f hint- ^ such drayj t the prosecution ofl f the offence of selH nse is an attempt m tax and regulate thai minion Government] i for their draymenj iized in the case of) neither the Quebec passed by the Legis- :es or regulates thel ^h Act did purport] brewer it would be prant any power to] of Sessions or anfj fine any infiractioni] Let. liere is no sufficientj 'rit of Prohibitiouiil > before the Supeiuffl the Justices of thii )f being made of th»| atter showing sndJ OOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 887 A. . -■ -'■ . . i -\/ i\r. H. Bourgoidn for the respondent. Les trois premieres raisons des appelants peuVbnt se [aire k une seule : La loi des Licences de Quebec de 1878 est inconstitutionnelle parce qu'elle a 6t6 pass6e av Jnom de Sa Maiest6 la Heine qui n'est muuie d'auoun pou' IToir Idgislatif k ce sujet, dans la province de Qudboo. L'intim§ ne croit ,pas devoir s'arrdter k d^montrer I'ab- Bardit6 de pareilles pretentions, imitant en cela I'hono- ]nble Juge qui, en rendant son jugement en Oour Inf6- rfenre, en a fait bonne justice en n'y donnant presqu'au- cane ajl^tion. D'aprds les pretentions* des appelants, li^ i^slt^p^ locale ne serait qu'un simple conseil ninni- j^^wai qu^ des pouvoirs deiegu^s du Parlement Heureusement que nos cours de justice en ont lavent jug§ autrement, et que le Conseil Priv6 de Sa [ajeste a une toute autre opinion sur les pouvoirs l6gis" latifs des provinces, comme il I'a jugS dans la cause de lod^e et La Reine, rapportSe au te vol Legal News, page 118. Ainsi, TActe des Licences de Quebec ^st constitu- tionnel et dans les attributions de l'assembl§e legislative: ie la province de Quebec, telles que confirmees par I'A^e le I'A. B. N., de 186t. / QUATBldMB ET GINQUI^ME RA.ISONS. — CeS douz mOyeUS le Talent rien, et ne peuvent meme soutenir la/discus- Ision en face des nombreuses decisions rendues/'^ar cette honorable Cour, surtout dans une cause de GdjK dlfaradis apportee au ler vol. des decisions de la Q6ur d'Appel, je 374, et dans la cause de Hodge et JEa JR^m«, jugee par ! Conseil Prive et citee plus haut. / SixiiiME BAISON. — Andrew Byan etait, il est vrai, Teml ploye des autres appelants, mais il vendait de la hihr^ en on propre nom, k commission. II avaii tin interet dans Da vente de cette liqueur. Ceci est clairement etabli par pes admissions faites devdnt le magistrat, et produites au dossier. Dans la supposition que les autres appelants, lett# licence du Gk>uyemement federal, auraient eu le droit de vendre cette bidre, I'ap^Mlant Byan ne I'avait a cause de sa qualite de vendeur k commission, et il lit oblige de p re n d rw la lififtnnft OTigee pur la Ini i^flw 1S86. Molion LmbIm. I'l I --■■■"■ ■*■'".■■"■-.■ '. ; ." r- , f ■" ♦■ ■". ■ '- ■ : --v^--...,:-^ !-■.■■■ ■ s ^ ¥:' * i i. ^ ^ ,1 ' ,^. m^ m^ • s- *'i.^'W*-w*» ■? 1888. Molion A JL^J_ ^ ! n ^ 888 MONTBBIL LAW BEPOBTS. lit P^'et^ffWf ■* ,si 'f*i'*''W**fJ K^Jli-f-t V'"?^ Jt^y r <« %'^: t' 4.1 MolMm LualMk ■I 1 , 890 M0NT$EALTLAW.7tEP0RTB. always been, as on i%Q present occasion, to send out then employees and draymen to sell and deliver beer to then customers, to which no objection had ever been made i to that time ; that said J. H. B. Molson & Bros, were dnl^ licensed under the Dominion Inland Beveniie Act, carry on their said business of brewers and thathe, Rji was not guilty of the complaint made against him. The case went to trial before the presiding Judge of th .Sessions, who, after evidence taken and the parties hea took it under advisement. Theren^n the said J. H. B. Molson & Bros, and said Andrew Byan, the now appellants, on the 10th No vember, 1882, caused a writ of prohibition to issue out ( the Superior Oourt at Montreal, enjoining the Judge the- Sessions from further proceedings upon the con plaint of the now resiwndent. In their petition for the prohibition they set forth tht| same facts pleaded by Andrew Byan, and further, thd the Judge of the Sessions had no jurisdiotiOn to try Rys for the pretended offence for which he was charged, ncrl to take up nor hear the case, and that;, (for the re«80ii stated in their petition which were given seriatim undetj eight heads, and which may be summarized as follows : The first three heads of objection had reference to tbl form adopted for passing the enactments of the Provinciill Legislature, proceeding as it does in the name of Her H»| jesty, which has been criticised as unautho;-ized by i terms of the Britic^ North America Act. 4th. The Act purported to treat of criminal procedunl 5th. The penal clause in the Act was by fine and im{ prisonment. 1 / \ fhe 6th & Tth set.forl;h and claimed the right to fAx the business of brewers and to sell their beer in vir of the Dominion licens^,; hhd the 8th, denied aliyrig in the Legislature of thp/f*rovince to limit or interfen with the traffic of brewers licensed by the Dominio Goveritiment. The respondent in his quality of License Inspector,] tervened to resist the prohibition, and by his conte ^i?S^:^ jff^^j^ iJ'^*!'*S^"'*^^^ C»VBT OV QtJlKM'B BBNOH. 891 bon thereof claimed :— That the Quebec Licsense law was onatitutional aa well as its amendments, and that partica- rly as regards the acts of Ryan ; that if even J. H. Molson & Bros, had the right to sell their beer, Ryan had lio such right, nor could J. H. R. Molson & Bros. tve any fight to. sell outside their premises ., without a DTincial liicense. The appellants had put of record the Dominion License elied ^p^n by them, and on the contest raised on the prohibition, the ft^rties agreed on the following admis- dons :— ■ ^ ., 1. That J. H. R. Molson & Bros, were brewers, having carried on business as such for a number of years linMontreal, holding a. license from the Dominion Govem- Iment under the Dominion Act. 48 Vict. cap. 19, intituled I" the Inland Revenue Act of 1880." 2. At the time of the alleged offence, Ryan, was in the [employ of J. H. R. Molson & Bros., as drayman, re- I oeiving a monthly salary or wages by a commission on the monies h^ collected for the sale of beer manufactured by I J. H. R. Molson & Bros. 8. The 6ale made by him was so made outside the business premises of J. H. R. Molson Sc Bro&. and to a buyer who had not given his order at their office, but was withJLh the Revenue District of Montreal. ' 4. It had" been the jimmemorial u^age in Montreal, for draymen emj^tdyed by brewers to sell beer in the same manner witliout a Provincial License. 5. T^hat th§- local begislature of Quebec had refunded to brewers lu:;ensed by the Dominion Q-ovemment the amount of the license fee im^sed by the act of the Local Legislature upon such bre^er8^owing to and after the decision in the case of Severn and The Queen, (') decided in the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa. On the above issue . and admissions, the case went to judgment in the Superior Court, and that tribunal, l^y the judgment now appealed from, hMd thai the Quebec (')2Caii.aCB.jro. L 18ML Mobon ■A ■-. / >,'' ■/■ 18MI MolMn IimiIm. lifi t np i» mi v-^ i-^ ,^«;t / 892 'MONTRKAIi law RKP0RT8. License Act wm conBtitntionsl, that the Court of Spenitl SesBionB of the Peace, and the Judge thereof, had jurii- diction over the complaint made against Rya^ and that if aggrieved, the appellants were not without remedy which they might have exercised by certwrari. Tlwt Court consequently dismissed the petition of the appel- lants for prohibition. We are now asked' to revise this decision of the Su- perior Court. >r A preliminary question arises, as to whether prohibi- tion is a remedy applicable to the case. This objection was but little pressed at the argument, nor is .such tech- nical objection generally viewed with much favor when it appears that a clear right is involved. A certwrari would not have been efficacious, as admissions of facts on the prohibition issue ^ad to be put of record to have the merits of the case submitted. I think the prihibition was a suitable proceeding and the Judges of this Court were unanimously of this opinion. , . I The first three enumerated reasons 6f the appellants in , support of their petition were not specially urged at the argument. I do not think there is any substance in them. Whether or not the appellants are correct in their criticism of the form adoptecLby the Loci^I Legislature in passing these enactments, and however pretentious it ;may seem for them to act in the name pf Her Majesty if such was not intended by the British North America Act, on which I do not pretend to pronbnnce an opinion ; it seems to me sufficiently clear by the form adopted that evidence is given of the assent of all the authorities in whom legislative power is vested. It contains all the essentials of a valid Legislative act, and the courts are bound by it. I think I am warranted in saying that none of the Judges are prepared to hold that the act is invalid from the causes referred to. , , . ** The fourth enumerated reason can scarcely" be con* sidered serious, and as regards the fifth, it should be con- sidered settled by the decision of the Privy Council in the . ' " : /-/■;■■ '\ ." ' ' ■**? oonirr of Qtsieira BSNcfi. decision of the So- ewe of Hodge v. The Qimm.(') Doubts have indeed been saggested as to whether the point was fairly raised in that.case, and, consequently, whether the dictum therein held by the Privy Council on the subject should be re- oeived as a final ruling. I must say that it has/ always seemed to m6 that the No. 16 of sec. 92 of the British North America Act, giving the i>ower of punishment by fine, penalty or imprisonment, conferred the right to cu- mulate, as well as to distribute such punishments in the manner and to the extent that the body empowered should deem expedient ; that %n Act conferring power on a Legis- lative body should be construed liberally and not as a law imposing a punishment for a penal offence ; that in giving ft construction to the details, a view of the entire subject should be bornls in mind ; that the object the Legislature must have had in view was the distribution of powers, plenary in their nature, betweeh two bodies who should each have full exercise of the authority to them respect- ively attributed. It was not the case of a Supremie Legis- lature giving limited authority to a subordinate adminis- trative tribunal, supposed, therefore, to retain all the power not specifically or in exact terms co^nf^rred. It was a case where every reasqnable incident to the power con- ferred was presumed to pass with the concession of the power. The alternate language of fine, penalty or impri- sonment may, therefore, he fairly read conjunctively as well as disitiQctively, i^ occasion might call for its appli- cation. There wasr nd policy. or object, and it could\not have been the intention of the legislative power in such a case to hamper or eiiibarrass the concession by limits of no advantage to the grantors, nor of any benefit to the other grantees, nor 'was it professed that any limitation of power Jm regard to the matter in question passed to the other grantees or remained with the grantors. The foUowing'ennmerated'i^asons raise the questions principally relied on in the case. As regard the sixth and seventh, I consider we are bound by the ruling of the (') 8 liegal News, 18. -'ft f:-i 8M MONTKIAL LAW4lEP0iH1& Mo|«»«i .< ,fe >■ RnprfliTiH Court in tK« mm^ of Stvem v. The^Qumt, 2 8a promo Court K. p 70, wh«r«in*it Wu hold that a t>rew«r .. buing, lic^nsud uiidor tho Dominion Inland Kovenuu Act! 81 Vic, cap. 8, fcould lawfully manutactuTM and sell beer, lirithout obtaining a.licenRo fVom thn Dominion Govorn- mflut ; that the prohibitory Pnfvinrial Act o^the Province of Ontario, similar to the one now in queHtion, was ultra vire$ ; that t^e licenses required by such Act were in roi- t|aintoftr^e and in excess o£| the power of the lo<;al Legiilature, nor was such power conferred by sub;-8e<;. 9 of sec. 92 of the British North America Act. It s^^ip to me that this precedent covers and meets the pres^^se. Whether we measure it by the extent of power pijiisj^^a^d by the Dominion Legislature, as being entitled exclusivoly to regulate trade and commerce, or as vested with power ' in all matters not coming within the stibjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the Provinces ; or measure it by the absenceoof any control of thfe . t^royincial Legis-, latnre, .we in either .case alike must coB^kliQ. the conclusion that the sale of beer by Ryan, as effected^n'tlya case, could not^ prohibited by the local Legislature. The extent of the power of the Provincial Legislature over the subjoet matter, exclusively of its being involved in^MonicipIl Institutions, in respect of which there is i|o question ifl this case, is measured by No. 9 of Sec. 92 of the British North America Act, assigning the Provincial Legislatures, Shop, Saloon, Tavern and other licenses not extending to such as brewers' licenses, as already distinctly decided, andi certainly not ext^nd^ng to a general prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor in any quantity or in any place whatsoever, as provided for by sec. tl of the Quebec License Act of ISJrS, 41 Vic, cap. 8, under which alone, Ryan was or could be prosecuted, which provision, being clearly in restraint of trade, and unauthorised by any pro vision of the British North America Act, must be held ultra vires and void. It is objected that the Dominion License only authorised the carrying on the business of brewer in the business premises of J. H. R. Molson & Bros, and that' the complaint against Ryan was for salea If" <^*7fT"*'7K7^5?*"«~?w?~"^?r w^ '^'■W'^^' f ,T 'Y''' .^ OOUfifl or QUKIMD ^BNCH. \ 896 made without the limits of^theie premiies. It ia quite truo that the license is to carry on the business of a brewer within the specified premist>H of J. II. R. Molson Ac Bros., but'that is meant for the manulKsoture, and not for the 'tale of the beer. The law, sec. 22, requires tha license to issue for the place or premises specified in the applic4itio% - and for such pla<>e or premises only- . The reason of this is obvious : Were it not so, any brewer, obtaining a single license, could establish breweries all over the DominionT but the same reason does not hold with reference to the lale of the manufactured article. A right to manufacture implies a right to sell the produce of the manufacture, snd no restraint is imposed on such sale, either at the brewery or elsewhere ; and if it were it could only he validly done by Act of the Dominion Legislature, and no eomplaint is here made of the violation of any such Act, As regards the power of the Provincial Legislature^ raised eijpccially by No. 9 of the enumerated reasons in rapport of the prohibition, there is nd question of its ezer- cisd in this instance being for local or mlinicipal purposes, add its authority over shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer and (ither licenses could not possibly entitle that Legislature toenact, as it has done by sec. 71 of the Statute of Quebec, 41 Vic:, c] 8, a general prohibition of the sale of intoxica- ting. liquors in any quantity whatsoever, in any part of the Province whatsoever ; and this is the only prohibition in the whole Statute to whiph the act of Ryan could apply as an infraction. It is clearly an attempt to restrain trade beyond their powers and invalid. Whatever authority they might be supposed to possess as a municipal or police regulation, or to restrict the distribution or sale of intoxi* eating drinks in shops, saloons, taverns or other localities, could not lawfully extend to such general prohibition as they have attempted. I am therefore of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, and that the prohibition should stand and be adjudged valid, and the Judge of the Sessions eiyoined to cease proceeding on the complaint of the License Inspector. i If 1 •■C f I hi %.ii^&)b^*«i;^--- '^-'"Kf^^^-^*, ^** , •taiC ■ \ 896 K>i MOKTIUUJL LAW RKFOlim >'•> Monk, J , ooncnrrpd in tho fon^going dJMMnt. Kamhat, J. :-^ Thi« is an a|H)(tal from a jadgin«mt of th« Superior Court on the meriU of certain quwationa of Uw. rtiaed by a pnv owding in thtf Wkture of a prohibition addr»a«Ml to th« Judg« of Soaaioni The auif aought to Iw^jrohibitud }h t proaooution Imforo th.^ Judge of HoaaioiiN for the inWug«- ment of a diapoaitioii of the Queb« lN)j)rohibit«d jn t 111 for th» infrliij^t'- li'ouao Aiit of IH78 conatitutional, und ■e ia no romedy. a prohibition will ocisely for th« roa- lying it would not a fact in quniitiou -nimely, whether Xlt of a person not to mh that it wu Jelow to gjve the t. . . 1. Whether the I of trade and com- J), IB a right qo ab- oblige a brewer to hawk about the > in such quantity ewei; can do it by ssion on the salea. >rity of the Court ppealed from, but mottg the Judges • ision is arrived at, , to state my own )f the Court, I b«- are mystifications > arriye at for the cold not be fof ced SB^TJ ■ oomrr or Qumm bench. m ■to take out a license liefort telling beer at his distillery, it in manifest hA uld no^ be oblige lake the ord«tr and deliver the iHter Himiiltamwusly. It may be observed that the Queb^ ■■•- M ■■-, , i ; 1 • ■ . ■ T J:- " ■', ■■ r< >k V d m M. 1 J 4t »■ t ) \ < * , '■' ' •i • » - f") • \ % « , .^-^^ 898 ^ ■"-'^wwr -^^ 'ijTP^rJfSils*™ / \ -T MONTREAL LAW REPORTa 18861 Molton lAmbe. I I .« If- final Court of Appeal, and the majority of this Court hw smce refused to be governed by that decision in the tax cases now before the Privy Council, and unanimously it We 4- m Powder Company^') also in appeal before the . Pnvy Council. In addition to this tKe question of liquor licenses has been subject tdrcurious vicissitudes, and the reasoning of the majority of the Supreme Court hardly seems to;have prevailed, at least so they have intimated In a recent case, the Privy Council has intimated that the object of the law might determine its constitutipnality Thus, m Bussell Sf The Queen,^ the object of the statute being the general order and good government of Canada, it was dedared to be constitutional; while in Hodge &■ , ^ Ue Q««»,0 the object of the law being municipal institu- tions m a province, th^ statute was likewise declared to .be constitutional. We have also admitted this principle ; m SuUe Sr Three IUvers,{*) and that decision was confirmed in the Supreme Court. We are not, therefore. I think, dis- turbing hierarchical authority in disregarding an isolated judgment so compromised as that in Severn Sf The Queen. The present case is not one coming under sub-section 8, 8. 92. It has nothing to do with municipal institutions! It IS simply a question of the right to tax by the Govern^ ment of Quebec. If it can be defended at all, it is under . sub-sectiqn 9, s. 92. It is an impost by way of license for the purpose of raising revenue on what is admitted to be ^ -the ordinary trade of a brewer. This, ItWnk, is tonstitil- tional when it is fairly imposed, that is, when it appears that there is no fraudulent ^ise of the B. N. A. Act. If it appeared that the local Act was only nominaUy legislating tor the purposes of raising a revenue, and that the statute i really was contrived as a prohibitory measure, another 7 consideration might, perhaps, come in. I only alltide to/ this as a precaution, for there is no suggestion of any vd nse of the legislative power, and 1 am not aware that the use of thfe legislative power to get round the constitutional (') at L. R., 1 Q. B. 46a (*> g L<»i Nbwh. 234. - (') 8 Leg. Newa, 20. (*) 5 L a g. TSmn, 83tt n . f^wpx OOVB.T OF queen's BEMOH. 899 Act has, as yet, been fonnaUy insisted upon as deciding as to the constitutionality of an Act, although it has been saggested that a case might occur in which that point would have to be coni^idered — The Colonial Building and Investment Afsociation and The Attorney-General, Ist Decem- ber, 1888.(') It seems, however, to be a necessary conse- qaence of deciding from the object of the law, that the Courts must see whether the object is real or delusive. I think this case must follow the decision in the tax cases and in the case of Lambe i^ The Boeder Company until the Privy Council decides that the only licenses the local Legislature shall require to be taken ovA, in order to raise a fevenu«, are those s|^ecially mentioned in sub-section 9, section 92, and that the words," and other licenses " have no meaning ; or, that their meaning is be restricted to licen- ses ejusdpn generii as those especially enumerated, and fur- thermore in the latter case how we are to recognize the composite order wliich, including shops, saloons, teverns and auotioneers, excludes brewers selling their beer, whole- sale or retail. In making this distinction. It cannot be overlooked that the auctioneer sells in a small way, and he also makes sales which cannot be separated from the oper* ations of trade an^ commerce. Mr. Molson might have sold his beer by an auctioneer, and if so, his beer would have paid toll to the local treasury ; but if he sells it him- self the local treasury cannot niake him pay to support the local G-ovemment. This may, by jurisprudence, become the rule of law which we have to apply ; but it appears tome it will not cease to be an arbitrary and illogical conclusion, and one which it is unfair to presume the Im- perial Farliunent contemplated. I am most unwilling, in delivering a jndjB^ment on a question of law, to allude to the sensational impor- tance attached to the , decision, but these tax cases have been surrounded with such evidences of excite- ment that it may not be out of place to say a word on the general reason for holding that the Imperial Par- 1886. Molaon A Lambe. r»BW8;-10r '■* I I ,1 7 I r ^j 400 MONTREAL LAW REFORm MoImii LMnbe. / liament did not intend so to reBtrict local taxation The] \ ^^ ^fJ^.^^^f.P^'^^^^YT^inffonth^ ^ " ****** ^^ ^e may be taxed by the Local I^pgislatnres we are exposed to a double taxing power, and the ready acce« toour accumulated wealth, comparatively unrepresented exposes us to be practised upon to save the pockets of ow fellow subjects." The answer to this appears to me to be I ^easy. The nght to tax the greater operations of- trade and - commerce m consideration of the advantages derived from _ _ taelocalorganization. appearsto'me a/»ftor.to be a fair and reasonable one. To say that it will be unfairly used 18 a fact which t^iere is nothing to support specially. The tendency of the laws of all parliamentary govern«i countries is to extend the personal franchise at the risk of leaving property iinprotected, and this is. at most, only an instance of what ingoing on every where. We cannot presume that Parliameiit did not intend to apply the prin. ciples here It is applyii^ every where else. Lastly, there i *'«*^«P«>*«cti<»»8. F^t. the Federal Government can / disallow an oppressive a^t, and it would be its duty to do f «*'^**»« Interference with trade and commerce amounted to an inconvenience. Second, if prohibitory, it would come within the ken of the couVts. d am to confiW. • DoBiON, 0. J.:~ The appellants, John i ± Mohwn & Bros., and : - Andrew Eyan. by their appeal, complaiii of a Wdgment rendered by the Superiortkmrt, which has rejected their demand for a writ of prohibition to restrain Mr Defr noyers. police magistrate of this district, from Wther proceeding on a comphunt lodged before him against Ryan J iOT having sold beer by wholesale,' without having first .^^!^ * v"**"^' '"Teq^ired by the Quebec License Act ^^,'' , or 1878. V . > !gr< . *M Jo^ H. B. Molson & Bros, had a license to mann- facture beer on their premises at the city of Montreal under the Inlwid Revenue Act of 1880, of the Dominion of Canada, thM Byan was empl oyed by t hgm to sel H 4-, -■-i- ■*»*^<^^'««i»p»^ )tjfec COCS$ OF QUEENS BENCH. 401 er, that the Quebec License Act of 1876 was unconsti- kntional and that moreover it did not apply to John H. R. Mol8on,& Bros., who, as manufacturers, had a right to sell khe beer which they manufactured without a license, under khe Quebec License Act, nor to Ryan who only sold fo* hem as their employee and drayman. ^ The facts established by the evidence^ and admissions kf the parties are that John H. R. Molson & Bros, have a [license under the Revenue Act of 1880 (Dominion) to lanufacturebeer in the city of Montreal, that Ryai>, who }in their employ, has sold beer for them by wholesale to kheir customers throughout the city of Montreal, that the lorders for the beer he sold Were filled at their establish- Iment and that he received a commission on the price of Itbebeer sold. Three questions arise on this appeal : lo. Have the appellants .upon their own showingj ^s- ablished such a want of jurisdiction in the police magis' jtrat^o entertain the complaint against Byan as to jus- ItifyWe interference of the Superior Court by means of a jwrit of prohibition ? '2o. Have the appellants, John H. R; Molson & Bros. lihe righf to sell without a license, under the Quebec jLicense Act, the Jbeer which they manufacture ? 8o. Has Ryan, as their employee, ^he right to sell beer or them on commission in any part of the city without Isuch a license ? Since the solemn decision of the Judicial Committee of he Privy. Council on the case submitted uAd«r the pro- visions of the Dominion Act, 41 Vict., c. 32, it cannot be disputed that fhe provincial legislati^res have" alone the pght to grant licenses for the sale of liquor, by wholesale kby retail, nor can it be contended that the provisions pfthe Quebec License Act of 1878, as- regards the grant- ling of licenses for the sale of liquor, are unconstitutional, [Mid the law having given to police magistrates the aath ■s ivteaptaraiyjiT ^pti Br^gts^^^^«^S»P{Sf iSj^' 'fViYt-^m MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. whether or not l^olson & Bros, had a right to sell with-j out a license, as required by the License Act, and ak Virhether Ryan was acting as their employee or had right to sell for them on commission, throughout the citjj the beer which by virtue of their license they were aui thorised to n^anufacture. It seems that if either John R. H. Molson & Bros. Ryan have any license, or are authorised by a^y law I sell liquor without' a special licensd under the Quel licence Act, it is 'for them to urge such exemptions befon tribunals authorised to take cognizance of breacha ainst the 1 aw, and any decision given tm such contes , although it might be cjontrH^ to law could not I 6aid.to have been given without jurisdiction. he decision in ^he case of the CMrkieh, 8 L. R,,( B. 19Y, seems to apply to the present one. The Charkie was Attached under a warrant issued out of the Court ( , Admiralty for damages caused to the Batavier by 9 coll sion (yn theThtunes. A rule nisi was granted.for a wijtt prohibition on the ground that the Gharkieh was the pn perty of the Khedive of Egypt. The Cou^t declined to i the prohibition, ho^ng the question wliether the Chi kieh was the property of a foreign potentate, so as to ei empt it from liability being one which might picoperlj be decided by the Court of Admiralty. So in this the question whether Ryan sold for Johii H. R. Mola & Bros, or on his own account on commiasioiii, or whet] Molson & Bros, were by any law or "suthority exeo froi£ taking a liceinse under the Quebec License Act, wa proper qi^estions to be decided by the police magist who is authorised to decide pl\ complaints under Quebec License Act. ' The effort made to prevent the police magistrate adjudicating upon this case seems to me "as an atte to remove the case from a tribunal, having by law ji diction over the complaint, to the Superior Ooxirt, wli has no jurisdiction in the matter. I do not wish, however,* to* rest my decision of the 1 «a ' thia^poiat}- especially aa' I nnde r stf rt'-.;,' ■ ■-■■ .,*-■■. r X COURT OF QUBEirS BENCH. 408 not shared by-a majority of the members of this Court, ^ming to the second point, I thi^Tthat the several de- lisions rendered on these constitnttonSl questions have kiwiderably elucidated the subject, and that j^er the ludgmeniTin the case of the Qiteen ^HodgeC) and the last Becision of the Judicial. Committee of the Privy Council, It may be Considered as settled, that licenses'^ issued |oi.re|fukto the sale of liquor are not to be considered as eing in, restraint of trade and commerce, or for the regu- iion of trade and commerce within the meaning of the -ond sub-sectionof s. 91 of the British North America Act, ]1, but-in the nature of police and municipal regulations, toming within the powers of the legislatures of the Wfferent provinces constituting the I^nini*n, and that ke is no distinction to be mi^de, as regards the autho- pty of the provincial legislatures, between wholesale and btail dealers in liquor, nor between the sale made by a Hmufacturer from that made by an ori^nary merchant. he law has made no distinction between those different hssaes of persons. They are altsubject to the regulations We by the provinciallegislathres as regards the salepf |)irituous liquor. If we held that a manufacturer of beer rspirits can sell by wholesale, without a license, as re- ed by the Quebec License Act,, we would have to hold i»t he can also sell by retail withput a license, aiid, there- p, a manufacturer might establish on his premises as Biy bars or shops for retailing spirituous liquors as he toht choose, without being subject to any of the regula- Vns binding on other dealers in the same artibles, Jmd lUblished for the protection and security of the public. IThecase of S«wm 4* The Queen has been cited' as gov- ing the present case. We might easilypoint out some erial differences between thai case and the present k but it is not necessary to do so, as the majority of this [>npt hold that this case is not goveTned by the, Severn -e, but by the decision in the Hodge case, followed by t decision rendered by the Privy Council, holding that > right tg legislate onHheissne of licenses for the sale 1880. Mobon A LuBbe. -.m UM. Molion A LMnbe. !l, ' -]: ^^v^Y ''W:J"5^,E.^'??¥a" T, "fwan^^jET 404 MONTBEiOi LAW. REPORTS. of liquor, by wlujjdfg^lg or by retail, belpnp^ed to the IqcJ legislatures. It seems to me that to decide otherwise would be to overrule decisions of this'Goturt in the cases of th« Corporation of Three Rivers 4* StAte^^^ coQfirn^d . by th« Supreme Court, of Bennett- Sf The PJiarmaceutital AKsocio' turn of the Province of Quebec,{*) wherein we held that the provincial legislatures had the right to lejgislate as rega the sale of drugs, poisons and chomic%is -within thei limii of tl^e province, and lastly, the case of the Hamilton Powt Co. Sf Lambe, in which we have decided that tKe appel lants, who were manufacturers of gunpowder, vrei bound to take a license, as required, by the existing law in the province of Quebec, to keep in their stoi^ps powder in quantities exceeding twenty-five pounds, also the decisions of the Privy Council already referred which have dealt with the power of tha provincial le{ latures to authorise the issuQ of licenses; for the sale spirituous liquors.:^ . \ . ^ It is unnecessary to refer to the thitd question, im much as ai^ajority of the members of this Cotirt are opinion t/ affirm* the judgment rendered by the Snperii Court, |md the demand of the appellants ilst therefc refused. / \ r The judgment of i£e Court 1$ asfollovirs :' •• The Court, &c. " Considering that the case is propefly before the - on aSvrit ofprQ^bition;and furthe^|hat the Statute Quebec referred to is within the powerp of the ture of the Province of Quebec ; V ". Considering that there is no error in ra^ jtiHgini ^ appealed fr9m, to wit, the judgment rendcer^d by ' Superior Court sitting at Montreal, on the 14th <»f . 1886, doth confirm the same with costs of both cqi (Monk and .Cross JJ., dissenting)." * V Judg|dient confirmed. kerr, CarUar 4* &Mitein, attorneys foi^he appellants. N. H..Bourgouin, attorney for the respmtdent. ; "\ (J. g) • . . 0) 1 IM& Oonr d'Appel, 88& " J 4.V. ^ eriy before the ■//^ COURT OP qtJEEire BENCH. ^q^ * ' , ; November 22, 1886. ♦ Ccfram Dobion, 0. J., Tkssieb, Obos«i, Baby, JJ.. * ' ft. ' Es: parks WABD, Peti«on^for writ of Habetu Oorjms. Habeas Corpus-^CCP. 1052— Pirocess mdva mattm. I A peraon, impriaoned under • writ of contrainU parcorp$ for failing to pro- duce eflbcts ojf wlilcli he had been appointed guardian, petiUoned for a writ of AaftttM corjm, on the ground thiyt the warrfint under which lie waa committed, cpntained no enumeration of the effects he was to- quired to praQuce. IHild:— That: the petitioner, being hnprisoned under j)ro(!eaB in a civil I matter, the Court had no authority to grant a writ of habecu cormu. GC.P. 1062. ^ IDobion, Oh. J. : — This is a petition on the part of Ward, who is imprisonid lin the common jail, under- a warrant issued from' the Su- Iperior Court. A great 4tfhy grounds were urged by the I petitioner, most of thedi being of small importance in the lease. But one ground which has caused some difficulty, lis this: The judgment was given against Ward, as guar- Idian, for not producing effects of which he was appointed Iguardian. He was condensed to produce the goods seized lor, in default, to pay the amoiutt of the plaintiff's debt. In Ithe commitment, it is not stated what goods he is to pro- Iduce. It is evident that the commitment, as a commit- ment, is not valid, for the commitment 'should indicate [what he is to'do. He could not go to the jailer and say, ' Here are certain j[oods, | ask my discharge." The jaUer Ico^ild not discharge on that. The commitment is, there- jfore, insufficient, as an ordinary commitment ; it shouM Ihave contained a list of the goods he is to produce. But I another question comes up. This is a judgment of a ci^l Jobart, and Art. 1062 of the Code of^Procedure siys the ■^visions of the Code respe<^ting htdfeas corpus do not ap-- I ply to any person imprisonedlor debt or under any action' I or process in civil matters. This man is imprisoned undter ' a process in a civil mattw, and the question is ^whether n t -ii' ,1, ,", Ji Eef^feT^TEesubJectlias alwf^l>een on^ J ' N r^^w "^'W^'^ ^'~i0'f^^'W^?r^'^ ''''5^ J 406 MONTREAL LAW REPORm 1 . ^^ ,p»rt« of great difficulty. In one caae, the late Mr. Justice AylwiJ f^ranted a luUteas corjms, and the late Mr. Justice Drnmmoa did the same thing in another case. Following these pn cedents I have^ granted a writ in two or three cases, one case there was no condemnation to dontrainte, but tl prothouotary had issued his warrant for caatrainfe. Bn in a case before this Court, where the amount of costs wi not stated in the judgment, the. Oourt djacided that it hi no right to release the party upon a habeas corjmt. (') Tli settles the point so far as this Oourt is concerned, and application must, therefore, be rejected. ' .'". ■ . ■ ..'■■. ' ' Cross, J.i-r- r The petitioner, imprisoned under a writ of contraintei corps for failing to produce effects for which he was pointed guardian under a saisie execution, petitiqns Court for habeas corpus, claiming his release by reason) informalities in the warrant under which he is commit to gaol, and especially as it contains no' enumeration ( the effects he is required to produce. The decisions of this Court and of the Judgea have ; been uniform on this subject. It is difficult, by any i view of its jurisprudence, to arrive at any certain i for our guidance in cases like the present. We have i "^our Code of Civil Procedure a chapter, viz; Cap. 12, und the rubric of Habeas corpus ad suitjicimdum in civil ters, concluding with art. 1062, which"^dedares that " ' " the provisions of tijs chapter cannot be extended to i " discharge of any person imprisoned for debt or unj " any action or process in civil matters." This rule is , very comprehensive and seems to elude interference with imprisonment decreed by judgment or order of the higher courts of record hm jurisdiction in civil matters. It will readily Strike enquirer that the resultiitg inconvenience might be great, if this remedy were applied to the control of perior courts of record in the exercis§ of their civil (1) Bxparit MoCftffiwy, twUtionsf for BahtM Owpiw, 8 leg. Kgwy pcf t .• OOURf. Oir QUEEN-H BENCH^ ^ 40t ceedingB, CBpecially i^^ samo stricltiesB wore to be ob- jiervod in regard to theip; as is practised in the supervinion >fthe proceedinga^f wurts of inferior or of limited juris- iction, and thi^ wf Itnow is not done, beciause, With courts if Inferior or limited jurisdiction they are strictly Bpnnd to i forth their UutKority on the face of their proceedings id they are presuined not to posaess any authority be- rond what is so shewn in their said proceedings. The g^n- )r»l presumptionis against their authority* in all matters lot shewn to be within it, while with Superior Courts 6S ' cord, the opposite rule prevails; jurisdiction is presumed ^ their favor in all matters falling within, the gener|»l. ' tpe of their authority. This, would seem to limit the iqniry^ in a case like the present, as to whether the etitioner had been committed on a writ of cokraintepar wpi, and if that was within the general scope of the owers of the Qircuit Court, which I think is ti> be con- kidered a Superior Court of Record, the regularity or irre- 'arity of the proceedings in such a court, I take it, lid not be -jMroperly a subject of enquiry on habetu bi^ wonldybe taken advantage of or r^edied by I sj^plidation to tl^e same Court where the ^proceedings nm held. In this case, I understand the chief objection ken is thfe abstoce of an enumeration of the effects in ne commitmeni required to be produced by the»peti- lioner, before bei£g entitled to his liberatioij, and that Mthough this absence occurs in the commitment, the Re- »rd containing the procis-'verbal of seizure shews what hey are, and perhaps the judgment of the Court also does 0, if not, the latter omissionbeing rather a serious omis- |ion might possibly furnish some mode of relief before he same court, but if enumerated in the judgment, the Mtioner w^uld not qeem in a legal sense entitled to ke it matter of serious grievance, as he could readily nd what he is held for by reference to the Record, uid for he purpose of ordering his imprisonment according to the nle I have mentioned, the presumption would be in favor p regularity. Even in criminal matters, in certain cases ii frV :^^, vv,;i> ii 0>ii,«,ai*frNe.^RMl might be wnfend^ttat a prisoner ^deFan KgukT / .>-;C' IPF! f ft'.*? IF?! j 1" { 1 ,. .X '' ^ i I 4 .:;■;. I'i- mmon gaol of>: the district 'Of Montreal, by 'irtno of a warrant baaed upon a rule ofamtrdinte par atrpi, imued from the Circuit Court, by which petitioner yran ordered to be imprisoned antil he should produce certain moveables under seiinre, and of which he was declared guardian, prajrin^ for a writ of habeas corpus, and mature deliberation being had ; ' " It is considered and ad[judged that the said Percy M. " Ward do take nothing by his said petition which is here- by rejected." W. H. Ksnr, Q. 0., for the petitioner. /. O. D^Amour, contra. . (,.K.) ^ ^,-y- t i •% ' ^November 22, 1886. Ck)ram DoRiON, 0. J., Rambat, Cross, Baby, J J. THE EXCHANGE BANK OF CANADA. {Plaint^ m Court below). Appellant; . AND . '..-...-■■■ • , ^' / ROBERT HALL, „ '■ {Drfendant in Court bdow), ^ l_^j...— __._I;.j,_.,jL:p' 2,^/, . ,,. Respondent: Bank m liquidation— Cheques paid :— That the bank had no action against the respondent to° recover the amount or the cheques so paid, their', noouiae^ i' any, bdinf r pvraOT^ttT wnonr tny^iadipanrttKnnonc r': / HI.' ^ • ^™»4y^"! 410 \9. MONTKKAL LAW RBTORm IIM. 1 , ' 1, r'l: . ■..h..-.B.„. ^,'^*l"''"fT' r** *'■'""* ' .i"dK'"««tofth«Su,H,rior Court. " L» Oour, etc. ■ •• a)ti.id^,raiit qu« iW^ptatiou fait« par U Uaiirtu,, I,. 20 s«pt«mbr« 1888, d«t.=hA,,a«« du d«maiid,mr moiitioniiAi | daui. la df^rlHration ».t un« o|)6ratiou difftrente ot dittiiute den pai«moiit« Hubufequornniimt ..l!VHtu6« par «I1« dea mon- Unta port^a aux dits trhi^quea. qu« par cetlo mVoptatioi, la doinand«nm«« a doun6, il «at vrai. centre «lI«-mAm« uno ^ •«*»oiidirecte anz portearB de. dita chdquoa, maiXue va in«olvab,l,t6 publique et notoire do la domanderdH.*, i Iffipoquo d« la dito acooptatiob. «lle aurait 6t6 fond6e 4 op- Joaer am dita jwrteurs (de m6mo qu'au d6fendt'ur lui- M«me) iWeptiou rfiaultant de la dite in«olvabilit6, et de .5liinpo«8ibilit6de payer' lea diUchdquea sana commettre dea pr61er«iueB Trauduleuaea ; " Conuldfcrant que sous lea circonstancea, la Banquede- mMidereaae, nonobatant la dite a<;ceptation, ne pouvait et nedevait paa payer lea dits chiquea au moyen dea cr6- dita donnfea aux diffferentea peraonnea mentionnfiea dans • 1 enqudte et qui out d6poH6 lea dita cheques k la dite Ban- que : que ce sont cea paiements ou cea crfedlts donnfca aux dites peraonnea qui dans J'espdce, conatitueraient dea pr6- ftrencea frauduleuaea ou dea paiements pr6f6rentiel8 et uon I'acceptation des dita chdquea ^te le 20 aeptembre 1888, laquelle twuvait et devait 6tr» r6pudi6e ; " Conaidferant que vn la dite insolvabilitfe publique et notoire de la demandereaae, datant du 16 8eptembre?lB88 ^tous lea chiqoea acceptfes par ell e, et tons aea effetide' commerce, n'6taient n^gocifes depuia cette dite date qu'aux nsques et perils dea achetenra, et pour moins que lenr va. leur nominale, qu'il y,avait doute raisonnable au aujet de ^ reprise des paiements de la dite Banque dans lea qijatre- TingtdiijouraA elle accord6s par la loi ; que ce doute pr^tait matiAre k des sp6cuIation8 sur la valew des elfets Ma la dite Banque, et que c'est dans le coars do cea ap^cu- iBtiona que des tiers ont acquis du d6fendenr, k leurs ris- quee etperila, les dita chdquea aoceptfia, lesquela cliAqueB ^ COnBTOPQUltEN'H IIKKCa 411 Hall. I«i d^ltiiiduur mvtdi droit de lour vtmdru, ubii ■« r«ndr» "^ oouimble d'auoun »ot« iUligal ou fhiuduloax. et ■«»« ■e"'*''*^"^^ ri'iidrw pMsihlu d'aaimiie lu-tioii «ii ra<'oavrani«fttt ou r6p4* titioQ ; " Maintient lea d^fenam fit renvoifl Taction de la deman- (loreaao avnt; d^pons." Sept. 26, 1886.] /. N, UrtmihiehU for the apiwllant :— Theapp«llanta iiiRtitatud the preaent action against the reHpondent, to reciover the anm of 11986.00, the amount of five cheqaea draW4| by r«8pondeut againat his depoait with appellant, the aaid cht^queii being aeu^rally dated the 20th Sjjptembe^, 1888, and on that day accepted by tKo Bank, and paid reapeotivelf 6n the lat and 2nd daya of October and the 9th iof November, 188&, ' The Exchange B4nk suspt^nded payment on the 16th September, 1888, by a resolution duly paeaed by its then Board of Directors ; the said suspensiqu hiding made under the provisions of Sect. 67 of the Banking Act, 84 Vict., ch. 6. Notice of such suspension of payd^ient was duly given to the different Banks and finwici&l institutions, and the same became public and uotvirious, immediately, to the knowledge of the reapondeut The suspension continued until the 22nd of November, 18«8i when a petition was presented by a creditor, aiAEing for a winding \^ orddr of said Bank, under the provisions of the Statute; 46 Vict., chap. 28, and on the 6th of December of the same year, a winding up order was issued and the Buik pl»ced tH liquidation, and liquidators appointed. V • \ The eyidenoe shows that the cheques in question were not paid directly to the respondent personally, but ^t he transferred them to certain parties who obtained piiy- . oient^f them from the Bank, either in cash or by having then)^ credited on account of the indebtedness of said par- ti^ to the Bank, thereby reducing their liability to t^e The case turns upon two points,' (l) 'Odttld the BuJk^ make a valid payment to its creditors after the suspensioin on the 16th September, 1888 ? (2) If it be held that ^t could not make such payment, was the paymAnt of tlja \ '4 t . !> . ' 1 y jSt.. -^ .'t. ff .1 • •' , ».-• Tf 412 MONTBEAt LAW RVPORTS. 18M The suspensiou of the Bank was at the time notorioug and was published in the leading newspapers, and of thig fact the respondent had ample knowledge. On the 16th September, 1888, the date of the suspension, it is clearly shown by the evidence in this case that the Bank was at that time hopelessly insolvent. • The appellants contend that under the common law and particularly articles 1082 to 1088, inclusive, of the Civil Code, the Bank could npi at that time or after the I6th September, 1888, make, a Jvalid payment to any of its creditors. The suspension as provided for under Sec. 59 of 84 Vict., chap. 5, must be held to mean something. It cannot mean that th^ Bank could pass a resolution of suspension which is binding upon its creditors to such ^. an extent that they could npt force the payment of a claim during the ninety days, whereas on the other hand the said. Bank might pay its favored creditors. The Judge who rendered the judgment of thej^ourt be- ^ low, held that the insolvency was public and notorious, but that the right party to,proceed against, oh the cHe^ ques in question, was not the drawer, to wit, the lespon. dent, inasmuch as he had assigned and transferred the cheques previous to their payment, and therefore the ap- ' pellarits have no right of action against him. The appel- lants respectfully contend, therefore, that the Bank could not pay any of its creditors after the 15th Sfeptepiber, 1888, and that the payment of the cheques in question -was a payment to the respondentj and for tHe repayment of which he is liable, for the benefit of the mass of the- creditors of the said Bank. The holder of a cheque is the mere aigent of the^rawer to procure the money ; Daniel, Vol. 2, p. 648 ; Brown v. lAxkie, 48 III. 501. Drawing a cheque is an appropriation of so much of the drawer's funds ; Parsons onpBills and Notes, Vol. 2, p, 59. A cheque, by the best writers upon banking, is defiked to be merely an instrument by which a depositor seeks to withdraw his fanda frm a&^^ . m V OOUIRT OF t^UEEira BENCH. m H«IK Morse on Banking pp. 249 and 260, and Grant on Banking, > p. 12. The respondent herein did nothing more than draw *»'>»«|« his cheques in tl^e ordinary and nsnal manner, and it matters not, so far as the respondent is concerned, whether the cheques were taken to the" Bank by respondent him- self or presented and paid tosonte other person to whom the respondent delivered over the cheques. It was a with-^ drawal by respondent of his funds in the Bank, by means* of his cheques or orders upon the Bank, instructing them to pay over the monies standing at his credit. It differs altogether from an assignment of the claim ,of the respon- dent against the Bank. Morse on Banking, at p. 25*7, states clearly that the negotiation of cheques by transfer is con- fined in its operations to those which are payable in mo- ney, upon which payment in legal tender can be deman- ded. The respondent herein could not draw a cheque at the time, which was payable in money. "The Bank had ^ no right to pay, and the r^pondent knew it had no right to pay his cheques, and neither the respondent nor the holders of the cheques could demand the payment thereof ' in legal tender, from the Bank. The mere drawing of a cheque and a delivery to a third party does not operate an ibsignment of tho amount of "" money mentioned in the body of the cheque as against the Bank upon whom the cheque is drawn. — Morse on Bank- ing, p. 276 ; Hop/dnsoH v. FoUer, l?li;:ft.Eq., p. t^- Daniels, Vol. 2, p. 661 ; WharUm v. WaUeerii B. & C, 468 ; Yates V. Bell, 3 B. and Aid; 648 ; Schroeder v. Central Bank, 84 L.T. ' R. t86 and 24 W.E. 11 ; Parsons Yol. 2, p. 60, also ibot note and authorities there cjted. The respondent in thjis case obtained payment of his cheques, and it is respectfully submitted that it is imma- terial in whatever mode it was, the respondent herein obtained payment, whether direct to himself or by the "' agency of a third ^ri:y, he is responsible for the return of , the amount so paid, and is equally responsible whether the payment was effected by the payment in cash to a third party on his own order, or by the delivery to a third party of valuable ■l'.'. Buk / -- il fi^ ■;v.)«w- 414 MONTREAL LAW BBP0BT8. 1886. \j> I 1: ! ' I 'ir ^ ,-^ B„h»«,B^Z^ T^t^""^ '^M*^"! *'"'"" "P^"* re-Pondenfs orders. H^I^ and the bearer of the cheques must be regarded a« beinR . the agent for the reception of the money. It is respect- >^ ^^"y^i^mitted that it is no defence for the drawer of the cheques to say that he had sold his cheques for less than their nominal value, and that they were not cashed by ^Hmself The Bank honored his orders without right, as an insolvent debtor, and thereby commiiied an injury to the other creditors upon the order of the respondent, for ^__- which there attaches to respondent a responsibility to re- pair the injury. A credit given for the amount of a cheque by a Bank upon which it is drawn is equivalent to pay- ment of the cheque. This is clearly laid down by Morse on Banking, p. 274, also in Foster v. Bank of London, 8 Fos- ter^ind Finlayson, p. 2^4 ; Addie v. National Bank, 46 N.Y., V785 ; Baniels on Negotiable Instruments, Vol. 2, p. 686' .It will be con^Aded that the drawing of a cheque by a depositor, and its delivery to a third .party who obtains the acceptances the same, is a recognition by the Bank of the assignment by the drawer, and of the holder as the Bank's creditor. But the Cou^ will remark that, in the case now under discussion, the cheques were accepted by the Bank, not in the hands of third parties, but they were brought to the Bank, and their acceptance procured by the respondent himself This acceptance, the appellants re- spectfully contend, was an illegal and unwarranted accept- ance on th6 part •f the Bank. Its functions had ceased, and the acceptance of a cheque means a declaration, if it means anything, on the part of the Bank, that it hai funds with which to pay fhe cheques. The respondent, when he obtained the aOceptance, knew perfeptly well that the Bank had no funds with which to pay the said cheques, apd after obtaining the acceptance he proceeds to sell the cheques or part with them at a large discount off their face value. The effect of the transaction as carried out is one which tends to injure the general creditors of the Bank, and it is an injury which has b€>en caused to the other creditors by the appellant, unauthorizedly, and Z!!?!?* ^^ right, recognizing aud giving effect to the written orders of the respondent, namely his chequesr^ I^CJQURT 6F QUEEN'S BENCH. 416 R. D. McQibbon, for the respondent :—<- The questions to be decided by this appeal are : was the respondent gnilty of obtaining a fraudulent prefer. ence ? and can the liquidators recover the amount of the checks frota him ? . The Act respecting Insolvent Banks, 46 Vict. ch. 28 (1882) contains certain provisions regarding fraudulent preferences, in virtufe of which the appellant's action ap- pears to have been instituted, but an examination of the sections in question, 71. to Tl, will show that the present case does not fall within the purview of the statute. As pointed out' by the Judge in the Superior Court, the mere acceptance of i^^ljll^nt's checks worked no disad- vautage to the "^^jfU^ the creditora these checks, although certified JJPPIIhave been refused by the Bank when ofiered by tJ^'diffeirent debtors- who had subse. quently deposited them, and if any fraudulent preference was given ii> respect of them, it occurred not by the^r ac- ceptance but by their receipt iji liquidation of » the debts due by GMlman and the other debtors. * The-respondent contends that by his sale of the checl^ in question, accepted by the Bank, he merely transfent^ his claim ag:ainst the Bank pro tanto to the vendees of t&e cheques. This, he submits, he had a perfect right to ^o, more especially as the Bank was not in any way preju- diced by the transaction. It made no difference to the Bank who its creditor was. It could have declined the deposit of the cheques at their face value by (Oilman a al., and if any wrongful act was committed at any time, it was when ^e cheques were paid in by these persons. Whatever action the Bank may have against them, res- pondent contends that it^haa none against him. It could hardlv be pretended that respondent would not have had th^ rig^ht, had he so fished, to execute a notarial transfer of his claim and have it signified on the Bank ^n the 20th September. The Bank could not have objected to such action on the part of respondent, nor could the transfer have been attacked by ot&ers. There 18 Ho law nrnhibiti ng a creditor of a n insolvent from dia- BsohknieBMik Uall. -^t posing of his claim. __ 418 MONTBEAL LAW BEFORm ^' U88. BzeluuitaBMik H . . § accepting and marking respondent's cheques, the ceiased to be his debtor and became the debtor of the holder of th^ accejplted cheques ;— Daniel— Negotiable Instrumenits, s. 16dl,; Mqrse— Banks and Banking, p. 199. By -the Oiril Code, the holderof an accepted.cheque has a direct action against the Bank ;— 0. 0. 29ftl. , As'.Yarey testifies, respoi^dent's account wot dosed im- mediately ppon the acceptance. The transferees of the .cheques then becataie the creditors of the Bank, and any fraudulent payment made to them can only be recovered froin them. ^ - '' . # \ . > - 1^ ' > . • ■ ■ » »■■ ■ . . ■► ' ■ -■ . ''■■;:i^MSAY, J. (rf&s.):— ^ ^ "'---' ',■.'■;'• %!/*■. This case raises « somewhat novel question The re^ pondent, a.depositor i^ the Exchange Bank, drew checks on the bank after its insolvency, resented them, hid theip accepted, imd sold them tb one Weir,'who was paid in full bythebanl. The depositors lost a considerable part of their depbals by the insolvency of the bank, and the liqtri'' •dators seek to recoWr froip^ the deposiJwr the amount so drawn out by ^eir. * They say, we paid to your agent, the -holder of your cheque; our payment to him is a payment to you, and as that payment was made througjti error, We ' have a right to recover the m^ney so pajd from you. The other view is this t Th6 holder of a cheque is only considered as the agent of the drawer 4n a limited and spedial sense. ' He is reillly his eesHomtaire^l so much of the depository's funds as are* in the bank; the liquidators chose to pay him more than they ought to have done; the error is that of the bank, lor wWch the depositor is^ not garant, unless he profi£ed, and he^id not profit. This answer is very inljenious, but is it sound ? I be- lieve'we are all agreed that the acceptance does not affect the case. Jt is plain that the insolvent could not accept to the detriment of the liquidation. The liquidators paid on the depositor's order; itiunteowt that the depositor had no right to give such an order\The peculiar relations of the deiMMitor and the purehaser of the. cheque are un known to the b»nk; Mid i ta ttpenTw by th w fa r e of th e con OOUBT OF queen's BEWqH^ «f tf u t Hkll. ,% tract that. the liquidators paid to the discharge of the de- ««*. positor.C) who ctonot even tell who the purchaser was iCfa-b^pitaiii, has b^en argued that if the depositor had made a regular " cession (^ his rights, an^ that thevbank had paid in full the cA«Mi/ yrould noVhave beeu liable to pay>ackthe money.. That is clear, for the bank was in e*ror. Here the bailk was not in ptv&r so far as rep^ndent is concer- ' ned, for they paid on his order. II i'eurichit aux dipens \ititutrui. If ^ solvent bank, having no funds of A, paid his cheque by error, would A hp entitled t^ refuse to refund* breaying that he gained nothing by the cheque, or by proving he sold it for a song to the person paid ? If the raleisnotapplicable'to a sblveht bank, what, principle [^ ' puts the right of an insolvent bank on anothe^ootinir ? . i^ Cross,:!.;—:, ,;■■■ ' >,,V;; V ^ '.•■■. - *" On\the 2pth ^ept^mber, 1888, the respondent-Hall, hav- ^ ' ing funds to his credit in the Exchange Bank, appellant, ' ^ drew ii ve checks on that ^ank for sums 'the iiggregate of which amounted to 41.986.00, ^Ttioh the bank on -thaf : " . Id^y a'cceptM. Oite of these checkftjwas ^awn* payiible / ^- h6 the ^ . . Hall, afterwards, disposed of these checkCwhicfr were ' ' • made pacyable to bearer, to various parties, for Valuable ' ' consideration, they got paid their.Vespectite 'amoi;^ts by ' ' '!*1'**J?, *^®" accourfk^^^hthe bank or otherwise; and ; of the following dates, viz. th? 1st a^d M of October and the 9th of Noven^ber .respectively. ^ The Exchange Bank ' m hqmdation now Ita Hall, claiming to recover from him the amount of these sejceral checks as for a fnradu- leht preference obtained % Jiim from the bank. Hall defends himself on the ground that he hitosetf received nothing horn the bank, ttat he a88^*his" <•) Actieqne ia itaoney. Itii not given for value; it is ««nn simpie mandat de p«ement| il peat avoir 4W5 ?r« ou pour un prdt, ou pour un «cte dfr liMralit^ ou pour tout motif Stranger de I'argent. et il ne i«bow " y ^ virtuellementtar une^cauae empreinte d'un caiactdre ooiiimeiciaL'' N w iffin i tt^j),^, (W rta by »Mw*»rJ^ -^ II ml ••■ N • ' V 1: ^'■■^!: a-^^ Veu n, Q. B. ' ^7 "■ li ,i It .•' &l ' ^■A 418 MONTREAL LAW BBFOBT8. »"• ' (jlaims ^o other parties for Bneh value as he conld obt« B.oh^B.nkfor '*^®"' *" ^"^ *^*^ * right to do, and if the bank chose pay in full br in part the holders of the checks, they „ , so at their own risk and have no claim by reason of am payments upon him Hall, but if entitled to reptitutifl • must" Jobk for it to t'be parties to whom they paid tl money. The Superior Court considered ihi* a sufficient defen and dismissed the action of the bank, and they have aj pealed from the jtidgment. " : °/ ■ ' * _ ^ _ By.the proof it is sliewn |hat the bank suspended pay- ment cin the 16th September, 1888, which suspension w declai/ed by a resolution of the directors of that date > was publicly announced. . Hall himself received nothi from the bank, And it is not shewn what he realised fi > the sale or transfer jof the checks. The question at issue in the case is whether the has any action against Hall for the money the bank to the hoMers of the checks. Hall was a creditor of bank and had a right to assign his claim, but he co give no transferee any greater right than h0 poss^ himself. On the declared insolvency of the bank, his rig-_ f^ was no longer a right to be paid at once, and in tuU, baljQdgi a right to receive dividends out of the insolvent estate coilthe 1 curi-ently with the other creditors of th6 bank ; this wi the j-ight he handed over to the transferees of his ch*! his authority could go no further^ and this authority no more vested in the transfereiJIIpiiqRFhateveT they did . accomplished in excess of Vthis was outside and beyom the power given them by the ^ansferor of claims agaii an insolvent institution, and whatever that institution its administrators did beyond its duty in dealing wit the holders of the cheeky as creditors of the bank, the ; did at their own risk. Saving paid the amount of t * checks to t|ie holders, they did so wrongfully, in ei of their duly and' without any legal warrantor authority, ~ ^ and the recipients of the mbriey got it without any 1 right, and4>eyohd the authority vested in them as t fereeg of cUims against an insolvent estate. If the uei m \ Judgment confirmed. Greenshields, McCorkUl Sf Guerin, attorneys for appelW- "McGibbon <$• McLennan, attorneys for respondent. (J. K.) . ' . , - . . ; I't'-. f I'V'I "Ml lit! %^ J /^' i*' i •\ I ■ 420 v MONTRKAL liiw RVPOBTS. i • -^,. t ^jS HtM M V^JJk^j ••^ ^ mM mk '\i ■«»/■ ^^S .^ ira^HtS l^ffi II )]» "«™'wlj' 1. , . November 20, 1886. Coram Dobion, Ch. J., Monk, Ramsay, Orobs, JJ. J. PETERS, ' (Plaini^in Court below), "f * . , Appellant ; e*--. ,ND THE CANAD A SlJGAR REFINING CO ' {DefmdatUs in. 0>urt below), .- Respondents. Cft |bon oa aatres approvisionnemQu^s 6tait imprim^e ; ''«J|»' Consid^rant qu'un voyage direct est un voyage d'un ^Kbh?,,",'^ I port k I'auti^e, sans entrer dans un port intermMiaire, et que la stipulation 6crite que \p voyage serait directe, I'em- porte sur la Iptipulation impriip^e qui porte .que le steam* . hlUp aurait la libert6 d'arrdter k un port ou & des porta » pour y prendre du charbon et d'autres approvisionne- , Imouts; ' " . , ■ Oonsiddrant qu'il est prouvSque le dit steamsj^ip, en ' ° Ipsrtant de la Havane a pi-is sa feuille de route {clearance) pbur Sydney, oil il a arrdt6 pour prendrcydu charbon; ei , I qu'il a ensuite repris sa route de, Sydney k Montr£al« et ,- qu'en ce faisant il n'a pas fait son voyage direct de la Hjk- I vane h Montreal, mais deux voyages, Tun de laHavan^ 4 ['Sydney, I'autre de Sydney k Montr6aJ ; " Cbnsiddrant que le voyage coaventi dans la Oharte- ' Partieaant un voyage direct de la Havane k Montr6al,lo steamer 6tait censfi avoir, en partant, une quantit6 4fu- charbon suffisante pour faire ce voyage, et que lal>laidoi'- ' rie et la preuve n'dtablissent pas qu'il y eut Q^cessitg im- pr6vue, lors du depart de la Havane, d'arrdter 4 Sydney pour y prendre du charbon ; - , ' " Consid^rant que la dSfenderesse n'6tait pas letiue de mentionner dans sa police d'assurancfe.que le "Huntingdon" .' mit la libertd d'arr*ter k un port op k des ports pour y prisndre du charbon vn que cette stipulation impritede 6tait d^truite par la stipulation 6crite d'un v^oyage direct ; • "> ConsidSrant que le demandeur n'a pa^all6gu6 dfSlir' sou action la contume ou I'usage pour les vaisseaux vo» ^ nant de la Havane k Montreal d'arrfiter k Sydney pour y prendife du charbon sans y 6tre forces par nficessiW r6sul- * tant des pfirils de la mer, et que la preuve de tel usage ou coutum^, faite sans reserve des objections de la ddfende- resse, ne doit pa^^tre admise, et que la .motion du deman- deur pour faire concorder la plaidoirie avec ccjtte preuve doit6trerefhs6e; ^ ' " -^-^^ -^ " Oonsid^rant, d'ailleurs, qu*ihn*y a pas de preuve d^u^ tu»ge constant dans ce rapport ; " ':\ ■■*ftS*|S'j u r '' i f i 1' i i t t 1 V 1 •■■'^/: 482 MOMTBIAL LAW RKPOWN. kHuj " OoniidAnnt qu'en arrdtant i Sydney, (H>inme il I'l _ fiUt, le dftmandmir a contrevenu k la Oharte-Pariie, aag-I fclinin.T' ment6 lea risqauH du x'oyag«), «t forc6- la d^fondertwHo i payer une prime d'a«Buranc« addittonnelle pour t«iiir U cargaiaon cThat there is no contradiction between thefwo conditions in the charter-party. The vessel did not the less proceed direct from Havana toljiontreal because she ■■¥i ywn. ° jrdnoy, (H)inme il Ti k Oharte-Pariie, nug- !6' la d^ftmdertwHti k tnnelle pour tmiir U oit de rotenir le mon- 'elle davftit payer an 16, U d£fendereiiR« t l« flttvoir si la r^rgai- lit que le " Hunting- kit pris dti oharbou ; les ofTren faites par santes, et que la dk- lamentales de sa dh- 6<;lare 1\)8 offres vali- is^quenoO], la d^fen- me offerte de $46.30, ar k retirer la dite Dour, et ren\^oie I'ac- insi que sa motion tation et d'instmo- 0." • pellant :— the " Huntingdon " lavana tp Montreal [ that the agrreement^ f ht to touch at any ^ntradiction to th« m Havana to Mont- ; that inasmuch as ntradictory of each ich of then^ should of the voyage was [>uch*foT coals was 1 between thefwo 'essel did not the tntreal because she stopped At aport eiaotly on \uir route to take in a fresh •apply 'of coal. This is nqt a deviation from her voyage *^i"* within themttaning of,thn law. And inconsimting that iSI^niar^!' the nthip should touch at a port or ports for the purpose of obtaining a supply of coals or other supplies, the charterer did -not agred to anything contrary to the stipulation that \ lh« vessel should pro(-«wd dirtMt to Blontreal. A railway " train does not the loss prot^ued diret^t from Montreal to ., • Ottawa because it stops at different points on the road fori ' water or fuel. Nor does a steamer the less proceed direct from Montreal" to Quebec became It touches at Sorel ot__ ^ Three Rivers. It would probably be considered a fair limitation of the charter-party, that under the permission , to call at a port or ports for coal, the vessel should not go* to a distant port, or to any port tl}nt would cause a serioue -^ deviation from her voyage, if any port existed on the line of her voyage where coal could be obtained. > ,.* But supposing the right of calling 'at a, port for coal to be in some degree inconsistent with a rigorous con« * straction of the exact phraseology of .the previous con* dition of the charter-party, to proceed direct to Montreal, it cannot be denied that the charterer had a right, If he chose, to consent to a deviation to that extent f^om the most rigid construction of the previous phraseology. It i^ impossible to say that the two conditions are so essen* tially and absolutely opposed to each other, that • they cannot co-exist ; or that the contract cannot be considefed 4f unless one of them be excised from it. And if not, then' ^ it is certainly within the competency of either party to consent to relax, to some extent, the extreme strictness of construction which might be applied to any one of the conditions of the contract. Under the charter-party ':^. as it stai^, this has been done in the most express ' terms. While on the one hand it is said that the ^ vessel shall proceed from Havana direct to Montreal m the River St. Lawrence, on the other hand it is consented that she may stop on such voyage at a port or ports for coal or other supplies. This is the view which persons engaged in shipping business take of y") y •i m '4JftiiMS^ m VONTIUIAL LAW JULFOail. ■ttch condltloiii. M w« fl&d th« conMtit to oUl for cmU (^„!!ZL.r '"■*'^'^ ^ •^*'"V '» ^h« •' CUiiiloii •• chartor-party. hI- iufl»i„,(f,. though It might b« h«ld to bn in. oimintent with th« d«ii- eruption of th« voyage, if tho same rigid oxmatruction wow applied to it aa in this cane. Hut if th« quMtion now uu d«r diacuaaioii hud nriii.qi on th« " (Jlandon " «hart«^party, th« Court iould not hav« dealt with th« porminalon an it haa dono in this caao, bw^auao th« pwrminHiou a« well oa the deacription of the voyage i» in writing. And the all.- g«druleofoviden<« as to diaregarding printed mattor when inconHistent with written matter, would not have been applicabh to it. It would have bwn obliged to do a« it ahould have done In thiH caae, namely to read th« whole contract together* and to read the perminaion to call for coal, as a qualification of the dcBcription of the voyage undertaken. ^ / 4 , , But aa matter of fact' the ao-ciflled rule of evidence ^ not even apply to the preaont oune. Although it ia true ;^ that the permiaaion to callia in print, an^ the deacription \ of the voyage is in writing, yet the bill of lading which ^ the respondents accepted from the Maater.'and on wktich their goods- were carried contains a clause tn i^V»«g, con- firming the conditions 6f the charter-party of which the permission to call for coal is ime. In order to reach the decision which the Court below^ rendered, it would there- fore be necessary, not only to strike out of the charter- party, what was left there by the contracting parties, but alpojo strike out of the bill of lading the condition in Writing ponfirming, amongst others, the clause of the char- :>r-party which the Court below decided should be disre- garded. This seems to reduce the argument of the Court below to an absurdity, because it loaves the Court in the position of holding that a written condition overrules a printed one, although the^printed one may be confirmed by a writing, as in this case. And it would scarcely seem necessary to pursue the discussion further. But BO such rule of evidence exists as that which waa -^relied on by the Court below. It is true that a doctrine has b6en laid down.in an insurance case that, where the i Otmwr Of QOT?l!r8 BtNCH. ^ »!•' 426 written and pirintcd matter in an inraranr« policy are (^q. tm * trwiietory to «a«h other, to aach an tstimt that it is impon- f^f M« to rmoncile them, then pr«f«rwn.e ahoald \m giv.m Cr*«« ""r* to th4, writton one ov«r th*i printinl one. Bat the propri- "*^7 «ty of treating thia ruling an a general principle or rtile '^^ of evidence has been doubted and dJaputed in other Uua- liah oaaea. -■■■ ■. , , f*; \ ,;-,^ ; " The true rule applicable in auoh queftiona utidoubtedl^ * ' ^' ■■• - i* that ofourown luw.aa wel^an the K that the intention of the parties ahoi the document itself by a fair (^onsid it« dlauses, relatively to ou^^h other. ^ licnlty in applying this rule to the p >^^W law, namely, inedfrom- I ^e whole of" is no dif> obvious as scarcely to be Hus..eptibie^o^i^ion or'iJ!^ jument. that a vessel does not deviate from her royaiM* by calling at an intermediate port, lying in the track of her voyage, for necessary supplies. And the consent that " the " Huntingdon " shouldiso call is explicit, is not unusual and IS not inconsistent with a fair construction of th« written portion of the contract. There is, therefore no irreconcilable inconsistency in the terms of the contract Itself. There is no difficulty in determining from the con- tract Itself, as a whole, what the parties to it intended to ^ee to. And there is no need to seek for doubtful rules of evidence to justify the dangerous practice of excisin from a contract signed by the parties, an important poi tioQ of the conventions it contaim. ' > The difficulty of the respondents with reference to the mcreased rate of prerilium. which they allege they paid •rose from their own negligence in not acquainting the Insurance Company with the terns of the charter-p^rty. The appellant is not in a position to say whether or no* the custom or practice of insurance, or the contTact be- tween the respondents and the Insurance Company jus- tified such a charge ; but itis plain that he can only be responsible for it if he has viokted his agreement with respondents. So far from that, he acted upon that agree- ment accoVding to its letter and its spirit, as confiTmed 7 ft*''**** ®^ ^'^^S subsequently signed and accepted /■ ,««*j1:»*ff|^^ "M, W MONtBI^AL LAW BBPOR'TS. 1888. Peten k > . I I il'j* i-i i m by the resppndeiits. If the respondents had commnni- cated the charter-party to the Insurance Oompany, no ^eB^nc'ifo.' question of increased premium would have arisen. The Insurance Company would have- named the premium as appli<^able to the voyage described in ^e charter-party. The appellant therefore respectfully contends that the judgment of the Court below was erroneous and shoald be reversed : 1st— Because by the express terms of the charter-party the ship was entitled to call at Sydney for coal. 2nd— Bedause the terms of the charter-party were sub- sequently confirmed by the bill of lading, signed by the master of^the vessel, and accepted by the respondents. 8rd — Because the conditions of the charter-party des- cribing the voyage are not inconsistent with the condi- tidn permitting the st«amer to call at Sydney for'Cqal. 4th — Because there is no rule of evidence or law au- thorising the Cc^t to disregard the condition of the' chartern>arty" allowing the ship to call for coal a^tanin- termediue port. 5th^ — Because the alleged rule of evidence stated by the Court below does not apply to the present case, inasmuch- as the conditions of the charter-party are confirmed by the bill' of ladinW, which is in writing and not in print, ■.a •. and is binding on the respondents. N. W, Trenholme for the respondents : — The Court will see by the. i 1 I' 1 ♦« «ii' ^^ 4tt HOKTB&AL LAW It&FOKta laM. P«it«n ft If? ' t 111', a ilpS !?»■ PI ,.j|t 1 1 mm ,^ lation and without there being any necessity so to do. It is fair to assume that the balance of this clause on the ^Hefininf "(S!' principle of yuidem generis applies also to a case of neces- sity arising from unforeseen events. Similar clautes, which simply state what the law itsen permits or implies, are of the commonest occurrence in the printed forms; as for instance in this very charter-party itself, we have examples pf the same banal clauses. Thus tl^ printed stipulation thltit the cftptain shall receive and stow the cargo with due care, is simply the law as em- bodied in Art. 2448 G. C, and the other printed stipula- tion, that the vessel shall\ havtr'a lien for freight, is simply tl!e law as stated m Art. 2409 C.G. We have another example in the policy of insurance filed, in which is the follo^wing almost similar clause, viz.:— "Aod it shall " and may be lawful ifor the said vessel, in her vpyage " to proceed and sail,- to touch and stay at any ports or " places, if thereunto obliged by stress 'of weather or other «' unavoidable accident, without prejudice, to this insu' ".r||ik!$." All these are mere statements of|||^law on the subject. There is, therefore, nothinir in the M^umentthat some effect must be givenio this cl^iuse ; ^sufficient effect is given to it to satisfy the requirements of such printed forms, when it simply states the rt>sult of the law. 2 Dem. Con. Nos.:i3flndl4. Such general printed clauses are of the feeblest effect.. But it m^jtiers not if the printed clause ihvoked by the appellant does mean what he contends it does, it cer- tainly muill yield to the express written clause, that the voyage shall be a (/tVec^ one. All the authorities are agreed on this point. Emerigon Ass; vol. I, ch. 2, s. 3, p. 84,/Nir Boulay-Paty, states the undoubted rule of la^v on , the subject, he says : — "II est permis de dferoger au clauses " imprim^es, et on est censS y d6roger par cda seut que les " dauses icrites d la main y sont conlraires." May, Ins. Sec. 177, is substantially to tlie $ame e6ect ; he says:—" Written, over printed words prevail: As i» all con- " tracts consisting partly of printed matter and partly of " written, so with contracts of insurance where any di^ \ -'^- by''^ COURT OF QtJBB^'S BENC^ 429 " cr^pancy or rejiugnancy exists, the wi^ten portioa is to " prevail over the printed, for the obvious reason that the " latter contains the more general and formal provisions "applicable for the most part to all cases, there is more " ground for supposing that these have not been erased or " modified so as to conform to the written portion through " inadvertance, than that the speciM and peculiar provi- " sions of the writteii portion have l^en adopted, with- " out due consideration, and inserted without the design " or contrary to* the intention of the parties." #fe also 1 " Greenleaf sec. 27^. Taylor Evidence, sec. 1088 ; 22 N*? 443 ; 86 L.T., N: S.,262 ; 4 East, 186. . ^^^ That the voyage made by appellant \^as a direct voyage from Havana to Montreal will hti^'^ be pretended. Tfie defendants' witnesses admit it ^wyiot, and that an extra premium would be fairly payable'Tb^oalling at' Sydney. Emerigon Ass. Vol. 2, p. 68-^ar Boulayr^ty, says: " II " n'y a pas de doute qii'il y a pr6varicati6h de la part du " capitaine, s'il ne suit pas la route dfrecte du voyage as- " sur6, s'il allonge son voyage, s'il entre ^ necessUi dans " quelque portvque ce sbit, fut-ce nl6me uiu port du " rpyaume, qtioique sur 50 ro»/e."\ ^ Vide also 8 Kent 831,* and Elliot v Wilson, % Bro. P. C. 459, Kent says^" The shortness of the time or^f the dis- " tance of the deviation, Dnakes no difference aaiootseffect " on the contract ; if voluntary arid witht)ut neSsSjjIt is " the substitution of another risk and determines thecon- " tract. So strictly ^«^ this doctrine been* maintained. nhat where a vessel, having»libertf in sailing down W "Frith of Forth to toudi at Leith, touched at another port " in its stead, equally in her way, it was held to be a faW " deviation, though neither risk nor premium wpuld have " been increased if it had been permitted.'' In th^ present case,veven appellant's witnesses admit both risk and pre- mium were increased by calling at Sydney ov^r that due for the direct voyage. ' Another pretention- raised by the ajgpellant, is that* the voyage he made wa? justified by usage of trade. R^spon- dfttits reply:— I s t That if such usago wore pioved,il vm. Peten (^nwUSa !l , i^nwUSonr Reflnins Co. J « /' 1^ ^ ^- Pelen t 1 .'iM'"' 480 ^.f \ / :>*! f MOmniEAL tAW RKPOHtB. Il ^ 1 1 i 1' r m II '! n l§ i wonl4 have to yield to the express written stipulation be- tween the parties, and 2ud. That no sach usage ^ as pro- ^•flniofiS^' perly pleaded, so as to give respondents a chance to meet the samfe, and that there is no progKo support "such usage, but the contrary. A nsftge of that kind, ta.be available in cases where ifeage may be invoked, must be a usage ,8o . notorious that the parties must both bd necessarily pre- sumed to know of it, and it is needless^to say that no such , ^sagie is proved in this case \—:Vide Abbott, Shippid^, 12thj Ed, p. 210. Maclachlatt, Shipping, 8 Ed., p. 426. --^— -^ ' That; respondents had an inte^eslf ii|;|>aying the extra premium is certain, as it was done beilTore it was ascer- tained whether any damage had l^en done to the cargo or If ot, and -before the vessel had arrived at Montreal. ^Bamsay, J. (diss.) ;— » ■ .. /p' ; ,. ... -^r^' . -■ ' .'•^^ ■■^'^ This v^ was an auction for freight dueT on the charter- party erf 4^e steamship Huntingdon. Th@ action was ""^net by a plea setting up that the charter-party was for a direct voyage from Havana to Montreal via River St. Ijawrence : that the vessel hadT cleared for Montreal by way of Sydney, and had actually entered the harbor of Sydney; that this deviation becoming known to the de- fendants' insurers, they had demanded an increased pre- mium for the extra risk, which the charterer had ^paid, and he contends that the owner is liable for this extra charge, which should be set off against so much of the freight. Plaintiff and appellant answers that by a clause of the charter party, the ship had thd right to put into any port or pOrt^ for coal and supplies, and that in going into Sydney, the master 'had only exercised the privilege accorded to him underHhiff stipulation. ' f " The facts of the case are these : The contract of afi^eight- ment is drawn on a printed form, with bh^nks to be filled up in writing to meet the intention of the parties. In other words, the banal clauses are printed, the particular .ones are in writing. In describing the Voyage, the written stipulation is that it shall be direct from Havana to Mon- a" ^« COtJKt OF QDEEITS BENCH. • .* • v 481 treal via the riveTv St. Lawrence. A igtrinted'^ olatise near •' *»"•• , the en4 of the deed ia i© these words : "Steamer Jto have ^Jf" " liberty to tow and be towed, and to assist vessels in all RSJfl'nf ^' " situations ; allb to call at any pprt or ports for coal or "other-suppliejir'. It is not fiierioYisiy contended that en- tering ft port riot named is not a deviatioti from a flirect voyage, ^ that if the printed clause quoted did not exist', there could be no doubt that entering the port of Sydney without the justification of necessity would have been a deviation.' It seemsVequally clear that' if this unneces- sary deviation caused a damage to the cl^arterer, he would be entitled to receive indemnity from the owner, arid to set it off against ^he freight. Extra insurance paid in consideration of the, increased risk is, it seems, such a damage as could be so set off. Lord EUenbbrough, iff the " case of .^iwmon V, !ZboA»,l Oamp.'Sti But appellant sa^s, that there beilTg two clauses to some extent contradictoi^tliBy must; if possible, be read ,^ together, so as to give meaning to both, ftnd that although, strictly speaking, by, onfering. an intermediate port, a voyage ceases to be'direct in the most techbical significa- tion of tkk word, the rkal intention of the parties to the contract was that the, voyage should be^flSrect from Ha- vana to Montreal.^wia the kiv§r St. Lawrence, subject to the right of the owner to enter ariy port tfn the v^ay for coals or other 8upf>lie8, and that, in this case, no m^ie was done.^ . '■ V:'vy. ^ .;. ^. ; _ ., ^. ■ y-rf On the other hand, res^udent c^ferids that tLe word direct has a well Kridwn teejinical pignj^catiori, which precludes the idea of its being intended ^J^ake thtf vt)yage with voluntvy stoppajges at inter^iate ports for any purpose. HTe says that the right to.gt^p ,for coal and btlier supplies is o^ly a «lause of a general ghiitaicter' enunciating a rule of marine law, and that, if it meaitf any- thing more, it is in positive oontradiction-to the special, deacription of the voyage, and^that being printed words," tj^e presi^ption is that the written^%ords expfessed th^ real intention of the parties, and that 4te printed clause / ^WH^~ 1^ "^%' was loft iuadverterftly. Itappoaw to m6 that, Aryger ', / '^ f t« % \ 482 -f y() WM.^, ^neral jrulopf ind r P'j^W, *irreconcili!||e wl ■ ^ ;te«n?l^"»»««t ifevail in '* 1^ 11 ''ifc*^h« pr^lumptiqn ftAIi LA|f REPORT^ retation, the written cli , a printed gplauci| ia t . )s abjieq^e ol an.y^vi<;le; pou , whpj^his {^ferei^i ih ilh 8 Wl^^ctlfi L. R, rds Orevkil^i|Yer xtlig uwliatc ;ijfe "i . > ' The f^e of JesSel ' ^^!^fe« ' ',,2Ex.'^6t. There\^,..^_ .. ^^.^. . written^ ones, bii(i>^^|: the 'writing n(|t be,^fti©. Of terpreift'deed ep'^ to|pi||^H^cj^to el jMi^l^ doing -pIs.^'i^^^^^S^^ ;^e 'other, although itTmay be neces- ^«i»ltt jr of ftue of t^. This U the llkt^; invokes, but it iS n^l^etally what, he He asltip'the Court toitrenmpt the* written '^^4<^,i?^ f^||iTect,''^i^ destroy it qprnplel^,' h*- allowing .t/^|iip j^clelr for iny port or ports he {>Ief|^'p^ovided, in l^^vfact hl|c^y ifikkes in co^l^ or supplies, i "tli^e might pe^ aps be -sbinethiiig to say for this icnoUe4>f |||aling with Whe terms^o^thie 4eed> if there w^ no dtliier pl^pretaiion pos8ible,^1liut a i^CJ^lBctly-^satisfEfctory pid is jyTered. The , written d|(scri^6|^>pf the yoyage should h4 'iPken exactly ' .as it stands, tlie ;]>HlP^«d bne'is a claiisa ehnnciating the ', '.»,'V colnmon Ijttw fttiMH^W .' I'here iaa^i objection to appel- /''■'* %, 1 ' Jawt's position v^lllich struck ine at ihe argument. It wm ' this, that what iwas done, does J ndt accor^^twitjh the terms o£th& printed claus^*r(Plied on, which geiietf^ly allows to * call, not a^ Sydney, biit at any poAi or*" ports r|br coal, and • 'this the owner cOnvefts into an express plrcl|\fSsion to clear for Montrel^l t;ia Sydney. If he could dd this uiider the charter-party, he might have cleared fpr IMEontreal mi Halifax, Sydney, Quebec or Sorel, where, coal or supples . eould be procured. , It Was said this wodl^ not be r^ solvable. If it w^'t^e^Wner's'^fight, ai a profit l^vdoin^ so, ii was just as reas a? in thMlher I •huKHly to -make one othi rule of interpretation ^d one reli uous cianse is to jcbuldjiiakel Qn- one cm] ambigi tion. Itisij by appelUnij ited by t L ^ ,A i *, COURT OF QUBEN-S BENCH, 488 :f •olhier, Obi No. 96.). Now, the owner agrees that V^ ijjf to proceed with all despatch direct to Mont- ^*^^ \ iif^ are to say that he may stop at any port or 'tSSihS!^/ he pleases on tjxe way, provided he only takes in x coa|#.^supplie8. He warrants that his ship is fully fittad; he contends he has a right deliberately to sta^P^ r«i;o(iceer without sufficient coals or supplies. Again, I mk, it must be evident, that the generality of the power op at ally port or ports, shows that it was where neces- '.not calculatiodijshould determine. If it was intended ~ he Was to coal at Sydney, because it was the usage to call Ijiere, why not-put itin the deed? The interpretatioa slfef ested by appellant appears to me to conflict with another rule — that where a clause is^nsceptible of two meanings, it is to be interpreted ih thc^ sense most suitable to the nature of the contract. Potiiier, Obi. 98. It is certainly not in the nature of the contract of affrei^t- ment to multiply indefinitely the risks of the \foyage. Since I prepared this opinion, my attention has been drawn to three cases. The first I shall advert to '\% Scaramanga Sc Company Sf Stamp et al., 28 Weekly Reporter, Q91. It was a case for loss ''trf cargo of a ship which, without authority by thie charter-party, 4eviat»d from its course to tow a ship to Texel, in - order tb gain jei,000 p«pm||9d as salvage. The court held this wait ^ not a defence at common law, and lord Bramwell said, " It is cert'airi.that no law orders " such a deviation ; it is certain there is no usage which " adds to the contract a power to deviate for such causQ ;" " and he added, ".on the contrary, every opinion is' " against it, and i^f M^^^^^'^^^M^^ to have . " such a power, or J|l|('ia(^^hat We iOxpressly stip^- " late for it, as, (oj^^elample, for tfiji^ri^t % tow vessels," I trust ^t will 1^ be suppose^ thaf my opihion d»yiatps*« from that expreissed in this case, but tcanfid^lee i^ap> V plication to the matter in 4iand, The next .casd is ^^' ' ^ Tligmitish and African Steam Navigation Companyf^'^ ' Law Times, 257. It was there held thafKcla;i|se glrihg "iiberty ta-tow fti^d afltjist yesfiels ii^ nil sitT\atit^ia B >"''» 8 gwi-' j^j « . Voju n, Q.B, \' ■4^ m >^^^- H" '■ii« '>^. yf -iV- m: ;; ^ v> c^' m r 484 MOOTBBAt lAW REPORTU CanaiUfliuar RcflniivOa? t I ¥"■■ '" 1 f • . , ■- ,^ *■■.. ■. v%' i •* 1 \\: , 1 V 1 1 .1 If' ' ' 1 ik'. ! / t aarily incladed the liberty so to do. Mr. Bei\jamin, who argued the (iase for the defendants, admitted that such a clause uiQst have a limitation, in cases within its terms, — however, he declined to define the liiqitation, the case then before the court being clearly within the power, afid Lord Bramwell agreed with him, that there were cas^g ] withitrits terms to which it would not extend, and he in- timated that Mr. Benjamin, was right in not going into h\ consideration of such exceptional cases. The verdict wai f entered up for the defendftnts. I am disposctd to think I thfit the general meaning of that case supports mf opin- ion, for it holds that totally unambiguous words in a I clause of this sort will be limited. How much more then should we be justified jn limiting a general clause of this sort when it is incompatible with other clausdsofthe charter-ptfrtQr. , . ' ,, - >, V The third case is Wingale Sr Co. v. Fotter, 26 Wefekly] Rep. 650. It was on a policy of insurance, and con8equt am, therefore; to con- « < firm.. .. r: : V .•■ ^^ ^ . • ■..: ■ Cross, 'j."t-**, ■1' '' ■- ^:" ■ ■"' ' "-~ —-— ^ --^ -. - --.-.'- The appellant 'Sues the respondents for a balance of , freight idue under rf charter-party of the steamer **Hunt- ' jngdon," for a voyage from Havana^ta Montreal. The respondents do not dispute the claim for freight, bat set up a counter claim for $328.98, F^hich they allege ihtsy were bbliged to pay, as am additiohal or increased rate of premium, because the steainer had, without right,' and contrary to the conditioiis of her charter parly, deria' tid from her voyage by calling for "coal on her way from , Cjjiba to Montreal.l , ' a ^.The cliarter-party described the voyage as bding to Montreal direct via the River St. Lawrence, and contained, among others, a printed'condition that the steamer " shall " have liberty 1o tow and be towed," and assist vessels in " all situations, also to call at any port or ports for coal or "other' supplies." ■T%e"^oyag^ is therein described as |,being to Montreaf, direct',,M«r tlie,Biver St. Lawrence, and the charter contains ther^'si^ (declaration that the steam- ship was tight, staunch't i^d strong and ijx every way fitted for the voyage. ,. • The steamer cailed at the por^ of Sydney, Cape Breton for what i'sUeuAlly 'called bunker coal, that is, coal for the twe of he^r jtngines, and^the Atlantic Mutual Insurahos Gompapy, 'with whoidraW respobdents had the cargo in- ^«ured as for a voyajjrfMPct from Cuba, to Montreal, took,! , thatisiAdvantage of this fact, as they were possibly justified: I in doing by. the rules of their office, to chf^rge an additional^ premium, wl»ich the respgndents^ claii^e d the y h ad ft right i r'^ t*. ; bTHEAIi tAW RKPOftTfl. eight aA being a damage camed to iPft.fe' lt3W)«arH to ^^ clear. ^ nvalt^ fact, llrat altliotigh a ay from Havana to y, iiovortholcM, h^ h Jittl^.^8 the port of thai r(Mte that it re* yeniel may „was^ ■.•^^^ penpr Courts Th< * ■ *■ ' ;ca}ling at trhe po^t o dcfes t^ot take thesame view y the terms of thechaTler-party ; thatth«T« is no' ^ntT«dictioirin the clauses "died from the charter- pi5lyr*il^th« clauses in question should be read and pftnRtrued together^ and in sug^ manner fts to give eff^t J "^ ^ * ■^ii^' tOVKtOV QUEEN'S BENCH. 4dT %j to the whole, and that, although a written clause would Bupwrsode a contradictory printod clauiie to the extent of t%« a jantiRed by thw t«rm» of th« ch»rt«^ party,, and that th« 'y* master wa* «\iititl(>d to oxorciso hia dii«^rotion in the wiiy The jndfifm^t of the Court in njcorde<^aii followa :— " OopHidering that the appellant ban proved that ut the time of the institution of the present a«!tion th^re r«!- ^mained due and owing to him by the respondents a balaiuo of 1880.60 for the (carriage of goods of the respondents by the appellant in his steamship Huntingdon, on a voyage ^ from Ouba to Montreal, under the chart4)r-party dated the 26th Aiay, 1888, mentioni^ in the pleadings in this oanw, for the recovery of which balance the present action haa been brought ; " Considering that the respondents have failed to prove the material >.allegati9n8 of their plea, more particularly that the calling by the said steamship at tht Port of Syd- - 3 ney for coal in the course of the said voyage, was a devia- * tion therefrom other than permitted by the said chartor- •party, or that the increased premium of insurance exacted from them in consequence of said calling was chargeable to any default, neglect, or breach of contract on the part of the said appellant, or that there was any provision in said charter-party inconsistent with, or contradictory of the clause, therein contained, giving the said stearaahip liberty to call at any port or ports for coals, or that the res- pondents had any valid claim on the appellant to be in- demnified for said extra premium of insurance^f •• Considering, therefore, that there is error in the judg- ment rendered in this cause by the SupcriorConrtat Mo iit- real, on the 29th of February, 1884 ; " The Court of our Lady the Queen now here doth can- cel, annul and set aside the said judgment, and proceeding ' to render the judgment which the said Superior Conrt ought to have rendered^ doth adjudge and condemn the res- pondents to pay and satisfy to the appellant the sum of ^ '- _ |880;60, with interest thereon, Sec." « ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ F J^^ (Ramsay, J., (/•») Abbott, TaU, Abbom Sf Campbell, attorneys for appellant. Trenholme, Taylor, Dickson Sr .BKc/win,attomeyB for regpondts- ir-- \ c Pi Hi VI Je Cc cij th »! fro ni( thi pri by (J. K.). -t '••N ■t ■.•:0f OOtTUT OF QtrnW*^ BRiirH. Febra»ry 21, 18S4. Coram DoRioK, C»/J., Momk, Ramsay, Oimwh. Baby, JJ. ALEXANDKIi H ALMOUR, ' {Defendant in Jlritinatanre), .■ ■'" P' Appkllant; ™— -^^^--CHARLEH K. HARRIS, 4. (Ptaintifinjirttin$tattte), *' KEttPONDBNT. Pn»aiption^ ProniiBM^ note^ Interruption— foreign jmig- .,...,;,•..:,:■,. fi«*^C,iS.L,G,cA. 90. '■ n«.D:-^Th«t ft JM.lKmt^nt obtaine*! in a' foreign country upon a promia- ■ory nvto mi^« tijorein liai the «mn^ ot Ui(«mi|itlnK' pfeacrlptlon. The Appftftl wan ft-om a judgment of the Court of Re- vi«w, Montreal, Fj^b. 2$, 1888 (Eainvillk, Papinkau, JettUJ.), which'Tevetsed a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal, Oct. 81, 188^ fTpBRANOE, J ). The de- cision of Tprrance, J-, is reported in 6 Legal News, B16. The respondent, plaintitf iii the Court below, set up that a judgment had been obtained in Nova Scotia upon a promissory note, and the amount thereof wa» claimed from defendant appellant. . • The defendant demurred, on the ground 'that the jnd^ ment had not the force of cAa««>«^»-(fe ; and he also pleaded that the note which formed the basis of the action, was prescribed.. \ ^*^ The demurrer was dismissed hkMA J., Sept. 20, 1882, by the foljowing judgment :— ^\}^J^ " La Oour, etc...... '^''m4*- ' -{ •' Considdrant que les jugements rendns en pays 6tran* gers, bien qu'ils n'aient pas force de chose jug^e et ue soient pas ^x6outoires dans la province, peuvent n6ui* moins etre valablement iuvoqu^ au sontien d'une do- mande en justice ; ' •* r • '4y 440 r MONTKEAL LAAfr REl«0Ilt8. U84. Almour Harris. " Oonsid6rant que dans I'espdce, le demandeur n^allfigue pas le jugement par lui iiryoqu6 d d'autres fins, et que, par suite, sa demande, quant k ce, est bien,foiid6e eii droit; "Renyoie la dite d^fei^se en droit avec d^ns; dis- traits, etc." ." ., ' The plea of prescription was maintained by f oBHjWiroE, J., by- the following judgment (Oct. 31, 1882) :— ' " Consid'ering that defendant hath proved his plea of prescription 'against the note'^sued uppn^n thi^ cause, and tlxe judgment of the Supreme Court*of |he province of Nova Scotfa invoked by plaftitifF has not interrupted said prescription; - ' v . • ,^ : < s" Dotal maintain said plea an^ distnis* said plaintiff's ^ action with costs, distraits, «tc.'i - ^ • " i -The case was theil taken to Kevrew, where the fellow- -ing jiidgtaent wa% rendered, Feb. 28, 1^83 (R4|NVILLE, ^rlPiupiNEAU, Jette, JJ.):-^ t*,, * ' y'Jja Cour,'etc^.„..'^ *; ". • " ' - m^". Attend^., que le demandeur reclame du d^fendeur ^ sommede $662.63 ; • *' I ' " : "4**®^^^ l^'i^ allegue qu'a Halifax, province de' la- IfouveHe'Ecosse, 1§ onze ffivrier; istS, le dfefendeur a fait son billet payaiye a^T.R. Harris^ qu ordre ^^90 jours de date, pour la so^pme de |35(>.06,Jequel billet le dit T. E. Harris lui attransporte par endossement ; que ce billet a 6t6 pr6fe^t6 podr paiement a son eckeance au lieu Q^ H 6tait fait payable, *et qu'il n'y a J)asd(r provision ; qup les int6r6ts ,agcru8 sur le.' dtt bill/et %^\. de $194.6"7 ; que le demBudeur a poursuiyi le* d^fendeur^devant la Cour Su- preme de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, le l^°-mai"l8t4,$n'recouvfe- ment^dvT^t H^let ; que le'd6fendeur ^ plaic^.' ra,ctiou et que par jU|geixtent rendu par la dite Coiiiv^l a*te con» dacon^^ p^er au demandeur la somme d,e $€85.54 avec 2, fo|mant les diteis sommes rSunies, x;elle de- - - -■# ^ndeur a plaidS p^i^^%iie-^id6l'ense d^boutee '• par la jiQe|ii^||^^ prefiOiere Men % VtB. ■■- ' imandeur nVl^gue autres fins, et que, st t)ien , foAd^e eii ♦ avec d^pens ; dis- i»ed by TobhSm^ce, , 1882):— -■ proved tig plea of a [n thi^ cause, and )f |he province of ot interrupted said aisfr said plaintift^s where the fellow- 1^83 (R4|NVILLE, le du d^fendeur^ IX, province de ' la - l& d^fendeur a fait ardre ^^90 jours de billet ledit T. E. nt.; quecQ billet a iance au lieu Q^ 11 provision ; qnp les de $194..6"7 ; que le levant la Cour Su- i"l8t4, 9n' recouvfe- plaic^J ra,ctiou et Doui?^l a^lte cofl^ le d,e $685.54 avec es rdunies, )celle de- ■ ■--*. ■> ■. ■;-. g p^i^^^f© -iifelense iCJojI^l^ipreflriere i, OOtftT OF QtJEfiN'B BENCH. 441 fendeur a plaids que le bijlet qui fait la base de Taction est iwescrit et I'fetait lors de I'institution de Faction ; ^ " Attendu que la Cour de premidre instance ajQxaintenu la dite exception de prescription ; ■'!'■'■ ^ ' " Considerant que le jug^ment fitranger invoqu6 par le demandeur parait ayoir ete rqndu entre deux strangers et residant alors dans la juridiction de la C6ur qui a rendu jugement ; considerant que ce jugement d'apres nps lois constituait chose jugile entre les parties, avant le statut 23 Victoria, chapitre 24 (S. R.-B. C. ch..90, s. 1) ; 1 :_. '•' Oonsidferant que le dit statut ne donne qu'.un drqit h un d§iendeur poursuiVi dans une action intent^e en vertn de jagements fetrangers, savoir : de plaider les moyens invoqufe dans Taction sur laquelle le jugement invoqu6 a 6t6rjpjttdu ; , \ " i " Considerant que'le d§fendetir n'aurait pas pu dans la pteipiere action' invjoquerlemoyen de la ^prpsc^lption eh autatit qu'eHe n!i§tait pas ialofs acquise, ou dans tons les ca^^qti'ilnele fait pa's voir, et qWen con*6quenceJl y a erreur ||n8 le^tj^ment du Bl octobre, .1882 :— Cas^^e, ; annulia^etrenverBeli dit jugement, et procfedantirendre T,?^^jm'aurait da rendre Ja dite<^t:oui« jie premiere .ins- ■ taiici^gteteuteje defendeur de sou eiceptiqn de prefjcrip^ tion,''*«|||^ideriiit que le demandeur a prouv6 les -all#• . gationjildPWk declaratioi^ ; '*■ , -». ; " Cond^mne le d6ffendeur a payer au demandeur la dit6 ' somme de. $662.63, etc." . t " J| PAt»iN?i^b', X, (in R|^ew) :— ' "^^ ^ , , v j' ' ' y" ' , \1 . cause en >ucun temps, et qu'il n'en a pas tjait avec le nomm6 T^ R, Harris, si. l^ordre de qui le billet en question a et6 fait^ '^puis b dli,;^ di$ ce billet, 11 fevrier 18*76. Que«e billet est prescrit, et I'etait depuis longtemps avicnt rinstitniion dd la pr^ente action. he dematiide'tir a et^ deboute de son action. Les motifs dg ce jugement sont, lo. que le d^fendeur a prouv6 son pkiidoyer de prescjription contra le billet sur l^quel ja poursflite -a dte f«l|ip. , , ' » ; 2q. 'Que le jugement rendu par la Gotir Supr6tne de 11k, ' ;• ' Nouvelle-Eco8se„n'a pas eu I'effet d'intetrpBapre la prett' I. ' {.'* i. r - . cfiptibn du billet en qjttestion. v "^ ' ; w'De \k la demand^ de revision;;? i * I Le defe'ndeur, ati soutien de ce jugement, pose corame" base de ^on argumentation que ce jugement, obtenu dans laf Nouvelle-Ecosse, est pour nous un jugement* obtenu .a .I'etranger, chap. 90 stat. R. B. 0. - • - Les deux pjarties s'accordent sur ce point. I^e dfefpndeur^ . pose fencore en principe, qu'il n'y a qu'une demande regfu- Here, en justice, form6e devant un tribunal competent, qili" interrompe la prescription, toute autre demande 6taut ib^ " - puissante a le faire. C.C. Art. 2224 e«? 2226. * On pent dire que les deux parties et la jurispru'dence admettent encorjB cette proposition. . Le troisieme point, enonce par le defendeur, est celui - ou la divergence commence entre les parties. Le voici, r \ tel qu'enonce dans son factum, avec autoritSs citees a I'appiii : " la demande devant un tribunal etranger est " sans effet ici ; elle ne peut ni llttblif chose jugeei iji • " avoir aucuineflEet," S. R. B. G. «hap, 9(# ' > y •, X 10. Toullier, Nos. 76, IT, p. 113, Merlin, Rep. Vo. ^uge- :'//.': . ment §$ VI, VII ;. Id. Questions de Droit Vo. Jugement ^ •*- I / ,■ 14 ; IdemRep: V^o.-'Testaiiiient §*^, § 3, Art. 8, IdemV ^ - "^ _ Souverainet§ § VL v^ / Le demandeur admet que les jugements Strangers n'qnt ; ' .. pas ici fbrcj^ de cApM^tig-^ ; Inais 11 ne peut admettre la prdp6slti^n qa'Us MOUt 6tos ettet ic^ .(■'« ',. " > r,.":v.. '■i **. tTS. ■ stancff^ renvoy6e, ans laquell^ il dit smandeur eh cetfeo a. pas lait avec le i billet en question fevrier 1S15. depuis longtemps 1. iction. Les inotifs ideur a prot»iA'^6 son illet sur l^l^uel ,1a - ■ 1 mr Saprdfne de liK, :errQm^re la preti' [nent, pose comme" ^lent, obtenu dans agement' obtehu.a oint. IjC dfefpndeur^ ane demande regfu- inal competelit, qili" demande 6taut ibr 2226. )t la jurispru'dence jfendeur, est celui parties. Le voici, autorit^s citees a >unal etranger est ir chose iugee, iji § ■ , ■ '■■-. lin, Rep. Vo. jTuge- >it Vo. Jngemeut ^ I, Art. 8, Idem V^ (its Strangers n'qnt peut admettre la GOTOT OP QtlEEire BENCH. 448 tl sentient que, par I'article 1220 du Code Civil, para- graphes 1 et 2, un jugement Stranger, reyStu du sceau de la cour qui I'a rendu, ou de la signature 4e i'officiel* ayant la garde du dossier de tel .jugement, fait preuve prima facie du odntenu de tel jugement, 4 tel point qiife, pour forcer la partie qui I'iijvoque A en faire la preuye^ il f«nt que I'autre partie faske ufie dS^Sgatiou accompagnSe dtt can" tiouneraent et de I'affidavit requis par Part. 145, Code Prge6dure Civile Que le d6fendeur, n^ayant pas fait telle dSnSgatioiB, 1^ contenudu jugement en quesjtion estdefinrtivement prou{ :^* ; or le jugement constate la ciiation en justice ou ftssiv gnation du defeudeur, la denfande de paiement dti billet, xle d6faut de pia-iement'et la condamnatiou^dans IftNou-- velk-Ecosse. - ' - '^^ Iten tire la consequence qufe cette citation en justice prouv^e, irrSvocablflment., qtiant a nous; puisqu'ellen'a pas 6t§ nie^, a eu pour effet d'iaterrompre la prescription. et de fairc qu*a compter de^ ce jugement il n'y a plul^ d'autre pr^^ri^tipn que celle-de 30 ans a opposer 4. latere- ' anc^. ^Ii.6its4 Kappui d^ett^^etention l©.;Gtii^t€ivf; : art. 2224 ; Code Napoleon'^att. 2244 ; Bouijon, ,tome -8, p. .. 571 ; J)allOz, 1835, 2ude l».„*p. 121 ;;Laurent, tbme 8>i^. \ i1^ ; et C. C, art. 2265. . ^ . ^ / ^ ^Le demandeuf soutient que la loi lUi donne droii <;.Maander en 'jftstice ici qu'un jugemieut -ettange/^ t^du ex6cutoire dans ce pays et que s'il'n'est'paeini^f de •la manidre prescrite par rari 1^5 du Co^|[e Procedure, ^ il passe en force de chose jug^'et il cite' k l^j^pftui.lQfj^a- tut.16 "Vict., chap. 198, sect, ire et suivantes; etje^tat, Ref. B. C, chap. 90, sect, ire ^H|u ivantes, qui en re^or ' ,duii les dispositions.. II cite a^^ la cselflse d§i AjtMg- v. be- mers rapportee au 15e vol, L. C. Jurist, p: 129, d6cid6e par Cour de S^yision, ,compo86e*tle8 juges Mackay, Toiyance*" et ^eaudyy. x - ■ L'&cte 1& tict., chap. 198, sec. Ire, dit : ~^^1SSfendu gu# ■*l'admi«sibn comme prei^ye de certains jtogenients et^o-^ " cuiSfeiits officiels et publics Strangers ,.,...... diipinuerait " cpnsidSrablemeht les frais de la precSdure 4i faoiliter^jdt ISfM. Ahnonr , t H»nit. ■\k '^''.' w ■<.: ^ J. j ^ ^' -»< — r "i\ 9'» , .i ' mm i 1 ^ 1 i' *■ * ci -I 1 u». 18M. Almour A, HarriK. ^ 1 r '^•■ ti^ 1 1 v^ H 1 .1 s"* ■ '$ ' . '/J 1. • . "i Is' r4 'i' •■k ^ ll^ .i --*- >v ' «f ^' ^ :VA 9 /I /■■Ik. 444 I J f MONTREAL LJlW RKPOfcTS. '^^ >.. - '^ . ' ■ " grand ement les moyens d'obtenir justice, dans le Bas- " Canada ; " et statue qu'une expMition de tout jngemeut, etc. ..J. sera offerte dans tonte (pour de justice commepreu- ye />ri»trt /a«c de teljugement. ' » L'acte 28 Vict., chap. 24," sect. Ire, va plus loin ■; it fait d'uu jugement etranger un titre de cr^ance en Vertu» du-** (Juel on pent intenter une action ^lans le Jiaut dta dans le Bas-Ganada,"puisqn'il y est express^menlt litatu6 que dans toute action intent^e dans I'une-ou rautre section de la jj^ province, en vertu de jugements ou deerets\ rend^ par "des tribunaux strangers......*., les moyens \de defehse " invoqu6s ou qui aufaieni pii 6tre invodu^s datfs la Ire "action pourront r6ti^$I^fegard'de Vactpnf(mtl6e--'•' -'Vv ■^d^^'^'-- ' "■^•- i ' ■ -4 -'.r teTS. .\ iustice, dans le Bus- )li de tout jngemeut, justice cpmnie preu- a plus loin ) ft fait •6ance en yertu- du- le Jiaut dta dans le Qiilt^tatu6 que dans ['autre section de la deerets\ rendUs par moyen8\de defehse ivoduSs datts la Ire ^dct^n fon^ie -tur tel )4t lis a reproc^uit tfex- ' ' / " \ ^ ■ Ce nouveau titre de u§s, ou qui auraient tion, n'emp^cnepas intent^Q en seeonA queicelle^i, lase- base de la premiere t if^reihi^re, b'estje te fissujetti aux^i- ig ptive, ou**autheni! , le ji^ement rendu i pouTsuite, et il e^ thentique de rexis- conde est intense, du l^gi^ateur, qu'il iaccompagnee d'un itreiE les frais d'une r la, partie qui 1 ifl' 1 tei»jag«ment est anger 1$ jffindement semblfd^^ au (Mel atettrs ott jibriscoij- .1^' 'VJ <#* > oounT OP QUifcENga bench. i'^ A 446 suites qui oht fecr^t ^ur jA C(^e Napoleon ne doivent pas fitre accueillies iiiVec la m^We faveur que s'il y avait simi- litude parfaite eotre les detlx legislations, L'ancien droit frangais n'est pab fintieremeWt .'«^licable non plus, puis- qjfe nous " avon|i des" st^u/t^ qui 1' ont considerablement podifife. *« ■ A *" . Dans notre systeme, jp'est Je |ugemen£. 6tranger qui de- viettt le fondement deil'actiort'-Wbiqu'on puisse plaider • les moyens/de d6feri8e qnW ai^rait pu plaidet dans la premiere poursuite ; or nos lois'nWblissent aucunt^ preS- - ■criplfion de mpi.ns Se tVente ans, contre uu jugement, qu'il soiireiidu^ans le pays ou a raran^r. On ne pent done ' pas, ifl,yoqUer la prescription d? cinq ^ns, contre le juge- l^aeiit; -On ¥ie pent pas riuvo^tier n^b.plus coijitre le bilj.et qui a fait la base de la. premi^re^kction, p^trce que cellc-d 'ayant 6t6 intent6c peu^de ^empfe Wes l'6ch6ance---v ^^ ^*%|J* prescription de cinq ans n'est^pas un moi^n quiaif^t ptt *6fere plaid6 dans Ja premiere abtion. ' " W lyeingement stranger n|yant pas ^6 attlqu^^ •les ^descriptions de notre code, est devenu\un" titre au- ttentlque de cr6ance et le defendeur, qui, en Vertu de ce ** titr!B,^efet d6biteur, aurait du 6tre condamtt6° \ • -'^ - te jugement doit 6tre et il est i^env^rs6. L^ demaij^. ** d^Wobtient jugement, suivant.ses conclusions,' >vec flfe^ pie»s tant de la Oour de Revision qu0 de la^^ Cjoui^ de f)re«v •■'. ji^ere instance. , ' 2^ * January 26, l^Bi. yPagnuelo, Q. C, for the appellant. ^"' itf. £[irfcAin.?o» for the respondeni. ; ; " .— - « ^ DoRioN, Ch. /., render^ the jjjfcent m appear, una-^ niniously affirming tfee judgmenlOflie Goivt of Review, * and holding tliat under the circnkstauces presdription- J- was interrupted. . \ * ^' ' Judgment of C.R.«onftrna^ed, Pagnuelo Sf St- Jean, attorneys for appelant. '^• V ^MacuMeter, Hutchinson Sr Weir, attornayi for respondent 1U4. Alnloar Harrii. •"ft* ■^ ,t fl 446 ) I yt MONTREAL I*A,W REPORTS. >r 2^, 18 ' I *J '. ' September 211, 1886. Coram Monk, Ramsay, TESriiBR, Cross, JJ, ALBERT NORDREIMER ET AL. , * /'{Plaintiffs in Court below). \^ND Appellants .tm ^ij>,: dLlVIEft LECLAIRE ET AL. {Defendants in Court bS), '* " . • ., Respondents. Judicial sale of moveables — Trref^ulnritiest^Nullity — Revendi- cation of thing so^ei Held (Reversing the decision of Gjll, J., M, L. R., 2 8. 0. 11) :— Tlmt a '. judicial sale of moveables may be set aside for irregularities in (he proceo not the property of defendant was seiased and sold as lielonsinn" to him for Un insignificant part of itsvake, and the owner had no knowledge of sucli seizure, ai>d it fufther- appeared that there was no bidder at the sale, except the persQii who purchased the piano, it was ; held that the sale vas a nullity, and that the owner was entitled to r%vendic%te thd property. ,M The appeal was from a judgment of theSuperior Court, Montreal, (Gill, J.), May 27, 1885, dismissing ap action o^ revendication. The^dgpieut appealed from is re- ported in M. Li R., 2 S.O. Hi - V "^ .May 21, 188b.J " . ' / ; t, JP. Butler, knA C. A'. Geoffrion, Q. C; for the appellants, nulled ttpoii TfeyiAence of 'fraud and collusion. Further, it yras submitted tha^, fatal irreignbrities Sad b'een commit- yted, legal forooialitils had not beeft observed, aiid the ar- ticles sdized had been adjudged precipitately to Ledaiw alone A vUprix, he being the. only bidder, and purchWr of ^1 the effects sold, for |12, including the piano revendi- cated, which was valued at fSeO. ' L. O. David for respondent Oliwer Leolaire. , . Cl^eAew/ibrrespondemk Connolly, a--" - ■.->*■ COURT OP QUEENT3 BENCH. \ 44t 1886. LaoUirf. Ramsay, J:— \ ■ .^. This case is somewhat peculiar. Its peculiariiylBnsists,"^.''"'*'""' "not in the desire to appropriate the property of Whers, on '"' "~ every sort of pretext, for that is very common, but in the extrpordiuary audatuty of the pretentions of tio of' the t^krties respondent. Connolly, one of the res^ndents, obtained judgment igainst Richard Rodden, ariotl^er of the respondents, for (about ^-Z, and in exicuti^n of this judgment, seized, amongst other things, a piano as being the pBperty of the defendant. As a fact, the piano h^- longed to appellants, and was leased to a son of Rodden, . who inh^bite4 the same liouse as his father and his family! and there the piano wa^seized. This seizure tcjok place at Cote St. Antoine, and the publication wfes m$de at the church door, near the canal. Probably this publication- was sufficient ; but, as a matter of fact, appellanjU icnew\ uothiag ab<\ut.it. Rodden and his son did not consider it to be their duty to inform the owners of the piano that this valuable piec4/-<»f furniture, which had been en- trusted to the care of the latter, was to.be sold to pay the debt of the firmer, v^ut, cur4ous to sa^ in a very formal manner they koti^d Connolly that he hadjseized a piano and other prop^y which didnot belong to the defendant. ■ To this noti^ation, Connolly paid no attention. He, howr ever, thoi^ht it prudent to send for the bailitl'to tell him to see that there was an audience. Th,e bailitt' so far con- " formed himself to this recommendatioij? as to-rittduce & dealer in second-hand furniture, named Leclaire. to accom- pany hi|p-t6 "the scene ofi operations. Being there, the bailiff, without any othdr. audience then Leclaire, his recors, and the members of Rodden's family, sold this piano for 4 sum insufficient to meet thisj small judgment and costs, and some other articles of defendant's furniture were sold to make up the sum required. The appellants, owners of thp piano, by satste-revea^ '^"('(^n, M»(|^ to recover possession of their property, calling ill the fwttf p^rt.'es mentioned. '-' Sales by authority of justice, par decrel, can be set aside ffir irr a guUrity in iUu pfewoediiigh, and lor fiaud, m avefv 1 h \ mt "1 il ■#,' :<•* Ft ' NgJ 1 ( ! ■ 1 i . / ■ Ik i S 1 '.[ 1 1 1 1 - , 1 ' '- 1 * ^ \ ■I;,i3 \ ■.\:\ c^x A -'•4 448 ^ ' MOifTBBAL LAW BttPOBTS. Laoiitira, H other traiiHaction nndor our law. Aftei* speaking of the ^Norf^imer yj^.^ of fraud as a, reason to set aside deeds, d'Agaessena » adds : ** La solennUi flu diirret ne change rien es." And so it was decided in this court neatly thirty yours ago in the ease of Ouimet el at. Sf Sen^cat' et af , t^nd. the frjiud was held to be fully established, by evidence of «^- , crecy on the part of the defendants, etceptiouol mode^ (|)f procedure, viUili de prix, that the aoiion was by a Wprjlj!-; man in the employment of defendants, who was awateW the condition of matters, and that the oti^Wttd^otre was a brother of defendant, and also knew he was buying whftt did not belong to defenflUnis. , * ■ ' • - We have not, howgivej, in this ease to consider the question of fraud, for the majority of the court is of opinion that the sale h «>i/ fnix, and without an audiegge,' as in this case, the piano Wing sold for an instgi^ifl^nt fraction of its value, and there being no bidder but the respondent Leclaire, who c«me o«t %vith the bailiflf, the sale can be set aside. , ^^ The four defeudautB do not appear b«fOre the cou^t ia precisely the same ptMntion It is po8|ible that Connolly and Leclaire are in good faith. Tke condiftet of the' two RoSdens admits of no such favorable explanation. But curiously enotagh, the pawes severed in Uieir defence, and there are three appeals; aJl setting up the Si^e justi fication, that the sale was regular and lawful; It is plaifl that the parties have all been mauulatHt^ajring coAts, and ns regards , the RoddeAs.t he litigation isLwithont any avowable itttert»t> I should-Jhave condemn^ them all to costs, but some of the judges are of opiuion^tkat the appellants were to'some extent ia fimlt in nbt oj^posing the seizure, and t1ierefoi«;that adistmctjon -as to coats should be made. ."a^''to their opitiioji I defer. The judgment of" the court bM<»% H/^^11 therefore Se reversed a8rf;o all, without costs agaii^ Conto€iiUy .and JLecliKre,, but with cos^s against th^ \ " And considering that there is error in the jud^ent appealed ffoin, rejecting th©- action enmisie-revendicaii(m ; " Doth reverse the said;jildgment, and proceeding ' t render the judgment the Court below ought to havb rendered, doth maintain the said action, and doth dedarJ the appellants to be owners of the* sai^. pianq. aiJ^^oth order the guardian in whose chi^rge tKe-said piaJpLafi pltced under the seizure in this cause, to deliver »veT to the said Appellants the said piano within eight days after service Upon him of the present judgment, ^o«.« touies peitt0s qu^dedroU, and in default of said piano being de- livered "to pbintifFs within said delay, doth condemn the respondents jointly and severally to pay and satisfy to the said appellaats the sum of $300, without costs against tjie-.re8pbnd€pt8 Connolljr and-Leclaire, and with costs against the respondent^ Richard Ro«iden and William T. Rodden. as welUu this Court as in the Court below#4 ' (The Hon. Mr. Justice Tessier dissenting)." . > Butler 4" LighthaUr attorneys for appellants. Dat3id Sf Laurendeau, attorneys for Olivier Leclaire! J J. Beaufihamp, attorney for R and W. Rodd C. L^tettf, attorney for Conpolly \t I ( *5»^7/> f^i y.f MOltTiiEAL LAW REPOHTH, .. Ndveipbwr 27, 1886. Comm DoRioN, J. C„ Monk, Uamsay, CrohiI, .Baby, JJ. JOSKPII BOMOHAjlD, (Opjiomnt m cour infirieure), '■ ■ -A , APPELANt; y t. J^^^ LAJOIBr (Demandeur fimtestant en dojvt iitf&rieure), ■ " \ iNTIMi Brocid^re—FaUs nouvemux jmr r^plique — R6m4ri par crianda . ' ' V du vendeur. tju'iin (ImHantWir, qui a produit une contestation Ann« nppo- n, |NMit udoKuer m^r nne n^pliqno 8p4cl^le A hi r^^ponse (teVnppo- i, nil jiigunient intttrvenu dans uno iiulro cause entre I'opposant «t k'K'bituui (lu (leinandour cunteatunt, qui ri'glu le litige entro I'oppo- ot le contestant, Ipraquo ce jugement a ^t6 rendu depuiH li production du lu Conttuitation ; surtout si dans lu contestation et It reiMHise il a 6t6 fait allusion A cotte autre cause et (pie I'oppoMant n« he soit pati plaint on cotir inf(|iriettre de I'irr^^gnlarit^ de la r^plique en en demiindnntje rejct)'ou autroment par lu proc^dure^'i;ite ; QueJfr4Hy^^cier pent exercor la faculty de r^m6r^ au lieu et plane de son d^biflnr et cpie s'il intervient un jugement .entre ce dernier et racqudreur d'un immuuble accordant le r^^ayees, le crdancier du vendeur 'pent fuirer^uire telle cqllooution au montant fix£ par le jugement accordant le r^m^r^ etdftiBriiiinant la sotnme que I'acqu^reur pouvait exiger avant de parfiUiO 1» r^tro' cession; r- 4. Qu'en pareil cas, si les deniuiB devant la cour sont isuffisants pout acquitter les reclamations de.lliicqudreiir, le cr^aqci^lr n'est pas teoo de lui faire des offres de lA soitime qUe le vendeur -^tait tenu, do lai payer pour obtenir la retrocession dePubmeuble. / vLe 26 avrrl 1878, A. Trudel, le dfefendeur ©it cette canac, jeonsentit une obligation, h Topposaut, Jose Bonch^lfcl, pour ^500, Tin 37 Janvier 1880, le d6f e ndi.'iii1 '^ Tpr I V rei?iber 27, 1886. Cros^, .Baby, JJ. D, ur in/^rieure), Al'PELANti ur infMeure), ^ Intim6. Rimiri par criancier nonteHtation A uiM nppo> le A III r<'pon8e de Voppo- nause entre I'opposant «t )(lu le litige entro I'oppo- . a ^t4 reiulu ilepuiH l« ins 111 contestation et It J80 et (iiie I'oppoMant n« ;ularit£ de la r^pHque en roc^diim incite; i6r^ an lieu et plaro de lent .entre ce derniur «t M et flxant le monlant Bsion, le ur^nuier Mn^ Iroits et '■o pr^valoir ,dei p[x)8er A Vacqn^reuf; d^laiM^ ptir racq^^reur lur les sommea qii'il a I r^iiire telle cQlIocation e r^m^r^ et'd^Ciarniinant lAwt de parfMMB 1» rilnr our sont sufflHanta ponr cr^aqci^lr n'est pas teoo ndeur >^tait tenu, do lai luble./ r^fendeur eii cette I'opposaut, Joseph 'f Hi f 4 ' COURT OP Qt|REN;8 BENCH Trad»^ par actu '4e dation.uii painrtiei posani Res propri6t6s, dout hw imin«u cotte oausi) ^Uaient partie, on paiumeiiL^ d« $500 plu« haut montionnfie, «>t do plun . |)ay«r dws dt)ttt).>i hypothfiiwiinis grevuiit len bifls, aavVir 15,500 dm^s »\ la S6ci6tS d« v.^ Ja«qaos-Oartior «t ♦1125 ot itit^rAts duos au OrC*. ^^ ci«r. L'opposant prit possussion dos propci6t6a onvquea-^ tioaey^tnan aprt», attt une pottmuito hypothficuire,^ iU dAlaisda. Dans TintGrvallti lo doinuiidRur iiitjtitua k prfjseiito actiou pour fuiro aiinuler lo dit a«i« de datidn on paiement commo nul qu^iit iV lui et fait «n fraude dop droits dc'8 crfeanciers du d6foud«ur. Jugoinont fut reudtt' t'H favour du domaudour ot on execution de c«e jngetnent leH inimeubles on question furent veudus. Le produit de cette vonko est Tobjet des pr6sentc8 conte^tatiotts. Erf' m6me temps que le d^fendeur cousoiijtait ^a^cto do datiou en paiement k I'opposant.-ce dernier lui doanait.uno, contre-lettre stipulaut droit de r6m6r6" en, favour d«" d^-lVindeiiTX * " - i Le d6f«^our institua une^ actioj;, sous No. 67a dela '^ Cour Supfirieare, .conire I'opposant pour tecouvrer lea propri«t6s'en vertu do telle contre-lettre. Nous A-erreufi'" dans un instant la connexitfe de ces farts av«?c les fwotes- tations dont il s'agit. Les propri6t6s ayant 6t6 veiidueR k la ponrsuite dfi demandeur comrae 'nomj I'avons dit, ra'i)pelant prodqiicit ' trois oppositions sur If produit de telle venttf: Par la prertiiere il reclame < 177.01 ' pour am^iioratitjaa faites aux-propftfetfis vendues en cette cause. ,.;,•. < Par Fa seconde il p6clame $3,"^6.02 par liii pay^s A la - Societ6 de Ooustruction Jacquea-Cartier et-,au Cr6dit" Foncier pour le d^fendeur aux termes de la dation en^ v paiembnt. * ■■ •« ^''♦"v ■. -" z^. ;■'■. 'I ■:,..■/ -.^'hv'-- ^ Par la troisiime il rfeclanw f 7^6, c^gitat et-intferfets de J I'obligation d^ |6p0, que lui.avait donseiitie le dfifendeur ^ enl878. •■'^^_ .. ]■"- • . ■ ' ;„ ^" ^ Le demandeur a conteatfe les'trois oppositions, all%uant IWte de dation, ea paienrom, ft jouisswce paV I'op^sant l< I I t vi m I at I fjf ■ i cL- /I . a V « f '" 1 1 ^ " ♦J * - ^_ , " t ^ . ,' " IJ:;; ^ 1 mn HH:, * ■i -.. ■..■ V ..,4 li^i^f ijj^Srfffl ■ '■■■■.•■ ■ fl. ■M ^' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. V // > A \- ■ .^ .^f^ t 4^ z n / *•'. - 6*^:^ / '% •^^^■s^ -> A* '^f. iPltt)logr4)liic Corparation 23 WiST'MAiN STI^EiT \MnSTER,N.Y. 14$«0 (716)872-45^ ,'^- % > ■ ,! ■■■■J,-' V / < ■■V i W> «{**^^*l5^ ;\ :•;. I .>> ; 1 4 - .t^ ^■•--^- X *». ' ^ tj i^ -^ K n;] .Vf."' ^f . ." 4d2 MONTHEAI. LAW BEPORTR 1«M. Diiiiclinnl. Lifolf. t des fruits et revenus des dits immeubles, lesqnels s'eleveiit, allegue le demandeur, a un moutant plus 6leve que les cr^ances r^clamees par ses oppositions, et en outre la mauvaise i'oi de I'opposant en preuant poscsession des proprietfs. Le demandeur allegue de plus que la validite ^de la cT6ance du dit Bouchard est le sujet' d'une contes- tation dans un^ 9p^e No. 676, de Trudel v. Bouchard, laquelle est ert d6lib§re ; et le demandeur conclut k ce que les prBendnes creances de I'opposant soient d6clar^es compeijs^es et eteintes par les fruits et Irevenus du dit im'meuble. / L'opposant a repondu que dans Taction Ho. 676 de Trudel v. Bouchard, Trudel a reclame de Topposant les int6r6ts sur l6 prix total des dits imttteubles ; que les fruits et revenus qui representent les interSts du prix des dits imni«Hbles ne peuvent 6tre reclameesde Bouchard en niSme temps que Jes dits int6r6ts reclames coname susdit en la dite cause No. 67*, de Trudel r» Bouclm que Lajoie exerce ici Taction de son debiteur, deja exercee \^ de bonne foi, sous une autre forme, par ce debiteur lui\ m^me ; que la. demande de ces interfits par Trudel est ncore pendante. \ \ lie demandeur a replique spficialement que d^ptiig la pr9auction dela reponse de I'opposant, la caused No. 676 de ^vd'il V. Bouchard avait'6t6 jugee et que la reclamation de I'Vttposant centre le defendeur "avait ete r6duite a $580 comitte Stant le seul montant que ce dernier lui devait sur lesVimineubles en question ; et que cette cr^nce 6tant la mdm^ que celle r^clamee par ses trois oppositions, il ne pouA'ait 6tre colloque que pour cette somme. Le demaiideuria prouve que les reclamations de I'oppo- sant telles que portees dans ses trois oppositions sont identiquemeht les mSmes que celles mentionnges, de- battues et jugees dans la cause No. 676. La cour superieure (Johnson, J.) accueillSt la preten- tion de I'opposant," quexrintime devait prouver la valeur des fruits et revenus, renvpya les contestations. La cour de revision (31 jaavier 1884) composfee des honorablesjuges DohEbty, Jettj& ctLoRANOER, iufinna \* I /•■ ■:'::> V COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. .r '468 ,« unanimemerit cejugefnent quatit aux deux ^rincip>l6s - . «»«. oppositions (la -peoiiae ct ta tfoiBi^me), et maintin^les B'"'«h»r.i contestatious. v , ^ Liijoio. Void* les termes du jugement : ~ "La Cour, aprds avoir entendu les parties sur la • demando de T6visioii du jugement rendu en *ette cause, le 30 novembre 1888, maintenaut les oppositions du dit opposant Bouchard et le^ collocatrons k lui accord^es par les items lOe, 12e, 16e et lie du projet d'ordre dp distri- bution des deniers en cette cause et deboutant le deman- M deur de ses contestations d'icelles; avoir pris coilnais- ^ sauce des ficritures des dites parties sur- ces di verses contestaypns, examin6 leurs pieces et productions respec- lives, dAment considere la preuvfret deliber6; "Attendu que par sa premiere opposition Bouchard reclame une sommo db #77 pour reparations nfeoessaires par lui fajtes dux impeubles vendus en «ette cause, pendant le. temps de sa possession, d'iceux, en vertu d'Hne rente k lui cbnsenti^ par le dei^ndeur, et que cette somme lui est accordee par I'item lOe du projet d'ordre de distribution ; "Attendu,que par sa deuxieme opposition Bouchard * reclame une autre somme de $3006.02, laquelle lui est aussi accordee par les items 12e et 15e du dit projet d'ordre, coinme'suit, savoir : ' 18e C-il en avait retire les fruits, apres demande d'annulation de son ti^re; qu'il etait par suite comptable de ces fruits et qu'i^ 6taieut plus que sufiisants pour eteindre toutes ses dites reclamations ; et que d'ailleurs la validity des dites reclamation's etait le sujet d'une con- testation alors pendante ^ en d61iber6 dans une cause entre les dits Trudel et Bouchard et pOrtaut le No.-^76 des dossIer^st'de'larCour Sup^rieuddH^ "Attendwf" que les parties fr^4|Bln8uite inscrit leur cause a I'enqudte, le demandeur "a produit,au soutien de ses contestations,, diverses pieces etablissant que les reclamations susdites de Topposant etaicnt les mdmes que cell6s*par lui faites fiins la dite cause No. 676, et que Bouchard examine comme t^moin a admis que ces recla- mations etaient les mSmes et. fondees sur les mdmes titres ; " Attendu ^ue parmi les pieces produitespar le deman- deur, se trouVe un jugement rendu dans la dite cause No. 676, le 28 juin 1883, r6glaut detinitivem^ent toutes les reclamations du dit Bouchard contre les dits immeubles A^endus et cellos a lui dpposees par l6 propri6taire Trudel, et fizant, apres compensation, la balance finale que Bou- clpiFd avait droit de rfeclamer, en ycrtu des divers titres par lui invoques dans se^ oppositions, a« la somnle de $580.08!; ' ' ' • / aV^--" OHTS. »sj|ii6n en cette cause ,e $780.00, capital is^ation du 26 avri 'rijdel, pQur I'acqui ^ en paiement lijk hard avait. encore de cette dation m x-ation 17e du pfojet at est colloqu6 pour a, d^Ue soiQme^taiit lalite a contests 'ces de Bouchard, alle» detention des dits lits, apres demaude par suite comptable que sufiisauts pour ) ; et que d'ailleurs t le sujefr d'une coii- er6 dans une cause it pOrtant le Nor476 i nsuite inscrit leur )duit, au soutien de etablissant que les aieut les mdmes que ase No. 676, et que admis que ces recla- [ees sur les mgmes duites par le deman- ans la dite cause No. tivem^ent toutes les les dits immeubles propri6taire Trudel, nee finale que Bon- tu des divers titres ns, a« la somitfe de y. — >■■ ■/ • "■#'-_-■, A .. .---Jk -. ;-^ '-' ■■-.---. *. ■ ■ -^ ■ ^ 1 '■-! COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 455 ■ I / ' ,#■.■■'. " Oonsidfirant' que, |>ar suite de ce que tfessu* 6tabli, Bouchard est sans droit aux diverses collocations k lui oc- troyfies par le rapport de distribution pr6par6 en cette cause, pour tout ce qui excdde et dfepasse la dite somme de #680.08 ; "Consid6rant en consequence qu'il y a erreur, dans le ditjugement du 80 novembre 1888 dont la revision est demands ; .> ' " L'inarme, et, procfidant k rendra le jugement que la Cour de premidre instance aurait du rendre : " Maintient les contestations des oppositions et collocav tions de I'opposant par le demandeur pour totrf>i>^ui ex-^ cede la somme de $680.08, susdite, et ordonne que le pro- jel d'ordre de distribution pr6par6 en cette cause soit, en consfiquence r6form6, de mani^re & n'accofder li I'opposant sur ses dites rfeclamatlons rfeunies qu'une bt lance finale de 1680.08, et renvoie, en consequence; les dites reclama- tions et collocations detBou<;hard pour le surplus." .Bouchard iuterjette apDel de ce jug«>meut devant la Cour du Banc de la R^iiri^ \ 21, 22 sept. 1886.] RobidoukpoxiT ['appelant, en de- mandant rinfirmation du juj^eirient de la Cour de R6vi- siofl. pr6tendait que les alleguesXde la r6plique conte- naient des faits nouveaux qui nl 'pouvaient 6tre plaid6s que par une demande suppl6mentaVe ou plaidoyer puis darein c^inmnce; et sur le^merite d, fit J I 4 '-*»_ J.^-__. ^U^&aj£^^^;umM)^4^^^^^^ Rra. • ouv6 avoir 6t6 per- a 6t6 faite par Tin- snus.'. Maiuteuant, 76 ou le d6fendu6r I I'appelant peut-il } quo le <16fendeur eubles en vertu de la somme de #880, I hypothScaires au uditiou u'a jamais I'abord aur la ques- ix d'achat repr^sen- allegue pas de faits ,8 coinme demande ire d'obtenir la per- Si elle 6tait irr6gu- II y a acquiesce en >8 mentionnfo dans jmition une preuA'e passer de la r6pli- peWu lea revenus Doul >nd :\ Bouchard ac- jtion ten cette cause Frudelse reservant Trudel pour exer- Bouchard et Trudel ar fixe Ite montant itions- en\ question I que celles r^glC'es ouchard dodt done )li. Quant U I'ob- ?! du paiemcnt des >nd que ces Wean- 1 distributionAelles I de toute responsa- teuu d^offrir pl^ur mt ta Cour. '•«i C»URT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. «»_ ^ fc- DoRioN, J C pour la 0 i 458 ^'f'f^i ■ "C=W7T 5-»-aff[i'' j, ''rw*?-i. i.(i.|«p.|o|^fii|^ MONTREAL LAW REPORTR / 4i . >/ K»v / . * May 26, 1886. Coram DoRioN, 0. J., Monk, Oross, Baby, JJ, . V WIL^AM DUDLEY et al, {Plaintiffs in Court betow), Appellants ; LND \ WILLIA DARLING, 'endant in Court bjplow), Besfon<)Bnt. Imputation ofpnymnU* — C. C. \\Sf9-r,Account rendered yearly during series of years^Acquiescenct. Hbld :-^L Where the credita for each year, In an account current, are in * excess of the amount of interest charged for tlie year, it cannot be pretended that compound interest has been charged, inasmuch as ^ (under C. C. 1159) payments made by a debtor on account are im- puted first on tlie interest. 2. (Ckobs, J., diM.) Wliere an account current was, rendered each year during a long series of years, ^barging commissions as well as in- terest, and the debtor, being pressed to close the account, without -'' formally admitting or denying tlie right to charge such commisvions, ^. conthiued to r^mit sun^s on account, which remittances (if commis- sions sbpuld not hav^ been charged) wer^ptbre than Bufflcient\ pay the claim, it is a fair inference that the debtor acquiesced i^ the rate of commissions as charged, and he is obliged to settle tlie^ balance of the account on that basis. The ^pcal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal (Mathieu, J.), July 8, 1884, dismissing an ac- tion brought by the trustees and executors of the late William Dudley, for a balance of account. The judgment appealed from was in the following terms : — " La Cour, etc.C!,. *' Gonsid^rant que les demandeurs alldgnent dans lenr declaration que le d^fendeur s'^tait obligS au payement de rint^rdt sur toute avance faite au taux de ff p. c, et i ! -^, ■ sion; uc> ati) VUtU^jriCUUIO t uus irn IB U«3 U'UUIIU IIS* m " ' '. m ■>-—""?-*—■■— s " , 9 ' i » .;- :li • -*- ' « , , 1 m\ , y fc j_ > J-' , _ 1 ■■/: COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 469 " Oonsidferant que le d6fendear admet cette /onlrentioD ; " Coii8id6rant quo malgr6 cotto coiivontioyforjnelle, lea domandonrs chargent une commission et l/ibt^kt sur la (commission, et chargent aussi I'iiitdrfit coinposfe sur les balaiKes du^s quoiqu'il u'y ait pas de conyentiofformelle lUet 6gard; . , ,^ "ponsidimut que le/f«it que des com^te^ aijiraient 6t6 rendus pdriodiquement au d6fendeur dhargeaJt le mon* tatit de ces commissions, n'est pds suffisknt sansline accep- tation \ for mello de la partdu d6f^hd6ur pOttrl obliger ce dernierU payer le montant de ces c(6mmi88ions qui, sui- vant unVconvention formelle all6gu(Be par les demandeurs -eux-m6mW devait htro comprise dans les int6r6t8 qui sent charging ; "CbnsidfiVant quo le montant' des commissions ainsi oharg6 par 10^ dcmandeurs au d6fendeur et I'int^r^t sur ioolui, m qu«\harg6 dans le cojtapte, est plus quesuffisant pour couvrir la balance reclamfee du dfefendeurpar les dits demandeurs ; \ „ ■ y - " Considdrant que pour c/s raisons fes dfifenses du dit d6fendeur sont bien fond6t " A maintenu et Inaintient les dites d6fen8es et a^-Vin- voy6 et renvoie raction des dits demandeurs." May 16, 1886.]* V ' • W. W. Robertson, Q, 1^,, m the appellants. J. L. Mofris for the f^spondeuts.o MM DurlUy Uarlim. ■:il Cross, J. (diu.U— The appellants, trusteesWdor a deed poll and Executors m»der the last will of the^ate William Dudley, of Bir- mingham, in England, brought the present actioii against William Darling, haMwaro me*chantr of Montreal, claim- ing £t44 9b. lid. stg. as balance of au account current for some years carried on between t\e respondent and the deceased, William Dudt^y, who died\2'7th February, 1876, ^t which time the balalce Amounted t&\^7,496 12s. 4d. stg. When the account was virtually *clr- <>Ht ur 7^.,ptir cent, per aiiiium and crediting puymentH, thuH reducmff the balance on the 81st De«^ember, 1881, to the amount saM Jbr, the appellantd alleging that the yearly aci^ountH had been accepted by renpondent without objedged by him as due. The declara- tion also contained an averment as follows : — " And the " said plaintitrs specially allege that th^ transactions be- " tween the said late William- Dudleytamddofendant^.orthe '• firms which ho now represents, of iginat^ so^ fur bdck " as the year 1870, when arrangements were made that *' the said William Dudley should sell and deliver to the " said firm such goods, wares and merchandises as they " should require and should order, at the prices then cur- " rent, and that interest on all overdue accounts should " be charged and paid at the rate of *l\ per cent, per an- " num, the mme in include all fees am^ commissions to " which the said ^Willia^n Dudley or hi« '^representatives " might be entitled for services re^d^red to the defendant " as his agents, and which rate was the then current rate, " and which said defendant recognized and followedvas " the business arrangement agreed upon and always re- " cognized and acted upon iVom the year 1870 down to " the Slst December, 1881." The respondejgjt pleaded first by demurrer, alleging as grounds that the late Wm. Dudley, having divested him- self by deed poll of all interest in the present demand, /] appellants could not claim the same in their quality oi' executors. . , t . To the merits, he denied having accepted or acknow- ledged the account, and objected to being charged i^m- missions over and beyond the 7^ per cent., accor4ing to the agreement ; further, that the appellants had charged him compound interest, contrary to law, and that the de- ductions to be made on these grounds showed that no-, thing was due to appellants. The appellants proved by the answers of William Dar- ling that the annual accounts had been regularly ren- dered since the decease of William Dudley^ incluolng .^;v;. . i*~ pf* COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 461 interest, charged at t| per cent, per annum, correRpond- inff with the account current produced, including the balance stated to be due at the death of William Dudley, and brought down to Decitmber 81, 1881. This a<artin||. 'r- T :-v}}: --f- t Mill»y l)»rtln«. ,y', U- "^ indtrdnd.andRliio.thiit whtm h« ma(i« objtiotlons to it m lutiMuion lfn» 24th day I)i)oombor, IHAJ), h« hud «V»))««;t«d, iiol to thtt ronuniHNioiiK hut to th« iiituntiit, otformg to Mttlc thi cUfm if int(5r«>Nt wuh charged at 6 "pur nent. ThijiudgHoftho frfnt hiM boon charged, bamm hiN Judgment ijpon the I'vu'X of comitiiHitionM being chargtMl over and )>eyond the, 7^ per cent, agreed uimju which, together with the interest thereon, wt)uld amount Jo more than the balance < laimed- " i It id unnteces*ary to coiiHidor whether compound interest has bo«»n cti&rged, bttcause nimple iut4)rM*4 o» the «ommifl* Mionii would Hwell their amOunl to a Hum considerably in exutfM oTtho balance claimed, but in view of the rule iituruHt was charged, vero in excesti of the 1078 0. C. a special :;harge j»( compound 1 4gre$,mont Vquld this question being nmissipns, viz., that g to the agreement commisaTons on the he j'«8pondent made ii> thft account cur- )r a l^tadied purpc^se ank, and it qaajr be, ' not have been very ice at onc^^ bat not pay' .what hejnani- b the; objection tor" the bft:jed«ced to 6 pe^ ipdndent's objfctiou er hf him of objec- lat the commisfifbns I T| per cent., and in siQQS ; ai^ uotw4tK ^ *-t'-- ■ * . ^ ipoir^T i^ ■" - ■•■'-'' ' ■ ■»• '■ "It' ■ I _ '\ ■'■ "^' " DoBiON,"0k^>ii-' : " '." v^f ^' "■:;-■' "!'■'''■ ' /.: -'-/;' It is proveii'^ihat yearly accounts ;^^^^ Respondent by Willianr Dudley while he live^; aijd in- . ^ these accouats, interest was chared at the rate i)f t^ per ^ •— • to ' -.mx-^. " If - * *. * LJi _■» .'.-i-t-,B.:-. . <(U \ 1886. Dudley Darlinf. *' 464 MONTREAL LAW REPORm V ■-'■■„ ■ '''' " cent: After the death of William Dudley his executors repeatedly applied to Darling fpr a settlement of the balance: This is proved by a ninnber of letters which are produced. Darling did not dispute the account, but continued to remit sums on account, and these sums were placed to his credit, that is, they were credited to him on the account which had been sent to him. The Court below clearly erred in saying that compound interest had been charged. There was no coihpound interest, as the interest was ext^guished by the payments made on ac- count! jrom year to year. The majority of the Court are of opinion that Da^rling, never having repudiated any of the charges, and having continued to make payments on account, must be held to have acquiesced. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court below, and give the appellants judgment for the full amount claimed by theim. , ^ ' , The judgment is as follows : — "The Court, etc.. ^:. ^^ " Considering that it is proved that according to' the cpurse of business carried on during a period extending froni the year IBIO ttf the year 18t6, between the late William Dudley and the late William Darling, and the correspondence carried oh between the appellants, repre- senting the said late WUliam Dudley, and the said Wil- liam Darling, from 187^ to May 188(^, that the said late William Dudley was in the habit of charging the said William Darling with interest at the rate of 7 J per cent. . on all balances of advances made by the said late William Dudley to the saicl William Darling, including in said ba- lances all charges for commission, which charges were made in the accounts periodically transmitted to the said William Darling, and at lea8|;,.once every year ; " And considering that tk6 said William Darling never complained of the rate or ainouut of interest so charged, but did every year, from 1870 to 1880, transmit to the said late William Dn^ey, and to his representatives, the pre- sent appellants, large sums of money on account of hi& indebtedness to them, until the ^Oth of May, 1881, when «^,' / \ (X>nBT OF QUEEire BENCH. 466 he refused to pay the baVince claimed by the appellants, on the ground that the interest should be charged at the rate of five per cent. ; " And considering that the respondents are not entitled to the redaction of interest which they d°emand, the said late William Darling having for a period of ten years acquiesced in the charges and finally promised to pay the amount claimed ; ' "And considering that there lis no compound interest charged in the accqunts furnished by the said late Wil- liam Dudley and the present appellants, who have ere- dited the said William Darling with the sums he has transmitted to them/ on the balffi|p's in principal and interest due at the time^of such remittances as they*were entitled to by law (Art. 1159, C. C.) ; , C " And considering that at the time^of the institution of this action the said William Darling was vihdebted to the appellants in the sum of .£744 lis. 9d: stg., equial to $3,623.16, cy., and that there is error in the judgment rendered by the Court of original jurisdiction, to wit, the ^vOperior Court, sitting at Montreal, on the 8th of July, ini ['his Court doth iquash and annul the said judgment (^tljie 8th Jitly, 1884, and proceeding to render the juj^g- ment which the said Court of original jurisdiction ought to have rendered, doth condemn the respondents is qua' IU6 to pay to the isaid appellants is qualUi ih» sum of 13,623.16, cy., witljl^ interest thereon from the 3l8t of De- cember, 1881:, and /costis as well in the Cotlfrt below as on the present ap|ieal (the Hon. Mr. Justice Cross dissent- ing)-" 4 * \ \' •'^Judgment reversed. Robertson, Ritchie 4* Fteet, attorneys fox.app'ellants. JbA» L. MofTM, attorney for "respondent. ...-■ (J :.. ■ „ \ 1886.' Dudley Darllnc ^& s f ©' Vaii. n, ^ B r-=*= =96= '4'. '4-; I •'.1 •Vsi. <5?ps •vr,}^^- 466 , MONTREAL LAW REPORTa June 80, 1886. J^am DoRioN, Ch. J., Ramsay.Tesster, ORpss, Baby; JJ. ROBERT HEYNEMAN, s ' {Drfendant in Court below) r ' " Appellant; ;■■'.■ AND si.- ABRAHAM HAIIRIS, {Plaintijf in Court bdow), Respondent. Insolvent Tradi^-^J^eparture after making assignment— Saisie- arr4t — p^tHlege of commercial traveller. Hblo— The fact that an insolvent trader has made a vblunUry assign- mentof his estate, does not justify his departure from the country without the consent of his creditors. It is his duty to be present, in order to give such informati^i as may be required for tt»e realiiation of his assets, and his departure without explanation is ground fdr th6 issue of a mUie-arrit before judgment The privilege of a commercial traveller for wages, under C C. 2006, which was maintained by the court below (M. L. R, 1 8. C. 191) Hot dete^ mined by the Court of Appeal, but doubted. The appeal was from an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court (Loranqer, J.), Dec. 6, 1884, rejecting a peti- tion to quash a saisie-arr^t before judgment, and from the final judgment in the same suit (Torrance, J.), March 2, 1885, maintaining the MMte-arrrft. ^ ^.. Th« interlocutory judgment was as follows:— " LaCour, etc. ~ " Consid6rant qu'il est en preuve que le d§fendeur a, dans une premiere assemblfee de ses crfeanciers conv6qu6e dans lebut de considferer I'fetat de ses affaires, fait de fausses representations, en exagferant I'etat de son actif : que cette assemblfee fut ajourn6e ultfirieureinent pour plus amples renseignements sur l'6tat de la faillite et aviser aux moyens les plus convenables pour en op6rej^le r6glement ; t >iisi46 r ftatyi&d aas .ripterTali9 dg ceg exceed $60,000 ; it 4s ordetM that th^ said Tiers Saisi, Evans, dd, within fifteen days after service • upon him of this judgment, dejposit in the hands of the Prothonotary of this Court, the said sum of $2,000, in order that the same be distributed ftmong the creditors of the I said defendant accoi:dingH» their respective rights, and that a report of distribution be prepared for that purpose in this cause, unless the Tiers Saisis do, within the said - delay, pay to plaintiff the said sum of $700, interest and costs, andwto the payment and deposit of the siid sum of $2,000, the Ba.id Tiers Saisis shall be held and constrained [ by all legal ways and means, and in so doing duly dis- charged." f . See M.'L. R., 1 S. C. 191, for observations of Torrance, | J., in rendering the above judgment. * May 21, 1886.] A. W. Atwaler, for the appellant. > L. ^. Bwyamw, for the respondent. V \ . Cross, J. :—;■'■" ■: .„, , ^'v,:;:: ;r^-; - r -----:---- --^j^r^,--^ Action for wages of a coinmercial traveller, which hej : claims by ptivilege, and accompanies it by an attachment, rations of Torrance, OPU^BX OFi^UEEirS BENCH. \ 460 /■ sauie-arrft before judgment^ in the hands o^ Walters; assignee, and Evans, his agent, to whom.Heynienian |isd Msigned his estate. There Was ^ petition to set aside the Attachment, a^nd the defendant besides contested any claim for privilege. It appeared by the evidence that the defendant, Heynemau, some four months before the attach- ment was taken, assigned his estate to f^as. H. Walters, who employed Evans to, wind it up. Harris had filed his claim with the assignee, without alleging any privilege, but afterwards took the attachment on the ground that Heyneman had absconded to defraud. It appears that he went to New York, and refused to return; for fear of being capiased. His estate, in Evans' management, realized $2,000. The petition.to quash the saisie-arrit was dismissed on 6th December, 1884, and on the 9th March, 1885, Judge Torrance ordered the payment into Court of the $2,000, to be distributed an^ong Heyneman's creditors, according to law, or in (default that the Tiers Saisis should pay Harris his debt of t^OO, with interest and costs. Heyneman, the defendant debtor, appeals from this judgm'dnf, contending that he did not leave with fraudu- lent intent, and that the plaintiff, Harris, had no privi- lege. As to the first question, Heyneman left without the permission of his creditors. It was not enough for his protection that he should have assigned whjit he gave up as his estate; this did not of itself prove that it was all his estate ; the duty of an insolvent is not only to give up his property, but to be ready to give all necessary ex- planations for its realization, he should be present to do so ; his leaving without explanations should be presumed a fraud until fully explained in a sense to justify it. This Heyneman has not done. As to the debt being privileged, it is probably not $o. The Gonrt4oe[^not^ ' ■ ,« ^ 1 '' ^ S-' , . d are privileged on hh estate ; he should pay all ^is ere- ditdrs. He is equally lia^ to the Unprivileged i^ to the privileged. , „ / Tha judgment is as follows ^~ ' "The Court, etc..:... ^ ', > "Considering, tha«; the respondent (plaintiff belpw) hath established his right to be collocated for three inohttis' wages, amounting to ^'ZOO, from the 1st of January to the 81st of March, 1888, inclusive ; " Doth adjudge and condemn the defendant, now appel- lant, to pay and satistV to the plaintiff, now respondent, the said sum of ItOO, with interest thereon, from the 8rd Sep- tember, 1888, and cogfc^ of suit distruUs to L.N. Benjamin, Esq., attorney for plaintiff, and doth declare the attachment {(orfit) made in this cause in the hands of the tiers saish to be good and Valid, )and considering that th^ Hers-saisi, Edward Evans, has declared that on the 6th of' March, 1888, the saidjiiefendant, by deed passed before Cleveland, notary, assi^ed and transferred to Charles H. "Walters, the other tters-sain, his estate and effects in trust, that subsequently, on the 80th of March, 1888, the said Walters appointed the said Evans his il-revocable attorney for the purees of the s^id deed of assignment; that as such attorney, the said^^ssaisi, Evans, has realized the assets of defendant, and had in his hands, at the date of the service of this writ of saisie-arret, a sUm exceediUg $2,000, as the proceeds of the sale of goods so transferred by defendant to said Walters^ and that the liabilities of the estate exceed $60,000 ; it is ordered that the said tiers-saisi, Evans, do, within 16 days after service upon hfm of this judgment, deposit in the hands of the prothonotary of this Court, the said sum of |2,000, in order that the same be distributed among the creditors of the said defendant, according to their respective rights ; the Court reserving to adjudicate^ on the privilege and preference claimed by the said res- pondent on the distribution to be Qiade of the moneys in the hands of the said tieri'sain ;. ^ " And it is hereby ordered that a report of distribution be prepared for that purpose in this cause, unless the tim .'« il , 't :^t ■*- ■ :' -r' '^'^' ' t^ * '« ♦■N COURT or QUBBN'8 BBNOH. / ill Hwrik: MiH d6, iwithin the said delay, pay to the pUintifR the said "^ Buia of'lroo, with interest and costa, and to the payment ^'i*^ and deposit of the said sum of |2,000, the said liers-saisis shall be held and constrained by all legal ways and means, and in so doing, duly discharged." \ . Judgment modified. At(Ufatier Sf Cross, attorneys for appellant. L.\N. Bei^amin, attorney for respondent. ••■Ml V • June 80, 1886. 7ram MoNK, Bamsat, Tessikr, Cross, Baby, JJ. THOMAS MoGREEVY, - {Defendant in Court belowy,' Appellant;" LOUIS A. SEN&AL. \ / (PlaitMff' in Court below), '*^ Respondent. "I. \ '•■'■,■ Promisi^ not^Evwknce— 'Refusal to send the cask back to ' ■ ■■-\' enquMe. \ V In an action on a-promisspry note for value received, the Court of appeal wtilnoti^^ditipoeed, unless for some substantial reiUon, to send the ctfe back to enqutte. And so Where the defendant was in default to 1. and finally, after the case had been taken en dUibirS, wished toiexamine some witnesses, and the Court below rejected the appli- cation, the Court of appeal refused to send tlie case back, on the gibund ^at the defendant had not shown any substantial grievance. The ^pppal was from a judgment of the Superior Gourt^ Montred ILoranqer, J.), March 14, 1885, maintaining the Tf^ponaent's action. \, > x * \ TI^ jUdgrtnent was in tli^ fottowing terms :- Oonr, etc -. ^ . jusid^rant que le demaudeur reclame par son action V A ''■Si Mednavjr ■%< 4Ti 1 '■■■"■'' :V, .. V -MONTREAL LAW REPORm / la Bommo de $6,000, raontant d'un billet promissoire dati Qu6bec, 28 wnvier 1888, fait .»t 8igu6 par lo d6f«ndeur, payable h trdis mois de date k I'ordre du dit demandeur, au comptoir ^e la banque du Peuple k Montreal, pour valeur re9ue, ^vec iiit6r6t de la date de I'fechfeance du dit billet ; \ . ^' Goiisid^rant Vue lo dSfeudour a plaid6 k Taction que le dit billet n'6tait qu'un renouvellement de billet^b ant6- rieurs qu'il a coiiHeiitis pour actommo^er le demiiDdeur, et qu'il n'a jamais re^u ^jonsidferation pour le dit billet; " Gonsidiraut qu^il^ biilet sur lequel repose la ^r^sentd action, comporte k sa face qu^il a 6t6 eign6 et consenti par ledSfendeur pour valeur refUe ; que, aux iermes de I'ar- ticle 2286 du Code Civil, la preuve du coutraire incom- ^ait au d6fendeur ; " Consid^rant que le d^fendeur n'a fait aucune preuve dSs »ll6gu6s de sa defense ; la Cpur condamne le d6fen- deur k payer au demandeur la dite somme de cinq mille piastres, montant da billet susdit,' av^c intferfit, etc." May 20, 1886.) p. Oi^ouard, Q. &, for the appellant. /. Duhamd, Q, j;<7.,:fe>r tJie respondent. Cross, J., (rfws;) j-re- In FebrWry, 1884, Gustave Drolet sued the appellant McQ-reevy on a promissory note for |6,00(^, drawn by Mcl^reev^, payable to the order of Sen6cal and by him endorsed to Drolet. \ ^ McGreevy„ pleaded that Drolet write but the prSte-nom of Sen^cal ; that the promissory note in question was but ijike renewal of former promissory notes made by McGreevy for the acco'mmodatiou of SeuScal, which was well knawu to %olet, who received it long after it matured. This suit, aftei'" being about nine months before the Court, with various proceeding^ ta^n therein, was sud- denly on the 4th of Koven^r, 1^84, discontinued, and on the same day, another action Was taken by the respon- dent Senfecal against the appellant McGreevy on the same note, acting by the sune attorney. McGreevy at once petitioned the Court lor the immediate return of / B. / promisBoire dmi^ ►ar lo (l^fimdeur, I dit demandeur, i Montreal, pour r6ch6ance dti dit i6 k Taction qae t de billet^b ant6- ir le demandeur, ir ledit wUet; epose la ^r^sentd 6 et con$enti par ix termes de I'ar- contraire incom- t ancnne prenve lamne le d6fen- rue de cinq mille it6r.et, etc." the appellant. id the appellant i,00(^, drawn by i)al and- by him '/ ut the prile-nom nestion was but de by McGreevy ^as well knawu atured. nths before the herein, was sud- Bcontinued, and 1 by the respon- Greevy on the '. McGreevy at idiate return of '> OOUBT Of QUBEN's BENCH. the action, and it was returned the next day. On the 7th of the san^^ ,„onth of November, M.;Greovy pleaded thereto, alh%intf the name facts as in the former plea, and particulmry, in addition, that he had recefved no value lor the note. The pleas were in »uch .ase accompanied by the necessary affidavit in support thereof. The appellant, who seemed at fifst to winh to press on the case, afterwards, on the excustj of having to attend parliament, and again from illne^. was found to be in default to answer interrogatories sur fails et articles, for which and to make his enqu^te, he Wan asking time, while the respondent was pressing on the| case. The appellant was called to ansWer faUs et articles on he 8rd of February. 1885. Excuses were presented to the Court on his behalf, representir g him to be nnable to. attend from indisposition. ' On the 6th, the case was called, although not specially tixed for that day, and appellant's indisposition was agaii urged loclaimadelay, he having no witnesses present and being unable from indisposition to attend personaWy Thereupon the respondent desisted from his rule forjaits et articles and demanded judgment, ^nd thecaije was ta'ken endilibiri. I ,' / On the 12th, the appellant madl two motions, o^e to discharge the ddib^re, and the othe^ for permission to ex- amine the respondent. The Oour^ rejected the motion\o discharge the dmb^ri, but permitted the examination k the respondent. The respondent Was examined on the\ 17th, and admitted that the note j in question wjisare- newal otone given at his request for election expenses attd that he had previously received other $5,000 from the appellant for the same purpobe, which he states he badpaid'. "^ I see no good reason why thi appellant should not nave been allowed to examine his witnesses. When on the 12th of February, the presiding judge per- mitted the examination of the respondent, he might, with- out causing any unreasonable 4elay, hare allowU the appellant to examine his witnesses, and the appellant's I it ,t..- -■■ ^, V \ •, ■■* T 474 IjtONTRKAI. LAW RKPORTR. IMO, lath, I^tiiink. ti /.*, \; motion for nuch tx^rmiision, made on th Hhould havM he«u gratiti'd. • I The evidence of the respondent (loe appellant's ap- pendii, i^. 10, 1. 22^, seems to mo almost, enough to make out a case for appellant to claim the dismlHsal of respon- dent's action. It sKews the expendittire of |5,000 of appel- lant's ^loney through* fespondelit, for election purposes, ,. with the cont^mptati>d ezpenditv^ce of |fi,00b more, if thiH action in to be maintained. Oan theae expenditure^ b<> consider^ legitimate without proof? 1 should h*T() grave doubts. \ "" I would\Bet the judgment aside and Mud the cas^ back for proof bj\ both parties. Eamsay, J\:— This appeal involves a very sipaple question. The ac* tion is on a promissoi-y note (of value received. , The ap- pellant, drawer \of the note, was first sued by one Drolet. To this suit, theWppellant pleaded that he had signed th«i nptfK for the accommodation of Sen4cal, and that iij was only V renewal 6f five other notes the appellant \ ha signed for Sen6cal,\likewise for his accommodation. Hi also said Drolet wak a jfr^te-nom. Upon ,\hiB Drolet's aK, , tion was withdraw u\ and a new aqtidn instituted in Sen6- * cars name.^ \ It is not easy to find out how the withdrawal of the he original parties face to face, anfs condition worse. Never- ■y ; first action, and puttiu; ,„could render the app t^^eless, it is complained hf. Had there bden anything un usual about the note, it gavie the appellant one fact less to prove, namely,, that Dr^et was Sen^oal. To^the second actibn, the appellant* pleaded, as before, want of consideration. It is not contended that the ap- pellant has proved his p4ea. There vrasfiXk inscription and delays till the 8rd of February. Then appellant was \11 and could not answer\ interrogatories retun||able 4hat day. TWcase went ovqt lo the 6th ; appellant was still absent aud had iip witnesses. The respondent /then abandoned'tlie 4rule and asked for judgment, and the case was taken eiedjHit^ri. On the 12th,i^ special application wm OOUBT OP QUEEN'S BEkcR. 470 made to diwihargo th« d4lil,4r4 iti ord«»r to hIIow deftmdaiit to prove hiN d<»f«iiw. Thin wan rofuwd, bft th« Court allowed the appellant'fi <^uiisel to oxmnin*' n^^npoiident an a witiu«M. This the appellant did, and proved irothiiiff about his defenoo. Ap the record Rtundii, no othel judgment WH8 iK)8iiible but the one rendered. One of t?ie learn«^ .judg.>»v who dinHents, thinks that the answers of the re^ ponde^it give rise to a preHumption of etecrtoral fraud. It is 8ufllBTi. * /! w. Cofum Vumnu, On. J.. Mowk. lUim^r. 0mm, Bahy, JJ, BStOHJliilOB HANK-ot ^AfTADA. . (Ptmniiff in Qmrt beiow), I Appillaktm; ^ ^ ^' ■- \ ^'*»> / 0ANADIAK BANK W COMMERCE, \^ . ^_ ^ {D^0mUMt$ in Court oeli \ •'>.i Compentation-^Noflei receiveti fty InMtflvemcjf. Ban^for CoUeftim^ IIklo (R«v«nilnii tlie Val ^<^ fro™ a jticlgment of th« SuperiorlOourt, Montreal (ToRRANOB, J.), Feb. 9, 1886, maintaining the plea of compensation in part. (See M. L. R^ 1 & 0. 225^ for repdrt of the judgment in the Court below). V^ May 18, 1«96.1 /. N. Greenfields, for appellants :-*^ The present action was take» by the appellants" againut the resppndents to recover i^llMJk^ 1400.50, th^ pro- peeds of cJ^lftin drafts and jBHiw<)^" ^feP^ ^ the respondents by (he 4HMH*P' cplldtioil, and which had been collected by the respondenii The appellants and respondents are 1[>odie8 ^orporat*^ and politic, and did a banking business in the City of Montreal aijtd elsewhere. On the 16th pf September, 1888, tl^^appelLants suspended paynient/is provided for bisect. S|fiy»f ^4 Vict. -oh 5, tjie appiellants being at that time in- ^tnt and unable tp meelf the liabilities then maturing On the 4th of Deceriiber f(|)Uowing, the appellants were :i roi »P 4t1 po in dri th< pel cei bet pai dai po: ?P1 ree of tr?, • f ih % I ' \A^l „%:.; 7 .^ »/ ■■•*•■ OOUliX of ORom, Bahy. JJ. A .^. BSNOH. m KADA. ',' ,. B bodies corporate^ BBS in the City of ?f September, 1888, rpvided for b^rsect. ng at that tkae la- ies then maturing e ftppellants were plai^#a in Uqaidation,'*^te«, which Jyf^'h given to the respondents by the app«>llMD|:s ftjr^spk on the 2«rd of August, I8H3, on th« 14th of 8«pt.^ dli^nd on thw 4th of August, 18H8, and on the 8rd ;, ^ j^^November, 1888 ; and all of said notes matured only oa ■^the.4th of January, 1884, about which time, they wert paid to the reapomienta "■'H- To this action, tlie re8|fc)ndeB|l!« plead, admittjng thtl^ they had collected the amountai^i t||}eH(ion, but contend* mg'^hat the same was oompensaJted by .a larger amounii of jM.OOO due by thfi appKellautH to resfliondenfs for. a note npon which the appellants were liable'ks endorser. The appellants admit ^J iability on the note, but claim that compenjiation doei|Pot take place, in vJ&w of the insol* •v^acy of the appellants, the presen^t action being taken by the liquidators of the appellants for the benefit oi the SIMM of appellants' creditors. .V - 'i ''^* .1 A \ The note in question pleaded in compensation by the respondents, was discouuted by the respondents for the appellants on the 3rd day of June, and matured on the 4th of October, 1888, and was then renewed by the res- pondents. The Judgel in thp Court below gave judgment in favour of the appellants for $128.86, amount of the draft or note given ove|r to respdndents for collection after the.su^penaion of the Bank appellants, but allowed com- pensation for the othe^ notes which respondeuta had re*, ceived previous to Suspension. > V \ v~. \ The appellants contend that all of said notes having been placed with respondents merely for collection, and paid only at a date long after the appointment of the liqui- dators, no compensation caa take place in favour of res* pondents against 4he rights^ of the other creditors of appellants, and thit the only and proper course for the respondents to follow was to file a claim against the estate of the appellaats as m. iirdiuary creditor, and pay over •I ^■ ■ V i'\ ( !• 478 i >w. '<%>*■■ ^I^ONTREAL LAW REPORTS. Commoroa.. i r r ,y f ^HM. t^ -the' api^ants the money collected as the proceeds of 9iehMiBSBmk th*e uotes i« qaestion. The respondents, by a formal ad- -.4he-s»»pen8ibn'6flhe appellants in favour of respondents ? (2) Could comjpensation take place at any time after the suspension and insolvency of the appellants? As to the first, the appellants contend that compensation could not take place before the suspension, inasmuch as the said notes were not even the subject of compensation, and the conditions necessary for the operation of compensation did not exist at that time. ^ v ^ ^ ^ If the appellants had desired, they could have made a de- mand on the respondents for, the delivery over of the four notes in question before they werd due, and what answer could the respondents have made ? They could not have pretended thai these notes t»eld by them were subject to any lien in their favour. They were not pledged as se- curity for the payment of the $8,000, but were held as the property of the appellants, and were merely placed with the respondents for convenience ih' the collection of them, the\ respondents having branch offices at the diflFerent plac^**where the notes were made payajble. Could the respondents acouire any greater rights on the proceeds of the notes after tney w«re paid to them than they had on •f- 'i ■'A \ • OOVm OF QUEENS BEl^CH. 4T9 18BS. Ciui. Bukof Commeroe. the notes themselves ? After these notes had been paid to the respondents, the proceeds thereof werte held by the Bxoh«nBdB«nk respondents for the appellants. On the other hand, the appellants owed the respondents $8,000 ; but in order that compensation cdnld take place, both these debts must be equally exigible. ])id this condition then exist ? The claim of the respondents against the appelltijits is not exigible. It is merely a claim against the tesets of the company appellants, which can only be collected pro rata with the other creditors of the said Bank appellants. It ik clearly in evidence that the appellants were hope- lessly insolvent on the 15th of September, 1888, the date of the suspension, and the result of the liquidation will be that after the payment of the full double liability on the stock, which amounts to $500,000, the creditors will only receive.a portion of their claims. The effect, then, of the judgment of the Court below, will be to pay to res- _poaideBt««4till a partof their chixH, to the damage of the other creditors of the Bank, appellants. This, the appel- lants urge* is contrary to the spirit and meaning of the French law, and of t^° insolvent and liquidation acts, which contemplate ' thaSt the distribution of the assets should be made equally and pro raia among all the credi- tors, and not that preferences should be given in favour of one of l^e creditors over another.. ; J. L. Moiris, for the respondents, submitted that the fact that the Bank of Commerce only collected the amounts of the notes after the liquidators had been appointed to wind up the affairs of the Exchange Bank, was of no importance. This was decided in Miner v. Shaw, 28 L. C. J. 150. Sec- ."tion 60, 8.S. 2 of thO:ct respecting Insolvent Banks (45 Vict. ch. 28) is almosKidentical with* sect. 101 of the In- solvent Act of 18*76, unoter which it was held, in Miner y. Shaw, that compensation u^s place in respect of debts fallinj^ due after the insolvency, when the transactions leading jthereto began prior to sn^ insolvency. ■,-, ^ ^ "r ■ ■ ll • ■ '! ■■I • ■ ■ ■ " ^ ..'■ ij 1 « .i/% DoRiON, Ch. J. :— ■ It is not necessary to decide whether the Exchange 480 ; MONTREAIi LAW REPORTS. ! m^ "«« . Bank was insolvent in September, 1888, or not. The Bank Exflhan^Biink ^f Commerce did not become the creditor of the Exchange *^™"roo"^ Bank until the 6th of November, when the $8,000 note was protested for non-payment. At that time, the Bank of Commerce held certain notes for collection on account of the Exchange Bank, but it was not until January, 1884, long aPer the insolvency of the Exchange Bank, that any of these notes were collected At that time compensation could not take placb. ; --.--. Bamsat, J.: : ^ '— — - — -^-^^^-- There has been nothing whatever to show that the four notes were received by the Bank of Commerce as coll^^al security. On the contrary," there is an admissiori-tifflj notes were received for collection. — UndeLlheteS'icif^m stancesTthere could be no compensation .^n*il tfte l^iBiiount of the notes had been 'collected by the Bank of Commerce, and at that time the Exchange Bank was insolvent, and the question of compensation cou^d not arise. The judgment of the Court is as follows :— **• The Court, etc " Considering that the present action htis been institu- ted by the liquidators of the Exchange Bank^ained uri^er the provisions oi the Statute 45 Vict. ch. 23 (Canada), to recover from the respondents the sum of $40066, being the proceeds of certain drafts and promissory notes plaped with the respondents for collection ; " " And considering that although three of the said drafts and notes had been so placed withTiKe respondents before the appellants became insolvent, and the fourth was given to the respondents after the sajd appellants had stopped payment, but before any application for the appointment o{ liquidators was madoi yet the amount of the said drafts and notes was only collected and received Igr the said respondents after the appointment of the liquidators, to wit • part on the 4th of January, 1884, and the remainder on or about the 4th of February, 1884, after the insol- vency of said appellants and the appointment of said liqui- dators bad become a matter of public notoriety i "If PS- or not. The Bank )r of the Exchange h the $8,000 note lat time, the Bank ection on account atil January, 1884, ige Bank, that any time compensation show that the four merce as collj^iral admissioii>tiBP|the oeLlhefiiS ic wcpm- (X)UBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 481 1 .lentil tKe lliiount Jank of Commerce, vas insolvent, and ^ arise. )W8: — 1 h"as been institu- Bank^ained under ch. 23 (Canada), to a of $400.66, being issory notes placed ee of the said drafts respondents before le fourth was given Hants had stopped t)r the appointment nt of the said drafts leiyed Igr the said the liquidators, to and the remainder 84, after the insol- itmentof saidliqui- Qotoxiety ;, "^And considering that it is neither alleged nor proved >•»»• that iBftid drafts and, notes were placed with the respon- ExoUn^p«nk dents as collateral security or otherwise for the due pay- ^cSmm* we?' ment of any debt which the appellants might then owe, or which might thereafter become due by them to the re- spondents ; .-.■'_ '' " And considering that although the appellants were, on the 6th of November, 1888, indebted unto the respon- dents for a sum of $3,000, being tlie amouijt of :a ceidtaiin promissory note which matured on that day, and was duly' protested, yet the plei^by which the respondents claim that the sums which Jmeylhave collected for the appel- lants as above stated, and which are claimed by this action, were compensated by so much of the said sum of $3,^000 due by theappellants^o^ th e s aid r espondentH,iH nnfonnded, —i— - InaimucElus, by la%, no compensation could take place after the said appellants had become insolvent, and that, in the present case, the parties were not mutually debtors and creditors of each other, as required by law (C.C. llSt), for any sum of money, until the respondents received the amounts collected by them for the appellants on the 4th of January and 4th; of February, 1884, long after the insol- vency of the appellants and the appointment of said liquidators ; " And considering that there is error in the judgment rendered by the^^Gourt below on the 9th of February, 1885 ; " This Court doth reverse the said judgment of the 9th of February, 1885, and proceeding to render the judgment M^hich the said Court should have rendered, doth con- demn the respondents to pay to the appellants the sum of $400.56, with interest, etc." . ~ Judgment reversed. Greenshidds, McGorkill, Guerin Sf Greenshields, attorneys for appellants*. JWin L.. Aforris, attorney for respondents. ... I ! 1 / 1 ■i 1. r -: i t -% if ,. ..; . .■^SiAs i-^-^ y^ ■^^^.:::u '^JkioNTREAL LAW REPORTS. \ ' November 27, 1886. 1 ' Cttram DoRioN,Ji!ii. J., Monk, Ramsay, Tessier, Cross, JJ. • „ , /. • ■ , . THOMAS HEFFERNAN, {Defendant in Court belmo), Appellant; , AND MATTHEW WALSH, {Plaintiff in Court belm); Respondent. l^ScT^nrrankh^C^C.P. \nQ— Jurisdiction of the Courts. HitLn<:— 1. Under C. C P. lOltJ, any fiereon jnterMtted may bringaconi' plaint in the nature of a 91*0 ttwrf^jtito, whenever another person I surjis. intrudes into, oV unlawfully holds or exercise* any office in jny corporation, or other public body or board; whether such office oxisls under the common law, or was created in virtue of any statute or ordinance. Tlliejurisdictionof the courts of justice cannot be ousted Pave by ex- Srr'esa words in the statute incorporating such public body,- and a node of appeal provided by the by-laws does not, therefore, deprive ho members of their recourse befpre the drdinary tribunals, le membera of such body cjvmot be deprived of their votes for non- Ipayment of fines exigible under by-laws, without first having hid an opportunity to give their reasons why the fines should not be imposed, and further, without the fines having been formally pro-**: nounced. [rhe appeal was from a judgment of the CJourt of Re- view, Montre^. November 30, 1886 (Torrance, Bour- "oiois, MousstiAU, JJ.), reversing a judgment of the Su- perior Court (Mathieu, J.), October 8, 1886, and alinull- i ifg the election of appellant as first vice-president of the SI. Bridgjet's Total Abstinence and Benefit^ociety. I The qtiestion in the case was whether Mr. Heflfeman, the presJnt appellant, was duly elected vice-president of the*St Aidget's Total Abstinence and Beneifit Society on tte 4th January, 1886. The election in question was for one year. The society is a benevolent society, and mem- bers are not entitled to vote at an election of ^officers un- less wa< "b< "m "ai " y< yeai for Hei frie thai ist] Me "o» "Cfi "n< "ai "w "to " w the the "v< "b( "S< i broi be elec -. ^ mis rev, oft T the feri yot( left L - ■ . „ ■ nber 27, 1886. :ssiER, Cross, JJ. I, mrt below), AppeliAnt ; burt belino); Rbspondbnt. •v COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 488 on of the Courts. rted may bring a com- inever another peraon Bxercisea any office in 1 ; whether auch office n virtue of any statute be ousted pave by ex- :h public body,- and a not, therefore, deprive lary tribunals. of their votes for non- hout first having hiA lie fines should not be ng been formally pro-'^. the Court of Re- TORRANCK, BOUR- dgment of the Su- 1885, and afinnll- 3e-president of the efit'Society. ler Mr. Heflferaan, i vice-president of Beneifit Society on n question was for society, and mem- tiou of '^officers un- less they have paid (Cfl dues. In 1888, an amendment was , passed to the following effect : " That metnbera, to " be entitled to vote at the annual elections of officers, " must be clear on the. books, of all constitutional dues " and fines at the monthly meeting of December ih each " year." On the 4th January, 1885, the voting for that year took place. Heffernan and 'Walsh Were nominated for the office of first vice-president, and it appeared that Hefiernan^ had received 78 votes, and Walsh 69. The friends of Walsh protested while the election was going on, that illegal votes were being received. What took place is thus Recorded in the minutes : " The rev. director here left iiie hall , amLtheiist^of-voterfr was called. -Seme^ " Objection being made to certain members, who were " called, as not being qualified, the meeting became very " noisy, when the reverend director re-entered the hall " and took a seat on the platform. The calling of the roll " was then proceeded with; several parties were objected " to as not being qualified, but the rev. director said it " would be looked into after the election." Subsequently, the rev. director dismissed the appeal of Walsh against the return of Hefiernan, on the ground that " it was be- " yond his jurisdiction, not having been made by a mem- " ber of the St.*^^ Bridget's Total Abstinence and Benefit " Society, whose wrongs or rights as a member were to ^' be judged by the rev. director." A complaint in the nature of a quo warranto was then brought by Walsh, praying that the election of Hefiernan be annulled, and that the petitioner be declared duly elected* / Mr. Justice Mathieu, in the Court of first instance, dis- missed the action, on the ground that the decision of the rev. director was ^nal under the by-laws. The question of the validity of the votes was not entered into. * Th^ case was then taken to.the Court of Review, where the first judgment was reversed, and the election of H^fr fernan was annulled on the ground that eleven illegal Totes had been received for him, the deduction of which left him in the minority. V « 18M. Heflrnw^ Walsh. ■^\ \v r i. 1 'H' IKM. Heffornan .ii Wiilah. r "■" ■r-^fJIW j-^-^i 484 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. The judgment in Review is in the following terma :■;- " La Cour, apres avoir ei^endu le d6fendeur, Thomas Hfffernan, et le demandeur par leurs avooats respectifs, sur la demande du dit demandeur pour faire reviser le jugement ptononpfi dans cette cause par la Cour Su^ rieure sifegeant dans le district de Montr6al, le 8 octobre dernier, (1885); avoir bxaminfe la procedure et le dossier etd6lib6r6; L ^^ .- . " Attendu que le demandeur requferant a inteiitfe cette poursuite pour fair^annuler l'6lection du dfefendeur, Tho- mas Heffernan, coii\me premier vice-prfesident do la so- qualified so to do. / The mai^ question raised by this plea is whether o not it haf^ been proved that more than seven persons [that being the majority of votes by which appellai^t was de- clared elected] who were disqualified, voted at the elec- tion in question, and may have voted for aj^peUant. It maybe remarked here that the judgment ofHhe Court below does not give the office in dispute to respondent, heWt having succeeded in proving for whom the per- .sons he claims tq have been disqualified -vot^d. It how- » VOT^Bda thnt RlftYft B d is qualified persons voted at the ina. t , nelTrniMi *, Wiilib. M- \ \ T 4 IIUW. Ilxlhrniln Wiilih /•; I i 486 MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. election in question, and inasmuch as this number w greater than appellant's majority, declares his election null. The eleven votiars so de<>lared to have been disqualified, ar^ :— Thomas O'Neil, John Saunders, Thomas McCam- bridge, Willi im Fraser, Peter Quinn, K«!dmond Byrne, John fi Mason, William Turner, Michael Ouddy, Robert Richardson and P. P. J. Ford. Of these persons seven^ to wit, O'Neil, Saunders, McCambridge, Fraser, Qninn, Byrne and Mason, were by respondent's bill of particu- lars alleged to be disqualified by reason of their having been absent from the F4f)s Dieu Procession, and not hav- ing paid a fine therefor ; one, Cuddy, because of absence from both the F6te Dieu and St. Patrick's Day pro|[»8 were never fined, but it do,e8 not even appear that*°thi.y were liable to be fined. How then, can they be held disqualified for non-payment of a fiivt^ never imposed qh them,- and to which it is not even shown they were lialfle. H. Meicier, Q. CI, for th6 respqudent. RAM8AY, J. (for the OouW The appellant warf elected first viceipijesident of "St.. Bridget's total Abstinence and Benefit Society," and res- pondent petitioned to have his eltj^ipn- declared null, on the ground of the jllogality of fluffideni votes to place appellant in a minority of the votes rast,"or at any rate to render it uncertain whether he had a majority. of votes or not. This petition was met by several pleas, i First, It is said that no writ ot quo warranto would lie at common law to question the occupation of an oflBce in a private company. It signifies not whether thiis proposition be correct or not. Art. 1016. 0. G. P., enacts that any person interested may bring a complaint whenever another per- son usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises any office in any corporation, or other public body or board, whether such office exists under the common law, or was created in virtue of any statute or ordinance, and the writ oiquo warranto is assimilated to any ordinary writ of summons. We have decided this point already ■a- ■:'. - . ■ ,- . - \-;- s. were flveii 1 that thoy vfUr^ Utit that ra !»♦■ OOURT or QUREND DENCII. 480 once ihjia term in the case of OUnumr 4* i^'itt (') in thii sense. raa also pleaded that a by-law of the «o<;iety, recog- nized /by statute, ^ave an appeal to the director of the institiution, whose dtuision was to be final. It has been held over and over again by this Court, that the jurisdic- tion/of the Courts could not be ousted save by express words. m the metits it seems that the objection taken to the voters is, that they were not qualified to vote if they owed anfy dues or fines, and that a certain number of members (siifficient to turn the fate of the electidn) had voted :ho had beciome liable to be fined Tor the alleged omis'- to perform certain duties imposed on them by the lies of the society, unless within one or other of cort/in ^exceptional cases. It does not aplnear that these persons were" ever called to account for these onlissions, or that the fines were imposed. I don't think this is a disqnali- fici^ition, and therefore t think the flection must stand. It seems that on two occasions we hay;e decided this tnatter of fines in this sense. We are to reverse. The judgment is recorded as follows : — " La Cour, etc "Consid6raut qu'i^ I'^lection qui a eu lieu le 4 Janvier 1886, d'un membre do la 3oci6t6 d'Abstinence Totald et de B6n6fice de Ste. Brigitte (St. Bridget's Total Abstinence and Benefit Society), pour choisir un premier vice-presi- dent de la dite soc'i6t6, I'appelant, Thos Kefferuan, ayant obtenu une^ majority de sept voter sur I'intimg, son con^ current, a 6t6 d6clar6 61n par le president de Tassemblde ; " Et consid^rant que I'appel donn6 par la constitution et les rdglements de la soci6t6 au directeur de la soci6t6^ ue prive pasceux d'entre les membres qui sont I6s(§8, de leur recours devaiit les tribunaux ordinaires, et que Tin- tim6 avait le droit de se pourvoir devant la Oour Sup6- rieure pour faire adjuger sur la validity de la dite §lec' tiou ;::.:..:..■., .• .;■....,.,_.-■ '^ , ■ .- ;■,; ■ llaffiriiMi k. ■/.'s * « ^i r J . f v« '•fw 490 MONTREAL L/fW RKIVRT& V , IW. H«ff*rn«n A WkIiiIi v .?r " Maia ooiuidferant qnil n'oBt pa* prouv* ijuo lea nom- in6« Thoniaa O'^Teil, John HauiwIflM, Thomaa Mc(^ani- Hridffo. Win. Kra««r, IVtor Quinn, Kaympnd I{yrn«. John ly Mairbn, Wm Turnor. Midhnol (luddy, Ilobt Uii hardnyu «l ti J, Ford (taiinjt d6(|ualiH^ A vot«r A la dito Election pour n'avoir piw payfe lornydo la dite election certaine* amendea que I'intiin^ pr^twnd qu'il* avaitmt encioumi«» pour infraction aux riglfmontH d« la dit« Hocifel^ ; " Kt cotinid^rant qu'il n'«nt paa prouv6 quo cos prfiten- dues amondes niont jnmaiH 6t6 pronon<'6e« contro leu raom- bres ci-deaRUB norom^s do la dit'o Boci6t6. ni qu'ils aiont jamaiH Hf^ roquin do donnof lours raiHons pdtir lonquolUw 068 amendt-H no lour soraiont pna impoB^ea ronlormfmont , aux rdglomontB de la dite 80oi6tfe, et qu'en conH6guen«o ilfl no dovaiont patt tyes amondes lorB do la dite 6l6ction, et n'6tatent pait d^qualifi^a k voter po\ir I'C'loction d'un premier vice-pr68ident de la (fito Boci6t6 ; -, •• Et t»On8id6rant que rappolant a.6t6 6lu premier vice- prftsident do In dite hocifet^ par^la mtyorit^ des mombrOH pr&idntB k lu dite aHsembl^ (jW,a^vaieut le drqifc^e voter k la dite election J , i ' ' / " Et consid^rant qu'il y ft errtur dans le jugement rendu par la Cour Sup6rieure Bii&goant k Montreal comme Oour de rfevision le 80e jour d^ novembre 1885 ; '^Gette Cour casse ot annule le dit jug^dment du 30 novembre 1886, et coiifirmant lo jugement rendu par la Cout Sup6rioure A M.o|htr6al le'^Se jour d'ootobre 1885, renvoie la demande. ou requdte libell6e du dit intimd, et le condamnc k payor i I'appelant les frais enconros tant en Cour de premiere ^nstanoe qu'en Cour de revision, et sur le pr^sejit appol/ (Dmentiente I'hoQ. M. le juge Te8- ■ sikb)." ■ ' -- / ■ ■ t'- '^--J^^ ■:■ / Judgment of 0. R. .reversed. Doherty S( DoherM attorneys for appellant. Mercier, Beausoleil &• Martmeau, attorneys for respondent. w IB. V , •av^ ({MO U*» nora- ThoniM Mc(>iini- nontl Hyrn«, John , IL»bt. UichardKQii k U dito 6lt)ction election uertainPH iivaumt enoonraeH Ui HocifelA ; r(s quo (M!H pr6t«n- ea contro leu mom- it. 111 qu'ilfl ninnt lis pdtir loRquelltw 6ea ('onrorin('m«Mtt [u'en couH6guen»i) <> la dite Election, rfr rC'h'ction d'un I 6lu premier vice- Drit^ des membreH t le drqiJjHiie voter / le jugement rendu itrfcal comme Oour 85; : jng^dment du 80 mtiui reuda par hi ir d'ootobre 1885, ) da dit intimd, et rais enconros taut our de revision, et on- M. le juge Teb- )f C. R. reversed. tllant. ys for respondent. ■l/ Vf «^ ' •i.K^ :^ jj> /'■■* / ... »• ^ OOirttT OK QUEKNII BKNCH. 0% IV V • '^ptember 81, 1886. CWrtm DoRioN. C. J . Monk, Hammay, Orohh, Baby, JJ. ; OEOH(JE aTKlMlIilN ht al., ' • {O/i^mnis in Court btlmn), -*-* Al'l'KU*ANTM} AW P -^^ . ■. LA lUNQUIC D'lIOCIIELAOA, '?|g . , ■ ^ T {PlanUiff amttaUag opiH»Uian), i'ii:,- Remtondknt. Railway — Execvtit In aaold mt ' a whole. 'fht! judgment appealed from, whereby opposants' oppo- sition was dismissed on demurrer, was rendered in the Superior Court, Montreal, on the 29th of December, 1884 (MoussKAU, J.j, as follows :— " La Cour, aprds avoir entendu les opposuits et la de- manderesse pur leu rs avocats, sur la contestation en droit de I'opposition ; avoir examind Ja procMure et d6lib^r6s "Consid^rant que I'al legation que Ton a fait un pro--' longemcnt k la voie ferr^e saisie en cette cause depnis la saisie, et que Ton ne doit pas en cous^uence procMer k la vente de la partie saitie, ue fonruit pas maiiire A une Qpposition ; "Gonsid^rant que la dite opposition est mal fondle en droit ; maintient la dite contestation, et renvoie la dite opposition, avec d6pens, distraits, etc." May 26, 1886.J OH^lamm Q- O^ for appellants :-* The plaintiff -having obtained a judgment against the Montreal, Portland jg Boston Railway Company, seized in execution :> '^.v i^ ^. ■■ . ^v-'.' 1886. Stephen A La Biinque d'llooheiHga % I , * 1- 1- 1 492 ^V: ONTREAL LAW REPORTS. /' " That part of the1i|ontreai, Portlaiift & Boston Railway, " formerly kqown as h^ing the. Montreal, Ghainbly and " Sorel Railveay, situate ajad being in the counties of " Chambly, distrigt of Montreal, of Rouville, district of " St. Hyacinthe, cbtinty of Iberville, 'district of Iberville, ,;' and .in the county of Missisquoi, district of Bedford, " reaching from its junction with the Grand Trunk Rail- " way, in the parish of St. Antoine de Longueuil, in the " concession called la Grand Ligne,.to and on lot of land " number nine ih the second range of ^^the township of " Stanbridge in the said county of Mfceuisquoi, district of " Bedford,; being a strip of land of sixty fsix feet in width " by a length of about forty-three miles, more or lees, "English measure." - . > f The railway in question commences ai the *own of ' Longueuil, ejtetoding to Chambly, Marieville, West Farn- ' ham, Stanbridge^ Frelighsburg, to the province line on th^ Vermont frontier in St. Armand East, a distance of aboi^t sixty-seven miles. It is shewn by the procis-verbal of seizure,'that only a " part " of the railway isseized, to wit, that part, beginning at its junction with the Grand Trunk Railway, about four miles from Longueuil, fts northern terminus, and terminating at StanbHdge, about twelve miles ^hort of its^uthern terminufl ; that is to say, the part seized is about forty-three i^iles, of the middle of the railway, beginning at no statibn, and end^g at no station, leavi^ig a piece at both ends as w6ll as ^branch of nine mileii, between Marieville and St C6saire, un- seized^ ^ : ]>|; ,;?J\.^;.-7:; ■;;.:-:^/' j;.;:- ■■;■■;;■ . .4,,^^' The oppo^ahts are bond holdersji mortgage creditors of the railwayf It is evident from tfie feet that the Railway Qompany aje allowing the railway to be sold on an execu- tion for some three or four thousand dollars, that the com- pany is hoi^lesly insolvent, and it is so alleged in oppo- sants' bppokiUon. " _1 . ^* ^ "^^^^^ that in the present case, the opposants, as Mortgage preditors, can urge all grounds of qppositiofi «• pertainingj to the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor 18 wititled to hava his property sold to the bflnti jwuiiiM^ If- ■ m~ BiV. ;.. / :^ > ;■/. •^ Boston Railway, Bil, Ghainbly and the counties of iville, district of trict oif Iberville, itrict of Bedford, rand Trank Rail- •ongueuil, in the ad on lot of land the township of squoi, district of six feet in width B8, more or lees, at the 4;own of "" rille, "WestParn- ' province line on 3t, a distance of the procis-verlftU way is^seized, to with the G-rand I Loh^nenil, its tanbndge, about U3 ; that is to say, s, of t'hjp middle nd end#igatno vv^\l as ^branch St. C^saire, un- .: ■ ■:'.■■■■ :-■ ■■•■ jW.' fage creditors of hat the Railway old on an execU' rs, that the corn- alleged in oppo- [ie opposants, as - Is of qppositiofi indgmeo^ debtor f COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCa 498 ISM. advantage. A railway is an indivisible immoveable as much as a dwelling house. If it can be seizf^ in parcels, Stephen why seize and advertise to sell m bfoc, forty-three miles of dhjJSSilIUm. ' Tialway Ml an execution for $4,000 ? Why not advertise to sell only so much as may be sufficient to satisfy the execution ? This would be absurd, r ^ It is true, the railway was not all completed at the , ^lime of the seia^re. But the respondent did not seize all ' thut was theol completed, as is alleged in the opposition. . At the time of. the seizure, the four miles between the G-rand Trunk Junction and Longueuil was completed but lias not been incltided in the seizure ; since the seizure, the entire railway has been completed, together with a braucA of nine miles between Marieville and St. ^6saire. The iM>ntention of the appellants is, that the railway being an indivisible immoveable, it should be seized, if ._ Seizable at all, in such manner as not to destroy its entity* . ^elow, and we thinly iinder the circiypstances it was. rightly admitted into the recokl. . - The Seizure was of a part of a railway, and the question was as to whether, a portion of a i;ailway could be taken • in %ecution iu this way. 6a the merits, we are'^with 7 ■,.• .... ,: ■^■ as a railway, a ies, and not as a d into a church C, for respon- " the execution topped by oppo- the proceedings first instance." ly alleged that quent to the pro- r$t instance. The irely on the fact ae of railway in m made subse- ly have justified authorizing the the porti^ of in no way be a It seemb toi be T at th& time it' iny subsequent ^Superior Court the ground that ssary to dispose ore us, namely, r speaking, this I be filed by the Instances it was. nd thequestioii could be taken ks, we are*" with O^BT OF Qp BEN'S BENCH. ^96 1888 appellant. In the case of Dnmmond Sf South Eastern Rail- loay company (') the question was whether a railway could ^"'5|'"" be sold at the suit of the holder of mortgage bonds made in d^ffJohifto. conformity with a Statute allowing the railway to be mort- i gaged to secure J he payment of these bonds ; and we held that it could be sol^. In England, under a statute some- what similar to ours, the courts have always held that it was the rail wiiy as a railway that was mortgaged, and that the sale could not operate the destruction of the corpora- tion. We iiilly recognized that this is what the statute should have said ; but we lelt that under the terms of our statute, such an interpretation would destroy the security given to the bondholder by the statute, and therefore we held that the railway could be seized in execution of a S judgment obtained by a bondholder. In this case, we have - to decide whether a railway can be seized as a^trip of land. We think not. It is an indivisible thing, and can only be sold as a whole. Since our judgment in the case referred to. Parliament, evidently seeing .the difficulty as to the form of words in use heie, recognizes the power to take in execution of a judgment obtained at the suit of a bond- holder, the whole or a section of a railway specially mort- gaged for the payment of the bonds, and psuvides what the effect of this sale shall be: 46 yic, c. 24, sections 14, 16 and 16. ■'"'. We think, therefore, that the judgment mu^ be reversed and the seizure declared null ; but as the opposition is filed too late, thus putting the respondent t;o considerable costs, the judgment will be reversed withoiiit costs. , The judgment is in the following terms:—- / " The Court, etc. < . • "Considering that the opposition afin (tannuler m this case made by appellants, has been, allowed to be filed by ' ' ; the court below ; and considering that the said opposition is well founded in law, and that a railway cannot be seized and sold in part, even on a judgment by bond- Vholders, except in accordance with the dispositions of the \n [ I 7 ( If i [ Ml ,.:\ 196 MONTREAL LAW REFORTa 1 Stephen t. ■ ¥ ■ f . special statute anthorisiilg the creation o^ such mortgage - or hypothec ; * s "And considering there is error in the judgment of the Superjqr Oourt, to wit, in the judgment cf the 29th Dec- ember, 1884, doth reverse the same, and proceeding to render the judgment which ought to have been render^, doth maintain the said opposition, and doth grant main lev6e of the seizure in the said opposition mentioned. ,6ut considering that the said opposition was filed after^the expiration of the usual ajad legal delays, to the cost and . inconvenience of the party respondent, the said opposi- tion is dismissed, each party paying his own costs, as v^ll in- the court below-as-in this Court." | ' ' ' Judgment reversed. O'HalJoran Sr Duffy, attorneys for Appellants. . Hatton if Kavanagh, attorneys fpr Respondents (J.K.) i:"- t' ^J— % ■^K— .,iv;._J!:*l^^„u__.^-, ■^ I such mortgage judgment of the c f the 29th Dec- d proceeding to e been render^, doth grant main mentioned. .But 8 filed after^the I, to the cost and . the said opposi- wn costs, as v^ll aeht reversed. Hants. . •ndenti "-;.tf W^ f* X See Procbdi^ L ^ To Svpreme Court] ISee RaBPomUjuiLiTv, 133. :■- - . <: . ' \\ . - . See PB&on>int% 169. 4< ^ ^ ASBITBATIO]!f.> v IneguUsriiiett-'AequiiweAee.] Where the pwrties agreed to submit their diflferenoes to arbitraton and mediston, and notwithstand> ■■ ing seaions imgtdarities on ti^e part of the mediatois,^ ptoceedsd ' ' with tbs arbittstion, it waa too late tonninY >mti nf the imsmla^ itiflk alter the auraid was rendered. ~ " 'Voun.Q.B. RdaaMdeQHMy,7ai. 82 Jv W r. V :i' I ; f I' '1 •f..l ■ 't J if 1 'ii^ MS^t"; 498 ' iNBK ; ASSAULT. \ &< Dawaqu. MeoKure of, l07. BATTK. • v/- ?■ V Notet received by Bani'for voUeolufn.] 1^ GdiiPBNSAlrioii, 476. BANK IN LIQUIDATION. ' 1^ iNaoLTBNT Bank, 400. BENEFIT SOCIETY. See Elbction, 483. BREWER'S LICEN8K ' iSeeGomrmmoNAL Law, 381 ■ BROKER. . . Su Gam iNo Contraot, 170. CAPIAa SpeeUU bail under C. Q. P. 6U—SiiUetnent Mnd declaration umler 0. a p. 7tf8.] Held, (approving Poilet v. LamOre, 6 Q. L. R 314), that a defendaiit who haa given special baif onder C. C. P. 824, is not bound to file a statement and make, the declai»tion men* , T > tlonecLtn articles 764-766 C. C. P., anA cannot be in contempt for faillng.to do BO. Vindttirg di Jtan>om\Mlli, CARRIEiy' ^ ^ / ^ ^ - Jjgwy to Potiengef.] A.cbmpany engaged in the conveyapoe of , passengers is responsible for injuries sustained by a passenger : while being carried in the company's nahicle, onleas it be proved by the company that it was impossible ibr them to prev^t the accident. MotUreal City Pumenger Ry. Of>. Ss inoin, 206. See Railway Cohpant. CASHIER OF BANfL ■ , Acquieteenoein Act of.) See Pbincipal a^d Aoint, 64. CHARTER IPARTY. . Devialwn from eourae of voyageJ] See Shx^pimo, 420. OOMMERCIAI/ TRAVELLI:R. Pfivil^e o/J| See PuTiunai Ain> Hn ,466. i COMPENSATION, i" , Damaget «u^«rixl by tenant.] Wiieie a tenant was entitled by a- clatisa'of.the lease, to become proprietor of the premises leased on payment of a specified som,, it was held that \A could not plead to an'actton of ejetitment.'^that saiAam wa^ compensated by damages su£Ebred by him thriiMigh the intotoption of his bqsineak Bd&Cowt,^. -" " Natet ree^ved by 'Bank for ooOeetion.] Where drafts and notes mm pUo e d with • banfc by m debt 9 > of th> bankt not — aoH» % J INDEX. ..■f."A*v*i 476. ^99 CpMPEN8ATI0N-ekm«n««*. teral seourity, bat for oolieotmn, oompaAifttion does not take place until the bank has recyapce of passenger be proved 9v^t the tied by •- les leased could not npensated* ion of his and notei i M d^lte - ^Brewer'a lieenk) The power of the Domlhlc^fUliament to legislate as to the^ regulation of trade and commerce do^s not prevent the local Iftgislature firom passing an Act obliging a brewer to takfe out a loqal license permitting him to sell beer or ■\ t' ' ale manufactured by kim, whether he sells such beer at hi« brewery, or elsewbere by a person paid by a commission on the sales; and thereJTore the Quebec License Act, 41 Vi""■■' ;■■;,../,■'--■';.} ■Angmtkofmind.} An instmction to the jury, ihat aogttish' .,26r - M et u mn e /.] Wlie te Umre is n'right o f an t lBu ih f t t i l|Hng iin. t -■<♦" '%?-" 600 IHBSZ. DAMAGES— CbrUinttfd. ■ault, »nd no matorial daniag* haa Itoen done, and th« iMraon aaaaulted rafuses all Mttlomnni, and begins and thon abandons a proaecution before a mafciatrate, in cider to bring an action of damagoN, tl>o (!ourt will reduce damages which liave no raaaon- able nioaaure to such a sum aa would be iimioHed aa a flue by a magistrate. Fapineau xfc THber, 107. Forfalie orrw*.! Sfc Fai-he Arrht, 888. , Indireel daimget nuffered htj tenant.] See LnsoR and Lbbbex, 80. UAavihorimi mle of »hare».] iSe« AcriOM, 291. DEBENTURE. ' * ^C M0Miai*AL DUINTUIUK, 100. DOMICILE. V ilfafrtmonta/.] To constitute a matrimonial domicile there must be tlie fact of residence coupled with the intention to remaip in the place. Whore the husb^xl declared by the act of marriage that his domi olle was in Quebec, such declaration in the presence of theoiHcer who performed the ceremony, and whose duty it was to ascertain and set forth th<^doinicile of the pftrties married, must be considered a formal declaration of intention suffloie&t to establish the matrimonial domicile. Wadiworth n)l(er diticioaea no purchaaer or pri i- cipal, lio will be ooiisiiiered the iiriuoipal aa regarda, the par y contracting to deliver, and no action will lie by the broker I >r the reoclrery ofad0%ienoy upon the tranuaction. MtuxlougiU dcDenter$, 170. 2. Speadatiw franmctim unfor«8e< n causes coiije to be aeltlwlrby differences. But if, in contempt i- tion of the parties, they are ai their inception intended to ie speculative transactions, to be seitled by adjustment of prio » according to the rise or fall of the Ittarket^ ancT^ot by delivery < >t the subjects bought or sold, they bebome giimbling transaction i, • and, under C. C. 1927, there is no right of action for the recover r -of money claimed thereunder. Maodougall «t Demer$, 170. GARNISHMENT. » ' ■ j>» for failing to produce effects of which ho had , been appointed j;uardian, petitioned for a writ of habeat corpv»\ on the groand that the warrant under which he was committed,! contained no enumeration of the efibctei he was reqnii«d to pro-l . duoe. Hdd, that the ^titioner being imprisoned under process I in a civil matter, the Coort had no authority to grant a writ of hahea$eorpw, (Q. G P. 1052.) Ex parte Ward, ^(». HOTEL-KEEPER ■• . - ' BetpotuibaUy of, for negligence of gufut.] See Rma^jiraiBiUTy, I38r ILLEGAL ARREST. ^ " * ProlxMe eau»e.i Where the respondent converted to his own use certain straw bought ^y him with money fiimished to him by appellant and inten4ed for appellant's benefit, there was probable cause fpr his arrest. ^QmOand & Ledere, 865. rZ C::,,: CompMnt diamiued format qf juriedietion.} Where a person ; Wb an information before^)>i| aoe o f. the peace, that a crime X^ ' has been committed for whicKsacb justice has general jariadio* "^-^jtion, and the justice f^ntji a wteraat &pon which the aocosed is arrested, bat he is aiterwlrda imh"Vi^ "pffn the gwmnd' that '7 i'i ' I 602 INDEX. 4- >' ^ ILLEGAL ARREST— Cbnrtnwd. th»JuaU(M h« pended payment, drew chei- tratio^ for the assessment of damages is a waiver, under 43 Vkt ' (Q.) cb. ep, ». 44, of nullities known to the company before ttie * appointment of experts, die. d^Au^Krance S Vaienemie, S9. 2. On houmhold effeett.] Where on huurance , was effected on » house, summer kitchen, and shed, with all the household e^flbcts " contained in said hoaae," the insurance covered eflbcts which , bad been temporarily removed firomt^ house to the kitchen ~' ' and shed, bat were stiil on the premises insured. Oie. i -3> i IXDl 608 X a no IN81JR A N( rE. >FT11R- Am«n««I. miiun 1)1 «Mli«ngn for • raoeiiit for hU Individual m- pany. Citumt /m. Co. plicant sUted himself to be of temperate and aober habtta. It was proved that ho became intemperate durlny the year pr»* ceding his death. //«/n>|Mrly bn Uknn iato tx>iMiiliirKti<>n by Uiaiii In uatiniatiiiK tho iImiiiiiki« which ■hould bo olkiwiKl to tlui widow, b not iniadirvcUoo. /toMMon . 11. a>^ 95. I 2. KsHwAon of nitimetJ] Whnre a witnfMM arriviMl after thn avid-' •UOB at th« trial waa oliiarti, but Iwfont the Jury wera cbarK«d, th« •iolual0D of hia t«Mtunony waa h«ild not in lt4«lf • ■uiUuiunt < KTOumi for allowing a now trial ; bat thin rnlevanoy and lni|N>r> , tanoa of tiiMnvif«|»aron« of tho Jii«|L in the conrw ~ of the trial, |mt a ({ueation to a witiieaa which )Bi|wanMl to itt-^ ^cata a kwnlnK to the aide of tlie plaintiff, and Oil.ftinher air> (^matanon that the jury pruimntoil tho plaintiff With tlieir oWn felM after the venlint waa x'von, are not aiich inilii:ationa of biaa or partinlity aa tA conatitule Kroonda for a new tkla|. JtoMnaon ■'7 %' tEQACY. Rnoe^im oJ.\ See Will, 349. LESSOR AN^ LESSEE. 1. Damdiget.] The damage* which a teaant i!an claiQni for non fbl- i* fliment of a condition of tho lease muat be the Immediate and direct conaoquenco of auch inexacution. IMt A- Omrt, 80. 2. ^Mtment by ftroprieUfr of wtdimdad ht^-l A proprietor par in4in$ haa a rixht to l^^ring an action of ejectment aKalnat a peraon j holding the property aolely by Ui^ will of the ,coproprietor.j Sljtfntd;Ron,379. \ I i . 9. Tr^ejlferetux wUk kMk-f'B et^}oyment of premiaet.'] WhaM the iMMor in^ Bliking repain to the leased premises, used material whic^ emitted a diaaftrenable odour wid damaged ^le stock of the le 'grrocMT, held, that the latter was entitled to have the lease jinded and to recover the amount of damagea sustained by hii: tat In BiMib oircpmstanoes the more regular ooufao is that the kiwald patttie leasor en demeure to remove the cauaaof lage, before bringing an action in reailiation of the leas6/wid /to recover damages. Daigtteau de Levetqm, 205. LICENSE ACT (QUEBEC). : Brmer't Liemte.] .See CoMnrrtmoNAt Law, 38L LUieiaus BIGHT. \ . / v / fikife q^.] G. C. 158(4 3 4, which atateejthift " the provisiiins of C. C 1682 do not apply when the judgment of a court hai been rendered affirming the right," refen to a judgment u^lon the j ^ . particular denutnd lA litigation, and not to a judgmMit a^bmingy i . ' snotbcr light of a aimilAr eharsoter. Brady dc Stewart, 2t2. ■ .'I /*-v ■T. km Uknn , iM which i chaniMl, iilttluimit (I liiipor* 1 to |{iv(t 3d., 3B. i» iirvix. 8M ■«. LOCATION TICKET. OtmctUuHtm c/.] A looatlon tlckat of cnrUin lola wm grutUd to Q.V. H; in I WIS. In 11174, th« (:<|ininiaiilun«r of Crown Unda ^/-t rafflatArmi a irmtufl^ of th«i location tickAt from (I. a H. to i«»»^./ poiulaiit. Ill LH7H, tlMCoinnilaaioii«r(;aiuwll«Mlt)ialation ticket for tion waa imaily tiffiwtMl. Hot* A IMtand, 'iUl MASTER AND SERVANT 1. Injury to employee— Ontu proltaruU.] The dufondanta were oon' Btnicting a building in th« city of Montreal, and at their aoUoltai tion, men (of whom the plaintiff waa one) wura aeht by the Ctty -Corporation to introdu4» iwater from the atreot by a pipe oon-' netting witli thn building. Thia troiild not be done without working inaidu aa well oa oiitaide. A workman paaaing along the wall, above where the plaintiff was working at th» pipe hole* looannod and atarted a brick in thn wall, and tho brick, falling , and no mrry oat Torp. QiU adcannojt be futare< to a railA impoBod \;^ mode o( \ lich these \ d tender. V .-■ >f France onite or, le regard j not -'been ' since the irbo had, oe of th« : partner^ ^ ' IMDBI. sot ' ^ : -■'-■ . ..-,. . .f.:.. i:' PHARMACY ACT, QUEBEC— CVmKtMMd. ^ ■hip with hia brother apdiiv;hia brother's name, waa entitled, under sect 8 of the Act, to be registered as a licentiate of phar- macy. Sect- A most be constraed as applying to those who have iAepoJfy practised as chemistH and druggists, and it was imma- terii^ whether the appellant had practised in his own name or v., in a partnership contrary to law, the illegality in either case ^ being ooveled by the Act Brmia & VAuoeiation PAarmaceu- V ' ttqiie, 392ji '-^.^ .._ :.. . . .. , ,| ,;^:; PLEDGR ° ■[' Without ddivery of potieition.} SuBav»,332. PRESCRIPTION. : i 1. Action to annui aak 6y minor.] See Tutob and Minob, 228. 2. hUenvption of— Foreign judgment.] A judgment obtained in a fiueign country upon a inomissory note made therein has the effect of interrapting prescription. Almour & Harris, 430. ntlNCIPAL AND AGENT. 1. Aequietcence and Batifieation.] A principal- may, by ratidcation < of his agent's act, or even by tacit acquiescence, make himself: responsible to a third party for an act of his agent in 'Excess of his authority. Panque d^Epargnee & BanqueJacquea'CHrtier, 64. & Authority of Agent.] The purchaser of a car load of barley paid the price thereof to the vendor's agent from whom he received the grain, and who moreover Was named in the bill of lading as ^ the consignea Hdd, that the bill of lading ooostitated a written authority to the consignee to control the consignment,' and hav- ing delivered it, to receive the price ; and his receipt was a valid ^jjMsharge to the purchaser. Lambert A Seott, ^W. 3. Ri)ker not ditdoring principal^ See Oaunq CoNTRACrr, 17(K 4. BetponribilUy for aot$ of peridn managing burintu.] The appel- lants set up a firm of "J. H^ Wilkins & Co," which by privste agreeAient was their own%is&ite8, with J. H. Willuns as man- ager, but to the public, the business was that of J. H. Wilkins dc Co This firm bought goods fhjm respondent, the price of which was claimed by the present action. Held, that the appellants were liable for the obligations'bf the firm of J. H. Wilkins & Co., and for the acts of J. H. Wilkins who was entrusted with the management Lewie et at. & (hborn, 858^ PRIVILEGES AlU) HYPOTHECS. PriviUge of commereUd traneOer.] The privilege of a oonunercial . traveller for wages, under C C. 2006, which was maintaUied by ' the Court below (M. L. R, 1 S. C. 191) not determined by the Court of Appeal, but doubted. Hei/nmaa A Hwtrie, 460/. PROBABLE CAUSE. M iSw IixUAL Abbst, 366. ■ ' ' PROGEDURR 1. ABegation ofnewfactt tn ngpheaHon to xmnBer.] A plaintiff who 'A- ! 568 IMDBZ. ■■»■ PROCEDURE— Cton(int4Ai. .J ' has contested an opposition, may, by speoial replication to op- posant's answer to contea^tion, allege a Judgment in another canae between opposant and plaintiffs debtor, which decides the litigation between opposant «nd contestant, where such judg- ment has been rendered since the filing of the contestation, more especially if in the contestation and answer reference was made to the other cause, and the, opposant did not complain in the Court below of the irregularity of the replication. Bouchard ^■-i'X M ■■ ~tt fi;: A.. * ■A . / ion to ofH in another lecides the such jadg- ition, more was made ain in the louehard & not lie dir- I fropa the he protho- mtainedin 1. h. qoeatioQ' neaning of I. Whe^ ointed one protest or lave acqui- re .ground inted three niahee has answer to ?. 619, h^ i a sam )n turee is to Dt ex parte ,4. debt. See iaefuptifet is regular, led. Nor- Bsory note ied,unlQB8 utte. And . id finally^ ' examine pplicationi be ground / grieTaaoe./ ly bepre^ tm of the IIVDXX .600 PROCEDURE^CbnlintiAl, wiitrif notioe of the faiotion has been given within the four dayji. ■ , OmneeHeut & iVufum/Mie mxmtt.tL. Co. y. South EaaUim BR. Ck, ,106. 2: A non-resident defimdant is entitled to security for costs froltn a non-residen^ plaintiff. lb., 10b. 8. Where a non-resident defendant has been summoned by ' advertisement under O.C.P. 08, the four days run from the expi- ration of the two months within which he is ordered to appear, 'j ' and if such delay expires within vacation, the delay runs from Septl. Jfe. 106. 4. Where a defendant, after giving notice of motion for security < for costs, pleads without reserve of his right, he waives his right to security. 76. 106. 10- Seeurity-~Appeal lo Stqjtrenu Court.} Onan appeal to the Supreme ^^ i||^urt of Canada, personal security is suflBcient Wheeler de Black, \ aiaized and sold, except in accordance with the dispositions of the special statute aathorixing the creation of the hypothea ^ Slqthm '!& La Banque d^Hochdagct, 4191. RAILWAY COMPANY. ^ ! ; \^ ' PUmenger jmnpingfrom Train m mofton.] Even wbete a railway comp«my is in fault for not stopping ite train at 4 stetion to wycb it contnwted to carry a paasanger, neverflwleBH the company is r ■ * •BIO INDBt. \. ': > % Ji .. . ' ,; .^1 1 !• , l- l \ t i '-^ \ r 1 . i • fU' ■ afej ' ^{3 ' 12 ' ' ' * E . 1 rLWAir OOHPAlfT— QonttntMri. , ■ Bot respoDsible fta injariea retieived by the paaaenger In jamping from the train f^^ile in motion, aach damages being the raault . aolelv of ^ iMuaenger's Impradenoe. CmtMi^ Vermoni BR. and ^Lareau,268.^ ., -" • \. «EGlflTEATION. • -^ ['■^'-'^'r^y ■'■"^'V: i. •• ' Emetoal of— Beat Right.] The renewal of registrati^ of any real \ \' • right, required by CG. 2172, tiaa no reference to a right in the property itself, such as a servitude Qf drain thi||ugh a property, ' ' eattiblishedby deed in bvoc of a neighboudi^ property. Wheder d£Blaek,139. - , *- . . « • ■ . . ■ , ' . : ' Stt Saui k RiMfeRi^ 450' ' , « f - " ' - ; RESPONSmitlTy. ' . - ^ ' Injuxty to Bamenger^ iSIm Cakribr, 208. '* t' ' Ofjtdmur of hor^.l ' Aliotel-lceeper, from whom a guest °>hire8 a — horse and vehicle for the purpose of taking a dri^e, is not resjpoi)' Bible for the negligencf) of -his ^uest while driving the anmial. BHiveau & Mar1ineau,\9&. ^ * " \, ^MaOTEBANdSbBiIaNT; R^ltLWAy COMPANT. .' > revendIcation. ' -• ' - . Ti i^foeahUttoid (^ Jvdi4?ial Sale.} See JoDioiAL Salb, 446t ♦ . ■ ■ l-v WW SAISIE-ARR&T. .' ^ '''^gainit good$ of trader who ha» made voluntary auignmmt''] i, . InboLvknt Tbadkb, 4fl6. QmUtUUionof declanUio\of gamithee.] SeeVl&xm>vaa,A. See SALE. 1. i' .if ' . 2. A rtmirt.'] A creditor may exercise the right of redemption in the pliu» of his debtor, and if a judgttient is rendered between the debtor and purcbitoer fixing the amount payable to the pur- chaser in order to obtiCin the retrocession, the creditor may have the advantage of such' judgment And if the immoveable has .been dllaiut by the purchaser and sold by the Sheriff, and the < purchaser has \feeia collocate^ for the sums paid' by him, the creditor of the veddor ibay have the collocation reduced to the amount fixed by the judgment granting th^ rimtri-' If the moneys in Court are sufficient to satisfy the purchaser's claims, the creditor is notljtound to tender him the amount which the vendor was bound to* pay htm in order to obtain the retrooession of the immoveable. Bouchard di Lajoie, 460. Delay in delivery— DUigenee.} The appellants, of Chatham, Oni, through brokers at MontrewKontbe 6th of July, sold a carga of >heat, to be shipped by'^sai^^' soon as (;he vessel' could be secured, and to be delivered at MontreaL Tl^ wheat did not arrive at MontMal ontilf August 16, when the re8po|)HlBntB refused '\ ' . ":V V - tKDSZ. 611 !• •Vf' itvhires a }t respoi)' -—— ■' "** ,« ./ « f*r ; tOAooept The •ppellanto had «n 4. VfUltout delivery of pQSMMiton;] ' B., whO' waa the principal pro- prietor of a «riulw|iy company,, was is t%B hab|it of mingling ' the moneya of thd^mpany^'vnth'hia own. Ife bbug^ lol^mo- tiyoa: eaaential to 't^w buaineas o/^W '^ilway ^iompany,, va^ (^t • aevera^ yean allolred^e ooQipany to have poweniontof tb% ^ locomptives openly^ ainpr -^t>^bUcly flia though ilieiy.dwn ]|(ro|«Brty. * B^eldfl. That the IbcoQiptiveaitnust be presumed to betfiepro> perty of theperty. 2vTbatthetippellaAt8,whoclaimedjUi'elocoqiotive8itpdcl^ ' a 84le from 3. ^ot^iiccompani^ by delivery. Were n^, entitled to thepropertyuagainat a;ibut?ajtdk creditor of ihe'comi^y.' Fiiir- ■ . K ' bgnka et of. A TU Sautii EaMem Baifid^ Co, dc (yHaUpHi^, 38l -'.,,]&« JuDICIil^SilAOlPBIoVaABUB, 4^.' - j'' SECUBlTVFpBOdl^nS.' '';' :,^. ■■■■I- J' ^:v. ■'■■■■ •';.^| , . /8iBe°Piu)cp)imi^i06.^ '; 'f*'. , :,.'■;''>',' / ■:"'*) ', SEKyiTUDE. . ^* ;*" ' ' "! \ 1. Actum (0 CTi/on^.], .The actiqn to enforce a-'torvitude of. drain . ^ J does not lie agalnita person ^ho has ceased' to' be owner of ^e 8eirviei\t land, Mfore the %sfton'ia Ipatitut^ ; but he may be con- ' demned personiU]r in dn&ges if he tvarticipAted in fthe act of .olistnietion. Wheeler & Stack, 199. , ', '-• 2. Interference t(^.] The proprietor of the aibrvient land can do ■■'■; nothing which tends to render the exercise of the Mrvitnde leaa / convenient than i^ was at the date^of ita creation ; i^d so, where ^§; the owner of the servient land had conatructedfa barp over the drain numing through hi^ land, And, in the ojUnion'Of the majo- cii 4*- ^i -' I J' ^ 6M ■"• "'■:.:: rity of tho Court, it waa provM that repain to'tlio drain were necoMary, it waa held that the peraon to w»«om the aervltude waa / due waa entiUedto aalcthat tlie bam be demoliahed to a auffl- clent extent to permit repairs to tlie drain to be made wltenever neoea«ary. Whetler 4k BUusk, ISO. ► SM^RIFF8 8ALK Sale 0/ railumj uKaren m bloc.] Where a number of shares of raU- way stock jvere seized and advertised t6 be Bold,1n one lot, and neither the defendant nor any dne intereatod in the sale requested the Sheriff to selj the shares separately, and it did not appear ^ that there was any intention to defraud, or that any loaa had been sustained in con^u^nctf of the shares being sold in one lot, but, on the contraiy, that aiich mode of sale was advantage- ous to the crerrt«' f defendants. Usufruct is incorporeal right which, under C.P.C. 638, should have been s^t forth in the pra*»-wr*«/ of seizure ^id also by advertisement by mention of the title under wliich it is due. Cheney & Btvnet,Wi6. SHIPPING. ' '*, 1. Charter paHy—Dmatxon.] The ^Lirtoywrty described the voy» » age in writing as being from HavanipCiiba, "to Montreal direct via the river St. Lawrence." A printed clause declared that the I. ^ steamship should "have liberty to tow amkbe towed, andt to assist vessels in all situations, alto to caU at «My port or ports for coalt ot other nipplies." Hdd, that the fast tliat the steamship called ^t the port of Sydney, GB., for coal in the course of the voyage, was not a deviation therefrom other than permitted by the charter party, and that the increased piemiam of insurance , paid by the cbarterera-i^ oonseqaenoe of the vessel calling at Sydney couM not be deducted from the freight Peten NTRAOT, 170. ' 8UB8TITUT10 - 1. Degreen of.} Degrees of substitution are counted by heads (par ' ' , ■; '''«*>• »nd ¥'t by roots {par mmhe$). When the share of one amq^ig seveM who took coi^jointly passes to the others by his death, auch transmission i^ reckoned an additional degree as reguds the ahar« Id transpitted. J(me$ d; Outhbert, 44. 2. LitnU^of.] By the old jurisprudensie introduoed into the pro- • vinoe of Quebec, and which was not affected in this particular by the Imperial SUtute of 177^ a substitution created by will . waslimited to two degrees exclusive of' the inati^te. Jona tk Outhbert, 44. , , 8. Tamu ereOing.} A testator having beqiieatlied his estite as fol-. lows :— <• 1 leave all , my personal and real estate for tie benefit I; ^' "y ^''® »°<* '^'"'•y <*""•>« her "fe if she i«mains unmai^ , ' r;ied to receive and apply such Ainds u may be aiwraing out ♦• of it for the support and maintsiilaioe of the family m4 *duca- "ting tliem if she again marry her dpwer is all that she will • " have out of the estate the rest to be equally divided among " the children.^ Hel^, tiiatthls created a sabetitotibn of which the widow was institute Knd the children substitates, and was not a case of lisuflruct to the widow an4 im^propriki to the chil- . " dren. And though both widow and chiWren had for yean acted on the latter interpretoUoii, they j*eie net thereby deprived of the right taurgethe,other interpretation. ^Maedmnett 16 TUTOR AND MINOR ' Dfed equivaUiU to rendering of netxiymt,] A dstd of^Mls by minor, etn«noip«t«d by iharrifge, to her (kther^ind ex-tator (without any •noount beInK rnn4Jer«d;,hut ftftar th« nuUiinK of ktk inventory of the community dxiating between lier father and mother), of her share in her mother's ■ucoeMion,— saiddeed oon^^ taining a valuation of what waa coming to her from her tatoi) — should be conaiderod aa equivalent to an account accepted and '■■ diachar^ granted, and thei^fore, under C^C 22S8, which ia appU> cable to such cama, the i0tion of the pupil to annul the aala ia prescribed by ten years from majority. UrlgoireJc Qrigoire, 228. USUFRUCT. ^ ^ Sakqf.i &< SURBirr'a SAUt, 296. • USURPATION OF CX)RPOBATE OFFICBT ~ Ftoetedingt under C.C.P. 1016.] The. proceedings authorised by Art 1016 CCP., and aubsequent articles of the same sectioq, ; Apply to cases of .usurpation of an office ia any corporation what- ever, without any diatinotion. QUmowr <& Halt, 374 ; H^eman <(r W7itofc,482. ^VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Sh Saul < .V % H WARRANTY. '- '■■' ' '. : ./[, ^ ■' ]/ J fc /iSreMoMTRBAi.,CnYor, S. • »; ; < WIU. ■ -.^-'■■T-^::k '■■■;, : , '■:'_■■''':■■' ''■''■ - ' Revoeatwn of legacy.'] H., who hadKSOOO of stock in I» Banqne i dn Peuplei made a will by «hich be bequeathed $1000 of this ' aipck to hia grand-daught«r.'<> Subsequently, he made three separ fate codicils, all bearing the .same date, by one of which he bequeathed ^000 of the said stock to the same grand-daughter, and by the other two codicils he ihade specific bequests of flOOO ' each of said stock for other objects,— thus disposing by the codi* f . * cils of the entire sup of 16000. The -question was whether the bequest by the first codicil of fSOOO to the grand-daughter, s under the ciroamstances stated, revoked iba previous bequest in her favior, of $1000, contained in the will BM, that the legacies contained in the codicil8,-diBpoaing as they did, spe- cifically, of all :thf| stock which thc^ testator had in La Banqae da People, operaiied a revocatioi^ of the first bequest of $1000 to the >. . 'grand danghter, c(mtained in the will. PatHmm dc tStOer, 849. SuUHtution or vn^r^uct.] ISee BvBsmxmov, 249. - * WITNESS. ' ; ' ' • ', ^Abteneeof.atjwylriaL'] &v Jvbt Tuai^ 26. U le by • n-tutor ig otka i«r and ed con-> tutoi) — '. btdand aappU- ■alais ited by lectioq, 1 what- mandt Sanqae of thia eaepar ich he Dgbter, riiooo «oodi> tier the lighter, teqaeet lat the i, spe- qnedo ) to the M9. K ■ * f .».. ^ '% "V ,■/*'• T^ ■f ' . i 1 " .*.: ■' • , ■--""^ UPP m -> —.-. ■ ■ f ■4 ' 1 y i » . ,• 1 1 ' 1* , , \ 'J "» 1 *v